Lah ebiied ® «ah etek yore coe ye erne at ta rnin tara ee tal emer wee ate — New ew! meee. oe i ee — , : coe eevevwt — z d . 2 we . ; s ; ; ow ay Eee naar ee et bdteited ee wise ae en pare? mpage ee tataee preeery? mint eres —— ane z wor ae = Se pees : : eS a ae ee U « : " eee ns : . . oe : maria ¥ ¥ , i? Aree ries ape SS ind cag re © re owe aves “ oi . tee Smeg A ee OPW Ue " Le oe A ‘ees weg Was 4m DSO wayeee Sse sec rte wd we hong wowP WUE ty as ee { A Ot | Woe te Ere ies ROR ~ oS 7 aad iy ‘we Sed | Ss h ¥ ie - vite ene ei 1 ~ ry | y ie oN | : j ’ ‘ Dae R ft E ¢ i f , ~~ a bg bd el a | DA fw Nye ee We . Ole , - lle SES Wer ewer y veel Ay a) Ne Ss i i iat « pee ae | ee sf ey we 8 "wFyi ~ VW BAL ed Ft SOPIPGag NALPIGe ) } i fe | NV do \ i fas hae | w wy ‘— . \ P 2 4 = r 3 ¢ 4 ty r a (bes y yayyete es: AWA ir Ge : y : Lon wk; we , ey 2 ww Wy | Ded vw: Swyw7s ro | AS dg 1 hana | eS Va ; tor a ze es fig is wv WA Saye vie: v vw by ee, Sev vee vty — = Ee ea Sie lige | = Shs ss, ee ne tad "ety, Meee Wavevocy Westover e vs: Ses ee binicn age L DAA Pea wa we wt ns SS ~ _ THEIR HISTORY, OBJ ECTS, AND LIMITATIONS, aes. a oa ors. PALMER ASSISTANT IN CHARGE, OF GAME PRESERVATION x o* ee WASHINGTON ~ GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE | “re 1904 - ~~ . NOTE. On page 47 of Bulletin 19 on “‘ Hunting Licenses”’ reference is made to the case of Cummings v. People, involving the constitutionality of the license law of Illinois. On October 24, 1904, the Supreme Court of Illinois rendered a decision in this case upholding the constitutionality of the law and quoting with approval the decisions of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the case of Allen v. Wyckoff, and the United States circuit court of the northern district of Illinois in the case of Jn re Eberle. BS The court holds: (1) That the proviso in Section 25 of the Illinois law allowing owners and tenants of farm lands to hunt without obtain- ng a license, is valid; (2) That lands owned or rented as game pre- erves are not farm lands, and the owners or tenants are not entitled to unt without a license; (3) That the clause in Section 32 of the law providing that nothing in the act shall apply to persons hunting by invitation on lands of another “‘must be held invalid, except in so far as it can be given a limited effect,’’ adding that “the purpose of the legislature doubtless was to authorize the owner of lands to invite another person to do that which he might himself lawfully do, and so construed the proviso can be sustained.”’ Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. ot Fic. 1.—STATES HAVING NONRESIDENT LICENSE LAWS IN 1900. Fic. 2.—STATES HAVING NONRESIDENT LICENSE LAWS IN 1904. MAPS SHOWING PROGRESS IN NONRESIDENT LICENSE LEGISLATION. Inclosed names indicate States which grant special privileges for taking out a limited amount of game. States which are ruled do not permit hunting by nonresidents. F % i ¢ a& HUNTING LICENSES e . Bu. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULT BIOLOGICAL SURVEY—BULLETIN No. 19 C. HART MERRIAM, Chief BY i... PALMER ASSISTANT IN CHARGE OF GAME PRESERVATION SS ee = Pe Bis =p = EA He = ay (o AA Sy oe ICL ( Be ity GUD = (5 AN ae WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1904 | S90, 6 a eas URE 2 Ft { a | THEIR HISTORY, OBJECTS, AND LIMITATIONS UA ‘ Se ee See LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. 5. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Division oF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D. C., August 20, 1904. Str: I have the honor to transmit herewith, as Bulletin No. 19, a report on ‘** Hunting licenses, their history, objects, and limitations,” prepared by Dr. T. S. Palmer, assistant in charge of game preserva- tion. The object of this bulletin is to render generally accessible the information collected by the Department on the subject of resident and nonresident licenses. In States which have adopted the license system statistics regarding hunting not previously collected are now available. Thus the figures here presented show that during 1903 the receipts from licenses exceeded $10,000 in each of 9 States, and Illinois and Wisconsin each collected nearly $100,000; the total number of hunters in 10 States which license both residents and nonresidents exceeded 261,000; and the States which attracted most nonresident hunters were Maine, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Respectfully, C. Hart Merriam, Chief Biological Survey. Hon. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. C0. Ts Niles = Page. ARO CDROI Meese as oi San ek as 3 Sh eee SE new oi SASS ciel 9 Pnttory of hunting licenses _-.-......22 222.22 soc are ys eS eS hoe 9 Picerimanaton acainst nonresidents . .. 22.222 2 2s 26 Sesh. 452k se. ose 10 quae ee meaticeniced yt. ste §s ) a. 2 ee ee re ee 12 , VOGEL TORETS SS 5 oe eae a BIN ee Pa ae pa Rs at ao I oe ple 12 MianKer- henge NeeNsesy 2 s22 4 Pasek oR ee ee a esos 2s eee eee 14 rem enale nc encege eas cot kts a Were Wee See des Jor ey ea 15 RC MEM GM IECCMSCS = seiee pd a ee een aoe Mond voniese en oe 16 Simon ahve olicense lesislawon . 9 dee Sac. ot Se ks ee out seek 2S 19% LUE TETES GUE LICR SS Sie a a See Oe ea a an en ee eee eee 24 2 URES DELS SS Se a a ee 24 ie er ee ee tee Ne he Tee Pee RS ont. BRS ae 29." ERD § GOISSUG 2 ORS ee ee Ne ee ee ee ee 26 ie SBLII CUTCOE SEE fas Re ese ee eg ee ea ge tS ei Was Se eee 30 PGpeeCrOmInUNEn Me MGeTISed: te Pe ee os SE le eee 33 Ripe SIO CR Nin et PS ere SS ee on SL ee oe keg oie eee oe TUSSI EIT Oe Seo pe ee ace Rie on eee ei en gee 36 NMMEAMPRISW RTO MUI ICG 452) oe ee I oD SSS tee eek © ov Pier aelORIcuO LHe eelise System. 2-8. 2. Soe ee ee se pt beset ee 42 Sapien MBER Me men liek Lome ol be Cee Eel Re ke Ge oe ke 42 Moreen crate e layne en gee tire es a oe a ie bts nese ice 42 IBID EG CMCtns Tee eo ot Cs Ete oe SR ALS ee eas 43 Present status of license legislation in the United States _..........-..-..---- 45 Decisions of the courts on the constitutionality of nonresident license laws -- - 46 Sahmobicenses Im 1Oreren COUMLMEeS: 2.0.2 22a 2k 2 ee eee kk 51 SRE ES Ria eee eee Se Pt MER ad Ste So Sh 51 eae BERNA DD iar tey sc eo ei ere ee ee OS Py Pea TAL heed 52 ies Mea ATE oi ach Ra ok! se ee Ree er te ania 28 ON rs Soe 52 VGSTALD oo 5 Se en pe eC OE LoS 2 eee aaa ae eee ee eee 52 Par sem rn AGRO ATT Ca = AS ht ao Pe re eee Sk ek ee 53 Sarena Seeramnwesh A LhiCa = ah eee yok ode ee 53 STLLATD ye oS es edt SG sl eee ee 3 oo LETS yee 2 SER a Ba Sa co le le 54 Index of license legislation in the United States and Canada ..--....--.--.-- 59 References to articles on nonresident licenses ..........-.------------------ 67 ILLUSTRATIONS. Page. Puate I. Map showing progress in nonresident license legislation ---.- Frontispiece Fie. 1. States having nonresident license laws in 1900. Fig. 2. States having nonresident license laws in 1904. II. Map showing progress in resident license legislation.-.--.-..-..--- 18 Fic. 1. States having resident license laws in 1900. Fic. 2. States having resident license laws in 1904. ieee photograph license:ot Indiana, W903... .......2-2-.2.--.-25-645- 24 IV. Resident licenses—lIllinois and Minnesota...--..-.--..--.-.------ 30 V. Diagram showing receipts from licenses in 10 States, 1903 ..-..-.--- 38 Vit Nonresident coupon license of Wisconsin = 2222 22.52222..-42-2.225 42 VII. Extremes of nonresident licenses—Washineton and Wyoming... --- 44 HUNTING LICENSES: THEIR HISTORY, OBJECTS, AND LIMITATIONS. INTRODUCTION. Two of the most important problems of practical game protection are how to enforce the laws and how to secure the funds necessary for the purpose. Without funds it is manifestly impossible either to pro- vide or maintain the service required to carry the laws into effect; and if no serious effort is made to secure compliance with the law public interest in game protection flags until it becomes difficult to secure either appropriations or such legislation as will yield revenue for warden service. The most successful method of raising funds thus far devised is a system of licenses which in effect amounts toa direct tax on those who hunt. Several States depend almost entirely on some system of this kind for maintaining their warden service, and others receive from it important additions to their game protection funds. How important such a source of revenue may become can readily be appreciated from the fact that during the past year Maine collected license fees amounting to more than $25,000, Wisconsin 590,000, and Illinois nearly $100,000. In some States this money is derived principally from resident, in others from nonresident, licenses. The requirements in regard to fees and the method of obtaining licenses differ widely in different sections of the country, and every sportsman who resides in a State which has license laws or who visits States where licenses are required is directly affected by the system. As interest in the subject is widespread, it seems desirable to bring together data showing not only the origin and development of hunting licenses, but also their advantages and disadvantages. Few questions in game protection have attracted more attention in recent years, and none, perhaps, has been more fruitful of discussion or led to more diverse opinions. HISTORY OF HUNTING LICENSES. It is commonly supposed that the license feature of game protection, which by many is regarded as unnecessary and unjust, is a recent devel- opment; but, although most of the present laws have been enacted 9 10 HUNTING LICENSES. during the last ten years, even a hasty review of the subject will show that the system originated at a very early date in the United States,? and was in reality an outgrowth of a discriminating attitude toward nonresidents. Hunting licenses were required in some of the colonies, particularly Virginia, more than two hundred years ago, though their object was somewhat different from those of modern times. One of the earliest statutes may be found in ‘‘An act for a free trade with Indians,” passed in Virginia in April, 1691 (3 Hening’s Stat., 69), the object of which was stated as follows: And for the future prevention of such mischeifes as have frequently happened at huntings, commonly called fire huntings and other huntings remote from the planta- tions, Bee it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That no person or persons whatsoever shall hereafter presume to goe an hunting remote from the English plantations without first having obtained the lycense and permission of their Majesties leiutenant governour or commander in cheife for the time being and the councell of state under such restrictions, limitations and conditions as at the time of giveing such permission shall be by them thought fit to be enjoyned and appointed- DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONRESIDENTS. In an act passed on March 27, 1719 (Nevill, 86), nonresidents in New Jersey were prchibited from taking oysters or putting them on board a vessel not wholly owned by a resident. The discrimination against nonresidents in the matter of gathering oysters thus begun nearly two centuries ago has been maintained to the present time by oyster laws similar to the act of 1719 passed in 1820, 1846, and 1899. A similar discrimination may also be found in an act passed in Rhode Island in 1844. In the second game law enacted in North Carolina (Laws of 1745, Chap. ILI) all persons not possessed of a settled habitation in the proy- ince were required to have a certificate that they had planted and tended 5,000 hills of corn before they were permitted to hunt deer. Section 4 of this act reads: That every person who shall hunt and kill deer in the King’s waste within this Province, and who is not possessed of a settled habitation in the same shall be obliged to produce a certificate when required of his having planted and tended five thousand corn-hills, at five feet distance each hill, the preceding year, or season, in the county where he shall hunt, under the hands of at least two Justices of the Peace of the said county and the hand of at least one of the churchwardens of the Parish where such person planted and tended such corn, as aforesaid. This law, which contains the germ of the hunting license, was amendcd twenty-three years later (Laws of 1768, Chap. XIII) so as to deny the privilege of hunting deer to persons not having a freehold of 100 acres of land in the province, or not having tended 10,000 corn hills during the previous year. “It is sometimes said that the license idea originated in Canada, but this is not strictly the case. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONRESIDENTS. 11 Tn 1840 Virginia prohibited nonresidents from hunting wild fowl on beaches or marshes below the head of tide water, and maintained this restriction until 1908. In 1846 New Jersey made nonresidents liable toa fine of $15 and forfeiture of their guns to the informer for tres- pass with a gun, while residents convicted of the same offense were liable merely to a fine of $5 and costs, or less than one-third the penalty imposed on nonresidents. In 1854 North Carolina prohibited nonresidents from hunting wild fowl in Currituck County, assigning the following reasons in the preamble of the bill: Whereas, large numbers of wild fowl collect during the fall and winter, in the waters of Currituck County, which are a source of great profit to the inhabitants thereof; and whereas, persons from other States, not residents of this State, shoot and kill, decoy and frighten the same, to the great annoyance and detriment of the citizens of our own State: Now Be it enacted, ete. (Laws of 1854, chap. 55.) Under this act all persons who had not resided in the State for at least twelve months were prohibited from hunting or killing wild fowl in the waters of Currituck County. Recently in North Carolina and Virginia nonresidents hunting wild fowl in certain counties have been prohibited from shooting from sink boxes or boats, in order that this privilege might be reserved for residents alone. By an act of December 11, 1858, Georgia prohibited nonresidents from hunting or fishing within the limits of the State, in order, it was said, to prevent strangers and others from holding conversation with slaves. Delaware in 1863, following Virginia’s example, made it unlawful for nonresidents to kill wild ducks, geese, or other water- fowl on any of the marshes or waters of the State, under a penalty of 650 to $100. ‘Three years later Florida, by act of June 13, 1866, pro- hibited nonresidents from camping or fire hunting, with or without dogs or guns, in Taylor and Lafayette counties. In 1880 Maryland prohibited nonresidents of the five counties bordering the Patuxent from shooting snipe, rail, and wild fowl on the waters or marshes of the river, and prohibited use of sink boxes in Queen Anne County by nonresidents of the county. Several similar instances of discrimina- tion appeared in subsequent legislation of the State, and culminated in 1890 in a provision prohibiting nonresidents of Parsons Creek, Church Creek, and Neck districts, in Dorchester County, from shooting wild fowl on Little Choptank River. | The West and South have made even more severe discriminations against the nonresident. Missouri, in 1877, prohibited nonresidents from hunting game for market, and two years later prohibited them from hunting at all within the State, a provision which still remains in force. Similar action was taken by Wyoming about 1886, but the absolute prohibition then established was changed in 1895 to a 20 nonresident license. In 1879 Tennessee prohibited nonresidents 12 HUNTING LICENSES. from hunting deer for profit in certain counties, and in 1889 pro- hibited all hunting by nonresidents in certain others; but these pro- visions were replaced by license provisions in the general game law of 1903. Absolute prohibition has recently found favor in one or two other States. It was adopted by Louisiana in 1902,¢ and by Arkansas (except in Mississippi County) in 1903. Louisiana, however, sub- stituted a license fee in 1904; so that at present Missouri and Arkan- sas are the only States which deny the nonresident the privilege of - hunting within their borders. NONRESIDENT LICENSES. The history of nonresident license legislation may be conveniently divided into three periods, which overlap one another: (1) Develop- ment of the local license, beginning in 1872; (2) development of the market-hunting license, beginning in 1875; and (3) development of the general license, beginning in 1878. LOCAL LICENSES. The local license had its rise in the Eastern States. The first law containing a nonresident-license provision was apparently that passed in 1873 in New Jersey, under the title, ‘“‘An act to incorporate the West Jersey Game Protective Association.” (Acts of 1873, chap. 470, p- 553.) This association was incorporated for fifteen years, and sec- tion 7 of the act of incorporation provided: That if any person or persons nonresidents of this state, shall kill, destroy, hunt, or take any doe, buck, fawn, partridge, moor fowl, grouse, quail, or woodcock, at any time within the counties of Camden, Gloucester, Atlantic, Salem, Cumberland and Cape May in this state without complying with the bylaws of this Game Pro- tective Society then the person or persons so offending shall forfeit and pay the sum of $50 each, for each and every offence * * * provided nothing in this Act shall prevent residents of this state from taking game or fish, subject to the existing laws of this state. The membership fee was fixed at 85 for the first year and $2 per year thereafter, and nonresidents were required to procure membership certificates before hunting in the six counties above mentioned. These certificates thus became in effect nonresident licenses. In 1878 a some- what broader general act was passed (Laws of 1878, chap. 184), applicable to other associations in New Jersey. The Delaware Game Protective Association was incorporated by act of legislature in 1879 along much the same lines. Its membership fees were the same as those of the West Jersey Game Protective Association, and nonresidents wishing to hunt in the State were first required to secure certificates of mem- bership. (Laws of 1879, chap. 111.) The same idea was later adopted @The police jury of Caddo Parish, La., in 1896, however, passed a measure pro- hibiting hunting by nonresidents in that parish. (Forest and Stream, XLVI, p. 386, Noy. 14, 1896.) NONRESIDENT LICENSES—LOCAL. Vs by the counties on the eastern shore of Virginia, through the passage of a law in 1894 requiring nonresidents of the State to become mem- bers of the Eastern Shore Game Protective Association before hunting wild fowl in these counties. The by-laws originally fixed the initiation fee of members at $1 and the annual dues at $1, but in 1901 the license fee required of nonresidents was increased to S10, the rate adopted by the State in its general license law two years later. In 1875 Florida adopted a statute (Acts of 1875, chap. 2055, p. 62) making it unlawful for any nonresident to hunt for the purpose of con- veying game beyond the limits of the State without first obtaining from the clerk of the county in which he proposed to hunt a license at a cost of $25. In case several persons hunted together, six could be included under the same license on ‘payment of an additional $5 each. In 1882 Maryland laid the foundation of a county license system by requiring nonresidents to secure licenses to hunt game in Caroline County; and in 1886 established a like requirement in the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Kent, Prince George, Queen Anne, and Talbot. In 1888 three additional counties—Charles, Dorchester, and Howard—adopted the system; and more recently all the other counties in the State have followed their example; but in 1894 Anne Arundel repealed the license provision and prohibited nonresidents from hunting within the county. (Laws of 1894, chap. 103.) | In 1884 New York passed a special license law (Laws of 1884, chap. 185), which required nonresidents of Richmond County (Staten Island) to secure a $10 license before hunting game in that county. This local license law remained in force until repealed by the general game law of 1892, eight years later, and is apparently the only license of the kind enacted by the State. The general licenses of 1900-1908, reciprocal in character and without fixed fees, merit special consideration, and will be discussed in connection with similar licenses of other States. In 1892 South Carolina required a $25 license of nonresidents hunt- ing in Beaufort County, and in 1893 extended the law to the rest of the State. In 1899 Illinois adopted a $10 nonresident county license, and West Virginia a $25 county license (both of which have since been changed to State licenses). In 1900 Iowa established a $10 nonresident county license; in 1901 South Dakota and Washington adopted $10 county licenses; and in 1903 Colorado established a county license for nonresidents hunting birds, all of which still remain in effect, except that of Washington, which has been replaced by a hunting license required alike of residents and nonresidents. This may be said to cover the first period of nonresident-license legislation. The licenses in New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia were in the nature of fees for membership in private corporations, and those of all the States except Delaware were alike in being local 14 HUNTING LICENSES. licenses, in most cases good only for the county of issue. With a few exceptions the license fees were comparatively small, usually less than $10. The county license has not met with general favor. It has been adopted by only a few States, and is now in force in less than one-third of the States which have the license system. MARKET-HUNTING LICENSES. The effort in some of the Southern States to restrict market hunting and to prevent the export of game from the State for commercial pur- poses brought about a twofold result—the development of the market- hunting license and the absolute exclusion of nonresidents from hunting privileges. A correspondent of the American Field, who states that he has observed game conditions in Arkansas for twenty- five years, asserts that 90 per cent of the game killed in that State has been killed by market hunters. (Am. Field, LIX, p. 216, Feb. 28, 1908.) In view of this statement, which apparently has strong inde-. pendent support, it is interesting to notice that Arkansas seems to have been the pioneer in restrictions on market hunters. In the act of March 6, 1875, a tax of $10 was levied on all nonresident trappers, hunters, seiners or netters of fish following their calling in the State. Twenty-two years later, in 1897, the tax was increased to $25. (Acts of 1897, p. 113.) In 1903 two bills were passed by the legislature—one imposing a tax of $300 on all nonresidents hunting in the State, the other absolutely prohibiting hunting by nonresidents except in Mis- sissippi County. The license bill was vetoed; the prohibition bill became a law. Missouri, in 1877 (Laws of 1877, p. 333), prohibited nonresidents from hunting game for the purpose of selling it or removing it from the State, and in 1879 extended this law so as to prohibit nonresidents from hunting at all within the State. : In 1879 Tennessee enacted legislation prohibiting nonresidents trom hunting deer for profit in some counties, and in 1889 in others restricted such hunting to persons hunting on their own lands. These provisions were repealed in 1903 by the adoption of a general game law which provided a market-hunting license of $25 and authorized the State game warden to collect from nonresident sportsmen the same fee which residents of Tennessee would be subject to in their States. In 1884 South Carolina enacted a law requiring each nonresident engaged in the business of hunting, ducking, fishing, or gathering oys- ters or terrapin, or in the sale of game in the counties along the sea board—Georgetown, Charleston, Beaufort, Colleton, and Berkeley—to pay a license at the rate of $25 for each nonresident hand employed. (Laws of 1884, p. 734.) These licenses were not required of persons hunting or fishing on their own lands or waters included within them, nor, under an amendment passed in 1892, of persons authorized by NONRESIDENT LICENSES—-GENERAL. 5 landowners to hunt on their property. By act of 1885 a fixed fee of $25 was imposed for the license and also a fee of $25 for each nonresi- dent hand employed, and in 1888 these fees were increased to $500 and $100, respectively, thus raising the cost toa point far above that of any other market-hunting license. Neither of these statutes appears in the code of 1902, and South Carolina is at present without a non- resident license law. In 1899 Georgia (Acts of 1899, part 1, p. 96) adopted a law author- izing a $25 market-hunting license, but provided that the act was not to be in force in any county until recommended by the grand jury of that county. Oregon, the only other State to adopt the market-hunting license, passed a law in 1901 making it unlawful for any person not a resident of the State to hunt any game for market purposes without having ' first obtained a $10 license from the State game and forestry warden. (Laws of 1901, p. 231, sec. 38.) By an act passed in 1902 Louisiana, following the lead of Missouri and Arkansas, adopted absolute prohibition in the case of nonresident hunters. This act, however, was replaced in 1904 by a $10 nonresident hunting license and a $25 market-hunting license. Thus at the present time the restrictions on market hunting in the South have developed into absolute prohibition in Arkansas and Missouri, into market licenses in Georgia and Louisiana, a market license and modified non- resident license in Tennessee, and the abolition of all licenses in South Carolina. The moderate market license of Oregon remains unchanged. It is to be observed that the easternmost of these States, South Caro- lina and Georgia, adopted the county license system, and that there seems to have been a marked inclination toward $25 as the amount of the fee. GENERAL LICENSES. The general license seems to have had its origin in Canada. The same feeling of discrimination so conspicuous in the game legislation of the United States existed in Canada, but instead of manifesting itself in absolute prohibition it there took the more liberal form of a system of high licenses for hunting big game. New Brunswick apparently led the way about 1878, and was followed by Quebec in 1882, Nova Scotia in 1884, Ontario in 1888, Newfoundland in 1889, British Columbia and Manitoba in 1890, and the Northwest Territories in 1893. The license sytem thus extended throughout Canada, except Prince Edward Island, Yukon, and the Unorganized Territories. Fees varying from $20 to $25 were charged in some cases for big game only, but in others for hunting game of any kind. In 1895 general licenses found favor in the Northwestern States, and laws undoubtedly modeled after those of the Canadian Provinces were 16 HUNTING LICENSES. . enacted in several States. This sudden demand for nonresident licenses » is interesting from several standpoints, and may have been influenced by two circumstances. On January 9-10, 1895, occurred the second annual meeting of the National Game, Bird and Fish Protective Asso- ciation at Chicago, at which re Fie ons were adopted foreshadowing methods of game protection, including shooting licenses, which have ‘since been incorporated into law.“ About this time a bill was pending in the Illinois legislature practically opening the Chicago markets to unlimited sale of game from other States.? Whatever may have been the effect of this convention and of the Illinois game bill, they certainly served to draw attention to the question of discrianein against — nonresidents, and although it may have been only a coincidence, non- ~ resident license laws were adopted almost immediately by four States a Wyoming in February, North Dakota in March, Minnesota in April, and Michigan in May. Wisconsin followed in 1897, four other States in 1899, six in 1901, and eight in 1908. ? RESIDENT LICENSES. The history of modern resident hunting licenses properly begins with the svstem of special licenses developed in some of the counties of Maryland in the early seventies and eighties. Shooting wild fowl from sink boxes, sneak boats, or in some cases from blinds was pro- hibited except under license, and these licenses were issued only to residents. The first of these special laws was passed in 1872 (Laws of 1872, chap. 54) for the protection of wiid fowl on the Susquehanna KF thie: at the head of Chesapeake Bay. Section 7 of this act provided: No owner, master, hirer, borrower, employee of any owner, or other person, shall use or employ any sink box, or sneak boat of any description whatever, for the pur- pose of shooting at wild water-fowl therefrom, northward of the line named and described in section 380 [drawn half a mile north of Spesutie Island from Turkey Point, in Cecil County, to the opposite shore of Harford County], without first obtaining a license to so use and employ the same as is hereinafter provided. The license fee for a sink box was $20, and for a sneak boat $5. The licenses were issued by the clerks of Harford and Cecil counties, and the clerk was allowed 75 cents for issuing each license. Under section 11 of the same act applicants were required to make oath that they were bona fide residents of the State, and a fine of $50 to $100 was provided for violating any of the license provisions, one- half of which was to be paid to the informer and one-half to the school commissioners of the county. A board of special police was appointed @ Am. Field, XLIII, pp. 51-52, Jan, 19, 1895. ; » House bill 56, comune Gude n as the ‘Blow Bill.’ For full text of this meas- ure and the discussion relating to it, see Am. Field, XLIII, pp. 128, 147, 1895. ¢ A game bill containing a $50-nonresident license provision was also intend in the Nebaska legislature, but failed to pass.—Forest and Stream, XLIV, p. 307, April © 20, 1895. RESIDENT LICENSES. 17 to enforce the provisions of the act, and these officers, commonly known as ducking police, were authorized to seize any sink box or boat used in violation of law. The issue of licenses was thus restricted to residents of the State. Nonresidents were not denied the privilege of hunting waterfowl, but they could not hunt successfully without sink boxes or boats; and, as these could only be used under license, residents who alone were authorized to obtain licenses could control hunting and charge any fees they saw fit for their boxes or boats. In 1876 the use of sink boxes in the waters of Anne Arundel County with certain exceptions, or on Chesapeake Bay within the limits of the county, was restricted to licensed residents of the county. These licenses were issued at a cost of $30 each. (Laws of 1876, chap. 78.) In 1882 licenses at $2 each (and a clerk’s fee of 50 cents) were required for the use of ‘booby’ or ‘bush’ blinds on the Magothy, Severn, and South rivers. It is noticeable, however, that the issue of licenses for blinds was not restricted to‘residents, and that the owner could extend to any person the privilege of shooting from his blind during the open season. - (Laws of 1882, chap. 400; 1886, chap. 366.) In 1878 residents of Cecil County were required to obtain licenses, at a cost of $10, to use sink boxes on the waters of the Elk and Bohemia rivers (Laws of 1878, chap. 292); and in 1880 similar $10 licenses were required in Queen Anne County, and in Cecil and Kent counties for the use of sink boxes on the Sassafras River. (Laws of 1880, chaps. 42 and 370.) Turning to Canada, mention should be made of a special $5 license which came into use in the Province of Quebec in 1887. This license differed from ordinary resident licenses in being issued only for killing 5 deer and 5 caribou in excess of the limit prescribed by law. The fee still remains the same, but since 1895 the number of deer and caribou has been reduced to 3. | The system of general resident hunting licenses apparently origi- nated in. Michigan in 1895? as a measure to restrict the slaughter of deer. In his annual report for 1894, Charles 5. Hampton, game and fish warden of Michigan, said: 1 am of the opinion that a law licensing all hunters, those of our own State being charged a mere nominal fee, while nonresidents are compelled to pay twenty-five dol- « Reference may here be made to a somewhat different form of license which was proposed in Colorado in 1885, but not adopted. Licenses were to be issued to immi- grants traveling in unsettled parts of the State, allowing them to kill game during the close season for periods not exceeding 30 days at a cost of $5 or $10. (Am. Field, Pere p 1215 Feb: 75-1885.) 6 It was, however, advocated in Illinois at the same time. Section 7 of the ‘Blow Bill,’ which failed to pass the’Illinois legislature of 1895, contained a provision for a $1 license for all persons except owners or occupants of cultivated farms hunting on. their own lands. (Am. Field, XLIII, p. 124, Feb. 9, 1895.) 6095—No. 19—04—2 18 HUNTING LICENSES. a. 3 lars, is for the present, at least, the best ece measure. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in McCready vs. Virginia (94 U. S. 391) would seem to set at rest all doubts as to the constitutionality of such a law. Any man carrying a gun and not having a license in his possession, or refusing to show it 70 any citizen on demand, should be subject to penalty. (Fourth Biennial Report, p. 10. ) 2 Acting on this suggestion, the legislature in 1895 adopted a 50-cent resident license and a $25 nonresident license for hunting deer. Hawaii, in 1896, before its annexation, passed a law establishing a $5 hunting license for the island of Oahu, and this law still remains in force without change. The high rate is perhaps due in part to the fact that this license is a permit to carry firearms as well as to hunt game, but more especially to the fact that all the game on the island is introduced, and in order to prevent its extermination stricter regula- tions and higher fees are necessary than would be required under ordi- nary circumstances. In 1897 Wisconsin adopted licenses for deer hunting similar to those of Michigan, but made the rate for residents $1. In 1899 Minnesota adopted a 25-cent license for big game; North Dakota, a 75-cent license for all game, and Wyoming, a dollar license for big game; the Wyoming license is required, however, only outside the county in which the hunter resides. Maine also issued licenses at $4 each, allowing residents to kill one deer during the month of September, for food purposes only, in certain counties;® but the law met with so much opposition that it was repealed two years later. One dollar resident licenses for big game were adopted in 1901 by South Dakota, and for all game by Nebraska and Washington; in 1903 for all game by Illinois, Colorado, and Idaho, and for waterfowl during the fall season by Indiana; and in 1904 for all game in Somerset County, Md. Thus the resident license system has spread to 13 States and to 3 prov- inces of Canada.’ (See PI. II.) At first licenses were required only for hunting big game, but there is now a strong tendency to extend them to cover all game, though of States having resident licenses Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec still have no licenses for small game, while in Indiana none is required except for shooting waterfowl in the fall. The fee, which exhibited considerable diversity at first—50 cents in Michigan, $1 in Wisconsin, 25 cents in Minnesota, 75 cents in North Dakota, $4 in Maine, and $5 in Hawaii—is now uni- formly $1, with the exception of the 75-cent fee in North Dakota and Michigan, the $5 fee in Hawaii, the $2 fees in New Brunswick and Ontario, and the $5 fees in Ontario and Quebec. Some diversity still —. @In eight of the sixteen counties: Oxford, Franklin, Somerset, Piscataquis, Penob- scot, Aroostook, Hancock, and Washington, which comprise more than four-fifths of the area of the State. ? Including Quebec, which issues such licenses only for killing big game in excess oi the bag limit. PLATE II. < m) re fose eee ae -—-. ae J a Tyas. on we Pea, . ' ‘ ' ' ’ ‘ ' ’ Fic. 1.—STATES HAVING RESIDENT LICENSE LAWS IN 1900 IN RESIDENT LICENSE LEGISLATION. Fia. 2.—STATES HAVING RESIDENT LICENSE LAWS IN 1904. MAPS SHOWING PROGRESS SUMMARY OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. ns exists in regard to the territory covered by licenses. In South Dakota and Washington and in Somerset County, Md., they are good only in the county of issue; in Nebraska and Wyoming they are not necessary in the county of residence; and in Illinois and North Dakota they are not required in the case of a citizen hunting on his own land. SUMMARY OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. The progress of legislation outlined above may perhaps be brought out more clearly by summarizing under each State and Province the important laws and changes in fees. In the appendix, p. 55, will be found a chronological index of the license laws from 1872 to 1904. The year 1872 is taken as the starting point because it apparently marks the first enactment of a hunting license law in the United States. It should also be explained that the gradation from an ordinary license through one with an exorbitant fee to absolute prohibition is so grad-. ual that it is difficult to draw the line of demarkation. For this reason - prohibitive statutes passed since 1872 are included in the summary, and although no systematic attempt has been made to collect earlier ones, those of most interest are referred to on pp. 10-12. TABLE SHOWING DATES OF ADOPTION OF LICENSE SYSTEM AND PRINCIPAL CHANGES IN FEES. Arkansas.—1875, $10 market-hunting license; 1897, fee increased to $25; 1903, nonresidents prohibited from hunting in the State, except in Mississippi County. Colorado.—1903, $25 nonresident general license, $1 a day bird license ($2 first day), $1 resident license. Delaware.—1879, Nonresident license, $5 first year, $2 subsequent years. Florida.—1875, $25 nonresident county license for hunting game for export; 1899, $10 nonresident county license for deer, turkeys, or quail; 1903, $10 nonresident county license for any game. Nonresident license, $1 per day, in La Fayette County. Georgia.—1899, $25 market-hunting license. Hawaii.—1896, $5 hunting license in Oahu. Idaho.—1903, $25 nonresident license for all game, $5 license for birds, $1 resident license. Illinois.—1899, $10 nonresident county license; 1901, $10 nonresident State license; 1903, $15 nonresident license, $1 resident license. Indiana.—1901, $25 nonresident license, free permits for hunting squirrels and wild fowl October 1-November 10 issued to residents and licensed nonresidents; 1908, $1 resident permit for hunting wild fowl October 1-November 10 (free to licensed nonresidents). Iowa.—1900, $10 nonresident county license. Kentucky.—1902, $25 nonresident license; 1904, variable fee established. Louisiana.—1902, Nonresidents prohibited from hunting in the State; 1904, $10 nonresident license (required also of unnaturalized residents), $25 market-hunting license. Maine.—1899, $6 nonresident, $4 resident, September deer license; 1901, law repealed; 1903, $15 nonresident State license for deer and moose, $5 nonresident license for ducks and sea and shore birds in 5 counties. Maryland.—1872, $20 sink box and $5 sneak-boat licenses on Susquehanna flats for residents of Cecil and Harford counties. 20 HUNTING LICENSES. 1876, $30 sink-box license for residents of Anne Arundel County. 1878, $10 sink-box license on Elk and Bohemia rivers for residents of Cecil County; fee for sink-box license on Susquehanna flats reduced to $10 in case of residents of Cecil County. 1880, $10 sink-box license on Sassafras River required of residents of Cecil and Kent counties; nonresidents of Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Prince George, and St. Mary counties prohibited from shooting snipe, rail, and wildfowl on Patuxent River; $10 sink-box license for residents of Queen Anne County (nonresident not allowed to use sink box). 1882, $2 ‘blind’ license on Magothy, Severn, and South rivers in Anne Arundel County; $4.50 nonresident license for rabbits, muskrats, quail or partridges, wood- cock, rail, and ducks in Caroline County. 1886, Nonresident county licenses as follows: Anne Arundel and Prince George, $6 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock); Baltimore, $10 (rabbits and woodeock); Caro- line, $19.50 (rabbits, muskrats, quail or partridges, woodcock, rail, and ducks); Kent, $4.50 (all game); Queen Anne, $4.50 (all game); Talbot, $9.50 (all game). 1888, Caroline County license fee reduced to $4.50; nonresident county licenses as follows: Charles, $20 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock), $25 (wildfowl); Dor- chester, $5 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock); Howard, $7.50 (all game). 1890, Nonresidents prohibited from hunting wildfowl on Little Choptank River in Dorchester County; nonresident county licenses as follows: Somerset, $9.50 (all game); Worcester, $10 (wildfowl). 1892, Nonresidents hunting snipe, rail, and wild fowl on Patuxent River in Anne Arundel and Prince George counties required to have permission of a majority of the residents near the river and to employ licensed boat; $2 pusher’s license required on Patuxent River; $20 nonresident license for rabbits, partridges, and woodcock in St. Mary County. . 1894, Citizens of Calvert County allowed to hunt snipe, ortolan, and wild fowl on Patuxent River in Anne Arundel and Prince George counties; nonresidents pro- hibited from hunting in Anne Arundel County or shooting wild fowl in Charles County; sink-box license on Elk and Bohemia rivers in Cecil County abolished and use of boats for hunting wild fowl prohibited. Nonresident county licenses as fol- lows: Baltimore, $10 (gray squirrels, rabbits, partridges, pheasants, and woodcock); Carroll, $10 (squirrels, rabbits, partridges, pheasants, and woodcock); Harford, $10 (rabbits, partridges, pheasants, woodcock, rail, reedbird, and robins); Kent, $15 (rabbits and birds); Prince George, $20 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock). 1900, $10 sink-box license on Elk°’and Bohemia rivers reestablished. Nonresident county licenses for hunting any game as follows: Garrett, $25; Somerset, $9.50. 1902, Nonresident county licenses as follows: Calvert, $10 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock ); Cecil, $5.50 (rabbits, quail or partridges, grouse, woodcock, reedbirds, ortolan or rail, and summer ducks); Frederick, $15 (rabbits, partridges,; pheasants, wild turkeys, woodcock, and ducks); Montgomery, $15 (squirrels, rabbits, par- tridges, pheasants, wild turkeys, woodcock, and ducks); Prince George, $20 (rab- bits, partridges, pheasants, and woodeock); Washington, $10 (hunting or fishing in county, except on Potomac River, not applicable to taxpayers or residents of Mary- land or District of Columbia); Wicomico, $10 (all game). 1904, Nonresident landowners and guests of resident landowners allowed to hunt in Anne Arundel County; special Patuxent River $10 license required of nonresi- dents hunting birds (members of certain hunting clubs exempt), and $2.50 pusher’s license required of residents of State; nonresident license in. Baltimore County extended to cover jacksnipe and fee reduced to $5 (photograph of holder required on license). Nonresident county licenses as follows: Allegany, 310 (all game); Somer- set, $10 (squirrels, rabbits, muskrats, quail or partridges, doves, woodcock, ducks, and geese); resident county license, Somerset, $1. SUMMARY. OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. ale Michigan.—1895, $25 nonresident license, 50-cent resident license for hunting deer; 1897, resident license fee increased to 75 cents. Minnesota.—1895, $25 license required of citizens of States having restrictions against nonresident hunters; 1899, $25 nonresident license and 25-cent resident license for big game; 1908, $25 nonresident license for big game, $10 nonresident license for small game; resident license extended to cover all game animals and fee increased to $1; license law of 1895 repealed. Missouri.—1877, Nonresidents prohibited from hunting game for sale or export; - 1879, nonresidents prohibited from all hunting in the State. Montana. 1901, $25 big-game license and $15 bird license required of nonresidents who pay no taxes in the State. Nebraska.—1901, $10 nonresident license, $1 resident license (not required in county of domicile). New Hampshire.—1908, $10 nonresident deer license. New Jersey.—1873, $5 nonresident license for hunting in Atlantic, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, or Salem counties; 1896, license law repealed; 1878, nonresidents prohibited from hunting in the State except in compliance with the by-laws of the game protection societies; 1902, $10 nonresident license for any game except waterfowl, snipe, and mud hens. New York.—1884, $10 nonresident license for hunting on Staten Island; 1892, license law repealed; 1900, nonresident taking fish or game on fresh waters bounding State subject to same restrictions as citizen of New York in State of nonresident; 1902, nonresidents subject to license restrictions imposed by their own States on non- residents; 1903, license fee fixed by commissioner in case of nonresidents from States without license laws. North Carolina.—1883, Nonresidents prohibited from shooting wild fowl from float- ing blinds or batteries in Currituck and Dare counties; 1895, $25 nonresident license for shooting on Dare County ducking grounds; 1897, nonresidents prohibited from hunting birds in Camden County; 1899, $25 nonresident license for clubhouses in Dare County; 1908, $10 nonresident license ($20 in Cabarrus County). North Dakota.—1895, $25 nonresident license and 50 cents resident license (land- owners hunting on their own property exempt, and nonresidents cultivating quarter section of Jand need only resident license); 1897, resident license fee increased to 75 cents, and nonresident owners of cultivated lands required to secure resident licenses; 1899, residents under 16 exempt. Ohio.—1902, $25 nonresident license; 1904, fee reduced to $15. Oregon.—1901, $10 nonresident market-hunting license. Pennsylvania.—1901, 510 nonresident license (landowners exempt); 1903, same license required of unnaturalized foreign-born residents. South Carolina.—1884, $25 license for each nonresident hand employed by nonresi- dents hunting ducks in Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, and Georgetown counties; 1885, license modified to add $25 fee for pursuit of the business; 1888, license fee increased to $500 and $100 additional fee for each nonresident employed by licensee; 1892, $25 nonresident license for hunting in Beaufort County; market- hunting license extended to Horry County; 1898, $25 nonresident county license extended to rest of State (persons hunting on their own land exempt); 1902, repealed by omission from code. South Dakota.—1899, $10 nonresident county license; 1901, $25 nonresident and $1 resident county licenses, for big game. : Tennessee.—1877, Nonresidents of Lake and Obion counties prohibited from killing wild fowl for market on Reelfoot Lake; 1879, market hunting prohibited in 13 counties; 1889, nonresidents of the county prohibited from market hunting in certain counties and from all hunting in others; nonresidents of the State prohibited from killing wild fowl on Reelfoot Lake; 1897, nonresidents of Grundy and Van Buren 29 HUNTING LICENSES. counties prohibited from killing deer, quail, and wild turkey in these counties; 1901, similar law for Bledsoe County; 1903, $25 market-hunting license and nonresident license with same fee as resident of Tennessee is required to pay in State of applicant. Utah.—1903, $10 nonresident gun license. Virginia.—1886, Nonresidents prohibited from killing wild fowl from skiffs or sink boxes in Fairfax, Henrico, King George, Prince William, and Stafford counties; 1891, nonresidents prohibited from killing wild fowl on lands below head of tide water, except in Accomac ana Northampton counties; 1894, nonresidents, except members of the Eastern Shore Game Protective Association, prohibited from killing wild fowl in Accomac and Northampton counties; 1900, $10 nonresident county license for deer and upland game birds in Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Highland, and Rockbridge counties; 1903, $10 nonresident license (children and guests of resident landowners exempt under certain conditions). Washington.—1901, $10 nonresident county license and $1 resident county license (persons under 16 exempt, and privileges of resident license extended to citizens of Idaho and Oregon) ; 1903, uniform $1 county license for residents and nonresidents. West Virginia.—1899, $25 nonresident county license; 1903, $15 nonresident State license. Wisconsin.—1897, $30 nonresident deer license, $1 resident deer license; 1899, non-: resident deer license fee reduced to $25, $10 nonresident license for other game, $1 resident license for all game. Wyoming.—1886, Nonresidents prohibited from hunting game animals; 1895, $20 nonresident county license for big game; 1899, fee increased to $40; $1 resident gun license for hunting big game outside. county of residence; 1903, nonresident license fee increased to $50. British Columbia.—1890, $50 nonresident license for big game (members of army, navy, and Canadian militia exempt). Manitoba.—1890, $25 nonresident license. New Brunswick.—1878, $20 nonresident license (fee $5 for officer of army orsnavy); 1897, $20 nonresident, $2 resident licenses for moose or caribou, nonresidents required to give $100 bond, with two resident sureties; 1900, fee for nonresident license for hunting moose and caribou increased to $30; $30 nonresident license for hunting in Westmoreland County; 19038, 25 cent resident license for hunting in Westmoreland County. Newfoundland.—1889, $100 nonresident caribou license (officers of British war ships stationed on coast for fisheries’ protection exempt); 1899, caribou license fees reduced as follows: $40 for 2 stags and 1 doe, $50 for 3 stags and 1 doe, $80 for 5 stags and 2 does; 1902, $100 nonresident license permitting killing of 3 stag caribou; 1903, fee reduced to $50. Northwest Territories.—18938, $5 nonresident license for big game or birds (five-day licenses free to guests of residents); 1898, nonresident license for all protected game increased to $15, guest license abolished; 1899, $1 five-day license for hunting by nonresident guest of resident, $15 nonresident license for calendar year (all big game and birds); 1903, $25 nonresident license for all game and $15 nonresident license for birds. ; Nova Scotia.—1884, $30 nonresident moose license and $10 nonresident bird license ($5 fee for officers of army and navy, members of Game Protection Society exempt) ; 1896, $30 nonresident license for big game, $10 nonresident license for birds, hares, and rabbits ($5 fee restricted to officers stationed at Halifax, employees of Provincial or Canadian government, persons formerly domiciled in Nova Scotia, and nonresi- dents paying $20 real-estate tax exempt); 1962, big game license modified to cover all game and fee increased to $40; 1904, special $30 nonresident license required for moose. SUMMARY OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 293 Ontario.—1888, $10 nonresident license for deer (shareholders of incorporated company hunting on lands of company exempt); 1892, $25 nonresident license for big game or birds; 1896, $2 resident license for deer; 1900, $5 resident license for moose, reindeer, or caribou. Quebec.—1882, $20 nonresident license; 1884, residents of Ontario exempted and lheutenant-governor in council empowered to grant hunting permits at lower rate or gratuitously; 1887, $5 license permitting residents to kill 5 caribou and 5 deer above regular limit, $10 fee to members of incorporated hunting and fishing clubs; 1895, number of extra caribou and deer allowed under $5 license reduced to 3; nonresident licenses as follows: $30, all game; $25, big game and fur-bearing animals; $20, game birds; $10, game birds in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; half rates for members of incor- porated fish and game clubs; 1897, nonresident license fees fixed by leutenant- governor in council, lower rates for members of incorporated fish and game clubs leasing hunting reserves. DETAILS OF LICENSES. The various matters connected with the issue of licenses may be con- veniently considered under four heads—forms of licenses, fees, details of issue, and exemptions or privileges. FORMS OF LICENSES. It is interesting to note the development in the form of the license. Some States, like Delaware, Florida, and North Dakota, still issue a simple license to hunt or kill game. Others, like New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, have adopted forms which, to prevent trans- fer, contain a description of the holder. Illinois in 1901 went a step further and required that the owner’s photograph appear on the license. After two years’ trial this feature was discontinued, but simultaneously with its abandonment by Illinois it was adopted by Indiana (see Pl. III), and in 1904 by Baltimore County, Md. New Brunswick in 1897 required the licensee to give a $100 bond with two resident sureties. The most complete form of license is the coupon license, (see Pl. V1), first devised by Michigan in 1897, and since adopted by Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is designed to allow shipment of a certain specified quantity of fish or game by the holder, and at the same time to maintain a check on such shipments. Each license is provided with a number of coupons corresponding to the number of deer or other game which may be lawfully shipped, and one of these coupons must be attached to each head, carcass, or skin, before shipment. Several improvements have been made deyvel- oping slightly differing forms, but the best is probably that in use in Minnesota. This license contains an abstract of the law, is mounted on cloth and is arranged to fold conveniently so that it can be carried in the pocket without injury, and each coupon is provided with a metal eyelet to facilitate attachment to the game (see Pl. IV). A form of nonresident license reciprocal in nature has been adopted | in a few States. It originated in Minnesota in 1895, and was adopted — with some modifications by New York in 1900-1902, Tennessee in 1903, and Kentucky in 1904, but has now been abandoned by Minnesota aint further modified by New York. As originally enacted in Minnesota it was a simple $25 nonresident license but applicable only to *‘ citizens of such States as have restrictive laws against nonresident hunters. ——. New York changed the scheme so as to make the law general, but pro- vided that the fee should be the same as that charged nonresidents in — the applicant’s State. In 1903 it modified the law so as to empower the forest, fish, and game commissioner to fix a fee for licensees from 24 , a a Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. PLATE Ill. Photograph and Description of Licensee under Hunting License ad resident State of hereon the No... aGNVeL Chokes: Creat Court. has complicd with the law niece AYO. hi. DESCRIPTION: Age_____ years; County, State of authorizing the issuance of hunting licenses to nonresidents of the State of Indiana, and ts herchy lreensyd ta hint Geight = feet ae _inches; ~ = = ~ = = > > ~ S ~ ~ = = SS = =< ~ > ~ “* = = ~ = ~ . - ms = . > ~ > ~~ = = = = = Se = x = bad 2 wR = ~ <= | be ~ ~ wetght______pounds; complexion Hunter's License ~° STATE OF INDIANA, COUNTY OF LAKE, ss: color of hair y color of eyes 3 y distinctive marks This Certifies Phar. WM, fh. BUMEOMH PAINE ONE, = = Ss — ~ = = ~ NS S ~ ~ = > SS . = = = Ss ~~ ~~ = > ~ . = > ~~ _ ~ = . x ~ => = = = = = = ~ == = = ~ a. THE PHOTOGRAPH LICENSE OF INDIANA, 1903. 7 Fats. Size 72 by 93 inches, printed on buff cardboard, and folded for mailing or carrying in the pocket. +5 FEES. 95 ‘States which have no fees for nonresident licenses. Tennessee and Kentucky adopted the general plan of the New York. law of 1902. The reciprocal license is experimental and has been adopted only in States which have not yet established a regular license, o. where the usual form of license has proved unsuccessful. At first sight it seems to have much in its favor, since it taxes only hunters from States where the nonresident license system is in force, but the requirement is very difficult of enforcement and its inequalities are likely to arouse resentment. The Minnesota law, which was one of ‘the first in the country providing for general licenses, proved a failure, and thus far the New York law has been a dead letter. Kentucky apparently adopted the plan chiefly because its own first high-license law was not a success, while the Tennessee law was proving more effective. Tennessee is, in fact, the only State in which this method seems to have accomplished its purpose. If each State had a single fixed rate it might be possible to carry out the idea with some degree of success, but when the appli- cant is a resident of a State where separate rates are in force for large and small game, as in Idaho, Minnesota, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, it is not easy to do so; and when he resides in a State like Maryland, where the license fee varies with each county, it is difficult to determine what rate he should be charged. The question is still further complicated by exemptions allowed landowners, asin North Dakota, or guests, asin Maryland and Virginia. Further- more, it is not clear what is expected of a nonresident from New York hunting in Kentucky or Tennessee, or vice versa. Apart from these administrative difficulties the law is likely to create friction in a rigid enforcement of its provisions. Two residents from Maryland, for example, hunting in the Adirondacks might think it unfair that one should be charged $5 and the other $25 because the first happened to be a resident of Dorchester County and the second of Garrett County; and it would be equally irritating to two residents of Mary- land hunting on the same estate in Tennessee by invitation of the owner if one, being from Washington County, should have the privi- lege without charge, while the other, being from Garrett County, should have to pay a fee of $25, because Washington County exempts from the license laws nonresidents hunting by invitation on their host’s land, while Garrett County makes no such exemption. FEES. The fees charged for nonresident licenses have varied from $1 to 500, those for resident licenses from 25 cents to $5. One dollar is the present rate charged residents and nonresidents alike in Washington @ (see Pl. VII), and $500—probably the highest game license fee in the 4 Although Washington, in 1903, actually established the first low uniform fee for residents and nonresidents in the United States, the same principle was advocated eight years earlier in Illinois in a bill which failed to pass the legislature in 1895. (See footnote, p. 17). 26 HUNTING LICENSES. world—that formerly required for a nonresident market-hunting license in South Carolina. Other high licenses are those for caribou in Newfoundland, $100, in 1889 and 1902, but now reduced to $50, and the present $50 license fees for big game in British Columbia and Wyoming (see Pl. VII). Apparently the rate is often fixed without regard to the kind of game which the State has to offer, and is influenced more or less by the fees prevailing in neighboring States. Thus Indiana and Ohio, which have no big game, require nonresi- dents to pay $25, the same rate which is required in Idaho and Montana, where deer, elk, goats, and other big game may be obtained. Maine, which has excellent big game hunting, exacts but $15, and Utah but $10, while South Carolina, which offers little beside game birds, until recently required $25, and made the license good only in the county in which it was issued. Maine and New Brunswick both have moose and deer and offer much the same opportunity for hunting, but the fee in New Brunswick is $30, or exactly twice that in Maine. The tendency at the present time seems to be in the direc- tion of a license of $25 for big game and $10 for game birds, both good throughout the State. The only States in which county licenses still prevail are Florida, Georgia, lowa, Maryland, South Dakota, and Washington. In Colorado they are also issued to nonresidents hunt- ing birds. DETAILS OF ISSUE. The following table shows the States that require nonresident licenses, the amounts of the fees, the officials from whom licenses are obtainable, the disposition of the fees, and the limitations as to the amount of game that may be exported. Details of Nonresident Licenses for hunting game.@ State. Fee. | By whom issued. | Disposition of fee. Export limit; remarks. | INGKANOSS oo 4c6ésace es Mest Paye rycen ieee | 2 bd xe he Se eo EOE EEE Nonresidents not per- | mitted to hunt. Colorado... eee $25(all game)-| Commissioner of Game protection .. Export allowed under | game. | | permit. $1 per day ts dO eee ee Nn Seat ORS eee ' County license for birds, (birds). | $2 first day. WelawaTezee-are ee $o first year, | Delaware Game |.-..-- dometi eee | Export of rabbits, quail, $2thereafter.| Protective Asso- ; partridges, woodcock, ciation. | robins, Wilson snipe | prohibited. IMOMGETO eg scasgses- SiO se Aree eee Clerk county cir- |..-.-- GO Export of deer, quail, cuit court. | wild turkeys prohib- | ited. County license. C eorclareerereeeeee PINE eee e County ordinary...) County treasury -.) County market hunting | license. Export cf quail prohibited. a For exemptions see pp. 30-32. b License not applicable to counties haying special game laws, DETAILS OF ISSUE, 27 Details of Nonresident Licenses for hunting gaime—Continued. State. Fee. By whom issued. Kentucky Louisiana Maine (moose and deer). Maryland Michigan Minnesota MUSSOUMI == . =>. | ; 9, 925. 00 : peevoueia | 10.00 | 260 | 2,600.00 |[°” 298 | 2,980.00 |12,005.00 | Small game. NVVOMMMS eso... 5 HOROOR Ms ccere lee et ns tae eee seers 158 | 7,900.00 | 7,900.00 Manitoba.......... 25.00} 36} 900.00] 900.00} 30] 750.00] 750.00 New Brunswick...| 30.00 | 287 | 8,610.00 | 8,610.00 | 338 |10, 140.00 |10, 140. 00 Newfoundland ..../ 100.00 | 46 | 4,600.00 | 4,600.00 | 72 | 3,600.00 | 3,600.00 | Rate in 1903, $50. Northwest Ter..... 15.00} 19] 285.00] 285.00) 17] 255.00] 255.00 40.00 | 33 | 1,320.00 30 | 1, 200. 00 N ilies seat ; 1, 510. 00 4 1,380. 00 Gye econ 10.00 | 19 | 190.00 | 18 | 180.00 Omtarios.....2....- 25.00 | 200 | 5,000.00 | 5,000.00 | 259 | 6,475.00 | 6,475. 00 a No law in foree 6 Based mainly on a report by L. T. Christian in the Richmond Times-Dispatch of August 21, 1904, supplemented by a few reports from county clerks. Following are the number of licenses issued in each county in 1903: Albemarle, 2; Alexandria, 13; Alleghany, 1; Augusta, 4; Amelia, 16; Bath, 4; Brunswick, 6; Bland, 4; Buckingham, 9; Caroline, 18; Charlotte, 2; Culpeper, 2; Dinwiddie, 1; Essex, 7; Fairfax, 5; Fauquier, 2; Franklin, 2; Frederick, 4; Gloucester, 2; Greensville, 4; Henrico, 8; Isle of Wight, 1; James City, 2; King William, 10; Louisa, 4; Lunenburg, 6; Middlesex, 13; Montgomery, 1; New Kent, 3; Nottoway, 2; Orange, 3; Page, 4; Pittsylvania, 2; Prince George, 12; Princess Anne, 44; Prince William, 1; Richmond, 5; Roanoke, 2; Shenandoah, 1; Smyth, 2; Southampton, 1; Spottsyl- vania, 1; Stafford, 5, and Sussex, 18. Total, 254. The only counties not heard from are Accomac, Giles, Hanover, Mecklenburg, and Powhatan, 36 HUNTING LICENSES. The foregoing table shows that the number of licenses issued was as follows: In 1902, 1,572 licenses in 9 States and 640 licenses in 6 Canadian Provinces, or a total of 2,212 licenses in 15 States and Provy- inces; in 1903, 5,779 licenses in 21 States and 764 licenses in 6 Canadian - Provinces, or a total of 6,543 licenses in 27 States and Provinces. While the receipts from nonresident licenses in 1903 exceeded those of the previous year, they ran above $1,000 in only 14 States and 4 Provinces, and exceeded $5,000 in only 5 States and 2 Provinces. Maine collected the largest amount ($25,455) and Wisconsin the next largest ($12,005). The smallest amount was $131, collected in Mary- land, where licenses were issued in only 5 of the 23 counties. Investigation of the disposition of the funds will show that in most cases receipts from licenses are utilized for the protection of game. Maine, in 1903, provided that the money received from nonresident licenses should be expended for protection of moose and deer and for compensation for ‘‘actual damage done growing crops by deer.” Ina few States, however, the proceeds are turned into the general treas- ury or the school fund. Thus, in New York, West Virginia, Ken- tucky, Tennessee, Oregon, and Utah they are covered into the general treasury, and in Georgia into the county treasury. In Pennsylvania one-half of the total receipts is paid into the county treasury. In North Dakota 20 per cent goes into the general treasury, 10 per cent is paid to the county auditor, and 70 per cent is added to the game fund. In Maryland (except in a few counties) and Nebraska the receipts are turned over to the school fund. Again, examining the table from this standpoint, it will be noticed that the States which turn the money over to the school fund-or to the general treasury are the ones which show the smallest returns. Thus, in 1903, Maryland collected only $131 and Nebraska $840 for the school fund. Utah collected $300 and West Virginia $435 for the general treasury. Where the money is not applied to the protection of game, which is the ultimate source of this income, less interest seems to be taken in enforcing license laws, and the license system as a source of income makes but a small showing. Again, the experience of some States shows that interest is apt to be lax if the proceeds from the sale of licenses are turned into a general State fund instead of being retained in the county in which they accrue, even though such general fund is devoted to the enforcement of game laws, and it has been suggested as desirable to allow each county to use for its general expenses at least 50 per cent of the pro- ceeds, and thus give it a direct financial interest in the amount raised. RESIDENT LICENSES. Resident licenses, unlike those issued to nonresidents, are not - intended so much to restrict hunting as to regulate it. The chief uses they subserve are raising funds for the protection of game and pro- COMPARISON OF STATISTICS. 37 viding a system of identifying hunters. And by requiring everyone who hunts to be registered, they may afford indirectly a valuable means of collecting statistics not otherwise obtainable, concerning the number of persons hunting in the State, approximately the amount of big game killed, and the principal hunting places. With the exception of a small fee allowed to the officer issuing the license, usually prescribed in addition to the regular license fee, the proceeds from resident licenses are used for the protection of game. Apparently the only important exceptions are in North Dakota and Michigan. In North Dakota, but 70 per cent is devoted to game protection, 10 per cent being paid to the auditor and 20 per cent to the general treasury of the State. In Michigan 25 cents is allowed the clerks for issuing the licenses, so that the cost to the State of col- lecting the fees is 33 per cent of the total resident tax. The following table shows the number of resident licenses issued in each State in 1902 and 1903 and the amounts paid therefor: Resident Licenses issued in 1902 and 1903.¢ 1902. 1908. State. Rate. = Rate. Remarks. No. Amount. No. Amount. PO OLOETCOR See ae sii moe eos ost cs Bes ee abe Soe he ae $1.00 | 15,184 | $15,184.00 Tay LUO eles ees Shep OD ee ava eee ee tetra 500 |Seckyencnisteee ceed 2h TT OY on es I ne | ee a 1.00 | 12,870 | 12,370.00 LILEIVOTG oh ee S SS Bee he ee ie el eae ee 1.00 | 95,000 | 95, 000. 00 HILGLGING, USES ipl esl eS ee ee eee be Ree nee LOOP eRe es | aco eee ae Mirehigan 2.220... | $0.75 | 18,621 | $13, 965. 75 .75 | 19,061 | 14,295.75 “aac A ee ea eee 1.00 | 8,910} 8,910.00 Nebraska-....-....| 1.00 | 3,348 3, 348. 00 1.00 | 3,744 3, 744. 00 Sine oe] leap Ranke eae 57 eee 4,888.50 ; First LESS .75 | 5,056 3,792.00 | Second district; total $8,680.50. South Dakota ..... OUR emcees re a taal bers ES OUS esa ease pesca ces cook Washington ....... TROON Se seen aa ees oe 1.00 | 14,982 | 14,982.00 AWISGCONSIM = 222: ou. 1.00 | 72,635 | 72,635. 00 1.00 | 78,164 | 78,164.00 NVVOMIING kes a UA(010 AE ee ear) keeps ete 1.00 299 299. 00 New Brunswick...| 2.00] 1,571 3, 142. 00 2.00 | 1,858 3, 716.00 | Moose and caribou. Onitwrioesss2 22 2%) 5.00 150 750. 00 5. 00 153 765. 00 Do. 2.00 | 5.165 | 10,330.00 2.00 | 5,707 | 11,414.00 | Deer. QE GCNVC Seams au oneas OUME mame lca. enced DoW Soke Saca| Seen eee «In Maryland special licenses were issued in some of the counties as follows: Anne Arundel, 1902, 11 pushers, $22; 1903, 10 pushers, $20; Cecil, 1902, 24 sink box, $480; 67 sneak boat, $335; 1903, 19 sink box, $380; 69 sneak boat, $345; Harford, 1902, 40 sink box, $800, 68 sneak boat, $340; 1903, 34 sink box, $680; 51 sneak boat, $255. COMPARISON OF STATISTICS. A comparison of the two preceding tables shows some interesting facts. Although the returns are incomplete, still they suggest some important questions in regard to (1) receipts, (2) number of licensed hunt- ers, (3) number of big game licenses, and (4) statistics of former years. @ Maine is the only State in this list that does not issue resident licenses. 38 HUNTING LICENSES. (1) Receipts.—The receipts from licenses exceeded $10,000 in nine States: Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Maine,“ Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. Notwithstanding the difference in the fees charged, a nominal fee of $1 for resident licenses and an average fee of $10 to $25 for nonresident licenses, the amount ordi- narily collected from residents 1s far in excess of that received from nonresidents. Thus, in Wisconsin in 19038 the returns from resident licenses ($78,164) were more than six times as great as those from non- resident licenses ($12,005); in Colorado, where the amounts were $15,184% and $746, respectively, the resident were nearly twenty-one times as large as the nonresident; and in Illinois, the amounts being $95,000 and $3,750, respectively, more than twenty-five times as large. (2) Number of licensed hunters.—In the following table are shown the number of licenses issued (indicating the number of licensed hun- ters) and the amounts received therefrom (see Pl. V) in each of the 10 States for which statistics are available for both resident and nonresi- dent licenses: Number of Iicensed Hunters and Receipts from Licenses, 1908. Nonresi- Total Total State. Resident. dent. | number. fees. COlOTaA DOR saat a Sse CS aaa eee Ree eee ae 15, 184 34 15, 218 $15, 930 ICE 000) 8 Aaa er een Gat Se Cree aR SA a oe 12, 370 267 12, 637 14, 105 Tllinois..... BE EI Oe ESSE BSAC eee aw Bina eoeoee 95, 000 250 95, 250 98, 750 DML Va ae IS rape Sisters SSE a SNS Deo See as SE ee ee 19, 061 45 19,106 | 15,421 EMETTATN ES O UES Saye ete Sia eS SN yee [EA PR ca er om 8, 910 333 9, 243 14, 205 IN EDTA a peat eee ete ont Ses ees SIS Cae ee Sy a iy 3, 744 84 3, 828 4, 584 INO 0 IDEMKOU oseceoccece GES e Haag a Sep RO te a ee Oe eR 11,574 123 11, 697 11, 756 Washinetomic:s 456 I2 rd. yee ae te Oe eek See ee eee 14, 982 (a) 14, 982 14, 982 WAL SC OTD S ihe eee aye. e/a Ped ok est en ee ee 78, 164 659 78, 823 90, 169 \HAVOUIID TR eee Se See eo ees ee ee Lu ee 299 158 457 8, 199 IN Gaile ersictetaete Deeb eo SASSI E A Lye la Sep Sati PR 259, 288 195 Sn eos 288, 101 a Nonresident licenses inseparable from resident licenses. The most interesting fact brought out by this table is the total num- ber of licensesissued. This number shows that in the above-mentioned ten States more than a quarter of a million hunters were licensed during the past year. This total, however, is less than the actual number of hunters in these States, for the reason that in Michigan and Wyoming no licenses are required from residents for anything except big game, and in Nebraska and Wyoming a resident is not required to secure a license unless he shoots outside his own county. The only State which shows larger returns from nonresident than from resident licenses is Wyoming, which has a very high nonresident fee of $50, and requires resident licenses only in the case of persons « Deducting the fees for issue the amount was $9,890. PLATE V. Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $ 40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 COLORADO IDAHO ILLINOIS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA NEBRASKA NORTH DAKOTA DIAGRAM SHOWING RECEIPTS FROM LICENSES IN TEN STATES, 1903. Black indicates receipts from nonresident licenses; white, receipts from resident licenses. For exact amounts see pages 34 and 36. $ 90000 $100,000 COMPARISON OF STATISTICS. 