sir
i ith
eh it th
i i
Ar sttel teks
ie Hie
ttt
iy
Hd
tte
.
“
tite i
wtb
aie cat i
‘ i
yi ane
Hiiietedels lela
snes
BR RAN
ND
iit
ii} i
JONATHAN: DWIGHTJr
SPECIAL REPORT.
DISEASES AND ENEMIES
LEONARD PEARSON,
State Veterinarian,
AND
B. H. WARREN, M. D..,
State Zoologist.
en NE Ate as)
[Published by Authority of the Legislature]
CLARENCE M, BUSCH,
STATE PRINTER OF PENNSYLVANIA.
1897.
DISEASES OF POULTRY
———e—eoerr-
~ “ ¢ = i 4
Diseases and enemies of Poulter |
| We
“ :
LEONARD PEARSON, Bas. V. Me-D:,
STATE VETERINARIAN.
lea
Our i
{ bu (3. - Wane,
CLARENCE ?(M. BUSCH,
STATE PRINTER OF PENNSYLVANIA.
1897.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Page.
Larvae of Chicken Flea—Railliet, 7
Head of Chicken Flea—Railliet, 18
Chicken Lice—
Goniodes dissimilis—Paiget, 19
Goniocotes gigas —Neumann, 20
Goniocotes hologaster —Neumann, 21
Lipeurus variabilis Neumann, ....... 22
Menopon pallidum —Railliet, PAA icions,) 23
ReEGeEoultry: MitC—=DeElAfONG) ose: c cece se dedmeteacerencece a. 20
Pigeon Tick—Railliet, 27
Parasites of Body Mange—
Epidermoptes bilobatus—female—Neumann, 29
Epidermoptes bilobatus—male—Neumann, 3
Sarcoptes laevis -Railliet, Maatas 31
Protozoa from a Fowl's Tit Ati Peachncten: pasheaehic sia es 1's 33
Head of a fowl with Favus—Neumann, 34
Parasite of Favus—Neumann, 35
Pair of Gape Worms—Railliet, REET 0 40
Pair of Gape Worms Attached to Tuinauine sienrin, metas 41
Windpipe Containing Gape Worms—Megnin,............... 43
Air Sac Mite—Railliet, 45
Wreveis \\ye eel) ba lan In nad GODOT CORIO AGHOLBIGnCocead Tote ACT RAC 54
Intestine Containing Tape Worms—Goeze, .................. 58
Pin Worm of the Pigeon—Neumann, 60
Digestive Apparatus of Birds—Smith, 61
Parasite of Mange of the Legs and Feet—
Sarcoptes mutans—Neumann, 83
Foot of Fowl with Mange—Neumann, 84
Floor of Mouth, Showing Dightneriae Moore, 91
Roof of Mouth, Showing Diphtheria—Moore, 94
Caeca of Healthy Turkey—Moore, fe asic LOL
Caeca of Turkey, Showing Effect of Brier oan Princess
Moore, RNR epee tee aeetate SIVA Ts ais, evsjereia inleietetes, «.0.0/ae30 we 9 LOD
Liver of murkey: Showin= Effect of Protozoan Disease—
Moore, ° aime nteia's 103
Plate 1— Skeleton ra MowLsGhanve eau, ceesene, HOD
Plate 2—Digestive Apparatus of a ae nee Sch) a eect 111
(3)
LEER Or 2b RANSMIT TAL.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
HARRISBURG, PA., AZarch 8, 1898.
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives
of the Gereral Assembly of Pennsylvania:
Gentlemen: In compliance with the following con-
current resolution I have the honor to transmit here-
with Part I, entitled “Diseases of Poultry.”
LEONARD PEARSON.
In the House of Representatives,
March 1, 1897.
Resolved (if the Senate concur), That there shall be printed
at the earliest possible date, in pamphlet form, fifteen thousand
copies of Bulletin No. 17, of the Department of Agriculture,
entitled “The Diseases and Enemies of Poultry,”’ with such ad-
ditional matter and changes as the authors may deem nec-
essary to more fully explain this important subject; five thou-
sand for the use of the Senate and ten thousand for the use of
the present members of the House of Representatives: Pro-
vided, That the authors shall receive no extra compensation for
preparing, writing, editing, proof reading, revising and index-
ing this pamphlet.
A. D. FETTEROLF,
Resident Clerk of the House of Representatives.
In the Senate, March 2, 1897.
The foregoing resolution in the House concurred in.
E. W. SMILEY,
Chief Clerk of the Senate.
Approved—The 9th day of March, A. D. 1897.
DANIEL H. HASTINGS.
(5)
7
¥
'
&
Pe, <7
. itu eare
ig :
oe; +i 7
Ll ty z
i > ’
¢
i quar
1:
) iin Bee
t Ue afte
PREFACE:
This report on the Diseases and Enemies of Poultry
is written in answer to an extensive demand for infor
mation on the subject of which it treats. While a
large number of articles on diseases of poultry may be
found in poultry journals, live stock papers and poul-
try books, there has been no recent attempt in this
country to produce a comprehensive, popular but ac-
curate description of the diseases of fowls, together
with the means to be employed to cure and prevent
them.
In preparing the first part of this Bulletin, the Vet-
erimarian has made free use of all of the works on dis-
eases of poultry that he has been able to secure, and has
drawn upon the English, French and German litera-
ture.
Special acknowledgment must be given to the agri-
cultural and poultry pericdicals, to the following au-
thors: Ziirn. Friedberger and Fréhner, Neumann, Rail-
liet, Nocard and Leclainche, and the publications of the
U. S. Department of Agricultere by Drs. Salmon,
Smith, Moore and Stiles.
There is a great deal to learn in reference to these
subjects, and a promising field for investigation and re-
search is offered. It is hoped that some of the numer-
ous imperfectly nuderstood diseases of poultry may be
carefully studied, and a future more complete report
upon this subject issued under the auspices of the
State Department of Agriculture.
(7)
, '
i
ft
.
"
Si
=!
; =
' ‘ =
ar
7 \
«
, ¢
{
ne 7 bt
PART I.
INTRODUCTION.
IMPORTANCE OF THE POULTRY INDUSTRY.
The production of eggs and poultry is one of the
most important branches of agriculture. To those who
have not given this subject especial attention, the state
ment that the arnual poultry products of the United
States are equal in value to the wheat crop, may ap-
pear something startling.
According toa recent estimate of the American A gri-
culturist, based on the last census and on an extensive
inquiry, the nunber of fowls in the United States is
about 383,000,000; these produce 1,141,000,009 dozen
eges each year, and the value of both amounts to $343,
000,000,00.
Pennsylvania is one of the leading states in the pro-
duction of poultry. According to the same authority,
there are in this State 15,247,000 fowls of all sorts—
turkeys, geese, ducks and chickens—valued at $8,236,-
000, and these produce 68,818,000 dozen eggs each year
worth, at 29 cents per dozen, $12,763,600, making a
total value for poultry and eggs of about $22,000,-
000.00.
At a very conservative estimate, one-tenth of the
poultry, voung and old, is carried away by disease each
year. Hence the importance of this subject is mani-
fest. (9)
1*--I
10
TREATMENT OF SICK FOWLS.
A number of difficulties are met with in treating
fowls that do not confront the veterinarian or live stock
owner in treating most of the other domestic animals.
Fowls are not accustomed te being handled. They are
of a semi-wild disposition, so that when it becomes nec-
essary during illness to examine and administer medi-
cine to them tbey are apt to resist. However, fowls
can be treated as successfully as any other animals,
provided they receive the same amount of careful, in-
telligent attention.
On all farms where poultry is kept in large numbers
it is advisable to have a small building or room fitted
up as a hospital for the care of sick and disabled birds.°
If such a place is at hand it will be possible to achieve
much better results than when attempts are made to
treat fowls in the buildings where their companions
are, and where they are constantly annoyed by them,
or than can be reached if the fowls are placed in a
dirty box in some damp, out of the way place, under
the impression that anything is good enough for a sick
chieken.
CAUSES OF DISEASE.
The causes of diseases of poultry are various and at-
tention is directed to the cause of each one treated upon
in the following. It will be noticed that in most cases
diseases are avoidable, that they result from misman-
vat
agement in the way of feeding, housing or cleanliness.
Some of them, however, are contagious and cannot be
wholly prevented even when the feeding and sanitary
conditions are of the best, but experience teaches that
where conditions are good for birds they are bad for
disease germs and vice versa, so that when contagious
diseases prevail, their ravages are much greater among
fowls that are poorly kept than among those that are
cared for properly.
Contagious diseases and parasites are usually intro-
duced by new .fowls brought into the flock, and it is
worth while, especially where pure bred fowls are
grown, to place all new acquisitions in quarantine away
from the flock for a few days, and until it has been
shown that they present no evidence of disease. Great
care should be used, also, in purchasing only from
sound stock kept under favorable conditions.
SYMPTOMS OF DISEASE.
Birds show disease in a variety of ways, but in most
cases if the affection is at all severe, they become list-
less, sluggish, torpid, inclined to keep away from their
fellows, they are apt to stand with the head drawn
down, the wings and tail pendant and feathers ruffled.
In many diseases, diarrhoea is the first symptom, and in
all cases of diarrhoea, attention should he paid to the
droppings for the purpose of noting their color and
whether they contain worms or an admixture of mucus
or blood. Sometimes loss of appetite is the first symp-
12
tom of disease, sometimes paleness of the comb and
Visible membranes. In the skin diseases, the first
symptoms appear on the surface and consist in a loss
of gloss on some of the feathers and stiffness and brit-
tleness of the feathers, and sometimes the appearance
of naked spots.
The examination of the throat is important in many
cases because it is the seat of two common and very
serious affections of domestic fowls, namely, roup and
gapes. In examining the mouth and thoat the bill can
be opened by pressing the thumb and finger on the
angle at either side; then if the windpipe is pressed up-
ward from the neck, the larynx ean be fiorced into the
back of the mouth and examined easily. It is fre-
quently of advantage to have an assistant hold the fowl
while the examiner carries out these manipulations and
also holds the tengue down by bearing upon it with a
wooden toothpick or some similar smal] object.
The temperature of the fowl is rarely measured, be-
cause fever is shown by symptoms of chilliness, ete..
but it is well to know that the-nermal temperature of
the domestic fowls varies between 106 and 107.5 de-
grees F. This is considerably higher than the tempera-
ture of the larger animals. If it becomes desirable to
measure the temperature, it can be done by inserting
4 clinical thermometer into the cloaca. It should pene-
trate for about two inches and remain two or three
minutes before it is withdrawn and read.
The heart beat of the fowl is quite rapid, varying
from 110 to 140 per minute, but the determination of its
rapidity is of little importance in diagnosing the dis-
ease of fowls, because when they are grasped for the
purpose of counting the beat, it becomes so rapid that
it is sometimes almost impossible to count it, running
13
up in many cases to 300 pulsations per minute. The
heart beat can be easily felt by applying the fingers to
the sides of the chest wall.
The rapidity of respiration is of more importance
than the rapidity of the heart beat, because it can be
determined at a distance from the fowl. and without
AnPoVing it and thus quickening this function. The
normal breathing rate of the fowl at rest is from 50 to
60 respirations per minute. In diseases of the breath-
ing organs and obstructions of them by growths or
parasites, the respirations become quickened.
POST MORTEM EXAMINATIONS.
Very often it is not possible to determine the char-
acter of a disease affecting fowls until after they are
dead, and as many of the poultry diseases are conta
gious, it is always advisable to open and examine every
fowl that dies in the flock. This may enable the owner
to check a contagious disease in its incipiency and avoid
great loss. But in any case, it is advisable to know
what fowls die from, so that similar occurrences may
be recognized and prevented in the future. The ana-
tomy of the fow! cannot be described at this time for
lack of space, but anyone whois in the habit of opening
and cleaning chickens, knows the general appearance
of the healthy organs, will usually recognize marked
departures from the normal.
If fowls die from unknown diseases, and particularly
if they die in large numbers from disease that seems to
14
be contagious, information in regard to these affections
may be obtained by correspondence with the State
Veterinarian, and it is desired that fowls dying from
vague diseases shall he expressed as soon ag possible
after they are dead to the Veterinary Department of
the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. They
should be wrapped in cloth and heavy paper, packed in
straw, nailed up in a box with a cake of ice and ex-
pressed as promptly as possible. A letter should
always be forwarded cither in the box or by mail ex-
plaining the general symptoms and characteristics of
the disease. Such shipments may be made C. O. D.
THE MEDICATION OF FOWLS.
The medication of individual fowls is not difficult,
but requires care and patience. There are several forms
in which medicines may be administered. Pills can be
given most readily. It is only necessary te secure the
bird, open its bill and drop the pill into the back of the
mouth, then close the bill and if the bird resists, hold
it together until the pill has been swallowed.
Fluids are sometimes administered from a spoon, but
if the fowl] is badly frightened this may be a matter of
considerable difficulty. The best way is to introduce a
small rubber tube, about a third of an inch in diameter,
into the mouth, pass it into the oesophagus and down
to the crop. A little experience will enable one to do
this quickly and without discomfort to the bird. Fluid
medicines in any desirable quantity can be introduced
through this tube.
15
Pasty mixtures are sometimes given. Medicines are
mixed with sticky materials, as molasses, honey, ete.,
made into pasty masses and placed in the back of the
mouth with a small wooden paddle. Flocks can be
treated, when the birds will eat, by mixing medicines
with the food or dissolving them in water. Somevimes
powders are given by sprinkling them on moist grain.
Chalk is frequently given in this way to birds with
diarrhoea by mixing it with rice that has been moist-
ened. It thus adheres to the kernels and is eaten with-
out reluctance.
When a very sick fowl is under treatment, it is bet-
ter to give small doses at frequent intervals than large
doses at long intervals, for in this way the action of the
medicine can be measured more accurately and the
proper dose can be ascertained by trials. Fowls of
different breeds and different sizes and ages require
different doses. It is not always possible to determine
these accurately, but the judgment of the poultry
keeper must be called into play in all instances.
DISINFECTION.
Disinfection is alluded to very frequently in the fol
lowing pages and is often of the greatest importance.
Many poultry keepers are under the impression that it
‘sg sufficient te scatter strong smelling powders or li-
quiids about the coops or poultry houses, and that so
long as the odor of these materials is in the air, the
premises are undergoing disinfection. Nothing could
16
be more misleading or further from the truth. Disin-
fection is practised for the purpose of destroying dis-
ease producing germs and disinfectants, or the mate-
vials used for disinfecting, will only destroy germs that
they come in contact with. It is perfectly evident that
when disinfectants are scattered about carelessly they
come in cortact with a very small fraction of the entire
surfaces that may harbor germs, and unless all of these
surfaces are covered and all cf the germs reached the
disinfection is apt to be fruitless. In order that dis-
infection may be carried out properly it is essential,
first of all, to remove the manure, litter and rubbish of
all sinds. This should be mixed with lime and placed
in barrels, or it should be spread on fields at such a dis-
tance from the poultry runs that it cannot possibly
contaminate them. However, if the disease is a viru-
lent one it is always best to burn manure rather than
take any chances with it. Then the interior of the
building should be thoroughly swabbed or serubbed
out, and afterwards the disinfectants can be employed.
Disinfectants are best used in solution because they
can then be applied more evenly and perfectly. They
can be applied with a brush, with a sprinkling pot or,
best of all, with a spray pump, such as is used fer
spraying fruit trees. The disinfectants to be employed
in special cases are mentioned hereafter in connection
with the prevention of the different diseases. White-
wash is always a good disinfectant, but its value can
be ereatly increased for this purpose by adding chloride
of lime to it, one pound to three or four gallons, or car-
bolic acid, one pint to the bucketful.
CHAPTER L.
DISEASE OF THE SKIN.
A. Those caused by parasites.
1. FLEAS.
The bird flea, known as Pulexavium, is a very small,
brownish insect. It has six legs but is without wings.
Its body is somewhat elongated and flattened from
side to side. This little parasite is exceedingly annoy-
ing to poultry and especially to pigeons. It is very
active and lives not only on the bird but also on the
perches and in the nests and crevices of poultry houses.
By its constant biting it keeps fowls awake and causes
them to scratch and hop about so that their rest is
disturbed and eventually they become thin and weak
and if they are not actually killed by the fleas, which
occurs very rarely, they are so harassed that they are
predisposed to other diseases and in this way the flea
may be an_ indirect
cause of death. Pig-
eons are annoyed by
fleas far more than
other poultry. LARVA OF THE CHICKEN FLEA.
