910 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[JUNE 9, 19006. 

fought her with our rifles and I finally sent the 
harpooner back to the ship for more ropes and 
more men, We lassoed the cub and brought it to 
the ship, and in . efforts to get back to its 
mother it very nearly bit its tongue off. 
“We made it fast to the deck, and that was 
about 6 o’clock in the evening. About 9 o'clock 
the little bear was suffering so from distress that 
finally I told the captain if he would shoot it it 
would be a great relief, but I didn’t want him to 
shoot it while I was on the deck or on the ship. 
I was going down the gangway when the thought 
struck me, if I can get the skin of the mother 
to this cub, possibly it will quiet her. I went on 
deck and told the captain to get the skin of the 
mother, and the little cub jumped on the skin 
and fell asleep. It slept for about twenty hours; 
the only sign of life in the cub was the twitch- 
ing of its muscles. 
“About three days after that I was standing 
watching the cub; its tongue was so swollen that 
it could not eat anything; it took its mother’s 
skin and turned it over and started eating the 
blubber, the fat off of its own mother. It lived 
for eight. days in that way. After that we put 
it in a cage, took the mother’s skin away and 
brought it to New York, and shipped the cub to 
the park here and that little bear is now in Wash- 
ington.” 
Jackdaw or Plover Eggs. 
Lonpon, May 20.--Editor Forest and Stream: 
Will you allow me to offer correction of a state- 
ment made in your issue of May 12? It is 
sometimes affirmed that the eggs of other birds 
are offered for sale as substitutes for those of 
the lapwing plover, and perhaps the eggs of 
some of our smaller gulls might be passed off 
as “plover’s upon those ignorant of 
oology, though the plover’s egg is so familiar 
to every one that this seems unlikely. For a 
good many years I have made a point of look- 
ing over the displays of these eggs to be seen 
in every poulterer’s and gamedealer’s at this 
season and have never yet detected among them 
an egg other than that of the lapwing. 
There is really no reason why substitutes 
should be offered. Notwithstanding the annual 
raid that is made upon the lapwing’s nest, this 
bird is, fortunately, still very common in many 
parts of Great Britain, and the collection of its 
eggs is undertaken by men who have become 
extraordinarily expert in finding the nests, and 
can, in a given time, collect more lapwing’s 
eggs than they could‘find of any other species 
which might be passed off as “plover’s eggs. 
The jackdaw’s cee is so widely dissimilar in 
size, shape and coloring from that of the lap- 
wing that it could not impose upon any one who 
had once seen an egg of the latter bird. 
The only egg that might with any chance of 
success be passed off among lapwing’s eggs is 
that of its cousin, the redshank, a bird very 
much less common in England. Any house- 
keeper or cook who had once seen a lapwing’s 
egg would detect a gull’s egg at once by its more 
ovate shape. Though the jackdaw does build 
in our chimneys (and does not always wait to 
make sure they are disused before doing so), it 
cannot be called a semi-domesticated bird, save 
in the sense*that those birds which build in 
and about our houses like the house martin, 
starling or sparrow, are comparatively fearless 
of man. It would indeed, as you say, be a 
change for the better if people would eat jack- 
daw’s eggs instead of lapwing’s. The jackdaw is 
a hardened poacher; he stands. convicted of 
eating the eggs of game birds; and in some parts 
of England, Northampton for instance, he, by 
virtue of his numbers, is one of the most trouble- 
some of the game preserver’s foes. 
The character of the lapwing, on the other 
hand, is spotless. So far from being injurious 
he is an acknowledged friend of the farmer, the 
sworn foe of the wireworm and of the tiny 
snail which is the “host of the liver-fluke so 
fatal to sheep. 
In the opinion of some of us, the lapwing’s egg 
as a “luxury” is rather overrated; but it is the 
fashion to eat it, and fashion is a potent in- 
fluence, as you know. E. W: CuMMING. 
i | 
oos 
eggs 
: Hummingbird and Kingbird. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
Last June, while living in Montclair, N. J., I 
saw something which seemed to me very un- 
usual, although it may not seem so to other bird 
lovers, 
Everyone who has observed the habits of our 
common birds, is, of course, familiar with the 
daring and pugnacious character of the kingbird, 
and knows that it does not hesitate to attack, 
single-handed, anything on wings, from a crow to 
an eagle, The occurrence to which I allude was 
of a somewhat similar nature. A pair of ruby- 
throated hummingbirds had built a nest in some 
vines on one side of our lawn, and, I am pretty 
sure, that there were young ones in the nest. 
One day, while watching the vines, I saw a cock 
sparrow fly into them, Almost immediately I 
saw him quit the shelter suddenly and fly straight 
out across the lawn. .I noticed that one of the 
hummingbirds was following, attacking him in 
very much the same manner as a kingbird would 
a hawk. The hummer seemed to have no trouble 
in keeping up with the intruder, flying along just 
above him, and apparently darting in often and 
pecking the object of his anger about the head 
and neck. He stuck to his work until both 
passed out of sight, and a short time later I saw 
him “humming” about the vines as if nothing 
had happened. 
I am very anxious to know whether or not this 
is a common occurrence. As the kingbird is 
able to rout larger feathered intruders princi- 
pally by means of his greater swiftness and agil- 
ity, would it not seem that, on occasion, he might 
himself be put to flight by the tiny hummingbird, 
which is surely as fast, agile and sharp-beaked as 
even His Majesty the kingbird? 
CLARENCE BIRDSEYE. 
[The hummingbird is a pugnacious and coura- 
geous species and its great swiftness of wing 
gives it a manifest advantage over many larger 
and stronger birds. Many species of small birds 
besides the kingbird attack other birds that ven- 
ture near their nests.] 
