Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 3 (1899).djvu/218

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
192
THE ZOOLOGIST.

At at similar meeting, on March 7th, Mr. W. E. de Winton exhibited and made remarks upon the tail of a Common Fox (Canis vulpes), showing the gland on the upper surface covered with straight coarse hair, the existence of which appeared to be little known.


The Annual Meeting of the Society for the Protection of Birds was held on Feb. 28th, Sir Edward Grey, M.P., in the chair. The Report, which was presented by Mr. Sharpe, chairman of the executive committee, stated that the total number of members is now over 20,000, and the branches number 152. The Society still continued its campaign against the wearing of Ospreys, but without apparently much effect, as in 1898 nearly 35,000 Birds of Paradise and 2200 packages of Osprey plumes were sold in six days at auction. With regard to Ospreys worn by the officers of certain regiments, a promise had been given by Mr. Brodrick that an effort will be made to find a substitute. Sir Edward Grey, in moving the adoption of the Report, said the Society had done much to awaken public opinion to the need of checking the wanton destruction of bird-life. But a wholesale destruction of foreign birds in the breeding season still went on, with a view to supplying ornaments for hats, which would necessarily lead to the extinction of certain species. People did not realize this. Considerable power had been given to county councils to protect bird-life, and they had responded very well, and in most cases had passed very satisfactory bye-laws. But the real difficulty was the enforcement of these rules.


We have received from the "Humanitarian League" a tractate on "The Cost of a Seal-skin Cloak," by Joseph Collinson. He who reads may literally sup on horrors as the callous destruction of these animals is detailed. Allowing, however, for all exuberant animal sympathy, and offending no "philistine" with the introduction of a new "fad," we must agree with much that is here written. The writer pithily remarks:—"It is a remarkable fact that during the whole of the time that the Anglo-American controversy raged over the Behring Straits Seal question, not one word should have been said on behalf of the Seals themselves. The flood of talk swept on; there was a great deal said about 'rights'—every right, indeed, was abundantly discussed except the right of the Seals, if not to live their lives in their own way, at least to humane treatment when the time comes round to kill them. The horrible tortures inflicted on these helpless animals to provide mankind with Seal-skin were treated as if they were entirely immaterial."