The remedy is to al- Twenty times natural size.
(17)
2--I
18
low the birds a dusting place and if the parasites are
very numerous insect powder or sulphur should be
mixed with the dust and when the fowls scratch and
burrow in this powder it enters the spaces between the
feathers, reaches the skin and so obstructs the breath-
ing openings on the surface of the flea that it finds the
conditions yery disagreeable and becomes stupefied
and falls off or goes away.
Or insect powder can be
blown by means of a powder
gun or blower between the
feathers of the afflicted fowl.
It is also necessary to so
treat the roosting places,
nests and poultry houses geap or rae CHrcKEN FLEA.
that the fleas will be either Thirty times natural size.
destroyed or driven away. Because if this is not done
they return to the birds as soon as the dust is shaken
from their feathers. Disinfection can be accomplished
by spraying the interior of the building with a solu-
tion of carbolic acid (one part to twenty parts of
water). Or a kerosene emulsion, such as is used for
spraying fruit trees, can be employed for the same pur-
pose.
2. LICE.
Bird lice differ considerably from the ordinary lice
of haired animals. They do not suck blood as those
do and cannot, for they are provided with a mouth
1
that only erables them to bite. They live on the
crusts, scales and dead cells that gather on the surface
of the skin and that are prevented from falling off by
the feathers.
There are several varieties of lice belonging to four
principal genera: these are Goniodes, Goniocotes, Lip-
eurus and Menopen. While these parasites differ con-
siderably as regards their shape and size they resem-
ble each other very closely in their habits. All of
them are very small insects, from 1-199 to 1-6 inch
long and their bodies are plainly divided into three
parts; the head is very large and flat, the thorax, or
second segment. is roundish and considerably smaller
than the head; the abdomen, o1
most posterior segment, is long,
oval and plump. Their color
is usually grayish or yellowish,
but some of them show differ-
ent shades of brown. Although
these parasites do not pene-
trate the skin and suck the
blood as fleas do, and as the
lice of mammals do, they cause
a great deal of itching and an-
noyance while crawling about
over the surface and sometimes GinGnes Tae
they bite the skin and in that — Goniodes dissimilis, male.
i z AE: : One of the most common va-
Way occasion much irritation. rsieties. 20 times natural size.
At one time it was thought that lice were bred by)
filth and that they generated themselves, as it were,
in dirty places, but it has been shown that this is not
the case and that they are only produced by like para-
sites and have the property of reproducing themselves
20
with great rapidity. It has
been estimated that the third
generation springing from a
single individual may reach
the enormous number of 125,-
000 within twelve weeks.
While it is true that ne-
glect, dirt, filth, etc., favor the
growth and propagation of
lice, it should always be re-
membered that they cannot
appear in the poultry yard
unless they are brought in by
an infested fowl or by a cage
that a fowl has been in or CHICKEN Louse.
b i Goniocotes gigas, female.
some other object that an in- Ten times natural size.
fested few] has been in contact with. But fowls are
interchanged so frequently and fowls of different
owners come in contact in so many ways at poultry
shows, in markets, etc., that it is not at all difficult for
a yard that was previously free from these parasites to
become infested when least suspected.
These parasites Gccasion as much loss as any disease
that fowls are subject to. While they alone do not
often kill birds, in many cases they so annoy them by
their constant irritation that they prevent sleep and
rest so that fowls and especially young ones do not
vrow and thrive as they should, and become thin and
delicate. In this condition they do not produce eges
nor are they good for food, and so long as they con-
tinue to remain badly infested with lice they are ab-
solutely unproductive and worthless.
The conditions that are most favorable to the pro-
pagation of lice have already heen mentioned briefly.
21
Attention should also be called to the fact that poultry
houses that are dark and damp furnish very favorable
places for the growth of these insects. Then, also,
fowls that are poor in condi-
tion are mire apt to be in-
fested with lice than those
that are in good condition,
healthy and sturdy. It has
been noticed frequently that
where there are a number of
fowls in an infested pen
those that are least rugged
harbor the most lice. The
probable reason fcr this is
that fowls in poor condition
have a somewhat dry and
scurfy skin which provides Gonigcotes. hilogaster, male.
2 Forty times natural size.
more hiding places and more food for lice than the
smooth, pliable skin of the perfectly healthy bird.
When fowls are afflicted in this way it can be noticed
that they are uneasy and restless, they are constantly
pecking at different parts of the body and scratching
and shaking themselves. They also have an inclina-
tion to dust themselves and when caught and ex-
amined the lice can frequently be seen, when the feath-
ers are spread apart, and especially about the head
and neck, where they cannot be reached by the bill of
the animal, beneath the wings and sometimes on all
parts of the body. They may also be found in many
cases, if a careful search is made, in the nests, on the
perches and in cracks and out-of-the-way places at any
point in the building.
In attempting to destroy lice it is necessary not only
to treat the fowl but also the premises oecupied by it.
. 22
because if we simply destroy those
that are on the bird they will return
again from the surroundings just as
fleas do. Im treating an animal] for
the purpose of destroying lice two
methods may be employed. We may
use substances that will poison the
lice outright or we may use _ sub-
stances that are not poisonous in
themselves but which destroy lice by
obstructing the pores on the surface
of the insect and thus shutting off its
supply of air and suffocating it. The
latter plan is preferable in the case
of young and weak birds. Little chick-
ens but a few days old frequently 7** Loxa CurckEn
acquire lice from their mothers or Dpeurys vartabilis,
their surroundings and are sometimes annoyed ser-
iously by them. In these cases it is advisable to apply
a small quantity of bland oil, such as sweet oil or cot-
ton-seed oil, to the chicken’s head and perhaps to the
sides of the neck if the parasites are very numerous, or
lard may be used for the same purpose. In the case of
older fowls sulphur ointment is a very efficient remedy.
It should be applied in small quantity about the head,
sides of the neck, beneath the wings and around the
vent. Or insect powder (pyrethrum) may be blown be-
tweent the feathers and this will destroy or drive away
the lice. If the fowl] is to be liberated immediately af-
ter the powder is applied it is well to first dampen the
feathers so that it will not be at once shaken off.
*
i
A 1
f\ ud i wD
a’ ay
7 ! i
} :
: rt i: Ta y ;
: ‘
. : 7 ' an
: : 1 :
0 1 ua '
7 '
porn r an
ie ' v 7
i a0 ma
< ie al
c i
7 : 4 i
r a, i) a :
rl - 4 tse ; i :
~ A ' 1, : Phy a
i Q d ; 1 .
iy 1 oe
? ec
7 ' ' 7 i? 7 7 7
0 0 oo. 5 i
I a
- 7 ot y i 7
- x eyes : j
. yy f
Fa npn
> on ot ! o
i 1 t
: Ki i - '
x arr { : :
Wy o ii i
1] : » 1
1 :
a o
j
1
t
‘
n
: r
! '
i
t A ns”
I 7 . :
5 a uv D
i i 7
1
1
'
; : : i
‘ 7 u ’ i
o
ROUGH LEGGED HAWK.
M1
ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK.
Archibuteo lagopus sancti-johannis.
DESCRIPTION.
“Adult male and female: Too variable in plumage to be con-
cisely described. In general the whole plumage with dark
brown or blackish and light brown, gray or whitish, the
lighter colors edging or barring the individual feathers; ten-
dency to excess of the whitish on the head, and to the forma-
tion of a dark abdominal zone or area, which may or may not
include the tibiae: usually a blackish anteorbital and max-
illary area. Lining of wings extensively blackish; tail usually
white from the base for some distance, then with light and
dark barring. The inner webs of the flight feathers ex-
tensively white from the base, usually with little, if any, of
the dark barring so prevalent among buteonine hawks. From
such a light and variegated plumage as this, the bird varies
to mere or less nearly uniform blackish, in which case the tail
is usually barred several times with white. * * Length
of a female, 22.00; extent, 54.00; wing, 17.50; tail, 9.00; iris light
brown; bill mostly blackish-blue; cere pale greenish-yellow;
feet duJl yellow; claws blue-black. This is about an average
size: the male averages smaller.’’.—Coues’ Key.
Habitat.—Whole of North America north of Mexico, breed-
ing north of the United States. Winter resident in Pennsyl-
vania.
In any plumage this bird can easily be distinguished
from other of our hawks by the tarsus, which is thick-
ly feathered in front to the toes. I have found the
Rough-legged or Black Hawk in Pennsylvania only as
a winter sojourner, about the meadows and grass fields
along or near large streams. In the winter of 1879,
when hunting along the Brandywine creek I saw seven
of these hawks at one time, perched about on trees in
a meadow of some five acres in extent. In this lo-
cality the species is usually found singly or in pairs.
Rough-legs generally migrate northward about the
middle of March; I have, however, observed them here
late in April.
“Its migrations appear to be quite regular and extensive—
more so, perhaps, than is generally supposed—though prob-
192
ably it does not differ from hawks in this respect. Birds of
this family must follow their prey, wherever this leads them,
and only a few of the more powerful species, able to prey upon
hares and ptarmigan, pass the winter in our highest latitudes.
The Rough-legged is a rather northerly species, rarely, if ever,
breeding within the limits of the United States, and becom-
ing rarer tewards its southern terminus.’’—Coues.
AN ERROR CORRECTED.
I desire to correct here an error which was made,
but through no fault of mine, in the first issue of the
Birds of Pennsylvania, pp. 92--93, where I stated, on
the authority of Mr. Samuel B. Ladd, of West Chester,
’a., that he (Mr. Ladd) had, April 5, 1886, found a nest
and two eggs of this bird in a thick woods at Fite’s
Eddy, on the Susquehanna river. A description of the
nest and eges was published in my first report, as
given to me by Mr. Ladd, but I have since learned from
Mr. Ladd that he did not secure or even see the hawks,
hence I am satisfied that this “record” was without
doubt based on erroneous identification. Dr. C. H.
Merriam, of United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C., informs me that he is not aware of
a single authentic record of the breeding of the Rough-
legged Hawk anywhere within the limits of the United
States.
SUBSISTS MAINLY ON FIELD MICE.
In the Rough-legged Hawk, we find another exam-
ple of one of our larger feathered mouse hunters, which
is often slandered by the name of “hen-hawk.”
Since the Sealp Act was in force, and thousands of
the most beneficial hawks were slain, this species has
become, I might say, almost a rare visitor to marshy
lands where in former years, I have found it frequently
quite plentiful. The viscera of sixteen of these hawks
which the writer has examined. contained only field
mice and a few other small rodents. The food-table.
avs
ve
ROUGH LEGGED HAWK AYOUNG)
198
given by Dr. A. IX. Fisher, of 49 stomachs, shows con-
clusively that meadow mice constitute almost wholly
the food of the species. Prof. Samuel Aughey found
the remains ef a gopher, a small lizard, and seventy
insects in the stomach of a Rough-leg killed in Ne-
braska, in September, 1872; however, such food ma-
terials according to most authorities, ave seldom taken.
Of the 49 stomachs referred to by Dr. Fisher, 40 con-
tained mice, chiefly meadow mice; usually, 2 or 3 in
each stomach, sometimes 4 or 5, and in several
stomachs, each contained 6 or 7 of these little animals.
DESTROYS ENEMIES OF THE ORCHARD.
“The Rough-leg is one of the most nocturnal of our hawks,
and may he seen in the fading twilight watching from some
low perch, or beating with measured, noiseless flight over its
hunting ground. It follows two very different methods in
securing its food, cne by sitting on some stub or low tree
and watching the ground for the appearance of its prey, as
the Red-tail dces: the other by beating back and forth, just
above the tops of the grass or bushes, and dropping upon its
victim, after the manner of the Marsh Hawk. Its food con-
sists principally, if not almost exclusively, of the smaller
rodents, and most prominent among these are the arvicoline
mice and lemmings. As is well known, the meadow mice
(Arvicelae) are widely distributed over the North Temperate
Zone, and often occur in immense numbers, overrunning cer-
tain sections of the country, and doing irreparable damage to
crops as well as to fruit and ornamental trees.
“Repeatedly young orchards, consisting of hundreds of
trees, and representing great money value, have been totally
destroyed by these pests. The damage is done in winter,
under the snow, where the mice eat the bark from the trees,
often completely girdling them and causing their death.
“Usually meadow mice are fairly common, if not abundant,
over a large part of the meadow and marsh lands of the
central and northern United States and temperate Canada.
To show how important meadow mice are to the Rough-leg
as an article of food, it may be statéd in general terms that
the southern limit of its wanderings in winter is nearly co-
incident with the southern boundary of the region inhabited
by meadow mice. In the north lemmings are abundant over
the country in which the Rough-leg makes its summer home,
and furnish a never-failing supply of food for old and young.
“The following statements indicate to what extent the
Rough-leg feeds on meadow mice: “Mr. E. O. Damon, of
Northamptcn, Massachusetts, informs the writer that he has
killed hundreds of these hawks on the low meadows bordering
the Connecticut river, and of the many stomachs he ex-
13--I
194
amined all contained the remains of meadow mice. He further
states that he never found even a frog in its stomach or saw
it attack anything larger than a rat or meadow mouse. Dr.
Michaner (in U. S. Agr. Rept., 1863, p. 291), says of the Rough-
leg: “The number of meadow mice which this species destroys
ought, one wculd think, to insure it-the protection of every
husbandman."’ Dr. J. C. Merrill states that the stomachs of
those killed at Fort Klamath, Oregon, usually contained field
mice. (Auk. Vol. V, p. 145.) Mr. A. Hall, writing of this
hawk in Nebraska, says: “This species is very abundant in
winter, and subsists entirely upon mice, frogs and small
rodents. It seldom, if ever, preys upon birds.’’ (Forest and
Stream, Vol. XX, May 10, 1883, p. 284.’") (Dr. A. K. Fisher's
Report.)
CO EDEN ENG kee
195
GOLDEN EAGLE.
Aquila chrysaetos.
DESCRIPTION.
Tarsi densely feathered all around to base of yellow toes.
Length about 3 feet; extent 6% to 74% feet.
Adult.—General color dark brown; the lengthened pointed
feathers ef hind neck golden brown; feathers of tarsi pale
yellowish-brown; tail blackish and grayish.
Immature.—Basal two-thirds of all tail white, with a blackish
terminal band, lower parts much lighter than adult.
Aabitat.—North America south to Mexico, and northern
parts of the Old World. A winter resident in Pennsylvania.
This large bird occurs in Pennsylvania as a winter
visitant. The only species with which it is sometimes
confounded is the Bald or White-headed Eagle in im-
mature plumage. The two species can always be dis-
tinguished at a single glance, if you remember that the
Golden Eagle has the tarsus densely feathered to the
toes, and the Bald Eagle has a bare tarsus. One of
the largest Golden Eagles I ever saw was captured in
December, 1889, by a hunter in Cameron county. This
bird, which was handsomely mounted by my friend,
Mr. M. M. Larrabee, of Emporium, weighed, Mr. Larra-
bee informed me, twenty-five pounds. The species
breeds in high mountainous regions and the Arctic
countries.
There is a specimen of the Golden Eagle, in the
Museum of the Pennsylvania State College, captured a
few years ugo in Clinton county, where for several
days, when deep snow covered the ground, it lingered
about a farm house and preyed upon chickens and
turkeys, and when it was shot it had just swooped
down on a favorite pussy which spent most of her time
in a swampy, grassy thicket, near the barnyard, watch
ing for small birds and rabbits.
196
THE GOLDEN EAGLE AS A PET.
The following mention of the peculiarities of the
Golden Eagle in captivity [ gleaned from conversation
with Mr. B. M. Everhart, the well-known botanist of
West Chester, Pa., who for several years kept one in
his yard. This bird, in consequence of a gun-shot
wound in the wing, was unable to fly off. All the yard
situated to the north and east of the house was known
as Nero’s (bird’s name) domain. Along the walk lead-
ing to my office was his perch, a dead tree stump some
eight feet high. When satiated with food he would
sit there for hours at a time. If at any time during
the day a cat or domestic fowl happened to enter his
ground, it had to make a speedy departure or be killed.
