Economic

BY

jfunius Henderson

CURATOR OF UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO MUSEUM

AND

Slberta L.

MUSEUM ASSISTANT

This book brings together (for the first time) an immense amount
of information on economic mammalogy,

The first part is a general discussion of the important facts and
principles. The second part is a systematic discussion of the econom-
ic relations of the various groups and species of mammals. A vast
amount of data is presented in condensed form, with copious foot-
notes referring to hundreds of ^ublicaut.'-.* in vhich greater detail
may be found.

The book serves as an index-digest of the very numerous but scat-
tered papers on American economic mammalogy, and includes much
foreign material.

PRICE £4.50 postpaid

Cm

CHARLES C THOMAS • SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS • BALTIMORE, MARYLAN

ND

BHHm
*r

L.O.

LIBRARY OF
RICHARD G. MILLER

From the collection of the

Prejinger

v JJibrary
p

San Francisco, California
2006

Economic <L%Cammalogy

Economic *3%Cammdlogy

BY

ius Henderson

CURATOR OF UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO MUSEUM

AND

Slberta L.

MUSEUM. ASSISTANT

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

(Charles £ Thomas

i 932

COPYRIGHT, 1932, BY CHARLES C THOMAS

All Rights Reserved Including the Right to Reproduce
This Book or Parts Thereof in Any Form

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PREFACE

The literature of economic mammalogy is very extensive and scat-
tered through numerous books, magazines, journals, and pamphlets.
Many of these publications are not available in small public and private
libraries. Consequently the information is to a great extent unavailable
to anyone except a few specialists who have access to large libraries
and know where the more important items may be found. Even they
feel the need of a condensed summary or digest of the scattered in-
formation. This volume has been prepared for the purpose of bringing
together and condensing into compact form as much as possible of
the information concerning the economic relations of mammals ; their
bearing upon the welfare of the human race ; their food habits ; methods
of preserving the more useful species and controlling the more harm-
ful ones ; the danger of exterminating certain species ; and various other
interesting facts pertinent to the subject, thus making them available
to the general reader, as well as to teachers and students of biology.
The subject is so broad and has so many ramifications that it can
scarcely be hoped that this book is either complete or perfect, but it is
hoped that but little of much importance has been overlooked, especial-
ly concerning North American mammals. Great effort has been put
forth to insure accuracy. We do not vouch for the correctness of all
statements made by the various authors whose publications we quote
or cite. Space does not permit the recital of all the minor details, and,
if included, their multiplicity would place an unwarranted burden upon
the reader and detract from the readability and usefulness of the
volume. For the benefit of those who may wish to delve more deeply
into the subject, the appended bibliography and numerous footnotes
furnish references to original sources of information where more de-
tailed information may be found.

We acknowledge with gratitude the valuable assistance of Mr. Hugo
G. Rodeck and Mrs. Junius Henderson in proof reading, checking
references, and indexing. We are also grateful to the publisher and his
editor for their efforts to present this book in an attractive form.

JUNIUS HENDERSON
ELBERTA L. CRAIG
Boulder, Colorado,

June ii, 1932.

CONTENTS

PART I
GENERAL DISCUSSION

I INTRODUCTION 3

II THE ESTHETIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS . . 8

III THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS IN GEN-

ERAL ii

IV THE BALANCE OF NATURE 15

V MAMMALS AS A SOURCE OF HUMAN FOOD ... 20

VI MAMMALS AS A SOURCE OF VALUABLE PRODUCTS

OTHER THAN HUMAN FOOD ..... 25

VII DAMAGE TO THE HUMAN FOOD SUPPLY BY MAMMALS 36
VIII DAMAGE BY MAMMALS TO PROPERTY OTHER THAN

HUMAN FOOD 45

IX THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES ... 50

X DOMESTICATED MAMMALS 79

XI MAMMALS AND THE HUNTER 84

XII DISEASES AND PARASITES OF MAMMALS, INCLUDING

POISONING FROM PLANTS 88

XIII MAMMALS AS DISEASE CARRIERS 96

XIV MAMMALS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN BEINGS . . 102
XV THE RELATION OF MAMMALS TO FIRE HAZARD . . 106

XVI THE RELATION OF MAMMALS TO SOIL TURNOVER,

EROSION, DAMS, DIKES, RESERVOIRS, CANALS, ETC. 108
XVII THE INFLUENCE OF WILD MAMMALS IN THE EX-
PLORATION AND SETTLEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA
AND UPON HISTORY . . ... . . 112

XVIII MAMMALS AS SCAVENGERS . • . . . . 115

XIX MAMMALS AS ENEMIES OF OTHER MAMMALS . 117

XX THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS AND BIRDS 120
XXI THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS TO FISHES

AND OTHER COLD-BLOODED VERTEBRATES . .123
XXII THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS TO INSECTS 129
XXIII THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS TO INVER-
TEBRATES OTHER THAN INSECTS ... . 135

vii

Vlll CONTENTS

XXIV THE EXTINCTION OF CERTAIN SPECIES OF MAMMALS

AND THE APPROACHING EXTINCTION OF OTHERS 137
XXV THE PROTECTION OF USEFUL MAMMALS . . .150
XXVI THE CONTROL AND DESTRUCTION OF INJURIOUS

MAMMALS 159

XXVII LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS .... 166

XXVIII METHODS OF INVESTIGATING ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY 182

PART II
SYSTEMATIC DISCUSSION

ORDER MONOTREMATA— PRIMITIVE EGG-LAYING

MAMMALS 187

ORDER MARSUPLALIA — OPOSSUMS, KANGAROOS

AND THEIR ALLIES 187

ORDER INSECTIVORA— MOLES, SHREWS, HEDGE-
HOGS 190

FAMILY TALPIDAE — MOLES . . . . 190

FAMILY SORICIDAE — SHREWS .... 193

FAMILY TUPAIIDAE — TREE SHREWS . . 196

FAMILY ERINACEIDAE — EUROPEAN HEDGEHOGS . 196

ORDER CHIROPTERA— BATS AND FLYING FOXES 196

ORDER CARNIVORA — FLESH-EATING MAMMALS . 200

FAMILY URSIDAE — BEARS 200

FAMILY PROCYONIDAE — RACCOONS . . . 204
FAMILY BASSARISCIDAE — BASSARISKS . . 204
FAMILY VIVERRIDAE — MONGOOSES AND CIVET

CATS 205

FAMILY MUSTELIDAE — WEASELS, MARTENS,
WOLVERENES, MINKS, OTTERS, SKUNKS,

BADGERS 206

FAMILY CANIDAE — DOGS, COYOTES, WOLVES,

FOXES, ETC 219

FAMILY FELIDAE — CATS, LIONS, TIGERS, LEOP-
ARDS, LYNXES, ETC 231

FAMILY PROTELIDAE — AARDWOLF OR EARTH

WOLF 238

FAMILY HYAENIDAE — HYAENAS . . . 238
ORDER PINNIPEDIA— SEALS, SEA-LIONS, WAL-
RUSES, SEA-ELEPHANTS 239

CONTENTS IX

ORDER RODENTIA (INCLUDING ORDER LAGO-

MORPHA) — GNAWING MAMMALS . . . 246
FAMILY SCIURIDAE — SQUIRRELS, CHIPMUNKS,

WOODCHUCKS, PRAIRIE-DOGS . . ~ . ' . 255

FAMILY GEOMYIDAE — POCKET GOPHERS . . 267
FAMILY HETEROMYIDAE — POCKET RATS AND

POCKET MICE . . ... . . 269

FAMILY CASTORIDAE — BEAVERS . ,« . . 271
FAMILY CRICETIDAE — NATIVE RATS, MICE, ETC. . 275
FAMILY MURIDAE — OLD WORLD RATS AND MICE 291
FAMILY APLODONTIDAE — MOUNTAIN BEAVERS . 294
FAMILY ZAPODIDAE — JUMPING MICE . . 294
FAMILY ERETHIZONTIDAE — AMERICAN PORCU-
PINES . . . ... . . 294

FAMILY HYSTRICIDAE — OLD WORLD PORCUPINES 295

FAMILY CHINCHILLIDAE — CHINCHILLAS . . 296

FAMILY CAVIIDAE — CAVIES .... 296

FAMILY OCHOTONIDAE — PIKAS . . . . 296

FAMILY LEPORIDAE — HARES AND RABBITS . 297

ORDER HYRACES — CONIES 303

ORDER PROBOSCIDEA— ELEPHANTS ... 304
ORDER ARTIODACTYLA— EVEN-TOED HOOFED

MAMMALS . . .- . 305

FAMILY SUIDAE — THE SWINE (Hoes, PEC-
CARIES, ETC.) 306

FAMILY PHACOCHOERIDAE — WART AND FOREST

HOGS . . 307

FAMILY TAYASSUIDAE — PECCARIES . . . 307
FAMILY HIPPOPOTAMIDAE — HIPPOPOTAMUSES . 307
FAMILY CAMELIDAE — CAMELS, LLAMAS, AL-
PACAS, ETC. . . . . ... 308

FAMILY CERVIDAE — DEER, ELK, MOOSE, CARI-
BOU, REINDEER . . . . . . . 310

FAMILY GIRAFFIDAE — GIRAFFES AND OKAPIS . 322
FAMILY ANTILOCAPRIDAE — AMERICAN PRONG-
HORN ANTELOPES . . . . . . 323

FAMILY BOVIDAE — CATTLE, BUFFALOES, SHEEP,

GOATS AND THEIR ALLIES . . . 325

X CONTENTS

ORDER PERIS SODACTYLA— ODD-TOED HOOFED

MAMMALS 335

FAMILY EQUIDAE — HORSES AND THEIR ALLIES 335
FAMILY RHINOCEROTIDAE — RHINOCEROSES . 338
FAMILY TAPIRIDAE — TAPIRS .... 339
GROUP EDENTATA — SLOTHS, ARMADILLOS, ANT-
EATERS, ETC 339

FAMILY BRADYPODIDAE — SLOTHS . . . 339

FAMILY DASYPODIDAE — ARMADILLOS . . . 339
FAMILY MYRMECOPHAGIDAE — SOUTH AMERICAN

ANTEATERS 340

FAMILY MANIDAE — PANGOLINS OR SCALY ANT-
EATERS 341

FAMILY ORYCTEROPIDAE — AARD VARK, ETC. . 341
ORDER SIRENIA — MANATEES, SEA-COWS AND Du-

GONGS 341

ORDER CETACEA — WHALES, PORPOISES AND DOL-
PHINS 342

ORDER PRIMATES — APES, BABOONS, MONKEYS,

ETC. . 345

BIBLIOGRAPHY 348

375

Economic <3XCammalogy

I

INTRODUCTION

From the dawn of human existence, other mammals have had a very
direct and vital bearing upon the welfare, activities and destinies of the
human race. The ancient cave man was dependent on the flesh of mam-
mals for much of his food, and upon their skins for raiment with which
to protect himself from inclement weather. On the other hand, possess-
ing only rude weapons with which to defend himself and his family
from the attacks of large beasts of prey, he must have lived in constant
dread of them. From that remote period to the present time, every-
where mammals have played a large part in human life and have
exercised considerable influence upon history.

True, man himself is a mammal. The biologist finds it difficult, if
not impossible, to believe that there would ever have been a human
race had there been no other mammals. If we could imagine a world
peopled with human beings and with no other mammals, surely the
development of civilization would have proceeded along very different
lines and probably the final results would have been different. Without
work animals of any kind, no mammals to draw plows or loaded
wagons, or to carry heavy loads on their backs, no swift horses or
camels to carry men and women long distances in a short time, no
wild or domesticated mammals to furnish meat, milk, butter, cheese,
cream, leather and other products, the human race would have been
greatly handicapped in its efforts to rise from a primitive state to an
enlightened condition. If at the present time some great catastrophe
should suddenly destroy all mammals but human beings, it would com-
pel an immediate revolution in our habits and methods of living, if,
indeed, it did not threaten the existence of our race. Furthermore, if
all the mammals considered destructive and detrimental to human in-
terests were suddenly destroyed, their elimination would certainly have
a far-reaching effect upon human activities, though no one is wise
enough or fully enough informed concerning all the complexities of
nature and her biological equilibriums to be able to determine whether
all of the results would be altogether beneficial.

When we turn the pages of history we find the ancient patriarchs

4 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

of Asia and their people dependent upon their flocks of cattle and sheep,
pastured on the hills of Palestine and other regions. We find the armies
of ancient nations, mounted on horses, elephants and camels, going
forth to battle for the extension or defense of the boundaries of em-
pire. We note the merchandise of many people for many centuries
transported over the burning sands of the deserts on the backs of
camels. Beasts of burden have affected in many ways both the friendly
and unfriendly intercourse of tribes and nations. Turning to ancient
South America, we find the llama and alpaca domesticated and furnish-
ing meat, milk and wool to a people engaged in building up a civiliza-
tion in a remote portion of a continent then unknown to the rest of the
world. On the western plains of North America we see immense herds
of bison and antelope sustaining a population of Indians slowly emerg-
ing from a state of savagery, with dogs as their only draft animals,
before white men came to destroy those great herds, and to replace
them with horses, cattle, sheep and swine. In the Far North of Amer-
ica we see the Eskimos, their lives often depending upon their ability
to obtain walruses or related mammals. In northern Europe we see
the Laps and Finns for centuries with only the domesticated caribou or
reindeer standing between them and destruction, furnishing them with
meat, milk, cheese, skins for clothing and shelter, and even the sinews,
horns and bones being used about their sledges and for various other
purposes. Looking over both ancient and modern Europe, Asia, Africa,
Australasia, the Americas and the islands of the sea, we find people
everywhere, always using both wild and domesticated mammals and
their numerous products for many purposes.

The mammals (Class Mammalia) include all animals that suckle
their young, and no others, hence the name. The word "animal" is
much used popularly as an exact synonym for mammals exclusive of
man. Unfortunately, this is also often carelessly done even by natur-
alists who know better. Man himself belongs to the Kingdom Animalia,
and is therefore an animal. Furthermore, reptiles, fishes, birds, oysters,
insects, lobsters and all other living organisms except plants are ani-
mals. It is regrettable that there is in the English language no single
word that means the mammals with the exception of the human race.

Poole in 1926 said that there were then known 12,540 species and
varieties of mammals (about two-thirds as many as of birds), and
species new to science are constantly being added to the list, particu-
larly from remote regions of the earth. Comparatively few of the

INTRODUCTION 5

species are large and conspicuous. A very large proportion are small,
secretive species, many of them nocturnal in habit, seldom seen by any-
one except special students of the subject. To the great majority of
men and women a mouse is a mouse and a rat is a rat ; but the natural-
ist recognizes hundreds of species of mice and rats, divided into cer-
tain very definite groups such as wood rats, meadow mice, deer mice,
pocket mice and so on. Most people in the United States are familiar
with the chipmunks, but are surprised to learn that there are many
species and varieties of them, not simply one kind.

Though the small species are less conspicuous and less generally
known than the larger ones, yet economically some of them are vastly
more important. The economic effect of destroying all the bears in the
world would not be very great, and the economic effect of destroying
all the elephants in the world would, so far as we can foretell, be
rather local, but the economic results of destroying all the mice, all
of the gophers, or all of the rabbits in the wrorld, would be very pro-
nounced and widespread. Yet one cannot say with certainty that any
species can be destroyed without affecting many others in one way or
another. If a species that preys upon certain other species suddenly be-
comes extinct, the latter, released from the attacks of one of its enemies,
may multiply enormously and continue to do so until further in-
crease is checked by the limit of its food supply. On the other hand,
if a species that furnishes the food supply of another species becomes
extinct, the surviving species would be in danger of starvation, unless
it turns its attention to some other source of food, and thus affects
other species upon which it begins to prey.

As all nature is complex, so economic mammalogy comprises a great
mass of interwoven phenomena. The interrelations of organisms and
their interactions and influence one upon another are complicated.
Through ages of adjustment and re-adjustment each species has, under
natural conditions, a more or less definite niche in the whole environ-
ment, influencing and influenced by all the species around it. This
adjustment has been much disturbed by the rapid advance of civiliza-
tion, which has within a short time carried into vast stretches of new
territory stock-raising and agriculture on a large scale, with the de-
struction of forests, the draining of swamps, the introduction of plants
and animals of various species from other regions ; the transformation
of large arid areas into cultivated fields, orchards and pastures by sys-
tems of irrigation ; the destruction of cover and decrease of food sup-

O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

plies for some species, and provision of new cover and food supplies for
others; the building of towns and cities and numerous other radical
changes in the environment. This has added new complications to the
interrelations of organisms. In view of all this, the intelligent under-
standing and discussion of economic mammalogy involves not only a
knowledge of mammals and their habits, but also a comprehensive
knowledge of zoology in general and botany, sound views on eco-
nomics and an accurate insight into certain phases of history, politics and
legislative principles.

During the past half-century there has been built up a vast and
detailed literature of economic ornithology and much of the informa-
tion therein is becoming generally diffused, having been systematized
and made available to the public in many bulletins and books,1 The
food of many species has been subjected to minute analyses in order
to determine just how useful or harmful they may be. On the other
hand, few or none of the mammal species have been subjected to such
thorough investigation, and the literature of economic mammalogy,
though extensive, is still widely scattered. It consists to a great extent
of numerous small circulars, bulletins and articles in technical periodi-
cals, concerning a few groups of mammals, and occasional desultory
items found here and there in the general literature of mammals, with
very little systematic discussion of the economic relation of mammals
as a whole.

It is manifestly impossible in a book of moderate size to set forth in
detail or discuss adequately all the facts of such a subject, with its mul-
titudinous phases, or even to cite all the publications bearing upon the
subject. The best that we can hope to do is to generalize most of the
information, adding, in footnotes, many references to the literature
from which the reader who wishes to delve more deeply into the sub-
ject or any phase thereof may obtain more detailed information. The
bibliography and footnotes cannot be made at all complete because of
lack of space, but we have in most cases sought to select the publications
most readily accessible to or obtainable by American readers.

Two very important facts must not be overlooked. The first is that
while most species of vertebrate animals have certain favorite foods
upon which they subsist when obtainable, there are other foods that
may be used by them in case of emergency, and when they are hungry

1 Compare Henderson, The practical value of birds, New York, 1927, and the
numerous publications cited therein.

INTRODUCTION 7

they are likely to take the most easily obtained food that is at all suit-
able to their needs. Human beings do so, being much less particular
about what they eat when they are really hungry than when they eat
simply because the clock says it is mealtime. Consequently, statements
concerning the ordinary food habits of vertebrates must be taken with
due allowance for the possible taking of other foods at certain times ;
and the fact that an animal is once seen eating a particular kind of food
may not prove that to be a part of its ordinary diet. Thus, when insects
are particularly abundant many graminivorous birds temporarily be-
come decidedly insectivorous. Bears may not be particularly fond of
veal, but when hungry, if no other food is available, they do not hesi-
tate about attacking a calf. Foxes live largely upon rodents, but when
hungry they do not disdain game birds, poultry, young lambs or any
other meat within their reach. Furthermore, when their usual food is
scarce mammals cannot as readily migrate to other localities in search
of it as can the birds with their power of flight.

The red squirrel of New England furnishes an excellent illustration
of a recent enforced change of food habit because of a failing supply of
its natural food, which consisted of nuts and conifer seeds. The large
conifers and nut-bearing trees having been cut from certain areas, the
squirrels have adopted the habit of feeding more extensively upon buds
and bud twigs, and thereby are said to be doing considerable damage to
the younger trees.2

The second fact is that often individual animals acquire a taste for
special kinds of food not in the normal diet of the species. Lions and
tigers do not ordinarily attack men, but occasionally one becomes a
man-eater, and, having acquired a taste for human blood, may kill
numbers of people before it pays the penalty with its life. Individual
birds have often been known to acquire a taste for food not usual in
their diet. In case of sheep-killing dogs, however, it is not certain that
their depredations are the result of a special liking for mutton. It
appears to be due to a lust for killing and the excitement of the chase,
as it is with the so-called "game hogs" among men.

1 Hosley, Red squirrel damage to coniferous plantations and its relation to chang-
ing habits, Ecology, ix, 43-48, 1928.

II

THE ESTHETIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS

A discussion of the economic relations of mammals would be incom-
plete without some reference to their esthetic status. The two are in
some respects inextricably interwoven. Whatever contributes in a proper
way to our entertainment or enjoyment, broadens our outlook upon
nature, or ministers to our craving for beauty, making life better worth
the living, is of distinct value to the human race. Recreation — the en-
joyment of beauty in nature and art, providing temporary relief from
the pressure of duty, from the routine and worry of daily life; taking
one for a few moments or hours or days into a different environment ;
changing the current of one's thoughts and actions for a time into
different channels — "restores the soul" and sends one back to work
with renewed vigor, increased strength and hope, "mends the ragged
edges of shattered nerves," and makes one better fitted to cope with
the difficulties of life.

As applied to tired brain-workers of sedentary occupation, this is
rather universally recognized. The physician, worn by a hard campaign
against a serious epidemic disease or many visits to a long list of pa-
tients ; the lawyer, fatigued by many days and nights spent in the effort
to protect the lives and property of his clients; the teacher, tired by
the relentless routine of teaching many restless children or young people,
grading numerous examination papers long after school hours and
helping backward pupils; the housekeeper, breaking down beneath
the burden of many household cares, the worry of the sick-room and
caring for her children; the secretary or clerk, confined day after day
in office or store; the merchant, fighting desperately to avoid bank-
ruptcy; the banker, diligently endeavoring to protect the interests of
stockholders and depositors; all, in short, who occupy positions of
responsibility or are too closely confined by business or professional
duties of any sort or are worried by discouraging and embarrassing
circumstances, would be benefited by a few days in the open, where
birds are singing, squirrels are chattering and flowers spreading their
colors and fragrance to the world. Workers in the field of manual labor,
even those whose lives are spent largely outdoors, also are often bene-

8

ESTHETIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS 9

fited by a little time spent far from field or shop. Not that they need
physical exercise — their need is for relaxation, relief from monotony,
a change of scenery or of viewpoint or of mental processes.

All these feel the urgent call of the outdoor world, and wherever the
seeker for relaxation may go, in the forest, by the streamside, in the
mountains or on the plains, the mammalian life encountered adds
largely to the pleasure of the holiday or the vacation. The landscape
artist, recognizing this, introduces into his paintings a few cattle in a
pasture, horses drawing a cart or a plow through the field, a flock of
sheep grazing on a hillside or a deer in the forest.

The esthetic value of mammals is recognized in the laws for their
protection in our great public playgrounds, the national parks, where
hunting, injuring or destroying the wild animals is strictly prohibited,
not because of their intrinsic value but in order that they may be
seen by visitors. In consequence of their immunity from molestation
they become very tame, and seeing them in the open adds to the delight
of thousands of visitors annually. Mammals in cages in circus men-
ageries, those with greater liberty in large enclosures of zoological
parks, the bear pits and the like in municipal parks, are usually sur-
rounded by interested spectators, both old and young, who derive much
pleasure from the privilege. Automobile tourists, crossing the continent
on vacation tours, are delighted at every exhibition of wild life along
the route — prairie-dogs on their mounds "barking" at the passers-by,
jack rabbits bounding over the plains, ground squirrels scurrying to
their holes, tree squirrels chattering among the trees, an occasional
coyote loping over a distant slope, and great is the rejoicing at a rare
glimpse of a deer or an antelope.

Some species of wild animals captured alive or raised in captivity
for the purpose of exhibition in menageries and zoological parks bring
high prices. Three pygmy elephants brought $15,000. A pair of full-
grown, giraffes is worth from $15,000 to $20,000 dollars. One Indian
rhinoceros cost $8,000. An adult Indian elephant is worth about
$3,000, a common hippopotamus about the same and a pygmy hippo-
potamus about $4,500. The price of a pair of Prjevalsky wild horses
was $5,000, and $6,000 was paid for one Abyssinian wild ass.1

Thousands of men and women who do not hunt frankly say that
they would be willing to give considerable sums of money for the
privilege of seeing deer, elk, moose and other such animals in a wild

1 Blair, In the zoo, pp. n, 12, 63, 65, 78, 92, 96, 1930.

10 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

state ; yet the great majority, who wish only to see, not to kill game,
have always permitted the small minority of hunters to make and en-
force the game laws. Fortunately, the hunters themselves are in large
numbers awakening to the fact that game laws must be wisely drawn
and effectively administered, or there will soon be no game to hunt.
Therein lies the hope for the future of game mammals. With increasing
knowledge and experience the laws are being constantly bettered and
their enforcement made more certain.

Hunting game animals with guns, as a recreation, has a bearing
upon the esthetic side of life, as strange as that may seem to some, but
there are also utilitarian phases of that subject, so it seems better to
treat it in a separate chapter. However, there is a growing army of
hunters whose only weapons are field glasses and cameras and who
get just as much sport out of their peaceful pursuit of mammals as do
those who go forth armed with rifles and shotguns. Furthermore, ob-
taining good photographs of wild mammals often requires much more
skill and patience, more accurate knowledge of mammalian habits, and
sometimes more courage, than does shooting them.

Ill

THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS IN GENERAL

The investigation of wild birds has taught us that most of the
species are more useful than harmful and many of them almost alto-
gether useful. A large proportion of the species of mammals also are
either useful or comparatively harmless, but the proportion of in-
dividual mammals that are very harmful is probably much greater than
in case of birds. This is due to the fact that the most abundant mam-
mals belong to the Rodentia, which order includes many very destruc-
tive groups, such as prairie-dogs, gophers, rats and mice, that increase
very rapidly under favorable circumstances. Much damage is also done
by beasts of prey of the cat and dog families, such as the tiger, lion,
leopard, puma, lynx, wolf, coyote and fox, though some or all of them
also do more or less good to offset their iniquities. Some of the fur-
bearing mammals (weasels, skunks, etc.) are destructive to poultry and
wild birds, though they, too, have some useful habits.

Though economic mammalogy is a very large and complex subject,
with many ramifications, it centers about four main questions, namely :
What species are useful or harmless and entitled to reasonable pro-
tection? How may they best be encouraged and protected? What
species are more harmful than useful and should be kept in check?
How may they best be controlled or destroyed, or the damage they do
be minimized?

That all sounds perfectly simple and easy, but one soon discovers
many complications. A species that is not very injurious or is even
definitely useful under ordinary circumstances may, under other cir-
cumstances, temporarily become exceedingly injurious. For example,
meadow mice in most localities are not usually abundant enough to do
a great amount of damage, but when, during favorable seasons, their
numbers are enormously augmented by a low mortality rate and high
fecundity, they become a menace. In an unsettled region, infested by
an overabundance of rabbits, prairie-dogs and ground squirrels, a few
coyotes to keep those rodents in check may be quite useful, but with
the advent of stock and poultry raising a marked increase in the coyote
population would make them quite harmful in the destruction of poul-

ii

12 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

try, lambs and calves, or entail much expense in the effort to prevent
their depredations. Prairie-dogs in an uninhabited region would do no
harm to mankind, but on cattle ranges and about cultivated fields they
are often very destructive. Weasels are very useful in the destruction of
rodents, but may be very destructive to poultry unless the henhouses
are so constructed as to exclude them.

A few deer in the woods and pastures are harmless and pleasant to
see, but it is quite conceivable that if their enemies were all destroyed
and they were for a few years free from disease and the effects of
disastrous storms, they might become so abundant as to be destructive
to forests, gardens and farm crops. Indeed, deer have locally become
harmful in some places. Even some highly useful animals must some-
times give way to a certain extent before the encroachment of exten-
sive agriculture and other activities of advancing civilization. To the
Indians and white explorers on the Great Plains of the West the bison
was a blessing, but the large herds migrating through cultivated fields
of the thickly-settled portions of that region as they are now would be a
calamity. Dogs are useful in their proper places, pleasant companions
and faithful friends, but occasionally one develops the sheep-killing
habit, and it must then be controlled or disposed of.

It is quite possible that, as with birds, no species of mammal may
be considered, under all circumstances, either wholly beneficial or
entirely harmful. Certainly the great majority of species are bene-
ficial in some ways and harmful in others. The first problem of
economic mammalogy is to place in the balance the beneficial and in-
jurious habits of each species, and thus to ascertain whether it is more
or less useful than harmful. This process requires an intimate knowl-
edge of the habits of many other organisms. For example, an in-
sectivorous mammal may take some useful species of insects and some
harmful ones, in which case its economic status must be based upon an
exact knowledge of the proportions of the various groups of insects
in the mammal's food, and an equally exact knowledge of the habits
of the various groups of insects themselves. However, it is possible that
the greatest value of insectivorous mammals lies in their work in keep-
ing the whole insect tribe in check, rather than their destruction of
particular kinds of insects.1 The same idea may be applied also to
mammals that destroy mice and other injurious animals.

1 This subject is discussed more at length in Henderson, The practical value of
birds, pp. 42-45, 74-75, 1927, with footnote references to other publications.

ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS 13

It is doubtful whether we are justified in the complete extermination
of any species, even the predatory mammals. In addition to the fact
that they destroy some injurious animals, they are of scientific, educa-
tional and recreational value, which should be placed in the balance in
weighing their good and bad qualities. We are not yet fully enough
informed as to all of the interrelations and interactions of various
species to determine the wisdom of the total extermination of any of
them. Man may kill, but he cannot re-create.2

Certain burrowing rodents do some good by stirring the soil and
bringing subsoil to the surface; but, to offset this, their holes, tunnels
and mounds are in various ways a nuisance and sometimes dangerous.
Wolves and coyotes kill harmful rodents, but also kill very useful
animals. Beavers are valuable fur-bearers, but sometimes cut down
trees of very much greater value than their pelts. Minks and weasels,
also valuable as fur-bearers, and as enemies of injurious rodents,
sometimes make raids upon the poultry houses, though they can be
"built out" by proper construction of the pens and houses. Rabbits
furnish us with great quantities of meat and fur, but do much damage
to orchards, gardens and farm crops. Cats catch some mice, but are not
as good mousers as some of the predatory birds, and do considerable
harm by catching insectivorous and other useful birds. It is therefore
very evident that it is often difficult to strike a balance and decide with
certainty whether a given species should be listed with the injurious,
neutral or beneficial species.

There are, however, many species of mammals of very great and
beneficent importance to the welfare of mankind, particularly those
that have been domesticated, of which there are many kinds, discussed
more at length in other chapters. Especially valuable are those that
furnish us with large quantities of meat, milk, butter, cheese, wool,
lard, furs, leather, oil and other commodities of great aggregate value,
the beasts of burden, and the dogs that guard our homes and help
herd and drive our sheep and cattle.

The branches of business of the modern world that revolve around
mammals and mammalian products are numerous and aggregate in
value billions of dollars per annum. In the succeeding chapters we shall
consider some of the esthetic relations of mammals. Then, turning to
the practical phases of mammalogy, we shall see, on one hand, the

2 See Adams, The conservation of predatory mammals, Journ. Mammalogy, vi,
83-96, 1925. Compare Goldman, ibid., pp. 28-33.

14 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

almost immeasurable value to the human race of certain mammals that
provide us with meat, milk, butter, leather, furs and other products,
and those that in the past have furnished the chief means of transporta-
tion. On the other hand we shall see the great injury done by other mam-
mals by the destruction of crops, foodstuffs and other property, and
by interference in various ways with the industrial and commercial
operations of mankind. It is not practicable to exhaustively discuss any
of these phases of economic mammalogy in the several chapters devoted
to them, without making a ponderous and expensive volume of this
book, but much additional information bearing upon all these matters
may be found in Part n, where the economic relations of the various
groups of mammals are considered in systematic order.

IV
THE BALANCE OF NATURE

The adjustment of various species of plants and animals to one
another under natural conditions, and the danger of suddenly disturb-
ing the equilibrium, have been much discussed, particularly in the
literature of economic ornithology, but the principles involved apply
with. equal force to the mammals.1

Perhaps there is no such thing in nature as an absolutely perfect
biological equilibrium — a condition in which no species is either in-
creasing or decreasing, their relative numbers remaining constant.
Surely such an equilibrium, if it occurs, is temporary. Local conditions
are slowly but constantly changing, demanding constant re-adjust-
ment, which, under natural conditions, is accomplished gradually, with
but little disturbance of the balance. World-wide conditions also
change, though even more slowly. That this has been going on through-
out the geological ages is shown by abundant fossil evidence. At many
times during the past, whole faunas and floras have become extinct
and have been replaced by new faunas and floras, but these changes
have doubtless been exceedingly slow.

The environmental changes wrought by civilized man are often
much more rapid. In a few decades we destroy vast forests, bring
under cultivation thousands of square miles of prairie soil, carry water
into arid regions for irrigation, drain great swamps and lakes ; destroy
immense herds of bison or other mammals, or myriads of pigeons,
obliterate the hiding and nesting places of many species and reduce
their food supply; introduce various other species, such as cattle, sheep,
English sparrows, etc., to provide competition for native species of
animals, and grains and other plants to provide competition with native
plants and to furnish new, different and perhaps better food supplies

1 See especially Forbes, On some interactions of organisms, Bull. Illinois State Lab.
Nat. Hist., i, No. 3, pp. 3-18, 1880; 2d ed., 1883; The regulative action of birds upon
insect oscillations, ibid., i, pp. 3-32. 1883; The ornithological balance wheel, Trans.
Illinois Horticultural Soc., xv, 120-131, 1882. Palmer, The danger of introducing
noxious animals and birds," Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1898, pp. 87-110. Gold-
man, The predatory mammal problem and the balance of nature, Journ. Mammalogy,
vi, 28-33, 1925- Adams, The conservation of predatory mammals, ibid., pp. 83-96. Hen-
derson, The practical value of birds, pp. 26-35, IQ2?. and publications therein cited.

15

l6 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

for some of the native animals. In many other ways we disturb the
balance that has been established. Such rapid transformations in the
environment introduce many complex and difficult problems, the cor-
rect solution of which requires an accurate and comprehensive knowl-
edge of all nature, and taxes the wisdom of the best-informed natural-
ists; yet men with very little knowledge of nature consider themselves
quite competent to decide all such problems very promptly. The tend-
ency of nature is not always to restore the former balance, but some-
times to establish a new one.

One species, unless a very rare one, cannot be destroyed or greatly
lessened in numbers without affecting others. One species cannot be
introduced into a new region and become abundant there, or become
much more abundant than formerly in its native habitat, without
affecting others. Small rodents form the favorite food of certain
species of hawks, as well as of certain fur-bearing mammals. If such
rodents become scarce their enemies are likely to visit the poultry
yards, or attack wild birds or find some other food not usually taken
by them. Because of improved living conditions, many species of
mammals are known to increase in numbers when their food supply is
abundant and easy to obtain, and to decrease when the supply becomes
scarce or hard to obtain.

Each species is to some extent, sometimes to a great extent, kept in
check by competition in the search for food and by the depredations of
natural enemies. If removed to a region where it is free from such
competition and depredations, or relieved therefrom by the destruction
of its competitors and enemies, it is likely to increase to such an extent
as to make it a menace to other species or even so to overpopulate the
region that its own demand for food exceeds the supply, and thus
limits further increase. This is particularly true of species that are
naturally very abundant and prolific, such as mice and rabbits. There
are many instances known of lemmings, field mice and even house
mice eating up the supply of food in one area, then swarming out over
adjacent territory and destroying all vegetation . in the line of their
march, a subject more fully discussed in another chapter. A great in-
crease in the number of small rodents has often followed wholesale
destruction of their chief bird enemies, hawks and owls.

On our western plains and in the mountains, coyotes, wolves and
other predatory mammals had long lived in proximity to deer, rabbits
and other game mammals, in such equilibrium as neither to exterminate

THE BALANCE OF NATURE 17

them nor to permit them to become overabundant. Then white men
moved into the region and introduced large flocks of sheep and herds
of cattle, to which more abundant and easily obtained food the preda-
tors turned, causing great losses to stockmen, who have been compelled
to declare war upon the enemies of their flocks. It is surely quite
necessary to keep predatory animals within reasonable bounds, but no
human being yet has sufficient knowledge of all the complexities of
nature to determine with absolute certainty whether any of the
predators should be entirely exterminated. One thing that is quite
certain is that though man may destroy a species, he can never bring
back into existence one that he has exterminated.

As a necessary result of the destruction of the coyote, man will have to face the
problem of accounting for the thousands of ground squirrels which the animals
destroy each year, as Dixon clearly points out. Control measures breed control
measures. Control in one direction throws nature out of balance and often gives
rise to troublesome consequences which must be dealt with through additional
control measures. The case has recently been well stated by two British authori-
ties. Watt cited herbivorous animals as a chief cause of failure of natural re-
generation of the oak in Britain. As a result of the reduction in numbers of
carnivorous animals there has been a general increase in rabbits, mice, moles and
certain birds. "Man, by upsetting the balance of nature and assuming control of
what directly affected his own interests, is now paying the penalty in other ways,
and must, having killed or suppressed the controllers, either assume total con-
trol himself or assist in such by a judicious encouragement of those animals he
once considered his inveterate foes." The same point is made by Lankester, quoted
by Watt, ". . . civilized man has proceeded so far in his interference with extra-
human nature, has produced for himself and the living organisms associated with
him such a special state of things by his rebellion against natural selection and
his defiance of nature's pre-human dispositions, that he must either go on and
acquire firmer control of the conditions or perish miserably by the vengeance
certain to fall on the half-hearted meddler in great affairs. We may indeed com-
pare civilized man to a successful rebel against nature who by every step forward
renders himself liable to greater and greater penalties, and so cannot afford to
pause or fail in one single step."2

Thorough investigation has shown that most species of wild birds
are more useful than harmful. Though not so fully investigated, the
same is true of a considerable proportion of mammals, but unfortu-
nately among mammals the most abundant and prolific species are those
whose food habits render them particularly destructive — the rodents.
However, it is highly probable that no species is entirely harmful, and
quite possible that no species is entirely harmless.

2 Taylor, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 177, 1921, quoting Dixon, California College Agric.
Bull, No. 20, pp. 379-397, 1920; Watt, Journ. Ecology, vn, 201-202, 1919; Lankester,
Kingdom of Man, pp. 31-32, 1911.

l8 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Some often-mentioned illustrations of the effect of disturbing the
balance of nature by introducing new elements into the fauna or by
increasing or decreasing the relative abundance of native species may
well be mentioned here. The mongoose (or mungoose), a great ratter
and mouser, was introduced into the West Indies to combat a rat
plague. When rats became less abundant and the mongoose numerous,
it attacked poultry, wild birds, young pigs and lambs and became a
great pest.3 Disaster also followed its introduction into the Hawaiian
Islands and Porto Rico, where it has played havoc with native ground-
nesting birds.4

In a New York swamp snapping turtles caught young ducks, but
were kept in check by skunks, which ate the turtle eggs. When skunk
fur became fashionable trappers began to catch skunks. Turtles then
became more abundant, and because of their increased depredations the
ducks ceased to breed there, but returned to the swamp to nest after
boys thinned out the turtles by catching them for market.5

The fox, introduced into Australia, has become a menace to native
animals.6 The far-reaching effects of the importation of gipsy moths
and English sparrows into the United States and rabbits into Australia
are too well known to need more than casual mention here. Because of
the destruction of their forage by rabbits, sheep in New South Wales
were reduced from 60,000,000 in 1893 to 32,000,000 in ig2^.7 Cahn
tells of a lake containing abundant aquatic vegetation and various
species of game and pan fishes, into which carp were introduced, re-
sulting in the destruction of the vegetation, as well as of the native
fishes.8 These instances are but a few out of hundreds that show the
danger of disturbing the natural adjustment of species.

A classic and oft-repeated illustration of the effect the wholesale
destruction of one species may have upon others is Darwin's bumble-
bee story. The bees aid in fertilizing red clover by carrying pollen from
flower to flower. Field mice destroy the nests of the bees. Cats [and,
we may add, some other mammals and birds of prey] feed partly

3 Morris, The mungoose on sugar plantations in the West Indies, London, 1883 ;
reviewed in Amer. Naturalist, xvn, 299, 1883. Palmer, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric.
for 1898, pp. 87-110.

4Wetmore, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull., No. 326, pp. 38, 77, etc., 1916.

5 Fisher, The economic value of predacious birds and mammals, Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agric. for 1908, pp. 191-192.

6Le Souef, The fox menace and its effect on our native animals, Bull. Zool. Soc.,
xxvn, 69-71, 1924. Journ. Mammalogy, v, 272, 1924.

T Nature, cxn, 553, 1923.

8 Cahn, The effect of carp on a small lake, Ecology, x, 271-274.

THE BALANCE OF NATURE 19

upon mice. Therefore the clover crop may depend upon the number
of enemies of the mice in the neighborhood, which in turn would de-
pend upon the number of cats. Cabot has furnished an illustration
that deserves to rank with Darwin's. In Labrador, mice had been
abundant and bears, wolves, wolverenes and other carnivorous mam-
mals, birds of prey and even trout were feeding largely upon the ro-
dents.

In the spring of 1906 the mice disappeared with the snow. . . . With the vanishing
of the mice the change in the visible life of the country was remarkable. The
falcon cliffs were deserted. ... In the trout reaches of the Assiwaban fish were
numerous, but they were living on flies now, with what minnows they could get,
and were no longer mousey, but good and sweet. Our bear of the year were living
on berries. Ptarmigan were all but wanting, old birds and young. It is fair to
suppose that in previous years they were let alone by their natural enemies in
the presence of the superabundant mouse supply. . . . Once the wolves found
themselves upon the hard times of early 1906 they may have sought the caribou
and started them to move. They certainly did move, as the twelve or fifteen
hundred carcasses [killed by the Indians] at Mistinipi that year went to show.
The bearing of the mouse situation on the human interests of the region is
easy to see. It affected all the game, food game and fur. The abundance of mice
tended to build up the ptarmigan, which are of vital importance in the winter
living of the Indians through the whole forested area to the Gulf. Likewise it
built up the caribou herd by providing easier game than they for the wolves. The
departure of the mice did the reverse, reducing the deer and ptarmigan. . . .
Nor were the shore people by any means untouched. All their land game came and
went, was plenty or wanting, shy or easily taken, according to the supply of mice.
London and St. Petersburg, easily, were affected through their great fur trade.9

Innis also discusses the fact that the abundance of mice upon which
certain fur-bearing mammals feed affects the fur supply of the world.10

9 Cabot, Labrador, Boston, 1921 ; quoted in Allen, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 56-57,
1922. Hewitt. The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 214-215, 219, 1921.

10 Innis, The Canada fur trade, pp. 90-91, 1927.

V
MAMMALS AS A SOURCE OF HUMAN FOOD

Within the limits of two brief chapters only the edges of the vari-
ous phases of the complex relation of mammals to the human food sup-
ply can be discussed. An adequate discussion of it would fill a book.
Much additional information and comment may be found under the
various species in the systematic portion of this volume.

First and foremost should be considered mammals as a direct source
of the meat supply. If we accept the traditional alliterative subdivision
of meat into "flesh, fish and fowl," flesh signifies the meat derived
from mammals; fish must include the flesh of other cold-blooded ver-
tebrates (reptiles and amphibians), the meat of certain species of
which is relished by many people ; and fowl must include all birds, not
merely those usually designated as fowl. Taking the people of the
whole world into consideration, the flesh of mammals probably oc-
cupies a more commanding position in the food supply than all other
meat.

Though used very extensively as food by people of certain regions,
particularly along seacoasts, there are vast areas where fishes are in-
significant in numbers or wholly wanting, because of the lack of a
suitable habitat. Who would expect to live on a fish diet in the Sa-
hara desert? Even on the well-populated Great Plains and in the Rocky
Mountains of western United States the quantity of native fishes con-
sumed is not relatively large, though augmented by shipments from the
Great Lakes and both oceans; while in the Great Basin and the arid
Southwest the native fish supply is almost entirely negligible. Domes-
tic chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese, and all the game birds brought
in by the hunter form only a small percentage of the total food of
the nation. The same holds true in the main also for the interior of
British America, Mexico, Central and South America, Europe, Africa,
Asia and Australasia. On the other hand, over a large part of the
world the flesh of mammals is a very substantial item in the bill of
fare, its consumption in some areas much exceeding that of grain,
vegetables and other direct products of the soil.

By far the most important part of the world's meat supply is derived

20

MAMMALS AS A SOURCE OF HUMAN FOOD 21

from domesticated animals. From time to time the United States De-
partment of Agriculture issues statistical publications concerning do-
mestic animals and their products, from the latest of which now avail-
able the following figures have been gleaned:1

MEATS AND LARD AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1927

Beef and veal 7,800,000,000 pounds, 65.8 pounds per capita

Lamb and mutton 645,000,000 pounds, 5.4 pounds per capita

Pork 8,122,000,000 pounds, 68.5 pounds per capita

Total meats 16,567,000,000 pounds, 139.7 pounds per capita

Lard 1,634000,000 pounds, 13.8 pounds per capita

EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF MEATS IN 1926

Exports Imports

United States 1,445,219,000 pounds 102,626,000 pounds

All other countries 5,468,765,000 pounds 6,576,038,000 pounds

VALUE OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF MEATS, ETC., FROM AND TO THE
UNITED STATES IN 1925

Exports Imports

Beef and veal $ 2,765,000 $1,765,000

Pork (fresh $1,300,000) 106,081,000

Mutton and lamb 313,000 610,000

Canned meats 7,250,000

Bouillon, etc 4250,000

The average American eats the equivalent of his own weight in
meat annually. In some countries the average is much less, and in the
United Kingdom and France, as well as in many other countries, the
relative importance of mutton in the menu is much greater than in
the United States.2 We must not overlook the fact, also, that in many
countries goats are largely used for food. Horseflesh is eaten in some
countries, the flesh of camels in Asia and of the domesticated camel-
like animals, llama and alpaca, of South America, is all esteemed, and
there are people who do not disdain dog flesh, all these adding to the
total meat supply derived from domesticated animals.

Domesticated mammals supply not only the greater part of the
world's meat supply, but also the almost indispensable dairy products.
The production of milk, butter and cheese and their by-products in
the United States in 1923 was estimated at $2,652,877,000 in value;
and in 1926, at $2,952,01 2,000. 3 This probably did not include goats'

1 Statistics of farm animals and animal products, Separate No. 976 from Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1927. Statistical Bull. No. 20, U. S. Dept. Agric., 1927.

2 Dearborn, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1918, p. 145.

3 The World Almanac for 1928, p. 370.

22 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

milk, of which considerable is consumed in some localities. Some
other countries also engage extensively in the dairying industry. In
addition to the milk of cows and goats, that of reindeer, camels and
llamas is used as food by their owners.

Turning now to wild mammals, it is, of course, much more diffi-
cult to make even a satisfactory guess at the number available for
food or the amount of meat therefrom actually consumed annually.
We shall see in another chapter how very important they were as
food for the early explorers and settlers in the United States and
British America. In North America at the present time the members
of the deer family are far the most important large game mammals.
Since the elk has been so restricted in its range and reduced in num-
bers in the United States, the only really important one now is the
deer. The bison is no longer available in a wild state, bears, mountain
sheep and mountain goats are not sufficiently abundant or easy to ob-
tain, and moose and elk are not only confined to few localities, but
the total number in the country is small. The prong-horned antelope,
once more abundant than bison over an immense area extending from
Mexico northward far into British America, is no longer common
in most regions, and hunting them is entirely forbidden in nearly all
states where they were once abundant.

Deer have been exterminated or are so scarce in about one-third
of the states that there is now no open season for them and in some
other states the open season is very short, with a limit usually of
but one animal to each hunter during the season. In many localities
where game laws have been wisely devised and well enforced the deer
have increased, and in places are as abundant as they ever were. It is
estimated that there are about 600,000 deer in the national forests
alone. An average of about 75,000 are killed in the states annually,
which yield about 11,250,000 pounds of meat, according to Palmer,4
worth, at twenty cents a pound, $2,250,000.

In British America the wild caribou, closely related to the domesti-
cated reindeer, is still found in great herds, which occur also in Alaska.
One herd in migration, estimated at from 100,000 to 200,000, is said
to have been fourteen days in passing Fort Rae, in such an unbroken
mass that "daylight could not be seen" through the column,5 and an-
other herd was estimated at 25,000,000 animals.6 This animal is a

4 Palmer, Game as a national resource, U. S. Dept. Agrlc. Bull, No. 1049, 1922.
6 Preble, North American Fauna, No. 27, p. 141, 1908.

6 Seton, The Arctic prairies, p. 259, New York, 1917, cited in Adams, Roosevelt
Wild Life Bulletin, in, 575-576, 1926.

MAMMALS AS A SOURCE OF HUMAN FOOD 23

very important source of food for prospectors, miners, trappers and
others over a vast area of the northern country. Its flesh, together
with that of the moose, is served to travellers on Yukon River steam-
ers and in the hotels of that region. The great herds of bison that once
provided meat for early travellers over the Great Plains, and for the
workmen engaged in the construction of the first railroads across the
plains, are more fully discussed in other chapters.

The reindeer has for centuries been a domesticated animal in north-
ern Europe, where its flesh is used as food. It was introduced into
Alaska in 1891 as a source of food for the natives, the herds now
numbering over 250,000, and into Labrador in 1907.*

In Africa, buffaloes, many species of antelopes and other large mam-
mals have always furnished meat in abundance to the natives, as well
as to exploring expeditions and "white settlers. Though in many lo-
calities they have been greatly reduced in numbers, they are still an
important source of human food.

Of the smaller mammals, rabbits are far the most important as
a food supply for the human race, in addition to providing healthful
recreation for a large army of hunters. Palmer estimates that
25,000,000 wild rabbits are killed annually in the United States, worth,
at an average of twenty cents each, $5,000,000 for their meat, in addi-
tion to the value of such of the skins as are utilized in the fur in-
dustry; 465,000 cottontails were killed in New York State in 1918,
2,700,000 in Pennsylvania in 1919, and 293,625 in Virginia in I92O.8
Estimates for other states are not at hand. There are short open sea-
sons in nearly half the states, mostly eastern, where rabbits do no
great amount of harm, but no restrictions elsewhere except the usual
requirement of hunting licenses in order to hunt any game. Dearborn
tells us that prior to the World War 100,000,000 rabbits were annually
marketed in France; that England produces from 30,000,000 to
40,000,000 and imports $1,000,000 worth from Belgium and
$4,500,000 worth from Australia and New Zealand annually; that in
1911 London consumed 500,000 pounds and Paris 200,000 pounds of
rabbit meat daily.9 Those from Australasia are the wild species unwisely
introduced there, but the others are likely largely raised in confine-

7 Hadwen and Palmer, Reindeer in Alaska, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1089, 1922.
Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 92-95, 1913. Hewitt, Conservation of the wild life
of Canada, 1921. McAllister, California, Fish and Game, ix, 14, 1923.

8 Palmer, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 1048, 1922. Seton makes the value $25,000,000
annually.

9 Dearborn, Rabbit growing to supplement the meat supply, Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1918, pp. 145-152; Rabbit farming, Dept. Bull. No. 1090, 1920.

24 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

ment. Over $1,000,000 worth of rabbit meat was sold in Los Angeles
in I926.10

The meat of muskrats, if properly cooked, is pronounced excellent
by many who have used it, and it is now sold regularly in the markets
of several eastern American cities, where it appears under the trade
name "marsh rabbit" during the trapping season, the trappers getting
from $2.50 to $3.00 a dozen for the carcasses,11 which gives them a
neat addition to the amount they receive for the furs, when one con-
siders that they catch the muskrats by the hundreds and must skin
them anyhow. A great many other small mammals are used to some
extent for food and the aggregate amount of meat derived therefrom
the world over must be very large. In America one naturally thinks
at once of the squirrels, raccoons and opossums. Trappers often ex-
press a liking for beaver meat, some relish skunk, and one of the
authors of the present volume found young prairie-dogs quite palata-
ble. According to one trapper, wildcat flesh is very tender and agree-
able food, and while dogs like it, they are said to dislike fox flesh.12

Badgers, porcupines, woodchucks, gophers and many other Ameri-
can mammals are eaten and pronounced good by white men, as well
as by Indians. The woodchuck is eaten with great relish by the Ken-
tucky mountaineers.13 In fact, there is no reason why many of the vege-
tarian rodents, when not too old, tough and rank, should not be as good
as squirrels, if we could only overcome our prejudices. They are cer-
tainly as clean in their habits as chickens or hogs, or more so. Natives
of some countries are said to eat the flesh of the common house rat.

In South America natives consider monkey flesh a great delicacy,
and anteaters are also used as food.14 Various marine mammals, such
as seals and porpoises, are used as food, and whale meat is sometimes
sold in American markets.15 Walrus, when obtainable, has always been
one of the chief foods of the Eskimo, but these animals have become so
scarce that reindeer were introduced into Alaska as a substitute. It is
manifestly impossible to make even a worth-while guess as to the total
percentage of the world's daily menu furnished by the flesh of wild
mammals.

10Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, p. 219, 1928.

11 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, p. 218, 1928.

12 Ross, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 250, 1928.

13 Hamilton, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 310, 1930.

14 Holt, Monkeys as human food, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 193-194, 1923. Tate,
Journ. Mammalogy, xu, 249, 1931.

15 Radcliffe, Whales and porpoises as food, U. S. Bureau of Fisheries Economic
Circular No. 38, 1918.

VI

MAMMALS AS A SOURCE OF VALUABLE PRODUCTS
OTHER THAN HUMAN FOOD

The relations of mammals to the human food supply naturally pre-
sents two distinct, contrasting phases, — a productive one and a de-
structive one, — which are considered in separate chapters. The rela-
tions of mammals to products other than human foods presents similar
phases," also separately treated. Herein we take up the productive
phase, much more pleasant to contemplate than the other. In addition
to meat, milk, leather, furs and skins, which are more fully considered
in other chapters, there is a long list of other useful products obtained
from mammals, only a few of which may be mentioned, in the limited
space at our disposal, for purposes of illustration, to which the reader
may add many others from his own experience or observation.

Wool immediately suggests itself as a likely candidate for a posi-
tion at the head of the list, because of its importance to the human
race. The domestic production of wool in the United States in 1925
was placed at 301,060,000 pounds, imports 336,646,000 pounds and
exports 7,360,000 pounds. The combined imports of wool and mohair
were valued at $141,957,000 and of wool manufactures at
$73,900,000.* The world's production of wool in 1916 was estimated
at 2,717,000,000 pounds.2 Though estimates and actual statistics vary
somewhat from year to year, the figures for one year usually may be
taken as at least a rough approximation to those of other years.

The foregoing figures apparently include only wool from sheep,
but there are other domesticated animals that yield wool or very simi-
lar products. The angora goat, from which mohair is obtained, is be-
coming very important in the United States and some other countries.
The mohair clip in this country in 1909 was valued at $901,597, the
production having been 454,932 fleeces in 1899 and 1,682,912 in
1909^ while in 1921 it was 6,000,000 pounds (two or three pounds

1 Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1925, U. S. Dept. of Commerce,
1926. For 1927 see Separate No. 976, from Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1927, p.
1036.

z Holmes, Wool : Production, foreign trade, supply and consumption, Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 401-424.

3 Heller, The Angora goat, U. S. Dept. Agric. Farmers' Bull. No. 573, 1914.

25

26 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

a fleece).4 The rapid increase in production is shown by the fact that
in the United States in 1927 it was 13,470,000 pounds, while in 1926
in South Africa it was 10,681,000 and in Turkey 6,5oo,ooo.5

In South America the vicuna, alpaca and llama yield wool and
woolly hair of importance, and, as almost everybody knows, camels'
hair from Asia is used for many purposes. We are told of dogs that
formerly existed on the northwest coast of North America, whose long
hair was mingled with an undercoat of woolly material. They were
closely sheared by the Indians, the material having been used in the
manufacture of blankets, some of which are still preserved in muse-
ums, though apparently the dogs have disappeared.6

It is impossible for the present generation, provided with electric
lights, numerous petroleum products and other materials better for
many purposes than those obtained from whales and other marine
mammals, to form an adequate idea of the importance to former gen-
erations of whalebone, whale oil, sperm oil, sperm candles and other
commodities brought to market by the whalers. Whaling and sealing
were once among the most consequential industries of the world, but
have now dwindled to relative insignificance, as various other indus-
tries have so greatly expanded, although whale oil is yet an important
item in the manufacture of soap. The rise and fall of whaling has
been spectacular, and much of romance, as well as of hardship, are in-
corporated into its history, which has been discussed at length by vari-
ous authors.7

Whaling was an ancient industry on the shores of northern Europe
and Arctic America. It was introduced along the shores of western
Europe by the Northmen, and systematically and extensively followed
by the Biscayans in the fifteenth century, though the whale fisheries
did not assume great world importance until the seventeenth century.
It reached temperate America soon after the discovery of the conti-
nent, and finally reached the point where, in 1834, $12,000,000 were
invested in whaling enterprises in New England alone — a very large

4 Williams, The Angora goat, Farmers' Bull. No. 1203, 1921.

6 U. S. Dept. Agric. and Dept. Commerce, Interdepartmental Committee on Angora
goat and mohair industry, Miscell. Circular No. 50, 1929.

"Leechman, Fleece-bearing dogs, Nature Magazine, xiv, 177-178, 1929.

7 Starbuck, History of the American whale fishery from its earliest inception to
the year 1876, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1875-76, pp. 1-779. Jenkins, A history of the
whale fisheries, London, 1921. Hohman, The American whaleman: A study of life
and labor in the whaling industry, N.Y., 1928. Cook, J. A., The whale: A quarter-
century of whaling in the Arctic, Boston, 1926. See also various publications cited
in subsequent footnotes of this chapter.

VALUABLE PRODUCTS FROM MAMMALS 27

sum for those days. The former importance of the whale to northern
regions is thus stated:8

The flesh of the whale, which resembles coarse beef, is a necessary article of
food. It affords a thin, transparent substance which answers the purpose of
window glass, and the sinews, when properly separated, are used for thread.
The common bones are employed in building the hut, the whalebone in finishing
canoes and rude implements, and the remainder is no despicable material for
fuel. Besides, the train oil and oleaginous matter of all kinds are more grateful
to the taste of the natives than the choicest delicacies to a refined people.

Geographical science owes a great deal to the voyages of whaling
and sealing vessels which sailed uncharted seas and brought back the
first information concerning continental bays, inlets, harbors and head-
lands, as well as many oceanic islands. History also must acknowledge
the influence of these kindred industries which once occupied so large
a place in the commerce of nations, though now comparatively un-
important. Starbuck says:9

In many ports, among hundreds of islands, on many seas, the flag of the country
from which they sailed was first displayed from the masthead of a whale ship.
Pursuing their avocation wherever a chance presented, the American flag was
first unfurled in an English port from the deck of one American whaleman, and
the ports of the western coast of South America first beheld the Stars and Stripes
shown as the standard of another. It may be safely alleged that but for them the
western oceans would much longer have been comparatively unknown, and with
equal truth may it be said that whatever of honor or glory the United States may
have won in its explorations of these oceans, the necessity for the explorations
was a tribute wrung from the government, though not without earnest and con-
tinued effort, to the interests of our mariners, who, for years before, had pursued
the whale in these uncharted seas, and threaded their way with extremest care
among these undescribed islands, reefs and shoals. Into the field opened by
them flowed the trade of the civilized world. In their footsteps followed
Christianity. They introduced the missionary to new spheres of usefulness, and
made his presence tenable. Says a writer in the London Quarterly Review: "The
whale industry first opened to Great Britain a beneficial intercourse with the
coast of Spanish America ; it led in the sequel to the independence of the Spanish
colonies. . . . But for our whalers, we never might have founded our colonies in
Van Dieman's Land and Australia — or if we had we could not have maintained
them in their early stages of danger and privation. Moreover, our intimacy with
the Polynesians must be traced to the same source. The whalers were the first
that traded in that quarter — they prepared the field for the missionaries ; and the
same thing is now in progress in New Ireland, New Britain and New Zealand."
All that the English fishery has done for Great Britain, the American fishery has
done for the United States, and more.

8 North American Review, xxxvm, 85-114, 1834, reviewing at length some books
on whaling by Scoresby.

' Starbuck, History of the American whale fishery from its earliest inception to
the year 1876, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1875-76, pp. 2-3.

28 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

St. John says that in 1769 the first fifty Nantucket whaling vessels
coming in brought 11,000 barrels of oil. In 1770 they fitted out 197
vessels with 2158 men for whaling.10 .

Sanford11 says there were over 700 vessels from the United States
engaged in whaling in 1850 and less than 100 in 1882. Smiley12 gives
the number in 1853 as 543 vessels, with a total tonnage of 171,484
tons, which in 1884 had declined to 144 vessels, with a total of 33,119
tons. From his statistical tables the following items show the decrease
in imports and exports:

Barrels of Barrels of Pounds of

Sperm oil Whale oil Whalebone

Imports 1853 103,077 260,114 5,652,300

Imports 1883 24,595 24,170 254,037

Exports 1867 25,147 18,253 717,496

Exports 1883 13,096 4,543 175,614

Stevenson13 tells us that in 1860 the production of the United States
whaling fleet was 73,708 barrels of sperm oil and 140,005 barrels of
whale oil, and in 1902 only 21,970 barrels of sperm oil and 4725
of whale oil; and that the manufacture of spermaceti from 1835 to
1845 averaged over 3,000,000 pounds, and then dropped to 200,000
pounds in 1890, and 400,000 pounds, worth $100,000, in 1901. Clark14
says that in 1880 the American whaling industry employed 171 ves-
sels, worth $2,891,650, with an additional $1,733,000 invested in
wharfs, warehouses and oil refineries.

From Starbuck's History of the American Whale Fishery the fol-
lowing items are gleaned: During several years from 1804 to 1876
over 5,000,000 gallons of sperm oil, over 10,000,000 gallons of whale
oil and over 3,000,000 pounds of whalebone were imported into the
United States, the total value of all for that whole period being
$331,949,480. Total exports from 1791 to 1876 were — sperm oil,
35>399>785 gallons; whale oil, 105,967,473 gallons; whalebone,
54,967,200 pounds; sperm candles, 33,395,056 pounds; total value of

10 St. John, An account of the whale industry of Nantucket, Massachusetts, one
hundred years ago, Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., in, 179-182, 1883.

11 Sanford, Notes on the history of the American whale fishery, Kept. U. S. Fish
Comm. for 1882-83, pp. 205-220.

12 Smiley, Review of the whale fishery for 1882-1883, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for
1883, pp. 325-336, including statistics from 1853 to 1883.

13 Stevenson, Aquatic products in arts and industries, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm. for
1902, pp. 177-252 ; see especially pp. 204, 244-247.

14 Clark, The whale fishery: History and present condition of the fishery, The
Fisheries and Fishing Industries of the U. S., Sec. v, Vol. n, pp. 3, 293, 1887.

VALUABLE PRODUCTS FROM MAMMALS 29

all from 1803 to 1876, $116,948,558. This was at a time when the
purchasing power of money was much greater than at present, and
when "big business" was measured in thousands of dollars, instead of
millions or billions. Consequently, $116,000,000 meant a great deal
more than it does at present. Starbuck also says that in 1839 there
were in the North Pacific only two whaling vessels, with a catch for
the season of 2800 barrels of oil; in 1852 there were 278 vessels, with
a catch of 373,450 barrels; then followed a steady decline to only
eight vessels in 1876, and a catch of only 5250 barrels; that in 1761
there were eight sperm candle factories in New England and one in
Philadelphia, and that the exports of sperm candles (then in great
demand) from 1791 to 1811 ranged from 127,602 to 294,789 pounds
annually.

In 1885 crews of Norwegian vessels killed 1600 or 1700 whales.15
In Newfoundland waters 1000 whales were taken in 1904 and 1200
in I905.16 In 1893 two whaling vessels took 126 bowhead whales and
the others of the fleet took from nine to forty each, in the Arctic
Ocean north of the Mackenzie River, while in 1904 in that region the
largest number taken by one vessel was nine.17 One whaling vessel
took from Hudson Bay to London on a single voyage $150,000 worth
of whale oil and whalebone.18 At one whaling station in the American
Antarctic 5500 whales were taken in a single season.19 From 1874
to 1885 tne Arctic whaling fleet, reporting at San Francisco, brought
in a total of 194,217 barrels of oil, 2,509,568 pounds of whalebone
and 260,485 pounds of ivory. Kellogg has published a detailed table
showing that along the Pacific Coast of North America, from 1919 to
1929, both inclusive, 15,985 whales were taken, yielding 530,120 bar-
rels of oil.20 In 1853 it was estimated by Scammon that 30,000 gray
whales annually visited the California coast. From 1919 to 1923 only
five individuals of this species were taken, though the total catch of
whales of all species along that coast during the period included i bot-
tlenose, i sei, 4 sperms, 5 sulphur-bottoms, 19 finbacks and 781 hump-

16 Southwell, Notes on the seal and whale fishery of 1886, Bull. U. S. Fish Comm.,
vii, 11-16, 1887.

18 Prince, The whaling industry and the Cetacea of Canada, Government Printing
Office, Ottawa, Special Rept., 1906.

" Preble, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 27, p. 127, 1908.
15 Preble, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 22, p. 39, 1902.

19 Osborne and Anthony, Close of the age of mammals, Journ. Mammalogy, ill,
219-237, 1922.

20 Statistics of whaling, cod-fishing and salmon-packing on the Pacific Coast, Bull.
U. S. Fish Comm., vi, 89-90, 1886. Kellogg, Journ. Mammalogy, xn, 73-77, 1931.

3O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

backs; and the right whales, once abundant from Oregon northward,
are now also scarce.21 Starks says that in 1854 "there were shipped
from Honolulu (the Pacific whaling center at that time) 1,306,567
gallons of whale oil; that 650 ships and 15,000 men were engaged in
Pacific whaling, at a capital invested by United States citizens of not
less than $20,000,000. 22

On the northwest coast of America one vessel in 1910 captured
fifteen Arctic right whales, and another reported a cargo of whalebone
worth $130,000 at $8.00 a ton. In 1911, 10,000 finback and hump-
back whales were killed in the Antarctic seas, 3000 in the seas of Eu-
rope and 2000 about South Africa, besides many around Japan and
South America; and in 1913 it was estimated that 20,000 whales were
being killed annually.23 The latest information, just at hand, is that
the 1928-1929 catch of whales for the whole world was 27,566 whales
(blue whale 13,650, finback 9132, sperm 1761, sei 1549, humpback
304, others 1170), which yielded 1,867,848 barrels of oil.24 More than
half of these were taken by Norwegian whalers.

Baleen is whalebone in its natural state, before it is split into thin
layers. It is not really bone, but is "an elastic, horny substance which
grows in place of teeth in the upper jaw" of the group of whales
known as whalebone whales (Balaenidae). It functions in straining
crustaceans and other food for the whales out of the water. It consists
of several hundred thin, parallel plates, from a few inches to several
feet in length, and "stands quite alone among animal substances in a
particular combination of lightness, toughness, flexibility, elasticity
and durability, together with such a cleavage (due to the straightness
of the parallel fibers) that it may be split for its whole length to any
desired thickness of strips."25 In the bowhead whale the plates are about
10 feet long and from 10 to 12 inches wide at the base, but before
the larger whales were all killed off plates 15 feet long were obtained.
In 1821 the production of baleen in the United States fisheries was
62,893 pounds, valued at 12 cents a pound; increasing to 5,652,300
pounds in 1853, with an average value of 35 cents; decreasing to

21 Evermann, The conservation of the marine life of the Pacific, Scientific Monthly,
xvi, 526-527, 1923; xv, 310, 1922; Mid-Pacific Magazine, xxv, 303-328, 1923. California
Fish and Game, ix, 31, 1923.

22 Starks, A history of California shore whaling, California Fish and Game Comm.,
Fish Bull, No. 6, p. 16, 1922.

23 Robot, The whale fisheries of the world, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1913,
pp. 481-489; reprinted from La Nature, Paris, Sept. 14, 1912; citing Norwegian Fish-
eries Gazette (Norsk Fiskeritidende).

24 Townsend, The whaling situation, Science, LXXII, 652-653, 1930.
20 Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, vni, p. 6884, 1902.

VALUABLE PRODUCTS FROM MAMMALS 3!

96,600 pounds in 1906, with a value of $4.50 a pound; $200,000,000
worth obtained from 1850 to 1902 ; a total of 90,000,000 pounds taken
in the nineteenth century, which, at prices ranging early in the twen-
tieth century, would have been worth $450,000,000. One bowhead
whale will yield as much as 275 barrels of oil and 3000 pounds of
baleen, and one right whale will yield up to 130 barrels of oil and
1500 pounds of baleen.26

After extracting the oil and baleen, the waste of the carcass and
skeleton is made into food for cattle, bone-meal and fertilizer, these
products ranging from $20 to $40 per ton.27 Though much more rarely
obtained, ambergris is far the most valuable product of the whale,
in proportion to its bulk.

Ambergris is a wax-like substance found at rare intervals, but sometimes in rela-
tively large quantities, in the intestine of the sperm whale. With the exception of
choice pearls and coral, it is the highest-priced product of the fisheries, selling at
upward of $40 per ounce. It has been a valuable object of commerce for hundreds
of years. It appears to have been prized first by the Arabians, by whom it was
called amber, and by this name it was first known among the Europeans. The
name was later extended to the fossilized gum, the two being distinguished by
their respective colors as amber gris and amber jaune. In the writings of early
travellers to the shores of the Indian Ocean and to southern Asia, references to
ambergris are by no means infrequent. Before the time of Marco Polo (1254-
1324), Zanzibar was famous for its ambergris. So plentiful was it on the shores
of the Indian Ocean in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the name was
given to various islands, capes and mountain peaks of the region. It was also
found on certain shores of the Pacific, notably the coast of Japan. From their
station in Batavia the Dutch traders kept Europe supplied, and also exported it
to Asiatic markets. ... It is now generally conceded that ambergris is generated
in either sex of the sperm whale, but far more frequently in the male, and is the
result of a diseased state of the animal, caused possibly by a biliary irritation, as
the individuals from which it is secured are almost invariably of a sickly appear-
ance and sometimes greatly emaciated. It is not of frequent occurrence, many
whalemen with half a century's experience never having seen any. The victim
of the malady may eject the morbific substance, thus furnishing the lumps which
have been found on the shores or floating on the seas frequented by sperm whales.
Although ambergris is of such rare occurrence, the sperm whalers always search
for it, especially in diseased or emaciated whales.28

Ambergris has been used, according to Stevenson, in sacradotal rites
of the church, as a flavor in cookery, as a medicine, but chiefly in the
manufacture of perfumery. He reports that a 1 82-pound lump in 1893

28 Stevenson, Whalebone: Its production and utilization, U. S. Bureau of Fisheries,
Document No. 626, 1907 ; Aquatic products in arts and industries. Rept. U. S. Fish
Comm. for 1902, p. 181. National Geographic Magazine, xix, 883-885, 1908. Cram and
Stone, American Animals, pp. 16, 18, 1902.

27 Bower and Aller, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm., App. x, pp. 58-64, 1914.

28 Stevenson, Aquatic products in arts and industries, Rept. U. S. Comm. Fish and
Fisheries for 1902, pp. 177-252.

32 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

was sold by the King of Tydore to the Dutch East India Company
for 11,000 thaler s, and the Grand Duke of Tuscany was reported to
have offered 50,000 crowns for it; an alleged 1 32-pound lump in 1782
brought only £500; in 1791, 362 pounds from one whale was sold for
IQS. 6d an ounce, though the prevailing price at the time was 253.;
in 1858 a 6oo-pound lot which the owners refused to divide was finally
sold for $10,500; in 1866, 150 pounds from one whale sold for
$10,000 in gold; in 1878 an 1 8-pound lot brought $150 a pound, a
1 32 y^ -pound lot brought $23,231, and at about the same time 125
pounds sold for $20,000 and 100 pounds for $17,500; in 1882, 136
pounds sold for $14,000; 1891, 162 pounds for $10,000; 1894, 109
pounds for $26,000. 29

Notwithstanding the general slaughter of whales and the fact that
certain valuable species have become rare, because of unrestricted
hunting by destructive and wasteful methods, some other species are
still fairly common in certain localities, though the whole industry is
probably doomed unless radical conservation measures are soon
adopted and enforced, perhaps by concerted international action. A
Council for the Conservation of Whales has been organized by the
American Society of Mammalogists. On the west coast of Mexico
over 800 whales were taken in six months in 1924-1925, mostly hump-
backs and sperms (no grays), weighing from 35 to 100 tons and worth
from $400 to $3,000 each.30 One whaling company in 1918 took 999
whales on the coasts of Washington, British Columbia and Alaska.31
The total amount invested in the business and the annual product is
still large and the methods of hunting and handling the catch and
utilizing the by-products have been much improved. It was reported
that in Alaska alone in 1914 the investment in the whaling industry
was $1,456,649, with a product that year worth $291,099.^ Accord-
ing to United Press dispatches, the fleet of whaling vessels and float-
ing refineries returning from the South Seas in 1930 brought the
largest cargoes of sperm oil and by-products ever loaded, obtained
from whales which were located and reported by wireless-equipped air-
planes and killed by electric harpoons. One vessel brought 62,000 bar-
rels of oil and another brought 37,000 barrels.

29 Stevenson, Kept. U. S. Comm. Fish, etc., for 1902, pp. 248-252. Prince, The Whal-
ing industry and the Cetacea of Canada, Special Reports, Gov. Ptg. Office, Ottawa,
1906. Clark, The whale fishery, in Fisheries and Fishing Industries of U. S., 1887,
Sec. v, Vol. 2, pp. 72, 212.

30 California Fish and Game, xi, 79, 1925.

31 California Fish and Game, v, 80, 1919.

32 Bower and Aller, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1914, App. x, pp. 58-64.

VALUABLE PRODUCTS FROM MAMMALS 33

The walrus also has been relentlessly pursued for its oil, as well
as for its ivory, until it has become too scarce for profitable hunting.
While it was plentiful, its habits made it much more easily obtained
than whales. At one rookery in Norway 600 were killed in six hours,
and on the northwest coast of North America from 1870 to 1880 about
100,000 were killed, which yielded 1,996,000 gallons of oil and 398,868
pounds of ivory, reducing the number of these animals 50 per cent
in ten years.33 This was a calamity to the natives of the northern
Alaskan coast, who were so dependent upon the walrus for food and
raiment prior to the introduction of the reindeer for their benefit.
The sea-elephants also have fallen prey to the commercial hunters,
the production of sea-elephant oil from all the southern islands from
1803 to 1900 having aggregated over 242,000 barrels, valued at
$5,42O,ooo.34 One may well wonder whether that amount is sufficient
to pay for the threatened extermination of that interesting animal.
Lucas says that prior to 1889 there were killed annually for their oil
and leather 875,000 hair seals, in addition to 185,000 fur seals taken
annually for their fur.35 Sea-lions have been destroyed in large num-
bers for their oil, hides, "whiskers," gall-bladders, etc.36 Porpoises also
have played a part in the production of oil.37

In addition to wool, oil, skins, whalebone and other materials more
particularly discussed in this and other chapters, the report of im-
ports to and exports from the United States in 1925 include the fol-
lowing:38

Exports Imports

Gelatin, glue, etc., of animal origin $684,000 $1,404,000

Bones, hoofs, horns and article? manufactured therefrom 744,000 1,231,000

Ivory tusks, natural 1,373,000

Animal compost from the barnyard, used as a fertilizer, returns to
the soil considerable plant food taken from the fields in the shape
of crops of hay and grain, and its total value to the farmers must
aggregate a very large sum of money. Considerable of the waste of
whales at the whaling stations is also converted into fertilizer. Bats
as a source of fertilizer have recently been much discussed. Artificial

33 Stevenson, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1902, p. 214. Clark, Fisheries and fishing
industries of the U. S., sec. v, Vol. n, p. 318, 1887. Lucas, Ann. Rept. U. S. National
Museum for 1889, P- 618.

34 Stevenson, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1902, pp. 211-214.

35 Lucas, Ann. Rept. U. S. National Museum for 1889, p. 611.

36 Rowley, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 1-36, 1929.

37 Cook, The manufacture of porpoise oil, Proc. U. S. National Museum, i, 16-18,
1878.

38 Statistical Abstract of the U. S. for 1925, U. S. Bureau of Commerce, 1926.

34 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

bat roosts in Texas are reported, on inconclusive evidence, to have
yielded sufficient guano to be profitable, but that would not be the
case in most localities. Bat guano filled some of the rooms in the great
Carlsbad Cavern in New Mexico to a depth of 100 feet, the accumula-
tion of many centuries, and it is estimated that 100,000 tons of it,
valued at several million dollars, have been removed and marketed.39
Guano obtained from wood-rat nests in the southwestern United States
is used by florists.40 Bones of various land mammals have been ground
up for use as fertilizer. It has been estimated that from 1868 to 1880
$2,500,000 were paid for bison bones from Kansas, Nebraska and Mis-
souri,41 and an extensive traffic in the bleached bones was carried on
from Texas to British America for some years after the bison had
practically disappeared from the plains as a living animal. Great piles
of bison bones, gathered by Indians and sold to buyers at from $5 to
$7 a ton for the manufacture of charcoal, photographed at Saska-
toon, Saskatchewan, on August 9, 1890, were estimated to contain the
bones of 25,000 individual animals.42

Deer antlers are very extensively used in the manufacture of handles
for knives and forks, and the waste therefrom is converted into gela-
tine or size used in the manufacture of cloth.43 The American Indians
used deer-horn and various bones in making tools for several pur-
poses, far back in prehistoric times, as well as during recent years.
They have also used porcupine quills and other materials derived from
mammals, in the manufacture and ornamentation of clothing, mocca-
sins and other articles. Teeth of the wapiti or American elk are much
used as the emblem of a great fraternal organization. Many hundreds
of these noble animals have been killed solely for their teeth,44 partly
illegally, a practice that has not entirely ceased. The flesh, skins and
antlers are left on the ground for fear of detection in attempting to
use or remove such bulky things.

39 Campbell, Bats, mosquitoes and dollars, 1925. Nelson, Bats in relation to the
production of guano and the destruction of mosquitoes, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No.
1395, 1926- Howard, Mosquitoes and bats, U. S. Public Health Repts., xxxv, 1789-
1895, 1920. Bailey, Animal life in Carlsbad Cavern, pp. 2, 5, 108, 113, 1928; Bats of
the Carlsbad Cavern, Natl Geog. Mag., XLVIII, 321-330, 1925-

40 Streator, Commercial fertilizer from wood rat nests, Journ. Mammalogy, xi,
318, 1930.

41 McAllister, California Fish and Game, xiv, 155, 1928, citing Whitney, Remi-
niscences of the sportsman, p. 162.

42 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, Plate x, 1921.

43 Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 36, 1910.

44 Graves and Nelson. Our national elk herds, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 51,
1919. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 33, 1926.

VALUABLE PRODUCTS FROM MAMMALS 35

Elephants yield most of the commercial ivory used in the manufac-
ture of billiard balls and other articles. A great deal of fossil mam-
moth ivory is obtained from the frozen soil of Siberia and some from
Alaska and Yukon Territory. Digby45 says he saw 1000 pairs of
mammoth tusks in Siberia in one year. In 1899 ^ was estimated that
100,000 elephants, "a procession 180 miles long," were killed annually
for their ivory, and Carey says that notwithstanding the efforts to
protect them by law they are still being slaughtered, $250,000 worth
of tusks being annually smuggled out of British Africa.46 Walrus ivory
is also much used, but those animals, too, have greatly diminished in
numbers. Many of the ivory articles sold to tourists in the Northwest
are said to have been made of mammoth ivory, but some are walrus
ivory. The "whitest and hardest ivory known" is that of hippopota-
mus teeth.47

5 Digby, The mammoth and mammoth hunting in Northeast Siberia, 1926.

46 Lucas, Ann. Rept. U. S. Natl. Museum for 1889, p. 611. Carey, Journ. Mam-
malogy, vn, 83, 1926. Lang, ibid., rv, 163, 1923. Phillips, ibid., vi, 130-131, 1925.

47 Jennison, Natural History: animals, p. 308, 1927.

VII
DAMAGE TO THE HUMAN FOOD SUPPLY BY MAMMALS

We have briefly considered the bright side of the relation of mam-
mals to our food supply. The dark side is the destructiveness of cer-
tain species. It is impossible to make an accurate estimate of the dam-
age done by them. Even where an entire crop is destroyed, as some-
times happens, one cannot determine with certainty just the amount of
damage, as the value of an unharvested crop cannot be absolutely
known; much less is it possible where the damage is only partial, as
is usually the case. However, after making all allowances for possible
inaccuracies in estimates, the aggregate amount of damage from depre-
dations of mammals is appalling.

We must admit also the impossibility of completely segregating the
damage to the human food supply from damage to food not directly
destined for human use, and in the estimates as published are often
included damage to commodities not usable for food of any animals.
Maize, or corn, as it is commonly called in America, is used to some
extent as human food, but is also fed in large quantities to cattle,
horses and hogs. Even the latter portion indirectly affects the human
food supply, as we eat the beef and pork derived from the cattle and
hogs that consume the corn. We do not eat grass or hay, but their de-
struction by rodents may affect the animals from which we derive
our meat and thus indirectly affect our food supply.

In estimates of damage by house rats and mice is often included
damage to furs, rugs, textiles and many commodities not usable as food
for men and women. All this must be kept in mind in the use of esti-
mates herein contained, in order that they may not be misleading.
Rodents, because of their great numbers, are the chief offenders. Bell
has estimated the annual damage to crops in the United States by all
rodents, evidently including the introduced species, at $500,000,000,
with some special estimates for particular states, as follows: Mon-
tana, $15,000,000 to $20,000,000; North Dakota, $6,000,000 to
$9,000,000; Kansas, $12,000,000; Colorado, $2,000,000; California,
$20,000,000; loss to crops and pasturage from native rodents,
$300,000,000; damage to orchard trees by pine mice alone in one

36

DAMAGE TO FOOD SUPPLY BY MAMMALS 37

county of Virginia from 1915 to 1917, $2OO,ooo.1 According to Vor-
hies and Taylor, house rats and mice annually do damage to the ex-
tent of $200,000,000 in warehouses of the United States, while native
rodents do damage amounting to $300,000,000 to agriculture in the
western states annually.2 Some students of the subject assert that the
damage done to food supplies in homes, stores and warehouses, by
tracking in filth from stables, etc., and mussing over the food, making
it unfit for food, is as great or greater than that caused by the actual
destruction of food.

The brown house rat of Europe, now of world-wide distribution,
is characterized as the "most destructive animal in the world." The
total damage done by the vast horde of rats the world over has been
said to be greater than that wrought by all other noxious mammals.
That may be doubted, though it is certainly enough. The brown rat is
estimated by Lantz to do damage to the amount of $200,000,000 annu-
ally to property of one sort or another in the United States, much of
which is to human food.3 As to abundance of rats, Forbush tells us
that 31,981 were killed in five years under supervision of the owner
of a 2OOO-acre farm in England, and it was estimated that 5000 more
were killed by workmen in threshing the grain; 38,000 were killed
on one Jamaican plantation in one year ;. 16,050 in one French slaugh-
ter house in one month ; 47,000 on two Georgia plantations in winter
and spring of one year; 278,000 in San Francisco in four months dur-
ing the campaign against bubonic plague, with probably 500,000 more
poisoned; 103,000 in Copenhagen in eighteen weeks; 711,797 in Stock-
holm in seven years; 12,000,000 in a plague in India, etc. He esti-
mates the annual damage by each rat at $1.82 (citing Surgeon Creel),
and the total damage to agriculture alone in several countries as fol-
lows:4 Denmark, $3,000,000; Great Britain and Ireland, $73,000,000;
Germany, $50,000,000; France, $40,000,000. To this must be added
a wholly unknown amount of intangible damage, such as loss of rent
of rat-infested buildings, the cost of trapping, poisoning and other-

1 Bell, Death to the rodents, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp. 421-438;
see also Yearbook for 1917, pp. 225-233. Taylor, U. S. Dept. Agric., Dept. Bull. No.
1227, p. i, 1924,

* Vorhies and Taylor, U. S. Dept. Agric. Dept. Bull. No. 1091, 1922. Taylor and
Loftfield, Dept. Bull. No. 1227, 1924.

3 Lantz, The house rat : The most destructive animal in the world, Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 237-251. Silver, How to get rid of rats, Farmers' Bull, No.
1302, 1923.

4 Forbush, Rats and rat riddance, Massachusetts Board of Agric., Biological Bulle-
tin, No. i, 1915 (also 32d Ann. Rept.).

38 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

wise destroying rats, fumigating ships, rat-proofing buildings and in
various other ways seeking to prevent damage by rats, fires caused by
rats and the relation of these rodents to public health. Fisher says that
rats "kill more young chickens than any other animal."5 Following
this indictment we may add that the house rat has no redeeming
feature. Unlike rabbits, for example, its destructiveness is not to any
real extent recompensed by its value as food.

Wood rats are not as a rule abundant enough to do much damage,
but some species in certain localities become very abundant and do
much damage to gardens and along the edges of grain fields. In Ore-
gon they have been known to damage fruit trees by gnawing the bark.6

In districts where they occur, pocket gophers are considered among
the most injurious of our native mammals, the annual loss caused by
them to farmers and fruit-growers of the United States having been
estimated at over $i2,ooo,ooo,7 $1,000,000 for Nebraska alone.8

The house mouse, already mentioned in connection with the house
rat, is a great pest and does a large amount of damage by the destruc-
tion of grain and other foodstuffs in granaries, stores, warehouses and
dwellings, as well as by injury to many other commodities. It is also
a potential menace as a field pest. This is well illustrated by a recent
house mouse plague in California, when they swarmed over the fields
of Kern County at an estimated frequency of 82,000 to the acre, do-
ing great damage to crops.9 Because of their fecundity, various other
species of mice, under conditions favorable to high birth and low death
rates, overpopulate their native habitat, destroy their natural food sup-
ply and swarm out over adjacent territory. There are many reports
of vole and lemming plagues in Europe and Asia. In Scandinavia,
lemmings are said to indulge in somewhat periodic migrations from
the highlands to the valleys in vast droves, destroying the crops and
other vegetation in their paths.10 As serious as such occasional inva-
sions are locally, on the whole the steady drain of normal mouse popu-

G Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1908, p. 193.

6 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 17, 1908. Dice, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 282,

1925-

7 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, 1908; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 125, 1926. Lantz,
Yearbook for 1909, pp. 209-218.

8 Bruner, Nebraska Agric. Exper. Sta., Press Bull, No. 29, 1908.

9 Hall, An outbreak of the house mouse in Kern County, California, Univ. Cali-
fornia Pub. in ZooL, xxx, 189-203, 1927.

10 Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 31, pp. 6-7, 1907. Cabot, Labrador, 1921, quoted
by Allen, Jour. Mammalogy, in, 56-57, 1922.

DAMAGE TO FOOD SUPPLY BY MAMMALS 3Q

lations is probably more serious, though less spectacular and therefore
more likely to escape notice.

The field or meadow mice of the United States are not ordinarily
considered very serious pests, though they are abundant in many lo-
calities and doubtless require a very large quantity of grass and other
vegetation to sustain them. By their injury to pasturage they may
to some extent affect our meat supply. In the neighborhood of orchards
and nurseries they often inflict much damage by gnawing and girdling
the trees, thus also indirectly affecting our food supply more or less.
The damage done to nursery stock by these rodents at Rochester, New
York, in 1901-1902, was estimated at $100,000 while in 1920 they
injured 1500 trees in one orchard and 1000 in another; and in 1918
a mouse plague in one New York county did damage estimated at
$200, ooo.11 In a field mouse plague in Nevada in 1907-1908 it was
estimated that there were 8000 to 12,000 mice per acre, resulting
in an almost total loss of the alfalfa crop, even the roots being eaten,
necessitating the re-seeding of 15,000 out of 20,000 acres,12 the loss
of the alfalfa affecting the human food supply, in a very indirect, in-
tangible way and perhaps to a slight degree, but none the less certainly.
This is also true of the destruction of 90 per cent of the crowns of
beets in a Colorado seed-beet silo.13 The white-footed mice or deer
mice are more generally distributed and do considerable damage, espe-
cially to grain in the shock.

Kangaroo rats are much more local in distribution than either field
or deer mice, but where they occur they are sometimes very abun-
dant and destructive to grain and vegetables. Half a bushel of peas
and other seeds have been found in a single burrow.14 These rodents
eat the seeds of important forage grasses, sometimes storing as much
as twelve pounds of seeds in a single den, and denuding the ground
of vegetation within a radius of from fifteen to twenty-five feet about
their burrows.15 In fact, any small species of rodent is a potential pest,
as it may become overabundant during favorable seasons and hence
destructive.

u Lantz, An economic study of field mice, U. S. Blol. Surv. Bull. No. 31, 1907.
Silver. Motive control in field and orchard, Farmers' Bull., No. 1397, 1924.

12 Piper, The Nevada mouse plague of 1907-08, Farmers' Bull, No. 352, 1909; Year-
book U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1908, pp. 301-310. Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, 1908.

13 Burnett, Office of Colorado State Entomologist Circular No. 25, 1918.

14 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entomologist Circular No. 25, 1918.
"Taylor, Scientific Monthly, xxi, 2, 1925.

40 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Where they occur in immense colonies over a vast area in the west-
ern United States, prairie-dogs do great damage to fields in the vicinity
of their colonies, and especially to grass lands, thus reducing the num-
ber of cattle and sheep the plains are capable of supporting.16 Merriam
estimated one colony in Texas to cover 25,000 square miles and to
contain 400,000,000 prairie-dogs, with an annual loss of from 50 per
cent to 75 per cent of the producing capacity of the land so occupied,
reducing by a great many thousands the number of cattle the land
could support.17

Rabbits are more or less injurious wherever they occur about orch-
ards, fields and gardens. The cottontails, found all over the United
States, gnaw the bark of orchard trees during the northern winters
and in the summer raid the gardens and fields. They are kept pretty
well in check in most localities by natural enemies, hunters and epi-
demic diseases, consequently are not usually abundant enough to be
very destructive, and at least partly compensate for the damage done,
by the meat and healthful sport they provide. The hares, or jack rab-
bits of the western plains are larger, in many places abundant, since
the destruction of so many coyotes, hawks and other enemies, and are
locally very destructive to field crops and pasturage. In one county of
California the damage done by them in one year was estimated at
$6oo,ooo.18 Their local abundance is well shown by the number killed
in annual rabbit drives held in various parts of the West. It is said
that 59,000 were killed in one winter in an Oregon county, 40,000 in
one Idaho county, 15,000 in another and 20,000 in another.19 The Eu-
ropean hare, introduced into New York, is said to have done damage
to the extent of $100,000 in a single county in one winter.20 Rabbits,
introduced into Australia, where they are not native and are exempt
from their natural bird and mammal enemies, increased very rapidly

16 Payne, The prairie-dog as a range pest, Colorado Agric. Exper. Sta., Press Bull.
No. 16, 1903. Burnett, Office Colorado State Entomologist Circular No. 8, 1913 ; No.
17, 1915 ; No. 25, 1916. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, 1926. Taylor and Loftfield,
Damage to range grasses by the Zuni prairie-dog, U. S. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 1227,
1924.

17 Merriam, The prairie-dog of the Great Plains, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for
1901, pp. 257-270.

18 Palmer, The jackrabbits of the United States, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 8, 1897.
Bryant, Rabbits damage crops in San Diego County, California Fish and Game, n,
215-218, 1916 (both jackrabbits and cottontails).

19 Bell, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, p. 232. Burnett, Office Colorado
State Entom. Circular No. 25, 1918.

20 Silver, Journ. Agric. Research, xxvm, 1133-1137, 1924.

DAMAGE TO FOOD SUPPLY BY MAMMALS 4!

and soon became a menace to agriculture and stock raising. It is said
that in ten years from 1878 to 1880, the damage done by them
amounted to $15,000,000, in addition to tremendous sums expended
in efforts to destroy them and to prevent the depredations.21

Many species of the squirrel family are not particularly destruc-
tive, but perhaps tree squirrels do sometimes take more nuts than they
are entitled to, though as a rule they are easily kept in check. Some spe-
cies of ground squirrels are much more abundant, less easily controlled
and decidedly injurious. In 1908 Bailey estimated the annual damage
done by them to agriculture and fruit raising at $i 0,000,000, 22 but
in 1926 he estimated the annual damage in North Dakota alone at from
$6,ooo~boo to $9,000,000, besides $100,000 spent in combating them.23
On the other hand, some species are about as useful as harmful.24

Woodchucks, usually not common enough to be very injurious,
sometimes become plentiful about farms and may be injurious to both
field and garden crops.25 Porcupines do more or less damage to forest
trees and sometimes make harmful raids upon shade and orchard trees.
One orchard in a porcupine district was unmolested for seven years,
then in sixteen days they killed 140 plum and cherry trees and dam-
aged apple trees by climbing to the tops and nibbling the fruit spurs.26

The larger predatory mammals directly affect our meat supply by
their attacks upon cattle, sheep, swine, poultry, game birds and mam-
mals. So great has been their destruction of stock and game on the wes-
tern stock ranges and in national parks and national forests, that the
United States Biological Survey has for a number of years been co-
operating with stockmen and with the U. S. Forest Service and the
National Park Service in campaigns against wolves, coyotes, mountain
lions, bobcats and lynxes. From 1914 to 1920 these campaigns resulted
in the capture of 109,346 coyotes and 2936 wolves, besides many

21 Palmer, U. S. Division of Ornithology and Mammology Bull. No. 8, p. 25, 1897 ;
Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1898, pp. 87-110.

22 Bailey, U. S. Dept. Agric., Farmers' Bull. No. 335, 1908.

23 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 58, 1926. See also Birdseye, Farmers' Bull.,
No. 484, p. 10, 1912. Burnett, Off. Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 9, 1913, No. 20,
1916.

24 Burnett, Off. Colorado State Entom. Circ. No. 14, 1914; No. 18, 1916. Gillette,
Iowa Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 6, 1889. Aldrich, South Dakota Exper. Sta. Bull.
No. 30, 1892. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 58, 1926.

26 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull. No. 484, 1912. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 67,
1926.

28 Hosteller, Porcupines in relation to Wyoming orchards, Seventh Ann. Rept.
Wyoming Board of Horticulture, pp. 25-27, 1915.

42 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

mountain lions and other predators. The annual damage to domestic
stock in the United States has been estimated at from $20,000,000 to
$30,000,000 (in Nevada alone, 34,350 cattle, 165,000 sheep and 850
horses).27

Black bears sometimes kill stock, deer or young elk,28 though, as they
also eat the "kills'* of mountain lions and other animals, they are often
wrongly accused when their tracks are seen about carcasses of cattle,
sheep or deer.29 Anthony says he has often investigated allegations of
black bears killing sheep and has "never yet found a clear case of kill-
ing by the bear,"30 but Lorenzen tells of actually witnessing such a case,
though he thinks it is exceptional.31 Grizzlies, though not so common,
are individually much more destructive to stock, one having been ac-
cused of killing 1 200 cattle in fifteen years.32

Wolves are very destructive to deer in some localities, as well as to
domestic stock. One is supposed to have killed 125 cattle, worth $5,000,
in ten months, and another is believed to have killed $25,000 worth in
seven years.33 Coyotes cause an annual loss to sheep raisers of several
hundred thousand dollars34 and sometimes kill young deer,35 though
they feed more extensively upon rabbits and various rodents. Foxes
take some poultry and game birds, but feed largely upon rodents.36 One
lair contained remains of many short-eared owls and a number of
grouse, ducks, shorebirds, rats, voles and lambs.37

An occasional dog develops the sheep-killing habit. The damage
caused thereby is frequently mentioned in various reports published
by the United States Department of Agriculture, at least as far back
as 1862, and laws relating thereto are in force in many of the states,
some of them enacted more than sixty years ago. In 1891 it was es-
timated that the loss of sheep through depredations of sheep-killing

27 Bell, Hunting down stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp.
289-301.

2S Howell, The black bear as a destroyer of game, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 36,
1921 ; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, 1921.

29 Bruce, The black bear in relation to stock, California Fish and Game, ix, 16-18,
1923.

30 Anthony, quoted in California Fish and Game, ix, 59, 1923.

31 Lorenzen, A sheep-killing bear, California Fish and Game, ix, 151-152, 1923.

32 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 193, 1926.

33 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 150, 1926.

34 Bailey, Farmers' Bull. No. 335, 1008 ; U. S. Forest Service Bull. No. 20, 1907.
Lantz, U. S. Biol. Bull. No. 20, 190.=;; Farmers' Bull. No. 226, 1905.

85 Jotter, The coyote as a deer killer, California Fish and Game, I, 26-27, 1914.

36 Bailey, Farmers' Bull. No. 335, 1908.

37 Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1894, p. 225.

DAMAGE TO FOOD SUPPLY BY MAMMALS 43

dogs in Ohio amounted to $152,034 worth, and in Missouri $2OO,ooo.38
The damage of this sort is mostly in the eastern states, the coyote
taking the place of the dog as a sheep killer in the western states.

It is generally believed that deer form the customary food of the
mountain lion, though these big cats are also dreaded enemies of sheep,
pigs, cattle and colts.39 It is estimated that in California they kill
30,000 deer annually, about 52 deer apiece.40 Dixon's investigations
sustain their evil reputation as deer killers, but indicate that they are
not as great enemies of domestic stock as is generally supposed.41 Of 43
stomachs examined by him, 34 (80 per cent) contained remains of deer
and only 2 (less than 5 per cent) contained remains of stock. In their
appetite for game they resemble the African lion, which is destructive
to almost all the large game animals of that region. Bobcats, wildcats
and lynxes live to a considerable extent upon rodents and other small
mammals, but sometimes raid poultry pens, catch game birds and kill
lambs.42 They are not abundant enough in most localities to be of much
economic importance. The dubious economic status of the house cat is
discussed at some length in the systematic portion of this book, and
need not be commented upon here, except to say that they do some
good as enemies of destructive mice, and do some harm in the destruc-
tion of insectivorous birds that are useful in keeping down insect pests
of field, garden and orchard crops.

The Carnivora, however, do not entirely confine their depredations
to game and stock animals. The fondness of foxes for grapes is pro-
verbial. Nearly everybody is familiar with the old fable of the fox who
was unable to reach the grapes, hence decided that they were sour any-
how, whence the much-used phrase "sour grapes." Some trappers have
discovered that green corn is an excellent bait for a coyote, though it is
doubtful whether these animals ever seriously damage the corn crop.
However, from California comes the report of coyotes damaging
grapes and melons,43 and it is said that in some California localities

^Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, p. 17, 1905, citing Sheep industry of the
United States, U. S. Dept. Agric., 1902. Coll, Sheep-killing dogs, Farmers' Bull., No.
1268, 1922. Simmons, Farmers' Bull., No. 1268, 1929.

"Roosevelt, With the cougar hounds, Scribner's Magazine, xxx, 431-433, 1901.

40 Hunter, California Fish and Game, vn, 99-101, 1921. Bruce, ibid., vin, 108-114,
1922. Bell, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp. 289-301.

41 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 40, 1925.

42 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 36-38, 1925. Bailey, Farmers' Bull, No. 335, 1908 ;
N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 149, 1926. Howell, ibid., No. 45, 1921. Merriam, ibid., No.
3, p. 79, 1800.

43 California Fish and Game, x, 94-95, 1924.

44 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

they feed largely upon melons, figs, prunes, grapes and other fruits at
certain times of the year.44 Hewitt says he has seen orchards bordering
woods in Canada "assiduously robbed by bears."45

Those familiar with monkeys, baboons and their allies only as
caged animals are usually surprised to learn that in their native haunts
they are sometimes very destructive, many instances of which are in-
cidentally mentioned in the literature concerning them. The leaf -eat-
ing monkeys of India are abundant in some localities and become a
nuisance, "raiding gardens and orchards, pilfering from shops and
stores," and African baboons and grivet monkeys "do a vast amount
of havoc among young lambs and kids," and are very harmful to
plantations in some localities.46

A herd of elephants, visiting gardens and fields in their vicinity, can
do about as much damage to the local food supply in a short time as
any animals, and one can imagine what would have happened to fields
by the migratory movements of the great herds of bison that once
roamed the plains of western United States, had there been any fields
there at the time. Deer and elk, where not molested, sometimes be-
come very tame and do some damage to gardens. Indeed, any of the
large herbivorous mammals, especially those of gregarious habit, if
they can gain access to gardens and fields, are likely to do great dam-
age to crops.

This brief summary gives some idea of the enormous influence of
various kinds of mammals in limiting our human food supply and the
immense aggregate monetary loss therefrom. To all this loss must be
added a very large sum to represent the time and money expended
in the effort to combat destructive mammals and prevent damage by
them, by methods more fully described in another chapter, including
trapping, poisoning, building coyote-proof and rabbit-proof fences,
rat-proof buildings and so on.

44 Poole, Coyotes not strictly carnivorous, California Fish and Game, xiv, 151, 1928.

45 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 108-110, 1921.

46 Ingersoll, The life of animals, pp. 24-34, 1907. Roosevelt, African game trails,
pp. 218-219, 1910. Drake-Brockman, Mammals of Somaliland, p. 3, 1910.

VIII

DAMAGE BY MAMMALS TO PROPERTY OTHER THAN
THE HUMAN FOOD SUPPLY

We have seen in a preceding chapter that mammals, in destroying
crops such as are used as food for the human race, also destroy a vast
amount of food suitable for domestic stock and for wild game animals.
This damage indirectly affects the human food supply by limiting the
food for animals that provide our meat, but part of the grain and
hay destroyed might otherwise have been fed to horses and mules,
whose flesh is not much used for food in America. Hence the destruc-
tion of that part of the crop does not affect our food supply except in
a very intangible way. However, to the farmer it matters not whether
the loss affects the supply of food for meat-producing animals or the
supply of food for draft animals. In either case his personal loss is a
real one, and if he has less grain and hay to sell he will have less money
to spend for clothing, shoes and other merchandise, as well as for the
education of his children, for pleasure and for other proper purposes.
So the damage to a farmer's crop affects many others and is a distinct
loss to business in general. It is obviously impossible to accurately esti-
mate the monetary value of the loss to a community from this source.
Rodents eat a great deal of vegetation that would otherwise serve as
food for game and fur-bearing animals, thus perhaps indirectly affect-
ing to some extent the interests of the hunter and the business of the
trapper and furrier.

There is also an immense amount of damage done by various mam-
mals to crops, commodities and other kinds of property not usable as
food by human beings or by domestic or game animals. Thus the cotton
rat, in addition to damaging many other crops, also is destructive to
cotton. In a former chapter it has been stated that the damage done to
material in homes, stores, warehouses and factories, by the imported
house rats and mice, is very great. While much of this involves food-
stuffs, the injury to other articles of merchandise is exceedingly serious,
though in the estimates it is impossible to segregate the items of dam-
age to non-edibles from that to edibles. The whole discussion of the
destructiveness of rodents in the preceding chapter is also pertinent

45

46 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

here. These rodents attack almost everything that can be eaten by them
or used in the construction of their nests, such as clothing, furs, leather
goods, cloth, bedding, rugs, carpets, upholstery and textiles of all sorts.
They gnaw holes in baseboards, doors and other woodwork of build-
ings, boxes and bins, injure books, destroy valuable documents and
even paper money, where they are accessible, and commit many other
depredations. Their status in relation to the fire hazard in buildings is
discussed in another chapter.

Native rats, squirrels and other rodents also sometimes enter homes
and other buildings, especially in country districts, and carry off, in-
jure, or destroy various articles. The sins of the "pack rat" of the
Rocky Mountains, and "trade rat" of California in this respect, are
quite notorious.1 They will carry off almost anything not too large or
heavy for them to move, and a single large nest will sometimes repre-
sent the ruin of several suits of clothes, quilts or blankets, besides con-
taining jewelry and trinkets of many kinds filched from the human
occupants of the premises.

Porcupines, as has been elsewhere noted, sometimes injure fruit
trees, but their usual habitat is in the forests, where they undoubtedly
do considerable damage to forest trees. In Alaska, birch trees have
been found entirely stripped of their bark and thereby killed by porcu-
pines.2 Fortunately they are seldom plentiful enough to be a serious
pest. Mice and other small rodents do more or less damage to forest
and shade trees, as also to fruit trees and shrubbery, by gnawing the
bark and girdling the roots, trunks and branches. Meadow mice girdled
1000 six-year-old pines on one five-acre tract in New York.3

Beavers cut down large numbers of trees for food and to use in the
construction of their dams and houses, but in most localities they use
only trees of small commercial value, such as aspens in the Rocky
Mountains and cottonwoods on the plains. They have been known to
cut valuable forest trees in some localities, and in a few instances even
shade and fruit trees. When they become troublesome it is not difficult
to stop their depredations by trapping them. Trees may be protected,
if necessary, by surrounding each with a cylinder of woven-wire fence
material. They sometimes build their dams in such positions as to flood
and thereby damage roads and fields, and destroy forest trees by turning

1 Parks, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 241-253, 1922. Burnett, Office Colorado State
Entom., Circular No. 25, p. 9, 1918.

2 Murie, The porcupine in Alaska, Journ. Mammalogy, vn, 109-113, 1926.

3 Silver, Farmers' Bull, No. 1397, 1924.

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BY MAMMALS 47

low ground near streams into ponds, lakes or swamps. They are charged
with destroying browse that would be useful as food for deer in winter,
but, as beaver operations are local and deer move about freely in search
of food, that charge is not serious. In cool mountain streams beaver
ponds are favorable to the development of trout fry, affording quiet
water in which they may live until large enough to safely enter the
swift, turbulent water of the mountain torrents, and many beaver ponds
of long standing furnish excellent trout fishing. In warmer localities,
where the higher temperature favors more rapid decomposition of
vegetation in the water and the consequent release of deleterious gases
and poisons in such ponds, especially when newly formed, they may be
detrimental to fishes, a much discussed and partly investigated sub-
ject.4

In some New England districts where the old cone-and-nut-bearing
trees have been logged off, the squirrels, deprived of their natural food,
have taken to eating more largely of buds and bud twigs, and are
thereby doing a considerable amount of actual damage to young conif-
erous forests.5 On the other hand, squirrels and other rodents are
well known to aid in the natural reforestation of burned-over areas by
the burial of seeds in the forest floor, which thus escape injury by the
fires.6

Squirrels are known to be fond of fungi, even partaking freely of
some species that are poisonous to human beings,7 but it is not likely
that any serious damage or any good is done thereby. It may be also
observed that the Allegheny cliff rats, and perhaps other rodents, have
developed the habit of storing fungi for food.8

4 Johnson, The beaver in the Adirondacks : Its economics and natural history,
Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., iv, 501-641, 1927. Bailey, Beaver habits and beaver control,
U. S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull., No. 21, 1927 (replacing Dept. Bull. No. 1078, 1922).
Lawrie, Beaver vs. trout — More testimony, Fins, Feathers and Fur (Bull. Minne-
sota Game and Fish Dept.), No. 27, p. 5, 1910. Knight, Science LXII, 590-591, 1925;
LXIII, 209-211, 1926; LXV, 525-526, 1927.

5 Hosley, Red squirrel damage to coniferous plantations and its relation to chang-
ing food habits, Ecology, ix, 43-48, 1928. Bowles, The California gray squirrel, an
enemy to the Douglas fir, Amer. Forestry, xxvi, 26, 1920.

"Hofmann, Furred forest planters, Scientific Monthly, xvi, 280-283, 1923. Hatt,
The red squirrel, Roosevelt Wild Life Annals, n, 132-135, 1929.

7 Hastings and Mottram, Observations upon the edibility of fungi for rodents,
Trans. British Mycolog. Soc., v, 364-378, 1929. Murrill, Animal mycophagists, Torreya,
n, 25-26, 1902. Langham, Squirrel eating Melanogaster ambiguus, Irish Naturalist,
xxv, 136, 1916. Odell, Squirrels eating Amanita muscaria, Canadian Field Naturalist,
xxxix, 180-181, 1925; Further observations on squirrels eating Amanita muscaria,
ibid., XL, 184, 1926. Butler, The red squirrel of North America as a mycophagist, Trans.
Brit. Mycol. Soc., vi, 355-362, 1920; Journ. Mammalogy, n, 119, 1921. Cram, ibid., v.
37-41, 1924-

"Newcombe, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 204-211, 1930.

48 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Sheep, and especially goats, deer, elk and moose browse extensively
upon shrubs and young trees and the lower branches of larger trees.
This may be a good thing where it is desirable to keep the forest floor
free from undergrowth or to clear brush land in order to give grass for
pasturage a chance. Indeed, goats have been deliberately used for
those very purposes. On the other hand, browsing animals may be very
harmful to attempts to reforest burnt-over or cut-over land, or may
prevent the natural or artificial replacement of dying trees within the
forest, by destroying the young trees or nipping the tops off before they
get tall enough to be out of reach.9 Cattle and horses where land is
much over-grazed and herbage scarce, also browse to some extent, but
they are not natural browsers, as goats and the members of the deer
family are.

Only a short time ago newspapers and magazines had much to say
about the efforts to drive many of the deer from Kaibab Forest, Ari-
zona, to other ground, because the range in the forest was overgrazed
and overbrowsed and the deer were in danger of starving, and good
photographs were published showing the condition of the browsed
aspens. The "plimsoll" line, or line parallel with the water level, to
which cedars are supposed to have been trimmed from below by deer
along certain lakeshores in the Adirondacks, is the subject of some
recent interesting discussion.10

In addition to interference with reforestation and replacement of
forest trees, and the destruction of the natural forage for livestock,
overbrowsing and overgrazing has another disastrous effect upon prop-
erty. The vegetative cover (including trees, shrubs, grasses and other
plants) serves to break the force of rainfall and the run-off of storm
water, and to bind the soil together, thus retarding or preventing ero-
sion. When this cover is destroyed by too much browsing or grazing,
or by fire or any other cause, and perhaps the soil is loosened by the
trampling of cattle, sheep and other animals, erosion is accelerated on
all steep slopes. As a result, sometimes entire hill or mountain sides are
denuded of their soil, nothing being left but barren rocks upon which

9 Colville, Effect of grazing upon aspen reforestation, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull.
No. 741, 1919; U. S. Division of Forestry Bull. No. 15, 1898. Adams, Scientific
Monthly, xx, 561, 589, 593, 1925. See also Adams, The economic and social importance
of animals in forestry, with special reference to wild life, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull,
m, 539, 676, 1926.

10 Merriam, Mammals of the Adirondack Region, pp. iio-m, 1886. Johnson, On
the supposed relation of deer to cedars bordering certain Adirondack lakes, Journ.
Mammalogy, vin, 213-221, 1927. Burnham, The plimsoll line in white cedars, ibid., ix,
43-47, 1928.

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BY MAMMALS 49

vegetation cannot again get a foothold. To make matters worse, sand
and gravel from the slopes, washed out into the valleys, often bury and
ruin fields and meadows in the lowlands and choke the channels of the
streams. Then the more rapid run-off from barren hills, where the
water is no longer absorbed by soil and vegetation and thus retarded
in its movement, fills the choked channels, overflows and causes dis-
astrous floods. This is not an imaginary picture, but a description of
just what has happened in various parts of the United States and other
parts of the world. In the semi-arid West and portions of the South
especially have many hills been denuded by erosion and many fields
been ruined by deposition of the debris. All this more or less directly
affects valuable game and other wild animals. Where slopes are so gen-
tle that destruction of vegetation by overgrazing and trampling of
domestic stock does not cause extensive erosion, it often results in the
substitution of worthless weeds for the original vegetation.11

In the preceding chapter we have seen that predatory mammals de-
stroy $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 worth of livestock annually in the
United States.12 A considerable part of this loss consists of meat, but
in addition it includes the skins, a large amount of wool and many
horses.

11 Ligon, Wild life of New Mexico, New Mexico State Game Commission, pp.
35-49, 1927. Reynolds, Grazing and floods: A study of conditions in the Manti Na-
tional Forest, U. S. Forest Service Bull. 91, 1911. Colville, Forest growth and sheep-
grazing in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon, U. S. Division of Forestry Bull. No. 15,
1898.

12 Bell, Hunting down stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp. 289-
301.

IX

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES

The taking of furs for clothing and the trading in pelts is undoubtedly the oldest
industry in the world. This activity goes back many thousands of years into the
dim reaches of the Stone Age, when the cave man, crude hatchet or club in hand,
killed the beasts of the field, so that he and his family could have covering during
the rigorous seasons of the year. . . . We know, from cave pictures, that the Cro-
magnon people wore animal pelts. . . . Turning our attention to the age known
as the Garden of Eden period, we find in the third chapter of Genesis, twenty-
third verse, that Adam and Eve, at the behest of the Creator, wore the skins of
beasts of the field following their expulsion. . . . The Babylonians, Assyrians,
Greeks and Romans wore furs, history tells us. Mention is made that Queen
Semiramis of Babylon in 2182 B.C. brought 8000 tiger skins to her country at the
close of her campaign in India. Furs were mentioned by Herodotus. In Biblical
and pre-Biblical times, Armenia was the principal fur center, pelts being sent
there from northern Asia and Persia and traded to Greece ; and ermine, the fur
insignia of royalty, is a word derived from Armenia, so it is claimed by etymolo-
gists. Furs were worn in Egypt, its early records show; Chinese writings testify
to the wealth they secured from furs three thousand or more years ago. . . .
During the Middle Ages the men of Europe wore furs exclusively, but they were
denied to women, and it was not until the reign of Edward III that furs became
fashionable for women, and they have remained so ever since. . . . Cinderella's
slipper was not made of glass, as many of us were informed by fairy story books,
but was, in fact, a fur slipper. ... A typographical error has been responsible for
the belief long held by English and American children that the slipper the Prince
found, which fitted only Cinderella's foot and not those of her ugly and wicked
step-sisters, was made of a fragile substance such as glass and not of a durable
material such as fur.1

Doubtless long before men began to plant seeds and indulge in the
rude beginnings of agriculture, before they had domesticated any ani-
mals and established pastoral life, they discovered that the skins of
the mammals they killed for food or in self-defense would provide
warm clothing to protect human beings from the cold. Probably in
colder portions of the world such were for a long period the only gar-
ments known. Doubtless at first the skins were used just as they came
from the animals, with no preparation except to dry them, but in time
methods of dressing and tanning them were developed, making the
skins softer, more pliable and better suited for clothing.

1 Arthur, The fur animals of Louisiana, pp. 9-11, 1928. Laut, The fur trade of the
world — the oldest industry of mankind, World's Work, May, 1907, pp. 8862-8878.

50

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 5!

When white invaders first penetrated the North American wilder-
ness they everywhere found the Indians clothed in garments made of
skins, often highly decorated, and in some portions of the continent
their only shelter from storms was the tepee made of skins. The white
settlers and trappers found that the skin garments, especially those
made of buckskin, were an excellent and easily obtained substitute for
cloth garments, and promptly adopted buckskin suits, coonskin caps
and the like. Mason has listed 143 distinct species of mammals whose
skins are known to have been used by North American Indians, and
describes their primitive methods of preparing the skins for use.2 Re-
duced to terms in general use in the fur trade, his list would not look
so formidable. For example, he lists twelve species of rabbits, twenty-
four of squirrels, three of prairie-dogs, four of marmots and eleven
of skunks. In fur-trade lists each of these groups would appear under
a single name.

In another chapter we shall see how important was the fur trade in
the early exploration and settlement of North America. In the present
chapter we consider its present importance as a world industry, extend-
ing the discussion also to hides and leather obtained from mammals
whose pelts are not considered furs and not used in the manufacture
of fur garments to a marked extent. Many books3 and very numerous
articles in periodicals have recounted some of the romance, as well as
dry and technical phases, of the trapper's art, the furrier's business and
fur farming. Limited space will permit reference to only a few of these
publications, and the vast amount of information on the subject, with
numerous statistics, must necessarily be very much condensed.

A large number of trade names for furs have been devised, some
of them apparently for the purpose of deceiving purchasers as to the
character of the furs they are buying. These names usually are such as
to imply greater values than the furs really possess. To supply the in-
creased demand for fur garments it has been found absolutely neces-

2 Mason, Aboriginal skin-dressing, Ann. Kept. U. 5*. National Museum for 1889,
PP- 553-589.

* Chittenden, The history of the American fur trade in the Far West, 3 vols., N.Y.,
1002. Poland, Fur-bearing animals in nature and commerce, London, 1892. Davidson,
The Northwest company, Univ. California Pub. in History, vn, 1918. Stevens, North-
west fur trade, 1763-1800, Univ. of Illinois. Laut, The fur trade of America, New
York. 1921. Innis, The fur trade of Canada, 1927. Dale, Ashley-Smith explorations,
Cleveland, 1918. Vandiver, The fur trade and early western exploration, Cleveland,
1929. Johnson, Michigan fur trade, Michigan Hist. Comm., v, 1-192, 1919. Fur trade
in Wisconsin, 1812-1825, 'Wisconsin Hist. Soc., xx, 1911. Peterson, The fur traders
and fur-bearing animals, Buffalo, N.Y. 1914. Amer. Nat. Fox. and Fur Traders' Assn.,
Manual of the silver fox and fur farming industries, 5th ed., 1930.

