branches, stopping from time to time to sing. Now and then it would sit still on one twig for several minutes, singing at short intervals and preening its feathers. [Illustration: THE STONE WALL From a photograph by Mrs. Herbert Wadsworth ] After looking at it for nearly an hour we had to solve the rather difficult ethical question as to whether we ought to kill it or not. In these cases it is always hard to draw the line between heartlessness and sentimentality. In our own minds we were sure of our identification, and did not feel that we could be mistaken, but we were none of us professed ornithologists, and as far as I knew the bird was really rare thus far north; so that it seemed best to shoot him, which was accordingly done. I was influenced in this decision, in the first place because warblers are so small that it is difficult for any observer to be absolutely certain as to their identification; and in the next place by the fact that the breeding season was undoubtedly over, and that this was an adult male, so that no harm came to the species. I very strongly feel that there should be no “collecting” of rare and beautiful species when this is not imperatively demanded. Mocking-birds, for instance, are very beautiful birds, well known and unmistakable; and there is not the slightest excuse for “collecting” their nests and eggs or shooting specimens of them, no matter where they may be found. So, there is no excuse for shooting scarlet tanagers, summer redbirds, cardinals, nor of course any of the common, well-known friends of the lawn, the garden and the farm land; and with most birds nowadays observations on their habits are of far more value than their skins can possibly be. But there must be some shooting, especially of obscure and little-known birds, or we would never be able to identify them at all; while most laymen are not sufficiently close observers to render it possible to trust their identification of rare species.