The latter was mostly the case, for Nero seldom “went
for” anything without his capturing it. When I ne-
glected to give him his daily allowance (two pounds
meat), aS was sometimes the case, he wandered about
the yard uttering a ventriloquial, gutteral sound,
which had the effect of bringing around him birds and
chickens. Occasionally the former, and invariably
the latter, weuld be killed. Towards people, other
than myself, he displayed great animosity, this being
particularly the case with children and timorous indi-
viduals. One day Joshua Hoopes, a school teacher at
that time, brought a party of his boys to see the bird,
and [ noticed one of their number, a puny and delicate
lad, the eagle continually eyed and several times en-
deavored to make at him. A female domestic, who
had annoyed him by throwing water on him and pok-
ing at him with a stick, he showed great antipathy to;
we were eventually obliged, for her personal safety
and our own convenience, to discharge the girl, as she
could not go into the yard without being attacked.
197
An Irishman one day slyly entered the yard, but in
crossing Nero’s proyince he was set upon by the bird.
In the fleshy part of the man’s thigh he imbedded his
talons. and it was with considerable difficulty his hold
was loosened. Erin’s son declared that never before
in his life had he met “sich a divil,’ and that nothing
short of the eagle’s life could appease his injuries.
Examination showed that although there were ugly
flesh wounds, nothing of a serious nature would fol-
low. This information being imparted, and a two dol-
lar bill tendered to the Irishman, his sufferings were
muéh relieved. He stated that although he looked
upon the “critter” as a “bold, bad burd,” still he
deemed him a fit subject to “kape frum” any intrusion
in the back yard, and that in the future, whenever he
had any business with Bridget, he would enter the
front gate and make known his wants at the front
door.
HE DEVOURED THOMAS CATS.
The strongest and largest tom cat he could manage
with ease. When anyone had a specially objectiona-
ble cat which they wanted disposed of, they would bag
it up and bring it to the eagle. As soon as he saw
the bag the bird, which an instant before sat moping,
ruffed-feathered and seemingly half dead, suddenly, as
if by magic, changed, as it were, into a new being;
body erect, feathers close to the body, tail expanded,
the sunken eyes, with ten-fold increased lustre, fol-
lowed with argus gaze every motion of the bag and
occupant; soon as grimalkin was liberated the eagle
swooped down and grasped it. If the cat was of or-
dinary size, Nero displayed little concern in dispatch-
ing it; but if it was a Thomas feline, of hugh dimen-
sions, all the powers of the bird were brought into
198
requisition. Then the true nature of the eagle was
seen. The eyes, before bright, now shone like balls of
fire, the crest feathers standing up; his voice, before
hushed, now added discord to the dying yells of his
struggling victim, so inextricably fixed in his relent-
less talons. He could kill a cat in from two to five
minutes.
WOULD SEIZE GRIMALKIN BY NECK AND BACK.
Commonly, the eagle would grasp the cat around the
small of the back with one foot and with the other he
encireled the neck, thus retaining his hold until the
animal had ceased its struggles, which were soon over,
as they were greatly augmented by fright and exces-
sive violence of action. When the cat became quiet
the eagle would raise his wings, which he had allowed
to drop, draw his body up as high as possible from his
prey, and proceed leisurely to tear off the skin from
his captive’s back and side, exposing the muscles and
viscera, which he ate.
FOOD OF THE GOLDEN EAGLE.
Golden Eagles are rather rare in this State, hence
their depredations to poultry, game and live stock
occasion comparatively little loss within our State’s
boundaries. Domestic fowls, ducks and turkeys es-
pecially, are often devoured; different species of water
birds, grouse and wild turkeys suffer chiefly among the
game birds. Fawns are sometimes attacked and
killed; occasionally it destroys young pigs, and fre-
quently many lambs are carried off by this eagle.
Many rabbits are preyed upon; in this State, the Vary-
ing Hare and common Gray Rabbit or “cotton-tail”
form a portion of its menu.
Last winter a farmer residing near Harrisburg, shot
199
one of these eagles, which was feasting on a large
vander, which he had just killed; but as the man sold
the eagle, a fine male, for three dollars he lost nothing
by the death of his goose. When other food is scarce
it feeds on offal and carrion like many other species
of the birds of prey are wont to do when deep snows
cover the ground. When there is a paucity of wild
game, its natural food, this powerful bird, it is as-
serted, often becomes very troublesome and frequently
attacks the young of domestic animals, such as lambs,
calves and pigs.
EAGLES DESTROYED MANY LAMBS.
To illustrate the damage which eagles sometimes do
on sheep ranches, Dr. Fisher publishes the following
letter to Col. Alexander Macbeth, of Georgetown, S.
C., which fully explains how destructive eagles may
occasionally become. This letter, as Dr. Fisher ob
serves, “may refer in part to the Bald Eagle”:
Rhems, Georgetown County, S. C., May 30, 18sS9.
Dear Sir:—Yours 22d instant at hand, and in reply will say
that the eagles are more destructive to the sheep-growing
industry in this section than dogs. On one ranch this spring
one shepherd alone killed over forty himself, principally by
using strychnine. They were worse than we ever knew of
Lefore. We lost fully 400 or 500 lambs, as they devour them
as fast as they drop from the old sheep. * be sa We
frequently see during eagle or lambing season fifteen to
twenty eagles in a covey (or bunch), which shows at a glance
that they are very destructive. We have also a few wild-
cats that devour the young sheep, but can manage them better
than eagles.
Yours very truly,
T. RHEM AND SONS.
ADULT DEER ATTACKED.
Some years ago I saw the remains of a Golden Eagle
hanging, with some pelts, on a hunter’s cabin in the
wilds of Clinton county, Pa., and on making inquiry,
learned that the bird had been shot in the act of at-
200
tacking a small doe. Mr. ©. F. Morrison writing of a
similar case which had been called to his attention,
says:
“The bird had captured and killed a good-sized black-tailed
deer, and was hot while sitting upon its body. (O. & O.,Vol.
XIV, 1889.)
Dr. Fisher publishes the following paragraph by Mr. Henry
Seebohm: “‘The Golden Eagle has been known on one highland
sheep farm alone, in the course of a single season, to carry
off as many as thirty-five lambs. = ey ae In deer for-
ests eagles are of the greatest service; for although they some-
times take a sickly deer calf, they live almost entirely on
blue hares, so troublesome to the deer stalker; and most cer-
tainly deer are better for the removal of the weak and sickly
ones, which would only possibly live to transmit their disease
to posterity. * * * The Golden Eagle (noble as he is
thought to be) will eat carrion when pressed for food. =
* a The Golden Eagle also preys upon various species of
birds, notably the blackcock and red grouse, ptarmigan,
curlews and plover, dropping upon them unawares or simply
taking the young and weakly ones; for never does the bird
pursue or strike them like the true falcon.”
BALD, SAGES
201
BALD EAGLE.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus.
DESCRIPTION.
Tarsi feathered only about half way down.
Male.—Length about 3 feet: extent of wings about 7 feet.
Female larger, measuring sometimes 8 feet in extent.
Adult.—Head, neck, tail and upper coverts of latter, white;
rest of plumage dusky-brown; bill, feet and eyes yellow.
Immature.—Entire plumage dark brown; some are grayish-
brown, and tail more or less spotted with white; bill dark-
colored, eyes brown.
Habitat.—North America at large, south to Mexico. Breeds
sparingly in Pennsylvania.
The name “Bald” which is given to this species is
not applied because the head is bare, but because the
feathers of the neck and head in the adults are pure
white. In Pennsylvania, as well as throughout the
United States, we have but two species of eagles.
The “Black,” Gray” and “Washington” Eagles are all
young of the Bald Eagle. Three years, it is stated.
are required before this species assumes the adult
plumage.
The Bald Eagle is found in Pennsylvania at all sea-
sons of the year.
THE NEST AND EGGS.
A few of these birds annually rear their young along
the Susquehanna river, and also in a few other locali-
ties in this State. The nest, a bulky affair, built usually
on a large tree, mostly near the water, is about four or
five feet in diameter. It is made up chiefly of large
sticks, lined inside with grasses, leaves, etc. The eggs
commonly two—rarely three—are white and measure
about 8 by 23 inches. A favorite article of food with
this bird is fish, which he obtains, chiefly by strategy
and rapine.
13*--I1
202 ‘
THE BALD EAGLE AND OSPREY.
The Bald Eagle is quite plentiful in the vicinity of
large rivers, where the Fish Hawk is common; unlike
this last named bird, however, he cannot be called pis-
civorous, as he subsists largely on ducks, geese, and
other aquatic birds. Referring to this eagle, Audu-
bon says:
“No sooner does the Fish Hawk make its appearance along
our Atlantic shores, or ascends our numerous and large rivers,
than the eagle follows it, and, like a selfish oppressor, robs
it of the hard-earned fruits of its labor. Perched on some
tall summit, in view of the ocean, or of some water course,
he watches every motion of the Fish Hawk while on wing.
When the latter rises from the water with a fish in its grasp,
forth rushes the eagle in pursuit. He mounts above the Fish
Hawk, and threatens it by actions well understood, when the
latter, fearing perhaps that its life is in danger, drops its
prey. In an instant the eagle, accurately estimating the
rapid descent of the fish. closes his wings, follows it with
the swiftness of thought, and the next moment grasps it.”
SOMETIMES FISHES FOR HIMSELF.
According to Audubon the Bald Eagle catches fish
for himself.
“This bird now and then procures fish for himself by pur-
suing them in the shallows of small creeks. I have witnessed
several instances of this in the Perkiomen creek, in Pennsyl-
vania, where, in this manner, I saw one of them secure a
number of red fins by wading briskly through the water and
striking at them with his bill. I have also observed a pair
scrambling over the ice of a frozen pond to get at some fish
below, but without success. It does not confine itself to these
kinds of food, but greedily devours young pigs, lambs, fawns,
poultry and the putrid flesh of carcasses of every description,
driving off the vultures and carrion crows or the dogs, and
keeping a whole party at defiance until it is satiated.”
KILLS LAMBS AND PIGS.
Dr. Fisher publishes the following notes froin the
Forest and Stream concerning the destruction of do-
mestie animals:
A number of eagles have recently been shot in various
parts of Pennsylvania. One, shot by John Hodman in North
Coventry, Chester county, had carried off bodily a large lamb
BALD EAGLE.(YOUNG)
203
and returned ‘the following day, after another."’ (Vol. V. 1875, p.
195.) “A large White-headed Eagle swooped down on a flock
of sheep here (Hornellsville, New York) and made a _break-
fast on lamb chops before he could be driven off.’ (Vol. X,
1878, p. 319.) “It (the Bald Eagle) was killed by a Mr. Towry,
near Smithville, Mississippi. When found by Mr. Towry it
had killed two of his hogs and was dining on one of them.”
(Vol. VIII, 1877.)
Dr. Fisher also refers to an article published in the
Forest and Stream (Vol. IV, 1875, p. 166) in which a
Bald Eagle was seen to fly five miles with a live lamb
in its talons.
HOW THEY CAPTURE GEESE.
Dr. Fisher reproduces from Bulletin of the Nuttall
Ornith. Club, the following very interesting note from
Mr. Wm. Brewster, and which refers to the manner
in which the Eagles catch wild-fowl in the vicinity of
Cobb’s Island, Virginia:
“In the winter the eagles are much more numerous than at
any other time of the year, and my informant has, on sev-
eral occasions, seen as many as eight at once. At this sea-
son the neighboring bays and creeks swarm with wild fowl,
and upon these the eagles principally live. He has never
known them to catch fish of any kind, although they not
unfrequently rob the Fish Hawk. Geese and brant form
their favorite food, and the address displayed in their capture
is very remarkable. The poor victim has apparently not the
slightest chance for escape. The eagle's flight, ordinarily
slow and somewhat heavy, becomes in the excitement of
pursuit exceedingly swift and graceful, and the fugitive is
quickly overtaken. When close upon its quarry the eagle sud-
denly sweeps beneath it, and, turning back downwards,
thrusts its powerful talons up into its breast. A brant or
duck is carried off bodily to the nearest marsh or sand bar,
but a Canada goose is too heavy to be thus easily disposed
of. The two great birds fall together to the water beneath,
while the eagle fiterally tows his prize along the surface
until the shore is reached. In this way one has been known
to drag a large goose for nearly half a mile.”
WILL SOMETIMES ATTACK MANKIND.
If newspaper and numerous written accounts are
true (and unfortunately many are not) it would ap-
pear that even man is not exempt from the attacks
204
of these predaceous birds. I have repeatedly seen in
newspapers, accounts of combats between men and
eagles; frequently the bird would be the aggressor.
While it is admitted that these reports are largely
due to the imaginative reporter, it is believed that such
occurrences do occasionally take place. Veritable in-
stances are related of their carrying off infants. Ac
cording to Wilson:
“An attempt of this kind was made upon a child lying by its
mother, as she was weeding a garden, at Egg Harbor, New
Jersey, but the garment seized upon by the eagle giving way at
the instant of the attempt, the child’s life was spared.’ Nut-
tall speaks of an instance said to have happened at Peters-
burg, Georgia, near the Savannah river, ‘“‘where an infant,
sleeping in the shade near the house, was seized and carried
off to the eyry, near the edge of the swamp, five miles dis-
tant, and when found, almost immediately, the child was
dead.”’
DESTROYS POULTRY AND GAME.
This bird very often preys on birds and mammals.
I have knowledge of at least two of these birds which
have killed poultry (tame ducks and turkeys) along the
Susquehanna river. Duck hunters assured me that
they have, on several occasions, seen Bald Eagles at-
tack and kill wild ducks and geese which are often
quite numerous during migrations on the Susquehanna
river.
Sometimes, like the Golden Eagle, this species will
attack raccoons, and skunks; and on one occasion I
found two or three spines of a porcupine in the body
of an immature Bald Eagle which I secured in Clinton
county. This led me to infer that the Bald Eagle
might, sometimes, attack this animal which is so well
able to defend himself, and which seems to be of no use
in eur hemlock forests but to ruin hunting dogs, and
gnaw everything which is the least bit salty, that they
find in their noctural ramblings about the lumber
camps.
ix
DUCK HAWK.
DUCK HAWK.
Falco peregrinus anatum.
DESCRIPTION.
Size as well as colors variable. A female before me is 20
inches long, and measures from tip to tip 46 inches; tail, 8.
Male smaller.
Above blackish-brown or slaty-black, and many feathers
with paler edgings; chin, throat, forepart of neck and upper
breast yellowish-white, and sometimes nearly immaculate,
but usually more or less streaked or spotted; showy black
ear patches; frontal feathers whitish, rest of under parts
barred and streaked with blackish and lighter colors. Im-
mature birds are more brown and lower parts are much more
spotted with dark and less barred. Bill bluish-black, except
about base, like cere is yellowish; legs yellow; iris brown.
Habitat.—North America at large. Resident and breeds
sparingly .in Pennsylvania.
This bold and predatory hawk, the largest of the
typical falcons found in this region, retires, usually
during the summer time, to the mountainous districts,
generally in the neighborhood of large streams, and in
the winter season (fall, winter and early spring), it is
found as an irregular visitor in nearly all sections of
our Commonwealth.
THE NEST AND EGGS.
The Duck Hawk breeds in several localities in Penn-
sylvania, and in some parts of the state it is reported
to be quite common. The late Judge Libhart, of Lan-
caster county, twelve or fifteen years ago, observed it
as a “resident, common on the Susquehanna.” Dy.
Treichler, Mr. Roddy and other more recent observers,
report the Duck Hawk in Lancaster county as a rather
rare visitor, commonly seen in winter. The following
gentlemen report this species as a native: Hon. Gerard
C. Brown, Casper Loucks and George Miller all of
i
206
York county, state that it is a vegular breeder
on the high cliffs about the Susquehanna. Concerning
the bird Mr. George Miller furnishes the following
notes: “Found nest of Duck Hawk April 7, 1880. It
contained four eggs slightly incubated; hawk on nest
when discovered, along Susquehanna river near mouth
of Codorus creek. Nest about one-third down from
top of a high cliff on shelf with overhanging rock; nest
made of rocky debris found lying about. Remains of
birds, such as tame pigeons, flickers, blackbirds, ete.,
upen which the Duck Hawks had evidently been feed-
ing, were found plentifully scattered over the rocks.
I shot the male soon after collecting the eggs, and
have it now in my collection of birds.” Dr. W. L.
Hartman, of Luzerne county, says:
“The Great-footed or Duck Hawk breeds regularly
in this locality (Pittston) in an almost inaccessible
ledge of rocks.” Mr. Thomas 8, Gillin, Ambler, Mont-
gomery county, says: “I have had many opportunities
of observing them, having shot twelve inside of a ra-
dius of five miles of this place; in fact see them regu-
larly, and know of two nesting places in this state.”