39 hunting big game outside of the county of residence (see p. 32). These conditions in a State so thinly settled and with large counties would naturally make the returns from resident licenses very small. (83) Number of big game licenses.—As some of the States require sep- arate licenses for big game and for game birds, it is possible to ascer- tain approximately the number of nonresident licenses issued for hunting big game. The figures for 9 States and 4 Provinces are shown in the table following: Nonresident Licenses for Big Game issued in 1903. State. Licenses.| Fees. || State. Licenses.| Fees. COREG .ane 5H eee ee ese eeee 29 CA | ANAT ONNUMES oe ao eooeGeeoeod 158 $7, 900 NGM Omsassee one eee. .cee ee a 20 HOON PNeweaBrumnsiwi@kas. = ae eee 338 10, 140 INaINC eee estos. 2 Sh Ae rae 1, 697 25,455 || Newfoundland ..-....-.-.--.-- 72 3, 600 Wir @ Mima ee seo. 6S oe ee cracls 45 FIPS Il INOW, SCOR scoedadesscesoages 30 1, 200 WiaimiMesOtae ase sn- 25-52 -22- 2-5 1381 S208 | ROMUtATIO Seem seeee caesar eee 259 6, 475 IM@MtaM a tec acc- 2525 Sees oe es 61 1, 525 ———_— |—__—. NewlHampshire: .2:......-.:. 135 1,350 Mota seers oe sees. 3, 336 72, 295 WWHISCONSIM re ee asi cee ee 361 9, 025 From this table are omitted the returns from Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Manitoba, and the North- west Territories, in which licenses for big game can not be separated from those for game birds. Several other States, in which consider- able big game hunting is done, are also necessarily omitted—South Dakota, British Columbia, and Quebec, from which no reports are available, and Vermont, New York, California, and Oregon, in which no general hunting licenses are issued. But notwithstanding the in- completeness of the statistics, several facts of interest are brought out. Thus, it appears that in the nine States and four Provinces in the table 3,336 nonresident big game licenses were issued at a cost of $72,295, that Maine issued more than one-half of these licenses and collected more than one-third of the fees, and that New Brunswick stood second in point of license receipts. If we assume that all the nonresident licenses in Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories were issued for big game hunting, the totals would only be increased to 3,649 and $78,120, respectively, leav- ing but six important States—New York, South Dakota, California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, in addition to those in the South—from which no returns are available. In other words, nearly 60 per cent of the 5,779 nonresident licenses issued in the United States and most of those issued in Canada in 1903 were for hunting big game. On the other hand, if the resident licenses could be separated in the same way, the results would be very different. Fortunately, in five cases these figures are available, as resident licenses are issued only for big game in Michigan, Minnesota, Wyoming, New Brunswick, and Ontario. In 1903 there were 19,061 resident licenses issued in Michi- 40 HUNTING LICENSES. gan, 8,910 in Minnesota, 299 in Wyoming, 1,858 in New Brunswick, ee oe 360 i in Ontario, making a total of 35, 888, or nearly ten times as many as were issued to nonresidents in the peo States and Proy- inces mentioned above. The amount paid for the resident licenses, however, was only $39,400, or about 50 per cent of the fees for the nonresident licenses. (4) Statistics of former years.—Still another inquiry suggested by the table is whether or not the figures for 1903 are abnormal. On this point few statistics are available for a term of years, but in Michigan and Ontario the returns are complete for the entire time the resident- license system has been in force. Michigan inaugurated its license system in 1895; Ontario began to issue nonresident licenses in 1888 and resident licenses in 1896. The rates are about the same—$25 for nonresidents in each case and 75 cents for residents in Michigan and $2 in Ontario. Situated as they are, adjoining one another, with much the same kind of hunting, this State and Province are admirably adapted for a comparison of this kind. Following are the figures for each year since 1895: Number of Licenses issued in Michigan and Ontario,” 1895-1908. | Michigan. Ontario. | Year. e : = E ‘Resident None Total. |Resident. tee Total. TEES Aion ata pear ony Semmmritrereanet cs fo" 14 477 99| 14 4995 eee 60: |zsceeeeee A BOGE Hates et Re eS ee: Bee 12, 904 20} 12,924 3, 452 49 3,501 ABO Te SEN. SE Bee ke: Sena e eee sone 44| 11,911 2,300 53 2, 353 AOR De ee tee et ana a eae gee | “11,585 48 | 11,633 3, 300 52 8, 352 ABO eee Bae fe Les Se ee aren 12, 758 | 93 | 12) 851 3,917 80 3,997 TOGO SUES SEs PR ESE ae ae eae | 18,366 77 | 13,443 4, 200 90 4, 290 LOOM A Rey 8 Sa ph ie Seg ee A eae 15, 687 49 | 15,736 5, 090 100 5,190 LON Pea TR cen See S32 V2 eed ah ee 18, 621 53 | 18,674 5,165 200 5, 365 Sa Oe ic 2 ales a a OE OE sn AM ae SEE 19, 061 45 | 19,106 5, 707 259 5, 966 ERR cabanil a soe Pree oe Aan eR | 180,326 451 |~ 130,777 | 38,181 | 943 34, 014 PAV CTHS EY Senco eS Lae Sees ae 14, 481 DO nena b4;141 105 b 4, 502 a Ontario also established a $5 resident license for moose and caribou in 1900. Comparatively few of these licenses have been issued—105 in 1900, 150 in 1902, and 153 in 1908—and as Michigan has no corresponding license, they have been omitted from this table. b Average for 8 years, 1896-1903. This table shows that the total number of hunters licensed in Michi- gan since 1895 was 130,777, and in Ontario since 1896, 34,014. Although the number varies from year to year, there has been a steady increase in resident licenses for six or seven years—in Michigan from 11,585 in 1898 to 19,061 in 1903, and in Ontario from 2,300 in 1897 to 5,707 in 1908. The number of nonresident licenses shows consider- able fluctuation—in Michigan from 20 in 1896 to 93 in 1899, in Ontario from 49 in 1896 to 259 in 1903. COMPARISON OF STATISTICS. 4] While the issue of nonresident licenses in Ontario has increased regularly and to larger proportions than in Michigan, the issue of resident licenses has always been ‘considerably smaller. This is explained in part by the fact that in 1896 the government began the issue of free settlers’ permits, allowing one member of a family to kill two deer for food purposes. In 1897, 2,300 of these permits were issued, in 1898, 2,404, and in 1899, 2,665. But even if the settlers’ permits and resident licenses are combined, the total will still be less than one-half the number of resident licenses issued in Michigan for the same year. LIMITATIONS OF THE LICENSE SYSTEM. In many States the license system is still in an experimental or transitional stage, and its possibilities as a source of revenue, a check on indiscriminate hunting, and incidentally as a means of collecting important statistics concerning hunting, have not been fully realized. It is, moreover, incomplete in some States, where it has not been extended to residents or does not cover all kinds of game. ‘These ine- qualities are inherent in any new scheme and may be expected to disappear in due time. Certain other inherent difficulties, however, give rise to problems which are not so readily solved. These may be grouped under three heads: Special privileges, cost of collection, and enforcement. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. Much of the adverse criticism provoked by the license system has been caused both by the privileges granted and by those withheld by law. Certain exemptions already referred to (pp. 30-82) arouse hos- tility to the system and undoubtedly interfere with its operation. On the other hand, failure to accord reasonable privileges, which might be granted without impairing the value of the law, has created irritation and intensified opposition. The exceptional privileges granted resi- dents of certain limited districts or members of certain clubs are regarded, perhaps with justice, as class legislation. The omission to exempt taxpayers from the requirements of the law, however, some- times works injustice and arouses strong criticism. Both of these extremes are at least of doubtful constitutionality, and seem to prevent the best working of the system. Exemption of landowners or tax- payers is in many cases necessary, but to devise a clearly constitutional means for accomplishing it without interfering with the main object of the law is one of the difficult problems still to be solved. A lesser evil, which can be more easily remedied, is the policy established in some States of exacting a large fee for a hunting license and refusing the licensee the privilege of carrying home even a limited amount of the game or trophies he has secured. This is a source of irritation that apparently serves no useful purpose, and might easily be removed. COST OF COLLECTION. Although comparatively unimportant, the expense of printing licenses is an item that must be taken into account in considering the cost 42 Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. PLATE VI. PRESENT STATUS OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. From a small beginning in a few States nonresident licenses have steadily increased in number during the past ten years, until at the present time they are required in 31 States and Territories,“ and in practically all the Provinces of Canada. Since 1895 the adoption of resident licenses has spread to 13 States and 3 Canadian Provinces. As a rule, nonresident licenses are required for hunting any game, but in Michigan, New Hampshire, New Brunswick (except Westmore-. land County), and Newfoundland they are necessary only for big game. Great variety exists in the form of the license, in detail of issue, and in the accompanying privileges, but there is a tendency toward the adoption of more uniform fees and of the so-called coupon license, which provides the holder not only with a permit to hunt but also tags to insure the safe shipment of his game. The fees range from $1 to $50 (see Pl. VII), but in most cases the rate is $10 for birds and $25 for big game and birds. In a few States the maximum rate has recently been reduced to $15. The majority of States now permit the licensee to carry with him out of the State a reasonable amount of game obtained under his license. Resident licenses are required in most of the States along the northern border from Michigan westward. Ordinarily the fee is $1, but in a few States it is only 75 cents, and in Hawaii $5. These licenses were first required only for hunting big game, but in most States their use has now been extended to cover hunting all game. In some cases the receipts, particularly from resident licenses, have furnished a much larger income for game protection than was anti- cipated, and several States now depend largely on this source of revenue for maintenance of their warden service. With adequate license laws properly enforced, the work of 7 protection may be made prac- tically self-supporting. Naturally some opposition has been manifested to the adoption of the license system. Questions have been raised as to the constitu- tionality of the laws affecting nonresidents and some of these questions are still unsettled. | @In addition to these States, Georgia and Oregon require nonresidents engaging in market hunting to secure licenses. Market-hunting licenses are issued to residents, only in Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee. 45 DECISIONS OF THE COURTS ON NONRESIDENT LICENSE LAWS.¢ Several cases have been decided in State courts involving directly — or indirectly the validity of nonresident hunting licenses, but the ques- tion has not yet been directly decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. As there is no immediate prospect of such a decision ? it may be interesting at least to review briefly the precedents which have already been established and to refer to one or two decisions of the Supreme Court in analagous cases, which indicate to some extent what the attitude of that court would be if the question were directly before it. But first it should be explained that the chief grounds of attack on the constitutionality of nonresident licenses are the clauses in the Federal Constitution prohibiting taxes or duties on articles exported from any State (Art. I, sec. 9), guaranteeing to citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States (Art. IV, sec. 2), and prohibiting legislation ‘*‘ which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, = * *- or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Amend. XIV.) While nonresident license laws have been declared void in a few cases, they have been so declared by inferior courts or on technical grounds and not by the highest courts or on the merits of the ques- tion. In 1886 the circuit court of Craighead County, Ark., declared the Arkansas act of 1875 unconstitutional (Am. Field, XX VIL, p. 49, Jan. 15, 1887). In April, 1887, the circuit court of Poinsett County, . Ark., held the same act unconstitutional, and as a consequence judg- ment was rendered against the sheriff of the county for $10 and costs in each of 18 cases in which he had collected $10 license fees from nonresidents. (Am. Field, XXVIII, pp. 3-4, July 2, 1887.) In 1901 the superior court of Spokane County, Wash., declared the Washington law unconstitutional because it discriminated in not re- quiring boys under 16 years of age to be licensed, and in 1903 declared a subsequent nonresident license law void on account of a defect in the title. (Field and Stream, VIII, p. 501, Oct., 1903.) None of these “See also article on ‘ Nonresident Licenses,’ by William A. Talcott, jr., in Forest and Stream, L, pp. 205-206, March 12, 1898. 5In Deenen 1902, the ‘American Field’ started a fund for the purpose of defray- ing the costs of carrying a test case to the Supreme Court, but during the first eight months collected only about $160. (Am. Field, LVIII, pp. 593,597, 1902; LX, p. 145, 1903.) 46 DECISIONS OF THE COURTS. 47 cases was appealed to the supreme court, and the decisions, therefore, even had they directly considered the license principle, could not be considered as furnishing authoritative precedents. In 1903 the circuit court of Crittenden County, Ark., declared the Arkansas law pro- hibiting nonresidents from hunting in the State unconstitutional in so far as it prohibited nonresidents from hunting on their own land. (Am. Field, LX, p. 52, July 18, 1903.) This case has been appealed to the supreme court of Arkansas, but the decision has not yet been rendered. In May, 1904, a case (Cummings v. People) which may result in a decision on the nonresident license question, was carried to the supreme court of Illinois on writ of error. One of the conten- tions in this case, which involves the constitutionality of the Illinois game law of 1908, is that the statute is invalid because it discriminates between resident and nonresident hunters. On the other hand two decisions have been rendered by higher courts which uphold the constitutionality of such laws, one by the supreme court of New Jersey in 1886 and the other by the United States circuit court of the northern district of Illinois in 1899. In the former case (Allen v. Wyckoff, 48 N. J. Law Rep. 90; 2 Atl. 659) one Allen was arrested and fined $50 for violating the act for the protection of game and game fish approved April 4, 1878, which imposed greater restric- tions and severer penalties upon nonresidents of the State than upon residents. The case was appealed to the supreme court of New Jersey, which held that the act in question was not in violation of the four- teenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting any State from making any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States or deny to any person the equal protec- tion of the laws; and furthermore that the statute was valid in its application to a nonresident killing game on the property of persons who have formed an association under the laws of the State for the protection of game on their own property. In passing upon the question of constitutionality, after showing that section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution, and so much of the four- teenth amendment as secures the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the nation were not applicable to the case in hand, as Allen was not a citizen of the United States, the court said: The only clause of the federal constitution, therefore, which, on the surface seems to have any pertinency is that forbidding a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. But even this appearance is dissipated, I think, when we examine the decision of the supreme court of the United States in the Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 36. It was there argued that a state law which authorized a corporation to establish stock-yards and slaughter-houses in and near New Orleans, and prohibited all other persons from slaughtering cattle or keeping stock-yards elsewhere, within an area of about 1,154 square miles around the city, was an infringement of this fourteenth amendment; that the right to use one’s land, skill, and labor in any lawful business for the acquisition of property 48 HUNTING LICENSES. was a fundamental civil right, which, according to any just theory of government, — was entitled to the protection of the law; that, therefore, while the right might of course be regulated by state legislation, this amendment required that the laws for such purpose should operate equaily upon all persons within the jurisdiction; and that the statute, securing such a right to some persons, and denying it to others in substantially similar situation, was invalid. But the court decided that laws of this nature were not within the purview of this clause of the amendment; that it had been framed to remedy the evils arising from the existence of laws in the states where the newly-emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injus- tice and hardship against them as a class; and that this design must be kept in view in determining the scope and effect of the provision; the learned justice who spoke for the court saying: ‘We doubt very much whether any action of a state not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of — their race, will even be held to come within the purview of this provision. It is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other.’ * * * Bearing in mind, then, this indication of the scope of the amendment, afforded by the ultimate arbiter of its construction, how can it be said that the statute now under review is interdicted by it? * * * The statute seems to stand in the same cate- gory as the Louisiana act, as an exercise of the police power for the regulation of one of the modes of acquiring property; and, as such, it might be embraced within | the terms of the amendment, by giving them their widest signification, but, restricted as the supreme court declares their meaning to be, they do not touch the matter in hand. No rights of the prosecutor under the federal constitution therefore seem to be infringed. In the Illinois case, /n. ve Eberle (98 Fed. 295), the validity of the nonresident license was directly decided. Frank Eberle, a citizen of Iowa and a member of the Crystal Lake Club, an Illinois corporation authorized to acquire and own real estate in Illinois for use as a game and fish preserve, was arrested when hunting on the lands of the club. He was charged with hunting without a license in violation of the State law requiring a license of $10 from nonresidents, passed in 1899 subse- quent to the Incorporation of the club. At the trial the defendant was adjudged guilty of violation of the statute and was sentenced to pay a fine of $25 and costs and stand committed until the fine was paid. An unsuccessful application was made to the United States circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus. In denying the writ the court held: The sovereign ownership of wild game is in the state, in trust for the benefit of its citizens; and a statute requiring the payment of a license by a nonresident for the privilege of hunting such game within the state is a police regulation within the power of the state, and not in violation of article 4, sec. 2, of the federal consti- tution, or of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment, although such fee is not required of residents of the state; nor is the validity of such regulations as to a particular individual, who is a nonresident of the state, affected by the fact that he is a stock- holder in a corporation of the state which owns lands maintained as a game preserve. Several important decisions are on record sustaining statutes pro- hibiting nonresidents from taking oysters. As early as 1823 the United States circuit court upheld the New Jersey oyster law of 1820 DECISIONS OF THE COURTS. 49 (Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371). This is a leading case on the subject. In 1855 the supreme court of Rhode Island sustained a similar statute of that State passed in 1844, which prohibited nonresi- dents from taking oysters within the waters of Rhode Island. In 1873 the supreme court of New Jersey upheld the New Jersey act of 1846 (Haney v. Compton, 36 N. J. L. 507), and in 1901 again upheld a similar statute passed in 1899 (State v. Corson, 50 Atl. 780). In rendering the decision in the Haney case the court said: A full ownership of this species of property empowers the State to declare who shall take it, upon what terms it shall be taken, and by what means it shall be removed. A citizen of Pennsylvania cannot claim a right to acquire the property of New Jersey in a manner different from that to which New Jersey agrees to dispose of it. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the public ownership of game and has quoted with approval the decision of the supreme court of California (Zz parte Maier) to the effect that— The wild game within a State belongs to the people in their collective sovereign capacity. It is not the subject of private ownership except in so far as the people may elect to make it so; and they may, if they see fit, absolutely prohibit the taking of it, or trafic and commerce in it, if it is deemed necessary for the protection or preservation of the public good. (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. 8. 529.) The same court has, moreover, decided, in the case of McCready v. Virginia (94 U. S. 248), that a State may pass laws discriminating against nonresidents, by upholding, in 1877, a statute of Virginia (act of 1846) which absolutely prohibited nonresidents from planting oys-. ters in the waters within the limits of the State. In rendering the opinion of the court Chief Justice Waite said: The precise question to be determined in this case is, whether the State of Virginia can prohibit the citizens of other States from planting oysters in Ware River, a stream in that State where the tide ebbs and flows, when its own citizens have that privilege. The principle has long been settled in this court, that each State owns the beds of all tide waters within its jurisdiction, unless they have been granted away. * * * By article IV., sec. 2, of the Constitution, the citizens of each State are ‘entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.’ * * * we think we may safely hold that the citizens of one State are not invested by this clause of the Constitution with any interest in the common property of the citizens of another State. If Virginia had by law provided for the sale of its once vast public domain, and a division of the proceeds among its own people, no one, we venture to say, would contend that the citizens of other States had a constitutional right to the enjoyment of this privilege of Virginia citizenship. Neither if, instead of selling, the State had appropriated the same property to be used as a common by its people for the purposes of agriculture, could the citizens of other States avail themselves of such a privilege. And the reason is obvious; the right thus granted is not a privi- lege or immunity of general but of special citizenship. It does not ‘belong of right to the citizens of all free governments,’ but only to the citizens of Virginia, on account of the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed. They, and they alone, owned: the property to be sold or used, and they alone had the power to dis- pose of it as they saw fit. They owned it not by virtue of citizenship merely, but of 6095—No. 19—04——-4 50 HUNTING LICENSES. citizenship and domicil united; that is to say, by virtue of a citizenship confined to that particular locality. The planting of oysters in the soil covered by water owned in common by the People of the State is not different in principle from that of planting corn upon dry land held in the same way. Both are for the purposes of cultivation and profit; and if the State, in the regulation of its public domain, can grant to its own citizens the exclusive use of dry lands, we see no reason why it may not do the same thing in respect to such as are covered by water. And as all concede that a State may grant to one of its citizens the exclusive use of a part of the common property, the conelu- sion would seem to follow, that it might by appropriate legislation confine the use of the whole to its own People alone. HUNTING LICENSES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. For purposes of comparison with the license system of the United States and Canada, particularly in the matter of fees, reference may be made briefly to the conditions surrounding hunting in a few foreign countries. In general it may perhaps be said that hunting licenses are required in a majority of civilized countries, except those under the control of Spanish-speaking nations. In Europe licenses to hunt or to carry firearms are generally required, and in some countries, as for example, Prussia, distinctions are made between residents and nonresidents. Without going into the subject in detail it will suffice to mention by way of illustration the license systems of Great Britain and Germany for Europe, Japan for Asia, New Zealand for Australasia, and the colonies of German East and Southwest Africa, Sudan, and Transvaal for Africa. It will be observed that the issue of hunt- ing licenses is not restricted to the older countries of Europe where game is scarce, but has been extended to colonies in the heart of Africa which have only recently come under European control and where large game is more abundant than anywhere else in the world. GREAT BRITAIN. For shooting in Great Britain three or even four licenses must be taken into consideration. Separate licenses are required for killing game, for carrying a gun, and for the use of a dog, and in addition, a gamekeeper’s license may be necessary. Game and gun licenses are the only ones requiring consideration in this eonnection. Both are excise licenses, and enforcement of the regulations regarding them is in the hands of the commissioners of inland revenue. Under the act of 1860, *‘ licenses to kill game ”” are issued throughout Great Britain and Ireland for one year, ending July 31, at a cost of £3 ($15), or for a period of six months, at £2 ($10), or for fourteen days, at £1 ($5). These licenses may be obtained at most post-ofices. They are not required for netting or trapping woodcock and snipe, for capturing rabbits and hares, or for hounding or hunting deer on inclosed lands with the owner’s permission. Members of the Royal family and the King’s gamekeepers are exempt from the provisions of the law, and a further exemption is made of unarmed assistants of licensees. «This is the designation in England and Scotland. In Ireland the earlier term of ‘certificates’ is still retained. ol 59 HUNTING LICENSES. Under the act of 1870, every person who uses or carries a gun is required to secure a license unless he has a license to kill game. Gun licenses may be obtained at money-order offices, and, like game licenses, are good throughout the United Kingdom. These licenses are issued for one year, expiring July 31, at a cost of 10 shillings ($2.50). A — gun license is not required in case of members of the naval, military, or volunteer service, of any person carrying a gun belonging to the holder of a gun or game license, or where guns are used to kill vermin or frighten birds by occupants of lands, or are carried by gunsmiths or common carriers in connection with their regular business. GERMANY. Under the law of July 31, 1895, several forms of licenses (Jagd- scheine) are issued for hunting in Prussia. A resident may obtain an annual license on payment of 15 marks ($3.75), or one good for three days for 3 marks (75 cents). A foreigner or nonresident—that is, a person who has no domicile or owns no property in Prussia—must pay 40 marks ($10) for an annual license and 6 marks ($1.50) for a three-day license. Officers in the forest service are furnished free licenses good - fora year. In either case the holder must own land on which he can hunt or must have an invitation from some one who owns a preserve. Each license has its own distinctive color—yellow for the annual, red for the daily, white for the gratuitous, and the same colors, but with a black background, for the nonresident. Each has a diagram printed on the back, showing the open and close seasons for each kind of game, and is good throughout Prussia, except in the island of Heligoland. NEW ZEALAND. Under the animals protection act of 1880 hunting game is prohibited except under license. These licenses are good only during the open season and within the district for which issued. The license fees, not to exceed 50 shillings ($12.50), are fixed by notification of the governor. : JAPAN. Under the general game law of Japan two series of licenses are issued: (A) For capture of live game with net or lime, and (B) for killing game with a gun. Each of these licenses is issued in three classes, distinguished by different colors; and these classes are based upon the amount of taxes paid by the holder. First-class licenses » (buff) are issued to persons paying not less than 100 yen ($50) income tax, 500 yen ($250) land tax, or 150 yen ($75) business tax. To such persons or the members of their families the fee is 20 yen ($10). Second-class licenses (green) are issued to persons paying not less than 3 yen ($1.50) income tax, 30 yen ($15) land tax, or 20 yen ($10) business “HUNTING LICENSES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. | 58 tax, and the fee for such persons or the members of their families is 10 yen ($5). Third-class licenses (red) are issued to persons who are not included in the first and second classes. All these licenses are printed on pieces of thin cardboard somewhat larger than ordinary postal cards. On the face of the license are shown the number and class and the season for which issued; the status, domicile, occupation, name, and age of the holder; and the seal of the department of agri- ~cultureand commerce. On the back is printed an abstract of the game law, showing the close seasons, the birds protected at all times, and the conditions ander which hunting is permitted. GERMAN EAST AFRICA. Under the ordinance of July, 1903, hunting licenses are required in the German East African hunting district. The fee is 10 rupees? ($3.25), but applicants who have no permanent residence in the dis- trict are required to make a deposit of 500 rupees before the license isissued. In addition, special fees are required for hunting the fol- lowing kinds of game: 1 rupee for each dwarf antelope; 3 rupees for each gnu, hartebeest, waterbok, rappenantilope, certain other kinds of antelope, kudu, oryx, ape (Colobus), or marabu; 10 rupees for each leopard; 20 rupees for each buffalo, hippopotamus, or lion; 30 rupees for each rhinoceros, and 100 rupees for each elephant. These licenses are good only during the calendar year in which issued, are not transferable, and may be refused to applicants who, during the five years preceding their application, have been guilty of violating the game or certain other laws of the district. GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA. Under the ordinance of 1902 licenses are issued under certain con- ditions for hunting in German Southwest Africa. As in similar cases elsewhere, these licenses are issued for one year, are valid throughout the hunting district, are not transferable, and are to be obtained in the district of which the person is a resident. The fee is 30 marks ($7.50). If the applicant is not a resident of the district, permits may be obtained from the government. When hunting is carried on in connection with a regular expedition a special license must be obtained, the fee for which is 1,000 marks ($250) per year unless suspended by. special order of the government. SUDAN. In the Sudan two forms of licenses are issued for hunting. License A costs £25 ($125), and entitles the holder to capture or kill a limited number of any of the common and some of the rarer species of big «@The rupee is equivalent to about 323 cents, 54 HUNTING LICENSES. game, including several kinds of antelope and some of the larger birds. Special fees, varying from 250 milliemes ($1.25) to 50 pounds Egyptian ($256)—in the case of rhinoceroses—are required for killing certain animals, and extra taxes are collected for the shipment of trophies of various species. License B costs but £5 ($25), and allows the holder to kill 10 specimens each of wild sheep, ibex, wart hog, certain species of antelope, and large bustards. TRANSVAAL. In the Transvaal, under the game ordinance of 1902, a license is required to hunt in any part of the colony, except by owners or lessees of land hunting on their own property. The fee for this license is £3 ($15) for the whole season, or £1 ($5) for a period not exceeding two weeks. Certain game, such as elephants, hippopotamuses, buffaloes, several of the rarer antelopes, giraffes, rhinoceroses, quaggas, zebras, ostriches, and cranes can not be hunted without a special permit from the Colonial Secretary, and such permit must bear a £25 ($125) stamp. INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, 1872-1904. The following index is arranged chronologically to show the progress of license legislation in the United States and Canada. An attempt is here made to bring together in a brief summary all the important acts, including those prohibiting nonresidents from hunting, which have been passed in the various States and Provinces since 1872, apparently the date of the first hunting-license law in the United States. Various restrictions were imposed on nonresidents much earlier than this, but no attempt has been made to collect these laws systematically. The more important ones, with their references, are noted on pages 10-12. The number of statutes mentioned in the following list is about 160, of which over 50 are local laws of Maryland. Each entry is accom- panied by a brief statement of the important provisions of the law and a reference to the volume and chapter or page, so that the original statute may be readily consulted, if necessary. {An asterisk * indicates the first law of the kind in the State or county.] 1872. Maryland.—320 licenses* required for sink boxes and $5 licenses* for sneak boats used in hunting wild fowl on the Susquehanna flats in Cecil and Har- ford counties. Licenses issued only to residents. (Laws of 1872, chap. 54.) 1873. New Jersey.—Nonresident license * required to hunt in Atlantic, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, or Salem counties. Fees, $5 first year and $2 in subsequent years. (Acts of 1873, chap. 470.) Repealed March 23, 1896. 1875. Arkansas.—310 market hunting license* required of nonresident trappers, hunters, seiners, or netters of fish. (Acts of 1875, p. —.) Fee increased in 1897. Privilege of hunting entirely withdrawn from nonresidents in 1903. Florida.—$25 nonresident county license* required for hunting game to carry out of the State. A party of six persons hunting together included under one license on payment of an additional $5 each. (Acts of 1875, chap. 2055. ) 1876. Maryland.— Anne Arundel.—$30 licenses* issued to residents only to use sink boxes in hunting waterfowl on the waters of the county. (Laws of 1876, chap. 78.) Anne Arundel and Prince George.—Nonresidents prohibited * from hunting in Anne Arundel and Prince George counties without permission from land- owners. Penalty, $5 fine and forfeiture of gun. (Ibid., chap. 309.) 1877. Missouri—Nonresidents prohibited* irom hunting game for sale or export. (Laws of 1877, p. 333.) Tennessee.—Nonresidents of Obion and Lake counties prohibited * from killing wild fowl for market on Reclioot Lake. (Laws of 1877, chap. 145, sec. 1.) 55 56 1878. 1879. 1880. 1882. 1883. 1884. HUNTING LICENSES. Maryland.— Cecil.—$10 license* required of residents of Cecil County for use of sink boxes on Elk and Bohemia rivers. (Laws of 1878, chap. 292.) Fee for sink-box license on Susquehanna Flats in Cecil County, reduced from $20 to $10. (Ibid., chap. 292.) New Jersey.—Nonresidents prohibited* from hunting any game except water- fowl without complying with the by-laws of the game protective societies organized or to be organized under the laws of the State. (Laws of 1878, chap. 184, sec. 1.) New Brunswick.—$20 nonresident license* required for hunting any animals or birds in the Province. Licenses good until September 1 following date of issue. Fee for officers of army or navy, $5. (Laws of 1878, chap. 45, secs. 26-29. ) Delaware.—Nonresidents required to secure certificates of membership * in the Delaware Game Protective Association before hunting in the State. Fees, $5 the first year, $2 in subsequent years. (Laws of 1879, chap. 111, sec. 6.) Missouri.—Nonresidents prohibited from hunting within the State. (Rew Stat. 1879, I, sec. 1618.) Tennessee.—Hunting game for profit prohibited* in Cumberland, Fentress, Morgan, Scott, Campbell, Overton, Putnam, White, Roane, Carroll, Rhea, Bledsoe, and Van Buren counties. (Laws of 1879, chap. #83, see. 1.) Virginia—Nonresidents of the State prohibited* me hunting or trapping partridges in Accomac or Northampton counties without written consent of owners or occupants of the lands. (Acts of 1879, chap. —.) Maryland.— Cecil and Kent.—$10 license* required of residents of Cecil and Kent coun- ties for the use of sink boxes on Sassafras River. (Laws of 1880, chap. 42.) Patuxent River.—Nonresidents of Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Prince George, and St. Mary counties prohibited * from shooting snipe, ortolan, and wild. fowl on the Patuxent River. (Ibid., chap. 176.) Queen Anne.—310 license* required of residents of Queen Anne County for use of sink boxes on waters of county. Licensee prohibited from allowing use of sink box to nonresident under penalty of $20-$100, and (in case of nonresident) confiscation of sink box and other paraphernalia. In case of resistance the penalty is $50-$100. (Ibid., chap. 370. ) | Maryland.— Anne Arundel.—Licenses* at $2 each (and clerk’s fee of 50 cents) required for the use of ‘booby’ or ‘bush’ blinds on the Severn, South, and Magothy rivers. (Laws of 1882, chap. 400.) Caroline.—$4.50 nonresident license * required for ane rabbits, musk- rats, quail or partridges, woodcock, sora or water rail; and ducks in Caroline County. Quebec.—$20 nonresident licenses * required for hunting in the Province. (45 Vic., chap. 15, secs. 17-18. ) North Hy otha =o Nenieak bmn of the State prohibited from shooting wild fowl in Currituck and Dare counties from blind, box, battery, or float on the water. New York.—$10 nonresident license* required for hunting on Staten Island (Richmond County). (Laws of 1884, chap. 185.) Repealed in 1892. South Carolina.—$25 market-hunting license* required for each nonresident hand employed by nonresidents hunting ducks, fishing, gathering oysters or terrapins, or selling game in Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, and Georgetown counties. (Laws of 1884, p. 734.) 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. Do Nova Scotia.—$30 nonresident license* required for killing moose and other game, and $10 nonresident license* for killing birds. All licenses expire August 1. Fee for officers in Her Majesty’s service $5, but members of Game and Inland Fishery Protection Society exempt. (Rey. Stats., 5th ser., chap. 76, sec. 26. ) Quebec.—$20 nonresident license required for hunt in the province, but in exceptional cases lieutenant-governor in council may grant hunting permits at a less rate or gratuitously. License not required of Ontario hunters. (47 Vic., chap. 25, sec. 20.) South Carolina.—Market-hunting license provisions of 1884 modified to add to ‘the $25 license for each nonresident hand a $25 nonresident license. for pursuing the business. Maryland.— Anne Arundel and Prince George.—S6 nonresident license* for hunting rab- bits, partridges, and woodcock. Guest hunting on land of host exempt. (Laws of 1886, chap. 190. ) Baltimore.—$10 nonresident license* for hunting rabbits or woodcock. (Ibid., chap. 538. ) Caroline.—$19.50 license required of nonresidents for hunting rabbits, muskrats, quail or partridges, woodcock, sora or water rail, or ducks. (Ibid., chap. 505.) Kent.—$4.50 nonresident license* for hunting any game. Guest hunting on land of host exempt. (Ibid., chap. 135.) Queen Anne.—34.50 nonresident license* for hunting any game. Guest hunting on land of host exempt. (Ibid., chap. 88.) Talbot.—$9.50 nonresident license* for hunting any game protected by ie county. (Ibid., chap. 442.) Virginia.— Nonresidents prohibited* from killing wild foul from skiff, float, or sink box in Fairfax, Henrico, King George, Prince William, or Stafford counties. Guns, boats, or sink boxes to be forfeited. Law not applicable to nonresidents renting shores on broad waters of Back Bay. (Acts of 1886, chap. 383. ) Wyoming.—Nonresidents prohibited* from hunting game animals in the State. (Laws of 1886, chap. 109.) Repealed in 1895. Quebec.—35 resident licenses* issued for killing 5 caribou and 5 deer more than legal number. Commissioner of Crown lands may exempt from payment of the fee any Indian whose poverty has been established to his satisfaction. Nonresident license fee of members of hunting and fishing clubs incorporated in the Province reduced to $10. Limit on big game which may be killed under license. (50 Vic., chap. 16, secs. 3 and 12.) Maryland.— _ Caroline.—$4.50 fee restored for nonresident license, and owners of real estate in county exempted from requirements of license law. Charles.—$20 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, partridges, or woodcock. Penalty, $20, or ten days and forfeiture of gun, ammunition, and other apparatus. (Not needed by one hunting by written permission of landowner.) $25 nonresident license for hunting wild fowl on waters of county. (Laws of 1888, chap. 352.) Dorchester.—$5 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, part- ridges, or woodcock. (Not needed by owners of land in county, or their relatives, nor by relatives or connections by marriage of residents.) ‘(Ibid., chap. 29.) Howard.—$7.50 nonresident license * for hunting any game. (Not needed by one hunting under written permission of landowner.) (Ibid., chap. 90. ) 58 HUNTING LICENSES. 1888. South Carolina. —Nonresident market-hunting license fees increased to $500, and $100 additional for each nonresident hand employed. Ontario.—Nonresidents prohibited from killing deer prior to 1895 unless they have secured a $10 license* from the commissioner of Crown lands. Law not applicable to shareholders in an incorporated company hunting on lands — of said company. (51 Vic., chap. 36, sec. 16.) 1889. Tennessee.— Nonresidents of the State prohibited* from hunting game for profit in certain counties and from hunting at all in others. (Laws of 1889, chap. 179, sec. 1; chap. 244, sec. 2.) Nonresidents of certain counties prohibited from killing game for market in these counties. (Ibid., chap. 244, sec. 2.) Nonresidents of the State prohibited from killing wild fowl on Reelfoot Lake. (Ibid., chap. 156, sec. 1.) Newfoundland.—$100 nonresident license* required for killing caribou. Officers of British war ships stationed on the coast for fisheries protection exempt from license. (Deer preservation act 1889, sec. 6; Con. Stat. 1892, chap. 148, sec. 6.) 1890. Maryland.— Dorchester.— Nonresidents of Parson Creek, Church Creek, and Neck dis- tricts prohibited* from hunting wild fowl in the Little Choptank River. Penalty: $20 and costs, and forfeiture of boat, guns, and other “‘ fixtures.”’ (Laws of 1890, chap. 140. ) Somerset.—$9.50 nonresident license * for huntingany game. (Not needed by one invited and accompanied by a resident.) (Ibid., chap. 589.) Worcester.—$10 nonresident license* for hunting wild fowl. (Ibid., chap. 446. ) British Columbia.—$50 nonresident license* required for killing big cae. Limit: 10 deer, 2 bull elk, 3 reindeer, 5 caribou, 8 mountain sheep, 8 moun- tain goats. Members of army, navy, and Canadian militia in service in the Province require no licenses. (Game-protection act 1890, sees. 9-10.) Manitoba.—$25 nonresident license,* good for calendar year, required for hunt- ing animals or birds in the Province. (Game act of 1890, sec. 8.) 1892, Maryland.— Anne Arundel and Prince George.—Law of 1880 (chap. 176) amended so as to restrict hunting of snipe, ortolan, and wild fowl on the Patuxent River in Anne Arundel and Prince George counties to residents of these counties, except such as have permission of a majority of the citizens adjacent to the river and employ a licensed boat. $2 pusher’s license* required for pushing, paddling, or conveying nonresidents hunting on Patuxent River. Penalty: $10-$30, or, in default, confiscation of boat and fixtures. (Laws of 1892, chap. 360. ) St. Mary.—$20 nonresident license* required for beanie rabbits, arid and woodcock. Penalty: $20 or ten days, and forfeiture of guns and other paraphernalia. (Ibid., chap. 588. ) South Carolina.—$25 nonresident license* required for hunting in Beaufort County; Horry County added to those in which market hunting is licensed. Virginia.—Nonresidents of the State prohibited * from killing wild fowl on the marshes, islands, or beaches below the head of tide water, except in Accomac and Northampton counties. (Laws of 1891-2, p. 1070.) Ontario.—$25 nonresident license* required for hunting big game or birds. (Acts of 1892, chap. 58, sec. 8.) 1893. South Carolina.—$25 nonresident county license * required for killing game of any kind. Not required of persons hunting on their own land. (Act of December 22, 1893, sec. 8.) [Repealed by omission from Code of 1902.) INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 59 1893. Northwest Territories—S5 nonresident license,* good until May 15 following date of issue, required for hunting big game or birds. Free licenses * may be granted to guests of residents for five days or less. (Game ordinance of 1893,¢ sec. 11.) 1894. Maryland.— Anne Arundel and Prince George.—Laws of 1880 (chap. 176) and 1892 (chap. 360) amended by extending privilege of hunting snipe, ortolan, and wild fowl on Patuxent River to citizens of Calvert County. (Laws of 1894, chap. 586.) Anne Arundel.—Nonresidents prohibited* from hunting in the county. Penalty: $10-$50, or, in default, one tothree months, and forfeiture of gun and other apparatus. (Ibid., chap. 103.) ‘-Baltimore.—310 nonresident license required for See gray squirrels, rabbits, partridges, pheasants, and woodcock. Penalty: $10 for each bird or animal killed or in possession, forfeiture of gun to owner of property on which game is killed, and ten days in default of fine. Taxpayers and those hunting except for market under express authority on land of resident are exempt. Nonresidents prohibited from hunting or obtaining license until 1895. (Ibid., chap. 122.) Carroll.—S10 nonresident license * required for hunting squirrels, rabbits, partridges, pheasants, and woodcock. Penalty: $10 for each animal or bird killed or found in possession, forfeiture of gun to owner of property on which game is killed, and ten days in default of fine. Taxpayers and those hunt- ing under express authority on land of resident are exempt. (Ibid., chap. 224. ) Cecil.—Chapter 292, laws of 1878, repealed, and use of sinkboat, sneak boat, or boat of any kind on Elk and Bohemia rivers prohibited.* (Laws of 1894, chap. 556. ) Charles.—Nonresidents prohibited * from shooting wild fowl on waters of county. Penalty: $30 or thirty days, and forfeiture of guns, traps, boats, and all other devices used in violation of law. Repeal of nonresident license for shooting wild fowl; established in 1888. (Ibid., chap. 225.) Harford.—$10 nonresident license* required for shooting rabbits, partridges, pheasants, woodcock, rail, reedbird, and robins. Taxpayers and persons hunting by invitation on land of resident are exempt. (Ibid., chap. 139.) Kent.—$15 nonresident license required for shooting squirrels, rabbits, and birds. (Not needed by owner or tenant of land in county, and reduced to $5 in case of anyone hunting by invitation on land of resident.) (Ibid., chap. 501. Prince George.—$20 nonresident license for shooting rabbits, partridges, and woodeock. (Ibid., chap. 542.) Virginia.—Nonresidents of the State, except members of the Eastern Shore Game Protective Association, prohibited * from killing wild fowl in Accomac and Northampton counties. (Acts of 1894, chap. 740, sec. 2.) [The effect of this law was to make the membership fee in the association virtually a nonresident license fee. ] Nova Scotia.—Nonresident license provisions of 1884 practically reenacted. (Laws of 1894, chap. 2, secs. 29-31.) 1895. Michigan.—$25 nonresident * and 50 cent resident * licenses required for hunt- ing deer. Licenses good only during open season, limited to 5 deer and required to have coupon attached authorizing shipment of 1 deer to any point in the State. Approved May 4, 1895. (Laws of 1895, chap. 238.) “The application of this ordinance was limited to Alberta, Assiniboia, and Sas- katchewan by sec. 26 of the Unorganized Territories’ Game Preservation acts of 1894 (57-58 Vic., chap. 31). 60 HUNTING LICENSES. 1895. Minnesota.—$25 nonresident license * required for hunting any game birds or animals, but law applicable only to citizens of States which have restrictive laws against nonresident hunters. Approved April 25, 1895. (Laws of 1895, chap. 207.) Repealed in 1903. North Carolina.—$25 nonresident license * required for shooting from boxes, batteries, or floats on the waters of Dare County, south of the line from Manteo to Nagshead Life-Saving Station. (Laws of 1895, chap. 286. ) North Dakota.—$25 nonresident license* and 50 cent resident license* required for hunting any animals or birds inthe State. Nonresidents cultivating not less than a quarter section of land may obtain resident license in county in which land is cultivated, and landowners hunting on their own property require no licenses. (Rev. Codes, 1895, sec. 1645. ) Wyoming.—$20 nonresident county license * substituted in place of absolute prohibition in case of nonresidents hunting big game. Licenses permit kill- ing males only during September, October, and November, and solely for food. Approved February 20, 1895. (Laws of 1895, chap. 98, sec. 14.) British Columbia.—$50 nonresident license required for hunting big game. Members of army, navy, and Canadian militia require no license. (Game- protection act 1895, secs. 19-20. ) Quebec.—55 resident license authorizing killing of 3 caribou and 3 deer (formerly 5) in excess of regular limits. Nonresident licenses divided into four classes: (1) For hunting all animals and birds except nongame birds, fee $30. (2) For hunting big game and fur-bearing animals, fee $25. (3) For hunt- ing woodcock, snipe, plover, curlew, sandpipers, partridges, or water fowl, fee $20. (4) For hunting the same birds on the islands, bays, or shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence,* fee $10. Fees reduced one-half in case of members of fish and game clubs incorporated in the Province. In exceptional cases lieutenant-governor in council, on recommendation of commissioner, may reduce fees or issue free permits. (59 Vic., chap. 20, secs. 1 and 8.) 1896. Hawaii.—35 hunting license* required on the island of Oahu. (Laws of 1896, act 64. ) Newfoundland.—$100 nonresident license required for killing caribou. (Act August 6, 1896, sec. 5.) Nova Scotia.—Modification in details of nonresident license law of 1884. $10 nonresident license required for hunting birds, hares, and rabbits, and $30 nonresident license for hunting other game. All licenses expire August 1. Fee for officers of army or navy stationed at Halifax, $5. Army or navy officers belonging to the Game and Inland Fishery Protection Society, per- sons who have had domicile in Nova Scotia, are in the service of the Province or of the government of Canada, and are members of the game society, and nonresidents paying not less than $20 real-estate tax, areexempt. (Laws of 1896, chap. 4, secs. 32-34; Rey. Stat., 1900, II, chap. 101, secs. 25-28. ) Ontario.—Residents required to obtain licenses* at $2 each to hunt deer in the Province. (59 Vic., chap. 68, sec. 2:) 1897. Michigan.—Nonresident license for deer, $25. Resident license increased to 75 cents. All licenses must bear coupons properly eyeletted; full details of issue. (Acts of 1897, p. 403.) North Carolina.—Nonresidents of the State prohibited* from hunting birds or wild fowl in Camden County. (Laws of 1897, chap. 558, sec. 2.) North Dakota.—Resident license fee increased to 75 cents; nonresident land- owners required to secure resident licenses. | ¢ This law did not become effective until December, 1895. See Forest and Stream, XLV, p. 89, August 3, 1895. 1897. 1898. INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 61 Tennessee.— Nonresidents of Grundy and Van Buren counties prohibited * from -killing deer, quail (partridge) or wild turkey in those counties. (Laws of 1987, chap. 172.) Wisconsin.—$30 nonresident license* and $1 resident license* required for hunting deer. Resident licenses required only in forty counties, designated as ‘counties frequented by deer.’ Full details in regard to issue of coupon licenses. (Laws of 1897, chap. 221.) New Brunswick.—$20 nonresident and $2 resident licenses* required for killing moose or caribou. Nonresidents required to furnish $100 bond* with 2 resident sureties for observance of the game laws. (Acts of 1897, chap. 23, secs. 8-11.) Quebec.—Nonresident license fees graded* according to a tariff established by the lieutenant-governor in council. Fee may be reduced in case of members of a fish-and-game club incorporated in the Province, provided club leases a hunting reserve. (60 Vic., chap. 25, sec. 5.) Northwest Territories.—$15 nonresident license, good only from August 1 to January 31, required for hunting any of the animals or birds mentioned by the ordinance. Guest license omitted. (Ordinance No. 40 of 1898, sec. 4; Con. Ord., 1898, chap. 85, sec. 20.) 1899. Georgia.—$25 market hunting license* required of any person killing or cap- turing for sale, except on his own land, deer, quail, wild turkeys, or doves. Not in effect until recommended by grand jury of the county. (Acts of 1899) .p. 96.) Illinois.—$10 nonresident county license, * good until June 1 following date of issue, allows shipment of 25 birds. (Laws of 1899, p. 231, sec. 26.) Maine.—‘September law,’ * permitting nonresidents on payment of $6 and — residents on payment of $4 to kill one deer in September, for food pur- poses only, in Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, and Washington counties. (Pub. Laws of 1899, chap. 42, sec. 21.) Minnesota.—$25 nonresident license and 25-cent resident license * required for hunting deer, elk, caribou, or moose. All licenses good one year from date of issue and must contain description of licensee. (Laws of 1899, chap. 222, sec. 53.) North Carolina.—$25 nonresident license for club housesin Dare County. (Pub. Laws, chap. 133, sec. 2.) North Dakota.—$25 nonresident and 75-cent resident license reenacted. Exemp- tions same as in 1897, except that resident children under 16 are exempted. (Laws of 1899, chap. 93, sec. 4.) South Dakota.—$10 nonresident hunter’s license* required for big game or birds. (Laws of 1899, chap. 90, sec. 14.) West Virginia.—$25 dollars nonresident county license* required for hunting in the State. (Acts of 1899, chap. 22, sec. 17.) Wisconsin.—Nonresident license fee for hunting deer reduced to $25. $10 license* established for hunting all other game. Resident license extended to cover all game. Details of issue amended. (Laws of 1899, chap. 312.) Wyoming.—Nonresident license fee increased from $20 to $40. $1 gun license* required of each resident hunting big game outside his own county. (Laws of 1899, chap. 19, sec. 14.) New Brunswick.—Law of 1897 modified so as to dispense with bonding feature. (Acts of 1899, secs. 39-45. ) Newfoundland.—Nonresident license fees for killing caribou reduced, and licenses issued in three series: $40 license for 2 stags and 1 doe;.$50 license for 3 stags and 1 doe; $80 license for 5 stags and 2 does. (Deer preserva- tion act of 1899, secs. 7-10.) 62 1900. 1901. HUNTING LICENSES. Northwest Territories.—$1 nonresident permits*, limited to 5 days, may be issued by any game guardian or the commissioner of agriculture to guests of residents hunting with their hosts. (Ordinances of 1899, chap. 23, sec. 3.) Quebec.—Reenactment of nonresident license provisions of 1897. (62 Vic., chap. 24, sec. 1416.) Iowa.—$10 nonresident county license,* permitting export of 25 birds or animals. (Laws of 1900, chap. 86.) License fees to be credited to game protection fund. (Ibid., chap. 87.) Maryland.— Cecil.—Chapter 556, Laws of 1894, repealed, and $10 license required for use of sink box by residents on Elk and Bohemia rivers. (Laws of 1900, chaps. 372 and 444.) Dorchester.—Nonresidents (except taxpayers) prohibited * from shooting or killing ducks, geese, brant, or swans within 1 mile of shore line of Middle or Lower Hooper Island without permission of landowners. (Laws of 1900, chap. 378.) Garrett.—$25 nonresident license * required for hunting any game. (Laws of 1900, chap. 189.) Somerset.—$9.50 nonresident license required for hunting any game. (Not needed by anyone invited and accompanied by a resident. (Laws of 1900, chap. 203.) New York.—Nonresidents prohibited * from taking fish or game on fresh waters forming part of State boundary except under same conditions or fees as are required of citizens of New York in State of nonresident. (Laws of 1900, chap. 429.) Virginia.—$10 nonresident license* required for hunting deer, partridges, pheas- ants, and wild turkeys in Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Highland, or Rockbridge counties. License good only in county of issue, but permis- sion of landowner obviates necessity for license. (Laws of 1900, chap. 1002, sec. 4.) $10 nonresident license required for hunting partridges (or quail) in Lee County. License carries privilege of shipping quail killed by licensee. (Ibid., chap. 330. ) Manitoba.—$25 nonresident license* required for hunting in the Province and issued at discretion of minister of agriculture and immigration. (63 and 64 Vic., chap. 14, sec. 18.) New Brunswick.—$30 nonresident license required for hunting any animals or birds in Westmoreland County; fee for nonresident license for moose and caribou raised to $30. (63 Vic., chap. 39, sec. 3.) Ontario.—$25 nonresident and $2 resident license provisions reenacted. $5 resident license* established for killing moose, reindeer, or caribou. (Game- protection act 1900, sec. 25.) Illinois.—310 nonresident county license extended * to cover State. License must bear photograph of holder. (Laws of 1901, p. 212.) - Indiana.—$25 license* required of nonresidents. Permit required for hunting squirrels and wild fowl, October 1 to November 10. Issued without charge to residents and to nonresidents holding license. (Laws of 1901, chap. 203. ) Maine.—Repeal of the September deer law. (Pub. Laws, 1901, chap. 278.) Minnesota.—License provisions of 1899 amended to permit residents to obtain. licenses upon written (formerly personal) application to county auditor, received through office of any city, village, or town clerk before whom appli- cant appears. (Laws of 1901, chap. 342.) Montana.—325 big game license* and $15 game-bird license* required of non- residents. Taxpayersexempt. (Laws of 1901, p. 135, secs. 19-24.) INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 63 1901. Nebraska.—$10 nonresident* and $1 resident licenses* required for hunting 1902. any animals or birds; resident license not required in county of domicile. (Laws of 1901, chap. 36, art. 4.) Oregon.—$10 nig RSE hunting eee required of nonresidents. (Laws of 1901, p. 231, sec. 38.) Pennsylvania.—$10 license* required of nonresidents owning no land in Penn- sylvania and who wish to hunt in the State. Guns and shooting parapher- nalia used in violation of law may be seized. (Laws of 1901, chap. 67.) South Dakota.—$25 nonresident and $1 resident * county licenses required for hunting big game. Licenses not to be issued before November 1 and good only during that calendar year. (Laws of 1901, chap. 132, secs. 10, 15.) Tennessee.—Nonresidents of Bledsoe County prohibited * from hunting deer, quail (partridge), or wild turkey in that county. (Laws of 1901, chap. 213.) Washington.—$10 nonresident license* and $1 resident license* required for hunting in the State; $20 extra for killing elk. License good only in county in which issued and required of all persons 16 years of age or over. Resi- dent licenses may be obtained by citizens of Idaho and Oregon. (Laws of 1901, chap. 134, sec. 9.) Northwest Territories.—$15 nonresident license, er for calendar year, required for hunting any big game or birds in the Territories whether protected by the ordinance or not. (Ordinances of 1901, chap. 32, sec. 3.) Kentucky.—$25 nonresident license * required for hunting in the State. (Laws of 1902, chap. 79.) Louisiana.—Nonresidents prohibited from hunting in the State.* (Laws of 1902, chap. 65.) Maryland— Calvert.—$10 nonresident license * required for hunting rabbits, partridges, and woodcock. (Not needed by anyone hunting by invitation or under written permission on land ofa resident.) (Laws of 1902, chap. 493.) Cecil. $5.50 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, quail or partridges, grouse, woodcock, reedbirds, ortolan (rail), and summer ducks. (Not needed by anyone hunting by permission on land of a resident.) (Laws of 1902, chap. 434.) Dorchester.—Nonresidents prohibited from hunting ducks, geese, brant, or swan within 3 miles of shore line of Middle and Lower Hooper Island without consent of landowners. Frederick.—$15 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, par- tridges, pheasants, wild turkeys, woodcock, and ducks. (Not needed by anyone hunting by written permission on land of a resident.) (Laws of 1902, chap. 176.) Garrett.—Nonresidents prohibited from selling quail, pheasants, partridges, wild turkeys, and woodcock within county. (Laws of 1902, chap. 116.) Montgomery.—$15 nonresident license * required for hunting squirrels, rab- bits, partridges, pheasants, wild turkeys, woodcock, and ducks. (Not needed by anyone hunting by written permission on land of a resident. ) Prince George.—$20 nonresident license required for hunting rabbits, par- tridges, pheasants, and woodcock. (Not needed by anyone hunting by written permission on land of a resident. ) Washington.—$10 nonresident license * required for hunting or fishing in Washington County, except on the Potomac River. Taxpayers, residents of Maryland or the District of Columbia, and anyone hunting by permission on the land of a resident of the county areexempt. (Laws of 1902, chap. 379.) Wicomico.—$10 nonresident license * required for huntingany game. (Not needed by anyone invited and accompanied by a resident.) (Laws of 1902, chap. 222. 64 HUNTING LICENSES. 1902. New Jersey.—$10 nonresident license* required for hunting any game a 1903. waterfowl, snipe, and mudhens. (Laws of 1902, chap. 263, ) New York.—Nonresidents from States which require licenses, can kill game only under licenses * similar to those required of nonresidents in their own States. (Laws of 1902, chap. 77.) Ohio.—$25 nonresident license* permitting export of 50 animals and birds. (Laws of 1902, p. 379. ) Newfoundland. Nonresident license fee increased from $80 to $100 and limit placed at 3 stag caribou. (Preservation of deer act, 1902, sec. 13.) Nova Scotia.—Nonresident license changed to ‘general license to shoot game’ and fee increased from $30 to $40. ‘License to shoot small game,’ $10. (Laws of 1902, chap. 23, sec. 2.) Arkansas.—Repeal of former license laws. Nonresidents not permitted to hunt in the State* except in Mississippi County. (Acts of 1903, chap. 162, secs. 4, 11.) Colorado.—$25 nonresident license* required for hunting all game and $1 per day ($2 first day) for birds. $1 State hunting or resident license* 7 lished. (Laws of 1903, chapter 112, Division G.) Florida.—$10 nonresident license extended to cover all game. Act not appli- cable to counties which have special game laws. (Laws of 1903, chap. 5251, sec. 6.) Nonresidents prohibited from hunting in Santa Rosa County without permission of owner of land (ibid., chap. 5292), or in Lafayette County except upon payment of $1 per day* to game warden (ibid., chap. 5293). Idaho.—$25 nonresident license* required for hunting all game, $5 license* for birds. . $1 resident license* established. (Laws of 1903, p. 192, sec. 8.) Illinois.—Nonresident license fee increased from $10 to $15 and requirement ~ of photograph abolished. $1 resident license* established. (Laws of 1903, p. 214, sec. 25.) Indiana.—$25 nonresident license required for hunting in the State; permits export of 24 birds. Permit for hunting squirrels October 1 to November 10 abolished; $1 required from residents for permit* for hunting waterfowl October 1 to November 10. . Both nonresident and resident licenses must bear photograph of licensee. (Acts of 1903, chap. 225, secs. 4-5.) Maine.—$15 nonresident license * required for hunting moose or deer. (Public Laws of 1903, chap. 99.) $5 nonresident license* required for hunting teal, ducks, sea or shore birds in Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and Waldo counties; and towns of Brunswick, - Freeport, and Harpswell in Cumberland County. (Public Laws of 1903, chap. 236.) Minnesota.—Reenactment of former license provisions with addition of $10 nonresident license* for small game; resident license extended to cover all game animals and fee increased to $1. (Laws of 1903, chap. 336, secs. 39-41.) Repeal of license laws of 1895, 1899, and 1901. (Ibid., sec. 64.) New Hampshire.—$10 nonresident license * required for hunting deer. (Laws of 1903, chap. 87.) New York.—Nonresident license required for hunting game. Fee not less than that required of resident of New York in State of applicant; and, if none, amount to be fixed by commissioner of forestry, fisheries, and game. (Laws of 1903, chap. 475. ) North Carolina.—$10 nonresident license* required for hunting in the State. (Private Laws of 1903, chap. 337, sec. 10.) $20 nonresident license* required for hunting quail, partridges, or wild turkeys in Cabarrus County. (Pub. Laws of 1903, chap. 675, sec. 2.) 1903. 1904. INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 65: Pennsylvania.—$10 nonresident license* required of unnaturalized foreign-born residents who hunt in the State. (Laws of 1903, chap. 136. ) Tennessee.—Nonresident* and $25 market hunting licenses* required for hunt- ing in the State. Fee for nonresident license same as resident of Tennessee is required to pay in State of applicant. (Acts. of 1903, chap. 169, secs. 9, 14. ) Utah.—$10 nonresident gun license * required for hunting any game animals or birds in the State. (Laws of 1903, chap. 116, sec. 2.) Virginia.—$10 nonresident license * required for hunting in the State. Chil- dren and guests of resident landowners exempt, but host must hunt with his guest and must not, directly or indirectly, receive any compensation from him. (Acts 1903, chaps. 227, 286, sec. 2070c. ) Washington.—Uniform $1 county license * required of residents and nonresi- dents hunting in the State. (Laws of 1903, chap. 94. ) West Virginia.—Nonresident license extended * to cover the State and fee reduced from $25 to $15. (Acts of 1903, chap. 46, sec. 17.) Wyoming.—Nonresident gun license fee increased from $40 to $50. (Laws of 1903, chap. 44, sec. 8.) New Brunswick.—Reenactment of license provisions with addition of 25 cent, resident license to hunt any game in Westmoreland County. (Con. Stat., Vol. I, chap. 33, secs. 44-46. ) Newfoundland.— Nonresident license fee reduced from $100 to $50. (Acts of 1903, chap. 8, sec. 3.) Northwest Territories.—$25 general nonresident license and $15 bird license * required of nonresidents for hunting in the Territories. General license permits export of trophies of big game. (Ordinances of 1903, 2d sess., chap. 29, sec. 18, passed Nov. 1, 1903.) Kentucky.— Nonresident license fee reduced from $25 to amount required of citizens of Kentucky in State of applicant.* (Acts of 1904, chap. 48. ) Louisiana.—$10 nonresident license * substituted for absolute prohibition; same license required of unnaturalized foreign-born residents. $25 market hunt- ing license established. (Laws of 1904, chap. —. ) Maryland— | Allegany.—$10 nonresident license * required for hunting any game. (Laws of 1904, chap. 489. ) Anne Arundel.—Previous laws modified so as to remove restrictions from nonresident owners of land in county and permit nonresident not owning land to hunt if invited by a resident and hunting with him on his own land or to shoot wild fowl from a licensed blind on invitation of owner. Baltimore.—$5 nonresident license required for hunting squirrels, rabbits, partridges, pheasants, woodcock, and jacksnipe. Photograph of holder must be attached to license. Nonresident taxpayers and persons hunting by written permission on the land of a resident exempt. (Laws of 1904, chap. 542.) Patuxent River.—$10 license * for hunting birds required of nonresidents, except members of certain incorporated hunting clubs, of not more than 30 members, owning or leasing land within one mile of the river and improved by a club-house. Licensee must also secure written permission of owner of land adjacent to water on which he hunts. $2.50 pusher’s license required of residents of Maryland pushing, paddling, or conveying anyone hunting ortolan, rail, reedbirds, ducks, or geese. (Laws of 1904, chap. 509. ) Somerset.—}$10 nonresident and $1 resident license* required (except in case of resident landholders) for hunting squirrels, rabbits, muskrats, quail or partridges, doves, woodcock, ducks, and geese. (Laws of 1904, chap. 198. ) 6095—No. 19—04——5 Bs ta re NR staeee Svea e hey Toit eee Toa Rec eo 1904. Ohio.—$15 nonresident license, goo required for hunting in the State; sec. 22.) ae nue hes Nova Scotia.—$30 nonresident license required for hunting may take with him from the Province any moose or caribo rk lawfully killed. (Laws of 1904, chap.14.) REFERENCES TO ARTICLES ON NONRESIDENT LICENSES. Much discussion of the license system has appeared in sportsmen’s journals in recent years, mostly in the form of brief articles and notes, and the following list of titles, arranged chronologically, has been prepared for the convenience of persons who may desire to examine this material. No attempt has been made to give a complete index of the literature of the subject, or to do more than to indicate some of the more important articles which have been consulted in the prepar- ation of this bulletin: 1875. A MEMBER, Game Protection in New Jersey. [Defense of the charter of the West Jersey Game Protective Association.] INJURIOUS HABITS. 