“FOUND, GREEN BUDGERIGAR"

Evening Star, Issue 23325, 22 July 1939, Page 3

“FOUND, GREEN BUDGERIGAR"

[Written for the ‘ Evening Star.’]

This little bird has become such a prime favourite with countless thousands of both sexes and all ages, it is small wonder that such a laconic advertisement in any newspaper should elicit prompt and numerous anxious replies from bereft foster parents, for the wandering and non-homing instincts of these feathered pets aro legendary. Jt is really a shame that such bright and cheerful little birds should have been labelled with a name in length more suggestive of something of gargantuan proportions. There are so many variants in the spelling of this small bird’s name, and the pronunciations thereof aro so strongly reminiscent of that ever-recurring controversy anent the word “ ski-ing,” that it seems the time is not far distant when he will bo recognised only by the familiar and more suitable contraction “ budgy.” No doubt the original spelling and pronunciation, “ budgereegah,” is very euphonious, but his pretty little body seems all too tiny to carry such a largo name. Not so very long ago we saw only the green budgie, but now blues in varying shades aro quite as numerous. Countless numbers aro bred each year, including white, silver, and grey wings, and there arc also many other shades of colour in tho making. It is to bo hoped that these more highly developed hues will render it easier to trace and claim the birds if they stray. They so entwine themselves in the hearts of their proud owners with their cheery chatter that even a temporary loss is annoying in the extreme. On one occasion the appearance of such an advertisement as quoted above brought forth several instant claimants, but, fortunately for the finders, not one of them but was satisfied that the uninvited guest was not theirs. The first inquiry was made per medium of the telephone by a young lady who was quite distraught by the loss of two “ budgies,” a green and a blue, but after many lamentations, addressed to no one in particular, she came very reluctantly to the conclusion that the bird which had been found could not possibly be one of her’s, and that some cruel cat must have eaten both of them. Tlie next claimants, a man and his wife, arrived at the door full of hope and already singing the praises of their wandering one; but after several ineffectual attempts on the part of the wife to cajole the shrinking bird from the dark side of the hat box in which ho had been placed temporarily, they decided that he was definitely not their “Tommy.” Close on the heels of these two came a confident individual who. after one disdainful glance, informed all and sundry that it was not the bird for which he was looking. “ Too young! Not lively enough for my bird,” he said. The last to make an appearance, after having decided that the bird was not his, pathetically informed his listeners that he would have to think of a plausible reason to explain the continued absence of the “ budgy ” ho had given his small sou and which had disappeared. His original Explanation had been that the bird had been sent away to be taught to speak, but his little boy was now becoming impatient for his return. The fact remains that each and every one of these claimants was genuinely distressed over the loss of his feathered pet, and incidents similar to the foregoing are probably common to all lovers of the ever-popular “ budgy.” What could be more pert and incongruous than a sentence spoken with delightful clearness by a certain “ budgy ” in this city! “My name is, ‘ So-and-so,’ of ‘ Such-and-such,’ and I am not allowed to. speak to sparrows ? ’ ’