Dr. T. Z. Hazzard, Allegheny county; Mr. O. B. Hark,
Northampton county, and W. P. Bolton, Montgomery
county, also mention it as a breeder. Dr. John W.
Detwiller and Mr. Samuel Mack, both residents of
Bethlehem, have, on different occasions, found Duck
Hawks’ nests. With regard to their breeding in this
State, Dr. Detwiller (letter Novemher 2, 1889), says:
‘Duck Hawk; secured set of four eggs from the cliffs
of Camel’s Ledge, Pittston, 1880; 1886, secured two
sets of four eggs in each set, one at Skinner’s Eddy and
the other at Buttermilk Falls, Susquehanna river
(East Branch). 1887, secured a set of four eggs, and
another of three, at ‘The Narrows,’ Delaware river.
Month of incubation, April.” Reports which | have
received from other naturalists and collectors, show
that the Duck Hawk has been observed in other parts
of the State as a straggler in the spring and fall, or as
a rather rare and irregular winter visitor. I have
never found the nest of this bird.
Dr. Coues states that it ‘breeds as far south as Virginia
at least; eggs, 2-5, oftener 3-4, 2.10 to 2.35x1.60 to 1.75, averag-
ing about 2.25x1.65; white or whitish, spotted, blotched,
wreathed, clouded, ete., with the reddish-browns, from choco-
late or even purplish to the ochres.’’—Key, N. A. Birds.
KILLS DOMESTIC FOWLS.
This hawk, like the Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned spe-
cies previously described, is detrimental, but fortu-
nately for the farmer and fruit grower the Duck Hawk
is a comparatively rare bird, and, except in winter,
is found usually about the larger rivers. However,
when a pair of these birds begin house-keeping on a
high, rocky ledge in the neighborhood of farm houses,
they frequently destroy a good many domestic fowls.
For several years past a pair of these hawks have
nested in an inaccessible nook on a high rocky bluff
along the Susquehanna river across from Northumber-
land, Pa., and several poultry raisers in that locality
have had a good many of their fowls killed by them.
Two years ago, in mid-winter, a farmer living along
the Brandywine creek near West Chester, brought to
my office two of these hawks which he had killed one
evening at his carp pond where, he stated, they went
to watch and catch his ducks and chickens. He said
that this pair of hawks had killed eight chiekens and
three ducks for him in about a week, and that they
had also caught several of his pigeons.
208
PLAYED HAVOC WITH TERNS.
Dr. C. Hart Merriam (Birds of Conn., 1877, p. 82,) re-
ferring to a Duck Hawk which was shot on Falkner
Island, Connecticut, says:
“During her brief visit she had made sad havoc among the
terns, and her crop was greatly distended with their re-
mains, which had been swallowed in incredibly large pieces;
whole legs, and long bones of the wings were found entire
and unbroken; indeed she was perfectly gorged, and contained
the remains of at least two terns, besides a mass of newly-
hatehed young.”
KILLS WILD FOWL.
I have seen this species catch the Coot (Fulica) and
a Wood Duck on the Susquehanna river. Audubon
SAYS:
“He pursues the smaller ducks, water hens and other swim-
ming birds, and if they are not quick in diving it seizes them
and rises with them from the water. I have seen this hawk
come at the report of a gun and carry off a teal not thirty
steps distant from the sportsman who had killed it, with
a daring assurance as surprising as unexpected. This con-
duct has been observed by many individuals, and is a char-
acteristic trait of this species. The largest bird that I
have seen this hawk attack and grapple with on the wing
is the mallard.
“The Duck Hawk does not, however, content himself with
water fowl. He is generally seen following the flocks of
pigeons, and even blackbirds, causing great terror in their
ranks, and forcing them to perform aerial evolutions to escape
the grasp of his dreaded talons. For several days I watched
one of them that had taken a particular fancy to some tame
pigeons, to secure which it went so far as to enter their house
at one of the holes, seize a bird, and issue by another hole in
an instant, causing such terror among the rest as to render me
fearful that they would abandon the place. However, I for-
tunately shot the depredator. They occasionally feed on dead
fish that have floated to the shores or sand bars.’’—Audubon,
I have examined but three of these hawks; the
stomachs of two were destitute of food materials, the
other contained a few feathers of a domestic pigeon.
THEY PREY ON SONG BIRDS.
Dr. Fisher’s report shows that of twenty stomachs
of Duck Hawks examined, not less than four-fifths, or
209
sixteen, contained poultry (chickens or ducks), game
birds (quail or wild ducks) and small wild birds of
which the following species were identified:
Meadow Lark, Gray-cheeked Thrush,
Warbler, Catbird,
Robin, Mourning Dove.
Crissal Thrasher,
The only mammal eaten as shown by these records
were two mice which were taken from the stomach of
one of these hawks killed at Elmira, N. Y., in De-
cember, 1887. Another of this series captured at
Portland, Conn., in April, 1886, had the remains of a
tame duck and some beetles in its stomach; “small
bird’s” remains, which could not be identified, with
“dragon flies,” were discovered in another hawk taken
October 1, 1884, in Brookhaven, N. Y. The four re-
maining stomachs of the twenty last referred to were
empty.
14--I]
210
PIGEON HAWK.
Faleo columbarius.
DESCRIPTION.
Adult Male.—Entire upper parts bluish-slate color, every
feather with a black longitudinal line; forehead and throat
white; other under parts pale yellowish or reddish white; every
feather with a longitudinal line of brownish-black; tibiae light
ferruginous, with lines of black; quills black, tipped with ashy-
white; tail light bluish-ashy, tipped with a white and with a
wide subterminal band of black, and with several other trans-
verse narrower bands of black; inner webs nearly white; cere
and legs yellow; bill blue; iris brown.
Younger.—Entire upper plumage dusky brown, quite light in
some specimens, and with a tinge of ashy; head above, with
narrow stripes of dark brown and ferruginous, and in some
specimens many irregular spots and edgings of the latter color
on the upper parts; forehead and entire under part dull white,
the latter witn longitudinal stripes of light brown; sides and
flanks light brown; tibia dull white with dashes of brown;
pairs of circular spots of white; tail pale brown, with about
six transverse bands of white; cere and legs greenish-yellow.
Young.—Upper plumage brownish-black, white of the fore-
head and under parts more deeply tinged with reddish-yellow;
dark stripes wider than in preceding; sides and flanks with
wide transverse bands of brownish-black, and with circular
spots of yellowish-white; quills black; tail brownish-black,
tipped with white, and with about four bands of white; cere
and feet greenish-yellow.
Total length, female 12 to 14 inches; wing 8 to 9 inches; tail
5 to 5% inches. Male, total length, 10 to 11 inches; wing
7% to 8 inches; tail 5 inches.—Baird’s B. B. of N. A.
Habitat.—The whole of North America, south to the West
Inqgies and northern South America.
This little faleon breeds chiefly north of parallel 43
degrees, though, as Dr. Fisher adds, “in the mountains
it extends south of this latitude, and in the mountains
of some of the West Indian Islands it is a summer
resident.” T have observed this hawk only as a visitor
during the winter season; further investigations, how-
ever, may show that it, as some assert, occurs as a
native in some of our higher mountainous districts.
According to my experience this species is rather rare
a
PIGEON HAWK.
211
in this State, and is oftener met with in the moun-
tainous and wooded districts than elsewhere.
FEEDS PRINCIPALLY ON BIRDS.
Field observations and post-mortem examinations
made by numerous naturalists show very conclusively
that althoveh the Pigeon Hawk will sometimes de-
stroy poultry, tame pigeons, and even game birds as
large as the Ptarmigan, it preys mainly on various
kinds of small wild birds. It sometimes catches in-
sects, and small quadrupeds.
The following is taken from my note book in rela
tion to a pair of these hawks: Two Pigeon Hawks dur-
ing the Jaie fall lurked about the southern suburbs of
the borough of West Chester, preying at regular inter-
vals on the pigeons of a blacksmith. In one week the
hawks killed or drove away fifty of these birds. The
hawks would enter the boxes and take from them the
pigeons.
DEVOURS MANY BENEFICIAL BIRDS.
An examination of Dr. Fisher’s food-table of this
species shows very conclusively that these birds prey
on a great variety of birds, particularly those of the
sparrow family. In the stomachs of fifty-one Pigeon
hawks mentioned by Dr. Fisher, forty-one contained
small birds and of these the following species were
identified :
Song Sparrow, Swift,
English Sparrows, Flicker,
Indigo Bird, Warblers,
Field Sparrow, Bobolink,
Swamp Sparrows, Tree Swallow,
Chipping Sparrow, Red-eyed Vireos,
Goldfinchs, Brown Creeper,
Thrush, Blue-headed Vireo.
212
VIEWS OF DIFFERENT WRITERS.
The following paragraphs are quoted from Dr.
Fisher’s report:
“The food of the Pigeon Hawk consists mainly of small and
medium-sized birds, especially the gregarious species, insects,
and occasionally small mammals. Pigeons, flickers and
grackles are about as large birds as it usually attacks, though
Dr. Dall, in one instance, saw it kill a ptarmigan, and Dr. EH. A.
Mearns speaks of a specimen shot in the act of destroying a
hen. Among the insects dragon flies are favorite morsels for
this hawk, and the apparent ease with which it captures these
nimble-winged insects demonstrates better than anything else
its remarkable power of flight. The writer has also found
grasshoppers, crickets and beetles among the stomach con-
tents.
Like the Duck Hawk, the species under consideration occa-
sionally captures small mammals when its ordinary food is
scarce, though according to Dr. J. G. Cooper, it sometimes
feeds quite extensively on them. He says: ‘‘Though small, the
Pigeon Hawk has all the fierceness and courage of a true fal-
con, and captures birds fully as large as itself. It, however,
chiefly follows the flocks of gregarious birds, such as black-
birds, doves, etc., and preys much on mice, gophers and squir-
rels. I have not heard of its attacking domestic poultry, and
those farmers who shoot every ‘chicken hawk’ that comes
around the house would do well to observe them more closely,
and will discover that these small species are not the young
of the larger ones, and should rather be encouraged than de-
stroyed. (Ornith. Cala., Land Birds, 1870, p. 461.)
Wilson sums up its food as follows: ‘‘When the reed birds,
grackles and red-winged blackbirds congregate in large flights,
he is often observed hovering in their rear, or on their flanks,
picking up the weak, the wounded or stragglers, and fre-
quently making a sudden and fatal sweep into the very midst
of their multitudes. The flocks of robins and pigeons are hon-
ored with the same attentions from this marauder.” (Am.
Ornithology, Vol. I, 1881, p. 61, 62.)
Audubon speaks of its food as follows: “It seizes the red-
breasted thrush, the wild pigeon, and even the golden-winged
woodpecker on land, whilst along the shores it chases several
species of snipes, as well as the green-winged teal.” (Ornith.
Biography, Vol. I, p. 467.)
Mr. John Murdoch mentions four Pigeon Hawks which, on
September 5, came out to the vessel as it was crossing the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, and says: ‘‘The first that appeared had
a Leach’s petrel, dead, in his talons. He alighted with this on
the fore cross-trees, and proceeded to eat it.” (Bull. Nutt.
Ornith. Club, Vol. II, 1877, p. 79.)
Dr. Coues, speaking of the species in Labrador, says: “On
the 25th of the same month (August), at Henley Harbor, an-
other individual was seen foraging among the immense flocks
of curlews (Numentus borealis) which then covered the hills
in the vicinity.’’ (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1861, p. 216.)
In Texas, Mr. George B, Sennett secured a bird whose crop
213
contained nearly the whole of a ground dove. Mr. Thomas Mc-
Ilraith mentions seeing one of these falcons dive into a flock
of blackbirds on one of the marshes of Ontario, and says: ‘Il
once saw him ‘stoop’ on a flock as they hurried toward the
marsh for shelter. How closely they had huddled together,
as if seeking mutual protection, but he went right through
the flock and came out on the other side with one in each
fist.’ (Birds of Ontario, 1886, p. 149.)
Occasionally the Pigeon Hawk is quite destructive
to young chickens, as the following from the pen of
the late Dr. William Wood will show:
“In May, 1860, a gentleman who resides some five miles dis-
tant, informed me that a small hawk came almost every
day and earried off a chicken for him. = be s The next
day the same little hawk returned and was shot, and is now
in my collection, a beautiful representative of the Pigeon
Hawk.” (Am. Nat., Vol. VII, p. 342.)
214
SPARROW HAWK.
Falco sparverius.
DESCRIPTION.
“Small, wings narrow and pointed; top of head bluish-gray
or dark slate, the crown with or without a rufous patch.
Male. —Tail chestnut rufous, crossed by a broad black band
near end; wings grayish-blue, more or less spotted with black.
Above: Rufous, with or without black bars or spots. Below:
Verne: from white to deep rufous, with or without black
spots.
Female, —Tail, wings and back crossed by numerous narrow
bands of dusky.”’ (Fisher.)
Length, 10 to 12 inches; extent. of wings 18 to 23 inches; tail
4% to 5% inches. Iris brown: legs and feet yellow.
Habitat.—Whole of North America, south to northern South
America. Common and breeds generally throughout Pennsyl-
vania.
The Sparrow Hawk is the smallest and most beau-
tiful of the American hawks. During migrations in
the spring and autumn and throughout the summer
months the Sparrow Hawk is common in nearly all
sections of this State, except perhaps in the heavily
wooded mountainous districts where, according to my
experience, the species is rather rare. In southern
Pennsylvania, especially in Chester, Delaware, Lancas-
ter and York counties, this bird is of frequent occur-
rence as a winter resident, but in the central and
northern counties of our State it is regarded as a
rather unusual winter sojourner.
NEST, EGGS AND YOUNG.
In southeastern Pennsylvania where this species was
in former years a very common summer resident they
begin nesting in April. The eggs, usually five in num-
ber, are deposited in hollow trees, generally the de-
serted hole of a woodpecker. The eggs measure about
SPARROW HAWK.
215
1.33 by 1.13 inches and are of a whitish or pale-yellow
brown color, blotehed all over with dark brown.
When the young or eggs are disturbed the parent
birds will sometimes defend invasion of their home
with great temerity.
Some few years ago I was endeavoring to secure the
young from a nest of this species. I had climbed the
tree to the hole, about thirty-five feet from the ground,
wherein were snugly packed five young, one of which
I removed, when both old birds assailed me. They
several times struck my head and army with their
talons and wings. So persistent were their attacks
that I, desiring to obtain the young alive, directed a
companion who stood nearby to shoot both birds. 1
have repeatedly taken the eggs and young of this bird
but never, except in the above cited instance, encoun-
tered such determined opposition.
When reared from the nest the Sparrow Hawk will
soon become attached to its master. I raised two.
which were given their freedom. Both birds would
come at my call and alight on my outstretched arm
or shoulders, anxiously waiting for a grasshopper or
piece of meat, which was always their recompense.
This hawk will resort for several] consecutive years
to the same tree for breeding purposes. From Doctor
Wood’s “Birds of Connecticut.” the following remarks,
with regard to the nesting of this bird, are taken:
“One of my collectors found a nest of four eggs in the top
of a stump about ten feet from the ground. This nest was
composed of grass, and was discovered by the grass protruding
through a crack in the stump. Whether this hawk constructed
this nest, or whether it had been made by some other bird, it
is impossible to tell, but if this hawk constructs no nest, as
asserted by Dr. Brewer and others, it must have obtained
it piratically, as the nest was new. In another instance, which
oceurred in Granby. Connecticut, the nest was known to have
been obtained in this way: A farmer made a dove house in-
side of his barn, with holes through the sides of the building
216
communicating with it. A pair of doves that had mated were
attacked and killed by a pair of Sparrow Hawks, who took
possession of their nest, laid four eggs and commenced in-
cubating.”
Incubation, which lasts for about a period of from
twenty-one to twenty-four days, is engaged in by both
birds, and while one is sitting its mate supplies it with
food. \Vhen first hatched the young are covered with
a white down. ‘The food of young, while under pa-
rental care, f have found to consist chiefly of insects.
PROTECT THE SPARROW HAWK.
The farmer, fruit grower and sportsmen should
learn the true value of this little hawk, as he is one
of the most desirable feathered visitors and should not
by even the most casual observer be mistaken for that
destructive marauder the Sharp-shinned Hawk. The
Sparrow Hawk preys to a very considerable extent on
English sparrows.
