AOJie 4 a . rN ANE SOLATIRAL ibid AN 4 uy Vy A te oh G MOR - avy BAW wi jie Pee) { fReae! i eh eR wages aU é Berk We Nik Ny Rat NY ‘ un t et a $8 2 CHINESE QUAIL. (Excalfactoria ch LILENSLS. ) Specimens in Dr. Butlers Aviary. iving rom LL i Avicultaral Magazine. BEING THE JOURNAL OF ne AVC UE URAL SO | EY HORS OEE SSW WN TOE POR EIGN AND VB Rinish BER DIS: EDITED BY THE HON. SECRETARY, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. WOE Vi NOVEMBER, 1897, To OCTOBER, 1898. Donodon : BETTS & SONS, Ltp., 2, GRAY’S INN PLACE, W.C. 1898. 18, IRR BIE a8. Page 49, foot-note, Mr. MARSHALI’S letter will be found on page 7I. Page 60, line 13, fur Cockatoos, Black and White Magpies read Cockatoos Black and White, Magpies. Page 04, line 9, for aterimus vead aterrimus. Page 108, foot-note, for appears read appear. Page 111, foot-note, for batchelors vead bachelors. Page 181, line 16, fur Sylviidee vead Sylviine. Index, for CRAEFER vead CRAFER, for HUMPHREYS read HuMpPHRYS, for C. MAXWELL. vead C. T. MAXWELL. INST RUCIIONS. Oy BieNeD ike Pages i. to xii. to follow page 212 and precede Index. Chinese Quail plate to be frontispiece. Wing plate to face page 61. Shama plate to face page 67. Guttural Finch, etc., plate to face page 131. Golden-shouldered Parrakeet plate to face page 154. White-eared Grassfinch plate to face page 169. Zosterops plate to face page 205. INDEX TO NESTING NOTES. African Silverbill African Fire-finch Bengalese : Bronze Mannikin Brouze-winged Pigeon © Cardinal, Green a Red-crested Cardinal hybrids Cherry Finch Chestnut Finch Chinese Quail ... Corncrake *Golden-crowned Parrakeet Green Cardinal... wae Hybrids—Cardinals Ae Mannikins Java Sparrow, Grey Land Rail ae *Long-tailed Grassfinch ... Magpie Mannikin Mannikin, Bronze 50 Magpie ah Pied Mannikin popeacs Moorhen ab Mynahs * The Society’s Medal has been awarded to Mr. R. A. 2, 200, 211 5r 45> 77 00. Se 180 57 13, 37 Necklaced Dove New Zealand Parrakeet . Orange Weaver Parrot Finch Parson Finch Pekin Robin Pied Mannikin Pied Rockthrush Quail, Chinese ... Red-crested Cardinal Ribbon Finch ... Rockthrush, Pied Rufous-tailed Finch Saffron Finch ... Serin Finch Shama Silverbill, Afri ican Snowy Owl Three-coloured Parrot Finch White-eared Grassfinch ... White Jackdaw Zebra Finch 2, 200, 211 58 57 116 7, 58 50 je Ud 117, 137 Yopp for breeding the Long- tailed Grassfinch, and to Mr. GEORGE E. BoUSKILL for breeding the Golden-crowned Parrakeet—for the first time in the United Kingdom. * Brighton : PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY W. TIT. MOULTON & CO. 4, CHURCH STREET. Wvicultural (Magazine, QoeULTunAL Some VOL. IV.—No. 37. All rights reserved. NOVEMBER, 1897. THE CHINESE QUAIL. Excalfactoria chinensis, Linn. By ARTHUR G. BUTLER, Ph.D. This pretty little species occurs in many parts of India, Burma, Ceylon, China, the Philippines, Malaysia and southwards to Australia: the Rev. G. Brown also obtained it in the islands of the Duke of York group. It will be unnecéssary to give a description of the plumage, the beauty of which has earned it several trivial names: that by which it has long been known to scientists is “‘the Blue-breasted Quail;” to aviculturists however it is best known by the title employed above. Respecting the wild life of the species, as observed by him in India, Jerdon says,—‘‘In Lower Bengal it is tolerably abundant in damp grassy meadows, the edges of Indigo fields, and in the grass on road-sides: and in Purneah, in the month of July, it was the only Quail I observed. It breeds in this month, the eggs being pale olive-green. When the young are full grown they disperse all over the country, and this dispersion is greatly assisted, and in many parts, perhaps, caused by the heavy inundations to which a great part of the country in Bengal is annually subjected, generally in August or September.” Speaking of the species in Ceylon (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1872), Mr. EK. W. H. Holdsworth says :—‘‘I have seen this bird from Kandy and the cinnamon-gardens at Colombo ; and Layard says it is common in the south.” Governor Ussher notes it in Borneo (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1879) as tolerably plentiful in open spaces in short thick grass; it is met with up to May or the beginning of June in little bevies; after that I observed them in pairs. They are of rapid flight, and are hard to flush a second time.” Dr. Sharpe (loc. cit.) describes the eggs, sent by Mr. Low, as varying from dark olive-brown with few black dots, to pale olive-brown The copyright of every article in the Avicultursal Magazine is the property of the Author, and no article may be reprinted or reproduced, in whole or in part, without _ the Author’s previous consent. 2 where the black dots are more numerous.” Mr. Low obtained them in January, 1873, and he states that the native name of the species is ‘“‘ Burong puyu puyu.” Dr. Russ informs us that since 1870, single pairs of the Chinese Quail have been occasionally imported ; that it is much sought after for the bird-room, and has on several occasions been bred ; that according to Mr. E. Bérin, who indeed. was the first to breed it, it is shy and timid, needs a place of retirement, one of which he provided in the form of a straw covering leaning against the back wall of the cage or bird-room. “ At the breeding-season the male and female are continually together, the former being gentle and watchful; both build the nest ; every disturbance is to be avoided. From the experience of this and other breeders, Dr. Russ gathers that the laying consists of from four to seven clear brownish, generally dark dotted eggs. Incubation lasts from sixteen to eighteen days. ‘The nestling-down is yellowish, and the young acquire their full colouring when three months old. Early in the present year, a good many pairs of this Quail came into the London market, and were offered to the public at prices even lower than those noted by Dr. Russ. Two pairs were offered to me, and I was so delighted with the colouring of these quaint little things that I gladly added them to my collection. My experience has not altogether coincided with that of Mr. Bérin, as I shall now show. When first introduced into a tolerably large aviary I found the Chinese Quails exceedingly nervous, so that when I entered the aviary they would fly recklessly upwards, striking their heads against the wire netting under the glass roofing and falling heavily to the earth; but no sooner did they perceive that my intentions were never hostile, than they contented themselves with merely running out of my way or leaping in a surprising manner to a raised bank of earth, bounded in front by a wall nearly two feet high from the sanded floor. At one end of the bank above noted, I provided a place of retirement by sticking a row of fir-twigs into the earth about six inches from the back wall: behind this partial screen the Quails often sat down during the day-time, sometimes scratching a shallow depression in the soil and dragging in a little hay and a few feathers; but at other times they settled down all together in an open corner of the aviary upon the sand, and at night they frequently went to roost in another open corner upon a cemented wall. ih 3 At the present time my Quails are quite tame and confiding, wandering about like young chicken, running to seize cockroaches or spiders when thrown into the aviary, and clambering into a demon beetle-trap to pick out the inse¢ts if it is placed upon the floor. They now never fly, but often stretch their bodies and flap their wings. The note of these birds is very faint and I am. never quite sure, when I hear it, that it is not a muttered observation of some other of my feathered family; but, on one occasion—and only one—whilst watching one of the cock birds, I saw him stretch himself and utter the tiniest and most ridiculous lttle crow conceivable. * On several occasions, when hay and feathers have been dragged together and roughly moulded into a vague kind of saucer, I have hoped that my Quails were preparing to breed, but no eggs have ever been produced. Although I have never seen the slightest approach towards quarrelling on the part of my two pairs, one circumstance has rather annoyed me. A hen of one of the pairs, when first purchased had the crown of the head quite bare, and the other birds seem to regard it as a solemn duty not to permit this unfortunate lady ever to retain a covering upon her head; indeed they recently denuded her of feathers down to the back One hem neck. jj THE SMALLER WARBLERS AS AVIARY BIRDS. By SEPTIMUS PERKINS. Among the many avicultural experiences upon which I can look back with pleasure and satisfaction there are a few which I can now only recall with feelings of regret and disap- pointment. Among these last unfortunate episodes is my attempt (made many years ago) to keep some of our tiny British Warblers in my aviary. In our Magazine we have frequent records of success; perhaps, for a change, some readers will bear, for once in a while, with a tale of failure. I had seen a beautiful specimen of the Willow Wren at a Bird Show, and I was fired with the ambition to possess one like it, and eventually, in spite of warnings from more experienced friends, I made up my mind to “go in” for the smaller Warblers. It was the autumn, when such birds are obtainable, and I got * The usual note is a feeble twittering, usually described as peeping. Since writing the above I have again heard the bird crow three times in succession.—A. G. B. + One of my two hens was killed by the other in this manner.—R. P: A together, from various sources, two or three Willow Wrens, a Chiff-chaff, and a couple of Sedge Warblers-—one of these last being sold to me as a Reed Warbler (a common mistake, by the way). Some of these little birds seemed in poor condition when I received them, while others were, apparently, quite healthy, but I hoped that they would all improve under my care. They took kindly to the food provided, which was, I still think, the best I could give them, viz., soaked ants’ eggs, hard boiled egg, and grated carrot, mixed together with a few bread crumbs; milk sop; and a liberal supply of mealworms. But instead of improving they went from bad to worse; one or two died suddenly, falling from the perch in a fit; but most of them went into what seemed like a rapid decline, becoming quickly weaker until they died. I think the last of them did not survive more than about two months after I bought him. The Sedge Warblers were certainly hardier than the others. While they lived, they were the most charming little creatures imaginable, delightfully tame, and, in their eagerness for mealworms, bewitchingly comic. But then, the pity of it, they so soon died ! I really think I did my level best for these little birds ; they had the most nourishing food and a comfortable aviary, and T fail to see that anything more which I could have done would have prolonged their lives. And yet, in spite of every attention, they were all dead and buried in much less than three months. Whether my birds were wild-caught or hand-reared I do not know; or, if wild-caught, how they were meated off. A very clever and experienced dealer has told me that he could never succeed in meating off Willow Wrens, and he did not know how it was done. Well, no more of the ‘Smaller Warblers” for me. I made my experiment, and it failed, and I think I am justified in concluding that these charming, aerial little creatures are quite unsuited for captivity—unsuited, however, not by their mere fragility, but from their natural diet being such as it is impossible to satisfactorily replace. They live on tiny living insects, and nothing else will for long sustain their delicate bodies in health. Possibly, some day, a substitute may be discovered; but, at present, we seek it in vain. I will conclude with a warning. To those who are think- ing of trying to keep any of the smaller Warblers, my advice is, 5 —‘ don’t ’—firstly, because it is cruel; secondly, because it is useless. I think that the Garden Warbler might be kept with about as much success as the Blackcap and the White-throat. All these will eat fruitlargely, and being, therefore, less exclusively insectivorous, are much easier to fend for. FURTHER NOTES ON MY BIRDS. By kal ODD: Among all the positive statements that have been made by aviculturists at various times, there does not seem to be one to which time or circumstance does not, sooner or later, find an exception. There is, perhaps, no fact more generally accepted as beyond doubt than that of the extreme pugnacity of the Australian Fire Finch (Veochmia phaéton). I can, however, produce an exception to even thisrule. I bought four cocks in October, 1896: one was iz articulo mortis and died next day; two others proved the rule of the delicacy of the species when newly-imported, by succumbing within the month. The survivor has never had a day’s illness; and, what is most extraordinary, has proved the most peaceable of birds. He lives in an aviary with about thirty companions, consisting of Gouldians, Silverbills, Singing Finches, Nuns, etc., with which he is on the best of terms. We are generally told that this species is fond of mealworms, and Dr. Russ mentions giving them the incredible number of twenty-five in a day; but my bird will hardly look at a mealworm, and possibiy the absence of animal food may account for his unusually peaceable disposition, though in other respects he is extremely lively and sings constantly. He is most anxious to nest and is always carrying bits of hay about, but unfortunately I have never been able to provide him with a wife. A handsome and rather engaging bird is the Blue Grosbeak (Guzraca cerulea), but one about which the general run of avicultural works are silent. Mr. Erskine Allon always said that he found it short lived, dying within a few months or even weeks, from no apparent cause. My first specimen came into my possession on the 26th May, 1896, and a second in September of the same year; the latter was in poor condition. These two birds were never on very good terms and the weaker succumbed in the following January. In May I turned out the survivor into 6 an open air aviary (together with a female), but he was killed, I think by a cock Indigo or Diuca, both of which at once showed hostility to him though they never molested the female, who is still living. JI am inclined to think that an open air aviary is the suitable place for this bird, and that it will not thrive in a warm and close room. I feel pretty certain that it is an egg-stealer and should not keep it with smaller birds that are wanted to breed. Canary-seed is its staple article of diet, and some hemp; mealworms it will eat to any extent, also egg-food and ants’ eggs, and it has a decided relish for green food. I have lately got another male, but in poor condition, which seems generally the case with these birds when first imported, though they soon come round. I find the Magpie Mannikin a most provoking bird in the matter of breeding. My pair built a beautifully-constructed nest of aloe-fibre in January. No young appearing after a considerable interval, I made an exception to my invariable rule of giving a wide berth to breeding birds, and examined the nest, which I found half full of eggs. This nest was eventually pulled to pieces and another built, which was almost immediately destroyed, and another is now in process of construction, built, as were the others, among some twigs of box. I should have suspected that both my birds were females, but they are decidedly different and came to me from Mr. Abrahams, who I have never known to fail in distinguishing sex. ‘These birds also have a reputation for pugnacity, but I have not known them to do any harm when associated with others of their own size ; I have never tried them with Waxbills or other small species. They are very fond of mealworms. I consider myself fortunate in being the possessor of a pair of Jacarinis (Volatinia jacarinz). ‘The hen seems to be a very rare bird in this country; in colour she somewhat resembles the hen Indigo Finch, though of course of a very different build. These are rather shy birds, spending most of their time among any bushes or cover there may be in the aviary, but when moving about have very much the nervous habit of the Waxbills : their tails seem never at rest. © My birds have never nested, and from their nervous disposition I should doubt their ever bringing off a brood, though the Buntings seem generally steady sitters, if these are Buntings, as Dr. Bowdler Sharpe suspects. They are certainly fond of insects and always ready for a mealworm or earwig ; as regards seed, they seem to prefer canary and Indian millet, and delight in chickweed. i Of all the Waxbills the most delightful is probably ‘Dufresne’s Waxbill (Coccopygia dufresnii), but unfortunately I cannot endorse the opinion that seems generally held of the robustness of its constitution. I have had five individuals this year, three cocks and two hens, and have now ouly one, a cock, remaining, They were all in perfect health when I received them, but dropped off one after the other without any previcus sign of illness, after living with me for about two months. In the same aviary I have kept two pairs of African Fire Finches for over a year in perfect health, not to mention Cordon Bleus for longer, so the conditions would seem quite favourable for delicate species. Another bird that seems difficult to keep is the Lined Finch: it always appears moping and out of health, and never lives long. Its nails grow at a rate that I have never seen equalled in any other bird and require cutting almost weekly, a very troublesome peculiarity in an aviary-kept bird. The Guttural Finch I have found equally short lived (though I doubt if I have ever had a thoroughly healthy individual); a great contrast to its congener, the White-throated Finch, which nothing seems to affect. This latter I had hopes of breeding this year; a small open cup-shaped nest was built very neatly with bents in a branch of box, but no eggs were ever laid. The Reddish Finch seems also fairly robust, though delicate when newly-imported. I think Mr. Fillmer rather maligns the Rufous-tailed Finch. Ihave had a pair for nearly two years and, though kept with the smaller Waxbills, have found them perfectly peaceable. The hen is a very ready layer, but always dispenses with the formality of a nest, preferring to deposit her eggs on the open floor of the aviary; she is apt to get egg-bound in the winter, but this trouble invariably yields to the application of heat. I have had a pair of Three-coloured Parrot Finches (Erythrura trichroa) for some months. ‘They are rather timid and placid birds, but occasionally indulge in a very rapid flight round their aviary. I believe all’the individuals now in Europe are the descendants of a very small importation that reached Germany some years ago; it would appear, therefore, that they are not difficult to breed, but my pair has shown no sign of doing so yet. They are certainly not so brilliant as the commoner Parrot Finch, but the combination of subdued green, blue and red is distinctly pleasing. I have not kept the two species together and cannot say how they would agree; the 8 former species is perfectly inoffensive with other birds. The hen differs from the cock only in her slightly duller coloration. I have never known this bird eat mealworms, of which the Parrot Finch is very fond. In May I received from Mr. Frostick a pair of White- crowned Larks from Loanda; though rare, I can hardly recommend them as interesting. They are purely ground birds, but now and again rise two or three feet into the air with a feeble fluttering flight. They become very taine, but are too feeble to compete with birds of stronger will for mealworms, which are their favourite article of diet; they thrive well on the usual seeds together with egg-food and ants’ eggs. The cock has rather a comic expression of self-iniportance and seriousness, and is withal a handsome bird in his quiet dress of black and white, the hen being more soberly attired in sandy buff. One word of warning on the question of nesting material. I was tempted to supply my birds with aloe-fibre ; they certainly highly appreciate it (especially Aurora Finches and Magpie Mannikins), but a bird once entangled in it is practically lost unless quickly noticed ; and several severe losses have induced me to abandon it. I now chiefly use hay, and this with asparagus sprays, moss, and cotton wool seems to meet every requirement, and such material is perfectly safe. Weavers are quite content with rather long fresh grass. It seems generally held by aviculturists that a conserva- tory isan unsuitable building wherein to place an aviary, on account of the necessarily wide range of temperature it is subject to. I confess I fail to see the force of the reason given. In most climates of the world (though with some notable exceptions) there is a very considerable difference between the day and the night temperature, and this is markedly the case in South Africa, whence we get:so many Finches. This fact is recognised by gardeners, who carefully maintain this variation in the temperature of their glass-houses. Why should birds require different treatment from plants in this respect? If in their native climate birds endure a lower temperature at night than during the day, surely the same conditions will suit them in confinement. Of course the effect of a hot sun shining through glass is decidedly distressing to birds if they are unable to find shelter from the rays, but this is easily arranged by the use of an outside blind or a light wash on the glass, and also by the provision of sheltered nooks in the aviary. I believe other members of the Society have their aviaries under glass, iL, and it would be interesting to know their experience. The main point is the provision of ample ventilation, and this is probably easier to arrange in a properly constructed glass-house than in a room. I should mention that I do not keep any plants in the same structure with my birds; but again, I do not see why the moderately moist atmosphere that the former require (coupled with free ventilation) should be inimical to the health of the latter; in fact, so high an authority as Dr. Russ recommends that living plants ‘should be kept in the bird-room for the sake of the beneficial effects they have on the health of birds. THE GOLDFINCH. By J. LEwis BONHOTE. Of the several species of birds commonly kept in confine- ment, there is no more universal favourite than the Goldfinch. It is the most brilliant in plumage of our commoner British birds; its ways and habits in a cage, where it may be taught many little tricks, are pleasing and confiding; while its song, though hardly equal to that of the Linnet, is none the less bright and cheerful. The plumage of the Goldfinch is too well known to need any description. The female may be readily distinguished from the male by her duller tints and brown shoulders. The young, popularly known as ‘“ Greypates,” resemble the adults, except that the head is of a uniform greyish brown. There are several varieties of this finch, which are met with in a wild state, and breed true. The best known of these is the ‘‘ Cheverel,” in which the chin is white, the white extend- ing upwards through the black band across the occiput. This variety is supposed (with what truth I cannot say) to have a finer song. Another variety is that known as the Pea-throat, in which the white on the throat, instead of entirely replacing the red, leaves a small patch the size of a pea. Besides these two well marked varieties, birds are found in every intermediate stage, and these are known in bird-catchers’ parlance as ‘“bastard cheverels.” The usual other varieties occur, such as albinism and melanism; but these changes are often only con- fined to the head. Lastly, this bird is credited by the ignorant with many varieties which have no existence, such as Pear Tree, Fir, Wood, etc. I have several times tried to master the sup- posed differences between these varieties, but whenever I have brought a bird-catcher to book, he has said he could not explain, IO but would show me on a bird; and when the bird was forth- coming it was never typical of any particular kind ! Our Goldfinch has a very wide distribution, reaching east- wards to Siberia and Persia, and southwards to the northern shores of Africa.. In Siberia it 1s replaced by another species, C. caniceps (having no black on crown or nape), with which it freely interbreeds, and specimens are found in all stages inter- mediate between the two, as may be seen in some specimens brought from the Yenesei by Seebohm, and now in the entratce hall of the Natural History Museum at South Kensington. ‘The foreign Goldfinches, which are imported in great numbers into this country every year, belong to a large eastern Asiatic race known as C. major, and come from the south-west portions of Siberia. The Goldfinch breeds chiefly in orchards and gardens, generally high up on the tree. The nest, which is cup-shaped, is composed of moss, bents, and a few roots, very neatly and compactly woven together and lined with hair, willow down, and a few small feathers. It is very conservative as to locality, breeding every year in the same orchard and sometimes on the top of its former nest. The eggs are light blue, with a few streaks of dark brown or purple, chiefly at the larger end. The young are fed on semi-digested food from the crop, although it has frequently been asserted that caterpillars are their diet. It is as a cage bird, however, that it is of chief interest to us, and it is, perhaps, the most widely kept of all cage birds. Some like it for its song; others for its beauty and enticing ways; others, again, because of the facility with which it may be made to breed with the Canary, the progeny, if not beautiful, being prized for the richness of its song. Hybrids are also produced—though only by experts—with the Bullfinch, this cross being one of the most beautiful of birds. Never having possessed one, however, I am unable to speak of the quality of its song. It may also be taught various tricks, such as drawing up water and opening the box containing its food; but such performances are most unnatural, and certainly not conducive to the birds longevity or enjoyment. ‘They are, therefore, greatly to be deprecated. In the Fourth Edition of Yarrell, a quotation is given from Syme, who writes about a number of trained Finches, which he had seen exhibited by a certain Sieur Roman :—‘‘ One seemed dead, and was held up by the tail or claw without exhibiting any sign of life; a second stood on its head with its claws in the air; II a third imitated a Dutch milkman going to market with pails on its shoulders; a fourth mimicked a Venetian girl looking out of a window; a fifth appeared as a soldier and mounted guard asa sentinel; a sixth acted as cannoneer, and, with cap on head, fire- lock on shoulder, and match in claw, discharged a small. cannon. The same bird also feigned to have been wounded, and was wheeled in a barrow, to covey it, as it were, to the hospital, after which it flew away before the company. A seventh turned a kind of windmill, and the last stood in the midst of some fire- works, which were discharged all round it, without exhibiting the least symptom of fear.” In captivity this bird lives for a long time on the ordinary mixed seeds, but a small amount of hemp daily is a necessity, and, if possible, it should always have access to some ‘soft food.” When wild it is frequently met with in flocks on waste ground where thistles abound, and such food would, doubtless, be both acceptable and beneficial in confinement. About such a general favourite many fables and stories naturally arise. The following we found when glancing through a popular work on British Birds, now somewhat out of date :— It appears that a pair of these birds built their nest on a very slender branch, and in due course the eggs were hatched. The young soon began to get too heavy, and the slender branch was gradually giving way under their weight till the nestlings came into imminent danger of being thrown out. When matters had reached this dangerous stage, the birds were observed to take one end of a piece of string, which had been used among the nesting materials,and tie it round a stronger neighbouring branch, thus saving their offspring. Another story tells how a certain lady had a Goldfinch that never saw her go out without making every effort in his power to quit his cage and follow her. On her return she would be welcomed with every mark of extreme delight, and as soon as she approached a thousand little actions showed his pleasure and satisfaction. If she presented her finger, he would caress it for a long time, uttering a low, joyous murniur. This attachment was so exclusive that if his mistress substituted another person’s finger for her own he would peck it sharply, whilst one of his mistress’, placed between two of a stranget’s, would be at once recognised and caressed accordingly. The belief in the strong feelings of attachment of this species is widespread, and we will conclude this article by quoting a few lines from Cowper on the subject. I2 The poet, after relating how two Goldfinches lived together in a cage, and how one of them succeeded in escaping, continues thus :-— ‘¢ The open windows seemed to invite The freeman to a farewell flight ; But Tom was still confined. And Dick, although his way was clear, Was niuch too generous and sincere To leave his mate behind. “ So settling on his cage, by play, By chirp and kiss, he seemed to say ‘You must not live alone.’ Nor would he quit that chosen stand Till I, with slow and cautious hand, Removed him to his own.” THE GREY JAVA SPARROW. (Munia oryzivora). By WESLEY T. PAGE. This common bird scarcely needs description. It is about five inches long—body three inches, tail two inches—heavily built almost to clumsiness, and yet graceful and sprightly in its movements. The beak is thick and heavy and of a bright rose colour, shading almost to white at the tip. The head, rump, tail, and larger wing feathers are black, cheeks white and very sharply outlined, the other parts of the plumage being lighter or darker purplish grey, legs and feet, flesh colour. In good condition it is tightly and compactly feathered, so much so that it is difficult to individualise the feathers, but the plumage appears one level, smooth garment, covered with a bloom, similar to that seen on ripe grapes and plums, and this, in spite of sharp contrasts, gives it quite a taking and masher-like appearance. Sexes are exactly alike in plumage, but the hen is generally a little smaller, flatter on the crown, and, when closely observed, particularly from the side, her beak is narrower and more pointed. Java Sparrows are found in Java, Japan, China, and Southern India, where they commit great havoc in the rice fields, rice being their principal food in a state of nature; in confine- ment millet and canary seed will be sufficient, with a little soft T3 food when there are young in the nest, though some pairs will bring up their young on seed alone. Some aviculturists assert paddy rice to be essential, but I have never found it so, and it is certainly rather expensive and difficult to obtain; and, if fed as indicated above, they will remain in the best of health and bring up brood after brood (green food and grit, of course, being sup- plied in addition). I would recommend that aviary-bred birds be procured (though they are double the price of imported ones), as the wild-caught birds do not nest readily in captivity. And though there are exceptions which do so, these generally choose the winter (and then, out of doors, the young are seldom reared), and usually only after being a year or two in their quarters, while aviary-bred birds nest as readily as Canaries—even more so, for they are excellent feeders. Out of doors they will usually rear three broods in the season, but in an indoor aviary, slightly heated, I should say they would go on breeding all the year round, only stopping for the moult; but I have only kept them out of doors. Nesting accommodation: They like a box, closed on all sides, with a hole for entrance, or a cocoanut husk—mine always choose the box. I generally get a dry soap powder box, which is about eighteen inches by nine inches, and six inches deep, with a wire-hinged lid ; insert two partitions ; tack down the lid; cut in it three holes ; fix a perch in front of each; and I then have three nests for about a penny, in which, according to my experience, the birds will nest side by side, and not interfere one with the other, save in defending their own apartment and the perch in front of it. Fine hay is all they require for nesting material. . The period of nidification I cannot give with certainty, as it is so difficult to tell when they begin sitting, but I believe it to be thirteen or fourteen days; the young usually fly at about four weeks ; and are well able to feed themselves at six weeks, though they importune the old birds for food, till at last they lose patience and drive them off. They must not be meddled with : inquisitiveness—laudable though it be—is incompatible with the successful breeding of foreign birds, or British either, with very few exceptions. I have constructed my small garden aviary with small doors and flaps, so thatI can refill the hoppers, change the water, and scrape out the floor all from the outside, only having to go inside once a year for the renewal of perches, etc. I have always found Java Sparrows to be quite harmless, though they will not let 14 other birds come near their nest perch, and my aviary is rather crowded with a mixed collection of British and foreign finches. Several pairs will agree and breed together, even with other species, providing there are at least twice as many nests as pairs . of birds. They are hardy in the extreme, safely coming through the roughest winter weather. I have found mine on sharp frosty nights roosting in the open uncovered portion of the aviary, and in the very pink of condition next day. The bath should be given in all weathers, and they will keep themselves in perfect trim, and thrive on the roughest treatment, though, like all other species, they repay, to the full, careful and thoughtful attention. When Mr. Java is making love to his mate, ne is most entertaining and amusing, going through a most grotesque per- formance of jumping, bowing, scraping, and twirling in the effort to shew himself off to the best advantage. Let me put in a plea for aviaries here. Birds never do themselves justice even in the largest cage, and they giveanample return forthe cost oferecting aviaries in the pleasure they afford and the happiness of their demeanour when kept under almost natural conditions. JI am in favour of garden aviaries constructed similarly to an ordinary fowl run, viz., with shed, shelter open at front, and run open top aud front, wired with half-inch netting; and I am convinced that many species that will not live indoors without a little heat, in such an aviary, if turned out in June, will survive our severest winters. Java Sparrows readily become tame, and with their bright appearance, perfect trim, and entertaining ways, a beginner could not do better than invest in a pair or two, provided he procures aviary-bred ones. As I said before, these are the cheapest and best in the end, even at three times the cost of the imported ones. _ SERIN FINCHES BREEDING IN CONFINEMENT. By G. C. SWAILES. A pair of Serin Finches (.Sevinus serinus) have this season nested successfully in my aviary. The nest, an exceedingly small structure, much smaller than a Redpoll’s, was completed by about the 3rd of May; four eggs were laid; and three young ones left the nest on the 31st of May. ‘They were fed chiefly on the seed of the dwarf grass, and on leaving the nest were soon able to look after themselves. The old birds nested again at once; but I had carelessly allowed a lot of Long-tailedfieid mice, 15 to establish themselves round the aviary, and these destroyed the eggs. A third nest of eggs was, unfortunately, wasted by some young Goldfinches and Greenfinches which had been bred also. During the time the hen Serin was sitting and the young being fed, the cock spent the whole of his time in fighting, chiefly with a cock Goldfinch. At other times the quietest and most peaceable bird alive, lie now was a regular nuisance—he fought till he had no feathers on head or breast, and looked a thorough wreck. The young, on leaving the nest, were brown—a good deal like Red- polls; but have now acquiredthe yellow markings of adult birds, though not quite so bright. On the 26th May I was both surprised and pleased to see a wild male Serin pay them a visit. It stayed about the aviary most of the morning, having a wash in a brook which runs close by. I heard it singing in some tall oaks in the afternoon, after which I saw it no more. I imagine this species visits Britain more often than is supposed, for it would probably not be noticed by anyone unacquainted with its song. AVICULTURAL SMALL-TALK. We are afraid that most of the members never read the ‘‘ Notices to Members’’ which appear inside the cover of the Magazine. Much of the matter printed there is of a formal character, and is reproduced month after month without alteration, but almost every month there is some special notice which members would do well to read. It is very unfortunate that the plate to accompany Dr. Butler’s article on the Chinese Quail, and which is intended to form the frontispiece to our fourth volume, is not ready, and has to be held over till next month. The -hand-colouring process is a lengthy one, and cannot be hurried. The Secretary wil] do all in his power to secure the punctual appearance of the other plates, but it is more than probable that some of these will be delayed also. While on the subject of plates, we may as well remind members that those who want hand-coloured copies should give notice to the Secretary at once. Ad it would save time and trouble if they would at the same time send the special subscription of 5/- for the colouring. This will in every case be expected to be paid before the ist of January. Those menibers who - subscribed for the coloured plates last year will be assumed to wish oie thein this year unless they intimate the contrary. It is a rather remarkable thing that none of our smaller British birds of the soft-food sort take very inal to captivity, while many little soft- billed foreign birds are hardy and long-lived in the aviary. The difference 16 is probably due to the fact that the Britishers are mainly insectivorous, while the foreigners subsist chiefly on fruit. StriG@ly insectivorous birds are hard to cater for, but fruit-eating birds, on the contrary, are scarcely more trouble than seed-eaters. Also, fruit-eaters can be supplied with their natural food in its natural form, while insect-eaters have to be fed chiefly on artificial substitutes for the live insects which are their proper diet. Honey-eaters, again, are fairly easy birds to provide for, as honey can be given in its natural state, and milk-sop forms an admirable substitute for it. There was some discussion recently in the Feathered World as to the number of birds which an aviary of a given size would contain, and as to how the capacity was to be reckoned. ‘The better opinion seemed to be that the ground area of the aviary was the most important element in the calcu- lation, and mere height a secondary matter. This is, no doubt, correct. An aviary ten feet high will comfortably accommodate very few more birds than one half that height, although it will give the inmates more room for exercise. As Mr. Fulljames pointed out, it is an excellent plan to build bird-room aviaries in two tiers, one above the other. If the room be ten feet high, five feet can be allowed for each aviary, which is generally ample. The upper aviaries can be used for breeding, while the lower ones are occu- pied by birds kept only for show. The upper aviaries are even more secluded than those which go from floor to ceiling, while in the lower ones the birds are kept better under observation. But if the room be much less than ten feet in pitch the lower aviary is apt to seem wanting in height, and the plan does not answer so well. At the last Palace Show the specimen of the Blue Sugar-bird (Dacais cayana) exhibited by Mr. Fulljames aroused much interest, and it was stated, we believe correctly, that it was the first female of the species ever iniported alive. ‘This autumn a few more have arrived, all, like Mr. Fulljames’s bird, females. For the information of those who have not seen it, we may men- tion that the hen is slightly smaller than a Goldfinch, the general colour being a rather dark metallic green, with pale greenish blue head and ashy throat. Thelegs and beak are dark, andthe latter is not curved. The male is described as being a lovely blue and black bird. It is strange that the female alone should be imported. This bird, and the Yellow-winged Sugar-bird (Cereba cyanea), in spite of their apparent fragility, seem well adapted for captivity, being very tame and living well on a diet of milk-sop, fruit, and honey. ‘They seem much hardier and easier to keep in condition than Tanagers, and are certainly more attractive on account of their more con+ fiding disposition and more graceful movements. The Committee of the L. & P. O. have provided at their approaching Show a class for Mannikins, Waxbills, and Combasous; one for Weavers and Whydahs (except Combasous) ; and another for ‘‘ any other variety of Seed- eating bird.” The result of this frankly unscientific classification is that Grass-finches are grouped with Finches, Grosbeaks, and Buntings, and the judge has to take upon himself to decide which species are to be considered Grass-finches and which Mannikins or Waxbills—not always an easy matter. Would it not be better either to name in the schedule every doubtful species likely to be shown, or to refer to some recognised list ? 17 A gentleman at Brighton has a common Barbary Dove which has lived in his possession for 23 years, and was adult when he first had it. It is in good plumage, but somewhat infirm. This old Dove is a confirmed bachelor, having always refused to have anything to say to the hens at different times introduced to him. The following pigeon story is vouched for by the Premierof New Zea- land. Mr. Seddon’s family received from relatives in Victoria a beautiful pair of Antwerp honiing pigeons. Oneday the birds were out flying, but only one returned to the cot, and nothing more was heard of the other; but some time after news was received from Victoria that the missing bird had arrived safely at its former home. To reach Victoria from: New Zealand the bird must have accomplished the feat of flying something like 1,000 miles without rest, and according to the dates it must have done the journey in less than three days, which would mea that it would have to fly at a speed of from 18 to 20 miles an hour continuously. We have always refrained from advocating the use of any special make of aviary appliance or bird food, as we considered that to do so would be unfair to other makers. But we feel that we may properly make an exception in favour of Jones’s Hygienic Fountains. These fountains are entirely unlike any others that we have ever seen, and are infinitely superior to the old-fashioned pattern, They, and none others, ought to be used in every bird room. It is true that they are rather more expensive than the ordinary fountain, but then they are much more durable, so that they cost no more in the end. They are so constructed that the water can- not very well be fouled by the birds; they can be easily and quickly filled ; and the inside can be thoroughly cleaned. CORRESPONDENCE. THE GENUS SROTOGERYS. SrR,—I should feel obliged to any member of the Avicultural Society who can give me any general information about the genus Srofogerys and as to their desirability as pets. The Orange-flanked Parrakeet, which I have had, was a most fascinating bird, as tame as possible from the moment I bought him. Iam desirous to know if the other members of this genus are as attractive as B. pyrrhopterus. CLAUDE D. ROTCH. The following reply was sent to Mr, Rotch :— I have kept members of the Avotogerys genus for several years, and am very fond of them; but I find that individuals of the same species vary greatly according to the treatment they have been subjected to before being received. They are constitutionally very timid birds, and are ofttimes so roughly treated before coming into one’s hands that they do not readily recover sufficient nerve to become tame: they are terror-stricken. 18 The Orange-flanked Parrakeet, when kept in a cage, is quite one of the tamier species; my pair, however, loose in the bird-room and aviary, became very strong, and then lost much of their tameness; they never followed me about, nor came up to have a chat, as some of the others do. I had a pair of Tovi Parrakeets (B. jugularis) for many years ; when- ever I appeared, they invariably flew on to my head or shoulders, and followed me about in house and garden. ‘They nested regularly (unsuccess- fully) ; and this year, when just about to lay, the female was knocked over by a Redrumip, and quickly died. The male I still have. Yet some Tovis are not nearly so tame as.these, always were. They are common. : ‘The White- winged (or Vellow-winged) Parrakeet (8. virescens) is slightly larger. I have one, a male, which I am told is the only living specimen in Europe ; certainly it is the only living specimen I have ever seen. He is very tame, and very fond of arguing the point with me. I like him much. He has paired with a Golden-fronted Parrakeet (2. tuipara), another very rare species. I obtained two females years ago, and have one still ; they are the only specimens of the species I have ever seen. ‘These are very timid birds, and the least attractive of any I have kept; probably a male would be tamer. ‘he orange of the primary-coverts is rich beyond conception. Quite one of the prettiest and most engaging of the genus is the tiny Tui Parrakeet (2. tuz). It is somewhat rare. I have had three at different times, and have found them rather delicate, and difficult to get into good plumage, the tail feathers being specially liable to come to grief. A male J now have has been with me eighteen months; but it was not until about two mouths ago that it was strong and clever enough on the wing to be left loose with the other birds. This Tui originally married the Tuipara; and they seemed a happy and contented couple. Then the White-wing arrived; and the fickle Tuipara forthwith deserted her tiny spouse and offered her hand and heart to the new comer. The Tui and the Tovi, both widowers, made friends, and are now inseparable. The following, neither very uncommnion, I have not kept :— The All Green Parrakeet (2. tirica), a long slim green bird, is said to make a delightful pet. The Canary-winged Parrakeet (2. chirirt, is like B. virescens, but lacks the white flights. It is said to be a noisy bird; but I have not noticed it to be more so than the others. They all have shrill voices—but they never scream as do so many of the Parrots. I am not acquainted with the four other members of the genus. ‘They should not be subjected to much cold, nor should they be too well fed. Asarule, hemp-seed should not be given to them. R. PHILLIPPS. THE BLACKBIRD. S1r,—Will you kindly inform me if the depth ofcolour of a Black- pird’s bill is any indication of its age, or constitution. C. L. HARRISON. 19 The following reply was sent to Mr. Harrison :-— Ordinarily, the greatest height of colour is attained at the age of three years, but it is also very much a matter of constitution. Blackbirds, hand-reared and kept in cages indoors, do not obtain the same crocus-like colour of bill and eye cere as do wild birds, or even those kept in aviaries outdoors. So that while the colour may be some guide to age, the con- ditions under which the bird has been kept must be taken into considera- tion. T. MARSHALL. THE BRONZED DRONGO. S1r,—A dealer lately advertized some Metallic Blackbirds, from India, I wrote and asked him to let me know the scientific name of the bird or a description of it. In reply, he writes:—‘‘ The Metallic Bird is the size of an English Starling, it is very handsome, very glossy; the Latin name is Metallic Bird.” Could you, from the above description, identify the bird. I should like to get an Indian bird, called in Dr. Jerdon’s book, the Himalayan Whistling Thrush, which is something like an English Black- bird, but larger, with a metallic gloss on the back. I am afraid from the dealer’s description, that the bird he has is hardly large enough to be the bird I want. C. L. HARRISON. The following reply was sent to Mr. Harrison :— The bird is probably “The Bronzed Drongo” (Chaptia enea), avery common species in India, and an excellent singer. It should prove a very attractive cage-bird; aud, if to be had at a fairly reasonable price, I should advise you to secure it. AGG. BUMRER: WET AND FROSTED GREEN FOOD. S1R,—One continually sees, in print, that green food must never be given to birds either wet or with frost on it. I conclude that this only applies to birds kept indoors; as in my small aviary with about 50 birds, British and foreigners, last winter the seed was frequently coated over with frost, and in that condition freely eaten ; also winter and summer, wet and fine, my birds have a daily supply of such weeds as the garden supplies, and at times, according to the weather, it is frequently wet and at other times frosty. Again, I never reniove the bath—it is there all weathers—and the birds use it all weathers too, without any apparent ill effect—I have not had a death for two years, with such birds as Canaries, African Weavers, Indian Avadavats, Cutthroats, Java Sparrows, and British Finches—but, if you think it worth the space, I should like the opinion of some of our experienced members upon it in our Magazine. W. T. PAGE. * BRITISH BIRDS, THEIR NESTS AND EGGS.” S1R,—I see in the review of the second volume of the above work in the Avicultural Alagazine for October, the sentence quoted, ‘‘ If man would 20 let nature alone, le would find the balance perfect, but he interferes every- where and makes a mess of it.” I would venture to put the question, “Ts not man a part of “Nature”? Dr. Gatke remarks that man can affect birds in a very slight way directly ; that species are exterminated by the destruction of their breeding-haunts by cultivation, S&e. Is man to return to a nomadic life in’ order not to disturb the balance of nature ? The rabbit became a pest in Australia through nature. If man was not to introduce the rabbit there, we must also ask him not to cultivate wheat, &c. It seems to me we must accept man, and consequently man’s interference, as part of the whole design. I must say my experience of rearing Linnets by hand, is that they are one of the easiest birds to rear, and are very healthy, but, like sparrows, they are not very tame after they are reared. Still, I should always recom- mend anyone who wants to keep a Linnet, to rear it by hand. F. G. DUTTON. BRITISH BIRD-CALLS. S1r,—A short time ago I heard a bird-call which I did not recognise; beyond remembering that I had read of it a few days previously. I searched the book in which I had seen it, without success, and the identity of the bird remains undecided. I thought, ‘‘Oh, for a list of bird-calls, arranged alphabetically, so that any call, which may be heard, can be found at once!” I did not let the matter rest here, and have collected the recorded calls of more than 200 British Birds. Now, I seek the aid of the avicul- turists, especially those who keep British Birds, both in supplying omitted calls and in amending those which appear to be erroneously given. My list, as far as it has gone, is now in the press, and will probably be received ere this letter appears. I shall be pleased to send copies to all members who will send me a post-card signifying their desire that I should do so. CHAS. LouIsS HETT. THE GUTTURAL FINCH. S1rR,—I am surprised to note, in this number of the Avicultural Magazine, that this species is regarded, by a gentleman usually expert in keeping delicate birds, as by no means hardy. About three years ago I purchased a pair of Guttural Finches and turned them into one of my bird-room aviaries; again, in 1896, I bought a pair which I turned into my largest cool aviary. None of these birds have ever had the slightest ailment or given me the slightest cause for anxiety: they are very inoffensive, only swearing when disturbed at meals by other birds, and the males sing almost as well as the White-throated Finch. A. G. BUTLER. THE Mvicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AVIGURTURAL = SOCIETY. VOL. IV.—No. 38. All rights reserved. DECEMBER, 1897..- PARROT NOTES. By the Hon. and Rev. F. G. Durron. Whenever I undertake to write about Parrots, Iam always astonished at the very little Ihave to say. No fairy godmother gave me the gift of imagination, and I seem to have little to tell except some plain facts which are very much against all the romance with which Parrots are generally surrounded. I must have been born with a hobby for Parrots, for I cannot recollect the time when to have a Parrot was not my great wish. It was probably a case of atavism, for I have always heard that my great-grandmother had a “ bird and beast room,” as it was called, at Sherborne. But I did not possess a Parrot till I was 15, since when I have rarely been without one, and often have twelve or fourteen. As I am 57, that means 42 years of | Parrot-keeping, so I ought to know something about them. But I have only arrived at a sense of my ignorance, : I confess that I have been narrow-minded. It isn’t every Parrot I care about—I am always in search of the ideal pet. It must be as small as a Bullfinch, talk like a Grey, have the intelligence of a dog, and the beauty of the Paradise Parrakeet. It must not bite and it must not scream, and it must be as tame as a Troupial, And it must be clean. In what species is this combination to be found? It will be seen that it at once excludes a good many, and therefore my experiences are more limited thes if I had set to work to keep Parrots with the purse of a Rothschild and the thoroughness of a German. Parrots must be fairly popular, for the demand seems unlimited. It would be interesting to know how many thousands are yearly imported to Liverpool alone. What becomes of the greater number of them? I think weknow—the dustman’s cart or the back garden receives the vast majority in a few weeks. But the mortality is chiefly confined to the Greys, though I was as told the other day, in the Zoo, that Parrot fever had at last invaded the Amazons. We may suppose that everyone who buys a Parrot would agree that my list of qualifications is the right ideal. In what species will the nearest approach be found to it? ; Now it must be understood at once that in what I am ‘going to say I shall speak of species as a whole, and only of my own experience of them. If I say Cockatoos are noisy, I shall te extremely interested if any one can aver with truth that they have one which never screams, but it will not in the least affect my position, which is this, that I have found the Cockatoos I kept noisy. .—MACAWS. oy People who write about Parrots generally begin with Macaws. Let me do so too. The Macaw excels all the other Parrots in intelligence and in affection for its master; and in powers of speech, so long as itis a cock-bird; but itis not small, itis not clean, and none of mine could be warranted never to scream. To keep a Macaw one wants a Parrot-house and a park, They are beautiful objects when seen at a great height in the air, but in a garden they are too destructive to the smaller trees. And then a tame bird never really enjoys its liberty. ‘There are some Parrots you cannot trust out; but it is, I am convinced, because they fly out of reach’the first time they are Jet out. Let a Parrot once know tts way home, and it will always be wanting to come back as soon as it is turned out. I had oné Blue and Yellow Macaw which, though a good talker,was an idiot. It flew toa branch, and there it would have stayed till it died, unless it were frightened off, or caught. But all my other Macaws came back. And then the trouble is, they come in at the windows of the house, and, if no one sees them, they may make matches of a priceless piece of furniture, before they are’ found out! If one could only put the dow tke intelligence ah affetion of a Macaw into a Senegal or Meyer’s Parrot, one would compound for the want of brilliant colour. But I fear for’ the ordinary householder the Macaw must be put outside ns range of practical pets. - Yet even with Macaws (though I write as if I ted been’ Parrot-keeper in the Ark, and had had every kind) my experience. has been very limited. I do not say that I have not studied the’ other. species in other people’s keeping, but for myself, I have - Be 23 -only kept one Red and Yellow, oné ay acinthine, and four aie sand Yellows. Why did Bechstein say the Blue and Yellow Macaw was not a good talker? JI have never known any Parrot equal it for “quick learning and exact imitation of a special voice. I feel “sure the Parrot that was said to have preserved a lost language “must have been a Blue and Yellow Macaw. But then it must be a cock-bird—the hens would not learn a word. Let all would-be spurchasers of Parrots beware of the superstition that sex makes no difference to a Parrot’s power of speech. In Grey Parrots, I -admit, the hens talk ; but even in Grey Parrots, I believe, all the ‘really wonderful talkers have been cock-birds. I have known then Bengal Parrakeets say several sentences, but nothing like the number the cocks. quite commonly master. But certainly any hen Macaws would not learn a word, though kept Site ey side with cocks that learnt easily and readily. Bechstein gives the Great Green Macaw a good reputation for talking. I never had one, but those I have seen did not strike me as talking well. How curious is its trick of blushing! Does any other animal share with man that most GOEL ELe endowment. ? Have any of our members kept a Spix ? I have only seen two—one that our Zoo acquired some years ago from the Jardin d’Acclimatation, and one bought by Mr. Rothschild from Mr. Jamrach and deposited in the Gardens. ‘They were both ill- tempered : but as the first had a broken wing, it had probably been caught old. I was greatly tempted by the offer of one from Mr. Cross the other day, but there are so many calls on a parson’s purse,.that he cannot always treat himself to. expensive parrots. I ought to have been keeper at the parrot-house in the Zoo. It would be hard to take away the character of a whole €pecies on the observation of only two individuals, but if I have aot yet seen a good-tempered Spix, neither have I ever seen an ill- tempered Hyacinthine, or Glauca, or Leari. So sure am I always of their temper, that I never hesitate to scratch the heads of these kinds in the foreign Zoos. I see people looking at me as though I were Daniel in the lions’ den, but truth to say, it 1s a very cheap ‘piece of bravado. Their angelic tempers seem accompanied by a certain amout of stupidity. I have seen many, but only heard one talk. And I do not think they have the same individual attachment that the other Macawshave. They are equally good- tempered to all the world, but my Hyacinthine did not seem to make any difference between myself and others.. However, on 24 this point I may not have had experience enough. I wonder why dealers always ask such a high price for Hyacinthine Macaws. They are not everybody’s bird, for they can bend the wires of an ordinary Macaw’s cage with ease, but dealers will ask for them double the price of a Spix, which is a far rarer bird. They have one great advantage over other Macaws—they are much quieter ; they can make a row, but don’t often choose to do it. The Red and Yellow Macaw seems to me to be as good a talker as the Blue and Yellow, but my bird was a hen, and never learnt a word; yet it always knew me. It was not uni- versally good-tempered. For the last eight or ten years of its life it was at the Zoo, but on my rare visits it always recollected me, and let me do just as I liked with it. I do not think Macaws mind cold so long as they have their liberty. I confess I do not understand whaf makes one Parrot more susceptible to cold than another. I think I can say which Parrots will not endure cold, and which will, but I do not know why. /Pszttacus and Pwocephalus will not endure much, Chrysotis will—yet they are all tropical. Cockatoos will, Lories will not, though they come from the same islands. Here I must, for the present, bring my observations to an end. I think I ought to be rewarded by someone writing their experiences of the Crimson and Green, and Military Macaws. (To be continued). BREEDING OF THE NECKLEAGCED DOVE By ARTHUR G. BUTLER, Ph.D. The Necklaced Dove (Turtur tigrinus) is found from Burma through Malaysia southwards to the Moluccas. ‘The German name for it is Pearl-necked Dove (Perlhalstaubchen), which appears to me to convey to the mind a more accurate idea of the nuchal patch than the term “ necklaced.” In 1894 I purchased what purported to bea pair of this species and turned them out into my garden aviary: I however soon discovered, from the fact that they were constantly dis- puting and cooing to each other, that I had two cock birds. I tried introducing a Collared Turtle Dove (7urtur risorius) but that also proved to be a male bird and became so aggressive that I gave it away. In 1896 one Necklaced Dove killed the other by 25 constantly “pecking its head; thus my chance of breeding this species was, for the time, at an end. In 1897 a genuine female was offered to me, and I gladly purchased it, and turned it out with the male (which had then passed two winters in the open air). My old bird had become quite tame, but the hen was very wild and I feared she would not be prevailed upon to breed ; however I hung up an oblong open box under cover against the wall of the aviary, filling it half full of bran, and laying some hay and twigs upon the surface of the latter. The first intimation which I received that an attempt at breeding had been made was the discovery, early in August, ofa broken egg upon the floor. Looking from this to the box, I saw that a Bronze-necked Dove (Zenaida auriculata) was sitting in the nest. I naturally concluded that I was going to breed Bronze-necks ; but was puzzled, a few days later, to see a Neck- laced Dove incubating, whereupon I imagined that hybrids would probably result. For nearly three weeks the four Doves took turns upon the eggs, the Bronze-necks doing the lion’s share of the work, and then I found two neatly divided half egg- shells on the ground and hoped that a young one had been born. I saw no more shells after this, and had almost forgotten what my Doves were about, when, on the morning of the 28th August, I saw what looked like the hen Bronze-necked Dove sitting huddled up in a corner. I picked it up, carried it indoors, and turned it into one of my covered aviaries, where it waddled about clumsily all day. In the evening when I returned from business I went to look at my Nicobar Pigeons, one of which had broken or dis- located the last joint of one of its wings, when I perceived my Bronze-necks in perfect health sitting together on a branch: then the truth was manifest,—I had kept a young Dove away from its parents all day. Of course I promptly restored it to its nest, when I saw a wing lifted and knew that another bird yet remained therein. The following day the first bird was again on the floor, - and, when I attempted to replace it in the nest-box, the second one scuttled out and flopped helplessly along on the floor. Each day the same folly was repeated, for it was fully a week before the older bird could fly from the ground; although, starting from the nest-box, it could pass on the wing through the double. aviary from end to end, a distance of about twenty-one feet. The second youngster never got so far as this, but on September 26~ the 9th apparently went ‘to ‘roost ‘on a box’ beside imy cock” Nicobar Pigeon, and had its bill’split into fine Tes ih the? morning it was,dead beside the-box. We : ' By this time the older “squeaker” had ae giivedt its full” léngth of tail, ‘and was ‘clearly’ seen to be a young Necklaced. Dove (of course with ino trace of the white-spotted collar, which.’ does not appear until later), then the wet nights gave it Crs it became helpless, bronchitic, and on the 17th Septeniber it died. This bird being in its first plumage, and therefore some- _ what younger than those described by. Count Salvadori, it is worth whilé to note its colouring :—Forehead and cheeks . whitish ash ; crown and mantle ash-grey, all the feathers more _ or less broadly fringed with vinaceous brown; back vinaceous - brown in front ; lower back and rump ashy-grey with smoky — tips to all the feathers: Lesser wing-coverts mostly vinaceous * brown with blackish shaft-streaks, but the outer ones white with - blackish streaks, and the bend of the wing pure white ; outer ~ primary coverts ashy with blackish shaft-streaks; outer median and secondary coverts whitish ash, with white ouier borders ; rémaining coverts smoky brown, enehed externally with vina=‘ ceous, and with blackish streaks ; primaries blackish, the second, third and fourth emarginate, an white-edged externally beyond - the middle; the remainder narrowly from beyond the middle on: both sides. ‘with rufous-brown ; outer secondaries blackish, * edged exterirally towards the tips with white ; inner secondaries ~ vihaceous with black shafts, edges clearer euros: brown ; two ~ central tail-feathers smoky-brown, remaining feathers ‘black: the- three outer ones on each side broadly tipped’ with white ; chin and front of the throat white gradually passing‘into vinaceous.* lavender on the breast, becoming paler and more buff-tinted on - the abdomen ‘and flanks and chalky white on the vent and under~ tail-coverts. \ Bill dark leaden-grey ; feet cane flesh- ee iris. pale straw- yellow. - “About the middle of September Sud before the death of. the second of the two young birds (both of which proved to be— males) I fixed up a series of pigeon holes, with shallow boxes filled with bran and hay, at one end of the aviary, and shut off” the Nicobar Pigeons by closing the door of communication” (which divides the-garden aviary into two).’ Before the end of? the month the hen bird was again sitting, this time steadily and- without the aid of the Bronze-necks, upon two eggs; but, by” aout ‘the second week in Oober these were deser ted ‘and, firidinge théni-clear,:I- blew them for iny collection. ~Early - in- 27: November the hen. was;again sitting, but’ not Senge au. the; oe nights soon drove her from: ane nest. alia Pabitis. species: ee ae ond by at least two aviculturists in. Germany. ea: mieten EOD aE: e \ pe rae SEM DOMESTICATED MOORHENS. : : ) Py Cais Louis Herr. SE fs I have. a small pond very near to my house, so near r that: the Moorhens. from neighbouring water would never have taken, possession. of it of their own accord... With the view of establish-, ing them,.three years since I obtained some half-dozen pinioned:; young oties, and kept. them in a fruit cage* not far from the water, until the ensuing spring. While in the cage, I ‘accustomed~ them to:take wheat from a Pheasant feeder, weighted so as to lift- easily. After they,were set at liberty, the presence of some meni,» who. were working close to.the pond, frightened them all away,: Ein passant, | may remark that, in my opinion, they wotild have; remained if some faggots had been immersed, close to the bank, “under which they could have concealed: themselves ,without) leaving the water. I afterwards had two. refuges ‘made of; branches, etc., so that the birds are never far from cover,’ The next autumn I obtained another consignment of young ones, and kept them in the cage until the spring. During- the. severe weather one of the previous batch returned, and: remained about, with, an absence of five days in the spring,. until the new-comers were liberated. It had made friends. through. the wires, and quickly mated when the cage-door was. left open. During 1896 the. couple reared two broods. About. the first week i in October great commotions were heard in the. pond, and all but one of the young disappeared, apparently, driven away by the old ones. The. remaining young one left this, spring. This year I took regular notes of the nesting operauons a résumé of which may, I think, interest the members. ee -On the 16th of February my favourites were flirting. The, Hee morning, although frosty, one of them was seen carrying: building Heteral in its beak from the little island to the nearest’ covert... The next day the rudiments of a nest were seen on. the island. ‘The male-bird had, for the past fortnight, been very > tame. From this time until the 18th of March the weather was ; very raw -and, disagreeable,..and the construction of the nest” proceeded:iny a: very desultory manner. The first egg appeared; on the 19th of March, and others followed daily. until the seventh - chen a large. cage- tiie atrangenient in which fruit is grown to protect it from the birds: “Ep, - 28 - was laid on the 25th. The hen then began-to sit closely, allowing us to pass within some eight or nine feet of her without leaving the nest. This favour was not accorded to others. The hen got up and made for covert the moment that she heard a strange voice; and one visitor only (a lady) was fortunate enough to see her on the nest. While the laying proceeded the nest was constantly added to. This was continued during sitting until April the roth, when the nest presented the appearance of a bulky mass of weeds. The bottom had been raised as well as additions made. At this date the male was very bold, and was engaged in picking over the tops of the weeds, apparently searching for suitable food for the expected chicks. On the 15th the male was even bolder, and coolly sat preening his feathers, regardless of my watching the performance. The next day six young came off, one egg remaining in the nest. The demeanour of the male was peculiar, and quite different from the previous’ season: he kept away from the brood and appeared to take no notice of them. Rain followed for two days, and the hen was continually brooding the young on the nest. When she left it on the 18th the seventh egg had gone and the hatching numbered seven birds. The cock was now in attendance, although not nearly so fussy as in the previous season. A few days afterwards it was noticed that some bread, which had been thrown on the water, had been taken into the nest: it is fair, therefore, to presume that the parents considered it suit- able food for the young. The male was also observed feeding the hen as she sat brooding on the nest. For a few days it was noticed that the tops of the irises, which held a booby nest the previous year, were bent over, and on the 21st the foundations of a nest were to be seen. The male bird had been constantly about the. place, but the hen had not been near it. Two days afterwards, the male and two chicks were in this nest, while the old one was occupied by the hen and the other young. On May: the 1st I was surprised to see three eggs in the new nest. Further eggs were laid daily until the 5th, when absence from home suspended my observations. Before my leaving, however, the | hen had commenced sitting. Returning home on the 17th, I found that the eggs had been stolen during my absence. On? the 1oth it was observed that a new nest had been built among the’ sticks near the island, and was nearly ready to receive the eggs. Further work was done at this new nest, but it was finally” abandoned, and a new one commenced in a much safer position ~ in a willow clump a little distance from the bank. The next day the ’ robbed nest was pulled in pieces, and another nest observed on 29 the island. In all, three new nests had been built, and the robbed one destroyed, since the eggs were taken. On the 22nd, further work was proceeding at the willow. The abandoned nest in the sticks was used for brooding the first clutch, and trodden out of all shape by them. ‘The nest in the willow was worked at daily, and on the 29th two eggs were observed therein. The next day the eggs could not be counted, as fresh reeds had been added to the sides of the nest so as to partially conceal then. On the 15th of June an egg was floating on the water near the nest; the male bird was seen raising the sides of the nest round the sitting hen. On the 20th three chicks appeared, while three eggs remained in the nest. The next day there were still but three chicks, and I had to leave home. On my return, on the 25th, I counted six chicks, but one was in the water looking very weakly. The next day it was floating, dead, close to the nest; but the parent birds made no effort to remove it. The same day I saw one of the first hatching sitting on the nest, brooding the little ones. When the chicks were a week old the parents, for some reason or other, began to still further raise the sides of the nest. A few days afterwards, one of the old ones was brooding the young on the site of the original nest on the island, which was partially renewed by bending down the growing rushes ; and the nest on the willow had the sides further repaired, as if in readiness for a fourth laying. This was continued for several days, but no eggs were laid. A new nest of reeds was observed on the island, but judging from its small size and bad workmanship, it was probably built by the young in imitation of the parents. The tops of a bed of irises were bent over some two feet above water, so as to form a platform, on which one of the adult birds was sunning itself. On the 28th of August, it was noticed that all the nests, except that on the island (Supposed to be the work of the young birds), were pulled to pieces, and the materials scattered about. In the latter end of September, the number of young birds was reduced to two; but whether this was the work of cats or rats, or was the result of the others being driven away by the parents, can only be conjectured. None of the commotions heard in 1896 have been noticed this year A comparison of the behaviour of my Moorhens with that of those in St. James’s Park, is curious. While mine are nearly as tame, so far as we are concerned, as those in London, yet they remain as wary as wild birds, with regard to strangers; while those in the Park are quite indifferent to the presence of anyone. 