Page:Condor5(2).djvu/26

 MxR. t9o3[ THE CONDOR 55 of his material. If a systematist can take a series of skins, and use them to the development of an instinct or faculty which is divinely given, who has a right to question the morality of the action ? If in my collecting I find a place for seven sets of eggs of the. Holboell grebe, who shall say that my work was wasteful and reprehensible, provided the material is usable ? What con- stitutes wasteful collecting ? Clearly, the taking of specimens that are unavailable, not usable, or unnecessary to the advancement of human pleasure or knowledge. Let us see whether the taking of the seven sets of grebe's eggs was really wasteful. The collecting criticized was done under the direction of the University of Montana Biolog- ical Station. It is the desire of the director of that work to build up a museum for the Univer- sity that will be a credit to such an institution; in other words, to form such collections of bio- logical material as will serve the best purposes of collections at an educational center. During the past three summers my time has been given gratuitously to this end. While I have been left largely to my own plans of work, and therefore am ready to bear all censure for my actions, it has been the wish of the director that I collect largely, obtaining even more than duplicates of skins and sets, that the museum might have exchange material with which to increase its small collections. In this way about four hundred skins, and possibly seventy-five sets of eggs have been added to the museum. These eggs are the only ones in the museum. Now seven sets of eggs of this grebe, nesting in limited numbers in the state, will give the University five or six sets to exchange. That the exchange can be made, is shown by the fact that applications have already been made to me for all the eggs, which are still in my hands and will be disposed of to the best interests of the University museum. Two .sets at least should be in the University collection. The remaining sets represent value to the museum, will fall into the hands of appreciative collectors, will enhance the value of other collections, and will conse- quently serve the purpose for which all collections should be made and for which lower animal life was created. Why take all the sets of eggs of this grebe that were to be obtained on this occasion ? Why not take one typical set, as my friend suggests, and leave the remainder to the course of nature? Because of the very reason he mentions, its rarity in nesting within our borders. It is doubtful that I shall ever again have opportunity of taking eggs of this species, should it be necessary; and when opportunity presents itself but once in a life-time, is the collector reprehensible for taking seven sets of eggs of a rare breeder? Is he any more reprehensible than if he should take a set each year for seven years, should the opportunity successively present itself ? Furthermore, anyone who is familiar with the habits of the sWamp-breeding birds knows the uncertainty of finding the birds in the same locality in succeeding seasons. Those who have visited the extensive Dakota marshes in successive seasons testify to the fact that where hundreds of the birds were breeding one year, not a bird could be found the next. Now when a colony of grebes is found, and there is need of taking the products of the colony, the collector would be very unwise to neglect the offered opportunity,/or it is not likely to be repeated another season. This grebe colony was found on a lonely lake, almost inaccessible to ordinary observers. It is more than likely that the bird life of the region will only serve the purpose of the enthusiastic collector and hunter, at least for years to come. The eggs of the birds there breeding are far beyond the reach of all except the few; why should not one seasoh's product be brought and placed in collections where it will best serve the purpose of human study and observation ? There is a great deal of sentiment regarding the destruction of life by the egg-collector (scientific, of course). Much of this talk is mere bosh. It does not seem difficult to show that the taking oi eggs as it is done by the real ornithologist has very little effect on the decrease of bird life. In fact, I am inclined to believe that the taking of the twenty-eight eggs in this grebe colony will have very little effect upon the aggregate bird life of the region. Two second sets were taken, and it is unlikely that the owners of these eggs would nest again. The others were first sets, and it is probable that the owners would nest immediately, as conditions there re- mained unchanged when I left on the 2oth of June. My observations elsewhere show that grebes are not loath to nesting late into July. If the birds had not been molested, each pair would likely have reared its brood. What difference can it make in the end whether the brood comes from a first or a second set ? Candidly, I fail to see in this collecting the sacrifice of twenty-eight young birds, nor can I admit that the twenty-eight shells represent only a de- vastated bird colony and a story of cruel wrong. We are human, and are therefore liable to err. If I have erred on the side of intemperate collecting, I an ready to acknowledge my fault, and I shall ever thank my friend for calling at- tention to my error. If the foregoing explanation is not satisfactory, let me offer in further ex- tenuation the plea of our master in ornithology, Dr. Elliott Coues, that of "worthiness of motive," and let the fault be covered by the broad mantle of charity. Respectfully, P.M. SILLOWAY. Lewiston, Montana, Feb. 2, 9o3.