[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."}
Sin,—Allow me to say in answer to "Mem Sabiba " (whose letter in your last issue is in no sense a reply to mine) that she invents a preposterous statement, attempts to father it upon me, and then proceeds to contradict it. I did not say that the egret bore two long feathers only, or any nonsense of the kind. What I did say was that the dorsal feathers of the egret (which are those used for "osprey ".) do not grow on the bird's breast as Mr. Barker evidently imagined. "Mem Sahiba " does not give any name, and anonymous contributions to natural history, however remarkable, are not worth much con- sideration. I need only observe, with reference to her account of the way in which she says "osprey" feathers are obtained in some region in "North-West India," that the story of moulted plumes being used for millinery purposes is absolutely disproved and rebutted by the evidence of every naturalist of authority. In the face of the known facts, and of statistics and descriptions of slaughter given for years past by unassailable witnesses, it reads very much like sheer invention, on a par with that other story floated by the trade with regard to the employment of " artificial ospreys." If "Mem Sahiba " will furnish her address, I shall be happy to send her some authentic information on the subject.—I am,
Secretary, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. 3 Hanover Square, W.
[We cannot continue this correspondence, bat in closing it we feel bound to protest against the unnecessarily acrimonious character of Miss Gardiner's letter. We are on the side of the ospreys, but the humanitarian cause is not helped by violence of language and the accusations of invention. "Mum Sahibs," of course, furnished us with her name and address. There was not the slightest reason why she should not have published them.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
