■ 233 
expense to the ^planters,” so says the counsel. The destruction of 
the paddy crops by peacocks, parrots, birds of paradise, egrets, 
hummingbirds, and seagulls the chief victims of the plume-hunter is, 
however, hardly as gi'eat as we think as he estimates. But he says 
not only do these (mostly insectivorous birds) damage the crops but 
also acting as seed distributors, they distribute weeds and proscribed 
plants more freely than useful ones. This is rank nonsense, the 
troublesome weeds are almost invariably herbs with windborn seeds, 
compositae, grasses, and sedges, etc. On the other hand, the re- 
afforesting of waste ground by trees and shrubs, a very important 
matter is almost invariably done for us by birds helped, it is true, by 
bats. If we had no weeds or “ proscribed plants,” whatever those 
may be, but what were dispersed by birds, we should hardly have 
any weeding to do at all. The dispersal of tree seed to islands, or 
again throughout our woods by birds is of the utmost value, and we 
can well pardon the birds for bringing a few plants which we do not 
want, as long as they bring larger quantities of the ones which we do. 
But the humour of this argument lies in the fact that most of the birds 
slaughtered by the plume-hunter are insectivorous-birds, such as 
egrets and bee-eaters, great enemies to grass hoppers or birds living 
in forests far from the plantations such as peacocks, birds of paradise, 
fairy blue-birds, pheasants, etc. Of course there are birds which eat 
a little fruit. Here for instance we have the bulbul, ( Pycnoxotus analis > 
our commonest bird. He certainly does carry off some fruit which 
often we do not wish to lose, but amply does he pay for this in this 
destruction of grass-hoppers, locusts and other injurious insects. It 
is, however, not this common class of bird that the plume-hunter ever 
hunts. 
After discussing the question of cruelty, he goes on “ neither is 
there any waste for the natives having killed the birds, often to save 
their paddy and wheat crops from destruction take the trouble to 
skin them instead of only plucking them, and the skins are sold to 
collectors; of the export dealers whilst the flesh is eaten, for needless 
to say in half starved India nothing is wasted.” This picture is too 
deliciously funny to require any comment, and serves well to show 
the utter ignorance of the writer and how hard he is put to it to find 
arguments for his defence. He gives the advantages of the death of 
the bird as four: (I) a pest is removed (2) food is supplied to those 
who badly need it, (3) an article of commercial value passing through 
several hands is obtained, (4* those engaged in the feather trade are 
benefitted. The last two advantages are practically one and the 
same thing, and the first advantage is negatived by the fact that the 
greater part of the birds destroyed are valued friends to agriculture 
ar perfectly harmless. While the second is absolutely ridiculous. 
How many of the myriads of egrets, birds of paradise, gulls, bee- 
eaters, humming-birds, or even peacocks, against the flesh of which 
the Malay at least has a strong prejudice, are eaten by the bird- 
hunters ? 
