BIRD-KILLING AS A METHOD IN ORNITHOLOGY. 
I HAVE been waiting in the hope that some leading ornithologist 
would make a purely scientific plea against purely scientific bird- 
killing. But, so far as I have noticed, such a brief has not been 
forthcoming. And it is time that some layman should sketch out 
the essay. A few of its points I have already discussed with 
several scientists. I wish now to lay the argument barely and 
formally before the main body of American ornithologists through 
the courtesy of the distributers of The Auk. 
It might almost seem that one could begin with the assumption 
that the killing of a bird reduces the natural field or subject-matter 
of ornithology by the specific bird in question, with all its qualities 
or characteristics, except as matter of history, let alone all his or 
her possible further descendants, their qualities or characteristics ; 
and is in this respect deplorable unless history is natural science. 
Yet of course such an assumption would be untrue; inasmuch as 
the characteristics of the corpse of a bird have standing in the 
science ; a standing concerning whose worth we shall be forced to 
argue. But I think nevertheless that there is a body of scientists, 
fortunately decreasing, who, formally or informally, explicitly or 
by tacit implication, assume that the killing of a bird-individual 
does not 7 any way whatsoever affect the qualitative subject-matter 
of ornithology, cannot transfer from the quick to the dead any 
scientifically characteristic object. However few persons would 
positively assert that the species, subspecies or type’ (at any 
rate some collective bird-sort) is actually in a single or plural 
1To avoid misunderstanding let me say at once that a single type- or stand- 
ard-specimen is primarily an individual bird like any other; and is a “type” 
only inasmuch as it is considered to be a somewhat to which others approximate 
for their explanation. The others in so far as they are considered to exhibit | 
standard characters identical with those of the ‘‘type” are purely instances of 
the type, and otherwise considered (for instance, in their distinction from the 
standard individual) are purely individuals. But the standard is, except for 
other alleged equivalent instances known or demonstrable, wo¢ defined as a 
type and not in the text considered as such. 
