CORNELL LAB of ORNITHOLOGY LIBRARY at Sapsucker Woods Illustration of Bank Swallow by Louis Agassiz Fuertes MYRTICE A. BLATCHLEY Yt. (Go blbot Pacer, | Jill Get wether at fend papel? Bet a6,0PaF. Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924022548337 NOILVYVNIWNHSLX2 40 YUSONVAG NI (so6t) MON Yona GOOM 5 soiang zisseBy sinoy Aq ‘eogt 4usta{dop USEFUL BIRDS AND THEIR PROTECTION. CONTAINING BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE MORE COMMON AND USEFUL SPECIES OF MASSACHUSETTS, WITH ACCOUNTS OF THEIR FOOD HABITS, AND A CHAPTER ON THE MEANS OF ATTRACT- ING AND PROTECTING BIRDS. BY EDWARD HOWE FORBUSH, ORNITHOLOGIST TO THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. * ILLUSTRATED BY THE AUTHOR, C. ALLAN LYFORD, CHESTER A. REED, AND OTHERS. Second Edition. PUBLISHED UNDER DIRECTION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE. 1907. orp CVE RTES = G95 7 Ab7 BLII7OT APPROVED BY THE STATE BOARD OF PUBLICATION, PRINTED BY WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Resolves of 1905, Chapter 51. A RESOLVE TO PROVIDE FOR PREPARING AND PRINTING A SPECIAL REPORT ON THE BIRDS OF TILE COMMONWEALTH. Resolved, That there be allowed and paid out of the treasury of the Commonwealth a sum not exceeding three thousand dollars for prepar- ing and printing, under the direction of. the state board of agriculture, in an edition of five thousand copies, a special report on the birds of the Commonwealth, economically considered, to include the facts relating to the usefulness of birds and the necessity for their protection already ascertained by the ornithologist of the state board of agriculture, to be distributed as follows : — Two copies to each free public library in the Commonwealth ; two copies to each high school, and two copies to such schools in towns which have no high school as the school comniittee may designate; one copy to the library of congress, and one copy to each state or territorial library in the United States ; twenty-five copies to the state library ; five copies to the governor; two copies to the lieu- tenant governor and each member of the council; two copies to the secretary of the Commonwealth; two copies to the treasurer and re- ceiver general; two copies to the auditor of accounts ; two copies to the attorney-general, and one copy to each member of the present general court applying for the same; the remainder to be distributed under the direction of the state board of agriculture. [Approved April 14, 1905. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Resolves of 1907, Chapter 77. RESOLVE TO PROVIDE FOR PRINTING} ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE REPORT ON THE BIRDS OF THE COMMONWEALTH. Resolved, That there be allowed and paid out of the treasury of the Commonwealth, a sum not exceeding twenty-five hundred dellars for printing five thousand additional copies of the report on the birds of the Commonwealth. From the copies so printed each member and each elective officer of the general court for the year nineteen hundred and seven shall receive ten copies, and each assistant clerk of the general court, the doorkcepers, messengers and pages shall receive one copy. Copies may be sold by the secretary of the state board of agriculture at a price not less than the cost thereof, and additional copies may be printed for sale at the discretion of the secretary, the expense thereof to be paid from the receipts from such sales. Any amount received from sales shall be paid into the treasury of the Commonwealth. [Approved May 8, 1907. PREFACE. In preparing and submitting this report the fact has been kept in mind that the material prosperity of the state and nation depends very largely on agricultural pursuits. An attempt has been made, therefore, to make the volume ser- viceable to both agriculturist and horticulturist. The author of this report believes, with Townend Glover, that an ac- quaintance with the useful birds of the farm is as important to the farmer as is a knowledge of the insect pests which attack his crops. Those who open this volume expecting to find within its covers a guide to the birds, a manual for the collector, or a systematic account of the birds of Massachusetts, will be disappointed, for its scope is chiefly economic. The plan of the report as outlined before the legislative committees has been followed to the letter. In undertaking the work, the author has attempted to counteract in some measure the effects of some phases of modern civilization and intensive farming which operate to destroy or drive out the birds; and it is hoped that the book will be of some service as a source of useful information for the bird protectionist. As no report prepared with such a purpose can exert much influence unless widely read, it has been written in a popular style, with little scientific verbiage. A part of the material was prepared between the years 1891 and 1900, during the author’s experience as field di- rector for the State Board of Agriculture in the work of destroying the gipsy moth. Chapters I. and II. are partly composed of revised and rewritten portions of papers pub- lished during that time. Chapter III. is based largely on observations made during that period by two faithful, capable workers, — Messrs. C. E. Bailey and F. H. Mosher. Owing vi PREFACE. to Mr. Bailey’s untimely death and Mr. Mosher’s occupation in a new field, it was deemed best to publish some of the field notes of these observers with little editing, in order to avoid any possible distortion of their evidence. In presenting in Chapter I. some of the evidence, given by the earlier writers, regarding the utility of birds as protectors of crops and trees, it has been necessary to use such material as was obtainable. No carefully guarded experiments or observations in this direction were made until the latter part of the nineteenth century, and it is only recently that scien- tific investigators have been employed in this little-known field. It is not an alluring task for the scientist, in which his work brings him neither material reward, credit, nor honor. That portion of the final chapter which treats of the means of attracting birds is drawn mainly from six years’ experience at the author’s home at Wareham, Mass. The first three chapters were mainly written there. Most authors quoted or cited in these chapters are given full credit. The remaining chapters, which are largely based on the author’s own investigations and observations, were written and the proof was read while he was away from home, in the woods, or travelling from place to place, often at a distance from any ornithological library. Under such circumstances it was impossible to quote verbatim, but in most cases authors are named when facts have been gathered from their writings. The averages of the components of the food of each species are taken mainly from the publications of the Bureau of Bio- logical Survey of the United States Department of Agricul- ture, except where credit is otherwise given. Thanks are due to Dr. L. O. Howard, who has read critically that part of the introduction devoted to insects, and the author is greatly indebted to him for information ; also, more than he can tell, to Mr. William Brewster for counsel and suggestions ; and especially to Mr. J. A. Farley, " who read a large part of the manuscript. The limited time at the author’s disposal has prevented such painstaking revision and abridgment of the manuscript PREFACE. vii as would be required to attain the highest literary excellence ; but both manuscript and proof were critically read by Mrs. A. Drew, whose work has added much to the appearance of the volume, and whose suggestions have been very valuable. Mr. F. H. Fowler has placed the author under great obli- gations by doing a large amount of clerical work, and giv- ing much assistance in his official position as first clerk and librarian of the State Board of Agriculture. The scientific ornithological nomenclature is that of the American Ornithologists Union. The grouping of birds according to their habitats (as birds of woodland, etc.) is based more on their food habits than on their choice of nesting sites. This classification is of necessity arbitrary, and not always consistent, for it is sometimes influenced by other considerations, such as are evident in the inclusion of the Whip-poor-will among birds of the air. The nomenclature of plants is mainly that used by Britton and Brown in their Flora of the Northern United States, Canada, and the British Possessions, except in some cases where Dr. Judd or other authors are quoted. That of insects has been derived from various sources at different times, and for this reason some of the scientific names are not the latest. In the original plan of the report no descriptions of species were included; but the suggestion was made by Mr. J. A. Farley that it would be useless to descant to a man on the usefulness of the Chickadee if he did not know the bird. The brief, untechnical descriptions of bird, nest, eggs, and bird notes, and the illustrations of the species, are all in- tended as helps to identification. The descriptions of birds are calculated merely to call attention to the principal colors and marks that serve to identify birds afield. Brief descrip- tions of haunts, habits, and manners are also given, as guides to identity. A species that is found throughout the year within the limits of the State is denominated a resident. No attempts have been made to give fixed dates of arrival and departure, for these vary somewhat in different parts of the State, as viii PREFACE. well as in different seasons; but the months in which each species is most commonly seen are given. For example, the season for the Tree Swallow is given as April to Septem- ber; but no mention is made of the fact that it sometimes appears in small numbers in March; neither is it stated that this bird has been seen in flocks in southeastern Massachu- setts in late October and even in November, for such occur- rences are unusual. It may be taken for granted that most of the insect-eating birds that arrive in March or April come in the latter part of those months, while most of those that depart for the south in September or October leave in the earlier weeks of their respective months. Our attempts to represent the songs of birds in printed syllables are not often of much assistance to the beginner, for they lack the variation, quality, and expression of bird songs, and birds do not sing in syllables. Also, the imagi- nation of the writer often greatly affects these syllabic rendi- tions, as may be seen by comparing the various sentences attributed by different people to the White-throated Sparrow. Nevertheless, some such imitations of bird songs which are now accepted and are quite generally considered helpful are given in this report; in other cases the author’s own inter- pretations of well-marked bird notes are given. The line cuts of birds, nesting boxes, appliances, etc., are mainly reproductions of the author’s pen and ink sketches and drawings. The attitudes have been caught by sketch- ing the living birds afield ; but as most of the drawings were necessarily made in winter, the measurements and the details of markings were taken mainly from bird skins. While this method does not give so good results as does the use of the dead bird, it obviates the necessity of killing birds for the pur- pose. The sketches for Figs. 19, 22, 23, and 25 were sug- gested by half-tone plates in American Ornithology. Figs. 1, 27, 53, 71, 73, 79, 109, 113-117, 142, and 143 were made from pen drawings by Lewis E. Forbush. The wood-cuts of insects were taken chiefly from Harris’s Insects Injurious to Vegetation, Flint’s Manual of Agriculture, and various papers published by Dr. A. S. Packard while serving as ento- nologist to the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture. PREFACE. ix Mr. C. Allan Lyford has given valuable assistance in taking photographs illustrating bird feeding, nesting boxes, etc. The author is also greatly indebted to Messrs. C. A. and C. K. Reed for the use of half-tone plates from American Ornithology ; to Mr. Frank M. Chapman, the Massachusetts Commission on Fisheries and Game, Mr. A. C. Dike, and others, to whom credit is given in the text or captions, for the use of photographs, half-tone plates, or cuts; and to Messrs. William Brewster and Ralph Holman for the use of bird skins. Plates VI. and VII. are from E. A. Samuels. The credit for the publication of this volume rightly be- longs to the State Board of Agriculture, which, through its secretary, introduced and advocated the resolve providing for preparing and printing; to the Massachusetts Audubon Society, which supported the resolve before the Legislature ; to the various associations, officials, and friends who upheld the resolve; and to those members of the House and Senate who were instrumental in securing the appropriation which made possible the production of the report. For its many shortcomings the author alone is responsible. CONTENTS. PAGE IntRopuctory.— THE UTILITY oF Birps In NATURE, . i ‘ F 1 Carter I.—TuHE VaLvur or Birds To MAN, . , ; $ A » 23 Primitive Man's Relations to Nature, ‘ 23 Changed Relations produced by Agriculture, . 5 2 7 . 2 Man at War with Nature in the New World, . ‘ 4 a a 25 The Increase of Insect Pests, . ‘ ‘ ‘ P ‘ ‘ ¥ « OF The Number of Insects, . ‘ x ¥ * i ‘ 4 ~ 28 The Reproductive Capacity of seuss: ‘ . . ‘ ‘ 2 . 28 The Voracity of Insects, . x % F é , ‘ ~ . . 380 The Great Loss to American Agriculture by Insect Ravages, . 5 . 31 Losses by Insect Ravages in Massachusetts, 36 The Capacity of Birds for destroying Pests, 40 The Digestion of Birds, é : i . : : . 40 The Growth of Young Birds, . . : : : - 42 The Amount of Food required by Young Birds, z x ‘ . 4 The Time required for Assimilation of Food, . . . . 49 The Number of Insects eaten by Young Birds in the Nest, é . 81 The Amount of Food eaten by Adult Birds, . ‘ 4 , « ff Birds save Trees and Crops from Destruction, , . ‘ ‘ » 68 The Increase of Injurious Insects following the Destruction of Birds, . 72 The Destruction of Injurious Mammals by Birds, . ‘ * a . 76 The Value of Water-birds and Shore Birds, . ‘ ‘ ‘ “i . 80 The Commercial Value of Birds, . ‘ ; 7 . 81 The Atsthetic, Sentimental, and Educational 1 Value of Birds, a . 8 Cuapter II.— Tue UTiLity or Birps In WOODLANDS, . 5 : - 90 The Relations of the Bird to the Tree, . . fi i 7 F . 91 The Forest Planters, : A ri : i ‘ a s ‘82 The Influence exerted by] Birds and Squirrels on the Succession of Forest Trees, . . ‘ 7 . 7 "i 4 Hi . 96 The Tree Pruners, . F i i ‘ . ‘ ‘ ‘ { . 99 The Guardians of the Trees, . : ‘ - ‘ a 4 ; . 100 CuapTeR III.—Birps as DEesTRoYERS oF Hairy CATERPILLARS AND Puiant LIcE, é é é i i z 5 y Uh CHAPTER IV.— THE Economic Sone oF Birps IN THE ORCHARD, . 149 CHAPTER V.— Sone Birps oF ORCHARD AND WOODLAND, ‘ ‘ 155 Woodland Thrushes, r $ 3 ; ? ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ « 155 Kinglets, . é - : : ; 2 : t z . 160 Nuthatches and Tits, Fi ; ‘ i . 5 ° é ‘ . 163 xii CONTENTS. CHAPTER V.—SonG Birps or ORCHARD AND WOODLAND — Con. Creepers, 7 Thrashers and Mockingbirde, ‘ ‘ 5 Warblers, . 4 ‘ 3 2 * * : Vireos, . é . i ‘ Waxwings, Tanagers, . " 5 . y Finches, Grogbeaks, and Towhees, . Blackbirds, Grackles, Orioles, etc., . CHAPTER VI.—SonGLEss BIRDS OF ORCHARD AND WOODLAND, Flycatchers, ; Hummingbirds, F ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ : , é Woodpeckers, . . . . " - . . Cuckoos, Kingfishers, etc., Grouse, Partridges, etc., . CuarTeR VII.—THE Utivtity oF Birps IN FIELD AND GARDEN, . CHAPTER VIII.— Birps or FIELD AND GARDEN, Thrushes and their Allies, Wrens, . F Z ‘ 2 7 Sparrows, . “ Blackbirds, Aeties etc., ‘ a Pigeons and Doves, . x . ‘ , . . Grouse, Partridges, etc., . z és e j ‘ < Pheasants, : c i : r . . Snipe, Sandpipers, Woodcock, etc., F F CHAPTER IX.—Brirps or THE AIR, Swifts, . x * x , ‘ r P Nighthawks, Nii saae nk etc., Swallows, . 7 ‘ F : ‘ i ‘ : 5 CHAPTER X.— BIRDS OF MARSH AND WATERSIDE, Perching Birds, Rails, Herons, 1 Water-fowl, . ; ‘1 P CHAPTER XI.— CHECKS UPON THE INCREASE OF aan Birps, The Destruction of Birds by Man, . : ‘ i ‘ P The Natural Enemies of Birds, Introduced Four-footed Enemies, Cats, . ‘ r & i 2 . . . < Native Four-footed Enemies, . Squirrels, . * 2 * . ‘ Rats and Mice, . c é Feathered Enemies, Hawks, Owls, . ‘ ; 4 4 é 3 Crows and Jays, . i a * ‘ é ‘ . 349 . 3850 . 351 » 3853 . 354 . 856 . 361 - 862 . 362 . 364 . 864 « 366 . 366 . 366 . 867 . 3868 CONTENTS. xill CuarTeR XI.— CHECKS UPON THE INCREASE OF UsreFuL Birps — Con. PAGE Feathered Enemies— Con. The House Sparrow, . . 370 Shrikes, : ‘ . 370 Other Bird Enemies, . : . ‘ . . 371 Reptilian Enemies, . P ‘ 2 : x “ « < atl Fish, ‘ ‘ ‘ E : ‘ : . d . 371 CHAPTER XII.— THE PROTECTION oF BIRDs, . 372 Methods of attracting Birds, . 373 Feeding and Assembling the Winter ‘Birds, . 377 Attracting the Summer Birds, . . . 384 Providing Nesting Places about Buildings, . . 886 Bird Houses and Nesting Boxes, . . . ° . . 388 Furnishing Nesting Material, . « 893 Feeding the Summer Birds, . 899 Attracting Water-fowl, . ; : ‘ 7 . 402 The Protection of Birds against their Natural niente, 4 - 403 The Protection of Farm Products from Birds, . . 410 To protect Grain from Crows and Other Birds, . » 411 To protect Small Fruits, . . 412 To protect Chickens from Hawks and ‘tiek . 412 General Protective Measures, . . 413 Game Protection, i ‘ F . 414 Measures and Legislation necessary for the Protection of Game and Birds, é . 4 . » 415 Artificial Paecaeiea of Game Birds, . 417 The Movement for Bird Protection, . * 418 Papers on Ornithology, published by the sehauauba sees) es Board of Agriculture, ‘ : . . . . 421 INDEX, . ¥ . . 423 FigurRE FIcurE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FicuRE FIcurE Figure FIGURE Figure FIGURE Figure FIGURE FIGuRE FIGURE FIiguRE FIGURE Figure FIGURE FIcuRE FIGurRE FIGURE FigurRE FIGURE FIcurE FicurE FIGURE FIGuRE FIGURE FicurE FIGURE FIGURE FicguRE FIGURE FIgurRE FIGURE FIGURE LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 1.—The Archeopteryx, . . f . Fi ‘ 2.— Ground Beetle, . 3.—Cutworm, . 4.— Noctuid Moth, 5.—F ly and its Larva, 4 . . . 6.— Chestnut Beetle or Weevil, . . . ‘ 7.— Caterpillars, the Larve of Butterflies, . ‘ 8. — Pup or Chrysalids, . 3 ‘i 9.— Predaceous Beetle, the Lion Beetle or Once Hiilen: 10. — Predaceous Beetle, a Tiger among Insects, . 11. —Hymenopterous Parasite, 12. — Host Caterpillar with Cocoons of a Parasite upon its Back, 13.— Tiger Beetle, . 14.— Chinch Bug, 15. — Colorado Potato Beetle, 16. — Hessian Fly, 17. — Alimentary Canal of Bluebird, 18. — Young Cedar Bird on its First Day, " 19. — Young Cedar Birds less than Three Weeks old, 20.— Young Grouse, ‘ 21. — Young Woodcock, 22. — Young Robins, 23.— Young Crows, . : 24. Passenger Pigeon feeding - mi sgeieAiilion: 25.— Chipping Sparrow feeding Young, . 26. — Yellow-throat catching Birch Aphids, 27. — Western Cricket, . 28. — Gulls saving Crops by killing cuits F 29. Warblers destroying Plant Lice, 30. — The Winged Seed of White Pine, 31.—A Forest Planter, . ‘ , é 32. —Ruffed Grouse, ‘‘ budding,” q : 7 33.— The Diligent Titmouse, . : j : : f 34. — Winter Tree Guards, ‘ * P . . 35. — Destructive Bark Beetle, ¥ ; F x 36. — Woodpecker hunting Borers, - a ‘ F 87.— Larva of the Cecropia Moth, . . . ‘ é Xvi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 2 PAGE Figure 38.— Woolly Bear Caterpillar, 4 3 3 : % , . 120 Figure 39.— Yellow Bear Caterpillar, . ‘ : . « . 120 Ficure 40.— Caterpillar of the White-marked Tussock Moth, . . . 121 Ficure 41.— Web of the Brown-tail Moth Caterpillar, P ‘ . . 10 Ficurer 42.— Nashville Warbler, . A ; A é ‘ ‘ . 133 FicureE 43.— Caterpillar of the Brown-tail Moth, 7 : + 133 FicurE 44.— Warblers feeding on Young Caterpillars of the Giney Moth, » 185 Ficure 45.— Egg Cluster of the Gipsy Moth, ‘ . . . 7 . 148 Ficure 46.— Wilson’s Thrush, . ‘ é 5 4 ‘ é 4 « 157 Ficure 47.— Wood Thrush, . P = x a * ‘ ‘ . 158 FicureE 48.— Golden-crowned Kinglet, ‘ ‘ . . . . » 161 Ficure 49.—Chickadee, . . . i 7 f ‘ . 164 Ficure 50.— Eggs of the Tent Guungiin Moth, - : r ¥ . 167 Ficure 51.—Codling Moth, Parent ofthe Apple Worm, . ‘ “ . 168 Ficure 52.— Fall Cankerworm Moth, : 7 ‘ F i . 169 Ficure 53.— Apple Twig with Eggs of the a een Moth, . "i . 169 Ficure 54.— White-breasted Nuthatch, a a ‘ i. Fi ‘ . 172 Ficure 55.—Nuthatches, . c , g , . : 7 : . 173 Ficure 56.— Wood-boring Beetle, : a . . . . i - 175 Figure 57.— Red-breasted Nuthatch, . ‘ ‘ 4 . : . . 176 Ficurs 58.— Brown Creeper, 7 . : . : . . . . 177 Figure 59.— Brown Thrasher, |. 7 7 ‘ ; . . . 180 Figure 60.—Catbird, . ‘ é ‘ : 5 ‘: i é « 182 Figure 61.— Northern Yellow-throat, . ‘ sce ‘ ‘ f . 187 Ficurer 62.— Oven-bird and Nest, a é ‘ : Fi 3 c . 189 Ficure 63.— Black and White Warbler, . ‘ a é ‘ ‘ . 191 Ficure 64.— Chestnut-sided Warbler, . 4 . ‘ f i é - 193 Figure 65.— Yellow Warbler, . F é ‘ ‘ i P . « 196 Figure 66.— American Redstart, . ‘ ‘ * . ‘ « 197 Figure 67.— Black-throated Green Warbler, é x é é » 199 Figure 68.— Pine Warbler, . : Fi i ‘ ‘ ‘ Fi c - 201 Ficure 69.— Myrtle Warbler, . > . ‘ : ‘ : P . 202 Ficure 70.— Woolly Apple Tree Aphis, . . é é ‘ r . 202 Ficurg 71.—Red-eyed Vireo, . 2... we 204 Ficure 72.— Warbling Vireo, P ‘ ‘ « ¥ : » 206 Ficure 73.— Yellow-throated Vireo, . é . ‘ ‘ : . 208 Figure 74.—Cedar Bird, . ‘ r Z é é ‘ r . . 209 Ficurr 75.— Passing the Cherry, . . ha 0 . . 5 a + 210 Ficure 76.— Good Work in the Orchard, . i é . » 211 Figure 77.— Scarlet Tanagers and Gipsy Moth Gaisiniiaen ‘ . 212 Ficure 78.— Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Male, : ‘a ‘ : ‘i . 216 Ficure 79.— Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Female, . a ‘ . F . 217 FicureE 80.— Towhee, . ‘ : A , c ¥ é fs 27, 219 Figure 81.— Purple Finch, . " 3 : . . 7 . : + 221 Ficure 82.— American Goldfinch, r ‘ . a 4 ri ‘ « 222 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xvii PAGE FicureE 83.— Baltimore Oriole, . * ‘é P 5 ‘ ‘ é » 225 Figure 84.— Pea Weevil, . P : 7 : : ‘ . 226 Ficure 85. — Tent Caterpillars, Fags, a and Caen . - : F - 226 Figure 86.—Click Beetle, . é i a 4 ‘ ‘ é . 227 Ficure 87.— Cucumber Beetle and Curculios, . : ‘ r é - 227 Figure 88.— Gipsy Moth, Male, . . . . e ‘ i 7 . 230 Ficurer 89.— Cankerworm, . " ‘ ‘ i " i ‘ ‘ » 231 Figure 90.— Wood Pewee, . s 2 3 “ ‘ s ‘ . . 232 Figure 91.—Tortricid Moth, «6. eee 882 Ficure 92.— Tussock Moth, F é ‘ , ‘ é ‘ ‘ - 232 Figure 93.— Phoebe, . C é a 3 q . , . 233 Figure 94.— Moth of Spring Cankerworm, . ‘ f . . ‘ . 234 Figure 95.— Wood-boring Click Beetle, . 6 5 6 : - 2384 Fiaure 96.—Brown-tail Moth, . é ‘ : ‘i - : . 234 Ficure 97.— Kingbird, . . . . . . . . 7 . 236 Ficure 98.— Cetonia Beetle, : a é a ; : ; F » 238 Ficurs 99.— May Beetle, . ‘ m * ‘ ‘ . 238 Ficure 100.— Hummingbirds about Two Weeks old, ‘ ‘ . . 242 FicureE 101.— Hummingbird feeding Young, . F : » 243 Ficure 102.— Young Hummingbirds nearly fledged, . 5 : i . 244 FieurE 103.— Skull and Tongue of Woodpecker, . . . . 246 Ficure 104.—Spearlike Tongue-tip of Downy Woodpecker, ‘ e . 246 Figure 105.— Pine Borer, . ‘ a ‘ . : . * . 247 Figure 106.— Pales Weevil, ‘ $ . E . 248 Figure 107.— Cocoon of Codling Moth sional by Woodpecker, , é . 251 Figure 108.— Apple Tree Borer, . ‘ « : . 251 Figure 109.— Section of Young Tree saved i Depiiy eee: rl . 253 Figure 110.— Downy Woodpecker and his Work, - ‘ 7 - . 253 Figure 111.— Bark pierced by Downy Woodpecker, . P . 254 Ficure 112.— The Same, showing the Channels made by Bark Pexeed: . 254 Ficure 113.— Pine Top killed by Pine Weevil, . . . 7 : « 255 Fiacure 114.— Tree ruined for Timber by Pine Weevil, y ‘ . 255 Ficure 115.—Section of Red Maple tapped for Sap, . ‘ é ri . 257 Ficure 116.— A Similar Section, a x 4 ‘ ‘ a * « 267 Ficure 117.— Hairy Woodpecker, . ‘ : . r A ‘ . 258 Ficure 118.—Flicker,. . a ee ee ee 7 Freurer 119, — Black-billed paskan : : ‘ ‘ a é . 264 Figure 120.—Caterpillar of the Io Moth, . _ é ‘ i ‘ . 264 Figure 121.—Spiny Elm Caterpillar, . : ‘ . . ‘ % . 264 Figure 122.— Fall Web Worm, . . o x ‘ ‘ 5 ‘ 265 FicurE 123.— Red-humped Caterpillar, fi . . r : ‘ . 272 Figure 124.— Tree Hoppers, é P zi ‘ # ‘ . ‘ ~ 2738 Ficure 125.— American Robin, . 4 ‘ : ‘ 4 ¥ P . 282 FicurE 126.— White Grub, . ‘ i 4 é ‘ : ; * . 288 Ficure 127.— Bluebird, % : ¥ ‘ F 4 ‘ 4 ‘ . 291 xvill LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. PAGE FicurE 128.— The Bluebird’s Bread, . 292 Ficurr 129.— Indigo Bunting, Male, « 298 Ficure 130.—Indigo Bunting, Female, . 298 Figure 131.—Song Sparrow, - 299 FicureE 132.—Slate-colored Junco, . 301 Ficure 133.— Field Sparrow, F . 802 Ficure 134.— Chipping Sparrow, 7 7 « 3803 Figure 135.— Moth of the Tent Caterpillar, . 804 Ficure 136.— Chipping Sparrows hunting Beet Worms, - 304 Ficure 137.— Tree Sparrow, ‘ : ‘ é . 306 Figure 138.— White-throated ease . 807 Figure 139.— Vesper Sparrow, . 311 Ficure 140.— Crow Blackbird, . 314 Ficure 141.— Meadowlark, a BIT Ficure 142.— Red-winged Blackbird, Male, » B19 Ficure 143.— Red-winged Blackbird, Female, . 320 Ficure 144.— Bobolink, Male, and Army Worm, 822 Ficure 145.— Bobolink, Female, . x s » 823 FicureE 146.— Bob-white, . 825 Ficure 147.— The Morning Call, . » 827 Ficure 148. — Ring-necked Pheasant, » 832 Figure 149.— Purple Martin, Male, . 847 Ficure 150.—Purple Martin, Female, . 348 Ficure 151.—Salt-marsh Caterpillar, . 349 Figure 152.— Army Worm, . 349 Ficurr 153.— Swamp Sparrow, . 350 Ficure 154. —Italian Sportsman and his eee Owl, . 359 Ficure 155.— Blue Jay, ‘ “ ‘ i ‘ . 869 Ficurer 156.— Northern Shrike, : . 370 Ficure 157.— Seed Catkins of Gray Birch, . 2 374 Ficure 158.— Fruit of Virginia Juniper or Red Cedar, . 377 Ficure 159.— Downy Woodpecker feeding on Suet, . 380 Ficure 160.— The Birds’ Christmas Tree, » 881 Figure 161.— The Birds’ Tepee, . 382 Fieure 162.— Design for a Sparrow-proof Shelf, « 883 Ficure 163.— Mr. Chapman’s Bird Bath, . 3886 Ficurse 164.— Phosbe’s Nest in Box, . 888 Ficure 165.—Sparrow-proof Box, . 3889 Ficure 166.— Birch-bark Nesting Box for Ohigkaaves, . 891 Ficure 167.— Shingle Box for Bluebirds, F . 892 Figure 168.— Chickadees feeding Young in Observation ee « 895 Figure 169.—A Martin Box, . 396 Figure 170.— A Martin Barrel, : . . ; . 897 Ficure 171.— Zinc Bands to prevent Cats or Squirrels from staan Trees or Poles, . ‘ : $ . é . 410 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Xix Woop Duck (Colored Plate), Puate I.— The American Silkworm Moth, Puate II.—The Destructiveness of the Gipsy Moth, Puare III.— Expensive Work of destroying the Eggs of the Gipsy Moth in Woodland Parks, Puate IV.— Red-eyed Vireo feeding Young, PLaTE V.— Chickadee, with Insects in its Beak, PuLatE VI.— Field or Meadow Mouse, PLATE VII.— White-footed or Deer Mouse, PLaTE VIII. —A Useful Mouse-eating Owl, PLaTE IX.—Regurgitated Ow] Pellets, PLATE X.— The Same Pellets, dissected, . , P PuiaTE XI.— Albatrosses on Laysan Island, H. I., PLatE XII.—The Cecropia Moth, . PuateE XIII.— Web of Tent Caterpillar, attacked by Birds, . PLatTE XIV.— Various Stages of the Brown-tail Moth, PLaTtE XV.— Various Stages of the Gipsy Moth, PLATE XVI.— General View of Georgetown Woodland, PLATE XVII.— Pines, Oaks, and Other Trees, stripped by the Omnivorous Caterpillars of the Gipsy Moth, PuatTE XVIII. — Luna Moth, PLATE XIX.— Least Flycatcher on Nest, PLATE XX.— Downy Woodpecker at Nest Hole, PLATE XXI.—Ruffed Grouse on Nest, PLATE XXII.—Ruffed Grouse, One Day old, PuatTeE XXIII. — Ruffed Grouse, Four Months old, PLATE XXIV.—Ruffed Grouse, strutting, XXV.— Robin’s Nest in Hollow Tree, XXVI.— Robin on Nest, . XXVII.— Wren at Nest Hole, ‘ XXVIII.— Chipping Sparrows feeding their vous, XXIX.— American Woodcock, XXX.— Nighthawk, . é XXXI. — Whip-poor-will, ‘i < 7 ‘ PLaTE XXXII.— A Swallow Roost, PLatE XXXIII.— Nest Robbers, - PuatE XXXIV.— Work which drives out the Birds, PLateE XXXV.—Cat with Young Robin, . . PLatE XXXVI.— Barred Owl, . i Puate XXXVII.— Blue Jay’s Nest in ee 8 ioe: : Pirate XXXVIII. — Fruits that are valuable as Bird Food, Puate XXXIX.—A Bountiful Repast, Z ‘ Fi Pirate XL.— A Scratching Shed, F é : . ‘ Puatre XLI.—Chickadee seen through Window, at erie s Home, which had been PLatTEe PLATE PLATE PLATE PLATE PLATE PLATE Frontispiece faces page 31 between pages 38 and 39 between pages 38 and 39 faces page 51 faces page 54 faces page 76 faces page 76 faces page 78 faces page 80 faces page 80 faces page 82 faces page 109 faces page 118 faces page 137 faces page 142 faces page 144 faces page 144 faces page 214 faces page 229 faces page 249 faces page 267 faces page 268 faces page 268 faces page 270 faces page 283 faces page 289 faces page 293 faces page 304 faces page 336 faces page 341 faces page 341 faces page 343 faces page 359 faces page 360 faces page 362 faces page 367 faces page 369 faces page 375 faces page 378 faces page 378 faces page 380 ¢ XX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Puate XLII. — Chickadees on Pork Rind, é é . faces page 380 PLATE XLIII.— Ernest Harold Baynes taming a Ohicteaiads . faces page 381 PLATE XLIV. — Chickadee feeding from the Hand, . ‘ . faces page 381 PLatE XLV.—Chickadees seen on a Frosty Morning, through Author’s Window, a . faces page 382 Puate XLVI.— A Red-breasted Nuthatch at the ‘e Window, . faces page 382 PuaTE XLVII.— Bird Houses and Nesting Boxes, . 3 . faces page 391 PLATE XLVIII.— Inexpensive Nesting Boxes, ‘ faces page 392 PuiaTE XLIX.—Chickadee about to enter its Nest, in an Old Varnish Can, . . ‘ i 5 A e . faces page 392 Puate L.— Owl Box, at Sian s Home, . P between pages 394 and 395 Piate LI.— Owl on Nest, . s ‘ : 5 between pages 394 and 395 Piate LII.—Chickadee’s Nest, made of Cotton, in Box on Author’s Window, é ‘ ‘ ‘ between pages 400 and 401 PuatTE LIII.— Chickadee on Nest, . é . between pages 400 and 401 Puate LIV. — Mother Chickadee bringing Food to Young, between pages 400 and 401 PiLatE LV.— Mother Chickadee cleaning Nest, between pages 400 and 401 Piatse LVI.— Domesticated Canada Goose on Nest, r . faces page 417 USEFUL BIRDS AND THEIR PROTECTION. INTRODUCTORY. THE UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE, There is no subject in the field of natural science that is of greater interest than the important position that the living bird occupies in the great plan of organic nature. The food relations of birds are so complicated and have such a far-reaching effect upon other forms of life that the mind of man may never be able fully to trace and grasp them. The migrations of birds are so vast and widespread that the movements of many species are still more or less shrouded in mystery. We do not yet know, for instance, just where certain common birds pass some of the winter months. Some species sweep in their annual flights from Arctic America to the plains of Patagonia, coursing the entire length of the habitable portion of a hemisphere. Many of the birds that summer in northern or temperate America winter in or near the tropics. Some species remain in the colder or temperate regions only long enough to mate, nest, and rear their young, and then start on their long journey toward the equator. The annual earth-wide sweep of the tide of bird life from zone to zone renders the study of the relations of birds to other living forms throughout their range a task of the utmost magnitude. This vast migration at once suggests the question, Of what use in nature is this host of winged creatures that with the changing seasons sweeps over land and sea? Our first concern in answering this question is to deter- mine what particular office or function in the economy of nature birds alone are fitted to perform. The relations 2 USEFUL BIRDS. they may bear to the unnatural and semi-artificial conditions produced by the agriculturist may then be better under- stood. The position occupied by birds among the forces of nature is unique in one respect at least; their structure fits them to perform the office of a swiftly moving force of police, large bodies of which can be assembled at once to correct disturbances caused by abnormal outbreaks of plant or animal life. This function is well performed. A swarm of locusts appears, and birds of many species congregate to feed upon locusts. An irruption of field mice, lemmings, or gophers occurs, and birds of prey gather to the feast from far and near. This habit of birds is also serviceable in clearing the earth of decaying materials, which otherwise might pollute both air and water. A great slaughter of animals takes place, and Eagles, Vultures, Crows, and other scavengers hasten to tear the flesh from the carcasses. A dead sea monster is cast upon the shore, and sea birds promptly assemble to devour its wasting tissues. The gathering of birds to feed is commonly observed in the flocking of Crows in meadows where grasshoppers or grubs abound, the assembling of Crows and Blackbirds in cornfields, and in the massing of shore birds on flats or marshes where the receding tide exposes their food. : A study of the structure and habits of birds shows how well fitted they are to check excessive multiplication of injurious creatures or to remove offensive material. Birds are distinguished from all other animals by their complex, feathered wings, —the organs of perfect flight. The tremendous muscular power exhibited by birds is only such as might be expected in creatures provided with such perfect respiratory, circulatory, and assimilative organs. The strength of birds as compared with that of man is enormously out of proportion to their size ; but it is largely concentrated in the muscles that move the wings, for it is by flight that the bird is enabled to live. No other animals have such sustained power of flight or such perfect command over themselves while in the air. Even the bat, which is a most skillful flyer, being remarkably quick in aerial evolutions, UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 3 cannot at its best equal the bird. I once saw a bat make seven attempts to catch a moth fluttering along the still sur- face of a moonlit river. A Swallow could have seized it at once with no perceptible effort. No creature can equal the soaring of the Eagle or Vulture, or that of the Man-o’-War Bird as it sails on high above the storm; while the speed that the Hummingbird attains is such that the eye can scarcely follow its most rapid flight. Birds are provided with wings to enable them (1) to pro- cure food, (2) to escape their enemies, (3) to migrate. All birds have wings, though a few, like the Apteryx, have them only in arudimentary form. Others, like the Penguin and the Ostrich, have small wings, but cannot raise them- | selves in the air. All birds that cannot tly, however, are reminders of a past age, and are not fitted to live on the same earth with man. Such birds are either already extinct or in a fair way to become so, either at the hands of man-or at the teeth or claws of the dogs, cats, or other animals that man introduces. Flight alone might save the few that remain. The Great Auk, using its wings only in pursuing its prey under water, disappeared before the onslaught of the white man; while the Loon, flying both under water and above it, still sur- vives. Birds are pursued by many enemies. Water-fowl fly to the water and dive to escape the Hawk or Eagle, and fly to the land to escape the shark, alligator, or pike. Sparrows fly to the thicket to elude the Hawk, and to the trees to avoid the cat. Evidently this great power of flight was given to birds to enable them not only to concentrate their forces rapidly at a given point, but also to pursue other flying creatures. Birds can pursue bats, flying squirrels, flying fish, and insects through the air. Bats and insects are their only competitors in flight. Comparatively few insects can escape birds by flight, and this they do mainly by quick dodging and turning. The speed at which birds can fly on occasion has seldom been accurately measured. The maxi- mum flight velocity of certain wild-fowl is said to be ninety miles an hour. Passenger Pigeons killed in the neighbor- 4 ‘USEFUL BIRDS. hood of New York have had in their crops rice probably taken from the fields of the Carolinas or Georgia, which indicates that within six hours they had flown the three or four hundred miles intervening, at about the rate of a mile a minute.? : The rate of flight of a species must be sufficiently rapid to enable it to exist, and so perform its part in the economy of nature. Birds find distant food by the senses of sight and hearing mainly. The sense of smell is not highly developed, but the other perceptive powers are remarkable. The perfection of sight in birds is almost incomprehensible to those who have not studied the organs of vision. The keen eye of the Hawk has become proverbial. The bird’s eye is much larger in proportion to the size of its owner than are the eyes of other vertebrates. It is provided with an organ called the pecten, by which, so naturalists believe, the focus can be changed in an instant, so that the bird becomes nearsighted or farsighted at need. Such provision for changing the focus of the eye is indispensable to certain birds in their quick rush upon their prey. Thus the Osprey or Fish Hawk, flying over an arm of the sea, marks its quarry down in the dark water. As the bird plunges swiftly through the air its eye is kept constantly focussed upon the fish, and when within striking distance it can still see clearly its panic-stricken prey. Were a man to descend so suddenly from such a height he would lose sight of the fish before he reached the water. The Flycatcher, sitting erect upon its perch, watch- ing passing insects that are often invisible to the human eye, in like manner utilizes the pecten in the perception, pursuit, and capture of its prey. Most of the smaller birds will see a Hawk in the sky before it becomes visible to the human eye. The Vulture, floating on wide wings in upper air, discerns his chosen food in the valley far below, and as he descends toward it he is seen by others wheeling in the dis- tant sky. As they turn to follow him they also are seen by others soaring at greater distances, who, following, are pur- * American Ornithology, Wilson and Bonaparte, Vol. IV, pp. 319, 320. Evi- dently a quotation from Audubon's Ornithological Biography. UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 5 sued from afar by others still, until a feathered host con- centers from the sky upon the carrion feast. Birds are lower in the organic scale than the class of mammals which includes man, the four-footed animals, and even the seal and the whale. Birds are closely allied in structure to reptiles. The earliest bird known, the Archee- opteryx, had teeth, two fingers on each wing, anda long rep- tilian tail adorned with feathers. Still, notwithstanding the comparatively low place which is given by the systematists to birds, their physical organiza- tion excels in some respects that of all otheranimals. They surpass all other vertebrate animals in breathing power or lung capacity, as well as in muscular strength and activ- ity . The tempera- Fig. 1.