138 prairie dog ‘ town ’ is usually cropped very short, and all tall-growing weeds are cut down. Sometimes a weed is permitted to grow to maturity on the cone-like mound at the mouth of a burrow. Only three species of weeds have been seen so growing by the writer—the horse nettle (Solanum rostratum), the Mexican poppy (Argemone), and a Euphorbia (Huphorbia marginata). ‘These afford shade to the animals, but do not obstruct the view. All other weeds, and even cultivated crops, are cut down to prevent the unseen approach of an enemy. When the cultivated crop is some rapid-growing or dense one which they can not clear away, they abandon the land rather than stay to be devoured. | But clearing the prairie-dog town of weeds is not sufficient to baffle the coyote. In the absence of hiding places he takes to new methods of hunting. J. H. Gaut, of the Biological Survey, records his obser- vations in a prairie-dog town in New Mexico: The coyote started at one end of the town and ran at lightning speed in a straight line until he cut off one from its burrow. When the prairie dog saw that it could not get to its hole, it stopped and began to kick until the coyote caught it and killed it in very much the same way that a dog kills a rat. Besides rabbits and prairie dogs, the food of the coyote is known to include the following mammals: Rice rats (Oryzomys), kangaroo.rats (Dipodomys and Perodipus) , wood rats (Veotoma), ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus, Callo- spermophilus, and Spermophilus), woodchucks (d/armota), voles (Microtus), pocket gophers (Thomomys), chipmunks (Hutamias), and pocket mice (Perognathus). All of these are more or less harm- ful, and the coyote performs an important service in preying upon them. ‘The service is not an occasional or a spasmodic one, but lasts throughout the year and throughout the hfe of the coyote. When the number of animals taking part in the work is considered, the enormous importance of its bearing in maintaining the ‘ balance of nature ’ becomes apparent. | ; The coyote is useful also as a scavenger. In the prairie country, especially in winter, 1t comes into towns at night searching for garb- age thrown into the alleys. Here it finds remnants of meat from the table, offal from game, and similar prizes. When hungry it will reject no animal food, not even carrion. The slaughterhouses near the towns are favorite feeding places, and the animals are often shot there by moonlight. On the ranges they soon consume dead horses and cattle, leaving the bones clean. INJURIOUS HABITS. Coyotes have been known to capture some of the wild animals that assist man in his warfare against insects and rodent. pests. 14 COYOTES IN THETR ECONOMIC RELATIONS. Among them are the weasels. In August, 1903, a member of the Bio- logical Survey met a coyote carrying a weasel in the Pecos River Mountains of New Mexico at an altitude of 11,600 feet. The coyote, frightened, dropped its prey and ran off. The various kinds of skunks also are probably captured and eaten. GAME DESTROYED BY COYOTES. Coyotes destroy considerable game. Birds that roost and nest on the ground are frequent victims. Quail, grouse, and wild ducks are caught on the nest, and both birds and eggs are eaten. Wild ducks and geese, when wounded and unable to fly, may be found along the banks of streams and ponds, and the coyotes regularly patrol the shores in search of them. In Oklahoma I found fresh coyote tracks each morning on the grassy borders of a large artificial pond. Ducks resorted there in considerable flocks, and I several times found that they had been eaten by coyotes, as evidenced by tracks of the animals and feathers of the birds. Like the larger wolves, the prairie wolf kills deer and antelope. In hunting these they always go in packs of two or more and take turns in the chase. They know that their prey runs in large circles, and at intervals individuals drop out of the pursuit and, crossing a chord of the circle, he in wait until the quarry passes near them again. In this way the wolves keep fresh until the pursued animal is ex- hausted, but all of them are ‘in at the death.’ The present scarcity of these large game animals gives few opportunities for such chases, but on the plains they were formerly of frequent occurrence. DEPREDATIONS ON FARM ANIMALS. The coyote is widely and unfavorably known as a destroyer of domestic animals. Its depredations upon these indicate a marked change of habit since the first settlement of the West. Previously its food was restricted to the wild animals, including young buffalo, antelope, and deer. The destruction of the larger game by man may partly account for the change to farm animals as a diet, but it is probable that the quality of the introduced food had much to do with the coyote’s preference for it. The coyote kills hens, ducks, geese, and turkeys. Its usual method of capturing them in daytime is to lurk behind weeds or bushes until the fowls come within reach. Turkeys, which range far afield in search of grasshoppers and other insects, are frequent victims. At night the coyote captures poultry from the roost, provided the door of the henhouse is left open. A correspondent of the Biological Survey wrote from Rexburg, Idaho, that one neighbor had lost 60 DEPREDATIONS ON FARM ANIMALS. | 15 chickens and another 30 in one night, taken by coyotes. Another correspondent, in Mayer, Ariz., writes: Have lost about 100 chickens by coyotes. With the exception of killing chickens, I believe them to be beneficial in keeping down the rabbit pest. In approaching: ranch buildings either by day or by night the coyote comes from the leeward side and with great caution. Once satisfied that no danger lurks in the shadows, it becomes exceedingly bold. George A: Coleman, formerly a member of the Biological Survey, wrote from London, Nemaha County, Nebr.: Depredations by wolves here upon henroosts and pigpens are of frequent occurrence. I have observed them several times. They come with a dash into the yard, take a chicken by the neck, and are gone before anyone can stop them. In the same way they visit the pigpens and take the young pigs away from the mother. In one instance they made way with eight 6-weeks-old pigs in one night. At another time two of them attacked a pig which would have weighed 75 pounds, and had they not been stopped by dogs would prob- ably have killed it. Few of the mammals of the farm are exempt from coyote raids. Even house cats, roaming far from home in search of rodents or birds, become victims. A. correspondent of Forest and Stream, writing from Shirley Basin, Wyo., October 7, 1896, says: I live on a ranch, and we are somewhat troubled by field mice and mountain rats, and so we must keep cats. We have them, but we do not keep them long, because they are caught by coyotes. Within a few months I have lost four cats in this way. The coyote has been known to kill the young of most farm ani- mals—colts, calves, pigs, lambs, and goats. Colts are seldom killed, because the dam can usually protect them. Calves are taken only when the mother cow is feeding at a distance or has gone for waiter. The coyotes le watching in the grass until this opportunity comes. Sometimes older animals are killed.. Ranchmen in Oklahoma told the writer that in winter yearling cattle in good condition are some- times killed by coyotes. To accomplhsh this two or more of them must hunt together, and get the victim separated from the herd. Capt. P. M. Thorne, writing to the Biological Survey from Fort Lyon, Colo., January 4, 1887, says: Old cattlemen who have lived here nearly all their lives agree in saying that the coyotes kill cattle, even full-grown ones. They say that they have seen them at their work, which is done in packs; they surround an animal and keep up a constant nipping at its legs until it falls from weakness and loss of blood. In July, 1893, at Farmington, Utah, Vernon Bailey saw two coyotes chasing calves and yearlings about a pasture, evidently trying to separate one from the lot. He notes that in June, 1889, at St. Thomas, Nev., coyotes killed a hog that weighed about 100 pounds. 16 COYOTES IN THEIR ECONOMIC RELATIONS. THE COYOTE’S RELATION TO THE SHEEP INDUSTRY. The coyote is especially notorious as an enemy of the sheep indus- try. In many parts of the West sheep raising has greatly languished because of the depredations of wild animals upon the flocks. While some of the injury is caused by the larger wolves, mountain lons, bears, and lynxes, the coyotes are by far the most formidable enemy. They are not only more abundant than the other animals mentioned, but they are present throughout the year, and their depredations are a steady drain upon the resources of the flock owner, comparable in extent to the losses caused by worthless dogs in many parts of the country.¢ Dr. E. A. C. Foster, writing from Russell, Kans., in 1887, said: Of mammals, the prairie wolf is perhaps the most troublesome. It is con- stantly preying upon sheep and lambs; so much so that sheep ean not be left «ione without some of them falling a prey to this animal. Should the herder be ebsent or out of view, the wolf makes a dash into the flock and usually secures a lamb. William Lloyd, writing from Paint Rock, Concho County, Tex., said : In January, 1886, coyotes killed over 50 sheep near Fort Stockton, and in March about 20 at Toyah, Tex. Charles W. Richmond, in 1888, wrote to the Stirvev from Gallatin County, Mont., relating the following incident: While we were camped near Bozeman a flock of some 4,000 sheep were driven by, and night overtook them on some foothills south of Bozeman. During the night a flock of coyotes entered the ranks and the sheep stampeded. Many ran over some bluffs, and next morning sheep, dead and dying, were several feet deep at the foot of the bluffs. Nearly 500 were counted in the pile, and for several days afterwards sheep, with lacerated ears and torn flanks, wandered into barnyards in the vicinity. The total number lost must have been heavy. In parts of the Southwest sheep growers have estimated their losses from wild animals as equal to 20 percent of the flock. The average loss reported from several States is 5 percent. In nearly all the States west of the Mississippi the industry has declined in the past two years, and one of the principal causes given is losses from coyotes. At present the industry thrives only in sections where the local’ con- ditions permit the herding of sheep in large flocks—a system highly injurious to the pasturage. It is evident that the wealth of any State could be maierially increased if it were possible everywhere to keep small flocks of sheep. locks increase rapidly under favorable conditions and good manage- ment, and the cost of keeping them is small when herders can be dis- “In 1891 the loss from dogs was placed at $152,034 in Ohio and $200,000 in Missouri. (Sheep Industry in the United States, U. S. Dept. of Agric., 1892.) a ae i COYOTES AND THE SHEEP INDUSTRY. Me pensed with. The double product, wool and mutton, usually places the profit of handling them above that of cattle or horses. The gains also come oftener, since sheep mature in a year, while cattle and horses require three. Vernon Bailey, chief field naturalist of the Biological Survey, writing from Seguin, Tex., under date of November 8, 1904, says: No sheep are kept in this part of Texas, and in talking with several intelli- gent farmers I find fhat the reason invariably given is the abundance of coyotes. The region is occupied by small farms, mainly 80 to 500 acres, on which cotton, corn, sorghum, and vegetables are the principal crops. There are few if any large stock ranches, but each farm has its pastures for horses and cattle. These pastures are the wild land covered with scattered mesquite, post oak, and patches of chaparral, and cactus. The native grasses are abundant and of excellent quality, and in this mild climate furnish good feed throughout the year. Many of the pastures are not half eaten down, and the dead and dry vege- tation becomes a nuisance. After harvest cattle and horses are usually turned into cotton and grain fields, where they do good work in cleaning up grass and weeds in the field and along the borders. Still there is abundance of feed con- stantly going to waste, and a small flock of sheep could be kept with great profit and no expense on almost every farm. Fifty to two hundred sheep on a farm would at once make this part of Texas the most important woolgrowing section of the State. Other advantages to be gained would be keeping down the cactus and chaparral, which are inclined to spread and occupy much of the ground, keeping the edges of pastures and fields cleaned up so that they would not harbor a host of predaceous insects and rodents in close proximity to growing crops, and furnishing to the farmers and small towns a supply of fresh meat other than chicken. In this warm climate beef is rarely available, except in the larger towns. The advantages of intro- ducing sheep into this part of the country are acknowledged by the farmers, and there seems to be no reason why it has not been done, except that coyotes are common, large, and fond of mutton. Similar conditions prevail in many parts of the West and over large areas. While a dozen years ago the low price of wool was an important factor in causing farmers to abandon sheep raising, in recent years the prices have been excellent. Fine washed wool was quoted in the New York market February 6, 1905, at 32.35 cents per pound and in St. Louis on the same date at 40.41 cents per pound. The price of tub-washed wool at St. Louis was at no time during 1904 less than 30 cents per pound. Unwashed wool ranged from 15 to 31 cents during most of the year. Yet the number of sheep in the United States is now decreasing. Montana, with an area of 146,000 square miles, leads the States in the number of sheep kept, which is 5,638,957. England, with an area of 50,867 square miles, has about five times as many as Montana. In Montana sheep are herded in immense flocks; in England every landowner and farmer keeps a small flock. . - | @Crop Reporter, U. S. Dept. Agric., February, 1905. 18 COYOTES IN THEIR ECONOMIC RELATIONS. It is evident that the discouraging condition of the sheep industry in the United States is not due to a lack of favorable climate nor to the absence of suitable pasturage. Neither is it due to low prices of wool and mutton. Indeed, in our markets mutton is coming to be more and more in favor, and this growing demand may be one of the causes for the present drain upon the flocks and the decrease in their numbers: but the chief discouragement of the industry un- doubtedly les in the depredations of worthless dogs and coyotes. The dog question is a serious one, especially in thickly settled parts of the country, but the evil is best remedied by a resort to taxation. The tax on dogs should be sufficiently high to put most of the worth- less ones out of existence. MEANS OF DESTRUCTION. The coyote problem is a serious one. Various methods of dealing with it have been in vogue since coyotes first began to lke mutton. None of the methods have been entirely satisfactory, and some are signal failures. All of them combined have resulted in a partial check on the increase of coyotes in most parts of their range. Poison has probably killed the greatest number of adult animals, and in some parts of Mexico has almost destroyed some of the species, but no such success has attended its use in the United States. POISONING. Strychnine has always been a favorite weapon of hunters for wolf pelts and bounties. A half century ago hunters on the prairies killed the buffalo for its pelt, and added to their income by killing the wolves that followed the daily slaughter. A little strychnine inserted in the skinned carcass of a buffalo enabled them to secure many pelts of the gray wolf and occasionally one of the coyote; but not often the lat- ter: he was regarded as much too shrewd to be taken by ordinary methods of poisoning. Besides, the pelt was small and not suffi- ciently valuable in comparison to warrant special efforts to secure it. Even in 1819 Thomas Say, who first gave a scientific name to a coyote, found this animal more abundant than the gray wolf.e Yet the number killed for their pelts has never been great. As an illustration of the covote’s shrewdness in avoiding poisoned baits, a farmer in Oklahoma gave the writer the following experi- ence: After butchering some hogs he poisoned a hogskin and left it with other offal for a coyote that nightly prowled about his prem- ises. In the morning everything but the poisoned skin had been cleared away. He left it two more nights, but it remained untouched. Thinking that the animal would not eat the poisoned bait, he buried ¢ Long’s Expedition to the Rocky Mountains, p. 168, 1823. a5 TRAPPING COYOTES. 19 it. That night the coyote dug up the pigskin and ate it, falling a victim to its deadly contents. Since then the farmer says he has never failed to poison coyotes when he buries the bait. Another method of poisoning coyotes is to insert the strychnine in small chunks of meat that can be easily swallowed. Success by. this method depends largely upon the condition of the animal as regards hunger, and may be helped by making what is known as a ‘drag’ in the neighborhood of the bait. A small animal—a bleeding dead rabbit is good—is dragged over the prairie and the morsels of bait left at intervals along the ‘drag.’ Two days previous to a general coyote hunt in Oklahoma a steer badly affected by ‘ lumpy jaw’ was killed, opened, and left in the middle of the area to be hunted. During the first night coyotes howled all night in the vicinity of the carcass, but failed to touch it. The second day a hind quarter was separated from the carcass and dragged in a cir- cuit of a mile or two, the drag coming back to the carcass. Dur- ing the following night the coyotes picked the bones of the carcass bare. Thus gorged with beef, they were in a condition favorable for their slaughter in the drive of the following day. In the use of strychnine for wolves, the dry crystals of strychnia sulphate are generally preferred. They should be inserted in the bait with a knife blade, and the meat should be handled as little as pos- sible. It should be remembered that if precautions are not taken there is a greater probability of killing dogs than wolves. The entire neighborhood should know of the intended attempt, and all valuable dogs should be confined until the operation is finished and uneaten baits disposed of. TRAPPING. Coyotes are not easily trapped. Some skill and a good knowledge of their habits are requisites for success. They travel in rather well- defined paths and usually hunt against the wind. Having a keen sense of smell, they easily detect the tracks of man, and if they have had previous experience of traps or guns they are suspicious of danger. In the wildest parts of the country remote from settlement they are more readily trapped. The chances for successful trapping decrease with their familiarity with man, so that there is little proba- bility that the process will ever have much effect on their numbers. The writer knows a Kansas trapper who is quite successful in capturing coyotes in a rather thickly settled part of that State. He uses steel traps and sets them along hedges in places where the ani- mals are accustomed to pass through openings. No bait is used and the trap is partly concealed by dead leaves or grasses. He claims that both the direction of the wind and of the animal as it approaches the opening have much to do with the chance for success. 20 COYOTES IN THEIR ECONOMIC RELATIONS. Field naturalists of the Biological Survey usually have experienced little difficulty in securing coyotes in traps. = iad OBWHNTE AND OTHER QLAILS OF THE UNITED STATES 5 IN THEIR BOONOMIC RELATIONS SViUVESTER Db. JUDD tee: _ Assisrant, Biological SuRVEY ~ ee hee WASHINGTON =) “GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ae 1905 > See FRONTISPIECE. Bull. 21, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, shea aS eee BOBWHITE IN POTATO FIELD. Poo UEP AREMIENT OBSAGRICULTURE BUREAU OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY—BULLETIN No. 21 C. HART MERRIAM, Chief THE BOBWHITE AND OTHER QUAILS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THER ECONOMIC RELATIONS Seayr oS Pik JD DD ASSISTANT, BIloLoGicaL SURVEY Ny fs ro kay oe aS i oF | | 2 PON Fy? We GN = s ale =e —— 1] id i wi oye LN9\ AR AE (Om ee we ip | as eat % aie ii f) ‘fie ie oe \G an AQ (Ne cS a ial = —s naar = ae = ie WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1905 - LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. DeparrMEeNnt or AGRICULTURE, BioLoGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D. C., July 31, 1905. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for publication as Bul- letin 21 of the Biological Survey, a report on the quails of the United States and their economic value, by Sylvester D. Judd. The quails as a group are perhaps better known through the country than any other birds. From the time of the first settlements in New Eng- land and Virginia till the present day they have been favorite objects ef pursuit by sportsmen, and are widely known as table delicacies. The chief purpose of the present paper is to consider the quails in their economic relations to the farmer—relations not so well uader- stood as they deserve to be. Investigation shows the birds to be no less important in their economic than in their other relations to man. They are found to be exceedingly valuable allies of agriculture be- cause of the quantity of noxious insects and weed seeds they destroy, while the harm they do is insignificant. I am indebted to my assistant, E. W. Nelson, for preparing: the introduction and critically reading the text, and to the Bureau of Entomology for the identification of many of the insects mentioned. Respectfully, C. Harr Merriam, Chief Biological Survey. Hon. James WILson, Secretary of Agriculture. ce CONTENTS. Page. Sintroduction ._._____._.- SoS ae EE). a Re AN Ree een a mere ii EMI NUAI EGE (COV CILUUS VOT OUIECOIUUS) =... 5 GR EN gS se a Ske 9 SER yr eme rire ee eee ete es a 10 CFE LTDE LIP OTS 2 opal all el gti we Pa 11 USED Spey 10S) 8 its A ease 5 SOR eae... ©) SiR pte) os are el eee ear oer 13 Peamiinecds 2h ally or the farmer... _ se sestve2 So ee es 14 PaewiLe-15 ai assey OF che farin:.._. MMBRe so. ee oe See 15 PrN ie a5) iva titGle OF LOO. eS Se a ee ee 16 Eoaavitine a5 at Objeet OF SPOLb 2 =... . SR ee ee ee. 16 Reaprehicnvalle OF DOMWwhite s/o M05. RR Se Se A Se Sassen 7 Meter se MisbOn withers. ec as RR ee ee Se Se Ie 18 Bericiation a. behali of bobwhite —.-. ..4222.-.-2.- 2 222. == 65-822 19 Measures for preservation and propagation ____.___________.__-_. ---- 20 Food habits _.-__- Mie ae eee eS A ee 2 ee Leh ee DRED 27 eGR ASEEOECLIEN mee peer o "MMS iyo A oy Saks SE eee hp a 28 ECR CEC aS FOOUe memes fe. Re Oe eh ee a 31 Pishomweeuesceds eaten. 222: Aye a ee ae Oe 34 Wie amd Ine SeCds aS FOGG. s. | pelea Su SN es 35 EtERE TSS LOO ee een ae me pee Pk oe 8 ee 35 Pash Obra Cates patce oo. BB te OS ee 4 Meaie ale OUUS AS FOO, Ane y. . Bee NY a Se es 37 UILSSCS SIS APOC Lata tee eae eee |e ee et A 37 Sere RCo eskie eae ee eet MN See EE Ee Pea ee 38 Misnormeeresednetioss- sneer. Won See a ee No ee 41 [ESTES COU Ds Rls Se Seek ae SS a pe ei eS ee ee le el 42 POU ears tee eee.” MS LTC Nee Ses Vass Ss Grasshoppers and allied insects eaten._________________-_____- 43 Sa ecemiiicahsr Cabo een hee Giese ae PF 44 PaesoieaveEmlarsseaben 0. 2. Sees Set Meee Sy eee 45 RiGerancous amit OOO... See Sia SE Dee ew ee 45 Med OrsLNe yOu eee oe |. pee es Sj Ge sane Ne a nid 45 mere cwonwvnite (COlmmwus TIAQWOYt).. . eee IS ee 46 eamrornia quail (Lophortyx. californieus) ..2.2.- 2222222 2-22 2. ees & te AT LTE PES PIS s ye See Wee e oadeam r eaealene @fcr er e m 49 Pasccr and Ghieranimnal fO0d. {-' gaewean oe ee 49 Wescrapie tuod: = ee RR eis te EES ae OR 50 UGeietee nr een ee oe een Ge oman Oo ey OW RS yee RS 50 ABN i os OE ea ae ee. | Ce ies eee eee ares eee 51 PSE RUES go Se Sr ae ng RRR Secg Selo te pO ae Re 52 WTCECRSECG Rte eens hi MS Seer STAR es ee 52 SPROUT hRE VOUMOR ss ne 4 | Epp a ae on es 55 Peemee ened (Loploriyx gGammbeli)~ =... Saeies 2 ok eee tk 56 EUS SUS aes PANS EG GE ee ea, Oe gn a ee Pd ee 57 Mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus) ___....--- » ESS Ae eae Sy ae ees 58 2 Did, SUSI c oe Boe Se ee eae Ua eg a ee cca ea 59 emcee COU Dem G SQUAMAt)-—~.. Bees. 222 22S 6 eee Sk 61 Seeerirememe erent ea Net | Meee tae cle ss 61 Mearns quail (Cyrtonyx montezume mearnsi) _.............-------------- 63 Food habits .......- Pee eeree no. . Mums Lr ee ae 63 aK e = AS Sg \ —# ag f sigs gta Bae Per oi + eae 2 %, oe LIST OF TERUST RATIONS ==3 Res ; PLATES. Pate I. Bobwhite --__:__.. <2... Bega e eee ee es . TT, “Gambel quadl 4 = __ 2). - - SA ee ; TEXT FIGURES. e Fig. 1. Witch prass seed. .-: 1... (ese Poe Looe 2. Crab grass seed”... 2.2... Ge Ss : 3. Knot: grass seed... 2) 2... aR ee eee 4. Mayweed seed: .-°-__-_.. Sa ee eee 5; Alfilaria seed 220 =. 3. 0: . ee eee 6. Black mustard seed ___.. . .. SRE == eee g a. Chickweed seed. 2. 5"... eae 2 8. ‘Geranium seed=: 2. /.. 2... ee ee eee 9. Sorrel’ seed-.2 2.2.2. ee iv. Chess seed 3 FE | | THE BOBWHITE AND OTHER QUAILS. OF THE UNITED STATES IN THEIR ECONOMIC RELATIONS. INTRODUCTION. The quails of the United States, because of their interesting habits and marvelous diversity of form and color, are a notably attractive . group. All are handsome birds, but the most striking and beautiful species live in the Southwest and on the Pacific coast. Seven species occur within our borders, but only one in the Eastern States. The others are widely distributed from Texas to California and Oregon. Their range was, and still is, continuous along the entire southern border of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific; but there is an irregular belt along the northern border and a large area in the interior, comprising the Great Plains, the northern three-fourths of the Great Basin, and the Rocky Mountains, in which they appear to have been originally wanting. With few exceptions our quails welcome the extension of agri- culture, and the added food supply in farmed areas results in an ‘inerease of their numbers. This is equally true of the bobwhite of the East, and of some of the desert species of the West. So fully does the bobwhite appreciate the advantages of the farm that its range has increased with the extension of the cultivated area, espe- cially west of the Mississippi. The quails, because of their cheerful habits, their beauty, and their value as food, are usually welcome on the farm; but their real value to agriculture is not yet generally understood. The investigations of the Biological Survey show that these birds, with rare exceptions, are not only harmless, but that usually they are very useful to agricul- ture., This is particularly true of the bobwhite, which constantly feeds on injurious weed seeds and insects, and thus renders valuable service to the farmer. In return for this good service it is but fair that these birds should be treated with friendly care and interest. The well-known bobwhite is the only quail indigenous to the East- ern United States, where it ranges from southern New England to Florida and Texas; but owing to climatic influences the birds of Florida and of Texas differ enough to be distinguished as geographic races. Wherever it occurs, however, the bobwhite has the same call, 5112—No. 21—05 m——2 7 8 BOBWHITE AND OTHER QUAILS OF UNITED STATES. and varies but little in habits. A closely related bird, the masked pbobwhite, inhabited southern Arizona until within a few years. Owing to dry seasons and the overstocking of its home with cattle, this bird is now supposed to be extinct within our borders; but some probably exist in parts of Sonora, Mexico. Although bobwhites are handsome birds, yet they are the plainest ouail in the United States except the ‘ cotton top’ or scaled quail of the deserts of southern Texas and Arizona. The latter is slaty bluish on the upper parts, which are ornamented with large scale- like markings, and has a whitish crest. The most bizarre and curious of all is the Mearns quail of the high, broken plains and mountain slopes of southwestern Texas, southern New Mexico and Arizona. It is short and round bodied, like a little guinea hen, and this superficial likeness is increased by brilliant round white spots ornamenting the dark sides. It is the gentlest of all the quails and is so unsuspicious that when a person encounters one it often walks unconcernedly about or stands looking curiously at the newcomer, when it is not infrequently killed with a stick or stone, a characteristic which, among the people where it lives, has earned for it the name of ‘ Fool Quail.’ The Gambel quail is a habitant of the southwestern desert region, where it ranges the brushy foothills and the valleys along water- courses. It is a beautiful bird, the head handsomely marked and adorned with a jet-black recurving crest, and the flanks bright chestnut, brillantly streaked with white. This quail, one of the most conspicuous and pleasing forms of desert lfe, is numerous wherever it can find sufficient food and water. For ages it has claimed many a remote watering place as its own, but it welcomes the settler and finds additional shelter and food in his irrigated fields. Under the new conditions its numbers increase and it repays the favors received by becoming semidomesticated. Its . presence adds a touch of bright color and animation to the dreary surround- ings of many a lonely desert ranch. The California valley quail belongs entirely to the Pacific coast, and probably is the most beautiful of the smaller gallinaceous birds of the world. It resembles the Gambel quail in its recurving black - crest and general appearance, but exceeds that bird in the richness of its colors and markings. It is abundant in most parts of Cali- fornia. The California mountain quail, the largest and one of the hand- somest of this group, inhabits the wooded mountains of the Pacific coast, and bears a superficial resemblance to the red-legged partridge — of Europe. Like the Mearns quail, its haunts are usually more remote from cultivated lands than are those of the other species. The services to agriculture of the western quails, while in most BOBWHITE. 9 eases appreciable, are far less valuable than those of bobwhite, mainly because the birds are much less insectivorous. Moreover, the Cali- fornia valley quail sometimes damages the grape crop. - The value of a single game bird is of course small, and it 1s from this narrow point of view that its relation to the community 1s usually considered. When, however, the value of any important species is worked out the result is surprising. It has been conclu- sively demonstrated that in Virginia and North Carolina alone the common quail annually destroys many tons of noxious insects and weed seeds. The great value of this service must be apparent to all who appreciate the never-ending warfare between the farmer and his hydra-headed enemies, the insects and weeds. The food value also of the quail is great, and the health and pleasure derived from their pursuit has resulted in the investment of millions of dollars. When it is generally understood that by judicious effort the numbers of these useful birds may be greatly increased, with a proportionate benefit to all concerned, it is hoped that efforts to this end will not be long delayed. THE BOBWHITE. - (Colinus virginianus. ) 4 The bobwhite is one of the most widely distributed and popular game birds of the United States, but in many places it is suffering ruthless extermination. Sportsmen, farmers, legislators, and orni- thologists, as well as the friends of birds in general, should interest themselves in the problem of its preservation. In the Northern, Western, and Middle States it is commonly known as ‘quail,’ in the Southern States as ‘ partridge.’ This tends to confusion, since 1n New England and northern New York the name ‘ partridge’ is commonly applied to the ruffed grouse. Both names were brought to America by English colonists from their Old World homes, where they are applied to species not originally inhabiting this continent. The name ‘ bobwhite ’ is from the familiar call note of the bird. In some of its characteristics bobwhite differs strikingly from other members of the family. For example, the crest—a well-developed adornment of several closely related American quails—in bobwhite is invisible except when the bird is excited. The common bobwhite ranges more or less generally over the east- ern half of the United States and southern Ontario, except in the colder, mountainous parts, from southern Maine to northern Florida, and west to South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. In addi- aThe name is used here in its broad sense to cover the typical bird of the Eastern States, Colinus virginianus, and the two subspecies, the Florida bob- white (C. v. floridanus) and the Texas bobwhite (C. v. texanus). 10 BOBWHITE AND OTHER QUAILS OF UNITED STATES. tion,.colonies have been introduced and found to thrive in various iocalities in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Idaho, California, Ore- gon, Washington, and the island of Jamaica. South of the home of the typical bird, just outlined, bobwhites have a wide range, occupy- ing Florida, western and southern Texas, Cuba, and a large part of Mexico, and extending even beyond the border of Guatemala. Owing chiefly to climatic influences the southern birds differ more or less from the northern ones. The masked bobwhite (Colinus ridgwayt), a closely related but separate species, once lived in extreme southern Arizona and the adjoining part of Sonora, but now it is probably extinct within our borders. With this exception all of the bobwhites from Canada to Guatemala and Cuba, according to EK. W. Nelson, belong to a single species modified by environment into a consider- able number of forms, some of which are strikingly different from the birds of the United States. The Florida bobwhite, which is peculiar to the peninsula of Florida, is smaller and darker than the northern bird. The Texas bobwhite of western Texas and north- eastern Mexico is about the same size as the northern one, but is paler and has a hght rufous collar below the black band and bordering the white throat patch. The Salvin bobwhite from the southern border of Mexico is very unlike the common bird of the United States, most of the head, neck, and breast being plain black and the rest of the underparts plain rufous. The present account is limited to the bobwhites of the United States, including the Texas and Florida forms. The writer’s field work in this connection has been principally in New Jersey, Vir- ginia, and Maryland—on a farm at Marshall Hall, Md., which is directly across the Potomac from Mount Vernon. CALL NOTES. In the field the nuptial call note of the cockbird is an infallible guide to its identity. This familiar challenge, sounding to the sportsman like ‘ bob white, ‘ bob-bob-white, and to the farmer like ‘more wet’ or ‘no more wet, is by no means the only note of the species during the breeding season. It was the good fortune of the writer during the last week of June, 1902, to hear the nesting note and other calls. Again and again the cock left his distant perch, where he had been whistling ‘bob white,’ and, still calling, ap- proached the nest on the bank of a little sluggish briery run between open fields. When within 50 yards of his mate he uttered the rally note, so thrilling to the sportsman in the fall, ‘ ka-loi-kee,’ which the hen often answered with a single clear whistle. Then followed » series of queer responsive ‘ caterwaulings,’ more unbirdlike than those of the yellow-breasted chat, suggesting now the call of a cat to BREEDING HABITS. 1: its kittens, now the scolding of a caged gray squirrel, now the alarm notes of a mother grouse blended with the strident cry of the guinea hen. As a finale sometimes came a loud rasping noise, not unlike the effort of a broken-voiced whip-poor-will. The favorite calling stations were rail fences at a height from 5 to 10 feet, and the limbs of trees along fence rows. One bird whistled in a tulip tree at least 85 feet from the ground. H. H. Miller reports that April 25, 1903, was the earliest date of nuptial notes at Sandy Spring, Md. After the breeding season the bird discontinues this characteristic call. During August 19-21, 1902, it was heard only on one occasion at Marshall Hall, where the birds are numerous, and ceased after u dozen repetitions. Edward A. Preble, of the Biological Survey, has recorded the ‘ bob-white’ call at Wilmington, Mass., ag late as October 20. The notes of the bobwhite in fall and winter have been described by many writers. The following quotation from Mr. Sandys gives an admirable description of the call notes of a covey that has been scattered by the sportsman and is trying to reassemble for the night, a notation so accurate as instantly to recall the notes to one who has heard them: “ Over the brow of a hill comes the low, tender cail of the hen to her youngsters, ‘ ka-lot-kee, ka-loi-kee;’ and, perhaps, irom the broomsedge beside the observer comes the loud vibrant answer, ‘ whoil-kee.’” ‘This call is usually sounded in the late after- noon, but December 31, 1901, at Woodbridge, Va., a scattered flock was heard calling persistently in the morning. On one occasion the writer watched a bobwhite whistling from a fence rail 10 feet away. At such close range the whistle lost all its melody and became a nasal shriek which was almost painful to the ear. It was repeated on an average five or six times a minute and consisted of either two or three notes, of which the first was so low as to be inaudible a hundred yards away, and the last was strikingly louder. The mode of delivery was peculiar; sitting in a normal, erect position the bird emitted the first note, then depressing the tip of the bill almost to touch its breast, with a motion as though hic- coughing, it gave the second, then throwing back its head and point- ing its bill skyward it uttered the explosive, far-reaching third note. BREEDING HABITS. The nesting time of bobwhite in each section of the bird’s range is usually limited to a fairly well-defined period, but varies consider- ably in the time of beginning, the difference being partly seasonal and partly regional. About Washington, D. C., the coveys usually break up the first part of May, one covey being seen in 1899 as late as May 9. In 1902 the first nest with eggs was found at Marshall Hall 12 BOBWHITE AND OTHER QUAILS OF UNITED STATES. on May 29, and the first downy chicks on July 6. Between the end of June and last of August seven pairs of birds were found there which had recently mated or were incubating. This was shown by ihe fact that the cock birds were flushed thirty-six times and the hens only four times. During the same season five nests were found between July 15 and 19 at Sandy Spring, Md., less than 20 miles away. One of these nests contained 24 eggs. Even larger clutches are recorded, and one nest found at Woodstock, Ohio, is reported to have contained 42 eggs.t Such large clutches probably are the product of more than one bird. In 1903 nesting appeared to be jater than in 1902, as the first eggs found were discovered July 10. The farmers at Marshall Hall say that they usually find the first downy chicks during wheat harvest, usually the last week of June. A number of broods of chicks were seen about Marshall Hall from July to September. The newly hatched young have chocolate-streaked heads, and re- semble small black and red bantam chicks. Whenever these newly ~ hatched chicks remain motionless their protective coloration renders them invisible unless one makes a most careful search. From information at hand it appears that the main breeding season for bobwhite in the Northern States, including the country about Washington, D. C., 1s during May, June, and the first half of July. Florida birds begin to breed regularly the first of April (though some are much earlier), and continue nesting till well into June. Texas birds nest mainly in April and May, but some nest as late as Septem- ber. Throughout its range some of the birds breed earlier and others later than the main body of the species, and the occurrence of second or even third broods may lengthen the season. Robert Ridgway found a clutch of freshly deposited eggs in southern Illinois on October 16, and H. C. Munger found another set in Missouri in Jan- uary, the parent being afterwards found frozen on the nest. Authen- tic records from various parts of its range show that bobwhite has been known to breed, at least occasionally, somewhere in its range every month of the year except December. This seems to prove that under certain circumstances bobwhite, like the domestic hen, will lay a clutch of eggs at any time of year. The occasional presence with the female of young of two or three sizes appears to show that at least two broods are sometimes raised in a season, but we lack definite information on this subject. Major Bendire gives twenty-four days as the period of incubation. The male is reported as sometimes assisting in this duty. 2 Forest and Stream, X, p. 399, 1878. : j ; a Se, ia GENERAL HABITS. VS GENERAL HABITS OF THE BOBW HITE. The habits of bobwhite, like those of many other birds, vary con- siderably, and the following, observed by E. W. Nelson, is a case in point. In 1875 the Wabash bottoms near Mount Carmel, Il., were covered with a magnificent forest, quite tropical in the size and luxu- riant growth of trees and other vegetation. Scattered here and there through the forest were small clearings planted to corn. Bobwhites were found about all of these clearings, and the males were commonly heard calling from the tops of tall trees in the edge of the bordering forest, and on more than one occasion were stalked and shot in the midst of the woods from tree tops more than 100 feet from the ground. When flushed in the cornfields the coveys dashed away into the forest, where they took refuge in the tree tops, thence sending forth their rallying call notes. There appears to be a tendency among bobwhites, at least in some regions, to a local migration. In certain sections, as in Virginia and Maryland, they commonly leave their summer homes on the approach of winter and congregate near the larger watercourses. In an _old number of the American Sportsman Lewis refers to this fall move- ment, and says: “At this period the birds are said to be running or traveling, and will not le to a dog; and to pursue is lost time, as it will be found utterly amipossile to keep up with them, no matter with what speed you attempt it.” The habits of the bobwhite during the hunting season are well known. The birds move about most actively and “feed in the early morning and late afternoon. The best shooting is to be had the hour before sunset, in the places where the birds have decided to spend the night. They roost on the ground, forming a solid ring with tails in and heads out. In Virginia and Maryland the roosting places are almost never in the woods, though in Mecklenburg County, Va., the writer has found them in grassy, briery little Arne among ‘pine woods. At Marshall Hall the birds were found roosting in the edges of woodland, orchards, patches of ragweed in wheat stubble, cornfields, truck plats, broomsedge, dewberry and blackberry tangles, pastures, and. fence corners. In Massachusetts Edward A. Preble found no roosts in the open fields, but found them among scrub oaks and in tall pine forests. Bobwhites habitually use a roosting ground again and again. A covey of a dozen, found the middle of November, 1899, at Marshall Hall, resorted to a corner of a peach orchard for eight con- secutive nights, and during December, 1902, a covey of fifteen on the Roanoke River bottom used a narrow strip of cockleburr, ragweed, and smartweed for ten consecutive nights. It is interesting to note that, although quail seek the woods for shelter from enemies during the day, here generally regard the open as safer at night. 14 BOBWHITE AND OTHER QUAILS OF UNITED STATES. It is the general opinion that with the on-coming of winter the bobwhite is found less often in the open fields, where withered herba- ceous plants afford but scant protection from enemies, than in dense bushy briery coverts and woods. In Maryland and Virginia the scattered and depleted coveys after the shooting season evidently unite into large bevies. Their favorite resort in severe weather is a bank with southern exposure and suitable food supply. At Marshall Hall during one of the heaviest snowfalls of the season, when the Potomac was frozen over and the thermometer lear zero, a covey was always to be found on the southeast side of a steep bank bordering a large swamp. Here the birds found food and warmth, for the rays of the sun fell on this slope so directly that even when the snow elsewhere lay from 3 to 6 inches deep it was here melted or remained only in patches. It was noticeable that when snow was on the ground the birds ventured only a few rods from cover, a fact that apparently indicated their appreciation of danger from the numerous hawks and foxes. At Kinsale, Va., the writer found bobwhites crossing open fields when there was an inch or two of snow, though for the most part they kept close to cover. In April and May the birds again venture out into the open, and they breed when vegetation is sufficiently grown to conceal the nests. At Marshall Hall little oval pits in dry soil, in which quail had been dusting, were found in various situations, usually under cover of weeds and bushes about the fields. Dusting is a part of the toilet of all. gallinaceous and many other birds, and may also be a protec- tion against vermin. BOBWHITE AS AN ALLY OF THE FARMER. In summing up the relations of the bobwhite to agriculture it will be well to emphasize certain facts developed by our investigation of its food habits. In the first place, careful observations at Marshall Hall, where the acreage under cultivation is large and the bobwhite abundant, and less extended investigations elsewhere afford no evi- dence that the species does appreciable injury to crops of grain or fruit. Further, its habit of destroying weed seeds is of much eco- nomic importance. For instance, it is reasonable to assume that in the States of Virginia and North Carolina, from September 1 to April 30, the season when the largest proportion of weed seed is con- sumed by birds, there are four bobwhites to each square mile of land, cr 354,820 in the two States. The crop of each bird holds half an ounce of seeds and is filled twice a day. Since at each of the two daily meals weed seeds constitute at least half the contents of the crop,.or a quarter of an ounce, a half ounce daily is consumed by ‘ach bird. On this basis the total consumption of weed seeds by BOBWHITE ON THE FARM. 15 bobwhites from September 1 to April 30 in Virginia and North Caro- lina amounts to 1,341 tons. It is to be remembered also that if it were not for foxes, hawks, and trespassing pot hunters the birds would be more abundant and their services correspondingly greater. Insects form about one-third of the bobwhite’s diet from June 1 to August 31; and a calculation similar to the one employed above shows that 340 tons of insects are destroyed during this period. Among the insects consumed by the bird are such very harmful pests as the Rocky Mountain locust, the chinch bug, the Colorado potato beetle, the Mexican cotton boll weevil, cutworms, the two cot- ton worms, and the army worm. The highly insectivorous chicks cause a proportionally greater destruction of insects than the adult birds. Further, while many other useful birds confine themselves to the woodland or swamp, or merely scout along waterways, hedges, and fence rows, the bobwhite feeds directly among field crops. In the South it is found in cotton fields; in the North it delights in the ragweed-grown wheat stubble; in the West its favorite feeding ground is corn fields, and it often spends the night there instead of flying to cover as do most birds. The facility with which it passes from field to field, either on foot or on the wing, distributes its serv- ices to an unusual degree. BOBWHITE AS AN ASSET OF THE FARM. Every landowner should realize the value of the bobwhite, and should demand from sportsmen a fair price for the birds killed on his property. With proper management some farms of from 500 to 1,000 acres would probably yield a better revenue from bobwhites than from poultry. » Many farms in North Carolina derive a regular income from this source. This is obtained by leasing the shooting right to wealthy sportsmen, who, in localities where birds are abun- dant, willingly pay considerable sums for the privilege. This is probably the most profitable use to which certain poor lands in the acan be put. In places in Maryland, Virginia, and North Soutl b t. In some places in Maryland, Virginia, and Nortl arolina the sportsman n pays the landowner from 5 to 25 cents Carolina the sportsman often pays the lando f to 25 cents for every bird shot. In other places the farmer or his boy is hired -as guide to locate the quail. In addition the sportsman pays lber- ally for his board and otherwise adds to the farmer’s income. Wide- -awake farmers appreciate the fact that the genuine sportsman pays well for his sport and should discriminate between him and the market hunter. Millions of dollars can be realized by the proper management of the quail crop of the United States. The time is per- haps not far distant when landowners will protect their game birds from foxes, injurious hawks, and human poachers as diligently as they now do their poultry. The sooner the farmer realizes the value 5112—No. 21—05 mM——3 : 16 BOBW HITE AND OTHER QUAILS OF UNITED STATES. of the bobwhite and the fact that the market hunter is a bird extermi- nator, profiting at the landowner’s expense, the better will be his chance of an income from his crop of quail. BOBWHITE AS AN ARTICLE OF FOOD. Perhaps no game is more generally known and liked than quail. The flesh of the bobwhite is juicy, tender, delicately flavored, easily digested, and nutritious. It is well adapted to the needs of invalids. To the farmer’s table, where fresh meat is often not obtainable, this bird furnishes a welcome supply. No game is so much sought for in market, and countless numbers are sold every year. The writer knows of a single dealer in Washington who in 1902 sold 100,000 quail. Yet the supply is.far short of the demand, and the price is constantly rising. In connection with the present price, which is $3 to $5 a dozen, it is interesting to recall Audubon’s statement that in 1810 these birds could be bought for 12 cents a dozen and in 1831 for 50 cents.t Then they were on the tables of rich and poor alike. BOBWHITE AS AN OBJECT OF SPORT. Edwyn Sandys says of the bobwhite: “He truly is the king of his race; and not alone that, for, in the opinion of hosts of enthusiastic sportsmen, he is the best bird that flies.” The well-known author T. S. Van Dyke says: “ Dear little Bob White has brought more rest to the business-wearied soul, more new life to tired humanity than nearly all other American game combined.” The pursuit of many kinds of game is possible only in the distant wilderness, where travel- ing is difficult and the exposure incident to the sport may be danger- ous to health; but the pursuit of the bobwhite belongs to open, accessible country, and is not too severe for men accustomed to a sedentary life. To thousands of such men quail hunting is the yearly means of restoration, and results in a direct benefit to the community, though one not readily computed in money value. At a conservative estimate, between 300,000 and 400,000 sportsmen go out from cities every fall to hunt bobwhite, which means a large expenditure of money, much of which goes to farmers who hold shooting land. Such revenue is timely, for it comes when farm work yields small returns and employment is welcome. Where nonresident licenses are required, with fee of from $5 to $25, the State also derives a direct income from the sport. | The bobwhite deservedly stands at the head of American game birds, because it lies so well to the dog, and when flushed springs from the earth like an arrow, demanding a quick eye and a trained @ Ornith. Biog., I, p. 392, 1831, ESTHETIC VALUE. By touch on the trigger to bring it to bag. When, at the advance of the hunter, the covey explodes like a bomb, his skill is sharply tested if he would bring one of the whirring, meteorlike projectiles to the ground. Birds of a scattered covey are hard to find. Good authori- ties say that when they alight they remain quiet and compress their feathers to the body, with the result of withholding the scent. Many sportsmen, therefore, before hunting a scattered covey, grve them time to run about and leave scent. Paradoxical as it may seem, sportsmen exert a powerful influence for the protection of bobwhite. Many individuals and clubs own or lease large tracts, where they maintain the birds and shoot only the surplus. These enthusiasts assist in the enforcement of game laws, restock depleted covers, and provide food for the birds in times of scarcity. Certain clubs are organized for the purpose of holding field trials, the object of which is to test the ability of competing dogs to find and point birds. As retrieving is not required, the birds are not shot. One of the best-known patrons of field trials recently told the writer that he had not killed a bobwhite in ten years. A number of clubs control each a preserve of from 5,000 to 20,000 acres, on which no shooting is allowed—or, if permitted, is carefully regulated—and suitable measures are taken for protecting birds and facilitating their propagation. These trials are held in a score or more of States, and in some of the larger contests more than a hundred dogs are entered. Some owners of field-trial dogs have preserves of their own, stocked with hundreds of pairs of bcbwhites. Thousands of live birds for the above purposes are in-demand, at high prices. If the bobwhite could be domesticated and reared in captivity for sale, the enterprise would doubtless be very profitable. From these facts it is evident that the sport of hunting bobwhite contributes to the health and hap- piness of thousands of men, and that in various ways it can be made to add to the prosperity of farmers and others interested. ESTHETIC VALUE OF BOBWHITE. Much money has been spent, and well spent, merely for the enjoy- ment of the beauty and companionship of birds. For the protection of gulls and terns along the Atlantic coast thousands of dollars have been expended at the instance of bird lovers, in whose eyes these “delicate and graceful creatures are the crowning attractions of marine landscape. In like manner the admirers of bobwhite derive esthetic pleasure from his presence. To pastoral inland scenes—woodlots in a green mist of young leaves, summer grass fields and bushy pas- tures, brown stubble, and skeleton cornfields—the bobwhite adds a distinctive charm—homely, but none the less attractive. As the bird * ee a a ~S . as 4 4 . és 18 BOBWHITE AND OTHER QUAILS OF UNITED STATES. calls from the fence post or runs fearlessly across the road, the stroller can but admire its trim, alert figure and tasteful color pattern of black, white, and brown, set off with delicate tintings of blue-gray. Its mellow whistle seems a proffer of good-fellowship, investing even a solitude with cheer, while the plaintive covey-call heard in the growing darkness to summon a scattered flock to the nightly resting place is one of the tenderest of evening sounds. Be- cause of such traits the bird has made many friends, some of whom spend time and money to insure its undisturbed presence in their neighborhood. DECREASE OF BOBWHITE. Every few years, on the recurrence of unusually severe winters with — heavy snows which cover the food supply, great numbers of bob- whites perish, and sometimes in the northern part of its range the bird becomes almost extinct. This unnecessary loss of life could be largely prevented if landowners and others interested would scatter a little grain in suitable places. This is done in some localities, as at Sandy Spring, Md., where H. H. Miller drives over the snow-covered country, scattering grain for the starving quail. The practice 1s worthy of general adoption. It is necessary only while the ground: is snowbound, and especially after sleet storms. The bobwhite has taken kindly to civilization and has followed the plow of the settler into new sections, so that with the advance of the farming area in the West, and especially in the Northwest, its range has been much extended. There is little doubt, however, that, while the bobwhite is a fairly hardy and prolific species, its numbers are decreasing in much, if not all, of its range, where not specially protected. In the early fifties Lewis reported 61 birds killed in a day to a single muzzle loader. and mentions 900 birds trapped on one estate in a season. Within the last few years the scarcity of bobwhites has been so notable that sev- eral projected field trials have been abandoned for lack of birds on which to try the dogs. Severe winters, as already noted, are an occasional cause for a great decrease in the number of the birds, though they increase rapidly with a few succeeding good seasons. In sections where the birds are still common unlimited slaughter is often indulged in by thoughtless hunters. Recent instances of such slaughter are on record, and the following may be cited: A bag of 175 birds to three guns in eight hours in the fall of 1902 at Tiffin, Ohio, another of 300 birds to a single gun in a day and a half in the fall of 1902, in Marshall County, Ky.,’ and still another of 292 birds to three guns in a day in South @ Recreation, vol. 17, p. 120. 6 Ibid., vol. 19, p. 41. “J : - LEGISLATION. 19 Carolina during the same season.t. The value of this bird, both to the farmer and the sportsman, renders the question of its maintenance and increase one of much importance. So assiduously is the bob- white sought by sportsmen and market hunters that intelligent and concerted efforts are needed even to maintain its present numbers. LEGISLATION IN BEHALF OF BOBWHITE. In addition to natural causes, reasons for the diminished numbers of bobwhites are diversity in the open season, shooting out of sea- son, excessive shooting in season, and unrestricted shooting and trapping for market. Lack of uniformity in laws of adjoining States, and in some cases of adjoining counties, renders their observ- ance difficult and their enforcement often impossible. No other game bird has been the subject of so much legislation, which, begin- ning in New York in 1791, now extends to every State and Territory where the bird is native or has been introduced. The length of sea- son during which the bird should be protected by law is a matter of paramount importance. It goes without saying that no shooting should be permitted during the breeding season, which must be understood to last until the young of the year are strong of wing and fully developed for the struggle for existence. Besides this the close season ought to include months of rest, during which the birds can fortify themselves for the physiological strain of the next period of reproduction. As now established the open season varies from twenty-one days in Ohio to seven months in Mississippi. In North Carolina, however, where nearly every county has its own law, the bobwhite may be shot throughout the year in five counties. Virginia has recently abolished county laws and established uniformity, an example that other States, especially Southern States, would do well to follow. It is gratifying to note that in 1903 the open seasons were shortened by New York, Illinois, Texas, and Virginia. In eight States—Maine, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Mon- tana, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah—the bobwhite is- absolutely protected for a term of years, extending to 1920 in Colorado. Two conditions justify such prohibition of shooting. First, when ex- cessive shooting or other causes have made recuperation necessary ; second, when birds just introduced into a new locality need time to ‘establish themselves. Wherever the bird can not hold its own with an open season of three weeks absolute protection for a period of years is demanded. The length of the open season must vary with varying conditions, but in view of the general decrease of the birds there would seem to be a growing need for shortening it. The sooner Northern States limit their shooting to one month the better. Even @ Recreation, vol, 16, p, 372, 20 BOBWHITE AND OTHER QUAILS OF UNITED STATES. Southern birds can not stand the present continuous fusillade of from four to seven months, and the open season in the South shouid be limited to two or, at most, three months. . The slaughter of the bobwhite by sportsmen who hunt for pleasure is insignificant in comparison with that by professional market hunters. At the present time (1904), in about 25 States, the law takes cognizance of this fact by prohibiting the sale of birds killed within the State or imported from other States, and the general tendency altogether to prohibit the sale is growing each year. Every State except Mississippi forbids the sending of certain game outside the State—a restriction on the sportsman as well as the market hunter, although the privilege of carrying home a limited amount of game is often granted under a nonresident license. Fourteen States have laws, also affecting both classes, limiting a day’s bag to from 5 to 50 birds. Many sportsmen and farmers would be glad if the limit were set at 12. Laws discriminating against nonresidents protect the game and benefit the landowner, provided visiting sports- men are not barred altogether by unreasonable fees. Thirty-one States and Territories require nonresident licenses. In addition to State game laws there are certain Federal laws, the most important of which is the Lacey Act, which provides, among other things, through the Department of Agriculture, for the preservation, distri- bution, introduction, and restoration of game birds, and also under- takes to bring to justice persons who transport from one State to another game killed in violation of local laws. The latter clause proves effective in restricting such illegal shipments and in suppress- ing professional dealers that kill out of season in one State and attempt to sell in another where the season is still open. =. aa | FOOD HABITS. oo In Mecklenburg County, Va., during the last week of December, 1902, a covey of a dozen bobwhites resorted to a cornfield to feed on the shining black seeds of smartweed, often a troublesome plant cn low ground. In Westmoreland County, November, 1901, bobwhites fed freely on seeds of clhmbing false buckwheat, which festooned all the shrubbery along streams and afforded the birds admirable cover as well as food. The seeds of knot grass (fig. 3), a species related to the smartweeds and false buckwheat, also contribute to the food of the bobwhite. The fondness of bobwhites for leguminous seeds has already been mentioned. On the edge of woodlands, along hedgerows, and to some extent in open ground, they consume large quantities of seeds of tick-trefoil, 2 Japan clover, and bush clover, and their A crops have been found distended with these ee eee _ pee seeds. They also find the partridge pea (From Bull. 38, Nevada Ag- massed in great patches at Marshall Hall 9 [cute Se ae and in some places in Virginia, but it appears to be of less importance to them. A few stomachs contained as many as 100 of these seeds. In several sections the butterfly pea was eaten in about the same proportion as the partridge pea. The hog peanut, hke the butterfly pea, a trailing plant bearing a small grayish-brown bean, furnished several times as much food as the partridge pea and butterfly pea combined. Of these seeds 600 are sometimes eaten at a meal. Southern birds relish the Florida coffee seeds and lupine seeds. Seeds from locust pods also are frequently eaten by the bobwhite. In the northeastern part of its range the bobwhite has been reported as feeding on seeds of the 1ll-scented skunk cabbage. Four of eight birds shot in October, 1902, at Wilmington, Mass., by Edward A. Preble, of the Biological Survey, had eaten them. These seeds are somewhat flattened and subspherical, and average about three-eighths of an inch in diameter. Two crops were filled with them, one con- taining 10 of these great seeds. This plant, abundant in northern swamps, may furnish food for birds in game preserves. _ Seeds of different species of violets are often eaten. In some cases the three-valved seed pods, each valve containing a dozen or more seeds, had been swallowed entire. Seeds make up 50.36 per cent of the bobwhite’s food, and a quantitative study of it shows that the grass family contributes 9.46 per cent; leguminous plants, 15.52 per cent; smartweed and other polygonums, 4.41 per cent: ragweed, 7.28 per cent; and miscellaneous weeds, 13.69 per cent. The number of seeds _ ww . SR een eal AR ed ea 16 breeding habits ______ ae si ae A Fens ee Ace ee eh) dl ge abe DLL TCS ce ra IE Sa a ee Ne SN eed ea ec 10 SE DIREY GE) ok i a ea a a ei TS 18 esthetic value____-_ SE Sh) ST 7a SS GE pare ak WE ec aly CREE LAPT) OTE aie ee ft: is agenteae ein ee ete ar PCT ha) 27-46 aenerak habits = 2) sean Oe 1 OY RR et 4 es ORY Senn yn /-0 oR te! Mary ak fics feaIsiatiom regarding = J. Sea ae ape Oe Ae 19 preservation and propagation ____________ = SY SE A Bl Sa Meee «Ce 20-26 re OBE esis Rima peters tees yd eo So Ses ee ee 23-26 Peete NENT ES oo eS a on LR Seg Ri ey ba 11-12 Bee SerOud Or WODWINILG. - i. 245 8 a ee alli as at as 30 Buss eaten by bobwhite ______._________ Ls RT NR LE Sie ie Rea 42 POEM WALL So oe ae =e Ree A wea Be ee SETS) OOC OILS 9 xd re ee 1 eae es 22 Aree gue ipl: 5 rnd e 49 SPePRUT A CMOUTEA TON (fA s 2 2 Sel es ol oe ee e 8 valley quail ______ ee ee Se Ne eB peas ee aig era 53. °8 BeMenpeIs ler SU Uraniiaitas = 8k Ee SV A ee pe Bian PE Oto Pere ESeareh Dy, DODW Hite 222 ee 44 mats ridewayi- = "== Banh 2 ame ea See ete Oe NSE, 46 anni ee MEE eT RN semanas eerie ie ae Ce gre SS DE Ne a SP ee er 299 Cyrtonyx montezumze mearnsi_____-__-__- 2 SS 2 2 63 oo SEBS UE” YOCSUD iL Va Sie De ne gp 18-19 DMMEPLAD ITS Ols@aIihOrmia Quail =) fo ro Bees ee ee 45 Gam bels ail see Rite! 8. Sa eae ase Mee 2 head ae OT IP ATEIMS "Qa ee oe Se Bae sy Stee Dom eeaeNe 2 oS 6: PP SRO GH 92 1100 WCE |UD EE 1 RE ee ge a Sl Ne Reine. a) OGD Scale (Ue Gp Rea be sn eee pa a Se cee ae a2 GiS Gs Peer youn bobwhite= 1252.2 ee ees 5S RO a epee 45 CAO RMI eG ee ee os es Se a 55 EESTI IEA Se a RI ee ae et eg RR gl KG Bes ED i peg 8 meno as food of bobwhite____.______--_---_._=- ee dies RP apse ares) aN ana: OL) eet SPE MEMORY ReCU FOUN QUE ks = 20-5 ee es ee 50 Bearer (Uall, 228s He Ao ae fe ee ee Ss LOCH as MePRUIMINEE SD UH coete re Mere ee ee ie EUS ee nr eS 57, 58 Pee wtenouyeC AMLOrmic, QUAN 22. 2 2 ee 51 PROC Olen OMW TNC eS So <= NE Se 28-31 Pee Memers Cate Dy) NOUN ENC. 5 ee 43, 4+ Peomne, Heetles.eaten by bobwhite_.--....-- 2-4. Le 2 38, 41 Pe EOC Orns I rOrilieyt OUall == 252. ee ee 49 Pee etc OL WOM NY MLbCs: oot Se ee ee 37 Wear-eatineg beetles eaten by bobwhite______-.-~__-________--_.--.-=._ 39, 41 Pree me OOM OF DODW HILG =< 26252210 oo ee es ee Se 37 eyeing Oia Seria 02 TA | 0 0 ee es 9 ea Ed 52 PMs penal O1. DODWNteG 2202-22 bobs ee 19-20 66 INDEX. ie Page. — Lophortyx californica __.-_: ___- ===> a eee AT-565 vallicola _-2 =) SSRs 8 3 47-56 gambelix. i - ___ 2. {5 ee eee 56-58 - Masked ‘bobwhite .22. 2... 3 = = Sa eee AGS Mast-as food of-bobwhite.__.2 22°22 =a eee 25 Mearns’ quail .__._ 224. /____-_ 2 ee ee 8, 63 Bs food habits _. <2) + ___- _. 5 ee 63 Miscellaneous animal food of bobwhite 2222 =5— aaa ART Mountain quail 2-25 . 1. = eee - 58-60 food habits 222. eee ee 58-60 — Oreortyx pictus £22022. b2-. ee e — 58-60 plumiferus ____+-==2 Se 58-60 — Pine seeds, food of bobwhite___._2- 2-222 2202 Ss ee 3 Sealed. quail 22.265) 0 22 2 2 ee ee ee 61-62 food “habits: ae 61-62 4 Vegetable food of California: quall=== === == a= Ses epee es 59 Weed seeds as food of bobwhite2_|_ == 3) 52 eee 31-35 _ eaten by California quail2= 3 = =/2s 2 eee 5D Weevils eaten by bobwhite.__-.-_-__--) = ==) a eee > 6 HART MERRIAM, Chief % = 5 € _ VERNON BAILEY ‘ CHIEF FIELD NATURALIST, BIOLOGICAL SURVEY S : { _ WASHINGTON | NT PRINTING OFFICE - + Fe Ba bank ae PARTMENT OF AGRI BIOLOGICAL SURVEY——BULLETIN No. 22 C. HART MERRIAM, Chief BIRS KNOWN TH EAT THE BOLL WHEL VERNON BAILEY CHIEF FIELD NATURALIST, BIOLOGICAL SURVEY WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1905 Pretier OF TRANSMITTAL. U. 8S. DeparTMENT oF AGRICULTURE, BrotocicaL SURVEY, Washington, D. C., July 25, 1905. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith for publication as Bul- letin No. 22 of the Biological Survey a preliminary report upon birds m their relation to the boll weevil, by Vernon Bailey. In view of the fact that this destructive insect continues to extend its range into unoccupied cotton regions, it is obvious that no factor in the warfare against it can safely be neglected. The relation of birds to the boll weevil and the extent of dependence that can be placed upon the former in limiting its inroads are not well understood. As requests from the cotton districts for information upon the subject have been many and urgent, field investigations, of which the present bulletin is the first outcome, are now being conducted by the Biological Sur- vey, with a view to ascertaining the particular birds which perform the most important service in preying upon the weevil, to the end that special protection be extended to such species. Respectfully, A. K. FisHer, Acting Chief, Biological Survey. Hon. James WI.son, Secretary of Agriculture. Os COE Nh Ese _ J CHEGUIOU A Oe ees A ie ea ee eee Field notes _____-- ARIE aoe O11 TR ea ae ean Wena 2 Condition of cotton fields during investigations Conditions of bird life during investigations Decrease in number of weevils __...-____.----.- Examination of bird stomachs___..____.__-_--- Investigations by Bureau of Entomology -_-_-__-. Conclusions and recommendations ____.. ___--- List of birds which had eaten boll weevils .-. -- _ BIRDS KNOWN TO EAT THE BOLL WEEVIL. INTRODUCTION. For several years past the cotton growers of Texas, as is well known, have sustained enormous losses through the ravages of cotton boll weevils. Remedial measures of various kinds have been tried, but, though some of these undoubtedly have proved more or less effective, the number of insects does not seem to have been materially reduced, and their progress into other cotton-producing districts has been steady, the borders of their range widening yearly. The extent to which the native birds feed upon this, one of the most destructive insect pests that have ever appeared in the United States, is yet but imperfectly understood, and investigations are now being conducted by the Biological Survey with a view to determin- ing just what species feed upon the weevil and the extent to which it enters into the fare of each. The fact that for the past twelve years the weevil has been steadily spreading over the cotton-producing area forbids the assumption that birds are likely ever to exterminate the insects. Nevertheless, as will appear from facts presented below, certain species prey upon the weevil to a greater or less extent, and it is probable that by care- fully protecting such species and by encouraging their increase the good work they now do may be greatly augmented in the future. Thus, the question of extermination aside, birds are likely to prove an effective ally in checking the increase of the pest. The fact that other species of weevils are a favorite diet with many of our insec- tivorous birds has been proved by previous investigations.* More- over, it is well known that when a new insect first appears in a district birds are somewhat slow in acquiring a taste for it and in sufficiently learning its haunts and hiding places to effectively pursue and capture it. It is probable, therefore, that some birds which at present are not known to attack the weevil at all will later acquire a taste for it, and that others which now feed upon it sparingly will in future feed upon it to a greater extent. The present report is in response to urgent appeals from the @¥ood of Bobolink, Blackbirds, and Grackles, by F. BE. L. Beal, Biological Survey Bulletin No. 18, pp. 22, 44, 52, 69, and 189. 8 BIRDS KNOWN TO EAT THE BOLL WEEVIL. infested and threatened cotton districts for reliable information as to the species of birds which feed upon the boll weevil. Field work for the purpose of obtaining this information was begun at Seguin, — Guadalupe County, in southern Texas, October 31, 1904, and was carried on at several localities in the boll weevil district until Decem- ber 16. Investigations now in progress in the field and laboratory will cover the remainder of the year, including the season of greatest abundance and activity of the weevils, and will furnish material for more general and definite conclusions. In the course of their investigations of the boll weevil the Eaten gists of the Department examined the stomachs of a large number of birds collected in and around the cotton fields, and the results appear m Bulletin 51 of the Bureau of Entomology, on the Mexican Cotton Boll Weevil. These results have been tabulated and appear in the summary of the present report. FIELD NOTES. The following field notes relate only to the birds found to have eaten boll weevils. Carolina wren (7hryothorus ludovicianus).