30 Vale BRS BIOS Ay Wiis LONDON ANID PROVINCIAL ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY’S EXHIBITION. Fleld in the Aquarium, Westminster, on Nov 2nd, 3rd, & 4th, 1897. By REGINALD PHILLIPPS. The members of this Society are heartily to be con- gratulated on their fine Exhibition of Birds, held on the first Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of November. The total number of exhibits must have been great; and possibly to this may be attributed various errors in numbering, missorting of cages—getting worse each day it seemed to me— and other little matters vexatious to the spirit of the orderly man; alittle more organization or supervision would not have hurt anybody. The sickness and mortality among the birds was not inconsiderable, for which some of the exhibitors were not wholly irresponsible. Apparently quite a number were more or less debarred from drinking by their over-careful owners. The very shallow show-cages, too shallow to allow some of the birds to moderately extend their wings, and cruelly exposing nervous and timid species, were sad to behold. And can all this pretty painting of the inside of cages be otherwise than injurious? Let me stateacase. I purchased a bird on the Wednesday, not a first class, but an apparently healthy, specimen. On the Thursday it was lumpy; aud on the Friday morning when I took it home it was nearly as round asa ball. Fora day or two it was very bad, but has since moderately improved. On inspecting the cage, I found not only that the inside had been painted light green but that actually the water-tin had been painted zzside and out. I suppose birds must be exhibited, but exhibitors need not go out of their way to predispose the poor captives to sickness and death. Thanks to the glass roof of the Aquarium having been thoughtfully covered over, the light was atrocious, rendering it practically impossible to study some of the rarer exhibits as one would have wished to have done. Once more this Society has shown that it is possible to have a great exhibition in the middle of the week, without intruding on the sanctity of Sunday. 31 Of the British birds I did not take much notice, for I did not know that I should have to write about them; and I spent most of my time—all too little—among the foreigners ; however, as our Hon. Secretary proposes writing about the latter, for the sufficient reason that he had not time to look at the former at all, I must just do my best. For many years of my life I studied British birds in their natural haunts, and likewise as pets—I lived among the birds. As pets, some are incomparable; but pets are one thing, common species as show-birds quite and altogether another. Then some that are beautiful when wild are comparatively despicable as show-birds. What more beautiful in the wild state than a pair of Bullfinches and the male Blackbird! but over the dowdy creatures at a show I cannot get up any interest. And concerning those that do not materially lose their colours: I would infinitely rather see them in the fields and pastures. The Goldfinch, Bullfinch, Linnet, Siskin Redpolland Twite, classes I “passed by on the other side.” It is curious that in class 87, “ Any other variety of Finch or Bunting,” although I simply strolled down the line without a thought of awards (for I went to look at the birds, not to criticise the judging), only five caught my eye, and I now observe that four of these gained the first four prizes. I admired Mr. Raine’s Hawfinch as much as I condemned its owner for placing such a comparatively large bird in so small a cage. Miss Benbow came second with a large, tight, not very bright, Greenfinch, a bird always associated in my mind with supper for the many Hawks of my early days. Mr. Lott came next with a very large Chaffinch, and Mr. Allen fourth with a nice Snow Bunting. I have a note of faint praise against Mr. Jones’ Reed Bunting, which probably I looked at as being less common than the majority of the very common birds of which the class was composed. Against only one bird in the Lark class have I a note— against Mr. and Mrs. Vincent’s young Wood Lark, a very favourite bird of mine, and always interesting as being the only bird in this country that sings on the wing at night. I dare say the Blackbirds, Starlings, and Thrushes in class 89 were all right— indeed, I am convinced that they must have been; but somehow against only one of the whole lot have I a note, against Mr. Kneen’s well marked Thrush (2nd); nevertheless I am rather suspicious of the Show Thrush, as it is a bird not always innocent of colour-food. Classes 90 and 96 (Migratory, and small Inse¢ctivorous) were more interesting ; the former con- 32 tained over 40 birds; but to my mind the general quality of the exhibits was poor, and some were poorly. Notwithstanding the excellency of Mr. Maxwell’s bird (ist, in the large class)— aud Mr. Frostick’s (1243) was not bad—the sight of so many (seven) Swallows in show-cages was sickening; at least one succumbed during the show. ‘there were an unusual number of White-throats, Lesser White-throats, and Chiffchaffs, difficult birds to keep for a long season; and none were in good form. The various Wagtails did not come out nearly so well as one occasionally sees them; but the Redstarts and Redwings were looking smart, and should not have been so severely let alone by the Judge, Mr. Erskine’s Redstart alone getting V.H.C. There were three fairly good Ring Ouzels; and Mr. Lowne obtained a second with a good Wheatear, Messrs. Fulljames and Philips likewise exhibiting satisfactory specimens. A solitary Fieldfare was ignored ; it was not a well coloured bird, but, for a caged Fieldfare, was in good plumage. Mr. Poynter’s Wren declined to be interviewed, for which I was really very sorry; Mr. Wells’ Great Tit treated me with like discourtesy (both gentlemen had humanely supplied a shelter for their exhibits), and Mr. Dewhurst’s would have done dz¢/o if it had not been in such a miserable cage that escape was impossible. Two of the much rarer Crested Tits appear in the catalogue, but I remember seeing but one, and that looked sickly; the other may have been present; but several exhibits which appeared before the Judge. were not apparent on Wednesday. A Nuthatch seemed contem- plating suicide, and likewise two unfortunate Spotted Fly- catchers ; how dull and spiritless they were compared with the wild bird! The Nightingales were not much, and one looked remarkably like a Sprosser. Mr. Dewhurst’s Greenshank appeared in good order, and might have been noticed—for it is a much more suitable bird for a show than a Swallow or even than a Spotted Flycatcher. Two Robins and a Blackcap about complete the list of species exhibited in these interesting classes. In the Rare-feathered class, Ishould like to have seen Miss Martin’s striking Fawn Starling placed first; it was, if anything, in better condition, and is of a rarer colour, than Mr. Herbert’s White Blackbird. Mr. Prior’s Pied Blackbird (3rd) was a hand- somely-marked specimen. I have a moderately favourable note against Mr. Hiscock’s Drab Greenfinch (5th), but do not remem- ber the bird. I think there were eight birds in the class when I passed it; and to give six “prizes” under such circumstances is not prize giving at all, unless the birds are of exceptional merit, which the Cinnamon Chaffinch (4th) and Cinnamon Star- 33 ling (6th) did not appear to my eyes to be. Only six prizes were given in class 90. Besides, /zvst in a class of eight or nine (classes 88, 91, and 93) should not be placed on a level with /7rst in a class of forty-four. Bothin my notes and in my memory, Mr. Taylor’s White Linnet (H.C.) and Messrs. Kilbury’s White Sky Lark (V.H.C.) have become mixed. I think they ,were both good birds in bad plumage. In the A. O. V. class, I do not know if there has been a mixing up of the names, the numbers, or of my brains, but the Missel Thrush, which I took to be Mr. Wilson’s (C.), was far superior to its neighbour (2nd), and should have been placed in amuch better position; but, perhaps, it was not “steady” enough to please the judge; some judges seem to prefer a steady, lifeless bird to a lively, vigorous one. The Magpies and Jays were scarcely up to the mark ; but the two Great Spotted Wood- peckers were moderately good. The only class that now remains for me to deal with, that for < ‘ Any Variety of Rare Continental Bird,” should have a place i in every large Exhibition, and I hope to see it at the Palace in the future, although the word “rare” is quite out of place. In this class there appeared two good specimens of my favourite Pied Rockthrush, Mr. Fulljames’ taking the first prize, Mr. Frostick’s the third. Two Blue-throated Warblers were announced in the catalogue, and both “exhibits” seem to have been before the judge, but no such bird was visible when I paid my first visit to the show, z.e., on the Wednesday. These charming but delicate pets are not fit for show life: why cannot exhibitors be satisfied with the many robust species! Cage 1209 had disappeared, but cage 1208 had not. In it, however, instead of a Bluebreast, I found a Blue Rockthrush (2nd), a good specimen; but it is a far easier species to keep in health than the Pied Rockthrush. Mr. Lowne’s Ortolan Bunting (4th) should have been placed in class. 87. Concerning the Eastern Nightingale, known in this country by the rather misleading name of Greater Nightingale, and in Germany by the handy name of Sprosser, it was some two or three years ago that it was brought under my: notice that a few were being exhibited as British; but I must add that, as I know to my cost, not every bird that is sold as a Sprosser is a Sprosser. I: have such an one now,—as honest a Western Nightingale as ever was hatched. Mr. Fulljames’ bird was certainly a Sprosser, but I am not so sure about No. 1212, not so sure by a long way as I am of the bird in.class 90 which I have already referred to; but the two species are difficult to distinguish in a bad light. 34: ~ AMONG | THE FOREIGN BIRDS: AT | THE ROYALS ine | AQUARIUM. | Spec ena a ; pot By sl. R. PILLMER.. pat) ots I have never - yet seen a building perfe@tly adapted for: a bird- show, but of all’ unsuitable places the , Westminster” Aquarium is the worst. The light is extremely bad in the’ daytime ; the atmosphere loaded with tobacco-smoke is most offensive to non-smokers in which » class the birds must be: included) ; and the fact that a variety entertainment is going on upon the stage in the centre of the hall all the afternoon does ' not (to put it mildly) assist one’s quiet enjoyment of the birds.” Still, in spite of the noise, the smoke, and the dim light, the’ Aquarium Show of November 1897 was well worth a visit ; for- the collection of birds ‘has, possibly, never r been excelled for’ rarity and interest. ee In numbers alone ihe Show was a nouaibile one, inet being, 193 entries of foreign birds. “The Class for Rare Continental Birds is a capital idea and. contained some -very interesting birds, including a.Blue Rock, ‘ Thrush, two. Pied Rock Thrushes; and two. specimens of, Daulias philomela (one entered as a Greater Nightingale the other as a. Sprosser). The* Blue Rock. Thrush ‘was catalogued asa “ Blue- , throated Warbler.” There was, also. an Ortolan Bunting in this: class—this. species is a fairly fr equent visitor to our shores and i is © recognised as, British by the Avicultural Society. - It is not my intention to give anything ‘like a detailed, report of the Show and I shall, therefore, pass over in silence» the class for Amazons and Grey Parrots, and come to the more interesting class for Macaws, Cockatoos and Parrots (other than > Amazons ‘and: Greys) including “‘Loreys,” (as:the catalogue has. it). Here were several birds well worth a long journey to see.’ The gem of thé collection was, I think, the beautiful Hawk-. headed “Parrot “exhibited by:: Mr. ‘Maxwell: Mr. Fulljames’ > Hyacinthine Macaw, which took ‘first (prize, was in fine con- dition, “but appeared to’me to be rather smaller than other - specimens ‘which I have seen, and in rarity it scarcely equals the. Hawk-headed Parrot. The Spix Macaw was: unforttinately in. rather poor feather. ‘The two Ganga Cockatoos,.sent by.different> éxhibitors, were a’ pair ; and visitors.to the Show had, therefore, ; an opportunity of observing the striking difference between the: sexes in this''rare species’ (the female lacks the red head and: crest which are the distinguishing. features-of-the male). The 35 pair of Meyer’s Parrots: were charming little birds, but their tails! were very rough. The Bronze-wing Parrot was quite new to me—: is this the same as the Dusky Parrot (Pionus violaceus)? A Blue-=" eyed Cockatoo, ‘a Blood-stained Cockatoo, two Senegal Parrots)’ two or three Macaws of common species, a Purple-capped Lory,: aiid another Lory (1 ‘think Zos reticulata), made up a class of: mniost unusual merit. ©The Blue-streaked (or Reticulated) Lory: had nothing to eat but canary seed and dry. bread, and -was evidently starving——probably it died before the Show was. over. The Class for Budgerigars Love Birds and Pigmy Parrots. contained nothing of special interest except two pairs of Blue~ crowned Hanging Parrots. The Class for Parrakeets and Lorikeets contained. many good birds. It included a Blue-bonnet, two pairs of Lineolated” Parrakeets, a pair of Orange - flanked Parrakeets (Brotogerys” pyrrhopterus), two pairs of Many-coloureds, and a Turquoisine; not to, metition several commoner species. Of the Lorikeets, only the Ornamented and Forsten’s were represented. The: Purple-breasted’ Lory was in the wrong class but, nevertheless,’ : got Epp rizen In the Class for Waxbills, Mannikins and Combasous, Mae. ‘ Maxwell’s lovely pair of Violet-eared Waxbills were most. deservedly first. The third prize went to a pair of Mannikins, which I could not identify, There were also Aprora Finches, Cordon. Bleus, Crimson Finches, a cock African Fire. Finch, (rarely seen at a Show), Green Avadavats and Magpie Mannikins.. A psPpd Class, but not equal in interest to the Parrot Classes. The Class for Weayers and Whydahs comprised a Crimson=: Mi cated Whydah and a Ong tailed Oe along with some! COMMON, SPECIES. -> ss. "1; : ; - The’ Class for gee variety of seed-eating birds”’r Why “variety,” by the way?) was of great merit, and contained: 34 entries. Apparently the Judge did not consider it to be part! of his.duty to disqualify birds in the wrong class, and under the circumstances. I am not surprised at this: for to do so he would: have had'to draw a hard ‘and fast line between the Grassfinches* and the other Ploceid@ with nothing in the Schedule to guider him, and that was a task from which any Judge might shrink.. The result, however, was that birds of the same genus were. allowed to compete in’ different Classes—the Class now under: cousideration containing several entries of Weavers and Java Sparrows. : A Pair: Of. Long-tailed Grassfinches were first; a; Three-coloured Parrot Finch second, pairs-of Parrot Finches f ' 36 third and fourth, Gouldian Finches fifth, and a male Cuba Finch sixth. Mr. Cushny’s Citril Finch ought not to have been passed unnoticed, and Mr. Maxwell’s Mexican Siskin deserved more than a V.H.C. The Diuca Buntings, also, were worthy of a card, at least. All the prizes, except the sixth, were awarded to Grassfinches—which was rather hard on the Finches. The millet seed with which the Mexican Siskin was supplied was a most unsuitable diet for the little fellow. Insectivorous or Fruit-eating Birds, larger than a Blue Robin.—The first prize was awarded to a splendid Green-crested Touracou, the second to a Toco Toucan, the third toa pair of Lettered Aracari, the fourth to a beautiful Andaman Starling, the fifth to a Purple-headed Glossy Starling, and the sixth to a Malabar Starling. A Blue-winged Green Bulbul was V.H.C. —why will the owner of this bird persist in calling it a ‘‘ Blue-: winged Sugar-bird”’ ? Insectivorous or Fruit-eating Birds, not larger than a Blue Robin.—This was a splendid. Class. The judging which gave the first prize to a Superb Tanager over the heads of so many rare birds was, to say the least, eccentric. I do not profess to know the species of Mr. Maxwell’s bird (entered as a Blue-faced Tanager) which was placed second, but it was a lovely bird in perfect condition, and probably the first of its kind which has been shown in England. The third prize-winner much re- sembled the female Dacuzs cayana, but had blue on the breast as well as on the head. A Tri-coloured Tanager was fourth; a pair of Fuscous Honey-eaters fifth, and a Violet Tanager sixth. The Class also contained a nice pair of Zosterops and some good ‘Tanagers of various common species. A Pileated Finch should have been ‘ wrong-classed.” The Members’ Classes presented rather a mixture, but there were several entries of great merit. Among them I must specially mention Mr. Maxwell’s pair of Violet Tanagers (the hen being seldom imported) and Mr. Fulljames’ Golden-crowned New Zealand Parrakeets (Cyanorhamphus auriceps). ‘These last- named birds were catalogued as ‘‘ New Zealand Parrakeets,” a name usually reserved for the commoner and less attractive C. nove-zealandie. Mr. Frostick’s Bulbul took my fancy greatly. He calls it a Persian Bulbul—is this the same as the Syrian Bulbul, and, again, is the Scinde Bulbul the same or a different bird ?* I must confess that the Bulbuls are beyond me, though * The Syrian Bulbul (P. xazthopygus) is perfectly distinct from the Persian, but. the latter occurs at Scinde, where however it is smaller. and not so good a singer as the Persian bird.—A. G. B. : 37 they are not quite so confusing as the different species of Zosterops. It was a splendid Show, and its splendour was entirely due to two exhibitors (Mr. Fulljames and Mr, Maxwell) who sent about 45 entries each in the Foreign Classes, and one or the other of whom was the owner of almost every rare and interesting exhibit in those Classes. CORRESPONDENCE, THE QUAKER PARRAKERT, S1Rr,—I shall be very grateful for information in answer to the follow- ing queries :— Is the Quaker Parrakeet known by any other name? The Colour ? Size? And locality ? I have had the offer of one, but having never had the ‘ Quaker Parrakeet,”’ I am quite in the dark, M, HUSBAND, The following reply was sent to Miss Husband : The Grey-breasted Parrakeet (IZyopsittacus monachus) is very common- ly known as the Quaker Parrakeet. It comes from Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay, isa conmimon bird, and is usually obtainable for a few shillings. Speaking generally, the upper parts are green. wings mostly blue, while the upper parts of the head, the cheeks, throat, and breast, are grey; and the under parts are yellowish-green. Notwithstanding their plain colour, I have seen real beauties; but too often they are nothing to look at. They are naturally very sociable; and, when made pets of, especially if there be only one, they will usually lavish their love of companionship upon their owners. They are hardy, and may be taught to talk a little; but they bear a bad character for Screaming, especially when kept in a cage, and are not general favourites. To aviculturists, however, they are intensely interesting from the circumstance that, unlike any other known member of the Parrot order, they build nests, not of strips of bark, in holes, like the Lovebirds (see our Magazine, Vol. II, pp. 49 and 128), but of sticks at the top of tall trees.. They have not infrequently built nests in captivity. Including the tail, the Quaker Parrakeet is about 114 inches long— roughly speaking, of the size of a Turtle Dove. REGINALD PHILLIPPS. JAVA SPARROWS. -Srr,—It may be of interest to state that a young Grey Java Sparrow flew, on November 6th, in my garden aviary. ‘This speaks well for the hardiness of the species, for the last days of October were very sharp, with east winds and dense fogs lasting mostly all day, and up to the present we 38 ‘have had heavy fogs daily—yet this young bird is one of the strongest I have seen. ; ae This reminds me I omitted to describe the young in my article in last mionth’s Magazine. Briefly, they resemble in colour a light hen Bullfinch ; .they have black beaks—the flesh-coloured legs and feet being the only points of resemblance to the adult birds; but at about three months they assume the full adult plumage. W. T. PAGE: BIRD ‘CALLS. S1r,—Can any member help me to identify two calls heard in August, this year? One was ‘‘te-te-te,” uttered rapidly in a long series without variation. It was heard for about a week in the neighbourhood of my ‘raspberries, but the bird was not seen.* ‘The second was ‘“ peewit,” uttered by a bird about the size of a Common Bunting, perched on the top of a small spruce in my garden; when alarmed it dropped down into the bushes. It appeared to be too large for a Lesser Redpoil, but I know of no other bird ‘of about the size which uses the call in question. CHAS. LouIS HET’: FOOD FOR THE PIN-TAILED NONPAREIML, : Srr,—It has always been insisted on that, when first imported, Erythrura prasina requires paddy-rice (its natural food) in order to bring it into condition. : On the 19th of February, 1897, I purchased a pair of this species and was much exercised in my mind as to what I snould do, owing to the utter impossibility of obtaining rice in the ear. I had tried everywhere and could not get even a sample of this seed. I even asked a friend to enquire at the docks, but he told me he could not get it, as the demand for it was insufficient to induce the importers to ship it to England. Suddenly it occurred to me these birds might possibly be induced to ‘accept oats as a substitute, The result was most satisfactory; the oats weré eaten with relish and, I believe, with better effect. My hen was out of chealth when I purchased her, unable to reach her perch excepting by clambering up the wires; but she gained strength and, for several months, jnanaged to fly up to roost; then again she became weak, and in August she died. The cock bird got well through its autumn moult, and is still in fine Condition and perfect plumage. .__I-now use oats instead of paddy -rice for all rice caries birds, and find them to do better on them: this is not surprising; for there can be no doubt that the former seed is far more sustaining arn nutritious than the Tae A. G. BUTLER. * This might be the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker. One ‘of its notes is much like the spring call of the Wryneck.—W. H. Sr. Q. ‘39 ‘FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. Srtr,—I see in the November No. some remarks by Mr. Perkins on the smaller Warblers. As I have only kept four soft-food birds in my life, my observations must be taken with great reserve. Supposing insects are essential, are there not dried mosquitoes sole (from Germany) which might do ? But are insects essential ? Some 40 years ago, I think, there were some very interesting articles on the management of Nightingales, etc., by Sergeant Flanly, of the 2nd Life Guards, in the “eld. Sergeant Hanly had succeeded in breeding Nightingales in a breeding-cage. His diet was lean raw. beef pounded with yolk of hard-boiled egg. Is it certain that zz confinement the natural food is best ? © The Blue Mountain Lory, the late Mr. Jamrach told me, could never be kept as long as they tried to feed it on honey and other soft food. It was not till they put it entirely on to seed that they were successful. After that, they were imported in large numbers without risk. Again, the Tui bird—a great honey-eater—Mr. Abrahams told me that to give them honey was fatal. It may not be so, but an acquaintance of mine wouii give his birds honey, and in that case the result predicted by Mr. Abrahams at once followed. The bird was seized with fits and died. It appears to do well fed on biscuit and condensed milk; or on boiled mashed DOOD ese articles which are very far removed fron: the natural food. I would humbly suggest that someone should try the raw beef nat egg regimen with the smaller Warblers. : I cannot say that Mr. Perkins’ dietary sounds a likely one. An aviary may have something to do with the ill-success. _ Many birds might do well in a cage that would die in an aviary. Gap DienONe I fully agree with the main point in Mr. Dutton’s letter, viz., that the natural food of a bird in a state of freedom is not necessarily that which is best suited to maintain it in health in captivity. With - regard to dried mosquitoes (or flies), it seems to be generally’ recognised that their food value is inferior to that of ants’ eggs, and that they are useful only as affording a variety and: (possibly) a cheaper food. With all respect to the memory of the late Mr. Jamrach, I feel bound to point out that the notion that Lorikeets should be fed on seed is now, almost exploded. They live well enough on biscuit soaked in boiled milk, and fruit, with a little seéd. Doubtless they can be made to live on seed alone, sometimes for a good long time, but it is no more a proper diet for them than breadcrumbs and hempseed are for a Robin. Of course, biscuit” and milk are quite as unnatural a food for Lorikeets as seed is, so that this in no way weakens Mr. Dutton’ S$ argument. If condensed milk agrees so well with Tunis, it seems aiearnae that honey should be fatal to them—for the only way in which honey could affect them injuriously would, I suppose, be by causing excessive fatness and thus producing fits. But condensed milk is nearly as sweet as honey, 40 and therefore, one would imagine, almost as fat-producing. I am not striving to throw a doubt on the fact that honey is bad for captive Tuis, for that seems fairly well established, but only wondering why it should be so, I do not share Mr. Perkins’ high opinion of egg as a food for soft- bills. Itis certainly very nourishing, but I fancy it is not always easily digested. And there is such a thing as giving too many mealworms. Will Mr. Dutton kindly tell us which are the birds that do better in 4 cage than in an aviary? I have never found this to be so with any which I have kept. I have heard it hinted that if the smaller Warblers are to be kept at all they must be fed largely on gentles. But, as it has been well expressed, ‘©a bird which can only be kept on gentles is not worth keeping at all.” HORATIO R. FILLMER, [Further correspondence on this subject of ‘‘ Food for Soft-billed Birds’’ is invited. The greatest diversity of treatment prevails, and all members who have successfully kept the rarer or more delicate species, whether British or foreign, are urged to state the food which they have found to be, in their experience, the best.—Ep.]- THE NOMENCLATURE OF FOREIGN DOVES. Srr,—Considerable confusion exists with regard to the correct names of many foreign Doves. In 1894 I obtained a pair of Turtles, the name of which I was ignorant of at the time. I subsequently found that at the Zoological Gardens the species was labelled ‘‘ Vinaceous Turtle-dove.” I, therefore, since then have always referred to these Doves by the above name. = This pair has been in my possession since the spring of the above year, and I have sent their young to aviculturists in various parts of the country, always under the above name; so that the species is known thus to several aviculturists. Another, somewhat larger bird with a black ring on its neck, some- what resenibling a large Barbary Dove, has for years been nanied the ‘‘Cambayan Turtle” by the Zoological Society. It appears however that the above learned Society have now dis-. covered that they have been confusing the two species; and they are now labelling the two species vice-versa. My birds are, therefore, Cambayan Turtle-doves (Z. senegalensis), ; The true Zurtur vinaceus is considerably larger than the Barbary Dove, which species it closely resembles, although somewhat browner in colour. It is often confounded with the Half-Collared Turtle (Zurtur semitorquatus), a species slightly smaller than the Barbary Dove. * The true Zurtur senegalensis has no ring on the neck. It is of a. ruddy pink hue, with small black markings on the throat. The rump and wing coverts are of a delicate bluish grey, D. SETH-SMITH. * This is certainly incorrect: for Count Salvadori (the greatest authority on the Columbe, gives the total length of :7wtur semztorquatus as 12.4 inches, and that of ZT’. rizortus aS about 10 inches. Thesc measurements are borne out by the skins in the British Museum and specimens which I have kept of both.—A. G. B. HE Mvicultural Magazine, AWICULINUIRAI | SOG SIE VOL. IV.—NoO. 39. All rights reserved. JANUARY, 1898. THE BRONZE-WINGED PIGEON. (Phaps chalcoptera). By D. SETH-SMITH. Of colours less startling than many of the feathered inhabitants of the Australian groves, the members of the Pigeon tribe, one and all, from the magnificent Crowned Pigeon to the tiny Diamond Dove, are unsurpassed for quiet beauty of plumage and gracefulness of shape and bearing. In most parts of that Island-continent, so rich in feathered gems, the Bronze-wing abounds, and is sometimes seen in large numbers feeding on the stubble-fields ; or from a distance the mournful love-note of the male is heard, as, with expanded crop and bowed head, he flaps his jewelled wings to attract the attention of his mate. During the dry season, we are told that numbers of Bronze-wings may be observed, towards evening, winging their way, with arrow-like flight, towards some distant pool. The thirsty traveller notes the direction of their flight, knowing full well that by careful observation of the habits of these birds he may be able to find water to refresh himself and his steed. In a wild state, Bronze-wings are said to nest from August to December. Selby tells us that ‘‘ It breeds in holes or decayed stumps of trees near the ground, and not unfrequently upon the surface of the earth itself.” This statement is evidently far from correct, for in captivity the highest available position is always chosen for a nest, which is built preferably in the open. Of the foreign members of the Dove tribe, the Bronze- wing is one of the best known, but is, nevertheless, by no means frequently met with in living collections at home. Why this should be is not clear, seeing that the species possesses so many attractive qualities. It is easily tamed, quite hardy, very 42 beautiful, and, as will be hereafter shown, a free breeder in captivity. Those of our members who possess the old Jardine’s Naturalists’ Library will be familiar with a life-like illustration of a cock Bronze-wing, which gives a very fair idea of the general appearance of the bird. In size it nearly equals the English Ringdove (Columba palumbus). The plumage of the male is chiefly of a mottled brown on the upper parts, which, in some lights, presents a greenish tint. The breast is a very delicate vinous pink, which shades into purplish blue on the sides of the neck. A well defined white line encircles the eye and extends backwards towards the nape. The tail is blue-grey, and the under wing- coverts orange. It is in the wings that the great beauty of the species lies. These present in the sunlight the most exquisite tints—the sapphire, ruby, and opal all being in turn reflected. The hen closely resembles her mate but is of more slender build, and the colours on the wing-coverts are less brilliant and of a greener tint. She lacks also the forehead markings of the cock.* I obtained a cock Bronze-wing on the 28th of May, 1896. He had just arrived from Tasmania, and was somewhat rough in feather although otherwise in good condition. He soon became quite tame, and, until a short time ago, remained a bachelor in my aviary. He never interfered in the least with the other occupants of his domain, some of which were Doves of various species—and Doves are not usually the most peace- able of birds. In August last, I received a note from a dealer, tothe effect that he had a hen Bronze-wing for sale ;. and, accordingly, I lost no time in providing my old bachelor with a wife. She was rather wild at first, but, as is the nature of her species, very soon became tame. ‘The cock seemed very anxious to commence housekeeping; he would fly up on to an old basket-lid that was fixed to some branches, and there he would remain, sometimes for hours together, cooing and gently flapping his wings. At the end of September, a slight nest of twigs was formed on the top of the aforesaid basket-lid. All the nesting-material was carried up by the cock, the hen merely placing it in position. The pair took turns in the tedious process of incubation, the cock sitting during the greater part of the day, and the hen * Consisting of a large patch of buff.—A. G. B. 43 at night; and, although the weather became very cold—the thermometer falling almost to freezing-point on two or three occasions—the first egg was successfully hatched on the roth of October, the second youngster leaving the shell two days later. The old birds proved most devoted parents, never allowing their charges to be uncovered. Had they been less attentive to their young, the latter must have succumbed in a very short time to the cold. The young birds left the nest when just over two weeks old, but were fed by their parents until they had attained the age of six weeks or more. The young closely resembled their parents from the first, but the wing-markings were less distinct. The cock showed clearly the burnt-sienna on the forehead when still in the nest. I consider Bronze-wings the most attractive of the larger of the foreign Doves. They are of a tame nature, and do not knock themselves about when one enters the aviary, as do many of the Dove tribe. Mine are fed upon canary and millet seed, and a little hemp occasionally. There is a closely allied species, the Phaps elegans, or Opaline Pigeon, which is not uncommon in many parts of Australia; but I have never seen it offered for sale, neither is it represented in the Zoological Gardens. It would doubtless be a most desirable species for aviculturists. It is of a richer brown than, and in many respects closely resembles, its congener. SOME RARE BUNTINGS. : By Re Ay opp: I have recently acquired three Finches not often met with in captivity, regarding which some notes may be of interest to members of the Society. The most conspicuous is the Towhee or so-called Red Eyed Ground Finch of North America (Pipzlo erythrophthalmus). In colour it is curiously similar to the Shama; the head, back and wings, deep glossy black ; chest, breast and abdomen, white ; sides, bright chestnut; tail, black, the outer feathers being white on the outer side. ‘The hen is brownish where the cock is black. Size rather over seven inches, including tail, which is over three incheslong. Dr. Sharpe places this species among the Buntings, but the position is not unquestioned. The name is derived from the cry very frequently uttered by the cock, and is a very close imitation of it. The birdis undoubtedly pugnacious, and should only be associated with others of its own size. It takes readily 44 , to the usual seeds, but I think is largely insectivorous, as it is’ always eager for mealworms, and will consume a considerable quantity of egg food and ants’ eggs. Ido not find that it remains on the ground more than other finches, rather the contrary, and in this respect the English name does not seem justified ; the eyes in my birds are distinctly not red but brown, which is described as a feature of the immature bird. When on the ground it frequently scratches like the Combassou, and if its food be placed in an open pan will at once scatter the whole of it over the floor of the aviary.* It will, no doubt, be perfectly hardy in our climate. The White-throated Song Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), also a native of the Eastern United States, is a trifle larger than the Chingolo Song Sparrow, the tailin particular being longer and more graceful. The general colour is a greyish-brown, mottled’ with black centres to the feathers ; the most distinctive features are the white throat, from which the species takes its name, and a dash of yellow over the lores. ‘The hen has hardly a trace of the yellow dash, her throat being greyish, and the breast mottled very like a thrush. My birds have so far hardly uttered a sound, but I suppose they would naturally not sing in the winter. ‘They. are even fonder of mealworms than the Towhee, and will pluckily snatch one out of the very beak of a much larger bird. ‘They appear to be far bolder in character than their Chingolo relative, which with me has always shown a most retiring disposi- tion, usually hiding in a corner of the aviary during the middle of the day, though fairly active in the morning and afternoon, but even then rarely bold enough to come forward for a meal- worm. The third species I had some difficulty in identifying ; it is not always easy to make out an obscure bird from scientific descriptions. It is the “Little Sparrow” Bunting (Spzzella pusilla), also from North America. The totallength is less than five inches, of which over two inches are taken up by the tail. The general colour is rather bright brown with darker centres to the feathers, the under parts being decidedly paler; the very short conical beak and legs are pinkish. There seems to be no difference between the sexes. In my bird the right wing is almost entirely white, no doubt a case of albinism. Like the White-throated Song Sparrow he is very partial to mealworms. I have as yet observed no peculiarity in his habits. * This habit of scratching like a Combassou is characteristic of the Song Sparrows, and therefore confirmatory of its position among the Buntings.—A. G. B. —_ 45 THE GOLDEN-CROWNED PARRAKEET OF NEW ZEALAND. (Cyanorhamphus auriceps). By G. E. BousKILt.. Of all the Parrakeets I have kept, the subject of the present notice stands’ highest in my estimation. Its amiable disposition, its lively and active habits, and its not unmusical voice, together with its soft colours, would attract all lovers of the Parrakeet family. In size, the Golden- crown compares favourably with the Turquoisine, but is much stouter in build; the beak is very long and sharp, and of a bluish-slate colour with a black tip, and the lower mandible dark brown. A band of bright crimson surrounds the upper mandible, which extends to the eye. From the band of crimson to the crown of the head is a patch of golden yellow; the iris is a brilliant crimson; the back and the wings are of a dark bluish-green colour, and the front edges of the latter are a bright blue; the tail is dark bluish-green; all the under parts are of a yellowish-green colour. On the body under each wing is a patch of bright red. The legs are long and grey; the claws long and black. There appears to be no difference in the sexes, except that the female is about a third smaller than her mate; at least, such is the difference in size between the one female and the male birds which I possess. The habits of my Golden-crowned Parrakeets are very interestiig. They are remarkably tame, and, although so recently imported, will come quite close to me while feeding. When first introduced into my aviary, hardly two months ago, they made themselves at home and behaved as if they had been there all their lives. The long legs of this bird enable it to run and hop with great freedom, and it has the peculiar habit of scratching on the ground, after the manner of our common poultry. It is never tired of either running, hopping, or flying about and uttering its song (if such it can be called), and at such times it will stretch itself out with a forward motion, and then it is that the Golden-crown really looks at its best: for while it is singing, the dilating of the eye goes on and the iris becomes like a ball of fire. They are particularly fond of their bath—they quite drench themselves through, and then fly to the nearest branch to dry. Although their beaks are so long and sharp, yet they are very gentle. My Turquoisines 46 and even Budgerigars frequently drive them away if they approach them whilst feeding. During their short residence in my aviary one of the cocks has paired with the hen, and on the 24th October (exactly seven weeks after date of arrival) the hen bird laid her first egg; and on the 28th she was closely sitting on five pure white eggs. If any young are reared, I will ask you to let me record 1S IVC. The SONGS JOR. iANAGERS: By ARTHUR G. BUTLER, Ph.D. Dr. Carl Russ says of Tanagers:—‘‘ They have no true song, only low harsh unpleasant sounds,” and, because he regards the Violet Tanager as an exception to this rule, he adopts) fom it ithe name lok? Phe (Common) Organise aan ““ Whistler,” yet he says that it is “decidedly not a superior songster,” although Mr. Abrahams pronounces it ‘‘a magnificent songster.” Undoubtedly the renowned German aviculturist is, generally speaking, a very trustworthy guide in the treatment of birds; and what he tells us of their habits rightly commands our respect ; but, when we consider that none of his Tanagers lived long; that, by his own admission, they were invariably dirty, greedy, and abominably stupid, it stands to reason that we must accept his statements respecting their vocal acquirements cum grano salis, The Tanagers being intermediate in structure and in nidification between Finches and Warblers, it would be a curious fact, if it were a fact, that all, with the exception of the species of Luphonia, were songless. A German lady, Mrs. A. Musil, stated that her Scarlet Tanager uttered “clear Thrush-like sounds and a beautiful soft song, rich in variations, somewhat resembling that of the Robin,” and Dr. Russ quoted the statement with a note of interrogation, yet he does not appear to have attempted to investigate the matter for himself. When I have kept my two fine males long enough for them to become confiding, perhaps they will give me an opportunity of forming an opinion respecting the merit of their performance. My Superb Tanager, which I purchased on May 28th, 1897, moulted into splendid plumage last autumn, and is, without — Oe - 47 question, the healthiest and most intelligent representative ot its species which I have hitherto seen. Soon after I became possessed of it, this bird, in addition to its bright excited chirp, uttered a number of harsh Weaver-like notes which I took to be its song; but, this morning (December 6th, 1897), when my birds were just beginning to rouse from their long winter-night’s sleep,* I heard what sounded like the vecorded song of the Indigo-Bunting (a bird which I do not at present possess); this was immediately followed by three excited chirps, which I at once recognized as uttered by the Superb Tanager. The bird was sitting quietly at the end of his perch farthest from the front, and, as I watched, he again sang the same thin though cheerful little song, ending with the same chirping notes twice more; after which he stretched himself, first his legs and then his wings, hopped a little way along his upper perch, then flew to the lower one, and so down again to his food saucer, snatched a morsel of egg and returned to the lower perch to eat it; he is anything but a greedy bird. SOME BIRD-ROOM APPLIANCES. By H. R. FILLMER. Most aviculturists can only devote a strictly limited time each day to the care of their birds, and it therefore becomes almost a necessity for them to have such arrangements in their bird-rooms as will enable them to quickly perform the work of feeding and cleaning. Ina bird-room well-stocked with proper appliances, attending to the birds is a pleasure; but in a bird- room where nothing can be found when it is wanted, and where every article in use is badly adapted for its purpose, the work soon becomes a weariness, and often, in the end, the birds are got rid of in disgust. My present purpose is to describe briefly some appliances which I have found useful, and which I can recommend to others. Every bird-room should have an inner door, consisting of a wooden frame covered with wire netting—this allows the outer door to be left open for ventilation without risk of the escape of birds or the entrance of cats. For the same reason, the windows should be covered with netting, and also the opening of the * I never provide my birds with a night-light to enable them to feed at night; it is, in my opinion, absolutely unnecessary for birds in captivity, which generally eat more than is good for them, and I would challenge anyone to show a better Zostervops an Lavender Finch than those which have lived for over three years in my charge. e fire-place. If the netting be placed outside the windows, the sashes can be raised and lowered just as if it were not there, but there is the risk that birds may injure themselves against the glass. There really ought to be netting both outside and inside, that on the inside being stretched on a light moveable frame- work. It is not safe to have it only inside, for you are sure, some day, to forget to replace the frame after opening the window, and then, if a bird escape from cage or aviary, off he goes | A small sink in the bird-room is a great convenience, and those who have experienced the comfort of it would never be without one. The most suitable kind is made of earthenware, is nearly a foot in depth, and is furnished with a brass plug so that the water can be made to stand in it. If a supply of hot water as well as cold can be arranged, the soft-food vessels need not be taken out of the room to be cleaned. The wall beliind the sink should be covered with glazed tiles or sheet lead, to protect it from the splashing of tle water, (a piece of gutta percha tubing on the tap will minimise the splashing). If the food-vessels are washed in the room, there should be a draining-board at the side of the sink. A small ‘‘sanitary dust-bin” is handy. Needless to say, it should be emptied daily. There should be a large ventilator just under the ceiling, of the kind that can be opened and shut at will. Mine opens into the chimney, and is never shut. If it opened out-of-doors it might sometimes be necessary to shut it. For food-vessels I prefer white earthenware, as it is stronger than glass. Jones’s Fountains are far and away the best water-vessels, except for Parrots. A satisfactory water-vessel for Parrots has yet to be invented. Lories and Lorikeets I supply with water in soup-plates, for they require a bath at least once a day, whatever the weather may be. I have used one of Clark’s Syphon Gas Stoves in my bird-room for five winters. It is safe and very economical. So far as I can see, it has no injurious effect on the birds. I now have an atmospheric stove (No. 3), and find it gives more heat than those which give light as well as heat, and there is no chimney to break; but the heat cannot be quite so well regu- lated as it can with the kind more often used (1.e., that with an argand burner). This winter the temperature in my room has never fallen below 54°, and generally keeps at from 58° to 60°— and the gas is never full on. A pan of water should always 49 stand on the top of the stove, otherwise the air becomes un- healthily dry. A net for catching birds in the aviary is indispensable. A common butterfly net does well enough; but the gauze should be replaced by light cotton netting. If the aviaries are built in two tiers, one above the other, a short step-ladder will be useful for reaching the upper ones. All seed should be kept in tins, and these should be arranged in an order which should never be varied—and you will then at once be able to find the seed you want, even in the dark. CORRESPONDENCE. CAGES v. AVIARIES. S1r,—Mr. Fillmer says, “Will Mr. Dutton kindly tell us which are the birds that do better in a cage than in an aviary?” Mr. Fillmer interprets me somewhat too positively. I only said, “‘Somie birds might do better.” In other words, I was merely suggesting a possibility, My idea is that all small and delicate birds, and birds which are fastidious about their food, are better in cages. I very much doubt its being possible to keep a Troupial in an aviary: they want so much attention about speccal warmth.* If I were asked to keep a Wren, I think I should prefer trying to keep it in a cage.t But readers will kindly bear in mind how very limited my knowledge and experience is—almost confined to Parrots, and to many fewer of them ‘than I could wish. Ail I can do is to throw out suggestions which may lead to successful results or may not. F. G. DUTTON. DEALERS’ NAMES FOR BIRDS. Srr,—Seeing the number of queries 7e names of birds, I think a list, giving the synonymy of the names of foreign birds, would be very valuable, as every dealer seems to have a name of hisown. I, myself, am never sure that Iam not buying something I have not already got, until I actually get the bird. Will not some experienced aviculturist oblige ? R. CREIGHTON. [A letter to a similar effect has been received from Mr. ALEXANDER CUMMINGS. | BREEDING IN AN OUTDOOR AVIARY. S1r,—Considering that the year 1897 was my first trial of an outdoor aviary, and that my birds were not turned out until late in June, I am satisfied with the result. * Mr. Dutton probably means a Hang - nest; for the Troupials (or ‘‘ Meadow Starlings ’’) are better kept in aviaries than in cages, although tamer in the latter.—A.G.B. + See the letters by Mr. Bonhote and Mr. Marshall in this month’s Magazine under the heading ‘‘ Food for Soft-billed Birds.’”’—Ep. 50 I had two nests (five and three) of African Silver-bills, and two nests of Zebra Finches (three in each). The Silver-bills built a lovely solid nest in a gorse-bush. Chestnut Finches built three large globular nests, but laid no eggs. Bronze Mannikins built in a small cage, and laid three eggs, when I was obliged to take them in. St. Helenas, Red Avadavats, and Cordon Bleus had commenced nests. A hen Saffron Finch lined a cocoa- nut shell with fine hay, and laid three eggs, when the male bird nearly killed her, having already destroyed a pair of Green Singing Finches; so I parted with them. Three-coloured Nuns I find very meddlesome: they interfered greatly with domestic arrangements generally, sleeping in the newly-built nests one after the other. The temperature was 42° when I took the birds in, all in perfect health and plumage. Pekin Robins are out now. I hope to do better in 1898. GRACE ASHFORD. CONFUSION IN NAMING FOREIGN DOVES. Str,—In my letter which appeared in the last number of our Magazine, under the above heading, I mentioned Zurtur semitorquatus as being slightly smaller than Z. risorius: but in a foot-note Dr. Butler says that this is incorrect. I must own to having been decidedly confused over the proper identification of the species. A few years ago I had two. pairs of African Doves, which, at first sight, might readily have been taken for Barbary Turtles. They were, however, slightly smaller, and the collar was somewhat broader than in the domestic species; the iris, moreover, which in Z. risurius is bright red, was, in these birds, very dark. I had not, at the time, the opportunity of examining the collection of skins in the British Museum; nor had I access to the Museum Cata- logue: but when at the Zoological Gardens, I found the species labelled and figured as 7. semitorquatus. On referring to the Museum Catalogue, I find that the birds above referred to as being less in size than Z. résoriws correspond with the description of 7. vinaceus ; while Z. semitorquatus is, apparently, the larger species referred to in my last letter as Z. wimaceus. Thus the nomenclature of the Doves at the “Zoo.” differs from that at the British Museum, and the only safe plan is to refer to the Museum Catalogue for the identification of rare Doves. The length of Z. vzzaceus is given by Salvadori as scarcely Io inches ; that of 7° senegalensis as about II inches, and that of 7. semitorquatus as 12°4 inches. D. SETH-SMITH. S1r,—In his note on this subject in the December part of the Magazine, Mr. Seth-Smith allows himself to be wholly guided by the names on the cages at the Gardens of the Zoological Society when he paid 51 his last visit. This is a mistake which, if adhered to, would lead to endless confusion. It is well known that birds associated together in a cage or aviary will sometimes agree perfectly for weeks or years, and then, either because the breeding-season is at hand or because old age has made a bird dis- agreeable, it will attack every one of its associates (I have had an instance in one of my aviaries this year). Supposing this happens at the Zoo, and an under-keeper is passing at the time, he will quickly remove the offender to a cage containing perhaps one bird, substituting the latter for the offender. For the time then, the labels on the cages are transposed, and a Green Bulbul becomies a Paradise Whydah or something equally absurd. My pair of Flalf-collared Turtle Doves were selected from a series brought home by our member, Mr. Frank Finn, and deposited at the Zoological Society’s Gardens; at his request the Society sent the birds to me. Knowing what confusion had existed respecting the true Zurtur semtitorquatus, I spoke to Count Salvadori (who was then engaged upon the British Museum Catalogue of Colzmbe) and he showed me our fine series of skins of Z. Senegalensis and of TZ. semitorquatus, as well as 7. vinaceus. T. semitorquatus is by far the larger bird ; then comes 7. senegalensis, about II inches; whilst 7. wnaceus is barely 10 inches in total length. A. G. BUTLER. SEMI-DOMESTICATED MOORHENS. S1r,—The article by Mr. C. L. Hett in the last issue was of great interest in revealing some of the habits of a most shy and interesting bird ; they are still more interesting since they agree in one or two minute details with my observations on the breeding of the Corucrake, last year (1896). I have not at hand the number of the Avicultural Magazine in which my remarks appeared, but I remember distinctly passing over several of my notes, as I considered the habits to which they referred probably due to a life in confinement. Mr. Hett refers to the fact that the male bird kept away from the brood and took no notice of them during the first three days of their life; also that the male tended some of the chicks in one nest while the hen looked after the rest in another. The followiug are my notes on the subjed. 16th July, 1896—‘‘ The Corncrake began to sit on July 6th. . . The male bird goes on as soon as she comes off.”’ 22nd July—‘* The Corncrake has to-day hatched off all her young (8), after seventeen days incubation. Ske will not allow the cock to interfere with them or come near her.” 26th July—‘‘A marked change has come over the hen, who, instead of driving the cock away, ow allows him to brood the young. . . . . They have not been seen going about together, but each has a few young.” A glance at these notes will shew that in these particulars, and during atime of greatest importance to the welfare of the species, the habits of these two species are practically the same. And although it may be argued that they belong to the same family, yet their modes of life, which 52 are always supposed to have the greatest influence in determining habits, are as divergent as can be: the one spending most of its time on water, the other inhabiting dry fields. It also tends to show that habits are by no means so transient and easily influenced by external circumstances as many suppose; but, at any rate, in this case they have been able to withstand the agents that have caused so great a divergence from the common ancestor of the two species. Another point which has often puzzled me with regard to the Moor- hen is the abundance of unused nests that are always found ; undoubtedly some of them are built as landing-stages for the young, but Mr. Hett evidently believes that some are built by earlier broods, and it would be extremely interesting if he could another year ascertain the fac. As regards bread as food for the young, I was much entertained one day this year in St. James’s Park, by watching a Moorhen taking bread as it was thrown down, and coveying it to her young, who remained partially concealed in the rushes close by. J. LEWIS BONHOTE. FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. S1r,—In the last issue, you invite correspondence on this most interesting subject, and this is my only excuse for burdening your space. A few years ago I tried to keep many of our Warblers, and afterwards gave it up, as I came to the conclusion that not having means or suitable accommodation to keep them properly, it was better not to do so at all. For three or four years I always had a few by me, as I was determined, if possible, to find out the secret of success, and I only gave it up when I had satisfied myself that I had found out the secret, and that owing to practical conditions, it was impossible for me to carry it out. ‘‘ First catch your hare and then cook it,” is a golden rule for most people, but the exception to it is found in aviculture, where it is all-important to learn the rudiments of how to keep a bird before catching it. I will, therefore, pass over the great question of “ meating off” a fresh-caught bird,* or the other alternative of hand-rearing—to which practice I am, personally, strongly opposed. The first point to consider is that of cage verses aviary. During our winter, the Warblers do much better in a large and roomy box-cage, with mot less than two or more than four in acage. The reason is, not because the birds keepin better health, but that they can be under closer observa- tion, and the delicacies more evenly divided. Besides which, a bird may be to all appearances well in the morning and dead in the afternoon; in an aviary it would not be noticed, or if noticed, the excitement of catching it would probably place it beyond hope of recovery. The next point is, where should the cage or cages be kept? An ordinary living-room is too hot by day and too cold in the early morning, and, to make along story short, the only place is a room devoted solely to birds, with good ventilation and a fairly con- stant temperature. In writing these notes, I would impress on my readers that individual birds have thriven under very different circumstances, but these notes are * For rough details on ‘“‘ meating off,’’ see article on the ‘‘ Spotted Flycatcher,” in No. 5 of the 4vicultural Magazine, March, 1895. 53 intended to apply where a number of birds are kept, and to all individuals of our British summer Sylvzide, weakly or robust. As regards food.—The only satisfactory staple food that I have been able to discover is hard boiled egg and ants’ eggs, in equal parts, served fresh twice a day. The egg should be run through a wire sieve and then qnixed with the ants’ eggs. About twice a week, scraped raw beef should he given, and on those days, instead of the egg and ants’ eggs, give bread soaked in milk, with the milk well squeezed out, and mixed with about a third of its bulk of hempseed well crushed and pounded. Each bird should have at least five mealwormis a day, or other live food. Green meat and fruit should also be given, and will be relished by some but not by all. The only drawback to this food is that it is liable to become too fattening. The first symptom of this is, probably, that the bird has a slight fit; whien this is the case, stop the egg, give him ants’ eggs damiped in milk, and a little scraped beef and plenty of green food, but do not feed too well. During the winter, if a light be not left in the room, they should have a last feed at night. Drop some mealworms into the food-dish and they will soon feed. A bath, twice a week at least, is essential. If this method should be followed, I am sure there are few or no birds that will not keep in the pink of health and condition, but it may well be ‘questioned whether birds that need such care are worth the trouble of keeping. I can only say that, if one’s purse is long enough and one has sufficient spare time, few birds would better repay the care, both in their song, tame dispositions, and enticing ways; but there can be no half- measures, aud a couple of days’ neglect is sufficient to induce many to start on their last journey. J. LEwWIs BONHOTE. Srir,—The Gefiederte Welt mentions that Dr. Russ kept a Tui for over two years on the following food: Ants’ cocoons and grated carrot, mixed: besides daily a little piece of biscuit soaked in milk, now and then a little sweet fruit or a teaspoonful of honey, also a little scraped raw meat. In the Zoological Garden of Berlin the Tuiis fed upon Tanager-food ; this bird has lived there four years. I feed my Tuis in the same way as Tanagers, Spectacle-birds, Warblers and similar birds, and, I make bold to say, with the greatest success: fresh sweet cheese or curdle, a little preserved yolk of egg, ants’ cocoons, grated stale bread or biscuit, grated raw carrot or carrot-meal, mixed; now and then banana or other sweet fruit. The fresh cheese is much easier digested by all these birds than boiled egg and meat; it is made by mixing fresh milk, one quart, with rennet, three teaspoonsful, keeping it for a little while in a temperature of 80 to go degrees and boiling it afterwards. Mixed with some good dried ants’ cocoons, I consider it to be a good substitute for fresh ants’ cocoons. The great success which places the Austrians in front of all other nations in keeping soft-billed birds is due, I believe, in a great extent, to the free use of fresh sweet cheese. oe Through my persuasion, the late Mr. Erskine Allon tried feeding his Shamas on fresh cheese-food, and he assured me many times that these birds were thriving splendidly upon it. 54° I cannot believe that Tuis or any other birds could be kept a long time on mashed potatoes and sugar without becoming anzeniic, as potatoes contain so little nitrogen, but plenty of carbon; even biscuit or bread soaked on milk as the staple food would not give them sufficient nitrogen ; therefore I prefer to use the above-mentioned cheese-food, which contains plenty of nitrogen, is very easily digested, and will not produce too much fat. R. MASCHKE. Srr,—Some time since I had a little talk with Mr. Abrahams on this subject, aud he told me that his experience of the Tui-bird and other honey-eaters was that they could not be kept for any length of time either on honey or condensed milk. At the same time it was a great mistake to suddenly remove the food upon which any bird had been imported and give it that which was suitable as a permanency: this change must be effected gradually: thus, if Tui- birds reached him which had been fed on condensed mniilk, he gradually added his insectivorous food and potatoes or breadcrumbs until he had accustomed them to the drier food, whei he gave no more of the sweet laxative mess, and got the birds into a healthy condition. In the case of Tanagers, of which I have two species,—the Superb and the Scarlet,—oranges are the favourite food in a wild state; yet during the winter, when oranges are usually more or less acid, I find that my Scarlet Tanagers will not touch them, but eat my soft food niixture greedily, and make up with banana; the Superb ‘anager eats a little soft food, always beginning upon the yolk of egg, a little orange and a good deal of banana. As regards condition, I think all who have seen my birds will admit that they are fit to compete at any show—a trial to which I shall not subject them. My Zosterops, which I have had for some years, prefers grapes or apple to orange during the winter-time, but feeds chiefly upon soft food at this season and is in the pink of condltion. My mixture consists of stale bread, potato, egg, ants’ cocoons and Abrahanis’ food. I find that Tanagers prefer cockroaches to mealworins, but they sometimes accept the latter. Xe (Ex IDUMICTHIR. SIR,—In response to your request for information as to ‘‘ Food for soft-billed birds” I am glad to give vou the following particulars of the manner in which my own birds are fed. , For the staple food which is supplied to the aviaries, and the less. delicate of the British and foreign ‘‘soft-bills,”’ I take equal parts, in bulk, of the finest ants’ cocoons procurable, ** dried flies,’’ Osborne biscuits ground to powder, and Spratts’ fine-ground crissel: this mixture keeps indefinitely. Each morning a portion of this is taken, and made up to double its bulk by the addition of breadcrunibs, hard-boiled egg, and boiled potatoes; or bread- crumbs, egg, and grated raw carrot. The coarser birds, such as Thrushes, Blackbirds, Shamas, and the like, would thrive perfectly upon a larger proportion of bread and potato, while the more delicate ones are better with less bread. I may anticipate enquiries by stating that I get the ‘‘drie flies’? from Maggs Bros., of Swansea, at 1/- per lb. The ants’ cocoons ar ——— a 59 imported directly for me from Austria at 30/- the five kilo bag (about ten pounds). Until I discovered these latter I was using Roman's ants’ cocoons, but as this firm would not sell them in bulk, only supplying them in shilling tins, which makes them come out, even at wholesale price, at 6/- per lb., I was very glad to find a sample nearly or quite as good at half the price. I believe the one secret in feeding insectivorous birds is to give as many ants’ cocoons as one can afford, and only of the best quality; cheap ants’ cocoons are about as valuable for food as chopped straw. ‘The ideal food of all is Sresh ants’ cocoons, but these are of course only obtainable by those, or from those, who know how to take them, and then only through the summer. On the Continent they are sold during the season by all bird dealers, and I should think they would prove a most remunerative “line” in England. The process of taking these cocoons is a most interesting one, and one day I will write an article explaining it. The food as above will be found to suit all but the most delicate of the insectivorous birds, for there still remain some which would not eat, or could not digest, the biscuit and breadcrumbs. Among the latter may be classed the Nightingale, the various Warblers, and the Long-tailed Tit. As I have a Long-tailed Tit which I have twice cage-moulted, and as I believe it to be the only specimen of its kind which has ever been kept in a cage for more than a few days, perhaps a short account of my experience witli this individual bird may be of interest, as being indicative of the troubles incidental to the keeping in captivity of the more delicate kinds of insecti- vorous birds. I bought him at the ‘first feather” show of the L. & P.O. 5S. in 1896, and lad no particular trouble with him until his first moult. His food was scalded ants’ cocoons and yolk of freshly-boiled egg, supplemented by mealwormis, flies, and such small insects as we could capture for himi— house-flies were a particular dainty which he would always take from one’s finger. When he was deep in his first moult I was daily expecting to lose him, but he pulled through with a plentiful supply of live insects, and everything went well until the past autumn, when he went into his second moult. Then we had a very serious time with him, and even now he has not quite recovered “‘show condition.’”?> When at his worst he would not touch even scalded ants’ cocoons, and was kept alive by feeding from th fingers with live flies, spiders and other small insects. At one time he was so weak that as a desperate resource we poured small doses of strong beef- tea down his throat, and I really think the bird’s preservation is due to the ‘‘exhibition”” of this ‘“‘unnatural food.’ At the time of writing he is in perfect health, and I confidently hope to show him at the forthcoming Palace Show. My Nightingales, Warblers and Swallows have only scalded ants’ cocoons, yolk of egg and live insects. Such birds as Tanagers, Zosterops, Sugar-birds and Lories do perfectly well with me upon sponge cake soaked in boiled milk and sweetened with ‘sugar or honey, together with a daily supply of fresh fruit: the favourite fruits being bananas and oranges. Some of these birds will eat mealwornis and scalded ants’ cocoons; others refuse thein. I have not mentioned birds which feed on raw meat. I have in my collection three species of birds, the Greater Grey-backed Shrike, the La Plata Cuckoo, and the European Roller, which I cannot get to eat any- thing but raw meat; and if any memiber can suggest a less objectionable food I shall be grateful. HENRY J. FULLJAMES. 56 Sir,—I feed my soft-bills chiefly on Gasparin’s Food. My Whinchat, now nearly three years old, has always been fed entirely on it, and she has taken numerous prizes at Shows. Besides the Whinchiat, I have used it for feeding Blackcaps, White-throats, Robins, Redstarts, Wheatears, and Pekin Robins, but I find that Nightingales, Chiffchaffs, and Wagtails do not care for it. I take a shilling packet of Gasparin’s, add to it one third its bulk of dry ants’ eggs, and, having mixed it well, take as much as will last for one day and make it quite moist with boiling water. On three days in the week I add to it, when cold, either watercress, lettuce, or the leaves of groundsell chopped very fine,—as I find that the soft-billed birds do not otherwise eat green food, which I consider good for them. When I first began to keep soft-bills I tried dried flies, volk of egg, and more than one advertised mixture; but I found that the birds did not look so healthy upon any of them as they do upon what I now give them, and I consider it more economical. As arule, I give six to eight mealworims a day to each bird, but some birds take more. My Robin, which I have had for three years, has only three a day, as, if he gets more, he has fits. As I consider the mealworms heating, I generally give them the first thing in the morning, about nine, and feed with Gasparin’s about teu and again about five. On their return from Shows, and about once a month, when at home, I give my birds six to ten drops of extract of Cascara Sagrada in their drinking-water, as I find they will drink that—and it is so difficult to give castor oil. As a rule, I keep them separately in box-cages, 20 inches by 12 inches, not being able to have aviaries, except for Wagtails. I find the Blackcaps aud Whinchats are very fond of a little piece of cooked fish. E. L. Hopwoop. Gasparin’s food I consider to be an excellent preparation, and I am now giving my foreign soft-bills a mixture of it with Abrahams’ Preserved Egg, and soaked ants’ eggs, in about equal proportions. This seems to form a nourishing and wholesome food which they all eat readily, and with bananas and apples, and biscuit or sponge cake made into a crumbly paste with boiled milk, constitutes their regular diet. I am not at all sure whether the preserved egg might not with advantage be omitted. My Ceram Lory lives on biscuit soaked in boiled milk (made rather sloppy) and stewed apple. ‘The Lorikeets have their biscuit much more solid, and usually have bananas aud raw apple instead of stewed apple. HORATIO R. FILLMER. [We should be glad of many more letters upon this subject, as we should like to have the benefit of the experience of every member who has successfully kept soft-bills for years. The treatment adopted by many will doubtless be much the same as that described in some of the letters we have already published, but the evidence will not be the less valuable on that ‘account. | 57 THE GREEN AVADAVAT. Si1r,—I am this year testing the hardiness of several species that I have not previously tried in an open air aviary during the winter. Of these I have, perhaps, been most interested in the Green Avadavat, in view of the very different opinions held on the point by high authorities. As far as the experiment has yet gone, the opinion expressed by Dr. Butler, in his “Foreign Finches in Captivity,” is fully confirmed. We have already had a good deal of cold weather here, and several nights of sharp frost; not: only have these birds not suffered, but one morning with the thermometer showing ten degrees of frost, I noticed them in the open flight of their aviary, flying briskly about and evidently rather enjoying the bitter air than otherwise. Of course this, like my other aviaries, has a house for the birds to retire to at night or when they desire shelter. A hen Blue Gros- beak, in an adjoining aviary, seems also quite indifferent to frost. I fancy that farther experiment will prove many birds, usually considered delicate, able to withstand as much frost as we usually experience in this country ; but, of course, the aviary should be in a position as far as possible sheltered from cold winds, and communicate with a house or shed to give shelter from wet. The principle danger is, probably, the liability of hens to become egg-bound during the cold months. It would certainly be ad- visable to separate the sexes during the winter. JRo dle ANC IOND), BREEDING RESULTS FOR 1897. S1r,—I have been looking forward to seeing reports of the breeding results of members of the Society for 1897. My own aviaries are rather too crowded to admit of great results in this branch of aviculture. I have, however, not been altogether unsuccessful. Zebra Finches.