—The Archeopteryx, a bird with teeth. Re- ture of the blood is stored from the Jurassic epoch. About one-fifth natural size; after Chapman. higher in birds than in other animals, and the circulation is more rapid. To maintain this high temperature, rapid circulation, and great activity, a large amount of food is absolutely necessary. Food is the fuel without which the brightly burning fires of life must grow dim and die away. Birds are, therefore, fitted for their function of aerial police not only by their powers of flight and perception, but also by their enormous capacity for assimilating food. When food is plentiful, birds gorge themselves, accumulating fat in quantities. Shore birds frequently become so fat during the fall migra- 6 USEFUL BIRDS. tions that, when shot, their distended skins burst open when their bodies strike the ground. This accumulation of fatty tissue may aid to tide the birds over a season of scarcity, but the moment they need food they must seek -it far and wide, if need be, as they cannot live long with- outit. Birds are not always the ethereal, care-free creatures of the poet’s dream. In time of plenty, the joys of flight, of sunshine, of singing, of riding swinging boughs, or toss- ing to and fro on flashing waves, are theirs to the full; but in times of scarcity, or when rearing their helpless young, their daily lives are often one continued strenuous hunt for food. Food, therefore, is the mainspring of the bird’s existence. Love and fear alone are at times stronger than the food craving. The amount of food that birds are capable of consuming renders them doubly useful in case of an emergency. The utility of birds in suppressing outbreaks of other an- imals by massing at threatened points is of no greater value in the plan of nature than is the perennial regulative influ- ence exerted by them individually everywhere as a check on the undue increase of other forms of life. He who studies living birds, other animals, or plants, and the relations which these living organisms bear to one another, will soon learn that the main effort of each plant or animal is to preserve its own life and produce seed or young, and so multiply its kind. He will see, also, that the similar efforts of other organisms by which it is surrounded tend to hold its increase in check. The oak produces many hundreds of acorns; and were each acorn to develop into a tree, the earth eventually would be full of oaks, for all other trees would be crowded out. But many animals feed on the acorns or the young seedlings ; other trees crowd out the young oaks; caterpillars feed on the foliage; other insects feed on the wood and bark, de- stroying many trees; so, on the average, each oak barely succeeds in producing another to occupy its place. Certain moths deposit hundreds of eggs in a season; and were each egg to hatch and each insect to come to maturity and go on producing young at the same rate, the entire earth UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 7 in a few years would be carpeted with crawling caterpillars, and the moths in flight would cover the earth like a blanket of fog. But under natural conditions the caterpillars that hatch from the eggs of the moth are destroyed by birds, mammals, insects, or other animals, by disease or the action of the elements, so that in the end only one pair of moths succeeds another. If every Robin should produce five young each yéar, and each Robin should live fifteen years, in time every square foot of land on this continent would be packed with Robins; but the surplus Robins are killed and eaten by various other birds or by mammals, each striving to maintain itself; so that, eventually, the number of Robins remains about the same. Thus we see that, while birds, insects, other animals, and plants are constantly striving to increase their numbers, the creatures that feed upon them operate continually to check this undue multiplication. The Hawk preys upon the smaller birds and mammals. The smaller birds and mammals feed on insects, grass, seeds, leaves, and other animal and vege- table food, each virtually endeavoring to gain strength and increase the numbers of its race at the expense of other living organisms. There is a competition among various dissimilar organisms, also, in seeking certain kinds of food. Grazing mammals, such as cattle, sheep, and deer, eat grass. Grass is eaten also by birds, mice, and insects. If any one kind of these creatures should be left without check, and become too numerous, it might consume the food supply of all. In the great struggle for existence, each perpetuating form of life that we call a species is really an expansive force, that can be restrained and kept in its proper place only by the similar expansive forces (other species) by which it is surrounded. It is as if the whole field of ani- mal and vegetable life consisted of a series of springs, cach exerting a pressure in all directions, and each held in place only by the similar expansion of the springs surrounding it. This action and reaction of natural forces constitute what is known as the balance of nature. Any serious disturbance of this balance is always fraught with serious consequences. 8 USEFUL BIRDS. All animals and plants are sustained and nourished by air, water, and food. Food supplies the material for growth and development. Its abundance increases the energy and fertility of a species, —its ability to produce young abun- dantly. The study of the food and food habits of birds and other animals is of the utmost importance, for by this study alone we are enabled to trace their life relations to each. other, to plants, and to man. Some progress has ‘already been made in this study. We know in a general way the character of the food of some of the common birds of the United States ; but we know so little as yet of the food of the smaller mammals, the reptiles, batrachians, many insects and other lower animals, that it is impossible to tell what may be the ultimate effect of the destruction of any one of these animals by birds. On the other hand, no one can tell what grave and far- reaching results might follow the extermination of a single species of bird; for it is probable that the food preferences of each species are so distinctive that no other could fill its place. Birds are guided by their natural tastes in selecting their food, unless driven by necessity. Of the food which suits their tastes, that which is most easily taken is usually first selected. In the main, species of similar structure and habits often choose similar food, but each species usually differs from its allies in the selection of some certain favorite insects. Were a species exterminated, however, its place might be taken eventually by the combined action of many species, for nature always operates to restore her disturbed balances. The complexity of the food relations existing between birds and other organisms may be indicated hypothetically by a brief illustration. The Eagles, larger Hawks, and Owls feed to some extent on Crows, and probably the nocturnal, tree-climbing, nest-haunting raccoon also robs them of eges and young; otherwise, they seem to have very few natural enemies to check their increase. Crows feed on so many different forms of animal and vegetable life that they are nearly always able to find suitable food; therefore they are common and widely distributed. UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 9 The general fitness of the Crow is admitted by all. Un- doubtedly it has a useful work to perform in the world ; but a careful study of its food habits shows so many apparently harmful traits that it may well leave the investigator in some doubt as to the Crow’s value in the general plan. Crows rob the nests of Robins, eating very many eggs and young birds ; they therefore constitute a serious check on the in- crease of this species. Robins feed largely on common black beetles, called ground beetles (Carabide), which run about on the ground, hiding under stones and other rubbish. As these beetles are not quick to fly by day, \ and are easily caught, they form a consid- erable part of the food of many ground- frequenting birds. But ground beetles feed, to a greater or less extent, on other insects. The question then arises, Is not the Robin doing harm in killing ground beetles, and does it not merit the destruc- tion of its eggs and young by the Crow? pig 9 Ground If the Robin’s habit of eating these beetles beetle. is harmful, is not the Crow rendering a service by destroy- ing a bird so apparently destructive as the Robin? Perhaps, if there were too many Robins, they might eat too many ground beetles, and thus become the indirect cause of the destruction of much vegetation, by saving the lives of the caterpillars and other harmful insects that the ground beetles, had they been left to themselves, might have destroyed.! Many ground beetles that are eaten by the Robin feed much on vegetable matter.?- This makes these beetles doubly useful in one respect, for they can maintain their numbers 1 These questions can be answered only by one having a thorough knowledge of the food of our ground beetles, —a knowledge which no living man yet pos- sesses; but enough has been learned to throw some light on their food habits. Insects that feed promiscuously on other insects are generally classed as bene- ficial in so far as they take insect food, even though they may destroy some so-called useful insects; for, as the so-called injurious insects far outnumber the useful ones, it is considered safe to regard the habit of feeding on insects a bene- ficial one. : 2 The ground beetles of the genus Calosoma and those of some closely allied genera are believed to feed entirely on animal food, as their structure fits them for that alone. They feed ravenously upon both beneficial and injurious insects, and when too numerous they devour one another. These are not the beetles that are generally eaten by the Robin, however, but rather by the Crow. 10 USEFUL BIRDS. when insect food is not plentiful, and so be ready to check any increase of insects which may occur. On the other hand, if they become too numerous, they may create serious disturbances by destroying grass, grain, or fruit. I have witnessed attacks made by certain of these beetles on grain and strawberries; and were they not held in check by birds, it is probable that they would soon become serious pests. Their destruction by Robins and other birds tends to keep these beetles within those normal bounds where they will do most good and least harm; while the check kept by the Crow on the increase of the Robin may pre- vent the latter from destroying too many ground beetles. If certain low-feeding caterpillars became so numerous as to be injurious, ground beetles and Robins would feed largely on them. The caterpillars would then largely take the place of the beetles in the Robin’s food. The beetles, therefore, would increase in numbers, and the force of both bird and beetle would be exerted to reduce the caterpillars to their normal limit. This accomplished, the Robin would again attack the ground beetles, and thus tend to reduce them ‘to normal numbers. Let us now go back to the beginning of our chain of destruction. The Eagles, Hawks, Owls, and raccoons may. indirectly allow an increase in the number of Robins by preventing too great an increase of the Crow. But Hawks and Owls also prey on the Robin, and, by dividing their attention between Robin and Crow, assist in keeping both birds to their normal numbers. Whenever Crows became rare, Robins as a consequence would become very numerous, were it not that the Hawks also eat Robins. (Hawks and Owls eat also some species of insects that are eaten by both Robin and Crow.) There are compensations in the apparently destructive career of the Crow. An omnivorous bird, it seems inclined to turn its attention to any food which is plentiful and readily obtained. It is a great feeder on May beetles (miscalled “June bugs”), the larvee of which, known as white grubs, burrowing in the ground, sometimes devastate grass lands and also injure the roots of many plants, including trees. UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 11 The Crow is also a destroyer of cutworms. These are the young or larve of such noctuid moths or “ millers” as are commonly seen fluttering from the grass by any one who disturbs them by walking in the fields. Robins also feed largely on cutworms, as well as on the white Fig. 3.—Cutworm. grub of the May beetle. When these insects are few in number, a part of the usual food supply of both Robin and Crow is cut off. This being the case, the hungry Crows are likely to destroy more young mw, Robins and other young birds than usual, in order to make up the supply of animal food for themselves and their ravenous nestlings. Ina few years this would decrease perceptibly the number of Robins and other small birds, and would be likely in turn to allow an increase of May beetles and cutworms. As these insects became more plentiful, the Crows would naturally turn again to them, paying less attention to the young of Robins and other birds for the time, and allowing them to increase once more, until their multiplication put a check on the insects, when the Crows would of necessity again raid the Robins. The Blue Jay may be taken as another instance of this means of preserving the balance of nature. Hawks and Owls kill Blue Jays, Crows destroy their eggs and young ; thus the Jays are kept in check. Jays are omnivorous feeders. They eat the eggs and young of other birds, par- ticularly those of Warblers, Titmice, and Vireos, — birds which are active caterpillar hunters. But Jays are also extremely efficient caterpillar hunters. Thus the Jays compensate in some measure for their destruction of cat- erpillar-eating birds, by themselves destroying the cater- pillars which they unconsciously have allowed to increase in numbers by destroying these birds. Like the Crow, they virtually kill the young of the smaller birds, and eat them, that they (the Jays) may eventually have more in- sect food for their own young. When this object has been attained, the Jays may again, perhaps, allow an increase of Fig. 4.—Noctuid moth. 12 USEFUL BIRDS. the smaller birds, the survivors of which they have unwit- tingly furnished with more insect food, thus making con- ditions favorable for the increase of the smaller birds. These oscillations or alternate expansions and contractions in the numbers of birds or insects are usually so slight as to escape common observation. It is only in those cases where they are carried to extremes that they result disas- trously. Under nature the checks on the increase of birds are essential, else they would increase in numbers until their food supply had become exhausted, when they would starve, and other consequences even more grave and much more complex would then follow. While these examples of the way in which the balance of nature is preserved may be regarded as somewhat hypothet- ical, they probably approximate what actually takes place, although the feeding habits of birds undoubtedly produce far more complicated results than are here outlined. It is a law of nature that the destroyer is also the protector. Birds of prey save the species on which they prey from overproduction and consequent starvation. They also serve such species in at least two other ways: (1) the more powerful bird enemies of a certain bird usually prey upon some of its weaker enemies; (2) these powerful birds also check the propagation of weakness, disease, or unfitness, by killing off the weaker or most unfit individuals among the species on which they prey, for these are most easily captured and killed. We have seen already that Jays, which are enemies of the smaller birds, are preyed upon by the more powerful Crows, Hawks, and Owls. These latter also destroy skunks, weasels, squirrels, mice, and snakes, all of which are also enemies of the smaller birds. No doubt these animals would be much more injurious to the smaller birds were they with- out these wholesome feathered checks on their increase. In a state of nature, albino birds or those that are rendered conspicuous to their enemies by any unusual mark or color are soon captured by some bird of prey, and seldom live to perpetuate their unfitness. UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 13 An experience with domestic Pigeons, related to me by Mr. William Brewster, will serve as proof of this state- ment. He had kept a flock of twenty-five or thirty Pigeons in confinement at Cambridge for many years. Under such protective domestication the individuals of the flock had assumed a variety of shades and colors. There were blue Doves, white Doves, and many pied individuals varying between the two extremes. He removed the flock to. his farm in Concord, where they were at liberty to roam at will during the day. Here they were attacked by Hawks, and in five years’ time the white and pied birds were practically all weeded out, and the flock consisted of blue rock Doves alone. The preservation of birds by the weeding out of sickly or wounded individuals did not escape the notice of Prof. Spencer F. Baird, who wrote : — It has now been conclusively shown, I think, that Hawks perform an important function in maintaining in good condition the stock of game birds, by capturing the weak and sickly, and thus preventing reproduc- tion from unhealthy parents. One of the most plausible hypotheses explanatory of the occasional outbreaks of disease amongst the grouse of Scotland has been the extermination of these correctives, the disease being most virulent where the game keepers were most active in de- stroying what they considered vermin.! It appears, then, that under natural conditions the birds of prey destroy merely the unfit and surplus individuals of the species on which they prey, and do not, on the whole, reduce their numbers below what the land will support. The relations of birds to insects merit the most profound thought and study. No one can study intelligently the effect produced by birds upon insect life unless he first acquires some knowledge of the habits and transformations of insects, and is able to distinguish the so-called injurious and -benefi- cial groups. A brief explanation here of the transformations of insects will better enable the reader to understand the terns used later in describing them as food for birds. 1 Letter from Prof. Spencer F. Baird to Mr. J. W. Shorton, published in the Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 1882, Vol. V, pp. 69, 70. 14 USEFUL BIRDS. Most insects emerge from eggs, which ordinarily are de- posited and fixed by the female parent in positions where the young will find suitable food in readiness for them when the eggs hatch. Some insects bring forth their young alive, but this is an Fig. 5.—Fly ana exception to the general rule. The young itslarva. —_ insect that emerges from the egg is called the larva (plural, larve). Some larvee are provided with short legs or feet, others have none that can be seen ; but all are without wings, and move about mainly by crawling. Their principal occupation is to feed. Some species, such as the Fig. 6.— Chestnut beetle or weevil, enlarged. wu, larva or grub, enlarged; b, young larva in chestnut, natural size. leaf-eating caterpillars, rest during certain parts of the day; others, like the larve of fiesh-feeding flies, apparently feed constantly. As all eat enormously and grow rapidly, they are capable, when in great numbers, of doing much harm or good, as the case may be. The larve of flies are commonly called maggots or slugs, those of beetles are called grubs, and those of butterflies and moths are called caterpillars. Much of the injury done by insect pests is attributable to the Jarvee 3; a lthou g h Fig. '7.— Caterpillars, the larvee of butterflies. some, like certain leaf-eating beetles, are injurious in the per- fect form. During the rapid growth of a larva the skin is shed several times, until full size is reached, when the next transformation is effected, and the larva becomes a pupa or chrysalis. -Among the butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) the insect often spins from within itself a thread, which it weaves into a case or cocoon which encloses it while in the UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 15 pupal form. This stage it passes without food and while fixed to some object. The pup or nymphs of some other insects, however, move about freely, as is the case with locusts, grasshoppers, and like insects (Orthoptera).? The pupa finally throws off its outer shell, and emerges a fully developed or perfect insect or imago with wings; although some insects which, like some birds, have lost the use of their wings, never fly.? After the union of the sexes the female insect eventually deposits the eggs for the Fig. 8.—Pupe or chrysalids. next generation. Thus we have four forms which insects assume: (1) the egg, (2) the larva, (3) the pupa or nymph, (4) the imago or perfect winged insect. Practically all living animals of appreciable size, as well as most plants that are visible to the unaided eye, furnish food for certain insects. Other insects feed on dead animals, dead trees, or other decaying animal or vegetable matter. A certain larva has been known even to tunnel into marble. Those insects which feed on live vegetation or living animals are capable of doing great harm if they increase unduly; while those that feed only on dead animals or dead and decaying vegetation can do only good in nature, although they may be injurious to man by destroying hides, furs, pre- served meats, or clothing. It is difficult to perceive the usefulness of those so-called injurious species which feed on the different parts of plants ; still, the larvee that eat the buds, the caterpillars that feed 1 In the Orthoptera the transformations are imperfect; the larvz of grass- hoppers, for example, are provided with well-developed legs, and much resemble the imago or perfect iisect, but are without wings. In this stage they are usually called nymphs. As they approach maturity they enter what is virtually an im- perfect pupal stage, but retain their shape, limbs, and activity. They now show rudimentary wings, but it is only at maturity that they are capable of flight. 2 The Thysanura, or lowest order of insects, including ‘‘ bristle tails,”’ “‘ spring tails,” ‘‘ fish moths,’’ and the like, never become winged or develop any trace of wings. 16 USEFUL BIRDS. on the leaves, the borers that attack the twigs, and the insects that destroy the blossom or the fruit, all probably, when in normal numbers, exert a useful influence by a healthful and necessary pruning, which at least does no injury to the tree. It is only when these insects increase abnormally in numbers that they seriously injure or destroy many vigorous plants and trees. During such outbreaks birds often come to the rescue of the trees. Birds feed very largely on such insects, and by keeping down their excessive multiplication perform a great service in the economy of nature. Here the keen senses and remarkable flight powers pos- sessed by birds aid them in concentrating their forces imme- diately when and where they are most needed. The rule will bear repetition here that, other things being equal, birds will take such suitable food as is most plentiful and most easily obtained. This is especially true of the feeding of birds on insects, although there are some insects that are so protected by prickly spines or acrid secretions that few birds will eat them. Such are the caterpillars of the mourning- cloak butterfly (Huvanessa antiopa) and the imagoes of the Colorado potato beetle (Doryphora decemlineata) . Birds are quick to assemble wherever in the woods the disappearing foliage denotes the presence of great numbers of destructive caterpillars, or where patches of dead and. dying grasses indicate that grubs are destroying the grass roots on meadow or prairie. Birds flock to such places to feed on the easily procured insects, and so take a prominent part in repressing such insect outbreaks. This is so well known as to be worthy of only passing mention here, were it not to inquire whether the birds that assemble in such locali- ties do not neglect their normal and special work of hold- ing in check certain species elsewhere. If the Robin, for example, which feeds normally on such ground-frequenting insects as white grubs, cutworms, grasshoppers, March flies, and ground beetles, goes to the woods to féed on caterpillars, as is sometimes the case, does it neglect to devour any one of the insects on which it usually feeds, and so give this insect a chance to increase? If so, it would be merely sup- pressing one outbreak and permitting another. But birds UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 17 do not neglect any one element of their ordinary food in such cases. They neglect them all, both animal and vegetal, for the time being, and turn to the npw abundant insect food that is more readily accessible. This I have observed in studying outbreaks of cankerworms, and Professor Forbes records a similar experience with birds feeding on canker- worms.! This apparently agrees with the experience of the forest authorities in Bavaria during the great and destructive out- break of the nun moth (Liparis monacha) which occurred there from 1889 to 1891. The flight of Starlings collected in one locality alone was credibly estimated at ten thousand, all busily feeding on the caterpillars, pupz, and moths. Enormous flights of Titmice and Finches were similarly engaged. The attraction of Starlings to such centers be- came so great that market gardeners at a distance felt their absence seriously.” Evidently in such cases the birds, changing their usual fare entirely for the time being, remove their restraining influence from both useful and injurious insects, leaving one to exert its full force as a check on the other, until the urgent business of the serious outbreak of grasshoppers, caterpillars, or some other pest has been attended to; then the birds return to their usual haunts and food, and exert the same repressive influence as before. Although the insects which are potentially injurious are greatly in the majority, there are many species which per- form a very.apparent useful function in nature. Such are the bees and some of their allies of the order Hymenop- tera, — insects which travel from flower to flower in search of sweets, and, becoming loaded with pollen, fertilize the blossoms, rendering the trees fruitful. Other insects seem especially adapted to hold the potentially injurious species in check. Some which are called predaceous insects attack other insects and devour them, as do the ground beetles 1 The Regulative Action of Birds upon Insect Oscillations, by 8. A. Forbes. Bulletin No. 6, Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History, 1883, p. 21. 2? Protection of Woodlands, by Herman Fiirst. English edition, translated by John Nisbet, 1893, p. 126. 18 USEFUL BIRDS. (Carabide) already mentioned, the tiger beetles (Cicinde-_ lide), the ladybirds (Coccinellide), and many of the true bugs. Such insects are often miscalled parasites, but they do not merit this misnomer. The predaceous beetles are the wolves, lions, and tigers of the insect world. They hunt down their prey, pouncing upon it and killing it when found. Often these insects are so ravenous that they con- tent themselves with drawing ' the life blood and other juices from their quarry, leaving the $ rest to be devoured by ants Fig. 9.—Predaceous beetle; the lion OF other scavengers. While pice riieie penis the larger predaceous beetles attack many of the larger insects, smaller species, such as ladybirds, assail other minute insects, such as the aphids or plant lice. The bugs are the vampires of the insect world. Armed with a strong proboscis, the bug pursues its prey, pierces it and sucks its juices, leaving it drained and lifeless ; but the so-called parasitic insects feed in a manner entirely different. Certain families of the Hymenoptera’ and Diptera contain parasitic genera and species. These insects range in size from that of a large wasp down to that of a small midge. Most of Fig. 10.—Pre. ‘ oye * daceous beetle; them have the habit of depositing their eggs a tiger among on, or in, the bodies of other living insects. IBA: Each ichneumon fly is armed with a long —k ovipositor, which operates somewhat like a hollow sting, by means of which it is en- abled to pierce the skin of the larve of other insects and pass its eggs through the gh sca ream die ad puncture, depositing them in the body tis- Imago, natural size Sues beneath the skin. These eggs soon oud enlarged, hatch, and the young larve, emerging from UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 19 them, feed first upon the fatty portions of the caterpillar in which they find themselves. The caterpillar thus unwill- ingly becomes their host, furnishing them with food and lodging from and within its own substance. When they have made their growth, and it is nearly time for them to pupate, they attack the vitals of their host, killing it, and then pupating either within or upon its body. Soon they emerge as perfect flies, the females again seeking other caterpillars as hosts for their progeny. Often these parasites do not kill their oe oy Fig. 12.— Host caterpillar, with host until it has sought some place cocoons of the parasite upon its back. of safety and pupated. Every cat- erpillar or pupa thus destroyed nourishes one or many of these parasites, to emerge and attack surviving caterpillars. The parasites themselves, however, are often attacked in the same manner by a secondary parasite, which destroys them precisely as they destroyed the caterpillar. The larger pri- mary parasites may deposit a single egg or only a few in each caterpillar, while the smaller ones may deposit the entire brood in the body of a single caterpillar. Birds eat both predaceous and parasitic insects. We have seen that they eat ground beetles, many of which are pro- vided with acrid secretions that are supposed to render them disagreeable and offensive to the taste, and so give them a certain immunity from their ene- mies. Evidently, however, it takes a very strong flavor to take the edge off a bird’s appetite, for birds eat bugs; and any child who has ever eaten berries from the bushes, and inadvertently put one of the berry-eating bugs in his mouth, knows how disgusting their Fig.13.—Tiger flavor is. There are some useful insects that beetle; auseful are seldom eaten by birds. The very smallest by very few are beneath the notice of most birds. The si ad tiger beetles and some of the useful flies are so quick that birds find it difficult to catch them. Wasps and bees, though eaten by some birds, can protect themselves very well with their stings. Probably, however, 20 USEFUL BIRDS. birds eat a great many caterpillars containing parasites, though birds will reject any caterpillars that show signs of weakness or disease. The question then arises, Is the bird doing harm by eating caterpillars or other larve containing parasites? The bird certainly ends the destructive career of the larva at once. The parasites would have ended it eventually ; but had it been left to them, it might have gone on for some time in its destructive career, doing as much injury as if not parasitized; the parasite merely destroys it in time to prevent it from propagating its kind. So far the evidence is in favor of the bird. The question remains, however, whether the bird and its young would eventually destroy more caterpillars than would the progeny of the parasites had they not been eaten by the bird. This question evidently is unanswerable. Birds act as the primary check on the increase of destructive insects ; parasitic insects are the secondary check provided by nature to operate in con- junction with the birds, or to supplement the regulative action of birds where the number of birds is insufficient to check the increase of insects. Birds sometimes kill many of the imagoes of parasitic insects in flight, where such insects are numerous. At first sight, this would seem to condemn the birds; on further study, it seems probable that this is often a harmless habit. Where parasitic insects are found in great numbers, it is probable that the birds destroy mainly the surplus flies, which otherwise, failing to find hosts for their young, would merely live out their time and die without issue were they not killed by the birds. Such harm as birds do in killing primary parasites may be offset by the killing of secondary parasites by birds, for this acts as a protection to the pri- mary parasites. Certain predaceous bugs feed not only on insects but also on vegetable food. They also attack other predaceous or useful insects. Birds, by preventing their undue increase, may prevent excessive injury to both useful plants and insects. All reasoning from known premises leads to one conclusion UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 21 regarding the utility of birds in nature. It may be stated confidently, as a general rule (not without exceptions, how- ever), that, in the natural order of things, the species that is kept within normal numbers without great fluctuations, whether beast, bird, reptile, batrachian, or insect, will serve a useful purpose; while the species that increases unduly will devour too much animal or vegetable food, and, by dis- turbing the balance of nature, become a pest. It is the abnormal increase of the gipsy and brown-tail moths and the “English” Sparrow in this Commonwealth that has been responsible for the injury they have done. If birds do well their part in holding in check native insects, small mammals, reptiles, batrachians, and other forms of life on which they feed, they have fulfilled their mission, even if in doing this they destroy some individuals of some species that are classed as useful. This, then, is the chief mission of the birds in organic nature: to fill their peculiar place in preserving the balance of nature’s forces, —a place that cannot be filled by any other class of animals. In much of the foregoing it appears that the birds are engaged in checking the increase of insects and other ani- mals, exerting that check constantly when and where it is most, needed. The vegetable food of birds is perhaps of less importance, but here also they exercise a restraining influence by destroying seed as wellas in other ways. They also exert a beneficial influence by planting seed. Birds also play a great part in the distribution of plants, the upbuilding and fertilizing of barren islands, and a minor part in the distribution of insects. Wild-fowl and Herons may sometimes carry small seeds for many miles embedded in particles of mud which adhere to their feet. Where this mud drops from their feet, the seeds may sprout and grow. The fruit-eating birds are among the most valuable of tree planters, distributing the seeds farand wide. Certain insects which cling to the feet or feathers of birds are sometimes distributed in this way. The part taken by birds in forest planting and fertilizing barren lands will be taken up far- 22 USEFUL BIRDS. ther on, in connection with their relations to forestry and agriculture. Taken all in all, the relations of birds to the natural world are beneficent. Evidently birds are an essential part of nature’s great plan. This being the case, they must be serviceable to man also, for man, the animal, is a mere inte- gral part of nature. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 23 CHAPTER I. THE VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. Birds are classed as useful or injurious only as they affect man or his property. In an uninhabited country birds can- not be ranked as beneficial or harmful, good or bad, for there is noagriculture. There the earth, untroubled by man, brings forth vegetation, and animals after their kind. Nature’s laws, working in harmony, need none of man’s assistance. The condition of the earth before man appeared is typified in the Biblical account of the garden of Eden. PRIMITIVE MAN’S RELATIONS TO NATURE. We have seen that under such natural conditions all birds are essential to the general welfare, each filling well its appointed place. But trouble and discord come to Eden. Man appears, and becomes the dominant power on the earth. He sets up artificial standards of his own, and bids nature conform to them. He is constantly at war with nature. He classes wild creatures as injurious, provided they either in- jure his person, or cause him loss by destroying or harming any of his property or any of the wild animals or plants which he regards as useful. He considers all wild creatures beneficial that contribute directly or indirectly to his own welfare, or to the increase in value of his property. He is often in error, even from his own standpoint, in thus classifying animals, owing to an insufficient knowledge of their food habits ; but the principle holds good, and stand- ards change with the acquisition of knowledge. Man in a savage state lived, like other animals, in harmony with nature. At first he practised no agriculture and domes- ticated no animals. He made war mainly upon his fellows and the larger beasts of prey, killing them in self-defence or for food. (It seems prebable that primitive man was a cannibal.) Otherwise, he fed altogether upon the wild 24 USEFUL BIRDS. products of forest, meadow, sea, lake, or river. The only creatures that he then could regard as injurious were those that attacked his own person or the persons of his family. Any irruption of animals, such as vast herds of deer, bison, or antelopes, hordes of monkeys or rats, flights of birds or locusts, outbreaks of caterpillars or other creatures, was about as likely to benefit as to injure him. For instance, when locusts became so numerous as to destroy a part or all of his vegetable food, he followed the example of other creatures, and, by feeding for the time on the superabundant locusts, exerted an influence toward restoring the balance of nature. (There are still savage tribes in various parts of the earth that eat monkeys, rats, locusts, grubs, or caterpillars. ) In times of plenty primitive man feasted, as did other animals ; and in times of want, like them, he starved. But usually he was indifferent to any ordinary injury done to the animal or vegetable life around him, .as he owned no prop- erty, and could readily move his camp from a region of want to one of plenty. CHANGED RELATIONS PRODUCED BY AGRICULTURE. With the beginning of agricultural practice, however, all this was changed. When man began to domesticate animals, he faced immediately a host of enemies. Wild animals and birds attacked his cattle, horses, sheep, goats, and hogs, or devoured their young. Tormenting insects stampeded his herds, or carried disease and death among them. His poul- try were decimated by scores of rapacious animals. When he began to plant seed and raise grain, both his growing and his garnered crops were attacked by a host of ene- mies; for now he had begun to disturb nature’s balance, and nature asserted herself in the effort to resume her inter- rupted sway. This was the beginning of a war with nature which will never cease so long as man inhabits the earth ; for the agriculturist does not work altogether with nature, but largely against her. Most of the animal and vegetable forms that he produces are at variance with those produced by nature, and must be continually fostered and protected VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 25 if they are to maintain their artificial characters and excel- lences. Left to themselves, the various breeds of domesti- cated Pigeons would all disappear, merging into the original Dove from whence they sprang. All artificial varieties of animals, plants, and fruits would, under nature, become, in time, like the wild stock from which they originated. Hence man must wage war continually against organic nature, in order to maintain his artificial standards against her inex- orable laws. The beginning of agriculture was the first step toward civilization as well, for the necessity of remaining near his crops to guard them from their enemies compelled the prim- itive farmer to erect a permanent habitation. This took his attention from war and the chase, for much of his time was now occupied in tilling the soil and caring for his crops and animals. - The slow growth of primitive agriculture in the older civilized countries gave time for a gradual adjustment of the forces of nature to the new conditions established and main- tained by man. The gradual or partial clearing away of the forests occupied centuries. The planting of crops merely kept pace with the natural increase of population, while the destruction of wild animals and their replacement with domesticated species were similarly gradual and progressive. So, although in the older countries agriculture suffered much from the pests to which its operations must always give rise, it remained for the peopling of newer lands to develop the greatest difficulties in the path of the farmer. Agriculture produces an increased food supply. The population increases correspondingly, and the overflow seeks new fields. In these new lands, of which America is the most prominent example, the conditions of civilization and agriculture have replaced with marked rapidity those of savagery and primeval nature. MAN AT WAR WITH NATURE IN THE NEW WORLD. All the greater changes that were effected gradually by man in Europe, where, in the course of centuries, civiliza- tion was slowly evolved from savagery, —all these stupen- 26 USEFUL BIRDS. dous changes, — were wrought here in a few years by the tide of immigration from the eastern world. In many communities only a score of years elapsed be- tween the subjugation of the unbroken wilderness and the building of a farming town or growing city. In Massachu- setts the settlers cut down the forest; killed off most of the larger mammals and birds ; imported and bred horses, cattle, and poultry ; cleared and planted much of the arable land ; introduced many new plants; and rapidly changed the ap- pearance of the country from that of a wilderness to that of an agricultural colony. Thirty years after the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth, eastern Massachusetts was well colonized; with several growing seaport towns; with prosperous farms, fertile fields and green pastures; with flocks and herds grazing on many a hill, where the wild Indian and the red deer formerly roamed. All these changes, taking place so rapidly, produced great disturbances in the economy of nature. As the wolf, lynx, puma, and bear were killed or driven away, the smaller animals on which they had formerly preyed increased in numbers and attacked the crops. Crows, Blackbirds, and many insects, finding in the grain crops new sources of food supply, swarmed upon them and multiplied exceedingly. Birds and insects attacked the cultivated fruit. Thousands of acres of cleared meadow land were producing crops of grass. Given this increased food supply, locusts and other grass-eating insects increased in numbers. The settlers, meantime, were destroying the Heath Hen, Quail, Plover, Blackbirds, Hawks, and Crows, the natural enemies of the locusts. As time went on, many new plants were introduced from Europe, and in some cases insect pests unwittingly were brought with them. The two succeeding centuries brought about a tremendous immigration from Europe. As settlement extended into the western States, great fields of wheat and other grains were established, covering the plains in some instances as far as the eye could see. Hundreds of thousands of acres were planted to orchards and vineyards; great areas near the cities were devoted to garden vegetables ; north and south, corn, wheat, and cotton clothed the land. