58 
THE CONDOR 
| Vor„ VIII 
Foolish Introduction of Foreign Birds. — On March 4, 1905, a specimen of the European 
Chaffinch ( Fnngilla arlebs Linnaeus) was obtained at the Presidio of Monterey, California. 
Chaplain Joseph Clemens, who has become well acquainted with the native birds of the vicinity 
during his several years’ residence at Monterey and Pacific Grove, caught the peculiar call-note 
of the stranger, and after assuring himself that this was no ordinary bird, hastened to secure a 
weapon. The bird was finally re-located in a pine and was shot, the skin being forwarded to me 
by Mr. Clemens for determination. I was completely non-plussed, as nothing like it had ever 
come into my collecting experience, and I was also unable to place it from the keys in any of my 
books on American birds. Moreover, it showed no marks of captivity nor any abnormal feature 
of the plumage. 
I finally sent the bird to Dr. Richmond of our National Museum at Washington, and he 
promptly cleared up the mystery by informing me that ‘ ‘it is a Chaffinch, sometimes called 
Bachelor Finch, Fringilla ccelebs Linnaeus. It is an abundant European species, and extends to 
central Asia, or thereabouts, but does not occur in China or Japan [that is, on the shores of the 
Pacific Ocean]. Although the specimen shows no evidences of cage life, it has no business to be 
at large in this country, particularly on the Pacific Coast, and I have no doubt it escaped from 
captivity, or was purposely liberated, probably with other species. Not many months ago we 
received for identification a Chinese Myna, shot in British Columbia, which had ever}- appear- 
ance of being a wild bird.” 
Dr. Richmond’s suggestion that the chaffinch at Monterey could be easily accounted for as a 
bird purposely liberated by some person or society, at once appealed to me as the best explana- 
tion of the occurrence. It reminded me of the occasional notices we see in newspapers to the 
effect that Mr. So-and-So, or Such-and-Such Society “has recently liberated an importation of 
foreign songsters, which is a great public benefaction in that it will doubtless add to the bird-life 
so sparse in California.” (!) It occurs to me that bird students should take pains to curtail the 
popular spread of this idea that the importation and release of foreign birds is desirable. It may 
even be dangerous. 
The matter is so important that it has been the subject of special legislation by our Govern- 
ment. I wrote to Dr. T. S. Palmer of the U. S. Department of Agriculture on this subject and 
he replies as follows: ‘‘You may be interested to know that in South Australia the chaffinch, 
which was introduced some years ago with other European birds, is now considered such an un- 
desirable species that under the game law of 1900 it is included in the list of injurious birds and 
denied protection. 
‘‘So far as I am aware there is no law to prevent any one from liberating birds already in his 
possession, but the matter can be readily regulated in another way. Section 2 of the Lacey Act 
requires permits for all foreign birds imported into the United States and prohibits the importa- 
tion of such as the Secretary of Agriculture may declare injurious. By withholding permits or 
declaring injurious to agriculture species which are known to be destructive, importation of cer- 
tain species can be stopped at any time. But as we do not wish to resort to extreme measures 
unless absolutely necessary, several birds are now admitted as cage birds which might not be if 
the practice of liberating them became general.” 
Now we of the Cooper Club as observers and students of our native birds should take partic- 
ular pains to guard against any such calamity as the establishment within our limits of any for- 
eign species. The examples of the myna in the Pacific islands, the starling and chaffinch in 
Australia, and the English sparrow in America should be reminders of the possibly direful re- 
sults of transplanting species. Liberation of foreign birds can be but lost labor anyway. Of 
course in the great majority of cases the birds die harmlessly within a longer or shorter time on 
account of the radically new conditions of food and climate which they are physically unable to 
meet. But the occasional exception which actually thrives and becomes established is bound to 
crowd out some native species. For we may safely presume that there are just as many birds in 
any localitv as the food-supply at the season of extremest shortage can support. There would be 
a larger population if there were more to eat at all times of the year here, or, in the case of 
migrants, here and elsewhere. 
I, for one, do not want to see our native avifauna disturbed any more than the cultivation 
and settlement of the country necessitates. Personally, I would try my best to shoot any inter- 
loper I should meet with, simply to destroy it. This may be purely an aesthetic viewpoint. 
But there is the practical economic side, as well. 
Dr. Palmer (U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.) would be pleased to hear from- 
anyone who knows definitely of either the contemplated or accomplished importation of birds 
from anywhere for liberation. — J. Grinnei.B, Pasadena, Cal. 
