62 
HISTORICAL PART 
of the question as well; as, however, he generalised several 
phenomena and weakened each proposition by the following 
one, his address was not convincing and was not instrumental 
in setting aside the antagonism that had long existed between 
the speaker Altum with his small following and E. Homeyer 
with his large following, and had often broken out most 
vehemently. 
The antagonism between these two leading men, of such 
prominence in the German scientific world, owed its origin 
to the fact that while Altum judged birds from an aesthetic 
point of view as well and declared that woodpeckers were 
noxious, Homeyer considered that birds sould be judged 
only from the point of view of usefulness and noxiousness 
and declared that woodpeckers were useful. 
The pith of Altum's reasoning was contained in the 
following resolution: 
1. In considering the question of bird-protection, both the 
aesthetic and the agricultural significance should be taken 
into account. In most cases the latter should be decisive. 
In cases of great aesthetic significance trifling noxiousness 
should not be taken into account. 
Birds figuring as game are subject to the regulations of 
the respective Game Laws. 
Exceptions should be made for scientific purposes, in the 
case of very rare birds or for self defence. 
2. Having regard to the principles adduced, all home 
species of birds (with the exception of winged game) should 
come under the law for the protection of birds, day birds 
of prey (with the exception of buzzards, roughlegged buzzards, 
lesser spotted eagles, kestrels, honey buzzards and red-legged 
falcons) to be excluded, as well as 
Eagle Owls, 
Kingfishers, 