—Fourteen reared, and as many or more not reared. [ cannot fathom the reason why so many are thrown out of the nest by the parents before they are fledged, unless it is that in a confined space the different pairs interfere too much with each other’s proceedings. I give hardly any mealwornis in the summer, but a fair supply of egg-food and ants’ eggs, and plenty of green food and flowering grass. I ami also ex- tremely careful never to approach the neighbourhood of the nests. The first brood was hatched during the sharp spell of frost in January, when the therniometer fell on one night to 17° F. The nest was built in thick ivy in the open flight of the aviary; two birds were hatched, but only one was reared. Ribbon Finches.— Five reared, and in this case also several not reared. It is curious that I have only bred one hen in the last three years. These birds I also keep in an outdoor aviary. Bengalese.—One reared and one not reared. Whatever they may do if kept in separate pairs in cages, these birds will certainly not breed freely im an aviary. Their habit of packing together in the same nest is not con- ducive to the rearing of young. Long-tailed Finches.—Three reared. The young birds, nearly four months old, are now hardly distinguishable from their parents. Hybrid between Bronze Mannikin and Rufous-backed Mannikin.— Five reared. These are very similar to the latter (the male parent), but are generally duller in colour, with the white and black marking on the wings 58 less distinct. A pair of these have now mated, and are building a nest, but according to all rules the eggs should not be fertile. Parson Finches.—As usual, my pair has nested repeatedly all through the season, but never hatched out. I have had this pair for three years, and they have never got beyond eggs, though an undoubted pair. Cherry Finches.—Nested twice with no result. Red-crested Cardinal.—Two nests and three young in each, which were thrown out and killed before they were a fortnight old. The old birds have a constant supply of cockroaches and a good many caterpillars, but very few mealworms, Green Cardinal.—One nest, and three eggs which were not hatched. Magpie Mannikin.—Their first nest was filled with eggs which were constantly incubated, either the cock or the hen being always on the nest, but never hatched. Several nests have been built since, and immediately pulled to pieces agaln, and no eggs laid. I have noticed an egg dropped occasionally in my Weaver aviary, but none of the occupants have ever made any serious attempt to nest. Rega ODD: TANAGERS, RUFOUS-TAILED GRASSFINCHES, AND DUFRESNE’S WAXBILLS. Srtr,—As Tanagers are usually considered rather difficult birds to keep, perhaps my experience may be of some interest. Even Dr. Russ, in Vols. I. and II. of his great work, ‘‘ Die Fremdlandischen Stubenvoégel,” does not speak favourably of these birds in any respe@, except their beauty. I had, therefore, never contemplated the possibility of keeping a ‘anager, though I had often admired their brilliant appearance in Dr. Russ’ books. However, on seeing several species mentioned in Mr. Abrahamis’ list last October, I wrote to enquire about them, and bv his advice I selected a Superb Tanager (Cadlliste fastuosa). JI received a beautiful specimen in perfect plumage, and put him at once in my aviary-cage with about thirty- six small Waxbills, Finches, Weavers, Mannikins and a pair of Grey-backed Australian Spectacle Birds (Zosterops lateralis). Mr. Abrahams told me the ‘Tanager would eat the same food as the Spectacle Birds, 7.e., preserved yolk of egg mixed with potato finely grated, Mr. Abrahamis’ Insectivorous Food, and ripe fruit. I give the Tanager three or four mealworms daily, which I drop iuto his food-tin to ensure his securing them, as he does not appear to like the floor of the cage. He was rather shy at first, but now watches me so closely during the process that I think he will soon take them from my hand. Dr. Russ describes this bird as being dull and voracious. ‘The speci- mei il my possession is always lively, and certainly does not eat more than his companions. My cage is cleaned daily, but I do not find that the Tanager necessitates any extra trouble in that line, and he is quite peace- able with the other birds, suffering a tiny Orange-cheek Waxbill to snatch away a mealworm before his eyes. On the whole, he prefers the egg and potato to the insectivorous food: unlike iny Shaina, who refuses to touch anything else (except mealwormis) ; and, during the three years I have had him, he has thriven and sung splendidly on that food alone. I quite agree with Mr. Todd about the peaceable disposition of the Rufous-tailed Grassfinch (Bathilda ruficauda), | bought a pair nearly two 39 years ago, which I was told had just gained rst prize at the Crystal Palace, and they have never attempted to molest any other birds. ast year they showed an inclination to nest, so I put them ina separate cage, but they devoured their eggs as soon as they were laid. I have had a cock Dufresne’s Waxbill, who came from Mr. Abrahains just a year ago,'and he has always been very healthy. His only drawback is his love of having his neck plucked by the other birds, and he is always trying to obtain that pleasure. I got another cock this spring, from Mr. Allon’s collection, but unfortunately he slipped out of the aviary-cage the day of his arrival, without my perceiving his escape, and next morning he was found dead in the drawing-room underneath the window, having probably flown against the plate-glass. C. A. Hopcson. FOREIGN BIRD NOTES. S1r,—I well remember with what pleasure I received my first cage of foreign birds (Java Sparrows), brought home by a coloured sailor on one of the tea ships. About the same time, I had sent me a book on foreign birds, aud with it a list from a foreign-bird dealer. Perhaps it might be interest- ing to the readers of the Avicultural Alagazine to compare some of the prices of thirty years ago (1867) and the prices of to-day. The following are some of the prices in this list:—Java Sparrows, Cutthroat or Coral-necked Sparrows, Silverbeaks, 10/- pair; Amandaya or Avadavat, African Waxbills, Black- and White-headed Mannikins, Combassou Birds, Weaver Birds, 12/- pair; Australian Waxbills, 20/- pair; Brisbane Finch, 30/- pair; Australian or Rockhampton Finches (the Banded, Grass and Chestnut-breasted Finch) 30/- to 60/- pair; Negro Finch, 20/- ; Nonpareil, 20/-; Popes, 20-; Red-crested Cardinal, 25/-; Grand Bishop Birds, 30/-; Saffron Finch, 12/-; Whydah Bird, 15/- each ; Budgerigars or Grass Parra- keets, 30/- pair; Cockatiels, 4o/- pair; the Rose-hill and Pennant Parrakeets (sometimes called Lories) 4o0/- to 60/- each; Indian Mina Bird, from £4 to 410 each; Mackaw, £5 each; Ring-necked Bengal Parrakeets, 4o/-; and Australian King Parrots, £5 each. Since then, some of the birds I have kept have come to mein rather strange ways. Some ten years ago, a very fine Blue-fronted Amazon Parrot flew into one of the windows of a Girls’ Orphanage in South London. Some of the girls, with sticks and brooms, tried to drive it away; when they drove it from one window it flew to another. Pollie would not be driven away—it being an Orphan Hone, she had comie to stay. When I went to see her, poor Pollie was tied to the leg of a table in one corner of the room. We iniade every enquiry, but could not find the owner. I had the pleasure of taking it home as a present for my wife. It took several prizes, was a very fair talker, and one of the tamest Parrots I ever kept. At another time, a driver of one of Carter Paterson’s vans called and enquired if I had lost what he thought wasa large Black Crow which talked: he had caught it in the neighbourhood. It proved to be a large Vasa Parrot, avery tame bird. He offered it to me at a very low price; I promised, pro- viding he could not find the owner, to purchase it, which eveutually I did. Walking down the East End one day, I was looking at the cages of birds piled up outside one of the bird-shops; amongst them, ina small cage, were two birds which, at first, I took to be a pair of Great Tits. I 60 asked the man outside what birds they were, and the price. (I had recognised them as being a pair of White-eared Bulbuls). He said they were Prussian Bullfinches, good singers, and he thought they were worth ‘‘’arf-a-crown each.” I purchased them at that price; they soon improved in plumage, and, before long, were quite in show condition. One cage of birds came to me from North Queensland, in rather a strange way. Some twelve years ago, two brothers were in my employ; they emigrated to Australia. ‘Ihe elder one is quite a naturalist in every sense. Perhaps I might quote one or two extracts from his letters; he writes :— “This part (North Central Queensland), with its iron-bark forests and rolling plains, is quite a paradise for a naturalist. We have an abundance of Kangaroos and Wallabies, also Emus, Cassowaries, Scrub and Plain Turkeys, Wood and Whistling Ducks, Swamp Pheasants, Cockatoos, Black and White Magpies, Leather-heads, Blue Mountain Lories and other kinds of Parrots, Fan-tail Flycatchers, a strange bird called by the settlers More- pork, something like an Owl, (at night when out lnntingit says distinctly ‘more pork,’ whence comes its name), all kinds of Pigeons and pretty Doves, plenty of Laughing Jackasses which make a great deal of noise wheu attacking the carpet Snake (I saw five of them a few days since attacking a large Iguana, three feet long: they flew in rapid succession one after the other past the Lizard, each and every one giving a tremendous blow with the beak on the head, until the Iguana was killed). . . . The trappers have caught a large flight of eight hundred Blue Mountain Lories; they migrate West from here at this time of the year (April, 1896). I have picked out thirty to send to you for your Blue Mountain aviary at Sydenham, all the rest will be sent down to Brisbane and shipped on a China boat for Hong Kong; when just caught they are fed chiefly on canary seed; they are a lovely sight.” (Iam sure they must have been, forthe twenty-one that reached me, in splendid plumage, were quite a living picture; they became so tame that they would come down on my arms and shoulders like a flock of tame Pigeons). “Also seven Pink-cheeks, which were caught in the nets, I am sending.” (Five reached me; these were Musky Lorikeets; a pair of them took honours at the Brighton and Aquarium Shows when exhibited by Mr. Maxwell; they were the finest pair I ever saw. Another letter says, ‘‘I want to send you some rare Finches, some are very pretty. Farther North I am told there are some as yet unnamed ; these are found in a locality where the Blacks are, who have a very bad name. I hope to send you some *Painted, Blood (Crimson), Double-bars (Bichenos), Star (Rufous-tailed Grass), Black-throats (Parson), and Gouldian Finches,” and a name I could not quite make out. I wrote saying I should like to have the birds he had mentioned. In due time a letter came saying he had sent me a number of birds, including thirteen of the strange-uamed Finch, as I thought. When the boat arrived I was very anxious to see the new birds; I made enquiries of the man who brought them home; he said he had 15st only one on the voyage, the others were all right. To my surprise, the cage contained twelve Pectoral Rails (Rallus pectoralis) in finest con- dition. I was somewhat disappointed at not receiving Finches, although pleased with the Rails, as they were new birds to me, most beautifully marked, and a good addition to my aviaries. JAMES B. HOUSDEN. * Emblema picta. Pe: ~~ AN \ .' (AN AUSTRALIAN BOWER-BIRD.) [Page 61. WING OF 4luredus crassirvostris. THE Mvicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AVC UIT UR ME SOCIETY: VOL. IV.—No. 40. All rights reserved. FEBRUARY, 1898. A BIRD’S WING: By AURIS (GC Iw, JeinJ0), Some of the members of our Society have expressed a wish for a drawing of the wing of a bird with an explanation of its parts, to enable them to follow intelligently the descriptions of species which appear from time to time in our pages. Our Secretary asked me if I would undertake. the work, which of course I willingly agreed to, being only too happy to be permitted to do what little I can towards the advancement of knowledge in this branch of our hobby. The simplest plan would have been to prepare a mere outline map of some full-feathered species ; but it occurred to me that it is not always easy for anyone with a map before him to recognize the corresponding feathers in an actual specimen, owing to their frequent displacement in sickly or dead birds, and to the absence of sharply-defined lines, due to their fringed ends and compact arrangement: I therefore determined to make a detailed drawing of an actual wing, and I consulted with Mr. Grénvold (a very talented taxidermist and draughtsman) as to the most suitable subject for my illustration. This gentleman kindly selected and lent me the wing of an Australian Bower- bird, “#luredus crassivostris, in which the ends of the chief feathers are rendered prominent by white terminal spots, and which will serve as a good typical model. The quill-feathers of the wing separate into two well- defined series—primaries and secondaries, and serve much the same purpose as the front and hind wings of a butterfly (which have consequently received the same names, the front-wings being called primaries and the hind-wings secondaries). The first primary (fig. 1) is often very short and may be easily over- looked in some families by superficial observers, It has been called ‘bastard primary’ by Seebohm and many other writers ; 62 but this is a most misleading term, inasmuch as it implies that the feather does not originate from the same part of the wing-framework as the remainder of the primaries, whereas it certainly does. If the coverts are carefully removed from the under surface of a Skylark’s wing, the tiny first primary will be seen projecting from the tip of the index finger of the hand (manus), and in exactly the same plane as the nine large primaries which follow it; all the primaries in fact originate from the inner border of the hand, the thumb (fo//ex) alone being reserved to support the bastard-wing,—a group of stiff feathers which strengthen the front of the wing from the bend forwards. As in the wing selected for illustration, ten is a frequent number for the primary quills; but, when great sweep of wing is required, an extra primary and several additional secondaries are often found ; and, in not a few families, only nine primaries are said to exist.* In the wing before us the secondaries (t1-21) are eleven in number. ‘These quills are attached to the front of the fore-arm (ulna) ; the inner ones, which are graded and therefore readily recognizable in my illustration, are in some groups elongated ; so that, by careless observers, they are apt to be confused with the outer scapularies. The latter represent a mass of soft feathers (analogous to the wing-lappets (p/erygodes) of butterflies) which proceed from the hinder division of the arm (humerus), and strengthen the base of the wing. In the closed wing the innermost secondary is on the surface, and thence to the first primary each overlaps the feather in front of it; this is also the case with the greater coverts, the innermost secondary covert (s. c.) being on the surface, though partly overlapped by the outermost scapularies: the innermost primary covert (p. c.) is necessarily overlapped by the outermost secondary and its covert, otherwise the free movement of the wing would be obstructed. Situated between the two groups of greater coverts, but terminating half-way between the tips of the median and greater coverts, a white-tipped feather will be noticed Gn many birds there are two of these feathers varying somewhat in the method of their emission) ; this is probably emitted from the skin which covers the wluzar carpal bone of the hand, and is known asa carpal covert. These feathers are rarely mentioned in descrip- * he fifth primary starts from the phalanx of the third and last digit. 63 tions, and are very likely to be mistaken for a portion of the bastard wing, or even for primary coverts. If the median and lesser coverts are removed from the front of a Skylark’s wing, it will be seen that all the greater secondary coverts originate inside and at the base of the quills which they overlap ; the primary coverts seem to me (though I may be in error) to originate between the quills and to be directed obliquely to the front of them. The median coverts (m. c.), represented in our illustration by the inner series of white-tipped smaller feathers, and the lesser coverts (1. c.), which clothe the basal portion of the wing, are arranged in a reverse direction to the greater coverts (s.c. and p.c.), the outermost feathers being on the surface, so that the order of overlapping is in the opposite direction; but, it must be remembered, when examining skins and even living birds, that the lesser coverts, being small and soft, get easily disarranged ; moreover, I have often seen a bird, when preening its feathers, pluck out and fling away a refractory covert which would not take its proper place; it is therefore not unusual to find more or less confusion as regards the relative position of these tiny details of plumage. ‘The number of rows of lesser coverts varies not a little, the Doves being most liberally supplied in this respect. ‘The terminology of the feathered areas on the body is, for the most part, readily comprehended, but there are one or two terms which may prove puzzling, such as the ‘ doves’ or feathers between the upper mandible and the eye, the ‘ car-coverts’—a patch of feathers covering the ear and often well-defined in colour (as in the Song - Thrush), the ‘azxz//artes’ — feathers covering the arm-pit and placed below and at the base of the wing; when the latter is extended they stand slightly away from the surface of the body, and look like a continuation of the scapularies carried under the wing. PARROT NOTES. By the Hon. and Rev. F. G. DUTTON. (Continued from page 24). MACAWS.—( Continued). The Editor has been good enough to ask me to continue imy observations on Parrots. But one subject should be completed ata time. We have not finished the Macaws. Someone must be able to tell us something about the Crimson and Green, and the 64 Military Macaws. However, while waiting for those, we might take the smaller race of Macaws.: I hardly expect any one will tell us anything about Spix’s, but there remain the Severe Macaw, the Noble Macaw, and Illiger’s. I do not know that I could distinguish the Severe and Noble Macaws without a book to help me, but Illiger’s is much smaller: it is, I suppose, the smallest Macaw. About this I can say one or two words, and Mr. Cresswell will, I hope, supplement what I have to say with a few notes on one now in his posses- sion. And, as he has the living bird before him, I will leave to him the description of the plumage. I digress here to say that, talking of the description of Parrots, anyone who devotes himself to Parrots should not fail to have the British Museum Catalogue of Parrots. It is simply invaluable for identifying them. The first time I saw an Illiger’s Macaw was somewhere about 1860, in the Pantheon. I suppose there are few who recollect the old Pantheon. It was like the Soho Bazaar, but to: my mind far more attractive. And then one entrance (the entrance from Great Marlborough Street, I think,) was a long elass-roofed vestibule, rising by steps to a circular space with a fountain in the middle, round which were the Parrots. The Pantheon proper was entered by a door to the right of the fountain. The whole vestibule was given up to plants and birds. Chained to a perch, close to the fountain, was a delightfully tame little Macaw. I longed to buy him, but I suppose I had not room for him, or that Mr. Isaacs and myself could not come to ternis, for he did not become mine. Well, that Illiger didn’t come off But 1 had a trend whose brother had a West Indian Estate, and who sent him lots of Parrots, and those rare ones—alas! thirty-eight were once lost in one wreck ! Amongst others, my friend had an Illiger sent him, and I took care of it for him. But I cannot say that it was tame, nor did it talk; it left me with the idea that I might very well leave Illiger’s Macaw alone for the future, as not being likely to realise my ideal. It is only since my experience of other Macaws has shown me how great the Macaws’ powers of talking are, and how affectionate they may be, that I have reconsidered the question. And now, were I to have an empty cage, and I saw a very tame Illiger, and particularly if that Illiger were to say a word or two, I might buy it. I say, ‘“‘if it. said a word or two,” for in Illiger’s Macaw I am sure sex would be all important. I very much doubt the hens talking at all. 65 At any rate, Mr. Cresswell has an Illiger which does talk, and, if he will be kind enough to tell our Society about it, I think we shall have some idea of the merits of the species as a cage-bird. [PERIGEE MA@QAW?: By O. BK. CRESSWELL. I formerly had a prejudice against all Macaws; I can’t tell why, probably because they screamed and sometimes prevented me from enjoying the sight of other Parrots. I thought I never would have a Macaw, but fate decreed otherwise. In 1893 I was at Antwerp; there, in the Zoo, where most of the birds are on sale, were several Illiger’s Macaws, each in a rather dreary pen-like cage. he servant, who at home has chief care of my foreign birds, was with me, and reported that amongst these Illigers was a very interesting bird which he hoped I would buy. Certainly the bird had taken a great fancy to him, and seemed to extend this affection to myself; but I regretfully refused to buy any more birds—I had already with me Doves from Voss’s establishment at Cologne, and had just bought a Redrump, which, I am glad to say, is still close by me as I write. I could hardly descend at hotels with more boxes of birds! The poor Illiger seemed to implore us to take him, and despairingly called ‘‘cockie” as I left the house. I had learnt that there evidently might be character in an Llliger ; it is, too, I believe, quite the smallest of about thirty known varieties of -Macaws, and this is an advantage. For those who have never seen one, I may say that in body the Illiger is about the size of a Grey Parrot, though, from its long tail, it looks larger. The face has the bare skin of most of the Macaws ; over the beak is a scarlet diadem; the general body-colour is green, shading from a kind of blue bloom on the head into rich yellowish green ; the lower breast is scarlet, the primary wing-feathers blue. Its full, long tail is extremely beautiful: on the upper side the feathers are of deep claret colour shading into peacock blue, and on the under side soft yellow, like autumnal leaves. I collect them at the moult, and they are a study of shades. The spring after my visit to Antwerp a London bird dealer owed me £1. I had sent it for a Rockpeplar, which he pretended to have despatched, but at last confessed he had not. His man advised me to take anything I could get as the master was very hard up. I looked round the shop, but saw nothing 66 tempting. There were two Illigers in wretched plight, whose cages showed that their internal state was all that a Parrot’s should not be. They had belonged to a fancier of ill repute who had fled from justice, and had been neglected; I was offered one for my sovereign. I hesitated and returned to the country ; then I thought of the birds at Antwerp, and sent for the better of the two. He duly arrived, and certainly was a very unpromising and uninteresting specimen. I sent him to my warmest bird-room : it is in the grounds and far from the house, where birds have a quiet time. When the windows are open I have often listened below unseen, and heard funny essays at talking; but the Illiger long continued painfully timid, and clung to the farthest side of the cage whenever he was approached. He was named “Jerry,” and after a few months a boy, who assisted in the aviaries, said he had called out ‘‘Jerry,”—I dis- believed the statement, but no doubt it was perfectly true. Parrots would do and say almost anything for this boy. The next year ‘“ Jerry” came down from this room, which is in a very lofty position, to the garden, and shared the régime of several other Parrots, which spend most of their days in a glazed verandah or on terraces, and their nights in rooms over the stables. By degress he became much tamer, frequently repeated his name in various voices, and then learnt to say almost every- thing that my favourite Patagonian Conure said. My only com- plaint against him is that he has caused the Conure by degrees. almost to cease to talk from sheer disgust and jealousy. When I speak to the Conure “Jerry” answers for him, and then he is silent. In one way only do they ever perform in unison; they sometimes jointly imitate a hen which has laid an egg, and set off a whole troop of Bantams cackling. The Illiger will invariably talk for me if I am alone, though not always if strangers are’ present. His sayings, I confess, are only about adozen. His own name he says in several different voices, from a regular scream when one is at a distance, to the softest whisper when one’s ear is near. He is very affectionate and delights to kiss ; but he is not proof against one passion: he is crazily jealous, and has occasionally bitten his attendants when he thought they were attending too much to another bird. Through the whole time (over three-and-a-half years) that I have had him, he has constantly improved both intellectually and physically, and his plumage is exquisitely close and glossy. It may be interesting to some aviculturists to know that a bird, evidently of mature years when I first had him, should have become, instead of so: wild and uncouth a creature, an educated and civilized one; and ‘Lo a8ed] (SZ ‘AW TLLSV ‘d ‘H AGN AHL Ad ONIMVUC VY WoXs) “WINVHS NVIGNI SHL Vv 67 still more that his physical condition, so unpleasantly deranged, should gradually have improved till at the end of three years he was quite cured. Last summer he busied himself for days over a fastening of his cage door, with the result that he at last broke it, raised the door with his head, and flew off. At some distance I saw a grand bird with outspread tail fly over an oak tree. Every bird in the menagerie screamed, and I wondered which of my foreign Pheasants had escaped this time, till I found ‘“‘Jerry’s” tenantless cage. At first he enjoyed his liberty much, but never went far. From dawn the next day he conversed from tall fir trees; the day turned wet, and he amused himself in biting shoots off walnut trees; by the second morning he looked bored and took much notice of all our proceedings. Then he gradually descended a big copper beech. I held his cage up and he let himself down to it, and was evidently delighted to be in it again. Once more he got out, but within an hour flopped on to the cage of another bird as it was being carried. He had found out that liberty has its disadvantages, and now makes no serious attempts to get out. I should have no fear whatever of turning him out any day, save for the oak carving outside the house, or furniture if he came in at a window; released once in the bird-room he quickly snapped off the pinnacle of a fine new cage. I think the story of ‘‘ Jerry” will show that an Illiger may be a very fascinating and companionable pet. Since the above lines were penned ‘“‘Jerry’s” portrait has appeared in the pages of the Feathered World. THE INDIAN SHAMA. By the Rev. HuBERT D. ASTLEY, F.Z.S. (Illustrated by the Author). A most charming cage-bird! Bold, vivacious, easily kept in good health, rich in colouring, though not gaudy, with a voice of great melody and much power of mimicry, the Indian Shama must necessarily rank amongst the most coveted of cage-birds. In Lydekker’s ‘“‘ Royal Natural History” it is described as delicate, requiring care in the colder climate of Great Britain. It is true that if a Shama be exposed to draughts and improperly fed and kept, this may be the case; but I have not found it to be so. My Shamas have lived well, and the one from which I have taken my sketch is now in magnificent plumage, ready on the coldest morning to plunge into his bath, in which he splashes until he has thoroughly wetted every glossy feather about hin. 68 His tameness is that of all individuals of his family that I have ever seen. Show him the tin containing mealworms and open his cage door! He positively darts to you, settles on your arm, or on the edge of the box, and the mealworm held in your fingers has disappeared before you have time to say “Jack Robinson.” It is aggravating that hen birds should so seldom be imported, for, if I remember rightly, a brood was successfully raised in London by Mr. Phillipps. By looking at the illustration, anyone unacquainted with the colours of the male bird can easily picture them in the mind’s eye: ns size being rather larger than the Robine semesnmnole head, throat and back a glossy blue-black with a splendid sheen thereon, as in the plumage of a swallow; all the breast and underparts a bright rich chestnut; the wings dark brown, each of the primaries edged with lighter brown ; the tail black in the centre, the shorter and outside feathers being white,* whilst the tail-coverts show conspicuously in a patch of snowy whiteness ; the bill is black; the legs and feet flesh-colour; and the eyes are large and full like a Robin’s, and of deepest brown. ‘The whole of the outline of the bird is extremely graceful, much of which grace is given by the length of the tail. A Shama should never be kept in asmall cage, and cane or wooden bars are the best, care being taken that the perches are placed so that the tail will not be rubbed or broken; but itis a bird which will preserve its plumage well from one autumn to another, and its feathers do not seem to have the brittleness of many of our English Warblers, such as the Nightingale and the Blackcap. A Shama fed upon some reliable insectivorous food, as . sold by men like Mr. Abrahams and Mr. Cross, will prosper; but fresh chopped raw beef, mealwornis, fruit in season, and insects should be given in addition to the food ordinarily placed freshly each morning in the food-trough ; and don’t forget a big bath. The Shama (Cztfocincla tricolor) is a resident in India; a jungle bird, I believe; where his beautiful voice must be a great addition to the haunts of Peafowl and to jungle-life in general. There the Shamas nest between April and June. Other species of the same family are to be found in the Malay Peninsula, the Andaman Islands and the Philippines. * None of the tail-feathers of Crttoctucla tricolor are wholly white, even the outer having each a black base. Ifthe outer tail-feathers of Mr. Astley’s bird are wholly white, it is not C. ¢72color but C. suavis.—R.P. 69 CORRESPONDENCE. DEALERS’ NAMES FOR BIRDS. Str,—The compilation of a glossary of dealers’ nanies appears to be much desired; but it would be almost impossible for a single individual to undertake it unless supported by a Committee of other members of this Society. In 1883 a Committee of the British Ornithological Union prepared a list of British birds, which should be in the library of every British observer. Could not the Avicultural Society form a Committee with an enthusiast as Secretary aud Editor? The Latin or so-called scientific, as well as the dealers’ names, are rather an uncertain quantity, aud a Committee could give a stancliag, to the names selected, which could not be done by an individual. | Latterly, owing to the muddling of systems, systematic nomenclature is now rather at a discount, and fire-side work is undervalued. Hence any number of ODSEEVEIIONS | are oligie to the Babli in a desultory. and un- indexed form. According to my view the: first thing to be-done would be to select the regular Latin name im more common use for each Species, and then to arrange a glossary. I need hardly add that such a Committee as I have suggested should be mainly resident in town, and that the assistance by. letter of country menibers should be invited. CHaAs. Louis HETT. S1r,—In reply to the queries 7e names of birds, perhaps the following list may be found interesting. Ihave also given the names used by some of the Australian dealers; Australia is rich in birds—there are 700 known species, 600 of which are to be found in Queensland. ENGLISH : AUSTRALIAN DEALERS’ NAMES. DEALERS’ NAMES. Australian Waxbill .. Sydney Waxbill .. Red-head Crimison-eared Waxbill.. Cordon Bleu .. : ; Crimson-winged Waxbill Aurora Finch Cinereous Waxbill .. Lavender Finch Red-bellied Waxbill .. St. Helena Waxbill Banded Grass-finch .. Parson Finch Black-throat Bicheno’s Finch .. Double-banded Piel Double-bar Chestnut-eared Finch .... Zebra Finch .. .. Same Crimson Finch .. Australian Fire-finch.. Blood-finch Fire-tailed Finch .. Pin-tail Nonpareil Gouldian Finch .. Same : .. Painted Modest Grass-finch .. Cherry- or Binnsheadl Cherry Ribbon Finch .. Cut-throat BS Rufous-tailed Grass- ante Same : .. tar Finch Spotted-sided Finch .. Diamond Spaew .. same 70 ENGLISH AUSTRALIAN DEALERS’ NAMES. DEALERS’ NAMES. Chestnut-breasted Finch Chestnut Finch .. oaine Hooded Finch .. Bronze Mannikin Mize, Iba bg .. White-headed Nun Ultramarine Finch .. Combasou Yellow-shouldered Weaver Caffre Finch .. Weavers on .. Bishops Black - crested Cardinal... Green Cardinal Melodious Finch .. Cuba Finch Red-headed Cardinal .. Pope Blue-bird a8 .. Blue Robin Hangnest ae Peenoupial b6 Piping Crow .. .. oame 66 .. Magpie Crested Dove .. He OAMe 50 .. Top-knot Diamond Dove so SANS 30 .. Red-eyes Green-winged Dove .. Same ae .. Green Pigeon Peaceful Dove .. Satie ae .. Blue-eyes Cockatiel a ee Sale Se .. Onary Hen Gauga Cockatoo .. Same ae .. Gang-gang Leadbeater Cockatoo .. Same 56 .. Major Mitchell, and Wee Juggler Roseate Cockatoo .. Rosy Cockatoo .. Galah Slender-bill Cockatoo .. Same cic ce Coralia Musky Lorikeet .. Same ae .. Pink-cheeks Swainson’s Lorikeet .. Blue Mountain Lory .. Same Barnard’s Parrakeet .. same a .. Bulla Bulla Barraband Parrakeet .. Same a6 .. Green-leek Bauer’s Parrakeet .. same ec .. Port Lincoln Black-tailed Parrakeet .. Rock Peplar.. .. same Blossom-h’ded Parrakeet Plum-head Parrakeet.. Grey-breasted Parrakeet Quaker Parrakeet Javan Parrakeet .. Moustache Parrakeet.. Pale-headed Rosella .. Mealy Rosella Sate Pennant Parrakeet .. same a .. Loury Rose-hill Parrakeet .. Rosella ue so JOSS Yellow-naped Parrakeet Same Ate '.. Twenty-eight Parrot Passerine Parrakeet .. Blue-winged Love-bird Rosy-faced Love-bird .. Peach-faced Iove-bird JAMES B. HOUSDEN. FOREIGN BIRD NOTES. Str,—Please read (referring to the names of Queensland birds, in January No.), “‘Cockatoos Black and White; Magpies.” The printer has put the stop in the wrong place. J. B. HOUSDEN. 71 FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. Srr,—The article in the Avicultural Magazine by Mr. Perkins, giving his experience with some of the smaller Warblers was, I thought, particu- larly interesting; and, while I do not feel competent to say just what was the cause of his failure, I am strongly of opinion that if he had kept his Willow Wrens, Chiffchaffs, and Sedge Warblers in cages indoors, either together or separately, and fed them more sparingly, he would not have had to record such a tale of woe. The food for and feeding of soft-billed birds has been a pet subject of mine for years, and I could fill many pages of our Magazine with records of both success and failure. The main difficulty the keeper of soft-bills has to cope with, is the fact that what one bird will eat readily and thrive upon, another of the same species will do neither. In spite of many advertisements to the contrary, a perfect food has yet to be found; and it is curious to compare the endless differences in the mixtures to be seen in the food-tins of the various birds one sees on the show-bench. In catering for the smaller Warblers I can reconimend a mixture of good ants’ eggs and yolk of hard-boiled egg as a base. Bread crumbs I do not believe in, as I aim convinced that the smaller birds eat only what they cannot avoid, through their being incorporated in the mixture; and the white of egg will disagree even with human beings, especially in hot weather. To the egg and ants’ eggs let there be added finely chopped green stuff (lettuce, watercress, sprouts, or cabbage). Mealworms certainly ought to be given sparingly, and ought to be cut in halves before being given.* Let me also give a wrinkle in the preparing of eggs for consumption: don’t doc/ them, let them gently simmer for twenty minutes, they will then turn out much lighter and more easy of digestion than if boiled to the consistency of leather—This hint was given in a work on Poultry, published many years ago, but few seem to know it or practise it. If the birds don’t thrive on the mixture given above, I have found it good to add scraped raw lean beef; but great care needs be exercised in giving this, as an overdose will bring on diarrhoea, and in the case of larger birds, larks and thrushes, causes baldness. Blackbeetles and cockroaches I have never known to disagree ; and I have frequently been amazed at the ability of the Whinchat to swallow quite gigantic specimens of these malodorous creatures. I distinctly do not wish it to be understood that I have given the only formula on which the smaller Warblers can be kept, because I have long since found out that there are many people who successfully keep these interesting little creatures on quite different lines, nor do I contend that I have given the best recipe. One’s ideas receive periodical shocks in this connexion in a manner that effectually prevents conceit. Only a few weeks ago, a gentleman who is very successful with Blackcaps told me his method, and ants’ eggs were conspicuous by their absence; and I remember coming across a particularly fine Blackbird just as his owner was preparing his food, and I asked the usual question—‘‘ How do you feed it ?”” the reply was, “On cheese, of course; what else would you give a Blackbird?” Needless to say, this reply was too much for me. To the aviarist bent on keeping our British Warblers, I would say, in conclusion, that cages are better than an outdoor aviary ; give good nourish- * Tn my opinion cruel and unnecessary.—R.P. V2 ing food, little and often; closely observe each bird’s particular vanity, and fall back on that at the first sign of debility, and if the signs of recovery are not apparent in a few hours give the poor creature its liberty while it yet has the strength to fly and find what it requires.* ‘T. MARSHALL, Srr,—Perhaps my way of feeding will interest some readers. Bread crumbs, mashed boiled potatoes, finely chopped cooked beef or mutton, and grated dog-biscuit, mixed, with sometimes a little boiled carrot or boiled bullock’s liver (grated) added, and always a few whole groats thrown on the top of the mixed food. ‘The groats, I think, are excellent for all birds; they give gloss to the plumage and a healthy-looking excrement. My Blackbird is fond of groats, also my Chinese Spectacle Thrush and Piping Crow; but the Shama, I think, hardly touches them. I always give them to Canaries and all seed-eating birds that will eat theim—a few with discretion. When insect-food is scarce 11y substitute is unbaked pie-paste, made with flour and lard, then rolled between the fingers (with a little flour) the size of small mealwormis. ‘The birds relish a few of these now and then. The Rock Parrot will eat a piece the size of a nut with avidity. SAMUEL BURGE. Srr,—Although I do not keep insect-eating birds, I could have wished that some of the members who do would have given their opinion of Sergeant Hanley’s diet of hard-boiled yolk of egg and lean raw beef pounded together. I know his letters were unchallenged at the time they appeared. It seemed to me that to breed Nightingales in an ordinary breeding-cage was a very successful feat. But as no one says anything about his diet, it looks as though those who have experience consider it entirely unsuitable.t As to the feeding of Lories, a bun made of egg, flour, and sugar, stale, and soaked in hot water, then squeezed dry and mashed with half its quantity of dried fig, soaked in boiling water, will keep these birds in the best of health. In “ Parrots in Captivity ” I see that Dr. Greene dwells much on the difficulty of keeping the Many Coloured and Paradise Parrakeets alive. I should not care to try the diet he recommends, and I very strongly suspect the difficulty of keeping these birds consists in over-feeding, and not giving enough exercise. Blue-bounets, Many-coloured, and Paradise Parrakeets are most restless birds, and shortish commons and plenty of room would probably be found their best medicine. F. G. DUTTON. * ‘This interesting letter was to have appeared in last month’s Magazine, but it was crowded out. Its omission made the second foot-note on page 49 incorrect.—ED. +I recently saw a very fine Nightingale at a Show. ‘The food in the cage con- sisted of yolk of hard-boiled egg and raw meat.—H. R. F. 73 Srr,—Perhaps it may be of interest to some of our members to learn that I succeeded in keeping a Spotted Flycatcher for considerably over a year on a mixture of ants’ eggs scalded, and hard-boiled yolk of egg, with a plentiful supply of mealworms daily. I obtained the bird three years ago atthe lL. & P.O. S., he then being in immature plumage ; I subsequently sent him to the Palace where he got a card. [had some trouble with him during his moult, which he took a long time to accomplish, but he was never “in extremis”’ as Mr. Fulljames’ Long-tailed Tit seems to have been. I had unfortunately to leave my birds for some six weeks to the care of an individual whose experience in that line was extremely limited, and the Fly- catcher was one of several that succumbed during my absence. I should not have mentioned the fact, had I not been told that the Spotted Flycatcher is exceedingly difficult to keep for any length of time, and to successfully cage-moult one quite an exception. I should not be surprised to learn that his diet might have been very easily improved upon, and I am inclined to agree with those who think that hard-boiled yolk is indigestible ; at the same time I know of nothing to suggest as a substitute. The Honey-eaters and Bell-birds in my possession have been kept with success on a mixture of bread-crumbs, potato, ants’ eggs, and preserved yolk of egg. Thrushes, Mocking-birds and the like have a preparation that is bought locally, which seems to be composed of meal, crissel, ants’ eggs, and crushed hemp; this is made moist with raw grated carrot, and they seem to do very well on it. I “ring the changes” occasionally with a mixture recommended by Mr. V. Castellan, but the principal ingredients are, I fancy, much the same. Starlings and Pastors are fed om whatever is over from the others; they seem to eat any and everything, and thrive on it too. Bulbuls and Tanagers have a diet similar to the Honey-eaters, with the addition of plenty of ripe fruit; those most delightful of all birds to my mind, the Green Bulbuls, existing almost exclusively on the latter—five which have been in my possession for a lengthy period consume per head more than twice the amount of any other Fruit-eater in the bird-room. With regard to birds which are by nature carnivorous, meat in some shape or form is a necessity, and the result, especially if kept in a confined space, is, to put it mildly, odoriferous. I have found that, to a great extent, this unpleasant characteristic can be remedied by providing a larger supply of insect food, and a proportionally smaller quantity of raw meat. The European Roller, which is, as far as my limited experience goes, one of the worst offenders in this respect, is fed largely on black beetles, gentles, and earthworms, the latter from one to two inches long; this with the addition of a few mealwormis will obviate the necessity of much raw meat. One of the three in my possession has occasionally condescended to taste the mixture provided for some of the other birds, but apparently does. not relish it. A fine Himalayan Pie lives almost exclusively on Sparrows, and he could not be termed “ niffy’’ by the most fastidious. Two species of the family Lantide, viz.: the Red-backed Shrike, and the Woodchat are fed on ants’ eggs and preserved yolk, beetles, earthworms and gentles, etc., and do well on it; a tiny morsel of raw beef very occasionally is all the meat they get. They are in every way perfectly “ sweet.” RUSSELL, HUMPHRYS. 74 10802) GesgsOWILIs, JOR Wels Overy, Jeeves, SslOw- As the Crystal Palace Bird Show is this year under new management the schedule is of more than usual interest, and perhaps a little space may be usefully employed in comparing it with its predecessor. _ ITeannot take upon myself to express an opinion upon the classification of British Birds, but as far as I am capable of judging it seems to be fairly good. There are one or two more classes, but the amount of prize money distributed among them seems to be about the same as before. There is a class for “ A.O.V. resident Finch or Bunting,” and the other A.O.V. classes are reserved for Insectivorous Birds only—this seems to be a decided improvement. ‘The Migratory Birds are piaced among the British, and not, as before, in a section by theniselves; and the A.O.V. Migratory are divided into two classes—one for Insectivorous and the other for Seed-eating. There is a class for ‘‘Any Variety of European Bird not included in the National British Bird and Mule Club’s List ”—why this class is placed in the British section is not very apparent. There are five extra classes in the Foreign section, but the average amount of prize money per class is somewhat reduced. ‘he classification for 1897, for which it is an open secret that Dr. Sinipson was mainly respousible, is somewhat closely adhered to: with, five extra classes it might have been greatly improved. The chief alteration among the small seed- eaters is that in place of the class for ‘‘ Any species of Grassfinch, Mannikin, or Waxbill, not previously inentioned,”’ there are now two—‘‘ Any variety of Waxbill,’” and ‘Any variety of Mannikin.” ‘The use of the word “variety,” when species is intended, is silly—and it looks all the more stupid because ‘‘species”’ is retained in the case of those classes in which there has been no alteration. I have before pointed out that the huge class for Grassfinches, Mannikins, and Waxbills sadly wanted dividing, but it is disappointing that the division has been so carelessly effected. The result is that the rarer Grassfinches cannot be exhibited at all. ‘The common ones can appear in the class for ‘‘ Any variety of Foreign Bird other than Parrots, pairs not to exceed £2, single birds not to exceed £1”’; but such birds as the Long-tailed Grassfinch, the Red-headed Finch, and Bicheno’s Finch (unless their owners are willing to part with them at a low price) are altogether excluded. Probably the framers of the Schedule intended that the Grassfinches should be shown in the Finch class, as they have changed the wording of that class from ‘‘Any species of True Finch, Bunting or Grosbeak not previously mentioned” to ‘‘ Any other variety Finch, Bunting or Grosbeak.” If this was the intention it is scarcely necessary to say that it has not been carried out—by all rules of construction ‘‘ Finch, Bunting or. Grosbeak”? can mean nothing but “any species of /ringilline, Emberizine, or Coccothraustine”’ (that is, any species of /ringillida), and cannot possibly include Plocecdez. The judge would undoubtedly feel bound to disqualify Grassfinches if exhibited in this class, for to do otherwise would be to show himself as ignorant of the most elementary principles of classification as the framers of the Schedule obviously are. If the words ‘‘ Bunting or Grosbeak ” had been omitted, it might have been reasonably contended that the word ‘‘ Finch” is used in a wide popular sense so as to include all Finch-like birds, but the addition of the names of these two sub-families shows clearly that the word Finch is used in the sense of True Finch only: 75 for if ‘“‘Finch ” means all Finch-like Birds, why particularise two sub- families? Such a construction would be as ridiculous as if one were to say “‘ any other variety of mammal, dog or cat.” The division of the A.O.V. Insectivorous or Fruit-eating birds into two classes is a welcome change. The classes for common birds are also a good notion—there is one for Parrots and one for other birds. The only alteration of importance in the Parrot classes is the formation of a separate class for Macaws: this is a welcome and long-needed reform. HORA’TIO R. FILLMER. BREAD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. Srr,—I am rather astonished to see one statement in the letter by Mr. Fulljames in the January No. of the Magazine, namely, that Nightingales and Warblers would not eat bread, or would not digest it if they did. | I believe Mr. Fulljames is a subscriber to “ British Birds with their Nests and Eggs,” and therefore he ust be aware that one of the Night- ingales which I hand-reared in 1887 was fed partly upon bread from August 1887 to August 1888, and another from August 1887 to December 1888; and I am sure that hand-reared Nightingales naturally have not the same power of resisting the influence of adverse circumstances as trapped birds. But, considering how closely related the Nightingale is to the Robin, and the fact that the latter bird, during hard winters, feeds mainly upon bread when in the neighbourhood of towns and villages, it surely seems an un- warranted supposition that this food cannot be digested by the Nightingale. From personal experience I can positively assert that the Blackcap and Garden Warbler do eat bread, and that it does not disagree with them: my present example of the latter species has twice moulted in my possession, aud is now in perfect health and plumage; it not only eats bread and uncooked apple, but swallows a good deal of canary- and millet-seed of its own free will, yet it never looks unhappy or out of sorts. I think it is a mistake for an aviculturist to assert positively that any food which is wholesome and nutritions in itself cannot be digested by any group of birds (at any rate until he has given it a fair and impartial trial). Mr. Fulljames is aman of judgment, and he acted wisely in administering beef-tea to a sickly bird; yet he goes out of his way to declare that a far more natural food is indigestible. This curious prejudice against the staff of life is very puzzling to me: I use a considerable quantity of bread every week and yet my soft-food eaters are healthy. Surely for a Blue-bird to have kept in vigour and good condition for nine years, a Liothrix in moderate health for ten years, a Blackbird in perfect health for nearly five years, a Pileated Jay for four or five years (with many others for shorter terms) should be a pretty good test of the value of bread as one item, in soft-food imixtures, which is not injurious to health. My English Jay and my Nuthatch will eat pieces of crumb bread broken from a loaf with relish ; I have even seen my Superb ‘Tanager do the same, although I rarely offer it bread alone. A. G. BUTLER. 76 THE GREEN AVADAVAT. Srr,—I hope Mr. Todd will not think me discourteous in expressing regret that he should be testing the hardiness of several species of foreign birds. I have kept many hundreds of foreign birds,—granivorous, fru- givorous, insectivorous, large and small, birds of prey, ground birds, Crows, Jays, Pies, Finches, Waxbills (including Green Avadavats), and British migrants, and the more I see of them the more I am satisfied that to subject them to unnecessary cold is not only cruel, but a great mistake. Many die and many live—and it is wonderful what trials some will stand; but I am convinced that a large proportion of those which are supposed to have successfully passed the test do not live out half their days, ofttimes not a quarter. Look at some of these little birds, Green Avadavats if you like, in the cold; the greater part of the day they spend huddled together in some box or nest; and when compelled to venture out for food they are lumpy and fluffy. Look at the same specimiens in a moderately warm room; they are tight, sleek, active, and as happy as the day is long (I extend the length of the winter days with artificial light). The larger birds act differently, usually sitting shivering on their perches, excepting the different species of Mynahs and Starlings, who naturally take to the nests and boxes; they feel the cold acutely, but do not die nearly so readily as the others. I regularly let many of my larger birds out for a constitutional during the winter, some even in severe weather, but only for a limited time, longer or shorter according to the day, and the change is distinctly beneficial. When the window is opened, they rush out like mad things, with joyous shrieks and yells. I have but to give the signal, and back they go again as docile as dogs, usually more so than children, and are safely shut up in their cosy room. I no more allow them to stay out in the cold as long as they like than I would allow a child to do so. Mr. Todd admits the importance of protecting the females from cold, and says it would certainly be advisable to separate the sexes during the winter. But most of the Waxbills and foreign Finches are truly miserable when separated. And more than half the pleasure of keeping these little creatures consists in seeing them together and watching their deep affection for one another. Of course it is sometinies absolutely necessary to separate the sexes—but even human beings cannot always have their own way; and those species which separate in their wild state should be kept separate in captivity. REGINALD PHILLIPPS. THE Avicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AVICULETURAE SOCIETY: VOL. IV.—No. 41. All rights reserved. MARCH, 1898. NESTING OF THE GOLDEN-CROWNED PARRAKEET OF NEW ZEALAND. (Cyanorhamphus auriceps). By Gro. E. BOUSKILL. It was late in the season to allow my Golden-crowns to nest, and the only portion of my aviary which I could allot to them at the time was occupied by a pair of Turquoisines and a pair of Budgerigars, the latter of which had young; but before these had left the husk the Golden-crowns had begun to prospect on their own account; and as I did not want the young Budgerigars to be turned out of their nest, I decided to put up another husk, and it was in this that the Golden- crowned Parrakeets settled down to nest. The hen built a cup-shaped nest, using the fibre off the inside of the cocoanut-husk, and in this she laid five pure white eggs, which were very round, and, I think, large for the size of the bird (they almost equalled in size the egg of the Rosella). The female alone incubated the eggs, and a most dutiful parent she was, rarely leaving her nest except to be fed by her mate. Incubation lasted about twenty-one days from the laying of the first egg. As I stated in my last paper, the first egg was laid en the 24th of October, and the fifth on the 28th: this would fix the time for hatching to be about the 14th of November. You can imagine how anxious I was when the 5th of November arrived, for my neighbours had their children to please and could not be expected to study my birds. I was greatly afraid that the illuminations and flashes of light would frighten the hen bird off her nest, and so let the precious eggs get cold; to obviate this, I covered the glass portion of the aviary with dust sheets ; the loud reports I could not keep out, and so far as noise was concerned, the birds had to take their chance. I have read 78 somewhere that ‘“‘a loud report or the slamming of a door will kill young birds in the shell;’’ mine, however, had a fair test in that respect on the sth of November last. But the hen Golden-crown was not so easily startled, and proved herself a most assiduous sitter. . When first hatched the young were covered with a dirty yellow down; they grew very rapidly ; and during the first week the hen bird did not leave them much, but the cock bird fed her both whilst she brooded her young and when she came off for a little exercise. As the young got stronger, she left them more frequently, and when about ten days old both birds entered the nest to feed their young. They began to feather when about fourteen days old, and were fully fledged when about a month old. The young did not leave the nest until they were five weeks old. They were then very much like their parents, except that the crimson band above the upper mandible was hardly perceptible, and the patch of golden-yellow less bright, the red under the wings was only just indicated, and the beak was flesh colour, being rather darker at the tip. )Dhe young were) rearedyon canary, hemp and millet seed, and in addition, about thirty to forty mealworms per diem, and stale bread soaked in cold water aud then squeezed nearly dry. About a fortnight or so after the young had left the nest, I was so unfortunate as to lose three out of the five young ones: they died without giving the least warning. The last one of the three I sent to a well-known aviculturist for post-mortem examination, and received from him the following report: ‘* The crop was filled with hemp, the liver was much congested, and the kidneys were affected although to a lesser extent; but there was great effusion of blood on the surface and in the substance of the brain which was the immediate cause of death, the congestion of the liver being the remote one. You would find a diet of canary seed and oats preferable to what you have been giving. The bird was a male and in excellent condition.” It would seem quite possible that the hemp seed was the main cause of the death of the young ones, as the old birds are particularly fond of hemp and will eat no other seed so long as there is any hemp left. I now only give them a little occasion- ally. The remaining young are doing very well and can scarcely be distinguished from their parents. 79 SRO IRD S WAI thie PAEACGE: By THomAS MARSHALL. In attempting to say something respecting the 472 specimens of British birds at the 1898 Crystal Palace gathering of birds, and their owners, there seems such a variety of lines to go upon that one hardly knows which will be the most acceptable to the readers of our Magazine. ‘To criticise the birds is only doing what many of our members have done for them- selves, to criticise the judging is to bring down upon one’s self the wrath of the successful exhibitor, and to write of the catering for the exhibits is, we know from experience, an utter waste of labour. It was to be hoped, after what I stated in the Magazine last year, and which was afterwards borne out by Mr. Fulljames and Mr. A. Jones, that this year the German paste abomination would be conspicuous by its absence; but no, there it was as plentiful and as sticky as of yore. To come to the birds, however, the specimens staged at this show were the best I ever looked over. Beginning with the Bullfinches the class was one long string of grand birds, and yet the winner (1,381) was such a superb specimen that the judge could have no difficulty in awarding the prize; some of his other awards would probably have been disturbed if the two Bullfinches wrongly entered in the Redpoll class had been in their proper place. The winners of first, second, and third prizes in the Goldfinch class were all the property of Mr. Williams, of Ponty- pridd, and it is interesting to note that each of this gentleman’s birds got a prize, and also that another gentleman of the same name did the same thing with each of his fifteen entries! As, however, these latter were hybrids, they are outside the province of this paper. The fourth prize Goldfinch was the property of another Mr. Williams, one of our members, and was very unlucky to be beaten. The Chaffinches were not, as a class, very remarkable, though there were several very good looking birds staged, and after selecting these the judge must have had some trouble in awarding the prizes, there being so very little to choose between them. I thought that prizes three and four might have been reversed. The man who wins a prize with a Chaffinch must always be looked upon as a fortunate individual, and deserving what he wins, as it is one of the most difficult birds to get steady (tame- ness, as we understand the word, being out of the question), 80 months of care often become wasted at the last moment in the transferring of the bird to the show-cage. Linnets formed the next class, and these birds are such favourites of mine that it would not take much effort on my part to become effusive on their merits. The winner of the second prize must have misbehaved himself while under the judge’s eye, or he must have been first, as he was full of quality all over. 1,505 was a Greenfinch, and was, of course, thrown out as being wrong class; as it came from Yorkshire, where Greenfinches are commonly called Green Linnets, the owner’s mistake is pardonable. The next class (Lesser Redpolls, and Twites) contained, as it generally does, a large proportion of freshly-caught birds, which, however, were very properly not allowed to win over genuine cage-moulted specimens. 1,564 and 1,565 were shewn in cages provided with all the paraphernalia generally used by fanciers for making these intelligent little creatures ‘‘do something for their living,” by drawing up a small bone bucket out of a water receptacle suspended some foot or so below the cage. Small things are always associated with small minds, and it is not difficult to form an opinion as to the mental calibre of those who indulge in freaks of this kind. Amongst the Siskins, we find last year’s winner (as in the Bullfinch class) quite unnoticed by the judge, and yet such is the fate which naturally, sooner or later, befalls champious, feathered and otherwise ; and when that happens, owners should accept the inevitable, and allow their birds to rest on their laurels. The winner in this class was a remarkably fine bird, but might have been beaten by 1,570 (which took third) had it not been over done in the matter of colour- food. 1,578 was a capital Black-headed Siskin, and consequently was marked wrong class. The next class for A. O. V. resident Finch or Bunting was very interesting, and here again an old winner, Mr. Raine’s Hawfinch, was unnoticed ; the first prize went to an exceedingly bright Yellowhammer. It has long been known to me that the further one gets away from London the better for getting good Yellowhammers, and this view was confirmed on my turning to the Index of the Catalogue and there finding that this winner comes from Aberdeen. Essex Yellowhammers are very dowdy creatures, and yet, curious to record, Essex Chaffinches are the best in England; but this is a digression. The second prize went to a very good Greenfinch, and the third to another Yellow- hammer, thus leaving the ten Hawfinches, all of which were good, out in the cold. 81 The Skylarks and Robins were two very ordinary classes. Messrs. Killbury’s old champion Skylark was easily first, and this for the sixth year in succession ; next to it I should have placed 1,634, which had to be content with a V. H.C. None of the Robins were up to show standard; the winner was a goodly shaped specimen, but by no means a bright one. Blackbirds come next, and we are again treated to a sight of some superb specimens. Messrs. Hobbs’ bird (first) was wonderfully steady, and had a beautiful eye cere; while next to it was Mr. Morgan’s (1,672, V. H.C.), with an ideally shaped head and intense blackness of body feather. In the Thrush class old birds were conspicuous by their absence. Clean-legged, racy, up-standing young birds comprised the bulk of this class, and a better lot of Thrushes have probably never been staged ; some grandly marked birds were not awarded prizes, but the judge had a by no means easy task. In the Starling class we were again brought face to face with old friends, and once more “ talent” has had to give way to “appearances.” ‘The birds catalogued as ‘“ talkers,” or otherwise accomplished, were absolutely unnoticed by the judge; the first prize bird was a particularly well marked bird, full of ‘‘ work,” and, to my mind, 1,703 V.H.C., might have been second. 1,720 was Mr. Fulljames’ ‘“‘Jacob,” who had a deal to say, but I am sorry to say failed to make himself ‘“‘ understanded of me.” Class 107 for Magpies, Jackdaws, Jays, and Choughs was a very small one, but all the birds were in a first rate condition. I thought 1,723 V. H. C. a better and smarter Pie than the winner 1,724, which seemed dull and listless. Mr. Fulljames’ and Mr. Gibbons’ Choughs (1,729 second, and 1,725 V. H. C.) were really beautiful exhibits. One of the most interesting classes in the whole show was that for Pied birds and Albinos, and in this class were some charming specimens: notably, 1,732, a Cinnamon Yellow- hammer (unnoticed), and 1,742, an Albino Skylark (V. H.C.), small, and undoubtedly a hen, but a true Albino with pink eyes. Mr. Fulljames’ Cinnamon Starling was in grand condition, and was deservedly first in a class most difficult to judge. Two birds in this class well worthy of mention were Mr. Swailes’ Yellow Greenfinch, 1,731, and Mr. Hay’s White Greenfinch, 1,738, both of which were good exhibits and very uncommon. Of the resident insectivorous birds not larger than a Woodlark there is little to be said. Mr. Staines’ Stonechat and Mr. Poynter’s Jenny Wren were first and second, and I was 82 pleased to see that both of them were independent of the fare provided by the authorities; had it been otherwise, neither of these interesting little creatures would ever have seen their home again alive. Mr. Maxwell took third prize with a very good Grey Wagtail; and here let me say that a Wagtail always seems to me to be more at home on a show bench than most of the birds that find their way there, and generally makes a graceful and charming exhibit. Noticing that the first bird in the next class was catalogued as a “ Peewit” I was looking forward to interviewing alive, and at close quarters, that bird of tradition, cursed of the Covenanters and blessed of the Tyrwhitts (whose family name is a Lincoln- shire rendering of their call-notes), but alas, the occupant of the cage was a hen Ring Ouzel, and as the class was for larger vesident insectivorous, was out of place. A Great Grey-backed Shrike, the first I remember to have seen on show, took first prize, and a well-shewn Woodpecker took second. It is not often that one has the pleasure of hearing a Nightingale singing on the show bench, but that shewn by Mr. Maxwell certainly sang on the occasion of my visit: the prize, however, went to Mr. Preston’s ’Gale, the only entry that gentleman had in the show. Three more classes and I shall have got through my task. Taking the last first we have, I believe, quite a new class, z.e., one for Any Variety of European Bird not included in the N. B. B. and M. Club list. Not the least interesting exhibit in the class under consideration was a Crested Lark, which was unnoticed by the judge, owing to its obvious want of condition. A capital Blue-throated Warbler was awarded first prize, and Mr. Russell Humphrys was fortunate to get second with his Rose-coloured Pastor. Classes 112 and 113 were for Migratory Insectivorous and Seed-eating respectively, and the former class shewed us the advisability of yet another division in the classification, for fair- play can hardly be dealt out where such birds as Ring Ouzels and Fieldfares are opposing Whitethroats and Redstarts. As it was, the smaller birds took the prizes, and the larger ones went without. 18084 was catalogued as a Blackcap, but the cage contained the remnant of a Swallow. In the Seed-eating Migratory class such extremes did not exist, and the Bramblefinches secured the prizes—the winner, 1,820A, being a particularly well marked specimen. The fourth prize went to a very good Mealy Redpoll, albeit it was not cage-moulted. 83 Comparing the whole show with many of its predecessors the quality and condition of the exhibits were strikingly superior, and exhibitors generally seem to be acquiring a predilection for only such birds as are more or less difficult to keep, and the absence of Jays, Twites, Snow, Lapland, and Corn Buntings, Tree and Reed Sparrows bears out my remark. SMALL FOREIGN BIRDS AND DOVES AT THE CRYSTAL PALACE. By A. G. Burzer, Ph.D. The show of small foreigners (but especially of soft-food eaters) was exceptionally fine this year, so that the task of judging must have been unusally heavy ; it is therefore not at all surprising that not a few exhibitors are dissatisfied, and Gn some cases) I think, with reason: nevertheless every judge must be guided by his own opinion ; and if, in certain classes, he elects to regard perfect plumage of greater importance than rarity, there is no law to prevent his doing so. The names given to the birds in many classes were less accurate than they usually are (which is saying a good deal), perhaps one of the most comical things being the substitution of a Ring-ouzel for a Peewit in the British Classes. Class 115.—GOULDIAN FINCHES, ETC. The first prize was given to Mr. E. Griffith’s male Red- headed Gouldian, which was perfect in plumage though, if rarity had been taken into consideration, Mr. Maxwell’s Three-coloured Parrot-finch (though not perfect in feathering) must have stood first; it was however not noticed. ‘The second prize went toa very good pair of typical Parrot-finches exhibited by Mr. H. B. Smith ; the third to Mr. Maxwell’s pair of Gouldian’s, fourth to a good cock Black-head exhibited by Mrs. H. W. Wickens, and the fifth to Mr. Maxwell’s cock Pin-tailed Nonpareil (entered as A pair). (@) Class 116.—JAVA SPARROWS. A very beautiful white pair, exhibited in too small a cage ibys Coe. Knowles, cared) ott the frst prize ; whilst Mr. H. B. Smith’s birds took the second and third prizes. I had so few Greys to choose from this year, most of my last year’s young birds having been imperfect white specimens, that I stood little chance of a card. (a) Possibly the hen may have died during the show.—A.G.B. 84 Class 117,—WEAVERS AND WHYDAHS. Messrs. Fulljames and Maxwell took four of the five prizes, the first and third being given to Crimson-throated Whydahs, the second to Mr. Smith’s Oryx (still nearly in full breeding plumage), whilst the fifth prize was given to a common, cheap, though not frequently imported bird—the Half-masked Weaver. Class 118.