52 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

sary to use many inferior skins, such as rabbit and the like. Methods
have been developed of so dressing and dyeing them that they present
a much better appearance and are more serviceable than when used in
their natural condition. Their sale and use is quite justifiable, providing
the purchaser understands just what he is buying and its real value, and
is not deceived by the trade name. Almost anyone wearing a coat of
inferior fur would rather have it called by another name that would
indicate to his friends that it is not inferior, but calling rabbit skin
"polar seal" will not make it wear like seal. Honest dealers always tell
their customers just what they are offering, if they themselves know,
but there are less scrupulous, as well as some honest, but ignorant,
dealers who simply use the trade names and let it go it that. With the
present great demand, many department and general clothing stores
have put in fur-goods departments in which the clerks are inexpert in
this line of merchandise. They may be selling inferior goods in perfect
good faith, in reliance upon the plain implications of the trade names,
of the real meaning of which they are ignorant. Following is a partial
list of such trade names, with their real equivalents, prepared by the
United States Biological Survey:4

Trade Name Real Name of Animal

Adelaide chinchilla Australian opossum

Alaska bear Raccoon (dark pelts)

Alaska sable Raccoon (dark pelts) ; skunk (natural black or

dyed)

Aleutian seal Muskrat (plucked and dyed)

American seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Arctic seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Astrakan, Astrachan Persian lamb (loose curl)

Australian fisher Wallaby (sheared and dyed)

Baltic fox Northern hare

Baltic seal Rabbit (clipped and dyed)

Bear Goat (dyed)

Beaver Coypu rat (plucked natural) , or opossum (sheared

and dyed)

Black furs Black cat

Black lynx Northern hare (dyed)

Black marten Skunk (dyed or natural black)

Black Japanese wolf Goat (dyed)

Brazilian mink Marmot (blended)

4 Ashbrook, Trade names in the fur industry, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 216-220, 1923.
Many other, but less-used names are contained in a pamphlet by George W. Pauli, dis-
tributed by Jonas Bros., of Denver. See also Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 7-8,
1013. Laut has an interesting chapter on "False furs and false trade names" in The
fur trade of America, pp. 42-49, 1921. See also Arnold, Dictionary of fur names, The
Fur Journal, I, 42-48, 1927.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 53

Trade Name Real Name of Animal

Broadtail Persian lamb (moire silk pattern)

Brown Newfoundland seal Seal (brown hair)

California mink Ringtail cat

Cape seal Rabbit (sheared and dyed)

Caracul, Karakule, Cara-

cool Persian lamb (close curl)

Cat Rabbit (sheared and dyed)

Civet cat Small striped skunk ; or hydrophobia skunk

Chinchilla White rabbit (dyed)

Clipped seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Coney Rabbit

Electric seal Muskrat (plucked and dyed) ; coypu rat (plucked

and dyed) ; rabbit (sheared and dyed)

Ermine (weasel) White rabbit

Fitch European polecat

Fox Hare (dyed)

French sable Rabbit (dyed)

Geller seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Genet Cat

Hudson Bay seal Muskrat (plucked and dyed)

Hudson seal Muskrat or coypu rat (plucked and dyed), or rab-
bit (sheared and dyed)

Isabella fox Dog (dyed and curled)

Japanese lynx Black Manchurian dog

Karakule kids Kid (dyed)

Koala Wallaby (sheared and dyed)

Kolinsky Red sable or Siberian mink

Krimmer Gray lamb skin resembling Astrachan

La Meuse seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Mink Marmot (dyed)

Mole Muskrat (sheared and dyed)

Monkey Goat (dyed)

Muskrat Rabbit (sheared and dyed)

New seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Northern seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Nutria Coypu rat

Patagonian bison China sheep (short-haired)

Persian lamb Domestic dog (dyed and curled) ; kid (dyed)

Persianer Persian lamb (close curl)

Pointed fox Red fox dyed black, white badger hairs stuck in,

and white tip sewed on tail

Polar seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Red Russian sable American marten (sable) ; Hudson Bay marten

(sable)

Real seal Muskrat (plucked and dyed)

Red River seal Muskrat (plucked and dyed) ; coypu rat (plucked

and dyed) ; rabbit (sheared and dyed)

River mink Muskrat (blended)

River sable Muskrat (natural)

54 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Trade Name Real Name of Animal

Russian otter Muskrat (blended)

Semeuse seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

Sable Hare, marmot, mink, rabbit or Norwegian fitch

(dyed)

Sable fitch , Norwegian fitch (dyed)

Seal Coypu rat (plucked and dyed) ; otter (plucked and

dyed)

Seal musquash Rabbit ( sheared and dyed)

Sidney raccoon Wallaby (sheared and dyed)

Skunk Marmot or wallaby (dyed) ; opossum or wallaby

(sheared and dyed)

Two L seal Rabbit (plucked and dyed)

White fox Northern hare

Wombat Koala

There is at present a fight in progress against the use of fur garments,
partly on humanitarian grounds and partly because the enormous de-
struction of wild life in order to obtain the more desirable furs is jeop-
ardizing many species of interesting and useful animals, just as the
feather trade at one time seriously threatened the existence of many
species of birds and actually exterminated some of them. It is true that
there is more or less cruelty about the trapping of fur-bearing mam-
mals, just as there is about the trapping of rats and of predatory mam-
mals that destroy livestock. Unnecessary cruelty should be avoided in
all industries and trapping is no exception to the rule, but if everything
should be suspended that involves an element of cruelty the habits of
the whole human race would have to be very much amended as to food,
clothing and in other ways. Sheep sometimes suffer from cold storms
after the shearing process and many other necessary operations of men
result in unavoidable or not easily avoidable cruelty. Humanitarians
are quite within their rights in insisting on the reduction of trapping
cruelty to the practical minimum, but this whole subject should be
squarely faced in the light of common sense, coupled with lively sym-
pathy for the fur-bearing mammals, on the one hand, and due regard
for some important facts of commerce and natural history, on the other.
A recent symposium in American Game has discussed the proposed
anti-steel trap legislation from various points of view. An Anti-Steel
Trap League has been organized in the United States for the purpose
of outlawing the use of steel traps and other "torturing devices" and
several states have enacted laws regulating the use of such traps. Massa-
chusetts by a referendum vote of 589,013 to 259,014, on November
4, 1930, adopted an anti-steel trap law, according to Nature Magazine,
1931, p. 134.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 55

Most people who protest against the use of furs on humanitarian
grounds, themselves regularly indulge in the use of meat and of shoes
and other leather goods, which are obtained only by killing animals,
either wild or domesticated, sometimes by methods as cruel as those
practiced by the most uncultured native trapper of the American wilder-
ness. In any case, the animal should be caught and put to death in the
most humane way that is practicable. In some places where large num-
bers of animals are slaughtered, more humane methods are now in
use than formerly, but in many slaughter houses and on farms the old-
fashioned way of hitting them on the head with a hammer or axe is
still the style, and we eat the meat without asking how the animal was
killed. So with furs, many trappers have adopted the least cruel method
of killing their catches that they know, because they believe that if the
animal is caught and handled with the minimum amount of struggle
and worry its pelt will be in better condition and bring a higher price.
Many of the dealers encourage the trappers in the use of better methods,
and urge more frequent visiting of the traps, in order to avoid losses
and get a larger percentage of prime pelts.

Close seasons have been established by law as a conservation measure,
in order to protect females during the breeding season and when nurtur-
ing their young, and to prevent the taking of pelts that are not in prime
condition. Incidentally this has partly removed one cause of cruelty
by preventing the starvation of the young that would result from catch-
ing the mother while the young need maternal care. It is said that in
Alaska as many as 30,000 young fur seals starved in a single year be-
cause of the killing of their mothers, before the present regulations
were adopted.5

It should also be remembered that nature herself, though in so many
ways benign, is in many respects cruel. A large proportion of the
species of mammals whose furs are most valuable are themselves hunt-
ers, living upon various species of mammals, birds, fishes and other
living creatures that they succeed in killing. When the trapper catches
and puts to death a carnivorous or omnivorous mammal, for its pelt,
he may thereby commit one act of cruelty, but in so doing he prevents
the animal from killing many others. Furthermore, most of the fur-
bearers eventually meet violent death, even though not caught by the
trapper. This, of course, is not an argument in favor of any cruelty that
can well be avoided by the trapper, but merely an assertion that no
matter whether the fur-bearers be trapped by men or not, their end

6Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 125-133, 1921.

56 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

will in most cases be tragic, and trapping need not make it much, if
any, more so. The death of a weasel at the hands of a trapper need not
be more cruel than death the weasel would inflict upon many other mam-
mals and birds if it were permitted to live.

It must also be kept in mind that it is often necessary to trap or other-
wise dispose of many of the animals used in the fur trade in order to
keep them in check, especially in thickly populated districts. A few
weasels or minks probably do more good than harm, but if they became
very plentiful they would find their usual food scarce and turn to other
food, such as poultry and insectivorous birds, the destruction of which
would be harmful. Many rabbits and squirrels are now used in the fur
trade, but both are very destructive when they become overabundant.
Beavers are sometimes destructive, and the larger predatory mammals,
such as wolves, mountain lions, coyotes and bobcats, whose skins are
used in the fur industry, are all destructive to stock.

The campaign against the use of furs upon the ground that exces-
sive trapping threatens the very existence of some of the more valuable
species has some support in the facts of the case. If the campaign were
directed toward the protection of the particular species most in danger,
with adequate laws regulating the trapping of all species, properly en-
forced, it might bring worth-while results. There is no necessity for
destroying the vast business, involving investment of millions of dol-
lars, giving employment to thousands of men and women. A considera-
ble part of the business is the handling of skins of animals that need
no protection, or at least not complete protection, such as rabbits, musk-
rats and squirrels; also the handling -of large quantities of furs from
animals raised on fur farms, where the value of the farm depends
upon keeping up the stock and caring for it, just as is the case with
domestic stock, such as cattle and sheep.

Though some observers of the trend of affairs take a more optimistic
view of the future of the fur-bearing mammals than others do, yet all
must agree that if the use of furs continues to increase, or even remains
as great as at present, only radical measures for conservation, the in-
creased substitution of inferior furs of animals that breed rapidly, and
a marked increase in such activities as fur farming, can save some of
our best native fur-bearing animals from extermination. The rapid
increase in the demand, coincident with restriction of the range of many
species by advancing civilization, the clearing and cultivating of former

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 57

forest lands, the draining of swamps, together with local extermination
of many species in large areas by unregulated trapping, is seriously
threatening the future supply of furs.6 A few species, like the muskrat,
are still common, "but the remnants of the once rich fur resources of
the country are fast dwindling under the conditions that have pre-
vailed."7

The following figures by Eraser, condensed from tables published
by Jones,8 show that most of the species enumerated decreased in num-
bers from 1882 to 1911, while increasing in price. The increase in
skunk furs handled, is perhaps due to better methods of deodorizing.
Though the muskrat, lynx, white fox and land otter show a marked
increase, it was accomplished during the first decade of the period, and
there was an actual decrease after the first decade. The sales of blue
fox, marten and fisher also increased during the first decade, but lost
all that they had gained and much more thereafter.

Per cent Per cent Per cent

Increase in Decrease in Increase in

Name of Animal Price Numbers Numbers

Fox, silver 300 50

Fox, cross 125 70

Fox, red 245 55

Fox, blue 100 23

Fox, white 35O 5™

Marten, pine 580 20

Fisher or pekan 430 95

Mink 300 2°

Skunk 150 no

Muskrat 230 215

Lynx 200 700

Otter, land 80 5

Otter, sea 240 85

Increase of lynx for first decade, 3800 per cent, of muskrat, 250 per cent, of white
fox, 750 per cent, of land otter, 45 per cent, showing that there was a marked decrease
after the first decade.

That the soaring of prices of furs has not been confined to the period
since the World War, as seems to be believed by many people, is shown
also by the following comparative figures of maximum prices of certain
furs presented by Brass, the great German fur statistician:9

* Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No. 396, p. 9, 1910. Hornaday, The fur trade and the wild
animals, Bull N.Y. Zool. Soc., 1921. Osborn and Anthony, Can we save the mam-
mals?, Nat. Hist, xxii, 289-405, 1922. Close of the age of mammals, Journ. Mam-
malogy, in, 219-237, 1922.

T Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, pp. 5-6, 1928.

8 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 4, 1913.

"Brass, Statistics of fur prices, in Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 146-147, 1913.

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

1880

1900

1910

Australian opossum
Wallaby
Kangaroo

$ .16
.10
12

$ .28
.75
.60

$ 1.95
1.70
1 45

Wombat
Native cats

.12
04

.36
24

.73
49

Bastard chinchilla
Japan mink

.73

2.92
.12

9.73
.60

Chinese weasel
Japan marten
Japan fox

—

.07
1.43
1.43

.33
3.81
4.05

Skunk.
Raw Persian
Stone marten

—

2.07
3.09
2.86

7.06
6.70
6 66

Marmot
Black fox
Sea otter
Muskrat
Mink

632.70
584.00
.16

.73

.12
2,822.66
1,362.67
.16
2.58

.90
2,628.00
1 703.33
.87
6.34

Red fox

3.11

9.00

16.55

Lynx

4.87

10.80

39.85

Prices given in the various reports are those at the regular fur mar-
kets, unless otherwise stated, and are much higher than the amounts the
trappers receive for the same furs. Thus in 1912 prime muskrat skins
in Canada were quoted at about $1.25, but the trappers received only
about 50 cents.10 As this book goes to press during a time of great
commercial depression, fur prices are much lower than those of two
or three years ago.

The following list of prices of some important furs at three different
periods is obtained from Laut:11

1875

Beaver $ i.oo $

Ermine 50

Fisher 5.00

Silver fox 50.00

Black fox 100.00

Fur seal 10.00

Lynx 3.00

Marten 2.00

Muskrat .10 to .12

1913

IQ20

8.00

.

$ 17.50 to $ 20.00

1.50 to !

£ 5.00

.50 to 4.00

15.00 to

50.00

143.00 to 345-00

125.00

-300.00 to 1225.00

500.00

30.00 to

125.00

146.00 to 165.00

12.00 tO

50.00

45.00 to 60.00

2.50 to

20.00

18.00 to 60.00

.40 to

I.OO

5.00 to 7.50

The prices of furs vary enormously with the locality from which
they are obtained, as the average quality of furs from different localities
is quite different, and in many cases the animals are specifically or sub-
specifically, sometimes generically distinct, though given the same ver-
nacular name. The colder climate of the North requires heavier fur

10 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 89, 1913.

11 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 5, 1921.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES

59

to protect the animals from the climatic rigors than in the South, there-
fore the northern furs in many cases are better and bring higher prices,
as is well illustrated by some of the figures in the ensuing table. Also
there are, of course, great individual differences in pelts of the same
species all from the same region, just as some men are larger, in better
health, and have thicker and finer hair than others. In addition the sea-
son for prime furs is usually short, in many species only about two
month long, and furs taken out of season are inferior. Five animals
trapped in California in July and sold for $2.50 would have brought
$200.00 had they been caught in the winter.12 Size, color, thickness of
hair, the care with which the animal has been skinned, and the method
of caring for fur and its whole general condition must all be considered
in grading furs for sale, which is done by high-salaried experts. In
order to show the great differences in value we have compiled from
the report of an auction sale held in New York from January 23 to
February i, 1928, the maximum prices for the largest and best and the
minimum prices for the smallest and poorest pelts of the principal kinds
from various regions.13

Mini-
mum
Badger

Canadian $10.00

Northwestern 9.75

Western 80

Southwestern 24

Bear

Black 70

Brown 4.75

Polar 19.00

Beaver

Quebec and Ontario . . . 6.00

Western Canadian .... 11.50

Alaska 7.25

Western U.S 4.00

Broadtail (sheep) 6.00

Caracul (sheep) 1.50

Cat

Civet 28

House 12

Ringtail 4.60

Sundry 45

Cat, Wild

Northern 7.00

12 California Fish and Game, p. 120, 1917.

13 The Fur Market Digest, issued by the New York Auction Co., Inc., obtained by
us through the courtesy of E. A. Stephens & Co., Denver, who write : "Prices paid to
trappers would average approximately 10 per cent to 20 per cent less than these prices,
but on account of a different system of grading it is rather difficult to say whether
or not the difference would be that much."

Maxi-

Mini-

Maxi-

mum

mum

mum

Western

i.oo

12.25

$42.50

Southwest

60

6.00

29.50

Southern ,

08

3-io

14.50

Ermine

4-50

Northwest and

Canada .30

4-50

East Canada . .

1.40

2. 2O

1575

Brown

25

2-70

10.75

Russia

2.20

4.70

38.00

Fisher

30.00

182.50

Fitch

33-75

Orenburg ,

2.90

5-10

32.00

Russia

2.60

31.50

Mongolia ,

1.50

31.25

Fox

13-00

Australia

40

5-20

6.50

Blue

I.OO

115.00

Cross

2.75

255.00

I.IO

Gray

.62

Eastern

2.80

4.70

5.10

Western

2.80

4.50

2.40

Southwestern

2.OO

2.70

Kitt

21.50

Russia

.80

6.10

6o

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Swift $ 2.80

Red

Kamchatka, etc. .

Alaska

Northwest Canada

Labrador 35-QO

Maine and Eastern
Canada 26.00

New England 3.00

New York and Penn-
sylvania

Central

Northwest States . . .

Saghalien

Siberia

West Mongolia

East Mongolia 10.75

Shuntefu 1075

Manchuria

Sweden

Poland

Swiss and German
Silver

All silver 50.00

Three-fourths silver

One-half silver

One-fourth silver .

Slightly silver ....

Black

Rubbed, etc

South American

Chubut

Mendoza

Rio Negro 1.40

Pampas

Sundry Fox

Turkish 1.30

White

Russia

Labrador 42.00

Jackal 1.20

Kid skins 15

Kolinsky 1.70

Krimmer 2.20

Leopard 1.25

Lynx

Alaska 5.50

Labrador 15.00

Marten

Alaska 17.00

West Canada 3.25

British Columbia 22.50

Coast 16.00

Laborador 16.50

Mini-

Maxi-

Mini-

mum

mum

mum

> 2.80

$ 3-00

Marten, Baum !|

> 7.00

Japanese

52.00

54.00

Northern

43-00

Mainland

5-50

48.00

52.00

Stone

16.00

35-00

44.00

Mink

New England

2.75

26.00

30.00

Michigan

10.50

3-00

25.00

New York and Pennsyl-

vania

14.00

2-75

20.00

Ohio and Illinois

9-75

2.25

17-75

Carolina

8.00

30.00

Interior Alaska

8-75

15.00

30.00

Manitoba

7-75

24.50

Coast

9-75

16.00

19.00

Rocky Mountains

.70

10.75

14-75

Iowa and Minnesota . .

9-50

10.75

H-75

Central

5-50

7.00

10-75

Mississippi and Ten-

28.00

nessee

3-10

4-25

11.25

French Settlement ....

8.25

2.75

7-75

Louisiana

2.OO

Japan

I.OO

50.00

395-00

Mole

.04

50.00

600.00

Monkey

50.00

685.00

Gold Coast

•15

70.00

320.00

Abyssinia

1. 10

15.00

145.00

Moufflon

2.50

25.00

115.00

Muskrat

1. 00

95-00

Black

.88

New England

i-45

4.20

5-io

New York and Pennsyl-

.60

3-75

vania

.96

1.40

1.90

Maryland and Dela-

.65

ware

.42

.80

4.10

Wisconsin and Michi-

1.30

10.75

gan

1.86

Ohio and Indiana ....

i-54

5.50

63.00

Iowa and Illinois

1.32

70.00

1.70
2.30

3-20

7.25

34-00

73-00
74-00

60.00
58.00
32.00
22.00
54-oo

Nebraska, Dakota, and

Minnesota 54

Manitoba 1.48

Alberta and Saskatchan 1.24
British Columbia and

Coast 06

Alaska 1.30

Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick 68

Southern 20

Nutria 2.70

Ocelot i.oo

Opossum
American

Central 76

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES

6l

Mini- Maxi-
mum mum
China and Japan (dam-
aged) $ i.oo $1.25

Sable

Russian 13.00 350.00

Japanese 20.00 21.00

Shiraz (broadtail) n 5.70

Skunk

Northwest 2.60 3.65

Iowa i.oo 3.10

Kansas and Nebraska . 1.95 2.90

Coast 2.00 2.75

Southwest 20 2.55

New York and Pennsyl-
vania .10 3.10

New England 75 3.10

Virginia 1.35 2.55

Squirrel, foreign 08 1.56

Weasel, Chinese 20 .45

Wolf

Canada 7.50 27.25

Montana 10.00 24.50

Washington and Ore-
gon 10.25 18.50

Northwestern 2.60 19.75

Western 50 10.75

Southwestern 01 3.00

Russia i.oo 12.25

Wolf, Timber

Arctic 25.00 28.00

Dark 8.50 19.50

Gray 10 32.00

Wolverene 2.75 26.50

The large fur dealers are alive to the need of wise regulation and
less wasteful methods of trapping, and of saving the pelts in good
condition. Some of them are engaged in a campaign of education along
such lines, as they realize that the future of their trade depends upon
keeping up the supply. Laws regulating trapping have been adopted
in many of our states, as well as in the Canadian provinces, providing
close seasons and carrying other provisions for the conservation of
fur-bearing animals and the betterment of the condition of the average
catch. The laws are discussed in a special chapter. As furs taken in
proper season are much more valuable than those taken out of season,
confining the legal open season for trapping to the few best months of
the year does not reduce the total value of the annual catch.14

The license fees, taxes on pelts and royalties in some jurisdictions

14 Walker, Getting public support for mammal protection, Journ. Mammalogy, ix,
196-200, 1928.

Mini- Maxi-
mum mum

Virginia and Carolina $ .64 $ 1.44
Arkansas and Okla-
homa 24 1.45

Southwestern 16 1.38

Southern 05 1.18

South American 44 .68

Australian 35 3.20

Otter
Labrador and Province

of Quebec 20.00 39.00

Alaska 23.50 30 oo

Northwest States 28.00 28.00

Carolina and East 18.00 32.00

Louisiana, Mississippi,

and Alabama !5-5O 26.00

Florida 9.00 20.50

Norway 14.00 23.00

South America 9.75 14.50

Lake 3-5Q 975

Persian Lamb 25 8.75

Petchaniki .34

Pony 80 2.60

Raccoon

Eastern 2.20 15.00

Carolina 5.40 7.50

Northwest and Coast . . 2.50 12.00

Central 1.70 9.00

Alabama and Mississippi 2.20 8.10

Louisiana 5.00 8.80

Salt water 1.50 6.40

Florida . .10 6.60

62 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

produce considerable revenue directly from trapping operations, in
addition to the general taxes upon the furriers' and dealers' plants,
stocks and business. As examples, fur royalties paid to the government
in various Canadian provinces in 1926 amounted to $439,542.47, while
in Louisiana in the season of 1926-1927 the following amounts were
received by the state: From trappers' license fees, $25,946; dealers'
licenses, $11,940; tax on pelts taken, $34,042; total, $7i,928.15 In Can-
ada, about ten or twelve years ago, it was proposed that the Dominion
Government "take over the entire control and exploitation of the fur
trade and wild life resources of the Northwest Territories," establish
trading posts, purchase the rights of the Hudson Bay Company, etc.,
for the better protection of useful animal life.16

The falling off in the catch of some species is significant. For ex-
ample, the muskrat is one of the most important of our fur-bearers, and
better able to hold its own than are many other species, but it has been
so intensively trapped in some areas since prices reached their recent
height that its numbers have been greatly reduced. One Boston dealer
declared that in the seasons of 1918-1919 and 1919-1920, when prices
were at their peak, there was a drop of 50 per cent in the catch each
season, while in Wisconsin 800,000 were taken in 1917, 300,000 in
1918, and only 150,000 in 1919, though each year there was a 10 per
cent increase in the number of trapping licenses issued.17 In the season
1925-1926 the catch of furs in the United States was 20 per cent less
than in 1924-1925, the decrease in the season of 1926-1927 being even
greater,18 perhaps mostly because of the pernicious practice of catching
out of season.

An increase or decrease in the total value of the annual catch of furs
does not necessarily mean a corresponding increase or decrease in the
number of skins obtained. A fair understanding of some of the sta-
tistics herein set forth, as well as of the much more detailed figures
given in various publications cited in the footnotes, requires strict at-
tention to the fact that there has been an enormous increase in the
prices of the individual furs during the last two decades. This general
advance is quite independent of the fluctuations from year to year in
the value of particular kinds of furs, due to changing fashions. The
general advance is due largely, though not entirely, to the greatly in-

15 Arthur, The fur animals of Louisiana, Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Bull. No. 18,
p. 422, 1928.

16 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, p. 260, 1921.

^ Dearborn, Maintenance of the fur supply, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No. 135,
1920.

18 American Forests and Forest Life, xxxiv, 124, 1928.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 63

creased demand for furs of all kinds, which demand was accelerated
during and after the World War, but it had been going on more slowly
for many years prior thereto, as the more valuable furs were becoming
fewer in proportion to the demand. Beaver pelts were sold in 1875
for $1.00, in 1920 for $17.50 to $20.00 ; muskrat in 1875 f°r ten cents,
in 1913 for 40 cents to $1.00, in 1920 for $5.00 to $7.50; rabbit skins
once 10 cents a pound, but in 1920 the best Australian rabbit skins
brought $1.40 to $3.15 a pound in New York.19 In 1921 the market
declined rapidly and has never recovered, though prices are still very
high as compared with those of a decade or two ago. It is said that
puma skins sold for $1.00 each in St. Louis in i88o.20

Complete statistics of the fur trade are not available — indeed, are
practically impossible to obtain. There are many items upon which much
definite information is at hand, such as the number sold at particular
auction sales, the quantity handled by particular companies or organiza-
tions, the quantity imported to or exported from various countries, and
so on. After all this information concerning the number of pelts pass-
ing through the great centers of the fur trade is assembled, a very
large, but unknown, amount must be added to cover the furs used locally
in various parts of the world, that do not pass through the regular
channels of the trade. The "big business" in the trade is in the form of
regular auction sales in a few trade centers, such as St. Louis, New
York, London, Leipzig, and other cities. Much additional information
bearing upon the trade will be found in the systematic discussion, Part
ii of this book.

Some sort of an idea of the tremendous drain annually made upon
wild life by the fur trade may' be drawn from the following figures
given by Osborn and Anthony of actual recorded sales of the skins of
23 kinds of fur-bearing mammals in 1919, 1920 and 1921, and there
are at least 100 other kinds used in the trade, the exact number being
difficult to ascertain, owing to the use of trade names :21

Mole 23,801,908 Weasel or ermine 3,492,412

Squirrel 14,858,316 Civet cat 2,114,535

Muskrat 14,109,288 Nutria 1,941,784

American opossum 9,987,742 Wallaby (Kangaroo) 1,722,588

Skunk 6,895,674 Mink 1,683,500

Australian opossum 4,265,621 Ring-tail opossum 1,321,625

White hare 3,713,036 Red fox 1,295,258

19 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 5, 1921.

20 Townsend, Zoe, in, 311, 1893.

21 Osborn and Anthony, Close of the age of mammals, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 219-
237, 1922.

64

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Kolinsky 1,151,553

Wolf 1,094,502

Beaver 420,490

Wombat 208,977

Alaska fur seal . .

Kangaroo

Silver or black fox
Sea otter .

85,164

41,238

26,350

76

We do not know what is meant by civet cat in this list, as that name
is used for several very different animals, and the item is omitted from
a later list by the same authors,22 in which they give the number of
mink skins for the same period as 2,540,971, add the following species,
and make the total 107,689,927:

Chinchilla 36,448

Fisher 32,014

Marten 309,808

Stone marten 107,075

Sable 57,oo8

Cross fox 32,296

Land otter 1 1 1 ,059

Marmot 3,107,759

European polecat 1,094,411

White fox 166,071

Bobcat 191,799

Raccoon 1,713,700

32,296 Raccoon

The world's production of furs of aquatic mammals in
estimated as follows at the low prices then prevailing:23

1 900 has been

United States

All other countries

Total

Number
of skins

Value

Number
of skins

Value

Number
of skins

Value

Beaver
Fur seal
Mink

8,000
24,000
578,000
4,035,000

14 600
330

$ 39,860
660,000
810,000
565,000

93,260
133,980

$ 58,000
71,485
150,000
1,250,000
1,950,000
19,040
260

301,200
1,471,000
330,000
138,000
444,000
170,850
105,560

66,000
95,485
728,000
5,285 000
1,950,000
33,640
590

$ 341,060
2,131,000
1,140,000
703,000
444,000
264,110
239,540

Muskrat
Nutria
Otter

Sea otter ....

The following table of estimates of annual world sales for some of
the important fur-bearers, far from a complete list, is slightly modified
from Laut's 1921 table:24

Badger 160,000 to 185,000

Beaver 81,000 to 09,000

Ermine 1,000,000 to 1,110,000

Fitch (polecat) 300,000 to 350,000

Silver fox 4,300 to 6,000

Red fox 1,000,000 to 1,200,000

Marten 150,000 to 210,000

Stone marten 250,000 to 380,000

Mink 640,000 to 1,000,000

Muskrat 5,000,000 to 8,000,000

22 Osborn and Anthony, Can we save the mammals?, Nat. Hist., xxn, 389-405, 1922.

23 Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Kept. U. S. Com. Fish and
Fisheries for 1902, pp. 285, 287.

24 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 84, 1921.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES

Otter 90,000 to 124,000

Coon (raccoon) 500,000 to 600,000

Sable 175,000 to 235,000

Skunk ' 1,200,000 to 1,500,000

Squirrel 15,000,000

Rabbit 70,000,000 to 80,000,000

Fisher 10,000

Innis25 presents an elaborate and very instructive table giving esti-
mates of many kinds of furs of various countries in 1863, 1907-1909,
1913 and 1923-1924, for purposes of comparison. A very few im-
portant standard items are here chosen from the table, to show the gen-
eral trend of the market during that long period:

North

North

North

and South
America

and South
America

Europe
1913

America
alone

Europe
1923-24

1863

1913

1923-24

(OOO's omitted)

Skunk
Muskrat

100
2 850

1,700
5 000

5

3,500
18,000

400

Mole
Rabbit

580

1,000
50,000

500
1,000

10,000
80,000

Domestic cat

75

700

150

400

Mink
Foxes, all kinds

200
108

500
365

20£

300
680

The same author (Innis, p. 83) gives another table showing the
total number and value of all the furs for the various countries for
1863, 1907-1909 and 1923-1924, in which the grand totals for the world
are as follows: 1863, $17,456,650; 1907-1909, $73,400,000; 1923-
1924, $212,600,000. In 1911 Russia produced 4,525,000 squirrel skins,
sold as raw pelts for $2,000,000, and 21 tons of squirrel skins valued at
$5.50 a pound, and annually sold about 200,000 ermine skins for
$35o,ooo.26

At the February, 1920, fur auction in Saint Louis, $27,000,000
worth of furs were sold in twelve days.27 The New York sales during
the same month totalled $10,600,000, and included the following do-
mestic furs:28 27,000 red fox, 175,000 opossum, 73,000 raccoon, 32,000
wolf, including coyote, 239,000 skunk, 4350 badger, 6200 gray fox,
41,500 mink, 7700 marten, 58,000 "civet cat/' 68,000 ermine and
9800 wildcat and lynx. Also the following foreign furs: 234,000

3 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opposite p. 76, 1927.
28 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 106, 1913.

' Dearborn, The fur situation, Journ. Mammalogy, I, 144-145, 1920.
28 N. H[ollister], Journ. Mammalogy, i, 160, 1920.

66 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Australian opossum; 325,000 squirrels; 23,500 kangaroo and wallaby.
One London firm alone in 1912 sold 9,435,125 pelts,29 and at one sale
in that city 30,000 monkey skins changed hands.30 A press dispatch
from St. Louis, dated May 3, 1919, said that on that day 90,000 wolf
skins were sold at auction for $904,450. At one New York auction
4,000,000 pelts were sold (600,000 muskrat and 280,000 mole be-
ing the largest single items), and at a St. Louis auction a total of
nearly 4,000,000 were sold, including the following:31 Muskrat,
900,000; Russian squirrel, 810,000; marmot, 173,000; ermine,
118,000; mole, 750,000; mink, 279,000; nutria, 135,000; oppossum,
300,000; skunk, 215,000; raccoon, 130,000; and "thousands of oth-
ers."

The value of annual catch of furs in the United States twenty-
five or thirty years ago was estimated at $25,000,000 and in 1925 at
$70,000,000, 32 the increase being largely due to advancing prices rather
than to increased numbers. The latter figure would pay interest at
5 per cent on a capitalization of $1,400,000,000. Therefore the fur-
bearers at present values should be worth to the country more than
one billion dollars — an asset well worthy of careful conservation and
wise administration.

Early in 1928 it was said that the fur catch of the United States
is worth to the trapper $60,000,000 each year; about $26,000,000
worth of furs imported and $100,000,000 worth exported annually,
$121,000,000 worth used annually in the States (retail value of furs
and trimmings annually used in the United States $500,000,000) ;
20,000 concerns in the United States handling furs; 2000 wholesale
manufacturers of furs in New York, with 8000 workers; 160 fur-
dressing and fur-dyeing concerns, with 5500 workers, annual pay roll
$8,400,000, dressing and dyeing 40,000,000 skins annually, exclusive
of rabbits; 100,000,000 rabbit skins imported annually, 40 per cent
for manufacture of fur garments, 50 per cent for manufacture of felt
hats.33 The United States in one month imported furs and skins from
37 countries, and during the first three months of 1926 imported furs
from 55 countries; total imports of raw and dressed furs for 1924
were valued at $87,000,000 and for 1925 at $115,000,000, being ex-
ceeded by importations of only cane sugar, raw silk, coffee, crude rub-

28 Hornaday, Our vanishing wild life, pp. 193-194, 1913.

30 Lucas, Ann. Kept. U. S. Natl. Museum for 1889, p. 611.

31 The Oologist, xxxvi, 27-29, 1919.

32Ashbrook and Earnshaw, Farmers' Bull., No. 1469, p. i, 1925. Taylor, Fur-
bearing mammals: An unappreciated natural resource, Science, xxxvii, 485-487, 1913.
88 Ashbrook, Fur j arming for profit, p. 4, 1928.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES

her, newsprint paper and manufactured wool; United States pro-
duces $70,000,000 worth of furs annually, Canada $15,000,000 and
Soviet Russia $3 5, 000,000. 34

In the campaign of the United States Biological Survey against
predatory mammals in national forests and on western stock ranges,
from 1915 to 1925, 222,503 skins were obtained and sold for
$310,306.76, as follows:35 coyotes, 186,172; wolves, 4916; bears,
579; mountain lions, 999; bobcats, 23,274; lynxes, 83.

Prior to the World War the greater part of the fur business was
centered in Great Britain and Germany, and a large part of American
furs were sent abroad, where they were dressed, dyed and prepared for
use, then returned to this country for sale to ultimate American cus-
tomers. During and immediately after that war many fur-dressing
plants were established in Canada and the United States, and the
center of the fur trade, with its secrets of dressing and dyeing furs,
crossed the ocean to North America.

The following items concerning the fur trade of the United States
for three years, compiled by the United States Bureau of Foreign
and Domestic Commerce and published by Ashbrook, will show some-
thing of the magnitude of our trade in this line since this country
became the leading fur market of the world:36

1918 1919 1920

Imports of undressed furs $ 32,158,939 $ 69,289,909 $ 84,427,592

Imports of dressed furs and fur manu-
factures 2,491,278 7,472,336 9,131,348

Manufactures and exports of domestic

furs 11,374,174 23,788,599 32,866,995

Dressed by Fur Dressers' and Fur Dy-
ers Association 35,212,230 51,366,253 52,910,589

Total turnover of fur industry in U. S. as
estimated by Board of Trade of Fur
Industry 232,748,201 342,441,687 352,605,927

Auction Sales St. Louis New York

1915 $ i,coo,ooo

1916

1919 7,924,330

1920 27,102,588

1921 1 1,000,000

$ 250,000
6,000,000

2,000,000

Ten per cent federal revenue on articles manufactured from fur in 1920 equalled
$15,311,214.24.

84 Mills, The international fur trade, Journ. Home Economics, xvm, 623-626, 1926.

33 Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., in, 583, 1926. See also Bell, Hunting down
stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp. 289-301.

36 Ashbrook, The fur trade and the fur supply, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 1-7, 1922.
Nelson, The economic importance of wild life, Scientific Monthly, xvi, 271-273,
1923.

68 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

The less-pronounced increase in exports, imports and manufactures
from 1919 to 1920, and the marked drop in auction sales in 1921 are
due partly or wholly to declining prices, rather than to decrease in
the quantity of material handled. To the totals must be added a con-
siderable amount of small business scattered over the country, not re-
ported. We are told that the amount spent annually for fur garments
in America is about $100,000,000 with from $200,000,000 to
$300,000,000 invested in the industry.37

The following information is obtained from the Statistical Ab-
stract of the United States for 1925 :38

Total exports of furs and fur manufactures from the United States in

1925 $ 26,482,000

Fox 1,537,000

Muskrat 1,969,000

Raccoon 393,ooo

Skunk and civet cat 7,825,000

Opossum 4,653,000

Other furs 9,042,000

Miscellaneous fur manufactures 1,063,000

Total imports of furs and fur manufactures to the United States for

1925 $115,349.000

Furs, undressed —

Beaver 3,676,000

Fox, except silver and black 15,839,000

Hare, cony and rabbit 23,731,000

Marten 1,940,000

Mink 2,426,000

Mole 396,000

Muskrat 1,920,000

Squirrel 13,725,000

Miscellaneous 37,940,000

Furs, dressed and manufactured 13,756,000

Total furs dressed and manufactured in the United States in 1925 :

Cost of Value added by Value of finished

material manufacture product

Furs dressed $ 20,558,000 $ 47,326,000 $ 67,884,000

Fur manufactures 340,143,000 214,037,000 554,180,000

Total $360,701,000 $261,363,000 $622,064,000

According to Innis, from 1914 to 1919 the number of fur-dressing
plants in the United States increased from 96 to 141, the total capi-
talization from $2,489,868 to $8,867,403, the wages from $906,030
to $6,338,835, and the value of the product from $2,875,036 to

87 Dearborn, The maintenance of the fur supply, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No.
T35. PP- 3-12, 1920. Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, 208-209, 1925.

88 Statistical abstract of the United States — 7925, U. S. Bureau of Foreign and
Domestic Commerce, 1926.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 69

$20,384,569. To this must be added the producing (trapping, etc.)
and marketing ends of the business to get the total value of the in-
dustry in the United States. In Canada, from 1910 to 1924, the num-
ber of plants increased from five to eight, capitalization from $198,500
to $926,270. Of 3,473,909 skins dressed in Canada in 1924, 1,615,520
were muskrat and 649,836 were rabbit. Of raw furs Canada in 1923
exported to the United Kingdom $4,743,986, and to the United States
$11,290,514. The manufactured fur goods industry in Canada in 1924
included 218 reported establishments, with a capital investment of
$9,910,979, paying $1,916,421 in wages, products valued at
$i2,265,37i.39

In 1867 Alaska was purchased by the United States for $7,200,000.
Since then the territory has exported $80,000,000 worth of furs,
$2,000,000 in 1918 alone.40 In 1912-1914, $600,000 worth were
shipped out, not including the Pribilof Island seals and foxes.41 In
1917 the total shipments were valued at $1,141,609 (Pribilof Island
seals and foxes $109,971 ).42 In 1923 the total was $1,794,159.85
(muskrat 319,611, valued at $367,552; white fox 7939, $297,476;
beaver 14,341, $258,138; red fox 10,787, $215,741; mink 2O,668).43
In 1929, 297,440 mammal skins were exported from Alaska, valued
at $4,513,863.76, 38,629 fewer than in 1928, but an increase of
$215,226.63 in value, because of the increased value of individual
furs.

In Minnesota fur-bearing animals were reported to have been
taken under trappers' licenses as follows: Season of 1920-1921,
219,685; 1921-1922, 474,544; 1922-1923, 273,055; 1923-1924,
264,253." The fur catch in New York State in 1919 was as follows:
Muskrat 388,938, value $599,907; skunk 187,703, $750,812; all others
53,660, $432,046.^ Though California is not usually thought of as a
fur-producing state, the value of the catch reported for the season of
1925-26, under 3530 trapping licenses, was $257,711. That state had
5243 licensed trappers in 1927-1928 and 6482 in 1928-1929, an in-
crease of 1139. Of these numbers 3402 reported in 1927-1928 and
3652 in 1928-1929, an increase of 250. Notwithstanding the increase in
the number of trappers licensed and reporting, the catch of furs fell

39 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, pp. 120-123, 1927.

40 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 65, 1921.

41 Bower and Aller, Ann. Kept. U. S. Comm. Fish, for 1914, Appendix x.
0 Science, June 7, 1918. California Fish and Game, v, 34-35, 1918.

43 California Fish and Game, x, 82, 1924 ; xvi, 258, 1930.

44 Ashbrook and Earnshaw, Farmers' Bull., No. 1469, 1925.

43 Johnson, The muskrat in New York, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, 208, 1925.

7O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

off from 167,202 skins, of twenty species, valued at $468,960.46, in
1927-1928, to 103,508 skins, valued at $280,309.66 in I928-I929.46
The foregoing examples are taken at random, including one of the
largest and one of the smallest producers, but every state in the Union
produces some furs.

Even residents of Louisiana were astonished by the statement of
Arthur to the effect that the catch of furs in Louisiana per annum ex-
ceeds that of any other state in the Union, and is also greater than
that of all Canadian provinces and territories and Alaska combined,47
the Louisiana catch for the season of 1924-1925 having been 6,771,265
pelts, Alaska only 285,645, and Dominion of Canada combined catch
3,820,326. The value of the 1924-1925 catch in some of the states and
Canadian provinces is given by him as follows:

United States Canada

Louisiana $6,490,340 Ontario $3,406,868

Michigan 3,000,000 Quebec 2,2/2,095

Pennsylvania 2,500,000 Alberta 2,030,974

Minnesota 2,399,200 Northwest Territory 1,780,666

Tennessee 2,000,000 Manitoba 1,589,078

Alaska ,657,448 British Columbia 1,403,769

New York ,500,000 Prince Edward Island 326,669

Arkansas 500,000 Yukon Territory 309,549

Wisconsin ,341,000 Nova Scotia 271,753

Texas ,000,000 New Brunswick 246,091

Maryland 500,000

Kansas 250,000

Oregon 250,000

Virginia 200,000

Vermont 150,000

However, on page 415, while giving the total catch of Canada for
1926-1927, from figures furnished by the Dominion Bureau of Sta-
tistics, as only 4,289,233 pelts, their value is given as $18,864,126,
nearly three times as much as that of Louisiana, the difference being
due to the fact that the Louisiana fur-bearers are chiefly muskrat and
other lower-priced furs, while a very much larger proportion of Ca-
nadian furs are higher-priced kinds.

In Kansas, for the fur season of 1927-1928, 742 fur dealers' licenses
were issued. Five dealers reported a business aggregating $462,766.
The following is the catch reported for the season, the values being
the amounts paid by the dealers to the trappers:48

^California Fish and Game, xn, 272, 1927; xyi, 164, 1930.

47 Arthur, The fur animals of Louisiana, Louisiana Dept. of Conservation Bull.
1 8, pp. 14, 47, 411, 415, 1928.

48 Dose, Kansas' enormous fur trade, Kansas Fish and Game, No. 2, pp. 67-69,
1928. Third Biennial Report of Kansas State Forestry, Fish and Game Commission,
for period ending June 30, 1930, p. 32.

THE FUR. LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 71

Number of skins Value

Opossum 350,286 $ 350,000

Skunk 279,647 over 560,000

Muskrat 239,174 over 240,000

"Civil" (probably spotted skunk) 107,277

Weasel 3,392

Raccoon_ 5,789

Wolf 1,416

Coyote 6,169

Badger 9,7&9

Mink 5,527

Total 1,008,466 $1,273.708

As trappers in that state are not required to report their catches,
the actual number taken was probably much greater than the figures in-
dicate. The number of pelts reported by Kansas dealers for the bien-
nial period 1929-1930 is as follows:

1929 f93o

Muskrat 280,719 276,338

Skunk 269,940 258,493

Mink 7,587 5,867

Raccoon 24,447 22,666

Opossum 349,469 316,297

Badger 9,389 8,344

Civet cat 1 16,344 1 17,309

Miscellaneous 26,979 25,756

1,084,874 1,031,070

The number of trapping licenses issued for the season 1928-1929
was 17,616, while the number for 1929-1930 was 28,147. With a great
increase in the number of licensed trappers, there was a decrease in the
catch as reported by dealers.48

There is considerable evidence of a very serious decrease of some
of the most valuable fur-bearers, and though some writers are opti-
mistic about the future, the great majority do not view the prospect at
all cheerfully and all admit that some species are in grave danger of
extinction. A few species are becoming so rare that they constitute an
almost negligible part of the fur supply, though their present high
prices give them a disproportionately large place in the total value of
the product of all furs. The sea otter was sold by thousands a century
ago, 2369 in one year as late as 1891, but only 202 in 1912 and 25 in
1920, some rather poor pelts then bringing $1,700 to $2,000 each in
St. Louis and London,49 though it is said that they sold for $80 in
i88o.50

^Laut, The fur trade in America, p. 113, 1921 ; World's Work, May, 1907, p. 8875.
Preble, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 46, 1923.

00 California Fish and Game, in, 80, 1917.

72 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

The Alaska fur seal herd was estimated at 3,000,000 to 4,000,000
in 1873, and had been reduced to about 200,000 by 1911, but with
better protection and wiser administration the herd has very materi-
ally increased since that time and is no longer threatened with annihila-
tion.51

There can be no doubt that the supply of furs of some species may
be enormously increased by fur farming. Vast tracts of waste lands
of various kinds, now unprofitable, may be profitably utilized in raising
a number of species of valuable fur-bearers. Muskrat raising in swamp
lands has proved highly profitable in some localities, and on uplands
other species are being raised in captivity or semi-captivity. What may
be done also merely by strict legal protection and scientific control
without further care is well shown by the rapid increase in the northern
fur seal in recent years, and by the fact that beavers, re-introduced into
the former haunts from which they were long ago driven, have soon
re-established themselves and formed thriving colonies. There should
be no trouble about indefinitely increasing the rabbit supply, and the
raising of "Persian lambs" for their pelts is developing into a very im-
portant industry.

Many excellent books and pamphlets on fur farming,52 give de-
tailed information concerning the habits and care of various species,
and the equipment and management of fur farms. Success with most of
the species yet tried depends upon very thorough knowledge of the
habits, the kind and quantity of food required, housing requirements,
their diseases and so on, and upon constant and watchful care. Foxes,
especially, are very sensitive, and easily worried by strange sights,
noises or odors, particularly during the breeding season, and when
worried or excited have been known to destroy their own offspring. It
is not pleasant to see the life of fox pups, with a potential value of
hundreds or thousands of dollars, snuffed out because of a little tem-
porary carelessness, before they have had time to attain their possible
high value. It is customary on some fox farms to exclude all visitors

51 Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 125-133, 1921. Preble, N. Amer. Fauna,
No. 46, 1923. Bower and Aller, Ann. Kept. U. S. Comm. Fish, for 1914, Appendix
x. Nelson, Scientific Monthly, xvi, 372-373, 1923.

62 For example : Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 39-40, 1913. Laut, The fur
trade of America, p. 56, 1921. Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, 1928; Fur farming,
a growing industry, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1926, pp. 393-395 ; Recom-
mendations for beginners in fur farming, U. S. Biol. Surv., Leaflet No. 27, 1928.
Grinnell, Foxes in captivity, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 184, 1923. Salvesen, Pelsdyr-
boken: Handbok i Opdrett av Pelsdyr, Oslo, 1928 (on fur farming). Allen and
McLure, Theory and practice in fox ranching, Charlottetown, Pr. Edw. Isl., 1926.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 73

and keep all domestic animals from the vicinity of the pens during
the breeding season, and in some places laws prohibit strangers from
approaching fox farms without permission of the owners.

Though there are vicissitudes that make fur farming uncertain,
many such enterprises, carefully conducted, under favorable circum-
stances, have yielded very large profits. In 1918 one Prince Edward
Island fur farmer sold $14,000 worth of pelts from his farm.53 In
1924, six fox farms sold 1541 skins for $215,740 (average price
$140) and in 1925 they sold 4089 pelts at an average price of $132,
the highest price for a single skin being $52O.54 There are now about
2500 fur farmers in the United States and Alaska, mostly silver or blue
fox, with a total investment of $15,000,000 to $18,000,000, and
2130 in Canada, with an investment of $13, 240,245. 55 It was estimated
that in 1923 there were 15,000 silver foxes in captivity,56 an estimate
now much too low.

Prior to 1910 there were very few fox farms and few breeding
foxes were for sale. Then the breeders discovered that they could get
much larger prices for the well-bred live foxes for breeding purposes
than for the pelts, and began to place breeding stock on the market.
Within two years they rose in price from $3,000 to $15,000; one pair
sold in 1912 for $20,000 and others were quoted at a value of
$35,000 a pair, while one fine skin sold in London for $2,8 17.57 During
the World War there was a slump, but a few years later "pure-blood,
registered silver foxes" were selling alive for from $10,000 to
$35,000 a pair, and breeding stock of Persian lambs were quoted at
from $500 to $10,000 a pair.58 It is no wonder that some fur-farm
breeding stocks "get the care of millionaire babies," as Miss Laut
picturesquely puts it.

In 1921 blue foxes were selling at $20 a pair and skins ran from
$75 up, while white fox pelts did 'not exceed $60. Breeding mink
stock at the same time was selling for $30 to $300 a pair.59

53 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 65, 1921.

54 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, p. 19, 1928.

55 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, p. 24, 1928; Silver fox farming, U. S. Dept.
Agric. Bull. No. 1151, 1923; Journ. Mammalogy, m, 1-7, 1922. See also Ashbrook
and Earnshaw, Farmers' Bull., No. 1469, pp. 3-4, 1925. Ashbrook and Walker, Blue
fox farming in Alaska, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1350, 1925. Dearborn, Silver
fox farming in eastern United States, ibid., No. 301, 1915. Osgood, Silver fox farm-
ing, Farmers' Bull, No. 328, 1909. California Fish and Game, m, 80, 1917; vn, 164-
165, 1920.

56 Ashbrook, address quoted in California Fish and Game, ix, 161, 1923.

57 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 14-15, 49, in, 1913.

58 Laut, The fur trade of America, Foreword, p. ix; also pp. 52, 54, 55, 1921.

59 Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 63, 102, 1921.

74 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

With all the phenomenal profits made by highly successful fox farm-
ers, we must not overlook the fact that there have also been many and
sometimes heavy losses, due to unfavorable locality, poor management,
ignorance or failure to understand the necessity of constant watch-
fulness. The failures are not so likely to be published as the successes.
Vendors of capital stock of fur-farm companies see to it that success
is duly and thoroughly advertised, but no one is specially interested
in advertising failures. As in most lines of business, it is a great suc-
cess under proper management and favorable conditions, otherwise
only a moderate success or a failure.

In addition to fox farming, mink and skunk farming have been
successfully accomplished, minks have been bred in captivity for sixty
years, breeding stock during the American Civil War having sold at
$30 a pair, while in 1916 it was said that there were more skunk breed-
ers than all other breeders of fur-bearers combined.60 Other species
have been tried with more or less success. Muskrat farming consists
mostly of utilizing swamp lands of little value for other purposes, as
the most economical method, and beaver farming is largely a mat-
ter of re-introducing the animals into favorable territory from which
they had been exterminated, and carefully protecting them from poach-
ers. Fur farming of some sorts may be profitably carried on in con-
nection with general agriculture in some localities. A fair income may
often be derived from simply trapping the wild fur-bearers about the
farms during the right season, protecting them from molestation dur-
ing the remainder of the year when the skins are not prime and the
animals are breeding, thus "turning pests into profits." It may not be
out of place here to suggest that deer farming and the raising of
other wild non-fur-bearing mammals under control may be profitably
carried on, perhaps in connection with some kinds of fur farming, in
suitable localities.61

The so-called "Persian lambs," broadtails and karakuls are domesti-
cated animals and so, of course, the whole supply of their pelts, so
much used in the fur trade, is the result of fur farming. The raising
of these animals is already well started in the United States and will

60 Dearborn, Fur farming as a side issue, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1916,
pp. 489-506. Ashbrook, Mink raising, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928. See also
books by Laut, Jones, and Ashbrook cited in other footnotes to this chapter.

61 Lantz, Raising deer and other large game animals in the United States, U. S.
Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 36, 1910; Deer farming in the United States, Farmers' Bull.,
No. 330, 1908. Roseberry, Experience in raising Virginia deer, in Jones, Fur farming
in Canada, pp. 118-119,

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 75

continue to expand.62 The native home of these sheep is not Persia,
but Turkestan. The current belief that the skins are obtained from
the unborn lambs by killing their mothers is without foundation, but
it has been said that to get the pelt with the curl and luster in its best
condition it must be taken within three or four days after birth. To
kill the high-priced ewe and thus stop further reproduction, in order
to get the tiny lambskin, would make these furs even very much more
expensive then they now are. The United States is a heavy importer of
these pelts from Turkestan, 1,500,000 per annum, worth $14,000,000,
as reported in 1921, while a few years ago Leipzig alone was import-
ing 2,500,000 per annum. Prices of pelts advanced 180 per cent from
1895 to 1913, brought $12 during the World War and thereafter again
advanced 140 per cent.63

The chinchilla rabbit has been greatly exaggerated as a profitable
fur-farm animal, perhaps because of confusion with the wild chinchilla
of South America, whose fur is much more valuable, but which does
not belong to the rabbit family. "As with all domestic rabbits, chin-
chillas must be bred for both meat and fur to combine the returns
from the two commodities and thus derive the maximum profit on
the labor and capital invested."64

Turning now to hides and skins of animals other than fur-bearers,
and to leather and leather goods manufactured therefrom, we find an-
other vast industry based upon mammals. The great majority of
Americans and Europeans, as well as inhabitants of some other lands,
wear boots or shoes made of leather, which also provides the indis-
pensible material for great belts that transmit power to machinery in
our factories, the best material for gloves, saddles, harness, suitcases,
some sorts of upholstery and very numerous other articles. For many
purposes no satisfactory substitute is known. So important is this
widely-used material that one may be excused for speculating on how
different the course of development of modern civilization, or how it
might have been retarded, had there been no mammals to provide
leather for boots and shoes, to say nothing of the many other articles
so very convenient and useful as to be considered essential.

The following statistics concerning the leather, hide and skin (ex-

M Marshall, Heller and McWhorter, Karakul sheep, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric.
for 1915, pp. 249-262. Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, pp. 239-262, 1928.

OTLaut. T^c fur trade of America, pp. 66-77, 1921.

"Green, Chinchilla rabbits for food and fur, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 22,
1928.

76

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

cept furs) industries in the United States are culled from the statis-
tical abstract of the United States for 1925 :65

Manufactures of leather and its finished products in the United States in 1923 :

Leather, tanned, curried and finished $ 488,898,000

Total value finished products of leather 1,391,183,000

Boots and shoes, excluding rubber $1,000,078,000

Boot and shoe cut-stock and findings not made in

shoe factories 137,303,000

Belting for machinery, etc 37,7^3,000

Leather gloves and mittens 38,081,000

Pocketbooks, purses and cardcases 32,732,000

Saddlery and harness 42,113,000

Trunks, suitcases and bags 63,023,000

Miscellaneous leather goods 40,130,000

Hides and skins produced in 1923, except furs $ 91,226,000

Imports of hides and skins in 1925 $ 96,754,000

Cattle hides $ 26,695,000

Buffalo hides (India, etc.) 705,000

Kip and calf skins 8,599,000

Horse, colt and mule skins 1,490,000

Sheep and lamb skins 23,458,000

Goat and kid skins 33,i97,ooo

Kangaroo and wallaby skins 561,000

All other skins except furs 2,049,000

Imports of leather $ 22,413,000

Imports of leather manufactures 13,858,000

$ 133,025,000

Exports of hides and skins in 1925, except furs $ 12,031,000

Exports of leather 52,127,000

Exports of leather manufactures 20,562,000

$ 84,720,000

According to Holmes the production of hides and skins in the United
States in 1915 was as follows:66 calf skins, 5,424,000; goat skins,
432,000; cattle hides 12,645,000; sheep skins 15,865,000; total
34,366,000 skins.

In 1914 the boot-and-shoe manufactures of the United States were
placed at $445,000,000 (which may be compared with the
$1,000,000,000 for 1923), distributed as follows:67

Ohio $ 38,000,000

Pennsylvania 25,000,000

Other states 50,000,000

Massachusetts $200,000,000

New York 54,000,000

Missouri 40,000,000

New Hampshire 38,000,000

66 Statistical abstracts of the United States for 1925, U. S. Bureau of Foreign and
Domestic Commerce, 1926.

66 Holmes, Hides and skins, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 425-446.

67 Allen, Shoe industry, pp. 33-37, 1922, citing U. S. Census for 1914, The leather
industry, Table 24.

THE FUR, LEATHER AND HIDE TRADES 77

More leather is used in the manufacture of boots and shoes, which
are prime necessities, than for any other class of articles, their manu-
facture giving employment to a large number of men and women.
In 1910 the United States exported $13,216,237 worth of shoes and
boots and in the same year the United Kingdom exported $14,729,936
worth.68

A bulletin of the United States Department of Agriculture, giving
directions for skinning, curing and marketing hides and skins, con-
tains the following table of hides and skins used in the United States
in I9I4:69

Domestic Imported Total Total Value

Cattle and horse hides 10,354,600 8,477,200 18,831,800 $152,862,800

Calf and kip skins 7,615,800 8,452,000 16,067,800 33,117,700

Goat and kid skins 860,700 36,895,200 37,755, 900 23,917,000

Sheep and lamb skins I3,554,QOO 26,535,300 40,090,200 19,257,700

Miscellaneous skins 1,328,500 4,377,50o

114,074,200 $233,532,700

We have at hand no complete, up-to-date statistics of the hide and
leather trades of other countries, but the exports and imports from and
to three of the important countries of Europe for 1909, 1910 and
1919 respectively are as follows:70

Germany, 1909-10: Exports Imports

Cattle hides and calf skins $20,268,080 $ 77,878,836

Horse hides 1,904832 2,906,498

Buffalo hides 479,8o8

Lamb and sheep skins 916,062 6,320,714

Goat and kid skins 1,355,648 6,902,952

Other skins (not furs) 69,734 502,560

Total $24,514,356 $ 94,991,368

United Kingdom, Imports of hides, 1910 $10,793,718

United Kingdom, Exports of, hides 1910 2,686,415

France, Imports of hides, 1919 $20,253,000

France, Exports of hides, 1919 55,110,600

Besides the skins specifically enumerated, skins of many other mam-
mals are used in the leather industry, among which may be mentioned

7. S. Bureau of Manufactures, Special Agent Series, No. 49, 1912.

69 Whalen, Frey, Veitch and Hickman, .Country hides and skins, Farmers' Bull.,
No. 1055, 1919. For tanning see also Frey, Clarke and Veitch, Home tanning of
leather and small fur skins, Farmers' Bull., No. 1334.

70 The reader will find much information on this subject in the Special Agent
Series of the U. S. Bureau of Manufactures, especially Nos. 49, 50, and 200, with
other countries treated in other numbers.

78 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

the pig, hair seals, porpoises, etc. Many thousands of deer skins' are
marketed annually in the United States and used in making buck-
skin. Before game laws for Alaska were enacted thousands of deer
were killed there for their skins alone.71 In Texas, from 1844 to 1853,
75,000 deer skins were handled at one trading post.72 Reindeer skins
are much used for clothing in Alaska, Labrador and some northern
European countries. American bison skins were sold by hundreds of
thousands from 1865 to 1885, many of them for a dollar or two each,
for robes and other purposes, but they are not now in the market.
One railroad handled 1,378,369 in three years, from 1872 to 1874, and
75,000 were shipped from Bismarck alone in i88i.73 The buffalo skins
mentioned in recent statistics of imports and exports of various coun-
tries are not American bison, but the buffaloes of Asia, Philippines and
perhaps Africa.

The armadillo, an interesting and useful animal, is being rapidly ex-
terminated from Texas and northern Mexico for its skin, which is
used in the manufacture of ornamental baskets.74 Marine mammals
furnish large quantities of excellent leather. In 1902 the seal leather
(not fur seal) production was estimated at $1,500,000 per annum,
beluga or white whale (sold as porpoise leather) at $200,000, and
tanned walrus leather at $100,000; about 30,000 pounds of tanned
walrus hides, worth $25,000, imported to the United States annually;
the largest Atlantic Coast catch of porpoises for leather up to that time,
20,000 skins in 1887, the green skins then worth $2 a side; manatee
and dugong skins also used for leather, but the production too small to
be of much consequence.75

71 Osgood, The game resources of Alaska, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1907,
p. 478.

72 Strecker, The trade in deer skins in early Texas, Jonrn. Mammalogy, vin, 106-
no, 1927.

"Nelson, Scientific Monthly, xvi, 369, 1923. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49,
p. 22, 1926.

74 [Jackson], Journ. Mammalogy, x, 89, 1929, criticizing McDaniel, Amer. Forests
and Forest Life, xxxv, 44-45, 1929.

75 Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm.
for 1902, pp. 327, 337-340.

X

DOMESTICATED MAMMALS

At a very remote period primitive man began the subjugation of cer-
tain species of mammals, and before the dawn of written history
some species of cattle, horses, sheep, dogs, cats and perhaps others had
been brought completely under his dominion. It is asserted that in
Europe various mammals had been domesticated at least as early as
the Lake Dweller period. At the beginning of the historic period ani-
mals under domestication were widely distributed in Europe, Asia
and Africa. Cats were undoubtedly domesticated in ancient Egypt.
Egyptian monuments show that hump-backed cattle were domesticated
as early as 2100 B.C., and pigs are believed to have been domesticated
in China about 5,000 years ago.1 Dogs were living under domestication
among the American Indians when Europeans first began to explore
the two continents, and undoubtedly had been for a long time previ-
ously. Mummified dogs are found among the very ancient relics of
prehistoric cultures in southwestern United States, and several breeds
of dogs were distributed over the Americas before the arrival of
Columbus. A very large amount of research has been devoted to the
origin of various domesticated mammals, with rather definite results
in some cases, but many of the origins are still very obscure.2

It is not always easy to determine just what should be included in
the term domesticated. The word is incapable of very exact definition,
but means to become wholly adapted to life in close association with
human beings and about human habitations, with the approval of
the owner of the premises. Thus house cats and dogs, and the or-
dinary farm cattle, sheep, goats, horses and hogs are clearly domesti-
cated. However, house cats often leave home and may be found liv-
ing far out in forests in a feral state. Cattle on western North American
plains and in portions of South America, derived from unquestionable
domestic stock, owned by men, who catch and market them, but do not
have them under constant control, are sometimes very wild and may

1 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, p. 310, 1921.

*As examples consult: Keller, The derivation of European domestic animals,
Ann. Rept. Smithsonian hist, for 1912, pp. 483-491 ; Ewart, The principles of breed-
ing and the origin of domesticated breeds of animals, 27th Ann. Rept. U. S. Bureau
of Animal Industry, pp. 125-186; Morse, The ancestry of domesticated cattle, ibid.,
pp. 187-239.

79

80 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

scarcely claim a position with domesticated animals. They may be more
appropriately said to be semi-domesticated. This would apply also to
the "wild" horses of the western United States. House rats and mice,
more intimately associated with human habitations than any cattle or
horses, cannot be considered domesticated. They are unwelcome in-
truders.

The fact that individual animals have been caught or even bred in
capitivity, tamed and trained for various purposes or kept as pets,
does not make of them domesticated animals. Thus deer, kept in en-
closures, often become very tame, just as squirrels and wild birds
in parks learn to feed out of one's hands, but are not domesticated.
Canadian moose have on several occasions been captured while young,
tamed and used as draft animals, but were not bred in captivity and
only an occasional animal was so used, consequently they would not be
included in the term, while the European moose was in northern Europe
long used as a draft animal, in considerable numbers, and might have
been considered at least semi-domesticated.3 The reindeer is usually
considered a domesticated animal, as it has for centuries been intimately
associated with human beings and kept in controlled herds. Zebras
are often driven in harness, especially in circus parades, but they are
not domesticated.4 The cheetah, or hunting leopard of Asia, caught and
trained to hunt game for its captors, is not domesticated. It is said
that for the best results it must not be caught until it has acquired
hunting experience. The ferret, kept in captivity and used in catching
rats, is not domesticated. Neither are bears, lions and many other
wild animals that must be kept confined, but are taught to perform
many acts for exhibition purposes, nor are squirrels and other pets
kept in cages.

The great value of cattle, sheep and goats to the human race has
been discussed in other chapters, in connection with the supply of meat,
milk, hides, furs and other products. Further information concerning
these and the other domesticated mammals may be found in the sys-
tematic part of this volume (Part n) . The flesh of horses is used as food
in some lands and the skins are used in making excellent leather. In
addition, horses and their relatives (mules, burros, donkeys, etc.) have
for many centuries been used in all lands as draft and saddle ani-
mals and beasts of burden, the horse being the most valuable and most
extensively used of all animals, for those purposes.

8 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 95, 1913. Shields, Forest and Stream, XLI, 316,
1893.

4 Forest and Stream, LVII, 24, 1901.

DOMESTICATED MAMMALS 8l

The number and value of the more important domesticated mam-
mals in the United States in 1925 was estimated by the Department
of Agriculture as follows:5

Number Value

Cattle 61,572,000 $3,651,970,000

Horses, mules, etc 22,267,000 2,569,570,000

Sheep 35,251,000 395,401,000

Goats 3,459,000 17,565,000

Swine 51,842,000 988,582,000

Total 174,391,000 $7,623,088,000

In 1927 there were 1,499,000 Angora goats in the Union of South
Africa, 3,162,000 in Turkey and 3,159,000 in six of the United States
— Arizona, California, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas.6

The following is an estimate of the number of cattle, swine and
sheep in some of the principal countries of the world, based partly
upon census reports, not including Central America and large portions
of Asia, South America and Africa, which would very much swell
the total:7

Cattle Swine Sheep

Europe 133,001,000 74,224,000 183,299,000

United States 59,829,000 51,223,000 40,748,000

Canada 9,307,000 4,426,000 2,756,000

Australia 13,358,000 898,000 80,1 10,000

New Zealand 3,504,000 440,000 24,548,000

Asiatic Russia 10,247,000 2,196,000 14,558,000

India 143,403,000 33,539,ooo

Japan 1,469,000 668,000 15,000

Korea 1,605,000 1,130,000 3,ooo

Formosa 3,ooo 1,000

Argentina 37,065,000 1,437,000 36,209,000

Brazil 34,271,000 16,169,000 7,933, ooo

Total for the countries in-

eluded 447,062,000 152,821,000 423,718,000

Exports from and imports to the United States in 1925:"

Exports Imports

Cattle $2,388,000 $5,173,000

Sheep 370,000 498,000

Hogs, about 1,000,000

Horses, mules, burros, etc 4,141,000 1,640,000

Total $7,899,000- $7,311,000

5 Statistical abstract of the United States for 1925, U. S. Bureau of Commerce,
1926. See also an interesting paper by Senator Warren, National Geographic Maga-
zine, xvn, 511-524, 1906. Estimates of numbers and values vary considerable from
year to year ; compare statistics of farm animals and animal products, Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1927, pp. 980-1060 (Separate No. 976).

'The Angora goat and mohair industry, Interdepartmental Committee of U. S.
Dept. Agric. and Dept. Commerce, Miscell. Circular No. 50, 1929.

''New York World Almanac for 1929, p. 376.

8 Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1925, U. S. Bureau of Commerce,
pp. 466, 504.

82 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

The cattle, swine and sheep for all other countries are estimated
as follows: cattle, 402,564,000; swine, 103,278,000; sheep,
240,003,000.° It was also estimated by the Agricultural Department
that in 1926 there were 7,000,000 dogs in the United States.10 In 1917
it was estimated that there were 35,000,000 horses in Russia, 3,000,000
in Canada and 8,000,000 in Argentina.11

Though the horse is the most important draft animal and beast of
burden in the world, it is by no means the only important one. Austin in
1917 estimated that there were in the world 100,000,000 horses, 80
per cent in the temperate zone and 20 per cent in the tropics ; and in
tropical and oriental countries 3,000,000 camels, 10,000,000 donkeys
and 20,000,000 carabao (water buffalo) ; that the pound-loads various
animals would carry on their backs are as follows:12 man, 75 to 150;
llama, 50-200; donkey, 100-200; horse, 206-250; camel, 350-500; ele-
phant, 1800-2500.

The llamas and alpacas of South America have been domesticated
for many centuries, and provide the natives with milk, meat, wool and
leather. The latter is also a beast of burden. Everyone is familiar with
the pictures of great caravans of camels in Asia and Africa, carrying
passengers and loads of merchandise, sometimes hitched to wheeled
vehicles, and furnishing meat, milk, leather and hair for the weaving
of cloth.

The carabao, or water buffalo, is said to be the "strongest beast of
draft in the world except the elephant."13 It is extensively used in
India, the Philippines, Hawaiian Islands and other localities, and is
particularly useful in rice fields and other places where the ground is
soft and muddy. The yak, another member of the ox family, has
been domesticated on the high plains of Thibet, for its flesh and milk,
and is used as a beast of burden. The humped oxen of India are seen
drawing all sorts of vehicles. The American bison is now being bred
in a domesticated or semi-domesticated state in various localities, but,
though it possesses great strength, is not being used as a work ani-
mal.

The Asiatic elephant has long been used for hauling heavy loads,

9 World Almanac for 1928, p. 376.

10 /&«*., p. 435-

11 Holmes, Hides and skins, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 425-446.

12 Austin, Queer methods of travel in curious corners of the world, Natl. Geog.
Mag., xvm, 688, 1907.

13 The wanderings of the water buffalo, Ann. Rept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1901,
pp. 679-682; reprinted from London Spectator, Aug. 31, 1901.

DOMESTICATED MAMMALS 83

carrying passengers and for other heavy work. Though it has been
supposed by many people that the African elephants could not be tamed
and trained to work, it has been done. Experiments with them in the
Belgian Congo show that in plowing they are "fourteen times less
costly than plowing by tractor."14

Considering the world as a whole, the dog is more intimately as-
sociated with man and his domicile than any other domesticated ani-
mal. It is one of man's most faithful friends, and well deserves the
place it holds in our esteem and affection. While some breeds are mere
pets, others are very useful as shepherds, hunters, watchdogs and the
like, and as guardians of children. Dogs were used by the American
Indians as draft animals prior to the introduction of the horse by the
Spaniards. Dogs are even now often hitched to carts by white men in
various parts of the world, such not being an altogether unknown sight
in some of our American cities. The finest and best known example of
the kind is, of course, the sledge dogs of the Far North, which have
in recent years been bred up until some of them have become splendid
animals. In 1897 it was said that dogs were used more extensively as
draft animals in Belgium than anywhere else except the Far North,
and elaborate laws were in force relating to their use and care.15 They
have also been used to a considerable extent in several other European
countries.

The domestic cat is of value chiefly as a pet, though many of them
are good mousers and occasionally an exceptional one is a ratter. On
the whole it probably does at least as much harm as good, in the de-
struction of useful birds and otherwise.16

Guinea pigs and some rabbits are raised under control and may per-
haps be considered domesticated or semi-domesticated. Foxes, skunks,
minks and some other fur-bearing animals are raised in captivity, but
none of them can be called domesticated, though sometimes some of
them become great pets.

"Phillips, Trained African elephants, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 130-131, 1925-
Science news supplement to Science, April 6, 1928, p. x.

"Johnson, Forest and Stream, XLIX, 491-492, 515, 1897; L, 13-14 1898.

ia For a full investigation of its economic status see Forbush, The domestic cat,
Massachusetts Board Agric., Econ. Biol. Bull. No. 2, 1916.

XI
MAMMALS AND THE HUNTER

Hunting, as both a business and a pastime, is a very ancient form of
sport or recreation. Primitive men lived largely upon the flesh of wild
mammals long before they began to develop agricultural pursuits or to
domesticate cattle and sheep. They still do in some parts of the world.
As may be seen in another chapter, early white explorers and pioneer
settlers of North America were often dependent for food and raiment
upon their skill as hunters. A large army of Americans still get out for
a season of hunting each year, but most of them not, as in case of their
ancestors, because they are in need of meat, but because of the recrea-
tional urge — possibly in some cases because of a lust for blood.

Nearly everywhere in the United States market hunting is now
prohibited. This meets with the approval of most hunters, as other-
wise there would be very little game left. It was market hunting that
exterminated the passenger pigeon and nearly led to the extinction of
the American bison. As an additional protective measure, and also in
order to obtain from the hunters and fishermen themselves part or all
of the funds necessary for the propagation and protection of fish and
game and the enforcement of the laws relating thereto, hunting licenses
are required in most states and hunting without license is prohibited.
About 4,000,000 such licenses were issued in the United States in 1921,
5,000,000 in 1924-1925 (fees $6,400,000), but as some states require
no license, others require none for boys below a certain age or for
owners of land who hunt only on their own premises, the total num-
ber of hunters afield each year is estimated at 6,000,000 to 7,000,000
or about 5 per cent of the population.1

The increase in the number of hunting licenses issued and fees there-
for in the United States and Canada is shown by the following fig-
ures:2

Licenses Fees

!924 4,395,038 $5,594,982

1925 4,904,740 6,190,863

1926 5,i68,353 6,872,812

1927 5,75o,ooo 7,800,000

1 Journ. Mammalogy, m, 235, 1922. California Fish and Game, xn, 95-96, 1926.
Compare Statistics of hunting licenses, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular 54, 1906,

2 American Forests and Forest Life, xxxiv, 511, 1928.

84

MAMMALS AND THE HUNTER 85

In 1927 New York headed the list, with 620,414 licenses, for which
the fees paid totalled $822,415.

Although the value of the meat obtained by this army of hunters
aggregates a very large sum, making wild game a real addition to the
nation's resources, yet the cost of procuring it is probably much greater
than its monetary value. Though not measurable in dollars, the recrea-
tional value of game is very much greater. It serves to get many men
and some women out of their dingy, poorly-ventilated offices for a
few days, into the open spaces, away from the cares and turmoil
of modern civilization, and sends them back to their work refreshed
in body, rested in mind and sweeter in disposition. The total amount of
money represented by the activities of hunters is difficult to estimate.
It includes such items as the original cost of the equipment (guns,
hunting garments, hunting dogs, boats, etc.), the interest upon which
would be a considerable sum ; ammunition, transportation to and from
the hunting grounds, hotel bills, guides and many other items of the
sort. The nation's hunting bill also includes a considerable part of
the support of manufacturers of and dealers in hunters' equipment and
supplies, hunting resort hotels, sportsmen's clubs and the taxidermists
who mount the hunters' trophies. However, if such recreations as at-
tending the opera, visiting seaside resorts, going on camping trips and
the like, with their attendant expenses, are justified, then also is the
nation's hunting bill justified, regardless of the value of the meat ob-
tained thereby.

It is estimated that 75,000 deer are killed in the United States an-
nually, the flesh of which, at twenty cents a pound, would be worth
$2,250,000^ in addition to the value of the skins. In about one-third
of the states there is now no open season on deer, as they have been
locally exterminated or have become very scarce, while in some states
where adequately protected they are increasing in numbers. So few,
relatively, of the other large mammals of the United States are killed
that their meat is a negligible item in the national bill of fare, though
affording considerable recreation. It is said that the game and fur-
bearing mammals of New York bring to the state an annual income of
$3,200,000, and if capitalized, would be worth $53,000,000 to the state,
while game protection costs but $182,000.* It has been estimated that
the game and other wild life of the whole United States, if capitalized

3 Palmer, Game as a national resource, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1049, 1922.
The value of game as a meat resource is more fully considered in another chapter.
* California Fish and Game, vn, 185, 1921.

86 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

on a basis of 6 per cent, would be worth $1,000,000,000, which led to
the observation that "the conservation of wild animals and birds is not
a mere fad, indulged in by those who have only a sentimental interest
in the subject."5

Adams, in an elaborate table covering the years 1921 to 1925 in-
clusive for all the national forests of the United States, gives the
following figures of 'mammals usually called game animals on all the
national forests in 1925: Antelope, 7568; black bear, 44,326; grizzly,
5593 J caribou, 143 ; deer, 605,964; elk, 72,165 ; moose, 6061 ; mountain
goats, 17,887; mountain sheep, I2,O52.6 Of these animals, in most of
the states only the bear and deer are now to be really considered game
animals, as the hunting of the others is prohibited or they are not to
be found in most of the states.

Of the smaller mammals in North America, rabbits are the only
ones of great importance as part of our food supply, though many
squirrels, raccoons, opossums and others are obtained. It is estimated
that 25,000,000 rabbits are killed annually in the United States, worth,
at twenty cents each, $5,000,000 for their meat,7 while many of their
skins find their way into the market and the hunting of these animals
furnishes recreation to thousands of boys and men. In 1920 there
were short open seasons on rabbits in twenty-three states, mostly east-
ern, with no restrictions elsewhere except the usual hunter's license
requirements. England is said to produce 30,000,000 rabbits annually
and imports a large number from Belgium, but these are largely raised in
confinement, not wild. However, large shipments of wild rabbits are
made to Europe from Australia and New Zealand, where they have
become a serious pest.8

There are people who believe that hunting game animals should
be entirely prohibited, but they are greatly in the minority, usually
not entirely consistent in their views concerning the sacredness of the
lives of the lower animals, and often very much mistaken concerning
the facts of natural history. Without going too much into detail, we
will say that hunting within reasonable limits is both economically and
morally quite proper. If it is proper to kill cattle, hogs, sheep, chickens

6 Nelson, Scientific Monthly (quoted in California Fish and Game, ix, 161, 1923) ;
contains a lot of statistics on game and its value.

8 Adams, The economic and social importance of animals in forestry, with special
reference to wild life, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., in, opposite p. 558, 1926.

1 Palmer, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1049, 1922.

8 Dearborn, Rabbit growing to supplement the meat supply, Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1918, pp. 145-152; Rabbit farming, Farmers' Bull., No. 1090, 1920.

MAMMALS AND THE HUNTER 87

and fish for their flesh, skins and other by-products, it is equally right
to kill wild game for the same purpose. Furthermore, since we have
destroyed many of the natural enemies of game animals — predatory
animals that prey upon the others — unless a certain amount of hunting
be permitted the game animals in some regions, as has been shown by
actual experience, would soon become so abundant as to do great dam-
age to crops. In some cases they perhaps would speedily destroy their
own food supply and possibly become exterminated locally or entirely
extinct through starvation and the diseases that accompany under-
nourishment and the crowding of too many animals into a given area.
Consequently, the course that is approved by all naturalists, whose
business it is to study and understand such matters, is midway between
the two extremes of unrestricted hunting on the one hand and com-
plete protection of wild animals on the other.

XII

DISEASES AND PARASITES OF MAMMALS,
AND POISONING FROM PLANTS

Probably all species of mammals have various diseases and parasites.
Hundreds of books, bulletins, pamphlets and articles in periodicals,
discussing diseases of domesticated mammals, have been published —
far too many to be even listed in this volume, and only a few of the
principal diseases may be mentioned briefly. Also there is an extensive
and much-scattered literature of the diseases and parasites of wild
mammals, only a few items of which may be herein mentioned for
purposes of illustration. Though diseases of domestic stock result in
great economic loss, on the other hand, diseases of certain destructive
wild mammals are sometimes distinctly beneficial to the human race,
because they serve to keep injurious animals in check. The subject of
mammals as disseminators of disease, especially of diseases which af-
fect human beings, is discussed in the next chapter, including rabies, or
hydrophobia, and tularemia, or rabbit fever.

Let us first turn briefly to some serious epidemic and non-epidemic
diseases of domestic stock. In 1915 it was estimated that the total loss
to stock raisers from livestock diseases in the United States amounted
to $212,000,000 annually, the chief diseases being as follows:1

Hog cholera $75,000,000 Contagious abortion $20,000,000

Texas fever 40,000,000 Scabies, cattle and sheep . . . 4,600,000

Tuberculosis 25,000,000 Glanders 5,000,000

Black-leg 6,000,000 Other livestock diseases 22,000,000

Anthrax 1,500,000 Parasites 5,000,000

To this must be added a large but unknown amount of indirect loss
due to the expense of fighting disease, quarantine, etc. In the United
States, in 1915, one percent of all the cattle slaughtered under federal
inspection were infected with tuberculosis, and the meat partly or
wholly condemned. It will be noticed that the greatest loss in the
foregoing list is from hog cholera, upon the study and control of
which large sums of money have been expended for many years, with
great ultimate success, hog-raising being far less hazardous than form-

1 Mitchell, Animal diseases and our food supply, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for
, PP. 159-172.

DISEASES AND PARASITES OF MAMMALS 89

erly.2 The Texas tick-fever, against which quarantine has long been
maintained by some states, is also very serious. Mitchell states that the
suppression of the foot-and-mouth disease in 1914-1915 required the
destruction of 168,158 head of live stock, valued at $5,676,000. It is
difficult to compute or even estimate the large loss from minor diseases
that affect all sorts of domesticated animals, reducing their efficiency or
otherwise lessening their value. Angora goats are subject to the usual
sheep and cattle diseases and to many parasites. In 1880 an epidemic
of pleuro-pneumonia nearly destroyed the Angora goat and mohair in-
dustry of South Africa, with a loss of 40,000 goats before it was
checked.3 The annual loss in Scotland from domestic animal diseases is
placed at nearly $5,000,000, and it is said to be four times as much in
England and Wales.4

In 1912 about two hundred species of insect enemies of domestic
stock were known.5 Some of them cause the death of the animals they
attack, others, though not fatal in their attacks, annoy, weaken and
otherwise damage the stock. "Ticks and mites are among the fore-
most enemies of domestic animals" (Bishopp). For example, the North
American cattle tick transmits splenic or Texas fever among cattle and
one species of mite produces sheep scab, while another is responsible
for mange in cattle.

Various species of gnats and flies are very troublesome to both
domestic and wild mammals, some of them, in addition to direct at-
tacks, being carriers of serious disorders. The damage caused by the
ox-bot, or heel-fly, alone has been estimated at $173,596,895 in I9OO.6
Screwworms, tapeworms, lungworms, liver flukes, lice and many other
invertebrate pests are named among the enemies of the stock-grower.
A calendar showing what pests to guard against during the different
months has been recently issued.7

It has been mentioned that better methods of combating and pre-
venting disease have reduced the hazards of hog-raising. Various other
examples are known. For instance, in 1903, eighteen states were

2 See Hess, Less cholera — more hogs, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1918,
pp. 191-194.

8 Angora goat and mohair industry, Interdepartmental Committee of U. S. Dept.
Agric. and Dept. Commerce, Miscell. Circular No. 50, p. n, 1929.

4 Loss from animal diseases, Science, LV, 507, 1922.

6 Bishopp, Some important insect enemies of live stock in the United States,
Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1912, pp. 383-396.

6 Bishopp, ibid., p. 388.

7 Hall, A calendar of livestock parasites, U. S. Dept. Agric. Miscell. Pub. No. 25,
1928.

QO ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

quarantined for sheep scabies, but in 1915 all but one state and small
portions of two others were free from quarantine. In 1905, ten states
were quarantined for cattle scabies, but in 1915 all but a small por-
tion of one state were free from quarantine.8

Considerable has been learned about the diseases and parasites of
wild mammals in captivity, and, though "some of the morbid condi-
tions described'. . . are peculiar to captivity, yet it seems reasonable to
assume that many of the diseases found in captive animals occur also
in the wild."9 There is increased activity among- fish and game com-
missions in the investigation of diseases and parasites of wild animals
in ferae naturae, at least one state commission, that of California, hav-
ing employed for the purpose experts in pathology, parasitology and
chemistry.10

Though diseases of wild mammals under natural conditions have
not been so fully investigated as have those of domestic stock, it is
known that many of the species are subject to serious diseases, and
probably no species is entirely free from them. Some of the diseases
of domestic stock also affect members of the deer family and wild
species of goats and sheep. Diseases that attack the more useful wild
mammals, as with those that affect domestic stock, may in a general
way be considered detrimental to human interests, but this is not al-
ways or altogether true. Domestic stock, under human control, may be
limited in reproduction and never become too numerous. It is not so
easy to do this with wild mammals. Even useful wild animals, if en-
tirely protected from natural enemies, disease and bad weather, might
increase to such an extent as to become a menace. Deer, usually too
scarce to be harmful, have been known to become so numerous under
protection as to be somewhat destructive to garden and other crops.
However, their numbers are easily reduced by removing restrictions
upon hunting.

A few rabbits are not usually considered particularly destructive,
but under favorable circumstances their natural high fecundity may be
greatly increased and their mortality rate lowered, a larger percentage
of the young reaching the adult stage, whereupon they become a seri-
ous pest. As though to exhibit her wisdom, nature has provided that
in their natural haunts, when rabbits become overabundant, they are
assailed by epidemics that destroy them in large numbers, thus keep-
ing them within reasonable bounds, so that they do not become so

8 Mitchell, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1915, PI. 18, opp. p. 161.
8 Fox, Disease in captive wild mammals and birds, Philadelphia, 1923.
10 California Fish and Game, xv, 135, 1929.

DISEASES AND PARASITES OF MAMMALS QI

numerous as to consume the entire food supply and thus possibly
become exterminated through starvation. The varying hare in Alberta
is said to thus limit its own increase by epidemics about every seven
years, at the period of maximum abundance. The same sort of thing
happens in case of voles and lemmings, whose periods of unusual
abundance are usually ended by epidemics.11 Such epidemics, affecting
only injurious mammals, are of distinct benefit to the human race.

Among diseases of rabbits in captivity are mentioned mange, slob-
bers, snuffles, sore eyes, sore hocks, vent disease, ear canker, and
warbles.12 Tularemia is discussed at some length in the next chapter.
In many wild rabbits are found cysts,13 which injure the meat for food
purposes. Some squirrels are infested with scabies.14 A wildcat in cap-
tivity was infested with intestinal, muscular and pulmonary parasites,
and a white rhinoceros was infested with round worms.15 Foxes on
fox farms are subject to a number of diseases, such as mange, diar-
rhoea, constipation, worms, indigestion, tuberculosis, kidney disease,
intestinal abscesses,16 "fox paratyphoid" and "epizootic fox encepha-
litis."17 The best-conducted fox farms have hospital wards or pens for
the occupancy of the sick foxes.18 The western dog-tick infests not only
dogs, but also sheep, cattle, horses, ground squirrels, and one dead deer
was found to be covered with them.19 One case of diseased tonsils in the
wolf20 is reported, and tuberculosis in marsupials.21

Various members of the deer family are subject to the foot-and-

11 Henderson, A. D., Cycles of abundance and scarcity in certain mammals and
birds, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 264-265, 1923. Innis, The Canada fur trade, p. 90, 1927.
Howell, Periodic fluctuations in the numbers of small mammals, Journ. Mammalogy,
iv, 149-155, 1923. Elton, Periodic fluctuations in the number of animals: Their causes
and effects, British Journ. Exper. BioL, 11, 1924 (quoted by Innis) ; Plague and the
regulation of numbers of wild animals, Journ. Hygiene, xxiv, 138-163, 1925. Soper,
Notes on the snowshoe rabbit, Journ. Mammalogy, u, 101-107, 1921.

"Dearborn, Rabbit raising, U. S. Dept. Agric., Farmers' Bull, No. 1090, pp.
32-34, 1920. DeOng, Parasites which affect the food value of rabbits, California Fish
and Game, i, 142-143, 1914. Schwartz and Snook, Rabbit parasites and diseases,
Farmer's Bull. No. 1568, 1928. Marine, The cure and prevention of ear canker in
rabbits, Science, LX, 158, 1924; see also same volume, pp. 429-430.

13 See, for example, Crawley, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., LXVI, 214-218, 432-436,
1914.

" Bryant, Tree squirrels infested with scabies, California Fish and Game, vn, 128,
1921. Shannon, Gray squirrel disease spreading, Californa Fish and Game, vni, 52,
1922.

13 Fox, Disease in captive mammals and birds, p. 3, 1923.

18 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 41, 43, 45, 67, 1913.

17 Fox distemper being investigated, California Fish and Game, xiv, 232-233,
1928.

18Ashbrook, Fur farming for Profit, pp. 62-65, 1928.

"Wright, Yosemite Nature Notes, vn, No. 5, p. 38; California Fish and Game,
xiv, 252-253, 1928.

20 Scott, Carcinoma of the tonsils in the common wolf (Canis lupus), Proc. Zool.
Soc. London, 1928, Part i, pp. 43-47.

21 Scott, Tuberculosis in marsupials, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1928, pp. 249-256.

92 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

mouth disease,22 which is so disastrous to cattle and sheep, and also to
other diseases.23 Deer are subject to fatal Cephanomyia infestation,24
fatal neck tumors, pinkeye, distemper and various diseases of do-
mestic stock, in addition to the foot-and-mouth disease.25 Along the
California coast many deer are infested with lung-worms, in addition
to at least three other serious parasites which are also found in the
domestic stock of the region.26 A white-tailed deer in captivity was
infested with liver flukes.27 The Yellowstone Park and Jackson Hole
elk are subject to scabies, doubtless introduced by domestic sheep,
and an epizootic disease.28 Caribou are often seriously infested with
warble-fly maggots.29

Skinner says that the pronghorn antelope in Yellowstone Park is
much subject to disease and parasites. Lumpy jaw, which kills deer
and elk, is especially virulent to the pronghorn, and in captivity it suf-
fers with pneumonia, pyemia, congestion of the lungs and ulcers. It
is also afflicted by internal parasites such as affect domesticated goats,
sheep and cattle — tapeworms, stomach worms, whipworms and hair
worms. The embryos of the tapeworm of the coyote, wolf and fox
are found in the pronghorn.30

Diseases and parasites of the muskrat have been discussed by John-
son and Barker.31

Rush32 reports mountain sheep to have been dying of disease in
large numbers in Montana, a pronghorn antelope with ulcerated lungs
and diseased kidneys (diagnosed as miliary tuberculosis), a porcu-
pine and two muskrats with hearts partly atrophied, beaver, muskrats
and mountain sheep with intestinal worms, and so on.

Hornaday discusses, among other things, the caribou disease in
Quebec, mountain sheep scab, lumpy jaw among pronghorned antelope

"Adams. Scientific Monthly, xx, 581, 1925.

23 California Fish and Game, n, 138, 1916.

24 Walker, Cephenomyia sp. killing deer, Science, LXIX, 646-647, 1928.

25 Hall, California Fish and Game, xir, 248-249, 1926. See also Bryant, Investiga-
tions of deer disease in Mendocino County, California Fish and Game, xn, 107-108,
1926.

^California Fish and Game, xv, 135, 164, 1929.

27 Fox, Disease in captive mammals and birds, p. 3, 1923.

28 Skinner, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 309-317, 1928. Murie, An epizootic disease of
elk, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 214-222, 1930.

29 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, p. 67, 1921.

30 Skinner, The American antelope in Yellowstone Park, pp. 19-20.

31 Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin, in, 292-294, 1925. Barker, Journ. Para-
sitology, i, 184-197, 1915; Science, XLII, 570, 1915; XLIII, 208, 1916; Trans. Amer.
Microscopical Soc., xxxv, 175-184, 1916.

32 Rush, Notes on diseases of wild game mammals, Journ. Mammalogy vin 163-
165, 1927.

DISEASES AND PARASITES OF MAMMALS 93

and mountain sheep, the rinderpest, one of Africa's great scourges,
and other diseases.33 According to Roosevelt the rinderpest about forty
years ago almost exterminated the buffalo in Africa.34 Many other
diseases are known among African game mammals.35

A great many, if not all, wild mammals harbor internal parasites.36
Intestinal and stomach worms are very much more common than is
generally realized, even by naturalists who have not made special
studies of the subject. In laboratory dissections of dogs and cats it is
common to find many such organisms, and some wild mammals ex-
amined have been found with stomachs entirely filled with worms. In
addition to the well-known tapeworms, human beings are subject to
many other internal worms. Dixon, in examining many wild mammals,
found that 7.5 per cent of the contents of stomachs of a considerable
number of wildcats, and 10.4 per cent in case of skunks, consisted of
parasitic worms.37 Numerous large stomach worms were found in a
sea-elephant.38

Many of the wild mammals, or all of them, are also afflicted by
external parasites.39 Some of them, such as lice, perhaps do little or
no harm, but some of them, particularly the internal ones, are cer-
tainly very harmful. Some of the species of external parasites, such
as certain ticks, are carriers of fatal diseases. Even those that are not
carriers of disease organisms are very annoying. Roosevelt tells of
the great number of ticks infesting zebras and various large game

33 Hornaday, Our vanishing wild life, pp. 82-87, 1923.

34 Roosevelt, African game trails, p. 288, 1910.

35 Percival, Game and Disease, Journ. East Africa and Uganda Nat. Hist. Soc.,
No. 13, pp. 302-315, 1918.

36 See, for example : Hall, Nematode parasites of mammals of the orders Rodentia,
Lagomorpha and Hyracoidea, Proc. U. S. Natl. Museum, L, 1-258, 1916; A new
nematode, Rictularia splendida, from the coyote, with notes on other coyote para-
sites, ibid., XLVI, 73-84, 1913; A new rabbit cestode, ibid., xxxiv, 691-699, 1908;
A new species of cestode parasite of the dog and the lynx, ibid., xxxix, 139-151, 1910.
Schwartz, A new proliferating larval tapeworm from a porcupine, ibid., LXVI, 1-4,
1924; A new parasitic nematode from an unknown species of bat, ibid., LXXI, 1-4,
1921 ; Description of Ancylostoma pleuridentatum, a hookworm of the carnivores,
ibid., LXXII, 1-9, 1927. Stiles, A revision of the adult tapeworms of hares and rabbits,
ibid., xix, 145-235, 1896. Price, A new nematode from the pronghorned antelope, ibid.,
LXXI, 1-4, 1927. Ransom, The nematodes parasitic in the alimentary tract of cattle,
sheep and other ruminants, U. S. Bureau Animal Industry Bull. No. 127, 1911 (in-
cludes parasites of deer, moose and other wild mammals) ; Hookworms of the genus
Uncinaria of the dog, fox and badger, Proc. U. S. Natl. Museum LXV, 1-5, 1924.
Wislocki, Nematode parasites of the ovaries of the ant-eater, Journ. Mammalogy,
ix, 318-319, 1928. There are numerous other papers discussing parasites of wild
mammals in various parts of the world. Seton, Lives of game animals, 4 vols., 2
parts each, 1929; discusses parasites of many species and diseases of some.

37 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 34-46, 1925.

38 Huey, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 241, 1924.

89 Ferris, Concerning lice, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 16-18, 1922.

94 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

mammals of Africa. Flies, mosquitoes and other insects, though not
parasites in the usual sense of the word, worry both wild and do-
mesticated animals, sometimes to their decided detriment. The tsetse
flies of Africa are disseminators of sleeping sickness, which has
wrought great havoc to human life, as well as that of horses, cattle
and other mammals.40 "It is well known that the presence of certain
biting flies (Glossina) that carry the trypanosome of the nagana dis-
ease, makes the use of horses nearly impossible in certain parts of
Africa," and that "the accidental introduction of the Texas fever, a
tick-borne disease, into South Africa, resulted at one time in the de-
struction of vast numbers of antelope and cattle."41 Of 506 mammals,
belonging to 29 species, in Nigeria, 126 were infested with a total of
1153 ticks and mites, as well as many external insect parasites.42

There are many native plants which are very poisonous to cattle,
horses, sheep, goats and other domestic stock.43 The animals usually
avoid such plants to a great extent except when forage is short, even

40 Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 29, 52, 112, 1910.

41 Allen, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 267, 1923, reviewing Borradaile, The Animal and
its environment, 1923.

42 Pearse, Arachnids found on Nigerian rodents and insectivores, Journ. Elisha
Mitchell Sci. Soc., XLIII, 171-180, 1929; Journ. Mammalogy, x, 270, 1929; Ecology
of the ectoparasites of Nigerian rodents and insectivores, Journ. Mammalogy, x,
229-239, 1929.

43 Chestnut, The principal poisonous plants of the United States, U. S. Dept.
Agric., Division of Botany Bull. No. 20, 1898; Thirty poisonous plants of the United
States, Farmers' Bull. No. 86, 1898 ; Some poisonous plants of the northern stock
ranges, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1900, pp. 305-324. Chestnut and Wilcox,
The stock-poisoning plants of Montana, U. S. Div. Bot. Bull. No. 26, 1901. Craw-
ford, The larkspurs as poisonous plants, U. S. Bureau of Plant Industry Bull. No.
in, Part i, pp. 5-12, 1907; Barium, a cause of the loco-weed disease, ibid., No. 129,
1908; The supposed relationship of white snakeroot to milksickness or "trembles,"
ibid., Bull. No. 121, Part I, pp. 5-20, 1908. Marsh, Stock poisoning due to scarcity
of food, Farmers' Bull. No. 536, 1913; The loco-weed disease of the plains, U. S.
Bureau of Animal Industry Bull. No. 112, 1909; The loco-weed disease, Farmers'
Bull. No. 380, 1909; Stock-poisoning plants of the range, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull.
No. 1245, 1924. Marsh and Clawson, Poisonous properties of the whorled milkweeds,
ibid., No. 942, 1921 ; The death camas species as poisonous plants, ibid., No. 1012,
1922; The woolly-pod milkweed as a poisonous plant, ibid., No. 1212, 1924; The
meadow death camas as a poisonous plant, ibid., No. 1240, 1924; The stock-poison-
ing death camas, Farmers' Bull. No. 1273, 1922; Sleepy grass (Stipa vaseyi) as a
stock-poisoning plant, U. S. Dept. Agric., Technical Bull., No. 114, 1929. Marsh,
Clawson and Marsh, Larkspur, or "poison weed," Farmers' Bull. No. 531, 1913;
Zygadenus, or death camas, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 125, 1915; Larkspur poisoning
of livestock, ibid., No. 365, 1916; Lupines as poisonous plants, ibid., No. 405, 1916.
Marsh, Clawson, Couch, and Marsh, Western sneezeweed (Helenium hoopesii) as a
poisonous plant, ibid., No. 947, 1921. Marsh, Roe and Clawson, Cockleburs as poison-
ous plants, ibid., No. 1274, 1924; Coyotillo (Karwinskia humboldtiana) as a poison-
ous plant, U. S. Dept. Agric., Technical Bull, No. 29, 1928. Marsh, Clawson, Couch
and Eggleston, The whorled milkweed, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 800, 1920.
Poisonous plants injurious to goats, U. S. Dept. Agric. and U. S. Dept. Commerce,
Interdepartmental Angora Goat and Mohair Committee, Miscell. Circular No. 50,
1929.

DISEASES AND. PARASITES OF MAM M^A L S 95

though all the domesticated animals are introduced, not native to the
range in which the plants occur. It is possible that the native mammals,
having developed side by side with the poisonous plants, may be even
more careful to avoid them or in some instances may have established
more or less complete immunity from the poison, but there is not very
definite evidence bearing upon this subject. Some mammals appear to
be immune from poisons which affect others. Thus some squirrels eat
mushrooms which are quite poisonous to human beings.44

44 Odell, Canadian Field Naturalist, xxxix, 180-181, 1925 ; XL, 184, 1926.

XIII
MAMMALS AS DISEASE CARRIERS AND DISSEMINATORS

It has long been known that certain species of mammals are active
agents in the dissemination of serious diseases that afflict the human
race, and that others may be. Sixteen years ago Jones1 published a
list of mammal (and other animal) distributors, with the number and
names of the diseases each was known to disseminate, as follows
(omitting the names of the diseases and of all animals but the mam-
mals) : dog, 9; cow, 12; African antelopes, i ; cat, 5; horse, 5; sheep,
2 ; rat, 3 ; swine, 5 ; goat, 2. Other species are now known as dissemi-
nators and much more is known about methods of transmission. Re-
cently Hull,2 with very much more information at his command, has
published a detailed account of diseases of domesticated mammals
which may be transmitted to man.

The various diseases are transmitted in different ways, such as by
contact, by biting, through meat and milk. It will be noticed that most
of the animals listed by Jones are domesticated species. Naturally the
opportunities for animals that live about human habitations to carry
diseases to human beings are much greater than those of wild animals
that live far from homes and towns. Nevertheless some wild animals
are definitely known to be disseminators and probably many others are,
but of necessity much less is known about the wild animals than about
the domesticated animals under constant observation.

The opportunities for pet dogs and cats to carry diseases are par-
ticularly numerous. They are often permitted to freely enter and leave
the sick-room, are handled by the patient and afterwards perchance
fondled by all the children of the neighborhood. The germs of many
diseases may readily be carried in the hairy coats of household pets
and thus spread through the community. Cats have greater opportuni-
ties to become carriers than have dogs, partly because they are more
decidedly household pets and are more intimately fondled. Every ef-
fort should be made to keep both away from patients suffering from

1 Jones, On certain relations of the lower animals to human diseases, Science,
XLIV, 337-347, 1916.

2 Hull, Diseases transmitted from animals to man. Springfield, Illinois, and Balti-
more, Maryland, 1930.

MAMMALS AS DISEASE CARRIERS 97

diseases which may be transmitted in that way, or to quarantine them
if they have been exposed.

Cats "have been accused or suspected of transmitting more than a
score of infections to man or domestic animals. The diseases named
range from scarlet fever, smallpox and bubonic plaque to whooping
cough, mumps and foot-and-mouth disease. Science has already ac-
quitted the cat in some cases, and future investigation may either con-
firm or deny other allegations. There are some infections, however, re-
garding which the evidence seems conclusive."3 It is one of the chief
carriers of ringworm, transmits various internal and external parasites,
and often transmits various infections by its teeth and claws, including
at least one case of the dreaded tetanus (Forbush). Dogs and cats have
both been recognized as carriers of creeping eruptions.4 Tapeworms
are disseminated by wild Carnivora, and probably by domesticated
species.6

Rabies, more popularly known as hydrophobia, though usually
thought of as a disease of dogs, also affects wolves, foxes6 and other
members of the dog family, domestic cats, mountain lions and other
members of the cat family,7 and is, by their bites while infected, trans-
mitted to cattle, sheep, horses and other domestic stock and to various
wild animals, as well as to human beings. It frequently becomes epi-
demic locally, sometimes over large areas. Because of its terrible re-
sults and the fact that it has become much more prevalent than formerly
in the western United States,8 no effort to stamp it out should be spared.
As dogs have long been the principal carriers of the disease, experience
in Europe has shown that, where such is the case, muzzling all dogs
for a few years would eradicate the disease, and all homeless, owner-

* Forbush, Is the cat a disseminator of disease?, in The domestic cat, Economic
Biology, Bull. No. 2, 1916, Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, pp. 82-87.
See also Osborne, The cat, a neglected factor in sanitary science, Pedagogical
Seminary, xiv, 439-459, 1907 ; The cat and the transmission of disease, Chicago
Medical Recorder, May, 1912. Cohen, System of physiol. therapeutics, v, 144, 340,
1903. Fleming, Animal plagues, their history, nature and prevention, n, 15, 16, 74-77,
80, 89-91., 95, 99, 1882.

4 White and Dove, Dogs and cats concerned in the causation of creeping eruption,
Reprint from Official Record, U. S. Dept. Agric., v, 3, 1926.

8Vergeer, Dissemination of the broad tapeworm by wild Carnivora, Journ.
Canadian Med. Assn., xix, 692-694, 1929.

6 Bryant, Rabies epidemic among gray foxes, California Fish and Game, x, 146-
147, 1924-

7 Forbush, The domestic cat, pp. 85-86, 1916.

8 Buckley, Rabies becoming more prevalent in the United States, Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agric. for 1926, pp. 622-624. Salmon, Rabies : Its cause, frequency and treat-
ment, Yearbook for /poo, pp. 211-246. Hart,. Rabies and its increasing prevalence,
U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry Circular No. 129, 1908.

98 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

less dogs should be destroyed as humanely as is reasonably possible,
for this, as well as for other reasons.

In hydrophobia, prevention centers around the problem of muzzling the dogs.
This has been known for decades, yet the American people prefer to have
5000 persons, mostly children, bitten each year and a hundred or more deaths,
than to subject their dogs to the discomfort of muzzles and to destroy the
stray and worthless curs of the streets.9

Unfortunately, especially in the western United States, coyotes and
other wild animals have become infected, thus complicating the prob-
lem of the control of this disease. As coyotes are very important car-
riers in that region, and are also directly destructive to domestic stock
even when not infected, extensive campaigns against them have often
been necessary. It is reported that during the rabies epidemic among
wild mammals in the West in 1914-1915, $5,000,000 worth of stock
were killed by infected predatory mammals, chiefly coyotes, in one year
in Nevada alone, one rabid coyote having attacked 27 steers in one
feed lot, and 1500 people were bitten by rabid animals.10

Tularemia, or rabbit fever, which has been sometimes locally known
as deer-fly fever, a "debilitating, disabling and frequently fatal disease,"
is serious enough to warrant very careful consideration. It is carried
especially by rabbits, but also by various rodents and other mammals,
as well as by some birds, and is easily transmitted by them to mankind.
Human cases have been recognized in nearly all of the states of the
United States, about five hundred definite cases having been already re-
ported, 4 per cent of which have proved fatal. It is identical with the
Japanese rabbit-borne "O'Hara's disease," and has been recognized also
in Russia and Siberia.11

Most of the human cases were derived directly from handling dis-
eased rabbits, and even the wearing of gloves does not appear to be
an absolute protection, but usually only a small percentage of the rab-
bits in the market are infected. It is said that a sure test of the disease
in rabbits is pin-head white specks on the liver and spleen.12 In addition
to rabbits and hares, several species of ground squirrels, pine squirrels,

9 Jones, On certain relations of the lower animals to human diseases, Science,
XLIV, 337-347, 1916.

10 Bell, Hunting down stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp.
289-301.

11 Simpson, Tularemia, N.Y., 1929 (technical, for physicians, etc.). American
Game (Bull. Amer. Game Protec. Assn.), xvii, 4-5, 1928. Science News Supplement
(in Science), March 8, 1929, p. x; March 22, 1929, p. xiv. California Fish and Game,
xiv, 157-158, 1928; xv, 256, 1929.

12 Barnes, Rabbit fever or tularemia, Scientific Monthly, Nov., 1928, pp. 463-469.

MAMMALS AS DISEASE CARRIERS 99

chipmunks, gophers, muskrats, opossums, cats, porcupines, mice, wood
rats and coyotes have been found definitely susceptible to the disease
in a fatal form, and it probably affects many other mammals, as well as
birds, notably the grouse.13 There seems to be no danger from eating
the flesh of even the diseased rabbits if it be thoroughly cooked.

A mimeographed circular from the United States Biological Survey,
dated January, 1928, says, among other things:

Discovery of tularemia has cleared up many puzzling cases of illness that in
the past have doubtless been wrongly diagnosed as "flu," septic infection,
blood poisoning or other kindred diseases, because of a superficial resemblance
of the symptoms at some stage of the disease. Human cases have been traced
to rabbits or other animals in the locality or to shipments of diseased animals
sold in the public markets. This specific knowledge lays the foundation for
intelligent action in maintaining safeguards and in protecting the public in the
use of important game animals.

The United States Public Health Service has been especially active
in the investigation of tularemia and has published many important
papers on the subject.14 Many other papers not cited herein may be
found scattered through the periodical literature of recent date.

Various other diseases are known to be disseminated by certain spe-
cies of wild mammals. A notable example is the terrible bubonic plague,
or "black death," which has ravaged various parts of the world at
intervals from a remote date down to the present generation. The
disease is transmitted by the bites of fleas that infest certain species of
rodents, chief of which is the widely distributed brown house rat,
though ground squirrels15 and other rodents also are definitely known

"Mease, Tularemia from opossums, Journ. Amer. Med. Assn., xcn, 1042, 1929.
Schwartz, Tularemia from a muskrat, ibid., pp. 1180-1181, 1929. Murray, The possi-
bility of tularemia in the ruffed grouse, The Auk, XLVI, iio-m, 1929, citing Green
and Wade, Tularemia in birds, Journ. Amer. Med. Assn., May 26, 1928, and Proc.
Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med., April, 1928. Green, The problem of tularemia in game
birds, American Game, xvn, 80, 1928.

14 Dieter, A case of tularaemia in a laboratory worker, Public Health Report,
July 2, 1926, pp. I355-I357- Perry, Tularaemia among meadow mice (Microtus
californicus aestuarinus) in California, ibid., Feb. 3, 1928, pp. 260-263. Parker and
Francis, The susceptibility of the coyote (Canis lestes) to tularaema, ibid., July 9,
1926, pp. 1407-1410. Parker and Spencer, Hereditary transmission of tularaemia in-
fection by the wood tick, Dermacenter andersoni Stiles, ibid., July 9, 1926, pp. 1403-
1407 ; Six additional cases of laboratory infection of tularaemia in man, ibid., July
2, 1926, pp. 1341-1355. Francis and Evans, Agglutination, cross-agglutination and
agglutinin absorption in tularaemia, ibid., June 25, 1926, pp. 1273-1295. Freese, Lake
and Francis, Four cases of tularaemia (three fatal) with conjunctivitis, ibid., Feb. 26,
1926, pp. 367-372. Anonymous, Seasonal incidence of tularaemia and sources of in-
fection, ibid., Dec. 2, 1927, pp. 2948-2951. Francis, Mayne and Lake, Tularaemia
Francis 1921, a new disease of man, eight papers, Hygienic Laboratory, U. S. Pub.
Health Serv. Bull. No. 130, 1922.

^Merriam, The California ground squirrels, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No. 76,
p. 6, 1910.

IOO ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

to be disseminators in some localities. It will be recalled that not many
years ago this plague appeared at different times in New Orleans, Seattle
and San Francisco, and was checked by prompt, effective campaigns
against rats and in one case against ground squirrels also. In the San
Francisco campaign 278,000 rats were captured in four months and
it was estimated that 500,000 more were poisoned.16 Lantz says that
the house rat is responsible for more deaths among human beings than
are all the wars of history, because of its relation to bubonic plague,
which in the fourteenth century destroyed from two-thirds to three-
fourths of the population of large areas in Europe — 25,000,000 people
— and since 1896 has killed 9,000,000 people in India alone, 1,200,000
in I9O7.17 So active is the rat as a disseminator of plague that it has
been proposed to "build out the plague" by building out the rats through
the use of concrete, metal and the like in the construction of buildings.18

The spotted fever, or "tick fever," of the Rocky Mountain region,
especially virulent in portions of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, rapidly
increasing in Colorado, is transmitted to human beings by the bites of
wood ticks which have become infected through first biting infected
mammals of some sort. The adult ticks have been found on mountain
goats, coyotes, badgers, wood rats, mice, woodchucks, snowshoe rab-
bits and bears, but are more frequently found on domestic stock;19
hence many mammals aid in the spread of the disease by harboring
the ticks. Domestic sheep are excellent collectors of ticks, which easily
lodge in their wool. It has been thought by some that they could be used
effectively to collect the ticks and make possible their destruction by
frequently "dipping" the sheep. It does not seem to be very practicable,
as some of the most favorable localities for ticks are not favorable to
sheep and sheep cannot be long run in numbers over the same pasturage
used for cattle and horses.20

It is generally known that trichiniasis is transmitted to human be-
ings by means of under-cooked pork. The sleeping sickness in Africa
is transmitted from antelopes, dogs and monkeys to man by the tsetse

16 Forbush, Rats and rat riddance, Massachusetts Board of Agric., Economic
Biol. Bull. No. i, 1915.

17 Lantz, The house rat : The most destructive animal in the world, Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 235-251 ; The brown rat in the United States, U. S.
Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 33, 1909. See also Taylor, Science, XLVI, 124-125, 1917.

18 Technical World Magazine, Nov., 1912, pp. 269-273.

19Birdseye, Some common mammals of western Montana in relation to agricul-
ture and spotted fever, U. S. Dept. Agric., Farmers' Bull. No. 484, 1912.

20 See Wood, Experiments in the use of sheep in the eradication of the Rocky
Mountain spotted fever tick, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 45, 1913.

MAMMALS AS DISEASE CARRIERS IOI

fly. Malta fever is spread by the milk of goats and other diseases by the
milk of cows. These are but a few of many instances that might be
mentioned of lower mammals that are carriers or hosts of diseases that
attack human beings. Many are already known, and the investigation
of this important and interesting subject is still in its infancy. Carrion-
feeders, such as coyotes, are especially likely to spread diseases of
livestock, but there is not as yet at hand as much definite evidence on
that subject as is desirable. It seems almost needless to mention the
obvious cases of transmission of disease from one mammal to another
of the same species, this being the most common type of carrier. Rats
and mice, running about in all sorts of places and "tracking" filth of
various-kinds over stores of human food, are potential carriers of many
serious diseases, which adds another to the reasons for their control by
rigorous methods.

XIV
MAMMALS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN BEINGS1

The inhabitants of Europe, America and Australasia are fortunate
as compared with those of some portions of Asia and Africa, so far
as dangerous mammals are concerned. We read that in one year ( 1910) ,
in India alone, 2138 persons were killed by wild mammals, as follows:
By tigers, 882; leopards, 366; wolves and bears, 428; elephants and
hyaenas, 77; wild pigs, 51; buffaloes, 16; wild dogs, 24; unspecified,
220. 2 Other portions of Asia could add largely to the list.

We have at hand no figures for any part of Africa, but the literature
of exploration, hunting trips and the settlement of Africa is filled
with accounts of attacks of the larger mammals upon people, and the
total mortality from this cause must be very large. Roosevelt lists four
mammals of Africa as especially dangerous, and says: "During the
last few decades, in Africa, hundreds of white hunters and thousands
of native hunters have been killed or wounded by lions, buffaloes, ele-
phants and rhinos" (rhinoceroses).3 It must not be inferred from this
statement that only hunters have been killed or that the animals named
are the only ones that are dangerous. Such is far from the case. The
hippopotamus often upsets boats and destroys the native occupants.
Though the leopard does not often attack humans, it sometimes does,
and Roosevelt mentions one that killed seven boys before the hunters
could get it. Various writers assert that the hyaena enters native huts
and kills children and even attacks sleeping adults.4

The lions and tigers are not all man-eaters, or the destruction of
human life by them would be much greater, but their great size and
strength and the uncertainty as to when one may acquire the taste for
human blood make them all a potential menace. A remarkable account
has been published of two man-eating lions in Africa that waged war
upon a railroad construction gang for nine months before they were

1 In this chapter we consider only those large mammals that directly attack
human beings. Danger from mammalian disease carriers is considered in another
chapter.

2 Science, xxxvn, 938, 1913. See also Amer. Nat., xxxi, 77-78, 1897.

3 Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 58-59, 62, 243, 1910.

4 Roosevelt, ibid., p. 59. Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 42,
1910. Ingersoll, The life of animals, p. 161, 1907.

1 02

MAMMALS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN BEINGS IC>3

killed. They stopped construction for three weeks, the workmen having
fled from the scene in dismay. The two "devoured between them no less
than twenty-eight Indian coolies, in addition to scores of unfortunate
African natives of whom no official record was kept."5

The large mammals of North America are not ordinarily dangerous,
and seldom is anyone injured except by a wounded individual or one
that considers itself or its young in danger. However, as there are not
wholly wanting rare instances of apparently unprovoked attacks, it is
not safe to depend upon that general rule. There is considerable indi-
viduality in four-footed mammals, just as there is among men and
women. Furthermore, they may sometimes imagine they are being
attacked when they are not in any danger. Extreme hunger also may
impel them to attack people.

It is very seldom that mountain lions have been known to attack
human beings except when they were being pursued,6 but there is at
least one recent instance of one of these great cats killing a boy in
eastern Washington, apparently without the slightest provocation,
springing upon him unaware.7 Concerning this case Bryant says:
'Those seeking dependable information have sought authentic instances
of the killing of human beings by mountain lions, with largely negative
results. This is apparently one of the first instances to be recorded of
an attack of this kind. This report should not lead people to believe
that the mountain lion is a dangerous animal. It should be remembered
that the common domestic dog claims many more victims annually than
mountain lions, and one of the safest places to live is in mountain dis-
tricts where mountain lions are abundant."8 This is largely true, and
yet the fact that such a thing did occur is sufficient evidence that such
a powerful beast must not be considered harmless, especially to chil-
dren. There is another report of the killing of a seven-year-old boy in
California by a mountain lion. In another California case, a lion at-
tacked and badly wounded a boy, as well as a girl who rushed to his
rescue, and it was killed by a man who rushed to the scene with a rifle.
Both victims died, the girl with a clear case of hydrophobia and the boy
probably from the same cause.9 It is well known that for years there has

"Patterson, The lions that stopped a railroad, World's Work, Nov., 1908, and
Jan., 1909, pp. 10895-10906, 11147-11158.

* Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 42, 1921. Roosevelt, With the cougar
hounds, Scribner's Magazine, xxx, 431-432, 1921.

7 Finley, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 197-199, 1925.

8 Bryant, California Fish and Game, vi, 89-90, 1925.

9 Morgan Hill Times, July 9, 1909. Storer, California Fish and Game, ix, 45-
48, 1923.

IO4 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

been considerable hydrophobia among wild animals of the western
states. A mountain lion in Venezuela started toward a man with every
apparent intention of an attack, but was shot before he actually made
the attack.10

There were many casualties among the hunters of the American
bison when they were still roaming the plains in great herds, but those
attacks were plainly due to the fact that the bison were being pursued
and shot at. They were fighting in self defense. The African buffalo
is said to be much more dangerous than the American bison. Domestic
bulls injure and kill more people in North America than do all the
beasts of prey. Occasionally a child is killed by a dog. The domestic
horse has been called "the most dangerous animal." When horses were
in more general use than now, there were annually many deaths and
serious injuries to human beings caused by runaway and kicking horses.
The high mortality rate was not due to the viciousness of horses in
general, and seldom due to real viciousness of the particular animals
that did the damage. It was due to the great number of horses being
constantly handled by people, many of whom were careless or incom-
petent, and many horses are nervous and easily frightened by unusual
sounds or sights that they cannot understand.

The members of the deer family, including the reindeer, are inclined
to be vicious during the breeding season, and in captivity they have been
known to attack and injure or kill their keepers.

Wolves in the United States have not been considered dangerous
to human beings, but when hungry they would almost certainly attack
a young, unprotected child, if they had a chance. In Siberia and some
other countries they are said to often attack travelers, and as they hunt
in packs they are dangerous.11

Our black bears seldom, if ever, attack men without provocation,
but the grizzly is generally believed to sometimes attack without any
good reason.12 Many writers call it a dangerous animal, and stories are
told of bold attacks upon men, most of which, however, were hunters
who were attacking or attempting to kill the bears. Mr. Skinner, well-
known Yellowstone Park naturalist, contends that even grizzlies are
"harmless if let alone." Occasionally a park bear becomes cross and
dangerous. He tells of a grizzly that killed a Montana rancher who had

10Osgopd, Journ. Mammalogy, i, 240-241, 1920.

11 Coupin, Animals that hunt, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1903, pp. 567-573.

12 See Henshaw, Kept. Chief of Engineers, U. S. Dept. War, 1876, Part 3, p. 528.

MAMMALS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN BEINGS IO5

caught it in a trap and was trying to kill it.13 An alleged "unprovoked"
attack of a "brown" bear upon two hunters in Yukon Territory oc-
curred when the hunters, with dogs, were approaching the carcass of a
moose upon which the bear was feeding, and which the big animal
naturally did not choose to give up without a struggle.14 Baboons,
gorillas and orang-outangs are accused of attacking and injuring or
killing people, a subject discussed in a subsequent section on primates.

M Skinner, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 53, 1923.

14 Bonebrake, Journ. Mammalogy, m, 185-186, 1922. Grinnell, ibid., iv, 52-53, 1923.
Sheldon, ibid., pp. 51-52.

XV
THE RELATION OF MAMMALS TO FIRE HAZARD

Fire chiefs and insurance adjusters agree that fires are not infre-
quently caused by the work of rodents, particularly the brown house
rat. In many cases this is suspected, but there are not lacking instances
in which the proof seems quite conclusive. Matches are often dipped in
paraffin by the manufacturers to protect the phosphorus, before being
placed on the market. Rats, attracted by the paraffin, carry the matches
under the floors or to their nests and there gnaw them.1 In a London
museum was once exhibited a partly burned rat's nest in which the fire
was caused by the rat gnawing a match that it was working into the
nest, thus nearly setting fire to H.M.S. Revenge. A fire in the Sultan's
palace at Scutari, Asia Minor, some years ago, had a similar origin, and
there are many other known and a multitude of suspected instances.

Fires in mills and warehouses, particularly cotton mills, are said to
have often resulted from spontaneous ignition of oily rags or waste
carried into the walls or beneath the floors by rats. In some instances
fires have been caused by the accidental ignition of gas from leaky lead
gas mains, the leaks being the result of gnawing by rats. Many other
leaks from the same cause have fortunately been discovered without
the gas having ignited, showing that this is a real fire hazard where
lead pipes are used in buildings to which rats have access. More numer-
ous still are fires caused by rats in gnawing the insulation from electric
light and power wires beneath floors and within partitions. The loss
from fires attributed to defective insulation of electric wires in the
United States has been estimated at $15,000,000 per annum, a great deal
of which may have been the work of rats and mice.

As heaps of inflammable rubbish in non-fireproof buildings are every-
where recognized as a fire hazard, it is not at all impossible that fires in
country and mountain homes may have been caused by the nest-building
operations of wood rats, and especially the "pack rat" of the Rocky
Mountains. Dead timber, especially where there are accumulations of
the finer twigs and small branches, is a fire hazard in forest areas, as

1 See Lantz, The brown rat in the United States, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 33,
pp. 27-28, 1909.

1 06

RELATION OF MAMMALS TO FIRE HAZARD IO/

it is much easier for fires to originate from lightning or from the care-
less handling of matches and cigarette stubs in such places than in clean,
open forests, free from dead brush and wood. Nests of rodents pro-
vide such accumulations of twigs, grass and other debris.

While some mammals may increase fire hazards in forest areas, on
the other hand Angora goats lessen fire hazard by clearing out under-
brush. In California they have been utilized in keeping clear of weeds
the "fire-breaks" or long lanes from which the timber has been re-
moved along the crests of ridges in order to prevent the spread of forest
fires, and to make it easier to bring the fires under control. The cost of
keeping the lanes free from weeds and grasses which in dry seasons
become very inflammable is considerable.2

2 Heller, The Angora goat, Farmers' Bull. No. 573, p. 4, 1914.

XVI

THE RELATION OF MAMMALS TO SOIL TURNOVER,
EROSION, DAMS, DIKES, RESERVOIRS, CANALS

The activity of earthworms in moving soil, continually bringing
fresh soil to the surface, has long been known and much discussed.
That burrowing mammals move considerable soil is also very apparent
to the most casual observer of outdoor phenomena, but it has not been
so much discussed, and the enormity of mammalian activity in this
direction and its results are but little realized. It affects soil fertility,
water conservation, water run-off, growth of vegetation and erosion.
Grinnell1 estimates that a single group of rodents, the gophers, in Yo-
semite Park alone raise 8000 tons of earth an average height of eight
inches per annum. Extend this to include the whole world and add to
it the quantity moved by all other burrowing animals the world over,
such as moles, rats, mice, squirrels, rabbits, prairie-dogs, badgers and
a multitude of others, then multiply the result by the thousands of years
during which such burrowing has been in progress, and the total would
run far up into millions of tons. Moles observed in captivity made 1252
pits in 65 days, a daily average of ig.2 White-footed mouse (Peromys-
cus polionotus) mounds are very large for so small a species, some of
the burrows being a foot deep and some of the mounds containing sev-
eral cupfuls of soil.3

The burrowing helps to aerate the soil, and the soil brought to the
surface is subjected to more rapid weathering, thus releasing minerals
needed by the plants. The freshly exposed soil buries portions of the
surface vegetation, which decomposes and helps to enrich and mellow
the soil. The loosening of the soil on pasture ground that is not stirred
by the plow to some extent serves to counteract the packing of soil due
to the trampling of livestock, admitting to the soil the air essential to
plant growth. The loosened soil more readily absorbs moisture from

1 Grinnell, The burrowing rodents of California as agents in soil formation,
Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 137-149, 1923; reprinted in Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for
1923, PP- 339-350- Henderson, Geology in its relation to landscape, pp. 135-137, 1925.