Popular ignorance of the great service which this
species does to the farmer and pomologist, by destroy-
ing myriads of noxious insects, together with the in-
disposition or inability to distinguish Sparrow hawks
from the Sharp-shinned and smaller individuals of
Sooper’s hawk, which so many people have, have re-
sulted in placing Sparrow hawks under ban, and they
are destroyed by farmers and gunners in many sec-
tions with the same eagerness that they kill the de-
structive Sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks.
This useless slaughter, which, of course, was mater-
ially aided by the inducement which a “scalp act” af-
forded, has brought about a very noticeable decrease
in the number of Sparrow hawks one sees nowadays,
Twelve or fourteen years ago I have often counted
from the car windows in riding from Philadelphia to
Harrisburg from twenty to twenty-five of these little
217
falcons; but in recent years, I have never observed at
any season of the year, when going over the same
route, more than four or five of these birds.
WHAT OTHER WRITERS HAVE OBSERVED.
Allen, in his “Ornithological Notes on the Birds of the Great
Salt Lake Valley,” says: “The Sparrow Hawk, however, was
by far the most numerous of the Falconidae; thirty were seen
in the air at one time near the mouth of Weber canon, en-
gaged in the capture of the hateful grasshoppers, which seems
at this season to form the principal food of this and other
birds.” Audubon mentions that he had one of these birds
tamed. It was allowed its liberty. ‘“‘In attempting to secure a
chicken one day, the old hen attacked him with such violence
as to cost him his life.’ Dr. Wood says: ‘‘When they can-
not readily procure their favorite food, mice and small birds
are greedily devoured; and, according to a writer in the Amer-
ican Naturalist, they are not wholly devoid of the piratical
habits of the Bald Eagle. ‘‘A tame cat was crossing the
street and bearing a large mouse in ther mouth; a Sparrow
Hawk came flying over, and seeing a mouse in her mouth,
made a sudden swoop and tried to seize it with its talons, but
did not succeed. The hawk continued its attempts until they
reached the opposite side of the street, when the cat disap-
peared under the sidewalk.’ If it catches a mouse that proves
to be lousy and poor, it will leave it and seek another.”
The following quotations from Dr. A. K. Fisher’s
work (Bull. No. 3, U. S. Agr. Depart.), shows the great
fondness this hawk has for insect food:
“The subject of the food of this hawk is one of great in-
terest, and considered in its economic bearings is one that
should be carefully studied. The Sparrow Hawk is almost ex-
clusively insectivorous, except when insect food is difficult to
obtain. In localities where grasshoppers and crickets are
abundant these hawks congregate, often in moderate sized
flocks, and gorge themselves continuously. Rarely do they
touch any other form of food until, either by the advancing
season or other natural causes, the grasshopper crop is so
lessened that their hunger cannot be appeased without undue
exertion. Then other kinds of insects and other forms of life
contribute to their fare; and beetles, spiders, mice, shrews,
small snakes, lizards or even birds may be required to bring
upthe balance. In some places in the west and south telegraph
lines pass for miles through treeless plains and savannas; for
lack of better places the Sparrow Hawks often use these poles
for resting places, from which they make short trips to pick
up a grasshopper or mouse, which they carry back to their
218
perch. At times, when grasshoppers are abundant, such a line
of poles is pretty well occupied by these hawks.
“A dozen or more stomachs collected by Mr. Charles W.
Richmond, in Gallatin county, Montana, during the latter part
of August and early part of September, 1888, * * * contained
little else than grasshoppers and crickets.”
GRASSHOPPERS A FAVORITE FOOD.
“Mr. W. B. Hall, of Wakeman, Ohio, writes: bs a 4
‘The Sparrow Hawk is a most persistent enemy of the grass-
hopper tribe. While the so-called hawk law was in force in
Ohio I was township clerk in my native village and issued cer-
tificates to the number of eighty-six, forty-six being for the
Sparrow Hawk. I examined the stomachs and found forty-
five of them to contain the remains of grasshoppers and the
elytra of beetles, while the remaining one contained the fur
and bones of a meadow mouse.’ ”
“Mr. W. E. Saunders writes from London, Canada: ‘“‘Spar-
row Hawks are one of our best grasshopper destroyers; four
out of every five I have killed contained grasshoppers alone.’
The following from the pen of Mr. H. W. Henshaw substan-
tiates what we have said in regard to its fondness for grass-
hoppers: ‘It finds * = td an abundant supply of
game in the shape of small insectivorous birds, but more es-
pecially does its food consist of the various kinds of coleopter-
ous insects and grasshoppers, of which it destroys multitudes.
In fact, this last item is the most important of all, and where
these insects are abundant I have never seen them have re-
course to any other kind of food’ (Explor. West of 100th Merid.,
Wheeler, Vol. V, 1875, p. 414).”
“And subsequently the same author writes: ‘The west side
of Chewaukan Valley has suffered severely from a visitation
of that scourge of the western farmer, the grasshoppers. Here
in August Sparrow Hawks had assembled in hundreds and
were holding high carnival, and although in instances like the
present their numbers proved wholly insufficient to cope
against the vast myriads of these destructive insects, yet the
work of the Sparrow Hawk is by no means so insignificant
that it should not be remembered to his credit and earn him
well merited protection. His food consists almost entirely of
grasshoppers when they are to be had, and as his appetite ap-
pears never to become satiated, the aggregate in numbers
which are annually destroyed by him must be enormous.’ (Ap-
pendix O. O., of Annual Report of Chief of Eng., U. S. A. for ’79,
p. 314).”
“In the vicinity of Wash:ngton, D C., remarkable as it may
appear to those who have not interested themselves spectally
in the matter, it is the exception not to find grasshopprs or
crickets in the stomach of Sparrow Hawks, even when killed
during the months of January and February, unless the ground
is covered with snow.”
“Tt is wonderful how the birds can discover the half-con-
cealed semi-dormant insects, which in color so closely resemble
the ground or dry grass. Whether they are attracted by a
slight movement or distinguish the form of their prey as it sits
219
motionlesss, it is difficult to prove, but in any case the acute-
ness of their vision is of a character which we are unable to
appreciate. Feeding on insects so exclusively as they do, it is
to be presumed that they destroy a considerable number of
beneficial kinds, as well as spiders, which they find in the
same localities as the grasshoppers. However, examination
of their stomach contents show the number to be very small
compared with that of the noxious species, that it is hardly
worth considering.”
“After the several frosts of autumn and in winter, when in-
sect life is at its lowest ebb, the Sparrow Hawks devote more
time to the capture of mice and small birds. As a rule, the
birds which they capture at this time are ground-dwelling
species, which simulate the movements of mice by running in
or about the dry grass and weeds. They are mostly sparrows,
more or less seed-eating, and hence not among the species most
beneficial to the agriculturist. At this season it is common
to see Sparrow Hawks sitting on the poles over hay stacks or
stationed where they can command a good view of the sur-
roundings of a hay mow or grain crib, ready at any moment
to drop upon the mouse which is unfortunate enough to show
itself. In this way they manage to destroy a vast number of
mice during the colder months.”
“The following is an extract from a letter from W. P. Mc-
Glothlin, of Dayton, Washington: ‘There is a small hawk here
called the Sparrow Hawk. t comes about the Ist of March
and leaves with its young about August Ist. On their arrival
they are in large flocks and seem hungry. I have had a num-
ber follow my team all day long, and even alight for a moment
on the plow beam. When’a mouse was unearthed it was cap-
tured in an instant and quickly killed. The hawks seem tuo
know just when their victims are dead. They settle on some-
thing suitable to their fancy and commence eating the eyes
and then soon finish. For two weeks this mouse catching
goes on. I have sometimes seen them chase and catch small
preoe " (Bull. No. 3, Hawks and Owls, by Dr. A. K. Fisher,
1893.)
When breeding, the Sparrow Hawk has been known
to capture young chickens; their depredations, how-
ever, in this direction are not worthy of consideration
when compared with the great benefits the hawks do
by destroying injurious insects and mice.
FED MAINLY ON MICE AND INSECTS
The stomach contents of forty-eight Sparrow Hawks
captured in Chester county, Pa., and examined by the
writer are given in the following table:
Date of
Capture. Birds
July, LS S67 | ereiotein cine viniclmin eeveccsscee|
July, TSS eu kereenisie crclsfe eobddraad aacant
Apr, 3, 1886,
Dec. 29, 1886, |
Dec. 28, 1885,
Dec. 29, 1886, | Sparrow.
Jan. 17, 1886, | Song sparrow,
Feb. 8, 1886, | Tree sparrow,
Dee; 1) 1886; | sacenses ac aia} elelajs!
Dec. 8, 1886, | -+---+----« seseseseceacs!
Dec. 9, 1886, | Feathers of small
bird) <:-... Reiko}
Dec. 9, 1886, | Snow bird. .
Dec. 16, 1886, | Feathers of small
bird, =
Nov. 26, 1886, | +>
Feb. 7, 1887, |
Jan, 17, 1887,
Jan. 6, 1885, | --:+cesee sees Agaoasocnad
March, 1885, | --:-s:+seseers seer eeee oe
Jan, 1887,
Jan. 1887, |
Dec. 20, 1886, |
Jan. 10, 1887,
Feb. 9, 1886,
Jan, 13, 1887,
J
Jan. 13, 1887,
Jan. 25, 1887,
Jan. 25, 1887, |
Jan. 25, 1837,
Jan. 27, 1887,
Feb. 1, 1887, |
Feb. 1887,
Feb. 1887,
INOW a COM MIRRG alll cre arctasaretaya ara/ainjniavolearerne ac
Tul ys 18 S86) || ese etene
Dec. 30, 1879, | Meadow lark.
Dec. 16, 1879, Snow bird,
Tae TT pissin Saeeeee
Oct. 27, 1880,
Dec. 23, 1880,
Jan. 12, 1881,
Jan, 17, 1881,
Sep. 24, 1880,
"eb, 16, 1880,
Jan. 1, 1880,
Aug. 25, 1876,
July, 1879,
Jan. 16, 1879, sogae
Meadow
Mouse.
MGUSe, se eeeee
mouse, ...
White-footed mouse.
White-footed mouse.
Meadow mouse, ...
Meadow mouse,
two shrews,
Meadow
Meadow
mouse, ...
mouse, ...
Meadow mouse, ..-
Meadow mouse,
Meadow mouse, ..-
House mouse, ..---
Meadow mouse, ...
House mouse, ...«--
Meadow mouse,
Meadow mouse,
|
Meadow mouse, ... |
White-footed mouse.
Two meadow mice.
Insects, Ete.
Grasshopper
cricket.
Grasshopper
ericket.
Caterpillars.
and
and
Crickets
grasshoppe's.
and
Grasshoppers and
larvae,
Beetles.
Crickets.
Crickets, caterpil-
lars, spider.
Caterpillars,
der,
Grasshoppers, lar-
vae,
spi-
8 larvae,
Larvae.
spider.
Grasshoppers,
beetles, la.vae
Grasshoppers, lar-
vae.
Grasshoppers,
beetles, larvae.
Crickets, larvae.
Grasshoppers,
larvae, spiders.
Caterpillar, crick
ets, spider.
Caterpillars,
grasshoppers.
spiders.
Insects.
Insects.
Insects.
Insects.
Grasshopper.
Insects.
Caterpillar.
.. ;
im ‘au
a
i
| i
Hl
i
}
a7
1
2
-
¥
y i
?
% iy
=
221
FISH HAWK.
Pandion haliaetus carolinensis.
DESCRIPTION.
Wings long and pointed; second and third quills longest.
Three first primaries emarginate on inner webs; bill stout with
a very long hook and sharp end; feathers oily to resist water,
those of head lengthened and pointed; thighs and little of the
front parts of tarsi are covered with short feathers which lie
close; legs, tarsi and feet very strong and robust; claws all
same length, very large and sharp. The tarsus all round cov-
ered with rough scales; toes padded below and covered with
numerous hard-pointed projections to aid in holding their slip-
pery prey.
Adult.—Upper parts dark brown or grayish-brown; most of
head, neck and under parts white (chest in female and some-
times in male, is spotted with brown), the tail usually paler
than the back, is tipped with white, and has six or seven
dusky bars. The immature, very similar to adults, have upper
parts spotted with pale reddish-brown or white. Iris in some
specimens reddish, but mostly yellow; bill and claws blue-
black; tarsi and toes grayish-blue. Length (female) about 25
inches; extent about 52.
Habitat.—North America, from Hudson’s bay and Alaska
south to the West Indies and northern South America. Breeds
sparingly in Pennsylvania.
The Fish Hawk, although most numerous about the
sea coast, is quite frequently met with along our large
rivers. This bird arrives in Pennsylvania generally
about the last week in March, and remains sometimes
as late as the first c¢ November.
THE NEST AND EGGS.
Although the Fish Hawk commonly rears its young
along the sea coast, it is frequently found breeding
near the borders of large rivers or in the vicinity of
large inland lakes. The nest, a particularly bulky
structure (from four to eight feet in diameter) com-
posed chiefly of sticks, and lined with sea-weeds,
grasses, etc., is built usually on a large tree, near the
water. In Florida IT have found eggs and young of
this bird early in March. This hawk is a regular but
by no means common breeder in Pennsylvania. The
nest of this bird may be found almost every year along
222
the Susquehanna river and about some of the larger
lakes in the northeastern sections of the State.
A GOOD FISHERMAN.
During the spring, summer and autumn months
these hawks, generally singly, but sometimes in pairs,
if not disturbed, will regularly visit mill dams and fish
ponds where they can secure their finny prey.
Mon, Hiram Peoples, of New Providence, Lancaster
county, who deyotes much attention to fish culture,
raising large quantities of bass and gold-fish for the
markets, informs me he loses a great many fish from
visits of the Fish Hawk. In fact, he says the depreda-
tions of these hawks .became so numerous that he of-
fered a bounty of fifty cents each for every one whieh
was killed on his premises.
IXingfishers also annoy Mr. Peoples by stealing his
fish, but he easily disposes of these unwelcome visitors
by setting steel traps on stakes or posts about his
ponds. Last year he caught, by this means, twenty-
four kingfishers.
THEY LIVE ON FISH.
The writer has examined the stomach contents of
twenty-three of these hawks captured in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Florida,
and found only the remains of different species of fish.
It may be, as some writers assert, that the Fish Hawk
when breeding subsists in part on reptiles and batra-
chians; however my opinion is that these birds never
touch other food unless they are unable to catch fish.
The Osprey, as this hawk is often called, does not, as
some farmers believe, disturb domestic fowls, nor does
it molest wild birds. Grackles sometimes build their
nests in the interstices of the commodious nest of the
ish Hawk.
223
THE OWLS.
Ten representatives of the families Strigidae and Bubonidae
are credited to the fauna of Pennsylvania.
Owls, like the eagles, hawks and other diurnal birds of prey,
embrace numerous species of which, it is stated, about two
hundred occur in different parts of the world.
The incalculable benefits conferred by this group of birds,
particularly the smaller species, to the husbandman, are gen-
erally overlooked, This is largely due, perhaps, to the fact
that these birds prey extensively on mice and insects which
become most active at night time when the tiller of the soil is
resting from the arduous labors of his calling.
Some are common residents in all parts of the State; others
breed in boreal regions and are found with us as irregular
or accidental winter visitants. The little screech owl, dressed
in his coat of red or gray, or a mixture of both, is one of the
most common and best known birds of this group. He is
found in cities and towns, as well as in the rural districts. In
the hollow limbs of trees in old apple orchards he delights to
conceal himself in daytime, and also to rear his family. He
is often found about barns and other buildings where he goes
in the daytime to hide, or frequently at night to catch mice,
one of his main articles of livelihood. The Great Horned Owl
inhabits the woods, but on the approach of night he goes out
in quest of food. His visits to the poultry yard are so common
that he also is familiar to residents of the country, where he
is usually known from his loud cries as ‘‘Hoot Owl.” The Barn
Owl, a southern bird, breeds sparingly and most frequently in
the southern parts of our State. The Snowy, which rears its
family in the Arctic wilds, is found here only as an irregular
winter sojourner. Some persons not versed in ornithological
matters, name both the Snowy Owl and Barn Owl ‘White”’
or “Snowy” Owls. Such local names used to designate the Barn
Owl are confusing and should be discarded.
MICE DEVOURING SPECIES.
