^
BERK Elf*
IfBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA
Withdrawn
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
J^^^...4tr V, /^^i^
PUBLICATION OF THE ROYAL HUNGARIAN MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION
FOR
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS
CONCLUDED IN 1902;
AND
HUNGARY.
HISTORICAL SKETCH.
WRITTEN BY ORDER OF HIS EXC.
IGNATIUS DE DARAnYI,
HUNGARIAN MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
BY
OTTO HERMAN
LATE M. P.
DIRECTOR OF THE HUNG. CENTR. BUR. F. ORNITHOLOQV.
DOCUMENTS Di:PA!^T//ENT
ftPR 2G 'iS53
BUDAPEST
VICTOR HORNYANSZKY, COURT PRINTER .^lePARY
1907 NIVERS'TY 0- CAl!fO^NlA__^
CMaloaxiis for-flio!. Lfb,
f
'Budapest, fflprif, 1907.
353 .
mi
^ke ^oyaf Hungarian ^fw'sfer of
^grfcuffare
7Kr. ^Ignatius de ^ardnyi,
begs fo accept f Bis presenfaffon=copg
of fhe ^isfory of fke £fnfernafjonaf
Convention fortBeprotecfjon of ^I'rds,
wftB the regaest of kind attention.
The Royal Hungarian Minister of Agricul-
ture had caused in 1900 the large work of
Stephen Chernel de Chernelhaza on „Orni--
thologia Oeconomica" of Hungary, to be
translated into French, in order to make
accessible to the knowledge of the civilized
nations the studies of Hungary in the domain
of agricultural ornithology. As the publications
of the Hungarian State Office for Ornithology
under the direction of Mr. Otto Herman appear
also in German, the Minister now decided
to publish the History of the Convention for
the protection of Birds in English. This publi-
cation endeavours to give a description of
the present state of international protection
of birds useful to agriculture and will, it is
hoped, serve the cause of progress.
CONTENTS.
Page
Foreword 1
I. Generalia 8
Introduction 9
Birds and Nature 9
Birds and Man 20
II. Historical Part 26
Preliminaries 27
The meeting of German agriculturists and foresters, 1868 . . 32
The first steps 33
The points of Frauenfeld and Targioni Tozetti 35
International agricultural Congress, Vienna, 1873 38
Tschudi's proposal 40
Marenzeller's proposal 41
Brehm's proposal 46
Settegast's proposal 48
The Vienna Resolution 50
The ..Declaration" of 1875 52
Developments 56
The First International Ornithological Congress, 1884 . . 59
Altum's proposal 61
Palacky's proposal 64
Russ's proposal 64
Fatio's proposal 64
Borggreve's proposal 64
KermeniC's proposal 65
IV CONTENTS
Page
Instructions 66
The resolution of the Congress 66
The International Protection of Birds in Hungary 69
The Second International Ornithological Congress, 1891 . . 73
Liebe— Wangelin's Report 77
Izidor Maday's Report 83
The position of the cause in 1891 87
Baron Berlepsch on the extermination of birds in Italy ... 90
The immediate preliminaries of the International Convention 93
The invitation of the French Government, 1893 94
The representation of Hungary, 1895 96
Preliminary Conference at Vienna 96
Ditto, at Berlin 97
The International Conference at Paris 100
Members of the Conference 100
The French Schedules 104
Italian statement 110
Agreement 112
The draft of the Convention as agreed upon 113
The Association of French „Chasseurs" 114
The further progress of the Convention 117
Switzerland's demand 119
Sweden's demand 120
The Third International Ornithological Congress, 1900 ... 121
The International Agricultural Congress, 1900 121
The milliners and feather-factors of Paris 122
The Ornithologists' Resolution 122
The Convention in Hungary .... 123
The Convention in Parliament 123
The sanctioning of same 125
The text of the Convention 126
Concluding words 138
III. The Protection of Birds in Hungary 145
Economic Ornithology 152
Circular decree 155
Mammalia 155
Birds 155
CONTENTS V
Page
Comparisons 163
German Imperial Law 164
Schedule of German Federal States 165
British Acts and Schedule 169
The Future . . . . • 174
Extinction of birds 175
Berlepsch's system 175
Practical protection 175
„Birds' Day" 175
Historical synopsis 179
Index of names 185
Bird-Dictionary 199
Documents 219
Index of subjects 233
-^
§*•
EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS.
For. Min. = Austro-Hungarian Foreign Ministry.
Hung. Pres. = Hungarian Prime Ministry.
Hung. Min. Agr. = Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture.
Hung. Min. Jus. = Hungarian Ministry of Justice.
Aust. Min. Agr. = Austrian Ministry of Agriculture.
M. P. I. = Hungarian Ministry of Public Instruction.
cf = Male.
? = Female.
* =^ The birds which are asterisked, are in the shedule of the
Convention.
The other signs are explained at the head of the respective
section or chapter.
■^1
s*-
Foreword.
The „lnternational Convention" for the protection
of all birds which render service to agriculture,
concluded at Paris on March 19, 1902 was,
in conjunction with the two lists of birds forming
the appendices of the same, incorporated — as Act i
of 1906 — in the Statute Book, the „Corpus juris",
of Hungary on June 9, 1906.
The incorporation was preceded by the constitu-
tional formalities, viz: the discussion and acceptance
of the Act by both Houses of Parliament, and the
sanction of His Apostolic Majesty, The King Of
The Magyars which latter was granted on January 26,
1906.
The said incorporation forms a fitting conclusion
to the constantly changing and uneven, development
of a question which very nearly concerned and still
concerns the agricultural and forestry interests of
the States of Central Europe.
Because we have not succeeded in securing the
support of all European States: and among those
Herman: Con v. for the Prot. of Birds. 1
FOREWORD
who have kept aloof we find Italy, a State of most
extraordinary importance.
The constant decrease of birds useful to agricul-
ture, and the corresponding increase in the number
of destructive insects, called attention to the necessity
for an international convention for the protection of
the former as far back as 1868, a date contempor-
aneous with the revival of constitutionalism in Hun-
gary; and, as a result of the progress of events, the
constitutional Hungarian governments were among
the first to take the initiative, using their influence
more than once to provoke a decisive issue.
This fact in itself is sufficient to justify the deter-
mination of the constitutional Hungarian Minister
for Agriculture to publish the story of the develop-
ment of the cause, in the form of an historical sketch;
choosing the form of a sketch for the simple reason
that the documents treating of the negotiations which
have lasted for more than a generation, and are often
of a confidential nature, are as yet inaccessible. This
fact must serve as an apology for any deficiencies
of the present work, deficiencies that it is left to the
historians of a later age to supply.
The publication of this sketch was, however, impe-
rative in order to collect the moments and results
of the long protracted and often interrupted nego-
tiations and present them from a uniform point of
view: at the same time it displays the deficiencies,
thus rendering a service to the cause by pointing
FOREWORD
out what still requires to be done internationally
before a perfectly satisfactory state of things can be
attained.
Before passing on, the fact must be particularly
emphasised that the Hungarian Ministry of Agricul-
ture has, from the start, been in favour of interna-
tional protection of birds useful to agriculture, a
position which the said Ministry has consistently
maintained.
Another motive for the publication of this sketch
is found in the fact that the International Convention
in question is in organic connexion with our own
protective measures, which are of importance, nay,
more, a vital necessity, for the simple reason that our
national resources are chiefly dependent even today
on our agriculture and its branches.
Our special measures taken to protect useful birds
reached their climax at the period when the Inter-
national Convention was made law. And as, by virtue
of § 11 of the said Convention, the States that sign
the same are bound to inform each other of any
special measures they may take, such information
being conveyed to the respective quarters by the
French Government, the inclusion in this sketch of
the measures taken by our authorities is both useful
and necessary.
As far as the consummation of the work is con-
cerned, we must mention i) the decree issued on
June 19. 1906 (No. 3686) by His Excellency Mr.
1*
FOREWORD
IGNACZ Daranyi, the Royal Hung. Minister of Agri-
culture, which orders State forests to be gradually
provided with nesting- boxes, the only method for
preserving at least a part of the birds useful to
agriculture: and 2) a decree issued on April 27,
1Q06 (No. 26,120) by His Excellency Count Albert
Apponvi, Royal Hung. Minister of Public Instruction'
which orders the introduction of „Birds Days" and
,Tree Days" in the scheme of work of elementary
schools.
These two decrees certainly form a consummation.
The principle of „suum cuique" incumbent on all
historians requires us to make mention of the late
Count GVULA Andrassy, formerly Prime Minister
of Hungary, then Austrian and Hungarian Minister
for Foreign Affairs, who in his latter capacity with
much ingenuity brought about the Hungaro-Austro-
Itah'an „Dec!aration", (1875) which did great service
to the cause of international protection for birds
by giving the negotiations a positive direction.
Before closing my prefatory remarks, 1 must
express my heart-felt gratitude to His Excellency
Mr. iGNACZ Daranyi for the flattering confidence
he has reposed in me; of the officials of the
imperial and royal Austrian and Hungarian Foreign
Office to His Excellency Mr. Ladislaus MOller
(Chief of Department), to Messrs. Br. Denes Tallian
and Emil Brunner de Wattenwyl (Sectional
Councillors); of the officials of the Royal Hung.
FOREWORD
Ministry of Agriculture particularly to Mr. LORAND
Roth de Pongyelok (Sectional Councillor), Mr. Lajos
SZOMJAS (Sectional Councillor) and Mr. LorAnd
Gyory (Ministerial Secretary); finally to Mr. E. H.
Dresser, the eminent British ornithologist, to the
staff of the Tring Zoological Museum and to Mr.
TSCHUSI DE SCHMIDTHOFFEN, the eminent Austrian
ornithologist, for all the kind assistance they have
respectively afforded me.
Lillafiired, Sept. iqo6.
Otto Herman.
GENERALIA.
Introduction.
Birds and Nature.
The necessity for the organisation of an international settle-
ment of the affairs of the bird-world was dictated by extre-
mely natural causes closely bound up with the organic struc-
ture and mode of life of birds and, from a purely human
point of view, with the conceptions of utility and noxiousness.
The fact that a whole generation was required to com-
plete the convention agreed upon by a few European States,
proves that the experts of the various Stales, often the govern-
ments too, took entirely different views of the bird, judging
it from the point of view of their several conditions, which
latter, in some States, threw insuperable difficulties in the
way of an effectual arrangement. The end of all this was that,
the respective State or States being unable to subscribe to
the International Convention, the latter was signed and
accepted as binding by only a few of the States of Europe.
Strictly speaking, then, the Convention, in its effects, has
not yet been perfectly successful, for among those who have
kept aloof from the movement are States of large dimensions
and in other respects of no small importance: e. g. Russia
in the North, Italy in the South and Great Britain in the
West; though the latter, standing apart in this as in other
matters, is taking its own special measures.
10 GENERALIA
These circumstances render it imperative that we should,
before all, define birds and their significance in respect to
nature and human society; for herein lies the true vocation
and importance of the International Convention; hereby only
can we form a proper conception of the same; and hereon
depends the possibility of furthering an adequate development
of the cause.
It is not a question of treating birds from a systematic
point of view, i. e. from the point of view of descriptive
natural history, in the common acceptation of the word; we
must collect and employ all the biological observations (as
well as the conclusions to be drawn therefrom) which science
has amassed side by side with systematic formulae, and
which, from the point of view of both nature and society,
justify protection or the opposite. In a word we must treat
of the importance or significance of birds in the household
both of Nature and of Man.
The characterisation of birds from this point of view may
be briefly summed up as follows.
Without taking into consideration those genera of birds
— such as the Ostrich family, the Kivi (Apteryx) etc. — which,
though still extant, are the representatives of decadence, —
their peculiar characteristic being that they are not flyers
and are consequently limited as to the power of changing
their abode, which is, in general, considered, to be an essential
feature of a „bird", — we intend to deal with those birds
the organic structure of which includes, besides the power
of flight, i. e. ability to change their abode, a tool-like, if
we may call it so, and very multiform system of external
organs. These properties, taken collectively, produce the
extensive and intensive influence which may be summed
up as the search of birds for their food.
The means of changing the haunts is the wing, which is
BIRDS AND NATURE 11
multiform, this multiformity accounting for the variety in the
manner of flight. This latter in some cases means merely a
change of abode, e. g. in those of partridges and quails;
in others it is an essential preliminary to the acquisition of
food, e. g. in that of the swallow, which seizes its flying
prey, the insects, while in full flight. There are a whole
series of modifications between these two extremes of wing-
structure; we find birds which move only in a limited area,
their sphere of influence being equally limited; and we find
others, which migrate, according to the season, from one
zone to the other, thus exercising an influence successively
and in regular order on districts far apart from one another,
with far different climates, and bringing about the trans-
mission of bird- labour adapted to the succession of natural
phenomena.
The variety of flight due to the various v/ing-structures
creates a system of movement which enables birds to keep
in touch, as it were, with those phenomena of nature which
are indispensable to their subsistence and this system implies
the work and the effect of the same.
The structure and effect of the wing, in its relation to birds,
finds a parallel in that of the beak, this organ of birds so
wonderful in its variety. If we look at the long lists of birds,
we are met with a variety of beaks that seem to resemble a
collection of tools; even if we merely consider the phenomena
of our own climate, or the palaearctic zone.
Let us take as extremes the tiny beak of the little long-
tailed titmouse, which is smaller than a grain of rice, and
that of the spoonbill, which is large and spoonshaped :
between these two extremes we have the greatest variety of
iorms and modifications, which may be characterised as
follows: the bill of the chiff-chaff is almost as fine as a
needle and is suitable for seizing the smallest and most
12 GENERAUA
delicate insects; on tiie otiier hand tiie bill of the haw-finch
is so powerful that it breaks the hardest cherrystone with
the greatest ease ; the tip of the woodcock's bill is a borer,
which forms in reality an apparatus of touch, and when
the bird bores into the ground the apparatus like a
man's finger, enables it to trace the food buried in the
ground; whereas the beaks of birds of prey are constructed
for tearing flesh or dividing and are consequently, hooked
and hatchet-like. And the beak, just as the wing, creates a
system of work corresponding to the phenomena of nature
a system which, while providing against the extinction of
the species, by its influence helps to form extant conditions
or, in other words, takes its share of the great economy of
Nature.
And so it is with the feet of birds too. These too, by
their own organic differences, form a manifold collection of
tools, which, beginning from the foot of the threetoed ringed
plover, present the greatest variety of modifications. In this
varied collection we find the kingfisher's foot, suitable only
for perching; that of the woodpecker which is yoke-toed
(zygodactylic), presenting two toes to the front and two
to the rear, a formation that enables the woodpecker to
climb perpendicular or inclined ;^trees; that of the nu-
thatch which enables the bird to climb up perpendicular
or inclined trees and the branches of the same, even in
an inverted position; that of the swift, the most perfect
example of the „crab foot", which is only suitable for enabling
the bird to remain in perfect security upon perpendicular
surfaces, the claws being as sharp as needles; final those of
birds of prey, the claws of which are, generally speaking,
murderous instruments, the sole suitable for throttling, while
one of the toes (e. g. in the case of the owl) may be moved
backwards or forwards as required.
BIRDS AND NATURE
13
Consequently the foot, just as the beak or wing, creates
a system of work corresponding to the phenomena of nature,
which, while essential to the subsistence of each several bird,
enables its owner to contribute its due share to the work of
Nature's household.
That part of the internal organism of birds which belongs
to this introduction, viz. the digestive organs or, in other
words, the stomach, is also not uniform. On the one hand
we have the tubelike stomach which in its simplicity is
really only an enlargement of the alimentary canal or
oesophagus, on the other the muscular stomach which by
stones and gravel swallowed for the purpose actually grinds
hard food that has been slightly softened in the craw.
This multiform and varied collection of organic structures
is in itself enough to point out the variety of foods: and as
the quantity of each several food is not the same, naturally
the number of birds living on the respective foods is diverse.
Consequently a bird may be rare, common or found in large
quantities. In other words the number of individual birds
representing each species is proportionate to the quantity of
that particular food on which the species is dependent for
its subsistence; and decreases or increases in proportion as
the supply of food is deficient or copious.
The latter fact presents us with two sequences: firstly,
Nature herself, if intact, does not recognise either useful or
noxious birds, but regulates the number of individual birds
in accordance with the order and conditions of their life,
this regulation being, to use a modern term, automatic : on
the other hand, where the ordinary conditions of Nature
change, the proportion of bird species changes in accordance
with variations in the supply of nourishment.
These facts account for the continual rarety of some species
and the abundance of others; for the periodical appearance of
14 OENERALIA
some Species, their disappearance and reappearance in other
regions; they explain the existence of birds which merely migrate
from hill to valley and vice-versa, as well as of those which
remain in one place for years, changing their diet according
to the season, enduring all hardships and not departing even
in times of want; and, finally, they render intelligible the
stupendous system of „migration", a phenomenon closely
bound up with the change of the seasons, the essential point
of which is that many birds peculiar to northern regions
leave home in winter for the South and wander to our temp-
erate zone, whereas many of our feathered friends desert
us when the cold weather approaches and retire to far distant
southern climes. When spring comes, our own breeds return,
while those who hibernated with us leave for their northern
homes.
If we survey all these points, we may get a true if somewhat
hazy picture of the significance of birds as represented in
the work which neither Nature nor Man can dispense with
with impunity, the loss of which cannot be supplied by any
manner of artificial procedure.
It is particularly the life of insects and herbs that the labour
of birds is called upon to regulate. The proportions of this
labour are well illustrated, in the North, by the millions of
gulls that live on animal food; in our climate, on the other
hand, in places where human hands have but slightly or
not at all disturbed the primeval state of Nature, by the
cloud-like hosts of starlings and crows which are joined by
thousands upon thousands of smaller gregarious seed-eating
birds that prevent the over-growth of weeds.
Keen-eyed observers will discover that, to do certain forms
of labour that only birds can accomplish, birds of widely
diverse structure fly together or rather form organised, sym-
biotic labourer-bands. In our climate the most remarkable
BIRDS AND NATURE 15
combined flock is that composed of several species of tit-
mouse, nuthatches, small woodpeckers and tree-creepers,
which, keeping together, systematically clean every part of
the trees, dividing the labour in accordance with the peculiar
structure of each several bird.
Hitherto we have treated birds only in their relation to
intact Nature.
This relation changes, the moment man, in his own inter-
ests, interferes with Nature's work or, as we are wont to
say, makes Nature his slave, at the same time producing
essential changes in her progress.
By breaking up the virgin earth to sow it with cereals
or plant herbs therein; by rooting out woods to use their
trees or cultivate the territory they cover; by the regulation
or draining off of waters, thus making essential changes
in the relation of land to water — by all these and in
similar ways man changes the condition of life of plants
and animals.
By rotatory cultivation, carried out on a large scale, man
multiplies lower-grade animals, particularly insects, that are
dependent on the products of the earth, supplying them
with favourable conditions of subsistence, the natural result
of which is increase in numbers. And it is this which, from
a human point of view, involves damage, against which
man is bound to defend himself as best he can.
The surest and simplest means of defence for man to
adopt would be to restore the natural state; as, however, in
the interest of his own subsistence, he is unable to do that,
he is obliged to defend himself by measures that will ward
off or at least diminish the damage. And that means that
he must artificially replace those conditions which, by disturb-
ing the natural state, he has done away with or essentially
altered.
16
OENERAUA
If we apply this to birds alone, we can formulate the
following thesis: man must protect those birds which are of
value to his own interests and put a check on those which
are inimical to the same. By protection we mean of course
that he must allow useful birds every chance of subsistence
i. e. means of living and opportunities of increase.
If we turn our attention now to the differences in the
conditions of life of animals and vegetation due to the geo-
graphical position of the particular region and to climatic
divergencies, we shall find beyond doubt that the life of
birds and the effects produced by the same cannot be treated
from one and the same point of view.
The birds, — if we include the phenomenon of the grand
migration and consider the northern part of the Eastern Hemi-
sphere i. e. that part which falls between the Equator and
the North Pole, — occupy the territory just defined; not to
speak of those birds which entend their migrations beyond
the Equator, i. e. to the South Pole.
Broadly speaking, the higher we penetrate into the polar
regions, the fewer species of birds we meet; all the larger,
however, the quantities of each species, a fact which corre-
sponds with the simplicity and mightiness of the phenomena
of polar Nature: the nearer we approach to the Equator, the
more species of birds we find; but the appearance of any
particular species in masses becomes rarer, a fact which, in
its turn, corresponds to the complexity of natural phenomena,
among others to the vast variety (multifariousness) of lower-
grade animals and of the whole vegetable world.
Any territory lying between the Pole and the Equator
contains modifications corresponding to its situation; and the
conception of the significance of birds varies with these
modifications, for there are birds which in certain territorial
conditions are useful, in others again are noxious. To take a
BIRDS AND NATURE 17
concrete instance: the starling is undoubtedly useful in terri-
tories where animals are being bred on large pastures, for it
clears the pasture and rids the animals of their parasites,
but it is equally noxious in districts where there is intense
cultivation, or where the greatest importance is attached to
the production of bacciferous fruit. This fact proves again,
that the feeding of birds may change with the season and
surroundings or with opportunities: e. g. certain breeds of
gulls, which by their mode of life are bound to water, appear
on dry land when locusts or grasshoppers are plentiful, and
hunt for them as long as the supply lasts.
Here mention must be made of a deficiency still extant
in our knowledge of birds, i. e. that even today we have
practically no detailed knowledge concerning the food of
birds.
Inquiries in this direction were begun in the first year
of the XX century, but have been carried on only spor-
adically.^
The fact that the relation of birds to territory is so very
diverse has always rendered and still renders extremely diffi-
cult any international agreement as to the classification of
birds to be protected and those to be extirpated, i. e. useful
and noxious birds, treated by species; in fact it has often made
such an agreement impossible seeing that our knowledge on
certain points, e. g. concerning the question of food, is very
deficient. In this field there is much that is uncertain, sup-
positional or traditional, a fact which renders the formation
' At the Fourth International Ornithological Congress held in Lon-
don in 1905, Hungary was the only country that could produce any
results in this field. Inquiries are being made in Germany and Belgium.
The task is a very difficult one, but the solving of the problem is im-
portant, as it will throw extraordinary light on the significance of birds.
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. ■^
18 QENERAUA
of an opinion by experts very difficult and accounts for the
aversion or disdain that so often prevents a true conception
of birds.
Ail that is certain is that many species of birds that are
of significance in the economy of Nature and of Man, are
scarcely remarkable, because they are small and live an
obscure life; yet there are crowds of them dispersed in the
temperate zone of the E. Hemisphere, which sometimes, in
consequence of certain meteorological phenomena, flock to-
gether and may afford a conception of the mightiness of the
work they represent and imply.
Henry Gaetke, the celebrated German ornithologist,^
who for fifty years made observations of all birds that ap-
peared in Helgoland or passed over that island, writes of the
golden-crested wren, that is small and of even more delicate
structure than the wren, that one autumn it appeared in
enormous flocks: — of the flock itself the celebrated observer
writes that for days and nights these crowds of tiny birds
passed over the island in thick masses like the flakes in a
heavy snowstorm ; those in need of rest literally covered the
cliffs on the shore: there must have been millions. Under
ordinary circumstances this little bird is a stay-at-home : and,
though not at all common, it was still able to collect a flock
of those dimensions. If we consider that this little bird, as
far as we at present know, is exclusively an insect-eater
doing its work with great diligence, we may form some con-
ception of the dimensions and importance of the labour it
performs.
Before completing these introductory remarks mention
must be made of the means of propagation of birds — con-
* ,Der Vogelwart von Helgoland" ; „Die Vogelwarte Helgoland' :
these have appeared in English too.
BIRDS AND NATURE 19
fining ourselves to those living on the territory here consid-
ered. There are very few birds that lay more than once a
season. And there are but few species, if we confine ourselves
to those under special consideration here, the nests of which
are comparatively populous: some titmice have 12—18, the
quail from 10 to 16, the partridge 14—18; while the most
important insect-eaters have from 5—6 eggs.
Over against the propagation we have the elements of
extirpation, which are of three kinds. The first is part of the
economy of Nature and is represented by the natural enemies
of the birds, viz. small mammals of prey, birds of prey —
among the latter nest- robbers. The second is the catastrophe
which generally overcomes those birds of passage that are
obliged to cross the sea to reach their winter or breeding
quarters. The causes of the catastrophe are meteorological,
— famine resulting from icy-cold winters, storms, thick
fogs of long duration, which overtake the winged travellers
en route.
The above must be considered as restrictions imposed
by Nature: and, though the first element may be combated
by man's keeping down the number of the birds' natural
enemies, there is nothing to be done against the second, for
frost, storms and fogs are .iorces majeures". Yet we can
relieve the famines of winter. The comparatively insignificant
increase and the natural restrictions in the case of birds
must be set over against what birds act as restricting agents
on, — the insect world, the propagation of which is generally
a geometrical progression, and the world of vegetation with
its often peculiar development and its mass of seeds which
help to secure the existence and increase of some particular
species.
2*
20 OENERALIA
Birds and Man.
The third element of destruction is supplied by man, the
most conscious and at the same time the most pitiless of
beings.
The routes of the birds of passage from the Southern
regions of Europe right up to Moscow are inhabited by Latin,
Southern Slavs, Levantine, Turkish, Greek and South Russian
races, all of whom are ornithophages i. e. bird-eaters, whose
devices and tools for catching birds are naturally varied and
of advanced structure. There are, particularly, some nets of
gigantic proportions well fitted to the destruction of birds
in masses.
We know that in some places the destruction of birds is
on the decrease, that Spain is trying to mitigate the evil by
influencing the youth for good, and has signed the Inter-
national Convention just as France and Greece have done :
but the real improvement, if it is to come at all, is reserved
for the future. The perfection of the means of communication
has made the transport of live prey easy, a fact that has
enabled the masses of birds caught to be carried far away
to the capitals of Central Europe, thus creating an extremely
profitable branch of commerce. Consequently bird-catching
has passed beyond the Mediterranean; and, on the northern
shores of Africa it is not savages or semisavages, but Euro-
peans settled there who plant their nets to catch the bird of
passage, transporting the masses of wretched prisoners to
the continent of Europe, there to serve as delicacies on the
tables of those whose one ambition is to satisfy the cravings
of the inner man.
Even the erections raised by man for his own and his
fellows' protection claim hecatombs of birds of passage, —
we mean, of course, the lighthouses which, while guiding
BrRDS AND MAN 21
ships in their course, by their light attract the birds passing
at night, that batter in their heads by thousands against the
glass surrounding the lamps.
What masses of birds are here concerned is proved by
the figures that appeared in the publications and were men-
tioned in the discussions of the section organised ^ for the
protection of birds and the study of economic ornithology at
the Second International Ornithological Congress held at
Budapest in 1891. The numbers are as follows: According
to Prof. Vallon, in October 1890, 8829 quintals of small
birds (= 423,800 birds) passed the customs frontier at
Brescia. Among these at first were found, spotted flycatchers,
pied flycatchers, whitethroats, garden warblers, lesser white-
throats, rock pipits, great titmice and blue titmice — all
birds of the greatest value. According to another source,
from Udine, during the migratoiy season, 200,000 small
birds were despatched by rail: that makes altogether a total
of some 620,000 birds, all, according to the lists, birds of
the utmost value to agriculture. Near Montegrado, within
3 days, 14,000 swallows fell victims, and our eminent tra-
veller, Count Charles ForoAch, mentions that on the stone-
field Crao no less than three million swallows fell into the nets
of the bird-catchers. The export of quails from Egypt was
as follows; in 1887, 550,000, in 1888 it rose to 1.235,000,
while in 1889 it was 900,000, i. e. in three years a total of
2.685,000: the best markets for their consumption are London
and Paris. We have official statements from Paris that speak
of 114,000 larks. Count Salvadori, the celebrated Italian
ornithologist, has pointed out, with exact figures and state-
^ Dr. Th. Liebe unci v. Wangelin. Referat iiber den Vogelschutz.
Separatum. 1891. Izidor MAday: Ober den internat. Schutz der fiir die
Bodencultur niitzl. Vogel. Separatum. 1891.
22 GENERALIA
ment of species, that a single birdcatching apparatus (roccolo)
has in 20 years cost 135,485 small birds their lives. These
numbers are controllable; those which evade control, are still
greater. These remarks and statistics apply only to birds
meant for consumption and leave out of account altogether
those hecatombs which the world of fashion demands. To
this category belong the 400,000 pairs of lark-wings supplied
by Finland to one single fashionable shop in Paris.
These are the details which we thought fit to write by
way of introduction, for the better displaying the importance
of the bird-question. The fact that, in the course of the
discussion, no mention has been made of the humanitarian
point of view is a consequence of the nature of the case ;
for where great material interests of mankind are involved
and our point may be proved, to the exclusion of sentimen-
tality, by the force of circumstances, the latter must be
employed.
So we must place the interests of universal agriculture,
on which man's subsistence depends, face to face with the
misinterpretations of birds and their work from the point of
view of material interest and with that really senseless exter-
mination in which man indulges.
If this vast material interest is sufficient to restrict the
senseless extermination of birds, justice has been done to
the world of sentiment and to humanitarianism, to foster
which is our bounden duty and task, not only as far as birds
are concerned but in every sphere.
Both the material and the sentimental side of the question
has been done justice to by the decrees of the two Hun-
garian ministers.
The most important feature of the case however, is that the
cause of bird-protection has more need than any other of
international cooperation to bring it to a successful issue.
BIRDS AND MAN 23
And that it is high time that the affair should be settled,
is evident to everyone who is acquainted with the facts.
The phenomenon that species of birds which have from
time immemorial built their nests at certain points of certain
districts are disappearing, is becoming daily more frequent:
so also is the phenomenon that particularly birds of passage
that pass in spring never return, though the natural conditions
of the respective points have undergone no essential change.
Theonly natural explanation of thisphenomenon is thatthe species
of birds, flocking together, fall at once and without exception
into the nets of the tribe inhabiting the particular district
over which they pass, such tribe being ornithophage.
This fact seems to be proved by the Italian bird-markets,
where particular species are generally on sale in large quan-
tities simultaneously, a sign of their having come from the
same region and of having been caught in masses at the
same spot.
This fact alone justifies the question being treated as an
international one; for the nests of these unfortunate victims
were not on Italian soil. A further justification is afforded
by the fact that the ordinary movement of birds takes place
between the Northern Polar Regions and the Equator, thus
touching practically every State.
^
HISTORICAL PART.
Preliminaries.
The mighty development represented by the XIX*'' century
as contrasted with preceding ages produced the most radical
transformations in that part of our World which stands highest
in point of intellect, the States belonging to the Temperate
Zone.
The triumph of the inductive method, expressed in the
fact that man, to ease his own existence and render it more
beautiful and more comprehensive, has received or rather
forced into his service those powers which in their inmost
being he cannot conceive — I would mention merely elec-
tricity with its power of destruction, giving light, driving
and transmission, — has transformed the whole world of
reasoning and the whole material foundation on which present
society stands and is developing.
The tradition which preserved or perhaps explained the
first evidence of the power of steam, symbolised in the kettle,
the lid of which the steam of the boiling water was capable
of lifting, developed into James Watt making the power of
steam the slave of man in the form of a steam-engine, a
power that has displayed its driving force in places where,
in the opinion of older ages, no thought of such a thing
could be entertained, thus incalculably extending its sphere
28 HISTORICAL PART
of Operation. Starting from this point, only a spark of genius
was required for Fulton to invent the steamship and
Stephenson a steam carriage, thus applying the force of
steam to locomotion.
Hereby the way was prepared for the realisation of the
superfluous industrial and agricultural products on a far
vaster scale; and only a slight step was required to make the
ruling tendency the production in large quantities of all
commodities required for a conscious spread of commerce.
This tendency was accompanied by the production and
development of the means or implements, particularly the
construction of those machines so important in agriculture,
which are designed to immeasurably enhance man's power,
to replace the same with multiplied force or to render it
dispensable in so far as man has become merely the guider
and controller of the machines which do the real work
themselves.
Side by side came the brilliant and effective series of
creations destined to enhance production, with which, on
the field of agriculture, the glorious name of Liebio is most
intimately connected. A mutual and productive reaction may
be observed in the case of agriculture and, in the sphere of
its operations, of the recognition of the effects of natural
forces which has led to the most important triumphs of
mechanics, physics and chemistry.
In such circumstances it is not surprising, in fact it seems
natural, that in the XIX"' century, particularly in the most
highly developed States of Europe, there has been, and still
is, a tendency to appropriate all territory that is only slightly
adapted for agriculture, to transform any such territories as
are fit for transformation and to place them at the disposal
of intensive agriculture.
We know that the regulation of rivers has been undertaken
PRELIMINARIES 29
principally with the object of gaining territory and that this
point of view was the cause of the draining of inland seas
and marshes; further we know that in more than one place
forests and undergrowths have been sacrificed to this end.
Primitive agriculture has been gradually diminishing in
extent, in wide districts it has entirely disappeared, particul-
arly pasture and meadow husbandry; the latter, once the
„nurse of the people", is absolutely a thing of the past.
The report which the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture
in 1904 presented to Parliament, as a preliminary to the
incorporation of the International Convention for the Protection
of birds useful to Agriculture, characterises the spreading
tendency of agriculture and its results in the following words:
„The tendency pursued was to gain ever increasing
territory for agriculture strictly so called and its branches,
i. e. corngrowing, meadow cultivation, gardening, the pro-
duction of crops to be hoed and fodder etc. The greater part of
the re-gained territory was taken from water, forests or pristine
pastures; and as farming changed in great part according
to the products, not only the general aspect but the nature
of whole districts became transformed."
„The most striking and, from the point of view of eco-
nomic interest, the most sensible change v/as in the relation
between animals and the vegetable world. The equilibrium
inseparable from the primitive state of Nature took another
form not only in the new territories lately handed over to
the cultivator but indirectly in other parts also."
„The disappearance of meadows due to the regulation of
the rivers completely revolutionised the conditions of life of
the animals which formed part and parcel of them, particul-
arly the fishes and birds. The same is true of the draining
of lakes and marshlands too."
„The extermination of primeval forests and the restriction
30 HISTORICAL PART
of forestry to shorter circuits not only transformed tiie life
of insects but had an effect on the conditions of life of birds
too, particularly by depriving the birds of most value to
forestry and agriculture of opportunities of nesting, above
all by taking away the hollows."
„The intensive cultivation of the regained territory trans-
formed the conditions of life of lower-grade animals too.
As the quantity of each product increased, the number and
quantity of its enemies increased also."
„The essential point of the whole transformation, as far
as the relation between animals and the vegetable world is
concerned, may be concisely expressed as follows: the in-
creased dimensions of production naturally increased the
number of organisms living on the products, while on
the other hand the work of extermination and transfor-
mation deprived all those organisms (from the point of view
of this sketch birds), which are prime factors in the pro-
tection of the products, of chances of nesting and conse-
quently of propagating, in fact of subsistence.'"
Though this part of the report is a reflection of the state
of things in Hungary in particular, there is no doubt that a
similar state of things exists, more or less, in the other
countries of our zone: it is moreover to be taken as con-
cerned more particularly with those species of birds which
are permanent inhabitants of the respective districts, i. e. do
not depart for winter.
As for the birds of passage, the report continues as follows:
„The case of those birds useful to agriculture, which in
winter leave the temperate and northern regions to hibernate
in the districts of the torrid zone, returning only in spring,
is quite different."
,. During the departure and return they fly over various
zones, pass through many countries, and, apart from the
PRELIMINARIES 31
halts which offer opportunities of catching them in masses,
their flying in flocks tempts men to throw his catching appa-
ratuses in their way, using the victims as food and employing
their feathers for industrial i. e. commercial purposes."
„Consequently birds of passage, in certain southern coun-
tries, form periodical „popular food"; and the number of
victims that fall a prey is proportionate to the increase in
the dimensions of the catching apparatuses that grow with
the development of industry, while the perfection of the means
of transport has done much to render the realisation of the
booty easy."
„The transformation of the agricultural conditions already
referred to has also had its part in diminishing the numbers
of birds of passage, by depriving them of the requisites of
peaceful nesting."
„The place of the birds of passage that, according to the
season, wander from North to South and vice-versa, in the
order of Nature justifies the international control of this phase
of bird-protection."
It is quite natural that such a transformation of things
produced results which, in the second half of the XIX*** century,
had already made themselves felt in no small measure. Side
by side with the humanitarian, often sentimentalistic protection
of birds which was particularly prominent in Germany and
was made part and parcel of a general protection of animals,
the necessity of rational bird-protection, that had its main-
spring in the economic i. e. material interests of man, began
to make headway; this feeling was naturally most prominent
in countries where the results of conditions favourable to
birds, of which we have just made mention, had made
themselves most felt.
32 HISTORICAL PART
Meeting of German Farmers and Foresters.
The first movement was made by the German farmers
and foresters. The excessive increase of the injury done by
insects, the sensible decrease and the disappearance of birds
compelled them to raise their voices. It was they who, in
1868. 1868, after their XXVI"' General Assembly, appealed to the
Austrian and Hungarian Foreign Minister and begged him to use
his influence to persuade both the Hungarian and the Austrian
governments to join the other States in concluding an inter-
national agreement (Convention) for the protection of animals
of value to agriculture and forestry.
Both the Hungarian and Austrian Ministry, when asked,
agreed to support the request of the German farmers if
the movement was restricted to the protection of birds useful
to agriculture.
This suggestion began the movement for the international
protection of birds, which, after many vicissitudes, after
repeated revivals and decadence, has at last led to an inter-
national agreement (Convention).
But, before pursuing the historical thread of events that
can be traced back to 1868, we must, on the principle, so
incumbent on all historians, of ,,suum cuique", admit that
the idea of rational bird-protection also found its birth in
Germany. This fact is not surprising when we consider that
the Germans have, from time immemorial, been fowlers,
this passion of theirs being thrown into relief by so powerful
a Monarch as the Emperor Frederick 11, the „ crowned
fowler" (1194—1250), in his work entitled „De arte venandi
cum avibus" which contains many remarkable and still valid
theses.
This national, traditional inheritance includes the bird-
1777. protecting decree of Lippe-Detmold in 1777, that of Saxe-
THE FIRST STEPS 33
Coburg in 1809 and that of the Grand Duke of Hesse in 1809.
1837, which latter forbade the slaughter and sale of birds 1837.
— specified by name — useful to agriculture and provided
for the protection of nests and broods.
The first to treat the question on a scientific basis was
Edward Baldamus, the contemporary and friend of the great
Naumann and of the Hungarian J. Solomon Petenyi, who, at
Kothen, in 1845, presented a motion, that was „ severely 1845.
ignored",^ to the first meeting of the German Ornithological
Society. A year later, at the same place, the same motion 1846.
was laid before the committee of the Saxon Economic Soci-
eties, and was shelved.
Ten years later — in 1856 — at the second General i85d
Assembly of the German Ornithological Society, Baldamus
repeated his motion, annexing a list of the useful and destruc-
tive animals in groups: this too was unsuccessful. So it is
only the material loss following on the excessive extermination
of birds that has at last, in our days, justified the attitude
of Baldamus.
And now for the history of the International Convention.
The first steps.
Acting upon the initiative of the German farmers and
foresters and the reports of the Royal Hungarian and Imperial
Austrian Ministers of Agriculture, the Austro-Hungarian For-
eign Minister, as a preliminary step, called upon the diplo-
matic representatives of the Dual Monarchy to provide for a
friendly reception of the cause of bird- protection by the respec-
'■ LiEBE und Wangelin, Referatum, 1891. Budapest: and cf. the docu-
ments of the first International Ornithological Congress in the 1884
issue of the „Schwalbe' ; appeared in a special reprint.
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. 3
34 HISTORICAL PART
tive governments, and, where bird-catching was particularly
fashionable, to do their best to persuade the respective gov-
ernments, in the interests of their own agriculture, to restrict
the catching in masses as far as possible. This meant a
wide expansion of the question.
The reports of our Embassies were most satisfactory,
showing that the idea of bird-protection had found a favour-
able reception in almost the whole of Europe.
As far as Central Europe was concerned, the most import-
ant and at the same time most doubtful point was whether
Italy and Switzerland would approve the idea? And these
States were actually the first to make favourable statements.
As early as March 1869 the Italian Government declared
!869. its approval in principle; at the same time the Swiss Federal
Council sent in a most propitious reply, declaring that it
would be possible to persuade the Italian Canton of Tessin,
where the protection of useful birds had not been practised
and bird-catching en gros had long been the fashion, to
join the movement, provided the Italian Government agreed
to control Italian territory.
In June 1869 the French Government notified its approval,
declaring, however, that the first necessity was to secure the
support of Italy, Spain and Switzerland.
On the strength of these declarations there was every
reason to belive that the consent of the Southern States of
Europe was assured in principle.
In respect of the further steps to be taken, the Govern-
ments of Hungary and Austria, acting in concert with the
Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, came to the conclusion
that the protection of useful birds should not be provided
for by international State contracts, as proposed by the
German farmers and foresters in 1868, for the simple reason
that the conclusion of State treaties implies longwinded nego-
THE FIRST STEPS 35
tiations and that, whereas the contracting States would have
to accept the same word for word „en bloc", it might very
easily happen that the Parliament of one or other of the
States might reject one or other detail of no importance, a fact
which would frustrate the whole movement or at any rate
considerably delay the final solution.
It appeared, therefore, far more opportune to draw upi87i.
certain declarations of principles in general clauses, to be
adopted by the contracting States in the form of an agreement
— Convention — , the said States binding themselves to carry
out and enforce the protection of useful birds, as defined in
the declarations of principles, in their respective countries.
In accordance with this decision, the Swiss Federal Council,
in 1872, proposed the summoning of an international com- 1872.
mission to draft the agreement ; this proposition was seconded
by the German Government. But the Commission never met.
because the preliminary negotiations failed and the States
which were called upon to join raised many objections.
Seeing that the dearth of game in Italy made the catching
of birds in that country of prime importance as a means of
subsistence for the lower classes, a fact which was naturally
the chief obstacle to obtaining the consent of Italy to the
movement, it was considered of the first importance to take
advantage of the courtesy and goodwill displayed by the
Italian Cabinet to obtain securities that the existing or threat-
ened obstacles should be removed. To perform this delicate
task one of the most prominent zoologists of the day, Ritter
von Frauenfeld, the keeper of the Vienna Imperial Museum
(at that time the ..Naturalien Cabinet"), was sent to Florence
to try to come to an agreement on certain points with Pro-
fessor Targioni-Tozetto, the delegate of the Italian Government.
After an exhaustive treatment of the subject, the two
experts drew up the following articles :
36 HISTORICAL PART
1. The destruction in any place, in any manner and at
any time, of nests or of eggs or of broods — except
of such birds as are noxious to man or to his domestic
animals, to the crops, products and dwellings — shall be
forbidden.
2. The shooting season shall be restricted within certain
limits, the open season, with respect to customs and public
opinion, to be determined, either by law or parish admini-
stration, as lasting from Aug. 15 to February 28, i. e. from
the beginning of autumn to about the end of winter. Shooting
at any other time shall be rigorously prohibited.
3. Any kind of bird-catching with nooses, with spring-rods,
with traps, with permanent large nets (Roccolo, Roganja?),
with lime, with or without little owls, to be forbidden.
4. Licenses and special arrangements to be provided for
the hunting of wild animals (game) that are a danger to
man and his domestic animals ; in the case of services to be
rendered to science, there shall be no difficulty in obtaining
a license. In these cases there are to be no restrictions of
time or manner.
5. Special regulations shall be made for the control of
the shooting of waterfowl living on banks and marshes, the
open season to be from the beginning of spring till the end
of March.
6. The sale of nests, eggs and any kind of brood, however
acquired, during the close season, shall be prohibited.
These six articles were made the subject of exhaustive
treatment by the Imperial Austrian Ministry of Agriculture,
which made some modifications. The modified articles were
communicated to the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Agricul-
ture; after the latter had approved them, the Austro-Hungarian
Foreign office returned them to the Italian Government with
a request for their acceptance.
THE FIRST STEPS 37
The text of the six modified articles was as follows:
1. The catching and killing of noxious birds is allowed
at all times.
Other birds may not be caught or killed from the 1^* of
March to the 15*'' of September of any year.
2. The destruction or taking of the nests and eggs
of birds living wild (except those of noxious birds) is for-
bidden.
3. The catching of birds with nooses (au lacet), with spring-
rod (au largon), with traps (au trebuchet), with permanent large
nets (aux grands filets) e. g. with the Roccolo, Roganja or
Paretaio, particularly with the quail-catching nets, with bird-
lime (a la glu), with or without little owls (avec ou sans
chouette) is prohibited.
4. The employment of insect-eating birds as decoys is
forbidden even in permissible methods of bird-catching.
5. For catching or killing for scientific purposes ex-
emption from the general regulations is permissible only on
special request being made.
6. The sale of live or dead birds during the close season
is forbidden.
These articles were received with much hesitation in
Italy, and all good intentions of the Italian Government
were in vain ; the feelings of distaste were unconquerable.
The prohibition of the permanent large nets, so well
adapted for the capture of birds in masses, excited particular
disfavour.
38 HISTORICAL PART
The Internationa! Economic Congress at Vienna, 1873.
Negotiations were still proceeding when the World's Exhi-
bition of 1873 opened at Vienna, providing an opportunity
1873. for the holding of International Congresses of various branches.
These brilliant gatherings of experts included the International
Agricultural Congress that met in Vienna on September 19'^
and, sitting till the 23'"'' of the same month in the presence
of many of the first authorities, treated as of prime import-
ance the following question : ^
„What measures are required for the protection of
useful birds?"
The first speaker was no less important a man than
Dr. TscHUDi, the legate at Vienna of the Swiss Federal
Council and a deservedly famous natural historian, who, in
the course of his scholarly lecture, warmly advocated the
protection of useful birds. Similar resolutions, though differing
in points of detail, were proffered by Alfred Brehm of
Berlin, Blomeyer of Leipsic, Settegast of Proskau (all Ger-
mans), Alexander Middendorff of Russia, and Marenzeller
of Austria, etc.