—WAXBILLS. I fail to understand why exhibitors enter Bicheno’s Finches in this Class, since they undoubtedly stand between Zebra and Cherry Finches, having the call-note of the former with a vague approach in coloration to the latter: they certainly are not Wax- bills (a); those exhibited were apparently two cock birds. The first prize was properly awarded to Mr. Maxwell’s splendid pair of Violet-eared Waxbills, the second to his Rufous-tailed Grass- finches, the third to his Crimson-finches, all of these being in very good condition. Class 119.—MANNIKINS. Mr. Maxwell’s Pectoral-finch (entered as a pair) took the first prize and Mr. Fulljames’ pair stood second: his Magpie Mannikins did not look to me like a pair, and Mr. Abrahams probably disqualified them for that reason. Class 122.—CARDINALS. Mr. Davis’ Thick-billed Cardinal was hardly in show condition, therefore only got a card, Miss A. P. Jackson taking first prize with a good male Green. Mr. C. Verrall’s Pope took second, Mrs. Frostick’s Virginian third, Mr. Verrall’s male Green fourth. Class 123.—MIXED FINCHES. This Class is a curious jumble of Frinxgilline and Ploceine birds, and I must confess that I cannot follow the judging: I should have given Mr. Maxwell’s pair of Long-tailed Grass- finches first and Mr. Russell Humphrys’ Trumpeter Bullfinches second, but in other points I should not have done as our experienced judge did: my idea is that Mr. Maxwell’s Mexican Siskin merited a third, Mr. Housden’s Red-headed Finch a fourth, and Mr. Swaysland’s Yellow-headed Sparrows at least a fifth : I do not understand common birds like Parson- finches (though they were not a bad, pair) taking a prize at all; but it is evident that, in nearly all cases, plumage was considered before rarity. (a) The Zoological Society are answerable for this, for they call the bird Zstrelde bichenovit.—ED. SS a ee ee 85 Class 124.—DOVES AND QUAILS. The names of the Doves were curiously mixed: Australian Crested Doves being entered as ‘ Diamond Doves,’ Bronze-wings as ‘Crested,’ Peaceful as ‘ Zebra.’ In this Class the rarest birds (Mr. Housden’s Nicobar Pigeons) took the highest honours and, unless I am much mistaken, two cock Peaceful Doves, exhibited by the London Fanciers’ Supply Association, the second; they were entered ‘Two Zebra Doves, Cock.’ Class 125.—TANAGERS AND BULBULS. This was a splendid Class and really required several extra firsts to do it justice. To my mind Mr. Maxwell’s Blue and Black Tanager, which took fifth, should have stood first, both for rarity and colouring; Mr. Humphrys’ Blue-winged Green Bulbul second ; his Black-crested Yellow Bulbuls third: Mr. Maxwell’s Tricoloured Tanager extra third, his Greenish Tanager fourth, and his curiously coloured Tanager (No. 2,014) of which I do not know the name, fifth. I cannot see that birds which have become so common in the market as ordinary Green Bulbuls, or (much less) Red-eared Bulbuls, have any claim to more than V.H.C. for condition. Class 126.—CROWwWS, STARLINGS, ETC. Mr. Russell Humphrys’ magnificent Occipital Blue Pie well deserved its place at the head of this Class; but Mrs. W. H. Field’s Long-tailed Glossy Starling was somewhat bobtailed and not to be compared with Mr. H. B. Smith’s Purple-headed Starling (No. 2,025). I should also have preferred Mr. Housden’s Mexican Jay to Mr. Humphrys’ Andaman Starling, although the latter was a very nice bird. Mrs. Field’s Blue-hooded Jay (fourth) is a good bird and deserved its place, though a year in a good- sized flight would improve it. Mr. Fulljames’ Malabar Mynah (fifth) was a capital specimen of a common species; I prefer Mr. Housden’s Crested Mynahs, rarer and far more intelligent birds. Class 127.—SMALLER INSECTIVOROUS BIRDS. Mr. Maxwell’s beautiful male of Dacnis cayana surely had a higher claim to a first place than his much commoner though lovely little Spectacled birds (not ‘ Finches’), yet this Sugar-bird only got a V.H.C.: I cannot, with all deference to the great experience of an old friend, comprehend this decision. . Class 128.—LARGER INSECTIVOROUS BIRDS. Mr. Russell Humphrys’ Racquet-tailed Drongo took first. I think I should have given preference to Mr. Maxwell’s Green- 86 crested Touracou (which was in much better plumage, in spite of the quantities of sawdust which it was fed upon) (a): altogether, I quite approved of the judging in this Class, and felt inclined to pat my instructor upon the back (which is the way of the world when the judgment of the pupil chimes in with that of his. preceptor). Class 129.—A MIxED SELLING-CLASS. I should have given a prize to Mr. Fulljames’ Madagascar Weaver in breeding plumage, in preference to the not very grand pair of Zebra-finches which took fifth prize, and I should have preferred No. 2,074 to 2,076 (fourth prize), which struck me as. not being quite up to the mark: otherwise I was satisfied. NOTES ON SOME OF THE FOREIGN BIRDS (OTHER THAN PARROTS) A HES CRYSTAL PALACE SHOVE By, eRe Sim vuE. The placing of the Class for ‘“ Any variety of European Bird not included in the N. B. B. and M. C. List,” in the British Section is one of those things which, I suppose, only a ‘‘ fancier’” can understand, a mere aviculturist certainly cannot. The Class declares itself to be for non-British birds, and yet it is a British- bird Class! But let that pass. There were good birds in this Class, and Mr. Maxwell’s Blue-throated Warbler was deservedly first. Mr. Russell Humphrys’ Rose-coloured Pastor was second, and Mr. Fulljames’ Blue Rock Thrush and Barred Warbler respectively third and fourth. The Class also contained three Waxwings, two Ortoian Buntings, a Crested Lark, a Pied Rock Thrush. and another Blue Rock Thrush (decidedly inferior to the prize-winner). It was a most interesting collection of birds, and no fault could, I think, be found with the judging. There were no less than five pairs of Parrot Finches, none however inreally perfectcondition. These birds moult twiceinthe year, and are usually a long time over it, so that they are moult- ing during a large part of each year—this makes them very trying birds tothe exhibitor. There was besides a Three-coloured Parrot Finch (47ythrura trichroa) a rarer but, to my thinking, a less beautiful species. Passing over the Java Sparrows (about which there is (a) I cannot understand why fruit-eating birds are expected to digest sawdust, I should almost as soon mix tintacks with their food: sand or earth in the tray would be far better.—A. G. B. 87 never much to be said), and the Weavers and Whydahs (about which much might be said,though not by me), I come to the Wawxbills. Here were Violet-eared (properly first), Rufous-tails, Crimson Finches, Dufresne’s Waxbills, Sydney Waxbills, Bicheno’s. Finches, St. Helenas, and a hen Cordon Bleu. Crimson Finches are commoner than Dufresne’s Waxbills, but the former were placed over the heads of the Dufresnes, probably because the latter were a little out of condition. Mr. Storey’s St. Helenas were of the small variety, no larger than the Grey Waxbill. The Bicheno’s Finches were disqualified. Besides the Bicheno’s Finches in this Class, the judge disqualified, in other Classes, a pair of Magpie Mannikins and a pair of Popes. These entries were presumably all disqualified on the ground that they were not true pairs: they are all birds in which the outward differences between the sexes (if there be any outward difference at all) are of an extremely slight and uncertain character, and, in my opinion, the judge would have been wiser to give these exhibits the benefit of the doubt. The Mannikin Class contained only seven entries, one or two of which were absent. Both prizes went to Pectoral Finches. There was nothing of special interest in the Cardinal Class, except Mr. Davis’s Thick-billed Cardinal, and that has been seen once or twice before at the Palace. This year it was in rather rough feather. The Class for ‘“‘ Any other variety of Finch, Bunting, or Grosbeak”? was a most interesting one, and contained thirty- three entries—unfortunately the judge failed to do justice to it. A Virginian Cardinal, a Black-headed Mannikin, and a pair of Pectoral Finches were rightly marked ‘ wrong-class,’ and the same course ought to have been taken with the Grass-finches, of which there were nearly a dozen entries. It is perfectly clear that Grass-finches had no business in a class for ‘‘ Finches, Buntings and Grosbeaks,” but if the judge decided to admit them he should, in common fairness, have refrained from “‘wrong-classing”’ azy of the entries in the show. The first prize was awarded to a very fine pair of Long-tailed Grass-finches, the second to the Desert Trumpeter Bullfinches which were first last year, the third to a very ordinary pair of Parson Finches, the fourth to a Mexican Siskin, and the fifth to a Red-headed Finch. It will thus be seen that no less than three of the prize- winners had no business in the class. There were several entries of great interest (of species having a right to be in the class) ; among these I may especially mention an Elegant Bunting 88 from Japan, and Mr. Swaysland’s three exhibits, Chrysomttris tristis (the so-called American Goldfinch, in winter plumage) ; Chysomitris totta ; and what he calls the Yellow-headed Sparrow. The giving of the third prize to a pair of Parson Finches, not in the very best condition, and a mere V.H.C. to the American Goldfinch, which was in perfect feather, is the worst piece of judging that has been seen at the Palace for some years. Judges are human, and like other people they will make mistakes, so that I am not disposed to be severe upon a judge for trifling errors such as awarding a prize to a bird which has lost a claw, or to two of the same sex of a species in which the sexes are almost alike—but putting a pair of Parson Finches (worth about 10/-) over the heads of a Mexican Siskin, a Citril Finch, and an American Goldfinch (not to mention other birds in the class of almost equal interest) was an error of a different kind, and shews the judge to be wanting in the judicial faculty. And in the Class for ‘“‘ Any species of Tanager or Bulbul” the judging was nearly as bad. First, a splendid Blue-winged Green Bulbul, very properly first so far as condition goes—but how about rarity? Second, a Malabar Green Bulbul, young, and not quite in full plumage—the next exhibit was an adult specimen of the same species, in better condition, but this got only a V.H.C. Third, a magnificent Superb Tanager—a lovely specimen, but it ought not to have been put over the heads of the remaining prize-winners. Fourth, a hen Greenish Tanager. Fifth, a Blue and Black Tanager. The class also contained a most interesting pair of Black-crested Yellow Bulbuls, not in the best condition perhaps, but unique on the Show bench; a nice White-eared Bulbul; a Red-eared Bulbul, apparently a hen, and scarcely deserving the card awarded to it; a good pair of Violet Tanagers ; several Scarlet and Superb Tanagers ; and two or three rare Tanagers which I will not expose my ignorance of by discussing. All the birds of any interest in this class belonged either to Mr. Humphrys or to Mr. Maxwell. ‘‘Any species of Crow, Jay, Magpie, Starling, or Mynah.” First, Occipital Blue Pie; second, Long-tailed Glossy Starling; third, Andaman Starling; fourth, Blue-hooded Jay; fifth, Mala- bar Starling. The class also contained a Black-throated Grackle, which was first last year, a pair of Black-crested Mynahs, a Pileated Jay, and several birds of less attractive species. The awarding of the second prize in such a class to a rather poor Long-tailed Glossy Starling would be difficult to defend. 89 The Class for A.O.V. Small Insectivorous contained only five entries—a pair of Grey-backed Zosterops, a single bird of the same species, two pairs of Pekin Robins, and a rare little Sugar-bird which its owner rather oddly calls a Blue-headed Warbler. There would seem to be no difficulty here, the Sugar- bird being in the most perfect condition and undoubtedly rare —but no, with almost incredible wrong-headedness, the judge gives the only prize to the pair of Zosterops. The large Insectivorous Class was well filled. First, Great Racquet-tailed Drongo; extra first, Toco Toucan. Second, a pair of Australian Pittas; extra second, Stevnzs icteronotus. (a) Third, Green-crested Touracou ; extra third, Tui or Parson Bird. There were also—a specimen of Cassidix oryzivora ; two Mocking Birds ; several Toucans of different species; an Indian Barbet; a Laughing Jackass; another Parson Bird; quite a number of Shamas, oddly enough nearly all hens: and last but not least Mr. Fulljames’ La Plata Cuckoos which struck me as the strangest and most noteworthy, though by no means the most taking, of the birds in this class. The very fine Tui which received an extra third should, in my opinion, have been higher up. The Limit Class contained some very charming birds, such as one does not expect to find in a selling class. One little bird, exhibited by Mrs. Frostick, struck me as specially rare and curious—I understand that it came from the west coast of Africa. I have felt bound to express myself somewhat strongly about the judging, as it was, in my opinion, on the whole very bad—much worse than it- has been in any year since 1894. It may perhaps be urged in defence that the judge put condition before rarity, and that he was right in so doing. But even if this were admitted there would still remain the numerous cases in which the judge preferred common birds to rarer ones zz equally good condition. ‘The fact is that no birds, whether foreign birds or not, can be judged for condition only, for the simple reason that in a large class at a good Show there are sure to be several entries which are in practically perfect condition, and between which there is nothing to choose on the score of con- dition only. In classes of mixed species it is impossible to give points for size, shape, or markings, and therefore rarity becomes a most important element. Of two birds in equally good condition there can be no question that the rarer should win— to what extent rarity should be allowed to compensate for slight ‘defects is a more difficult point upon which I need not enter. (a) The more correct name for this species is Casszcus persicus (The Japim Hangnest).—A.G.B. jeje) Considering Mr. Abrahams’. thorough knowledge and unequalled experience it is strange that his judging should not have been a greater success—it seems to shew that, besides knowledge and experience, an indefinable ‘judicial instinct” is required to make a good judge. NOTES (ON THE CLASSES OF THE PSiihACIDAS AE Wale GRYSINE PANINI SInKOWN, By O. BK. CRESSWELL. I will preface these notes with the remark that I do not write as a real authority on Parrots. It had been hoped that Mr. Dutton would be present at the show, and would criticize the Parrot Classes; he was prevented from coming, and I only undertook to supply these notes that our Secretary might be relieved from embarrassment in the matter. To myself, and I should think to many more, these classes were a veritable treat—two of them at least were super-excellent, and the majority very good; there were some failures, which may suggest different classification for next year. In the yclass "ior WWovebirds or Piemiy, searrotspamelle entries were ten in number. The first prize went to a lovely pair of Blue-crowned Hanging Parrots belonging to Mr. C. T. Maxwell; oddly enough, though I watched them on two days, I never saw them hanging. Second went to Mr. Storey’s large and handsome pair of Peach-faced Lovebirds; and.third to Mr. H. B. Smith’s single Ceylonese Hanging Parrot with golden crown (Loriculus indicus, I believe); why no notice should have been taken by the judge of Mr. Fulljames’ beautiful pair of this same species, I could not understand. Fourth prize was awarded to a pair of Peach-faced Lovebirds (Mr. Fulljames’) in singularly good condition. Fourteen pairs of Budgerigars were entered. Mr. Arthur’s first-prize pair were unusually large and in beautiful condition; Mr. Cushny’s second very good; Mr. Maxwell’s third prize pair were Yellow. I cannot pretend to admire this strange variation of colour. The Class for Rosellas was a failure, the entries being only three. The reason for this may probably be a good one, viz., that Rosellas are more and more kept in aviaries, whence their owners do not care to catch them up. Could they not be classed with Pennants or other Platycerci ? The first prize was with- held ; second went to Mr. C. Martin’s fine Mealy ; third to Mr. gI Housden’s Red-headed pair, not in strikingly good trim. Mr. Jeffreys V. H.C. pair were superb Red - heads, large, and in beautiful condition, but they looked somewhat like two cocks; if so they should not have been V.H.C.! (a) King or Crimson Wings brought eleven entries, nearly all in nice condition. First was Mr. Fulljames’ very fine King; second, his lovely Crimson-wing ; third, Mr. H. B. Smith’s King; I admired, too, the same exhibitor’s (V.H.C.) Crimson-wing. “Ring-necked or Indian” were not a very varied or interest- ing collection. First went to Mrs. Henderson’s grand pair of Alexandrine; Mr. H. B. Smith took second with a pair of Rosas, not in striking bloom; Mr. Railton’s Alexandrine, described as ‘a grand talker,’ secured third prize. Mr. Dutton showed a young Malabar, but not for competition. Mr. Maxwell’s Long- tailed Malaccan was in good condition; the species seems nowadays rare. “Lories or Lorikeets” was labelled by the judge ‘a very good class.’ About this there can be no doubt—the rarer Lorikeets were especially beautiful and most of them in lovely condition. First was awarded to Mr. A. Green’s Ceram Lory—a happy-looking bird, lively and in perfect plumage; its catalogue price—£2 6s. 6d.—was tempting, but Lories are not long lived. Mrs. Frostick won second with a very sweet pair of Musky Lorikeets ; Mr. Maxwell third with a pair of Scaly-breasted Lorikeets, in excellent condition, and extra third with a single Ornate Lorikeet. There were also good specimens of Swainson’s and Forsten’s Lorikeets in the class. The class for ‘‘ Any other species of Parrakeets (single)”’ was a decidedly interesting one, with fourteen entries. First went deservedly to Captain Tutton’s somewhat rare Fiji Parrakeet (Pyrrhulopsis tabuensis), very tame and in lovely condition. The figure of this Parrakeet is somewhat like that of the King Parrot. The head, breast and underparts are maroon, shading downwards into crimson; a brilliant blue patch at the back of the neck, flights and tail blue, and the rest of the body green. Mrs. Astrop took second with her beautiful Pileated Parrakeet, which has before won at the Palace. ‘Third, fourth, and fifth all went to Mr. Fulljames: for a Barraband cock in good trim, a cock Blue Bonnet, and a good Many-coloured. A Red-mantled (Platycercus erythropeplus), shown by Mr. Cocksedge, did not obtain any notice. Pairs of ‘‘ Any other species of Parrakeets”’ (2) One of Mr. Jeffrey’s birds had lost a claw—but in other respects they were superior to Mr. Housden’s.—Ep. g2 brought only six entries. Mr. Housden’s glorious pair of Pennant’s, in a large cage, gained first ; no second was awarded ; Mr. Seth Smith took third with a fine pair of Barraband’s in perfect trim, and interesting because hens of this species are rarely seen. I admired the brilliant heads of Mr. H. B. Smith’s V.H.C. Red-masked Conures (Conurus rubrolarvatus). Mr. Maxwell’s H.C. pair of Paradise Parrakeets are still in youthful plumage. (a) Grey Parrots were six in number. Mrs. Peacock’s winner was in lovely trim, and looked to advantage in a splendid cage ; no second prize was awarded, but the third went to apparently an excellent talker, shown by Miss Hatwell. The class for Amazons brought eleven entries. Mr. Hudson won first with a nice-looking Yellow-fronted ; Mr. H. B. Smith second with a fine Mealy, and the London Fanciers’ Association third with a Levaillant’s. I think a pretty little Amazon shown by Mr. Maxwell (V.H.C.) was a ‘Spectacled’ Amazon not quite in full plumage—a treacherous little fellow, which, after much show of affection, bit me! In the Class for Eclectus Parrots the entries were, unfortunately, only four, and the first prize was withheld. Second, a small all-green male, said to be ‘“ Westerman’s Eclectus”: in size, it seemed to me more to resemble the nearly-allied Fclectus riedeli. Mr. C. Martin is its exhibitor. Third went to Mr. Maxwell’s fine Red-sided cock. ‘““Any other variety. Parrots” were eight. Mr. Maxwell took first with a good specimen of the Hawk-headed Parrot ; Mr. Fulljames second and third with, respectively, a Bronze- wing and a Meyer’s. He also obtained a V.H.C. for his Kea— the well-known Parrot of New Zealand, interesting to naturalists from its having acquired carnivorous habits since the country was stocked with sheep. Macaws were only five. First, Mr. Fulljames’ magnificent Hyacinthine; and third, Mr. Maxwell’s Blue and Yellow, in singularly lovely condition. Mr. Fulljames only got a V.H.C. for his rare Spix, probably on account of its poor condition. ‘* Cockatoos—Lemon-crested, White-crested, or Rose- breasted,” were also few. Unfortunately, Mr. Housden’s fine (a) I took these birds to be in adult plumage, and to be two female Golden- shouldered Parrakeets, Psephotus chrysopterygius ; the misleading brownish cap seems not to be unusual in the adult female of this species. They should have been disquali- fied. It is to be regretted that the Zoological Society should call this bird the Paradise Parrakeet, a name which has so long been associated in our minds wlth P. pulcherrimus. I think I am correct in saying that it was Gould who called it the Golden-shouldered Parrakeet ; and I fail to see any reason why the name should be superseded.—R. P. 93 pair of Slender-bills, so often winners at the Palace, were apparently entered in error in this class. The first prize was not awarded; second went to Mr. Housden’s large Sulphur-crest, and third to the Iondon Fanciers’ Association for a Rose-breast. The Class for ‘“‘ Any other variety of Cockatoo” was much better filled—ro entries. Mr. Fulljames took first for a pair of Gangas, claimed at the catalogue price of £20. They were by no means in full plumage. Second went to Mr. Martin’s cock Leadbeater, a very fair specimen; and third to Mr. Maxwell’s Ganga: a pair was entered, but only one was in the cage. It is curious that after some interval there seem lately to have been several importations of this species. The cheap class contained some good specimens and pairs of well-known species, but, as might be expected, nothing very rare. CORRESPONDENCE. PARROT NOTES. S1r,—-I have thought that a few notes, disjointed as they will necessarily be, in reply to various items in the Magazine for December, may be of interest. Firstly, with regard to the Hon. and Rey. F. G. Dutton’s ideal of a Parrot pet, I fear his qualifications will never be realized in an individual bird. In respect of size, of course the only Parrots which would coniply with the first of Mr. Dutton’s conditions would be the Pigmy Parrots. Of these I have two species—the Blue-crowned Hanging Parrot (Loriculus galewlus) aud the Golden-crowned Hanging Parrot (Loriculus astaticus). (a) Both species are very beautiful, and the latter I believe to be exceedingly rare, although I myself lave five specimens. Both sorts are messy, stupid (2), and do not talk. They do not scream, but they are certainly not tame. They hang in clusters from the top of a “‘waggon ”’ cage, and the wall on which the cage is hung shows disagreeable evidence of their presence. (c) My own pet, among a collection of more than forty Parrots of different species, is the Bronze-winged Parrot (Pionus chalcopterus). It will scarcely be true to say that it does not scream, but its “ scream” is a very tiny one, and not at all offensive. Neither does it talk—(I am writing only of my own bird, as it is not easy to speak generally of birds so rare as the Bronze-winged Parrot). In tameness it is far aud away the pink of the collection. It positively loves to be ‘‘ made a fuss of,” and when I have it (a) L. tudicus—the common Ceylonese.—R. P. (6) Not if allowed liberty.—R.P. (c) Mr. Fulljames’ use of the term “‘ Pigmy Parrots,’ to denote the ZLoszcul: or Hanging Parrots, is to be deprecated. ‘he true Pigmy Parrots are the Wasz/erne, which constitute the subfamily /Vaszternzn@, aud are, I believe, practically unknown as cage- birds. The Hanging Parrots belong to the subfamily Pu/eorntthine, and are much more nearly akin to the true Love Birds.—Ep. 94 on my hand, in the presence of a visitor to whom I am showing the peculiarly beautiful colours of the underwing, which are hidden when the bird is at rest, the Parrot utters only the feeblest protest against the liberty J am taking, never dreaming of actively resenting it. Mr. Dutton asks if anyone can aver with truth that they have a Cockatoo which never screams. In my collection there are two of which I can so speak. The Blood-stained Cockatoo (Cacatua sanguinea) has never uttered a sound during the twelve months or so that it has been with me, while the Black Cockatoo (Aicroglossus atertmus) is equally inuocent of the fault of screaming, although he is fond of calling out something which sounds like ‘‘ Papa,” and accompanies his effort with a ludicrous attempt at laughing. My bird is very tame, but a sad feather-eater, and every possible remedy has been tried in vain. We have sprayed him daily with a liquid specially prepared to make his feathers distasteful to him, but with only partial success. Even his tail and wing-feathers, which he knows would be painful of extraction, are not safe, for these he takes by the extremity, and strips of their ‘‘ web,” leaving only the quills. I am faintly hopeful of curing him by giving him only small seeds to eat, and plenty of soft wood to make toothpicks of, and if my treatment succeeds I trust to be able, some time hence, to show him in reasonable condition. I have never kept the Great Green Macaw mentioned by Mr. Dutton, although I have seen it; but the trick of blushing, spoken of by Mr. Dutton as appertaining to this bird, is shared to a remarkable extent by the Black Cockatoo. In repose its cheeks are about the colour of the back of one’s hand, but when excited, either with pleasure or anger, they are flushed with a rosy ted. He very much enjoys being taken out of his cage, although his formidable beak prevents visitors attempting liberties. Mr. Dutton’s query, as to whether either of our members have kept a Spix Macaw, is answered by Mr. Fillmer’s mention of my bird in his report: on the foreign birds at the late Royal Aquarium Show. My bird is one of the best-tempered birds in the collection. He delights in being taken in one’s hand, and there he will, with very great enjoyment, flap his peculiarly short wings as though he meant to fly to the moon. Upside down or right side up is all the same to him. He says a few words, and could easily be taught to become a good talker if he were not mixed up with a large number of Parrots, each of which has his own idea of harmony. I cannot quite endorse Mr. Dutton’s statement that Hyacinthine Macaws have no individuality. My Hvyaciuthine is devoted to my house- keeper, and endures me, while he is spiteful to a degree to strangers. I suspect that the latter is due to the fact that strangers are mistrustful of his wouderful beak, and he knows it. With regard to “making a row,” Mr. Dutton should hear the daily duet which takes up an hour each morning between my Hyacinthine and the Spix, and he would wish he hadn’t. For the rest of the day, both birds are quiet; and I think if they were beyond each other’s hearing neither would be objectionable. (7) I quite agree with Mr. Fillmer that the hen Violet Tanager is seldom (a) We have been obliged reluctantly to omit that part of Mr. Fulljames’ letter which continued the discussion of the L. and P. O. Society's Show—as we consider that sufficient space has already been devoted to that subject. We have received other communications upon the same subject which we have refrained from printing, for the same reason.—Ep. 95 imported. I have bought many freshly-inported birds as hens, and they are now represented in my collection by three survivors, all of which are cocks. JI have never had a hen in my possession. HENRY J. FULLJAMES. DEALERS’ NAMES FOR BIRDS. I agree with the writers of the letters which have appeared under the above heading in thinking that a glossary of English names of foreign birds would be useful—I doubt, however, whether it would be expedient for the Society to undertake the preparation of such a work at present. I think that if the Society were to publish a glossary, it would be necessary for us to fix upon one English name for each species commonly imported, which should in future be treated by us as the accepted name. The recognition of an accepted English name for every species would be a great convenience, but the selection of the name would, in many cases, be a very difficult and delicate matter, and might possibly cause much dissatisfaction. Further, it is worth serious consideration whether the preparation of a glossary of dealers’ names would not tend to the perpetuation of some names which would be better forgotten, and give a fictitious importance to names scarcely known beyond the circle of the customers of the dealer who invented them. With regard to scientific names, it has long been an unwritten law of the Society that only those names adopted in the British Museum Catalogue of Birds should be used in the Magazine. This rule has, however, frequently been broken, and there are reasons which make it sometimes difficult to enforce it in practice. I believe it to be the wish of all those engaged in editing the Magazine that it should be more strictly enforced in future. Personally, I should like, as far as possible, to see the adoption of a uniform system of English names in our Magazine, and I believe that this may in time be gradually brought about. If this were achieved, the adoption by the Society of a list of accepted English names would be easy— at present, I fear it would be hazardous and difficult. HORATIO R. FILLMER. WINTERING FOREIGN BIRDS IN OUTDOOR AVIARIES. S1r,—In commenting on Mr. Phillipps’ letter in last issue ve winter- ing foreign birds out of doors (for, as I read it, it is of general application, and he only mentions Green Avadavats as an instance) I would not pit my ‘small array of facts against his, for I am comparatively young in aviculture, but iy experience is quite the contrary to his, and leads me to believe that many birds which will appear puffed and unhappy 77 an unheated indoor aviary (a) will, in a garden aviary, open to the atmosphere (of course screened on the North and East) charm their owners (in the winter) with their cheerfulness, vivacity, and song. (a) Mr. Phillipps did not suggest that foreign birds should be wintered in “an unheated indoor aviary,’’—his words are ‘‘a moderately warm room.”’ It is well-known that birds kept in the open air will stand much more severe cold than those indoors, and that indoor aviaries should always be heated in winter.—Ep. 96 Under such conditions I have kept African Weavers, Green Singing, Ribbon and Zebra Finches, Indian Avadavats and Mannikins, and Java. Sparrows in my garden aviary here in London, constructed similarly to an ordinary fowl-run and shed. They have exhibited the demeanour afore- mentioned, and by it have left no doubt as to their happiness and well-being —this is actual experience, not belief—the bath is never absent, and they bathe freely in the most inclement weather. As already stated in the Magazine, I had a young Java Sparrow fly on November 6th last, and it is now in the pink of condition, still, of course, in its nest feathers. I have only had two deaths in two years, and these occurred in late summer (one Weaver stuck in the moult and one Java Sparrow in a fit). It seems to me, that these facts speak for themselves, and I fail to see any cruelty in the practice when the birds, by their demeanour and song, most certainly say otherwise. (a) As to Green Avadavats, the Rev. C. D. Farrar has wintered them out of doors, and what is more, bred from them early the following season. I an of the belief that most of the Grass-finches could be so wintered with advantage to themselves, but this I have not yet tried. WESLEY T. PAGE. S1r,—It is naturally with great hesitation that I venture to differ from so experienced an aviculturist as Mr. Phillipps. If experiments to test the hardiness of birds were certainly fore- doomed to failure (and even success of no great importance) they might well be considered cruel; but is the failure such a certainty? Considering the number of birds native to warm climates that are now kept with perfect success in open air aviaries throughout the year, it is not unreasonable to suppose that there are others that would thrive under the same treatment, and it seems to me that to add to the list would be an important service to aviculture. In making experiments to this end I am afraid it is inevitable that there should be victims, but each of these will teach a useful lesson which will justify the apparent cruelty. A large out-of-door aviary is more within the means of most people than one of similar extent under cover and warmed; birds that do not mind the exposure will surely pass thus a happier existence than confined in cages or small aviaries in a warm bird-room. Mr. Phillipps’ description of birds in cold weather certainly does not apply to my Green Avadavats. I have particularly noticed them on the few days of sharp frost we have had this winter and have always found them as lively, spruce and active as on a bright summer day. As regards separating the sexes, I advise this, not because the females inind the cold, but because some birds will not learn that our winter is not the suitable season for breeding, and the females, in consequence, get egg- bound. However, most of the species I keep out make no attempt to breed during the winter, and of these there is no necessity to separate the sexes. (a) Mr. Page might have mentioned many more such facts—I could mention many more myself—but I remain unconverted. ‘There is another side to the picture, of which I have too often been an unhappy spectator.—R. P. 97 I have so far experimented with Virginian, Red-crested and Green Cardinals, Red-headed, Japanese, Nonpareil and Indigo Buntings, Sycalis arvensis, Desert Trumpeter Bullfinch, Cherry Finch, Chestnut Finch, Diamond Sparrow, Black-headed Nun, Parson Finch, Zebra Finch, Green Avadavat. Of many of these I have had specimens out for three winters, and cannot see any loss of vitality in them ; of those I have lost, I have not been able to attribute the death to cold in any one case, but a Diuca Finch I certainly lost owing to exposure. I judge from Mr. Farrar’s notes in the Magazine that he has kept out many other species, and his experience on the subject would be interesting. Time only will show whether the lives of my birds are shortened by exposure. In this connection it wonld be interesting to have fuller statistics than we at present possess of the length of time during which the smaller Finches are generally kept in a warm bird-roomi. Rk. A. Topp. FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. S1rR,—I see Mr. Marshall was somewhat surprised at a Blackbird being kept on cheese. In this part of the world, we feed Blackbirds and Thrushes on barley meal made crumbly with water. They may have an occasional snail, but not regularly. On this they thrive and live long. I can answer for it, because I have kept them in this way. J, (Ca IDO MON, $1r,—As you invite further correspondence on the subject of Food for Soft-billed Birds, I send you my experience in the matter. I feed my birds on a mixture I make myself, but which I cannot give the receipt for, as Lam thinking of making it for sale. I shall be glad, liowever, to send a limited number of members samples of it on application. In addition to the above mixture, I give raw meat prepared as follows: The meat (mutton for choice) is first scraped or chopped fine; it is then well saturated with water, which is then well squeezed out in the hand. The meat can then be placed in mouthfuls between the bars of the cage orinapan. I believe this washing of the meat to be the secret of success in feeding on meat, aud that it agrees better with birds than when unwashed. Washing the meat before chopping it would not have the same effect. I suppose the juices in unwashed meat are too stimulating. Meat prepared as above may be given ad libitum with the greatest benefit. Another advantage gained by the washing is the removal of the stickiness of unwashed meat, which causes too large a quantity to be taken by a bird and wasted about the cage. When raw meat is not at hand I give cooked meat ; but I do not consider it as good as raw, nor do the birds care forit as much. I also think some insect food every day is desirable, but not necessary. On the above treatment I have kept birds such as Shamias, in perfect health and song; also, whilein India, an English Nightingale, in perfect health and song for about five years, and probably should have kept him longer if I had not taken him with me to an altitude of about 6,000 feet when he was moulting, and the sudden change from leat to cold was evidently too much for him. 98 In the December number of our Magazine, Mr. Dutton questions whether in confinement the natural food is best, on the strength of the fact that honey has been found injurious to birds which eat it in a wild state ; but may not this be explained by the fact that honey or nectar, as extracted from flowers, is a different substance from honey as stored by the bees? My bee book, speaking of the working bee, says ‘‘It has a honey-sack in which the nectar from the flowers is collected, and transformed by a chemical action into honey.”’ Green Bulbuls I have found do well on my mixture, bread and milk, aud soft fruit. I have not found it necessary to feed my birds at night in the winter, as recommended by Mr. Bonhote. My idea is that while birds are asleep there is no waste of tissue, and therefore no demand-for food. I doubt if Miss Hopwood’s plan, of making her birds eat green food, is a good one. I find that insectivorous birds do not, as a rule, care for green food. If it is good for them, I don’t think they ought to require forcing to take it. Cc HARRISON. Srr,—It seems more convenient to discuss Dr. Butler’s letter on “Bread for Soft-billed Birds”’ under this heading, as it deals with a branch of the same subject. Aviculture is not an exact science, and aviculturists always have differed, and probably always will differ, in opinion as to the best foods for various kinds of birds; still, there is such a thing as what may be called the traditional or orthodox doctrine on the subject, aud I think everyone will agree that the feeding of British Warblers on food containing bread- crumbs is not in accordance with orthodox avicultural teaching. (2) It seems to me, therefore, that Dr. Butler can scarcely complain of Mr. Fulljames’state- ment to the effect that the more delicate insectivorous birds cannot digest bread, as that statement is in 10 way original, and is but an echo of what we have always been taught by those who have hitherto been supposed to know most about the subject. The statement itself may be true or may be false, but it is so well supported by authority that no one need be astonished at its being made, and the onus of proof is on those who controvert it. ‘here appears to me to be an inherent difficulty in believing that bread is good for insectivorous birds. ‘The ability to digest farinaceous food depends upon the power to convert starch into dextrine; and we are told that young infants, whose natural food is milk, do not possess this power. The natural food of insectivorous birds is insects, and as the power to convert starch into dextrine would be useless to them in a state of nature it seems scarcely likely that they possess it. The advantage of biscuit over bread is that in biscuit a larger proportion of the starch has been already converted into dextrine in the process of baking. The fact that insectivorous birds will devour considerable quantities of bread without injury to themselves proves little or nothing. Our grand- fathers and grandmothers were largely fed, in infancy, on pap, and were (a) What is orthodox avicultural teaching ? Orthodoxy teaches that some fruit- eaters shall be fed on raw meat. ‘Yo each man orthodoxy is his own doxy.—A. G. B. Sle en SS ee 99 apparantly none the worse for it—yet no one would nowadays recommend such a diet for babies. Birds like the Blackcap and the Garden Warbler, both of which feed largely on berries and fruit, would be much more likely to digest bread than birds which live entirely ou insects; and the same applies to a smaller extent to the Nightingale, which is also in some degree an eater of berries. The Liothr tx, the Blackbird, and the Jays will, as is well known, live on anything—the Nuthatch is almost equally omnivorous, while the Tanagers are mainly fruit-eaters. Therefore scarcely any of the birds mentioned by Dr. Butler come within the meaning of the expression used by Mr. Fulljames— “the most delicate of the insectivorous birds.”’ SEPTIMUS PERKINS. Srr,—I have been asked to reply to Dr. Butler’s criticism: upon my letter in the Avicultural Magazine for January. My statement that Nightingales could not digest breadcrumbs was based upon the fact that, during an experience of nine or ten years, the Nightingale which I now have, and which is singing from daylight until the gas is turned out at night, is the only one I have ever been able to keep through the autumn. About ten years ago I began with two Nightingales, and fed them on a mixture somewhat resembling that mentioned by Dr. Butler in “ British Birds, their Nests and Eggs.” Both died just as I was expecting them to come into song. I have had never less than one Nightingale each season since then, but they have all died before Christmas in each year. I sent the last two bodies for post-mortem, aud the report was that the birds had died from some disease (with a i,atin name reaching across the page), induced in the first stages by indigestion, consequent upon the birds having been supplied with food which contained breadcrumbs and peanieal. My existing bird has had, since he has been with me, which is since the Crystal Palace Show of 1897, nothing but ants’-cocoons and insects, and his condition at the recent Show of 1898 was, I think, sufficient justification of the treatment. He was singing in his cage during the Show, and held, at times, quite a levee. Dr. Butler’s referring me to “‘ British Birds, their Nests and Eggs” was scarcely a happy thought on his part, for I thereby gather that of the five birds he took from the nest in 1887 three died in about two inonths, and the fourth and fifth within eighteen months, and he does not mention having tried to keep a Nightingale since. Might I suggest that the presumed “suustrokes ” were jis consequent upon injudicious feeding ? Anyway, a Nightingale will have nothing but strictly insectivorous food with me. HENRY J. FULLJAMES. In connection with the alleged injurious effects of honey on captive birds, it is worth mentioning that I have been informed that Mr. Richard, a member of our Society, has kept two specimens of the Yellow-winged Sugar Bird (Cewreba cyanea) for some years, in perfect health and plumage, and that these birds have been largely fed on honey—a section of honey in the comb being almost always in their cage. HorRaTIo R. FILIMER. 100 THE AGH OF CAGE-BIRDS. StIR,—From a former member of our Society I obtained a pair of Orange-cheeked Waxbills on the 8th of November, 1889. The cock died on the 17th January, this year, and the hen on the 21st of February, their ages averaging 8} years. I wrote to the lady from whom I purchased them to inquire whether she could tell me how long they had been in her possession, but un- fortunately she had kept no record. I presume they must have died of old age, for the person who dissected them could not detect any disease in them. The wonder to me is that these frail little creatures live so long in confinement. ‘This last survivor was put on the scales, and weighed exactly a quarter of an ounce! W. T. CATLEUGH. ZWARTE KIVISPAAL. SrirR,—It seems hardly seemly that so curious and little known a bird as Mr. Russell Humphrys’ Cassidix oryzivora should be passed over by our Society without comment, even the owner’s note in the Show catalogue that it is “ absolutely unique,” failing to get a rise out of any of our critics. In the catalogue it is called Cassidix orysivoid ; and the’ error has been reproduced by the different papers with the docility and complacency of sheep playing at Follow-my-Leader over a precipice. I came across an adult male in Holland last summer, where it was kuown as the Zwarte Kivispaal. It was much the same colour as the adult male Satin Bower- bird, but the head and neck were of a lighter and much more brilliant violet, and the bill and feet were black. Only too conscious of its beauty and of the oddity of its ruff, the conceited creature was blowing out its neck and crop, showing off to perfection the marvellous reflections of the plumage, and the curious long and enlarged feathers at the back. ‘The bird seemed to have a peculiarly small and snake-like head,—but this may have been more apparent than real, owing to the exaggerated size of the neck. It was an irresistibly comic and absurd looking bundle of vanities, and would have been the Bird of the Show had it appeared at the Palace. I could not exactly make out Mr. Humphrys’ unsteady exhibit in its dark cage, and snould not have recognised it as a Zwarte Kivispaal (will somebody kindly oblige with the English name?) had it not been for the entry in the catalogue. It seemed not to be wholly black, nor to have the elongated neck feathers or the violet reflections, and the size of the head was ordinary. ‘The female is said to want the neck decorations—but this bird seemed rather large for a female; soit may have been an immature male; aud the ill-defined white line which I think I saw over the eyes may have been a mark of immaturity, or one of the variations of plumage characteristic of the species. It comes from Central and South America. REGINALD PHII,LIPPS. Pe ee ee THE Mvicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE WI CUERU AES SOCl Ely: VOL. IV.—No. 42. All rights reserved. APRIL, 1898. SCIENTIFIC AVICULETURE: JB JAA. (Ge IBeAsHaR, Jela1D, All hobbies, to be really interesting, should add something to the sum of general knowledge; in other words, should make some new facts known to mankind. It has been forced upon me lately, by the questions put to me by scientific workers in other branches of Zoological study,. that aviculturists are doing far less than they might do towards. helping their brethren the cabinet-ornithologists. As a class they seem to think that if they have succeeded in breeding a bird not previously reared in captivity in this country, they have done all that mankind is entitled to expect at their hands. When a man has been fortunate enough to succeed up to this point, the cabinet-naturalist has a right to expect far more from him ; for if he merely records the bare fact, he has indeed been fortunate (and men will doubtless praise him who does good to himself), but he has nevertheless fallen short of that which he ought to have done, and has neglected a golden opportunity of imparting knowledge. To know a bird thoroughly, it must be studied in both sexes and at all ages; and this, alas, (in spite of the indefatigable zeal of such men as Dr. Russ) has been done in very few of the numerous species which exist on the earth’s surface; and not in anything like all of even the commonly imported species. The aviculturist has it in his power to correct the errors which even careful travellers and cabinet-naturalists have, from time to time, undoubtedly made—respecting the young plumage, or the sexual plumage, the seasonal changes, and the senile plumage, of various species: he has his birds before him from year’s end to year’s end; he is interested in their habits, in their dances, songs, courtships, nest-buildings, and method of feeding their young ; he tells us about these things, all of which give us 102 pleasure to read about, and perhaps enable some of us to follow in his footsteps; yet, more often than not, the recital of these items adds little or nothing to the sum of facts already recorded in European works. On the other hand, every new item made known to the world is a distinct gain to mankind: in that it assists in the great scheme of education, in which, whether we recognize it or not, we are all interested. The first duty of the breeder is to describe the nest, the eggs, the time of incubation, and the nesting plumage of every species reared by him; provided that it has not already been thoroughly done by some previous breeder; then the date at which the young leave their nest should be noted, in order to decide how long this infant plumage is retained ; and the change to the adult plumage should be carefully studied. I know that one objection will at once be raised to this ; an objection which never daunted Dr. Russ, and which is based upon an error of observation. It willbe said that it is impossible to examine a nest without causing the parents to desert their eges and young. I can only say that I have lifted down boxes containing nests and eggs of Java Sparrows, Saffron-finches, Zebra-finches and others ; have even pulled out the linings and replaced them by cleaner ones, restoring young or eggs after the process, and hanging up the boxes again. I have done this not once but dozens of times, and do not remember ever to have lost a brood thereby. Some birds, such as Blue Robins, get excited and fly about wildly whilst you examine their young, but no sooner are you out of the aviary than they return to the nest and are as assiduous in their attention to their offspring as before. It is not one deliberate and quiet examination which scares most birds from their duties, but that idle curiosity which tempts some avi- culturists to look frequently to see how matters are progressing. The Zebra-finch above many birds has been credited with foolish nervousness about its nest: I will therefore put on record here one out of many instances in which I have meddled with it. Last year I hung up a cocoa-nut shell among other nesting- receptacles in one of my aviaries ; a pair of Zebra-finches soon took possession, and having carelessly lined the shell settled down to rear a family, but only hatched one out of four eggs. One day I noticed that both birds were absent from the nest, so climbing on a bank, I looked into the shell but could see nothing but what seemed to be a little fluff (which I took for lining) at 103 the back of the shell. I unhooked and turned the shell upside down into my hand, when out fell a young bird about half grown and quite lively. I carried both away, pressed some cow-hair into the back of the cavity, replaced the youngster and hung the shell up again: in five minutes both parents were back feeding their baby, which is now an adult bird. That is about as strong a case as I have met with as regards the Zebra-finch, but I have often done the same thing with Java Sparrows. Many of our members may perhaps think to back out of their responsibilities, on the ground that they have no aviaries ‘but only a few small birds in cages. Now I will tell them what they can do, if they only have a pair of the common Avadavat in a cage. It is well known that this commonest of all Indian Wax- bills is incessantly changing its plumage throughout the year, but nobody has ever made a careful study of these changes; nobody knows whether they are produced by complete or partial moults, by growth of colour in the feathers themselves, or how long each phase of colour is permanent. It is certain that at some time or other there must be a complete moult, perhaps once, perhaps twice in the year: it is certain that the bird which at one time is in full breeding-plumage, resembles a hen at another time ; resembles all kinds of comical mixtures between male and female plumage sometimes, and at other times does not remind one of either sex. A carefully-dated diary describing the metamorphoses of this common bird would be a boon to science, and if undertaken by several independent workers would do much to clear up the mystery which enshrouds this Jittle Waxbill. Tins Inika ANID TIS. FOOD), By REGINALD PHILLIPPS. I am much pleased to observe that our members have struggled free from the thraldom of seed-eaters and got so far as the Warblers, and that Mr. Fulljames has made a still bolder move to the front by venturing to refer to such an unfashionable bird as the European Roller. It seems to me to be probable that other aviculturists besides myself may have a liking for some of these less known but often highly interesting and attractive species; and that, possibly, our Magazine would be more widely read and more highly esteemed if we were a little less narrow- minded in the choice of our subjects than we sometimes appear ELOmIDE: 104. The Roller (Covacias garrulus) is not only interesting as a bird and taking as a pet (if properly managed), but it is a subject which our Society ought to take up as a matter of duty. Writers, ancient and modern, have had much to say about the Roller, but few of them seem to have understood its true nature; and, as the moderns seem to be taking a retrogade step, a little discussion about the bird will be timely. And amongst all the writings, ancient and modern, with which I am acquainted, there is but one that even so much as refers to one of the most interesting points in the economy of the bird, a point, too, on which the question of its food partly hinges. Mr. Fulljames, therefore, in asking about food for his Roller, touches on an important subject ;. and to deal with it, principally though not entirely, will be sufficient for the present paper. (a) Perhaps it may somewhat clear the air if I commence by saying that the more I see of the Roller the more do I disagree with those writers who liken it to our Jay. The Jay isa bold knave, and wary after the manner of clever knaves, but the Roller is neither bold nor a knave; on the contrary, although not exactly wild, it is exceptionally nervous and timid, and (for example) will fast for hours rather than go near its food should any such uncanny object as a dust-broom be lying anywhere near. It is more or less wary according to the circumstances of its lot; in Greece, for instance, I not infrequently came across the feathers but rarely saw the bird, for the natives seemed to have little to do but to shoot at every member of the feathered creation they could find, even a rare Sparrow which ventured to chirp in the outskirts of Athens itself being immediately catapulted by the ubiquitous urchin. On the other hand, I understand that in Palestine and Algeria the Roller is a common and conspicuous object. In some of its ways the Roller is curiously like to its not very distant connection the Laughing Jackass; and on very rare occasions it gives utterance to a short but almost perfect Jackass laugh. Some writers endeavour to describe its different notes, but rather feebly, for its language is. varied and expressive, and to my mind distinctly pleasing ;. nevertheless it is the custom to abuse the voice of the Roller, so there is no more to be said. It is not a robust bird, and should not be exposed to much cold. In considering the food of the captive Roller, it must be borne in mind that it is rather an obstinate bird to get on to food (a) See p. 55, last paragraph. 105 it has not been accustomed to, and that, too often, it has con- tracted bad habits before it reaches one’s hands. In the dealer’s shop, it is usually a half-ruined, raw-meat eating creature, seldom attractive, sometimes wholly repulsive; but patience and gentleness bestowed on the Roller will be amply repaid—if you bestow enough. It is now several years since I received my first Roller. It was little but a bag-of-bones, a bag, by the way, which sorely needed mending, for the skin and flesh had been knocked off the bones by the poor creature’s mad batterings against the wires of a most unsuitable cage, and the bones in the bag-in-rags were about all that was left for me to carry home; and many a long day passed before I could get the poor creature decently clothed, but it came to its right mind much sooner than might have been expected. A year or two ago my notice was attracted by some letters about British Birds, in which the Roller was more than once referred to as a suitable species for the Show Bench. Iam strongly of opinion that it is about as unsuitable a species as could easily be found, for, as I have already said, it is exceptionally nervous and timid; and without rhyme or reason it dashes about anyhow, anywhere, absolutely regardless of consequences, and of its own and of its owner’s feelings. This first Roller of mine was a specimen of no small interest, for it was a fairly natural bird, and very different from those one usually sees in captivity. In the summer following its arrival, it was placed in the garden along with Hawks, Crows, Jays, and Pies, of many kinds and climes; and it had to be on the alert if it wanted its dinner. Its favourite portions were grapes and cockroaches ; and in Greece, by the way, I found the Roller in the vineyards, in the midst of scores of acres of grapes. It also ate worms, mealworms, sop, cooked cabbage, etc. I still have a lively remembrance of this bird, when a plate of scraps from our midday meal was put out, swooping down and seizing upon the cabbage, gulping down huge pieces, almost choking itself in its haste—but it would take a good deal to choke a Roller. Many of the older writers were agreed that the Roller partakes of vegetable food; probably we cannot materially improve upon Wood, who says that the food is “almost wholly of an insect nature, but is diversified with a few berries and other vegetable productions.” Modern writers, however, will not allow this, and mostly tell us that the Roller is ‘ purely insectivorous,” that ‘‘ There seems to be no evidence that it ever eats grain, or in fact any vegetable substances,” and the 106 like; but Seebohm could not have known much about the matter, for he adds :—‘‘ Naumann asserts that caged birds, when given any vegetable matter to eat, die from its effects ; but this. requires further confirmation.” How far modern writers have taken their ideas from one another I will not pause to consider, but one, whom we all respect, now passed away, seems to have taken his ideas all ready formed to the bird; and his evidence is. consequently all the more valuable. He is quoted in “ British Birds with their Nests and Eggs” as follows :—‘* We once discovered some remains of figs in the stomach of a bird of this. species, but imagine that they were swallowed unintentionally with some insect food.” From what I have seen, I should think that natural fig would be a very likely food for the Roller to partake of; and the fig tree the bird seems rather to have a liking for. I have more than once seen one of a pair I now have pick up and eat odd pieces of dried fig. Several writers tell us that the Roller feeds on frogs, one adding ‘‘smaller mammalia”; and another says, ‘“‘It also frequents broad stretches of reeds, on which it is said to perch on the look-out for the frogs below.” To say the least, these statements are misleading: they give one to understand that the Roller is so far a rapacious bird that it has. the power to tear up its prey; but it has no such power, although likely enough it may swallow baby frogs, and also possibly—not probably—juvenile mice, if not afraid of them; the sight of a live mouse would scare my Rollers out of their seven senses. A mouse cut up, however, and a callow young bird, would probably be good for a Roller in captivity. The power of the Roller is in its beak ; and it seizes its prey in a vice-like grip, sometimes. banging it against its perch with great violence. Moreover, to infer that a Roller would willingly perch upon a reed, and plunge down amongst the reeds after a frog, is to misrepresent its nature. It is, ina sense, a heavy clumsy bird amongst foliage ; it cannot hop from perch to perch but must use its wings, and greatly dis- likes going where the tips of its long wings may flap against any thing. It likes to perch on a substantial bough, a bare, dead one from preference, on rocks, large stones, or on some open, solid,. raised seat, from which it may look down for beetles, locusts,. grasshoppers, or other large insects, on which it will swiftly dive from its watch-post, often returning to the same place. But the statement that it will perch on a reed, even on such gigantic reeds as one meets with in Egypt, is rather difficult to under- stand. It rarely stops on the ground longer than is necessary for seizing and swallowing its prey; all the same I quite fail to see that on the ground it is ‘‘ very clumsy,” “‘ grotesque,” ‘‘ hops 107 with great effort,’ and soon. When I have a scramble for meal- worms in my aviary, and the Rollers are on the ground with other large birds, I find that they are as active as the best of them, darting about from place to place, and invariably getting the lion’s share, (To be continued). The SEQ Or sPENINANES: Bye the wnevay ©. Wah AR RAR: I suppose that the one thing which keeps back amateurs from trying to breed these splendid birds is the difficulty of securing pairs. Writing of Pennants, Mr. Gedney says, ‘“‘ The inability to recognise any outward distinction of sexes in these birds has deterred many amateurs from attempting to breed them in captivity. Beyond an zmperceptibly lighter shade upon the breast of the adult hen and a somewhat smaller and more effeminate head, there is absolutely no means by which an inexperienced person could determine the sexes.” Dr. Greene is even more careful not to commit himself. «The sexes,” he says, ‘‘ vesemble each other in size and colouring, although the tints of the plumage in the female are, perhaps, not quite so brilliant as in the male bird.” I can only conclude that Mr. Gedney and Dr. Greene never saw a hen Pennant, otherwise they would never have penned such amazing statements ! There is absolutely no possibility of mistaking a hen fora cock Pennant. They are as different, as they say up here, as chalk from cheese. In the first place, the hen Pennant is one- third smaller than the cock, and has a small round head; whereas, he has a somewhat flattened crown. These points alone would almost be sufficient to any but a tyro; but when we come to examine the plumage, a mistake is absolutely impossible :— The cock has a rich crimson head extending right over the neck and cheeks. The hen has a head of orange-red shading off into greeny orange on the neck; the cheeks are very pale greeny pink. The chin of the cock is splendid violet. The chin of the hen is quite pale violet. Breast of the cock rich crimson. 108 Breast of the hen reddy orange, the lower feathers of the breast tipped with green. Back of the cock, each feather black, edged with rich crimson. Back of the hen, top part, each feather dull black, edged with a very narrow strip of colour like the colour of the Stvand Magazine, followed by a broader strip of orange-red ; the lower feathers are dull black and are edged with green and orange. Shoulder of cock rich mauve. Shoulder of hen pale mauve. Wing of cock dark violet, flights much better colour than Thal {ove 1o\esol, Wing of hen fairly dark violet, shaded towards the back with paler mauve, edged with pale orange. Rump of cock rich crimson ; rump of hen orange red. Tail of cock, outer feathers rich violet, centre black. Tail of hen violet with g7eenzsh centre. Legs of cock black; legs of hen grey. I may say that nearly all the birds sold as hens are young birds in their 77st feathers—which youngsters are dark green, mottled and splashed with red; but no one who has had a hen | would ever be deceived by such. (@) Pennants are most engaging birds. My hen is so tame, although she is in a large outdoor aviary, that she is almost a nuisance. Whenever I go out she at once comes to the edge and begins rubbing her poll on a branch as a gentle hint that she would like a little flowering grass or some green corn in the ear; she will also carry on a little conversation in Pennauntese, if I make a kissing noise with my lips. Her lord and master isa bit more suspicious, although absurdly eager to know what is going on and to see what his wife has got. Poor fellow, I expect he remembers the day when he was trapped out in Australia, owing to his enquiring turn of mind. I find that my Pennants are perfectly hardy, but they don’t like too much sun, and quite pant like old hens do at mid- (a.) In the British Museum Catalogue one description alone, of the adult plumage, is given,—had the sexes invariably differed in plumage as Mr. Farrar’s birds appears to do a separate description of the female plumage would, in all probability, have been given. Probably Mr. Farrar’s hen is in her first aduZ¢ plumage, and her colours will deepen as she gets older.—D. S.-S. 109 day. ‘They sleep in the covered run during the hottest part of the day, and are most lively in the evening. The cock’s note is something like the barking of a dog, and he has rather a nice whistle in spring. I feed my Pennants on hemp and canary seed, and they have a nice grass lawn in the aviary. They are great bathers and delight in getting into a deep pan, and making the water fairly fly. Mine have an aviary to themselves, as do all my Parrakeets, so I cannot say how they would behave in a mixed society. I have not been successful yet in breeding Pennants, as I could never get a hen: but I quite hope to do so next year, if we live and all goes well. Pennants are never very plentiful in the market ; and I consider that a true pair, and acclimatised, would be well worth £5, in fact I should say cheap. To keep these big Parrakeets in cages is, I think, bar- barous, and besides, you lose all their beauty. When my hay was ripe last year, my hen Pennant would give me no peace unless I stopped each time and gave her a bundle. [We do not hold ourselves responsible for any of the opinions expressed or facts stated in this article. he same applies to a// articles published in the Magazine, but we wish it to be clearly understood in this case, as our personal feeling is that Mr Farrar’s conclusions require to be confirmed by the observation of other specimens, besides the pair about which he writes, before they can be accepted.—Ep.] AVIARY NOTES. By Re AG hopp: An appeal from our energetic Secretary to supply him with copy is not always easy to respond to. ‘To write one of those delightful accounts of the life of a bird, or a happy matried pair, which so often decorate, and materially add to the interest of, our Magazine, is not within my power. Having a rather large collection myself, I am sometimes inclined to envy other members of our Society who confine their attention to a select number of favourites, whose behaviour and habits they are, in consequence, able to observe closely and describe in minute detail. Birds, after all, are very like human beings. The solitary man or woman, living his or her individual life apart in his or her appropriate cage, displays various peculiarities or angles fully developed ; placed in a crowd, these angles are soon worn off, and members of a large society become very much alike. My birds are all in a crowd, or I should rather {10 say in several crowds, as in their case the obliteration of angles cannot be allowed to go too far without undesirable and often disastrous results; such differences of habit as there might naturally be between the various occupants of each aviary consequently rather tend to disappear. Among seed-eating birds, a noteworthy peculiarity is the wonderful strength of constitution of the Weavers. A dead Weaver is almost as uncommon as a dead donkey. I have always been inclined to attribute this largely to their living mainly on eanary seed, of which they eat fully four times as much as they do of millet; Indian millet they seem hardly to touch, though they certainly are fond of the spray form. If this is so, however, why is the mortality among the closely related Whydahs, which also live mainly on canary seed, so much greater? It is true it is chiefly the Pintailed and Paradise Whydahs that I have found difficult to keep, the Pintails going off without any apparent cause, and the Paradise cocks never surviving their second moult out of colour (the hens are hardy enough) ; but moulting with them is hardly a more severe operation than it is with many of the Weavers whose health is hardly ever affected by it, and the Red-collared and Yellow- backed Whydahs moult without difficulty. It has been suggested that Weavers owe their longevity in confinement to their never, or very rarely, attempting to breed, and this is probably the correct explanation. Out of a fairly large number of species, I have only once had a nest of the Orange Weaver; one young one was hatched but not reared. My cock Oryx is of a decidedly amatory disposition, but always selects as the object of his affections a hen Orange or Napoleon Weaver, both of which treat his advances with undisguised aversion; his own hen he entirely neglects. Wihile on the subject of Weavers; has it eversbcen remarked that the species in which the cock is mainly black in summer plumage are the earliest to come into colour? I have at present Pyrvomelana capensis in full colour, and Uvobrachya axillaris and bocagit nearly so, though strangely P. c. minor is still in its winter plumage. Of those in which red or yellow predominates, /oudia madagascariensis, Nesacanthts eminentissima | and Ploceus atrigula are half in colour, but no other species has commenced the change yet. The Combassou seems most ir- regular in this respect ; my solitary cock has been in full colour for twelve months since he first came into colour as a young bird. Of the Whydahs, the Red-collared Whydah (Penxthetria ardens) IIt is nearly in full colour; the collar seems to become redder as the bird gets older; when I first had my specimen, over two years ago, it was of yellow orange colour. There are two Weavers against which I ought to warn all aviculturists with susceptible ears: I refer to Wyphantornis cucul- datus and FH. spilonotus. Yhey are undoubtedly handsome birds, aud their weaving is highly interesting; but they screech as cacophonously as any Parrot and they do it almost unceasingly throughout the day, added to which their tempers are the reverse of amiable. They both have a curious habit of from time to time, as it were, running amuck through the aviary, shrieking at the top of their voices; this, however, does not appear to frighten the other birds, who only just get out of their way till they calm down again. I have only noticed this habit during the summer. Last year a hen H/. aurezfavus took possession of a nest nearly completed by AY. sfzlonotus and proceeded to line it with feathers; the bigger bird, in spite of his unamiable temper, never attempted to drive her out, but contented himself with fluttering round the nest or sitting on a neighbouring twig as long as she was in occupation, hurling abuse at her in language totally unfit for publication; this apparently got on her nerves at last, and she abandoned her design of rearing a family —the nest was soon afterwards destroyed. This habit of pulling their nests to pieces almost as soon as they are finished seems to be a regular practice with the African Weavers, and it makes a terribly untidy litter all over the aviary. My Indian Weavers have never done any building {they are all bachelors).; possibly grass, which is the only material I supply for the purpose, does not suit them, though the African species highly appreciate it. (a) I should mention, however, that the Madagascar Weaver also will not use grass, and has never built with me though he has a wife to help him; according to Dr. Russ this species prefers aloe or Agave fibre. It seems that birds which build without the artificial support.of a nesting-box require a stronger material than grass or hay ; except perhaps such birds as the Buntings, which build very strong open nests with the tough flowering stems which are naturally far stronger than the leaves. My Pied Mannikins built once a beautiful nest of aloe fibre which lasted for several mouths, but since they have only been supplied with hay their successive nests are destroyed as soon as made. However, I have (@.) My Indian Weavers, also batchelors, have built very strong and quite opaque mests with hay alone.