Communications
Communications
The A. O. U. Associate Membership
Editors of THE CONDOR:
The question discussed by Mr. Daggett in the last issue of this paper is one which undoubtedly interests many of the associate members of the A. O. U., and for an answer we must look to the active members.
During the last few years the associate membership has greatly increased and it seems to be the policy of the A. O. U. to include therein anyone who will pay $3 a year as subscription to the Auk. The consequence is that the associates now include many who have no claim to be called ornithologists or oologists; some are not even Audubonists.
I think we all agree with Mr. Daggett that the standard of membership in the active list should be high, too high for most of us, who have but a little time to devote to our favorite study. Though we cannot aspire to be numbered among the august fifty, we do feel that there should be some distinction between the amateur ornithologist and the bird protectionist. Because a woman declines to wear mangled bird remains on her hat or as trimming for her clothing, is she to be called an ornithologist?
There are two possible remedies. The active membership might be greatly increased or a new class of members established, a sort of junior active membership. There are four kinds of members already and another kind would do no harm.
The fact that there are now three vacancies in the active list indicates that none of the associates are considered eligible to membership among the fifty.
I have but littIe time to spend with my birds and am content to be connected in any way with the A. O. U., but I do register a kick against being placed in the same class with Audubonists and fad protectionists.
RICHARD C. MCGREGOR
Seattle, Wash.