The Congress met under the presidency of John Ritter
DE Chlumetzky (today be is Baron), the then Austrian
Minister of Agriculture. Vice-Presidents were M. Boitel,
Controller of Agriculture, of Paris, A. Maltzan. hereditary
Chief Chamberlain, of Berlin, Wesniakoff, State Councillor,
of St. Petersburg, and Count Francis Zichy, P. C. of
Budapest
The first meeting was held on Sept. 19. 1873; its subject
the protection of birds, the first speaker, as already menti-
' Compiled on the basis of the ^Resume des deliberations et deci-
sions du premier Congres international agricole etforestier". Vienne 1874.
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIENNA, 187.i. 39
oned, being Dr. Frederick Tschudi. The main features of
iiis lecture were as follows :
it were very desirable to come to an agreement concerning
the protection of birds and he hoped they would do so.
His conviction was that every useful bird was to be afforded
special protection with the exception of those already pro-
tected by the Game Laws. The latter, however, were not
quite satisfactory in their regulations concerning shooting :
e. g. in the case of the woodcock, the shooting of which
was allowed in spring, a time when the greatest forbearance
ought to be shown it, or of the willow grouse, the shooting
of which was allowed just at pairing time.
We ought to know which are the birds protected by
Game Laws; but in this respect neither the laws of the
various States nor the handbooks offer any enlightenment,
in particular the regulations concerning „small birds" were
of such a type that they might be referred to all species.
Every year millions of little birds, of great value to agri-
culture, wandered into the stomachs of gourmets.
Consequently the first duty were to decide which birds
might be hunted for?
The speaker proposed the formation of an international
committee, whose resolutions might serve as a basis for the
Parliaments of the several countries. This committee could
compile a list of useful birds, employing the Latin names.
It must be remarked, however, that the views concerning
many species were divergent, e. g. in the cases of sparrows
and starlings, which species, in the nesting season, consumed
insects and so made good a hundredfold all the damage
caused by them in the fields.
The speaker's opinion was that above all insect-eaters
ought to absolutely protected against sportsmen and bird-
catchers. Of course these species included the favourite song-
40 HISTORICAL PART
birds; but bird-fanciers could make good their loss by
having recourse to the not purely insect-eating species of
Southern climes.
Those birds that were not exclusively insect-eaters should
be protected by the introduction of a close season.
The best plan would be to fix the open season as lasting
from September 1^* till the end of February, with possible
extension till the P^ of April.
Bird-catchers should be forbidden to use tools which
break or kill the birds, that the useful ones might be picked
out and set free.
But not only the birds, broods too must be defended.
There should be a control over the markets. The de-
struction of harmful birds should be entrusted to sportsmen
or officials.
Collections made for scientific purposes could be allowed
by special license. Special importance should be attached to
imparting a knowledge of the various species in the elemen-
tary schools.
TscHUDi's motion was the following:
I. The birds included in the Game Laws should be ex-
cluded from the agreement, seeing that they were a
priori defended by the Game and Special Laws of the
various countries.
II. An international committee should be formed, to com-
pile a list of birds included in the Game Laws as well
as of those not included in either Game Laws or
handbooks and in general styled „little birds": the
expert members of the Committee should define these
birds and point out which of them could be hunted
after or shot.
III. The Committee should compile a list of birds useful
to agriculture and forestry, giving their Latin names
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIENNA, U<73. 41
too; this list to be included in the agreement (con-
vention).
IV. The shooting or catching of any bird living exclusively
on insects should be absolutely forbidden.
V. As for birds which live on seeds as well as insects,
and are therefore of less value, there should be per-
mission to shoot them from Sept. 1'^ till the end of
February. Strand and water birds should be protected
by a close season lasting till the end of March.
VI. Catching with nooses, traps, permanent nets (Roccolo,
Bagnaja[?|) and bird lime should be prohibited. Later
on it could be decided with what instruments catching
could be permitted without injuring the birds, thus
rendering feasible the selecting and setting free of
useful birds.
VII. The destruction of nests as well as the taking of broods
and nestlings should be prohibited.
VIII. Trade in birds living exclusively on insects, whether
dead or alive, should be forbidden at any time: the
same rule to hold good for the other birds, except
during the open season. To ensure this being carried
out, a stricter control of the markets should be set on
foot. The prohibition to include not merely the birds
but their nests and broods as well.
IX. The destruction of noxious birds should be entrusted
to sportsmen and to persons appointed by the autho-
rities. Licenses for collections made in the interest of
science to be given to certain persons.
Marenzeller (of Vienna) approved of the idea of the
Convention: but pointed out that whether the Convention
could fulfil its purpose depended on the attitude of the
Southern States. He considered that every bird ought not to
included, and that an absolute prohibition of shooting was
42 HISTORICAL PART
not advisable, for in that case it was possible that the
Southern States would not accept the Convention. Further it
was not advisable to disturb to too great an extent the har-
mony of the existing laws; it was not expedient to lay hands
on the Game Laws, for in this respect very diverse measures
were in force in the different States, while in some States
the question of fowling was regulated not by the Game
Laws but by special legislation.
Consequently the Convention should include the following
points :
1. The destruction or catching of those insect-eating birds
to be included in a list to be compiled should be abso-
lutely prohibited.
2. The catching or shooting, except in breeding times, of
those birds which live on insects and seeds and are
therefore of less value to agriculture, should be permitted.
3. The destruction and extermination of the nests, broods
and nestlings of birds known to be useful should be for-
bidden. A list of noxious birds should also be compiled.
4. Of the methods of catching, bird-lime, snares and every
form of trap should be prohibited.
In support of his motion, the speaker maintained that
birds were killed either for sport or for consumption; but
even if both points of view were admissible, insect-eaters
could be made an exception of. For, whereas seed-eaters fly
in large flocks and consequently offer bird-catchers plenty of
material, insect-eaters only form small groups and are, con-
sequently, catchable only in small quantities: they are, there-
fore, of less importance than seed-eaters even from the point
of view of consumption.^
^ Italian goimiiets, however, make sharp distinctions between insect-
eaters and esteem a dish of warblers above any other species. 0. H.
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIENNA, 1S7:^. 43
The lists should include not merely the scientific but also
the popular names.
The useful and the noxious birds should be included in
two separate lists, for a comparison of the two lists would
be enough to make clear which were indifferent birds, though
being under protection during the time of nesting etc.
As far as the use of bird-lime, snares and traps was
concerned, the use of the same should be forbidden in
general, for they were a continual menace to insect-eating
birds as well.
Marenzeller's motion was as follows:
I. The killing, catching or destruction of birds included in
List A) should be forbidden at any time and in any
manner.
H. The catching of birds that live for the most part on
seeds should be allowed at any time except from March 1.
till the end of August.
The use of bird-lime, nooses and every kind of trap to
be absolutely forbidden.
III. The destruction of the nests, eggs and nestlings of all
species except those included in List B) to be forbidden.
This prohibition applies to the public or private sale of
nests and broods.
To his motion Marenzeller annexed the following two
lists :
List A).
Useful Birds.
Wryneck. — Yunx.
Woodpecker, 8 species. — Picus.
Cuckoo. — Cuculus.
Roller. — Coracias.
44 HISTORICAL PART
Nightjar. — Caprimulgus.
Alpine Swift. — Cypselus melba.
Common Swift. — Cypselus apus.
Swallow, 4 species. — Hirundo.
Flycatcher, 4 species. — Muscicapa.
Crested Wren, 2 species. — Regulus.
Titmouse, 8 species. — Parus, sensu ampi.
Nuthatch. — Sitta.
Wall-creeper. — Tichodroma.
Tree-creeper. — Certhia.
Wren. — Troglodytes.
Thrush, 2 species. — Turdus.
Accentor, 2 species. — Accentor.
Wheatear, 4 species. — Saxicola.
Warblers, 29 species. — Sylvia etc.
Wagtail, 4 species. — Motacilla.
Pipit, 3 species. — Anthus.
Lark, 3 species. — Alauda.
Finch. — Fringilla.
Starling. — Sturnus.
Jackdaw. — Corvus monedula.
Rook. — Corvus frugilegus.
List B).
Noxious Birds.
Bearded Vulture. — Gypaetos.
Vulture, 2 species. — Vultur.
Falcons, 8 species including Kestrels. — Falco etc.
Eagles, 9 species. — Aquila.
Kite, 2 species. — Milvus.
Goose Hawk. — Astur.
Sparrow Hawk. — Accipiter.
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIENNA, 1873. 45
Harriers, 4 species. — Circus.
Snowy Owl. — Nyctea.
Eagle Owl. Bubo.
It must be admitted that Marenzeller's motion included
all the elements necessary to the feasibility of the creation of
the subject matter of an international Convention, after due
discussion; and the President declared that the motion should
be made the subject of deliberation as laid down by the
statutes of the Congress.
A. E. Brehm was of opinion that, schismatically taken,
it would be found that the decrease in the number of birds
was not a result of the destruction of nests or of the use of
bird-lime, nooses and traps. He referred to Gloqer, who in
one of his writings said that no change could be made in
the progress of virgin nature, and if, for example, a plague
of mice should overtake us, this would not be the work of
nature but of ourselves. But had Gloger seen, as he (Brehm)
had, how millions upon millions of insect-eating birds (includ-
ing two species considered noxious) as well as at night the
bats, make havoc of the masses of locusts that covered
everything, he would not have maintained his thesis „que
s'il n'y avait personne, qui echeniliat les arbres, il n'existerait
pas de chenilles."
The cause of the decrease in the numbers of birds is to
be found in the present system of agriculture.
In extensive districts we grow vegetation on which insects
can better subsist and increase; on territory stretching for
miles we plant certain trees as if we were voluntarily assisting
the insects, the propagation of which is so large dependent
upon the same. We cut down every solitary tree, wipe out
primeval forests without considering that, by so doing, we are
destroying the homes of birds. We do not like the crow any
46 HISTORICAL PART
more, because its cawing is disagreeable and we misunder-
stand its usefulness.
It is not the catching of song- and insect-eating birds that
decreases their numbers but our destruction of their homes.
Brehm objected to radical measures but accepted the
opinion of the President, viz. that „the law is nothing if we
are unable to execute it".
Brehm proposed the following measures:
Every wooded place, whether small or large, should be
preserved as the refuge of birds. Particularly old trees must
be tolerated.
Special protection must be accorded to the starling, for,
though noxious in vineyards, it can easily be scared away
from them: but in respect to insects this bird is of more
value than the rest put together, with the exception only of
the titmouse and the yaffle.
Everywhere there should be bushes, shrubs, trees, hedges
as protection for birds.
Better protection should be afforded to the crow as welL
It is extremely difficult to decide which species of birds
are useful and which are noxious. No- one can be surprised
at the owner of pheasantries shooting crows, which there act
as nest-robbers. Neither the griffon vulture nor the kestrel
ought to be put beyond the pale of the law because the
former occasionally pounces on a sickly lamb or a straggling
goat, while the latter, which is a mouse-destroyer and insect-
eater as well, occasionally robs the nests of small birds of
fledglings.
Brehm accepted the III'"'' Clause of Tschudi's motion,
that viz. referring to the appointment of an international
committee with the object of classifying useful and noxious
birds and preparing lists to be included in the international
convention.
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIENNA, ISTi). 47
In concluding his speech, Brehm advired the inclusion in
the scheme of popular teaching of some means of acquainting
the public at large with birds, for, in his opinion, no pro-
tection could be more effective than that resulting from an
enlightenment of the masses.
He proposed therefore:
The compilation of a little book furnished with artistic
pictures, to provide a knowledge of birds and plants, to be
distributed, through the intervention of the respective govern-
ments, among clergymen, foresters, the heads of institutes
and other persons who could impart instruction to young
people: the distribution should be gratis.
Straten-Ponthoz, of Belgium, agreed with Brehm and
emphasised the fact that in Belgium there were laws and
regulations for the protection not only of birds but of useful
mammals too (e. g. the mole).
Blomeyer, of Leipsic, supported the appointment of a
committee and proposed the following points:
1. The protection of useful birds to be the duty of the
State.
2. The laws should be modified to meet the progress of
civilisation.
3. The Committee should sit at once and communicate
its decisions to the Austrian Minister of Agriculture, who
should notify the respective governments of the same.
Bossi-Fedrigotti, of Rovereto, approved of the idea of
classification. Useful birds should be protected, the taking
of the others should be allowed; the time for taking, how-
ever, should be limited.
Though he too emphasised the agricultural point of view,
he pointed out that, since in Italy, owing to a lack of forests,
there was no shooting, the population could not be absolu-
tely forbidden to catch birds. Prohibition was all the more
48 HISTORICAL PART
difficult as the fowlers had hardly knowledge enough to
discriminate between birds. ^ The solution of the question of
usefulness in a general sense was difficult. There were birds
which, while at home insect-eaters, on reaching Italy destroyed
fruit and olives. Such birds were useful at home, but in Italy
distinctly noxious.
He did not believe in the decrease of the number of birds,
at any rate at the hand of man. Of the many billions of
birds only an insignificant proportion fell victims.
He proposed the following points:
1. The taking of useful birds should be prohibited the
whole year round. The taking of seed-eaters should be
allowed from Sept. 1 till Dec. 1.
2. The authorities, teachers and clergy should take care
that no-one destroyed birds' nests and that the natural his-
torical knowledge of birds was spread.
ToRELLi, of Rome, declared that in Italy the open season
needed to be regulated uniformly.
Settegast, of Proskau, pointed out the difficulties in the
way of carrying out the decisions. No-one had wished to
put the decisions of the German Agricultural and Forestry
Congress into force.
His proposal was, that the Austrian Government be requested
to conduct negotiations that would render feasible the creation
of an international convention for the protection of birds
useful to agriculture.
Kargl, of Linz, declared that every effort which did not
secure the support of Italy would be useless and unsuccessful.
He described the fowling methods in vogue in Italy, among
1 This is the greatest error imaginable and remarkable in the mouth
of an Italian. Itahan fowlers can discriminate species of birds most nicely,
for the prices of the bird-market vary according to species. O. H.
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIKNNA, lH7:i. 49
others that with little owls and the Roccolo etc. He disagreed
with Brehm, stating that the old trees could not be tolerated
in forestry, for they produced masses of insects (!).
His motion was:
1. That the close season in Italy — at present the open
season lasted from July 20 till April 8, an abnormally long
time — should be prolonged.
2. That the price of a game licence should be raised,
and, finally,
3. that national history should be taught in the schools.
MiDDENDORFF, of Dorpat, pointed out the difficulty of
defining usefulness and noxiousness. One State was situated
on the 60''^ N. latitude, another below 30'' — where, then,
was the feasibility of uniform regulations? Starlings were in
one place useful, in another noxious. This fact accounted
for the diversity of views — how could they be reconciled? He
pointed out that, in 1872, the ornithologists met in Germany
and were of opinion that every State should decide which
were the birds that were primarily useful, which the primarily
noxious ones. He endorsed Settegast's proposal that the
Austrian Government should be requested to carry on
negotiations with the various States and approved of the
idea of every State appointing a committee to attempt to
solve the question. These committees would supply a number
of points that might lead to the accomplishment of a general
agreement.
Such points had already been touched upon, and he had
no doubt that the President would recapitulate the same.
With this the discussion was concluded, and the President
asked the following gentlemen, viz. Messrs Tschudi, Maren-
ZELLER, BrEHM, BlOMEYER, SeTTEQAST and MiDDENDORFF,
to form a committee with a view to harmonising the various
proposals.
Herman: Con v. for the Prot. of Birds. 4
50 HISTORICAL PART
At the next meeting Tschudi in the name of the Com-
mittee proposed the following compromise:
„The Congress of Agriculturists and Foresters moves that
the Imperial Austrian Government be requested to secure the
protection of birds useful to agriculture by means of treaties
to be made, on the basis of the following points, with the
other States of Europe;
I. The taking and killing of insect-eating birds shall be
absolutely forbidden.
II. It were desirable that a committee to be composed of
international experts should compile an accurate Hst of the
birds to be protected.
III. The taking of birds living for the most part on
seeds to be allowed, except during a close season lasting
from March 1 till Sept. 15.
IV. Fowling with snares, traps and bird-lime to be abso-
lutely forbidden.
V. The taking of eggs and nestlings as well as the
destruction of nests (except those of noxious birds) to be
prohibited. The compilation of the list of noxious birds to
be the work of the Committee.
VI. The sale of insect-eating birds, either alive or dead,
to be forbidden, that of other birds also during the close
season: this prohibition to be extended to birds' nests and eggs.
VII. Exceptions may be made in cases of scientific requir-
ements and in other special cases.
The course of the discussion has clearly proved that the
defective knowledge of the modes of life, but in particular
of the feeding, of the various species of birds rendered har-
mony of opinion, even among the expert ornithologists, im-
possible; the point of divergence, a divergence that must
in the future only increase, is the list of birds and the
applications of the conceptions of usefulness and noxiousness
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIENNA, 1873. 51
to the various species of birds. The difficuUies are enhanced
by the fact that it will be necessary to put an end to, or at
least attempt to root out, the catching in masses of small
birds, a custom in vogue in the States of Southern Europe,
particularly in Italy, a custom, moreover, that, while deep-
rooted in the inclinations of the respective peoples, is of
vital importance to their subsistence".
The Imperial Austrian Minister of Agriculture found that
the seven points brought forward as the proposal of the
International Congress for 1873, formed a suitable basis for
the creation of an international convention between the States
interested.
And in May, 1874, the Royal Hungarian Minister of Agri- 1874.
culture too found that the seven clauses were a suitable
basis for negotiations.
Here we shall do well to throw various moments into
relief. Notwithstanding the opinion expressed in previous
negotiations (e. g. in 1871.: v. supra), viz. that the „ treaty'-
form, on account of its difficult and delicate nature, should
be abandoned, the introduction to the seven points in question
decided in favour of the conclusion of a Convention to be
based on „treaty" points and not points resting on decisions
in principle: this may, however, have been nothing but a
lapse in terminology, and, while otherwise unessential, was
only the result of opportunism.
Of far more importance were §§ 2 and 5 relating to the
compilation of schedules of useful and noxious birds, which were
important for the simple reason that they implied a confession
on the part of the experts that, up till 1873, the negotiations
had not been conducted on a regularly defined basis, since,
in actual fact, there had been mention only of „birds", .,small,
useful and noxious birds", without any specification of the
particular species.
4*
52 HISTORICAI- PART
Yet the harmonising Committee could only come to an
agreement by leaving out Marenzeller's list, which merely
required sifting. It may be that the temporary harmonising
committee preferred to leare the matter to the international
committee; buth the latter was never formed. This fact greatly
reduced the practical value of the points.
But to proceed: it is a well-known fact that Count Gyula
AndrAssy became Austrian and Hungarian Foreign Minister
1875. in 1874. His wisdom is shown in the fact that, even before calling
upon the States of Europe to consider the seven points, he
attempted to come to an agreement with Italy which, though
its geographical position and the tendency of its people
rendered it of prime importance, had not accepted the points
of the Vienna Congress: a basis for the negotiations was
offered by the points of the agreement come to in 1872 by
Frauenfeld and Targioni-Tozetti. His efforts were finally
crowned with success, an agreement in the form of a „ Decla-
ration" being come to by the Governments of the Hungarian
and Austrian Monarchies on the one hand and the Govern-
ment of Italy on the other. This Declaration, which was
signed by Count Gyula Andrassy at Budapest on Nov. 5,
1875 and by Visconti Venosta at Rome on Nov. 29 of the
same year, contained the following stipulations:
Declaration.
§ 1 . The governments of the two parties to this contract
bind themselves to create, through their respective parliaments,
strict and comprehensive legislation with a view to securing
the protection of birds useful to agriculture, at any rate
within the limits prescribed by the following clauses.
§ 2. The destruction of nests and lairs, the taking of
eggs, the fowling of small birds shall be absolutely for-
bidden.
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIENNA, 18T3. 53
At the same time it is in general forbidden to sell nests,
eggs and nestlings procured in defiance of the prohibition.
§ 3. Further the prohibition of the following acts is
declared:
a) The catching or killing of birds at night with bird-
lime, nets, guns or other weapons. Night is the period between
one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise.
b) The catching or killing of birds so long as the ground
is snow-covered.
^■) The catching of birds on river banks, at springs or on
the banks of lakes, in times of drought.
d) The catching of birds by the strewing of seeds mixed
with narcotics or poisons or with other baits.
e) The catching of birds with nooses, nets or any other
implements used on the surface of the ground, such as traps,
snares, the Dalmatian „plocke" or the „lanciaxera- used
for snaring larks.
f) The catching of birds with the „parexella" or indeed
with any other style of moving, movable nets or such as
may be spread on the surface of the ground, in fields, on
bushes and shrubs or on roads.
The governments of the parties hereby contracting reserve
to themselves the right of prohibiting the catching of birds
in any other manner, if the reports of experts deputed by
Austria, Hungary or the Senate of the Italian provinces prove
that the methods in question are particularly destructive and
harmful to the birds of the respective territories.
§ 4 Recapitulation. Apart from the restrictions of §§ 2
and 3, the catching or killing of birds shall be permitted
only in the following manner :
a) From Sept. 1 till the end of February, with guns.
b) From Sept. 15 till the end of February, in any other way
not prohibited.
54 HISTORICAL PART
The sale of birds except during these periods shall be
prohibited.
§ 5. Under certain conditions, by special request, if such
request be justified, the respective government may allow
exemption from the regulations of §§1, 3 and 4, in the
interest of the furtherance of scientific research.
§ 6. As, according to § 1, the only object of this declar-
ation is to protect birds useful to agriculture, it goes without
saying that §§ 2 — 4 do not apply to domestic or field farm-
ing nor to the farmyard.
Though the regulations of §§ 2 and 5 do not apply to
birds that, from an agricultural point of view, are not decid-
edly useful or noxious, if the latter are of some value at
least as game, the respective governments are inclined to take
measures to protect such species as game.
§ 7. The governments of the contracting parties shall
inform one another of protective measures taken in their
respective States and shall give all information that may be
necessary or desirable.
§ 8. The governments of the contracting parties shall use
every effort to secure the collaboration of other States.
§ 9. The present declaration shall be drawn up in two
copies of identical text and signed by the Foreign Ministers
of the respective parties, one copy to be kept, after mutual
signature, by each of the signatories.
(Signed) (Signed)
Count Andrassv. Visconti Venosta.
Budapest, Nov. 5. 1875. Rome, Nov. 29. 1875.
Had this important agreement come into force, the extreme
significance of Italy in the question of international bird-
protection would have enabled the greatest impediment to be
surmounted: and those who were responsible for it, were
THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONGRESS AT VIENNA, 1873. 55
convinced of complete success as well as of the fact that
its coming into force would exercise a moral pressure on
the other powers interested.
But to proceed: the two signatories agreed that an agi-
tation should be carried on in favour of the declaration in
the form of a protocol, the contents of which were as follows:
Protocol.
The Government, having been requested by the
Governments of Austria and Hungary on the one part, and
by that of Italy on the other, to endorse the agreement for
the protection of birds useful to agriculture come to between
the three aforesaid States, declares itself ready to accept
this proposal; and its delegates (viz. Messrs ), who
met today and endorsed the following declaration of accept-
ance, are prepared to sign the following mutual agreement :
§ 1, The Government endorses the declaration come
to between Austria, Hungary and Italy, re the protection of
birds useful to agriculture and signed, on behalf of the one
party, at Budapest on November 5, 1875, on behalf of the
other party, at Rome on November 25, 1875, the said declar-
ation being annexed to the present protocol and constituting
the integral part of the same; the said Government, moreover,
submits to every duty and claims' every right that concerns
the parties agreeing; it reserves to itself the right of adapting
the prohibitions of fowling (§ 3) to suit the requirements of
its own respective territory, without however detracting from
the value of the restrictions contained in § 3 of the Declar-
ation necessary to the attainment of the ends in view; and
reserves to itself the right of creating regulations more severe
than those contained in § 4 of the Declaration concerning
the close and open seasons.
§ 2 Austria, F4ungary and Italy accept this declaration of
56 HISTORICAL PART
endorsement as well as the reservations contained therein,
and at the same time engage to provide the signatories with
all the rights and advantages secured by the Declaration.
§ 3. As, however, there are doubts concerning the mean-
ing of the phrase ,. small birds" used at the end of the first
paragraph of § 2 of the Declaration, by unanimous agree-
ment the word „small' shall be replaced by „ nestling."
In certification of which the undersigned, conscious of
the trust deputed to them, have signed and sealed with
their official seals, as plenipotentaries, the above protocol.
Signed etc. etc.
There can be no doubt that the above agreement as
expressed in the two foregoing documents, even in the
published form, was a remarkable lesult, considering that in
Italy the catching of birds — let us add of birds migrating
according to seasons — is a custom deep-rooted among the
people, one that, according to the season, implies food for
the masses.
We shall soon see why it was unsuccessful. It is, however,
beyond doubt that, in the cause of bird- protection, consider-
ing the special circumstances just mentioned, the declaration
was epoch-making, for it created a firm frame suitable to
receive regulations inspired by a better insight, the result of
experience, and aiming at a rational protection of birds.
Developments.
The Austro-Hungarian Foreign Ministry saw, in the De-
187G. claration of 1875 and the protocol organically connected with
the same, an excellent basis for the extension of the agitation
to cover all the States of Europe. The action was begun
in 1876, when an appeal was made first to Germany and
DEVELOPMENTS 57
France, then to Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Russia, Spain
and Greece.
The progress of the agitation is most clearly illustrated
by the report delivered by Laszlo Szogyenv, then chief of
the Hungarian Department in the Austro-Hungarian Foreign
Ministry, to Count ANDRhW Bethlen, Minister of Agriculture
in Hungary, on April 7. 1890, sub No. 1859/9. A.» The pith
of the report was as follows: „The negotiations with the
various States have made very slow progress, because the
great majority of the same avoided giving a binding promise,
saying that, before they could do so, the v/ay for the same
must be levelled in their respective Parliaments, and that,
before the particular laws were passed, any international
agreement on the subject would of necessity be a dead letter.
We know that the appeal resulted in a definite declaration
of endorsement only from France and Switzerland, the former
very warmly supporting the idea of an international con-
vention. The governments of the great majority of the other
States made their decision dependent on the attitude of Ger-
many, where the Reichstag was considering the draft of a
Bill to provide for the uniformity of the regulations for the
protection of birds all over the Empire; they all considered
that no decision could be arrived at till this Bill had been
passed".
„Belgium evaded the question just as Germany had done;
while Russia used evasive expressions to avoid accepting the
invitation".
In a later stage of the negotiations, all the Northern States,
with the exception of Great Britain,^ were requested to join
1 Chief Report of the Secund International Ornithological Congress
held at Budapest. Budapest, 1892, p. 64.
^ The conditions in Great Britain, apart from its insularity, are
peculiar, as we shall see later. O. H.
58 HISTORICAL PART
the movement, a course which resulted in nothing but the
interchange of notes.
„As the creation of an international convention without
the co-operation of Germany, (especially considering her central
situation), was impossible, it is quite natural that the hesit-
ating attitude of the German government hindered further
development and necessitated the postponement of further
negotiations until the raising of the German Bill for the pro-
tection of birds to law, when the cooperation of the German
government could be reckoned upon. But the passing of the
German Bill was unexpectedly delayed, for several drafts were
elaborated without the two Houses of the German Legislation
being able to come to an agreement. While these negoti-
ations were going on, any further development of the inter-
national protection of birds became impracticable". So much
for the first part of the Report.
We must inquire at this point: what was the underlying
cause of the hesitating, vacillating attitude of the States? Not
one gave an absolutely definite refusal; while three large
States, Hungary, Austria and Italy — the latter the most
fastidious of all — were unconditionally in favour of a con-
vention based on the Declaration.
The cause was deepseated and prevented the States a
priori from undertaking, with a quiet conscience or rather on
the basis of absolutely objective knowledge, a binding con-
vention. The consciousness of uncertainty, as concerning the
cause, was not clear in some cases; but it was there and
made itself felt.
Today it is easy to solve the riddle, for the development
of the cause, the moments of which are now well known,
offers a voluntary solution.
We know that the International Congress of Farmers and
Foresters met at Vienna in 1873, at which the question of
THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS, Ifi84. 59
bird-protection was treated in the presence and with the
assistance of several leading ornithologists (V. supra).
We know, further, that this Congress agreed on seven
points and that of these points No. 2 ordered the compilation
of a list of birds to be protected, while § 5 arranged for the
same to done with the noxious birds, i. e. just exactly what
Baldamus saw to be necessary as far back as 1856, includ-
ing it in his first draft. These two lists would have offered a
solid basis for an endorsement later on of the international
convention.
But, in the mean time, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Ministry
came to an agreement with Italy, which resulted in the
,,Declaration" of 1875 and the protocol attached; the lists of
useful and noxious birds, however, were omitted; and this
was the cause of the vacillation shown by the various States,
which were only informed that „ useful birds were to be
protected, the noxious ones to be hunted down." The question
as to which species were to be protected or hunted down
found no answer either in the Declaration or in the protocol.
Yet that was the point on which everything hinged.
To take up the thread of events again: time passed
in barren negotiations without even any such result being
attained as, in other circumstances, the renewal of Switzer-
land's proposal that an international conference should be
assembled must have produced.
The First International Ornithological Congress, 1884.
Then occurred the event of 1884, the First International
Ornithological Congress summoned to Vienna, that promised
to be of importance or even decisive in the matter of bird-
protection. This Congress figures in the list of Ornithological
Congresses since held as „the most brilliant," a fact that is
60 HISTORICAL PART
not remarkable when we consider that the active participation
of the late Heir to the Hungarian and Austrian thrones, the
Archduke Rudolf, secured the attendance of nearly all the
most prominent ornithologists of the time, who took a lively
part in the discussions.
All the advanced States of Europe, with the exception of
Great Britain and Spain, were represented, for the most part
by ornithologists. Among the men present we find the names
of E. HoMEYER, Rudolf and William Blasius, E. Baldamus,
Prof. Altum, K. Russ, Staatsrat Schrenck, the famous Rjossian^
traveller, E. Oustalet, the distinguished Frenchman, Victor
■"""■ ' ■■■■ ^
(\Fatio and Girtanner from Switzerland , Enrico Giglioli
/ from Italy, Borqqreve from Germany, Palacky from Bohemia,
Radde, a famous Russian traveller, etc. etc.
Under such circumstances we cannot be surprised at the
great expectations entertained far and wide, a fact which
necessitates our reproducing in a more precise manner that
part of the discussions which relates to bird-protection, if
for no other reason, because they are extremely character-
istic of the ruling tendencies and the conceptions of the
leading men. Our report is based on the official minutes as
reproduced in the 1884 — 85 issues of the „Schwalbe", a
periodical then appearing at Vienna, though they were published
separately as well.^
The Congress was opened on April 7, 1884 by the Crown
Prince Rudolf in person; while the discussions were begun
under the presidency of Radde, Russian Councillor of State,
and continued under the presidency of Homf.yer, Schrenck
and Professor Rudolf Blasius.
At the first classmeeting the Congress at once entered
* Sitzungsprotocolle des ersten interiiationalen Ornithologen Con-
gresses etc. Wien, 1884. Verlag des Ornith. Vereins in Wien. 1884.
THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL OENITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS, 1884. 61
-into the discussion of the international protection of birds.
The proceedings were opened by an address by Dr. Bernard
Altum, one of the greatest authorities of the time, the famous
Professor of the Academy of Forestry at Eberswalde.
The speaker, in addition to the agricultural significance
of birds, emphasised their aesthetic value as well, creating
an entire system in this respect, the scheme of which is as
follows:
1. Aesthetic significance:
a) pleasant form.
2. Colour and shape:
according to
a) zones,
b) seasons,
c) time of day,
cf) habitation,
e) sex and age.
3. Movement, peculiar flight.
4. Musical powers:
a) mechanical (the pecking of woodpeckers, the piping
of the common snipe),
b) organic (voice and song); according to
I. season,
II. time of day (2 categories, day and night singers),
III. surroundings,
IV. society,
V. relationship.
The essence and significance of bird-songs.
This immense perspective, the opening of which betrayed
an absolutely German intellectual power, and was only loosely
connected with the practical, i. e. the prosaic part of the
bird question, did not have the effect on which its author
reckoned. But he had something to say of the practical side
,62 HISTORICAL PART
of the question as well; as, however, he generalised several
phenomena and weakened each proposition by the following
one, his address was not convincing and was not instrumental
in setting aside the antagonism that had long existed between
the speaker Altum with his small following and E. Homeyer
with his large following, and had often broken out most
vehemently.
The antagonism between these two leading men, of such
prominence in the German scientific world, owed its origin
to the fact that while Altum judged birds from an aesthetic
point of view as well and declared that woodpeckers were
noxious, Homeyer considered that birds sould be judged
only from the point of view of usefulness and noxiousness
and declared that woodpeckers were useful.
The pith of Altum's reasoning was contained in the
following resolution:
1. In considering the question of bird-protection, both the
aesthetic and the agricultural significance should be taken
into account. In most cases the latter should be decisive.
In cases of great aesthetic significance trifling noxiousness
should not be taken into account.
Birds figuring as game are subject to the regulations of
the respective Game Laws.
Exceptions should be made for scientific purposes, in the
case of very rare birds or for selfdefence.
2. Having regard to the principles adduced, all home
species of birds (with the exception of winged game) should
come under the law for the protection of birds, day birds
of prey (with the exception of buzzards, roughlegged buzzards,
lesser spotted eagles, kestrels, honey buzzards and red-legged
falcons) to be excluded, as well as
Eagle Owls,
Kingfishers,
THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS, 1884. 63
Shrikes,
Finches,
Crows,
Coots,
Moorhens,
Herons,
and all swimming birds not figuring as game, by name
merganseres, cormorants, terns, gulls, petrels, razorbills, divers
and grebes.
Dr. Al'ium accompanied his resolution with explanatory
notes, in which he remarked in the first place that the pro-
posal was a negative one, and that it might be modified in
many respects. E. g. among birds to be hunted down he
had included all species of crows, whereas he had observed
that the rook, in destroying the caterpillars of the Noctua
graminis and popularis, was of decided value to reapers,
besides being invaluable to ploughed land in that, while
following the plough, it picked up the grubs: but it was
also noxious in that it picked up the seed sown. Here was
a case of usefulness and noxiousness in one: and so it was
with finches etc.
This explanation and the particularisation contained therein,
which was in part insinuatory, was the sign for the com-
mencement of a detailed debate.
Altum's antagonist, E Homeyer, at once found fault
with Altum's issue and declared war; his view was, besides,
that there was no need to go into details, as such could
not be thoroughly discussed within the time at the disposal
of the Congress, and that they should content themselves
with a discussion of general questions.^
^ cf. E. F. V. Homeyer : ..Die Spechte und ihr Wert in forstlicher
Beziehung". Frankfurt, 1879.
64 HISTORICAL PART
Let US now examine the series of proposals offered in
the course of the debate. The briUiance of the occasion
justifies the enumeration in detail; and only by such enu-
meration can the historian form a proper conclusion, in the
interests of posterity.
Dr. Palacky — and later on Victor Fatio — support-
ing their proposals with exhaustive arguments, proposed, the
formation of an international committee (Vigilanz-Comitd")
to control the carrying out of the protection of birds and
to make a study of the question.
Dr. Russ's proposal was that „wild European birds not
included in the regulations of the Game Laws should not
be taken for food".
Prof. Talsky's proposal or rather principle was „to let
live what lives".
Fatio 's proposal re protection was:
„1. The taking of birds and migratory winged game to
be forbidden from the middle of winter till the middle of
spring.
2. The sale of birds killed or their eggs to be forbidden
during the same period.
3. All catching apparatuses suitable for taking the birds
in question to be absolutely forbidden; and the wholesale
acquisition of such apparatuses, whether nets or anything
else, with which similar results could be obtained, to be
rendered difficult.
4. Except in justifiable cases, the traffic in useful birds
to be forbidden at all seasons".
Borggreve's proposal :
„The first International Ornithological Congress requests
the Austrian and Hungarian Governments to take steps to-
wards the creation of an agreement, based on reciprocity and
uniting the States of Europe and North Africa, which agree-
THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS, 188!. 65
ment shall, with the binding force of law, decide that, in
the first half of the calendar year, it be forbidden,
a) to traffic in any way with birds killed or caught,
b) the shooting of any kind of birds (except only caper-
cailzies and black grouses) in so far as they are not directly
noxious to agriculture, shooting sport or fishing, or secured
by special licence of the authorities for scientific purposes'*.
Palacky's proposal (the second):
„The killing of birds and the taking of their eggs
shall be forbidden. The Parliaments of the respective States
to define exceptions, especially
a) concerning birds of prey and those noxious to fishing,
b) concerning game,
c) concerning those which appear in masses, if not home
birds,
d) concerning protection during the breeding season".
Kermenic's proposal:
^Taking birds with snares, narcotics and hooded birds
shall be prohibited.
The taking of nests shall be permissible only for scientific
purposes.
The supply of shrubs and roosts is desirable.
The cruel treatment of birds imported wholesale from
abroad should, from a humanitarian point of view, be pre-
vented".
Baron Dunav's proposal:
„The Ornithological Societies and observatories should
try to get into touch with the governments of the various
States and in this way further the passing of suitable,
opportune laws".
E. Bachner reminded the Congress of the fact that „the
Russian Game Laws prohibit the shooting of insect-eating
and singing birds all the year round, while they protect the
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. 5
66 HISTORICAL PART
capercailly, the black grouse and the partridge with a close
season lasting from Febr. 15 till Aug. 1 ".
E. HoMEYER reported that „in Japan the close season
lasted from March 15 till August 15".
Dr. Russ's second proposal:
„ Considering that the question of bird-protection cannot
be settled in the short time at our disposal, 1 propose that
a permanent committee be appointed with instructions to
prepare an accurately elaborated scheme for the next Congress
or any other suitable occasion'-.
Instructions.
E. Baldamus reported that he was instructed only to
elaborate a schedule of useful and noxious birds.
Enrico Giolioli, the delegate of the Italian Government,
announced that he had instructions to abide by the „ Declar-
ation" of 1875; consequently he should not participate in
any other decisions.
These and other proposals naturally rendered it necessary
to attempt harmonisation. After a long and very lively dis-
cussion, and after the opportunist points of view had been
exhausted, the delegate of Switzerland, Victor Fatio, hit
upon the form in which a successful compromise was at last
effected. The text of the same was as follows:
„The first Ornithological Congress requests the Austro-
Hungarian Foreign Minister to take steps for the creation of
an agreement based on reciprocity or for the making of an
international treaty which shall be binding on the States of
the World ^ and shall enforce the following principles :
1. The killing of birds in any other manner than with
guns, the taking of the same, as well as the traffic in their
' „Die Staaten der Erde".
THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS, 1884 67
eggs, shall be forbidden in the first half of the calendar year
or in a corresponding period.
II.Thewholesaletakingof birdsshallbeforbiddenatalltimes".
Before drawing a final conclusion we must remark that
the Swiss delegate most nicely secured the interests of his
own country when in his first proposal he protected the
„gibiers de passage", i. e. „migratory game", for the first
half of winter; and his object was the same when, in the
text of the foregoing compromise, he limited the traffic to
the first half of the year: in consequence thereof the
transport through Switzerland of the bag of the wholesale
quail-catching practised on the N. coasts of Africa and in
Southern Europe remained untouched as long as the traffic
was in vogue. Equally interesting was Borgqreve's proposal,
which takes no notice of egg-taking, since in the Northern
regions of Europe the wholesale taking of gulls' and lapwings'
eggs has an economic significance.
If we take all the proposals and compare them with the
geographical situation of the several States, with the con-
sequent natural conditions and the effect upon birds, it will
be perfectly clear that it is impossible to create any reso-
lution, regulation or law that would be suitable everywhere ;
that, consequently, whether resolution or law be proposed,
the States concerned must be allowed freedom of action in
so far as the peculiar conditions of their respective countries
require the general regulations to be supplemented with
special legislation.
From this point of view, it is only natural that the com-
promise passed by the first International Ornithological Con-
gress had no absolute result; its want of success was ren-
dered still more inevitable by the fact that it did not decide
which species were useful, which noxious? What modificati-
ons could the States have introduced?
5*
68 HISTORICAL PART
Another great fault of the Congress was that it did not
take the prehminaries, i. e. the historical development of the
cause, as its startingpoint, though it might very easily have
done so at Vienna, the seat of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign
Ministry which for years had directed the international negoti-
ations and was responsible for the „ Declaration" of 1875
(v. supra), by which, as Prof. Gigi.ioli announced, his
Government were determined to abide. This „ Declaration",
taken in connexion with the significant discussions and
resolution of the International Agricultural and Forestry Con-
gress of 1873, would have formed a fitting basis for the
work of the first International Ornithological Congress, a
basis on which it could have progressed and created. Instead
of doing so, however, the Congress discussed organisations
to comprise the whole world, organisations of which Dr. Pollen,
the delegate of Holland, very aptly remarked that they were
mere suppositions and not things that could be practically
realised.
The only practical result, therefore, was not the compro-
mise but the proposal which desired the appointment of a
committee with instructions to present or carefully elaborated
scheme to the next Congress.
The Capital of Hungary, Budapest, was decided on as
the scene of the Second International Ornithological Congress.
Among ornithologists this Congress is known by the epithet
of „the best prepared."
To arrange the preliminaries for this Congress should
have been the task of the Committee formed at Vienna (the
..Permanent International Ornithological Committee", abbre-
viated to „PIOC"); its duty should have been to create a
network of observatories all over the world for the obser-
vation of birds. The international organisation of the protection
of birds was also within the sphere of the Committee, since
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 69
the first International Ornithological Congress had busied
itself most expressly with the question: consequently it goes
without saying that the question in point could not be ignored
at Budapest. Thus the question of the international protection
of birds came direct to Hungary, whose government, as we
know, had already, on more than one occasion, taken an
active interest in the same.
The question of the international protection of birds
comes to Hungary.
The Second International Ornithological Congress, to be
held at Budapest, was also organised and should have been
held under the auspices of H. I. R. H. the Archduke Rudolf,
heir to the thrones of Hungary and Austria. The organisation
and preparation should naturally have been the work of the
PIOC, especially the scientific part of the same: as for the
question of the international protection of birds, its duty was
to elaborate and then present the concrete proposals accord-
ing to the unanimous instructions given by the first Con-
gress.
Consequently all the Hungarians had to do was to take
the particular local measures suitable to the occasion, in-
cluding the scientific contributions which Hungarian experts
and societies were ready to supply for the occasion.
The organisation was undertaken by the Royal Hungarian
Ministry of Public Instruction in conjunction with the Royal
Hung. Ministry of Agriculture. The initiative in organisation,
however, undoubtedly belonged to the PIOC, which had
received powers for that purpose from the first Congress, its
creator. The said Committee was presided over by Dr. Rudolf
Blasius, Professor at Brunswick, the celebrated ornithologist;
the Secretary's office, however, was at Vienna, the Secretary
70 HISTORICAL PART
being Regierungsrat Dr. Hayek; its members were scattered
all over the world.
The income of the Committee consisted of the contri-
butions of the respective States: that of Hungary was 1000
florins = 2000 crowns, a sum included, in equal shares, in
the budgets of the Ministers of Public Instruction and Agri-
culture respectively. These contributions were sent partly to
the President, partly to the Secretary, and were employed to
cover the expenses of propaganda and the maintenance of
the „Oniis", the periodical published by the Committee.
So it is easily understood that the Committee never met ;
the President and Secretary held communication only by
letter, acted quite independently, and spent the money inde-
pendently, facts which led to rivalry, later to a breach of
unity that only the authority of the Crown Prince succeeded
in smoothing over.
Under such circumstances the organisation could make
no start or progress. The only thing that was done was
to propose 1888 as the year for the holding of the Con-
gress.
Finally, in 1887, the Hungarians made a move, by ela-
1887. borating a scheme for the PIOC, which the latter should
utilise as a basis for the scheme it was to present to the
Hungarian Government. The seven points of the Hungarian
scheme proposed to provide for the delivery of special addresses.
The members of the first special committee, were Dr. Geza
HoRVATH, John Frivaldszkv, Dr. Gyula Madarasz, Prof.
John Kriesch, Prof. Joseph Paszlavszky and Otto Herman,
1888 then M. P. At the same time Dr. Blasius and the Secretary's
Office at Vienna were requested to present a scheme, keeping
as far as possible to the seven points.
In the meantime the quarrel between the President and
Secretary was raging, time passed away, and the year 1888
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 71
had to be dropped, a course in which, in the spring of 1888,
the Crown Prince himself acquiesced.
Finally, in May, 1888, the Secretary presented the scheme
for the Congress to the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture,
the said scheme being a transcription, with some additions,
of the seven points of the Hungarian special committee, and
proposed a sum of 10,000 florins = 20,000 crowns, for
expenses.
As the discords in the PIOC became more and more
aggravated, the Hungarian Government, which had received
notice of the same, thought fit to take steps to discover the
opinion or even to request the decision of the Crown Prince
Rudolf.
To this end the then Hungarian Minister of Public In-
struction, Count Albin Csakv, requested the intervention of
Laszlo Szogyenv, Chief of Department in the Foreign Mi-
nister, adding that the year 1889 must be dropped and 1890
proposed as the year for the holding of the Congress.
LAszLO Szogyenv fulfilled the request, and, after finding
a fitting opportunity, on Jan. 9, 1889 communicated the 1889.
following answer to Albert Berzeviczv, then Secretary of
State in the Ministry for Public Instruction.
„His I. and R. Highness thinks it best that the Congress
should meet in the autumn of 1889 or, still better, in the
spring of 1890, for there is too little time until May 1889 =
then, again, we must not forget that the Paris Exhibition,
opening in May 1889, will probably attract more than one
expert to the French Capital. It is further desirable that the
quarrel between Dr. Blasius and Dr. Hayek be set aside.
His Highness, in any case, takes a keen interest in the Con-
gress and is ready to come to Budapest when the time
comes and preside at the first meeting".
This answer was brought to the notice of Dr. Hayek
72 HISTORICAL PART
who, on Jan. 27, of the same year, replied in anything but
a conciliatory tone.