—A. G. B. LI2 a wholesome dread of aloe fibre, after having had some valuable birds entangled and hung by it, and never use it now. It is astonishing what an immense quantity of hay the small Ornamental Finches can dispose of. In my aviary set apart for these there are about fifty birds; I give them a good handful of hay almost every day, all of which gets tucked into their nesting boxes, only the shortest pieces being unappropriated, and they are always ready for more. The cock Sycalis arvensis, in an open air aviary, has just begun to sing. I know of nothing that so closely resembles his song as saw-sharpening, of all sounds the most shrill except, perhaps, the Bat’s cry. It is a bright and active bird, but its music is too excruciating. I should be glad to come across an undoubted female, as they should breed. An incident that occurred a few days ago with me is interesting in reference to the question of the hardiness of tropical birds. My Shama, being almost more than tame, is allowed the free run of the bird- house, and late one frosty after- noon he slipped out into the garden as the door was opened. Though as a rule he comes to me very readily, on this occasion he absolutely refused to be caught and flew away out of sight, and I was not able to secure him until the next morning. There was sharp frost that night, the thermometer registering 22° F., but my bird has not shown the slightest ill effects from the cold and exposure, though since he has been in my possession he has never known a lower temperature than about 50° F. Doubtless, however, it would not be safe to argue from this incident that the Shama can be kept in an open air aviary during the winter. I have recently acquired a Dhyal Bird, which entirely belies the reputation I have seen given to the species of being excessively shy and nervous in disposition (a). My bird may be the exception that proves the rule, as he is most bold and confiding, taking mealworms (of which he is inordinately fond) from my hand or pecking at my fingers if I don’t offer him one, and whenever I approach his cage he comes close up to the wires to see if Iam bringing him anything. His close relationship to the Shama is evident in his every movement and gesture, but he is a larger bird and perhaps not quite so handsome. He has not given me much opportunity of criticising his singing powers, which are said to be at least equal to those of his near relative. I feed these birds on a mixture of Abrahams’ food, dried yolk, (a) This bird is notoriously bold, even in its wild state.—R-P. 113 and ants’-eggs, with a little potato, giving also a few mealworms and cockroaches daily. Onthis food my Shama has thriven for neatly three years; and his recent escapade, as just related, proves that he is by no means in feeble health ; often, for weeks at a time; he entirely refuses mealworms (his customary allowance is six or seven a day), and cockroaches are then his only insect-food. He has never had meat in any form, as it seems to me most inappropriate food for an inse¢tivorous bird. CORRESPONDENCE. FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. Srr,—In reply to Mr. Septimus Perkins, I fail to see that because “« the ability to digest farinaceous food depends upon the power to convert starch into dextrine’’ the most delicate insectivorous birds, such as the English Warblers, are therefore necessarily unable to digest bread. If any -of these birds did, as he suggests, live entirely upon insects in a wild state, there would be something in his argument, but they do zt. Probably the most delicate of all the English Warblers is the Gold- crest, which, in addition to insect food, swallows both seeds and berries; nor do I know of one Warbler (the natural food of which is known) which does not eat the smaller berries, such as elderberries. Mr. Perkins’ mention of the Nightingale is unfortunate for his argu- ‘ment, because this bird is the one species upon which the discussion arose, and of which Mr. Fulljames said that it could not digest biscuit or bread ‘crumbs. Now Mr. Perkins not only thinks that the Nightingale, being accustomed to swallow a certain amount of cellulose, may be expected to convert a certain amount of starch into dextrine; but he further admits that biscuit, being already partially converted, is almost (if not altogether) a suitable food for the more delicate insectivorous birds. (@) After all, the best argument that can be used for or against any food is experience. Mr. Fulljames found that Nightingales fed partly on bread died before the end of the first year of captivity ; and he fairly calls my attention to the fact that my birds did not live more than eighteen months; still eighteen months represent a good period in which a bird is discovering _ that it “will not eat and cannot digest” that which it has eaten and digested for a year and a half. As to the suggestion that my Nightingales died of fits: all I can say is that those fits curiously resembled heat apoplexy, and did not in the least look like fits resulting from indigestion. A. G. BUTLER. S1rR,—Dr. Butler asks ‘‘ What is orthodox avicultural teaching?” I am not enamoured of that phrase, which I adopted on the spur of the (2) This letter by Dr. Butler is written in answer to Mr. Perkins’ letter in the Magazine for March. Dr. Butler’s reply to Mr. Perkins’ letter published this month ~will be found on page 114.—ED. 114 moment for want of a better, but I will try to explain what I meant by it. There are many questions in aviculture which remain open, but there are some upon which there exists a more or less complete concensus of opinion. For instance, no one disputes that the staple food of Waxbills should be white-millet seed, or that Parrots require water to drink. When I say that no one disputes these things, I mean, of course, no one whose opinion is entitled to the respect of experienced aviculturists. With regard to the feeding of the more exclusively insectivorous birds, it is impossible to: assert that ‘(no one disputes” that the diet should be non-farinaceous; but I think I am justified in saying that, with the single exception of Dr. Butler, all competent modern authorities take that view; and if I may so far trespass upon space I will venture to give a few quotations to prove this. In ‘‘Song Birds of Great Britain’? Dr. Greene writes,—-‘‘ My Nightin- gale’s food consists of as many dried ants’-eggs as it chooses to eat, eight or ten mealworms daily, or rather on alternate days, and in the interval the same number of blackbeetles, which it appears to equally enjoy, a little green food in the shape of chopped lettuce, and cooked mutton cut up very small, about three times a-week.”’ The late Dr. Bradburn, in his most valuable little book on British Birds, says,—‘‘ The food miust be soaked ants’-eggs as a staple: there is nothing to touch them. Avoid all pastes and messes if you wonld have strong healthy birds. Nightingales will live on good ants’-eggs and half-a- dozen mealwormis per day, and keep in grand condition all the year round.” He then goes on to mention various things which may be given by way of a change, none of them, however, in the least resembling breadcrumbs. I have purposely selected for quotation writers who are not members of our Society. With regard to our own members it is sufficient to point out that not one of them who has taken part in this discussion on ‘‘ Food for Soft-billed Birds” supports Dr. Butler in his advocacy of bread for Nightingales and other warblers. Dr. Butler appears to be in a minority of one. I am anxious not to be misunderstood. I do not wish for one moment to suggest that the knowledge or experience of Dr. Greene or Dr. Bradburn or anyone else is greater than that of Dr. Butler. I simply want to shew that the concensus of opinion is against him: in other words, that his contention is contrary to ‘‘ orthodox avicultural teaching.” It may be that Dr. Butler is right and everyone else wrong, but it is clear that he is the heretic, and not those who condemn breadcrumbs. This. is all I undertook to shew. SEPTIMUS PERKINS. Sir,—If I understand Mr. Perkins rightly, he regards the opinions of Dr. Greene and the late Dr. Bradburn as orthodox. Ido not. I will say nothing more respecting the former gentleman lest it should be imagined that I have a personal objection to him (which is not the case). With regard to the late Dr. Bradburn, his opinion was based upon experiments carried on in one direction only, and he was far from correct in some of his views: he was a strong advocate for the use of chopped beef for soft-billed birds, and that is certainly an error in the opinion of many aviculturists of the present time. en II5 Mr. Perkins will find, if he looks through the letters on soft food which have been published in the Magazine, that I do not stand alone in my advocacy of bread as an article of diet in soft food mixtures : moreover, if he will get a tin of Abrahams’ food for soft-billed birds, he will find that this gentleman (than whom no living authority has had more experience) recommends that his food be mixed with double its bulk of stale bread- crumbs. I think it possible that the more delicate Warblers would do better with less bread than I have generally given them; for when I reared the Sedge-Warbler and Lesser Whitethroat they died from apoplexy; being found (when skinned) to be abnormally fat: they therefore not only digested bread, but it proved too nourishing for them. A. G. BUTLER. Srr,—The Nightingale, Blackcap Warbler, Larger and Lesser White- throat, Redstart, Wheatear, Wagtails, Tits, Flycatchers, Larks, etc., can be kept in the best of health on ants’-eggs (or more correctly, cocoons), meal- worms, blackbeetles, crickets, flies, spiders, butterflies, moths, mothwormis, caterpillars, gentles, flesh maggots, woodlice, wasp grubs, etc. Mealworms I always render helpless by incising them behind the head with a sharp knife before putting in the cage. Beetles, crickets and woodlice I usually kill by scalding with boiling water before giving to the birds. Wasp-nests may be procured in the summer from artizans in the country districts, who take a delight in hunting for them, and seem well satisfied with sixpence to one shilling per nest, according to the size. I make it known to the country workmen that I am open to buy a few nests of wasps at prices named above, and soon the men come in with their pocket-handkerchiefs full of them. They are just taken and all alive, but the winged wasps are stunned and so niade helpless by the ‘“‘ fuse”? which is used to keep them off whilst the nest is being taken. I at once put the nests into a hot oven and bake them until they are nearly brown, and then remove them from the oven, put them on an old tray on the top of the oven or cooking stove, drying them until all moisture has disappeared. If the grubs will rattle when a cake is shaken about, they can then be stored away in baskets or boxes in a dry place. Be sure they are thoroughly dried before they are stored away, or they will become mouldy and spoil. They can be used dry, powdered, or after being steeped in boiling water. Other insects can be given when they are plentiful. No one need despair of keeping soft-billed British birds in good health and condition, in a favourable temperature, with such a bill of fare to select from. Ripe fruit aud dried fruit may be offered occasionally as a luxury. I have kept several Nightingales and other soft-billed British birds in the best of health aud condition, and won with them at most leading shows. in Great Britain, and have fed them on one or more of the items specified. My Nightingales would sing almost as soon as unpacked in a show-room. The Secretary from Carlisle Show, on one occasion, sent me a post card saying that his Committee sat listening to my “Gale” until the early hours of the morning after they had unpacked him at about 10.30 the night previous. CHAS. HOULTON. 116 S1r,—Your inviting correspondence on this interesting subject, some time ago, emboldens me to write and give my experience. My soft-billed birds now consist of four cock Song Thrushes, a Blackbird, a Skylark, an American Mocking Bird, and a Nightingale; and my staple food for them is hard-boiled egg and breadcrumbs, stirred together with a three tined fork, to which I add ants’-eggs and slightly crushed hemp, and mix lightly together so that the birds can pick out, without difficulty, what they like best. The Nightingale and Mocking Bird get a dozen or more mealworms each every day, and the Lark coarse oatmeal and canary seed. The Thrushes are very fond of Spratt’s dog biscuit soaked in gravy from a bullock’s head, which I boil for my dogs. When the weather is warm, I give them all gentles ; and the way I produce them is this: I buy about a pound of cheap foreign beef for 3d., put it in the sun for about two days, then put it ina large flower pot and fill the pot up with garden mould—after ten days I find nothing but fine gentles and mould. I have them sifted through a cinder Sieve into a Nestlé’s tinned milk box, and throw a trowelful into the aviaries every day. As bread is rather relaxing for birds, I substitute, occasionally, barley- meal made crumbly with milk, and scraps of sponge cake, which can be bought cheap. A. JONES. BREEDING INSECTIVOROUS BIRDS. S1r,—As the Spring advances, some of us, mindful of failures in the past, are anxiously considering how we may command greater success in the approaching breeding season. In this connection, it would probably be of great advantage if those aviculturists who have succeeded in rearing some of the more difficult subje¢ts would explain their methods. I for one should be very greatly obliged for any practical hints of a system of management which has proved successful in rearing any of the foreign insectivorous birds. I have a beautiful pair of Rock-thrushes just passing their second Winter in an open aviary. They arein the highest condition, and the male is fast acquiring his handsome breeding-dress of cobalt blue and bright chestnut. Last Summer young were twice hatched ; and, if my mealworms had held out, I have no doubt the young would have safely left the nest. But the parents would take nothing but certain insects to the young, and not even flies or small earthwormis; and as, while inse¢ts were being given, they themselves would not look at their usual mixture of artificial food, the drain upon my store of mealworms was considerable; and at the time (May and June) they were hardly to be obtained, and not at all at short notice. In the end the mealworms, and such wireworms, centipedes and woodlice as I could collect, gave out, and the young died. The birds went to nest again at once, and I accumulated a small supply of mealworms in readiness; but they were soon exhausted, and all the young died, except one which I took at nine days old and endeavoured to rear by hand. However, I suppose the youngster had been left too long in the nest, for it was curiously wild and stubborn, though two young Song-thrushes of the same age, placed with it as companions, were easily reared; for the whole of the succeeding week the Rock-thrush obstinately refused to open ——S—— mmm 117 his beak, and had to be crammed. In the end it suffered from some derangement of the intestines, and succumbed. A neighbour of mine, last Summer, lost three broods of Shamas from the same cause—inability to keep up a supply of fresh insect food. I have seen it stated that Mr. Phillipps has reared Shamas, If he would beso kind as to say how he managed this, I feel sure many of our readers would be grateful (a). I am inclined to think that it may be best in a similar case to take the young at a week old, and try to rear them on a diet of scraped lean meat, egg, and such insects as are obtainable; but of course it would be more satisfactory if one conld help the old birds to carry out their parental duties. W. H. ST. QUINTIN. THE ORNAMENTED LORIKEET BIRD SHOWS A THE SHAMA AND DHYAL BIRD. S1R,—May I ask the name of the beautiful Lory at the Palace Show— “ V.H.C., 2,137, Mr. C. T. Maxwell, cock, £45”"? Roughly describing it, it had a rather dark speckled red and black throat, and green back, and, as. regards colouring, took my fancy more than any other. Might I suggest that at such an important Show (visited by aviculturists from all parts of the Kingdom, many of whom see some of the birds for the first time), the label or catalogue, or both, should give the name of the exhibit. Nearly all Mr. Maxwell’s exhibits were just catalogued “‘cock,’’ which is no doubt enough for the experienced, but judging from the host of questions put to me throughout the day that I spent there, scores of visitors had come up to learn as well as see, and must have felt equally cisappointed with such scant naming of dozens of beautiful birds. There were, of course, numerous outsiders drawn by mere curiosity to see a lot of strange birds, and it is unfortunate for this class of visitors when the label gets on the wrong cage, which happened in several cases. I heard a man explaining to his wife that ‘‘ It was the first time he had ever seen a Nightingale.” Then they began to take an inventory of the bird: they ‘“‘ Never expected to see such a small bird, and what a dark coloured head!”’ Not wishing them to take home a wrong impression, at the risk of being thought impertinent, I pointed out that the label had been trans- posed with that of a Blackcap and that Mr. Gale tenanted the next cage. May I also ask what is the difference betwen a Shama and a Dial or Dhyal bird? Dr. Greene classes them as the same bird, but I have seen them catalogued at two different prices in the same list, and can only suppose the Shama to be an Indian, and the Dial a Malay or East Indian variety of the same bird. If they are different birds are their habits and song similar ? A. A. PEARSON. (a) Certainly—in a month or two.—R.P. 118 The following reply was sent to Mr. Pearson, The Lorikeet referred to was a specimen of Zrtchoglossus ornatus—the Ornamented Lorikeet. A coloured plate of this species, with an article by Dr. Simpson, appeared in the Magazine last year. People who have had no personal experience of exhibiting sometimes fail to understand that the catalogue is made up from the entry forms, and that these are filled up by the exhibitors themselves, so that the exhibitors and not the managers of the Show are responsible for the omission of the names and for the transposition of exhibits. Exhibitors, I believe, seldom keep copies of their entry forms, although it is most important that this should be done when more than one entry is made in a class. In the absence of a copy of the entry form it is almost impossible to attach the labels to the cages in the right order. When Dr. Simpson and I acted as Show Secretaries we made a practice of sending (with the labels) to each exhibitor who had made more than one entry in the samie class, a list of such entries with the numbers of the labels, so as to insure their being attached in the right order. This involves a good deal of extra trouble, and it is almost more than can be reasonably expected from the Secretary of a Show. Another cause of incorrect cataloguing is that if a bird, entered fora Show, dies or goes out of condition before the Show, the exhibitor generally substitutes another bird, often of a different species. In order to avoid this many large exhibitors do not give the names of the species on the entry forms, and it is certainly better that there should be no name at all than a wrong one. ‘The Crystal Palace Catalogue has always been especially incorrect, because the entries have to be sent in so long before the Show. I have thought it worth while to explain these matters, as although they are well understood by exhibitors they are often puzzling to others. The Shama (Cittocincla tricolor) and the Dhyal Bird (Copsychus saularis) are nearly allied but absolutely distinct species. There was an illustrated article on the Shama by the Rev. H. D. Astley, in the Magazine for February. The male Dhyal Bird is black and white—soniewhat like a small Magpie—it is figured in the ‘‘ Royal Natural History.”’ I hope that before long one of our members who has kept this charming bird will give us an article upon it—I should be very glad to receive such an article. The Shama is a much finer songster than the Dhyal Bird, but I should say that the latter is a much bolder and more inquisitive and amusing bird. It is difficult to understand how the strange confusion of these very different birds could have arisen, but I, believe that ‘‘ Favourite Foreign Birds the was written against time, under great pressure from the publishers. The mistake was corrected in the second edition. Dr. Greene is not a safe guide on questions of nomenclature, classification, and sexual and specific differences, but this fact should not blind us to the great services he has rendered to aviculture. His books were for a long time almost the only avicultural literature in the English language; he did, for many years, more than any other man to popularise the study; and his teaching on 119 questions of food and general management is almost always sound and practical. After all ‘‘treatment” is ‘ze important matter to the aviculturist. HORATIO R. FILLMER. THE PLUM-HEADED PARRAKEET. Str,—I had a pair of birds sent me this morning, and asI know nothing about them I thought I would ask you about them. They are called “‘ Plum-headed Parrakeets,” I think. They are short thick green birds, and both their heads are a sort of grey colour. I have only an unheated outdoor aviary. I will put a few questions which I shall be greatly obliged if you will be kind enough to answer. (1) Are they a pair? (2) Will they live out of doors? (3) Will they breed? (4) What food? M. BLANCHE LANCASTER. The following reply was sent to Mrs. Lancaster : (1) When first imported, the Plum-headed Parrakeet (Paleornis cyano- cephaia) is often as you describe; but it should turn into a rather long slim bird, the two central tail-feathers being especially long: a young female may sometimes be distinguished by the shorter tail. As they grow older, the beautiful colours on the head of the male, and a dlack collar, will enable you to distinguish the sexes. When young, to distinguish the sexes is often very difficult. Look carefully at the wing (when closed), rather high up towards the bow, and see if there is any sign of a dark reddish-brown spot. If both birds have the spot, they are probably two males; if neither has a spot, they are almost, though not quite, certain to be two females. Rose- headed Parrakeets (P. vosa) are often confused with the Plum Heads; and the females of these have the wing spot as well asthe males. Both the males and the females sing. (2) They are not robust when first brought over, but, as soon as acclimatised, can stand a good deal of cold; nevertheless, those I have kept never seemed to like much of it. If your aviary is well sheltered from the cold winds, and is large enough to enable them to fly about freely, they may do fairly well; but this year they should not be put out at any rate until May. (3) Yes, under favourable circumstances they breed readily ; but your birds cannot be expected to breed this vear. (4) Chiefly canary seed, with a little white millet. They are usually very fond of spray millet. A d¢téle plain dry biscuit, crumbled small, may be mixed with the canary seed. A few good oats may be given occasionally, but hemp very sparingly. When nesting, sop squeezed rather dry may be given, and more biscuit, as then the male feeds the female, and is all the better for a little help. The more care you take of your,two birds this year, the stronger they are likely to be in the future. ING Jess eID ES), 120 THE PALACE SHOW. CASSIDIX ORYZIVORA. Str,—I would suggest that in future a little more supervision be exercised in the printing of the Palace Catalogues; I may possibly have been an unfortunate exception, but two gross errors appeared in mniy entries. One entry came out of the printer’s hands as a Racquet-tailed Drozgo, and what should have been Cassdix oryzivora was transformed into oryzivoid f From a letter I received immediately preceding the Show, I gathered that special arrangements had been made with a view to assisting the reporters to present a fairly intelligent account of the exhibition to the public: one cannot reasonably expect them to do otherwise than accept the catalogue as correct, but surely those who are deputed to take the reporters round should not knowingly perpetuate such palpable priuter’s. errors. With regard to the example of Cassidix oryzivora sent to the Palace, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Phillipps that it is an immature male, but cannot explain the curious ill-defined ring of white round the eye. In the examples of this bird at South Kensington, the white feathers are entirely wanting. Mr. Dresser, who saw this bird some few weeks before the Show, took them to be either a mark of immaturity or the result of climatic influence. At home in his own cage, this bird is very quaint—he has the curious habit, mentioned by Mr. Phillipps, of blowing his feathers out in a most ridiculous manner, usually at feeding time. He is very peaceful towards other birds, having occupied an outdoor aviary all last summer with a collection numbering over thirty, all smaller than himself, among them being several tiny Tanagers. In the autumn, when the birds were removed to their winter quarters, he was left to share the place with some game Bantams, and during the cold. weather he always went to roost with a Bantam tucked snugly each side of him. He will eat almost anything, but has a great partiality for hemp seed and mealwornis. These birds inhabit Central and South America from Southern Mexico to Peru and Paraguay. RUSSELL HUMPHRYS. THE Mvicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AW CULTURA SOCIETY VOL. IV.—No. 43. All rights reserved. May, 1898. Wale INOMES ANID TS. MOOI): By REGINALD PHILLIPPS. (Continued from page 107). Let us now turn more particularly to the food of the Roller in captivity. Asa rule, this unsightly creature, before it reaches our hands, has been fed chiefly or entirely on raw meat ; and, as the Roller is often slow to take to strange food, the raw meat should be withdrawn, or the supply lessened, gradually and watchfully ; for it will go a long while without food if not pleased with what is supplied; but I do not believe in the wisdom of trying a bird with long fasts, as some bird-owners. almost boast of doing. As far as possible, as suggested by Mr. Russell Humphrys, feed the Roller on insects, especially grass- hoppers, cockchafers and the Coleoptera generally, with a few worms—and baby frogs when obtainable ; cockroaches, too, are valuable, but I do not care about gentles. I cannot obtain insects nor breed cockroaches, so have to fall back upon mealworms. Nevertheless, wherever you are, insects will fail sometimes, and the Roller cannot be fed solely on mealworms, so something else must be found. My experience with the Hoopoe, so unlike and yet so like to the Roller, has taught me that the first thing to be done with a Roller is to get it on to sop—milk-biscuit sop is what T actually provide. This supplies moisture ; the bird takes to it readily, and seldom tires of it. With the ordinary insectivorous food I mix scraped meat (cooked and raw), and a little prepared yolk of egg. The yolk of a fresh egg I give occasionally as a treat, but this I do not mix up with the other food. Dry crumbled biscuit they always have, and it is usually taken pretty freely. They also have access to, and irregularly partake of, bits of grapes, dates, figs, and occasionally sultana raisins. Sometimes I notice them feeding complacently out of the seed saucers supplied for the Parrakeets, but do not know what the particular attraction may be. 122 Another interesting question remains to be considered— The Roller and its Drink. Is the Roller a total abstainer in its wild state ? Does it drink or does it not drink, that is the ques- tion! Morris states—‘‘ They are said never to drink.” My first Roller, who developed into an exceptionally natural specimen, aud seldom had a chance of getting Sop, was never seez to drink until it had been with me just short of twelve months; I was acquainted with the above-quoted statement of Morris, and was on the look out, and noted the date of the occurrence. When I received my present birds (a pair), not being able to supply them with insects, I took considerable pains to get them on to water; but it was slow work, for they had been put on to sop the moment they arrived. I did not see the female’s introduction to the drinking water, but what seemed to be the first attempt of the male was ludicrous, although he was several months old; he didn’t know how to drink ; and the water ran out of the corners of his mouth, and flowed freely down his breast, as he took gulp after gulp. Even now these birds sit down before the water and drink in a most ceremonious manner, as if there were some mystery about the proceeding and they could not quite make it out. Nevertheless I suspect that caged Rollers, fed on raw meat and dry food only, with water close under their noses, would take to it pretty quickly. I have not ever known a Roller knowingly touch water on the ground, nor ever attempt to wash anywhere; but they will spread out their wings and feathers during a gentle shower in warm weather. Scme time ago, I chucked some mealwormis on to the ground, and down swooped the Rollers, who as usual returned to their perches immediately, but continued scrutinising the ground for any that might have been overlooked. One had fallen into a washing-pan containing less than two inches of water, and down dropped my little hen again like a shot. Fora few moments she stood in the water, her legs astraddle, astonish- ment and bewilderment depicted in every feather and feature. She flew up to her perch, and remained there for some time dejected and disgusted, the mealworm still lying in the water ; but, greedy pig as she is, with an unbounded stomach for meal- worms, I think she would have rather rotted on her perch than have gone for that mealworm again. My theory is that the Roller, from necessity rather than choice, is certainly a partial, perhaps occasionally or often a total, abstainer from water. During the dry season in many hot countries frequented by the bird, except in inaccessible wells, oa 123 water is exceedingly scarce. All the watercourses are dry; and one may travel for miles without seeing a drop. And so the bird has got out of, or never developed, the habit of drinking, and obtains the moisture necessary for its body from fruits. My present lazy overfed Rollers are not fair samples,but my old bird ate grapes with avidity ; Lord Lilford has shewn us that one specimen he examined (and the whole number he examined could have been but as a drop in the ocean) had some remains of figs in its stomach; and all but the more modern writers give berries as part of the food of the Roller. Some one will say here:—If this be so with the Roller, how about other birds! Why should the Roller be the only abstainer? Not awriter hints at any other bird not drinking. True; I know not of so much as one; but I fear we must not attach too much importance to their silence. Some time ago, I chanced to meet one of our great cabinet-naturalists, and remarked on the non-drinking of the Hoopoe. To my surprise he immediately rejoined that the ‘‘desert-loving” birds did not drink. If this is a well-known fa@, it is certainly remarkable that it should not ever, so far as I know, have been referred to in literature on birds. I sometimes think that the speaker made the remark in order to give me to understand that there was not anything under the sun, or anywhere else, which I could possibly know that he was not fully acquainted with. (a2) On the other hand, I remember noticing a case in which, in answer to an anxious enquirer, a well-known writer told the owner of a sick Hoopoe to put certain medicine in its drinking water. He clearly did not know that the Hoopoe, as a rule, does not drink. I have had twelve Hoopoes in my time, some living for long periods, but only two out of the twelve were ever seen to drink. These two were not seen to drink until I had had them about eight months, when the one became very fond of water, the other drinking only rarely, I think. ‘The Hoopoe, if I mistake not, is supposed to be wholely insectivorous ; my birds were not so. In addition to milk sop, I have it recorded that they partook of rice pudding, stewed pear, and boiled cabbage; that they were very fond of tomatoes aud stewed onion; that they had been seen eating young shoots of Virginia creeper; and that they were very fond of cherries (uncooked) and red currants. They also tried grapes, (2) Mr. Phillipps does not, of course, overlook the fact that some of our best cabinet- naturalists are also not only excellent field-naturalists but even ardent aviculturists.— A. G. B. True, and they also write; but not one has yet got so far as to say, with Morris, ““ They are said never to drink.’’—R. P. 124 sut had difficulty in manipulating them. I still have a lively remembrance of their eagerness and excitement when cherries were tossed down, each bird seizing and rushing off with its prize ; using the bill as a gouge, they scooped the flesh off the sides of the fruit as cleverly and neatly as if they had been at it all their lives. ‘The habits of the Hoopoe, it will be seen, strongly support my theory about the Roller; and since the habits of, comparatively, such an easily watched bird as the Hoopoe are so little known to those who write about birds, it is hardly surprising that the latter should not be fully acquainted with the manners and customs of the shy, timid, and wary Roller. The whole matter teaches us the importance of supple- menting our observations of birds in their wild state by studying their habits in captivity, keeping them under as natural conditions as circumstances will permit. Most of the foregoing was written some time ago; and I may well add a few supplementary remarks. My two Rollers seem to have given up drinking! Is that because they find they do not need water or are better without it? or do they disapprove of cold water during the winter ? Since the experience of the female, already related, the male likewise, by an accident, found himself in a bathing dish, and in the dish he remained as if petrified. Unlike the female, he is not finger tame; yet he allowed me to take him out of the water, which covered his feet but little more; and he sat on my hand with a dazed expression in his face, as if he had been saved, by the skin of his teeth, from some terrible calamity. No wonder my two birds have given up drinking!!! During the time I have had these two Rollers, small birds (Nonpareils, Grey Singing Finches, Bearded Tits, etc.) have often been left flying loose with them for weeks together, but never has either, by look or action, betrayed the slightest inclination to devour or injure them. Next to a fledgeling, I suppose there is nothing which will develop a latent rapacious instinct in a bird so readily as.a small ground bird, yet Quails and Larks have wholly failed to get a rise out of my Rollers—there is nothing of the Jay about the Roller. I notice in Zhe Zoologist that, last autumn, a pair of adult birds of this species was shot near Battle in Sussex. The Editor makes the announcement as if the slaughterer had performed some meritorious act instead of one calling for the severest condemnation, In connection with the female it was stated, ‘Contents of gizzard, fragments of Geotraupes.” ee 125 PHEASANTS. By D. SETH-SMITH. The culture of the many species of Pheasants—some of the most magnificent of the feathered tribe—appears to be less popular with our members than other branches of aviculture. To those, however, who can afford the space for fairly large aviaries, the keeping and breeding of many of the most lovely species of the Pheasant tribe is a most delightful and fascinating hobby, and one well worthy of consideration in our Magazine. It will, of course, be impossible to go fully into the subject of Pheasant keeping here, but I will try to give a few directions for the practical management in captivity of some of the most popular species of this tribe. Before I speak of the kinds most likely to repay the care and attention of amateurs, it will be well to briefly consider the most suitable aviaries in which to keep them. These should be as large as possible and consist of two parts—an inner or covered part composed of woodwork and well lighted, and an outer part composed of wire netting on a wooden frame-work. An aviary, each part of which is about twelve feet square and proportionately high, will be suitable for one cock and his harem ; but if the outer run be larger the birds will be all the better for the greater amount of exercise they will thus obtain. In this part of the aviary it will be a good plan to have, fastened about one foot below the wire netting at the top, some strong string netting stretched tightly across, to prevent the birds from injuring themselves, if from a sudden fright they should dash upward. The outer part of the aviary must be thickly planted with evergreen-shrubs to provide plenty of cover for the birds; for it must be remembered that Pheasants are particularly nervous birds and easily frightened, and if there should be no hiding- places they will, when suddenly alarmed, dash wildly about, damaging their plumage or perhaps breaking their necks. The males of some species are exceedingly spiteful, and if there is insufficient cover for the hens the latter will occasionally be murdered by the cocks. This savage nature of some cock Pheasants in captivity is one of the greatest drawbacks to the culture of Pheasants in aviaries; it is more noticeable in some species than in others: one of the rarest and most beautiful of all the true Pheasants—Scemmering’s—was pronounced by the 126 late Superintendent of the Zoological Gardens to be the worst offender in this respect (a). In the covered part of the aviary, stout perches should be fastened up for the birds to roost on; and faggots of gorse or other thick brushwood should be placed against the walls to afford further protection for the hens. All the species with which we shall have to deal are hardy and require no artificial warmth during the winter, provided that their aviary be well sheltered from the north and east winds. The best food for the adult birds is barley, wheat, rice and maize; but the latter must be given sparingly as it is very fattening. There are several prepared foods for Pheasants on the market: Chamberlain’s is generally recommended, and Spratt’s Crissel is very good. The adult Pheasants should be fed twice daily—early in the morning, and late in the afternoon just before they retire to roost. Pheasants, as a rule, do not hatch their own eggs successfully in captivity, so it is necessary to obtain reliable broody hens for the purpose. Most Pheasant- breeders recomniend a cross between the Silky and Game Fowl as being the best variety to employ. Bantams are too small, being unable to properly cover the Pheasant chicks when the latter become any size. The eggs must be collected as they are laid, and kept carefully in a cool place until a sufficient number have been obtained for a hen to cover comfortably. The number for one hen will of course depend upon the size of the latter; but a small hen, such as the cross above recommended, will easily cover from fourteen to sixteen eggs of the size of Amherst’s or Versicolors. A habit to which Pheasants are liable in confinement is that of egg-eating ; the cocks are usually the worse offenders in this respect, and there appears to be no reliable cure. It is therefore very important that a sharp look out should be kept for eggs, for if left about they are liable to be broken, with the probable result that this habit will quickly become established. Having selected a broody hen, she should be set in a coop without any bottom to it, there being merely a handful of straw (a) Iu many cases, this is owing to there not being a sufficient number of females ; they are polygamous, and each male should have a suitable number of wives. In some aviaries, which are constructed for the purpose, with connecting compartments side by side, like the tigers’ dens at the Zoological Gardens, the male is run into the next com- partment after having visited each female, and the connecting-door shut for the rest of the day.—R. P. ——E 127 or hay between the eggs and the ground. The coop should have a run attached in which the hen can feed and take exercise. As soon as the chicks are fairly strong on their legs, they should be removed, with their foster-mother, on to fresh dry turf. They must be fed often, but only a little food must be given each time. It is very important to feed early in the morning. A favourite food with amateurs is hard-boiled egg chopped into very small pieces; this has, however, the dis- advantage of being soon burnt up by the sun and thus becoming hard and indigestible. Mr. W. B. Tegetmeier, the greatest living authority on Pheasants, recommends a custard ‘‘made by beating an egg with atablespoonful of milk, and ‘setting’ the whole by a gentle heat, either in the oven or by the side of the fire.’ The same authority advises the use of canary seed in preference to meal for young birds. Green food in the form of chopped lettuce and onion-tops must be supplied in addition to the custard and seed. As the chicks get strong, more seed and less custard should be given ; and when five or six weeks old, their owner should begin to gradually accustom them to barley and wheat. Fresh ants’ cocoons are the natural food for Pheasant chicks, but unless a constant supply of these be guaranteed, it is best not to commence feeding with them. Having briefly touched upon the chief points in connection with the general management of Pheasants in aviaries, we have now to consider the kinds best adapted to a life of captivity in this country. The genus Phastanus, which includes all the so-called true Pheasants, claims our attention first, as the most familiar and beautiful of our game-birds belongs to this group. Everyone is perfectly familiar with the common English Pheasant, but its Origin is perhaps not so well known. Space will not permit of my going fully into the details of the introduction of the Chinese Ringed Pheasant (Phasianus torguatus) and of how it freely crossed with the original P. colchicus, which, before the intro- duction of the former bird, had reigned supreme in our coverts for centuries. Suffice it to say that the English Pheasant of to-day is not a true species, but a hybrid, or perhaps more correctly a mongrel, albeit a singularly beautiful one, the product of two varieties or sub-species. All the true Pheasants, with the exception of the Bar- tailed, or Reeve’s, appear to be capable of freely inter-breeding 128 with either of the parent forms, or zz/ev se; so that the members of this genus are probably only entitled to sub-specific distinction. They are all of great beauty, and it can be easily understood that the hybrids produced by the inter-breeding of two well-defined races, such as the P. colchicus or P. torquatus, with the richly coloured Japanese P. versicolor (hereafter to be described) are some of the most beautiful of birds. All the true Pheasants are well adapted to a life in captivity, and all appear to lay freely when once acclimatised and used to their surroundings. Great care must, however, be taken that they are not suddenly frightened by some unfamiliar object, for they take fright very easily, and on the appearance of anything strange, such as a dog or a broom, are apt to dash upward and injure their heads severely. Common Pheasants’ eggs can be readily hatched under hens, and the young reared without difficulty. I remember some years ago in our woods in Surrey, my dog, against all rules, made a dash at a sitting hen Pheasant, which so closely resembled its surroundings that I had not noticed it. Fortunately he was not quick enough to catch the bird, and a few tail feathers only remained in his mouth, the Pheasant going off uninjured. The dog was of course duly chastised, but that did not mend matters ; several eggs were broken and there was little chance of the hen returning to the remainder of the clutch. I therefore placed the remaining eggs in my pockets and took them home to the keeper who placed them safely under a broody hen. How inany eggs there were I cannot remember, but four only hatched, and one of the chicks died. The three survivors, a cock and two hens, were successfully reared, and a large aviary was prepared for them. In this they lived and throve; and each year several young were reared from their eggs, which were hatched by common hens. The cock was a very fine fellow, but had no white on his neck, shewing that his ancestors were chiefly of the Colchican variety. The true Phasianus colchicus is much darker in colour than are most of our wild Pheasants of to-day; and, moreover, it entirely lacks the white ring on the neck, a feature characteristic of the more recently introduced P. forquatus of China. In almost any poulterer’s shop may be seen, during the game season, Pheasants in various phases of plumage: some with the white patch on the neck very clearly defined, shewing their close relationship to P. forguatus; while the descendants of the original P. colchicus may be noticed with hardly any white on 129 the neck at all. Others again will sometimes be seen with exquisite shades of green and blue in their plumage, giving plain evidence of the introduction of the Japanese Pheasant (Phasianus versicolor), another and exquisitely beautiful sub- species. This Pheasant is now often to be obtained from the dealers at a moderate price, and is certainly one of the most lovely of the tribe. It is a somewhat smaller bird than either P. colchicus or P. torquatus, and the young are said to be quite as easy to rear as either. The colours of the cock are chiefly metallic green and blue of different shades on the head and underparts, chestnut on the back, and greenish grey on the rump and wing coverts. The hen is much like those of the common species, but her markings are more clearly defined. In his very useful ‘‘ Hand-book to the Game Birds” Mr. Ogilvie-Grant writes,—‘‘The Japanese Pheasant inter-breeds readily with the Chinese Ring-necked Pheasant, the male hybrid being a remarkably fine bird, surpassing in size and beauty either of its parents. This species also crosses freely with P. colchicus, the males being truly splendid birds, not unlike P. elegans* in general colouring, but very much larger.” Versicolors are said to lay very freely in suitable aviaries, _ and are, like all the true Pheasants, polygamous, four or five hens being usually kept with the cock. Another Pheasant hailing from Japan is Scemmerring’s (P. semmerringit), The male may be described as of a rich fiery copper colour. The hen is coloured somewhat like him, but her tints are less brilliant. This is perhaps the most beautiful of the true Pheasants, but it is very rare in this country, and, unless a very large enclosure can be placed at its disposal, the cock will be almost certain to attempt the murder of his wives. This most unfortunate habit of some captive Pheasants is, however, by no means confined to Scemmerrings: there is probably hardly a species certain individuals of which will not, at times, be troublesome in this way. The best and safest plan is, as before mentioned, to provide plenty of thick cover for the hens, and, if the cock should be inclined to be nasty towards them, to cut the quill feathers of oneof his wings fairly close, in order to give the hens a better chance of getting out of his way. The Prince of Wales’ Pheasant (P. principalis) is another very beautiful bird, but at present quite unprocurable in England. It is found wild in North- Western Afghanistan, * Stone’s Pheasant. 130 and has been received alive by the Zoological Society. It is characterised by some conspicuous white feathers on the wings. In these days of rareimportations one never knows what may turn up in the bird line; let us hope that ere long P. principalis, as well as numerous others, which are yet unknown to us in a living state, may be procurable in the English market. The giant of the race, and one of the most attractive, is Reeve’s, or the Bar-tailed Pheasant (P. veeveszz), a species which does not inter-breed with its congeners so readily as do other true Pheasants; and the hybrids produced from Reeve’s and any other Pheasants are said to be quite sterile. The Bar-tailed Pheasant is therefore in all probability, not merely specifically, but generically distinct from the true Pheasants, although still included in the genus Phasianus by most authors. A majestic bird this truly is, measuring some six feet or more in total length, and with plumage chiefly of a pure golden colour, each feather being edged with black, as in a perfectly marked ‘“ golden spangled” fowl. It is now comparatively easy to obtain these grand birds in this country, as they have been bred in aviaries by several amateurs; and on some estates, both in England and Scotland, have been introduced into the coverts. ‘They seem to succeed best amongst the wild rocky scenery of Scotland, which must somewhat resemble the mountainous districts of China in which the species is found in a wild state. (To be continued). REVIEWS. The ‘‘ Feathered World” Spring Number. Probably five-sixths of the members of the Avicultural Society are subscribers to the Feathered World, so that a review of the Spring number of that paper is really a work of super- erogation—but for the benefit of the remaining sixth we wish to: call attention to this excellent three-pennyworth. We can only mention the articles and illustrations which are of special interest to aviculturists, but doubtless the two coloured plates, and other “‘ features,” will be highly appreciated by the poultry and pigeon people. There is an article by Dr. Butler on ‘“‘ Some imported Finches of the genus Sfermophila,” which treats of the White- throated Finch, the Bluish Finch, the Lined Finch, the Guttural Finch, and the Reddish Finch. This is accompanied by a really tS GURDORAL, IOs" ta.—Do. (FEMALE). 2,—LINED FINCH. —REDDISH FINCH. 4.-- WHITE-THROATED FINCH. 5. BE UISEE EDGE (REPRODUCED FROM THE “ Feathered World”? BY THE KIND PERMISSION OF Mrs. COMYNS-LEWER.) 131 excellent picture by Mr. Lydon, representing all five species (both sexes of the Guttural Finch being figured). It is no easy task to shew, in black and white, the distinctive characteristics of such closely allied species, but the artist has succeeded in shewing this, and we have seldom seen a more satisfactory and life-like drawing of birds. There is a short illustrated article on the Arizona Quail, and one on ‘“‘ Larks and other British Birds in Captivity.” Mis 'Canips; Jarticle entitled My" Bird) Room,” is apparently a reprint, with some alterations and additions, of one from his pen which appeared in the Avicultural Magazine for December, 1894; a number which has, by the way, long been out of print. The article was well worth reproducing, and is made much more interesting by the illustrations which now accompany it. “The Grey Java Sparrow,” by Mr. W. T. Page, is sub- stantially the same as an article which appeared quite recently in this Magazine. Popular Parrakeets: their Breeding and Management by Amateurs, oy WY Ml. (GHEE, MILA, WI ID, LEB Sion (SHB In this, his latest work, we find Dr. Greene at his best, and we can most heartily recommend this practical little book to our readers. The Introduction contains valuable hints on aviary building, the selection of nesting boxes, and other matters, and is followed by chapters on the Budgerigar, Cockatiel, Ring- necked Parrakeet, Rosella, New Zealand Parrakeet, Turquoisine, Blossom-headed Parrakeet, and King Parrakeet, while a few other species are treated of incidentally. ‘ Popular Parrakeets ” seems to have been written with great care, and is commendably free from the “ padding” which often disfigures avicultural handbooks. Dr. Greene has wisely adopted the nomenclature of the Catalogue of Birds at the British Museum, and avoids those discussions on classification which are so out of place in a popular manual. _ The statement that the King Parrakeet belongs to the sub- family of the Broad-tails must be a slip of the pen. The illustrations are shocking. There is a very complete index—a most useful addition to a book of this sort. 132 CORRESPONDENCE. HEN PENNANT PARRAKEETS; WINTERING BIRDS OUT OF DOORS; CHANGE OF PLUMAGE IN WEAVERS. S1r,—I think Mr. Farrar has a hen of a different kind, as I have seen a great number of Pennants in the nesting-season, and with their young families, in their native land, Victoria, but I never saw much difference between the sexes except in their manner and in the carriage of the head, the cock looking much prouder and more given to swagger—but he is, perhaps, a little more brilliant. On the other hand, I did see some birds similar to the hen described, in South Australia, very frequently in cages, but I do not remember noticing them wild. These are, however, well known to be a different variety, and have a name of their own which I forget. In the wild state the Pennants and Rosellas hang about the home- steads together, and if allowed liberty will do the same in England, apparently not haviug any desire to fly to woodlands—at least, mine were so; but I had to cage them up again because they went down the chimneys several times. Pennants are particularly “‘loose”’ in their colour, and soon go brownish if left in the sun. All Australian creatures seem to avoid the midday sun, and the Bush is quiet for a few hours in the middle of the day, even where there is shade. Almost any bird (fowl, pigeon, or fancy cage-bird) must be kept out of the sun if its full brilliancy of colour is required, as any person who shows soon learns. I should like to know if any of our members have kept Red-faced Love-birds in an outdoor aviary for several winters. I have kept them for an odd winter once, but I fancied the cold was too much for them. I only want to keep cocks. Is the Madagascar really nuch more hardy? I should also like to know if a Shama would stand the winter in an open aviary in a cold part of Lancashire (0). Tam trying Red Lories (Zos rubra) in it; they have stood it well so far, but this is the most trying season, I always find. I suppose the birds get run down with the long cold weather, and the cold windy nights of March and April just seem to finish theim off. This year again one of my Rufous-necked Weavers went into dull winter plumage, while the other retained his full black and yellow suit. I have had them now two years, and they seem in perfect health and feather. Last year it was suggested that perhaps the one which went grey was a very young one or the other a very old one, but would that argument stand good again for this year? A, A. THOM. (8) I have now a pair of Red-faced Lovebirds, in perfect condition, which have spent a large part of the last:three years in my very open aviary; but during the winter I insist on their going into the bird-room, at any rate at night. When really well established, they can stand a good deal of cold, but they do not like it, and it is not good for them; never- theless, being constitutionally timid, they cannot be depended upon to seek shelter—the slightest thing will keep them out. I consider the Madagascar Lovebird to be a much hardier species. It is my opinion that a Shama would not stand a winter in an open aviary, but I believe they have been kept out through the winter in well shut up quarters.—R. P. 133 FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. Srr,—It may be true that none of the English Warblers live absolutely entirely on insects, but I believe that many of them, such as the Nightingale, Redstart, Wheatear, Whinchat, Stonechat, and Chiffchaff, eat very little else. On the other hand, it is certain that the Blackcap, Greater and Lesser Whitethroat, and Garden Warbler, are largely fruit-eaters. Mr. Meade-Waldo’s instructive article on ‘“‘The Food of the Blackcap,” which appeared in the Magazine last year, proved that that species will live for years on fruit alone, and my own observations confirm this. But because a Blackcap will live on fruit it does not follow that a Nightingale would. The birds require quite different treatment. Dr. Butler appears to argue that because a Nightingale, in its wild state, will eat a few berries (2) in the autumn for the sake of a change or because it can get nothing better, therefore it ought to have, in captivity, as its regular food, a mixture which consists largely of bread. It would be just as reasonable to contend that because a man can eat, without ill effects, a little pastry occasionally, he might, with impunity, eat pastry for breakfast, pastry for lunch, pastry for dinner, every day all the year round. If aman were to try this, the result would alinost certainly be a bad attack of indigestion, especially if he took little exercise, and a similar result follows when a caged Nightingale is fed largely on bread. Moreover, there is a good deal of differeice between bread and berries. No doubt quite unintentionally, Dr. Butler somewhat misrepresents what I said: I certainly never admitted that biscuit is ‘‘ almost (if not altogether) a suitable food for the more delicate insectivorous birds.’’ Biscuit is no doubt better than bread, but really that is not saying much for it. I cannot understand Dr. Butler’s statement that Dr. Bradburn ‘“‘was a stroug advocate for the use of chopped beef for soft-billed birds.’ I believe that the reverse of this would be much nearer the truth, and cau only conclude that Dr. Butler has never read ‘ British Birds: their successful management in captivity.”” Nevertheless, there is a good deal more to be said for the occasional use of meat for soft-billed birds than Dr. Butler will admit. I thought that Mr. Abrahams dealt almost entirely in foreign birds, and that there were a good many “‘living authorities” with more experience of British Warblers than he has. SEPTIMUS PERKINS. Str,—Mr. Perkins writes as though my sole object in recommending bread for soft-billed birds was to prove him in the wrong : consequently he gives one the impression that he is hurt. I can assure him that my sole object is to arrive at the truth, and this (as I said before) can be best attained by practical experience. (a) ‘Yhese frequent references to the Nightingale eating berries surprise me. I have not myself ever observed either the wild or the captive Nightingale devour any vegetable matter as food. ‘Ihe captive bird occasionally takes a little vegetable matter for medicinal purposes, just as the cat and the dog eat grass—but I have not ever known one touch a berry.—R. P. (2) I must admit that I never heard of the Nightingale eating berries until Mr. Perkins made the statement; but I suppose he has proof of its being a fact.—A. G. B. 134 Nightingales warble but are not called ‘‘ Warblers,” and most assuredly the Chats are not: the Stonechat eats bread and thrives upon it, so does the Whinchat; the Redstart in my aviary would certainly die without it, for he gets but little of the egg and ants’-cocoons in his mixture, these being quickly appropriated by other birds; yet he is in excellent health and sings well: I have had him two years. It was Mr. Perkins (and not I) who hinted that there was some affinity between bread and berries; I, on the other hand, said that I failed to see the point of his suggestion. Dr. Bradburn, even in his Intiodudction, says :—‘ Beef and mutton (preferably the lean portions), sheep’s heart and diver, in the right place will be found very useful, and in some instances indispensable.” If Mr. Perkins will take the trouble to run through the suggestions for feeding insectivorous birds in Dr. Bradburn’s little book, he will see that I have certainly not underrated the late doctor’s high esteem for raw meat. Lastly I would ask Mr. Perkins whether a foreign bird which voluntarily visits England is more subject to indigestion than a foreign bird which is imported into England; because, if not, his statement respecting Mr. Abrahanis falls to the ground. A. G. BUTLER. THE FOREIGN BIRD EXHIBITORS’ LEAGUE. A new Society with the above title has been founded to encourage the exhibition of foreign birds and to improve shows in regard to them. Thirty members have already joined, and a Council consisting of the following gentlemen has been elected :—Messrs. W. H. Betts, H. T. T. Camps, J. F. Dewar, J. Frostick, J. B. Housden, R. Humphrys, N. H. Jones, W. Osbaldeston, C. S. Simpson, J. Storey, and W. Swaysland. I have been elected Hon. Secretary and Treasurer. The subscription is 2/6 per annuni to members of the Avicultural Society, and 5/- to others. I shall be very pleased to receive the names of any desirous of joining. The rules have not yet been drawn up, but this will be done forthwith. The objection has been made that the formation of a new Society was unnecessary, and that its objects could have been just as well effected by a special committee of the Avicultural Society. The answer to this is that the Avicultural Society is, as a Society, unable to interfere usefully in Show questions, as the great majority not only of the members but also of the officers, are non-exhibitors. For the same reason it would be unfair to use any part of the funds of the Society for any purpose connected with Shows. It is the belief of its founders that the League supplies a long felt want. ‘he U.K. Foreign Cage Bird Society, which was amalgamated with the Avicultural Society in 1895, was, to a large extent, a Society of exhibitors—since that Society ceased to have an independent existence exhibitors of foreign birds have been without a Society of their own. HORATIO R. FILLMER. 135 THE GOLDEN-CROWNED NEW-ZEALAND PARRAKEET. S$1R,—I have thought it might be of interest to the members of our Society to hear of an incident which has just occurred in my foreign bird- rooni. In the larger aviary I have had for some time a pair of Golden- crowned New-Zealand Parrakeets (Cyanorhamphus auriceps) ; and they have neither interfered with each other nor with the other birds in the aviary. Last week the hen was noticed to be slightly ailing, and she was caught out for treatment. The cock expressed such anxiety at losing his partner, who was herself palpably anxious to get back to him, that it was thought charitable to catch him also, and put him with the hen while she was being treated. As long as anyone was in the bird-room the birds seemed perfectly content to be united, and everything went on satisfactorily for the first day. The next morning the hen was found dead in the cage, not from the trifling ailment for which she had been “caged up,” but from having been killed by the cock bird. The top of her skull was torn completely off. HENRY J. FULLJAMES. GOULDIAN FINCHES. Mr, Roich having asked for information on the subject of the breeding of Gouldian Finches, the following reply has been sent to him by Mr. Phillipps :— I fear you may have difficulty in obtaining a hen of either the Beautiful or of Gould’s Grassfinch just at present, and, should you be successful, there would be little chance of the birds breeding until the end of the year. The hurried account I wrote for Dr. Butler (see “ Foreign Finches’’) gave a fair representation of the birds as they were at that time, but those good days have passed away. They used to be brought over a few at a time and with great care, and they reached this country in capital condition. Now they are brought over in great numbers and crowded together; and they die off like flies, especially the females. Those that do survive are not of the slightest use for breeding until they have been kept, under favourable conditions, for a considerable time. Their breeding season is during our autunin and winter; and these modern birds, at any rate with me, do not shew any inclination to breed at any other time. When wishing to nest, the females become delicate if with, or within hearing of, the males, and must be kept warm or inflanimation of the ovary may set in: warmth is the only preventive and cure. If you can get a good pair, they will nest almost anywhere; during cold weather, however, I think a wooden box is about the best place. Dry grasses, or even hay, is all that they require; neither species will use moss, wool, feathers, or anything of that nature. It is said that these birds (Puephila mirabilis and P. gouldiz) are bred ~ largely in captivity in Australia for exportation. Possibly this may have something or much to do with the want of stamina in those specimens which now reach our shores. 136 THE PRICES OF FOREIGN BIRDS; THE SONGS OF FOREIGN BIRDS. S1rR,—I should be glad if some experienced aviculturist (in next month’s Magazine, or the month after, now foreign birds are getting plentiful) would issue a list of the present market value of healthy specimens of the different species of foreign birds, stating their relative merits as songsters, whether good, bad, or indifferent. I have just been much disappointed with a Pekin Robin—I find his song is not nearly as good as that of our English Robin, although it is described by one of the dealers as equal to that of the Blackcap or ordinary Nightingale ; and the Virginian Nightingale, so-called, has nothing of a song, and yet the dealers describe him as a deautiful whistler. I have gained much valuable information from the Aviceultural Magazine, and I hope to gain a great deal more. A. JONES. The following reply was sent to Mr, Fones :— It is quite impossible to comply with your request. ‘The prices of birds vary from day to day, and are governed, like the prices of other commodities, by the laws of supply and demand. By watching the dealers’ advertisements a fair idea of the current price of the conimoner species can be formed—there is no regular price for the rarer birds. The Shamaand the Pekin Robin are generally considered to be about the best songsters among the insectivorous foreign birds, and the Grey-singing Finch and the Alario Finch the best among the foreign seed-eaters. But the respective merits of songsters is largely a matter of opinion, and individuals of the sane species differ greatly. I should say that the average Pekin Robin is a better songster than the average English Robin, though not so good as the Nightingale or Blackcap, but this is only my personal opinion (a). I have never heard a Virginian Cardinal which could be called a fine songster—the song of that bird appears to me monotonous and tiresome—still, I should give it a fairly high place among foreign birds, as most of them are still worse performers. HORATIO R. FILLMER. (a) I have had a good many pairs of this species: as a rule the males sing magnificently (quite as well as any Blackcap) ; but occasionally a poor songster comes to hand. One which I parted with last year sang only seven notes, which may be thus expressed fu7-te-rur-tur ; tur-tur-tur.—A, G. B. Hyicultural (Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AVC UE UWA SOC TET Y. VOL. IV.—No. 44. All rights reserved, JUNE, 1898. BREEDING INSECTIVOROUS BIRDS. By REGINALD PHILLIPPS. In responding to Mr. St Quintin’s invitation to say a few words about the breeding of the Shama, I may commence by remarking that I have always a certain number of large, often rapacious, birds—formerly I had a great many—and that, as my space is very limited, breeding with me has been almost an impossibility, and rarely attempted except when the birds insisted upon tempting their fate. Moreover, my outdoor aviary, although provided with plenty of shelters, is simply a little walled-in garden (an ordinary cats’ playground) covered over with wire netting to a height of over nine feet, so that the inmates and their nests are much exposed to the weather; for most birds in a natural garden-aviary w7// roost and build in the shrubs, and rarely will take to artificial nesting-places or structures (see, for instance, ‘“‘ How the Birds learn.” Vol. III. p- 174). Again, strange as it may seem, I could hardly obtain such a creature as a mealworm, and the few I did obtain only at fancy prices. And I was commonly absent from home from morning till night, the birds being left pretty much to take care of theniselves, so that my experiences in this particular direction have been incomplete. Some of the Mynahs used to nest very freely; the most energetic and persevering were a male Acridotheres cristatellus and a female A. fris¢is ; many eggs were laid, and mostly stolen by the male, but a few young were hatched and partially reared. Artificial food only was supplied, with which the parents were dissatisfied ; mealworms and cockroaches would have saved the young. But the nest of all others I look back upon with sorrow and regret contained four as strong young White Jackdaws as ever were hatched. The male, who stole the first egg as soon as laid, had been removed, and the female would not feed the young on artificial food. I can still hear her voice as I opened a window 138 looking on to the aviary before starting to the city ; she asked me for food for her babes in a pathetic and reproachful tone ; but I gave her nothing to her liking and the young died of starvation. I am satisfied that the White Jackdaw is not an albino, nor an artificial production like the White Java Sparrow, but a distinct variety or race which breeds true to colour coming from the Continent; but I have not been able to ascertain the locality whence those annually imported actually come. Of course mealworms, cockroaches, etc., would have saved these birds, and the plumage would have settled the question. Several times with birds I have had an opportunity which I have failed to avail myself of, and the opportunity has never been offered again—a warning to my fellow-aviculturists. In succeeding years the female Jackdaw would never allow the male to approach her (one year she mated with a Chough, but the eggs were not fertile) ; and I have had other instances where brother and sister obtained a divorce :—was this accident, or a natural instinct to avoid inbreeding and a degenerate progeny ? The female Shama is now a common bird in this country, but years ago it was as fabulous as the Roc, and many were the mysterious reasons given for its non-appearance. I may mention, in connection with the food question now being discussed in our pages, that my first female died in a fit owing to the special food I used to have prepared for my birds not having been sufficiently cooked. I have long since ceased to give a servant an oppor- tunity of killing my birds by negligence. My next female I imported direct from Calcutta. A pair of Shamas were sent over, but the male disappeared shortly before the steamer entered the Thames. According to the official report, it was killed by the rats. I examined the cage, and found that the rats could not possibly have got hold of it. A sovereign was to have been paid to the butcher, the caretaker of all birds and beasts on board ship, for each bird received alive; but somebody had evidently offered more than the sovereign, and so the butcher let the “rats” have it. I mention this as thereseems to be strong evidence that this is not an uncommon occurrence when rare birds are imported unaccompanied by a responsible person. However, the despised female, of course the one I valued most, arrived safely on September 29th, 1892. On April 26th following, this bird, who was shut up separately from a male, but in the same bird-room, commenced carrying hay about. On May 5th it was clear that the birds wanted to pair, when, on the following ———— OOOOOeEEEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeeEEeEeEeEeEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEe——eEE i, ——-r 139 morning, a sad calamity occurred. The male chanced to fly on to the front of his house when the old Chinese Blue Pie, a very spiteful bird, who still survives, darted down and tore off the centre toe of the left foot. Later in the month, the birds were introduced to the garden, and, on the 19th, both were set free. The male’s delight was unbounded ; and right bravely did he disport himself before the lady of his love, but his bad foot rather quickly cooled his ardour. As evening drew on, he went to roost in a balsam poplar close to the side of the aviary, the female not being far off. In the night I was awakened by one of the most painful sounds I know, the cry as of a bird in the talons of ahawk. With more speed than clothes, I rushed out. A cat had climbed up the outside of the aviary, and the male, after the unfortunate manner of birds in real or fancied peril, had flown on to the wire netting. Years previously, however, I had learned by bitter experience that a single wire is practically useless as a protection against cats. The wires were double, and some three inches apart, one being of one-half inch mesh. Asan additional safeguard, the aviary was and is surrounded by a cat’s-claw protection; and up to this point the cat had climbed, but higher it could not go. Sothe Shama, although within a foot of the cat, was safe; the horrid eager look of the beast I can picture to myself now, as it strained itself against the wire between me and the sky ; and the poor bird was paralysed with terror. I carried both of the Shamas back to the house, placing them in the male’s old home which would be familiar to his eye,—but he lay on the ground all night in an almost helpless condition. When are our legislators going to mete out justice in the matter of cats! Why should there be one law for the cat-owner and another for the aviculturist ? What justice or reason is there in allowing people to let their cats loose to trespass in other persons’ gardens and feed on their pets? They should be required to keep their cats within their own domains or to take the conseauences. As soon as the birds had recovered from the shock, once more they were placed in the garden, and, more wise than before, they roosted in safe places and were disturbed no more. Several times the female commenced to build; but the cold weather seemed to cause much pain in the male’s foot, or perhaps he had not recovered from the cat scare; anyway he was not responsive, and the nesting was again and again discontinued. The place selected was on a shelf nearly four feet from the ground, running along under a shed. It transpired afterwards that two nests were built, about two feet apart, in different partitions of the 140 same shelf. In building, the plucky little woman, who seemed fully to understand that her mate was bad—a state of affairs which seldom fails to bring out the best qualities in the sex— carried at first only dead leaves, chiefly ivy and euonymus, the other available dead leaves being those of the rhododendrons, which she would not touch; she also took up straw and hay, finally lining the second nest with the finest hay ; moss, hair, etc., she would not look at. The foundations of the nests were very large; Robins’ and Redstarts’ nests are often built on the same plan. In some respects, perhaps, it was more like to the nest of the Nightingale than to that of any other British bird. While allthis was going on, the male looked on approvingly, sang occasionally, and from time to time made miserable the lives of an Australian Black-breasted Peewit, another very old friend who still enjoys the best of health, and a conimon Lapwing, the only other occupants of the aviary, who eventually had to be removed. Judging from appearances, for I kept away from the nest, the first egg was laid on 6th June, 1893, and the female commences to sit on the 9th, on four eggs as transpired later. On June 20th I noticed the female fly across the aviary from her nest with something in her bill; the male immediately darted at her and seized the ‘“‘ something,’ and a tug-of-war ensued. This ‘‘something” turned out to be the first-born; the excited mother had by an accident carried out the nestling along with the shell, and it was forthwith torn to pieces between the two birds and, if I recollect rightly, devoured by them. ‘Twice again that day and once on the following morning did the female fly across the aviary to the same spot bearing the discarded shells. For the first few days the young were fed by the female, later by the male also. Not only did the parents refuse to carry artificial food of any kind to the young, but, as is too often the case, they themselves wholly gave up eating artificial food ; and this circumstance adds greatly to the difficulty of rearing a brood of insectivorous birds. It is impossible for me to obtain insects here in London, and the young Shamas were reared on cockroaches, mealworms, and gentles. I tried to breed “jumpers” in cheese, but they were not appreciated. The gentles I discontinued after a time, as they seemed to be more heating than the mealworms. At first small cockroaches were taken to the nest from preference, but later the mealworms were preferred. Unfortunately I could obtain but a very limited supply of cockroaches, and had to rely mainly on mealworms. The gentles and mealworms I placed in bran, in large open saucers over a foot in diameter. 