Feb. 11, 190s j 
kfest AND STREAM. 
e it in any way I pleased. There was no evidence then 
lat you had any intention of publishing a book of bear 
ories. iThe story of Monarch you then told me was 
lite different from the one Ohnimus gave me, and I did 
Dt use yours. I had my Journal on the table, and while 
dinner wrote down, with your approval, two incidents, 
ie of tl'.e liear and the hunter in the pool, the other of 
le li;t!e bear and the yellow jackets. 'i"he<e you said you 
uld rca .y claim no credit for, as one belonged to J-.m 
reer, the other to Morgan Clark. They occupy 
spectively three lines and one page and a half in my 
lurnal, as written iii your presence (pp. 172-3)- 
In 1901 I joined with an Examiner reporter in getting 
) an illustrated article on Monarch. This appeared in 
pril of that year, and was evidently read by you, be- 
use two years afterward you wrote to rae asking for 
le use of tht drawings with which I had illustrated the 
t:cle. 1 acceded to this in a spirit of friendliness, feel- 
g that you believed anybody had the right to tell about 
onarch, since he was a real character, not a creature of 
:tion. Within a year my bear stOry was announced in 
cribner's prospectus. I cannot see that your story and 
ine have anything in common beyon l these mam his- 
rical outlines, which are as much public property as the 
story of Rome. You certainly raised no question of ex- 
usive claim to the subject when I read you part of my 
ory at Los Angeles, and I did not get one word, line, 
cident or suggestion from your book, for my sto'-y v\as 
ritten before your book came out, as you can see in' com- 
iring dates of copyright, and remeniDo'-ing that manu- 
ript for the Ladies' Home Journal, where my ^torj- was 
■st pubHshed, is sent in months before publication. And 
never saw any article by you, except your book of 
ugust, 1903, in which you used my 1901 drawing and 
tter of June 15, 1903. 
Credit is due you for suggesting the two_ incidents 
entioned above, but more credit is due Ohnimus than 
ly other of the hunters. I expected to give it, but he 
irticularly asked me not to put his name in nrnir. _re- 
lesting rather that his friend Kelly get all possible 
■edit. This was a puzzle, as I did not then know you, 
id you did not capture the bear. I thought, however, 
had solved it satisfactorily by using your name m a . 
ightly disguised, but recognizable, form throughout.. I 
)uld not do more as the character was composhe. 
When the story was in press I tried to reach yon for 
msultation, but had no address. Our mutual frieiid, 
fr. Charles- G. D. Roberts, to whom I put the matter in 
)ur absence, was of the ' opinion that I had done well 
you. 
If you object to the hunter being so named, of course 
will change it in the forthcoming new edition, and give 
ou formal credit for suggesting the two incidents rc- 
rred to above. 
This is the whole matter, and perhaps I do you wrong 
believing from newspaper talk that you have announced 
grievance. 1 should be sorry to think that our pleasant 
iendship is endangered by such unnecessary misunder- 
anding. 
If you are in New York in the near future, I hope you 
ill look me up. Yours sincerely, 
Ernest Thompson Seton. 
0 Allen Kelly, Esq. 
Detroit, Feb. 3. — Mr. Ernest Thompson Seton, Cos 
oh. Conn.: Dear Mr. Seton— Your letter dated Jan. 19, 
laiied on Jan. 24, to Philadelphia, where I have not lived 
nee August, 1903, remailed to New York and finally re- 
ddressed to Detroit, has reached me, closely followed by 
letter from the editor of Shooting and Fishing, inclos- 
ig a note from you asking him to publish your letter to 
le as a reply to what you please to term my "attack 
n you. 
1 was about to mail my reply to you, but your note to 
.hooting and Fishing puts the matter in a different light, 
nd makes it necessary to amend my letter, a copy of 
hich now goes to Mr. Humphrey. 
While it is true that the idea of calling attention to 
le remarkable similarity of most of the incidents in 
our book to stories contained in mine did not originate 
ith me, I did not discourage it when it was suggested, 
ecause it was obvious that a great deal of my material 
ad been used. Someone— I forget who— called my at- 
jntion to your story of Monarch in the Home Journal, 
;nd pointed out the parallels, and when I read the story 
did feel, and do yet, that my work had been treated un- 
iirly. The similarity is in many instances ; not only_ in 
le two you have mentioned. There are incidents which 
re not in any sense a part of the history of Monarch, 
Ithough you have so treated them. For example, the 
:ory of the bear that herded sheep in a canon. No doubt 
told vou that story in Los Angeles, but it never^was 
rinted' until I used it in my book as part of the Clubfoot 
lyth. That was my story and no other's, and it was 
nder my copyright before your story was published. 