The answer arrived a few days before the catastrophe at
MeyerHng: as soon as the news of the latter was published,
the strong movement which the confessed readiness of the
Crown Prince gave rise to suddenly ceased.
It seemed that the Congress had been indefinitely post-
poned.
But the request made to Dr. Blasius in 1887 had not
yet received any answer; and it was his decision, which
arrived on March 31, 1889, sub No. 185, that again set
things moving.
The scheme offered by Dr. Blasius also adapted itself to
the 7 points (1887) of the Hungarian Committee, only there
were other points as well, already sanctioned by the Crown
Prince, — e. g. the necessity for a draft of statutes and by-
laws etc.
The last moment of this period was when the corporation
of Budapest voted 4000 florins = 8000 crowns, for the ex-
penses of the Congress, a sum which, together with the
12,000 crowns offered by Government, was sufiicient to secure
the material basis.
Meanwhile the chances of the Congress fluctuated, for
the simple reason that the Vienna secretary continually made
difficulties and actually gave the Hungarian Ministry of Public
Instruction occasion to think of dropping the affair alto-
gether.^
But Hungarian experts could not reconcile themselves to
' In the official minutes of the Congress will be found the reason
for the peculiar conduct of the Vienna Secretary : at the closing meeting
the Congress did not vote its approval of the way the money entrusted
to him had been spent.
THE QUESTION OK THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 73
the idea at all, for the incapacity of the PIOC might have
compromised the ability of the Hungarian scientific world in
the eyes of those who could not see to the bottom of the
affair. There was every reason why the Hungarian circles
should take the organisation into their own hands, carry it
out and merely inform the Brunswick President and the
Vienna Secretary of the accomplishment of the various
moments.
At a second private meeting of experts. Otto Herman
was requested to draw up a memorandum : the memorandum
was drawn up and presented by Mr. Herman, who supported
it by word of mouth, to Count Albin Csakv, the Hungarian
Minister for Public Instruction, on Oct. 8. 1889.
Considering its motives, the Minister approved of the
memorandum, and, while appointing Imre Szalay, of his own
Ministry, to manage the administrative part of the work,
requested the Royal Hungarian Natural History Society, or
rather its President Kalman Szily, to take the first steps.
Thereupon the Society entrusted the management to the
following members, — Dr. Geza Entz (to act as Chairman)
Otto Herman (as Secretary), Dr. Geza Horvath and John
Frivaldszky. The Committee, by virtue of its rights, supp-
lemented itself by inviting the aid of Dr. Gyula Madarasz, the
only Hungarian member of the PIOC, while, later on, Nandor
(Ferdinand) Bathory, Director of a Real-School (Modern
School), joined as the delegate of the Corporation of Buda-
pest. The Government was represented by Imre Szalay,
Ministerial Councillor.
This Committee was formed on Dec. 31, 1889 and ent-
ered at once on the work of organisation.
It had already been decided that the final date for the
Congress should be 1891; and the precise date was fixed
later for Whitsuntide of that year.
74 HISTORICAL PART
In accordance with the decision of the first meeting of
the Committee, all the ornithologists of the country were
1890. in\dltdJto_^ssemble pn_Jaji^_lS^,-J8QQ-_-Tw€Hty-four in all put
in an appearance and, under the presidency of John Csato,
the worthy Nestor of Hungarian ornithologists, at this their
first meeting succeeded in completely ordering all the strictly
scientific ornithological agenda of the congress.
A detailed description of the further progress of the
organisation does not belong to an historical sketch; all such
details may be read in the Chief Report of the Congress
(pp. 17 seq.):^ there is only room here for such details as
concern, either directly or indirectly, the Congress itself and
the subdivisions of the same.
The Committee appointed by the Natural History Society
completed all the arrangements, including the formation of
the great National Committee. The latter appointed four
executive committees, viz.:
I. Science Committee: Chairman, Otto Herman.
II. Economic Committee: Chairman, Izidor Maday.
III. Correspondence Committee: Chairman, John Xanthus.
IV. Exhibition Committee: Chairman, John Frivaldszkv.
The Science Committee agreed that, to secure the scien-
tific results of the Congress, classes should be formed, and
decided to procure the services as referendaries of the most
distinguished representatives of the science of ornithology and
the most prominent champions of the protection of birds.
The classes and the referendaries of the same were as follows:
I. Systematica: R. Bowdler Sharpe, British Museum,
London, Dr. A. Reichenow, Berlin, and Prof. A.
Newton, Cambridge.
* „F6jelentes. Haiiptbericht. Compte-rendu. Hivatalos resz. Buda-
pest, 1892."
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. I'ROT OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 75
II. Biologia: Dr. es Sc. Emile Oustalet, Mus. Hist.
Naturelle, Paris.
III. Anatomia: Dr. M. Furbringer, of Jena (now at
Heidelberg).
IV. Ornithogeographia: E. Giolioli, Florence, and Ph.
L. ScLATER, London.
V. Migratio: J. A. Palmen, Helsingfors.
VI. Ornithologia oeconomica: Th. Liebe, Gera, v. Wan-
GELiN, Merseburg, and Izidor MAday, of Budapest.'
The Hungarian Scientific Committee was convinced that the
formation of the classes and the appointment of referendaries,
who were requested to treat of the position of the respective
branches from the point of view of historical development,
would give a firm and salutary basis to the discussions of
he classes and enable the Congress to make the best use
of the short time at its disposal.
This conviction was not misplaced, as among the reports
there are works of lasting value.
The fourth (VI) Class, that of economic ornithology, com-
bined everything relating to the economic significance of birds,
including the question of international bird-protection as well,
for the treating of which, with regard to the preliminaries
and current tendencies, the services of three referendaries, as
we see, were requested and secured.
The Congress open on Whitmonday, 1891. We may say
that it was a brilliant success and deserves special mention
as being the first occasion that Englishmen took parMn an
International Ornithological Congress held on the Continent, tr-/ zc</^t.cpl^
R. B. Sharpe, the keeper of the British Museum, con-
' These classes were later reduced to 4, No. IV being that dealing
with the current question of the protection of birds.
76 HISTORICAL PART
fessedly the first systematician of the day, appeared in person
to present his report.
All those who were asked to treat of the several questi-
ons sent in their reports, viz. Cordeaux, Sclater and
Newton, of Great Britain, as well as the celebrities from
other countries, FOrbringer, the German anatomist, Giqlioli,
the Italian ornithogeograph, Palmen, the Finnish ornitho-
biologist and Oustalet, the French ornithologist.
Speeches were made in person by Sharpe, of London ;
Oustalet, of Paris; Wangelin, of Merseburg, and Reichenow,
of Berlin; besides these there appeared in person. Bishop
and Chadbourne (U. S. A.); Count Berlepsch, Rudolf
and William Blasius, Otto Finsch, Baron Konig v. Wart-
HAUSEN, Russ, ScHAFF, ScHALOw and Count Zeppelin
(Germany); Baron d'Hamonville and Raoul (France); E.
Middendorff and Buchner j^Rusjia) ; Tschusi, Palackv,
Grobben, Glaus and Lorenz (Austria); Fatio (Switzerland);
Collett (Norway); BOttikoffer (Holland); Hartert (Great
Britain); Ghiorgieff (Bulgaria), etc.
Special addresses were delivered by Major Alexander
Homever („on the birds of Africa") and Robert Collett
(„on the phenomena of the North").
President, by seniority, was Francis Pulszky: the Con-
gress was opened by Count Andrew Bethlen, Minister of
Agriculture, and closed by Count Albin Csaky, Minister of
Public Instruction, both of whom, with Benjamin Kallav,
Austro-Hungarian Finance Minister, were honorary presidents.
Active Presidents of the Congress were Victor Fatio and
Otto Herman, the General Secretary was Dr. Geza Horvatm.
Details of the rest of the organisation will be found in the
Chief Report of the Congress (v. supra). The administrative
details here mentioned only serve to mark the form and
importance of the occasion.
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 77
We have to treat specially here of Class IV (VI), which almost
exclusively discussed the question of the protection of birds.
The functions of the class were opened by Major- General
Bela Ghyczy de Ghicz and Assakiirt, the delegate of the
Hungarian organisation.
The class elected the following officers:
Chairman: Alex.ander Homeyer, Greifswald.
Vice-Chairman : Jacoby von Wangelin, Merseburg.
Secretary: Gvula Szalkay, Budapest.
The other members of the class were: Edmund Szeniczey,
Budapest; Geza Koppely, Budapest; Zimmermann, Konigs-
berg; Andor Locherer, Budapest; Dr. Russ, Berlin; Tischer,
Augsburg; Lieut. -Colonel v. Wolffersdorff, Sondershausen ;
Taeschlein, Augsburg ; Dr. Fatio, Geneva ; Zeller and
Pallisch, Vienna; Talsky, Neutitschein; Seidl, Bosewitz;
Baron Berg, Strassburg; Vada'szffy, Budapest; Count Zeppelin,
Stuttgart; Tamasy, Budapest; Baron Konig-Warthausen,
Stuttgart; Michel, Bodenbach; Dr. Horvath, Budapest;
G. BiKKESY, Magyar-Ovar.
Addresses were given by v. Wangelin (in Prof. Liebe's
name too) and Izidor Maday.
The class at once entered into a discussion of the
LiEBE— Wangelin report, which took as its starting-point
the resolution passed at the International Ornithological Con-
gress held at Vienna in 1884 and then passed in review the
measures in force in the various states of Europe for the
protection of birds.
This review forms an organic part of the history of in-
ternational bird-protection; so an extract of the same is in
place here.^
^ Referat iiber den Vogelschutz, von Th. Liebe und v. Wangelin.
Budapest. Separatum.
78 HISTORICAL PART
Russia. Bai- \^ Ri/ssla the close season lasts only from March 1 (13)
kan States. -^ ^ '
till July 1 (13), i. e. altogether four months. Now Moscow
is an important bird-market, where, especially in spring,
gigantic masses of small birds are offered for sale, among
others larks, titmice and quails.^ This is to some extent at
variance with Bachner's report delivered at the Vienna con-
gress of 1873, which put the close season for capercaillys
and grouse at 5S, months and declared that the small birds
were protected the whole year round.
There actually does exist an Imperial Society for the Pre-
vention of Cruelty to Animals; but it is not active.
Turkey. In Turkey there is no protection for birds. On the con-
trary bird-catching is very much in vogue there and is practised
with nets, traps and bird-lime: decoy-birds with fettered feet
are also in use. This practice is mitigated by the liberation
of birds, which is considered a virtue.
According to the report, at the time of the Congress,
Italy, Spain, there was very little protection offered to -birds in Italy,
France. 5^^/,^ ^j^^j Fmnce. In the latter country every bird could be
treated as game. As for Italy, the report quoted the figures
to be found in part in the introduction to this book, which
are for the most part the compilations of Vallon from Udine
and Brescia statistics.
Austria. The rcport then turns to Austria.
The conditions of this country fall into three groups.
The laws of Austria concerning shooting, fishing and the
protection of birds, if taken together, form a bulky volume
of some 568 pages, of which 55 refer to the protection of
birds specifically.
Triest. Triest, as a city belonging directly to the Empire, has no
laws of its own. The other parts may be grouped as follows:
" Zoologischer Garten. Jahrg. XXIX. No. 5.
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 79
I. Istria, Dalmatia, Sea board and Tyrol. The destruction '»*''^' °^'-
niatia, Sea
of nests and the taking of eggs is indeed forbidden, but, hoard, xy
in autumn and winter, bird taking is permitted by special
licence. Here the taking of birds is a monopoly of the parishes
and its practice is regularly taxed, the tax ranging from 2
to 9 florins. The payers of this tax are called ,,konzessionirter
Fanger\
II. Bukovina, Gorz, Gradiska, Krain, Moravia, Silesia, Bukovina.
Oorz, Upper
Vorarlberg, Upper Austria. The laws of the respective pro- Austria etc.
vinces forbid the destruction of nests and distinguish between
useful and noxious birds, which are scheduled. Bird-catching
is conditional on the procuring of a licence.
III. Bohemia, Galicia, Carinthia, Salzburg, Styria, Lower The rest of
Austria.
Austria. The laws in force in these provinces absolutely pro-
hibit the taking of useful birds, which are scheduled : besides,
the taking of other species is also restricted.
As for Germany — i. e. of course, the whole German Germany.
Empire, — the Imperial Law dated March 22, 1888 is in
force: its regulations, in brief, are as follows:
The destruction of nests, the taking of eggs and broods
as well as all traffic in the same is forbidden.
There is no general restriction on the taking of the eggs
of birds nesting on the shores, in which are included terns,
gulls and lapwings. But there may be restrictions in particular
countries.
Every form of night bird-catching is prohibited.
The general close season lasts from March I till Sept. 15.
The authorities may make exceptions in cases of special
damage done.
The law does not schedule the useful birds: but there is
a schedule, partly arranged in groups, of noxious birds.
The special measures of the particular countries are as
follows.
80 HISTORICAL PART
Prussia. A fine of 30 marks is inflicted on anyone who,
on property not his own, takes birds not figuring as „game",
who destroys nests, or takes eggs and broods.
Bavaria. A Royal Decree dated Nov. 19, 1889 protects
the following birds: buntings, wagtails, tree creepers, blue
breasts, red breasts, warblers, larks, finches (with the exception
of sparrows and the brambling), chiff-chaffs, water warblers,
titmice, woodpeckers, stariings, wheatears, storks, wrens, wry-
necks etc.
Wiirttemberg. A Royal Decree (Oct. 7, 1890) prohibits
the taking of black-headed gulls' and lapwings' eggs in the
neighbourhood of the Danube. The Wurttemberg decree pro-
tects the same birds as the Bavarian one, but excludes the
white stork and the black stork, which are scheduled as
noxious.
Saxony. The law here in force (July 22, 1876) exempts
larks, thrushes (the thrush only temporarily) and all small
singing birds from the regulations of the Game Laws : crows,
wild pigeons, nutcrackers and sparrows are not protected
at all.
Baden. The regulations concerning thrushes are partly at
variance with those of the other countries. The fieldfare may
only be shot. The law (July 13, 1888) protects almost the
same species as that of Bavaria.
Hcssen. The law for the protection of birds is one of the
older ones (April 7, 1837); it forbids the killing of birds
useful to agriculture, the destruction of nests and the col-
lection of eggs. An exception is made with sparrows and
crows. The ministry may grant exemptions for scientific pur-
poses. A remarkable law, unique of its kind, is one passed
later on, which forbids the clipping of hedges between
August 1 and March 1.
Alsace-Lorraine. Here the useful birds are protected: in
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 81
contrast to the other countries, jackdaws, rooks and starlings
are included among those protected all the year round.
As we have seen, in the case of the German Empire the
several States take measures of their own, often quite diverse
ones.
Switzerland. Here § 4 of the Game Laws provides for
the protection of birds. The law protects all insect-eaters,
finches as well; larks, starlings and thrushes (except the
fieldfare), finches and gold-finches; creepers, crows, buzzards,
kestrels, owls (except the eagle owl), storks and swans.
Sparrows, starlings and thrushes which frequent vineyards
may be shot by the owners till after the vintage. Every kind
of bird-catching is absolutely forbidden. § 18 of the Law
provides that the protection of birds shall be fostered and
taught in the elementary schools.
Belgium. The most essential enactments of the „Reglement
d'administration generale" (March 1, 1882) are as follows:
sub A) we find a list of all species that, with their eggs
and nests, are to be protected all the year round ; B) contains
a schedule of all species to be protected during the period
when partridge shooting ceases (i. e. they may be shot during
the partridge season); C) contains a list of all species that
may be shot all the year round; among them we find the
jay, the magpie and the wild pigeon. Finches may be trans-
ported all the year round, if the owner can prove by official
evidence that they are his and that he is not dealing in them.
The employment of little owls, bird-lime and traps is for-
bidden.
Holland protects all birds useful to agriculture and for-
estry, their eggs and nests, according to the following group-
ings: a) those useful at all times; b) those useful in the
first 9 months of the year; c) includes insect-eaters, thrushes,
larks etc.; d) includes finches and ortolans. The law does
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. O
82 HISTORICAL PART
not touch enclosed places (preserves) or trenches. Exceptions
may be made for scientific purposes.
Great Britain. The Wild Birds Protection Act (43 and 44
Vict. ch. 35: Sept. 7, 1880) prohibits the taking or killing of
wild birds between March 1 and August 1 as well as the
use of decoy birds or any other instrument for the taking of
birds. The possession of wild birds after March 15 is for-
bidden. If any offence is committed against any of the
85 species ^ included in the schedule annexed to the Act, it
is punishable with a fine not exceeding twenty shillings; if
committed against other birds the milder enactments of the
Act dated Aug. 10, 1872 are available. According to this law
the offender, in the case of first offence, is reprimanded and
discharged on payment of costs; for every subsequent offence
he must forfeit and pay for every wild bird, in respect of
which an offence is committed, a sum of money not exceed-
ing five shillings, in addition to the costs, unless it can be
proved that the bird was taken during the open season or
from some person residing out of the United kingdom. This
section does not apply to the owner or occupier of any land
or to any person authorised by the same. This is based on
a law dating from Aug. 22, 1801.-
Norway. There is a close season only for the permanent
birds of the country, e. g. eiders and grouse. Here and in
Sweden, where there is a close season for pheasants as well
as grouse, small birds are not taken in any form.
In the laws here explained in brief the leading principle
is that of usefulness, though we can occasionally perceive
1 This number is not explained here, but will be below in the
comparative treatment.
'^ A more precise explanation of English laws and conditions will
be found below.
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 83
the effect of pity and aesthetic feeling as well as the tendency
produced by education.
The writers considered that, if it were a question of fram-
ing international laws, the latter could not be made too
narrow, but should give every country and every province an
opportunity of taking any special measures, within the scope
of the said laws, required by the peculiar conditions of the
said country or province. It would be not only unfair but
quite impossible to frame a law that should order everything
for the states of the northern and tepid zone.
It was very practical to keep to what already existed, to
the historical, in discussing international regulations. From
this point of view it would be desirable to abide by the
Austro-Hungaro-Italian Declaration of 1875, which, though
perhaps not perfect and deficient in some respects, would in
any case do much to further the cause of bird-protection if
it could come into force in all the States of Europe.
The Report finally pointed out that individual combination
could do much to further the cause and called upon the
members of the class to use their whole influence to create
societies for the protection of birds.
This Report entirely ignored the well-known sentimental
point of view (i. e. sentimentalism), and for that very reason,
as well as for its sober conceptions and its through dissection
of the cause of bird-protection, produced an excellent im-
pression.
Then followed Izidor MAday's Report, one of the objects
of which was to explain more precisely the Hungarian point
of view and so place that country in the van of progress.
Madav took as his starting-point, not the resolution of
First International Ornithological Congress (1884) but that of
the 26'*' Great Assembly of the German Agriculturists and
Foresters (1868), which was the first to recognise the economic
6*
84 HISTORICAT PART
importance of international birds-protection and appealed to
Austria and Hungary to take the necessary steps. His intro-
duction was, consequently, historical and followed, step for
step, the thread followed by this sketch. Thus he arrived at
the „ Declaration" of 1875, with the accompanying protocol,
and finally at the First International Congress of 1884 with
its resolution: then he put the question, „quid tunc?"
He anticipated the answer by quoting figures relating to
the wholesale taking of birds in vogue in Italy; and then,
comparing the Vienna resolution of 1884 with the „ Declar-
ation" of 1875, proved that the latter contained all that the
former did, while in point of details it went farther still and
was therefore to be abided by as a ready basis, able to
materially further the cause, if only from the point of view
of opportunism.
He admitted that the „ Declaration" was not the ideal of
bird-protection, among other reasons, because it did not
contain a schedule of the species to be protected : but in his
report be could afford to ignore that fact, for a schedule that
should be suitable for all countries could not be drawn up,
as it would only render an agreement in principle more
difficult. For that reason be presented the following reso-
lution:
„The Second International Ornithological Congress requests
the Royal Hungarian Minister of Agriculture, in conjunction
with the Imperial Austrian Minister of Agriculture and the
Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, to take all steps necessary
to the creation of an international convention for the protection
of birds useful to agriculture.
„As a basis, the Second International Ornithological Con-
gress recommends the fundamental principles contained in
the Austro-Hungaro- Italian „ Declaration" of 1875, signed on
the one part at Budapest on Nov. 5, 1875, on the other at
THE QUESTION Of THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 85
Rome on Nov. 29 of the same year. As to the text of a
protocol to contain the acceptance of the „ Declaration", it
may be stated that the form recommended by the Austro-
Hungarian Foreign Ministry in 1876 is well adapted to secur-
ing the endorsement of the various Powers.
„The Congress further declares that it desires the prohi-
bition of the wholesale taking of useful and „game" birds,
and the introduction of stricter regulations re the sale and
,transito^ traffic in the same.
„The Congress further desires that these principles should
be carried into effect, on their several territories, by the States
endorsing the said „ Declaration","
The last two paragraphs of the resolution were annexed
as a result of the discussion that followed: this was necessary
in order that the resolutions presented during the debate
(particularly that of Dr. Russ) might be withdrawn.
Dr. Russ's proposal was:
1. It is an international interest that a prohibition should
be in force in respect to all birds during the breeding season
(the regulation of the latter to be reserved for the Parliaments
of the respective countries).
2. Every kind of wholesale taking of small (useful) birds
to be forbidden.
3. The sale of little (useful) birds that have been killed
to be forbidden.
Several considered the „Declaration" to be too mild and
demanded a more peremptory tone, a course which would
not have been decorous in a body that was merely asked to
give an opinion.
The President put Madav's proposal to the vote as
against that of Russ; that of Liebe— Wangelin had been
withdrawn in favour of MAday's. The majority voted for
Madav's resolution as supplemented, which was unanimously
86 HISTORICAL PART
accepted at the closing session of the Congress on May 20,
/^ll 1901.
At this closing session there figured another resolution,
presented by Benedek Tischer, the president of the Augs-
burg Ornithological Society.
This resolution declared that the lamprooms of lighthouses
ought to be surrounded with nets that, without diminishing
the lighting power, should put an end to the well-known
calamity of birds migrating at night, which flew at the glass
plates protecting the light and were crushed to death.
This resolution was referred to the PIOC/
Herewith the Second International Congress completed its
activity in the field of international bird-protection. In this
cause there was, indeed, no progress shown; but, in com-
parison with the Vienna Congress, which merely threw the
,, Declaration" into the shade without offering anything better
in its place, it had renewed that agreement and enabled the
Hungarian Government to itself take the initiative in opening
negotiations with the various countries, as it actually did.
We must remark that Maday's report and resolution was
the result of an action begun by the Austro-Hungarian For-
eign Minister on the one part and by the Hungarian Ministries
of Agriculture and Public Instruction on the other, with a
view to getting the „ Declaration" of 1875 confirmed by
challenging afresh the opinions of experts and so enabling
them to abide by it as a basis for further negotiations.
The action was begun by the Austro-Hungarian Foreign
Minister at the time when the assembling of the Second
International Ornithological Congress at Budapest was no
longer doubtful, in a despatch (No. 1853 9. A: April 7. 1890)
addressed to Count Andrew Bethlen, then Hungarian Minister
' Which never bothered about it. O, H.
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 87
of Agriculture, part of which was included in the chapter
headed ^developments" (v. supra). From this part of the
despatch we know that the majority of the European States
made their decision concerning the ^Declaration" dependent
on the attitude of Germany, which was at the time engaged
in the framing of a law to be put in force in the whole
Empire. This Imperial Law, as we know, was passed on
March 22, 1888; consequently the Austro-Hungarian Foreign
Minister concluded that those States which had made their
decision dependent on the German Imperial Law, would now
be ready to assume a definite attitude, especially after hearing
the latest opinions of the experts.
The part of the Foreign Minister's despatch referring to
this question runs as follows:
„Since then the state of affairs has materially changed,
for the German Imperial Law treating of the protection of
birds was sanctioned in 1888: this is certainly a moment
which would justify the continuation of negotiations with
Germany and the other States.
We may pretty certainly presume that we may reckon on
the support of the German Empire.
We may further presume that an action started by Austria,
Hungary, Germany and Italy with the object of bringing
about the international protection of insect-eating birds based
on principles sanctioned by the respective parliaments, would
not meet with an absolutely definite refusal on the part of
the other States.
In the present state of affairs 1 should advise Your Ex-
cellency to consider whether it would not be opportune to
include the continuation of the negotiations among the agenda
of the Ornithological Congress which is to meet next year
(1891): if the question were treated by several experts and
scholars and then discussed, great progress might be achieved.
88 HISTORICAL PART
I beg to enclose a copy of the German Birds Protection
Act".
This proposition was forwarded by the Hungarian Minister
of Agriculture, in a note (No. 1 9,001 /IV: 1890, May 9)
addressed to the Hungarian Minister of Public Instruction,
who was entrusted with the direct organisation of the Con-
gress; and this was the action which secured the inclusion
of the question of bird-protection in the agenda of the Con-
gress that meet in 1891, and its discussion by Class IV that
was organised for the purpose.
With this the cause of international protection, like the
rock of Sisyphus, rolled back to the spot where, in 1875,
Count Gyula Andrassy and Visconti Venosta had placed
it and had commenced rolling it uphill.
To the history of the Second^ International Ornithological
Congress, however, belongs, as an organic part, the supplem-
ent * showing the position at the time in Hungary of economic
ornithology, i. e. of the cause of bird-protection, the essential
parts of which were as follows:
The protection of useful birds is provided for, in the first
place, by the Game Laws (Act XX of 1883), of which,
§ 9 definitely forbids the shooting of singing birds, while
§ 30 enacts that „whosoever destroys the nests or steals
the eggs of birds (except those of noxious birds) shall be
punished with a fine ranging between one and 100 flo-
rins", and
§ 12 enacts that the shooting of noxious birds is per-
missible at all periods ; starlings, however, may be shot only
in vineyards or orchards.
The law dealing with the field police, which was then,
in 1891, only on the table of the House, was still more
' Compiled by Izidor MAday.
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 89
precise in its enactments concerning the protection of useful
and the hunting down of noxious birds.
Concerning the protection of useful birds § 24 enacted
that it should be forbidden to steal or destroy the nests, eggs
or broods of birds useful to agriculture.
As useful birds should figure a) those birds of prey which
feed on mice and smaller mammals, e. g. the two species of
buzzards, kestrels and owls; b) of creepers, the woodpeckers,
wryneck and cuckoo; c) singing birds, viz. all species of
swallows, nightjars, flycatchers, shrikes, finches, titmice, larks,
warblers, tree-creepers, bee-eaters, and other useful birds.
This prohibition did not, however, extend to nests found
in buildings,
§ 25 enacts that the protection of birds shall be included
as a duty in the contracts of non-domestic servants, partic-
ularly in those of keepers.
§ 79 enacts that any person convicted of the non exter-
mination of noxious animals or of destroying the nests or
stealing the eggs and broods of useful birds shall be liable
to a fine not exceeding 25 florins.
Then again there is no trace of shooting useful birds in
Hungary. The masses do not show any inclination to exter-
minate useful birds; in the eyes of the masses the swallow
and the lark are the welcome heralds of spring; consequently
they are only too glad to tolerate swallows' nests on their
houses. But though in this respect no fault can be found
with the masses, there can be no doubt that, by rooting out
shrubberies and undergrowth, they help indirectly to decrease
the numbers of useful birds
For the future this mischief can be counterbalanced by
a supply of artificial nesting-boxes.
Before passing on to treat of the further moments of the
development of the cause of international bird-protection, we
90 HISTORICAL PART
must pause for a moment to consider, as a component part
of the Second International Ornithological Congress, an extract
of the address^ dealing with the extermination of our birds
in the South, which Baron Hans Berlepsch kindly placed
at the disposal of the Class for bird-protection. The inclusion
of the same at this point is expedient, for, unfortunately,
Italy has, to this day, been the real ..lapis offensionis" in
the way of the accomplishment of the cause of bird-protection.
Why this has been, will be explained below.
Baron Berlepsch, the true apostle of rational bird-pro-
tection, who can already boast of great success, journeyed
through those Italian districts in which the extermination of
birds is in vogue. Consequently his knowledge of the evil is
first-hand. His address was perfectly objective.
He is convinced that, though the continual decrease in
birds is partly due to the destruction of the opportunities of
nesting, the main cause is the wholesale bird-taking in practice
in Southern Europe.
His observations (1885—1890) extended to Switzerland,
the whole of Italy, the South of France, the islands of Sicily
and Corsica, Algiers and Tunis,
In Switzerland and the South of France the wholesale
catching of birds with nets is, indeed, prohibited: but shooting
is permitted in the autumn months, a fact that is taken incred-
ible advantage of. At this period we meet bird-shooters at
every step, comfortably practising their sport beside the road
on birds perched on trees planted there and telegraph wires.
This „sport" is engaged in, not by striplings, but by
grown-up men who are actually proud of their bag.
Berlepsch describes his meeting with a sportsman of
this kind not far from Chiavenna: the latter proudly displayed
» Chief Report. II Scientific Part, pp. 179 seq.
THE QUESTION OF THE INTERN. PROT. OF BIRDS COMES TO HUNGARY 91
his day's bag, which consisted of 51 small birds, among
which were goldfinches, linnets, titmice, red-breasts, alpine
accentors, meadow pipits and tawny pipits: — he did
not shoot water pipits because their flesh was considered
bitter.
But however large the booty shot with guns, it is a mere
trifle composed to that caught.
The master of bird-catching is the Italian, who is just
as clever in the use of the snare, bird-lime or the three fold
fowler's net.
The latter net is the most important and really consists
of three nets, viz. two larger nets, which are wide- meshed
and a fine close-meshed smaller net, which comes between
the two larger nets. The flying bird dashes into the fine net
which gives way and so forms a sack beyond the meshes
of the larger net, in which the bird gets entangled. These
nets are sometimes a kilometre long, their width ranging
between 30 centimetres and 4 metres.
The latter are used for the „Roccolo" which is formed of
living hornbeams and is thus permanent; it takes many years
to grow into shape.
It is in the form of a horseshoe and in its hedge-walls
there are openings like windows which are placed opposite
one another in pairs, the nets being stretched accordingly.
The passing birds are enticed into the trap by blinded
decoy-birds, which are deprived of sight in the most ruthless
manner, with redhot wires.
The trick is that, when the passing birds approach the
„Roccolo", the fowlers throw the ..roccolo" over them. This
instrument is a disk of platted willowtwigs, on a short han-
dle: when raised, the birds think it to be a sparrow hawk
and, darting down into the Roccolo, fall into the net.
Nearly allied to this instrument are the Pressanella and
92 HISTORICAL PART
the Passata. These instruments may be seen in every Hkely
spot, particularly in Upper Italy, and are of all sizes.
The largest kind, which embraces every kind of taking,
is more like a colony; it may be found in the district be-
tween the Lago Maggiore and the Lago di Lugano, and covers
an area of from 1 — VL^ square kilometres. Besides the pavi-
lion of the owner there are permanent lodgings for the
fowlers. Beside the catching apparatuses tall, reversible poles
tower towards heaven: on these, in small cages, are the
blended decoy-birds which are to entice their feathered rela-
tives from a height.
Among the poor blinded creatures were goldfinches, linnets,
greenfinches, red-breasts and finches — occasionally the rare
ortolan also — accentors, sparrows and thrushes.
Although it was late autumn already, the picture was as
follows: one cast of the roccolo took 100 goldfinches, then
another (repeatedly) 100 thrushes, and 50 — 60 chaffinches;
then 17 accentors and 21 willow wrens. An ordinary morn-
ing's takings were 500 birds; but in September the ordinary
bag was up to 2000 — on one day no less than 800 red-
breasts. If we take an average of 200 birds for the season
lasting 2^1., months, at this one spot no less than 15,000
small birds must have lost their lives. So we can comprehend
that if we take the whole of Italy the number of victims
amounts to millions; and if we add that the same system is
in vogue in Greece and Spain, we see that the millions must
be multiplied.
Bird-catching with smaller instruments, particularly with
lime-twigs, is in vogue in the whole of Italy, in Sicily, Corsica,
the South of France, Algiers and Tunis. Everywhere it is
Europeans who practise the custom: Arabs, namely, protect
birds. These lesser systems too are destructive and claim as
victims the most useful of our feathered friends, viz. red-
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 93
breasts, coal titmice etc. Swallows are actually killed with
the aid of electricity in the South of France.
The taking of quails is particularly in vogue in the South
of Sicily, in Naples and on the Capri Islands. In 1887 Capri
exported 50,000.
In treating of the traffic in the birds caught special mention
is due to Como and Varese, where in one day redbreasts
are sold, not by the hundred but by the thousand, at
75 centesimo a dozen: but when the power of the sun
increases, they are actually sold at 5 centesimo a dozen to
prevent them rotting, etc. etc.
The writer concluded by saying that he was present at
the Resurrection Festival in Southern Italy. When the priest
intoned the Gloria, the congregation let loose the small birds
they had brought with them in the brilliantly lighted church,
as a mark of the general feeling of joy at the blissful resur-
rection. The wretched little winged creatures, dazzled by the
light, flew at the candles only to be burned and scorched
and to perish in agony.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that bird-
taking is, with the Italian people, a deeply-rooted passion
which, through the greatest material interest, that of feeding,
has wormed its way into the soul and being of the people
and is, consequently, unconquerable, at least at present.
This will always be a factor to be reckoned with by the
Italian Government.
The immediate preliminaries of the Convention.
The resolution passed at the Second Ornithological Con-
gress held at Budapest declared for a return to the Austro-
Hungaro-Italian „Declaration" of 1875, the value of which
was proved by the Report of Berlepsch: had it been put in
94 HISTORICAL PART
force and been feasible in Italy, it would hare meant indeed
a great progress in the struggle to achieve the international
protection of birds.
The above resolution w^as doubtless responsible for the
decision of Germany, communicated liy way of the Austro-
1892. Hungarian Foreign Ministry in May 1892, to endorse the
..Declaration" of 1875,^ a fact which was of great significance
in view of the central position of the country, its extent, and
its political and social power.
The effect was sensible in France too; and in March,
1893. 1893, the French Government sent out an invitation ^ to the
States of Europe to attend a conference to be held at Paris
to discuss the question of the protection of birds.
The invitation was discussed in Hungary by the Ministries
of Public Instruction and Agriculture: after a parley on the
subject, the former referred the matter to Otto Herman, the
Hungarian President of the Second International Ornitholog-
ical Congress, who sent in his report on May 8, 1893. in
this report it is proved that the members of the PIOC are
bound to abide by the „Declaration" of 1875, and that the
fundamental conditions of a fresh movement, viz. the bird-
schedules which must form the basis for any parliamentary
legislation, were wanting. The compilation of such schedules
must be insisted on, for, though the principle of bird-pro-
tection was readily accepted everywhere, it was the compil-
ation of the schedules which had hitherto been the stum-
bling-block.
These points ought to be brought to the notice of the
French Government.
1 For. Min. No. 20,613/11. May 23, 1892.
■' For. Min. No. 9637/11. March 17, 1893.
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 95
This was done : and we shall see that the French Govern-
ment followed the advice.'
The invitation gave rise to a lively exchange of notes,-
as is only natural considering the departure in part from the
tendency which had aimed at the propagation of the „Declar-
ation" of 1875. Germany and Italy as well made declarations
on this point. The real state of things was that only Switzer-
land and France ' had decidedly endorsed the ..Declaration"
of 1875, in consequence of the propaganda made in 1876,
in the time of Count Oyula Andrassy and Visconti Venosta;
while Switzerland had long ago proposed an international
conference without achieving any result. France seemed to
all appearances to be ignoring the preliminaries and starting
a new action as it were.
The circumstantial nature of diplomacy was responsible
for the protraction of uncertainty until 1895, on April 15 of 1895.
which year the French Government was able to renew its
invitation to meet in the following June. By this the first
Paris International Conference for the discussion of bird-
protection had become a „fait accompli".*
Just before the opening of the Conference the Austro-
Hungarian Foreign Ministry confidentially informed the Hun-
garian Ministry of the attitude the Italian Government intended
to adopt at the Conference.^
' Min. Pub. Instr. No. 25,439 (June 17, 1893); Min. Agr. No. 26,447,
16,676 and 27,144 (1893).
- For. Min. No. 11,131/11 (Apr. 4, 1893); No. 18,050/11 (May 5
1894) ; No. 44,942/11 (1894) ; Hung. Min. Agr. No. 77,420/VlI/la (Dec. 24,
1894); For. Min. No. 53,244'11 (1895); No, 15,876/11 (Apr. 17, 1895);
Hung Min. Agr. No. 20,563;Vn/la (Apr. 26, 1895).
' V. the chapter on ^Developments" (1876).
* For. Min. No 24,308/11. June 10. 1895.
* For. Min. No. 23,782/11. June 14, 1895.
96 HISTORICAL PART
The Conference was summoned for June 25, 1895: but
the Hungarian, Austrian and German Government decided
that their delegates should meet, those of the first two States
at Vienna, those of all three States at Berlin, before proceed-
ing to Paris, that they might come to a mutual understanding
in advance.
This mutual understanding was all the nore urgent, for, though
the Hungarian Government could enact uniform regulations
for the whole of the territory of Hungary, Austria was unable
to do so, seeing that many of its provinces possessed orga-
nisations differing from one another in many respects and
that, in the matter of bird-protection, the several provinces
possessed laws that were in many points diverse. Further, the
inclinations of the peoples had to be taken into account,
being as they were utterly different among the Italians of the
South and the German and Slav elements of the rest of the
Empire.
The position of Germany was in many points similar,
some of the States having very old (Lippe-Detmold had one
dating from 1777) laws and regulations still in force. It was
no easy task to find a solution in Paris that should smooth
over all there difficulties.
The Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture was then under
Count Andor Festetics, who decided that Hungary should
be represented by Francis Saarossy-Kapeller, Ministerial
Councillor, who naturally took part in the preliminary dis-
cussions too. His official report,^ with its supplements, forms
the basis of the following description of the proceedings at
Paris.
The preliminary conference held at Vienna between the
Hungarian delegate and the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture
» Hung. Min Agr. No. 64,921/VII. Sept. 2, 1895.
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 97
or rather the delegates of the same, led to a complete under-
standing to the effect that the resolution or international con-
vention to be carried at Paris ^should not be of a different
character to that of the Hungaro-Aiistro-Italian Declaration
of 1875 ; i. e. the latter should constitute the starting-point
for the negotiations".
Then the Hungarian delegate started for Berlin in the
company of the Austrian delegate, Dr. Max Wladimir Beck
— then Chief of Department in the Austrian Ministry of
Agriculture, when these lines were written, now Prime Minister
of Austria: the two delegates met the German representatives
at the Foreign Office, Berlin, on June 9, and entered into a
discussion. The German delegates were: Dr. Thiel, Geheimer
Oberregierungsrat, Dr. Lehmann, Geheimer Botschaftsrat, and
Dr. KoENiG and Dr. Selenka, Professors of Zoology in the
Universities of Bonn and Erlangen respectively.
The German delegates declared that they could only accept
the ., Declaration" of 1875 or any new convention which could
be reconciled with the German Imperial Act for the protection
of birds passed in 1888. In the course of the proceedings it
was agreed that the „Declaration" of 1875, which no longer
answered its purpose, should be remodelled.
The following meeting was attended by the Italian delegate,
who had just arrived in Berlin. This delegate, Enrico Giglioli-
HiLLYER, Professor at the Higher Scientific Institute of Florence,
announced that he agreed to the modification of the ,,Declar-
ation" of 1875: it must not be forgotten that, at the First
International Congress held at Vienna in 1884, this same
delegate, acting on the instructions of his Government, declared
that he must abide by the „ Declaration" and could not accept
any other proposal. It is true that even the present change
of attitude did not in any way restrict the liberty of action
of the Italian Government.
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. '
98 HISTORICAL PART
As resolutions in point of principle the Hungarian and
Austrian delegates proposed the following three axioms:
1. The protection should be extended to all birds except
those noxious to agriculture and forestry.
2. The Game Laws to decide which birds may figure as
„game".
3. Wholesale taking of birds to be forbidden; the trans-
port of the same to be restricted.
These axioms were readily endorsed by the German dele-
gates. But the Italian delegate declared that the prohibition
of wholesale bird-catching in Italy was impossible and that
he had instructions not to agree to any convention which
contained a stipulation of that kind.
In deference to the opinion of the German delegates it
was agreed that efforts must be made to secure a form of
state treaty which offered better guarantees that those contained
in ministerial declarations, - this referred, of course, to the
„ Declaration' of 1875.
Nevertheless the meeting accepted the principle that the
international convention to be framed at Paris should be
endowed with the legal nature of the „ Declaration "of 1875,
i. e. that it should be binding only on the governments;
and the right of making a fresh statement in this sense at
the Paris international conference was reserved.^
It is easily understood that this recurrence to 1875 was
done to pacify the Italian delegate, for only by so doing
would it be possible for a resolution accepted by Hungarians,
Austrians, Germans and Italians to be presented at Paris.
The Berlin resolution consisted of 15 clauses and avoided
everything that could have affected Italy. In § 3, which reca-
pitulates the methods of taking, no mention is made of the
' Report of Francis SaArossy-Kapeller.
THE IMMEDrATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 99
roccolo or the pressanella; in § 4, which declares for the
prohibition of wholesale bird-taking, the right of special leg-
islation of the part of the States is reserved; while there are
no schedules.
The pith of the resolution was as follows:
„The introduction treats of the duty of protecting birds
useful to agriculture.
§ 1. Proclaims the duty of protecting wild birds.
§ 2. Protects nests, broods, and fledglings, and forbids
all traffic in the same. It makes exceptions in the case of
owners or occupiers of land and any persons authorised by
the same, in respect of houses and yards. Exception made
in the case of the eggs of water-fowl.
§ 3. Forbids the use of instruments for catching birds :
and prohibits the taking of birds at night, in time of snow,
or beside water in time of drought, with seeds mixed with
poison or narcotics, with traps, snares etc., with the Dal-
matian „plocke", with the ,,lanciaxera" or the „paratelle\
§ 4. Absolutely forbids wholesale taking of birds. The
Parliaments of the respective countries to legislate on their
own initiative concerning the methods of taking birds, as the
agricultural interest of the country may demand.
§ 5. Open season to be from Sept. 15 till the end of
February.
§ 6. Regulations concerning captive birds.
§ 7. Provides for defence against birds found doing
damage in vineyards, gardens, nurseries etc. In such cases
use of guns permissible. Traffic in birds killed forbidden.
§ 8. Exceptions to be made for scientific purposes.
§ 9. Where shooting is regulated by law, the convention
not to be in force in preserves etc. Where it is not regulated,
the respective Parliaments shall frame laws respecting winged
game.
7*
100 HISTORICAL PART
§ 10. The Parliaments of the respective countries may
make exceptions a) in the case of thrushes, b) in the cases
of noxious birds generally, c) in respect to birds noxious to
agriculture.
The remaining clauses deal with the manner of carrying
out the enactments
On arriving at Paris, the Hungarian, Austrian, German
and Italian delegates were told that the French Government
intended to present a ready draft to the Conference; upon
which they mutually agreed to wait until this draft was pre-
sented and to take no further steps until they knew its
contents.
The International Conference for the discussion of bird-
protection met at Paris on June 25, 1895. The members of
the same were as below: it must be remarked here that the
Heads of the various States appointed expert advisers („Bei-
rate"), for the most part famous ornithologists, to assist the
delegates in their work. Ritter Victor Tschusi von Schmidt-
hoffen was wired for to attend the conference as the expert
adviser of Austria-Hungary. The following States, arranged
in alphabetical order according to their French names, were
represented as follows:
Germany (AUemagne):
V Dr. Thiel, Geheimer Haupt-Regierungsrat in the
German Ministry of Agriculture.
Count d'Arco. Botschafts-Rat, Second Secretary of
the German Embassy at Paris.
Prof. KOENIQ, Prof, of Zoology at the Univ. of
Bonn.
[Bavaria (Bavarie)]:
Prof. SELENKy\, Prof. of Zoology at the Univ. of
Erlangen.
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 101
Austria-Hungary (Autriche-Hongrie) :
Dr. Max Wladlmir Beck, Chief of Dept. in the
Austrian Ministry of Agriculture.
Victor Tschusi de Schmidthoffen, expert adviser.
V Francis Saarossy-KapcLLer, Chief of Dept. in the
Hung. Ministry of Agriculture.
Count Paul Eszterhazv, First Secretary of the A.-H.
Embassy at Paris.
Belgium (Belgique):
■^ Prost, agricultural superintendent.
Gilbert, game overseer.
Spain (Espagne):
Marquis de Novallas, First Sec. to the Spanish
Embassy at Vienna.
V Richard Moraqas y Ucelay, Sec. of the Madrid
Roy. Agricultural Society.
France (France):
Meline, Deputy.
M'isserand, State Councillor, Director of Agriculture.
H3ROCHCHI, Prof, of the National Agricultural In-
stitute.
Oustalet, Assistant in the Nat. Hist. Museum.
Charles Gprard, Chef de cabinet in the Min. of
Agriculture.
PoiRSON, Chief of the Dept. of Public Safety in the
Ministry of the Interior.
Hennequin, Chief of the Game Dept. of the Min.
of Interior.
Blanch ard de Faroes, consul de la premiere classe
in the Foreign Ministry.
vS.AGNiER, Member of the French Agricultural Society.
v/Marchand, Bureau-Chef in the Ministry of Agri-
culture.
102 HISTORICAL PART
Great Britain (Grande-Bretagne) :
Sir Herbert Eustace Maxwell, Bart. M. P.
Howard Saunders. Member of the Zoological and
Linn^ Society.
Francis Dundas-Harford, Second Secretary of the
British Embassy at Paris.
Greece (Grece):
Criesis, Greek Minister at Paris.
Typaldo, Assistant Prof, at the Univ. of Athens.
Italy (Italic):
Enrico Giglioli-Hillyer, Commandatore, Prof, of
Zoology at the Higher Institute of Florence.
Luxemburg :
Vannerus, President of the Council of State, Minister
at Paris.
Monaco:
Louis Mayer, Chief of the Prince's Cabinet.
Holland (Pays-Bas):
V BuLTMAN, President of the Dutch Economic Com-
mittee.