—Carolina wrens were common at Columbus, Eagle Lake, and Wharton, were fairly abun- dant at Navasota, and a few were seen at Seguin. They were rarely found in the fields, but were constantly dodging in and out of the brush heaps, log piles, and vine tangles, running over the rough bark of old trunks and roots and logs, peeking and peering and pick- ing in all of the dark corners overlooked by larger species, and even hunting among the dry leaves on the ground under logs and brush. They were generally in pairs, and sometimes two pairs were found in one brush heap, while almost every thicket or vine tangle contained one or several of the birds. Those observed were apparently perma- nent residents. Seven were shot, 5 of which had eaten boll weevils tor breakfast, and one of these had eaten 2, making 6 weevils to 7 birds at one meal. As all but one of the birds were taken after the frosts, there is no reason to doubt that the good work of this species goes on throughout the winter. Titlark, Pipit (Anthus pensilvanicus) —T itlarks were first seen at Columbus, November 14, and this evidently was about their first appearance. Large flocks were seen in the cotton fields the next day. and at Eagle Lake and Wharton a few days later. At Navasota they were still numerous in flocks of 100 or more at the time of my departure, December 16. At Wharton and Eagle Lake, where most of the birds were collected, flocks of 100 to 500 were constantly in the cotton fields, seeking food as they ran or walked.over the ground. ‘When flushed they flew to another part of the field or to a neighbor- ing field, disappearing among the cotton stalks. The eight indi- FIELD NOTES. 9 viduals shot contained remains of five boll weevils. Allowing the birds only two meals a day, at this rate they would consume 125 per cent of their own numbers in boll weevils daily. Considering the abundance of these birds, none of the other species collected equal them as weevil destroyers, at least at this particular season. It is perhaps of interest to add that the titlarks breed in great numbers above timber line in the high mountains of New Mexico, Colorado, and northward, and winter in still greater numbers in southern Texas. | Black-crested titmouse, Tomtit (Lwolophus atricristatus).—Tomtits were fairly common at Seguin and Navasota, in their usual resident numbers. They hunt mainly over the branches and trunks of the trees, where they pry into all the cracks and crevices of bark and broken wood. Only 2 were shot, 1 of which had eaten a boll weevil. Western meadow lark (Sturnella magna neglecta).—The western meadow larks were seen from the train between Austin and San Antonio, October 28, rising in flocks of 10 to 100 from almost every cotton field along the railroad. In one field of not more than 20 ‘acres 108 birds were counted. At Seguin they were abundant from October 31 to November 12, and at Eagle Lake they were common to November 19 over the open country, or, sometimes, in company with the more common Florida form, argutula, in the fields. At Navasota they were still abundant on the open prairie and in fields up to December 16, but less common in the fields and wooded country than argutula. ‘These dates merely indicate that the meadow larks had arrived in full force from the north before my arrival in the field and remained in undiminished numbers to the time of my departure after the middle of December. The greater number of those sent in for examination were shot from November 1 to 12 at Seguin, where only neglecta was found. Here it was one of the most abundant birds in the fields. In walking across a 40-acre cotton field I usually flushed 200 or 300 western meadow larks. In corn and sorghum fields the birds were just as common, but as fully three- fourths of the fields in this region are devoted to cotton the greater numbers of birds were found in the cotton fields. The open nature of these fields, with the partial concealment and protection offered _ by the rows of cotton stalks, makes them favorite feeding ground for the larks. The 18 boll weevils eaten by the 64 birds probably represent a fair average of the number of weevils eaten at one meal at this season. Allowing the birds at least two meals a day, the birds safely may be assumed to destroy over 50 percent of their own.number in weevils daily. This good work ¢arried on throughout the fall and winter months can not fail to have an important effect on the next year’s crop of weevils. | 10 BIRDS KNOWN TO EAT THE BOLL WEEVIL. Florida meadow lark (Sturnella magna argutula).—The Florida meadow larks were first found at Eagle Lake, November 18, where they were more numerous than neglecta, with which they were asso- ciated in the cotton fields. At Wharton they were common and the only form found. By the nature of the country they were restricted io the large cotton and cane fields which occupy the only clearings in the heavy forest; and until the sugar cane is cut, usually late in November, the larks were practically restricted to the cotton fields. At Navasota they were common up to my departure, December 16, and their favorite resorts were the cotton and corn fields of the tim- bered river bottoms. Here the western meadow lark was associated with them to some extent, but seemed to prefer the open prairie strips of this half-forested region. In abundance and habits the Florida form does not differ greatly from the western meadow lark, and the conclusions in regard to one would apply in a general way to both. The slightly smaller proportion of boll weevils eaten by argutula is probably due to the fact that the specimens were collected later in the season. Common phebe (Sayornis phabe)—The common phecebe was the only. member of the flycatcher group seen, and it was common at every locality visited from November 1 to December 16. It is a winter resident only in this part of Texas, arriving usually in October and remaining till April. As it did not diminish in numbers up to the middle of December, it evidently remains in full force thrqughout the winter. It frequents brushy and open country and is often found during feeding hours sitting on top of a cotton plant or cornstalk out in a field. In walking across a cotton field half a dozen birds were sometimes seen. Most of their food was taken on the wing, but they often dived to the ground in pursuit of insects. The fact that 2 out of 10 birds had eaten boll weevils suggests that the several other species of flycatchers which spend the summer in the boll- weevil region may do important service in snapping up weevils on the wing during the period of greatest activity of the insect. Redwing blackbird (Agelaius pheniceus).—A few redwing black- birds were found at Seguin November 7; two days later several small — flocks were seen; and by the 12th they were fairly common in flocks of 20 to 50. At Columbus a few were shot from a flock of 100 or more in a cotton field November 15, and other large flocks were seen. At Eagle Lake, on the edge of the prairie, November 16 to 19, the red- wings in flocks were innumerable, and I could only estimate them at hundreds of thousands of individuals. Numbers of cowbirds were in these flocks, but. most of them were redwings. At a distance the flocks looked like clouds of smoke, but hearer, as they rose and wheeled and circled over the fields, they suggested rapidly moving clouds or dust in the desert. As they settled down, they blackened FIELD NOTES. Nal! the stacks of rice straw, fences, and trees, or disappeared in the rice stubble or fields of weeds. Those in the cotton fields were lighting on the trees and tall weeds along the fence rows and making side trips “in squads of 1,000 or so to different parts of the fields. As these flocks settled among the cotton stalks, it was probably mainly for grass and weed seeds, which with broken rice comprised the contents of most of the crops and gizzards, but the fact that 2 out of the 27 individuals shot had eaten boll weevils is of some significance in consideration of the vast numbers of the birds. Western savanna sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus ) .—- Western savanna sparrows were abundant at all of the localities visited during the time of my stay in Texas. They are so small and inconspicuous as to escape general notice, but as I walked through the cotton fields they were constantly darting out from before me, running to right and left to avoid flight, or flying a short distance and dropping again into the grass. Out of 18 shot only 1 was found to have eaten a boll weevil, so the importance of the species is not great, even considering the abundance of the individuals. White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis).—White-throated sparrows were first seen at Eagle Lake November 16, where they took the place of the white-crowned sparrow found at Seguin. They were common at Wharton and extremely numerous at Navasota up to the close of my work. Their favorite feeding grounds were in the thickets and brushy borders of fields, where they were constantly rustling among the weeds and leaves in search of food. Of the 9 specimens collected only 1 had eaten a boll weevil. Brown thrasher (7oxostoma rufum).—One brown thrasher was seen at Columbus November 15 and one at Wharton November 17. A few were seen at Liberty November 21, and they were common throughout the Big Thicket country near Saratoga and at Navasota up to December 16. At Navasota, where all of the specimens were procured, December 10 to 15, they were fairly abundant in the thickets and brush rows around the edges of fields. Individuals were easily located at some distance by the noise they made scratch- ing and running among the dry leaves, and a good many were shot in the hope that they were unearthing and eating boll weevils. Of the 28 specimens, however, but 1 had eaten a boll weevil. Texas bobwhite (Colinus virginianus texanus).—Thirty-five speci- mens of Texas bobwhite were collected at Seguin between November -2 and 12, where at the opening of the hunting season they were abundant. Later a few flocks were seen at or near Columbus, Eagle Lake, Wharton, and Navasota, but at all of these places they were comparatively scarce and the flocks were scattered and wild. At Seguin almost every field and pasture contained one to three coveys of 10 to 20 quail, which were generally to be found not far from their 12 BIRDS KNOWN TO EAT THE BOLL WEEVIL. chosen roosting thickets or feeding grounds. On many of the farms one or more flocks had taken up quarters close to the houses or in the orchard or garden and had become comparatively tame. At Mr. Neel’s place, where most of my work was: done, a flock of about a dozen birds lived in the orchard, garden, and barnyard, and when frightened rarely flew beyond these limits. The farthest from the house that I ever found them was in the edge of the adjoining cotton field, where toward sundown they were often seen feeding. Mr. Neel called my attention to the fact that about one-third more cotton had been gathered from the part of the field near the house, where his 100 chickens and these quail habitually fed during the summer, than over the rest of the field. At the farther end of this field another flock of 8 or 10 quail lived in the mesquite brush and made daily rounds out into the field to feed. The birds were shot in other fields farther from the house, and in all cases either out in the fields, where they were usually found feeding during the morning and evening hours, or,in the brush along the edges of the fields, where they roosted at night and were generally found during the middle of the day. The fact that at this time the quail were feeding almost exclusively on weed seeds was evidently due to the great abundance of freshly ripened seeds. During the summer months the quail, especially the young, are known to feed to a much greater extent on insect food, and it is reasonable to expect that later in the season, especially dur- ing the winter and spring months, after the weevils have left the cotton, the quail scratch them up from under leaves and rubbish. CONDITION OF COTTON FIELDS DURING INVESTIGATIONS. At the beginning of the field work at Seguin, October 31, 1904, cotton picking was just completed; but owing to recent rains a sec- ond crop of leaves, buds, and young bolls had started on the tops of the cotton plants, and the weevils were actively engaged in feeding on the buds or young bolls within the cover of the closed squares. The weevils apparently were less abundant than during the summer months, and as their breeding season seemed to have closed they were probably also less active. Otherwise, the conditions so far as related to the weevils were essentially the same as in summer. These condi- tions were unchanged up to November 12, when the first hard frost of the season occurred over most of southern Texas, including Se-— guin, where investigations were in progress at the time. Most of the cotton was killed, and by the third day the weevils had left the dead — and dried-up cotton tops and disappeared. Still, a few fields or parts of fields escaped the frost, and from November 13 to 20, in the vicin- ity of Columbus, Eagle Lake, and Wharton, a large number of birds were shot in and around these fields to determine whether they were ; DECREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEVILS. 13 eating more than the usual number of weevils, as the insects were driven from the cover of the protecting bracts and forced to seek - winter quarters. Still later, at Navasota, December 10 to 16, long after all the cot- ton had been killed and dried up and the weevils forced to seek winter quarters, 100 birds were collected, mainly in woods, brush, and weed patches surrounding the cotton fields. As no boll weevils could be found in the cotton fields at this time it is fair to assume that they had gone into winter quarters. Such, briefly, was the status of the cotton fields in relation to the weevils during the investigations. CONDITIONS OF BIRD LIFE DURING INVESTIGATIONS. At the several localities the species of birds inhabiting the cotton fields varied from time to time. At Seguin western species predomi- nated, while at Wharton and Navasota mainly eastern birds were found. During the time covered by the investigations the resident summer birds were leaving and the winter species were arriving. Many of the insectivorous summer residents, such as orioles, flycatch- ers, swallows, martins, night-hawks, and whip-poor-wills, had disap- peared when the work began, and their places were filled by numerous seed-eating migrants of the sparrow family. Moreover, the well- known change of food habits of resident species, like the quail, which are largely insectivorous during the summer and mainly seed-eating during the fall and winter, when the present investigations were chiefly made, must be taken into account in estimating their value as destroyers of weevils. DECREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEVILS. Of the 354 birds killed, approximately 10 per cent had eaten boll weevils. Examination of the stomachs collected at different dates shows a slight decrease in the number of weevils eaten as the season advanced. In round numbers, those eaten during the period of green cotton, October 31 to November 12, were 11 per cent of the number of birds killed; for the period of change from green to dry after the first hard frost, November 13 to 20, 10 per cent of the number of birds; for the period of dry cotton after the disappearance of the weevils, December 10 to 16, 8 per cent. The fact, as stated above, ‘that fewer weevils appear in the stomachs of birds shot during the later period than in the earlier one, is evidently due to the diminished supply of weevils. ~ Out of the 38 species of birds collected which had not eaten boll weevils, 17 species were represented by only 1 specimen each, hence © the negative evidence in regard to these is of little significance. If greater numbers of the same species had been collected or if they had a Se wv. 14 BIRDS KNOWN TO EAT THE BOLL WEEVIL. \ been collected at another season they might appear among the number of enemies of the weevil. EXAMINATION OF BIRD STOMACHS. It being found impracticable in the field to determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the birds had eaten boll weevils, all stomachs were preserved and sent to Washington, where they were examined and the boll weevils identified by Prof. F. E. L. Beal, of the Biological Survey. INVESTIGATIONS BY BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY. In Bulletin No. 51, published by the Bureau of Entomology, on the Mexican Cotton Boll Weevil, are given the results of the examina- tion by Mr. E. A. Schwarz of the stomachs of 17 species of birds. These birds are added to the list presented below, and indicated by stars, and the data are utilized in the general conclusions. Except those of the mourning doves and quail, the stomachs were taken from birds collected at Victoria, Tex., and of these “100 were obtained during the last week of February, 7 during June, 3 during July, 26 during August, and 380 between September and December.” Out of the 17 species of birds, 11 species had eaten boll weevils, as appears in the following table. These 11 species comprised 237 individuals, of which 44 individuals had eaten boll weevils. The 6 species of birds that had not eaten weevils were mourning dove, quail, redwing blackbird, lark sparrow, grassfinch, and blue-gray gnatcatcher. Eliminating the mourning doves, which practically never eat insects, and the quail, which eat very few at the season when these were collected (November), there remains a total of 255 bird stom- achs examined, of which 44 contained boll weevils. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The total number of stomachs examined in the Biological Survey and Bureau of Entomology, aside from mourning doves and quail, was 570. Of these, 78, or 13.6 per cent, contained boll weevils. The total number of w oak enten by 78 birde was 101, or 17.7 per Comte of the total number of stomachs. With reference to the comparatively small number of cotton boll weevils eaten by any of the birds examined it should be borne in. mind that during the time when most of the birds were collected adult weevils were not numerous. During the earlier period of the field work (October 31 to November 12) the insects were practically a@The Mexican Cotton Boll Weevil, by W. D. Hunter and W. E. Hinds, Bulle- tin No. 51, Bureau of Entomology, Department of Agriculture, 1905, p. 151. j - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 15 all within the squares on the green cotton plants, and it was a simple matter to examine the squares and locate all the weevils along a cotton row. This was done again and again in order that their numbers could be estimated, and in no case did they average more than one to a hill of cotton, and rarely more than one to three hills. Thus as the number of weevils consumed in a field equals 17.7 per cent of the number of birds occupying that field per day, or, by allow- ing the birds two meals a day, 35.5 per cent of their number, the destruction of weevils is after all comparatively rapid; but as this ratio depends largely on the abundance of the weevils—the more numerous the weevils naturally the greater the number eaten—their complete extermination by birds is hardly to be expected. It is impossible to learn just how many times a day a bird’s stomach is filled and emptied, but it is well known that birds with crops fill both crop and stomach twice a day. Most insectivorous birds are without crops, however, and as they usually feed more or less con- tinuously from early morning to evening it is not improbable that the stomach is filled and emptied five or six times daily. As exam- inations of bird stomachs are based upon only a small portion of the day’s food, the number of weevils detected is probably far less than are actually destroyed daily. Even the incomplete data thus far obtained, however, suggest that without the aid of the birds no cotton can be raised in the weevil-infested area. Until two years ago the protection afforded birds by law in the State of Texas was very inadequate, and many of the most important insectivorous species were slaughtered for sport or for their plumage. Thus their numbers were greatly reduced and some kinds were nearly exterminated. In 1903 a State law was passed providing for the protection of all nongame birds and fixing a close season for turkeys, grouse, quail, and doves, but giving no protection to kill- deer, plover, snipe, and many other insectivorous shore birds which are now legitimate game at all seasons. The law in respect to the shore birds should be changed, since it is known that at least one species of plover, the killdeer, feeds upon cotton boll weevils to a - greater or less extent, one of the two specimens examined having eaten three adult insects. The fact that the killdeer remains in and about the cotton fields the year through emphasizes the importance not only of extending protection to this particular bird at all seasons, but of protecting as well the other plovers and shore birds which have simi- - lar insectivorous habits. The desirability of such protection is em- _phasized by the fact that formerly the upland plover, one of the most - _insectivorous of all species, abounded on the Texas prairies. It was, _ however, slaughtered by the wagon load for market, and now where it once swarmed it is comparatively rare. It is highly probable that this species would lend efficient aid in the warfare against the weevil = ; eee it Seeeatted to winter” unmoleste d | wi thir n the bo State. Moreover, the present law protecting the nongame bi 8 ] destroyed. An efficient warden service would no doubt aid in - serving the birds, but the bird laws of a State can be made really effective only when supported by public sentiment, prompted by widespread knowledge and appreciation of the services birds rend to man. When the value of these services in the present war against the boll weevil is understood throughout the cotton States it: — result in an enlightened public sentiment in favor of the birds. The necessity of extending every possible protection and encow agement to insectivorous birds within the cotton-producing distri S of Texas and other Southern States is strongly urged. LIST OF BIRDS WHICH HAD EATEN BOLL WEEVILS. Num- ap’ ber | Num a that ber | had of bo ll eaten | wee- boll vils wee- | eaten. vils. ; Species. . i Species. Carolina wren * Brewer blackbird Titlark, Pipit *Cowbird Tomtit, Black-crested titmouse Western meadow lark_- Florida meadow lark __- Common phoebe Redwing blackbird White-throated spar- * Jackdaw, Great-tailed grackle * Western meadow lark * Mockingbird *Butcherbird * Killdeer * Baltimore oriole * Dickcissel * Scissor-tail flycatcher- *Common phcebe * Examined by Mr. E. A. Schwarz. O HHH EE ww 8% vw See Bulletin 51, Bureau of Entomology, 1905. ; , r B HORNED LARKS AND THEIR RELATION ‘TO. AGRICULTURE a “OW. I: McATER ’ Assistant, BioLogicaL SURVEY ANUTACTON S05 Sb - Semen WASHINGTON: . _ “GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE Cat 1905 . PLATE I. Bull. 23, Biological Survey, U. S, Dept. of Agriculture. “HINVYVANY NO SNIGSS4 SHYV] GANYOH Coot vhoiviEN T OF AGRICULTURE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY—BULLETIN No. 23 C. HART MERRIAM, Chief THE HORNED LARKS AND THEIR RELATION TO AGRICULTURE BY W. LL. McATEE ASSISTANT, BIOLOGICAL SURVEY of: > fire 2 po, CR SS SS [| it ond tans! i | alice ieee FOC FID Leer WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1905 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D. C., September 1, 1905. _ Sr: I have the honor to transmit herewith for publication as Bul- letin No. 23 of the Biological Survey a report on the Horned Larks and their Relation to Agriculture, by W. L. McAtee, an assistant in _ the Biological Survey. The horned larks, though of small size, form an important group economically because of their very general distri- _ bution, their great numbers, and their food habits. As a result of the present investigation it appears that though these birds feed to - some extent upon grain, the actual damage done is slight, because the - grain eaten is mostly waste. On the other hand, the birds are shown to _ feed very largely upon insects and weed seeds, among which are some _ of the worst pests that the farmer has to contend with. The horned _ larks, therefore, should be classed among the species highly beneficial to agriculture. Respectfully, C. Hart Merriam, Chief, Biological Survey. Hon. James WILson, Secretary of Agriculture. COMER IN TS: RE eeaatn ctor Muna Nie el Pe kl ee Se AS Bemeeauiood habits and economic relations _....00. 52.2.2. 2225 2526 5c2 2.222 e- "BERR ITG TCOG! Shak ao aN Pe a eee eS ne ee COPA aa ccs aR Sekai alata el ep mR a a Ng Rute a LIE ee anche ae Nascehlameous vecetable dood. 2-222. 2225252. 2222-222 see elle eee BADE) TOC! oe Re Sate coe Aas Se a ae yl nam INAS ECS c 3 ESS Se ie ee pee ep Re meg ee ee Waseclameouc animal lood 52... ole Pe ek ee eee “aL LTDYETGEN TSWBN ST aae FSGS Se ay a ig ae nore ouner voune horned: larks ... 0.0. ..2.2-2 22222214. 202+. -+ 222s Food. of the horned larks of California compared with that of the other forms. “OLEAN es cc ik a I List of seeds, fruits, and invertebrates eaten by horned larks............---- (EE sche cea DE Se Se SS pS re ap ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES. Page. Puate I. Horned larks feeding on amaranth 22-230 2-25 eee Frontispiece. II. Seeds of certain troublesome weeds eaten by horned larks.__...--- 20 TEXT FIGURES. Fria. 1. Diagram showing the proportions of animal and vegetable food of the horned larks of the United States, minus the members of the sub- species Otocoris a. actia, for every month in the year_........-.._-. 9 2. Diagram showing the proportions of animal and vegetable food of the adult horned larks for every, month im the year__=--2.2_2-254eeeeee 11 3. Predaceous beetle (Aigonoderus pallipes))- —- 22-3) 23 4. June bug ( Lachnosterna arcuata) and its larva, a white grub......._-- 23 5. Destructive flea-beetle (Phyllotreta mitaia) = =--25-- > =e ee 24 6. Pale striped flea-beetle (Systena blanda) -..-...-....-/.----+-----55 ie 24 7.. Imbricated-snout beetle (picerus imbricatus). ..22 2.2. 2-3 ee 25 8. Tineid moth with larvajand cocoon. _< 222222255. 25 9. Tarnished plant bug (Lygus pratensis) -— 3235-2. = 218 10... Chinch bug (Bhssus leucopterus))-.-- = 232-3255) ee 27 11. Greater striped flea-beetle (Disonycha caroliniana) ..........--------- 29 12. Columns showing the proportions of insects, grain, and weed seed 13. eaten by the following: A, California larks; B, Larks in first plumage; C, Total number examined exclusive of California birds; D, Nestlings- Diagram showing the proportions of animal and vegetable food of the California horned lark (Otocoris a. actia) for every month in the year...) 323 Se eee LUNAR ee 6 29 THE HORNED LARKS AND THEIR RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. DISTRIBUTION AND HABITS. The horned larks are small but hardy birds which frequent the open country and never live in forests. They are found in a great variety of situations, and feed along roads, in weedy or freshly plowed fields, on commons or other waste places, and in closely grazed pastures, meadows, and stubble fields. The beaches and salt marshes of the — coasts, the lake shores, muddy flats, and swamps of the interior are thronged with them in fall and winter. In the far West they live in hot desert valleys, on arid table-lands, on level grassy prairies, in the foothills, and even on bare mountain peaks. They are readily distinguished from other small ground-loving birds. They are about the size of the bluebird, their throats are white or yellow, there is a conspicuous black mark across the breast, and just above and behind the eyes are small pointed tufts of dark-colored feathers which are often erected. These black tufts or horns are perhaps the bird’s most characteristic feature, and give origin to the common name ‘horned lark,’ by which it is known over most of the _ United States. ‘Shore lark’ is another common name, though a less apt one. The various subspecies are distinguished by names which convey an idea of the surroundings of the bird or of its appearance— prairie, desert, scorched, and pallid horned lark being examples of these designations. West of the Mississippi several names indicative of the bird’s habits are used, among them being ‘prairie bird’, ‘road trotter,’ and ‘wheat bird.’ In parts of Canada it is knownas ‘spring’ or ‘life bird,’ in allusion, no doubt, to its reappearance in the vernal season. Many of the popular names of the horned larks emphasize the fact that they are preeminently terrestrial birds. During the day they run nimbly over the surface in quest of food; at night they roost in small companies on the bare earth. A clod or stone isa favorite perch, and they are rarely seen in a bush or tree. They nest early, the first clutch of eggs often being completed before the snow has disappeared. The nests are of the simplest description, 7 8 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. in keeping with the artless character of the bird, being little cups of grass placed in slight depressions in the ground. Two or even three broods are raised in a year, a fact which sufficiently explains the great numbers of the species in some localities. The flight of the horned larks is hesitant. They usually start hur- riedly from the ground, uttering short, whistled notes, and it is very characteristic of them that frequently when disturbed they fly straight away for a short distance, only to swing around and alight near the starting point. In the mating season, however, they ascend to great heights and, like the skylark, sing while on the wing. The song is neither complex nor loud, but it is wild, joyous, and full of the free spirit of the prairie and the open fields. The birds thus characterized occur at some time of the year in all parts of North America, except the Aleutian Islands, the southern coastal portion of Alaska, extreme southeastern United States, and Central America. This vast range is occupied by only one species, which, however, varies so greatly in different localities that it has been separated into no fewer than twenty-one varieties or subspecies.4@ During the breeding season these geographic forms are restricted to separate areas, but in winter, on account of the tendency of the southern races to wander and of the northern ones to migrate, the subspecies mingle, and as many as seven (Arizona) or eight (California) forms occur in one State. In summer in the United States (including Alaska) there are fifteen subspecies of horned larks, and in winter seventeen. The several members of the family A/audidx, which includes these — forms, are interesting birds. Their habit. of walking, instead of hop- ping, distinguishes them from many small ground birds. They have long hind claws, the prints of which in the snow or along the muddy shores of ponds often indicate where the larks have been running. They molt but once a year, usually in August, while many birds molt twice and a few three times. The nuptial dress is acquired not by molting, but by the wearing away of the tips of the winter feathers, revealing the brighter colors beneath. The plumage of the larks is generally neutral in tint, especially when viewed from above, and so harmonizes with their surroundings that it has a protective value, and enables the birds, in a measure, to escape the notice of enemies. GENERAL FOOD HABITS AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS. A preliminary report upon the food of the horned larks, by Prof. Walter B. Barrows, formerly of the Biological Survey, was publehed in the Report of the Secretar y of Agriculture for 1892. It was based “For descriptions and ranges of the subspecific forms the reader is referred to H. C Oberholser’s ‘Review of the Larks of the Genus Otocoris;’ Proceedings of the U. S.. Nat. Museum, Vol. XXIV, pp. 801-880, 1902. GENERAL FOOD HABITS. Q upon the examination of 59 stomachs. A much larger amount of material is available for the present paper, no fewer than 1,154 stomachs having been examined. The present material represents ae a much greater area, coming from no fewer than twenty-five States and Territories, and in addition the District of Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Mackenzie. Among the specimens collected are nestling, adolescent, and adult birds, including representatives of eleven subspecies. The food habits of the several forms are very similar with the excep- tion of the central and southern California bird (Otocoris alpestris actia Oberh.), which is so anomalous in its feeding habits that it has been deemed advisable to treat it also separately. Professor Barrows found that the horned larks examined by him had consumed during the year 11.42 percent of animal matter and 88.58 percent of vegetable matter. ‘he present in- vestigation results in a Eomewhat different show- | 1111111 T11 (1, ing for the birds, there be- eae inginthefoodmoreinsects ,| | | | | | | | | | | | 60 | 40 and less vegetable ele- a ments, or 20.6 percent of : Pee a was és animal and 79.4 percent of vegetable matter. ee ae eee [oy naa From the accompanying 2 chart (fig. 1) the propor- Salas tions of the components of Ee Se eae ae the food for each month Fig. 1.—Diagram showing the proportions of animal and may be seen at a glance. vegetable food of the horned larks of the United States, S : x eS ; \ exclusive of the members of the subspecies Otocoris a. actia, Very little animal matter for every month in the year. [Read the column of figures 1s obtained during the Wwin- on the left from the bottom upward for the percentage of ; p . animal food, and the column on the right from the top ter months. The few in- downward for the percentage of vegetable food. The area sects alive at this season below the curve represents the total amount of animal food for the year, and that above, the vegetable food. ] ae /00 are usually well concealed and the wonder is that the birds obtain any of them. In January, animal matter, consisting principally of weevils and cocoons of tineid moths, composes only 1.73 percent of the food. In February about the same things are eaten, but in larger amount, making 3.11 per- cent. The percentage rises rapidly in March and April, principally because of an increase in the number of weevils, caterpillars, and bugs eaten, although beetle larve and leaf beetles also are consumed in larger amount. In these months the horned larks obtain respectively 15.72 percent and 27.31 percent of animal matter. April is the first month when the amount of animal matter eaten is in excess of the 376—No, 23—05—2 10 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. monthly average, and it is consumed by the adults alone. This result is in harmony with the observed fact that the breeding season taxes the strength of birds, and hence an easily assimilated, highly nutri- tious food is required. In May there is a further increase in the amount of animal food eaten, the maximum (43.4 percent) for the year being reached. The percentage is higher in this month because there are included in the | computations several nestlings, which were fed almost exclusively upon insects. However, the adults also consume more animal food at this time, and the adolescent birds, while they do not eat as large an amount as their parents, have not developed the strong vegetarian taste which characterizes them later. The principal elements of the animal food in May are weevils, May beetles (insects more commonly known as June bugs), caterpillars, and grasshoppers. In June the amount of insects eaten becomes smaller. The former nestlings, now independent of the old birds, are largely vegetarian, and counteract the influence of the adults, which are even more insectivorous in this month than in May. More weevils, leaf beetles, and ants are eaten in June than in May, but fewer May beetles, caterpillars, and grasshoppers. From May to August the proportion of animal food would proba- bly be about the same in each month were it not for the peculiar diet of the young birds. The consumption of the maximum number of insects in May is the result of the influence of the nestlings and adolescent larks. The former, being highly insectivorous, raise the percentage in May, while the adolescent birds, because of the oppo- site trait, tend to lower the percentage in June, July, and August. When the diet of the adults alone is considered, the proportion of animal food for the latter part of the summer increases, and the maxi- mum comes, as in the case of a great many other species, in August. (See fig. 2.) Two factors tend to raise the percentage of animal food in this month—first, the molt, which in many cases is known to create a ravenous appetite for such food, and, second, the great abun- dance of insects, particularly grasshoppers, these in August forming the bulk of the animal food of many species of birds. Although horned larks eat a considerable number of grasshoppers, they con- sume a greater number of weevils than of any other insects. These small, inconspicuously colored insects, most of which are actual or incipient pests of the worst kind, constitute nearly 18 percent of the food in August. After this month the amount of animal food decreases rapidly. Caterpillars, grasshoppers, beetle larvee, scara- beeid and carabid beetles are soon entirely lacking. The lowest point in the entire year for the consumption of animal food is reached in December, when only 1 percent is obtained. During the winter MARKETING OF HORNED LARKS. eh months, when little animal matter is eaten and the amount of vegeta- ble food is at its maximum, considerable grain is consumed, but about three-fourths of the food are weed seed. Few examinations of the stomachs of horned larks have been made except in the Biological Survey, most ornithologists contenting them- selves with casual field observations on the food habits. Examination of all accessible accounts reveals but few items of food not met with in the course of the present investigation, these being such unimpor- tant substances as minute crustaceans, cactus seeds, and plant buds, none of which are commonly eaten. The food habits of the horned lark— Otocoris alpestris flava (Gme lin)—of Europe, judging from published accounts, are essentially like those of our own forms, to which it is closely related. 0 In Germany another spe- si ali sl ove A cies, the skylark, in recog- nition of its value as an insect destroyer, is pro- tected by law from May to September 15;” but at other seasons it is taken in nets in large numbers for food. In former timeslarks were 2° much used for food also in the United States. They « occur in flocks in winter, are Fic. 2.—Diagram showing the proportions of animal and easily trapped, and years Ne ves nee of the adult horned larks for every month ago the markets of many of our large cities were abundantly supplied with them. This traffic has not entirely ceased at the present time. In 1891? W. E. Bryant wrote concerning the marketing of horned larks: AAS ee ae . VAAA eae "HAE Se aaa Jee esata =. /00 For an indefinite number of years there have been exposed for sale in the markets of San Francisco * * * small Californian birds, * * * the so-called ‘reed Bids. ~ ~ * A San Francisco ‘reed bird’ * * * generally speaking is a horned lark (Otocoris) ; known to the market men and pot hunters who furnish them as ‘bean birds.’ Fifteen years or more ago this bird was almost the only species killed for this purpose, but the long-continued, persistent slaying of this species, together with the increase of settlement, making it necessary to journey farther after them, has resulted in the substitution of most any other species of about the same size in place of them. * * * The annual destruction must amount to many thousands. However, of recent years the economic value of horned larks has become better understood, and at present they are protected through- @Hermann Fiirst, Deutschland’s niitzliche und schiidliche Vogel, p. 63, 1893. b Zoe, II, pp. 142-144, 1891. 2? HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. out the year in all but five of the States in which they regularly occur, and in no State are they specifically exempted from protection. In consequence comparatively few horned larks are now captured for food. But man is not the only enemy of the larks. Because of the open- ness of the country they inhabit, they are always in more or less danger from hawks and owls, and the following species have been known to kill them: Red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, marsh hawk, prairie falcon, and burrowing and screech owls. Shrikes also capture them. While the fondness of the horned larks for open country thus exposes them to the attacks of rapacious birds, in farming regions it leads them to live on cultivated land, where they enjoy the protection of man. Here they are but slightly affected by the farming operations which drive away many birds. They build their nests on the ground in exposed situations, and neither woods, shrubbery, nor other protect- ing growths are needed to induce them to nest on the farm. In spring the wheat fields, pastures, and meadows not yet rankly covered are chosen as nesting sites; early summer finds them with their second brood in the fields of young corn, and still more belated pairs make their homes in the stubble fields. In winter, feeding lots, barnyards, and all open fields are favorite foraging grounds, and often they may be seen searching for food along the much-frequented country road. For several years the writer knew of a meadow where these birds built their nests and reared their young. They fed in the adjoining road and in a cornfield opposite, and were to be found here the year through. From these facts it appears that at every season the horned lark is closely identified with the farm and thus with the farmer’s welfare. Of the birds examined for the purposes of this bulletin, and accom- panied by full data, about four individuals were taken on farming land to one taken in uncultivated places. About one-half of the former number had eaten insects, somewhat over a third had taken grain of some kind, and practically all had eaten weed seeds. As explained elsewhere, most of the grain is obtained along roads and in stubble, and hence no injury is done to the farmer. Of the number found away from farming regions all had eaten weed seeds, nine-tenths had con- sumed insects, and about one-half had taken grain. Those larks which occur far from cultivated lands, while not directly beneficial to the farmer, undoubtedly aid him indirectly by destroying harmful insects and weeds which might spread to the farms. VEGETABLE FOOD. No less than 79.4 percent of the food of the horned larks is vege- table matter, Ofa total of 1,154 birds examined only 22 had eaten Te a GRAIN AS FOOD. 13 no vegetable matter, while in some form or other it made up the entire stomach contents of 634. In this portion of the food are represented no fewer than 105 species of plants. This great variety may be classed for economic consideration under the following heads: Weeds, forage plants, fruits, and grain. GRAIN. Grain furnishes 40.2 percent of the food of the horned larks in Cali- fornia and 12.2 percent of that of the larks in the rest of the country. Oats, corn, and wheat form the bulk of this, kafir corn and buckwheat being cee in insignificant amounts. Were all of the grain eaten by horned larks a direct loss to “bs farmer, the damage would be considerable. But such is not the case. As would be expected from birds so essentially terrestrial in habits, horned larks do not injure standing grain, nor do they feed upon grain in stacks and shocks. The grain they obtain from the surface is either newly sown seed or waste, and as the latter is lost to the farmer in any event, it is safe to conclude that whatever damage the birds do occurs in sowing time. WHEAT. Wheat is damaged more than other grain crops during the sowing season, and the injury is greater in California than elsewhere. Details of the ravages of the larks in this State are given by several corre- spondents. A. A. Haton, of Riverdale, Fresno County, writes sub- stantially as follows: I believe the worst pests in the bird line farmers have to endure are the horned larks. In winter they come in thousands and eat wheat sown broadcast so badly that I have had to drill itin. They leave the whole wheat, however, as soon as they find any that has sprouted. They then select spots, generally where there have been some weeds, and pull up, and even scratch, in the manner of a hen, the better to get at the whole. In such places not a stalk is left standing. M. S. Featherstone, of Goshen, Tulare County, which is in the ° midst of the best wheat-growing section of the State, says: Small brown birds which we call wheat birds are quite numerous during the sOWing season some years. Ten or twelve yearsago they were unusually active, and many people sowed poisoned wheat and left it on top of the ground to destroy them before the regular sowing. I had about 4 acres left, not harrowed, one Saturday night, and every kernel was gone by Monday morning, picked up by the wheat birds and meadow larks. During the latter part of January and the first part of — February last year (1895) wheat birds were plentiful and did much damage. The early sown grain was not injured by them. I put out some poisoned grain (a gallon or so), and my boys picked up about 600 in afew days. They also found 3 mourning doves and some meadow larks (a dozen or two). JI think the wheat birds also pull up the sprouting grain. These little birds are yellowish on the throat and fly in flocks. I have not noticed them except in the early spring. routed abi 14 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. Mr. E. W. Nelson, of the Biological Survey, in writing about the California horned lark in 1893, stated: This species is excessively abundant in the San Joaquin Valley of California, east of Tulare Lake. In autumn they gather in enormous flocks, containing hundreds of birds, and continue together until spring. When the farmers sow their winter wheat on these plains the shore larks swarm over the fields in countless numbers, scratching up and greedily devouring the grain. They do this so persistently that fields are sometimes replanted on account of their depredations, and all fields are considerably damaged by them. Such direct evidence as the above, from observations in the field, establishes beyond doubt that in wheat fields, newly sown broadcast, the horned lark is a pest, and this conclusion is corroborated by the results of stomach examinations. Before discussing these it will be well to outline the conditions of grain raising in California. The Sacramento and the San Joaquin river valleys and the coastal region from San Francisco south are the important wheat-growing areas, and it is precisely in these places that the horned larks are most numerous during the second sowing time. This occurs in January and February, the first being late in summer (August and September) before the first fall rain, or imme- diately after it if the soil can not be worked before. Thus there are two periods in the year during which wheat is exposed to attacks of the larks. Since horned larks are present only in small numbers during the first sowing season, the possibilities of injury from them are not great; moreover, that the birds present eat little wheat appears from the fact that none of it was found inthe stomachs of any of the horned larks from California, in number over 150, which were collected from August to the end of the year. During the winter sowing, however, the horned larks are abundant, and then it is that complaints are made of their wheat-eating habits, complaints which our investigations show are not unfounded. Wheat constituted 14.1 percent of the food of 21 birds collected in January and 74 percent of that of 5 birds taken in February. However, all of the wheat taken in January was in the stomachs of 3 specimens from Escondido, San Diego County, and it made 99 percent of their con- tents. The high percentage of wheat in the food in February is partly due to the small number of specimens examined, namely, 5. Three of these, however, were shot from a flock of birds which were ‘sup- posed to be pulling wheat,’ and thus were caught inthe veryact. These, also, were taken at Escondido, and contained an average of 93.3 per- cent of wheat. These facts justify the conclusion that horned larks eat wheat whenever they can find it. It forms only 9.1 percent of the year’s food of the California horned larks, but as most of this is seed grain GRAIN AS FOOD. . 15 the damage is greater than implied by the figures. However, it is to be noted that all of the wheat eaten at this time comes from fields sown broadcast, and that absolutely nothing is done by the farmers to protect the seed. The very best protective measure—drilling—costs no more than broadcasting, except for very small areas, and besides completely protecting the wheat from the birds, it has the further advantages that it increases the yield per acre and also improves the quality of the grain. Joseph iMedia: of San Geronimo, Marin County, Cal., writes (July, 1905): Grain is drilled in to quite an extent now, but the majority of the large grain fields are sown with the broadcasting machine on account of greater rapidity. This leaves more or less grain on and near the surface, which naturally falls a prey to certain species of birds when conditions are right. I should say that the horned larks would only attack grain when food was scarce in their own feeding grounds, which are usually grass-grown meadows and uplands. Lyman Belding, of Stockton, San Joaquin County, who has had many years of experience in the California grain country, says (July, HOD): As far as my observation goes there is less wheat planted by drills late years than formerly. © ~ Concerning the depredations of the larks he continues: I can say positively that the damage done by these birds in California is not worthy of the least consideration, because the shore larks are not numerous and we have millions of acres of wheat. Like our meadow lark and Brewer’s blackbird, the damage done by them would only be noticeable on a small field of wheat that was much later than adjoining wheat fields; but, unlike the meadow lark and blackbird, it does not probe the ground for the wheat kernel—it merely eats a little wheat that is on the surface of the ground not yet covered by the harrow in seeding time. I have observed them closely in Butte and this county, and am positive the statement made above is correct. Comparing the above with previous quotations it is seen that opin- ions differ concerning the economic status of the horned larks, but that at the present time the consensus of opinion is favorable to the bird. It appears that injury from the larks is suffered also in the spring- wheat region of the central plains. Charles L. King, of Millbank, S. Dak., writes: There is a bird called wheat bird * * * that comes in early spring in great numbers when the farmer is sowing grain, and all cae left on top of the ground is very soon picked up. i. P. Lindley, of St. Ansgar, 5. Dak.., oe oe this by the fol- lowing testimony: The worst birds we have in Dakota are small prairie birds. They eat wheat while itis being sown. They are small, but so numerous that they take one-third to one- half of the crop if it is left uncovered for a day or two. They do not dig the wheat out, but pick it up before it is covered. 16 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. In the following letter George Lang, of Indian Head, Assiniboia, describes the depredations of the lark in greater detail, and points out that the use of deep planting drills has rendered the birds harmless: The damage is done as a rule about the first two weeks in May while the wheat is in the first leaf. I have examined the stomachs of hundreds of specimens, and in almost every case I found grains cf wheat. These birds, in company with snow buntings and chestnut-collared buntings, are here in millions from about April 15 to May 15. They pick up all uncovered kernels first and then as soon as the young shoots appear above ground they follow up the rows and pull up the stalk, eating only the sprouted kernel, and leave the leaf lying on the ground. Of course they break off a great many more than they uproot, but still they thin out the grain to quite an extent. In earlier years, before we began using drills for seeding wheat, we always counted on one-half bushel to the acre for the grain birds, as we counted they would pick up that amount. I know of fields that had to be seeded over the second time where the harrows were not kept close up to the seeder. I have also been driven to poisoning wheat and scattering around the fields. Of late years we do not notice these birds so much. I suppose on account of the increased acreage the birds are more scattered, and also on account of the press drills putting the seed too deep for the birds to uproot. As in the case of the California larks, stomach examinations confirm field observations with regard to the grain-eating habits of the larks of the central plains wheat region. Of 23 stomachs of horned larks collected here in April and the same number in May, 46 in all, 11 contained wheat. Seven of these were collected on April 5 in a newly sown wheat field at Kennedy, Nebr., and all held wheat. The average amount for the 7 was 28.4 percent, and no individual had taken more than 35 percent. The remainder of the food was weed seeds. These were seeds of sunflower, tumbleweed, and pigweed. Thus the birds which had made something over a fourth of their meal of wheat had eaten nearly three times that amount of the seeds of the worst weeds in the country. If fully a third of their food had been wheat, the average percentage of grain for the whole 46 would be only slightly over 7 percent, an amount clearly too trivial to warrant the condemnation of the birds, especially in view of the fact that the remainder of their food consists of the seeds of noxious weeds. It is of importance to note that the complaints quoted above were made several years ago when broadcast sowing was the rule. Recent correspondence shows that drilled fields of wheat are practically safe from injury by the birds. CORN. Corn constitutes 4.97 percent of the food of the horned larks. Since it is always planted rather deeply, seed corn is quite out of their reach, and even grains lying on the surface in a condition to germinate are probably not eaten by these birds, since the grain is too large to be swallowed whole, and their weak bills are entirely inadequate to the. ae nee eT oe GRAIN AS FOOD. 17 task of breaking up the kernels. The writer watched horned larks feeding on prairie land in Indiana where many whole grains of corn were scattered about, and found that they passed them by. Nearly all of the corn consumed is obtained in the winter, and none is eaten in August, September, and October. Many fragments taken in winter are exceedingly hard and apparently are not much affected by digestion, and the larks would certainly fare badly if much of their food were of this character; but gleaning constantly as they do along the roads, in barnyards, and feeding lots, they get many fragments of corn from. the droppings of farm animals. From these sources, and from fields where the grain has been crushed by the tires of wagons and the hoofs of cattle, comes a great part of the corn they consume. Consideration of the above facts shows that practically all of the corn eaten by the horned larks is waste, and hence is of no value to the farmer. lee ay OATS. Oats constitute the greater bulk of the grain eaten by the horned larks, and it is of interest to note that the major portion of this grain taken, as well as that of wheat, is consumed by the horned larks of California. The latter eat oats to the extent of 31.1 percent of their food, while in the rest of the country the larks consume only 4.86 per- cent. During sowing time in the country east of the Rockies only a small percentage of oatsiseaten. One bird was collected in a newly sown oat field in Michigan, March 31, and no trace of oats was found in its stomach. | Nearly nine-tenths of all the oats consumed in the year are eaten during the months from September to January, inclusive. In the East- ern States all grain eaten at this season is waste, but as the sowing in California occurs in October or in February, oats eaten in this State during these months may lessen the crop. No horned larks were col- lected in newly sown oat fields in California, but from data accompany- ing the birds it seems that stubble feeding is a common habit from October to January. Where the ground is broken up every year the stubble grain is of no consequence; but if a volunteer crop is depended on, then every grain taken from a stubble field lessens the succeeding crop. Even in the latter case, where it must be admitted that the larks do a certain amount of injury, it must not be forgotten that they eat ants and weevils which are injurious to crops, and that they devour the seeds of weeds which might render the hay crop almost worthless. Oats grow wild everywhere in California and are inclined to remain tenaciously on ground once occupied. Professor Beal, after studying conditions in this State, considers that, in general, oats found in the 7376—No. 23—05——3 18 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. stomachs of California birds should be regarded as weed seed. Wild oats and those wasted in handling the cultivated crops must furnish practically all of this grain eaten by these larks, since there appears to be no evidence that they injure cultivated oats at any time. } OTHER GRAINS AND FORAGE PLANTS. Buckwheat is the most important of the other grains eaten by horned larks. All of it is consumed in June and July, and it may be, therefore, scattered grain from the early crop, or seed sown for the later one. Only nine birds of the entire number examined had eaten buckwheat, and it constitutes but little more than one-half of 1 per- cent of the food of the year. Kafir corn and other sorghum seeds were eaten by some of the horned larks, but altogether they make up less than 1 percent of the total food, and all of this must be waste grain. : Some slight injury to a few of the forage plants may be mentioned here. Professor Barrows in his report noted the case of about sixty birds which were taken in a newly sown millet field in Michigan. Most of these birds had eaten millet seeds to some extent. This is the only instance noted in which the horned larks are known to have eaten cultivated millet, though they eat great quantities of the seeds of the wild species. Some grasses of the genus Paspalum are included among the forage plants, but most of these are unmitigated nuisances as weeds. To sum up this part of the subject, it may be said that if any injury to forage plants is done by the horned larks, it is too trifling for serious consideration. The loss to grain growers through the agency of the horned larks is not, however, to be waived aside as of no moment. While it is true that on most farms in the United States enough grain is wasted to feed all the wild birds that occur on them, sometimes grain is eaten that is not waste, as in the instances above cited. Admitting, then, that the shore larks destroy a certain amount of grain, it may be said that whenever the damage to crops by birds is excessive there is an easier as well as a better method of dealing with them than by their wholesale destruction. It is the part of good husbandry to build and keep In repair fences about grain fields to prevent cattle from injur- ing the crops, and no one thinks of shooting the animals when they break through. We simply strengthen the defenses. The birds should be dealt with in the same fair-minded way, having due regard to the fact that they are generally useful and valuable allies, and that the damage they occasionally do can be rendered insignificant or wholly prevented by simple and inexpensive means. The use of a modern press drill in sowing grain is the best of these, and is sufficient 3 # 7s 5, 2 z a 4 ir a fe 4 " 4 x WEED SEEDS AS FOOD. _ 19 in itself to prevent practically all of the damage to grain crops by the horned larks. Finally, it may be said in the bird’s favor that at the worst the damage to grain from the horned lark is not great, and that it is more than counterbalanced by the good done through the destruc- tion of harmful insects and the seeds of injurious weeds. WEEDS. The plants commonly known as weeds, from their injurious effect upon agriculture, are more important than any of the other enemies of the farmer. They rob the soil of its nutritive elements and of its moisture, and thus reduce the size of crops. They are mostly hardy, vigorous plants, and shade and choke out the more delicate plants of cul- tivation. Many fungous diseases of cereal, fruit,and other crops, such as rusts and rots, depend for their continuance upon weeds as interme- diate hosts. Such weeds as the mustards are especially well known as the primary hosts of rusts. ‘Some weeds poison stock; the spiny seeds or burs of others lessen the value of wool, besides being the cause of annoyance to all animals on the farm and to man. In these and in a thousand other ways weeds injure the farmer. They are present everywhere, and their numbers are limited only by the capacity of the soil and the extent of available space. Passing to particular examples of their fecundity, we may mention that a single plant of foxtail (Plate II, fig. A), the seeds of which were eaten by nearly 350 of the horned larks examined, has been known to produce 113,000 seeds, and a plant of red root (tumbleweed), the seeds of which are the food next preferred, has produced 115,000 seeds. Such reproductive powers if unchecked would result soon in covering the entire surface of the earth with weeds. Even as it is, the surface soil contains so many seeds that they often seem to constitute a considerable percentage of its bulk. At Ames, Iowa, a square rod of ground in a garden, which had been in potatoes the year before and cultivated with a hoe, yielded 187,884 plants of .eight common weeds.“ Crab grass and its allies, which are great pests in permanent lawns, and the seeds of | which are eaten freely by the horned larks, occur in even greater number. Professor Beal states that each square quarter of an inch in his garden in Maryland, when first cultivated in the spring, contained at least one plant of crab grass. Upon this basis the number of plants to a square rod is 627,264. Three times the weeds were cut off, but each time they appeared in as great numbers as before. The above statements indicate the vast numbers of weeds on farms, and show that to prevent them from possessing the land they must be destroyed in all stages of growth. The damage they cause, reckoned @ Bulletin No. 70, Exp. Sta., Ia. State College, p. 465, 1903. 20 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. in dollars and cents, is enormous. The Botanist of the Department of Agriculture says: ; The direct loss in crops, the damage to machinery and stock, and the decrease in value of land due to weeds, amount without question to tens of millions of dollars each year—a loss sustained almost wholly by the farmers of the nation. 4 To limit the loss caused by them an unending warfare must be waged by the farmer. Any allies in this defensive warfare should be wel- comed, and of such allies the seed-eating birds are the most important. The farmer, by the expenditure of time and labor, can destroy the weeds when they have sprouted, or later before they have ripened seed. But the seeds which are on and in the ground and which remain there for an indefinite period awaiting favorable opportunity for ger- mination, it is not practicable for man to destroy. This portion of the work the birds attend to, and among the birds most actively engaged in consuming weed seeds the horned larks are conspicuous. Weed seeds are by far the largest single component of their food (63.9 percent), and over 1,070 birds of the number examined had eaten them, no fewer than 206 individuals having fed upon them to the exclusion of everything else. There can be no doubt of the fact that the horned larks display a preference for weed seeds and depend upon them as the piece de résistance of every meal. The larks, unlike some other species, do not perch upon weeds and peck apart the heads, thus assisting in scattering the seed, and it is in the last degree improbable that any of the seeds they eat pass through the alimentary canal ina condition to germinate. They have strikingly large and muscular gizzards, which seem specially adapted to dealing with hard and tough-coated seeds, and, moreover, they eat a great quantity of gravel. It has been found that as the result of the com- bined action of the gizzard and the gravel every kind of seed eaten by this lark is crushed. Even the exceedingly hard nutlets of Lethosper- mum succumb to its action. Cherry pits, which are very hard and of a shape most difficult to crush, are broken; minute seeds, such as those of amaranth and oxalis are ground up, and their fragments in the stomach resemble red pepper. Among the weeds the seeds of which furnish grist for these destructive mills are some of the worst pests in the country. Of a list of 100 weeds which are regarded as the most troublesome in the United States, the seeds of no fewer than 38 are included in the diet of these birds. Of this number the foxtail grasses, smartweeds, bindweeds, amaranth, pigweeds, purslane, ragweed, and the crab and barn grasses are conspicuous. The seeds of foxtail head the list, being found in 347 stomachs examined. Over 300 birds had — eaten the seeds of amaranth (fig. B) and nearly 260 those of pigweed. “Coville, in Farmers’ Bulletin No. 28 (Weeds; and how to kill them; by L. Dewey), p. 3, 1895. Bull. 23, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. PLATE Il. G E SEEDS OF CERTAIN TROUBLESOME WEEDS EATEN BY HORNED LARKS. Fig. A.—Green and yellow foxtail (Chetochloa viridis and C. glauca). Fig. B.—Amaranth (Amaranthus blitoides). Fig. C.—Sedges (1, Cyperus; 2, Scirpus; 3, Carex; 4, Rhyncho- spora). Fig. D.—Bur clover (Medicago denticulata). Fig. E.—Napa thistle ( Centaurea melitensis). Fig. F.—Corn coeckle (Agrostemma githago). Fig. G.—Button weed (Diodia teres). [A, F, G, Magnified 4 times; C, D, E, magnified twice; B, magnified 17 times. ] v} ‘nt ‘ee. : y ‘ ua i yee da \ } e 1 : \ a rs , y J o ’ #4 | ‘ ‘ ' j \ ft WEED SEEDS AS FOOD. Hs Smartweed and bindweed were eaten by 187 birds, crab grass by 154, and the seeds of sedges by more than 150. The last are harsh, coarse plants, unsuited for forage, but which often adulterate forage crops injuriously. Grass and sedge seeds (fig. C) form 26.21 percent of the food of the horned larks. Some of these seeds are very small,-and a great number of them are taken by the birds at a meal, no fewer than 500 having been found in a sin- gle stomach. An equal number of the tumbleweed seeds have been eaten by one bird, but of most kinds 100 is a fair meal, and this num- ber of foxtail seeds is often taken. As a rule, however, the horned larks do not make an entire meal of one kind of food, nor do they show a decided preference for particular weed seeds, as appears from the very large number of kinds eaten, no fewer than 90. species of weed and grass seeds having been identified in their food. Besides the common weed pests before mentioned, many other weeds, harmful in some or all parts of the country, are comprised in this list. Black mustard and wild radish, common pests in grain fields, are eaten whenever found. ‘These weeds are especially injuri- ous in California. Some others, which are only too well known in the same State, are eaten freely by the horned larks. The little plant known as red maids (Calandrinia), which is very hard to extirpate, produces a myriad of small black seeds, which are a favorite food of the larks of California. Filaree (A7odiwm) and the chickweeds (Silene and Stellaria) are very persistent weeds in cultivated ground, and again, their seeds form a conspicuous portion of the food of the horned lark. Bur clover (Medicago denticulata) (fig. D), very injuri- ous to sheep-raising interests, and the Napa thistle (fig. EK), or tocalote (Centaurea), a most formidable weed pest in both fields and pastures, are eaten. The common sunflower, harmless in the East, but most troublesome in many parts of the West, has large, nutritious seeds, which are often found in the stomachs of the larks. Dandelion, hoary vervain, and dog fennel are three others of the list of the ‘100 worst weeds’ which are eaten. The seeds of plants of the genus Solanwm also, one of which is the troublesome horse nettle, though small, are not overlooked. Among the poisonous plants the seeds of which are a part of the food of the horned larks is corn cockle (Agrostemma githago) (fig. F). The seed of this plant is a serious component of the wheat crop, as its weight and size make its separation from the wheat dificult. Animals are sometimes poisoned from eating wheat with cockle in it, and fatal cases of poisoning have been known of men who had eaten flour made from such grain. The birds apparently are not affected by the poisonous qualities of the seeds. Corn cockle is also a bad crop-choking weed, and in eating its seeds the larks confer a double benefit. Pokeweed, another poisonous species, sometimes 22 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. injurious to cattle, produces seeds which are eaten by the horned larks. Lamb’s quarters, buttonweed (fig. G), whitetop, and corn spurry are among the other well-known weed seeds consumed. FRUIT. A few seeds of cultivated fruits were found in the horned larks’ stomachs. These were of blackberry, pear, and cherry. No fruit pulp was found, and the seeds were probably obtained from garbage heaps, where these birds sometimes feed. But one-fifth of 1 percent of the total food of the year is fruit, and nearly.all of this is taken in the winter months. Evidently the horned larks have little taste for fruit, and the quantity they get is too insignificant to be of economic — value. | | MISCELLANEOUS VEGETABLE Foon. Among the miscellaneous vegetable matter of no economic impor- tance eaten by the larks were bits of grass roots and stems, a few flowers, and fragments of other tissues of plants. One stomach con- tained alge, which had been obtained in a marsh. A few seeds, rec- ognizable only as those of plants of the mint and carrot families, were found. Giraud reports that he found bits of seaweed in the stomachs of larks. In summing up this part of our subject it may be said that horned larks are among the most efficient weed-destroying birds, and, as we have just seen, not a few of the weeds they eat are among the worst — pests of cultivated land. ANIMAL FOOD. The animal food of the horned lark, comprising 20.6 percent of the yearly diet, ismade up entirely of invertebrates. It consists principally — ¢ of insects, but is of great variety, as appears from the following list: Beetles, butterflies, grasshoppers, moths, ants, spiders, flies, wasps, thousand-legs, mites, centipedes, snails, periwinkles, bits of crab, mussel, and oyster shell, earthworms, termites, and ant-lions. Not~ only are the adult forms of the above eaten, but also the eggs, cocoons, and larve of many of them. Thus the horned lark does effective work in thinning out many forms of invertebrate life. INSECTs. There are more harmful than beneficial families of insects, and the influence of the injurious kinds greatly overbalances that of the others. Many species, however, are valuable allies of the farmer, and success- ful agriculture would be well-nigh impossible without them. For the purposes of economic ornithology, only a few groups are considered beneficial. These are chiefly the parasitic hymenoptera, which destroy many injurious insects, and the predaceous beetles. That the latter USEFUL INSECTS EATEN. Va are not entirely useful, and that they sometimes attack cultivated crops, has been shown by various authors. These insects together make up only one-fourth of 1 percent of the food of the horned larks, which may be said, therefore, to eat practically no insects of value to man. Predaceous beetles of one family, the Carabidx, live on the surface of the ground, where the horned larks obtain all their food, and it is strange that so few are eaten. -As these insects are usually active only at night, and remain concealed by day, they are well pro- tected; but some birds eat considerable numbers of them. Of the few found in the stomachs of horned larks only one species, Agonoderus pallipes, a A ; r : Fic. 3.