250 
JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY 
EDITORIAL COMMENT 
Many of those who heard Mr. Vernon Bailey’s talk on ‘‘Modern methods in 
mammalogical field work,” at the New York meeting of the Society last May, 
expressed the intention of capturing some small mammals for home vivariums. 
Doubtless most of these, like the writer, neglected to do so. But when Mr. 
Bailey departed on an extended field trip in July, he left in the editor’s office 
an assortment of small cages containing field mice, deer mice, and pocket mice 
of various species. Before one day was gone it became apparent that these 
little creatures were going to be very interesting indeed, and they have since 
proved highly entertaining and instructive as well. The little pocket mice of 
the genus Perognathus are especially admired, as they can be handled at pleas- 
ure; but the commoner forms of Peromyscus and Microtus, although less gentle 
and confiding, are no less fascinating subjects for a cage on the study table. 
The editor can now recommend to all mammalogists the substitution of small 
furred animals for the conventional canary or goldfish. 
Members of the Society are urgently requested to look over carefully the list 
of members which appeared in the last number. Many persons who should 
affiliate with the Society have doubtless not as yet had the matter brought to 
their attention, and a little effort will doubtless add several hundred names to 
the membership roll of the Society. The Journal could be greatly enlarged and 
improved by an increased revenue. 
The actual date of publication of the preceding number of the Journal of 
Mammalogy (vol. 1, no. 4) was August 24, 1920. 
The National Humane Review for May, 1920, makes the statement that “zoos 
and menageries are survivals of that Roman civilization which perished under 
practices of cruelty, selfishness, cupidity and immorality, and these quali- 
ties are actively disclosed now in our own civilization by our approval and pat- 
ronage of wickednesses which helped wreck the Romans;” and, further along, 
that “zoos and menageries are essentially barbaric,” and that the training of 
wild animals almost always results in “diabolical cruelty.” 
It is unfortunate that a great organization like the National Humane 
Society, which is doing so much good in some ways, should adopt an attitude of 
hostility to the zoological garden, when it ought to give such institutions its 
cooperation and help. Of course the statements quoted are not to be taken 
seriously; a magazine devoted to reform must be in a measure sensational. The 
zoo is a survival of the Roman civilization, it is true; but so is the school, the 
art museum, and the public bath. The zoological garden idea is much older than 
the Romans; the ancient Egyptians kept collections of wild animals, as doubt- 
less did still earlier peoples, far back of all record. Well-conducted zoological 
gardens offer great educational and recreational advantages, which are being 
more and more appreciated, and new zoos are now being established in cities 
throughout the world. They are very popular — ^much more so than most other 
educational establishments — ^and because they appeal to a vast number of people 
they are able, unquestionably, to do a great deal of good. Approximately two 