The Warning to Dealers in Bird Plumes. 
ALBANY, N. Y., June 1.—Editor Forest and 
Stream: Forest, Fish and Game Commissioner 
Whipple’s warning to dealers in bird plumage 
who are violating the law has called forth a great 
deal of press criticism, and while the majority of 
this is favorable to game law enforcement, there 
is an undercurrent which reveals an ignorance 
or intentional misstatement of the law, which 
should not be permitted to pass without comment. 
The sections of the law to which Commissioner 
Whipple has called attention are section 33 of the 
laws of 1900 as amended by chapter 443, laws of 
1903, which makes it a misdemeanor and punish- 
able by a fine of $60 and an additional penalty of 
25 for each part of the plumage, skin or body 
of any protected bird (other than game birds for 
which an open season is provided, and English 
sparrows, crows, hawks, crow blackbirds, snow 
owls and great-horned owls) which are sold or 
held in possession for sale; and also section 141 
of the Forest, Fish and Game law, which pro- 
vides that the prohibitions applying to local birds, 
game or fish shall apply equally to birds, game or 
fish from without the State; and also to the 
Lacey Act, which prohibits the transportation by 
interstate commerce of game killed in violation of 
local laws. 
The Commissioner has also called attention to 
the decision in the case of the People vs. Henry 
Hesterburg, Sheriff of Kings county, in the Court 
of Appeals, Feb. 27, 1906, as reported in the New 
York Law Journal, March 12, 1906. 
The object of the various laws is, of course, 
the protection of our native wild birds which 
have not only an esthetic but also a practical 
value in that they perform a service of incalcu- 
lable benefit as destroyers of insect enemies of 
crops, orchards and forests. Domestic fowls are 
not included in the prohibition, and as ostriches 
in this country are practically domesticated, it 
would hardly meet the intent of the law to pre- 
vent the use of their plumage. 
Section 33, it will be observed, does not: apply 
to wearers of illegal plumage, but only to those 
‘sons who did. He says: 
who sell or hold in possession for the purpose of 
sale the plumage of wild birds; in other words, 
to milliners and importers and handlers of bird 
plumage. 
The law is not a new law, but it has never been 
adequately enforced. The dealers have now been 
given a thorough warning, and those of good 
business acumen “will dispense with the illegal part 
of their trade. A dove ley. 
New York Wild Pigeons. 
West Park, N. Y., May 27. —Editor Forest 
and Stream: I have more good pigeon news for 
you. <A flock of wild pigeons a mile long and 
probably containing thousands of birds, is re- 
ported to have passed over the city of Kingston, 
this State, on the morning of the Ae 
I have ‘corresponded with Judge A. T. Clear- 
water, of Kingston, about the matter. ‘The Judge 
did not see the pigeons, but he interviewed per- 
“There seems to be no 
doubt that an immense flock of wild pigeons did 
pass over Kingston quite early on the morning 
of Tuesday, the 15th inst. It was seen by so 
many people who had seen the pigeons years ago 
that it hardiy seems possible they could be mis- 
taken.” 
I am going to make an effort to see some of 
the persons who saw the pigeons, and if I have 
my faith shaken in the truth of the report I will 
advise you. 
If such numbers of pigeons have actually been 
seen, where have they been hiding the past thirty 
years? JOHN BuRROUGHS. 
Zoological Society of London. 
Tue London Times has recently mentioned 
some facts embodied in the report of the Council 
of the London Zoological Society, which was pre- 
sented at the annual meeting held April 30. 
At the end of the year 1905 the roll of members 
stood at 3702, the largest number in the history 
of the Society. Its income for that year was over 
£30,000, and the ordinary expenditures £25,288. 
The whole cost of improvement at the gardens: 
for the year 1905 were paid out of this balance. 
The total number of animals in the collection 
Dec. I, 1905, was 2,913, compared with 2,552 at 
the end of 1904. It is interesting to note that 
among the monkeys kept in outdoor cages there 
were practically no deaths, whereas among those 
kept in the house there was a decided mortality. 
Important scientific work has been done by Mr. 
F. E. Beddard, the prosector, and by Dr. Selig- 
mann, the pathologist. Dr. Seligmann has car- 
ried on the post-mortem examinations and re- 
ported on the death of 206 mammals and 218 
birds in 1905. 
Spare the Eagle. 
SactInaw, Mich., May 29.—In a recent number 
I read an article in which the writer boasts of 
having shot a bald eagle at about 300 yards, 
much to the surprise and stupefaction of his 
guide. I think it is a little out of place for people 
to boast of things of this kind. The useless 
slaughter of wild life continues, but I am happy 
to say, it is growing less all the time. There is 
no earthly excuse for anyone committing so wan- 
ton an act as shooting a bald eagle or any other 
bird, for no better reason than as a test of marks- 
manship, The bald eagle is very scarce. Last 
year one had its nest near Tawas Beach, on 
Saginaw Bay, and it was a source of keen enjoy- 
ment and pleasure to all the summer visitors. I 
think anyone who had shot this bird as a test of 
marksmanship would haye fared pretty badly at 
the hands of the people, who believe that live 
birds are better than dead ones. W. B, M. 
Copperheads in New Jersey. 
WITHIN the past few weeks the local news- 
papers have published several items telling of the 
biting of persons in New Jersey by copperhead ~ 
snakes. The last one has to do with a little girl 
bitten and at once taken to a place where there 
was a suction pump, by means of which the 
poison is reported to have been wholly removed 
from the wound. The story may well enough be 
altriue one, 
