54 



THE ATLANTIC SLOPE NATURALIST. 



it was too strong. The mixture of 

 willow bark and tobacco they called 

 "nespe pungo. " When the red wil- 

 low could not be obtained they used 

 the bark of the alternate cornel. 

 Very truly, 



Manly Hardy. 



MR. WITMER STONE ON THE CONNECTI- 

 CUT WARBLER— A DOUBT. 



Academy of Natural Sciences. 

 Philadelphia, July 24, 1903. 

 Editor Atlantic Slope Naturalist, 



Dear Sir: While not wishing to ad- 

 vocate the useless killing of birds, I 

 should like to register a protest against 

 the publication of the discovery of 

 such a rarity as the nest of the Con- 

 necticut warbler, without more con- 

 vincing evidence than that given by 

 Mr. Short in the last number of your 

 journal. There is I believe but one 

 authentic nest and set of eggs of this 

 bird on record, and yet the identifica- 

 tion in the present case rests on a sight 

 of the female. There have already 

 been a number of captures of female 

 Connecticut warblers, which have 

 turned out to be female mournings, 

 and so closely do they resemble one 

 another that many persons fail to 

 identify them when they have them 

 in hand. Perhaps Mr. Short has more 

 evidence, if so it should certainly be 

 put upon record in order to dispel the 

 very natural suspicion of a possible 

 error in identification. It would at 

 least seem advisable to have waited 

 for a sight of the male before collect- 

 ing the set. 



Yours very truly, 



Witmer Stone. 



MR. J. R. BARTON ON COLLECTING. 



Minneapolis, Minn., July 21, 11)08. 

 W. E. Rotzell, M. D., Narberth, Pa. 



My Dear Sir : I have your last issue 

 of the Atlantic Slope Naturalist 

 before me as I write, and I wisli to 

 comjoliment you upon the increased 

 size of same. All the articles in the 

 July-August number are very interest- 



ing — in fact I read the entire magazine 

 through at one sitting. 



I read the letter of Mr. Minehan 

 and also Mr. Alfred R. Justice, under 

 the caption "A Critical Non-Sup- 

 porter," with much interest. I trust 

 that a few further words appropos this 

 interesting subject may not be amiss. 

 I should like (like many other readers) 

 to have your personal opinion on this 

 issue. 



Personally, it is repugnant to me to 

 harm any form of animal life. This 

 is probably accountable largely to my 

 belief and knowledge of evolution and 

 involution — the recognition of souls 

 of different degrees of development in 

 every animate form of life. Probably 

 some of your readers would contend 

 that there can be no recognition of this 

 principle in ornithology, yet the know- 

 ledge of this absolutely correct prin- 

 ciple facilitates the study of all forms 

 of life. We recognize that most orni- 

 thologists do not figure from an ethical 

 viewpoint — so we are not going to sup- 

 ply a digression on this subject. Most 

 ornithologists, I think, consider that 

 the "result justifies the means" — in 

 the same respect that a great many 

 "scientists" even in this advanced 

 age, favor vivisection as a means to 

 determine hypothesis and promote 

 knowledge" in the medical sciences. 



But, considered from a practical 

 point of view, in what way does the 

 result justify the means in the willful 

 slaughter of rare or any other species 

 of birds? There are amateur orni- 

 thologists by the thousands, and more 

 each continuous year, who are not sat- 

 isfied to study from notes and existing 

 records, who, to satisfy their curiosity, 

 submit to slay really rare species of 

 birds, when records of them have 

 already been made. If every student 

 of ornithology is to bag a species new 

 to him, or to satisfy his curiosity, or 

 to determine whether or not lie has. 

 really discovered rare species, in a few 

 years the "rare species" will cease to 

 be even rare, and in the course of a 