Owls, other than the Long-eared and Short-eared species, are
usually observed singly; those that breed here, of course, are
often during the breeeding period seen in pairs and with their
young. In winter Long-eared and Short-eared owls are found
generally in flocks. Long-eared owls breed in many localities;
in fact quite generally throughout the State, and owing to the
circumstances that sometimes they roost in the daytime. in
cedar trees, they are termed by many ‘Cedar’ Owls. The
Short-eared owls frequent meadows, swamps and grassy fields,
Hunters who most frequently come across these birds in the
fall and winter time know them as “marsh” or “Swamp” owls.
The Short-eared Owl is common in winter and is said to breed
here in rare instances. Both the Long and Short-eared owls
should be protected by the farmer and fruit grower, as these
birds live almost exclusively on mice,
224
THE BARRED OR “RAIN OWL.”
The Barred Owl is a resident and breeds generally through-
out the State; it is most numerous in the mountainous and
wooded districts. In different parts of Wayne, Susquehanna
and Wyoming counties, where four or five years ago the Barred
Owl was very common, it is called ‘‘Rain’’ Owl, as it was as-
serted its dismal cry was most frequently heard before
a storm. To distinguish an ow] from a hawk, remember the
owls eves are situated in fhe front of the head and look for-
ward, while the hawk’s eyes are directed to either side. The
extremely soft and downy plumage of owls is such that their
flight is almost noiseless. During the daylight we usually
find them concealed in hollow trees or dense foliage. While it
is generally an accepted fact that owls are nocturnal in their
habits, it is not true that they are exclusively so. The Snowy
and Hawk Owls are of a decidedly diurnal nature, and in
cloudy weather or in early twilight it is not unusual to see
the Great Horned Owl sally forth in quest of prey.
PREFER TO KILL THEIR OWN FOOD.
Owls, unlike certain other birds of prey, never, it is stated,
unless reduced to the utmost extremity, feed on carrion, but
subsist on such food as they are able to kill. Their dietary,
although variable with locality and circumstances, consists
mainly of small quadrupeds (principally mice), insects, chiefly
beetles and grasshoppers, and some few of the smaller kinds
of wild birds. With the exception of the Great Horned Owl
and perhaps the Barred, all the owls occurring regularly in this
Commonwealth deserve the fullest protection which can be
given to them by the farmer and horticulturist.
The owls, like many other birds of prey, eject from the
mouth in small ball-like masses, the indigestible portions of
their food, such as hair, bones, ete. These little balls or pel-
lets are frequently to be found in great quantities about lo-
calities where these birds resort during the daytime. The eggs
are white, nearly round, and commonly number from three to
five. Owls deposit their eggs in hollow trees or in the deserted
nests of hawks and crows. ‘Their cries are loud and dismal.
The general form of owls is short and heavy; the head and
eyes are usually very large; bill very much like a hawk’s, but
never toothed, and often almost hidden by long bristle-like
feathers; eyes encircled by a ring of radiating bristly feathers;
tarsi (shins), and in some species toes also. densely feathered.
In some species the heads are furnished with long erectile
tufts of feathers, which are commonly ealled horns: ears in
some species are remarkably large.
ie
BARN OWL.
Strix pratincola.
DESCRIPTION.
Length of female about 18 inches; extent of wings about
43. The male is rather smaller; no ear tufts; facial disc well
developed but not circular; eyes black and rather small; lower
part of long tarsus (shin) has short stiff feathers; toes nearly
naked, but with some hair-like feathers; feathers of body
downy. Colors brownish, ashy and white.
Habitat.—Warmer parts of North Carolina, from the Mid-
dle States, Ohio valley, and California southward through
Mexico. Resident but. not common in southern portions of
Pennsylvania.
The Baru Owl because of its supposed resemblance
to a monkey is frequently called “Monkey-faced Owl.”
This bird is highly beneficial to the farmer as it sub-
sists chiefly on mice and rats. It never commits dep-
redations in the poultry yard and rarely does it de-
stroy insectivorous birds. Notwithstanding the good
this bird does by devouring legions of voracious ro-
dents, it, in common with other species of the owl]
tribe, is destroyed by farmers and sportsmen who be-
lieve they are doing that which will be a help to the
poultry and game interests.
This species breeds regularly in Chester, York, Lan-
caster, Cumberland and Dauphin counties of this
State; and no doubt in other counties also. However,
from the best information I can obtain it is a rather
rare visitor north of the southern part. of Pennsyl-
vania, where in some sectiuns, it is resident.
THE NEST AND EGGS.
I have never found the nest of this species, concern-
ing which Prof. Gentry writes as follows:
“In the selection of a place for nesting purposes, these owls
15-11
226
vary in different localities. In eastern Pennsylvania, generally
a hollow tree, chiefly an apple or an oak is chosen, but oc-
casionally a dilapidated and unoccupied barn; but more
rarely, an occupied building in close proximity to man. When
the former situations are chosen, the hollow is lined with a
few dried grasses and feathers, although instances are not
unfrequently met with where the eggs are deposited upon bare
bottom. In the latter places a few rude sticks constitute a
framework which is lined with a few fine grasses and feathers.
It is deposited upon a short timber in a somewhat inaccessible
part of the building. Nesting ordinarily takes place early in
March, although we have observed newly-built nests in the
latter part of February. Oviposition commences about the sec-
ond week of March. The number of eggs laid varies from three
to four, very rarely more. * = 5 The eggs are some-
what sub-spherical, scarcely more pointed at one extremity
than the other, unless in exceptional cases; of a bluish-white
eolor, and measure 1.67 inches in length, and 1.37 in width.
They vary, however, in size in different localities.”
FEEDS ON MICE.
Of fifteen stomachs of these birds examined by the
writer, fourteen contained small rodents, principally
mice, and some few insects: the feathers of a sparrow
and bones of a small mammal were found in the other
stomach. Dr. Fisher, in the summer of 1890, examined
200 pellets at the nesting place of a pair of these owls,
in one of the towers of the Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D. C., and found a total of 453 skulls of
the following mammals, and one Vesper Sparrow: “225
meadow mice; 2, pine mice; 179, house mice; 20, rats;
6, jumping mice; 20, shrews; 1, star-nosed mole.”
Such evidence as this certainly proves the import-
ance of protecting these owls about our premises.
(
SHORT EXARIED OWE:
DOT
SHORT-EARED OWL.
Asio accipitrinus.
DESCRIPTION.
Har-tufts very short and inconspicuous; entire plumage vary-
ing from buff to buffy-white; every feather on the upper parts
with dark brown stripes; under parts paler; often nearly white
on abdomen; bill and claws dark. Iris yellow.
Female measures about 17 inches in length; extent about 43
inches.
Habitat.—North America at large; nearly cosmopolitan. Com-
mon winter res:dent in Pennsylvania.
The common name of Marsh Owl is quite appropri-
ate, as this species frequents principally during its so-
journ in this region marshy districts and grass fields.
Oftentimes small parties of five, eight or ten individ-
uals will be found in grassy retreats, where meadow
mice are abundant. Occasionally flocks of these owls,
numbering twenty-five or thirty each, congregate in a
a locality where food is abundant to spend the win-
ter; commonly, however, colonies of this size are sel-
dom met with in this State. Possibly this species oc-
curs as a rare breeder in favorable localities in Penn-
sylvania, but so far as my experience goes it is found
here simply as a winter resident, arriving from more
northern latitudes early in November and departing in
April.
KILLED TO SATISFY VANITY.
- This species is of the greatest benefit to the
farmer and fruit grower, as it subsists during its resi-
dence here almost wholly upon destructive rodents,
especially mice. A colony of Short-eared Owls, if left
unmolested, will in a short time destroy all the mice
in a large meadow. Dr. Fisher has found as many as
six mice in the stomach of a single owl, and the writer
228
has taken four mice from the stomach of one of these
birds. Some few years ago when stuffed owl-heads
were fashionable ornaments for ladies hats, many of
these owls were slain by hunters in the employ of
milliners and taxidermists, on the farms of some of
my acquaintances, who afterwards informed me they
were convinced that the marked increase of field mice
on their premises was due to the destruction of these
and other birds of prey, such as hawks (Sparrow, Red-
tailed, Red-shouldered and Rough-legged), which were
killed by hunters for the bounty at that time allowed
by this State.
The stomach contents of thirty-five Short-eared Owls
examined by the writer during the past ten years re-
vealed chiefly field mice, a few birds (sparrows) and
some insects, beetles and grasshoppers.
These owls were captured in Pennsylvania during
the winter season. Two had remains of sparrows in
their stomachs and three contained the insects above
mentioned in conjunction with the hair and bones of
small rodents; the remaining thirty owls had only mice
or shrews in their stomachs. Dr. Fisher states that
it is quite exceptional for this owl to feed upon birds,
and further adds that of ninety stomachs examined at
the National Department of Agriculture but ten con-
tained the remains of birds.
THEY DEVOUR LEGIONS OF NOXIOUS RODENTS.
The following important evidence of the economic value of
the Short-eared Owl is from the fourth edition of Yarrall’s
British Birds (Vol. IV, p. 165): “Undoubtedly, field mice, and
especially those of the short-tailed group or voles, are their
chief objects of prey, and when these animals increase in an
extraordinary and unaccountable way, as they sometimes do,
so as to become extremely mischievous, owls, particularly of
this species, flock to devour them. Thus there are records
of a ‘sore plague of strange mice’ in Kent and Essex in the
year 1580 or 1581, and again in the county last mentioned in
1647. In 1754 the same thing is said to have occurred at Hil-
gay, near Downham Market, in Norfolk, while within the pres-
229
ent century the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire and some
parts of Scotland have been similarly infested. In all these
cases owls are mentioned as thronging to the spot and ren-
dering the greatest service in extirpating the pests. The like
has also been observed in Scandinavia during the wonderful
irruptions of lemmings and other small rodents to which some
of the districts are liable, and it would appear that the Short-
eared Owl is the species which plays a principal part in get-
ting rid of the destructive horde.” (From Fisher’s Bull.
No. 3.)
The information contained on the preceding pages
concerning the food habits of the Short-eared Owl cer-
tainly cannot fail to show that this species is highly
serviceable and justly merits the good will of the
farmer and orchardist.
230
LONG-EARED OWL.
Asio wilsonianus.
DESCRIPTION.
Ear tufts of eight or ten feathers, are long and conspicuous,
eyes yellow and quite small. Upper parts dusky, mottled
with gray, fulvous and brownish black; abdomen white; under
parts generally grayish-white, with transverse and longitudinal
stripes of dDlack, brown and reddish-brown; feet and legs red:
dish-brown and upspotted; bill and claws black.
Female measures about 15 inches in length; extent of wings
about 388. Male rather smaller.
Habitat.—Temperate North America. Resident in Pennsyl-
vania.
Owing to the fact that these birds oftentimes con-
ceal themselves during the daytime in cedar trees, the
local appellation of “Cedar Owl” has arisen. ‘The
Long-eared owl is a resident and one of the most
abundant of the owl tribe in this State. While most
owls, in this region at least, usually lead a solitary
life or associate in pairs, we find the subject of this
sketch to be social and gregarious, associating often
in parties of from twelve to twenty-five individuals.
In winter if not molested they frequently take up a
residence in the dark retreats furnished by the numer-
ous conifercus trees growing around the habitations
of man.
DESIRABLE VISITORS.
In relation to a party of these owls Dr. Wm. R.
Stavely, Lahaska, Pa., says:
“For over twenty years I have had congregated in my lawn
from fifty to seventy-five owls. They are peaceable and quiet;
only on rare oceasions would you know one was about. On
dull days and foggy evenings they were flying about in all di-
rections. Never in all that time have I missed any poultry
or have they inflicted any injury on anything of value. The
first I noticed of their presence was the discovery of quite a
pile of what appeared to be mice hair and bones, and on inves-
tigation found the Norway fir was the roosting place of to me
AMERICAN LONG EARED OWL.
231
at that time a vast number of owls. They had ejected the
bolus of hair and bones apparently of an army of tree-eating
destructive mice, aiding the fruit grower against one of the
worst and most inveterate enemies. . * * Their merits
would fill sheets; the demerits nil.”
THE NEST AND EGGS.
Although it is true that Long-eared owls at times do
construct their own nests, I am inclined to believe that
these birds, in this region at least, prefer to occupy
the deserted nests of other birds. I have on several
occasions found these owls breeding and always ob-
served that they occupied the abandoned nests of
crows or hawks.
Audubon says:
“The Long-eared Owl is careless as to the situation in which
its young are to be reared, and generally accommodates itself
with the abandoned nest of some other bird that proves of
sufficient size, whether it be high or low, in the fissure of a
rock or on the ground. Sometimes, however, it makes a nest
itself; and this I have found to be the case in one instance
near the Juniata river, in Pennsylvania, where it was com-
posed of green twigs, with the leaflets adhering, and lined
with fresh grass and wool, but without any feathers.”
The eggs of this bird vary considerably in size; a
small example in my possession measures about one
and one-half inches by one and one-fourth inches.
From three to five eggs are usually found in a nest.
A BENEFICIAL SPECIES.
Like the two previously described species this owl
is particularly servicable to the farmer and horticul-
turist as it preys almost entirely on field mice. It
never disturbs domestic fowls and but a small per-
centage of its diet is made up of small birds.
Notwithstanding the great amount of good which
this species does in keeping in check the hordes of
destructive rodents which do so much damage in the
232
graim fields and orchard, there has, unfortunately, dur
ing recent years been a great decrease in the number of
these birds in many localities in Pennsylvania. ‘This
diminution, | judge, is, to a considerable extent, due
to the fact that the stuffed heads of these harmless and
beneficial owls have been extensively used to decorate
ladies’ headgear. Great numbers of these owls were
also killed for bounties; I knew one hunte® who shot
in one week over twenty of these birds when the
bounty act was in force. The stomachs of thirteen of
this lot of owls were examined by the writer and they
all contained only the remains of mice.
WHAT DIFFERENT WRITERS SAY OF ITS FOOD.
Dr. A. K. Fisher says:
“The Long-eared Owl is one of our most beneficial species,
destroying vast numbers of injurious rodents and seldom
touching insectivorous birds.”
Audubon writes:
“Tt preys chiefly on quadrupeds of the genus Avicola, and in
summer destroys many beetles.”’
Mr. H. W. Henshaw remarks:
“Their food consists almost exclusively of field mice, of which
they kill vast numbers, a fact which should earn them the pro-
tection of the farmer.”
. ’
: oe 1 ;
4 fi
. - '
E ry
, i
1
’
oe ‘
ue
1 ' } ‘
‘
:
i
j ‘
OWL.
BARRED
233
BARRED OWL.
Syrnium nebulosum.
DESCRIPTION.
“Large size; no ear tufts; general color deep umber-brown
and buffy-whitish. The plumage everywhere barred trans-
versely except on the belly, where the stripes run lengthwise;
bill yellow; eyes brown-black. Length 19 to 24 inches; extent
about 46 inches.’’—Fisher.
Habitat.—Fastern United States, west to Minnesota and
Texas, North to Nova Scotia and Quebec. Resident in Penn-
sylvania.
The Barred Owl is readily distinguished from other
species by its large size, yellow-colored bill and its
black eyes.. Barred Owls are exceedingly abundant
in many of the southern States, where they are known
by the names of “Hoot and Swamp Owls.” In Penn-
sylvania this owl is found all months of the year, and
in many of the mountainous and heavy-wooded regions
it is the most common of all the owls.
THE NEST AND EGGS.
The Barred Owl lays its eggs in a hollow tree, or in a
deserted nest of a hawk or crow; the white eggs are a
little under two inches long by about one and three-
quarters wide. The Barred and Great Horned Owls
are the only species, in this locality, whose depreda-
tions in the poultry yard bring them to the notice of
the farmer. Unfortunately, however, the hatred to-
wards these two birds and particularly the enmity
against Great Horned Owls, has brought all our owls
in bad favor; the farmer’s boy and sportsman, with
few exceptions, let no opportunity pass to pillage an
owl’s nest or slay its owners. In this way, there are
annually destroyed large numbers of the Screech,
15*--1]
234
Long-eared and Short-eared species, simply because
the popular idea is that owls, large and small, prey
only on poultry and game.
MICE AND SMALL GAME.
Wilson says, although mice and small game are the
most usual food of Barred Owls, they sometimes seize
on fowls, partridges and young rabbits.
