A Reply. 
Editors of ‘ The Auk ’ : — 
Dear Sirs: — I take it for granted that I shall be allowed, with your 
accustomed courtesy, a little space in your Journal for the purpose of 
replying to the author of a letter entitled, ‘ The Fauna of Muskeget 
Island — A Protest,’ which appeared in the number for January, 1898. 
This letter, I am free to confess, has given me a genuine surprise. It is 
only after some hesitation that I have decided to reply to it. I can but 
regard this ‘ Protest, ’ with its accompanying inferences, as uncalled for 
by the facts in .the case. I therefore beg your indulgence to take up some 
of the points in the order that they are presented in Mr. Miller’s letter. 
I have shot but one Short-eared Owl for a number of years. I have 
had, however, in the Legislature for two years past, and again this winter, 
a bill in which there is a clause giving this Owl full protection. The 
above mentioned bird is now in Mr. William Brewster’s collection, and is 
in the dark phase of plumage. It was one of a brood hatched on Mus- 
keget during the summer of 1896. I would have shot the entire family 
had I been able to accomplish it at the time , for the reason that I had the 
interests of the Terns in view ; hence all antagonistic elements, whether 
developed in man, mammals, or birds, were regarded as enemies and so 
treated. Bird protection is a complicated and difficult problem at best. I 
see no occasion for making it harder for those engaged in it. When a 
gentleman of Mr. Miller’s ornithological knowledge expresses such senti- 
ments in print as the following : “ But when bird protection results in the 
destruction of a family of Owls, which, notwithstanding its numerical 
insignificance, far outweighs in biological interest the largest Tern colony 
on the entire Atlantic coast,” I think that lovers of bird life have a right 
to ‘protest’ with more reason than he. When bird protection embraces 
a remnant of Terns raised from a low ebb through years of tireless pro- 
tection, as it does in the present case, to colonies, the numbers of which 
are beyond estimate, I am of the opinion that such a condition outweighs 
any problematical biological interest likely to arise from Muskeget Island 
ever becoming a habitat of Short-eared Owls. Mr. Miller states that the 
vertebrate fauna of Muskeget may be roughly divided into two groups, 
viz., normal and abnormal. In the latter class he places the Short-eared 
Owl. From an ornithological standpoint this is surprising, for as far as 
I know it has no foundation in fact. I was not aware that Muskeget 
Island had ever produced any form of the Short-eared Owl that is dif- 
ferent from what is found elsewhere ; neither is there much likelihood 
of such a race occurring in the future on Muskeget. The conditions 
of environment, as they at present exist, are against such abnormal 
development. If, during the past, no such recogiiizable pale race has 
been produced by the conditions as claimed and presented, what ground 
or promise is there of now establishing such a race amidst a shooting 
club, a life saving station, and fishermen who have numbers of cats to 
hold in check the vermin. These vermin are the direct result of those 
reintroduced on the island by Mr. Miller and associates several years ago. 
I fail to appreciate and dissent from the statement near the foot of 
page 77 that, “by helping to offer direct historical proof of the rapidity 
at which modification may progress under natural conditions the Terns 
would be fulfilling a more important end than in gladdening the eye of 
the visitor to Muskeget, and the heart of the reader of Mr. Mackay’s 
progress report.” These beautiful birds are fulfilling at the present time 
a much more important end than the one suggested, by delighting the 
eje of every lover of bird life to whom the privilege of enjoying their 
companionship is given. Refining’ in their influences, what higher 01- 
better end can they serve ? 
George H. Mackay. 
Boston, January 17, 1898. 
