by the wayside 
16 
Answers to Last Month’s Bird F ictures 
No. 1 represents either the downy 
or the hairy woodpecker,—they both 
have the same pattern of coloration and 
differ chiefly in size, the latter being- 
much the larger. Several other wood¬ 
peckers bear a more or less geneial 
resemblance to these two, but downy 
and hairy are the only ones to have 
an unbroken white back. 
No. 2 represents the horned laik, 
which is also represented in Wisconsin 
by its subspecies, the prairie horned 
lark. Probably the latter is the form 
more often met with. The two black 
horns, whence its name serve to dis¬ 
tinguish it. Do not confuse this bird 
with the meadowlark which is closely 
related to the blackbirds. 
No. 3 represents the white throat¬ 
ed sparrow. The conspicuous white 
throat is distinctive and also gives the 
species its name. A closely related 
sparrow, the white crowned, has an 
ashy throat, a more conspicuous white 
crown, and also lacks the yellow 
streak before the eye. This head pos¬ 
sibly represents more nearly the white 
crowned in color value. 
Non-Importation Law of Australia 
The Minister for Trade and Customs 
of Australia has instituted inquiries 
into the enforcement of the law pro¬ 
hibiting importation of the plumage 
of certain birds into Australia, it ha\- 
ing been reported that while every 
case of interdicted plumage goods 
brought to New South Wales is opened 
by the customs officials, there is every 
indication of great laxity in some of 
the States. 
The Tariff Plumage Provision 
The Tariff Bill signed by the Presi¬ 
dent on October 3, 1913, which became 
a law immediately, contained the fol¬ 
lowing provision: 
Provided, That the importation of 
aigrettes, egret plumes, or so-called 
osprey plumes, and the feathers, quills, 
heads, wings, tails, skins, or parts of 
skins, of wild birds, either raw oi 
manufactured, and not for scientific oi 
educational purposes, is hereby pro¬ 
hibited; but this provision shall not 
apply to the feathers or plumes of 
ostriches, or to the feathers or plumes 
of domestic fowls of any kind. 
This, it will be observed, is identical 
with the measure proposed by the bird 
protectionists. This result was at¬ 
tained only after a hard struggle, in 
which, at several stages, success seem¬ 
ed beyond hope. 
The Plumage Bills in England 
Two plumage bills have this year 
been introduced into the British Par¬ 
liament, One of these proposes to 
prohibit the sale, hire, or exchange of 
the plumage or skin of any species of 
wild bird individuals of which hav* 
had their habitat during the whole or 
part of the year ‘within any part of 
His Majesty’s Dominions outside of the 
United Kingdom or in any British Pro¬ 
tectorate or in the island of Cyprus. 
The other, which is called the Hob- 
house bill, after its introducer, and 
which seems to have been introduced 
later, proposes to prohibit importation 
of the plumage and skins of wild 
birds, excepting ‘the plumage of wild 
birds ordinarily used as articles of 
diet and imported for that purpose.’ 