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 27 THE INCREASE OF INSECT PESTS. Insects introduced from foreign lands found here a para- dise, in which to multiply, in the great areas planted year after year to the same crops. Having escaped their native enemies, they had come to an abundance of food in a land where many of the insect-eating birds and other insectivo- rous animals had been much reduced in number by the unwise policy of the settlers. Hence the rate of increase of im- ported insect pests in America has far exceeded that of the same insects in their native lands. Certain native American insects, finding their food plants destroyed by the cutting down of the forests or thé break- ing up of the prairie, turned their attention to the crops of the farmer, and became important pests. Such are the cutworms (Noctuide) ; : their name is legion. Others, having been reached in their desert or mountain homes by the advance of civilization, left their natural food for the more succulent plants raised by man, and so spread over the country from farm pig. 14.—chinch to farm. Such are the chinch bug and the an a en- Colorado potato beetle, which, as civilization advanced westward, met it and spread toward the east. The enormous losses which have occurred in the United States from the destruction of growing crops by insects must seem incredible to those who do not realize how vast are the numbers of insects, how stupendous their power of multi- plication, how insatiable their voracity. When we fully appreciate the consuming powers of insects, they assume an economic importance greater than can be accorded to the ravening beast of prey. Let us consider briefly, then, the potency for evil that lies hidden in the tiny but innumerable eggs of injurious insects, which require only the warmth of the summer sun to release from confinement their destructive energies. 28 USEFUL BIRDS. THE NUMBER OF INSECTS. The number of insect species is greater by far than that of the species of all other living creatures combined. More than three hundred thousand have been described. There are many thousands of undescribed species in museums. Dr. Lintner, the late distinguished State entomologist of New York, considered it not improbable that there were a million species of insects. The number of individual insects is beyond human comprehension or computation. Dr. Lintner says that he saw at a glance, in a small extent of roadway near Albany, more individuals of a single species of snow flea, as computed by him, than there are human beings on the entire face of the earth. A small cherry tree ten feet in height was found by Dr. Fitch to be infested with an aphid or plant louse. He estimated (first counting the number of these insects on a leaf, the number of leaves on a branch and the number of branches on the tree) that there were twelve million plant lice on the tree; and this was only one tree of a row similarly infested. To give the reader an approximate idea of the number of insects on the tree, it was stated that, were a man to count them singly and as rapidly as he could speak, it would require eleven months’ labor at ten hours a day to complete the enumeration.! In the days of their abundance the Rocky Mountain locusts in flight filled the air and hid the sun. From the high peaks of the Sierra Nevada they were seen filling the valleys below and the air above as far as a powerful field glass could bring the insects within focus. The chinch bug in countless mil- lions infests the grain fields over towns, counties, and States. The army worm moves at times in solid masses, destroying the crops in its path. THE REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF INSECTS. Insects are enormously productive, and, were the progeny of one pair allowed to reproduce without check, they would cover, in time, the entire habitable earth. " Our Insect Enemies, by J. A. Lintner. Sixteenth Annual Report, New Jersey State Board of Agriculture, 1888-89, pp. 293, 294. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 29 The rapidity of propagation shown by some insects is per- haps without a parallel in the animal world. In order to give some idea of the powers of multiplication of the Colorado potato beetle, the Canadian Entomologist states that all its transformations are effected in fifty days; so that the result of a single pair, if allowed to increase without molestation, would in one season amount to eee ais over sixty millions.} beetle. Speaking of the great power of multiplication shown by plant lice or aphids, Dr. Lintner says that Professor Riley, in his studies of the hop vine aphis (Phorodon humuli), has observed thirteen generations of the species in the year. Now, if we assume the average number of young produced by each female to be one hundred, and that every individual attains maturity and produces its full complement of young (which, however, never occurs in nature), the number of the twelfth brood alone (not counting those of all of the preceding broods of the same year) would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (ten sextillions) of indi- viduals. Where, as in this instance, figures fail to convey any adequate conception of numbers, let us take space and the velocity of light as measures. Were this brood mar- shalled in line with ten individuals to a linear inch touching one another, the procession would extend to the sun (a space which light traverses in eight minutes), and beyond it to the nearest fixed star (traversed by light only in six years), and still onward in space beyond the most distant star that the strongest telescope may bring to our view, — to a point so inconceivably remote that light could only reach us from it in twenty-five hundred years. The remotest approach to such unchecked multiplication on the part of this insect might paralyze the hop-growing industry in one season. While the aphids may represent the extreme of fecundity, there are thousands of insect species the unchecked increase of any one of which would soon overrun a continent. Mr. A. H. Kirkland has com- 1 Report of Townend Glover, entomologist, in Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Agriculture, 1871, p. 74. 30 USEFUL BIRDS. puted that the unrestricted increase of the gipsy moth would be so great that the progeny of one pair would be numerous enough in eight years to devour all the foliage in the United States. THE VORACITY OF INSECTS. Many insects are remarkably destructive because of the enormous amount of food which they must consume to grow rapidly to maturity. Many caterpillars daily eat twice their weight of leaves; which is as if an ox were to devour, every twenty-four hours, three-quarters of a ton of grass.1 This voracity and rapid growth may be shown by the statement of a few facts. A certain flesh-feeding larva will consume in twenty-four hours two hundred times its original weight ; a parallel to which, in the human race, would be an infant consuming, in the first day of its existence, fifteen hundred pounds of food. There are vegetable feeders, caterpillars, which during their progress to maturity, within thirty days, increase in size ten thousand times. To equal this remarkable growth, a man at his maturity would have to weigh forty tons. In view of such statements, need we wonder that the insect world is so destructive and so potent a power for harm ?? Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, who introduced the gipsy moth into this country, was occupied for some time in raising silkworms in Medford, Mass. He made a special study of the American silkworm ( Telea polyphemus). Regarding its food and growth he says :— It is astonishing how rapidly the larva grows, and one who has had no experience in the matter could hardly believe what an amount of food is devoured by these little creatures. One experiment which I made can give some idea of it. When the young worm hatches out, it 1 A probable cause for this voracity in the case of herbivorous larve is that the stomachs do not have the power of dissolving the vegetable matter received into them, but merely of extracting from it a juice. This is proved both by their excrement, which consists of coiled-up and hardened particles of leaf, which, when put into water, expand like tea, and by the great proportion which the excrement bears to the quantity of food consumed (Kirby and Spence’s Ento- mology, p. 259). ? Our Insect Enemies, by J. A. Lintner. Sixteenth Annual Report, New Jersey State Board of Agriculture, 1888-89, p. 295, PLATE I.--The American Silkworm Moth (Telea polyphemus). VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 31 weighs one-twentieth of a grain; when ten days old, it weighs one-half a grain, or ten times the original weight; when twenty days old, it weighs three grains, or sixty times the original weight ; when thirty days old, it weighs thirty-one grains, or six hundred and twenty times the original weight; when forty days old, it weighs ninety grains, or eight- een hundred times the original weight; and when fifty-six days old, it weighs two hundred and seven grains, or forty-one hundred and forty times the original weight. When a worm is thirty days old, it will have consumed about ninety grains of food; but when fifty-six days old it is fully grown, and has consumed not less than one hundred and twenty*oak leaves, weighing three-fourths of a pound; besides this, it has drunk not less than one- half an ounce of water. So the food taken by a single silkworm in fifty-six days equals in weight eighty-six thousand times the primitive weight of the worm. Of this, about one-fourth of a pound becomes excrementitious matter, two hundred and seven grains are assimilated, and over five ounces have evaporated. What a destruction of leaves this single species of insect could make, if only a one-hundredth part of the eggs laid came to maturity! A few years would be sufficient for the propagation of a number large enough to devour all the leaves of our forests.! When we consider the dangers arising from the immense numbers, fecundity and voracity of insects, the fact that insects new to cultivated crops are continually appearing becomes a source of grave apprehension. THE GREAT LOSS TO AMERICAN AGRICULTURE BY INSECT RAVAGES. Economic entomologists, who are constantly increasing our knowledge regarding insect pests, discover every year new species attacking important crops or trees. Dr. Lintner made a list of the insects injuring apple trees in the United States, which was published in the appendix to his first report as entomologist of New York State. It contained one hundred and seventy-six species, while large though lesser numbers have been found on the plum, pear, peach, and cherry. The study of the insect enemies of the forest trees of the United States has not yet progressed far enough to deter- 1 The American Silkworm, by L. Trouvelot. American Naturalist, Vol. I, p. 85. 32 USEFUL BIRDS. mine with approximate accuracy the numbers of insects that infest our forest trees. The forest insects of some sections of Europe have been studied longer, and the numbers of in- sects found injuring the principal trees are surprising. Kal- tenbach enumerates five hundred and thirty-seven species of insects, from central Europe, injurious to the oak; to the elm he ascribes one hundred and seven. The poplars feed two hundred and sixty-four species; the willows harbor three hundred and ninety-six ; the birches, two hundred and seventy; the alder, one hundred and nineteen; the beech, one hundred and fifty-four; the hazel, ninety-seven; and the hornbeam, eighty-eight. Among the coniferous trees, the pines, larch, spruce, and fir, collectively, are attacked by two hundred and ninety-nine species of insects.? Dr. Packard enumerated over four hundred species which prey upon our oaks, and believed it not improbable that ultimately the number of species found on the oaks of the United States would be from six hundred to eight hundred or even one thousand.? The list of insects which feed on grasses, cereals, field and garden crops is very large and constantly growing, for it is continually receiving accessions from both native and foreign sources. The destructiveness of some of these insects is so enormous and widespread that the financial loss resulting therefrom amounts to a heavy annual tax on the people of the United States. Hence since the first settlement of the country the amount of this annual tax has been increasing. In 1854 the loss in New York State alone from the ravages | of the insignificant wheat midge (Diéplosis tritic’), as esti- mated by the secretary of the New York State Agricultural Society, was fifteen million dollars. Whole fields of wheat were left ungarnered. So destructive was this insect in the following years as to stop the raising of white wheat, and reduce the value of all wheat lands forty per cent.® 1 Die Pflanzenfeinde aus der Klasse der Insekten. ? Insects Injurious to Forest and Shade Trees, by A. S. Packard. Fifth Report of the United States Entomological Commission, 1886-90, p. 48. 3 Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, by A. S. Packard. Ninth Annual Report of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territo- ries, 1875, p. 709. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 33 In 1856, in Livingston County, New York, two thousand acres on flats which would have yielded thirty bushels of wheat per acre were not harvested because of the destruc- tive work of this insect.1 Dr. C. L. Marlatt, of the Bureau of Entomology of the United States Department of Agriculture, who has made careful calculations of the loss. still occasioned by the Hessian fly (Cecido- myta destructor) in the wheat-growing States, says that in comparatively few years does it cause a loss of less than ten per cent. of the crop. On the val- uation of the crop of 1904 this would amount to over fifty million dollars. Dr. Marlatt states that in the year 1900 the loss in the wheat-growing States Figs 16. “iaadinn ay, from this tiny midge undoubtedly ap- ee proached one hundred million dollars.? The chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) attacks many staple crops, and has been a seriously destructive pest in the Mississippi valley States for many years, where it injures chiefly wheat and corn. Dr. Shimer in his notes on this insect estimates the loss caused by it in the Mississippi valley in 1864 at one hundred million dollars,? while Dr.. Riley gives the loss in that year as seventy-three million dollars in Illinois alone.t These are only a few of the extreme losses. Year after year the injuries from the depredations of this bug have amounted to many millions of dollars. The cotton worm (Alabama argillacea) has been known as a serious pest to the cotton crop for more than a century. The average loss in the cotton States from this caterpillar ' First Annual Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New York, by J. A. Lintner, 1882, p. 6. 2? The Annual Loss occasioned by Destructive Insects in the United States, by C. L. Marlatt. Yearbook, United States Department of Agriculture, 1904, p. 467. 3 Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, by A. S. Packard. Ninth Annual Report of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, 1875, p. 697. 4 First Annual Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New York, by J. A. Lintner, 1882, p. 7. 34 USEFUL BIRDS. for fourteen years following the civil war was estimated at fifteen million dollars per year. In 1873 the injury to the cotton crop reached twenty-five million dollars, and later averaged from twenty-five million to fifty million dollars annually.2- Now a new enemy, the Mexican cotton boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis), threatens equal destruction. The Rocky Mountain locust (Melanoplus spretus) began to destroy crops as soon as the country it inhabits was set- tled, and is still injurious. From time to time its enormous flights have traversed a great part of the Mississippi valley. It reached a maximum of destructiveness from 1874 to 1877, when the total loss from its ravages in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and neighboring States, including injury by depression of business and general ruin, was estimated at two hundred million dollars.? In those years this devastating insect swept over the Missis- sippi valley. Wherever its vast flights alighted or its young developed, they destroyed nearly all vegetation, ruining great numbers of farmers, causing a famine in the land, and driving many people to emigration. This was an extreme calamity, such as is not likely to occur again. A still larger but more widely distributed loss from insect pests, however, is still borne annually by the American people. Dr. Lintner states his belief that the annual and periodical injury caused by cutworms in the United States is greater than that caused by the Rocky Mountain locust. In September, 1868, Prof. D. B. Walsh, editor of the American Entomologist, estimated that the country then suffered to the amount of three hundred million dollars annually from the depredations of noxious insects. By the census of 1875 the agricultural products of this country were valued at two billion, five hundred million dollars. Of this * Fourth Report of the United States Entomological Commission, by C. V. Riley, 1885, p. 3. ? Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, by A. S. Packard. Ninth Annual Report of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Terri- tories, 1875, p. 591. 8 Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, by Riley, Packard, and Thomas. First Report of the United States Entomological Commission, 1877, pp. 115~122. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 35 amount, Dr. Packard says that in all probability we annually lose over two hundred million dollars from the attacks of injurious insects. In the report of the Department of Agri- culture for 1884 (p. 324) the losses occasioned by insects injurious to agriculture in the United States, it is said, are variously estimated at from three hundred million to four hundred million dollars annually. Prof. C. V. Riley, in response to a letter of inquiry, in 1890, stated that no very recent estimate of the injury done by insects had been made; but that he had estimated, some time previously, that the injury done to crops in the United States by insects exceeded three hundred million dollars annually. Dr. James Fletcher, in his annual address as president of the Society of Economic Entomologists, in Washington, in 1891, stated that the agricultural products of the United States were then estimated at about three billion, eight hun- dred million dollars. It was believed that a sum equal to about one-tenth of this amount, or three hundred and eighty million dollars, was lost annually through the ravages of injurious insects. It is evident that, in spite of the improved methods of fighting insects, the aggregate loss from this source increases in proportion as the land under cultivation increases. The most recent estimate of the loss occasioned by insect injury in the United States which has come to my notice is that of Dr. C. L. Marlatt, who by careful estimates approxi- mates the percentage of loss to cereal products, hay, cotton, tobacco, truck crops, sugars, fruits, forests, miscellaneous crops, animal products, and products in storage. Dr. Marlatt attributes an annual loss of eighty million dollars to the corn crop alone, and approximates the loss to the wheat crop at one hundred million dollars each year. The injury to the hay crop is estimated at five hundred and thirty thousand dollars, while the codling moth alone is be- lieved to injure fruit crops to the amount of twenty million dollars annually. This statement, based on the value of farm products as given in the reports of the Bureau of Statistics of the United 36 USEFUL BIRDS. States Department of Agriculture for 1904, gives the loss from insect depredations for that year as seven hundred and ninety-five million, one hundred thousand dollars; and this is believed to be a conservative estimate of the tax now im- posed by injurious insects on the people of the United States, without reckoning the millions of dollars that are expended annually in labor and insecticides in the fight against insects.+ LOSSES BY INSECT RAVAGES IN MASSACHUSETTS. The proportion of this loss that Massachusetts is called upon to bear has not received the attention that it deserves. Some figures, however, may be given. In 1861 the army worm (probably Heliophila unipuncta) swept eastern Mas- sachusetts. The damage done to crops, according to Dr. Packard, exceeded five hundred thousand dollars.22 We have no estimates of the loss occasioned by more recent invasions of thisinsect. Prof. C. H. Fernald ® estimates that an amount of cranberries equal to one-third the possible crop of the Cape Cod region is annually destroyed by insects. Thus a sum not less than five hundred thousand dollars is yearly lost to the people of that region. In 1890 Dr. Henry H. Goodell, president of the Massa- chusetts Agricultural College, stated that it was costing the farmers of the United States two million dollars, and the farmers of Massachusetts eighty thousand dollars, each year, to hold the Colorado potato beetle in check by the use of Paris green.+* In 1901 Hon. J. W. Stockwell, then secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, asked me to esti- mate the annual loss to the Commonwealth through the rav- ages of insect pests. My estimate, which seemed to me at * The Annual Loss occasioned by Destructive Insects in the United States, by C. L. Marlatt. Yearbook, United States Department of Agriculture, 1904, p. 464. * First Report on Injurious and Beneficial Insects of Massachusetts, by A. S. Packard. Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1870, Part I, p. 353. 5 In Bulletin No. 19 of the Hatch Experiment Station of the Massachusetts Agricultural College, Professor Fernald gives statistics of the cranberry crop, and evidence from which his estimate is made. * Agricultural Education, by H. H. Goodell. Sixth Annual Report of the Rhode Island State Board of Agriculture, 1891, p. 186. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 37 the time a most safe and conservative one, was three million, one hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Stockwell also asked Dr. H. T. Fernald and Mr. A. H. Kirkland, both expert economic entomologists, to make, independently, a similar estimate. Their replies follow, showing how they made up their figures. These gentlemen had every facility for obtain- ing knowledge of insect injury in the Commonwealth. It will be seen that their approximations considerably exceeded my own. Dr. H. T. Fernald says :1— Years ago a number of experts, figuring independently, came to the conclusion that for farm, market-garden and orchard crops the loss by the attacks of insects in an average year would represent one-tenth of the value of the crop, or about two million, six hundred thousand dollars for Massachusetts. Recently, however, prominent entomologists have expressed the opinion that this per cent. istoolow. Three factors have caused this change: first, the concentration of crops of the same kind into large contiguous acreage; second, the introduction of over one hundred pests from foreign countries, which have been here long enough to make their presence seriously felt; and third, the great reduction in the number of insectivorous birds. ~ I believe it will be entirely safe to take fifteen per cent. of the crop valuation of Massachusetts, and that you will be sufficiently conserva- tive in using that amount as representing part of the damage. I have never scen a cherry tree killed by plant lice, yet I have often seen lice so abundant on cherry trees as to much reduce the crop, which is true of a large proportion of our crops; and it is loss of this kind which is covered by the fifteen per cent. estimate, . . . but how are we to place a money value on the defoliation of an elm tree unless it be repeated year after year until the tree dies? I would be inclined to add, to the fifteen per cent. estimate already given, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for labor, apparatus, poison, etc., used in the fight against insects, and another two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to cover damage actually done, but which cannot be reduced to figures, making a total yearly damage of four million, four hundred thousand dollars for Massachusetts. Mr. Kirkland says : ! — The best figures available for estimating the loss caused by pests in this State are those of the 1895 census. From the report of this census T have taken figures giving the value of certain crops notably attacked ‘ Report of Secretary J. W. Stockwell, Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1901, pp. xiii, xiv. 38 USEFUL BIRDS. by insects, and have estimated in each case the probable average yearly reduction in value caused by these pests. The data used are given be- low. Ihave tried to make a conservative estimate in the case of each product, since, to have any value, such an estimate should fall below rather than above the actual amount. Even then the figures afford material for serious reflection on the part of agriculturists. Percentage Value Amount Baoouets of Product. conde: of Damage. Greenhouse products, 2 i $1,749,070 10 $174,907 00 Hothouse and hotbed products, oa) 8 97,227 5 4,861 35 Nursery products, . o> Gal 182,906 15 27,435 90 Wood products,. . . Sy ad os 2,780,314 20 556,062 80 Cereal products, i ca Gs 1,104,578 5 55,228 90 Fruits, berries, and nuts, ib ot os 2,850,585 25 712,646 25 Hay and fodder de B. sah Ss 8 12,491,090 10 1,249,109 00 Vegetables,. . ee ee oe 6,389,533 20 1,277,906 60 Tobacco, me ee Aa 5 Ran oe 544,968 10 54,496 80 Property : — Fruit trees, vines, etc... . . . 7,924,878 10 792,487 80 Totals, . © & a & $36,115,149 $4,905,142 40 Assuming the accuracy of these data, and exclusive of the damage wrought by insects to our woodlands, street trees, parks, ete., we have in round figures five million dollars as the average annual damage from insects to agricultural products and property in this Commonwealth. While the cost of insect injury is enormous, the expense of fighting injurious insects in the attempt to protect crops and trees from their ravages is proportionately great. In recent years Massachusetts has had, and is still having, a costly experience in attempting to control or suppress an imported insect. The gipsy moth (Porthetria dispar), a well-known pest of European countries, was introduced into Medford, Mass., by Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, in 1868 or 1869. Twenty years later the moths had increased in numbers to such an extent that they were destroying the trees and shrubbery in that section of Medford where they were first liberated. They swarmed over the houses of the inhabitants, invaded their gardens, and became such a public nuisance that in 1890 the Legislature appropriated fifty thousand dollars for their extermination. It was learned within the next two years that the moths had spread over thirty towns. The State CPUBLLNS JaIsy) ‘eo0¢eT ‘eune ‘sxeqTd1a3e0 Aq payeysvaop ‘uojsurry ‘yteg syooy AtmojoueW, ‘qo Asdig sy} jo ssouaatjonissq euL—‘I] ALWId CS68T ‘AMIS VY JO pIvog 93819 syasnToessB 94 JO yoder Tenuue st} WOL,) “syteq puelpoo~, ut yo Asdiy ayy jo s33q ayy sutfoysap jo yo“, sAtsusdxq — ‘TIT | LW1d VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 39 Board of Agriculture was given charge of the work in 1891, and over one million dollars were expended within the next ten years in the attempt to exterminate the insect. As at the expiration of that time all the larger moth colonies had been destroyed, the Legislature, deeming further expendi- ture unwise, gave up the work, despite the protest of the Board of Agriculture, and its prediction that a speedy rise of the moth would follow the cessation of concerted effort against it. This prediction has been abundantly fulfilled, and the policy of the Board has been fully justified. Dr. Marlatt, who in 1904 visited the region infested by the moth, reported to the Bureau of Entomology at Washington that the people of the infested district were then fighting the insect at a greater annual cost than that formerly assumed by the State. Since the State gave up the work, a single citizen, Gen. Samuel C. Lawrence of Medford, has expended over seventy-five thousand dollars to protect the trees and plants on his estate. Finally, in 1905 the Legislature was obliged to renew the fight, and appropriate the sum of three hundred thousand dollars for work against both this insect and another im- ported pest, —the brown-tail moth (Huproctis chrysorrhea) , which had been introduced into Somerville some time in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The State has also been obliged to call on municipalities and individuals to assist in the work of suppressing these moths, at an annual expense to those concerned which ex- ceeds all previous yearly expenditures for this purpose. These insects have gained a much larger territory than ever before, and thousands of acres of woodland have been attacked by them during the present year (1905), and many pine and other trees have been killed. The gipsy moth has been found in Rhode Island, Connect- icut, and New Hampshire, and the brown-tail moth is also spreading into other States. The prospect now seems to be that our protective expenses against these two insects, as well as the injury done by them, will increase constantly ; and that other States also will be put to similar expense, with no prospect of permanent relief 40 USEFUL BIRDS. save by such checks as may come, in time, through natural causes. In view of the dangers threatened by insect increase and voracity, how fortunate it is for the human race that so many counter-checks are provided against the multiplication of these destructive creatures. If we could increase by so much as one percent. the efficiency of the natural enemies of insects, a large proportion of the loss occasioned by insect injury might be saved. Hence the importance of the study of these natural enemies, among which birds hold a high place. THE CAPACITY OF BIRDS FOR DESTROYING PESTS. When we realize the losses that insects are capable of in- flicting, we see at once that birds, in their capacity of insect destroyers, continually operate to prevent the destruction of some of our most important industries. If birds are present in sufficient numbers, they will prevent the excessive increase of any kind of a pest which they will eat. The number of birds required: to accomplish this highly desirable end need not be very large in comparison with the number of insects; for each bird can devour an incredible number of insects, and the young birds in the nests require more of this food, in proportion to their size, than do their parents. The Digestion of Birds. The digestive organs of birds are so constructed and equipped that they can both contain and dispose of a very large quantity of food. The stomachs of many species quickly separate the indigestible portions of the food from the digestible parts, and the former are thrown out of the mouth, thus relieving the stomach of much worthless mate- rial, and enabling the bird immediately to consume more food. The alimentary canal (including the crop, gullet or cesophagus, the first division of the stomach or proventricu- lus, the gizzard, gigerium or second division of the stomach, the intestine and the cloaca) consists of a tube reaching from mouth to anus, conveying the food. The nutritious qualities of the food are drawn off by the lacteals as it passes; the VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 41 refuse is voided. Thisis digestion. The food is often manip- ulated, crushed, or divided by the beak. It then receives saliva from the mouth, and passes through the pharynx into either the gullet (a muscular and membranous tube) or crop (a pouch), as the case may be, organs capable of great distention, and connecting with the first division of the stomach. Here, then, is the first receptacle of the food. Birds of prey, Herons and some other large birds sometimes fill the gullet to the very mouth, while awaiting the digestion of the food in a stomach already full. The Pelicans have also another great receptacle or pouch, ex- ternal and beneath the beak, where a store of food can be carried. Many of the smaller birds also are able, after filling the stomach, to stow away a still larger supply of food in the gullet. The stomach is large, and usually capable, by distention, of contain- ing a considerable quantity of food. The 2-92 food passes from the gullet or the crop to pig, on ‘Alimen- the proventriculus or glandular portion of — tary canal of Bluc- bird, reduced; after the stomach. This is where the process auduvon. a,,gu!- of digestion begins. Mixed with salivary, Ce ingluvial, and proventricular secretions, the — sizzard; ef, h, in- 7 testine; i, cloaca. food next passes to the gizzard or muscular division of the stomach, where the food grist is ground fine. Among seed-eating birds the heavy, powerful muscles of this portion of the stomach are, with the rough, calloused stomach lining, assisted in their work by sand and gravel which are swallowed. This mineral matter takes the place of teeth in grinding the food. In vegetable-feeding birds the intestine is very long and much coiled, while the digestive tract is generally shorter and simpler in the flesh-eating and fish-eating species. All the processes of digestion are remarkably rapid. The sali- vary glands, the liver and the pancreas all quickly pour their copious secretions into the alimentary canal; the food is chylified after impregnation with the biliary and pancreatic Sy) rN S 42 USEFUL BIRDS. fluids ; the chyle is drawn off by the lacteals, and the residue is excreted. The vigor, perfection, and rapidity of these processes in insect-eating birds are such as might be expected among animals of such high temperature, perfect respiration, and rapid circulation. : The various dilations of the digestive tract serve well their purpose of enabling the bird to consume the large amount of food necessary for its maintenance. Digestion is partic- ularly rapid in the growing young of most birds, for they require not only food sufficient to sustain life, but an extra supply as well to enable them to increase daily in size, and to grow, in a few days, those wonderful appendages that we call feathers. The Growth of Young Birds. The growth of many birds from the egg to the hour of- flight requires less time than is needed by some insects to reach the flight stage. It is most significant that young birds can develop as rapidly as can many in- sects on which they feed, for it shows how readily, under favorable conditions, the increase of birds might keep proportion- f ate pace with that of insects. Weed and = = Dearborn, in their interesting manual, en- Fig. 18-— Young Cedar titled “Birds in their Relations to Man,” ys naked, blind,andhelp- state that they watched four young Song less, with mouth open for food. Reduced; SParrows that were out of the nest on the nee Tiere eighth day. Mr. Owen records another instance where a brood of young Song Sparrows were fledged and left the nest within the same period.! Probably this is exceptional ; but many of the smaller birds rear their young from the egg to the first flight within two or three weeks. Mr. Owen found that on one particular day this family of five young Song Sparrows increased in average weight forty-eight per cent., while the smallest bird gained fifty-five per cent. in a single day. The young of perching birds (Insessores) come into the world tiny creatures, either naked or covered with down, ' A Family of Nestlings, by D. E. Owen. The Auk, Vol. XVI, No. 3, July, 1899, pp. 221-225. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 43 blind, and helpless; yet in a few days, or at most a few weeks, they havé grown to nearly the size of their parents, and produced a perfect suit of feathers, including the strong quills of wings and tail. In a few weeks more they are able to begin a journey of hun- dreds or thousands of miles over land and sea, in their first migration. The young of precocial birds, such as Grouse, Snipe and Plover, are able to run about soon after they are hatched. i Young Grouse learn to fly Fig. 19.— Young Cedar Birds, less than three when quite small, but they Bee develop more slowly than do the young of the smaller altricial birds. It is difficult, therefore, to determine the amount of food they require, as they leave the nest at once and wander from place to place, picking up their own food. The young of the altricial perching birds, however, re- main quite helpless in the nest until nearly fledged, affording an Fig. 20.— Young Grouse, just from the egg, but able excellent opportunity rN: for the investigator to determine the amount and character of their food, and to watch the progress of their development. We can learn how much food such young birds require by feeding them in confinement. 44 USEFUL BIRDS. The Amount of Food required by Young Birds. It seems necessary to the health and comfort of the nest- ling bird that its stomach be filled with food during most of the day. Nearly half a century ago Prof. D. Treadwell called attention to the great food requirements of the young Robin. Two young’ birds from the nest were selected for his experiment. . a, One soon died of starvation, c- as the supply of food given Sey 7 them at first was much too Dp small. The food of the re- SS ee maining bird was gradually Fig. 21.— A young Woodcock, ready to jncreased from day to day, leave the nest. $ : until on the seventh day it was given thirty-one angleworms; but there was no increase in its weight until, on the fourteenth day, it received sixty- eight worms, weighing, all told, thirty-four pennyweights.! Later the same bird ate nearly one-half its own weight of beef in a day. A young man eating at this rate would consume about seventy pounds of beefsteak daily. The Robin even when full grown required one-third of its weight of beef daily. Mr. Charles W. Nash fed a young Robin from fifty to seventy cutworms and earthworms a day for fifteen days. While experimenting to see how many cutworms the bird would eat in a day, he fed it five and one-half ounces of this food, or one hundred and sixty-five cutworms. As the Robin weighed but three ounces in the morning, it must We ae, Fig. 22.— Young Robins, in the nest. * The Food of Young Robins, by D. Treadwell. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. VI, pp. 396-399. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 45 have eaten, during the day, a quantity one and five-sixths times its own weight.! Three young Robins, about ten days old, fed by their parents, were watched by Weed and Dearborn. By an in- genious method of weighing and calculating, the observers arrived at the conclusion that apparently there was eaten a daily amount equal to more than half the birds’ own weight.? Mr. Daniel E. Owen kept a young Hermit Thrush, which ate regularly half its weight of raw steak daily, and would, he says, probably have eaten as much more had it been fed oftener.? In 1895 two young Crows were kept and fed by Messrs. A. H. Kirkland and H. A. Ballou, then my assistants, from August 7 to September 2, when one bird was killed by accident. The survivor was kept until September 14, when it was killed to determine some points regarding digestion. These birds were confined in a large cage or enclosure in an insectary, and were also allowed access during the day to an enclosed yard, which they reached through the window. This gave them considerable exercise. A careful record was kept of most of their food. Never- theless, they occasionally picked up some sprouted grain in the yard, and probably a few insects that could not be re- corded or weighed. For this reason the quantity of the daily food supply recorded is probably, on the average, too low, or, in other words, on the safe side. Some of the smaller animals fed to the birds (toads, frogs, and salamanders) were not always weighed, but they were measured and could be compared with others of known weight, so that the weight was approximated closely. The birds were well grown when they were first received ; but the amount of food at first given them probably was not sufficient for their needs, as their weight did not increase, although they were fed a variety of both vegetal and animal 1 Birds of Ontario in their Relation to Agriculture, by Charles W. Nash. Toronto, Department of Agriculture, 1898, p. 22. ? Birds in their Relations to Man, by Clarence M. Weed and Ned Dearborn, 1903, p. 65. 3 Notes on a Captive Hermit Thrush, by Daniel E. Owen. The Auk, Vol. XIV, No. 1, January, 1897, pp. 1-8. 46 USEFUL BIRDS. food. They were designated by number. On August 20 No. 1 weighed seventeen ounces and No. 2 fourteen ounces. That day the two birds had two ounces of tomato, five ounces of sweet corn, fifty grasshoppers (about three-fourths of an ounce), —in all, nearly eight ounces, —and they also had free access to some grain in the yard. As their weight remained the same, they were fed the next day one-half ounce of tomato, one ounce of corn, one ounce of muskmelon, five ounces of meat, one ounce of beets, and fifty grasshoppers, —in all, fully nine ounces. An apple also was eaten to some extent, and there was still some grain in the yard. Nevertheless, each bird lost about an ounce in weight that day. They were fed at about the same rate the following day, and, as they were losing weight, they were given on the 23d two ounces of melon, all the grasshoppers that could be collected near their place of confinement, four frogs, a sala- mander, two ounces of tomato, and five ounces of corn. On this diet the Crows regained some of the weight they had lost, weighing the next morning sixteen and one-half and thirteen and one-half ounces respectively. On the 24th they were fed more than twelve ounces, and the larger bird lost half an ounce and the smaller gained about the same weight. On the 25th they received over seventeen ounces of food, the smaller bird gaining another half ounce and the larger bird remaining the same. No. 1 now weighed sixteen ounces and No. 2 fourteen and one-half ounces. The next day, with twelve ounces of food, the smaller bird lost one-half ounce and the larger bird made no gain. Evidently where any gain was made by one bird on this amount of food the bird either got more than its share, or found some food in the yard. On August 28 nearly twenty-seven ounces of food were given. This was all vegetal matter except thirty grass- hoppers (one-third of an ounce). J¢ was all eaten, and apparently all needed, for neither bird increased in weight, No. 1 losing half an ounce. It seemed evident throughout the experiment that the birds required much animal food, and when vegetal food alone was given, a larger amount VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 47 than usual was needed. The next day about twenty ounces of food, containing a large proportion of animal matter, were given; and on August 30 the larger bird had again regained its weight of seventeen ounces, while the other held its own. So far the experiment seemed to show that when they were fed from twenty to twenty-five ounces of a ration containing both animal and vegetable food the birds held their own or gained slightly ; but if fed less than twenty ounces of this ration, one or both of the birds fell off in weight. After the death of one bird the other and all its food were weighed daily. All opportunity to secure scattered grain or other food than that weighed was denied. The greatest weight reached by this bird was eighteen and one-half ounces on September 13, on which date it was fed as much corn, cucumber, and tomato as it cared to eat, also a frog, two toads, twenty-seven grasshoppers, thirty-one borers, eight beetles, and eighteen crickets. The record of the twelve days during which this bird was alone seems to show that less than eight ounces of food daily was hardly sufficient for its needs, as on a less amount it tended to lose in weight, while when the amount was increased to ten ounces or more the tendency toward a daily gain in weight was marked. When the quantity of food given these birds was largely reduced in any one day, there was a corresponding reduction in their weight. On September 13 the larger Crow was given only two ounces of tomato, fifty-six grasshoppers, twelve crickets, and a little grain,—in all, not much over three ounces of food. The next morning it had lost one and one-half ounces in weight. The fact that a bird, while in confinement and without a great amount of exercise, could lose nearly ten per cent. of its weight in a single day, even when fed a quantity of food equal to about one-sixth its weight, shows how dependent birds are upon their supply of food. If this single experiment can be regarded as conclusive, we may assume that young Crows, when fledged, absolutely require a daily amount of food equal to about one-half their own weight; and it is evident that they will consume much more than this to their own advantage if they can get it. It 48 USEFUL BIRDS. seems quite probable that a young bird at liberty, depend- ing largely on its own exertions to procure food, and thus exercising more than in confinement, would require still more food to repair the consequent extra waste of the tissues. Others have made similar experiments with Crows in con- finement. Samuels says that he has kept specimens in cap- tivity, and has proved by observation that at least eight ounces of such food as frogs, fish, etc.; are eaten daily by our common Crow. He says that a Crow can live on a very limited allowance, but believes eight ounces to be a reasonable amount. He leaves us to infer that he is speaking of adult Crows, which undoubtedly require less food than their grow- ing young.! Weed and Dearborn kept a wounded adult Crow in a small box, twelve by thirteen by twenty inches. In these cramped quarters, where the bird could hardly stretch its wings, it ate fish for three days in succession at the rate of four and eighty-three hundredths ounces per day,—more than a quarter of its own weight, or about half what our young Crows ordinarily required.” Probably the amount of food eaten by this captive bears about the same proportion to the quantity eaten by a vigor- ous Crow at liberty that the food taken by a prisoner in solitary confinement, or that consumed by a sedentary clerk, bears to the amount required by a strong man at hard labor, or by a prize-fighter in training. The amount of food taken by young birds could not be disposed of by such limited powers of digestion as are given to other animals. What a wonderful contrast is presented between the quantity of food required by the hot-blooded, quick-pulsing, active bird, and that needed by the cold- blooded vertebrates. Many reptiles can live for months without food. Even some of the mammals do not eat at all during their hibernation. 1 Birds of New England, by Edward A. Samuels, 1870, p. 359. 2 Birds in their Relations to Man, by Clarence M. Weed and Ned Dearborn, 1903, p. 61. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 49 The Time required for Assimilation of Food. If we assume that the stomach and cesophagus of a young Crow can contain but an ounce of food, then the bird would be required to digest from eight to twelve meals a day, according to its appetite and opportunity. The question at once arises, How can any digestive system complete such a task? Experiments were made with our young Crows to determine the time required for digestion. The birds were kept without food until the stomach and intestines were empty. They were then fed insects’ eggs, in the belief that some parts of the shells would escape the grind- ing processes of the stomach and be voided in the excreta. Sub- sequent occurrences justified this belief. Ten experiments of this kind were made with the two birds. Fig. 23.— Young Crows, well From the time when the birds nee began to feed until the time when the first eggshells were dropped in the excreta there elapsed, on the average, one hour, twenty-nine minutes and forty-five seconds. The shortest time was forty-eight minutes, and the longest one hour and fifty-four minutes. This, it should be noted, was not merely the time that the food remained in the stomach, but the full interval occupied in digesting and assimilating it, for within this period at least a part of the food had passed the entire digestive tract. In most cases all evidence of the food used in the experi- ment had disappeared from the excreta in from tio to two and one-half hours. If we contrast this with the slower digestion of man, we shall see how birds readily dispose of more meals each day than a man is capable of digesting. To learn how long food remains in a Crow’s stomach, it would be necessary to kill a large number of Crows, each being killed at a longer or shorter interval after it had filled its empty 50 USEFUL BIRDS. stomach. I am not aware that this has ever been done, but have no doubt that the majority of the farmers of Massachu- setts would not object to the destruction of a considerable number of young Crows for this purpose, or any other. The Crow which was accidentally killed had fed freely upon grasshoppers for twenty minutes, and died ten minutes after the close of the feeding period. An examination of the alimentary canal showed the stomach to be quite full, but less than fifty per cent. of its contents, consisting mainly of the hard parts of wings, thoraces, and legs, was in a con- dition to be recognized. The strongly chitinized pronota and hind femora of the grasshoppers offered the most resist- ance to the digestive processes. The other fifty per cent. of the stomach contents had been so finely divided, in the very brief time that it had been in that receptacle, that one would hardly have cared to express a positive opinion as to its identity. This condition of stomach contents is not unusual. In examining the contents of birds’ stomachs we often find more than fifty per cent. of the food so finely comminuted and mixed as to be practically unrecognizable. The presence of insects in a bird’s stomach is sometimes made known by a mere mandible or some other recognizable por- tion, which has resisted for a time the grinding of this remark- able digestive organ. It is significant, however, that, in the thirty minutes intervening between the beginning of a feeding period and death, the stomach had thoroughly pulverized half the food eaten. This experiment was carried further with the second Crow. On September 14 the only food materials given the bird were six crickets and eleven grasshoppers. These it ate within four minutes, and thirty minutes later it was killed. Only about twenty-five per cent. of the stomach contents was recognizable, but this is not all. The alimentary canal was thirty-six inches in length, and in the intestine at a distance of from twelve to fifteen inches from the stomach, and again at twenty-five to twenty-eight inches from that organ, were found a few small pieces of the fore wings of the grasshoppers. As the bird had not been fed since 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the previous day, these remains probably (Photograph by eyed Vireo feeding Young. PLATE IV.— Red- A. Reed.) C VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 51 came from the insects fed to it not more than thirty-three minutes before it was killed. In summing up the results, Mr. Kirkland says: “I think, from what we have seen, that we might expect to find the gizzard empty in from one to one and one-half hours.” Such an experiment should be carried further, but enough was learned to show that the stomach of a young Crow prob- ably can be filled with food and emptied of the digested material from eight to twelve times a day during the long days of midsummer, when their appetites are at their best. Digestion in some of the smaller birds is doubtless even more rapid, for they are enabled to dispose of a still larger amount of food in proportion to their size. Mr. Owen in- forms us that the time required for a blueberry to traverse the digestive tract of his Hermit Thrush was practically an hour and a half. Mr. C. J. Maynard once told me that in a similar experiment a Cedar Bird passed the residue of food within thirty minutes after the food was taken. Weed and Dearborn found that a blackberry was digested by a young Cedar Bird in half an hour. The Number of Insects eaten by Young Birds in the Nest. The remarkable appetites of young birds keep their de- voted parents very busy supplying food most of the time from morning till night. The mother bird spends practically all her time either in searching for food, brooding, protect- ing, and feeding the young, or cleaning the nest (for all the smaller birds that nest openly are obliged to dispose of the excreta of their young, that it may neither befoul the nest nor betray its location to their enemies). Most of the visits made by the old birds to the nest during the day are for the dual purpose of feeding the young and keeping the nest clean. Records kept of the number of these visits show the industry of the parent birds and the food capacity of the young. My assistant, Mr. F. H. Mosher, watched a pair of Red- eyed Vireos feeding their young on June 13, 1899. There were three nestlings, about one day old. At this early age the young of most small birds are fed mainly by regur- 52 USEFUL BIRDS. gitation. The parent birds swallow the food, and probably soften or partly digest it, ejecting it afterwards through their own mouths into the open mouths of the young. No attempt was made, therefore, in this case, to determine the character or amount of the food, for fear of disturbing the parents and interrupting the regularity of the feeding. The birds were fed between 7 and 8 a.m. four- teen times; between 8 and 9, nine times; between 9 and 10, twelve times; between 10 and 11, seven times; between 11 and 12, sixteen times; between 12 and 1, nine times; between 1 and 2, twelve times; between 2 and 3, fifteen times; between 3 and 4, thirteen times ; and be- tween 4 and 5, eighteen times. It will be seen that one or the other parent came to the nest with food one hundred and Fig. 24.— Passenger Pigeon feeding twenty-five times in ten hours, by regurgitation. From Samuels. even when the observer was watching near by; but this leaves four hours unaccounted for, to fill out the long June day, from dawn to evening. The feeding periods averaged less than six minutes apart dur- ing the time the birds were watched; so it seems probable that, had the entire record for the day been kept, at least one hundred and fifty visits to the young would have been recorded. Young birds are fed oftenest at morning and even- ing, or during the hours when these Vireos were not watched. Mr. Mosher watched a pair of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks feeding their young on June 12, 1899. The young were nearly ready to leave the nest, as one of them stood on a branch near its edge. The nest was situated about fifteen feet from the ground, in the top of a slender white birch in the woods. The ground was well covered with hazel bushes about three and one-half feet high, which nearly concealed the observer. During the first half hour he made no record, as the birds were alarmed by his presence. As they com- VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 53 menced bringing food regularly, he began the record at 6 A.M. Between 6 and 7 they came to the nest fifty-two times ; between 7 and 8, forty-seven times ; between 8 and 9, forty- three times; between 9 and 10, thirty times; between 10 and 11, thirty-six times; between 11 and 12, twenty-seven times ; between 12 and 1, thirty-two times; between 1 and 2, thirty-eight times; between 2 and 3, forty-one times; between 3 and 4, twenty-two times; between 4 and 5, fifty- eight times. The majority of the larve seemed to be leaf rollers from the oak trees. The female came on the average about three times to each two visits of the male; he was occupied much of the time in keeping other birds away from the vicinity of the nest. When the young of most insect-eating birds are well grown, the parents feed them whole insects just as they are picked up. With a glass, therefore, the insects brought by these Grosbeaks could be seen in the birds’ beaks. Their lusty youngsters were fed almost entirely on insect larve or cater- pillars taken from the forest trees. On only four visits did either parent bird bring less than.two larve each. In eleven hours, then, they made four hundred and twenty-six trips, and must have fed their nestlings at least eight hundred and forty-eight larvee or caterpillars, and possibly more, as a bird has been observed to carry as many as eleven small cater- pillars on one visit to its young. In comparing the records of the two nests as given above, it is noticeable that the Grosbeaks fed the young much oftener than did the Vireos. This difference is due mainly to the fact that about the time the young birds are ready to fly, as were these Grosbeaks, they require much more food than when first hatched, as was the case with the Vireos. This, of course, is mainly owing to their increased size. The dif- ference in the number, age, and size of the young probably accounts largely for the great variation in the number of visits made to them by the parent birds, as recorded by dif- ferent observers. I have published some notes on the feeding of young Chickadees by the parent birds. Six visits were made to these young within thirteen minutes. In each case the bills 4 USEFUL BIRDS. of the parent birds were filled with a mass of small insects, mainly ants and plant lice, to which were added a few spiders. These young were also fully fledged.? The number of young in the nests of the smaller perch- ing birds is usually from three to five. In the case of the Chickadees mentioned above there were seven, and in another case that I have recently observed there were nine. Chick- adees and Wrens, because of their insectivorous habits and the large broods they rear, probably reach the maximum in the number of insects brought to their young. Dr. Judd gives an account of the feeding of some young House Wrens by the mother bird alone. These young Wrens were about three-fourths grown, and were visited one hun- dred and ten times in four hours and thirty-seven minutes. They were fed, during this time, one hundred and eleven insects and spiders. Among these were identified one white grub, one soldier bug, three millers (Noctuide), nine spiders, nine grasshoppers, fifteen May flies, and thirty-four cater- pillars. On the following day, in three hours and five min- utes, the young were fed sixty-seven times.? Professor Aughey states that during a locust year in Nebraska he saw a pair of Long-billed Marsh Wrens take thirty-one small locusts to their nest inan hour. It is inter- esting to note that a pair of Rock Wrens that he watched took just thirty-two locusts to their nest in another hour.’ Another observer is reported by Dr. Barton to have seen a pair of Wrens coming from their box and returning with insects from forty to sixty times an hour. In an exceptional hour they carried food seventy-one times. He estimates that at that time they took from the garden six hundred insects per day.4 * Few people, unfortunately, who are qualified for the task, 1 Two Years with the Birds on a Farm. Annual report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1902, p. 129. 2 The Birds of a Maryland Farm, by Sylvester D. Judd. Bulletin No. 17, United States Department of Agriculture, Division of Biological Survey, pp. 45, 46. 3 Notes on the Nature of the Food of Nebraska Birds, by S. A. Aughey. First Report of the United States Entomological Commission, 1877, Appendix, p. 18. 4 Fragments of the Natural History of Pennsylvania, by Dr. B. 8S. Barton, Part I, 1799, p. 22. j eT Big PLATE V.—Chickadee. Female, with mass of insects in her beak, entering nesting box at author’s window. (From Ameri- can Ornithology.) : VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 55 have both the time and patience to watch the feeding of young birds for an entire day. Dr. C. M. Weed and Mr. W. F. Fiske, however, have accomplished this feat. They watched the nest of a Chipping Sparrow from 3.40 a.m. to 7.49 P.M. on June 22,1898. The valuable record of these observations Fig. 25.—Chipping Sparrow feeding young. shows that these two birds, having only three young in the nest, visited it at least one hundred and eighty-two times during that day; and Dr. Weed says that they made almost two hundred trips, although some of the trips evidently were made to furnish grit for grinding the food. The birds were busy from daylight to dark, with no long intermission. The food, so far as identified, consisted largely of caterpillars. Crickets and crane flies were seen, and it was believed that a great variety of insect food was brought. ! A committee on useful birds, selected from the Pennsyl- vania State Board of Agriculture, reported that an observer had watched the nest of a pair of Martins for sixteen hours, from 4 a.m. until 8 p.m., to see how many visits the parent birds made to the young. One hundred and nineteen visits were made by the male and one hundred and ninety-three by the female.? _ 1 The Feeding Habits of the Chipping Sparrow, by C.M. Weed. Bulletin No. 55, New Hampshire College Agricultural Experiment Station, 1898. 2 C. C. Musselman, in Agriculture of Pennsylvania, 1887, p. 105. Or cor) USEFUL BIRDS. The number of insects consumed daily by young birds in their nests is difficult of estimation, because of the variation in size among insects and the great difference in size between the mature insect and the newly hatched larva. Five hun- dred of the young larve of a moth might occupy less space in the stomach of a bird than would the moth itself; while a thousand aphids might take no more room than a full-grown caterpillar. Nevertheless, many estimates have been made, based on known data, as to the number of insects fed to young birds. The introduced House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), com- monly called the English Sparrow, undoubtedly eats fewer insects, here, in proportion to the rest of its food than any of our smaller native birds. The young are fed very largely on grain and other non-insectivorous food. Still, a Sparrow’s | nest in the city of Paris is said to have contained seven hun- dred pairs of chafer wing-cases.1 Mons. P. Pélicot gives a table of the estimates, made by several foreign authors, of the numbers of insects eaten by Sparrows in a given time. These approximations vary from that of Blatin, who estimates that two Sparrows will destroy twelve hundred chafers in twelve days, to that of Tschudi, who believes that a single Sparrow will destroy fifteen hun- dred larvee within twenty-four hours.? Bradley mentions watching a bird’s nest and discovering that five hundred caterpillars were consumed in one day.® He says (according to Samuels) that a pair of Sparrows will destroy thirty-three hundred and sixty caterpillars for a week’s family supplies. A single pair of Sparrows is reported to have carried to the nest five hundred insects in an hour. These statements may be exaggerated, but if they approx- imate the facts, what immense numbers of insects must be 1 Notes on Recent Progress of Agricultural Science, by David A. Wells. Re- port (on Agriculture) of the United States Commissioner of Patents, 1861, p. 323. 2 A Favorable View of the English Sparrow, a Review of ‘“‘Un Passereau a Protéger,”’ Insect Life, Riley and Howard, Vol. IV, 1891, p. 153, published by the United States Department of Agriculture. 5 Birds and Bird Laws, by J. R. Dodge. Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Agriculture, 1864, pp. 436, 437. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. a7 consumed by the young of native Massachusetts birds that are fed almost entirely upon insect food. Weed and Dearborn watched three young Cedar Birds in the nest for the fifteen days they remained there, and found that they each devoured not less than ten ounces of food in that time, or more than ten times their weight on the day they left the nest. . The Amount of Food eaten by Adult Birds. There is no way of determining how much food is required daily by the adult bird, except it be kept in confinement ; in that case, the food taken can be weighed or measured. This has been done. Dr. Stanley mentions sixteen Canaries which ate one hundred grains of food per day, or an amount equal to about one-sixth of their weight, which is probably much less than wild birds of the same species would eat.1 Seed- eating birds, like the Canary, however, require less food than the insectivorous species, as their food is more con- centrated. Mr. Robert Ridgway, the distinguished ornithol- ogist of the Smithsonian Institution, makes the statement in the American Naturalist for August, 1869, that a Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), which he kept in a cage, devoured one hundred and twenty locusts in a single day. Compared with the wild bird, the specimen that is caged or confined is a poor, weak thing at best, short of breath, low in vitality, and lacking the vigorous assimilative powers of the free bird. Keepers of cage birds, who know well the capacity of their pets, find it difficult to believe that wild birds can possibly consume the amount of food that actually has been found in their stomachs by economic ornithologists. When the reader is told that thirty grasshoppers were found in the stomach of a single Catbird, he conjures up a mental photograph of the full-grown grasshopper (the imago) that he sees in the field in late summer, and fails to remember, perhaps, that grasshoppers come from eggs, and in their growth to maturity may be found of all sizes, between that of the newly hatched insect and the full-winged hopper. ’ History of Birds, p. 225. 58 USEFUL BIRDS. e While the Catbird’s stomach might not be large enough to contain thirty full-grown locusts, it would easily contain more than thirty small ones. The statement that thirty grasshop- pers were found in the Catbird’s stomach might also need modification in another way. The least fragment of an in- sect found in a bird’s stomach is usually considered good proof that the bird has eaten that insect. There might be found in the stomach of a bird a mass of unrecognizable material, from which the expert would be able to sort out and recognize enough of the harder parts of different grass- hoppers to prove that thirty of these insects, of consider- able size, had been eaten within a certain time, even though a greater part of those first swallowed had already disap- peared from the stomach. Prof. F. E. L. Beal writes me as follows regarding the methods used at the United States Department of Agri- culture in counting the insects*found in the stomachs of birds : — In the case of grasshoppers and caterpillars it is the jaws (mandi- bles) that are counted. Birds when not sleeping appear to eat all the time when not occupied in other duties, such as nest-making or feeding their young. The process of digestion is continuous. The more easily digested parts pass out of the stomach very quickly, but the hard parts remain somewhat longer. In this way when a bird is feeding upon grasshoppers the jaws of those first eaten remain after the rest of the body has passed on. When the stomach is opened the jaws are counted, and for every two we estimate at least one grasshopper killed. In cases where only a few insects were involved I have taken the pains to pair the jaws, and in this way have often found that the number that had been eaten was more than half the number of jaws. In this work each head that appears to be whole is carefully examined, to see that it has not lost one or more of its jaws; were it not for this precaution, the insect might be counted twice. Caterpillars, like grasshoppers, are easily broken up, and so the heads are counted when whole; other- wise the jaws are counted. The variation in size of different species of insects should also be considered. While the caterpillars of some species of moths reach three or four inches in length, others never grow to be half an inch long. These and other similar considerations, well known to VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 59 the economic ornithologist, lead him to accept as facts the extreme statements made by competent investigators. It will be seen from the foregoing explanations that, while a large number of injurious insects found in a bird’s stom- ach may indicate its usefulness, it may not always mean that it has eaten a great bulk or quantity of such food. The question which most interests the farmer, however, is, not so much what birds require to sustain life, as how much they will eat if they can get their fill. If in times of plenty birds will eat more than they really need, then they become more useful or injurious, as the case may be, than they would be if they ate only, enough to live. The amount of food that has been found in birds’ gizzards indicates that they will eat until surfeited. Professor Beal, who has examined the contents of over twenty thousand stomachs, says, regarding this habit :— The majority of people have no idea of how much these insects can be compressed in the stomach of a bird. -It is often the case that when a stomach has been opened, and the contents placed in a pile, the heap is two or three times as large as the original stomach with the food all in it. Moreover, in the cases where remarkable numbers of insects have been found, the crops or gullets usually have been full, as well as the stomach itself. It is a fact, perhaps not generally known, that with birds that have no special enlargement of the gullet in the nature of a crop, the whole gullet is used for the purpose; and when favorite food is abundant, the bird will fill itself to the throat. I have seen a Snow- bird so full of seeds that they were plainly in sight when the beak was opened, and from the bill to the stomach was a solid mass of seed. The stomachs of birds are often packed so hard and tight with food that it is a wonder how the process of digestion can go on; but it does, nevertheless. In giving the maximum amounts of food found in birds’ stomachs, I shall be obliged to refer to the publications of the Bureau of Biological Survey of the United States De- partment of Agriculture; and it is but just to say here that the world owes much to Dr. Merriam, chief of the Bureau, for his indefatigable labors in behalf of science and agriculture. In connection with the work of the survey, the contents of more than thirty-five thousand bird stomachs have been 60 USEFUL BIRDS. examined, and much has been done in observing the feed- ing habits of birds in the field. The work in economic orni- thology performed by Merriam, Fisher, Barrows, Beal, and Judd is of great value. Its results rank above those of all other similar investigations, and must be considered as authoritative. Professor Beal found in the stomach of a Yellow-billed Cuckoo two hundred and seventeen fall webworms, and in another two hundred and fifty American tent caterpillars. Two Flickers were found to have eaten respectively three thousand and five thousand ants. Sixty grasshoppers were found in the stomach of a Nighthawk. Professor Harvey found five hundred mosquitoes in a Nighthawk’s stomach. In this case the insects must have been fully grown, as the larve of the mosquito are found mainly in water, and the Nighthawk takes its food on the wing. The stomach of this useful bird is much larger in pro- portion to its size than that of most other birds; but sev- enty-five hundred seeds of the yellow wood sorrel had been eaten by a Mourning Dove, sixty-four hundred by another, and ninety-two hundred seeds, chiefly of weeds, were found in another. Here we have twenty-three thousand one hun- dred seeds, mostly those of weeds, eaten at a meal by three birds. Probably where these Jarge numbers are given, the result is approximate, and is arrived at by counting a part of the contents for a measure, and from this estimating the rest in bulk. Dr. Judd says that the stomachs of four Bank Swallows contained, all together, just two hundred ants, and that a Nighthawk has been known to eat one thousand at a single meal. He speaks of seventeen hundred seeds of weeds hav- ing been taken at one feeding by a Bob-white; three thou- sand leguminous seeds were found in the stomach of another, and no less than five thousand seeds of pigeon grass were taken from a third. Dr. Warren has taken twenty-eight cutworms from the stomach of a Red-winged Blackbird. Stomachs of Snowflakes have each contained from five hundred to fifteen hundred seeds of amaranth. Professor Forbes found in the stomachs of seven Cedar Birds a number VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 61 of cankerworms varying from seventy to one hundred and one each, the number found in most cases averaging nearly one hundred for each bird. A Ruffed Grouse, killed in winter, had in its crop twelve leaves of sheep laurel and four hundred and thirty-five buds and bits of branches, all taken for its morning meal. The crop of another contained over five hundred buds and twigs. As these birds eat such food both at morning and at night, it would seem that they must require daily, for these two meals alone, between eight hundred and one thousand buds and twigs. The following notes, received from Professor Beal since the above was written, are of great interest : — , From the stomach of a Franklin's Gull (Larus franklinit) there were taken seventy entire grasshoppers and the jaws of fifty-six more; from another, ninety grasshoppers and one hundred and two additional jaws ; from another, forty-eight grasshoppers and seventy more jaws ; and still another contained sixty-seven grasshoppers. Another stomach of this species contained sixty-eight crickets. These grasshoppers and crickets were each more than one inch in length. We examined the stomach of a Franklin’s Gull which contained three hundred and twenty-seven entire nymphs of dragon flies, each three-fourths of an inch in length. In the stomach of a Cliff Swallow were found one hundred entire beetles (Aphodius inquinatus), with remains of others. These insects are a little more than three-eighths of an inch in length. We are now examining birds’ stomachs from Texas, and from the stomach of a Yel- low-billed Cuckoo were taken the remains of eighty-two caterpillars that originally were from one to one and a half inches in length. From another stomach were taken eighty-six, and from forty to sixty from several others. All evidence acquired by observation as to the amount of food eaten by wild birds at liberty must perforce be frag- mentary, for such observation is necessarily limited to brief periods. The difficulties attending such work make its re- sults somewhat uncertain and unsatisfactory ; nevertheless, some information as to the quantity of food eaten by wild birds may be obtained in this way. Vultures are said to so gorge themselves that they are unable to fly. Ihave known + Birds in their Relation to Man, ly Clarence M. Weed and Ned Dearborn, 1903, p. 62. 