Abstract
Dear Sir:
I am in receipt of your Oct. /Nov. 1978 issue, an excellent edition with its usual complement of informative articles.
However the article on the "The Splendid Bourke'' by Joseph Crosby, its accompanying photo's and especially that on the back cover of the issue are in my opinion in bad taste as is any award for the creation of an impure or hybrid species of wildlife.
It is to be noted that the AFA is dedicated to conservation of bird wildlife through encouragement of captive breeding programs, scientific research and education of the general public. It is suggested that this purpose be enhanced by dedication to the preservation of bird wildlife in captivity in their "pure" forms.
Further, consideration for the reclassification of an Endangered Species such as the Scarlet-Chested to a captive self sustaining category will certainly not be enhanced by publishing this article.
Very truly yours, Charles Sivelle President
American Pheasant and Waterfowl Society
Dear Charlie:
Thank you for your compliment on the Watchbird magazine and your comments on the article, the Splendid Bourke. Personally, I agree with you and am not in favor of promoting hybrids and mutations. However, the reason this particular article was published was to demonstrate that the two species are, in fact, closely related.
Many scholars have questioned whether the Scarlet-chested and Bourke Parrakeets were related, and whether the Bourke is, in fact, correctly classified as a Neophema, since the other six species of the genus are very similar to each other and all different from the Bourke. The fact that the F, offspring are fertile tends to confirm their relationship and was of extreme interest to some of our readers in the scientific community, whom I've heard comment.
I believe A.F.A.'s first and foremost priority is to the preservation bird wildlife in captivity in their "pure" form as you suggest, and believe that goal can be accomplished without prejudice despite frequent forays into the arena of domesticated forms.
Jerry Jennings Associate Editor
Dear Mr. Dingle
As a member of the American Federation of A viculture and a subscriber to the Watchbird Magazine, I would like to voice my objection to certain remarks contained in your answer to a readers' question in the Oct/Nov issue (From The Editors' Desk column.)
I refer to the statement, "In California most of our illegal aliens eat only beans and tortillas and are very helpful to American agriculture.''
Whatever the intent, the effect is surely insensitive and at worst cynically racist.
I feel that the remarks I refer to are unbecoming the editor of such a valuable and beautifully executed publication.
Johnny Otis
Los Angeles, CA
My dear fellow, anyone can recognize various ethnic groups just by looking at them. There are no aspersions cast when one differentiates between a German and a Japanese. There is merely a noticable difference in appearance. By the same token, sir, each ethnic group has its own traditional food associated with it.
If government statistics and general knowledge warranted it, I would have said "In California most of our illegal aliens eat only spaghetti and meat balls",
Please do not take offense where none is offered.