\/Dr. RiTZEAAA Bos, Prof, of the Agricultural School at
Wageningen.
Portugal:
Bartholomeo Fereira, First Sec. of the Portuguese
Legation.
Russia (Russie):
l/KuLAQiN, Prof, in the Agricultural Institute in Moscow.
Sweden (Suede):
Baron Bonde, Member of the Second Chamber.
Norway :
Sverdrup, Equerry to the king.
Switzerland:
Dr. Victor Fatio.
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 103
The French secretaries were Sagnifr and Marchand
who were assisted by Poyard, an Editor.
The heart of the Balkans, right up to the Danube, was
unrepresented.
The Conference was opened by the then French Minister
of Agriculture, Gadaut, in person, who was succeeded in
the chair by Meline, the active president.
The French Government did actually present a ready draft
to the Conference, which consisted of 10 clauses and included
three schedules of birds, the first of which contained a list
of useful birds to be protected, the second that of winged
game, the third that of noxious birds.
The pith of the enactments included in the draft is as
follows:
§ 1. Mutual obligations respecting the protection by law
of birds useful to agriculture.
§ 2. Defends nests and broods of birds contained in
List I; and prohibits any traffic in the same. Forbids the use
of nets, snares, bird-lime etc. But permits the extermination
from time to time of over-stocks of sparrows and crows,
without, however, endangering other species.
§ 3. Outside the close season the killing of winged game
(List II) is permissible. Only guns may be used. Import of
birds forbidden except in open time. Protects the nests and
broods of winged game, granting exemptions only to owners,
occupiers or tenants of land, who may collect and may have
hatched the eggs discovered in nests found in harvest-time.
The destruction of noxious birds (List III) permitted if carried
out without danger to other species.
§ 4. Prohibitions not in force in respect to farmyards or
captive birds kept in cages.
§ 5. Exceptions may be made for scientific purposes.
104 HISTORICAL PART
§ 6. The States to communicate any measures they may
take to one another.
§ 7. Provides for the periodical international revision of
such measures.
§ 8. Deals with the endorsement of the States.
§ 9. Treats of the carrying out of the Convention.
§ 10. Deals with the ratification of the same.
/. Schedule of useful birds.
Buzzard (Buteo); Buse vulgaire.
Rough-legged Buzzard (Archibuteo); Buse pattue.
Honey Buzzard (Pernis); Buse bondree.
*Red-footed Kestrel (Cerchneis vespertina); Faucon Kobez.
*Common Kestrel (Cerchneis tinnunculus); Faucon cres-
serelle.
"Naumann Kestrel (Cerchneis Naumanni); Faucon cres-
serine.
Snowy Owl (Nyctea); Harfang des neiges.
*Little Owl, Pigmy Ov/1 (Athene, Glaucidium); Cheveches-
Chevechettes.
*Hawk Owl (Surnia); Chouettes.
*Tawny Owl (Syrnium); Hulottes.
*Barn Owl (Strix); Effraie commune.
*Shorteared Owl, *Longeared Owl (Otus; Hiboux et
Moyen Due.
*Small tufted Owl (Scops); Scops d'Aldrovande.
*Woodpeckers, all sorts of (Picus, Dendrocopus, Dryo-
copus etc.); Pics, toutes especes de.
^Wryneck (Yunx); Torcol vulgaire.
*Cuckoo (Cuculus); Coucou chanteur et glandivore.
*Common Roller (Coracias); Rollier ordinaire.
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 105
*Bee-eater (Merops); Guepier.
*Hoopoe (Upupa); Huppe vulgaire.
*Wall Creeper (Tichodroma); Tichodrome.
*Nuthatch (Sitta); Sitelle.
*Tree Creeper (Certhia); Grimpereau.
*vSwift (Cypseius); Martinet.
*Nightjar (Caprimulgus); Engoulevent.
Rock Thrush (Monticolae); Merle de Roche.
Dipper (Cinclus); Merle d'eau,
*Nightingaie (Lusciniae); Rossignol.
*Elue-throat, Blue-breast (Cyaneculae); Gorge bleue.
Calliope (Caliiopae) Calliope.
*Red-starty (Ruticillae); Rouge queue.
*Furze-chats (Pratincolae); Traquets.
*Wheatears (Saxicolae); Traquets.
*True Accentors (Acsentores); Accenteurs.
"Warblers, all sorts of (Sylviae); Fauvettes.
*Aquatic Warblers (Acrocephali): Fauvettes aquatiques.
*Fantail Warbler (Cisticola); Fauvette cisticole.
"Willow Warbler (Phylloscopus); Pouillots.
*Common Tree Warbler (Hypolais); Fauvettes icte-
rines.
*Golden-crested Wren (Regulus); Roitelets.
*Wren (Troglodytes); Troglodytes.
*Titmice, all sorts of (Parus, Orites, Panurus); Mesanges
de toutes sortes.
Shrikes (Lanius); Pies-grieches.
*Fly catchers (Muscicapa); Gobe mouches.
*Swallows, all sorts of (Hirundo, Chelidon, Cotyle); Hiron-
delles de toutes sortes.
Waxwing (Ampelis); jaseur de Boheme.
Oriole (Oriolus); Loriot jaune.
106 HISTORICAL PART
* Wagtails (Motacilla. Budytes); Lavandieres et Berge-
ronnettes.
*Pipits (Anthus); Pipits.
Sparrows (Passer); Moineaux
Bullfinch (Pyrrhula); Bouvreuils.
Oriental Bullfinch (Carpodacus); Roselins.
Pine Grosbeak (Corythus); Dur-bec ordinaire.
*Crossbills (Loxiae); Becs-croises.
Bullfinch (Coccothraustes) ; Gros-bec vulgaire.
Greenfinch (Ligurinus); Verdier ordinaire.
Chaffinch (Fringilla); Pinson ordinaire.
Bramble-finch (Montifringilla); Pinson d 'Ardennes.
*Goldfinch (Carduelis); Chardonneret.
*Siskin (Chrysomitris) ; Tarin.
*Serin (Serinus); Serin.
*Buntings (Emberiza); with the exception of the Ortolan;
Bruants a I'exception de I'Ortolan.
*Linnets (Linariae); Linottes.
*Snow Bunting (Plectrophanes); Bruants des neiges.
*Starling (Sturnus); Etourneau.
*Rose-coloured Starling (Pastor); Martin.
Crows, all sorts of, except the Raven (Corvus); Corbeaux
a I'exception du Grand Corbeau.
Pratincole (Gloreola); Glareole.
Thickknee (Oedicnemus); Oedicneme.
Cream-coloured Courser (Cursorius); Court-vite.
Plovers (Charadrii); Pluvians.
Storks (Ciconiae); Cigogne blanche et noire.
Cranes (Grus); Grues.
Ibis (Ibis, Falcinellus); Ibis et Falcinelles.
Flamingo (Phoenicopterus); Flamant rose.
Ruff-backed Heron (Bubulcus); Garde-boeuf Ibis.
TKE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 107
//. Winged Game (Game Birds) birds considered as game
„Oiseaux consider^s comme gibier".
Blackbirds (Merula): Merles.
Thrushes (Turdus); Grives.
Larks, all sorts of (Alaudae); Alouettes de toutes sortes.
Ortolan (Ortolan, Emberiza hortulan^); Ortolan.
Ring Dove (Palumbus); Pigeon ramier.
Rock Dove (C. livia); Pigeon biset.
Stock Dove (C. oenas); Pigeon colombin.
Turtle-Dove (Turtur); Tourterelle.
Sand-Grouse (Pterocles); Gangas.
Pallas Sand-Grouse (Syrrhaptes);^ Syrrhaptes.
Willow-Grouse (Lagopus); Logopedes ou Grouses.
Tetraonides (Tetrao); Tetras ou Coqs de bruyeres.
Hazel Hen (Bonasa); Gelinotte.
Francolin (Francolius); Francolin.
Partridge (Perdix); Perdrix grise.
Greek Partridge (Caccabis); Perdrix rouge.
Quail (Coturnix); Caille.
Pheasant (Phosianus); Faisan.
Bustards (Otis, Honbara); Outardes.
Plovers (Charadrius); Pluviers de toutes sortes.
Peewits, Lapwings (Vanellus, Chettusia, Hoplopterus) ;
Vanneaux.
Oyster-catcher (Haematopus); Huitrier pie.
Turnstone (Strepsilas). Tourne-pierre.
Curlews (Numenii); Courli.
Godwit (Limosa); Barge.
^ This bird appears rarely in large flocks, coming from the deserts
of Central Asia, and migrates to the French Coast of the Atlantic,
only to disappear again.
108 HISTORICAL PART
Woodcocks and Snipes (Scolopax, Gallinago etc.) ;
Becasses.
Stints (Tringae); Becasseaux.
Sandpipers (Totani); Chevaliers et Guignettes.
Ruff (Machetes); Combattants.
Phalarope (Phalaropus); Phalaropes.
Avocet, Avoset (Avozetta); Avocettes.
Stilt (Himantopus); Echasses.
Water Rail, Land Rail, Crake (Rallus, Crex, Porzana) ;
Rales.
Moor-Hen, Purple-Hen (Gallinula, Porphyrio); Poules
d'eau et sultanes.
Coot (Fulica); Foulques.
[WildJSwan (Cygnus); Cygne sauvage.
Wild Geese (Anseres); Oies sauvages.
Brent Goose (Bernicla); Bernaches.
Sheldrake (Chenalopex); Oies d'Egypte.
Wild Ducks (Tadorna, Anas, Chaulelasmus, Mareca,
Dafila, Querquedula, Fuligula, Brenta, Clangula, Harelda,
Somateria, Oidemia etc.); Canards.
Gulls (Larus); Mouettes et Goelands.
Terns (Sterna, Anous, Hydrochelidon) ; Hirondelles de mer.
///. Noxious Birds.
Vultures, all kinds of (Vultur, Gyps, Otogyps, Neophron) ;
Vautours.
*Bearded Vulture (Gypaetos); Gypaete barbu.
*Eagles, all species of (Aquila, Nisaetus, Circaetus) ;
Aigles, toutes les especes.
*Sea Eagles (Haliaetus); Pygargues, toutes especes.
"Osprey (Pandion); Balbuzard fluviatile.
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 109
♦Kites, all species of (Milvus, Elanus, Nauclerus); Milans,
toutes especes.
*Falcons, with the exception of the Red-footed Kestrel,
the Common Kestrel and the Naumann Kestrel (Falco);
Faucons a I'exception des Faucons kobez, cresserelle et
cresserine.
*Goshawk (Astur); Autour ordinaire.
*Sparrow-Hawk (Accipiter); £pervier.
^Harriers (Circus); Busards.
*Eagle Owl (Bubo maximus); Grand-due vulgaire.
Kingfisher (Alcedo); Martin-pecheur vulgaire.
*Raven (Corvus corax); Grand Corbeau.
*Magpie (Pica); Pie voleuse.
^Common Jay (Garrulus); Geai glandivore.
♦Nutcracker (Nucifraga); Casse-noix ordinaire.
♦Herons (Ardea); Herons, cendre et pourpr6.
Little Herons (Ardeola); Blongois.
♦Bittern (Botaurus); Butors.
♦Night Heron (Nyctycorax); Bihoreaux.
Great Heron (Buphus); Heron crabier.
Spoonbill (Platalea); Spatule blanche.
♦Pelican (Pelecanus); Pelicans.
Gannet (Sula); Fous.
♦Cormorant (Cormoranus); Cormorans.
Frigate-bird (Fregata); Fregate.
Phaeton (Phaeton); Phaeton.
Albatross (Diomedea); Albatros.
Scouts (Procellaria, Puffinus, Thalassidroma) ; Petrels,
Puffins, Thalassidromes.
Bonxie (Lestris); Stercoraires.
♦Smews (Mergus); Harles.
1 10 HISTORICAL PART
*Grebes (Podiceps); Grebes.
*Divers (Colymbus); Plon^^eons.
Razorbill (Alca); Pingouins.
Puffin (Fratercula); Macareux.
Merganser (Mergulus); Mergules.
Tystie = Black Guillemot (Uria); Guillemot.
It is evident that the draft including these three lists was
meant to cover the North Polar regions and the North of
Africa, an enormous stretch of land ; besides, it combined
protection, shooting (Game Legislation) and extermination, a
vast combination.
The effect of earlier deliberations was seen in the draft
contained the lists then so urgently insisted on.
From a Hungarian point of view, the list of birds to be
protected might easily have been reconciled with the existing
Hungarian one (§§57—58 of Act XII of 1894); but this was
impossible in Austria where incalculable difficulties might
have arisen in the various provinces. In Germany too the
schedules could not have reckoned on ready acceptance on
the part of the federal States.
The delegate of Italy acting on the instructions of his
government, decidedly declared that Italy could not accept
any proposal including a binding schedule and added that
no agreement refused by Italy could be of any advantage to
Hungary or Austria.
The inclusion of game legislation still further complicated
the state of affairs as it affected many existing laws.
The French president, however, used every effort to have
the draft discussed and accepted without delay, a course
only impeded by the motion of the Hungarian delegate,
which was accepted, to allow time for the study of the
same.
The delegates of Hungary, Austria, Germany and Italy,
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 1 1 1
taking advantage of this respite, met at the German Embassy,
discussed the French proposal and went through that of
Germany too which had been agreed upon at the preUminary
conference at Berhn and, as we know, avoided including
any schedules with the object of maintaining the support of
Italy.
At the following plenary session the Berlin draft was read
as an amendment to the French one, a fact which, however,
opened up a long-winded discussion that led to no result.
Finally the British delegate proposed that a sub-committee
be appointed containing a representative of each State, to
attempt to reconcile the two proposals.
This sub-committee, too, contained 15 members; it met,
but its discussions led to no result. The dispute was all
about the „ Schedules"; and the question to be decided was,
whether a schedule of birds should be attached to the
agreement or not; if the schedule should be there, it should
at least not be binding. The latter view was adopted by
the Hungarian, Austrian, German, Italian, British and Dutch
delegates but was opposed by the others.
Thiele's proposal for a compromise, whereby the French
.^schedule" principle should be defined as a desirable end
in the future, could not be carried through; consequently
the conference had a negative result.
Then the turn of affairs threatened the Berlin proposal,
if taken before the plenum, with being out-voted: seeing this
danger, the Hungarian, Austrian, German and Italian dele-
gates determined that, if such a thing happened, they would,
each independently, declare that they could take no further
part in the conference and would only undertake to inform
their respective governments of the results of the debates
held without their assistance.
At the full assembly of the plenum held in the afternoon,
112 HISTORICAL PART
a fresh attempt at friendly agreement having proved unsuccess-
ful, the Italian delegate made the declaration previously for-
mulated, a step in which he was followed by the Hungarian,
German, Austrian, British and Dutch delegates.
At this critical juncture the delegate of Luxemburg stated
that an agreement would be impossible if so large a pro-
portion of the States withdrew, and proposed that a limited
committee be appoint to attempt a reconciliation. This pro-
posal was accepted and the said committee was constituted
as follows: Tisserand, Thiel, Fatio, Prost, with the Austrian
and Hungarian delegates.
At the meeting of the same Tisserand yielded on some
points; and then the Berlin clauses were taken as basis, a
fact which resulted in a similar compliancy on the part of
the creators of the Berlin draft. Thus in a comparatively
short time absolute unanimity was attained.
The draft of an agreement, with XV clauses and two
schedules (useful and noxious birds) attached, was prepared.
This draft was presented to the plenum of the International
Conference on June 29, 1895 and was unanimously adopted.
The minutes of this meeting were signed by all delegates
including the representative of Italy.
According to the minutes (protocol) the delegates were
to take over the draft of the agreement with the object of
submitting the same to the approval of their respective govern-
ments.
Before following the further progress of the Convention,
we must remark that the middle ^schedule", which in the
French draft dealt with winged game, was left out, for it
appeared that on this point there was a great diversity of
opinion between the various States, a fact that made agree-
ment unfeasible.
It appeared, further, that expert ornithologists had, in most
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 113
cases, absolutely opposite opinions concerning the usefulness
and noxiousness of the various species: in the words of the
reports „ hardly had one finished his brilliant lecture proving
the usefulness of one species, when another rose and just
as brilliantly proved the undoubted noxiousness of the same
species."
This was a clear proof of the want of biological research
based on direct experience, a fact which produced results in
the further development of the cause.
The epitome of the text of the draft of the convention as
finally adopted is as follows:
§ 1. Deals with the schedules of birds voted useful or
noxious, but recognises the right of signatory States to
enlarge the schedules to meet the requirements of their own
interests.
§ 2. Protects nests, broods and fledglings, but admits the
right of independent regulations concerning houses and the
interior of courtyards.
§ 3. Prohibits instruments adapted to the wholesale taking
of birds (expressis verbis: „la destruction en masse des
oiseaux"), viz. nets, gins, snares, bird-lime etc.
§ 4. Deals with the enforcing of the foregoing clause,
which may be done gradatlm: but the prohibition remains
in force as ultimate aim.
§ 5. Arranges for close season for birds to be protected,
to last from March 1 to Sept. 15, except in cases provided
for in §§ 8—9; regulates import, transport and „transito"
traffic.
§ 6. Defines modifications permissible by authorities.
§ 7. Defines exceptions to be made in the interests of
science and regulates the keeping of living birds.
§ 8. Contains regulations relating to the poultry yard,
winged game, birds living on preserves, guns and sale.
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. 8
114 HISTORICAL PART
I
§ 9. Defines the exceptions which the respective States
may make.
§ 10. Binds the signatories to adapt their own laws to
suit the Convention, within a period of three years from date.
§11. Binds the signatories to communicate to each other
any laws or municipal decrees relating to the matter in
question.
§ 12. Provides for the settling of all questions that may
arise in connexion with the carrying into effect of the Con-
vention.
§ 13. Deals with the eventual acceptances later on of
other States.
§ 14. Deals with the date for the coming in force of the
Convention and the conditions for withdrawal.
§ 15. Deals with the sanctioning of the Convention and
the interchange of documents.
We have not published the full text of this draft of the
Convention for the simple reason that the divergencies between
the same and the text finally ratified are pointed out below.
Before passing on to relate the further history of this
draft, we must give an epitome of the memorial presented
by the sportsmen of France to the French Minister of Agri-
culture, the arguments adopted in which make it interesting
and are characteristic. It occupies a position here because it
owed its origin to the idea of holding the International Birds
Protection Conference.
It was presented by „L Union des Soci^tes de Chasseurs
de France", dated Paris, June 18, 1895, signed by the Sec.
Jean Robert; and was annexed as a document to the archives
of the „ Convention".
The memorial deals with those birds of passage, which,
in France, are treated as game: „les migrateurs qualifies
gibier, ou trait^s comme tels"!
THE IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 115
What the French mean thereby, we know: so in this place
we need only emphasise the argument used to support the
three points presented by pointing to the quail above all and,
in some respects thrushes, woodcocks and larks.
It is pointed out that the quail and thrushes are to a
great extent insect-eaters, a fact of great significance. In
Africa (i. e. Algiers) these birds carry on a real war of exter-
mination against the grasshoppers, which they consume
wholesale. It is particularly the quail, which, since the ex-
tinction of the ostrich and the thinning of the ranks of the
Houbara Bustard (Otis houbara), offers the only appreciable
resistance to the ^grasshopper danger" and is, therefore, of
extraordinary importance to the French colonies.
The French sportsmen are sorry that the Declaration of
1875, entered into by Germany (I), Austria and Italy, took no
notice of this point.^
The French sportsmen finally presented the following three
points to the approval of the International Conference:
1 . Absolutely to be forbidden, on plains, in the forests or
on marshes, the use of nets, snares, traps and bird-lime
— filets, lacets, gluaux, trebuchets, pieges de toutes sortes —
in fact, every kind of bird-catching instrument except the
gun, which is suitable enough (v. supra: Berlepsch's pro-
posal).
2. During the close time the traffic in, the „transito" trans-
port or colportage of birds of passage reckoned as game to be
forbidden: „we Frenchmen particularly demand the prohibition
of the sale and „transito" transport of quails, the example
' The ignorance of the French sportsmen is best displayed by
their writing that the Convention of 1875 was entered into in 1893 {\)
by „L'Allemagne, I'Autriche et I'ltaHe" : but such things, from Frenchmen,
surprise us no longer.
8*
116 HISTORICAL PART
having been set by France, as included in the prohibitive
convention."
3. An absolute prohibition to be laid on the destruction
of nests, the stealing of eggs, any traffic in the same or their
transport, including both those of birds figuring as game and
those of small birds.
Of Points 1 and 3 we may say that they are already
, public opinion'*: in Point 2 the „transito" transport is an
important element, of great significance, not only in the case
of the quail but of those of our most useful and noblest
singing birds.
The noble ^Association de Chasseurs" is rather mistaken
in believing that all the States of Europe, apart from France,
practise the taking of quails. The danger to quails hinges
on two points, the wholesale taking of them in Southern
Europe and in Africa and the consumption of the great
Capitals of Europe. What the French chasseurs say concern-
ing Algiers is very instructive and a warning respecting our
great Hungarian plains. The Hungarian Lowlands (Alfold)
have, in point of agriculture, undergone radical changes, of
late quails have become very scarce, and we only occasion-
ally come across a specimen of the once common breed of
Bustard, the Little Bustard (Otis Tetrax). The draining of the
country has resulted in the disappearance of the grasshopper-
eating gulls too. On the other hand locust-plagues are becom-
ing more frequent: we do not mean the historical breed but
the much smaller Stauronotus maroccanus, i. e. the grass-
hopper of Morocco; and this has become a danger.
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 117
The further progress of the Convention.
„Re optime gesta", the delegates dispersed, each taking
a copy of the draft of the Convention as accepted to his
respective Government, with the minutes of the session and
the appendices.
And then began the rolling of the rock of Sisyphus to
the top of the hill, i. e. of course, to the top, if successful.
Those States or rather Governments which did not wish
to participate, withdrew: they were Great Britain, Holland
and Russia. They could do so, seeing that the fact that their
delegates had signed the minutes on June 29, 1895 did not
bind the States and Governments to anything, as the protocol
distinctly says that the draft shall be submitted to the ap-
proval of the Governments, i. e. the final decision was
reserved.
Italy lost no time in declaring^ that, for the reasons 1 895.
adduced by her delegate. Prof. Giglioli, acting under in-
structions, first at the preliminary conference at Berlin and
then at Paris, she could not accept the draft.
There is no doubt that the withdrawal of Italy was a
matter of great significance, seeing that, in that country, useful
birds were not only not protected but were liable, and are
still liable, to the most brutal methods of wholesale de-
struction; and these birds were for the most part not native
to Italy but merely birds of passage driven by the stress of
the seasons to pass through that country, and therefore alien
property as far as Italy is concerned.
This conception is not expressed here for the first time.
Wild birds are, unfortunately, practically „res nullius", especi-
ally when, taking flight, they traverse zones to change their
' For. Min. No. 36,540/11. Sept. 2, 1895.
118 HISTORICAL PART
abode: but the conception here expressed has a certain
ethical, if not a legal basis, which ought to be insisted on. For
the agriculture of great civilised States, which are from day
to day becoming more sensible of the dearth of useful birds,
this is an important matter, which demands attention from
the point of view, not only 'of the several States concerned,
but of humanity, and must not be contemplated with indiffer-
ence.
The minutes of the Conference (referring to the draft of
a Convention) were presented, through the Austro-Hungarian
Foreign Ministry,^ to the Royal Hungarian Government, on
Aug. 26, 1895: on Sept. 2. of the same year the Hungarian
delegate presented his excellent report with 8 appendices."^
So, as far as Hungary was concerned, there was nothing to
impede the way to the codification of the Convention, as the
Government took no exception to it.
Before proceeding further, we must make a few remarks
,,pro domo".
On reading the certainly brilliant list of delegates, it must
at once strike us that the Austrian and Hungarian delegates
had one common expert adviser, whereas the two States
cannot be treated as one, either politically, territorially or, in
the matter of bird-protection, socially.
We must admit that in 1891, i. e. before the Second
International Ornithological Congress, there might have been
some excuse for this slight: but it was out of place in 1895,
since at the International Congress of 1891, Hungary dis-
played a galaxy of ornithologists that secured Hungary no
small share of international recognition. 1 will go further: in
» For Min No. 38,850/11. Aug. 26, 1895.
■' Hung. Min. Agric. 64,921/Vn. Sept. 2, 1895. The Report is, how-
ever, dated July 30, 1895.
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 119
1895 the Hungarian Central Office of Ornithology was also
active, consequently Hungary could have supplied an expert
adviser of her own. This is not meant as a detraction from
the excellent merits of Ritter von Tschusi.
The progress made by the Convention henceforward was
very slow, for exceptions were taken, stipulations made and
hair-splitting objections to points of style, concerning all of
which all the States concerned had to be approached to give
an opinion before the convention could become a fait ac-
compli.
There was, moreover, a desire expressed in some quarters
for the addition of a 16'' Clause.
Of particular significance was the demand of Switzerland
referring to § 5 of the draft to the effect that „the protection
of birds during the close season be confined to those figuring
in Schedule I, i. e. that there be no reservations."
The French Government deemed the refusal of the Swiss 1899.
demand to be an absolute impediment and added that without
Switzerland the Convention would have no practical value. ^
The Austrian Minister of Agriculture considered the Con-
vention as a whole of trifling value and was of opinion that
steps should be taken to make the French Government prevail
on Switzerland to withdraw her demand."^
The Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister informed the
Hungarian Minister of Agriculture that the French Govern-
ment considered the Swiss demand unacceptable and begged
for the opinion of the Hungarian Minister of Agriculture, at
the same time asking the latter, in case he was in favour of
refusing the demand, to justify his position.^
1 Hung. Min. Agric. No. 38,056/11. (No. of For. Min.), June 30, 1899.
- Hung. Min. Agric. No. 15,368 11. (No. of For. Min.), July 5, 1899.
=• For. Min. No. 38,056/11. July 7, 1899.
120 HISTORICAL PART
In the opinion of the German Government the fulfilment
of the demand of the Swiss Government would mean that
the insect-eaters would not be protected at all, although they
deserved to be. But, though this would be a decided weaken-
ing of the Convention, the German Government would accept
it, if the Convention were not feasible otherwise; for at any
rate it was or would be the first step of any moment in the
cause of the international protection of birds. It would be
only too glad to acquiesce if the Hungarian and the Austrian
Governments, with whom it wished to go hand in hand,
would do likewise.^
The Austrian Government made known that the French
Government had not yet made any statement re the Swiss
alteration ; but that if the refusal of the same really did involve
the non-accomplishment of the Convention, the Austrian
Government would accept the same on condition of being
allowed to arrange the schedule for its own territory."'^
This view was endorsed by the Hungarian Government
too, acting on advice given by the Hungarian Central Office
of Ornithology,'*
The change was made.
When this serious danger had been averted and it seemed
as if the States joining the movement could think of having
the Convention ratified and codified, Sweden came forward,
declaring that, in certain parts of the country, for the taking
of certain birds, which from the point of view of bird-pro-
tection were of no consequence, the Swedish people used
nets as instruments of capture, though the latter, according
to § 3 of the Convention, were prohibited.
' Hung. Min. Agr. 2410/eln. Sept. 22, 1899.
* Hung. Min. Agr. 22,522/1764. Nov. 29, 1899.
' Hung. Min. Agr. 12,298/eln. Dec. 24, 1899.
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 121
The desire of the Swedish Government was that an
exception should be made in favour of this one case.
Though this fell foul of one of the chief principles of the
Convention, viz. that of forbidding wholesale taking of birds,
the same opportunism which had predominated during the
negotiations and a desire to do something, however trifling,
to further the international protection of birds, led to this
request also being accepted. To this end § 16 was con-
structed, to modify the second paragraph of § 8, in which
only the use of firearms is permitted. According to this alter-
ation the employment of another method (i. e. nets) was
permitted.
This was the stage in which the cause of the Convention 1900.
entered the year of Grace 1900, which, as we know, the
French nation was desirous of making a World's Jubilee by
the holding of a World Exhibition. The brilliant occasion
was utilised to arrange international worldcongresses in which
every sphere of interest was concerned. In this brilliant array
of international assemblies was included the Third Internati-
onal Ornithological Congress, which, hke its Hungarian
predecessors, instituted a special section for economic ornith-
ology.
At the time of the Congress, and for some time previously,
loNACZ Daranvi was at the head of Hungarian agricultural
affairs, and, interested as he was to an extraordinary extent,
not only by insight but from predilection, in the cause of
bird-protection, he caused the present writer to represent
him at the Paris Congress, since he himself, as Hon. President
of the International Agricultural Congress which was being
simultaneously held, was engaged elsewhere.
The two Congresses joined hands in the cause of inter-
national bird-protection, if for no other reason, because of
the predilection and enthusiasm of the President, Meline
122 HISTORICAL PART
(Chairman of the International Conference in 1895) and the
Hon. President Iqnacz Daranyi. In this question each of
the two statesmen influenced the other, a fact which was of
inestimable advantage to the cause of international bird-
protection.
The International Ornithological Congress held at Paris
in 1900 is of particular significance in the history of the inter-
national protection of birds because of two events.
The first event was that the delegates of the Paris feather-
merchants and of the millinery houses, — two branches
which demanded and still demand the sacrifice of billions
of poor birds (here I would only mention the 6,000.000,000
hummingbirds recorded, the 400,000 pairs of lark-wings, as
well as the fact that special prohibitions had to be issued to
prevent the entire extinction of the birds of paradise), —
appeared at the Ornithological Congress to raise their voices
in opposition to the cause of bird-protection which threatened
to injure their material interests.
The second event implied progress in the cause of bird-
protection, for the Ornithological Congress passed a resolution
(with which the International Agricultural Congress identified
itself) to request the respective Governments to institute
thorough researches into the question of the feeding of birds
to form a basis for deciding the questions of usefulness and
noxiousness. This was an implicit confession that, up till
1900, expert ornithologists had decided the question of useful-
ness and noxiousness rather at random, a fact which accounted
for the anomaly, witnessed at the Paris International Con-
ference of 1895, that expert ornithologists who were asked
their opinion in the matter expressed absolutely antagonistic
views.
A report of the results of the researches was to have
been delivered at the Fourth International Ornithological Con-
THE FUKTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 123
gress held at London in 1905. But the fact is that only the
Hungarian Central Office for Ornithology (an institution belong-
ing directly under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture)
gave any account of itself at London, a fact which proves
that the period of 5 years was insufficient to cope with the
difficulties of the question, as experts who had entered into
the matter with any amount of thoroughness knew at the
time.
After this digression let us return to the history of the
Convention.
Owing to a dearth of data this sketch cannot pretend to
cover all the side-issues of the negotiations abroad: con-
sequently we must confine ourselves to what happened in
Austria and Hungary, the Governments of which two coun-
tries continued, partly through the intervention of the Austro-
Hungarian Foreign Minister, to actively participate in the
consummation of the cause.
In 1903 the question of the Convention was a fait ac-
compli, as far as the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture was
concerned. A memorial to the Cabinet was ready, containing
the text of the Convention in the form an Act with the
necessary arguments to support it.' In the early part of this
year the Hungarian Ministry of Justice sent the Ministry of 1903.
Agriculture a legal report" on the Convention and towards
the end of the same year handed in to the same Ministry
its final revision ^ of the text of the Convention.
But the Convention could not yet be placed on the table
of the House, for it had to include Croatia as federal State,
a fact which necessitated the translation of the documents
1 Hung. Min. Agr. No. 845/eln. Feb. 10, 1903.
* Hung. Min. Just. No. 38,343/1. M. II. Jan. 10, 1903.
3 Hung. Min. Just. No. 42,043/1. M. II. Dec. 24, 1903.
124 HISTORICAL PART
into Croatian, a task whicii, particularly in the case of the
schedules, required particular attention. This was done too.*
Finally the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister announced
that His Majesty the Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King
of Hungary had, on Oct. 15, 1904, ratified the International
Convention for the Protection of Birds signed at Paris on
March 19, 1902.^
The Hungarian Premier, on May 10, 1905, informs the
Minister of Agriculture that the day for exchanging the papers
relating to the International Convention has not yet been
fixed. ^
The Austrian Minister of Agriculture informs the Hungarian
Minister of Agriculture that, according to intimation received
from the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in Paris, the ratifi-
cation of the International Convention may be undertaken
without delay: in the opinion of the Austro-Hungarian For-
eign Minister, this step may be taken without anxiety. If
there be no objection, room should be left in the protocol
for Portugal and Greece too.*
The Hungarian Minister for Agriculture informs his Austrian
colleague that the cause of the protection of birds is ordered
in Hungary. It is regulated by Act XX of 1883 (Game Laws),
Act XII of 1894 (dealing with agriculture and field police),
as well as by a decree of the Hungarian Minister for Agri-
culture (No. 24,655/VII. 1. March 18, 1901) based on the
foregoing Acts.^
' Hung. Mill, Agr. No. 9056 el n. Sept. 24, 1904.
2 For. Min. No. 76,130/11. Oct. 18, 1904.
' Hung. Pres. No. 2065. M. E. May 10, 1905.
* Aust. Min. Agr. No. 21,487/4957. Aug. 2, 1905.
'' Hung. Min. Agr. 1090/eln. Aug. 2, 1905. (Austrian question No
17,137/3991. June 20, 1905).
THK KURTHbR PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 125
The said Hungarian Minister at the same time informs
the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister that he has no ob-
jection to make to the exchange of papers nor to the leaving
of room in the protocol for Portugal und Spain. ^
Then the first step towards codification was taken; the
discussion of the Convention in Parliament, that fell into
periods of Cabinet, parliamentary and constitutional crises
respectively.
The draft of the Act, with it appended motivation (dated
March 23, 1904), was presented to the House by Bela
Tai.lian, the successor of IonAcz Daranyi: after having
been discussed by the Economical Committee it was laid
before the House on Aug. 8 of the same year. It was read
a third time withont amendments and sent over to the Upper
House for ratification or rather approval ; there it was accepted
without demur.
The Act that had been accepted by one factor of con-
stitutional legislation was then presented to His Majesty the
King for ratification.
Finally, on June 9, 1906, the Premier of the new con-
stitutional Cabinet, Dr. Alexander V/ekerle, informed the
.Minister of Agriculture, IonAcz DarAnyf, who had resumed
his former position, that His Majesty had, as far back as
Jan. 26, 1906, sanctioned the Act dealing with the codification
of the International Convention for the Protection of Birds,
and that, under the same date (June 9, 1906) the said Con-
vention should be incorporated in the „Corpus Juris'" of
Hungary as Act I of 1906. And this was carried out in
effect.
Those who had cooperated and taken pains to aid the
cause had the delight of knowing that they had helped to
' Hung. Min. Agr. 5431 e!n. Sept. 18, 1905.
126 HISTORICAL PART
incorporate the first absolutely legal document dealing with
the International Protection of Birds in the „Corpus Juris
of their country, a work done in the service of humanitar-
ianism and of inestimable value to agriculture and forestr)-.
The translation of the said Act dealing with the Inter-
national Convention, and including the full text of the same,
is as follows:
ACT I OF 1906
concerning tHc com^Uon of ii^el^r^a.onai Con.enHo.
for the Protection of Birds useful to Agriculture signed at
Paris on March ig, 1Q02 as well as of the two schedules
forming the appendices of the same.
(Sanctioned on Jan. 26, 1906. — The papers relating to the Convention
were exchanged at Paris on December 6, 1905).
§ 1.
The International Convention for the Protection of Birds
useful to Agriculture signed at Paris on March 19, 1902 is,
together with its two appendices, herewith incorporated in
the laws of the country
C on vention
for the protection of birds useful to agriculture.
His Majesty the Emperor of^Austrm, King of Bohemia etc.
and Apostolic King of Hungary, in the name of His Highness
Prince Liechtenstein as well; His Majesty the German Em-
peror, King of Prussia, in the name of the German Empire;
His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Majesty the King
of Spain, and, in his name. Her Majesty the Queen-Regent
of the Kingdom; the President of the French Republic; His
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 127
Majesty the King of the Hellenes; His Royal Highness the
Grand Duke of Luxemburg; His Highness the Prince of
Monaco; His Majesty the King of Portugal and Algarbia;
His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, in the name
of Sweden; and the Federal Council of Switzerland, con-
sidering the adoption by the various States of an uniform
procedure concerning the protection of birds useful to agri-
culture, have determined to make a Convention and have
appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries for this purpose
the following gentlemen:
On behalf of His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of
Bohemia etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary:
His Excellency Count Wolkenstein-Trostburo, Ambass-
ador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the President of
the French Republic;
O. b. of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia:
His Serene Highness Prince Radoun, Ambassador Extra-
ordinary and Plenipotentiary to the President of the French
Republic;
0. b. of His Majesty the King of the Belgians:
Baron d'Anethan, Minister Extraordinary and Plenipot-
entiary to the President of the French Republic;
O. b. of His Majesty the King of Spain and, in his
name, Her Majesty the Queen-Regent of that Kingdom :
His Excellency the Marquis De Leon Y Castillo del
Muni, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiaiy to the
President of the French Republic;
O. b. of The President of the French Republic :
His Excellency Iheophilus Delcasse, Member of the
Chamber of Deputies, Foreign Minister;
0. b. of His Majesty the King of the Hellenes,
M N. Delyannis, Minister Extraordinary and Plenipotent-
iary to the President of the French Republic;
128 mSTORICAL PART
0. b. of His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg:
M. Vannerus, Charge d'affaires at Paris;
0. b. of His Highness the Prince of Monaco:
M. 1. P. Depelley, Charge d'affaires at Paris;
0. b of His Majesty the King of Portugal and Algarbia:
M. T. DE SouzA, Minister Extraordinary and Plenipotent-
iary to the President of the French Republic;
O. b. of His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway,
in the name of Sweden:
M. H. Akerman, Minister Extraordinary and Plenipot-
entiary to the President of the French Republic; and the
On behalf on Swiss Federal Council:
M. Charles Lardy, Minister Extraordinary and Plenipot-
entiary to the President of the Republic of France:
The said plenipotentiaries, after an intercommunication
of their powers of attorney found good and sufficient, agreed
upon the following clauses:
Article 1.
Birds useful to agriculture, particularly the insect-eaters
and namely those birds enumerated in the first Schedule
attached to the present Convention (which Schedule the Par-
liaments of the several countries may enlarge by additions)
shall be unconditionally protected by a prohibition forbidding
them to be killed in any way whatsoever, as well as the
destruction of their nests, eggs and broods.
Until such time as this result shall be completely real-
ised, the high contracting parties bind themselves to take, or
to propose to their Parliaments to take, all such measures
as are necessary to carry the resolutions contained in the
following clauses into effect.
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 12d
Art. 2.
It shall be forbidden, at any season and in any manner
whatsoever, to steal nests and eggs, to take or destroy
nestlings.
The import of these nests, eggs and nestlings, their trans-
port, the colportage of the same, their putting up to sale,
their sale and purchase shall be prohibited.
This prohibition does not concern nests built by birds in
dwelling-houses, or any kinds of buildings, on the same or
in the interior of court-yards, which may be destroyed by
owners, occupiers or any person authorised by the same.
/Further the enactments of the present Clause may be con-
sidered invalid in the case of the eggs of lapwings and
gullsj}
Art. 3.
The construction and employment of traps, cages, nets,
nooses, lime-twigs or any other kind of instruments used for
the purpose of rendering easy the wholesale capture or de-
struction of birds, shall be forbidden.
Art. 4.
In case the high contracting parties should not be in a
position to enforce the prohibitions included in the preceding
clause at once and in their entirety, they may mitigate the
severity of the said prohibitions as required, but engage to
restrict the use of methods, weapons and instruments of
capture and killing in such a manner that the protective
measures contained in Art. 3 may be carried into effect
gradatim.
' Later addition.
Herman: Conv. for tlie Prot. of Birds. "
.130 HISTORICAL PART
Art. 5.
Besides the general prohibitions enacted in Art. 3, it
shall be forbidden, from March 1 to Sept 15 of each year,
to take or kill [those useful birds which are enumerated in
the first Schedule attached tu this Convention] }
The sale or offering for sale of the same is also, during
the same period, forbidden.
The high contracting parties engage, as far as their
respective laws permit, to prohibit the import and delivery
as well as the transport of the said birds from March 1 till
Sept. 15.
[The duration of the close season prescribed in this Article
may be modified in the countries of Northern Europe].'^
Art. 6.
The respective authorities may give exceptional, temporary
licences to the owners of vineyards, orchards and gardens,
of nurseries, afforested ground or cornfields or to the cul-
tivators of the same or to individuals entrusted with the
control of the same, for the shooting of birds whose pres-
ence is harmful and causes real damage.
However, the sale or offering for sale of birds shot under
such circumstances shall be forbidden.
Art. 7.
The respective authorities may grant exemptions from the
enactments of this Convention for scientific purposes or to
' Original: ,les oiseaux quelconques, sauf les exceptions indiques
aux articles 8 et 9."
Modified : „les oiseaux utiles enum^r^s dans la liste No. 1 annex6e
k la Convention."
• Additional.
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 131
encourage the propagation of birds, in single instances and
after taking all measures of precaution necessary to prevent
any abuse of the same.
Permission may be granted, — similar preventive meas-
ures being taken in every case — for the taking, sale and
keeping of birds intended to be kept in cages. Permission
to be granted by the respective authorities.
Art. 8.
The enactments of the present convention do not apply
to poultry, nor to birds regarded as game (winged game)
which are on preserves and are included by the Parliaments
of the respective countries among birds considered as game.
The destruction of winged game, on any other territory
whatsoever, is permitted with firearms only and in the period
prescribed by law.
The signatory States [are requested]^ to prohibit the sale,
transport and delivery of any winged game the shooting of
which is forbidden in their own country, as long as this
prohibition lasts.
Art. 9.
Each of the contracting parties may grant exemption from
the enactments of the present Convention,
1. In the case of birds, the shooting and destruction of
which, as noxious to the interests of shooting sport and
fishing, is permitted by the Parliament of the respective
country;
2. In the case of birds branded as noxious to the agri-
^ Originally: „s'engagent".
9»
132 HISTORICAL PART
culture of the country by the Parliament of the respective
State.
In case there should not be an official schedule compiled
by the respective legislature, /§ 2 of the present Clause] *
shall be enforced in the case of those birds which are enum-
erated in Schedule 2 annexed to this Convention.
Art. 10.
The high contracting parties will take steps to have their
laws brought into harmony with the enactments of the present
Convention [within three years from the date]'- of the
signing of the said Convention.
Art. 11.
The high contracting parties engage to intercommunicate,
through the medium of the French Government, all laws and
municipal measures which are at present in force or have
lately come into being regarding the subject of the present
Convention.
Art. 12.
The high contracting parties, should they find it expedient,
shall have themselves represented at an international con-
ference deputed to discuss questions that may arise in con-
nexion with the carrying into effect of the Convention and to
propose any modifications, the expediency of which has
been justified by experience.
' OnginaUy : .^'article 9 sera applique".
^ Orioinally : „du jour fixe pour la niise en vigeur de la Con-
vention".
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 133
Art. 13.
Those States which have not participated in the present
Convention may join the same, if they wish to do so. Any
such intention must be diplomatically communicated to the
Government of the French Republic and by the same to the
Governments of the other signatory Powers.
Art. 14.
The present Convention shall come in force at latest within
a year from the date of the interchanging of papers.
It remains in force for all the signatory Powers for an
indefinite period. Should any one of the same withdraw, such
withdrawal does not affect the other Powers, and comes in
force only one year from the day on which the withdrawal
was brought to the notice of the other signatory States.
Art. 15.
The present Convention shall be ratified and the ratified
documents shall be interchanged at Paris within the shortest
time possible.
[Art. 16.
The enforcing of the measures contained in the second
paragraph of Clause 8 of the present Convention may be
dispensed with exceptionally in the Northern provinces of
Sweden, owing to the absolutely peculiar climatic conditions
of those regions].^
In confirmation of which the respective plenipotentiaries
Absolutely new addition : v. supra.
134 HISTORICAL PART
have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals
thereto.
Paris, March 19, 1902.
(Signed)
In the name of Austria and Hungary, the
Ambassador of Austria-Hungary,
A. WOLKENSTEIN.
(Signed) Radolin.
(Signed) Baron d'AwETHAN.
(Signed) F. Leon v Castillo.
(Signed) Delcasse.
(Signed) N. S. Delyannl
(Signed) Vannerus.
(Signed) I. Depellev.
(Signed) Roza de Souza.
(Signed) Akerman.
(Signed) Lardy.
Schedule I.
Useful birds.
Night birds of prey :
(Owls) :
Little Owl — Athene.
Pygmy Owl ~ Glaucidium.
Hawk Owls - Surnia.
Tawny Owl — Syrnium.
Barn Owl — Strix flammea.
Short-eared Owl — Brachyote.
Long-eared Owl — Otus.
Small tufted Owl — Scops giu, Scop.
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 135
Plcarlae:
Woodpeckers, all sorts of — Picus, Gecinus etc.
Syndactylies:
Common Roller — Coracias garrula.
Bee-eater — Merops.
Perching-blrds :
Hoopoe — Upupa epops.
Tree-creeper, Wall creeper, Nuthatch — Certhia,
Tichodroma, Sitta.
Swift — Cypselus.
Nightjar — Caprimulgus.
Nightingale — Luscinia.
Blue-throat — Cyanecula.
Redstart — Ruticilla.
Red-breast — Rubecuia.
Furze-chat, Wheatear — Pratincola et Saxicola.
Accentor — Accentor.
All sorts of Sylvinae:
Common Warbler — Sylvia,
Lesser White-throat — Curruca.
Common Tree-Warbler — Hypolais.
Aquatic Warbler — Acrocephalus.
Great Warbler — Calamodyta.
Reed Warbler, Sedge Warbler, Grasshopper Warbler
— Locustella etc.
Fantail Warbler — Cistiscola.
Willow Warbler — Phylloscopus.
Gold-crested Wren, Wren — Regulus, Troglodytes.
Titmice, all sorts of — Parus, Panurus, Orites etc.
Flycatcher — Muscicapa.