62 USEFUL BIRDS. a Goshawk in winter to kill a domestic Cock of more than its own weight, and devour the greater part at two meals. T have learned, by following certain Warblers and Titmice through the woods, that their search for and consumption of insects are almost continuous during most of the forenoon. As the noon hour approaches they become less active, and on warm days devote some tine to resting and bathing. In the afternoon their activity increases, until toward night their quest for food is almost as strenuous as in the early morning. They are, therefore, actually engaged for the larger part of the day in capturing and eating insects. In feeding wild birds in winter I have noticed that Chickadees come to the food supplied for them about three times an hour all day long, and that in the intervals they are mainly occu- pied in finding their natural food. On May 28, 1898, Mr. Mosher watched a pair of Northern Yellow-throats eating _plant lice from the birches in the Middlesex Fells Reserva- tion, where these insects swarmed. He was equipped with a good glass, and concealed close to the spot where the birds were feeding, and so was able to count in turn the number of times each bird picked up an insect. One of these War- blers apparently swallowed eighty-nine of these tiny insects in one minute. The pair continued eating at this rate for forty minutes. Mr. Mosher states that they must have eaten considerably over seven thousand plant lice in that time. It would seem impossible for the birds to crowd that number of insects into their stomachs ; but we must remember that the insects were infinitesimal in size, soft-bodied, easily com- pressed in the stomach, and quickly digested, so that by the time a part were eaten those first taken would be well dis- posed of, leaving room for more. Mr. Mosher is a very careful, painstaking, and trustworthy observer ; undoubtedly his statement is accurate; but, to eliminate any possibility of error, we will assume for purposes of calculation that they ate only thirty-five hundred in an hour. A pair of Yellow-throats (presumably the same) were seen to come daily and many times each day to the birch trees which were infested with these aphids. Probably they spent at least three hours each day feeding on these insects. If VALUE OF BIRDS VO MAN. 63 the two birds ate only thirty-five hundred an hour for three hours a day, they would consume ten thousand five hundred aphids each day, or seventy-three thousand five hundred in a week. It requires no draft on the imagination to see how such appe- tites may become useful to the farmer if they are satiated on his insect enemies. Two Scarlet Tanagers were seen eating very small caterpillars of the gipsy moth for eighteen minutes, at the rate of thirty-five a minute. These birds spent much time in that way. If we assume that they ate caterpillars at this rate for only an hour each day, they must have consumed daily twenty-one hundred caterpillars, or fourteen thousand seven hundred in a week. Such a number of caterpillars would be suffi- cient to defoliate two average apple trees, and so prevent fruitage. The removal of these caterpillars might enable the trees to bear a full crop. It is easily possible, therefore, for a single pair of these birds in a week’s time to save the fruit of two average apple trees, —a crop worth from two to five dollars or more, according to the productiveness of the trees and the price paid for apples. Fig. 26.— Yellow-throat catching birch aphids. BIRDS SAVE TREES AND CROPS FROM DESTRUCTION. Since birds evidently operate to check insect outbreaks, it follows that in their capacity of insect destroyers they must in many instances have saved trees and crops from destruc- tion by insect pests. If, however, we turn to the literature of agriculture, entomology, and ornithology, we shall not find it replete with such instances. Still, there are enough on record to show that conspicuous services of birds have been noted occasionally ; and I am convinced by my own experi- ence that such checks to insect increase occur commonly, but escape both observation and record. Some brief but striking accounts of this class of occur- 64 USEFUL BIRDS. rences may be gleaned from European records. Samuels writes that in Pomerania in 1847 an immense forest that was in danger of being utterly ruined by caterpillars was very unexpectedly saved by Cuckoos, which, though on the point of migrating, established themselves there for some weeks, and so thoroughly cleared the trees that the next year “neither depredators nor.depredations were to be seen.”! He also speaks of a European outbreak of the gipsy moth (Bombyx dispar) in 1848, saying that the hand of man was powerless to work off the infliction, but that on the approach of winter Titmice and Wrens paid daily visits to the infested trees, and before spring had arrived the eggs of dispar were en- tirely destroyed. This account agrees with the following translation from Altum : — In the year 1848 endless numbers of the larve of Bombyx dispar had eaten every leaf from the trees of Count Wodzicki, so that they were perfectly bare. In the fall all the branches and limbs were covered with the egg clusters. After he had recognized the impracticability of it, he gave up all endeavor to remove them by hand, and prepared to see his beautiful trees die. Towards winter numerous flocks of Titmice and Wrens came daily to the trees. The egg clusters disappeared. In the spring twenty pairs of Titmice nested in the garden, and the larva plagtie was noticeably reduced. In the year 1850 the small feathered garden police had cleaned his trees, so that he saw them during the entire summer in their most beautiful verdure.? According to Reaumur, these larve were so extremely numerous on the limes of the Alle verte at Brussels in 1826 that many of the great trees‘of that noble avenue were nearly. defoliated. The moths swarmed like bees in the summer. They were also very numerous in the park, and if one-half the eggs had hatched in the following spring, probably scarce a leaf would have remained in these favorite places of public resort. Two months later, however, he could scarcely dis- cover a single egg cluster. This happy result was attributed to the Titmice and Creepers, which were seen busily running up and down the tree trunks.? 1 Agricultural Value of Birds, by E. A. Samuels. Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1865-66, pp. 116, 117. * Translated from Forstzoologie, II, 1880, p. 324. ® Reau. i387. Cited by Kirby and Spence in their Introduction to Entomology, 1857, pp. 117, 118. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 65 The value of birds has already been recognized at the antipodes. Australian farmers have suffered greatly from inroads of locusts upon their crops and pastures. The Australian correspondence of the Mark Lane Express of March 7, 1892, had a paragraph relating to the value of the Ibis to farmers during the locust incursions of that year and the year previous. In the Glen Thompson district several largé flocks, one said to number fully five hundred birds, were seen eating the young locusts in a wholesale manner. Other insectivorous birds were flourishing upon the same diet. Near Ballarat, Victoria, a swarm of locusts was noted in a paddock; and just as it was feared that all the sheep would have to be sold for want of grass, flocks of Starlings, Spoonbills, and Cranes made their appearance, and in a few days made so complete a destruction of the locusts that only about forty acres of grass were lost.1 American farmers have had many similar experiences. When the Mormons first settled in Utah their crops were almost utterly destroyed by myriads of crickets that came Fig. 2'7.—The western cricket that destroyed the settlers’ crops at Salt Lake, Natural size; after Glover. down from the mountains. Hon. Geo. Q. Cannon, as tem- porary chairman of the third irrigation congress, told how it happened. The first year’s crop having been destroyed, the Mormons had sowed seed the second year. The crop prom- ised well, but when again the crickets appeared, the people were in danger of starvation. In describing the conditions in 1848 Mr. Cannon says : — 1 Insect Life, Riley and Howard, 1891-92, Vol. IV, p. 409. 66 USEFUL BIRDS. Black crickets came down by millions and destroyed our grain crops; promising fields of wheat in the morning were by evening as smooth as a man’s hand, —devoured by the crickets. .. At this juncture sea Gulls came by hundreds and thousands, and before the crops were entirely destroyed these Gulls devoured the insects, so that our fields were entirely freed from them... ‘The settlers at Salt Lake regarded the advent of the birds as a heayen-sent miracle. . I have been along the ditches in the morning and have seen lumps of these crickets vomited up by the Gulls, so that they could again begin killing. « These “lumps of crickets” were probably pellets com- posed of indigestible portions of the insects, regurgitated by the birds. These crickets (Anabrus purpurascens) tray- Fig. 28.— Gulls saving crops by killing crickets. elled in enormous hordes, stopping at no obstacle, even crossing rivers. Several times afterward the crops of the Mormons were attacked by them, and were saved by the Gulls.!| Dr. A. K. Fisher is authority for the statement 1 This account of the deliverance of the Mormons by the Gulls is vouched for by many witnesses. See Irrigation Age, 1894, p. 188; also, Insect Life, Vol. VII, p. 275; Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1871, p. 76; Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Agriculture, 1871, p. 79; and Second Annual Report of the United States Entomological Commission, 1878-79, p. 166. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 67 that the bird referred to is undoubtedly Franklin’s Gull (Larus franklinti), which occurs in enormous flocks about the small fresh-water lakes of the northwest, and feeds in great companies on Orthoptera of all sorts. The Gulls were practically canonized by the grateful Mormons, and protected by both law and public sentiment, as a recognition of their worth. Similar services were performed by birds during the great locust ravages which followed the settlement of the Missis- sippi valley. When large swarms of locusts appeared, nearly all birds, from the tiny Kinglet to the great Whooping Crane, fed on them. Fish-eating birds, like the Great Blue Heron, flesh-eating birds, like the Hawks and Owls, shore birds, Ducks, Geese, Gulls, —all joined with the smaller land birds in the general feast. Prof. Samuel Aughey learned this by dissecting birds and observing their feeding habits in Nebraska. In a paper published by him in 1877, but not often quoted, he gives some of the practical results of the work done by birds in protecting crops from the mighty swarms of locusts which were devastating most of that region. He says: — In the spring of 1865 the locusts hatched out in countless numbers in northeastern Nebraska. Very few fields of corn and the cereal grains escaped some damage. Some fields were entirely destroyed, while others were hurt to the amount of from ten to,seventy-five per cent. One field of corn northwest of Dakota City was almost literally covered with locusts, and there the indications were that not a stalk would escape. After, and about the time the corn was up, the Yellow-headed Blackbirds in large numbers made this field their feeding ground. Visiting the field frequently, I could see a gradual diminution of the number of the locusts. Other birds, especially the Plovers, helped the Yellow-heads ; and, although some of the corn had to be replanted once, yet it was the birds that made the crop that was raised possible at all. During the same season I visited Pigeon Creek valley, in this county, and I found among the eaten-up wheat fields one where the damage done was not over five per cent. ‘The Irishman who pointed it out to me ascribed it to the work of the birds, chief among which were the Black- bird and Plover, with a few Quail and Prairie Chickens. Professor, Aughey speaks of a locality where, on several old fields, locusts hatched to the number of about three hun- 68 USEFUL BIRDS. dred to the square foot. Birds soon found them, and the ground was frequented by Blackbirds, Plover, Curlews, Prairie Chickens and small land birds. Long before the middle of June most of the locusts had disappeared. In 1886 locusts, he says, invaded Cedar and Dixon counties in swarms that darkened the sun. Nevertheless, at one point under observation the great number of birds that attacked these insects very materially lessened their numbers. In 1869 more than ninety per cent. of the locusts in one neighborhood were destroyed, apparently by birds, in one week. Other experiences are given, and several interesting letters from farmers are published, one of which follows : — Dear Sir:—In answer to your question about the birds and the - locusts, I must say this: every farmer that shoots birds must be a fool. I had wheat this last spring on new breaking. The grasshoppers came out apparently as thick as the wheat itself, and indeed much thicker. I gave up that field for lost. Just then great numbers of Plover came, and flocks of Blackbirds and some Quail, and commenced feeding on this field. They cleaned out the locusts so well that I had at least three-fourths of a crop, and I know that without the birds I would not have had any. I know other farmers whose wheat was saved in the same way. S. E. GoopMorE. FREMONT, NEB. ’ Another farmer wrote that the locusts hatched in immense numbers in his corn fields, but flocks of Blackbirds came and destroyed the insects, so that he raised a good crop. In an- other case, related by State Senator Crawford, a wheat field was swept clean by the locusts when the wheat was about two inches high; but flocks of Blackbirds came and de- voured the locusts, and the wheat sprang up again and made a-good crop. The members of the United States Entomo- logical Commission were much impressed with the value of birds as locust destroyers. They said that the ocular dem- onstration of the usefulness of birds as insect destroyers was “so full and complete that it was impossible to entertain any doubt on this point.” In one instance a farmer took one of the members of the commission out into the field, to show him how numerously the young locusts were hatching. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 69 When they arrived, the insects had disappeared from the place where they had been so abundant in the morning. The statement by the family that a flock of Blackbirds had been there during the farmer’s absence solved the mystery. In another instance a garden was attacked by an innumer- able host of little locusts. The owner battled bravely with them for awhile, but at last, giving up in despair, sat down to watch the destruction of his vegetables and flowers, when suddenly a flock of Blackbirds alighted on the young cot- tonwoods he had planted in his yard. Having chirped a song, as if to cheer him, they flew into the garden; when they left, an hour or so later, the dreaded “hoppers” were gone, and his garden was saved.} A severe outbreak of the forest tent caterpillar (Malaco- soma disstria) occurred in New York and some of the New England States in 1897-98. Thousands of acres of wood- land were devastated, great damage was done to the sugar- maple orchards of New York and Vermont, and the injury extended into Massachusetts. Birds and other natural ene- mies attacked the caterpillars vigorously in many localities, and by the year 1900 the plague had been reduced so that the injury was no longer seen. Miss Mary B. Sherman of Ogdensburg, N. Y., wrote on May 18 of that year that the town was then full of birds which were feeding on the cater- pillars. There had been numerous Warblers in the maples, and the Orioles, Sparrows, Robins, Cedar Birds, several species of Warblers, and probably the House Wren, were killing caterpillars. Birds were reported in large numbers in the county. On May 26 she wrote again, stating that there were practically no caterpillars left, cold weather hay- ing killed many, and the birds apparently having destroyed the remainder.” The good accomplished by birds in quelling great insect in- vasions should be patent to all, but very few people realize what the birds are doing. Many Nebraskans failed to notice 1 First Report of the United States Entomological Commission. Riley, Pack- ard, and Thomas. 1877, pp. 335, 336, 338-344. 2 Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New York, by E, P. Felt, 1900, p. 1019. 70 USEFUL BIRDS. that birds were feeding on the locusts until Professor Aughey called their attention to this fact by articles published in the press. Birds are doing the same kind of work in Massachusetts to-day, in repressing smaller outbreaks of common insects. Had we more observing people to record such services, their amount and variety probably would astound us. Professor Beal saw a family of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks clear the potato beetles from a potato patch of about one-fourth of an acre. Mr. E. W. Wood of West Newton, a well-known horticultur- ist, informed me that during one season, when the spring can- kerworms (Paleacrita vernata) became quite numerous in his orchard, a pair of Baltimore Orioles appeared, built a nest near by, and fed daily upon the cankerworms. This they continued to do assiduously; by the time the young birds were hatched, the numbers of the worms were considerably reduced. The birds then redoubled their diligence, carry- ing ten or eleven worms to the nest at once. Soon the cankerworms had disappeared, and there has been no trouble from them for many years. Instances were recorded during the first State campaign against the gipsy moth, from 1890 to 1895, where small isolated moth colonies appeared to have been suppressed and even annihilated by birds. A serious outbreak was discovered in Georgetown, Mass., in 1899. It had been in existence for a long time, but its spread had evidently been limited by the great number of birds that were feeding there on all forms of the moth. Several months later the State abandoned the work against the moth, and little hope was entertained that anything more than a severe check had been given the insect in Georgetown. Nevertheless, in the six years that have since elapsed comparatively few moths have been found in that locality. The most feasible explanation of this seems to be that up to 1906 the birds have kept the numbers of the moths below the point where they can do appreciable injury. I have had several opportunities, within the last fifteen years, to watch the checking of insect uprisings by birds. One morning in the fall of 1904 I noticed in some poplar VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 71 trees near the shore of the Musketaquid a small flock of Myrtle and Black-poll Warblers, busily feeding on a swarm of plant lice. There were not more than fifteen birds. The insects were mainly imagoes, and some of them were flying. The birds were pursuing these through the air, but were also seeking those that remained on the trunks and branches. I watched these birds for some time, noted their activity, and 3 then passed on, but AY ran’ returned and ob- , eof MES) if served their move- , ¥ ments quite closely at intervals all day. Toward night some of the insects had scattered to neigh- boring trees, and a few of the birds were pursuing them there; but most of the latter remained at or about the place where the aphis swarm was first seen, and they were still there at sundown. The swarm decreased rapidly all day, unti] just before sunset it was difficult to find even a few specimens of the insect. The birds remained until it was nearly dark, for they were still finding a few insects on the higher branches. The plant lice I had secured for identification were destroyed or lib- erated during the night, probably by a deer mouse which frequented the camp ; so the next morning at sunrise I went - to the trees to look for more specimens. The birds, how- ever, were there before mc, and I was unable to find a single aphis on the trees. The last bird to linger was more suc- cessful than I, for it was still finding a few ; but it soon gave up the effort, and left for more fruitful fields. Probably a few insects escaped by flight; but in examining the locality in 1905 I could not find one. The apparently complete Ate A ei ae : a Sen Ny Fig. 29.— Warblers destroying a swarm of plant lice. 72 USEFUL BIRDS. destruction of these insects may have been due in part to the hard winter that ensued, but the effect produced by the birds was most obvious. Such instances of the quelling of insect outbreaks by birds are noticeable, but the regulative influence steadily and perennially exerted by them, which tends to keep hundreds of species of injurious insects below the point where their injury to trees and plants would become apparent, is very seldom appreciated. THE INCREASE OF INJURIOUS INSECTS FOLLOWING THE DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS. Many cases have been noted where the destruction of birds has been followed by an immediate increase in the numbers of injurious insects. Frederick the Great, king of Prussia, being particularly fond of cherries, was annoyed to see that the Sparrows were destroying his favorite fruit. An edict was issued ordering Sparrow extermination. All the re- sources of the fowler were brought to bear, and the cam- paign was so successful that not only were the Sparrows destroyed, but many other birds were either killed or driven away by the extraordinary measures taken against the Spar- rows. Within two years cherries and most other fruits were wanting. The trees were defoliated by caterpillars and other insects, and the great Frederick, seeing his error, imported Sparrows at considerable expense to take the place of the birds that had been killed.? In the year 1798 the forests in Saxony and Brandenburg were attacked by a general mortality. The greater part of the trees, especially the firs and pines, died as if struck at the roots by some secret malady. The foliage was not de- voured by caterpillars; the trees perished without showing any signs of external disease. This calamity became so gen- eral that the regency of Saxony sent naturalists and skillful foresters to find out the cause. They soon found it in the multiplication of one of the lepidopterous insects, which in its larval state fed within the tree upon the wood. When- 1 Agricultural Value of Birds, by E. A, Samuels. Annual Report of the Mas- sachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1865-66, pp. 116, 117. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 73 ever any bough of the fir or the pine was broken this insect was found within it, and had often hollowed it out even to the bark. The naturalists reported that apparently the extraor- dinary increase of the insect was owing to the entire dis- appearance of several species of Woodpecker and Titmouse, which had not been seen in the forest for some years.! In 1858 Kearly wrote to the Entomclogists’ Intelligencer that a friend who had been spending a short time in Belgium informed him that in the previous year Sparrows and other birds had appeared in the park at Brussels in unusual num- bers. These birds probably were attracted by an unusual supply of insect food; but complaint was made of the Sparrows as a nuisance, and their destruction was ordered. “But,” says Kearly, “it now turns out that in exterminat- ing the birds the park goers have got rid of one evil only to entail upon themselves a greater. Throughout the past summer the place has swarmed with insect pests.” He says also that the larva of the gipsy moth stripped nearly all of the trees of their foliage, and was one of the chief offenders. He adds that, had the authorities known what Kirby and Spence say on this subject (regarding the destruction of this insect by birds in Brussels in 1826), they would have remained guiltless of killing their feathered protectors. During the year 1861 the harvests of France gave an un- usually poor return, and a commission to investigate the cause of the deficiency was appointed at the instance of the Minister of Agriculture.22 The commission took counsel of experienced naturalists, St. Hilaire, Prevost, and others. By this commission the deficiency was attributed in a great degree to the ravages of insects which it is the function of certain birds to check. It seems that the French people had been killing and eating not merely the game birds, but the smaller birds as well. Insect-eating birds had been shot, snared, and trapped throughout the country. Fruit-eating and grain- eating species especially had been persecuted. Birds’ eggs 1 Utility of Birds, by Wilson Flagg. Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1861, pp. 66, 67. 2 Notes on the Progress of Agricultural Science, by David A. Wells. Report of the United States Commissioner of Patents, 1861, pp. 322, 323. 74 USEFUL BIRDS. had been taken in immense numbers. A single child had been known to come in at night with a hundred eggs, and the number of birds’ eggs destroyed in the country each year was estimated at eighty to one hundred millions. Before such persecution the birds were actually dying out. Some species had already disappeared, and others were rapidly diminishing. As an apparent result of the destruction of birds, the vines, the fruit trees, the forest trees, and the grain in the fields, had suffered much from the attacks of destructive insects, that had increased as a result of the dis- turbance of nature’s balance caused by the decrease of birds. In one department of the east of France the value of the wheat destroyed by insects in a single season was estimated at five million francs. It was concluded that by no agency save that of little birds could the ravages of insects be kept down. The commission called for prompt and energetic remedies, and suggested that the teachers and clergy should endeavor to put the matter in its proper light before the people. In 1895 I received a letter from Mons. J. O. Clercy, secretary of the Society of Natural Sciences, Ekaterinburg, Russian Siberia, in which he stated that the ravages of two species of cutworms and some ten species of locusts had con- tributed (together with the want of rain) to produce a famine in that region. One of the evident causes which permitted such a numerous propagation of insect pests was, he said, the almost complete destruction of birds, most of which had been killed and sent abroad by wagonloads for ladies’ hats. A law for the protection of birds was then enacted, and, said M. Clercy, “The poor little creatures are doing their best to reoccupy their old places in the woods and gardens.” The reoccupation, however, did not go on as rapidly as did the destruction. Mr. R. E. Turner, in an important paper upon insects, read before an agricultural conference at Mackay, Quecns- land, stated that he considered that the decrease of insectiv- orous birds, owing to their indiscriminate shooting by the Kanakas on the plantations, had a great deal to do with the 1 The Gipsy Moth, by E. H. Forbush and C. H. Femald, p. 206. Published by the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1896. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 75 increase of the sugar-cane insects, particularly white grubs, which were then so abundant.!__A similar effect was observed by the early settlers of America to follow the shooting of the birds which attacked their crops. Kalm states, in his Travels in America, that in 1749, after a great destruction among the Crows and Blackbirds for a legal reward of three pence per dozen, the northern States experienced a complete loss of their grass and grain crops. The colonists were obliged to import hay from England to feed their cattle. The greatest losses from the ravages of the Rocky Mountain locust were coincident with, or followed soon after, the de- struction by the people of countless thousands of Blackbirds, Prairie Chickens, Quail, Upland Plover, Curlew, and other birds. This coincidence seems significant, at least. Professor Aughey tells how this slaughter was accom- plished. He says that the Blackbirds and many other birds decreased greatly in Nebraska in the twelve years previous to 1877. He first went to the State in 1864. He never saw the Blackbirds so abundant as they were during 1865 over eastern Nebraska. Vast numbers of them were poisoned around the corn fields in spring and fall during the twelve years, so that often they were gathered and thrown into piles. This was done in the belief that the Blackbirds were damaging the crops, especially the corn. Great numbers of birds of other species were destroyed at the same time. A single grain of corn soaked with strychnine would suffice to kill a bird. In one autumn, in Dakota County alone, not less than thirty thousand birds must have been destroyed in this way. Regarding this slaughter he wrote : — Supposing that each of these birds averaged eating one hundred and fifty insects each day, we then have the enormous number of onc hun- dred and thirty-five million insects saved in this one county in one month that ought to have been destroyed through the influence of birds. When we reflect, further, that many of these birds were migratory, and that they helped to keep down the increase of insects in distant regions, the harm that their destruction did is beyond calculation. The killing of such birds is no local loss; it is a national, a continental loss.? 1 Insect Life, by Riley and Howard. 1894, Vol. VI, No. 4, p. 333. 2 First Report of the United States Entomological Commission. Riley, Pack- ard, and Thomas. 1877, pp. 348, 344. 76 USEFUL BIRDS. Professor Aughey gathered statistics regarding the killing of Quail and Prairie Chickens for the market during this period, and concluded that in thirty counties the average yearly slaughter of these birds must have been at least five thousand Quail and ten thousand Prairie Chickens for each county, or four hundred and fifty thousand birds in all. We can only conjecture as to how great was the destruction of other game birds. The poisoning of birds in the west permitted an increase of many other insects besides the locusts. A farmer from Wisconsin informed me that, the Blackbirds in his vicinity having been killed off, the white grubs increased in number and destroyed the grass roots, so that he lost four hundred dollars in one year from this cause. THE DESTRUCTION OF INJURIOUS MAMMALS BY BIRDS. The injury to trees and crops by insects is not the only evil that has followed the destruction of birds and other animals by man. Rapacious birds hold a chief place among the forces which are appointed to hold in check the gnawing mammals or rodents, which breed rapidly, and, unless kept within bounds, are very destructive to grass fields, crops, and trees. The great swarms of lemmings which have appeared from time to time upon the Scandinavian peninsula are his- torical. Their migrations, during which they destroy the grass or grain in their path, until finally they reach the sea and perish in a vain attempt to cross it, have been recorded often. A similar increase of rodents may take place any- where whenever their natural enemies are unduly reduced in numbers. Such cases are on record in England and Scot- land. In Stowe’s Chronicle, in 1581, it is stated : — About Hallontide last past (1580) in the marshes of Danessey Hun- dred, in a place called South Minster, in the county of Essex, there sodainlie appeared an infinite number of mice, which overwhelming the whole earth in the said marshes, did sheare and gnaw the grass by the rootes, spoyling and tainting the same with their venimous teeth in such sort, that the cattell which grazed thereon were smitten with a murraine and died thereof; which vermine by policie of man could not be de- stroyed, till at the last it came to pass that there flocked together such PLATE VI.— Field or Meadow Mouse. A prolific and destructive species, held in check by Hawks and Owls. PLATE VII.— White-footed or Deer Mouse. &> en a i a ole bw mr = ? Ns td . 4 w cies -_ ee e¢ 7 @ ™ x PLATE X.— The Same Pellets, dissected. The fur is shown in a pile on the right, and, on the left, portions of skulls and other bones of mice, shrews, and moles, eaten by the Owls. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 81 Navigators approaching their home port during seasons of bird migration welcome the appearance of familiar land birds which are seen while land is still far out of sight. Mr. Frank M. Chapman has shown, in an interesting paper on the ornithology of the first voyage of Columbus, that we possibly owe the discovery of America by Columbus to the fact that he happened to approach the land at the right time and place to cross the line of the fall flight of land birds that were going from the Bermudas to the Bahamas and Antilles. The discouraged seainen were on the verge of mutiny, and might have compelled Columbus to return to Spain, had not small land birds come aboard unwearied and singing. The course of the vessel was changed to correspond with the direction of their flight, and the voyage was thus shortened two hundred miles and pursued to its end.! The well-known services of Vultures, which destroy gar- bage and carrion in the tropics, have no real counterpart in the north. Crows are of some use, but Gulls and other water-birds are most valuable to man in this respect, in that they devour the garbage and refuse that are cast into harbors and arms of the sea, thus undoubtedly preventing the pollu- tion of many bays and beaches by floating filth and refuse from great cities. Sea birds must be reckoned among the chief agencies which have rendered many rocky or sandy islands fit for human habitation. The service performed by birds in fertilizing, soil-building, and seed-sowing on many barren islands has entitled our feathered friends to the gratitude of many a shipwrecked sailor, who must else have perished miserably on barren, storm-beaten shores. THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF BIRDS. In all the foregoing we have considered mainly “the good offices that birds voluntarily take upon themselves in our service.” We have yet to take into account the tax which we impose upon them for our own revenue of profit or pleasure, — a tax which we collect unsparingly, and with the strong hand of force. 1 Papers presented at the World's Congress on Ornithology, 1896, pp. 181-185, 82 USEFUL BIRDS. This tribute of flesh, blood, and feather is levied largely upon those orders of birds which in domestication become poultry, and in the wild state are known as game birds; but many small land birds have become victims of man’s greed, and the sea birds have been forced to contribute to his food supply. The eggs of certain Gulls, Terns, Herons, Murres, and Ducks that breed in large colonies find a ready sale in the market, or furnish a part of the food supply of the people who live near these breeding places. Wholesale egging was carried on along the coast of Massachusetts and other New England States, until the Gulls and Terns were in most cases driven away from their breeding places. The inhabitants along the shores of the southern States, as well as those “on the Pacific coast, gathered the eggs of the sea birds by boatloads for many years. For nearly fifty years Murres’ eggs were collected on the Farallone Islands and shipped to the San Francisco market. It is said that in 1854 more than five hundred thousand eggs were sold there in less than two months. This must have been an important item in the food supply of the young and growing city. Mr. H. W. Elliot mentions that on the occasion of his first visit to Walrus Island in the Behring Sea six men loaded a badarrah, carrying four tons, to the water’s edge with Murres’ eggs. On Laysan, one of the Hawaiian Islands, there is a great breeding place of an Albatross (Diomedea immutabilis). Such immense quantities of their eggs have been gathered that cars have been loaded with them.' All this egg collect- ing, however, should be stopped, for it tends to exterminate the birds, and all the eggs needed for human consumption can be produced by poultry. Sea birds which breed on isolated islands or barren shores feed mainly on animal food, which they get from the sea. Guano consists of the excreta and ejecta of sea birds, mixed with the remains of birds, fish, and other animals. It is found on the gathering places of these birds. In the rainless lati- 1 A Review of Economic Ornithology in the United States, by Dr. T. S. Palmer. Yearbook, United States Department of Agriculture, 1899, pp. 271, 272. See this paper also for an account of the guano trade. Cuqnjouoy ‘sure “ff Aq ydersoyoyg) ‘S839 TAL popvo] Weoq 9ABT[ SIBd aIoIpM ‘spaq vas Jo sov[d Surpsatq Y “] ‘HW ‘pue[s] ueskeT wo sassoneqiy —‘IX ALV Id VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 83 tudes of the Pacific, near the equator, guano once accumulated in tremendous deposits. It dried quickly, and where there were no rains to wash it away it was preserved with most of its fertilizing constituents intact. The guano found on islands outside the dry latitudes is of less value, as its nitrogen is quickly washed out or dissipated. The importance of guano as a fertilizer was recognized in Peru by the Indians more than three centuries ago. Under the Incas the birds on the Chincha Islands were carefully protected, and the deposits of guano jealously guarded. It is said that the penalty of death was inflicted on any one who killed birds near these rocks in the breeding season. Humboldt, returning from his travels in tropical America in 1804, carried some samples of guano to Europe, and first called attention to the value of the deposits of this substance on the Chincha Islands; but it was nearly forty years later that guano became a stimulus to intensive agriculture, and furnished a source of revenue to civilized nations. The vast deposits on these three islands covered the rocks in some places to a depth of ninety or one hundred feet. The amount still undisturbed in 1853 was estimated by the official sur- veyors of the Peruvian government as twelve million, three hundred and seventy-six thousand, one hundred tons. Its use was first attempted in England in 1840; at that time the beds seemed inexhaustible. The guano trade soon became so important as to be a source of diplomatic correspondence between nations. It is said to have brought Peru and Chile to the verge of war. By 1850 the price of Peruvian guano had advanced in the United States to fifty dollars a ton, and American enterprise began to seek guano elsewhere. Americans have since filed with the government claims to bout seventy-five guano islands in the South Pacific or in the Caribbean Sea. The vast deposits on the Chinchas are nearly exhausted, and fertilizers are now manufactured to supply the demand. Undoubtedly, however, the discovery and use of guano marked the beginning of the present enor- mous trade in commercial fertilizers. The manurial value of the phosphoric acid and nitrogen contained in fish has now become quite generally recognized, and fleets of small 84 USEFUL BIRDS. vessels are employed in seining menhaden and other fish for use in the manufacture of fertilizers. Notwithstanding the value of birds to man as destroyers of insects and vermin, they are killed and utilized by him in various ways. The destruction of game birds has been so great in Mas- sachusetts, and the demand so much in excess of the supply, that birds are now imported from other States and from other countries. It is becoming a serious question, with those most interested, how we shall so regulate the shooting of game birds that the supply may be kept up. The game birds of America have a great intrinsic value as game. The flesh of many is considered to rank high among delicacies. The pursuit of these birds has formed a large part of the occupation of many members of the rural population during the shooting seasons, and a vast business has grown out of the traffic in birds’ flesh. Anenormous game business has been carried on by provision dealers in this country, and the demand for game is continually increasing. Few accurate statistics of the amount of game sold are obtainable; but Mr. D. G. Elliot, writing in 1864, states that one dealer in New York was known to receive twenty tons of Prairie Chickens in one consignment, and that some of the larger poultry dealers were estimated to have sold from one hun- dred and fifty thousand to two hundred thousand game birds in the course of six months.! The killing of birds for sport has a certain economic affin- ity with market hunting, in that it supports a large trade in guns, ammunition, boats, dogs, and all the tools, appliances, and impedimenta of the sportsman. It furnishes employment to guides, dog breakers, and boatmen, and helps support many country hostelries and seaside hotels. The manufac- ture of firearms and ammunition for sportsmen has become a great industry. Altogether, many thousands of men are dependent for a part of their livelihood on the killing of game for sport or food, while a still larger army finds its chief outdoor recreation in the pursuit of game birds. The + Report of the United States Commissioner of Agriculture, 1864, pp. 383, 384. