54 
THE CONDOR 
I VOL. V 
in Montana.” The writer of the paper in question is an ornithologist of recognized ability who 
should stand for the conservation of bird life, but by his own story he worked for two weeks 
systematically and energetically, and the result was a small amount of the life history of a species 
that is rarely found breeding within the limits of the United States, and the collecting of probab- 
ly every egg that was laid by the small colony of five pairs of grebes that had selected Swan 
Lake for a home. Twenty-eight eggs taken, some of them almost on the point of hatching, and 
for what, — that they might be measured to see if there was a fraction of an inch difference in the 
length or breadth of the empty shell, or to note if there was a slight variation in the shade of 
ground color. Could this not have been done without the sacrifice of twenty-eight young birds, 
and the consequent distress of the parents ? 
In my efforts for better bird protection I am often confronted with the statement that much 
useless and unnecessary collecting is done in the name of science. No one can have a higher 
appreciation of real scientific work than I accord to it, but the taking of every egg, of a rare 
breeder, in a small colony, is in no sense scientific, but on the other hand, it is wasteful and 
reprehensible. One typical set taken in 1902 would have been ample to establish the fact that the 
Holbcell grebe breeds in Montana. It would have been much more scientific to have spent the 
two weeks in obtaining some insight into the life history of this species; i. e., method of nest 
building, care of young, food habits, etc. These would have been valuable facts that would in- 
terest every other bird student in the country. The twenty-eight empty shells now represent 
only a devastated bird colony and a story of cruel wrong. 
Very truly yours, 
Wm. Dutchek. 
New York, Jan. 5, 1903. 
An Answer 
Editor of The Condor: 
The limit of temperate collecting has ever been a mooted question, and like many 
other phases of ornithology, it is likely that the subject will always be open for discussion. As 
my position on this question has been criticized, I shall try to define my ideas on the ethics of 
collecting, and to explain the circumstances regarding the particular instance in which I am 
brought to task. 
In a collection of natural history specimens, open to examination and usable by competent 
persons, the material will conserve to the pleasure and gratification of more people than it will in 
Its native condition of life and surroundings. To support this statement, I bring forward the 
note in the issue of Science for Jan. 23, 1903, page 159, saying that seven hundred thousand 
people had visited the New York Zoological Park last year, and that the aquarium is visited 
daily by fully five thousand persons. True, the Park contains living animals, but the principle 
holds true in collections of whatever nature. For one person who can get out into contact with 
nature, there are hundreds who must be content with seeing things in cabinets and collections. 
In the ordinary conditions of life, the number of people who come into actual touch with nature 
is few indeed; a short walk on Sunday afternoon, a glimpse of some bird by the roadside, or a 
peep into a nest in some dooryard, is all that such people get out of the vast wealth of environ- 
ment. The majority of people are pleased with collections that bring the wildwood material to 
them, for then they see things that otherwise would never come under their observation. Say 
what we please, there is a place, and a very large place, for natural history collections, even of skins 
and eggs of birds, as a means of gratification for this large class of persons w'hom I have mentioned. 
It is the mission of lower animal life to minister to the gratification of the higher. This law 
of nature is annunciated in the Great Book, and has ever been the basis of man’s dealings with 
the inferior creatures. It is my creed that if a set of eggs can minister to the pleasure of any 
number of observers, there is no question of the collector’s right; furthermore, if seven sets of 
eggs of any one species can serve a purpose in bringing other sets, difficult of access, into one’s 
cabinet by way of legitimate exchange, again the collector’s right is beyond moral question. 
The purpose of bird protection, as I understand it, is the conservation of bird life for the end 
I have mentioned, the pleasure and gratification of those who can come into contact with nature 
in her wildwood home. Of course, there are economical and other arguments for bird pro- 
tection, but beneath them all lie the idea that the birds are living creatures, having many facul- 
ties allied to the human, and that all life is sacred. But let us not sacrifice sense to sentiment, 
for all lower life is but a part of the great domain of environment, which is to react on the 
human mind and soul, and develop all our noblest faculties. 
If the foregoing be true, the great test of the moral right of the collector is the proper use 
