248



Correspondence



those familiar with the difficulties of mountain forest collecting that the

species is by no means rare; nor is it restricted to the island of Viti Levu,

but is also found on other large islands of the Fiji group. There are, for

example, specimens in the British Museum from Taviuni.


“ Of the Masked Parrot ( Pyrrhulopsis per sonata), we took not only

‘ eighteen ’ but twenty-six specimens. However, the work of Beck, our

collector, showed that this species is neither rare nor threatened with extinc¬

tion. Viti Levu, the island it inhabits, exceeds in size the whole of south¬

eastern England (counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, and Middlesex) and the

greater part of it is still unexplored. That in a short visit Beck could have

secured so large a series of this forest-inhabiting species is evidence of its

abundance, while the restriction of his labours to a limited part of its range

renders it obvious that he could not have seriously affected its numbers.


“ As for the Norfolk Island Parrakeet ( Cyanorhamphus cooki), which Beck

is said to have ‘ decimated or exterminated ’, he secured two specimens.

The ‘ great mischief ’ ‘ it is feared ’ that Beck did on Antipodes Island

appears to be restricted to collecting five specimens of the island Paroquet

(Cyanorhamphus unicolor) and two specimens of the Snipe ( Coenocorypha

auklandica tristrami). Incidentally, it may be remarked that the existence of

thirty-three specimens of the former and twenty of the latter in the Rothschild

Collection has not aroused criticism. Moreover, since Beck’s visit to Antipodes

Island in 1926, Oliver ( New Zealand Birds, 1930) writes that both this Paroquet

and Snipe are common there.


On the whole, therefore, I believe we may assure the Marquess that his


* trust ’ that the reports to which he so unfortunately gives credence are


* exaggerated ’ is warranted. His concluding suggestion that we breed

specimens for our collections has, at least, the merit of novelty. But studies

of insular evolution, for which the Whitney Expedition was primarily

inaugurated, and also of other phases of geographical variation, based on birds

raised in aviaries would not, in our opinion, be acceptable contributions to

the science of ornithology.


“ I confess that I am at loss to understand why persons who make or repeat

these charges against the American Museum do not write direct to us for

information, rather than to a third person. We have nothing to conceal, and

if excess of zeal should have led our collector to violate the ethics of his

profession we should be among the first to admit and regret it. Our critics

do not appear to be concerned with either the object or the results of an

undertaking to which at great expense we have already devoted fourteen

years, and which bids fair to occupy as many more. Nevertheless, we hope

that they may be interested to learn that there have already been published,

chiefly by the American Museum, forty-four papers based on Whitney Expedi¬

tion collections, and that these merely mark the beginning of our studies of

this unique representation of island bird-life. Also, we are now preparing to

send a second expedition to the Pacific to make paintings and collect accessories

for the production of large Habitat Bird groups for a hall in the new Whitney

wing of the Museum which will be wholly devoted to a popular presentation

•of the work of the Whitney Expedition.


“ 8th June, 1934.


“Frank M. Chapman,


“ Curator Dept. Birds,


“ American Museum of Natural History, New York City.”