136 HISTORICAL PART
Swallows, all kinds of — Hirundo, Chelidon, Cotyle.
Wagtails — Motacilla, Budytes.
Pipits — Anthus, Corydala.
Crassbill — Loxia.
Bunting, Serin - Citrinella et Serinus.
Goldfinch, Siskin — Carduelis et Chrysomitris.
Starling, Rose-coloured Starling — Sturnus et Pastor etc.
Waders :
White and black Storks — Ciconia.
Schedule II.
Noxious Birds.
Birds of prey.
Bearded Vulture — Gypaetus barbatus.
Eagles, all kinds of — Aquila, Nisaetus.
Sea Eagles, all sorts of — Haliaetus.
Osprey — Pandion haliaetus.
Kites, Blackshouldered Kites, Swallowtailed Kites,
all sorts of — Milvus, Elanus, Nauclerus.
Falcons, Gyr-falcons, Peregrine Falcons, Hobby,
Merlin-Stone Falcon, all sorts of, except the Red-
footed Kestrel, the Common and Lesser Kestrel —
Falco.^
Common Goose-Hawk — Astur palumbarius.
* The three species excepted belong therefore to Schedule 1. O. H.
THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF THE CONVENTION 137
Sparrow-Hawk — Accipiter.
Harriers - Circus.
Owls:
Eagle Owl — Bubo Maximus Flem.
Perching- b irds :
Raven — Corvus corax
Magpie — Pica rustica Scop.
Common Jay — Garrulus glandarius.
Herons :
Grey and Purple Herons — Ardea.
Bittern — Botaurus.
Night Heron — Nycticorax.
Swlmmlng-blrds:
Pelican — Pelecanus.
Cormorant — Phalacrocorax, Graculus.
Smews — Mergus.
Divers — Colymbus.
§2.
The carrying into effect of the Convention in this Act is
entrusted to the Royal Hung. Minister for Agriculture and,
in Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia, to the Banus of those countries.
138 HISTORICAL PART
Concluding words.
If we take a look at the schedules of useful and noxious
birds, we shall at once be struck by an error in the drafting:
viz. the Red-footed Kestrels, Common and Lesser Kestrels are
not included in Schedule I but have found their way in to
Schedule 11 (of noxious birds) as exceptions. The same fault
is to be found in the original French Text annexed to this
book, — .,Faucons .... a I'exception des Faucons Kobez,
cresserelle et cresserine."
The Convention takes no account of the glory of the
forests, the Golden Oriole, nor of any species of thrush. The
discussion of this question is reserved for another place.
Yet we must admit that, if all the States of Europe should
endorse the Convention, that would mean a great progress
indeed: so the propaganda is entirely justified.
The chief question, one which is now, so to say, on the
lips of every man, is, „What will Italy do? Is there any hope
of improvement?"
To day there is none!
Nay, the state of things has deteriorated. The acceptance
of the Paris Convention has invalidated the „ Declaration"
of 1875, the work of Count Ovula Andrassv and Visconti
Venosta, the only document which bound Italy to protect
useful birds.
We know that the taking of birds forms an essential
element of the being of the Italian people: it is connected
moreover with vast material interests; and we know how
difficult it is to do away with any tendency of the kind,
especially where the people is inclined to give way to the
temptations of games of chance and is, therefore, only too
ready to engage in any work (such as bird-catching) which,
in the conceptions of the world at large, requires a certain
CONCLUDING WORDS 139
amount of „luck-. What an enormous pressure this brings
to bear even upon the most enlightened statesmen!
It is only the thought of such mighty pressure that can
reconcile us to Game Laws such as those of Italy, the most
important Clause (5) of which is an encouragement of the
passion of bird-extermination.
When, on June 27, 1904, LuiGi Rava, the Minister for
Agriculture, laid the Game Laws on the table of the House,
he rose to poetic heights in pleading their justification, saying:
„N^ ai nostri giorni, nei quali deve muovere la fede degli
educatori la virile sentenza: „mens sana in corpore sano",
sarebbe perdonabile il disconoscere la utilita dell' esercizio
fisico della caccia, onde
Manet sub Jove frigldo
Venator, tenerae conjugis inimemor
come canta Orazio".^
But if we examine everything included in the Italian draft
under the title of really invigorating, genuine hunting, we
shall find, not only that the catching and wholesale butchery
of snipe ^ is practised just in spring when they are flocking
up, and that of quails when, after passing the sea, they seek
rest, half-dead with fatigue, on the beautiful coasts of Italy,
but that the Permanent Committee of the Italian Senate,
during the 1904 — 1905 Session, while discussing the said
Laws proposed to draft „Articolo 5", as far as birds are
concerned, as follows:
„It shall be permitted to shoot,
permanent birds from Aug. 15 till Jan. 31 ;
^ Camera del deputati. Dissegno di legge presentato dal ministro
di agricoltura industria e commerzio, Rava. 1902—1904. Documenti etc.
No. 618.
* Unfortunately it is so elsewhere too!
140 HISTORICAL PART
birds of passage from Aug. 15 till March 31;
swimming and shore birds from Aug. 15 till April 15;
quails from Aug. 15 till May 15: but, from April 15 till
May 15, only at a distance of one kilometre from the sea-
shore and only with fire-arms."
Which means that all birds of passage are given over to
their fate just in autumn and spring, the periods of passage.
„Tabella A" annexed to the Game Laws enumerates all
instruments with which, in return for a certain fee, birds may
be taken: among these are the „Roccolo", the „Pressanella'V
all traps and nets, closed as well as open, removable ones
as well as those fixed to a particular spot, suitable for the
taking of ti/i)' birds. In brief: ..Permesso di caccia con rati
aperte e copertoni, solchetti fissi o vaganti agli iiccelletii^ .
Here the lofty words of Horatius are out of place; they
should be replaced by the words of Dante:
„Lasciate ogni speranza ...''.
But perhaps there is some hope, for everybody would
believe that the same Monarch who conceived the idea of an
International Agricultural Institute, will advocate the rights of
the farmers' best friends, the useful little birds.
Yet we must unfortunately admit that, at the first meeting
of the International Agricultural Institute at Rome in May— June,.
1905, the Hungarian delegate. Count Robert Zselenszkv,
despite the support afforded his proposal by delegates of
high standing, and notwithstanding his every exertion, could
not succeed in having the question of the protection of birds
put on the order of the day. The President displayed won-
derful ingenuity in evading the question.
Now there can be no doubt that the question of the
protection of birds cannot be settled all along the line, inter-
nationally and to the advantage of the agriculture of Europe
as well as in the interests of humanitarianism, without the
CONCLUDING WORDS 141
cooperation of Italy. It is particularly our most valuable birds
of passage which, as we know, are disappearing by tribes,
their extinction being helped on more rapidly by the improv-
ements made by factories in the enormous nets and all
instruments adapted to the wholesale taking of birds, which
are set up in the ordinary and unchanging route of birds of
passage and so are really exterminating in their effect.
In the course of the discussions held on the International
Convention a hope was expressed that its endorsement would
have a beneficial effect on those States in which wholesale
bird-taking is in vogue, it would be matter for infinite regret
should this hope prove to be entirely unfounded.
^i
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY.
The Protection of Birds in Hungary.
The incorporation, in 1906, of the International Convention
for the Protection of Birds in the „ Corpus Juris" of Hungary,
i. e. its being endowed with the force of law, found the
rational protection of birds in Hungary a fait accompli.
As we know from what has been already stated, the pro-
tection of birds useful to agriculture is effectively enough
provided by §§ 57—58 of Act XII of 1894 (deaHng with
agriculture and field police), the carrying into effect of which
is entrusted to the Royal Hungarian Ministers for Agriculture
and Home Affairs.
But as is everywhere the case, it has been proved in
Hungary too that the protection of birds is one of those tasks
for the fulfilling of which the best-drafted Acts, though carried
into effect by the authorities with the utmost severity, if
done only by the State and municipal officials, is insufficient;
it can only be carried into effect completely and happily by
the interest and with the cooperation of the public at large.
When constitutionalism was revived, the protection of
animals was revived too : but at first no particular attention
was paid to birds. The first efforts were rather directed not
so much towards the prevention as towards the mitig-
ation of the cruelty to animals so prevalent everywhere.
Herman: Coiiv. for the Prot. of Birds. 10
146 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
The Hungarian Penal Code in force, or rather those parts
of it concerned with this affair, punish with a fine or
retortion only those cases of cruelty to animals perpetrated
publicly and in a scandalising manner : and this is not
enough to check those cases of cruelty perpetrated publicly,
in which the force of habit or still more indifference has
seen and, in part at least, still sees nothing to scandalise.
The prevention of cruelty to animals laid the greatest
stress on the protection of domestic animals, particularly dogs
and horses: it could boast of undeniable successes, particu-
larly in the Capital of Budapest, where the National S. P.
C. A. was organised, and, besides that of its many enthusiastic
members, gained the support of the Government and the
State Police, a fact which led to splendid success.
The agitation initiated by the N. S. P. C. A. resulted in
the creation of branch societies in many parts of the country ;
and what particularly characterised the movement was that
it maintained a rational tendency. There was no drifting
into the paths of the familiar „!amenting sentimentality" ; and
though here and there voices were raised to insist upon that
tendency, common sense always won the day, such being
indeed a characteristic trait of the Hungarian spirit.
The protection of birds in particular had its origin apart
from the general movement for the prevention of cruelty to
animals, and, in its own way, attained its present organisa
tion and reached its culmination unaided.
As we have seen in Part I, the Second Ornithological
Congress was held at Budapest, in 1891 ; and, as is gene-
rally admitted, the splendid preparations made for it and the
excellent material discussed secured a significant success.
This success inspired Count Ai.hin Csaky, then Minister
for Public Instruction, with the idea of further developing
this success by some permanent institution. The Minister
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 147
consequently called upon the President of the Hungarian
Scientific Committee entrusted with the organisation of the
Congress, the writer of the present sketch, to prepare a
suitable plan. This was how the Hungarian Centra! Office of 1894.
Ornithology was instituted, in 1894.
This Institute had at once two tasks to perform, viz. the
scientific development of the ornithology of Hungary and the
thorough investigation of the phenomenon of migration. It is
in the latter field particularly that, during the last ten years,
the Institute has, internationally, taken a foremost place.
It is quite natural that many questions were addressed by
the Government and still more by the general public to an
Institute devoted solely to the development of ornithology,
the institute giving an opinion and information on every point.
The decrease in the number of birds so generally felt
was by many people considered to be in causal interdepend-
ence on the continual increase of insects, against which the
State, roused particularly by the great blows dealt by the
phylloxera plague, was already fighting with the aid of an
institute, the Royal Hungarian Entomological Station.
But the discussion of the Game Laws (Act X of 1883) and
the Act dealing with agriculture and field-police (Act XII of 1894)
had made it clear that there was every need of works which
should give the general public and farmers a true picture of
birds and their life and thus acquaint them with the enorm-
ous economic significance of these pretty winged creatures.
This necessity was all the more burning, as even in the
civilised West, where the cause of the protection of birds had
been espoused with great warmth, there was no concealing
the want of objective knowledge on the part of society ; and
this, notwithstanding the fact that, particularly in Germany,
there existed a very advanced scientific and popular literature,
which, however, laid most emphasis on the natural-historical
10*
148 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
and sentimental side of tlie question and, in consequence,
did not throw into relief the enormous economic interests
latent in the work of birds, thus avoiding side-issues which,
if only on account of their importance, might have proved
of advantage even to the aesthetic point of view.
There was another question which demanded attention,
viz. in the relation of the State towards bird-protection we
must admit that, if the State, in the interests of the community,
undertakes the protection, prohibits and punishes, the State
must itself declare to what the prohibition and punishment
respectively refer.
For merely to say „1 defend birds useful to agriculture
and forestry with prohibitions and punish him who defies the
prohibition" gives rise to a whole series of questions : which
birds? what are their names? what are they like? why are
they useful? And if there are noxious birds too, why are
they so ? what are their names ? what are they like ? what
is the damage they do? etc.
It is perfectly clear and natural that it cannot be the duty
of Parliament to make the text of Acts do what the schools
ought to do : but in cases where the correct application of
the prohibition as well as the proper infliction of the punish-
ment depends upon a strict definition of the objects of living
Nature, the State should, even if obliged to do so outside
the law itself, take steps to make everyone clearly understand
what the State, by its laws, forbids or punishes. This cannot
be left entirely to private enterprise, for it is not impossible
that definitions and views entirely at variance with the inten-
tions of the laws arise and involve in trouble people who
have only the best intentions.
The Hungarian Central Office for Ornithology had this
fact in view when it turned its attention to economic ornith-
ology as well. The younger generation was encouraged to
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 149
cultivate this particular branch, especially as the systematic
part of ornithology, which almost entirely dropped the biolog-
ical basis and devoted itself to formalism, had become very
sensibly one-sided.
The creation of a vv^ork which, treating birds in the light
of their agricultural significance, should satisfy expert ornith-
ologists, give thorough information to farmers and act upon
every grade of farm-labourer, was indeed a difficult task, but
not an impossible one, seeing that, apart from technicalities,
the highly important language question caused no particular
difficulty.
The Hungarian Central Office for Ornithology was then
attached to the Ministry of Public Instruction, its maintenance
was secured by the Budget: so it first of all sounded its
natural superior, but without success. There were doubts as
to the text and the illustrations. It is undeniable that the
Ministry had, in the past, had many disagreeable experiences,
which obliged it to reserve in dealing with new undertakings.
The cause of the international protection of birds, however,
developed, and, after the International Congress held at
Budapest in 1891, followed a course which aimed at the
creation, on a concrete basis, of an international convention
for the protection of birds, i. e. the emphasising of general
principles was given up and its place taken by a tendency
which laid the chief stress on the compilation of schedules
of useful and noxious birds. After half a century's work we
had arrived at the point from which Baldamus in 1845 and
1856, had desired to start.
It is only natural that, after the preliminaries, a true appre-
ciation of the cause of bird-protection could be expected only
in the Agricultural Ministry of Hungary, particularly because,
in the international negotiations, as we know, it was the
Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture which from the very begin-
150 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
ning, i. e. from 1868, took a direct part in the negotiations,
generally as final court of appeal, — for, as is well known,
in the case of international negotiations the opposition of one
single party may overthrow the whole action.
Henceforward, as we know, the question of international
bird-protection was always treated in organic connexion with
agriculture : so, as is quite natural, the literature of the West
began slowly to follow the same tendency which was made
to serve the purposes of private enterprise too.
1892. As early as 1892, a foreign firm ^ applied to the Hungarian
Ministry of Agriculture, offering a work published by them
(„Deutschlands nutzliche und schadliche Vogel") for trans-
lation.
As the Ministry had no special expert among its officials
at the time, it applied to the Royal Hungarian Natural-
Historical Society for an opinion. The latter referred the
matter to the present writer, who in his report, which included
a thorough criticism of the work, opposed the idea of taking
it over and emphatically declared for the publication of an
original work for the writing of which, in his opinion, there
were plenty of experts available.
But the changes in the construction of the Cabinet, which
always affect tendencies, delayed the carrying out of the plan,
though they did not discourage the efforts of the experts
whose collaboration had been invited, who continued to make
preparations.
The writer of the work had long been fixed upon in the
person of Stephen Chernel de Csernelhaz who had not
merely the expert knowledge but also, as we say, the pen
to overcome the difficulties of language : while as illustrator,
who could devote himself entirely to the work, the choice
' Parey, of Berlin.
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 151
fell upon Stephen Necsev. who, though indeed engaged
particularly in the production of entomological drawings, after
a comparatively short study of the subject, based on the works
of the classical British illustrators, Keulemans, Thorijurn
etc. and on an observation of living birds, was able to offer
pictures of birds that, by the aid of skilful, softening repro-
ductions, could hold their own with those of his masters.
Necsey was assisted by Gyula Hary, our eminent painter,
whose brush knows no difficulties.
The fate of the work dealing with economic ornithology
was, however, not decided till IgnAcz Daranyi took office;
for among the Ministers for Agriculture of the constitutional
era he was the first to bring the necessary feeling and indo-
mitable energy to bear on the development of an agricultural
literature in a manner that would make agricultural knowledge
accessible to the humblest agricultural labourer.
To return to the subject of our sketch, IqnAcz Daranyi
was thoroughly convinced of the great economic significance
of birds, a conviction due, in his case, to his practical
experience of agricultural life, and was, consequently, in-
clined to adopt the system of rational bird-protection. So
it is quite natural that, recognising the necessity of publishing
a book on economic ornithology, he used all the influence
he could command to carry out the plan.
He addressed a Rescript to the Hungarian Central Office
for Ornithology, entrusting the same with the carrying out
of the work: and, as thorough preparations had been made
for the publication (some parts of the book were already
written by this time), the two volumes of the book, which
was every inch of it Hungarian, were ready for publication
within two years (1898—99). The full title of the work was J |;-*^-
as follows : „A foldmivelesugyi magyar kiralyi Minister kiad-
vanyai. | Magyar Ornithologiai Kozpont. | Magyarorszag mada-
152 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
rai I kUlonos tekintettel | gazdasagi jelentos^gokre. | A fold-
mivelesugyi magyar kiralyi Minister megbizasab61 | irta |
CHERNELHAzi Chernel IstvAn. | Kcpekkcl cllattakHARY Gyula
es Necsey Istvan, | intezte Herman Otto | Budapest, 1898,
elso kotet, 1899, masodik kotet".i
The reproduction of the coloured illustrations was carried
out by the firm Czettel es Deutsch, under the personal
supervision of Gyula Czettel; and a German expert re-
viewer'^ acknowledged that the illustrations compared favourable
with those of British masters.
The Minister took care that presentation copies of the
work should reach the proper quarters, a course which did
much to advance its real object.
But the book could not be anything other than what it
was intended for, i. e. a scientific text-book of Hungarian
economic ornithology, the bulkiness of which alone was
sufficient to prevent its having any direct effect on the labour-
ing classes as a whole, who required a book of much
smaller dimensions.
For this reason Ignacz Daranyi entrusted the present
writer with the compilation of a smaller work suitable for
distribution among field labourers at large and adapted to
the furtherance of the interest of economic ornithology and
rational birdprotection.
1901. This smaller work (18 sheets in all) appeared in 1901
with the following title:
'^ * „Publications of the Royal Hung. Ministry of Agriculture. | Hung.
Central office for Ornithology. | The Birds of Hungary | with particular
regard | to their economic significance | written, 1 by order of the Royal
Hung. Minister for Agriculture | by Stephen Chernel de chernelhAz | ,
with illustrations | by Qyula HAry and Stephen Necsey , published under
the direction of Otto Herman | at Budapest. Vol I, 1898. Vol II, 1899.
^- ' Reichenow, in „Ornithologische Monatsberichte", Berlin. 1899.
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 153
„A m. kir. foldmivelesUgyi Minister kiadvanyai. | A mada-
rak hasznarol 6s karar61 | DarAnyi IqnAcz [ m. kir. foldmi-
velesUgyi minister megbizasabol | irta | Herman Otto, kepek-
kel ellatta Csorqey Titusz. Budapest, 1901".^
This little book did its best, by appealing to the feelings
and taking into consideration the peculiar conceptions of the
lower classes, to take hold of them, and, devoting special
chapters to the more important, often very attractive features
of bird-life, gradually passes over to the drier, descriptive
part; here, too, only what is necessary was given, all super-
fluous matter was avoided and no attempt made at triviality,
which is common enough in popular works; particular efforts
were made to shun any tone of pedantry and sententiousness.
The little book, in its first edition, sold to the extent of
20,000, in its second, somewhat enlarged edition, of 15,000
copies: it was published in German too.
The German translation was excellently done by John
Charles Rosler, Professor of the Gymnasium (Middle School)
at Szaszr^gen : it was published by Frederick Eugene Kohler
at Of/'a(Reuss), with the following title: „Nutzen und Schaden
der Vogel | Verfasst von | Otto Herman j Chef der st. ung.
ornithologischen Centrale in Budapest. [ Ins Deutsche iiber-
setzt von | Johann Carl Rosler, Gymnasial-Professor in
Sz^szregen. | Mit 100 Abbildungen von Titus Csorgey. |
Herausgegeben mit Unterstutzung des koniglich ungarischen
Ackerbau-Ministeriums."^ 1 Gera-Untermhaus I 1903". 1903.
^ ..Publications of the Royal Hung. Minister of Agriculture | The Use-
fulness and Noxiousness of Birds | written | by order of IgnAcz DarAnyi,
Royal Hungarian Minister of Agriculture | by Otto Herman, illustrated by
Titus Csoroey. Budapest, 1901".
^ This referred to the fact that the Hung. Ministry of Agriculture
allowed the use of the cliches free of charge.
154 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
German criticism, based on tiie fact that tiie book contained
exhaustive knowledge, acknowledged that the same was an
exemplary popular book: it is given as a prize by many
foreign societies.^
The expert critic pointed out that the work, with all its
conciseness, was particularly rich in material and praised the
splendid, life-like qualities of Csorqev's drawings, qualities
that are perhaps only natural in an artist who was at the
same time an ornithologist.
It was particularly the chapter of this little book dealing
with the protection of birds which attracted the attention of
the German champions of the cause to Hungary, more espec-
ially as the tendency of the same was identical with that
carried to victory in our days, not without a struggle, by
Baron John Berlepsch-Seebach, a worthy son of the great
German apiarist: of this mention is made below.
After this digression we must return to the year 1901, the
culmination, through the writing and publishing of the work
on the usefulness and noxiousness of birds, of an era, the
moments of which connect the present with the First Inter-
national Ornithological Congress, lasting for 10 years (1891—
1901).
IqnAcz DarAnyi considered the time was ripe for the
taking of determined measures for the protection of animals,
and particularly of birds, useful to agriculture, such measures
to be given the binding force of law.
19()1. Consequently on March 18, 1901, after careful preparation
and thorough investigations, he issued, in conjunction with
the Ministers for Home Affairs and Commerce a circular
decree (24655/ VII. 1.), which, being founded on existing
' Reichenow, in „Ornithologische Monatsberichte". Berlin, 1903,
THE PROTECTSON OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 155
laws, has the binding force of law, for the protection of animals
useful to agriculture. It runs as follows:
Royal Hungarian Minister of Agriculture.
No. 24655.
Vn. 1 1901.
Circular Decree,
addressed to all local authorities.
On the basis of §§ 57 and 58 of Act XII of 1894
(dealing with agriculture and field-police), in the interests of
the protection of animals useful to agriculture, after having
given due consideration to the views of the local author-
ities, in conjunction with the Ministers of Home Affairs
and of Commerce I decree:
§ 1.
The following animals shall be afforded due protection:
I. Mammalia.
1. Bats, all kinds of, at any period.
2. Moles, except in flower and kitchen gardens and nurs-
eries, where the may be destroyed.
3. Shrew-mice, all kinds of, except the water-shrew, which
in noxious to fishing.
4. Hedgehogs.
II. Birds.
*Kestrel — Cerchneis tinnunculus.*
*Red-legged Falcon — Cerchneis vespertina.
^ The birds which are asterisked (*) are in the schedule of the
International Convention. The three species of falcon were included
on the basis of the ratified Convention.
156 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
*Naumann Kestrel — Cerchneis Naumanni.
*Short-eared Owl — Asio accipitrinus.
*Barn Owl — Strix flammea.
*Little Owl — Glaucidium noctuum.
*Pygniy Owl — Glaucidium passerinum.
*Tengmalm Owl — Nyctale Tengmalmi.
*Scops Owl — Pisorhina scops.
■'Oriole — Oriolus galbuia.
*Rose-coloured Starling — Pastor roseus.
*Starling — Sturnus vulgaris.
*Roller — Coracias garrula.
^Hoopoe — Upupa epops.
Cuckoo — Cuculus canorus.
*Wryneck — Yunx torquilla.
Jackdaw — Corvus monedula.
*Pied Woodpecker — Dendrocopus maior.
"^Middle-Spotted Woodpecker — Dendrocopus medius.
^White-backed Woodpecker — Dendrocopus leuconotus.
*Barred Woodpecker — Dendrocopus minor.
"Three-toed Woodpecker — Picoides tridactylus.
*Great black Woodpecker — Dryocopus martins.
*Green Woodpecker — Picus viridis.
*Grey Woodpecker — Picus canus.
*Nuthatch — Sitta europaea.
*Tree Creeper — Certhia familiaris.
*Wall Creeper — Tichodroma muraria.
*Snow Finch — Fringilla nivalis.
*Chaffinch — Fringilla coelebs.
*Brambling — Fringilla montifringilla.
*Serin Finch — Serinus serinus.
*Siskin — Chrysomitris spinus.
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 157
^Linnet — Cannabina cannabina.
*Mealy Redpoll — Cannabina linaria.
*Greenfinch — Chloris chloris.
*Goldfinch — Carduelis carduelis.
Bullfinch — Pyrrhula pyrrhula.
*Snow Bunting — Calcarius nivalis.
*Meadow Bunting — Emberiza cia.
*Yellowhammer — Emberiza citrinella.
*Ortolan — Emberiza hortuiana.
*Corn Bunting — Emberiza calandra.
*Reed Bunting — Emberiza schoeniclus.
*Crested Lark — Alauda cristata.
*Wood Lark — Alauda arborea.
*Skylark — Alauda arvensis.
*White-winged Lark — Alauda sibirica.
*Shore Lark — Otocoris alpestris.
*Tree Pipit — Anthus trivialis.
Water Pipit — Anthus spipoletta.
Tawny Pipit — Anthus campestris
Titlark — Anthus pratensis.
*Red-throated Pipit — Anthus cervinus.
*White Wagtail — Motacilla alba.
*Blue-headed Wagtail — Motacilla flava.
Yellow Wagtail — Motacilla campestris.
*Black-headed Wagtail - Motacilla melanocephala.
Grey Wagtail — Motacilla boarula.
*
*
*Great Titmouse — Parus maior.
*Coal Titmouse — Parus ater.
*Marsh Titmouse — Parus palustris.
*Sombre Titmouse — Parus lugubris.
158 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
*Azurc Titmouse — Parus cyaneus.
*Blue Titmouse — Parus coerulaeus.
*Crested Titmouse — Parus cristatus.
*Long-tailed Titmouse — Aegithalus caudatus.
*Penduiine Titmouse — Remiza pendulina.
*Bearded Reedling — Panurus biarmicus,
*Golden-crested Wren — Regulus regulus.
'^Fire-crested Wren - Regulus ignicapillus.
*Wren — Troglodytes troglodytes.
*Dipper — Cinclus cinclus.^
*Hedgesparrow — Accentor modularis.
*Alpine Accentor — Accentor coUaris.
'Blackcap — Sylvia atricapilla.
*Barred Warbler — Sylvia nisoria.
*Garden Warbler - Sylvia simplex.
*Orphean Warbler — Sylvia orphaea.
"Whitethroat - Sylvia sylvia.
"Lesser Whitethroat — Sylvia curruca.
*Great Reed Warbler — Acrocephalus arundinaceus.
*Marsh Warbler — Acrocephalus palustris.
*Reed Warbler Acrocephalus streperus.
*Mustached Swamp Warbler — Calamodus melano-
pogon.
*Sedge Warbler — Calamodus schoenobaenus.
'"River Warbler — Calamodus aquaticus.
*Grasshopper Warbler — Locustella maevia.
*Savi's Warbler — Locustella luscinioides.
*Icterine Warbler — Hypolais hypolais.
' Added later.
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 159
*Wood Wren - Phylloscopus sibilator.
*Willow Wren — Phylloscopus trochilus.
*Bonelli's Warbler - Phylloscopus bonellii.
*Chiffchaff — Phylloscopus acredula.
♦Blackbird — Turdus merula.
♦Mistletoe Thrush — Turdus viscivorus.
*Song Thrush — Turdus musicus.
"^Redwing — Turdus iliacus.
♦Ringed Ousel Turdus torquatus.
*Rock Thrush - Monticola saxatilis.
♦Blue Thrush — Monticola solitaria.
♦Wheatear — Saxicola oenanthe.
♦Whinchat — Pratincola rubetra.
♦.Stonechat — Pratincola rubicola.
♦Black Redstart — Ruticilla tythis.
♦Garden Redstart — Ruticilla phoenicura.
♦Redbreast — Erythacus rubecula.
♦Red-spotted Bluethroat - Cyanecula cyanecula.
♦Nightingale — Luscinia luscinia.
♦Thrush Nightingale — Luscinia philomela.
♦Spotted Flycatcher — Muscicapa grisola.
♦Pied Flycatcher — Muscicapa atricapilla.
♦White-collared Flycatcher — Muscicapa collaris.
♦Red-breasted Flycatcher — Muscicapa parva.
♦Swallow — Hirundo rustica.
♦House Martin — Chelidonaria urbica.
♦Sand Martin Cotile riparia.
♦Swift — Cypselus apus.
♦Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus.
160 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
*Golden Plover — Charadrius pluvialis.
♦Dotterel — Charadrius morinellus.
*Kentish Plover — Charadrius alexandrinus.
*Grey Plover — Charadrius squatarola.
♦Little Ringed Plover — Charadrius dubius.
Ringed Plover — Aegialitis hiaticuia.
*
♦White Stork — Ciconia alba.^
♦Black Stork — Ciconia nigra.
♦Lapwing — Vanellus vanellus.
♦Black-headed Gull — Larus ridibundus.
♦Black Tern — Hydrochelidon nigra.
♦White-winged Black Tern — Hydrochelidon ieucoptera.
§2.
Any person who destroys the mammals and birds enum-
erated in § 1, takes the birds' nests and eggs or young ones
or puts them up for sale without the leave of the author-
ities, is guilty of an offence against § 95 of Act XII of 1894
and is liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred (100)
crowns (£ 4. 3. 4.).
§3.
The taking alive or killing of the animals enumerated in
§ 1 of my present decree, the taking of the birds' nests or
eggs is permitted only for scientific purposes and with the
leave of the authorities.
The transport of birds' nests and eggs as well as that
of the animals enumerated in § 1, whether alive or dead, is
permissible only with the leave of the authorities.
^ The two species of storks were included on the basis of the
ratified Convention.
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 161
§4.
Any person desirous of obtaining a licence for the capture
of the animals enumerated in § 1, for the taking of birds'
nests or eggs or for the transport of any one of the same
must produce a commission or order in writing from some
Hungarian scientific institute, some expert or individual who
can prove that he is engaged in natural-historical research.
Such licence may be granted by any of the first-grade
authorities enumerated in § 102 of Act XII of 1894.
§ 5-
In addition to the restrictions enumerated in § 4, the
authorities can grant a licence only for the capture of not
more than 10 animals or the taking of not more than 10
birds" nests or eggs : this maximum to be permitted only in
cases where such would not further the extinction of the
said animal.
§6.
The licence for the capture of the animals enumerated in
§ 1 or for the taking of birds' nests and eggs must be drawn
up after the following pattern :
Licence.
The undersigned (authorities) grants to residing
at , who has received an order from
(scientific institute, school etc. name of expert engaged in
physical research) an order to supply
(nests, eggs, head of animals) , permission to
capture or take (nests, eggs, head of animals)
and keep the said animals either alive or dead in his
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. *»
162 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
possession, such permission to be in force for a period of
two weeks dating from today.
Dated (signed) (seal).
§ 7.
The licence to transport in any way whatsoever the animals
enumerated in § 1 or birds' nests and eggs is given in the
following form :
Transport Licence.
The undersigned (authorities), on the basis of a legal
licence from the authorities, herewith produced, for the ^C^
of (animals, birds' eggs or nests) , permit
, residing at , to transport the (animals,
eggs or nests) above enumerated to , by rail, by
water, by post or by hand.
Dated (signed) (seal).
§8.
The licence mentioned in § 6 is avaitable for 14 days
only. The transport licence, if the transport is effected by rail,
by water or by post, must be taken over and retained by the
forwarding agency concerned.
A licence for transport by hand or by cart can also be
made available for 14 days only.
Both licences (that mentioned in § 7, and that mentioned
in § 8) entitle the concessionee to capture, take or transport
the number and species of animals, eggs or nests defined
therein only, and may not be used more than once.
§9.
My present decree shall be published in all parishes or
communities in the usual manner, the rank and file of the
A COMPARISON 163
field police are to be instructed concerning its enactments
and the carrying into effect of the said enactments shall be
made the duty both of the forestkeepers and the surveyors
of the roads.
Budapest, March 18, 1901.
(Signed)
Daranyi.
A Comparison.
According to the decree, which acts with the binding
force of law, there are in Hungary 132 species of birds
afforded protection, a number which practically contains all
species of any account to agriculture in that country.
The French draft suggested about 149 species of useful
birds, including such as do not exist in Hungary at all or
are extremely rare (Flamingo, Cursorius, Bubulcus, some
species of Ibis etc.), and included the long-eared owl as well
as all species of crow exclusive of the raven.
The Convention, now figuring as Act I of 1906, in
Schedule 1 containing useful species, includes approximately 103.
It does not include the Little Bustard and the Bustard, which
are undoubtedly useful, and play the part to which, at the
International Economic Congress held at Vienna in 1873,
Alfred Brehm, in contrast to Gloqer, attached so much
importance (v. sub 1873) and which the French „ Chasseurs"
(v. sub 1895) displayed so clearly and effectively. This is of
account in Hungary too, for in the Lowlands (Alfold) the
damage done by insects, particularly by locusts, is on the
increase, while the Bustard and Little Bustard is a contin-
ually disappearing quantity, the Quail is rarely heard of and
the insectivore Gulls have been deprived of their nesting
places.
11*
164 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
Before proceeding further with the treatment of the ques-
tion in Hungary, let us take by way of comparison the con-
dition of things in Germany.
The German Imperial Act sanctioned in 1888 (No. 1784,
sanctioned on March 22, 1888) consists of 10 clauses in all,
and contains, as we know from what has been already said,
no schedule of species requiring protection, but contents
itself with a list of those which may be considered noxious,
viz. in § 8 :
1. Day Birds of prey, except falcons (v. supra.)
2. Eagle Owl.
3. Shrikes.
4. Crossbills.
5. Sparrows.
6. Hawfinch.
7. Crows (Raven, Black Crow, Grey Crow, Rook, Jack-
daw, Magpie, Jay, Nutcracker),
8. Wild Doves (Wood Pigeon, Wild Pigeon, Turtle
Dove).
9. Moorhens (Coot etc.).
10. Herons (Night Heron, Bittern, Heron).
11. Goosanders.
12. Seagulls.
13. Cormorants.
14. Grebes.
According to this the other species of birds should be
protected. But the statements of the Federal States and the
towns, which were annexed to the documents supporting the
Bill, are in many points at variance with the Imperial Law,
as the schedule appended below will show us. These Federal
States etc. are as follows:
A COMPARISON 165
Aachen (1883)/ Baden (1864), Bavaria (1879), Bremen
(1849), Bromberg (1883), Alsace-Lorraine (1883), Hesse (1837),
Lippe-Detmold (1777), Meci<lenburg-Scliwerin (1879), Olden-
burg (1873), Reuss-Greiz (1870), Reuss-Gera (1855), Schwarz-
burg-RudoIstadt (1849), Schwarzburg-Sondershausen (1860),
Sachs-Altenburg (1870), Sachs-Coburg (1809), Sachs-Meinin-
gen (1878), Saxony (1878), Sachs-Weimar (1852), Waldeck
(1868), Wurttemberg (1878).
The schedules of all these, taken together, contain the
following species:
Oriole (1) Oriolus - — Goldamsel.
Owls (6) Strix — Eule.
Hoopoe (1) Upupa — Wiedehopf.
Wagtail (3) Motacilla - Bachstelze.
Crested Lark (1) Alauda cristata — Schopflerche.
Furze-chat (2) Pratincola — Wiesenschmatzer.
Siskin (1) Chrysomitris — Zeisig.
Jackdaw (1) Corvus monedula — Dohle.
Waxwing (1) Ampelis — Seidenschwarz.
Nuthatch (1) Sitta — Spechtmeise.
Titmouse (10) Parus — Meisen.
Black-headed Gull (1) Larus ridibundus — Move.
Buzzard (2) Buteo — Mausebussard.
Wood Lark (1) Alauda arborea — Baumlerche.
Tree Creeper (1) Certhia — Baumlaufer.
Swallow^s (6) Hirundo, — Schwalben.
Wrens (5) Phylloscopus etc. — Laubvogel.
Partridge (1) Perdix — Repphuhn.
^ The numbers in brackets here indicate the date of the laws and
ordinances respectively of the various states and towns.
^ The numbers in brackets here indicate the number of species
included in the respective genus.
166 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
Redstart (2) Ruticilla — Rotschwanze.
Shrikes (4) Lanius — Wiirger.
Storks (2) Ciconia - Storche.
Curlew (1) Numenius — Sichler.
Wheatear (3) Saxicola — Steinschmatzer.
Woodpecker (8) Picus — Spechte.
Cornish Chough (1) Pyrrhocorax — Alpendohle.
Kingfisher (1) Alcedo — Eisvogel.
Cuckoo (1) Cuculus — Kukuk.
Nightjar (1) Caprimulgus — Nachtschwalbe.
Red- spotted Bluethroat (1) Cyanecula — Blaukehlchen.
Linnet (1) Cannabina — Hanfling.
Gold-crested Wren (2) Regulus — Goldhahnchen.
Flycatchers (4) Muscicapa — Fliegenschnapper.
Plover (1) Charadrius — Regenpfeifer.
Moorhen (1) Gallinula — Moorhuhn.
Aquatic Warblers (8) Acrocephalus etc. — Rohrsanger.
Wryneck (1) Yunx — Wendehals.
Mealy Redpoll (1) Acanthis — Leinzeisig.
Wren (1) Troglodytes — Zaunkonig.
Larks (2) Alauda — Lerche.
Finches (2) Fringilla — Fink.
Pipits (5) Anthus — Pieper.
Warblers (7) Sylvia - Grasmiicken.
Thrushes (8) Turdus — Drosseln.
Swift (1) Cypselus — Turmsegler.
Buntings (7) Emberiza — Ammern.
Single Snipe (1) Gallinago — Moorschnepfe.
Starling (1) Sturnus — Staar.
, Bullfinch (2) Pyrrhula -- Gimpel.
Jays (2) Garrulus stb. - Halier.
Roller (1) Coracias — Mandelkrahe.
Accentor (2) Accentor — Fluevogel.
A COMPARISON
167
Goldfinch (1) Carduelis — Stieglitz.
Rock Dove (3) Columba stb. — Wildtauben.
Wild Duck (8) Anas — Enten.
Crow (3) Corvus — Krahen.
Hawfinch (1) Coccothraustes — Kernbeisser.
Sparrow (2) Passer — Sperling.
Rook (1) Corvus frugilegus — Saatkrahe.
Dipper (1) Cinclus - Wasseramsel.
Redbreast (1) Erithacus — Rotkehlchen.
The total of birds protected in the Federal States of
Germany (the schedules begin in 1777 — Lippe-Detmold)
amounts to about 152 species over against the 132 species
protected in Hungary ; but we must not forget that it is just
the oldest schedule which defends the wild ducks and the
hawfinch, while Bremen protects the sparrows, several states
the shrikes, Bavaria the kingfishers and all the jays, while
both buzzards and all species of crow are afforded protecfion.
The falcons are not protected by a single one and owe their
safety to the Imperial Act of 1888. So from the 150 species
protected in Germany we must subtract 24 species that are
unprotected; and then we shall find that Hungary protects
six more such birds as deserve protection.
This will show us that Ionacz Daranvi's intuition and
energy succeeded in doing justice to all the conditions of
bird-protection and made progress feasible. The actual car-
rying out of the same depends on the officials but more
particularly on society.
And still all these facts, which excite the envy of foreign
countries, do not afford complete satisfaction, for the destruct-
ion in Italy and indeed in the South generally still goes on
uninterruptedly ; and the number of birds is so strikingly on
the decrease that Great Britain, otherwise so obstinate in
clinging to her „ splendid isolation", started the cry asking,
168 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
almost in terror, what was the cause of the rapid decrease
of swallows?
Great Britain's isolation is comprehensible, for the insular
conditions of that country are quite different. The British
Birds Protection Act, to continental conceptions, is not what
it should be, but Game Laws, which hinge on the strict
observance of the close time.
The Act at present in force is really an amendment of
the older laws: it was passed on sept. 7, 1880, its „short
title" being „The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880".
The enactments of the said law run as follows : ,§ 3.
Any person who between the first day of March and the first
day of August in any year after the passing of this Act shall
knowingly and wilfully shoot or attempt to shoot, or shall
use any boat for the purpose of shooting or causing to be
shot, any wild bird, or shall use any lime, trap, snare, net,
or other instrument for the purpose of taking any wild bird,
or shall expose or offer for sale, or shall have in his control
or possession after the fifteenth day of March, any wild bird
recently killed or taken, shall, on conviction of any such
offence before any two justices of the peace in England and
Wales or Ireland, or before the Sheriff in Scotland, in the
case of any wild bird which is included in the schedule
hereunto annexed, forfeit and pay for every such bird in
respect of which an offence has been committed a sum not
exceeding one pound, and, in the case of any other wild
bird, shall for a first offence be reprimanded and discharged
on payment of costs, and for every subsequent offence for-
feit and pay for every such wild bird in respect of which
an offence in committed a sum of money not exceeding
five shillings, in addition to the costs, unless such person
shall prove that the said wild bird was either killed or taken
or bought or received during the period in which such wild
A COMPARISON 169
bird could be legally killed or taken, or from some person
residing out of the United Kingdom. This section shall not
apply to the owner or occupier of any land, or to any person
authorised by the owner or occupier of any land, killing or
taking any wild bird or such land not included in the schedule
hereto annexed. § 4. Where any person shall be found
offending against this Act, it shall be lawful for any person
to require the person so offending to give his Christian name,
surname, and place of above, and in case the person so
offending shall, after being so required, refuse to give his
real name or place of abode, or give an untrue name or
place of abode, he shall be liable on being convicted of any
such offence to forfeit and pay, in addition to the penalties
imposed by section three, such sum of money not exceeding
ten shillings sterling as to the justices or sheriff shall seem
meet".
The schedule annexed to the Act is as follows:
1. American Quail — Ortyx virginianus.^
2. Auk — Alca torda.
3. Avocet — Avozetta recurvirostra.
*4. Bee-eater — Merops apiaster.-
5. Bittern - Botaurus stellaris.
6. Bonxie — Lestris catarrhactes.
7. Colin — Ortyx virginianus.
8. Cornish Chough — Pyrrhocorax graculus.
9. Coulterneb — Fratercula arctica.
10. Cuckoo — Cuculus canorus.
^ I have to thank Dr. E. H. Dresser, the eminent British ornithologist
and the Tring Museum for translating the names included in the schedule
into their scientific nomenclature.
* The species marked by an asterisk are protected by the Con-
vention.
170 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
11. Curlew — Numenius arcuatus.
12. Diver — Colymbus.
13. Dotterel — Charadrius morinellus.
14. Dunbird — Fuligula ferina. ?.
15. Dunlin — Tringa alpina.
16. Eiderduck — Somateria mollissima.
*17. Fern owl — Caprimulgus europaeus.
18. Fulmar — Fulmarus glacialis.
19. Gannet — Sula bassana.
*20. Goatsucker — Caprimulgus europaeus.
21. Godwit — Limosa melanura.
*22. Goldfinch — Carduelis carduelis.
23. Grebe — Podiceps.
24. Greenshank — Tetanus nebularius,
25. Guillemot — Uria troile.
26. Gull — Larus (except Black-backed Gull).
*27. Hoopoe — Upupa epops.
28. Kingsfisher — Alcedo ispida.
29. Kittiwake - Rissa tridactyla.
30. Lapwing — Vanellus vanellus.
31. Lark — Alauda.
32. Loon — Colymbus septentrionalis.
33. Mallard — Anas boschas.
34. Marrot — Uria et Alca.
35. Merganser — Mergus serrator.
36. Murre — Mergulus alle.
*37. Night Hawk — Caprimulgus europaeus.
*38. Nightjar — Caprimulgus europaeus.
*39. Nightingale — Luscinia luscinia.
40. Oriole — Oriolus galbula.
41. Oxbird — Tringa alpina.
*42. Owl — Strix.
43. Oystercatcher - Haematopus ostrilegus.
A COMPARISON 171
44. Peewit — Vanellus vanellus.
45. Petrel — Procellariae.
46. Phalarope — Phalaropus.
47. Plover — Charadrius.
48. Ploverspage — Aegialitis.
49. Pochard — Fuligula ferina. d.
50. Puffin — Puffinus anglorum.
51. Purre — Tringa alpina.
52. Razorbill — Alca torda.
53. Redshank — Tetanus calidris.
54. Reeve or Ruff — Pavoncella pugnax.
55. Roller — Coracias garrula.
56. Sanderling — Calidris arenaria.
57. Sandpiper — Tetanus.
58. Scout — Stercerarius parasiticus.
59. Sealark Aegialitis hiaticula.
60. Seamew — Larus.
61. Sea Parrot — Fratercula arctica.
62. Sea Swallow — Sterna.
63. Shearwater — Puffinus.
64. Sheldrake — Taderna taderna.
65. Shoveller — Rhincapsis clypeata.
66. Skua — Stercerarius.
67. Smew Mergus albellus.
68. Snipe — Gallinago.
69. Solan Goose — Sula bassana.
70. Spoonbill — Platalea ieucerodia.
71. Stint — Tringa minuta.
72. Stone Curlew — Oedicnemus crepitans.
*73. Stonechat — Pratincela rubicela.
74. Summersnipe — Tetanus hypeleucos.
75. Tarrock — Rissa trydactyla.
76. Teal — Anas crecca.
172 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
77. Tern — Sterna.
78. Thickknee — Oedicnemus crepitans.
79. Tystey — Uria grylle.
80. Whaup — Numenius arcuatus.
81. Whimbrei — Numenius phaeopus.
82. Widgeon — Anas penelope.
83. Wild Duck — Anates ferae.
84. Willock ~ Uria troile.
85. Woodcock — Scolopax rusticola.
*86. Woodpecker — Picus.