2Hisaw, Observations on the burrowing habits of moles (Scalopus aquaticus
machrinoides), Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 79-88, 1923.

3 Sumner and Karol, Notes on the burrowing habits of Peromyscus polionotus
Journ. Mammalogy, x, 213-215, 1929.

108

MAMMALS AND SOIL TURNOVER IOO,

rainfall, which is very important in arid and semi-arid regions. In this
way the work of burrowing mammals compensates for some of the
damage they do to crops. On the other hand, the burrows of some of
the larger species, such as prairie-dogs, badgers and the like often cause
injuries to horses and riders on the western cattle and sheep ranges, and
the ridges and mounds of moles and gophers are a serious detriment to
lawns, gardens and some fields. Furthermore, the loosening of the soil
promotes erosion, which may be serious on steep slopes but little pro-
tected by vegetation.

The burrows of rats, muskrats, beavers, gophers and other mammals
of ten. damage earthen embankments, reservoir dams, dikes and canal
banks, weakening them, causing leaks and sometimes resulting in flood-
ing the adjacent lands. It is said that the American muskrat, intro-
duced into Europe, is endangering whole systems of waterways.4 Beav-
ers often flood fields and roads by building their dams across streams,
thus backing up the water until it overflows This is usually detrimental
to human interests, but not always so. By turning waste lands into
ponds, lakes and swamps, they may sometimes provide reservoirs to
detain storm waters, retard run-off, and thus lessen damage by floods,
as well as providing quiet pools where trout and other fish fry may
acquire sufficient size and strength to enable them to safely enter swift
streams.

The biological and environmental interrelations in nature are ex-
tremely complicated. It may be that the stirring and aeration of the
soil by burrowing mammals are very important, if not necessary, to
the thrift of certain kinds of plants. It is well known that some species
of plants are at their best only on soil which has been recently dis-
turbed by the plow or otherwise. It is also certain that chemical and
bacterial characteristics of the soil have a large influence upon plant
growth. A thorough study of the influence of the disturbance and
aeration of the soil by burrowing animals upon soil bacteria and chemi-
cal reactions might prove very fascinating and perhaps fruitful.

The erosion and destruction that follows forest fires and excessive
lumbering operations6 is observed also to follow overgrazing. In re-
gions where slopes are steep, covered with loose soil, rainfall light, but
consisting of occasional heavy downpours, the destruction of the scant
vegetation in many localities has resulted in very rapid erosion and

4Aherns, Muskrats in central Europe, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 236-237, 1921.
"Glenn, Denudation and erosion in the southern Appalachian Region and the
Monongahela Basin, U. S. Geol. Surv. Professional Paper No. 72, 1911.

IIO ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

denudation of the hillsides, the transported debris covering and injur-
ing or destroying fields and pastures in the valleys. The storm waters,
no longer held in check by the loose soil and vegetation, rush down the
slopes and produce disastrous floods where they were formerly un-
known. The partial restoration of original range conditions by the re-
moval of sheep has resulted soon in lessening the violence of floods.
Erosion and floods due to overgrazing in the Manti Forest before it
was made a national forest, caused damage to the extent of $225,000,
while on Sevier River, Utah, sediments derived from erosion due to
overgrazing covered and were estimated in 1916 to have damaged farm
lands to the extent of $i5o,ooo.6 These are but illustrative examples
out of many such instances now known.

Botanists observe that when the virgin prairie surface is disturbed
by plowing, or in the construction of roads and the like, weeds at once
spring up in the loosened soil, where only grass grew when it was com-
pact. Thus on western plains the graded roadsides are often soon lined
with a thick growth of sunflowers, "snow-on-the-mountain" and other
plants that do not ordinarily invade the undisturbed soil except here
and there as single plants or small clusters. Where prairie sod has been
plowed and the fields then abandoned they are soon covered with a
dense growth of sunflowers and other weeds. A similar result has been
observed to follow the destruction of the original vegetative cover by
overgrazing and excessive trampling of the soil by large flocks of
sheep or herds of cattle, even on slopes not steep enough for serious
erosion to occur, "useless weeds" being substituted for the original
vegetation.7 The inevitable result of excessive overgrazing on the plains
of the Rocky Mountain states is so to reduce the forage that the range
will not support even sheep. In the national forests of the mountains,
where precipitation is much greater and consequently the effects of
overgrazing not so extreme, it has been found necessary to provide, in

6 Reynolds, Grazing and floods : A study of conditions in the Manti National
Forest, U. S. Forest Service Bull. No. 9, 1911. Dana, Farms, floods and erosion,
Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1916, pp. 107-134. Cottam, Man as a biotic factor il-
lustrated by recent floristic and physiographic changes at the Mountain Meadows,
Washington County, Utah, Ecology, x, 361-363, 1929. Forsling, A study of the influ-
ence of herbaceous plant cover on surface run-off and soil erosion in relation to
grazing on the Wasatch Plateau in Utah, U. S. Dept. Agric. Technical Bull. No. 220,
I93i.

7 Colville, Forest growth and sheep grazing in the Cascade Mountains of Ore-
gon, U. S. Div. Forestry Bull. No. 15, 1898. Shreve, Changes in desert vegetation,
Ecology, x, 364-373, 1929. Campbell, Vegetative succession in the Prosopis sand
dunes of southern New Mexico, Ecology, x, 393-398, 1929. Jardine and Forsling,
Range and cattle management during drought, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1031,
1922.

MAMMALS AND SOIL TURNOVER III

the grazing permits, for the restriction of the number of animals al-
lowed in each area, and for the more or less continual movement of
sheep, so that they may not be grazed and bedded too long in one lo-
cality.

In the semi-arid southwestern states many streams which flowed
in very shallow channels when settlers first entered the region, have
since become deeply entrenched in the alluvium, with vertical walls.
Large cottonwoods and willows which lined some of the streams have
died because they were left on the high, dry banks where their shallow
roots no longer reach the water line. Swamps and ponds which occu-
pied some of the valleys and aided in retarding run-off have been de-
stroyed by the establishment of more complete drainage through the
deep, narrow channels. These changes have by some writers been at-
tributed to a very recent change in climate, which is not consistent with
the facts. The evidence seems to point to more rapid run-off of storm
waters, resulting from the removal of the vegetative cover by over-
grazing, as the probable cause in many or most cases.8 Run-off has been
accelerated by trails worn by cattle and sheep in going to and from
water and feeding grounds, the trails providing small channels of least
resistance and thus concentrating the sheet flow during and after storms
into numerous tiny rivulets. However, the trails of themselves could
not have produced such general and pronounced trenching as is found
in the Southwest. There were numerous bison trails on the Great Plains
when white settlers arrived, which had been traveled by those animals
for centuries, and they had produced only very local erosion, but the
bison herds moved about freely and made long migrations, not grazing
in one locality long enough to seriously reduce the vegetative cover.

"Rich, Recent stream trenching in the desert of southwestern New Mexico — a
result of removal of vegetative cover, Amer. Journ. Sci., 4th series, xxxu, 237-
245, 1911; abstract, Ann. Assn. Amer. Geographers, i, 135, 1911. Duce, The effect
of cattle on the erosion of canyon bottoms, Science, XL, 450-452, 1918. Reagan,
Recent changes in the plateau region, Science, LX, 283-285, 1924. Bryan, Date of
channel trenching (arroya cutting) in the arid Southwest, Science, LXII, 338-344,
1925 ; with a great deal of evidence as to dates of cutting and citation of numerous
publications.

XVII

THE INFLUENCE OF WILD MAMMALS IN THE EXPLORA-
TION AND SETTLEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA
AND UPON HISTORY

Probably wild mammals have figured largely in the early human oc-
cupancy and exploration of many lands, but perhaps nowhere has that
influence been more profound and obvious than in North America,
especially that portion lying north of the latitude of St. Louis. The
value of wild mammals as a source of food for exploring expeditions
was brought to fleeting public attention by the popular accounts of a
somewhat recent expedition to Africa, when an ex-president of the
United States and his son furnished a large part of the food of the
entire safari of more than one hundred men from the game that fell
before their rifles.1 How many readers of those accounts connected that
idea with the early history of the United States and Canada? Though-
out this vast region, the meat of wild animals of the virgin forests,
plains and mountains provided the trappers, traders and explorers with
abundant food, the skins furnished them with warm clothing and tem-
porary shelter to protect them from storms until they could establish
habitations. The stories brought back by the explorers and trappers
stimulated permanent settlers to push back the frontiers, and mam-
mals furnished them, too, with food, raiment and shelter until they
could build cabins, clear land and plant and harvest their first crops.

It has been said that "the most important fact in American history
is the beaver." In a certain sense this is true. Until rather recently the
beaver, because of its size, excellence, general distribution, abundance
and gregarious habits, was the center of the fur trade of America, and
the trappers and traders connected with that ancient industry led the
way into the wilderness and "blazed the trails" for the settlers who fol-
lowed far behind.2 A large number of other fur-bearing mammals con-
tributed to the lure that led the trappers and traders to leave the estab-
lished settlements and proceed, alone or in small groups, into the un-
known wilderness, confident that the game of the solitudes would

1 Roosevelt, African game trails, 1910.

2 Vandiver, The fur trade and early exploration, Cleveland, 1929. Dale, Ashley-
Smith Exploration, Cleveland, 1918. See also books cited in footnotes of Chap. ix.

112

INFLUENCE OF WILD MAMMALS ON HISTORY 113

provide them with sufficient food. There were no places in the un-
explored regions where they could purchase food, clothing and ammu-
nition, no railroads or other transportation systems to carry their sup-
plies far from their base for long trips or lengthy stays. The earliest
settlements in the West and Northwest were built up about the fur-
trading posts, some of which finally developed into large and important
cities.

Fur traders are believed to have visited the present site of St. Paul
as early as 1658. LaSalle mentioned the place in 1682 and Carver de-
scribed it in 1766. French traders founded St. Louis in 1764, and for a
century it was one of the great centers of the fur trade. In 1804, when
the first government exploring expedition, under Captains Lewis and
Clark, started up the Missouri River, that stream was already known
to the trappers and traders as far northwest as the present state of
Montana, where tributary streams and other topographic features of
the country had been named by French voyageurs. Astoria, near the
mouth of the Columbia River, was founded as a fur-trading post in
1811.

The early history of the vast plains and rugged mountains of western
and central North America is almost entirely a history of the fur trade.
The trappers of the various St. Louis companies preceded Fremont,
Long, and all other explorers into the Rocky Mountains. Before Fre-
mont crossed the continental divide a trapper's rendezvous had been
held at Bear Lake, in southern Idaho, trappers coming in from various
directions to trade their pelts for supplies. Through battles between rival
groups of trappers and traders, occasional hostilities of Indians and
other hazards of life in the wild, unsettled region, some companies are
said to have lost 40 per cent of their men in a single year.

Various exploring expeditions in western United States were also
partly dependent upon wild animals for food and clothing. Some of
them employed hunters, whose business it was each day to set forth in
the search for game. This is true to some extent of all the early expe-
ditions— Lewis and Clark, Fremont, Long, Pacific Railway, King,
Powell, Wheeler and Hayden Surveys.

In British America the early fur trade was as important as in the
territory now constituting the United States, if not more important.
The Hudson Bay Company was given almost absolute jurisdiction over
the vast Hudson Bay region, and for two centuries dominated a terri-
tory as large as the United States in the interests of the fur trade. Its

114 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

agents reached the Arctic Circle thirty years before anyone had crossed
the territory now embraced within the United States. MacKenzie in
1789 reached the river that bears his name and explored it from Great
Slave Lake to the Arctic Ocean. He was the first white man to cross
the Rocky Mountains, and reached the Pacific Ocean in 1793.

Alaska, too, owed its early exploration and settlement to the fur
trade, which is still a very important industry in that region. Early
Arctic expeditions were dependent upon the walrus, polar bear and
other Arctic mammals for food, before the modern development of
the art of condensing and preserving food made it possible for expedi-
tions to carry provisions for a long voyage. Wherever one turns in the
early history of the northern two-thirds of the continent, one sees in
game and fur-bearing mammals two of the very important factors in
its exploration and settlement.

Whales and the whaling and related industries also played a promi-
nent part in the early exploration and history of North America, a
subject discussed more at length in Chapter vi. Whaling vessels ex-
plored the then unknown coasts of the continent, discovered many bays,
inlets, harbors, rivers and islands, carried the American flag for the
first time into various foreign ports, and furnished hardy, experienced
seamen for our naval vessels, notably in the War of 1812. The fur trade
was mixed up in the Oregon boundary dispute which led to talk of war
between the United States and Great Britain during the "54° 40' or
fight" campaign, but the trouble was settled by the treaty of 1846.
Again the fur trade caused war clouds to float on the political horizon
during the dispute over the North Pacific fur-seal fishery, finally set-
tled by arbitration and treaties between the United States, Great Britain
and Japan.

XVIII
MAMMALS AS SCAVENGERS

Many mammals live to some extent upon carrion and other waste
and decomposing material, and are therefore somewhat beneficial be-
cause of that repulsive habit, but it is doubtful whether the total result
of their activities in that line is of much consequence, though the aggre-
gate amount of re fuse consumed by all the species must be large. Among
birds, such species as the gulls, gathering in great flocks about harbors,
garbage dumps, salmon canneries, etc., and feeding upon the refuse,
doubtless do much good. Perhaps there is among mammals no parallel
to this example. Vultures, crows and other birds feed upon carcasses
and pick up much other material which, if unconsumed, would putrify,
and they probably do some good in that way, but no more than is done
by various mammals of like habit.

Every western rancher is well aware that coyotes consume great
quantities of carrion, and they take advantage of this knowledge by
inserting poison into the carcasses of cattle, horses and sheep in order
to destroy the coyotes. The scarcity of vultures ("buzzards5') in many
localities where they were once abundant is due to the eating of poisoned
meat prepared for coyotes. Dixon examined many coyote stomachs and
discovered that 50 per cent of all the flesh of livestock contained there-
in, 25 per cent of the flesh of game and 12.5 per cent of the flesh of
rodents was carrion.

Visitors to Yellowstone Park watch the bears gather about the
garbage dumps, feeding upon the refuse from the camps and hotel
kitchens and poking around the garbage cans in the camps to see what
they can find that is eatable, however unsavory it may seem to the
human occupants of the camps. They are sometimes found eating car-
casses of deer or livestock killed by mountain lions or wolves, and
wrongfully accused of having themselves killed the victims, though
they do not hesitate about killing animals when they are hungry and
have the opportunity. This is especially true of the grizzly.

The house rats and mice and many other species of rodents feed to a
considerable extent upon refuse and garbage. Hyaenas are notorious
scavengers, even entering the villages in search of garbage, though they

Il6 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

also kill other animals and even children.1 The wolverene is both hunter
and scavenger, a great scourge to the trapper, following the trap lines
and voraciously devouring the animals caught therein, for which reason
it is often called the glutton.2

1 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 39, 1910.

2 Fry, The wolverene, California Fish and Game, ix, 129-134, 1923. Bailey, N.
Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 178, 1926.

XIX
MAMMALS AS ENEMIES OF OTHER MAMMALS

That certain species of mammals habitually prey upon other mam-
mals is a matter of common knowledge, reflected in the popular group
apellation of the larger species — "beasts of prey." The mammalian
enemies of domestic stock have been considered in Chapter vn, in rela-
tion tp Damage to the Human Food Supply by Mammals.

All members of the cat family (Felidae) are flesh-eaters, many of
them almost exclusively so, and mostly subsisting upon the flesh of
mammals and birds killed by themselves. They destroy a vast number
of mammals of many kinds. Domestic cats kill many house mice, a few
of them attack rats, and they often destroy squirrels and other small
mammals. Mountain lions are special enemies of deer and also kill
many of the small mammals, as well as domestic stock, particularly
colts. Jaguars kill many mammals, big and little, including men. Lynxes
and wildcats (bobcats) destroy many rabbits and other small mammals,
chiefly rodents.1 There are very few large African mammals that the
lion will not attack and conquer, but, where available, the zebra is its
favorite prey. Tigers and leopards destroy many kinds of mammals,
large and small.

The members of the dog family (Canidae) also subsist largely upon
flesh, but take a larger average percentage of other food than do the
Felidae. Coyotes destroy large numbers of rabbits, prairie-dogs, ground
squirrels, mice and so forth, but unfortunately raid sheep and calf pens.
The larger wolves are destructive to livestock and deer, but do not dis-
dain various smaller wild mammals, even consuming many mice where
those rodents are abundant.2 Their size and habit of hunting in packs,
especially in northern Europe, make them formidable foes. Damage by
predacious mammals to domestic stock in the United States is esti-
mated at $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 annually, chiefly cattle and sheep.3

1 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, p. 79, 1890. Bailey, ibid., No. 49, p. 149, 1926 ;
Farmers' Bull., No. 335, 1908. Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 36-38, 1925.

2 Johnson, A note on the habits of the timber wolf, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 11-15,
1921. Bailey, Destruction of deer by the northern timber wolf, U. S. Biol. Suru.,
Circular, No. 58, 1907. Bell, Wolves, coyotes, take big toll from stockmen, Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1926, pp. 774-776.

'Bell, Hunting down stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp.
289-301.

Il8 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Foxes live very largely upon small rodents. Seton says that 90 per cent
of the pellets of the red fox consists of mouse fur.4 Sheep-killing dogs
have been discussed in another chapter, and they are only occasional,
but many dogs kill rabbits and other small mammals. Hyaenas kill
sheep and small wild mammals.5

Bears are not as habitual killers as are the Felidae and Canidae, but
they do destroy many wild mammals, as well as livestock. The mon-
goose is an active enemy of all the smaller mammals and is a very
successful ratter. Some squirrels eat mice and other very small mam-
mals. The killer whale not only kills other whales, but is an enemy of
seals. The stomach of one from Pribilof Islands contained 18, and an-
other 24, young fur seals.5* Baboons are said to do a vast amount of
havoc among young lambs and kids, not for their flesh, but for the
milk they contain, which is obtained by tearing the young animals
asunder.6 During years when mice are abundant in Labrador they form
a large part of the food of bears, foxes, wolves, wolverenes and other
carnivorous mammals.7 Innis emphasizes the fact that the supply of
certain fur-bearing mammals is affected by the abundance or scarcity
of the mice upon which the fur-bearers feed so largely.8

The Mustelidae are chiefly carnivorous and the food of many of
them consists partly, sometimes largely, of injurious rodents. The
badger, for example, lives mostly upon rodents, such as prairie-dogs,
ground squirrels, gophers, rats and mice, all of which it is able to
easily dig out of their holes.9 The black-footed ferret of the western
plains lives almost entirely upon prairie-dogs and is often called the
prairie-dog ferret.10 Minks eat mice, rats, squirrels, muskrats, chip-
munks, rabbits and other mammals, as well as a great variety of other
animal life.11 Weasels are great enemies of ground squirrels and pocket
gophers, being able to enter the burrows of these rodents, but also

4 Seton, Journ. Mammalogy, i, 140, 1920.

5 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 39, 1910.

5a Evermann, Scientific Monthly, xv, 310, 1922. Hanna, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 209-

220, 1923.

'Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 218-219, 1910. Ingersoll, The life of animals,
pp. 24-25, 1907.

7 Cabot, Labrador, 1921. Allen, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 56-57, 1922.

8 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, pp. 89-91, 1927.

0 Bailey, Farmers' Bull, No. 335, 1908; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 184, 1926;
Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, p. 102, 1928. Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No. 484,
1912. Sawyer, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 125-126, 1924. Silver, ibid., ix, 63, 1928.

10 Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, p. 184, 1911. Bailey, ibid., No. 49, p. 171, 1926.

11 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, 1921. Bailey, ibid., No. 49, p. 173, 1026. Ash-
brook, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928.

MAMMALS VERSUS OTHER MAMMALS

destroy large numbers of mice, chipmunks and other rodents.12 Skunks
kill many mice, gophers and other small mammals, and even rabbits.18
The fisher and pine marten also feed largely upon small rodents.14 The
wolverene is more ambitious. In addition to taking many of the smaller
mammals, there are accounts of its attacking those much larger than
itself, such as moose and caribou.15 Squirrels sometimes eat smaller
mammals. A Franklin ground squirrel attacked and ate a young rabbit
and another was seen chasing a striped ground squirrel.16

Although shrews are chiefly insectivorous, they are fond of meat
and some species destroy mice of various kinds.17 There is an account
of a rat eating a mole.18 Grasshopper mice kill and eat a great many
injurious mice of various species.19

"Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 30, 1908; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 166,
169. 170, 1926. Carey, ibid., No. 33, p. 186, 1911. Howell, ibid., No. 45, p. 35, 1921.

13Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, p. 83, 1890. Howell, ibid., No. 20, p. n, 1901;
No. 26, p. 8, 1906; No. 45, 1921. Bailey, Farmers' Bull, No. 335, p. 28, 1908. Lantz,
ibid., No. 587, 1914. Cuyler, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 180-189, 1924. Dixon, ibid.t vi,
34-46, 1925.

'Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 176-177, 1926.

15Keele, Forest and Stream, LXXI, 971. Hunter, Canadian Indian wilds, p. 150,
1907. Grinnell, Journ. Mammalogy, I, 182-185, 1919.

16 Johnson, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 187, 1922.

17 Howell, TV. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 21, 1921.

lsGarrett, Rat-eating mole, The Field (London), vol. 148, p. 205, 1926; cited in
Journ. Mammalogy, vii, 340, 1927.

"Bailey and Sperry, U. S. Dept. Agric. Technical Bull, No. 145, 1929.

XX

THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS AND BIRDS

It is probable that all mammals that eat flesh of any sort will devour
birds when they are hungry, if they have the opportunity. They are of
course more destructive to ground-nesting species, but also easily get
young birds of tree-nesting species just after they leave the nest and
have not yet achieved dexterity on the wing, and occasionally succeed
in capturing adult tree-nesting birds that feed upon the ground, such as
robins.

Swine eat the eggs of both wild birds and poultry and sometimes
kill the birds. In cities and about farms the mammals most destructive
to wild birds are domestic cats, many of which, though not usually at-
tempting to catch adult birds, feel an irresistible impulse to spring upon
every young bird seen fluttering on the ground in the effort to fly. The
domestic dog also sometimes catches wild birds and an occasional well
fed individual acquires the habit of killing chickens and turkeys, not
for food, but from sheer blood-lust, just as others acquire the sheep-
killing habit.

Other members of the cat and dog families (Canidae and Felidae)
are definitely known to kill birds and probably all do so to some extent.
Audubon and Bachman long ago remarked that the wildcat "makes
great havoc among the chickens, turkeys and ducks of the planter."1
Dixon found that bird remains constituted 3.1 per cent of the contents
of 1 1 8 wildcat stomachs examined by him.2 Foxes sometimes kill birds,
though their preference is for rodents. In the lair of one were found
the remains of 76 short-eared owls (8 adults) and a number of grouse,
ducks, plover and curlew, besides rats and voles.3

The brown house rat eats wild birds and their eggs and is said to
"kill more young chickens than any other animal."4 Some species of
squirrels and chipmunks, especially the red squirrels, are known to
kill young birds, but do more damage by eating the eggs of both tree-
nesting and ground-nesting species.6 Muskrats take some wild birds,

1 Quoted in Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 42, 1921.

2 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 36-38, 1925.

8 Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1894, p. 225, citing Adair, Annals
Scottish Nat. Hist., Oct., 1893.

4 Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1908, p. 193.

"Thorns, Are squirrels bird enemies? Bird-Lore, xxiv, 206-207, 1922. Stoddard,

120

RELATIONS OF MAMMALS AND BIRDS 121

particularly water and shore-birds and other birds that nest near the
water.6 The ring-tailed cat (Bassariscus) also feeds upon birds to some
extent.7 Raccoons and opossums not only prey partly upon wild birds,
but also raid the poultry yards.8 The Indian mongoose, in some regions
to which it has been imported, has wrought great damage to ground-
nesting wild birds and poultry.9

Skunks eat some wild birds and their eggs and occasionally poultry,
though their food is chiefly insects and partly rodents.10 Of 353
stomachs examined under the direction of Dixon, only 27 contained
bird remains.11 Lantz says that of 62 stomachs only one contained bird
remains, consisting of a few feathers.12 Minks and weasels kill some
wild birds and rob their nests and are very destructive to poultry when
they have a chance, killing more than they can possibly use, but in other
ways probably do more good than harm. The mink is particularly in-
jurious to ducks and marsh birds.13 Though the land otter lives chiefly
on fish, one stomach contained the head of a mallard.14 The fisher some-
times kills wild birds.15 The badger occasionally takes poultry16 and one
was detected digging into bank swallows' nests.17 There are reports of
bears searching lake shores for wild ducks' eggs,18 climbing trees for
hawks' eggs19 and gnawing into a woodpecker's nest.20 Oriental bats of
the genus Megadermus feed largely on small birds.21

Flying squirrel as a bird killer, Journ. Mammalogy, I, 95-96, 1919. Klugh, Ecology
of the red squirrel, ibid., vm, 1-32, 1927. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 46-55,
1926; Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 129, 1923. There are very numerous other references
on this subject. Warren, Mammals of Colorado, p. 168, 1910. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna,
No. 52, pp. 9-i i, 1929.

" Johnson, The muskrat : Its natural history and economics, Roosevelt Wild Life
Bull., in, 205-320, 1925.

7 Bailey, Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, p. 105, 1928.

8 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, pp. 18, 35, 1921. Bailey, ibid., No. 49, p. 187,
1926. Hahn, 33rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol and Nat. Resources, p. 451, 1909.

9 Wetmore, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 326, pp. 38, 67, etc., 1916. Palmer, Year-
book, U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1898, pp. 87-100. Amer. Naturalist, xvn, 299, 1883.
Morris, The mongoose on sugar estates in the West Indies, 1883.

10 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 181, 1926.

11 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 34-46, 1925.

12 Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No. 587, 1914.

M Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 30, 1908 ; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 173,
1926. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, pp. 35, 37, 1921. Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1908, p. 190. Ashbrook, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928.

"Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 82, 1891.

"Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 177, 1926.

18 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 184, 1926 ; Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 29,
1908.

17 Potter, Badger digs for bank swallows, The Condor, xxvi, 191, 1924.

18 Rowen, Bears and birds' eggs, The Condor, xxx, 246, 1928.
"Taverner, Bears and hawks, The Condor, xxx, 157, 1928.

*° Dixon, Black bear tries to gnaw into a woodpecker's nest, The Condor, xxix,
271-272, 1927.

21 Poulton, Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1929, p. 300.

122 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Having seen that the Felidae, Canidae, many of the Mustelidae,
Rodentia and other mammals indulge more or less in the destruction
of birds, we find that, on the other hand, many birds are persistent de-
stroyers of mammals. This subject has been very much discussed in
the literature of economic ornithology and elsewhere.22 Eagles and the
larger hawks and owls destroy many rabbits, squirrels, prairie-dogs,
gophers and other rodents, eagles even attacking coyotes, badgers,
antelope, wild sheep, wild goats, deer and domestic stock, while many
hawks and owls live largely upon mice and other small injurious ro-
dents. Of the hawks and owls, fifteen species in the United States are
listed as enemies of ground squirrels, five as enemies of pocket gophers,
seventeen as enemies of rabbits and eleven as enemies of brown house
rats.23

In 571 pellets of the barn owl there were remains of 1131 meadow
mice, 240 white-footed mice, 153 harvest mice, 85 pocket gophers and a
number of other small mammals.24 Another lot of pellets contained one
shrew, 84 pocket gophers, 4 pocket mice, 26 harvest mice, 52 white-
footed mice, 276 meadow mice, 2 house rats, 37 house mice, 2 rabbits,
i song sparrow and 3 Jerusalem crickets.25

Besides the so-called birds of prey, gulls, ibises, storks, spoonbills,
cranes, herons, ravens, crows, magpies, jays, shrikes and many other
species of birds destroy multitudes of mice and other small mammals.
One species of hawk in Africa is especially adapted to feeding upon
bats and is consequently called the bat hawk.26

22 See Henderson, The practical value of birds, pp. 76-78, 189-204, etc., 1927, with
numerous references to other publications in footnotes.

23 Grinnell, G. B., Eagles' prey, Journ., Mammalogy, x, 183, 1929. Fisher, The
hawks and owls of the United States in relation to agriculture, U. S. Div. Orn. and
Mamm. Bull. No. 3, 1893; Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1907, pp. 329-342; ibid.
for 1894, pp. 219-225. Oberholser, The North American eagles and their economic
relations, U. S. Biol. Surv., Bull. No. 27, 1906. Bailey, U. S. Div. Orn. and Mamm-
Bull. No. 4. 1893; ibid., No. 5, 1894; Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, pp. 76-92, 141-
147, 1928. Piper, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1908, pp. 301-310; Farmers' Bull,
No. 352, 1909. Lantz, Yearbook for 1905, pp. 363-3/6; same for 1909, pp. 209-218;
U. S. Biol. Surv., Bull. No. 31, 1907; ibid., No. 33, 1909; Farmers' Bull, No. 896,
1917.

24 Foster, A note on the dietary habits of the barn owl, The Condor, xxix, 246,
1927.

26 Hall, The barn owl in its relation to the rodent population at Berkeley, Cali-
fornia, The Condor, xxix, 274, 1927.

26 Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., xxxvii, 551-552, 1917.

XXI

THE ECONOMIC RELATION OF MAMMALS TO FISHES,
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Many mammals are fond of fish, which constitute a large part of
the diet of a few species. Perhaps all flesh-eaters will take fish, if avail-
able when they are hungry. As would be expected, marine mammals,
specially adapted to a strictly or partly aquatic existence, feed partly
upon fish, though it is very doubtful whether all the fish taken by the
strictly aquatic forms, such as whales and porpoises, which wander
freely far and wide through the ocean, has an appreciable effect upon
the total number of fishes, if, indeed, the activity of the semi-aquatic
forms, such as seals and sea-lions has. The diminished supply of fishes
must be attributed chiefly to the fishing activities of commercial fisher-
men, who, with their nets and traps, catch fish annually by the million.

All the species of seals and sea-lions are accused by fishermen of
feeding chiefly upon fish, and of being very destructive to the marine
fisheries, their plea being sometimes for the complete extermination
of these animals. Most of the published statements to this effect are
vague, general and inclusive, without indicating any evidence upon
which they are based. On the other hand, in many cases actual examina-
tion of the contents of the stomachs of individuals killed by the fisher-
men has failed to disclose any fish remains therein. However, there is
some very definite evidence that they do sometimes eat fish. This is
especially true during the short season of the salmon run, when the
fish are entering the rivers in great schools to spawn, affording for the
time being an abundant supply of easily-obtained food — the very time
when the fishermen are catching as many as possible, thus preventing
them from going up the rivers, which they must do to spawn. The
evidence and the reasons for believing the seals and sea-lions on
the whole are not a serious menace to the fisheries are set forth and
discussed at some length under the order Pinnipedia in the systematic
portion of this book, and need not be repeated here.

As it is customary for all animals of mixed diet to take the suitable
food most easily obtained, when whales happen upon schools of fishes
they will abandon the search for the less easily obtained crustaceans

123

1 24 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

and mollusks and devote their attention for a time to fish. One hump-
backed whale contained about a ton of sardines, with some smelt and
anchovies, and a sperm whale contained a ten-foot shark.1 As a gen-
eral rule, fishes taken by whales are of small, abundant species, whose
commercial value is not very high. We have not happened upon very
definite information concerning the food habits of other cetaceans,
though probably it exists somewhere in the much-scattered literature
of mammalogy. Various writers do say in a very general way that
the porpoises and dolphins feed chiefly upon fish, though the Risso
dolphin is said probably to subsist upon squid and cuttlefish.2 Porpoises
may often be seen following ships and eating the waste food thrown
overboard.

Several species of fur-bearers (Mustelidae) are very fond of fish
and enter water after them, and fish is extensively and successfully
used for bait by trappers. The land otter is said to live chiefly upon
fish, but also to take frogs, etc.3 Coues says that the sea otter un-
doubtedly eats fish, though its diet is chiefly mollusks and sea-urchins.4
The mink is very fond of fish and haunts the banks of streams and
lakes, taking also reptiles and amphibians, with other food.5 The diet
of the pine marten is similar to that of the mink, but the Pennant
marten, or "fisher," notwithstanding its name, does not habitually
fish, though it takes fish as bait in traps.6

Raccoons and muskrats are known to sometimes eat fish and frogs,
and the latter also eat caddis larvae and other food of fishes, thus to
a slight degree affecting the fish fauna,7 La Valette mentions the
aquatic shrew, weasel, polecat, domestic cat, otter and bear as enemies
of fish.8 Haack says that shrew-mice ("wasserspitzmausen") in brooks
are "well-known enemies of fish/'9

1 Evermann, Scientific Monthly, xv, 309-310, 1922.

2 Aflalo, Nature Lovers' Library, v, 299, 1917; Standard natural history, n, 335,
1908. Hornaday, American natural history, n, 154, 1914. Stone and Cram, American
animals, p. 21, 1902.

3 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 82, 1891. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49,
p. 179, 1912. Audubon, as quoted by Coues, N. Amer. Mustelidae, p. 315, 1877.

4 Coues, N. Amer. Mustelidae, p. 345, 1877.

8 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 37, 1921. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49,
p. 173, 1926. Ashbrook, Mink raising, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928.

8 Coues, N. Amer. Mustelidae, pp. 66-68, 92, 1877. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No.
49, P- 177, 1926.

7 Lantz, The muskrat, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 396, p. 21, 1910. Annin, Car-
penter, Elliott and Hessel. Bull. U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, iv, 85-86, 295-298, 4/0,
579-584, 1884. Sturr, Bull Bur. Fish., v, 342, 1885. Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull,
m, 247, 1925. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 35, 1921. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna,
No. 49, p. 187, 1926.

8 La Valette, The enemies of fish, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1878, pp. 509-516.
' Haack, Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., iv, 375-376, 1884.

RELATION OF MAMMALS TO FISHES 125

During the salmon run in Alaskan rivers bears gorge themselves
with fish.10 Dogs also eat spawning salmon in streams of the North-
west and contract the "salmon disease," an intestinal trematode dis-
ease, the salmon from salt water not thus affecting them.11 The do-
mestic cat sometimes catches fish close to shore in shallow water.12
Wildcats eat both fish and frogs, and in 118 stomachs 6 per cent of
the contents consisted of fish, probably bait used in the traps.13 Coyotes
sometimes eat both fish and reptiles, three horned lizards having been
found in one stomach.14 The name of the South American rat genus
Ichthyomys** seems to have been derived from its fish-eating proclivity.
There is one genus of fish-eating bats (Noctilio) in the Caribbean
region, 'some stomachs examined containing fish exclusively.16 Several
instances are mentioned of deer eating fish,17 a habit perhaps acquired
through the eating of refuse about camps.

Beaver, though semi-aquatic, are vegetarians and do not indulge
very much, if at all, in a fish diet. However, they do affect the fish
population of beaver streams in other important ways. Their dams
form quiet pools, ponds and lakes whose somewhat complex effect
upon fishes has been partly investigated and much discussed. There
seems good reason for the belief that in regions where the summer
temperature of the water is high and the flooded areas contain much
vegetation that decomposes in the ponds, they may be decidedly detri-
mental to fish life, especially for some time after the ponds are freshly
formed. In rapid streams of high, cool mountain areas, beaver ponds
are often very beneficial to fishes, affording protection to young trout
and equalizing the flow of water, keeping the streams running during
dry seasons. Often in such regions the old, well-established beaver
pools afford the best fishing.18

Though many mammals, as we have seen, eat fish, many species of

10 Osgood, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 24, p. 43, 1904

11 Dpnham, Science, LXI, 341, 1925.

12 Dimmock, Amer. Naturalist, xvni, 941-943, 1884.

13 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 36-38, 1925. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45,
p. 42, 1921.

"Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, 1005.

"Thomas, On a new fish-eating rat from Bogota, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser.
9, xni, 164, 1924; A new fish-eating rat from Equador, ibid., p. 541; Journ. Mam-
malogy, v, 215, 1924.

"Goodwin, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 104-112, 1928. Benedict, Journ. Mammalogy,
ix, 58-59, 1928.

" Burgess, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 64-65, 1924.

"Bailey, U. S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. No. 21, 1927 (replacing Dept. Bull. No.
1078, 1922). Dearborn, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 135, p. 10, 1920. Kendall,
Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, n, 205-351, 1924; iv, 286-491, 1927. Knight, Science, LXII,
59O-59I, 1925; LXIII, 209-210, 1926.

126 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

fish eat the flesh of mammals. Indeed, fisherman often use mammal
meat for bait. Fishes often catch small mammals along the edge of
the water or in it. Cabot tells us that during a season of overabundance
of mice in Labrador the trout fed chiefly upon mice and acquired a
mousy flavor, all trout over half a pound in weight then containing
mice.19 White-footed mice are part of the usual food of Kern River
trout in California. "Scarcely one of the trout was taken that one or
more of these mice was not found in its stomach, while from one fish
of unusual size no fewer than five were taken."20 Pickerel, gar-pike
and perhaps other fishes catch young muskrats as they are swimming
in the water.21 Schools of small fishes of the genus Serrosalmo in tropi-
cal America even attack men in the water and inflict serious injuries.22
It is said that sometimes they almost literally eat men alive, as they
do any other mammal that enters or falls into the water when they
are about. The larger sharks, individuals of which are sometimes called
man-eaters, are formidable antagonists, feared by swimmers and div-
ers.

We have noted that the mink, otter and coyote eat reptiles and
frogs, but other mammals do also. The European hedgehog eats frogs,
toads and snakes, as well as birds, mice and various invertebrates.23
Solitary instances are reported of a salamander, a frog and a snake
having been eaten by chipmunks.24 Lizards and salamanders are known
to have been eaten by grasshopper mice.25 A muskrat was observed
catching a salamander.26 Rattlesnakes have been killed by brown house
rats and bush rats.27 A mouse is reported to have attacked and eaten
lizards in captivity.28 A white-footed mouse in captivity killed and
partly ate a snake large enough to have eaten the mouse.29 True, these
two instances occurred in captivity, under artificial conditions, and do
not prove that under natural conditions mice would attack either snakes
or lizards.

Reptiles are better known as the enemies of mammals than as the

19 Cabot, Labrador, 1921. Allen, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 56, 1922.

20 Henshaw, Kept. Chief of U. S. Engineers, 1876, Part 3, p. 529.

21 Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No. 396, p. 35, 1910. Arthur, Louisiana Dept. Conservation
Bull. No. 18, p. 174, 1928.

22 Jordan, Guide to the study of fishes, n, 161, 1905.

23 Ingersoll, The life of animals, pp. 68-77, 1907.

24 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 52, pp. 9-11, 1929.

28 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 93-94, 1915. Bailey and Sperry, U. S. Dept.
Agric. Technical Bull., No. 145, 1929.

26 Warren, Mammals of Colorado, p. 106, 1910.

27 Hartman, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 116-117, 1922.

^Burt, A note on the mouse as an enemy to lizards, Copeia, No. 162, pp. 15-16,
1927.

^Hatt, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 186-187, 1923.

RELATION OF MAMMALS TO FISHES 1 2/

victims. Many well-known species of snakes habitually eat mice, and
the bull snake is often called the gopher snake, because of its fondness
for gophers. The rodent-eating snakes doubtless do some good in this
way, but their digestion is slow, they require little food and often go
for long periods without food, so the total number of rodents eaten
by one snake in a year is probably not large.30 However, experiments
with captive snakes indicate that a bull snake would be able to con-
sume one pocket gopher a month. In Kansas it was estimated that a
moderate infestation of an alfalfa field would be about eight gophers
an acre. Consequently one snake would be able to keep an acre of
groun(J free from gophers.31 As mice are much smaller, the snakes
could of course consume a much larger number of them. The senior
author of this book once found three full-grown field mice in one small
gartersnake. One bull snake contained thirty-five mice,32 mostly young,
and another contained four full-grown gophers.33 Many young musk-
rats are eaten by snakes.34 Snakes eat their prey by swallowing the crea-
tures whole, instead of biting off pieces and chewing them. They will
take almost any animal not too large to be swallowed, which, in case of
a boa constrictor or python, means a rather large animal.

Morse has described the way a bull snake captures a gopher.35 The
rattlesnake is listed as one of the enemies of ground squirrels36 and
one contained a wood rat.37 A python attacked a spaniel,38 another
swallowed a 7O-pound buck,39 and a cobra killed a tiger.40 Poisonous
snakes are well known as a menace to human beings as well as to
other mammals. In British India in 1910 there were 22,478 deaths of
human beings and in 1909 there were 21,364 because of snake bites.41
In 1895 only T^46 persons were reported killed by venomous snakes42
but statistics were much less complete then than now.

Alligators and crocodiles will kill almost any small mammal up to

30 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 18, 1916.

31 Hisaw and Gloyd, The bull snake as a natural enemy of injurious rodents, Journ.
Mammalogy, vn, 200-205, 1926.

32 Pack, Copeia, No. 68, p. 16, 1918.

33 Ruthling, Copeia, No. 37, p. 91, 1916.

34 Arthur, Louisiana Dept. Conservation, Bull. No. 18, p. 269, 1928.

85 Morse, The way of a snake with a gopher, Copeia, No. 164, pp. 71-72, 1927.

36 Merriam, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No. 76, p. 7, 1910.

37 Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum Bull. No. 56, p. 479, 1907.

38 Smith, Python attacking a spaniel, Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., xxx, 485,
1925 ; Journ. Mammalogy, vui, 325, 1927.

39 Holland, Pythons and their prey, The Field (London), CL, 395, 1927; Journ.
Mammalogy, ix, 81, 1928.

40 Spence, Sanderson and Prater, Tiger killed by a cobra, Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist.
Soc., xxx, 705, 1925.

"Science, xxxvii, 938, 1913.

42 Amer. Naturalist, xxxi, 77-78, 1897.

1 28 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

the size of pigs and young calves, and are often very dangerous to
men. A Florida alligator seized a 5O-pound dog, crunched its bones
and swallowed it whole. The dangerous "man-eating" crocodiles live
in Africa and India, where "old examples will rush from the water,
seize a human — adult or child — then drag the prey into the water to
drown."43 In 1910, 244 deaths of human beings in India were caused
by alligators and crocodiles,44 In Louisiana alligators are considered
by trappers great enemies of muskrats, but forty-four stomachs were
examined and "not a trace of muskrat was found in any of them."45
possibly because in Louisiana, owing to the menace of alligators, the
muskrats have developed more terrestrial habits than in most regions.

Two bats were found in one black snake, and four shed skins found
in the bat roost indicated the reason that the number of bats had di-
minished by over 50 per cent in one year.46

A full-grown mole was found in the stomach of a 14-ounce frog.47

43 Ditmar, The reptile book, p. 89, 1907 ; Reptiles of the world, pp. 65, 67, 78-81, 1910.
"Science, xxxvn, 938, 1913.

45 Arthur, The fur animals of Louisiana, Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Bull. No. 18,
p. 164, 1928.

46 Silver, Pilot black snake feeding on the big brown bat, Journ. Mammalogy, ix,
149, 1928.

47 Heller, Brewer's mole as food of the bullfrog, Copeia, No. 165, p. 116, 1927.

XXII
THE ECONOMIC RELATION OF MAMMALS TO INSECTS

Some groups of mammals almost deserve to rank with insectivorous
birds as insect destroyers, helping to keep the insect hordes within
reasonable bounds. This is particularly true of the Insectivora (moles
and shrews) and Edentata (anteaters and armadillos), which destroy
insects that live on and beneath the ground, and the Chiroptera (bats),
which feed upon the flying insects, though many other mammals are
also highly insectivorous and others take some insects.

The food of the bats of the United States and Great Britain consists
almost exclusively of nocturnal flying insects of many kinds, thus
supplementing the work of insectivorous birds, which live chiefly upon
diurnal insects. The total amount of insect life annually destroyed by
these flying mammals is enormous. Stomachs of bats shot in the early
evening, after only twenty minutes of flight, have been found packed
with insects, and they probably take several such meals each twenty-
four hours. Great deposits of bat guano in caverns are composed of
insect remains.1 "Bat towers" have been erected in Texas for the pur-
pose of controlling mosquitoes and accumulating commercial deposits
of guano, but though the bats doubtless take some mosquitoes, they
by no means take as many of these pests as some people suppose.
Mosquito remains are not conspicuous in the guano from either the
towers or caves, and in most regions bat towers would not produce
enough guano to pay for their erection.2 Nevertheless, it is significant
that, according to Fargo, on Bird Key, Florida, there are bats and
no mosquitoes, while on neighboring keys there are mosquitoes and
no bats,3 unless the presence and absence of mosquito-eating birds may

1 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 31, 1908 ; Bats of Carlsbad Cavern, Natl. Geog.
Mag., XLVIII, 321-330, 1925; Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, pp. 108-129, 1928. Nelson,
U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1395, 1926. Huey, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 196-197, 1925.
Hatt, ibid., rv, 260-261, 1923. Seton, ibid., in, 52, 1922. Pittman, ibid., v, 231-233,

1924. Goodwin, ibid., ix, 104-112, 1928. Grinnell, California Fish and Game Comm.
Teachers' Bull., No. 6, 1916. Poulton, British insectivorous bats and their prey, Proc.
Zool. Soc. London for 1929, pp. 277-303.

2 Campbell, Bats, mosquitoes and dollars, 1925. Storer, Journ. Mammalogy, vii,
85-90, 1926 ; Science, LXIII, 337-338, 1928. McAtee, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for

1925, P- 416. Goldman, Journ. Mammalogy, vii, 136-138, 1926. Hall, California Fish
and Game, xn, 136-137, 1926.

* Fargo, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 203-205, 1929.

I2Q

I3O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

account for the phenomenon. We may add that bats do not harbor
bedbugs, as they are popularly supposed to do.

While the bats are busy ridding the air of insects, most species of
moles and shrews are battling the insects that swarm upon and beneath
the ground. They get a great many ants, wireworms, cutworms, white
grubs and other destructive insects, thus doing much more good than
harm.4 The short-tailed shrew is one of the principal enemies of the
larch sawfly in New Brunswick, destroying 40 per cent of the cocoons.5
One captive shrew ate from four to seven large meal worms a day.6
The hedgehog of Europe, related to the shrews and moles, eats many
insects, but also takes other invertebrates and vertebrates.7

A captive mole in ten hours ate 7 cutworms and 48 earthworms.8
Another captive in twenty-four hours devoured 50 large white grubs,
45 rosebug larvae, i cicada^ i ''chestnut worm," i wireworm and 13
earthworms.9 However, it should be remembered that experiments upon
animals in captivity are not at all conclusive as to habits under natural
conditions. Moles are known to destroy both eggs and nests of wasps.10
Of the food of 56 moles, 62 per cent was insects.11 The principal food
in 200 stomachs of the common mole was earthworms and white grubs,
one containing 171 white grubs and another 250 ant pupae.12 In 34
stomachs, 23 per cent of the contents was adult insects and 29 per
cent insect larvae.13 In 67 stomachs, 42.25 per cent of the contents
was earthworms, 22.7 per cent ground beetles, 27 per cent grubs and
larvae, 3.7 per cent vegetable matter.14

The armadillo of the southern United States is a 'Voracious con-
sumer of insects, especially white grubs and their adults, caterpillars
and ants."15 The giant armadillo of the Amazon is said to live mainly
on ants and termites and the giant anteater of Brazil lives wholly on
ants.16 The African antbear "lives entirely on termites."17 The spiny

4 Dunnam, Iowa State Agric. Exper. Sta. Circular No. 88, 1924. Wight, Journ.
Mammalogy, ix, 19-33, 1928. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 200, 203, 205, 1926.
Howell, ibid., No. 45, pp. 20-21, 1921. Klugh, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 35, 1921.

5 McAtee, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1925, p. 416.

6 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 1-6, 1924.

7 Ingersoll, The life of animals, pp. 68-77, 1907.

8 Howell, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 253, 1923.

9 Brooks, Univ. West Virginia Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 113, 1908.

10 Brooks, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 183, 1923.

11 West, Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist., ix, 1910.

12 Schefrer, Farmers' Bull, No. 1247, 1922.

13 Hisaw, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 9-20, 1923.

14 Dyche, Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., xvin, 183-186, 1903.

15 McAtee, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1925, p. 416.

16 Ingersoll, The life of animals, pp. 469, 476-477, 1907.

17 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 175, 1910.

RELATION OF MAMMALS TO INSECTS

anteater of Australia, whose diet is suggested by its name, is a member
of the Monotremata, not the Edentata. The Australian duckbill, an-
other monotreme, also feeds upon insects, with other invertebrates. The
banded anteater of Australia is a marsupial. The American opossum,
another member of the Marsupialia, includes insects in its bill of fare,18
and the South American marsupialian, Caenolestes, lives chiefly upon
insects.19 Some of the Australasian phalangers feed partly upon in-
sects.194

Some species of Mustelidae (fur-bearers), such as the badger,20
pine-marten,21 mink22 and weasel,23 eat insects to some extent. Skunks
are particularly insectivorous, especially useful in the destruction of
grasshoppers, crickets and white grubs.24 The contents of ten skunk
stomachs examined by Dixon averaged 26.3 per cent insects, mostly in-
jurious species, and of 353 examined by others under his direction,
207 contained insects.25 Of 62 stomachs, grasshoppers and crickets
formed a large percentage of the food in half of them, while beetles
and their larvae were found in two-thirds of them, in many cases
being the only food.26 The "largest part of the food of skunks consists
of grasshoppers, beetles, crickets and other insects and insect larvae."27
In Manitoba it was estimated that on an 8-acre tract skunks destroyed
14,520 white grubs to the acre, and they have elsewhere proved active
enemies of cutworms, army worms, tobacco worms, potato beetles,
grasshoppers, hop grubs, range caterpillars and many other harmful
insects.28 Plath considers skunks to be quite destructive to both wild
bees and honeybees.29

18Hahn, ssrd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., p. 451, 1909.
19 Gregory, Journ. Mammalogy, in,. 106-114, 1922.
19a Ingersoll, The life of animals, pp. 495, 500-504, 1907.

"Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 85, 1891. McAtee, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian
hist, for 1925, p. 416. Bailey, Farmers' Bull, No. 335, p. 27, 1908.

21 Coues, N. Amer. Mustelidae, p. 92, 1877. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 176,
1926.

22 Ashbrook, Mink farming, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928.

23 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 35, 1921. Stone and Cram, American animals,
pp. 236-237, 1902.

24 Dearborn, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 135, p. n, 1920. Cuyler, Journ. Mam-
malogy^, 181-189, 1924. Bailey, Farmers' Bull, No. 335, p. 28, 1908. Howell, N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 45, 1921.

* Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 34-46, 1925.

26 Lantz, Economic value of North American skunks, Farmers' Bull., No. 587, 1914.

2T Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 181, 1926.

28 McAtee, The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests, Ann. Rept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1925, pp. 415-437.

29 Plath, The bee-eating proclivity of the skunk, Amer. Naturalist, LVII, 570-574,
1923.

132 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Many of the Rodentia include insects in their diet,30 some species to
a marked degree. Along the foothills in Colorado the striped ground
squirrel is said to "feed upon grasshoppers and other injurious insects,
almost to the exclusion of all other food."31 Of 46 stomachs, 13 were
nearly or quite full of insects and 15 contained none.32 Of 22 Iowa
stomachs, 46 per cent of the contents was insects, almost exclusively
injurious species,33 while in 15 South Dakota stomachs a larger per-
centage of the insect contents consisted of harmless or useful species.34
Of the contents of Franklin and Richardson ground squirrel stomachs,
50 per cent consisted of insects, according to Bailey's report of 1892,
but later reports do not seem so favorable, possibly due to different
conditions.35 Of 35 stomachs of the chestnut-tailed squirrel of Utah
(Callospernwphilus castanurus) , 25 contained grasshoppers, beetles,
flies and larvae.36 "Arboreal squirrels sometimes feed freely on scale
insects and other tree pests."37 Gray squirrels are reported as having
destroyed oak apple galls.38 Red squirrels are known to eat many in-
sects,39 as probably all the other species do.

Some of the wild mice are very much more highly insectivorous
than is generally supposed. In Michigan, of 4519 open cocoons of the
larch sawfly, more than 60 per cent had been opened by mice and only
a very small percentage had been parasitized by insect enemies or
attacked by fungi.40 Much of the food of grasshopper mice consists
of soft-bodied insects such as grasshoppers and crickets, and the name
"scorpion mice" is sometimes applied to them because of their fondness
for scorpions.41 The food of the harvest mice resembles that of the

^Klugh, Journ. Mammalogy, viu, 1-32, 1927. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45,
p. 62, 1921.

31 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 18, p. 6, 1916. See also Bailey,
N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 52, 1926; U. S. Div. Orn. and Mam. Bull. No. 4, 1893.
Hisaw and Emery, Journ. Mammalogy, viu, 41-44, 1927.

32 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 14, 1914.

33 Gillette, Iowa Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 6, 1888.

34 Aldrich, South Dakota Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 30, 1892.

35 Bailey, Ann. Kept. U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1892, pp. 185-192; N. Amer. Fauna,
No. 49, pp. 55, 59, 1926.

36Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 4, p. 19, 1890.

37 McAtee, Ann. Rept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1925, p. 416.

38 Davis, Oak apple galls destroyed by gray squirrels, Bull. Brooklyn Entom. Soc.,
xix, 91-93, 1924. Journ. Mammalogy, v, 274, 1924.

^Hatt, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., n, 109-110, 1929. See also Insects as the food of
squirrels, Canadian Entomologist, xxxix, No. I, p. 16, 1907.

40 Graham, The larch sawfly as an indicator of mouse abundance, Journ. Mam-
malogy, x, 189-196, 1929.

41 Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, 1911. Merriam, ibid., No. 3, 1890. Bailey, ibid.,
No. 49, p. 81, 1926; Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 13, 1908; Animal life of Carlsbad
Cavern, 1928. Burnett, Office^ Colo. State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 7, 1918. Bailey
and Sperry, U. S. Dept. Agric. Technical Bull. No. 145, 1929.

RELATION OF MAMMALS TO INSECTS 133

grasshopper mice.42 The pocket mice destroy some grasshoppers,43 and
these insects were found in stomachs of an Arizona form of white-
footed mouse.44

Bears are very fond of insects, and may be seen tearing open nests
of bees, wasps and other insects and turning over logs in search of
beetles, ants and larvae. Stomachs have been found filled with May-flies
and shad-flies.46 Coyotes often eat locusts and other insects.46 Foxes
on Santa Cruz Island were found to be feeding principally on insects.47
One badger's stomach contained bumblebees and their honeycomb.48
Woodchucks have been known to eat quantities of June beetles.49 Cot-
tontail rabbits are reported to eat cocoons of cecropia moths.60 The
house cat, ring-tailed cat, jackal, aardwolf, lemur, and various species
of monkeys are known to sometimes eat insects.61 The skunk, raccoon,
mole, coyote, fox, opossum, ground squirrel, short-tailed shrew, badger
and domestic pig are all listed as enemies of the troublesome white
grubs.62

The mammalian enemies of ants have been discussed at some length
by Bequaert, especially certain species of monotremes, marsupials,
edentates, mongooses, bears and chimpanzees,53 but he does not men-
tion the smaller Rodentia, Mustelidae and other well-known insect
eaters, which perhaps do not relish ants particularly.

The best summary we have seen of the economic relations of mam-
mals to insects is that of McAtee, as follows:64

Among mammals we have some highly insectivorous groups, as the bats, shrews
and moles. The exact nature of the food of bats is little known, but it includes
all sorts of flying insects of sizes these animals can swallow, including mos-
quitoes, but the latter certainly to no such extent as has sometimes been

42 Burnett, ibid., p. 8, 1918.

43 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 119, 1926.

44 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, p. 64, 1890.

"Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 108-110, 1921. Bailey,
N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 191, 1926.

46 Hewitt, ibid., p. 225.

47 Henshaw, Ann. Kept. Chief of Engineers, U. S. Dept. War, for 1876, Part 3,
p. 526.

48 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 85, 1891.

49 Gianini, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 281-282, 1925.

00 Bird, Cottontail rabbits are insectivorous, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 240, 1930.

51 Dimmock, Amer. Naturalist, xvm, pp. 941-942, 1884. Bailey, Animal life in
Carlsbad Cavern, p. 105, 1928. Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, 1905. Drake-
Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, pp. 7, 38, 46, 1910.

52 Davis, Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist., xm, 53-138, 1919; Journ. Mammalogy,
i, 44, 1919.

03 Bequaert, The predacious enemies of ants, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XLV,
1922; mammalian enemies on pp. 315-331.

M McAtee, The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests, Ann. Kept.
Smithsonian Institution for 1925, pp. 416-417.

1 34 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

claimed. Shrews and moles get numerous ants, wireworms, cutworms and
white grubs, and doubtless do more good than harm. The short-tailed shrew
has proved to be one of the principal enemies of the larch sawfly and in New-
Brunswick it has been ascertained that 40 per cent of the cocoons are destroyed
by this shrew. Arboreal squirrels sometimes feed freely on scale insects and
other tree pests; the western ground squirrels eat quantities of injurious in-
sects, such as cutworms, wireworms and grasshoppers ; and the so-called grass-
hopper mice perhaps deserve their name, and undoubtedly are more highly in-
sectivorous than the majority of their tribe. The armadillo, which occurs in
the United States only in Texas, is a voracious consumer of insects, especially
white grubs and their adults, caterpillars and ants, and the badger occasionally
makes a hearty meal of grasshoppers, immature cicadas, or beetles. Of our
larger mammals, skunks certainly are the greatest enemies of insects. Army
worms, tobacco worms and white grubs are favorite prey of these animals. In
Manitoba, Mr. Norman Criddle, field officer, Canadian Entomological Service,
estimated that on one 8-acre tract skunks destroyed 14,520 white grubs to the
acre. Cutworms, the potato beetle and grasshoppers are other insect pests eaten
by skunks, and the common eastern skunk once proved so efficient an enemy of
the hop grub in New York, that the first legislation protecting the animal in
that state was passed at the demand of the hop growers. Investigations in New
Mexico by the Biological Survey showed skunks also to be most important
natural enemies of the range caterpillar."

Not only are many mammals enemies of insects, but some insects are
annoying, injurious, and in some cases very destructive to mammals,
a subject discussed in Chapter xn, on Diseases and Parasites of Mam-
mals.

XXIII

THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF MAMMALS TO

INVERTEBRATES OTHER THAN

INSECTS

Probably most of the mammals that eat insects also indulge in other
arthropods, worms and non-shell-bearing mollusks, and some of them
take shell-bearing mollusks also. A few examples only need be given.
The duckbill of Australia takes crustaceans and worms. Coyotes, wild-
cats and raccoons have been known to eat crustaceans.1 A considerable
part of the food of moles and some of the food of shrews consists
of earthworms.2 In 306 mole stomachs the contents averaged 72.5 per
cent earthworms, with some insects and slugs.3 In 56 other stomachs
the average was 26 per cent earthworms, i per cent arachnids.4 In
91 stomachs earthworms and beetle larvae formed the bulk of the
food, with a few millipedes and centipedes.5 One captive mole ate 48
earthworms and 7 cutworms in 10 hours.6 One California stomach was
"filled with angleworms."7

Minks, skunks and otters sometimes eat crustaceans, the mink, at
least, including also mussels.8 Muskrats are especially fond of fresh-
water mussels and eat also snails and crustaceans.9 Rats have been
known to eat fresh- water snails of the genus Lymnaea™ Short- tailed
shrews are very fond of land snails, one having eaten 130 Poly gyros in

1 Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, 1905. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, pp.
35, 42, 1921.

- Hisaw, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 9-20, 1923. Scheffer, Farmers' Bull., No. 1247,
1922. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, pp. 20, 21, 1921. Bailey, ibid., No. 49, pp. 200,
205, 1926.

3 Wight, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 19-33, 1928.

4 West, Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist., ix, 1910.

6 Dunnam, Iowa Agric. Exper. Sta. Circular No. 88, 1924.

6 Howell, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 253, 1923.

7 Dirks, California Fish and Game, v, 99, 1919.

8 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 37, 1921. Bailey, ibid., No. 49, pp. 173, 179,
1926. Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., m, 247, 1925. Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No.
587, 1914. Ashbrook, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928.

9 Lantz, The muskrat, Farmers' Bull., No. 396, 1910. Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life
Bull., in, 240, 247, 1925. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 35, 1921. Bailey, N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 49. p. 187, 1926. Lee, Journ. Trenton Nat. Hist. Soc., No. i, p. 8, 1886.
Apgar, ibid., No. 2, pp. 58-59, 1887. Butler, Amer. Naturalist, xix, 1044-1055, 1885.
Headlee, Biol. Bull., xi, 305-318, 1906. Baker, Biol. Bull., (2), vn, p. 18, 1922.

10 Smith, Limnaea stagnalis destroyed by rats, Journ. Conch., xvi, 141, 1920.

135

136 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

two months.11 Squirrels, chipmunks, mice, mongooses, European hedge-
hogs and rabbits all eat land snails.12 The food of the sea otter is said
to consist of clams, mussels and sea urchins.13 Opossums eat some
crustaceans and mollusks.14 Seals, walruses and whales consume large
quantities of mollusks, crustaceans and other invertebrates.15 Probably
many arachnids, crustaceans and slugs are eaten by various species of
mice. The grasshopper mouse becomes the "scorpion mouse" in re-
gions where scorpions are abundant, because of its fondness for the
scorpions as part of its diet.16

11 Shull, Amer. Nat.,^ XLI, 495-522, 1907. Hamilton, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 27-30,
33, I93O- Clench, Nautilus, xxxix, 28, 1925. Hahn, 33rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept.
Geol. and Nat. Res., for 1908, p. 601, 1909. Babcock, Science, XL, 526, 530, 1914.

12 Elrod, Univ. Montana Bull. No. 10, p. 114, 1902; Nautilus, xvn, 4, 1903. Van
Hyning, Nautilus, xvui, 23, 1904. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 205, 1926. How-
ell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 21, 1921 ; No. 52, pp. 9-11, 1929. Ingersoll, The life of
animals, 1907. Pilsbry and Bequaert, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., LIII, 479, 539-540,
1927. Wright, Journ. Conch., xn, 268, 1922. Oldham, Journ. Conch., xvui, 335, 1929.
Lawson, Journ. Conch., xvui, 327-328, 1929. Taylor, Monog. land and freshwater Mol-
lusc a British Isles, in, 281.

13 Elliott, The sea otter and its hunting, Kept, on Condition of Affairs in the Terr,
of Alaska, Washington, 1875, pp. 54-62. Coues, N. Amer. Mustelidae, p. 345, 1877.

"Hahn, 33rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., 1908, p. 451.

15 Bartlett, Journ. Mammalogy, vui, 207-212, 1927. Dice, California Fish and Game,
xiv, 1-16, 1928; vui, 135, 1922. Huey, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 237-243, 1924; vi, 126,
1925. Dall. Ann. Rept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1901, pp. 687-688. Evermann, Scientific
Monthly, xv, 309-310, 1922; xvi, 526-527, 1923. Dyche, Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci.,
xvin, 179-182, 1902. Merriam, Science, xni, 777-779, 1901.

"Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, pp. 59, 61, 1890. Gary, ibid., No. 33, p. 100,
1911. Bailey, Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, 1928.

XXIV

THE EXTINCTION OF CERTAIN SPECIES OF MAMMALS
AND THE APPROACHING EXTINCTION OF OTHERS

Throughout the long geological ages, species, genera, families and
orders of plants and animals have developed, flourished and passed
away, leaving their recognizable remains in the rocks to tell the story
of their former existence. Whole groups of organisms once occupying
a prominent position in nature are long since extinct, such, for ex-
ample, as the trilobites, calamites, lepidodendrons and sigillarias of
the Paleozoic Era ; the ammonites, dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs
and pterodactyles of the Mesozoic Era; the gigantic mammals, Dino-
cerata, of the early Cenoz.oic Era, and many others. Some groups, once
highly important, still exist, but in insignificant numbers as compared
with the past, as, for example, the brachiopods.

The Tertiary Age is often called the Age of Mammals. Though
primitive forms of mammals appear to have existed very far back in
the Mesozoic Era, as shown by small fossil jaws, they did not become
at all important until the beginning of Tertiary time. Then they sud-
denly expanded, spread over most of the earth's surface, and developed
a vast assemblage of distinct types, in this respect reaching their zenith
and beginning their decline. Before the close of the Tertiary all the
higher mammalian types appeared. Many of the groups that flourished
during early and middle Tertiary time became extinct before the end
of that period. Others dwindled rapidly during the Pleistocene or Gla-
cial Age. Hence the present or "Psychozoic" Epoch presents to us in
living form only a remnant of the rich mammalian life of the Tertiary.

Ancestral camels, horses and rhinoceroses roamed the western plains
of the United States during Tertiary time, but dwindled away and
disappeared before the dawn of the Recent Epoch, their development
to modern types having been continued on other continents. During
Pleistocene time mammoths, distinct from but closely related to living
species of elephants, ranged almost throughout North America and
Europe. Their teeth, tusks and bones are especially plentiful in Alaska
and Yukon Territory, and even more abundant in the frozen wastes
of Siberia, where their flesh has been found intact, frozen in the perma-

137

138 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

nent ice of that inhospitable region. Now the whole group of elephants
is entirely extinct over the greater part of its former range. The
sloth family, once represented by gigantic ground sloths in portions
of the United States, is now represented only by the much smaller tree
sloths of South America. These are but a few of the multitude of ex-
amples that might be cited to show that mammalian life has long been
dwindling, large groups becoming extinct and no new ones developing
to replace them. Quite possibly there are just as many species and
individuals still living as at any time in the past, but that would be
because of the small rodents, such as mice and their allies, of which
there are very numerous species and vast hordes of individuals.

Probably under natural conditions of the past the development and
extinction of species and higher groups proceeded in a slow and orderly
fashion. It is very probable that at no time during the past ages have
such faunal changes been wrought within a short time as within the
past century or two. This is due to the rapid development and spread
of civilization and the rapid increase in human population. A large
amount of destruction of wild life was unavoidable, as agriculture and
stock-raising on a large scale developed, but much that was unneces-
sary was made possible by the invention of more efficient modern
weapons, placed in the hands of thoughtless and selfish human beings.
In ordinary times under natural conditions the mortality of all species
of mammals just about balances the birth rate. If the mortality of a
species much exceeded the birth rate, it would not long be able to
maintain its existence, but would dwindle away to extinction. If the
mortality fell very far below the birth rate, in time the species would
become so abundant as to be self-destructive through competition for
food. Modern man, having stepped in and changed the face of nature
by wholesale and widespread agricultural operations and the destruc-
tion of forests, and invented deadly, rapid-fire guns, placing all these
in the balance on the side of destruction, the larger animals have little
chance for survival unless something equally effective be done to even
up the balance, and this has not yet been done.

It has been said that man, who complains of the destructiveness of
certain species of rodents, is himself the most destructive animal. No
other animal has exterminated so many species of other animals or
been so generally destructive to nature in its various aspects. Dr. Os-
borne, in his Foreword to Hornaday's timely book, Our Vanishing
Wild Life, says, among other things:

EXTINCTION OF CERTAIN MAMMALS 1 39

We no longer destroy great works of art. They are treasured, and regarded
as of priceless value ; but we have yet to attain the state of civilization where
the destruction of a glorious work of Nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest,
or a species of mammal or bird, is regarded with equal abhorrence. . . . Travels
through Europe, as well as over a large part of the North American continent,
have convinced me that nowhere is Nature being destroyed so rapidly as in the
United States. Except within our conservation areas, an earthly Paradise is
being turned into an earthly Hades; and it is not savages nor primitive men
who are doing this, but men and women who boast of their civilization. Air
and water are polluted, rivers and streams serve as sewers and dumping
grounds, forests are swept away and fishes are driven from the streams. Many
birds are becoming extinct, and certain mammals are on the verge of ex-
termination. Vulgar advertisements hide the landscape, and in all that dis-
figures the wonderful heritage of the beauty of Nature today, we Americans
are in the lead.

All things that minister to the pleasure of the people, relieve the
drab monotony of earning a living and inspire in children a love for
nature, are well worth while. The animals in zoological parks and the
menageries of circuses are a great attraction to both old and young,
but many of the animals therein exhibited are approaching extinction
and some that were exhibited or to be seen in a wild state within the
memory of men now living are already extinct. Others, having now
become rare, are doomed, or must be preserved, if at all, by rigid pro-
tection in their natural environment, as they will not breed in captivity,
and, even if they did so, close inbreeding would weaken and eventually
destroy them. "The lovers of nature . . . cannot contemplate such a
state of affairs with equanimity. . . . The day when circuses are shorn
of their attendant menageries will sensibly diminish the gayety of
nations and deprive the youthful of a most cherished source of amuse-
ment and instruction" (Ball).

A noble tree that required nature's forces centuries to grow is laid
low by the woodman's axe, a perfectly proper procedure if properly
done for a proper purpose, but who can replace it, except by the same
slow process that brought it into existence? It should not be wasted.
Most of the deforestation of our formerly wooded areas has been
done in a shockingly wasteful manner. In travelling through some of
the logged areas one is appalled at the immense quantities of good
logs and timbers left behind to decay on the ground. A species of bird
or mammal has required ages for nature to develop and bring to per-
fection, yet men ruthlessly exterminate them with no thought of the
rights of future generations.

Surely no one can object to the use of our forests, streams, fish and

I4O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

game, within reasonable and proper limits, but no one has a right
wastefully or needlessly to destroy any of them. A very small percent-
age of the people hunt, yet the laws concerning game birds and mam-
mals have always been mostly dictated by and their enforcement placed
in the hands of the men who hunt. The millions who wish to see deer
and other game running wild and do not care to kill any of them, have
seldom had a voice in the matter.

It is said that civilized man is more destructive than the savage, but
that may be merely because his inventions have increased his powers
for destruction, while commerce has provided stronger motives for
the exercise of that power. The savage, with simple needs and tastes
and with primitive weapons, usually killed only enough to provide him
with food, raiment and shelter of very simple sorts. He could use no
more, had no market for the surplus, and the exertion of getting game
with his primitive weapons was sufficient to deter him. Civilized man,
with the arteries of commerce and the development of more luxuriant
taste, could easily dispose of his surplus for cash with which to buy
the luxuries he craved, and his weapons made it easy for him to obtain
a much greater supply of game and furs that he himself could use.
Hence the slaughter began.

Nevertheless, savages, as well as enlightened people, have been
known, when the lust for blood possessed them, to ruthlessly destroy
large numbers of animals, many more than they could in any way dis-
pose of, leaving the carcasses to putrify and foul the air about them.
Most of the carnivorous mammals kill only that they may eat, but some
individuals kill far beyond their power of disposal. Thus sheep-killing
dogs often kill a considerable number of sheep in a single night and eat
none. Weasels and minks go on killing sprees and destroy a number of
chickens in a single raid. Other examples are not wanting.

Man's destruction of wild life began with the dawn of human life.
He sought the flesh of mammals for food, the skins for raiment and
later for shelter, the bones and horns for tools, the fat for his crude
lamp, the ivory of mammoths for his primitive art. But in a primitive
state, when few in numbers, armed with crude weapons, the toll he
took was perhaps no greater than that of the sabre-toothed tiger or
other large beasts of prey. It was not until the human race had greatly
increased in numbers and reached an advanced state of civilization,
within the past century or so, that his depredations began to get really
serious and to threaten the very existence of many species. In North

EXTINCTION OF CERTAIN MAMMALS 14!

America within the past century the bison (buffalo), elk (wapiti),
various species and subspecies of deer, woodland caribou, moose, prong-
horned antelope, mountain sheep, mountain goat, bear (especially the
grizzly), jaguar, puma (mountain lion), beaver and some other spe-
cies have been entirely exterminated over a very large part of their
former range, and the musk-ox is threatened with extinction. The
rapid destruction of fur-bearing mammals has led most states at least to
enact laws for their protection. The slaughter of birds has been even
greater, the passenger pigeon and great auk having been entirely ex-
terminated and the ducks, geese and shore-birds, as well as many
species of song birds, greatly reduced from their former abundance.1
The wild turkey, one of our largest, most handsome and majestic
American game birds, once abundant almost throughout the eastern
part of the United States, is now extinct over a large part of its former
range, and elsewhere much less abundant than formerly. The various
species of the grouse family, water- fowl and shore-birds are everywhere
greatly reduced in numbers and some species have disappeared from
their former haunts in large areas. The following species of American
birds have been entirely exterminated since 1840, according to Horna-
day: Great auk, Pallas cormorant, passenger pigeon, Eskimo curlew,
Cuban tricolored macaw, Gosse's macaw, Guadaloupe macaw, yellow-
winged green parrot, purple Guadaloupe parakeet, Carolina parakeet.
Does that record increase our pride in our boasted civilization ?

All students of the subject agree that the situation as to the most
interesting and valuable of our mammals is critical and calls for heroic
efforts to save our mammals. The situation in other lands is no better
than in America. In Europe various species have disappeared over most
of their range and become scarce in other regions. Among these may be
mentioned the beaver, European bison, deer and others. In Africa the
seriousness of the situation is much more striking. Many students of
African mammals agree that some of the large species of Africa's in-
teresting and unique mammalian fauna are threatened with very early
extermination. Two species, the quagga and blauwbok, are said to have

1 Consult especially : Hornaday, Our vanishing zvild life, New York ; The de-
struction of our birds and mammals 2nd Ann Kept. N. Y. Zool. Soc., pp. 77-108.
Osborne and Anthony, Close of the age of mammals, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 219-
237, 1922, with comments by several other naturalists ; Can we save the mammals,
Natural History, xxn, 389-405, 1922. Lucas, Animals recently extinct or threatened
with extermination, as represented in the collections of the U. S. National Museum,
Ann. Kept. U. S. Nail. Mus. for 1889, pp. 609-650. Dall, On the preservation of the
marine animals of the Northwest Coast, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Institution for
1901, pp. 683-688.

142 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

become wholly extinct, while the range of many others has been greatly
restricted and their numbers much reduced. The giraffe, zebra and
various species of the remarkable African antelope group have been
destroyed in great numbers everywhere and exterminated over large
areas. The reduction in the number of elephants is explained by the fact
that, according to Lucas (1889) about 100,000 elephants, a "procession
1 80 miles long," were annually killed to supply the world with ivory.
The time seems near when many animals that now give pleasure to
thousands of people may no longer be seen.

Carl Akeley, just before his tragic death, wrote: "I have just come
in from a two days' trip down the Tana, through a region I have
known only as swarming with game, but I now find it a complete waste.
There is only a pitiful remnant of the great buffalo herds of the past,
and of the other game almost nothing. This is the condition we have
found everywhere we have been in the Kenya colony."

Some writers, visiting certain regions in Africa and finding game
still abundant, make the mistake of assuming that it is not in danger,
but abundance is not the test. There are three questions to be consid-
ered in all such problems: i. What is the relative abundance or scarcity
of the animals as compared with conditions a few years or many years
before? 2. From how much of the range of each species has it been
within recent years exterminated or nearly so? 3. How effectively are
the animals of the region now being protected? Judging from the ac-
counts published by the men in best position to judge as to these ques-
tions, many large African animals are in serious danger of extinction.2
While the American bison was being exterminated, many observers,
passing through its range and seeing large herds, but knowing nothing
of the vast numbers that had occupied the territory a short time before,
declared that they needed no legislative protection, as it would be
impossible to exterminate them, yet in a very few years they were
gone. Though killing elephants for their tusks is prohibited in certain
districts of Africa, yet $250,000 worth of tusks so obtained are an-
nually smuggled out of the districts.

It is of course unavoidable that as civilization advances in Africa,

~ Compare Friedman, Notes on the big game of Africa and its preservation,
Journ. Mammalogy, vn, 73-85, 1926. Carey, Saving the animal life of Africa — a
new method, Journ. Mammalogy, vn, 73-85, 1926; African game conservation
through the League of Nations — a reply to Dr. Herbert Friedman, ibid., pp. 311-313;
Carl Akeley's last words about Africa, ibid., vin, 172, 1927. Hubbard, Big game
in Rhodesia, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 228-230, 1923. Lang, The vanishing wild life
of Africa, Natural History, xxiv, 313-327, 1924.

EXTINCTION OF CERTAIN MAMMALS 143

with its attendant increase of population and the devotion of much
larger areas to agriculture, the larger mammals must give way to a great
extent, as they have in North America. The present big herds of buffalo
and various species of antelope, wild elephants, rhinoceroses and the like
are quite incompatible with fields of grain and fruit-raising on a large
scale, and cannot be permitted where there is a dense human popula-
tion. The great beasts of prey such as lions, and leopards, which an-
nually take a considerable toll from human life on that continent, would
destroy many more human lives, as well as livestock, if they were al-
lowed to exist in present numbers amid a much more dense population.
Roosevelt says that "the dangerous game of Africa are the lion, buf-
falo, elephant, rhinoceros and leopard."3 The hippopotamus also some-
times attacks and overturns boats and kills or injures their occupants.
Inevitable as the depletion of the large mammals of Africa may be,
that does not excuse their wanton slaughter in the wilderness.

Wild life in India also is being rapidly reduced.4

Australia's unique fauna of marsupials exhibits the inroads of civili-
zation, with its changing conditions in large areas. They were once
abundant, and, being rapid breeders, were for a long time unaffected
by civilization, but they have recently been greatly reduced except
where protected. Thousands of skins of kangaroos are annually mar-
keted. Introduced rabbits have destroyed the food supply of the native
animals in many places, foxes and domestic cats have preyed upon
the young, and the clearing of scrub and bush lands has had detri-
mental effect. Bush fires have destroyed many, and poisons put out
for rabbits are said to have done more harm to native animals than
to the rabbits.5 Brush, forest and prairie fires, usually resulting from
human activities of one sort or another, have also been very destructive
to mammals in the United States, not only directly, but indirectly by
destroying their food and haunts and thus preventing the rapid nat-
ural restocking of the burned-over areas.6

When white men first penetrated the American wilderness they
found the bison, or buffalo, as it is more commonly called, ranging over

3 Roosevelt, Game trails in Africa, p. 58, 1910.

4 Faunthrope, The disappearance of wild life in India, Natural History, xxiv,
570-574, 1923.

5 Hoy, The present status of the Australian mammal fauna, Journ. Mammalogy,
iv, 164-166, 1923.

a Brown, Fire and its effect on wild life, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 195-196, 19 "3.
Mills, Deadly effect of forest fires on fur-bearers, Parks and Recreation, vn, 636-
638, 1924. Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, p. 22, 1921. Stivers,
Forest fires destroy game, California Fish and Game, vi, 36-37, 1920.

144 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

a large part of what is now the United States and British America. It
was inevitable that the settlement of a large part of their range by
agriculturists and stock-growers would deplete the herds and restrict
their range. Their gregarious habits made them peculiarly susceptible
to attack. Slowly they were exterminated all over the eastern part
of their range. When the westward march of white men reached the
Great Plains extending from British America to Texas and from the
Missouri River to the Rocky Mountains, they found the bison roaming
in vast hordes. The total number has been variously estimated, even
as high as 30,000,000 to 60,000,000, which latter figure is probably
extravagant, but the numbers must have run well up into millions.

For many centuries these herds had been the chief dependence of the
Plains Indians for meat, the skins furnishing raiment and shelter. With
the advent of white hunters, trappers and pioneer settlers, the caravans
of immigrants and government exploring and surveying expeditions,
they also found the bison an abundant source of food. The workmen
engaged in the construction of railroads over the plains were fed
largely on buffalo meat while in the neighborhood of the herds. The
coming of the railroads made available the eastern markets and the
slaughter of these noble animals began. Theretofore it had been difficult
to get the bulky skins to the market and in the absence of refrigera-
tion the meat could not be marketed at all, except locally. Within a
few years after opening the railroads the vast herds had ceased to
exist, and this species, once so abundant over so large a territory, was
reduced to a mere remnant, divided into a few small, widely scattered
herds. "The buffalo hunters paved the prairies of Texas and Colorado
with festering carcasses" (Hornaday). This sudden and appalling de-
struction and the unpardonable waste that attended it are a lasting
disgrace to civilization, but such has ever been the history of the con-
tact of advancing civilization with wild animals, especially with the
larger species. It was estimated that in 1870 there were still 5,500,000
of them left, but in 1885 one could travel almost all over the former
range of the species in the United States and never see one.7

It is said that 50,000 were killed for their tongues alone, the meat

7 See Nelson, Nat. Geog. Mag. xxx, 389, 1916. Allen, History of the American
bison, <?th Ann. Kept. Hayden's U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr, (for 1875), pp. 443-547, (re-
printed from Mem. Kentucky Geol. Surv. and Mem. Museum Comp. Zool. at Har-
vard College). Hornaday, The extermination of the American bison, Ann. Kept.
U. S. Natl. Mus. for 1887, pp. 367-547. McAllister, California's large game animals,
California Fish and Game, ix, 11-15, 1923; Canada leads in buffalo conservation,
California Fish and Game, xiv, 155-156, 1928.

EXTINCTION OF CERTAIN MAMMALS 145

and skins being left to decompose on the ground. The figures for 1872,
1873 and 1874, partly from actual statistics and partly estimated, are
enlightening. One railroad in the three years carried out 459,453 skins,
10,793,350 pounds of bones (gathered partly from the "kills" of
former years) and only 2,250,400 pounds of meat. Inasmuch as the
animals mostly weighed from 800 to 1,400 pounds each, it is seen that
less than i per cent of the meat was utilized. It is estimated that the
total kill of bison by whites during the three years was 3,158,730, the
kill by Indians for the same period being only 390,000. Most of those
killed by the whites were destroyed for the skins alone, which so glutted
the markets that for some time the largest, fine bull skins brought only
$1.00 each at the railroad station, smaller cow skins bringing only 40
to 50 cents. Long after the great herds had been destroyed their bleach-
ing bones were gathered from the plains and shipped to market in
large quantities.

On the Great Plains the pronghorn antelope was also very abundant.
Some observers declared that it was even more numerous than the
bison, though not so noticeable because of its less conspicuous colors
and smaller size. Like the bison, it has been so persistently hunted that
it has entirely disappeared over most of the vast region where it was
formerly so abundant, and where it still survives, its numbers are
insignificant as compared with its former abundance. As it does not
thrive or breed in captivity, and for its existence seems to require its
natural environment more than most animals do, the prospects for its
future do not seem very bright.8

Mountain sheep and mountain goats in the United States, except in
a few areas where all hunting is entirely prohibited, are now confined
to localities very difficult of access, and even where theoretically fully
protected by law they are often illegally and surreptitiously killed by
men who seem unable to resist the temptation to kill any wild animal
that comes within range of the rifles.

When white men began the task of wresting North America from
the possession of its Indian inhabitants, deer were almost everywhere
common and in many regions plentiful. Now they have entirely disap-
peared from vast areas, even where the land has not been broken by
the plow, and in very few localities are they as abundant as they once
were. The elk, once widely and generally distributed over a large part

8 Nelson, Status of the pronghorned antelope in 1922-1924, U. S. Dept. Agric.
Bull. No. 1346, 1925.

146 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

of the continent and very abundant in many localities, is now extermi-
nated over much the greater part of its former range and greatly re-
duced-in numbers almost everywhere. Hundreds of elk have been il-
legally killed just for the two teeth worn as emblems by members of
a fraternal organization, and the slaughter is still going on.9 Before
the enactment of game laws, Alaska deer were killed by the thousands
merely for their hides, which sold for a few cents each, the venison
being shamelessly wasted.

The musk-ox of the Far North, a gregarious animal, had developed
habits that enabled it to successfully resist the attacks of wolves and
other natural enemies, but those habits were fatal when its home was
invaded by men carrying powerful, rapid-fire rifles. Like the antelope,
it will not thrive if removed from its natural habitat. Thus far the
musk-ox has been rather well protected by its isolation and the diffi-
culties of transportation that discouraged most men from attempting
the penetration of the inhospitable region, but as it is now reduced al-
most to the point of extermination, and those difficulties are being
overcome, only the most rigorous protection can save these unique
animals from annihilation.

The beaver, another exceedingly interesting animal, was once very
abundant throughout the greater part of the United States and British
America. Because of its abundance, the ease with which large numbers
could be captured and the excellence of its pelt, it was for a great many
years the backbone of the world's fur trade. As a result it was some
time ago exterminated from a large part of its range in America, as
it was in Europe, and in nearly every region where it survives the
living animals are a small remnant of the former beaver population.
Recognizing its value as a fur-bearer, serious and successful efforts are
now being made to re-establish it in favorable localities where it should
be able to thrive and where its operations will do little harm to agri-
cultural or other private or public interests.

Hunting and trapping has wrought great havoc also among other
groups of fur-bearing animals all over the world. Published records
show that 107,689,927 skins of 23 kinds of fur-bearers passed through
the principal fur-trade markets in 1921. This does not include all the
wild animals that are used extensively in the fur trade or the millions
of furs that do not pass through the centers of the trade and conse-
quently are unreported. So serious has become the destruction of fur-

9 Leek, Elk tusk hunting, Outdoor Life, xxxv, 149-151, 1915.

EXTINCTION OF CERTAIN MAMMALS 147

bearers that some nations and most of the states of the United States
of America have enacted laws requiring licenses and otherwise regu-
lating trapping, and providing close seasons for certain species. One
Boston fur-buyer reported that in three years, 1918-1920, the offerings
of muskrat skins fell off 50 per cent per annum, while in Wisconsin
800,000 were marketed in 1917, 300,000 in 1918 and only 150,000 in
1919, though each year there was an increase of about 10 per cent in
the number of licensed trappers.10

Though hunting game animals for the market, which was one of
the principal causes of their wholesale destruction, has now been pro-
hibited in most states, that, of course, is impracticable in case of the
trapping of fur-bearers. In 1921 there were about 4,000,000 hunting
licenses issued in the United States. In addition, many men hunted
in isolated localities without licenses, and in some states boys beneath
a certain age and men hunting on their own land are not required to
procure licenses.

The animals structurally so modified as to adapt them to a more or
less complete marine existence have been as vigorously persecuted,
chiefly for the oil they yield. In the American Antarctic, 5500 whales
were taken from one whaling station in a single season. They were
relentlessly pursued in all the seas for years until in most regions
they became so scarce that whaling was no longer profitable. As they
became scarce the whalers turned their attention more energetically to
the pursuit of other oil-yielding animals. The sea-elephant, once abun-
dant in some localities along the Pacific Coast of America, was soon
brought by hunters to the verge of extinction. The Arctic sea-cow, once
locally abundant but of very limited range in the Far Northwest, was
discovered in 1742, and about twenty-five years later, in 1767 or 1768,
the last one is said to have been killed. Sea-lions have been killed in
large numbers along the Pacific Coast, sometimes under bounty acts,
under the apparently mistaken notion that they are very destructive
to fish. The walrus, both European and American, has been destruc-
tively hunted for its oil and ivory. In Europe it soon became too scarce
for profitable hunting. In one rookery of Norway 600 were killed in
six hours. On the northwest coast of America the walrus was de-
pended upon by natives for food, while its skin was used in the con-
struction of boats and for other purposes, its blubber furnished them
with oil, and its ivory was found useful and later on salable. When

10 Bailey, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 135, pp. 6-7, 1920.

148 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

whalers turned their attention to this animal, their numbers were re-
duced 50 per cent in ten years. From 1870 to 1880 100,000 were killed.
Sea otters, once abundant, are approaching extinction.

The fur seal of the North Atlantic was at one time threatened with
extinction for its fur. Its rapid destruction led to a serious crisis in
the amicable relations between the United States and Great Britain,
but fine statesmanship finally averted disruption and resulted in the
protection of the seals by laws and international treaties. Even the hair
seal, not valuable as a fur-bearer, has long been the subject of constant
assault for its oil and leather. In 1889 it was estimated that 875,000
were killed annually. Unlike rodents and some other animals, the
marine mammals are not rapid breeders and cannot long survive de-
struction in large numbers.

While all this destruction of useful mammals was in progress, ap-
parently with little thought of the future, useful birds and fishes and
extensive forests were also being wastefully destroyed. It is only with-
in comparatively few years that the seriousness of the situation, long
apparent to naturalists, began to impress the general public and make
itself felt in legislative halls. With wider diffusion of a knowledge of
the facts, public sentiment is beginning to crystallize into better laws
and better enforcement, but very much remains yet to be done if some
of our useful species of mammals are to be preserved from total ex-
termination. No effort should be spared to get the exact facts before
all people in such form that they may realize the urgent need of con-
servation of the more useful forms of wild life.

Unfortunately, while the general assault on useful animals all along
the line has been going on, but little systematic, wide-spread, con-
certed effort has been made to prevent the dissemination and increase of
destructive animals, except the large predatory species. During a cen-
tury and a half the brown rat, said to be the most destructive mammalian
pest in the world, and the house mouse, also very destructive and a
great nuisance, have been allowed to spread from Europe almost over
the whole civilized part of the globe, and to multiply enormously. Pre-
dacious birds and mammals that feed largely upon rats, mice, gophers
and other harmful rodents, have been destroyed by the thousands,
leaving these prolific animals to increase without the hindrance of their
natural enemies. In some cases man has deliberately introduced harm-
ful species into new territory, with disastrous results, as witness the
European house sparrow in America, the rabbit in Australia, the mon-

EXTINCTION OF CERTAIN MAMMALS 149

goose in Jamaica, the goat on St. Helena, and many other instances.
It is strange that civilized man, with his boasted scientific attainments
and partial conquest of nature, should do so many things detrimental
to the interests of the human race — things that every student of na-
tural science knows are foolish. This is largely because of the difficulty
of getting accurate information to the general public.

The foregoing is the dark side of the picture. The destruction of use-
ful animals has been due to ignorance and thoughtlessness, not to
viciousness. Lest one get the idea that the human race is altogether de-
praved, let us turn now to the bright side. Man has entered into
great waste spaces and made them blossom and bring forth food and
other products in abundance. He has carried water in canals to irri-
gate arid tracts, where now are fields of waving grain. He has planted
orchards and shade trees, surrounded his home with flowers and shrub-
bery and given to the world much of beauty to partly compensate for
beauty he has ruthlessly destroyed. He has developed and introduced
many improved varieties of fruits, vegetables and animals and in many
ways bettered living conditions for the race. In other words, though
some of his activities have been destructive, others have been con-
structive. He need only be properly and convincingly informed, to de-
mand that needless destruction of useful wild life shall cease.

XXV
THE PROTECTION OF USEFUL MAMMALS

We have seen that, through the intervention of man, with his death-
dealing weapons and his sweeping and rapid environmental transforma-
tions, many useful mammals, as well as birds and other organisms, have
been greatly reduced, brought to the verge of extinction or entirely ex-
terminated. Some of the destruction was practically unpreventable, as
great herds of bison and elk, large numbers of deer and so on, were
wholly incompatible with dense population centers, but a great deal of
it could have been prevented. Except for the uncontrolled greed of
hide-hunters, small, picturesque herds of bison would still be scat-
tered about, to the delight of travellers, an attraction to many pleasure
resorts and a source of occasional meat for settlers. A few deer, left
in some of the vast areas from which they have been totally destroyed,
would now be a source of profit to thousands and of pleasure to mil-
lions of people. Had the people soon enough awakened to the serious-
ness of the onslaught, the pronghorned antelope would still be seen in
small numbers over much of its former range, and people who wish a
sight of these beautiful animals would not have to travel into remote
and almost inaccessible regions for a bare chance of seeing them.

Fortunately the dissemination of accurate knowledge upon the sub-
ject is slowly developing a strong public sentiment in favor of better
protection of our useful wild animals and their re-establishment in re-
gions from which they have long since disappeared. One of the first
fruits of aroused public opinion was the enactment of better protec-
tive laws and their more thorough enforcement. Much yet remains to
be done in this direction, but this whole subject is discussed at some
length in a special chapter on legislation, and need not be discussed here.
Several other movements have been inaugurated that promise important
results.

There is more serious consideration of the biological facts in fram-
ing and enforcing bird, mammal and fish laws, than formerly. There is
need of much research as a basis for such laws, as many of them are
scientifically unsound, based upon hunters' traditions, rather than upon
demonstrated truth. For example, there is a serious question as to

150

PROTECTION OF USEFUL MAMMALS 15!

the soundness of a permanent close season on does. Many students
of the subject are coming to the belief that the unbalancing of the
sexes, arising from an annual open season on bucks and complete close
season on does, is producing undesirable results,1 and the tendency
now is drifting toward some sort of an open season for does. Also it
is now well known that it is quite possible to give a species too much
protection. Consequently game commissioners are in some states being
given greater discretionary power. This is a good thing where such
commissioners are careful to get the facts and principles involved
straight before acting, not acting hastily or unadvisedly. Deer have be-
come too plentiful for their food supply in some localities, the most
acute situation in this respect being in Kaibab Forest, Arizona.2 Larger
animals in some of the game reserves have become so abundant that
the surplus animals are being offered for sale.3

The possibility of re-stocking a region with game by proper pro-
tection is exhibited by Vermont, where deer were practically exter-
minated in 1870. In 1875 thirty were introduced and protected until
1897; thereafter, with a short open season, they continued to increase.
In 1901, 211 were killed, 561 in 1902, 791 in 1905, 1600 in 1907, 5261
in 1909, computed to have furnished for the latter year 716,358 pounds
of meat worth $85,962; damages paid to farmers in 1908-1909 for
injury to crops, only $4,865.90; value of meat, hides and horns ob-
tained for those two years, $io7,79O.4

One of the most important steps in the protection of mammals is a
campaign of education — getting full and reliable information to the
general public. The vast store of knowledge of the habits and economic
status of various species laboriously accumulated by naturalists, work-
ing independently or under state or federal departments or bureaus,
will accomplish little unless the more important facts and conclusions
become generally known outside the small technical groups that gather
the information. To this end there are now established a considerable
number of periodicals devoted wholly or partly to the protection of
wild life. Some of these are published privately, but they are mostly the

lrThe Pennsylvania deer problem, Pennsylvania Game Comm. Bull. No. 12; Cali-
fornia Fish and Game, xv, 138-139, 1929. Schierbeck, Is it right to protect the fe-
male of the species at the cost of the male?, Canadian Field. Nat., XLIII, 6-9, 1929.

2Grinnell, The starving deer of the Kaibab Forest, Outlook, cxxxvi, 186-187, 1924.

3 California Fish and Game, xv, 155-156, 1929. American Forests and Forest Life,
xxxiv, 123, 1928. Goldman, Game surpluses perplex wild-life guardians, Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1926, pp. 397-399-

4 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, p. 9, 1921. Hornaday, Wild
life conservation, p. 106.

152

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

TABLE OF NATIONAL WILD-LIFE RESERVATIONS

State or
Territory

Under direction of Department of
Agriculture

Under direction of Department
of Commerce

Acres

Type of life protected

Acres

Type of life protected

Alabama

635

Water Birds. +A11 forms of wild life.

Arizona

21 ,120

886,200

Mule deer, mountain sheep, Kaibab
squirrel, cormorant, pelican, game
birds. All wild life.

907,320

Arkansas

9,000

21 ,500

White-tailed deer, ducks, quail, and
turkey. +A11 other wild life.

30,500

California

44,140
15,770

Mule deer, bear, fur animals, water
bir-ds; all other wild life.

120 +

Sea lions — any other
form of life found
there.

59,910

Colorado

Florida

254 +

Water and shore birds, all kinds of
wild life.

Georgia

600

14,000

White-tailed deer, raccoon, opossum,
birds +all other wild life.

14,600

Idaho

15,540

All types of wild life. Water, game,
and shore birds.

Illinois

No acreage
given

Muskrat, mink, raccoon, fox, beaver,
and other animals.

Iowa

No acreage
given

Muskrat, mink, raccoon, fox, beaver,
and other animals.

Louisiana

63 +

Water birds mainly— all wild life.

5,640

All forms of life—
mainly birds.

Maine

Michigan

92

Water birds mainly; all wild life.

Minnesota

7 +

Muskrat, mink, raccoon, fox, beaver,
and other animals.

Mississippi

Montana

81,882 +

Buffalo, elk, deer, mountain sheep,
and birds and other wild life.

Nebraska

21 , 232

Buffalo, elk, and antelope; and birds;
and other wild life.

Nevada

248

Birds; all wild life.

New Mexico

74,360

Birds — all wild life.

PROTECTION OF USEFUL MAMMALS 153

TABLE OF NATIONAL WILD-LIFE RESERVATIONS (CONTINUED)

Under direction of
Department of Interior

Under direction of
Department of Navy

Under direction of
Department of War

Acres

Type of life protected

Acres

Type of life
protected

Acres

Type of life
protected

673,608

Mountain sheep, mule deer,
antelope, beaver, squirrel —
all other wild life.

928

All forms of wild life, but non-
game birds especially.

1,213,984

Mule deer, bear, elk, all birds,
all other wild life.

304,614

Mule deer, elk, bear, mountain
sheep, beaver, and all other
wild life.

6,542

Deer, rabbits, gray
squirrel; all forms of
life.

23,040

Buffalo, mountain sheep, elk,
antelope, mule deer, white-
tailed deer, moose, bear — all
other wild life.

9,600

White-tailed deer, beaver— all
other wild life.

2,680

Deer, squirrels; all
forms of wild life.

1,323

Deer, squirrels, opos-
sums, rabbits, rac-
coons, foxes — all
forms of wild life.

i ,108,401

Deer, elk, moose, mountain
sheep, mountain goat, bear,
buffalo, antelope, and all other
forms of wild life.

45,423

Deer, squirrels, all
other wild life.

1 54 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

TABLE OF NATIONAL WILD-LIFE RESERVATIONS (CONTINUED)

State or
Territory

Under direction of Department of
Agriculture

Under direction of Department
of Commerce

Acres

Special type of life

Acres

Special type of life

North Carolina

89,513

Elk, white-tailed deer, gray squirrel;
other wild life.

North Dakota

3,567

Buffalo, elk, antelope, white-tailed
deer; and other wild life.

Oklahoma

60,800

Buffalo, antelope, elk, white-tailed
deer; other wild life.

Oregon

183,052

All wild life; mainly all types of aqua-
tic birds.

South Carolina

2,352

All wild life; mainly avian.

South Dakota

17,840
44,360

Mountain goat, mountain sheep, deer,
elk, buffalo, antelope; all wild life.

62 , 200

Tennessee

30 ,000

White-tailed deer; other wild life.

Utah

14,080 +

All types of wild life; mainly avian.

Virginia

Washington

7,229
299,370

Olympic elk, black-tailed deer, bear;
other wild life.

306,599

Wisconsin

No acreage
given

Muskrat, mink, raccoon, fox, and
other wild life.

Wyoming

39,509
28,318

Elk, mule deer; other wild life. Winter
feeding grounds.

67,827

Alaska

13, 120

Muskrat, beaver, sea otter, sea lion,
red fox, blue fox, caribou , brown bear,
black bear, lynx, mink, ermine, rein-
deer; other wild life.

561 , ooo

Fur seal, sea otter,
sea lion; all other
wild life.

Hawaii

Porto Rico

No acreage
given

All wild life — mainly all types of water
birds.

All forms of wild life found on the reservations are protected, excepting such species as are a menace
to those forms for which the reservations have been established.

All wild life in National Parks, National Monuments, and Lighthouse Reservations is protected, al-
though such areas are not strictly game preserves.

Certain areas within National Forests administered by the Forest Service have been set aside to afford
protection particularly to big-game animals.

PROTECTION OF USEFUL MAMMALS 155

TABLE OF NATIONAL WILD-LIFE RESERVATIONS (CONTINUED)

Under the direction of the
Department of the Interior

JJnder the direction of the
Department of the Navy

Under the direction of the
Department of War

Acres

Special type of life

Acres

Special type of life

Acres

Special type of life

780

Buffalo, elk, white-tailed deer,
antelope, and other wild life.

849

Buffalo, elk, white-tailed deer,
and other wild life.

159,360

Black-tailed deer. elk. bear,
marten, all fur-bearers, and
other wild life.

lo.goe^

Buffalo, elk, antelope, and
other wild life.

5,548

Deer, squirrels; all
forms of wild life.

3,546 +

Deer, fox, raccoon,
mink, opossum,
squirrel, muskrat,
rabbit, skunk, and
other wild life.

90,880

Mule deer, other wild life.

13,995

Rabbits; game
birds, and other
wild life.

208 , ooo

Black-tailed deer, mountain
goat, bear; other wild life.

2,088,960

Buffalo, mountain sheep, an-
telope, mule deer, moose, bear,
and other wild life.

56,132

Antelope; all forms
of wild life.

3,945,590

Mountain goat, mountain
sheep, bear, fox, caribou,
moose, and other wild life.

158,720

All forms of wild life, particu-
larly non-game birds.

No
acreage
given.

All forms of wild
life; mainly
aquatic birds.

156

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

TABLE OF STATE WILD-LIFE RESERVATIONS

State

Acreage — Preserves

Type of life

Alabama

16,000 +

Deer, game birds.

Arkansas

13,695 +

Squirrel, deer, game birds.

Arizona

866,500 +

All game. Predatory animals not pro-
tected.

California

Had 15 or more reserves
in 1925

Colorado

3,324,480

All game

Connecticut

167,423

All game.

Delaware

No state-controlled game
preserves

Hunting prohibited in all parks and
estates; also in strip of land in Sussex
County.

Florida

3,819,840

Game mammals and game birds.

Georgia

14,000

All game and wild life.

Idaho

3,000,000

All forms of game. Predatory animals
not protected.

Illinois

3,403 +

All game.

Indiana

12,924

Game mammals, fur-bearers, game
birds.

Iowa

2,334

All game birds — all hunting prohibited.

Kentucky

One refuge; acreage not
given

Deer, turkey, smaller game mammals
and birds.

Kansas

6,757

All game.

Louisiana

512,013 +

Muskrat, raccoon, mink, otter, opossum,
deer, bear, squirrel, rabbit, wildcat,
wolves, foxes, game birds, migratory
water fowl.

Maine

268,577

Deer, rabbit, moose, fox, skunk, squirrel,
porcupine, raccoon, game birds.

Maryland

32,525

Deer, rabbits. All hunting prohibited.

Massachusetts

110,328.26

All forms of game.

Michigan

280,000

Deer, bear, and associated game.
(163+ private dedications)

Minnesota

1,521,331

Beaver, deer, muskrat, otter, badger,
squirrel, game birds.

Mississippi

No data

Has no fish and game commission.

Missouri

49,365.54

Deer, bear, beaver.

Montana

3,471,151.82 +

All game.

Nebraska

277,730

Game bird preserves only. •

Nevada

3,414,472 +

All wild life.

PROTECTION OF USEFUL MAMMALS 157

TABLE OF STATE WILD-LIFE RESERVATIONS (CONTINUED)

State

Acreage — Preserves

Type of life

New Hampshire

9,610

All game.

New Jersey

59,775 — no hunting
16 , 587 — under game laws

Rabbit, deer, fox, raccoon, squirrel,
skunk, muskrat, weasel, game birds.

76,362

New Mexico

2,323,591

Deer, bear, beaver, small mammals.

New York

14,440 — private
8,687— state

Deer, bear, beaver, small mammals.

23,127

North Carolina

671,330

Deer, bear, squirrel, rabbit, opossum,
raccoon, fox.

North Dakota

1,760 +

Hundreds of refuges set aside on pri-
vately owned ground. Buffalo, elk,
deer, game birds.

Ohio

No data

Oklahoma

135,000 +

Buffalo, deer, squirrels, other small
game.

Oregon

1,887,640

Sheep, deer, game birds. All hunting
prohibited in many preserves.

Pennsylvania

106,394.7

Deer, cottontail rabbit, black, gray, and
fox squirrels, black bear, raccoon,
opossum, varying hare, elk.

Rhode Island

17,170

Gray squirrel, rabbit.

South Carolina

61,086
(31 sanctuaries)

All game.

South Dakota

13,160

Deer, elk, buffalo, mountain sheep, and
mountain goats, antelope.

Tennessee

36,500

Deer, bear, fur animals.

Texas

3,000,000
(64 preserves)

All game.

Utah

No data

Vermont

900+ 12 game refuges
(area not given)

Deer, rabbits.

Virginia

217,765
(195 sanctuaries)

No hunting.

Washington

12,613,129

All game. 29.36% of State in game pre-
serves.

West Virginia

140,000

All game.

Wisconsin

96,640+

All wild life.

Wyoming

3,464,280

Deer, moose, elk, antelope, mt. sheep.

1 58 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

publications of organizations composed of sportsmen of the better class
(the real sportsmen), naturalists and other nature lovers. A few peri-
odicals of importance are published by state fish and game commis-
sions. Many special bulletins and circulars upon the same subject are
issued by state and government departments and bureaus, especially
the United States Biological Survey, and by several state fish and game
commissions, for free distribution. The aggregate number of people
reached by all these publications is very large, but there are still mil-
lions of people in this country who never see such literature and are
thoroughly ignorant of the whole subject — sometimes even men and
women who are reasonably well-informed in a general way.

In recent years there have been many successful efforts, both public
and private, to re-stock certain areas with elk, deer, beaver and other
animals that had long ago been destroyed or driven therefrom. The re-
sults will doubtless encourage other experiments of the sort.

A great many private and public bird and mammal refuges have
been established in which hunting is entirely prohibited, and the idea
of dedicating large tracts of public and private land to the protec-
tion of wild life is rapidly growing in favor. Some of the refuges
are fenced and under more or less complete control. Others, including
the national parks and most of the state and national refuges are open,
affording breeding grounds from which the surplus animals, as they
increase in numbers, may overflow into the surrounding regions. There
are now several hundred such refuges in the United States, most of the
states and Canadian provinces having some within their boundaries.5

The accompanying tables of refuges have been compiled from in-
formation furnished by the United States Department of Agriculture
and the game officials of the various states.

6 Palmer, Private game preserves and their future in the United States, U. S.
Biol. Surv. Circular No. 72, 1910; National reservations for the protection of wild
life, ibid., No. 87, 1912; Game as a national resource, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No.
1049, 1922 (game refuges on pp. 28-49). Phillips, Pennsylvania's game refuge system
and what it is doing to bring back our game, Pennsylvania State Board Agric., 1923.
California Fish and Game, x, 95, 1924; xi, 119-120, "1925; ix, 175, 1923. Nelson, U. S.
Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1346, p. 14, 1925. Bird-Lore, 157-158, 1928. Lantz, Deer farm-
ing in the United States, Farmers' Bull, No. 330, 1908; Deer farming, U. S. Biol.
Surv. Bull. No. 36, 1910. National wild life reservations, U. S. Dept. Agric. Miscell.
Pub. No. 51, 1929. National bird and mammal reservations in Alaska in charge of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No. 71, 1910. Hewitt,
The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 235-257, 1921. Ligon, Wild life of
New Mexico, pp. 171-184, 1927. Amer. Forests and Forest Life, xxxiv, 114, 1928.

XXVI

THE CONTROL AND DESTRUCTION OF
INJURIOUS MAMMALS

As many species of mammals are exceedingly destructive, it is not
surprising to find an extensive literature concerning methods of de-
stroying them and otherwise preventing their depredations. Methods
of destruction mostly in use are by firearms, traps, poisons and fumi-
gants. Protecting property from damage by mammals without destroy-
ing them is accomplished chiefly by proper construction of buildings
and the erection of woven-wire fences. Formulae for poisons and direc-
tions for fence and building construction, trapping and otherwise
fighting the pests are contained in many of the publications cited in
the footnotes, but cannot be set forth in detail here. The bounty sys-
tem of controlling mammalian pests, which has not proved very ef-
fective, is discussed in the chapter on legislation. Better results could
probably be obtained by using the money appropriated for the pay-
ment of bounties in financing sustained, systematic campaigns in large
areas. Especially is this true of the smaller pests.

One thing that should be emphasized in all campaigns for the con-
trol of noxious mammals is the need of cooperation of landowners
over large areas. This may be accomplished by volunteer organization,
but if some refuse to join in the organized effort they reap the benefit
of the expenditure of time and money by their neighbors, without
contributing their share toward the campaign. This may be obviated
by laws permitting the organization of pest districts, with power to
compel contribution from all within the district, as provided, for ex-
ample, by the Colorado pest law.1 Unless the campaign covers a reason-
ably large area, the lands where the pests are uncontrolled remain breed-
ing grounds from which surplus animals overflow upon the lands from
which the campaign has eliminated them. Furthermore, such cam-
paigns should be under the direction of experts wrho are perfectly
familiar with the habits of the animals and methods of attacking them.
Small local organizations cannot, of course, afford to maintain such
experts, but fortunately the United States Biological Survey has them

1 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 8, p. 13, 1913.

159

l6o ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

and provides them in cooperative work in various regions as they are
needed. There are also some men of experience in such work in the
employment of various states, as well as some "unattached" individuals.

Some species so useful that their protection is very desirable, under
certain circumstances become locally so destructive that some method
must be adopted to prevent their depredations or to minimize the
damage resulting therefrom. There are often means of controlling their
pernicious activities without resorting to their wholesale destruction.
For example, the beaver is a valuable fur-bearer, and most of the trees
it cuts for food and for use in the construction of its houses and dams
are of little value, but sometimes, where such trees are scarce and others
are accessible, it attacks fruit, shade or other valuable trees. These may
be protected by woven-wire cylinders placed about them at a distance
of a few inches, 3 feet high, supported by substantial stakes. Woven
wire also makes good beaver fences. Their building dams so high as to
flood valuable adjacent land may be prevented by placing drain pipes in
the dams, directions for which have been published.2

Woven wire may also be used to prevent muskrats and other useful
animals from damaging gardens and burrowing into embankments,3
and to protect poultry from weasels and skunks,4 which are very use-
ful as enemies of rodents and insects. Nests of some small species of
birds may be protected from cats by woven wire of mesh large enough
to admit the birds but too small to admit cats, set far enough away
to prevent cats from reaching the nests with their paws. Cat-proof
poultry-yard fences are difficult to construct on account of the climbing
ability of the house cat, which will surmount a woven-wire fence, or,
if there is a tree near-by, it will climb the tree and drop into the en-
closure from a limb. Forbush says that an effective fence may be made
by use of six-foot woven wire set close to the ground at the bottom,
with a three-foot twine net above, fastened at the lower edge to the
top of the woven wire, making a fence nine feet high. The net baffles
the cat by giving beneath its weight.5

Deer and elk, though classed among the useful species, sometimes do
some damage to gardens, which may be prevented by good fences.
Lantz says that an elk-proof fence should be five or six feet high, but

2 Bailey, Beaver habits and experiments in beaver culture, U. S. Dept. Agric. Tech.
Bull. No. 21, pp. 13-14, 30-31, 1927; Beaver habits, beaver control and possibilities
in beaver farming;, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull No. 1078, pp. 11-12, 1922.

3 Lantz, The muskrat, Farmers' Bull No. 396, pp. 34-35, 1920.

4 Bailey, Farmers' Bull. No. 335, p. 28, 1908.

5 Forbush, The domestic cat, Massachusetts State Board of Agric., Econ. Biol.,
Bull. No. 2, p. 88, 1916.

CONTROL OF INJURIOUS MAMMALS l6l

a foot or two higher would be better.6 Woolen cloths soaked in sheep
dip, hung in the trees by means of wires, so as not to come in contact
with the bark, are said to keep deer away from orchard trees.7

The two most destructive groups of mammals are the "beasts of
prey," especially the Canidae and Felidae, and the Rodentia and their
allies. In the control of these groups the United States Biological
Survey cooperates with farmers and stockmen, placing the government
experts in charge of the work. In such cooperative work in the western
United States from 1914 to 1923, the hunters and trappers killed
186,172 coyotes, 4916 wolves, 999 mountain lions, 83 lynxes, 23,274
bobcats and 579 bears, the skins of which were sold for $310,306 to re-
pay the government for part of the expenses of the work.8 There is a
growing belief among naturalists that the campaign against coyotes may
be carried too far, a subject discussed- in another chapter. Poisons are
extensively used in such work, especially against coyotes, and many of
the animals are shot, but a much larger number are caught in traps
than are shot. Trained dogs have been found very effective in hunt-
ing mountain lions.9 In California 3627 of these big cats were killed
under the bounty system from 1907 to 1919, then the California Fish
and Game Commission decided that a better way is to employ one or
more expert official hunters, with their dogs.10 The big cats of other
lands, such as the tiger, African lion, leopard and jaguar are usually
taken by rifle or trap.

Sheep and other domesticated animals may be protected from coy-
otes, wolves and sheep-killing dogs by a fence of three- foot woven
wire, five-inch mesh, with one barbed wire stretched close to the ground,
the woven wire set three inches above it, and above the woven wire
two barbed wires set six inches apart, all tightly stretched. In regions
where snowfall is heavy other barbed wires may be added at the top
or wider woven wire used.11

In the control of rats, mice and some other rodent pests, the first

6 Lantz, Deer farming in the United States, Farmers' Bull. No. 330, p. 12, 1908 ;
Raising deer and other large game animals in the United States, U. S. Biol. Surv.
Bull. No. 36, p. 37, 1910.

7 Dondero, Protecting orchards from deer, California Fish and Game, xiv, 221,
1928. True, ibid., xvm, 136-147, 156-165, 1932.

"Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, 582-583, 1926. See also Bell, Hunting
down stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp. 289-301.

9 Roosevelt. With the couger hounds, Scribner's Magazine, xxx, 417-435,1901.

10 Hunter, The control of the mountain lion, California Fish and Game, VTI, 99-
101, 1921. Bruce, The how and why of mountain lion hunting, ibid., vin, 108-114,
1922; The problem of mountain lion hunting in California, ibid., xi, 1-17, 1925.

11 Bailey, Directions for the destruction of wolves and coyotes, U. S. Biol. Surv.
Circular No. 55, p. 5, 1907 ; ibid., No. 63, 1908 ; Farmers' Bull., No. 335, 1908 ; Wolves

1 62 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

step should be to eliminate their hiding places, such as piles of old lum-
ber, brush heaps and weed patches. Their burrows should be plugged.
All foodstuffs should be kept in rat-proof rooms or containers. As
soon as crops are removed from fields and gardens there should be a
general clean-up.12 Buildings should be rat^proofed by the free use
of cement, with tin or sheetiron re-enforcement of the bottoms of doors
and other places where gnawing is likely to occur.13 All openings should
be closed so far as practicable, and necessary openings such as drain-
pipes and ventilators should be screened. Rats and mice may often be
cleared from infested buildings by fumigation, and trapping by experts
is an excellent method of disposing of them. For poisoning rats, barium
carbonate is preferred to strychnine by many, as rats are said to have
acquired remarkable resistance to the latter and perhaps to other
poisons. In the use of poison great care should of course always be
exercised to place it where it cannot be reached by children, or by
dogs or other valuable animals for which it is not intended. All ani-
mals are more easily caught or poisoned when food is scarce and they
are consequently hungry, hence another reason for keeping foodstuffs,
as well as garbage, where mice and rats cannot get them.14

Silver recommends deterrent odors (where no foods can be affected
thereby), such as flake napthaline in quantity, creosote, carbolic acid,
kerosene, oils of peppermint and wintergreen, sulphur, lime, lye and
copperas ; and for deodorizing when rats and mice have died in build-
ings he recommends, as best, a few teaspoonfuls of lysol, dropped
into their holes or other suspected places, though zinc chloride is also
good.15 As in campaigns against other pests, community cooperation
is often desirable, in order to get rid of sources of infestation.

In western states where woodchucks are not overly abundant they
have been successfully controlled by use of poisons placed in their

in relation to stock, game and national forest reserves, U. S. Forest Service Bull.
No. 20, 1905. Lantz, Coyotes in their economic relations, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No.
20, 1905; The relations of coyotes to stock raising in the West, Farmers' Bull. No.
226, 1905. Simmons, Sheep-killing dogs, Farmers' Bull. No. 1268, 1929.

12 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No. 484, 1912. Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom.
Circular No. 18, 1916.

13 Lantz, House rats and mice, Fanners' Bull., No. 806, 1917 ; The house rat : The
most destructive animal in the world, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 335-
351. Use of concrete on the farm, Farmers' Bull., No. 461.

14 Silver, How to get rid of rats, Farmers' Bull., No. 1302, 19^3. Lantz, Methods
of destroying rats, Farmers' Bull, No. 297, 1907; U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 33,
1909. Forbush, Rats and rat riddance, Massachusetts State Board of Agric., Econ.
Biol., Bull. No. i, 1915 ; also in 62nd Ann. Kept. Dice, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 188-
189, 1923-

15 Silver, Rat control, Farmers' Bull., No. 1533, 1927.

CONTROL OF INJURIOUS MAMMALS 163

dens. In the eastern states fumigation has been found more effective,
carbon disulphide being the cheapest and best, three teaspoonfuls
being placed on cotton or other absorbent material and dropped into
the burrow, then the burrow closed to retain the fumes. It is inflam-
mable and explosive, hence smoking should not be indulged in when
handling it. Calcium cyanide is also used. It is a dangerous poison and
should be handled with great care. The exhaust fumes from an au-
tomobile engine are sometimes used effectively.16

In the war against the destructive rodents of the fields and pas-
tures, the U. S. Biological Survey is cooperating with farmers and
stockmen as it does in the eradication of coyotes and other predaceous
animals. In one year its agents directed campaigns against prairie-dogs
and ground squirrels over 18,000,000 acres of farm and range lands,
with the help of 132,000 farmers, thus saving in one season $i 1,000,000
worth of crops.17 The smaller rodents that live in burrows may be de-
stroyed as woodchucks are, by the fumes of carbon disulphide, cotton
containing a teaspoonful of the fluid being dropped into the hole,
which should then be covered to confine the fumes for several hours,
but the cheapest and most effective method is to drop poisoned grain
into the burrows. There are formulae for preparing poisons, directions
for trapping and other pertinent information in most of the publica-
tions on economic mammalogy.18 Pellett says that the best repellant

16 Silver, Woodchuck control in the eastern states, U. S. Dept. Agric. Leaflet No.
21, 1928.

17 Bell, Death to rodents, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp. 421-438.

18 Lantz, Use of poisons for destroying noxious animals, Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1908, pp. 421-432; Destroying rodent pests on the farm, ibid., for 1916,
PP- 381-398; Pocket gophers as enemies of trees, ibid., for 1909, pp. 209-218; Meadow
mice in relation to agriculture and horticulture, ibid., for 1905, pp. 363-3735 An
economic study of field mice, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 31, 1907; Directions for
destroying pocket gophers, ibid., Circular No. 52, 1908; Rodent pests of the farm,
Farmers' Bull., No. 932, 1918. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 51-52, 1926.
Piper, The Nevada mouse plague of 1907-8, Farmers' Bull, No. 352, 1909; Mouse
plagues: Their control and prevention, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1908, pp.
301-310. Dearborn, Trapping on the farm, ibid., for 1919, pp. 451-484. Burnett, The
Wyoming spermophile or ground squirrel, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular
No. 9, 1913 ; Meadow mice, ibid., No. 18, 1916 ; The Wyoming ground squirrel in
Colorado, with suggestions for control, ibid., No. 20, 1917; Suggestions for com-
bating prairie-dogs and ground squirrels, ibid., No. 24, 1917. Dixon, Rodents and
reclamation in the Imperial Valley, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 136-146, 1922; Control
of the California ground squirrel, California Agric. Exper. Sta. Circular No. 181,
1917. Dixon apd deOng, Control of the pocket gopher in California, California Agric.
Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 281, 1917. Merriam, The California ground squirrels, U. S. Biol.
Surv. Circular No. 76, 1910. Birdseye, Some common mammals of western Mon-
tana in relation to agriculture and spotted fever, Farmers' Bull. No. 481, 1912.
Scheffer, American moles as agricultural pests and fur producers, Farmers' Bull.,
No. 1247, 1922 (superceding Nos. 583 and 833). Bruner, Pocket gophers, Univ. Ne-
braska Agric. Exper. Sta. Press Bull., No. 29, 1908. Silver, Mouse control in field
and orchard, Farmers' Bull, No. 1397, 1924.