)ther incidents could be specified, but all that has been 
one over pretty thoroughly by others, and I do not feel 
iclined to enter into a detailed discussion of the matter. 
My recollection of our interview in Los Angeles is not 
ke yours. I do not remember that you read any part of 
bur story to me; but I do remember that you took 
□pious notes while I told bear stories, and that you 
olunteered the assurance that you would give credit for 
'hat you should use. I do not object at all to your using 
lonarch and his history, and I assert no exclusive claim 
3 the subject. My criticism is that you have used, as 
irt of what purports to be Monarch's history, many bear 
ories having no relation to Monarch— stories that I had 
ublished before our interview, and some not then pub- 
shed, but published and copyrighted by me before your 
ook appeared. , , 1 . • • 
Concerning your sketch of Monarch, if that 's im- 
ortant let me say that I did not read the story in which 
appeared. The clipping of the sketch was sent to me. 
^ut I do not see that it matters whether or not 1 saw 
le story. My disclaimer of exclusive right to deal with 
lonarch disposes of that. 
It seems to me that even if your story was written 
efore my book came out, the publication of my book 
nder copyright was sufficient notification of my claim to 
ivnership of my own material, and that it would have 
sen better had you made some acknowledgment of the 
tie source of your information in the preface to your 
You will remember that I wrote to you of my inten- 
tion to publish the book, some time before it appeared, 
and offered to send proof sheets to you; that I did send 
to you a copy of my book in 1903 as soon as it was 
printed, and that you read it. Perhaps you may not 
remember that I told you in Los Angeles that I had in- 
tended to publish my bear stories in a book in 1894 or 
1895, but had postponed publication because Murat 
Halstead got out a bear book at that time in which he 
used some of my stories, not only without permission, but 
in spite of my written objection. Yet those are the facts. 
You say you did not use the story of Monarch as I 
told it to you. That is quite obvious, for your suiry of 
the_ capture of Monarch is not correct in any partjcular. 
It is pure fiction, but it is made up almost entirely of 
stories that I told you, with the exception of a few fan- 
tastic features, like the drugging of the bear.. I told you 
that a crack-brained doctor proposed to me to capture the 
bear by putting atropine in honey, and I laughed at the 
suggestion. 
You must be mistaken in your recollection that I gave 
credit for an incident to Jim Freer. As I never knew or 
saw Jim Freer, and never got any story from him, I 
could not have said what you quote on that point. 
I do not see the relevancy of your assertion that I 
"did not capture the bear." I have told exactly how 
Monarch was taken, and never have I said that I went 
out and grabbed him by the tail and took him into camp 
by main strength. It remains true, however, that the 
bear was trapped for me, that I took him to San Fran- 
cisco, named him "Monarch," and turned him over to 
Mr. Hearst, and that he would not have been caught had 
1 not gone on an expedition for that purpose, built trups 
and employed men to watch them. The question at issue, 
however, is not the capture of Monarch, but the manner 
in which you have made use and misuse of my literary 
property. 
Your suggestion that you give me credit for two inci- 
dents in your new edition is impossible. Nor do I think 
it worth while to change the name of your hunter. The 
suggestion is more calculated to arouse a feeling of re- 
sentment than to allay it; for it carries the inference that 
you are indebted to me only for two trivial incidents, 
which is not the fact. 
The two books speak for themselves. Most of the inci- 
dents in them are essentially the same, and it cannot be 
alleged with the slightest color of plausibility that I ob- 
tained any material from you or from your story. 
It is not pleasant to me to have any controversy over 
this matter, but as Dr. Morris, whom I met but once, 
and then only by casual introduction across a banquet 
table, has been tactful enough to start a discussion, it 
seems necessary to state the facts as they appear to me, 
and to tell you plainly how I feel, even at the risk of 
getting our feelings hurt all around. If we cannot arrive 
at the same understanding of facts, perhaps it will be 
better to call it a closed incident. Yours very truly, 
Allen Kelly. 
Some Bird Names. 
{Cotttintted from page 50.) 
"Kingfisher" comes from the prominent crest, T think, 
rather than because of any kingly superiority in fishing, 
as etymologists generally assert. "Cuckoo" is. of course, 
an imitation of its note; the large, terrestrial species of 
the Pacific Slope is known as "chaparrai cock," "road- 
runner" and "racer," on account of its habits. "Rain- 
crow" is another cominon name for the two Ainerican 
species, from a supposition that their notes foretell a 
stcnn; the same is true of the many-named "ani" of the 
Mexican boundary. Our one parrakeet, now nearly ex- 
tinct, allows me to say that both "parrot" and "parro- 
quet" are derived from the French Pierre, and given 
originally as a pet name, just as Ave would understand 
what was meant if we read in a story that a "polly" was 
hanging in a cage in the heroine's room. 