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 85 value of game birds to the farmer, epicure, marketman, and sportsman should insure them the most stringent protection. Nevertheless, some of the migratory species, through lack of effectual protection, have already been so reduced in num- bers that they are no longer of any commercial importance. The domestication of birds probably was coincident with that of animals, and grew from the desire of the primitive agriculturist to have always at hand a fresh supply of deli- cate and nutritious animal food. No other animals can ever be so adapted to the environments of civilization as to fur- nish us with a similarly valuable supply of both meat and eggs. The poultry business of this country has grown to such importance that the total value of the annual poultry prod- uct has reached nearly three hundred million dollars. Mas- sachusetts imported probably about eighteen million dollars’ worth of poultry products in 1903. When we consider that in all the centuries the work of domestication has included but a few species, it is evident that the possibilities in this direction have not been exhausted. Within the last half-century fashion has been responsible for the killing of millions of birds for the millinery trade. This trade is now limited by laws making it illegal to kill or use most native birds, except game birds, for this purpose. Instances of the destruction of birds for millinery purposes will be given in another chapter. The American demand for feathers for ornamental uses is now largely met by articles manufactured from the feathers of domestic fowls and game birds. The demand for Ostrich plumes has re- sulted in the establishment of a new industry in America, — the raising of Ostriches. There has been a growing demand for American song birds for cage purposes ; but this traffic is now prohibited by law. THE ZSTHETIC, SENTIMENTAL, AND EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF BIRDS. Thus far I have written solely from the standpoint of “enlightened selfishness,” entertaining no consideration of the esthetic, humane, sentimental, or educational. I have 86 USEFUL BIRDS. attempted to look at birds solely from the utilitarian point of view, and to demonstrate the fact that their contributions to man’s welfare have at least a material value. Now let us turn for a moment from the contemplation of such utility of birds as money can measure to “some of the higher and nobler uses which birds subserve to man.” In so doing we step at once from the beaten path of economic ornithology into a boundless realm, sacred to art, letters, sentiment, and poetry on the one hand, while on the other lie the fair fields in which we may take up, if we will, the fascinating study of birds, which may end merely in delightful experi- ences, or lead to the class room, the museum, the laboratory, or the closet of the systematist. Wherever it may lead us, this phase of our subject is of the highest importance, and demands the most serious consideration. Although presented last, its benefactions should perhaps come first among the items which go to make up the sum of our indebtedness to birds. The beauty of birds, the music of their songs, the weird wildness of their calls, the majesty of their soaring flight, the mystery of their migrations, have ever been subjects of absorbing interest to poets, artists, and nature lovers every- where. Prominent among the undying memories of men are mental pictures of the birds of childhood, their coming in the spring, their nesting, and their chosen haunts. Many an exiled emigrant longs in vain to hear again the outpour- ing melody of the Skylark, as it soars above the fields of England. Many a New England boy, shut in by western mountains, yearns for the bubbling, joyous song of the Bob- olink in the June meadows. The characters and traits of birds, their loves and battles, their skill in home building, their devotion to their young, their habits and ways, —all are of human interest. Birds have become symbolic of cer- tain human characteristics ; and so the common species have come to be so interwoven with our art and literature that their names are household words. What biblical scholar is not familiar with the birds of the Bible? Shakespeare makes over six hundred references to birds or bird life. Much of the best literature would lose half its charm were it shorn of poetic allusions to birds. VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 87 Birds often have inspired the poets. Bryant's lines ” To a Water-fowl,” and Shelley’s “Skylark,” each exhibit a phase of such inspiration. These are but instances of the stimu- lating power exerted on the mind of man by the bird and its associations. Some of the grandest poems ever written have been dependent on their authors’ observation of birds for some touch of nature which has helped to render them immortal. Thus Gray, in his famed “Elegy written in a Country Churchyard” : — The breezy call of incense-breathing morn, The Swallow twittering from the straw-built shed, The Cock’s shrill clarion, or the echoing horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed. Who, reared in a country home, can fail, as he reads these lines, to recall the twittering of the Swallows under the spreading rafters in the cool of early morning? The mental contemplation of that peaceful pastoral scene, the train of tender recollections of the time of youth and inno- cence, all tending toward better impulses and higher aspira- tions, are largely due to the mention of the familiar bird in its association with the home of childhood. Is not literature the richer for the following lines of Longfellow in his “Birds of Passage ”? Above, in the light Of the star-lit night, Swift birds of passage wing their flight Through the dewy atmosphere. I hear the beat Of their pinions fleet, As from the land of snow and sleet They seek a southern lea. How much of life and color the presence of birds adds to the landscape! ‘The artist appreciates this. What marine view is complete without its Gulls in flight? How much a flock of wild-fowl adds to a lake or river scene! Birds are a special boon to child life, and a never-ending “source of entertainment to many children who live upon isolated farms, where the observation of birds’ habits adds greatly to the rational enjoyment of existence. It is not a far ery from the poet to the philosopher, and 88 USEFUL BIRDS. he also sees a value in birds for the opportunity they afford for the culture of the intellect. Every page of the book of nature is educational. But, as Dr. Coues says, there is no fairer or more fascinating page than that devoted to the life history of a bird. The systematic study of birds develops both the observational faculties and the analytical qualities of the mind. The study of the living bird afield is rejuve- nating to both mind and body. The outdoor use of eye, ear, and limb, necessitated by field work, tends to fit both the body and mind of the student for the practical work of life, for it develops both members and faculties. It brings one into contact with nature, — out into the sunlight, where balmy airs stir the whispering pines, or fresh breezes ripple the blue water. There is no purer joy in life than that which may come to all who, rising in the dusk of early morning, wel- come the approach of day with all its bird voices. The nature lover who listens to the song of the Wood Thrush at dawn —an anthem of calm, serene, spiritual joy, sounding through the dim woods —hears it with feelings akin to those of the devotee whose being is thrilled by the grand and sacred music of the sanctuary. And he who, in the still forest at even- ing, harkens to the exquisite notes of the Hermit, — that voice of nature, expressing in sweet cadences her pathos and her ineffable mystery, — experiences amid the falling shades of night emotions which must humble, chasten, and purify even the most upright and virtuous of men. The uplifting influence that birds may thus exert upon the lives of men constitutes to many their greatest value and charm. Og as . | eae may readily teach | 4) | % them to eat from Ear ES BO v4 the hand. Sev- [cabeseuuksuie L SEA eral other species Fig. 160.—The birds’ Christmas tree at the author’s farm. may be enticed to house. (From Bird-Lore.) our windows, where their habits and manners may be studied in comfort even in the most blustering winter weather. We accomplished this as follows: small shrubs or branches of trees were fastened upright on each window sill, extending over the entire window, and fastened at each side to the window frame, as shown in Fig. 159. To these branches pieces of meat were attached, about a foot apart. The suet 382 USEFUL BIRDS. should be wound on firmly with string or wrapped in wire netting, so that it cannot be carried off bodily. At first the birds would come only one at a time, but when they became accustomed to this method of feeding, four or five birds would feed together at a window. ~ Chickadees usually came first, Nuthatches and Downy Woodpeckers next, and Blue Jays last. . While these birds were being enticed to the windows, the Sparrows were fed with seeds and crumbs thrown out upon the snow. Next, a shelf or table four and one-half feet long and two feet wide was made . of rough box boards. This was bound round with a narrow cleat and covered with burlap, to prevent seeds and crumbs from blowing off. A little pine tree was next set up in the centre of the food table, the table or shelf was fastened under a win- dow sill on the south | side of the house, vari- ous food materials were attached to the tree and spread upon the table, and the “ birds’ Christmas tree” was ready. The Chickadees came to it at once, and the first snow- storm brought the native Sparrows. At first there was quar- reling among them, as all wanted to feed at once, and both tree and table were small ; but necessity finally brought about more amicable relations, and at last many birds of different species would feed together. At first the Sparrows were shy, and flew off at the first movement made by any one inside. Later, one could sit by the window and see perhaps eight or ten birds of three or four species busily feeding, a un) Fig. 161.—The birds’ tepee. (From Bird-Lore.) PLATE XLV.—Chickadees seen on a Frosty Morning, through Author’s Window. PLATE XLVI.—A Red-breasted Nuthatch at the Window. (Photograph, from life, by C. Allan Lyford.) THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 383 few feet away. Quick motions on the part of the observer should be avoided. If the birds are shy, a lace sash curtain may be put up. They cannot see through this, and may be watched at leisure. We have fed the birds in this way for years. A flock of Juncos and Tree Sparrows and two Fox Sparrows remained about our house through the hard winter of 1903-04. Many Jays came to the trees near by, and some to the windows. Crows came within twenty yards of the house. Myrtle Warblers occasionally came to the windows. Downy Wood- peckers, two species of Nuthatches, Flickers, Creepers, Kinglets, Crossbills, Robins, Grouse, Quail, [ and Pheasants were seen about the house from time to time. A large dry goods box in which grain and chaff were scattered window’ was set out on the north a side of the house. This box was open only on the south side. The Quail - and Pheasants soon found it. Then it was moved daily a little nearer the house, until the birds had 7#103-—- Pane learned to feed about the door-yard.1_ The presence of so many birds gave a healthy stimulus to observation, and served to break the monotony of winter isolation on the farm. While in the bleaker por- tions of the State it may not be possible to assemble so many, some may be attracted anywhere. Even our city friends who try this plan need not despair of seeing, now and then, besides the ubiquitous Sparrow, some of the wild birds of field and woodland. In many lo- sLight spring iat = \ B cs 6's aft Hilge . ve Board 10"long by 6° high 1 It is of the utmost importance to provide food and shelter for Quail in winter. An old box or barrel, a shelter of rails in a fence corner, or a “‘ birds’ tepee” of bean poles, any one of which is kept supplied with a little grain, may carry through a severe winter Quail enough to stock a whole township by their increase. 384 USEFUL BIRDS. calities the swarming House Sparrows will come to the feast and drive the native birdsaway. A hinged shelf (Fig. 162) supported by a light spring, which has been designed by a contributor to Bird-Lore, is believed to be Sparrow-proof. This method of feeding gives an opportunity to see what foods are selected by wild birds when given their choice. It is interesting to note that the birds at our windows have not learned to eat bread except in the shape of fine crumbs. When birds learn that bread is good, they will eat it from the loaf. Many kinds of food may be utilized; doughnuts, frozen milk, pork rind, nuts, and seeds all find favor with the birds. Jays prefer chestnuts and corn. Sand and coal cinders give birds the wherewithal to grind their food when snow covers the usual supply of material on the ground. Every family living in the country in winter needs the pleasure and community of interest to be had in thus cater- ing to the wants of the birds. Each farmhouse should have at least one window shelf for them. We should teach the children to feed them and watch for them. Thus we may benefit both child and bird, and gain pleasure and profit for ourselves. Attracting the Summer Birds. The term “summer birds” may be defined as including all summer residents, or those birds which remain through the summer to breed. In winter we have only to offer food to the birds to attract them; shelter and protection will retain them; but in summer birds must have food, water, protection, and a home. Food in quantities they always need, especially when engaged in rearing their young. Nature provides this in summer, but we may help them even then by putting out favorite foods. The supply of suet should be kept up until hot weather, and it is better to continue it all summer, for its presence may decide some of the resident birds to remain and nest near the house or in the orchard. The male Chickadee will take suet to feed to his sitting mate, and the parent birds will take it for a part of their own food while feeding their young mainly on insects. If we wish to attract useful birds to the garden, it is well THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 385 to begin to feed birds when they are migrating in April, by scattering a little cracked corn, oats, wheat, barley, or millet seed in the yard near the garden or along the garden paths. This may attract Sparrows, Thrashers, and Black- birds, some of which may decide to remain in the vicinity for the summer. These birds and the Robins and Catbirds will make themselves useful by feeding on insects at plowing time. Birds will drink and bathe even in winter, when they can find water; but in summer they must have water for both purposes. When the streams are frozen, snow takes the place of water; but in summer, if water is not at hand, birds must get it by drinking dew and by eating fruits or succulent green vegetation. Where there is running water about the house or garden, they may do very well without further provision for their needs; but it is best in any case to arrange a place where they can drink and bathe without being exposed to the attacks of cats and Hawks. A shallow pan set on the window shelf or on the top of a post on the shady side of the house, some four or five feet from the ground, will answer every purpose. A shelving stone may be put in, to give a varying depth of water in different parts of the pan. The water should not be more than two inches deep anywhere, and not more than half an inch deep on one side of the pan. If this is put out in the spring, and the birds become accustomed to visiting it, they will require less fruit than usual. The’ water should be changed every day. This pan will be a source of enjoyment to the household during the noontime, when all may watch the birds bathe and splash the water about. Where there is running water a drinking fountain may easily be arranged. This may be placed on the lawn, slightly elevated, and supplied from a drip; such a fountain should need little attention. Orna- mental fountains and watering troughs are often so deep that there is no chance for birds to drink or bathe. There should always be shallow water somewhere. Most orna- mental ponds have no provision for birds. The water is too deep or the coping too high. In such cases a large stone with a surface shelving into and just beneath the water, or 386 USEFUL BIRDS. a shallow floating basin, provided with a wide wooden rim to keep it afloat, may be used. There are usually springs or brooks about the farm, where birds can drink or bathe; but too often the long grass or low bushes about these drinking places conceal the crafty cat, which lies in wait to catch birds when their feathers are wet from bathing. A fountain on the closely cropped lawn, like the one designed by Mr. Chapman, is admirable if cats can be kept from it. When the cherry trees are in blossom the Hummingbirds come. There should be a succession of nectar-bearing flowers Fig. 163.—Mr. Chapman’s bird bath. (From in the garden, to at- tiaentiie tract them. The gla- diolus, honeysuckle, and bee balm are favorite flowers, but many others lure the Hummingbirds. Providing Nesting Places about Buildings. When the tide of bird life begins to turn northward in the spring, and before farm work becomes pressing, we should see that plenty of suitable nesting places are provided about our buildings for the birds, and that there is an abundant supply of nesting material with which they can construct their homes. Birds, like men, are largely controlled by circumstances. The presence or absence of a nesting place may decide a pair of birds for or against the acceptance of a certain locality as a place of residence. In the rough buildings of our grandfathers there were THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 387 always openings left for the birds to enter. The rafters were round or rough-hewn timbers, on which they could find points of attachment for their nests. Most barns now built are closely boarded and battened, clapboarded or shingled to the ground. No entrance hole is left for the birds. The timbers are sawn so smoothly that the birds, if they get in, can find no safe attachment for their nests. Even where the eaves project so as to give sufficient shelter for Swallows, the mud with which they build their nests will not stick to the planed and painted boards. Let every farmer having such a barn cut an ornamental opening at least a foot wide in each gable, leaving it open all summer, so that the Swallows may fly in; or; better still, cut an opening three or four feet long over the barn door, through which Swallows can go at will. Let him nail rough cleats horizontally on some of the rafters, or put up little bracket shelves thereon; and let each farmer having a barn with wide, projecting eaves put up a long shelf, cleat, or joist on the side of the barn within a foot of the eaves, for the Eaves Swallows; and we may in time have more Swal- lows than ever before, provided care is taken to shoot ma- rauding English Sparrows. If we had more Swallows and Phcebes we should have fewer flies, mosquitoes, and garden pests. The Chimney Swifts have been driven away by the con- struction of modern chimneys, and destroyed by unseason- able storms. They still nest in the large chimneys of the older houses. A box made of boards planed on the out- side may be built of the size and shape of an old-fashioned chimney, with similar divisions, and firmly fastened upon the roof of a building, to attract the Swifts. It is not nec- essary that it be high, or even that it be upon the top of a building ; but it should be out of reach of cats. Possibly a few thin, wooden cleats nailed horizontally inside will assist the birds. By means of a door in such a structure, and an arrangement of mirrors, the habits of these interesting birds may be studied. The Pheebe prefers a roof over its head, such as is some- times furnished by the upturned roots of a large tree, a 388 USEFUL BIRDS. bridge, barn, shed, or unoccupied house. It will occupy almost any shed, barn, or barn cellar near a pond or stream, but its nest is sometimes broken down for lack of a proper support. A box like that in Fig. 164 will be acceptable to the Pheebe if nailed up to the plate or rafters of a low shed. If the shed is closed, an opening gunk Xe. NSA | should always be left for the birds. ee > a2 An open window, with a few bars = across it to keep out cats and human intruders, is all that is necessary. Pheebes sometimes build on a shelf under projecting eaves. They par- ticularly like a rough stone build- ing. Robins will often build in rough boxes or trays, or on shelves put up under eaves or piazzas, in arbors or even in buildings. ‘ Having provided nesting places for all the birds that may be induced to nest within our buildings, we may next turn our attention to making nesting boxes. . Fig. 164.— Phebe’s nest in box. Bird Houses and Nesting Boxes. Since the use of the axe and saw in woodland and orchard has deprived many birds of their natural nesting places in hollow trees or limbs, there is no better way of providing for an increase of the numbers of such birds than by furnishing them with artificial building sites. Bluebirds found drowned in cisterns, Owls, Flickers, and Wood Ducks found dead in the stove pipes of unoccupied buildings, all show the straits to which birds are now driven in the search for a nesting site. All apertures that lead to such death-traps should be closed, and a plentiful supply of artificial breeding places should be provided. What more interesting occupation can there be for the children on the farm than that of preparing nesting boxes for the birds? This is the surest way of increasing the summer bird population, for birds do not lack food in sum- mer so much as safe nesting places in which to rear their young. Unfortunately, however, a great obstacle to success with THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 389 native birds is found in all cities and most villages of the State. The introduced House or “English” Sparrow comes first, and occupies the boxes. The Sparrow will nest in all boxes except those that are suspended by a wire or rope. Bluebirds and Tree Swallows will sometimes occupy such Sparrow-proof boxes; but the farmer need not use them, for he can keep his place clear of Sparrows by a vigorous use of the shotgun, and by putting up nesting boxes he may bring back the native birds. There are many localities where the Spar- row has never been very troublesome, and where native birds have contin- ued to breed practically unmolested. In such places we may put up fixed bird houses, with the confident ex- pectation that Tree Swallows or Bluebirds will nest in them, which is more than can be said of the swinging boxes. Nevertheless, where Spar- rows are very troublesome, the only Fig. 165.—Sparrow-proot box, bird box that is practical is one that imei ila is hung by wire. Sparrows seem to be afraid of any box or perch that is not firmly fastened. : Wrens are not generally common, and the Purple Martins were so decimated by the storms of June, 1903, that people who can establish Martin colonies will be fortunate indeed ; but the Flicker, the Chickadee, and the Screech Owl are among the possibilities, while we may by chance attract the White-breasted Nuthatch, Crested Flycatcher, or little Saw- whet Owl. Let no one neglect to put up bird houses because of the expense. No money need be expended. Birds are not very fastidious about their quarters. Old, weather-beaten lumber seems to be more attractive to them than that which is newly planed or painted, probably because it resembles in appear- ance the weathered stumps or limbs in which they naturally find their homes. Very acceptable nesting boxes may be 390 USEFUL BIRDS. made from a hollow limb sawed in sections, with tops and bottoms made of an old board, and a hole bored in each section for an entrance. Artistic imitations of hollow limbs may be made of papier- maché, but this involves some expense. The best imitations of a hollow log that I have seen were constructed of the bark and wood of a sound tree. In Bird-Lore for January— February, 1905, and in the Youth’s Companion of April 13, 1905, I described the method of making these boxes, but at that time they were untried. They have since had two seasons’ trial, with very satisfactory results. To Mr. William Brewster belongs the credit of their invention, and I have made a considerable number after his design. White birch and chestnut were used, as it was believed that the bark of these trees would be most durable, but Mr. Brewster now suggests that elm bark is probably best of all. Those por- tions of the trunks used were from four to eight inches in diameter. The boxes were made in summer, as the bark will not usually peel well before about June 20, and then only for a short time. When the tree had been cut down, the trunk was sawed into sections from ten to eighteen inches long, according to the size of the boxes desired. Only straight sections, free from knots or branches, were used. A branch of the right size, however, may, when cut off, leave a hole in the bark that can be utilized as an entrance for the birds. These domiciles may be made as follows: an incision is made on the side intended for the back of the box, through both outer and inner bark, from the top to the bottom of each section ; then, on the opposite side, some two or three inches from the top, bore through the bark, with an auger or ex- tension-bit, a hole of the size desired for the entrance. If such tools are not at hand, the aperture may be cut with a gouge, a chisel, or even a knife. Next insert a wedge-shaped stick into the incision at the back and under the inner bark, to start it off, and with this implement peel it very carefully. In peeling birch, be careful not to separate the inner and outer layers of the bark. Be particularly cautious when working about knots or rough places. The bark will make the sides of the box, and two sections, each an inch thick, as Wat yell th 1, hid ata Ui Fig. 8 Fig. 9. PLATE XLVII.— Bird Houses and Nesting Boxes. Fig. 1, hollow limb nest- ing box; Fig. 2, birch bark bird house; Fig. 8, slab bird box; Fig. 4, cat-proof box; Fig.5,a use for an old funnel; Fig. 6, chestnut-bark nesting box; Figs. 7 and 9, boxes with slide fronts; Fig. 8, house for Tree Swallow. THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 391 sawed from the ends of the stick, will make the top and bot- tom. These must be reduced in size by a shave until the bark can be lapped fully half an inch at the incision on the back. Now tack the bark to the bottom and top. Such a box may be put up by nailing or screwing a short stick or pole over the Jap on the back, which stick can in turn be nailed or screwed to the support. To make the roof watertight, a piece of thin, green bark from a young pine may be put on and tacked down over the edges. It will fit like soft leather, and make a neat appearance ; but experience has shown that it will not long resist the effect of sun and rain. A more per- manent covering may be made by using a piece - of tin or zinc, as shown in the figure of the chestnut bark box (Plate XLVI, Fig. 6); or a roof may be made of birch bark, as shown in Plate XLVI, Fig. 2. To make the expected 5... eee nest accessible to examination, the top of the _ barknesting pox, bark sides might be fastened to a hoop, and Seger the whole capped by a tin or wooden cover, like that of a lard pail or a berry box. The best support is a slim pole. Serviceable dwellings for birds may be made of the shells of gourds. Seedsmen advertise the seed, and any one can grow gourds. Squashes, even, may be utilized. The hard- shelled, old-fashioned winter,crook-neck would make a stout castle for a Bluebird or a Martin. Four old shingles and two pieces of old board will make a box like that shown in Fig. 167. This may be nailed up in a tall tree near the house, or on a building. It must be out of reach of cats, or the young are likely to be clawed out of the hole by these stealthy marauders. To checkmate the cat, a much deeper box may be made, with a small, high- placed round hole for the entrance, and a sloping, overhang- ing roof, which helps to keep out both water and cats. (See Plate XLVI, Fig. 4.) There is another advantage in a box of this pattern. The young birds find it rather hard to get out of such a box at first. They have to make many attempts, and when they finally escape they are quite strong 392 USEFUL BIRDS. and less likely to be caught by cats, Crows, or snakes than they would be if reared in a box from which they could get out before they were fully fledged. For practical utility a nesting box should not only provide the birds with an acceptable nesting site, but it should also furnish them perfect protection from the elements and their larger enemies, and should be so made that the interior can be quickly examined and the contents removed, if necessary. The roof or cover should be hinged or made to take off, so that if any young bird fails to get out it may be liber- ated ; while if undesirable tenants, such as mice, Sparrows, or squirrels, get in, they may be ousted. The box is much more satisfactory as a protective device if made so strong that neither Wood- peckers nor squirrels can easily enlarge the entrance sufficiently to allow ene- mies of the occupants to get in. All these essentials may be secured without expense by using worn-out or discarded utensils or receptacles. An empty tomato can may in a few Fig. 167.—Shingle box, minutes be made into a nesting box by ae eneer slitting the tin of the opened end twice and turning down the piece between the slits, thereby mak- ing a hole not over an inch wide and high. It can be put up very quickly by placing the bottom of the can against a tree trunk and nailing it there with two wire nails driven diago- nally through the edge, or by fastening it to a piece of board or a pole, which can be attached to a tree or building. The cover may be kept in place by pinching the mouth of the can a little. The tomato can box is shown in Plate XLVIII. This is a practical box for Wrens, and it may be used by Bluebirds if the entrance is made larger. When holes are cut through tin, the sharp edges round the opening should be turned over with a pair of pliers, that the birds may not injure themselves in going in or out. Rusty PLATE XLVIII.— Inexpensive Nesting Boxes. Tomato can, Bluebird box, old teakettle, peach can, Owl box, and kerosene can. sad e665. Xe 2 ee ae a ee _ ae as PLATE XLIX.— Chickadee about to enter its Nest, in an Old Varnish Can. THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 393 or painted tin is best, for birds seem suspicious of bright surfaces. There should be a few nail holes in the lower side, to allow the escape of any water that may drive in. A large funnel may be nailed to a piece of board, and the board fastened on the side of the barn; or the funnel itself may be fastened to the building. This may be used by a Wren or a Chickadee. (See Plate XLVII, Fig.5.) Anold coffee pot may be set upon a post, or fastened to a bracket which may be set against the side of a building. Milk cans, lard pails, flower pots, teakettles, and many other utensils may be utilized, and fastened up in various ways to trees or buildings; and, although they may not be ornate, the birds will find them useful. There should be no projection or limb immediately beneath a nesting box, to give cat or Crow a foothold from which to reach into the nest ; but it is always better to have a small limb or stick, as a perch, within a few feet, to serve as a rest for the parent birds. Small wooden boxes, such as may be found at the stores, if not over six by eight by fifteen inches, may be used. Those who have time and lumber to spare may make bird houses of any shape to suit their tastes; but a few suggestions as to construction and situation will not be out of place. If one wishes to accommodate only a certain species of bird, the entrance to the nesting box should be made so small that no larger bird can enter. Boxes made on this principle for small birds will protect the eggs and young from Crows and Jays. A round hole one and one-fourth inches in di- ameter will do for either Wrens or Chickadees ; but a Wren can use a smaller opening, just the size of a silver twenty-five- cent piece, and such a doorway is small enough to keep out “English” Sparrows. The Chickadee can use a one and one- eighth inch hole, but some will not be content with one less than one and one-fourth inches in diameter. Bluebirds and Tree Swallows can pass through a one and one-half inch aper- ture. This is usually large enough, and will keep out Jays. The two-inch hole usually recommended is too large, for it will admit both Martins and squirrels. These entrances may be round, square, or oblong. If made oblong, the measure- ments given should be used horizontally, the vertical diame- 394 USEFUL BIRDS. ter being made a little larger. The Flicker will sometimes enter a knothole, only two and one-half inches in diameter, in an old apple tree; but if so small an opening is made in a box put up for this bird, it may not use it. For a Flicker or a Screech Owl the entrance should be made at least three or three and one-half inches in diameter. In making boxes of the form illustrated as the cat-proof box (Plate XLVI, Fig. 4), the following inside dimensions are sufficient. Boxes for Wrens or Chickadees may be made twelve by four by five inches, with the entrance hole close to the top. They may be placed from six to twenty-five feet from the ground.! A perch is not necessary. Boxes for Flickers are best if made from hollow limbs or covered with bark. These birds do not need perches. If limbs with the bark on are used, they should be cut in late summer, autumn, or early winter, when the bark will adhere. A box for a Flicker may be eight by ten by fifteen inches, and should be placed from six to twenty-five feet up. A similar box twelve inches square and fifteen high would be ample for a family of Sereech Owls.2 A box twelve by five by six inches is ample for Swallows or Bluebirds, and should be placed from twelve to thirty feet from the ground. Swallows and Blue- birds like perches. The long diameter of the box should be from front to back. The sitting bird will then face the entrance, —a good position for defence. A single tene- ment will accommodate a family of Martins, but a colony of these birds should be secured, if possible. Some writers have recommended putting up boxes with the entrance facing the east or north. This may be right in 1 The distances from the ground as given here are not arbitrary. I have known the Chickadee, for instance, to nest at different heights, from two to fifty-five feet from the ground. 2 This size of box is probably none too large for the Screech Owl, as three or four young birds soon render the edges of the nest very filthy, and on this ac- count probably requireextraroom. Nevertheless, a pair of Screech Owls at our home in Wareham reared a brood of four young in the grocery box shown in the upper figure on Plate XLVIII. Allowing the birds to be the best judges of what they want, the dimensions of this box, seven by eleven by fifteen inches, and the size of the entrance, three by four inches, may be useful to those who wish to at- tract this bird. It was noted that during the daytime, at least, the mother Ow] in this box always sat with her head away from the entrance, and in the darkest corner, —an incubating position sometimes assumed by the day birds that nest in boxes. tae PLATE L.— Owl Box, at Author’s Home. The front has been removed, and the mother lifted to show the downy young. (Photograph, from life, by C. Allan Lyford.) PLATE LI.— Owl on Nest. This view, taken later, shows growth of young, and also feathers of Blue Jays killed by Owl. (Photograph, from life, by C. Allan Lyford.) . THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 395 Europe or west of the Rocky Mountains, but it is unsafe here, where our severest rainstorms come from the north- east. The entrance should face the south or west, wherever possible. It is also best to have boxes, especially tin ones, so situated that they will be shaded by trees or buildings Fig. 168.—Chickadees feeding their young in an observation box at the author’s window. (From Reed’s American Ornithology.) during the hotter part of the day. By these precautions we may guard against the danger of having the young birds wet and chilled by cold storms or overheated by the sun. In very hot weather young birds in unshaded boxes some- times die from excessive heat. Those who wish to study the domestic affairs of birds may construct an observation box with a door on one side, back of which a pane of glass is set. Such a bird house may be set up on a window sill, so that by opening the door the feed- ing and care of the young birds may be watched through the ’ 396 USEFUL BIRDS. glass. I have often thus watched Bluebirds and Chickadees feeding their young. Thus far it has been my intention to show how expense may be avoided in the construction of nesting boxes. Neverthe- less, expensive ornamental bird houses add to the attractive- ness of a country home, and may be displayed where old tin cans and cheap boxes would be out of place. In building such bird houses the best plan is to imitate the design of some dwelling. A pretty cottage ora country villa may be constructed in minia- ture. The large bird houses sometimes made are highly ornamental ; but most of our native species are not social in their nesting habits, and when a large house is put up it is likely to be occupied either by a single pair of birds or by Purple Martins or House Sparrows. Such houses are sometimes occupied by both Martins and Sparrows, but in such cases the Sparrows usu- ally in the end drive out the Martins. Ifthe Sparrows can be driven away, there is no bird that can be so readily increased in numbers by putting up nesting boxes as can the Purple Martin. When once a colony of Martins becomes estab- lished, it will in a few years fill several large bird houses with its increase. The experience of Mr. J. Warren Jaccbs, who established a large colony, illustrates this.! A few Mar- tins are returning to some of their old homes in this State ; they should be encouraged. The houses should be either taken down in fall and not put up until the Martins return in spring, or the entrances to the rooms should be closed up until spring, that the Sparrows may have no opportunity to get in before the Martins return. Were the Sparrows de- Fig. 169.