1 64 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

wash to protect trees from rabbits is fresh blood, which of course,
would have to be frequently renewed. As a better protection he recom-
mends wire screens.19 Wagner recommends, as the best repellant wash
to protect trees from both deer and rabbits, one pound of blood-meal
to three gallons of water, repeated every two weeks.20

Though rabbits are partially protected by legal close seasons in many
parts of eastern United States, they often do great damage locally to
garden and field crops and orchard trees. Especially destructive are the
abundant jack rabbits in some parts of the West. Lime-sulphur and other
washes about the lower parts of the trunks of trees are sometimes help-
ful. Trees may also be protected by woven-wire cylinders, as in case of
the beaver, and properly constructed fences of the same material will
protect gardens. Rabbits are easily shot, trapped or poisoned. In the
West, organized "drives" of jack rabbits are often conducted, when
numbers of men, women and children, without firearms, surround a
large area and drive all the rabbits toward a central point, where they
are destroyed. In California 25,000 rabbits were killed in three months
on a tract of 48 square miles, 8000 on a small ranch in nine days and
40,000 in drives near Bakersfield in two months. Seven drives in one
Idaho county netted 15,728 rabbits, and drives in five other counties re-
sulted in 5500, 17,800, 20,000, 19,000 and 10,000 rabbits respectively.
A big hunt in South Dakota resulted in 7550 white-tailed jack-rabbits
in one pile.21

Most of the publications cited in the footnotes to this chapter empha-
size the importance of the natural enemies of injurious mammals and
the need of encouraging such enemies. As this subject is discussed
somewhat in two of the preceding chapters, it need be mentioned only
briefly here. Among the active enemies of rodents are many species
of hawks and owls, crows, gulls, coyotes, bobcats, foxes, weasels,
skunks and snakes. Notwithstanding all the information concerning
the usefulness of most species of hawks and owls that has for years
been disseminated among farmers and hunters by the United States

19 Pellett, The cottontail, Forest and Stream, Feb. 25, 1911, p. 291, cited by Seton,
Lives of game animals.

20 Wagner, A spray for preventing damage by deer, California Fish and Game, i,
241, 1915.

21 Palmer, The jack rabbits of the United States, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull, No. 8,
1897. Bell, Death to the rodents, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp. 421-438.
Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 134-144, 1926. Lantz, Cottontail rabbits in rela-
tion to trees and farm crops, Farmers' Bull., No. 702, 1912. Silver, The European
hare (Lepus europaeus Pallas) in North America, Jour. Agric. Research, xxvm.
II33-H37, 1924-

CONTROL OF INJURIOUS MAMMALS 165

Department of Agriculture and other agencies, by means of bulletins,
circulars and magazine and newspaper articles, the great majority of
them still persist in shooting these birds at every opportunity. The
wholesale destruction of the natural enemies of rodents has made the
control of these pests much more difficult and expensive, and costs the
farmers far more than the possible losses of poultry would have
amounted to, and most of the poultry losses could be prevented by
proper precautions, without destroying useful birds and mammals
that prey upon the rodents.

XXVII
LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS

Laws concerning mammals, both wild and domesticated, are of
very ancient origin. In the Old Testament we find laws concerning
horses (Deut., xvn:i6), asses (Ex., xm:i3; xxmr/j.; Deut, xxn:io),
cattle, goats and sheep for the sacrifice, and forbidding the eating of
camels, conies, hares, swine, weasels, ferrets, mice, moles, and, by
implication, bats and flying foxes, ''flying creeping things, which have
four feet" (Lev., xi).

In England laws relating to wild animals developed at a very early
date, including a fundamental principle that lies at the root of all fish
and game laws, to wit, that all wild animals belong to the state, based
upon the fact that they move freely from one man's property to that
of another and are not in actual possession of anyone until they are
either caught or killed. The recognition of this principle led to various
problems which had to be solved by legislation or court decisions,
and precedents established by courts soon became recognized as law
of equal force with legislative enactments. Such, for instance, was the
question as to wrho owns the carcass of an animal that is shot on one
man's property and dies on another's.

On the theory that wild animals belong to the state, the American
states have always exercised the right to decide, through the legisla-
tures, just how problems of wild life should be disposed of, when, how,
by whom, in what quantity and in what manner wild animals may be
caught, killed, used and sold. The federal government, under its con-
stitutional authority over interstate affairs, has assumed jurisdiction
over migratory birds, which pass regularly from state to state and into
other countries, has enacted laws and regulations concerning hunting
such birds and negotiated treaties in relation thereto with other powers.
It would doubtless do the same with mammals if they were sufficiently
migratory to make it advisable. Indeed, the government long ago es-
tablished the status of the North Pacific fur seal by treaties with Great
Britain and Japan, after a long and serious controversy. In a single
chapter we may only very briefly refer to a few general features of
the numerous wild animal laws in force in the United States.

166

LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS l6/

The United States leads the world in the bulk of its legislation con-
cerning mammals, a fact not altogether to our credit, but to some
extent unavoidable. This is partly because there are forty-eight separate
states each having distinct jurisdiction over its own mammals, each
making its own laws and each changing its laws at almost every legis-
lative session. One reason for the constantly changing laws and lack of
uniformity in various states is that the legislators and in some cases the
game commissioners have very little technical knowledge of natural
history, no training or experience in the rigid investigation of its dif-
ficulties, and are disposed to seek the advice of hunters whose knowl-
edge is rather haphazard, instead of consulting experts whose lives are
devoted to the investigation of the habits of animals and their intricate
economic relations. Add to this the fact that there is much yet to be
discovered even by the naturalists, and one may understand why much
of the legislation is not based upon sound principles or adequate knowl-
edge. However, the laws are on the whole constantly being improved.

If we could be sure that only persons of high personal character
and ability and accurate knowledge of nature would be appointed, a
permanent commission having jurisdiction over all wild life, its powers
defined in very general terms, leaving it with great latitude in making
regulations, would bring very much better results than the present
system. Conditions affecting wild life often change rapidly, so that
laws perfectly proper today may be quite improper a year hence. For-
tunately some states now have fish and game commissions fully worthy
of the name, directed by men who are competent and who have sur-
rounded themselves with advisers and investigators expert in their vari-
ous lines of work, and the results of their investigations and sugges-
tions are. being felt in other states.

The whole subject of legislation relating to wild animals is very
difficult — much more so than the average legislator with little knowl-
edge of nature as a whole can possibly comprehend — because nature
itself is highly complex, as we have seen in various preceding chap-
ters. To obtain ultimately the wisest laws three ideas must at all times
be kept prominently in the foreground: (i) Any disturbance of the
status of one species, by its increase or decrease in numbers, its de-
struction, its introduction into a new region, the introduction of an-
other species that becomes an enemy or a competitor for food or
shelter, or any change in the environment, inevitably affects other
species either to their advantage or disadvantage, sometimes with far-

l68 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

reaching and disastrous results. Hence legislation regarding one species
should be devised with as full knowledge as possible of its relation to
the whole environment, including all other species of the region, food
supply, enemies, and other factors. This idea is usually ignored by
legislators and game commissioners unfamiliar with the complexities
of nature. (2) Local conditions may require regulations of a certain
sort in one place, while conditions in another locality not far distant
may require very different treatment. Therefore conditions within
the whole area of the jurisdiction and often even beyond its confines
should be studied in devising the regulations. (3) Natural conditions
often change rapidly in limited districts and sometimes over large areas.
Epidemic diseases and changing food supplies often seriously affect
wild life. A harmful species may suddenly become so abundant in a
favorable season that it is advisable to give special encouragement to
its natural enemies which are usually kept in check. Many other possible
changes that would make changes in regulations necessary will occur to
every thoughtful reader. All these matters could be handled more effi-
ciently by a properly-constituted permanent commission, studying the
whole subject from year to year, than by any ordinary legislative as-
sembly, meeting occasionally, and whose personnel is constantly chang-
ing.

The development of game laws in the United States during the past
300 years1 has been marked by great differences in the definition of
game birds and mammals in various states and at various times. Among
the earliest American game laws were those providing special hunting
privileges and concessions in New Netherlands, Massachusetts and
New Jersey, in 1629, 1647 and 1678. At the end of the colonial period
twelve of the thirteen colonies had game laws of some sort. Georgia
had close season on deer, New York on turkeys, heath hens, partridges
and quail, but the first close season on deer was in Massachusetts in
1694. Several colonies prohibited fire-hunting at night, and Massachu-
setts in 1710 prohibited hunting waterfowl in camouflaged boats or
canoes. Several had laws restricting the exportation of deer skins,

1 Palmer, Chronology and index of the more important events in American game
protection, 1776-1911, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull, No. 41, 1912, with summary of laws
on pp. 20-46. Summaries of state and federal game laws have been issued either
annually or biennially by the U. S. Dept. Agric. for many years, the one for
1927-1928 being Farmers' Bull., No. 1550; for 1928-1929, No. 1575; for 1929-1930,
No. 1616. The same department also issues directories of organizations and officials
connected with protection of game. For Alaska, Laws and regulations relating to
game, land fur-bearing animals and birds, U, S. Biol. Surv. Circular No. 5, 1928.

LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS 169

and Massachusetts and New Hampshire had warden systems in co-
lonial days. After colonial times comparatively few states enacted game
laws up to 1850, but in 1860 thirty-one states had such laws of one
kind or another. In 1880 all states and territories of the Union had
game laws (sometimes only county laws). From 1901 to 1910, there
were enacted 1324 game laws, not including numerous bounty and ap-
propriation bills. In 1902 Virginia provided for the payment for dam-
ages to crops caused by deer, a rule now in force in some other
states.

Laws designed for the protection of the bison were in force in Idaho
in 1864, Wyoming in 1871, Colorado in 1877, North and South Da-
kota in 1883, New Mexico in 1880, and Nebraska in 1875, but there
was little enforcement against the big business of hide-hunting and the
laws did not protect the bison from practical extermination. Kansas
and Texas, regions of great abundance, afforded no protection. A
somewhat parallel case is that of the passenger pigeon. In 1857 an
Ohio legislative committee declared that ' 'the passenger pigeon needs no
protection ... no ordinary destruction can lessen them or be missed
from the myraids that are yearly produced," language very similar to
that used by the opponents of bison protection. New York in 1862,
Michigan in 1869, and Pennsylvania in 1878 prohibited hunting at
their nesting places or roosts, and Pennsylvania established a close sea-
son in 1870, but market-hunting was not forbidden, and this splendid
and once abundant bird is now extinct, to the lasting disgrace of mod-
ern civilization.

The various states of the Union and Canadian provinces all have
close and open seasons on various kinds of game mammals, and these
vary from state to state and from province to province, in their length
of time and time of year, as well as in the species to which they ap-
ply, though some of the latter differences are due to the presence of
species in certain areas which are absent from other districts. The laws
also differ in the bag limits, and these limits are subject to very fre-
quent changes in many jurisdictions. In nearly all states the sale of
game is now prohibited or much restricted and there are rigid provi-
sions concerning the interstate transportation of game. Some states
have special provisions that deer may be killed at any season when
they are damaging crops, while others provide for compensation of
the owner for such damage.

In addition to close seasons of a few months each year, sometimes

xoojsn^

1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1

uosig

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X

9JT31J BJJ9lg

f 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

S9io9ds 9UIOS 'sjgjjtnbg

IIIIXXIIIXIIIIIXIIIIIIXIII

"c

o

AJBOD9J

1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

en

C

9d0l9}uV

IIX1XXIIIIIX1IIXIIIIIIII1X

cd
A

jw)8 uimunoW

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X

d99i|s uiE}unop\[

1 1 X 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 X

u

noqtreo

I1IIIIII1IIIIIIIIIXIIXXIIX

9SOOJ/\[

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X ! 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 X X X 1 1 X

3113

1 IXIXXI 1 1 1 1 1 1 IXIXXI 1 IXXI 1 1

J99Q

IIIIIIIIIIIIXXXXXIIII1IIXI

j^a

1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

.KW^UV

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BDBJ

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

JldBL

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

UOOODB^J

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

en

C

o

uinssodQ

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

en

rt

S9p9ds 9iuos 's;iqqB^[

1 1 1 IXlXXI 1 1 IXXI IXXXXXXI 1 1 i

|

S9ID9ds 9UIOS 'S|9JJinbg

XI IXI IXXXXI IXXXXXXXXXIXXXI

.0
U

9doj9;uy

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

c

;BOS uiBiunoW

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

c

d99ijs uip;unoj\[

1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0

noquB^)

1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

9SOOJ/Y

1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

>II3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X

J99Q

XXXXXXXIXXXXI 1 1 1 IXXXXXXXIX

JB9g

XXIIXIIIIIIIIIIIIXXIIIIXIX

1

1

DM

en

O

1

|ll||||l|l|ii|^||||||||lj

170

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 X 1

1 1 1 1 X 1 X 1 1 1 1

IIIIIIIIIIIIXXXXIIXIIIIXXI

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

XXI 1 X X 1 X 1 X X

IIIXIXXIIXIIIIIXIIIIIIIXIX

IXI IXI 1 1 1 IX

1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

XXI IXI 1 1 1 IX

IIIXIXXIIXIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIX

1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1

IIIIIIIXIXIIIIIIXIIXIIIIII

1 1 1 1 1 X 1 X 1 1 X

IIIIIIIXIXIXIIIIIIIIIIIIII

X X I 1 IXXXI IX

1 1 IXI IXXI IXXIXIXI 1 1 1 1 1 1 IXI

XI IXI 1 IXXXI

1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I k X

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X

1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

X 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 X X X 1 X X 1 X 1 1

XXXIXI IXXIXXI 1 1 1 IXIXXXXI IX

XI 1 1 1 X X 1 X X X

XXXI XXI XXI XXI |'| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Illllllll IIIXXIIIXIIIIIXI

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

IIIIIIIIIIIIXXXIIIXIIIIIXI

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

IIIIIIIIIIIIIXXIIIXIXIXXXI

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IXXXI XI XXXI XI XI

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

XIIIIIIIXXIIXIXIIIIIIIIXII

1 X X X X X X 1 1 IX

XI XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXI XXXI XXXX

IXI IXXI 1 1 X X

XIIIIXXIIIIIIIXIIIIIIIXIIX

rt : : «j : :2 : :

rt • . . • . . *^ u «4 *i* * * *t3 • •

-icrt • «l p.y^o u . C

:!>jj JIJ - '
s :|f"8|,l£ | ••
-%*>? !s;2UQ 1 d

Jl *7* * ft ol 1

££fc£;z;fc;l;loo6

•Igll : : igl : : 1 Bl|.a g J :
5|S|S - :|».§g (Sji-S^l S 1 i
l-«"Qi^ §-I.S>g|3J=S(ng.;"-2™aSc8

J2T3J3J3S2r-.C.5j3ijOC:>-'m-- ^^-rtboS^O--

iiiiisiiililiiilii^ii-siiii

o.o;J5inHHP»^&&5<caSZZZZOa. a J5 > S

I/I

172

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

close terms of several years have been established. The following table
showing the first close seasons, close terms and bag limits has been
slightly modified from Palmer's compilation:2

Species

First Close Season

First Close Term

First Bag Limit

Antelope (Pronghorn)
Buffalo (Bison)
Caribou
Deer
Elk (Wapiti)
Moose.
Mountain goat

Calif., 1852, 1824
Idaho, 1864
Maine, 1870
Mass., 1694
Calif., 1852, 1854
Maine, 1830
Nevada, 1861

Calif., 1883
Colo., 1887
N. Hamp., 1878
Mass., 1718
Mich., 1879
L. Island, 1869
Colo., 1887

Wyo., 1890
S. Dak., 1901
Maine, 1883
Maine, 1883
Wyo., 1880
Maine, 1883
Wash., 1897

Mountain sheep
Rabbit

Nevada, 1861
N J 1820

Colo., 1885
None

Wyo., 1890
Wis., 1903

Sauirrel . .

Penn.. 1841

Neb.. 1905

Ohio. Vt., 1902

Laws prohibiting deer-hunting by firelight were first passed as fol-
lows: South Carolina, 1769; North Carolina, 1777; Georgia, 1790;
Virginia, 1792; Mississippi, 1803; Alabama, 1822; Florida, 1828;
Maryland, 1830.

The tabulation on pages 170-171 of open and close seasons has been
compiled from Game Laws for the Season ip 27- 19 28, 3 open seasons for
members of the deer family (except caribou), mountain sheep and
mountain goats usually applying only to adult males, and game com-
missions having power in some cases temporarily to open seasons on
some completely protected species. (The bulletin for 1929-1930, re-
ceived since the table was compiled, would make a few minor modifica-
tions.)

Hunters in nearly all civilized countries now are required to obtain
licenses from the proper authorities. The chief purpose of this, in the
United States at least, is to obtain funds for game protection and
propagation, on the theory that the hunters should themselves pay for
the protection of their game. That was not the purpose of the earliest
license laws, which, in America, had their inception in a Virginia
statute of 1691 in relation to "free trade with the Indians," forbid-
ding hunting far from the English plantations without a "lycense and
permission" from certain officers, in order to prevent "such mischeifes
as have frequently happened at huntings, commonly called fire-hunt-
ings, and other huntings remote from the plantations."4 In 1745 North

2 Palmer, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 41, p. 16, 1912.
8 Game laws for the season 1927-1928, Farmers' Bull., No. 1550.
4 Palmer, Hunting licenses and their history, objects and limitations, U. S. Biol.
Surv. Bull. No. 19, 1904; summary of laws by states on pp. 19-66; many changes

LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS 1 73

Carolina prohibited hunting by any person "not having a settled habita-
tion in the" province, requiring each hunter to first obtain a certificate
from officials of his county asserting "his having planted and tended
five thousand corn-hills" during the preceding season or year. This was
evidently aimed at hunting by irresponsible persons who were not tax-
payers and at non-resident hunters. Possibly the germ of discrimina-
tion against non-resident hunters may be found in a New Jersey statute
of 1719 prohibiting non-residents from "taking oysters or putting them
on board a vessel not wholly owned by a resident." In most of the
United States and Canadian provinces the license fee for non-resi-
dents-, is now much higher than that for residents. In some states
non-residents are also required to employ resident guides. About
5,000,000 hunting licenses were issued in the United States in 1924,
the fees for which amounted to over $6,000,000.

In many states the owner (and members of his family or his tenants)
may hunt on his own property without license. Some states allow
persons under a certain age to hunt without license, sometimes re-
quiring consent of parents or guardians, and a few exempt veterans
of the Civil War from the license requirement or require them to pay
no fee therefor. Some states do not require a license for hunting rab-
bits and squirrels. In a few jurisdictions unnaturalized aliens are pro-
hibited from hunting or the possession of firearms.

The game laws in most states contain various definite provisions re-
lating to trespass by hunters,6 such as requiring permission of the
owner or lessee, which permission in some states must be in writing,
while in a few states the owner who wishes to prevent hunting on his
premises is expected to post notices to that efTect. Laws against shoot-
ing from public highways and railroad rights of way are becoming
more general.

Protective laws are not confined to game animals. Though it is gen-
erally known that many states have close seasons for or permanently
protect beaver, many people do not seem to be aware that there are
now in nearly all states close seasons for other fur-bearers, in addi-
tion to the bear and rabbit, which in some jurisdictions are protected

since then. For summary of laws down to date see Game Laws [of the United
States and Canadian provinces] for the season 1927-1928, Farmers' Bull., No. 155°
1928; for 1928-1929, No. 1575; for 1929-1930, No. 1616.

6 Palmer, Some benefits the farmer may derive from game protection, Yearbook
U. S. Dept. of Agric. for 1904, pp. 509-520. Farmers' Bull., No. 1550, 1928.

1 74 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

by the game laws.6 The purpose of close seasons on fur-bearers is not
only to conserve the fur supply, but also to insure a better average
grade of furs, and to prevent unnecessary cruelty in trapping. Furs are
in prime condition for only two or three months each year, the period
varying slightly with different species and in different localities, but the
extreme limits in North America being not earlier than November and
not later than February, the best months being December and Janu-
ary. The laws should be based upon a more thorough study than yet
has been made of the habits of the various species and the character of
the furs coming to market from different regions.7 That legislatures
are struggling to improve the fur-animal laws is shown by the fact that
changes were made in all except four states between the issuance of
the summary for 1924-1925 and that of 1925-1926.

Laws for the protection of fur-bearing animals are not altogether
a modern invention. The earliest of the sort that we have found was
enacted in Massachusetts in 1791, prohibiting trapping during June,
July, August and September. In 1821 New Hampshire provided a close
season for beaver, mink, otter and muskrat from May I to November
i of each year. In 1829 New Jersey and in 1830 Ohio provided a close
season for muskrats.8 The great difference of opinion among legisla-
tures is shown by the fact that some states protect bears, muskrats,
rabbits and some other species for the destruction of which bounties
are paid in other states. The muskrat is protected throughout the year
in a few states, with an open season of from two to five months in
most states and no protection in a few. The skunk is subject to an open
season of from one to three months in the great majority of states
and is unprotected in the remainder, which applies also to the raccoon,
except that the open season reaches five months in some states.

The laws are also extremely variable in other respects. Among other
provisions of various state and provincial laws are: Provisions against
poisoning fur-bearers (except such as coyotes, wolves, etc., sometimes

6 Ashbrook, Earnshaw and Grimes, Laws relating to fur animals for the season
1927-28, Farmers' Bull., No. 1552, 1928, one of a series of biennial summaries of
fur laws published by the U. S. Dept. of Agric. Dearborn, Maintenance of the fur
supply, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 135, 1920. Ashbrook, Trapping laws and
the fur supply, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 168-173, 1925; Fur farming for profit, pp.
289-292, 1928. Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 151-186, 1921. Innis, The fur
trade of Canada, pp. 49-66, 1927; Fur farming in Canada, pp. 135-138, 1913. Anti-steel
trap legislation and the sportsman, American Game (Bull. Amer. Game Protec. Assn.),
xvn, 96-97, 1928.

7 Dearborn, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 135, p. 7, 1920. Lantz, The muskrat,
Farmers' Bull., No. 396, 1910.

8 Lantz, The muskrat as a fur-bearer, with notes on its use as food, Farmers'
Bull., No. 869, 1923.

LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS 175

under direction of game protective officers) ; forbidding the use of
smoke or chemicals to drive fur-bearers from their dens, or drowning
them in their burrows; regulating the size and kinds of traps that
may be used; forbidding the use of artificial lights in hunting them;
prohibiting the destruction of the homes or runways of beaver or musk-
rat or the nests or lairs of any of the protected animals, or the set-
ting of traps in or close to homes of certain animals ; sometimes specify-
ing the minimum distance, in other cases prescribing the distance traps
must be placed within hollow logs or burrows, and frequency with
which the traps must be visited, usually every 24 or 36 hours ; for-
bidding the use of scented bait, or the flesh of game birds or mammals
as bait, or explosives, spears, baited hooks, set guns, pits, deadfalls,
ferrets (or firearms for certain specified animals) ; prohibiting the tak-
ing of muskrats during floods, when they are driven from their homes
by the water, or of certain other animals when there is snow on the
ground, or cutting down trees containing dens of animals (permitted
for raccoons in some states) ; limiting the number of traps allowed to
one trapper, and making it unlawful for anyone else to disturb, in-
jure or remove his traps or remove any animal therefrom ; requiring the
owner to have his name and address on his traps, usually stamped on a
metal tag or on the trap itself ; prescribing bag limits on certain ani-
mals included among fur-bearers (bears, raccoons, etc.) ; regulating
the shipment of furs and fur-bearing animals ; provisions against shoot-
ing foxes when they are being chased by dogs; requiring trappers to
procure licenses, and requiring them to make annual reports of their
operations. Anti-steel trap propaganda and legislation have been dis-
cussed in the chapter on the Fur Trade.

Fur farming is now well established in nearly all the states, in most
of which, as well as in Canadian provinces, there are regulatory laws.
There are also federal laws concerning importation of wild animals,
imposing a tariff tax therefor and regulating interstate commerce in
animals, dead or alive.

We have compiled from the annual summary of the fur laws for the
season of 1927-1928 a list of fur animals for which close seasons have
been provided in different states and provinces.9 It is impossible to show
all the provisions exactly in the form of a simple table, as there are
many exceptions to the general rules in some states. The inclusion of
the bear complicates matters, as it is included among game animals

9 Ashbrook, Earnshaw and Grimes, Fur laws for the season 1927-1928, Farmers'
Bull., No. 1552, 1928; for 1928-1929, see Bull. No. 1575; for 1929-1930, No. 1616.

1 76

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

sasuaoiq SuiddB-ix

MXXXXXXMXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX X

sapunog

ox§-axa§-ooooaao,xoo><><^oxooo.

8fl

«a

JBag

X XXX

UOOODEy;

X

>>

i

i
i
§

u

UOOOOB^I

X X

J*»0

XX XX

JIUIJAI

aiqBS ao IWJJBW

X

jsqsij

J3AB3{J

XXX XXXX XXX

JBag

X

Open and Close Seasons

SJBUIIUB jnj uv

X

SIBUIIUB jnj JaqiQ

XXX X

auaaaAp^Y

X

PSB9A\

XX XX

IBD p3i;B;-SuT-a

X

^un^s

X XXX XXXXXX XXXX

aaSpeg

X

UOOOOB^[

X X XX XXXXXXXX XXX X

pUBJ 'J3HO

XX X XXXXXX X XX XXX X

uinssodQ

X X XXXXXX X

^BJjjsnH

XX X XX XXXXXX XXXXXXX X

^u;pu

XX XX XXXXXXXX X XX

ajqBg JO ua^JBj^

XX X

xuAq

X

nofBijui^

sapsds 3uios 'xoj

M X r>~ X XXXXXXX XXX X

jaqsijj

X X XXX

aaABag

XX X XXX XX X

sspads 9UJOS 'JB3g

XXX X X XX

ojupBiujy

State or Province

'. '• '. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. '. • '. w '. '. '.

illlSSIiilllllUlilsilill

LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS

MMMM.MMM MMMM M MM M MHN MM MMMMMM M MM M M MM M M M M

177

KXXXOOOXXg'g'XXog'xg'XXXXXXOXXXXXXOXOXXOO

X X

X X X X X X

XXX XXXXX XXX

K X X KX KXXXXXX

xxxxxxxxxx

XXXX XXXXX

XX X XX

XX XXXXXXXXXX XXX

XXXXXXXXX XX XX

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

XXX XX X XX XX

XX XXXX XX XX

X XX XXXX X XXX

I

li

'

II

a o
c c
II II

1 78 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

also, and in New Mexico the license required seems to be only the
usual hunting license required for hunting bears. In many instances
close seasons apply only to certain counties, and in case of foxes and
bears the law in some states applies only to certain species, not to all.
In Newfoundland the governor may open the season on beaver, with
a bag limit of twenty. Various other exceptions will be found by an ex-
amination of the laws themselves or the annual summary thereof.

The payment of bounties for the destruction of noxious animals has
been on trial in North America for several centuries, and there are
very serious doubts as to whether this method has accomplished much.
There are a number of objections to it. Certainly it has not resulted in
the extermination of any injurious animals, and as a result of much
experience bounty laws have lost a great deal of their former popu-
larity, though such laws still exist in one form or another in a majority
of the states.10 There were bounty acts in force in some of the American
colonies nearly four centuries ago, and nearly every state in the Union
has at some time had bounty laws on the statute books. In 1905 all but
eight states had such acts, including in their scope, in one state or an-
other, the following mammals: Puma (mountain lion), lynx, wolf,
coyote, fox, bear, woodchuck, prairie-dog, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon,
weasel, skunk, mink, seal and sea-lion. Bounty laws in some states still
include the same mammals, together with ground squirrels, pocket go-
phers and even muskrats. There is great lack of uniformity in the laws,
some . species being destroyed as pernicious animals in one state and
protected as useful animals in another. The modern tendency is espe-
cially in the direction of removing all fur-bearers (weasels, skunks,
minks, muskrats, etc.) from the bounty list. Bears are protected in
many states and a subject of bounty in one or two.

Nearly all experienced writers on the subject question the efficacy
of bounties, especially as to the abundant rodents, and believe that
better results would come from the expenditure of bounty funds in
systematic, wide-spread campaigns under the direction of men of
special training and experience in that line of work, a subject more
fully discussed in a preceding chapter. In order to do much good boun-
ties must be high, making that method very expensive, and resulting in
much fraud. For example, when bounties on coyotes are high, unscru-

10 Palmer, Extermination of noxious animals by bounties, Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1896, pp. 55-68. Lantz, Bounty laws in force in the United States, ibid.,
for 1907, pp. 260-265.

LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS

pulous individuals raise them for the bounty market, coyote-raising,
according to Palmer, having at times been more profitable in some
states than sheep-raising. Others take the scalps, skins and other parts
required to support claims for bounties, from a county or state where
the bounty is low to one where it is higher, and obtain the higher
bounty by misrepresenting the locality in which the animals were ob-
tained. Bailey says that sometimes trappers have taken parent coyotes
from the den, leaving the pups to grow up, in order to obtain the higher
bounty paid for adults than for pups.11 Lantz says that bounties on
coyotes and wolves have been tried for many years and on the whole
have .not materially reduced the numbers of these animals.12

Dixon condemns the bounty on coyotes as very expensive, productive
of endless fraud and failing to give general or permanent relief, but ap-
proves coyote-proof fences under favorable circumstances, and con-
siders the most effective methods to be trapping, poisoning with strych-
nine, digging out dens of the young, and shooting in cooperative cam-
paigns between state and federal authorities.13 In Minnesota bounties
have been paid on wolves for half a century, to a total of over
$1,000,000, and since 1903 the annual expenditure has slowly in-
creased.14 One may well wonder whether there may not be a more effec-
tive and less costly method. In 1916 bounties were paid in British
Columbia on 210 wolves, 221 mountain lions and 17,352 coyotes, and
in Saskatchewan, from 1907 to 1917, bounties were paid on 204,421
coyotes and 1200 gray wolves, to the amount of $310,000, but it is
admitted that the effort to control these animals by means of bounties
is not a success there.15 Lucas says that in Kansas a $2.00 bounty on
coyotes and five cent bounty on rabbits caused the destruction of
coyotes, natural enemies of rabbits, and consequently an increase in the
number of rabbits, instead of reducing the rabbits.16 California for
years tried the bounty system on mountain lions, the bounty in 1917
being from $20 to $30 and in thirteen years paid bounty on 3627 lions,

11 Bailey, Wolves in relation to stock, game and forest reserves, U. S. Forest
Service Bull. No. 72, 1907.

12 Lantz, The relation of coyotes to stock raising in the west, U. S. Dept. Agric.,
Farmers' Bull., No. 226, 1906.

13 Dixon, Control of the coyote in California, California College of Agric. Bull.
No. 20, pp. 379-397, 1920; Journ. Mammalogy, n, 176, 1921. As to fraud, see Bird
Lore, xxxn, 247-248, 1930; citing Official Record, U. S. Dept. Agric., March 27,
1930.

14 Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 89, 1928.

16 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 198-204, 1921.
18 Lucas, Ann. Kept., U. S. Nat. Museum for 1889, p. 612.

l8o ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

an average of 280 per annum, and then employed a trained lion hunter
with his dogs.17 In a campaign against rabid coyotes in two California
counties in 1916 by the United States Forest Service, United States
Biological Survey and California Board of Health, 2707 coyotes were
killed, while in the same period bounties were paid on I474.18

Bounties are particularly ineffective and wasteful in dealing with the
abundant rodent pests. Dixon says that, with such abundant animals,
if the bounty is high enough to do any good the cost is prohibitive.
If too low, trapping is indulged in only until their numbers are re-
duced to the point where it becomes unprofitable,19 then they are al-
lowed to multiply until trapping again becomes profitable, which is not
long with such prolific animals, thus giving trappers almost continuous
employment and resulting in no permanent reduction in the rodent
population. Bell, Bailey and Barrows all comment on the inefficiency of
bounties in fighting such animals as ground squirrels, prairie-dogs,
pocket gophers, rabbits, etc.20 Palmer says that after paying bounties on
jack rabbits in one county for fifteen years they were still so abundant
that the annual bounty expense was greater than at the beginning.21
At least one very recent writer22 has defended the bounty system for
the control of predacious mammals, but that does not necessarily carry
with it the approval of bounties on prolific rodents.

Several other classes of laws concerning mammals are closely re-
lated to bounty laws, as their purpose is the control or destruction of
animals that may for any reason be detrimental to human interests.
Such, for example, are : ( i ) Laws designed to prevent the importation
of noxious animals of any sort and giving the Department of Agri-
culture jurisdiction, with power to make and enforce regulations for
that purpose. (2) Quarantine laws, to prevent taking diseased animals
from an infected area to an uninfected one. (3) Laws providing for
the destruction of domesticated animals afflicted with communicable
diseases. (4) Laws requiring the muzzling of dogs during rabies epi-

17 Hunter, California Fish and Game, vn, 99-101, 1921. Bruce, California Fish
and Game, vui, 108-114, 1922; xi, 1-17, 1925. California Fish and Game, m, 120,
1917.

^California Fish and Game, in, 120-121, 1917.

w Dixon, Control of the California ground squirrel, California Agric. Exper. Sta.
Circular No. 181, 1917.

20 Bell, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 225-233. Bailey, U. S. Div.
Ornith. and Mam. Bull. No. 4, pp. 18-24, 1893 ; No. 5, pp. 25-26, 1895. Barrows, ibid.,
No. 3, pp. 161-162.

21 Palmer, The jack rabbits of the United States, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No 8,
1897.

22 Avery, Bounties or government trappers, Field and Stream, Dec. 1930, p. 8.

LEGISLATION CONCERNING MAMMALS l8l

demies and the confinement of vicious dogs at other times. (5) Laws
prohibiting owners from permitting their stock to run at large on high-
ways or public lands, and concerning responsibility for damage done
by stock to crops or other property. (6) Laws in some of western
states providing for the destruction of wild horses, which have become
a nuisance in some localities.23

Dog license laws are in force in many states and municipalities for
the purpose of fixing ownership of dogs valued by their owners, in
order that strays and homeless dogs may be disposed of, and many
thousands of worthless strays are destroyed each year by the authori-
ties. The total amount of fees collected from dog licenses in the United
States is considerable. As dogs sometimes acquire the habit of killing
sheep and poultry and worrying other stock, the loss from this cause
being large in some localities, many states now have laws explicitly
fixing responsibility for damage to livestock by dogs and defining the
right of the owner of stock to destroy dogs found at large on his
premises.24 Because of their destructiveness to poultry and wild birds,
cat laws have been adopted in some jurisdictions and proposed in
others.25 There is no good reason why the provisions of the dog laws,
with some possible modifications, should not be applied also to cats,
hundreds of thousands of which, homeless and ownerless, are run-
ning at large in this country. It must be remembered, however, as
Forbush has pointed out, that even cats and dogs have some legal
rights, and especially should those who contemplate setting out poison
for these domesticated animals remember that there are in many jur-
isdictions stringent laws concerning the use of poisons.

Because rats greatly increase the fire hazard, as well as because of
their general destructiveness and their activity as disease carriers,
it has been suggested that the building laws of cities should require
the rat-proofing of buildings.26

23 Palmer, The danger of introducing noxious animals and birds, Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agric. for 1898, p. 88.

24 Coll, Sheep-killing dogs, Farmers' Bull., No. 1268, 1922; revision, by Simmons,
Farmers' Bull., No. 1268, 1924.

25 Calif 'ornia Fish and Game, i, 42, 1914. Bird Lore, xix, 178, 1917; xxi, 330, 1919.
Wilson Bull., No. 105, p. 118, 1918. Henderson, The practical Talue of birds, pp. 32
33, 77-78, 100-103, in. Forbush, The domestic cat, Massachusetts State Board of
Agric., Econ. Biol, Bull. No. 2, pp. 97-108, 1916.

26 Silver, Farmers' Bull., No. 1533, p. 20, 1927.

XXVIII

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION IN ECONOMIC
MAMMALOGY

As in the much more highly developed science of economic or-
nithology, in economic mammalogy there are three different lines of
evidence, of unequal importance, upon which to base conclusions:
Purely circumstantial evidence, direct observation or the testimony of
eye witnesses, and the examination of the contents of stomachs. In
a general way, circumstantial evidence is the least reliable and most
likely to be misleading of the three. A mountain lion may kill a calf.
After it has fed, a rain may descend and obliterate the tracks of the
big cat. Then a bear comes along and feeds upon the carcass, leaving
his tracks to prove his guilt to the satisfaction of the owner of the
calf, who promptly begins a round-up of the bears of the vicinity, and
the guilty party escapes punishment because of the lack of evidence
against him. However, as in human courts of justice, some kinds of
circumstantial evidence, under some circumstances, may be the very
strongest sort, conclusive and incontrovertible.

Direct observation, though usually more satisfactory, is not always
so. It depends upon several things, such as the powers of observation
of the observer, his opportunity for accurate observation, his com-
plete freedom from prejudice or pre-conceived notions, and so on.
In observations of this sort one is likely to be influenced by what he
expects to see, and thus to reach a very definite conclusion based upon
a very flimsy foundation of real fact. Many mistakes have been made
in exactly this way in both ornithology and mammalogy. Yet in some
instances careful observation by competent, unprejudiced observers,
under favorable conditions, may afford as definite and conclusive proof
as any other possible means.

The well-preserved contents of the stomach is conclusive as to at
least that portion of the last meal eaten by the individual. Therefore,
if a sufficient number of stomachs be examined and their contents are
well enough preserved to be recognized with certainty, they would
be the most reliable evidence of the diet of the species in the particu-
lar locality at the particular season of the year. If enough stomachs

182

INVESTIGATION IN ECONOMIC M A M M A L O G Y 183

were available, taken at various seasons of the year at many localities,
one could closely approximate the average food of the species as a
whole. Just this has been done with many species of birds. Some prog-
ress has been made along this line with mammals, but the work is now
in its infancy. We must face one difference that handicaps the mam-
malogist. Birds do not chew their food, but mammals do. In the stom-
achs of insectivorous birds many insects may be found in condition for
positive identification. In the stomachs of bats the insects are usually
finely comminuted, often making only very general identifications pos-
sible. Hawks and owls swallow mice whole. Weasels do not swallow
their prey whole, except the smaller kinds. This difficulty, however, is
not as "great as has often been supposed, and the future should see prog-
ress along this line of investigation accelerated. Dixon says:

Of course, we recognize at once that fur-bearing mammals have series of sharp
teeth with which to rend and cut their prey, while hawks and owls have only
hooked beaks. People have assured me that it would be impossible to identify
stomach contents of fur-bearing mammals because, they were confident, the
food would be too well masticated. This has not proved to be the case. I have
found the contents of wild-cats' stomachs to be quite similar to the stomach
contents of horned owls. From my own experience I know that there are
relatively few carnivorous mammals in which the identification of food re-
mains is not feasible. I have found the food of the otter chewed the finest and
hence most difficult to identify. Minks are much easier than otter. Bobcats and
mountain lions just chop up their food and swallow it in chunks, as do also
coyotes and foxes. Even beavers and muskrats do not chew their food as finely
as we might suppose, and identification is, even in their cases, not usually
difficult. I have found the following to be the best clues by which stomach
contents of fur-bearers may be identified. Mammal remains can be identified
by the presence of teeth, feet, claws and hair. Birds may be best told by feet,
claws and bills. Feathers are sometimes difficult to identify. The hard parts of
insects, particularly mouth parts, wings and legs, assist in identification. For-
tunately in insects the species involved are for the most part of large size, well
known, and hence easily identified. The skin and feet of toads and frogs help
in identification, as do also the scales of fishes.1

Having determined the facts concerning the food of a given species,
in order to reach a safe conclusion concerning the economic status
of the species under investigation, its food habits must be considered
in the light of all that is known of the intricate interrelations of the
various organisms in its diet, their respective food habits, their useful-
ness or harmfulness, their abundance and so forth. A balance must
also be struck between its economic status arising from its food habits

1 Dixon, Food predilections of predatory and fur-bearing mammals, Journ. Mam-
malogy, vi, 34, IQ25-

184 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

and its possible status as a source of meat, fur or other useful commodi-
ties. All this requires an extensive and accurate knowledge of natural
history, common sense, good judgment, open mind and conscientious
devotion to truth.

Another difficulty that must be squarely faced is that, unless one
be constantly on guard and fully informed, the contents of the stomachs
may be misleading as to the habits of their former possessors. Certain
predatory animals are also scavengers, and feed upon carcasses of ani-
mals they have found already dead. Thus the hair of a horse or cow
or the wool of sheep may be found in the stomach of a coyote, which
would not necessarily prove that it killed the sheep, and almost cer-
tainly would not prove that it killed the horse or cow. All evidence in
scientific investigations should be carefully scrutinized and used with
sound discretion.

Part II
Systematic "Discussion

SYSTEMATIC DISCUSSION

We have not considered it necessary, in a work of this sort, to
enter into all the refinements of modern zoological classification and
nomenclature, as the names of orders, families and other groups are
herein used only for the purpose of bringing certain groups of species
together and discussing their economic status, not for the purpose of
exhibiting their physical relationships. Indeed, it would be impossible
to conform exactly to all the modern systems of classification, as there
is too much difference of opinion among the various authorities. The
relationship of organisms is not end on end, but rather, in a general
sense, in the form of a tree, hence strictly accurate and logical classifi-
cation and arrangement end on end in a book or a list is impossible.
Furthermore, too much yet remains to be learned for anyone to say
the final word as to classification or nomenclature. We hope to be par-
doned if in some instances we have used terms familiar to those not
engaged in technical taxonomy, but not approved by some taxonomists.
It has not been our intention to include all known families or other
groups of mammals, but we have endeavored to include all groups of
economic importance in North America north of Mexico, with many
from foreign countries.

ORDER MONOTREMATA — PRIMITIVE EGG-LAYING MAMMALS

This, the lowest order of mammals, is confined to the Australasian
region, where it is represented by about four living species. Though
of but little economic consequence, it is of very great scientific interest.
The food of the duck-billed platypus (Orniihorhynchus anatinus)
is said to consist of aquatic insects, small crustaceans, worms and the
like. The spiny anteaters (Echidna, 3 species) feed chiefly upon ter-
mites ("white ants"), for which their long snouts and longer, slender,
glutinous tongues are specially adapted.

ORDER MARSUPIALIA — OPPOSSUMS, KANGAROOS
AND THEIR ALLIES

This order, much more generally distributed in the geological past, is
now greatly restricted in range and reduced in number of species, yet
the economic importance of the order is considerable, not only because

1 88 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

of the food habits of the various species, but also because the flesh of
some of them is prized and their pelts find a ready market. The actual
reported sales of marsupial skins during the seasons of 1919, 1920 and
1921 were as follows:1

American opossum 9,987,742

Australian opossum 4,265,621

Wallaby (kangaroo) 1,722,588

Ring-tailed opossum (phalanger) 1,321,625

Wombat 208,977

Kangaroo 41,238

Kolinsky (Koala) 1,151, 553

The American opossum is found in 29 states of the United States.
It is partially protected by law in 20 states, with close seasons of
from two to four and one-half months each year.2 Its combined value
because of its fur and highly prized flesh makes it worthy of protec-
tion elsewhere. Kansas produced 350,286 opossum skins during the
trapping season of 1927-1928 for which dealers paid $35O,ooo.3 It is
nearly omnivorous, its diet including eggs, young birds, young rabbits,
mice, rats, and other rodents, all sorts of small game, many kinds of
insects, crustaceans, mollusks, frogs, salamanders, mushrooms, musk-
melons, vegetables and fruits of many kinds, bacon, carrion and what-
ever else is conveniently at hand.4 One stomach of the Florida opossum
(Didelphis virginiana plgra Bangs) contained a horned lizard and bird
feathers, besides meat used for trap bait ; two stomachs were filled with
crayfish, one was full of carrion from a dead hog, and in another were
traces of maggots and carrion. It feeds extensively on crayfish and other
crustaceans. The Virginia opossum (D. virginiana virginiana Kerr) is
especially fond of chickens and eggs and in summer feeds extensively
on fruit.5 An opossum in captivity ate a blacksnake three feet and eight
inches long.6 Such damage as they do in occasional raids upon smoke-
houses and henhouses may be prevented by proper precautions in the
construction and care of the buildings, and their destruction of wild
birds is not anywhere serious enough to balance the value of their flesh
and skins.

1 Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, m, 226, 1922; Natural History, xxii,
393, 1922. Compare Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

2 Ashbrook, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 168-173, 1925.

3 Dose, Kansas Fish and Game, No. 2, p. 67, 1928.

4Lincecum, The opossum, Amer. Naturalist, vi, 555-557, 1872. Howell, N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 45, p. 18, 1921. Hahn, sjrd Ann. Rept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Natural
Resources, p. 451, 1909.

5 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 56-57, 1905.

6 Lewis, Opossum in captivity, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 167-168, 1929.

MARSUPIALIA 189

At the present time marsupials are more diverse in character and
more numerous in Australasia than anywhere else. Probably the kan-
garoo is better known to the people of the world than any other Aus-
tralian mammal, and known to more people than is any other marsupial
except possibly the American opossum. It is so characteristic of that
region that a picture of it appears on a series of Australian postage
stamps. The flesh of kangaroos is eaten with relish and the skins find
their way to the world's markets in large numbers.

The following items concerning Australasian marsupials have been
abstracted from Jennison:7 Wombats (Phascolomyidae), entirely
herbivorous, feeding upon grass, roots and vegetables. Bandicoot
(Paramelidae), "food — fallen fruit, berries, corn, worms and insects";
"the commonest carnivorous animals of Papua, Australia and Tas-
mania" ; "nocturnal burrowing animals that do much damage and are
persecuted accordingly." Thylacine (Dasyuridae), "the largest car-
nivorous marsupial," "so destructive to sheep that a price is set on its
head and its numbers are fast decreasing." Tasmanian devil (Dasyuri-
dae), "very strong, murderous beasts that kill everything in their
power, even sheep which are many times their size," "but tamable and
amusing." Common dasyure, "catch and kill cockatoos and are as
efficient as cats in catching rats and mice"; "at times do damage to
poultry, though the birds are in general too large game."

Koala, or tree bear (Phalangeridae), feeds on leaves and vege-
tables; "is now very rare; disease carried off thousands in 1887-1889
and again in 1900-1903." It is not a member even of the same order as
the true bears, but is an arboreal, nocturnal marsupial — a very unique
and interesting animal whose extinction is imminent unless every
reasonable effort is made to preserve it. Its extermination would be
deplorable. The figures given on a preceding page for the sales of
koala skins may be misleading, as in the fur trade the name "koala"
is often applied to sheared and dyed skins of the wallaby, which is a
different animal.8 However, since the taking of koalas was made il-
legal throughout Australia, we are informed that over 600,000 pounds
of koala skins have been shipped from Queensland under the name
"wombat."9

Caenolestes, South American marsupials, "examination of three

'Jennison, Natural history — animals, pp. 329-334, 1927.

"Ashbrook, Trade names in the fur industry, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 216-220,
1923.

9 Sydney Evening News, July 6, 1929, quoted in Journ. Mammalogy, x, 374, 1929.

190 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

stomach contents reveals remains of weevils, caterpillars, lepidopterous
pupa, adult lepidopteran, leg fragments of orthopteran, tipulid larva,
centipede, spider. Dipterous and lepidopterous remains form the major
portion (in one case 60 per cent). Animals caught in traps showed
preference for meat bait."10 Anatomically adapted to feeding upon in-
sects.

ORDER INSECTIVORA— MOLES, SHREWS, HEDGEHOGS
FAMILY TALPI DAE— MOLES

Moles are accused of damaging newly planted corn and injuring
potatoes and other field and garden crops and bulbs, but they usually
simply push the bulbs, tubers and other roots aside without much in-
jury as they burrow their tunnels, mice entering the tunnels and doing
most of the damage by eating the roots, the diet of the moles being
"composed largely of insects and earthworms."1 One month after
Townsend's moles were released in a newly planted garden, 30 out of
70 of their tunnels were in possession of field mice and one each pos-
sessed by rats, gophers and ground squirrels, the rodents destroying
the seeds, but "seeds and vegetables were never found in the stomachs
of moles taken from newly planted or growing gardens."2 Their tun-
nels and mounds, however, do certainly disfigure lawns and do some
damage to pastures, gardens and fields, in addition to providing run-
ways which enable mice to get at the roots, though on the other hand
the resulting soil turnover is of some advantage to the land in certain
places.3 In 65 days a captive mole made 1252 pits, an average of 19
daily.4 In discussing the large amount of food eaten by moles, Hisaw
says:

When the amount of work that a mole is capable of doing in a single night
is considered, one can readily see the necessity for such stupendous amounts
of food. Lydekker (1901) mentions the formation of a burrow about TOO
yards long during a single night. If a man weighing 160 pounds were to do

10 Gregory, On the "habitus" and "heritage" of Caenolestes, Journ. Mammalogy,
in, 106-114, 1922.

1 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 20, 1921. Couch, Mice and moles, Journ.
Mammalogy, v, 264, 1924. Scheffer, The common mole of the eastern United States,
Farmers' Bull., No. 583, 1914; Farmers' Bull, No. 1247, p. 12, 1922.

2 Wight, Food habits of Townsend's mole, Scapanus townsendii (Bachman),
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 19-33, 1928.

3 Grinnell, The burrowing rodents of California as agents in soil formation,
Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 137-149, 1923 ; Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1923, pp.
339-350- See also a preceding chapter on relation of mammals to soil turnover, etc.

4 Hisaw, Observations on the burrowing habits of moles (Scalopus aquaticus
machrinoides), Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 79-88, 1923.

INSECTIVORA IQI

a proportionate amount of work in the same time, he would have to dig a
hole about 47.9 miles long and large enough in diameter to admit his body
freely. The fossorial habit of the mole demands a great expenditure of physi-
cal effort in the pursuit of food. Ordinarily the animal has to remove earth
equal to several times its own body weight for each morsel.5

When it becomes necessary to get rid of moles or to thin them out,
poisoning is not very practicable and trapping must be resorted to, for
which purpose special mole traps have been designed and are on the
market.6

Hisaw,7 citing West, Dyche and Scheffer, has reported on the food
habits of several subspecies of the common American mole (Scalopus
aquaticus), as follows: 34 stomachs — earthworms, 31 per cent; adult
insects, 23 per cent; insect larvae, 29 per cent; vegetable matter, 13
per cent (citing West, 1910, but a paper by West, cited in the footnote
herewith, says 56 stomachs — insects and larvae, 62 per cent; earth-
worms, 26 per cent; spiders, myriapods, etc., i per cent; corn, 8 per
cent; other vegetable matter, 3 per cent) ; 67 stomachs, 17 empty — in
remaining 50, earthworms, 42.2 per cent; ground beetles, 22.7 per cent;
grubs and larvae, 27 per cent; vegetable matter, 3.7 per cent (citing
Dyche) ; 200 stomachs — one contained 171 white grubs; one contained
250 ant puparia ; 10 cutworms in one ; 12 earthworms in one ; seeds and
grain in a few ; earthworms and white grubs their principal food ; in the
Northwest chiefly earth worms (citing Scheffer). In Hisaw's own ex-
periments, 6 moles daily ate 32.08 per cent of their own weight in food
for from 28 to 36 days; one, after being deprived of food for twelve
hours, ate 66.6 per cent of its own weight in food. One might be excused
for supposing, from these figures, that a i6o-pound man, in order to
equal the mole in feeding capacity, would have to eat 51.32 pounds of
food a day, as Hisaw figures it, but it must be remembered that most of
the food eaten by men is more concentrated than that of moles, hence
the man would require proportionately less of it in weight.

In 100 stomachs of the star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata Linn)
taken throughout the year, 2.2 per cent of the food consisted of verte-

5 Hisaw, Feeding habits of moles, Journ. Mammalogy, TV, 9-20, 1923.

8 Scheffer, American moles as agricultural pests and as fur producers, Farmers'
Bull., No. 1247, pp. 17-19, 1922.

7 Hisaw, Feeding habits of moles, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 9-20, 1923. West, A
study of the food of moles in Illinois, Bull. Illinois Lab. Nat. Hist., ix, 14-22, 1910.
Dyche, Food habits of the common garden mole, Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., xvni,
183-186, 1903. Scheffer, Farmers' Bull., No. 147, 1922, superceding Bulls. No. 583
and 833. Wilson, The economic status of the mole (Scalops and Condylura), Penn-
sylvania Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 30, 1898.

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

brate remains, 2.2 per cent Mollusca, 6.5 per cent Crustacea, 30 per
cent Insecta, 49 per cent Annelida, 8 per cent extraneous matter.71

In 91 stomachs, earthworms and beetle larvae formed the bulk of
the contents, with some slugs, grasshopper eggs, beetles, millipedes and
centipedes, and a few contained a little vegetation.8 Of 36 stomachs,
27 contained earthworms (7 only earthworms), 27 contained insects,
mostly injurious (9 insects only), 10 contained a little vegetation, in all
but 2 evidently taken accidentally.9 In 306 Townsend's moles (Scapanns
townsendii), 72.5 per cent of the contents was earthworms, a much
larger percentage than in the common mole, and the balance was mostly
insects, with some slugs and centipedes.10 The earthworm item may
not be altogether to the mole's credit, but in their destruction it prob-
ably seldom, if ever, does much damage, and sometimes it does some
good, where the worms become too plentiful in gardens and pastures.
One California mole stomach was "filled with angleworms."11 A cap-
tive mole in ten hours ate 7 cutworms and 48 earthworms, and a four-
hour fast during the day produced definite weakening.12 A Brewer's
mole (Parascalops breiveri) , in captivity, in 24 hours ate "50 large white
grubs, one chestnut worm, one wireworm, one cicada nymph, 45 larvae
of rose bugs and 13 earthworms," leading to the conclusion that in one
year one mole would eat 40,000 insects and worms, weighing over 50
pounds.13 Moles have been known to destroy wasps' nests in the ground
and to eat the larvae and pupae,14 and we are told of a rat-eating mole.15

Nature is very complex, and there may be biological interrelations
which make it unwise to destroy all the moles in gardens and lawns,
even when they appear to be doing some damage. Seton16 repeats a
story, for which he does not vouch, of a Holland gardener whose
lilacs and other flowering bushes were all blighted after he had trapped

7a Hamilton, "Habits of the star-nosed mole, Condylura cristata" J ourn. Mam-
malogy, xii, 245-255, 1931.

8 Dunnan, The common garden mole of Iowa, Iowa State Exper. Sta. Circular
No. 88, 1924.

8 Rhoads, Mammals of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, p. 201, 1903 ; citing Wilson,
The economic status of the mole (Scalops and Condylura), Pennsylvania Dept.
Agric. Bull. No. 30, 1898.

"Wight, Food habits of Townsend's mole, Scapanus townsendii (Bachman),
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 19-33, 1928.

11 Dirks, Mole eats angleworms, California Fish and Game, v, 99, 1919.

12 Howell, Mole notes, Journ. Mammalogy, TV, 253, 1923.

13 Brooks, Notes on the habits of mice, moles and shrews, West Virginia Univ.
Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 113, 1908; cited in Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 21, 1928.

14 Brooks, Moles destroy wasps' nest, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 183, 1923.
"Garrett, Rat-eating mole, The Field (London), CXLVIII, 205, 1926; Journ.

Mammalogy, vn, 340, 1926.

"Seton, The value of moles, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 51, 1923.

INSECTIVORA

all the moles from his walled-in garden. "Experts" told him that the
"trouble is you have no moles." Thereupon "he restored the moles and
the blight disappeared." The fact that lilacs and most of the usual
flowering shrubs of gardens thrive where there are no moles seems to
be a serious objection to the truthfulness of the story. However, if it
be true it suggests an interesting and important subject for serious in-
vestigation. It is known that some plants thrive only on soil which has
been recently disturbed. It is not at all impossible that the stirring and
aeration of the soil through the operations of burrowing animals may
be decidedly beneficial, if not necessary, to some kinds of useful or
ornamental plants.

Scheffer says: "In periods when moleskin garments were in fashion,
or when the skins were to be obtained at all, the volume of American
business in furs of this class sometimes reached between $2,000,000
and $3,000,000 annually. The Biological Survey has found that the
skins of the common mole of the eastern United States are well within
the class of the imported product . . . while the skins of the common
large mole of western Washington and Oregon are larger and have
better texture and fur than those of Europe. . . . About $50,000 worth
of American moleskins were marketed in 1918, and in 1919 the business
increased by nearly 25 per cent. This does not take into account the
value of moleskins utilized at home. Furthermore, values of the manu-
factured products — moleskin garments, fur sets and fur trimmings —
will approximate at least five times that of the raw peltry."17

In 1921 it was estimated that the world's production of moleskins
was 6,000,000 per annum, and, according to Laut, 600 are required for
a short evening wrap and 1000 for a long one.18 Actual reported sales
of moleskins for the world in 1919-1921 amounted to 23,801,908
skins,19 and the estimate for 1923-1924 was 10,000,000 from Europe
and 500,000 from North America.20

FAMILY SORICIDAE— SHREWS

Shrews are too small for their skins to have much value, but they
live to a great extent upon insects and are very useful animals. An-
thony says: "Although living largely on insect food which cannot put

17 Scheffer, Farmers' Bull., No. 1247, p. 20, 1922.

18 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 142, 1921.

19 Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 226, 1922; Natural History,
xxn, 393, 1922.

20 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

194 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

up much resistance, shrews undoubtedly kill and eat mice whenever
the rodents are encountered under circumstances which allow the shrew
to close in a rough-and-tumble fight. Mice put into cages with shrews
are dispatched with a celerity that indicates this is by no means a new
experience for the shrew."21 While shrews will eat white-footed and
field mice in traps, it is said that they will not eat trapped weasels ; but,
on the other hand, "it is well known that most animals, both wild and
domestic, will not eat the short-tailed shrew" (Blarina brevicauda) ,22
Nevertheless, two weasel stomachs contained remains of this shrew and
weasels have often been seen carrying dead shrews.23

"On the whole, shrews are among the most beneficial mammals,"
in proportion to their size and numbers, "of considerable economic value
in holding down certain pests of agriculture;" the stomachs of Sorex
examined containing "Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, caterpillars,
crickets, spiders, hair and flesh of shrews and mice, moss, seeds and
other vegetable material," and they eat rolled oats used for bait in traps,
and earthworms; water shrews (subgenus Neosorcx) eat also small
fish and perhaps fish eggs, but are not common enough to do much harm
in fish ponds and trout streams ; 35 per cent of the contents of one marsh
shrew (subgenus Atophyrax) stomach was snails, but otherwise it did
not differ much from other shrews; and "nothing is known of the food
of the members of the genus Microsore.v" (the pigmy shrews).24

"While many of our small mammals must be considered enemies
and destroyed in every possible way, fortunately some, as the shrews,
may be classed as wholly beneficial and their presence welcomed on the
farm," according to Bailey, who discusses the North Dakota species.25
Hayden masked shrew (Sorex cinereus haydeni) — "The principal part
of their food, as shown by the stomach contents, consists of insects,
earthworms and the small animal life found over the surface of the
ground." Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda brevicauda) — Food
about the same as the preceding, including mollusks. Water shrew

21 Anthony, Field book of North American mammals, p. 34, 1928. Plummer, Amer.
Journ. Sci, XLVI, 237-241, 1844. Merriam, Mammals of the Adirondacks, 1884. Shull,
Amer. Nat., XLI, 495-522, 1907. Hamilton, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 27-33, IQ30. Bab-
cock, Science, XL, 526-553, 1914. Hahn, 33rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and
Nat. Res., p. 601, 1908 (1909).

22 Kirk, Shrews and weasels, Journ. Mammalogy, n, in, 1921.

23 Hamilton, Weasels eat shrews, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 249, 1928 ; citing Adams,
Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc., LIV, No. 10, p. 2, 1910.

24 Jackson, A taxonomic review of the long-tailed shrews, U. S. Biol. Survey,
N. Amer. Fauna, No. 51, pp. 10-11, 1928.

25 Bailey, A biological survey of North Dakota, U. S. Biol. Surv., N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 49, pp. 200-207, 1926. See Babcock, Some observations on the food habits
of the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda, Science, XL, 526-530, 1914, for sum-
mary of literature.

INSECTIVORA

(Neosorex palnstris) — "The stomachs and intestines of those taken are
usually found to contain particles of insects and small animals so well
masticated that the species are not easily recognized."

Shrews and moles "get numerous ants, wireworms, cutworms and
white grubs, and undoubtedly do more good than harm. The short-
tailed shrew has proved to be one of the principal enemies of the larch
sawfly, and in Newr Brunswick it has been ascertained that 40 per cent
of the cocoons are destroyed by this shrew."2* It is quite fond of land
snails, one having eaten 130 Polygyras in two months, and 15 per cent
of the food of the specimens under observation by Shull was snails,
40 per cent meadow mice and 5 per cent earthworms.27 Others took
crickets and moths and "ate with avidity anything of an animal nature,
including pieces of salty chipped beef."28 A captive gray shrew (Notio-
sorex craivfordi) was very fond of mealworms, from 4 to 7 large ones
constituting a day's ration, but it refused a salamander and earth-
worms.29 La Valette listed the water shrew (Crossopus, or Neomys).
.with the enemies of fishes30 and Haack says that "shrew-mice" (wasser-
spitzmausen) in brooks are "well-known enemies of the eggs and young
of fish."31 It is very doubtful whether any shrews do much real damage
to either fishes or their eggs.

One long-tailed shrew, of three in close confinement, killed and ate
the other two in eight hours.32 A short-tailed shrew in captivity is re-
ported to have killed and partly eaten a two- foot water snake.33 Others
are said to have killed salamanders.34 Dusky shrews (Sorex obscunis
obscurus) in captivity ate grasshoppers, stinkbugs and other insects,
earthworms and watermelon rinds.35

The following table, combining data furnished by Hamilton,36 shows

M McAtee, The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests, Ann. Kept.
Smithsonian Inst. for 1925, pp. 416.

27 Shull, Habits of the short-tailed shrew, Blarina brevicauda (Say), Amer.
Naturalist, XLI, 495-522, 1907. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 21, 1921. Hamil-
ton, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 27-30, 33, 1930. Clench, Nautilus, xxxix, 28, 1925. Hahn,
33rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Hist, (for 1908), p. 601. Babcock,
Science, XL, 526-530, 1914.

28 Klugh, Notes on habits of Blarina brevicauda, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 35, 1921.

29 Dixon, Notes on the life history of the gray shrew, Journ. Mammalogy, v,
1-6, 1924.

"La Valette, The enemies of fish, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1878, pp. 500-516.

81 Haack, Trapping kingfishers, rodents and other enemies of trout, Bull. U. S.
Fish. Comm., rv, 375-376, 1884.

32 Hahn, 33rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., p. 606, 1908 (1909),
quoting Merriam.

83 Cope, On the habits of a species of Blarina, Amer. Nat., vn, 490-491, 1873.

84 Hamilton, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 33, 1930.

85 Miller, A note on the dusky shrew in captivity, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 311-
312. 1930.

88 Hamilton, The food of the Soricidae, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 26-39, 1930.

196

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

the number of shrew stomachs of various species which contained food
of the various sorts mentioned, and the percentage that each kind of
food contained bears to the total contents.

Blarina

Sorex

Sorex

Sorex

Food

brevicauda

cinereus

fumeus

albibaris

Total number of stomachs

244

62

31

13

Per

Per

Per

Per

Num-

cent

Num-

cent

Num-

cent

Num-

cent

ber

food

ber

food

ber

food

ber

food

Insects

212

47.8

54

65.3

30

70.4

13

78

Worms

44

7 2

2

4.3

4

3 4

1

4.4

Mollusks

26

5.4

2

1.4

1

Centipedes

19

3.8

8

6.8

8

4.9

Millipedes

9

1 7

2

Crustaceans

25

6.7

4

1.2

2

2.8

Arachnids

11

2

4

.9

Vegetable

48

11.4

6

1.1

4

3.6

2

3. 1

Vertebrates

21

4.1

6

7.1

2

3.6

Inorganic

24

2.3

4

.9

1

1

1.5

Empty

6

FAMILY TUPAIIDAE— TREE SHREWS

This family is found from India and China to the Philippines, Java
and Sumatra. Their cheek teeth show that their food ''must be largely
insects. Many observers say they naturally eat fruit as well." All the
evidence seems to show that their food is chiefly insects, with some
fruit buds, fish and eggs, and one species is said by natives to kill small
birds, mice, etc.37 They are closely related to an African terrestrial
family of Insectivora, the Macroscelididae.

FAMILY ERINACEIDAE — EUROPEAN HEDGEHOGS

The hedgehogs are largely insectivorous, but take also any inverte-
brates and small vertebrates they can obtain, and even carrion. They
are included among the enemies of land snails.38 "Hedgehog pie is ac-
counted very appetizing by the gypsies, who bake it in clay, the bristles
coming away with the clay covering*. Porcupines are cooked the same

• « OQ

way. 3

ORDER CHIROPTERA— BATS AND FLYING FOXES
Nearly all of the species of North American bats are very useful
creatures. Their food consists almost entirely of night-flying insects,

87 Lyon, Tree shrews : An account of the mammalian family Tupaiidae, Proc.
U. S. Natl. Museum, XLV, 1-188, 1913.

^Pilsbry and Bequaert, Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist., LIII, 479, 1927.
39Jennison, Natural history — animals, p. 141, 1927.

CHIROPTERA 197

including many kinds of injurious moths and beetles not often taken
by insectivorous birds of diurnal habit.1 In the dusk of early evening
and on moonlight nights they may be seen flying about seeking and
catching their prey, their erratic flight being the result of the search
for and pursuit of insects.

Though they certainly perform a great service to mankind in keep-
ing many troublesome and harmful insects within bounds, their value
as destroyers of mosquitoes may not be so great as many people have
supposed. Several years ago much newspaper publicity was given a book
based upon the theory that the encouragement of bats by the erection
of "baj: towers" would not only rid the adjacent region of mosquitoes,
but would also provide a revenue from the guano they would deposit,2
this being simply the waste from the insects eaten by the bats. The
experiment described was very interesting, but in most regions the
accumulation of guano would be too slow to yield much revenue, and
a study of the flight habits of bats, together with an examination of
their pellets and guano, do not support the belief that they are very
large consumers of mosquitoes.3 This is not because of any aversion
to mosquitoes as a diet, but probably because the usual flight of the
bats is too high to catch the swarms of mosquitoes, especially the ma-
laria mosquitoes, which fly not far above the ground. Consequently
the supposed efficacy of bats in preventing mosquitoes from spreading
malaria is not well founded. Localities where bats are very numerous
are often afflicted with malaria and clouds of mosquitoes. However,
bats do sometimes fly near the ground, even capturing beetles and other
insects on the ground, and doubtless do take some mosquitoes. Fargo
attributed the absence of mosquitoes from Bird Key, Florida, to the
presence of bats, mosquitoes being numerous on neighboring keys,
where there were no bats,4 a rather strong case based upon circumstan-
tial evidence. In this connection we might say that the popular notion
that bats harbor and distribute bedbugs seems to be without foundation.

1 Grinnell, Bats as desirable citizens, California Fish and Game Comm. Teachers'
Bull., No. 6, 1916.

2 Campbell, Bats, mosquitoes and dollars, 1925.

3 Storer, Bats, bat towers and mosquitoes, Journ. Mammalogy, vn, 85-90, 136-138,
1926; Science, LXIII, 337-338, 1926. Goldman, Journ. Mammalogy, vii, 136-138, 1926.
McAtee, The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests, Ann. Rept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1925, p. 416. Nelson, Bats in relation to the production of guano
and the destruction of mosquitoes, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1395, 1926. Howard,
Mosquitoes and bats, U. S. Public Health Reports, xxxv, pp. 1789-1795, 1920. Hall,
Economic value of the Mexican free-tailed bat, California Fish and Game, xn, 136-
137, 1926.

* Fargo, Bats of Indian Key, Tampa Bay, Florida, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 203-205,
1929.

198 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

As the activity of bats during flight demands a great deal of food
and there is not much nourishment in most flying insects, the quantities
of insects consumed by a large colony of bats is enormous. The Pipi-
strelle bats (Pipistrellus subflavus subflavus) are found with stomachs
"distended with small dipterus and coleopterus remains."5 The stomachs
of little canyon bats (Pipistrellus hesperus) taken early in the evening,
after twenty minutes of flight, were invariably found to be gorged with
freshly eaten insects,6 and probably they usually take several such meals
each night when insects are abundant. It has been estimated that at
such times each free-tailed bat (Tadarida cyanocephala) will nightly
eat enough insects to equal its own weight or more.7

Two little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) in captivity preferred noc-
tuid moths and took from eight to ten at a meal, writh meals half an
hour apart, handling moths as large as the red underwing.8 Pellets of
the California leaf-nosed bat (Macro tits calif ornicus} contained two
species of grasshoppers, four of moths, with harvest flies, beetles and
the gorged viscera of an insect, probably a grasshopper.9 Pellets of Say's
bat (Myotis subulatus) contained remains of numerous Diptera, spiders,
a scarabaeoid beetle and a cuckoo-fly.10 Pellets of the Pacific pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus pacificus) contained remains of Jerusalem crickets,
scorpions, a beetle and fragments of other insects, including grasshop-
pers.11 It is said that the destruction of bats in Germany in 1800 caused
an increase of processional moths which ruined the trees of a large
region.12

Bats sometimes, in the daytime, hang from the walls of caverns and
similar places in prodigious numbers, emerging in the evening in swarms
and scattering over the surrounding country in search of insects. The
accumulation of guano in the roosting caverns in the course of centuries
forms deposits of commercial importance. It was estimated that on one
May evening 100,000 bats emerged from the great Carlsbad Cavern

5 Hamilton, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 307, 1930.

6 Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 210-211, 1905;
Harmful and beneficial mammals of the arid interior, with special reference to
Carson and Humboldt Valleys, Nevada, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 31, 1908.

7 Nelson, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1395, 1926.

8 Pittman, Notes on the feeding habits of the little brown bat, Journ. Mam-
malogy, v, 231-233, 1924.

9 Huey, Food of the California leaf-nosed bat, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 196-197,
1925-

10 Seton, A roving band of Say's bats, Journ. Mammalogy, m, 52, 1922.

11 Hatt, Food habits of the Pacific pallid bat, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 260-261,
1923. See also Grinnell (Hilda Wood), A synopsis of the bats of California, Univ.
California Pub. Zool, xvii, 235-255, 1918. Nelson, Nat. Geog. Mag., xxxm, 493,
1918.

12 Schmeil, Textbook of Zoology, p. 66.

CHIROPTERA 199

in southern New Mexico. When this cavern was discovered years ago,
guano filled some of the largest rooms to a depth of 100 feet, coming up
nearly to the openings, and sloping away for hundreds of yards over
the cave floor, representing a great many centuries of deposition. It is
estimated that 100,000 tons of it have been removed and marketed at
from $20 to $75 per ton, or a total of much more than $2,ooo,ooo.13

The food of British insectivorous bats consists chiefly of injurious
moths and beetles. Leisler's bat (Nyctalus leisleri) one hour after sun-
set was found crammed full of insects. The water bat (Myotis dauben-
toni) feeds largely on caddis-flies. A mouse-eared bat ate 1 500 house-
flies in one night, and another ate 80 grasshoppers in one night.14 The
oriental bats of the genus Megadermus feed largely on small birds and
even on other bats.15

One group of bats (Noctilio), found in Porto Rico, Trinidad, and
Virgin Islands, has formed the habit of eating fishes. There have been
many observations of their scooping the surface of the water, appar-
ently for food, and there is some direct evidence of their eating fish.
A number of stomachs examined contained nothing but fish, though
many contained insects, such as beetles, ants, mole-crickets, with some
spiders.16 They probably do little or no harm and much good.

A small family of South American bats, which reach much greater
size than the North American bats, sometimes with a wing expanse up
to 28 inches, have acquired the name vampires from their habits of
sucking the blood of other mammals, including human beings. Two
species have been said to subsist entirely upon a diet of blood.

The flying foxes, or fruit bats (Pteropodidae), ranging from Africa
to Japan, Australia and Polynesia, reaching a large size and feeding
chiefly upon fruit, are abundant in some places and very destructive
to tree fruits. One Malay species is said to have a body eighteen inches
long, with a wing expanse of five feet from tip to tip. The United States
government is constantly on guard to prevent their introduction into
the United States.17

"Bailey, Bats of the Carlsbad Cavern, Natl. Geog. Mag., XLVIII, 321-330, 1925;
Animal Life of the Carlsbad Cavern, pp. 108-129, 1928. Nelson, U. S. Dept. Agric.
Bull. No. 1395, 1926.

14 Poulton, British insectivorous bats and their prey, Proc. Zool. Soc. London for
1929, pp. 277-303-

15 Poulton, Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1929, p. 300.

18 Benedict, Notes on the feeding habits of Noctilio, Journ. Mammalogy, ix,
58-59, 1928. Goodwin, Observations on Noctilio, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 104-112, 1928.

17 Palmer, The danger of introducing noxious animals and birds, Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agric. for 1898, pp. 96-98.

2OO ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

ORDER CARNIVORA— FLESH-EATING MAMMALS
FAMILY URSIDAE— BEARS

The flesh of bears is used for food, but they are not plentiful enough
to make a notable contribution to the world's meat supply. However,
in some sparsely settled regions and where protected from hunters, as
in our national parks, they are still fairly common. The bears of Yel-
lowstone National Park afford a great deal of amusement to many
thousands of tourists each year. They are also common in some of the
other parks. It was reported that in 1925 there were 44,326 black bears
and 5593 grizzlies in the areas set aside in the United States as national
forests.1 Bears also furnish entertainment to both children and adults
in zoological parks and menageries.

Bear skins are in demand for the manufacture of rugs and coats.
From 1889 to 1892 about 11,000 bear skins were annually obtained by
the Hudson Bay Company, but since 1900 the season's catch has de-
clined, and in 1915 the company reported only 4500 skins.2 The de-
crease in the United States has been as great, and over a large portion
of their former range bears have been exterminated. However, it has
been estimated that the total production of bear skins in North America
in 1923-1924 was 25,ooo.3 In 1919, 472 bears were killed in Penn-
sylvania.4

As a general thing, wild American bears are not dangerous to human
beings if unmolested. Of course, if we act in such a manner as to indi-
cate that we intend to interfere with its actions or to endanger it or its
young, we can scarcely blame the bear for attacking, but instances of
unprovoked attacks of bears upon men and women in America are rare.
When the circumstances of the reported cases are carefully analyzed it
is usually found that there is some provocative condition.5 For ex-
ample, the grizzly that killed a rancher in Montana had been caught in
a trap, from which it had broken loose, and consequently it was in an
angry mood.6 Henshaw once said that though the grizzlies of the Rocky

1 Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin, in, opp. p. 558, 1926.

2 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, p. 108, 1921.

3 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.
* California Fish and Game, vn, 65, 1921.

6 Bonebrake, An instance of an unprovoked attack by a brown bear, Journ. Mam-
malogy, in, 185, 186, 1922. Sheldon, The "unprovoked" attack by a brown bear,
Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 51-52, 1923. Grinnell (G.B.), The "unprovoked" attack by a
bear, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 52-53, 1923. Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part I,
pp. 46-54, 108-111, 167-169, 217-218, 1929; citing also Bruette, Forest and Stream,
June 22, 1907, p. 974.

6 Skinner, Rancher killed by a grizzly bear in Montana, Journ. Mammalogy, iv,
53, 1923-

CARNIVORA 2OI

Mountains seldom attack human beings, in the Sierras "stories of un-
provoked attacks by grizzlies are frequent, and not few are the lives
lost in such encounters."7 Perhaps he was not careful in ascertaining and
analyzing the facts. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that any
carnivorous animal of such size and strength is potentially a dangerous
creature, for it may imagine itself or its young in danger when such is
not actually the case. In 1895 bears killed twelve persons in India, mostly
natives.8

Much has been written about the destructiveness of bears to game
and domestic stock. There can be no doubt that they do kill both, but
probably they do not quite live up to their reputation in this respect.9
It may be, too, that only an occasional individual acquires this habit,
as in the case of "man-eating" lions. It must be admitted that if bears
were more abundant, resulting in greater competition for food, they
would likely destroy more stock and game. If other food were easily
obtained, they would probably not go to the trouble of killing large ani-
mals, but an animal pressed by hunger will go to almost any extent to
obtain food. An occasional "killer" may do great damage, just as a
sheep-killing dog does. A famous grizzly is believed by stockmen to have
killed one cow every other day during the active season for fifteen years,
a total of over 1200 cows, one daily during the fourteenth season and
34 in one ten-day period.10

Possibly the stock-killing and game-killing reputation of bears is
partly due to the fact that they are seen feeding upon carcasses or their
tracks seen about carcasses of animals which have died natural or ac-
cidental deaths or been killed by mountain lions. The latter are strictly
carnivorous, requiring fresh meat and doing their own killing, but bears
are omnivorous and carrion-feeders. Bruce, a state lion hunter in
California, who has had much experience with bears and mountain
lions, says that "the black bear is not by nature a killer," and that in
every case investigated by him the bear was found to be innocent.11
Anthony says he has often investigated accusations of bears killing sheep

7 Henshaw, Kept. Chief of Engineers, U. S. Dept. War, for 1876, Part 3, p. 528.

8 F.C.K., Deaths from wild animals and snakes in India, Amer. Nat., xxxi, 77-78,
1897-

9 See Seton, Lives of game animals, 11, Part i, pp. 27-31, 160-162.

10 Mills, Grizzly's high-power nose, Atlantic Monthly, cxxix, pp. 36-40, 1922.

11 Bruce, The black bear in relation to stock, California Fish and Game, ix, 16-18,
1923. See also Which is the outlaw, the sheepman or the bear, Outdoor Life, LXVI,
May, 1930. Armijo, The sheepman's fight against wild life, Outdoor Life, LXVI, 40,
1930. Spencer, New light on bear protection and overgrazing, Outdoor Life, LXVI,
40-41, 1930.

202 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

and has "never yet found a clear case of killing by the bear."12 On the
other hand, Lorenzen says he saw a bear kill a sheep, but does not be-
lieve they are all killers.13 A. H. Howell reports the killing of an elk calf
by a black bear14 and A. B. Howell charges the Florida black bear with
the destruction of calves and hogs.15 Seton reports their having killed
deer and moose.16

Bailey says the grizzy kills cattle, deer and other large mammals.17
Bell estimates the damage done by a stock-killing bear at $500 per an-
num, much higher than that done by any other animal except the wolf
and mountain lion.18

That bears are omnivorous is well known and may be easily ob-
served about the camps and garbage dumps in our western national
parks. They eat all sorts of fresh meat, carrion, insects, plants, roots,
nuts, etc. They may often be seen turning over logs and rocks in the
search for worms, insects and other invertebrates. Like all omnivorous
animals, they take the food that is most readily obtained when they
are hungry, selecting their food only when not very hungry. Two men
with bear hounds killed 182 bears within a radius of 10 miles from
their ranches, in order to protect their hogs, which were feeding upon
acorns in the oak thickets, but when the acorns were falling in sufficient
quantity the bears would leave the hogs alone and eat acorns.19 Ligon
says bears in New Mexico are "unexcelled" in locating remote or iso-
lated areas which are favored with an acorn, juniper or pinyon mast,
and in California they frequent oak groves to "feast upon the rich
harvest of acorns."20

Bears are particularly fond of bees and their honey, and one destroyed
about fifty hives of honey bees in a few nights.21 One Vermont bear
stomach contained no animal matter, but was filled with vegetable mat-
ter, chiefly Indian turnip.22 An Oregon bear ate the berries from a small

12 Anthony, California Fish and Game, ix, 59, 1923.

13 Lorenzen, A sheep-killing bear, California Fish and Game, ix, 151-152, 1923.

14 Howell, A. B., The black bear as a destroyer of game, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 36,
1921.

15 Howell, A. H., N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 29, 1921.

16 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part I, pp. 163, 1929.

17 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 193, 1926.

18 Bell, Hunting down stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp.
289-300.

19 Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, AT Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 186-192,
1905. Brooks, Forest and Stream, January 10, 1914, p. 17, as cited by Seton, Lives
of game animals, n, Part I, pp. 160-162, 1929.

20 Ligon, Wild life of New Mexico, p. 95, 1927. Henshaw, Ann. Kept. Chief of
Engineers, U. S. Dept. War, for 1876, Part 3, p. 528.

21 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 188-192, 1905; No. 49, p. 191, 1926.

22 Sanborn, The food of the black bear, Amer. Naturalist, vi, 493, 1872.

CARNIVORA 203

cascara tree, with the usual strongly cathartic result.23 In Mount Ranier
National Park bears were found in autumn feeding upon "nearly all
kinds of fleshy fungi," and their excreta "was composed almost wholly
of huckleberry leaves, seeds and entire berries," with some "unidenti-
fied leaves and grasses."24 According to Hewitt, insects constitute a
large part of the diet of black bears, stomachs having been found filled
with May-flies and shad-flies, while they also rob nests of bees, wasps
and ants, and are fond of fish. He adds: "I have seen orchards border-
ing the woods assiduously robbed by bears."25 Dixon reports one that
tried to gnaw into a woodpecker's nest.26 Rowan says they may be seen
searching lake shores for eggs of wild ducks.27 Taverner tells of cir-
cumstantial evidence indicating that bears climb trees after eggs of
hawks.28 Allen says that in Labrador, during periods of great abundance
of mice, bears feed largely upon these rodents, and feed upon berries
when mice are scarce.29 In Alaska, during the salmon run, bears feed
very extensively upon fish, which they catch in the water, but also take
berries, squirrels and all sorts of other food.30 La Valette long ago
listed bears among the enemies of fish,31 but they probably do no serious
damage to the fisheries, unless it be where bears are rather numerous
and fishes are going up the streams in large schools so that they may
be rather easily caught. It would require a large number of bears to
catch as many salmon as one fish trap or seine takes in one day. Accord-
ing to Seton, the food of the polar bear (Thalarctos maritimus) con-
sists of fish, flesh, grass, etc.32

Protests are now being urged against an alleged plan to exterminate
the bears of Kodiak Island, Alaska, though at least one writer thinks
the brown bears of that territory are adequately protected and in no
danger of annihilation.33

23 Bailey, Bears and cascara berries, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 53-54, 1923-

24 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Rainier National Park, pp.
38-39, 1927.

25 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 108-110, 1921. On insect
eating, see Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part 3, pp. 157-158, 1929.

26 Dixon, Black bear tries to gnaw into a woodpecker's nest, The Condor, xxix,
271-272, 1927.

27 Rowan, Bears and birds' eggs, The Condor, xxx, 246, 1928.

28 Taverner, Bears and hawks, The Condor, xxx, 157, 1928.

29 Allen, review of Cabot's Labrador, in Journ. Mammalogy, in, 56-57, 1922.
^Osgood, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 24, 1904. On fish-eating, see Seton, Lives of game

animals, n, Part I, pp. 158-159, 1929.

" La Valette, The enemies of fish, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1878, pp. 509-516
(translated from the German).

32 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part I, pp. 217-218, 1929.

33 Compare McGuire, The last stand of the bear, Outdoor Life, LXVI, 4-7, 1930,
with Pegues, Alaska's brownies, Field and Stream, Dec., 1930, pp. 36-37, 62.

204 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

FAMILY PROCYONIDAE— RACCOONS

The common American raccoons (Procyon lot or and various subspe-
cies) are omnivorous, feeding upon fish, frogs, small mammals, birds
and their eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fruits, nuts, and sometimes kill-
ing poultry.1 Their flesh is wholesome and highly esteemed by many
people, and their fat furnished early American settlers with oil for do-
mestic purposes. Their fur is also in great demand. In 1913 it was esti-
mated that 600,000 raccoon skins were marketed annually at about
$4.50 each.2 The reported sales in 1919-1921 totalled 1,713,700 skins.3
Raccoons are protected by law in 37 states, with open seasons of from
one to five months. According to Bailey, they seem to be capable of
opening the shells of such heavy-shelled Unionidae as Qiiadrula and
Lampsilis, and one stomach contained a meadowlark.4

The coati or coatimundi (Nasua) is said to feed chiefly upon fruit
and insects, but is omnivorous, taking also small mammals, birds, liz-
ards, etc., and playing "havoc among the poultry." Stomachs examined
by Goldman contained fruit pulp only.5 The kinkajou (Cercolcptes)
of the same region eats birds, mammals, and fruit, and its fondness for
sweet fruits is said to be responsible for the name given it by the na-
tives, meaning honey bear.6

FAMILY BASSARISCIDAE— BASSARISKS

The bassarisks, cacomistles or ring-tailed cats (Bassariscus), of
which several subspecies are found in the southwestern United States,
have a variable diet, including "any small animal life, mammals, birds,
insects, centipedes and fruit."7 "Most of the stomachs of Bassariscus
examined have been found to contain the bones and hair of small ro-
dents, which make up also most of the excrement found along ledges
and in caves where the animals live." They have been reported as eating

1 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 187, 1926. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45,
p. 35, 1921. Seton, Lives of game animals, u, Part I, pp. 242-245, 1929.

2 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 70, 1913. Laut, The fur trade of America, p.
84, 1921. Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927. Seton, Lives of game
animals, n, Part i, pp. 230-256, 1929, places the average annual catch from 1821 to
1891 at 385,000.

3 Osborn and Anthony, Natural History, xxn, p. 393, 1922

4 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 192-195, 1905.

5 Seton, Lives of game animals, u, Part I, pp. 258-269, 1929, citing Azara,
Quadrupeds of Paraguay, pp. 318-319, 1801. Belt, The naturalist in Nicaragua,
edition of 1888, pp. 120-121. Goldman, Mammals of Panama, Smithsonian Miscell.
Coll., LXIX, No. 5, p. 154, 1920.

fljennison, Natural history — animals, pp. 119, 120, 1927.

7 Bailey, Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, p. 105, 1928. Anthony, Field Book of
North American mammals, p. 91, 1928.

CARNIVORA 205

fruit and one stomach contained a large centipede.8 As summed up by
Nelson, their food consists of almost anything, especially insects, ro-
dents and fruit, and they rob chicken roosts.9

The name civet cat is often applied to the bassarisk, which is unfor-
tunate, as that term is also applied to the spotted skunks, and should be
confined to the true civet cats of Asia and Africa. This misuse of the
name by trappers and fur traders makes it impossible to ascertain how
many bassarisk skins may be included in reports and estimates of civet
cat fur production. Innis definitely estimates that 40,000 bassarisk skins
were marketed from America in

FAMILY VIVERRIDAE — MONGOOSES AND CIVET CATS

The mongooses, sometimes spelled "mungooses" (Herpestes), eat
almost any small animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate, and some-
times fruit and vegetables, and are listed among the enemies of poison-
ous reptiles.11 Of nine stomachs, one contained termites and two were
filled with driver ants.12 In Africa they are known to eat snails.13 They
are rated as excellent mousers and ratters, and for that reason were
introduced into Jamaica, Cuba, Porto Rico, Barbados, Santa Cruz and
the Hawaiian Islands. After reducing the rats so that they no longer
furnished them sufficient food, they naturally turned their attention
to other small animal life, and have done much damage by the destruc-
tion of young pigs and lambs, poultry, eggs, wild birds and small mam-
mals, almost or quite exterminating some species of birds.14 A difference
of opinion concerning the economic status of mongooses in Barbados is
indicated by the fact that in 1917 a committee of the House of Assem-
blies recommended that their legal destruction be continued, while in
1911 a commission recommended that the law providing for their de-
struction be repealed, because of their value as rat catchers.15 The re-

8 Bailey, North Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 182-184 1005.

9 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part I, p. 581, 1929, citing Nelson, Wild
animals of North America, p. 587.

10 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

"Jennison, Natural history — animals, pp. 82-83, 1927. Ingersoll, The life of ani-
mals, pp. 152, 154, 1907.

12 Bequaert, The predacious enemies of ants, Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist.,
XLV, 328, 1922.

13 Pilsbry and Bequaert, The aquatic mollusks of the Belgian Congo, Bull. Amer.
Museum Nat. Hist., LIU, 479, 1927.

14 Morris, The mungoose on sugar plantations in the West Indies, 1883, reviewed
in Amer. Naturalist, xvn, 299, 1883. Earle, The mungoose in Jamaica, Forest and
Stream, xxxix, 69, 1892. Wetmore, Birds of Porto Rico, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull.
No. 326, pp. 38, 67, 1916. Palmer, The danger of introducing noxious animals and
birds, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1898, pp. 87-100.

"Ballou, Rats in the West Indies, Agricultural News, Barbados, xvm, 406-407,
1919; Journ. Mammalogy, I, 192-193, 1919.

206 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

port showed that the number of rats killed and paid for under the rat
law from 1908 to 1911 was 56,578, while the number of mongooses
killed under the mongoose law during the same period was 33,974.
Great precautions are being taken to prevent the introduction of mon-
gooses into the United States and some other countries where they
have not yet obtained a foothold.

The food habits of the true civet cats of Asia and Africa are similar
to those of the mongooses. In the fur trade, 80,000 civet cat skins were
credited to Asia for 1923-1 924. 16 The 600,000 from America for the
same period were doubtless mostly skunk skins, with perhaps a few
bassarisks.

FAMILY MUSTELIDAE — WEASELS, MARTENS, WOLVERENES,
MINKS, OTTERS, SKUNKS, BADGERS

Though a vast number of excellent furs come from the order Ro-
dentia, and from Canidae, Phocidae and other families, the family
Mustelidae is considered pre-eminently the family of fur-bearers.
Nearly all of the species furnish furs of considerable value in proportion
to their size. Though some of them do considerable damage in raids
upon poultry roosts and in the destruction of wild birds, yet they more
than compensate for it by the destruction of rodents and insect pests
and by their furs. The damage to poultry may be prevented by properly
constructed poultry-yard fences and poultry houses. The flesh of
Mustelidae is not considered valuable as food for human beings.

In 1902 the sale of furs of three semi-aquatic species was reported
as follows:1

United States World Value

Mink 578,ooo 728,000 $1,140,000

Otter 14,000 33,640 264,1 10

Sea otter 330 590 239,540

In 1921 the following estimate was made of the number of mustelid
skins produced annually in the world:2

Ermine 1,000,000 to 1,100,000 Sable 175,000 to 235,000

Marten 150,000 to 210,000 Skunk 1,200,000 to 1,500,000

Stone marten 250,000 to 380,000 Fisher 10,000

Fitch (polecat) 300,000 to 350,000 Otter 90,000 to 124,000

Mink 640,000 to 1,000,000 Badger 160,000 to 180,000

16 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Kept. U. S. Fish Coinm.
for ^1902, pp. 283-353.

Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 84, 1921.

CARNIVORA

207

Actual sales for 1919-1921 were reported as follows:3

Skunk 6,895,674 Fisher 32,014

Weasel or ermine 3492,412 Marten 309,808

Mink 1,683,000 Stone marten 107,0/5

Sea otter 76 Sable 57,908

Land otter 111,059 European polecat 1,094,411

The following fur table has been compiled from statistics furnished
by Seton:4

AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH OF SKINS

Hudson Bay
Fur Co.

Other American
Companies

Canadian

Year Catch

Year Catch

Year Catch

Badger

1842-1905 1278
1895-1905 2445

1858-1891 2000

1919-1924 3469

Skunk

1848-1905 5216
1895-1905 9425

1858-1891 287281

1919-1924 109462

Land Otter

1821-1905 10481
1895-1905 8898

1821-1891 6285

1919-1924 12089

Weasel (Ermine)

1919-1924 407593

Mink

1821-1905 41219
1895-1905 57729

1821-1891 112587

1919-1924 165681

Pine Marten

1821-1905 82418

1821-1891 36781

1919-1924 51086

Fisher (Pennant's
Marten)

1821-1905 4493

1821-1891 4424

1919-1924 3953

Wolverene

1821-1905 1192
1895-1905 726

1821-1891 149

1919-1924 1145

In 1927 the following estimate of world production for 1923-24 was
published:5

Ermine, 1,000,000 from Asia, 300,000 from Europe, 1,000,000 from North

America.
Badger, 30,000 from Europe (100,000 in 1913), 20,000 from North America,

25,000 from Asia and Africa.
Mink, 300,000 from North America.
Otter, 40,000 from Europe, 30,000 from North America, 10,000 from South

America, 5,000 from Africa.

3Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 226, 1922; Natural History,
xxii, 393, 1922; in the first paper the number of mink is given as 1,683,900, in the
second as 2,540,000.

4 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, 1929.

5 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

2O8 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Sable, 6,000 from Asia, 400,000 (marten) from North America.
Skunk, 3,500,000 from North America, 100,000 from South America.
Siberian polecat, 600,000 from Asia.
Civet (probably spotted skunk), 600,000 from North America.

The civet cat items is a good illustration of the confusion arising from
use of trade names by trappers and furriers, which prevent one from
obtaining accurate statistics in some cases. That name is applied to the
North American spotted skunks, the bassarisks, and the true civet cats
of Asia and Africa. Osborn and Anthony, in their first list, give the
number of civet cat skins sold in 1919-1921 as 2,114,535, perhaps in-
cluding several distinct species and families, but omit that item from
their second list.

Subfamily Mustelinae — MARTENS, FISHERS, WEASELS, FERRETS,

MINKS, ETC.

The food of the American pine martens (Martes americana and
subspecies) consists chiefly of small mice and insectivores, but they
take also rabbits, squirrels, birds and their eggs, insects, reptiles, toads,
frogs, lizards, fish, berries, and various other food.6 They are very fond
of mountain ash berries.7 Their fur has long been in demand, 15,000
having been handled by the Hudson Bay Company as far back as 1743.
The Pennant marten or fisher (Martes pennanti and subspecies), not-
withstanding its popular name, is not aquatic and is not known to catch
fish, though it takes fish as bait in traps. Its food is about the same as
that of the pine marten, and porcupine quills were found in one stom-
ach.8 Comeau says that he found one with 200 porcupine quills in its
body, and has since killed 40 fishers, each one of which had such quills
in its body.9 Other writers testify to the porcupine-attacking habit of the
fisher, and one is reported to have attacked a deer, while another de-
feated a dog.10

In 1906, twenty-four very fine marten pelts sold in London for
$70 each, but in the fur boom year of 1920 the best pelts brought
$210 each.11 Skins of the Pennant marten in 1912 brought from $75

eCoues, N. Amer. Mustelidae, p. 92, 1877. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 176,
1926. Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part 2, pp. 482-515, 1929.

7 Hardy, A fall hunt in Maine, Forest and Stream, May 21, 1910, p. 810; Hunter,
Canadian wilds, p. 138, 1907; as cited by Seton.

8Coues, North American Mustelidae, pp. 66-68, 1877. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna,
No. 49, p. 177, 1926.

8 Comeau, Life and sport on the North Shore, pp. 80-84, 1909, as cited by Seton.
"Hardy, Shooting and fishing, April 13, 1899, p. 526; Forest and Stream, June 4,

1910, pp. 888-889; Merriam, Mammals of the Adirondacks, pp. 49-50; all quoted by
Seton.

11 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part 2, pp. 482-515, 1929.

CARNIVORA 2O9

to $ioo,12 while in the Northwest in 1926 they were selling for from
$20 to $125, and those of the .pine marten for from $10 to $5O.13

The term ermine is applied to the white winter pelage of northern
weasels, long used in England as a symbol of rank, especially in the
regalia of judges, and also recognized in heraldry, now frequently
used in the manufacture of coats, or more commonly as trimming for
garments.

The larger weasels feed chiefly upon mice> squirrels and the like, and
are great enemies of ground squirrels and pocket gophers, whose bur-
rows they are able to enter easily. They "kill every small animal that
comes within their reach . . . far more than they can eat . . . killing
for the sheer lust of it, as well as for a little blood, which they take
from each individual," moving on when the rodents in the neighbor-
hood are gone, occasionally raiding poorly-constructed henhouses, which
may be prevented by proper construction.14 Though their fur is valu-
able, the live weasels are probably worth much more as rodent destroy-
ers. "In the winter the larger weasels kill a large number of gray rab-
bits. ... In summer they catch grasshoppers, crickets and beetles of
various sorts, and rob every bird's nest they can find."15 Malloy -found
eleven dead rabbits killed by a weasel whose track in the snow he was
following.16 The destruction of poultry by the long-tailed weasels is
only occasional, while its destruction of mice and other injurious ro-
dents and insects is continual, and it is said to be the most important
enemy of the prairie pocket gopher, yet Pennsylvania paid bounties for
the killing of 422,457 of these valuable mousers from 1915 to 1924."

The least weasel (Mustela rixosa rixosa) is too small to damage
poultry very much, and is a very valuable agent in the control of field
mice and other small rodents and insects.18 A den in Manitoba contained
six dead Micro tus, two Evotomys and remnants of six or eight other
rodents. All of the 27 vole communities (Microtus minor) examined
had been raided by these weasels. "Thus from being an abundant ani-

12 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 79~8o» I9I3-

"Taylor and Shaw, Mammals of Mt. Rainier National Park, pp. 47, 48, 50, 1927.

"Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 30, 1908; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 166,
169, 1926. Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, p. 186, 1911.

15Howell, AT. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 35, 1921, quoting Stone and Cram,
American animals, pp. 236-237, 1902.

16 Rhoads, Mammals of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, p. 171, 1903.

"Criddle, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 265-280, 1930. Seton, Lives of game animals,
n, Part 2, pp. 612-632, 1929. One million golden weasels are exported annually from
China, according to the China Journal, as cited in Journ. Mammalogy, xn, 173, 1931.

18 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 169, 1926. Criddle, Weasels of Manitoba,
Canada, Field Nat., Sept., 1925. Seton, Lives of game animals, 11, Part 2, pp. 634-
639, 1929-

2IO ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

mal this vole was reduced to insignificance in the course of a few weeks,
while all other kinds of mice had suffered severely from the same en-
emy. . . . All our weasels are eminently mousers, but it is the least weasel
that is the natural enemy of Microtus minor, being so small it can read-
ily follow the rodents through their runways into their homes."19 A den
of the least weasel examined by Winecoff contained "remains of mice
only, not a hint of a feather."20

Streator weasels (Mustela streatori streatori) were found to be "liv-
ing on conies [pikas] and different species of mice," and stomachs of
Washington weasels (M. washingtoni) contained remains of gophers,
red-backed mice, deer mice, pikas, squirrels and a junco.21 The dwarf
weasel (Mustela streatori leptus), confined mostly to high altitudes in
the Rocky Mountains, is supposed to eat "conies" or pikas and mice.22
La Valette says that weasels are enemies of fish,23 but that enmity
cannot be considered serious. Kirk says that weasels do not eat trapped
shrews and shrews do not eat trapped weasels,24 which does not neces-
sarily mean that Coues was mistaken in listing Insectivora as part of
the diet of weasels under natural conditions. Hamilton definitely re-
ports two shrews contained in weasel stomachs and says weasels are
often seen carrying dead shrews.25

The ticks carried by weasels are not known to be harmful to human
beings, but, on the other hand, the weasels may do some good by killing
rodents which are hosts of the spotted fever tick.26

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), found about prairie-dog
"towns" or colonies on western plains, feeds mostly upon prairie-dogs,
whose burrows it may easily enter, and is sometimes called the prairie-
dog ferret, though it is too scarce to have much economic value.27 Euro-
pean ferrets (Mustela put onus) eat many small rodents, and have been
reared in captivity and trained to catch rats and rabbits by entering their
burrows.

19 Criddle, Journ. Mammalogy, vn, 199-200, 1926.

20 Winecoff, Least weasel in captivity, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 312-313, 1930.

21 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Rainier National Park, pp.
52, 53, 1927.

22 Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, p. 187, 1911. Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, xn,

72, 1931-

23 LaValette, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1878, pp. 509-516.

24 Kirk, Shrews and weasels, Journ. Mammalogy, n, in, 1921.

25 Hamilton, Weasels eat shrews, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 249, 1928.

26 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No. 484, 1912.

27 Gary, AT Amer. Fauna, No. 33, p. 184, 1911. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49,
p. 171, 1926. Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part 2, pp. 566-574, 1929. Nelson,
Wild animals of North America, p. 571, 1918.

CARNIVORA 211

American minks (Mustela vison and various subspecies) furnish ex-
cellent furs, and were among the first mustelids to have been bred in
captivity for their furs, over seventy years ago in New York. During
the American Civil War breeding stock sold for $30 a pair.28 'There
have been hundreds of mink farms in America" (Jones). Some sta-
tistics of mink skin production have been given on a preceding page.
We may add that there were 10,787 mink skins, worth $20,668 shipped
from Alaska in 1923. 29

As with weasels, minks eat any small animals obtainable, such as
mice, rats, chipmunks, squirrels, muskrats, rabbits, birds and their eggs,
frogs, salamanders, snakes, lizards, fish, insects, crustaceans, mussels,
etc. ; are sometimes destructive to ducks and marsh-dwelling birds, oc-
casionally destroy many fish in fish ponds ; and individuals that acquire
the poultry habit and obtain access to poultry yards or buildings may
kill thirty or forty chickens in one night,30 which may be prevented by
proper construction. One Texas mink stomach contained remains of a
wood rat.31 They are "inveterate and successful ratters and mousers,"
and also destroy the eggs of snapping turtles, which are enemies of wild
ducks.32

Subfamily Gidoninac — THE WOLVERENES

The wolverenes (Gido) are frequently called "gluttons," because of
supposed greediness, but they are probably not more greedy than other
carnivorous mammals when food is abundant. They are credited with
following trappers in their rounds and killing every animal they find in
the traps. They are rather scarce and their furs are valuable. They are
bold hunters, as well as scavengers, eating carrion freely, breaking into
provision caches, killing and eating marmots, gophers, rabbits, squirrels,
rats, mice and any other small mammals or birds they can capture.33

28 Dearborn, Fur farming as a side issue, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1916,
pp. 489-506. Ashbrook, Mink raising, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928; Fur
farming for profit, pp. 137-147, 1928. Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 72-78, 1913.

29 California Fish and Game, x, 82, 1924.

"Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 37, 1921. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49,
p. 173, 1926. Ashbrook, Mink raising, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928. Annin,
Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., iv, 85-86, 1884. Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept Agric. for
1908, p. 190.

31 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 196-197, 1905.

32 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part 2, pp. 518-560, 1929, citing Forest and
Stream, May 14, 1910, p. 770, and June n, 1910, p. 934. Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1908, pp. 191-192.

33 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 178, 1926. Fry, California Fish and Game,
ix, 129-134, 1923.

212 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Wolverenes have been known to kill deer and caribou and to attack
even moose.34 In Labrador they subsist largely upon mice, and during
periods of mouse abundance they are found to be "full of mice."35

Subfamily Lutrinac — THE OTTERS.

The land otters (Lutra) are larger and their furs more valuable than
most of the Mustelidae. In 1908 the pelts were worth from $10 to $20,
in 1912 from $30 to $40. In 1923-1924 the average price in Canada was
$30.70, but during the boom of 1920 the best skins brought $io5.36
They feed chiefly upon fish, mostly the more sluggish species, but also
take crayfish, frogs and clams.37 One stomach contained the head of a
mallard.38

Subfamily Enhydrinae — SEA OTTERS.

The sea otter of the North Pacific (Enhydra lutris lutris) was once
very abundant, but is now on the verge of extinction. Seton gives many
details of the destruction of these animals, with a bibliography, and
says that restrictions were placed upon killing them, on July 7, 1911,
by treaty between the United States, Great Britain, Japan and Russia.39
At the time of the discovery of Pribilof Islands these animals were there
in great numbers. During the first year (1787) 5000 were taken on
St. Paul Island by two sailors, the next year only 1000, and six years
later they were practically gone, though there is one record for this
island as recently as I9I4.40 Shellikou's first visit to Cook Inlet netted
3000 skins, next season 2000, third season 800, fourth season 600, and
in 1812 only 100. Russians in 1794 took 2000 at the Gulf of Yakutat,
and in 1799 less than 300. In 1804 Baranov had 15,000 sea otter skins
from Alaska in one cargo, worth $i,5oo,ooo.41

During the palmy days of sea otter hunting the skins were sold by
hundreds of thousands, according to Laut, one cargo having sold for

^Grinnell (G.B.), As to wolverenes, Journ. Mammalogy, i, 182-184, 1920. Keele,
Forest and Stream, LXXI, 971. Hunter, Canadian Indian wilds, p. 150, 1907. Anthony,
Field book North American mammals, pp. 113-114, 1928.

35 Cabot, Labrador, as cited in Journ. Mammalogy, in, 56-57, 1922.

36 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 80-85, T9T3- Seton, Lives of game animals,
n, Part 2, pp. 672-709, 1929.

37 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 179, 1926. Seton, Lives of game animals, n,
Part 2, pp. 672-709, 1929.

38 Merriam, North Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 82, 1891.

39 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part 2, pp. 641-670, 1929.

40 Preble, Mammals of the Pribilof Islands, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 46, pp. 102-128,
1923.

41 Elliott, the sea otter fishery. The Fisheries and Fisheries Industries of the
U.S., Sec. v, Vol. 2, pp. 483-491, 1887.

CARNIVORA 213

$50,000; 5000 sold in China in 1785 for $160,000 (at $32 each);
200,000 taken by Russians in fifty years ; fifty years ago American fur
companies were taking 3000 annually; 2369 reached the market in
1891, 202 in 1912, and only 25 reached the St. Louis, New York and
London markets in 1920; several rather poor pelts in 1921 brought
from $1,700 to $2,ooo.42 Even up to 1880 skins sold for $80, while in
1910 the price had reached $i,7oo.43 After 1883, when 5680 skins
reached the market, production steadily declined, until in 1900 it was
only 584, and at a sale in 1901 the average price of the best 145 skins
was a little over $400, the average for the whole lot of 409 skins being
a little over $3OO.44

The southern species (E. I. nereis) was once very numerous on the
California and Lower California coasts, especially on the Farallone and
Channel Islands, where "they were so abundant in 1812 that they were
killed by the boatmen with their oars in passing through the kelp." In
1812 the Russian exploration of the region began, and they killed from
700 to 800 a week in San Francisco Bay, in five years took 50,000 and
thereafter 5000 a year until 1831, the total number killed on these coasts
probably having exceeded 200,000, but they are now seldom seen there.45
"According to old Spanish records, 9729 sea otters had been taken on
the California coast prior to 1790. The O'Kain expedition in 1803-1804
took 1 100 ; the Winship expedition took 5000 in 1805-1806 ; and a party
under a man named Campbell took 1230, all on the California coast."46
It was estimated that 18,000 sea otter skins from California and the
northwest coast were marketed in China in 1801, and 150,000 were
taken from 1806 to 1813, but by 1820 they were no longer abundant.47

Of the sea otters Coues says: "Their food, as might be inferred from
the flat molar dentition, is almost entirely composed of clams, mussels
and sea-urchins. . . . They also undoubtedly eat crabs and the juicy,
tender fronds of kelp, or seaweed, and fish."48 Seton quotes Snow as

cLaut, The fur trade of America, pp. 113, 116, 1921. See When the sea otter
flourished, Forest and Stream, xc, 46, 1920.

43 California Fish and Game, in, 80, 1917.

44 Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Kept. U. S. Bureau
Fisheries for 1902, p. 323.

46 Evermann, The conservation of the marine life of the Pacific, Scientific Month-
ly, xvi, 521-538, 1923.

46 Evermann, The conservation and proper utilization of our natural resources,
Scientific Monthly, xv, 289-312, 1922.

47O'Melveny, What the sea otter did for California, The Masterkey, in, No. 2,
pp. 14-18, 1929.

48 Coues, Monograph of the Mustelidae, p. 345, 1877, citing Elliott, The sea otter
and its hunting, in Report on the condition of affairs in Alaska, pp. 54-62, 1875.

214 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

saying that he has examined hundreds of sea-otter stomachs which con-
tained sea-urchins, sea-squirts and a substance resembling fish spawn,
but no seaweeds, clams, limpets or mussels, and seldom fish.49

Subfamily Me phitinae — SKUNKS.

Since the general increase in the value of all furs, and the develop-
ment of better methods of deodorizing and preparing skins for use,
skunk skins, once considered undesirable, have come into extensive use,
and the total value of the annual skunk catch has reached a considerable
sum. Before 1912 the price had passed the $4 mark,1 reached the peak
in 1919, then suddenly dropped.2 In 1911, 2,009,465 skunk skins were
sold in London at an average price of $2 each, while in 1923 the raw
skins sold for $3 in New York; in 1921 one American association alone
dressed 824,599 skunk skins.3 In 1923 it was estimated that skunk skins
brought the trappers of the United States about $3,000,000 annually.
In 1858 the reported sales of skunk skins in London amounted to only
18,255 pelts, increasing irregularly until in 1904 the number was
91 1,923 ; then averaged 1,300,708 for the ten years preceding the World
War, after which the fur trade rapidly shifted to the United States
and Canada. In 1918, 596,454 skunk skins were sold in New York and
St. Louis, 1,276,913 in 1919, 1,205,910 in 1920, 918,675 in 1921, the
price reaching the apex, from $4.65 to $5.30, in 1922. 4 The State of
New York in 1918 produced $750,812 worth of skunk skins ("black
muskrat"),5 and in 1920 it was estimated that the catch was worth
$i,ooo,ooo.6 During the trapping season of 1927-1928 Kansas pro-
duced 279,647 skunk skins, for which the dealers paid over $560,000,
and 107,277 "civit" skins.7 Skunk farming has been popular at times.
In 1916 it was said that skunk breeders were more numerous than breed-
ers of all other fur-bearing mammals.8 Though skunks do well in cap-

48 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part 2, pp. 641-6/0, 1929.
1 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 85-88, 1913.
' Innis, The fur trade of Canada, p. 39, IQ~7-

3 Bailey, N. Anwr. Fauna, No. 49, p. 181, 1926. Lantz, Farmers' Bull, No. 587,
1922.

4 Lantz, The economic value of North American skunks, Farmers' Bull, No. 587,
pp. 1 6, 24, 1923.

5 Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., in, 208-209, 1925.

8 Dearborn, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No. 135, pp. 3-12, 1920.

7 Dose, Kansas Fish and Game, No. 2, p. 67, 1928.

8 Dearborn, Fur farming as a side issue, Yearbook U . S. Def>t. Aqric. for 1916,
pp. 489-506. Ashbrook, Mink raising, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 8, 1928. Lantz,
Economic value of North American skunks. Farmers' Bull., No. 587, pp. 15-22,
1914. Seton, Lives of Game Animals, n, Part I, pp, 360-366, 1929.

CARNIVORA 215

tivity, skunk farming has not proved profitable except when prices are
high,9 and they fluctuate greatly.

It is difficult to obtain complete and reliable statistics as to skunk
furs, owing to the fact that in many lists some skunk furs are included
under the name civet cat, a name that is applied not only to the true
civet cats of the Old World, but also to the American spotted skunks
and the bassarisks, thus including members of three distinct families.
Skunks were protected by law in 34 states, with open seasons of from
one and one-half to six months each year, in certain counties in one
statCj and there was no protection in 14 states in 1925. 10

It jias been said that skunks are more valuable alive as rodent and
insect destroyers, than dead for their furs. They "are among the most
useful of our carnivorous mammals, though often destroyed in the
belief that they are injurious;" the main part of their food is insects,
but they take also mice and gophers ; "when mice become excessively
numerous, skunks feed upon them almost exclusively," and poultry
may be protected from them by properly-built, skunk-proof poultry
yards and buildings.11

"Of our larger mammals, skunks certainly are the greatest enemies
of insects. Army worms, tobacco worms and white grubs are the
favorite prey of these animals. In Manitoba, Mr. Norman Criddle, field
officer, Canadian Entomological Service, estimated that on one eight-
acre tract skunks destroyed 14,520 white grubs to the acre. Cutworms,
the potato beetle and grasshoppers are other insect pests eaten by
skunks, and the common eastern skunk once proved so efficient an
enemy of the hop grub in New York that the first legislation protecting
the animal in that state was passed at the demand of hop growers.
Investigations in New Mexico by the U. S. Biological Survey showed
skunks also to be the most important natural enemies of the range
grasshopper."1

The food of the common striped skunks (Mephitis) is largely insects
and small rodents, but they take also reptiles, amphibians or any small

9 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 181, 1926. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 20,
p. n, 1901.

10Ashbrook, Trapping laws and the fur supply, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 168-173,
1925-

11 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 28, 1908. Seton, Lives of game animals, n,
Part 2, pp. 384-397, 1929, quoting Pellett, Forest and Stream, May 14, 1910, p. 772.
Nelson, Wild animals of North America, p. 578, 1918. Brook, Recreation, 1899,
p. 255.

12 McAtee, The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests, Ann. Kept.
Smithsonian Inst. for 1925, p. 416.

2l6 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

animal life, and even carrion. "While occasional raids are made on
the poultry yards or on the nests of wild birds, their destruction of
insects and noxious mammals doubtless more than offsets any damage
they may do to poultry or game." "When grasshoppers are abundant,"
skunks "feed extensively on these pests."13

Of 62 skunk stomachs (37 common skunks, 9 white-backed and 16
little spotted skunks), "grasshoppers and crickets formed a large per-
centage of the food of nearly half" of them ; beetles and their larvae
the most important item, found in two-thirds of the stomachs, in many
cases the only food; 15 had eaten injurious rodents (mice, rats, ground
squirrels and pocket gophers), carrion had been eaten by 3, lizards
and salamanders by 3, crayfish by 3, fungi by 2, earthworms by 2, fruit
by 6, centipedes by 2, sawflies by i, i contained cicadas only, and i con-
tained a feather. During an invasion of range caterpillars in New
Mexico they made up from 60 to 95 per cent of the food of skunks
examined.14

Of the contents of 10 skunk stomachs from California, examined
in the laboratory, 30.5 per cent was mammal remains (harmful mam-
mals 16.3 per cent, beneficial 1.4 per cent, neutral 12.8 per cent) ; 26.3
per cent insects (harmful 24.9 per cent) ; parasitic worms 10.4 per
cent; in 353 stomachs examined by licensed trappers, insects were
found in 207, rodents in 8, other mammals in 15, grass and roots in
100, fish in 5, reptile in i, birds in 27, fruit in 6, game in 4, livestock
in 14 — beneficial habits 68 per cent, neutral 27 per cent, harmful 5
per cent.15 The diet of the hog-nosed skunks (Conepatus) "is even
more largely made up of insects than is that of the others, especially
beetles, grubs and larvae, one containing 400 beetles."16

Three stomachs of non-captive skunks (Mephitis m. nigra} were
found to be badly parasitized with threadworms. One captive specimen
ate 134 field mice in one month, but was not fond of fish, frogs or
snakes and refused shrews and moles.17 Skunks eat both wild and
domesticated bees and are accused of raiding apiaries, "which may

13 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 39, 1921.

14 Lantz, Economic value of North American skunks, Farmers' Bull., No. 587,
1914.

15 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 34-46, 1925.

16 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part 2, p. 378, 1929, citing Nelson, Wild
animals of North America, p. 584, 1918.

17 Shaw, The spring and summer activity of the dusky skunk in captivity, New
York State Museum Handbook, No. 4, pp. 11-92, 1928.

CARNIVORA 217

be entirely avoided by placing the hives upon a high bench."18 One
skunk ate two kittens.19

The contents of seventeen stomachs of the spotted skunks (Spilo-
gale) consisted mostly of insects, chiefly grasshoppers and beetles, with
mice and other small mammals, lizards, salamanders, small birds and
crayfish. One contained persimmons and fungi, another contained re-
mains of three gray squirrels. They have proved valuable in destroying
mice and rats in a house that was overrun with those rodents. They
are sometimes destructive to small birds and poultry and occasionally
to peanuts.20 Two stomachs of S. gracilis from Arizona each con-
tained remains of the desert mouse (Peromyscus eremicus) .21

The following information concerning skunks is derived from Bail-
ey's Texas report:22 White-backed skunk (Conepatus mesoleucus
telmalestes) : three stomachs, filled with mostly beetles, but a few
grubs, large brown flies and grasshoppers. Mearns hog-nosed skunk
(C. m. mearnsi) : in July found feeding on beetles, grasshoppers, crick-
ets, and ripe cactus fruit. Long-tailed Texas skunk (Mephitis tneso-
melas varians) : some stomachs filled with berries of zizyphus, but eats
also cactus fruit, persimmons and berries, and favorite food is grass-
hoppers, cicadas, beetles and grub worms. The Gulf spotted skunk
(Spilogale indianola) : one stomach contained crayfish and a Perog-
nathus, another contained beetles, another contained grasshoppers.

The spotted skunks are often called hydrophobia skunks, because
of a popular belief that their bites usually or always produce rabies.
Possibly the fact that the skunks attack men sleeping in camps, during
"spells of temporary insanity" or "violent frenzy," has had something
to do with their bad reputation, as has been suggested.23 There do
seem to be a few cases in which that dread disease has followed bites
of skunks, just as it has followed the bites of dogs, coyotes and other
mammals,24 but in most cases nothing serious has resulted from skunk

"Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No. 587, p. n, 1923. Plath, The bee-eating proclivities
of the skunk, Amer. Naturalist, LVII, 570-574, 1926.

19 Dice, Skunk eats kittens, Journ. Mammalogy, vii, 131, 1926.

20 Lantz, Bull. Kansas Agric. College, No. 129, pp. 389-390. Seton, Lives of game
animals, n, Part 2, p. 393, 1929. Howell, Revision of the skunks of the genus
Spilogale, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 26, pp. 8-9, 1906; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 37,
1921.

21 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, p. 83, 1890.

22 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 200-205, 1905.

23 Mitchell, "Mexican polecat," "hydrophobia cat," Spilogale indianola, of south-
ern Texas, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 49-51, 1923.

24 Coues, A monograph of North American Mustelidae, pp. 223-235, 1877.
Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 26, p. 8, 1906.

2l8 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

bites. "There is no reason to suppose that they are more subject to it
[rabies] than dogs or cats, nor more dangerous to human beings when
they do have it."25 Seton says he has been often bitten by skunks and
has seen several skunk farmers bitten severely, without being infected
with rabies.26

"Prof. Charles T. Vorhies, of the University of Arizona, has col-
lected evidence which indicates that skunks are rather more apt to
bite sleepers than are coyotes, wolves and dogs; also that perhaps a
larger proportion of bites from skunks produces rabies than of the
bites from any other animal. Statistics on over 3000 cases of rabies,
however, indicate only i per cent infected from skunks, so that, after
all, the total showing is not great. Doctor Vorhies concludes that in
case of skunk bite the Pasteur treatment should be promptly taken."27

Various writers have declared that the flesh of skunks is good for
the table, if properly prepared.28

Subfamily Taxidiinae — BADGERS.

"The badger feeds mainly on small rodents, varied with grasshop-
pers, beetles, scorpions, lizards or some large animal found dead. It
is accused of killing poultry, but the accusation is so rarely substan-
tiated that it may well be ignored. Pocket gophers, kangaroo rats,
wood rats and various kinds of mice are always acceptable, but the
badger lives mainly on prairie-dogs and ground squirrels." Yet they
are killed by ranchers for fear that they might catch a chicken. Their
burrows are a menace to horses and riders on the range, but not more
so than the much more numerous holes of the prairie-dogs whose num-
bers the badgers help keep within bounds.29 They cleared the prairie-
dogs from an area a mile and a half long in a Colorado gulch, a large
percentage of the prairie-dog burrows having been dug out by badg-
ers.30 They are powerful diggers, and easily dig all sorts of rodents out
of their holes, taking two or three ground squirrels, a few gophers

25 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, p. 210, 1905; Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern,

p. 102, 1928.

28 Seton, Lives of game animals, n, Part I, pp. 345-347, Part 2, pp. 384-39?, 1929-

27 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Rainier National Park, p. 55,
1927 ; citing Vorhies, Univ. Arizona Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 83, pp. 368-373,
1917.

28 See, for example, Seton, Lives of game animals, u, Part i, pp. 360-366, 1929.
Merriam, Mammals of the Adirondacks, p. 76, 1884.

29 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 184-186, 1905. Seton, Lives of game ani-
mals, n, Part i, pp. 282-294, 1929.

30 Silver, Badger activities in prairie-dog control, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 63, 1928.

CARNIVORA 219

or a dozen mice a day. Destruction of badgers in Nevada was followed
by an increase in rodents.31

Badgers occasionally "make a hearty meal of grasshoppers, imma-
ture cicadas or beetles."32 One stomach contained bumble bees and
their honeycomb.33 They are said to have dug out nests of bank swal-
lows.34 The badger is one of the hosts of the wood ticks that carry
the spotted fever, which may make it a slight menace in the fever-
infested districts, but there are so many other and much more abun-
dant hosts that the badger is not a source of much additional danger.35

FAMILY CANIDAE — DOGS, COYOTES, WOLVES, FOXES, ETC.

