8 
random, and I will ask you to point out to me any two of them 
which are absolutely alike. You cannot do it. It is therefore easy 
to see that every prosecution under such an Act as Sir Herbert 
Maxwell’s, would turn on the question of identity. That obstacle 
would always be presenting itself. 
The question of identification puzzles those who, like myself, 
are Oologists, and indeed it may be looked upon as being the cause of 
the study or science of Oology. The truth is there is so great a 
tendency to variation, that anyone may be puzzled. Sir Herbert 
Maxwell has on one occasion instanced the desirability of protecting 
the Nightingales in the county of Surrey. A most desirable thing 
to do, without doubt, and by the terms of the Bill the County 
Council would be able to proclaim that all sorts of horrible things 
could be then and there done to any offender. 
The Magistrates would be told that they must convict, and now, 
Mr, Chairman, I will put into your hand three eggs, two of which 
are Nightingale’s and one not ; can you say which is which ? [The 
Chairman examining them said :—■“ I think I can tell the difference. ,, 
Professor Newton :—“ Yes, but could you swear to it? ” ] At any 
rate, you may take it from me that the task of distinguishing 
between them is not an easy one. This difficulty of identification is 
one that gave considerable trouble to the old “ close time ” Com¬ 
mittee of the British Association, although we had on that Committee 
some of the best ornithologists in the country. Do you suppose 
that we did not think over the possibility of passing an Act to 
protect birds’ eggs ? You may rely on it we did, the result being 
that we found it would be impossible to carry out any measure like 
the proposal of Sir Herbert Maxwell. Under his Bill, it would only 
be necessary for a defendant to engage a clever lawyer, and a 
conviction would never follow, and thus the Act of Parliament 
would become a laughing stock. Another practical difficulty arises 
in connection with the letter from Lord Lilford, as regards the 
Goldfinch. It is undoubtedly desirable to protect the Goldfinch, 
which, I agree, is becoming scarce ; but then we are in the same 
dilemma as before. Here are three eggs, one a Goldfinch’s, another 
a common Linnet’s and the third a Green Linnet’s ; and I ask again, 
how would you expect to obtain a conviction, when you have three 
•eggs like them — each of a different species, and yet scarcely 
distinguishable from one another ? Obviously, to ensure a conviction 
in the case of the Goldfinch, you must protect the common Linnet, 
and if so, then you must also protect the Green Linnet, in spite of 
what the farmer or gardener may say. Our friend, Mr. Hudson, is 
about to bring out a work on “ Extinct British Birds,” and I believe 
he is to include in his book the Ruff and Reeve, the latter being the 
lady of the Ruff. I think he is somewhat premature in placing 
them on the list at present. However, I have every reason to know 
that this species is becoming rarer, and it would be a good thing to 
give it protection. But I have in this box the egg of a Reeve, side 
by side with the egg of a Redshank, and that of a Lapwing, and 
the difference can hardly be discovered. If you protect the Reeve, 