“The Barred Owl subsists principally upon small
birds, field mice and reptiles. He.is frequently seen,
in early twlight, flying over low meadow lands, search-
ing for the mice that dwell there; he usually takes a
direct course, and sometimes flies so low that the tips
of his wings seem to touch the grass. When he dis-
covers his prey he drops on it instantly, folding his
wings and protruding his feet, in which his quarry is
always secured; he often captures frogs that are sit-
ting on the shores of ponds and rivers; but I am in-
clined to think that the statement, quoted by Audubon,
that he often catches fish, is incorrect.”—Samuels.
FEEDS ON FISHES.
The Florida Barred Owl—a local race—is exceed-
ingly abundant about the almost impenetrable swamps
and heavily-timbered regions along the St. John’s river,
In the winter of 1885, I was informed by two residents
of Florida, both gentlemen whom TI consider thor
oughly trustworthy, that this owl frequently preys on
fish, which it secures, while sitting close to the water’s
edge, by a dextrous movement of the foot. The stom-
ach contents of five of these Florida Owls, which I ex-
amined, consisted only of the remains of small birds
and coleopterous insects.
Referring to this species, Nuttall says: Their food
is principally rabbits, squirrels, grouse, quails, rats,
‘9
\ 235
mice and frogs. From necessity, as well as choice,
they not unfrequently appear around the farmhouse
and garden in quest of poultry, particularly young
chickens. At these times they prowl abroad toward
evening, and fly low and steadily about, as if beating
for their prey.
In the stomachs of 89 of these owls which Dr. Fisher
examined, 5 contained poultry or game; 13, other birds;
46, mice; 18, other mammals; 4, frogs; 1, a lizard; 2.
fish; 14, insects; 2, spiders and 9, crawfish.
236
GREAT GRAY OWL.
Ulula cinerea.
DESCRIPTION.
“A very large round headed owl, without ear tufts; although
much larger, resembles somewhat the Barred Owl, but can be
easily distinguished from the latter. Length (female) 28; ex-
tent about 56; tail 12; bill and eyes yellow; claws long and very
sharp and dusky. Above dark-brown, feathers variously
spotted, mottled or barred with fine grayish-white markings;
lower parts similar but more grayish, with longitudinal
streaks on breast, and cross bars of white and dusky on
flanks; face grayish-white with numerous narrow rings of
dusky; a patch of black about eyes on either side of bill.”
Habitat.—Arctic America, straggling southward in winter, to
the northern border of the United States. Straggler in Penn-
sylvania.
This owl, one of the largest, if not the largest in
North Ameriea, is found in Pennsylvania only as a
very rare and irregular straggler in winter. Twenty
or more years ago a specimen was captured in Chester
county in midwinter by H. B. Graves. Dr. Isaiah F.
Everhart, of Scranton, Pa., has a specimen in his col-
lection which he found some years ago in the moun-
tains in Lackawanna county. A specimen was also
ss taken some years ago from a smoke stack of a steam
boat at Erie city. I have also heard of two or three
more specimens of this species being taken in this
State.
ITS DIETARY.
From personal observation I know nothing of the
habits of this bird, never having seen one alive.
Concerning this species Dr Fisher says: “The food
seems to consist principally of hares, mice and other
of the smaller mammals as well as small birds.
Whether it destroys many grouse or ptarmigans is not
stated by authors who are most familiar with the bird.
GREAT GRAY OWL.
* j
237
Dr. W. H. Dall took no less than thirteen skulls and
other remains of red-poll linnets from the crop of a
single bird. * * * Dr. Dall considers it a stupid
bird and states that sometimes it may be caught in
the hands. lis great predilection for thick woods, in
which it dwells doubtless to the very limit of trees, pre-
vents it from being an inhabitant of the barren grounds
or other open country in the north. It is crepuscular
or slightly nocturnal in the southern parts of its range,
but in the high north it pursues its prey in the day-
time. In the latter region, where the sun never passes
below the horizon in summer, it is undoubtedly neces-
sity and not choice that prompts it to be abroad in
the daylight.
It is stated that the flight is heavy and somewhat
labored, and has not the bouyancy noted in that of
most of the owls.
238
ACADIAN OWL.
Nyctala acadica.
DESCRIPTION.
“Small; wings long; tail short; upper parts reddish-brown,
tinged with olive; head in front with fine lines of white, and on
the neck behind, rump and scapulars, with large, partially
concealed spots of white; face ashy-white; throat white; under
parts ashy-white, with longitudinal stripes of pale reddish-
brown; under coverts of wings and tail white; quills brown,
with small spots of white on their outer edges, and large spots
of the same on their inner webs; tail brown, every feather
with about three pairs of spots of white; bill and claws dark;
irides yellow.
“Total length about 744 to 8 inches; extent about 18; wing
514; tail 2% to 3 inches. Sexes nearly the same size and alike
in colors.’’—B. B. of N. A.
Habitat.—North America at large; breeding from Middle
States northward. Resident in Pennsylvania.
The Acadian is the smallest owl found in the United
States east of the Mississippi river. Although ap-
parently larger, it is in reality smaller, tham our com-
mon robin. This pigmy mass of owl-life is, I suppose,
the species which was regarded as not destructive to
poultry and game, by the author of the “scalp act,”
when he introduced therein a clause exempting “The
Acadian Screech or Barn Owl.” From the fact, how-
ever, that the decapitated heads of pheasants,* night-
hawks, chickens, cuckoos, shrikes, and doubtless other
birds, were cremated and paid for as the heads of de-
structive rapacious “hawks” it is but reasonable to sup-
*TIn December, 1886, Prof. S. F. Baird informed me that he
had received for identification from several counties in Penn-
sylvania, the heads of pheasants, English sparrows, cuckoos,
robins, a gull and other birds. These heads were called by the
parties sending them to Prof. Baird ‘‘Hawk heads,”’ and as
such they had been presented for the fifty-cent bounty, which
had been paid. Prof. Baird also examined some Pennsylvania
“wolf sealps.”’ on which premiums had been given, and ascer-
tained that the so-called ‘‘wolf scalps’’ had been fashioned from
pelts of the common Red Fox.
I
a
SAW-WHET OWL.
239
pose that our little Acadian Owl, when found by the
eager scalp hunter, was generally slain and the bounty
of fifty cents given “for the benefit of agriculture and
for the protection of ganie.”
HIDES IN ROCKY PLACES.
The name Saw-whet is applied to this bird because,
at times, its squeaky voice resembles the whetting or
filing of a saw. Owing to the small size of this owl,
together with the fact that during the daytime it re-
mains secreted in hollow trees, thick foliage or in the
dark and secluded rocky retreats, it is seldom met with,
hence is regarded as one of our rarest residents. The
young of this bird, taken in the vicinity of Philadel-
phia, have been seen by Prof. Gentry, and in E. A.
Samuel’s work, “Our Northern and Eastern Birds,” the
following interesting account is given by Richard
Christ of a nest that he found April 25, 1867, at Naza-
reth, Pennsylvania: “This, the smallest of all our
owls, is also the most rare, but a single specimen being
seen in a period of several years. It is very tame when
found, permitting one to approach very close to it be-
fore flying away. I am inclined to think that it sees
less in the daytime than any other species of our owls,
for one can touch it without being noticed, the bird
taking flight more from alarm to its sense of hearing
than any other cause.
THE NEST AND EGGS.
“Tt generally frequents stone quarries or piles of
rocks, beneath which it takes shelter; and it is from
this habit that the bird here is known by the name of
‘Stone Owl.’ Or the 25th of April, 1867, I was so for-
tunate as to find the nest of one of these birds. Tt
was placed or located in the hollow of a tree, about
240
twenty feet from the ground; the entrance to the hole
was very small, scarcely two inches in diameter. On
climbing the tree and looking in the hollow, I discov-
ered sitting on the bottom what I supposed might be
a small owl. Uncertain as to the truth, I introduced
a small] stick into the hole, and turned the bird over
upon her side, she making no struggle whatever, but
remaining perfectly still as if dead. I discovered that
she was sitting upon a single egg. Supposing that she
had but just commenced laying I left her, and did not
molest her for several days; on the fifth day after I
again examined the nest, and found the bird on her
egg. none other having been laid. I enlarged the hole,
and took the egg, leaving the owl quietly sitting on ihe
rotten chips which formed the bottom of the nesv.
“The egg was white with a bluish tint, like many
of the other owls’ eggs, nearly globular in form, and
considerably smaller than the egg of the Red or Mot-
tled Owl.”
THEY LIVED IN HARMONY.
Dr. Elliot Coues, in his “Birds of the Northwest,”
says: “Mr. Gentry informs me of a curious circum-
stance in regard to this owl. Referring to the associa’
tion of the Burrowing Owl of the west with the prairie
dog, he continues: ‘In the hollow of an oak tree, not
far from Germantown, lives an individual of the com-
mon chickaree squirrel (Seturus hudsonius), with a
specimen of this little owl as his sole companion. They
occupy the same hole together in perfect harmony and
mutual goodwill. It is not an accidental, temporary
association, for the bird and the squirrel have repeat-
edly been observed to enter the same hole together, as
if they always had shared the apartment. But what
benefit can either derive from the other?’ ”
241
Mr. Otto Behr writes me as follows of this species:
“The Acadian Owl is quite common here (Lopez, Sulli-
van county), though not often seen; the young leave
the nest about the first week in May. They make a
noise which sounds like a dog “sniffing” the air. The
noise gave me quite a scare the first time I heard it.
It being at night in heavy timber, and as it seemed to.
come from overhead somewhere, I supposed it was a
bear or some such animal up a tree near by.”
This little owl preys chiefly on small quadrupeds,
principally mice. It also devours many insects and
occasionally catches small birds. In the stomachs of
19 of these owls which Dr. Fisher examined 17 con-
tained mice; 1, a sparrow, and 1, a moth.
16--IT
SCREECH OWL.
Megascops asio.
DESCRIPTION.
“Toes more or less distinctly feathered or bristled on upper
side; ear tufts conspicuous; plumage presenting two totally
distinct phases, having no relation to sex, age or season; one
grayish-white, the other bright rufous. * * * A more or
less conspicuous bright colored stripe runs along each side of
the back, and a blackish line along the shafts of the feathers,
sometimes throwing out transverse bars. Length, 614% to 10
inches; extent 20 to 24 inches.’’—Fisher.
Habitat.—Yemperate eastern North America, South Georgia
and west to the plains. Common in Pennsylvania.
This handsome little owl is one of the most common
of all owls found in Pennsylvania. It is resident, but,
unlike the long-eared species, is net gregarious. Its
almost spherical and white eggs—four to six in number
(mostly four)—are deposited in a hollow tree. A tree
in an apple orchard is frequently made use of for
breeding purposes, as well as a common diurnal resort,
at all seasons. The eggs measure about 1.33 by 1.18
inches. This bird, when taken from the nest and
raised, makes a very interesting pet, one that not only
becomes attached to its master, but which is also capa-
ble of rendering him most efficient services in the de-
struction of mice, whose yexatious ravages are fre-
quently so annoying. Some few years ago an ac{
quaintance of mine placed two of these birds in his
cellar which was overrun with mice, and in a few
weeks the place was depopulated of these little four-
footed pests.
AS A PET.
A Sereech Owl which T kept for several months in
captivity fed eagerly on grasshoppers and pieces of
SCREECH OWL.
.
243
fresh beef. When a mouse was given to this bird it
would seize it with its claws, and after severing with
its bill the skin about the head and neck, would swal-
low the whole mass, always, I think, head foremost.
When it fed on small birds—which were frequently
shot and placed in the box, but which it would seldom
touch—I noticed that it generally tore open the skull
and ate the brain substance. This owl would never
drink water.
FACTS ABOUT ITS HABITS.
“The flight of the Mottled Owl is smooth, rapid, protracted
and noiseless. It rises at times above the top branches of the
highest of our forest trees whilst in pursuit of large beetles,
and at other times sails low and swiftly over the fields or
through the woods in search of small birds, field mice, moles
or weod rats, from which it chiefly derives its subsistence.
Sometimes on alighting, which it does plumply, the Mottled
Owl immediately bends its body, turns its head to look behind
it, performs a curious nod, utters its notes, then shakes and
plumes itself, and resumes its flight in search of prey. It now
and then, while on the wing, produces a clicking sound with
its mandibles, but more frequently when perched near its
mate or young. This I have thought was done by the bird to
manifest its courage and let the hearer know that it is not to
be meddled with, although few birds of prey are more gentle
when seized, as it will suffer a person to touch its feathers and
caress it without attempting to bite or strike with its talons,
unless at rare intervals.
“The notes of this owl are uttered in a tremulous, doleful
manner, and somewhat resembles the chattering of the teeth
of a person under the influence of extreme cold, although
much louder. They are heard at a distance of several hundred
yards, and by some people are thought to be of ominous im-
port.
“The little fellow is generally found about farm houses,
orchards and gardens. It alights on the roof, the fence or the
garden gate, and utters its mournful ditty at intervals for
hours at a time as if it was in a state of great suffering, al-
though this is far from being the case—the song of all birds
being an indication of content and happiness. In a state of
confinement it utters its notes with as much satisfaction as
if at liberty. They are chiefly heard during the latter part of
the winter, that being the season of love, when the male bird
is particularly attentive to the fair one, which excites his
tender emotions, and around which he flies and struts much
in the manner of the common p’geon, adding numerous nods
and bows, the sight of which is very amusing.’’—Audubon.
244
FIXING EREEDING PLACES FOR OWLS.
The following interesting account of the methods
employed by an enthusiastic oologist is taken from a
letter written to me, October, 1889, by Mr. O. B. Hark,
of Bethlehem: “Have you ever heard of fixing holes
for Sparrow Hawks and Screech Owls? Mr. John
Mack, the best climber I ever met, every spring cleans
out old holes, enlarges such as are too small, ete., and
finds it pays him well; this spring he got ninety Spar-
row Hawk eggs and every one was taken out of holes
fixed by him; at one time he put the leg’ of an old
rubber boot in a hollow tree and several weeks later
took a batch of Screech Owl’s eggs out of it. Another
singular experience he had with owls is, he made a
hole in a willow tree; when he came to look after it
again he found owls had taken possession of it and
had nearly filled it with field mice; he said there were
enough mice in it to fill his derby hat. This happened
just before a heavy snow storm and about ten days
later every mouse was gone.”
EATS BEETLES AND GRASSHOPPERS.
Mr. L. M. Turner informs me that he has made a
number of examinations of Screech Owls captured in
Illinois, and very generally found their food consisted
of such insects as the larger beetles and grasshoppers,
also many mice. Grasshoppers and other orthopterous
insects are devoured in large quantities by these birds.
During the summer months and at other times when
insect life is abundant Screech Owls subsist mainly
on an insect diet. These birds also prey on mice,
shrews, other small quadrupeds and small birds.
Investigations have clearly demonstrated that few, if
any, of the owl tribe are more serviceable to the farmer
and fruit grower than is the Screech Owl, subsisting, as
he does, principally on insects such as grasshoppers
and beetles in the summer, and in winter, when insect
food is scarce, on mice of different kinds, and small
wild birds, particularly sparrows.
KILLS THE FEATHERED PRIZE-FIGHTERS.
The English Sparrow has, perhaps, no more relent-
less a foe among the feathered tribe than is the much
abused and persecuted Screech Owl. At night, when
the sparrows are sleeping about buildings, the owl
noiselessly wings his way to their retreats and cap-
tures them with apparently but little effort. Last win-
ter I knew a pair of Screech Owls to regularly visit.
every night, for about a week, an ivy covered build-
ing where a large colony of sparrows had taken up
their abode. The owls appeared perfectly satisfied
with their work, and to all outward appearances
thrived on a diet of sparrows. The sparrows, on the
other hand, which escaped the owls’ sharp claws, after
nearly ten days or nights experience, evidently came to
the conclusion that it would be more conducive to their
nocturnal slumbers and safety to hunt another roost-
ing place, and they did so.
For a period of nearly a month the sparrows were
not observed to return to the ivy roost. One evening
a boy threw a stone at one of the owls and killed it.
Its mate disappeared about the same time, and in a
short time, probably a week, after the owls had gone,
the sparrows returned to their old roosting place in the
ivy.
The farmer or fruit grower who will allow Screech
Owls to be destroyed, is certainly standing in his own
light, and the sooner he familiarizes himself with the
{rue economic relations of these birds, the better it will
be for his interests.
246
GREAT) HORNED OWL.
Bubo virginianus.
DESCRIPTION.