From the British schedule it is evident that the birds are
protected not by species but on the basis of names in gen-
eral use: that is why the Caprimulgus europaeus is protected
under 4 names, viz: Tern Owl, Goatsucker, Night Hawk and
Nightjar, while the Alca torda is given 2 names, viz: Auk
and Razorbill, the Vanellus vanellus 2, viz: Lapwing and
Peewit, the Oedicnemus crepitans 2, viz: Stone Curlew and
Thickknee. The system followed is identical with that of the
Hungarian „Circular Decree".
We look in vain in this schedule for those species on
the protection of which the continental states laid the greatest
stress; to mention only a few; swallows and swift, blue-
throat, redbreast, wheatear, accentor, warblers (of this genus
only the nightingale is protected), grasshopper warbler, fly-
catchers, wagtails, wren, gold-crested and fire-crested wren,
— all are missing from the British schedule.
On the other hand the schedule includes species which,
in continental conception, are among the greatest foes of
fishing: to mention only a few; the merganser, smew, diver,
grebe, not to speak of the bonxie etc.
The British Act was further degraded into a mere Game
Law by the fact that it did not protect nests and broods;
A COMPARISON 173
but this was noticed in 1894 and, in a singular way, rep-
aired by the „ Wild-Birds Act, 1894".
The protection afforded to the broods, however, is not
general and does not apply to all time. The Government is
empowered, on an application by the county council, to issue
an order prohibiting „the taking or destroying of wild birds
eggs in any year or years in any place or places in that
county". The limits of the place or places, or otherwise, the
particular species of wild birds" shall be specified. The
Government may „on the representation of the council of
any administrative county, order that the principal Act shall
apply within that county or any part or parts thereof to any
species of wild birds not included in the schedule of that Act".
The protection of birds which would fulfil the requirements
of continental conception, is, in Great Britain, entrusted to
society and controlled by the „ Royal Society for the protection
of Birds".
In England „birds'" and „trees' days" are indeed in
vogue: and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, in
the customary way reward, by the presentation of shields,
books and medals those who write the best essays on trees
and the protection of birds.
Of late the same Royal Society has espoused the cause
of artificial nesting-boxes and has erected a central warehouse
near the Tower Bridge in London.^
The above comparative treatment has in any case taught
us two lessons, 1. that the International Convention of 1902
offers a good basis for a uniform settlement and 2. that the
cause of bird-protection in Hungary is, for the time, in
perfect order.
^ ^Bird Notes and News, Circular Letter issued Quarterly by the
Royal Soc. for the Protection of Birds. Vol 11. No. 3." London. Sept. 1906.
174 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY
The Future.
Those who are not initiated into the secrets of the science
do not remark the continual decrease of permanent non-
migrating useful birds whose work the woods and garden
cannot dispense with, but they may notice the increase of worms.
Popular fancy has always considered titmice to be per-
manent residents: the latter are on the decrease; in fact they
have entirely disappeared from places where once they existed
in large quantities and did their work. Where do they go?
These too appear from time to time in the markets of the
South, where they are sold by the dozen — for culinary purposes!
The next and natural question is: what drives these winged
creatures to migrate, or rather to emigrate? The answer, as
we know, is a very simple one, viz. that there birds nest
in hollows, whereas modern forestry and gardening does not
tolerate old trees, which with their hollows allured birds that
lay in hollows, and so has rendered the same literally homeless:
to save themselves they must wander! This point was empha-
sised long ago by Alfred Brehm.
Homeless too have become our noblest song birds, most
of them insect-eaters, that make their nests in bushes, for
modern farming requires clear fields and so cannot tolerate
the presence, here and there, of bushes and shrubs, the
homes of those winged creatures which are the unpaid and
faithful guardians of the crops.
All these circumstances prevailed upon Baron Hans Ber-
LEPSCH, that truly ideal champion of the bird-world, to set
down as the line to be followed what may be expressed in a
short sentence: „Keep what we can".
And he has come to the conclusion that we must restore
to useful birds all that the modern system has deprived them
of. But as the progress of economy precludes a return to a
THE FUTURE 175
primitive state of tilings, we must artificially restore what
has been tai<en away.
This conviction led Baron Berlepsch to make a study
of natural nesting-hollows and to construct a machine for the
hollowing out of artificial nesting-boxes; it led him, moreover,
to the cultivation of bushes, by cutting and partly also by
grafting, which should tempt birds looking for suitable nesting-
places to settle there. Of his success living examples may be
send in the town-park of Cassel and the estate at Seebach,
which Baron Berlepsch has converted into a real nesting colony.
The most surprising success attained was when, after
artificial nesting-boxes fixed on stakes had been placed on
the colonies on the sand-hils of North Germany, not less
than 90 7o of the same became inhabited, within the first
year, by titmice up till that time unknown in the district.
This attracted the attention of Ionacz Daranyi too.
Supported by the Hungarian Ministry of Commerce the
first Hungarian Factory for the production of nesting-boxes
has already been started, and there has appeared, from the
pen of Titus Csoroey, published by the H. 0. C, a com-
pendium of instructions dealing with the treatment and the
use of nesting-boxes as well as with nesting bushes.
On June 12, 1906 the Minister (No. 3686) ordered the
Hungarian Central Office for Ornithology to present a scheme
for the supplying of artificial nesting-boxes to the State
forests (5 million acres). This work is now in hand.
At the same period Count Albert Apponvi published his
decree providing for the inclusion of birds' and trees" days
in the scheme of work of elementary schools.
Thus ends the history, for the present, of the International
Convention of the protection of birds.
SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS.
Herman: Com v. for the F'rot. of Birds. *^
Synopsis of events leading up to the
International Convention.
1845. Baldamus, at the first German Ornithological Assembly
held at Kothen suggests the idea of protecting useful
animals, particularly birds. Rejected.
1846. Baldamus renews his suggestion at the meeting of the
Saxon Agricultural Societies. Shelved.
1856. Baldamus repeats his proposal at the second great
assembly of German ornithologists, suggesting a schedule
of useful birds. Ignored.
1868, The Twenty-sixth great assembly of German agricult-
urists and foresters held at Vienna hits upon the idea of
international protection of birds, and requests the Austro-
Hungarian Foreign Minister to take measures to secure
the formation of international treaties and agreements.
The first states to join are Switzerland and Italy.
1869. France approves of the scheme but attaches importance
to the cooperation of Switzerland, Italy and Spain.
1871. The governments of Austria and Hungary agree to
adopt the form of an agreement.
1872. Switzerland proposes the summoning of an international
assembly. The Austrian Government deputes Ritter von
Frauenfeld to treat with Targioni-Tosetti at Florence:
12*
180 SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE INTERN. CONVENTION
the delegates settle 6 points, which are modified at
Vienna and them presented to the Italian Government.
1873. The International Economic and Forestry Congress held
at Vienna treats exhaustively of the international protect-
ion of birds. Its resolutions:
1. Agreement (Convention); points I- IX.
Schedules of birds to be protected and those to
be hunted down.
Prohibitions.
International Committee. (Tschudi.)
2. Agreement (Convention), points I— III.
Schedules, A) useful, B) noxious birds. (MarenzcUer.)
3. The cause of the decrease in numbers of birds
is modern agriculture: by overcrowding of products
their enemies are increased.
It is not the taking of birds, but the destruction of
nesting that is responsible for the decrease in birds.
Bushes and shrubs must be replaced; hedges
must be grown.
Handbooks to be distributed gratis. (A. Brehm.)
4. An international convention to be drawn up.
(Setiegast,)
5. Compromise ; accepts the appointment of an inter-
national committee and settles points I — VII. of
the basis of the Convention.
1874. The Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture accept the Vienna
points as a basis for negotiations and considers them good.
1875. Count Gyiila Andrdssy and Visconti-Venosta sign the
Austro-Hungaro-Italian ..Declaration" and decide upon
the text of the protocol of acceptance. The Declaration
consists of 9 clauses and does away with the most pow-
erful Italian instruments, the Roccolo, the Pressanella
and the Passata The Protocol contains 3 points.
SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE INTERN. CONVENTION 181
1876. The Austro-Hungarian Foreign Ministry commences an
action in favour of the „ Declaration ", on the basis of
the Protocol.
The majority of the states find difficulties in the way
of carrying the project through.
Switzerland and France definitely join the movement.
Most of the countries, however, decide to wait until
the passing of the German Imperial Bill.
1884. First International Ornithological Congress at Vienna,
under the patronage of the Crown Prince Rudolf. Very
exhaustive treatment of the question of the international
protection of birds.
1. The aesthetic interest is placed side by side with
the economic one, to which it is to be subsidiary
only when the latter is vital.
All birds to be protected, exceptis excipiendis.
(Alt am.)
2 A set of prohibitory statutes to be arranged, (Fatio.)
3. Convention urged; some conditions suggested.
(Borggrcve.)
4. The representativeof the Italian Governmentdeclares
that he must abide by the ..Declaration" of 1875.
5. The decision of the Congress is a compromise,
the 2 points of which are far behind that of 1873.
6. A Permanent International Ornithological Com-
mittee (PIOC) organised, entrusted with the cre-
ation of a network of observatories and the pre-
liminaries of the following Congress.
7. Budapest chosen as the scene of the Second
International Ornithological Conrgess.
1887. The organisation of the Second Congress taken over
by the Hungarian Ministry of Public Instruction: date
fixed, 1888. Bitter conflict between the Pres. and Sec.
182 SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS LEADiNG UP TO THE INTERN. CONVENTION
of the PIOC, which impedes any progress. 1889 fixed
as the date for the Congress.
1889. The Crown Prince Rudolf asl^ed to give an opinion :
shortly after, his death. Later on, the revival of the
idea of a Congress : negotiations.
1890. The Hungarians take into their own hands and carry
through the organisation. Date finally decided on :
Whitsuntide, 1891.
Meeting of Hungarian Ornithologists.
Final scheme of Congress.
Invitations sent out.
Organisation of Classes, among others that for „ Eco-
nomic Ornithology".
Speakers called upon : for bird-protection, Th. Liebe,
Jacoby v. WangeUn and Izidor Mdday.
1891. Second International Ornithological Congress at Buda-
pest. Formation of an economic class, with Major
Alexander Homeyer (Greifswald) as Chairman.
The German and Austrian proposals withdrawn in
favour of that of Mdday, which proposed a return to
and the propagation of the Hungaro-Austro-ltalian
., Declaration" of 1875.
A synopsis of the treatment of the question of bird-
protection in Hungary attached.
Baron Berlepsch delivers an address on the exterm-
ination of birds.
1892. Germany endorses the Declaration of 1875.
1893. France invites all the States of Europe to attend a
conference to be held at Paris to discuss the question
of international bird-protection.
Beginning of negotiations.
1895. France repeats the invitation. The States accept it and
appoint delegates.
SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE INTERN. CONVENTION 183
Preliminary meeting at Vienna of the Hungarian and
Austrian delegates.
Preliminary meeting at Berlin of the German, Hungar-
ian, Austrian and ItaUan delegates.
International assembly opens on June 25.
French draft ready with schedules of useful and noxious
birds.
Italy declares unwillingness to accept any proposals
including schedules.
Compromise (§§ 1 — 9), with schedules of useful and
noxious birds.
Draft of convention accepted.
1899. Switzerland's post facto condition re § 5. of the con-
vention.
Sweden's post facto demand re § 3 of the convention.
1900. Third International Ornithological Congress at Paris.
A study of the food of birds decided upon ; reports
to be sent in by 1905, at London.
1902. The International Convention for the protection of birds
signed by the delegates of the signatory powers.
1903. The Convention made ready for presentation to the
Hungarian Parliament.
1904. The Convention placed on the table of the Hungarian
Parliament.
1906. The Convention sanctioned by Royal consent on Jan. 26;
incorporated in the Corpus Juris of Hungary on Jun. 9.
The history of the protection of birds in Hungary.
1883. The Game Laws (§§ 9, 12, 15, 20 and 30 of Act XX}
regulate the condition of birds.
1894. §§ 57—58 of Act XII (dealing with agriculture and
field police) settles the protection of birds.
184 SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE INTERN. CONVENTION
1901. Decree (March. 18: No. 24.655/VII. 1.) in which the
Minister of Agriculture, acting in conjunction with the
Ministers for Home Affairs and for Commerce, orders
the protection by law of 189 species of useful birds.
1906. Igndcz Dardnyi, Royal Hung. Minister of Agriculture,
orders the state forests to be supplied with artificial
nesting-boxes (1906. July, 17: No. 55.326/i— A. 1.).
The same Minister also decrees that measures be taken
that the artificial nesting-boxes be supplied by Hungar-
ian industry.
It consequence of salutary measures taken by the
Hungarian Minister of Commerce, the first Hungarian
Artificial Nestingbox Factory (as department of Kuhnel's
Saw Mills) begins activity at Baranya-Karasz.
In consequence of measures taken by His Excellency
Igndcz Dardnyi, and with the permission of H. 1. R.
H. the Archduke Joseph, a nesting and bird-feeding
settlement is established on the Set. Margaret Island.
(Budapest).
In connection with the above an enquete was held,
under the personal guidance of the Minister, to fix
points for experiments with the artificial nesting boxes
and to decide upon the means of control (Dec. 1906).
An important event in this year was the decree of the
Minister of Public Instruction providing for the intro-
duction of „ Birds' and Trees' Days" into the elementary
schools.
-^
INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING
IN THIS BOOK.
Index of names of persons occurring in this book.
This index does not profess to a biographical value. Its
object is merely to show, as far as possible, the position or
sphere of action of those men who have worked in the
interests of the international protection of birds.
Explanation of signs:
* = signed the Paris Convention of 1902.
^ = took part in the conference at Paris in 1895.
f = deceased.
fHis Imp. and R. H. the Crownprince RUDOLF.
His Imp. and R. H. the Archduke JOSEPH.
*AkERMAN, H., Minister Extraordinary of Sweden and Norway at
Paris.
f Altum, Dr. Bernhard, celebrated Professor of the Academy of
Forestry at Eberswalde.
•{•AnDRAssv, Count GvULA, sen., world-famed Hungarian statesman.
Cooperated with Francis Deak, Prince Bismarck, Lord Beaconsfield
and other celebrated contemporaries.
*D'AneTHAN, Baron, signed the Paris Convention. Belgian Ambassa-
dor, Paris.
Apponvi, Count Albert, Hungarian Minister for Public Instruction,
famous orator and statesman.
'^D'ArCO, Count, Councillor to the German Embassy in Paris, 1895.
188 INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING IN THIS BOOK
BaCHNER, Adolf, champion of the prevention of cruelty to animals
in Russian Poland, Warsaw.
fBALDAMUS, Dr. Edward, Pastor oy the EvangeUcal Church, famous
ornithologist, Coburg.
f BathORY, Nandor (Ferdinand), Director of a Realschool (Mod-
ern School), Budapest.
^BeCK, Dr. Max WlADIMIR, Austrian Prime Minister, Vienna. At
the time of the Conference at Paris (1895) was chief of depart-
ment in the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture.
BeRO, Baron H., Forester in 1891, Strassburg.
Berlepsch, Baron Hans, son of the great apiarist, founder of the
system of rational bird-protection, Cassel.
BerzeviCZY, Dr. Albert de, Seer, of State in 1891, later Minister of
Public Instruction, Budapest.
fBETHLEN, Count ANDREW, Hungarian Minister of Agriculture.
BiKKESY, GuiDO, private gentleman, Magyar-Ovar.
Bishop, Dr. Lewis, ornithologist, New-York.
^BlanCHARD DE Faroes, consul de la premiere classe, Paris.
BlASIUS, Dr. Rudolf, Professor, famous German ornithologist,
Brunswick.
BlASIUS, Dr. William, Professor, prominent German ornithologist,
Brunswick.
BlOMEYER, champion of the protection of animals, Leipsic.
BoiTEL, M., Superintendent in the French Ministry of Agriculture, Paris.
"-^Bonde, Baron, member of the Swedish second chamber, Stockholm.
BORGGREVE, Dr. B., Professor of the Academy of Forestry at Munden.
BoSSI-FeDRIGOTTI, Rovereto.
■j-Brehm, Dr. Alfred, world-famed German animal-biologist, Beriin.
^BrOCCHI, Professor of the National Agricultural Institute, Paris.
BOCHNER, Eugene, Russian Zoologist, St. Petersburg.
■^BultmANN, President of the Dutch Agricultural Committee.
BUTTIKOFER, JOHN, Dutch Zoologist, Leyden (later Rotterdam).
Castillo, Leon Y, Marquis del Muni, Minister Extraordinary ot
Spain, Paris.
INDEX Of NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING IN THIS BOOK 189
ChadBOURNE, Dr. Arthur, Ornithologist, New-York.
ChpRNEL, Stephen Ue Chemelhaza, Eminent Hungarian Ornitho-
logist, writer of the Hungarian wt)rk on Economic Ornithology,
Koszeg.
Chlumetzky, Baron JOHN, prominent Austrian politician, later
Minister, Vienna.
•[•Cl.AUS, Dr. Charles, Professor, eminent Zoologist, Vienna.
Collet, Robert, eminent Norwegian ornithologist, Christiania.
f CORDEAUX, John, eminent English ornithologist, Great Cotes.
^CrieSIS, Greek Legate at Paris in 1895.
CSAKY, Count AlBIN, formerly Hungarian Minister of Public
Instruction, Budapest. ^'^■^'if '■> 'fyj^J-^ .'- •'- >i vu"- ^ '^ '/
CSATO, John, eminent Hungarian ornithologist, Nagy-Enyed.
CsORGEY, Titus, ornithologist and eminent bird painter. Budapest.
Czettel, Gyula, owner of a lithographic institute, Budapest.
•}-Dan I E, AliOHIERI, great Italian poet, author of the Divina Commedia.
Daranyi, Dr. IonACZ de, Hungarian Minister of Agriculture, founder
of the system of rational bird protection in Hungary and of many
institutions of advantage to the general public.
♦=DelCASSE, TheOPHILUS, formerly French Foreign Minister, Paris.
*DelVANNI, N., Extraordinary Legate of Greece. Paris.
*DePELLEY, J. B., Charge d'affaires for Monaco, Paris.
Dunay, Baron HUQO, Dunavecse.
^DundaS-HarfORD, Frederick, Second Sec. to the British Emb-
assy in Paris.
Entz, Geza Dr., University Prof., well-known Hungarian zoologist,
Budapest.
'^ESTERHAZY, Count Paui , first Sec. of the Austro-Hungarian Emb-
assy in Paris in 1895.
fpATIO, Victor, Prof., eminent zoologist, Geneva.
^FereiRA, BaRTOI.OMEO, first Sec. of the Portuguese Legacy in Paris
in 1895.
FiNSCH, Dr. Otto, celebrated New-Guinea explorer, ornithologist
and ethnograph, Delmenhorst (later Brunswick).
190 INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING IN THIS BOOK
FoRGAch, Count Charles, eminent Hungarian African traveller
and omithophaenologist, Ghymes.
fpRAUENFELD, Antony Ritter von, Keeper of the Vienna Imp.
Museum.
f FriVALDSZKY, John, celebrated Hungarian coleopterologist, chief
of the Zoological section of the National Museum, Budapest,
f Fulton, Robert, inventor of the steamship.
FURBRINGER, Dr. MAX, University Prof, celebrated German ana-
tomist, Jena (later Heidelberg).
Gadaut, French Minister of Agriculture in 1895, Paris.
fGAETKE, Henry, celebrated ornithobiologist, who for 50 years ob-
served the passage of birds on the Island of Heligoland.
^Gerard, Charles, Chef de Cabinet of the French Minister of
Agriculture.
GhYCZY, Bela, Field-Marshal-Lieutenant ret., enthusiastic champion
of birds protection, Budapest.
^GiOLIOLI-HillyeR, Enrico, celebrated Italian ornithologist, since
1884 delegate of Italy at every Ornithological Congress and Con-
ference, Florence.
^Gilbert, Controleur des chasses, Brussels.
GlORGHIEFF, S., Prof , Sofia.
GiRARD, Charles, Chef de Cabinet of the French Ministry of Agri-
culture, Paris.
GlRTANNER, Dr. A., prominent Svi'iss ornithologist, St-Gallen.
GrOBBEN, Dr. C, Prof, of Zoology at the Univ. of Vienna.
fD'HAMONVILLE, Baron, celebrated French ornithologist, Chateau
Manonville.
Hartert, Dr. Ernest, celebrated German (later English) orni-
thologist, Tring.
HaRY, GyulA, prominent painter, Budapest.
Hayek, Dr. GuSTAVUS, Regierungsrat, Vienna.
^HenNEQUIN, Chief of the Department for hunting in the French
Ministry of the Interior, Paris.
Herman, Otto, in 1891 Member of the Hungarian Parliament,^
later Director of the Hungarian Central Office for Ornithology.
INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING IN THIS BOOK 191
^-HOMEYER, Eugene Ferdinand von, celebrated German orni-
thologist, Stolp.
f HOMEYER, Major Alexander von, prominent German African tra-
veller and zoologist, Greifswalde.
fHORATIUS, QUINTUS FlACCUS, prominent Latin Poet of the
Augustan Age, called by Italians ,Orazio".
HorvAth, Dr. OeZA, eminent Hungarian hemipterologist, Director
of zool. Section at the National Museum, Budapest.
-{•KAllAY, Benjamin, renowned Hungarian statesman, Austro-Hung-
arian Minister of Finance, organisator of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
KaRGL, Champion of the protection of animals, Linz.
KeulemanS, celebrated English bird painter, London.
KermeniC, AuRELIUS, Champion of the protection of animals, Vienna.
KOENIG, Baron RiCHARD, von Warthausen, enthusiastic German
ornithophaenologist, Warthausen.
^KOENIG, Dr. Alexander, Prof. of Zoology at the Univ. of Bonn,
celebrated ornithologist.
KOPPELY, Geza, Landowner, Hatvan.
^KOULAGIN, Prof, of the Agric. Acad, in Moscow.
*LardY, Charles, Extraordinary Legate and Minister Plenipotentiary
of Switzerland in Paris.
LehmANN, Geh. Legationsrat, Berlin.
"fLlEBE, Dr. Th., celebrated German champion of the protection of
birds, Gera.
•|*LlEBIQ, Justus, world-famed German chemist.
LoCHERER, Andor, Editor, Budapest.
LORENZ, Dr. Louis de Liburnau, Keeper of the Imperial Museum,
Vienna.
MadarAsz, Dr. GyulA de, eminent ornithologist, Budapest.
MaDAY, IziDOR de Maros, Ministerial Councillor ret., Hungarian
referendary of bird protection at the International Ornithological
Congress of 1891, Budapest.
MaltzAN, a., hereditary Chief Chamberlain, Berlin.
^MarCHAND, Chef de Bureau in the French Ministry of Agriculture,
Paris.
192 INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING IN THIS BOOK
MarenzELLER, Emil von, eminent Austrian zoologist, Keeper of
the Imperial Museum, Vienna.
^Maxwell, sir Herbert Eustace Bart. M. p. London.
'^ Mayer, LodoviCO, chief of Cabinet, Monaco.
^Meline, Felix Jules, Deputy, eminent French statesman, Min. of
Agriculture in the Ferri Cabinet, Paris.
MiDDENDORFF, Ernest von, celebrated Livonian ornithologist,
Hellenorm.
f MiDDENDORFF, ALEXANDER von, celebrated Russian traveller and
observer of birds, St-Petersburg.
^MORAOAS Y UCELAY, RiCHARD, Sec. of the Madrid Royal Agri-
cultural Society, Madrid.
■{•NaumANN, father and son, the family name of two celebrated Ger-
man ornithologists.
fNECSEY, Stephen, painter, Verebely.
Newton, Alfred, Prof., the eminent English ornithologist, Cam-
bridge.
^NovALLAS, Marquis de, first Sec. of the Spanish Embassy at Paris
in 1895, Madrid.
^f OUSTALET, Dr. Emile, official of the Musee d'histoire naturelle,
ornithologist, Paris.
PalaCKY, Dr John, Univ. Professor, Prague.
PalliSCH, C , Engineer, Vienna.
Palmen, J. A., Professor, eminent Finnish ornithologist, Helsing-
fors.
PaREY, Publisher, Berlin.
PaSZLAVSZKY, Joseph, in 1891 Principal Secretary of the Royal
Hungarian Natural History Society.
fPETENYI, J. Solomon, eminent Hungarian ornithologist, founder
of Hungarian scientific ornithology,
■^POIRSON, Chief of the Department of Public Safety in the French
Ministry for Home Affairs, Paris.
Pollen, Dr. Francis, doctor, Scheveningen.
^PrOST, Belgian agricultural superintendent, Brussels.
INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING IN THIS BOOK 193
fPULSZKY, Francis, famous Director of the Hungarian National
Museum, Budapest.
-j-RaddE, Dr. GUSTAVUS, celebrated traveller, Russian ornithologist,
Tiflis.
*RadOL1N, Prince, German Ambassador, Paris.
RaOUL, E , Paris.
Rava, LuiGI, Italian Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, Rome.
ReiCHENOW, Dr. Anton, eminent German ornithologist, Berlin.
RrrZEMA-Bos, Dr., celebrated Prof, of the State Agricultural School
at Wageningen, Holland.
fRuss, Dr. Charles, eminent German bird fancier, Berlin.
^SaarOSSY-Kapeller, Francis, Ministerial Councillor, Imp. Roy.
Lord High Stewart, Budapest.
^Sagnier, Member of the French Agricultural Society, Paris.
SalvADORI, Count Thomas, eminent Italian ornithologist, Turin.
^Saunders, Howard, prominent English ornithologist, London.
' ScHAFF, Dr. Ernest, Berlin.
f SCHRENCK, Leopold von, celebrated Russian traveller, St-Peters-
burg.
SCHALOW, Herman, eminent German ornithologist, Berlin.
SCLATER, Ph. Lutley, Keeper of the British Museum, eminent
ornithogeograph, London.
-^^Selenka, Dr., Prof, of Zoology at the University, Erlangen,
ShARPE, Dr. R. BOWDLER, eminent British ornithologist, British
Museum, London.
Seidl, J., Bosewitz.
fSETTEGAST, Dr. H., celebrated German economist and writer, Proskau.
*S0UZA, Roza de. Plenipotentiary Minister of Portugal, Paris.
^SVERDRUP, in 1895 Equerry-in- chief to the King, Christiania.
SZALAY, Imre, Ministerial Councillor, later Director of the Hungar
ian National Museum, Budapest.
SZENICZEY, Edmund, in 1891 Member of the Hungarian P.,
Budapest.
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. 13
194 INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING IN THIS BOOK
SziLY, Dr. Kalman, in 1891 Pres. of the Royal Hungarian Natural
History Society, Budapest.
SzOGYENY-MariCH, LadiSLAS de, eminent Hungarian politician, at
present Ambassador in Berlin.
TaeSCHLEIN, L., Augsburg.
TalliaN, BelA, formerly Hung. Min. of Agriculture, Budapest.
TalSKY, Prof. Joseph, Neutitschein.
TarGIONI-Tozetti, Prof., Florence
ThORBURN, Archibald, celebrated bird painter, London.
-^ThiEL, Dr., Geheimer Oberregierungsrat, Berlin.
TiSCHER, Benedict, ornithologist, Augsburg.
^TiSSERAND, Felix, French State Councillor, Paris.
TORELLI, Italian delegate, Rome,
f TSCHUDI, Frederick, eminent Swiss politician and natural histor-
ian, Bern.
^TSCHUSI, Victor Ritter, de Schmidthofen, prominent Austrian
ornithologist, expert adviser at the Paris Conference in 1895,
Hallein.
^TyPALDO-Bassia, Greek Univ. Professor, Athens.
VaDAS, Eugene, Chief Councillor for Forestry, Prof, of the Aca-
demy of Forestry, eminent writer on forestry questions, Selmecz-
b^nya.
VadAszfy, E., Forester, Budapest.
VallON, Prof, Udine.
^*VanneruS, in 1895 Legate of Luxemburg at Paris.
VisCONTI-VenOSTA, celebrated Italian statesman, signed „ Declar-
ation" of 1875.
WanGELIN, JacoBY von, Regierungs- und Forstrat, one of the
referendaries on the question of bird-protection at the Second
Intern. Ornith. Congress, Merseburg.
^Watt, James, inventor of the steam engine.
WekeRLE, Dr. Alexander, p. C, Hungarian Premier, who in 1906
incorporated the Intern. Convention in the , Corpus Juris-* of
Hungary.
INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS OCCURRING IN THIS BOOK 195
WesNIAKOFF, Russian State Councillor, St-Petersburg.
WOLFFERSDORFF, E. v., Lieut-Colonel, Germany.
♦WolkenSTEIN-TrOSTBURG, Count, Austro-Hungarian Ambassador,
Paris.
"fXANTHUS, John, eminent Hungarian traveller in America, Budapest.
Zeller, Frederick, Vienna.
fZEPPELIN, Count Max, eminent ornithologist, Stuttgart.
fZlCHY, Count Francis, p. C, Budapest.
ZiMMERMANN, ThEODOR, champion of the protection of animals,
Konigsberg i. P.
ZSELENSZKY, Count ROBERT, P. C., Member of the House of
Magnates, Delegate of Hungary at the International Economic
Institute's Congress held at Rome in 1905.
-^
13*
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
(IN SIX LANGUAGES).
Index of Bird-names.
I thought it expedient to add a short dictionary to con-
centrate the names of the birds which occur in this histor-
ical sketch. The system followed is to give the English name
first and to add the scientific Graeco-Latin names as well as
those of the other languages concerned. In doing so I hope
1 shall have rendered some service to those who may in the
future concern themselves with this question in its internat-
ional aspects.
The sources from which 1 have derived the various names are
1. For the English and French names:
Dresser, H. E.: „A Manual of palaearctic Birds. London,
1902."
2. For the German names:
Naumann: „Naturgeschichte der Vogel Europas". Zweite
Ausgabe. Bd. I— XII. Editio Hennicke.
Brehm, Alfred: „Thierleben." Bd. I— X.
3. For the Italian names:
Arrigoni deoli Oddi, conte: „Manuale di Ornithologia
Italiana. 1904."
200
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
Explanation of signs:
o = protected in Hungary,
L. == (Graeco-)Latin scientific name.
F. = French name.
G. = German name.
/. = Italian name.
//. = Hungarian name.
— ? — , the name in this particular language is unknown
to me.
OAccentor, Alpine, v. Alpine Ac-
centor.
Adriatic Gull. L. Larus melano-
cephalus Nat. F. Goeland me-
lanoc^phale. G. Mohren-Move. I.
Gabbiano corallino. H. Szere-
csensirily.
Albatross. L. Diomedea exulans.
F. Albatros. G. Kapschaf. — ?-
H. Tengeri behemot.
OAlpine Accentor. L. Accentor
alpinus. F. Fauvette des Alpes.
G. AIpen-Fluevogel. /. Sordone.
H. Havasi sziirkebegy.
OAlpine Finch. L. Fringilla ni-
valis. F. Pinson des Alpes. G.
Schneefink. /. Fringuello alpino.
H. Havasi pinty.
Alpine Ptarmigan. L. Lagopus
mutus. F. Perdrix blanche. G.
Schneehuhn. I. Pernice bianca.
H. Hofajd.
Alpine Swift. L. Cypselus melba.
F. Grand Martinet. G. Alpen-
segler. I. Rondone alpino. H.
Havasi fecske.
American Quail. L. Ortyx virgi-
nianus Gould. — -?— G. Baum-
wachtel. /. Quaglia virginiana.
H. Amerikai fiirj.
OAquatic Warbler. L. Calanio-
dus aquaticus. — ? — — ? — I.
Pagliardo. H. Csikosfejii sitke.
Arctic Skua. L. Stercorarius cre-
pidatus Banks. F. Labbe para-
site, (t. Schwarze Raubmove. /.
Labbo coda lunga. H. Elosdi
lialfarkas.
Auk. L. Aica torda. F. Pingouin
macroptere. G. Tordalk. I. Gazza
marina. H. Alka.
Auk, Little, v. Murre.
Avocet. L. Avocetta recurvirostra.
F. Avocette a nuque noire. G.
Avosett-Sabler. I. Avozetta. H.
Gulipan.
OAzure Titmouse. L. Parus cya-
nus Pall. — ?— G. Lazurmeise.
/. Cinciarella cyana. H. Lazur-
czinege.
OBarn Owl. L. Strix flammea. F.
Effraie. G. Schleiereule. I. Bar-
bagianni. H Gyongybagoly.
CBarred Warbler. L. Sylvia nisoria
Bechst. F. Fauvette eperviere. G.
Sperbergrasmiicke. I. Bigia pa-
dovana. H. Karvalyposzdta.
OBarred Woodpecker. L. Den-
drocopus minor. F. Pic epie-
chette. G. Kleiner Buntspeclit.
/. Picchio rosso minore. H. Kis
fakopancs.
Bar-tailed Godwit. L. Limosa-
lapponica. F. Petite Barge. G.
Kleine Uferschnepfe. I. Pittima
minore. II. Kis goda.
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
201
Bean Goose. T.. Anser fabalis
Lath. /'. Oie vulgaire. a. Saat-
gans. /. Oca granaiola. //. Ve-
tesi liid.
OBearded Reedling. /.. Panurus
biarmiciis. F. Mesange a mous-
taches. G. Bartmeise. /. Baset-
tino. H. Bajszos czinege, Sza-
killas czinege.
Bearded Vulture. /.. Gypaetos
barbatus. F. Gypaete barbu. a.
Bartgeier. /. Avvoltoio degli
agneUi. W, Szakallas saskeselyii.
Bee-eater. L. Merops apiaster. F.
Guepier. (•. Bienenfresser. /.
Gruccione. H. Gyurgyoka.
Bittern. L. Botaurus stellaris. F.
Grand Biitor. (t. Rohrdommel.
/. Tarabuso. // Bolombika.
Bittern, Little, v. Little Bittern.
Black-belied Sand-Grouse. L.
Pterocles arenarius Pall. B. Cor-
ticole. ^T. Sandhuhn. I. Ganga.
H. Pusztai tyiik.
OBlackbird. L. Turdus merula. F.
Merle noir. a. Schwarzamsel. I.
Merlo nero. H. Fekete rigo.
CBlackcap. L. Sylvia atricapilla.
F. Fauvette a tete noire G.
Monchgrasmiicke. /. Capinera.
H. Baratkaposzata.
Black Crow. L. Corvus corone.
F. Corneille noir. a. Raben-
Krahe. 7. Cornacchia nera. H.
Fekete varju.
Black Grouse. L. Tetrao tetrix
F. Tetras lyree. G. Birkhuhn.
I. Fagione di monte. H. Nyir-
fajd.
OBlack-headed Gull. L. Larus
rudibundus. F. Goeland rieur.
G. Lachmove. I. Gabbiano com-
mune. H. Dankasiraly.
OBlack-headed Wagtail. L. Mo-
tacilla melanocephala Liecht.
— ? — G. Schwarzkbpfige Bach-
stelze. I. Cutrettola capinera. h.
Kucsm^s billegeto.
Black Kite. L. Milvus migrans.
F. Milan noir. (1. Schwarzer
Milan. 7. Nibbio bruno. H. Fe-
kete kanya.
OBlack Redstart. L. Ruticilla titis.
F. Rougequeue des Murailles.
G. Hausrotschwanz. 1. Codirosso
spazzacamino. H. HazifUstfark.
Black Scoter. /.. Oidemia nigra.
F. Macreuse. G. Trauerente. 7.
Orchetto marino.7/. Fekete recze.
CBlack Stork. L. Ciconia nigra.
F. Cigogne noire. G. Schwarzer
Storch. /. Cicogna nera. E. Fe-
kete golya.
C Black Tern. L. Hydrochelidon
nigra. F. Guifette noire. G.
Schwarze Seeschwalbe. 7. Mi-
gnattino. 77. Kormos szerko.
Black-throated Diver. L. Colym-
bus arcticus. F. Plongeon a gorge
noire. G. Polartaucher. 7. Strolaga
mezzana. 77. Sarki buvar.
Black Vulture. L. Vultur mona-
chus. F. Vautour moin. (r. Kutteii-
geier. 7. Avvoltoio. 77. Barat-
keselyii.
Black-winged Stilt. L. Himanto-
pus Candidas, Bonnat. F\ Echasse
blanche, (i. Strandreiter, Stel-
zenlaufer. 7 Cavalier d'ltalia. H.
Golyasnef.
"Black Woodpecker. L. Dryo
copus martius. F. Pic noir. G.
Schwarzspecht. 7. Picchio nero.
H. Fekete harkaly.
OBlue-headed Wagtail. L. Mota-
cilla flava. F. Bergeronette prin-
tanniere. G. Gelbe Bachstelze.
7. Cutrettola gialla. H. Sarga
billegeto.
TBIuethroat, Red-spotted, v. Red-
spotted Bluethroat.
CBlue Thrush. L. Monticola so-
202
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
litaria. F. P^trocincle blue. G.
Blaumerle. I. Passera solitaria.
H. Kek kovirigo.
OBlue Titmouse. L. Parus coe
ruleus. F. Mesange bleue. G.
Blaumeise. I. Ciciarella. if. Kek
czinege.
OBonelH's Warbler. L. Phyllo-
scopus Bonellii. F. Becfin-Bonelli.
G. Berglaubvogel. I. Lui bianco.
H. Bonelli fuzike.
Bonxie, v. Great Skua.
OBramble-finch, v. Brambling.
OBrambling. L Fringilla monti-
fringilla. F. Pinson d'Ardennes.
G. Bergfink. I. Peppola. H.
Fenyopinty.
Brent Goose. L. Branta bernicla.
F. Bernache cravant. G. Ringel-
gans. /. Oca colombaccio. H.
Orvositid.
Buff-backed Heron. L. Ardea bu-
bulcus. F. Heron garde-boeuf.
G. Kuhreiher. I. Airone garda
buoi. H. Pasztorgem.
Buffon Skua. L. Stercorarius pa-
rasiticus F. Labbe a longue
queue. G. Kleine Raubmove. I.
Labbo. H. Nyilfarkii halfarkas.
OBulIfinch. L. Pyrriiula pyrrhula.
F. Bouvreuil. G. Dompfaff. 1.
Ciuffolotto maggiore. H. Siivolto.
Bunting. L. Emberiza. F. Bruant
G. Ammer./. Zigolo. H. Sarmany.
Bunting, Cirl, v. Cirl Bunting.
OBunting, Corn, v. Corn Bunting.
OBunting, Meadow, v. Meadow
Bunting.
OBunting, Reed, v. Reed Bunting.
OBunting, Snow, v. Snow Bunt-
ing.
Bustard. /..Otis tarda. i^.Outard G.
Grosstrappe I. Otarda. if . Tiizok.
Bustard, Houbara, v. Houbara
Bustard.
Bustard, Little, v. Little Bustard.
Buzzard. L. Buteo buteo. F. Buse
vulgaire. G. Mausebussard. I.
Pojana. H. Egereszolyv.
Buzzard, Honey, v. Honey Buzz-
ard.
Buzzard, Rough-legged,v. Rough
legged Buzzard.
Capercailly, Capercailzie. X.Tet-
rao urogallus. F. Coq de bruyere.
G. Auerhahn. /. Gallo cedrone.
if. Siketfajd.
Caspian Tern. L. Sterna caspia
Pall. F. Sterne tschegrava. G.
Raub-Seeschwalbe. f. Rondine
di mare maggiore. H. Locser.
Caucasian Rose-finch. X. Carpo
dacus rubicilla. F. Roselin de
Caucase. G. Rosengimpel. I.
Ciuffolotto. H. Rozsapirok.
O Chaffinch. L. Fringilla coelebs.
F. Pinson ordinaire. G. Buch-
fink, Edelfink. I. Fringuello. H.
Pintyoke.
OChiffchaff. 7>. Phylloscopus ac-
redula. F. Becfin veloce. G.
Weidenlaubvogel. I. Lui piccolo^
if. Csil-csal fuzike.
Chough, Cornish, v. Cornish
Chough.
Cirl Bunting. L. Emberiza cirlus.
F. Bruant zizi. G. Zaunammer.
I. Zigolo nero. if. Sovenysarmany.
OCoal Titmouse. L. Parus ater.
F. Mesange noire. G. Tannen-
meise. I. Cincia mora. if. Feny-
ves czinege.
Colin, V. American Quail.
Common Crossbill. L. Loxia curvi-
rostra. F. Bec-croise. G. Kreuz-
schnabel. 1. Crociere delle pinete.
H. Keresztcsorii.
Common Gull. L. Larus canus.
F. Goeland cendr6. G. Sturm-
Move. 7. Gavina. H. Viharsiraly.
Common Tern. L. Sterna hirundo.
F. Pierre Garin. G. Fluss-Meer-
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
203
schwalbe. /. Rondine di mare.
H. Kuszv^go cser.
Coot. L. Fulica atra F. Foulque
noire. G. Blasshuhn. 7. Folaga.
H. Szarcsa.
Cormorant. L.Plialacrocorax carbo.
F. Grand Cormoran. G. Kormo-
ran-Scharbe. T. Marangone. H
Karakatna.
OCorn Bunting. L. Emberiza ca-
landra. F. Bruant Proyer. G.
Grauammer. /. Strillozzo. H.
Sordely.
Corncrake. L Crea pratensis
Bechst. F. Rale des pres. G.
Wachtelkonig. /. Re di quaglie.
H. Haris.
Cornish Chough. L. Pyrrhocorax
graculus Cm. F. Crave. G. Stein-
dohle. I. Gracchio. H. Havasi
csoka.
Courser, Cream-coloured, v.
Cream-coloured Courser.
Crake, Little, v. Little Crake.
Crake, Pigmy, v. Pigmy Crake.
Crake, Spotted, v. Spotted Crake.
Crane. L. Grus cinerea. F. Grue.
6r. Kranich. I. Gru. H. Daru.
Cream-coloured Courser. L. Cur-
sorius gallicus. F. Courvite isa-
belle. G. Rennvogel. /. Corrione
biondo. H. Futolile.
O Creeper, Tree, v. Tree Creeper.
O Creeper, Wall, v. Wall deeper.
O Crested Lark. L. Alauda cristata.
F. Cochevis huppee. G. Schopf-
lerche. 1. Cappellaccia. H. Biibos
pacsirta.
Crested Titmouse. L. Paruscris-
tatus. F. Mesange hupee. (-'.Hau-
benmeise. I. Cincia col ciuffo. H.
Bubos czinege.
Crossbill, Common, v. Common
Crossbill.
Crossbill, Two barred, v. Two-
barred Crossbill.
Crow. /.. Corvus. F. Corbeau. G.
Kralie. /. Corvo. //. Varjii.
Crow, Black, v. Black Crow.
Crow, Grey, v. Grey Crow.
O Cuckoo. //. Cuculus canorus. F.
Coucou chanteur. G. Kukuk. I.
Cuculo. E. Kakuk.
Curlew. L. Numenius arcuatus. F
Courlis. G. Sichler, Brachvogel.
I. Chiurlo maggiore. 77. Poling.
Curlew, Pigmy, v. Pigmy Cur-
lew.
Curlew, Slender-billed, v. Slender
billed Curlew.
Curlew, Stone, v. Thickknee.
ODipper. L. Cinclus cinclus. F.
Merle d'eau. G. Wasseramsel.
I. Merlo aquaiolo. H. Vizirig6.
Diver, Black-throated, v. Black-
throated Diver.
Diver, Great Northern, v. Great
Northern Diver.
Diver, Red-throated, v. Loon.
ODotterel. 7v. Chardrius morinel-
lus. F. Pluvier guignard. G. Mor-
nell Regenpfeifer. /. Piviere tor-
tolino. H. Havasi lile.
Double Snipe. L. Gallinago maior
Gm. F. Grande Becassine. G.
Doppelschnepfe. /. Croccolone.
H Nagy sarszalonka.
Dove. Ij. Columba. F. Pigeon. G.
Taube. /. Picchione. H. Vad-
galamb.
Dove, Rock, v. Rock Dove.
Dove, Stock, v. Stock Dove.
Duck, Long-tailed, v. Long-tailed
Duck.
Duck Tufted, v. Tufted Duck.
Duck, White-eyed, v. White-eyed
Duck.
Duck White-headed, v. White
headed Duck.
Duck, Wild, V. Wild Duck.
Dunlin. L. Tringa alpina. /•'. Becas-
seau variable. G. Alpen-Strand-
204
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
laufer. T. Piovanello panda nera.
B. Havasi partfuto.
Eagle. L. Aquila. F. Aigle. G.
Adler. I. Aquila. H. Sas.
Eagle, Golden, v. Golden Eagle.
Eagle, Greater spotted, v. Greater
spotted Eagle.
Eagle Owl. L. Bubo bubo. Bubo
maximus. F. Grand due. G. Uhu.
I. Gufo reale. H. Buhu, Nagy
fulesbagoly.
Eagle, Sea, v. Sea Eagle.
Eagle, Short-toed, v. Short-toed
Eagle.
Eared Grebe. L. Podiceps nigri-
collis Brehm. F. Grebe oreillard.
6r. Geohrter Steissfuss. I. Svasso
piccolo. H. Feketenyakii vocsok.
Egret, Great White, v. Great
White Egret.
Egret, Little, v. Little Egret.
Egyptian Vulture. L. Neophron
percnopterus. i^. Vautour d'Egypte.
G. Schmutziger Aasgeier. /.Capo-
vaccio. B. Dogkeselyu.
Eider. L. Somateria mollissima.
F. Morillon. (/'. Eidergans. I.
Edredone. B. Dunnalud.
Falcated Teal, L. Anas falcata
Georgi.— ?- G. Sichelente. — ?—
B. Sarlos rucza.
Falcon. L. Falco. F. Faucon. G.
Falke. I. Falco. if. Solyom.
Falcon, Peregrine, v. Peregrine
Falcon.
OFalcon, Red-legged, v. Red-
legged Falcon.
Fern Owl, v. Nightjar.
Fieldfare. L. Turdus pilaris. F.
Grive Litorne. G. Wacholder-
drossel. /. Cesena. B. Fenyo-
rigo.
OFinch. Alpine, v. Alpine Finch.
OFinch, Bramble, v. Bramb-
ling.