Not only are fox skins among the most valuable of furs, but the
pelts of coyotes, wolves and other members of this family also are
prized. In 1906 the highest price paid for skins was $15.36 each for
two fine ones, others bringing from 48 cents to $7.20. In 1921-1922
the average value of 9451 skins was $10.17. From 1901 to 1905,
498,000 pelts were taken in the United States and Canada.1 In 1921
it was estimated that from 4300 to 6000 silver fox, and from i ,000,000
to 1,200,000 red fox, pelts were sold annually,2 but actual sales for
1919-1921 were reported as follows: Red fox, 1,295,258; silver or
black fox, 26,350; cross fox, 32,296; white fox, 166,071 ; wolf, doubt-
less including coyote, i, 094,502.* An Associated Press dispatch from
St. Louis, dated May 3, 1919, announced that on that day 90,000
wolf skins were sold on the International Fur Exchange for a total
of $904,450, the highest price for a choice pelt being $52, most of the
timber wolves selling for from $18 to $27; and in 1921 155,000 wolf
skins were sold in the spring sales of Europe and America.4 In 1927
the following estimates were made for the years I923-I924:5

81 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 29, 1908; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 184,
1926; Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, p. 102, 1928. Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No.
484, 1912. Sawyer, Badger runs down ground squirrels, Journ, Mammalogy, vi, 125-
126, 1925. Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, p. 181, 1911.

3- McAtee, The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests, Ann. Kept.
Smithsonian Inst. for 1925, p. 416.

83 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 85, 1891.

** Potter, Badger digs for bank swallows, The Condor, xxvi, 191, 1924.

35 Birdseye, Some common mammals of western Montana in relation to agricul-
ture and spotted fever, Farmers' Bull., No. 484, 1912.

1 Seton, Lives of game animals, I, Part i, pp. 251-337, 1929.

2 Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 84, 149, 1921.

3Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 226, 1922; Natural History,
xxn, 393, 1922.

4 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 149, 1921.

5 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

220 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

North
Asia America Europe Africa Australia

Silver fox 500 20,000

Cross fox 5,ooo 20,000

Red fox 600,000 400,000 800,000 400,000

White fox 40,000 120,000

Blue fox 3,ooo 30,000

Kitt fox 300,000 10,000

Wolf 100,000 250,000

Jackal 10,000 20,000

In 1923, 7939 white fox pelts, worth $297,476, and 10,787 red fox,
worth $215,741, were shipped from Alaska.6 Seton7 gives the follow-
ing figures on the catch of American red fox skins:

Hudson Bay Company, 1821-1905, averaged 18,075 skins per annum; 1895-
1905, averaged 22,671 skins per annum; other American companies, 1821-1891,
averaged 53,695 skins per annum.

The total loss in the United States because of the slaughter of do-
mestic stock by wolves, coyotes, bobcats and mountain lions was in
1920 estimated at from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000. So serious was
the loss that the United States Biological Survey, in cooperation with
western stock growers, began a systematic campaign in which, from
1914 to 1920 inclusive, 109,346 coyotes and 2936 wolves were killed,
while the total number from 1915 to 1923 inclusive is placed at 196,172
coyotes and 4916 wolves.8 It was estimated that the annual damage
by each mountain lion is $1,000, by each bear $500, by each wolf $500,
by each bobcat and each coyote $50 ; but the coyote being far the most
abundant, it is probably on the whole the most destructive western
American carnivore, though also one of the most useful. These esti-
mates of the damage done by individual animals are but little more
than guesses. That they do considerable damage in some localities can-
not be doubted. In other localities they do little or no harm, and they
do some good wherever they occur. It depends upon local conditions,
and a reasonable number of coyotes and bobcats, except perhaps in
the vicinity of sheep and goat ranges, may even do much more good
than harm. Consequently, generalized statements concerning the dam-
age done are hazardous. The investigations have not been thorough
enough to satisfy most mammalogists, who feel that the present gov-
ernment efforts for the control of predators by a general poisoning

6 California Fish and Game, x, 82, 1924.

7 Seton, Lives of game animals, I, Pt. 2, pp. 469-552, 1929.

8 Bell, Hunting down stock-killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp.
289-301. Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, 583, 1926. Science, LXIX, 378, 1929.

CARNIVORA 221

campaign are too intensive, extensive, indiscriminate, more or less
harmful, and based upon too slight investigation of the facts and of
local conditions. Many believe also that it is unwise to wholly extermi-
nate any of the species. A year or two ago a committee was appointed
by the American Society of Mammalogists to ascertain the facts con-
cerning the Biological Survey's campaign of poisoning and to study
the problems involved, in cooperation with the Survey and various
organizations and institutions. It is quite probable that the recent
criticisms and discussion may result in more thorough investigation
of the whole subject, with some improvement in the methods used
and a better understanding all around.9

The following table is based chiefly upon examinations of coyote
stomachs by hunters, trappers and poisoners in the employment of
the U. S. Biological Survey. Though an attempt is made to distinguish
between carrion and the flesh of freshly-killed animals, this cannot be
done with any degree of accuracy, especially in cold weather, when
meat keeps without spoiling for a long time. Consequently, the coyote
being to a considerable extent a carrion-eater, no one knows what
proportion of the meat found in the stomachs is from animals killed
by the coyotes themselves. Furthermore, one dead horse, sheep or cow,
killed by a mountain lion, may conceivably furnish the meat found in
a dozen coyote stomachs. Hence, no one can tell how many carcasses
were fed upon by the coyotes whose stomachs were examined. This
illustrates the difficulty of such investigations. The table is condensed
from W. C. Henderson's defense of the Biological Survey poisoning
campaign.10

"Consult: Howell, At the cross roads, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 377-389, 1930; The
poison brigade of the Biological Survey, Outdoor Life, LXVI, 30-33, 1930; The
borgias of 1930, Outdoor Life, pp. 17, 85-87, Oct., 1930. Hall, Predatory mammal
destruction, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 362-372, 1930. Dixon, Furbearers caught in traps
set for predatory animals, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 373-377, 1930. Tooker, Sidelights
on the poison brigade in Arizona, Outdoor Life, p. 37, Oct., 1930. Quinn, Facts about
the poison brigade, Outdoor Life, pp. 26-27, 77-82, Nov., 1930. Petit, Howell, Huey,
Moon and Walker, Discussion, pro and con, of the poisoning campaign, Outdoor
Life, pp. 36-37, Nov., 1930. Natural History, xxx, 662-663, 1930. Avery, Bounties
or government trappers, Field and Stream, p. 8, Dec., 1930. Henderson (W.C.),
The other side of the poison case, Outdoor Life, pp. 22-23, 65-67, Dec., 1930; a
strong defense of the activities of the Biological Survey by its Assistant Chief.
Linsdale, Further facts concerning losses to wild life through pest control in
California, The Condor, xxxiv, 121-135, 193^; summaries of reports from 285
observers on birds and mammals other than squirrels and coyotes killed by pest
control. Kellogg, The California ground squirrel problem, California Dept. Agric.
Special Pub. No. 109, 1931 ; a well-considered reply to criticisms of pest control
operations in California.

"Henderson, W. C., The other side of the poison campaign, Outdoor Life,
Dec., 1930, pp. 22-23, 65-67.

222 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Nature of contents No. of coyote stomachs Total

1919-23 1924-28

Beef 2,517 2,239 4,756

Horse 1,500 3,oio 4,510

Sheep or goat 6,946 9,079 16,025

Pork 209 371 580

Poultry 1,306 2,705 4,111

Grouse and quail 1,268 2,571 3,839

Waterfowl 94 136 230

Other birds 805 982 1,787

Deer 399 1,209 1,608

Elk 20 72 92

Antelope 40 84 124

Rabbit 7,929 12,141 20,070

Ground squirrel 1,148 1,736 2,884

Prairie-dog 584 511 i ,095

Chipmunk 65 100 165

Marmot 64 286 350

Mouse or rat !,427 2,605 4,032

Bait from traps 5,293 1 1,663 16,966

Carrion 2,357 3,874 6,231

Insects or worms 669 542 1,21 1

Fish, frog, reptile 138 1 16 254

Grass, sticks, berries 2,211 3,138 5,349

Stock contained in 25,871, rodents in 27,596, poultry in 4111, deer, elk and ante-
lope in 1824, wild birds in 5856.

The first important concerted effort to control the coyote and wolf
in the West was the result of a serious outbreak of rabies, a subject
discussed more at length in a preceding chapter on the relation of
mammals to disease. In 1919 the Biological Survey, cooperating with
the California Board of Health in a campaign against rabies, killed
2707 coyotes and 178 wildcats in Modoc and Lassen Counties alone,
and during the same period bounties were paid on 1474 coyotes killed
by others.11 In 1917, 23,208 coyotes and 1723 wolves were killed in or
near the national forests in 12 states.12

In addition to its role as a distributor of rabies, the coyote is one of
the hosts of the spotted fever tick13 and has been found susceptible
to tularemia, or rabbit fever.14 These diseases are serious in certain
localities within the western range of the coyote, and the fact that
such a widely roving animal as the coyote is an unquestionable carrier
of one and an actual or potential carrier of the other two adds to the
difficulty of control.

11 California Fish and Game, in, 120, 1917.

12 Bailey, Destruction of wolves and coyotes, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No. 63,
1908.

13 Birdseye, Some common mammals of western Montana in relation to agricul-
ture and spotted fever, Farmers' Bull., No. 484, 1912.

14 Parker and Francis, The susceptibility of the coyote (Canis lestes) to tulare-
mia, Public Health Repts., U. S. Public Health Service, July 9, 1926, pp., 1207-1410.

CARNIVORA 223

Methods of controlling coyotes and wolves have been discussed in
two preceding chapters. The bounty system, which has been tried for
many years in most states, is very expensive, productive of endless
fraud and fails to give general or permanent relief. Coyote-proof
fences help to prevent destruction of stock, but the most effective
method of controlling these animals is by systematic trapping, poison-
ing, shooting and digging out dens of the young, in widespread co-
operative campaigns of state and federal authorities and stock-grow-
ers.15 In Minnesota, bounties have been paid on wolves for forty-nine
years, to a total amount of $1,243,165.53, and for the last twenty-five
years. the annual expenditure for this purpose has slowly increased,16
indicating that it is not a very effective method. This is typical of the
experience of other states.

Though coyotes and wolves have much to their discredit in the de-
struction of useful animals, they have much to their credit in the de-
struction of harmful animals, as well as in the revenue derived from
their pelts. Carey quotes a correspondent thus :

I think that probably Sequoia National Park is the only place in the United
States today where mountain lions, coyotes, skunks, wildcats, etc., are absolutely
protected. I think I can see the effects of this in the keeping down of the
smaller rodents, such as ground squirrels, rats, mice, etc., without any action
by the government.17

Coyotes will eat almost any kind of an animal within their power to
obtain. They take young deer and antelope, calves, colts, sheep, pigs,
goats, cats, dogs (one killed a loo-pound dog), all sorts of rodents
(rats, mice, gophers, prairie-dogs, rabbits, squirrels, etc.), weasels,
poultry, wild birds, reptiles (3 horned lizards in one), fish, insects,
crustaceans, etc.18 They also eat melons and various kinds of fruit,

15 Dixon, Control of the coyote in California, California College Agric. Bull. No.
320, pp. 379-397, 1920; Journ. Mammalogy, 11, 176, 1921. Bailey, Wolves in relation
to stock, game and national forests, U. S. Forest Service Bull. No. 72, 1907;
Destruction of wolves and coyotes, U. S. Biol. Sun'. Bull. No. 63, 1908. Lantz,
U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, 1906 ; Farmers' Bull., No. 226, 1906 ; Bounty laws in
force in the United States, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1907, pp. 560-565.
Lucas, Ann. Kept. U. S. Natl. Museum for 1889, p. 612. Palmer, Extermination of
noxious animals by bounties, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1896, pp. 55-68. Bell,
Wolf and coyote control, The Producer, Denver, vn, 3-4, 6-8, 1926. Young, Hints
on wolf and coyote trapping, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 59-L, 1930.

16 Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 89, 1928.

17 Carey, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 229, 1930.

18 Lantz, Coyotes in their economic relations, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, 1905 ;
The relation of coyotes to stock-raising in the West, Farmers' Bull., No. 226, 1905.
Jotter, The coyote as a deer killer, California Fish and Game, I, 26-27, 1914. Hewitt,
The conservation of wild life of Canada, p. 225, 1921. Seton, Lives of game animals,
i, Part 2, pp. 355-417, 1929, with an excellent summary of the economic status of
coyotes.

224 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

feed greedily upon figs and prunes that fall to the ground, and at cer-
tain times of the year feed "entirely upon grapes in one locality, melons
in another, figs in another and prunes in another," damaging the date
crop in the Imperial Valley, and using manzanita berries as their prin-
cipal food where they abound.19 "In one instance in the Morino Valley,
Riverside County, these animals cleaned up the entire crop of melons.
. . . Coyotes have frequently been known to take practically every
bunch of grapes in small vineyards."20 One stomach contained plums
and another contained mesquite beans.21 Many writers testify to their
fruit-and-melon eating habit. A trapper informed us that coyotes are
especially fond of green corn and demonstrated it the same evening by
catching a coyote in a trap baited with an ear of corn, within 100 yards
of a camp.

In balancing the evil and beneficial habits of the coyote one fact
must not be overlooked. It is notably a carrion eater. Hence the dis-
covery of a coyote eating a dead domestic animal or the finding of
horse or cow hair or sheep wool in a coyote stomach does not prove
that the coyote has killed one of those animals. After stating that car-
rion in a stomach may be distinguished from meat eaten while fresh,
Dixon says: "After impartial study I have come to the conclusion that
one-half of the domestic stock, one-fourth of the game and one-eighth
of the rodents found in coyotes represent carrion and not animals the
coyotes themselves killed." He reports that rodents were found in 47
stomachs, domestic stock in 70, game in 53, fruit in 10, fish in i, insects
in 5.22

Of the Texas coyote (Canis nebrascensis texensis) Bailey says:

The bulk of his food the year round consists of rabbits, prairie-dogs, ground
squirrels, wood rats, mice and all the small rodents that come his way. An
unusual increase in jack rabbits in any region is always followed by a corre-
sponding influx of coyotes, which probably accounts in part for the often
observed fact that in the years following their maximum abundance jack rab-
bits are unusually scarce. At times the food of the coyote consists largely
of fruit, including that of several species of cactus, juniper and forestieria
berries, persimmons and the sugary pods of mesquite; but in times of scarcity

19 Poole, Coyotes not strictly carnivorous, California Fish and Game, xiv, 151,
1928.

20 Coyotes damage fruit crops in southern California, California Fish and Game,
x» 94-95, 1924; Weekly News Letter, U. S. Dept. Agric., Jan. 26, 1924; Warren,
Mammals of Colorado, p. 248, 1910.

21 Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull No. 20, 1905.

22 Dixon, Food predilections of predatory and fur-bearing mammals, Journ.
Mammalogy, vi, 39-40, 1925.

CARNIVORA 225

a piece of rawhide, garnished with a few horned toads, lizards and some
horse manure suffices for a meal.23

Many writers who have studied coyote habits agree upon its effi-
ciency as a destroyer of rodents. Grinnell long ago noted that in Mon-
tana, jack rabbits were common only where coyotes and wolves were
scarce, but others have observed that coyotes and wolves congregate
where rabbits are abundant.24 There can be no doubt that under natural
conditions on western plains it did a great deal toward keeping such
pests under control, but it was only one of numerous enemies of rod-
ents, such as badgers, weasels, hawks, owls, etc. It is also certain that
in many localities, following the wholesale destruction of these various
enemies, the rodents greatly increased in numbers. However, we must
remember that we are not now living under natural conditions. The
advent of agriculture has furnished a more abundant food supply and
better cover for rodents in many localities, probably increasing their
fecundity and average length of life, and many of their enemies have
been destroyed, so that the coyote could not keep them in check. Fur-
thermore, the advent of stock-raising has made it necessary to thin out
the coyotes. This was inevitable. As a result, having so radically dis-
turbed the natural balance, we can no longer depend entirely upon
natural agencies for protection of crops and stock from their enemies,
but must control the situation by artificial means.26

While there can be no doubt that predatory mammals are a factor in con-
trolling rodents, yet they play but a small part in maintaining the natural
balance. Larger factors are involved, and these include seasonal conditions,
fecundity of the species, the acts of man in providing abundant food and the
presence of natural and other shelter. On the other hand, rodents the size
of ground squirrels or smaller are more effectively decreased in numbers by
raptorial birds than by predatory mammals. . . . For several years Grant
County, Washington, had been let alone by government hunters, as the resi-
dents and land owners believed that coyotes were necessary to keep down
jack rabbits; but when rabies appeared there among young coyotes and domestic
dogs during August, 1921, it was necessary to clean out the coyotes. Hunters
were concentrated in this and five adjacent counties and approximately 1800
coyotes were taken in the area during the year ending June 30, 1922. At the
same time jack rabbits had increased along with the coyotes in such num-

23 Bailey, N. Atner. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 175-177, 1905.

24 Grinnell (G.B.), Kept. Chief of Engineers, U. S. Dept. War, 1876, Part 3,
p. 639.

25 Dixon, Control of the coyote in California, Univ. California Coll. Agric. Bull.
No. 320, pp. 379-397, 1920; Journ. Mammalogy, n, 176-177, 1921. Goldman, The
coyote — archpredator, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 325-336, 1930. Henderson (W.C.),
The control of the coyote, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 336^362, 1930.

226 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

bers that organized campaigns were necessary to stop their depredations. Dur-
ing this same period 61,000 jack rabbits were killed in Grant County, and
94,000 in adjacent counties. During the fiscal year following 2062 coyotes
were taken in the same district. Jack rabbits were practically at an ebb. Since
that time jack rabbits and coyotes have not been troublesome except in a few
local spots.26

The fluctuation in the numbers of such prolific species as rabbits,
mice and some other rodents are somewhat periodic, depending upon
various factors, especially weather, food and disease, and probably
not so much as we are apt to suppose upon the presence or absence of
predatory mammals and birds, though these birds and mammals un-
doubtedly do exercise a large influence in checking the increase of
rodents under ordinary circumstances and aid in suppressing special
rodent plagues.

The larger wolves are individually much more destructive than the
coyotes, or prairie wolves, but fortunately are much less abundant.
They are able to kill larger stock and game than the coyote can destroy.
One was found feeding upon a dead moose, but circumstances did not
indicate that it had killed the animal,27 though they are known to
destroy many deer.28 One is said to have killed 125 cattle, worth
$5,000, in ten months, and a famous South Dakota wolf is believed
to have killed $25,000 worth of cattle in seven years.29 One Colorado
wolf is believed to have killed 75 horses and cattle.30 The favorite food
of the Arctic white wolf is said to be musk ox and caribou.31 Wolves
do not disdain small rodents. It is said that in Labrador when mice
are very abundant the wolves leave caribou and other game alone and
feed upon mice, returning to a diet of caribou and ptarmigan when
mice become scarce.32 The diet of the Brazilian red wolf (Chrysocyon)
is chiefly fruit, but it takes many small armadillos, and one stomach
contained seeds of the cumbaru tree.33

Where wolves are abundant and winters severe they have formed

26 Couch, Relationship of predatory mammals and birds of prey to rodent life,
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 73-74, 1928.

27 Johnson, Note on the habits of the timber wolf, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 11-15,
1921. See Criddle, The habits and importance of wolves, Dept. Agric., Ottawa, Bull.
No. 13, 1925. Seton, The lives of game animals, i, Part I, pp. 251-337, 1929.

28 Bailey, Destruction of deer by the northern timber wolf, U. S. Biol. Surv.
Circular No. 58, 1907.

129 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 150, 1926; U. S. Forest Service Bull. No.
72, 1907. Bell, U. S. Dept. Agric. Yearbook for 1920, pp. 296-297. Seton, Lives of
game animals, i, Part I, pp. 251-337, 1929.

30 Warren, Mammals of Colorado, p. 244, 1910.

81 Seton, Lives of game animals, i, Part 2, pp. 340-351, 1929.

32 Allen, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 56-57, 1922, reviewing Cabot's Labrador.

83 Miller, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 13, 1930.

CARNIVORA 227

the habit of hunting in packs, when even man is not safe from them.
Especially from northern Europe come gruesome accounts of their
attacks upon travellers, and wolves killed ten persons in India in i895.34

Foxes do considerable good in the destruction of injurious rodents
and some harm in the destruction of useful birds, occasional lambs and
poultry, In one fox lair were found remains of 76 short-eared owls,
several grouse, black-game, partridges, ducks, curlews, plovers, lambs,
rats and voles,35 all to the discredit of the fox except the rats and
voles. Of the contents of four pellets of the red fox, 90 per cent was
mouse fur, representing 10 or 12 field mice, with a small feather and
the seeds and skin of an apple.36 Bailey and Fisher say that the normal
food of foxes consists chiefly of rodents.37 In southern New Mexico
the Arizona gray fox (Urocyon cinere oar gent ens scotti) is very fond
of juniper berries and pinyon nuts, which it obtains by climbing the
trees.38 "In choice of food the gray foxes are almost as omnivorous as
the coon. Various fruits form the bulk of their food in summer and
part of it in winter, while a great variety of small game, beetles, grass-
hoppers, maggots, mammals, birds and some poultry fall prey to them
during the year. . . . Mice, wood rats, ground squirrels, rabbits and
various small rodents are eaten when obtainable."3 "a One stomach (U.
c. scotti) contained a mockingbird and another contained Perognathus.
Excreta of the Cascade Mountain red fox (Vulpes cascadensis) "in-
dicated that the foxes were subsisting mainly on insects and fruit, the
remains of huckleberries, leaves and other vegetation."39 The fondness
of foxes for grapes is proverbial. Henshaw reported that on Santa
Cruz Island the foxes were feeding principally on insects, but were
also attacking wild birds.40 Introduced into Australia, a new environ-
ment, foxes are said to be destructive to native animals.41

Fox farming began in about 1887 in an experimental way. Prime
furs of some kinds of foxes bring high prices, which, together with
the comparative ease with which they may be handled in captivity, has

w F.C.K., Amer. Naturalist, xxxi, 77-78, 1897.

35 Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1894, p. 225, citing Adair.

36 Seton, Food of the red fox, Journ. Mammalogy, I, 140, 1920.

87 Bailey, Farmers' Bull, No. 335, 1908. Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for
1908, p. 190.

38 Bailey, Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, p. 95, 1928.
~* Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 180-181, 1905.

39 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Rainier National Park, p. 43,
1927.

0 Henshaw, Kept, of Chief of Engineers, U. S. Dept. War, 1876, p. 526.
41 LeSouef, The fox menace and its effect on our native animals, Bull. Zool. Soc.,
xxvn, 69-71, 1924, as cited in Journ. Mammalogy, v, 272, 1924.

228 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

led to a great expansion in the industry during the last few years.
From 1910 to 1912 the best breeding stock rose from $3,000 to
$15,000 a pair, one live pair having sold for $20,000 in 1912, and some
were quoted at from $18,000 to $35,000, while one silver fox skin
sold in London for nearly $3,ooo.42 Those sensational prices were in-
flated, but served to stimulate the industry. In 1914, 992 live adult
foxes and some pelts from Prince Edward Island sold for $3i7,775,43
and in 1918 one farmer on the island sold $14,000 worth of fox pelts
from his farm.44

In 1923 it was stated that there were at least 15,000 silver foxes in
captivity and over $8,000,000 invested in the business.45 In 1928 it was
said that there were 2500 fur farms in the United States and Alaska,
mostly silver or blue fox, with a total investment of from $15,000,000
to $18,000,000, and 2130 fox farms in Canada, with an investment
of $13,240,245. From six silver fox farms 1541 skins were sold for
$215,740, average price $140; and 4089 were sold in 1925 at an aver-
age price of $132, the highest price for one pelt being $52O.46

Such phenomenal profits of particular fox enterprises attract public
attention. The failures or instances of small profits are not widely
heralded. With expert care, based upon a thorough knowledge of fox
habits, coupled with abundant good fortune, fox farms are often
highly successful ventures, but there are many opportunities for fail-
ure, through accident, disease, ignorance of the habits of foxes, etc.
Better methods are being devised to make the business safer and more
profitable. Many people find the odor of foxes when in close confine-
ment very disagreeable and dogs are said to dislike their flesh.47

The domesticated dogs are faithful friends, holding a high place
in the esteem of mankind. Besides being prized as pets, many of
them are useful as shepherds, hunters, watchdogs and protectors of
children. The dogs of the Alps have been used in the rescue of moun-
tain climbers who have been injured or lost in snowstorms. Many
interesting stories are told about the intelligence and resourcefulness
of dogs when human beings were in danger and needed help. They

42 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 14, 15, 49, in, 1913. See also Allen and
McLure, Theory and practice of fox ranching, Charlottetown, Prince Edward
Island, 1926.

43 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, p. 73, 1927.

44 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 65, 1921.

45 Ashbrook, California Fish and Game, ix, 161, 1923.

46 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, pp. 19, 24, 1928.

47 Ross, Dogs dislike fox flesh but relish that of wildcats, Journ. Mammalogy,
ix, 250, 1928.

CARNIVORA 229

are also used in trailing and capturing criminals. Dogs were domesti-
cated before the dawn of written history, various breeds having arisen
in various parts of the world at remote periods.

The natives of America possessed several kinds of dogs before the
advent of white men on the continent, and used them as food to a
considerable extent.48 White men in the wilderness on many occasions
have been glad to get Indian dogs for food. The accounts of the De
Soto expedition to the Mississippi and the Lewis and Clark expedi-
tion up the Missouri and across the mountains to the Pacific tell of
various occasions when they were without food and were supplied with
dogs by Indians. The Indians of the Northwest Coast possessed long-
haired "dogs with wool-like undercoats, which were sheared closely as
sheep are and the product woven into blankets. Some of these blankets
are preserved in museums, but the dogs seem to have disappeared.49

Before Europeans brought horses, dogs were the only beasts of
burden and draft animals owned by the North American Indians.
They were much used in harness to drag equipment on the western
plains, in following herds of buffalo, and carried loads on their backs,
as well, and are still used by both natives and white men in drawing
sledges in the Far North. Dog sledges were quite indispensable in the
exploration of the Arctic region. It has been but a few years since
the whole civilized world was thrilled by a great run of sledge dogs
carrying serum to an Alaskan town afflicted with a serious epidemic.
Many dogs have also been used for drawing small carts in Belgium
and other European countries and elaborate laws were devised to pro-
vide for their care and comfort.50

An occasional dog acquires vicious habits, kills sheep or game or
even attacks human beings. This could be to a great extent avoided
if so many dogs were not allowed to roam at will. Real dog-lovers do
not claim the right to permit their dogs such liberty, nor would they
allow them to run at large, especially at night. It is partly because of
this occasional viciousness and partly because there are so many stray
dogs, that many municipalities and some states have dog license laws,
the license fees providing considerable revenue in the aggregate. For

48 Henderson and Harrington, Ethnozoology of the Tewa Indians, U. S. Bureau
Amer. Ethnology Bull. No. 56, pp. 25-28, 1914, and publications cited in footnotes
therein. Allen, Dogs of the American aborigine, Bull. Museum Comp. Zool., LXIII,

431-517, 1920-

** Leechman, Fleece-bearing dogs, Nature Magazine, xrv, 177-178, 1929.

50 Johnson, Dogs as draft animals, Forest and Stream, XLIX, 491-492, 515, 1897;
L, 13-14, 1898.

230 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

example, in Virginia the fees amounted to $237,762.70 in 192 1,51 and
to $260,000 in 1927, when 17,000 homeless dogs were killed.52 All or
nearly all the states have laws fixing the responsibility of dog-owners
for damages to livestock by their dogs, and a uniform dog law for
all states has been proposed.53 The loss of sheep through depredations
of sheep-killing dogs in Ohio in 1901 was placed at $152,034 and in
Missouri at $2OO,ooo.54 In the old settled portions of the eastern
United States the dog hazard in the sheep industry is considered as
great as the coyote hazard is in the western states. Dogs also pursue
and kill deer, which is made a subject of legislation in some states.65
In 1926 it was estimated that there were 7,000,000 dogs in the United
States.56

Dogs have always been the principal reservoir of rabies, which could
probably have been entirely stamped out by rigorous action and care,
but in the western United States coyotes, wolves and other carnivores
have now become infected, greatly increasing the difficulty of control.
A campaign against stray dogs is being conducted by the New York
Department of Health, in order to reduce the incidence of rabies in
the city. A recent report says:

There is little doubt that the intensive collection of unwanted and stray dogs
has been the main factor in reducing the number of animals found rabid
by the Health Departments' laboratories. Despite the collection of enormous
numbers of dogs (70,000), the number of dog bites reported (nearly 14,000)
has continued to mount. An analysis of the dog bites reported during the
first four months of this year furnishes the explanation. At present the stray
dog is an infrequent source of dog bites; the chief offender is the dog
whose careless owner allows the animal at large on streets or in other public
places without being effectively muzzled as provided by law.57

The increase in the number of bites reported may not indicate a real
increase in the actual number of bites, but may be the result of a
greater disposition on the part of persons bitten to report the inci-
dents to the proper authorities and to apply for medical treatment.
It is very probable that dogs fondled by children and others who are

61 5th Ann. Kept. Virginia Dept. Game and Inland Fisheries for 1921, p. 15.

5" California Fish and Game, x, 95, 1927.

83 Coll, Sheep-killing dogs, Farmers' Bull., No. 1268, 1922. Revised by Simmons,
1929.

54 Lantz, Coyotes in their economic relations, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, p. 17,
1905.

65 Russell, Menace of deer-killing dogs, Oregon Sportsman, i, 20-21, 1924; Journ.
Mammalogy, vi, 66, 1925.

66 N. Y. World Almanac for 1928, p. 435.

67 New York Dept. of Health, The Weekly Bulletin, as quoted in The Literary
Digest, July 23, 1932, p. 27. See also discussion of rabies in preceding chapters on
disease and disease disseminators.

GARNI VORA 231

afflicted with infectious diseases, may carry the diseases to others if
they are allowed to rove about.

There are many other members of the Canidae in other parts of the
world, but the habits and economic relations of most of them probably
closely coincide with those of their nearest relatives in North America.
The jackals are said to be omnivorous, destructive to young goats and
the like, and are sometimes seen "greedily catching and devouring in-
sects."58 In both Africa and Asia they sometimes haunt the outskirts
of towns and feed upon refuse, also eating fruit and such vegetables
as melons and pumpkins.

FAMILY FELIDAE — CATS ( LIONS, TIGERS, LYNXES, ETC.)
The Felidae are carnivorous, usually catching their prey alive ; some
of them are very destructive in proportion to their numbers. It is
fortunate for the human race that they are not more abundant. It is
a matter of common knowledge that lions, tigers and leopards are
dangerous to human beings, though it is generally agreed, among those
familiar with these great cats in a wild state, that only an occasional
individual acquires a taste for human blood and becomes a "man-
killer." Nevertheless, a wild carnivorous animal of such size and
strength is always potentially dangerous, and when one does acquire
the abnormal habit it may become a great scourge. Drake-Brockman
says he has known of "man-eating" leopards in only one locality, where
there are a number of graves of natives who were killed by two leop-
ards.1 One killed seven boys, who were herding sheep, before it was
itself killed.2 Two insatiable man-eating lions waged war on the con-
struction gang engaged in building an African railroad, stopped work
for three weeks and terrorized the community for nine months before
they were stopped, after they had killed 28 Indian coolies and scores of
African natives of whose death no official record was kept.3 In one
year (1910) 882 persons in India were killed by tigers and 366 by
leopards,4 and in 1895 m the same country 177 persons were killed
by tigers and 64 by panthers and leopards.6 The total toll of human
lives taken by the big cats of Africa and Asia is large.

The jaguar of Central and South America, largest of American cats,

58 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 46, 1910.

1 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 16, 1910.

" Roosevelt, African game trails, p. 289, 1910.

3 Patterson, The lions that stopped a railroad, World's Work, Nov. and Jan.,
1908-09, pp. 10895-10909, 11147-11158. See also Patterson, The Man-eating lions of
Tsavo, Field Museum Nat. Hist. Zool. Leaflet, No. 7, 1925.

* Science, xxxvii, 938, 1913.

5 F.C.K., Amer. Naturalist, xxxi, 77-78, 1897.

232 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

"although usually inoffensive to man, occasionally works great havoc
among the scattered population when the floods cut off the usual food
and drive him a hungry maurauder to other pastures."6 One at bay at-
tacked four men at Santa Fe in i825.7 Stories are told of jaguars
seizing and devouring boys who for just a moment have stepped be-
yond the circle of open fires maintained at night for protection. The
food of the Ramsey jaguar (F. ramseyi) in Brazil is largely alligators,
with an occasional calf, wild bull or swamp deer.8 The large unspotted
cats of America variously known as puma, cougar, panther and moun-
tain lion (Felis cougar, etc.) have often been accused of attacking men,
but usually it has been when they have been wounded or pursued, or
for some reason imagine themselves or their young to be in danger.9
A 13-year-old boy was killed by a mountain lion near Okanogan,
Washington, in 1924, under circumstances indicating that the attack
was unprovoked.10 In 1890 a 7-year-old boy was killed by two moun-
tain lions in California, in an apparently unprovoked attack.11 In 1909
a boy and a girl died in California from rabies following bites from a
rabid mountain lion.12 While it is evident that mountain lions are poten-
tially dangerous, the very few instances of unprovoked attacks, in
proportion to the large number of people constantly travelling about
alone where these animals are common, shows that the danger is slight.
In proportion to numbers, the mountain lion is the most destruc-
tive of our North American Felidae. Bell estimated the annual damage
done to domestic stock by each one at $1,000, and says that in the co-
operative campaign against predacious mammals by the United States
Biological Survey and western stockmen, 540 lions were killed from
1914 to I92O.13 The estimate of $1,000 to each cat per annum is not
supported by very definite evidence. Dixon considers it too high, but
shows that mountain lions are serious enemies of deer. He says that,
of 43 lion stomachs examined, 80 per cent contained remains of deer
and only 2 per cent contained remains of stock, and that, while 4000
lions have been killed under bounties from the California Fish and

"Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 65, 1927.

7 Seton, Lives of game animals, i, Part i, pp. 4-33, 1929.

8 Miller, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 14, 1930.

9Osgood, Attacked by a cougar?, Journ. Mammalogy, I, 240, 1920. Seton, Lives of
game animals, i, Part I, pp. 37-136, 1929.

10 Finley, Cougar kills a boy, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 197-199, 1925; California
Fish and Game, xi, 89-90, 1925. Hall, The Murrelet, May, 1925.

11 Outdoor Life, xxxvi, 162-163, 1915. California Fish and Game, ix, 45, 1923.

12 Storer, Rabies in a mountain lion, California Fish and Game, ix, 45-48, 1923.

13 Bell, Hunting down stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp.
298-300.

CARNIVORA 233

Game Commission, because of their destructiveness to deer, the stock-
men would only pay $20 bounty, as an indication of their estimate of
its destructiveness to stock.14 After continuous trapping for years,
Bruce, California state lion hunter, estimated that there were, in 1919,
600 mountain lions in that state, that they killed 30,000 deer annually ;
in the next five years 165 lions were killed.16 Hunter estimated that
each lion in California kills an average of one deer a week, or 52 per
annum.16

"One cougar killed five deer in a hundred-yard circle, all within a
week. ... I have examined the stomachs of many cougars killed in
westejrn Washington and never found anything but venison, although
in some sections they are said to feed occasionally on mountain beaver.
I know of only one instance of a cougar killing a mountain goat/'17
Roosevelt says that deer are the accustomed prey of the mountain lion
and that it is also a dreaded enemy of sheep, pigs, calves, colts, etc., and
has been known to attack human beings.18 Ho well, commenting on the
latter statement, says that "authentic instances of such attacks are ex-
ceedingly rare."19 "It is practically impossible to raise colts in the
Shasta County hills on account of these pests. They destroy many hogs
and cattle also, but do not present so serious an impediment to the keep-
ing of these animals as in the case of horses."20

The American bobcats, wildcats and lynxes (genus Lynx} are much
smaller than any of the preceding Felidae. Consequently they are not
so destructive to the larger game and domesticated animals, but some-
times attack calves and colts, do much damage to lambs and sheep,
prey upon small mammals and birds and make "great havoc among
the chickens, turkeys and ducks of the planter," while "on a sheep
range where cats are numerous the losses among newly-born lambs
and kids are frequently enormous."21 Bell estimated the damage done
to domestic stock by each wildcat at $50 per annum (an estimate not

"Dixon, Food predilections of predatory and fur-bearing mammals, Journ.
Mammalogy, vi, 40, 1925.

15 Bruce, The why and how of mountain lion hunting in California, California
Fish and Game, vni, 108-114, 1922; The problem of mountain lion hunting in
California, California Fish and Game, xi, 1-17, 1925.

16 Hunter, The control of the mountain lion in California, California Fish and
Game, vn, 99-101, 1921. See also Miller, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 15, 1930.

17 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Rainier National Park, p. 57,
1927.

18 Roosevelt, With the cougar hounds, Scribner's Magazine, xxx, 431-432, 1901.
18 Howell, TV. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 42, 1921.

^Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 16, p. 104, 1899.

21 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 42, 1921. Poole, The economic status of the
bobcat, California Dept. Agric. Monthly Bull., xvui, 458-460, 1929.

234 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

supported by very definite evidence), and says that from 1914 to 1920
the U. S. Biological Survey, in cooperation with western stockmen,
killed 15,374 of them.22

One bobcat stomach contained remains of a chicken, one contained
remains of six robins, one contained a quail and another was seen to
catch two quail.23 One bobcat killed a loo-pound deer in Colorado, and
another in Maine killed two deer in a few minutes and probably a
third within a few hours before.24

To offset the harm they do, they feed largely upon destructive ro-
dents, such as rabbits, ground squirrels, pocket gophers, mice, prairie-
dogs and the like.25 The stomach of the type specimen of the Bailey
bobcat (Lynx1 baileyi) was distended with the remains of small mam-
mals (one squirrel, one chipmunk, two gophers, one vole).26 Pellets of
this species showed that rabbits and wood rats preponderate in its diet,
with many smaller rodents and an occasional bird.27 It was said in
1905 that in portions of Texas "most of the ranchmen will not allow
the wildcats to be killed for fear their ranches will be overrun with
wood rats, mice and rabbits," but it is not usual for ranchmen to
recognize the value of these cats as rodent destroyers. Two stomachs
of the Texas bobcat (L. rufu-s texensis) contained wood rats, and one
contained carrion venison.28 The barred bobcat (L. fasciatus) was
found feeding on grouse, rabbits, mice, pikas, chipmunks and moun-
tain beaver.29 Canada lynx (L. canadensis) : "a study of the excreta
showed that they were feeding on different kinds of rodents, including
chipmunks, lemming-mice, white-footed mice, jumping mice, red-
backed mice, large-footed meadow mice and mountain beavers."30 It
has been accused of killing several deer and is said to be an enemy of
foxes. "Its staple diet consists of hares, but it also eats squirrels,

22 Bell, Hunting down stock killers, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp.
289-300.

23 Maxey, Wildcat eats chickens, California Fish and Game, vi, 37, 1920. Hunt,
Food of the wildcat, California Fish and Game, vi, 37, 1920. McLean, Wildcat eats
birds, California Fish and Game, v, 160, 1919.

24 Young, Bobcat kills deer, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 64-65, 1928. Newsom, The
common bobcat a deer killer, Amer. Game, xix, 42, 50, 1930.

26 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 26, 1908; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 149,
1926.

26 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, p. 79, 1890.

27 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 170-171, 1905.

28 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 169-170, 1905.

29 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Ranier National Park, pp. 60-
61, 1927.

80 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Ranier National Park, p. 59,
1927.

CARNIVORA 235

mice, birds, snakes and frogs, and has been known to kill even deer
and caribou. Its numbers fluctuate markedly with the rise and fall in
numbers of hares." The Hudson Bay Company exports from 4000 to
75,000 skins per annum; in 1906, 4 superb skins bringing $14.40
each, while in 1921-1922 the average price was $20.38. 31

Dixon says that the food habits of the wildcats are 63 per cent benefi-
cial to mankind, 27 per cent harmful and 10 per cent neutral, as shown
by 118 stomachs, the contents of which consisted largely of rodents:
Mammals, 65 per cent (harmful species 44.5 per cent, beneficial 20.5
per cent) ; waste material 19.6 per cent (vegetation, soil, etc., not
food); undetermined, 3.1 per cent; parasitic worms, 7.5 per cent;
birds, 3.1 per cent; fish, 6 per cent, probably bait from the traps.32 One
lynx is reported to have eaten a skunk.33 A recent news-press item
states that the Prussian government has placed wildcats on the list of
protected mammals, because of their usefulness in the destruction of
rodents.

Dogs are said to relish the flesh of wildcats, a trapper "regularly
cooks wildcat flesh for the family table and claims it is most tender
and agreeable," and lynx "flesh is a regular article of diet in the north-
west," white and well flavored,34 but it will not become popular.

Felidae not herein mentioned have pretty much the same habits as
those of their nearest North American relatives. The cheetah, of India
and Africa, possesses great speed for short distances and has been
trained for hunting. "In semi-domestication, for which it is well fitted,
it has been the plaything of princes, Asiatic, African, European (in-
cluding our King William IV) for centuries. Cheetah hunting is a
slothful sport, well suited to an indolent race."35 Ocelots (Felis pardalis
and subspecies) feed upon rodents, reptiles and birds, killing even the
rhea, and the contents of one stomach consisted chiefly of spiny rats
(Proechimys) , with a few peccary hairs.36 Various members of this
family, particularly the lion, tiger and leopard, are favorite animals in
circus menageries and zoological parks.

n Cross and Dymond, The mammals of Ontario, Royal Ontario Museum of
Zool. Handbook No. i, p. 20, 1929. Seton, Lives of game animals, i, Part I, pp. 162-
209, 1929.

32 Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 36-38, 1925.

83 Barton, The skunk eaten "by the lynx, Amer. Naturalist, xn, 628, 1878.

84 Ross, Dogs dislike fox flesh but relish that of bobcats, Journ. Mammalogy, ix,
250, 1928. Seton, Lives of game animals, i, Part i, pp. 162-209, 1929.

"'Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 74, 1927.

"Nelson, Wild animals of North America, p. 415, 1918, as cited by Seton. Mil-
ler, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 15, 1930. Enders, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 289-290, 1930.

236 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

The economic status of house cats has been the subject of much dis-
cussion. They have been domesticated house pets for many centuries.37
Though perfectly proper as pets, cats should not be allowed at large.
Though they catch some mice, they are not natural mousers — most
of them not to be compared in this respect with some wild mammals
and various birds, such as hawks and owls. House cats are natural bird-
catchers. It is instinctive for them to catch birds. Especially will the
fluttering young birds just out of the nest arouse that instinct into
action. No amount of breeding or training succeeds in eradicating it,
as some owners fondly suppose has been done with their particular
pets. The very best-behaved, best-bred, well-fed cats, when closely
watched, have been detected in catching wild birds, and where cats
are abundant scarcely a young bird escapes them. One naturalist esti-
mated that cats kill 1,500,000 birds annually in New England and an-
other placed it at 3,500,000 for the whole United States.

Most cats catch a few mice and occasionally an individual is an
excellent mouser, but the great majority are not, especially the well-fed
pets. Fisher says he caught twelve mice in traps in one room of a
ranch house, yet eight cats had% access to the room.38 Very few cats
will catch rats, many being decidedly afraid of the common house
rat, which, in proportion to its size, is a formidable antagonist.39 Cats,
placed in a rat-infested cellar, rushed out in great fright when the
doors were opened in the morning and fought against being returned,
but an owl, placed in the same cellar, killed nine rats the first night,
and continued to kill some nightly until they were gone. Cats, petted
and allowed freely to enter and leave the sick-room, transmit various
diseases, a subject discussed in Chapter xin, on Mammals as Disease
Carriers.

Forbush made a very comprehensive study of the house cat problem,
and from his report we have abstracted the following items: Cities
are overrun by vagrant cats. The Animal Rescue League of Boston,
during the ten years from 1905 to 1914 inclusive, received 215,449
homeless cats, an average of 21,000 per annum, placed 2908 in homes
and destroyed 210,000. The American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals picked up and destroyed 257,403 stray cats in
1910 and 303,949 in 191 1. Some game officials believe that cats destroy

" Keller, The derivation of the European domestic animals, Ann. Kept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1912, p. 491.

38 Fisher, The economic value of predacious birds and mammals, Yearbook U. S.
t. Agric. for 1908, p. 189.

McAtee, Local suppression of agricultural pests by birds, Ann. Kept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1920, p. 433.

CARNIVORA 237

more small game than hunters do. In Connecticut, 28 stray cats were
shot on one 2O-acre tract in seven months. For one full day 226 ob-
servers watched 226 cats, which killed 624 birds during the day, an
average of 2.7 each. For one week 33 observers watched one cat each,
and the cats killed 239 birds, an average of 7.9 to the cat, more than
one each daily. For one month 1 5 observers watched one cat each, and
the cats killed 307 birds while under observation, or an average of
20.4 each. It is not known, of course, how many they may have de-
stroyed when not observed. Stray cats are even much worse. Cats some-
times kill not to eat, but for sport, as sheep-killing dogs do. One killed
24 chickens in a day, another killed 25, another 34. Cats have extermi-
nated or nearly exterminated more species of birds than has any other
animal except man. Only one-third of the cats will kill rats at all.40

Cat-proof fences of woven wire placed close to the ground, espe-
cially if surmounted with twine fish net, to baffle them in attempts to
climb over, have been tried with some success as a protection from
marauding cats. Wire nets, of large enough mesh to permit the birds
to pass through but too small for the cats, placed about nests of small
birds at sufficient distance to prevent the cats from inserting their paws
and reaching the nests, may be effectively used for the protection of
some species of birds. Some attempts are being made to remedy mat-
ters by legislation, usually only to the extent of authorizing the killing
of cats found straying beyond the limits of their owners' premises, or
permitting hunters and requiring game wardens to destroy cats found
hunting or killing protected species of birds or mammals or with such
birds or mammals in their possession.41 One municipal ordinance re-
quires owners of cats to attach bells to them when they are allowed
to run at large, and provides for the destruction of all roaming cats
not so belled.42 Cat license laws have been proposed in some states.
(See Chapter xxvn, concerning Legislation.)

The food habits of domestic cats are too well known to leave any
need for discussion of their food in detail. It is not so well known
that in addition to their ordinary food they also eat fish, "the food
which few cats can resist the temptation of stealing,"43 moths, beetles,

^Forbush, The domestic cat: Bird killer, mouser and destroyer of wild life —
means of utilizing and controlling it, Massachusetts Board of Agriculture, Economic
Biol., Bull. No. 2, 1916: Facts about cats, Bird-Lore, xvii, 165-167, 1915. Henderson,
The practical value of birds, pp, 77-78, 100-103, 1927.

* l Bird-Lore, xix, 178, 1917; xxi, 330, 1919. Wilson Bulletin, No. 105, p. 118, 1918.
California Fish and Game, i, 42, 1914.

42 Bell the cat, American game (Bull. Amer. Game Protec. Assn.), xvm, 87, 1929.

"LaValette, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1878, pp. 509-516.

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

catnip, valerian, raisins, nuts, and some are fond of cooked green corn
and clams.44 Not only the domestic cat but various wild species of the
family, such as jaguars, lynxes, etc., catch and eat fish, and the menu
of Felis viverrima, of India, "is made up to so large an extent of fish
that he is called the 'fishing cat/ "45

The skins of all the Felidae are valuable, especially the larger species,
and even the house cat skins find a ready market. According to Osborn
and Anthony, 191,799 wildcat skins were marketed in 191 9- 192 1.46
Innis published the following estimates of the number of various kinds
of feline furs produced in 1923-1924 :47

Africa

Asia

Australia

Europe

North
America

South
America

Wildcats and tigers . .
Lions

100
20,000

30,000

2,000

100,000

Leopards
Tiger-cats
Mountain lions

20,000
2,000

10,000

1 000

Jaguars
Ocelots

1,000
5,000

Lynx

1 000

30 000

Domestic cats

100,000

20,000

20,000

400,000

150,000

50,000

The beautiful snow leopards live in the high Himalayas above 9000
feet. In one year 2000 of their skins were brought to Shanghai.48

FAMILY PROTELIDAE — AARDWOLF OR EARTH WOLF

Aardwolf (Pro teles cristatus) — "ants, termites and other insects
and possibly birds' eggs form their chief food";1 mostly termites, not
true ants ;2 includes young birds and mammals.3

FAMILY HYAENIDAE— HYAENAS

The hyaenas are scavengers, feeding largely upon carrion, thus doing
some good, but often kill their own game, and are destructive to sheep
and goats, killing more than they can eat. They sometimes attack
horses and bite them, and enter native huts to attack women and chil-

44 Dimmock, Abnormal food of cats, Amer. Nat., xvin, 941-943, 1884. Bailey, Food
of cats, Amer. Nat., xvin, 1055, 1884.

45 Gudger, Cats as fishermen, Natural History, xxv, 143-155, 1925, with an ex-
tensive bibliography.

46 Osborn and Anthony, Natural History, xxn, 393, 1922.

47 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

48 Blair, In the 200, p. 18, 1929.

1 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 38, 1910.
2Bequaert, Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist., XLV, 317, 324-328, 1922.
8 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 85, 1927.

PINNIPEDIA 239

dren and even sleeping men.4 Hyaenas killed two persons in India in
i895.5 They often desecrate graveyards in the East,6 a ghoulish habit
for which they are held in horror by many people. We are told of their
killing sheep for their brains alone, leaving the flesh untouched.7

ORDER PINNIPEDIA— SEALS, SEA-LIONS,
WALRUSES, SEA-ELEPHANTS

The pursuit of seals and other pinnipeds, in connection with the
whaling industry, constituted a prominent item of "big business" in
America many years ago, the influence of which upon history and ex-
ploration is discussed in Chapter XVH. The efforts of the United
States to prevent the extermination of the great Alaskan fur-seal herds
once threatened to disrupt the friendly relations of Great Britain and
the United States, also involving Japan. The controversy was finally
settled by international arbitration and treaties. The publication of
the arbitration proceedings and evidence required many volumes.

It is impracticable, if not impossible, to wholly separate the dis-
cussion of the fur seal from that of the hair seal, many of the pub-
lications not clearly designating which kind is meant. The fur-seal herd
of Pribilof Islands (Callorhinus dascaniis) has long been a source
of wealth. From 1786 to 1834, under the Russian regime, 1,800,000
were killed. Restrictions thereafter caused an increase in numbers from
1835 to 1867, when it was estimated that the herd numbered between
2,000,000 and 5,000,000. In 1870, under the American regime, the
sealing privilege was leased for twenty years, during which time
1,977,377 were taken on the islands, but promiscuous killing at sea,
thus destroying the unborn pups and young seals, caused great loss.
Under more rigid restrictions the herd steadily increased from 1912
to 1 92 1.1 Contract sealing from 1890 to 1909 yielded a government
revenue of $3,752,415 on 339,180 skins, while pelagic sealers from
1870 to 1890 got 1,840,364 skins, which would have produced a reve-
nue of $6,010,565. From 1910 to 1921 the government revenue from

4 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 41, 1910. Roosevelt, African
game trails, p. 59, 1910.

5F. C. K., Amer. Nat., xxxi, 77-78, 1897.

6 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 86, 1927.

7 Buxton, The gadett or brain-eater, Journ. East Africa and Uganda Nat. Hist.
Soc., No. 15, p. 498, 1919; Journ. Mammalogy, i, 151, 1919.

treble, Mammals of the Pribilof Islands, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 46, p. no, 1923.
Osgood, Preble and Parker, The fur seals and other life of Pribilof Islands, Alaska,
Bull. U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, xxxiv, 1-172, 1914 (1916); Scientific Monthly, rv,
386-409, 1917. Stejneger, The Russian fur seal islands, Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., xvi,
3-149, 1896.

24O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

101,594 skins was $4,321,141.03, of which $1,010,869.24 went to
Great Britain and Japan under the treaties. When first leased the
Pribilof herd numbered about 2,000,000 seals, but it was depleted to
132,279 in four years, increasing, however, to 581,453 from 1910 to
I92O.2 The world's reported sales of seal skins in 1919-1921 totalled

85,i64.3

The habit of seals, walruses and their allies, of congregating in
large numbers at rookeries, together with their awkwardness on land,
make them easy prey of hunters. The killing of females before or just
after birth of the young would not permit the herds to maintain their
numbers, much less to increase. About 30,000 young seals are re-
ported to have starved in 1895 because their mothers were killed.4 At
Stikine River, Alaska, the natives have been in the habit of killing the
females just before the pups are born, as the skins and flesh of the
unborn pups are especially prized.5 Many fur seals are destroyed by
killer whales, 18 young seals having been taken from one killer stomach
and 24 from another.6

The Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), now practically
extinct, was once abundant on the islands off the coasts of California
and Lower California. Between 1806 and 1913, 200,000 seals, proba-
bly of this species, were killed on the Farallon Islands, according to
Evermann, 150,000 between 1806 and 1813, according to O'Melveny.7

The seals of Newfoundland also have been relentlessly pursued by
shamefully wasteful methods. Formerly the "baby harp seals" were
killed by hundreds of thousands annually for their blubber, and the
females were killed in the spring, before the birth of the young, but
now these seals are killed for their fur, yielding Newfoundland an an-
nual revenue, which in 1921 was about $250,000.* It is reported that
300,000 seals whelp each year at two points in the Gulf of St. Law-
rence, and 500,000 off the Straits of Belle Isle.9 Five Newfoundland
steamers in 1900 took 100,000 seals, worth $250,000, mostly harps

2 Nelson, Scientific Monthly, xvi, 372-373, 1923, citing Kept. U. S. Bureau Fish-
eries for 1909, Bower and Aller, Kept. U. S. Bur. Fish, for 1914, pp. 67-74. Steven-
son, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1902, pp. 283-352.

3 Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 226, 1922; Natural History, xxn,
393, 1922.

4 Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 125-133, 1921.

0 Walker, Rept. U. S. Bureau Fisheries for 1915, pp. 47-51.

6 Hanna, What becomes of the fur seals, Science, LV, 505-507, 1922.

7 Evermann, The conservation of the marine life of the Pacific, Scientific Month-
ly, xvi, 521-538, 1923. O'Melveny, What the sea otter did for California, The Mas-
terkey (California), in, No. 2, pp. 14-18, 1929.

8 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 132, 1921.

"Harriett, Newfoundland seals, Journ. Mammalogy, vni, 207-211, 1927. ,

PINNIPEDIA 24 1

(Phoca groenlandica) , from Labrador and northward.10 In 1885, 19
British vessels in the Newfoundland fishery took 211,587 seals, and in
1886, 18 vessels took 195,396, for the skins and oil.11

The hair seals are hunted for their oil, and the skins are made into
leather. Lucas in 1889 estimated that 875,000 of them were being killed
annually.12 Half a century ago, in some seasons 40,000 seals were killed
on the Island of Peshnoi, near the mouths of the Ural, 1300 having
been killed in one night in 1846. It was "no infrequent occurrence to
see 15,000 dead seals cover the battlefield of a single night." One fac-
tory manufactured 3,600,000 pounds of seal oil annually.13

There is considerable difference of opinion as to just how destruc-
tive to fish the seals are. Quite likely the different species differ some-
what in habit, and the food of a given species likely varies from time
to time and from place to place. Usually animals of mixed diet take
the food that is most readily obtained wherever they may be. During
the salmon runs on the northwestern coast of North America the fish
furnish an abundant supply of food, and may attract numbers of seals,
which normally would not take many fish.

Bartlett says that the Newfoundland seals feed principally upon
fishes, but eat also considerable quantities of mollusks and starfishes.14
Walker says that at Stikine River, Alaska, 27.39 P61" cent of the red-
meated king salmon and 8.63 per cent of the white-meated salmon
in the fishermen's nets are mutilated and damaged by hair seals, and
an unknown percentage removed entirely from the nets without leav-
ing any remains, besides the damage to the nets.15 Smith says that 13
per cent of the salmon in nets are destroyed by seals.16 On the other
hand, Merriam examined many stomachs of fur seals and found the
contents to be chiefly squids, "while in only a few instances were any
traces of fish discovered."17 Of thirty-five stomachs of the harbor seal
(Phoca richardii), only two contained remains of salmon; other food
items were herring, tomcod, shiner, sculpin, shrimp, crab, squid, octo-

10 Hornaday, The American natural history, i, 123-136, 1914.

11 Southwell, Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., vi, 11-16, 1887. •

12 Lucas, Ann. Kept. U. S. Natl Museum for 1889, p. 611.

13 Schultz, Fishing and sealing in the Caspian Sea, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for
1874-75, PP. 58-96.

14 Bartlett, Newfoundland seals, Journ. Mammalogy, vin, 207-212, 1927.

15 Walker, Destructiveness of hair seals in the salmon fisheries, Rept. U. S. Bu-
reau Fisheries for 1915, pp. 47-51.

18 Smith, Bull U. S. Fish Comm., xvn, 120, 1898.

" Merriam, Food of sea-lions, Science, xin, 777-779, 1901 ; Rept. U. S. Bureau
Fisheries for 1902, pp. 113-114.

242 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

pus, skate, starfish and flounder.18 Of 100 stomachs, 10 per cent were
empty; 9 per cent contained only traces of food; fish, 93.58 per cent,
largely noncommercial; I contained 64 singing fish (6 pounds) ; only
2 contained salmon.18"8 Some following remarks on the relation of
sea-lions to fish will apply with equal force to the seals. Dall has listed
eight species of marine mollusks taken from stomachs of the bearded
seal (Erignathus barbatus).™ In addition to the value of their skins
and oil, the flesh of seals is often eaten.

Sea-lions also are accused of being destructive to the fisheries. Red-
ding said that in 1887 there were three thousand seals and sea-lions
at the entrance to Golden Gate Harbor, San Francisco, each eating
from twenty to forty pounds of fish daily. He seemed to consider them
the cause of the decrease in the number of salmon, yet he admitted the
difficulty of preventing Greek and Italian fishermen ''from capturing
every fish that comes into the harbor,"20 which assuredly must have
had something to do with the decrease in the salmon run up the river.
The fact is that an examination of the stomachs of California sea-
lions does not make a very strong case against them. An even more
significant fact is that both seals and sea-lions had lived in large num-
bers in the vicinity for unknown ages, and yet the salmon remained
very abundant until human fishermen of the Pacific Coast began to
supply the world with canned salmon.21 Hence the justice of the fisher-
men's demand for the extermination of seals and sea-lions is very ques-
tionable.

Eight stomachs of sea-lions killed by fishermen during the salmon
season, because they were believed to be feeding on salmon, were
examined by Dyche, who found no fish remains in them. Afterwards
he killed twelve sea-lions and found seven of the stomachs to be filled
with squid, one with octopus, four nearly empty, except a few squid
beaks. Later two more were examined; he found one full of squid,
the other full of octopus. He says that when sea-lions were abundant,
about fifty years ago, salmon were also much more abundant, and that

• 18 Scheffer, Precarious status of the seal and sea-lion on our northwest coast,
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 10-16, 1928.

"~* Scheffer and Sperry, Food habits of the Pacific harbor seal, Phoca richardii,
Journ. Mammalogy, xn, 214-226, 1931.

19 Dall, Report of the Canadian Arctic expedition, 1913-7918, vin, Part A, Mol-
lusks, 1919 ; Journ. Mammalogy, i, 246-247, 1920.

^Redding, Causes of the decrease of salmon in the Sacramento River, Bull.
U. S. Fish Comm., vii, 57-58, 1887.

21 Dall, On the preservation of the marine animals of the northwest coast, Ann.
Rept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1901, p. 687.

PINNIPEDIA 243

the best fishing was near the sea-lion rocks.22 Both the squid and the
octopus are known to feed extensively on young fishes, which may
account for good fishing where seals and sea-lions are acting as a
check upon the cephalopods. Thus it may be possible that the pinnipeds
are actually beneficial to the fisheries, instead of harmful, but the idea
that they are injurious is so deeply seated in the minds of fishermen
that it is very difficult to eradicate it. It must also be remembered that
thousands of cormorants, shearwaters, pelicans and other large birds
are taking a constant and large toll from the fishes, probably the total
amount consumed being much greater than is consumed by all the
pinnipeds.23

Dice says that the sea-lions of the California coast eat fish, squids,
octopuses, mollusks, crustaceans, etc.24 Smith found a decided difference
between the food of the northern or Steller sea-lion (Eiimetopias
jubata) and that of the California sea-lion (Zalophus calif ornianus) .
He examined eighteen stomachs of the former and twenty-four of the
latter, and only thirteen of each contained food. All of the Steller con-
tained fish, containing also squid and octopus, the maximum number
of squid in any one stomach being six, while the quantity of fish was
large, thirty-five pounds in one. Of the California, five had eaten fish,
seventeen small fishes being the maximum number in any one stomach ;
eleven had eaten squid, the five which contained fish containing squid
also, from 100 to 300 each.25 Several sea-lions were killed "in the
Klamath River estuary during the height of the salmon run. . . . The
stomachs were found to be filled with lampreys. It is a proven fact
that lampreys are detrimental to other fish, killing great quanties of
them in some places."26

Rowley says that the diet of sea-lions is largely fish at most times,
squid when obtainable; that Zalophus in captivity, weighing from
100 to 150 pounds, when fed on fish, eats from 12 to 15 pounds daily;
while Eiimetopias ; weighing ten times as much, perhaps will eat 150
pounds. Of course, eating what is given them in captivity does not
indicate what proportions of the different kinds of food they take,

sDyche, Notes on the habits of California sea-lions, Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci.,
xviii, 179-182, 1902. Merriam, Food of sea-lions, Science, xm, 777-779, 1901. Cali-
fornia Fish and Game, vni, 135, 1922.

23 Starks, Notes on the sea-lions, California Fish and Game, vn, 251-253, 1921.

24 Dice, The sea-lions of California, California Fish and Game, xiv, 1-16, 1928.

25 Smith, Destructiveness of sea-lions, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1902, pp. m-
119.

* Bonnot, Sea-lions and fisherman, California Fish and Game, xv, 282, 1929.

244 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

when available, under natural conditions. Rowley adds that when white
men appeared on the scene there were probably 1000 times as many
sea-lions and 10,000 times as many fishes as there are now. Therefore
the reduction seems to be due to man, not to sea-lions and seals, and
killing all the sea-lions and seals would make no appreciable difference
in the number of fishes in the sea.27 The few fishes. taken by the com-
paratively small number of pinnipeds, from the vast swarms of fishes
swimming from place to place in the ocean, are a very small percent-
age, while the commercial salmon fishermen, with nets and traps, take
fish by the hundreds of tons each season, as they enter the rivers to
spawn, thus preventing reproduction. A questionnaire sent to the seal
and sea-lion hunters of Oregon by the Port Orford Chamber of Com-
merce is said to have brought replies unanimously favoring the re-
moval of the bounty, as "the seals and sea-lions are not destructive to
commercial fish and fishing," their food, as listed by the hunters, con-
sisting of species of little or no commercial value, including skates,
ling cod, snappers, octopuses, squawfish, redfish and crabs.28

The sea-lions had been greatly reduced by the attacks of the oil and
hide industries before oil derived from mammals was so largely dis-
placed in commerce by petroleum products. Besides the oil and hides,
the "trimmings" (genitalia, lips with "whiskers" attached, and gall
bladder) have been in great demand. The genitalia have been exten-
sively used in China in the manufacture of a "rejuvenating decoction"
for aged mandarins, the whiskers for ornaments and cleaning the
stems of opium pipes, the gall sacs for medicinal purposes. Many have
been killed illegally just for the trimmings, which can be easily hidden
from the officers, the carcasses and hides being left in the water.29
The Steller sea-lion was formerly of great importance to the natives of
Alaska. In 1872 it was estimated that there were from 20,000 to
25,000 of them on St. Paul Island and from 7000 to 8000 on St.
George, but in 1923 there were only a few hundred left.30

The northern sea-elephants or elephant-seals (Mirounga angusti-
rostris) were once abundant on the Pacific Coast, but were so assidu-
ously hunted for their oil that they have become too scarce for profita-
ble hunting.31 The production of sea-elephant oil from 1803 to 1889

"Rowley, Life history of the sea-lions on the California coast, Journ. Mam-
malogy, x, 1-36, 1929.

28 California Fish and Game, xvi, 185-186, 191, 1930.

29 Rowley, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 1-36, 1929.

30 Preble, Mammals of Pribilof Islands, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 46, 1923.
81 Lucas, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian hist, for 1889, pp. 616-618,

PINNIPEDIA 245

aggregated over 242,000 barrels, valued at $540,000. 32 In 1906 it was
reported that the California species had been practically exterminated
for its oil, 200 gallons of which were sometimes obtained from a single
individual.

Only the isolation of their present habitat and some official efforts
to protect the small remnant of the herds have prevented the extinc-
tion of the species. In 1892, nine were found on Guadalupe Island. In
1911, 125 were reported. This report caused an attack upon them for
their skins, which are not of much value. The United States govern-
ment issued an order forbidding the importation of the hides into this
country unless accompanied by a written permit from the Mexican
government. In 1922 there were 264 adult males and a few young.
The Mexican government posted notices forbidding any killing of
the animals, under heavy penalty. In 1924 soldiers were placed on
guard, because of plans of whaling and fertilizer companies to "clean
up" the herd. The island has now been made a government reserve
for the protection of the fauna, and landing is permitted only upon
government permit. In 1923 Anthony enumerated 266 males, and
estimated that the missing females and those doubtless absent on
feeding expeditions would make a total of I25O.33 Ten stomachs
examined by Anthony contained only sand, gravel and " large quantities
of parasitic worms," except a bass and fragments of kelp in one.
One stomach examined by Huey contained a double handful of
rock, numerous large stomach worms and a pile of kelp ; another con-
tained a pint of rocks, sand and stomach parasites and part of the beak
of a squid; a captive one ate fish greedily.3* In 1925 he examined three
more stomachs, which contained squid beaks, and one which contained
only sand, pebbles and a small piece of kelp.35

The walrus, which was one of the principal sources of food for the
Eskimo, furnishing also skins for his clothing, etc., has been hunted
so relentlessly by the oil, ivory and hide industries that the natives were
in danger of starvation when the government introduced reindeer for

K Stevenson, Aquatic products in arts and industries, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm. for
1902, pp. 211-214.

33 Anthony, Notes on the present status of the northern elephant-seal, Mirounga
angustirostris, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 145-153, 1924. Huey, Past and present status
of the northern elephant-seal, with a note on the Guadalupe fur seal, Journ. Mam-
malogy, xi, 188-194, 1930, with bibliography.

** Huey, Recent observations on the northern elephant-seal, Journ. Mammalogy,
v, 237-243, 1924.

35 Huey, Late information on the Guadalupe Island elephant-seal herd, Journ.
Mammalogy, vi, 126, 1925.

246 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

their benefit. From 1870 to 1880, 100,000 walruses were killed on
the northwest American coast, yielding 1,996,000 gallons of oil, worth
$1,000,000, and 398, 868 pounds of ivory, reducing their numbers 50
per cent in that brief period.36 A quarter-century ago about 30,000
pounds of tanned walrus hides, valued at $25,000, were imported to
the United States annually.37 In Europe the slaughter has been as
great. At one rookery in Norway 600 were killed in six hours.38 At
Ingshong, Siberia, the natives, after the walrus had become too scarce
to supply their needs, established a close season, opening the season
for one day only after the freeze came and permitting each man to kill
only enough for his winter's use. Since then "the inhabitants of this
village always have plenty of walrus meat to eat, walrus hides for
their dwellings and boats, and oil for fuel and lighting."39 Bernard
says that walruses now seldom land on the Alaska coast, since they
have been so persistently hunted. Consequently the natives kill them
at sea. Being unable to bring the meat and hides ashore, they are
wasted, only the ivory being brought in.40 Perhaps its ivory, even more
than its oil and hide, has caused the undoing of the walrus. In twelve
years, 1874-1885, the Arctic whaling fleet reporting at San Francisco
alone brought in 260,485 pounds of walrus ivory, the ivory adding
much to the profits of walrus hunting.41 Ball says that the food of
walruses consists of clams, marine snails and other mollusks which
frequent shallow water and sand bars.42

ORDER RODENTIA — GNAWING MAMMALS
INCLUDING LAGOMORPHA

Of the more than 12,000 species of mammals, much the largest order
is Rodentia, including squirrels, mice, rats, prairie-dogs, gophers and
many other groups. It seems best, in order to present the economic data
concerning these and somewhat related groups without too much repe-
tition, to include Lagomorpha, the hares, rabbits and pikas, in accord-

89 Stevenson, Aquatic products in arts and industries, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm.
for 1902, p. 214. Clark, The Pacific walrus fishery, The Fisheries and Fishery In-
dustries of the United States, 1887, Sec. v, Vol. 2, Part xvn, 311-318. Lucas, Ann.
Rept. U. S. Natl. Museum for 1901, p. 618.

87 Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm.
for 1902, p. 337.

38 Lucas, Ann. Rept. U. S. Natl. Museum for 1901, p. 618.

39 Bernard, Local walrus protection in northeast Siberia, Journ. Mammalogy, iv,
224-227, 1923.

40 Bernard, Walrus protection in Alaska, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 100-102, 1926.

41 Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., vi, 89-90, 1886.

42 Ball, Ann. Rept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1901, pp. 687-688.

RODENTIA 247

ance with the general former practice, though there is a strong re-
cent tendency toward placing them by themselves in a distinct order.
In North America alone 77 genera were recognized in 1910, 44 of
which, with 750 species and varieties, occur north of Mexico.1 Many
have since been described or recorded.

Not only are there more genera and species than in any other order,
but probably there are more individuals of rodents than there are of all
other orders combined. Many of the rodent groups are very prolific
breeders. For example, field mice have from 6 to 8 young to* the
litter, with a gestation period of 21 days; one female in captivity
had 17 litters in i year; another had 13 litters before she was a year
old ; if all the young had lived and bred at the same rate the progeny
would have numbered 1,000,000 in a year.2 In these extreme cases
fecundity was probably overstimulated by shelter, plenty of food and
other favorable conditions provided in captivity, but the normal fer-
tility in a state of nature is enormous. Were the death rate not also
very high they would soon overrun the earth and destroy all vege-
tation. Fortunately after they increase in numbers to a certain point,
owing to temporary favorable conditions of weather, food, cover and
so on, the mortality usually greatly increases, owing to lessening of
food, crowded conditions, epidemic diseases, etc., so that their num-
bers are again reduced to or below the normal abundance.3

For the house rat, assuming from 3 to 6 litters per annum,
with an average of 10 young to each litter, various estimates of
possible results, if all lived and bred, have been made. Lantz made
the number 20,155,392 in 3 years, on a 3-litter per annum
basis, or, by a later computation, on a 6-litter basis, 359,709,482.
Rucker says 940,369,969,152 in 5 years, while Fischer says
48,319,698,843,030,344,720 in 10 years. True, these figures are obvi-
ously impossible, based as they are upon the assumption that all lived
and bred.4 However, such computations are valuable for the purpose

1 Lantz, Rodent pests of the farm, Farmers' Bull., No. 36, 1910.

2 Bailey, Breeding, feeding and other life habits of meadow mice (Microtus),
Journ. Agric. Research, xxvii, 523-535, 1924.

3 Howell, Periodic fluctuations in the numbers of small mammals, Journ. Mam-
malogy, rv, 149-155, 1923-

4 Silver, The reproduction potential of rats, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 66-67, 1924;
citing various publications. See also Eaton and Stirrett, Reproduction rate in wild
rats, Science, LXVII, 555-556, 1928. Donaldson, Control of rat population, Science,
March 20, 1925. Forbush, Rats and rat riddance, Mass. Board Agric., Econ. Biol.,
Bull. No. i, pp. 11-12, 1915. Rodwell, The rat, pp. 167-168, 1858. Lantz, The brown
rat in the United States, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 33, p. 16, 1909. The rat and
its relation to public health, U. S. Public Health and Marine Hospital Service, p.
153,

248 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

of showing that rodents are a constant menace, a single year of very
favorable conditions of weather, shelter and food being sufficient to
start a disastrous plague. If fully aware of this danger, constant watch-
fulness and prompt measures for their suppression as soon as an
increase in numbers begins, might often prevent such plagues. Prairie-
dogs, ground squirrels and various other rodents are also very prolific.
From 86 female ground squirrels (Otospermophilus gramnmrus bee-
cheyi) were obtained 846 embryos, an average of nearly ten each.5
Another (Citellus mollis) contained 13 embryos.6

Because of their fecundity and their ready response to varying
local conditions, various species of rodents, particularly mice and rats,
are subject to very great fluctuations in numbers. Serious mouse plagues
have occurred at intervals in various parts of the world, especially
in Europe and Asia.7 "Lemmings have an average periodic fluctua-
tion of three and one-half years, the maxima occurring synchronously in
North America and Europe, and probably around the Arctic region."8
In Scandinavia they indulge in somewhat periodic wholesale migra-
tions. On high plateaus they multiply until they exhaust their food
supply, then swarm out over the valleys in vast hordes, swimming
streams, turning aside for nothing, devouring the crops and other
vegetation in their paths, remnants of the army finally reaching the
sea, plunging in and perishing. In 1868 a steamer is said to have
steamed for a quarter hour through a swarm of lemmings extending as
far as the eye could see. The voles of Siberia perform similar migra-
tions.9 Hawks, owls and other enemies, follow the migrating hordes
and prey upon them. Often disease breaks out and assists in reduc-
ing their numbers. Perhaps the steady annual drain upon crops
through the depredations of the small rodents is greater in the long
run, but certainly much less spectacular than the devastation wrought
by these great local outbreaks.

In 1822, in 14 days, 1,500,000 field mice were caught in the district
of Zabern, Germany, 590,427 in the district of Nidda and 271,941
in the district of Putzbach. In 1856, 12,000 acres of land had to be
replowed and replanted because of the destruction of the first crop

5 Jacobson, Rate of reproduction in Citellus beecheyi, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 58,
1923.

"Jewett, A breeding record of Citellus mollis, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 191, 1923.

7 Lantz, Meadow mice in relation to agriculture and horticulture, Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agric. for 1905, pp. 363-373; An economic study of field mice (genus Mi-
crotus), U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 31, 1907. Bailey, Journ. Agric. Research, xxvn,

523-524, 1924-

8 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, p. 90, 1927.

9 Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 31. pp. 6-7, 1907.

RODENTIA 249

by mice. On one estate near Breslau 200,000 were caught in 7 weeks
and sold to a fertilizer factory. In 1861 the authorities paid $1,000
for the capture of 409,524 field mice near Alsheim, in Rhenish Hesse.
In 1816 and 1817 "whole districts were reduced to destitution" by these
mice, the department of Vendee suffering a loss of $600,000. In a
meadow 1000 field mice require 12 tons of grass or other vegetation
each year. In France it was estimated that there were from 1500 to
4000 to the acre.10 In special invasions the number runs much higher.

The first serious plague of field mice on record in the United States
was in 1907-1908, when Microtus montanus was estimated to have
reached an abundance of from 8000 to 12,000 an acre in Humboldt
Valley, Nevada, where the destruction of alfalfa resulted in a loss of
$300,000." A more serious outbreak occurred in Kern County, Cali-
fornia, in 1926-1927. About 15 per cent of the infestation consisted
of field mice (Microtus calif or nicus), the balance mostly the imported
house mouse (Mus muscidus). White-footed or deer mice (Peromys-
cus), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys) and pocket mice (Perognathus)
were present in only about their usual numbers. It was estimated that
there were 82,280 mice to the acre, and it was computed that there
were in one grain bin 20 feet square 3520 mice in sight at one time,
besides those hidden among the grain bags. Two tons of them were
killed in one day about one granary. Poison was placed in miles of
trenches, and it was estimated that there were 85,000 dead mice to the
mile in trenches.12 Mice killed a sheep. "Penned in a small enclosure
it was unable to escape, and the mice swarmed over it, pulled it down
and stripped the bones of flesh/'13

This outbreak followed a very effective wholesale poisoning cam-
paign against coyotes, in which many skunks, foxes and probably other
enemies of the mice were destroyed. Had these predacious mammals
been allowed to live, they would undoubtedly have killed thousands
of mice during the weeks and months immediately preceding the

10 Lantz, U. S. Biol. Sun,. Bull. No. 31, p. 12, 1907.

11 Piper, The Nevada mouse plague of 1907-08, Farmers' Bull, No. 352, 1007 ;
Mouse plagues : Their control and prevention, Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agric. for
1908, pp. 301-310. Bailey, Harmful and beneficial mammals of the Interior Basin,
with special reference to the Carson and Humboldt Valleys, Nevada, Farmers' Bull..
No. 335, 1908. Taylor, Methods of determining rodent pressure on the range, Ecol-
ogy, xi, 523-542, 1930.

12 Hall, An outbreak of house mice in Kern County, California, Univ. California
Pub. Zool, xxx, 189-203, 1927. Piper, The mouse infestation of Buena Vista Lake
Basin, Kern County, California, September, 1926, to February, 1927, Monthly Bull.
California Dept. Agric., xvn, 538-560, 1029.

13 Humphrey, A serious plague of mice in California, Scientific American, May,
1927, PP. 330-33L

25O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

outbreak. The numerous descendants of the thousands of mice thus
saved by the destruction of their enemies, running through the suc-
ceeding generations and multiplying rapidly, must have contributed
largely to the plague, if they were not the chief element in it, though
there are other probable factors, such as weather, food and shelter, to
be considered.

The question as to whether the natural enemies of rodents can pre-
vent such plagues has been much discussed.14 Among the more ac-
tive enemies may be mentioned hawks, owls, gulls, ravens, crows,
shrikes, herons, coyotes, wolves, foxes, skunks, weasels, badgers and
wildcats.15 The number of rodents taken by all these and other birds,
mammals and snakes each year is simply enormous. In Ohio 20,000
hawks were killed under a bounty act in 1916, and in a year or so it
was said that ''already the unfavorable effects of this law are shown in
the large number of complaints of damage done by rats and mice in
Ohio and adjoining states."16 If natural enemies cannot entirely pre-
vent the occasional more serious outbreaks, they certainly do so much
toward keeping the pests in check during ordinary times as to perhaps
justify the assertion that were it not for the predatory birds and mam-
mals there would be an almost continuous plague of rodents. When
the rodents become abundant in a given locality, they at once enter
more largely into the diet of the various predators, both birds and
mammals, which tend to congregate in areas of mouse abundance, as
attested by many observers. Thus a direct relation between mouse
abundance and the value of the fur catch has been asserted.17 Also,
it has been noted that when mice are abundant in Labrador they fur-
nish abundant food for wolves and other beasts of prey, which then
leave ptarmigan, caribou and other game alone.18

Most writers upon the subject of the injurious rodents of the western
plains in the United States have agreed that since the settlement of
the region began the rodents have increased in numbers, largely on
account of the wholesale destruction of predatory mammals and birds.
Couch, in view of the fact that while coyotes were being protected as
enemies of jack rabbits, and were rapidly increasing in Grant County,

14 See, for example: Brooks, Can hawks prevent mouse plagues?, The Condor,
xxix, 249-250, 1927. Tyler, Can hawks prevent mouse plagues? A reply, The Con-
dor, xxx, 124-125, 1928. Henderson, The practical value of birds, 1927, many refer-
ences cited in the footnotes.

15 Piper, Farmers' Bull, No. 352, p. 21, 1907.

10 Lantz, The house rat: The most destructive animal in the world, Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agric. for 79/7, pp. 235-251.

17 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, pp. 88-91, 1927.

18 Cabot, Labrador, 1921. Journ. Mammalogy, in, 58-59, 1922.

RODENTIA 251

Washington, jack rabbits were also increasing rapidly, questions
die efficacy of mammals in the control of rodents. He says: "While
there is no doubt that predatory mammals are a factor in controlling
rodents, yet they play but a small part in maintaining the natural
balance. Larger factors are involved, and these include seasonal con-
ditions, fecundity of species, the acts of man in providing abundant
food, and the presence of natural and other shelter. On the other hand,
rodents the size of ground squirrels, or smaller, are more effectively
decreased in numbers by raptorial birds than by predatory mammals.
The quantity of rodent remains found in the stomachs and disgorges
of individual owls is almost unbelievable."19 It is probable that during
ordinary times the combined efforts of predatory mammals and birds
are very important in keeping the rodents within reasonable bounds,
but when abundant food and shelter, favorable weather and other
conditions greatly increase the fecundity and average span of life of
such prolific breeders as mice, rabbits and prairie-dogs, they are likely
to get beyond control. In such cases birds, moving about very freely, can
more easily concentrate on infested areas where they may find abun-
dant food. Meantime, as has been said before, man, having by culti-
vation of crops provided more abundant food and better shelter for
the rodents, must assume complete control and resort to poisoning and
other methods.

That badgers, because of their ability as diggers, may be at times
a very important factor in the control of burrowing rodents, is gen-
erally recognized. In Colorado they cleared the prairie-dogs from an
area a mile and a half long in a gulch, a large percentage of the
prairie-dog burrows having been excavated by the badgers.20 It has
been said to be the habit of badgers to clear up one locality and then
when the rodents become too scarce to furnish them with food they
move on to another locality, whereupon the locality they have aban-
doned becomes again infested, unless precautions are taken to prevent
it.

A faint notion of the damage done to crops by rodents may be ob-
tained from the following account of the meadow mouse, extracted
from Science Nezvs Letter of July 20, 1929.

The meadow mouse looks soft and pretty and harmless, but he is a most
expensive guest just the same. Vernon Bailey, of the U. S. Biological Survey,
has been figuring his board bill, with rather startling results. A meadow mouse

"Couch, Relationship of predatory mammals and birds of prey to rodent life,
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 73-74, 1928.

30 Silver, Badger activities in prairie-dog control, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 63, 1928.

252 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

eats about 30 grams, or a little over an ounce, of green food every day. That
runs up to 23 pounds in a year. A hundred mice will stow away over a ton
of green grass or clover in a twelvemonth. A hundred mice to an acre is
not an unusual number in meadows favorable to their habits, while in "mouse
years" the number has been estimated at thousands to the acre.

Mouse plagues, disastrous as they are locally, are of minor importance in
comparison with the steady yearly drain on crops by the mice over the country
at large in normal years. Even as few as 10 meadow mice to the acre on 100
acres of meadow would take about n tons of grass or $l/2 tons of hay a year.
This number, on the 65,000,000 acres of hay raised in the 38 mouse- states
of the country, would cause a loss of over 3,000,000 tons of hay a year, or
a money loss of some $30,000,000 annually in hay alone. The number of young
in a litter ranges from two to nine, and one pair averages five to the litter.
At this rate of increase, allowing equal numbers of males and females, and
the young beginning to breed at 46 days old, the total increase from one pair,
if all lived and bred, would be over 1,000,000 individuals at the end of a year.
If all were confined to one acre of ground, this would mean over 20 mice to
every square foot.

The annual damage by the introduced European rats and mice in
warehouses in the United States has been estimated at $200,000,000,
and the annual damage by native rodents to crops in the western
United States has been placed at $300,000,000. 21 In 1908 it was esti-
mated that the annual loss to agriculture and horticulture in the United
States, from the depredations of ground squirrels alone, was
$ 1 0,000,000. 22 The damage done to crops and range by native rodents,
chiefly prairie-dogs, ground squirrels, pocket gophers and jack rabbits,
in 8 states in 1917 was estimated as follows: Montana, $15,000,000
to $20,000,000; North Dakota, $6,000,000 to $9,000,000; Kansas,
$12,000,000; Colorado, $2,000,000; California, $20,000,000; Wyo-
ming, 15 per cent of all crops; Nevada, $1,000,000; New Mexico,
$3,600,000; Virginia, in 1915, in a single county, $200,000 damage
to orchard trees by pine mice alone.23 In Colorado in 1918, 14,000,000
acres of land were said to have been infested with prairie-dogs and
1,000,000 acres with Wyoming ground squirrels, the annual damage
therefrom, at only 10 cents an acre, amounting to $1,500,000, which,
added to $500,000 damage from other rodents, would make $2,000,000
per anum, a conservative estimate.24 To all estimates of damage must

21 Vorhies and Taylor, Life history of the kangaroo rat, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull.
No. 1091, p. 2, 1922. Taylor and Loftfield, Damage to range grasses by the Zuni
prairie-dog, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1227, 1924. Henshaw, Policemen of the
air, Nat. Geog. Mag., xix, 79, 1908. Bell, Cooperative campaigns for the control
of ground squirrels, prairie-dogs and jack rabbits, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for
1917, pp. 225-233.

22 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 6, 1908.

23 Bell, Death to rodents, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, pp. 422-423.

24 Burnett, Rodents of Colorado in their economic relations, Office Colorado State
Entomologist Circular No. 25, p. 6, 1918.

ROD E N T I A 253

be added an unknown amount of expense in fighting the rodents by
various methods, and of preventing damage by them.

Silver listed seventeen kinds of rodents as potential enemies of
fruit and shade trees, especially young trees, of which five may be
considered serious; an experimental plot was damaged to the extent
of 70 per cent in 3 days by chipmunks and deer mice ; wood rats on a
i/5-acre tract killed 23 per cent of the pines and did more or less dam-
age to 34 per cent more; rabbits killed 12,000 catalpa trees on a 25-
acre tract; pocket gophers destroyed 25 per cent of the young silver
maples and nearly all the honey locusts on one tract ; total rodent dam-
age -to fruit and shade trees equals several million dollars annually.25
Five of the eight rodent families inhabiting Kansas are distinctly in-
jurious; mice girdled 5000 trees in one locality.26 Rabbits girdled
3000 fruit trees in one small Iowa nursery in one winter and 2000 out
of 4000 apple trees in Maryland in two months.27 Other data concern-
ing rodent damage may be found in subsequent pages, especially under
rats, mice, squirrels and rabbits.

Because of the enormous amount of damage done by rodents, the
United States Department of Agriculture and other organizations have
devoted a great deal of attention to methods of combating and suppress-
ing them and of preventing damage by them. Directions for the use of
poisons, trapping and "building them out" by means of rodent-proof
construction of buildings are included in many publications.28 Aside
from poisoning and trapping, under some circumstances, where no
foodstuff is exposed to the fumes, fumigants may be used for de-
stroying rodents and deterrent odors for driving them out of their
hiding places. A great deal may be accomplished by keeping premises
clean and free from weed patches, rubbish heaps, brush piles and other
hiding and breeding places, and by preventing rodents from getting

25 Silver, Rodent enemies of fruit and shade trees, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 165-
173, 1924.

28 Sullivan, Economic value of bird life, p. 25, 1912.

27 Beal, How birds affect the orchard, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1900, p.
299.

28 For example: Lantz, Use of poisons for destroying noxious mammals, Year-
book U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1908, pp. 421-422; An economic study of field mice,
U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 31, 1907. Piper, Farmers' Bull., No. 352, 1909. Birdseye,
Farmers' Bull, No. 484, 1912. Merriam, The California ground squirrels, U. S. Biol.
Surv. Circular No. 76, 1910. Dearborn, Trapping on the farm, Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1919, pp. 451-484. Forbush, Rats and rat riddance, Massachusetts State
Board Agric., Economic Biol., Bull. No. I, pp. 38-73, 1915. Oman, Fighting the
pocket gopher, the prairie-dog and other rodent pests, 24th Biennial Kept. Kansas
Board Agric. (for 1923-24), pp. 46-60. Bruner, Pocket gophers, Univ. Nebraska
Agric. Exper. Sta. Press Bull., No. 29, pp. 6-7, 1908. Burnett, Report on rodent in-
vestigations for 1912, Office Colorado State Entomologist Circular No. 6, 1912. Hin-
ton, Rats and mice as enemies of mankind, Brit. Museum Nat. Hist., Econ. Series^
No. 8, 1920.

254 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

beneath and into buildings by the free use of cement in foundations and
basement floors, tin and sheetiron about the edges of doors to prevent
gnawing, plugging all holes and openings except such necessary ones
as drain pipes, which may be protected by wire screens.

Cooperative campaigns over large areas are often necessary, so that,
after reducing the rodents locally, others may not flow in from sur-
rounding breeding grounds. In such campaigns the United States,
with its trained workers, often cooperates with local authorities or or-
ganizations.29 In one year the Biological Survey directed the use of
1610 tons of poisoned grain in the destruction of prairie-dogs and
ground squirrels on over 18,000,000 acres of farm and range lands,
with the cooperation of 132,000 farmers and stockmen. The saving
of crops and range grass thereby, based upon estimates by the farm-
ers and stockmen themselves, amounted to more than $11,000,000 for
the season.30 Considerable of the expense of such campaigns is some-
times covered by the sale of pelts of the animals killed, 25,000 pelts
from the Imperial Valley campaign of 1919-1920 having brought
$3i,ooo.31 Organized rabbit drives, found effective in the West, are
discussed on a subsequent page.

Much of the damage by rodents may be prevented by constant watch-
fulness and the free and intelligent use of traps and poisons when-
ever necessary, and especially by prompt measures for the suppression
of the rodents when they begin to inordinately increase, before the
threatened uprising assumes plague proportions. The destruction of
1000 rodents in the incipient stages of an outbreak means the preven-
tion of the breeding of many thousands of others.

Bounties have not proved very effective in the suppression of rodents.
At least as far back as 1749 bounties were paid on squirrels in Penn-
sylvania.32 Bounties are discussed at some length in Chapter xxvu,
on Legislation Concerning Mammals.

Though rodents sometimes destroy all the seeds of forest trees in
small isolated areas during seasons when seeds are scarce, and other-
wise damage forests to some extent, the seeds they bury or other-
wise store during seasons of plenty aid in natural reforestation after

29 Bell, Cooperative campaigns for the control of ground squirrels, prairie-dogs
and jack rabbits, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 225-233. See also Kel-
logg, The ground squirrel control program, California Dept. Agric. Special Pub. No.
109, 1931. Alexander, "Control, not extermination," of Cynomys ludovicianus ari-
zonensis, Journ. Mammalgy, xm, 302, 1932.

80 Bell, Death to rodents, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, p. 431.

81 Dixon, Rodents in Imperial Valley, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 136-146, 1922.
32 Rhoads, Mammals of Pennsylvania, p. 55, 1903.

ROD E N T I A 255

forest fires, and thus they compensate for any damage they do.33 Some
species, by destroying hordes of insects, to some extent offset the dam-
age done to crops, orchards and forests by rodents in general. "Ar-
boreal squirrels sometimes feed freely on scale insects and other tree
pests; the western ground squirrels eat quantities of injurious insects,
such as cutworms, wireworms and grasshoppers; and the so-called
grasshopper mice perhaps deserve their name and are undoubtedly
more highly insectivorous than the majority of their tribe."34 The
insect-eating habits of rodents have been discussed in Chapter xxm,
on the Economic Relations of Mammals to Insects, and many addi-
tional items of interest along this line may be found under the various
species in subsequent pages.

Some species of rodents are very useful because of their pelts, a
subject discussed in Chapter ix, on the Fur, Skin and Hide Trades,
with additional items under various species on subsequent pages. The
reported sales of rodent skins during 1919-1921, were as follows:35
squirrel, 14,859,316; white hare, 3,713,036; muskrat, 14,109,288; nu-
tria, 1,941,784 ; chinchilla, 36,448 ; beaver, 420,490; marmot, 3,107,759.
In addition, it was estimated in 1921 that from 70,000,000 to
80,000,000 rabbit skins per annum are used.36 The flesh of many species
of rodents is used as food and that of some species is sold in the mar-
kets.

FAMILY SCIURIDAE — SQUIRRELS, CHIPMUNKS, WOODCHUCKS, PRAIRIE-DOGS

As we have seen, some species of squirrels are quite destructive
to crops. Though not carnivorous, some species are somewhat omniv-
orous, and it is well known that certain of them are more or less
destructive to the eggs and young of wild birds (see Chapter xx).
Squirrels and chipmunks eat many snails,1 but in most regions this
does no harm, and in some localities it may do some good. Conchol-

83 Hofmann, Furred forest planters, Scientific Monthly, xvi, 280-283, 1923. Mice
and chipmunks help restock forests, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 113, 1921, citing U. S.
Dept. Agric. Press Service. Shufeldt, Four-footed foresters, Amer. Forestry, xxvi,
37-44, 1920. Hatt, The relation of mammals to the Harvard Forest, Roosevelt Wild
Life Bull., v, 645-664, 1930.

84 McAtee, The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests, Ann. Rept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1925, p. 416.

85 Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, m, 216, 1922 ; Natural History, xxn,
393, 1922.

"Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 84, 1921.

'Elrod, Univ. Montana Bull., No. 10, p. 114, 1902; The Nautilus, xvii, 4, 1903.
Van Hyning, The Nautilus, XVTII, 23, 1904. Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 52, pp. 9-
11, 1929.

256 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

ogists often find snail shells which have been broken by squirrels.
Squirrels are known often to eat fungi, even some species which are
injurious to human beings.2

Many species of squirrels are more or less insectivorous, some highly
so. Of the contents of 22 stomachs of striped ground squirrels (Citel-
Itis tridecemlineatus) from the Mississippi Valley, 46 per cent consisted
of insects, "almost exclusively injurious species," averaging 13 cut-
worms and webworms each; and in 80 stomachs 52.9 per cent of the
contents was animal matter, chiefly insects, and 44.4 per cent vege-
table matter. Franklin ground squirrel (C. franklini) : 29 stomachs,
animal matter 30.3 per cent, mostly insects; vegetable matter 68.5
per cent, mostly seeds and grain. Richardson ground squirrel (C.
richardsoni) : 18 stomachs, animal matter 9.5 per cent; vegetable mat-
ter 90.3 per cent.3 Along the foothills of Colorado the striped ground
squirrels "feed on grasshoppers and other injurious insects, almost to
the exclusion of all other foods," hence should be protected.4 Red
squirrels eat many insects, according to Hatt. Their ecological rela-
tions have been discussed by Klugh.5 Gray squirrels have been found
destroying oak apple galls.6 A flying squirrel in captivity killed a sap-
sucker. Four others in captivity "ate prodigious quantities of pinch
bugs and other beetles, as much as a pint at a meal."7

2 Odell, Squirrels eating Amanita muscaria, Canadian Naturalist, xxxix, 180-181,
1925 ; Further observations on squirrels eating Amanita muscaria, ibid., XL, 184, 1926.
Hastings and Mottram, Observations upon the edibility of fungi for rodents, Trans.
Brit. Mycolog. Soc., v, 364-378, 1929. Murrill, Animal mycophagists, Torreya, n, 25-
26, 1902. Langham, Squirrel eating Melanogaster ambiguus, Irish Naturalist, xxv,
136, 1916. Ballou, Squirrels as mushroom eaters, Journ. Mammalogy, vin, 57-58,
1927. Dice, ibid., n, 25, 1921. Murie, ibid., vm, 39-40, 1927, citing Merriam, Mammals
of the Adirondacks, 1884, and Seton, Life histories of northern animals, Vol. i,
1909. Goldman, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 127-129, 1928.

3 Bailey, The prairie ground squirrels or spermophiles of the Mississippi Valley,
U. S. Div. Orn. and Mamm. Bull. No. 4, pp. 39-46, 55, 67, 1893. Gillette, Food habits
of the striped prairie squirrel, Bull. Iowa Agric. Exper. Sta., No. 6, pp. 240-244,
1889. Aldrich, Food habits of the striped gopher, Bull. South Dakota Agric. Exper.
Sta., No. 30, pp. 8-1 1, 1892. Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 14,
1914. For additional data on the economic status of squirrels and chipmunks see
Seton, Lives of game animals, iv, Part 2, 1929. Bailey, Notes on some of the
spermophiles and pocket gophers of the Mississippi Valley, Ann. Rept. U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1892, pp. 185-192. Canadian Entomologist, xxxix, No. I, p. 16, 1907.

4 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 18, p. 6, 1916.

6 Hatt, The red squirrel : Its life history and habits, with special reference to
the Adirondacks of New York and Harvard Forest, Roosevelt Wild Life Annals,
11, No. i, pp. 1-146, 1929. Klugh, Ecology of the red squirrel, Journ. Mammalogy,
vnij, 1-32, 1927; reprinted in Ann. Rept. Smithsonian hist, for 1928, pp. 495-524,
"with slight changes in the illustrations."

6 Oak apple galls destroyed by gray squirrels, Bull. Brooklyn Entom. Soc., xix,
91-93, 1929.

7 Stoddard, The flying squirrel as a bird killer, Journ. Mammalogy, i, 95-96,
1919.

RODENTIA 257

Bailey has published notes on the squirrels of Texas, from which
we have briefed the following items:8 Where they occur, acorns seem
to be their favorite food, but they must be content with the food that
is available where they happen to be living. The food habits of closely
related species and subspecies elsewhere would probably be very simi-
lar if the same foods were available. Large-spotted ground squirrel
(Citelhis spilosoma major): "I have found their stomachs full of
grasshoppers and beetles and their pouches full of seeds of sand bur
(Cenchrus tribuloides) , and have seen little heaps of the empty bur
shells scattered about their burrows. Usually they are not sufficiently
numerous in agricultural regions to do serious damage in grain fields."
Black-backed rock squirrel (Otospermophihis grammurus buckleyi):
when available, acorns are its chief diet, but in summer mainly flowers,
fruit and green vegetables. One stomach contained green cactus fruit
(Opuntia). Another was filled with yucca pulp. One had stonecrop
in its cheeks and another had its cheeks stuffed with green corn. Couch
rock squirrel (0. g. couchii) : food largely juniper berries and acorns;
some found feeding on clover and other plants and fruits of cactus.
Rock squirrel (0. g. grammurus): feeds upon juniper berries and
acorns, but also takes cactus fruit, Cereus stramineus and walnuts.
One had 13 walnuts the size of cherries in its cheeks and cactus fruits
in its stomach. Rio Grande ground squirrels (Citelhis mexicanus par-
widens) : "feed on seeds, grain, fruit, green foliage, lizards and nu-
merous insects ... do considerable damage in spring, by digging up
corn, melons, beans and various sprouting seeds, and, in summer and
fall, by feeding on the ripening grain. Specimens examined at Ros-
well, New Mexico, in June, were feeding on about equal proportions
of seeds and insects." Pale striped ground squirrel (C. tridecemlinea-
tus pallidus) : August specimens examined contained mainly grass-
hoppers, with a few other insects, and one contained prickly pear seeds
(Opuntia). Texas striped ground squirrels (C. t. texensis): "feed
largely on grasshoppers and other insects, together with seeds, grain,
fruit, green herbage and flowers." Texas antelope squirrel (Ammos-
permophilus leucurus interpres) : feeds on various seeds and fruits, es-
pecially acacia and mesquite. One stomach was full of cactus fruits,
which had tinted its flesh purple throughout, indicating a steady diet
for some time. Gray-footed chipmunk (Eutamias cinereicollis canipes) :
food chiefly scrub oak acorns. Western fox squirrel (Sciurus niger rufi-

8 Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, 1905.

258 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

venter) : "food consists mainly of nuts and acorns, but fruits, berries
and lichens also are eaten. When feeding on nuts their flesh has a
delicious nutty flavor." Texas fox squirrels (S. n. limitis) : "pecan,
hickory, oak and walnut trees furnish their food," but they take also
cypress cones and other food.

The same author has discussed also the squirrels of North Dakota,9
his report furnishing the following items: Pale flying squirrel (Glau-
comys sabrinus canescens) : rarely abundant enough to be of economic
importance, but, so far as known, harmless. Seldom disturbs culti-
vated crops. Eats tree seeds, but pays for them by scattering those not
eaten and thus seeding the forest floor. Minnesota gray squirrel (Sciu-
nts carolinensis hypophaeus) : in native habitat its food is largely
acorns, but includes many other nuts and seeds and grain. Northern
red squirrel (S. hudsonicus) : "food consists of acorns, nuts, seeds,
mushrooms and occasionally birds' eggs" ; injurious when it gets into
corn cribs and grain bins. Northern chipmunk (Eutamias minimus
borealis) : "found feeding extensively on chokecherries" ; also takes
acorns and seeds and berries of various plants. Does some damage
to gardens and edges of grain fields, but not a serious pest. Pale chip-
munk (E. m. pallidus) : eats a great variety of nuts, seeds, berries and
some vegetation, does some damage to crops, but is easily controlled
by traps and poisons. Gray eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus gri-
seus) : eats a great variety of nuts, seeds, grains, berries and some
green vegetation, occasionally insects, frogs and lizards. Does some
damage, but easily trapped and poisoned. Thirteen-striped ground
squirrel (Citellus tridecemlineatus) : food largely seeds, grains and
nuts, but takes also berries, green vegetation, "numerous insects," mice,
birds, etc. Stomachs examined contained a "considerable portion of
grasshoppers, crickets, caterpillars, beetles, ants, cocoons, insect eggs,
and even traces of flesh, hair of small mammals, and feathers of birds."
Does some damage, but easily controlled. "But for their natural ene-
mies, which are legion, it would be impossible to raise crops within
their territory. They are constantly preyed upon by many species of
hawks and some owls, and by foxes, weasels, skunks and badgers, so
that in spite of their rapid increase their numbers are usually kept
somewhat within bounds. However it is necessary over much of their
range to supplement the work of their natural enemies by the sys-
tematic use of poison." Its pale relative (C. t. pallidus} has about the

9 Bailey, A biological survey of North Dakota, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, 1926.

RODENTIA 259

same habits. Franklin ground squirrel (C. franklini) : lives largely on
nuts, seeds and grain, but takes berries, vegetables, grasshoppers, crick-
ets, ants, young birds and their eggs and is said to kill young chickens.
Richardson ground squirrel (C. richardsoni) : feeds to some extent
on insects, especially grasshoppers. In its original unbroken prairie
habitat it did little damage, but with the encroachment of agriculture,
giving it cultivated crops as a new and abundant supply of food,
damage began in earnest. The annual loss caused by these squirrels
in North Dakota has been estimated at from $6,000,000 to
$9,000,000 per annum, in addition to $100,000 per annum expended in
fighting them and preventing depredations.

Mearns furnishes the following items concerning the squirrels near
the Mexican boundary:10 Arizona gray squirrel (Sciurus arizonensis) :
food "comprises seeds of pine cones, acorns, walnuts, berries and
green vegetation." Huachuca gray squirrel (S. a. huachuca) : "loves
to feed upon the walnut (Juglans rupestris) and often eats the imma-
ture nuts." Texas fox squirrel (S. niger texianus) : principal food is
pecan nuts and acorns. Arizona gray-necked chipmunk (Eutamias
cinereicollis) : in summer feeds "extensively upon green herbage and
the seeds of small plants, chiefly legumes, but, like most squirrels, it is
fond of an occasional change from vegetable to meat diet." Eats bacon
and fat salt pork about camp. Gila cliff chipmunk (E. dor sails) : "food
consists largely of the evergreen oak (Quercus emoryi)." Merriam
chipmunk (E. merriami) : feeds upon "various seeds, fruits and ber-
ries, but especially on acorns and pine seeds." Antelope squirrel ( Am-
mo sper mo philus leucurus) : eats yucca fruits, pine seeds and various
vegetation. Harris ground squirrel (A. harrisii) : eats mesquite beans
(cheek pouches of one contained 44 beans), yucca fruits and seeds.
Eats also flesh; poisoned by eating poisoned cougar carcass. South-
western rock squirrel (A. h. saxicola) : "cheek pouches usually dis-
tended with mesquite beans." Say ground squirrel (Callospermophilus
lateralis) : food largely green vegetation; eats scraps about camp, nib-
bles bacon and meat of all sorts and steals grain. Rock squirrel (Oto-
s per mo philus grammur us subsp. ?) : destructive to crops. "Omnivorous
as the bear, feasting alike upon flesh, carrion, grain or almost any
sort of fruit or green vegetation that chances to be in season." Eats
mesquite beans, berries of cedar and hackberry, grapes, walnuts, acorns,
grass seeds, corn, barley, green herbs, browse.

10 Mearns, Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States, U. S. Natl.
Museum, Bull. No. 56, 1907.

260 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

The following items concerning New Mexico squirrels are derived
from Ligon's report:11 Arizona gray squirrel (Sciurus arizonensis) :
diet varied, but "feeds almost exclusively on walnuts after these nuts
become matured;" also eats roots. New Mexican red squirrel (S. fre-
monti neomexicanus) : feeds upon spruce and fir seeds. Abert tufted-
ear squirrel (S1. aberti) : feeds extensively on pine twigs and inner bark,
even sometimes when acorns and pine nuts, both favorite foods, be-
come available. Rock squirrels (Otospermophilus grammurus) : "fre-
quently become serious pests about farms, where, unless trapped or
poisoned, they carry off the greater part of the farmer's ripening corn.
. . . Also a robber of the nests of ground-nesting birds and domestic
fowl."

Gary furnishes the following items concerning Colorado squirrels:12
Rock squirrel (0. grammurus} : food chiefly pinyon nuts, acorns and
juniper berries [no pinyons or acorns in a considerable part of its
range] ; said to be fond of young chickens; destroys apricots on the
trees to get the seeds ; burrows into melons and cantaloupes for seeds ;
digs up newly planted corn. Pine squirrel (S. fremonti) : "feeds chiefly
upon pine and spruce cones." Gary San Luis chipmunk (Eutamias
minimus caryi) : seen storing seeds of chico bush. Utah chipmunk
(E. dorsalis utahensis) : chief food is juniper berries. Least chipmunk
(E. minimus) : seen in tops of sagebrush and grease wood and gather-
ing a winter supply of buffalo berries. Hopi chipmunk (E. quadrivitta-
tus hopiensis) : feeds extensively on juniper berries.

Howell's Alabama report furnishes the following items:13 Bangs
chipmunk ( Tamias striatus venustus) : feeds on nuts, seeds, grains and
insect larvae. Southern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) , lives
mostly where nuts abound and they form its chief food. Flesh ex-
cellent. Southern fox squirrel (S. niger) : food — acorns, pine nuts, etc.,
and green corn. Southeastern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans satura-
tus), feeds chiefly on nuts, berries and seeds, fond of meat, occasionally
destroys insects, does a little damage to pecan groves and stored nuts,
but not serious.

The Wyoming ground squirrel (Citellus elegans) is "the most de-
structive rodent found in the state" of Colorado, or at least the most
difficult to contend with, though the prairie-dog causes greater financial
loss. Damages grain and hay. A meadow producing 12 tons of hay per

11 Ligon, Wild life of New Mexico, New Mexico Game Comm. Bull., 1927.

12 Gary, A biological survey of Colorado, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, 1911.

13 Howell, A biological survey of Alabama, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, 1921.

RO D E N T I A 26l

annum, after a clean-up of these squirrels produced 20 tons.14 A
desert ground squirrel (C. cryptospilotus) contained only poisoned al-
falfa leaves.14"* Rock squirrel (O. grammurus): food in Colorado —
seeds of various kinds, apples, cherries, apricots, chokecherries, black-
berries, squashes, melons, peas, grain of all kinds, yucca seed pods and
Indian breadroot.15 The cheek pouches of one contained fifteen apri-
cot pits and of another contained fifty.16 Say ground squirrel (Cal-
lospermophilus lateralis) and Wortman ground squirrel (C. I. vjort-
mani), both popularly known as "big chipmunk," in Colorado feed
upon "seeds of various kinds and garden truck. In some localities they
are a great pest to mountain gardeners." In Arizona the Say ground
squirrel is fond of the seeds of Frazera speciosa and Pentstemon.17
It is one of the hosts of the immature stages of the "spotted fever
tick/' and should be destroyed about ranches in infected districts.18
The southern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) has been frequently
detected in gnawing the bark of trees, but probably does little or no
damage in this way.19 The park ground squirrel (Citellus spilosoma
pratensis) feeds on green herbage, seeds and grasshoppers.20

The California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus grammurus bee-
cheyi) is very abundant and destructive in portions of California,
where it feeds upon "walnuts, almonds, apricots, peaches, prunes,
apples, olives, figs, oranges, certain vegetables and forage crops, and
all of the grains, and also damages vineyards and young orange
groves, the magnitude of its depredations amounting to hundreds of
thousands of dollars annually." In a twenty-acre vineyard they "com-
pletely destroyed five acres." The principal damage done by them is
to grain. "They devour barley, wheat and oats when the seed is first
sown ; they dig up and carry away the sprouting kernels ; they invade
the fields of ripening grain and feast upon it until harvest time; and
when it is cut and stacked they concentrate about the stacks and at-
tack it vigorously, eating all they can and laboring tirelessly to carry

"Burnett, The Wyoming spermophile or ground squirrel (Citellus elegans),
Office Colorado State Entomologist Circular No. 9, 1913; The Wyoming ground
squirrel in Colorado, with suggestions for control, Circular No. 20, 1916; Circular
No. 25, 1918; Life history studies of the Wyoming ground squirrel (Citellus elegans
elegans) in Colorado, Colorado Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 393, 1931.

14~a Moore, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 87, 1930.

15 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 27, 1918.

18 Warren, Mammals of Colorado, p. 106, 1910.

17 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, pp. 53, 55, 1890.

18 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull, No. 484, 1912.

19 Brooks, Note on a feeding habit of the gray squirrel, Journ. Mammalogy, rv,
257-258, 1923.

20 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, pp. 53, 55, 1890.

262 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

.the remainder to their underground storehouses." At a single stack
three hundred were trapped and many more poisoned; two hundred
were seen about one barley stack and later at the same place one hun-
dred and fifty-eight were ''in sight at one time." A few hours after
poison was set out one hundred and fifteen dead squirrels were
picked up on a six-acre field. The flesh of the young squirrels is good
and they were sold in the San Francisco markets until it was discovered
that they were one of the disseminators of bubonic plague during the
epidemic there.21

The Columbian ground squirrel (Citellus columbianus) is said to be
the most important host of the spotted fever tick. It prefers green
vegetation to ripe seeds and grains more than most ground squirrels
do, including alfalfa, clover, timothy, garden vegetables, etc. One
farmer for six years could not get a crop because of these squirrels,
but after he cleaned them out he got 35 bushels of wheat per acre. One
company lost 45,000 young trees in one year through their depre-
dations. Their burrows injure irrigation systems.22 Two tracts of
land were fenced to retain these squirrels and two check tracts fenced
to exclude them. The check tracts yielded 41 pounds of wheat to each
500 square feet, the infested tracts only 4 pounds. The destruction of
wheat was 50 1/3 pounds for each squirrel, worth then $1.76, and
there were 25 squirrels to the acre.23

Each Oregon ground squirrel (C. or eg onus) is said to consume
30 grams of forage daily, and in some localities there are 70,000 of
them to the square mile, consuming 2 tons of green forage a square
mile daily, which would support 90 head of cattle.24 A Franklin ground
squirrel (Citellus franklini) killed and ate a portion of a young rabbit
and another was seen chasing a striped ground squirrel.25 Of 35
stomachs of the chestnut-tailed ground squirrel (Callospermophilus
lateralis castanurus), "all but ten contained remains of insects (grass-
hoppers, beetles, flies and larvae). Most of them contained also seeds

21 Merriam, The California ground squirrel, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No. 76,
1910. Rucker, Plague among ground squirrels in Contra Costa County, California,
Reprint No. 38 from U. S. Public Health Reports, xxiv, No. 35, 1909. Dixon, Con-
trol of the California ground squirrel, Univ. California Agric. Exper. Sta. Circular
No. 181, 1917.

22 Birdseye, Some common mammals of western Montana in relation to agricul-
ture and spotted fever, Farmers' Bull., No. 484, p. 10, 1912.

23 Shaw, The cost of a squirrel and squirrel control, Washington Agric. Exper.
Sta. Bull. No. 118, pp. 1-19, 1920; Journ. Mammalogy, I, 192, 1920.

24 Grinnell and others, California ground squirrels, California Comm. Horticulture
Bull, vn, 595-807 1919; Journ. Mammalogy, i, 97-99, 1919.

25 Johnson, An observation on the carnivorous propensities of the gray gopher,
Journ. Mammalogy, in, 187, 1922.

R O D E N T I A 263

of plants, flowers and foliage, and some were nearly full of roses.
Many contained corn, beans, oats, bread, cake, potatoes and fat pork
picked up about camp."26

Captivity experiments on striped squirrels (Citellus tridecemline-
atus) show a preference for insects, especially grasshoppers, over ce-
reals.27 The cheek pouches of one striped ground squirrel were filled
with seeds of Canada thistle.28 They sometimes destroy ground-nesting
birds and one killed a chicken.29 Of 46 stomachs of C. t. pallidus from
Colorado, I contained a deer mouse, 1 3 were nearly or quite full of in-
sects, chiefly grasshoppers, 1 7 contained some insects, 1 5 contained no
insects. "In certain localities and at certain times, the squirrels are
highly injurious, and in some localities and certain seasons are bene-
ficial, by the destruction of injurious insects and weed seeds."3

"Pine squirrels" (S churns) in western Montana do not ordinarily
cause any serious loss of crops, but after the extensive forest fires of
1910, which destroyed their natural food, they attacked many apple
orchards, doing considerable damage. They may sometimes do some
damage to solitary trees by cutting off the ends of twigs, but in thick
stands of timber they probably do no harm. As they are hosts of the
spotted fever tick, it may be advisable to destroy them about ranches
where the fever infestation is bad.31 The Richardson red squirrel
(S. hudsonicus richardsoni) in Idaho coniferous forests feeds chiefly
on white pine bark, alpine fir and Picea alba.32 The staple diet of the
red squirrel or chickaree (S. hudsonicus and subspecies), "taking its
whole range into consideration," is seeds of coniferous trees and nuts,
but cedar berries are favorite food in some localities. In spring it eats
buds, bark, leaves and fruit; very fond of mushrooms; eats insects
and their larvae ; also birds and their eggs, but not so extensively as
is generally supposed; ordinarily does no damage to trees by eat-
ing seeds or buds, as usually there is a superabundance, but aids natural
reforestation by burying seeds.33 However, it is said* that where the old

28 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 4, p. 19, 1890.

27 Hisaw and Emery, Food selection of ground squirrels (Citellus tridecemline-
atus), Journ. Mammalogy, yin, 41-44, 1927.

28 Hahn, Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., 1908, pp. 478-479.

29 Seton, Lives of game animals, iv, Part i, pp. 228-248, 1929. Bailey, Journ. Mam-
malogy, iv, 129, 1923.

30 Burnett, The striped spermophiles or ground squirrels of Colorado, Office Colo-
rado State Entom. Circular No. 14, 1914.

81 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No. 484, p. 26, 1912.

82 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 48, 1891.

^Klugh, Ecology of the red squirrel, Journ. Mammalogy, vm, 1-32, 1927; Ann.
Rept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1928, pp. 495-524. Cram, The red squirrel, Journ. Mam-

264 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

cone-and-nut-bearing trees have been logged off in some New England
localities, so that these squirrels do not have enough mast for food, they
sometimes damage the trees by cutting off too many bud twigs.34 A
long list has been published of trees, shrubs and fungi and a few herbs
used as food by the red squirrel, besides insects, snails and an occasional
bird.35 It stores fungi in quantity for winter food.36 In Alaska, red
squirrels were found storing large quantities of high-bush cranber-
ries, alder cones, cow-parsnip seeds, spruce cones and "a great many
mushrooms."37

The Kaibab squirrel (S. kaibabensis) feeds mostly on yellow pine
cambium, cones not being abundant within its range most of the time ;
at various times observed eating fungi.38 The Sierra pine squirrel or
California chickeree (S. douglasii alb o limb atits) feeds upon the seeds
of the sugar pine and Shasta fir.39 Gray squirrels on Long Island, New
York, were found eating maple buds and seeds, dogwood fruit, elm
buds, oak catkins, acorns and various nuts.40 The food of the flying
squirrels (Glaucomys) consists mostly of acorns and nuts, with some
fruit, a few insects and a little carrion, and one has been known to rob
a martin's nest.41

The antelope ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus) and chipmunks
(Tamias and Eutamias) are usually economically neutral, but when
abundant about the margins of fields and gardens they may inflict some
damage to crops, and they sometimes get into stored grain and pro-
visions.42 The food of the chipmunks consists chiefly of "a variety of
nuts, fruits, grains, and other vegetable matter, with a small percentage
of animal matter," including land snails and insects, with "solitary
instances reported of a chipmunk eating a salamander, a frog and a

malogy, v, 37-41, 1924. Hofmann, Furred forest planters, Scientific Monthly, xvi,
280-283, 1929.

34 Hosley, Red squirrel damage to coniferous plantations and its relation to
changing food habits, ^Ecology, ix, 43-48, 1928. Hatt, The red squirrel: Its life his-
tory and habits, Roosevelt Wild Life Annals, 11, 132-135 1929.

35 Hatt, Roosevelt Wild Life Annals, n, 85-110, 1929.

86 Butler, The red squirrel of North America as a mycophagist, Trans. Brit. My-
cological Soc., vi, 355, 1920. Journ. Mammalogy, 11, 119, 1921.

37 Dice, Notes on the mammals of interior Alaska, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 25,
1921. Murie, The Alaska red squirrel providing for winter, ibid., vm, 37-40, 1927.

38 Goldman, The Kaibab or white-tailed squirrel, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 127-129,
1928.

89 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 16, p. 91, 1899.

40 Nichols, Notes on the food habits of gray squirrels, Journ. Mammalogy, vm,
55-57, 1927-

41 Hahn, 33rd Ann. Rept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., 1908, pp. 485-487.
Bailey, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 129, 1923.

42 Bailey, Farmers' Bull, No. 335, pp. 8, 10, 1908.

RODENTIA 265

snake," and an occasional attack upon birds and their eggs.43 They
have been known to kill mice, as well as birds.44 The eastern chipmunk
(Tamias striatiis) does some damage to sprouting grain, but its food
is mostly wild seeds and fruits, and it is especially fond of ragweed
and horseweed seeds, and eats some insects.45 The Great Basin painted
chipmunk (Eutamias minimus pictus) was observed in Idaho feeding
on sagebrush and greasewood.46 Cheek pouches of a Klamath chip-
munk (E. amoemis) from Idaho contained 332 seeds of Finns mur-
rayana, and one at Mount Shasta was observed eating service ber-
ries.47

In. many localities tree squirrels have furnished game for sports-
men, and the flesh of some species is highly esteemed. It does not ap-
pear to be so well known that some other species of squirrels are ex-
cellent for food, including ground squirrels. The delicacy of flavor
depends somewhat upon the age of the individuals and the food they
obtain locally, and the tenderness of the flesh depends upon age. The
squirrel-shooting championship of two Indiana townships in 1834 was
won by a hunter who killed 900 in three days, while his nearest rival
killed 783, mostly gray squirrels, which gives some idea of their
former abundance.48

The woodchucks, marmots or groundhogs (Marmota), where plenti-
ful, sometimes do considerable damage to field and garden crops. They
feed chiefly on green vegetation, such as alfalfa, clover, native legumi-
nous plants, growing grains, grass and vegetables.49 They sometimes
do harm by burrowing into reservoir dams and canal banks, and
damage camp buildings in the Rocky Mountains by gnawing the boards
and timbers. They are sometimes kept in control in the western United
States by dropping poison into their dens, but in the eastern states
fumigation with carbon disulphide is considered the best method,
though calcium cyanide is good, and the exhaust from gasoline en-
gines has been effectually used. Bounties have not been successful.50
Such bounties were paid on an average of 1400 woodchucks per an-

^Howell, Revision of the American chipmunks, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 52, pp. 9-
n, 1929.

"Warren, Mammals of Colorado, p. 168, 1910.

45 Hahn, 3$rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., 1908, pp. 474-475.

48 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 46, 1891.

47 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 44, 1891 ; No. 16, p. 90, 1899.

48 Hahn, 33rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., 1908, p. 462.
49Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No. 484, 1912.