141 The three surviving young left the nest on 2nd July, well feathered but unable to fly. The noise the two old birds made that day was astounding, the female mad to entice the young away from the adjoining aviary and its rapacious occupants (a Hunting Cissa being especially desirous of “ assisting” the mother), while the male, on the highest perch, whistled defiance at the world. The more he whistled, the more the neighbours crowded into the gardens around (it happened to be Sunday) ; and the more they came the more the bird whistled and sang. In feeding the young, excepting quite at first, the parents would not be bothered with carrying smal/creatures to their nest ; these they swallowed, and carried only the larger ones. If I persisted in supplying only small mealworms or cockroaches, they would not budge until they had collected several of these in their bills. The enormous cockroaches which I saw that female Shama give to her young after they had left their nest would have convinced me, if I had had need of convincing, of the needlessness of cutting up mealworms to give to young birds. The mouth of the young bird while being fed was like the vortex of a whirlpool. The female would endeavour to tilt a big cockroach head foremost into the open mouth : if success- ful, it was caught in the vortex and disappeared in a twinkling ; but if the insect happened to get crossways or was not caught fairly in the vortex, it flew off at a tangent, and the performance had to be gone through again. I supplied the mealworms, etc., alive and uninjured, leaving it to the parents to kill them, which they did not always do by any means. One reads that the parent Eagle shoves its young out of the eyrie on the sides of the precipice, and then darts under the falling bird for the purpose of supporting it in the air. This is sometimes regarded as a pretty story and nothing more. Story or no story as regards the Eagle, I can say that, as regards the Shama, on the day the young left the nest, I saw the female several times, when trying to get them on to perches in a shrub, fly under them and give them a partial back-up. Until the young left the nest, the parents kept up the delusion that I did not know anything about it. They never went straight to the nest, but every morsel of food was carried round the best part of three sides of the aviary, almost precisely by the same route, a pause usually being made at two points, and again just below the nest. When the male, who usually performed the office, carried off the excreta, he flew zig-zag 142 hither and thither all over the place, dropping them at the farthest possible point. I need now only add that more delightful pets than these young Shamas could not be, flying after me everywhere, and perching on me anywhere they could find a footing. PHEASANTS. By D. SETH-SMITH. (Continued from page 130). In aviaries, Reeve’s Pheasants become very tame and familiar with those who habitually feed them. The hens lay freely, and the eggs can be hatched under domestic hens, and the young reared quite as easily as those of any of the other Pheasants. Considering that a full grown cock of this species carries a tail some five feet in length, the aviary in which these birds are kept cannot very well be too large. The genus Calophasis possesses but two species, Elliot’s (C. elliot?) and Hume’s (C. humze); the latter is unknown in Europe in a living state, but the former has, within the last few years, been imported in some numbers, and has been bred by amateurs, as well as at the ‘‘ Zoo.” Elliot's Pheasant is indigenous to the province of Che-kiang, where it was discovered by Consul Swinhoe, and was first brought to Europe in 1879 by Mr. Jamrach. In shape and manners this bird closely resembles the true Pheasants, but it differs greatly in the form of its mark- ings. Inthe male, the mantle, wings and breast are of a rich bronze-red; a band of purplish steel and two bands of pure white cross the wings; the underparts being chiefly pure white, and the throat black. The genus Chrysolophus contains but two species, both of which are of exceptional beauty and deservedly popular with Pheasant keepers. The Golden Pheasant (C. pictus) is almost as. well known as the Common Pheasant, having been bred in captivity in Europe from a very remote period. Its general appearance is too familiar to need a detailed description here, the rich red, gold and green of its plumage making it the most gorgeous of all the known Pheasants. My experience of this species is that the males are often exceedingly spiteful towards the females, but this, alas, is a failing which most Pheasants sometimes possess in captivity. Lady Amherst’s Pheasant (C. amhersti@) is 143 now fairly well known and easily obtainable in the English market, having been bred by numerous amateurs. It is slightly larger than its congener and very different in colouring, the crest being deep red, the mantle and breast metallic green, and the underparts chiefly pure white. The tippet on the nape is com- posed of feathers of pure white margined with black. This very lovely Pheasant is indigenous to the mountainous districts of Western China. In suitable aviaries Amhersts thrive well and the young are said to present no especial difficulty in the matter of rearing, but they do not attain their full plumage until nearly two years of age, differing in this respect from the true Pheasants. The two species of this genus interbreed very freely in captivity, and the resulting hybrids, which are said to be perfectly fertile, are remarkably handsome birds, combining the rich colourings of both species. The Silver and Swinhoe’s Pheasants belong to the rather large family of Kalij Pheasants,—_the genus Genneus. G. nycthemerus, the common Silver Pheasant, has been known for a very long time as an aviary bird. Its colours may be roughly described as white, finely pencilled with black, above, including the tail, and black on the underparts. This is a very hardy species, and breeds very freely in captivity. It is found wild in the south of China, but is said to be becoming very rare there. G. swinhott is a handsome species, the male having a white crest and mantle, the centre pair of tail feathers being of the same colour. The rest of the body is bluish black relieved by crimson on the scapulars. It is not a common bird in the English market, and is found in a wild state on the forest-clad mountains of Formosa. The foregoing notes have already occupied too much space, and I must stop. I would, however, just mention the Moonal Pheasant of the Himalayas (Lophophorus refulgens), whose gorgeous plumage no artist can truthfully depict; the Peacock Pheasant (Polyplectron chinguts), the Firebacks, and the Tragopans. All are well worthy the attention of our members, and let me express the hope that before long we may hear of the successful rearing, by members of the Avicultural Society, of some of the rare and lovely species of the Phasianide. 144 AO VISIT tO SBROOKEVNG: wy wae Jem, ail IRE, 185°C. IDwMION I was enabled the other day, through the kindness of Mr. Fulljames, to see his Parrot-room, and, as his collection is a singularly interesting one, I thought a few words about it might be welcome to the readers of the Avicultural Magazine. One thing that rather astonished me, in making my appointment with Mr. Fulljames, was to learn that he was only at home after 6 p.m. except on Sundays. I knew he bought largely, but since he could hardly see much of his birds, I was at a loss to understand what attraction they could have for him. He met me at Balham station, and as we walked up to his house I asked him plainly waz his interest in the birds was. He told me quite simply that his object was excellence as a collection. His interest was exhibiting. As a former exhibitor of fowls myself, and as one who occasionally shows dogs now, I under- stood, and could sympathize at once. But it is necessary to say this that my readers may understand what I could zo¢ get from Mr. Fulljames himself. I could not get much account of the ways and habits of his Parrots. He devotes himself to their health and condition, not to the study of their characters. For that one must go to the lady who keeps house for Mr. Fulljames— “for,” said he, ‘‘it would not be possible for me to keep the birds I do, unless my housekeeper took a great interest in them.” He ought to have a gold medal for being such a plucky buyer. Were there a few more able and willing to do as he does, what rare birds might we not see imported ! But before I went to the living birds, I was shown a case containing some two hundred stuffed Humming Birds. Cases of Humming Birds, my readers may say, are not very uncommon. Perhaps not, but have they ever seen a nest of young Humming Birds? I must confess that Inever have. Yet here were two : one with the young just ready to fly; the other with young three or four days old. ‘These latter were rather parchmenty, owing to the drying up of the tender skin, but one felt that one knew something appreciably more about Humming Birds after seeing them. I was then taken to the room containing the British birds, but as my object was the Parrots we did not stop there long, but went upstairs to the Parrot-room. It is not a very large room, but it would be very difficult to find a collection of rarer Parrots 145 in the same space. The room is scrupulously clean, and has plenty of light. The cages are sensible, and I had but one criticism to make—I thought it too hot. ‘There was a stove burning, and no window open. Of course an open window could not be expected at 6.30 p.m., but I do not think a stove was desirable on the third of May. If I had one, I should have Tobin’s system of ventilation going on. Parrots do not require great heat ; and the only time they suffer from cold is when they are moulting in September and on the very severe days of winter, Then I think they like artificial warmth. Parrots, however, are different in their powers of enduring heat. The first bird I looked at was the Hyacinthine Macaw. He evidently did not mind the heat, for he was in the pink of bloom —I do not think I have ever seen a Macaw with such a sheen on his plumage. This was the bird which Mr. Fulljames said, in a previous number, was zof good-tempered. [hardly agree. The bird is devoted to Mrs. S. (as I will call the lady who looks after them), and I think his devotion to her is the cause of his warning off other people. I think he would always be good to his feeder, However, one has to be careful of such a tremendous beak. He had twisted about the wires of his cage in all directions. The next bird to him was the Shining Parrakeet, ‘claimed by Mr. Fulljames at the last Palace Show. This bird is ‘quite thrown away where he is—he is full of antics, and evidently wanted a great deal of play and petting. He ought to be with some one whose “only joy” he should be. After him came a Meyer’s. This bird was in admirable condition, but not as tame as those deposited at the Zoological Gardens some three or four years back—/hey were charming—pocket companions, I might ‘call them, but this one was as much where he ought to be, as the Shining Parrakeet was where he ought not to be—nothing was wasted in keeping him for exhibition purposes only. Then there were two Antipodes Island Parrakeets, (Cyanorhamphus unicolor). I thought the Zoo. alone had a specimen of this very rare Parrot, but found, to my surprise, Mr. Fulljames with two. Alas, both cocks! Had they not been, I think I must have asked Mr. Fulljames to let me try and breed some for him. Next to them were a pair of Blue Bonnets. Then a Lineolated Parrakeet. This, my host thought, might come near to my ideal pet. It is pretty, if not gorgeous, and quiet; but I should ‘doubt its capacity for talking. Considering that they have been brought over in some numbers at different times, I rather wonder we have not heard more about them as cage-birds. I have never had any myself, because my space is limited, and there 146 have always been other |birds I have wanted more—but they would be an agreeable change from Budgerigars, if they would breed as readily. The one bird at ‘‘ Brooklyn,” which I do not feel sure I have ever seen before, was the Blood-stained Cockatoo. This must be Bechstein’s Cockatoo (C. philippinarum) (a) of which he says the cry is very disagreeable. But Mr. Fulljames says it is quiet. It is quite the smallest Cockatoo I have seen. Not far from it stood Pionus chalcopterus—the Bronze-winged Parrot. He isa very tame little bird ; but the Pzonz, as a rule, are tame, yet they can occasionally give a nip, as this one also: does. And they take their dislikes, too. A hen Menstruus I had was very good with me, but hated one of our under-keepers, and. would always bite him if he could. Mr. Fulljames had also a hen Menstruus , but it did not seem specially tame. In the window stood several Australian Parrakeets, but. amongst the Australians there was nothing, with the exception of one, which was either a Variegated Rosella or a hybrid, to call for special note. A Forsten’s Lorikeet, a Scaly-breasted Lorikeet,. a Crimson-wing, a Rock Peplar, a King, and a cock Barraband. were amongst thenumber. In mentioning the birds on the oppo- site side of the room, I forgot to say that there was a hen Malabar, which was the only representative of the genus Palgornis in the collection. There were no Conures; Mr. Fulljames, I was. interested to find, quite sharing my feelings about them. I was. disappointed at missing the AfZcroglossus—which had been sent to the Alexandra Palace to try and forget feather picking in a large aviary. “The Gangas had been sold at the Crystal Palace Show. Even Mrs. S. had not a good word to say for them. Her experience was what mine has been, that they were morose creatures, and not very willing to make friends. I may be going” to change my opinion—but of that more another day. I have left, for the last two notes, the gems of the collection, and the most interesting bird in it. The gems were a pair of Princess of Wales Parrakeets. (Polytelis alexandre). I had seen the bird before at the Zoological Gardens, but never in such plumage as these. Not only were the colours of these—the yellow-green of the wings and the delicate rose of the throat—most vivid, but their tails. were of a length I have never seen in any species of the family. I have never seen even a Barraband, or a Rock Peplar, with such tails. And then, they were delightfully tame, coming up to the bars of the cage to be noticed, and piping with a loud clear pipe (a). The Cacatua hematuropygia of the Cat. Birds Brit. Mus.—R. P. 147 to draw attention when we turned away—as pets, it, perhaps, was their one drawback. That pipe might have got upon one’s nerves. They were said to have been taken from the nest, and brought over as pets, by the man who sold them to Mr. Jamrach, from whom Mr. Fulljames bought them. They did the importer the greatest credit. I have some reason to hope that their owner is going to devote a large aviary in another room to these lovely birds, to induce them to breed. It was, at the time of my visit, inhabited by a Cinnamon Blackbird and “Jacob,” the talking Starling (not that he favoured me with any conversation), both of whom might very well make way for the Parrakeets. It would be a great feather in anyone’s cap to have a nest of young Alexandres. Lastly, the most interesting bird was the Spix Macaw. The most interesting, because it is clearly a baby, and now, owing to Mr. Fulljames’ kindness, I can tell my readers what they will not find, as far as I know, in any book-—that the young bird has every feather on the back edged with black, entirely un- like the even grey-blue of the adult. It was very tame and gentle, but not, as regards plumage, in the best of condition. I never can see a bird in rough plumage, without longing to get it right. And so it was arranged between Mr. Fulljames and myself that I should have the Spix at Bibury, and try what a little outdoor life might do for it. Had our plan come off, I might have had more to say hereafter about the Spix Macawasapet. But I had reckoned without Mrs. S. When she was told of the plan, she showed so much reluctance to the Spix going out of her keeping that I withdrew my proposal. It is not fair to those who have the trouble of our birds to disregard their feelings about their charges. ' With this ends the account of my very pleasant visit. I write it in the hope that it may not be altogether uninteresting to my readers, but that the bare account should be as interesting to them as the visit was to me is not to be expected. P.S.—I should perhaps say that, though I think the heat of the Parrot-room was too much for Australian Parrots, it is not the heat I so much object to as the want of oxygen. My Nymphicus cornutus, which is out of doors and comes from a hot climate, has exactly the sheen of Mr. Fulljames’ Hyacinthine Macaw. 148 Tmls DRO SiR), (Copsychus saularis). Notes by the Rev. HUBERT D. ASTLEY. In India this Dhyal Bird is found in every part of the Empire, and is a resident of Ceylon and Southern China. When a lady saw the male bird that I once kept in a cage for a few years, she immediately recognised it as a species of bird that as a child she had often seen hopping about in the gardens of Penang. (1 ¢hkink Penang was the place named by her). Those that are brought over in captivity invariably seem to be extremely tame, and many are bold enough to attack one’s fingers when placed to the bars of the cage. Dhyal birds are, I believe, favourite cage-pets amongst the Chinese gentry, who, as they do with other birds, carry them about with them in small cane cages in order to enjoy their company and their song. As to the latter, the Dhyal bird, although related very closely to the Indian Shama, cannot sing so melodiously ; for its notes, in my opinion, are harsher and wanting in variety; still, he is a good songster and a gay one. Mr. Lydekker describes the adult male as follows:— “Head, neck, breast, and upper-parts glossy black, the wings and tail are black, varied with white; and the abdomen and under tail-coverts white. The female has the upper-parts of an uniform dark brown glossed with bluish; the throat and breast dark grey ; and the wings and tail dark brown varied with white.’ The male Dhyal bird might well be roughly described as a miniature Magpie. In size he is rather larger than a Shama, although the tail is not nearly so long. A very delightful cage-bird, bold and happy in disposition, and seemingly not difficult to keep in health, eating any good mixture of food for insectivorous birds, with the usual addition of mealworms, raw beef, and fruit, etc. My bird would perch on my hand, pecking most pug- naciously at my fingers, puffing out his feathers and singing Sotto voce. Probably a pair of Dhyal birds would nest in an outdoor aviary, where they might have a chance of catching insects, which could be attracted within the wire by a piece of meat hung up. Gentles could be supplied by such means, and might serve for the constant demand made by insectivorous birds when they have young in the nest. 149 It is too aggravating to lose broods of Shamas, etc., for want of proper food. | Dhyal birds build in holes of trees, or crevices of walls, and consequently a tempting nesting-place could be easily given in an aviary. There is another species in the Philippine Islands (Cof- sychus mindanensis), aud yet another inhabiting Madagascar (C. albospecularis) (a) whose song is said to be very superior. CORRESPONDENCE. FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. Srr,—I am sorry that Dr. Butler thinks that Iam hurt: I should be very unreasonable if I were to allow myself to feel hurt by the remarks of such a courteous antagonist. I fully recognise that his “sole object is to atrive at the truth,” and I am sure he will admit that mine is the same. I did not think that anyone would question the fact of the Nightin- gale eating berries. If I simply give my own personal experience I shall perhaps be suspected of faulty observation or defective memory, so I will . refer my critics to Howard Saunders’ Manual of British Birds, 2nd. Ed., page 4o, where they will find it stated that ‘‘the adults live on worms, insects, ants’-eggs, fruit and berries, especially those of the elder.”’ (2) I used the term ‘‘ English Warbler,’ in a rough popular sense, for all the small insectivorous British species for which there seems to be no com- prehensive name. I really think that the Nightingale and the Chats may, in that sense, be called Warblers with no more impropriety than Waxbills and Weavers are called Foreign Finches. Indeed, in ‘‘ Foreign Finches in Captivity,’ Dr. Butler goes so far as to include the Tanagers under the term “Finch.” If a Tanager may be called a Finch, surely a Nightingale may be called a Warbler. And the ornithologists are not agreed among them- selves, for Professor Newton includes the Auwtzcilline in the Sylviide. The whole point, however, has nothing to do with the present discussion. I am sorry that I feel bound to repeat that, in my opinion, Dr. Butler absolutely misrepresents the drift of Dr. Bradburn’s teaching on the subject of raw meat for birds. In the quotation he gives, observe the words “in the right place.” A careful perusal of ‘‘ British Birds: their successful management in captivity ’’ will show that by “the right place” the author did not mean daily or regular use. ‘This, however, is a plain question of fact, upon which everyone can satisfy himself, and if this dispute intro- duces some readers of the Avicultural Magazine to Dr. Bradburn’s book it will not have been wholly useless. (a). The Gervaista albospecularis of the Brit. Mus. Catalogue. In this Catalogue another species is given, Copsychus seychellarum, from the Seychelles.—R.P. (4). It may be questioned whether Howard Saunders speaks from experience: I have tried my present male with banana but it will not even touch it.—A. G. B. Mr. Swaysland informs us that he has known the Nightingale (both wild and caged) to eat elder berries, and also black currants. Many birds, undoubtedly frugivorous, will refuse banana, although greedily fond of some other fruits.—Ep. 150 If Dr. Butler supposes that I make an arbitrary and unscientific distinction between British and foreign birds, and assume that they need different treatment, he is mistaken. But he knows, even better than I do, that ninety-nine out of every hundred of the smaller foreign soft-billed birds imported into this country are totally different feeders from the Nightingale. The Nightingale, Redstart, Wheatear, and Whinchat are almost exclusively insectivorous, but with the exception of the Red-sided Tit and the Blue- throated Warbler (both very uncommon) I cannot at this moment recall any sniall foreign soft-billed birds that I have ever seen in captivity in England of which the same can be said: they are, on the contrary, nearly all fruit- eaters, and, therefore, much easier to cater for. SEPTIMUS PERKINS. Srr,—Mr. Septimus Perkins’ quotation does not interest me. Can he state that he has himself actually seen a wild Nightingale take fruit or berries? The Nightingale was a rare bird (only one sure nesting-place each year within two miles of the house) in the county in which I passed twenty years, the greater part of my country life, and I cannot say, and did not say, that the wild bird does ot take either or both, but am, at present, strongly of opinion that it does not. As regards the captive Nightingale, for many years past I have kept it pretty regularly (I have two now), wild-caught birds and hand-reared, English and German, in the house and in the garden, in cages and flying loose, but I have never seen one touch either fruit or berry, although most of them have had constant opportunities. Just like the Shama, I have found the Nightingale with me to be wholly insectivorous, but occasionally taking a portion of a fading, not a dry, leaf, or a whole euonymus leaf, for medicinal purposes. But Nightingales under different conditions may act differently ; and I can readily understand that a specimen;kept in a cage on the monotonous food, so often reconimended, of ants’-cocoons with a few mealworms, might be glad to swallow anything for the sake of achange. Nevertheless, this would not necessarily indicate the true nature of the bird; and I shall be glad to hear of Mr. Perkins’ personal experiences of the wild Nightingale in this connection—but no more quotations, please. REGINALD PHILLIPPS. S1r,—As there has been so much correspondence in the Magazine ve food and treatment of Nightingales, I have written to a gentleman at Torquay who I knew had a Nightingale which has been in his possession a long time, asking him to give particulars of his feeding and treatment, and I enclose his reply, which I think may be of interest to many of our members, if you care to publish it in the Magazine. (Ce Sy AURINETTIR, The following is a copy of the letter referred to above. FAIRHOLME, TORQUAY, 27th April, 1898. Mr. ARTHUR, DAR SIR,—My Nightingale keeps in splendid condition, thanks to I51 your food (a); I have used it a long time, and it is decidedly the best I have had. Everyone is surprised when I tell them I had him on the 6th Sept., 1890—nearly eight years ago—and his song is more powerful now than ever. My course of feeding is, in the morning about two teaspoonsful of your food mixed with a little bread-crumb and scraped carrot or swede- turnip—carrot for preference—and four mealworms; then at midday, a little taw beef, scraped; a few spiders if he seems a little seedy ; a rusty nail in his water, and a little saffron when in the moult. He enjoys a bath now and then, and when he does not bathe I always see that his feet are kept clean. Yours very truly, W. DONALDSON. MAGPIES. S1rR,—I should be much obliged to any member of the Council who would give me some information about keeping and feeding Magpies in captivity. Would it be better to have only one, or a pair? I have a shed with weather-proof roof and wire front, which I think would be a comfortable home for a bird of this kind, or for a pair if they would be happier. I was obliged to give up keeping small birds in it, as the mice, and sometimes rats, persisted in visiting them, and although, strange to say, they did no harm to the birds, I was afraid they might do so. Would it be necessary to have anything done to keep out rats and mice supposing I had Magpies? There is no floor to the shed, it is only gravelled. 18, 18, Wiser The following reply was sent to Miss West. You do not give the size of your shed, but if it is fairly large—say 10 or 12 feet square—a pair of Magpies ought to get on well enough, if properly attended to. If it is much smaller, however, it would be best to keep one bird only, as two might fight. If you keep two together, it would be best to have a true pair, as they might disagree if both of the same sex. With regard to food, Magpies are practically ominivorous: meat, grain, vegetables, and fruit being readily eaten ; while their partiality to eggs and young birds has caused the death of countless numbers at the hands of game preservers. In captivity, therefore, they are very easily catered for; all scraps from the table should be collected and given to them, and soaked dog-biscuit will be found useful. Magpies are very fond of bathing, and a plentiful supply of clean water should be provided for the purpose in a shallow trough. When reared from the nest they make delightful pets and are most tame and amusing, and I don’t see why a pair suitably housed should not nest in captivity. Rats should certainly be kept away, and I should strongly advise you to have a thin floor of concrete—say 3 inches—put down, if you are (a). Mr. Arthur’s Food appears to be very similar to that made by Mr. Abrahams. All such foods contain a good deal of preserved egg, and some ants’ eggs—fastidious feeders like Nightingales pick out the egg and ants’ eggs and leave nearly all the rest—at least, that is my experience.—H. R. F. 152 troubled with these destructive rodents; but mice would not so much matter, and, if they should show themselves in the day time, would probably form part of the Magpies’ food. Some game-keepers make quite a harvest by the sale of young Magpies, and you will probably have no difficulty in obtaining a couple next month. If you can have a choice out of a nest of young birds, I should advise you to pick out the largest and the smallest, providing the latter is a healthy bird. You would then be most likely to have a true pair. Of course it would not do to keep any small birds with them. D. SETH-SMITH. 20503, CODING” JEAIRIROW, S1r,—I have read with interest the description given by the Hon. and Rev. F. G. Dutton of the ideal pet Parrot, because I think I may claim to have been the possessor of a bird which had all the characteristics that Mr. Dutton considers essential, size only excepted. He was an Alexandrine, and as tame as it is possible for a bird to be. He never refused to go to any human being at first sight, and indeed was never really happy unless sitting on someone’s shoulder or wrist. He greatly preferred men to women, aud to some men in particular he showed the most demonstrative affection, positively refusing to come away from them, and sometimes flying back when he had been removed from them. He would allow me to do anything with him, even to putting him in a basin and washing him; and he habitually sat on my lap or on my foot, close to the fire and beside the cat, which animal was devoted to him. He never made any unpleasant noises, and during nearly three years was never heard to scream, and never bit anyone. I gave him the name of ‘‘ Tony,” and he soou knew his name, although for years he nad been called ‘“ Polly.” As an instance of his intelligence, I may relate that, one evening after everyone had gone to bed, I heard “‘ Tony” giving the little cry which he usually made when he wanted attention. As he had never done this before, I went downstairs to the room where he was, and found that the electric light had been left on; I turned it out, and heard no more of “‘ Tony.” The friend who gave him to me had him four years, and for most of that time he was a great talker, but suddenly left off, and while I had him he never talked except in hot weather, and when alone out of doors. During the last year of his life, I trained him to such cleanly habits that I could safely trust him on anyone without fear of accident, and, indeed, none ever occurred. ‘Tony’ was the envy and admiration of all my friends, and his early death is unceasingly regretted by his mistress, who would not have exchanged him for all the Parrots she has ever seen, or ever will see. C. L. COLLIER. Hyicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY. VOL. IV.—No. 45. All rights reserved. JULY, 1898. THE GOLDEN-SHOULDERED PARRAKEET. (Psephotus chrysopterygius). By REGINALD PHILLIPPS. «“We come now to a group of Australian Parrakeets which are, in my opinion, the most beautiful and most desirable of all, namely, the Psephotus Parrakeets. Of this genus there are but five (a2) species known to exist, and four (0) of these are occasionally kept in this country. The remaining species (P. chrysopterygius) is very rare, and but little seems to be known of it even in its native land.” So read our esteemed fellow aviculturist Dr. Simpson, at the Inns of Court Hotel, on roth May, 1894, before the members of the late Cage Bird Club, the same being an extract from his excellent paper on ‘‘ Parrots and Parrakeets” as it appears in the Transactions; and so much and no more is the sum total of what he had to say on the subject of this article; and yet it is of this species, of which so little is known even in its native land, and concerning which Dr. Simpson intimates so much by saying so little, that our hard-hearted editor calls upon me to write an account. Alas, and alack! ’tis but little that I know of Psephotus chrysopterygius. Some time in the spring of 1897, a few specimens of what were at first supposed to be Paradise Parrakeets reached this country from the continent. I am probably correct when I say that six were brought over in the first instance, of which two went to the Zoological Gardens, two to one of our members who exhibited them at the Palace last February, and the remaining two to the most humble of your servants. Two more arrived towards the end of June, but I do not know whither they went. (a) A sixth species ?. xanthorrhous, is described in the Brit. Mus. Catalogue.—R. P. (6) Vhe Blue Bounet (P. Zematorrhous), the Beautiful or Paradise (P. pulcherrzmus), the Many-coloured (P. mz/¢icolorv), aud the Redrump (P. Lemafonotus).—R. P. 154 Out of the eight, I believe only one turned out to be a male; this bird and his mate are at the Zoological Gardens in the Regent’s Park, and it was from them that our illustration has been taken. When first received, the male was in immature plumage, like to that of the adult female; but the authorities at the Gardens auickly detected that the birds were not Psebhotus pulcherrimus ; and, as soon as the male had donned his adult attire, it was announced that they were Psephotus chrysopterygius. J suppose that never before had living specimens of this species been seen in this country. ‘For a time I tried to persuade myself that my two were likewise a pair; and I kept them under observation in a large aviary-cage in my dining-room; but there is not any sense in living in a fool’s paradise. ‘True, indeed, that one had a darker crown than the other, and that a well-known Parrot-lover (not, indeed, a member of our Society) pointed out with authority which was the male and which was the female, and what were the ‘points of difference. I could only smile a sickly smile, for even an authority cannot change the sex of a bird. Something may be said for deceiving another, but not much for deceiving one- self; and I knew in my heart that they were both females. Although lacking the magnificence of the male, the female possesses a sweet delicate beauty of her own ; some of the tints are exceedingly soft and attractive, and the figure is exceptionally -slim and graceful. In many of its notes and ways, the Golden- shoulder is like the Many-coloured Parrakeet, and is as easily kept in health on the simplest fare, canary seed and spray millet being its principle food. But the female, at any rate in the absence of a male of her own species, is much more timid and nervous. It is an active, lively bird, and its flight is very rapid. When eventually loosed into the bird-room with garden aviary attached, my two females did not get on very well, for their timid wild nature hindered them from seeking the shelter of the bird- room during cold weather, and often from obtaining a sufficiency of food. This, however, was distinctly the fault of the aviary and its inhospitable inhabitants. With peaceable companions, this species would succeed much better in a warm aviary than in the best of cages. Although not exactly delicate, it is small wonder that it keenly feels the cold when we consider that it comes from so torrid a region as North Australia. Like the Blue Bonnet and the Many-coloured, only in a much greater degree, the Golden-shoulder has an instinctive desire, as a general rule, to hang on to the wires of its cage or THE GOLDEN-SHOULDERED PARRAKEET. (Psephotus chrysopterygius) . Z aati. G- I From Living Specimens in the London Zoological Gardens. bie -f A oF i eal 155 aviary during the night, and as high up as it can get; and, owing to their insistence in passing the nights hanging on to the wire protection over my bird-room window (they were always shut in at night, and often during the day when cold), one of my birds this winter took a chill and died. In all three species the idea seems to be of roosting just under some projection, for the purpose of concealment, just as if they were in the habit, in their wild state, of roosting clinging to the trunk of a tree, pressing most likely into some convenient crevice, just below some thick projecting bough or other over-hanging protection. Except in the case of the sitting female, I think they never roost in holes, or one might suppose that, like the Carolina Conure, they sleep hanging on to the insides of large hollow trunks, or possibly in spouts of the gum trees. When not roosting as mentioned above, they prefer some thin natural branch or bush, fixed up at the highest possible point. Probably the same instinct prevails in the Paradise Parrakeet, but it is practically latent in the less nervous Redrump, the most free breeder in captivity of the genus. This spring, I have shut up my surviving female with a young male Redrump, but nothing has come of it. The Golden- shoulder has mostly received his advances with maidenly fear and trepidation, which is all very pretty and proper but distinctly aggravating. Probably, also, her feelings towards him are not unmixed with scorn, not so much on account of his youth, for he will get the better of that, but on account of his comparatively plain dress, coarse figure, and plebeian name. Is she not, indeed, a Golden-shouldered Parrakeet and he but a vulgar Redrump! Nevertheless, for all that, twice recently have I caught her on the sly making gracious advances, which have been received with becoming humility, so there is room for hope that, another year, if we should all be alive and well, something of the nature of a nest may come to pass after all. This species is smaller and of more slender build than the Many-coloured Parrakeet ; and the chief points in the plumage that catch the eye may be indicated as foilows :-— Adult male. A light-yellow band across the forehead, each end dispersing among and washing the feathers around the eyes; a large triangular patch of deep black covers the crown, the base resting on the yellow frontal band, while the apex is extended down the centre of the back of the head and merges in the light greyish brown of the nape, upper back, and neighbouring regions ; lower back and upper tail-coverts light blue, inclining 156 to green towards the tail; two central tail feathers dark olive green, dark blue, and tipped with black; a large golden-yellow patch on each wing; sides of face, neck, breast, bright blue down to abdomen which, with thighs, is whitish barred with deep red; some of the blue on sides of face and neck tinged with brilliant green; eyes dark; bill light with bluish or greenish tinge ; flights dark with bluish or bluish white (or yellow) edges ; length slightly over nine inches. Adult female. Crown brownish; frontal band and wash around the eyes, yellowish white. In my living specimen the bill and throat are nearly white, and the cheeks and sides of face white with a faint blue wash, so that as she holds herself erect after the manner of her species the face generally seems exceedingly fair, and sets off the brown cap to perfection; the rest of her front down to the abdomen is washed more decidedly with blue, and the abdomen and thighs are barred with faint red, the under tail-coverts being tinged with the same colour, while the general appearance of the under side of the closed tail is light blue tipped with black, the latter being caused by the two central feathers, mostly black underneath, projecting beyond the others; and there is also a black bar across the base of the tail underneath, differing in shape and width with the movements of the bird, according to the amount exposed or hidden by the -coverts. The upper parts of the bird are yellow-green, the yellow predominating here and there, especially on the wings, but the yellow wing-patch is not so bright as in the male, nor so well defined. The deep blue-black edge of the wing, the black tail-tip, and the beautiful blue lower-back and upper tail-coverts(c), shew up grandly against the general light body-colour of the bird. Feet and legs, pale whity-brown. It is impossible not to notice a marked difference in the shades of the plumage of the female at the Zoological Gardens, the skin of my dead bird, and my living specimen, my little female being a perfect queen compared with the others. The delicate tints and wash- colourings are manifestly very fleeting. A few days ago, not deeming the colours used by our artist to be sufficiently bright, I paid a visit to the Parrot House, and was grievously dis- appointed to find how the birds there had deteriorated since I saw them last summer. ‘The male was dull and generally shabby, and the female seemed to have entirely lost the blue tints about the front, and was a regular dowdy. A small cage is not the place for such active birds. When are the members of the (c) The colour of this region seems to vary greatly, even in the same individual, at one time the blue predominating, at another the green.—R. P. 157 Zoological Society going to wake up to the fact that their Parrot House is an objectionable place and unworthy of its occupants ! Considering how great and growing an interest is now taken by so many in Parrots, foreign Finches (of which they have so miserable a collection—presumably owing to want of space), and other species now immured in the Parrot House, it seems short sighted that they should be wasting their land and money on other buildings (one looks like another feeding bar—as if there were not too much of that sort of thing already) while so many valuable birds are being ruined from want of proper accommodation. THE NIGHTINGALE IN LANCASHIRE. By W. LANDLESS. No doubt the above heading will appear somewhat strange to most people /d/, but to me it is one of the greatest pleasures I have to hear my Nightingale singing his full wild song every day, the whole day long. My first experience of these birds was about sixteen years ago, when I heard one singing for the first time in its wild state ; and I was so struck with the delightful music that I determined to possess one for myself, with the result that I have kept a’gale, and sometimes two, every year since—of course taking fresh birds every year and liberating in the spring each bird that does not turn out a songster. I have tried hand-reared birds; and have also taken the young, and captured the parent birds which have fed and reared them; and I have caught branchers in the autumn; and all have turned out failures, never producing any more music than you will hear from the young swallows when they are perched on the eaves. But being no way disheartened by this non-success, I determined to persevere, and am rewarded with now hearing, in the midst of a Lancashire manufacturing town in the months of March and April, the Nightingale singing his pure wild notes as well as ever he was heard in the Surrey or Kentish dales in the middle of May. No doubt the above statement will sound rather doubtful to most people who have tried to keep these charming birds; but when I say that I have experimented with the Nightingale for sixteen years, and have made that species a special study—being (@) The Nightingale is not found in its wild state in Lancashire—possibly some of sour south-county readers may not be aware of this fact.—Ep. 158 determined to possess, if possible, a perfect songster,—I should be a fairly good judge. With regard to the treatment which is the secret of success. First we will take the cage, which is a very important factor in the comfort of the bird. This should be of the box pattern, wired only in the front; and great care should be taken to see that there are no sharp projections such as nails, or any cracks in the bottom, or any loose rough wires in the front, as the Nightingale is a very restless bird when in health, and con- tinually jumping about; and the chances are that, in the course of his daily exercise, he would come across some of these imperfections, and very likely break his leg. I mention this as I have lost birds in this way myself; and if there is any faulty place in the cage they will find it. The top of the cage should be covered with baize to prevent any damage to the bird’s head if he should fly upwards, as caged Nightingales often do, particularly during the breeding season. ‘The perches, I find, are much better of plain wood, say about 3in. diameter, and not covered with any material, such as baize or wash-leather. The cage bottom should be well covered with sharp grit, say about 4in. thick, and cleaned out at least twice a week. Since I have adopted the plain perches and plenty of grit at the bottom of the cage I have not been troubled in the least with the birds’ feet, and their claws have kept their natural length, being of course worn down by the grit. The cage dimensions should be at least 2ft. by 18in. by 15in., and the food should be placed in porcelain hoppers. The bird should be kept in a cool room having no artificial heat whatever, as I find the Nightingale can stand a great amount of cold, and should have a bath every day; of course during the winter you must add a little warm water just to take the chill off—your finger will be a sufficient thermometer, but I should say the temperature should be about fifty degrees in the winter. After the bird has bathed draw out the bottom, scrape away the wet sand, and cover with fresh grit. The staple food should be yolk of hard-boiled new laid egg mixed with ants’ eggs of the best quality, and only mix enough to last the bird one day (this you will soon find out by experience), and do not on any account give it stale food— particular attention should be paid to this in summer time as it is then more liable to turn sour. I make the yolk of one egg last two days tor two birds—that is, each bird gets one quarter of the egg each day; the remaining portion of the egg should be placed 159. in a cool place till required. You add to each daily allowance of egg one spoonful of best ants’ eggs, which should be well worked in amongst the egg food, to put, as it were, a coating of yolk on the outside of each ; if this be not done the bird willsimply toss the ants’ eggs away; and I find, even under the most favourable conditions, they eat very few ants’ eggs, but I continue to give them my daily allowance—one spoonful each per day. | In addition to the above diet they require a good supply of mealworms. I give the birds at least thirty per day each, which I cut in two before giving them. I never make a practice of letting the birds take mealworms from my fingers, as it is an unnatural process, and birds must be starved to do so, and once brought so low they never regain stamina again, but sit on the perches and mope, waiting for some one to give them another worm. Of course the above does not refer to hand-reared specimens. If any one were to offer my birds a mealworm from his fingers they would simply ignore it, and yet they will sit and sing their wild full song while I am feeding them, of course during the singing season. About the middle of May the captive Nightingale gets somewhat off-colour, and remains so till he gets well through the. moult, which generally commences about the first week in July; then is the time to give them a good supply of spiders and insects, such as earwigs, flies, etc.—nothing comes wrong in the insect line. From the middle of June to the end of August fresh ants’ eggs are very plentiful. I generally run out in the country on my bike at least once a week, and take a small tin and spoon, and collect a few, which help them over the moult wonderfully, and by the middle of August they have their new plumage, and rare and well they look, and by their action in the cage they appear to feel very proud of it. ON AN UNCOMMON TANAGER IN CAPTIVITY. By PERcy W. FARMBOROUGH, F.Z.S. Some two years before we were married, my wife received, as a present from a friend in South America, several birds, and among the number were three Tanagers. Of these two died about a month after their arrival in this country, but the remaining one soon adapted itself to a change of residence, and, in fact, survived until two or three weeks ago. During the three years that it lived in England it was one of the most engaging 160 pets I know—stay a moment, though, as I married after only a six months’ courtship, I must restrict my responsibility for that statement to a period of eighteen months, and let my wife have the responsibility of the previous eighteen. The bird in question may be described as follows :—Top of head, cheeks and upper part of back, a rich chestnut ; lower back, a greenish yellow, some of the feathers being faintly tinged with chestnut ; the tail, and the primaries and secondaries of the wing, blue; the primary and secondary coverts, a pinkish fawn; the lesser and median coverts, the same as the lower back only brighter ;, the chin, throat and breast, a brilliant green verging into a greenish blue on the abdomen, the ventral feathers being chestnut; the lores, jet-black; the beak and feet, slate. As may be imagined, the bird was a very beautiful one and attracted a great deal of attention from visitors, and until eighteen months ago its identity was a mystery; but, after looking up various ornithological works, I at length recognised it as the Chestnut-backed Tanager (Calliste pretiosa/. The bird was kept in a drawing-room in a box-cage, which stood on a table in the ordinary recess to be found at the side of a fireplace. The corner in which it was placed was well lighted. The Tanager was tame—tame enough to take food from the fingers of those with whom it was familiar, and steady when surrounded by strangers. When I use the word “steady,” I do not mean to infer that the bird was stationary, but that it was not restless, fluttering about the cage and dashing itself violently against the wires. The size of the cage was about three feet six inches long, by about two feet high, by twenty inches broad. It will thus be seen that there was sufficient room for exercise. There were four perches, one placed three inches from the floor and three inches from the front of the cage, this one extended from one side to the other, a second connected this perch from its centre to the back of the cage, and the remaining two were in the ordinary position of perches. The food and water were placed in white glazed earthenware vessels, so that everything was perfectly sweet and clean. ‘The floor was strewn plentifully (nearly half-an-inch in depth) with coarse sand. The bird was fed on small insects, mealworms, spiders, and small garden caterpillars, as well as on such fruits as were in season, black currants being particularly relished. It ate banana, but shewed no particular liking for it, and whilst other fruit was to be had would leave it till the last. When insects and fruit ran short the deficiency in food was made up by 161 a mixture, in equal parts, of ants’ eggs soaked in hot water for a few moments, and fresh hard-boiled yolk of eggs. The Tanager in question often whistled softly, but exhibited no extraordinary vocal powers, its chief attraction lying in the beauty of its plumage. It would take food from the tips of our fingers, but only in a very gingerly fashion ; first hopping down .on to the lower perch, standing there for a few moments twisting its head from side to side as if trying to ascertain whether there ‘was a trap laid or not. The other Tanagers, which survived their arrival in England only a matter of three or four weeks, were described as being thickly spotted with blackish markings on a green ground. ‘This description would shew them to be either Cadliste punctata, or C. guttata, or C. xanthogastra, but of this there can be no certainty as I never saw the birds. THE NEW ZEALAND PARRAKEET. (Cyanorhamphus nove-zealandi@). By A. SAVAGE. These Parrakeets are great favourites of mine, although, from want of room, I do not possess any at the present moment. “They are, as far as my experience goes, quite harmless birds, and can be lodged, without fear, in an aviary of mixed Finches ‘or Budgerigars, and this opinion is confirmed by others who have kept them on this side of the Channel (¢). Their plumage is in harmony with their disposition—quiet—the prevailing colour being dark green; the forehead and cheeks are red, and a small patch of red is found on eacli side of the rump ; the flight feathers are blue. The beak is dark, with a large whitish spot on the upper mandible; eyes ruby. The legs are long, enabling the birds to run quickly, and they spend a good ‘deal of their time on the ground, turning over, with their feet, the sand on the floor of the aviary in search of tit-bits, fowl fashion. The male and female are practically alike in plumage, but the female is smaller than the male—her head and beak are ‘considerably so, and there, I think, is the best mark of distinction between the sexes. The voice is peculiar, and resembles a bleat more than anything else—hence the German appellation “‘ Ziegen- -sittich,” or Goat Parrakeet. I believe the importation of the New Zealand Parrakeet to be rare, both in England and on the (e) The writer resides in France. —Ep. 162 Continent ; but aviary-bred birds are frequently obtainable on this side of the Channel ; such birds are quite hardy, and a good. pair will breed freely without fuss or trouble. They are adult at six months, and young hatched in January have been known to. breed the same year; birds hatched during the spring and summer months breed, as a rule, the next year. I believe New Zealands. were the first Parrakeets, larger than Budgerigars, I ever bred. The eggs are white, as is usually the case with Parrakeets, and there are generally from four to six to the clutch. I have never had less than two or more than four young reared per nest, but more fortunate amateurs can boast of a nest of six on more than one occasion. ‘There are three, four, or even five nests during the year, when a good pair commence breeding early in January ;. but three nests have always satisfied me. Food is a very simple matter :—Canary seed, white millet, and oats, mixed with a sprinkling of hemp (about a couple of dozen seeds) on the top, and spray millet, is all the seed I gave, whether they had young or not. Green food is, of course, necessary—chickweed in seed, and groundsel in flower, I con- sider the best—and they must have plenty of it when they have young to feed. As soon as the young are hatched, the parents become quite bold when the green food is taken into the aviary ; one cock bird I had would almost come on to my hand for it, he was in too biga hurry to wait, with the cares of his family of four on his shoulders, until it was tied upin its place. They are excellent feeders, and I never lost a young one from want of care on the part of the parents or insufficient feeding. They remain in the nest about a month, and can dash about pretty well when they leave it. This Parrakeet can be strongly recommended to any amateur wishing to “try his hand” with a species a nick above Budgerigars. I do not think they have been mentioned in the Magazine before, but we had an interesting article, by Mr. Bouskill, on breeding C. auriceps, a kindred species. 163 ON CERTAIN IMPERFECTLY KNOWN POINTS IN THE HABITS AND ECONOMY OF BIRDS. IB 5 JeaNiN, | BVA. eas). Deputy Superintendent of the Indian Museum. Although the habits of birds, more especially those connected with nidification and the care of the young, have been long and carefully studied, much remains to be done in the observation of living birds, even when these belong to quite common and well-known species. This consideration serves me foran excuse for introducing a few notes which I have been led to make on certain points, in the economy of birds, which appear to me to have been insufficiently studied, and to have, possibly, some bearing on the difficult problem of avian classification. Students of other groups of animals—I may instance Bats and Butterflies—avail themselves of peculiarities of attitude, etc., in their subjects for taxonomical purposes, and with regard to Birds I see no reason why such peculiarities as those to which I draw attention below should not be taken into consideration by systematic ornithologists, equally with nidificatory, distribu- tional, and dietetic variations. ON THE POSITION OF THE FEET IN FLIGHT AMONG ‘“ PICARIAN” BIRDS AND PARROTS. I will first notice a point which has lately attracted consider- able attention among ornithologists—the positions of the feet in certain groups of birds when the members of these are on the wing. It may be taken, I think, as fairly settled that Waders and Waterfowl, Game-birds, Pigeons, and Birds-of-Prey, carry their feet behind when in full flight, irrespective of the length of those members. But with regard to the mostly short-legged Picavie and the Parrcts I am not aware that any observations have been made, and I have therefore taken particular notice of these birds with the following results :— To take the Parrots first. I long watched the common Indian Parrakeets (chiefly Palgornis torquatus) when at large, in order to discover where their legs were placed when the birds were on the wing; but owing to the swiftness of their flight, and the fact that the feet are ordinarily concealed beneath the feathers of a flying bird, I was unsuccessful, till one day a Paleornis torquatus got into the Bird Gallery of the Museum, and flying to and fro overhead, gave me an excellent opportunity of observing that its feet were carried behind. As the gallery is a very large one, and the bird took long flights, I have no doubt but that this 164 is the normal position for the species, and very probably for Parrots in general. - Among the so-called ‘“ Picavig,’ using the term in its widest sense, I have noted the carriage of the feet in flying Hoopoes, Kingfishers, Rollers, Hornbills, Barbets, Woodpeckers and Cuckoos, and will now take each of these groups in detail as to this point. In Hoopoes I have been unable to get a sight of the feet of a bird flying at large, but by buying specimens of Upupa epops in the Calcutta Bazaar, and letting them out in my quarters, I found that the feet are constantly kept drawn up to the body, as the bird flies—never extended behind, at least in aroom. In Hornbills on the other hand in spite of the supposed alliance of these birds to the Upupide, the feet appear to be extended behind in flight. I saw this very distinctly at any rate in two specimens of the common black-and-white Azthzacoceros ; the bird in each case was a tame one, but flying out of doors. With regard to Rollers, I have suspected, from watching birds at liberty, that the common Covacias indica carries its feet behind; but I could not be certain till I let out a tame bird I had in my bedroom, and found that though the feet were at first allowed to hang like acrow’s when starting, they were undoubtedly stretched out behind the bird when well under way. Of Kingfishers I have observed more than one species. A Ceryle rudis 1 brought up from the nest, and allowed to fly about at liberty for this very observation, distinctly carried its feet behind, as also do Alcedo ispida and Halcyon smyrnensis, as I have been able to observe with wild birds; though the former takes a lot of watching to determine a point like this! The Laughing Jackass (Dacelo gigas) carries the legs behind also, as I made out with the keeper’s assistance in the fine aviary at the London Zoological Gardens, when in England on leave last year (1897). With Barbets my only observations that were at all satisfactory were made on a specimen of 7hereiceryx zeylonicus in a very large compartment of the Bird House in the Calcutta Zoological Gardens. Here this bird constantly kept its feet drawn up to the body when on the wing. Some Blue-cheeked Barbets (Cyanops astatica) in a smaller compartment in another house, did the same, but for reasons to be presently given I do not set so much value on this observation. Of Woodpeckers I have observed only two individuals of our common Gold-backed Woodpecker (&rachyplernus aurantius) ; a young female I kept myself and let out both in the open and in my room, and a male in the large aviary in the Zoological 165 Gardens above referred to. Both birds carried the feet drawn up to the body like the Barbets, or like Passerine birds(/). Inthe case of Cuckoos I have observed, with wild birds, that both the Koél (Audynamis honorata) and the Crow-pheasant (Centropus Simensis) carry their feet behind when well under way. I have seen this particularly well in the case of the last species, whose feet in flight have exactly the same position behind as I have seen in a Pheasant and a domestic fowl, in England. A fiierococcyx appeared to have its feet drawn up in a short flight. Domestic fowls, however, in their short flights, usually carry their feet in front, and this I noticed in a young Centropus I had free, but tame, in the Museum compound, and in a Koél in the large aviary above referred to. As this is done by Pigeons also when starting, though they afterwards extend their feet behind, I do not feel absolutely certain about the Woodpeckers, Barbets and Hoopoes, but as I never saw any backward extension of the feet in these birds, I think that the forward position is. really the permanent one in them, though I should have liked a good look ata birdin along flight overhead, at liberty if possible. With regard to the Parrot and Roller, though these birds. were confined, the former had plenty of room for a long flight, and as to the latter, I have never met with any bird which jsf extends its feet behind and ¢ken draws them up, so that I consider the observation on these as sufficiently conclusive for the species in question, if not for their allies. From these experiences I conclude that, supposing the same habit of carrying the feet to run througha family, the forward position of the feet in flight probably characterises Hoopoes, Woodpeckers, and Barbets, and the backward one certainly obtains among Kingfishers, Rollers, Hornbills, Cuckoos, and Parrots. CORRESPONDENCE. SCIENTIFIC AVICULTURE. Sir,—I was much interested in Dr. Butler’s article on “ Scientific Aviculture” in the April number of the Magazine, p. 1o1, vol. iv. I quite agree with the views therein expressed, and in this connexion I should like to know whether measures have been taken to secure the lodgment of complete copies of the Magazine, from its commencement, in some of the leading scientific libraries, ¢e.g¢., that of the Zoological Society in Hanover Square, so that they may always be available for reference. If (f/f) There are, however, exceptions amoung the Passerine Birds; a well known. example of which is the Corn Bunting.—A. G. B. 166 this has not been done, we can hardly blame naturalists if they do not follow avicultural results. (¢/ If aviculturists, however, are remiss in recording their experiences, it must be acknowledged that naturalists are most inattentive to living birds in captivity ; aud so the former should take every means of publishing the knowledge they acquire as widely as possible—in the Zoologist, for instance, as well as in our little publication, which, I fear, is probably less well known among scientific ornithologists than it deserves to be. F. FINN. FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. S1r,—It is with great reluctance that I continue this discussion, but inasmuch as Mr. Perkins ignores facts which have been clearly stated, I feel it a duty to the Society as well as to myself to repeat them here. As regards his first assertion that, “‘If a Tanager may be called a Finch, surely a Nightingale may be called a Warbler,” I must reply that, according to Dr. Sclater, a Tanager is simply a dentirostral Finch, that is to say, a fruit-eating Finch whose beak has been adapted to its mode of feeding; whereas a Nightingale is merely a small Thrush, having spotted young ; and is about as nearly related to the Warblers as the Tanagers are: the same is true also of the Chats. His second statement, respecting Dr. Bradburn, hardly needs a reply; for anyone who has read the book (I believe I was its first reviewer) will find that raw or cooked meat is recommended by its author for the Song-Thrush, Missel-Thrush, Blackbird, Ring Ouzel, Skylark (by implication—the Wood- lark), the Shorelark, Meadow-Pipit, Tree-Pipit, etc., etc., etc. The book is a fairly good one, but contains some serious blunders, one of which is— “Never attempt to hand-rear Wagtails of any description or you will fail.” I do not doubt that the cause of Dr. Bradburn’s failure to rear this Jeast difficult of all birds, was—that he gave scraped raw beef to the nestlings. I do not suppose that Mr. Perkins makes an arbitrary distinction between British and Foreign birds: if he reckons the Nightingale British because it comes here in the spring, and the Blue-throat Foreign because it comes here in the autumn, I #now that he does so. The Redstart and Whinchat are both said to eat growing corn, and the Redstart and Wheat- ear to eat fruits: the Redstart which I now possess, and have had for nearly two years, lives principally upon bread and seed; for the egg and ants’ cocoons in its mixture are usually seized by other birds before it can get more than a taste. On the other hand the American Blue-bird is almost exclusively insectivorous until the autumn, when it does what Mr. Perkins credits the Nightingale with doing; vet who will say that bread disagrees with a Blue-bird? Not I, certainly, for I have my male still in perfect health, and I purchased it from Mr. Abrahamis, I think, at least nine years ago. I will, however, candidly confess, that Mr. Fulljames’ practical experience has so far convinced me that a Nightingale may be better with- out bread (even though it say be able to digest it), that I give none to my (g) ‘The Avicultural Magazine is forwarded monthly to the Library of the Zoological Society of Iondon, and also to the Zoological. Library at the Nat. Hist. Museum, South Kensington. We believe that complete copies of the Magazine from its commencement are preserved at both these Libraries.—Kp. 167 present bird; but feed it upon Abrahams’ food, yolk of egg, ants’ cocoons (2) and mealwormis; I give the food all mixed together (but not damped), and I sometimes sprinkle in a little Zeke, the new “dried flies” now being imported; these are greedily eaten by all insectivorous birds. A. G. BUTLER. - S1r,—I am sorry that I cannot comply with Mr. Phillipps’s request that I should give my personal experiences of the food of the wild ‘Nightingale, for the simple but sufficient reason that I have, so far as I am aware, never even seen a wild Nightingale. I confess with much sorrow, though without shame, that almost the whole of my sixty-two years have been passed amongst bricks and mortar: even when in America I was nearly always in New York or Montreal (though I should not, under any circumstances, have been able to add to my knowledge of the Nightingale on ¢hat side of the “ herring-pond !”’). As to captive Nightingales, my experience is that they w/7 eat fruit. When I lived at Birmingham in the seventies I had several Nightingales, most of wnich would eat a little fruit occasionally, but never freely or as if they cared forit. I fed them on a mixture of ants’ eggs, hard-boiled egg, and a little powdered biscuit, and I now believe that if I had omitted the biscuit and given the yolk of egg without the white my success would have been greater. The Nightingale which I now have has, up to the present, refused to eat fruit. I feed him on soaked ants’ eggs, with a little of Abrahams’ egg now and then, and at least seven or eight mealworms a day (2). SEPTIMUS PERKINS. BRITISH BIRD NOTES. S1r,—I have been staying this spring in a rural part of Kent, about ten miles from Canterbury; perhaps a few notes on the birds I have seen may be of interest to some of the members. The nesting season was generally rather late, owing to the cold winds and frequent rain. I heard the Nightingale for the first time on the 4th April, and the Cuckoo on the 9th. Nightingales have been numerous, I found one nest containing five eggs on the 14th May. ‘This was on the ground, ina bunch of nettles, at the back of a stack of wood. The eggs all hatched, and the young ones had flown by the 2nd June. When I cautiously looked at the nestlings, the birds made a good deal of noise, and came close to me with their tails up, in a very excited and angry manner. Tinnets built both in the hedges by the roadside, and in short bushes on the -slopes of the Downs. I had seven nests under view, one with four eggs that were almost white, without any spots. Of these seven nests, four had the eggs taken, I think by other birds, probably Jays, as there were two pairs near by. The eggs were broken in the nest, and the contents eaten. One nest of young Linuets was dragged out by some boys, from whom I captured it. As it was useless to attempt to replace it, I took the little things home, placed nest and young in a basket, and hand-fed the birds (2) ‘The ants’ cocoons are the last things eaten, but all the ege disappears.