—Predaceous beetle can be identified. This beetle (fig. 3)is known to (4gonoderus pallipes). feed upon the chinch bug, but about half of its (From Riley, Bureau of ; Entomology. ) food is vegetable, partly grass seed. Its eco- nomic relations, then, are about evenly balanced, and its wholesale destruction would be a loss. Only 15 of the 1,154 birds examined had eaten any carabids, and these insects represented but 0.16 percent of the total food. ‘Thus the destruction of these insects by the horned lark is too slight to be noticed. Tiger beetles, another group of pre- daceous beetles, are also very scantily represented in the food of the horned larks. Although the larks often feed on the sandy beaches and roads where these active insects are most abundant, only two of them had been secured by the birds examined. Fic. 4.—June bug (Lachnosterna arcuata) and its larva, a white grub. (From Chittenden, Bureau of Entomology.) Taking up the injurious species, it was found that several horned larks had eaten click beetles, both in the adultand larval stages. ~The larvee are the wireworms which are injurious to grain crops. The greater number of these were eaten in May. Among other beetles eaten, the dung beetles and other scavengers of the family Scarabxide are of little economic interest, and together with the leaf chafers of the same family they comprise a little over 1 percent of the food of the year. All the leaf chafers, however, which include the June bugs (fig. 4) 24. HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. and their larve, the white grubs, are injurious. In the month of May 8.75 per cent of these are taken. The leaf beetles or chrysome- lids form a slightly larger portion of the food taken than the seara- beids. The largest percentage, 4.1, of these eaten in any month is in August. In this family are found the harmful flea beetles, several species of which have been identified from stomachs of horned larks. flaltica ignita, which it is thought is likely to become decidedly injurious to strawberries and other plants in many parts of the country, and Phyl- lotreta vittata (fig. 5), a species very destructive to young plants of cabbage by the larks. The pale striped flea beetle (Systena blanda) (fig. 6), in- jurious to melons, sugar beets, etc., has been found in their stomachs. Passing to another family, the blister Fig. 5.—Destructive flea-beetle (Phyllotreta beetles, which often feed upon the. viata). (From Riley, Bureau of Ento- leaves Of POtlO VINES, items cami ee by the horned larks. The most conspicuous element of the insect food, however, is weevils. These dull colored little beetles are eaten in every month in. the year, and comprise 4.5 percent of the entire food of the horned larks. In May and June they form more than 8 percent of the food, and in August 18 percent. One hundred and fifty- nine birds ate them to the extent of 28.7 percent of their food. The weevils, as above stated, are dull and protectively colored, and when disturbed feign death and drop to the ground, where their resemblance to bits of twigs or seeds enables them to escape detection. This device, however, seems to be of little avail when the sharp eyes of the horned larks are concerned. Most of these little beetles are injvrious, and some are among Ties6—Palesiioed flea-beetle (Systenablanda). (From the worst of pests. The im- Chittenden, Bureau of Entomology.) bricated-snout beetle (fig. 7), which injures apple and cherry trees and strawberry plants, is often eaten. Eight California larks devoured more than 45 yucca weevils, the birds having an average amount of 84 percent of these insects in their stomachs. Of the curculionids, or true snout beetles, Sztones injures grass roots and Phytonomus and other garden vegetables, are eaten — Le 5 eas « "3 INJURIOUS INSECTS EATEN. 95 attacks clover. Both of these beetles are eaten by the horned lark. The potato stalk b rer (Zrichobaris trinotata), the nut weevils, and grain weevils are all taken. Weevils in the lark’s diet take the place of grasshoppers, which are the predominant element of the insect food of granivorous birds. ‘The percentage of grasshoppers eaten by the larks, 2.5, is somewhat more than half that of the weevils consumed. In August and September, the months during which grasshoppers are most abundant, 7.1 and 8.9 percent, respectively, are con- sumed by horned larks. Grasshoppers were obtained in ev. ery month in the year except November, December, and Janu- ary. During the a oreat invasions ot Fie. 7.—Imbricated-snout beetle (Epicerus imbricatus). (From locusts that have oc- Chittenden, Bureau of Entomology.) curred in the United States horned larks have been efficient in their destruction, and they are reported to have eaten both eggs and adults. Caterpillars, cocoons, and adults of lepidoptera are eaten by horned larks. The larve of the tineid or lear-mining moths (fig. 8), which are injurious to various nuts, fruits, and stored grain, and even: to furs, are a favorite food. In the winter many of these are picked from their places of concealment. Three horned larks collected in March in Wyoming had eaten more than 30- each, making 80 percent of their food. Among the caterpil- lars, geometrids, or measuring worms, were identified. Most Fic. 8.—Tineid moth with larva and cocoon. (After Riley, of the caterpillars are Bureau of Entomology.) me /Hh af eaten in April and May, 5.8 and 6.2 percent, respectively, being taken in these months. Concerning the value of the horned lark in destroying cutworms, the caterpillars of the owlet moths, Dr. Le Baron says: The peculiarity of this bird * * * is the instinct with which it discovers and destroys those grubs which infest cornfields, and which often do so much damage to this and other crops. It came to my knowledge through the observation of an 4The American Entomologist and Botanist, II, No. 6, p. 168, April, 1870. 26 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. intelligent and observing farmer in my neighborhood upon whose accuracy entire dependence can be placed. While going through with the first hoeing of his corn, he observed running about among the hills little grayish birds, which, from his description and from the absence of any similar bird with which it could be easily confounded, I have no doubt was the present species. Upon observing one of them more attentively, he became interested in watching its operations. Running along near the hills, it stopped abruptly from time to time opposite a hill and stood still as if listening; then, having apparently determined its direction, it inserted its bill at a short dis- tance from a spear of corn, and by a rapid rotary motion partially buried itself in the loose earth, and then jerking backward dragged out a large grub, which from its situation may be reasonably supposed to be one of those larve, of which there are several different kinds, known by the name of cutworms. Taking this worm in its bill, it ran along until by its acute sense of hearing or by some other instinct it became aware of the presence of another of its insect prey. Then laying down the one previously obtained it quickly dislodged another in the same manner, and seiz- ing them both in its bill again pursued the search. Having obtained as many as it could carry, it flew off to the neighboring grass field, having in all probability a brood of young awaiting its arrival. Not infrequently one of these small birds would carry off four or five grubs at once, often having to lay them down and take them up several times before it could get secure hold of them all. When we consider how common these birds are, it is easy to conceive that they must destroy an immense number of larvee in the course of the season. While writing this article I have obtained several specimens of this kind of bird, both male and female, for the purpose of identifying the species with certainty. Upon examining the contents of the stomach, I found in most of them several grains resembling hulled oats, and in one of them was a larva nearly 1 inch in length, of a pale-green color, with a brown head and tapering a little at each end, being differ- ent from the cutworm, but resembling and perhaps identical with the spindle worm, so called, which burrows into the stem of the corn plant. It would be a curious fact if it should prove that the bird possesses the instinct to detect and destroy two noxious larve so different in appearance and_habits as those here ~ mentioned. Thus does this shy and unobtrusive little bird perform its humble but useful part in the economy of nature, and while seeking a subsistence for itself and young unconciously renders an important service to the husbandman. - Next in importance to the beetles as an element of the horned lark’s food are bugs. Eggs, young, and adults are eaten, and representa- tives of 12 families of these insects had been consumed by the birds examined. Practically all the bugs eaten are injurious, some of them especially so. The tarnished plant bug (Lygus pratensis). (fig. 9), which is very destructive to all orchard fruits and to strawberries, and the green tree bug (Wezara hilaris), one of the offensive stink- bugs sometimes found on grapes, are devoured. The chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) (fig.10 ), among the worst of all insect pests, was eaten in March, May, and June. The losses caused by this insect have been estimated for single years throughout its range at above a hundred million dollars. One stomach of a horned lark collected in May contained 34 entire chinch bugs and fragments of 16 more, or a total of 50 eaten in a morning. MISCELLANEOUS ANIMAL FOOD. mah Among other insects, ants and wasps taken together are but little over one-half of 1 percent of the year’s food. The beneficial species consumed were ichneumon flies, but they make up only 0.07 percent of the total food. Ants at certain times are eaten freely, especially by California larks. These insects are considered more injurious than beneficial. None of the other components of the animal food amounts to 1 percent of the food of the year. Spiders are obtained in every month, the greatest number — being taken in May. Flies and their larvee are eaten whenever found, the greatest number in June. Dipterous larvee, which live in the brine of salt tanks on the Pacific coast, are among those eaten, 20 of these being found in one stomach. Thirty-three larvee of the common house fly were eaten at one meal by another bird. Termites or white ants were devoured by California larks in October, and the creatures known as ant-lions (yrmeleonide) were a part of the food in May, June, and July, most of these being eaten by Kansas horned larks. Fie. 9.—Tarnished plant bug (Lygus pratensis). (From Chittenden, Bureau of Entomology. ) MiIscELLANEOUS ANIMAL Foon. Twenty-two birds had eaten animal matter which may be classed as miscellaneous. One had eaten three or four earthworms. Frag- ments of hundred-legs and thousand-legs were found in a few stomachs. A mite was found among some alge picked up by one of the birds. Several larks which were shot on beaches had gathered a few small periwinkles, but whether these were taken for food or as an aid in grind- ing food is a question. Bits of oyster, mus- sel, and crab shell were probably taken for the latter purpose. One or two snails also were eaten. So far as its animal diet is concerned, the horned lark is exceedingly beneficial. It con- sumes more or less animal matter in every : month of the year, and from May to August ava ee Bien (Bllasiis nearly one-half its food is of animal nature, leucopterus). (From Webster, chiefly insects. These consist largely of spe- ee Oey) cies which if unchecked would soon render agriculture impossible. Feeding as it does on the ground in the midst of the crops which the insects threaten to destroy, the horned lark is one of the most efficient natural checks upon their numbers, and it is dificult to overestimate the value of the service thus rendered. 28 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. MINERAL MATTER. Horned larks use a very large amount of gravel to assist in grinding ~ their food, and, strange as it may seem, nestlings have more of it in their stomachs than adults. Five stomachs of nestlings which con- tained no food material except of an animal nature held an average of 21 percent of gravel. Now, it has been supposed, since granivorous birds usually eat much gravel, and since exclusively insectivorous birds, such as cuckoos, take almost none, that its function is the crush- ing and grinding of seeds to aid in their digestion. But why the thin- walled stomach of fledglings which are fed almost exclusively on soft animal foods should contain so much gravel is a question for which no satisfactory answer has yet been found. The percentage for the nest- lings is 21.8, for the adults 18.4, and for the birds in first plumage 14.9. The last group is the most vegetarian of the three, but, oddly enough, takes the least grinding material. The mineral matter con- sists principally of coarse and fine sand, sandstone, quartz, and cinders. Many bits of fossils were found, among which were fragments of foraminifera, brachipods, sea urchins, corals, bryozoans, and crinoids. NESTLING AND OTHER YOUNG HORNED LARKS. As with most of our common birds, nestlings of the horned larks are more insectivorous than older individuals, although while still inthe — nest they are sometinies fed considerable vegetable matter. From the present investigation the ratio of vegetable to animal food is found to be 16.3 to 83.7. . A thorough study of the diet of the nestling larks requires a larger amount of material than is available. Ten stomachs have been exam- ined, which were taken in three States, from April to July, inclusive. Those obtained early in the season, and from northern States, contained the largest amounts of vegetable matter. Of these, three confained 1, 8, and 0 percent, respectively, and two 50 percent, of vegetable sub- stances. A nestling taken in April in New York had been fed 45 per- cent of wheat. his consisted of whole grains, which would seem to be rather unsuitable food for a fledgling. The other vegetable matter found in the stomachs of nestling larks was mainly weed seeds. Among them were green foxtail ( Chetochloa viridis), . tumbleweed ——- thus), and yellow sorrel (Oxalis stricta). In the animal matter were wireworms ( //ater¢de), other beetle larve mainly white grubs (Scurabeide), adult beetles, such as scarabeeids, leaf beetles (Chrysomelidx), pill beetles (Byrrhidz), and weevils (Rhyn- chophora). The latter were found in all but three of the stomachs and formed 16.3 percent of the total food of the nestlings. Of the chrys- omelids, one stomach contained fragments of at least 50 individuals contain 42 locusts and 33 small seeds. FOOD OF YOUNG HORNED LARKS. 29 of the greater striped flea-beetle (Disonycha caroliniana) (fig. 11), a foliage-feeding species. The most important element of the animal food, however, was grasshoppers (Acrzdizdx). These comprised 41.5 percent of all the food, and no less than 99 percent of the contents of one of the stomachs. (Grasshoppers are a favorite diet for the nestlings of many birds, and sometimes are fed to them almost to the total exclusion of other foods. Prof. Samuel Aughey, in Nebraska, during the month of May, found the horned larks feeding almost wholly upon young grasshoppers, ereat numbers of which they were carrying to their "sho teetie poise nestlings. The stomach of one lark was found to — nycha caroliniana). (Three times nat- ural size. ) Other animal matter fed to the nestlings examined by. the writer consisted of chrysalids of leaf-mining moths (7%nezde), leaf bugs (Capsidx), spiders, ant-lions (yrmeleonidx), thirteen of which formed 60 percent of the contents of one stomach, and centi- pedes (Chilopoda). In the nestling state, therefore, horned larks are almost entirely _ beneficial, and the number of insect pests they consume is very great. ——_— I ene: Adults have been seen to carry food to the nest twenty times in an hour, and they continue their visits throughout the day for a week or more; and it is to be remembered that this species raises two or three broods in a year. Each family thus destroys a host of insects, and the quantity consumed by the birds throughout North America is almost beyond computation. As our exain- inations show that weevils and grasshoppers compose the great bulk of the insect food of the nestlings, their economic value can hardly Fic. 12.—Columns showing the proportions of insects, grain, be overestimated. and weed seed eaten by the following: A, California larks; Concernin g the fully B, larks in first plumage: C, total number examined ex- fled al Professor clusive of California birds; D, nestlings. € ge young, roressol Barrows noted that they eat less animal matter than the adults, a conclusion confirmed by exami- nation of the more abundant material now available (see fig. 12). @¥irst Ann, Report U.S. Entom. Comm., App. II, p. 18, 1878. 30 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. One hundred and four birds in first plumage were taken in seven of the twelve months. The average amount of animal food eaten by them was 13.47 percent, 7.15 percent less than the quantity consumed by the adults. There is, in fact, no month in which they do not eat less animal matter than the old birds; thus in January they get none at all, in May they consume not quite 1 percent less than the adults, in June 25.1 percent less, in July 5.81 percent less. In August three young birds had eaten an average of only 0.5 percent of animal food, which is over 48 percent below the amount taken by the adults in the same month. In September three birds obtained 5.33 percent, or 9.27 percent less than the old birds. In October only one immature bird was collected, and it had eaten 5 percent of animal matter, which was more than 9 percent less than the average amount taken by the adults during that month. In May, June, and July the birds of the year, although they con- sume less animal food than the adults, get more than the average amount for the species, and perhaps they are fed to some extent by the adults. In August, September, October, and January, as we have seen, they either care little for animal food or, as is more likely, are unable to procure it from want of skill. The latter conclusion seems all the more probable, since it is in the first-named month that the adults consume the maximum amount for the year. If comparison of the animal food of adults and young (exclusive of nestlings) is confined to the months in which the latter were collected, the young fall more than 15 percent below the average of their parents, and, be the reason what it may, the fact remains that in the month of January and from May to October, inclusive, the birds of the year consume less than half as much animal matter as the adults. FOOD OF THE HORNED LARKS OF CALIFORNIA COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE OTHER FORMS. The food habits of the California subspecies ( Otocoris alpestris acted) were found to differ so remarkably from those of the other horned larks as to merit separate notice. Briefly stated, the difference con- sists in the high percentage of vegetable—as compared to the animal— food consumed by the California birds. Proceeding to details it will be seen from the accompanying chart (fig. 13) that the quantity of animal matter consumed fluctuates irregularly throughout the year, obeying no obvious law. No stomachs were collected in May, and the number for some other months is too small to furnish reliable results, but the aggregate for the year, 267, is quite sufficient to give a good idea of the food of the subspecies. No nestlings of. the California lark were examined. The first brood of these is said to be hatched in April or May, and the percentage of animal matter consumed by the California larks in these two months CALIFORNIA HORNED LARK. ol would probably be largely increased if nestlings had been included in the examinations. It appears that the highest percentage of animal matter is taken in June. ‘This, however, is only 27.7 percent, not much more than half the highest monthly average for the other mem- bers of the species. This small percentage appears the more remark- able when it is stated that the birds collected in June in California were from places where insect life abounds. Some came from the salt marshes, where fly larve are numerous, and others from beaches where small chrysomelids are plentiful. In most localities, however, insects are scarce during the dry season, but almost everywhere there is an abundance of vegetable food accessible to the larks. All of the weeds, except the tarweeds and a few other drought-resisting species, dry up, and a litter of broken plants, which contains many seeds, covers the surface of the ground. Ants and grasshoppers are the only insects found in any numbers in these ‘dry pastures.’ It is therefore not surprising that vegetable food composes 91.44 percent of the diet of the California horned larks, while the larks in the re- mainder of the country take less than 80 percent of the 100 80 20 60 40 40 60 same class of food. Of the vegetable matter, weed seed, which is 51.1 percent, is less than the amount of the same kind of food taken by the other horned larks. The rest place SoA Ee eee) Hp ea pee ee Seok Fic. 13.—Diagram showing the tad of animal and vegetable food of the California horned lark for every month in the year. 60 20 /00 of the vegetable food, 40.2 percent, is grain, aediee that from wild as well as from cultivated plants. Hence the most serious complaints of the grain-feeding habits of the larks come from California, and the pera ne facts partially justify them. Of the 98 horned larks examined which had eaten wheat, 23 came from California. Two hundred and one had eaten oats, and 130 of these were from California. Of the grain eaten by the horned larks of California, 31.1 percent consists of oats and 9.1 percent of wheat, corn having been eaten by but one bird. Oats, then, are the favorite food, and on this account the horned lJarks are fe to damage the crop. However, a great part of the oats consumed probably comes from the wild plants so abundant in all parts of the State, and the destruction of these is a benefit. The California horned larks consume only 8.56 percent of animal food, while the other forms collectively eat 20.61 percent. Consider- 32 HORNED LARKS IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE. ation of the food habits of this subspecies indicates how powerfully local conditions, such as the abundance or scarcity of certain foods, affect the economic value of a bird. Horned larks, like other birds, naturally have recourse to the foods which are most abundant and most accessible, the ubiquitous wild oats being, in the case of the California birds, by far the greatest single element of their diet. In California, then, where they depend chiefly upon grain for food, the horned larks may do considerable harm, especially when they are very numerous. Elsewhere in the United States, other foods being generally abundant, grain is taken only incidentally and little injury is done. SUMMARY. Examination of 1,154 stomachs collected in all parts of the United States and southern Canada shows that the food of the horned larks consists of insects, 20.6 percent, and vegetable matter, nearly six- sevenths of which are weed seed, 79.4 percent. The nestlings are highly insectivorous, but soon after leaving the nest they become much more vegetarian than even the adults. The horned larks of California differ markedly in food habits from those of other parts of the country, being almost entirely vegetarian, and although the number examined constitutes little more than a fifth of the total, yet they consume half of all the grain eaten by the whole group. Below are contrasted the amounts of grain eaten by the horned larks of California and of other States: Grain. California. Elsewhere. Percent. Percent. Oats se Se Se Ae aN a ee Te Seale 4, 86 Wheat, oc ace 5 cs a name 9.1 | 1. 66 - | COND 25525 See 2 ER Se A ake ee et LID aap Trace. | 4,97 Buckwheat... 03.5. e265 56.8 ee es ie ee None. | 68 Totali sve sek Se ee Ee ee ee ee ee ee 40.2 1222, From the above facts and figures it might appear that the California horned larks are decidedly injurious, but the quantity of oats eaten as indicated by the ratios does not fairly represent the birds’ economic status, since a large proportion of this grain is wild and hence of no value to the farmer. Of the grain eaten in the other States, buckwheat is a negligible amount, while practically all of the corn and oats eaten is waste. Although the Great Plains region, the most important wheat-growing area of the country and also the center of abundance of the horned larks, is represented by a proportionate number of the stomachs examined, yet the percentage of wheat eaten is only 1.66, In fact, the VALUE OF HORNED LARK. 33 larks of this region, considered separately, are even more insectivorous than those from east of the Mississippi, one-fourth of their food being animal matter. The charges made by farmers that the horned larks eat newly sown grain are confirmed, but in attempting to estimate the economic value of the birds it must be borne in mind that the insects they eat com- pensate many fold for the seed grain taken, even considered bulk for bulk. As a matter of fact, however, the insects eaten constitute almost twice as great a proportion of the food as the grain, including even that which is waste. As may be seen from the foregoing table, the grain-eating proclivities of the bird in most parts of the country result in very little damage to the farmer. Furthermore, even this small amount of injury is preventable by the use of a deep-planting drill in seeding. It is impossible to estimate in dollars and cents the benefits result- ing from the work of the horned lark, but it is none the less real on that account. Moreover, the services of the bird cost the farmer practically nothing save a small toll levied here and there upon seed grain. So small in amount is the grain thus taken and over such restricted areas that, aside from the fact that at small expense all damage can be prevented, the loss bears no comparison to the benefits conferred. The horned lark by its services to agriculture earns a right to live, and deserves protection at the hands of man. LIST OF SEEDS, FRUITS, AND INVERTEBRATES EATEN BY THE HORNED LARKS. GRAIN. Corn (Zea mays) . Kafir corn (Andropogon sorghum). Oats (Avena sativa). Wheat ( Triticum sativum). Buckwheat (Fagopyrum fagopyrum). FORAGE PLANTS. Paspalum (Paspalum spp.). Hungarian grass ( Chextochloa italica). Timothy (Phleum pratense). Red-top (Agrostis alba). Orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata). Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Rape (Brassica napus). Alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Red clover ( Trifolium pratense). White clover ( Trifoliwn repens). WEEDS AND WILD FRUITS. Eel grass (Zostera marina). Large crab grass (Syntherisma sanguinalis). Small crab grass (Syntherisma linearis) Barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Witch grass (Panicum capillare). Yellow foxtail ( Chextochloa glauca). Green foxtail (Chetochloa viridis). Rough rush grass (Sporobolus asper). Sheathed rush grass (Sporobolus vagineflorus). Wild oats (Avena fatua). Wire grass (Hleusine indica) . Stink grass ( Hragrostis major) . Club rush (Scirpus sp.). Sedge (Carex sp.). Rush (Juncus sp.). Field sorrel (Rwmex. acetosella). Western dock (Rumex occidentalis) . Curled dock (Rumex crispus). Dense-flowered persicaria (Polygonum portori- CeNnse). Pale persicaria (Polygonum lapathifolium). Pennsylvania persicaria (Polygonum pennsylva- nicum). Lady’s thumb ( Polygonum persicaria). Smartweed (Polygonum hydropiper). Knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare). Black bindweed (Polygonum convolvulus). Climbing false buckwheat (Polygonum scandens). Lamb’s-quarters (Chenopodium albwm) . Saltwort (Salsola kali). Rough pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Slender pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). 34 WEEDS AND WILD FRUITS—continued. Prostrate amaranth (Amaranthus blitoides). Poke weed (Phytolacca americana). Red maids ( Calandrinia menziesit). Miner’s lettuce (Montia perfoliata). Purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Corn cockle (Agrostemma yithago). Wild pink (Silene spp.). Chickweed (Alsine spp.). Largermouse-earchickweed( Cerastiumvulgatum). Mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastiwm spp.). Sandwort (Arenaria spp.). Corn spurry (Spergula arvensis). Black mustard (Brassica nigra) . Turnip (Brassica campestris). Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrun). Cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.). Wild red cherry (Prunus pennsylvanica). Sensitive pea (Cassia sp.). Lupine (Lupinus sp.). Toothed medic (Medicago denticulata). Melilot (Melilotus sp.). Cutleaved cranesbill (Geranium dissectum). Alfilaria (EHrodiwm cicutariwm). Upright yellow wood sorrel ( Oxalis stricta). Milkwort (Polygala sp.). Spotted spurge (Huphorbia maculata). Spurge (Euphorbia sp.) Supple-jack (Berchemia scandens). New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus). Mallow (Malva alcea). Nuttall’s dogwood (Cornus nuttallii). Common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Yellow bur-weed (Amsinckia spectabilis). Hairy stickseed (Lappula texana). Stickseed (Lappula sp.). Corn gromwell (Lithospermum arvense). Gromwell (Lithospermum officinale). Hoary puccoon ( Lithospermum canescens). Narrow-leaved pucecoon (Lithospermum lineari- Joliwm). Blueweed ( Echium vulgare). Hoary vervain ( Verbena stricta). e Blue curls (Trichostema dichotomum). Nightshade (Solanum spp.). Rough button-weed ( Diodia teres). Dandelion ( Taraxacum taraxacum). Small-flowered marsh elder (Jva axillaris) Great ragweed (Ambrosia triida). Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisixfolia). Fleabane (Hrigeron sp.). Common sunflower (Helianthus annwus) . — wee aa 8 Pe ee “as oo SE ee ee eee ee ee eee ea ee WEEDS AND WILD FRUITS—continued. Sunflower (Helianthus spp.). Tarweed (Hemizonia fasciculata). Dog fennel (Anthemis cotula). Common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris). Common bur thistle ( Carduus lanceolatus). Napa thistle (Centaurea melitensis). CULTIVATED FRUITS. . Blickberry (Rubus sp.). Pear (Pyrus sp.). Cherry (Prunus sp.). BEETLES (COLEOPTERA). Tiger beetles (Cicindelidz). Ground beetles and their larve (Carabidz: Agon- oderus pallipes). ; Water scavenger beetles (Hydruphilidz). Rove beetles (Staphylinide: Aleochara nitida; Xantholinus picipennis). Histerid beetles ( Histeridz). Pill beetles (Byrrhidz). Click beetles and their larvye, the wireworms (Elateridx: Drasterias sp.; Limonius plebejus) . Fireflies (Lampyridz}. Lamellicorn beetles and their larve, the white | | Leaf hoppers (Jassidx: Agallia sanguinolenta) . grubs (Scarabxidx: Onthophagus pennsylvani- cus; Dung beetles [Aphodius jfimetarius, A. ru- ricola, and A. inquinatus]; June bugs [Lach- nosterna sp.|]; Strigoderma arboricola) . Long-horned beetles ( Cerambycide). Leaf beetles (Chrysomelidxe: Donacia sp.; Pachy- brachys sp.; Gastroidea sp.; Galerucella notata; SEEDS, FRUITS, AND INVERTEBRATES EATEN. Greater striped flea-beetle [Disonycha caro- | liniana] ; Strawberry flea-beetle [Haltica ignita] ; | Longitarsus liveus; Striped flea-beetle [Phyllo- | | SPIDERS (ARANEIDA), INCLUDING EGGS AND EGG treta vittata]; Chetocnema denticulata; C. pro- tensa; Pale striped flea-beetle [Systena blanda]; Anomea sp.; Chrysochus auratus). Blister beetles (Meloidx : Black blisterebeetle [ Hp- icauta pennsylvanica] ). Searred-snout beetles ( Otiorhynchide : Imbri- cated-snout beetle [Epicxrus imbricatus]; Yucea | weevil [Rhigopsis effracta]: Rhypodes sp. nov.). cens; Phytonomus nigrirostris; Macrops ulkei; Copturodes adspersus; Potato stalk borer [ Tri- chobaris trinotata] ; Centrinus sp.; Tyloderma nig- rum). Nut weevils (Calandride). Fungus beetles (Anthribidz). Among the other animal matter Centipedes ( Chilopoda). Millipeds (Diplopoda). Mites (Acarida). Snails and periwinkles (Gastropoda: Bittiwm nig- rum and B. greenit). 30 GRASSHOPPERS (ORTHOPTERA). Locusts, and their eggs and nymphs (Acridiidz: Melanoplus sp.). Grouse locusts ( Tettix ornatus; Tettix sp.). BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA), INCLUD- ING CATERPILLARS, CHRYSALIDS, AND COCOONS. Measuring worms (Geometridz). Leaf miners ( Tineidz). BUGS (HEMIPTERA), INCLUDING EGGS AND NYMPHS. Thread-legged bugs (Emeside). Damsel bugs (Nabidz: Nabis ferus). Assassin bugs (Reduviidz). Leaf bugs (Capsidz: Tarnished plant bug [Lygus pratensis]) . Chinch bugs (Lygzidx: Chinch bug [Blissus leu- copterus] ). Squash bugs (Coreidz). Stink bugs (Pentatomidx: Green tree bug [Nezara hilaris] ). | Burrower bugs (Cydnidz). | Lantern flies ( Fulgoridz). Spittle insects (Cercopide). Jumping plant lice ( Psyllidz). ANTS AND WASPS (HYMENOPTERA). Parasitic group: Ichneumon flies monide) . Nonparasitic group: Scoliide: Black wasp ( Tiphia inornata) . Ants (Formicina: Formicidx, Myrmicid2). ( Ichneu- SACS. Running spiders (Lycosidz). Jumping spiders (Attidz). FLIES (DIPTERA), INCLUDING LARV# AND PUP. Robber flies ( Asilidz). True snout beetles (Curculionidx: Sitones flaves- | Muscidx: House fly (Musca domestica). WHITE ANTS (ISOPTERA). Termes sp. ANT-LIONS (NEUROPTERA). Myrmeleon sp. were the following: Bits of shells of oyster and mussel (Lamelli- branchiata). Carapace of crab (Crustacea). Karthworms (Chxtopoda). Adult horned larks, 10. Animal food, 22-27, 35. insects, 22-27, 35. miscellaneous, 27. Breeding habits, 7-8. California horned larks, 30-32. food of, 30-82. Corn as food, 16-17. Damage to wheat, 13-16. Distribution, 7-8. Food, animal, 22-27, 35. corn, 16-17. forage plants, 18-19, 34. fruit, 22, 34-35. grain, 13-19. insects, 22-27, 35. mineral matter, 28. miscellaneous animal, 27. miscellaneous vegetable, 22. oats, 17-18. vegetable, 12-22, 34-35. weeds, 19-22, 34-35. wheat, 13-16. wild fruits, 34. Forage plants as food, 18-19, 34. Fruit, cultivated, eaten, 22, 35. PRED Boke | Fruit, wild, eaten, 34. | General food habits, 8-12. | General habits, 7-8. Grain as food, 13-19. Habits, breeding, 7-8. food, 7-85. general, 7-8. Injurious insects eaten, 23-27. Insect food, 22-27, 35. Invertebrates eaten, 22-27, 35. Marketing of horned larks, 11. Mineral matter, 28. Miscellaneous animal food, 27. Miscellaneous vegetable food, 22. Nestling and other young horned larks, 28-30. Oats as food, 17-18. Otocoris alpestris actia, 9, 30-32. Otocoris alpestris flava, 11. Seeds eaten, 19-22, 28, 34-35. Skylark, 11. Summary, 32-33. Useful insects eaten, 23. Vegetable food, 12-22, 34-35. Weed seeds as food, 19-22, 28, 34-35. Wheat as food, 13-16. Young horned larks, 28-30. Oo” a OS. 5 DEPARTMENT OF “AGRICU LTURE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN No, petes gee mee h =O: HART MERRIAM, Chel, “UNITED. STATES, AND THEIR 3 — 2 > BCONOMIC VALUE . :: Stee cook ea seat pars “BY SYLVESTER D. JUDD a rey BIOLOGICAL SURVEY a ne =e NFS MD Fil ii rm 2 aos |. WASHINGTON ? 4 a Ene et | “(SANVISVHdOYN SNOYSOOULNAD) ASNOUSE) 3SOVS Bull. 24, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, PLATE Il. ‘. ie ij | =. ~~ if RUFFED GROUSE. pe . 95 Sage grouse have been known to eat rose hips, greasewood leaves, and the buds and foliage of the pulpy-leaved thorn.“ The young, of course, are more highly insectivorous than their parents. A half-grown bird shot by Vernon Bailey had eaten, in _ addition to vegetable food, some 300 ants. KR Much remains to be learned about the diet. of the sage grouse, but enough is known to show that the bird lives principally on sage- brush, and does no harm to agriculture. The value of the flesh as food has been much discussed, but the general opinion is that when the birds have not been feeding much upon sage the flesh is excellent. A long-continued diet of sagebrush imparts to it a bitter, sagy flavor. Hon. Theodore Roosevelt says: ? However, I killed plenty of prairie chickens and sage hens for the pot, and as the sage hens were still feeding largely upon crickets and grasshoppers, and not exclusively on sage, they were just as good eating as the prairie chickens. Sage grouse should be drawn as soon as they are killed, to prevent the food in the stomach and intestines from tainting the heh: The sage grouse is of very gentle disposition, and probably would thrive in captivity. Should it be domesticated, its size would make it a most valuable fowl. E.S. Cameron, of Terry, Mont., writes to the Biological Survey that he has made a beginning in this direction. He secured eggs of the sage grouse, hatched them under a domestic hen, and some of the chicks survived. THE RUFFED GROUSE. (Bonasa wmbellus. )¢ The ruffed grouse is widely distributed over the wooded parts of the United States and Canada, and ranges from northern Georgia, Mississippi, and Arkansas north to Hudson Bay and central Alaska, and from Maine to the coast of Oregon. The different conditions of environment prevailing over this great range have had their effect in modifying the colors of the ited grouse so that several forms may be distinguished. The color differences between the bird of the south- ern Rocky Mountains and the Oregon ruffed grouse of the humid west coast are especially marked. The latter is the most richly colored of the North American grouse, and is notable for its handsomely 4 Wilson and Bonaparte, Am. Ornith., IV, p. 214, 1831. ®The Wilderness Hunter, p. 99, 1893. ¢The ruffed grouse is separable into four forms: The common bird of the Eastern States (Bonasa umbellus) ; the Canadian ruffed grouse (B. u. togata) of the spruce forests along the northern border, from Maine to British Colum- bia; the gray ruffed grouse (B. uw. umbelloides) of the Rocky Mountains, north to Alaska; and the Oregon ruffed grouse (B. u. sabini) of the humid wey coast, from northern California to British Columbia. 6568—No. 24—05 m——-4. ~ 26 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. contrasted black and reddish brown colors, set off by immaculate white. The ruffed grouse is one of the most highly peat of American game birds. It is known in New England as the * partridge,’ but in the Southern States it is usually called ‘ pheasant.’ -It is distinctly a bird of the woods, imparting the spirit of the wilderness to every sylvan retreat that it inhabits. In Virginia and Maryland, near the city of Washington, the species is, or was until recently, not uncom- mon along the rocky palisades of the Potomac and in deep gorges lined with laurel thickets. In Essex County, N. J., it frequents the crest of a wooded basaltic dike known as the Orange Mountains, where the picturesque rocky woods with a good stand of deciduous trees and an undergrowth of blueberry, second-growth white oak, wild grape and bittersweet vines, and beds of partridge berry (Mitchella repens) furnish a congenial home. That ruffed grouse usually prefer deciduous to evergreen growths was particularly no- ticed by the writer in 1892 and 1898 at Chocorua, N. H., a hamlet between Lake Winnepesaukee and the White Mountains. On his tramps through heavy spruce forests remote from houses or clear- ings he seldom came across grouse. He frequently met them, how- ever, In woodland near farms or in clearings, and particularly along wood roads. A favorite ground in August was the clearing of an abandoned farm, 200 feet above Chocorua Lake, which lies at the foot of Chocorua Mountain. The fields are separated from one another _by little trout brooks and have grown up to young spruces. Here in bowlder-strewn pastures was an abundance of blackberries, blue- berries, and grasshoppers, with old apple trees, birches, and poplars for winter budding. On this old farm the writer never failed to flush from three to eight grouse, and on several occasions he saw hen birds with young. In a sandy spot of the road leading up to the house the grouse had dusting wallows, which they used habitually. Dur- ing October birds were often found in hemlock woods with an under- growth of osmunda ferns or other vegetation. The ruffed grouse does not congregate in large coveys, like the plumed quails or the prairie chicken, but is found in companies of from two to eight, usually members of a single brood. It does not spend the night on the ground, but perches on a tree. When the weather is very cold, however, it often plunges into the snow and passes the night as snugly as an Eskimo in his igloo. The bobwhite whistles, the prairie chicken booms, and the blue grouse hoots, but the ruffed grouse drums. The fenuTrene - is one of the most ee and attractive of all bird performances. It may be heard at every season, but is at its best in spring. The cock, then in full vigor, mounts his drumming log, droops his wings, raises his fantail, and struts along the log with his crest and glossy black neck RUFFED GROUSE. 27 tufts erect. He begins beating his wings slowly; then faster and faster, till their rapid reverberation becomes a tattoo, rolling out a challenge to rival cocks and a love call to the hens. Nesting takes place in the latter part of April, or more often early in May. Ina makeshift nest scratched in a hollow are laid ten or a dozen or even more creamy white or buffy eggs, usually unspotted, but sometimes with fine specks of brown. The young look like little brown leghorn chicks. Only one brood is raised in a season. On July 4, in New Jersey, the writer has seen young birds as large as woodcock. The cock grouse assist neither in incubation nor in rear- ing the young, but after the eggs are laid assemble in small companies by themselves. The hen is amply able to care for her little family, and Mr. Sandys tells how a mother forced to headlong and unvalorous flight a young pointer that had designs on her brood. The notes of the grouse during the breeding season are interesting. When the brood is surprised the hen utters several clucking sounds, one of which may be described as ‘ quit, quit, quit.”. Mr. Sandys, in writing of the call of the parent birds to scattered chicks, says: ? In about ten minutes there sounded a low musical chirruping, very like the sound emitted by a red squirrel. between the coughing, sputtering notes. Major Bendire, quoting Doctor Ralph, says that a disturbed mother ‘grouse utters a sound like the whine of a young-puppy.° Of the habits and general attractiveness of the ruffed grouse Major - Bendire writes as follows: 4 The Ruffed Grouse is naturally tame and unsuspicious, and let it once realize that it is protected, it becomes almost as much at home in the immediate vicinity of man as a domestic fowl, and quickly learns to know its friends. -At the fine country residence of the Hon. Clinton L. Merriam, near Locust Grove, N. Y., especially during the winter, it is not an unusual sight to see several of these handsome birds unconcernedly walking about the shrubbery surrounding his home, and even coming on the veranda of the house to feed. They, like many other animals about the place, have learned that here at least they are among friends, and plainly show their full confidence in them. Even during the mating season a cock Grouse may irequently be seen in the act of drumming within 50 yards of some of the outbuildings. Bird Lore, for May-June, 1904, has an account of a wild hen grouse which was so tame that it would come out of the woods at call and allow itself to be picked up, thus displaying the most un- bounded confidence in its human neighbors. To lovers of nature the zesthetic value of this beautiful bird is very great, and its value is none the less, although it can not be measured in cash. aUpland Game Birds, pp. 118-119, 1902. bIbid., p. 119, 1902. c¢ Life Hist. N. A. Birds [I], p. 62, 1892. @Tbid., p. 60, 1892. 28 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. ~ The ruffed grouse affords grand sport; indeed, with not a few sportsmen it holds higher place even than bobwhite. In flight it is one of the swiftest of upland game birds, and considerable skill, a quick eye, and a steady hand are needed to shoot it on the wing. Most shots must be made in cover, and the bird’s habit of putting | a tree between itself and the sportsman as it flies away adds to the difficulty. As a rule it does not le nearly so close to a dog as bob- white, but before a well-trained, cautious animal it lies fairly well. When brought to bag the grouse is a noble prize. From six to nine birds may be called a good day’s bag, worth more than several times as many bobwhites. The excellence of this grouse as a table delicacy causes the market supply generally to fall far short of the demand. and the price is always high. If the bird could be successfully bred in captivity, it would furnish a most valuable food. PRESERVATION AND PROPAGATION. The ruffed grouse has a number of potent enemies. Most dan- gerous of all is probably that destructive biped, man. Writing from Minnesota, Dr. P.-L. Hatch says: 2 Nowhere was the ruffed grouse more abundant than in all the deciduous forests of this State, until mercilessly slaughtered by the pot hunters. * * * But their glorious day is passing away as fast as about 300 dogs and 700 double- — barreled breech-loading shotguns can accomplish their annihilation. Many market hunters of the grouse use a little cur dog trained to tree the game and to bark until the gunner approaches within range. Of the numerous natural enemies, hawks, owls, crows, skunks, minks, wild cats, and foxes are very destructive, and in certain localities a - species of-tick often infests the birds. Among the birds of prey, the Cooper hawk, goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, and great horned owl are their worst enemies. At Marshall Hall, Md., the writer found a crow plundering the nest of a grouse. Almost every- body who is personally familiar with the habits of the fox has found —_ ~ it feeding on game birds. At Chocorua the writer came upon the den of a red fox about which were strewn tail feathers of the ruffed grouse. Owners of shooting preserves will do well to destroy sys- tematically all vermin injurious to game. The bird should have better protection also from man. Massachusetts still permits land- owners to snare grouse on their own lands during October and Novem- ber. Such destructive and unsportsmanlike practices should be pre- vented everywhere by well-enforced laws. The abominable practice by summer campers of potting grouse when they have young should also be punished by a strict enforcement of the law. In sections 2 Birds of Minnesota, p. 160, 1892. RUFFED GROUSE. 29 where grouse are decreasing under persistent gunning the open season should be further limited or even eliminated for a period of years* until the birds have recovered something of their former numbers. A reasonable limit to the day’s bag should be set by law. Kansas, Maine, and Wisconsin restrict the number to 15; Montana and Oregon to 10, and Ohio to 6. Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Con- necticut have a limit of 5 grouse per day to a gun, and in the latter State, as well as in New York, no more than 36 can be taken in a year. By similar laws other States can aid in the preservation of the bird. The grouse in captivity often becomes tame. Sometimes, indeed, it takes kindly to the henhouse. It has laid in captivity, and its eggs found in the woods have been hatched under domestic hens, but thus far nothing like successful grouse culture has been approximated, though there appears to be no reason why under proper conditions it should not be successful. Comprehensive knowledge of the bird’s food habits should assist in solving the problem. FOOD HABITS. The food habits of the ruffed grouse have been investigated in con- nection with the present paper by the examination of 208 stomachs and crops. This material represents food taken in every month, but chiefly in the colder half of the year. New York supplied more material than any other section; Canada, Pennsylvania, and Massa- chusetts came next; and Nebraska, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and South Dakota each contributed a smaller part. Analysis of the food showed 10.92 percent of animal matter and 89.08 percent of vegetable matter. The animal food is almost all insects. The vegetable food consists of seeds, 11.79 percent; fruit, 28.32 percent; leaves and buds, 48.11 percent, and miscellaneous vegetable matter, 0.86 percent. The insect food proper includes grasshoppers, 0.78 percent; caterpillars, 1.15 percent; beetles, 4.87 percent, and miscellaneous insects, 3.86 per- cent. Some miscellaneous animal matter, made up of spiders and snails, is also eaten. The ruffed grouse eats a somewhat smaller pro- portion of insects than the bobwhite, but, like it, feeds on them to a large extent in the breeding season. INSECT Foon. Grouse shot by the writer at Chocorua, N. H., in September, 1898, were feeding largely on the red-legged grasshopper (J/elanoplus a@Jn Ohio the season has been closed until 1908, in Illinois until 1909, and sn Missouri until 1910. 30 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. femur-rubrum), which was unusually abundant in pastures where the — birds foraged. They had picked up also long-horned grasshoppers (Xiphidium sp.) and a few black crickets. Crickets often swarm in fields during fall, and offer tempting morsels to birds. The ruffed grouse occasionally eats such caterpillars as cutworms, army worms, cotton worms (Alabama argillacea), the red-humped apple worm (Schizura concinna), and the oak-leaf caterpillar (Symmerista albi- jrons). A number of observers, among them Doctors Fisher and Weed, report that it feeds on oak caterpillars. The ruffed grouse, like the bobwhite, prefers beatles to any other insects. It ae nlipoce as many of them as of all other kinds put together, including even such small ones as the clover weevil (Sztones hispidulus). It likes also the injurious leaf-eating beetles (Chryso- melidw), destroying even the notorious potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata). It eats the pale-striped flea beetle (Systena blanda), as well as many other leaf beetles, including Systena hudsonias, Disonycha caroliniana, Chetocnema sp., Galerucella sagittariw, and the grapevine pest, ddoxus vitis. By scratching, the grouse unearths many pests not found by other birds, notably beetle larvee, click beetles, and May beetles, including Lachnosterna hirsuta. It also consumes another injurious beetle, Dichelonycha sp., closely related to the May beetles and resembling them in habits and appearance. It scratches up many ground beetles belonging to Pterostichus, Aniso- dactylus, Harpalus, and other genera. Beetles of other families also—fireflies (Lampyride), metallic wood borers (Buprestide), and Calitys scabra (Trogostidw)—are in the food list. The grouse feeds also on such miscellaneous insects as flies, bugs, ants, and such other Hymenoptera as sawflies and ichneumon flies. A large proportion of the flies are slow-flying species, like crane flies, which are preyed upon by many other kinds of birds. Bugs, how- ever, are much more often destroyed by bobwhite and the ruffed _ grouse than by other birds. The ruffed grouse has been known to prey on the chinch bug, which at times is the most injurious insect in our country, and seldom destroyed by any except gallinaceous birds. Farmers who permit market hunters to rob them of their game should remember this fact. The grouse picks up also many other bugs, among them predaceous species hike the ambush bug (Phymata sp.) and the assassin bug (Reduviidw). They eat also homopterous insects, including leaf hoppers (Jassidw) and buffalo tree hoppers (Alembracide). Like many other birds, the ruffed grouse eats ants, frequently including such large species as Camponotus pennsylvanicus. Among small ants may be mentioned the pavement ant (Zetramorium RUFFED GROUSE. 37 | cespitum). Several species of the useful parasitic ichneumons are occasionally taken, and as an offset such foliage-destroying insects as sawflies, including adult forms of Nematus sp. and larve of Lophyrus sp. A peculiar long-bodied hymenopteron (Pelecinus sp.) also has been noted. The queerest article of food, perhaps, is the galls produced by insects (Cynipide). The ruffed grouse shows a marked liking for these odd growths, which contain a few tiny larve. The common semidomestic pheasant of England has the same taste. The grouse usually selects galls growing on oaks, often those produced by species of the genus Amphibolips. A bird shot in Lunenburg, Mass., in October had eaten 12 of these oak galls, although at that time other food was abundant. Few invertebrates other than insects were found in the investiga- tion of the food of the grouse. The miscellaneous animal food, how- ever, included representatives of such Myriapoda as the thousand-legs, of the order Diplopoda, and such Arachnida as harvest spiders (Phalangide), jumping spiders (Attid@), and ground spiders (Lycosida) ; snails of the genus Helix, and also shell-less snails, or slugs, including Limaz sp. and Tebennophorus carolinensis. VEGETABLE Foon. The vegetable food examined consisted of 11.79 percent of seeds, 28.32 percent of fruit, 48.11 percent of buds and leaves, and 0.86 percent of miscellaneous vegetable matter.. Grain was not found, though no doubt it would be eaten if obtainable. In fact, Major Bendire says that grouse procure it along roads from the droppings of horses.? The seed element of the food is mast and miscellaneous seeds. The mast—5.33 percent—consists of hazelnuts, beechnuts, hornbeam seeds, chestnuts, and acorns. The last, furnishing by all odds the largest supply, includes those of the scrub oak (Quercus nana), scrub chestnut oak (Q. prinoides), white oak (@Q. alba), and red oak (Q. yubra). Acorns are often swallowed whole, half a dozen to a dozen at a meal being not uncommon. Beechnuts also are taken whole, and from 20 to 60 are sometimes found in a crop. Miscellaneous seeds make up 6.46 percent of the entire food. Like many other gallinaceous birds, the ruffed grouse takes some legumi- nous seeds, though fewer than might be expected. The kinds known to have been eaten are the tick-trefoil (Meibomia sp.), so abundant in the edge of woods frequented by grouse, and vetch (Vicia caro- liniana). Winged seeds are often sampled, such as those of the hem- aLife Hist. N. A. Birds, [I], p. 62, 1892. 32 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. 3 lock, the pitch pine, and the maple. The following miscellaneous seeds are taken by the ruffed grouse: Blackberry lily (Belamcanda chi- Beech-drops (Leptamnium virgini- mnensis ). anum). Beggar-ticks (Bidens frondosa). Avens (Geum sp.). Chickweed (Alsine media). Persicaria (Polygonum pennsyl- ‘Sheep sorrel (Rumeax acetosella). vanicum). Sedge (Carex lupulina). Frost weed (Helianthemum. cana- Sedge (Cyperus sp.). dense). Violet (Viola sp.). Jewel weed (Impatiens sp.). Witch-hazel (Hamamelis virgini- ana). The list is interesting mainly for what it does not contain. Fur- ther investigations may show that the ruffed grouse, like the bob- white and other so-called granivorous species, 1s fond of ragweed, sunflower, and grass seed. A grouse taken in British Columbia dur- ing October showed a peculiar liking for the apparently dry husks of geum seeds, no fewer than 500 appearing in its crop. BUDS AND LEAVES. The ruffed grouse spends most of its feeding time in browsing and berry picking. It thus secures, respectively, 48.11 percent and 28.32 percent of its food. The country -boy knows where it resorts for budding, and often bags it without the aid of a dog or hammerless gun. The buds and foliage of poplar, birch, and willow form 20.20 percent of the entire food. Budding is most practiced in winter and early spring, when many other kinds of food are buried in snow. Birch and poplar buds afford by far the largest share of this cold- weather diet. Edward A. Preble says that in Canada in spring the sitting hen grouse leave the nest, fly to poplar trees, rapidly fill their crops with buds, and then hurry back to their eggs. He thinks that the males, having plenty of time to spare at that season, prefer to search for choicer food. The crop of a hen bird that he shot at Fort Chipewyan, Athabasca, May 29, 1901, was filled with young leaves of poplar (Populus balsamifera). The number of buds to a meal is surprising. A grouse shot at Palmer, Mich., December 15, 1894, contained 300 poplar buds. When engaged in budding, grouse | take both fiower buds and leaf buds; grown leaves of poplar also are eaten, and, not infrequently, the flattened petioles that catch the wind and give the leaves their characteristic quiver. Populus bal- samifera, P. tremuloides, and P. grandidentata are among the species on which they feed. Birch buds also are a staple; they are taken from the canoe birch (Betula papyrifera), the gray birch (B. popult- folia), the yellow birch (B. lutea), and the black birch (B. lenta). Everybody who is familiar with New England woods has seen the ee ae = ao a RUFFED GROUSE. eat BO grouse at dusk balancing on the ends of birch branches and snipping off buds. As with the poplar, both leaf buds and flower buds are taken. A grouse shot in Quebec December 18, 1896, had filled its crop with 200 catkins of the canoe birch. As a rule birds appear to prefer the male to the female flowers. Baird, Brewer,.and Ridgway are authority for the statement that in Maine the buds of black birch are so freely eaten that they impart to the bird’s flesh a dis- tinctive and agreeable flavor. The ruffed grouse feeds also on the buds and leaves of different species of willow, as Major Bendire ¢ and other authors have reported. A bird shot on Roseau River, Minnesota, October 20, 1896, had eaten 20 willow flowers. In bud- ding, the grouse often clips from a fourth to half an inch of a twig which bears two or three buds. ~ In addition to the buds and leaves of willow, birch, and poplar, browse from miscellaneous plants provides the bird with 27.91 per- cent of its food. Such relatives of the willow as the alder, hazel, beech, ironwood, and hornbeam furnish a part of the above. Apple trees on outlying parts of farms are favorite sources of supply. This tact, noted by many observers and confirmed by the present investiga- tion, has given rise to considerable discussion as to whether or not the trees are seriously injured by the budding. Dr. Clarence M. Weed Benys:? The ruffed grouse, however, is capable of inflicting real damage by a too close pruning of buds, and cases are known where apple orchards located near woods have been rendered useless by them. Mr. C. J. Maynard states that*he took 180 apple buds from one crop, and says that in Massachusetts at one time a bounty of 25 cents was offered by certain towns for the birds’ heads. Miss M. E. Paine, of Royalston, Mass., in a letter to the writer describes her observations on the budding of apple trees by grouse as follows: The ruffed grouse eats the buds of apple trees, but it is a help rather than a damage. Last year a wild apple tree on top of a hill, between pasture and mowing, was almost entirely budded. I thought entirely at first, but the ter- tuinal buds were almost always left uninjured, also many minute buds on each limb. The result was the terminal buds were pushed out and grew rapidly and strongly. The tree blossomed abundantly and the fruit hung in clusters toward the ends of the branches. The tree is of medium size and the branches droop to the ground. In the fall the golden apples occupied fully as much room as the green leaves, and as one looked at the tree a few rods away—a perfect pic- ture, barrels of apples on it, all nearly perfect and fair, just the result of a vigorous trimming. This year it was not so badly budded—less snow in winter. Many small buds farther back in the branches have started again this a Life Hist. N. A. Birds, [I], p. 66, 1892. b Birds in Their Relation to Man, p. 40, 1903. ¢ Birds of Eastern N. A., p. 353, 1881. 34 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. year and grown, and it is well fruited, owing to the budding two years in suecession. No tree could have been more entirely budded, but the grouse can not stand so as to reach the outmost terminal buds, as a rule; their weight is too great. The present investigation of stomachs revealed only an insignificant percentage of apple buds, probably because most of the grouse exam- ined were shot in places remote from orchards. The bird has been known to eat also pear and peach buds, and probably would not refuse cherry buds. From one crop, leaves of blackberry or raspberry (Rubus sp.) were taken, and bud twigs of blueberry (Vaccinium pennsylvanicum) and other species were not at all uncommon. The twigs severed by the sharp-edged bill of the grouse are all about the same length, one-third of an inch. They appeared in the stomachs as little whitish sticks, from which digestion had removed the bark. The extent to which the ruffed grouse browses on leaves and twigs suggests an herbivorous mammal rather than a bird. The ruffed grouse feeds on leaves and buds of the mayflower (Epigea repens), and likes exceedingly the leaves of the partridge berry (Iitchella repens). It nips off also leaves of both red and white clover, to the extent of 1 percent of its food. It is partial to the leaves of sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), which it cuts across as sharply as if by a pair of scissors, but it eats yellow sorrel (Oxalis stricta) with less relish. It appears to like dandelion greens, and has a queer taste for the fronds of ferns (Dryopteris spinulosa, Botrychium obliquum, and Polypodium vulgare). In its relation to conifers it differs widely from the spruce grouse, for it derives therefrom only an insignificant percentage of its food, while the spruce grouse obtains nearly 50 percent. Spruce needles and foliage of arborvite (Thuja occidentalis) have been seen in several stomachs. Edward A. Samuels believes that the ruffed grouse will eat leaves of evergreens only when all other food is lacking. In Alaska, E. W. Nelson found the bird feeding exclusively on spruce buds. He states that the flesh becomes disagreeable from this pitchy diet.2. The effect of highly flavored food on the flesh of game birds has already been referred to. | The ruffed grouse buds the highly poisonous laurel (/almia lati- folia). On this subject Alexander Wilson writes: ¢ During the deep snows of the winter, they have recourse to the buds of alder, and the tender buds of the laurel. I have frequently found their crops dis- tended with a large handful of these latter alone; and it has been confidently asserted, that, after having fed for some time on the laurel buds, their flesh becomes highly dangerous to eat, partaking of the poisonous qualities of the plant. 2@QOur Northern and Eastern Birds, p. 387, 1883. 6 Nat. Hist. Coll. in Alaska, p. 131, 1888. ¢ Am. Ornith., vol. II, p. 319, 1831. RUFFED GROUSE. 35 Dr. John H. Brinton, of Jefferson Medical College, has known sey- eral cases of glossitis (inflammation of the tongue) caused by eating grouse that had fed on laurel,t and Dr. N. Shoemaker has also known of serious illness from the same source.2 V. K. Chestnut, Department specialist on poisonous plants, gave an extract made from laurel leaves to a chicken, which he subsequently killed and fed to a cat. The cat was seriously affected, but ultimately recovered. In Phila- delphia in 1790 the public was alarmed over the possibilities of laurel poisoning, and the sale of these birds was for a time forbidden. Dr. B. H. Warren shot 10 birds when the ground was deeply covered with snow, and found their crops stuffed with laurel buds. Not more than half a dozen stomachs of the 208 examined by the Biological Survey contained fragments of this plant, the explanation probably being that only a few stomachs were collected in late winter, when birds most resort to it. Four of the birds that contained laurel were used for food, with no evident ill effect. One of these had eaten 14 grams of laurel, nearly all leaves, with only a few buds. The leaves had been clipped into bits as if by scissors. Investigation of this habit of the grouse, known to be a common one, is much needed. The maple is often selected for budding, and sometimes the spicebush. Flowers are sometimes plucked by browsing grouse. Asters and red clover have been identified in their food, and the green ovary of bloodroot (Sanguinaria) was found in a bird’s crop by Amos W. Butler. . The following plants also are in the list of browse of this bird: ~ Buttercup Heuchera (Heuchera americana). Chickweed (Alsine pubera). Catnip (Nepeta cataria). Cinquefoil (Potentilla argentea). (Ranunculus bulbosa and R. acris). Speedwell (Veronica officinalis). Saxifrage (Saifraga sp.). Meadow rue (Thalictrum sp.). Smilax (Smilax glauca). Horsetail rush (Hquisetum sp.). Azalea (Azalea sp.). False goat’s beard (Astilbe sp.). Aster (Aster sp.). Cud weed (Gnraphalium reum). purpu- Live-forever (Sedum sp.). FRUIT. The ruffed grouse is preeminently a berry eater. Not only does it consume more fruit than the bobwhite, but it is our most frugivorous game bird. More than one-fourth of its yearly food—28.32 percent— consists of fruit, distributed as follows: 3.82 percent rose hips, 2.46 percent poison ivy and sumac, 3.01 percent grapes, and 19.03 percent miscellaneous fruits. a Warren, Birds of Penn., p. 108, 1890. b North Am. Med. Journ., I, pp. 821-322, 1826. ¢ Birds of Pennsylvania, p. 108, 1890. 36 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. 4 The taste for rose hips, seedy and husky as they are, and often beset with fine bristles which irritate the human skin and would seem really dangerous to internal tissues, is one of the singular freaks of bird feeding. It reminds one of the cuckoo’s hking for caterpillars which are so bristly that its stomach becomes actually felted and sometimes pierced by the stiff hairs. Rose hips hang on the bushes throughout the winter, accessible to the hungry grouse as they journey about in the snow for food, and are usually swallowed whole. _The bird hkes grapes also. No less than 3.01 percent of the year’s diet consists of them, and in November they make 17.2 percent of the total food for the month. All experienced sportsmen know of this taste, and during this month they always count on getting their best shooting in the vicinity of heavily fruited grapevines. The wild grapes with small berries, such as Vztis cordifolia, are especially hked, but also large grapes are greatly relished. The species from which cultivated varieties have been derived (Vitis labrusca) appears to be commonly selected. Thirty to forty grapes are often swallowed at ameal. From this taste one might expect the grouse to commit dep- redations on cultivated grapes, but no reports of such damage have come to the Biological Survey. Like many other birds, the ruffed grouse eats the berries of sumac and other species of Rhus. This food contributes 2.46 percent of the year’s diet. Among the nonpoisonous sumacs selected are the dwarf sumac (2?hus copallina), the staghorn sumac (/?. hirta), and the ; scarlet sumac (PR. glabra). Not uncommonly from 300 to 500 berries ; of the dwarf sumac are swallowed at a meal. This liking for the dry and apparently nonnutritious sumac is another curious freak of bird appetite. Probably, as with the bobwhite, the seeds are broken up in the gizzard and the inclosed meat, or endosperm, set free for diges- tion. The immunity of the bird from poisoning by poison sumac and poison ivy, which also it eats, is interesting. That these seeds retain their virulence after being eaten was shown in the case of an investigator in the Biological Survey who was poisoned while exam- ining stomachs of crows that had fed on poison-ivy berries. At times the ruffed grouse eats many of these berries, as proven by one col- lected by Prof. S. A. Forbes, at Jackson, Ill., December 9, 1880, which had eaten 280 of them. Where grouse are numerous, poison sumac is usually less abundant than poison ivy, and consequently it appears less frequently in stomach examinations. One hundred and sixty poison-ivy berries were taken from the crop of a ruffed grouse shot by Dr. A. K. Fisher at Lake George, N. Y., October 24, 1892. Miscellaneous fruits amount to 19.03 percent of the annual food. The two favorite kinds are the partridge berry (Jlitchella repens) and the thorn apple (various species of Crategus), both of which were eaten by 40 of the 208 grouse examined. At least two species RUFFED GROUSE. | af of thorn apple are used for food—the cockspur thorn (Crategus crus- galli) and the scarlet thorn (C. coccinea). These apple-like fruits afford a nutritious food. At Peterboro, N. Y., the writer observed grouse coming to thorn-apple trees during November and well into December. That they take large numbers at a meal is shown by an individual obtained at St. Vincent, Minn., which had eaten 38. W. H. Kobbé says that grouse eat with great relish the small wild erab apple of the Northwest (Pyrus rivularis).¢ They enjoy culti- vated apples, seldom missing a chance at trees on the edge of wood- lands. At Chocorua, N. H., in October, 1898, some of the birds killed in old orchards of abandoned farms had fed principally on apples. _ After thorn apples and partridge berries, a number of other fruits are also staples. The large brilliant clusters of the mountain ash (Sorbus americana) are acceptable, and the delicious wintergreen berries, with scarlet skin and snowy pulp, are also relished. The bayberry (J/yrica carolinensis) is a favorite food wherever accessible. In grouse stomachs one often finds nothing but the little round eranules contained in the waxy drupes of this berry. Blueberries also are eaten in large quantities. A bird killed at Chocorua, N. H., July 25, 1892, had eaten a hundred blueberries (Vaccinium pennsylvani- cum), and one killed at Chateaugay, N. Y., in September, contained about three hundred. The high-bush blackberry and the huckle- berry also are eaten, as well as the cranberry. Dr. A. K. Fisher found 21 whole cranberries in a bird shot at Lake George, N. Y., November 2, 1901. The extent to which blackberries are sometimes eaten is shown by the fact that the stomach of a grouse contained about 800 blackberry seeds. Another bird had eaten over a hundred sarsaparilla berries. An explanation of the delicious flavor of the ruffed grouse appears in its varied and highly flavored diet of fruit, herbs, and seeds. In addition to the fruits already noted the follow- ing kinds found in the birds examined may be named, though the total number mentioned in this bulletin is probably not a fourth of the complete list of fruits eaten by this bird: Greenbrier (Smilax sp.). Hairy Solomon’s seal (Polygona- tum biflorum). Smooth Solomon’s seal (Polygona- tum commutatum). Blackberry (Rubus nigrobaccus). Black raspberry (Rubus occiden- talis). Raspberry (Rubus strigosus). Domestic cherry (Prunus avium). Cultivated plum (Prunus domes- tica). Wild black cherry (Prunus sero- tina). Wild red cherry (Prunus pennsyl- vanica). Elder (Sambucus canadensis). Red elder (Sambucus pubens). Black haw (Viburnum prunifo- lium). Nannyberry (Viburnum lentago). Withe rod (Viburnum cassinoides). Maple-leaved arrow wood (Vibur- num acerifolium). a Auk, XVII, p. 351, 1900. fe cal 38 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. ¢ High-bush cranberry (Viburnum Bunchberry (Cornus canadensis). opulus). Cornel (Cornus paniculata). Mountain cranberry (Vaccinium Silky cornel (Cornus amonum). vitis-id@a). Pepperidge (Nyssa sylvatica). Snowberry (Symphoricarpus sp.). Mulberry (Morus rubra). Feverwort (Triosteum perfolia- Bittersweet (Celastrus scandens). CALI) en Manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.). Black huckleberry (Gaylussacia Barberry (Berberis vulgaris). resinosa). Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus Black alder (Jlex verticillata). quinquefolia). Flowering dogwood (Cornus flor- ida). The seeds of most of these berries pass through the digestive tract unharmed and are capable of germinating. Thus the grouse assists in planting many fruiting trees and shrubs, the heavy seeds of which must be disseminated mainly through the agency of animals that feed on them. FooD OF THE YOUNG. The young of most birds are far more insectivorous than adults, a statement that applies to gallinaceous birds, though to a less extent than to passerines. More than 95 percent of the diet of eight grouse chicks examined, none of which was more than a fourth grown, was insects. Seven adults collected in the breeding season had consumed only 380 percent of insects. Newly hatched chicks eat the largest proportion of insects. As they grow older they gradually become more frugivorous and granivorous. Three chicks, only a day or two old, collected by Prof. S. A. Forbes, at Waukegan, Ill, June 9, 1876, proved to have been exclusively insectivorous. They had eaten cutworms, grasshoppers, Lampyrid beetles, ants (Zetramorium cespitum), parasitic wasps, buffalo tree hoppers, and spiders (A ttidee and Phalangidw). A grouse about a week out of the shell, collected by F. H. King, had eaten a white grub, 7 spiders (Phalangide), and 13 caterpillars.” It should be noted, therefore, that the ruffed grouse, though only slightly insectivorous when adult, as a chick destroys great numbers of insects, and deserves much more credit from farmers than it usually receives. THE SPRUCE GROUSE. (Canachites canadensis.) ® The spruce, or Canada, grouse inhabits the transcontinental conif- erous forests from the northern border of the United States, east of a'Trans. Wis. Ag. Soc., vol. 24, pp. 472-473, 1886. 