60 Silver, Woodchuck control in the eastern United States, U. S. Dept. Agric.
Leaflet No. 21, 1928.

266 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

num for five years in Porter County, Indiana.51 Burnett says they
are very fond of rhubarb leaves and dandelions, and the only rodent
known to him that will eat onions.52 During a large visitation of June
beetles at Poland, New York, many of them were eaten by wood-
chucks.53 The flesh of the woodchuck "is considered a great delicacy
among the mountain people of Kentucky."5

"Grasses, composite flowers (Arnica and Agaseris), green leaves
and blue lupines have been found in stomachs examined. . . . The flesh
of the marmot, when taken young and properly prepared, is very edible ;
but old individuals are tough, and the meat possesses a gamy taste
which some dislike."56 Marmot skins are used in the fur trade and
are sometimes dyed and sold as mink or sable. The reported sales for
1919-1921 totalled 3,107,759 skins.56

Because of their great numbers, prairie-dogs (Cynomys ludovi-
cianus) were, before extensive poisoning and fumigating campaigns
had reduced them somewhat, one of the most serious pests of the west-
ern plains and still are a menace wherever they occur. Their colonies
vary from a few acres to many square miles in extent. According to
Merriam, one Texas colony of 25,000 square miles contained
400,000,000 prairie-dogs, and the food consumed by them would be
sufficient to support 1,562,500 head of cattle, the depredations of these
rodents reducing by from 50 per cent to 75 per cent the producing
capacity of the land occupied.57 Commenting upon this estimate, Bailey
says that "if the remaining 65,000 square miles of their scattered
range in the state contains, as seems probable, an equal number, the
state of Texas supports 800,000,000 prairie-dogs," which "would
require as much grass as 3,125,000 cattle," and "as a Texas cattle
ranch usually covers from 10,000 to 100,000 acres, the expense of
destroying the prairie-dogs in the most economical manner often means
an outlay of several thousand dollars to begin with and a considerable

51 Hahn, $$rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., 1908, pp. 483-484,
1909.

52 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 21, 1918.

53 Gianini, Tree-climbing and insect-eating woodchucks, Journ. Mammalogy, vi,
281-282, 1925.

"Hamilton, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 310, 1930.

65 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Ranier National Park, pp.
89-91, 1927. But see Hahn, 33rd Ann. Kept. Indiana Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., 1908,
pp. 483-484, who says it is tender and well-flavored.

66 Osborn and Anthony, Natural History, xxn, 393, 1922. See Innis, The fur trade
of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

57 Merriam, The prairie-dog of the Great Plains, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for
1901, pp. 257-270.

RODENTIA 267

sum each year to keep them down."58 Both authors agree that the great
increase in the number of prairie-dogs was due to the destruction of
their natural enemies, such as coyotes, foxes, wolves, badgers, ferrets,
hawks, eagles, owls, snakes, and others, many of which were destroyed
wantonly. The chief food of the prairie-dog being grass, with various
weeds, it comes into direct competition with cattle, horses and sheep.
When "great swarms of grasshoppers were observed" in Texas in
1925, they "provided a great feast" for prairie-dogs, which were "out
in full force chasing after, catching and eating the grasshoppers."59

Experiments at two localities in Arizona show that the Zuni prairie-
dogs. (Cynomys gunnisoni zuniensis) destroy 80 per cent of the an-
nual crops of grass and forage.60 It has been said that prairie-dogs
occupy 2 per cent of the land in eastern Colorado.61 It was estimated in
that state that 32 prairie-dogs (C. ludovicianus , leucurus and gunni-
soni) eat as much grass as would one sheep, 256 eat as much as one
cow, and the prairie-dogs on one well populated i6o-acre tract eat
as much as eight cows; and in addition they injure field and garden
crops.62

Prairie-dogs are as cleanly in habit as are squirrels and rabbits, and
more so than chickens and hogs. The flesh of young individuals, prop-
erly prepared and cooked, is excellent. If people could get rid of the
prejudice aroused by the popular name of these animals, and remember
always that they are not do'gs, but are closely related to the squirrels,
prairie-dogs would add variety to the menu and in some localities would
be a valuable source of meat.

FAMILY GEOMYIDAE— POCKET GOPHERS

The pocket gophers (Thomomys, Geomys and Cratogeomys) rank
with the most injurious rodents in agricultural districts where they are
abundant. Though the soil turnover resulting from their burrowing
operations, as we have already noted, may be an advantage under
some circumstances, their mounds amid growing crops of grains and

58 Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, p. 90, 1905; No.
49, pp. 62-67, 1926.

09 Whitehead, Notes on prairie-dogs, Journ. Mammalogy, vm, 58, 1927.

60 Taylor and Lof tfield, Damage to range grasses by the Zuni prairie-dog, U. S.
Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1227, 1924.

"Payne, The prairie-dog as a range pest, Colorado Agric. Exper. Sta., Press
Bull, No. 16, 1903.

82 Burnett, Report on prairie-dog investigations in Colorado, Office Colorado State
Entomologist Circular No. 8, 1913; The prairie-dog situation in Colorado, Circular
No. 17, 1915.

268 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

vegetables often cover many of the plants and do much harm. They
also sometimes cause horses to stumble, injuring and perhaps killing
both horses and riders.1 Their mounds also cause losses by prevent-
ing close cutting of hay crops. Their burrows cause erosion on steep
slopes and costly breaks in reservoir dams and canal banks. They attack
the roots of trees, the injuries causing crown gall, the damage be-
ing underground and usually not detected until too late, 40 trees
having been ruined in one orchard in a single week.2 Dalles pocket
gophers (T. quadratus) , in a badly infested Oregon cherry orchard,
killed 71 per cent of the trees and injured another 21 per cent beyond
recovery, leaving only 8 per cent uninjured.3 Three gophers in twelve
days threw up 103 mounds.4

Pocket gophers are occasional hosts of the spotted fever ticks,5 Their
habits are clean and their flesh is used as food in some localities.6 They
subsist chiefly on roots and green plants and sometimes girdle trees,
the annual loss to farmers and fruit growers because of their opera-
tions having been estimated at more than $i2,ooo,ooo.7 The annual loss
in Nebraska alone was estimated at $i, 000,000. 8 Though it has often
been said that pocket gophers are strictly vegetarian, like most rodents
they occasionally indulge in the flesh of other animals. One in captivity
greedily ate meat at every opportunity.9 Some gophers, placed in a
box with deer mice, "ate them all up, beginning with the tails."10

The following items concerning the pocket gophers of Texas are
briefed from Bailey's report:11 Louisiana pocket gopher (Geomys bre-
viceps), sometimes seriously damages lawns, parks, pastures, fields,
gardens and orchards, but is easily controlled by trapping. "Their
flesh is sweeter, better flavored and more delicate than any squirrel
or rabbit, and their small size is the only objection to their use as

1 Coues, The prairie gopher, Amer. Naturalist, ix, 147-156, 1875. See Scheffer,
Habits and economic status of the pocket gophers, U. S. Dept. Agric. Technical
Bull. No. 224, 1931.

2 Lantz, Pocket gophers as enemies of trees, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for
1909, pp. 209-218. Bailey, Animal Life of Carlsbad Cavern, p. 91, 1928. Burnett, Office
Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 15, 1918.

3 Wight, Breeding habits and economic relations of the Dalles pocket gopher,
Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 40-48, 1930.

4 Bailey, The pocket gophers of the United States, U. S. Div. Orn. and Mamm.
Bull. No. 5, 1895.

5 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No. 36, 1912.

6 Bailey, U. S. Div. Orn. and Mamm. Bull. No. 5, 1895.

7 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 18, 1908; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 125,
1926.

8Bruner, Pocket gophers, Univ. Nebraska Agric. Exper. Sta., Press Bull, No.
29, 1908.

9 Wade, Food habits of a pocket gopher, Journ. Mammalogy, vin, 310-311, 1927.

10Mearns, U. S. National Museum Bull. No. 56, p. 411, 1907.

11 Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 127-134, 1905.

RODENTIA 269

a table delicacy." White-throated pocket gopher (G. b. sagittalis):
about a dozen "destroyed an orchard of 200 six-year-old fig trees in
bearing," by cutting the roots, doing damage to the extent of over $500,
which could have been prevented by trapping, instead of attempting
to shoot them. Attwater pocket gopher (G. b. attwateri) : in Aransas
County "there is hardly a foot of land that has not been 'plowed'
several times over by gophers," 250 of which were killed in a pear
orchard in six weeks. Chestnut- faced pocket gophers (Cratogeomys
castanops) : "their concentration on the best soil, together with the
large size of their burrows and mounds, makes them one of the most
injurious of the gopher family," but they are easily trapped. Under
a cliff "where a pair of horned owls had raised their young ... I
counted 20 skulls of Cratogeomys among bones of other rodents, but
for fear these owls would catch the chickens one had been killed by
the ranchman and the other driven away." Little gray pocket gopher
(Thomomys perditus): chief food is yucca, sotal and cactus. Lachu-
guilla pocket gopher ( T. lachuguilla) : principal food is the agave.

Criddle gives lists of plants stored in the dens of the prairie pocket
gopher (Thomomys talpoldes rufescens) and says they eat flesh, but
few insects, and damage garden and farm crops; and that the long-
tailed weasel is their most important mammalian enemy, the badger
next, hawks and owls important, coyotes, foxes and skunks not neg-
ligible.12

Various publications mentioned in the footnotes discuss methods
of trapping and other means of controlling the pocket gophers, and
include as an important method the encouragement of natural enemies,
especially hawks and owls, and sometimes certain predacious mam-
mals. There are also some other publications devoted mostly to the
subject of suppressing these rodents and otherwise preventing damage
by them.13

FAMILY HETEROMYIDAE— POCKET RATS AND POCKET MICE

Pocket mice are usually not very numerous and of little economic
importance, though occasionally they take some grain, and, if they

"Criddle, The prairie pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides rufescens), Journ.
Mammalogy, xi, 265-280, 1930.

13 See Lantz, Methods for destroying pocket gophers, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular
No. 52, 1908. Dixon and De Ong, Control of the pocket gopher in California, Cali-
fornia Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 281, 1917. Dixon, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 136-
146, 1922. For the amount of poison required, which depends upon the season, see
Wight, Breeding habits and economic relations of the Dalles pocket gopher, Journ.
Mammalogy, xi, 40-48, 1930.

27O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

become abundant, might be destructive.1 In North Dakota the Maxi-
millian pocket mouse (Pcrognathus fasciatus) was found feeding
mainly on seeds of knotgrass, pigweed and Russian thistle, but it takes
many other seeds of weeds and grasses and destroys grasshoppers; not
very harmful, if at all, and in many ways beneficial. In the same
state the food of the dusky pocket mouse (P. flavescens perniger) con-
sists largely of weed seeds, though it nibbles garden vegetables. Its
destruction of weed seeds counterbalances the small amount of damage
done to crops, but it is not abundant enough to do much either way.2
From Bailey's Texas report we obtain the following items:3 His-
pid pocket mouse (P. hispidus) : a market gardener complained of
their "digging up the seeds as fast as he could plant them . . . but a
few night's trapping would have cleared them all out." Kansas pocket
mouse (P. h. par adorns) : one in Texas had corn in its pocket, one in
January "had its pockets full of Convolvulus seeds," one in South
Dakota in June "had its pockets full of Cymopterus seeds" ; two
rattlesnakes each contained one of these mice. Black-eared pocket
mouse (P. h. spilotus Merriam, 1889, equals P. H. hispidus Baird, 1857,
according to Miller) : one had Mimosa seeds in its pockets and one
"had its pockets full of Petalostemon seeds." Baird pocket mouse
(P. flavus) : favorite food is wild sunflower and pigweed seeds. Mer-
riam pocket mouse (P. merriami) : juniper seeds and corn found in the
burrows. Dutcher pocket mouse (P. m. gilvus) : in September found
feeding on the seeds of shrubby Baccharis. Cope pocket mouse (P.
flavescens copei) : the type specimen was taken from a rattlesnake
stomach. Three topotypes had millet seeds in their cheek pouches.

Kangaroo rats in some agricultural districts are abundant and de-
structive. "No rodent that occurs in the San Luis Valley, except the
prairie-dog, is so abundant and destructive . . . very destructive to
grain of all kinds and in some sections is a serious pest." Half a
bushel of peas and other seeds have been found in a single burrow.
Their burrows honeycomb irrigation ditch banks, and their mounds are
as large as a medium-sized washtub,4 sometimes from 2 to 4 feet high
and 6 to 8 feet wide.6 Horses often break through into their burrows.
They sometimes store as much as 12^ pounds of forage in one den,

1 Bailey, Farmers' Bull, No. 335, p. 21, 1908. Burnett, Office Colorado State En-
tom. Circular No. 25, pp. 17-18, 1918.

2 Bailey, A biological survey of North Dakota, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 119,
121, 1926.

3 Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 135-143, 1905.

4 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 18, 1918.
8 Bailey, Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, p. 82, 1928.

RODENTIA 271

largely useful grasses, one den having contained 680,000 separate
pieces. The ground within a radius of from 15 to 25 feet about the den
may be denuded of vegetation.6

On a range of 50 square miles in Arizona it was estimated that, al-
lowing 50 pounds of forage daily as the need of each steer, the forage
consumed by the large kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spectabilis) would
be enough to feed 14 steers.7 In another paper the same authors say
25 pounds of forage per steer would be enough, which would double
the number of steers the forage consumed by the kangaroo rats would
support. They also report that 592 barn owl pellets contained remains
of 230 kangaroo rats.8

Bailey's Texas report furnishes the following items:9 Richardson
kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii richardsoni) : "the food of this, as of
other species of this genus, is almost entirely seeds, including those of
many grasses, various native plants, and any of the small grains";
and, though usually harmless, when abundant they sometimes become
destructive. Ord kangaroo rat (D. ordii) was found to be feeding "on
seeds of wild sunflower, Parosela and other wild beans." Padre Island
kangaroo rat (D. compactus) feeds on seeds of a small plant like
purselane and takes oatmeal readily as bait in traps. Loring kangaroo
rat (D. elator) : one caught in a Kafir corn field contained 100 seeds
of Kafir corn and 65 seeds of Solatium rostratum. One carried off and
stored two bushels of wheat. One was taken from a large rattle-
snake. Texas spiny pocket mouse (Liomys irroratus texensis} feeds
"on the seeds of hackberry, mesquite and various other shrubs."

Dwarf pocket rat or kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops megacepha-
lus) : food "consists mostly of seeds,'- the cheek pouches containing
seeds of Gilia and Oryzopsis, and one containing an insect larva.10

FAMILY CASTORIDAE— BEAVERS

It has been said that "the beaver is the most important fact in
American history,"1 because it was long the backbone of the fur
trade, the chief industrial and commercial enterprise in the vast in-
terior of the continent for three centuries. The quest for beaver and

' Taylor, Scientific Monthly, xxi, 2, 1925.

* Vorhies and Taylor, Life history of the kangaroo rat, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull.
No. 1091, p. 37, 1922.

8 Vorhies and Taylor, Damage by kangaroo rats, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 144, 1924.

"Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 127, 144-149,
1905; see also No. 49, p. 124, 1926; Farmers' Bull, No. 335, p. 22, 1908.

10 Hall and Linsdale, Notes on the life history of the kangaroo mouse (Micro-
dipodops), Journ. Mammalogy, x, 295-305, 1929.

1 Science, XLI, 2/6, 1915, quoting Merriam.

272 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

other furs led trappers and traders to explore almost every part of
North America north of latitude 30° 30', long before permanent set-
tlers began to arrive and engage in agriculture.2 The influence of the
trade upon exploration and history is discussed in Chapter, xvn.

Beaver skins were currency in Canada in the seventeenth century.8
"In the old days" beaver skins sold for 32 shillings each, with from
100,000 to 500,000 annually coming out by way of the St. Lawrence
and Hudson Bay; but in 1910 only about 80,000 and in 1912 about
17,000 were offered in the markets.4 The world's reported sales for
1919-1921 totalled 420,490 skins.5 In 1900, 8000 beaver skins were
produced in the United States and 66,000 in the world, worth
$34i,ooo.6 It was estimated that in 1923-1924 the production in Amer-
ica was 2OO,ooo.7 In 1913, it was estimated that the production of
beaver skins in North America was 80,000 per annum, in Asia 1000,
with a few in Europe, skins then bringing from $12 to $20 each, cas-
torum from $12 to $15 a pound, and breeding stock $50 a pair.8

There were 14,341 beaver skins, worth $258,138, shipped from
Alaska in I923.9 In 1624 only 400 beaver skins were shipped from
New York, in 1635 the number had increased to 14,891, according
to a letter from the Dutch West India Company.10 In 1671, New
Netherlands produced 80,000, in 1800 New York State produced 5000 ;
in 1905 very few of the original stock were left there, but new stock
has been introduced from elsewhere.11 As remote from civilization as
was the Snake River country a century ago, 80,000 beaver pelts were
taken out in four years in about 1824, by 60 British trappers.12 Dam-
aged and inferior beaver pelts have been extensively used in the manu-
facture of felt for hats, the tail is "a delicacy on the banquet board"

2 Morgan, The American beaver and his works, Philadelphia, Pa., 1868. Martin,
Castorologia, or the history and traditions of the Canadian beaver, London, 1892.
Dugmore, The romance of the beaver, Philadelphia, 1914. Warren, The beaver, Bal-
timore, 1927 ; with bibliography.

3 Arthur, Louisiana Department of Conservation Bull., No. 18, p. 16, 1928.
4Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 119, 1921; see also Concerning beaver and

nutria, Forest and Stream, LXIX, 57, 88, 89, 1921.

5 Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 226, 1922; Natural History, xxn,
393, 1922.

6 Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm.
for 1902, pp. 283, 352.

7 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

8 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 90, 1913.

9 California Fish and Game, x, 82, 1924.

10DeKay, Zoology of New York, p. 73, 1842. 47 th Ann. Rept. N. Y. State Mu-
seum, p. 47, 1894.

11 Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., iv, 589, 1927.

12 Dale, Ashley-Smith exploration, p. 98, 1918.

RODENTIA 273

and its "general flesh preferred to game birds," and the castorum has
been used in the manufacture of perfumery.13 For the Eastern trade
in 1918, 600 beaver carcasses were dressed and shipped to Toronto.14

The following items have been selected from Warren's summary of
beaver statistics: From 1853 to 1877, inclusive, the Hudson Bay Com-
pany sold in London 2,965,389 beaver skins, an average of 18,615
per annum; about 50,000 in 1897, 43,000 in 1900, 49,000 in 1903.
In 1859, 509,000 were sold in London and Edinburgh. In 1906, at
the London sales, prices ranged from $3.60 for the poorest skins to
$8.40 for high-grade pelts, but 41 first-class black skins brought $14.88
each. Since then prices have advanced. In the January, 1921, sales in
New York, the average price was $12.03. I*1 February, 1920, it was
$40.70, but 40 of the best skins sold for $64 each during the month,
and the lowest grade brought $8.50 each, dropping to $2.50 in April.
Since that year prices have been uniformly lower, the average ranging
from $14 to $21, with a maximum of $35.50 for the best. In the seven-
teenth century, castorum was used as medicine for many diseases, and
beaver teeth were attached to the necks of children to facilitate the
cutting of teeth. From 1858 to 1884, 25)°o° pounds of castorum were
marketed by the Hudson Bay Company. Twelve years ago the price,
was from $10 to $20, but the demand has practically ceased.10 The
castorum is said to have been used for medicinal purposes for many
centuries, as it is mentioned in this connection by Pliny and Hippoc-
rates, and seems to have been considered a marvelous "cure-all."16

In 1917 there was no legal protection for the beaver in 20 states,
perhaps in some cases because there were no beaver to protect. In 1927
there was a close season in 26 states and partial protection in 8 more.17
The beaver had been exterminated over a great part of its former
range, but in recent years has been introduced to many localities. "The
effect of regulations in conserving the supply of beaver is shown in
the taking of from 165,000 to 230,000 beaver pelts in Canada in the
years I92O-I924/'18

The food of the beaver in summer consists mostly of grass and

13 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 119, 1921. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49,
p. 108, 1926.

14 Field and Stream, Aug., 1918, p. 330, as cited by Seton, Lives of game animals.
"Warren, The beaver, pp. 158-165, 1927.

16 Dugmore, The romance of the beaver, p. 215, 1914.

17 Bailey, Beaver habits and experiments in beaver culture, U. S. Dept. Agric.
Technical Bull, No. 21, 1927, replacing Dept. Bull, No. 1078, 1922.

18 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, p. 76, 1927.

274 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

other vegetation found near the water, and in winter chiefly the bark
and twigs of shrubs and trees. In most localities small, softwood trees
of little value, such as aspens, cottonwoods and willows, are preferred.
Orchard and other valuable trees may be protected from them by
woven-wire fences and cylinders.19 Where other trees are scarce they
sometimes cut oaks,20 conifers and other trees not usually used by
them, but damage done by cutting valuable timber is seldom serious. In
Norway, beavers live largely on aspen, birch, oak and alder.21

Sometimes damage results from the construction of beaver dams,
which cause the overflow of fields, pastures, forests and roads. It is
said that this may be prevented and the water in their ponds kept at a
nearly uniform level by the skillful insertion of iron pipe in the dams.22
Where this is impracticable or ineffective, the beaver may easily be
controlled by trapping under permits from the proper authorities.
Beavers also sometimes cause breaks in irrigation canals,23

Though the flooding of lands because of beaver dams is sometimes
detrimental to human interests, it is also sometimes beneficial. Beaver
ponds help equalize the flow of storm waters and water from melting
snow, and thus minimize the damage from floods in small streams,
storing the water and thus keeping up the flow of trout streams and
streams upon which the ranchers are dependent for water for their
stock, during dry seasons.24 Occasionally the ponds make it possible to
obtain irrigation water needed to save crops from ruin. "Colorado
ranchers recently opened beaver dams in the mountains, pouring mil-
lions of gallons of water down stream beds and out through irrigation
ditches. On one stream alone crops valued at $15,000 were thus
saved."25

There has been considerable controversy over the possible effects
of beaver ponds on fishes,26 Such ponds afford quiet water favorable to

19 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 4, p. 108, 1926; U. S. Dcpt. Agric., Technical Bull.,
No. 21, 1927.

20 Warren, Cutting of oaks by beavers, Jonrn. Mammalogy, ix, 253, 1928.

21 Salvesen, The beaver in Norway, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 99-104, 1928.

22 Bailey, Beaver habits, beaver control and possibilities of beaver farming, U. S.
Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 1078, pp. 11-12, 1922; Tech. Bull., No. 21, pp. 13-14, 1927.

23Dixon, Rodents and reclamation in the Imperial Valley, Journ. Mammalogy,
in, 136-146, 1922.

24 Dearborn, The maintenance of the fur supply, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No.
135, p. 10, 1920.

25 American forests and forest life, xxxiv, 3/0, 1928. Honks, When beavers aid
irrigation; emergency use of the water impounded by the industrious animal, Sci-
entific American, March, 1924, p. 161.

26 For example : Bean, Fish planting in public water, New York State Conserv.
Comni., pp. 1-24, 1916. Embody, A study of fish-producing waters of Tompkins

RODENTIA 275

the growth of young trout until they are large enough to do well in
the swift water of mountain streams. However, it is asserted that
harmful gases or poisons develop from the decomposition of organic
matter in the stagnant ponds, not only affecting the fish in the ponds,
but also getting into streams and affecting them. This probably de-
pends somewhat upon the temperature of the water and the amount of
organic matter in the water, and both of these would in turn be gov-
erned to some extent by altitude and latitude. Therefore, beaver ponds
are probably often quite beneficial along cool, high mountain streams,
but may be quite detrimental under some circumstances in warmer
localities. Furthermore, a newly-made pond may be much less favor-
able to fish than an old, stabilized pond. It is a well-known fact that
many beaver streams are excellent trout streams, and often good fish-
ing is found at the beaver dams. This subject is exceedingly complex,
and information now at hand is not sufficient to warrant very positive
statements concerning the problem.27

Beavers are accused of destroying browse which would be useful
to deer, but as beavers are rather localized, while deer move about
freely, this accusation does not seem to be very serious. Furthermore,
in some localities beaver meadows are favorite feeding grounds for deer
when not too much snow covers the vegetation.28

FAMILY CRICETIDAE— NATIVE AMERICAN RATS, MICE, ETC.

Though some of the wild mice are very destructive, many of them
are more or less useful. Some of them are much more highly insectiv-
orous than is generally supposed. In Michigan, of 2611 cocoons of
the destructive larch sawfly on one tract, 62.5 percent had been opened
by mice in order to eat the larvae, 4.6 per cent had been parasitized by
insect enemies, and 0.51 per cent had been fungicized; of 1908 cocoons
on another tract, 66.3 per cent had been opened by mice, 3.5 per cent
parasitized, 0.2 per cent fungicized ; of 408 cocoons, 80 per cent had

County, New York, ibid., pp. 1-41, 1922. Kendall, The status of fish culture in our
inland public waters, and the role of investigation in the maintenance of fish re-
sources, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., n, 205-351, 1924; A trout survey of Alleghany
State Park in 1922, ibid., iv, 286-491, 1927. Knight, Losses in trout fry after dis-
tribution, Science, LXII, 590-591, 1925; LXIII, 209-210, 1926; Losses in speckled trout
after distribution, Science, LXV, 525-526, 1927. Lawrie, Beaver vs. trout, Fins, Feath-
ers and Fur (Bull. Minnesota Game and Fish Dept.), No. 27, p. 5, 1910. Beakbane,
The case against the beaver, Forest and Stream, LXIX, 203, 236, 239-240, 1922.

21 See Johnson, The beaver in the Adirondacks: Its economics and natural his-
tory, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., iv, 501-541, 1927. Bailey, Beaver habits and experi-
ments in beaver culture, U. S. Dept. Agric., Tech. Bull., No. 21, 1927.

28 Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, rv, 569-572, 587, 1927.

276 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

been opened by mice, 3 per cent parasitized, 2 per cent destroyed by
fungi.1

Grasshopper mice2 (Onychomys) during the summer live almost en-
tirely upon insects and other animal matter, but during the winter,
when their summer food is scarce, they will eat vegetables, seeds and
grain. They do but little harm and a great deal of good, killing and
eating pocket mice, field mice, deer mice and other destructive mice,
as well as large quantities of insects, mostly of harmful species. They
occasionally take lizards and amphibians. The contents of 96 stomachs
examined by Bailey and Sperry consisted of the following: Orthop-
tera, 38.76 per cent; Coleoptera, 20.73 Per cent; Lepidoptera, 17.04
per cent; Hymenoptera, 2 per cent; Diptera, 0.7 per cent; Hemiptera,
0.05 per cent; miscellaneous insects, arachnids and worms, 3.25 per
cent; mice, 3.09 per cent; grass seeds, 6 per cent; grain, 5 per cent;
unidentified, 6 per cent; total vegetable matter, 11.13 Per cent; total
animal matter, 88.87 Per cent (total insects, 78.28 per cent).

Their food is chiefly "grasshoppers, crickets, beetles, moths, scor-
pions, spiders and any other mice or other animals that they can catch,
kill and eat. ... In the arid regions they take to some extent the place
of the moles and shrews of the humid regions in the destruction of
ground-dwelling insects and small animal life. In this respect they
may well be as useful as birds in helping to maintain a wholesome
balance of nature and in controlling the abundance of injurious forms
of life. The owl perhaps deserves no credit for swallowing these use-
ful little animals, and yet we cannot be sure that in unchecked abun-
dance even they might develop habits injurious rather than beneficial
to our interests."3

They also take some seeds, grain and vegetables.4 "It would doubt-
less be possible to keep and breed them in confinement and make them
of use in ridding gardens and greenhouses of insect pests."5 In the
Southwest, where scorpions are common, these mice are frequently
called scorpion mice, because of their fondness for the arachnids.6 In
the case of the desert scorpion mouse (0. lencog aster fuliginosa), it

1 Graham, The larch sawfly as an indicator of mouse abundance, Journ. Mam-
malogy, x, 189-196, 1929.

2 Bailey and Sperry, Life history and habits of grasshopper mice (genus Ony-
chomys), U. S. Dept. Agric., Technical Bull., No. 145, 1929.

8 Bailey, Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, pp. 74-75, 1928; N. Amer. Fauna, No.

25, PP- 93-94, 1905-

4 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 81, 83, 1926. Burnett, Office Colorado State
Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 7, 1918. Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, p. 100, 1911.

5 Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 13, 1908.

6 Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, p. 100, 1911.

RODENTIA 277

was found that in addition to taking insects, the "stomachs of all speci-
mens procured contained scorpions, and many were distended with
them to the exclusion of other food. One contained the hair and flesh
of a mouse."7 The stomach of one eastern desert grasshopper mouse
(O. /. melanophrys) was found "packed full of scorpions."8

The food of harvest mice (Reithrodontomys) consists chiefly of
seeds (mostly of grasses), with some grain and a little green vege-
tation. They are usually not abundant enough to do much damage, but
when numerous they may be quite injurious.9

The white-footed mice, or deer mice, genus Peromyscus, with many
species and subspecies, are the most generally distributed and abundant
North American mammals, rivalled in this respect only by the meadow
or field mice, of the genus Microtus. They are very prolific breeders,
having a number of litters per annum, of five or six young each,10
hence are a potential menace to crops. Plagues of white-footed mice
have occurred, similar to those of lemmings and voles, such as the one
of 1872-1873 in South America.11 The food habits of the various
species are very similar, though not exactly the same, and of course
depend to some extent upon the food available. They are rather om-
nivorous. "Very few feed extensively upon green and succulent food
such as is taken by the meadow mice, but nearly all prefer dry-land
food, especially seeds and small nuts" ; mostly seeds of native shrubs,
weeds and grasses, but they take grain when they live about the edges
of fields, taking also meat, and sometimes gnawing the bark of young
fruit trees and nursery stock.12 "So small, so numerous, and so widely
distributed are they that they are not easily controlled, except by their
natural enemies, which are numerous. They are favorite prey of all
small owls and even of many of the larger owls, and form an im-
portant article of diet for weasels, skunks, badgers, foxes and such of
the other small predatory species as occur within their range. Reason-
able protection of the species that prey upon them, especially the owls,

T Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, pp. 59, 61, 1890.

8 Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum Bull. No. 56, p. 371, 1907.

"Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, 1908; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 80, 1926.
Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 8, 1918; says food like
that of grasshopper mice, but perhaps destroys more grain.

10 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, 1918. Bailey, N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 49, p. 78, 1926.

11 Hudson, Naturalist in La Plata, pp. 64-65, 1892. Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv., Bull.
No. 31, pp. 52-53, 1907.

12 Osgood, Revision of the mice of the American genus Peromyscus, N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 28, pp. 27-28, 1909.

278 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

forms the simplest and most effective means of keeping down their
abundance."13

Four subspecies in captivity (P. leucopus novel) or acensis, P. niani-
culatus bairdi, P. m. gracilis and P. m. sonoriensis) all accepted the
same sorts of foods, including 52 kinds of native seeds, fruits and
nuts, besides seeds of some cultivated plants, green vegetation, bark
of 15 species of trees and shrubs, and 15 species of insects.14 "Salt
pork and oatmeal were attractive bait" for the desert white-footed
mouse (P. eremicus). 15 The Osgood white-footed mice (P. maniculatus
osgdodi) "were feeding largely on bullberries," but took also "seeds
of chokecherry, woodbine, wild grape, smilax, buffalo berry, hosackia,
dogwood, bindweed, knotweed, pigweed, ragweed, Russian thistle,
black henbane, sedge, barnyard grass and dropseed grass. The mice
seem fond of any kind of camp food, as flour, meal, oatmeal, grain,
meat, butter, bread or crackers."16 Sixteen Baird white-footed mice
(P. m. bairdi) were caught in traps in one night while feeding on
cockleburs; many others were caught while eating seeds of tumble-
weeds and Russian thistles, and at one place they were found to be
"feeding largely on little caterpillars."17 The food of Northern white-
footed mice (P. I. no'ueb or acensis) is mostly "seeds, grain and nut-
lets . . . fond of berries and fruit . . . get into fields, gardens, granaries,
and even cellars and pantries, and help themselves."18 They are "es-
pecially fond of basswood seeds, pits of wild cherries, beechnuts and
acorns."13 There were found "within a stump in a clover field, several
quarts of clean seed of red clover collected by a family of these mice."20
One in captivity killed an adult gartersnake.21

Tawny white-footed mouse (P. maniculatus rufinus) : most of the
stomachs examined contained seeds of small plants and remains of
grasshoppers.22 Chihuahua white-footed mouse (P. m. blandus) : seeds
of Gutierrezia and Crassina furnish a large share of its winter food.28
"Largely carnivorous, devouring insects or any animal food," and

13 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 76, 78, 1926. Osgood, N. Amer. Fauna, No.
28, p. 28, 1909.

14 Cogshall, Food habits of deer mice of the genus Peromyscus in captivity, Journ.
Mammalogy, ix, 217-221, 1928.

15 Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum, Bull. No. 56, p. 441, 1907.

16 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 75, 1926.

17 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 76-77, 1926.

18 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 78, 1926.

19 Osgood, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 28, p. 27, 1909.

20 Kennicott, Agric. Rept. for 1856, U. S. Patent Office, p. 91, 1857.

21 Hatt, Notes on some captive deer mice, Journ. Mammalogy, rv, 186-187, 1923.

22 Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 3, p. 64, 1890.
28 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, p. 97, 1905.

RODENTIA 279

eating small animals caught in traps.24 Western desert mouse (P. m.
sonoriensis) : "besides insects, quantities of Xanthium seeds are eaten
by this mouse," and it ate many cotton rats which were caught in
traps.25 San Clemente mouse (P. m. dementis), "feeds on the ripe
fruits of the prickly pear (Ofnmtia)."** LeConte white-footed mouse
(P. m. gracilis) : 2 stomachs contained green vegetation and insects.27
Rowley white- footed mouse (P. boylii rowleyi) , food "consists largely
of juniper berries . . . but acorns and pine nuts are eaten while they
last."28

The white-footed mice are hosts of the spotted fever ticks, and, as
they, enter occupied dwellings, they are a special source of danger in
fever-infested districts.29 They are not usually found in buildings
which harbor the European mouse (Mus musculus). The mound made
by the old-field mouse (P. polionotiis) is very large for so small an
animal. "At times it doubtless contains several large cupfuls of soil,"
while some of the burrows are nearly or quite a foot deep.30 "Little
is known of the food habits of this species, but it is believed to feed
largely on the seeds of grasses, weeds and grain; several stomachs
from Abbeville contained remains of blackberries, with other finely
chewed food."31

"Cotton rats (Sigmodon}, when numerous in cultivated ground,
often prove very destructive to crops, not only cotton, but all grains,
alfalfa, hay and many other farm products. But for owls and such
enemies they would be a serious menace to agriculture."32 The natural
food of the northern cotton rat (S. hispidus hispidus) consists of
"stems and seeds of wild grasses and other plants," but it takes also
grain, where available.33 The Texas cotton rats (S. h. texianus) "be-
come so numerous as to suggest the plagues of voles that from time
to time have overrun parts of Europe," and they then do much damage
to the cotton crops. During the cycle of abundance in Bexar County,
Texas, from 1889 to 1891, hawks, owls, weasels and skunks became
more abundant and preyed upon the rats ; rattlesnakes and other snakes

24 Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum Bull. No. 56, p. 389, 1907.

25 Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum, Bull. No. 56, p. 394, 1907.

26 Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum, Bull. No. 56, p. 400, 1907.

27 Johnson, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 37, 1922.

28 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, p. 98, 1905.

29 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No. 484 p. 29, 1912.

30 Sumner and Karol, Notes on the burrowing habits of Peromyscus polionotus,
Journ. Mammalogy, x, 214, 1929, citing Howell.

31 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, pp. 44-46, 1921.

32 Bailey, Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, p. 81, 1928.

33 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 52, 1921.

28O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

were found gorged with them; and coyotes killed many.34 These rats
are 'Very destructive to ripening tomatoes," and destroyed a third of
the crop in one truck garden.35 The Chisos cotton rat (S. ochrog-
nathus) lives in the Chisos Mountains and feeds "on the stems of grass
and various small plants."36

Dusky-footed wood rats (Neotoma fuscipes) "subsist on a great
variety of green vegetation, including grasses, leaves, fresh fruits, small
bulbs, bark and flowers. . . . We found maple leaves stored to the sur-
prising amount of a full bushel in a single nest. In one instance a nest
twenty feet from the ground contained no less than six quarts of
maple seeds. Acorns and hazelnuts, along with fruit-pits of prune,
plum and cherry also occurred." The food fragments found in 63 nests
included 37 kinds of trees, shrubs and herbs, 16 varieties having been
found in one nest.37 Western bushy- tailed wood rat (N. cinerea Occi-
dent alls}, injured apple and cherry trees in an Oregon orchard by
gnawing the bark and girdling branches.38 Mountain or pack rat (N. c.
orolestes), does but little damage to crops, but is a great nuisance
about dwellings because of its thieving propensities. It carries away
"almost anything portable," and destroys stored food, clothing, bed-
ding and rugs.39 This species is one of the hosts of the spotted fever
tick, which, together with the fact that they enter dwellings, makes
them a source of special danger in fever-infested districts.40 Pale bushy-
tailed wood rat (N. c. rupicola) : the contents of stomachs examined
consisted mostly of green vegetation, but these rats are eager also for
grain, fruit, bacon, and various other food.41

Allegheny wood or cliff rat (N. pennsylvanica) : food "mainly of
vegetable origin and consists in part of hickory nuts, acorns, chestnuts
and the tender leaves of herbaceous plants."42 Its "middens," or rub-
bish heaps included fern fronds, coral fungi, mushrooms, puffballs,
red oak acorns and leaves, Juneberry (Amelanchier) twigs and leaves,
wild cherry, elder, etc., and storing fungi is "a well-developed in-

34 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 115-117, 1905.

85 Strecker, Notes on the Texas cotton and Attwater wood rats, Journ. Mam-
malogy, x, 216-220, 1929.

38 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, p. 118, 1905.

37 English, The dusky-footed wood rat (Neotoma fuscipes), Journ. Mammalogy,
iv, 1-9, 1923.

38 Dice, Wood rat damage to fruit trees in eastern Oregon, Journ. Mammalogy,
vi, 282, 1925.

39 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 9, 1918.

40 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull. No. 484. p. 31, 1912.

41 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 86, 1926.

42 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 53, 1921.

RODENTIA 28l

stinct."43 Nests of brush rats or large-eared wood rats (N. fuscipes
macrotis) contained leaves of 15 species of native trees, shrubs and
herbs.44 Portala wood rat (N. f. annectens), is "a nuisance and a seri-
ous pest . . . destructive to a high degree," carrying off or destroying
papers, books, clothing and all sorts of other things; fond of wild
fruits and fungi.45 White-throated wood rats (N. albigula) carried off
boxes of pills, powder boxes, candles, soap and other useful articles.46
Colorado Valley wood rat (N. albigula venitsta=cumulator), eats
gourd seeds and gnaws the bark of mesquite trees.47 Florida wood rats
(N. floridana), in summer "doubtless feed largely on succulent herbs
and berries," and in winter nuts form an important item in their diet;
they also eat pawpaw seeds.48 Attwater wood rat (TV. /. attwateri) is
very destructive to pecans, one nest having contained nearly a bushel of
them.49 Desert wood rat (N. desertorum) sometimes becomes abun-
dant and does much damage along the edges of grain fields and gar-
dens. "Their flesh is as white and delicate as that of quail and finer
in flavor than that of squirrel or rabbit."50 It is reported that a "brush
rat," evidently some species of wood rat, successfully attacked a rattle-
snake.51

Bailey's Texas report furnishes the following wood rat items:82 Att-
water wood rat (N. f. attwateri) eats acorns, walnuts, juniper berries,
cactus capsules, Mexican buckeye nuts, grapes, mushrooms, etc. Its
flesh "is delicious, of good flavor, white, tender and more delicate
than that of the squirrel." Bailey wood rat (N. /. baileyi) : flesh is
"very tender and of good flavor, with no trace of the external odor
peculiar to wood rats." Mexican wood rat (N. mexicana) : "food
seems to be largely acorns and the sweet berries of Juniper us pachy-
phloae." White-throated wood rat (N. albigula) includes in its diet
"cactus stems and fruit, mesquite, acacia and other leguminous pods,
juniper berries, acorns, and various seeds, green foliage and flowers.

"Newcombe, An ecological study of the Allegheny cliff rat (Neotoma pennsyl-
vanica Stone), Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 204-211, 1930.

44 Gander, Experiences with wood rats, Neotoma fuscipes macrotis, Journ. Mam-
malogy, x, 52-58, 1929.

45 Parks, The genus Neotoma in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Journ. Mammalogy,
in, 241-253, 1922.

"Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum, Bull. No. 56, p. 476, 1907.

47 Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum, Bull. No. 56, p. 474, 1907.

48 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 52, 1921.

49 Strecker, Notes on the Texas cotton and Attwater wood rats, Journ. Mammal-
ogy, x, 216-220, 1929.

"Bailey, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, p. 17, 1908.

81 Hartman, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 117, 1922.

82 Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, 1905.

282 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

... It is the especial prey of Lynx, Urocyon and Bassariscus, which,
with the owls, keep its ranks thinned until in many places few are left."
Baird wood rat (N. micropus) : "food consists of a great variety of
green vegetation, especially the juicy flesh of cactus, but mainly of
seeds, nuts and fruit. Cactus fruit and the sweet pods of the mesquite
bean are extensively eaten." It sometimes becomes exceedingly numer-
ous and does some damage. Their abundance then "attracts great
numbers of hawks, owls and other enemies," which soon bring the
rats to or below their normal numbers. Among the "more deadly ene-
mies" are rattlesnakes, bull snakes, black snakes and whip snakes.

Not only do the "pack rats" or "trade rats" carry off all sorts of
articles to their nests, but other wood rats have the same habit, at
least to some extent. A nest of the western bushy-tailed wood rat (N.
cinerea ocddentalis) contained 35 different kinds of articles, many of
which were not used and could not be used by the rats as food.53 Wood
rats also store very large quantities of food when it is plentiful, whether
they need it or not. In the vicinity of Magdalena, New Mexico, wood
rats store pinyon nuts, and the Mexicans residing in the region take
the stored nuts, thus saving themselves the labor of gathering them.
Anthony says: "I was told that eight carloads had been sent to the
eastern dealers, at that date, and as many more were expected before
the end of the season," and that the store taken from the rats "would
be renewed within a week and the same rat pay rent, perhaps as many
as five or six times during the fall and winter."54 Guano from the nests
of wood rats has been used extensively by florists in the southwestern
United States as a fertilizer for ferns and other plants.55

Subfamily Micro tinae

But little seems to be known of the habits of the American lemming
mice, genus Synaptoniys, which are confined mostly to bogs and
swamps and are not of much economic importance. The contents of 1 1
stomachs from Kansas and one from Minnesota consisted of "finely-
ground grass and sedge leaves and a few insignificant traces of other
green vegetation," but "judging from the habits of related rodents,
these animals may occasionally feed upon a variety of bulbs and even
insects."1

53 Taylor, The wood rat as a collector, Journ. Mammalogy, i, 91-92, 1920.

64 Anthony, The wood rat as a harvester, Journ. Mammalogy, I, 140-141, 1920.

65 Streator, Commercial fertilizer from wood rat nests, Journ. Mammalogy, xi,
318, 1930.

1 Howell, Revision of the American lemming mice (genus Synaptomys), N.
Amer. Fauna, No. 50, p. 2, 1927.

RODENTIA 283

The Cooper lemming mice (Synaptomys cooperi cooperi) are
"chiefly herbivorous, feeding on grass stems and seeds." In captivity
they ate grass, clover, dandelions, plantain, narrowleaf dock and rolled
oats, while one ate apple, but refused carrots, radishes and celery. Of
8 stomachs taken in the field, 6 contained only finely ground, green
plant material, apparently grass, and 2 contained dark, unidentified
material, with a coleopterous wing covert.2 Goss lemming mouse (S.
cooperi gossii) : 9 stomachs, full of vegetation, probably grass ; 5 per
cent of the contents of one was fungus spores and mycelial threads ;
another contained a beetle, with grass; in captivity they showed a
preference for grass and apples, but ate also lettuce, cabbage, peanut
butter, raisins, alfalfa, oats, clover seed and a little potato.3

It has been said that nothing is known of the food habits of the
Idaho mountain vole (Phenacomys orophilus} and Preble mountain
vole (P. preblei).4 Both names are said to be synonyms of P. inter-
medius, the Rocky Mountain vole.5 Coast or short-tailed phenacomys
(P. albipes), usually lives in dry situations and probably feeds "on a
variety of seeds, tender growth, and other relatively soft or brittle
foods for which their teeth are best suited. The long-tailed or red tree
mouse (P. longicaudiis) and forest tree mouse (P. silvicola) are
arboreal, and "their food, so far as known, consists chiefly of the fleshy
parts of the needles of the conifers. . . . Some tender bark also is con-
sumed."6 Olympic mouse (P. intermedium olympicus) feeds upon twigs
of heather, beargrass, lousewort and huckleberry leaves.7

The familiar generic name, Evotomys Coues, 1874, applied to the
red-backed mice, appears to be preoccupied by Clethrionomys Tilesius,
i85O.8 Gale red-backed mouse (C. gapperi galei) eats grass and seeds,
is confined to the mountains and is of no economic importance.9 Loring
red-backed mouse (C. g. loringi) eats seeds, green vegetation and

2 Stegeman, Notes on Synaptomys cooperi cooperi in Washtenaw County, Michi-
gan, Jonrn. Mammalogy, xi, 460-466, 1930.

8 Burt, Additional notes on the life history of the Goss lemming mouse, Journ.
Mammalogy, ix, 212-216, 1928.

4 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 10, 1918.

5 Anthony, Field book of North American mammals, p. 406, 1928. Howell, Voles
of the genus Phenacomys, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 48, p. 15, 1926.

9 Howell, Voles of the genus Phenacomys, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 48, p. 2, 1926.
Jewett, Notes on two species of Phenacomys in Oregon, Journ. Mammalogy, I, 165-
168, 1920.

7 Shaw, Alpine life of the heather vole (Phenacomys olympicus), Journ. Mam-
malogy, v, 12-15, 1924.

8 Palmer, An earlier name for the genus Evotomys, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington,
XLI, 87-88, 1928.

9 Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 10, 1918.

284 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

grain. When abundant about orchards or ornamental shrubbery it some-
times does damage by girdling.10

The field or meadow mice, genus Microtus, are the most abundant
mammals of North America, except the white-footed mice (genus
Peromyscus). They are very prolific, having from 2 to 6 litters of
from 6 to 13 young, per annum.11 Consequently they are a constant
menace to agriculture as they may increase very rapidly when condi-
tions are favorable, and overrun large areas, destroying all crops and
forage. During an outbreak of field mice in Nevada in 1907 it was
estimated that there were 12,000 mice to the acre, and in some fields
they completely destroyed the alfalfa, roots and all.12 In a meadow,
1000 mice require 12 tons of grass or other vegetation in a year.13

Mouse outbreaks may to some extent be avoided by constant watch-
fulness and prompt measures for suppression as soon as an increase
in their numbers is noticed, and damage from the girdling of trees may
be minimized by keeping orchards and land adjacent thereto clean and
free from weeds, grass and other shelter, especially in winter, when
they are more likely to attack trees.14 As these mice feed mostly above
ground, mechanical and chemical protection, such as wire screens and
repellent washes, aid in preventing damage to trees.15 Among the
natural enemies that habitually destroy mice are wolves, lynxes, coy-
otes, foxes, badgers, raccoons, opossums, skunks, weasels, shrews, cats,
dogs, hogs, hawks, owls, shrikes, cuckoos, crows, herons, bitterns,
storks, ibises, gulls and snakes,16 yet many farmers and hunters kill
those bird and mammal enemies of mice at every opportunity. Snakes
are cold-blooded, their digestion is slow and they require but little food,
hence are not of great value as mousers.17

The fluctuations in the field mouse population affects other human
interests besides agriculture and horticulture. When they are abundant

10 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 88, 1926.

11 Piper, The Nevada mouse plague of 1907-08, Farmers' Bull., No. 352, 1909;
Mouse plagues : Their control and prevention, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1908,
p. 303. Hatt, The biology of the voles of New York, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, v,
513-623, 1930; discusses food stored, enemies, damage to crops, trees, destruction
of insects by, mouse plagues, protection of trees from.

12 Bailey, Farmers' Bull. No. 335, p. n, 1909. Piper, Farmers' Bull., No. 352, 1909;
Yearbook for 1908, pp. 301-310.

13Lantz, An economic study of field mice, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. 31, 1907.

14 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull. No. 484, 1912.

15 Silver, Mouse control in field and orchard, Farmers' Bull., No. 1397, 1924.
16Lantz, An economic study of field mice, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 31, pp.

38-53, 1909.

"Burnett, Office Colorado State Entom., Circular No. 25, p. 31, 1918; No. 18,
p. 7, 1916.

RODENTIA 285

in Labrador they furnish plenty of food for wolves and thus tend to
lessen the destruction of stock and game.18 It is also well known that
the world's fur markets are affected by the relative abundance of mice,
which furnish food for the furbearers.19

"Meadow mice choose a somewhat varied diet, but their food con-
sists mainly of green vegetation, roots and bark. Grass, especially the
tender base of grass stems, forms the bulk of their food, but almost
every plant with which they come in contact is eaten to some extent.
Bark, both from roots and trunks of trees and shrubs, is a favorite
winter food. Seeds and grain are eaten when found, but are not es-
peciaily sought; flesh in any form is never refused.'*2

Although usually classed "among the most destructive rodents that
the farmer has to contend with . . . under ordinary conditions these mice
are useful as destroyers of noxious weeds and grasses of no agricul-
tural value."21 However, the constant levy upon crops, especially hay
and forage crops, day by day throughout the year, must aggregate a
very large loss, in addition to damage to orchards. Ten field mice in
captivity for thirty days ate an average of 55 per cent of their own
weight in food daily, which feat they could equal under natural condi-
tions where food is abundant and they are leading a more active ex-
istence, to the aid of their digestion. Hence only 10 mice to the acre
on a loo-acre meadow would take 1 1 tons of grass or 5^ tons of hay
per annum ; or, on the 65,000,000 acres of hay raised in the United
States, may cause a loss of 3,000,000 tons of hay, or a monetary loss
of $30,000,000, per annum.22

In a seed-beet silo, field mice destroyed the crowns of 90 per cent
of the beets.23 They are known to destroy many snails,24 but probably
do no harm and no good in that way. In 1903-1904 they did great
damage to orchards and nurseries in Kansas and Missouri, and in
1901-1902 did damage to the estimated extent of $100,000 to nurs-

* Allen, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 56-57, 1922, citing Cabot's Labrador.
18 Hewitt, Conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 214-215, 1921. Innis, The
fur trade of Canada, pp. 90-91, 1927.

20 Bailey, Revision of the American voles of the genus Microtus, N. Amer. Fauna,
No. 17, p. 6, 1900; N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 91, 1926.

21 Burnett, Meadow mice, Office Colorado State Entom.} Circular No. 18, p. 5,
1916.

22 Bailey, Breeding, feeding and other life habits of meadow mice (Microtus),
Journ. Agric. Research, xxvii, 532, 1924.

23 Burnett, Rodents of Colorado in their economic relations, Office Colorado State
Entom., Circular No. 25, p. n, 1928.

24 Pilsbry and Bequaert, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., mi, 497, 1927.

286 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

cries at Rochester, New York, girdling the trunks of the trees above
ground and the roots below ground.25 In 1920, field mice ruined 1500
trees in one orchard, did damage to the extent of $10,000 in another,
and $200,000 in one county, and girdled 1000 six-year-old pines on a
5-acre tract.26

The bean mouse (M. pennsylvanicus wahema) gathers and stores
large quantities of beans of Falcata conwsa, wild artichoke tubers
(Helianthus tuberosa), etc. These stores sometimes furnished the In-
dians and early explorers with food, but agriculture now has provided
these mice with a better food supply and they have become a pest in
some localities.27 The Cascade large-footed mouse (M. richardsoni
arviculoides} eats many kinds of native plants, a list of which has
been published. 28Texas stomachs of Louisiana field mice (M. ludo-
vicianus) contained only green vegetation.29 Numerous caches of mint
bulbs were found in the runways of the Townsend field mice (M.
townsendii}^ Least field mouse (M. minor): "summer food appar-
ently consists entirely of green vegetable matter, of which Artemisia
dracunculoides seems to be particularly favored. The contents of a
storehouse of this species in autumn weighed 19% pounds, consisting
of wheat heads, 29 per cent; Liotris punctata bulbs, 39 per cent; juni-
per berries and galls, 7 per cent; Allium stellatum bulbs, 6 per cent;
Psoralia, Helianthus and Artemisia, 7 per cent. Another store, weigh-
ing 24^ pounds, contained Taraxacum erythrospermum roots, 85 per
cent; Convolvulus sepium roots, 13 per cent; Sisyrhinchiurn, 2 per cent.
Others included Solidago, Geum, Aster and Calamovilfa. One of 2l/2
gallons in a rye field contained rye heads, 94 per cent. One in an oat
field contained oat spikelets, 93 per cent. One beneath oaks contained
acorns, 83 per cent; roots, 17 per cent.31

The natural food of the pallid field mouse (Lagiirus pallidus) is
largely silver sage and blazing star, but it takes also grass and other

25Lantz, An economic study of field mice, U. S. Biol. Surv., Bull. No. 31, pp.
24-37, 1909.

26 Silver, Mouse control in field and orchard, Farmers' Bull., No. 1397, 1924.

27 Bailey, Biological survey of North Dakota, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 94,
1926; Identity of the bean mouse of Lewis and Clark, Journ. Mammalogy, i, 70-72,
1909. Gilmore, Food stored by the bean mouse, Journ. Mammalogy,^ I, 157, 1920.

28 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and Birds of Mount Rainier National Park, p. 76,
1927.

29 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 119-120, 1905.

30 Couch, Storing habits of Microtus townsendii, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 200, 1925.
81 Criddle, The habits of Microtus minor in Manitoba, Journ. Mammalogy, vii,

193-200, 1927.

RODENTIA 287

native plants and grains.32 Sagebrush field mouse (L. arternisiae) : "a
large proportion of the food is composed of Artemisia."33

The pine mice (Pity my sf closely related to Microtiis, especially P.
pinetorum and its subspecies) "are probably the most destructive of
any of the native field rodents of the eastern states." They attack white
and sweet potatoes, bulbs, strawberry, blackberry and other plants,
nursery stock and stored vegetables, eat freshly planted seeds, and
damage orchard trees by gnawing off the bark near the surface of the
ground and girdling the roots.34 As they feed largely underground, at-
tacking trees at the base unseen, it is difficult to detect their work until
too hte to prevent damage.36 It is estimated that in 1915-1917 these
mice damaged fruit trees in Virginia to the extent of $2OO,ooo.36

Prometheomys, of the Caucasus, assigned to this subfamily (Micro-
tinae), "feeds on the grass of the alpine meadows, digging up the
earth, and so destroys the roots of the grass and spoils the meadows."
Mr. Kasnakov writes: "A person who lived in the Gudaur village for
thirty years told me that formerly the peasants gathered from 400 to
500 ricks, whereas now they collect only from 150 to 200 ricks, al-
though the recent ricks are far smaller than before !"37

The round-tailed muskrats or Florida water rats (Neo fiber alleni
and mgrescens) live in bogs and feed upon "vegetation, such as grass,
bark and roots."38 They are of very limited distribution and of no
economic importance.

The muskrat (Ondatra— Fiber of many authors) , native in America,
introduced into some European countries, is now the "most important
fur animal in North America," the annual catch in the United States
alone averaging 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 pelts.39 The actual reported
sales in leading markets for 1919-1920-1921 reached 14, 109, 288 skins.40
The large increase in the use of muskrat fur is shown by the fact that
in 1900 only 4,035,000 from the United States and 5,285,000 from
the whole world were reported to have reached the markets, and they

*- Bailey, N. Anter. Fauna, No. 49, p. 101, 1926.

33 Hall, Notes on the life history of the sagebrush meadow mouse (Lagurus),
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 201-204, 1928.

**Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 54, 1921.

35 Silver, Mouse control in field and orchard, Farmers' Bull., No. 1397, 1924.

36 Bell, Death to rodents, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, p. 423.

87 Ognev, Prometheomys, a remarkable rodent from the Caucasus, Journ. Mam-
malogy, vii, 215-220, 1926.

38 Anthony, Field book of North American mammals, pp. 439-442, 1928.

39 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, pp. 198-202, 1928.

*°Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, m, 226, 1922; Natural History, xxn,
393, 1922.

288 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

were worth only $703,000 at prices then prevailing.41 In the London
market the reported average annual sales of muskrat skins from 1763
to 1915 were as follows, the big slump in 1915 being the result of the
World War:42

Dates

Average Annual Dates

Skins

Totals

sales of skins

1763-1800

75,000

1912

5,014,921

1763-1900

165,000,000

1801-1850

411,000

1913

6,876,417

1901-1913

240,000,000

1851-1900

2,534,000

1914

10,488,647

1001-1910

4,223,000

1915

3,500,000

1911

5,197,530

Muskrat pelts brought from 10 to 12 cents each in 1875, IO to 50
cents in 1907, 80 to 85 cents in 1911, $1.25 in 1912, 12 cents to $5.10
in 1919, $5 to $7 in 1920, according to Laut, 13 cents to $4.55, accord-
ing to Lantz; 8 cents to $2.58 in 1921, 12 cents to $2.46 in 1922. 43

In 1918, 399,938 muskrat skins, worth $599,907, were obtained
in the State of New York.44 In 1924, 319,611 skins, worth $367,552,
were shipped from Alaska.45 In the season 1926-1927 Texas produced
30,000 muskrat skins and Louisiana 3,ooo,ooo,46 163,000 acres of waste
marsh land producing 350,000 in one season.47 Kansas produced
238,174 muskrat skins, for which the dealers paid over $240,000, dur-
ing the three-month season of 1927-1 928. 48 The muskrat industry in
one Maryland county brings in $100,000 annually.49 The Canadian
muskrat catch for 1923-1924 was valued at $2,985,395, and the beaver
catch at $2, 542,992. 50

The drain upon the supply of muskrats has been seriously felt in
many localities. Notwithstanding the lure of increased prices, one Bos-
ton dealer reported a falling off of 50 per cent in the offerings for the
three seasons of 1918, 1919 and 1920, and in Wisconsin, with a 10

41 Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Rept. U. S. Fish Conim.
for 1902, pp. 283-352.

42 Lantz, The muskrat, Farmers' Bull. No. 396, pp. 24-26, 1910 ; The muskrat as a
fur bearer; with notes on its use as food, Farmers' Bull., No. 869, p. 12, 1917; re-
vised, 1923. Rept. Indiana Dept. Fish and Game for 1913-14, pp. 241-249.

43 Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 90-96, 1921. Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No.
869, 1923. Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 89-90, 1913.

44 Johnson, The muskrat: Its natural history and economics, Roosevelt Wild Life
Bull., in, 205-320, 1925.

45 California Fish and Game, x, 82, 1924.

48 Arthur, The fur animals of Louisiana, Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Bull. No. iS;
p. 220, 1927. Conservation News, March, 1924. California Fish and Game, XT, 141,
1925-

47 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, p. 198, 1928.

48 Dose, Kansas' enormous fur trade, Kansas Fish and Game Bull., p. 67, 1928.

49 Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No. 869, p. 17, 1923.

80 Seton, Lives of game animals, iv, Pt. 2, pp. 569-601, 1929.

RODENTIA 289

per cent increase in the number of licensed trappers each year, 800,000
skins were obtained in 1917, only 300,000 in 1918 and only 150,000
in 19 1 9.51 It long ago became evident that the muskrat fur industry
was doomed unless some steps were taken for its preservation. Es-
pecially important was it to curtail the taking of skins during breeding
seasons and at seasons when they are of little value, which practices
were responsible for the fact that so many skins, even during the period
of inflated prices, sold for only a few cents each, thus greatly reducing
the average prices. Consequently, close seasons have been established
by law in most states. In 1925 muskrats were unprotected in only ten
states, protected throughout the year in two, with open seasons of
over 5 months in eight, over 3 months in fifteen, 3 months or less in
eleven.52

The value of muskrats is not confined to their furs. Their flesh is
used largely as food, and is sold in the markets of Baltimore, Washing-
ton, Wilmington, Philadelphia and perhaps other cities, under the name
"marsh rabbit," for which purpose they were selling in 1927 at $2.50
a dozen and the skins at $1.50 each.53 As far back as 1907 one Phila-
delphia dealer sold 3000 carcasses a week during February. Several
publications give directions for preparing and cooking muskrat meat.54
Inasmuch as the trappers must skin the animals anyhow in order to
sell the pelt, the sale of the meat adds considerable to their income
without much effort.

Muskrats reproduce rapidly, having, according to various writers,
from 2 to 5 litters per annum, of from 5 to possibly 20 young to the
litter, 13 embryos having actually been taken from one female.55 Their
fecundity and the facts that they thrive on waste swamp land and do
little or no damage, make muskrat farming profitable in suitable lo-
calities.

Muskrats are largely herbivorous, eating stems and roots of water
plants, grasses, tules, cat-tails, garden vegetables, etc., but also eat

61 Dearborn, The Maintenance of the fur supply, U. S. Biol. Surv. Circular No.
135, PP- 6-7, 1920.

"Ashbrook, Trapping laws and the fur supply, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 168-1/3,
1925-

68 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, pp. 200, 218, 1928.

"Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., in, 303-304, 1925. Lantz, The muskrat,
Farmers' Bull, No. 306, pp. 22-24, 1910; No. 898, pp. 10-11, 1923. Arthur, The fur
animals of Louisiana, pp. 275-277, 1927.

55 Lantz, Farmers' Bull. No. 396, 1910, citing Proc. U. S. Natl. Museum, xxvni,
738, 1905 ; No. 869, 1923. Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., in, 227, 1925. Dixon,
Rodents and reclamation in the Imperial Valley, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 136-146,
1922 Arthur, The fur animals of Louisiana, pp. 290-352. 1927.

2QO ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

snails, mussels, crustaceans, insects, fishes and occasionally small
birds.56 The muskrats at one Minnesota locality "had been cutting down
some young shoots of poplar, about the size of a lead pencil in thick-
ness, from which the leaves had been stripped and eaten, as shown by
the stomach contents."57 Their mussel-eating habit is well known and
has been mentioned by many writers. The fishes caught by muskrats
are mostly sluggish species of little value, such as carp. On the other
hand, it is asserted that in the north they are helpful to fish by keeping
airholes open, thus aerating the water.58 A muskrat was seen catching
a salamander, and they are known to eat crippled ducks during the hunt-
ing season.59

Muskrats sometimes damage river levees, reservoir dams and canal
banks by their burrows, thus flooding fields, or injuring rice fields by
draining them at the wrong season. Such damage may often be pre-
vented by 3-foot woven wire fences, the lower edge set 6 inches be-
neath the surface of the soil.60 In Europe the introduced muskrats are
said to have endangered whole systems of waterways by burrowing
into the embankments and strict regulations have been issued to curtail
their spread.61 Although muskrats are said to sometimes injure rice
fields, it has been said that they are necessary to the existence of wild
rice fields.62

Since its introduction into Europe the muskrat has spread very
rapidly and become locally abundant. Because of its damage to crops
of corn, potatoes, kohlrabi, turnips, carrots, frogs, mussels and fish,
and the damage done to roads and embankments by its burrows, it is
proposed to prohibit its introduction into other localities. In 1921 from
60,000, to 80,000 European muskrat skins were sold at prices com-
paring favorably with those paid for American skins.63

The nutria of South America is "a little rat known as coypu, some-

56 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 102, 1926. Lantz, Farmers' Bull, No. 396,
pp. 15-21, 1910; No. 869, pp. 8, 10, 1923. Arthur, The fur animals of Louisiana, pp.
232-243, 1927. Johnson, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, 247, 1925. The muskrat in
Czechoslovakia, The Nautilus, xxxvm, 103, 1925.

57 Johnson, Notes on the mammals of northern Lake County, Minnesota, Journ.
Mammalogy, in, 37, 1922.

58 American Forests and Forest Life, xxxiv, 120, 1928.
50 Warren, Mammals of Colorado, p. 106, 1910.

60 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 102, 1926. Burnett, Office Colorado State
Entom. Circular No. 25, p. 13, 1918. Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No. 396, 1910; No. 869,
1923.

61 Ahrens, Muskrats in central Europe, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 236-237, 1921.

62 Lucas, A viewpoint on the disappearance of rice beds, Fins, Feathers and Fur,
No. 36, pp. 123-124, 1923; Journ. Mammalogy, v, 140, 1924.

63 The muskrat in Europe, Nature, cxxni, 775, 1929. The muskrat in Czecho-
slovakia, The Nautilus, xxxvm, 103, 1925.

RODENTIA 291

what resembling our own northern muskrat." At the spring auction
sales in 1920, 150,000 were sold in St. Louis, 58,000 in New York
and 20,500 in London, at from 50 cents to $6.10 each.64 Formerly
about 6,000,000 pelts were received annually, and were used mostly in
the manufacture of felt hats, but in 1900 the catch had dropped to
1,500,000, worth $444,000 at prices then prevailing.65 In the 3-year
period, 1919-1921, the reported sales totalled only 1,941, 784,^ or an
average of 647,261 per annum.

One group of South American rats has received the generic name
Ichthyomys, because of their pronounced fish-eating habit.67

FAMILY MURIDAE— OLD WORLD MICE AND RATS

The European house mice (Mus muscidus), introduced into the
United States and other American countries, seldom do much damage
to field crops, as they are found chiefly about buildings ; but they de-
stroy large quantities of stored grain and provisions, damaging as much
as they destroy, because they run about in all sorts of places and track
filth over exposed food supplies.1 However, there has been one serious
outdoor plague of these little pests, when they became very destructive
to crops and forage in a California valley. This outbreak is discussed
on a preceding page, in the introductory remarks on rodents. The total
amount of damage done by them annually in the United States doubt-
less runs up into millions of dollars, but is difficult to estimate with
accuracy. There is an account of one house mouse in captivity killing
and eating lizards placed in the cage.2

The European brown rats, or house rats (Rattus norvegicus, better
known as Mus norvegicus), also transported into nearly all parts of
the civilized world, are a scourge to the human race. As with the house
mouse, they congregate about buildings and grain stacks and do an
immense amount of damage, estimated at $200,000,000 per annum.3

With the lapse of ages the rat has become a parasite on man. It has developed
into the greatest rodent pest ever known. It is far more destructive, directly

**Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 120, 123, 1921; Concerning beaver and
nutria, Forest and Stream, LXIX, 57, 88, 89, 1921.

M Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm.
for 1902, pp. 283, 317.

66 Osborn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 226, 1922 ; Natural History, xxn,
393, 1922.

61 Thomas, On a new fish-eating rat from Bogata, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser.
9, viii, 164-165, 1924; A new fish-eating rat from Equador, ibid., 541-542.

1 Howell, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 45, p. 59, 1921.

2Burt, A note on the mouse as an enemy to lizards, Copeia, No. 162, pp. 15-16,
1927.

3 Science, LXIX, 378, 1929.

2Q2 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

or indirectly, to human life and property than any wild beast or venomous
serpent. It appropriates nearly everything that man eats, and drinks many
of his beverages. It follows him with its baleful influence from the cradle to
the grave. It destroys his poultry and molests his domesticated animals. It
has been known to attack and mutilate infants, sleepers, the sick, aged and
infirm. It is the forerunner of famine, pestilence and death. It carries the germs
of disease. It infects man's ships and habitations with the dreaded plague;
sets fire to his dwellings and ships, and ceases its ravages only when the house
burns or the ship sinks. As if not satisfied with pursuing him through life, it
follows him in death, desecrating and mutilating his mortal remains.4

The brown or Norway rat (Mus norvegicus) is the worst mammal pest in
the United States, the losses from its depredations amounting to many millions
of dollars yearly — to more, indeed, than the losses from all other injurious
mammals combined. In addition to its destructive habits, this rat is now
known to be an active agent in disseminating infectious diseases. ... It de-
stroys grains when newly planted, while growing, and in the shock, stack,
mow, crib, granary, mill, elevator or ship's hold, and also in the bin and feed
trough. It invades store and warehouse, and destroys fur, laces, silks, carpets,
leather goods and groceries. It attacks fruits, vegetables and meats in the
markets, and destroys by pollution ten times as much as it eats. It carries dis-
ease germs from house to house and bubonic plague from city to city. It
causes disastrous conflagrations; floods houses by gnawing lead water pipes;
ruins artificial ponds and embankments by burrowing; destroys the farmers'
pigs, eggs and young poultry; eats the eggs and young of song and game
birds; and damages foundations, floors, doors and furnishings of dwellings.5

The brown house rats affect a "larger percentage of the population
than any other pest in existence."6 Where sheltered and well fed, about
dwellings, stores, warehouses and farmyards, they multiply very rap-
idly. Their fecundity is discussed on a preceding page. The following
items are selected from Forbush's and Lantz' accounts of these rats:
There were 31,981 of them killed on a 2OOO-acre farm in 5 years;
38,000 killed on one Jamaican plantation in I year; 16,050 killed in a
French slaughterhouse in I month; 47,000 killed on 2 Georgian plan-
tations in the winter and spring of one year; 1700 killed in fumigating
i ship in London; 103,000 killed in Copenhagen in 18 weeks, and
71 1,797 in Stockholm in 7 years; during an outbreak of bubonic plague
in San Francisco 278,000 were captured in 4 months and it was esti-
mated that 500,000 more were poisoned; during a plague in India
12,000,000 were killed under a bounty or reward system; 28 were shot
in one cherry tree in a single afternoon ; in one crib they ruined enough
corn to have paid the taxes on a 4OO-acre farm ; on a 29-day voyage

4 Forbush, Rats and rat riddance, Massachusetts Board of Agric., Economic
Biology, Bull. No. i, p. 7, 1915.

6 Lantz, Methods of destroying rats, Farmers' Bull., No. 297, pp. 3-4, 1907; The
house rat: The most destructive animal in the world, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric.
for 1917, pp. 235-251. Hogarth, The rat, a world menace, 1929.

6 Silver, How to get rid of rats, Farmers' Bull, No. 1303, p. 13, 1923.

RODENTIA 293

44,000 bags of grain out of 46,000 were cut by rats, the damage
amounting to $2,200. The damage caused by these rats is estimated
at $3,000,000 in Denmark, $40,000,000 in France, $50,000,000 in
Germany, $73,000,000 in Great Britain and Ireland; $193,615 damage
to business men in Washington, B.C., and $700,000 to business men
of Baltimore, in i year; probably $20,000,000 damage annually in
cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants in the United States. They
"kill more chickens than any other animal."7

Many publications contain directions for the destruction of rats, and
suggestions for the prevention of damage by them.8 Among the meth-
ods for destroying them are trapping, poisoning, fumigating and the
use of ferrets, cats and dogs, though very few cats will attack rats and
many dogs will not. Deterrents, such as odors (naphthaline in large
quantities, creosote, carbolic acid, lysol, paracide, etc.), may be suc-
cessfully used in some cases to drive them from their hiding places,
where no foodstuffs are exposed to the fumes. All weed patches, rub-
bish piles and other hiding and breeding places should be eliminated.
All buildings should be rat-proofed by the free use of cement in
foundations and for basement floors, and sometimes metal to prevent
gnawing about doors. All unnecessary holes or openings in foundations
should be plugged and necessary openings such as drain pipes should
be screened. All food and garbage receptacles should be made rat-
proof and kept closed. Corn cribs may be protected by setting them
three feet above the ground, on posts topped by inverted tin pans. De-
priving the rats of food makes them hungry and more easily trapped
or poisoned. Depriving them of breeding places and hiding places and
driving them out into the open is one of the most effective methods of
preventing their increase. Community action is often necessary in cam-
paigns against rats, as against other pests, in order to get rid of sources
of infestation and to prevent continual inflow of new stock from ex-
traneous breeding grounds. In cities, professional rat hunters are often
employed very advantageously, as trapping and poisoning rats is not
an easy matter. They have acquired considerable resistance to strych-
nine and perhaps to other poisons. City building regulations should re-

7 Fisher, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1908, p. 193.

8 In addition to publications cited in preceding footnotes, see Claremont, A prac-
tical handbook on rat destruction, London, 1926. Silver, Rat control, Farmers' Bull,
No. 1533, 1927. Lantz, The brown rat in the United States, U. S. Biol Surv. Bull.
No. 33, 1909; House rats and mice, Farmers' Bull., No. 896, 1917. Dice, Lethal dose
of strychnine for the Norway rat, Journ. Mammalogy, rv, 188-189, 1923. Hovell,
Rats and how to destroy them, London, 1924. Reese, Outlines of economic zoology,
pp. 234-244, 1919. Munch, Silver and Horn, Red squill powders, U. S. Dept. Agric.
Technical Bull, No. 134, 1929.

294 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

quire the rat-proofing of all buildings, not only as a sanitary measure,
but also to prevent them from becoming breeding places for rats.
Silver, in the preface to a recent bulletin, says: "When rat-proofing
becomes the regular practice the rat problem will have been largely
solved."9

The house rat as a disseminator of bubonic plague has been dis-
cussed in Chapter xm. Introduced into Japan, these rats at ebb tide
"enter into sea water and capture shells, as well as small fishes, etc."10

In view of all that has been said against the brown rat, it is refresh-
ing to record an item in its favor. One is reported to have killed a
rattlesnake.11

FAMILY APLODONTIDAE— MOUNTAIN BEAVERS

The genus Aplodontia ranges from northern California to British
Columbia. Their summer food is mostly green vegetation, "practically
everything the season affords," and they do some damage to vegetable
gardens. Their winter food is mostly bark, and in girdling trees they
cause more or less injury. In their storehouses in the Puget Sound
Basin 32 different kinds of plants have been found. In some places
their burrows damage roads.1 Their habit of "hay-making," or gather-
ing, piling up apparently to dry, and storing vegetation, a habit shared
with the pikas, has led to a difference of opinion. One author says that
the material is used only for nest building, perhaps overlooking the
fact that their summer food, green vegetation, is not available in the
winter.2

FAMILY ZAPODIDAE— JUMPING MICE

Prairie jumping mouse (Zapus hudsoni campestris) : many stomachs
examined, contained only seeds, usually of grasses, but some seeds of
other plants and grain.3 Usually not abundant enough to do harm.

FAMILY ERETHIZONTIDAE— AMERICAN PORCUPINES

The summer food of the North American porcupines (Erethizon)
consists of almost any green vegetation available, including alfalfa and

9 Silver, Rat-proofing buildings and premises, Farmers' Bull. No. 1638, 1930.

10 Kuroda, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 44, 1922.

11 Hartman, A brown rat kills a rattler, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 116-117, 1922.

1 Scheffer, Mountain beaver in the Pacific Northwest : Their habits, economic
status and control, U. S. Dept. Agric. Technical Bull., No. 1598, 1929. Taylor and
Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount Rainier National Park, pp. 86-87, 1927.

2Seton, Lives of game animals, iv, Part 2, pp. 526-555, 1929; citing Nelson, Wild
animals of North America, pp. 532-533, 1918. Camp, Excavation of the burrows of
the rodent Aplodontia, etc., Univ. California Pub. Zool, xvn, No. 18, pp. 517-536,
1918.

3 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 117, 1926.

RODENTIA 295

other crops, and in the winter, the bark of trees.4 In Alaska some birch
trees have been "entirely stripped of bark" by porcupines.5 In New
York one was observed eating lily pads.6 Locally, where abundant, they
do considerable damage to forest trees, and injure buildings wherever
salt has gotten on the wood. At a ranger station thirteen were killed
while gnawing the front porch where sacks of salt had been stored,
and one, attracted by the salty taste of the sweaty handles of a plow,
gnawed them off.7 Another gnawed the steering wheel of an automo-
bile nearly off.8 An orchard was unmolested for seven years, with por-
cupines all about it. Then in about sixteen days of late September and
October they killed 140 plum and cherry trees, and damaged apple
trees by climbing to the tops and nibbling the fruit spurs.9 They some-
times damage field and garden crops, as well as trees. The contents of
20 stomachs weighed 10 per cent as much as the total weight of the
bodies, including contents. Because of their fondness for salt, a salt-
strychnine mixture is excellent for poisoning them.10 In some locali-
ties they are protected by law or public sentiment, while in other lo-
calities they become abundant and are so destructive that it is deemed
advisable to thin them out.

Porcupine quills often seriously injure dogs that attack them, and
perhaps other mammals, as well as eagles.11 The quills have been much
used by the American Indians in the ornamentation of clothing, moc-
casins, tobacco pouches, war bonnets, baskets and other articles, "one
of the most distinctive of native American arts/'1

FAMILY HYSTRICIDAE— OLD WORLD PORCUPINES

The African porcupine (Hystrix cristata) is almost entirely vege-
tarian and does a great deal of damage to gardens.13 "The flesh, baked
in clay, is a popular food in Africa."14

4 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 114, 1926.

8 Murie, The porcupine in Alaska, Journ: Mammalogy, vn, 109-113, 1926. See also
Halt, The relation of mammals to the Harvard Forest, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull.,
v, 652-656, 1930.

6 Schoonmaker, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 84, 1930.

7 Gabrielson, Porky, Forest and Stream, Jan., 1929, p. 22.

8 Wyman, A hungry porcupine, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 190, 1923.
"Mosteller, Porcupines in relation to Wyoming orchards, 7th Biennial Kept.

Wyoming State Board Horticulture, pp. 25-27, 1918.

10 Gabrielson, Notes on the habits and behavior of the porcupine in Oregon,
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 33-38, 1928.

11 Lano, Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and porcupine, The Auk, xxxix, 258-
259, 1922.

2 Ingersoll, The life of animals, p. 415, 1907.

13 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 145, 1910.

"Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 180, 1927.

296 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

FAMILY CHINCHILLIDAE— CHINCHILLAS

The Andean South American chinchilla is "a rodent with a fine fur
that has long had a high value in commerce," though often popularly
confused with the much less valuable "chinchilla rabbit."1 Chinchilla
skins were used by the ancient Incas as fur for clothing, and the long
hairs from the fur were utilized in weaving cloth. Their flesh is good.
They were abundant a century ago, but the demand for fur has nearly
exterminated them except in the more inaccessible regions.2 In 1919-
1921 the reported fur sales included only 36,448 chinchilla skins.3 The
skins of the blue chinchilla bring about $110 a dozen, and those of the
white chinchilla from $43 to $58 a dozen. "Bolivia has had to enforce
a close time for some years to allow it to recover from the furrier's
demand for one of the world's finest furs."4

The viscachas of eastern South America occur in colonies and do
some damage to crops.5 On the plains of Argentina they are numerous
and troublesome.6

FAMILY CAVIIDAE— CAVIES

The "guinea pigs" were domesticated by the natives of the Andean
region in South America, lived in their houses and were used as food,
before the arrival of the Spaniards, Their flesh is said to be excellent.7
They have been introduced into many other countries as pets, and are
extensively used in scientific experiments, such as testing serums, anti-
toxins and foods.

FAMILY OCHOTONIDAE— PIKAS

This family, including the pikas, or little chief hares (Ochotona),
sometimes called conies, though quite different from the Old World
conies, is placed in the order Lagomorpha, with the family Leporidae —
hares and rabbits. The pikas in the United States are confined to high
mountains and are of little economic consequence. They feed upon
many species of native plants. Indeed, they utilize for food most of
the species of plants about them. From their habit of cutting small
plants and piling them up "to dry" for winter food, they are often
called "haymakers."8

1 Green, Chinchilla rabbits for food and fur, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 22,
1928.

2 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, pp. 231-239, 1928.

3 Osborn and Anthony, Natural History, XXH, 393, 1922.

4 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 416, 1927.
8 Jennison, Natural history^, animals, p. 183, 1927.
e Ingersoll, The life of animals, p. 416, 1907.

7 Raising guinea pigs, U. S. Dept. Agric., Farmers' Bull, No. 525, 1921.

8 Osgood, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 30, p. 27, 1909. Merriam, N. Amer. F-auna, No. 5,
P- 73, 1891 ; No. 16, p. 99, 1899. Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and birds of Mount

R O D E N T J A 297

FAMILY LEPORIDAE— HARES AND RABBITS

This is a very important family, useful because of the flesh and fur,
often harmful to crops because of numbers and food habits. The de-
structiveness of rabbits is partly discussed in connection with that of
various rodents, in the introductory remarks under Rodentia. Being
much larger than most rodents, they individually require more food.
Their birth rate is high, so that under favorable circumstances they
multiply very rapidly. The common European rabbit is said to breed
at the age of six months and to live 7 or 8 years, producing from 4 to
8 litters per annum, of from 3 to 8 young to the litter.1

As a general rule their natural enemies, such as eagles, hawks, owls,
wolves, coyotes, foxes, wildcats and human hunters, keep the rabbits
within reasonable bounds,2 especially the cottontails. Under one great
horned owl's nest 100 skulls of cottontails were found.3 It was long
ago declared that in Montana jack rabbits were common only where
coyotes and wolves were scarce,4 but it has been noted also that preda-
cious animals sometimes congregate where rabbits are abundant for
food. Rabbits are subject to somewhat periodic fluctuations, regardless
of predacious animals. The periods in case of the varying hare (snow-
shoe rabbit) is about 10 or 12 years, according to Innis,5 or 7 years,
according to Henderson.6 Such fluctuations, at least in case of jack
rabbits, do "not affect the whole country simultaneously, for at the
same season the rabbits may fairly swarm in one valley and be scarce
in another."7 This is also true of cottontails in southwestern Colorado,
and probably elsewhere.

Rabbits have many diseases and parasites,8 and it has been noticed
by many observers that when rabbits become very abundant epidemic
diseases finally check their further increase and eventually reduce

Rainier National Park, p. in, 1927. Seton, Lives of game animals, iv, Part 2, pp.
636-646, 1929.

1 Palmer, The jack rabbits of the United States, U. S. Div. Orn. and Mam. Bull.
No. 8, 1896; U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 8, 1897.

! Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 134-138, 1926.

* Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, 157-159, 1905.

4Grinnell (G. B.), Rept. of Chief of Engineers, U. S. Dept. War, for 1876, Part
3, P. 639.

5 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, p. 90, 1927.

6 A. D. Henderson, Cycles of abundance and scarcity in certain mammals and
birds, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 264-265, 1923.

7 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 152-155, 1905.

8 Schwartz and Snook, Rabbit parasites and diseases, Farmers' Bull., No. 1568,
1928. Stiles, A revision of the adult tapeworms of hares and rabbits, Proc. U. S.
Nail. Museum, xix, 145-235, 1897. De Ong, Parasites which affect the food value of
rabbits, California Fish and Game, I, 142-143, 1914. Dearborn, Rabbit raising,
Farmers' Bull., No. 1090, pp. 32-34, 1920.

298 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

them to normal numbers.9 The relation of rabbits to tularemia, which
affects human beings, is discussed in Chapter xm, on Mammals as
Disease Carriers. They also are among the hosts of the ticks which
carry the spotted fever.10

Rabbits are almost strictly vegetarian and feed upon all sorts of
vegetation.11 When abundant, they cause a great deal of damage to
farm crops and range grass, and, by gnawing the bark, sometimes kill
fruit trees. In a small area in New York State the winter food of the
cottontails includes the bark, shoots, stems and small branches of at
least 71 kinds of trees and shrubs.12 The summer food of the white-
tailed jack rabbits (Lepus townsendii campanins) in North Dakota
is largely grass and other prairie plants, growing grain, when obtaina-
ble; in winter, mostly browse on tips of branches and buds of small
trees and shrubs, including fruit trees and berry bushes.13 Skinner tells
of a white-tailed jack rabbit eating dandelion stems at the rate of 80
in 10 minutes, discarding the seeds.14 The varying hare (Lcpus anieri-
canus) has about the same food habits as the white-tailed jack rabbit.15

The Rocky Mountain snowshoe rabbits (L. bairdi) are very injuri-
ous to new growth of conifers in the Wasatch Mountains, Utah. They
continually eat back the tops, one small fir having been annually eaten
back for 46 years before one shoot grew beyond the reach of the rab-
bits. The loss, from this cause, of newly planted trees is very large.
Similar damage has been noted in Australia, Austria, England, France
and northern Europe. "It is reasonably certain that the rabbits will
increase as the coyotes decrease and that the injury to conifers will
therefore increase. With the destruction of a large number of coyotes
on the national forests the rabbits have had to be controlled, especially
in the vicinity of plantations."16 Five jack rabbits eat as much grass as
one sheep. At only one rabbit to the acre the rabbits on a looo-acre

"Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, p. 161, 1911. Lantz, Cottontail rabbits in relation
to trees and farm crops, Farmers' Bull., No. 702, 1916; revised, 1924. Hewitt, The
conservation of the wild life of Canada, p. 218, 1918, citing Seton, Life histories
of northern mammals, I, 640-641 1909. Preble, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 27, p. 201,
1908. Soper, Notes on the snowshoe rabbit, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 101-108, 1921.
Seton, Lives of game animals, iv, Part 2, pp. 705-714, 1929.

10 Birdseye, Farmers' Bull., No. 484, 1912.

11 Palmer, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 8, 1897.

"Todd, Winter food of cottontail rabbits, Journ. Mammalogy, vin, 222-228, 1927.

13 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 141, 1926.

14 Skinner, White-tailed jack rabbit eats dandelion stalks, Journ. Mammalogy,
vin, 249, 1927.

16 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 139, 1926. Ligon, Wild life of Ne^v Mexico,
N. Mex. Game Comm., p. 108, 1927.

16 Baker, Korstian and Fetherolf, Snowshoe rabbits and conifers in the Wasatch
Mountains of Utah, Ecology, n, 304-310, 1921.

RODENTIA 299

ranch would eat as much as 100 sheep.17 The damage done to the cotton
crop by rabbits in Midland County, Texas, was estimated at $95,ooo.18
In 1916 cottontails and jack rabbits destroyed the entire crop in some
fields in San Diego County, California.19 The Macfarlane snowshoe
rabbits (Lepus americamis macfarlani) "feed mostly on the bark and
small twigs of willow and paper birch, but in winter hunger sometimes
drives them to eat alder and spruce."20 Two coast swamp rabbits
(Sylvilagus aquaticus littoralis) in captivity ate an average of grass
equivalent to 42.2 per cent of their own weight daily.21

European hares (Lepus europaeus) were liberated in New York and
Ontario many years ago, for sport, and have spread into Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and probably
other states. They damage orchards, small fruit bushes, shade trees
and ornamental shrubbery, in winter when other food is scarce. The
damage to orchards in one county alone in the winter of 1915-1916
amounted to $ioo,ooo.22 These hares in the San Juan Islands have
barked trees, destroyed other vegetation and done considerable dam-
age by burrowing, undermining some government buildings.23 Intro-
duced into Australia, where they had no natural enemies, rabbits in-
creased rapidly, and in ten years, from 1878 to 1888, did damage to
the extent of $i5,ooo,ooo.24 Because of the damage by the plague of
rabbits to the food for sheep, the number of sheep in New South
Wales was reduced from 60,000,000 in 1893 to 32,000,000 in I923.25
In addition to the direct damage, millions of dollars have been spent
in the destruction of rabbits and in the construction of rabbit-proof
fences to prevent their ravages.

Though it is usually considered that hares and rabbits are strictly
vegetarian in habit, Soper says that snowshoe rabbits often spring
traps set for valuable fur-bearers, by "tampering with meat baits,"

17 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 152-155, 1905.

18 Science, LXIX, 378, 1929.

19 Bryant, Rabbits damage crops in San Diego County, California Fish and Game,
n, 215-218, 1916.

20 Dice, Notes on the mammals of interior Alaska, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 20-28,
1921.

21 Svihla, Habits of Sylvilagus aquaticus littoralis, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 315-
319, 1929-

22 Silver, The European hare (Lepus europaeus Pallas) in North America, Journ.
Agric. Research, xxvin, 1135-1137, 1924.

28 Couch, Introduced European rabbits in the San Juan Islands, Washington,
Journ. Mammalogy, x, 334-336, 1929.

24 Palmer, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 8, p. 32, 1897.

25 Nature, cxn, 553, 1923. See also Beal, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1900,
p. 300.

3OO ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

and that they will eat the flesh of "another rabbit, muskrat, or any
other small animal," if the skin has been torn or removed, but will not
eat those whose skins are entire.26 Saunders says that in Ontario the
introduced European hares sometimes kill cottontail rabbits, but do
not eat them.27 Rabbits are said to devour land snails also, and cotton-
tail rabbits were found to be eating the cocoons of the large silk moth,
Samia cecropia.28

Because of the recreational value they provide for numerous hunt-
ers, and the value of their flesh for food, rabbits are partially protected
by law in many states and Canadian provinces.29 In addition, at least
seven states have, within the past few years, brought in live rabbits
from other states and liberated them, in order to replenish their de-
pleted stock.30 In contrast with this, many states at various times have
paid bounties for the destruction of both cottontails and jack rabbits,
but that course has not proved effective, a subject discussed in Chap-
ter xxvn, on Legislation Concerning Mammals.

In western states, where rabbits have been particularly destructive,
organized drives and poisoning campaigns are frequently conducted,
often in cooperation with the United States Biological Survey. In one
such campaign 40,000 jack rabbits were killed in one Idaho county,
15,000 in another, 20,000 in another, 19,000 in another and 5000 in an-
other.31 One day's shooting by 200 guns at Lamar, Colorado, netted
5142 rabbits, a two-day hunt at the same place netted 6000, while a one-
day drive in San Joaquin Valley, California, netted 35,000 rabbits.32 In
Crook County, Oregon, 59,000 were killed in one winter.33 In Grant
County, Washington, 61,000 rabbits were killed in one campaign, and
94,000 in adjacent counties.34 Palmer gives detailed lists of 220 rabbit

28 Soper, Notes on the snowshoe rabbit, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 101-107, 1921.

27 Saunders, Carnivorous habit of the European hare, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 170,
1929.

28 Wright, Journ. Conch., xn, 268, 1922. Oldham, Journ. Conch., xvin, 335, 1929.
Lawson, Journ. Conch., xvin, 327-328, 1929. Pilsbry and Bequaert, Bull. Amer. Mus.
Nat. Hist., LIII, 479, 1927. Taylor, Monog. land and fresh-water Mollusca of Brit.
Isles, m, 281. Bird, Cottontail rabbits are insectivorous, Journ. Mammalogy, xi,
240, 1930.

29 Game laws for the season 1929-1930, Farmers' Bull., No. 1616, 1929.

30 Dice, The transfer of game and fur-bearing mammals from state to state,
with special reference to the cottontail rabbit, Journ. Mammalogy, vm, 90-96, 1927.

31 Bell, Death to rodents, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1920, p. 436.

32 Jones, The squirrel hunters of Ohio, p. 172, 1898. Miller, Recreation, Jan.,
1899, p. 45. McCurdy, Recreation, Jan., 1899, pp. 17-18. All cited by Seton, Lives of
game animals, iv, Pt. 2, pp. 757-761, 1929.

33 Bell, Cooperative campaigns for the control of ground squirrels, prairie-dogs
and jack rabbits, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, p. 232.

84 Couch, Relationship of predatory mammals and birds of prey to rodent life,
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 73, 1928.

RODENTIA 3OI

drives in California, Oregon, Idaho, Utah and Colorado, in which
470,107 rabbits were killed. In California, 20,000 were killed in Tulare
County in one month, 70,000 altogether during the spring of 1888,
70,000 in Kern County and 40,000 in Fresno County. During a Grand
Army of the Republic drive in Fresno County in 1892, in which 8000
people were said to have participated, it was estimated that between
20,000 and 30,000 rabbits were killed.35 In one drive 15,000 were killed
on a tract of about twenty square miles.36

Methods of destroying rabbits and of protecting crops, trees and
shrubbery therefrom, including the encouragement of their natural
enemies, the construction of rabbit-proof fences, etc., are discussed
in various publications mentioned in foregoing footnotes. From 1879
to 1888 New Zealand and Australia spent $5,323,315 in the destruc-
tion of rabbits and $468,468 in the construction of rabbit-proof
fences.37 In 1887, 19,182,539 were destroyed in New Zealand alone.38

With higher prices and the increasing demand for furs, and the
consequent decreasing supply, rabbit skins have come into extensive
use, not only in the manufacture of felt hats and the like, but also for
fur clothing. New methods have been developed for preparing and
dyeing them, and they are sold under various trade names, not merely
as rabbit fur. As long ago as 1898 it was said that 15,000,000 rabbit
skins had been exported from New Zealand during the preceding five
years, and 200,000,000 since i873.39 The following figures are given
of exports of such skins from Australasia prior to 1895:*°

Exported from Year Number Value

New Zealand 1873-1884 180,037,562 $6,854,187

Tasmania 1892-1894 31,912,182 1,083,098

Victoria 1878-1893 68,637,990 1,989,177

South Australia 1885-1894 335,5^4

$10,262,046

In 1921, Miss Laut said: "This year England has paid as high as
50 cents a pound and imported 90,000,000 rabbits. In the New York
auction sales, best Australian rabbit sold at from $1.40 to $3.i5/'41

85 Palmer, Jack rabbits of the United States, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull No. 8, pp.
47-64, 1896.

36 Forest and Stream, xxxvm, March 3, 1892, p. 197, cited by Palmer.
87 Palmer, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 8, p. 44, 1896.

38 Palmer, The danger of introducing noxious animals and birds, Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agric. for 1898, p. 93.

39 Palmer, Yearbook for 1898, p. 93.

40 Palmer, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 8, p. 70, 1896.

41 Laut, The fur trade of America, p. 5, 1921 ; see also p. 84.

302 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

There were 3,713,036 white hare skins reported as sold in the world's
markets in 1 9 19- 192 1.42 In 1928, 100,000,000 rabbit skins were im-
ported to the United States, 40 per cent for fur garments, 50 per cent
used in the manufacture of felt hats.43

Chinchilla rabbits have often been confused with Chinchilla lanigera,
a small very different South American rodent, which has a fine fur.
This has led to a very much exaggerated idea of the value of the
chinchilla rabbits as fur-bearers. Their furs are more attractive than
those of most other rabbits, but prices do not justify raising them for
the fur alone, though they may be profitably bred for both meat and
fur, as with other rabbits.44

Not only do rabbit skins form an important item in the world's fur
sales, but they also affect the fur trade indirectly, "as a source of sus-
tenance for various fur-bearing animals, as when these [varying]
hares are plentiful, meat-eating fur-bearers are also plentiful. In order
to show just how important it is to the fur trade, the following figures
may be of interest. In the winters of 1905-1906 and 1906-1907, when
hares were very abundant, I bought at Pembina River 860 and 980
lynx skins. In the spring of 1907 the hares died off and in the season
of 1907-1908 I received only 40 lynx skins from the same territory."45
Canadian trappers recognize the dependence of the fur catch upon
the relative abundance of rabbits and mice.

The meat of rabbits is also valuable. In 1918, 465,000 cottontail
rabbits were killed in the State of New York; 2,700,000 killed in
Pennsylvania in 1919 and 5,000,000 in 1921, furnishing 14,250,000
pounds of meat; 293,625 in Virginia in 1920, 332,000 in 1922; proba-
bly 25,000,000 killed annually in the United States, which, at 20 cents
each, are worth $5,000,000 for their meat alone.46 Over $1,000,000
worth of rabbit meat was sold in Los Angeles in I928.47 Missouri
shipped to the nation's markets, for the Christmas trade of 1928, over
3,500,000 rabbits, worth $45o,ooo.48 Set-on intimates that the meat
of cottontail rabbits in the United States reaches a value of $25,000,000

42 O shorn and Anthony, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 226, 1922; Natural History, xxn,
393, 1922.

43 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, p. 4, 1928.

44 Green, Chinchilla rabbits for food and fur, U. S. Biol. Surv. Leaflet No. 22,
1928. Science, LIII, 387, 1921.

45 A. D. Henderson, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 264-265, 1923.

46 Palmer, Game as a national resource, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1049, 1922.
Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., in, 551, 1926.

47 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, p. 219, 1928.

48 Missouri Fish and Game Neivs, v, No. i, 1929. California Fish and Game, xv,
181, 1929.

H Y R A C E S 303

per annum, and that they furnish sport to 10,000,000 hunters, which
may be somewhat overestimated.49

Before the outbreak of the World War, 100,000,000 rabbits were
marketed each year in France, $1,000,000 worth annually imported
from Belgium to England, England herself produced from 30,000,000
to 40,000,000, London consumed 500,000 pounds of rabbit meat daily
in 1911 and Paris 200,000, and $4,500,000 worth was imported from
Australia and New Zealand to London in 191 1.50 About 35 years ago
the canning of rabbit meat for exportation to Europe was begun and
developed rapidly.51 The United States Bureau of Home Economics
has^ recently issued a leaflet containing recipes for the cooking of rabbit
meat.52

There are reasons for suspecting that the flesh of varying hare in
the Mackenzie River region may not be very nourishing in the winter,
especially when used as an almost exclusive diet. "In summer, when
the animals live mainly on herbaceous plants, their flesh is very palata-
ble, though woefully lacking in nourishing qualities, but in winter,
when they feed largely on the foliage and bark of resinous trees, the
meat acquires a somewhat bitter taste. When Indians are living mainly
on rabbits, they call it 'starving,' though they may be eating bounte-
ously of the meat every two or three hours, and it is said that if
nothing else is obtainable, they gradually grow weaker on this diet."5
Under the ancient Hebrew law hares were considered "unclean" and
forbidden as food for the people.54

ORDER HYRACES— CONIES

The conies of Asia Minor and eastern and southern Africa (Hyrax
capensis) are very different from the so-called conies of western North
American mountains. They are probably the conies of the Bible: "The
conies are but feeble folk,"1 "the prey of every predatory beast and
bird and reptile."2 They were pronounced "unclean," in the Law of
Moses, therefore not to be eaten by the chosen people.3 They live on

49 Seton, Lives of game animals, iv, Pt. 2, p. 791, 1929.

50 Dearborn, Rabbit growing to supplement the meat supply, Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agric. for 1918, pp. 145-152; Rabbit raising, Farmers' Bull., No. 1090, 1920.

51 Palmer, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1898, p. 93.

62Yeatman and Stienberger, Rabbit recipies, Bur. Home Econ. Leaflet No. 66-L,
1930.

53 Preble, A biological investigation of the Athabaska-Mackenzie region, N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 27, p. 201, 1908.

54 Leviticus, xi, 6; Deuteronomy, xiv, 7.

1 Proverbs, xxx, 26.

2 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 197, 1927.
8 Lev. xi, 5 ; Deut., xiv, 7.

304 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

rocky ground and feed on leaves, roots, bulbs and shoots. The Somali
dassie (Procavia brucei somalica) also lives among rocks and is en-
tirely herbivorous.4 No species of this order is of economic importance.

ORDER PROBOSCIDEA— ELEPHANTS

Asiatic elephants have long been trained to work, and are employed
advantageously in various industries, such as handling heavy timbers.
Their great strength makes them very valuable for certain kinds of
work. A large elephant will carry from 1800 to 2500 pounds on its
back according to Austin, 1200 according to Jennison, and can push
or pull heavy loads, exerting a force equal to that of 50 men.1 Trained
elephants are successfully used in hunting tigers in India.2

It is generally believed that the African elephants cannot be domesti-
cated, but they are said to have been trained for service in war by the
ancient Romans and Carthagians.3 Oswell, according to Selous, thinks
the Carthagians may have used Asiatic elephants obtained in India.4
Recent attempts to train the African species to work in harness have
met with success, and it is declared that in the Belgian Congo they are
more economical in plowing than tractors, while, unlike horses, they
are immune from the tsetse fly.5 White elephants in India are not used
as work animals, but are reserved for religious ceremonies.

Trained elephants perform many rather astonishing feats, consider-
ing their size and awkward appearance, in circuses, to the delight of
thousands of people annually, and they find a place in every menagerie,
as also in many zoological parks. Elephants occur in a wild state in
portions of Asia, Africa and some tropical islands. The wild animals,
of such great bulk and travelling in herds, are capable of doing much
damage when they visit plantations or native villages, and are very
dangerous to human beings. Hence they must give way as the regions
inhabited by them are settled by large populations of permanent human
inhabitants. However, that does not justify the ruthless slaughter that

4 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 109, 1910.

1 Austin, Queer methods of travel in curious corners of the world, Natl. Geog.
Mag., p. 688, 1907. Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 204, 1927.

2 Morden, Tiger hunting in Nepal, Nat. Hist. Mag., xxix, 339-352, 1929, with
many photos.

3 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 203, 1927.

4 Selous, Nature Lovers Library, v, 156-157, 1917, citing Oswell; Standard Library
of Nat. Hist., i, 178-179, 1908.

8 Phillips, Trained African elephants, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 130-131, 1925. Lyell,
Domestication of the African elephant, The Field, London, CXL, 153, 1927; Journ.
Mammalogy, vin, 171, 1927. Science News Supplement, Science, April 6, 1928, p. x.

ARTIODACTYLA 305

has for years been in progress and still continues. Unfortunately for
the elephants, they possess large ivory tusks, which find a ready market
and appeal to the avarice of tusk hunters. In 1889 it was estimated that
100,000 elephants, "a procession 180 miles long," were killed each year
in order to supply the world with ivory.6 In 1926 it was said that, not-
withstanding efforts to protect them by law, $250,000 worth of tusks
are still annually smuggled across the boundary from British Africa
to Italian Somaliland.7 Occasionally even circus elephants "run amuck"
and kill people, as happened in one of the southern states in 1929, and
of course wild elephants are always dangerous. Many people are killed
by them in both Africa and Asia. Elephants killed four people in
India in i895.8 Such tragedies are not uncommon where these huge
animals run wild.

A great deal of ivory has been obtained from the tusks of fossil
mammoths — extinct species of elephant. Such tusks are often found
in the United States, but are usually considerably weathered. In Alaska
they are frequently found in frozen soil and ice, which has preserved
them from weathering and kept them in good condition. They are
much more abundant in the frozen portions of Siberia. Digby says
he saw 1,000 pairs of mammoth tusks in a single year, and that
ancient Chinese writings show that mammoth ivory was brought into
China from Siberia centuries ago.9 Very ancient carved ivory is found
in European caves, and the search for fossil ivory extends far back in
the past. Mammoths were obtained by the prehistoric peoples of
Europe by means of pitfalls and the ivory tusks were used by them.
The northern ivory trade of China has been traced back as far as
50 B.C. The estimates of the number of fossil mammoths discovered
in Siberia during the last 250 years vary from 20,000 to 62,ooo.10

ORDER ARTIODACTYLA — EVEN-TOED, HOOFED MAMMALS

This order includes, among others, several of the most important
families of domesticated mammals.

' Lucas, Ann. Kept. U. S. Natl. Museum for 1889, p. 611.

7 Carey, Journ. Mammalogy, vii, 83, 1926. Lang, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 163,
1923. Phillips, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 130-131, 1925.

*F. C. K., Deaths from wild mammals and snakes in India, Amer. Naturalist,
xxxi, 77-78, 1897.

9 Digby, The mammoth and mammoth hunting in northeast Siberia, pp. 21, 53,
1926.

M Osborn, The romance of the woolly mammoth, Natural History, xxx, 227-239,
1930.

306 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

FAMILY SUIDAE — THE SWINE (Hoes, PECCARIES, ETC.)

The domesticated swine are very important animals. The domestica-
tion was accomplished so long ago that there is no record of it in
written history — at least 4900 years ago in China.1 They are quite
omnivorous. Their flesh, familiarly known as pork, constitutes about
one-half of all the meat used in the United States, 68.5 pounds per
capita in 1927, together with 13.8 pounds of lard per capita, the total
amount of pork consumed being 8,122,000,000 pounds, and of lard
i, 634,000,000. 2 Pork is particularly valuable, because, unlike most other
meats, it may readily be cured by salting and smoking, without losing
flavor or becoming dry and hard, and may thus be kept in good condi-
tion for a long period and transported long distances, without re-
frigeration, the smoked bacon and ham being eaten with relish by
many people who do not care for fresh pork.

In 1927 there were in the United States 52,536,000 head of swine,
valued at $838,420,000, and in other countries, 103,278,000 head.3
In 1925 the United States produced under federal inspection
8,255,000,000 pounds of pork and 2,223,000,000 pounds of lard.4 In
addition to the meat and lard, the skins and bristles are articles of
commerce.

Formerly there were very heavy losses to hog-raisers, chiefly due
to epidemics of cholera, but methods of controlling the disease have
been developed, resulting in the stimulation of that industry.5

Hunting wild boars has for centuries furnished exciting sport in
various parts of Europe and Asia. They are formidable antagonists.
Though hunting them with modern repeating rifles in expert hands
may not be especially dangerous, hunting them in the old-fashioned
way with spear and bow and arrow was very dangerous sport. In
India wild boars are said sometimes to kill tigers,6 and they often kill
human beings, at least 51 people having been killed by them in one
year.7

1 Heller, The derivation of the European domestic animals, Ann. Kept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1912, pp. 483-491. Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of
Canada, p. 310, 1921.

2 Statistics of farm animals and animal products, Separate No. 976 from Year-
book U. S. Dept. Agric for 1927. Statistical Bull, U. S. Dept Agric., No. 20, 1927.

sNew York World Almanac for 1928, pp. 371, 376.

4 U. S. Dept. Agric. Statistical Bull, No. 20, 1927.

5 Hess, Less cholera — more hogs, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1918, pp.
191-194.

6 Bryden, in Nature Lovers Library, v, 276, 1917.

7 Science, xxxvii, 938, 1913.

ARTIODACTYLA 307

FAMILY PHACOCHOERIDAE— WART AND FOREST HOGS

The wart hogs (Phacochoerus) , of Africa, are vegetarians, and
feed largely on grass, hut take also leaves, bulbs, roots and fruit.*
They "often root up the ground, but the stomachs of those we shot
were commonly filled with nothing but grass."9 Their flesh is pro-
nounced good. The forest hogs (Hylochoerus), also of Africa, are said
to live on leaves and fruit.10

FAMILY TAYASSUIDAE— PECCARIES

The Texas collared peccaries (Pecari angitlatus) feed largely on
acorns, but take also pecans, walnuts and other mast, roots, herbs,
fruits and berries. When other food is scarce, they "utilize the hardy
cacti and other desert plants to meet their needs." "The flesh, though
strong, is sometimes eaten, but its value to the sportsman lies in the
sport of hunting, as well as in the trophies gained." They are vicious
fighters, with powerful tusks that can "quickly cut a dog to pieces."1
Mearns tells of the "treeing of a negro servant by a band of infuri-
ated peccaries," but adds that "although stories of similar occurrences
are commonly repeated by the white settlers of the Southwest, this
is the only instance of an attack made on man by peccaries that has
come to me on unimpeachable authority."2

FAMILY HIPPOPOTAMIDAE— HIPPOPOTAMUSES

"Hippos are sometimes dangerous at night," and have been known
to wantonly attack and kill a boy, and to attack canoes and boats and
damage crops. They feed on water plants in the late afternoon, but
at night "come ashore to feed on the grass and land plants. In conse-
quence, those killed during the day, until the late afternoon, had their
stomachs filled, not with water plants, but with grasses which they
must have obtained in their night journeys."3

"The Kafue and Zambesi River hippos eat only grass." The dried

8 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 310, 1927. Drake-Brockman, The mammals
of Somaliland, p. 100, 1910.

9 Roosevelt, African game trails, p. 87, 1910.

10 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 311, 1927.

1 Ligon, Wild life of New Mexico, New Mexico Game Comm., p. 97, 1927. Gary,
in Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, p. 59, 1905. Mearns, U. S. Natl. Museum Bull.
No. 56, p. 16, 1907. Stone and Cram, American animals, p. 30, 1902.

2 Mearns, Mammals of the Mexican Boundary, U. S. Natl. Museum Bull. No.
56, p. 167, 1907-

8 Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 212, 243-244, 347. Jennison, Natural history:
animals, p. 308, 1927.

308 ECONOMIC MAMALOGY

hide "has a market value of roughly a shilling a pound." "The fat
also makes very acceptable lard and sells for the same price as the
hide."4

Each hippopotamus "has two sickle-shaped canine teeth and two
straight incisors, probably for defense. . . . These teeth are the whitest
and hardest ivory known, much in demand for piano keys and den-
tistry. Many hippopotami are killed for them alone, but a big speci-
men will yield in addition a ton of excellent fat, and of the tough hide
the Kourbash whip is made."5

FAMILY CAMELIDAE — CAMELS, LLAMAS, ALPACAS, ETC.

Camels were domesticated in very ancient times. In certain desert
regions of Africa and Asia they are indispensable animals, "ships of
the desert." There are about 3,000,000 of them in tropical and oriental
countries, and during the Crimean war 25,000 of them were pressed
into service.1 "Field Marshall Lord Allenby, the conqueror of Jerusa-
lem, is said to have used as many as 60,000 camels in his campaign
against the Turks during the World War. Here it was fully demon-
strated that the camel in his own country and climate is vastly su-
perior to the horse or mule as an army transport."2 They carry persons
or heavy loads of merchandise on their backs and are sometimes used
to draw wheeled vehicles. A load is usually from 350 to 600 pounds,
but sometimes they carry 1300 pounds or more, and travel from 25
to 30 miles a day. In Texas, 3 six-mule teams (18 mules) hauled
4400 pounds 60 miles in five days, while 6 camels carried 3648 pounds
60 miles in two and one-half days. In 1856 and 1857, the government
imported 75 camels for use as beasts of burden in the arid portions
oi southwestern United States. The experiment, not a fair one and
interrupted by the Civil War, was a failure, and was abandoned in
1867 or thereabouts.3

Fast saddle dromedaries (one-humped camels), formerly much
used, could travel very rapidly for a day or two. "Couriers often did
the 240 miles to and from Mecca in 48 hours on the same dromedary."

4 Hubbard, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 296, 1929.
6Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 308, 1927.

1 Austin, Queer methods of travel in curious corners of the world, Natl. Geog.
Mag., xvin, 688, 1907.

2 Blair, In the zoo, p. 68, 1929.

8 Carroll, The government's importation of camels, U. S. Bureau of Animal
Industry Circular No. 53, 1904; reprinted from 20th Ann. Rept., pp. 391-409, 1903.
Leslie, Uncle Sam's camels, Harvard Univ. Press.

ARTIODACTYLA 309

The baggage animals, carrying 600 pounds, would travel 2.^/2 miles
an hour for a short distance, or with 300 pounds on a long journey.
Dromedary "caravans three hundred strong left Pekin for Turkestan
as early as 1500 B.C.," but they have now been mostly displaced by
two-humped camels in central Asia.4

From their camels the Arab derives meat, rich milk, leather and
fuel, and the hair is used in making his tents, shawls, ropes and other
articles.5 Camel's hair is also used in other countries for various pur-
poses. An old male Bactrian camel, with long, woolly hair hanging
from its neck, shoulders and rump, is an imposing animal. Camels were
pronounced "unclean" and the eating of their flesh forbidden by the
Law of Moses (Lev., xi:4; Deut., xiv:7). Camels and dromedaries
always attract a great deal of attention in menageries and zoological
parks.

Llamas were long ago domesticated and used as beasts of burden in
South America. "Eight millions were said to be in use by the Incas
when the Spaniards invaded Peru. At present there are about five
hundred thousand."6 They will carry from 50 to 200 pounds each and
travel from 6 to 12 miles a day, living on the forage along the way.7
They furnish both meat and milk for their owners. Their woolly hair
is excellent for the manufacture of cloth, though inferior to that of
the closely related alpacas.

The alpacas, also domesticated, are bred in great flocks in Peru and
Chili for their long woolly hair, which for over a century has been
exported to other countries, where it is used in the manufacture of
blankets, shawls and other cloth articles. The vicunias, found in a
wild state in the Andes, also yield fine, curly wool, and are hunted for
their flesh, as well as for their wool. The guanacos, or huanacos,
found wild in the Andes and "in large numbers on the plains of
Patagonia," provide the principal meat supply of Patagonian nomads,
as well as skins for clothing and tents. About 5000 vicunia and 20,000
guanaco skins reached the markets of the world in 1913, and 30,000
guanaco skins, perhaps including vicunia, in 1923.®

4Jennison, Natural history: animals, pp. 304-307, 1927.

8 Ingersoll, The Arab's debt to the camel, in The life of animals, pp. 336-337, 1907.
6 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 300, 1927.

T Austin, Queer methods of travel in curious corners of the world, Nat. Geog.
Mag., xviii, 688, 1907. The Riverside Natural History, v, 284-285.
8 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

3IO ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

FAMILY CERVIDAE— THE DEER FAMILY

In Africa the various antelopes, grouped together, are very impor-
tant game animals. In North America the bison and the pronghorn
antelope once swarmed over the vast western plains, but they have been
reduced in numbers almost to the vanishing point. At the present time,
considering the world as a whole, Cervidae is the most important
family of large game animals, including deer, moose, elk, caribou and
reindeer, distributed over most of North America, Europe and Asia.
The deer is one of our most beautiful and graceful American mam-
mals, rivalled only by the pronghorn antelope. The wapiti, or American
elk, is a stately creature. The moose is the most majestic American
animal, not excepting even the bison. The caribou, with its long,
slender, branching, reindeer antlers, is a sight worth a long trip to see.
Because of their esthetic value, their beauty and the interest they
arouse whenever they are seen, the ruthless slaughter of deer and their
relatives should have been stopped long ago.

It is scarcely conceivable that such animals were ever killed by thou-
sands for their hides alone, the flesh being left to decompose, yet such
is the case. Before game laws for Alaska were enacted, many thousands
of .deer were killed there for their skins, which sold for a few cents
each,1 there being no market for the meat. In Montana in 1876 they
were being "most recklessly slaughtered for the hides alone."2 In Texas
75,000 deer skins were handled at one trading post from 1844 to 1853,
and 5000 sent out in one shipment in i853,3 most of the deer having
been killed for their hides. This takes no account of the skins handled
by other traders in that region. "During the hide-hunting days, deer
were killed by the thousands in all parts of the state [California]. One
San Francisco firm in 1880 handled 35,000 hides taken from Siskiyou,
Trinity and Shasta counties. Two men are reported to have killed
3000 deer in one year in northern California and southern Oregon.
Such killing would certainly have led to extermination in a compara-
tively short time, but fortunately the price secured for the hides was
very low, about 50 cents each, and as deer became scarcer it was no
longer profitable; hunters were forced into other work. Deer were

1 Osgood, The game resources of Alaska, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1907,
p. 478.

"Grinnell (G. B.), Kept. Chief of Engineers, U. S. Dept. War for 1876, Part
3, P- 640.

8 Strecker, The trade in deer skins in early Texas, Journ. Mammalogy, vui,
106-110, 1927.

ARTIODACTYLA 311

so reduced in numbers that in 1888 the Fish and Game Commission
recommended to the legislature that a close season be established."4
It was estimated that in Michigan, 100,000 deer were killed in 1890,
75,000 in 1894, 25,000 in 1903, 7000 in 1904, showing a steady de-
cline.5 Caribou have been exterminated in Arctic coastal portions of
Alaska, and greatly reduced elsewhere, largely for their skins.6

Deer were so ruthlessly pursued that they were nearly or entirely
exterminated in many states before anything approaching adequate
legal protection was provided, notwithstanding the fact that there have
been local laws giving them some sort of protection in many places
for a long while. Ancient laws in New England were directed toward
preventing certain persons from hunting. In New Jersey in 1771 an
open season of three months each year for deer was established, per-
mitting only voters and their sons over eighteen years of age to hunt
on unimproved public lands.7 In 1920 there were open seasons in 33
states, with does fully protected in 17, but in 15 states there was no
deer hunting, because they were all gone or so scarce that no hunting
of them was permitted.8 It is true that the spread of dense populations
in some areas would inevitably drive out the deer,9 but most of the
destruction was inexcusable, and they could still easily be maintained
in most of their former range.

In addition to their esthetic value, deer furnish sport and recreation
to many hunters and constitute an economic resource which may be
greatly increased by proper protection, whereas without protection
they would soon cease to be an asset — esthetic, recreational or eco-
nomic. In point of utility, the deer family ranks next to the Bovidae
and Equidae (cattle, sheep, goats and horses).10 The utilitarian aspect
of their status must be recognized, and some hunting must be al-
lowed, or they would soon overstock their range, to their own detri-
ment, as well as to the detriment of human interests.

What may be done to partly restore deer to their former position as
game animals has been demonstrated in some states. In Vermont deer
were practically exterminated before 1870; 13 were introduced in
1875, tnev and their offspring were protected until 1897, then a short

4 Hunter, Deer hunting in California, California Fish and Game, x, 20, 1924.

8 Shields' Magazine, Sept., 1905, p. 251.

'Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 59-66, 1921.

7 Rhoads, Mammals of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, p. 26, 1903.

8 Palmer, Game as a national resource, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1049, pp. 2-3,
1922.

9 Stone and Cram, American animals, p. 35, 1902.

10 Lantz, Deer farming in the United States, Farmers' Bull, No. 330, 1908.

312 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

open season permitted. They continued to increase, and the number
killed continued to increase, from 211 in 1902 until it reached 5261
in 1909, computed to have furnished 716,358 pounds of meat, worth
$85,962," besides the skins, horns, etc. The license fees paid for hunt-
ing and fishing, including deer hunting, add considerable to the reve-
nues of the states, the fees in Vermont in 1925-1926 totalling
$90,824.70. The value of the deer killed in Vermont in 1908-1909 was
estimated at $109,790. Under rigid protection on the National Bison
Range in Montana, elk have become too abundant for their own good,
because of the limited forage supply, and deer became so abundant,
as to overstock their range in Kaibab National Forest.12

In New York State deer had become scarce because of the ravages
of market hunters and wolves, but have become more plentiful since
market hunting was prohibited and the wolves thinned out.13 In the
national forests of California 11,522 deer were killed in 1917, 2271
less than the preceding year, though there were 7160 more licensed
hunters.14 Does this indicate a decrease in the number of deer pres-
ent? In 1927, 19,507 were killed in California, and 21,515 in 1928,
probably indicating an increase under better protection.15 In Michi-
gan, Wisconsin and Minnesota 68,286 were killed in 1919, 48,072 in
1920, 37,500 in I92I,16 worth $4,415, 74O.17 There is need of a thor-
ough nation-wide survey of the deer situation, to ascertain just what
factors regulate the fluctuation in the number of deer, including legal
protection, freedom from natural enemies, food supply, etc.

In 1922 it was estimated that from 60,000, to 80,000 deer were killed
each year in the United States, and that, at 75,000, the meat would
weigh 11,250,000 pounds, which, at 20 cents a pound, would be worth
$2,25o,ooo.18 In 1884 it was estimated that there were in the na-
tional forests 441,000 deer (185,000 in California, 57,000 in Ore-
gon, 41,000 in Montana, 39,000 in Idaho, 34,000 in Arizona), and
40,500 elk.19 In 1925 the estimate was 605,964 deer, 72,165 elk, 6061

11 Hornaday, Wild life conservation, p. 106. Hewitt, The conservation of the wild
life of Canada, p. 9, 1921.

^California Fish and Game, xv, 138-139, 155-156, 1929.

13 Burnham, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 43-47, 1928.

14 American forestry and forest life, p. 304, 1928.

15 California Fish and Game, xv, 44, 1929.

16 Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, 553-557, 1926.

17 Nelson, The economic importance of wild life, Scientific Monthly, xvr, 367-
373, 1923-

18 Palmer, Game as a National Resource, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull, No. 1049, 1922.

19 California Fish and Game, x, 28, 36-37, 1924.

ARTIOD AC TYLA 313

moose and 143 caribou.20 In 1927 it was 671,050 deer (70 per cent
of the total for all of the United States) and 82,478 elk.21

Human hunters are not the only enemies of deer. In 1924 it was
estimated that 31,000 deer are killed annually in California alone, by
mountain lions,22 though in many instances the destruction of deer is,
without investigation, wrongfully attributed to these big cats. Wolves,
coyotes and bears also kill deer at times. Deer and elk are also sub-
ject to many diseases and at least 15 kinds of parasites. In one county
alone no less than 5000 deer died in one epidemic of bladder-worm
infestation.23 Among other diseases with which they are afflicted may
be mentioned the foot-and-mouth disease, pinkeye, fatal neck tumors,
liver flukes and various other diseases of stock, and nasal parasites.24
Also heavy winter snows are harder on deer than on elk, moose and
caribou.25

Under natural conditions an approximate balance had been struck
between deer and their enemies and diseases, so that during the cen-
turies the deer neither decreased to the point of extinction nor increased
beyond the capacity of their range to support them. With the advent
of modern civilization the equilibrium was sadly disturbed. Forests
were cleared off, agriculture claimed large areas for grain fields, herds
of cattle and flocks of sheep came in to compete with the native ani-
mals for grass, herbage and browse, bringing with them serious dis-
eases from which deer were not immune, predatory mammalian enemies
of deer were killed in large numbers, on one hand, while on the other
death-dealing rifles were placed in the hands of thousands of hunters,
for the destruction of deer. Hence it has become necessary for man
to assume complete control of the situation to prevent the extermina-
tion of the deer or their increase beyond bounds. The whole subject
is very complex and much yet remains to be learned about the best
plans to accomplish these ends.