—A. G. B. (7) hank you; books are responsible for many avicultural errors. But I must not crow too loudly, for on June 9th my English Nightingale deliberately went up to, and gave eight decided pecks at, the half-rotten remains of a partially devoured cherry (put down for but little regarded by the Golden Orioles—books again), ignoring many sound good ones scattered around.—R. P. 168 every two hours with scalded rape and crushed biscuit, mixed into a paste: with milk, and given warm. They are now fledged and flying in a large cage. ”” ‘There are several Nightjars about. I nearly trod on two eggs which were laid on the ground in an open space in a wood. They have apparently deserted the eggs, as they are cold, and I have not seen the birds near since, but I hear their peculiar whirring noise at dusk. The Nightjar is an object of superstition with many of the country peoplein Kent. The idea that, when they are hawking round for moths of an evening, they are trying to: strike the passers by with their wings, iscommon. And if they touch a child, it is thought that that child will cease to grow. I found the pretty little domed nest of the Wood Warbler, made of grass and lined with hair. It was at the foot of a small elder bush, and, to my regret, came to grief. Broken egg shells, a torn nest, and a number of feathers on the ground, showed that some enemy had surprised the hen. The Red-backed Shrike, or Butcher Bird, built in a hedge near the house. The cock constantly sat on a high twig, nearly always in the same place, and I found the nest within a few yards of his perch. Three young ones hatched, but I can find no ‘“‘larder.’”? Does this bird always have a larder,,. such as the one in the Museum at South Kensington? The nest is very like that of the Greenfinch. ‘The latter bird is very plentiful, the nests close to the road and easy to find. The slaughter that goes on at nesting-time in many of these country places is enormous. The Wild Birds’ Protection Act is completely ignored. Gangs of boys and young mien start out on Sundays, and tear out ali the nests they can find, smashing the eggs, and killing the young ones. I have spoken to farmers and others, asking if they cannot try to stop this whole- sale massacre that goes on on their land. But asa rule they are inclined to. approve of it, and appear to think that all birds are vermin, and should be treated the same as rats and mice. I have found the same state of things in Hampshire, Sussex, Devonshire, and Somerset. Can no influence, that is. of any practical use, be brought to bear to prevent this ? A. CRAFER. BREEDING CHERRY FINCHES. Str,—I bought a pair of Cherry Finches in August last. They were not long in my aviary before they took possession of a German travelling cage, but it was not until the end of March that I suspected they were busy. I did not, of course, satisfy my curiosity on the point for fear of disturbing them. The last week in April three fully-fledged birds, strong on the wing, emerged from the nest; a fourth I found dead, having evidently been the weak one of the brood, and insufficiently fed. Two are now fine birds; the third, unfortunately, was the victim of an accident. The parents were capital feeders, and it was very interesting to watch them following their young ones from tree to tree, and guarding them from any other bird which ventured near them. My room is tenanted by quite twenty pairs of Finches, Mannikins, and Canaries, and one pair of Goldfinches (forty to fifty birds in all). I believe the Cherry Finches are already busy again. (7) M. HUSBAND. (7) The Cherry Finch (A zdemosyne modesta) has been bred in this country before, one young bird being reared by Mr. Cronkshaw in 1895 (see Avic. Mag. vol. ii., p. 30)—but the occurrence appears to be very unusual, though it is hard to say why this should be the case.—ED. RR SCZ ie He Be hoy WHITE-EARED GRASSFINCH ¢48 @ (Poephila leucotis). From Living Specimens and Nest in Mr. Phillipps’ Aviary. Mvicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AV CUI WA eS OIG NET Y: VOL. IV.—No. 46. All rights reserved, AUGUST, 1898. THE WHITE-EARED GRASSFINCH. (Poephila leucotis). By REGINALD PHILLIPPS. My experience of the subject of this paper is not a lengthened one ; and consequently there is a possibility that a longer acquaintance with the species may cause me to takea different view of some of the facts and fancies gathered up to date, and now about to be recorded. A dealer told me, not very long ago, that he would never buy a White-eared Finch again as it could not bear a journey, all of his having died when sent on their travels. It may be useful to note, therefore, as tending to point to a want of robust- ness in the species, that the first pair I purchased was sent an unnecessary journey owing to the absence of the ordinary elements of care. Of the five I have had, these two alone have ever shewn signs of sickness, one dying within the month, and the other, although still alive, being delicate, and not likely to make old bones. These first two birds greatly won my heart; and since their advent I have regarded the species as quite one of the nicest of the small seed-eaters. It is not gaudy, yet the shades of colour in a good specimen are exceptionally chaste and delicate ; it is, as a rule, of a gentle and amiable disposition, Giieweandy thie Teyerse om jnestless; yet mot dull awd Wistless: the love song is quaint and almost pretty—quite so to my avi- culturally-tuned ears ; and, when there are several together, they occasionally burst into quite a tiny blare of trumpeting delight. They have a funny little way, too, of assembling on the ground in a group, with heads raised on high, and of all starting off together in an excited chatter, as if raising their voices against some infringement of their privileges or curtailment of their liberties ; or sometimes three will join together and say nasty 170 things about No. 4, who, standing near, listens attentively to all their remarks ; so far, however, they have not carried out the “sentence of the court and executed the offender, after the manner of Rooks. Their ordinary calls and notes, which have many variations, are of the trumpet class, and very like those of the Masked Grassfinch, but more prolonged. I observe that different individuals of this species vary considerably in the colourings of their plumage, and, in a lesser degree, in the shades of their bills, legs, and feet; this seems to be the result of surroundings, health, and general condition rather than of sex orage. Recently I saw some in a dealer’s shop and took them to be Masked Grassfinches, but on looking at them again more carefully I found they were White-ears. Although well kept, they appeared to me to be nearly as dull and dark in their colours as the Masks. ‘Three I bought in the early spring had likewise been dull and dark where now they are light and bright, excepting the bills amd) legs; which perhaps retain their different shades. This close re- semblance, under certain circumstances, to P. personata is suggestive of the close affinity which probably exists between the two species, and tempts one to be so profane as to suggest that the one may be but a bleached variety of the other. My Masks and White-ears freely associated together for some months and formed one flock, and all slept amicably together at night in the same box, and their notes are much alike as has already been remarked. One of my Masks paired off with a White-ear in a half-hearted sort of a way; and there was a good deal of indisctiminate kissing going on during the off season. The eggs from such a cross would certainly be fertile ; and probably the progeny would not be altogether barren. For all that, although so nearly allied, the two species are now obviously distinet. I notice that, if approached when on the ground, where they spend a good deal of their time, the whole flock becomes still and motionless, each individual retaining its exact position and posture as if turned into stone, trusting to remain undiscovered, all of them flying off simultaneously with wild cries when the intruder comes too near. Here we have a peep into their native life, of which, unfortunately, so little seems to be known. Neither will associate with members of the other species of the genus, and when along with them endeavour to keep out of their way ; and in one way or another they differ from all of them. My first pair of White-eared Grassfinches was placed in a large aviary-cage in a warm room with the Masks and Long-tails (P. acuticauda), the door being usually left open for a few hours 171 in the best part of the day. In the front part of the room there were two tables covered with potted plants, and in front of the tables, in the bay window, were some large eucalyptus trees, etc., for the birds to perch upon. The two White-ears soon shewed a desire to nest ; there were several nesting-boxes in their house, but the presence of the other birds was too much for their timid nature, or possibly the boxes were too artificial to arouse their nesting instincts, and they soon declared their intentions of nesting in a flower-pot in which a creeper was growing, at the edge of one of the tables. Finding they were in earnest, that they would not nest anywhere else and fretted when separated from this pot, I shut off the other birds and let them have their way. A domed nest was quickly built, with the aperture of course facing the window; but the construction was flimsy ; and when in the room I could see the birds through the back of the nest ; and this seemed to distress them greatly. I supplied abundance of material in the way of dried grasses, but they were exceedingly dissatisfied, and hunted all over the place for some- thing more. I then threw down other materials, and they instantly pounced on the feathers, of which they took a large number, very thickly lining the whole interior with them, including the roof: moss, hair, etc., they did not touch. But the precious nest was far too precious to be slept in; and they quickly betrayed by their squatting instincts still closer affinity with personata (see page 185 of vol. III.). Before nightfall of the first day they commenced to build a squatting-place on the floor, some three or four feet from the nest but in a place from which they could keep an eye on it. I took the hint and placed some travelling cages about this spot, of one of which they immediately took possession, and in which they invariably passed the night, and also a good part of the day when the nest was finished. But day followed day and matters did not progress; the nest had been industriously and carefully built and finished, but beyond carrying up an occasional feather or piece of grass everything seemed at a standstill: something was wrong, and it was only too clear what that something was: the male was sick. For some time I had been watching him with anxiety, but he was steadily going down hill, and was soon a thing of the past. It would probably have been wiser had I resisted their strong inclinations to go to nest until I had had them longer—but they came from a good home, they were in comfortable quarters, and I thought I might risk it. 172 The nest was like the very fluffy head of a fair child poised in the flower-pot, but in front the dried grasses hung down, inter- mingled with the creeper, like a long flowing beard. The first thought naturally is that this long streamer was an accident, just the materials that had been dropped by the birds and caught in the creeper. But last autumn, after the leaves had fallen off the Virginia creeper in the garden, I found the squatting-place of the Masked Grassfinches. It was like a pedestal, about eight inches high, nearly flat at the top, and without any covering whatever, the mass of foliage amongst which it was built doubt- less having been considered sufficient protection. But the most interesting point about it was that all the way down, and all round except on the side of the square post against which it was built, the ends of the dry grasses of which it was constructed hung down several inches, something like a shower bouquet. With this before me, I should hesitate to say that the ‘‘ beard” of the White-ears’ nest had been caused altogether by accident. This nest formed a very pretty object, and was preserved in a spare room for many weeks. It was sunk in the flower-pot slightly over one inch, and the dimensions were :—Height above rin. of flower-pot, 4 in.; solid breadth, 7 1n.; extreme breadth, Todt = Solididepth, 5 int; extreme depth, Oi; extremes werodne from tip of beard, (which was mostly 5-7 in. broad, and extended down just about as low as the creeper) over 30in. Our artist’s. drawing, by the way, was not taken from this nest. The poor little survivor, still known as The Widow, was disconsolate at the loss of her mate; and for many days her plaintive cry—which was often double like the call of a Partridge, but more prolonged—quite rang in our ears and filled our hearts with sympathy. Some time elapsed before I was able to obtain another specimen. I had quite looked forward to the Palace Show with the hope that I might be able to obtain one there, but, splendid Show as it was, it was so far incomplete that it did not contain a single specimen of the White-eared Grassfinch. However, on February 19th, I unexpectedly dropped upon three, and carried them all home with much satisfaction. My object had always been to obtain a mate for the poor little widow, but in this. respect I was unsuccessful, for the new birds turned out to be a married couple and a sedate spinster. (To be continued). 173 PANRROU NOUS: By the Hon. and Rev. F. G. Durron. (Continued from page 65). II.—CONURES. The Macaws should naturally be followed by the Conures, but here I must confess to a great /acuna in my knowledge of Parrots. ‘The Conures have never appeared to me attractive from any one point, neither that of colour, nor of intelligence, nor of harmlessness, nor of silence. They seem to me noisy, mis- chievous, indifferent talkers, and not particularly beautiful. The Patagonian Conure I have been tempted to try, but I feared that it might prove as noisy as a Macaw, and more destructive. I had a pair of White-eared Conures, which were given to me because one picked itself. They were turned into an aviary, but they shewed no sign of wishing to breed, and as they were wild and uninteresting I parted with them. I had in my charge for some time four specimens of solstitialis. These certainly were beautiful. All four slightly differed in colour, which may have been owing to their being young birds. They resembled Jendayas, but were of a more brilliant orange and red. Bechstein says they learn to speak easily and well. Russ makes no remark upon their qualities as pets. These were noisy and wild, and though I put them under the charge of a woman who was particularly fond of animals, they never became tamer as long as I had them. Perhaps had they been kept singiy they might have grown tanier. The one really fascinating Conure I have seen was a specimen of /uzeus, or, as the British Museum Catalogue calls it, guarouba. ‘This was a specimen which was deposited at the Zoological Gardens, and was for sale for £10. It was extra- ordinarily tame. You could swing it about by one leg or by the tail; it would lie on its back in your hand, and delighted in being played with ; it was said to be a good talker. The plate of it in ‘Parrots in Captivity’ is a good one. In that it will be seen that the flight feathers are green, and I hardly think that is the idea one gets from the description of it in the British Museum Catalogue. It is a lovely gold lemon yellow, with white beak and feet. Tater on Mr. Bartlett had two young ones, which were very fairly tame and nearly all green. Those three are the only living specimens I have seen, and with them comes to an end all that I can say about Conures. 174 Ill—THER HAWK-HEADED PARROT. Perhaps the Hawk-headed Parrot (Deroptyus accipitrinus) which forms a genus by itself, may best come after the Conures. I take the description from the British Museum Catalogue, which, however, classes it after Pzonus, and puts it away altogether from Conurus. ““Addult male. Green; head brown, frontal edge and lores darker ; pileum hoary grey (I should have called it muddy white); sides of the head with hoary shaft-streaks; long feathers of the nape, and feathers of the breast and abdomen, dark red with the edges blue; bastard wing, primary coverts, and primaries black ; secondaries green, with the tips black, slightly tinged with blue; tail feathers green, tinged with blue towards the tip, the blue increasing towards the outer feather, which has the outer web blue, except at the base; greater under wing-coverts, quills, and tail feathers below, black; the lateral tail-feathers have dull red spots at the bases of the inner webs; bill dusky horn colour: feet black; iris brown. Total length £4 inches; wing 8; tail 6-4. Specimens from Ecuador and Maranham are larger.” Perhaps these latter may account for Russ saying the bird is almost as large as a Raven. Certainly I never saw one as large as a Rook. It has a curious habit of puffing out all its head and neck feathers when excited, like the Salmon-crested Cockatoo. They are not very common, and are more often sent or brought over privately. Dr. Greene found one a very good talker. That has not been my experience. The birds I had were not very tame, and the tamest, when it got used to me, was treacherous, and would bite when I put its tins into the cage. It was very noisy at times. I think their character as pets is very like that of the Conures, whatever their structure may be. I expect one may say of all that, if you rear the young by hand, you might find the cock birds clever and companionable, but that unless they are quite tame, they are better in a Zoological Garden than in a private house. 175 CONURES. By O. E. CRESSWELL. I do not for a moment pretend to have any wide knowledge of Conures; but what experience I have is far more favourable to the genus than that of Mr. Dutton. I have had but four, and have them all now, for Conures are extremely hardy and I fancy long-lived, and I never tire of any feathered pets. Before I come to them I would say of the Conurus luteus (a) or “* Queen of Bavaria’s”’ Parrakeet that the only specimen I have seen, a very splendid one, in the Parisian Jardin d’acclimatation, was richer and deeper in hue than the pretty illustration in ‘‘ Parrots in Captivity.” I believe I described its colour in my account of the said garden as being the richest amber. No doubt the depth of colour depends on the bird’s age. The first of my Conures, which I have had towards six years, is a Patagonian. He came to me from Mr. Abrahams’ establishment with the character of a “‘ tame and talking bird.” It was a long while before he talked here, but when he once began he rapidly improved, learnt more words and sounds, and his utter- ance of them is the clearest I have ever heard from any Parrot ; he is very clever, indeed cunning, and unfortunately will never talk or do anything to order. He knows perfectly when one wishes to show him off, and is immediately silent. He spends much of his time in a verandah near the hall door, and I have known him often persistently silent when visitors were looking at him and other birds, and before their carriage had gone half- a-minute he was jabbering absurdly. He isa great respecter of persons, perfectly quiet when well-dressed people call, but makes an appalling noise if disagreeable-looking tramps arrive, and never stops shrieking till somebody he knows comes out, and then he is instantly silent. He knows everybody on the premises, but if a new gardener or groom arrives he summons us on their first, and probably their second, appearance; then he understands that they are to be tolerated. He is never disagreeably noisy, unless he thinks something is wrong. He imitates a hen which has laid an egg, perfectly ; with voice and beak against the bars he catches exactly the various sounds of sawing wood ; for one boy he would dance absurdly, and is suspected of mocking a maid whom he sees resting her head upon her hand by a window. Certainly he puts up his foot, and rests his head sideways upon — (a) Conurus guarouba Of the Cat. B. Brit. Mus.—D. S.-S. 176 it in a most lackadaisical fashion. Apparently he is impervious to cold, and is quite happy when his water-dish contains a block Olice: The next of my Conures are a little bright green pair with orange breasts—Cactus Conures (Cozurus cactorum). I have had them about five years, they don’t talk, but are always merry and bright, and seem to. have great capacity for enjoying life. At any time they will go into a strange sort of ecstasy, jabbering and fluttering and rushing towards me if I come up to the cage or aviary (for I have at times turned them into an aviary), but if any one else is too near they are shy and won’t do this. When, lhowever, I have been away forany time, and then reappear, their delight knows no bounds, all shyness goes, and before any company they continue their jabbering and flutterings as long as I will look at them. My fourth Conure is a late acquisition. In February I saw, in a grimy little London shop, a St. Thomas’ Conure (Conurus pertinax) ; he is slightly larger than the Cactus Conures, bright green with orange forehead, and back of the head golden. He is tame and funny, and is said to say a few words very plainly—but he has not said them to me yet. I must confess he is noisy, especially when he is in my library and can just hear a party of other parrots out of doors, and another contingent in another room. It is funny how Parrots, which are fearfully jealous of each other when in close quarters, never cease to call and answer each other when separated. The Latin epithet for this species, perfzzax, sounds strange, but I am inclined to think was not rashly conferred. Through many mornings my bird screeches with real pertinacity. When alone I am almost unconscious of such noises, but when friends are announced certain Parrots asa matter of course are carried out of the room. The strong health of the Conure tribe is one of their greatest advantages, and many of them are gaudily lovely. The Patagonian, with his quaint hues of olive, his underparts of lemon and bright fire-colour, and above all his beautiful flesh- coloured feet, is a unique Parrot. My own Patagonian has by far more character than any other Parrot I have ever possessed, and is, I believe, capable of much further education, but I have too many birds to fully bring out the talents of all. 177 THE NESTING OF THE PEKIN ROBIN. By the Rey, C.D! PARRAR. Pekin Robins are among the loveliest birds imported into this country. They usually arrive about February or March, and ean often be purchased for as low a price as 5s. a pair. ‘The reason of this is that, being half insectivorous birds, very few amateurs keep them properly, and consequently they soon die off. Another reason why so few are kept is that Pekins are very soft feathered birds; and, after being a few days in a dealer’s box-cage, they present a really deplorable appearance,—wings frayed out and tails like a stumpy paintbrush. This comes of their habit of clinging to the bars of the cage. Personally, I do not think Pekins suitable to cage life at all; unless they are very tame. I have always found them most hardy. Mine are kept in a big outdoor aviary all the year round, and they never seem to ail anything, and care nothing for the severest cold. The only sort of weather they object to is ‘‘Fog;” but all birds do that. Pekins are the most gentle and inoffensive birds, and may be kept with perfect safety in any company. ‘They are tremendous fellows to bathe, and in hot weather are in and out of the water all day. I saw, somewhere, that it is not safe to put them in an aviary, as they sfea/ eggs. I don’t believe it one bit. I have had them in an aviary with nests all round them, and they never touched an egg or ayoung bird (0). Ihave two pairs, at present, in an aviary. I find the best staple food for Pekins is Abrahamis’ yolk of egg; they are also very fond of white millet, which they swallow whole. They must have some insect food; they like mealworms better than anything else, and will eat small “clocks,” big ones they can’t swallow. Of course in a large garden aviary they catch a great many live things for themselves. They are fond of maggots, and a decaying old hen is to them a joy for ever—or at any rate as long as she holds together. The cock birds sing pretty well, but nothing to boast about; the hens do not sing, as so often stated—they simply (6) Has Mr. Farrar ever read these words of a well-known writer? ‘Io deny what is outside one’s own experience, however large that experience may be, proves it capable of increase.’’—Ep. Last month, in one of my aviaries, I had twenty-four eggs and five or six newly- hatched voung eaten by these birds.—A. G. B. § 178 repeat a few bars as a call note. Talk about ‘‘scolding;” but two Pekins can scold if you go near their nest. In breeding, of course the first thing is to get a pair. The only sure way to distinguish the cock from the hen is by the top of his head, which is always a beautiful mossy green colour, and his eye markings, which are primrose colour. The hen has a pale greyish crown and mouse-coloured eye patches. Both birds have red on their wings and the white tail edging, which are stated by Dr. Greene to be characteristic of the cocks alone. Far more hens than cocks are imported. It is not wise to look for any great breeding results from Pekins under the most favourable conditions. Ina large garden aviary the best results will be obtained. I utterly refuse to believe that Pekins would nest in a cage or bird-room. I saw an account of alleged nesting in a back number of the Reports on the U> KOE. Cy By ss 6), 1 say, alleged tor this) reasoner the description of the young was utterly fallacious. I have had several near shaves of success in past seasons, but this year victory has crowned the efforts of my Pekins. Last year we got as far as a completed nest; this year we have gone two better—egegs and young. My Pekins began operations eatly in May, by building a beautiful little nest of roots and fibre, lined with horsehair, in a box tree. ‘the nest is really a work of art and very cunningly hidden. ‘The hen laid three eggs, very large for the size of the bird, a bluish white in colour, heavily blotched with chocolate at the big end. The parents take it in turn to sit; the hen takes the day nurs- ino) and! the cock» relieves “her about (6 jpane | ie stimitemor incubation was about fourteen days. On looking into the nest very casually as I passed, I was delighted to see two youngsters and one addled egg. "This disappeared in about three days, but whether eaten or broken I can’t say. At first the youngsters were fed from the crop. I saw the whole operation through a ‘‘knot hole” close to the nest. The old birds do not carry out the excreta, but eat it. After a few days they began to feed on mealworms, which they first killed; these did not, (ec) In the Report of the United Kingdom Foreign Cage Bird Society for Noveniber, 1891, where an anonymous account of the breeding of Pekin Nightingales is reprinted from the Bazaar, Exchange and Mart. ‘Yie account bears every mark of genuineness, and there seems to be no ground for Mr. Farrar’s suggestion that it is apocryphal. Whether or not the writer’s observations were in every respect careful and accurate is of course a different matter, upon which we express no opinion; but we imagine that where the anonymous writer and Mr. Farrar differ, the one is, Jrzma face, as likely to be right as the other.—Kd. 179 fortunately, prove “‘too stimulating,” as the youngsters evidenced by their ready enjoyment of them. Of course I had the good sense and taste not to go poking about the nest. I did all my observations through a “ knot hole,” where I could see all, myself unseen. To-day the young have flown (June 11th). They are queer little things; dark slate colour all over, with hardly a trace of eye markings; no tails; a tiny yellow edging on the big wing feathers; pink legs, and horn-coloured beaks. When first hatched, I forgot to say, they were perfectly naked ; at about the eighth day they got a sort of bluish colour where the feathers were coming through, and when next I saw them they were nearly full feathered. I say pzvk and naked when hatched for this reason, that in the account of hatching in the Report of the U. K. F.C. B. S. the young were spoken of as covered with a hairy sort of fluff, which makes me think that the whole account was apocryphal. Besides the extraordinary things the old birds were asked to feed on. ‘What would they give the young?” J quote from the writer:—‘‘Egg? No. Biscuit? No. Bread and milk? No. Crushed hemp seed? No. Meal- worms cut up? Yes.” I wonder what the youngsters did while these experiments were being tried. There is such a scolding now each time I go into the aviary to feed, and it is quite amusing to see how the old birds will wait about, with their beaks full of mealworms, until Iam gone, lest I should see where the precious babies are hidden. I might give one word of caution. In sending Pekins on a journey, never forget to put in a sponge of water in the pot, or the birds will arrive in a moribund condition, and will the next day shuffle off this mortal coil, if they do not do so the same night. I will relate my other breeding experiences at the end of the season; but I thought our readers would be glad to hear ofa genuine case of Pekins nesting. Since writing the above the Pekins have built another nest high upin an Hilder tree and have again threeeggs. I have however, taken the nest, as I have a Virginian Nightingale setting in the same aviary, due to hatch, and cannot afford to keep both. 180 CORRESPONDENCE. HYBRID CARDINALS. Srr,—In the last October number of the Avcultural Magazine, Mr. Moerschell wrote: ‘‘Some years ago a friend of mine had eggs from a Virginian cock and a Green Cardinal hen, but somehow they were all broken, but it would be worthy an attempt, provided a very quiet place could be given, and a liberal supply of mealworms.” Having at that time just completed building a new aviary, and having both these birds in a mixed aviary, I thought I would try the experiment, more especially as the green hen had killed already four small birds (selecting always those approaching her own colour). ‘The cock I have had in an outdoor aviary through three winters, and the hei two. The aviary I placed them in was divided into two, one part all covered in with wood and glass, which I use for canary breeding, the other part an open wire flight (in which I placed the birds) 6 ft. x 6 ft. x 6 ft., partly covered on the top with three sides open, and on the fourth side covered with Virginian cork to within two feet of the ground. The hen started building about five weeks ago, making a nest among the cork, much like a Blackbird’s nest, and laid three eggs much like those of a Thrush, but longer in shape; I interfered very little with her, so I was unable to tell to a few days when the eggs were laid. On Saturday last, wishing to show a friend the somewhat peculiar-shaped eggs, I found to my surprise two were hatched, and the young are now three days old. ‘Yo my great sorrow the cock escaped the following day ; he remained about the garden all day singing his loudest, but about six o’clock I lost sight and hearing of him, and I much fear I shall never see him again. The hen seems quite indifferent to his going, and continues feeding and sitting on her young. It will be interesting to know what colour the birds will be from two so differently coloured parents. I learn from those who have bred the Green Cardinal that the hen leaves the feeding of the young after leaving the nest to the cock, soI much fear that the absence of the cock will be fatal to the young. Mr. Moerschell says he gave amongst his food finely minced mieal- worms, but I find ny hen prefers to take them whole, biting them down herself to a convenient size. Iam giving besides, egg and biscuit, boiled millet, sunflower seeds, ats’ eggs, aud plain millet, hemp, and canary, with a few oats, and much green food. I was greatly surprised to find the eggs fertile as the two birds appeared perfectly indifferent to each other since they have been together. The cock has been singing at his best this year, but last year he scarcely sang a note. I must apologise for my rather lengthy letter, but, as I believe this is the first recorded cross between these two Cardinals, the matter may be of interest to many of our members. CLAUDE VERRALL. 181 FOOD FOR SOFT-BILLED BIRDS. Srr,—Ornithological classification is a fine field for controversy, for no two writers agree, and each is persuaded that he alone is right and everyone else wrong. No doubt Dr. Butler and I could go on for a good many months with this very pretty dispute as to whether or not it is more improper to call a Nightingale a Warbler than to call a Tanager a Finch ; and he ought to get the best of it, for is he not a big scientific man, and I only a little aviculturist ? No doubt for every “authority” I could quote it would be easy for him to cite two on the opposite side—such is the charming finality of this puzzling branch of science. “ But scientists, who ought to know, Assure us that they must be so. Oh! let us never, never doubt What nobody is sure about!” I will therefore content myself with asking a few questions, and then leave the matter. (1) Are not the Sy/viide according to Dr. Sharpe, Mr. Howard Saunders, and Dr. Butler himself, included in the family Turdide ? (2) Are not the Zanagride placed in a separate faniily by Dr. Sharpe and most modern ornithologists, none of whom include them in the Fringillide ? (3) Are not birds in the same family presumably more nearly related than those in different families? (4) if all these questions be answered in the affirmative, as I think they must be, how does Dr. Butler justify his statement that the Nightingale ‘‘is about as nearly related to the Warblers as the Tanagers are”? /(e/ I could only think, for the moment, of two Foreign cage-birds which would require treatment similar to that of our Nightingale, and Dr. Butler very properly reminds me that one of these belongs to the British list— thus strengthening my argument that nearly all the foreign soft-billed birds imported are frugivorous rather than strictly insectivorous. Ian glad that Dr. Butler is disposed to admit that there may be a better food for Nightingales than the mixture of Abrahamis’ Food, preserved egg, potato, aud bread, which I understand he prescribes for all other birds, and I hope that he will continue his experiments, and in course of time come to the conclusion, which most of us have come to long ago, that there is no such thing as a universal food for soft-billed birds, but that every group requires different treatment. So long as he sticks to the idea that all soft-billed birds will thrive on the saine food, whether it be Abrahams’ Food or some- body else’s, he must pardon me for drawing a distinction, i1 my own mind, between the aviculture of a scientist and ‘‘scientific aviculture.” I learn from a recent letter of his in the Feathered World that he uses six to eight large tins of Abrahams’ Food per month. Has it never struck him that he is paying rather dearly for the egg and ants’ eggs contained in it ? SEPTIMUS PERKINS. ‘This discussion has been the means of eliciting much useful infornia- tion, and I am very grateful to those who have given us the benefit of their experience. JI am sorry to find that it seems now in danger of degenerating into a rather personal controversy on points which have little or nothing to (e) Birds in the same family are often far less nearly related than those in different families. The /ringev//ide and Plocerde differ chiefly in their manuer of building.—A. G. B. 182 do with the main question. Surely there must still be a large number of members who can and will contribute something of value and interest to the discussion ? I think that novices sometimes overlook the importance of making the food of a proper consistency. It is essential to a good food not only that the materials should be right but that it should be properly prepared. Generally speaking, food for ‘“‘soft-bills’’? should be ‘“ crumbly-imoist,’’? and never sloppy on the one hand nor sticky and clay-like on the other. Nor, again, should it be a dry powder. Many have a prejudice against milk-sop, on the ground that it is too Jaxative. It certainly zs laxative if given either in too great quantity, or too sloppy, or sweetened. I make it of powdered lunch biscuit, on which I pour hot boiled milk, and give it to the birds unsweetened, aud fairly stiff (too stiff to find its own level). I never allow any birds (except Lories and Lorikeets) to live entirely or even chiefly on sop, but most of mine have a little every day, and I find that it is much appreciated and apparently beneficial. Itis acheap and easy-made food, and will keep fresh for twenty-four hours. Another cause of non-success with the more delicate birds is, I think, allowing them to eat white of egg, which is very indigestible. Hither the volk only of fresh eggs, or preserved egg, should be used. Horatio R. FILLMER. THE GANGA COCKATOO. Srr,—Would some member who may have a hen Ganga Cockatoo kindly say what the colour of its eye is ? The bird figured in ‘‘ Parrots in Captivity ” is a male, and is repre- sented as having a bright red eye. The cock now in my possession has a black eye. F. G. Duron. AUS0S, SS IODIS AVE,” JERURIROC. Str,—I was much interested in the account of “Tony.” Nothing happens but the unexpected. If there is one species more than another where I should have said you need never hope to find the ‘ideal,’ it would have been the Alexandrine. I never knew of one that was not intolerably noisy, at times. I think the Bengal comes very near the ideal, but for noise; it is lovely, an excellent talker, and full of character. It is curious that “ Tony,” who, I presume, was a cock, should have preferred men. Bengals, certainly, have a strong perception of sex, and so hhave “docilis”—generally the hens can be handled by men and the cocks by women. I had a lovely cock Bengal and an exquisite ‘‘ doczlis.” A woman could do anything with either, but they could not be trusted with men. I should like to know ow ‘‘ Tony” was trained to be clean. And also how he came by his death. I think the true ideal is most likely to turn up in the Senegal, Meyer’s, or Riippell’s Parrots. As far as colour and charm are concerned, Mr. Fulljames’ “ Shining Parrakeet ’’ would have done. But heis not a pocketable bird. 183 I have a Budgerigar, which would become ideal, if it belonged toa milliner. It is very tame, flies to one’s shoulder, when out of the cage, and loves to have its poll scratched. It only wants to be with some one who would talk to it all day, aud so teach it to talk. F. G. Duron. MYNAHS. Str,—Kindly let me know what species of Mynah you consider the best mimic and talker? Also, food and general treatment. CHARLES SPEED. The following reply was sent to Alr, Speed. The Mynah that mimics and talks best is the Larger Hill-Mynah, Mainatus intermedius. Much depends on its being a young bird, as when old it does not pick up new sounds nearly so readily. The males are usually better mimics than the females; the former may often be distinguished by their bills being larger and more hooked, at any rate when of about the same age. Their talking powers are sometimes greatly exaggerated, the curious natural notes of the species being twisted into words by the mighty power of imagination. Nevertheless, some of then do talk and mimic, and they can be made into very nice pets. Just now aud then the huge Javan Mynah (Jainatus javanensis) appears in the market. It is a magnificent bird, and ought to talk well; but I have not kept it, and cannot say whether it does. I have been told repeatedly that it is the Small Hill-Mynah (Mainatus religiosus) that is the talker; but my own personal experiences aud observations have taught me exactly the contrary. It is a nice bird enough, with quaint notes, but it is not to be compared with the Larger Hill-Mynah. The Hill-Mynahs are sometimes known as Rock-Mynahs. They are all large eaters, and should be fed on sop, fruit, cooked vegetables (boiled rice, carrots, &c.), egg, raisins, and messes generally. In this climate, at any rate, I think they should have a little meat. They are rather offensive when kept in the house in a sniall cage, though they may learn to talk better under those conditions ; but for their health the more exercise you can give them the better. In the summer, a garden aviary is the place for them, but they should not be exposed to cold ; and, like their relations the Starlings, they dearly love something of the nature of a box to sleep in at night, especially during the winter. REGINALD PHILLIPPS. OUR BRITISH WEAVER-BIRD. Srr,—The vulgar Sparrow is one of the last birds one would think of naming as capable of constructing a clever or artistic nest, but, when he is put to it, he is by no means such a duffer at house-building as is generally supposed ; aviculturists who may happen to pass by the gardens of the Tower of London just at the present time of the year, before the leaves are fully out, may see this for themselves. (f) A number ofthe trees in this city (/) ‘This letter was written in April last.—Eb. 184 oasis are adorned (?) with half a dozen or more big round bristly balls of rubbish, looking at a little distance like so many strange fruits; presumably the Tower itself and the giant wareliouses near by do not offer the necessary holes and corners, so Mr. Sparrow is obliged to take to the trees; and when one considers that the material available for building consists of more or less dirty straw, with say about ten per cent. of string, paper, rags, and shavings mixed, and an occasional pigeon’s feather, it must be acknowledged that the result is a highly creditable production. Finish, of course, there is none; but the way in which the bird gets a start with such unpromising material, making the nest not infrequently among thin twigs near the top of the tree, is really clever; and the fact that it takes some six or seven months of wind and weather to demolish it after it is done with, speaks well for the strength with which it must be woven together. This type of Sparrow’s nest is common enough, it is true, but the number that one sees together at the Tower, and elsewhere in the city, makes it particularly striking. H. C. MARTIN. THE YELLOW-FRONTED AMAZON. Srr,—Having recently purchased a Yellow-fronted Amazon Parrot, and not being very well up in the Psitéacuée, I should be glad of a little information on the following points :— Are the sexes distinguishable, and is there anything to choose between them as far as talking powers are concerned ? Is the Yellow-fronted Amazon as apt a scholar as the Blue-fronted and other species, and after how long can one reasonably expect a newly imported bird to make any attempt at speech, z.e., when every encourage- ment is offered ? The bird in question sneezes and coughs rather often, and, after feeding, seems to get dull, half closing its eyes and ruffling its feathers ; there is also, occasionally, a watery discharge at the nostrils; does this indicate the existence of pneumonia, or is it merely a cold ? Any information will be much appreciated by H. C. MARTIN. The following reply was sent to Mr. Martin :— I have been desired to answer your letter. I think the male Yellow- fronted is as good a talker as the Blue-fronted Amazon, but I doubt an old and untaught bird learning to speak. A young one should begin to say something within two or three months of importation. The males have, I think, a larger yellow cap than the females. (g) The bird, I think, has a cold. I should keep it warm, and give it chillies, aud, if it eats sop, put a few drops of Tabasco sauce with it. F. G. DUTTON. ) Imay be mistaken, but I think the sexes differ in the colour of the iris.—A. G. B. (g Avicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AW (QUE UWA SOC ET Y. VOL. IV.—No. 47. All rights reserved. SEPTEMBER, 1898. THE WHITE-EARED GRASSFINCH., (Poephila leucotis)/. By REGINALD PHILLIPPS. (Continued from page 172). On March 23rd, the new pair seemed anxious to nest; and in an impulsive moment, which I have not ceased to regret, I brought down the old nest and placed it in its original position. With a cry of joy the widow flew to it—perhaps hoping to find her mate, who can say! but she was promptly dispossessed by the pair, who seemed inclined to adopt it as their own forthwith ; their triumph, however, was short-lived, for the other birds, now a miscellaneous horde, got wind of what was going on, and, headed by two rascally Lavender Finches who still trouble me with their looting propensities, swooping down like Vultures on to a carcase, tore the nest to shreds, and carried it off piecemeal to various boxes and holes, in spite of the White-ears’ piteous cries of remonstrance. The pair could not tear themselves away from the flower- pot. There might be time for a nest before their season was. quite over I thought, so shut off the other birds, supplied materials, and placed a box on the floor where the former had been (of which they had not any cognizance), and of this they immediately took possession. A nest was quickly built in the flower-pot as before, very like the first but not so carefully con- structed—the dome, for instance, barely supporting its own weight and requiring frequent pushing up from the interior, many of the feathers being shoved through; and the beard was not so long—possibly on account of the now shrivelled condition of the creeper. Little by little, however, the birds seemed to lose interest in it, there came a time when they actually slept in it, and then I saw that it was of no use, put them back with their companions, and removed the nest. A wave of warm weather once more started them off, so I brought back their nest, which 186 they themselves quickly pulled to pieces. Once again they set to work, and tried to build in a pot containing a geranium; but the plant did not leave them sufficient room, so I placed a little box by its side, of which they thankfully took possession, and in which they built—a squatting-place, so there is an end of the matter for this summer. It was the nest built by the second pair which has been pictured by our artist, who has artfully brought into prominence one of the seeming peculiarities of the species, the profuse use of feathers.in the building of the nest, the whole interior of each nest having been very thickly lined with them. Last year my pair of Long-tails never touched a feather in the construction either of their squatting-places, or of two nests which they built late in the year: and Mr. Todd’s experience in this respect seems to have been similar (Vol. iii., p. 210). But this year the male of at any rate one of my two pairs has occasionally been seen with a feather in his bill; the Parson Finch, I think, often uses a few feathers; but neither species of Gouldian has ever touched a feather with me. The following is a rough description of the White-eared Grassfinch. Upper parts a rather dark fawn, darker and more glossy on the crown; lower back, upper and under tail-coverts, white, with some black on the sides of the upper coverts; tail feathers black with brownish bases, graduated; a black mask round base of bill, as in fersonata ; cheeks and ear-coverts, silvery white; chest, breast, etc., white washed with light buff, especially across the chest; a large black flank-patch with white blotch in front; iris, dark brown; bill, whitish yellow in life, and much lighter than in personata, but in skin dull and inclined to blackish; feet and legs, coral red; length, slightly over 44 inches. Sexes alike; and in this it possibly differs from fersonata, for my male personata has much the larger and more curved bill, and seems to be the larger bird. My male J/eucotis occasionally seems to be stouter in the chest than the females; but now that the nesting is over I am often quite unable to pick him out from amongst the others. Although usually remarkably peace- able, lately they have taken to quarrel when going to roost; the male commenced by ejecting the male Mask whilst retaining the female in the Mormon bed-chamber—and I retaliated by removing the Masks, male and female. And again later the Widow has been forbidden the family sleeping-box, and has philosophically built a little squatting-place for herself on the floor behind the: bottom of one of the window curtains. 187 At pages 202 and 203, vol. xiii., of the Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., the distinctive difference between the genera Aidemosyne and Poephila is given as follows :—Aidemosyne: Tail graduated, the two centre feathers longest, but not produced to a thread-like point. Poephila : Tail not so strongly graduated, but the centre feathers produced to a thread-like point. I have had five White- ears and three Masks. My male Mask seems to be fully adult, the female I have had for over fourteen months, and they are both in perfect feather; when recently placed in the garden, neither had a thread-like point to the central tail feathers, although these were long and very narrow towards the ends. Nor have any of the White-ears; nevertheless it is possible that this feature nay be developed later. Habitat, the grassy plains in the interior of North Australia. Before closing this paper I should like to draw attention to the curious way in which the six recognised species in the genus Poephila are grouped in couples, the two species forming each couple being remarkably like to one another, but very different from all the others. First come the handsome Long- tailed Grassfinch, P. acuticauda, and the familiar Parson Finch, £. cincta, with their black girdles and throat spots, surly tempers, and rapid flight, chiefly differing from one another in the colour of the bill and in the formation of the tail; the sexes are alike (I am speaking cursorily), and the young like the parents but with black bills (vol. iii. p. 210). Then come the Masked Grass- finch, P. fersonata, and the White-ear, with black flank-patch instead of girdle, and mask instead of large throat-spot, amiable in temper, quiet in habits, and sexes alike. The young of /eucofzs seem to be unknown, but doubtless they will prove to be, as with fersonata, like their parents but with black bills. All of these four roost, from preference, in boxes or squatting-places of some kind; and none of them sing in the manner that the Gouldians do. JLastly, we have Gould’s Grassfinch, P. gouldie, aud the Beautiful Grassfinch, 7. mirabilis, popularly classed together as Gouldians. In these the sexes are diverse, and the young, while like to one another (on this point the Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. is inaccurate), are quite different from the adults. They have neither black girdle nor flank-patch, never use feathers in the construction of their nests, and always roost in the open (towards the ends of the slender boughs of growing trees if possible, often quite amongst the leaves) except when actually sitting. Specimens that are properly kept moult true to colour year after year; and the two species are at any rate as 188 distinct from one another as are /eucotis from fersonata, and cincta from acuticauda. Probably the species occasionally referred to as Poephila atropygialis is P. acuticauda, Being personally unacquainted with Poephila armitiana, I will simply quote ‘‘ May be looked upon as the golden- or yellow-headed phase of P. mzrabilis. flab. Derby, N.W. Australia, Gulf of Carpentaria.” The statements in the Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. of the total length of the different species of Poephila cannot be accepted as. correct. Ws SONG OF Wille SONRLET WANAGIER. By ARTHUR G. BUTLER, Ph. D. In an article on the Songs of Tanagers (at p. 46 of this. year’s Magazine) I say of the Scarlet Tanager, ‘“‘When I have kept my two fine males long enough for them to become con- fiding, perhaps they will give me an opportunity of forming an opinion respecting the merit of their performance.” At the commencement of July of the present year one of my males began to sing, and he has continued to do so industriously, whenever the sun has shone hotly into his flight- cage, up to the present time. The song is soft, not unpleasing, and is perhaps capable of further development; but hitherto I have not noticed any striking resemblance to the notes of either Thrush or Robin in its performance ; excepting that, as with the Thrush, the first note is repeated four times and all the other expressions or double notes are repeated: they are, however, at present too soft aud gentle to remind one of a Thrush, and the general effect is. rather that of the White-throated Finch’s melody. On the 18th of July, I took down the song as the bird uttered it, and carefully went over it afterwards: I render it as. follows ;—‘‘ Whip, whip, whip, whip ; tzewee, tzewee, tzewee ; cheo, cheo, cheo, cheo, cheo, cheo, cheo; tzerwiss, tzerwiss, tzerwzss ; cheo,. cheo, cheo, cheo, cheo, cheo, cheo. The cheo part of the song is very liquid and always uttered seven times rapidly. I see no likeness in any part of this song to the irregular plaintive trill of the Robin. 189 SOME EXPERIENCES OF THE GRASSHOPPER-WARBLER. By Percy W. FARMBOROUGH, F.Z.S. During the past few months there has been a great deal of discussion in the correspondence columns of our Magazine on the subject of the Warblers in captivity, and it occurred to me that I might supplement others’ experiences with my own. Some time ago, having occasion to spend a short time at Sandwich in Kent, I noticed that several specimens of the Grasshopper Warbler (Locustella nevia) were flying about the sandy downs skirting the sea-shore at a point situated about midway between Deal and the estuary of the river Stour. For several days I made persistent efforts to discover the nests and eges of these birds, but signally failed until about a week after commencing the search, when I was rewarded by finding a nest containing unfledged young placed rather deeply in a coarse tuft of sedge-grass (I think that that is the name of the grass I mean, it grows in tufts, is cylindrical and about two feet long) which I must have passed by and examined a score of times at least before I found the nest; and even on this occasion the nest would not have been found if it were not for the fact that the hen was flushed from the tuft of grass, thus drawing my attention to it. The spot was marked, and, about nine or ten days after- wards, was visited once again. The young were fledged and very shy, cowering down into the nest and striving to make themselves as unobserved as possible. As I was returning to town that day, I took the brood, doubting whether they could be successfully reared. For a few days they lived, being fed on yolk of egg mixed with ants’-eggs and milk, but one by one they sickened and died. A week later, I was obliged to go once again to Sandwich, and, only having a couple of days to spare, I took a small trap- cage and a tin box of mealworms down with me, in addition to a very powerful field-glass—one magnifying to 18 diameters. After transacting my business I retired to rest, and was up betimes the next morning, The clock was striking three as I was crossing the downs to my post of observation. The morning was beautifully clear, and bird-life was well manifested. The trap (a single one) was baited with a few mealworms, and carefully set in a large bed or clump of grass-growth covering 190 about thirty square yards of ground, and situated about sixty or seventy yards from the sea-shore. That the birds were about was evidenced by the occasional utterance of the grasshopper- like call. I took up a position about one hundred or a hundred and fifty yards away, and, lying down in another expanse of sedge-grass, carefully covered any likely tufts or hillocks with the field-glass. Owing to the high power of the field-glass, the field of vision was limited, and as a conseqence it took some time to go over the likely places. Aiter a considerable time had elapsed, a bird suddenly sprang into the air not twenty yards. from where I was lying, and flew off; it was joined in a few moments by two companions, and the three, to my delight, took a wavering flight to where the cage was. It was impossible to see the cage from the position I occupied, so it was necessary to: be contented with keeping the glasses on the birds as they fluttered about the mass of herbage. Every now and again they disappeared from sight, but suddenly two flew upwards and went away uttering notes of alarm. As the third did not accompany them, I concluded the trap had been successful, and, on going over to investigate, I found that to be the case, for a fine young Grasshopper Warbler was inside the cage, fluttering wildly in its attempts to escape. As it was tolerably certain no more would be caught, that day at all events, I packed up and went back to where I was staying, The bird had to be left in the trap-cage it Was caught in, as there was nothing else to change it into until it got to London; once there, however, it was put into its intended home—a larger cage of box pattern, about two feet long and of proportionate height and breadth— where it was left for the night. It was fed whilst in my possession on ants’-eggs mixed with a crumbly paste of hard-boiled yolk of egg and milk, with a few mealworms now and again. The bird only survived its captivity three months, and I am not altogether satisfied with my experience of it. Perhaps I did not feed it properly ; probably it pined at the loss of its freedom; but one day, although previously it had seemed in the best of health, it was found on the floor of its cage—dead. I cannot say I am pleased with myself for my capture, I often wish now that I had left the bird to enjoy its freedom. The Warblers seem particularly ill- adapted to a life of captivity, or else my experience has been an unfortunate one, for, with the exception of a Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) which lived for some time (nearly two and a half years), they have all died in a few weeks. I9I Chie COURTING POSHURES: OF CERTAIN DOVES. . Jy Vas (Ge JBiowiiise Jee, IDL The facts which I propose to record here are probably not: new to many of our members; but circumstances have proved to me that they are not so thoroughly well known to all bird- students as to be valueless. It is generally admitted that where a male bird possesses. brilliant colours in any part of its plumage, it always makes the most of them when approaching its mate. In many of the Columbe the most telling arrangement of colours is to be found on the nape, mantle, and in the open tail: it is therefore not. surprising that the species of 7urfur and Geopelia bow almost to the ground, at the same time drooping the wings and raising the tail fan-wise almost at right angles to the body. During the past winter I lost my male Necklaced Dove and my female Bar-shouldered Dove. Thinking that I might. safely pair up the two bereaved birds, I placed them together in one of my small aviaries, but Geopelia humeralis evidently did not admire 7urtur tigrinus and attacked her so systematically that when he had half denuded her of feathers, I was compelled te remove her and purchase a supposed female of his own species: I fear, however, that I paired up these birds too late or too early, for she fared but little better than her predecessor (a), When I first turned in the ‘female’ G. humevalis, the male began at once to chase her about the aviary: this was followed by the usual posture of worship. When neither bowing nor chasing seenied to awake any emotion of pleasure in the heart. of his partner the male suddenly turned his back upon her, raised. his head to its highest elevation, spread his tail fanwise so that it swept the earth and ran forward two or three steps with a short sharp little gutteral sound, then looked over his shoulder and repeated the action perhaps a dozen times. His rage when she ignored all his efforts was unbounded and he then commenced a system of tyrannous persecution, varied with occasional fondlings, which bade fair to reduce her to a scarecrow. However, it is evident that G. humeralis has two very distinét methods of showing off to its hen ; which was a new fact to me. In the Australian Crested Dove /Ocyphaps lophotes) the (a) I finally discovered that the bird was only a small cock of the same species, and had to separate them.—A. G, B. 192 larger and median wing coverts are brilliantly coloured with ultramarine changing to ruby red, and emerald green changing to golden green: therefore, if this bird were to display itself exactly in the same manner as Zurtur and Geopelia, its chief beauty would be concealed : it does indeed bow and spread its tail fanwise; but, instead of drooping its wings they are lifted backwards so that the coverts almost join and form a glittering rainbow of colours behind the head as the bird bows. In Phlogenas luzonica (the Bleeding-heart Pigeon) the most brilliant colouring is on the breast and this bird rarely bows to its hen, but races after her at full speed with its long legs, its outstretched neck bobbing as it runs: then as it nears her it depresses its tail, throws out its breast, retracts its head and utters a very ventriloquial coo, rocking on its feet as if the utterance disturbed its balance ; at other times it slightly raises and quivers its wings cooing in a rapid staccato fashion— QU-gu-Gu-gu-uU- Lu. I never saw 7ympantistria show off to its mate, and suspect that it is far too sluggish to breed in any but a very large aviary, and my experience of Calenas nicobarica is the same ; doubtless Mr. Meade-Waldo, who has bred the latter species pretty freely, could enlighten us as to its method of displaying its charms. Chalcophaps and Phaps are genera of rather sluggish but very beautiful birds, and I am not sure whether what I have seen them do was intended as an attraction or an insult to their wives, but I have seen them approach the hen and lift up the wing farthest from her, so as to expose all the metallic feathers simultaneously : I have seen them do this when sidling up to another dove to give him a smack so that it may not have been intended as an overture of affection, but it was extremely beautiful for all that. () The species of Zexatda, which are chiefly ornamented on the neck, appear to me to show themselves off like our domestic Pigeons, but I have not studied them intimately enough to be quite sure of my facts yet, though I have had a pair of Z. auriculata for twelve months. JZ, aurvita I have only added recently. By the way, it seems curious that Zexazda should be (8) Phaps chalcopitera shows off to its mate in much the same way as Ocyphafps, naniely, by bowing the head, expanding the tail and spreading the wings over the back, thus presenting to the hen a shield of brilliant metallic colours. At the same time the bird sways its body from side to side, balancing its weight first on one leg and then on the other. I have also seen it bow and spread the tail like an English Woodpigeon or the various species of Gevfelia.—D. S.-S. 193 regarded as a ground-dove, for my birds never come down excepting to feed ; in which respect they are the exact opposite to Phlogenas which spends the whole day on the earth, only flying up to roost, or when flushed. REVIEWS. Song Birds ; a Paper read before the National British Bird and Mule Club, by Mr. Albert Rettich. Our readers know Mr. Rettich, and they do not need to be told that his writings are always both practical and interesting. The paper now before us the author modestly acknowledges to be largely a translation from a German Avicultural Journal—he is not the only avicultural writer who has borrowed from German sources, and such a course is much to be commended, for German avicultural literature is undoubtedly ahead of our own. We are surprised at the very high estimation, as a songster, in which the Garden Warbler appears to be held, by German aviculturists. A Mr. Heppe, who seems to be a man of great experience, is quoted as an authority against giving too many mealworms to delicate birds,—‘‘ The armour - like skin of the insect, he finds productive of indigestion, of clogging, swelling, and cramp in the feet, and other disorders.” He givés fresh ants’ eggs in the summer and no mealworms, and but few in the winter. It is a pity that this interesting paper should be printed in such very small type. “* Lost and Vantshing Birds: Being a Record of some Remarkable Extinct Species and a Plea for some Threatened Forms.” By Charles Dixon. = One) of the saddest, features son) civilisation is the disappearance of so many beautiful and curious creatures from this world of ours.” These words with which Mr. Dixon begins his preface are the key note of an interesting but melancholy book, which deserves to be carefully read by all bird-lovers. It is very saddening to look down the list of ‘‘ Lost British Birds,” «Vanishing British Birds,” ‘‘ Lost Exotic Birds,” and ‘‘ Vanish- ing Exotic Birds,” and to feel how great has been the loss already, and how much greater it is likely to be in the near future. 194 One little gleam of comfort Mr. Dixon gives us,— “As a set-off against the many interesting (British) species that we “have lost for ever, it is gratifying to know that the spread of cultivation “and the improvement of waste land, so disastrous to the larger birds, has. _“ favoured the increase and dispersal of considerable numbers of the smaller “species. Many of these latter birds are songsters of varying merit, and *“‘ these have followed the horticulturist and the agriculturist, so that many * districts are now made glad with song which formerly were silent. The “boom of the Bittern has died away with the disappearance of marsh and *‘ fen ; the song of the Passere is heard in its place. ‘Ihis, in a measure, is. *“some conipensation for our loss. In some districts, however, many of the ‘smaller birds have been ruthlessly depleted by the gunner and the snarer; “and we can namie localities where such species as Goldfinches, Bullfinches, ““ Hawfiches, Wood Larks, Nuthatches, and Kingfishers are altogether ‘‘exterminated or fast becoming so. Certain intelligentiy-framed Amend- “ments to the Acts for the Preservation of Wild Birds, and the establishment “of proper machinery for the enforcement of the existing law, should “‘remedy the evil. The wholesale destruction of the nests aud eggs of the ‘“smaller birds that goes on in most country districts must have a most. “injurious effect upon the species, and is even worse than the destruction “of the birds themselves. Eggs to some extent are now protected, but the “law in most places is utterly ignored.” Mr. Dixon lays little stress upon the alleged depredations. of bird-catchers, and we presume that he considers that they are responsible for only a small fraction of the destruction which goes on. This coincides with our own views, for we believe that,. with the exception of the Goldfinches, there is scarcely a British species whose numbers have been seriously reduced by the capture of specimens for cage or aviary. We cordially approve: of the policy of the Wild Bird Protection Acts, and consider that indiscriminate bird-catching should be prevented-—but we firmly believe that few, if any, of our British species are in any danger from bird-catchers alone, and that they are often blamed for what has really been caused by game-keepers, so-called ‘“‘scientific collectors,” the more ignorant among the farmers, and last, but not least, the village hobbledehoys. Mr. Dixon is disposed to laugh at the outcry often made about the slaughter of some very rare bird which has wandered to our shores, and considers that the killing of such specimens is. perfectly justifiable, as the species would never become indigenous, and the solitary wanderer would probably perish from hunger if not shot. This may be all very true in theory, but we cannot. agree with it in practice, for the species is seldom identified until after the bird has been killed, and a man with a gun in his hand, on the look out for rare birds, will not stop to consider whether or not the bird at which he is aiming is sufficiently 195 scarce to justify its slaughter! We feel also bound to enter a protest against the author’s astonishing sympathy with the wearing of birds’ plumes by ladies. CORRESPONDENCE. DEE SeROmE CMON TOE BERD S: Srr,—The last paragraph in Mr. A. Crafer’s letter raises a subject which has given me a lot of thought:—the wazfow destruction of birds and their eggs. I am afraid no real good will be done until there is a society formed (on similar lines to the R.S.P.C.A.) whose special object shall be to protect the birds and eggs (c). I know some people argue that birds are as plentiful as ever they were; well, they may be in some parts, but Iam sorry to say that here in Yorkshire it is not so. I remember when I was a lad seeing Goldfinches flying by the dozen, and hearing my father talk of hundreds, but now, alas, where are they? I have not seen a dozen out of cages in as many years. The last I saw were a pair crossing the road near Searbro’; aud the next day that I went past there was the bird-catcher, call-birds and all. I felt that I would like to give him a ducking in the sea; anyway it would have given him a wash, a thing he very much needed. I am not against keeping birds in captivity, far from it, providing they are caught out of the breeding season and properly cared for, but when I see a dirty, filthy thief, too lazy to work, catching birds to get money to booze, I think it is time that something were done to protect our song birds from externiination. I have no doubt that there are a few respectable bird-catchers here and there, but the best of them are not the kindest of individuals. What do they do with those they cannot sell, hen Linnets, for instance? I once asked one the question, he said: ‘‘Oh, we kill them; we cannot be bothered with them.’ I do not include in my condemmation the working-man who catches a few for his own use—only the seven-days-a-week man. Iam afraid the Wild Birds’ Protection Act is dying a natural death ; and if something be not done to remedy the existing state of things many of our most desirable birds will be altogether extinct. What is the use of fining a man 7s. 6d. for shooting a bird when he has sold it for £7? No, the Act should be amended so that the bird (or eggs) should be confiscated and go tothe public museum in the town or county where taken; and if it could be proved that anyone has bouglit it, or tried to buy it, he should be fined as well as the man who killed or caught it. This, and nothing less, will stop the wanton destruction that is now going on, and which every right-minded man must deplore. I hope some of our influential members will give this their serious thought, and try and get the Act amended so as to make it more effectual. ‘Then may we hope to see the Goldfinch, Chough, etc., as plentiful as they were forty years ago. R. CREIGHTON. (c) Has Mr. Creighton never heard of the ‘‘Society for the Protection of Birds,’ of which Mrs. Lemon, of Hillcrest, Redhill, Surrey, is the Hon. Secretary ? Itis a large and influential Society, and doing a good work. ‘The Selborne Society also works in the same cause.