6 The spruce grouse (Canachites canadensis) is separated into three geographic forms, of which two occur within our territory; these are the common spruce grouse (C. c. candace) of the northern border from Maine to Minnesota, and the Alaska spruce grouse (C. c. osgoodi) of Alaska and western Canada. SPRUCE GROUSE. 39 the Rocky Mountains, to Labrador and Alaska. The male is one of the handsomest of the grouse; it is gray, with black bars above and clear black and white below, with a rusty band edging its fanlike tail. In spring brilliant red combs above the eyes add to the beauty of the strutting cock. These birds drum in an odd way: The male selects an inclined tree and flutters up the trunk for 15 to 20 feet, drumming as he goes. The spruce grouse nests in May or early June and lays from 9 to 16 buff-colored eggs, handsomely marked with rich chestnut and brown. | FOOD HABITS. Study of the food habits of the spruce grouse has been but meager, since only 8 stomachs were available for examination. These were collected in January, May, August, September, October, and Novem- ber, 6 of them in Canada, 1 in Michigan, and 1 in Minnesota. The material in the stomachs consisted of 100 percent vegetable matter— 18.33 percent seeds, 19.73 percent fruit, 61.94 percent coniferous foliage. The seeds were of spruce, thistle, and several unidentifi- able plants. In its frugivorous habits the spruce grouse closely resembles its relative, the blue grouse. The proportion of bear- berries was 16.67 percent, and of other fruit 3.06 percent. Solomon’s seal (Polygonatum), blueberries (Vaccinium), bunchberries (Cornus canadensis), crowberries (’mpetrum), and juniper berries are among the berries principally eaten. Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Chief of the Biological Survey, has informed the writer that the spruce grouse feeds largely on the bearberry (Arctostaphylos wva-ursi) and the wax currant (bes cereum). When cold weather comes the spruce grouse usually abandons a berry diet and eats nothing but its favorite food—the leaves, buds, and tender shoots of conifers. 'This kind of browse formed 61.94 percent of the food of the eight birds examined in the laboratory. It is safe to assume that more than half the year’s food of this grouse is obtained by browsing, and that nearly half consists of the foliage of conifers. Wilson and Bonaparte state that in winter this species feeds on the shoots of spruce,’ a habit so generally known that it has given to the bird its name. According to Major Bendire, this grouse feeds also on the needles of tamarack (Larix laricina), and in certain localities feeds upon them exclusively.” It has been known also to eat the needles of Pinus divaricata and the fir balsam (Abies balsamea). As with the blue grouse, resinous food imparts to the flesh a decidedly pitchy flavor. W. H. Osgood, of the Biological Survey, informs the writer that he examined crops of the Alaska grouse which contained the leaves a Am. Ornith., vol. 4, p. 208, 1831. 6 Life Hist. N. A. Birds, [1], p. 52, 1892. 40 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. of blueberry (Vaccinium) and horsetail (Zquisetum). The Alaska spruce grouse, according to Dr. W. H. Dall, was found at Nulato in winter feeding exclusively on the buds of willows a The flesh of the spruce grouse is dark and for the table is in no way comparable to that of the blue grouse. Nor is the bird equal to the latter as an object of sport. It is, however, a thing of beauty in the dark northern coniferous forests, where its esthetic value must impress every lover of nature. This grouse is strictly a forest bird, and no- where appears to come into contact with agriculture. ODL a las a es a THE FRANKLIN GROUSE. (Canachites franklini.) The Franklin grouse is very similar to its near relative, the spruce erouse, and differs mainly in the conspicuous white marking on its upper tail coverts and in lacking the rufous tip to the tail. It is found in the mountains of western Montana and Idaho, westward to the coast ranges of Oregon and Washington and northward through British Columbia to southern Alaska. Major Bendire records that nidification occurs during the last of May and in June. The food habits of the bird are similar to those of the spruce grouse. In Alberta, between August 25 and September 1, 1894, J. A. Loring, a field agent of the Biological Survey, examined the crops of several Franklin grouse and found in them berries and leaves. A. H. How- ell, also of the Survey, examined crops and gizzards in Idaho during ~ the last of September, 1895, and found in them large quantities of the leaves of the lodge-pole pine (Pinus murrayana) broken into bits from one-fourth to three-fourths of an inch long. Major Bendire notes that in summer they furnish Indians and packers with — their principal supply of fresh meat. Their flesh is palatable then because they eat grasshoppers and berries and feed less freely on the | buds and leaves of spruce and tamarack.? Hon. Theodore Roosevelt writes of this bird in Montana: ¢ ee Te ee ee ee ee pee ee The mountain men ¢all this bird the fool-hen; and most certainly it deserves — F the name. The members of this particular flock, consisting of a hen and her three-parts grown chicks, acted with a stupidity unwonted even for their kind. They were feeding on the ground among some young spruce, and on our approach flew up and perched in the branches, four or five feet above our heads. There they stayed, uttering a low. complaining whistle, and showed not the ~— slightest suspicion when we came underneath them with long sticks and knocked them off their perches. a Nelson, Nat. Hist. Coll. Alaska, p. 130, 1887 (1888). b Life Hist. N. A. Birds, [I], p. 58, 1892. ¢ The Wilderness Hunter, p. 116, 1893. eerie: DUSKY GROUSE. 41 THE DUSKY GROUSE. (Dendragapus obscurus.) 4 The dusky, or blue, grouse lives mainly in coniferous forests of the western mountain ranges, occurring in the Rocky Mountains from New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado, north to Canada and Alaska, and west to the Pacific coast. These grouse are large, plainly colored birds, mainly of a slaty or dusky shade. In unfrequented forests they are so unsophisticated that they often perch on a low branch and gaze curiously at an intruder until struck by a stone or stick. From their unsuspicious nature they are known in parts of the West, like the previous species, as fool-hens. While commonly habitants of the higher forests, they often descend to lower levels on the mountain sides where deciduous trees and bushes mingle with the conifers. The dusky grouse is a valuable food bird and weighs from 23 to 24 pounds. Wilbur C. Knight says: ” Of all the edible birds of the west this and the following variety [Richard- son’s grouse] are the most desirable. The flesh is highly flavored, tender, juicy, and as white as that of a tame fowl. _ The flavor of a game bird’s flesh is often affected by the character of its diet, as is the case with the blue grouse after it has been feeding on the pitchy foliage of conifers. ‘“ The use of such food imparts: to the flesh of these birds,” says Major Bendire, “a strong resinous flavor, not particularly relished by me at first.”° Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway, however, state that the pine taste only improves the bird’s gamy flavor. Vernon Bailey states that half-grown young of the blue grouse which had been feeding largely on gooseberries were excellent eating, being entirely free from pitchiness. George B. Grinnell, editor of Forest and Stream, notes that a diet of a small species of red whortleberry also makes the flesh delicious.° As an object of sport the blue grouse is in the front rank of game birds, even though it spends much time in the deep coniferous for- ests. It les well to the dog, flies swiftly, and affords shots in heavy timber that test the sportsman’s highest skill. a@1n addition to the common dusky grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) of the Rocky Mountains from New Mexico to Montana, three other geographic forms are known. These are the sooty grouse (D. o. fuliginosus) of the northwest coast, from California to southern Alaska; Richardson grouse (D. 0. richard- soni), from Montana to northwestern British America; and the Sierra dusky grouse (D. o. sierra) of the Sierra Nevada in California and east slope of Cas- -eade Mountains in Oregon. b Birds of Wyoming, p. 54, 1902. ¢ Auk, vol. 6, p. 33, 1889. d Hist. N. A. Birds, vol. 3, pp. 424-425, 1874. -€ Forest and Stream, vol. 12,-p. 365, 1879. 49 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. The dusky grouse cock is quite uniformly dark in color, as the name implies. In the mating season the bird presents a striking appearance. The brilliant comblike wattles above its eyes are con- a = 7) x WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN. 47 species Lagopus rupestris reinhardi feeds on insects, leaves, berries, including the crowberry (Hmpetrum nigrum), tender leaves of the dwarf birch and white birch, willow buds, and sorrel.t Samuei Hearne notes that the rock ptarmigan eats the buds and tops of the dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa).» Wumlen examined a crop that was crammed with sphagnum moss.° THE WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN. (Lagopus leucurus. } The white-tailed ptarmigan is found above timber line in Alaska, in the mountains of British Columbia, and in the higher Cascades south to Mounts Hood and Jefferson. It ranges south along the Rocky Mountains through Colorado to northern New Mexico. Unlike the other species, this ptarmigan has no black feathers in the tail. Writing of this bird in Colorado, W. W. Cooke says that it breeds above timber line, virtually under arctic conditions, and that only in most severe winters does it descend into timber. He records that it breeds at from 11,500 to 13,500 feet altitude, and wanders up to the summits of peaks 1,000 feet higher. Nesting takes place early in June and is similar to that of other ptarmigans. In winter, when the birds descend to lower altitudes, the sexes are in different flocks. The white-tailed ptarmigan is a trusting creature, lacking the fear necessary for self-preservation. Clark P. Streator, while employed by the Biological Survey in the Cascade Mountains of Washington, reported that one could approach within 10 feet of it, that miners killed it with stones, and that it was very good for food. In Colorado public sentiment is strongly in its favor, and it is protected by an absolutely prohibitory law. The ptarmigan is one of the sights pointed out to tourists in the Colorado mountains. Its status here may be contrasted with that of the willow grouse in the north, where thousands are killed by Eskimos and Indians. Killing birds for food, however, even by wholesale, has its excuse, but whole- sale slaughter for millinery purposes, such as has overtaken the ptarmigans in the Old World, is unpardonable. A single shipment of ptarmigan wings in Russia consisted of 10 tons.? FOOD HABITS. During winter in Colorado, according to Professor Cooke, thev subsist, like other ptarmigan, largely on willow buds. The stomachs a Life Hist. N. Am. Birds, [I], p. 80, 1892. b Journey to Northern Ocean, p. 416, 1795. ¢ Bull. 15, U. S. Nat. Mus., p. 83, 1879. @d Engelhardt, A Russian Province of the North, 1899. 48 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES, of two birds collected at Summitville, Colo., in January, 1891, at an altitude of 18,000 feet, were found to contain bud twigs from one- third to one-half inch long, but the kind of bush from which they came could not be determined. Doctor Coues, quoting T. M. Trippe, — states that the food of this bird is insects, leguminous flowers, and _ the buds and leaves of pines and firs.t According to Major Bendire, the flowers and leaves of marsh marigold (Caltha leptosepala) and the leaf buds and catkins of the dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa) are —eaten.2. Dr. A. K. Fisher examined the stomachs of two downy chicks collected on Mount Rainier, Washington, and found beetles and flowers of heather (Casstope mertensiana) and those of a small blueberry. THE WILD TURKEY. (Meleagris gallopavo.) ¢ The wild turkey, our biggest game bird, was formerly abundant over a wide area. It has been exterminated throughout much of its former range, and unless radical measures are taken it will become extinct in a few years. In early colonial days it was numerous in Massachusetts, coming about the houses of the settlers in large flocks. It is now totally extinct in New England. It is hard to realize that at the beginning of the nineteenth century turkeys were so abundant that they sold for 6 cents apiece, though the largest ones, weighing from 25 to 30 pounds, sometimes brought a quarter of a dollar. A big wild turkey nowadays would not long go begging at $5. It is their value as food that has made it worth while to hunt turkeys to the very point of extermination. So-called sports- men go out in the late summer ostensibly to shoot squirrels, but really to pot turkeys on the roost. Another practice is to he in ambush and lure the game by imitating the call note of the hen in spring. The writer has personal knowledge of such methods of hunting in Vir- ginia and Maryland, and they are largely responsible for the exter- mination now imminent. Trapping turkeys in pens—a very simple matter—has also accelerated the destruction of the species. William Brewster found the turkey breeding in North Carolina among the conifers at 5,000 feet altitude, and also in the hardwoods at low altitudes. Edward A. Preble, of the Biological Survey, dis- a Birds of the Northwest, p. 427, 1874. 6 Life Hist. N. A. Birds, [1], pp. 85-86, 1892. ¢ The typical Meleagris gallopavo is restricted to Mexico; but four geographic races have been recognized within the United States. These are the wild tur- key of the Eastern States and the Mississippi Valley (Meleagris gallopavo sil- vestris) ; the Florida turkey (M. g. osceola); the Rio Grande turkey (i. g. intermedia) ; and the Merriam turkey of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and the table-land of northern Mexico (iM. g. merriami). WILD TURKEY. | 49 covered a turkey’s nest, in June, 1893, in Somerset County, Pa., which contained 14 eggs. Wilham Lloyd states that the Texas turkey breeds twice a year. He found a nest, May 29, containing 8 eggs. The chicks, like those of the tame turkey, are very delicate, and are especially sensitive to wet. Audubon says that during wet weather they are fed by their mothers with the buds of spice bush, much as human youngsters are dosed with quinine. When the chicks are 2 weeks old they fly up and roost on low branches with their mother. At this age they have weathered most of their early perils. During the last of December, 1902, along the Roanoke River, near the North Carolina line, the writer found turkeys in typical turkey country. Few of the plantations here are under a thousand acres, and many include three or four thousand. Along the river are low- lands, often flooded during high water. Several hundred yards far- ther back is a bluff, the old river terrace, which marks the beginning of the uplands. A part of this bluff, half a mile long by an eighth of a, mile wide, consists of a slate outcrop, much elevated above the rest and varying from 50 to 150 feet above the river. It is locally known as ‘the mountain,’ and is heavily forested with pine and oak. The turkeys were found on the backbone of the ‘ mountain,’ among white oak trees, where fresh droppings and places where the birds had scratched in the dry oak leaves to the depth of 2 or 3 inches were visible. So recently had the birds been there that the humus had not dried. The scratching places were from 15 to 18 inches in diam- eter and circular in shape. In the growth of white oaks there were fully fifty scratching holes, as many as five being found within one square rod, where the birds had made diligent search for acorns. A turkey dog was sent ahead and soon flushed a bird, which came flying by, looking like a giant ruffed grouse. All through the woods were turkey blinds, some made of young pine trees and others, more elab- orate, of logs. Most of the turkeys killed here are shot by calling them up to these blinds. In a patch of rank broomsedge and briers a 20-pound gobbler sprang into the air and was shot while making off in clumsy fashion. It had not had time to eat much, and the stomach and crop contained seven dipterous larve, the remains of white-oak acorns, and about a hundred flowering dogwood berries. On the 15th of June, 1903, two broods of young about the size of game hens were seen. FOOD HABITS. The Biological Survey has examined, in all, 16 stomachs and crops of wild turkeys. These were collected during February, March, July, September, November, and December. They contained 15.57 percent @¢ Ornith. Biog., vol. 1, p. 7, 18381. 50 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. of animal matter and 84.43 percent of vegetable matter. The animal ~ food consisted of insects—15.15 percent—and miscellaneous inverte- — brates, such as spiders, snails, and myriapods—0.42 percent. Grass- hoppers furnished 13.92 percent, and beetles, flies, caterpillars, and other insects 1.23 percent. is The 84.43 percent of the bird’s vegetable food was distributed as follows: ‘ Browse,’ 24.80 percent; fruit, 32.98 percent; mast, 4.60 per- cent; other seeds, 20.12 percent; miscellaneous vegetable matter, 1.93 percent. The wild turkey is very fond of grasshoppers and crickets. Wil- liam Hugh Robarts has observed a flock of a hundred busily catching grasshoppers.* Vernon Bailey, of the Biological Survey, killed a turkey at Corpus Christi, Tex., in May, 1900, that had eaten a large number of grasshoppers and a sphinx moth. During the Nebraska invasion of Rocky Mountain locusts, Professor Aughey examined the — contents of six wild turkey stomachs and crops collected during © August and September. Every bird had eaten locusts, in all amount- ing to 259.2 The wild turkey has been known also to feed on the cotton worm’ (Alabama argillacea), the leaf hoppers, and the leaf- eating beetles (CArysomela suturalis). The grasshopper {Arnilia sp.) and the thousand-legs (Julus) form part of the turkey’s bill of fare. Tadpoles and small lizards also are included. Besides the bird shot on the Roanoke, already mentioned, the stom- achs and crops of four other Virginia turkeys have been examined by the Biological Survey. One of these contained only small quartz pebbles. Another bird had eaten only a few grapes and flowering dogwood berries. A third had made a respectable meal. Ten percent of its food was animal matter and 90 percent vegetable. The animal part consisted of 1 harvest spider (Phalangide), 1 centipede, 1 thou- sand-legs (Julus), 1 ichneumon fly (Ichneumon unifasiculata), 2 yellow-jackets (Vespa germanica), 1 grasshopper, and 3 katydids 4 (Cyrtophyllus perspiculatus). The vegetable food was wild black cherries, grapes, berries of flowermg dogwood and sour gum, 2 chestnuts, 25 whole acorns (Quercus palustris and Q. velutina), a few 3 alder catkins, seeds of jewel weed, and 500 seeds of tick-trefoil (Meibomia nudifiora). Another turkey, also shot in December, had eaten a ground beetle, an ichneumon fly, 2 wheel bugs, 10 yellow- q | jackets, a meadow grasshopper, 75 red-legged grasshoppers, a few sour-gum berries, some pine seeds (with a few pine needles, probably taken accidentally), several acorns, a quarter of a cupful of wheat, — and a little corn. a Am. Field, vol. 55, p. 42, 1901. 6 First Rep. Ent. Com., App. II, p. 46, 1878. - ¢ Fourth Rep. Ent. Com., p. 88, 1885. - WILD TURKEY. 51 One turkey, collected December 23, 1899, in North Carolina, had eaten half a pint of dogwood berries. Its crop contained also a few pine needles. Four Florida wild turkeys also were examined. Nearly 100 percent of their food was vegetable. The animal matter was found in two birds and consisted of the useful predaceous ground beetle (Scarites subterraneus) and the injurious 12-spotted cucumber beetle (Diabrotica 12-punctata); also caterpillars (Hadena turbu- lenta), grasshoppers (Melanoplus arboreus and Arnilia sp.), 2 dragon flies (Libellula sp.), and 1 centipede. This is the only record of the first-mentioned grasshopper’s occurrence in Florida. A third turkey had eaten half a pint of long-leafed pine seeds. Many of these seeds were germinating, and some of them had cotyledons more than an inch long. The Florida bobwhite also is very fond of these pine seeds. The same bird had eaten three thimblefuls of grass seed (Panicum minimum), 12 spicebush berries (Benzoin benzoin), 20 berries of the wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), 2 live-oak acorns (Quer- cus virginiana), and 15 acorns of the Spanish oak (Quercus digitata). Another turkey had taken 25 tubers of the ground nut (4pios wpios)—some of them exceeding an inch in length—and the berries of false Solomon’s seal (Polygonatum sp.), southern tupelo, and wax myrtle. Half a pint of the fruiting panicles of a grass (MuAlen- bergia sp.) was taken from the crop of a New Mexican turkey shot in November in the Manzano Mountains. It had eaten also grass blades, seeds of cheat, piion nuts, and seeds of other pines. Although grain was found in only one stomach, the writer observed turkeys on the Roanoke bottoms in December, 1903, feeding on corn after the crop had been harvested. During November and Decem- ber half of the food of the turkey is fruit. The kinds most frequently eaten include, besides those already mentioned, myrtle holly (Oveo- phila myrtifolia), mulberries, wild strawberries, blackberries, cedar berries, and holly berries. On San Francisco Mountain, Arizona, Dr. C. Hart Merriam found turkeys in August feeding on wild goose- berries. A month later, at the same locality, he found them living on pion nuts.t. In Arizona E. A. Goldman found a flock of 150 young and old turkeys that roosted in one place. The gobblers were at this time in a separate flock. These birds were feeding on nuts of the pinon (Pinus edulis), a staple Indian food of the West. They ate also juniper berries (Juniperus utahensis).» On the upper Gila River, New Mexico, in November, 1873, H. W. Henshaw found turkeys very numerous and feeding almost exclusively upon grass seeds and grasshoppers, the crops of many birds being fairly crammed with the former. Major Bendire says that the Florida turkey feeds on aN. A. Fauna, No. 3, p. 89, 1890. b Auk, vol. 19, p. 128, 127, 1902. 52 GROUSE AND WILD TURKEYS OF UNITED STATES. 7 white-oak acorns, chinquapins, chestnuts, pecan nuts, black persim- mons, fruit of prickly pear, leguminous seeds, all cultivated grains, and tender tops of plants.* Wild turkeys feed also on mountain rice (Oryzopsis pringlet), mesquite beans, sedge, poa grass, and con flowers. Florence Merriam Bailey, in oun of the wild turkey in New Mexico, says: ? Mr. Vilas, a cattleman of the country, told us that in the fall they go down to the nut pine and juniper mesas in the Glorieta region and, gathering at the few springs that furnish drinking places, are shot by wagon loads by the Mexi- cans. The only specimen we obtained was taken July 27, at over 11,000 feet. Its crop and gizzard held mainly grasshoppers and crickets, but also grass seed, mariposa lily buds, and strawberries, while its gizzard contained in addition ~ a few beetles. The wild turkey consumes both insect pests and seeds of weeds, but now is nowhere abundant enough to have much effect on agriculture. Ube domestic turkey’s habit of hunting grasshoppers and of ‘ worm- ing’ tobacco shows what might be expected from the wild species were it sufficiently numerous. a Life Hist. N. A. Birds, [I], p. 114, 1892. b Auk, vol. 21, p. 352, 1904. INDEX. Page. mck, _pearmican, food values and smaring_.__- eee 44-45 maple orchards, injury by grouse.—_--__--_______-- ek ee oo ee. ease Blue grouse. See Dusky grouse. Bobwhite, campared= with prairie. hem; notes: {20 es se oe ee ee ee 15, 14 OUTS A aS Cae eS eee res Bee een aw ASE eee EST Ue 9 EMT METETITULCHE UE reer nee el ees a a S| ee Se eee 25-38 eRe CROC CIS US ems Si Lt ee, ee ed ed oe 38-40 REIT C ICON IU meee INL ee SE a ee Se ea des SATE hs Se 40 MERGE CECIIS “UVODMUSTONMUS 22 9) ost a ee ee ee 23-25 MaiErior- laws protecting. ptarmigan== _._. 2 ee be 47 Conifers, foliage eaten by grouse and wild turkeys____ 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 51 1000.0 eFrouse, elLect\on flawor of flesho.] 22-0 ee ee 41 GMC TEIN Oy awl CUEKCY S220 258 ee ee 51 REG DESHOUSGUINUS ok ee a a ee 41-44 ee ae ROuse-s preci habits 2.228 2 fe ee ees 42 GEST STERU AUN RO) EMER a a ee ne yt Pee lt Se Se a A 41 POOUSHO Re Mi TC HUIS seccareme 2052 ee oe 41 15123) Dg See en Lie AER Seine 2 a? he ee ec a 41-44 4 @ifaen VOI eens arth 5c A 41, 44 i T@RVCTelilemremrane fr) ey Pe oh ed So so 41-44 GUICE ECO le SPORE S22 ewes. 2 tr aN aoe Pe ee 41 ECL SLE SOO eet RR ee ee Se Rs a 42—44 Farming, relations of erouse and wildy turkey 2... 2-222 8, 9, 14, 40, 52 Food, bird, effect on flavor of flesh, notes__________--_-___ 25, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41, 46 al PED PUES Pee SE OESE SoU VUIS Keita oe ore he Ne 41-44 Asari etic eee eee SF tN tS en eS 40 IESG ln Gl eee Reece. 2 Ny wh es ert 29-38 Cee enn meee Le etek CALA Ie eS 24-25 SST SITS) SUCTION eee age a Oe 21-23 SS) SEU Se Ra DO 39-40 [DSU Snr La G it ey ae ee A a de te) e od eey e eee Ee 18-19 PP UN EL em INES eee ee ee ee erg Se eS eS el ce 13-18, 19, 20 FOTECGyE) DON COE Oe Op SSeS he ec ee __ 45-47 RISC OOPMETOUSE, (28125 oT oe 10-11, 20—21, 25, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 WELL UG Rea ior eS ee ee ped Da Eee eee 48 Fool hen. See Franklin grouse. Franklin grouse, distribution, habits, quality of flesh___________________ 4() eerie rel Se eaiLINS Dy? STOUSES = 2 wheres ee a 18, 338-34. eaLine py 2rouse= and= CUuEKEGy 2. 18, 23, 35-88, 44, 51 ES. CSSUIST GO es eS ee ae eee clea 7, 28, 45, 47, 48 ANU een Cane ksetncs see ay Ree 2 Si ie Ee Up 29, 47 awiret ete abbhio e Din Pe LOUSG 9a i te 31 Gooseberries, food grouse, effect on flavor of flesh_____________________ 41-~ Grain, eating by grouse and wild turkey____-____________- 1-20.22, 24 31S Grouse, distribution, usefulness, various species of United States_________ 7-8 Dusky distribution and generalwhabits.__. = = 8 4k 41-44 hon CSE Res ONCanOCCUEFCNCE2 (la 2 os te 8 Brankin- Gistribuuon and 2aeee epee Re ee ere 10-11 grain food. 22.2) 3) 2 eee 17 habits ee as Hi 8 ee eee eee 13-18 Of -YOUNG 2.20" 2. Se eee 18 ' Insect. food _22. 22. >) es | eee eee 14-15 leaves, flowers, and shoots as food! .2225)_ >= =e 17-18 Lesser, distribution and habits. 222. =). 3 23 19-20 man’s ally) 222! 2 os ee ee eee 11 object. of “Sport 2.2.22 ess _ ee ee eee 11 propagation and preservation________ Joly te 11-13 vegetable. food. 22). 2 S25 Se eee 15-18 Ftarmigan, Rock, distribution, value, and general habits___.______ eae 46-47 White-tailed, distribution and general habits________-______- 47-48 Willow, distribution, habits, and use as food for man_______ 44-46 Quail. See Bobwhite. Restocking, grouse and. turkey, Importance’ __- 52 = 3 eee 9 Rock ptarmigan, distribution, value; habits_— = eee 46-47 food: for man. siSets = a= eee _ Jw 46 habits: 2222-5020 ee ee ee 4647 Rufted grouse,.esthetic value= 2 27 breeding habits_u2.222". 2.03 eee eee 26-27 buds and leaves as food. _.2) 422-02 eee 32-35 color differences... S22... =e ee eee 25 deseription, general habits, food, etce22 222 Se 25-38 distribution 20.2.2. a a 25 domestication,’ problemi.2_.2222"" 2 2s eee 29 drumming ‘habits <2"). «S253 eee 26-27 enemies 222) 2. eee ee 28 food, for man; USe@]228 53>) Se eee 28 habits 2222285538 2 og ee ee eee 29-38 Of “YOUNGS. _ 22.) ese ee eee 38 fruit foods. 2222 je. See ee ee 35-38 insect. tood=-===.—=—=—==— Lo Juve be eos 29-31 MOTE gk I ea ee 27 object. of sport) 220222) eee ee eee 28 preservation and propaga tion= 2a) is eee 28-29 vegetable food_________- okey eoxthed tats Gul Si 31-38 Sage grouse, breeding habits and food habits.ct 0. = 23-25 Gistributiom Se ae ee a oe ee 23 dontestication= 225s — re er ee SS 25 food for, man, uS@22.2202 (2 2a 25 Whabits Sa ie a ae i eee 24-25 propagation . 2.2 2:5, _ os eae ee 25 Ce ee ee Te eee ee iver” See - ne IE eee ae Oe Ae eA on See a ee ee ee ee ee a "" =e FT eee A ee eee ee — wee INDEX. 55 Me. Page. re a Veo LOUSC>- ee ee eee 16, 32, 40 4 ae Mean Srouse--Dreecaine Nawite: ee 20 . Gescriptionemeees 2 ek ni Ni I CS eles Oa Lage 20 GIS Era UE Ome Ec Oe a er ee ee 20 FOO LOR TMcMRMEESE 8k ie ee I 20-21 LES: LL pera eae ope ERM oe Se 21-23 INES eNO Cum 2 Soe fo EN a a es Sy ee 20-21 EIS CC Ce OO UMM 2 8 PS eos ee 8, ee ee ee 21-22 vegetable food —- Ra EDR es BED ah, bh ee aS IS 22-23 emt ee tOOCsOr LUC Cye = 9 seer ee ek 49 PC CeACOUSE SP SENCUIC Value. ose se eee 40 PECCHNIE EE Nau eee SS ey Be ee ee ee 39 GIST ELONs TOOGsaDItS._. <= -2 Fo * 28 38—40 GUIGUATNIUA eee Re Ee a ee 39 HOMGEROKS MAM aeISC mee 8 i ee se 40 Hc WNL ome EB ep NE ee ee 39-40 OUICCH Ol SHOR teem 8 es. SA se ee ee Sek oe 40 RElaGlOnMentOpeAeriCultne 40 (FBO EY LG Se ge 12, 29, 47 Pamaeh- prairie wen: foods: eae PEN ser ease ag 16 eet SOCSLNehOM Olnprainie Wen. =) 8 ee 20 Decco moO nines oy aitrkKeys. some ee 52 PCE VANE AINE Orion Sea. oe PMR en Pac, MAORI ote 8 LLG I SD ENG IF 02 a a Bg gl Bird oe eh 8--9 |S Oe Fa ae ee nee et et 48-49 CESS CHIME m sear 0 ee oe ee 9, 48, 52 BETS Su UNE LO Meee ermal ee te Le 8-9, 48 TOO CEO MAM UMISecaM@nwyalUe 22 es 48 [TG] OTN SL aa ee ep a eg 49, 52 ET SO Clem KOO Clg met nrmiyey fe ttmeme: 8000 NS oe Ca ee 50, 51, 52 LeLAtOnevOnaehiewlcmkemer et a 9, 52 SHOO tinea eOmnen DUNN Saieee eo te a a 49 SPECTER ee eg eer ge ecm 8-9, 48 VeEcSu MD CmenOO Cami mimes ots ha ee Vee a 50, 51, 52 TOR SE UHUCKICUNVUSE ewe tore ee 10-18 POV ED ce 8 ET ER ep a 18-19 PU Ee OG OETA GUGIS = ee al ST eS _____ 19-20 Resotabie LOO. 2EOUSE., and turkey. 2. 2. 15-17, 22 23, 31-38, 42-44 mreecds. destruction by. grouse and turkey____________-_-__---__---_-~- 16, 22, 52 Rees HMO nwa Oo TOUSC a4 5 Se Mie 20; 22. 24 Seehite-tailed ptarmigan, breeding habits ___._-___-_=-__-____---_----_--- AT CISH EET OVEN GONG |) 2 cee sm eee oe AT ROO GOR aN iinet. SS Pe a eS es AT IVE) ys emee S e pe S ee called Sage 47-48 RIUM NeCee ERC ieciee: 8 cig ee Se ee ee 47 [SENSIS OVE) OS = RR Mm eee epee ee 47 ' Whortleberry, effect 01 eating, on flesh of grouse___________-____-_____--- 41 id [FETA GNy 5 SU OUTS UOC ot ee a &s eT ee 48 ee cnn Camelot nbc ere eee te a hen ah oe Se eee 48-49 GCELCASO MIME IINMNDeRS = sseeee Le a ee 9, 48 ERSTE) DUEPEOWE, . CONTENTS: LTE ERE CUE CTE, 2 egy cacy Seah hey aap ea a eS ee Pree ROM MeMMVESpISd MOMs Weae RE ei Ue te Se Geaiparisen o: summer and winter conditions.:..... 2). 22.2022 ne base eel ummm nyeol results. = AND SWANS {2 : : : *. ime WA Re ™) $ - = Assistant, Biological Survey Sa ae -< WASHINGTON < GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE — | ene ce & a1 - : noe « “ - ’ i = : . ‘ ‘ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY—BULLETIN Wo. 26 C. HART MERRIAM, Chief DISTRIBUTION AND MIGRATION OF NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS WELLS W. COOKE Assistant, Biological Survey pI il Gar Se f roe 7} eel i AUT ane We W ASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1906 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. 5. DeparTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BroLoGicaL SURVEY, Washington, D. C., July 10, 1906. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for publication as Bulle. - tin No. 26 of the Biological Survey, a report on the Distribution and Migration of North American Ducks, Geese, and Swans, by Wells W. Cooke, assistant in the Biological Survey. Formerly abundant -over the whole of the United States, waterfowl are steadily diminishing in numbers, and some species appear to be threatened with extinction in the not distant future. Their value for food is great, and they have formed in the past, and for all future time should continue to form, a valuable asset and an important source of revenue to the several States which harbor them. The preservation of the numerous species of ducks, geese, and swans is becoming an important matter of legisla- tive enactment, and the present report is intended to furnish informa- tion as to present range, abundance, and migration of the several species with reference to practical legislation. Respectfully, H. W. HensuHaw, Acting Chief, Biological Survey. Hon. James Witson, Secretary of Agriculture. ». a - ‘ a ~ % hal : = £ oe 4 4 >. og ; “9 ‘ i 4 s ae ix : 4 y i ‘ - a ‘ ait eo ' = — \ Winter ranges General remarks on migration Tables of distribution Distribution and migration of ducks Distribution and migration of geese CONTENTS: weeeeeweenmreeeeectbsbi see sted eee ees seen stanseeen tte wesc aeswraeceanaseaenece i er er ar i eee eee ee eee ec ee ee ee ee ee eee eee Species that winter principally in the United States and southward - - Species that winter in the United States and Canada eee ee eee ee eee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Species occurring in Central America, West Indies, or Mexico, but not knowneto. reac Ene Wmited Statesi-2 32. 2.52. eee aks kee European species occurring in North America as stragglers ......---- Species that breed and winter north of the United States......-.---.- Species that breed chiefly north of the United States......-...-.---- Species that breed chiefly north of the Arctic circle, with the north- ernmost latitude at which the species has been observed in the RVestebur clemMib pierce ae = SN ie Sen beg ak eos e eee ee ee Southern species, with northern limit of breeding range..-..-------- Western species, with eastern limit of regular range.....---..------- Southern limits of species whose winter range extends south of the ~ United States Summary errr eseeee eee ec eee eee eee eee ee eee ee ee eee eee eee ee ee ee etm ution ame iniemraion of swans. 42 6.55. .0 5.22.2. okt... seen ereee2en2reee22e2 222 e222 22202 8082222222 -2- 2222222222222 2222222272222 248 DISTRIBUTION AND MIGRATION OF NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND. SWANS. INTRODUCTION. Wild fowl are distributed over the whole world.’ From time imme- morial ducks, geese, and swans have been held in high esteem by mankind, and everywhere they have been eagerly pursued for sport or for food. Passing by the purely esthetic value of the birds as beautiful and welcome denizens of our waters and as lending the charm of life and animation to our otherwise desolate ponds and lakes; passing by, too, their importance to thousands of men who are lured from business cares to pursue them and who derive from their pursuit both health ~ and pleasure, their economic value and importance as food are very great. The flesh not only is palatable and nutritious, but is so different from that of domestic fowls as to form a most welcome addition to the table both of the rich and the poor. | The flesh of wild fowl constituted an important item in the larder of the aborigines of this country, who, by means of the bow and arrow and by the use of various devices in the shape of nets and traps, succeeded in obtaining them in considerable numbers, especially when young and unable to fly. The Eskimo and northern Indians, indeed, would fare badly but for the vast numbers of waterfowl that visit their country to breed, and everywhere the aborigines seek their egos with avidity. Waterfowl as an addition to the larder became almost as essential to the first settlers as they had been to the Indians, ~ and, so far as game was concerned, the fowling piece soon became a more important part of the settler’s equipment than the rifle. Neither the aborigines nor the early settlers appreciably reduced the numbers of the hordes of ducks and geese that periodically covered the lakes, ponds, rivers, and marshes of this favored country. It was not until comparatively recent times, indeed, that the tremendous increase of population and the constantly increasing number both of sportsmen and of market gunners, together with the invention of that potent engine of destruction, the breech-loading gun, have had their logical effect in greatly diminishing their numbers and in practically exterminating not a few species. 7 8 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. So rapidly are some species diminishing in numbers in certain States that the market supply is already threatened, and Minnesota has found it necessary to pass laws prohibiting not only the export of ducks, but even their sale within the State limits. Such radical legislation in a State where only a few years since waterfowl abounded on every lake and waterway, reveals how imminent is the danger and how press- ing the value and importance of prohibitive laws, and it becomes evi- dent that if any considerable number of waterfowl] are to be preserved, spring shooting must be abolished and the sale of wild fowl limited to the States where killed. The enforcement of moderately stringent protective laws, however, and the establishment of preserves in the States where waterfowl can be sure of shelter and safety, are likely to result not only in averting the threatened extinction of certain species, but in the increase of all waterfowl to a point somewhere near their recent abundance. Should the lessons of the past be unheeded and protection be withheld for a few years, then measures of the most radical kind will be necessary. Of the 64 species and subspecies of ducks, geese, and swans which occur in North America north of Mexico, 24 breed in the United States. The species most important to us are the wood duck, mallard, black duck, teal, canvasback, redhead, and Canada goose. Several of these species breed only in the Northern States; but the cinnamon teal and ruddy duck nest as far south as southern California, and the wood duck breeds almost everywhere throughout the United States, and, more- over, the great bulk of this species winters within our boundaries. It is a sad commentary on our present system of game protection that the wood duck, one of the handsomest of our native birds and one whose breeding range is almost entirely within our boundaries, is the species which has suffered most. So persistently has this duck been pursued that in some sections it has been practically exterminated. Even in States in which it still breeds commonly, as in Delaware and © Maryland on the Atlantic coast and in Illinois in the Mississippi Valley, public sentiment fails to recognize the importance of adequately pro- tecting the bird, and the laws still permit it to be destroyed late in the spring. As a result the wood duck is constantly diminishing in numbers, and soon is likely to be known only from books or b tradition. ; PROTECTION. Wherever waterfowl already breed, or where the conditions are — such as to favor their remaining during the summer, every effort — should be made to increase the number of breeding birds by adequate — protection both in the spring and during the nesting season, and, wherever possible, game refuges or preserves suitable for breeding purposes should be established. PROTECTION. 9 Protective laws intended to shorten the open seasons, to prohibit spring shooting, eliminate destructive methods of hunting, and to stop sale and export have often provoked opposition from those who maintain that it is futile to attempt the protection of migratory birds in the North if they are not equally well protected on their winter feeding grounds in the South. Recent experience, however, shows that under certain circumstances the results of local protection are immediate and very striking. In the San Luis Valley, Colorado, protection afforded ducks within an inclosure about an artificial pond, fed by an artesian well, has caused the birds to resort. to the pond in increasing numbers each winter. At Palm Beach, Fla., where no hunting is allowed within a mile of the town, ducks have become so tame that they will come within a few feet for food, while outside the mile limit the same birds are so wild that it is difficult to approach them within gunshot. In Jefferson County, N. Y., the enactment of a local law prohibiting spring shoot- ing has resulted in several species remaining to breed which formerly went much farther north to lay their eggs, when continually harassed by constant hunting in the spring. The enactment of a State law in New York prohibiting the shooting and sale of ducks and geese in spring has not only had a marked effect on local birds, but has resulted also in extending protection to waterfowl in North Carolina by restricting in the latter State their slaughter for the markets of New York City. These and other illustrations which might readily be cited show that, if protected, many species that formerly reared their young in the United States, and were driven away by persecution, would return and occupy old breeding grounds. They prove also that very effective work for the protection and increase of waterfowl can be done in many sections of the country without waiting for general leg- islation or for concerted action on the part of the Southern States. Cooperative legislation on the part of the Southern States is greatly to be desired and may be expected to follow as the causes that have led to the diminution in the numbers of waterfow! are better under- stood there and as the purpose and effects of protective legislation in — Northern States are fully comprehended. With reference to practical legislation in behalf of wild fowl, ques- tions often arise as to the time when various species may be expected at certain points in the autumn, when they leave for their breeding grounds in the spring, how late in the season shooting can be con- tinued without interfering with pairing, what progress in legislation has been made in different parts of the United States, and what have been the practical results of such legislation. In order to enable the Department to answer such inquiries, a com- prehensive investigation of the general facts relating to our wild fowl has been undertaken. In the present report are presented such data 10 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. as are now available respecting the distribution and migration of the — ducks, geese, brant, and swans of North America, together with a brief reference to a few species which occur in Panama and the West Indies. A summary is also given of existing information as to the breeding grounds occupied by the several species, their winter resorts, the routes selected in passing north and south, and the times of mak- ing their journeys. Other subjects of investigation still under way: are the food habits of the various species, principal ducking grounds, methods of hunting, and the means which have thus far proved most successful in the protection of these birds. The problem of the legal protection of ducks, geese, and swans has two phases—protection during the breeding season and protection during migration and in winter. The first phase concerns 24 species of ducks breeding in the United States, while 46 species come under the head of winter residents of the United States. It happens, — however, that from the economic point of view the 24 species of ducks — and geese that breed in the United States comprise the most important — North American species; among this number also are all the species that at the present time need protection while breeding. Of the 24 species, 5 are numerically unimportant and are confined to the south- ern portions of the United States and southward, so that they are of little importance for the market and as objects of sport. These 5 are the Florida duck, mottled duck, masked duck, black-bellied tree-duck, and fulvous tree-duck. ; | The other 19 species that breed regularly and commonly in the ~ United States are as follows: : American merganser, Merganser ameri- | Shoveler, Spatula clypeata. canus. Pintail, Dafila acuta. Hooded merganser, Lophodytes cucul- | Wood duck, Aix sponsa. latus. Redhead, Aythya americana. Mallard, Anas boschas. Black duck, Anas obscura. Gadwall, Chaulelasmus streperus. Baldpate, Mareca americana. Green-winged teal, Nettion carolinense. ’ Blue-winged teal, Querquedula discors. Cinnamon teal, Querquedula cyanoptera. A glance shows that this list comprises the species that in later : Canvasback, Aythya vallisneria. Lesser scaup, Aythya affinis. Ring-necked duck, Aythya collaris. Ruddy duck, Erismatura jamaicensis. Canada goose, Branta canadensis. White-cheeked goose, Branta canadensis — occidentalis. years have decreased most in numbers, and hence that most need — protection. CAUSES OF DECREASE IN NUMBERS OF WATERFOWL. The principal causes of the diminished numbers of waterfowl have been market hunting, spring shooting, and the destruction of the breeding grounds for farming purposes. Previous to twenty years ago, market hunting was the principal factor in the steady diminu-— DECREASE OF WATERFOWL. 11 tion of waterfowl. Since 1885, however, the problem of duck preservation in North America bas entirely changed. The prairie districts of central Canada, comprising large portions of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta are the ‘‘ducks’ paradise.” Within the United States this favored region extends to the northeastern part of Montana, the northern half of North Dakota, and the northwestern corner of Minnesota. The whole vast region is crowded with lakes, ponds, sloughs, and marshes that furnish ideal nesting conditions and unlimited food. Forty years ago every available nook was crowded with waterfowl, and the whole region, 200 miles wide by 400 miles in length, was a great breeding colony, and numbered its inhabitants by the hundreds of thousands. To the northward the forests formed a partial boundary; to the southward, the general absence of suitable breeding grounds was the controlling factor, restricting the breeding waterfowl to the few lakes and marshes. The number of: breeding ducks decreased rapidly from central North Dakota southward, until the outposts were reached in the lake region of southern Wisconsin, the Kankakee marshes of Illinois and Indiana, a few favored spots in southwestern Minnesota, and the lakes of north-central Iowa. In southern Wisconsin in 1864, every pond hole and every damp depres- sion had its brood of young ducks. During the next fifteen years the farming of the region changed from grain raising to dairying, the marshes were drained, the former duck nurseries became grazing grounds, and duck hunting there was a sport of the past. An article written in 1877 on the birds of northeastern Illinois enumerates 12 species of ducks as breeding commonly in the vicinity -and 3 others as occasionally found there in summer. At present, a brood of young ducks in this region is rare. In 1885 some 14 species bred near Clear Lake, Iowa, and 16 species at Heron Lake, Minnesota. _ Now scarcely any ducks breed at either lake. But the places just mentioned were merely the outskirts of the ‘* ducks’ paradise.” As - great a change has taken place in the very heart of the breeding erounds. The Northern Pacific Railroad cut across its southern border. in Minnesota and North Dakota and this-was soon followed by a north and south line to Winnipeg. Other shorter branches were built later, but the final doom of the ducks was apparent when the Canadian Pacific Railroad crossed between Winnipeg and the Rocky Mountains the finest duck breeding grounds on the continent. During the past decade, the last stronghold of the waterfowl has been invaded, and soon the great breeding colonies of northern Alberta and Saskatchewan will be of the past. The population of North Dakota increased many fold from 1880 to 1900, and during this same period the vast prairies of central Canada were changed to wheat fields. It is evident, there- fore, that in the United States and southern Canada in a few years there will be no great breeding colonies of the ducks most valued for 12 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. sport and for the table. The future supply must come from isolated pairs and small colonies scattered in favorable localities over Canada and the northern quarter of the United States. Fortunately, such favorable places exist and will continue to exist for many years. : An important question in connection with the protection of ducks is the time when they pair for the breeding season, since it is evident that if shooting is continued after the birds are paired a decided decrease in the number of broods will result. While the present state of knowledge does not warrant positive statements as to the exact date of pairing of each species, enough has been learned to show that in the case of many species pairing occurs before the breeding grounds are reached. Many if not most of the mallards and shovelers that pass through Illinois on their way to more northern breeding grounds are paired before they leave that State, and the same is true of these species in lowa. Many black ducks, wood ducks, and teal are paired in the spring by the time they reach Massachusetts. The following letter from Hon. John E. Thayer is of interest in this connection: TI am absolutely positive that mallards, black ducks, gadwalls, widgeons, green- winged and blue-winged teal, shovelers, and pintails begin mating at Currituck Sound, North Carolina, by February 15. By the Ist of March they are mated. The law should protect them then, for if one is shot, the other will keep flying about until within easy range. There is not a shadow of doubt that the ducks I have named are mated before they migrate, and if we do not want to exterminate them, laws should protect them from the time they leave the South. Above have been outlined the causes, past and present, of the great diminution in the numbers of the ducks. The practical problem of to-day is the present and future preservation of the remnant. It goes — without saying that all ducks should be protected during the breeding season. Notes in the following pages under the different species show the dates at which the earliest eggs have been found, and from these dates it is easy to determine the beginning of the breeding season. The wood duck, in northern Florida, begins nesting by the middle of February and the black duck, in Massachusetts, by April 20. It follows, therefore, that at the very latest these ducks should not be disturbed in Florida after February nor in Massachusetts after April 1. These dates apply to corresponding latitudes in the Mississippi Valley, and the Ist of May would be the latest date for Minnesota and North Dakota. On the Pacific slope the corresponding nesting dates are — from late March in southern California to late April in the State of — Washington. Protection during the breeding season is the least that any friend of — the ducks would advise. The present rapid diminution in the number of waterfowl can not be stayed, however, by such partial measures. Nothing short of the absolute prohibition of spring shooting in every — part of the country should be advocated by those who cane that — duck shooting should be enjoyed by future generations. WINTER RANGES. a Bs Another phase of protection relates to the proper regulation of shooting during the fall and winter. This phase concerns a much larger number of species of waterfowl than the question of hunting during the breeding season. For although only 24 species nest within the United States, 46 species are found here during winter, as will appear from the following lists: WINTER RANGES. SPECIES THAT WINTER PRINCIPALLY IN THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTHWARD. Hooded merganser,“ Lophodytes cucul- | Buffle-head, Charitonetta albeola (on the latus. Pacific coast to the Aleutians). Mallard, Anas boschas (on the Pacific Ruddy duck,@ Erismatura jamaicensis. coast to the Aleutian Islands). Lesser snow goose,@ Chen hyperborea. Black duck, Anas obscura. Greater snow goose, Chen hyperborea Red-legged duck, Anas obscura rubripes nivalis. (occasional in winter in Nova Scotia). | Blue goose, Chen cerulescens. Florida duck, Anas fulvigula. _ Ross goose, Chen rossii. Spotted black duck, Anas fulvigula macu- | American white-fronted goose, Anser losa. : | albifrons gambeli. Gadwall, Chaulelasmus streperus. | Canada goose,@ Branta canadensis. Baldpate,¢% Marecu americana. | Hutchins goose,¢ Branta canadensis hutch- Green-winged teal, Nettion carolinense. ins. Blue-winged teal,¢ Querquedula discors. | White-cheeked goose, Branta canadensis Shoveler,@ Spatula clypeata. | occidentalis. Pintail,@ Dajfila acuta. Wood duck,@ Aix sponsa. Redhead, @ Aythya americana. Cackling goose,¢ Branta canadensis minima. Brant, Branta bernicla glaucogastra. © Canvasback,@ Aythya vallisneria. Black brant, Branta nigricans. Scaup duck. Aythya marila (rare in | Fulvous tree-duck, Dendrocygna fulva. southern Canadaand onthe Pacificcoast | Whistling swan, Olor columbianus. to the Aleutians). Trumpeter swan,@ Olor buccinator. Lesser scaup duck,¢ Aythya affinis. Ring-necked duck,@ Aythya collaris. American golden-eye, Clangula clangula americana (rare insouthern Canada, and on the Pacific coast to the Aleutians). | SPECIES THAT WINTER IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. American merganser, Merganser ameri- | Harlequin duck, Histrionicus histrionicus. canus. ; American eider, Somateria dressert. : | = # > wen. Q ilie Red-breasted merganser, Merganser serra- | Spectacled eider, Somateria spectabilis. _tor. American scoter, Oidemia americana. Barrow golden-eye, Clangula islandica. | White-winged scoter, Oidemia deglandi. Old squaw, Harelda hyemalis. | Surf scoter, Oidemia perspicillata. If ducks are to be protected for reasons other than esthetic, there must be an open season. Most will agree that so far as the perpetua- tion of species alone is concerned this open season should be during migration, and preferably during the fall migration. The data pre- sented later in this bulletin show that ducks begin to. leave their a Winters also in southern British Columbia. 14 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. breeding grounds late in August, but that active migration does not occur until September. A shooting season in northern New England _ or the northern portion of the Mississippi Valley that began Septem- ber 1 would satisfy the demands of conservative sportsmen of these sections. In the southern United States, however, this date would anticipate by a full month the time when enough ducks arrive to make hunting worth while, and at Currituck Seund, North Carolina, shoot- ing does not begin until November. In the northern half of the United States the great body of ducks and geese depart with the advent of freezing weather, and but few ~~ linger after early November. On the other hand, south of the Ohio ~ River and Chesapeake Bay the ducks and geese remain all winter, and, _ unless protected, will be harassed throughout the entire cold season. The greatest slaughter of ducks now occurs in the section named, especially in the Mississippi Valley from southern Missouri southward, and here more stringent laws are needed. It is claimed above that the shooting season should be confined to the period of migration, and if this is true then it follows that fall shooting should cease as soon as, or soon after, fall migration has ceased. Regular migration has closed by the first of December, and though the birds are constantly shifting their position all through the winter as the weather changes, these movements can hardly be called migration. MIGRATION. Ducks, geese, and swans are migratory. While many breed under — - the torrid sun of the Tropics, others migrate to the most distant parts of the world for the purpose of nesting. As far into the frozen north as land extends geese summer and successfully rear their young. A few species are nonmigratory, and individuals of other species, as the ruddy duck, remain through the year near the nesting grounds; — but most of the ducks and geese are strictly migratory and some per- form extensive journeys. The brant of northern Greenland, for instance, probably spend the winter along the South Atlantic coast of the United States. Some of the blue-winged teal that nest in southern — - Canada desert North America in fall and cross the equator to spend — the winter in central South America. Some of the pintail ducks of Alaska and northeastern Asia cross the equator to the islands of the ~ South Pacific, 4,000 miles from their breeding grounds. Most water foul. in migrating, follow the same route both in spring — and fall. The dere that migrate north along the Mississippi River in spring probably are the same individuals that traversed this route — the previous autumn. Among the geese there is a single exception to — this rule. The common eastern brant (Branta bernicla glaucogastra) — in spring passes north along the Atlantic coast to the Gulf of Saint — DISTRIBUTION. 15 Lawrence, thence almost due north for 2,000 miles to its breeding grounds, but it is practically unknown in the interior of Canada. In the fall many thousands migrate along the west shore of Hudson Bay and from its southern borders cross to the Atlantic coast. Thus the migration route is in the form of an ellipse some 3,000 miles long north and south by 1,000 miles wide. Probably in no other region in the wor!d do so large a proportion of the birds migrate approximately north and south as in North America north of the Gulf of Mexico. The outlines of the coast, the courses of the large rivers, and the trend of the mountain chains unite to make northward and southward migration easy and natural. In the ease of ducks, however, there is a factor that causes thousands of individuals of several species to take a northwest-and-southeast route. The Atlantic coast from Chesapeake Bay to South Carolina is especially favorable as a wintcr home for ducks and until recent years countless flocks swarmed throughout this district. Such other birds as winter in this region breed principally in New England and northward along the Atlantic slope to Labrador. But northeastern North America east of Hudson Bay harbors only a small number of ducks in summer. They prefer the marshes, lakes, and streams of the districts west of Hudson Bay, and the great bulk of North American ducks breed there. Thus there are two great districts, one suitable for a summer home and the other for winter, and the migration route between them is nearly northwest and southeast, between Chesapeake Bay and Great Slave Lake. Through much of the intervening 2,000 miles is a suc- cession of lakes, large and small, that find no counterpart elsewhere on this hemisphere, and which furnish ideal conditions for ducks, both as regards food and shelter. Among the most conspicuous species that follow this migration route are the redhead, canvasback, and greater scaup. Less abun- dant, though still numerous, are the baldpate, pintail, and lesser scaup, while the route is extensively used also by the mallard, gadwall, shoveler, and ring-necked duck. Nearly all the individuals of these 10 species that winter along the Atlantic coast reach their winter home by a pronounced southeastward migration, though it must be under- stood that these individuals constitute only a small percentage of the vast army of these same species that breed in central Canada. One of the principal winter homes of North American ducks and geese is the State of California, where congregates during this season the larger part of all the individuals that breed west of the Rocky Mountains. DISTRIBUTION. The family of ducks, geese, and swans is represented in North America by 63 species and 8 subspecies—a total of 71 recognized 4510—No. 26—06——2 16 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. forms; but the following 7 of these do not range so far north as the United States: SPECIES OCCURRING IN CxXNTRAL AMERICA, WeEsT INDIES, oR MEXICO, BUT NOT KNOWN TO REACH THE UNITED STATES. Muscovy duck, Catrina moschata. Whistling duck, Dendrocygna arboreu. Diaz duck, Anas diazi. Southern red-billed tree-duck, Dendro- Abert duck, Anas abertt. cygna discolor. Bahama duck, Pecilonetta bahamensis. White-faced tree-duck, Dendrocygna vidu- ata. : There remain 64 species and subspecies that occur in the United States and northward, but 11 of these are only accidental in North America. One of them, d/areca penelope, has been recorded about 80 times in various parts of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Nettion crecca has been captured about twenty times in the same regions. Vetta rujina has been found only once—in New York market. The other 7 occur more or less regularly in Greenland, but are not known on the mainland of North America. These 11 species are: EUROPEAN SPECIES OCCURRING IN NortH AMERICA AS STRAGGLERS. European smew, Mergus albellus. White-fronted goose, Anser albifrons. Widgeon,@ Mareca penelope. Bean goose, Anser fabalis. European teal,@ Nettion crecca. Brant, Branta bernicla. Ruddy sheldrake, Casarca casarca. Barnacle goose, Branta leucopsis. Rufous-crested duck, Netta rufina. Whooping swan, Olor cygnus. Velvet scoter, Oidemia fusca. Four species of eider ducks and the emperor goose are so de- cidedly boreal that they do not come south to the United States even in winter. These are: SPECIES THAT BREED AND WINTER NorTH OF THE UNITED STATES. Steller eider, Polysticta stelleri. Pacific eider, Somateria v-nigra. Spectacled eider, Arctonetta fischeri. Emperor goose, Philacte canagica. (Ac- Northern eider, Somateria mollissima bore- cidental in California. ) alis (rare on the New England coast). Deducting these, there are 54 species which regularly visit the United States during some portion of the year. Many of these, how- ever, spend the breeding season north of the United States, and come south only in the winter season. Among these last are included both species of swans and most of the geese. Several species of ducks select Canada as their principal breeding ground, but a few indi- viduals remain to breed in the northern part of the United States or © in the mountains of the West. These are the scaup (Aythya marila), American golden-eye (Clangula clangula americana), Barrow golden- eye (Clangula islandica), buffle-head ( Charitonetta albcola), harlequin # Occurs in the United States; Netta rujina but once. i DISTRIBUTION. duck (Wistrionicus histrionicus), American eider (Somateria dresser’), and white-winged scoter (Ozdemia degland?). But the individuals which breed in the United States are so few—in the case of Somateria dressert less than a dozen pairs—that they may be ignored in this discussion. Five other species of ducks breed entirely north of the United States, making, in all, 29 species that remain in summer north of our bounda- ries, as follows: SPECIES THAT BREED CHIEFLY NoRTH OF THE UNITED STATES. Red-breasted merganser, Merganser serra- tor (rare in the northern United States). Red-legged duck, Anas obscura rubripes. Seaup, Aythya marila (rare in the north- ern United States). American golden-eye, Clangula clangula americana (rare in the northern United States). Barrow golden-eye, Clangula islandica (rare in the Rocky Mountains of the United States). Buffle-head, Charitonetta albeola (rare in the northern United States). Old-squaw, Harelda hyemalis. Harlequin duck, Histrionicus histrionicus (rare in the mountains of the north- western United States). American eider, Somateria dresseri (rare in Maine). King eider, Somateria spectabilis. American scoter, Oidemia americana. White-winged scoter, Oidemia deglandi (rare in North Dakota). Surf scoter, Oidemia perspicillata. Lesser snow goose, Chen hyperborea. Greater snow goose, Chen hyperborea nivalis. Blue goose, Chen cxrulescens. Ross goose, Chen rossii. White-fronted gocse, Anser albifrons gam- beli. Hutchins goose, Branta canadensis hutch- insti. Cackling goose, Branta canadensis minima. White-bellied brant, Rranta bernicla glau- cogastra. Black brant, Branta nigricans. Whistling swan, Olor columbianus. Trumpeter swan, Olor buccinator (for- merly a few in the northern United States). SPECIES THAT BREED CHIEFLY NORTH OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE, WITH THE NORTHERN- Most LATITUDE AT WHICH THE SPECIES HEMISPHERE. Old-squaw, Harelda hyemalis, 82°. Stei:ler eider, Povysticta steileri, 71°. Spectacled eider, Arctonetta fischeri, 71°. Northern eider, Somateria mollissuma bore- alis, 82°. Pacific eider, Somateria v-nigra, 76°. King eider, Somateria spectabilis, 82°. Lesser snow goose, Chen hyperborea, 74°. Greater snow goose, Chen hyperborea ni- valis, 72° (accidental at 82°). Ross snow goose, Chen rossii, 68°. HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE WESTERN | American white-fronted goose, Anser albi- frons gambeli, 71°. Hutchins goose, Branta canadensis hutch- insii, 70°. Cackling goose, Branta canadensis min- ima, 71°. White-bellied brant, Branta bernicla glau- cogastra, 82°. Black brant, Branta nigricans, 76°. Whistling swan, Olor columbianus, 74°. SouTHERN SpEcrIESs, WITH NorRTHERN Limit oF BREEDING RANGE. Florida duck, Anas fulvigula (northern Florida). Black-bellied tree-duck, Dendrocygna au- tumnalis (southern Texas). _ Mottied duck, Anas fulvigula maculosa | Fulvous tree-duck, Dendrocygna fulva (northern Texas; accidental in Kansas). Masked duck, Nomonyx dominicus (south- ern Texas). (central California). 18 WESYERN SPECIES, Cinnamon teal, Querquedula cyanoptera (Kansas). Steller eider, Polysticta stellert (Alaska). Spectacled eider, Arctonetta fischeri (Alaska). Pacific eider, Somateria v-nigra (Macken- zie ). Ross goose, Chen rossii (Hudson Bay). NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. witH EASTERN [LIMIT oF REGULAR RANGE. White-cheeked goose, Branta canadensis q occidentalis (Nevada). Cackling goose, Branta canadensis minima (California). Black brant, Branta nigricans (Nevada and Mackenzie). Emperor goose, (Alaska). Philacte canagica SouTHERN Limits oF SPECIES WHOSE WINTER RANGE EXTENDS SOUTH OF THE UNITED STATES. American merganser, Merganser ameri- —canus (Mexico, accidental). Red-breasted merganser, Merganser ser- rator (Mexico). Hooded merganser, Lophodytes cucullatus (Mexico). Mallard, Anas boschas (Panama). Black duck, Anas obscura (Jamaica, acci- dental). Gadwall, Chaulelasmus streperus (Mexico). Baldpate, Mareca americana (Costa Rica). Green-winged teal, Nettion carolinense (Honduras). Blue-winged teal, Querquedula discors (Chile). Cinnamon teal, Querquedula cyanoptera ( Patagonia). Shoveler, Spatula clypeata (Colombia). Pintail, Dafila acuta (Panama). Wood duck, Aix sponsa (Mexico). Redhead, Aythya americana (Mexico). Canvasback, Aythya vallisneria (Guate- mala, accidental). Scaup duck, Aythya marila (Bahamas). Lesser scaup duck, Aythya affinis (Pan- ama). Ring-necked duck, Aythya collaris (Guate- mala). American golden-eye, Clangula clangula americana (Mexico). ; Buffle-head, Charitonetta albeola (Mexico). White-winged scoter, Oidemia deglandi (Mexico). Surf scoter, Oidemia perspicillata (Mexico). Ruddy duck, Erismatura jamaicensis (Costa Rica, accidental). Masked duck, Nomonyx dominicus (Ar- gentina). Lesser snow goose, Chen —— (Mex- ico). American white-fronted goose, Anser albi- frons gambeit (Mexico). . Hutchins goose, Branta canadensis hutch- — insit (Mexico). E White-cheeked goose, Branta canadensis — occidentalis (Mexico). Black brant, Branta nigricans (Mexico). Black-bellied tree-duck, Dendrocygna au- tumnalis (Panama). Fulveus tree-duck, Dendrocygna fulva q (Argentina). 4 Whistling swan, Olor columbianus (Mex- — 1¢0). : SUMMARY. Species breeding regularly in the northern United States.......-...--------- 19 Southern species ranging north to the southern United States........_....--- 54 Species breeding in the United States. 22 = = 52 eee 24 Species wintering in the United States but breeding northward.__...._._.--- 244 species breeding or wintering in the United States----5--- 2-5. ee 48 Species breeding and wintering north of the United States _......_...--. == og Species breeding chiefly north of the Arctic Circle.....--- cee eee 15 | Species breeding in the United States and northward ......-- 2b ee 53 European species straggling to North America._...........----_--- ets aes 114 Species occurring in the United States and northward 22.6 2. 2 3 ae 64 Southern species not ranging north to the United States..........2..-.----.- = Total species and subspecies in North America. 2.2. .3.!. 522 se ee 71a AMERICAN MERGANSER. 19 The material for determining the geographic range cf the water- fowl included in this bulletin has been derived from various publica- tions, from museum specimens, and from the notes of field agents of the Biological Survey. The data on migration are derived almost entirely from the migration schedules contributed since 1884 to this Bureau by hundreds of observers distributed throughout the United - States and Canada. Opportunity is here taken to extend acknowl- edgements to the many whose painstaking observations for a long series of years have made possible the present publication. DISTRIBUTION AND MIGRATION OF DUCKS. Merganser americanus (Cass.). American Merganser. Breeding range.—The principal breeding ground of this merganser is in southern Canada from the maritime provinces to Saskatchewan. Southward the species nests quite commonly in Maine, the colder portions of New Hampshire, and in Vermont; it probably has bred casually or accidentally in Massachusetts. It is rather common in the Adirondacks and is not rare in the lake region of northwestern New York. It former'y bred in several of the mountainous counties of central Pennsylvania (Perry, Lancaster, Clinton, and Lycoming), and may yet breed occasionally in that State and in Ohio. It breeds com- monly at Ottawa and the Muskoka region in Ontario and it is not rare in the southern part of the Province and on the shores and islands | of Lake Ontario. It is common in northern Michigan—rarely as far south as central Michigan—also in southwestern Minnesota (Heron Lake), South Dakota (Fort Sisseton, Black Hills), and south in the Rocky Mountains to northern New Mexico (near Santa Fe), north central Arizona (Fort Verde), and the Sierras of California. . The breeding range extends north to central Ungava (Hamilton River), Hudson Bay (York Factory), Great Slave Lake, and on the Pacific coast regularly to the Queen Charlotte Islands, and rarely to the base of the Alaskan Peninsula at about latitude 60° (lak Lake, July 24, 1896). Winter range.—On the Atlantic coast this duck ranges from Maine to South Carolina, rarely to Georgia and Florida; in mild winters it occurs as far north as Prince Edward Island; in the interior it winters from the Gulf of Mexico to southern Ontario, Lake Michigan, Kansas, northern Colorado, Idaho, British Columbia, and rarely to Unalaska Island and the Pribilof Islands. In winter it reaches northern Mexico and northern Lower California. It occurs occasionally in the Bermudas. Spring migration.—Though the northward movement of this mer- -ganser begins early—late February—and there is much activity in the Mississippi Valley in March, on the Atlantic coast the advance beyond the usual winter home is comparatively late. The average date of 20 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. arrival at Montreal is April 5; Ottawa, Ontario, April 16; Prince Edward Island, April 21. The first merganser was seen on Hamilton _ River, Ungava, May 28. At Heron Lake, Minnesota, the average date of arrival is March 26 (earliest March 17, 1886); average at Aweme, Manitoba, April 11. The larger number have left the winter range by early April; but along the middle Atlantic coast a few are seen in May, while on the Massachusetts coast nonbreeders occur all summer. Eggs have been taken at Kingston, Ontario, April 10, 1902; atGod- | bout, Quebec, May 12, 1884; on Hamilton River, Ungava, June 25; eggs incubated one week, on Lake Tagish, Yukon, June 30, 1899; young in northern California May 21. Full migration.—A few of this species start south in August (Woods Hole, Mass., August 26, 1890), but in general the American merganser is a late migrant, passing south only when forced by winter storms. The average date of arrival on the Massachusetts coast is October 5, and on Chesapeake Bay October 15. The average date when the last are seen on Prince Edward Island is November 1; Montreal, Novem- ber 6; Ottawa, Ontario, November 21. : Merganser serrator (Linn.). Red-breasted Merganser. Breeding range.