As for the owls, their name is simply an expression 
of howling, the aspirated initial having disappeared, as so 
easily happens." "Owlet" or howlet is not the diminutive 
form of this, however, but the French hulotte, an owl, 
having, however, the same derivatich. 
"Eagle" is the Latin aquila, through the French. Our 
"bald" eagle is not so in fact, but appears to be from 
the white feathers of the head in contrast with the brown 
of the rest of the plumage. The "golden" eagle takes its 
name from the bright yellow at the base of the bill and 
on the feet, and was the "war" eagle of the Indians, 
whose feathers could be worn only by men of assured 
prowess. 
The words "hawk" and "falcon" open to us a vista 
which leads into one of the richest fields of old English, 
where the once royal sport of falconry has preserved 
terms elsewhere lost to the language. "Falcon" itself is 
of course the Latin word falcis, in allusion to the sickle- 
shaped talons. "Hawk" is given as probably "the seizer," 
and is allied to "have;" to "cry havoc" originally meant 
merely "beware of the hawk." In Europe most of the 
hawks employed in falconry have particular names, the 
study of which, and of the terms of this ancient sport, 
is most interesting. "Osprey" is a corruption of ossi- 
fragus, bonebreaker; and "buzzard" of buieo, the Latin 
name (French bossard) of this sluggish kind of _ falcon. 
Milton uses "buzzard" to mean a slow-witted, inactive 
person. "Kite" comes from an antique Teutonic vvord, 
the idea of which, apparently, was to express the poising 
or hovering so characteristic of this falcon's graceful 
flight, and the name of the toy is from the same source. 
The "vulture" is the creature that tears, like vulpes, the 
fox. 
In "pigeon" we find a French form out of the Latin verb 
pipcre. to cry /;i-/>i— that is, to chirp. "Dove," however, 
is descended through Teutonic channels from a root-word 
meaning to dive ; and, curiously enough, the Greek word 
copied in the Latin columba meant the same thing, and 
originally belonged to sea birds. As the doves returned 
in flocks across the Mediterranean, resembled gulls in 
appearance, and nested for the most parts on the cliffs, 
the confusion was natural. "Turtle" (dove) is the bird 
that says -'tur-ttir." "Turkey" (which in French is coq 
d'Inde) refers to its supposed oriental origin; as a mat- 
ter of fact, however, the turkey is a purely American 
\iird, and was introduced to the old world about 1624 
from Mexico, where it had been domesticated by the 
subjects of ixloniezunia. It is a curious fact that among 
the Germans of Pcnn.sylvania the turkey is called "wild 
Welsh cock" — an interesting survival, no doubt, from the 
time when anything foreign to the Teuton was "Welsh" 
—whence Welshmen for native Britons. The "pheasant" 
i? anciher example of a country name, that of Phasis, 
whence ihe bird was brought to Europe. 
In regard to "grouse," Prof. Scheie de Vere suggests 
that perhaps it is from grass, which in early English 
was gcrsc; bin Skeat says: "Grouse appears to be a fals« 
form, evolved from tlie old word grice, which seems to 
have been taken as a plural form (cf. mouse, mice) — O. 
F. gricsche, gray, speckled; perdrix griescltc, the gray 
partridge. * * * Origin unknown." "Partridge" is, 
of course, from Latin Perdix; but in many parts of this 
country is ' wrongly applied to the grouse. Our quail 
(the bird that crouches or "quails") is nearer a true par- 
tridge. Its pet name "Bob White" is both onomalopoetic 
and a mark of our liking, akin to "Colin," a foreign 
shortening of Nicholas. 
