NOTICE. 
To the precepts of the following paper two chief objections 
have been raised: 1. That the subject is not of much importance 
in the present practice of orpithology. 2. That no ornithologist 
will feel any sympathy fer the writer’s extreme position. 
In regard to objection 2, the writer would explain that that is 
just why the paper has been written. It is high time an ornithol- 
ogist should acquire such sympathy. And the writer can think of 
no method other than straightforward exposition by which a knowl- 
edge of such views as these, the necessary preliminary to sym- 
pathy with them, could possibly be afforded. If the literary man- 
ner of the paper seems awkward or difficult as has been hinted, 
it is at any rate most painstakingly precise, explicit and sincere, 
and therefore should not be repellent to a scientific mind. Some- 
thing might be gained, moreover, if any reader who is, in advance, 
an individualist in his natural history should skip the careful proof 
of that position on pp. 1-7 and begin with the practical deductions 
of the subsequent paragraphs. But in the writer’s own opinion, 
individualism of the writer’s type still stands in need of proof be- 
fore the general reader and may indeed be a bone of contention. 
Then, in regard to objection 1, the writer would refer for evi- 
dence to the current number of The Auk, let us say, Oct., 1go1, 
where of the 8 leading articles 6 involved in their preparation the 
killing of birds, 1 probably did (art. on p. 347) and the other did 
not only because it is an account of a bird-search which never 
found its victim. And of the 18 General Notes, 2 specially apol- 
ogize for not killing their birds, 1 or 2 are non-committal and 10 
are written mainly to record the killing of their subject-matter. 