—Most of the summer home of this species in the Western Hemisphere lies north of the United States, though a few nest in Maine (Houlton, Magalloway River, Isleau Haute), and farther south on Sable Island, Nova Scotia; also in northern New York (Adi- rondacks), Michigan, Wisconsin (Green Bay), Minnesota (St. Paul), and probably in Oregon (Crooked River and Camp Harney). ‘The breeding range extends far north to Greenland (Scoresby Sound, Uper-. navik), Cumberland Gulf, Mackenzie (Fort Anderson), Alaska (ley Cape), and the northern coast of Siberia. The species breeds commonly on the whole western coast of Alaska, the Near Islands, the Yukon Basin, and south to southern British Columbia. It breeds commonly also in northern Kurope and northern Asia, whence it retires in winter to southern Europe and central Asia. . Winter range.—A single specimen was taken near Habana, Cuba, in December, 1891, and this seems to be the only record south of the eastern United States. The species is not rare in winter in Florida and along the Gulf coast to Texas; thence it is quite rare in New Mexico and Arizona, but is common throughout the whole of Califor- nia and south to Lower California (Lia Paz). It is common in winter on the Atlantic coast as far as Maine, and remains around the Gulf of Saint Lawrence until the bays freeze. It is not uncommon even in Greenland during the winter. In the interior it braves the winter on the Great Lakes and north to Wisconsin, Nebraska, Colorado, and Utah; north on the Pacific coast to southern British Columbia; it is casual on the Hawaiian Islands and the Bermudas. HOODED MERGANSER. | 21 Spring migration.—-The red-breasted merganser winters so far north that few migration data are available. The species is most common on the Massachusetts coast during the first half of April, though migrants begin to pass a month earlier. The average date of arrival at Montreal is April 16 (earliest, April 6, 1894); at North River, Prince Edward Island, April 21 (earliest, April 15, 1891); Lake Mistassini, Ungava, May 11, 1895; Heron Lake, Minn., April 2, 1884, April 4, 1885; Aweme, Manitoba, April 22, 1899; Fort Keogh, Mont., April 27, 1889; Chilcat, Alaska, May 8, 1882; mouth of the Yukon about the middle of May; Kowak River, Alaska, middle of June (1899). The region in the United States to the south of the breeding ground is deserted in May, except by a few cripples and nonbreeders, some of which are present all summer on the coasts of New Jersey and New England. Fall migration.—The first arrival in 1896 at Monterey, Cal., was noted October 9; about the same time the species appears in the cor- responding’ latitude on the Atlantic coast. Indeed, October can be said to be the month of arrival in the winter home, and of departure from the most northern breeding grounds; the last was seen on the Mackenzie River, about latitude 63°, October 15 and 16, 1908. Lophodytes cucullatus (Linn.). Hooded Merganser. Breeding range.—This merganser breeds locally throughout much of North America, from Florida (Fort Myers and Titusville), Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas, Colorado, northern New Mexico, Nevada, and Oregon, north to Newfoundland, southern Labrador, Hudson Bay (Fort Churchill, latitude 62°), Great Slave Lake, and central British Columbia (Cariboo district). One specimen was seen at Fort Wrigley, Mackenzie River, latitude 63°, where possibly it may breed; it is accidental in Alaska (St. Michael, October, 1865), Ber- mudas, Europe. In the Southern States mentioned the species is quite rare and local, and the same seems to be true of all the district north of Maine and east of Ontario. The species is most common from latitude 44° to latitude 60°, between the Rocky Mountains and Lake Huron. Winter range.—It remains during the winter rarely as far north as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Lake Michigan, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and southern British Columbia. It is more common in the cen- tral districts and Gulf States. A few migrate to Cuba, Central Mex- ico (Orizaba, City of Mexico), and southern Lower California. Spring migration.—Since the hooded merganser breeds over much of its winter range, it is difficult to determine when its spring migra- tion begins. Migratory movements occur in late February, and aver- age dates of arrival are: Western New York, March; Montreal, early April; Ottawa, Ontario, April 18 (earliest, March 21, 1903); southern Michigan, March 19; central lowa, March 22 (earliest, March 5, 1895); 29 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Heron Lake, Minn., April 5 (earliest, March 20, 1889). On March 28, - 4 1877, young, a week old, were found in central Florida. Eggs have been taken on April 20 in Illinois and on April 29 in southern Ontario. ‘ Fall migration.—The species arrives in the valley of Mexico in October and in southern California in November. Many years’ obser- vations at Alexandria, Va., fix the average date of arrival there as October 26, and November 22 as the average date when the hooded merganser becomes common. The average date when the last left Montreal was October 29; southern Minnesota, November 10, and central Iowa, November 22. : Mergus albellus Linn. Smew. This is an Old World duck which has been taken once as an acci- dental visitant to North America. The basis for its inclusion in the list is a single specimen, an adult female, now in the British Museum, which was purchased from the Hudson Bay Company (Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., X XVII, p. 468, 1895). There is no evidence as to the locality of its capture. Anas boschas Linn. Mallard. Breeding range.—The northern half of the United States west of Pennsylvania, and the whole of Canada west of Hudson Bay, consti- tute the principal breeding range in the Western Hemisphere of the mallard—the commonest duck on the North American continent and probably in the world. In eastern North America the place of the mallard is taken by the black duck, and the former is rather rare, though a few breed in eastern Ontario about Lake Erie, locally in ~ ’ western New York, and south to Maryland. Though unknown as a breeder on the mainland east of Hudson Bay, the mallard is rather common in Greenland, breeding north to Godthaab and Angmagsalik and wandering to Upernavik. Throughout New England and the Maritime Provinces it is a rare migrant, and while some of the records of its breeding in these districts may be correct, it is no more than a casual summer resident. In the interior the breeding range extends regularly south to lati- tude 41° and a few breed south to southern Indiana, southern Illinois, central Missouri, and southern Kansas. The breeding range bends south in the Rocky Mountains to southern New Mexico and on the Pacific coast to Lower California (San Pedro Martir Mountains). - The breeding range extends north to Fort Churchill, to the Arctic coast in the Mackenzie Valley, and to Kotzebue Sound and the Fur Seal Islands in Alaska. The mallard is one of the earliest birds to breed. The nesting sea- son extends from early April in southern California and the first week | | ei 3 a | MALLARD. Paps) of May in northern Indiana, to early June in the Mackenzie Valley and the Yukon Delta, and the last week of June in Greenland. It is one of the common ducks of the Old World, breeding in the Northern Hemisphere and ranging south in winter to central Africa and southern Asia. Winter range.—The mallard is a fresh-water duck, and in general it winters as far north as open fresh water is found. The greater num- _ber spend the winter in the southern. half of the Mississippi Valley, and for many years this was the source of a large part of the market supply. The numbers killed were almost incredible. Big Lake, Arkansas, was and still is one of the favorite resorts, and during the winter of 1893-94 a single gunner sold 8,000 mallards, while the total number sent to market from this one place amounted to 120,000. Fortunately both Arkansas and Missouri now forbid market shooting, and this deplorable slaughter has been decidedly lessened. This species winters casually in eastern Massachusetts and central _ New York, accidentally in Nova Scotia, and regularly from Virginia to northern Florida. It is less common in central Florida, and has been recorded in the Bermudas, Bahamas, Cuba, Jamaica, Grenada, Carriacou, Panama, and Costa Rica. Most of these localities have only one record each, showing that the mallard is only a straggler to the southeast of the United States. There seems to be no record for Central America from Costa Rica to Mexico. The species is a com- mon winter resident of northern Mexico and ranges south to Jalapa, the Valley of Mexico, Colima, and southern Lower California. The northern winter limit in the interior is in Ohio, northern Indi- ana, southern Wisconsin, Nebraska, Wyoming, and central Montana. The species is common in winter along the whole Pacific coast as far north as the Aleutian Islands. Spring migration.—lt is among the earliest of ducks to move northward and forms a large proportion of the early flocks. The portion of the central Mississippi Valley that forms the extreme winter range is invaded by the spring migrants the latter part of February; Frankfort, Ind. (average for ten years), February 21; central Illinois (twelve years), February 22; central Missouri (six- teen years), February 26; Keokuk, Iowa (nine years), February 24; southern Kansas (eleven years), February 18; southeastern Nebraska (five years), February 19. Just north of the winter range average dates of spring arrival are: Erie, Pa., March 5; central New York, March 23; Oberlin, Ohio, March 21; southern Michigan, March 9; southern Ontario, March 24; Ottawa, Ontario, March 27; Chicago, Ill. (eleven years), March 19; southern Wisconsin (twelve years), March 21; Spirit Lake, Iowa, March 10; Heron Lake, Minn., March 11; _ central South Dakota (fourteen years), March 16; Larimore, N. Dak. (twelve years), March 28; Terry, Mont., March 26. The mallard 24 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. erosses into central Canada early in April, and the average date of arrival at Aweme, Manitoba (ten years), is April 3 (earliest March 24, — 1905); Qu’ Appelle, Saskatchewan (six years), April 10 (earliest, March ~ 26,1905). The earliest migrants were seen at Fort Resolution May 7, — 1860; near Fort Providence, April 27, 1904; Fort Simpson, May 8, 1904; Kowak River, Alaska, May 17, 1899. The last one seen in 1892 at Shellmound, Miss., was on April 5; © in northern Texas one was seen as late as May 6, 1889. In central — Missouri, where a few remain to breed, the average date when the — last migrants are seen is March 28. Fall migration.—In the fall this species returns with the general — mass of ducks, and the average date of its arrival at Alexandria, — Va., is September 21 (earliest, August 28, 1896); it becomes common ~ October 27; at Chicago, Ill., September 27; Grinnell, Iowa, Septem- — ber 17; and in northern Texas October 11. The first one was noted — at San Angelo, Tex., August 10, 1883, and at Austin, Tex., ee ber 1, 1893. The mallard is one of the moderately hardy ducks, and remains in — the north until the lakes begin to freeze. Average dates when the last were seen are: Montreal, Canada, October 26 (latest, November 13, 1897); Scotch Lake, New Brunswick, November 7; Ottawa, Ontario (nine years), November 5 (latest, November 14, 1904); Aweme, Mani- toba (eight years), November 12 (latest, November 23, 1902); Chicago, Ill., November 13; English Lake, Ind., December 9; sone Minne- sota (ten years), November 22 (lntextd December i, 1890); central — Iowa (12 years), November 15 (latest, November 27, 1903); central — Nebraska, November 18 (latest, November 26, 1899). Anas obscura Gmel. Black Duck. Breeding range.—The group of ‘black’ or ‘dusky’ ducks comprises several species which closely resemble each other and which have been distinguished only in recent years. The black duck is the common breeding duck of New England and northern New York, south of which it breeds not rarely on Long Island and locally in Pennsylvania (Bradford County), New Jersey (Long Beach), Delaware, and Mary- land (Ocean City, Barrow Springs). To the westward the breeding range extends south to Ohio (formerly), Indiana (Lake County), Illi- nois, Iowa (Spirit Lake), and Minnesota (Kandiyohi County). It breeds rarely and locally over much of Wisconsin, but breeds more ~ commonly in Michigan and southern Ontario. It is a very common q summer resident of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the ~ islands of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The most northern points at 4 which it breeds are in southern Labrador and Newfoundland. Some- — where in Labrador and in northern Ontario this form meets the more . northern form, the red-legged duck (Anas obscura rubripes), but the BLACK DUCK. 95 dividing line between the two is unknown. A specimen from the Straits of Belle Isle is obscura; one from Okak, Labrador, is inter- mediate, and one from Ungava Bay, only a few miles farther north, is rubripes. The black duck breeds so early that young have been found at Old Saybrook, Conn., May 5, and eggs at Rehoboth, Mass., April 30. Winter range.—This species is accidental in winter in the West Indies (Jamaica), rare in the Bermudas, and rare in central Florida (Gainesville) and also in Alabama. From Georgia northward it is more common, and from North Carolina to New Jersey it is one of the abundant winter ducks. Black ducks, including both A. obscura and A. rubripes, are abundant at this season around Long Island and on the shores of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, but although a few A. obscura winter in Massachusetts, the greater number are A. rubripes. West of the Alleghenies there is uncertainty as to which form pre: ponderates in winter. A. obscura is a tolerably common winter resident of Louisiana, but A. rubripes reaches Arkansas, and one form or the other winters as far north as southern Ohio, southern Indiana, and southern Illinois. In migration A. obscura israre west to eastern — Nebraska (Fairmont, Gresham, Calhoun) and eastern Kansas (Reno County, Wichita, and Lawrence). Notes on the migration of this species are for the most part included under those of A. rubripes. Anas obscura rubripes Brewst. Red-legged Black Duck. Breeding range.—As stated under the last species, a breeding duck from Okak, northeastern Labrador, is considered intermediate between this form and A. obscura, while the bird breeding at Ungava Bay is A. rubripes. ‘This Ungava Bay record seems to mark the northeastern limit of the species so far as reported. Thence the species extends west to Hudson Bay, as far north at least as Fort Churchill, and is rare or accidental west to Manitoba (Long Lake; Lake Manitoba, October 28, 1900; Delta, September 4, 1902, September, 1903; St. Marks, two, October, 1902), and to Fort Anderson. The southern limit of the breeding range in Ontario has not yet been determined. Winter range.—Most of the black ducks that winter in Massachu- setts are A. rubripes, and this is about as far north as the species com- monly winters. Along the coast some have been known in winter as far north as Nova Scotia. How far south the species goes has not yet been determined, but it is common on the coast of South Carolina from November to March, and a specimen was taken in Mississippi County, Ark., November 5, 1887. It occurs west to Nebraska (Green- wood, Lincoln, Calhoun) and undoubtedly wanders to eastern Kansas. The northern winter limit in the interior is probably from northwestern Pennsylvania to southern Wisconsin. 26 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Spring migration.—It is impossible to separate the migration rec- ords of A. obscura and A. rubripes. The following migration notes probably refer for the most part t» A. rubripes, because that form winters farther north. In March extensive northward movements of black ducks occur, but it is not until early April that the birds pass beyond the usual winter range. The average date of arrival for seven- — teen years in southern Maine is April 7; the earliest, March 19, 1894; the average date for Montreal is April 14, and March 27, 1889, is the earliest; Quebec, average, April 18 (earliest, April 6, 1896); Godbout, Quebec, average, April 21; Prince Edward Island, April 23 (earliest, April 5, 1898). Farther west the average date of arrival in southern Ontario is April 7 (earliest, March 16, 1901); average at Ottawa, April 14 (earliest, March 21, 1903). Fall migration.—A black duck was seen at Washington, D. C., August 1, 1887; one at Alexandria, Va., August 14, 1886, and one at Hog Island, Va., August 20, 1886; but these are unusually early rec- ords. The average of a long series of excellent records at Alexandria, Va., is September 30 for the arrival of the first and October 31 as the average date when they become common. About the middle of Octo-_ ber, on the New England coast, they become common enough to usher in the shooting season. These dates, of course, apply to A. obscura. There are no exact records of the time when A. rubripes arrives from its northern breeding grounds, but it is supposed that it reaches New England about the first week in October. In winter it remains as far north as it can find open water. Theaverage date when the last leave Ottawa, Ontario, is November 7 (latest, November 21, 1892); average — at Montreal, November 6 (latest, November 14, 1896). The last one was seen at Prince Edward Island November 13, 1889, and December 8, 1890. Anas fulvigula Ridgw. Florida Duck. A nonmigratory species, breeding commonly in the southern half of Florida, and less commonly in the northern portion. It seems to be absent from northeastern Florida, but occurs along the northwestern coast of the State. Nests in late April and in May, but sometimes - ; much earlier, for downy young have been taken as early as April 6. Anas fulvigula maculosa (Senn.). Mottled Duck. Resident in Texas and southern Louisiana (Lake Arthur). In Texas it occurs from the moutk of the Rio Grande northward and west to about. the middle of the State. It is accidental in Kansas (Neosho Falls, — March 11, 1876). It breeds throughout most if not all of its Texas — range; the eggs are deposited in April. : [Anas diazi Ridgw. Diaz Black Duck. A form of ‘black duck’ closely resembling Anas fulvigula. It is nonmigratory and — 3 occurs in central Mexico from Chihuahua City to Tepic, Jalisco, Michoacan, the Valley of Mexico, Puebla, and Tlaxcala. ] GADWALL. OG [Anas aberti Ridgw. Abert Duck. A species known only from the type specimen taken at Mazatlan, Mexico. ] Chaulelasmus streperus (Linn.). Gadwall. Breeding range.—A large majority of the North American individ- uals of this species breed in the prairie district extending from Mani- toba to the Rocky Mountains, south to western Minnesota, and from northern South Dakota north to the Saskatchewan. The species breeds commonly from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, south to southern Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and in nearly the whole of California; also probably in the Mogollon Mountains of Arizona. The northern range extends to southern British Columbia, Alberta (rarely or casually to Lesser Slave Lake), and to Fort Churchill on Hudson Bay. There is no authentic record for the Mackenzie Valley, and if the specimen in the British Museum labeled ‘‘ Bering Straits” really was captured there it was a wanderer, as was also one taken at Unalaska, March 18, 1879. In the Mississippi Valley the gadwall occasionally breeds in northern Nebraska and rarely in Kansas. Formerly it bred in Wisconsin (Hori- con Marsh and Lake Koshkonong), there is one record for Ontario (St. Clair Flats), and one for Anticosti Island. It is only a straggler to New England and the Maritime Provinces north to Quebec and Newfoundland, and east of the Mississippi is rare north of North Carolina. The gadwall is a common breeder in Europe and Asia, ranging south in winter far into Africa and to southern Asia. Winter range.—The principal winter home of the gadwall is in the lower Mississippi Valley, especially Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas... It rarely winters as far north as Illinois, but is more common to the eastward in North Carolina and Florida; accidental in Cuba (twice), Jamaica, and the Bermudas. The winter range extends to the south- ern end of Lower California, to Mazatlan, and the City of Mexico. In northern Mexico the species is common through the winter, and birds have been found paired in May, the late date indicating that they intended to remain and breed. ‘Thence it extends commonly to Utah and Oregon, rarely to Washington and British Columbia. Spring migration.—Only a few notes on the migration of this species have been recorded. The average date when the first spring migrants reach southern Iowa is March 18 (earlest March 10, 1896), it thus being one of the earlier ducks in this part of its range. It reached Heron Lake, Minn., April 1 (earliest March 17, 1886); Love- land, Colo., March 6, and Terry, Mont., about April 1. The first migrant was seen at Aweme, Manitoba, April 23, 1898, and at Indian Head, Saskatchewan, April 18, 1892, and April 24,1904. Eggshave been secured at St. Clair Flats, Ontario, about May 30; in western Minne- 28 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. sota, June 14,1879; northern North Dakota, June 15, 1901; Manitoba, June 5,1894; Crane Lake, Saskatchewan, June 9, 1894; Nevada, “May 99, 1868, and incubated eggs in Los Angeles County, Cal., April 16. Fall migration.—The first arrived at the southern end of Lower California September 27, 1887; in northern New Mexico the species was abundant the last days of September, 1904. The average date when the last left central Minnesota was November 14. Mareca penelope (Linn.). European Widgeon. This is an Old World species which has occurred as a straggler on the Atlantic coast in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Nova Scotia, New- foundland, and Greenland; in the interior it has been found in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nebraska; on the Pacitic coast in California, British Columbia, and Alaska. It is not known to breed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. On the Atlantic coast the dates are almost entirely in the fall and winter, from October 20 (near Halifax, Mass.) to March 25 (Keuka Lake, New York)—there are only three records after February 5— while in the interior its occurrence is as strictly confined to the spring, from March 23 (English Lake, Ind.) to April 18 (Sandusky, Ohio). The records for Greenland fall between September 29 and December 17; the California records are mostly in. February, while those of British Columbia are from December 25 to February 9, and the two Alaska dates are October 12 and May 27. Mareca americana (Gmel.). Baldpate. American Widgeon. Breeding range.—A line drawn from the western shore of Hudson Bay to the western shore of Lake Michigan marks, approximately, the eastern boundary of the breeding range of this species, and in, the eastern 200 miles of this district it is decidedly uncommon during the nesting season. There are a few records of the bird’s breeding in Indiana (Hogback Lake, English Lake) and in Wisconsin (formerly at Koshkonong and Horicon), but not until Minnesota is reached does this duck breed commonly. West of the Mississippi it breeds abun- dantly in North Dakota, a few in southern South Dakota, and rarely or casually in Nebraska and Kansas. It is a common breeder in Colo- rado, Utah, and Nevada (Truckee Valley), and probably breeds rarely in Arizona (Mormon Lake), but as yet the species has not been recorded as nesting in California. The main breeding range is northwestern North America from Oregon and Minnesota north to the Mackenzie Valley and central Alaska. A line from Fort Churchill, Hudson Bay, to Franklin Bay is the approximate northeastern boundary of the range, thence west to Kotzebue Sound. If this line from Frank- lin Bay to Fort Churchill is continued to Chesapeake Bay, it marks the approximate eastern limits at which the species is common in “BALDPATE. 29 migration. Northeastward the species is known as a rare migrant, in New England hardly more than a straggler, but it has been recorded as far as Newfoundland, southern Labrador (Natashquan), and north- ern Ontario (Moose River). The baldpate is rather rare on the coast of Alaska, but is more common in the interior, and is a rare or casual visitor to the Near, Commander, and Bermuda islands. Winter range.—The baldpate is common on the Chesapeake in win- - ter, but as it is rare directly to the northward at all times of the year, it is evident that the migration is from the northwest. Occasionally birds are found in winter as far north as Rhode Island. The species is common during the winter in the Carolinas, less common in Florida and Cuba, and rare in the Bermudas, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Porto Rico, St. Thomas, and Trinidad. It is recorded from Costa Rica, and is a rather common winter resident of northern Guatemala and much of Mexico north of the Valley of Mexico. The winter home in the “Mississippi Valley extends north to Illinois, and in the west to New Mexico, Arizona, Utah (probably), and to southern British Columbia. It is probably most common during the winter along the Pacific coast. Spring migration.—This begins late in February and by early March the species is north of its winter home. Average dates of arrival are: Western New York, March 238; Erie, Pa., March 24; Oberlin, Ohio, March 17; southern Michigan, March 25; Keokuk, Iowa, March 15; central Nebraska, March 17; Loveland, Colo., March 10. The further advance of the species is somewhat slow. The average time of reach- ing Heron Lake, Minn., is March 29; southern Manitoba, April 20; Terry, Mont., April 8. The first individual was seen at Indian Head, Saskatchewan, April 24, 1904, and at Osler, Saskatchewan, May 2, 1893. These dates indicate an average speed of 17 miles per day from central Nebraska to Heron Lake, and 18 miles per day thence to southern Manitoba. The average rate from Colorado to Montana is 16 miles per day, and the same rate continued northward would bring the first baldpate to Indian Head and Osler at almost exactly the stated dates. If the birds of the Mississippi Valley pass northwest to the Mackenzie Valley, this rate of migration would bring them to Great Slave Lake about the first week in June, whereas the first arrival at Fort Simp- son, Mackenzie, was April 28, 1904; and a female was shot at Fort Resolution May 24, 1860, which contained a fully formed egg. It is evident, then, that the earliest arrivals in the Mackenzie Valley come from the southwest, where, in southern British Columbia, the species winters a thousand miles farther north than on the plains. The bald- pate arrives at the mouth of the Yukon in early May, and on the Knik River, Alaska, the first bird was noted May 10,1901. Most of the few spring records in New England are in April, two in February, but the species is apparently less common in the spring than in the fall. The last migrants usually leave Cuba late in April, though in Guatemala they have been seen as late as May. -. 30 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS, Fall migration. ~The month of September, especially the latter half, sees the arrival of the first baldpates over most of the district between the breeding grounds and Cuba and Louisiana; but these are only the ~ q advance scouts; the main body appears in the northern United States early in October, and reaches the middle Atlantic States about the ~ middle of that month. Dates of arrival are: Middletown, R. L., Sep- — tember 20, 1889; East Hartford, Conn., September 29, 1888; Beaver, — Pa., August 30, 1890. Stragglers have been seen in Massachusetts and in northern Pennsylvania as late as the first week in December, but most leave at least a month earlier. The average date at which the last were seen at Ottawa, Ontario, is October 27, latest November 6, 1890; at Keokuk, Iowa, November 138, latest November 18, 1892. The last was seen at Montreal September 20, 1897; Edmonton, Alberta, November 6, 1896; Kowak River, Alaska, September 20, © : 1898; St. Michael, Alaska, October 1. Nettion crecca (Linn.). European Teal. This is a widely distributed Old World species, accidental in the Western Hemisphere. It has been taken in Greenland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Long Island, near Washington, D. C., California, and Alaska. The dates of capture range through every month of the year, except January, August, and October; those for the United States from November to April. Nettion carolinense (Gmel.). Green-winged Teal. Breeding range.—A few probably have bred in the mountains of — north central Pennsylvania (Lycoming County), and it has been reported as nesting near Buffalo, N. Y. The regular breeding range extends from New Brunswick, through northeastern Quebec and New- — foundland, to Ungava Bay, Labrador, latitude 58°. It is a common © migrant in Ontario, and hence undoubtedly breeds in the northern — part. It has been recorded as a rare breeder in southern Ontario (Toronto, Point aux Pins, Oshawa, Gravenhurst). The southern boundary of the breeding range to the westward is found in Illinois ~ (Rockford, Lacon, Fernwood), in Michigan (Neebish Island), Wiscon- sin (Lake Koshkonong, formerly), Minnesota (Faribault, Heron Lake), Nebraska (Dewey Lake, Badger, Valentine), Colorado (Beloit, San Luis Valley), New Mexico (San Miguel County), Utah (Salt Lake), — Nevada (Washoe Lake), Oregon (Fort Klamath). The range extends — north to the edge of the Barren Grounds from near Fort Churchill, — Hudson Bay, to Fort Anderson, to Kotzebue Sound, and nearly to Point Barrow. It breeds throughout the Aleutian Chain to the Near — Islands. It is rare as a breeder everywhere in the United States east — of the Rocky Mountains, and the main breeding grounds are in west 4 central Canada from Manitoba to Lake Athabasca. It has wandered — GREEN-WINGED TEAL. 31 a few times to the west coast of Greenland, from Nanortalik to Disco Bay, and was once taken in May on the east coast at Nanusek. The species is accidental in Great Britain, the Bermudas, and Hawaii. Winter range.—South of the United States it is common in Mexico, at least as far as Jalapa, the City of Mexico, Michoacan, and Jalisco; common also in the Bahamas, and rare in Cuba, Jamaica, and Hon- duras. It has been recorded on the islands of Carriacou, Grenada, and Tobago, of the Lesser Antilles. It is one of the most abundant ducks throughout the southwestern United States during winter. It is a hardy duck, and in general remains as far north as it can find open fresh water. Thus it winters in western Montana (Great Falls), central Utah, southern Nebraska, southern Lowa, central Illinois, central Indiana (rarely Lake Michigan), western New York, and Rhode Island. It is accidental in Massachu- setts in winter, and one was found at Halifax, Nova Scotia, January 14, 1890. The principal winter home in the Mississippi Valley lies south of 37° latitude. . Spring migration.—The green-winged teal is one of the early mi- erating ‘river ducks,’ but not quite so early, by about five days, as the mallard. Along the Atlantic slope it passes north of its winter home in early March, and the average date of its arrival in southern Pennsylvania is March 16; southern Connecticut, April 6; Montreal, Canada, April 27, Prince Edward Island, April 26. The average date of the first arrivals in central Missouri is February 26; central Illinois, March 7; English Lake, Ind., March 15; Keokuk, _ lowa (average for twelve years), March 3; central Iowa (fourteen years), March 11; Heron Lake, Minn. (six years), March 24 (earliest March 6, 1887). In its migration along the eastern border of the Plains the green-winged teal is noted at Onaga, Kans., March 8; north- - ern Nebraska, March 12; central South Dakota, March 20; northern North Dakota, April 6; Aweme, Manitoba, April 16, and southern Saskatchewan, April 19. These dates indicate the rather slow rate of only 18 milesa day. ‘The average of five years’ records of arrival at Terry, Mont., is March 23, a date about ten days earlier than that at which the species appears in the same latitude in Minnesota. Its winter home on the Pacific coast extends 1,500 miles farther north than on the Atlantic, and hence it is not surprising that the bird has been seen on the middle Yukon by May 3 and at the mouth of the Yukon by May 10. South of the breeding range the last green-winged teal was seen at Raleigh, N. C., April 13, 1900; Hester, La., April 6, 1902; northern Texas, April 16, 1886. The average date of disappearance for eight years at Keokuk, Iowa, is April 7, latest, April 30, 1892. . Eges were taken at Nulato, Alaska, latitude 65°, May 20, and no earlier date seems to be recorded for the regions to the south. Eggs 4510—No, 26—06——3 Bo NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. have been found at Edmonton, Alberta, latitude 54°, May 27, and in southern Ontario, latitude 45°, May 22. Downy young were seen in- the Devils Lake region of North Dakota June 20. 3 Fall migration.—An average date for the reappearance of the green- _ winged teal at Erie, Pa., is September 15 (earliest, September 1, 1894); at Alexandria, Va., September 29 (earliest, September 22); but itis not — considered common until early November. Corresponding dates of — arrival are: Keokuk, Iowa, September 21; central Kansas, September _ 12; central Texas, September 22; central California, September 17. — The last was noted on Prince Edward Island, November 4, 1890; Mon- treal, Canada, November 1, 1893; Aweme, Manitoba, October 30, 1896; — Kowak River, Alaska, September 3, 1898; St. Michael, Alaska, the first week in October. The average date of the last seen in southern — Ontario (thirteen years) is October 28 (latest, November 7, 1890); at — Keokuk, lowa (seven years), November 22 (latest, November 27, 1902). Querquedula discors (Linn.). Blue-winged Teal. Breeding range.—The principal summer home of this teal is the ~ interior of North America between the Rocky Mountains and the Great — Lakes, from Northern Illinois and central Iowa north to Saskatchewan. _ The species is not common east of the Allegheny Mountains noronthe — Pacific slope. It has been recorded as breeding rarely in Rhode — Island (Sakonnet, 1890), Maine (Calais), New Brunswick (Kings — County, St. John County), Nova Scotia, Anticosti Island and New- — foundland, Quebec (Montreal, Point de Monts), Ungava (Clearwater — Lake, latitude 57°), rare in southern Ontario (Toronto), New York — (Utica, Auburn, Buffalo, formerly Long Island, Black Pond, Ulster — County). It breeds as far south as northern Ohio (Port Clinton, — Sandusky), southern Indiana (Gibson County and Wheatland), southern } Illinois (Anna), central Missouri (Kings Lake, Warrensburg, Kansas — City), central Kansas (Emporia, Wichita, Medicine Lodge, Fort Hays)— : casual or accidental breeding at Fort Rene. Okla., and San Antonio — and Spring Lake, Texas—southern Colorade (Fort Garland and La ~ Plata County), New Mexico (Santa Rosa; Black Lake, Colfax County; 7 Chloride), probably in Arizona (Mlosolon Mounted): central Utah ~ (Thistle Valley, Fairfield), northern Nevada (Truckee Valley, Washoe ; Lake), and central Oregon (Burns). 4 The breeding range extends north to central British Columbia (Laci la Hache, 158-Mile House); but the bird is rare or accidental in liek j (Cape Romanzoft), Alberta (Edmonton), and on Great Slave Lake. Much remains to be learned in regard to the nesting of the blue- q winged teal in the West Indies and Central America. It breeds in ; Jamaica and in the Lesser Antilles, quite probably also in Honduras — and in western Mexico (Mazatlan), near the southern end of Lower California. a 4 - BLUE-WINGED TEAL. 33 The resident teal of Jamaica probably should be separated subspe- cifically as Querquedula discors inornata (Gosse), but the eastern and western boundaries of this form remain to be determined. Winter range. —Blue-winged teal migrate over a vast extent of terri- tory, and are found in winter throughout northern South America south to Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile. They occur abundantly in Central America, Mexico, and the West Indies, and are equally com-_ mon during the winter in the Gulf States and north to North Carolina. In the Mississippi Valley few remain much north of the Gulf, though these few are scattered widely as far as southern Indiana and southern Illinois; a few winter in Arizona, and the small number of Pacific coast birds spend the winter in California and north to southern British Columbia. North of North Carolina this teal can hardly be called a common winter species, though it is not rare on Chesapeake Bay and win- ters even as far north as Delaware. This species is one of the least hardy of our ducks, and few individuals remain where there is cold and ice. Spring migration.—The blue-winged teal is among the latest ducks - to migrate. The first was noted at Erie, Pa., March 27, 1898; Tem- pleton, Mass., April 1, 1898; Prince Edward Island, April 20, 1888. In central Iowa, where the hardy ducks appear in February, the blue- winged teal was noted on the average (ten years) March 26 (earliest, March 18, 1899); northern lowa, April 4, and Heron Lake, Minn., April 9. The records of Heron Lake are quite uniform—April 11, 1885; April 11, 1886; April 10, 1887; April 8, 1888; April 9, 1889; - April 7, 1890. These dates indicate less variation in the time of arrival of this species than of any other. The blue-winged teal appears in southeastern Nebraska, March 28; central South Dakota, April 2; central North Dakota, April 12; northwestern Minnesota, April 23; Aweme, Manitoba, April 27. | In southern Texas this teal becomes common in spring about the middle of March; about the first week in April is the height of the shooting season in southern Louisiana. The latest migrants have been noted at Gainesville, Fla., April 29, 1887; Baltimore, Md., May 7, 1890; New Orleans, La., May 21, 1898; San Antonio, Tex., May 14, 1902. Eggs have been taken at Canton, Ill., May 16, 1897. Eggs just hatching were found on the Magdalen Islands, Gulf of St. Lawrence, June 16, 1900, and fresh eggs at Waseca, Minn., June 1; in North Dakota, June 12; and at Reaburn, Manitoba, June 4, 1894. Fall migration.—The blue-winged teal is one of the earliest ducks to move southward; during the month of August it reappears through- out the northern half of the United States and some especially early birds almost reach the Gulf of Mexico. During a period of fourteen years the average date of arrival at Alexandria, Va., was August 31 34 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. (earliest, August 18, 1889); they became common on the average Sep- tember 23, though in the fall of 1887 they were already numerous September 10. The average date of arrival in central Kansas is Sep- tember 12, and in southern Mississippi, September 16. The average date at which the last was seen at Montreal was Sep- tember 25; latest, September 29, 1888; the last one seen on Prince Edward Island in this same year was October 8; Lewiston, Me., November 7, 1901; Cape May, N. J., December 5, 1884. The average date for eight years when the last one was seen at Ottawa, Ontario, is October 13 (latest, October 27, 1894); Chicago, Ill., October 18 (latest, October 22, 1904); southern Iowa, October 22 (latest, November 4, 1885); central South Dakota, October 7; eastern Nebraska, November 11; central Missouri, November 6 (latest, November 13, 1902). The last one seen in 1896 at Aweme, Manitoba, was on October 30. During the fall migration the blue-winged teal is fairly common on the Bermudas, but it rarely occurs there in spring. Querquedula cyanoptera (Vieill.). Cinnamon Teal. Breeding range.—The breeding range of the cinnamon teal differs essentially from that of almost every other duck in the Western Hemi- sphere. It consists of a large area north of the equator and a similar district south of the equator, and these two homes are separated by a strip about 2,000 miles wide, in which the species is practically unknown. In North America the breeding range extends north to southe n British Columbia (Lac la Hache) and southwestern Alberta; east to eastern Wyoming (Lake Como, Cheyenne), western Kansas (Fort — Wallace, Meade County); south to northern Lower California (La Grulla, San Rafael Valley, and possibly San Jose del Cabo), northern Mexico (Chihuahua City), southern New Mexico (Carlsbad), and south- western Texas (Marathon, Rock Spring). The cinnamon teal occurs sparingly in migration as far east as Hous- ton, Tex., and Omaha, Nebr. It has been noted as accidental at Oak Lake, Manitoba; Big Stone Lake, Minnesota; Lake Koshkonong, — Wisconsin; Licking County Reservoir, Ohio; Seneca River and Seneca Lake, New York; Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Cattawatchie, St. Malo, — and Opelousas, Louisiana; Mount Pleasant, S. C.; Lake Iamonia and Key West, Florida. Throughout this breeding area the eggs are deposited during May — and June. About six months later the South American colony breeds. — The breeding range includes the pampas of Argentina as far north as Buenos Aires, while in the Andes it extends north to central Peru (Santa Luzia). Southward the species breeds as far as the Falkland ~ Islands and the Straits of Magellan. These South American breeders, — of course, are not the same birds which nest in North America, for it is true, without exception, that no bird which breeds north of the — equator breeds also in the Southern Hemisphere. ! CINNAMON TEAL. 35 Winter range.—The cinnamon teal of North America retires in winter but little south of its breeding range in Mexico as far as Mazat- lan, Guanajuato, and the Laguna de Chapulco, Puebla. It is found at this season as far north as Brownsville, Tex., central New Mexico, southern Arizona, and Tulare Lake, California. South of Mexico the only record is of an accidental occurrence in Costa Rica. There is no reliable record as yet for the West Indies. During the winter season the cinnamon teal of the Southern Hemi- sphere has been noted as far south as the mouth of the Senger River, in Patagonia, latitude 44° S., and Chiloe Island, Chile, in nearly the same latitude. The northern range in winter is not determinable with exactness from present data. The species passes north to Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and to southern Paraguay. It has been noted at Chorillos and Tungasuca, Peru; near Quito, Ecuador; at Bogota and Santa Marta, Colombia. These Ecuador and Colombia teal may be accidental occurrences; it is significant, at least, that all the specimens from Colombia were taken a half a century ago, and the species has not been noted there by recent collectors. Spring migration.—The northward movement of the cinnamon teal in the United States begins about the 1st of March, and arrivals have been noted at Ash Meadows, Nevada, March 18, 1891; Grangeville, . Idaho, April 11, 1887; Chilliwack, British Columbia, April 24, 1888, and April 22, 1889; Beloit, Colo., March 23, 1892; Colorado Springs, April 9, 1882; Loveland, Colo., April 13, 1890; Lay, Colo., April 20, 1890; Omaha, Nebr., April 10, 1896, and April 12, 1897; Lake Como, Wyoming, about May 5. Fall migration.—Southward migration occurs chiefly in September, and the northern portion of the breeding grounds from British Co- lumbia to eastern Colorado is deserted about the middle of October. Migration in South America.—The cinnamon teal of South Amer- ica is migratory in at least part of its range, for in central Argentina it is abundant during the winter season, April to September, and rare or lacking during the breeding period. The species is migratory also in the southern portion of its range in Chile. In northern Chile and in Peru migration records are wanting. The time and direction of the migration of this species in South America correspond closely with those in the United States, but of course the breeding and wintering seasons are reversed, since they are on opposite sides of the equator. Thus the cinnamon teal is distributed in two distinct colonies, part of the individuals breeding far north of the equator, and the rest about an equal distance to the south. The northern breeders migzate south after nesting, and the southern breeders migrate north. Whether or not the members of these two groups now represent subspecies, they are so much alike as to indicate a common origin and a former con- tinuous breeding range. Whether isolation was gradual or was effected rapidly it is impossible to say, nor do we know the cause. 36 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Casarca casarca (Linn.). Ruddy Sheldrake. This is a European, African, and Asiatic species that has been taken several times in western and nara Greenland. Spatula clypeata (Linn.). Shoveler. Breeding range.—The principal North American summer home of the shoveler is in the prairie region of the interior, from a little south of the Canadian border, north to the Saskatchewan. Throughout this region itis common. To the eastward it is rare. It is scarcely com- mon as far as Hudson Bay; nor is it common east of a line from south- eastern Michigan to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, in which latter region it is found only m migration and in winter. In the maritime provinces of Canada, and even north to Newfoundland, the shoveler has been recorded as a rare or casual visitor; but reliable breeding records from this region seem to be lacking. Itis rareasa breeder in southern _ Michigan, and to the eastward is almost accidental in summer, though it has been known to breed at English Lake, northwestern Indiana, and at Long Point, on the north shore of Lake Erie. The regular breed- ing range extends south to northern Iowa and southern South Dakota; thence southward it breeds rarely and locally in Nebraska and Kansas, and during the summer of 1905 one of the parties of the Biological Survey found it breeding near East Bernard, about latitude 29° 30’, in southeastern Texas. In the western United States the species breeds commonly from Colorado to northern California, and rarely in New Mexico (Santa Rosa), Arizona (Mogollon Mountains), and southern California (Los Angeles County). On the southern coast of Texas the species is not uncommon all summer, though these summer residents are probably nonbreeders. Mated birds have been found in May in northern Chihuahua, Mexico, and at the southern end of Lower Cali- fornia, and it is not improbable that the species may breed locally in these districts, and even south to Lake Chapala, Jalisco. The northern limit of the usual breeding range is from the valley of — a the Saskatchewan to central British Columbia. The species is a rare breeder thence northward to the edge of the Barren Grounds, casually to Fort Anderson and Fort McPherson. It is rather rare in the Yukon region, but has been known to breed at Fort Yukon, Nulato, and along the west coast of Alaska from the mouth of the Kuskokwim River to Kotzebue Sound. The shoveler has a wide range in the Eastern Hemi- sphere, breeding north about to the Arctic Circle, and retiring in win- — @ ter to northern Africa and southern Asia. Winter range.—A few pass south in winter to Colombia, South — America (Medellin, Bogota), Panama, Costa Rica, and through the West Indies (Cuba, Jamaica, Porto Rico, St. Thomas, Barbados, and Trini- dad). Itis rare in Florida, and seems not to have been noted in the PINTAIL. ; 87 Bahamas. The Carolinasare the only place on the Atlantic coast where the species is common. It is not rare in Maryland, and there are a few winter records for New Jersey. The greater portion of the species winters in the southern Mississippi Valley, north rarely to southern Illinois—accidental January 11, 1892, at Lanesboro, Minn.—and south through Mexico to central Guatemala; indeed many hundreds of thousands are said to winter near Lake Chapala, Jalisco. At this sea- son it is found in New Mexico, Arizona, all of California, and less com- monly north on the Pacific coast to southern British Columbia. Num- bers winter in the Hawaiian Islands. During flight between the winter and summer home it passes through the northeastern United States, not rarely through Pennsylvania and New York, and formerly it was not rare in Massachusetts; but for the last fifteen years there has been hardly more than a single record a year for the whole of New England. Spring migration.—Records of the movements of this species are not numerous enough to permit exact statements. Migration begins late in February, but is slight before the middle of March, at which time the species begins to appear north of its winter range. Average dates of arrival are: Central Illinois, March 23; central lowa, March 23 (average of sixteen years); Heron Lake, Minn., March 26; central Nebraska, March 25; central Colorado, March 12; vicinity of Chicago, Ill., April 16; southeastern Minnesota, April 9; central North Dakota, April 13; southern Manitoba (twelve years), April 21; Terry, Mont., April 13. The first were seen near Edmonton, Alberta, May 1, 1901; Fort Chipewyan, Mackenzie, May 7, 1893; Fort Resolution, Macken- zie, May 18, 1860, and at the mouth of the Yukon River the second week in May. The general time of breeding can be learned from the following dates: Haywards, Cal., eggs April 25, 1901; East Bernard, Tex., downy young May 14, 1905; Fort Snelling, Minn., eggs May 23; North Dakota, incubated eggs June 7; Oak Lake, Manitoba, eggs May 24, 1892. | Fall migration.—An individual seen at Erie, Pa., September 6, 1893, marks about the beginning of fall migration, and soon after. this, by the middle of the month, the earliest migrants have reached the mouth of the Mississippi River. The larger portion has departed from the northern United States by the middle of October, and the region just north of the winter range is deserted early in November. South of the United States, at the southern end of Lower California, the first arrivals have been recorded October 18; Guaymas, Mexico, Novem- ber; Panama, October 16; Cuba, September; Jamaica, November; Trinidad, December. Dafila acuta (Linn.). Pintail. Breeding range.—This is a common breeding duck throughout a wide stretch of country from North Dakota to the Arctic Ocean and 38 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Alaska. The western shores of Hudson Bay seem to be the eastern limit of the normal breeding ground in North America. A few birds nave been seen in Labrador, north to Ungava Bay, on the west coast of Greenland, north to Upernavik, and also in Newfoundland and the Maritime Provinces. But there are only a few breeding records east of the line from the western side of Hudson Bay to the western shore of Lake Michigan; examplesare: St. George Island, James Bay; St. Clair Flats, Ontario, and the north shore. of Lake Erie. Breeding abun- — dantly along the northern border of the United States from Lake Superior nearly to the Pacific Ocean, the species decreases in numbers southward until it is rare or casual as a breeder in southern Wiscon- sin, northern Illinois (Will; Calumet Marsh, Grass Lake); southern Minnesota (Faribault, Waverly, Heron Lake); northern Iowa (Han- cock County); southern South Dakota (Vermilion, Scotland, Running Water), and northern Nebraska (Kennedy, Hay Lake); accidental near Kansas City, Mo.; abundant in Montana and rare in Wyoming (Lake Desmet), Colorado (Larimer County), and probably Arizona (Mormon Lake); common in British Columbia, and rare and local through Washington (Mabton) and Oregon (Rock Creek Sink) to southern California (Alamitos). The northern limit of the breeding range extends from the Arctic coast northwest of Hudson Bay west to Alaska and the Siberian coast. The pintail breeds in the northern portions of the Old World aa migrates south in winter to northern Africa and southern Asia. A few have been taken in the Bermudas in the fall and winter. Winter range.—The pintail is common in winter on the coast of North Carolina, and is not uncommon coastwise as far south as Flor- ida; many spend the winter in Cuba, a few pass to Jamaica, and there is one record of the species in Porto Rico; it is one of the common winter ducks from Mexico to Costa Rica, rare in Panama; a few win- ter as far north as Pennsylvania and New Jersey, while accidentals in winter have been recorded from Long Island and Lynn, Mass. Only » afew winter in the Mississippi Valley north of southern Illinois, and thence the winter home extends through Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to the Pacific coast, where it is abundant at this season as far north as southern British Columbia. The species winters casually in southern Ohio and southern Indiana, while of late years it has become a regular local winter resident in southern Wisconsin. SS ing migration.—The pintail vies with the mallard in the ae ness of its spring movements; these two, with the Canada goose, are among the first of the waterfowl to wing their way northward. Even in February, while winter still holds sway, restless adventurers appear in much of the region, which, except in a few favored spots, forbids residence through the winter. The average date of arrival of these birds in central Indiana (fourteen years) is February 21; southern PINTAIL. 39 Illinois (twelve years), February 26; central Missouri (fourteen years), February 26; Keokuk, lowa (fourteen years), February 18; central Kansas (seven years), February 21; southern Nebraska (five years), February 23. Farther north average dates of arrival are Erie, Pa., March 11 (earliest February 23, 1891); northwestern New York, March 25 (earliest February 25, 1902); southern Ontario, April 18; Ottawa, Ontario, April 30; Montreal, April 23; Prince Edward Island, April 24. The late arrival of this species in eastern Canada is noteworthy, for by the time it reaches there, late April, in the inte- rior it has penetrated a thousand miles farther north. Along this lat- ter route average dates of appearance are southern Michigan, March 18; vicinity of Chicago (thirteen years), March 20 (earliest March 12, 1893). The normal time of arrival in central Iowa, as deduced from copious records for twenty years, seems to be March 6, but in twelve of these years one station or another reported unusually early birds, the average date of arrival of which is February 21. The average date when southern Minnesota is reached is (fourteen years) March 9 and northwestern Minnesota (four years) April 8. On the plains the average dates are, northern Nebraska, March 5; southern South Dakota, March 8; central South Dakota, March 17; Larimore, N. Dak., April 3 (earliest March 20, 1889); Reaburn, Manitoba, April 8 (earliest April 5, 1900); Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan, April 10 (earliest March 25, 1905); Great Slave Lake, Mackenzie, about May 1; Fort Confidence, May 22, 1849. A very early bird was seen at Fort Simp- son, Mackenzie, April 28, 1904. Nearer the Rocky Mountains, the average date at Terry, Mont., was April 1 (earliest March 10, 1902); Great Falls, Mont., March 16 (earliest March 10, 1889); Edmonton, Alberta, April 7, 1887; St. Michael and Nulato, Alaska, about May 1; Kowak River, Alaska, May 14, 1899; Point Barrow, Alaska, June 18, 1882. ene : The pintail not-only migrates early, but it isalso among the earlier ducks to breed, as evidenced by the following data: Will, Ill., eggs, May 10, 1877; Calumet Marsh, Illinois, fresh eggs, May 29, 1875; Han- cock County, Iowa, eggs, May 1, 1879; Hay Lake, Nebraska, half-grown young, June 17, 1902; North Dakota, eggs, early May, young, first week of June; Oak Lake, Manitoba, incubated eggs, May 24, 1892; near Liake Athabasca, eggs nearly hatched, June 8, 1901; Nulato, Alaska, beginning to breed May 20; Circle City, Alaska, downy young, July 10, 1908; Kowak River, Alaska, first eggs, June 1, 1899. Fall migration.—As is true of most ducks, there is a southward movement in August, but it is not until early September that many appear south of the breeding grounds, and in the course of two weeks a few birds find their way even to the Gulf of Mexico, arriving there by the middle of September. Some early dates are: Erie, Pa., September 6, 1893; Alexandria, Va., September 13, 1890; Long . 40) NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Island, September 15, 1903; Rhode Island, September 4; eastern Massachusetts, September 11; Montreal, September 3. The main flight is a whole month later, bringing the birds in large numbers to Chesapeake Bay the middle of October and to the coast of North Caro- lina late in that month. Some very early migrants have been seen in’ — west central Texas September 4; at Corpus Christi, Tex., August 18, 1902, and at the southern end of Lower California, August 29. The last ones leave the Arctic just about the time the first reach the Gulf of Mexico; the last were noted at Point Barrow, Alaska, September 7, 1882; Kowak River, Alaska, September 14, 1898; St. Michael, Alaska, October 10; Fort Franklin, Mackenzie, September 27, 1903. Large flocks begin to leave southern Minnesota the middle cf October, and most have departed by the first of November. [Poecilonetta bahamensis (Linn.). Bahama Duck. This duck is among the species that range most widely in the Western Hemi-— 4 sphere. It is strange that it should not have been detected in Florida, for it occurs throughout the Bahamas, even in the most northern islands. Thence it ranges through the Greater and the Lesser Antilles to South America. In Brazil it is one of the most abundant ducks and occurs in decreasing numbers even south to the Falkland Islands. It has been recorded from every country of South America except Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador. It breeds throughout its range from the Baha- mas to the Falklands. ] Aix sponsa (Linn.). Wood Duck. _ Breeding range.—The wood duck is more closely confined to the United States than any other North American duck. South of this — country it is not a rare resident in Cuba and is accidental in Jamaica and the Bermudas. It occurs in California south to Los Angeles and Ventura counties, in the latter of which it breeds. There is a single record for Mexico, at Mazatlan. It breeds in eastern Texas, south rarely to San Antonio; thence to the Pacific slope and north through- out the whole Rocky Mountain region it is rare or accidental. It is recorded as breeding in southwestern Colorado (Fort: Lewis), north- — ern Idaho (Fort Sherman), northern Montana (Flathead Lake), and as a rare migrant in various localities south to New Mexico and Arizona. : : The northern extension of its range is found in Nova Scotia and — New Brunswick, for the species is not yet recorded from Newfound- land, and there seems to be no reliable record for Labrador. It — ranges at least as far north as Montreal, Ottawa, Moose Factory, Trout Lake, and Cumberland House. It appears to be absent from — the Rocky Mountain region of Canada, but occurs in southern British — Columbia (Agassiz, Sumas, Chilliwack, and Burnaby Lake). q It is one of the.earliest ducks to breed, as young were found in northern Florida on March 19, 1877. “MUSCOVY DUCK. 4] Winter range.—The southern range in winter has already been given; northward the species winters regularly to North Carolina, occasion- ally in Maryland and Pennsylvania; accidentally in New York and Massachusetts. In the interior it is found at this season as far north as southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Kansas. On the Pacific coast a few winter near the northern limit of the summer range. Spring migration.—This duck is one of those which migrate north moderately early, and in central New York the average date of its arrival is March 25 (earliest March 16, 1898); eastern Massachusetts, March 24; Montreal, Canada, April 24; central Iowa, March 20 (ear- liest March 7, 1898); northern Ohio April 1 (earliest March 10, 1887); Petersburg, Mich., March 15; southern Ontario, April 17 (earliest April 1, 1890); Ottawa, Ontario (average fifteen years), April 22 (ear- liest March 26, 1898); Heron Lake, Minn., April 4 (earliest March 24, 1890); Elk River, Minn., April 6 (earliest April 4, 1885); southern Manitoba, April 15 (earliest April 2, 1895.) Fall migration.—The southward migration amounts to no more than withdrawal from the northern half of the summer range. This occurs - largely during October, and the average date when the last migrants are seen at Ottawa, Ontario (fourteen years), is October 27 (latest Novembér 7, 1896); Montreal, November 1; southern Maine, October 27 (latest November 2, 1896); southern Iowa, November 9 (latest November 21.) [Cairina moschata (Linn.). Muscovy Duck. In its domesticated form this duck is well known throughout the civilized world. In its wild state it is an abundant inhabitant of Middle and South America from Tampico, Yucatan, Mazatlan, and the Rio Zacatula in Mexico to central Argentina. There is no certain record of its occurrence in the United States nor in the West Indies, although a supposed hybrid between the muscovy and the mallard was described from Jamaica under the name of Anas mazima, and similar birds have been taken several times along the Atlantic coast of the United States. Probably all these cscaped from domevtication. ] Netta rufina (Pall.). Rufous-crested Duck. This is a European and Asiatic species, one specimen of which was found in 1872 in the New York City market. Aythya americana (Eyt.). Redhead. Breeding range.—The greater number of redheads summer in a rather restricted area in western central Canada, comprising western Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. The species breeds not rarely in the northern portions of Minnesota, North Dakota, and Montana. It is less common in southern Minnesota (Madison, Heron Lake), southern South Dakota (Harrison, Vermilion), Idaho (Lake Hoodoo), and on the Pacific slope locally from Lac la Hache, British Columbia, 49 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. south to southern California (Ventura and Los Angeles counties), and east to Ruby Lake, Nevada, and Rush Lake, Utah. The redhead used to breed not uncommonly in the great marshes of the lake region of southeastern Wisconsin, but now it is restricted to a few localities, one of which is Lake Koshkonong. It has bred on the St. Clair Flats of Michigan and Ontario. Only a few pass as far north as 54° latitude, the northern range of the species thus being more restricted than that of any other Canadian duck. A stray was taken in 1896 on Kadiak Island, Alaska, the only record on the Pacific coast north of Vancouver Island, and an indi- vidual was taken in the fall in southeastern Labrador. It is not yet recorded in Newfoundland, and is a rare migrant in the Maritime Provinces. Winter range.—The principal winter home of the redhead is from Texas, along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, to Chesapeake Bay; a few ants on Long Island, and a still smaller number around Cape Cod and Lakes Ontario and Erie; the species winters in the Mis- sissippi Valley north to Illinois and Kansas, and in the West to New Mexico, Arizona—rarely Utah—Nevada, and southern British Columbia, almost as far north as it breeds. The redhead is not uncommon in winter in the Valley of Mexico, but is quite rare on the west coast south to Manzanillo and southern Lower California. It is accidental in Jamaica. Spring migration.—The redhead moves north with the great body of river ducks soon after the first open water appears. Average dates of arrival are: Oberlin, Ohio, March 10 (earliest March 4, 1904); cen- tral Indiana, March 18 (éarliest March 6, 1887); southern Ontario, March 24 (earliest March 14, 1898); Keokuk, Iowa, March 7 (earliest February 13, 1898); central Iowa, March 18 (earliest, March 8, 1887); southern Wisconsin, March 30 (earliest March 10, 1898); Heron Lake, Minn., March 26; central Nebraska, March 10 (earliest February 10, 1896); northern Montana, April 13 (earliest April 7, 1895); southern — Manitoba, April 21 (earliest April 12, 1903). Eggs have been found — in southern California in May; at Horicon Lake, Wisconsin, May 24; in northern North Dakota, June 1; at Rush Lake, Saskatchewan, June 15. 3 | Fall migration.—The movement of the redhead exhibits in extreme degree a phase of migration, shared to a lesser extent by several other species, in which the course taken is at a wide angle from the normal — southern one. Lake Winnipeg marks the extreme northeastern part — of the district where it breeds commonly, and yet the species is a fairly common fall migrant along the Atlantic coast from Cape Cod — southward. The individuals that visit Cape Cod take an almost eastern course, or at least go 3 miles east for every mile south. From the nearest breeding grounds to the lower Hudson Valley, which is CANVASBAOCK. 43 de about as far north as the species occurs regularly in large numbers, the course is almost at right angles to the general trend of the ‘Atlantic coast line. In other words, this is the course the redhead should take to reach salt water by the shortest route. This route from Manitoba to Long Island is through a district abounding in shallow lakes and marshes, which furnish abundant food. After reaching the coast, most of the redheads pass southward and winter from Chesapeake Bay to Florida and the Bahamas. Only a portion of the species, however, takes this east and west course. Many flocks pass directly south and are common all through the Mississippi Valley to the: Gulf coast and through Texas to central Mexico. The average date when the first migrants appear in southern Ontario is September 19 (earliest September 10, 1896); at Erie, Pa., the average date is October 7, while at Nee adie Va., a long series of careful records fixes Ociober 12 as the average date of a fipalOcisber 5 (1901) the earliest—and October 29 as the average date when the species becomes common. In general it may be said that the large flocks cross into North Dakota about the 1st of October, are common in the central Mississippi Valley about the middle of the month, and reach the Gulf coast, from Texas to Florida, early in November, when the last are Resonting the northern breeding grounds. A single individual was seen in southeastern Labrador, September 23, and this bird must have journeyed nearly 2,000 males in a due easterly direction. Aythya vallisneria (Wils.). Canvasback. Breeding range.—The district just east of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta seems to be a center of abundance of this species in the breeding season. East of this district it breeds commonly to about the one hundredth meridian; south to’ the southern boundary of Canada, west to central British Columbia and Sitka, north to Great Slave Lake, and northwest to Gens de large Mountains and Fort Yukon. It does not commonly breed in the United States, but a few nest in northern North Dakota and in diminishing numbers southward to Nebraska (Cody, Irwin, Hackberry Lake); it is rare as a breeder in Minnesota (Madison, Heron Lake), and a few crippled birds have been known to breed on Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin. In 1900 it bred casually at Barr Lake, near Denver, Colo., and it has been known to breed at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, and in a few places in Oregon. Winter range.—The statements of the breeding range just made show that the eastern edge of the regular summer home is more than a thousand miles west of Chesapeake Bay, which, until a comparatively recent period, was a favorite winter home for the canvasback. The line of the Great Lakes seems to be the general route followed in this southeastward migration, and a few canvasbacks stop-for the winter 44 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. “> as far north as Lake Erie and western New York. To the northward — of Chesapeake Bay the numbers decrease rapidly until Long Island is — reached, where the bird is rare. It is hardly more than a straggler in Massachusetts and is accidental in Maine, New Brunswick, and — Nova Scotia. It has not been recorded as yet from Newfoundland, Labrador, or the Hudson Bay region. The great flocks that formerly covered Chesapeake Bay are of the — past, but a few still winter on the coast of the Carolinas. Accidentals — are recorded from the Bermudas, from Cuba and Jamaica, and one — from Guatemala. These seem to be all the records south of the Valley — of Mexico, where it is not rare in winter. The winter range extends from this district and Mazatlan on the western coast, north to southern — Illinois, Colorado, Nevada, and southern British Columbia. Spring migration.—In February a few move north, bringing the ~ van the latter part of that month to about latitude 39° in the Missis- sippi Valley, which is the northern limit of the species in mild winters. Early March brings the species to southern Iowa. Average dates of — spring arrival are: Keokuk, Lowa, March 12; central lowa, March 15; — southern Wisconsin, March 26; Heron Lake, Minn., March 28 (earliest March 19, 1889); central Nebraska, March 14; northern North Dakota, April 18; southern Manitoba, April 21 (earliest April 6, 1885). In the interior of British Columbia eggs have been found May 21; in North Dakota, May 18; at Great Slave Lake, June 4, and Fort Yukon, June 3. Fall migration.—In the day of the great flights to Chesapeake Bay — the gunners did not expect large flocks of canvasbacks much before | the middle of November, but a small number appeared some time ear- lier. For the last sixteen years the average date of the first arrival — at Alexandria, Va., has been October 21 (earliest October 15, 1908). — On the average canvasbacks have become tolerably common by Novem- — ber 8; in 1888 by the last of October. These flocks cross Lake Erie — early in October, and the height of the shooting season there is toward the end of that month. The first flocks cross the boundary to the — upper Mississippi Valley the last week in September and during the — month of October spread gradually south to the southern limit of the — range in the Valley of Mexico. Southern California is reached about — October 20. In 1895 the last were seen at Heron Lake, Minnesota, on — November 27. | Aythya marila (Linn.). Scaup Duck; Broadbill; Blackhead; Bluebill. Breeding range.—The principal summer home of the scaup in the — Western Hemisphere is northwestern North America, from northern — North Dakota, southeastern British Columbia, and Sitka, Alaska, north to Fort Churchill, Great Slave Lake, Fort Reliance, Alaska,and _ Kotzebue Sound; also throughout the whole Aleutian chain to the — e : SCAUP DUCK. : 45 Near Islands. It breeds accidentally or casually at Mount Vernon, Va., 1881; Magdalen Islands, Gulf of St. Lawrence; Toronto, Ontario; St. Clair Flats, Michigan; Clear Lake, lowa; Minneapolis and Fergus Falls, Minn.; and Great Whale River, James Bay. The species also breeds in the arctic regions of the Old World, and winters south to southern Europe and central Asia. Winter range.—This is one of the principal game birds of the Atlantic coast region from Massachusetts to Chesapeake Bay, and it is probably more common here during the winter than in any other part of its range. The winter range on the Atlantic coast of this and the next species is complementary. The present species is common from Chesapeake Bay northward, while most of the lesser scaups winter south of that district and are most common from North Caro- lina to Florida. A small proportion of the flocks of the greater scaup pass south to the Carolinas and a few continue on to Florida and the Bahamas. The records for the West Indies seem to belong to the lesser scaup and the same is probably true of the few records for Mexico and Central America. The species winters regularly on the New Jersey coast and usually on Long Island; its stay in Massachusetts is governed by winter con- ditions, and during mild winters like those of 1891-92, 1893-94, and 1903-4, it is quite common along the southeastern coast. Occasionally _ some scaups winter even on the coast of Maine. It occurs throughout ® the Mississippi Valley in winter north to southern Wisconsin and Toronto, Ontario, though it is hardly more than a straggler in winter north of the Ohio River. The greater scaup ranges nearly to the southwestern boundary of the United States in southern Texas, southern New Mexico, central _ Arizona, and to San Diego, Cal. A few winter in southern Colorado, southern Utah, and more commonly in Nevada, and on the Pacific coast north to the Aleutian Islands. Spring migration.