It has been found that too rigid protection may overstock the range
and lead to disastrous results. Several years ago newspapers had much
to say about moving a large number of deer from Kaibab National

20 Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, table opp. p. 558, 1926.
"New York World Almanac for 1928, p. 364.

22 California Fish and Game, x, 22, 1924; xvi, 253, 1930.

23 Hunter, Deer hunting in California, California Fish and Game, x, 22, 1924.

24 California Fish and Game, x, 127-128, 145, 1924. Hall, The deer of California,
California Fish and Game, xn, 248-249, 1927. See also Murie, An epizootic disease of
elk, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 214-222, 1930.

25 Brandreth, Deer in winter, Forest and Stream, Jan., 1928, p. 26, etc.

314 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Forest, Arizona, where their natural food had become so scarce that
they were starving.26 Serious question is raised as to the wisdom of
completely protecting the does year after year, which results in un-
balancing the sexes27 and probably weakens the herd as a whole.
Though the wisdom of thinning out the does after prolonged complete
protection at the expense of the bucks has been disputed by some natu-
ralists,28 recent experiences and investigations in Pennsylvania cannot
be ignored or lightly set aside. "Overcrowded conditions of the herds
have resulted in the poor development of antlers among the bucks;
the breeding season is so upset as a result of the unbalanced condition
of the sexes that many fawns are produced too late in the season for
them to compete with their elders in securing food during the winter."
In one county "the old deer, by standing on their hind legs, had eaten
the edible food to a height of about six feet. The young deer, being
unable to reach so high, were forced to feed on woody stems, bark and
other indigestible matter; consequently they died from malnutrition.
Dead deer seemed to be everywhere ... 6 within a distance of 200
yards." "Over one thousand dead fawns were found in four townships
of northwestern Clearfield County." Around one refuge 46 dead deer
were counted. "All of the dead deer examined were greatly emaciated,
but none showed signs of injury or disease.29 A special doe season was
provided in 1928, when 25,097 does were taken and no bucks. As
Pennsylvania has been very successful in maintaining and increas-
ing its deer herds, in the face of annual open seasons on bucks and
increasing number of licensed hunters, the table on page 315 is of inter-
est.30

It seems manifest that if deer are to be protected for the benefit
of the hunters or of the general public, and are thereby encouraged to
multiply, then farmers, gardeners, and others whose -crops or other
property are injured by deer should receive compensation out of the
hunting license fee fund or from tax funds. In Pennsylvania it was

^Grinnell, The starving deer of the Kaibab Forest, Outlook, cxxxvi, 186-187,
1924. In 1929, during a iq-weeks open season on this plateau, 2372 licensed hunters
killed 3428 deer, California Fish and Game, xvi, 251, 1930. Griswold, The Kaibab —
facts, not fancies, Outdoor Life, LXVI, 35-36, 1930.

27 Kalmar, The Adirondack deer, American Game, xvm, 85, 1929. Sherman and
Hill, Should does be killed?, American Game, xvn, 92-93, 1928. Schierbeck, Is it
right to protect the female of the species at the cost of the male?, Canadian Field
Naturalist, XLIII, 6-9, 1929.

28 See California Fish and Game, xv, 263, 1929, citing Hall, Canadian Field
Naturalist, March, 1929.

29 The Pennsylvania deer problem, Pennsylvania Board Game Comm. Bull. No.
12, pp. 7, 8, 19^9. See also Forbes and Beckdel, Ecology, xu, 323-333, 1931.

80 Outdoor Life, p. 37, 1929; pp. 36-37, Oct., 1930.

ARTIODACTYLA

315

proposed to set aside $100,000 from the game fund for that purpose,
but the bill failed to pass the legislature.31 In Massachusetts the
amounts paid to farmers for damage to their crops through the dep-
redations of deer have varied from $237.30 in 1903 to $19,977.29 in
1913, the amount for 1926 being $15,702.77. The number of deer shot
in accordance with law while damaging crops has varied from 16 in

Special.

No. of

No. of

No. of

Bucks

Does

Hunters

Year

Bucks

Does

Hunters

Year

Killed

Killed

Licensed

Killed

Killed

Licensed

1913 *

800

—

305,028

1921

4,840

—

462,371

1914

1,102

—

298,972

1922

6,115

—

473,735

1915

1,287

—

262,355

1923

6,452

—

497,216

1916

1,722

—

290,422

1924

7,778

126

501,572

1917

1,725

—

315,474

1925

7,278

1,029

521,855

1918

1,754

—

311,290

1926

11,646

1,295

520,574

1919

2,939

—

401,131

1927

14,374

—

437,727

1920

3,300

—

432,240

1928

—

*25,097

437,727

**78,876

1929

22,822

— •

504,748

* Antlerless deer.

** Special deer licenses only.

1907 to 327 in 1910, but was only 90 in I926.32 The amount paid for
such damage in New Hampshire in 1918 was $1,016, and in 1927
it was $i, 299.25. 33 In Vermont it was $2,167.55 f°r tne season of
1918-1919 and $973.14 for I9I9-I92O.34 In 1923-1924 it was
$2,i3i.96.35 Few of the states have laws providing for the payment
for such damages.

Though deer eat grass freely at times, especially in the spring, at
other times it constitutes only a very small part of their food, unless
other food is scarce. Bailey found no grass in stomachs of western
white-tailed deer (Odocoilens virginianus macronrus) killed during
the hunting season, but says their food is chiefly "leaves, buds and
seeds of a great variety of trees." They are fond of acorns and pods
of leguminous plants, and prefer weeds to grass, hence a few of them

81 The Pennsylvania deer problem, Pennsylvania Board of Game Comm. Bull.
12, p. 5, 1929.

82 Ann. Kept. Massachusetts Div. Fisheries and Game for 1921, p. 54; for 1926,

No. 12, p. 5, 1929.

. K
p. 27.

83 Kept. New Hampshire Fish and Game Comm. for 1918, p. 4; for 1928, p. 18.

84 25th Biennial Kept. Vermont Dept. Fish and Game, p. 21, 1920.

35 27th Biennial Rept., as cited in California Fish and Game, xi, p. 91, 1925.

3 1 6 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

in cattle pastures might improve grazing by keeping weeds down.36
Howrever, cattle also eat many plants taken by deer besides grass, though
their normal food is not the same as the favorite food of deer. Com-
petition between sheep and deer is more serious, as their food habits
more nearly coincide. McLean says that over 60 per cent of the plants
eaten by deer are eaten also by sheep, and 50 per cent are grazed also by
cattle. Competition is therefore certain.37 He says that the food of
deer in summer includes 50 kinds of plants; that they will browse
almost any kind of plant to some extent; that the deer bush (Ceano-
thus integgerimus) is their favorite food in winter; and that they do
not eat azalea, larkspur, cow parsnip and other plants which are poison-
ous to domestic stock. Hall lists 10 species of trees and shrubs upon
which deer browse in Yosemite Park, and says that on the Kaibab
Plateau a native species of clover is their favorite food, though they
eat many herbaceous plants and mushrooms.38 The Kaibab item may
be abnormal, as the range there is overstocked with deer, resulting in
a shortage of their usual food.

In Pennsylvania 393 deer stomachs contained laurel, teaberry and
other leaves, numerous acorns, particles of pine and hemlock leaves
and bark; all contained acorns and some contained corn, grass and
wheat.39 In California the Columbian black-tailed deer are said to
"resort to the oak groves to glean the crop of acorns, of which they
are very fond."40 Some deer in Maine are reported to eat fish, probably
a habit acquired by a few individuals from eating refuse about camps.41
Mearns says of the Mexican mule deer (Odocoileus heniionus canus)
that in addition to its chief food of shrubs, leaves and many small
plants, it is "extraordinarily fond of acorns, especially those of the
evergreen oak (Quercits emoryi)."*2 Fawns in captivity ate all sorts
of vegetable food and fruit.

The following items are abstracted from Bailey's Texas report:43
Texas white-tailed deer (0. texanus): natural food is leaves of live-
oak, brush, acorns, mesquite and other bean pods. Even as late as 1902
they were being killed by "wagonloads" for the market, and many
were killed "for the hides only, leaving the carcasses to rot." They

"Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 36, 1926.

87 McLean, What deer eat, California Fish and Game, xiv, 221-223, 1928.

38 Hall, The deer of California, California Fish and Game, xm, 250-259, 1927.
Dixon, What deer eat, Amer. Forests and Forest Life, xxxiv, 143-145, 1928.

89 Sutton, in The Pennsylvania deer problem, Pennsylvania Board of Game Comm.
Bull. No. 12, p. 19, 1929.

^Henshaw, Kept. Chief of U. S. Engineers, 1876, Part 3, p. 529.

41 Burgess, Fish-eating deer, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 64-65, 1924.

^Mearns, U. S. Natl Museum Bull. No. 56, p. 200, 1907.

48 Bailey, Biological survey of Texas, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, 1905.

ARTIODACTYLA 317

"rarely, if ever, eat grass or any forage plant eaten by horses or cat-
tle, but live on leaves and twigs of bushes, seeds, pods and flowers,
including acorns and the pods of numerous kinds of bean bushes."
Western white-tailed deer (O. v. macrourus) in Texas feeds largely on
acorns in autumn. Sonora or Arizona white-tailed deer (0. couesi) :
in June their food "consisted mainly of leaves, flowers, green seeds,
and capsules or pods of a great variety of shrubs and plants," includ-
ing oaks, etc. "Acorns were the great attraction during fall and win-
ter. No trace of grass could be found in any of the three stomachs
examined." Mexican mule deer (O. h. canns): "they eat the green
stalks "of the big century plants (Agave zvisliseni and applanata), and
paw open the cabbage-like caudex of the sotol (Dasylirion texanum)
for its starchy and juicy center," and in March and April "they seem
to feed to a great extent on the blossoms of Yucca macrocarpa and
Dasylirion iexanum"

The question as to the effect of a mountain laurel and rhododen-
dron diet upon white-tailed deer has been discussed recently at some
length.43'*

Because of their browsing habit, deer often damage orchard trees,
especially young trees.44 It is said this may be prevented by the
use of cloths soaked in sheep dip, suspended from trees by wires, so
as not to come into contact with the trees, this keeping the deer away
without killing them.45 Wagner recommended i pound of blood-meal
to 3 gallons of water as the best repellant spray and wash, repeated
every two weeks, to prevent damage to trees by deer and rabbits.46
They are also destructive to young forest and shade trees, whose tops
they are able to reach and browse. "Ninety per cent of the 197,000
trees planted on the Moshannon State Forest, in Pennsylvania, during
the past three years have been destroyed by deer," according to John
W. Keller, chief of the State Bureau of Extension. The plantation of
Scotch pine showed 40 per cent of the trees killed by deer, and 50
per cent so injured that it is doubtful if they will survive. Eleven
per cent of the pitch pine plantations were killed and 65 per cent of the
trees severely injured. Only trees planted in aspen and wild cherry

43~* Forbes and Beckdel, Mountain laurel and rhododendron as foods for the
white-tailed deer, Ecology, xn, 323-333, 1931.

44 Hall, The deer of California, California Fish and Game, xui, 234-259, 1927.
True, Damage by deer to crops in California, California Fish and Game* xvm, 136-
J37» IQ32; Repellents and deer damage control, ibid., pp. 156-165.

45 Dondero, Protecting orchards from deer, California Fish and Game, xrv,
221, 1928.

** Wagner, A spray for preventing damage by deer, California Fish and Game,
i, 241, 1915.

3l8 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

thickets were undamaged."47 Probably such serious damage was be-
cause the districts were overstocked with deer and their food conse-
quently scarce, as is suggested by the fact that no damage was done
where there were aspen and cherry thickets. Because of the damage to
the young trees it was decided by the state authorities to ' 'curtail the
planting of forest tree seedlings until they are certain these will not
be consumed by deer which lack sufficient natural food during the win-
ter."48

There has been an interesting discussion of the "deer line," or "plim-
soll" line of the white cedar forests on the shores of certain Adiron-
dack lakes.49 The term "plimsoll" is derived from the line on the hull
of a ship which marks the water line when the vessel is loaded as
heavily as is safe. In the discussion of the work of deer it refers to
the uniform line, parallel with the water or ice of the lakes, to which
the branches of the cedars are trimmed from below. It is claimed by
some that this line is caused by the deer browsing while standing on
the level platform of the ice during the winter, and rearing on their
hind legs. Though this has been denied by others, it is consistent
with other facts concerning the effect of browsing by deer in the win-
ter when food is scarce. Though overbrowsing from below does not
seriously injure large trees, browsing on young trees may prevent
them from getting a start. Hence, as the old trees must eventually die,
if overbrowsing should continue indefinitely it might destroy the for-
est. Thus it is said that overbrowsing by deer and cattle in Kaibab
Forest keeps the young aspens from getting a start.50

The flesh of deer being valuable as food, the skins used in the manu-
facture of leather (buckskin) of special excellence for some purposes,
the antlers made into handles for knives, forks, etc., and the waste
therefrom made into gelatine or into size used in the manufacture of
cloth, the ease with which they may be reared and kept in captivity
has naturally suggested deer farming.51 Though deer have never been

47 Deer destroy Pennsylvania tree plantations, Amer. Forests and Forest Life,
xxxiv, 252, 1928.

48 The Pennsylvania deer problem, Pennsylvania Game Comm. Bull. No. 12, pp.
10-11, 1929.

49 Johnson, On the supposed relation of deer to cedars bordering certain Adiron-
lakes, Journ. Mammalogy, vni, 213-221, 1927. Burnham, Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 43-
47, 1928. Merriam, Mammals of the Adirondack region, pp. iio-iii, 1886. Bailey,
American Game, xvii, 56-66, 1929.

50 Adams, Ecological conditions in national forests and national parks, Scientific
Monthly, xx, 561-593, 1925.

01 Lantz, Raising deer and other large game animals in the United States, U. S.
Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 36, 1910; Deer farming in the United States, Farmers' Bull.,
No. 330, 1908. Natl. Geog. Mag., xxi, 269, 1910. Roseberry, Experience in raising
Virginia deer, in Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 118-119, I9I3-

ARTIODACTYLA 319

really domesticated, there seems no good reason why it could not be
done if the incentive were sufficient, as it was in case of the reindeer,
which meant so much to the people where it was brought under con-
trol. However, there are a great many deer held in public and private
parks, and they are completely protected by law in our national parks,
where no hunting is permitted. Whether deer farming will ever become
a profitable business is yet to be demonstrated, but there are large areas
of mountain lands unsuited to cattle and horses but well suited to deer
and elk, which may some time be used for that purpose. A 6-foot
ferice is said to be sufficient to hold a 4-year-old elk, but a foot or so
higher, would be better.

The wapiti, or American elk (Ccrvus canadensis, etc.), not very
closely related to the European elk (Alecs alecs, which is more nearly
related to the American moose), was once abundant over large por-
tions of North America, but has now been exterminated from much
of its former range, and greatly reduced in the small areas where it
still roams. Of the estimated 70,000 in the United States in 1919, or
52,000 in 1926, about half were in or near Yellowstone Park.52 Un-
fortunately for the elk, it posseses two peculiar tusks, of unknown func-
tion, in the upper jaw. These were worn by Indian women in North
Dakota, the men not being permitted to wear them; but the Indians
did not kill the elk for the teeth alone.63 They utilized the flesh, skins,
sinews and antlers. When members of a great fraternal order began to
use the teeth as an emblem of the order, the slaughter began in earnest.
Thousands of elk have been killed for the tusks, their carcasses and
even their skins being left untouched.54 The practice has not yet en-
tirely ceased.

The food of the elk is largely browse (twigs of deciduous trees
and shrubs and cedar twigs), with some grass and other plants in
summer. The Yellowstone Park herd is subject to scabies, introduced
by sheep, and serious tick infestation, and probably to other diseases
and parasites.55

The European elk or moose (Alecs alecs) is a browser. It and the
American moose are the largest living members of the deer family.

52 Graves and Nelson, Our national elk herd, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular, No. 51,
p. 4, 1919. Palmer, Game as a national resource, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1049,
1922. Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, m, 557, 1926.

53 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 33, 1926.

"Leek, Elk tusk hunting, Outdoor Life, xxxv, 149-151, 1915. Bailey, N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 49, 1926. Graves and Nelson, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 51, p. 18,
1919.

55 Stone and Cram, American animals, p. 33, 1902. Skinner, The elk situation,
Journ. Mammalogy, ix, 309-317, 1928.

320 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

"The elk trots with a loping stride, beyond the pace of any horse,
and keeps it up for hours. It was regularly used for traction purposes
in Sweden until it was forbidden in the seventeenth century because
it helped so many malefactors to escape from justice."56 "The European
moose was formerly under domestication and proved valuable for
transportation in the cold northern countries. It is on record that it
once hauled a sleigh 234 miles in one day. For diverse reasons — the
chief one being that exiles in Siberia used it to effect their escape —
it became unlawful to maintain moose in captivity in Russia."57 Its
food in Norway is browse, chiefly roan-tree, sallow, aspen, birch, alder
and cherry, but it eats also fir leaves, juniper leaves and berries, and
various plants.58

The American moose (Alces americana, etc.) is still found in small
numbers in various widely separated localities in the United States
and is common at many localities farther north. The total number in
the United States national forests was estimated in 1925 at 6061, and
in 1927 at 7I92.59 It is said to be increasing somewhat in numbers
where it is well protected and not already exterminated.60 During an
open season in Maine, in 1927, 100 bull moose were killed, but they
are not plentiful enough to "warrant another open season for some
time to come."61 "They are much more valuable to the state alive
than dead. The moose is a great attraction to visitors, and a close-
up photograph is prized highly by the sportsman. Many spend the en-
tire season in the Maine woods with kodak and fly-rod."62

We are told of a team of moose in North Dakota and a single moose
in Manitoba which were driven in harness.63 Jones says that, with its
great size and strength, perhaps it "could be developed into a domestic
animal of value. Several cases are recorded of its being successfully
used for draught purposes. It is but just to add, however, that the
moose has not yet [1913] been bred in captivity."64 Because of its
short neck and long legs, it is difficult for the moose to feed from the

66 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 293, 1927.

57 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 95, 1913.

58 Salvcsen, The moose and red deer in Norway, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 59-62,
1929.

69 Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, 558, 1926. New York World Almanac,
for 1928, p. 364.

60 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 31, 1926.

81 Amer. Forests and Forest Life, xxxiv, 512, 1928.

62 Fishing and hunting in the State of Maine, p. 12, from Kept. Maine Comm.
Inland Fisheries and Game for 1926.

63 Shields, Moose in harness, Forest and Stream, XLI, 316, 1893.
w Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 95, 1913.

ARTIODACTYLA 321

ground. Its food consists chiefly of browse, such as leaves and twigs
of willows, small birch trees and shrubs, but it will eat grass, hay,
etc., and in summer it is very fond of water lilies and other aquatic
plants, which it obtains by wading into the water.65

Far back in history the reindeer is mentioned as a domesticated
animal in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia and Siberia. Its flesh
has furnished food, its skin has furnished raiment and has been used
for various other purposes, its milk has been long used directly and
in the making of cheese by Laps and Finns, its antlers and sinews are
excellent material for various purposes, and it has been extensively used
in harness. All this, coupled with its ability to resist severe winter
weather and to subsist on the browse, "reindeer moss" and other food
obtainable when the ground is covered with snow, makes it an almost
indispensable animal in some localities.66

The rapid destruction of the walrus having deprived the natives of
northern Alaska of an important source of food and much needed
skins, reindeer were introduced for their benefit in several shipments
from 1892 to I9O2.67 They thrived and multiplied. Although 100,000
had been killed in the meantime, for food and clothing, in 1902 there
were about 200,000 live ones in the various herds, divided as follows :
Belonging to the natives 162,000; government herds, 12,000; mission
herds, 24,000; others 52,ooo.68 Reindeer meat is shipped to various
cities of the United States, but is said not to be meeting with much
favor. Recipes for preparing and cooking the meat have been pub-
lished by the government.69 It is stated that Alaska would support
3,000,000 or 4,000,000 reindeer,70 but that would be useless unless a good
market can be found for the meat. Reindeer meat is sometimes served
on passenger steamers plying Alaskan waters. Reindeer have also been
introduced into Labrador for the benefit of the natives.71

65 Stone and Cram, American animals, pp. 42-45, 1902. Lockhart, Notes on the
habits of the moose in the far north of British America in 1865, Proc. U. S. Natl.
Museum, xm, 305-308, 1890.

66 Mason, Primitive travel and transportation, Ann. Rept. U. S. Natl. Museum for
1894, p. 548. Hatt, Notes on reindeer nomadism, Memoirs Amer. Anthrop. Assn., vi,

75-133,

87 Nelson, Reindeer in Alaska thrive and multiply, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric.
for 1926, pp. 631-633.

68 McAllister, California's large game animals, California Fish and Game, ix,
11-15, 1923.

69 Stanley and Yeatman, Reindeer recipes, U. S. Dept. Agric. Leaflet No. 48, 1929.
70Hadwen and Palmer, Reindeer in Alaska, U. S. Dept Agric. Bull. No. 1089,

p. 4 1922.

71 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, pp. 92-95, 1913. Hewitt, The conservation of the
wild life of Canada, pp. 318-330, 1921.

322 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

The caribou of northern United States, British America and Alaska
(Rangifer) is closely related to the reindeer, and has furnished food
and raiment not only to the natives of the North, but to numerous
white prospectors, trappers, explorers and settlers within the caribou
country.72 One herd was estimated at from 100,000 to 200,000 caribou,
and during migration caribou are said to have passed Fort Rae for 14
days in an unbroken line, in such a mass that "daylight could not be
seen" through the column.73 Seton estimated one herd of barren-
ground caribou at 25,ooo,ooo74 The caribou has been practically ex-
terminated in the Arctic coastal portion of Alaska, largely for the
skins, and is now scarce on the Mackenzie delta.75 As better trans-
portation facilities render the movement of skins easier and less ex-
pensive, greater inroads will be made upon the herds of the interior
unless ample protection is provided by the government. That is just
what happened to the American bison.

The caribou eats more or less grass in the summer, but in winter
its food is chiefly "reindeer moss," where it may be had, otherwise
browse of willows and the like. In Labrador the abundance of caribou
is somewhat regulated by the abundance of mice. When the mice are
abundant they furnish plenty of easily obtained food for the wolves,
which then leave the caribou alone, returning to a caribou diet when
mice became too scare to satisfy them,76 a striking example of the
interactions of organisms.

FAMILY GIRAFFIDAE— GIRAFFES AND OKAPIS

The giraffe, native of Africa, "has no economic value, nor is it
very intelligent."1 These great animals are picturesque in their native
haunts, exceedingly interesting in parks and menageries, and their skins
find a ready market. They have been slaughtered in large numbers,
"almost solely for the hide, which is worth from £3 to £5 in the case
of full-grown beasts; so perishes the giraffe from South Africa."2
They are browsers, feeding on the buds, leaves and twigs of trees,

72 Hadwen and Palmer, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1089, p. 3, 1922.

73 Preble, A biological investigation of the Athabasca-Mackenzie region, N. Amer.
Fauna, No. 27, p. 141, 1908.

74 Seton, The Arctic prairies, p. 259, 1917 (cited by Adams) ; Lives of game
animals, in, Part i, pp. 97-135, 1929. Adams, The economic and social importance
of animals in forestry, with special reference to wild life, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull.,
in, 576, 1926.

75 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 59-66, 1921.
78 Allen, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 56-57, 1922, reviewing Cabot's Labrador.
^ennison, Natural history: animals, p. 226, 1927.

2 Nature Lovers Library, v, 239, 1917.

ARTIODACTYLA 323

which they are able easily to obtain, as some of them reach a height of
1 8 feet. With some difficulty they eat grass and various herbs from
the ground.

The okapis are forest mammals, and are much smaller and quite
rare. "Okapi flesh is excellent venison."3

FAMILY ANTILOCAPRIDAE — AMERICAN PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

The pronghorn of North America, commonly called antelope, is
closely related to the Bovidae, but is considered a distinct family, rep-
resented by one living species and at least one subspecies. Unlike the
Bovidae, the sheaths of its horns are deciduous and are shed annually,
but it does not shed the whole horns, as deer do their solid antlers.
Its range formerly extended from Kansas and Minnesota to the Cas-
cade Mountains, and from British America to Mexico.1 These very in-
teresting and beautiful animals existed by millions, "far more abun-
dant than buffalo" (Nelson), but have been totally destroyed over most
of their former range by persistent hunting and by bringing prairie
lands under cultivation. In 1925 it was estimated that there were only
30,326 of them left alive, in 286 discontinuous areas — 26,604 in the
United States, 1327 in Canada and 2385 in Mexico.2 A census of the
antelope now living in the United States, compiled by the National
Association of Audubon Societies, from letters received from the vari-
ous game commissioners, is as follows:3

Arizona 4,200 North Dakota 200-300

California 800 Oklahoma Several

Colorado 2,000 Oregon 25,000

Idaho 3,000 South Dakota 1,900

Kansas None Texas 2,000

Montana 5,ooo Utah 200

Nebraska 100 Washington None

Nevada 4,5OO Wyoming * 20,000

New Mexico 4,000

They were abundant in Idaho in 1872, but an epidemic in 1873 de-
stroyed many of them, and they, have never since been abundant
there.4 It was estimated that there were 25,000 still alive in Colorado

'Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 278, 1927.

1 Lantz, Raising deer and other large game animals in the United States, U. S.
Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 36, p. n, 1910.

2 Nelson, Status of the pronghorned antelope in 1922-24, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull.
No. 1346, 1925. The vanishing race of pronghorns, Travel, XL, 5-10, 1923. Nature
Magazine, n, 121-123, I923- Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, p. 27, 1926.

3 "An antelope census," Bird-Lore, xxxn, 172-174, 1930.
4Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 5, p. 80, 1891.

324 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

in 1898, and only 1200 in igog,5 since which time they have been still
further reduced. In 1906 it was stated in the report of the state game
warden of Wyoming that the Green River herd had diminished from
6000 to less than 2000 in three years.6 In a letter of September, 1928,
the Wyoming State Game Commissioner estimated the number of
antelope in the game preserves of that state at 17,600. About 1884
''thousands of them were killed annually around the San Francisco
and Bill Williams Mountains," but by 1888 they "had become com-
paratively uncommon except in the restricted areas still unoccupied by
the whites."7 This is a fair statement of what was occurring about that
time in many other localities in the West. In Yellowstone Park they
were killed "by the thousands" each year from 1872 to 1883. Better
protection was provided in 1886, but even with that they decreased
from thousands in 1877 to only 253 in 1923.®

It was estimated in 1925 that there were 7568 pronghorns in the
United States national forests, and in 1927 the estimate was 6942.°
They were entirely or practically removed from the game lists of all
the states by 1909, in the effort to save the remnants of the once great
herds.10 Special state and other refuges for pronghorns have been es-
tablished in several states.11

The pronghorns are grazers, their chief natural food being largely
sagebrush, greasewood and cactus,12 with the hard prairie grasses of
the western plains and lower mountains, which cure well on the stem.
They do not thrive so well on rich, green grasses of moist regions.
Away from the open ranges they are hard to keep in zoological parks.
The only hope for their preservation is in the establishment of refuges
where they may be protected, with access to their natural food, and
in the fact that no hunting is allowed in national parks, where some
still remain.

5 Gary, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 33, 1911.

"Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 36, p. n, 1910.

7 Mearns, Mammals of the Mexican boundary, U. S. Natl. Museum Bull. No. 56,
p. 226, 1907.

8 Skinner, The pronghorn, Journ. Mammalogy, in, 82-105, 1922; The American
antelope in Yellowstone National Park, 1924, revised and extended from preceding
paper.

9 Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull., in, 558, 1926. New York World Almanac for
1928, p. 364.

10 Palmer, Chronology and index of the more important events in American game
protection, 1776-1911, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 41, 1912.

"Nelson, U. S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1346, 1925. Pearson, Bird-Lore, xxx, 157-
158, 1928. Bull. Amer. Game Protective Assn., Apr.-May, 1928, p. 44.
12 Seton, Lives of Game animals, in, Part 2, p. 446, 1929.

ARTIODACTYLA 325

FAMILY BOVIDAE — CATTLE, BUFFALOES, SHEEP, GOATS AND THEIR ALLIES
This family includes more domesticated mammals than does any
other and they are immensely valuable to the human race. As with
other domesticated animals, the domestication of cattle and sheep an-
tedates written history.1 They were not introduced into America until
the coming of the white race. Hump-backed cattle were domesticated
in Egypt as early as 2100 B.C.2

The following incomplete statistics will give some sort of an idea
of the importance of domesticated Bovidae. Other statistics may be
found in Chapters v and vi.

Domestic stock in the United States in 1925 :3

Cattle 61,572,000, worth $3,651,9/0,000
Sheep 35,251,000, worth 395,401,000
Goats 3,459,000, worth 17,565,000

100,282,000 $4,064,936,000

Value of exports from and imports to the United States in 1925
was: exports: cattle, $2,388,000; sheep, $270,000; total $2,658,000;
imports: cattle, $5,173,000; sheep, $498,000; total, $5,671,000.

In 1927 there were 57,521,000 cattle, worth $2,430,593,000, and
41,909,000 sheep and lambs, worth $406,531,000, in the United States;
402, 564,000 cattle (21,824,000 dairy cows) and 240,003,000 sheep and
lambs in other countries.4

Meat produced in the United States under federal inspection in
i925:5

Beef 7,146,000,000 pounds, per capita 62.1 pounds

Veal 1,101,000,000 pounds, per capita 8.7 pounds

Lamb and mutton 599,000,000 pounds, per capita 5.2 pounds

The value of mutton and lamb exported was: $313,000; imported,
$610,000; value of beef and veal exported: $2,765,000; imported
$1,765,000.

In 1926 milk, butter and cheese to the value of $2,952,012,000 were
produced in the United States.6 Statistics concerning wool and other
commodities derived from domesticated Bovidae may be found on sub-

1 Keller, The derivation of the European domestic animals, Ann. Rept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1912, pp. 483-491. Morse, The ancestry of domesticated cattle, 2?th
Ann. Rept. U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry (for 1910), pp. 187-239, with bibliog-
raphy. Austin, Nat 1. Geog. Mag., XVIH, 694, 698, 699, 1917.

2 Hewitt, The conservation of the ivild life of Canada, p. 310, 1921.

3 Statistical abstract of U. S. for 1925, U. S. Bureau of Commerce.
* New York World Almanac for 1928, pp. 371, 376, 435.

6 U. S. Dept. Agric. Statistical Bull., No. 20, 1927.
6 New York World Almanac for 1928, p. 370.

326 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

sequent pages. In 1915 the following skins were produced in the
United States:

Calf skins 5,424,000 Sheep skins 15,865,000

Cattle skins 12,645,000 Goat skins 432,000

Cattle hides produced in the United States in 1918, 68,830,000; for
the whole world, probably 35o,ooo,ooo.7

Imports and exports of cattle and calf skins in 1925 :8

Imports to United States 190,950,000 pounds

Imports to other countries 1,507,592,000 pounds

Exports from United States 62,857,000 pounds

Exports from other countries 1,252,907,000 pounds

Prices in Chicago from 10 cents a pound for bull hides to 22 cents for calf skins

Imports and exports of hides to and from Germany in I9O9-I9IO:9

Imports Exports

Cattle hides $46,356,212 $15,770,000

Buffalo hides 479,8o8

Calf skins 31,533,624 4,497,000

Lamb skins 3,296,062

Sheep skins 3,024,752 916,062

Goat and kid skins 6,902,952 1,355,648

"The world's cattle stocks are estimated in round numbers at
500,000,000 head, but this total includes Asian and African figures,
upon which no great reliance can be placed."10 In 1926 there were
61,128,000 cattle in the United States, worth over $3,000,000,000,
of which 22,290,000 were milk cows, worth $i, 278,877,000." In ad-
dition to the meat, milk, butter, cheese and hides, other products de-
rived from domestic cattle include tallow, horns and bones, the latter
used in the manufacture of fertilizer, etc., the total value of these
products being considerable.

Oxen have been used in many parts of the world for drawing loads,
plowing and other heavy work. Sometimes they have been used even
as driving animals harnessed to carriages. In the early settlement of
our western plains ox teams transported the belongings of the settlers
to and beyond the frontiers. They were often shod with iron shoes,
divided into two parts to fit the divided hoofs of the oxen. Ancient
Hebrew law and the writings of Hindus, Greeks, Egyptians and

I Holmes, Hides and skins : Production, foreign trade, supply and consumption,
Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 425-446.

8 U. S. Dept. Agric. Statistical Bull. No. 20, pp. 298-312, 1927.

9U. S. Dept. Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Manufactures, Special Agent
Series, No. 50, 1912.

10 Sanders, The taurine world, etc., Natl. Geog. Mag., XLVIII, 597, 1925.

II Statistical Bull., No. 20, pp. 9, u, 72, 1927.

ARTIODACTYLA 327

Romans, insisted upon humane treatment of cattle, particularly of
oxen.12

The former abundance and subsequent almost complete extermina-
tion of the American bison, or American buffalo, as a wild animal, has
been discussed at some length in a former chapter. It has been esti-
mated that before railroads on the western plains provided cheap and
easy transportation for the heavy bison skins, 1860-1870, there were
from 5,000,000 to 60,000,000 bisons on the western plains.13 Prob-
ably the former estimate is too small and the latter too large. An
estimate placing the total at from 30,000,000 to 60,000,000 was based
partly-.upon the great quantity of bones shipped to market, but all of
the bisons whose bones were shipped did not live at the same time. In
Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri, according to estimates, $2,500,000
were paid for bones at $8 a ton, each ton estimated to represent 100
bison. Hewitt has published an interesting photograph of an immense
pile of bones and skulls representing over 25,000 bisons, awaiting ship-
ment from Canada to the United States, to be used in the manufacture
of charcoal.14 He quotes Catlin to the effect that in about 1832
150,000 to 260,000 bison robes were marketed annually, before the
great slaughter began.

In the single year of 1848, 25,000 bison tongues and large quanti-
ties of bison fat were sent down the river to St. Louis.15 In 1840, west
of Fargo, North Dakota, 1375 bison tongues were obtained on the
first day of the hunt and 2000 bisons estimated to have been killed
by the 400 mounted hunters. In 1882, 600 Indian hunters killed 5000
in two days. In 1881, 75,000 skins were shipped from Bismarck, but
they were mostly obtained in Montana.16 The Atchison, Topeka and

12 Sanders, The taurine world : Cattle and their place in the human scheme — wild
types and modern breeds in many lands, Natl. Geog. Mag., XLVIII, 591-710, 1925,
especially pp. 610-614.

*Natl. Geog. Mag., xxx, 389, 1916. Stone and Cram, American animals, p. 68,
1902. Ball's Life of Baird, p. 333. McAllister, California's large game animals,
California Fish and Game, ix, 11-15, 1923; Canada leads in buffalo conservation,
California Fish and Game, xrv, 155-156, 1928. Palmer, Chronology and index of the
more important events in American game protection, 1776-1911, U. S. Biol. Surv.
Bull. No. 41, 1912. Hornaday, The extermination of the American bison, with a
sketch of its discovery and life history, Ann. Rept. U. S. Natl. Museum for 1887,
pp. 367-548. Allen, History of the American bison, Bison americanus, Qth Ann. Rept.
Hoyden's U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. Terr, (for 1875), pp. 443-587; reprinted with
amended title from Mem. Geol. Surv. Kentucky, i, Part 2, 1876, and Mem. Museum
Comp. Zool. (Harvard), rv, No. 10, 1876. Seton, Lives of game animals, in, Part 2,
p. 656, 1929.

"Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 113-142, 1921.

15 Chittenden, History of the American fur trade, n, 817, 1902.

18 Bailey, A biological survey of North Dakota, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 49, pp. 22-
25, 1926.

328 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Santa Fe Railroad in 1872-1874 shipped 1,378,359 bison hides, and it
was estimated that in 1872 one hide represented 3 animals killed, or
2 in 1873, and 100 hides represented 125 killed in 1874, hence al-
together 3,158,730 dead animals were represented by the three years'
shipments; 2,250,400 pounds of bison meat and 10,793,350 pounds
of bones were also shipped.17 These figures represent only part of the
animals destroyed in one area in three years.

When the American Bison Society was organized, December 8,
1905, it was said that there were only noo pure-bred bisons in
America, but there were 3453 in 1913 and 10,000 in 1922. 18 In 1924
it was reported that the Canadian herd had increased from 709 to 8000,
making it necessary to dispose of some each year to avoid overstock-
ing the limited range, and that there were 4500 in the United States,
shipments having been made from the Montana National Bison Range
to prevent overstocking.19 The bison is a grazer, best suited to the
western plains, but occurred also in the mountains and at an early
date extended into the eastern states. Efforts to domesticate it have
met with marked success, considering the short time since the experi-
ment was begun. It has also been sucessfully crossed with domestic
cattle, producing a breed known as cattalo. The bisons' great strength
would have made them valuable draft animals, had they been domesti-
cated and trained to work in harness a few decades ago, when draft
animals were more needed than they are in this motor-truck age.

The European bison, or wisent, once widely distributed in Europe
and abundant in some localities, is now extinct except possibly for a
few small herds in isolated mountain regions, and somewhat more than
sixty pure-bred animals in European game parks and zoological gar-
dens.20

The African buffalo was formerly abundant in many localities. About
1890 a virulent form of rinderpest exterminated them in large areas.
After the epidemic they increased rapidly where breeding stock was
left.21 The buffalo is listed by Roosevelt as one of the five dangerous

17 Nelson, The economic importance of wild life, Scientific Monthly, xvi, 367-373,
1923.

18 Science, xxxix, 586, 1914; LV, 639, 1922. Hewitt, The coming back of the bison,
Natural History, xix, 553-565, 1919.

19 California Fish and Game, x, 45, 1924.

20 Lucas, Animals recently extinct or threatened with extermination, Ann. Kept.
U. S. Natl. Museum for 1889, p. 621. Ahrens, The present status of the European
bison or wisent, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 58-62, 1921 ; Proposals for the preservation
of the European bison, or wisent, Bull. Zool. Soc., xxvi, 46-50, 1923 ; Science, LVIII,
107, 1923. Mohr, Misleading news regarding the wisent, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 356,
1929.

21 Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 58, 288, 1910.

ARTIODACTYLA 329

African mammals, the others being the elephant, lion, leopard and
rhinoceros; but Hubbard says the buffalo is not dangerous when not
molested.22

The carabao, better known as the water buffalo, native in India, intro-
duced into Egypt, Palestine, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Turkey, China,
Japan, Hawaiian and Philippine Islands and the Malay Archipelago, is
one of the most useful animals in some oriental regions. It gives rich
milk, and is the "strongest beast of draft in the world except the ele-
phant/'23 especially useful in the muddy rice fields, because of its
spreading feet, an adaptation to swamp life. It has been estimated that
there. are 20,000,000 of them in India, 1,222,000 in the Philippines and
415,000 in Bulgaria.24 They are used not only as draft animals, but also
as beasts of burden, each capable of carrying on its back a load weigh-
ing from 1800 to 2500 pounds.25 Probably most of the 479,808 buffalo
skins mentioned on a preceding page as having been imported into Ger-
many in 1909-1910 were water buffalo. There is always a market for
buffalo skins of any kind, and the flesh of the younger animals is ex-
cellent. The water buffalo is, next to the tiger, the most dangerous
mammal in India, and it is able to successfully cope with the tiger.
Many are still found in a wild state, and even in captivity they some-
times attack men. In 1910, sixteen human beings were killed by buf-
faloes in British India.26

The wild yak still exists on the high, bleak plateau of Tibet. "The
breed provides the domesticated animals of Tibet, without which life
would be impossible. Sure-footed as goats, they traverse the roughest
passes, they cross snow-covered glaciers with a glissade."27 They fur-
nish the people of that desolate region with meat and milk, are used as
both draft and saddle animals, and their tails are prized by the
Chinese as tassels. They have been successfully crossed with domestic
cattle.

The wildebeest, an African game animal, runs wild in herds, and is
valuable for its flesh. Stomachs examined by Roosevelt contained only
grass, no browse.28 Africa possesses a considerable number of species
of game animals, representing several distinct subfamilies, usually re-

22 Hubbard, Journ. Mammalogy, x, 295-296, 1929.

23 The wanderings of the water buffalo, Ann. Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1901,
pp. 679-682; reprinted from London Spectator, Aug. 31, 1901, pp. 278-279.

24 Holmes, Hides and skins, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, PP- 425-446.

26 Austin, Natl. Geog. Mag., xvui, 688, 1907.
28 Science, xxxvii, 938, 1913.

27 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 232, 1927.

28 Roosevelt, African game trails, p. 47, 1910.

33O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

ferred to in a general way as antelopes, which "is a very loose term,
meaning simply any hollow-horned ruminant that is not an ox, a sheep
or a goat."29 Among them are the hartebeest, klipspringer, water buck,
oryx, eland, gazelle and others. They are grazing animals, but oc-
casionally browse, as most ruminants do. Their flesh is excellent and
has been much depended upon by African explorers as a source of
food. They have been so persistently hunted that the once great herds
are in many places greatly depleted, some of them are becoming very
scarce and the range of many has become much restricted. "White
hunters and modern firearms have reduced the countless thousands to
a number so small that the capture and exportation of elands [for
exhibition purposes] has practically ceased. Their complete extermina-
tion is merely a matter of time because they are slaughtered for their
valuable hides."30 Various species are also found in Asia. There are at
least 100 species altogether, some of which might be adapted to our
arid Southwest, but their introduction, as advocated by some sports-
men, would be a risky experiment, which should not be attempted.
Some of them are quite large, the eland weighing from 800 to noo
pounds, some old males even 1400 or 1500 pounds.31 Some of them
have remarkable, very ornamental horns, and their skins are used for
various purposes. About 200,000 gazelle skins were marketed from
Africa in i^2^-ig24,32 probably including other antelopes, as the term
gazelle is used very loosely by fur dealers.

Domesticated sheep furnish not only a large amount of meat, but
the almost indispensable wool. "Sheep husbandry is one of the most
important, as well as one of the oldest, of the world's agricultural
industries." The per capita consumption of lamb and mutton in several
countries, and the ratio it bears to the total meat consumption in those
countries have been stated as follows:33

United States 6.2 pounds, 4.35 per cent

Canada 9 pounds, 5.57 per cent

United Kingdom 26.7 pounds, 22.25 per cent

France 9.25 pounds, 1 1.25 per cent

Germany 2.2 pounds, 1.91 per cent

The most valuable contribution of sheep to mankind is wool. We get
from an individual sheep but one crop of meat, obtained only by de-

29 Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 47, 275, 1910.
80 Blair, In the zoo, p. 69, 1929.

31 Lantz, Raising deer and other large game animals in the United States, U. S.
Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 36, 1910.

32 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

83 Spencer and others, The sheep industry, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1923,
pp. 229-310.

ARTIODACTYLA 331

stroying the life of the animal, while from one individual we get sev-
eral crops of wool. The world's production of wool in 1925 was
estimated at 2,892,416,000 pounds (United States, 301,060,000; Aus-
tralia, 735,000,000; Argentina, 2 7 5, 000,000 ).34 The production in the
United States increased from 19,000,000 pounds in 1840 to
61,000,000 in 1900. The world production decreased from
2,807,000,000 pounds in 1901 to 2,717,000,000 in 1916. In the United
States the average annual production from 1905 to 1914 was
306,000,000. Some other figures for various countries follow:35

Algeria, in 1912 8,000,000 Argentina, 1914 43,000,000

Australia, 1891 106,000,000 Brazil, 1914 10,000,000

Brit. So. Africa, 1913 36,000,000 Mexico, 1002 3,000,000

Canada, 1917 2,000,000 New Zealand, 1917 25,000,000

Uruguay, 1908 26,000,000 Russia, 1914 80,000,000

There were 64,000,000 sheep in the United States in 1903 and only
28,000,000 in 1922, a decrease of 43 per cent in 19 years, with steadily
increasing population, so that we now produce only one-half the wool
necessary to supply our own demand.36 Among the reasons given for
the decrease are that the eastern farm sheep cannot compete with west-
ern open-range sheep ; that values have been too low, and parasites and
diseases too prevalent, for profitable sheep-raising; and that depreda-
tions of sheep-killing dogs, coyotes and other predacious animals cause
too great losses. Dog-and-wolf-proof fences may be constructed of 60-
inch woven wire, set 3 inches above the ground, with a barbed wire
close to the ground, and another offset a few inches on the outside,
above the top, to prevent the animals from climbing over; or of 32-
inch wire with several barbed wires above, set 5 inches apart up to
60 inches, the uppermost offset.37 The dog and coyote hazards in sheep-
raising, methods of their control, and laws concerning sheep-killing
dogs, have been discoursed upon in Chapters vn, xxvi and xxvu.

Sheep feed upon many kinds of herbaceous plants, besides grass.
They also browse upon leaves and twigs of shrubs, but not to the same
extent as goats do. In many places in the semi-arid portions of the
western United States, overgrazing has seriously injured sheep ranges.
There were in the world in 1927 about 240,003,000 sheep, and in the
United States about 4i,9O9,ooo,38 an increase over the estimate for

1925-

84 N ew York World Almanac for 1925, p. 376.

36 Holmes, Wool: Production, foreign trade, supply and consumption, Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 401-424.

** Coll, Sheep-killing dogs, Farmers' Bull., No. 1268, p. 2, 1922.

87 Lantz, Coyotes in their economic relations, U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, 1905.

88 New York World Almanac for 1928, p. 371.

332 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

The karakul sheep (broad-tail or Persian lamb), the source of an
important fur, were originally from Turkestan, not Persia. According
to estimates made in 1921, 1,500,000 of their pelts, from Bokhara and
Turkestan, worth $14,000,000, were being imported annually into the
United States. The price of pelts advanced 180 per cent from 1895
to 1913, brought $12 or more during the World War, and after the
war again advanced 140 per cent.39 In 15 years 2,900,000 pelts were im-
ported into Leipsig alone.40 The best skins are not obtained, as is
popularly believed, from unborn lambs, by killing the ewes, but from
lambs from three to five days after birth, because later they lose their
curl and luster.41 Karakul sheep have been introduced into the United
States and the flocks have increased rapidly.42

"Sheraz is half-Persian lamb. It comes from the south of Persia and
resembles wool more than fur. Next, astrakhan is not dog skin. It is
a lamb skin from the south of Russia. Gray Persian lamb is really
krimmer, lamb from the Crimean region of Russia. The lamb that
makes Persian fur, grown to a sheep makes the Bokhara rug."43

In many regions domesticated goats are prized for their flesh and
skins, and especially for their milk. They are distinctly browsers, more
so than are sheep. The number of goats in the United States in 1925
was estimated at 3,459,ooo.44 Whether this includes Angora goats is
not stated.

Angora goats, from which mohair is obtained, are in great favor
and increasing in number. The use of mohair, according to the inter-
pretation of Exodus, Chapter 35, by the Goat and Mohair Committee,
dates back at least to the time of Moses. It was known in western
Europe prior to 1554 A.D., and the goats were introduced into Africa in
1838. In 1927 there were 1,499,000 Angora goats in the Union of
South Africa, 3,160,000 in Turkey, and in the United States there
were 3,159,000 in Arizona, California, Missouri, New Mexico, Ore-
gon and Texas. The production of mohair in the United States in 1927
was 13,470,000 pounds, in South Africa 10,681,000 and in Turkey
(1926) 6,5OO,ooo.45 Mohair is 9 inches or more in length, alpaca 12,

^Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 59, 66-77, 1921.

40 Jones, Fur farming in Canada, p. 106, 1913.

41 Ashbrook, Fur farming for profit, pp. 239-262, 1928.

42 Marshall, Heller and McWhorter, Karakul sheep, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric.
for 1915, pp. 249-262.

43 Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 66-67, 1921.

44 Statistical abstract of the United States for 1925, U. S. Bureau of Commerce,
1926.

45 The Angora goat and mohair industry, U. S. Dept. Agric. and Dept. Commerce,
Interdepartmental Committee, Miscell. Circular, No. 50, 1929. Williams, The Angora
goat, Farmers' Bull., No. 1203, 1921.

ARTIODACTYLA 333

camel hair 5, cashmere 3. Mohair is the strongest, with best luster, but
not so fine.

The Angora goats are decidedly browsers, preferring twigs and
leaves of shrubs to herbaceous plants, and prefer hills and rocky cliffs
to meadows and swamps, hence are suitable for waste mountain lands
not available for other domestic stock. They have been utilized in keep-
ing farm and pasture lands free from brush, and in California in
keeping the "fire breaks" clear of weeds and shrubbery, thus reducing
the forest-fire hazard. They may be pastured with cattle and sheep
without much competition for food.46 There are said to be 250,000,000
acres- of land in the United States not suitable for tillage and not suita-
ble for pasturage for cattle, horses or sheep, but suitable for goats.47

The danger of introducing goats of any kind into any region and
leaving them without control is illustrated by incidents discussed in
Chapter iv. They have almost denuded certain islands of vegetation,
and, nothing being left to hold the soil on steep slopes, it has been
eroded away, leaving only barren rocks.

Goat skins are much used for various purposes. It is estimated that
in 1923-1924 3,000,000 Chinese goat skins and 2,000,000 Chinese kid
skins reached the markets of the world.48

The wild mountain sheep, or bighorns, and the mountain goats, of
the mountains of western United States, northern Mexico, British
America and Alaska, are not sufficiently abundant to be of much eco-
nomic importance, but they are highly interesting from esthetic, recrea-
tional, educational and scientific points of view. In 1926 there were
said to be 17,837 mountain goats (mostly in Alaska), and 12,052
mountain sheep in our national forests, but the count for 1927 was
18,418 goats and 13,285 sheep.49

Mexican bighorn (Oms mexicana) : 2 stomachs, "full of freshly
eaten and half -chewed vegetation, and most of the plants composing
the contents were easily recognized by the stems, leaves and fruits.
The leaves, twigs and carpels of Cercocarpus parvifolius formed a
large part of the contents, while the leaves, twigs and seed pods of
Philadelphia microphyllus were present in less abundance," with a
conspicuous amount of wild onion and about 2 per cent grass. Meat
tender, juicy and delicious. The meat of an old ram was "tough and

"Thompson, The Angora goat, Farmers' Bull., No. 137, 1901. Heller, The Angora
goat, Farmers' Bull, No. 573, 1914.

47 Lantz, Farmers' Bull., No. 330, p. 14, 1908.

48 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

49 Adams, Roosevelt Wild Life Bull, in, 558, 1926. New York World Almanac for
1928, p. 364-

334 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

dry, but without any bad flavor," and over half of the contents of the
stomach was green stems of Ephedra trifurcata, with stems, leaves
and flowers of Tecoma stans, stems, leaves and berries of Garry a
wrighti, Pentstemon and Opuntia, but not a trace of grass.50 Mountain
goat (Oreamnos) : found feeding on huckleberry, Oregon grape, rat-
tlesnake plantain, evergreen violet, alder buds, willow twigs, sedge,
etc.51

The musk ox (Ovibos), of Arctic America, is one of the most
interesting mammals in North America. It will be a disgrace to civiliza-
tion if hunters succeed in exterminating it, which they seem likely to
do. It possesses a fine undercoat of wool, which might prove of commer-
cial value if it could economically be freed of its "rain coat" of long
hair, and perhaps it could be bred in large numbers in the Arctic re-
gion, as indicated by Stefansson.52 It has been hunted for its skin
more industriously than is generally supposed. The natives have at
times been encouraged by the fur traders to "bring in all the musk ox
robes that it was possible to obtain," which has destroyed all of them
over most of the former range and much reduced their numbers else-
where. The Hudson Bay Company handled not over 200 skins an-
nually from 1864 to 1878, 600 in 1881, 1400 in 1890, 2000 in 1892,
after which the number steadily declined as the animals became
scarcer.53 It was estimated in 1925 that not more than 250 musk oxen
then survived.54 "Those who know the Arctic best are predicting the
doom of the musk ox."55 Out of this dark picture has now come a
gleam of light. It is announced that the Thelon Game Sanctuary, a
I5,ooo-mile preserve east of Great Slave Lake, Northwest Territory,
"which contains the last known herd of musk ox on the Canadian
mainland," about 250 animals, has been closed to both whites and In-
dians.66

50 Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 70-75, 1905.

51 Taylor and Shaw, Mammals and Birds of Mount Ranier National Park, p. 125,
1927.

52 Nature, cxn, 804, 1923.

53 Hewitt, The conservation of the wild life of Canada, pp. 90-101, 310-318, 1921.

54 Massingham, Discovery, London, 1928, quoted in Literary Digest, August 25,
1928, p. 23.

65 Anthony, Field book of North American mammals, p. 542, 1928.

56 California Fish and Game, xvi, 179, 1930. Conserving Canada's musk oxen,
being an account of an investigation of Thelon Game Sanctuary, 1928-1929, with
a brief history of the area and an outline of known facts regarding the musk ox,
Northwest Territory and Yukon Branches, Department of the Interior, Canada.

PERISSODACTYLA 335

ORDER PERISSODACTYLA— ODD-TOED, HOOFED MAMMALS
This order includes the horses, donkeys, asses, zebras, rhinoceroses
and tapirs, and perhaps the Hyraces.

FAMILY EQUIDAE— HORSES AND THEIR ALLIES

This is probably the most useful family of mammals except the
Bovidae. The most outstanding member of the family is, of course,
the horse. Domesticated in the Old World long before the era of
written history,1 it has been introduced into all of the continents and
principal islands of the world. Although large, one-toed horses de-
veloped from small, three-toed ancestors in North America during
the Cenozoic Era, they disappeared at the end of Pleistocene time.
The horses we have here now were brought over by Europeans after
the discovery of the New World by Columbus.

In 1907 it was estimated that there were 100,000,000 horses in the
world, 80 per cent of them in the temperate zone, the majority in
Europe and America ; i horse to every 3 J/£ people in the United States
and Canada, i to every 7 people in South America, i to 12 in Mexico,
i to 33 in Japan, i to 40 in Turkey, i to 50 in the Philippines, i to 1 50
in Africa, i to 200 in India and southern China.2 In 1917 it was esti-
mated that there were 21,563,000 horses in the United States,
35,000,000 in Russia, 3,000,000 in Canada and 8,000,000 in Argen-
tina.3 In 1925 the combined estimate for horses, mules and burros in
the United States was 22,267,000 head, valued at $2,569,570,000;
exports, $4,141,000; imports, $1,640,000.* In 1927, horses and colts in
the United States numbered 15,279,000, worth $974,886,000;
5,734,000 mules, worth $426,i75,ooo.5 Perhaps the marked decrease
in number is due to the fact that the automobile has supplanted the
horse to a great extent.

Because of their great strength and speed, horses are the most use-
ful of all draft and saddle animals. Their flesh is used as -food by
various nations, and their skins make excellent leather. The imports of
horse hides to Germany in 1909-1910 were valued at $2,906,498, and
exports at $i,9O4,238.6

1 Heller, The derivation of the European domestic animals, Ann. Rept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1912, pp. 483-491.

* Austin, Queer methods of travel in curious corners of the world, Natl. Geog.
Mag., xvin, 687-688, 1907.

s Holmes, Hides and skins, Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agric. for 1917, pp. 425-426.

4 Statistical abstract of U. S. for 1925, U. S. Bur. Commerce.

6 New York World Almanac for 1928, p. 371.

*U. S. Dept. Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Manufactures, Special Aaent
Series, No. 50, 1912.

336 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Though the majority of horses in civilized lands are docile, they
are easily frightened, and, when they were used on the roads and in
the fields of the United States more than they are now, there were
numerous runaways and other accidents, which resulted in many deaths
and injuries of human beings. In addition, a few horses are really
vicious and freely indulge in kicking and biting. Indeed, the horse
was once characterized by a magazine writer as the most dangerous
animal.7 In proportion to the total mileage covered by each, there were
probably more fatal accidents and serious injuries of people by horses
25 years ago than by automobiles today.

Except along waterways, where boats may be used, and in deserts,
where camels are so useful, the horse has, until recently, been much
the best means of long-distance travelling. It is perhaps not too much
to say that but for the horse the development and spread of civiliza-
tion might have proceeded along very different lines. Had horses been
available to the American Indians centuries earlier, perhaps they would
have reached a higher, or at least a different, state of development be-
fore the coming of Europeans. Certainly, when they obtained horses
from the Spanish- invaders, their methods of hunting and warfare
were soon radically affected thereby on the western plains.

In some of the western states there are many bands of escaped horses
running wild and breeding on the plains, to the detriment of the stock
ranges, and laws have been enacted in some jurisdictions to encourage
the shooting of such wild animals.8 They not only consume much grass
that is needed for domestic stock, but also "pick up" horses belonging
to ranchers, which soon become as wild as the wild herds. In Arizona,
8000 wild horses were killed in I928.9 Though Europeans brought
modern horses and mules to America, the debt has probably been can-
celled, with interest. During the world war alone the United States
shipped abroad, mostly to Europe, 950,000 horses and 345,000 mules.10

The importance of the horse is indicated by the fact that "more
than 2000 books relating to this animal have been published in Eng-
land and an equal number elsewhere," and there are in the Library of
Congress at Washington "nearly 1000 volumes devoted exclusively
to the horse," though the library had made no special effort to ac-
cumulate such books, owing to the fact that the Department of Agri-

7 Bache, The terrible horse, Saturday Evening Post, Nov. 25, 1905, p. u.

8 Palmer, The danger of introducing noxious animals and birds, Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agric. for 1898, p. 88.

8 Science News Letter, Nov. 9, 1929, p. 288.
10 Carter, Natl. Geog. Mag., XLIV, 456, 1923.

PERISSODACTYLA 337

culture is specializing in that subject. The number of volumes con-
taining references to the horse "are countless." Under domestication,
many breeds of horses have been developed, in addition to the varie-
ties of wild horses from which the domesticated animals have been
derived.11 The mule is hybrid.

Donkeys, smaller than our hybrid mules, largely supplant horses in
some oriental and tropical countries. In the absence of better means of
transportation, they are very useful animals, carrying from 100 to 200
pounds each and travelling from 10 to 20 miles per day. It is esti-
mated that there are 10,000,000 of them in the tropics and orient.12

Wild asses of several species are found in small herds in various
parts of Africa and Asia. "Hunting the wild ass has been a favorite
pastime of the Persians for some thousands of years. The flesh in
olden days was esteemed a regal dish. . . . Like the Persians the Arabs
delight in asses' flesh."13 "Somalis will not touch their flesh."14 They
are wary, not easily approached and swift on foot.

The zebras are found in Africa. They are often kept in captivity
and ridden and driven, but have not been really domesticated.15 They
are especially valuable as riding and driving animals "in parts of
equatorial Africa infested by the tsetse fly, to which they are im-
mune,"16 as these flies make it impracticable to use horses. "The older
males are generally covered with scars, showing them to be very pugna-
cious."17 When 70 wild zebras were coralled, "the stallions fought to
the death with teeth and hoofs during the first night, and no less than
twenty were killed outright or died of their wounds," according to
Roosevelt, who shot zebras as "food for the porters, who like their
rather rank flesh." "Recently in British East Africa the increase of
the zebras, and the harm they did to the crops of the settlers, rendered
it necessary to remove a large measure of the protection formerly ac-
corded to them, and in some cases actually to encourage their slaugh-
ter." When stampeded by their chief foes, the lions, "their mad, heed-

11 Carter, The story of the horse : The development of man's companion in war
camp, on farm, in the marts of trade, and in the field of sport, Natl. Geog. Mag.,
XLIV, 456-566, 1923. Lydekker, The horse and its relatives, New York, 1912. Rommel,
The preservation of our native types of horses, U. S. Bureau Animal Industry Cir-
cular No. 137, 1908. Bell, Breeds of draft horses, Farmers' Bull., No. 619, 1914.
Reese, Breeds of light horses, Farmers' Bull, No. 952, 1921.

12 Austin, Natl. Geog. Mag., xvin, 688, 694, 1907.
^Jennison, Natural history: animals, pp. 217-218, 1927.

14 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 104, 1910.

16 Forest and Stream, LVII, 24, 1901.

19 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 219, 1927.

17 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 105, 1910.

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

less rush takes them through a wire fence as if it were made of twine
and pasteboard/'18 ''They break through our best wire fences, ruin our
crops, despoil us of the fruits of long and toilsome efforts, and much
expenditures. We simply cannot live in a country inhabited by herds
of wild zebras."19 Since the foregoing quotations were written, persist-
ent hunting has greatly reduced the herds of zebras in many places.
The related quagga, which once roamed the plains of South Africa in
great herds, also captured and used as a draft animal a century ago,
was hunted to its death, having become extinct about i875.20

FAMILY RHINOCEROTIDAE— RHINOCEROSES

The rhinoceroses are rapidly dwindling away. Of the Somali rhino
(Diceros bicornis} it was said twenty years ago: "Unfortunately this
strange beast is being driven before civilization, and a few years more
will see its disappearance from all save the most remote regions."1
The range of the square-lipped rhino (Ceratotherium simum) is lim-
ited and its habitat localized by environmental requirements, so that
it "does not seem to be able to hold its own and is in need of organized
protection;"2 which has been provided by a 90,000 acre reserve, but it
does not seem certain that this will save the species.3

Roosevelt listed the rhinoceros as one of the five most dangerous
animals of Africa.4 The district commissioner, "while at Neri, had
been obliged to undertake a crusade against the rhinos, because, quite
unprovoked, they had killed several natives." The rhinoceroses are not
of much economic importance. "The Somalis value the hide for their
shields, and whip handles are made of it."5 "The rhino's horn is one
of the insignia of royalty among the Kaffirs, and many wars have been
waged for the possession of big specimens. The value of the horn is
still the principal reason for the great destruction of the rhinoceros.
They are sold chiefly to China to be used for some medicinal purpose.
In other days, a cup of rhinoceros horn was highly valued, as it was
supposed to turn poisoned liquids a milky color and so detect them."6

18 Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 13, 48, 50, 130, 227-228, 1910.

19 Hornaday, Our vanishing wild life, p. 183, 1913, quoting the settlers' grievances.
^Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 214, 1927; Hornaday, Our vanishing wild

life, p. 35, 1910.

1 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 106, 1910.

2 Lang, Recent and historical notes on the square-lipped rhinoceros (Ceratotherium
simum), Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 155-163, 1923.

8 Hornaday, Threatened quick extinction of the white rhinoceroses, Bull. New
York Zool. Soc., xxvii, 13, 1924. Lang, Threatened extinction of the white rhinoceros
(Ceratotherium simum), Journ. Mammalogy, v, 173-179, 1924.

4 Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 243, 289, 1910.

6 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 106, 1910.

6Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 207, 1927.

EDENTATA 339

FAMILY TAPIRIDAE— TAPIRS

Fossil tapirs of extinct species are found widely distributed over
the earth, but living species are confined to Central and South America
and the Malay Archipelago. They are "browsers, feeding on twigs,
water plants, bulbs and a little grass."7 Tapirns terrestris was found
in Brazil feeding on the fruit of a tree.8 The principal foes of the
American species are jaguars, and of the Malayan species, tigers.
"Tapirs are hunted by the natives for the sake of their thick hides,
which are cut into thongs for reins and bridles. The flesh is also es-
teemed by some."9 The hides are also made into leather.

GROUP EDENTATA — SLOTHS, ARMADILLOS, ANTEATERS, ETC.

It has long been recognized by systematists that the old heterogene-
ous "order" Edentata includes animals which seem too distinct to be
retained in one order. The present tendency is to divide the group into
several orders. Sloths have several teeth and armadillos have numerous
teeth. For them the name Edentata is misleading. The armadillos are
placed by some recent authors in an order Xenarthra, and the African
aard vark in an order Tubulidentata. The practice does not yet seem
to be entirely uniform. The marsupalian anteaters of Australasia al-
wrays have been considered distinct. There is much confusion concern-
ing the habits of armadillos and anteaters, because of the loose use
of the term "ants" in referring to termites, or white ants.

FAMILY BRADYPODIDAE— SLOTHS

The living sloths are confined to Central and South America. Un-
like the fossil ground sloths, the living species hang from the branches
of trees. They feed on leaves, shoots and fruits. They are of no eco-
nomic importance. It is believed that the great extinct ground sloths,
belonging to a different 'family, browsed from the ground.

FAMILY DASYPODIDAE— ARMADILLOS

The armadillo, found from Texas southward, "is a voracious con-
sumer of insects, especially white grubs and their adults, caterpillars
and ants," and it deserves "thorough protection as a most useful aid
to the farmer."1 It has been accused of destroying the eggs of wild

'Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 210, 1927.

8 Miller, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 21, 1930.

9 Nature Lovers' Library, v, 158, 1917. Miller, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 21, 1930.

1 McAtee, The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests, Ann. Kept. Smith-
sonian Inst. for 1925, p. 416. Seton, Lives of game animals, iv, Part 2, pp. 848-863,
1929 ; citing Nelson, Wild animals of North America, p. 585, 1918.

34-O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

turkeys and other wild birds, but Graham says he never either saw one
do so or found anyone who had.2 Texas nine-banded armadillo (Dasy-
pus novemcinctus texanus) : "The excrement of the armadillos found
scattered along the trails in the form of clay marbles and with the
texture of baked mud gives some clue to the food habits of the ani-
mals. Careful examination shows only the remains of insects, mainly
ants and a few small beetles, embedded in a heavy matrix of earthy
matter." These animals are "much sought after for eating purposes
. . . very tender, without any gamy taste."3 This useful and interesting
species is being rapidly exterminated for its skin, which is used in the
manufacture of ornamental baskets.4

The food of the South American armadillo (D. zillosiis) is flesh,
fruit, and vegetables, according to Jennison.5 Ingersoll says the arma-
dillos of the Amazon Valley live chiefly on ants and termites, while
the smaller pampas species is fond of carrion and eats much plant food,
but its chief diet is insects and worms.6

FAMILY MYRMECOPHAGIDAE— SOUTH AMERICAN ANTEATERS
The great South American anteater (Myrmecophaga jubata) is
four feet long, its head over a foot long, its mouth "a mere tube
through which is projected the long and sticky tongue," wrhich is espe-
cially adapted for catching ants. "The anteater, finding its whole
nourishment in these little insects, is wonderfully adapted for the pur-
pose. The head is thrust into the aperture and the viscid tongue, shot
in and out with great rapidity, carries thousands of the creatures to
the stomach. The anteaters are exceedingly valuable in a country where
the ant in its billions is an absolute peril." Stomachs examined by
Roosevelt "contained adult and larval ants, chiefly termites, with earth
and leaves."7 So large an animal must devour a great number of ter-
mites to satisfy its appetite. In Ecuador the giant anteater is used
as food by the natives.7"3

The tamandua (Tamandiia tetradactyla) , of South America, is simi-
lar to the anteater in its habits. "Its food consists mainly of termites,

2 Graham, The armadillo and the wild turkey, The Oologist, XLI, 90, 1924.

3 Bailey, North American Fauna, No. 25, pp. 53, 56, 1905. Anthony, Field book
of North American mammals, p. 552, 1928.

4 McDaniels, Beautiful baskets from ugly hides, Amer. Forests and Forest Life,
xxxv, 44-45, 1929. Criticized in Journ. Mammalogy, x, 89, 1929, as "nothing more
than an advertisement for the destruction of an interesting and harmless animal."

6 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 316, 1927.
13 Ingersoll, The life of animals, pp. 476-477, 1907.

7 Jennison, Natural history: animals, pp. 317-318, 1927.
"a Tate, Journ. Mammalogy, xn, 249, 1931,

S I R E N I A 341

to obtain which it opens their nests with its powerful anterior claws,
and as the insects swarm to the damaged part of their dwelling, it
draws them into its mouth by means of its long, flexible, rapidly-mov-
ing tongue covered with glutinous saliva/'8 Hansel is quoted as saying
that it does not feed on termites, but that in all specimens examined
the stomachs were filled with true ants, even where termite mounds
were common, while, on the other hand, Zeitz is said to have fed this
species in captivity with termites, and "ants were obstinately refused."9

FAMILY MANIDAE — PANGOLINS OR SCALY ANTEATERS

The scaly anteaters are found in India and Malayasia. Bequaert, in
discussing the suoject in detail and at length, says it appears "that the
pandolins, or scaly anteaters (Manidae) of the Old World tropics are
the only edentates whose myrmecophagous propensities are beyond
doubt." Stomachs examined contained several species of ants.10

FAMILY ORYCTEROPIDAE— AARD VARK, ETC.

The antbear (Orycteropus aethiopicus), of Somaliland, "lives en-
tirely on termites," according to Drake-Brockman.11 The aard vark,
or earth pig (0. afer) "is inoffensive and of inestimable value in keep-
ing down the plague of ants and locusts. Like the anteater, it breaks
the ant heaps and takes the insects on its long, conical, viscid tongue."
Its burrow is "an ever-present danger to horsemen."12 Bequaert says
it appears from an examination of the contents of stomachs of Oryc-
teropus, "that the regular food consists of termites, while true ants
are only taken when they happen to occur in the termite mounds."13

ORDER SIRENIA — MANATEES, SEA-COWS AND DUGONGS

These animals are of little or no economic importance. The Florida
Manatee (Trichecus latirostris) lives on manatee grass "and other
aquatic vegetation found in shallow lagoons and estuaries.1 It has be-

8 Flower and Lydekker, An introduction to the study of mammals, living and
extinct, p. 191, 1891 ; quoted by Bequaert. Bates, The naturalist on the River Ama-
zon, n, 178-179, 1863.

* Bequaert, "The predacious enemies of ants," in Wheeler, Ants of the Belgian
Congo, Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist., XLV, 317, 1922, citing Hansel, Zeitz, and
Flower and 'Lydekker.

10 Bequaert, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XLV, 318-328, 1922.

11 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, pp. 175-176, 1910.

12 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 321, 1927.

13 Bequaert, Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist., XLV, 317, 1922.

1 Hornaday, American natural history, n, 160, 1914. Anthony, Field book of North
American mammals, p. 555, 1928. Stone and Cram, American animals, p. 27, 1902.

342 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

come scarce and much restricted in range. Sirenia skins have been used
to some extent for leather, but the quantity marketed has never been
large.2

The great northern or Steller's sea-cow (Rytina gigas), of the
northwestern North American coast, is said to have subsisted on "sea-
weeds." The history of its extermination by the greed of civilized man
is scandalous. It was discovered in 1742, and the last one was killed
in 1767 or 1768, the date given by Nordenskjold, 1854, being errone-
ous.3

ORDER CETACEA — WHALES, PORPOISES AND DOLPHINS

The interesting and romantic history of the whaling industry, its
former importance, its influence upon political history, exploration
and geographic science, its rise and fall, with statistics concerning the
production of oil, whalebone, ambergris, and other whale products,
the amount of capital invested and number of men employed in the
business, and the decrease in the number of whales, because of per-
sistent and uncontrolled hunting, are discussed at some length in Chap-
ter vi, with numerous references to the literature of the subject.

Before petroleum and its products became available, followed by
gas and electric lights, whale and sperm oil were almost indispensable,
and sperm candles were a great improvement over tallow "dips" and
the torches of savages. The business of procuring and marketing these
commodities was considered "big business" before the vast expansion
of various enterprises growing out of modern inventions and modern
business methods. Whaling vessels pushed out into uncharted seas,
discovered many theretofore unknown bays, inlets and islands, and
carried our national flag for the first time to various foreign ports.

Ambergris, a pathologic product from whale's stomachs, is much
more valuable in proportion to its weight than any other whale product.
Indeed, if is said to be the most valuable product of marine life ex-
cept pearls. However, in the aggregate, because of its quantity, baleen,
or whalebone, is, next to oil, the most valuable product of the whaling
industry. It consists of the elastic plates, 260 to 360 on each side of the
upper jaw in certain species of whales, forming strainers by means of

2 Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm.
for 1902, p. 338.

3 Lucas, Animals recently extinct or threatened with extermination as represented
in the collections of the U. S. National Museum, Ann. Kept. U. S. Natl. Mus. for
1889, p. 623. Stejneger, Investigations relating to the extermination of Steller's sea-
cow, Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus., vn, 181-189, 1884; How the great northern sea-cow
(Rytina) became exterminated, Amer. Naturalist, xxi, 1047-1055, 1887.

C E T A C E A 343

which mollusks, crustaceans and other food are strained from the
water. It was formerly used extensively in the manufacture of whips,
corset stays, umbrella ribs, hoops, coverings for telescopes and other
tubes, imitation hair cloth and various other articles,1 for which cheaper
and better substitutes are now known, though there is still a demand
for the lessened supply.

The flesh of both whales and porpoises is used as food for human
beings.2 Porpoise meat was a favorite Lenten food during the Middle
Ages.3 The skins of both whales and porpoises are made into leather,
even the intestines of the whales being used for that purpose.4 After
all these products have been saved, the remainder of the whales' car-
casses is made into fertilizer, bone-meal and food for cattle.5

"The cetaceans are entirely carnivorous, and their food generally
consists of small mollusks, shrimps and fishes."6 The food of the
sperm whale consists largely of squids and cuttlefishes.7 Bristles identi-
fied as facial vibrissae of a seal were found in ambergris supposed to
have been taken from a sperm whale.8 One hump-backed whale con-
tained from 1 500 to 3000 pounds of sardines and a miscellaneous lot
of smelt, anchovies, shrimps and squids; a sperm whale's stomach
contained a lo-foot shark, a piece of fur seal skin and a bunch of
fish-hooks, and one killer whale at Pribilof Islands contained 18 and
another contained 24 young fur seals.9 One gray whale's mouth con-
tained shrimps; 10 humpbacks contained shrimps and 6 contained "sar-
dines," probably including various small fishes; 16 finbacks contained
shrimps and 5 contained "sardines," some containing about three bar-
rels of small, mackerel-like fishes.10

Modern science has affected the whaling industry, as it has almost
everything else, by providing more effective apparatus. Steamships

1 Stevenson, Whalebone : Its production and utilization, U. S. Bureau of Fisheries
Document No. 626, 1907.

2 Radcliffe, Whales and porpoises as food, U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, Economic
Circular, No. 38, 1918.

8 Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 151, 1927.

4 Prince, The whaling industry and the Cetacea of Canada, Gov. Ptg. Office,
Ottawa, Special Repts., 1926.

5 Bower and Aller, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1914, Appendix x, pp. 58-64.
"Stone and Cram, American animals, pp. II, 18, 1902.

7 Stevenson, Aquatic products in arts and industries, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm. for
1902, p. 248.

8 Murphy, Seals as sperm whale food, Journ. Mammalogy, v, 132, 1924.

* Evermann, The conservation and proper utilization of our natural resources, Sci-
entific Monthly, xv, 309-310, 1922.

"Howell and Huey, Food of the gray and other whales, Journ. Mammalogy,
xi, 321-322, 1930.

344 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

have replaced the slow sailing vessels. Airplanes, equipped with wire-
kss apparatus, are used in hunting the whales and in reporting them
to the ships. Electrical harpoons are used to make the killing of the
whales more certain. A United Press dispatch of May 17, 1930, re-
ported that the fleet of whaling vessels and floating refineries then re-
turning from the South Seas were bringing "the largest cargoes of
sperm oil and by-products ever loaded, one vessel containing 62,000
barrels and another 37,000 barrels. The necessity of conservation of
whales is so keenly felt by students of the situation that, under the aus-
pices of the American Society of Mammalogists, a Council for the Con-
servation of Whales has been organized. Never having been as abun-
dant as most other mammals, and not breeding prolifically, having only
one young at a time, whales are "in peculiar danger of extermination
under modern destructive and systematic methods, if unrestricted."11 A
movement is now on foot to obtain through the League of Nations, in-
ternational regulation of whaling in order to prevent the extinction of
whales,12 and Norway has taken an enlightened and advanced stand
on the subject by the adoption of legislation for the regulation of whal-
ing and the preservation of whales from extinction.13

Normally other whales constituted the chief food of the killer whales
or orcas (Orcinus orca), but since the supply of the other whales has
been so depleted, the killers have become the chief non-human enemies
of seals.14 "Each spring and fall these 'wolves of the sea' come about
the Pribilof Islands in schools, and have been seen to devour seals in
large numbers. I once saw a school capture three seal pups in less than
five minutes. In their eagerness to capture their prey they sometimes
'run aground' and of course they then die. The stomachs of two which
thus came ashore were once examined by Captain Bryant and in them
he found 18 and 24 seals respectively — $2000 meals in each of them."15

The orca is also "a great enemy of the salmon, and it may be seen
in numbers at the mouths of salmon rivers during the salmon season
destroying what doubtless amounts to tons of this most valuable food
fish. . . . Roy C. Andrews, in his first monograph of the Pacific Cetacea
(Memoirs of American Museum, New series, Vol. i Part v) has

11 Prince, The whaling industry and the Cetacea of Canada, 1906.

12 Natural History, xxix, 445, 1929.

13 Norway to save whales, Science News Letter, Nov. 9, 1929, p. 288. Natural His-
tory, xxx, 667, 1930, quoting letter from A. Brazier Howell to the Council for the
Conservation of Whales.

14 Hanna, Rare mammals of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, Journ. Mammalogy,
iv, 209-220, 1923.

15 Hanna, What becomes of the fur seals, Science, LV, 506, 1922.

PRIMATES 345

shown that next to man the greatest enemy of the gray whale is the
orca."1 ''They are the only whales which eat Mammalia, not only
devouring the largest fish, but seals and all other dolphins, porpoises
and large whales are the main objects of their gluttonous rapine.
Though the old walrus is safe from them, the young are greedily eaten.
. . . From the maw of one of these killers Eschricht states that 13
porpoises and 14 seals were extracted/'17 (young seals, doubtless, as
the orca itself was only 16 feet long). The statement that the killers
are the only whales that eat mammals is subject to doubt, as there is
evidence, noted in a preceding paragraph, indicating that seals are
eaten by the sperm whale, whose "throat is capacious enough to swal-
low a man."18

Porpoises and dolphins are hunted chiefly for the skins and oil.19
In 1887, 20,000 porpoise skins were obtained along the Atlantic Coast
of the United States, which was the largest catch on that coast at
least up to 1902, the green hides bringing $2 a side. However, the
commercial "porpoise leather" then being sold in the English markets
was the beluga,20 or white whale. Porpoises and dolphins are said to
feed chiefly on fishes, though Aflalo says that the Risso dolphin proba-
bly feeds on squids and cuttlefishes.21

ORDER PRIMATES — APES, BABOONS, MONKEYS, ETC.

Considering the world as a whole, the mammals of this order, ex-
cept mankind, are not generally distributed or of much importance.
Nevertheless, locally some of the species are abundant and become a
serious problem because of their destructiveness, while in other re-
gions the flesh of some species is eaten and their skins are marketed,
thus being a source of some commercial profit. They are also much
used in zoological and amusement parks and circus menageries.

Gorillas are very powerful animals and are known to sometimes at-
tack natives, both men and women. However, they are by no means as

16 Starks, A history of California shore whaling, California Fish and Game
Comm., Fish Bull., No. 6, pp. 37-38, 1922.

17 Rhoads, Mammals of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, p. 23, 1903.
"Jennison, Natural history: animals, p. 148.

19 Cook, The manufacture of porpoise oil, Proc. U. S. Natl. Museum, i, 16-18,
1878. Clark, The blackfish and porpoise fisheries, The Fisheries and Fishing Indus-
tries of the U. S., Sec. v, Vol. n, 295-310, 1887.

20 Stevenson, Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals, Kept. U. S. Fish Comm.
for 1902, pp. 339-340.

^Hornaday, American natural history, n, 154, 1914. Aflalo, Standard Natural
History, n, 335, 1908 ; Nature Lovers' Library, v, 299, 1927.

346 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

ferocious as they are reputed to be, and the stories of their carrying
off women and holding them captive are mythical.1

The grivet (Ceropithecus aethiops), of Africa, "does great damage
to the small plantations of the Wagosha, Gurre and other tribes who
inhabit the banks of the Somali rivers."2 Baboons "ravage the crops
and tear open new-born lambs to get at the milk inside them; and
where the natives are timid and unable to harm them, they become
wantonly savage and aggressive and attack and even kill women and
children. In Uganda, Cunningham had once been asked by a native
chief to come to his village and shoot the baboons, as they had just
killed two women, badly bitten several children, and caused such a
reign of terror that the village would be abandoned if they were not
killed or intimidated. He himself saw the torn and mutilated bodies of
the dead women/'3

It is said that the dog-faced baboon (Cyanocephalus hamadryas) in
Somaliland lives "entirely on wild fruits and roots."4 Chimpanzees are
said to be fond of ants and ant cocoons.5 Lemurs usually feed chiefly
on vegetation of various kinds and fruits, with some insects and other
food. Many species of monkeys subsist largely on insects, but take also
small reptiles, birds, eggs, fruits and other food, and are sometimes
destructive to crops.6 "The big black and white monkeys (Colubus)
ate nothing but leaves."7 The Somali lemur (Galago gallarum) feeds
chiefly on seeds, fruit and insects.8

The flesh of monkeys is eaten in many regions, and in Brazil it is
said to be more delicious than that of any other Brazilian native mam-
mal and is much sought after by the natives.9

Some monkey skins make very fine robes and coats. At a single sale
in London 30,000 monkey skins were sold.10 In 1892, 180,000 skins
of the Colobus monkeys were exported from the Gold Coast of Africa,
and the slaughter was so great that five years later only 1067 were

1 Aschemeier, On the gorilla and the chimpanzee, Journ. Mammalogy, n, 90-92,
1921. Akeley, Gorillas, real and mythical, Natural History, xxm, 429-447, 1923-

2 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 3, 1910.

'Roosevelt, African game trails, pp. 218-219, 1910. Percival, Concerning baboons,
Journ. East Africa and Uganda Nat. Hist. Soc., No. 14, p. 415, 1919. Northcote,
Baboons attacking children, ibid., No. 16, pp. 60-6 1, 1921.

4 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 4, 1910.

e Bequaert, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XLV, 328-329, 1922.

"Jennison, Natural history: animals, pp. 1-49, 1927. Ingersoll, The life of ani-
mals, pp. 24-37, 1907.

7 Roosevelt, African game trails, p. 363, 1910.

8 Drake-Brockman, The mammals of Somaliland, p. 7, 1910.

9 Holt, Monkeys as human food, Journ. Mammalogy, iv, 193-194, 1923.

10 Lucas, Ann. Kept. U. S. Natl. Museum for 1889, p. 611.

PRIMATES 347

obtained.11 In 1923-1924 Asia produced 50,000 monkey skins and
Africa produced 30,000. 12 Though the accounts of monkeys having
been trained and utilized in picking coconuts, fruit and other products
and in performing various other services for mankind, have been rid-
iculed, they seem to be founded on fact.13

"Lang, Natural History, xxrv, 316-317, 1924. Buxton, Journ. Soc. Arts (London),
LI, 576.

12 Innis, The fur trade of Canada, table opp. p. 76, 1927.

"LaRue, Monkeys as coconut pickers, Science, L, 187, 1919. Gudger, On mon-
keys trained to pick coconuts, Science, XLIX, 146-147, 1919; Monkeys trained as har-
vesters : Instances of a practice extending from remote times to the present, Natural
History, xxm, 273-279, 1923, citing various books by Shelford, Weber- Van Boss,
Beccari, Bird, Fortune, Osbeck, Tyson, Dapper, Gassendi, Acosta and others.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAMS, CHARLES C, The conservation of predatory mammals. Journal of Mam-
malogy, vi, 83-96, 1925.

, Ecological conditions in national forests and national parks. Scientific

Monthly, xx, 561-593, 1925.
-, The economic and social importance of animals in forestry with spe-

cial reference to wild life. Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin,. New York State
College of Forestry, in, 509-676, 1926.

AHRENS, THEODOR G., The present status of the European bison or wisent.
Journal of Mammalogy, n, 58-62, 1921.
— , Muskrats in central Europe. Ibid., 236-237.

— , Proposals for the preservation of the European bison or wisent. Bulle-
tin Zoological Society, xxvi, 46-50, 1923; Science, LVIII, 107, 1923.

AKELEY, CARL E., Gorillas, real and mythical. Natural History, xxm, 429-447,
1923.

ALDRICH, J. M., Food habits of the striped gopher. South Dakota Agricultural
Experiment Station, Bull. No. 30, pp. 8-n, 1892.

ALLEN, GLOVER M., Review of Cabot's Labrador. Journal of Mammalogy, in,

56, 1923-

, Dogs of the American aborigine. Bulletin Museum of Comparative Zool-
ogy (Harvard), LXIII, 431-517, 1920.

ALLEN, J. A., History of the American bison, Bison americanus. Ninth Ann.
Kept. Hayden's U. S. Geological Survey Territories (for 1875), 443-587;
reprinted from Memoirs of Kentucky Geological Survey, i, Pt. 2, 1876, and
Memoirs of Museum of Comparative Zoology (Harvard), Vol. iv, No. 10,
1876.

ALLEN, J. A., and W. C. S. McLuRE, Theory and practice of fox ranching.
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 1926.

AMERICAN NATIONAL Fox AND FUR BREEDER'S ASSOCIATION, Manual of the sil-
ver fox and fur farming industries, 5th ed., 1930.

ANNIN, JAMES J., Poachers or destructive visitors of fish ponds. Bull. U. S.
Bureau of Fisheries, iv, 85-86, 1884.

ANONYMOUS, The wanderings of the water buffalo. Annual Rcpt. Smithsonian
Institution, 1901, pp. 679-682; reprinted from The Spectator, London, Aug.
31, 1901, pp. 278-279.
— , The muskrat in Czechoslovakia. The Nautilus, xxxvni, 103, 1925.

ANTHONY, A. W., The wood rat as a harvester. Journal of Mammalogy, i, 140-
141, 1920.

— , (Quoted on the black bear.) California Fish and Game, ix, 59, 1923.
— , Notes on the present status of the northern elephant seal, Mirounga
angustirostris. Journal of Mammalogy, v, 145-153, 1924.

ANTHONY, H. E., Field book of North American mammals. New York, 1928.

APGAR, A. C., The muskrat and the Unio. Journal Trenton Natural history So-
ciety, No. 2, 58-59, 1887.

ARMIJO, FRANCISCO PABLO. The sheepman's fight against wild life. Outdoor
Life, LXVI, 40, 1930.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 349

ARNOLD, BRIDGEWATER M., Dictionary of fur names. The Fur Journal, i, 42-48,
1927.

ARTHUR, STANLEY C., The fur animals of Louisiana. Dept. of Conservation of
Louisiana, Bull. No. 18, 1928.

ASCHEMEIER, C. R., On the gorilla and the chimpanzee. Journal of Mammal-
ogy, n, 90-92, 1921.

ASHBROOK, FRANK G., The fur trade and the fur supply. Journal of Mammal-
ogy, in, 1-7, 1922.

— , Silver fox farming. U. S. Dept. Agriculture Bull. No. 1151, 1923.
— , Trade names in the fur industry. Journal of Mammalogy, iv, 216-220,
1923.

, Trapping laws and the fur supply. Ibid., vi, 168-173, 1925.

— , Fur farming a growing interest. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture,

1926> 393-395-

, Fur farming for profit. New York, 1928.

, Mink raising. U. S. Biological Survey Leaflet No. 8, 1928.

, Recommendations to beginners in fur farming, Ibid., No. 27, 1928.

ASHBROOK, FRANK G., AND OTHERS, Various articles in Fur Journal, n, 1928,
on Wolf, Wolverene, Badger, Raccoon, Rabbit, Wildcat, Coyote, Cougar,
Beaver, Marten, Mink, Fisher, Skunk, Muskrat and Opossum.

ASHBROOK, FRANK G., AND FRANK L. EARNSHAW, Laws relating to fur ani-
mals for the season 1925-26. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull, No.
1469, 1925.

ASHBROOK, FRANK G., AND KARL B. HANSON, Breeding martens in captivity.
Journal of Heredity, xvm, 498-503, 1927.

ASHBROOK, FRANK G., AND ERNEST P. WALKER, Blue fox farming in Alaska.
U. S. Dept. Agriculture Bull. No. 1350, 1925.

AUSTIN, O. P., Queer methods of travel in curious corners of the world. Na-
tional Geographic Magazine, xvm, 687-715, 1907.

AVERY, CARLOS, Bounties or government trappers. Field and Stream, December,
1930, p. 8.

BABCOCK, H. L., Some observations on the food habits of the short-tailed shrew
(Blarina brevicauda} . Science, n.s., XL, 527-530, 1914.

BACHE, RENE, The terrible horse. Saturday Evening Post, November 25, 1905,
p. ii.

BAILEY, BERNARD, Meat-eating propensities of some rodents of Minnesota.
Journal of Mammalogy, iv, 129, 1923.

BAILEY, VERNON, Notes on some spermophiles and pocket gophers of the Mis-
sissippi Valley. Annual Kept. U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1892, pp. 185-
192.

, The prairie ground squirrels or spermophiles of the Mississippi Valley.

U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Division of Ornithology and Mammalogy, Bull.
No. 4, 1893.
, The pocket gophers of the United States. Ibid., No. 5, 1895.

, Biological Survey of Texas, U. S. Biological Survey, North American

Fauna, No. 25, 1905.

, Directions for the destruction of wolves and coyotes. U. S. Dept. Agri-
culture, Biological Survey, Circular No. 55, 1907.

, Destruction of deer by the northern timber wolf. Ibid., No. 58, 1907.

35O ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

— , Wolves in relation to stock, game and national forest reserves. U. S.
Forest Service Bull, No. 72, 1907.

— , Destruction of wolves and coyotes. U. S. Biological Survey Circular
No. 63, 1908.

, Harmful and beneficial mammals of the arid interior, with special

reference to the Carson and Humboldt Valleys, Nevada. U. S. Dept. Agri-
culture, Farmers' Bull., No. 335, 1908.

— , Identity of the bean mouse of Lewis and Clark. Journal of Mammalogy,
i, 70-72, 1919. ^

— , Beaver habits, beaver control and possibilities in beaver farming. U. S.
Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1078, 1922; superseded by Technical Bull., No. 21,
1927.

— , Bears eat cascara berries. Journal of Mammalogy, iv, 53-54, 1923.
— , Breeding, feeding and other life habits of meadow mice (Microtus}.
Journal of Agricultural Research, xxvu, 532-535, 1924.
— , Bats of Carlsbad Cavern. National Geographic Magazine, XLVIII, 321-

330, 1925-

— , A biological survey of North Dakota. U. S. Biological Survey, North
American Fauna, No. 49, 1926.

— , Construction and operation of Biological Survey beaver trap. U. S.
Dept. Agriculture, Miscell. Circular, No. 69, 1926.
-, Beaver habits and experiments in beaver culture. U. S. Dept. Agricul-

ture Technical Bull.,. No. 21, 1927.
-, Animal life of Carlsbad Cavern, Baltimore, 1928.

BAILEY, VERNON, AND CHARLES C. SPERRY, Life history and habits of grass-
hopper mice, genus Onychomys. U. S. Dept. Agriculture Technical Bull ,
No. 145, 1929.

BAILEY, W. W., Food of cats. American Naturalist, xvm, 1056, 1884.

BAKER, F. S., C. F. KORSTIAN, AND N. J. FETHEROLF, Snowshoe rabbits and
conifers in the Wasatch Mountains of Utah. Ecology, u, 304-310, 1921.

BALLOU, W. H., Squirrels as mushroom eaters. Journal of Mammalogy, vm, 57-
58, 1927.

BARNES, WILL C., Rabbit fever or tularemia. Scientific Monthly, xxvu, 463-
469, 1928.

BARTLETT, ROBERT A., Newfoundland seals. Journal of Mammalogy, vm, 207-
212, 1927.

BARTON, B. W., The skunk eaten by the lynx. American Naturalist, xn, 628,
1878.

BEAKBANE, A. B., The case against the beaver. Forest and Stream, LXIX, 203,
236, 239-240, 1922.

BEAL, F. E. L., How birds affect the orchard. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agricul-
ture for 1900, pp. 291-304.

BECKER, JOSEPH A., AND OTHERS, Statistics of farm animals and animal prod-
ucts. Separate No. 976, from Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1927.

BELL, G. ARTHUR, Breeds of draft horses. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers'
Bull, No. 619, 1914.

BELL, W. B., Cooperative campaigns for the control of ground squirrels, prairie-
dogs and jack rabbits. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1017, pp.
225-233.
— , Hunting down stock killers. Ibid., for 1920, pp. 289-300.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 351

-, Death to rodents. Ibid., pp. 421-438.

-, Wolves, coyotes take big toll from stockmen. Ibid., for 1926, pp. 774-

776.
-, Wolf and coyote control. The Producer, Denver, vn, 3-4, 6-8, 1926.

BENEDICT, J. E., Notes on the feeding habits of Noctilio. Journal of Mammal-
ogy, vn, 58-59, 1926.
BEQUAERT, J., The predacious enemies of ants. Bulletin American Museum of

Natural History, XLV, 271-331, 1922.
BERNARD, JOSEPH E., Local walrus protection in northeast Siberia. Journal of

Mammalogy, iv, 224-227, 1923.

— , Walrus protection in Alaska. Ibid., vi, 100-102, 1925.
BERRY, S. STILLMAN, Observations on a Montana beaver canal. Ibid., iv, 92-

103, 1923; reprinted in Annual Kept. Smithsonian Institution for 1922, 297-

308.
BIRD, R. D., Cottontail rabbits are insectivorous. Journal of Mammalogy, xi,

240, 1930.
BIRDSEYE, CLARENCE, Some common mammals of western Montana in relation

to agriculture and spotted fever. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull.,

No. 484, 1912.
BISHOPP, F. C, Some important insect enemies of livestock in the United

States. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1912, pp. 383-396.
BLAIR, W. REID, In the zoo. New York, 1929.
BONEBRAKE, A. C., An instance of unprovoked attack by a brown bear. Journal

of Mammalogy, in, 185-186, 1922.
BONNOT, PAUL, The sea-lions of California. California Fish and Game, xiv,

1-16, 1928.

— , Sea-lions and fishermen. Ibid., xv, 282, 1929.
BOWER, WARD T., AND HENRY D. ALLER, Alaska fisheries and fur industries.

Kept. U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914, Appendix x.
BOWLES, J. HOOPER, The California gray squirrel as an enemy to the Douglas

fir. American Forestry, xxvi, 26, 1920.

BRANDRETH, PAUL, Deer in winter. Forest and Stream, January, 1928, p. 26.
BROOKS, ALLAN, Can hawks prevent mouse plagues? The Condor, xxix, 249-

250, 1927.
BROOKS, FRED E., Notes on the habits of mice, moles and shrews. West Virginia

University Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. No. 113, 1908.

— , Moles destroy wasps' nests. Journal of Mammalogy, iv, 183, 1923.

— , Notes on a feeding habit of the gray squirrel. Ibid., p. 257.
BROWN, LEE P., Fire and its effects on wild life. Ibid., pp. 195-196.
BRUCE, DAVID, Carnivorous red squirrels. Recreation, ix, 379, 1898.
BRUCE, JAY, The why and how of mountain lion hunting in California. Cali-
fornia Fish and Game, vm, 108-114, 1922.

— , The black bear in relation to stock. Ibid., ix, 16-18, 1923.

— , The problem of mountain lion control in California. Ibid., xi, 1-17,

1925.

BRUNER, LAWRENCE, Pocket gophers. University of Nebraska Agricultural Ex-
periment Station Bull. No. 29, 1908.
BRYANT, H. C., Rabbits damage crops in San Diego County. California Fish

and Game, n, 215-218, 1916.

— , Tree squirrels infested with scabies. Ibid., vn, 128, 1921.

352 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

- , Mountain lion kills boy in Washington. Ibid., xi, 89-90, 1925.

- , Investigations of the deer disease in Mendocino County. Ibid., xn, 107-
108, 1926.

BUCKLEY, JOHN S., Rabies becoming more prevalent in the United States.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1926, pp. 622-624.
BULLER, A. H. REGINALD, The red squirrel of North America as a mycophagist.

Transac. British Mycological Society, vi, 355-362, 1920.
BURGESS, THORNTON W., Fish-eating deer. Journal of Mammalogy, v, 64-65,

1924.
BURNETT, W. L., Report on rodent investigations for 1912. Office Colorado State

Entomologist Circular No. 6, 1912.

- , Report on prairie-dog investigations in Colorado. Ibid., No. 8, 1913.

- , The Wyoming spermophile or ground squirrel (Citellus elegans). Ibid.,
No. 9, 1913.

- , The striped spermophiles or ground squirrels of Colorado. Ibid., No.
14, 1914.

-- , The prairie-dog situation in Colorado. Ibid., No. 17, 1915.

- , Meadow mice. Ibid., No. 18, 1916.

- , The Wyoming ground squirrel in Colorado, with suggestions for con-
trol. Ibid., No. 20, 1916.

— , Suggestions for combating prairie-dogs, ground squirrels and other
rodent pests. Ibid., No. 24, 1917.

- , Rodents of Colorado in their economic relation. Ibid., No. 25, 1918.

- , Life history studies of the Wyoming ground squirrel (Citellus elegans
elegans} in Colorado. Colorado Experiment Station Bulletin No. 373, 1931.

BURNHAM, JOHN B., The plimsoll line in white cedars. Journal of Mammalogy,

ix, 43-47, 1928.
BURT, CHARLES E., A note on the mouse, Mus musculus Linn., as an enemy to

lizards. Copeia, No. 162, 15-16, 1927.
BURT, W. B., Additional notes on the life history of the Goss lemming mouse.

Journal of Mammalogy, ix, 212-216, 1928.
BUTLER, AMOS W., Observations on the muskrat. American Naturalist, xix,

1044-1055, 1885.
BUXTON, CARA, The gadett or brain-eater. Journal East African and Uganda

Natural History Society, No. 15, 498, 1919; Journal of Mammalogy, i,

151, 1919.

CABOT, WILLIAM BROOKS, Labrador. Boston, 1921.
CAMPBELL, CHARLES A. R., Bats, mosquitoes and dollars. Boston, 1925.
CAREY, HENRY R., Saving the animal life of Africa — A new method and a last

chance. Journal of Mammalogy, vii, 73-85, 1926.

— , African game conservation through the League of Nations. Ibid., pp.

3II-3I3.

— , Carl Akeley's last words about Africa. Ibid., vm, 172, 1927.
, Usefulness of predatory animals. Ibid., xi, 229, 1930.

CARPENTER, CHARLES, What muskrats sometimes eat. Bulletin U. S. Bureau of

Fisheries, iv, 295, 1884.
CARROLL, CHARLES C, The government importation of camels: A historical

sketch. U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry, Circular No. 53, 1904.
CARTER, WILLIAM HARDING, The story of the horse: The development of man's

companion in war camp, on farm, in the marts of trade and in the field

of sport. National Geographic Magazine, XLIV, 456-566, 1923.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 353

GARY, MERRITT, A biological survey of Colorado. U. S. Biological Survey,

North American Fauna, No. 33, 1911.
CHAMBERLIN, K. F., The insect food of the dusky skunk. New York State

Museum Handbook, No. 4, 93-100, 1928.
CHITTENDEN, H. M., The American fur trade of the Far West. 3 vols. New

York. 1902.

CLAREMONT, C. LEOPOLD, A practical handbook of rat destruction. London, 1926.
CLARK, A. HOWARD, The whale fishery : History and present condition of the

fishery. In Fisheries and Fisheries Industries of the United States, 1887,

Sec. v, Vol. n, Part xv, pp. 1-218 (U. S. Senate Miscellaneous Documents,

First Session, 47th Congress, 1881-82, Vol. 10).

, The blackfish and porpoise fisheries. Ibid., pp. 295-310.

CLENCH, W. J., Snails eaten by shrews. The Nautilus, xxxix, 28, 1925.
COGSHALL, ANNETTA STOW, Food habits of deer mice of the genus Peromyscus

in captivity. Journal of Mammalogy, ix, 217-221, 1928.
COLL, M. W., Sheep-killing dogs. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull., No.

1268, 1922; supersedes No. 935.
COOK, CALEB, The manufacture of porpoise oil. Proceedings U. S. National

Museum, i, 16-18, 1878.
COOK, JOHN A., Pursuing the whale: A quarter-century of whaling in the

Arctic. Boston, 1926.
COOPER, JOHN M., Fur-bearing animals. 8th Annual Rept. New York State

Conservation Commission, 1-426, 1918.
COPE, E. D., On a habit of a species of Blarina. American Naturalist, vn, 490-

491, 1873.
COTTAM, WALTER P., Man as a biotic factor illustrated by recent floristic and

physiographic changes at Mountain Meadows, Washington County, Utah.

Ecology, x, 361-363, 1929. Overgrazing causing erosion and floods.
COUCH, LEO K., Mice and moles, Journal of Mammalogy, v, 264, 1924.

, Storing habits of Microtus townsendi. Ibid., vi, 200, 1925.

, Relationship of predatory mammals and birds of prey to rodent life.

Ibid., ix, 73-74, 1928.
-, Introduced European rabbits in the San Juan Islands, Washington.

Ibid., x, 334-336, 1929.
COUES, ELLIOTT, Fur-bearing animals: A monograph of North American Mus-

telidae. Hayden's U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories Publication

No. 8, 1877.
COUPIN, HENRI, Animals that hunt. Annual Rept. Smithsonian Institution for

1903, PP- 567-573.
CRAM, WILLIAM EVERETT, The red squirrel. Journal of Mammalogy, v, 37-41,

1924.

CRIDDLE, NORMAN, The habits and economic importance of wolves. Dept. of
Agriculture, Ottawa, Bull. No. 13, new series; not seen.

CRIDDLE, NORMAN, AND STUART CRIDDLE, Weasels of southern Manitoba. Cana-
dian Field Naturalist, September, 1925, as cited by Seton.

CRIDDLE, STUART, The habits of Microtus minor in Manitoba. Journal of Mam-
malogy, vii, 193-200, 1926.

, The prairie pocket gopher, Thomomys talpoides rufescens. Ibid., xi,

265-280, 1930.

CROSS, E. C., AND J. R. DYMOND, The mammals of Ontario. Royal Ontario
Museum of Zoology, Handbook No. I, 1929.

354 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

CUYLER, W. KENNETH, Observations on the habits of the striped skunk (Mephi-
tis mesomelas varians}. Journal of Mammalogy, v, 180-189, 1924.

DALE, HARRISON CLIFFORD, Ashley-Smith exploration. Cleveland, 1918.

DALL, WILLIAM H., On the preservation of the marine animals of the north-
west coast. Annual Report Smithsonian Institution for 1001, pp. 683-688.

DAVIS, JOHN J., Contribution to a knowledge of natural enemies of Phyllo-
phaga [white grubs]. Bulletin Illinois Natural History Survey, xin, 53-
138, 1919; Journal of Mammalogy, i, 44, 1919.

DAVIS, WILLIAM T., Oak apple galls destroyed by gray squirrels. Bulletin
Brooklyn Entomological Society, xix, pp. 91-93, 1924; Journal of Mam-
malogy, v, p. 271, 1924.

DEARBORN, NED, Silver fox farming in eastern North America. U. S. Dept.
Agriculture Bull. No. 301, 1915.

— , Fur farming as a side line. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1016,
pp. 489-506.
, Rabbit growing to supplement the meat supply. Ibid., for 1918, pp. 145-

152.

— , Trapping on the farm. Ibid., for 1919, pp. 451-484.

— , Rabbit raising. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull., No. 1090, 1920.

— , The maintenance of the fur supply. U. S. Biological Survey Circular

No. 135, pp. 3-12, 1920.
-, The fur situation. Journal of Mammalogy, i, 144-145, 1920.

DE ONG, E. RALPH, Parasites which affect the food value of rabbits. California

Fish and Game, i, 142-143, 1914.
DICE, L. R., Notes on the mammals of interior Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy,

n, 20-28, 1921.

— , Lethal dose of strychnine for the Norway rat. Ibid., iv, 188-189, I923-

— , Wood rat damage to fruit trees in eastern Oregon. Ibid., vi, 282, 1925.

— , Skunks eat kittens. Ibid., vn, 131, 1926.

— , The transfer of game and fur-bearing mammals from state to state,

with special reference to the cottontail rabbit. Ibid., vm, 90-96, 1927.
-, The sea-lions of California. California Fish and Game, xiv, 1-16, 1928.

DIGBY, BASSETT, The mammoth and mammoth hunting in northeast Siberia.
New York, 1926.

DIMMOCK, GEORGE, Abnormal food of cats. American Naturalist, xviii, 941-
943, 1884.

DIRKS, W. N., Mole eats angleworms. California Fish and Game, v, 99, 1919.

DIXON, JOSEPH, Control of the California ground squirrel. University of Cali-
fornia Agricultural Experiment Station Circular No. 181, 1917.
— , Control of the coyote in California. University of California, College
of Agriculture, Bull. No. 320, 379-397, 1920; Journal of Mammalogy, n,
176-177, 1921.

— , Rodents and reclamation in the Imperial Valley. Journal of Mammal-
ogy, in, 136-146, 1922.

— , Notes on the life history of the gray shrew. Ibid., v, 1-6, 1924.
— , Food predilections of predatory and fur-bearing mammals. Ibid., vi,
34-46, 1925.

— , Black bear tries to gnaw into a woodpecker's nest. The Condor, xxix,
271-272, 1927.

— •-, What deer eat. American Forests and Forest Life, xxxiv, 143-145,
1928.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 355

— , Fur-bearers caught in traps set for predatory animals. Journal of Mam-
malogy, xi, 373-377, 1930.

, Pikas vs. weasel. Ibid., xn, 72, 1931.

DIXON, JOSEPH, AND E. RALPH DE ONG, Control of the pocket gopher in Cali-
fornia. California College of Agriculture, Experiment Station, Bull. No.
281, 1917.

DONALDSON, HENRY H., Control of rat population. Science, LXI, 305-306, 1925.

DONDERO, J. D., Protecting orchards from deer. California Fish and Game, xiv,
221, 1928.

DONHAM, C. R., So-called salmon poisoning of dogs. Science, LXI, 341, 1925.

DOSE, J. B., Kansas' enormous fur industry. Kansas Fish and Game, Rept. No.
2, Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Dept, 1928.

DRAKE-BROCKMAN, R. E., The mammals of Somaliland. London, 1910.

DUGMORE, A. R., The romance of the beaver. Philadelphia, 1914.

DUNNAM, E. E., The common garden mole of Iowa. Iowa State Experiment
Station Circular No. 88, 1924.

DYCHE, L. L., Notes on the food habits of California sea-lions. Transac. Kan-
sas Academy of Science, xvm, 179-182, 1902.
— , Food habits of the common garden mole. Ibid., pp. 183-186, 1903.

EARLE, EDWARD M., The mungoose in Jamaica. Forest and Stream, xxxix, 69,
1892.

EARNSHAW, FRANK L., Fur laws for the season 1928-29. U. S. Dept. Agricul-
ture, Farmers' Bulk, No. 1576, 1928.
— , Fur laws for the season 1929-1930. Ibid., No. 1618, 1929.

EARNSHAW, FRANK L., AND FRANK G. GRIMES, Game laws for the season 1929-
1930, Ibid., No. 1616, 1929.

EATON, PAUL, AND C. S. STIRRETT, Reproduction rate in wild rats. Science,
LXVII, 555-556, 1928.

ELLIOTT, HENRY W., The sea otter and its hunting. Report on condition of
affairs in Territory of Alaska, 54-62, 1875. Government Printing Office.
— , The destruction of carp by the muskrat. Bulletin U. S. Bureau of Fish-
eries, iv, 296-297, 1884.

— , The sea-otter fishery. The Fisheries and Fisheries Industries of the
United States, Sec. v, n, 483-491, 1887 (Senate Miscellaneous Documents,
First Session, 47th Congress, 1881-1882, Vol. x).

ELTON, C. S., Periodic fluctuations in the number of animals : Their causes and
effects. British Journal of Experimental Biology, xi, 1924; cited in Innis,
The fur trade of Canada, 89, 1927.

— , Plague and the regulation of numbers in wild animals. Journal of Hy-
giene, xxiv, 138-163, 1925.

ENDERS, ROBERT KENDALL, Notes on some mammals from Barro Colorado Is-
land, Canal Zone. Journal of Mammalogy, xi, 280-292, 1930.

ENGLISH, PENNOYER F., The dusky- footed wood rat (Neotoma fuscipes). Ibid.,
iv, 1-9, 1923.

EVERMANN, BARTON WARREN, The conservation and proper utilization of our
natural resources. Scientific Monthly, xv, 289-312, 1922.

, The conservation of the marine life of the Pacific. Ibid., xvi, 521-538,

1923 ; Mid-Pacific Magazine, xxv, 303-328, 1923.

FARGO, WILLIAM G., Bats of Indian Key, Tampa Bay, Florida. Journal of
Mammalogy, x, 203-205, 1929.

FERRIS, G. F., Concerning lice. Ibid., in, 16-18, 1922.

356 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

FINLEY, WILLIAM L., Cougar kills a boy. Ibid., vi, 197-199, 1925.

FISHER, A. K., The economic value of predacious birds and mammals. Year-
book U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1008, pp. 187-194.

FORBES, E. B., AND S. I. BECHDEL. Mountain laurel and rhododendron as foods
for the white-tailed deer. Ecology, xii, 323-333, 1931.

FORBUSH, EDWARD HOWE, Facts about cats. Bird-Lore, xvn, 165-167, 1915.

, Rats and rat riddance. Massachusetts Board of Agriculture, Economic

Biology, Bull. No. i, 1915.
-, The domestic cat: Bird killer, mouser and destroyer of wild life —

Means of utilizing and controlling it. Ibid., No. 2, 1916.

FORSLING, C. L., A study of the influence of herbaceous plant cover on sur-
face run-off and soil erosion in relation to grazing on the Wasatch Plateau
in Utah, U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Technical Bull. No. 220, 1931.

Fox, HERBERT, Disease in captive wild mammals and birds. Philadelphia, 1923.

FRIEDMAN, HERBERT, Notes on the big game of Africa and its preservation.
Journal of Mammalogy, vii, 305-310, 1926.

FRY, WALTER, The Wolverene. California Fish and Game, ix, 129-134, 1923.

, The California badger. Ibid., xiv, 204-208, 1928.

GABRIELSON, IRA NOEL, Porky. Forest and Stream, January, 1928, p. 22, etc.

, Notes on the habits and behavior of the porcupine in Oregon. Journal

of Mammalogy, ix, 33, 1928.

GANDER, FRANK L., Experiences with wood rats, Neotoma fuscipes macrotis.
Ibid., x, 52-58, 1929.

GARRETT, V. R., Rat-eating mole. The Field, London, CXLVIII, 205, 1926.

GEORGESON, C. C., Reindeer and caribou. U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry,
Circular No. 55, 1904; reprinted from Annual Rept. for 1903, pp. 377-390.

GIANINI, CHARLES A., Tree-climbing and insect-eating woodchucks. Journal of
Mammalogy, vi, 281-282, 1925.

GILLETTE, C. P., Food habits of the striped prairie squirrel. Iowa State Experi-
ment Station Bull. No. 6, pp. 240-244, 1889.

GILMORE, MELVIN R., Food stored by the bean mouse. Journal of Mammalogy,
i, 157, 1920.

GOLDMAN, EDWARD A., The predatory mammal problem and the balance of
nature. Journal of Mammalogy, vi, 28-33, J925-

, Review of Campbell's Bats, mosquitoes and dollars. Ibid., vn, 135-138,

1926.

— , Game surpluses perplex wild-life guardians. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Ag-
riculture for 1026, pp. 397-399.

, The kaibab or white-tailed squirrel. Journal of Mammalogy, ix, 127-

128, 1928.
, The coyote — archpredator. Ibid., xi, 325-336, 1930.

GOODE, G. BROWN, The whales and porpoises. Fisheries and Fisheries Indus-
tries of the United States, 1884, Sec. i, Part i, pp. 7-32 (Destructiveness of
whales and porpoises, pp. 15-17).

, The seals and walrusses. Ibid., pp. 33-74.

GOODWIN, GEORGE G., Observations on Noctilio. Journal of Mammalogy, ix,
104-112, 1928.

GRAHAM, RAMON, The armadillo and wild turkey. The Oologist, XLI, 90, 1924.

GRAHAM, SAMUEL A., The larch saw-fly as an indicator of mouse abundance.
Journal of Mammalogy, x, 189-196, 1929.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 357

GRAVES, HENRY S., AND E. W. NELSON, Our national elk herds. U. S. Dept.

Agriculture Circular No. 51, 1919.
GREEN, D. MONROE, Chinchilla rabbits for food and fur. U. S. Biological Survey

Leaflet No. 22, 1928.
GREGORY, WILLIAM K., On the "habits" and "heritage" of Caenolestes. Journal

of Mammalogy, in, 106-114, 1922.

GRINNELL, GEORGE BIRD, List of birds and mammals collected. Annual Rept.
Chief of Engineers, U. S. Dept. War, Part 3, 1876, 635-641.

, As to wolverenes. Journal of Mammalogy, i, 182-184, 1920.

, The "unprovoked" attack of a bear. Ibid., iv, 52-53, 1923.

, The starving deer of the Kaibab Forest. The Outlook, cxxxvi, 186-187,

1924.
-, Eagles' prey. Journal of Mammalogy, x, 83, 1929.

GRINNELL, JOSEPH, Bats as desirable citizens. California Fish and Game Com-
mission, Teachers' Bull., No. 6, 1916.

, The burrowing rodents of California as agents in soil formation. Jour-
nal of Mammalogy, iv, 137-149, 1923; reprinted in Annual Rept. Smith-
sonian Institution for 1923, pp. 339-350.

GRINNELL, JOSEPH, AND OTHERS, California ground squirrels : A bulletin deal-
ing with life histories, habits and control of the ground squirrels of Cali-
fornia. Monthly Bulletin of California State Commission of Horticulture,
vii, 595-807, 1918.

GRISWOLD, H. G., The Kaibab — facts, not fancies. Outdoor Life, LXVI, 35-36,
1930.

GROSVENOR, GILBERT H., Reindeer in Alaska. National Geographic Magazine,
xiv, 128-149, 1918.

GUDGER, E. W., Monkeys trained as harvesters: Instances of a practice ex-
tending from remote times to the present. Natural History, xxin, 273-279,
1923.

, Cats as fishermen. Ibid., xxv, 143-155, 1925.

HADWEN, SEYMOUR, AND LAWRENCE J. PALMER, Reindeer in Alaska. U. S.
Dept. Agriculture Bull. No. 1089, 1922.

HAHN, WALTER Louis, The mammals of Indiana. jjrJ Annual Rept. Indiana
Dept. Geology and Natural Resources (for 1908), pp. 417-654, 1909.

HALL, E. RAYMOND, Economic value of the Mexican free-tailed bat. California
Fish and Game, xn, 135-137, 1926.

, The deer of California. Ibid., xin, 234-259, 1927.

, An outbreak of house mouse in Kern County, California. University

of California, Publications in Zoology, xxx, pp. 189-203, 1927.
-, Notes on the life history of the sage-brush meadow mouse (Lagurus).

Journal of Mammalogy, ix, 201-204,

, Predatory mammal destruction. Ibid., xi, 363-372, 1930.

HALL, E. RAYMOND, AND JEAN M. LINSDALE, Notes on the life history of the

kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops}. Ibid., x, 298-305, 1929.
HALL, MAURICE C, A calendar of livestock parasites. U. S. Dept. Agriculture,

Miscellaneous Publication, No. 25, 1928.
HAMILTON, W. J., Weasels and shrews. Journal of Mammalogy, ix, 249-250,

1928.
, The food of the Soricidae. Ibid., xi, 26-39, 1930.

358 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

, Notes on the mammals of Breathitt County, Kentucky. Ibid., pp. 306-

3««

, Habits of the star-nosed mole, Condylura cristata. Ibid., xu, 345-355,

HANNA, G. DALLAS, What becomes of the fur seals? Science, LV, 505-507, 1922.

, Rare mammals of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy,

iv, 209-220, 1923.

HANSON, KARL B., Hygiene in fox farming. U. S. Dept. Agriculture Leaflet
No. 47, 1929.

HART, GEORGE H., Rabies and its increasing prevalence. U. S. Bureau of Ani-
mal Industry Circular No. 129, 1908.

HART, M. D., Game survey for the season ending February i, 1921. Virginia
Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries, pp. 1-6, 1921.

HARTMAN, CARL, A brown rat kills a rattler. Journal of Mammalogy, in, 116-
117, 1922.

HATT, GUDMUND, Notes on reindeer nomadism. Memoirs American Anthropo-
logical Association, vi, 75-133, 1919.

HATT, ROBERT T., Notes on some captive deer mice. Journal of Mammalogy,

iv, p. 186, 1923.
, Food habits of the Pacific pallid bat. Ibid., pp. 260-261.

, The red squirrel: Its life history and habits, with special reference

to the Adirondacks of New York and the Harvard Forest. Roosevelt Wild
Life Annals (New York State College of Forestry), n, No. r, pp. 1-146,
1929.
-, The biology of the voles of New York. Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin

(New York College of Forestry), v, No. 4, pp. 513-623, 1930.
-, The relation of mammals to the Harvard Forest. Ibid., pp. 625-671.

HEADLEE, T. J., Ecological notes on the mussels of Winona, Pike and Central
Lakes of Kosciusko County, Indiana. Biological Bulletin, xi, 305-318, 1906.

HEIDEMAN, C. W. H., Beaver farming. American Fox and Fur Farmer, in,
8-1 1, 1924.

HELLER, JOHN A., Brewer's mole as food for the bullfrog. Copeia, No. 165,
p. 1 1 6, 1927.

HELLER, L. L., The Angora goat. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull., No.

573, 1914-
HENDERSON, A. D., Cycles of abundance and scarcity in certain mammals and

birds. Journal of Mammalogy, iv, 264-265, 1923.
HENDERSON, JUNIUS, The practical value of birds. New York, 1927.
HENDERSON, W. C., The control of the coyote. Journal of Mammalogy, xi, 336-

362, 1930.
, The other side of the poison case. Outdoor Life, December, 1930, pp.

22-23, 65-67.
HENSHAW, H. W., Notes on the mammals taken and observed in California in

1875. Annual Kept. Chief of Engineers U. S. Dept. of War for 1876, Part

3, pp. 525-532.
HESS, O. B., Less cholera — more hogs. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for

ipi8, pp. 191-194.
HEWITT, C. GORDON, The coming back of the bison. Natural History, xix, 553-

565, 1919-
, The conservation of the wild life of Canada. New York, 1921.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 359

HINTON, M. A. C, Rats and mice as enemies of mankind. British Museum of

Natural History Economic Series, No. 8, 1920.
His AW, FREDERICK L., Feeding habits of moles. Journal of Mammalogy, iv, 9-

20, 1923.
, Observations on the burrowing habits of moles (Scalopus aquaticus

machrinoides} . Ibid., pp. 79-88.
HISAW, FREDERICK L., AND FREDERICK E. EMERY, Food selection of ground

squirrels, Citellus tridecemlineatus. Ibid., vm, 41-44, 1927.
HISAW, FREDERICK L., and HOWARD K. GLOYD, The bull snake as a natural

enemy of injurious rodents. Ibid., vii, 200-205, 1926.

HOFMANN, J. V., Furred forest planters. Scientific Monthly, xvi, 280-283, I923-
HOGARTH, A. M., The rat: A world menace. 1929.
HOHMAN, E. P., The American whaleman: A study of life and labor in the

^whaling industry. New York, 1928.

HOLMES, GEORGE K., Wool: Production, foreign trade, supply and consump-
tion. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1017, pp. 401-424.

— , Hides and skins: Production, foreign trade, supply and consumption.

Ibid., pp. 425-446.
HOLT, ERNEST G., Monkeys as human food. Journal of Mammalogy, iv, 193-

194, 1923.
HORN, EVERETT E., Some notes concerning the breeding habits of Thomomys

townsendi, observed near Vale, Malheur County, Oregon, during the spring

of 1921. Ibid., pp. 37-39.
HORNADAY, WILLIAM T., The extermination of the American bison, with a

sketch of its discovery and life history. Annual Kept. U. S. National

Museum for 1887, PP- 367-548.
, The destruction of our birds and mammals: A report on the results

of an inquiry. 2nd Annual Rept. New York Zoological Society, pp. 77-108.

