Abstract
Dear Editor:
Can the A.F.A. do anything about the shortage or absence of niger seed? If nothing can be done then what can a canary breeder use as a substitute? How would we use the substitute?
Thank you, D.D.
Huntington Beach, CA
Dear Friend, I sympathize with your problem but there are good reasons for the lack of niger seed. The A.FA. can do nothing about it as it is a matter of great governmental importance. Granted, Washington has made a few mistakes and has occasionally expoused questionable policy but the Great Niger Affair will, I'm sure, go down in history as a veritable stroke of political genius.
A !most all niger seed comes from Rhodesia. And Rhodesia, you'll recall, lacks the ability to direct its own affairs. Fortunately, as it happens, our illustrious leaders in Washington have all of our own affairs running perfectly and in their leisure have turned to counseling the leaders of Rhodesia. The Rhodesians are a bit obtuse and don't understand Uncle Sam's kindly advice hence Uncle Sam has cut off all trade with the belligerant African nation.
The end result is that Rhodesian canaries have niger seed to eat and the American canaries don't. Can you not see the genius of that policy the wondrous sublety of ii? I stand amazed.
The only patriotic thing to do is to feed your birds something other than niger. You might chop licorice into small niger-shaped bits and fool your canaries.
Or perhaps you could dye canary seed black and feed that. Or you could feed rape seed instead of niger. Niger is 19.37% protein, rape is 19.54%. Niger has 43.22% fat, rape has 45%. Niger contains 3.48% ash, rape has 4.21%. Check with your veterinarian but it could well
be that rape will be a satisfactory replacement for niger but God help us if Washington ever finds out where rape comes .,,..
from. Ed.
Dear Sir:
As a practicing avian taxonomist, I turned with interest to the article in Watchbird , Vol, 5, No. 2 on "Taxonomy and the Aviculturist." With apologies to the author, 1 suggest that your readers should disregard the article, which contains factual and conceptual errors too numerous to discuss in a letter of this sort. I feel that this warning is necessary, on the basis that accepting wrong Information is worse than being confused in the first place.
Sincerely, Richard C. Banks Staff Zoologist U.S. Depart. of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service Washington, D.C.
Once in a while an error creeps into our printed pages and we greatly appreciate it when that error is brought to our attention. We will go to great lengths to make any corrections necessary.
Sometimes, however, we may publish an author's opinion that may or may not agree with yours. You must admit, sir, that even in the world of cold hard science there are many divergent opinions held by professors well respected in their respective fields. Perhaps we have such a divergence in this case.
Your letter does not point out any errors. A blanket negation of the article in question is much too easy a way out. I suggest you firm up your criticisms and commit them lo paper so that we can all share in an interesting learning experience. Between you and Mr. Wylie I am deter· mined to get at the heart of our taxonomy system. Ed.