Sept., 1915 
COMMUNICATIONS 
211 
fully underestimated. Save in the vicinity 
of the large cities and in the case of certain 
rare species, upon which hostile attention 
may be focussed by very reason of their 
rarity, the economic status of bird-life in 
California would not be visibly affected 
were there ten times the present number of 
licensed collectors. A thousand such col- 
lectors working diligently throughout the 
season would not exact a toll upon bird-life 
one per centum as great as that now being 
sacrificed annually to the activities of the 
California Jay. If every collector killed ten 
Jays per season, his own oological activi- 
ties would be more than compensated there- 
by. 
Moreover, Nature has already made lib- 
eral allowances for wasted effort in repro- 
duction. “Try again” is the rule rather than 
the exception throughout this realm. I once 
knew of a Western Bluebird (not on my 
own premises) which, in attempting to raise 
a family where its presence was not wel- 
come, provided six successive nests of six 
eggs each in one season. This year I noted 
two Blue Jays which built new nests and 
completed second sets of five eggs each 
within thirteen days after being deprived 
of their first clutches. A Shrike under sim- 
ilar circumstances showed up with a nest 
of five eggs on the tenth day after being 
robbed. These facts are not such as to elicit 
tears from well-balanced natures. 
But there are unquestionably certain spe- 
cies of birds whose existence is threatened 
not alone by wanton gunfire, but by the col- 
lector. In endeavoring to protect such spe- 
cies the Commission has already adopted an 
enlightened policy of restriction. The speci- 
fic reservations made have been just ones, 
and all that remains to do is to enforce this 
policy rigorously. I am sorry to say that 
collectors themselves have not always been 
fair in the observance of these require- 
ments. In particular, I happen to know that 
the Golden Eagle is being robbed unmerci- 
fully, and that there has been a strong de- 
cline in its numbers and an attendant failure 
to breed within recent years. Collectors are 
not solely at fault, for every wastrel with 
a gun assaults these splendid birds. Yet, at 
the risk of regrettable “red tape”, I would 
exact from every party applying for a re- 
issue of the license an affidavit that he had 
not molested any of the contraband species. 
When (if ever) certain of these species 
had sufficiently recovered, I would grant 
permission to each collector to take, in per- 
son, one, and only one, set of such species, 
in order that his collection might be com- 
plete. 
In like manner I believe that there are 
many other species which require partial 
protection, and I think that such restriction 
would be decently observed, if the collector 
were allowed to take just one set of such 
species. I would respectfully recommend 
that the following species be now placed in 
such a category. 
American Egret 
Snowy Egret 
White-faced Glossy Ibis 
Redhead 
Canada Goose 
California Black Rail 
Black Oystercatcher 
Least Tern 
In conclusion, allow me to say just a 
word in defense of egg-collecting itself. 
There is, of course, no use in pulling a long 
face about it and trying to cover up the 
fun under a smudge of Latinity. The egg- 
collector is out for a good time, just as the 
sportsman is, or the camerist, or the opera- 
glass naturalist (may his, or her, tribe in- 
crease!). But because the pursuit of cer- 
tain ends is fascinating or enjoyable in 
itself, it does not necessarily follow that 
those ends are frivolous. Even though we 
grant that some egg-collectors have looked 
upon their trophies much as they might 
upon so many buttons cr marbles or medals, 
it still remains true that oology has been 
the wet-nurse of ornithologists. Her stimu- 
lations, her youthful ardors, her ecstacies, 
her revelations, her hard-won trophies, have 
given us such men as Newton, Coues, Baird, 
Merriam, and Ridgway, all peers of the 
realm in Science; besides an innumerable 
host of honored names, Nelson, Bendire, 
Goss, Brewster, Fisher, Grinnell, Mailliard, 
Dresser, Rothschild, Sclater, Hume, See- 
bohm, Tristram, — to mention only a few at 
haphazard. These men fed on birds’ eggs, 
and howsoever they may have turned to 
other meat in later years, they owe the 
very fashion of their scientific manhood to 
such youthful fare. That the younger ranks 
of ornithology are deplorably thin at pres- 
ent is due, I solemnly believe, in large 
measure to the diffusion of a deadly gas, a 
compound of misapprehension, intolerance, 
and suspicion, which has choked the ave- 
nues of youth’s wholesome activities. 
Moreover, the real task of oology is only 
well begun. Extensive material has been 
assembled, but we have only begun to real- 
ize that in the egg, as measured by its ex- 
ternal characters, we have the most stable, 
or conservative, element in the interpreta- 
tion of the ancestral history of the bird. In 
comparative oology we have a sharp, a still 
almost unused, instrument of attack in the 