This brings us to the tall wading birds, most of which 
are either "herons" or "egrets." These two names, though 
now so dissimilar, were originally one, both coming from 
the old High German hiegro, which Professor Skeat 
thinks refers to its harsh voice. "Hiegro became in 
French aigre, of which the diminutive is aigrette, our 
egret; hiegro also became in Low Latin aigro, and (in 
the tenth century) airo, whence tlie modern French 
heron, our heron. Heronshaw means a young heron, be- 
ing corrupted from the French heronceau, as is proved 
by the northern [English] form heronsew ; but heron- 
shaw, meaning n heronry, is a 'shaw' or wood where 
herons build" (Wharton). "Ibis" is of Coptic descent, 
and "stork" an Anglo-Saxcn appellation allied to "stalk," 
and referring to its long legs. "Bittern" is probably the 
disguise of an ancient word (of which the Medifcval 
Latin generic term Botaurus is an adaptation} originating 
in an attempt to express the booming noise made by 
these marsh birds, which has here given to them such 
vernacular names as "thunderpump," "stake-d-:vcr," 
"bog-bull," "pumpillion," "plunket," "caulker," and "dunk 
a doo." Hence botaurus was made from bos taunts, 
taurus^ being a term applied by Pliny to a bird that bel- 
lows like an ox. In several European languages this idea 
controls the vernacular names. 
The love of field sports which characterizes the 
Anglo-Saxon race, and the fact that this people, ever 
since the dawn of history, have been dwellers by the 
sea, have combined to preserve in Great Britain and 
among English-speaking sailors and fishermen, a large 
body of ancient name-words designating the birds of the 
beaches, salt marshes and open sea. As many of these 
water .fowl are circumpolar in their distribution, and 
were recognized on this side the Atlantic by the early 
colonists, they naturally received the same names here, 
new ones being coined, as a 'rule, only where the species 
in question was new or locally peculiar in some way. 
Gunners' names are almost legion in number, and are 
often abstird or confusingly applied; but without trying 
to sift this confusion, since this is not an essay in 
ornithology, it will be interesting to examine a few of 
the more common designations, first of the shore birds, 
and afterward of the waterfowl. 
Such words as "sandpiper" and its diminutive "sander- 
ling," "sand-runner," "beach-bird," "rock-bird," etc.. ex- 
hibit their beach-loving propensities. The name "knot" 
belongs among these, since it has been supposed to be 
short for canutus. ov King Canute, because, like that 
foolish monarch, this bird always keeps at the edge of the 
strrf, but is careful to retreat just as far as the waves 
advance. But there are other theories: one that it was 
so called because a favorite dish with the king, being 
given in Drayton's curious poem, "Polybion" (1612), 
thus : 
"Tt;e knot tliat called was Canutus' bird of old, 
Of that great King of Danes, his name that still doth hold. 
His appetite to please, that far and near was sought, 
For him (as some have said) from Denmark hither brought." 
Other early authors support this version, but Mr. J. 
E. Harting. of London, an excellent authority in such 
matters, brings evidence to show that the word is no 
doubt the same as our common knot, used in the sense 
of a cluster (e. g.. "Richard III.," 3, i.), in allusion to 
the habit this species has of going in compact little 
bunches or knots. It seems probable that this is nearer 
the truth, and that the story about Canute is one of those 
ex-post facto inventions growing out of an equivoque 
which are so frequent in history as well as in etymology. 
In this category also falls the ruff, whose name is 
usually accredited to the ruffle of feathers around its 
neck; but as the female is called a reeve. Professor Skeat 
thinks some different source must be looked to. "Do- 
witch" or "dowitcher" can only be guessed at ; as dove 
(which comes from dive, and is a word primitively ap- 
plied to sea birds) is often pronounced "dow" in Eng- 
land, it is possible that the gray of this snipe's plumage 
may have suggested' some such a name as dove-snipe. 
"Doughbird" has perhaps the same origin. "Dotterel" 
means the little sleepy head or doter. 
The names "humility" (for Limosa fedoa), "wander- 
ing tattler," or "sandpiper," and "turnstone," also refer 
to behavior. "Tell-tale" and "tattler" are applied to 
various species whose wary eyes are quick to detect the 
gunner's presence, and to warn the whole region of 
danger by loud cries. "Stilt," "long shanks," "calico- 
back," "stint," (stunted), and many others, obviously 
refer to appearance; one of these is "dunlin" (properly 
"dunling," the little dun-colored thing; another "brant- 
bird," or burnt bird, from its charred appearance (cf. 
brant goose) ; a third is "avocet," derived by Skeat from 
the Spanish avucasta, coming from the Latin avis 
custa, the pure or chaste bird, in reference to its 
white plumage; a fourth is "phalarope," meaning 
in Greek, ccot-footed; a fifth "ox-bird" (or "oxseye" 
in the United States), in which Mr. Harting finds the 
Sanskrit root iiksh, "sprinkled," marking their speckled 
plumage. Ernest Ingersoll. 
[to be continued.] 
"Who's your friend over there?" _ "He's no friend of 
mine." "But I just heard you ask him for a loan." "Yes, 
and he didn't Itt me have it." — Cleveland Plain Dealer, 