—Few birds have a more pronounced northwest and southeast migration than the greater scaup duck. Its center of abundance in winter is on the Atlantic coast between the meridians of 74° and 76° longitude, but almost all of these Atlantic coast birds breed west of the meridian of 95° longitude, and their route in spring is along the general direction of the chain of lakes that stretches almost due northwestward from Lake Erie to Great Slave Lake. The two routes of migration—south along the Mississippi River and south- west to the New England coast—are revealed still more clearly in the ‘fall, when this species scarcely occurs in Indiana, though common both to the east and west of that State. In spring some of the flocks move north along the coast, slightly beyond their winter home, to eastern Massachusetts, but so large a proportion of them turn inland that the species is rare to the northeastward of this State, straggling 46 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. to Newfoundland, and once recorded on the eastern coast of Labrador. Average dates of spring arrival are: Mon‘real, Canada, April 15 (ear- liest April 7, 1893); Oberlin, Ohio, March 24 (earliest March 9, 1904); central Indiana, March 17 (earliest March 1, 1892); northern Illinois, March 23 (canines March 6, 1894); southionn Ontario, March 30; southern Michigan, March 29; southern Wisconsin, March 13; Gontwal Iowa, March 16; Heron Ibelke. Minn., April 2; couienn Manitome April 16 (earliest March 31, 1892); in 1905 one was seen March 27 at ~ Indian Head, Saskatchewan, nearly a month earlier than usual. The species was seen May 24,1901, at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, and the first was noted May 24, 1904, at Fort Simpson. Its arrival has been noted at Fort Reliance, Yukon, May 1; at St. Michael, Alaska, May 8-10, and on the Kowak River, Alaska, June 1, 1899. | | In most seasons about Long Island the last week of March marks the disappearance of the large flocks. Some years they remain during the first few days of April, and the last linger until about the Ist of May. : Eges have been taken at Minneapolis, Minn., May 13; Oak Lake, Manitoba, May 24, 1892; Kowak River, Alaska, June 14, 1899; St. Michael, Mieien snd of May. fall migration.—Soon after the first of October, flocks of ‘ broad- bills’ begin to appear near Long Island and the numbers increase all through this month. September 26 is the average date when the first = scaups arrive. Early arrivals, on the average, reach Alexandria, Va., October 18, and the species becomes common about the 1st of Novem- ber. October is the month of arrival for this species throughout most of its winter range in the United States, and the early part of this month is the time of departure from the most northern breeding grounds. The last leave St. Michael, Alaska, October 7 to 15. The last leave Montreal, on the average, November 9 (latest November 14, 3 1896); the latest was seen at Heron Lake, Minn., November 27, 1885. Aythya affinis (Eyt.). Lesser Scaup Duck: Breeding range.—In the case of this species a distinction needs to be drawn between the breeding range and the summer range. Quite a number of nonbreeding fannie was spend the summer many miles south of the nesting grounds, so that the eggs or young are the only certain evidence that the speuiee breeds. These nonbreeding birds are not rare on the New England coast, Long Island Sound, and the Great Lakes. The lesser scaup does not breed regularly in northeastern , United States nor in any of the Maritime Provinces; indeed, there is scarcely a breeding record for the whole of North America east of Hudson Bay and Lake Huron. The extreme easterly points at which the species breeds are around Lake St. Clair and the western end of — Lake Erie in Ohio, Michigan, and Ontario; thence westward, a few — ; LESSER SCAUP. 47 breed in northern Indiana (Kewanna, English Lake), southern Wis- consin (Delavan, Lake Koshkonong), northern Iowa (Spirit Lake, Clear Lake), northern Nebraska (probably in Cherry County), Mon- tana (common), and central British Columbia (Cariboo district). The species is rather rare on the Pacific coast and seems to have been found only once on the coast of Alaska (Portage Bay, near Chilkat River), though not rare inland on the Yukon River, breeding as far north as Circle City. The principal breeding range of the lesser scaup is the interior of Canada, from northern North Dakota and northern Montana to the edge of the timber near the Arctic coast in the Ander- son River and the Mackenzie River regions. Migration range.—The route of migration in the fall evidently tends toward the southeast, for at this season the species is not uncom- mon in New England, and is a rare visitant of Nova Scotia and even of Newfoundland, and is accidental in Greenland and the Bermudas. Winter range.—The southeastward movement just mentioned brings a large number of lesser scaups to the South Atlantic States, from Maryland southward; indeed, in Florida it is one of the commonest ducks, and continues to be common as far south as the Bahamas, the Greater Antilles, and east to St. Croix, St. Thomas, Virgin Gorda, St. Lucia, and Trinidad. It is not rare in Panama and Costa Rica, while it is abundant in Guatemala, Yucatan, Mexico, and Lower Cali- fornia, and less common on the Pacific slope north to southern British Columbia. The species remains north in winter, on the Atlantic coast as far as New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and in the interior as far as southern Illinois, southern Colorado, and Arizona. There are a few records of its occurrence in winter in western New York. Spring migration.—An abundant migrant in the upper Mississippi Valley, the lesser scaup is one of the less early ducks to arrive. It has appeared at Keokuk, Lowa, just north of its winter home, on Feb- ruary 26, average of five years (earliest date February 21, 1892); while during another period of five years the average date of its arrival was March 19. The average date of arrival in central Iowa is March 21, as deduced from thirteen years’ observations; at Heron Lake, Minn., March 22 (earliest March 5, 1887); central Nebraska, March 29; Loveland, Colo., March 12 (earliest March 8, 1887). The average of six years’ observations at Chicago, IIll., gives April 6 as the date of appearance, while in a neighboring locality, English Lake, Ind., it has been taken several times by March 12, and in 1892 on March 6. The average dates are: Central Indiana, March 27; Oberlin, Ohio, March 23 (earliest March 15, 1901); southern Michigan, March 25 (earliest March 11, 1905); Ottawa, Ontario, April 26; Montreal, Canada, April 14; Reaburn, Manitoba, April 9. This species was seen near Pelican Rapids, Alberta, May 7, 1901, and at Fort Simpson, Macken- zie, May 24,1904. It is one of the later breeding ducks. Young 4510—No. 26—06——4 48 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. were seen at Mitchells Bay, Ontario, June 6, 1888; eggs at Rush Lake, Saskatchewan, May 28, 1892; and eggs on the lower Anderson June 17, 1865. | | Fall migration.—The species remains on its breeding grounds until quite late in the fall, and in the United States rarely becomes numerous before the 1st of October. At Alexandria, Va., the average date of arrival (ten years) is October 12 (earliest, September 25, 1903) and the average date on which it becomes common is October 27. In 1902 the first arrival in northern Florida was seen November 18, and about this date it appears in the Bahamas and in southern Lower Cali- — fornia. It is one of the last of the river ducks to leave the far north, and in 1903 was seen at latitude 64° on the Mackenzie River until the middle of October. Average dates when the last were seen are: Mon- treal, Canada, November 5 (latest, November 12, 1894); Ottawa,. Ontario, November 11 (latest, November 21, 1892); southern Mani- toba, November 8; southern Minnesota, November 13; Keokuk, Iowa, December 2. Aythya collaris (Donoyv.). Ring-necked Duck. — Breeding range.—The summer home of this species seems to com- prise two general areas separated by the Rocky Mountains. The greater number breed in the interior, from North Dakota and Minne- sota north to Athabasca Lake and east to the western side of Lake Winnipeg. It breeds rarely south to southern Minnesota (Minneapo- lis, Heron Lake), northern Iowa (Clear Lake), and to southern Wis- consin (Lake Koshkonong; Pewaukee Lake). Though eventually the species may be found breeding in Alberta, at present there seems to” be no certain nesting record for the entire Rocky Mountain chain from New Mexico to Alberta. West of the Rockies the ring-necked duck “seems to breed in small numbers from Fort Klamath, Oreg., to south- ern British Columbia (Cariboo district). It is said to breed also on the Near Islands, Alaska. Winter range.—The Gulf coast, from Florida to Texas, is the prin- cipal winter home of the ring-necked duck, and here locally it is the most abundant duck at this season. It is common also in the Bahamas and Cuba, rare in Jamaica, and has been noted once in Porto Rico, and once in the Bermudas. On the mainland it is rare in California and Lower California, common in Mexico, and ranges to central Guate- mala. Northward it is common in the Carolinas, rare to Maryland and New Jersey, and thence westward to southern IIJlinois, northern Texas, New Mexico, and north on the Pacific coast to southern British Columbia. | Spring migration.—Along the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts northward to Newfoundland this species is a rare migrant, and is one of the later ducks to move. The average date of arrival at Erie, AMERICAN GOLDEN-EYE. 49 Pa., is April 16 (earliest March 15, 1903). The migration in the Mis- sissippi Valley is somewhat earlier; average dates are: English Lake, Ind., March 11. (earliest February 27, 1892); Keokuk, Iowa, March 14 (earliest March 4, 1894); Heron Lake, Minn., March 27 (earliest March 15, 1894). The first arrival was noted at Osler, Saskatchewan, May 2, 1893, and at Fort Chipewyan May 22,1893. Eggs have been taken at Pewaukee Lake, Wisconsin, May 20, 1867; Minneapolis, Minn., May 27, 1876; Turtle Mountain, N. Dak., June 14,1898; Kush Lake, Saskatchewan, June 15, 1892. Fall migration.—Southward migration in the Mississippi Valley is earlier than it is along the Atlantic coast; in the former the bird reaches the Gulf coast about the middle of September, and has been noted in the Valley of Mexico September 28; along the Atlantic it appears at Alexandria, Va., on the average, October 23 (earliest arri- val October 6, 1901), and it becomes common at an average date of November 11. It was seen near Athabasca Landing September 4, 1903. The average date when the last migrants were seen at Ottawa, Ontario, was October 30 (latest November 21, 1892); latest in Massa- chusetts November 23; Erie, Pa., December 3, average date of the last arrivals in southern Minnesota (eight years) November 13. Clangula clangula americana (Bonap.). American Golden-eye. Breeding range.—This is one of the more northern-breeding ducks, but its choice of hollow trees as nesting sites prevents the extension of its breeding range into the treeless Arctic regions, to which it seems well suited by its hardy constitution. It has been noted north to Ungava Bay, Labrador; Fort Churchill, Hudson Bay; and Fort Good Hope, near the mouth of the Mackenzie River. It is probable that the ‘species breeds in the heavy timber nearest to these places. In Alaska it breeds commonly in the interior about as far north as the Arctic Circle, but is very rarely seen on the coast. The species breeds from Newfoundland to British Columbia, north to the Noatak River, but the breeding range extends only a little into the United States, to southern Maine (Calais, Magalloway River), northern New Hampshire (Lake Umbagog), northern Vermont (St. Johnsbury), northern New York (Adirondacks), northern Michigan (Neebish Island, Sault Ste. Marie), North Dakota (Devils Lake), Montana (Flathead Lake), and in British Columbia so close to the southern boundary that the species will probably be found to breed in northern Washington. The typical form, Clangula clangula, breeds in northern Europe _ and northern Asia, migrating southward to northern Africa and south- ern Asia. Winter range.—As this is one of the hardiest ducks, its northern distribution in winter is governed by the presence of open water. It is tolerably common on Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Ontario, and in 50 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. mild winters, as that of 1888-89, it Temains north to Prince Edward | Island. It is common in winter all along the New England coast, and continues to be common to North Carolina, less common in South Carolina, and rare or accidental to the southward. All records for the West Indies seem to be erroneous. It was once seen at sea near the Bahamas, has been taken a few times in the Bermudas, and has been seen a few times in Florida; it is not rare at the mouth of the Missis- sippi River, but is quite rare in Texas and New Mexico, is recorded in Mexico (Mazatlan and northeastern Lower California), and is rare in southern California. In the interior it remains during the winter north to lowa, Nebraska, and Utah, while on the Pacific coast it is found at this season north to the Aleutian Islands. ; Spring migration.—The spring records of this species are very irregular, as might be expected from its habit of wintering far north near large bodies of water. Observers on the coast of Maine report it as common all winter, while inland in southern Maine the first was not seen (average eight years) until April 5 (earliest March 27, 1902); at Montreal, Canada (average nine years), April 4 (earliest March 19, 1894); North River, Prince Edward Island, April 8, and at Lake Mis- tassini, Quebec, May 3, 1885. At Ottawa, Ontario, it was one of the most irregular birds in its arrival. In twelve years out of eighteeen the first arrival was not noted until April, average April 12; for five years the first came in March, and in 1885 the first was seen February 14. Other average dates of arrival are: Southern Ontario, April 5; northern Iowa, March 21; Heron Lake, Minn., March 25 (earliest March 14, 1889); northern North Dakota, April 20; southern Manitoba, April 21 (earliest March 29, 1902). The first golden-eyes have been noted at Great Falls, Mont., March 9-22; central Alberta, April 7-17; Osler, Saskatchewan, May 2, 1893; Fort Resolution, Mackenzie, May 7, 1860, and Nulato, Alaska, May 3, 1868. An unusually early bird was seen on April 28, 1904, at Fort Simpson, Mackenzie. Eggs have been taken at Devils Lake, N. Dak., May 25, 1903; near Lake Atha- basca June 6, 1903; downy young at Reaburn, Manitoba, July 4, 1893, and well-crown young June 23, 1894, near Ottawa, Ontario. Fall migration.—The golden-eye is one of the late ducks to migrate southward, seldom appearing south of its breeding range before Octo- ber and usually not until the latter part of that month. A long series of excellent notes at Alexandria, Va., shows the average date of arrival to be October 26 (earliest, October 8, 1901); on the average the spe- cles did not become common until November 11. The average date of appearance at Woods Hole, Mass., is November 15 and at Keokuk, Iowa, November 24. The average date when the last were seen at Montreal, Canada, is November 7. BUFFLE-HEAD. . 51 Clangula islandica (Gmel.). Barrow Golden-eye. Breeding range.—A few breed in eastern Canada from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence (Point des Monts) to northern Labrador (Davis Inlet). A few are found in Greenland during Marchand April and in Novem- ber and December as far north as Holstenborg, 67° latitude, but the species apparently does not breed there, though breeding quite com- monly in Iceland. The principal summer home is in the Rocky Moun- tains, where the species breeds from southern Colorado (Dolores County) north almost to the Arctic coast (Fort Anderson), though north of the United States there are only a few records in the entire district. On the Pacific slope the species breeds quite commonly in central British Columbia and less commonly north to Lake Clark, Alaska. The most southern record of breeding on the Pacific slope seems to be the one made by one of the parties of the Biological Survey at Paulina and Diamond lakes, Oregon. Winter range.—The larger number of the breeding birds of eastern Canada spend the winter around the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but a few straggle south and have been recorded at this season from Maine, New | Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and on four occasions from North Carolina. In the interior they have been recorded a few times in the States around the Great Lakes and even in Nebraska. The Rocky Mountain breeding birds pass in winter scarcely south of their summer range and are found from southern Colorado (Fort Lewis) to Montana (Fort Sherman and Great Falls). The Pacific birds win- ter from southern Alaska(Portage Bay) to California (San Francisco). Spring migration.—Records of this species are too few to allow of exact statements in regard to its migration; indeed, over most.of the range of the species the winter and summer homes overlap. Migrants were noted at Quebec City, April 14, 1899, and April 16, 1904. One was seen near Asheville, N. C., in 1893 as late as May 6. One was taken at Fort Anderson, Mackenzie, June 14, 1864. In Iceland the species begins breeding in May or early June. At Godbout, Quebec, young were found July 11, 1881. Incubated eggs were taken June 17 in central British Columbia. Fall migration.—The earliest fall migrants in 1897at Montreal were seen October 23. One was taken near Washington, D. C., November 22,1889, and one at Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin, November 14, 1896. Charitonetta albeola (Linn.). Buffle-head. Breeding range.—In the nesting season the buffle-head is almost wholly confined to Canada, but a few breed in Wisconsin (Pewaukee Lake), northern Iowa (Storm, Clear, and Spirit lakes), Wyoming (Meeteetse Creek), Montana (Milk River, Flathead Lake). It is a tolerably common breeder in the northern two-thirds of Ontario, and 52 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. undoubtedly some pairs breed in Quebec and southern Labrador, though it is as yet unrecorded from there, from the Maritime Provinces, and from Newfoundland, except asa rather rare visitant. In Manitoba and westward to British Columbia it becomes more common as a breeder, and ranges north to Fort Churchill, Fort Rae, the mouth of the Mackenzie, and the upper Yukon, rarely to the Yukon mouth. It has been taken as a rare straggler on the west coast of Greenland (Godhayen, October; Frederikshaab), and a few times in Europe. Winter range.—A single specimen was found in the market at Habana, and this constitutes the only record south of the eastern United States. To the westward a few enter Mexico to the Valley of Mexico and Lower California to San Quentin. It is a common winter resident of the southern half of the United States, north to Massachu- setts; Lakes Ontario, Huron, and Michigan; Utah, Idaho, British Columbia, Unalaska Island, and the Near Islands. It is casual in winter in the Bermudas and there is one record from the Commander Islands, Kamchatka. Spring migration.—As with most of the hardy ducks, spring migra- tion begins in February, and by the middle of March the buftle-head is fairly common in the iene! where it winters only locally and during exceptionally mild seasons. Average dates of arrival are: Renovo, Pa., March 18 (earliest February 29, 1904); New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, March 22; central Indiana, March 2; northern Illinois, March 21; southern Michigan, March 31 (earliest March 1, 1887); southern Ontario, April 7 (earhest April 1, 1903); Ottawa, Ontario, April 24 (earliest March 26, 1898); southern Iowa, March 22 (earliest March 1, 1891); Heron Lake, Minn., March 26 (earliest March 6, 1889); south- eastern Minnesota, April 5; Elk River, Minn., April 11; central South Dakota, April 8; southern Manitoba, April 25; Osler, Saskatchewan, May 2, 1893; Fort Simpson, Mackenzie, May 11, 1904. Eggs have been taken at Fort Simpson te 25, 1860, and at Fort Yukon, June 7, 1862. fall migration.—This species is late in entering the United States, September records being rare, except in the extreme northern part, and even here the species is scarcely common before the middle of October. At Renovo, Pa., the average date of arrival is November © 10, though in 1901 the first was seen September 21. The average date of the last migrants at Montreal was November 1, and at Ottawa, — Ontario, November 8. One was taken at Fort Reliance, on the upper _ Yukon, October 7. | Harelda hyemalis (Linn.). - Old-squaw. Breeding range.—The summer home of this species includes the Arctic coasts and most of the islands. It is abundant to the northern — part of Banks Land and thence east to North Somerset Island and the OLD-SQUAW. 53 south shore of Lancaster Sound—that is, to about latitude 74°. On the western coast of Greenland it is common to about latitude 72°. A few pass much farther north to Melville Island, Wellington Channel, and along the whole western coast of Greenland and on Grinnell Land to at least latitude 82°. ‘The old-squaw breeds south to the southeast- ern coast of Labrador, to Cape Fullerton on the west side of Hudson Bay and probably to Cape Jones on the eastern coast. Along the whole coast of the mainland from Hudson Bay to Alaska it breeds in enormous numbers, and is a common breeder on the Alaskan coast to the Aleutian and Near islands and on the Asiatic coast to the Comman- der Islands. The species breeds in the Arctic regions of the Old World and winters south to southern Europe and central Asia. Winter range.—Old-squaws are common south to Chesapeake Bay and not rare as far south as the coast of North Carolina. So abundant are they on the New England coast that near Newport, R. I., in Feb- ruary, 1899, a flock was seen that was estimated to contain at least 50,000. During the winter of 1887-88, a few were noted at Charles- ton, S. C., and during the severe winter of 1894-95, flocks were seen off the coast of South Carolina. There are two records for Florida— near Titusville and in Leon County. In mild winters old-squaws remain in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and some occur at this season in southern Greenland. They winter abundantly on the Great Lakes, and have been noted as casual visitors at St. Louis, Mo., April1, Novem- ber 20, and March 14; New Orleans, La., February 28, 1885, and Feb- ruary 13, 1899; Nebraska (Omaha, Neligh), Kansas (Patterson Lake, Gantz Mill), and Colorado (Fort Collins, Longmont, Denver). This species winters on the Pacific coast from the Aleutian Islands south- ward; it is tolerably common to the coast of Washington, and not rare to northern California; it is casual in southern California as far south as San Diego Bay. Spring migration.—The principal movements of old-squaws along the New England coast are in April, and this is the time also when the species migrates through western Pennsylvania and western New York. The first of those that have moved south reappear at Grand Manan, New Brunswick, on an average date of March 9, and at Godbout, Que- bec, April 22. North of its winter quarters it is one of the earliest ducks to arrive, and has been noted at Fort Simpson, Mackenzie, 62°, May 10, 1904; Winter Island, latitude 66°, May 3, 1822; Idlooli latitude 69°, May 21, 1823; apeenin Felix, latitude fl 0°, June 12, 1830, June 20, 1831, aaa ate 16, 1833, and not until Hae June 25, 1832; Prince of Wicales Strait, eaende 75°, May 31, 1851; Mercy eae June 18, 1852; Winter Harbor, latitude 75°, June 22, 1820; Cape Sabine, latitude 78°, June 1, 1884; Van Rensselaer Harbor, latitude 79°, June 16, 1854; Fort Conger, latitude 81°, June 17, 1882, June 6, 1883; Floeberg Beach, latitude 82° 40’, July 12,1876. The last usually leave 54 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. the eastern United States about the 1st of May (Erie, Pa., May18, 1900). The last were seen at Fort McMurray, Alberta, May 15, 1901. On the Pacific coast, the first old-squaws were noted at Chilcat, Alaska, March 11, 1882; off the mouth of the Yukon, stragglers usually arrive early in April as soon as open water appears; the main migra- tion is several weeks later, and the first arrivals appear at Point Bar- row late in May (May 18, 1882; May 24, 1883; May 31, 1898). The first reached the mouth of the Kowak River, Alaska, May 22, 1899. Eggs have been taken at St. Michael, May 18; on the Pribilof Islands, _ June 12; near the Kowak River the last of June; Fort Anderson, Mackenzie, June 7, 1864, June 14, 1865; northwestern Hudson Bay, June 27; Ungava Bay, Labrador, June 16. | Fall migration.—Fall migration had already begun and large flocks — had passed south to Great Bear Lake in 1903 by August 28, and were still numerous there September 17. An unusually early migrant was seen near Erie, Pa., September 13, 1876. Early dates are September 30, 1895, on the coast of Massachusetts, and October 8, 1885, on Long Island. The average date of arrival for six years on the coast of Mas- - sachusetts is October 11, and for nine years on Long Island, October 16. The birds are most abundant the first half of November, after which month the larger number pass on to more southern waters. The last were seen near northern Greenland, latitude 82°, September 16, 1875. Most leave Point Barrow in early October, but a straggler was seen — there December 9, 1882. They leave the coast of Alaska, off St. Michael, from the 15th to the 20th of October. Histrionicus histrionicus (Linn.). Harlequin Duck. Breeding range.—The harlequin breeds commonly in Newfoundland and on the whole west coast of Greenland south of Upernavik, lati- tude 72°, on the east coast north to Scoresby Sound, and in Iceland; also along the north coast of Labrador, at Ungava Bay,and Hudson Strait. There is no reason for doubting that its breeding range is continuous from northern Labrador west to the mouth of the Macken- zie River, though breeding records from this region are wanting. The species was noted by. one of the parties of the Biological Survey August 20 and 24, 1903, a short distance south of MacTavish Bay, Great Bear Lake, in latitude 65° 30’, where it was probably breeding. It has been taken also at Fort Rae, at Fort Simpson, and on Bear Lake River. It is known to breed from the mouth of the Mackenzie west to Kotzebue Sound and to the Siberian coast. It occurs in summer on most of the islands west of Alaska, south to the Shumagin Islands, and in the Aleutian chain west to the Near Islands and to the Com- mander Islands off the coast of Asia. Most, if not all, of these birds, however, are nonbreeders. It has been noted breeding at several localities in the interior of Alaska, and breeds locally throughout the LABRADOR DUCK. ois -mountainous region of western North America south to southwestern Colorado and to central California at about latitude 38°. Winter range.—The harlequin is not rare at this season in the south- ern part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and thence is less common to Long Island Sound; it is accidental on the New Jersey coast, and once, March 20, 1886, has been noted at Pensacola, Fla. It is not uncom- mon in winter on Lake Michigan; an accidental. was noted October 29 near St. Louis. It winters in Colorado at the southern limit of its breeding range but at several thousand feet lower altitude. On the Pacific coast it winters abundantly in the Aleutians and the Pribilof Islands; west to the Near Islands, the Commander Islands, and rarely to Japan; also along the coast of California to Monterey and in the interior to about 36° latitude (near Crockers Station). Accidental in _ Europe. | Spring mgration. —The few individuals that winter on the Atlantic coast of the United States retire northward in January and early Feb- ruary, but some linger just south of the breeding grounds in the Gulf of St. Lawrence until late May. ‘The species arrives on the coast of Greenland in March. On the Pacific coast the winter and breeding ranges so overlap that no regular progression northward can be dis- tinguished. Migratory movements are noticeable on the coast of Oregon the last of March; the species was noted at Fort Simpson, Mackenzie, May 25, 1904; the van usually arrives at the mouth of the Yukon about the 1st of June. Fall migration.—The first arrivals off the coast of Massachusetts do not appear until about the beginning of November, when the last are leaving the Greenland breeding grounds. ‘The first arrivals have been. noted at Toronto, Ontario, October 20, 1894, and at Omaha, Nebr. (accidental), September 16, 1893; September 19, 1895. Camptolaimus labradorius (Gmel.). Labrador Duck. This is an extinct species, which within the last century nested from Labrador northward. During the winter it visited the coast of New England and passed as far south as Long Island and New Jersey, pos- sibly to Chesapeake Bay. So far as known the last survivor was captured in 1871 at Grand Manan, New Brunswick. Forty-three _ specimens are known to be in museums. Polysticta stelleri (Pall.). - Steller Eider. Breeding range.—The principal summer home of this duck is along the northern coast of Siberia, where the species is enormously abun- dant. ‘Thence it breeds on the eastern coast and islands south to the Near Islands, Unalaska, and the Shumagins. Kegs have been found at Unalaska May 18, in northern Siberia June 25, and downy young at Point Barrow, Alaska, July 28. 56 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Winter range.—The Steller eider winters abundantly on the Nes ee Islands and as far north as Unalaska, the Shumagins, and the Kenai — Peninsula. The winter range Sends south on the Asiatic coast to- the Kurile Islands. q Spring migration.—The northward migration is limited chiefly to May. ‘The first arrivals have been noted at Point Barrow June 5, 1882, — June 11, 1883, June 9, 1898. During migration the species is fairly — common along the coast of Alaska at Bristol Bay, the mouth of the — Yukon, and in Norton Sound. 4 Fall migration.—The first arrival in the fall has been noted at St. — Michael, Alaska, September 21. The southern limit of the winter — home is reached about the Ist of November. ‘The latest date at Point — Barrow is September 17, and the last migrants leave St. Michael about — the middle of October. ; 4 The Steller eider has occurred accidentally at Disco Bay, Greenland, — in the fall of 1878; at Godbout, Quebec, February 17, 1898, and also — at Point des Monts. Quebec. ‘ Arctonetta fischeri (Brandt). Spectacled Eider. Br eeding range.—The spectacled eider has a more restricted range than any other of the family. It breeds north to Point Barrow, — Alaska, and thence along the coast to the mouth of the Kuskokwim ~ River. The range extends also along the northern coast of Siberia — to the mouth of the Lena, but the species has not as yet been taken — breeding on the Asiatic side. By far the greater number of individuals ~ nest around Norton Sound. 4 Winter range.—W inter records are almost wanting; the species has — been noted at this season on the Near Islands and Unalaska, and it is © probable that the Aleutian chain constitutes the principal winter home. — Spring migration.—The breeding grounds are reached in May, the — earliest record at Norton Sound being May 6, and the usual date a ~ week or more later. The first have been noted at Point Barrow May — 29, 1882, May 26, 1883, and May 31, 1898. Fresh eggs have been found at St. Michael June 10, and newly — hatched young July 23; downy young were secured at Point Barrow July 28, 1898. 3 Fall migration.—The latest records at Point Barrow are August 24, 1883, and September 17, 1897. During this latter month all the breeding grounds from Norton Sound northward are deserted. a Somateria mollissima borealis (C. L. Brehm). Northern Eider. Breeding range.—This eider breeds in northeastern North America, — south to Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, about latitude 54°; west to — Southampton Island and Cape Fullerton, latitude 63°; north on the — east coast of Greenland to Shannon Island, latitude 75°, and on the — AMERICAN EIDER. 57 west coast to Dumb-bell Bay, latitude 82°; not abundant north of about 78° latitude. There is a lack of definite knowledge concerning the western limits of the range of this species. It is certain that the eiders of Hudson Bay, west to longitude 87°, belong to this form. It is also certain that the common eider on the Arctic coast of north- western North America is S. v-nzgra, and that this form occurs east along the coast of the mainland to about the mouth of the Coppermine River, 115° longitude. There seems to be no specimen of either form in any collection from the Arctic islands west of Baffin Bay. It is a fair presumption that the eiders of Wellington Channel and vicinity—longitude 90°-95°, where the species is common north to 77° latitude—belong to the eastern form and that those of Banks | Land, longitude 115°-125°, are S. v-nigra, but the dividing line between the two forms remains to be determined. The typical form, Somateria mollissima, breeds in northwestern Europe and comes south in winter rarely to southern Eurcpe. Winter range.—In winter the northern eider ranges from southern Greenland and northern Hudson Bay south on the Atlantic coast to Massachusetts. Spring nugratcon.—Just north of the winter range, at Cumberland Sound, latitude 66°, the first appeared April 30, 1878; in Wellington Channel, latitude 76°, May 17, 1851; at Cape Sabine, latitude 79°, May 28, 1884; and at Thank God Harbor, latitude 81°, June 4, 1872. The latest stragglers on the coast of New England leave the first week in April. The first eggs on Cumberland Sound were found June 21, 1878; the first at the south end of Greenland, June 24, 1886. Fall migration.—The earliest migrants arrive on the coast of Massa- chusetts the last of October; the last were seen at Dumb-bell Bay, Sep- tember 5, 1875; at Thank God Harbor, November 4, 1872; and in Cumberland Sound, November 17, 1878. Somateria dresseri Sharpe. American Eider. Breeding range.—The American eider rarely breeds on the coast of Maine; formerly its breeding range extended to the western side of Penobscot Bay, but is now restricted to a few colonies in Jericho Bay and on Old Man Island; it breeds abundantly on the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and is fairly common north to the mouth of Hamilton Inlet, latitude 54°; it breeds commonly on the east shore of Hudson Bay, from latitude 54° to latitude 56°, and on the west shore in the vicinity of Fort Churchill. | Winter range.—The American eider winters as far north as New- foundland; is common in the Gulf of St. Lawrence through the win- ter, and is not uncommon as far south as the Massachusetts coast; it is casual on the New Jersey coast, and is accidental near Marshall ‘Hall, Md., and near Cobbs Island, Virginia (December 28, 1900). In 58 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE. AND SWANS. the interior it has occurred on the Great Lakes; at Ottawa, Ontario; — Licking Reservoir, Ohio; Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin; and Love- — land, Colo. 4 Spring migration.—After severe winters, when they have been J driven away by the ice, American eiders return to Prince Edward — Island about the last week in March and to Newfoundland the first of a April. The last are seen on the Massachusetts coast in April (April — 18, 1890; April 20, 1891; April 12, 1893; April 20, 1894; an unusually © late bird was seen May 18, 1892). Eggs were found at Grand Manan, ~ New Brunswick, May 31, 1833, and young on the south coast.of Lab- — rador July 4, 1860. 3 Fall migration.—They first appear off the Massachusetts coast early — in November, occasionally in October (October 10, 1890; October 30, — 1892), and are common by the end of November. . Somateria v-nigra Gray.’ Pacific Eider. Breeding range.—The principal summer home of this eider is on the coasts and islands of Bering Sea and along the coast of the Arctic — Ocean between the mouths of the Mackenzie and the Coppermine ~ rivers. The species breeds west to the northeastern coast of Siberia — and south to Cook Inlet, Kadiak Island, the Aleutians, Near, and — Commander islands; it is accidental in the interior at Great Slave Lake — and at Lawrence, Kans. It is probable that the eiders so abundant — on Banks Land belong to this form and that a few range north to — Melville Island. Winter range.—The species seems to be massed during winter at the — southern portion of the breeding range in the vicinity of the Aleutians. — Spring migration.—Karly arrivals are sometimes seen near the — mouth of the Yukon the last of April, but usually they appear about — May 10. At Point Barrow the dates of arrival are May 16, 1882, and — May 19, 1883. On the Kowak River eggs were found June 2, and the — young appear about the first of July. Incubation seems to be simul- — taneous over all the district from the mouth of the Yukon to that of q the Anderson. 4 Fall migration.—Pacific eiders seem to disappear from all points in their summer haunts at about the same time, the first week in October, but for several weeks previously numb-rs migrate along the north coast — of Alaska. Many individuals winter and summer in the same locality, — while the birds breeding about the mouth of the Coppermine River — migrate at least 2,000 miles. 3 4 Somateria spectabilis (Linn.). King Eider. Breeding range.—The king eider breeds in the arctic regions. It 4 is abundant on the west coast of Greenland, breeding from latitude 66° ~ north as far as land goes, to at least latitude 82° 30’; south to Nachvak, — AMERICAN SCOTER. 59 Labrador, latitude 59°; Southampton Island, Hudson Bay, latitude 63°; west along the Arctic coast to Icy Cape and Point Barrow, to St. Lawrence Island in Bering Sea, and on the whole coast of northern Siberia. It seems to be rather rare in northeastern Europe. It is abundant on the arctic islands north at least to Melville Island, lati- tude 76°, and to the same latitude in Wellington Channel. Winter range.—This species winters as far north as open water can be found, at least to southern Greenland. It is common during the winter in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, whence a few stray each winter to Long Island Sound and the New Jersey coast: casual at Cape Charles, Va., January 2, 1897; Ossabaw Island, Georgia, December 1, 1904; St. Catherine Island, Georgia, December 3, 1904; Brunswick, Ga., April 25 and May 5, 1890. The species has been noted occasionally in the interior on Lakes Cayuga, Oneida, Ontario, Erie, and Michigan. The Pacific birds win- ter abundantly in the Aleutians, south to the Shumagin and Kadiak islands; accidental near San Francisco, winter of 1879. Spring migration.—Even as far north as Greenland migratory movements of the king eider are noticed in early February; the first arrival was noted at Igloolik, latitude 69°, April 16, 1823; Wellington Channel, latitude 76°, June 9, 1851; vicinity of Fort Conger, latitude 82°, June 12, 1872; June 16, 1882; June 11, 1883. The Pacific birds arrived at Point Barrow, latitude 71-, April 27, 1882, and May 5, 1883; eggs, Floeberg Beach, latitude 82° 30’, July 9, 1876. The last breeding birds desert southern Greenland late in April, though non- breeders are not rare through the summer, and it is probably the presence of these that has given rise to reports that the species breeds in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; late birds have been recorded on the Massachusetts coast April 5, 1890; April 10, 1893; April 12, 1894; on Long Island April 21, 1887, and, as already noted, at Brunswick, Ga., May 5, 1890. Fall migration.—This eider wanders south in late fall, the average date when it arrives on the coast of Massachusetts and Long Island being November 14 (earliest, October 21, 1899); it was noted on Lake Erie November 13, 1894, and at Calgary, Alberta, November 4, 1894. The height of the fall migration at Point Barrow is during September and October, and in 1882 the last one was seen there December 2, off St. Michael October 12, 1879, and at Fort Simpson, Mackenzie, October 25, 1903. Oidemia americana Sw. & Rich. American Scoter. Breeding range.—The lack of information in regard tothe breeding of this species in northeastern North America is surprising. The species was described from the west shore of Hudson Bay, and occurs on the coasts of Labrador and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but there 60 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. seems to be no record of the discovery of the nest in this region. 4 Nonbreeding birds are known to occur far south of the breeding — grounds. The species is unknown from the whole vast interior of North America, between Hudson Bay on the east and the Yukon Val- ley on the west, and south almost to the United States boundary; it 4 ranges north to Ungava Bay, Hudson Strait, and Fort Churchill, Hudson Bay, and apparently does not breed south of Newfoundland, nor in Labrador south of about latitude 52°; so that it follows by ~ exclusion that the multitudes of these ducks that winter from the Gulf — of St. Lawrence south along the Atlantic coast must breed in northern — Ungava. The American scoter is much more abundant on the Pacitic coast, and breeds from the Aleutians and Near Island north to Kotzebue q Sound and northeastern Asia. Winter range.—The American scoter remains in winter around New- — foundland, except when it is driven away by the drift ice; thence — south it is not uncommon to Long Island Sound and the coast of New — Jersey, less common to South Carolina, rare or accidental in Florida; it — is notrare on the Great Lakes during the winter, and has been observed _ at various places inland in the neighboring States; rare or accidental at St. Louis, Mo.; Lake Catherine, Louisiana; Lincoln, Nebr.; Fort Collins, Colo.; and Cheyenne, Wyo. The Pacific birds winter from the Aleutian Islands to the Santa Barbara Islands, California, and also a to Japan on the Asiatic side. Spring migration.—Arrivals from the south appear in the Gulf of | St. Lawrence from March 25 to the first week in April, and the breed- 4 ing grounds are reached soon after the middle of May. Most of the — birds disappear from the coast of Massachusetts the last week of — April, but belated individuals have been seen at Cobb Island, Vir- ginia, May 19, 1891; Shelter Island, N. Y., June 5, 1893; and Woods — Hole, Mass., June 10,1891. On the Pacific side the first arrivals were noted at St. Michael, Alaska, May 16, and in Kotzebue Sound June 3. A few linger on the Pacific coast of the United States until early May. fall migration.—An American scoter was noted at Black River, q Lewis County, N. Y., September 27, 1877; one at Ottawa, Ontario, September 21, 1887, and one at Woods Hole, Mass., September 9, 1891, but the regular flight does not occur until early October, and 4 at about the same time the first migrants are seen on the coast of — Puget Sound. The last ones leave St. Michael, Alaska, from the 10th ~ to 15th of October. Oidemia fusca (Linn.). Velvet Scoter. This is an Asiatic and European species, an individual of which was _ taken in May, 1878, near Godthaab, on the western coast of Greenland. ¥ WHITE-WINGED SCOTER. 61 Oidemia deglandi Bonap. White-winged Scoter. Breeding range.—This scoter breeds along the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and north to Nachvak Bay, Labrador, about latitude 59°; in the interior it breeds in North Dakota (Devils Lake), Manitoba, Alberta, and north to Hudson Bay and the Arctic coast. On the Pacific coast it breeds from British Columbia (158-Mile House) north to Kotzebue Sound and the coast of northeastern Siberia, rarely to Point Barrow. It is not common anywhere in Alaska. Nonbreeders remain as far south in summer as the coast of California and are not uncommon along the New England coast south to Rhode Island. Winter range.—The Gulf of St. Lawrence and south along the Atlantic coast to South Carolina—accidental in Florida—constitutes the winter range. The species is especially common on the coast of Massachusetts and Long Island Sound. In the interior it extends its range south regularly and commonly to the Great Lakes; less com- monly to the smaller bodies of water in the neighboring States; casually to Louisiana, Illinois (opposite St. Louis), Iowa (Lost Island Lake), Nebraska (Omaha, Lincoln), Colorado (Fort Collins, Loveland, Long- mont, Denver). It winters on the Pacific coast from Unalaska Island to San Quentin Bay, Lower California. Spring migration.—Early northward movements on the New Eng- land coast begin late in March, and at about this time the first migrants appear in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; the principal flights occur from the middle of April to the first week in May. At Heron Lake, Minn., where the species does not winter, the first were noted April 6, 1888; March 21, 1889; April 5, 1890, and April 9, 1891; at Aweme, Mani- toba, April 27,1897; April 15, 1898, and April 22,1899. In the Devils Lake region of North Dakota the earliest eggs are laid about the mid- dle of June, and the first eggs were taken at Lake Manitoba in 1894 on June 26. These dates seem late, since eggs were taken near Fort Anderson, Mackenzie, June 22, 1865, and downy young were found near Fort Yukon, Alaska, June 23, 1866. Fall migration.—Unusually early arrivals have been noted on the Massachusetts coast by August 10; the average date when the first of the regular flight appear is September 6, and the greater flocks pass October 10-20; the first were seen near Baltimore, Md., September 12, 1894, and the same latitude in the interior seems to be reached a month later, as attested by the following dates of arrival: Heron Lake, Minn., October 11, 1886; Lincoln, Nebr., October 14, 1899; Denver, Colo., October 16, 189V; Longmont, Colo., October 20, 1901; Love- land, Colo., October 11, 1903. On the coast of California migrants arrive the last of August. eee to. Ooo er : x r : te 62 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Oidemia perspicillata (Linn.). Surf Scoter. Breeding range.—This species breeds in northeastern Quebec (Point — de Monts), southern Labrador, and Newfoundland, north as far as — Hudson Strait; it is a summer visitor to the east coast of Greenland ~ (Kangerajuk) and to the west coast as far north as Disco Bay, but is ~ not known to breed; accidental in northern Europe; breeds abundantly ~ at Fort Churchill, Hudson Bay, at Great Slave Lake, probably at — Athabaska Lake, and north to the Arctic coast, west to the mouth of — the Mackenzie. It is a common breeder on the headwaters of the Yukon, and from Sitka north to Kotzebue Sound. The species apparently is lacking on the north coast of Alaska, but nonbreeding birds are abundant on the coast of northeastern Siberia. Nonbreeders are found also all through the summer on the Atlantic coast south to” Long Island and on the Pacific coast to Lower California. | Winter range.—The surf scoter remains around the Gulf of St. Law- rence until forced away by ice, and passes the winter from about the - Bay of Fundy south to Florida. It is enormously abundant from _ Massachusetts to New Jersey, and still common to North Carolina; accidental in the Bermudas; it visits commonly the Great Lakes and — extends south rarely to Louisiana (New Orleans, March 20, 1890), — Illinois (opposite St. Louis, May 3, 1876), Kansas (Lawrence, — October 29, 1887), Nebraska (Lincoln, October 7, 1896; Omaha), ~ Colorado (Loveland, October 31, 1899; Denver, October 22, 1899), Wyoming (Douglas, October 19, 1893); on the Pacific coast from the Near Islands, and the Aleutians south to San Quentin Bay, Lowa California. q Spring migration.—Birds from the south occasionally return ton Nova Scotia late in March, more commonly the first week in April, and reach their breeding grounds about the first week in May. Those that migrate through the interior are nearly three weeks later. — The Alaskan breeding grounds are reached about the middle of May. — Eges have been taken at Fort Anderson June 25 and downy youngs F near Fort Yukon June 23. : Fall migration.—In 1900 stragglers appeared off the coasts of Mary-— land and Virginia the last week in August, about three weeks earlier than usual. The first fall migrants commonly arrive on the coast of Massachusetts and Long Island Sound the middle of September and are followed the second week in October by the main flight. The last” leave the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the average November 7. Arr ivals | on the Great Lakes are rather later than in cor responding latitudes on the coast. A few surf scoters are seen on the California coast in July” and August, though the main body hardly appears before November. 4 They leave St. Michael, Alaska, and the upper Mackenzie about the middle of October. 4 RUDDY DUCK. 63 Erismatura jamaicensis (Gmel.). Ruddy Duck. Breeding range.—The principal summer home of the ruddy duck is. in the upper Mississippi Valley and the contiguous portions of central Canada: it is rare east of the Alleghenies; breeds regularly from Maine to northern Ungava; rare visitant in Newfoundland; nesting rarely south to Massachusetts (Cape Cod) and probably in Rhode Island (Sakonnet); tolerably common in southern Ontario, -Michi- gan, and Wisconsin, and probably breeds casually in Ohio and IIli- nois. West of the Mississippi it breeds regularly to southern Min- nesota and northwestern Nebraska and rarely in Kansas. The breed- ing range then dips strongly to the south in the mountains through Colorado to northern New Mexico (La Jara and Stinking Spring lakes), central Arizona (Stoneman Lake, altitude 6,200 feet), southern California (Los Angeles County), northern Lower California to about latitude 31°, and probably northwestern Chihuahua (Pacheco). The breeding range on the Pacific slope extends north at least to central British Columbia (Cariboo District); in the interior to Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay (York Factory). The above is the normal breeding range, but this species has the peculiar habit of establishing colonies far to the southward. Such colonies have been discovered at Santiago, near the southern end of Lower California, in the Valley of Mexico, at the Lake of Duenas, Guatemala, and on the islands of Cuba, Porto Rico, and Carriacou. The breeding season of these isolated colonies bears no relation to the usual breeding time in the bird’s ordinary range. In northern North Dakota the earliest eggs are deposited the first week in June; in Manitobaand Saskatchewan incom- plete sets were found the middle of June; the same date—the middle of June—marks the deposition of the eggs in central Colorado. The first half of June may be said to be the usual time for the beginning of nesting. On Cape Cod, Massachusetts, downy young were taken August 17; in northern New Mexico September 17; in southern Lower California, November 16; at Lake Duenas, Guatemala, in June; while in Cuba and Porto Rico eges were taken in November, and on Carriacou Island in January. Winter range.—In its choice of climate and environment the ruddy duck varies widely. While many individuals retire in winter to the southern part of the range, to southern Lower California, Tepic, Valley of Mexico, Oaxaca, and central Guatemala, others remain as far north as southern British Columbia. The northern limit in the Rocky Mountain region is Arizona and New Mexico; the species does not seem to remain through the winter in northern Texas, but at this season it is found in southern Illinois, Pennsylvania, the coast of Massachusetts, and even to Maine. During the winter the ruddy duck has been recorded in the Bermudas, the Bahamas (New Providence), 4510—No. 26—06——5 664 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Jamaica, Martinique, Grenada, Barbados, and once in Central America— _ outside of Guatemala—at Ivazu, Costa Rica. From the Chesapeake Bay to Florida it is quite a common winter resident, though it is being rapidly diminished in numbers. Spring migration.—The ruddy duck is rather a late migrant. Throughout its winter district, northward movements occur late in March, and just north of this region it appears early in April. Aver- — age dates of arrival are: Erie, Pa., April 16; Oberlin, Ohio, April 15 (earliest April 7, 1903); Heron Lake, Minn., April 10 (earliest April 3, 1889): eastern Nebraska, April 7; Cheyenne, Wyo., April 21; south- ern Manitoba, May 5 (earliest, April 26,1891). The first migrant was seen at Osler, Saskatchewan, May 7, 1893, and at Fort Keogh, Mont., April 21, 1889. 7 7 Fall migration.—An excellent series of observations at Alexandria, Va., extending over sixteen years, fixes September 30 as the average date of arrival on the Potomac (earliest, August 20, 1889). The aver- age date when the species becomes common is October 25. On the — Massachusetts coast the ruddy duck is most common in October and _ November. Farther west in the same latitude migration is somewhat earlier, and the northern States, from Pennsylvania to Minnesota, are deserted the first half of November. The first date of arrival at Barbados is September 13, 1887. Nomonyx dominicus (Linn.). Masked Duck. This is a tropical species that lives principally in the West Indies and in eastern South America. It is common in Argentina to the Rio _ Negro and north through eastern and central Brazil to Guiana, Ven- ezuela, and the islands of Trinidad, Barbados, St. Croix, Porto Rico, Haiti, Jamaica, and Cuba. This may be considered the regular range. In western South America the masked duck has been noted at Concep- cion, Chile, both in June and September, 1894—this is directly west of © its center of abundance in Argentina—at Tatarenda, in eastern Bolivia, and Lake Titacaca, in the western part; at pete and the river Peripa, in Ecuador; twice in Panama, once in Guatemala, and four — times in Mexico [Grivaba. Jalapa, Maianics as, Escuinapa). Justacross — the river from Matamoras, at Brownsville, Tex., is the only place in ~ the United States where it has been found that it seemed to be at home. See Apr. 23 187822 283322 May 11 | ASS eee May 4), 1887... 2a May 3 18/6222... 4.2.2 May, S| 1e82e eee May 3} 1888.5 eee May 7-3 ASU £ ee ee ee Apr.. 27) 1883.2 =o ae Apr.{25 | 1889:. <2": aan Apr. 174 1B. te Fe See See Apr. 191884 22 eee May 3 S(O SR se oe eee Apr: 2416852. = he aes Apr. 29 | The average date of arrival is April 30, with extremes of twenty- — four days from April 17 to May 11. The average variation is 5.9 — days. a Eggs have been found in northern Indiana, southern Minnesota, | -and central Wyoming the first week in May, and sometimes even in ~ April, and at Malheur Lake, Oregon, April 24. An early set was — found May 4 near the Saskatchewan, and one May 11 near the Red — Deer River, Alberta, but usually nesting in this district begins about — the middle of May, and at the northern limit of the range not much ~ before the middle of June. Dates of arrival in the fall of the Canada goose. | “laa Num- | Average E = arliest date Place. | ber of | date of | offirstone | years’ | first one record.| seen. | Bec | Prince Bdward Island. 2 3252223) eke eee eee 8 | Aug. 28 | Aug. 22, 1889 Scotch Lake,-New Brunswick... 25.22. Boe ee 3 | Oct. 23 | Oct. 21, 1902 9% Central Massachusetts...---..... 5:.2. 05.2. ae 5 | Oct. 11 | Sept. 4,1889 Block Island; Rhode Island:: -..= 2222 22s. Sige ee 7 | Oct. 21 | Sept. 27, 1898 Montauk Point, Long Island _../.22_212) eee ee 9 | Oct. 20 | Sept. 30, 1888 Renovo, Pa: 22 .cces5 BS SE ES eee . 4]| Oct. 24 | Oct. 7,1904 Central Pennsylvania ..2 5222 22 -s S e e 8 | Oct. 22 | Oct. 15,1894 Central New Jersey-..22s.-<.{22. eee 14 | Oct. 18 | Sept. 23, 1897 Alexandria, Va)......-252 4222 eee eee 16 | Oct. 26 | Oct. 5,1888 Atlantic, N. @ ...5.2c2. 22. 26 2 et ee ee ee eee eee Oct. 20,1899 Anderson, S. C ...--. 2.202220 be ee Eee eee Oct. 10,1902 Chipley, Wla...._. 2.22.0. 32 oe ee eee eee Paeerere. Oct. 8, 1902 Aweme, Manitoba ..... 2.522.255... eee eee 6 | Aug. 14 | Aug. 3, 1901 Gentral South Dakota... 2... eee eee 3 Sept. 23 | Aug. 20, 1890 Northern Nebraska... ...2...:2sge3_ 4 ee eee 7 | Oct. 7] Sept. 7, 1888 Omara, ‘Kens _.....-. 0220... SS eee eee 4} Oct. 18 | Oct. 3,1894 Gripevine; Tex ..-:.2....22 1. Ss eee eee 9 Oct. 91! Sept. 30,1904 Cenuital-Wisconsin..........2-. 42.8 ee eS ae eee 8 Oct. 12 | Sept. 30, 1892 Gente lows... ..-.02...02.. 1 ieee ee eee 7} Oct. 14 | Sept. 16, 1899 Keokuk lowa.: 3. :-..5.0b 6S ee eee 81 Oct. 8 | Sept. 27,1825 Watseon,Qhio.:..... . .. ee 4 | Oct. 20 | Oct. 10,1887 Centraltindiana. ©... ss... cS ee ee ee 5 | Oct. 19] Oct. 6,1902 Norther (lings... 2222 bo ee ae ee eee 4} Oct. 13 | Sept. 28, 1895 CenimlsMissourl we. 2555582 ee Se eee 4/ Oct. 4 | Sept. 23. 1 z AAG G I VATS oes sc occ b oc tne ee ee 3 | Oct. -4] Sept. 26, 1896. Southern MISSISSIPPI). 22. 505<~. love doce ee eee 2 | Nov. 12 | Nov. 5, 1902 a —_ HUTCHINS GOOSE. | i. Dates of departure in the fall of the Canada goose. No. of Gee Latest date Place. years’ fore trate of last one record. aa seen. - Columbia Falls, Mont...-.-- Ea aoe ROG SO AIS a a a NO Bo 4 | Noy. 20 | Nov. 24,1895 ASY@iTD@, INTE ATO) OF Se eres Soe eee ae Se ee 6 | Nov. 17> Dee: > 251899 “DUDE DGIT, (QUT RMD IG ae Be cae SS ee eee | 4| Nov. 7 | Nov. 10,1901 SouLmern Michivama.2 2 )(s-25256--25-e6 2 = eee renee ae ee ne 4| Nov. 8 | Noy. 25,1890 CanicaleViimMmMesO toler te 4s- 55 oe Me sein pales a) scene Soa seis speisieinreie tie 8! Nov. 9] Dee. 1,1890 (CEMIETEICMONV AY SS cane OS SDE Be coe Seen aoe ae Ea nee ene a | 13 | Nov. 18 | Dee. 26, 1904 IN@O NOUR WON Blea Se ao Be RE Oe SOOR ee De eeee nese Sees eee eee 7.| Nov. 10 | Dee. 4,1900 SLATE INGE SIG) eS Se eS ene ee | 4 | Noy. 27 (a) PapninceeMioniar Callan secs seme se oe Wate Ne oe eS eee ee beeen | 6 | Dee. 1 | Dec. 22,1889 CrimGdevtansam New BrunswiGhk:':.-\2:) 442212 352222 sae fo. Behe e ec | 4 | Noy. 15 | Nov. 20,1890 MGT seen ee Cem eye me ce en ene erseys See hn See oye 8 alae te Wee o's | 4 | Nov. 41] Novy. 14,1896 PRUE RM Mr ssAGMUSCUUS ss ecnes Nk. scm Sone gece cee se aves iee (pate 8 | Noy. 18 | Dec. 28, 1877 Meier Mier Olin Wome islam: ees foe oc ase So Samoans cones oe eas 8 | Nov. 21 | Dec. 19, 1889 IO EL OWO) Teas Bad See ROS Se si Sete ees te ae eae ee one ea | 6 | Nov. 9 | Nov. 18, 1903 Central Pennsylvania Se Seed oo EOE AEE ie ir es ee ee ae | 7 | Nov. 14 | Dee. 6, 1899 TBST Lee Biss Shs eo each ese aes les tenes Of ee ae eee as a 6 | Nov. 16 | Dec. 15, 1891 (COTTAM IN@WVRU CIRC eo ec seeeeee rec a ec cn a oar ee eae 9 | Noy. 19 | Dee. 10,19C2 a A few winter. Branta canadensis hutchinsii (Rich.). Hutchins Goose Breeding range.—This is the most northern of the several forms of Canada goose and nests from Melville Peninsula north to latitude 70° and west along the shores and islands of the Arctic coast to the mouth of the Mackenzie and through the interior of Alaska to the Kowak River. Apparently it does not breed in the interior of North America south of the Barren Grounds, but on the Pacific coast it breeds in the valley of the Kowak River and south to the mouth of the Knik River; also abundantly in the western Aleutians and on the Near Islands. One was taken June 10 at Kingwah Fjord and a few have been taken at Disco and Godhaven, Ce aend: but there seems to be no breeding record east of Hudson Bay: Winter range.—The Hutchins goose seems to be more common in California during the winter season than elsewhere, though it is not rare in the rest of the southern United States west of the Mississippi River. Its normal eastern range is to Hudson Bay, Illinois, and Louisiana. It is known asa rare migrant in Maine and a century ago seems to have been not uncommon on the New England coast. A few pass through western New York, Ontario, and Ohio, and less rarely through Indiana. Southern Wisconsin seems to be the farthest north that it has been recorded in the interior during the winter season. It appears to be unknown on the Atlantic coast south of Virginia, but on the Pacific it passes south to San Rafael, Lower California, and probably to Lake Chapala, Jalisco, and winters north to southern British Columbia. One specimen is recorded from the city of Vera Cruz, Mexico, where it was accidental. Bepino aire Records are insufficient to allow of exact state- ments in regard to the movements of the Hutchins goose. In generat. it can be said that it migrates later than B. canadensis. The average 78 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. date of its arrival in northern North Dakota and southern Manitoba is April 12, fully two weeks later than the Canada goose arrives. Hud- son Bay is reached early in May and the extreme northern part of the range not much before the first of June. The first was noted near the mouth of the Yukon River May 8 and on the Kowak River May 14. Eges were taken near Fort Anderson, Mackenzie, June 10, 1864, and — June 14, 1865. . Fall migration.—Smali family parties begin to flock early in August and flocks appear at Aweme, Manitoba, on the average September 21 (earliest September 13, 1904). First arrivals were noted at Terry, Mont., September 22, 1904; Delavan, Wis., October 12, 1894; central Kansas, October 5-13; central California about the first of October. The last noted at Cape McDonnel, Great Bear Lake, was on Septem- ber 25; at Fort Wrigley, Mackenzie, October 12, and on the Kowak River, Alaska, September 14. Branta canadensis occidentalis (Baird). White-Cheeked Goose. This form is confined to the Pacific slope and breeds from the Klamath Lakes and Lake Tahoe, north to Sitka and Mitkof Island. It winters from Washington south to San Diego County, Cal. It appears south of its breeding range in early November and starts north so early in the spring that after the middle of March few are left in the southern part of the winter range. Branta canadensis minima Ridgw. Cackling Goose. This form is confined during the breeding season to Alaska, where it breeds abundantly along the coast from the Kowak River to the north side of the Alaska Peninsula. It breeds very abundantly also on the western Aleutians. It winters in southern British Columbia and thence south to San Diego County, Cal. It has been known to wander east to Hudson Bay, Wisconsin, and Colorado. It is the earlest goose to reach the mouth of the Yukon in spring migration, arriving there from the 25th to the 30th of April, a few days after the last have deserted the southern portion of the winter range. The return movement begins late in August, is at its height by the middle of September, and the first arrive in central California about the first of October. The species deserts the Yukon region the last of September or early in October, and the Aleutians about the middle of November. Branta bernicla (Linn.). Brant. This is the Old World species that breeds north of the mainland of Europe and extends west to the east coast of Greenland; winters in northern Europe, rarely south to the Mediterranean. WHITE-BELLIED BRANT. 19 Branta bernicla glaucogastra (Brehm). White-bellied Brant. Breeding range.—There is a lack of knowledge as to the dividing line between this form and the black brant (BL. nigricans). It is known that the latter breeds on the Arctic coast of America east about to longitude 125° (Franklin Bay), and that the species reaches its sum- mer home by migration from the west and southwest, and not from the south by way of the Mackenzie Valley. It is known that the eastern brant occurs in migration on Melville Peninsula and passes along the east coast of Boothia Peninsula, longitude 92°. There seems to be no record of brant on the Arctic coast of the mainland between Franklin Bay and Boothia Peninsula—nearly a thousand miles—and yet brant of some form are common on all the islands that lie between these two longitudes north of 74° latitude. It is prac- tically certain that the brant swarming in Wellington Channel, directly north of Boothia Peninsula, are the eastern form. Brant were seen on September 7, 1850, at the south end of Banks Land, and as they were then in full tide of fall migration they were undoubtedly on their way to the Arctic coast of the mainland and belonged to the western form. A year later, August 19, 1851, ‘‘vast numbers” were seen in the northwestern part of the same island as they were gathering for their migration. These also, then, were probably the western form, and they bred commonly along the northern shore of this island. Melville Island is only 50 miles from Banks Land, and hence it is probable that the ‘‘ brent geese” taken by Parry on this latter island were the black brant. The dates of migration are of no help in settling this question. Brant arrived on Melville Island June 6, 1820, before June 9, 1853, and were seen on the north coast of Banks Land soon after June 1, 1852, or at about the same date they arrived in 1882-3, at Point Bar- row, considerably farther south. They were noted in the vicinity of Wellington Channel, about latitude 75°, June 3, 1851, June 2, 1853, and about June 9, 1854. Almost directly south the first were not noted on Boothia Peninsula, latitude 70°, until June 12, 1830; June 20, 1831; and June 8, 1859; and still farther south on Melville Pen- insula not until June 14, 1822, and June 14, 1823. While on the west coast of Greenland, at latitude 72°, the first were seen May 29, 1850, and at the extreme northern limit of the range, above latitude 82°, near the northwestern part of Greenland, they arrived June 9, 1876; June 3, 1882; June 5, 1883. The eastern brant breeds on the west coast of Greenland from Frederikshaab, latitude 62°, northward probably as far as land extends, certainly as far north as the north shore of Grinnell Land, latitude 82° 33’. It probably breeds also on the islands north of latitude 74° and west to Wellington Channel. Breeding records south of this district 4510—No. 26—06——o 80 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. are unsatisfactory, though the species will probably be found to breed rarely on North Somerset Island. Winter range.—It is common during the winter along the Atlantic coast from Florida to New Jersey, less common on Long Island, and. rare during the winter in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. great numbers pass south along the west shore of Hudson Bay, but as the species is almost unknown in Manitoba and Ontario, these birds must pass through northern Quebec to gain the Atlantic coast. Branta nigricans (Lawr.). Black Brant. Breeding range.—The principal known breeding ground of this species is along the Arctic coast and islands in the vicinity of the mouth of the Anderson River. Thence westward a smaller number breed at Point Barrow. The species is common on the Siberian coast of the Chukchi Peninsula and west to the New Siberian Islands. As stated under the preceding species, it is probable that the brant breeding abundantly on Banks Land and in smaller numbers on Melville Island belong to this species. Winter range.—The main body of the black brant winters on the coast of California, especially at Bodega Bay and Tomales Bay. southern Iowa, on the average, March 19; at Heron Lake, Minn., the average date of arrival is April 4, earliest March 21, 1889 (a very early spring); other average dates are: Nebraska, March 16; South Dakota, April 2; North Dakota, April 15; Saskatchewan, April 16; British Columbia about April 20. All these dates are later than those which mark the arrival in these districts of the early ducks and geese. Fall migration.—The trumpeter begins to move south early in Sep- tember, crosses into the United States the last of that month, and reaches the Gulf of Mexico in Texas about the middle of November. The last remain on the breeding grounds until October, when they are forced away by the gathering ice. Abert duck, 27. Aix sponsa, 40-41. American eider, 57-58. golden-eye, 49-50. merganser, 19-20. scoter, 59-60. white-fronted goose, 70-71. widgeon, 28-30. Anas aberti, 27. boschas, 22-24. diazi, 26. e fulvigula, 26. fulvigula maculosa, 26. obseura, 24-25. obscura rubripes, 25-26. Anser albifrons, 70. albifrons gambeli, 70-71. fabalis, 71. Arctonetta fischeri, 56. Aythya affinis, 46-48. americana, 41-48. collaris, 48-49. marila, 44-46. vallisneria, 42-44. Bahama duck, 40. Baldpate, 28-30. Barnacle goose, 82. Barrow golden-eye, 51. Bean goose, 71. Black-bellied tree duck, 83. Black brant, 81. Black duck, 24-25. Red-legged, 25-26. Blackhead, 46-48. Blue-bill, 44-46. Blue goose, 68-69. Blue-winged teal, 32-34. Brant, 78. Black, 81. White-bellied, 79-81. Branta bernicla, 78. bernicla glaucogastra, 79-81. canadensis, 72-77. canadensis hutchinsii, 77-78. canadensis occidentalis, 78. canadensis minima, 78. leucopsis, 82. nigricans, 81. Broad-bill, 44-46. Buffle-head, 51-52. Cackling goose, 78. Cairina moschata, 41. Camptolaimus labradorius, 55. Canada goose, 72-77. Canvasback, 43-44. IID BO Casarea casarea, 36. Charitonetta albeola, 51-52. Chaulelasmus streperus, 27-28. Chen ceerulescens, 68-69. hyperborea, 65-67. hyperborea nivalis, 67-68. rossii, 69-70. 3 Cinnamon teal, 34-35. Clangula clangula americana, 49-50. islandica, 51. Dafila acuta, 37-40. Decrease of waterfow], 10-12. Dendrocygna arborea, 84. autumnalis, 83. discolor, 84. fulva, 83-84. viduata, 84. Diaz black duck, 26. Distribution of waterfowl], 15-18. Duck, Abert, 27. Bahama, 40. Black, 24-25. Black-bellied tree, 83. Black-head, 46-48. Diaz black, 26. Distribution and migration, 19-64. Florida, 26. Fulvous tree, 83-84. Harlequin, 54-55. Labrador, 55. Lesser scaup, 46-48. Masked, 64. Mottled, 26. Muscovy, 41. Red-legged black, 25-26. Ring-necked, 48-49. Ruddy, 63-64. Rufous-crested, 41. Scaup, 44-46. Southern red-billed tree, 84. White-faced tree, 84. Whistling, 84. Wood, 40-41. Hider, American, 57-58. King, 58-59. Northern, 56-57. Pacific, 58. Spectacled, 56. Steller, 55-56. Emperor goose, 82. Krismatura jamaicensis, 63-64. ' European teal, 30. widgeon, 28. Florida duck, 26. Fulvous tree duck, 83-84. 89 et A ae > ak at a as. 90 NORTH AMERICAN DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS. Gadwall, 27-28. | Querquedula cyanoptera, 34-35. Geese, Distribution and migration, 65-84. discors, 32-34. Golden-eye, American, 49-50. Red-breasted merganser, 20-21. Barrow, 51. Redhead, 41-43. Goose, American white-fronted, 70-71. Red-legged black duck, 25-26. Barnacle, 82. Ring-necked duck, 48-49. Bean, 71. Ross snow goose, 69-70. Blue, 68-69. Ruddy duck, 63-64. Cackling, 78. Ruddy sheldrake, 36. Canada, 72-77. Scaup duck, 44-46. Emperor, 82. fs Scaup, Lesser, 46-48. Greater snow, 67-68. Seoter, American, 59-60. Hutchins, 77-78. Surf, 62. Lesser snow, 65-67. Velvet, 60. Ross snow, 69-70. White-winged, 61. White-cheeked, 78. Sheldrake, Ruddy, 36. White-fronted, 70. x Shoveler, 36-37. Greater snow goose, 67-68. Smew, 22. Green-winged teal, 30-82. Seay Somateria dresseri, 57-58. oe Harelda hyemalis, 52-54. mollisima borealis, 56-57. Harlequin duck, 54-55. spectabilis, 58-59. Histrionicus histrionicus, 54-55. - y-nigra, 58. Hooded merganser, 21-22. Snow goose, Greater, 67-68. Hutchins goose, 77-78. Lesser, 65--67. a King eider, 58-59. Ross, 69-70. as Labrador duck, 55. Southern red-billed tree duck, 84. Lesser scaup, 46-48. Spatula clypeata, 36-37. ‘snow goose, 65-67. Spectacled eider, 56. — Lophodytes cucullatus, 21-22. Steller eider, 55-56. Mallard, 22-24. Surf scoter, 62. Mareca americana, 28-30. Swan, Trumpeter, 86-87. penelope, 28. Whistling, 84-86. Masked duck, 64. Whooping, 84. Merganser americanus, 19-20. Swans, Distribution and migration, 84-87. serrator, 20-21. Teal, Blue-winged, 32-84. Merganser, American, 19-20. Cinnamon, 34-85. ij Hooded, 21-22. European, 30. Red-breasted, 20-21. Green-winged, 30-82. Mergus albellus, 22. Trumpeter swan, 86-87. Migration of waterfowl, 14-15. Velvet scoter, 60. Mottled duck, 26. Waterfowl, decrease, causes, 10-12 Muscovy, 41. distribution, 15-18. Netta rufina, 41. laws protecting, 8-10. Nettion carolinense, 30-32. migration, 14-15. erecca, 30. tables of ranges, 16-18. Nomonyx dominicus, 64. species that winter in United States Northern eider, 56-57. f and Canada, 13. Oidemia americana, 59-60. winter ranges, 13-14. deglandi, 61. Whistling duck, 84. fusca, 60. Whistling swan, 84-86. perspicillata, 62. White-bellied brant, 79-81. Old-squaw, 52-54. White-cheeked goose, 78. Olor buccinator, 86-87. White-faced tree duck, 84. columbianus, 84-86. White-fronted goose, 70. cygnus, 84. White-winged scoter, 61. Pacific eider, 58. Whooping swan, 84. Philacte canagica, 82. Widgeon, American, 28-30. Pintail, 37-40. European, 28. Peecilonetta bahamensis, 40. \} Winter ranges of waterfowl, 13-14. Polysticta stelleri, 55-56. Wood duck, 40-41. Protection of waterfowl, 8-10. — is see i aa aS aly tS ae eae = 4 a en vena af te | - ef ; bie | aii ail 7 ow = = ON EN A Na I F, An nnn omy an oa ma Pyne read air: Aan AO anal nn ARAN Ann eZ SA AAAA Aa Aad te a aan A 2 hint < 1 ey Measanantaaianeatanes an A mn RANA ANNAN As Shia Waa Ran NA nae ~AA RA >~ zal \ ¥ av et Peale, ' . - plies” ot ; on ak - “ ris i a a «» x Pe ME AE 7 Sig, 9, ae RA = ‘ mt Aig a! Re ~ ~- ~, ry aa AR = Py Von It ‘ aA a3 as oa = pie am) Pia ~ =_ , ; ~~ ANA mi A. oe pn, Ratt “ne Aa saaeeAns aa SARSA- ; a ape Space one 4 a ryyr ‘a van we pA ae ~a a wanes ® on EY annannaaa, Se ee Uae 4AaAgas, naa a nn Bee! a ove aa wil ie | Lae AA __ RaRaSRAPE aarn . satel z= ee -~ ~~ naa ae oaahes ey Wy \ Na | ¥ \ an b - Naa ht Cee RNS al AY ke oe aN dena: Ps paapener’ pn ae pitta A mf A aa) Wai “ AY. aahahe a” ‘ant aA Ne a do, om | Sal Hilla, NN at Ve ne 4 Se a | A | wy we vy . Peeping: ry Cea \. fa... j anmananns wii ii 3 9088 01629