Jan., 1905 
THE CONDOR 
3i 
er of the list of contributors, in other words upon the members' full and active cooperation. They 
must be the principal supporters of the enterprise. An editor is, unfortunately, a necessary evil, 
but he cannot be expected to undertake responsibilities which rightfully belong with the club at 
large. In other words it is desirable that the members furnish the editor with a large assortment 
of articles, that he may be less limited in his choice of material. The editor is a clearing-house 
for all sorts of complaints. One coterie of readers loudly calls for ‘‘popular articles” (whatever 
that may mean) while another and smaller circle prefers the more serious material. The only 
criticism we are lead to make is that, in the past, the table of contents might have been more var- 
ied in several instances had our opportunity for choice been less limited. We consequently re- 
quest all to unite and do their little toward improving the magazine. Parenthetically, we desire 
to ask those who are not accustomed to write for publication to be brief, to the point, and to pre- 
serve a reasonable unity. It is frequently necessary to condense articles, owing to the exigencies 
of space, and it is not always possible to give anaesthetics before applying the blue-pencil. 
There is just one feature of The Condor for the coming year which merits special mention, 
that is, the illustrations. We consider that we have been very fortunate in securing the coopera- 
tion of Mr. William Lovell Finley and Mr. Herman T. Bohlman of Portland, Oregon, who will 
contribute to each issue. Mr. Bohlman’s photographs of western birds are of exceptional merit, 
and rank with the best that have ever been secured. Indeed, considering the difficulties which 
were overcome in many instances, his best work has been seldom equalled, judging solely from 
published results. 
A T PRESENT there is a lively interest in ‘‘nature photography” and especially in photographs 
of wild animals. Of late years hunting with the camera has come to be considered one of the 
most satisfying of sports. It is certainly the most difficult to prosecute successfully. Almost anv 
one is able to shoot birds, or even large game, but there are relatively few who possess patience 
and alertness sufficient to capture the same creatures with a camera. Photographs of birds are of 
greatlv varying values from the rigidly^ scientific standpoint. But nearly all are beautiful, and ex- 
cite our admiration for one reason or another. Probably the most valuable photographs are those 
which show clearly some fact of the bird's life history or especially elucidate the creature’s rela- 
tionship with its environment. Occasionally a portrait of a bird may be very beautiful to look 
upon, and yet when analyzed may show nothing more than the life habit. This of course is desir- 
able knowledge, but scarcely so important as the life history. Figures of nests are likely to be 
disappointing unless carefully taken. 
Usually the most valuable pictures are the most difficult to procure. Those who have never 
attempted to photograph a live bird, especially a shy one, know little of the nerve-racking work 
which was necessary to secure the better photographs published during the past few years. The 
general reader is likely to glance casually at such an illustration without taking in what it reallv 
represents beyond face value. It has been no uncommon thing for Mr. Bohlman and Mr. Finley 
to risk life and limb in tall trees, or on cliffy rocks off the Oregon coast. The same experience 
has been shared by nearly all of the more daring photographers. Every ornithologist knows of 
the cliff performances of the Kearton brothers. Let the reader, for example, pause a moment to 
consider the ri.k and work necessary to secure the admirable series of photographs illustrating the 
growth of the red-tailed hawk, published in this issue. Was there ever a form of hunting that 
could compare with this? Or, considering the trouble, has a filcher of hawk or eagle eggs in re- 
cent years such a contribution to offer as this series of photographs. It may be difficult to climb 
one hundred and twenty feet to secure two egg shells for a plethoric cabinet. It is vastly more diffi- 
cult and worth while to secure such photographs. As a “gold-cure” for acute cases of the “egg 
habit” we cordially recommend the camera. 
I S THERE growing in the minds of some ornithologists an intolerance for the efforts 
of the obscure beginner, or tor the work of the amateur “without proper connections”? During 
the past two years we have seen in several places hints at such a sentiment which has recently 
found utterance in a very unqualified form. On page 18 1 of December Bird- Lore, Ernest Thomp- 
son Seton says: “The experts of our museums are the only ones who should be allowed to col- 
lect bird skins today. It is safe to say they will not abuse the privilege. Knowing the value of 
birds as they do, better than any other class of men, they are not likely to take the life of a 
sparrow, even, without a very sufficient justification.” .Shades of Audubon and Coues! 
Whither, pray? This approaches pretty near the “limit”! We would like the serious ornith- 
ologist to consider, for a moment, the first sentence. The second would be important if not 
partially vitiated by evidence to the contrary. The third, unfortunately, has its exceptions. 
Possibly they prove the rule. We must remember that, as in the past so in the present, a 
very large proportion of original ornithological knowledge is being contributed by persons who 