OFirecrested Wren. L. Regu-
lus ignicapillus Brehm. F. Roi-
telet a triple bandeau. G. Feuer-
kopf-Goldhahnchen. T. Fioran-
zino B. Tiizesfeju kiralyka.
Flamingo. L. Phoenicopterus anti-
quorum. F. Flamant rose. G.
Rosenfarbiger Flamingo. 7. Fe-
nicottero. B. Flamingo.
Flycatcher. L-Muscicapa./'. Gobe-
mouche. G. Fliegenfanger. /.
Balia. B. Legykapo.
OFlycatcher, Pied, v. Pied Fly-
catcher.
OFlycatcher, Red-breasted, v.
Red-breasted Flycatcher.
OFlycatcher, Spotted, v. Spotted
Flycatcher.
OFlycatcher, White-collared, v.
White-collared Flycatcher.
Francolin. L. Francolinus vulga-
ris Steph. F. Francolin. G. Fran-
colinhuhn. I. Francolino. B. Fran-
kolin.
Frigate-bird. L. Tachypetes aqui-
lus Vieill. Fregata. 7-". Fregate.
G. Fregatt-Vogel. — ?- B. Ten-
geri sas.
Fulmar. /.. Fulmarus glacialis
Steph. F. Petrel Fulmar. G. Eis-
sturmvogel. — ?— B. Siralyhojsza.
Furze-chat. L. Pratincola. F. Tarier.
G. Wiesenschmatzer. I. Stiaccino.
H. Csalincsiics.
Gadwall. L. Chaulelasmus strepe-
rus. F. Chipeau bruyant. G.
Schnatterente. I. Canapiglia. H.
Kendermagos rucza.
Gallinule, Purple, v. Purple Gal-
linule.
Gannet. L. Sula bassana. F. Fou
de Bassan. (V. Basstolpel /.
Sula B. Buta szula.
^Garden Redstart. L. Ruticilla
phoenicura. F. Rouge-queue. G.
Gartenrotschwanz. /. Codirosso
B. Kerti fiistfark.
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
205
OGarden Warbler. L. Sylvia sim-
plex. F. Fauvette des jardins (^.
Gartengrasinucke. /. Beccafico.
H. Kerti poszita.
Garganey. L. Anas querquedula.
F. Sarcelle d'ete. G. Knakente.
/. Marzaiola. H. Bojti rucza.
Glossy Ibis. L. Ibis falcinellus. F.
Ibis falcinelle. G. Dunkler Ibis.
/. Mignattaio. H. Batla.
Goatsucker, v. Nightjar.
Godwit. L. Limosa limosa. F.
Barge. G. Uferschnepfe. I. Pittina
reale. H. Goda.
Godwit, Bar-tailed, v. Bar-tailed
Godwit.
OGolden-crested Wren. L. Regu-
lus regulus. F. Roitelet ordi-
naire. G. Gelbkopf-Goldhahn-
Chen. I. Regolo. H. Sirgafeju
kiralyka.
Golden Eagle. L. Aquila chrysae-
tus. F. Aigle royal. G. Steinadler,
Goldadler. I Aquila reale. H.
Szirti sas.
Golden-eye. L. Fuligula clangula.
F. Garrot. G. Schellente. I.
Quattr'occhi. H. Kercze rucza.
OGolden Oriole. L. Oriolus gal-
bula. F. Loriot. G. Goldamsel.
I. Pirol; Rigogolo. H. Arany-
malinko.
Golden Plover. L. Charadrius
pluvialis. F. Pluvier dore. G.
Gold-Regenpfeifer. I. Piviere do-
rata. H- Pettyes lile.
CGoldfinch. L. Carduelis cardue-
iis. F\ Chardonneret. G. Stieg-
litz. I. Cardellino. H. Tengelicz.
Goosander. L. Mergus merganser.
F. Grande Harle. ^i. Grosser
Sager. T. Smergo maggiore. H.
Muszkabuvdr.
Goose, Bean, v. Bean Goose.
Goose, Brent, v. Brent Goose.
Goose, Greylag, v. Greylag Goose.
Goose, White-fronted, v. White-
fronted Goose.
Goshawk. L. Astur palumbarius.
F. Autour. G. Huhnerhabicht. I.
Astore. H. Heja.
c Grasshopper Warbler. L. Locus-
tella naevia Bodd. — ?— G. Heu-
schreckensanger, Schwirl. /. Fora-
paglie macchiettato. H. Reti
tiicsokmadar.
Greatcrested Grebe. L. Podiceps
cristatus Lath. F. Grebe huppe.
G. Haubensteissfuss. I. Svasso
maggiore. H. Bubos vocsok.
Greater Spotted Eagle. L Aquila
maculata Gm. F. Aigle criard. G.
Schreiadler. I. Aquila anatraia
maggiore. H. Bekaszo sas.
Great Grey Shrike. L. Lanius
excubitor. F. Pie-grieche grise.
G. Grosser Wurger. /. Averla
maggiore. H. Orgebics.
Great Northern Diver. L. Colym-
bus glacialis. F. Plongeon im-
brim. G. Eisseetaucher, Imber-
gans. I. Strolaga maggiore. H.
Jeges biivar.
OGreat Red Warbler. L. Acro-
cephalus arundinaceus. F. Rous-
serolle. G. Rohrdrossel. I. Can-
nareccione. H. Nadirigo.
Great Skua. L Lestris catarrhac-
tes. F.Labbe cataracte. G. Grosse
Raubmove. T. Stercorario mag-
giore. H. Halfarkas.
OGreat Titmouse. L. Parus maior.
F. Mesange charbonniere. G.
Kohlmeise. I. Cinciallegra. H.
Szenczinege.
Great White Egret. L. Ardea alba.
F. Heron Aigrette. G. Silber-
Reiher. I. Airone bianco mag-
giore. H. Lovas kocsag.
Grebe, Eared, v. Eared Grebe.
Grebe, Great-crested, v. Great
crested Grebe.
206
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
Grebe, Little, v. Little Grebe.
Grebe, Red-necked, v. Red-necked
Grebe.
Greek Partridge. L. Caccabis
saxatilis W. M. F. Bartavelle. G.
Steinhuhn. J. Coturnice. H. Szirti
fogoly.
OGreenfinch. L. Ligurinus chloris.
F. Verdier ordinaire. G. Griin-
ling. I. Verdone. H. Zoldike.
Green Sandpiper. L. Totanus
ochropus. F. Chevalier cul-blanc.
G. Punktierter Wasserlaufer. I.
Piropiro cul-bianco. H. Erdei
czanko.
Greenshank. L. Totanus nebularius
Gunn. F. Chevalier gris. G. Griin-
fuss -Wasserlaufer. I. Pantana.
H. Sziirke czank6.
OGreen Woodpecker. L. Picus
viridis. F. Pic vert. G. Griin-
specht. I. Picchio verde. H. Zold
kullo.
Grey Crow. L. Corvus cornix. F.
Corneille niantelee. G. Nebelkrahe.
/. Cornacchia. H. Dolmanyos
varju.
Grey-headed Woodpecker. L.
Picus canus. F. Pic cendre. G.
Grauspecht. I. Picchio cenerino.
H. Sziirke kiillo.
Grey Heron. L. Ardea cinerea. F.
Heron huppe. G. Grauer Reiher.
I. Airone cenerino. if. Sziirke gem.
Greylag Goose. L. Anser cinereus.
F. Oie ccndree. G. Graugans.
J. Oca selvatica. H. Nyari vadliid.
Grey Phalarope. L. Phalaropus
fulicarius. F. Phalarope gris. G.
Plattschnabliger Wassertreter. 7.
Falaropoabecco largo. 77. Sz^rcsa
viztaposo.
OGrey Plover. L. Charadriussqua-
tarola. 7*^. Vanneau-Pluvier. G.
Kibitz-Regenpfeifer. 7. Pivieressa.
77. Ujjas lile.
OGrey Wagtail. L. Motacilla boa-
rula Temm. F. Bergeronette grise.
G Graue Bachstelze. 7. Balle-
rina gialla. H. Hegyi billegeto,
Leinykamaddr, Lednykabillegeto.
Griffon Vulture. L. Gyps fulvus.
7^. Vautour Griffon. 6^. Ganse-
geier. 7. Griffone. H. Fako ke-
selyii.
Grosbeak, Pine, v. Pine Gros-
beak.
Grouse. L. Tetrao. F Tetras. G.
Auerwild. 7. Tetraone. 77. Pajd.
Grouse, Black, v. Black Grouse.
Guillemot. L. Alca troile. F. Guil-
lemot troile. G. Lumme. 7. Uria.
H. Hiilye lumma, Uria.
Gull. L. Larus. F. Goeland. G.
Move. 7. Gabbiano. H. Siraly.
Gull, Adriatic, v. Adriatic Gull.
OGull, Black-headed, v. Black-
headed Gull.
Gull, Common, v. Common Gull.
Gull, Herring, v. Herring Gull.
Gull, Lesser black-headed, v.
Lesser black-headed Gull.
Gull, Little, V. Little Gull.
Harrier. L. Circus. F. Busard.
G. Weihe. 7 Albanella. 77. Reti
heja.
Harrier, Hen, v. Hen Harrier.
Harrier, Marsh, v. Marsh Harrier.
Harrier, Montague's, v. Monta-
gue's Harrier.
Harrier, Pallid, v. Pallid Harrier
Hawfinch. L. Coccothraustes vul-
garis. T*". Grosbec vulgaire. G.
Kernbeisser. 7. Frosone. H. Meggy-
vago, Vasorru.
Hawk. L. Astur. F. Autour. O.
Habicht. 7 Astore. H. Olyv.
Hawk, Night, v. Nightjar.
Hawk Owl. L. Surnia ulula. F.
Chouette. 6?. Sperbereule. — ?—
77. Karvalybagoly.
Hawk, Sparrow, v. Sparrow-Hawk.
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
207
Hazel Hen. /.. Tetrao bonasia. F.
Gelinotte. (l. Haselhuhn /. Fran-
colino di monte. li. Cs^szir-
fajd.
CHedge-sparrow. 7.. Accentor mo-
dularis. F. Mouchet. G. Hecken-
Braunelle. /. Passera scopaiola.
H. Erdci szurkebeg>'.
Hen Harrier, h. Circus cyaneus.
F. Busard St. Martin. G. Korn-
weihe. I. Albanella reale. H.
Kekes retiheja.
Hen, Hazel, v. Hazel Hen.
Heron. L. Ardea. F. Heron. G.
Reiher. /. Airone. H. Gem.
Heron, Buff-backed, v. Buff-
backed Heron.
Heron, Grey, v. Grey Heron.
Heron, Night, v. Night Heron.
Heron, Purple, v. Purple Heron.
Heron, Squacco, v. Squacco.
Herring Gull. L. Larus argenta-
tus Briin. F. Goeland argente.
G. Silbermove. I. Gabbiano reale
nordico. H. Eziistos siraly.
Hobby. L. Falco subbuteo. F.
Hobereau G. Lerchenfalk. J. Lo-
dolaio. B. Kaba.
Honey Buzzard. L. Pernis api-
vorus. F. Buse bondree. G. Wes-
penbussard. / Falco pecchialolo.
H. Darazsolyv.
Hoopoe. Z.Upupa epops. i-'.Huppe
vulgaire. G. Wiedehopf. /.Upupa.
H. Bubos banka.
Houbara Bustard. L. Otis hou-
bara Jacq. F. Houbara Outarde.
6r. Kragentrappe. I. Oubara. H.
Galleros ti'izok.
CHouse-Martin. L. Chelidon ur-
bica. F. Hirondelle de fenetre.
G^.Hausschwalbe. /. Balesiruccio.
H Hazifecske, Molnarfecske.
Ibis, Glossy, v. Glossy Ibis.
Olcterine Warbler. L Hypolais
hypolais. F. Becfin a poitrine
jaune. G. Gelber Spottvogel. I.
Canapino maggiore. H. Geze.
Italian Sparrow. 7>. Passer Italiae
Vieill. F. Moineau cisalpin. G.
Italienischer Sperling I. Passera.
H. Olasz vereb.
OJackdaw. L. Corvus monedula.
F. Clioucas gris. (i. Dohle. /.
Taccola. H. Cs6ka.
Jack Snipe. L. Gallinago gallinula.
F. B6cassine sourde. a. Halb-
schnepfe. I. Frullina. H. Kis sar-
szalonka.
Jay. L. Garrulus glandarius. F.
Geai ordinaire. G. Eichelhaher.
I. Chiandala. H. Szajko.
O Kentish Plover. L. Charadrius
alexandrinus. F. Pluvier a collier
interrompu. G. See-Regenpfeifer.
I. Fratino. H. Szeki lile.
OKestrel. L. Cerchneis tinnuncu-
lus. F. Cresserelle. ^r. Turmfalk.
/. Gheppio. H. Vorosvercse.
OKestrel, Naumann, v. Naumann
Kestrel.
Kingfisher. L. Alcedo ispida. F.
Martin -pecheur. G. Eisvogel.
I. Martin piscatorc. H. Jeg-
madar.
Kite. L. Milvus. F. Milan. G.
Milan. 1. Nibbio. H. Kdnya.
Kite. L. Milvus milvus F. Milan
Royal. G. Roter Milan. /. Nibbio
reale. H. Voroskanya.
Kite, Black, v. Black Kite.
Kitiiwake. 1^. Rissa trydactyla. /''.
Mouette tridactyle. G. Dreizehige
Move. /. Gabbiano tridattilo. H.
H^romujju csullo.
Kivi. L. A|)teryx australis, Shaw.
Knot. L. Tringa canutus. F. Be-
casseau maubeche. G. Rostiger
Strandlaufcr. I. Piovanello mag-
giore. H. Izlandi partfut6.
Landrail, v. Corncrake.
C Lapwing. L. Vanellus vanellus.
208
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
F. Vanneau dixhuit. a. Kiebitz.
I. Pavoncella. ft. Bibicz.
OLark, Crested, v. Crested Lark.
OLark, Shore, v. Shore-Lark.
OLark, White-winged, v. White-
winged Lark.
OLark, Wood, v. Wood Lark.
Lesser black-headed GulK 7>. La-
rus fucus. F. Goeland a pieds
jaunes. a. Heringsmove. /. Zaf-
ferano. H. Heringsiraly.
Lesser Grey, Shrike, v. Shrike
Lesser Grey.
OLesser Whitethroat. L. Sylvia
curruca. F. Becfin babillard. (>.
Zaungrasniucke. T. Bigiazella. H.
Kis poszita.
OLinnet. L. Cannabina cannabina.
F. Linotte G. Bluthanfling. /.
Fanello. J/. Kenderike.
Little Auk, v. Murre.
Little Bittern. L. Ardeetta minuta
F. Heron blongois. G. Zwerg-
rohrdommel. I. Tarabusino. H.
Poczgem.
Little Bustard. /.. Otis tetrax. F.
Outarde canepetiere. G. Zwerg-
trappe. /. Gallina prataiola. H.
Reznek.
Little Crake. L. Ortygometra parva
Scop. F. Poule d'eau poussin.
G. Kleines Rohrhuhn. /. Schiri-
billa. H. Kis vizicsibe.
Little Egret. L. Ardea garzetta.
F. Heron garzette. G. Kleiner
Silberreiher. /. Garzetta. //. Fattyii
kocsag.
Little Grebe. L. Podiceps minor
Tunst. /'". Castagneux. G. Kleiner
Steissfuss. I. Tuffetto. H. Kis
vocsok.
Little Gull. /.. Larus inniutus. F.
Miiette pygmee. G. Zwergmove.
/. Gabbianello. H. Kis sirily.
OLittle Owl. J.. Glaucidium noc-
tuum. /''. Cheveche. G. Todten-
vogel, Kauz. /. Civetta. H. Ku-
vik.
OLittle Ringed Plover. J.. Cha-
radrius dubius Scop. F. Petit
Pluvier a collier. G. Fluss-Regen-
pfeifer. f. Corriere piccolo. U.
Kis lile.
OLittle Stint. /.. Tringa minuta
Leisl. F. Becasseau minute. G.
Kleiner Strandlaufer. /. Gam-
becchio. H. Apro partfuto.
Little Tern. L. Sterna minuta. F.
Sterne naine. G. Zwerg-See-
schwalbe. I. Fraticello. H. Kis cser.
Long-eared Owl. L. Asio otus
F. Hibou vulgaire. G. Waldohr-
eule. f. Gufo comune. H. Erdei
fiilesbagoly.
Long tailed Duck. L.Fuligulahye-
malis. F. Harelde glaciale. G.
Eisente. I. Moretta codone. H.
Jeges rucza.
OLongtailed Titmouse. / . Aegi-
thalus caudatus. F. Mesange a
longue queue. G. Schwanzmeise.
I. Codibugnolo testa bianca. H.
Oszapo, Rudas czinke.
Loon. L. Colymbus septentrionalis.
F. Plongeon catmarin. G. Nord-
seetaucher. 7. Strolaga minore
H. Eszaki buko, Eszaki buvar.
Magpie. L. Pica rustica. F. Pie
ordinaire. G. Elster. 7. Gazza. H.
Szarka.
Mallard, v. Wild Duck.
Manx Shearwater, v Shearwater.
Marsh Harrier. L. Circus aerugi-
nosus. /''. Busard des marais.
G Rohrvveihe. /. Albanella. H.
Barna ret! h^ja.
Marsh Sandpiper, /v. Totanus
stagnatilis Bechst. /''. Chevalier
stagnatile. G. Teich-Wasserlaufer.
r. Albastrello. H. Tavi czanko
Marsh Titmouse. L. Paru.s pa-
lustris. F. Mesange nonnette. G.
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
209
Sumpfnieise. /. Cincia bigia. H.
Baratczinege.
OMarsh Warbler. L. Acrocepha-
lus palustris Bechst. F. Rousse-
rolle verderolle. (J. Sumpfrohr-
sanger. 7. Cannaiola verdognola.
H. Enekes n^diposzata.
Martin, House, v. House-Martin.
Martin, Sand, v. Sand Martin.
OMeadow Bunting. L. Eniberiza
cia. F. Bruant fou. G. Zippammer.
7. Zigolo niuciatto. 77. Bajszos
sarmany.
OMealy Redpoll. L. Cannabina
linaria. F. Sizerin boreal. G.
Leinfink. 7. Organetto. 77. Nyiri
zseze.
Merganser, v. Goosander.
Merlin. L. Falco merillus Ger. F.
Faucon emerrillon. G. Zwerg-
falk. I. Imeriglio. 77. Kis solyom.
OMiddle Spotted Woodpecker.
L. Dendrocopus medius. 7*^. Pic-
mar. G. Mittelspecht. 7. Picchio
rosso mezzano. H. Kozepso fa-
kopancs.
OMistletoe Thrush. L. Turdus
viscivorus. F Draine. G. Mistel-
drossel. 7. Tordela. 77. Leprigo.
Montague's Harrier. L. Circus
pygargus. F. Busard cendre. 6=.
Weisenweilie. 7. Albanella minora.
77. Hamvas reti heja.
Moorhen. L Gallinula chloropus.
7^. Poule d'eau. G. Teichhuhn.
7. Gallinella d'acqua. 77. Vizityiik.
Murre. L. Mergulus alle Vieil. F.
Guillemot nain. G. Krabbentau-
cher. 7. Gazza marina minore.
H. Rakevo.
Mustached Swamp Warbler. /..
Lusciniola melanopogon Tem.
7^.Amnicole a moustaches noires.
G. Tamariskensanger. 7. Fora-
paglie castagnolo. 77. Fiilemiile
sitke.
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds.
ONaumann Kestrel. L. Cerchneis
Naumanni. F. Faucon cresserine
G. Naumann-Falke. 7. Falco gril-
laio. If. Feherkormii v^rcse.
Night Hawk, v. Nightjar.
Night Heron. L. Nyctycorax nycti-
corax. 7-' Heron bihoreau. G.
Nachtreiher. Z. Nitticora. H. Vak-
varju.
ONightingale. L. Luscinia luscinia.
7*; Rossignol. G. Nachtigall. /.
Rusignolo. 77. Kis fulemiile.
Nightingale, Thrush, v Thrush
Nightingale.
ONightjar. L. Caprimulgus euro-
paeus. F. Engoulevent. G. Zie-
genmeiker. 7. Succia capre. H.
Kecskefejo.
Nile Tern. L. Sterna nilotica Has-
selqu. F. Sterne rieuse. G. Lach-
seeschwalbe I. Rondino di mare
gambe nere. 77. Kaczago cser.
Noddy. L. Anous stolidus Leach.
— ?— G. Dumme Seeschwalbe.
— ?— 77. Buta szerko.
Nutcracker. L. Nucifraga caryo-
catactes. F. Casse-noix. G. Nuss
haher. 7. Nocciolaia. 77. Mogyoro-
szajko.
Nuthatch. L. Sitta europaea. F.
Sitelle G. Spechtmeise. 7. Picchin
muratore. 77. Csuszka.
COriole, Golden, v. Golden oriole.
OOrphean Warbler. L Sylvia
orphea Tem. F. Fauvette orphee.
(I. Orpheus Grasmiicke. i. Bigia
grossa. 77. Dalos poszata.
Ortolan. L. Emberiza hortulana.
F. Ortolan. G. Gartenammer. 7.
Ortolano. 77. Kerti sarmany.
Osprey. L. Pandion haliaetos. F.
Balbusard. G. Fischadler. 7. Falco.
pescatore. H. R^ru.
Ostrich /.. Struthio camelus. F.
Autruche. G. Strauss. 7. Struzzo.
77. Strucz.
14
210
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
OOusel, Ringed, v. Ringed Ousel.
Owl. L. Strix. F. Hibou. G. Eule.
I. Gufo. H. Bagoly.
OOwl, Barn, v. Barn Owl.
Owl, Eagle, v. Eagle Owl.
Owl, Fern, v. Nightjar.
Owl, Hawk, V. Hawk Owl.
COwl, Little, V. Little Owl.
Owl, Long-eared, v. Long-eared
Owl.
Owl, Pigmy, v. Pigmy Owl.
OOwl, Scops, V. Scops Owl.
Owl, Short-eared, v. Short-eared
Owl.
Owl, Snowy, v. Snowy Owl.
Owl, Tawny, v. Tawny Owl.
OOwl, Tengmalmi, v. Tengmalm-
Ov/1.
Owl, Ural, V. Ural Owl.
Oysfercatcher. L. Haematopus
ostralegus. F. Huitrier pie. G.
Austernfischer. /. Beccaccia di
mare. H. Osztrigamadar, Csiga-
nyitogato.
Pallas's Sand-Grouse. L. Syr-
rhaptes paradoxus Pall. — ? — G.
Fausthuhn. J. Siratte. H. Talpas-
tyuk.
Pallid Harrier. L. Circus macru-
rus Gm. F. Busard pale. G. Step-
penweihe. I. Albanella pallida.
H. Fak6 retiheja.
Partridge. L. Perdix perdix. F.
Perdrix grise. G. Rephuhn. /.
Starna. H. Fogoly.
Partridge, Greek, v. Greek Par-
tridge.
OPeewit, V. Lapwing.
Pelican, Roseate, v. Roseate Peli-
can.
OPenduline Titmouse. 7>. Remiza
pendulina. F. Remize penduline.
G. Beutelmeise. J. Pendoiino.
H. Fiiggo czinke.
Peregrine Falcon. L. Falco Pe-
regrinus Tunst. F. Faucon p61e-
rin. G. Wanderfalke /. Falcone.
H. Vandorsolyom.
Petrel, v. Stormy Petrel.
Petrel, Stormy, v. Stormy Petrel.
Phaeton. L. Phaeton aethereus
— ?— G. Tropikvogel. — ?— IL
Kerengo.
Phalarope, Grey, v. Grey Phala-
rope.
Phalarope, Red-necked, v. Red-
necked Phalarope.
Pheasant. L. Phasianus colchicus.
F. Faisan. G. Fasan. 7. Fagiano.
H. Faczan.
OPied Flycatcher. L. Muscicapa
atracapilla. F. Gobe-mouche. G.
Trauerfliegenfanger.7. Balia nera.
H. Kormos legykapo.
OPied Woodpecker. L. Dendro-
copus maior. F. Pic epieche. G.
Grosser Buntspecht. I. Picchio
rosso maggiore. H. Nagy fako-
pancs.
Pigeon, Wood, v. Ring-Dove.
Pigmy Crake. L. Ortygometra pu-
silla Pall. F. Poule d'eau pygmee.
G. Zwerg-Sumpfhuhn. I. Schiri-
billa. H. Torpe vizicsibe.
Pigmy Curlew. L. Tringa subar-
quata. F. Becasseau cocoili. G.
Bogenschnabliger Strandlaufer. I.
Piovanello. H. Sarlos partfuto.
OPigmy Owl. L. Glaucidium pas-
serinum. 7'. Chevechette. G. Sper-
lingskauz. I. Civetta minore. H.
Torpe kuvik.
Pine Grosbeak. L. Corythus enu-
cleator. /''. Durbec. G. Hacken-
gimpel. /. Ciuffololto delle pinete.
H. Kamposcsorii siivolto.
Pintail. L. Dafila acuta. F. Pilet.
G. Spiessente. /. Codone. H.
Nyilas rucza.
OPipit, Red-throated, v. Red-
throated Pipit,
OPipit, Tawny, v. Tawny Pipit.
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
211
OPipit, Tree, v Tree Pipit.
OPi'pit, Water, v. Water Pipit.
Plover. L. Charadrius J^. Pluvier.
Cr. Regenpfeifer. I. Corriere. H.
Lile.
OPlover, Golden, v. Golden Plover.
OPlover, Grey, v. Grey Plover.
OPlover, Kentish, v. Kentish Plo-
ver.
'Plover, Little Ringed, v. Little
Ringed Plover.
OPlover, Ringed, V. Ringed Plover.
Ploverspage, v. Ringed Plover.
Pochard. L. Fuligula ferina. F.
Milouin. G. Tafelente. I. Mori-
glione. H. Bar^trucza.
Pochard. L. Fuligula rufina Pall.
F. Canard siffleur huppe. G. Kol-
benente. /. Fistione turco. H
Ostokos rucza.
Pomatorhine Skua. L. Stercora-
rius pomatorhinus Temm. F.
Labbe Pomarin. G. Mittlere Raub-
move. /. Stercorario inezzano.
H. Szelesfarku halfarkas.
Pratincole. L. Glareola pratincola.
F. Perdrix de mer. G. Halsband-
Giarol. I. Pernice di mare. H.
Szeki cs6r.
Ptarmigan, Alpine, v. Alpine Ptar-
migan.
Puffin. L. Fratercula arctica. — ?—
G. Lunde. I. Polcinella di mare.
H. Bardorrii. Keses lunda.
Puffin, V. Shearwater.
Purple Gallinule. L. Poiphyrio
coeruleus Vand. --?— G. Pur-
purhuhn. I. Polio sultano. H.
Bibor vizityiik.
Purple Heron. L. Ardea purpurea,
j^. Heron pourpre. G. Purpur-
Reiher. I. Airone rosso H. Voros-
g6m.
Purple Sandpiper. L. Tringa ma-
ritima Briin. F. Becasseau violet
G. See-Strandlaufer. I. Piova-
nello violelto. H. Tengeri part-
futo.
Purre, v. Dunlin.
Quail. L. Coturnix coturnix. F.
Caille. G. Wachtel. I. Quaglia.
H. Furj.
Quail, American, v. American Q.
Rail, Water, v. Water Rail.
Raven. L. Corvus corax. F. Cor-
beau. G. ■ abe. 7. Corvo.//. Hollo.
Razorbill. L. Alca torda. /: Pin-
gouin macroptere. G. Tordaik.
I. Gazza marina. H. Alka.
Red-backed Shrike. L. Lanius
collurio. F. Pie-grieche ^corcheur.
G. Dorndreher. J. Averla piccola.
H. Tovissziiro gebics.
ORedbreast. L. Erithacus rube-
cula. F. Gorge rouge. G. Rot-
kehlchen. I. Pettirosso. H. Vo-
rosbegy.
ORed-breasted Flycatcher. /..
Muscicapa parva Bechst. F. Gobe-
mouche rougeatre. G. Kleiner
Fliegenfanger. I. Pigliamosche
pettirosso. H. Kis legykapo.
ORed-legged Falcon. L. Cerchneis
vespertinus. F. Faucon de soir.
G. Rotfussfalk. I. Falco cuculo.
TI. Kekvercse.
Red-necked Grebe. L. Podiceps
griseigena Bodd. 7^. Grebe jou-
gris. G. Rothals-Lappentaucher.
I. Svasso dal collo rosso. H.
Pofas vocsok.
Red-necked Phalarope. L. Pha-
laropus hyperboreus. F. Phala-
rope cendre. G. Schmalschnabli-
ger Wassertreter. /. Phalaropo
a becco sottile. H. Viztaposo.
ORedpoll, Mealy, v. Mealy Red-
poll.
Redshank. L. Totanus calidris.
F Chevalier Gambetta. G. Rot-
fuss-Strandlaufer. I. Pettegola.
H. Vorosl^bii czank6.
14*
212
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
Redshank, Spotted, v. Spotted
Redshank.
ORed-spotted Bluethroat. L.Cya-
necula suecica. F. Gorge bleue.
G. Blaukehlchen. /. Pet'azzuro
orientale. H. Kekbegy.
ORedstart, Black, v. Black Red-
start.
ORedstart, Garden, v. Garden
Redstart.
oRed-throated Pipit. L. Anthus
cervinus Pall. --?— G. Rotkehli-
ger Pieper. /. Pispola gola rossa.
H. Rottorkii pipis.
O Redwing. L. Turdus iliacus. F.
Mauvis. G. Rotdrossel. /. Tordo
sassello. H. Szolorigo.
CReed Bunting. L Emberiza
schoeniclus. F. Bruant des ro-
seaux. G. Rohrammer. /. Miglia-
rino di padule. H. Nadi sar-
many.
CReedling, Bearded, v Bearded
Reediing.
OReed Warbler, L. Acrocephalus
streperus Viell. F. Rousserolle
effarvatte. (x.Teichsanger. I. Can-
naiola. H. Cserrego poszata.
Reeve. L. Pavoncella pugnax. F.
Combattant. G. Kampfstrand-
laufer. I. Combattente. B. Paj-
zsos czanko.
Ring-Dove. L. Coluniba palum-
bus. F. Colonibe Ramier. G. Rin-
geltaube. /. Colombaccio. H. Sze-
kacs.
C Ringed Ousel. /. Turdus tor-
quatus. /•'. Merle a plastron. G.
Ringamsel. /. Merlo dal collare.
H. Orvos rigo
ORinged Plover. L. Charadrius
hiaticola. F. Pluvier a collier.
G. Halsband-Regenpfeifer. T. Cor
riere Grosso. H. Juhaszka, Parti
lile.
C River Warbler. /.. Locustella
fluviatilis Wolf. F. Becfin rive-
rain. G. Fluss-Schwirl. I. Sal-
ciaiola. H. Berki tiicsokmadar.
Rock- Dove. /.. Columba livia.
F. Colombe biset. G. Felsen-
taube. /. Picchione selvatico. H.
Vadgalamb.
ORock Thrush. L. Monticola saxa-
tilis. F. Merle de roche G. Stein-
drossel. J. Codirossone. H. Kovi
rigo.
ORoller. L. Coracias garrula. F.
Rollier. G'.Mandelkrahe./. Ghian-
daia marina. H. Szalakota
Rook. L. Corvus frugilegus F.
Corbeau Freux. G. Saatkrahe.
I. Corvo. H. Vetesi varju.
Roseate Pelican. L. Pelecanus
onocrotalus F. Pelican blanc.
G. Kropfgans. I. Pellicano. H.
Godeny.
ORose-coloured Starling. L. Pas-
tor roseus. F. Martin roselin.
G. Rosenstaar. I. Storno roseo.
H. Pasztormadar.
Rose-finch, Caucasian, v. Cau-
casian Rose-finch.
Rough-legged Buzzard, i. Archi-
buteo lagopus. F. Buse pattue.
a. Rauhfuss-Bussard. /. Pojana
calzata. H. Gatyas olyv.
Ruby-throat. L. Calliope. F. Cal-
liope (t. Calliope. I. Calliope.
H. Kalliope.
Ruddy Sheldrake. /.. Tadorna
casarca. F. Tadorne casarca. G.
Rostente — ? — H. Voros aso-
lud.
Ruff, V. Reeve.
Saker. L. Falco laniarius.F.Faucon
sacre. G Wurgfalke. /. Lanario.
H. Kerecsen solyoni.
Sanderling. /-. Calidris arenaria
lllig. F. Sanderling variable. G.
Ufer-Sanderling. /. Pionvanello
tridattilo. H Fenyerfuto.
INDEX OK BIRD-NAMES
213
Sand- Grouse, Black-bellied, v.
Black-bellied Sand-Grouse.
Sand-Grouse, Pallas's, v. Pallas's
Sand-Grouse.
OSand Martin. /. Clivicola riparia.
F. Hirondelle de rivage. G Ufer-
schwalbe. /. Topino. II. Parti
fecske.
Sandpiper. L. Totanus. F. Che-
valier. ^'. Wasserlaufer. /. Piro-
piro. H. Czanko.
Sandpiper, Green, v. Green Sand-
piper.
Sandpiper, JVIarsh,v. Marsh Sand-
piper.
Sandpiper, Purple, v. Purple
Sandpiper.
Sandpiper, Wood, v. Wood Sand-
piper.
OSavi's Warbler, V. Warbler Savi's.
Scaup, Scaup Duck. L. Fuligula
marila. F. Canard miloninau. G.
Bergente. /. Moretta grigia. H.
Hegyi rucza.
^Scops Owl. L. Pisorhina Scops.
F. Petit Due. G. Zwergohreule.
/. Assiole. H. Fiiles kuvik.
Scoter, Black, v. Black Scoter.
Scoter, Velvet, v. Velvet Scoter.
Sea Eagle. L. Haliaetus albicilla.
F. Pygargue a queue blanche, (r.
Seeadler. 7. Aquila di mare. H.
Reti sas.
Seamew. L Larus F. Goeland.
G. Seemove. I. Gabbiano. H
Sir^ly.
OSedge Warbler. L. Calamodus
schoenobaenus. F. Becfin phrag-
mite. G. Schilf-Rohrsanger. 7.
Forapaglie. H. Foltos sitke.
CSerin-Finch 1.. Serinus serinus.
F. Serin. G. Girlitz. 7. VerceUino.
H. Csicsorke.
Shearwater; Manx. L. Puffinus
anglorum. F. Petrel Manks. G.
Nordischer Tauchersturmvogel.
T. Berta minore. h. V^szmad^r,
Angol v^szmadar.
Sheldrake, Ruddy, v Ruddy Shel-
drake.
Shore-Lark. /.. Otocoris alpes-
tris. F. Alouette alpine. G. Berg-
lerche. 7. Lodola gola gialla. H.
Fiiles pacsirta, Havasi fiiles pa-
csirta.
OShort-eared Owl. y>. Asio acci-
pitrinus Pall. 7''. Due a courtes
oreilles. G. Sumpfohreule. /. Gufo
di padule. 77. Reti bagoly.
Short-toed Eagle, h. Circaetus
gallicus. F. Aigle Jean le blanc.
G. Schlangenadler. /. Biancone.
H. Kigydszolyv.
Shoveller. L. Spatula clypeata.
F. Souchet, G. Loffelente. I.
Mestolone. H. Kanalas rucza.
Shrike. L. Lanius. F. Pie grieche.
G. Wiirger. T. Averla. H. Gebics.
Shrike, Great Grey, v. Great Grey
Shrike.
Shrike, Lesser Grey. L. Lanius
minor Gmel. F\ Pie Grieche d'lta-
lie. G. Schwartzstirniger Wiirger.
7. Averla cenerina. JI. Kis orgebics.
Shrike, Red-backed, V. Red-backed
Shrike.
Single Snipe. L. Gallinago galli-
nago. F. Chevrevolante. ^J.Moor-
schnepfe. I. Beccaccino. H. Sir-
szalonka.
OSiskin. L. Chrysomitris spinus.
F. Tarin. G. Zeisig. /. Lucarino.
H. Csiz.
Skua, V. Great Skua.
Skua, Arctic, v. Arctic Skua.
Skua, Button, v. Buffon Skua
Skua, Great, v. Great Skua.
Skua, Pomatorhine, v. Pomato-
rhine Skua.
OSkylark. L. Alaude arvensis. F.
Alouette de champs. G. Lerche. I.
Lodola. H. Mezei pacsirta
214
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
Slender-billed Curlew. L. Nume-
nius tenuirostris. F. Courlis a
bee grele. G. Diinnschnabliger
Sichler. I. Chiurlotello. H. Ve-
konycsorii poling.
Smew. L. Mergus albellus. F. Petit
Harle huppe. G. Kleiner Sager.
I. Pesciaiola. H. Kis muszkabuvar.
Snipe, Double, v. Double Snipe.
Snipe, jack, v. Jack Snipe.
Snipe, Single, v. Single Snipe.
OSnow Bunting. L. Calcarius ni-
valis. F. Ortolan de neige. G.
Schneespornammer. I. Zigolo
della neve. H. Hosarmany.
Snowy Owl. L. Nyctea nivea. F.
Surnie Harfang. G. Schnee-Eule.
I. Arfango. H Hobagoly.
OSombre Titmouse. L. Parus lu-
gubris Temm. F. Mesange triste.
G. Trauermeise. I. Cincia dal-
matina. H. Gyaszos czinege.
OSong Thrush. L. Tardus musi-
cus. F. Grive. G. Singdrossel. I.
Tordo. n. Enekes rigo.
Sparrow. L. Passer domesticus. F.
Moineau. G. Haussperling I. Pas-
sera oltramontana. H. Hazivereb,
Vereb.
Sparrow-Hawk.Z. Accipiter nisus.
F Epervier. G. Sperber. I. Spar-
vier. H. Karvaly.
Sparrow, Italian, v. Italian Spar-
row.
Sparrow, Tree, v. Tree Sparrow.
Spoonbill. L. Platalea leucorodia.
F. Spatule blanche. G. Loffel-
reiher, Loffelgans. I. Spatola.
H. Kanalas gem.
Spotted Crake. Z. Ortygometra
porzana. F. Poule d'eau nia-
ruette. G. Punktiertes Rohrhuhn.
/. Voltolino. H. Pettyes vizi-
csibe.
OSpotted Flycatcher. L. Musci-
capa grisola. F. Gobe-mouche.
G. Grauer Fliegenfanger. /. Pig-
liamosche. H. Sziirke legykapo.
Spotted Redshank. L. Tetanus
fuscus. F. Chevalier brun. G.
Dunkler Wasserlaufer. I. Totano
moro. H. Fustos czanko.
Squacco. L. Ardea ralloides. F.
Heron crabier. G. Rallenreiher.
I. Sgarzaciuffetto. H. Ustokosgem.
OStarling. L. Sturnus vulgaris. F.
Etourneau. G. Staar. I. Storno.
H. Seregely.
OStarling, Rose-coloured, V. Rose-
coloured Starling.
Stilt, Black-winged, v. Black-win-
ged Stilt.
Stint, Temminck, v. Temminck
Stint.
Stock Dove. L. Columba oenas.
F. Colombe. G. Hohltaube. I.
Colombella. H. Kek galamb.
C Stonechat. L. Pratincola rubicola.
F. Tarier rubicole. G. Schwarz-
kehlchen. I. Saltinpalo. H. Czi-
gany csalancsiics.
Stone Curlew, v. Tickknee.
OStork. L. Ciconia. F. Cigogne.
G. Storch. I. Cicogna. H. Golya.
OStork, Black, v. Black Stork.
OStork, White, v. White Stork.
Stormy Petrel. L. Thalassidroma
pelagica. F. Thalassidroma tem-
pete. G. Schwalben-Sturnivogel.
/. Uccello delle tempeste. H.
Viharfecske.
Summer Snipe. L. Totanus hypo-
leucos. F. Chevalier guignette.
G. Fluss-Uferlaufer. /. Piro-piro
piccolo. //. Billegeto czanko.
Snipe, [Summer], v. Summer Snipe.
Stint, [Little], v. Little Stint.
- Swallow. 7>. Hirundo. F. Hiron-
delle. G. Schwalbe. I. Rondine.
//. Fecske
OSwallow. Tj. Hirundo rustica. F.
Hirondelle de cheminee. G. Ranch-
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
215
schwalbe. T. Rondine. //. Fiisti
fecske.
Swan. L. Cygnus. F. Cygne. G.
Schwan. I. Cigno selvatico. H.
Hattyii.
Swan, Whooper, v. Wild Swan.
Swan, Wild, v Wild Swan.
OSwifL L. Cypselus apus. F. Mar-
tinet. G. Maucrschwalbe. L Ron-
done. H. Kazdri fecske, Sarlos
fecske.
Swift, Alpine, v. Alpine Swift.
Tawny Owl. L. Syrninus aluco.
F. Chouette hulotte. G. Wald-
kauz. I. Guf 0 selvatico. H. Macska-
bagoly.
OTawny Pipit. L. Anthus cam-
pestris. F. Pipit roussoline. G.
Brachpieper. J. Calandro. H. Par-
lagi pipis.
Teal. L. Querquedula crecca. F.
Sarcelle d'hiver. G. Krickente. I.
Alzavola. H. Apro rucza.
Teal, Falcated, v. Falcated Teal.
Temminck Stint. L. Tringa Tem-
minckii Leisl. i^. Becasseau Tem-
minck. G. Temmincks Strandlau-
fer I. Gambecchio nano. if. Tem-
minck partfuto.
^Tengmalmi Owl. L. Nyctale
Tengmalmi Gm. F. Tengmalm-
Cheveche. G. Tengmalms Kautz.
r. Civetta capogrosso. H. Gatyas
csuvik.
Tern. L. Sterna. F. Hirondelle de
mer. G. Seeschwalbe. /. Ron-
dine di mare. H. Halaszka.
OTern, Black, v. Black Tern.
Tern, Caspian, v. Caspian Tern.
Tern, Common, v. Common Tern.
Tern, Little, v. Little Tern.
Tern, Nile, v. Nile Tern.
Tern, Whiskered, v. Whiskered
Tern.
OTern, White-winged Black, v.
White-winged Black Tern.
Thickknee. L. Oedicnemus crepi-
tans. /''. Oedicneme. G. Dickfuss.
I. Occhione. H. Ugartyuk.
OThree-toed Woodpecker. L.
Picoides tridactylus. F. Picoide
tridactyle. G. Dreizehiger Specht.
/ Picchio tridattilo. H. H^rom-
ujjii iiocsik, Hocsik.
Thrush. L. Turdus. F. Grive. G.
Drossel. I. Tordo. H. Rigo.
CThrush, Blue, v. Blue Thrush.
OThrush, Mistletoe, v. Mistletoe
Thrush.
Thrush Nightingale. L. Luscinia
Philomela Bechst. F. Rossignol
de Hongrie. G Ungarische Nach-
tigall. 7. Rusignolo maggiore. H.
Magyar fulemiile.
OThrush, Rock, v. Rock Thrush.
OThrush, Song, v. Song Thrush.
CTitlark. L. Anthus pratensis. F.
Pipi des pres. G. Wiesenpieper.
I. Pispola. H. Reti pipis.
OTit mouse. L. Par us. F. Mesange.
G. Meise. I. Cincia. H. Czinege.
OTitmouse, Azure, v. Azure Tit-
mouse.
OTitmouse, Blue, v. Blue Tit-
mouse.
wTitmouse, Coal, v. Coal Tit-
mouse.
Titmouse, Crested, v. Crested Tit-
mouse.
OTitmouse, Great, v. Great Tit-
mouse.
OTitmouse, Marsh, v. Marsh Tit-
mouse.
OTitmouse, Longtailed, v. Long-
tailed Titmouse.
OTitmouse, PenduHne, v. Pen-
duline Titmouse.
OTitmouse, Sombre, v. Sombre
Titmouse.
OTree Creeper. L. Certhia fami-
liaris. —?— G. Baumlaufer. /.Ram-
picchino. H. Fakiisz, Famiszo.
216
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
CTree Pipit. L. Anthus trivialis.
F. Pipit des arbres. G. Baum-
pieper. I. Prispolone. H. Erdei
pipis.
Tree Sparrow. L. Passer mon-
tanus. F. Moineau friquet. G.
Feldsperling I. Passera mattu-
gia. H. Mezei vereb.
Tufted Duck. L. Fuligula cristata.
F. Morillon. G. Schopfente. I.
Moretta. ff. Kontyos rucza.
Turnstone. L. Strepsilas interpres.
F. Tournepierre. G. Steinwalzer.
I. Voltapietre. M. Koforgato.
Turtle-dove. L. Turtur turtur. F.
Tourterelle. G. Turteltaube. I.
Tortora. H. Gerle.
Two-barred Crossbill. L. Loxia
bifasciata Brehm. F. Bec-croise
bifascie. G. Weissbindiger Kreuz-
schnabel. 1. Crociere fasciato.
H. Szalagos keresztcsorii.
Tystey. L. Uria grylle. F. Guille-
mot grylle. G. Gryll-Teiste. I.
Uria grylle. H. Fekete lumma.
Ural Owl. L. Syrniuni uralense.
— ?— G. Ural-Habichtseule. I.
Gufo degli Urali. H. Urali bagoly.
Velvet Scoter. L. Oidemia fusca.
F. Grande Macreuse. G. Sammet-
ente. /. Oreo marine H. Fiistos
rucza.
Vulture. L. Vultur. F. Vautour.
G. Geier. I. Av\'oltoio. H. Ke-
selyii.
Vulture, Bearded, v. Bearded
Vulture.
Vulture, Black, v. Black Vulture.
Vulture, Egyptian, v. Egyptian
Vulture.
Vulture, Griffon, V. Griffon Vulture.
Wagtail. L. Motacilla. F. Lavan-
diere. G. Bachstelze. 7. Ballerina.
H. Billegeto.
OWagtail, Black-headed,v. Black-
headed Wagtail.
OWagtail, Blue-headed, v. Blue-
headed Wagtail.
OWagtail, Grey, v. Grey Wagtail.
OWagtail, White, v. White Wag-
tail.
OWagtail, Yellow, v. Yellow Wag-
tail.