— , Our vanishing wild life. New York, 1913.

— , Threatened quick extinction of the white rhinoceros. Bulletin New

York Zoological Society, xxvii, 12-15, T924-
HOSLEY, N. W., Red squirrel damage to coniferous plantations and its relation

to changing habits. Ecology, ix, 43-48, 1928.

HOUK, IVAN E., When beavers aid irrigation. Emergency use of water im-
pounded by the industrious animal. Scientific American, March, 1924, p.

161.

HOVELL, T. MARK, Rats and how to destroy them. London, 1924.
HOWARD, L. O., Mosquitoes and bats. U. S. Public Health Reports, xxxv, 1789-

1795, 1920.

HOWELL, A. BRAZIER, The black bear as a destroyer of game. Journal of Mam-
malogy, n, 36, 1921.

— , Periodic fluctuations in the numbers of small mammals. Ibid., iv, 149-

155, 1923-

, Mole notes. Ibid., p. 253.

, Voles of the genus Phenacomys. U. S. Biological Survey, North

American Fauna, No. 48, 1926.

— , Revision of the American lemming mice (genus Synaptomys}. Ibid.,

No. 50, 1927.

— , At the crossroads. Journal of Mammalogy, xi, 377-389, 1930.

360 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

, The poison brigade of the Biological Survey. Outdoor Life, LXVI, 30-

33, 1930.
-, The Borgias of 1930. Ibid., October, 1930, pp. 17, 85-87.

HOWELL, A. BRAZIER, AND LAURENCE M. HUEY, Food of the gray and other

whales. Journal of Mammalogy, xi, 321-322, 1930.
HOWELL, ARTHUR H., Revision of the skunks of the genus Chincha. U. S.

Biological Survey, North American Fauna, No. 20, 1901.

— , Revision of the skunks of the genus Spilogale. Ibid., No. 26, 1906.

— , A biological survey of Alabama. Ibid., No. 45, 1921.

— , Revision of the American chipmunks. Ibid., No. 52, 1929.
HOY, CHARLES M., The present status of the Australian mammal fauna. Jour-
nal of Mammalogy, iv, 164-166, 1923.
HUBBARD, WYNANT DAVIS, Big game in Rhodesia. Ibid., pp. 228-230.

— , Further notes on the mammals of northern Rhodesia and Portuguese

East Africa. Ibid., x, 294-297, 1929.
HUEY, LAURENCE M., Recent observations on the northern elephant seal. Ibid.,

v, 237-243, 1924.

— , Late information on the Guadalupe Island elephant seal. Ibid., vi, 126,

1925.
-, Food of the California leaf-nosed bat. Ibid., pp. 196-197.

— , Past and present status of the northern elephant seal, with a note on

the Guadalupe fur seal. Ibid., xi, 188-194, 1930; with bibliography.
HULL, THOMAS G., Diseases transmitted from animals to man. Springfield, Illi-
nois, and Baltimore, Maryland, 1930.
HUMPHREY, F. T., A serious plague of mice in California. Scientific American,

May, 1927, pp. 330-331.

HUNT, H. H., Food of the bobcat. California Fish and Game, vi, 37, 1920.
HUNTER, J. S., The control of the mountain lion in California. Ibid., vii, 99-101,

1921.

— , Deer hunting in California. Ibid., x, 18-23, 1924.

HUNTER, MARTIN, Canadian wilds. 1907. Not examined, but cited from Seton.
INGERSOLL, ERNEST, The life of animals. New York, 1907.
INNIS, H. A., The fur trade of Canada. University of Toronto, 1927.
JACKSON, HARTLEY H. T., A taxonomic review of the American long-tailed

shrews. U. S. Biological Survey, North American Fauna, No. 51, 1928.
JACKSON, SHELDON, Introduction of domesticated reindeer into Alaska, ist to

i6th Annual Repts. General Agent of Education in Alaska to Commissioner

of Education, U. S. Dept. Interior, 1890-1906.

JACOBSEN, W. C., Rate of reproduction in Citellus beecheyi. Journal of Mam-
malogy, iv, 58, 1923.
JENKINS, J. T., A history of the whale fisheries: From the Basque fisheries of

the tenth century to the hunting of the finner whale at the present date.

London, 1921.

JENNISON, GEORGE, Natural history: animals. New York, 1927.
JEWETT, STANLEY G., Notes on two species of Phenacomys in Oregon. Journal

of Mammalogy, i, 165-168, 1920.

— , A breeding record of Citellus mollis. Ibid., iv, 191, 1923.
JOHNSON, ARTHUR M., An observation on the carnivorous propensities of the

gray gopher. Ibid., m, 187, 1922.
JOHNSON, CHARLES E., A note on the habits of the timber wolf. Ibid., u, 11-15,

1921.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 361

— , Notes on the mammals of northern Lake County, Minnesota. Ibid., HI,
33-39, 1922.

— , The muskrat: Its natural history and economics. Roosevelt Wild Life
Bulletin, New York State College of Forestry, in, 205-320, 1925.
— , The beaver in the Adirondacks: Its economics and natural history.
Ibid., iv, 501-641, 1927.
-, On the supposed relation of deer to cedars bordering certain Adiron-

dack lakes. Journal of Mammalogy, vin, 213-221, 1927.
JOHNSON, HARVEY, Dogs as draft animals. Forest and Stream, XLIX, 491-492,

1897; L, 13-14, 1898.

JONES, DAVIB JOHN, On certain relations of the lower animals to human dis-
eases. Science, XLIV, 337-347, J9l6-
JONES, J. WALTER, Fur farming in Canada. Commission of Conservation of

Canada, 1913.
JOTTER, E. V., The coyote as a deer killer. California Fish and Game, i, 26,

1914.
KALMAR, Z. TED DE, The Adirondack deer. American Game (Bull. American

Game Protective Association), xvm, 85, 1929.
KELLER, C, The derivation of the European domestic animals. Annual Kept.

Smithsonian Institution for 1912, pp. 483-491.
KELLOGG, EUGENE S., The California ground squirrel problem. California Dept.

Agriculture Special Publication No. 109, 1931.
KELLOGG, REMINGTON, Whaling statistics for the Pacific Coast of North

America. Journal of Mammalogy, xn, 73-77, 1931.
KELLOGG, VERNON LYMAN, AND RENNIE WILBUR DOANE, Elementary textbook

of economic zoology and entomology. New York, 1915. Includes very little

economic mammalogy, on pp. 295-334.

KIRK, GEORGE L., Shrews and weasels. Journal of Mammalogy, n, p. in, 1921.
KLUGH, A. BROOKER, Notes on the habits of Blarina brevicauda. Ibid., p. 35.

— , Ecology of the red squirrel, Ibid., vin, 1-32, 1927; reprinted in Ann.

Kept. Smithsonian Inst. for 1928, pp. 495-524, "with slight changes in the

illustrations."
LANG, HERBERT, Recent and historical notes on the square-lipped rhinoceros

(Cer at other ium simum). Ibid., iv, 155-163, 1923.

— , Threatened extinction of the white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum).

Ibid., v, 173-179, 1924.

— jThe vanishing wild life of Africa. Natural History, xxiv, 313-327,

1924.
LANO, ALBERT, Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and porcupine. The Auk,

xxxix, 258-259, 1922.
LANTZ, DAVID E., Meadow mice in relation to agriculture and horticulture.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1905, pp. 363-376.
, Coyotes in their economic relations. U. S. Biological Survey Bull. No.

20, 1905.

— , The relation of coyotes to stock raising in the west. U. S. Dept. Agri-
culture, Farmers' Bull., No. 226, 1906.
, Methods of destroying rats. Ibid., No. 297, 1907.

— , Bounty laws in force in the United States July i, 1907. Yearbook U. S.

Dept. Agriculture for 1907, pp. 560-565.
, An economic study of field mice. U. S. Biological Survey Bull. No. 31,

1907.

362 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

— , Use of poisons for destroying noxious mammals. Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agriculture for 1908, pp. 421-432.

— , Deer farming in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers'
Bull., No. 330, 1908.

— , Directions for destroying pocket gophers. U. S. Biological Survey Cir-
cular No. 52, 1908.

— , Pocket gophers as enemies of trees. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture
for /pop, pp. 209-218.
, The brown rat in the United States. U. S. Biological Survey Bull. No.

33, 1909-

— ,. Raising deer and other large game animals in the United States. Ibid.,

No. 36, 1910.

— , The muskrat. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull., No. 396, 1910.

— , Economic value of North American skunks. Ibid., No. 587, 1914.

— , Destroying rodent pests on the farm. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture

for ipi6, pp. 381-398.

— , The house rat : The most destructive animal in the world. Ibid., for

1917, pp. 235-251.

— , House rats and mice. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull., No. 896,

1917.

— , Rodent pests of the farm. Ibid., No. 932, 1918.

— , Cottontail rabbits in relation to trees and farm crops. Ibid., No. 702,

1916, revised in 1924 and 1929.

LARUE, CARL L., Monkeys as cocoanut pickers. Science, L, 187, 1919.
LAUFER, BERTHOLD, The reindeer and its domestication. Memoirs Anthropologi-
cal Association, iv, 90-147, 1917.
LAUT, AGNES C, The fur trade of the world — the oldest industry of mankind.

World's Work, May, 1907, pp. 8862-8878.

— , The fur trade of America. New York. 192;.

— , Concerning beaver and nutria. Forest and Stream, LXIX, 57, 88, 89,

1921.

LA VALETTE, GEORGE, The enemies of fish. Rept. U. S. Commissioner of Fish-
eries for 1878, pp. 509-516.
LAWSON, A. K., Mollusca eaten by rabbits. Journal of Conchology, xvm, 327-

328, 1929.
LEA, W. S., How the muskrat opens a Unio. Journal Trenton Natural History

Society, No. i, p. 8, 1886.
LEECH MAN, DOUGLAS, Fleece-bearing dogs. Nature Magazine, xiv, 177-178,

1929.

LEEK, S. N., Elk tusk hunting. Outdoor Life, xxxv, 149-151, 1915.
LESLEY, LEWIS BURT, Uncle Sam's camels. Harvard University Press.
LE SOUEF, A. S., The fox menace and its effect on our native animals. Bulletin

of Zoological Society, xxvii, 69-71, 1924.
LEWIS, JOHN B., Opossums in captivity. Journal of Mammalogy, x, 167-168,

1929.

LIGON, J. STOKLEY, Wild Life of New Mexico : Its conservation and manage-
ment. New Mexico State Game Commission, 1927.

LINCECUM, GIDEON, The opossum. American Naturalist, vi, 555-557, 1872.
LINSDALE, JEAN M., Further facts concerning losses to wild animal life

through pest control in California. The Condor, xxxiv, 121-12^5, 1932.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 363

LOCKHART, J. G., Notes on the habits of the moose in the far north of British
America in 1865. Proceedings U. S. National Museum, xin, 305-308, 1890.

LORENZEN, L. N., A sheep-killing bear. California Fish and Game, ix, 151-152,
1923.

LUCAS, FREDERICK A., Animals recently extinct or threatened with extermina-
tion, as represented in the collections of the U. S. National Museum. An-
nual Rept. U. S. National Museum for 1880, pp. 609-650.

LYDEKKER, R., The horse and its relatives. New York, 1912.

LYELL, DENIS D., Domestication of the African elephant. The Field, London,
CXL, 153, 1927.

LYON, MARCUS WARD, JR., Tree shrews: An account of the mammalian family
Tupaiidae. Proceedings U. S. National Museum, XLV, 1-188, 1913.

MCALLISTER, M. HALL, California's large game animals. California Fish and
Game, ix, 11-15, I923-
— , Canada leads in buffalo conservation. Ibid.f xiv, 155-156, 1928.

McAxEE, W. L., The role of vertebrates in the control of insect pests. Annual
Rept. Smithsonian Institution for 1925, pp. 415-437.

MCCRACKEN, HAROLD, When the sea otter flourished. Forest and Stream, xc,
298, 332-333, 1920.

McGuiRE, HARRY, The last stand of the bear. Outdoor Life, LXVI, 4-7, 1930.

McLEAN, D. D., Wildcat eats birds. California Fish and Game, v, 160, 1919.
, What deer eat. Ibid., xiv, 221-223, 1928.

MARSHALL, F. R., L. L. HELLER, AND V. O. MCWHORTER, Karakul sheep.
Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1015, pp. 249-262.

MARTIN, EDWARD, Muskrats and muskrat farming. Rept. Indiana Dept. Fish-
eries and Game for 1013-1.014, pp. 241-249 ; reprinted from Outing.

MARTIN, H. T., Castorologia, or the history and traditions of the Canadian
beaver. Montreal and London, 1892.

MASON, OTIS TUFTON, Aboriginal skin-dressing, a study based on material in
the U. S. National Museum. Annual Rept. U. S. National Museum for 1889,

PP- 553-589.

MAXEY, D. W., Wildcat eats chicken. California Fish and Game, vi, 37, 1920.

MEARNS, EDGAR ALEXANDER, Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United
States. U. S. National Museum Bull. No. 56, 1907.

MEASE, J. A., Tularemia from opossums. Journal American Medical Associa-
tion, xcn, 1042, 1929.

MERRIAM, C. HART, The muskrat as a fish eater. Bulletin U. S. Fish Commis-
sion, iv, 297-298, 1884.

— , The mammals of the Adirondacks. 1884. Not examined but cited from
Seton and others.

, Results of a biological survey of the San Francisco Mountain region

and desert of the Little Colorado. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Division of
Ornithology and Mammalogy, North American Fauna, No. 3, 1890.
— , Descriptions of three new species of the Tamias lateralis group. Ibid.,
No. 4, pp. 17-20, 1890.

, Results of a biological reconnaissance of south-central Idaho. Ibid., No.

5, 1891-

, Results of a biological survey of Mount Shasta, California. U. S.

Biological Survey, North American Fauna, No. 16, 1899.

364 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

, The prairie-dog of the Great Plains. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agriculture

for 1901, pp. 257-270.

, Food of sea-lions. Science, xm, 777-779 ; reprinted in Rept. U. S. Fish

Commission for 1902, pp. 113-114.

, Relations of birds and mammals to the national resources. Rept. Na-
tional Conservation Commission, in, 316-340, 1909.
-, The California ground squirrels. U. S. Biological Survey Circular No.

76, 1910.
MILLER, FREDERICK WALTER, Notes on some mammals of southern Matto

Grosso, Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy, xi, 10-22, 1930.

, A note on the dusky shrew in captivity. Ibid., pp. 311-312.

MILLS, DAVID C., Deadly effect of forest fires on fur-bearers. Parks and

Recreation, vn, 636-638, 1924.
, The international fur trade. Journal of Home Economics, xvin, 623-

626, 1926.
MILLS, ENOS A., In beaver world. Boston, 1913.

, Grizzly's high-power nose. Atlantic Monthly, cxxix, 36-40, 1922.

MITCHELL, EDWARD D., Animal diseases and our food supply. Yearbook U. S.

Dept. Agriculture for 1915, pp. 159-172.
MOHR, ERNA, Misleading news regarding the wisent. Journal of Mammalogy,

x, 356, 1929.

MOORE, A. W., Six Utah mammal records. Ibid., xi, 87-88, 1930.
MORGAN, LEWIS H., The American beaver and his works. Philadelphia, 1868.
MORRIS, D., The mungoose on sugar plantations in the West Indies. London,

1883. Reviewed in American Naturalist, xvn, 299, 1883.
MORSE, E. W., The ancestry of domesticated cattle. 2?th Annual Rept. U. S.

Bureau Animal Industry (for 1910), pp. 187-239; with bibliography.
MOSTELLER, WM., Porcupines in relation to Wyoming orchards, fth Biennial

Rept. Wyoming State Board Agriculture, pp. 25-27, 1918.
MURIE, OLAUS J., The porcupine in northern Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy,

vu, 109-113, 1926.
, The Alaska red squirrel providing for winter. Ibid., vin, 37-40, 1927.

— , An epizootic disease of elk. Ibid., xi, 214-222, 1930.

MURPHY, ROBERT CUSHMAN, Seals as sperm whale food. Ibid., v, 132, 1924.
NELSON, EDWARD W., The economic importance of wild life. Scientific Monthly,

XVI> PP- 367-373, 1923; quoted in California Fish and Game, ix, p. 161,

1923.
, Status of the pronghorned antelope, 1922-1924. U. S. Dept. Agriculture

Bull. No. 1346, 1925.

— , Bats in relation to the production of guano and the destruction of in-
sects. Ibid., No. 1395, 1926.

— , Reindeer in Alaska thrive and multiply. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agricul-
ture for 1026, pp. 631-633.

— , Wild animals of North America. Not seen, but cited from Seton.
NEWCOMBE, C. L., An ecological study of the Allegheny cliff rat (Neotoma

pennsylvanica Stone). Journal of Mammalogy, xi, 204-211, 1930.
NEWSOM, WILLIAM M., The common bobcat a deer killer. American Game,

xix, 42, 50, 1930.
NICHOLS, JOHN TREADWELL, Notes on the food habits of the gray squirrels.

Journal of Mammalogy, vin, 55-57, 1927.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 365

NORTHCOTE, G. A. S., Baboons attacking children. Journal East African and

Uganda Natural History Society, No. 16, pp. 60-61, 1921.
ODELL, W. S., Squirrels eating Amanita muscaria. Canadian Field Naturalist,

xxxix, 180-181, 1925.

— , Further observations on squirrels eating Amanita muscaria. Ibid., XL,

184, 1926.
OGNEV, S. I., Prometheomys, a remarkable rodent from the Caucasus. Journal

of Mammalogy, vn, 215-220, 1926.
OLDHAM, CHARLES, Mollusca eaten by rabbits. Journal of Conchology, xvm,

335, 1929-

OMAN, A. E., Fighting the pocket gopher, the prairie-dog and other rodent
pests. 24th Biennial Kept. Kansas State Board Agriculture (for 1923-
1924), pp. 46-60, 1925.

O'MELVENY, STUART, What the sea otter did for California. The Masterkey,
Los Angeles, in, 14-18, 1929.

OSBORN, HENRY FAIRFIELD, The romance of the woolly mammoth. Natural His-
tory, xxx, 227-239, 1930.

OSBORN, HENRY FAIRFIELD, AND H. E. ANTHONY, Can we save the mammals?
Ibid., xxn, 389-405, 1922.

, Close of the Age of Mammals. Journal of Mammalogy, in, 219-237,

1922.

OSBORN, HERBERT, Economic zoology. An introductory textbook in zoology,
with special reference to its applications in agriculture, commerce and
medicine. New York, 1908. Mammals, pp. 426-464, mostly systematic, very
little economic mammalogy.

OSBORNE, CAROLINE A., The cat, a neglected factor in sanitary science. Peda-
gogical Seminary, xiv, 439-459, 1907.

, The cat and transmission of disease. Chicago Medical Recorder, May,

1912.

OSGOOD, WILFRED H., The game resources of Alaska. Yearbook U. S. Dept.
Agriculture for 1907, pp. 469-482.

— , Silver fox farming. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull, No. 328,
1908.
-, Revision of the mice of the American genus Peromyscus. U. S. Bio-

logical Survey, North American Fauna, No. 28, 1909.
OSGOOD, W. H., E. A. PREBLE AND G. H. PARKER, The fur seals and other

life of the Pribilof Islands. Bulletin U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, xxxiv,

1-172, 1914.
PALMER, T. S., Extermination of noxious animals by bounties. Yearbook U. S.

Dept. Agriculture for 1896, pp. 55-68.

— , The jack rabbits of the United States. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Division

of Ornithology and Mammalogy, Bull. No. 8, 1896 ; revised, U. S. Biologi-
cal Survey Bull. No. 8, 1897.

— , The danger of introducing noxious animals and birds. Yearbook U. S.

Dept. Agriculture for 1898, pp. 87-110.
— , A review of economic ornithology in the United States. Ibid., for 1889,

pp. 259-292.

— , Some benefits the farmer may derive from game protection. Ibid., for

1904, pp. 509-520.

366 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

, Hunting licenses, their history, objects and limitations. U. S. Biological

Survey Bull. No. 19, 1904.
, Statistics of hunting licenses. U. S. Biological Survey Circular No. 54,

1906.
, Private game preserves and their future in the United States. Ibid., No.

72, 1910.
, National reservations for the protection of wild life. Ibid., No. 87,

1912.
, Chronology and index of the more important events in American game

protection. U. S. Biological Survey Bull. No. 41, 1912.
, Game as a national resource. U. S. Dept. Agriculture Bull. No. 1049,

1922.

PARKER, G. H., Fur seals of Pribilof Islands. Scientific Monthly, iv, 386-409,
1917.

PARKS, HAROLD E., The genus Neotoma in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Journal
of Mammalogy, in, 241-253, 1922.

PATTERSON, J. H., The lions that stopped a railroad. World's Work, November,
1908, and January, 1909, pp. 10895-10906, 11147-11158.

, The man-eating lions of Tsavo. Field Museum of Natural History,

Zoological Leaflet, No. 7, 1925.

PAYNE, J. H., The prairie-dog as a range pest. Colorado Agricultural Experi-
ment Station Press Bull., No. 16, 1903.

PEARSE, A. S., Ecology of the ectoparasites of Nigerian rodents and insect-
ivores. Journal of Mammalogy, x, 229-239, 1929.

, Arachnids found on Nigerian rodents and insectivores. Journal of

Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, XLVI, 171-180, 1929; Journal of Mam-
malogy, x, 270, 1929.

PEARSON, GILBERT T., Audubon Society establishes sanctuary for the antelope.
Bird-Lore, xxx, 157-158, 1928.

PEGUES, JOHN E., Alaska brownies. Field and Stream, December, 1930, pp.
36-37, 62.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF GAME COMMISSIONERS, The Pennsylvania deer prob-
lem, Bull. No. 12, 1929.

PERCIVAL, A. BLAYNEY, Game and disease. Journal East Africa and Uganda

Natural History Society, No. 13, pp. 302-315, 1918.
, Concerning baboons. Ibid., No. 14, p. 415, 1919.

PETERSON, MARCUS, The fur traders and fur-bearing animals. Buffalo, New
York, 1914.

PETTIT, R. FRED, AND OTHERS, (The poisoning campaign against predatory
mammals, pro and con, by Pettit, Howell, Huey, Moon and Walker). Out-
door Life, LXVI, 36-37, 1930.

PHILLIPS, JOHN C, Trained African elephants. Journal of Mammalogy, vi,
130-131, 1925.

PHILLIPS, JOHN M., Practical deer farming. Bulletin American Game Protec-
tive Association, v, 5-6, 1916.

— , Pennsylvania's game refuge system and what it is doing to bring back
our game. Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners, 1923.
PILSBRY, HENRY A., AND J. BEQUAERT, The aquatic mollusks of the Belgian
Congo, with a geographical and ecological account of Congo malacology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 367

Bulletin American Museum of Natural History, LIII, 1927; mammal
enemies of mollusks on pp. 479, 539-540.

PIPER, STANLEY E., Mouse plagues: Their control and prevention. Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1908, pp. 301-310.

— , The Nevada mouse plague of 1907-1908. U. S. Dept. Agriculture,
Farmers' Bull., No. 352, 1909.

— , The mouse infestation of Buena Vista Lake Basin, Kern County, Cali-
fornia. Monthly Bulletin of California Dept. Agriculture, xvn, 538-560,
1928.

PITTMAN, H. H., Notes on the feeding habits of the little brown bat. Journal of
Mammalogy, v, 231-233, 1924.

PLATH, O. E., The bee-eating proclivity of the skunk. American Naturalist,
LVII, 570-574, 1923-

PLUMMER, JOHN T., Some quadrupeds about Richmond, Indiana. American
Jvtirnal of Science and Arts, XLVI, 245-249, 1844.

POLAND, H., Fur-bearing animals in nature and commerce. 1892. 392 pp. Not
examined.

POOLE, ARTHUR J., The number of forms of recent mammals. Journal of Mam-
malogy, vn, 134-135, 1926.

POOLE, CHARLES G., Coyote not strictly carnivorous. California Fish and
Game, XLV, 151, 1928.

, The economic status of the bobcat. California Dept. Agriculture,

Monthly Bulletin, xvm, 458-460, 1929.

POTTER, LAURENCE B., Badger digs for bank swallows. The Condor, xxvi, 191,
1924.

POULTON, EDWARD B., British insectivorous bats and their prey. Proceedings
Zoological Society of London, for 1929, pp. 277-303 ; with bibliography.

PREBLE, EDWARD A., A biological survey of the Hudson Bay region. U. S. Bio-
logical Survey, North American Fauna, No. 22, 1902.
— , A biological investigation of the Athabaska-Mackenzie region. Ibid.,
No. 27, 1908.
, Mammals of the Pribilof Islands. Ibid., No. 46, 1923.

PRINCE, E. E., The whaling industry and the Cetacea of Canada. Special Re-
ports, Government Printing Office, Ottawa, 1906.

QUINN, DAVID, Facts about the poison brigade. Outdoor Life, LXVI, 26-27, 77-
82, 1930.

RABOT, CHARLES, The whale fisheries of the world. Annual Rept. Smithsonian
Institution for 1913, pp. 481-489; reprinted from La Nature, Paris, Sep-
tember 14, 1912.

RADCLIFFE, LEWIS, Whales and porpoises as food. U. S. Bureau of Fisheries
Economic Circular, No. 38, 1918.

REDDING, JOSEPH D., Cause of the decrease of salmon in the Sacramento River.
Bulletin U. S. Bureau Fisheries, vii, 57-58, 1887.

REESE, ALBERT M., Outlines of economic zoology. Philadelphia, 1919. Mam-
mals, 205-285.

REESE, H. H., Breeds of light horses. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull,
No. 952, 1921.

REYNOLDS, ROBERT V. R., Grazing and floods: A study of conditions in the
Manti National Forest. U. S. Forest Service Bull. No. 91, 1911.

368 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

RHOADS, SAMUEL N., The mammals of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Phila-
delphia, 1903.

RILEY, SMITH, Some observations on beaver culture with reference to the na-
tional forests. Journal of Mammalogy, n, 197-203, 1921.

ROMMEL, GEORGE M., The preservation of our native types of horses. U. S.
Bureau Animal Industry Circular No. 137, 1908.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE, With the cougar hounds. Scribner's Magazine, xxx,

417-435, 1901-

, African game trails. New York, 1910.

ROSEBERRY, C. H., Experience in raising Virginia deer. In Jones, Fur farming
in Canada, pp. 117-118, 1913.

Ross, ROLAND CASE, Dogs dislike fox flesh but relish that of wildcats. Journal
of Mammalogy, ix, 250, 1928.

ROWAN, WILLIAM, Bears and birds' eggs. The Condor, xxx, 246, 1928.

ROWLEY, JOHN, Life history of the sea-lions on the California coast. Journal
of Mammalogy, x, 1-36, 1929.

RUCKER, W. C., Plague among ground squirrels in Contra Costa County, Cali-
fornia. Reprint No. 38, from Public Health Reports, U. S. Public Health
and Marine Hospital Service, xxiv, No. 35, 1909.

RUCKER, W. C., AND OTHERS, The rat and its relation to public health. U. S.
Public Health and Marine Hospital Service, 1910.

RUSH, W. M., Notes on diseases in wild game mammals. Journal of Mammal-
ogy, vni, 163-165, 1927.

RUSSELL, GEORGE W., Menace of deer-killing dogs. Oregon Sportsman, i, 20-21,
1924.

ST. JOHN, J. HECTOR, An account of the whale fishery of Nantucket, Massa-
chusetts, one hundred years ago. Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission,, in, 179-
182, 1883; citing Letters of an American farmer, London, 1782, pp. 162-
171.

SALMON, D. E., Rabies: Its cause, frequency and treatment. Yearbook U. S.
Dept. Agriculture for ipoo, pp, 211-246.

SALVESEN, SIGVALD, The beaver in Norway. Journal of Mammalogy, ix, pp. 99-

104, 1928.

, Pelsdyrboken: Handbok i opdrett av pelsdyr. Oslo, 1928. On fur farm-
ing.

— , The moose and red deer in Norway. Journal of Mammalogy, x, 59-62,
1929.

SAMPSON, ARTHUR W., Effect of grazing upon aspen reproduction. U. S. Dept.
Agriculture Bull. No. 741, 1919.

SAMUELS, E. A., Mammalogy and ornithology of New England, with special
reference to agricultural economy. Rept. U. S. Dept. Agriculture for 1863,
pp, 265-286.

SANBORN, TENNEY, The food of the black bear. American Naturalist, vi, 493-
494, 1872.

SANDERS, ALVIN HOWARD, The taurine world: Cattle and their place in the
human scheme — Wild types and modern breeds in many lands. National
Geographic Magazine. XLVIII, 591-710, 1925.

SANFORD, F. C., Notes upon the history of the American whale fishery. Rept.
U. S. Fish Commission for 1882-83, pp. 205-220.

SAUNDERS, W. E., Carnivorous habit of the European hare. Journal of Mam-
malogy, x, 170, 1929.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 369

SAWYER, EDMUND J., Badger runs down ground squirrels. Journal of Mammal-
ogy, vi, 125-126, 1925.

SCHEFFER, THEO. H., The common mole. Kansas State Experiment Station
Bull. No. 168, 1910.

— , The common mole of eastern United States. U. S. Dept. Agriculture,
Farmers' Bull., No. 583, 1917; superseded by next item.

, American moles as agricultural pests and fur producers. Ibid., No.

1247, 1922; supersedes Nos. 583 and 833.

, Notes on the breeding of Peromyscus. Journal of Mammalogy, v, 258-

260, 1924.

— , Notes on the breeding of beavers. Ibid., vi, 129-130, 1925.

— , Precarious status of the seal and sea-lion on our northwest coast.

Ibid., ix, 10-16, 1928.

, Mountain beavers in the Pacific Northwest: Their economic status

~and control. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull., No. 1598, 1929.

Habits and economic status of the pocket gophers. U. S. Dept. Agri-

culture, Technical Bull., No. 224, 1931.
SCHEFFER, THEO. H., AND CHARLES C. S PERRY, Food habits of Pacific harbor

seal, Phoca richardii. Journal of Mammalogy, xn, 214-226, 1931.
SCHIERBECK, OTTO, Is it right to protect the female of the species at the cost

of the male? Canadian Field Naturalist, XLIII, 6-9, 1929.
SCHOONMAKER, W. J., Porcupine eats waterlily pads. Journal of Mammalogy,

xi, 84, 1930.
SCHULTZ, ALEXANDER, Fishing and seal-hunting in the Caspian Sea. Rept. U. S.

Fish Commission for 1^75-75, pp. 58-96.
SCHWARTZ, BENJAMIN, AND W. B. SNOOK, Rabbit parasites and diseases. U. S.

Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull., No. 1568, 1928.
SCHWARTZ, HAROLD, Tularemia from a muskrat. Journal American Medical

Association, xcn, 1180-1181, 1929.
SCOTT, H. HAROLD, Carcinoma of the tonsils in the common wolf (Cants lupus).

Proceedings Zoological Society of London, 1928, Part I, pp. 43-47.

, Tuberculosis in marsupials. Ibid., pp. 248-256.

SELLE, RAYMOND M., Microtus calif ornicus in captivity. Journal of Mammal-
ogy, ix, 93-98, 1928.
SETON, ERNEST THOMPSON, Food of the red fox. Ibid., vol. i, p. 140, 1920.

, Bobcats and wild turkeys. Ibid.

, A roving band of Say's bats. Ibid., in, 52, 1922.

, The value of moles. Ibid., iv, 51, 1923.

, Lives of game animals. 4 vols., 2 parts each. New York, 1929.

SHANNON, B. J., Gray squirrel disease spreading. California Fish and Game,

vin, 52, 1922.
SHAW, E. L., AND L. L. HELLER, Domestic breeds of sheep in America. U. S.

Dept. Agriculture Bull. No. 94, 1914.
SHAW, WILLIAM T., The cost of a squirrel and squirrel control. Washington

State Agricultural Experiment Station Popular Bull., No. 118, pp. 1-19,

1920; Journal of Mammalogy, i, 192, 1920.
, Alpine life of the heather vole (Phenacomys olympicus). Journal of

Mammalogy, v, 12-15, J924-

, The Columbian ground squirrel as a handler of earth. Scientific Month-
ly, xx, 483-490, 1925.
, The food of ground squirrels. American Naturalist, LIX, 250-265, 1925.

37° ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

— , The spring and summer activity of the dusky skunk in captivity. New

York State Museum Handbook, No. 4, pp. 11-92, 1928.
SHELDON, CHARLES, The "unprovoked" attack of a "brown" bear. Journal of

Mammalogy, iv, 51-52, 1923.

SHELFORD, ROBERT W. C, A naturalist in Borneo. London, 1916.
SHERMAN, E. A., AND R. R. HILL, Should does be killed? American Game

(Bull. American Game Protective Association), xvii, 92-93, 1928.
SHUFELDT, R. W., Four-footed foresters — the squirrels. American Forestry,

xxvi, 37-44, 1920.
SHULL, A. FRANKLIN, Habits of the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda

Say). American Naturalist, XLI, 495-522, 1907.
SILVER, JAMES, How to get rid of rats. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull,

No. 1302, 1923.

— , Mouse control in field and orchard. Ibid., No. 1397, 1924.

— -, The European hare (Lcptis europacns Pallas) in North America. Jour-
nal of Agricultural Research, xxvin, 1133-1137, 1924.

— , Rat control. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull., No. 1533, 1927.

— , The reproduction potential of rats. Journal of Mammalogy, v, 66-67,

1924.

— , Rodent enemies of fruit and shade trees. Ibid., pp. 165-173.

- -, Badger activities in prairie-dog control. Journal of Mammalogy, ix, 63,

1928.

— , Pilot black snake feeding on the big brown rat. Ibid., p. 149.

— , Woodchuck control in the Eastern States. U. S. Dept. Agriculture,

Leaflet No. 21, 1928.

Rat-proofing buildings and premises. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers'

Bull, No. 1638, 1930.

SILVER, JAMES, AND FRANK N. JARVIS, How to make a cat trap. U. S. Biologi-
cal Survey, Leaflet No. 50-L, 1929.

SIMMONS, V. L., Sheep-killing dogs. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull,
No. 1268, 1929. A revision of Coil's bulletin of 1922.

SIMPSON, WALTER M., Tularcmia. New York, 1929.

SKINNER, M. P., The pronghorn. Journal of Mammalogy, in, 82-105, 1922.

— , The American antelope in Yellovvstone National Park. Roosevelt Wild
Life Forest Experiment Station. 1924.
, The white-tailed jack rabbit eats dandelion stalks. Journal of Mammal-

ogy, viu, 249, 1927.

— , The elk situation. Ibid., ix, 309-317, 1928.
SMILEY, CHARLES M., Review of the whale fishery for 1882-1883. Rcpt. U. S.

Fish Commission for 1883, pp. 325-336; includes statistics from 1853 to

1883.
SMITH, HUGH MCCORMICK, The salmon fishery of Penobscot Bay and River

in 1895 and 1896. Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, xvii, 113-124, 1898;

reports destructiveness of seals on p. 120.

— , Destructiveness of sea-lions. Rept. U. S. Bureau of Fisheries for 1002,

pp. 111-119.
SMITH, H. M., Limnaea stagnalis destroyed by rats. Journal of Conchology,

xvi, 144, 1921.
SMITH, R. G., Python attacking a spaniel. Journal of Bombay Natural History

Society, xxx, 485, 1925.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 371

SOPER, J. DEWEY, Notes on the snowshoe rabbit. Journal of Mammalogy, u,

101-108, 1921.
SOUTHWELL, THOMAS, Notes on the seal and whale fishery of 1886. Bulletin

U. S. Fish Commission, vii, 11-16, 1887.
SPENCE, R. A., P. M. D. SANDERSON, AND S. H. PRATER, Tiger killed by a

cobra. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, xxx, pp. 705-706, 1925.
SPENCER, JOHN W., New light on bear protection and overgrazing. Outdoor

Life, LXVI, 40-41, 1930.
STANLEY, LOUISE, AND FANNIE W. YEATMAN, Reindeer recipes, U. S. Dept.

Agriculture Leaflet No. 48, 1929.
STARBUCK, ALEXANDER, History of the American whale fishery from its earliest

inception to 1876. Kept. U. S. Fish Commission for 1875-76, Appendix A,

pp. 1-702.
STAJRKS, EDWIN C, Notes on the sea-lions. California Fish and Game, vn, 250-

253, 1921.

— , A history of California shore whaling. California Fish and Game Com-
mission Bull. No. 6, 1922.
STEGEMAN, LEROY C., Notes on Synaptomys cooperi cooperi in Washtenaw

County, Michigan. Journal of Mammalogy, xi, 460-466, 1930.
STEJNEGER, LEONHARD, Investigations relating to the extermination of Steller's

sea-cow. Proceedings U. S, National Museum, vn, 181-189, 1884.
, How the great northern sea-cow (Rytina) became exterminated.

American Naturalist, xxi, 1047-1055, 1887.
-, The Russian fur seal islands. Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, xvi, pp.

3-148, 1896.
STEVENSON, CHARLES HUGH, Aquatic products in arts and industries. Rept.

U. S. Fish Commission for 1902, pp. 177-252.

— , Utilization of the skins of aquatic animals. Ibid., pp. 281-352.
, Whalebone : Its production and utilization. U. S. Bureau of Fisheries

Document No. 626, 1907.
STILES, CHARLES WARDELL, A revision of the adult tapeworms of hares and

rabbits. Proceedings U. S. National Museum, xix, 145-235, 1897.
STIVERS, CHARLES G., Forest fires destroy game. California Fish and Game,

vi, 36-37, 1920.
STODDARD, H. L., Flying squirrel as a bird-killer. Journal of Mammalogy, i, 95,

1920.
STONE, WITMER, AND WILLIAM EVERETT CRAM, American animals. New York,

1902.
STORER, TRACEY I., Rabies in a mountain lion. California Fish and Game, ix,

45, 1923-

, Bats, bat towers and mosquitoes. Journal of Mammalogy, vii, 85-90,

1926; reviews Campbell's Bats, mosquitoes and dollars, and other publica-
tions on the diet of bats. Same author also reviews Campbell's book in
Science, LXIII, 337-338, 1926.

STREATOR, CLARK P., Commercial fertilizer from wood rat nests. Journal of
Mammalogy, xi, 318, 1930.

STRECKER, JOHN K., The trade in deer skins in early Texas. Ibid., vm, 106-
no, 1927.

, Notes on the Texas cotton^and Attwater wood rats. Ibid., x, 216-220,

1929.

372 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

SULLIVAN, RICHARD H., The economic value of bird life. Kansas Agricultural

College, Agricultural Education, in, No. 7, 1-47, 1912.
SUMNER, F. B., AND J. J. KAROL, Notes on the burrowing habits of Peromyscus

polionotus. Journal of Mammalogy, x, 213-215, 1929.
SVIHLA, RUTH DOWELL, Habits of Sylvilagus aquaticus littoralis. Ibid., pp. 315-

319.

TAVERNER, P. A., Bears and Hawks. The Condor, xxx, 157, 1928.

TAYLOR, WALTER P., Fur-bearing mammals : An unappreciated natural re-
source. Science, xxxvii, 485-487, 1913.

, The wood rat as a collector. Journal of Mammalogy, i, 91-92, 1919.

, Biological stations for the study of plants and animals together. Sci-
entific Monthly, xxi, 1-4, 1925.

, Methods of determining rodent pressure on the range. Ecology, xi, 523-

542, 1930.
TAYLOR, WALTER P., AND J. V. G. LOFTFIELD, Damage to range grasses by the

Zuni prairie-dog. U. S. Dcpt. Agriculture Bull. No. 1227, 1924.
TAYLOR, WALTER P., AND WILLIAM T. SHAW, Mammals and birds of Mount

Rainier National Park. U. S. National Park Service, 1927.
THOMAS, OLDFIELD, On a new fish-eating rat from Bogata. Annals and Maga-
zine of Natural History, Series 9, vm, 164-165, 1924.

— , A new fish-eating rat from Ecuador. Ibid., pp. 541-542.
THOMPSON, GEORGE FAYETTE, The Angora goat. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farm-
ers' Bull., No. 137, 1901.

THOMS, CRAIG S., Are squirrels bird-enemies? Bird-Lore, xxiv, 206-207, 1922.
TODD, JOHN B., Winter food of cottontail rabbits. Journal of Mammalogy, vm,

222-228, 1927.

TOOKER, J., Side lights on the poison brigade in Arizona. Outdoor Life, Octo-
ber, 1930, p. 37.
TOWNSEND, CHARLES WENDELL, Grazing and forests. Scientific Monthly, xxvi,

57-59, 1928.

— , The whaling situation. Science, LXXII, 652-653, 1930.
TRUE, GORDON H., JR., Damage by deer to crops in California. California Fish

and Game, xviii, 136-147, 1932.

— , Repellents and deer damage control. Ibid.f pp. 156-165.
TYLER, JOHN G., Can hawks prevent mouse plagues? A reply. The Condor,

xxx, 124-125, 1928.

VANDIVEER, CLARENCE A., The fur trade and early exploration. Cleveland, 1929.
VAN HYNING, T., A new collector in the field. The Nautilus, xvm, 23, 1904.

Chipmunk eating land snails.
VERGEER, TEUNIS, Dissemination of the broad tapeworm by wild Carnivora.

Journal of Canadian Medical Association, xix, 692-694, 1928.
VORHIES, CHARLES T., AND WALTER P. TAYLOR, Life history of the kangaroo

rat. U. S. Dept. Agriculture Butt. No. 1091, 1922.

— , Damage by kangaroo rats. Journal of Mammalogy, v, 144, 1924.
WADE, OTIS, Food habits of a pocket gopher. Ibid., vm, 310-311, 1927.
WAGNER, H. C, A spray for preventing damage by deer. California Fish and

Game, i, 241, 1915.

WALKER, C. R., Cephenomyia sp. killing deer. Science, LXIX, 646-647, 1929.
WALKER, ERNEST P., Destructiveness of hair seals in the salmon fishery. Rept,

U. S. Bureau of Fisheries for 1915, pp. 47-51.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 373

— , Getting public support for mammal protection. Journal of Mammalogy,

ix, 195-200, 1928.

WARDLE, ROBERT A., Principles of applied zoology. London, 1929.
WARREN, EDWARD R., The mammals of Colorado. New York, 1910.
, The life of the Yellowstone beaver. Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin, i,

187-221, 1922.
, A study of the beaver in the Yancey region of Yellowstone National

Park. Roosevelt Wild Life Annals, i, 13-192, 1926.

, The beaver. Baltimore, 1927.

-, Cutting of oaks by beavers. Journal of Mammalogy, ix, 253-254, 1928.

WARREN, FRANCIS E., Animal wealth of the United States. National Geo-
graphic Magazine, xvn, 511-524, 1906.

WEST, JAMES A., A study of the food of moles in Illinois. Bulletin of Illinois
Laboratory of Natural History, ix, 14-22, 1910.

WHITE, G. F., AND W. E. DOVE, Dogs and cats concerned in the causation of
creeping eruption. Official Record, U. S. Dept. Agriculture, v, No. 43, 1926.

WHITEHEAD, L. C, Notes on prairie-dogs. Journal of Mammalogy, vm, 58,
1927.

WIGHT, H. M., Food habits of Townsend's mole, Scapanus townsendii (Bach-
man). Ibid., ix, 19-23, 1928.

, Breeding habits and economic relations of the Dalles pocket gopher.

Ibid., xi, 40-48, 1930.

WILLIAMS, G. P., The Angora goat. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Farmers' Bull.,
No. 1303, 1921.

WILSON, H., The economic status of the mole (Scalops and Condylura}. Penn-
sylvania Dept. Agriculture Bull. No. 30, 1898.

WINECOFF, THOMAS E., Least weasel in captivity. Journal of Mammalogy, xi,
312-313, 1930.

WISLOCKI, GEORGE B., Nematode parasites in the ovaries of the anteater (Ta-
mundua tetradactyla} . Ibid., ix, 318-319, 1928.

WOOD, H. P., Experiments in the use of sheep in the eradication of the Rocky
Mountain spotted fever tick. U. S. Dept. Agriculture Bull. No. 45, 1913.

WRIGHT, GEORGE M., A tick-infested deer. Yosemite Nature Notes, vn, 38,
1928; reprinted in California Fish and Game, xiv, 252-253, 1928.

WYMAN, LELAND C, A hungry porcupine. Journal of Mammalogy, iv, 190,
1923.

YEATMAN, FANNY W., AND MABEL C. STIENBARGER, Rabbit recipes. U. S.
Bureau of Home Economics Leaflet No. 66-L, 1930.

YOUNG, S. P., Bobcat kills deer. Journal of Mammalogy, ix, 64-65, 1928.

, Hints on wolf and coyote trapping. U. S. Biological Survey Leaflet No.

59-L, 1930.

INDEX

Aardvark, 339, 341
Aardwolf, 133, 288
Acosta, quoted, 347
Adair, quoted, 120, 227
Adams, quoted, 13, 15, 22, 48, 67, 86,
92, 220, 302, 312, 313, 318, 319,
320, 322, 324, 333, 348
Aflalo, quoted, 124, 345
Ahrens, quoted, 109, 290, 328, 348
Akeley, quoted, 142, 346, 348
Alces dices, 319

americanus, 320
Aldrich, quoted, 132, 256, 348
Alexander, quoted, 254
Allen, quoted, 19, 38, 76, 94, 118, 126,
144, 203, 226, 229, 285, 322, 327,
348

Allen and McLure, quoted, 228
Alpacas, 4, 21, 82, 332
Ambergris, 31, 32, 342
Ammospermophilus, 264

karris si, 259

interpres, 257

leucurus, 257, 259

saxicola, 259

Amphibia, economic relations to mam-
mals, 126-128, 188, 194, 204, 211,
212, 216, 264
Andrews, quoted, 344
Angora goats, see Goats
Annin, quoted, 211, 348
Annin, Carpenter, Elliott and Hessel,

quoted, 124
Ant-bears, 130
Anteaters, 24, 129, 170, 339, 340

banded, 131

giant, 130, 340

scaly, 341

South American, 340

spiny, 130-131, 187
Antelopes, 9, 100, 122, 330

African, 23, 34, 96, 142, 143, 310

American pronghorn, 4, 22, 86, 92,
141, 145, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157,
170, 172, 310, 323-324

Anthony, quoted, 42, 194, 201, 202, 204,
212, 245, 282, 283, 287, 334, 340,
341, 348

Antilocapridae, 323-324
Antlers, used, 34, 318

see also Horns
Anlrozous pacificus, 198

pallidus, 198
Apes, 345

Apgar, quoted, 135, 348
Aplodontia, 294
Aplodontidae, 294
Arachnids, enemies of mammals, 93,

100
eaten by mammals, 132, 135, 136,

194

Arctocephalus iownsendi, 240
Armadillos, 78, 129, 130, 134, 176, 339,

340

giant, 130

South American, 340
Texas, 340

Armijo, quoted, 201, 348
Arnold, quoted, 52, 349
Arthur, quoted, 50, 62, 70, 126, 127,

128, 272, 288, 289, 290, 349
Artiodactyla, 305-334
Aschemeier, quoted, 346, 349
Ashbrook, quoted, 24, 52, 57, 66, 67,
73, 74, 75, 9i, n8, 121, 124, 131,
135, 188, 189, 211, 214, 215, 228,
287, 288, 289, 296, 302, 332, 349
Ashbrook and Earnshaw, quoted, 66,

69, 73, 174, 175, 349
Ashbrook and Walker, quoted, 73, 349
Asses, wild, 166, 331, 337

Abyssinian, 9
Astrachan, 52, 53
Atophyrax, 194
Audubon, quoted, 124
Audubon and Bachman, quoted, 120
Austin, quoted, 82, 304, 308, 309, 325,

329, 335, 337, 349
Australian fisher, 52
Avery, quoted, 180, 221, 349
Azara, quoted, 204

376

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Baboons, 44, 105, 118, 345, 346

Babcock, quoted, 136, 194, 195, 349

Bache, quoted, 336, 349

Badgers, 24, 53, 59, 64, 65, 71, 100, 108,
109, 118, 121, 122, 131, 133, 134,
157, 176, 206, 207, 218-219, 225,
250, 251, 284

Bailey, quoted, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
47, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122,
124, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, 133,
134, 135, 136, 147, 160, 161, 163,'
164, 179, 180, 188, 194, 198, 202,'

2O3, 2O4, 205, 2O8, 209, 210, 211,
212, 214, 215, 217, 2l8, 219, 222,
223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 234, 238,
247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 256, 257,
258, 263, 264, 266, 267, 268, 270,
271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278,
279, 280, 28l, 284, 285, 286, 287,
290, 294, 295, 297, 298, 299, 307,
315,316,318,319,320,323,327,

334, 340, 349, 35P
Bailey and Sperry, quoted, 119, 126,

132, 276, 350
Baker, quoted, 350
Baker, Korstian and Fetherolf, quoted,

298

Balance of nature, 5, 15-19, 167
Baleen, see Whalebone
Ballou, quoted, 205, 256, 350
Bandicoot, 189
Barker, quoted, 92, 135
Barnes, quoted, 98, 350
Barrows, quoted, 180
Bartlett, quoted, 136, 240, 241, 350
Barton, quoted, 235, 350
Bassariscidae, 204-205
Bassariscus (ring-tailed cats), 53, 59,
121, 204

see also Civet cats
Bassarisks, 204, 208
Bates, quoted, 341

Bats, 33, 34, 121, 122, 128, 129, 133,
183, 196-199

California leaf-nosed, 198

fish-eating, 125, 199

free-tailed, 198

fruit bats (flying foxes), 166, 196,
199

guano (bat), see Guano

Leisler's, 197

little brown, 198

little canyon, 198

Pacific, 198

pipistrelle, 198

Say's, 198

towers, 197

vampire, 199

water bat, 198
Beakbane, quoted, 275, 350
Beal, quoted, 253, 299, 350
Bean, quoted, 274

Bears, 5, 7, 19, 22, 43, 52, 67, 80, 115.
118, 121, 124, 133, 141, 153, 154,

155, 156, 157, 161, 170, 174, 175,

176, 178, 181, 200-203
Alaska, 52

black, 42, 59, 86, 104, 154, 203
brown, 59, 105, 154
grizzly, 42, 86, 104, 115, 141, 200
honey-bear, see Honey-bear
polar, 59, 114
tree, see Koala
Beasts of burden and draft, 80, 82, 83,

229, 304, 308, 309, 320, 326, 328,

329, 335, 337, 338

Beasts of prey, 3, n, 117

Beaver, 12, 24, 46, 52, 56, 58, 59, 64,

68, 92, 109, 112, 125, 141, 146,

152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 160, 174,

175, 176, 178, 183, 255, 271-275

mountain, 294

Beccari, quoted, 347

Becker, quoted, 350

Bell, quoted, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 49, 67,
98, 117, 161, 163, 164, 180, 202,
220, 223, 226, 232, 233, 234, 252,
254, 287, 300, 327, 350

Belt, quoted, 204

Beluga, see Whales

Benedict, quoted, 125, 199, 351

Bequaert, quoted, 133, 205, 238, 341,

346,351

Bernard, quoted, 346, 351
Berry, quoted, 351
Bighorn, see Sheep (mountain)
Bird, quoted, 133, 300, 347, 350
Birds in relation to mammals, 7, n,
13, 15, 16, 1 8, 19, 20, 40, 42, 43,
115, 120-122, 133, 164, 188, 189,

199, 204, 205, 211, 212, 2l6, 250-
251, 265, 284, 297

INDEX

377

Birdseye, quoted, 41, 100, 118, 162,
163, 210, 219, 222, 253, 261, 262,
263, 265, 268, 279, 280, 284, 298,

351

Bishopp, quoted, 89, 351
Bison, (see also Buffalo)

American, 4, 12, 15, 22, 23, 34, 44,
78, 82, 84, 104, in, 141, 142,
143-145, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157,
169, 172, 310, 327-328

European (wisent), 141, 328

Patagonian, see Sheep, 53
Black fur, 52

Blair, quoted, 9, 238, 303, 330, 351
Blarina brevicauda, 194
Blauwbok, 141

Bobcat, 41, 43, 56, 64, 67, 117, 161, 164,
183, 220

see also Wildcat, Lynx, 233-235
Bonebrake, quoted, 105, 351
Bone-meal, 31, 343
Bones used, 27, 33, 34, 326, 327, 328
Bonnot, quoted, 243, 351
Borradaile, quoted, 94
Bounties, 178-180, 223, 250, 254, 265

see also Laws
Bovidae, 325-334, 335
Bowles, quoted, 47, 351
Bower and Aller, quoted, 31, 32, 69,

240, 343, 351
Bradypodidae, 339
Brandreth, quoted, 313, 351
Brass, quoted, 57
Broadtail, see Sheep
Brooks, quoted, 130, 190, 202, 215,

250, 261, 351
Brown, quoted, 143, 351
Bruce, quoted, 42, 43, 161, 180, 201,

233, 351

Bruette, quoted, 200
Bruner, quoted, 38, 163, 253, 268, 351
Bryan, quoted, in
Bryden, quoted, 40, 91, 92, 97, 103,

299, .344, 351

Bubonic plague, see Disease
Buckley, quoted, 97, 352
Buffalo (see also Bison), 76, 77, 78,

325, 327
African, 23, 93, 102, 104, 142, 143,

328
water buffalo (carabao), 82, 329,

Burgess, quoted, 125, 316, 352

Burnett, quoted, 39, 40, 41, 127, 132,
133, 159, 162, 163, 252, 253, 256,
261, 263, 266, 267, 268, 270, 276,
277, 280, 283, 284, 285, 290, 352

Burnham, quoted, 48, 312, 318, 352

Burros, 80, 81, 335

Burt, quoted, 126, 283, 291, 352

Butler, quoted, 47, 135, 264, 265, 352

Butter, 21, 325

Buxton, quoted, 238, 247, 352

Cabot, quoted, 19, 38, 118, 126, 203,

212, 226, 250, 285, 322, 352
Caenolestes, 151, 180
Cahn, quoted, 18
Callorhinus alsacanus, 239
Callospermophilus castanurus, 132, 262

later alis, 259, 261, 262,

wortmani, 261
Camelidae, 308-309
Camels, 4, 21, 22, 82, 137, 166, 308-

309

Camp, quoted, 294
Campbell, quoted, 34, no, 129, 197,

352

Candles, sperm, 26, 28, 29
Canidae, 115, 117, 120, 122, 161, 219-

231

see also Coyotes, Dogs, Foxes, Jack-
als, Wolves
Canis lestes, 99
lupus, 91

nebrascensis, 224
texensis, 224

Carabao, see Buffalo, water
Caracul, caracool, see Sheep
Carey, quoted, 35, 119, 142, 223, 305,

352
Caribou, 19, 22, 86, 92, 119, 154, 155,

170, 172, 212, 310, 311, 313, 322
Woodland, 141
Carnivora, 43, 97, 200-239
Carnivorous mammals, 19
Carpenter, quoted, 352
Carrion eaters, see Scavengers
Carroll, quoted, 308, 352
Carter, quoted, 336, 337, 352
Cary, quoted, 118, 132, 136, 209, 210,

219, 260, 276, 298, 307, 324, 353
Cashmere, 333

378

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Castoridae, 271-275

Castorum, 273

Catlin, quoted, 327

Cats (see also Felidae), 58, 59, 117,

1 60, 231, 284
cat-proof fence, 160
civet (see Civet cats), 53, 59
domestic, n, 13, 18, 19, 43, 52, 53, 59
65, 79> 83, 92, 96, 97, 99, 117,
120, 124, 236-238
laws, 181
ring-tailed (see Bassariscus), 53, 59,

133

see also Wildcats

Cattle, 4, 13, 15, 17, 22, 31, 36, 48, 76,

77, 79, 80, 8 1, 82, 88, 89, 90, 91,

92, 94, 96, 97, no, in, 117, 1 66,

325-326

see also Butter, Cheese, Milk, Skins,

Yak

Cave man, 3
Cavies, 296
Caviidae, 296
Centipedes eaten by mammals, 196,

204, 216

Ceratotherium simum, 338
Cercoleptes, 204
Cercopithecus aethiops, 346
Cervidae, 310-322
see also Caribou, Deer, Elk, Moose,

Reindeer

Cervus canadensis, 319
Cetacea, 342-345
Chamberlin, quoted, 353
Charcoal from bones, 34
Cheese, 4, 21, 325
Cheetah, 80, 235
Chestnut, quoted, 94
Chestnut and Wilcox, quoted, 94
Chickens, 24, 38
Chimpanzees, 133, 346
Chinchillidae, 296
Chinchilla, 53, 58, 64, 75, 255, 296
Adelaide, 52
lanigera, 301
rabbit, see Rabbits
Chipmunks, 5, 99, 118, 119, 120, 126,

136, 253, 255, 264
Arizona gray-necked, 259
Bangs, 260
Cary, 260

eastern, 265

Gila cliff, 259

gray-footed, 257

gray eastern, 258

Great Basin painted, 265

Hopi, 260

Klamath, 265

least, 260

Merriam, 259

northern, 258

pale, 258

San Luis, 260

Utah, 260

Chiroptera, 129, 196-199
Chittenden, quoted, 51, 327, 353
Chrysocyon, 226
Citellus columbianus, 262

cvyptospilotus, 261

elegans, 260

franklinij 256, 259, 262

major, 257

mexicanus, 257

mollis, 248

or eg onus, 262

pallidus, 257, 258, 263

parvidens, 257

pratensis, 261

richardsoni 256, 259

spilosoma, 257, 261

texensis, 257

tridecemlineatus, 256, 257, 258, 263
Civet cats, 63, 64, 65, 68, 71, 205-206,
208, 214, 215

see also Bassariscus and Skunks
Claremont, quoted, 293, 353
Clark, quoted, 28, 32, 33, 246, 345, 353
Clench, quoted, 136, 195, 353
Clethrionomys, 283

galei, 283

gapperi, 283

loringi, 283

Close seasons, see Laws
Coati, Coatimundi, 204
Cogshall, quoted, 278, 353
Cohen, quoted, 97
Coll, quoted, 43, 181, 230, 331, 353
Colubus, 346

Colville, quoted, 48, 49, no
Comean, quoted, 208
Compost, 33
Condylura cristata, 191, 192

INDEX

379

Conepatus, 216

mearnsi, 217

mesoleucus, 217

telmalesies, 217
Coney, 53
Conies, 68, 166, 296, 306

African and Asiatic, 303

American, see Pikas
Cony, see Conies
Control of injurious mammals, 159-

165

Cook, quoted, 26, 33, 345, 353

Coon, see Raccoon

Cooper, quoted, 353

Cope, quoted, 195, 353

Cottam, quoted, no, 353

Cottontail, see Rabbits

Couch, quoted, 190, 226, 250, 251, 286,

299, 300. 353

Coues, quoted, 124, 131, 136, 208, 210,
213, 217, 268, 353

Cougar, 232, 233
see also Mountain lion

Coupin, quoted, 104, 353

Coyotes, 9, u, 16, 17, 40, 41, 42, 43,
56, 65, 67, 71, 92, 98, 99, 100,
101, 115, 122, 124, 126, 133, 135,
161, 174, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184,
219, 220-226, 284, 297, 298, 331
Texas coyote, 224

Coypu rat, 52, 53, 54, 290

Cram, quoted, 47, 263, 353

Cram and Stone, quoted, 31

Cratogeomys, 267
castanops, 269

Crawford, quoted, 94

Crawley, quoted, 91

Creel, quoted, 37

Cricetidae, 275-291

Criddle, quoted, 134, 209, 210, 215, 226,
269, 286, 353

Cross and Dymond, quoted, 235, 353

C rosso pus, 195

Crustaceans eaten by mammals, 30,
124, 135, 136, 187, 188, 192, 204,
211, 212, 213, 216, 218, 244, 343

Cuttlefish, see Mollusks

Cuyler, quoted, 119, 131, 354

Cyanocephalus hamadryas, 346

Cynomys gunnisoni, 267
leucurus, 267

ludovicianus •, 266
zuniensis, 267

Dale, quoted, 51, 112, 272, 354

Ball, quoted, 136, 139, 141, 242, 246,

327, 354

Damage by mammals, 36-49
see also various species in Part II,
especially Canidae, Felidae, Ro-
dentia, Tasmanian devil

Dana, quoted, no

Dangerous mammals, 102-105, 200,

328, 329, 336
Dapper, quoted, 347
Darwin, quoted, 18, 19
Dassie, 304
Dasypodidae, 339
Dasypus novemcinctus, 340

texanus, 340
villosus, 340
Dasyure, 189
Dasyuridae, 189
Davidson, quoted, 51
Davis, quoted, 132, 133, 354
Dearborn, quoted, 21, 23, 62, 65, 68,
73, 74, 86, 91, 125, 131, 163, 174,
211, 214, 253, 274, 289, 297, 303,

354

Deer, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22, 34, 44, 48, 78,
80, 85, 86, 90, 91, 92, 104, 117,
122, 127, 141, 145, 146, 151, 152,
156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164, 168,
169, 170, 172, 208, 211, 275
black-tailed, 155
enemies, 41, 43
farming, 74

fences, see Fences, deer-proof
mule deer, 152, 153, 155

Mexican, 316, 317
white-tailed, 92, 152, 153, 154, 155
Arizona, 317
Texas, 316
western, 315, 317

Deer-mice, see Mice, white-footed
DeKay, quoted, 272
De Ong, quoted, 91, 297, 354
Destruction by mammals, see Damage
Destruction of injurious mammals,

159-165

Dice, quoted, 38, 217, 243, 256, 264,
280, 293, 299, 300, 354

38o

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Diceros bicornis, 338
Didelphis virginiana, 188

pigra, 188
Dieter, quoted, 99
Digby, quoted, 35, 305, 354
Dimmock, quoted, 125, 133, 238, 354
Dipodomys, 249

compactus, 271

elator, 271

ordiij 271

richardsoni, 271

spectabilis, 271
Dirks, quoted, 135, 192, 354
Diseases and parasites of mammals,
37, 88-95, ^

mammalian disseminators of disease,

37, 94, 96, 101
Ditmars, quoted, 128
Dixon, quoted, 17, 43, 93, 115, 117,
119, 120, 121, 125, 130, 131, 163,
179, 1 80, 183, 195, 203, 210, 216,

221, 223, 224, 225, 232, 233, 235,

254, 262, 269, 274, 289, 316, 354
Dixon and De Ong, quoted, 163, 269,

355
Dogs, black Manchurian, 53

domesticated, 4, 12, 13, 21, 24, 26,
42, 53, 79, 82, 83, 91, 92, 96, 97,
100, 103, 104, 118, 120, 125, 127,
128, 161, 180, 181, 208, 219, 228-
231, 284,^ 331

laws concerning dogs, see Laws
wild dogs, 102
Dolphins, 124, 342, 345
Domesticated mammals, 3, 21, 79-83
Donaldson, quoted, 247, 355
Dondero, quoted, 161, 317, 355
Donham, quoted, 125, 355
Donkeys, 80, 82, 335, 337
Dose, quoted, 70, 188, 214, 288, 355
Draft animals, see Beasts of burden
Drake-Brockman, quoted, 44, 102, 116,
118, 130, 133, 231, 238, 239, 295,

304, 307, 337, 338, 34i, 346, 355
Dromedary, 308
Duce, quoted, in
Duckbill, 131, 135

see also Platypus
Dugmore, quoted, 272, 273, 355
Dugong, 78, 341
Dunnam, quoted, 130, 135, 192, 355

Dyche, quoted, 130, 136, 191, 242, 243,
355

Earle, quoted, 205, 355
Earnshaw, quoted, 355
Earnshaw and Grimes, quoted, 355
Earth-wolf, 238
Eaton, quoted, 355
Eaton and Stirrett, quoted, 247, 355
Echidna, 187
Edentata, 129, 131, 339
Eland, 330

Elephants, 4, 5, 35, 44, 82, 83, 102,
_ 137, 142, 143, 304-305, 329

Indian, 9

pygmy, 9

see also ivory

Elephant-seal, see Sea-elephant
Elk, American (wapiti), 9, 22, 34, 42,
44, 48, 86, 92, 141, 145, 146, 152,
153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 160, 170,
172, 310, 312, 319

European, 319

Olympic, 154

Elliott, quoted, 136, 212, 213, 355
Elrod, quoted, 136, 255
Elton, quoted, 91, 355
Embody, quoted, 274
Enders, quoted, 235, 355
English, quoted, 280, 355
Enhydra lutris, 212

nereis, 213
Enhydrinae, 212
Equidae, 335-33$
Erethizon, 294
Erethizontidae, 294
Erignathus barb at us, 242
Erinaceidae, 196

Ermine, 53, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 154,
206, 207, 209

see also Weasel
Erosion caused by mammals, 48-49,

108-111

Eschricht, quoted, 345
Eumetopais jubata, 243
Eutamias, 264

amoenus, 265

bore alis, 258

canipes, 257

caryi, 260

cinereicollis, 257, 259

INDEX

dorsalis, 259, 260

hopiensis, 260

merriami, 259

minimus, 258, 260, 265

pallidus, 258

pictus, 265

quadrvvittatus , 260

utahensis, 260
Evermann, quoted, 30, 118, 124, 136,

213, 240, 343, 355
Evotomys, 209, 283
Ewart, quoted, 79
Exploration, influence of mammals on,

112-114

Extinction of mammal species, 137-
149

Fargo, quoted, 129, 197, 355
Faunthrope, quoted, 143
Fecundity of rodents, II, 38

see also Rodents
Felidae, 117, 120, 122, 231-238
Felis couguar, 232

pardalis, 235

ramseyi, 232

viverrima, 238
Fences, beaver-proof, 160, 274

cat-proof, 160, 274

coyote, dog, wolf -proof, 161, 331

deer-and-elk-proof, 160, 319

rabbit-proof, 164
Ferrets, 80, 166, 208

black- footed, 118, 210

European, 210
Ferris, quoted, 93, 355
Fertilizer from mammals, 31, 33, 34,

343

Fiber, 287

Finley, quoted, 103, 232, 356

Fire hazard and mammals, 38, 106-
107, 181

Fischer, quoted, 247

Fisher, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 119, 121, 124,

176, 206, 207, 208
Australian, 52

Fisher, quoted, 18, 38, 42, 120, 121,
122, 211, 227, 236, 293, 356

Fishes, economic relations with mam-
mals, 18, 19, 20, 123-126, 194,

195, 203, 204, 208, 210, 211, 212,

213, 216, 241-244, 274, 343, 344,

345
Fitch, 53, 59, 64, 206

norwegian, 54

sable, 54

see also Polecat
Fleming, quoted, 97
Flesh eaten, see Meat
Flower and Lydekker, quoted, 341
Fluctuation in number of rodents, 226,

248-250

Flying foxes, see Bats
Forbes, quoted, 15
Forbes and Beckdell, quoted, 314, 317,

356

Forbush, quoted, 37, 97, 100, 160, 162,
181, 236, 237, 247, 253, 292, 356
Forsling, quoted, no, 356
Fortune, quoted, 347
Foster, quoted, 122
Fox, quoted, 90, 91, 92, 356
Foxes, 7, 11, 18, 24, 42, 43, 53, 58, 59,
65, 67, 68, 72, 83, 91, 92, 97, 118,
120, 133, 143, 152, 153, 154, 155,
156, 157, 164, 176, 178, 183, 219,
227-228, 249, 250, 284, 297
Australian, 59
Baltic, 52
black, 58, 64, 219
blue, 57, 59, 72, 154, 220, 228
cross, 57, 59, 64, 219, 220
farming, 227-228
flying, see Bats
gray, 59, 65, 227
Isabella, 53
Japan, 58
kitt, 59, 220
pointed, 53
red, 53, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68,

154, 219, 220, 227

silver, 57, 58, 60, 64, 72, 219, 220,
228

swift, 60

white, 54, 57, 60, 64, 68, 73, 219, 220

see also Fur trade
Francis and Evans, quoted, 99
Francis, Mayne and Lake, quoted, 99
Fraser, quoted, 57

Freese, Lake and Francis, quoted, 99
Frey, Clark and Veitch, quoted, 77
Friedman, quoted, 142, 356

382

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Frogs, see Amphibians

Fruit eaten by mammals, 43, 189, 223-

224
see also under various species in

Part II

Fry, quoted, 116, 211, 356
Fungi eaten by mammals, 7, 188, 216,

217, 256, 263, 264
Fur-bearers, n, 13, 16, 18, 19, 24

see also Mustelidae
Fur-farming, 56, 72-75, 227-228
deer, 74, 319
fox, 72, 73
mink, 73, 74
muskrat, 72, 74
skunk, 74
Furs and fur trade, 19, 24, 25, 33, 36,

50-78, 112-113
trade names, 51-54
trapping laws, see Laws
see also Skins, and various species
in Part II

Gabrielson, quoted, 295, 356

Galago gallarum, 346

Game mammals, 10, 16, 85-87

value of, 85-87
Gander, quoted, 281, 356
Garrett, quoted, 119, 192, 356
Gassendi, quoted, 347
Gazelle, 330
Genet, 53

Geomyidae, 267-269
Geomys, 267

attwateri, 269

breviceps, 268, 269

sag it tails, 269
Georgeson, quoted, 356
Gianini, quoted, 133, 266, 356
Gillette, quoted, 132, 256, 356
Gilmore, quoted, 286, 356
Giraffe, 9, 142, 322
Giraffidae, 322
Glaucomys, 264

canescens, 258

sabrinus, 258

saturatus, 260

volans, 260
Glenn, quoted, 109
Glutton, 116, 2ii
Goats, 92, 94, 96, 100, 166, 325, 332

Angora, 25, 26, 81, 89, 107, 332-333
domesticated, 48, 52, 53, 76, 77, 79,

80, 81, 149
mountain, 21, 22, 86, 101, 141, 145,

153, 154, 155, 157, 170, 172, 333
wild, 90, 122
Goldman, quoted, 13, 15, 129, 151, 197,

204, 225, 256, 264, 356
Goode, quoted, 356
Goodwin, quoted, 125, 129, 199, 356
Gophers, 5, n, 24, 99, 108, 109, 118,

119, 122, 127, 148, 246
pocket gophers, 38, 122, 127, 178,

180, 209, 252, 253, 267-269
Attwater, 269
chestnut-faced, 269
Dalles, 268
enemies of, 269
lachuguilla, 269
little gray, 269
Louisiana, 268
prairie, 269
white-throated, 268
Gorilla, 105, 345

Graham, quoted, 132, 276, 340, 356
Graves and Nelson, quoted, 34, 319,

357

Green, quoted, 75, 99, 296, 302, 357

Green and Wade, quoted, 99

Gregory, quoted, 131, 190, 357

Grinnell, quoted, 105, 108, 119, 122,
129, 151, 190, 197, 198, 200, 212,
225, 262, 297, 310, 314, 357

Grivet, see Monkeys

Griswold, quoted, 314, 357

Grizzly, see Bears

Grosvenor, quoted, 357

Groundhogs, 265

Guanacos, 309

Guano, 34, 197, 198-199

Gudger, quoted, 238, 347, 357

Guinea pigs, 83

Gulo, 211-212

Gulonidae, 211-212

Haack, quoted, 124, 195

Hadwen and Palmer, quoted, 23, 321,

322, 357
Hahn, quoted, 121, 131, 136, 188, 194,

195, 263, 264, 265, 266, 357

INDEX

383

Hair, camel, 26, 307, 333

dog, 26

Hall, quoted, 38, 89, 92, 93, 122, 129,
197, 221, 232, 249, 287, 313, 314,

3i6, 317, 357

Hall and Linsdale, quoted, 271, 357
Hamilton, quoted, 24, 136, 192, 194,

195, 198, 210, 266, 357
Hanna, quoted, 118, 240, 344, 358
Hansel, quoted, 341
Hanson, quoted, 358
Hardy, quoted, 208
Hares, see Rabbits and Hares
Hart> quoted, 97, 358
Hartebeest, 330

Hartman, quoted, 126, 281, 294, 358
Hastings and Mottram, quoted, 47, 256
Hatt, quoted, 47, 126, 129, 132, 198,

255, 256, 264, 278, 284, 295, 321,

358

Hawks, see Birds
Headlee, quoted, 135, 358
Hedgehogs, 126, 130, 136, 196
Heideman, quoted, 358
Heller, quoted, 25, 107, 128, 306, 333,

335, 358
Henderson, quoted, 6, 12, 15, 91, 108,

122, 181, 221, 225, 237, 250, 297,

302, 358
Henderson and Harrington, quoted,

229
Henshaw, quoted, 104, 126, 133, 200,

201, 202, 227, 252, 316, 358
Hcrpestes, 205
Hess, quoted, 89, 306, 358
Heteromyidae, 269-271
Hewitt, quoted, 19, 23, 34, 44, 62, 79,

92, 133, 143, 151, 158, 179, 200,

203, 223, 285, 298, 306, 311, 312,

321, 322, 325, 327, 328, 334, 358
Hides, see Skins
Hinton, quoted, 253, 359
Hippopotamuses, 9, 35, 102, 143, 307

pygmy, 9

See also Ivory, Skins
Hisaw, quoted, 108, 130, 135, 190, 191,

359
Hisaw and Emery, quoted, 132, 263,

359
Hisaw and Gloyd, quoted, 127, 359

History, Influence of Mammals on,

112-114

Hofmann, quoted, 47, 255, 264, 359
Hogarth, quoted, 292, 359
Hogs, 24, 36, 79, 88, 89, 284

forest hog, 307

wart hog, 307

see also Swine
Hohman, quoted, 26, 359
Holland, quoted, 127
Hollister, quoted, 65
Holmes, quoted, 25, 76, 82, 326, 329,

33i, 335, 359
Holt, quoted, 24, 346, 359
Honey-bear, see Bears
Honks, quoted, 274
Hoofs used, 33
Horn, quoted, 359
Hornaday, quoted, 57, 66, 93, 124, 141,

144, 151, 241, 312, 327, 338, 341,

345, 359
Horns used, 4, 33, 34, 326, 328

see also Antlers
Horses, 4, 21, 36, 48, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81,

82, 91, 94, 96, 97, 104, 137, 181,

335-337

Prjevalsky wild, 9
Hosley, quoted, 7, 47, 264, 359
Houk, quoted, 359
Hovell, quoted, 293, 359
Howard, quoted, 34, 197, 359
Howell, quoted, 42, 43, 91, 103, 118,
119, 120, 121, 124, 12;, 126, 130,
131, 132, 135, 136, 188, 190, 192,

195, 2O2, 2O4, 2O9, 211, 215, 2l6,

217, 233, 247, 255, 260, 265, 279,

280, 281, 282, 283, 287, 291, 344,

359, 360

Howell and Huey, quoted, 343, 360
Hoy, quoted, 143, 360
Huanaco, 309

Hubbard, quoted, 142, 308, 329, 360
Hudson, quoted, 277
Huey, quoted, 93, 129, 136, 198, 245,

360

Hull, quoted, 96, 360
Humphrey, quoted, 249, 360
Hunt, quoted, 234, 360
Hunter, quoted, 43, 119, 161, 180, 208,

212,233, 3H,3i3, 36o

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Hunters and hunting, 84-87, 146, 147,

310-312, 315

Hyaenas, 102, 115, 118, 238
Hyaenidae, 238
Hydrophobia, see Diseases
Hylochoerus, 307
Hyraces, 303-304, 335
Hyrax capensis, 303
Hystricidae, 295
Hystrlx cristata, 295

Ichthyomys, 125, 291

Ingersoll, quoted, 44, 102, 118, 126, 130,
131, 136, 205, 295, 296, 309, 340,
346, 360

Innis, quoted, 19, 51, 65, 68, 69, 91, 118,
174, 1 88, 193, 200, 204, 205, 206,
207, 214, 219, 228, 238, 248, 250",
266, 272, 273, 285, 297, 309, 330,
333, 347, 360

Insectivora, 129, 190-196

Insects, economic relation to mammals,
12, 18, 19, 93-95, 124, 129-134,
187, 188, 189, 190, 193-199, 203,
204, 209, 215-219, 231, 238, 256,
257, 263, 264, 267, 275, 278, 300,

339-341

see also Insectivora, Chiroptera
Ivory, elephant, 35, 142, 305
hippopotamus, 308
mammoth, 35
walrus, 33, 142, 147, 245, 246

Jackal, 60, 133, 220, 231

Jackson, quoted, 78, 194, 360

Jacobson, quoted, 248, 360

Jaguar, 117, 141, 161, 231, 232, 238

Jardine and Forsling, quoted, no

Jenkins, quoted, 26, 360

Jennison, quoted, 35, 189, 196, 204, 205,
232, 235, 238, 239, 295, 296, 303,
304, 307, 308, 309, 320, 322, 323,

329, 337, 338, 339, 340, 34i, 343,
345, 346, 360

Jewett, quoted, 248, 283, 360

Johnson, quoted, 47, 48, 51, 68, 69, 83,
92, 117, 119, 121, 124, 135, 214,
226, 228, 229, 262, 272, 275, 279,
288, 289, 290, 318, 360, 361

Jonas Bros., quoted, 52

Jones, quoted, 23, 52, 57, 58, 65, 73, 74,

80, 91, 96, 98, 204, 209, 211, 212,
214, 272, 288, 300, 3l8, 320, 321,
332, 36l

Jordan, quoted, 126
Jotter, quoted, 42, 223, 361

Kalmar, quoted, 314, 361

Kangaroo, 58, 63, 64, 66, 143, 187, 188

Kangaroo rats, see under Rats

Karakule, see under Sheep

Kasnaker, quoted, 287

Keele, quoted, 119, 212

Keller, quoted, 79, 236, 317, 325, 361

Kellogg, quoted, 29, 221, 254, 361

Kellogg and Doane, quoted, 361

Kendall, quoted, 125, 275

Kennicott, quoted, 278

Kinkajou, 176, 204

Kirk, quoted, 191, 210, 361

Kitt, see Foxes

Klipspringer, 330

Klugh, quoted, 121, 130, 132, 195, 256,

263, 361

Knight, quoted, 47, 125, 275
Koala, 53, 54, 188, 189
Kolinsky, 53, 60, 64, 188
Krimmer, 53, 60, 332
Kuroda, quoted, 294

Lagomorpha, 246

La gurus artemesiae, 286

pallidus, 286
Lambs, 7, 12, 18

See also Sheep
Lang, quoted, 35, 142, 305, 338, 347,

361

Langham, quoted, 47, 256
Lankester, quoted, 17
Lano, quoted, 295, 361
Lantz, quoted, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 57,

100, 106, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125,

126, 131, 133, 135, 158, 160, 161,
162, 163, 164, 174, 178, 179, 214,
216, 217, 223, 224, 230, 247, 248,
250, 253, 268, 269, 277, 284, 286,
288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 298, 311,
318, 323, 324, 330, 331, 333, 361

Lard, 306

La Rue, quoted, 347, 362

Laufer, quoted, 362

Laut, quoted, 50, 51, 52, 58,^63, 64, 69,

INDEX

385

7i, 73, 74, 75, *74, 193, 204, 206,
212, 213, 219, 228, 240, 255, 272,
273, 288, 291, 301, 332, 362
La Valette, quoted, 124, 195, 203, 210,

237, 362

Lawrie, quoted, 47, 275
Laws concerning mammals, 150-151,
165-181, 204

see also Bounties
Lawson, quoted, 136, 300, 362
Lea, quoted, 362
Leather trade, 25, 33, 50, 75-78

see also Skins, Fur trade
Lee, quoted, 135
Leechman, quoted, 26, 229, 362
Leek, quoted, 146, 319, 362
Legislation, see Laws
Lemming-mice, see under Mice
Lemmings, 16, 38, 91, 248
Lemur, 133, 346
Leopard, n, 60, 80, 102, 117, 143, 161,

231, 238, 329
Leporidae, 297-303
Lepus americanus, 298

bairdi, 298

campanius, 298

europaeus, 299

macfarlani, 299

townsendii, 298
Leslie, quoted, 308, 362
Le Souef, 18, 227, 362
Lewis, quoted, 188, 362
Licenses, dog, 181, 230

hunting, 84, 147, 172-173. 3*5

trapping, 61, 69, 70, 71, 147

see also Laws
Ligon, quoted, 49, 158, 202, 260, 298,

307, 362

Lincecum, quoted, 188, 362
Linsdale, quoted, 221, 362
Liomys irroratus texensis, 271
Lions, 7, n, 43, 80, 102, 117, 143, 161,
231, 238, 329, 337

see also Mountain lions
Little chief hare, 296
Lizards, see Reptiles
Llamas, 4, 21, 22, 82, 308, 309
Lockhart, quoted, 321, 363
Lorensen, quoted, 42, 202, 363
Lucas, quoted, 33, 35, 66, 141, 142, 179,

223, 241, 244, 246, 290, 305, 328,
342, 346, 363
Lutra, 212
Lutrinae, 212

Lydekker, quoted, 190, 337, 363
Lyell, quoted, 304, 363
Lynxes, n, 41, 43, 57, 58, 60, 65, 67,
117, 154, 161, 176, 178, 231, 233,
238

black, 52
Japanese, 53
Lynx baileyi, 234
canadensis, 234
fasciatus, 234
rufus texensis, 234
Lyon, quoted, 196, 363

Macroscelididae, 196

Macrotus calif ornicus, 198

Malloy, quoted, 209

Mammalia, defined, 4

Mammals, 4, 13, 15, 16

as enemies of other mammals, 117-

119

as a source of food, 3, 20-24
as a source of other products, 3, 25-

35

damage by to food supply, 36-44
damage by to other property, 45-49
dangerous, 7, 102-105
destruction of and control of dam-
age by, 159-165

diseases, see Diseases and Parasites
economic relations to birds, 120-122
to amphibians, 126-128
to fishes, 123-126
to insects, 129-136
to other mammals, 13, 117-119
to reptiles, 126-128
influence of on exploration, 22-27
number of species of, 4, 36
Mammoth, 35, 305

see also Ivory
Manatee, 78, 341-342
Manidae, 341
Marine, quoted, 91
Marmota, 265
Marmots, 52, 53, 54, 58, 64, 66, 255,

265-266

see also Woodchucks
Marsh, quoted, 94

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Marsh and others, quoted, 94

Marsh rabbit, 24

Marshall, Heller and McWhorter,

quoted, 75, 332, 363
Marsupialia, Marsupials, 91, 131, 133,

187-190

Martens, 58, 60, 64, 65, 68, 155, 176,
206, 207, 208

American, 53

black, 52

Hudson Bay, 53

Japanese, 58, 60

Pennant, 124, 207, 208

pine, 57, 119, 124, 131, 207, 208

stone (fisher) 58, 60, 64, 206, 207

see also Fisher
Maries atnericana, 208

pennanti, 208
Martin, quoted, 272, 363
Mason, quoted, 51, 321, 363
Massingham, quoted, 334
Maxey, quoted, 234, 363
McAllister, quoted, 23, 34, 144, 321,

327, 363

McAtee, quoted, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,
195, 197, 215, 219, 236, 255, 339,

363

McCracken, quoted, 363
McCurdy, quoted, 300
McDaniel, quoted, 78, 340
McGuire, quoted, 203, 263
McLean, quoted, 234, 316, 363
Mearns, quoted, 127, 259, 268, 277, 278,

279, 281, 307, 316, 324, 363
Mease, quoted, 99, 363
Meat eaten by human beings, 20, 21,

35, 36

alpaca, 4, 21, 309
anteaters, 24
antelopes, 23, 330
asses, 337
badgers, 24
beaver, 23, 272, 273
beef, 21, 325
bison, 23, 327
buffalo, 23
camel, 21, 309
caribou, 22
deer, 22, 312
dog, 21
game, 10, 16, 86-87

goats, 21

gopher, 24, 268

guanaco, 309

hedgehog, 196

horse, 21, 80, 335

kangaroo, 189

llama, 4, 21, 309

monkey, 24, 346

moose, 23

mountain goat, 333

muskrat, 24

mutton, 21, 325, 330

opossum, 24, 188

porcupine, 24, 295

pork, 21, 36, 306

porpoise, 24, 343

prairie-dog, 24, 267

rabbit, 13, 23, 24, 302-303

raccoon, 24, 203

rat, house, 24

reindeer, 4, 23, 24, 321

seal, 24

skunk, 24

squirrel, 24

veal, 21

walrus, 24

whale, 24, 343

wildcat, 24

wildebeest, 329

woodchuck (marmot), 24, 266

wood rat, 281

zebra, 337

Megadcrmns, 121, 199
Melons eaten by coyotes, 43
Mephitinae, 214-218
Mephitis, 215

mesomelas, 216, 217

nigra, 216

varians, 217

Merriam, quoted, 40, 43, 48, 99, 117,
119, 121, 124, 127, 131, 132, 133.
136, 163, 194, 195, 208, 212, 217,
218, 219, 233, 234, 241, 243, 253,
256, 261, 262, 263. 26^, 26^, 266,
271, 277, 278, 296, 318, 323, 363
Mice, 5, u, 12, 13, 16, 17, IQ, 36, ?8, _/i6,
99, 100, 108, 117, 118, 119, 122,
126, 127, 132, 136, 148, 161-162,
166, 188, 189, 194, 209, 21 1, 246,
275, 291

plagues of mice, see Plagues

INDEX

sheep killed by mice, 249
field or meadow mice (Microtus),
n, 18, 39, 46, 122, 127, 247, 249,
252, 277, 284-287

bean mouse, 286

Cascade large- footed, 286

least, 286

Louisiana, 286

pallid, 286

sagebrush, 287

Townsend, 286
grasshopper mice, 119, 126, 132, 133,

134, 136, 276-277
harvest mice, 122, 132, 277
house mice, 16, 36, 37, 38, 45, 80,

1 06, 115, 122, 148,279,291
jumping mice, 294
lemming-mice, 282

Cooper, 283

6055,283

oldfield mouse, 279
Olympic (Phenacomys') 283
pine mice, 36, 287

pocket mice (Perognathns), 5, 122,
133, 269-270

Baird, 270

black-eared, 270

Cope, 270

dusky, 270

Dutcher, 270

hispid, 270

Kansas, 270

Maxmillian, 270

Merriam, 270

Texas spiny, 271
red-backed mice (Evotomys*), 283

Gale, 283

Loring, 283

scorpion mouse, 132, 136, 276
shrew-mice, see Shrews
tree mice (Phenacomys}, 283

forest, 283

long-tailed or red, 283
white-footed (deer-mice), 5, 39, 108,
122, 126, 133, 253, 277-279

Baird, 278

Chihuahua, 278

desert, 278

LeConte, 279

northern, 278

oldfield, 278, 279

Osgood, 278
Rowley, 279
San Clemente, 279
tawny, 278
western desert, 279
Microdipodops megacephalus, 271
Microsorex, 194
Microtinae, 282-291
Microtus, 209, 284-286
arviculoides, 286
calif ornicus, 249
ludovicianus, 286
minor, 209, 286
montanus, 249
pennsylvanicus, 286
richardsoni, 286
townsendii, 286
wahema, 286
Migrations of mammals, 7
Milk used, 21, 25
alpaca, 4
camel, 22, 308
cattle, 22, 325
goat, 21, 22
llama, 4, 22, 309
reindeer, 4, 22
Miller, quoted, 195, 226, 232, 233, 235,

300, 339, 364

Millipedes eaten by mammals, 196, 204

Mills, quoted, 67, 143, 201, 364

Minks, 13, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64,

65, 66, 68, 71, 73, 74, 83, 118, 121,

124, 126, 131, 135, 152, 154, 155,

156, 174, 176, 178, 181, 183, 206,

207, 208, 211

Brazilian, 52

California, 53

farming, 73, 74,211

Japan, 58, 60

river, 53

Siberian, 53

Mirounga angustirostris, 244
Mitchell, quoted, 88, 90, 217, 364
Mites, see Arachnids
Mohair, see Wool
Mohr, quoted, 328, 364
Moles, 17, 53, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 108,
109, 119, 128, 130, 133, 134, 135,
166, 190-193

American common, 130, 191

Brewer, 192

388

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

California, 192
star-nosed, 191
Townsend, 190, 192
Mollusks eaten by mammals, 124, 135-
136, 188, 192, 194, 195, 196, 204,
211, 212, 213, 241, 242, 243, 244,
246, 264, 300, 343, 345
Mongoose, 18, 121, 133, 136, 148-149,

205-206
Monkeys, 24, 44, 53, 60, 66, 100, 133,

345-347

Monotremata, 131, 133, 187
Moore, quoted, 261, 364
Moose, 9, 22, 23, 48, 80, 86, 119, 141,

153, 156, 157, 170, 172,211, 310,

319, 320

Morden, quoted, 304
Morgan, quoted, 272, 364
Morris, quoted, 18, 121, 205, 364
Morse, quoted, 79, 127, 325, 364
Mosteller, quoted, 41, 295, 364
Moufflon, 60

Mountain beaver, see Beaver
Mountain goat, see Goats
Mountain lions, 41, 42, 43, 56, 67, 97,

103, 104, 115, 117, 141, 161, 178,

179, l82, 183, 202, 220, 221, 232-
233, 238

Mountain sheep, see Sheep

Mouse, see Mice

Mules, 76, 80, 81, 335-336

Munch, Silver and Horn, quoted, 293

Mungoose, see Mongoose

Muridae, 291-294

Murie, quoted, 46, 92, 256, 264, 295,

313, 364

Murphy, quoted, 343, 364

Murray, quoted, 99

Murrill, quoted, 47, 256

Mus musculus, 249, 279, 291
norvegicus, 291

Mushrooms, see Fungi

Musk ox, 141, 146, 170, 334

Muskrat, 24, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60,
63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74,
92, 99, 109, 118, 120, 124, 126,
128, 135, 147, 152, 154, 155, 156,
157, 174, 175, 176, 178, 183, 255,
287-291
round-tailed, 287

Mustela nigripes, 210

put onus, 210

rixosa, 210

streatori, 210

leptus, 210

vison, 211

washing toni, 210
Mustelidae, 118, 122, 124, 131, 133, 206-

219

Mustelinae, 208-211
Mutton, see Meat
Myotis daubentoni, 199

lucifugus, 198

subulatus, 198
Myrmecophaga jubataf 340
Myrmecophagidae, 340

Nasua, 204

Nelson, quoted, 34, 67, 78, 86, 129, 144,
145, 158, 197, 198, 199, 205, 210,
215, 216, 235, 240, 294, 312, 321,
323, 324, 328, 339, 364
Neofiber alleni, 287

nigrescens, 287
Neomys, 195
Neosorex, 194

palustris, 195
Neotoma albigida, 281

annectens, 281

attwateri, 281

baileyi, 281

cinerea, 280

cumulator, 281

desertorum, 281

floridana, 281

fuscipes, 280, 281

macrotis, 281

mexicanus, 281

micropus, 282

occidentalis, 280, 282

orolestes, 280

pennsylvanica, 280

rupicola, 280

venusta, 281

Newcombe, quoted, 47, 281, 364
Newsom, quoted, 234, 364
Nichols, quoted, 264, 364
Noctilio, 125, 199
Nordenskjold, quoted, 342
Northcote, quoted, 346, 365
Notiosorex crawfordi, 195

INDEX

389

Nutria, 53, 60, 63, 64, 66, 255, 290
Nyctalus leisleri, 199

Oberholser, quoted, 122
Ocelot, 60, 235-238
Ochotona, 296
Ochotonidae, 296
Odell, quoted, 47, 94, 256, 365
Odocoilens canus, 316, 317
couesi, 317
hemionus, 316
macrourus, 315, 317
texanus, 316
virgitiianus, 315, 317
Ognev, quoted, 287, 365
Oil, see Porpoise, Seal, Sea-elephant,

Sealion, Walrus, Whale
Okapi, 322

Oldham, quoted, 136, 300, 365
Oman, quoted, 253, 365
O'Melveny, quoted, 213, 240, 364
Ondatra, 287

Onychomys fuliginosa, 276
leucogaster, 276
melanophrys, 277

Opossums, 24, 52, 54, 60, 63, 65, 66,
68, 86, 99, 120, 131, 133, 136,
152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 170, 176,
187, 284

Australian, 52, 58, 61, 63, 66, 188
Florida, 188

North American, 60, 63, 188
ring- tailed, 63, 188
South American, 61
Virginia, 188
Orang-outang, 105
Orca, see Whale, killer
Orcinus orca, 344
Oreamos, 334

Ornithorhynchus anatinus, 187
Orycteropidae, 341
Orycteropus, 341
aethiopicus, 341
afer, 341
Oryx, 330
Osbeck, quoted, 347
Osborn, quoted, 305, 365
O shorn and Anthony, quoted, 29, 57,
63, 64, 141, 188, 193, 204, 207,
208, 219, 238, 240, 255, 266, 272,
287, 291, 296, 302, 365

Osborne, quoted, 97, 138, 365
Osgood, quoted, 73, 78, 104, 125, 203,

232, 277, 278, 296, 310, 365
Osgood, Preble and Parker, quoted,

239, 365

Oswell, quoted, 304
Otospermophilus beecheyi, 248, 261

buckleyi, 257

couchii, 257

grammurus, 248, 257, 259, 260, 261

Otters, 54, 61, 64, 65, 124, 126, 135,

136, 156, 174, 176, 181, 206, 212

land, 57, 61, 64, 121, 124, 207, 212

Russian, 54

sea, 57, 58, 64, 124, 148, 154, 206,

207, 212-214
Ovibos, 334
Ovis mexicanus, 333
Owls, see Birds
Ox, see Musk ox
Oxen, 326

humped, 82

Paca, 170

Pack, quoted, 127

Palmer, quoted, 15, 18, 22, 23, 40, 41,
86, 121, 158, 164, 168, 172, 178,
179, 180, 181, 199, 205, 223, 283,
297, 298, 299, 301, 302, 303, 311,
312, 319, 324, 327, 336

Pangolins, 341

Panther, 231

see also Mountain lion

Paramelidae, 189

Parascalops breweri, 192

Parasites of mammals, 88-95, 125

Parker, quoted, 366

Parker and Francis, quoted, 99, 222

Parker and Spencer, quoted, 99

Parks, quoted, 46, 281, 366

Patterson, quoted, 103, 231, 366

Pauli, quoted, 52

Payne, quoted, 40, 267, 366

Pearse, quoted, 94, 366

Pearson, quoted, 324, 366

Pecari angulatus, 307

Peccaries, 170, 306, 307

Pegues, quoted, 203, 366

Pellett, quoted, 163, 164, 215

Pekan (fisher), 57

Pelts, see Fur trade, Skins

390

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Percival, quoted, 93, 346, 366
Perissodactyla, 335-339
Perognathus, 249

copei, 270

fasciatus, 270

flavescens, 270

flavus, 270

gilvus, 270

hispidus, 270

merriami, 270

paradoxus, 270

perniger, 270

spilotus, 270
Peromyscus, 249, 277-279

bairdi, 278

blandus, 278

boylii, 279

dementis, 279

eremicus, 217, 278

gracilis, 278, 279

leucopus, 278

maniculatus, 278

noveboracensis, 278

osgoodl, 278

polionotus, 108, 279

rowleyi, 279

rufinus, 278

sonoriensis, 278, 279
Perry, quoted, 99
Persian, 58

Persian lamb, .$•££ Sheep
Persianer, 53
Petchaniki, 61
Peterson, quoted, 51, 366
Petit, Howell, Huey, Moon and Wal-
ker, quoted, 221, 366
Phacochoeridae, 307
Phacochoerus, 307
Phalanger (ring-tailed opossum), 63,

131, 188

Phalangeridae, 189
Phascolomyidae, 189
Phenacomys albipes, 283

intermedius, 283

longicaudus, 283

olympicus, 283

orophilus, 283

preblel, 283

silvicola, 283

Phillips, quoted, 35, 83, 158, 304, 305,
366

Phoca groenlandica, 241

richardiif 241
Pigs, 18

£££ a/^o Swine, Guinea pigs, Hogs
Pigskin, se£ Skins
Pikas, 68, 246

.$•££ a/so Conies
Pilsbry and Bequaert, quoted, 136, 196,

_ 205, 285, 300, 366
Pinnipedia, 123, 239-246
Piper, quoted, 39, 122, 163, 249, 250,

253, 284, 367
Pipistrellus Hesperus, 198

sub flavus, 198

Pittman, quoted, 129, 198, 367
Pity my s pinetorum, 287
Plague, bubonic, see Disease
Plagues of rodents, 17, 37, 38, 39, 248-

252, 277

Plath, quoted, 131, 217, 367
Platypus (duckbill), 187
Plimsoll line, 318
Plummer, quoted, 194, 367
Pocket gopher, see Gophers
Pocket mice, see Mice
Pocket rats, see Rats
Poisonous plants, 94-95
Poisoning mammals, 159, 161, 162, 163,

174, 179, l8l, IQI, 220-222, 249,

254

Poland, quoted, 51, 367

Polecat, European, 53, 64, 124, 206,

207

Siberian, 208
see also Fitch
Pony, fur, 61

Poole, quoted, 4, 44, 224, 233, 367
Porcupines, American, 24, 41, 92, 99,

156, 208, 294
Old World, 295
quills used, 34, 295
Pork, see Meat

Porpoises, 24, 33, 46, 78, 124, 342, 345
Potter, quoted, 121, 219, 367
Poulton, quoted, 121, 129, 199, 367
Poultry destroyed by mammals, 165
see also Coyotes, Dasyures, Foxes,
Lynxes, Minks, Mongooses,
Rats, Rodents, Skunks, Weasels,
Wolves
Prairie-dogs, 9, n, 12, 24, 40, 108, 109,

INDEX

391

117, Il8, 122, 163, 178, ISO, 210,
246, 248, 251, 252, 266-267

Preble, quoted, 22, 29, 71, 212, 239, 244,

298, 303, 322, 367
Predatory mammals, 13, 16, 17
see also Wolves, Coyotes, Mountain

Lions, Wildcats, Tigers, Lions,

etc.

Preserves for mammals, 151-158
national, 152-155
state, 156-157
Price, quoted, 93
Primates, 345-347
Prince, quoted, 29, 343, 344, 367
Proboscidea, 304-305
Procaz'ia brucei somalica, 304
Procyon lotor, 204
Procyonidae, 204
Proechimys, 235
Prometkeomys, 287
Pronghorn, see Antelope
Protection of useful mammals, 150-

158

Protelidae, 238
Proteins cristatus, 238
Pteropodidae, 199
Puma, u, 141, 178, 232
see also Mountain lion

Quagga, 141, 338
Quinn, quoted, 221, 367

Rabbits and hares, n, 16, 17, 18, 23,
38, 40, 42, 52, 53, 54, 56, 65, 66,
68, 83, 86, 90, 91, 98, 106, 117,
118, 119, 122, 136, 143, 148, 153,
155, 156, 157, 164, 170, 172, 174,
178, 179, 180, 181, 187, 209, 225,
246, 253, 256, 297-303

Chinchilla, 75, 296, 302

close seasons, 300

coast swamp, 299

cottontail, 23, 40, 133, 299

damage by, 40, 298-299, 301

destruction of, 164, 300-303

enemies of, 40, 164, 301

fecundity, 297

flesh, value as food, 301, 302, 303

fluctuations in numbers, 297

hares, 52, 53, 54, 68
European, 40, 299, 300

northern, 52, 54
Sierra, 170
white, 53, 63
varying, see below
jackrabbits, 9, 40, 250, 252, 298
protection of trees from, 301
rabbit-proof fences, see Fences
skins, number used, 52, 53, 54, 56, 65,

66, 300-301
snowshoe rabbits (varying hares),

91, 100, 297, 298
Macfarlane, 299
Rocky Mountain, 298
Rabies, see Diseases
Rabot, quoted, 30, 367
Raccoons, 24, 52, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71,
86, 121, 124, 133, 135, 152, 153,

154, 155, 156, 157, 170, 174, 175,
176, 178, 204, 284
Sidney raccoon, 54
Radcliffe, quoted, 24, 32, 343, 367
Rangifer, 322
Ransom, quoted, 93
Rats, n, 18, 42, 46, 109, 117, 118, 119,
135, 148, 161-162, 188, 189, 246,
275-294

brown house rat, 24, 36, 37, 38, 45,
80, 96, 99, 100, 106, 115, 120, 122,
126, 148, 247, 292-294
bush rat, 126
cotton rats, 279
Chisos, 280
northern, 279
Texas, 279
coypu, 53, 54
fish-eating rats, 125, 291
kangaroo (pocket) rats, 39, 270
dwarf, 271
large, 271
Loring, 271
Ord, 271

Padre Island, 271
Richardson, 271
pack rats, 46
plagues of rats, 17
Texas spiny rat, 271
woodrats, 38, 99, 127, 253
Allegheny, 280
Attwater, 281
Bailey, 281
Baird, 282

392

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

bushy-tailed, 280, 282

Colorado Valley, 281

desert, 281

dusky- footed, 280

Florida, 281

large-eared brush rat, 281
Mexican, 281

mountain (pack) rat, 46, 280
Portala, 281

trade, 46

white-throated, 281
Rattus norvegicus, 291-294
Reagan, quoted, 1 1 1
Redding, quoted, 242, 367
Reese, quoted, 293, 337, 367
Refuges for mammals, see Preserves
Reindeer, 4, 22, 23, 24, 33, 78, 80, 154,

310,321

Reithrodontomys, 277
Repellants for mammals, 162, 164, 317
Reptiles, economic relations to mam-
mals, 126-128, 164, 188, 195, 211,
216, 218, 264, 294
Reserves, game, see Preserves
Reynolds, quoted, 49, no, 367
Rhinoceroses, 102, 137, 142, 329, 335,

338

Indian, 9

white, 91

Rhinocerotidae, 338
Rhoads, quoted, 192, 209, 254, 311, 345,

368

Rhytina gigas, 342
Rich, quoted, in
Riley, quoted, 368
Ring-tailed cats, 53, 176

see also Bassariscus
Rodentia, n, 161, 246, 303
Rodents, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 24, 36, 38,
45, 46, 107, 118, 119, 122, 131,
133, 161, 163, 178, 180, 188, 204
enemies of, 7, 204, 208-210, 211, 215-

218, 249-251, 284
control of, 253-254, 265, 269, 274,

284, 293-294
damage by, 36, 37, 39, 251-253, 266,

270, 271, 285, 291-294
fecundity of, n, 38, 247-248, 277,

284
fluctuation in numbers, 248-250, 266

plagues of, 24, 38, 39, 249-252

skins, 255

Rodwell, quoted, 247
Rommel, quoted, 337, 368
Roosevelt, quoted, 43, 44, 93, 94, 102,
103, 112, 118, 143, 161, 231, 233,

239, 307, 328, 329, 330, 337, 338,

340, 346, 368

Roseberry, quoted, 74, 318, 368
Ross, quoted, 24, 228, 235, 368
Rowan, quoted, 121, 203, 368
Rowley, quoted, 33, 243, 244, 368
Rucker, quoted, 262, 368
Rush, quoted, 92, 368
Russell, quoted, 230, 368
Ruthling, quoted, 127

St. John, quoted, 28, 368

Sable, 53, 54, 64, 65, 176, 206, 207, 208

Alaska, 52

French, 53

Japanese, 61

red, 53

river, 53

Russian, 53, 61

sable fitch, 54

Salamander, see Amphibians
Salmon, quoted, 97, 368
Salvesen, quoted, 274, 320, 368
Sampson, quoted, 368
Samuels, quoted, 368
Sanborn, quoted, 202, 368
Sanders, quoted, 326, 327, 368
Sanford, quoted, 28, 368
Saunders, quoted, 300, 368
Sawyer, quoted, 118, 219, 369
Scalopus aquaticus, 191
Scammon, quoted, 29
Scapanus townsendii, 192
Scavengers (carrion eaters) 115, 116,

188
Scheffer, quoted, 130, 135, 163, 190,

191, 193, 242, 268, 294, 369
Scheffer and Sperry, quoted, 242, 369
Schierbeck, quoted, 151, 314, 369
Schmeil, quoted, 198
Schoonmaker, quoted, 295
Schultz, quoted, 241, 369
Schwartz, quoted, 93, 99, 369
Schwartz and Snook, quoted, 91, 297,
369

INDEX

393

Sciuridae, 255-267
Sciurus, 263

aberti, 260

albolimbatus, 264

arizonensis , 259, 260

carolinensis, 258, 260, 261

douglassii, 264

frenwnti, 260

huachuca, 259

hudsonius, 258, 263

hypophaeus, 258

kaibabensis, 264

limitis, 258

neomexicanus, 260

m#er, 257, 258, 259, 260

richardsoni, 263

rufiventer, 257

texianus, 259
Scoresby, quoted, 27
Scorpions eaten by mammals, 132, 136,

218, 276, 277
Scott, quoted, 91, 369
Sea-cows, 341

Arctic (Steller), 147,342
Sea-elephants, 33, 93, 147, 244-245
Sea-lions, 33, 123, 154, 178, 239, 242-
244

California, 243

Steller, 243, 244

Seals and sealing, 24, 26-27, 29, 53> 54>
55, 68, 118, 123, 136, 147, 178,
239-242

Aleutian, 52

American, 52

Arctic, 52

Baltic, 52

brown Newfoundland, 53

Cape, 52

dipped, 53

damage by, to fish, 241-242

electric, 53

enemy, see Whales, killer

fur seal, 33, 55, 64, 72, 148, 155, 166,

239

fur seal controversy, 114, 148
fur seal, value of, 239-240
geller, 53
Guadalupe, 240
hair, 33, 53, 78, 241
harp, 240
Hudson, 53

Hudson Bay, 53

La Meuse, 53

new-seal, 53

northern, 53

oil, 241

polar, 52, 53

real-seal, 53

Red River, 53

seal musquash, 54

semeuse, 54

two-L, 54

see also Fur Trade
Sea urchins and sea-squirts eaten by

sea otters, 124, 136, 214
Selle, quoted, 369
Selous, quoted, 304

Seton, quoted, 22, 92, 118, 129, 164,
192, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204,

205, 2O7, 208, 209, 2IO, 211, 212,

213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219,

220, 223, 226, 227, 232, 235, 256,
263, 273, 288, 294, 297, 298, 300,

302, 303, 322, 324, 327, 339, 369
Shannon, quoted, 91, 369
Shaw, quoted, 216, 262, 283, 369
Shaw and Heller, quoted, 369
Sheep, 4, 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, 42, 48, 77,
79, 80, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
94, 96,97, 100, no, in, 117, 118,
161, 166, 325, 330-331
broadtail (shiras) 59, 61, 74, 332
caracul, caracool, 53, 59, 74
China, 53

coyote and dog hazard, 7, 331
karakule, 74, 332

mountain (bighorn) 22, 86, 92, 93,
141, 145, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157,
170, 172, 333

Patagonian bison (sheep), 53
Persian lamb, 52, 53, 61, 72, 73, 74,

332

wild, 122

see also Wool, Meat
Sheldon, quoted, 105, 370
Shelford, quoted, 347, 370
Shellikou, quoted, 212
Sheraz, 332

Sherman and Hill, quoted, 314, 370
Shields, quoted, 320
Shiraz, see Sheep, broadtail
Shreve, quoted, no

394

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Shrews, 119, 122, 129, 130, 133, 134,

135, 190, 193-196, 210, 284
dusky, 195
gray, 195

Hayden masked, 194
long-tailed, 195
marsh, 194
pygmy, 194
short-tailed, 130, 133, 134, 135, 194,

195 §

shrew-mice, 124, 195
tree, 196

water, 124, 194, 195
Shufeldt, quoted, 255, 370
Shull, quoted, 136, 194, 195, 370
Sigmodon, 279
hispidus, 279
ochrognathus, 280
texianus, 279

Silver, quoted, 37, 39, 40, 46, 118, 128,
162, 163, 164, 181, 218, 247, 251,
253, 265, 284, 286, 287, 292, 293,
294, 299, 370

Silver and Jarvis, quoted, 370
Simmons, quoted, 162, 181, 230, 370
Simpson, quoted, 98
Sinews used, 27
Sirenia, 341
Skinner, quoted, 92, 104, 105, 200, 298,

319, 324, 370
Skins and leather trade, 25 33, 50, 52,

75-78

antelope, 333
armadillo, 78
bear, 200
beaver, 272-273
bison, 78, 328
buffalo, 76, 77, 326
calf, 326
camel, 309
cattle, 76, 77, 326
deer, 78, 85, 310, 318
dolphin, 345
dugong, 78
gazelle, 330
giraffe, 322
goat, 76, 77, 326, 333
guanaco, 309
hair seal, 78
hippopotamus, 308
horse, 76, 77, 335

kangaroo, 189

lamb, 53, 60, 76, 77, 326

manatee, 78

mole, 198

monkey, 346

mule, 76

musk ox, 334

Mustelidae, 206-219

oppossum, 188

porpoises, 78, 343, 345

rabbit, see Rabbits and Fur trade

raccoon, 204

reindeer, 4

rodent, 255

sheep, 76, 77

swine, 77, 306

tapir, 339

vicunia, 309

walrus, 245-246

whale, 78, 343, 345

see also Leather, Fur trade, Canidae,

Felidae, Mustelidae
Skunks, n, 18, 24, 52, 54, 57, 58, 61,
63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 74, 83, 93,
119, 121, 131, 133, 134, 135, 155,
156, 157, 160, 164, 174, 178, 206,
207, 208, 214-218, 249, 250, 284

civet (spotted), see Civet cats com-
mon, 215, 216

enemies of insects and rodents, 215-
217

farming, 74, 214

Gulf spotted, 217

hog-nosed, 216

hydrophobia skunk, 53, 217-218

legal protection, 215

little spotted, 217

long-tailed Texas, 217

Mearns hog-nosed, 217

poultry destroyed by, 160

small striped, 53

white-backed, 217
Sloths, 339

Smiley, quoted, 28, 370
Smith, quoted, 127, 135, 241, 243, 370
Snakes, see Reptiles
Snow, quoted, 213
Soil turnover by mammals, io8-!H,

190-191

Soper, quoted, 298, 300, 371
So rex, 194

INDEX

395

albibaris, 196

cinereus, 194, 196

fumeus, 196

hydeni, 194

obscurus, 195
Soricidae, 193-196
Southwell, quoted, 29, 241, 371
Spence, Sanderson and Prater, quoted,

127, 371

Spencer, quoted, 201, 330, 371
Sperm candles, see Candles
Spermaceti, see Whales
Sp Hog ale, 217

gmcilis, 217

Indian ola, 217
Squid, see Mollusks
Squirrels, 41, 46, 47, 56, 61, 63, 65, 66,
68, 80, 86, 91, 108, 118, 119, 120,

122, 127, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,

170, 172, 178, 246, 255-265

see also Chipmunks
damage by, 41, 260
skins, production of, 56, 61, 63, 65,

68

Abert, 260
antelope, 257, 259, 264

Texas, 257
chickeree, 263, 264
flying, 256, 264

pale, 258

southeastern, 260
fox, southern 260

Texas, 258, 259

western, 257
gray, 132, 256

Arizona, 259, 260

Huachuca, 259

Minnesota, 258

southern, 260, 261

ground, 9, n, 17, 41, 91, 98, 99, 117,
118, 119, 133, 134, 163, 180, 209,
248, 251, 252, 265

California, 261

chestnut-tailed, 132, 262

Columbian, 262

desert, 261

Franklin, 119, 132, 256, 259, 262

Harris, 259

large-spotted, 257

Oregon, 262

park, 261

Richardson, 132, 256, 259
Rio Grande, 257
Say, 259, 261
Wortman, 261
Wyoming, 260
Kaibab, 152, 264
pine, 98, 260, 263,

Sierra or California, 264
red, 7, 120, 132, 256
New Mexico, 260
northern, 258
Richardson, 263
rock, 257, 259, 260, 261
black-backed, 257
Couch, 257
southwestern, 259
striped ground squirrel, 132, 256,

258, 263
pale, 257, 258
Texas, 257

tree, 9, 41, 132, 134, 265
tufted-ear, 260

Stanley and Yeatman, quoted, 321, 371
Starbuck, quoted, 26, 27, 28, 29, 371
Starfishes eaten by seals, 241, 242
Starks, quoted, 30, 243, 345, 371
Stefansson, quoted, 334
Stegeman, quoted, 283, 371
Stejneger, quoted, 239, 342, 371
Stevens, quoted, 51
Stevens, E. A. and Co., quoted, 59
Stevenson, quoted, 28, 31, 32, 33, 64,
78, 206, 213, 240, 245, 246, 272,
288, 291, 342, 343, 345, 371
Stiles, quoted, 93, 297, 371
Stivers, quoted, 143, 371
Stock, see Domesticated animals
Stoddard, quoted, 120, 256, 371
Stone and Cram, quoted, 124, 131, 209,
307, 3U, 319, 321, 327, 341, 343,
371

Storer, quoted, 103, 129, 197, 232, 371
Streator, quoted, 34, 282, 371
Strecker, 78, 280, 281, 310, 371
Sturr, quoted, 124
Suidae, 306

Sullivan, quoted, 253, 372
Sumner and Karol, quoted, 108, 279,

372

Sutton, quoted, 316
Svihla, quoted, 299, 372

396

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY

Swift, see Fox

Swine, domesticated, 4, 78, 81, 82, 96,
120, 127, 133, 1 66, 306

wild boars, 306

wild pigs, 102

see also Hogs, Peccaries, Pigs
Sylvilagus aquations, 299

littoralis, 299
Synaptomys, 282

coo peri, 283

gossii, 283

Tadarida cyanocephala, 198
Tallow, 326
Talpidae, 190-193
Tamandua tetradactyla, 340
Tamias, 264

griseus, 258

striatus, 258, 260, 264

venustus, 260
Tapiridae, 339
Tapirs, 170, 335, 339
Tapirus terrestris, 339
Tasmanian devil, 189
Tate, quoted, 340
Taverner, quoted, 121, 203, 372
Taxidiinae, 218-219
Tayassuidae, 307
Taylor, quoted, 17, 37, 39, 66, 100, 136,

249, 271, 282, 300, 372
Taylor and Loftfield, quoted, 37, 40,

252, 267, 372

Taylor and Shaw, quoted, 203, 209, 210,
218, 227, 233, 234, 266, 286, 294,

296, 334, 372

Thomas, quoted, 125, 291, 372
Thomomys, 267

lachuguilla, 269

perditus, 268

quadratus, 268

rufescens, 269

talpoides, 269

Thompson, quoted, 333, 372
Thorns, quoted, 120, 372
Thylacine, 189
Ticks, see Arachnids
Tigers, 7, 11, 102, 117, 127, 161, 231,

238, 306, 329, 339
Todd, quoted, 298, 372
Tooker, quoted, 221, 372
Townsend, quoted, 30, 63, 372

Trapping, 54, 62, 146-147, 175

see also Laws, Licenses
Treaties concerning mammals, 166
Tree bear, 189
Trichecus latirostris, 341
True, quoted, 317
Tubulidentata, 339
Tularemia, see Diseases
Tupaiidae, 196
Tusks, 35, 137, 319
Tyler, quoted, 250, 372
Tyson, quoted, 347

Urocyon cincreoargcntatus scotti, 227
Ursidae, 200-203

Vampires, see Bats
Vandiveer, quoted, 51, 112, 372
Van Hyning, quoted, 136, 255, 372
Veal, see Meat
Vergeer, quoted, 97, 372
Vicunia, 309
Viscachas, 296
Viverridae, 205-206
Voles, 38, 91, 248

coast, 283

Idaho mountain, 283

Preble mountain, 283

Rocky Mountain, 283

short-tailed phenacomys, 283
Vorhies, quoted, 218
Voorhies and Taylor, quoted, 37, 252,

271, 372
Vulpes cascadensis, 227

Wade, quoted, 268, 372
Wagner, quoted, 164, 317, 372
Walker, quoted, 61, 92, 240, 241, 372
Wallaby, 52, 53, 54, 58, 63, 66, 188,

189
Walrus, 4, 24, 33, 35, 114, 136, 147, 240,

^ 245-246

Wapiti, see Elk, American
Wardle, quoted, 372
Warren, quoted, 81, 121, 126, 224, 226,
261, 265, 272, 273, 274, 290, 372,

373

Wart hog, see Hogs
Wasserspitzmausen, 124, 195
Water-buck, 330
Water buffalo, see Buffalo

INDEX

397

Watt, quoted, 17

Weasels, n, 12, 13, 53, 56, 63, 71, 118,
121, 124, 131, 157, 160, 164, 166,
176, 178, 181, 194, 206, 207, 208,
209, 225, 250, 284
Chinese, 58
dwarf, 210

enemies of poultry, u, 13, 209
enemies of rodents, 12, 209-211
ermine, see Ermine
least, 209
Streator, 210
Washington, 210
Webber- Van Boss, quoted, 347
West, quoted, 130, 135, 191, 373
Wetmore, quoted, 18, 121, 205
Whalen, Frey, Veitch and Hickman,

quoted, 77

Whales and whaling, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 124, 136, 147, 239,

342-345
blue, 30
bottlenose, 29
bowhead, 30, 31
finback, 29, 30
gray, 29

humpback, 29, 30, 32
killer (orca), 118, 344
right, 30
sei, 29, 30

sperm, 29, 30, 31, 32
spermaceti, 28
sperm oil, 26, 27, 32
sulphur bottom, 29
whalebone (baleen), 26, 27, 28, 29,

30, 31, 33, 342
see also Ambergris, Candles, Bones,

Sinews

Wheeler, quoted, 341
Whiskers, 33

White and Dove, quoted, 373
Whitehead, quoted, 267, 373
Wight, quoted, 130, 135, 190, 192, 268,

269, 373

Wildcats (bobcats), 24, 41, 43, 59, 65,
91, 92, 117, 120, 125, 135, 156,
181, 233-235, 250, 297
Bailey bobcat, 234

barred bobcat, 234
Texas bobcat, 234
see also bobcats
Wildebeest, 329
Williams, quoted, 26, 332, 373
Wilson, quoted, 191, 192, 373
Winecoff, quoted, 210, 373
Wisent, see Bison
Wislocki, quoted, 92, 373
Wolverene, 19, 61, 116, 118, 119, 176,

206, 207

Wolves, n, 13, 16, 19, 41, 42, 52, 56,
61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 91, 92, 97,
102, 104, 115, 117, 118, 156, 161,

174, 178, 179, 200, 219, 220, 223,

226,250,297,312,331

black Japanese, 52
Wombat, 54, 58, 64, 188, 189
Wood, quoted, 100, 198, 373
Woodchucks, 24, 41, 100, 133, 162-163,
178, 265

see also Marmots
Wool, 25, 26, 33, 67, 330-331

alpaca, 4, 26, 309

llama, 4, 26, 309

mohair, 25, 26, 332

vicunia, 26, 309

see also hair

Worms eaten by mammals, 135, 187,
189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196,
216

intestinal worms, 216, 245
Wright, quoted, 91, 136, 300, 373
Wyman, quoted, 295, 373

Xenarthra, 339

Yeatman and Steinberger, quoted, 303,

373

Yak, 82, 329
Young, quoted, 223, 234, 373

Zalophus calif ornicus, 243
Zapodidae, 294
Zapus campestris, 294

hudsonius, 294

Zebras, 80, 93, 117, 142, 335, 337-338
Zeitz, quoted, 341

THIS BOOK

Economic Mammalogy

was set, printed and bound by The Collegiate Press of Menasha,

Wisconsin. The cover design is by the Pox Studio of Spring-

• field, Illinois. The type face is 11 on 13 Linotype Old Style

No. 1. The type page is 27 x 45 picas. The text paper is

60 pound Winnebago English Finish. The end sheets are

25 x 38-80 White Schuylkill. The jacket is 25 x 38-80 Green

Rittenhouse Laid. The binding is Holliston Waverly

Color 282 T. Pattern.

With THOMAS BOOKS careful attention is given to all de-
tails of manufacturing and design. It is the Publisher's desire to
present books that are satisfactory as to their physical qualities
and artistic possibilities and appropriate for their particular use.
THOMAS BOOKS will be true to those laws of quality
that assure a good name and good will.

THIS BOOK MAY BE KEPT
FOURTEEN DAYS

A FINE WILL BE CHARGED FOR EACH
DAY THE BOOK IS KEPT OVERTIME.

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY
by Junius Henderson

ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY
by Junius Henderson

FORESTA INSTITUTE

y/\|\ OCEAN

STUDIES

6209 FRANKTOWN ROAD

CITY, NEVADA «*>!