— A Martin box. 1 The Story of a Martin Colony, by J. Warren Jacobs, Waynesburg, Pa. THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 397 stroyed and more Martin boxes put up, we might have, in time, more Martins than ever. A house for a large Martin colony ordinarily involves the expenditure of a considerable sum; but a very good house, that will accommodate a colony of ordinary size, may be made from a flour barrel. The roof is of zinc,. or of wood covered with painted canvas. The Martin house should be placed on a pole at least fifteen to twenty feet high. It should have sev- eral large rooms, with entrances two to three inches in diameter, that it may provide room enough for several pairs of birds, and that each tenement may be readily inspected and cleaned when nec- essary, and the whole house should be painted in light colors, that: the young birds may not suffer too much from the rays of the hot sun. It should be so constructed that the young birds may not be readily crowded out of the nest, and so become the prey of cats. Sucha Fig. 170.—A Martin catastrophe may be guarded against by pa: having a shelf or piazza extending round the house beneath each tier of doorways, and constructing a railing at least three inches high round the platform. Each of these plat- forms should have a‘slight downward pitch, to carry off the rain and prevent it from driving into the doorways below. There should be no brackets beneath the box, for they afford the cat a foothold. Many other designs will suggest them- selves. A barrel might be covered and roofed with bark and the railings made of twigs. In fitting up the roonis, a square box should first be made, to go up the center of the barrel. + An attempt might be made to establish the Martins by bringing here in the night from other States bird houses occupied by Martins, young and old, and setting them up on poles prepared for them in suitable localities here. There is reason to believe that such introductions would succeed if carefully conducted when the young had made about half their growth. One successful attempt is on record. There is a plentiful supply of food here for Swallows and Martins. The increase of mosquitoes and flies in many localities since the summer of 1903, when so many of these birds were destroyed, has attracted wide attention. The reinstatement of the Martins is an important matter, which should engage the attention of the State Board of Agriculture. 398 USEFUL BIRDS. All the rooms will be backed by this, and the pole will go into it. The pole may be made to go into a socket in the ground, and then both pole and house may be taken down in the fall and kept under shelter until the Martins return in the spring; or, if the pole is hinged near the bottom, the box may be still more readily taken indoors. This will prevent the Sparrows from intrenching themselves within. If a cedar pole is used, the bottom should be well tarred wherever it comes in contact with the ground. It should be set deep in the ground to give it the requisite firmness. If the nests of Martins are dusted occasionally with fresh insect powder, it will relieve them of the vermin which always congregate in large, occupied bird houses. Furnishing Nesting Material. An abundance of suitable and easily accessible nesting material may chiefly influence some birds in choosing a site for a home. It is now believed that the Parula Warbler breeds only where the usnea moss grows luxuriantly, for in this moss she. usually secretes her nest, constructing it largely of the same material. Robins, Swallows, and Phcebes must have mud for nest building. The Chipping Sparrow lines her nest with hair, usually that of the horse, cow, or deer. Vireos and Orioles must have hair or strands of some kind to construct the pendent fabrics which they skillfully weave. If we hang nesting materials on bushes, trees, or fences, or place them on the ground in the open, where birds will be in no danger from cats while securing them, this may prove to be the final “straw” which will decide several pairs of birds to nest on our premises. Such supplies, when watched, furnish ready means of tracing the nest builders to their nests. We can then take means to protect the nests from marauders. Root- lets, fibers of birch, cedar or grape vine bark, straw, fine hay, hair, feathers, thread, twine, rope yarn, jute, sphag- num moss, —all will serve a purpose. It is important to furnish twine, hemp, yarn, or some similar material for the Orioles; otherwise they may get it by tearing to pieces the nests of other birds which have used such materials.. In THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 399 dry weather we may provide mud for Robins, Swallows, and Pheebes to use. At such a time a Robin has been seen to wet its feathers and then trail them in the dust to make mud for its nest. Put a pan of mud or clay on the window shelf, and see if the birds do not find it. All other nesting mate- rial should be exposed constantly from April to August. Feeding the Summer Birds. The food table or window shelf should be supplied with food all summer. It may help out some bird when in times of storm or temporary scarcity it can hardly find sufficient food for its young. We can make feeding experiments with grains and seeds, nuts and fruits, cooked foods, cereals, bread, and cake. There should be some food at hand for insect- ‘eating birds and their young, that we may teach them to trust us. Taming an old bird in summer is usually up-hill work; but now and then a Catbird or Robin, more confid- ing than the rest, may learn to come to be fed or even take food from the hand. Practically all birds will eat hairless caterpillars, such as the cankerworms; most of them are fond of grasshoppers and meal worms. We may now and then find it necessary to feed some young birds, when cold storms cut short the natural food supply. Occasionally a young bird jumps or falls from the nest be- fore it is full-fledged and strong. Such birds are likely to fall a prey to cats, snakes, or Crows ; but we may be able to save them by a little care or a few days’ feeding. It will not do to return the young fledgeling to the nest, as usually it will not stay there. If the weather is warm and the parents are at hand, the youngster may now be put in a cage with an oil cloth cover over its top, and the cage hung on the branch of a tree near the nest, where the parents sometimes will feed the fledgeling through the bars. It can be watched a little, taken in, and kept very warm for a few nights, when it may be allowed to go with the rest of the brood. If the parent birds are dead or have deserted the helpless young, it will be something of a task to supply by hand the wants of the young birds, as they need feeding often during daylight, and should be fed about all they will eat. Grasshoppers and 400 USEFUL BIRDS. hairless caterpillars, with chopped lean meat and a few earth- worms cut up, will make a good substitute for the natural food. Those who wish to experiment in this way should read the chapter on taming and feeding birds in Nature Study and Life, by Prof. C. F. Hodge. They may thereby avoid mistakes, save much trouble, and preveut a useless sacrifice of bird life. Our experience in attracting Bluebirds, Wrens, and Chickadees about the house by means of food and nesting boxes proves conclusively that we may easily domesticate these birds. Our experiments with the Chickadee will serve to illustrate how a species may be induced to leave its nest- ing places in the woods to nest and live about dwellings and under man’s protection. We first cut down all the de- caying trees near the house, leaving the birds neither dead wood in which to make holes, nor natural hollows in which to find shelter, — but not before we had put up artificial nest- ing boxes on the house and on the near-by trees. This was done in the fall, that the birds might become accustomed to the change before another nesting season, and that they might find shelter in the boxes during the cold winter nights. It seems remarkable that Chickadees which naturally breed in decayed stumps or hollow trees should come to seek the shelter of old tin cans in winter; but eventually they did so, going early to these shelters, and nestling together there in company for mutual protection from the cold. In the mean time, food was put out near the house win- dows, where nesting boxes had been ptt up. In the spring a single pair of Chickadees nested and reared seven young in a wooden box fastened to a window sill. The next year two pairs reared young in boxes within two rods of each other ; one was on the house, the other in an apple tree near by. The present year (1906) three pairs have reared young, and two of them have successfully brought off two broods each. In 1905 a pair accepted a wad of cotton placed in a box, dug out a hollow in it, and reared young there. This nesting box is situated upon a window frame three feet from an outside kitchen door. The illustration (Plate LIII) shows the bird and her nest. PLATE LII. — Chickadee’s Nest, made of Cotton, in Box on Author’s Window. PLATE LIII.— Chickadee on Nest. PLATE LIV.— Mother Chickadee bringing Food to Young. ickadee cleaning Nest. Mother Ch PLATE LV THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 401 An incident occurred in connection with this box which shows how easily birds may be induced to occupy a nest- ing site, and what influence an ample food supply may have in deciding them. Two Chickadees came to the box in the spring of 1906, and went in and out of it for several days, but finally seemed to be dissatisfied, and went away. A few days later.a piece of suet was fastened to the window sill. Within twenty-four hours the birds found it. They visited it frequently, and at once began carrying nesting material into the box. A supply of suet was kept there, and two broods were reared in that box. The old birds fed on the suet often when hard pressed to fill the nine hungry mouths in the nest ; but even then the young were fed on insects. The Chickadees did not utilize a tin can for nesting pur- poses until 1904, when, during a call on a neighbor, I saw two Chickadees looking his house over in search of a nest- ing place. I called his attention to them, and he expressed a wish for a bird house. I took an old two-quart can from the dump, made a wooden stopper for it, cut a small hole in the stopper, and nailed the can up in the nearest tree. The Chickadees examined it, and within twenty minutes began building. Here they safely reared a brood. Evidently they preferred a wooden doorway to their castle, but since then they have learned to dispense with the wood. The next summer my neighbor, Mr. Lewis E. Carr, wired up in a pine near his house an old varnish can that the boys had somewhat distended during their annual Fourth of July celebration. The Chickadees took up their: quarters in it at once, and also nested in it in 1906. This can and its bird occupant are shown in Plate XLIX. Chickadees now occupy at least three cans of various sizes and descriptions. They seem to prefer those that are put up on or near houses. There is every reason to believe that, were it not for the in- troduction of the House Sparrow, several useful native birds might easily be induced to breed about our houses, and even in the cities, as familiarly as the Sparrow now does. 402 USEFUL BIRDS. Attracting Water-fowl. The water-fowl have been hunted until they have become so wild that attracting them seems at first sight an utterly hope- less task. Nevertheless, it can be accomplished if only a place can be found where they may rest and feed unmolested. Wild Ducks soon learn where they are safe. Along the water front at Titusville, Fla., no shooting is allowed, but out on the river gunning is not prohibited. About the wharves and along the beach at the hotel wild Scaup Ducks swim, dive, and dress their plumage as unconcernedly as if there were not a man in sight. They sometimes come ashore and walk about on the grass near the hotel. They swim at ease among the small craft at the wharves, and act much like domesticated Ducks; but when the same birds get out on the river beyond the dead line, they can hardly be approached within gunshot by a fast-sailing boat. Wild-fowl, if undisturbed, will settle in the most unlikely places. A pair of Wood Ducks came regularly to a small pool in the grove not far from our house, until disturbed by workmen passing by. Those who have large estates containing ponds, where Ducks can be protected, may attract them by scattering grain in the water and on the shores. This has been successfully tried. A few “ gray call Ducks” will prove an additional attraction. If the pond or stream has wooded shores, an attempt should be made to induce the Wood Ducks to breed. This may be done by put- ting up nesting boxes. One reason for the present scarcity of Wood Ducks in this portion of New England is, that sum- mer camps are now established on many of the ponds where these birds formerly bred. Another reason is, that there are few hollow trees in which they can breed. People having suitably located woodlands should put up nesting boxes made in imitation of hollow logs, for the Wood Ducks. A box for these birds should be at least two feet long. It may be placed either perpendicularly or at an acute angle, and fastened not far from the ground ona tree near the water. It should have an opening at least four inches in diameter. Everything possible should be done to prevent the extermination of this beautiful bird, and to secure an increase in its numbers. THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 403 THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS AGAINST THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES, Those who are successful in assembling birds about their homes are likely soon to find that they have also inadvert- ently attracted creatures to prey upon them. When our winter colony of birds was at the height of its numbers, in January, 1903, it was noticed that the birds were growing nervous and easily frightened. Soon one was seen to be minus a tail. Then their numbers began to decrease. An investigation revealed the cause, — two cats and a Sharp- shinned Hawk. One day during my absence the Hawk struck a Blue Jay within twenty feet of the window. If we expect to conserve our small native land birds and increase their numbers, something more becomes necessary than protection from the gunner, the small boy, or the milliner’s agent; for in woods where all shooting is prohibited the enemies of birds, particularly Hawks, squirrels, Crows, and Jays, are likely to increase in numbers, while the smaller birds decrease. This was the case in the Middlesex Fells Reservation, soon after the Metropolitan Park Commission took it. Four years’ experience on my own place in protect- ing birds from gunners resulted in a very decided increase in the numbers of squirrels, Crows, and Jays, and a corre- sponding decrease among the smaller birds. Apparently less than ten per cent. of the smaller birds raised any young in 1902. During a long stay on the estate of Mr. William Brewster, at Concord, Mass., in the. breeding season of 1903, it became evident to me that the numbers of the smaller birds breeding in his woods had decreased much in the previous six years. No shooting had been allowed for several years on this estate of nearly three hundred acres. The owner had protected the game and birds from destruction by man ; but the results, so far as some of the smaller wood birds were con- cerned, were disappointing. The Wood Thrushes nearly all disappeared. Where there had been five pairs of Redstarts breeding a few years before, only one pair was seen in 1903, and they disappeared later. Comparatively few birds were able to rear their broods that year, except the Robins and 404 USEFUL BIRDS. other birds that nested near the house, the ground-nesting birds, and those that bred in nesting boxes or hollow trees. Crows and Jays were common, though not increasing rapidly, and both Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawks were present (probably only one pair of each). Squirrels of three species were more numerous than I have ever seen them elsewhere. Since that year the number of birds about the house seems to have increased. This may be due in part to the fact that the Cooper’s Hawk no longer breeds on the place ; also, that the squirrels about the house do not molest the birds much, while many birds have been attracted by food plants and nesting boxes. When it is found, on prohibiting shooting within certain limits, that the smaller birds are decreasing, we may infer that they are preyed upon by creatures that were formerly held in check by gunners. If this be true, then neither the gunners nor the sportsmen need be looked upon as the un- mixed evil that some of us have been inclined to consider them ; and the farmer who has no time to protect birds may safely allow honorable men to shoot on his land. Evidently the bird protectionist may be forced to the conclusion that, in order to protect birds, he must sometimes destroy some of their natural enemies, even if among these he is obliged to kill some birds. Hawks, Crows, Jays, and squirrels have become so accustomed to the persecutions of the gunner that they are able in a sense to persist in nearly normal numbers in spite of him; and when we eliminate shooting, they may increase, to the detriment of the species on which they prey. In a biographical notice of the late Henry D. Minot the following appears: “On the home grounds from seventy-five to a hundred nests were built every spring, and the broods therein successfully reared, for the birds were carefully protected. Cats, Hawks, gray squirrels, Crows, Jays, and snakes were summarily dealt with; every note of alarm was promptly answered with an efficient rescue, and all the spring and early summer the air was filled with the melody of happy birds.” ! 1 The Land and Game Birds of New England, by Henry D. Minot. Second edition, edited by William Brewster. LHE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 405 What a great number of young birds must have gone out into the world from that place. The policy pursued by Mr. Minot may serve as a model for the protection of a colony of small birds, and, if followed faithfully elsewhere, it ought to have the same gratifying results. Having undertaken a portion of the management of creation by introducing and cul- tivating strange plants and trees, and destroying the larger wild animals and the Eagles, Hawks, and Owls which for- merly helped to keep Crows, Jays, snakes, squirrels, and other predatory creatures in check, we must not now shirk the responsibility that rests upon us to protect the timid and defenceless birds which we have left exposed to their increas- ing enemies. But, if we accept the burden of protecting birds, we must exercise our power with wise discretion. It should not be inferred, for instance, if a gray squirrel de- stroys the young of a pair of Robins, that this is a habit with all gray squirrels. Those who have large estates, on which they can protect birds and game, are particularly fortunate if they have in their employ keepers who can intelligently discriminate in such matters; otherwise, serious mistakes may be made. Millais, in his magnificent work on British surface-feeding Ducks, relates that in 1884 Brown-headed Gulls began to increase in the bog at Murthly. The keeper said that the Gulls were killing young Teal. Another ex- perienced keeper suggested that this was probably the work of a single Gull. The Gulls were watched, a pair of birds were seen together, one of which began to kill ducklings. Both birds were shot, and no more ducklings were killed that year. In 1890 another pair of Gulls began killing young Teal; sixteen were found dead. The two culprits were shot, and no more young Teal were killed that season. Millais considers that individual Gulls are as dangerous to young Ducks as any of their numerous enemies ; and yet probably only two, or at the most four, of the large number at the bog were actually doing the killing.’ Had not the gamekeeper been an intelligent observer, a hundred innocent Gulls might have been shot, and the guilty birds might have escaped to 1 Nevertheless, observers agree that the habits of bird-killing and egg-eating are quite general among certain species of Gulls. 406 USEFUL BIRDS. continue their nefarious work elsewhere. Millais confidently advances the theory that a few individual birds do the mis- chief for which perhaps the whole race is blamed. He be- lieves that the individual criminal among birds does his work stealthily, and so is seldom observed; that his family is fed on the results of his rapacity ; and that the young acquire similar tastes and habits, which in time may spread from family to family and from one community to another. He states that years ago the Rooks of southern England were practically innocent of stealing eggs or young birds, though their cousins in the north were nest-robbers even then. He says that now there is hardly a community of Rooks in the south of England that does not contain individuals with the nest-robbing habit. The view that certain depraved indi- viduals among birds and mammals are responsible for most of the unusual depredations on other birds and mammals is held by many observers. The Marsh Hawk and the Red- shouldered Hawk are among the most useful of all Hawks ; but I have known individuals of both these species to be destructive to birds or young poultry. If such individuals can be shot, it will be a decided benefit to all concerned. Where Cooper’s and Sharp- shinned Hawks cannot be shot, they may be caught by setting steel traps in their nests. It is quite probable that some Crows do not habitually steal the eggs and young of other birds. In fall, winter, and early spring we may welcome Crows about our farm buildings: They may do much good in the fields in summer, but, as a measure of safety, they should be kept as far away from small breeding birds as possible. Poison will kill some and drive the rest away; but exposing poison in this way is illegal, and there is great danger of poisoning useful birds. Egg-eating Crows may be trapped by exposing an egg on the ground in such a way that the Crow must step into a concealed trap to get the egg. After two or three have been caught in this way, the others will avoid the place. Our laws which deny protection to the Crow are wise, for it is one of those species which, though at times most useful, may become a pest if not held severely in check. Watch the Jays, and shoot every one that is found dis- THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 407 turbing the nests of other birds. The actions of the birds and their manner toward the Jay are usually sufficient indica- tion of its character. It is not very difficult to surprise the Jay in its raids on birds’ nests. It may possibly be neces- sary now and then to kill a Crow Blackbird that has the nest-robbing habit. No native bird should be exterminated, for they all serve some useful purpose ; but if the introduced House (or “ Eng- lish” ) Sparrow could be exterminated, one of the chief ob- stacles to the increase of native birds about villages and cities would be removed. This is now a hopeless task ; but much has been effected in some localities by feeding the birds on poisoned wheat. Such work, however, should never be at- tempted except by skillful and experienced persons, as other- wise there is much danger of poisoning poultry, Pigeons, and native birds. A persistent shooting of the birds, together with the continual removing of their eggs from all nesting boxes, will eventually drive them out of a locality. All who desire to harbor and protect birds must eliminate the bird-killing cat. The cat is of some service in prevent- ing the increase of rats and mice in dwellings, as well as that of other small rodents of the fields and woods; but the ver- min of the house may be controlled by traps and poison, while those of the field may be restrained by Hawks and Owls. A ferret will in a short time drive all the rats from a building. A smart fox terrier or a good “ratter” will practically exterminate the rats about a farmhouse. As the cat is not an absolute necessity, and as it is a potent carrier of contagious diseases, which it spreads, particularly among children, it would be far better for the community if most of the bird-killing cats now roaming at large could be painlessly disposed of. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has added another to its long list of good works by chloroforming many thousands of homeless vagrant cats in the cities. The Animal Rescue League is not far behind in this good work, which ought to be extended farther into the country districts. Where the cat is deemed necessary in farm or village, no family should keep more than one good mouser, which should never be allowed to have its liberty 408 USEFUL BIRDS. during the breeding season of the birds, unless it has been taught not to kill them. Cats can be confined during the day in outdoor cages, as readily as rabbits, and given the run of the house at night. Massachusetts law does not give the cat protection, and all cats found running at large may be treated as wild animals. All wild or “woods” cats should be shot at sight. Marauding cats may be trapped by box traps baited with catnip, and held for the owner, or killed if no owner appears. Farmers know well how to deal with foxes, weasels, minks, skunks, and raccoons. They regard squirrels as pests; but it.is extremely probable that it is only the individual squir- rel that robs birds’ nests. Mr. A. C. Dike writes me that one season when he was carefully watching the birds about his place he saw the eggs and young in eight birds’ nests destroyed by the red squirrel; but that in each case the saine squirrel was the culprit, for he was able to identify it, because it had lost a part of its tail in escaping from the cat. Squirrels often nest in hollow trees in which birds have already established themselves, thus driving out the birds. It is quite possible that in some localities many of the squir- rels may have acquired the habit of killing birds. When this is evident the squirrels should be killed. Unfortunately, the law protects gray squirrels at the only time when this habit can be observed. Where birds show no alarm when squir- rels approach their nests, the presumption is that the squir- rels are innocent. The beauty and grace exhibited in the forms and motions of squirrels have made them favorites with many people, who will not wish to kill them. Others will wish to avoid killing Crows, Jays, Hawks, or even cats. But all should regard it a duty to protect the nests of birds from these marauders. Some experiments in this direction have been made. It is a simple matter, as has been described, to protect such birds as will build in nesting boxes ; but those that nest on the ground are peculiarly liable to the attacks of their enemies, and other means of protecting them may possibly be devised. Years ago I secured a translation of a paper published in France by Xavier Raspail, entitled “The Protection of Use- THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 409 ful Birds,” in which he gives a method of protecting their nests from their enemies. Of sixty-seven nests observed from April to August, only twenty-six prospered. Of the forty-one destroyed, fifteen were known to have been robbed by cats, eight by the garden dormouse, three by Jays, and two by Magpies. He protected twenty nests either by fur- nishing the birds vermin-proof bird boxes to build in, or by surrounding the nests with wire netting. Only two of these were robbed of eggs or young, and they were pillaged by animals that got through or under the netting. These simple methods of protection assured the rearing of one hun- dred and two young birds from nineteen nests. Comparing these figures with those from the unprotected nests, we find that, proportionately, only seven pairs of parents out of the twenty would have succeeded in rearing their young had their homes been unprotected. The paper lacks a complete description of the method of putting up the wire nest pro- tectors. There is nothing to show whether the enclosure was without a cover, or whether an opening was left in the top just large enough to admit the parent birds; but the mesh used was, in some cases at least, small enough to keep out mice, or about one-fifth to one-sixth of an inch in diameter. The language used seems to indicate that the nests on the ground were merely enclosed by a circular fence of wire netting. Mons. Raspail says that nests so protected are not attacked by weasels or mice. There seems to be nothing to prevent these animals from climbing over the wire, except that they may stupidly strive to get at the nest from below, and so walk around the cage without seeking an entrance above. The sly fox, perceiving the smell of iron, might sus- pect a trap. Probably Crows and Jays, being also suspicious of a trap, would not enter these enclosures. The surround- ing of the nests with netting in no case caused the birds to desert their home, even when it was done as soon as the nest was completed and before the eggs were laid. This method might be worth a trial. Where nesting trees are isolated, cats and squirrels may be kept out of them by the use of either of the devices shown in the cut (Fig. 171), for these animals cannot climb up a per- 410 USEFUL BIRDS. fectly smooth surface. Nesting boxes mounted on poles may be guarded in this way. Zinc is the best material. A wide piece of wire netting, shaped like a hat brim, and fastened around a tree, will prevent cats and squirrels from climb- ing it. A smooth, tall, slim pole, made of a peeled sapling pine set in the open, is rarely climbed by cats or squirrels. Thick thorn bushes often serve as safe nesting places for birds. Bundles of thorny sticks tied around tree trunks will keep cats out of the trees. An island in a small artificial Fig. 171.— Zinc bands to prevent cats or squirrels pond is also a refuge from climbing trees or poles. from cats. The best cat-proof fence for a city garden is that used by Mr. William Brewster at Cambridge. It is made of wire netting some six feet in height, surmounted by a fish seine of heavy twine, which is fastened to the top of the wire. The top of the net is then looped to the ends of long, flexible garden stakes. This fabric gives beneath any weight, and offers so unstable a foot- ing that no cat ever succeeds in scaling it. Mr. Brewster's garden has become famous for the numbers of birds that breed there, and the migrants that visit it year by year. THE PROTECTION OF FARM PRODUCTS FROM BIRDS. Serious losses sometimes occur from injury inflicted on crops or poultry by birds. It is well to remember, how- ever, that, while the harm done by birds is conspicuous, the compensating good that they do is usually unnoticed. In most cases it is best not to kill them, but to protect both birds and crops; for by killing too many birds we may dis- turb the biological equilibrium, and bring about a greater THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 411 injury than the one we attempt to prevent. The destruction of too many corn-pulling Crows, for example, might be fol- lowed by such an increase of grubs and mest ipoaks that no grass could be grown; or the extermination of Hawks and Owls might be succeeded by the destruction of all the young fruit trees by hordes of mice. Moreover, other evils, far less simple and easily traceable, might result, for the widening ripples that man creates by disturbing the balance of nature are likely to be felt in the most tnexpected places. Most birds earn more of our bounty than they receive, and that portion of our products which they ordinarily eat may be justly looked upon as but partial payment for their services. Nevertheless, the farmer. must protect his prop- erty from excessive injury, such as sometimes occurs when the natural food supply of birds is cut short, or when too many are gathered upon a small area. To protect Grain from Crows and Other Birds. The following spring measures are recommended : — 1. Tar the seed corn, as follows: “Put one-fourth to one- half bushel of corn in a half-barrel tub; pour on a pailful of hot water, or as much as is necessary to well cover the corn ; dip a stick in gas tar, and stir this briskly.in the corn; re- peat until the corn is entirely black ; pour off onto burlap (bran sacks are excellent) ; spread in the sun and stir two or three times during the day. If this work is done in the morning, and the day is sunny, the corn will be ready for the planter the next day without any other care. The hot water softens the tar so that just enough will adhere to the corn, and the corn is completely glazed by the sun. This is by far the quicker way of tarring corn, is harmless and effectual, and I have for years planted with a machine corn treated in this way.”? 2. Scatter soaked corn often about the borders of the field. 3. Plant the seed three or four inches deep. This is said to prevent corn-pulling by Crows, and must be effectual on heavy soil. ‘ 1 Ethan Brooks, in Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agri- culture, 1896, p. 294. 412 USEFUL BIRDS. 4, Surround the field with a line of twine, strung on upright poles, and suspend rags, streamers, pieces of bright tin, etc., from the twine. 5. A frequent change in scarecrows is advisable. A barrel hung on a leaning pole puzzles the Crow. To drive Blackbirds from a cornfield in autumn, a charge of fine shot fired from a long distance, so as to rattle among them, will be effectual without injuring them. To protect grain from the House (or “ English”) Sparrow a liberal use of the shotgun is usually successful. Poisoned wheat has been used in extreme cases. To protect Small Fruits. It is not usually good biology to shoot birds for eating fruit. It is better to provide fruit enough for both birds and man, especially wild fruit, which birds prefer. The fol- lowing protective measures are recommended : — 1. To protect strawberries and cherries (May and June), plant Russian mulberry and June berry or shadberry, or plant several trees of the soft early cherries, to furnish food for the birds. The Governor Wood is a type of the kind they prefer. (G. T. Powell.) 2. To protect. raspberries and blackberries (July and August), plant mulberry, buckthorn, elder, and chokeberry. (Florence Merriam [Bailey].) Also, plant some early sweet berries, and let the fruit remain until dead ripe, to attract the birds from the others. Strawberries may be thus pro- tected. (Prof. H. A. Surface.) The larger fruits, such as apples, pears, and peaches, are not much injured by birds in Massachusetts. 3. Where it is found impossible to protect small early cherry trees in any other way, it will pay to cover them with fine fish net while the fruit is ripening. 4. If Kingbirds nest near cherry trees, they will keep other birds away. Bees, particularly drones, attract King- birds, ° To protect Poultry from Hawks and Crows. 1. Rear the young chicks or ducklings on grassland, in portable brooders or coops to which movable runs are attached. Poultry reared in this way is much finer for the THLE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 413 table than if allowed to run. The stock intended for laying may be given free range when four months of age, or when too large to be attacked by Crows or most Hawks. 2, Kingbirds, Martins, or our largest Hawk, the Osprey or Fish Hawk (Pandion haliaétus carolinensis), if allowed to nest near the coops, will protect all poultry from Hawks. All these birds are confiding wherever they are unmolested. Where the Osprey is protected it will build its nest in a tree near the farmyard. It never troubles poultry or small birds, and should be protected by law at all times. 3. Hawks may be frightened away from the poultry yard if a general shout is raised whenever one appears. 