—ED. 196 FAMILY CHARACTERS IN BIRDS. StrR,—A remark in Mr. Perkins’ letter in the last number of the Magazine is worth consideration; as it appears that the importance of family characters is somewhat over-estimated by some aviculturists. Asa matter of fact families are mere conveniences for the cabinet-naturalist, and are often based upon a single structural peculiarity which alone unites certain very distinct sub-famiilies. Sub-families of different families may be very closely related in all respects, excepting that which has been seized upon by the systematist as a distinctive family character; whilst sub-families having this character in common, may differ far more in other respects. In the family Zurdide, the Turdineg are naturally distinguishable from the Sylvitne by their spotted young, a character most important when considering the question of affinity; on the other hand the voung of Warblers are not spotted, and it is evident that they are a perfectly separate branch of the Thrush-like stock; indeed their clearly scaled tarsi distinguish them at once from the Zwrding, in which the front of the foot (popularly known as leg) is quite smooth and undivided until just before the junction with the claws (digits). The two families /ringillide and Plocetde are even more nearly related than most of the bird-families, for they differ chiefly in the relative length of the first primary and its covert; so that, whereas the first primary may be even longer in a genus of typical Finches than in a genus of Weaving-finches, it is not apparent, owing to the greater length of the covert. It is true that the Weaving-finches build cave-like nests, whilst most typical finches build open nests; but the genus Phonipara (which has been placed by scientists in the /rizgzlide) builds like a Waxbill; whilst the species of Passer build purse-shaped nests somewhat approaching in character those of certain Grass-finches. It seems to me that the mere habit of eating fruit and the notching of the upper mandible to that end, although it may serve as a good family distinction, affords no evidence of long separation in pointof time. In the family /ctertd@ we have both fruit-eaters and seed-eaters,—Hang-nests and Troupials; but I must admit that I believe the Troupials to be indistinguish- able from true Starlings (which also eat seed voluntarily when they can get it) unless the fact that they nest on or near the ground, like some of the Buutings, be regarded as sufficiently important to warrant their separation from the hole-breeders. In like manner I doubt whether the New World Bush-creepers are distinct from the Old World Warblers, the supposed nine-primary distinction between the A/niotidtide and Sylviing being a fiction: perhaps some more learned student of ornithology among our members can suggest a reliable family difference between these birds. ARTHUR G. BUTLER, THE EASTERN NIGHTINGALE OR SPROSSER. Evithacus philomela. StR,—Will you kindly let me know if there is a bird known by th mame of the ‘“ Nightingale Thrush” ? 197 In answer to enquiries from a man who has advertised one, he writes, “The Nightingale Thrush is a smaller bird than the ordinary Song Thrush, and considered a superior songster.”” I want to know if this bird is a distinct species or variety, or whether it is only a small specimen of the Song Thrush, and whether it has a different song from the latter, C. HaRRISON. The following reply was sent to Mr. Harrison :— “Nightingale Thrush,” or rather ‘‘Thrush Nightingale,” is am out-of-date name for a bird which is usually called in this country “ The Greater Nightingale; ” but ‘“‘ Eastern Nightingale” is a better name, our own bird being the Western Nightingale; it is now often known by the handy German name of Sprosser. If you will refer to the lower part of page 33 of the current volume, you will see that this species has already been referred to in our Magazine ;—and you will also please observe that it is not every Nightingale which has been ‘‘ made in Germany” that is a Sprosser. Indeed, I am getting more and more suspicious of the gennine- ness of these imported specimens. Moreover, it seems to me that those that do come over are mostly females; with this as with other species, the Germans seem to have a way of keeping the best for themselves and of sending the rubbish to this country—to be disposed of at absurd prices. I have often found it exceedingly difficult to distinguish the Sprosser from our) Nightingale. It is true that the breast is sometimes mottled, but then so is that of the Nightingale: I think it is in the spring that the mottling comes out so strongly. In the Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. no mention whatever is made of mottles or spots on the breast of the Sprosser: the account is, ‘‘This species differs from the preceding (the Nightingale) in being generally less russet in colour (nore olive), especially on the upper tail-coverts, in having a smaller bastard primary, a more pointed wing, and in being a somewhat larger bird.” Mr. Howard Saunders specially refers to the “minute bastard primary” as a distinguishing mark. A German writer (Brelim) states that the Sprosser is stouter and about three-fourths of an inch longer than the Nightingale, and that the upper breast is cloudy speckled. The song is stated to be more powerful but less melodious than that of our bird. It is stated by some, even quite recently, that the Sprosser has been occasionally met with in this country; but this is discredited by modern scientists, who have laid down the law that the bird must not appear farther west than the Rhine valley—but birds do not always regard the laws of the learned. ‘The Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. says, ‘‘The Eastern Nightingale breeds in Eastern Europe, rarely straying into the valley of the Rhine, extending northwards into South Sweden and Central Russia, and eastwards into Asia Minor, Northern Turkestan, and South- western Siberia. It passes through North-eastern Africa on migration, and doubtless winters somewhere in the interior.” It will be seen from the foregoing that the Thrush Nightingale must not be compared with the British Thrush but with our familiar Nightingale. Even the old scientific name Philomela turdoides (Thrush-like Nightingale) has long been discarded along with the English one. REGINALD PHILLIPPS. 198 SNOWY OWLS. Srr,—It may interest you to hear that a pair of Snowy Owls, which ~were brought to me from Norway by a friend in 1891, have this summer (for the first time) nested, and now have two fine young ones half grown. Except the late Mr. E. Fountaine (Norfolk) I do not think anybody has reared young of this Owl to maturity: although Mr. Meade-Waldo and the late Lord Lilford had young ones hatched in their collections. I have reared one voung Eider Duck. There were three strong young ones, but two succumbed to the heat one sultry day. W. H. ST. QUINTIN. PEKIN ROBINS. Srr,—Will Dr. Butler kindly tell us what the twenty-four eggs and five or six young ones were, which he alleges his Pekin Robins devoured ?(d) My Virginians have again a nest of eggs fully exposed to depredation, and the Pekins never take any notice of them. C. D. FARRAR. 4Ns0a, SIOORAY 2B IBURORON. Srr,—Mr. Dutton is surprised to hear of an Alexandrine being, in any sense, the “ ideal’? Parrot. I have not his wide experience of Parrots, put as far as my limited knowledge goes, every rule with regard to them seems to bristle with exceptions. I mean, of course, especially with regard to their powers of intelligence as shown by their tameness and acquisition of speech. “Tony” was a cock bird, a very beautiful specimen of his kind, and in all respects a perfectly unique creature. I trained him to be clean by means of a little stand, fourteen inches high, upon which I used to place tim at intervals. He very soon learned to know why he was removed from my shoulder or lap, and it was comical to see him nodding his head when, the object of his removal being accomplished, he was ready to come back. Of course I always watched him when he was on a visitor, and I knew by his movements when he wanted to come away, especially as he never refused to come when it was necessary, although stoutly declining when it was not. But I may mention that, even before this training began, I never once knew him misbehave when sitting on a gentleman, aud only once when on a lady. His extreme tameness was the indirect cause of his death, which was prought about by his being accustomed to eat all sorts of things which were neither natural nor wholesome. He had done so before I had him, and, being ignorant through inexperience, I unfortunately allowed this to continue, and so lost a bird which I would not have parted with for a thousand pounds. A post-mortem revealed the cause of death to be in- (@) The twenty-four eggs were those of Java Sparrows and Saffron Finches ; the young birds were of the latter species. Mr. Farrar need not use the word ‘alleges’: the fact was repeatedly pointed out to me by my man, and I saw the Zzv¢A77x enter the nests, bring out both eggs aud young aud devour them : the nest-boxes were exaniined every week, o that we knew exactly how many we lost.—A. G. B. 199 digestion and congestion of the liver. I never expect to see another bird to equal ‘*‘’Tony,” and I think that if Mr. Dutton had seen him he would hhave agreed with me that he was certainly an ‘‘ideal’’ Parrot. © ©. Conrier. PARROT FINCHES. S1r,—I bought a pair of Parrot Finches in January last, and on the rith April put them into a waggon-cage to see whether they would breed. This morning (2Ist May) a broken egg was on the sand-tray. (e) I should not have troubled you with this letter, but when the egg was opened to see whether it was fertile, to my surprise there were two chicks inside, one slightly larger than the other. For years any number of Zebra Finches bred with me, but never a ease of a double-yolked egg. I know fowls occasionally lay them; and a man who kept Canaries in this neighbourhood gave an account in the local paper, about two years ago, of having five birds from four eggs; (/) but I cannot recollect any mention made in the Avicultural Magazine of a Similar case happening to foreign Birds. It would be of interest if any of our Members could mention having the like experience, and, if so, whether the birds lived. W. JT. CarTLEUGH. S1r,—This spring I started with four Parrot Finches (sexes doubtful); and several nests were built and eggs laid; but my aviary is far too crowded, and nests and eggs were destroyed by other birds. ‘The Parrot Finches made no attempts to defend their uests, the hen flying off at the approach of any tiny bird; practically their time is given up to fighting amongst theniselves and hunting one another all over the aviary. At first the nests were all ‘‘independent”’ nests, built less than four feet from the ground, small, compact, and neat; but all the Jater nests have been built in boxes and high up. The last nest which I know of (perhaps there is another missing hen now sitting) was in a box just under the centre of the roof of the aviary, in full view: and on the rst of August the hen flew down close to me with excreta in her bill—which seenis strange for a Parrot Finch. Since that date the young from this nest have been in hiding somewhere at the back, and quite out of sight, but often distinctly heard. Yesterday I thought I saw an unusual number of Parrot Finches, and to-day (16th) I saw a flock of five, two being apparently young birds. My Parrot Finches have nested so very freely and perseveringly that, under favourable circunistances, there ought uot to be any difficulty whatever in breeding them. REGINALD PHILIPPS. (e) From subsequent letters we learn that one young Parrot Finch was hatched by Mr. Catleugh’s birds, and lived for about a week. Several of our niembers are this year trying to breed this charming species. So far Mr. St. Quintin and Mr. Phillipps are the only members of whose success we have heard this season.—Ep. (7) Two or three years ago I recorded the fact that I reared two Canaries from one egg.—aA. G. B. : 200 NOTES ON THE NESTING OF THE CHINESE QUAIL S1r,—I am not aware that any of the ‘‘ Painted”? Quails have bee bred in England; I had hoped to be able to record the fact of having bred the common species, 4. chinensis, myself, but unfortunately one of those slips twixt the cup and lip, which so often happen with aviculturists, has prevented my success, although I now possess, preserved in spirits, some genuine young Chinese Quails, which never lived to break the shell. A number of eggs were laid by my Quails last winter when they were in an indoor aviary, but besides the time of year being adverse to the rearing of young birds, the aviary was too crowded for any hope of success and no attempt was made to incubate; the eggs being, in fact, laid in different. places. In April the Quails were put into an outdoor aviary, and very soon eggs were discovered about the floor, but no attempt at a nest was made. I obtained some thick branches and stacked them against the wall in one corner of the aviary, and behind them I placed a bunch of soft hay. Shortly after this I had to leave homie, and upon my return was glad to find that the hay had been formed into a nest, and that the hen was steadily sitting upon eight eggs. She sat very well and I quite hoped within three weeks to have a brood of young Chinese Quails, but I was to be disappointed. When the three weeks were up I thought it probable that the eggs lacked sufficient moisture and they were sprinkled with luke-warm water; but I hardly hoped for success now, as I was nearly sure the full time was passed. The hen would leave the nest when I went to sprinkle the eggs, and immediately I had finished would rush on again long before I left the aviary, a fact that is perhaps worth noting, since it has been stated that the slightest interference with the nest or eggs of this species will cause the birds to desert—still it is in all cases where foreign birds are nesting much better zzo¢ to go near the nest, whatever has been stated to the contrary. Shortly after the three weeks were up I placed the eggs in warm water and found that they all floated, and no motion was visible as it should have been had the chicks been alive. I thereupon broke one egg and found that it contained a fully developed chick, which had evidently been dead some few days. I then broke all the eight, four of which contained dead young birds, all fully developed, and apparently within about a day of hatching; they were of course covered with down, and closely resembled young partridges in colour. How it was that none hatched is not clear, but my own opinion is. that the fault lies in the concrete floor of the inner part of the aviary, upon which the nest was placed. If I ever put up another outdoor aviary I shall have the bare earth asa floor to the inner as well as the outer part, only I shall have a layer of half-inch mesh wire netting laid about six inches below the surface as a proof against ground vermin. My Chinese Quails are particularly tame, and will readily take mealwormis from the hands of those they know. The hen occasionally ‘‘crows” as well as the cock, but in a feebler voice. D. SETH-SMITH. Byicultural Magazine, BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE WING IL URL © “SOS We TiNe VOL. IV.—No. 48. All rights reserved. OCTOBER, 1898. REPORT OF Wels COUNCIL Ole Wns PHIGWETURAL SOCIETY FOR THE YEAR 1897-8. Although the increase in membership has not been so great during the past year as in the previous one, we still have to report a steady growth, somewhat exceeding that in 1895-6. Forty-five new members have been elected, and the number now on the roll is two hundred and eighty-four. It was found that the practice of issuing plates in two ‘states, black and white to ordinary members, and hand-coloured to those who paid an extra subscription, was a cause of much labour to the Hon. Secretary and to the publishers, and for various reasons undesirable. We had therefore to choose between raising the subscription sufficiently to enable coloured plates to be supplied to all members, and abandoning the plates altogether. The response to the circular issued in reference to this matter shewed that a large majority of the members was in favour of an increase in the subscription ; and we accord- ingly altered the rules by making the future annual subscription 7/6 instead of 5/-. The extra 2/6 will not fully meet the cost of the plates; and we are relying upon an expected large increase in ‘membership, and in the sale to non-members, to justify this SEC: Two of the plates issued this year were from the drawings by Mr. P. J. Smit, and all of those to appear next year have ‘been drawn by him. It was intended that half the number of the plates for next year should be drawn by Mr. FRoHAwE, but he was too busy to undertake them. 202 Two medals have been presented—to Mr. R. A. Topp for breeding the Long-tailed Grass-finch (Poephila acuticauda), and to Mr. G. EK. Bouski1, for breeding the Golden-crowned New Zealand Parrakeet (Cyanorhamphus auriceps). ‘Their success should be an encouragement to others to try to breed new species. In March, Mr. St. QUINTIN, who was elected a member of the Executive Committee at the beginning of the year, resigned, as he had to go abroad, and Mr. SETH-SMITH was chosen in his place. At the request of the R.S.P.C.A., we undertook the pre- paration of a small pamphlet on ‘‘ Birds during transit by Sea or Land”: this has been published by the R.S.P.C.A., and, we believe, extensively circulated. In this matter several members, who are not on the Council, kindly assisted. Our thanks are due to those embers who have contributed articles or letters to the Magazine. It is hoped that next year the size of the Magazine may be again somewhat increased ; and to meet this growth we shall want more matter from our coutributors. We hope that no one will wait to be asked to write, but that everyone who feels that he has any facts of interest to communicate will not hesitate to do so. Complaints are sometimes made that the Magazine devotes insufficent space to British birds, and papers upon that branch of the subject will therefore be specially acceptable. But it must be recognised that the scope for original observation is now much more restricted in the case of British than foreign species, and we can therefore hardly expect to receive as many good articles upon the former as we do upon the latter; the subject of British birds has been already so fully dealt with by many competent authors that it is, in a sense, comparatively exhausted. We shall always be glad to receive, and publish, records. of the breeding of species not often bred in captivity, and members should not be deterred from contributing such notes. by the fact that the species has been bred once or twice before. The publication of the Magazine by Messrs. BETTs and Sons, Ltd., has relieved the Secretary of a good deal of work, 203 and has led to a very considerable increase in the sale to non-members. It would be well for members to bear in mind that the Officers of the Society have no longer anything to do with the distribution of the Magazine. The Society has now been in existence for four years, and its permanent success may be regarded as assured. The position reached by the Society is due to the way in which the members have worked together for the common good; and so long as they continue as united and energetic as they have hitherto shewn themselves, we believe that the Society will continue to grow and prosper. HUBERT D. ASYLEY. REGINALD PHILLIPPS. A. G. BUTLER. DAVID SETH-SMITH. O. ERNEST CRESSWELL. C. S. SIMPSON. HORATIO R. FILLMER. W. H. ST. QUINTIN. Lucy C. D. LLEWELYN. W. SWAYSLAND. T. MARSHALL. AuG. F. WIENER. EH. G. B. MEADE-WALDO. The report is not signed by Mr. BONHOTE, in consequence of his absence from England. He is expected to return early next year. 204 THE CHINESE SPECTACLE-BIRD. Zosterops simplex, Swinh. Iv ts (Ee JOR, 1201.10), The White-eyes or Spectacle-birds are placed among the Honey-suckers by scientists; but their general aspect, their actions, and their notes resemble those of our smaller Warblers. The Chinese bird was first recognized as an undescribed species by the late Consul Robert Swinhoe in 1862, when he gave it the name of Zostervops simplex. In his ‘ Revised Catalogue of the Birds of China and its Islands,’ (P. Z. S., 1871, p. 346) he states that it is found from ‘Hainan to Wancho, and in Formosa.’ The upper surface of this bird is olive-green, the forehead, chin, throat and under tail-coverts sulphur yellow, remainder of underparts ashy white towards the centre; lores and a line running round the lower edge of the eye-ring blackish ; a ring of white feathers encircling the eye; iris amber, bill blackish ; feet leaden-gray. The sexes are much alike, but it is probable that they differ in the width of the bill; my male being alive and my female a skin, I cannot compare them. I have been unable to obtain notes as to the wild life of this species, but there is not the least doubt that it corresponds with that of other species of the genus; therefore one may safely assume that, when at liberty, Z. szmplex feeds upon the small insects which frequent the nectaries of flowers and soft berries; that it builds a neat deep cup-shaped nest in a bush and lays pale greenish or bluish eggs. Like all the Spectacle-birds Z. simplex is always on the move; its sprightly actions are extremely graceful, and the occasional flip which it gives with its wings, when running up and down its perch before leaving it, adds much to the appearance of activity which characterizes it, as also do the sharp jerky turns of its head. The shrill ¢szp fsz uttered as this Zosterops flits from one point to another, evidence its abounding health and excitable temperament; but its song, which merely consists of a short Cicada-like trill, is very rarely heard. It was formerly supposed that the White-eyes were dificult birds to keep; so they were cooped up in little Tee. y * ‘AZIS TVUYNLYN LOYXA 9 XAIdWIS SdOHALSOZ TE 205 ornamental waggon-cages, not permitted to bathe, but fed om milk-sop and grocers’ currants: of course under this treatment these, active and cleanly birds soon died, Fed in the same manner asa Tanager, a Zostervops (even when alone, as mine has long been) will live in perfect health for years; but it needs a good-sized cage and a bath. As elsewhere stated, Mr. Abrahams gave me my only pair of this species in 1893 or 1894; and the hen, which at first appeared to be the stronger bird, only survived about a year; whereas the cock bird is still in perfect health. Last year I turned in a newly-captured Gold-crest with him, hoping that he would teach the latter to feed; but, though he cuddled up to it and preened its feathers, the Gold-crest refused everything in the shape of food excepting small spiders, and only survived for twenty-four hours from the time of its. capture. I give my Zostervops my usual soft mixture consisting of stale bread-crumbs moistened with mashed potato, and mixed with Abrahams’ food, preserved yolk and ants’ cocoons, also half. an Orange or apple daily: he will not touch mealworms, but likes small flies or clethes moths when he can get them, which is extremely rarely. I hardly know when he moults, as the feathers are so gradually shed that they make no noticeable litter ; consequently, throughout the year, my bird is invariably to all appearance perfect in plumage. If oranges or soft apples are not procurable, which is not often the case, a soft pear split in half, or a few split sweet-water grapes with the pips removed, are accepted gratefully; but, as is the case with Tanagers, sweet oranges seem to be preferred to most fruits ; banana is eaten in the.absence of anything else, but Zosterops simplex seems not to appreciate this fruit as the Scarlet Tanager does. Like the Superb Tanager, he usually commences a meal with the soft mixture; but, whereas the former always selects a piece of bread for his first mouthful, the latter prefers. yolk of egg. Spectacle-birds are naturally sociable, and when at rest like to sit close to a companion, after the manner of Liothrix or Estrilda ; nevertheless a solitary life evidently does not distress them as it would other species. 206 ON CERTAIN IMPERFECTLY KNOWN POINTS IN THE HABITS AND ECONOMY OF BIRDS. Wy Je, Jeri, IA, 12S Deputy Superintendent of the Indian Museum. (Continued from page 165). ON THE USE OF THE FEET FOR PREHENSION BY CERTAIN PASSERINE BIRDS, ESPECIALLY BABBLERS. Considering the perfect organization of the feet of Passerine birds for grasping, it is somewhat astonishing that so many of them appear to have no notion of using these members for holding their food, or for transporting any object, after the manner of Birds of Prey. It would appear, however, that our common Crow (Corvus splendens) does occasionally do the latter, for I have on two or three occasions seen one flying with a stick or other nesting material in its foot, thus imitating a Kite (@). Curiously enough, Kites themselves frequently carry nesting material in their beaks, though food is carried by them aol OS TSE, Among Passerine birds other than Crows, I have seen a Brown Shrike (Lantus crisatus), in the Museum compound, ‘carry off in its foot a dragon-fly on which it was preying when disturbed ; and a King-crow (Dicrurus ater) in a large com- partment in one of the aviaries of the Aliphore Zoological ‘Gardens similarly transported a butterfly I had given it, when persecuted by other birds which wanted the insect. I have also noticed that Bhimrajs (Dissemurus paradiseus) which I have kept, when disturbed with food in their foot, will still thus retain it when shifting their position. This habit of grasping the food in one foot is just as characteristic of the Drongos as of the true Shrikes, judging from what I have seen of Diéssemurus paradiseus and Dicrurus ater ; I have even seen the latter bird apparently trying to eat something from its feet in the air. Chzbia hottentotta appears also to grasp its food with its foot when feeding, at times. I have distin@tly seen recently a Piping-crow (Gymunorhina) both grasp its food with its foot like a Shrike and put it under one foot like a Crow, in quick succession. (a) Our British Carrion Crow certainly often carries its prey in its foot. On one occasion I saw a pair carrying off even goslings in this way. The Raven commonly uses its pouch and bill—the former for food, the latter for other articles. Speaking from memory, the following have carried small birds for short distances in their foot in my aviary—The Wandering Tree-pie, and the Hunting Cissa; also probably some of three species of Blue-Pie—Uvocissa stnensis, occrpilalis, and magnivostr1s.—R. P. 207 This habit of using the foot as a hand (with the leg resting on the ground or perch) would thus seem to be common to various Shrike-like birds; but it is rather surprising to find it markedly characteristic of many of the Babblers, as I have done after studying many species in captivity (6). In the case of Crateropus canorus, Argya earlit, Garrulax leucolophus and albigularis, Pyctorhis sinensis, Lioptila capistrata, Siva cyanuroptera, Liothrix luteus, Mesia argentauris, and A¢gt- thina tiphia, this action was to be remarked, though some of these birds, at all events, frequently employ the corvine method of putting the food wzder the foot simply, and this was specially the case with Pyctorhis. Trochalopterum lineatum and a species of Zosterops I kept very seldom used their feet in feeding and Lanthocincla rufigularis and Pomatorhinus erythrogenys apparently not at all, though I thought I sawa sign of this in the last species. None of the various species of Bulbuls, however, which I have kept from time to time, have ever shown any disposition to use their feet in feeding, and in this respect Ch/oropsis also agrees with them rather than with its obviously nearer relative cE ginthina. Myiophoneus temminckit, the only member of the 4rachyp- terygine which I have been able to examine in this regard, does not seem inclined to use its foot; as indeed one would not expect it to do, seeing its manifestly close relationship to the typical Thrushes, Merula and Turdus, which in its gait and appearance it so much resembles. For the Babblers, when on the ground, generally move with quite a different action from the true Thrushes, standing less erect and progressing by more or less bounding hops only, without running asarule. But A7zgya earlit appears to be more Thrush-lke in its gait than other Babblers, though typical enough in most respects. The New Zealand Thrush /7urnagra) though somewhat resembling a Babbler in gait and tail action, does not, according to the keeper of the Western Aviary at the London Zoclogical Gardens, who watched it for me, use its foot in feeding. These differences between the Babblers and Thrushes may seem very trivial matters to insist upon, but it must be remembered that the former group is generally admitted to be a very difficult one to define, and this habit ef using the foot in feeding, like a Crow or a Shrike, will certainly differentiate most (6) Blyth, however, as quoted by Jerdon (Birds of India. vol. IV., pt. I., pp. 16 and 36,) has recorded the use of the foot in feeding by Pyctorhis sinensis and Dyyonastes szzens?s. I have alluded to the habit in some of these birds in my papers on the Theory ef Warning Coloration and Mimicry, J. A. S. B., 1895 and 1897.—F. F. 208 Babblers, large or small, from either Thrushes or Warblers, none of which, so far as I have seen, ever act in this way; and I have had opportunities of observing, besides other Thrushes and Warblers, Copsychus saularis, Cittocincla macrura, and Orthotomus sutortus, under conditions which should have made them show this action if it were habitual (c). This distinction in habit is paralleled by the fact that the Troupials, as I have observed in the case of /clerus vulgaris, though simulating the Starlings in form and the Orioles in colour, differ from both these groups in readily making use of their feet when feeding, generally in the Corvine fashion. Of course, habits of this kind may vary in allied groups even; I do not remember seeing Sparrows (Passer domesticus and montanus) ever use their foot to retain any object, as some Finches, e.g., the Canary, will do. And among Cuckoos, while the Crow-pheasant (Centropus sinensis) uses its foot like a Crow, the Guira (Guira guira) does not appear to do so, though a bird of similar habit in some respects. Nor do all Parrots even, charcteristic as the gesture is, use their feet as hands; the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus), does not do so, as far as I know. I would not, therefore, press this character too hard. But a habit certainly does seem very persistent in many cases, and the present one should, I think, be allowed a certain amount of weight, in conjunction with other characters. Curiously enough, the typical Babblers are strikingly marked off from allied groups by other peculiarities only observable in the living bird. Thus, they are usually, from Garrulax to Zosterops, remarkably and demonstratively sociable, exhibiting an intense love of company, and being given to cuddling up to and caressing other birds, including those of another species, or even group, if the latter permit. Cloropszs, however, and apparently gizthina, are not thus disposed. This social disposition, which, by the way, is less notice- able among Bulbuls, is obviously different from that of Thrushes and Warblers, and though a mental or moral character, should be allowed its due weight in considering the relationships of such difficult and closely-related groups as the Thrush-like Passeres (a). (ce) Although this may be a general habit, it is not without exceptions; for my hand-reared Missel-Thrush always used his foot as a hand to retain my finger when I was fighting him. (See ‘Brit. Birds with their Nests and Eggs,” vol. I. p. 6).—A. G. B. (Zz) I may also mention, in this connection, that I found that being confined and watched in a cage, #yvnthina tiphia and Argya ear/it did not produce “castings”? from insects given, while Cztfoccncla macrura did so.—F. F. 209 REVIEW. A Dictionary of Bird-Notes, by Chas. Louis Hett. (Jackson, Market Place, Brigg. Price 2/6.) ‘There are, we are sure, many of our members who do not coufine their study of bird-life to the occupants of cage or aviary, but delight to ramble “far from the madding crowd” and take mental notes of all the birds seen or heard; and who, amongst these students of wild nature, has not experienced great difficulty in identifying certain uncommon bird-notes? Perhaps an un- common Warbler is heard singing or chirping in a hedge or thicket, and with the greatest caution is approached ; but the bush is far too thick to admit of the slightest view being obtained : the bird drops like a stone into the densest part of the thicket, and has skulked away before the observer has had a chance of identifying it; and he is forced to the conclusion that without that ‘‘murderous weapon,” the collector's gun, it is quite impossible to identify many of the rarer species of small British birds. Or again, as he lies awake on a warm night in Spring or Autumn, he hears the notes of innumerable migrants as they fly past overhead, calling loudly to one another as they pursue their aerial course to or from their breeding quarters. How are these birds to be identified by their notes only? Mr. Hett, a well-known member of our Society, has greatly helped us in this direction by supplying us with a complete ‘‘ Dictionary ”’ of the notes of nearly every species that is accepted as ‘‘ British” by the British Ornithologists’ Union. In the opening paragraph to the preface the Author tells us that ‘‘bird-notes have been recorded, more or less, since the days of Gilbert White; but up to the present time they have never been presented to the public in the alphabetical or dictionary form.” The book before us may be said to consist of five parts, in the first of which the different Votes are given in alphabetical order, and opposite each is printed the name of the species by which that note is uttered. Of course it must be admitted that many bird-notes are quite incapable of being truthfully rendered by any combination of letters; nevertheless, the Author’s rendering of many, we might say most, of the notes is very accurate, and conveys a very clear idea of the sounds uttered by the different species. The peculiar “purring” of the Nightjar does not strike the writer as resembling chur-r-r, jarr-r-ry-r-rr ; but then it is 210 one of those sounds which the English alphabet is incapable of rendering truthfully: and we should have given the sound emitted when the bird stops “purring” and takes flight, as something like coo-o9 uttered softly, rather than as dee-dee ; but co-ic, co-ic is a very truthful rendering of the sound made frequently by the bird on the wing, probably by the male only when chasing the female. This, by the way, is the sound alluded to by Gilbert White as a “small squeak” (¢). The Author does not mention the clapping of the wings over the back which is so characteristic of this species, as well as of the Woodpigeon (C. palumbus) in the Spring. This is, of course, not a zofe but a distinet aid to identification nevertheless. The Woodpigeon is only mentioned under the misleading name of Ring-dove, by which it is absolutely unknown to many people. In the second part of the volume the names of the Species are given in alphabetical order, opposite which are printed the notes they utter. The third part consists of a ‘“‘ Glossary of popular, local and old-fashioned namies of British birds,” which will be found most useful by those who reside in remote localities where the peasants are, for the most part, unfaniiliar with the generally- accepted names of the birds. Most of us would be much puzzled if we were told that a certain bird was a *‘ Blethering Tam;” but by the aid of Mr. Hett’s book we should find that this was merely a local name for the familar Stonechat. We should probably be equally at sea if told that a certain sound was produced by a “‘ French Magpie,” but the book before us informs us that this is an appellation in some parts bestowed upon the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker. A list of birds accepted as ‘‘ British”” constitutes the fourth part of this usefui little volume. Here the names of the species are printed in orthodox order, and the scientific names ane eiven.n whe yAuthor has) we are (glad) to seewi) Blt is i BIR DS: FOR Ee BREST eh O Rok VE AVR 1819) 7/-3- President : THE HON. & REV. F. G. DUTTON. Vice=ePresidents : THE RIGHT HON. THE BARONESS BERKELEY. SIR H. S. BOYNTON, Barr. Council : THE REV. H. D. ASTLEY. Mr. R. PHILLIPPS. Mr. J. L. BONHOTE. Mr. D. SETH-SMITH. Dr. A. G. BUTLER. Dr. C. S. SIMPSON. Miss lL. C. D. LLEWELYN. Mr. W. H. St. QUINTIN. Mr. T. MARSHALL. Mr. W. SWAYSIAND. Mr. FE. G. B. MEADE-WALDO. Mr. A. F. WIENER. Erecutive Committee : Dr. A. G. BUTLER. Mr. R. PHILLIPPS. Mr. W. H. St. QUINTIN. bon. Secretary: Mr. H. R. FILLMER, 52, Ship Street, Brighton. Treasurer ; Mr. O. EK. CRESSWELI,, Morney Cross, near Hereford. SHCrurineer ; Mr. V. CASTELLAN, Hare Hall, Romford, Essex. Auditor : Mr. J. SERGEANT. Bankers : Messrs. BARCLAY & COMPANY, Limirep, Union Bank, Brighton. te diese ay TN et ili, List OF MEMBERS, Corrected to November rst, 1897. The date following the member’s name is the date of his election. ‘‘ Orig. Mem.’ signifies that the member joined the Society on its formation im October, 1894. The, asterisk denotes that the meniber belonged to the U. K. Foreign Cage Bird Society, either at the tinle of its amalgamation with the Avicultural Society or at some time before. ABRAHAMS, Mr. JOSEPH, I91 ald 192, St. George Street, London, E,. (May, 1895). * ADAMSON, Miss, Rushton Park, Battle, Sussex. (May, 1897). AGGs, Mr. H. GURNEy, Pittbrook, Dorking. (Oct., 1897). AINLEY, Mr. JOHN WILLIAM, 16, Dalton Green, Dalton, Huddersfield. ’ (June, 1895). * ALDERSON, Miss KE. M., Park House, Worksop. (April, 1896). ALLBUTY, Mrs., 24, Park Square, Leeds. (Jan., 1897). APPLEFORD, Mrs., West Hill House, Hoddesdon, Herts. (March, 1897). ARROWSMITH, Mr. ARTHUR WILLIAM, Brunswick Pier Hotel, Blackwall, E. (March, 1897). * ARTHUR, Mr. C. P., Market Place, Melkshain. (Jan., 1895). * ASHFORD, Miss GRACE, The Birks, Branksome Wood Road, Bournemouth. (Nov., 1896). ASTLEY, Rev. H. D., M.A., F.Z.S., Cheker’s Court, Butler’s Cross, S.O., Bucks. (June, 1895). * AUSTEN, Mr. ERNEST E., 104, Minet Avenue, Harlesden, N.W. (Orig. Mem.) BAKER, Mr. A. J., Westgate, Foxgrove Road, Beckenham. (April, 1895). BAKER, Mr. L. INGHAM, Eastcoat Lodge, Pinner. (Dec., 1896). BAMFORD, Miss ELLA C., St. Cuthbert Leys, Bedford. (June, 1895). * BECTIVE, The Countess of, Barnacre Lodge, Garstang. (Orig. Mem.) BELL, The Rev. Canon, D.D., Loughrigg Brow, Ambleside. (June, 1895). BENTLEY, Mr. Davin, 80, St. Hubert Street, Great Harwood, nr. Blackburn. (July, 1895). BERKELEY, The Baroness, Martin’s Heron, Bracknell, Berks. (Dec., 1894). BERTLING, Mr. A. E. L., 43, Colfe Road, Forest Hill, S.E. (April, 1895). BrETrs, Mr. W. H., F.L.S., F.Z.8., 36, Great Jamies Street, Bedford Row, W.C. (Orig. Mem.) * BLACKBURN, Miss, Dolforgan, Exmouth. (June, 1895). BLAND, Miss M. A., Kassassin, Auckland Road, Upper Norwood. (Feb., 1897). BLATHWay’, Mr. A. P., Frogmiore, Watford, Herts. (Jan., 1895). BONHOTE, Mr. J. LEWwis, Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire. (Dec., 1894) BootH, Mr. FRANK, 7, Minerva Terrace, Norwood, Beverley. (May, 1897). BOSANQUET, Mr. EHusvackE N., Steeple Ashton House, near Trowbridge. (May, 1897). BoTToMLEY, Mr. W. McC., India Buildings, Halifax. (Dec., 1894). * iv. BOUSKILL, Mr. GEORGE E., The Hollies, Buxton Road, Stockport. (April, 1896). BoyvNTON, Sir H. S., Bart., Burton Agnes, Hull. (Jan., 1895). BRIGG, Mr. SraNLEY, Hawkestone, Keighley. (Orig. Mem.) BRODIE, Mr. CHARLES, Thornton Loch, Innerwick, East Lothian. (Jan., 1896). sf BROTHERSTON, Mr. G. M., Comiston Drive, Edinburgh. (Feb., 1895). BROWNE, Miss AGNES M., 19, Rowland Gardens, London, S.W. (July, 1895). Brown, Mr. G.:A., 111, North Street, Brighton. (Orig. Mem.) BUCKLAND, Rev. A. R., 24, Guildford Street, Russell Square, London, S.W. 5 (Jan., 1895). BUCKLAND, Dr. FRANCIS O., 10, Egerton Place, London, $.W. (Dec., 1894). BULSTRODE, Mr. C. V., Hedgerley Lodge, Madingley Road, Cambridge. ; (Nov., 1896). BurRGE, Mr. SAMUEL, Ivy Cottage, Fairford. (Nov., 1896). BUTLER, Dr. A. G., F.L,S., F.Z.S., 124, Beckenham Road, Beckenham, Kent. (Orig.Mem.) * Burron, Mr. W., The Nursery, Corsham, Wilts. (March, 1897). Camps, Mr. H. T. T., F.Z.S., Linden House, Haddenham, Isle of Ely. (Orig. Mem.) * CARPMAEL, Miss, The Ivies, St. Julian’s Farm Road, West Norwood. (April, 1896). CARTER, Mr. WALTER L., Summergate Villa, Parkinson Lane, Halifax. (June, 1895). * CaRTMELL, Mr. J., 32, Vauxhall Road, Preston, Lancashire. (June, 1895). * CASTELLAN, Mr. Victor, Hare Hall, Romford, Essex. (Orig. Mem.) CaTLEUGH, Mr. W. T., Donnington Road, Newbury, Berks. (Dec., 1894). CausH, Mr. D. E., 63, Grand Parade, Brighton. (Orig. Mem.) CHAMBERLAIN, Mrs. D’EYNcCouRT, Connaught, St. John’s Wood Road, Bournemouth. (Feb., 1897). CHARRINGTON, Mrs. Mowsray, The Warren, Hever, Kent. (May, 1896). CLARKE, Mrs. CHARLES, National Training School of Cookery, 72-78,. Buckingham Palace Road, S.W. (Dec., 1894). Comyns, Mr. J. H., B.A., Oxon., Lyveden, Newton Abbot, South Devon. (Jan., 1897). Cook, Mr. FRANK, Sunny Mount, Lincoln. (Feb., 1897). CooprER, Mr. JAMES, Killerby Hall, Scarborough. (Orig. Meni.) CRAEFER, Mr. ALFRED, 6, Dyke Road, Brighton. (Dec., 1894). CREE, Miss E. J., Ingleside, Lenzie, Glasgow. (Jan. 1895). CREIGHTON, Mr., Belle Vue Street, Filey. (Sept., 1897). CRESSWELL, Mr. O. E., J.P., Morney Cross, nr. Hereford. (Orig. Mem.) CRONKSHAW, Mr. J., 85, Plantation Street, Accrington. (Dec., 1894). CUMMINGS, Mr. ALEXANDER, 16, Promenade Villas, Cheltenham. (Dec.,1896). Cusuny, Mr. CHARLES, Pain’s Hill, Cobham, Surrey. (June, 1896). DALE, Dr. F., Park Lee, Scarborough. (Dec., 1894). * DaLy, Mr. EDWARD D. H. (late Lieut., Bengal Staff Corps), Elswick House, Sandown, Isle of Wight. (Dec., 1895). DEWAR, Mr. J. F., 2, St. Patrick’s Square, Edinburgh. (Orig. Mem.) * Dopson, Miss, Lacie Court, Abingdon. (June, 1895). DoHERTY, Mr. JoHn, 18, Broderick Road, Wandsworth Common, S. W.. (June, 1896). Vv. DuNcomBe, The Hon. Mrs., The Grange, Nawton,.R.:S.O., Yorks. (April, 1897). - DUNLEATH, The Lady, Ballywalter Park, Ballywalter, co. Down. (Aug., 1897). Dutton, The Hon. and Rev. F. G., Bibury, Fairford. (Orig. Mem.) EARLY, Miss, Springfields, Banbury. (Jan., 1896). EDWARDS, Mr. VICTOR, 44, Devonshire Place, Brighton. (Dec., 1894). FARMBOROUGH, Mr. PERCY W., F.Z.S., 2, Hertford Road, Lower Edmonton. (June, 1896). * FARRAR, Mr. H. CRAWHALL, Bourn Terrace, Hartlepool. (Jaun., 1895). FARRAR, Rey. C. D., Micklefield Vicarage, South Milford, Yorks. (Jan., 1895). FILLMER, Mr. H. R., Brendon, Harrington Road, Brighton. (Orig. Meu.) * FILLMER, Mrs. W., Woodside, Harrington Road, Brighton. (Orig. Mem.) FINN, Mr. F., Indian Museum, Calcutta. (March, 1895). FISHER, The Rev. WILFRED, Parklands, Lustleigh, Newton Abbot. (Dec., 1894) Frint, Mr. J. L., 9, Donnington Square, Newbury. (Feb. 1897). FOWLER, Mr. CHARLES, 26, Broad Street, Blaenavon. (Dec., 1894). Fox, Mr. C. I. 35, Addington Street, Ranisgate, Kent. (May, 1897). FRANCIS, Mrs., The Manor House, Richmond, S.W. (June, 1896). FRANKLYN; Miss E., Speenhill Lodge, Newbury. /July, 1897). FROSTICK, Mr. JOHN, 143, Endlesham Road, Balham, S.W. (Orig. Men.) * FULLJAMES, Mr. HENRY J., 84, Sistova Road, Balham, S.W. (April, 1895). GABRIEL, Mrs. G., 32, Palace Road, Streatham Hill. (June, 1895). GIBBINS, Mr. FREDK. W., Neath, South Wales. (Oct., 1897). GIBBINS, Mr. WILLIAM B., i ttington, Stratford-on-Avon. (June, 1895). * Gipson, The Rev. THomas B., A.M., The Rectory, Ferns, co. Wexford. (Feb., 1896). GOODFELLOW, Mr. WALTER, 14, Avenue Carnot, Champs Elysée, Paris. (June, 1897). GRACE, Mr. GUSTAVE LE CARPENTIER, 24, Wood Street, Wakefield. (March, 1896). GRIFFITHS, Mr. E., Brislington House, Bristol. (Orig. Meni) Hapow, Miss ISABELLA S., Pyrcroft, Westbourne Park Road, West Bourne- mouth. (june, 1895). HALLAM, Mr. EB. G., Woodsley Villa, Minsters Road, West Brideeroral NovWameinanne (June, 1895). * HAMILTON, Mrs., Bannerdown House, Batheaston, Bath. (Feb., 1895). HAMMOND, Mrs. W. A., 2, Eaton Gardens, Hove. (Orig. Mem.) HARBOTTLE, Miss; Meadowside, Victoria, Budleigh. Salterton, Devon. (Dec., 1895). HARKER, Mr. T. P., Titchfield, Glieement Terrace, Preston, near ye oe fiesivtone. (Orig. Mem.) HARDINGE, The Hon. Lady, Le Petite Maison, ‘Costie-Belle, Hytres, Var. France. (Nov., 1896). HARTLEY, Mrs., St. Helen’s Lodge, Hastings. (esol, 1897). HARRISON, Mr. C. L., Woodhayne, Honiton, Devon. (May, 1895). HARRISON, Miss Ep1TH, Waterhouse, Bath.- (Sept., 1895). : HAWTHORN, Miss EDITH, Loose Hall, Hitcham, nr. feel: Cue 1855). C Vi. HENWooD, Mr. T. E., Auricula Villa, Hainilton Road, Reading. (Dec., 1894) HEtTT, Mr. CHARLES LOuIS, Springfield, Brigg. (Jan., 1896). HITCHINS, Mr. MARTIN F., Trevarrick, St. Austell. (Jan., 1897). Hopcson, Miss, Hernewood, Sevenoaks. (Dec., 1894). * HOLMES, Miss K., 38, Lansdowne Street, Hove. (Feb., 1897). Hope, Colonel C. E., Hillside, Shanklin, Isle of Wight. (May, 1897). Hopson, Mr. F. C., Northbrook Street, Newbury. (March, 1897). Hoprwoop, Miss E. M., Eastlea, Oxford Road, Worthing. (Orig. Mem.) HouGuHton, Mr. WALTER, Lowerhead Row, Leeds. (June, 1897). HouLTon, Mr. CHARLES, Denton’s Green J,ane, St. Helens. (Feb., 1897). HOUSDEN, Mr. J. B., Brooklyn, Cator Road, Sydenham. (Orig. Mem.) ‘HOWMAN, Miss, 78, Westow Hill, Upper Norwood. (March, 1897). Hupson, Mr. A. F., 3, Hove Place, Hove. (Orig. Mem.) HucueEs, Mrs., 1, Merton Terrace, Brighton Road, Worthing. (April, 1895). HUMPHREYS, Mr. RUSSELL, Lingdale, Bickley, Kent. (April, 1896). HUSBAND, Miss, Clifton View, York. (Feb. 1896). Hurt, Mr. Henry T., 24, Cockspur Street, London, S.W. (Nov. 1895). JACKSON, Mrs., Danecourt, Parkstone, Dorset. (Orig. Mem.) JALLARD, Mr. G. H., West House, Horncastle, Lincolnshire. (Orig. Mem.) JENNISON, Mr. GEORGE, Devonport Park, Stockport. (Sept., 1897). JONES, Mr. ARTHUR, 85, Sydney Road, Homerton. (June, 1895). JONES, Mr. NoRMAN H., Glasmoor, Bridlington Quay. (Orig. Mem.) * Kinc, Mr. J. B., Annandale House, Glebe, Kilmarnoch. (Oct., 1896). KEENE, Mrs., 11, Queen’s Gate, South Kensington, S.W. (Feb., 1897). KNEEN, Mr. T. E., 92, Harrington Road, Workington. (June, 1895). * LANCASTER, Mrs., Burnside, Walsall. (August, 1897). LANDLESS, Mr. W., Portland Villa, Waterloo Road, Ashton-on-Ribble, Preston. (Dec., 1896). LASCELLES, The Hon. GERALD W., Queen’s House, Lyndhurst. (Oct., 1896). LAWRENCE, Mr. J. I., Fanciers’ Publishing Co., Worcester, Mass., U.S.A., (Oct., 1897). LAWSON, Dr. H., Chislehurst, Kent. (August, 1896). LEADBEATER, Mr. F. W., 5, Ellesmere Road, Sheffield. (Dec., 1894). LEADBETTER, Mr. RICHARD, 21, Trinity Road, Penge. (Dec., 1894). LEGH DE LEGH, Dr. H., Redcar, Yorks. (March, 1896). LENNIE, Mr. JOSEPH C., Rose Park, Trinity Road, Edinburgh. (Orig. Mem.) * LLEWELYN, Miss, 188, Earl’s Court Road, London, S.W. (Orig. Mem.) * LonG, Mrs. HuME, Dolforgan, Exmouth. (June, 1895). Lorr, Mr. W. A.,.8, Lansdowne Road, Stockwell. (Oct., 189)5. Low, Mrs., Kilshane, Tipperary, Ireland. (Feb., 1895). Lypon, Mr. A. F., 35, Northfield Road, Stamford Hill, N. (June, 1895). LYNCH, Mr. CyRIL, 45, Rua Dr. Corréa, Cattete, Rio de Janiero, Brazil. (April, 1897). Lyon, Lieut-Col. F. I. H., R.A., J.P., Harwood, Horsham. (Nov. 1894). MACKENZIE, Rev. J. W. A., Whitwick Vicarage, Leicester. (Dec., 1894). * MarsHALL, Mr. THOMAS, The Grange, 128, High. Street, Poplar, E. (Dect oot) ii Marsu, Mrs., 49, Sackville Road, Hove. (Dec., 1894). Vii. MartTIN, Mr. H. C., 16, Victoria Road, Old Charlton, S.E. (Jan., 1897). MarTIN, Mrs. WYKEHAM, Leeds Castle, Maidstone. (June, 1896). MAXWELL, Mr. C., South Lawn, 24, Acre Lane, Brixton, S.W. (Mar., 1896). MEADE-WALDO, Mr. EK. G. B., Stonewall Park, Edenbridge, Kent. (Jan., 1895). MEINERTZHAGEN, Mr. D., Mottisfont Abbey, Romsey, Hants. (Dec., 1896). _ Miris, Mrs., Husband’s Bosworth, Leicestershire. (Nov., 1895). MOERSCHELL, Mr. F., Imperial Hotel, Malvern. (June, 1895). MOoRANT, Mrs., Brockenhurst Park, Hants. (Dec., 1896). MoRSHEAD, Lady, Forest Lodge, Binfield, Bracknell, Berks. (Dec., 1894). * MORTIMER, Mrs. Wigmore, Holmwood, Surrey. (Orig.. Mem.) * MURGATROVYD, Mr. J. W., ASh Brook, Heaton, Bradford. (May, 1896). NICHOLSON, Mr. ALFRED E., 52, Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh. (Oct., 1896). * OAKEY, Mr. W., 46, High Street, Leicester. (March, 1896). * OATES, Mr. F. W., White House Farm, New Leeds, Leeds. (Oct., 1897) OLIVER, Dr. G. H., Station Road, Clayton, Bradford. (Feb., 1897). O'REILLY, Mr. NicHoras S., 9, Royal Crescent, Ramsgate, Kent. (Dec., 1894). OSBALDESTON, Mr. W., 2, St. John Street, Preston, Lancashire. (June, 1895). OSBORN, Mrs., Widcome Lodge, 15, St. Alban’s Road, Watford, Herts. (Jan., 1895). OWEN, Mr. J. A., 41, King’s Road, Brighton. (April, 1895). PaGE, Mr. WESLEY T., 6, Rylett Crescent, Shepherd’s Bush, London, W (May, 1897). PERKINS, Mr. SEPTIMUS, Woodford House, Queen’s Park Road, Brighton. (Orig. Mem.) PERRING, Mr. C. S. R., 1444, Queen Victoria Street, London, E.C. (Sept., 1895). PHILLIPpPS, Mr. R., 26, Cromwell Grove, West Kensington Park, London, W- (Orig. Mem.) * PHILLIPPS, Mrs. R., 26, Cromwell Grove, West Kensington Park, London, W. (Orig. Mem.) PHILLIPPS, Mr. ALEXANDER T. L., Alexandria, Egypt. (Dec., 1894). PHILLPOTTS, Miss CONSTANCE, 38, Lansdowne Street, Hove. | (Feb., 1897). PrKE, Mr. H. L., St. Clair, Reading. (Feb., 1895). Prrr, Dr. G. NEWTON, 15, Portland Place, W. (Dec., 1894). Prrv, Mrs., ‘The Nest, Torquay. (Dec., 1894). Poor, Mr. J. C., Carr’s Lane, Birmingham. (Orig. Meni.) PoysER, Mr. EDWIN J., F.Z.S., Dunburgh House, Geldeston, Beccles. (Aug., 1897). me PRINCE, Mr. C., 11, Pollard Lane, Bradford. (Dec., 1894). RAILTon, Mr. R. J., Brampton House, Longley Road, Tooting. (April, 1897). REID, Mrs., Funchal, Madeira. (Feb., 1895). REID, Mr. Wir.raM, 26, Fountainhall Road, Eeieoer one (Dec., 1894). RENANT, Mr. W. E., The Brambles, Elinbourne Road, Tooting coumor. S.W. (April, 1897). RETTICH, Mr. .A., Io, Nastlauses Road, Streatham Common, S.W. (July, 1895). ke, RICHARD, Mr. E., Hotel Metropole, Brighton. (Orig. Mem.) * Vili. ROBINSON, Miss H. M., The Newlands, Leamington Spa. (Orig. Mem.) ROGERS, Miss G. COXWELL, Park Gate, Cheltenham. (Dec., 1895). RopER, Dr. K. W., 86, Beckenham Road, Beckenham. (May, 1897). Rotcu, Mr. CLAUDE D., 3, Beach Lawn, Waterloo, nr. Liverpool. (June, 1897). ROTHERA, Mr. C. I., B.A., Hazlewood, Forest Grove, Nottingham. (July, 1895). , RowE, Lady, Downs Hotel, Hassocks. (Dec. 1895). Sat, Dr. E. G., 50, George Square, Edinburgh. (July, 1895). SAVAGE, Mr. A., 3, Rue Bihorel, Bihorel, Rouen, Seine Inférieure, France. (April, 1895). SAVEGE, Dr. GEO., 24, Railway Street, Beverley. (Oct., 1896). SCRIVENS, Miss, Millfield, Bexhill-on-Sea, Sussex. (July, 1895). SEAMAN, Mrs., 30, Elvaston Place, Queen’s Gate, S.W. (May, 1897). SECRETARY, The, Natural History Society, Rugby School, Rugby. (Orig. Mem.) SERGEANT, Mr. J., 10, London Street, Southport. (Orig. Mem.) * SETH-SMITH, Mr. Davin, Wilford House, 22, Shorncliffe Road, Folkestone. (Dec. 1894). SHARP, Miss, M. D., Spring Gardens, Ringwood, Hants. (Orig. Mem.) SHERBROOKE, Mrs. K., Keldholme Priory, Kirkbymoorside, Yorkshire. (March, 1897). Simpson, Dr. C. S., 2, Portland Road, Hove. (Orig. Mem.) * Simpson, Miss, 9, Earlham Grove, Wood Green, N. (April, 1895). SIVEWRIGHT, Miss H. A., The Rise, Headington Hill, Oxford. (Dec., 1895). SLATER, Mr. ARTHUR A., Windleshaw House, St. Helens. (Nov., 1894). SMART, Mr. JOHN, 12, Royal Crescent, Edinburgh. (Nov., 1894). SMITH, Mrs. A. C., Broad Street, Bungay. (Feb., 1896). * SmirH, Mr. H. B., Grangefield, Park Road South, Birkenhead. (June, 1895). * SPEED, Mr. CHARLES, Penrhyn Park, Bangor. (Dec., 1894). STAINES, Mr. E. P., 112, Woodbine Grove, Penge. (May, 1897). STANSFELD, Mr. JOHN, Dunninald; Montrose, N.B. (Dec., 1896). STOREY, Mr. J., 7, Blenheim ‘Terrace, St. John’s Wood, N.W. (Orig. Mem.) * St. QUINTIN, Mr. W. H., Scampston Hall, Riliington, York. (Orig. Mem.) STURTON-JOHNSON, Miss, Ortava House, Ore, Hastings. (May, 1897). SWAILES, Mr. GEORGE C., The Nurseries, Beverley, Yorkshire. (June, 1895). SWAYSLAND, Mr. WALTER, 184, Western Road, Brighton. (Orig. Mem.) * Tate, Mr. ALAN, 229, Allen Street, Sheffield. (June, 1897). TAYLOR, Mr. E., 22, Thornton’s Arcade, Leeds. (June, 1895). * THom, Mr. A. A., Bitkacre House, Birkacre, near Chorley. (June, 1895). * THomas, Mr. HENRY, 78, Harlow Terrace, Harrogate. (Jan., 1895). THOMASSET, Mr. BERNARD C., West Wickham, by Beckenham, Kent. (July, 1896). : THompson, Mr. ARTHUR H., St. Medard’s, Darlington. (May, 1895). THOMPSON, Mrs. WALDEGRAVE, St. Brélade’s, Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith, W. (Dec. 1895). Tuoyts, Miss E. E., Sulhamstead Park, Berkshire, (Nov., 1894). * THURSBY, Mrs., Bank Hall, Burnley. (June, 1895). * | Topp, Mr. R. A., Honeyden, Foots Cray, Kent. (June,. 1895). ix. ToPpHAM, Mr. WILLIAM, The Hill, Spondon, Derby. (Feb., 1895). * TOWNEND, Mr. Frank H., 26, Dornton Road, South Croydon, Surrey. (May, 1895). * TURNER, Mr. THomas, J.P., Cullompton, Devon. (Dec., 1895). VERRALL, Mr. CLAUDE H., Johannesburg, Streatham Common, S.W. (May, 1897). WARD, The Hon. Mrs. SOMESE’, Isle 0’ Valla House, Downpatrick, Ireland. (August, 1897). WELLS, Mr. H., Colon, Chapel Road, Worthing. (Nov., 1896). WALKER, Miss Hl. K. O., Chesham, Bury, Lancashire. (Feb., 1895). WEsEB, Mr. ARTHUR W., 4, Radnor Place, Hyde Pack, London, W. (March, 1896). WHYTEHEAD, Mr. GODFREY Y., 6, Bootham Terrace, York. (April, 1897). WHYTEHEAD, Mr. T. B., Acombe House, York. (April, 1897). WIENER, Mr. Auc. F., 2, Upper Bedford Place, Russell Square, W.C. (July, 1896). WILDE, Miss, Little Gaddesden, Berkhampstead. (Dec., 1896). WILKINSON, Miss BEATRICE, End Cliffe, Manor Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham. (Dec., 1894). WILLIAMS, Dr. J. D., 93, Newport Road, Cardiff. (Feb., 1897). WILLIAMS, Mr. HowarpD, 4, Highbury Grove, London, N. (April, 1895). WILLIAMS, Mrs. LESLIE, 10, Lansdown Crescent, Bath. (Jan., 1895). WILLIAMSON, Dr. G. C., The Mount, Guildford. (Orig. Mem.) WINCHILSEA and NOTTINGHAM, The Dowager Countess of, 6, Bedford Square, London, W.C. (May, 1895). WORDSWORTH, Miss A. M., 149, King Richard’s Rd., Leicester. (April, 1895). YOUNG, Mr. J., 34, Hillfoot Street, Dunoon, N.B. (Aug., 1895). DECEASED MEMBERS. 1894. Lady MacpDONALD. (Orig. Mem.) 1895. Mr. H. Holtoway. (July, 1895). 1896. Mr. ROBERT DasHwoop. (Orig. Mem.) * Mr. H. C. GREAME. (June, 1895). The Honble. Marrourra MILLES. (Dec., 1894). 1897. Mr. HENRY ERSKINE ALLON, M.A. (Feb., 1895). Mr. WILLIAM THOMPSON. (May, 1897). RULES OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY. I.—The name of the Society shall be ‘THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY,” and its object shall be the study of Foreign and British Birds. Poultry, Pigeons and Canaries shall be outside the scope of the Society. 2.—The officers of the Society shall be elected annually by the mem- bers in manner hereinafter provided, and shall consist of a President, one or more Vice-Presidents, a Treasurer, a Secretary, an Auditor, a Scrutineer, and a Council of twelve members. The Secretary and Treasurer shall be ex officio members of the Council. 3.—Each member shall pay an annual subscription of 5/-, to be due and payable in advance on the ist of November in each year. New members shall pay an entrance fee of 2/6. Any member whose subscription or entrance fee shall be four months overdue shall cease to be a member of the Society, and notice of his having ceased to be a member, and of the cause, shall be inserted in the Magazine. 4.—New members shall be proposed in writing ; and the name and address of every person thus proposed, with the name of the member proposing him, shall be published in the next issue of the Magazine. Unless the candidate shall, within two weeks after the publication of his name in the Magazine, be objected to by at least two members, he shall be deenied to be duly elected. If five inembers shall lodge with the Secretary objections to any candidate he shall not be elected, but the signatures to the signed objections must be verified by the Scrutineer. If two or more members (but less than five) shall object to any candidate, the Secretary shall announce in the next number of the Magazine that such objections have been lodged (but shall not disclose the names of the objectors), and shall request the members to vote upon the question of the election of such candidate. Members shall record their votes in sealed letters addressed to the Scrutineer, and a candidate shall not be elected unless two-thirds of the votes recorded be in his favour ; nor shall a candidate be elected if five or more votes be recorded against his election. 5.—The Magazine of the Society shall be issued on the first day of every month, and forwarded, post free, to each member. The Secretary shall have an absolute discretion as to what matter shall be published in the Magazine (subject to the control of the Council). ‘the Secretary shall refer all matters of doubt or difficulty to the Council. The decision of the majority of the Council shall be final and conclusive in all matters. 6.—The election of officers shall take place every year between the Ist and 14th of October. All candidates must be proposed by one member and seconded by another member (in writing) before they shall be eligible for election; but this shall not apply to officers willing to stand for re-election to the same office. All such proposals which have been duly seconded niust be sent to the Secretary before the 14th of September. ‘Tle Secretary shall prepare a voting paper containing a list of the candidates, showing the xi. offices for which they are respectively seeking election or re-election, and shall send a copy of such voting paper to eaclh member of the Society with the October number of the Magazine. Hach member shall make a cross (X) opposite the names of those for whom he desires to vote, and shall sign the voting paper at the foot, and send it to the Scrutineer in a sealed envelope, before the 14th of OGober. The Scrutineer shall prepare a written return of the officers elected, showing the number of the votes recorded for each candidate, aud send/it to the Secretary before the 21st of October, for publication in the November nnmber of the Magazine. In the event of an’ equality of votes, the President shall have a casting vote. 7.—It shall be lawful for the Council to delegate any of their powers “ to a Committee of not less than three. 8.—The Council (but not a Comunittee of the Council) shall have power to alter and add to the Rules, from time to time, in any matner they amiay think fit. 9.—The Council shall have power to expel any miember from the ‘Society at any time, without assigning any reason. 1o.—All members intending to resign their membership at the end of the current year of the Society shall give notice of their intention to the Secretary before the 14th October, and all members who do not so give notice shall continue to be members for the year following, and shall be liable for their subscriptions accordingly. I1.— Neither the office of Scrutineer nor the office of Auditor shall be held for two consecutive years by the same person. 12.—The Scrutineer shall not reveal to any person how any member ‘Shall have voted. 13.—If any office shall become vacant at any time, other than at the end of the Society’s year, the Council shall have power to nominate any member of the Society to fill the vacancy until the expiration of the then eurrent year. Ril. In consequence of the Audit of the accounts not being yet conipleted the Balance Sheet for the year 1896-7 is held over till next month. The balance in hand is believed to be £2 17s. 1od., but this amount is subject to correction by the Auditor. 28th OCTOBER, 1897. INDEX TO SUBJECTS. PAGE African Fire-finch 212 African Silverbill 50 Age of Cage-birds ae 100 Alexandri ine Parrakeet ... 152, 198 All Green Parrakeet Seat: Amazon, Yellow-fronted . 184 Antipodes Island Parrakeet 145 Armitiana (Poephila) 188 ad tropygialis (Poephila) 188 Australian Crested Dove IOQLr Australian Fire-finch 5 Aviaries 16 Aviary Notes 109 dAvicultural Magazine sent to Libraries .. ae 165 Avicultural Small-Talk 15 Barbary Dove, aged 23 17 Beautiful Grassfinch 187 Bechstein’s Cockatoo 146 Bird Calls 38 Bird-room Appliances con | OY) Bird Shows ee SEG Ir7, 118 Bird’s Wing, A ... EL LOL Blackbird, ‘Colour of Bill . 18 Black Cockatoo... 94 Bleeding-heart Pigeon ae EO? Blood-stained Cockatoo |. 94, 146 Blue and Yellow Macaw Seo rs Blue Grosbeak 5 Bluethroat 333 Bread for Soft-billed Birds 75 Breeding in an Outdoor Aviary coo | AIG) Breeding Insectivorous Birds 116, 137 Breeding Results for eye 57 British Bird-calls Fe 20 British Bird Notes 167 British Birds at the Aquarium 30 » Palace 79 Bronzed Drongo.. ; 19 Bronze Mannikin 50 Bronze-necked Dove ifs qee5 Bronze-wiuged Parrot ies 93, 146 Bronze-winged Pigeon ob ah ** Brooklyn,’’ A Visit to 144 Brotogerys, Lhe Genus 17 Bulbuls 36 Buntings, Some Rare 43 Bush-creepers 190 Cactus Conure 176 Cages v. Aviaries 49 Calenas nicobarica a 192 Canary-winged Parr akeet 18 Cardinal Hybrids ELS Cassidtx orvztvora sae 100, 120 Chalcophaps : auf = 192 Cherry Finches Breeding Be 168 Chestnut Finch . 50 Chiff-chaff eh 4 Chinese Quail ... do I, 200, 21I Chinese Spectacle-bird ... 204, 211 Conservatory for Aviary Ye 8 Conures 366 Hee 173, 175 Corncrake be se) SHS Crimson Finch ... 5 Crossbills 212 Crystal Palace ‘Show Schedule 74 Dacnis Cayana ... 16 Dealers’ Names for Birds ... 49, 69, 95 PAGE: Dhyal Bird & II2, 117, 118, 148: Double-yolked Eg gs Pn EELOO: Dove, Australian “Crested .. LOI 90 Barbary . cae Soil Cay Pe Bronze-necked on3 papal a Necklaced sat pop | BA 3 Pearl-necked 24 Doves, Confusion in Naming Foreign 50 99 Courting Postures of. Soo | HOE 99 Nomenclature of Foreign ... 40 3 at the Palace nee ee OS Drongo, Bronzed Sts poo WMG) Dufresne’s Waxbill tee 500 Wp Se Eastern Nightingale 33, 196 Family Characters in Birds LOO Feet, Position of, in Flight PeeELOs Finches pon MOIS Fire-finch, African Gh noo | ORB Fire- finch, Australian ees 2s 5 Food for Soft-billed Birds AO}, 2p Wty Oi Wig, sles UA), wWof), suls}re Foreign Bird Exhibitors’ league ... 134 Foreign Bird Notes 59, 70 Foreign Birds at the Aquari ium Bee ey Foreign Birds at the Palace 83, 86 ay) ingrllide : At Pe LOO: (Mr. ) Fulljames’ ‘Birds site peo HAE Ganga Cockatoo aie 34, 182 Geopelia fee 606 sag MG)IE Golden Conure ... 173, 175, Golden-crowned Parrakeet 45) 77) 135 Golden-fronted Parrakeet ELS) Golden-shouldered Parrakeet ago, aye} Goldfinch, The ... ai eos 9 Gouldian Finches ag 135, 187 Grasshopper Warbler noo LO Great Green Macaw Se coo Greater Nightingale 33, 190° Gree Avadavat 57, 70 Green Food, Wet and Frosted cco LG) Grosbeak, Blue 000 aac O00 5 Guttural Finch ae 7) 20 Hang-nests wee saa ROSS Hawk-headed Parrot ae ooo ae Hill-Mynahs .. LOS Himalayan Whistling ‘Thrush op HKG) Hoopoes . a0 | ae, House Sparrow ... 5a0 LOS! Hyacinthine Macaw d60 23, 94, 145 Hybrid Cardinals : eeLoO! Hygienic Fountain, Jones? ooo 187/ Icteride =. 196: Ideal Parrot, The 2i, 93 152, wee noe Illiger’s Macaw.. 64, 05. Jacarini Finch ... aa BD 6 Java Sparrow, Grey WA, 277 I. and P. O. Society’s Enlubision 30, 34 Lined Fiuch BD ga0 5 Lineolated Parrakeet ae LAS Linnet 20, 167 “Little Sparrow ” Bunting Sepa a Long-tailed Grassfinch 57, 187 xiv. INDEX TO SUBJECTS—continued, PAGE Macaws 600 5e0 22, 63 Magpies 600 Lou Mannikin, Bronze Bae : ooo ay Magpie Bae ues 6 Pied ae pobaree sata Masked Grassfinch Sete 170, 187 Metallic Blackbird Ban semnnet) Manrotiltide oh nop Gf) Moorhens, Semi- domesticated 27, 51 Mynahs As can 137, 183 Nature, Balance of Let LO Necklaced Dove, Breeding of the ... 24 Nesting Material Be is 8 ' “New Zealand Parrakeet ane Lor Nightingale vai PeerT O77 Nightingale, Fastern or Greater 33, 190 Nightingale ‘Thrush dag | xG\o) Nightingale in Lancashire. wee) E57. Nightingales and Berries I50, 167 Nightjar ... 168 Nomenclature of Foreign ‘Doves 40, 50 Notes on my Birds, Further ae 5 On Certain Points in the Habits of Birds— I. On the Position of feet in Flight ; 163 II. On the Use of the Feet for Prehension ZOO ‘Opaline Pigeon . Serle Orange- -flanked Parrakeet 17, 18 -Ornamented Lorikeet Bae 117, 118 Palace Show se oc6 peg HAD) Parrakeets: Alexandrine as 152. 198 AllGreen ... oars Beano ianss Antipodes Island ba soe. WAG) Brotogeryvs ... Ree Seley) Canary-winged Se goo ats Golden-crowned 45» 77) 135 Golden-fronted tenets Golden-shouldered _... 500) || BEB Lineolated ... Sue Boe 2G) New Zealand a gan WOK Orange-flanked aa 17. 18 Plum-headed B56 EPL Princess of Wales’... LAO) Psephotus ... 000 bad SS} Quaker are site BOON ey) Redrump ... 30 200 UGK Red Shining ee do) AG Shining ey 900 poo HAIG Tovi wes i, pon |) ae) Tui 500 560 ats) White- -winged ae Sob! | 88) Yellow-winged aa Sen vies Ko) Parrot Finch .., bo3 een LOO) Parrot Notes goo Pity Ok, CKiy 167783 Parson Finch : 58, 187 Patagonian Conure one eT 5) Pearl-necked Dove eho noo 2A Pectoral Rail... FeO Pekin Robin, Nesting of. nob. |) Sy uf Song of 136, 177 Pekin Robins stealing eggs and young 177, 198 Pennants, The Sex of 107, 132 Phaps ... 000 306 EL 2 ‘Pheasants 6 ae 125, 142 Phonipara 300 ee Bou aie}s) Pied Mannikin ... 600 nob. MEISs Pin-tailed Nonpareil pa soo |) She) ‘Plates, Coloured aan ete TAS Plocetde ee exLOO Plum-headed Parrakeet ... ee eLLO Poephila ane dn6 dog, shy) PAGE Prices of Foreign Birds... cle ES in 1867 59 Princess of Wales’ Parrakeet 146 Protection of Birds 5 195 Psephotus Parrakeets T53 Psitiacide at the Palace go Quail, Chinese I, 200, 211 Quaker Parrakeet Pee chy) Queen of Bavaria’s Conure 173, 175 Red and Yellow Macaw 24 Red-backed Shrike 168 Reddish Finch ... oa 7 Red-eyved Ground Finch ... 43 Redrump Parrakeet I55 Red Shining Parrakeet 145 Report of the Council 201 Reviews: Lhe Feathered World Spring No. 130 * Popular Parrakeets,”’ by Dr. W. VT. GREENE 400) Ns “Song Birds,” by A. RETTICH... 193 “Lost and Vanishing Birds,’’ by CHARLES Dixon LOS “Dictionary of Bird Notes ” by Cc. LL. HETT . 209 Rock-Mynahs 008 183 Rockthrush, Blue p00 Boe Hee Pied aa 33, 116 Roller and its Food, ‘he ... 103, 122 Rufous-tailed Finch Aon noo Wey es Saffron Finch 50 St. Thomas’ Conure t: 176 Scarlet Tanager, Song of.. 188 Scientific Aviculture ae IOI, Sedge Warbler 4 Serin Finches breeding 14 Shama 67, IL2, 117, 118, 138 Shining Parrakeet ase sea 245) Silverbill, African 50 Snowy Owls 198 Soft-billed Birds, ‘British & Foreign 15 Solstritialis (Conur 25) 173 Songs of Foreign Birds 136 Sparrow ue LOS Spectacle-bird, Chinese |. 204, 211 Spix Macaw * 23, 94, 147 Spotted Young of Zurdine ... 196 Sprosser is 33, 196 Sugar-bird, Blue 10 Sugar- bird, Yellow- winged 16, 99 Sycalts arvensis . ate Hcsai) i TEI Sylviinee sine ae non 119) ‘Tanager, Chestnut-backed 159 ‘Tanagers, etc. .. Ban Soeur xe) Tanagers, The Songs of ... 46, 188 ‘Tanagers in Captivity, Uncommon... 159 Three-coloured Parrot Finches 7 Thrush Nightingale 196 Tovi Parrakeet ... 18 Towhee 43 ‘Troupials 196 Tui Parrakeet 18 LTurdide 196 Turdine 196 Turtur I9I Tympanistria 192 Violet Tanager ... 94 Virginian Cardinal, Song of 136 Warblers 196 Warblers, Smaller 2 Weaver-bird, British goo attelg} Weavers 900 IIO, 132 Weaviug- -Finches INDEX TO SUBJECTS—continued. XV. PAGE Whistling Thrush, Himalayan aya LO White-crowned Lark a a 8 White-eared Grassfinch ... 169, 185 White Jackdaw.. Aut Seely) White-throated Finch ih Bae 7 White-throated Song Sparrow Bacnumera| White-winged Parrakeet . 18 Wild Birds’ Protection Act ‘ignored. 168 WillowWren ... Bo we 3 Wing, A Bird’s ... 61 Wintering Foreign Birds in Outdoor Aviary 000 bau 95, 132 INDE XG AO DAU ORS: ASHFORD, Miss GRACE ) Breeding in an Outdoor Aviary... 49 ASTLEY, Rev. HUBERT D, F.ZS. The Indian Shama... coo OF ‘The Dhyal Bird oe vos AS} BONHOTE, J. LEWIS The Goldfinch ae 9 Semi- domesticated Moorhens ... 51 Food for Soft-billed Birds co BOUSKILL, G. E. . The Golden-crowned Parrakeet of New Zealand ... 45 Nesting of the Golden- crowned Parrakeet ie B60! 277) BURGE, SAMUEL Food for Soft-billed Birds 2 BUTLER, A. G., Ph.D. The Chinese Quail... a I The Bronzed Drongo ... SLO) ‘The Guttural Finch ... 20 Breeding of the Necklaced Dove 24 Pin-tailed Nonpareil . sO The Songs of ‘Tanagers aco US) Confusion in Naming Foreign IDOVeESTe aoe PESO. A Bird’s Wing soo | OT Bread for Soft-billed Birds nS Small Foreign Birds and Doves at the Palace 83 Food for Soft-billed Birds 34, 113 II4, 133, 166 Scientific Aviculture ... cng HONE Song of the Scarlet Tanager ... 188 On the Courting Postures of Certain Doves : so00 | HOR Family Characters in Birds ROO) Chinese Spectacle-bird _ 204 Notes on Nesting of the Chinese Quail... con ANH CATLEUGH, W. The Age Be Sige Birds «.. 100 Parrot Finches. te coo HGS) COLLIER, Miss C. 1. The ‘‘Ideal”’ Parrot ... 152, 198 PAGE: Wood Lark Singing at Night on the Wing 000 ood) |) BN Wood Warbler ... ee «. 163: Yellow-fronted Amazon ... CEL OA) Yellow-winged Parrakeet goo. eater Zebra Finch et a6 Hace st) Zenatda (Species) Sc ooo HOD Zosterops ee 204, 211 Zwarte Kivispaal a ie OOS CRAFER, A. Notes on Wild Birds ... oon WO CREIGHTON, R. Dealers’ Names for Birds poo CG) The Protection of Birds SeeLOS) CRESSWELL, O. E. Illiger’s Macaw OS) ‘The Psittacidee at the Palace... 90: Couures 200 coo HIS DuTToON, Hon. and Rev. F. G. Man, a part of Nature 300 RG) Linnets He 900 “3. 20) Cages wv, Aviaries 200 poo, ZAG) Parrot Notes Pin OB WHR Macaws 0 woo 22, 63 The ‘* Ideal » Parrot see 21, 182: Food for Soft-billed Birds 39, 72 97 A Visit to ** Brooklyn” 144 Conures So6 | GS ‘The Hawk-headed Parrot con A Ganga Cockatoo ve «6182 The Yellow-fronted Amazon ... 184 FARMBOROUGH, PERCY W., F.Z.S. Ou an Unconimon ‘lanager in Captivity see I5Q: ‘The Grasshopper Warbler v.89 FARRAR, ‘The Rev. C. D. ‘The Sex of Pennants ... 107 ‘The Nesting of the Pekin Robin | 177 Nesting of ‘the African Fire-finch 212 FILLMER, H. R. Foreign Birds at the Aquarium... 34 Some Bird-room Appliances... 47 Schedule for the Crystal Palace Show ... 74 Some Foreign Birds at the Palace 86 Dealers’ Names for Birds ee 95 Food for Soft-billed Birds 39, 56, 99 8 Ornamented Lorikeets, etc. ag The Foreign Bird Exhibitors’ League . oo Boo escy.1 The Chinese Zosterops Soo’, Dsus XVi. INDEX TO AUTHORS—continued. PAGE Finn, F., B.A., F.Z.S. ; On Certain Points in the Habits of Birds— I. Onthe Position of the Feetin Flight among Picarian Birds and IAIBEOUS 0 gos alo} II. Onthe use of Feet for Prehension noo AOS) Scientific Aviculture ... .. 105 FULLJAMES, HENRY J. Parrot Notes ... ia obo, 8} Food for Soft-billed Birds 54, 99 ‘he Golden-crowned Parrakeet = 135 HARRISON, C. Food for Soft-billed Birds OT, Hert, CHAS. LOUIS British Bird-calls Jes 20, 38 Semi-domesticated Moorhens ... 27 Dealers’ Names for Birds nog 9) Flopcson, Miss C. A. ; Tanagers, Rufous-tailed Grass- finches, and Dufresne’s Wax- pills... ue cS Hopwoop, Miss E. I. Food for Soft-billed Birds 50) SO HOULTON, CHAS. Food for Soft-billed Birds apo 1st HOUSDEN, JAMES B. Foreign Bird Notes _... oa Ge) Dealers’ Names for Birds avo = OL) HUMPHRYS, RUSSELL Food for Soft-billed Birds Pein 373 Cassidtx o7yztvora fake Leealgt 20 HUSBAND, Miss Breeding Cherry Finches EeeREOS JonES, A. Food tor Soft-billed Birds EE LO) Prices & Sougs of Foreign Birds 136 LANDLESS, W. The Nightingale in Lancashire... 157 MaRSHALL, T. j Colour of Blackbird’s Bill ah eas) British Birds at the Palace soo 9) Food for Soft-billed Birds Neon MarTIN, H. C. Our British Weaver-bird noo. stele} The Yellow-fronted Amazon ..._ 184 MASCHKE, R. Food for Soft-billed Birds noo. PAGE PaGE, WESLEY ‘T. Grey Java Sparrow... Wp 337) Wet and Frosted Green Food... 19 Wintering Foreign Birds in Out- door Aviary 4a Sle PEARSON, A. A. Ornamented Lorikeet, etc. set SLE PERKINS, SEPTIMUS Smaller Warblers as Aviary Birds 3 Food for Soft-billed Birds 98, 113, 133 149, 167, 18% PHILLIPPS, REGINALD The Genus Brotogenys ... ye aan L7, British Birds at the Aquarium ... 30 ‘She Quaker Parrakeet con AY ‘The Green Avadavat ... ooo | 8) Zwarte Kivispaal ies OO ‘the Roller and its Foo 103, 121 ‘he Plum-headed Parrakeet ... 119 Gouldian Finches pias e185 Breeding Insectivorous Birds... 137 ‘he Golden-shouldered Parra- keet ws ay Desai The White-eared Grassfinch 169, 185 Mynahs as poo ano si Kastern Nightingale or Sprosser 196 Parrot Finches 980 soa HGS) Sr. QUINTIN, W. H. Breeding Insectivorous Birds... 116 Snowy Owls... aoa LOS SAVAGE, A. The New Zealand Parrakeet ... 161 SETH-SMITH, D. Nomenclature of Foreign Doves 40, 50 ‘The Bronze-winged Pigeon Seay Pheasants 200 125, 142 Magpies 151 Nesting of the Chinese Quail v.20 SwalLes, G. C. Serin Finches Breeding in Con- finement... dae Bee ea TuHom, A. A. Hen Pennant Parrakeets; Win- tering Birds out-of-doors ; Change of Plumage in Weavers... a00 gag 18a ‘SHOMASSET, BERNARD, C. Crossbills ... 590 goa Bue Topp, R. A. Further Notes on my Birds 09¢ 5 Some Rare Buntings ... man AR The Green Avadavat ... Mee Si7) Breeding Results for 1897 bape Gy) Wintering Foreign Birds in Out- door Aviary nee foo = IS) Aviary Notes aa ae LOO) VERRALL, C. H. Hybrid Cardinals ado OO) HL UUNCTNC AIL