OWall Creeper. L. Tichodroma
muraria. F. Tichodrome eche-
lette. G. Mauerlaufer. I. Picchio
muraiolo. H. Hajnalmadar.
OWarbler. L. Sylvia. F. Fauvette.
G. Grasmiicke. /. Beccafico. H.
Poszata.
OWarbler, Barred, v. Barred
Warbler.
OWarbler, Bonelli's, v. Bonelli's
Warbler.
OWarbler, Garden, v. Garden
Warbler.
OWarbler, Grasshopper, v. Grass-
hopper Warbler.
OWarbler, Great Red, v. Great
Red Warbler.
OWarbler, Icterine, v. Icterine
Warbler.
OWarbler, Marsh, v. Marsh
Warbler.
OWarbler, Orphean, v. Orphean
Warbler.
OWarbler, Reed, v. Reed Warbler.
OWarbler, River, V River Warbler.
OWarbler Savi's. L. Locustella
luscinioides Savi. F. Fauvette
des Saules. G. Weiden-Schwirl.
/. Salciaiola. H. Nadi tiicsok-
madar.
OWarbler, Sedge, v. Sedge
Warbler.
Water Pipit. L. Anthus spipo-
letta.i''. Pipit spioncelle.6^.Wasser
pieper. /. Spioncello. H. Havasi
pipis.
Water Rail. L. Rallus aquaticus.
F. Rale d'eau. G. Wasserralle.
/. Porciglione. H. Viziguvat.
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
217
Waxwing. />. Ampelis garrula. F.
Jaseur de Boheme G. Seiden-
schwaiiz. /. Becco frusone. //.
Csonttollu mad^r.
Whaup, V. Curlew.
OWheatear. L. Saxicola oenanthe.
F. Motteux-cul-blanc. 0. Stein-
schniatzer. /. Ciil bianco. B.
Hantmadar.
Whimbrel. L. Numenius phaeo-
pus. F. Courlieu. G. Regenbrach-
vogel. I. Chiurlo piccolo. H. Eso-
p61ing.
OWhinchat. /.. Pratincola rubetra.
F. Tarier. G. Wiesenschmatzer.
I. Stiaccino. H. Rozsdas csal^n-
csucs.
Whiskered Tern. 7v. Hydrocheli-
don hybrida Pall. F. Hirondelle
de mer moustache. G. Weiss-
bartige Seeschwalbe. I. Rondine
di mare piombata. H. Fattyu-
szerko.
GWhite-backed Woodpecker.Z.
Dendrocopus leuconotus Bechst.
— ?— G. Weissriickiger Specht.
/. Picchio a dorso bianco. B.
Feherhatu fakopancs
OWhite-collared Flycatcher. L.
Muscicapa collaris Bechst. F.
Gobe-mouche a collier. G. Hals-
band-Fliegenfanger. /. Balia dal
collare, H. Orvos legykapo.
White-eyed Duck. L Nyroca leu-
cophthalmos. F. Fuligule nyroca.
G. Moorente. T. Moretta tabac-
cata. H. Cziganyrucza.
White-fronted Goose. L. Anser
albifrons Scop. F. Oie rieuse.
G. Blassgans. I. Oca lombar
della. H. Lilik.
White-headed Duck. L. Erisma-
tura leucocephala Scop. F. Ca-
nard couronn^. G. Ruderente.
I. Gobbo rugginoso. //. Kek-
csorii recze.
OWhite Stork. J.. Ciconia alba.
F. Cigogne. (r. Weisser Storch.
/. Ciconia. H. Feher g61ya.
OWhitethroat. /.. Sylvia sylvia.
F. Fauvette grise. G. Dorngras-
miicke. /. Sterpazzola. H. Mezei
posz^ta.
OWhitethroat, Lesser, v. Lesser
Whitethroat.
OWhite Wagtail. 7.. Motacilla alba.
F. Lavandiere. G. Weisse Bach-
stelze. 1. Ballerina. H. Bar^zda-
billegeto.
OWhite winged Black Tern. L.
Hydrochelidon leucoptera M. et
Sch. F. Hirondelle de mer leu-
coptere. G. Weissfliigelige See-
schwalbe. 1. Mignattino ali bian-
che. H. Feherszarnyu szerko.
OWhite-winged Lark. L. Alauda
sibirica Gm. F. Alouette de Si-
b^rie. G. Weissflugelige Lerche.
I. Lodola siberiana. H. Feher-
szarnyu pacsirta.
Widgeon. L. Mareca penelope.
F. Canard siffleur. G. Pfeifente.
I. Fiscione. H. Fiityiilo rucza.
Wild Duck. L. Anas boschas. F.
Canard sauvage. G. Stockente.
I Germano reale. H. Tokes
rucza.
Wild Swan. L. Cygnus-musicus
Bechst. F. Cygne sauvage. G.
Singschwan. — ?— H. Vadhattyu.
Willock, V. Guillemot.
OWillow Wren. L. Phylloscopus
trochilus. F. Pouillot-fitis. G. Fitis
Laubvogel. J. Lui grosso. H. Fi-
tisz fuzike, Fitiszmad<\r.
Woodchat. L. Lanius sonator. F.
Pie-Grieche rousse. G. Rotkopf-
Wiirger. J. Averla capirossa. H.
Vorosfejii gobies.
Woodcock. ]j. Scolopax rusticola.
F. Becasse. G. Waldschnepfe.
I. Beccaccia. H. Szalonka.
218
INDEX OF BIRD-NAMES
OWood Lark. L. Lin. Alauda ar-
borea. F. Aluette Lulu. G. Wald-
lerche. I. Totta villa. H. Erdei
pacsirta.
OWoodpecker. L. Picus. F. Pic.
G. Specht. I. Picchio. H. Har-
kaly.
OWoodpecker, Barred, v. Barred
Woodpecker.
OWoodpecker, Black, v. Black
Woodpecker.
OWoodpecker, Green, v. Green
Woodpecker.
Woodpecker, Grey-headed, v.
Grey-headed Woodpecker.
OWoodpecker, Middle Spotted,
V. Middle Spotted Woodpecker.
OWoodpecker, Pied, v. Pied
Woodpecker.
OWoodpecker, Three -toed, v.
Three-toed Woodpecker.
OWoodpecker, White-backed, v.
White-backed Woodpecker.
Wood Pigeon, v. Ring- Dove.
Wood Sandpiper. L. Totanus gla-
reola. F. Chevalier sylvain. G.
Bruch-Wasserlaufer. /. Piro-piro
boschereccio. H. Reti czanko.
OWood-Wren. L. Phylloscopus
sibilator Bechst. F. Pouillot siff-
leur. G. Waldlaubvogel. I. Lui
verde. H. Sisego fiizike.
OWren. L Troglotydes. F. Trog-
lodites. G. Zaunkonig. /. Scric-
ciolo. H. Okorszem.
OWren, Fire-crested, v. Fire-
crested Wren.
OWren, Golden-crested, v. Gol-
den-crested Wren.
OWren, Willow, v. Willow Wren.
OWren, Wood, v Wood Wren.
OWryneck. L. Yunx torquilla. F.
Torcol. G. Wendehals. J. Torci-
coUo. H. Nyaktekercs.
Yellowhanimer. L. Emberiza cit-
rinella L Bruant jaune. G. Gold-
ammer. I. Zigolo giallo. H. Czit-
romsarmdny.
Yellow Wagtail. L.Motacilla cam-
pestris. F. Bergeronette jaune.
G. Schafstelze. /. Cutrettola testa
gialla. H Mezei billegeto.
^r*
DOCUMENTS.
Documents.
Original Text of the ^Declaration" of 1875.
DECLARATION.
Le Gouvernement de Sa Majeste le Roi d'ltalie et celui de Sa
Majeste Imperiale et Royale Apostolique, animes du desir d'assurer une
protection generale et efficace aux oiseaux utiles a I'agriculture, sont
convenus des dispositions suivantes :
Article 1.
Les Gouvernements des deux Parties contractantes s'engagent a
prendre, par voie de legislation, des mesures aptes a assurer aux oise-
aux utiles a I'agriculture la protection la plus etendue, au moins dans
les limites des articles suivants 11. a V.
Article 11.
11 sera generalement defendu de detruire ou d'enlever les nids et
places a couvees, de prendre les oeufs et de capturer d'une mani^re
quelconque les petits oiseaux.
De meme sera generalement interdite la vente des nids, oeufs et
oiseaux pris contre cette defense.
Article HI.
11 sera, en outre, generalement defendu :
fl) de prendre ou de tuer les oiseaux pendant la nuit au moyen
222 DOCUMENTS
de glu, lacets et filets, armes a feu ou autres; le temps de la nuit
^tant calculi k partir d'une heure apres le coucher du soleil jiisqu'a
une heure avant son lever;
b) de prendre ou de tuer les oiseaux d'une maniere quelconque
tant que le sol sera convert de neige ;
c) de les prendre ou de les tuer d'une maniere quelconque le long
des rigoles, pres des sources et des etangs durant la s^cheresse ;
d) de prendre les oiseaux au moyen de grains ou autres aliments
me!6s de substances narcotiques ou veneneuses;
e) de prendre les oiseaux au moyen de lacets et pieges d'espece
et de forme quelconque, places sur le sol ; notamment au moyen de
nasses, petites cages, archets, des attrapes nomm^es plocke en Dalmatie,
ainsi que des lanciaiora en usage pour la capture des alouettes;
f) de prendre les oiseaux k I'aide des filets nommes paretelle et
en g^n^ral a I'aide de tons filets mobiles et transportables tendus sur
le sol ou a travers du champ, dans les broussailles ou sur le chemin.
Les Gouvernements des deux Parties contractantes se reservent
d'interdire d'autres manieres de capturer les oiseaux s'il vient k res-
sortir des rapports des autorites competentes d'Autriche-Hongrie ou de
ceux des Conseils provinciaux d'ltalie que ces manieres de capturer
les oiseaux sont trop destructives et nuisibles au maintien des oiseaux
du pays ou de passage.
Article IV.
Du reste outre les defenses generales formulees aux articles II et
111, il ne peut etre permis de prendre ou de tuer les oiseaux d'une
maniere quelconque que :
a) depuis le 1-er septembre jusqu'a la fin de fevrier au moyen
d'armes a feu ;
b) depuis le 15. septembre jusqu'a la fin de fevrier a I'aide
d'autres moyens non prohib^s.
La vente des oiseaux doit etre interdite hors de ces epoques.
Article V.
Toutefois chaque Gouvernement peut sous certaines conditions et
sur demande motivee, accorder des exceptions aux dispositions des
Art. 11, III et IV en faveur des buts scientifiques.
ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE DECLARATION OF 1»75 223
Article VI.
Comme, dans I'espril de I'article I-er, les dispositions de cette
declaration n'ont pour but que la protection des especes d'oiseaux
utiles a I'agriculture, il va sans dire que les articles 11— V ne s'appli-
quent ni aux oiseaux de proie ou aux oiseaux quelconques reconnus
nousibles k I'economie rurale ou domestique, ni h la volaille entretenue
dans I'une ou I'autre. Bien que les articles 11 — V ne soient pas abso-
lument applicables aux especes d'oiseaux qui, sans etre decidement
utiles ou nuisibles a I'agriculture, n'en ont pas moins une certaine
valeur, surtout comme objet de chasse ; les Gouvernenients respectifs
se declarent pourtant disposes a prendre les mesures propres a assurer
la conservation de ces especes comme objet de chasse.
Article Vll.
Les Gouvernenients respectifs se communiqueront, le cas echeant,
les mesures protectrices des oiseaux prises dans leurs Etats, ainsi
que les explications utiles ou desirables.
Article Vlll.
Les Gouvernements des deux Parties contractantes tacheront d'ob-
enir I'adhesion d'autres Etats a cette declaration.
Article IX.
La presente declaration sera delivree en deux exemplaires con-
formes a signer par les Ministres respectifs des affaires etrangeres et a
echanger entre eux.
Sur quoi le soussign^ Ministre des affaires etrangeres de Sa
Majeste le Roi d'ltalie a signe la presente declaration et y a fait
apposer le sceau du Ministere des affaires etrangeres.
Fait a Rome, le vingt-neuf novembre mil huit cent soixante-quinze.
L. S. (sign6) ViscoNTi Venosta.
224 DOCUMENTS
Original Text
of the Protocol annexed to the „Declaration" of 1875.
PROTOCOLE.
Les Gouvernements de etc. ayant ete invites par les Gouverne-
ments d'Autriche-Hongrie et d'ltalie a acceder aux dispositions arretees
entre ces deux derniers pour assurer una protection efficace aux oiseaux
utiles a I'agriculture, et s'etant declares prets a repondre a cette invi-
tation, les plenipotentiaires soussignes savoir : pour etc
se sont reunis aujourd'hui et se sont entendus sur la suivante declara-
tion pour les uns, et d'accep4ation pour les autres.
§ 1, Les Gouvernements etc. accedent a la declaration concernant
la protection des oiseaux utiles a Tagnculture, echangee entre I'Autriche-
Hongrie et I'ltalie et datee de Budapest le 5 et de Rome le 29. novembre
1875, laquelle declaration est annexee au present protocole dont elle
fait partie integrante ; ils assument toutes les obligations et reclament
tous les droits et avantages resultant pour les parties contractantes.
lis se reservent pleine liberte de designer dans leurs propres reg-
lements, d'apres les usages de leurs pays, les moyens de capture inter-
dits (art. ill) sans toutefois qu'aucun de ces moyens, relativement au
but que se propose la dite declaration, presente moins d'efficacite que
ceux dont il est fait mention dans I'article III de la declaration ; ils se
reservent aussi d'introduire, relativement au temps de la capture (art IV),
des mesures de protection plus rigoureuses encore que celles stipulees
dans la declaration.
§ 2. Les Gouvernements d'Autriche-Hongrie et d'ltalie acceptent
cette declaration d'adhesion ainsi que la reserve y jointe, et assurent
en meme temps aux Gouvernements accedants tous les droits et avan-
tages que la dite declaration garantit aux parties contractantes.
§. 3. Toutefois, comme il s'est eleve des doutes sur la portee de
I expression „petits oiseaux'' employee a la fin de lalinea 1 de I'article
II de la declaration ci-jointe, il est constate d'un commun accord que
ce n'est pas la taille mais bien I'age des oiseaux que la dit alinea a
en vue, et que par consequent le mot petiis doit etre remplace par le
mot Jeunes".
En foi de quoi les soussignes ont, en vertu de leur pleins-pouvoirs,
signe le present protocole en — , expeditions et y ont appose le sceau
de leurs armes. - Fait a Vienne le etc.
ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE INTERN. CONV. FOR THE PROT. OF BIRDS, PARIS, I'»OS! 225
Original Text of the International Convention for the
Protection of Birds, Paris, 1902.
Convention
pour la protection des oiseaux utiles a raffricultnre.
Sa Majeste lEmpereur d'Autriche, Roi de Boheme etc., et Roi
Apostolique de Hongrie, agissant egalement au nom de Son Altesse le
Prince de Liechtenstein ; Sa Majeste I'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi de
Prusse, au nom de I'Empire Allemand ; Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges,
Sa Majeste le Roi d'Espagne et, en Son Nom, Sa Majeste la Peine
Regente du Royaume ; Le President de la Republique Frangaise ; Sa
Majeste le Roi des Hellenes; Son Altesse Royale le Grand Due de
Luxembourg ; Son Altesse Serenissime le Prince de Monaco ; Sa Majeste
le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves ; Sa Majeste le Roi de Suede et de
Norvege, au nom de la Suede, et le Conseil Federal Suisse, reconnais-
sant I'opportunit^ d'une action commune dans les differents pays pour
la conservation des oiseaux utiles a I'agriculture, ont resolu de conclure
une Convention a cet effet et ont nomme pour leurs Plenipotentiaires
savoir :
Sa Majeste I'Empereur d'Autriche, Roi de Boheme etc., et Roi
Apostolique de Hongrie,
S. Exc. le comte de Wolkenstein-Trostburg, Son Ambassadeur
Extraordinaire et Plenipotentiaire pres le President de la Republique
Francaise ;
Sa Majeste I'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi de Prusse,
S. A. S. le Prince de Radolin, Son Ambassadeur Extraordinaire et
Plenipotentiaire pres le President de la Republique Frangaise;
Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges,
M. le Baron d'Anethan, Son Envoy6 Extraordinaire et Ministre
Plenipotentiaire pres le President de la Republique Frangaise ;
Sa Majeste le Roi d'Espagne et, en Son Nom, Sa Majeste la Peine
Regente du Royaume,
S. Exc. M. de Leon y Castillo, Marquis del Muni, Son Ambassa-
deur Extraordinaire et Plenipotentiaire pres le President de la Repu-
qlique Franc^aise ;
Herman: Conv. for the Prot. of Birds. '^
226 DOCUMENTS
Le President de La Republique Fran^aise,
S. Exc. M. Theophile Delcasse, Depute, Ministre des Affaires
Etrangeres ;
Sa Majeste le Roi des Hellenes,
M. N. Delyanni, Son Envoye Extraordinaire et Ministre Plenipoten-
tiaire pres le President de la Republique Fran^aise;
Son Altesse Roy ale le Grand-Due de Luxembourg,
M. Vannerus, Charge d'Affaires de Luxembourg a Paris;
Son Altesse Serenissime le Prince de Monaco,
M. L B. Depelley, Charge d'Affaires de Monaco a Paris;
Sa Majeste le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves,
M. T. De Souza Roza, Son Envoye Extraordinaire et Ministre Pleni-
potentiaire pres le President de la Republique Fran^aise;
Sa Majeste le Roi de Suede et de Norvege, au nom de la Suede,
o
M. H. Akermann, Son Envoye Extraordinaire et Ministre Plenipoten-
tiaire pres le President de la Republique Francaise ;
Et le Conseil Federal Suisse,
M. Charles Lardy, Envoye Extraordinaire et Ministre Plenipoten-
tiaire de la Confederation Suisse pres le President de la Republique
Francaise,
Lesquels, apres s'etre communique leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouves
en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des articles suivants :
Article Premier.
Les oiseaux utiles a ['agriculture, specialement les insectivores et
notaniment les oiseaux enumeres dans la liste No 1 annexee a la pre-
sente Convention, laquelle sera susceptible d'additions par la legislation
de chaque pays, jouiront d'une protection absolue, de fagon qu'il soit
interdit de les tuer en tout temps et de quelque maniere que ce soit,
d'en detruire les nids, oeufs et couvees.
En attendant que ce resultat soit atteint partout, dans son ensemble,
les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent a prendre ou a proposer
a leurs legislatures respectives les dispositions necessaires pour assurer
I'execution des mesures comprises dans les articles ci-apres.
Art. 2.
11 sera defendu d'enlever les nids, de prendre les oeufs, de cap-
turer et de detruire les couvees en tout temps et par des moyens
quelconques.
ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE INTERN. CONV. FOR THE PROT. OF BIRDS, PARIS, 1908 227
L'importation et le transit, le transport, le colportage, la mise en
vente, la vente et I'acliat de ces nids, oeufs et couv^es, seront interdits.
Cette interdiction ne s'etendra pas a la destruction, par le pro
prietaire, usufruitier ou Icur mandataire, des nids que des oiseaux
auront construits dans ou contre les niaisons d'habitation ou les bati-
ments en general et dans I'interieur des cours. il pourra de plus ctre
deroge, k titre exceptionnel, aux dispositions du present article, en ce
qui concerne les oeufs de vanneau et de mouette.
Art. 3.
Seront prohibes la pose et I'emploi des pieges, cages, filets, lacets,
gluaux, et de touts autres nioyens quelconques ayant pour objet de
faciliter la capture ou la destruction en masse des oiseaux.
Art. 4.
Dans le cas ou les Hautes Parties Contractantes ne se trouveraient
pas en mesure d'appliquer immediatement et dans leur integralite les
dispositions prohibitives de I'articie qui precede, Elles pouront apporter
des attenuations jugees necessaires auxdites prohibitions, mais Elles
s'engagent a restreindre I'emploi des methodes, engins et moyens de
capture et de destruction, de fa?on a parvenir a realiser peu a peu les
mesures de protection mentionnees dans I'articie 3.
Art. 5.
Outre les defenses generales formulees a I'articie 3, il est interdit
de prendre ou de tuer. du 1-er mars au 15 septembre de chaque
annee, /es oiseaux utiles e'nurmres dans la liste N*^ i, annexe'e a la
Conveiitiou.
La vente et la mise en vente en seront interdites egalement pen-
dant la meme periode.
Les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent, dans la mesure oii
leur legislation le permet. a prohiber I'entree et le transit des dits
oiseaux et leur transport du 1-er mars au 15 septembre.
La duree de 1' interdiction prevue dans le present article pourra,
toutefois, etre modifiee dans les pays septentrionaux.
Art. 6.
Les autorites competentes pourront accorder exceptionneliement
aux proprietaires ou exploitants de vignobles, vergers et jardins, de
15*
228 DOCUMENTS
p6pinieres, de champs plant^s ou ensemenc^s, ainsi qu'aux agents pre-
poses h leur surveillance, le droit temporaire de tirer a I'arme k feu
sur les oiseaux dont la presence serait nuisible et causerait un reel
dommage.
II restera toutefois interdit de mettre en vente et de vendre les
oiseaux tu6s dans ces conditions.
Art. 7.
Des exceptions aux dispositions de cette Convention pourront etre
accordees dans un interet scientifique ou de repeuplement par les
autorites competentes, suivant les cas et en prenant toutes les precau-
tions necessaires pour eviter les abus.
Pourront encore etre perniises, avec les memes conditions de
precaution, la capture, la vente et la detention des oiseaux destines a
etre tenus en cage. Les permissions devront etre accordees par les
autorites competentes.
Art. 8.
Les dispositions de la presente Convention ne seront pas appji-
cables aux oiseaux de bassecour, ainsi qu'aux oiseaux-gibier existant
dans les chasses reservees et designes comme tels par la legislation
du pays.
Partout ailleurs la destruction des oiseaux-gibier ne sera autorisee
qu'au moyen des armes a feu et a des epoques determinees par la loi.
Les Etats Contractantes sont invites a interdire la vente, le trans-
port et le transit des oiseaux-gibier dont la chasse est defendue sur
leur territoire, durant la periode de cette interdiction.
Art. 9.
Chacune des Parties Contractantes pourra faire des exceptions aux
dispositions de la presente Convention :
1" Pour les oiseaux que la legislation du pays permet de tirer ou
de tuer comme etant nuisibles a la chasse ou a la peche ;
2" Pour les oiseaux que la legislation du pays aura designes comme
nuisibles a lagriculture locale.
A defaut d'une liste officielle dressee par la legislation du pays,
le 2" du present article sera applique aux oiseaux designes dans la
liste N" 2 annexee a la presente Convention.
ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE INTERN. CONV. FOR THE PROT. OF BIRDS, PARIS, i!»<i2 229
Art. 10
Les Hautes Parties Contractantes prendront les mesures propres k
mettre leur legislation en accord avec les dispositions de la presente
Convention dans un delai de trois ans k partir du jour de la signature
de la Convention.
Art. 11.
Les Hautes Parties Contractantes se communiqueront, par I'inter-
mediaire du Gouvernement Franyais, les lois et les decisions admini-
stratives qui auraient deja ete rendues ou qui viendraient k I'etre dans
leurs Etats, relativement a lobjet de la presente Convention.
Art. 12.
Lorsque cela sera juge necessaire, les Hautes Parties Contractantes
se feront representer a une reunion Internationale chargee d'examiner
les questions que souleve I'execution de la Convention et de proposer
les modifications dont I'experience aura demontre I'utilite.
Art. 13.
Les Etats qui n'ont pas pris part a la presente Convention sont
admis a y adherer sur leur demande. Cette adhesion sera notifiee par
la voie diplomatique au Gouvernement de la Republique Fran^aise et
par celu ci aux autres Gouvernements signataires.
Art. 14.
La presente Convention sera mise en vigueur dans un d^lai maximum
d'un an a dater du jour de I'^change des ratifications.
Elle restera en vigueur indefiniment entre toutes les Puissances
signataires. Dans le cas oii Tune d'Elles denoncerait la Convention,
cette denonciation n'aurait d'effet qu'a son egard et seulement une
annee apres le jour ou cette denonciation aura 6te notifiee aux autres
Etats Contractantes.
Art. 15.
La presente Convention sera ratifiee, et les ratifications seron
echangees a Paris dans le plus bref delai possible.
Art. 16.
La disposition du deuxieme alinea de I'article 8 de la presente
Convention pourra, exceptionnellement, ne pas etre appliqu6e dans les
230 DOCUMENTS
provinces septentrionales de la Suede, en raison des conditions climato-
logiques toutes sp6ciales ou elles se trouvent.
En foi de quoi, les Pl^nipotentiaires respectifs I'ont sign6e et y ont
appose leurs cachets.
Fait k Paris, le 19 mars 1902.
Pour I'Autriche et pour la Hongrie :
L'Ambassadeur d'Autriche-Hongrie :
(L. S ) Sign6 : A. Wolkenstein.
(L. S.) Signe : Radolin.
(L. S.) Sign6 : Baron d'ANETHAN.
(L. S.) Signe : F. de Leon y Castillo.
(L. S.) Signe : Delcass^.
(L. S.) Sign6 : N. S. Delyanni.
(L. S.) Signe : Vannerus.
(L. S.) Sign6 : I. Depelley.
(L. S.) Signe: T. de Souza Roza.
o
(L. S.) Signe : Akerman.
(L. S.) Signe : Lardy.
Liste No I.
Oiseaux utiles.
Rapaces Nocturnes :
Cheveches (Athene) et Chevechettes (Glaucidium).
Chouettes (Surnia).
Hulottes ou Chats-Huants (Syrnium).
Effraie commune (Strix fiamniea L.).
Hiboux brachyotte et Moyen-Duc (Otus).
Scops d'Aldrovande ou Petit-Due (Scops giu Scop).
Grimpeurs :
Pics (Picus, Gecinus etc ) toutes les especes.
ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE INTERN. CONV. FOR THE PROT. OF BIRDS, PARIS, 15»02 231
Syndaciyles :
Rollier ordinaire (Coracias garrula L.).
Guepiers (Merops).
Passeredux-Ordinaires .
Huppe vulgaire (Upupa epops).
Grimpereaux, Tichodromes et Sitelles (Certhia, Tichodronia, Sitta).
Martinets (Cypselus).
Engoulevents (Caprimulgus).
Rossignols (Luscinia).
Gorges-Bleues (Cyanecula).
Rouges-Queues (Ruticilla).
Rouges-Gorges (Rubecula).
Traquets (Pratincola et Saxicola).
Accenteurs (Accentor).
Fauvettes de toutes sortes, telles que :
Fauvettes ordinaires (Sylvia),
Fauvettes babillardes (Curruca).
Fauvettes icterines (Hypolais).
Fauvettes aquatiques, Rousserolles, Phragmites, Locustelles (Acro-
cephalus, Calaniodyta Locustella) etc.
Fauvettes cisticoles (Cisticola).
Pouiilots (Philloscopus).
Roitelets (Regulus) et Troglodytes (Troglodytes).
Mesanges de toutes sortes (Parus, Panurus, Orites etc).
Gobe-Mouches (Muscicapa).
Hirondelles de toutes sortes (Hirundo, Chelidon, Cotyle).
Lavandieres et Bergeronnetes (Motacilla, Budytes).
Pipits (Anthus, Corydala).
Becs-Croises (Loxia).
Venturons et Serins (Citrinella et Serinus).
Chardonnerets et Tarins (Carduelis et Chrysomitris).
Etourneaux ordinaires et Martins (Sturnus, Pastor etc.).
Echassiers :
Cigognes blanche et noire (Ciconia).
232 DOCUMENTS
Liste No 2.
Oiseaux nuisibles.
Rapaces Diurnes:
Gypa^te barbu (Gypaetus barbatus L.).
Aigles (Aquila, Nisaetus) toutes les especes.
Pygargues (Haliaetus), loutes les especes.
Balbuzard fluviatile (Pandion haliaetus).
Milans, Elanions et Nauclers (Milvus, Elanus, Nauclerus), toutes
les especes.
Faucons : Gerfauts, Pelerins, Hobereaux, ^merillons (Falco), toutes
les especes, k I'exception des Faucons kobez, Cresserelle et
Cresserine.
Autour ordinaire (Astur, palumbarius L.).
Eperviers (Accipiter).
Cusard (Circus).
Rapaces Nocturnes:
Grand-Due vulgaire (Bubo maximus Flem.).
Passereaux Ordinaires :
Grand Corbeau (Corvus corax L.).
Pie voleuse (Pica rustica Scop.).
Geai glandivore (Garrulus glandarius L.).
Echassiers :
Herons cendre et pourpre (Ardea).
Butors et Bihoreaux (Botaurus et Nycticorax),
Palmipedes :
Pelicans (Pelecanus).
Cormorans (Phalacrocorax ou Graculus).
Harles (Mergus).
Plongeons (Colymbus).
^p
ALPHABETICAL INDEX
(NAMES AND SUBJECTS).
Alphabetical Index (Names and Subjects).
In this index tiie names of ^useful and noxious birds" grouped
by genus and species were omitted for the same reason which induced
me not to include in the book a comparative table of birds protected
and non-protected. The latter is, namely, in the present state of things,
of no practical value and will, indeed only be so, when the signatory
States of the Paris Convention of 1902 have published their authentic
schedules, a step they have hitherto not taken.
The grouped schedules to be found in the book are as follows :
I. Marenzeller's schedules, 1873 :
a) useful birds 43
b) noxious birds 44
II, AUum's schedules, 1884:
a) useful birds 62
b) noxious birds 63
III. French schedules, 1895:
a) useful birds 104v
b) winged game 107
c) noxious birds 108
IV. The schedule of the International Convention, 1892:
a) useful birds 134
c) noxious birds 136
V. Hungarian schedule, 1901 :
useful birds 156
VI. German Imperial schedule, 1888 :
noxious birds 164
VII. German Federal States, from 1777:
useful birds 165
VIII. English schedule, 1880:
birds protected 169
236
ALPHABETICAL INDEX (NAMES AND SUBJECTS)
Aachen 165.
Aesthetics 61.
Akerman 128, 134.
Alsace-Lorraine 80, 165.
Altum 60, 61, 62, 63.
Altum's proposal 62.
Andrassy, Count Gyula, 4, 52, 54,
88, 95.
d'Anethan, Baron, 127, 134.
Apostolic King 1, 126.
Apponyi, Count Albert, 4, 175.
d'Arco, Count, 100.
Arrigoni 199.
Association of French ^Chasseurs"
114 seq.
Au lacet 37.
Au largon 37.
Austria 58, 100.
Austria, Emperor of, 126, 127.
Austria, state of things in, 78.
Au trebuchet 37.
Bachner 65, 78.
Baden 80, 165.
Baldamus 33, 59, 60, 66, 149.
Baldamus, statement of, 33.
Balkans, state of things in, 78.
Bathory, Ferdinand, 73.
Bats 155
Bavaria 80, 100, 165, 167.
Beak 11 seq.
Beck, Max, 97, 100.
Belgians, King of the, 126, 127.
Belgium 57, 81, 101.
Berg, Baron, 77.
Berlepsch, Baron John, 76, 90, 154,
174-5.
Berlepsch-principle 174.
Berlepsch's Report 90 seq.
Berlin Resolution, 1895, 99.
Berzeviczy, Albert, 71.
Bethlen, Count Andrew, 57,76,86.
Bikkesy 77.
Bill, of Birds, 11.
Bird-catching colony 92.
Bird-protection in Hungary 145 seq.
Bird-protectors, English^ 173.
Birds 10 seq.
Birds and Man 20.
Birds and Nature 9.
Birds, Destruction of, in the South 90.
Birds, Dictionary of, 199 seq.
Birds, feet of, 12.
Birds, food of, 13, 17.
Birds of passage 67 et passim.
Birds of prey, foot of, 12.
Birds, Transport of. 129, 130.
Birds, Wing of, 10.
Bishop 76.
Blanchard 101.
Blasius, R., 60, 69, 72, 76.
Blasius, W., 60, 76.
Blomeyer 38, 49.
Blomeyer's proposal 47.
Bohemia 79.
Boitel 38.
Bonde, Baron, 102.
Borggreve 60.
Borggreve's proposal 64, 67.
Bossi-Fedrigotto 47.
Brehm, Alfred, 38, 43, 49, 163, 174,
199.
Brehm, A.'s, Report 45—47.
Bremen 165, 167.
Brescia, market of, 21,
Brocchi 101.
Bromberg 165.
Broods 36, 41, 89, 113, 173.
Buchner 76.
Bukovina 79.
Bultman 102.
Bustard 115, 163.
Bustard, Houbara, 115.
Bustard, Little, 116, 163.
Buttikofer 76.
Carinthia 79.
Cassel, colony at, 175.
Castillo, de, 127, 134.
Chadbourne 76.
^Chasseurs", French, 114.
Chernel, Stephen, 150, 152.
Chiff Chaff, bill of, 11.
Chlumetzky, Baron, 38.
ALPHABETICAL INDEX (NAMES AND SUBJECTS)
237
Chouette 36.
Circular Decree 155 seq., 172.
Claus, Professor, 76.
Collett, Professor, 76.
Comparisons 163 seq.
Conference, International, 1895, 100.
Congress, Economic, 38.
Congress, Ornithological, v. Orni-
thological Congress.
Contracts 34.
Convention, Discussion of, 100 seq.
Convention, Draft of, 103, 113.
Convention, Preliminaries of, 93.
Conventions 35, 51.
Convention, Text of, 126 seq.
Cordeaux, John, 76.
Corpus juris 1, 125.
Crao, stonefield, 21.
Criesis 102.
Csaky, Count Albin, 71, 73, 76, 146.
Csato, John, 74
Csorgey, Titus, 153, 175.
Czettel, Gyula, 152.
Dalmatia 79.
Dante 140.
Daranyi, Ignacz, 4, 121, 125, 151,
175 seq.
, Declaration", 1875, 52, 59, 68, 83,
84, 138.
..Declaration", Text of, 52—54.
Delcasse 127, 134.
Delegates, 1895, 100--102.
Delyanni 127, 134.
Depelley 128, 134.
Developments 56.
Dictionary of Birds 199 seq.
Documents 221 seq.
Draining off 15, 29.
Dresser 5, 199.
Dunay's motion 65.
Dundas-Harford 102.
English Act 82, 168.
English bird-protectors 173.
English „isolation'' 57, 167.
English, schedule, 169 seq.
Entz, Dr. Geza, 73.
Eszterhazy, Count Paul, 101.
Fatio 60, 66, 76, 102.
Patio's proposal 64.
Fatio's text 66.
Faucon cresserelle 138.
Faucon cresserine 138.
Faucon kobez 138.
Feet of birds 12.
Fereira 102.
Festetics, Count Andor, 96.
Finsch, Dr., 76.
Flamingo 106, 163.
Flycatcher, Pied, 21.
Fly-catcher, Spotted, 21.
Food of people 31.
Force majeure 19.
Forests, extirpation of, 29, 45.
Forgdch, Count, 21.
France 94 seq., 101.
France, state of things in, 78.
Frauenfeld 35, 52.
Frederick, the Emperor, 32.
French Draft 103, 163.
French invitation 94, 95.
French proposal 103
French Republic, President of, 126.
Frivaldszky, John, 70, 73, 74.
Fulton 27.
Fiirbringer, Dr., 75, 76.
Future, The, 174.
Gadaut 103.
Gaetke, Henry, 18.
Galicia 79.
Game Laws, Hungarian, 88, 124,
147.
Gerard 101.
German antagonism 57—58.
German Emperor 126.
German Farmers and Foresters 32,
33.
German Federal States 80 seq.,
164.
German Imperial Law 79, 164.
German , noxious" birds 164.
German Ornithological Society 33.
German ..protected" birds 165—66.
238
ALPHABETICAL INDEX (NAMES AND SUBJECTS)
Germany 31, 32, 58, 79, 96, 100,
164 seq.
Ghiorghieff 76.
Ghyczy, Fieldmarshal Bela de, 77.
Giglioli, Professor, 60, 66, 68, 75,
97, 102.
Giglioli's Statement 66, 110.
Gilbert 101.
Gins 113.
Girtanner 60.
Gloger 163.
Gloger's principle 43.
Gorz 79.
Gradiska 79.
Grands filets 37.
Grasshopper danger 115.
Great Britain 60, 82, 102, 117.
Greece 102.
Grobben, Professor, 76.
Gyory, Lor^nd, 5.
d'Hamonviile 76.
Hartert 76.
Hary, Gyula, 151.
Hawfinch, beak of, 12.
Hayek, Dr., 70, 71.
Hedgehogs 155.
Hellenes, King of the, 127.
Hennequin 101.
Herman, Otto, 70, 73, 74, 76, 94,
152, 153.
Hesse 33, 80.
Holland 68, 81, 102, 117.
Homeyer, A, 76, 77.
Homeyer, E., 60, 62, 63, 66.
Horatius 140.
Horv^th, Dr. G^za, 70, 73, 76.
Hungarian Act I (1906) 126 seq.
Hungarian Central Office for Or-
nithology 120, 135, 147, 148 seq.
Hungary 58, 88-89, 100, 145 seq.
Increase 18—19.
Induction 27.
Instructions 66.
Internationalism 31, 32.
..Isolation", English 57, 167.
Italian bird-markets 23.
Italy 34, 58, 102, 117, 138.
Italy, state of things in, 78, 91.
Japanese „close time", 1884 66.
Kallay, Benjamin, 76.
Kargl's proposal 49.
Kermenid's proposal 65.
Kestrels 62, 104. 138.
Keulemans 151.
King, Apostolic, v. Apostolic King.
Kingfisher, feet of, 12
Kohler 153.
Konig, Professor, 97, 100.
Konig-Warthausen 76, 77.
Koppely, G., 77.
Krain 79.
Kriesch, John, 70.
Kulagin 102.
Labourer-bands 14.
Lanciaxera 53, 99.
Lardy 128, 134.
Larks' wings 22, 122.
Lehmann 97.
Licences 36, 41, 130, 161, 162.
Lichtenstein, Prince, 126.
Liebe, Dr., 75.
Liebig 28.
Lippe-Detmold 32, 96, 165, 167.
Little Owl 36, 81.
Locherer, A., 77.
Locusts, plague of, 116.
Lorenz 76.
Luxemburg 102.
Luxemburg, Grand Duke of, 127.
Luxemburg's proposal 112.
Madarisz, Dr. Gyula, 70, 73.
Maday, Izidor, 74, 75, 83.
Maday's proposal 84.
Maday's Report 83 seq.
Maltzan 38.
Mammals 155.
Marchand 101.
Marenzeller 38, 49.
Marenzeller's proposal 42—43.
Marenzeller's schedule 43—45.
Maxwell 102.
Mayer 102.
ALPHABETICAL fNDEX (NAMES AND SUBJECTS)
239
Mecklenburg 165.
Meline 101, 103, 121.
Michel 77.
Middendorff 38, 49, 76.
Middendorff' s proposal 49.
Modifications 113, 129, 130. 133.
Moles 155.
Monaco, Prince of, 127.
Montegrado, valley of, 21.
Moragas 101.
Moravia 79.
Miiller, Ladislaus, 4.
Natural conditions 15.
Naturalien-Cabinet 35.
Naumann 33, 199.
Necsey, Stephen, 151—2.
Nesting-boxes 4, 89. 173, 175.
Nets 53, 129.
Newton, Professor, 74, 76.
Nooses 36, 41, 43, 53, 129.
Norway 82, 102.
Nourishment, researches into mode
of, 17 and note.
Novallas, Marquis, 101.
Noxious birds 44, 100.
Noxious birds, 1895, 108.
Noxious birds, 1902, 136-7.
Nuthatch, foot of. 12.
Oldenburg 165.
Orazio 139.
Oriole, Golden, 138.
„Ornis" 70.
Ornithological Congress 1. 1884
59 seq.
Ornithological Congress II. 1891
75 seq.
Ornithological Congress III. 1900
121, 123.
Ostrich 10.
Otis houbara 115.
Otis tetrax 116.
Oustalet 60, 75, 76, 101.
Owl, Little, V. Little Owl.
Palacky 60, 76.
Palacky's proposal 64.
Pallisch 77.
Palmen 75, 76.
Paretajo 37.
Parexella 53.
Parey 150.
Paris, Conference at, 1895. 100.
Partridges, wings of, 11.
Passata 92.
Paszlavszky, Joseph, 70.
Persons, Names of, 187 seq.
Petenyi 33.
PIOC. 68, 69, 70, 86.
Pipit, Tree, 136, 157.
Plocke 53, 99.
Plover, ringtoed, foot of 12.
Poirson 101.
Polten 68
Portugal, King of, 127.
Poyard 103.
Preliminary Conference, 1895.96,97.
Pressanella 91.
Prost 101, 112.
Protocol, 1875, 55.
Prussia, King of, 126.
Prussia, state of things in, 80.
Pulszky, Francis, 76.
Quail-catching in the South 93, 1 16.
Quails, importation of, 21. 116.
Quails, wings of, 11.
Radde 60.
Radolin, Prince. 127, 134.
Raoul 76.
Ratification 125.
Rava, Minister, 139.
Reichenow 76.
Reichenow, Dr.. 74.
Restrictions 19.
Reuss-Gera 165.
Reuss-Greiz 165.
Ritzema-Bos 102.
Robert 114.
Roccolo 36. 41, 91. 140.
Roganja 36.
Rosier, John K.. 153.
Roth, Lorand, 5.
Royal Society 173.
Rudolf, Crown Prince, 60. 69. 71.
2+0
ALPHABETICAL JNDEX (NAMES AND SUBJECTS)
Russ 60, 76, 77, 85.
Russia 117.
Russia, state of things in, 65—66,
78.
Russ's motion 64, 85.
Russ's resolution 66, 85.
Sadrossy-Kapeller 96, 101.
Sachs-Altenburg 165.
Sachs-Coburg 32—33, 165.
Sachs-Meiningen 165.
Sachs-Weimar 165.
Sagnier 101, 102.
Salvadori 21.
Salzburg 79.
Saunders 102.
Saxony 80, 165.
Schaff 76.
Schalow 76.
Schedule, English, 169—172.
Schedule, of winged game, 1895
107, 112.
Schedules, 1902 134 seq.
Schedules, French, 104—110.
Schedule, German, 165—167.
Schedule, Hungarian, 155—160.
Schrenck 60.
,Schwalbe'' 33 (note), 60.
Schwarzburg 165.
Sclater, Ph. L., 75, 76.
Seebach, colony at, 175.
Seidl 77.
Selenka, Professor, 97, 100,
Settegast 38, 49.
Settegast's proposal 48.
Sharpe, R. B., 74, 75.
Shrew 155.
Silesia 79.
Snare 50, 53, 113
Souza, do, 128, 134.
Spain 60, 101, 125.
Spain, King of, 126.
Spain, state of things in, 78.
Spoonbill, beak of, 11.
Springrod 36.
Starling 14, 17, 49.
Statute Book 1.
Stauronotus Grasshopper 116.
Stephenson 27.
Straten-Ponthoz, proposal of, 47.
Styria 79.
Survey, Historical, 179 seq.
Sverdrup 102.
Swallows, millions of, 21.
Swallow, wing of, 11.
Sweden 82, 102, 133.
Sweden, King of, 127.
Swedish modifications 120 seq.
Swift, feet of, 12.
Swiss Federal Council 34, 35, 127 >
Swiss modifications 119 seq.
Switzerland 81, 90, 102.
Symbiosis 14.
Szalay, Imre, 73.
Szalkay, Dr., 77.
Szeniczey, Edmund, 77.
Szily, Kilman, 73.
Szogyeny, Ladislas, 57, 71.
Szomjas, Lajos, 5.
Taeschlein 77.
Taking of birds permitted 53.
Tallian, Bela, 125.
Tallian, Denes, 4.
Talszky 77.
Talszky's principle 64.
Tamdsy 77.
Targioni-Tozetti 35, 52.
Taschlein, v. Taeschlein.
Tessin, Canton of, 34.
Thesis 16.
Thiel 97, 100, 111.
Thorburn 151.
Tischer 77, 86.
Tischer's proposal 86.
Tisserand 101, 112.
Titmice 174.
Titmouse, Blue, 135, 158.
Titmouse, Great, 135, 157.
Titmouse, Longtailed, beak of 11.
Torelli 48.
Torelli's proposal 48.
Transference, 1887, 69.
„Transito" transport 115.
ALPHABETICAL INDEX (nAMES AND SUBJECTS)
241
Traps 36, 41, 43, 50, 53, 81, 129.
Triest 78.
Tschudi, Dr., 38, 49.
Tschudi's proposal 39, 40—41.
Tschusi, Ritter von, 5, 76, 100, 119.
Turkey, state of things in, 78.
Typaldo 102.
Tyrol 79.
Udine, Market of, 21.
Useful birds 43.
Useful birds, 1895, 104.
Useful birds, 1902, 134 seq.
Vadiszfy 77.
Vallon, Professor, 21, 78.
Vannerus 102, 128, 134.
Vienna Resolution, 1873, 50—51.
Visconti-Venosta 52, 54.
Waldeck 165.
Wandering birds 67.
Wangelin 75, 77.
Wangelin's Report 33 (note), 77 seq.
Watt, James, 27.
Wattenwyl, Emii de, 4.
Wekerle, Alexander, 125.
Wesniakoff 38.
Whitethroat 158.
Whitethroat, Lesser, 158.
Wild Birds Protection Act 82, 168.
Wing, The, 10.
Wolffersdorf 77.
Wolkenstein, Count, 127, 134.
Woodcock, Bill of, 12.
Woodpecker, Foot of, 12.
Wren 105, 158.
Wren, Golden-crested, 18.
Wiirttemberg 80, 165,
Xanthus, John, 74.
Zeller 77.
Zeppelin 76, 77.
Zichy, Count, 38.
Zimmermann 77.
Zselenszky, Count, 140.
-^
Herman: Coiiv for the Prot. of Birds.
16
■r
j^
K
w"
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
Form L9-116m-8,'62(D1237s8)444
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY EACH ITY
AA 000 651091 1
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11