4, When a Hawk has flown off with a chicken it should be followed quickly but cautiously, and may be shot while absorbed in eating its prey. GENERAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES. The first and most important step in protecting birds from their human enemies is to create a public sentiment in favor of birds, by teaching their value and the necessity for conserving them. This is a legitimate work for State boards of agriculture and State boards of education. Free lectures on this subject, illustrated by stereopticon, should be given at teachers’ institutes and State normal schools, at gatherings of school children held for the purpose, at farmers’ institutes, and before farmers’ clubs and grange meetings. Some work of this nature has been done by the Massachusetts State Board of Education and by the orni- thologist of the State Board of Agriculture, but much more should be done. There are ample reasons for introducing economic nature study in the schools. The utility of birds and the means of attracting and protecting them should be taught in home and school as the most important bird study. A feeding shelf for birds should be put up at a window of every coun- try school-house, or upon the flag pole. Children should be induced to plant trees, vines, and shrubs that furnish food for birds. The making of nesting boxes should be taught in the schools. This is a good subject for manual training classes. The boy who learns to feed birds and to furnish 414 USEFUL BIRDS. them with houses will always be their friend. Boys should be taught to exchange the gun for the camera, the sketch book, or the note book. Children should be cautioned not to disturb the nests of birds during the breeding season ; but the nest census, taken after the leaves have fallen, is instruct- ive and harmless. An educational propaganda should be carried on in those States in which the birds that breed in Massachusetts or pass through it are killed in their migrations. Every State should have an official economic ornithologist, among whose duties should be investigation of the relations of birds to insect and other pests, and the production of popular leaflets and newspaper articles on birds and their conservation. When public sentiment in favor of bird protection is thor- oughly aroused, then, and not till then, will effective laws be enacted, respected, and enforced. Game Protection, The conservation of fish and game is a vital preliminary step in bird protection. It is plain that, having necessarily destroyed the larger predatory animals, man must hold in check the creatures on which they formerly fed. This is the task of the angler and the sportsman, and it is a legitimate one, in so far as it disposes of only the surplus fish, mammals, and birds ; but the tendency to go farther than this must be sharply curbed, for wherever the larger game mammals and game birds are exterminated, people begin to shoot the smaller species. So long as the supply of game is kept up, just so long are the song birds comparatively safe. A mere glance at the history of game legislation in Massachusetts or any other eastern State is enough to make one wonder that any native game now exists. From the settlement of Massachusetts until the year 1817 there was practically no limit to the amount of bird shooting that any one might legally do at any season of the year. Until that year the only legislation enacted regarding birds pro- vided bounties for their destruction. Among other species, the Ruffed Grouse or Partridge was the victim of local THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 415 bounty laws. By 1817 most of the larger game mammals and game birds were nearing extermination, and people were beginning to shoot Robins, Larks, Snipe, and Wood- cock, in place of larger birds. A law was then passed pro- tecting these birds from March 1 to July 4, and Partridges and Quail were protected from March 1 to September 1; but this law was nullified locally by town option, for any town meeting could annually suspend its operation. «» The most stringent game legislation of the middle nine- teenth century period was a series of acts, not for the protection of the birds, but for the benefit of people en- gaged in netting Wild Pigeons. The penalties for disturb- ing Pigeons about net beds were heavier than those for merely killing game out of season. They even included a term in jail. It would be ludicrous, were it not pathetic, that we with- hold adequate statutory protection from game birds until they are practically exterminated. Protective statutes come too late. It is only within recent years, when the Passenger Pigeon and Heath Hen have become nearly extinct, that statutes protecting them at all times have been enacted and retained on the statute books. We have only just succeeded (1906) in getting enactments protecting the Wood Duck and the Bartramian Sandpiper or Upland Plover at all sea- sons. Unless stringent laws can be passed and enforced in other States, as well as in Massachusetts, the extinction of these birds is even now imminent. The game laws of Massachusetts for 1906 protect all “song and insectivorous birds,” Doves, Pigeons, Heath Hens, Pin- nated Grouse, Pheasants, Bartramian Sandpiper or Upland Plover, Herons, Bitterns, Wood Duck, and most Gulls and Terns throughout the year. Other game birds and wild- fowl are protected, but inadequately. Eventually the shoot- ing season must be shortened. Measures and Legislation necessary for the Protection of Game and Birds. To provide against the extermination of game, there must be established throughout the country a series of State res- ervations, maintained as places of refuge for game, where 416 USEFUL BIRDS. it can be absolutely protected at all seasons. Large for- est reservations have already been acquired by the United States government and by several States. In January, 1906, New York had reserved nearly a million and a half acres, and Pennsylvania had purchased, or contracted for, seven hundred and fifty thousand acres. Connecticut, New Jersey, and other States have adopted reservation policies; and, as Alfred Akerman, late State Forester of Massachu- setts, well says, this Commonwealth ought to extend its” policy of park reservation to include genuine State forests. There are about three million acres in Massachusetts that are of little value except for forestry. Under rational forest management we might, in time, grow most of the lumber used here, instead of buying it in the north, west, and south. This land is the natural stronghold of the Ruffed Grouse, the red deer, and many other game mammals and birds. A goodly portion of it should be devoted to the preservation of the forests and the game.' Some of the great ponds of the State should be set off as reservations for water-fowl; marshes and sandy shores should be taken as refuges for sea fowl and shore birds; and islands should be reserved as breeding places for sea birds. Undoubtedly the profits from the forest reserves would, in time, pay the cost of maintaining the entire system. Prussia owns six million acres of forest land, from which the government derives a net annual revenue of $9,000,000 ; and France receives a net yearly income of $1.91 per acre from its large government forest. While this policy is being inaugurated, other legislation is imperative. Laws must be enacted, whenever it becomes necessary, protecting certain birds at all times for a series of years, and those laws must be enforced with a strong hand. Spring shooting destroys the naturally selected breeding stock which has survived the dangers of fall and winter; it should be absolutely prohibited. More and more stringent regula- 1 A large part of the forested land of the State will probably always remain in the hands of private owners or corporations. Farmers on adjoining farms may band together, and, by posting notices on their lands, they may protect the game of considerable tracts. Farmers in some towns are now trying this plan. Wealthy owners of large tracts have a still better opportunity to work for the public good. PLATE LVI.— Domesticated Canada Goose ori Nest. - (Photograph, from life, by I. Chester Horton.) THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 417 tions will become necessary regarding the marketing and ship- ment of game. The hunting license, which is now finding favor in many States, must sooner or later be adopted here. It is doubtful, however, if all these measures will result in replenishing our woods with game in its former abundance. The restocking of covers with birds from other States — an excellent method, which has long been practised by game protective associations —is likely to come to an end, for already most States do not allow shipments of birds to points outside the State boundaries. Artificial Propagation of Game Birds. The greatly increased demand for game birds must be met by a new source of supply. The only promising method available for restocking is artificial propagation and feeding. Pheasants, Quail, Wood Ducks, Mallards, Teal, and other wild-fowl may be reared in great numbers if the work is scientifically done. It was interesting to observe the large number of Pheasants and Mallards successfully reared in 1905 by Mr. Bayard Thayer at Lancaster. This is the work in which commissioners on fisheries and game, game pro- tective associations, and wealthy land owners must engage if we are to have game in its former abundance. A begin- ning may be made by importing experienced gamekeepers from England and Scotland, where, notwithstanding the long settlement of the country and the density of the popu- lation, people have game for their own use, and export a great deal to this country to supply our depleted markets. Artificial propagation is the most important work of the century concerning game birds. Many thousands must be reared and liberated annually in every Atlantic coast State, until the covers are well stocked and the marshes again swarm with game birds and wild-fowl. Attempts should be made to domesticate game birds. In more than three centuries since the discovery of the Ameri- can continent only one American bird, the Turkey, has become widely distributed through domestication. There is no doubt that Quail, Grouse, and Wood Ducks may be readily tamed, and the Canada Goose has been long known 418 USEFUL BIRDS. to be capable of domestication. More attention to this sub- ject might add largely to the quantity of our food supply, and provide a source from which the stock of game could be replenished. The restocking of the State with a plentiful supply of game would keep within her borders a part at least of the more than two million dollars which is annually spent in other States by her sportsmen, and it would pro- vide recreation at home for those who cannot afford the expense of travel. THE MOVEMENT FOR BIRD PROTECTION. In setting forth the measures necessary for the protection of birds, one cannot ignore the fact that a great movement for bird protection is under way and has already accomplished great good. The Audubon societies of the country have so influenced public sentiment as to practically stop the wear- ing of the feathers of useful American birds. The American Ornithologists Union was enabled, through moneys raised by the efforts of Mr. Abbott H. Thayer, to protect the sea birds on many islands along the coast of the United States for several years.!_ This work and the general one of protecting native birds and other animals have been taken up by the National Association of Audubon Societies, under the leader- ship of Mr. William Dutcher of New York. The untiring devotion of his time and means to this cause is bringing forth fruits in the shape of improved legislation and aroused public sentiment in many States. Through his earnest efforts this movement is receiving deserved endowment, which will un- doubtedly result in its perpetuation. Gaime protection has been taken up by the Biological Survey of the United States Department of Agriculture, and a very efficient officer, Dr. T. S. Palmer, has been placed in charge of the enforcement of the Lacey act. State governments have been assisted by the strong hand of the United States in enforcing advanced legislation. The central government has co-operated with the Audubon societies and game protective associations of 1 The Massachusetts colony of Terns and Gulls at Muskeget Island was saved from extermination first through the efforts of Mr. William Brewster and others and later by the continuous work of Mr. George H. Mackay. THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 419 different States. This co-operation has resulted in a great general improvement in State laws and their enforcement. This movement, now so well under way, gives promise of preserving a large part at least of the wealth of our fauna, which we may be said to hold as trustees for posterity. For the benefit of those persons who are interested in caring for and protecting birds, a list of some officials and associations who will help to further the work is appended : — Bureau of Biological Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., Dr. C. Hart Merriam, chief, Henry W. Henshaw, administrative assistant. The Survey distributes a large number of authoritative publi- cations on the food habits and utility of birds. Dr. T. S. Palmer of the Survey, assistant in charge of game preserva- tion, has literature on that subject for distribution, and is prepared to furnish information that will aid in the enforce- ment of the game and bird laws. The National Association of Audubon Societies (offices, 141 Broadway, New York), William Dutcher, president, T. Gilbert Pearson, secretary, is helping the cause of bird protection everywhere by every means in its power. It sends out excellent illustrated leaflets to teachers, and directly influences legislation. The Massachusetts Commission on Fisheries and Game (Room 158, State House, Boston), Dr. George W. Field, chairman, is the legally constituted authority for the enforce- ment of the fish, game, and bird laws of Massachusetts. The commission furnishes, on request, a poster containing an abstract of these statutes. A copy of this is posted annually in each post-office in the State. The officers of the com- mission attend to all complaints of infractions of these laws. The commission is also engaged in propagating Pheasants, Quail, and Grouse. The State Board of Agriculture (room 136, State House, Boston), J. Lewis Ellsworth, secretary, distributes bulle- tins, reports, and nature leaflets on birds and bird protection ; also cloth posters, on which are printed extracts from the trespass laws. The Massachusetts Fish and Game Protective Association 420 USEFUL BIRDS. (216 Washington Street, Boston), William Brewster, presi- dent, Henry H. Kimball, secretary-treasurer, is the most influential and effective game protective organization now actively at work in the State. It furnishes game birds to restock depleted covers, grain for game birds in winter, and posters containing abstracts of the game laws. Its officers also assist in the enforcement of the statutes. Practically all the game protective associations of Massachusetts are affiliated with this organization. The Massachusetts Audubon Society (234 Berkeley Street, Boston), William Brewster, president, Miss Jessie E. Kim- ball, secretary, is one of the most powerful forces for bird protection in the State. Its local secretaries are numerous, and its influence is widely felt. This association takes no direct action to enforce the law; its chief function is to influence public sentiment, and secure protective legislation. The secretary has literature for distribution, and the associa- tion publishes charts and provides lectures on birds. The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (19 Milk Street, Boston), George T. Angell, president, Hon. Henry B. Hill, vice-president, furnishes cards for posting in public places, offering rewards for the conviction of persons killing birds or taking their nests or eggs. This society, whose good work is well known, also furnishes free literature advocating kindness to birds and other animals. There are other associations that take an interest in the protection of birds. The Animal Rescue League, the League of American Sportsmen, the Agassiz Association, and many minor societies and sportsmen’s organizations, lend their in- fluence to strengthen this movement. Sportsmen’s periodi- cals have done much for the protection of birds and game. The Forest and Stream Company of New York, under the direction of Mr. J. Bird Grinnel, supported the first Audu- bon Society for years, both editorially and financially. Writers like Herbert K. Job, Ernest Harold Baynes, and A. C. Dike are penning helpful articles for newspapers or periodicals. Nature books are teaching altruistic ideas regarding birds. THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 421 All these agencies must help to hasten the day when our woods shall teem with game and birds; when our lakes and rivers shall be populous with wild-fowl; and when our people, young and old, shall welcome, protect, and cherish our feathered friends of orchard, garden, and field. If this volume shall help in any degree to bring about this con- summation, it will not have been written in vain. Papers ON ORNITHOLOGY, PUBLISHED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BoarpD OF AGRICULTURE. Essays and Lectures. Utility of Birds. Wilson Flagg. Annual report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1861 (Part II.), pp. 50-78. Agricultural Value of Birds. E. A. Samuels. Jbid., 1865 (Part I.), pp. 94-117. The Utility of Birds to Agriculture. Frank H. Palmer. Jbid., 1871 (Part II.), pp. 107-120. Insect-eating Birds. Frank H. Palmer. Jbdid., 1872 (Part II.), pp. 194-210. Birds of Massachusetts. Dr. B. H. Warren. Jbid., 1890, pp. 34-57. The Regulative Influence exerted by Birds on the Increase of Insect Pests. E.H. Forbush. Massachusetts Crop Report, September, 1894. Birds as Protectors of Orchards. E. H. Forbush. Annual report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1895, pp. 347-362. The Crow in Massachusetts. E. H. Forbush. Jbid., 1896, pp. 275- 296. Nature’s Foresters. KE. H. Forbush. Jd7d., 1898, pp. 279-294. Birds as Destroyers of Hairy Caterpillars. KE. H. Forbush. J0id., 1899, pp. 316-337. Birds Useful to Agriculture. E.H. Forbush. Jbid., 1900, pp. 36-61. Birds as Protectors of Woodlands. E. H. Forbush. Jd7d., 1900, pp. 800-321. Two Years with the Birds on a Farm. E.H. Forbush. for@., 1902, pp. 111-161. Special Reports. Ornithology of Massachusetts, List of Species. E.A. Samuels. Annual report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1863 (Part I.), Appendix, pp. xviii—xxix. Report on the Birds of Massachusetts, by the State Board of Agricul- ture to the House of Representatives, under the resolution of May 28, 1890. Ibid., 1890, pp. 267-273. . 422 USEFUL BIRDS. The Destruction of Birds by the Elements in 1903-04. E. H. Forbush. Ibid., 1903, pp. 457-503. The Decrease of Certain Birds, and its Causes, with Suggestions for Bird Protection. E.H. Forbush. Jdid., 1904, pp. 429-548. Nature Leaflets. No. 12. Winter Birds at the Farm. E.H. Forbush. 1902. No. 14. Owl Friends. E. H. Forbush. 1903. No. 15. Bird Houses. E.H. Forbush. 1903. No. 16. Our Friend the Chickadee. E.H. Forbush. 1903. No. 22. Hints for Out-door Bird Study. E.H. Forbush. I. How to identify Birds. 1904. No. 23. Ilid. II. How to find Birds. 1904. No. 24. Jbid. III. How to approach Birds. 1904. No. 25. Ibid. IV. How to attract Birds. 1904. INDEX. INDEX. {Heavy-faced type indicates the principal reference to a species. In most instances a brief description of the bird referred to may be found on the page thus indicated. ] PAGE Accipiter atricapillus, . : F < 5 : 5 : , : . 366 cooperii, . * ; ‘ . , . P j ¥ ; . 366 velox, . , * P ¥ x Pi ‘ ¥ F r . 366 Actias luna, . ‘ ‘i ds . i ‘ . " . , . 108 Agelaius aaa ‘ : je ‘ ‘ 4 é é ‘ » 319 Aix sponsa, . . r F ‘ ri a i ‘ . . 353 Akerman, Alfred, ‘ . ‘ & . ‘ : Z r : . 416 Alabama ar; gillaeea, r . 7 : : : . . . » 33 Allen, J. A., . . § é‘ i ‘i ‘ . . “ ° * . 302 Altum, Bernhard, . ; F 7 7 ‘ é a a 5 . 64 Anabrus purpurascens, . é ‘ F ‘ F ‘ @ a ql 66 Anas obscura, . : ‘ ‘ . “ 7 . . A ‘ ‘ 353 Angell, George T., . 0 : 5 j ‘i ‘ ‘ ‘ . 420 Anthonomus grandis, . ‘ . : ‘ . . ri a fi . 234 Antrostomus vociferus, . : % i 3 r P ‘ ‘ x . 342 Aphid, birch, eggs of, . é 4 ‘ . . ‘ : . 223 Aphis, hop vine, . % ‘ “ ‘ é , ‘ ¥ « 29 woolly apple, & 5 - ‘i ‘ i é F i . 208, 252 Aphodius inquinatus, . é : é : ¢ Z : Z Fi - 61 Ardea herodius, fs ‘ , ‘ : ‘ 7 7 . 852 Army worm, . . 3 ; 5 : : . 36, 218, 295, 316, 323, 330, 349 Asio accipitrinus, . F . F 5 ‘ ‘ ‘ 5 < . 367 wilsonianus, . ; é ‘ ‘ ‘ 7 , 3 . 368 Audubon, John J.,. ‘ 6 3 ‘ 3 a ‘ 3 194, 263, 346, 347 Aughey, Samuel, . ‘ . F ‘ a P Z i 54, 184, 200, 335 Auk, Great, . F F i : ‘ ‘ Fi i é 5 3, 354, 356 Bailey, Charles E.,. . 124, 142, 166, 169, 170, 175, 178, 214, 240, 241, 253, 256 S. Waldo, . A F . a q ‘ . . és . 370 Baird, Spencer F., . é ‘ é a « F ‘ a ‘ é . BB Ballou, H. A., . * . A : r ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ . » 45 Bangs, Outten, . ‘i ri : ‘1 ; 7 2 . . . 238 Bark louse, oystersel. 5 ‘ ‘ ‘i : ‘ , ~ «168, 175 Barton, B. S., . - ‘i 7 ‘i k ‘ f 4 ‘ . . 54 Baskett, J. M., . . F : ‘ : y c z ‘ 3 . 259 Baynes, Ernest Harold, . . . 420 Beal, F. E. L., + 88, 59, 61, 162, 211, 226, “g07, 234, 236, 239, 259, 264, 283, 285, 293, 305, 318, 321, 342 Beetles, Colorado potato, ¥ P F * . 16, 27, 29, 216, 218, 330, 342 elm-leaf, . : 4 ‘i - * « 207, 211, 234 May, . is ‘ 7 a ‘6 § 10, 11, ‘183, 220, 227, 234, 238, 348 rose, . ‘ * P * ‘ 2 ‘ ‘ . 160, 348 striped cucumber, . 7 ‘ i ; » 227, 234, 342, 348 Bendire, Charles, . i x . ‘ r . i Fe ‘ » 232, 255 426 INDEX. Bibio albipennis, . : * ; ; . x 7 * * ; . 286 Bird, Myrtle, . 3 P P ¥i a 4 é ‘ i ‘ . « 201 Planting, : ‘ r : . . 7 : . . . - 179 Teacher, H ‘i ‘ . . ‘ d . 7 . a . 188 Birds as tree planters, . . : c . . : fi F . . 98 pruners, . ‘ 7 : Fi E é i . ‘ » 99 flight of, ‘ ‘ é Z ‘ ‘ 2 ‘ ¥ , « 2 Bittern, American, ‘ < < : é : i . a i . 352 Least, a i pi , ‘ 5 . ‘ ‘i A . . 352 Blackbird, Cow, . é i ‘ ‘ ‘ F , i . 320 Crow, . : F ‘ ‘ j 7 114, 130, 135, 313, 371 food of, ‘ 5 F r i . é . 815 Marsh, . R ‘ ‘ ‘ a * . 319 Red-winged, : 3 F . 60, ‘14, 122, 125, 198, 180, 131, 319 food of, . . . 7 . 820 Rusty, . . . . F a e 5 a ; - 122, 312 Skunk, . qi 5 a ‘ 4 a 3 é : * « 322 Western Crow, . ‘ ‘ ‘ 5 “ i : ‘ . 313 Yellow-headed, . ‘ ‘ r c c 0 a ‘ . 67 Blackbirds, . i i A F : : . ‘ i - 2, 69, 75, 76 Blissus leucopterus, Z ‘ ‘ é : . . : ‘ . 83 Bluebird, ‘ . . ‘ : . ‘i 6 . 115, 290, 389 food of, . F 7 A : 4 ; . ji is . 291 Bobolink, . , ‘ ‘ s é i ‘ . : ‘ 125, 127, 322 food of, . 4 : ‘ ‘ . . . . i ‘ « 323 Bob-white, ‘ * ‘ Fi : : 5 e i 7 . + 60, 325 food of, . i i S fs ‘ ‘ ‘i F éj _ . 831 Bombyx dispar, % i 7 7 : ‘ ‘ F ‘ . . 64 Borer, bronze birch, . : i fi Fi a‘ ‘ * ‘i F . 254 maple, . ri F ei Fi 4 a F . : . f . 254 Brewer, Thomas M., ‘ i . 847 Brewster, William, 13, 218, 243, 267, 269, 331, '338, 390, 404, 410, 418, 420 estate of, C : . P * + 403 Bruchus hibisci, . : ‘ F ‘ . ‘ i ‘ x x a 178 Bruner, Lawrence, . z i j : . * . * ‘ z - 109 Bubo virginianus, . 4 ‘ x é x ‘ é i ® ‘ . 367 Bucculatrix pomifoliella, ‘ ‘ * F ‘ * : ‘ ¥ » 252 Buckham, James, . ; ‘ . é ws ‘ i F a 7 . 343 Bull bat, é F : . a ‘ ‘ . ¥ 4 ‘ . 341 Bunting, Bapaiieed; . . . . . . a ‘ F F . 311 Black-throated, ; ‘ é r é P ‘ r ‘ . O06 Cow, ‘ j F ‘ r ‘ Ps ‘ P . . 320 Indigo, . ‘ A Fi r a ‘ , . 115, 122, 298 Burroughs, John, . . H é ‘ é 189, ‘190, 199, 226, 312, 363, 371 Butterfly, mourning-cloak, . : : r é 3 ‘ ‘ 16 caterpillar of, 6 ‘ . *% 2 é « (227 parsley, eggs of, . ‘ ‘ i ‘ ‘ 4 ‘ P - 305 Cabbage worms, . ‘ - ‘ ‘ . : ‘ ‘ : : . 3802 Canary, Wild, ‘ : Pi e F é F ‘ . ‘ . 194, 222 Cankerworm, fall, . : 7 : i i 2 ‘ . 5 . . 169 spring, + 70, 170 Cankerworms, Fi 125, 127-129, 131-135, 140, 41, 115, 181, 188, 191, 195, 210, 221, 231, 295, 302, 304 Carpocapsa pomonella, . . ‘ . ‘ ‘ . ‘ ‘ . . 151 INDEX. 427 PAGE Carpodacus purpureus, . F P . 220 Catbird, . : < : 57, 58, 108, 109, 115, "122, 125-128, 139, 181, 283, 371 food of, . ; i . 182 Caterpillars, American tent, . 117, 118, 123, 126, 127, 130-136, 195, 208, 226, 302, 304, 343 brown-tail moth, : : : . 130-140, 184, 302, 304, 370 forest tent, . i 5 » 69, 120, 125, 127, 138-140, 175 gipsy moth, . 63, 125, 126, 128, 129, 133-136, 138, 141, 144, 145, 157, 160, 175, 181, 184, 188, 195, 205, 208, 218, 226, 333, 369 oak, . a é a . . ci $ Fi i A . 272 red-humped, r ‘ ‘ F . Fl - ‘ P 272 tussock moth, . é P i a r x r 7 . 120 Cecidomyia destructor, - 8 7 ‘ Fi A ‘ : i ; . 33 Cedar Bird, . ‘ ‘: - s . 3 2 . 51, 57, 60, 69, 209 Certhia familiaris annerioane, . ‘ , . a j 3 . 177 Chetura pelagica, . . . . i : F F d . 340 Chapman, Frank M., . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ rl : ‘81, 91, 197, 250, 386 Chebec, . * : r ‘ . ‘ é é re é i . 229 Chermes lenetfetia,« f : 4 : fi . f é A . A . 223 Cherry Bird, . ‘ * . ’ * ‘ F r " . 209 Chewink, . . bank 126, 101, 139, 218 Chickadee, . : + B8, 115, 122, 124, 129, 130, 136, 140, 143, 145, 146, 163, 400 food of, . i , ; 167-171 Chinch bug, . ‘ F Fi : i a ‘ . 27, 28, 33 Chip Bird, Chiat, Chippy, ‘ ri , ‘ : . 4 . ‘ . 803 Chordeiles virginianus, ‘ ‘ ‘ F : : . ‘i . 341 Circus hudsonicus, . F z F : ‘ : . F P ‘ . 367 Cistothorus stellaris, a . i : . ei . 7 ‘ ‘ . 350 Clercy, J. O., ‘ : i ” ¥ P . a 2 : : . 74 Coccyzus americanus, . : 2 7 : . 7 . 2 . 265 erythropthalmus, . ¥ ‘ F : ; ‘ é F . 263 Colaptes auratus luteus, ; . . . . F F 3 ; - 260 Coleman, Robert H., . ; ; é : : “ ‘ j 3 . 186 Colinus virginianus, 3 r . . . . . . . p - 325 CoWWaG.g ee % = -) & & @& 6 «© w 6100 Contopus virens, . ‘ F ® , ‘ r ‘ i i : . 231 Corydalus cornutus, 2 : ‘ i F : F : ‘ ‘ . 214 Cotton worm, . r : ; é ‘ é P é ~ B88 Coturniculus savannarum spies eintc 4 - ri - 4 i ‘ . 308 Cowbird, ‘ a 7 f . : ‘ i ‘ ‘ : - . 320 Crane, Whooping, . i : é é _ : ‘ 2 ‘ a . 67 Creeper, American Brown, . . . . : : : ‘ : 177 food of, H E : . z : ‘ . 178 Black and White, . 3 ; 4 ‘ ‘ F . . 144, 191 Crickets, western, . ‘ 65, 66 Crow, . 2, 8-11, 26, 45-50, ts, 97, 114, 15, 125, 126, 129, 137, 145, 146, 333, 369 trapping the, . . . 406 Cuckoo, Black-billed, . . 114, 115, 125, ‘128, 136, 138, 139, 142, 144, 263 food of, : . 264 Yellow-billed, . j ‘ 60, 61, 114, ‘is, 126, 128, 138, 140, 146, 265 food of, . ’ P 266 Curlews, . ‘ ‘ 68, 75 Cutworms, . 11, a1, 34, 44, 157, 160, 181, 183, "987, 291, 295, 316, 316, 318, 330 Cyanospiza cyanea, - a : 7 . 298 428 INDEX. PAGE Dearborn, Ned, . " 3 . 45, 48, 61 Dendroica estiva, . 4 ‘ . r . 194 coronata, « 201 pensylvanica, « 192 vigorsii, . . 200 virens, . 198 Diacrisia virginica, . 120 Dickcissel, ‘ . 855 Dike, A. C., ‘ 362, 408, 420 Diomedea immutabilis, . 82 Diplosis tritici, , 22 Dobson, , f 4 » 214 Doryphora decemlineata, . 16 Dove, 3 13, 25 Carolina, . 324 Mourning, 60, 324 Turtle, . 324 Duck, Black, . ‘ : : : . : . 353 Wood, . ‘ < 6 = c 5 f - . 353 Dutcher, William, . : ‘ ‘ . 3863, 418, 419 Eagle, Bald, . 866 Egrets, destruction of, . 3857 Elaphidion villosum, 99 Elliot, D. G., . 5 A 84 H. W., a ‘6 7 . 82 Ellsworth, J. Lewis, . 419 Euproctis chrysorrhea, 39 Euvanessa antiopa, 16 Falco columbarius, . 3866 peregrinus anatum, . 3866 sparverius, . 3866 Fannin, J., . 332 Farley, J. A., : . 283 Felt, E. P., ; . 69, 120, 247 Fernald, C. H., . 7 142, 240, 346 H. T., 37 Field, G. W., 419 Finch, Crimson, 220 Grass, . 311 Purple, 122, 125, 220 food of, - 221 Fire Hang Bird, . 3 . 224 Fisher, A. K., 3 : ¢ ; . 66, 79, 80, 206 Fiske, W. F., 2 : < ‘ é é ‘i a ‘ . 55 Fitch, Asa, . . r 7 28, 255 Flagg, Wilson, 73, 204, 287 Fletcher, James, é ‘ ‘ » 85 Flicker, ° ‘ 60, 126, 139, 146, 249 Northern, . ‘ F A . 122, 260 food of, : ; . 261 tongue of, . » 261 Flies, crane, . i ‘ 207, 211 house, . z . 208, 235 INDEX. 429 PAGE Flies, March, . : ' ; P ‘ P Z Z ‘ . 286 May, « ‘ : x ‘ ‘4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ F ‘ « 130 robber, . é : 2 3 , . i . ; 239 Flycatcher, Great-crested, . ‘ ? é ‘ 114, 115, 141, 144 Least, . é x ; 7 | 114, 115, 122, 180, 133, 141, 143, 229 food of, . P : « 231 Forbes, S. A., eV Ach ty Gs. et win 60, 155, 160, 181, 183, 210, 272, 285 First, Herman, . , * . ‘ 4 . ‘ a x Ut Galeoscoptes carolinensis, ‘ ‘ ‘ 4 ‘ “ ‘ # * « 28h Galerucella luteola, i i ‘ é : 3 : ‘ ‘ » 207 Gallinago delicata, . : é F ‘ + . : 5 : . 337 Game birds, destruction of, . ‘5 P a ‘ ‘ ‘i ‘ 76, 84, 356 Gentry,T.G., . oo. ew eee 192, 213, 234, 302 Geolplypis inchs Drachidactya, * “ % e , : z ‘ . 186 Glover, Townend, . ‘ ‘ x x a é ‘ ‘ . 29, 251 Goldfinch, American, . 4 3 F 6 ‘ ‘ 5 . 122, 153, 222 food of, S i * z é R ‘ * - 223 Goodell, Henry H., . a . ‘ ‘ F ‘ ; . i » 36 Goodmore, 8.E., . é z r . . é é é » 68 Gophers, i z é ‘ ‘< . : 4 ‘ i ‘ » 8 Goshawk, * ‘ 2 é i ’ é ‘ é 2 é . 62, 366 Grackle, Bronzed, . F , ‘ . ‘ ‘ . 3 a . 114, 313 Purple, . x r , 4 5 ‘ ‘ % ‘ . 114, 313 Rusty, . é . 312 Grosbeak, Biae bressted, ‘52, 115, 122, 125- 128, 131, ‘133, 140, 142, 144, 145, 216 food of, . i F , ; . 218 Ground Bird, . ¥ ‘ P P ‘ “ a é P ‘ ‘ » 299 Grouse, . ‘ . : 2 i ‘. i 5 4 ‘ 4 z 13, 43 Ruffed, § . é 3 5 3 : i E ‘ 61, 99, 267 food of, . : r a ‘ i ‘ ‘ a . 271 food plants, list of, ‘ 7 é : 4 . 273 Grub, white, . . . 4 . ¥ . . ‘ . “40, 76, 181, 289 Guano, . ‘ A é ‘ ‘ ‘i . ‘ ‘ ‘ 82 Gull, Tkowiheaded, “ * r ‘i ‘ “ ‘ ‘ “ ; « 405 Franklin’s, . r ‘ ‘ ‘ < ® P . : . 61, 67 Gulls, utility of, . ‘ F ‘ . ‘ ‘“ ‘ ‘ i ‘ 80, 81 Hair Bird, . : i r F < ‘ ; F ; ‘ ‘ . 303 Hang Nest, . é . 7 ‘ : . é : F ‘ 7 . 224 Hares, . : a F . c ‘ a 7 . ‘ . ‘ . 78 Harris, T. W., 3 5 : i . ‘ : F é ‘ F . 226 Harvey, F. L., ‘i : i ‘ t . ‘ ‘i ; ‘i , . 60 Hawk, . : ‘i - P ‘ P r . 2 F ‘: é « 6 Bog, . é ‘ é 5 F 3 - : 3 P . . 867 Chicken, . ‘ 2 ‘ . é r é , Z . 366 Coopers, . 7 Fi c . 7 : . . $ ri . 866 Duck, . ‘ ‘ ‘ j . . 3 2 : : . 866 Tidlip-» Goa c© “& e. Le Se (> oe: Ge aa Marsh, . é ‘ 4 . : ; ‘ . ei . 867, 406 Pigeon, é ‘ 7 . . . . . . . . - 366 Red-shouldered, . : : ’ ‘ é “ Fi ‘ ‘ . 366 Sharp-shinned, . 5 é . . 7 A . Fi : . 366 Sparrow, . ‘ . . . . . . . . : . 366 Hawks, trapping, . . . : - . . . . $ ‘ . 406 430 INDEX. PAGE Heath Hen, . % F ‘ . 26, 266 Heliophila unipuncta, . . 36 Hellgramite, . 4 . . 214 Helops acreus, " , . 178 Henshaw, Henry W., . . 419 Hemerocampa leucostigma, . + 120 Heron, Black-crowned Night, ’ . 351 Great Blue, r . 67, 352 Green, a . 351 High-hole, Hichtrolder, 260 Hill, Henry B., , . ‘ 420 Hirundo erythrogaster, 3 % ‘ : a 7 ‘ . 345 Hodge, C. F., . 5 . . sj é . 267, 269, ort, 373 Hoffman, Ralph, . 7 191, 199, 310 Hopkins, A. D., . 247 Hornaday, William T., ‘ . 354 Howard, L. O., § 153, 154, 162 Hummingbird, Biwhy-throated; ‘ , . . : : . 122, 240 food of, . ‘ ‘ . 3 » 242, 244 Hylocichla fuscescens, . . 156 mustelina, . 158 Indian Hen, é ‘ . i . . q F . 852 Indigo Bird, ; i i 7 F 137,139, 298 Insects, parasitic, ‘ « x F P a ; 18-20, 240 predaceous, . 17 transformations of, 13-15 To caterpillar, 264 Iridoprocne bicolor, ‘ 344 Isia Isabella, . 120 Jay, ‘ ‘ , 3 : 12, 94, 404, 409 Blue, : . 7 i, 114, 115, 126, 129, "139, ‘136, 138, 139, 144-146, 369 Jenks, J. Y. P., . 276, 284 Job, Herbert K., . < i 3 8 ; ij F ‘ . A . 420 Judd, Sylvester D., . 121, 178, 181-183, 186, 272, 273, 278-280, 294, 300, 305, 826, 327, 329-331 Junco hyemailis, . 300 Junco, Slate-colored, P 122, 296, 300 food of, . ‘ » 3801 Kaltenbach, J. H., ag : . § P ‘ « B2 Keyser, Leander S., ‘ a : ‘ : 3 . 178, 185 Kimball, H. H., 3 ‘ é 4 . 326 King, F. H., 5 5 175, 206, 272 Kingbird, a : . ‘114, “15, 127, 136, 141, 143, 145, 235 food of, . . ; ‘ « 238 ‘Western, is ji i ‘ » 57 Kingfisher, ‘ . . . ‘ - 262 Kinglet, Goidenerawned, 4 ‘ : : . 161 sis cesar, - . 3 4 ; 4 : ‘ . 161 Kinglets, fi 7 F é 7 f . : . 160 Kirby and Spence, . a " 30, 64, 73 Kirkland, A. H., . . 29, 37, 45, 51, 136, ‘ys, 208, 237, 252, 256, 304 INDEX. 431 PAGE Lachnus strobi, 4 ‘ ‘ P me . 162 Lanius borealis, J . 870 Lark, Old-field, > “ . a & . 316 Larus franklinii, ‘ ‘ P P P 61, 67 -Lawrence, Samuel C., . : ‘ ‘ , . 39 Leopard moth, 4 5 . ‘ . 107 Leucarctia acrea, » 12 Lilford, Lord, é ~ Linnet, Gray, ’ “ ‘ . 220 Rea, . 220 Lintner, J. A., 28-31, 33, 34 Liparis monacha, a ; ‘ 7 4 17 Locust, Rocky mountain, ‘ ‘ 4 28, 34 ravages of, * . 67-69, 74 Lyford, C. Allan, . 118 Mackay, George H., P * . 418 Malacosoma disstria, . 69 Marlatt, C. L., ‘ “ ‘ ‘ 33, 55, 36, 39 Martin, Bee, * ; r 2 . 235 Black, . . : 5 ; . 347 Purple, a ‘ . 347 food of, . . 348 Martins, . 7 . 55 Mathews, Semuslor, é + 265 Mavis, Red, . ‘ . . . . 179 Maynard, C. J., . 51 Meadowlark, F ‘ . 316 food of, . “ . 318 Megascops asio, . 368 Melanoplus fois Grappa) 3 a ‘ « 272 Spretus, . ‘ . . 384 Melospiza cineria melodia, : : ‘ + 299 georgiana, * . ‘ . 349 Merriam, C. Hart, 7 é 59, 419 Florence, - é . » 236, 241 Merula migratoria, . . 282 Mice, field, . 17, 78, 80 meadow, . 367 Midge, wheat, . 32 Millais, J. G., sng . 405 Millinery trade, . 85, 357 Minot, H. D., ‘ ‘164, 205, 218, 308, 309, 404 Mniotilta varia, 5 « 291 Mosher, F. H., . 51, ‘59, 62, 124, 144, 184, ‘193, 195, 295, 230, 241, 333 Moth, brown-tail, . 89, 124, 180, 147, 148, 205, 234 cecropia, . 109 codling, 35, 151, 231, 250 fall cankerworm, eeue ot ‘ . 175 gipsy, . 88, 39, 128, 149-144, 147, 148, ‘192, 205, 214, 231, 232, 234, 238, 259, 333 leopard, 4 4 . 107 luna, . i , 214 nun, . : n . (17 polyphemus, é 109 432 INDEX. PAGE Moth, tent caterpillar, eggs os . . . . . 167, 369 tussock, Z x . é . . a « 232 Munger, H. C., . : is : . . . . 326 Musselman, C. C., é ‘ ‘ i : . 55 Nash, C. W.,. . 44, 45, 297, 318, 330 Nectarophora destructor, é ‘ i . ‘ . 804 Nighthawk, 60, 341 food of, $ . 342 Nuthatch, Canada, a F , . 176 Red-breasted, ‘i d . 115, 176 food of, r . 176 White-breasted, . 115, 122, 171 food of, . 174 Nuthatches, . P ’ a . 163 Nuttall, Thomas, 296, 231, 251, 263 Nyctala acadica, . 368 Nyctea nivea, ‘ . 367 Nycticorax nycticorax ies, . 351 Oak pruner, ¥ » 99, 256 Oriole, Baltimore, . 70, “14, 115, 122, 125-128, 131-133, 136, 137, 140, 143, 224, 230 food of, 226 Orchard, 224 Orioles, 69, 108 Osborn, Herbert, ‘ ‘ 187 Osprey, American, ‘ 413 Otus brachyotus, . e . < . . ‘ 7 . ‘ . Oven-bird, , » 115, 122, 124, 127, 134, 141, 144, 146, 188 food of, . . . F ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ . 190 Owen, Daniel E., ¥ « x F i : . 42, 45, 51 Owl, Acadian, ‘ F : . ‘ ‘ ‘ . 368 American Hawk, ‘ ° é . : F . 367 American Long-eared, ‘ 7 Fi _ ‘ a A . 368 Barn, . A 2 7 F : . « 79, 368 Barred, . , a ‘ ‘ ‘ 7 , . 367 Great Horned, . 367 Hoot, . 367 . Saw-whet, . 368 Screech, . 368 Short-eared, 78, 367 Snowy, . : . 867 Owls, . 7 F i 77 Packard, A.S., : 5 32-36, 111, 112, 256, 348 Paleacrita vernata, . . ; ‘ ‘ 70 Palmer, T. §., F : i : c 5 - 418, 419 Pandion hilizetus carolinensis, i . A i a ri . « 413 Papilio polyxenes, . ‘ “ P é . r . 305 Partridge, * x ‘ 3 ‘ e § . 267 Parusatricapillus, ‘ ‘ . 163 Pea louse, . x . 304 Peabody Bird, : - 307 Pear tree psylla, . 158, 377 Pélicot, P., ’ . . 56 INDEX. 433 PAGE Pewee, . . e r : : r ‘ ‘ a e ‘ ki . 233 Bridge, . ‘ . a . . p + 233 Wood, * * ‘ ‘i ' ‘ “114, 115, 122, 196, 141, 143, 231 food of, . ‘ ‘ - ‘ < . 232 Phasianus torquatus, . ‘ . : . . ‘ ‘ ‘ i . 332 Pheasant, Ring-necked, . ‘ r " r x ‘ ‘ ‘ r + 332 food of, . i i - ‘ i ‘ i » 333 Philohela minor, . . . ‘ F 4 F z . 336 Pheebe, . f F j C 3 e a 5 3 114, 115, 145, 233, 388 Pheebe Bird, . ¥ ‘ g ° ; F P : « 233 food of, . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ 3 : : ‘ F » 234 Phorodon humuli, . ¥ ‘ ‘ ‘ - 2 x . a » 2 Piesma cinerea, . : F i . A . i ‘ 3 . . 174 Pigeon, Passenger, . ‘ ‘ F . é F r F 3, 328, 354, 356 Pigeons, domestic, . ¥ ‘ ‘ ‘ : 4 F y P : 13, 25 Piranger erythromelas, . F : i . : ‘ s P - . 212 Pissodes strobi, x i ‘ s 168, 254 Plant lice, 7 ‘ . 28, 62, 11, 122, 124-128, 175, 196, 208, 221, 223, 339, 344 eggs of, . ‘ £ ‘ nl + 162, 223 Platysamia cecropia, . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ s - P ‘ » 108,.259 Plover, . 5 é é . . F : . 5 : . 26, 43, 67, 68 Upland, . 5 ¥ i ‘ F ‘ ; ; . 75, 334, 336 Pooecetes gramineus, . ‘ F ‘ “ ‘ : : a BLL Porthetria dispar, . . j ; : . : f é . ‘ . 38 Porzana carolina, . ¥ a * 2 a " “ a r . 350 Poultry, . ¥ " F ‘ é F “ : é » 85 Prairie Chickens, . : ‘ ‘ i F é ‘i j 67, 68, 75, 76, 84 Proctor, ThomasM., . P F ‘* ‘ E s « i 93 Psylla pyri, - . ¢ - : : é 7 ‘ ‘ ‘ - 153 Quail, . 4 4 . . . ‘ ‘ . . 26, 67, 68, 75, 76, 325 Marsh, . 4 5 A ‘ B é ‘ F ‘ 316 Rail, Sora, . - - ‘ : E . : i ‘ , a . 350 Virginia, : . . A z F . . s : . 350 Railroad worm, ‘ ‘ ri . 7 . r k A : r . 231 Rallus virginianus, z é : 7 ‘ . A p A . 350 Raspail, Xavier, . ‘ x ¥ 4 . ‘ ‘ x a r . 408 Redstart, American, * : - . 115, 122, 129, 131, 135, 138, 140, 143, 196 food of, . ‘ r r F ‘ . ‘ - x ASF Reed Bird, . : x < ¢ ‘ . . ‘ , ‘ ‘ . 822 Reed, C.A., . ‘ ‘ : ‘ ; ‘ ‘ é a ‘ . 199 Regulus satrapa, . F e ‘ a ‘ : ‘i . i i . 161 Rice Bird, ‘ P ‘ “ * > * * . ; : i . 322 Ridgway, Robert, . ‘ 2 P - F ‘ wz ‘i i 57, 157, 326 Riley,C.V-,5 002 06 8 8 8 eee 89, 84, BE Riley and Howard, i ° ‘ . , ‘i . . . : 65, 75 Riley, Packard, and Thomas, * “ r x x ‘ . . 34, 69, 75 Riparia riparia, ‘ F . C ‘ . i i - , . 344 Robin, . . A a i . 9, 10, 16, 44, 45, 115 American, . a “ 115, 122, 129, 131-133, 136, 138-140, 147, 282, 315 food of, . r ‘ ¥ ‘ . 285 Golden, r ‘ : . . ; : ‘ : F - . 224 Ground, z - . i 5 j : : : : , . 218 Wood, . . . - . . . ; . . : - 158 434 INDEX. PAGE Romaine, C.E., . % ‘ 330 Russell, John S., P * : 348 Sanderson, E. D., é ‘ ’ ‘ ‘ : . 174 Sandpiper, Bartramian, . 334, 336 Spotted, z . 335 Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied, 114, 115, 262 Sayornis Phoebe, i ; q c . 233 Scale, San José, ‘ ‘ . ‘ - 151 Schizoneura lanigera, . 203, 252 Schizura concinna, . 272 Seeds eaten by birds, 281, 296 Seton, Ernest Thompson, . 343 Setophaga ruticilla, . 196 Shaw, Henry, . . 142 Shrike, Northern, 370 Shrubs, fruit-bearing, : 374 Sialia sialis, 290 Silkworm, American, ‘ 30, 108 Sitta canadensis, 176 carolinensis, . ee Smith, John B., 107 Snipe, r 43 Wilson’s, i 337 Snowbird, 59 Black, . 300 Spanworm, currant, 112 Sparrow, Chipping, 55, 114, 115, 122, 126, 136, 143, 303, 398 food of, . . 304 English, . 21, 56, 114, 134, 136-138, 140, 141, ‘292, 294, 344, 310, 389, 407 Field, 3 114, 122, 127, 131, 140, 301 food of, op ‘ . 302 Fox, . 296 Grasshopper, . 308 food of, . 809 Ground, . 299 Henslow’s, ‘ ‘ f . 3809 House, 56, 206, 225, 292, 370 Savanna, . x ‘ . 310 food of, . 311 Song, ‘42, 14, 128, 134, 141, 296, 299 Swamp, é 7 . 349 Tree, ‘ F . 306 Vesper, “i . 311 food of, » 312 White-throated, A 5 ‘ 5 . 114, 122, 131, 307 food of, . . . ‘ ‘i ‘ - 3808 Yellow-winged, i ‘ ‘ : . . 308 Sparrows, food of, . 295 Sphyrapicus varius, ‘ 262 Spizella monticola, ‘ ‘ 306 pusilla, . 301 socialis, hs 303 Spoonbills, ‘ - . . ‘ 65 Squirrels, : i . i ‘ 94, 364, 408 INDEX. 435 Stake-driver, . ‘ Starlings, Stockwell, J. W., Sturnella magna, . Swallow, Bank, food of, . Barn, food of, Chimney, Cliff, food of, Eaves, House, Tree, . food of, White-bellied, White-breasted, Swift, Chimney, ‘ food of, Tanager, Scarlet, 7 food of, es Teeter, Tegetmeier, w. B., Telea polyphemus, Telematodytes palustris, Terns, : eggs of, Thayer, Abbott H., Bayard, Theronia melanocephala, Thistle Bird, Thompson, Maurice, Thoreau, Henry D., Thrasher, Brown, . food of, Thrush, Brown, Golden-beawaied, Hermit, Song, Tawny, Wilson’s, . food of, Wood, : . food of, . Thrushes, food of, Tip-up, Titmice, . Titmouse, Hisckrenpail, Torrey, Bradford, . . Towhee, . . 7 ‘ food of, Toxostoma rufum, 68, 115, 122, 125, 93, 115, PAGE ow oe oe BBD a ee fs oR Cee ee. 786,87 Sw oe ee BIG . oe ee 60, 844 a ee oe oh le Be . 845 tes a . 345 rr, (0) es ne 61, 346 we ue Shs fe uleag . eee 846, 387 oe ee 844 . we B44, 389 te ew BAB . 344 . 344 128, 340, 387 . 340 127, 135, 137, 144, 146, 212 oe ee IB Go oe i, SG, EL . 335 . 79 30, 108 . 229° 246, 258 96, 299 115, 134, 179 180 126, 127, 131, 179 eK. on . 188 Lo. 45, 156 . 158 . 156 115, 136, 137, 156 By . 187 126, 127, 133, 134, 139, 158 . 159 . 108 Se oe. ogi: oe EBB: a ee ee ees) Bt, pt hg cig: cease we oe ae 8 168 tee ee 199 114, 115, 122, 143, 218 ~ & Ge 20 58390 . 179 436 INDEX. PAGE Treadwell, D., ‘ . ‘ * ‘ : ‘ 44 Treat, Mary, . : ‘ S ‘ : i. A < « 2A Tree hoppers, buffalo, . i a a P 4 ‘i ” » 212 Trees, fruit-bearing, . a < . . ‘ . 5 . 374 Troglodytes aédon, e ‘ : 2 3 5 3 . 292 Trouvelot, Leopold, » 30, 31, 38, 108 Turner, R. E., . . ‘74 Tyrannus tyrannus, . + 235 verticalis, 57 Veery, . 156 Vines, fndit-bearing, . 374 Vireo, Red-eyed, . 3 51, 115, 122, 125, 127, 129, ‘136-138, 140-142, 146, 204 food of, . ‘ i ‘ ‘ : : $ . 205 Solitary, : . 203 Warbling, ‘ ‘ e ‘ . ‘ . 115, 206 food of, a ‘ ‘ ‘i * 207 White-eyed, é é * 115, 203 Yellow-throated, . ri ° 115, “100, 125, 134, 138, 140-142, 207 food of, ‘ ‘ ‘ 3 . 208 Vireo flavifrons, . . ‘ ‘ ‘ . 207 gilvus, . . . 206 olivaceus, . 204 Vulture, . : ‘ F is ‘ ‘ . 84 Wake-up, i ‘ * * * » F . P ‘ , » 260 Walsh, D. B., ‘ 4 34 Warbler, Black and White, F 115, 123, 124, 125, "197, 130, 132, 135, 140, 141, 191 food of, a é « 192 Blackburnian, .« 102 Black-poll, Gly doo Black-throated Blue, ‘ ‘ : . 122 Green, . F ‘ : 5 ‘ . 115, 122, 198 food of, i ‘ . 200 Blue-eyed Yellow, . 194 Chestnut-sided, ‘ 115, 122, 126, 127, 132, 134, 136, 139-141, 192 food of, . : » 194 Golden-winged, a H . : ; ‘a5, 131, 132, 134, 187, 141 Hooded, : F ‘ ki ‘i . 185 Magnolia, « 122 Myrtle, 11, 122, 153, 201 food of, . 202 Nashville, 115, 131-133, 139 Palm, F ‘ : . ‘ é 5 : ‘ é . 186 Parula, . . : é : ; ‘ . 115, 122, 126, 132, 398 Pine, é “ * F i - 200 food of, « 201 Pine-creeping, ‘ ‘ ‘ P F r : a i . 200 Yellow, . 5 ki . . 115, 122, 127, 132-136, 140, 141, 143, 194 food of, < ;: P : ; . . ~ Ans Yellow-rumped, . . . 201 Warblers, . 185 Warren,B.H., . 7. wee GO, 191, 206, 218, 245, BIB 437 PAGE Waxwing, Bohemian, ‘ z ‘ . 209 Cedar, . : . 115, 131, 140, 209 food of, . 210 Webster, F. M., 259, 346 Weed, Clarence M., 45, 48, 55, 168, 183, 202 Weed and Dearborn, A 51, 57, 289 Weevil, Mexican cotton boll, 34, 330 pea, ‘ . 226 white ‘pine. 168, 254 Wells, D. A., 5 56,78 Wheelock, Irene G., . 290 Whip-poor-will, é - 342 food of, . 3843 Widmann, Otto, . 348 Wilson, Alexander, 244, 320 Wilson and Bonaparte, . 4 Wood, E. W., , . : , . ‘ 70 Woodpecker, Downy, , . 114, 115, 122, 129, 144, 146, 248, 249 : food of, s 3 : F ‘ . 250 Gaffer, é . 260 Golden-winged, . 260 Hairy, . . 114, 115, 146, 247, 248, 258 food of, . . 7 ; ‘ . 259 Partridge, * . 260 Pigeon, . 260 Red-headed, 249, 355 Wren, House, . 54, 115, 292 food of, . 293 Long-billed Marsh, 54, 350 Rock, . . 54 Short-billed een . 350 Wright, Mabel Osgood, . 223, 242 Yellow Bird, C . 194, 222 Summer, ‘ ‘ . 194 Yellow-hammer, . 260 Yellow-throat, Maryled, Northern, ~ food of, Zamelodia ludoviciana, . Zonotrichia albicollis, . : ‘ 121, 135, 188, 186 62, 115, 122, 186 . 187 ji . . 216 . . . . . 307 <] Es tt ce - no z Ww a o |