Length (female) 21 to 24 inches; extent about 5 feet; tail about
9 inches; male 19 to 23 long; extent about 50 to 53 inches; can
be distinguished by its large size and long ear tufts; plumage
blackish, brownish, dusky, graying and whitish in mixture;
throat and middle of breast white; eyes yellow; bill and claws
blackish.
Habitat.—Eastern North America, west to the Mississippi
valley, and from Labrador to Costa Rica. Resident in Penn-
sylvania.
This well-known and rather commen inhabitant of
the forests can easily be recognized by its large size,
the conspicuous white feathers of the throat and the
long-ear tufts which measure two and one-half inches
or more in length.
THE NEST AND EGGS.
The Great Horned, the largest of all our native owls,
is the first to commence nesting. I have found its
eges in February, and am told that it occasionally
lays in January. In this locality the Great Horned
Owl seldom breeds in hollow trees; sometimes
it constructs a rude and bulky nest of sticks,
lined with grasses and feathers, on the large horizontal
limbs of trees in its favorite wooded retreats. Its eggs,
measuring about two and one-fourth inches in length
by two inches in width are mostly deposited in the de-
serted nests of hawks and crows. Although it is
stated by different writers that this species lays four
or more eggs, I have never found, in seven nests exam-
ined, over two eggs or a like number of young. Mr.
Thomas H. Jackson, of West Chester, Pa., writing in
the Ornithologist and Oologist, June, 1886, savs: In
GREAT HORNED OWL
45
247
thirteen nests of this bird that have come under my
personal notice, twelve contained two eggs, or young,
and only one contained three eggs. All the nests re-
ferred to above were placed in branches of trees and
were generally those of hawks or crows, renovated or
enlarged. Occasionally a hollow tree is used for the
purpose. Upon one occasion I replaced the owl’s eggs
taken from a nest with those of the common hen, and
upon visiting them at the expiration of three weeks,
found that both the latter had been hatched and had
fallen from the nest, about twenty feet from the
ground, and that the owls had deserted the locality.
The Great Horned Owls are liberal providers for their
young. I have frequently found full grown rabbits
lying in the nest beside the young, and scarcely a nest
visited did net have a strong odor of skunk, while
bones and feathers were scattered around attesting to
3
the predacious habits of the proprietors.”
ITS FLIGHT AND WIERD NOTES.
“The flight of the Great Horned Owl is elevated
rapid and graceful. It sails with apparent ease and in
large circles, in the manner of an eagle; rises and de-
scends without the least difficulty by merely inclining
its wings or its tail as it passes through the air. Now
and then it glides silently close over the earth with in-
comparable velocity, and drops, as if shot dead, on the
prey beneath. At other times, it suddenly alights on
the top of a fence stake or a dead stump, shakes its
feathers, arranges them, and utters a shriek so horrid
that the woods around echo to its dismal sound. Now,
it seems as if you heard the barking of a cur doug;
again the notes are so rough and mingled together
that they might be mistaken for the last gurglings
of a murdered person striving in vain tv call for as-
248
sistance; at another time, when not more than fifty
yards distant, it utters its more usual hoo, hoo, hoo-e,
in so peculiar an undertone that a person unacquainted
with the notes of this species might easily conceive
them to be prouced by an owl more than a mile distant.
During the utterance of all these unmusical cries it
moves its body, and more particularly its head, in
various ways, putting them into positions, all of which
appear to please it much, however grotesque they may
seem to the eye of man. In the interval following
each ery it snaps its bill.’—Audubon.
These owls, like the preceding species, are not migra-
tory and when not engaged in breeding lead a solitary
existence. Although chiefly nocturnal in habits, Great
Horned Owls are often seen in cloudy weather and in
the early twilight searching for food. On one occa-
sion, when the sun was shining brightly (about 10 A.
M.), I saw one of these owls make two attempts to
catch a hen and her young chicks.
WHAT THEY LIVE UPON.
Audubon says: “Its food consists chiefly of the larger
species of gallinaceous birds, half-grown wild turkeys,
pheasants and domestic poultry of all kinds, together
with several species of ducks. Hares, young opossums
and squirrels are equally agreeable to it, and whenever
chance throws a dead fish on the shore the Great
Horned Owl feeds with peculiar avidity on it.”
Nuttall tells us they usually prey on young rabbits,
squirrels, rats, mice, quails and small birds of various
kinds; and when these resources fail or diminish, they
occasionally prowl pretty boldly around the farm-yard
in quest of chickens, which they seize on the roost.
My own records of sixteen examinations of the
Great Horned Owl, which, with one exception, were all
249
faken during the winter months, revealed in cleven in
dividuals only remains of poultry; two others, portions
of rabbits, and of the three remaining birds of this
series it was found that one had taken two mice; an-
other showed small amount of hair, apparently that of
an opossum. The sixteenth and last bird contained a
mouse and parts of beetles.
The investigations of Dr. Fisher show that of 110
stomachs of this bird which contained food materials,
that 81 contained poultry or game birds; 8, other birds;
13, mice; 65, other mammals (rabbits, squirrels, rats,
muskrats, skunk, ete.) From such records it will be
seen that this species does a good deal of damage to
the poultry and game interests. While it is true that
mice and some other destructive mammals are de-
voured by this owl, there is little doubt that the dam
age he does is much greater than the benefit he confers.
250
SNOWY OWL.
Nyctea nyctea.
DESCRIPTION.
Length from 20 to 24 inches; extent 414 to 5 feet; tail between
9 and 10 inches long; tarsi and toes densely covered with long
hair-like feathers; black bill almost hidden by long feathers;
plumage white, with brownish or blackish spots and _ bars;
throat, face, feet and middle of breast whitest. The female
is larger and much darker than male; eyes rather small and
yellow; no ear tufts.
Habitat.—Northern portions of the Northern Hemisphere.
In North America, breeding mostly north of the United States;
in winter migrating south to the Middle States, straggling to
South Carolina, Texas and the Bermudas.
The Snowy Owl rendered so conspicuous by its large
size and white plumage is a native of the Arctic re-
gions. This owl is found in Pennsylvania only as A
winter visitant. Although specimens are taken nearly
every winter, this species is most frequently observed
during excessively severe winters. Usually solitary
birds are observed, but sometimes parties of six, eight
or even a dozen are seen together.
ITS MANNER OF HUNTING.
Wilson says: “Unlike most of his tribe he hunts by
day as well as by twilight, and is particularly fond of
frequenting the shores and banks of shallow rivers,
over the surface of which he slowly sails, or sits on
a rock a little raised above the water watching for
fish. These he seizes with a sudden and instantaneous
stroke of the foot, seldom missing his aim.” Nuttall
writes: “He ventures abroad boldly at all seasons, and
like the hawks, seeks his prey by daylight as well as
dark, skimming aloft and reconnoitering his |/preys
which is commonly the White Grouse, or some other
SN OW Y OWL.
251
birds of the same genus, as well as hares. On these
he darts from above, and rapidly seizes them in his
resistless talons. At times he watches for fish, and
condescends also to prey upon rats, mice and even car-
rion.”
This species is never sufficiently numerous in this
State to do any serious damage to either the poultry
or game interests. In the northern counties where
these birds are plentiful they devour great quantities
of small rodents which, with fish, seem to be favorite
articles of diet for them.
HAWK OWL.
Surnia ulula caparoch.
DESCRIPTION.
“No ear tufts; tail rounded at tips, and indistinctly barred
with white; top of head and back of neck spotted with white
and black, or dark brown; a patch of umtorm blackish or
dark brown on each side of hind neck; upper parts brown, more
or less spotted with white; lower parts regularly barred with
brown. Length, 14.75 to 17.50 inches; extent 31 to 33 inches.”
Habitat.—Arctic America, migrating in winter to the north-
ern border of the United States. Rare straggler in Pennsyl-
vania.
This curious bird partakes of the general appear-
ance, and also the habits, of both a hawk and an owl,
and is said to be principally diurnal, in fact writers
assert that it is as active in daytime as any of the
hawks. This species occurs in Pennsylvania only as a
‘ave and irregular winter visitor.
ITS FOOD AND HABITS.
Having never had an opportunity of studying this
bird in life I quote the following from Dr. A. K. Fish-
er’s Bulletin:
“The food of this owl varies considerably at different times
of the year. In summer it feeds on the smaller mammals, such
as mice, lemmings and ground squirrels as well as insects of
various kinds, while in winter, when the snow is deep and its
favorite food is hidden, it follows the large flocks of ptarmigans
and subsists on them. Dr. Dall seldom found anything but
mice in the crops of those he dissected in Alaska, and the fol-
lowing from Dr. Coues mentions the same food: ‘It feeds chiefly
upon field mice (Arvicolae) which swarm in the sphagnous
vegetation of arctic lands; also upon small birds, grasshoppers
and other insects.’’ (Birds of the Northwest, 1874, p. 812.)
“Mr. Henry Seebohm speaks of its food as follows: ‘The prin-
cipal food of the Hawk Owl is mice and lemmings, and the
bird follows the migratory parties of the last named little
mammal to prey upon them. From its indomitable spirit, how-
ever, few birds of the forest are safe from its attack. In addi-
tion to the smaller birds which it captures, Wheelwright men-
tions the fact that he has seen the Hawk Owl strike down the
AMERICAN HAWK OWL.
253
Siberian jay, and has also disturbed it feeding on an old wil-
low grouse. The same naturalist has also taken insects from
its stomach.’ ’’(Hist. British Birds, Vol. I, 1883, p. 184.)
“The species is tame and unsuspicious, and may be ap-
proached easily without being alarmed; in fact, specimens
have been known to return to the same perch after being shot
at two or three times. It is a courageous bird, and will de-
fend its nest against all intruders. A male once dashed at
Dr. Dall and knocked off his hat as he was climbing to the
nest; other similar accounts show that the courage displayed
on this occasion was not an individual freak, but a common
trait of the species.
“Although the flight is swift and hawk-like, it has neverthe-
less the soft, noiseless character common to the other owls.
When starting from any high place, such as the top of a tree,
it usually pitches down nearly to the ground, and flies off rap-
idly above the tops of the bushes or high grass, abruptly rising
again as it seeks another perch.
“The note is a shrill ery which it utters generally while the
bird is on the wing.”
254
CHAPTER IV.
SOME OTHER BIRDS.
RAVENS, CROWS, JAYS AND SHRIKES.
Five species of the family CORVIDAE are found in
Pennsylvania, and of these the Common Crow and
Blue Jay are by far the best known. Indeed, proba-
bly ne two representatives of our bird-fauna are more
familiar to persons who are at all acquainted with
rural life than are the gaudy, garrulous Blue Jay, and
his suspicious, pilfering relative, the Common Crow.
THE RAVEN.
The northern Raven is a sub-species, that was first
recognized and described by my friend, Prof. Robert
Ridgway, the eminent Ornithologist of the Smith-
sonian Institute, Washington, D ©. his bird pos-
sesses peculiarities which entitle it to be particular-
ized by the technical specific principalis to distinguish
the new form from that of its near kin the Common
Raven, (Corvus corax), of the older authorities.
It ranges from “Greenland to Alaska, south to British
Columbia, Canada, New Brunswick” and Pennsylvania.
In this State it is found as a resident in a number of
counties, particularly such as are mountainous and
which contain large areas of sparsely settled and ex-
tensively forested lands.
255
A WARY POULTRY THIEF.
The Raven is very shy, yet he will occasionally come
around farm buildings, in the neighborhood of his
favorite haunts in the mountain wilds, to catch young
poultry or hunt a hen’s nest, especially that of the
turkey which so often wanders some distance from
her owner’s building to hatch. The damage, however,
to domesticated fowls by Ravens in Pennsylvania is,
Tam sure, very insignificant.
THEY DESTROY EGGS AND NESTLINGS.
From evidence in my possession I am fully con-
vinced that Ravens, like their dark-coated relations,
the Crows, do devour the eggs and young of many
wild birds. Game birds, such as the Ruffed Grouse
and Wild Turkey, woodsmen say, suffer considerably,
during the periods when they have eggs and broods
of young, from sly and unexpected visits of these cun-
ning and able-bodied corvine birds. If a Turkey or
Pheasant, with her children, remains in the locality
and the fact becomes known to a pair of Ravens, the
chances are, hunters say, that the Ravens will watch
the place almost constantly, day after day, until they
have destroyed or driven away the mother and her
family of youngsters.
CAPTURE RABBITS AND GROUSE.
Ravens unquestionably kill a good many young
Hares and they also sometimes attack and overpower
the old ones, particularly when the latter are en-
feebled by disease or wounded by human hunters or
other animals which prey on them. Rabbits and
Pheasants entrapped in snares, (which, by the way,
cannot legally be used in Pennsylvania) if found by
256
the sharp-eyed Raven, will be attacked and eaten by
him after he has convinced himself that the mammal
or bird, suspended from the cord or fine copper wire,
has not been placed there as a lure to his own destruc-
tion. In this State Ravens are generally seen singly
or in pairs, but often, a pair with their family of in-
quisitive and noisy children, of the year, may be ob-
served together.
WILL SPEAK AS THEY PASS BY.
I have known two or three pairs of Ravens to remain
for two or three years in the same locality, i. e., in a
district, of perhaps eight or ten miles square, and each
pair of birds, as well as the young ones, appeared to
evince no disposition to be on intimate relations with
their neighbors. Of course the whole Raven clan, no
doubt, had a speaking acquaintance, because their
hoarse voices could always be heard when they came
within hailing distance, as was often the case.
ATTACK LAMBS AND FAWNS.
Ravens, like the Common Crow, will sometimes at-
tack young lambs and peck out their eyes. It is also
asserted by hunters that these birds have been known
to attack very young Fawns when their watchful
mothers were not near at hand.
RAVENS A QUARTER OF A CENTURY AGO.
I have been told, by old hunters and woodsmen,
that twenty-five or thirty years ago when the Vir-
ginia Deer was abundant in many sections of Penn-
sylvania, that Rayens were then rather numerous in
the romantic wilds since made barren through the
woodsmen’s axe and devastating forest fires, In those
257
days farmers who resided in the vicinage of virgin-
timbered areas in the mountainous districts suffered
considerably from the spying, argus-eyed Ravens
which seemed ever on the alert to pounce down from
some carefully chosen hiding place and rob the turkey
ov the chicken of her eggs or brood. Then if the parent
sheep did not keep a very close guard over their young
offspring the omnivorous and flesh-loving Ravens
would attack and kill them; they also, it is affirmed,
were known to pounce upon, in at least two instances,
within the recollection of aged mountaineers, calves,
but a few days old; and on another occasion, one of
my informants states that a band of hungry nomadic
Ravens attempted to make a meal of an old sow’s
litter of pigs that were only a few days old, and so
persistent were their onslaughts that the owner of
the pigs was compelled to shoot two of the Ravens be-
fore they would leave the place.
WOULD ATTACK THE DEER.
Deer enfeebled by old age or reduced from disease,
and also when wounded by human _ huntsmen,
Panthers, Wolves, Wild-cats or other predatory ani-
mals which possessed sufficient courage and prowess
to attack them, were beset at times by Ravens which
-would peck out their eyes and other soft parts, par-
ticularly portions of the poor deer’s anatomy that had
been opened by a bullet or lacerated with teeth or
claws of some cruel carnivorous beast.
These observations showing the fierce and sangui-
nary nature of Ravens which, with labored but quick
flight,and loud harsh cries, over a quarter of a century
ago, are reputed to have brought so much misery into
17--II
258
the happy homes of many of their neighbors—co-
dwellers in the mountain wilds—I cannot confirm
from personal observations in the field in recent years
or since Ravens have become very much less numer-
ous.
RELIABLE INFORMANTS.
The statements, however, come from sources which
I deem thoroughly trustworthy. They are here re-
corded, substantially as given to me by aged inform-
ants, men, whose vocations of hunting, trapping, wood
chopping or bark peeling compelled them to live al-
most continually, the year ‘round, in dense forests and
other wild, uninhabited places. These places, how-
ever, were ideal localities for a careful observer to
learn the life histories of wild animals which the Wise
Maker designed should find suitable abodes in dark
sylvan shades or along the banks of the cool, health-
ful waters of mountain streams, and by rocky and
mountainous pathways, vestiges of which still remain
in many regions of the Keystone Commonwealth, as
if to remind us of the bloody struggles that our an-
cestors, a century or two ago, were so often forced to
engage in with the Indians who made these “trails.”
ARE ENEMIES OF SMALL BIRDS.
From the fact that I have often observed different
kinds of small birds, which build their summer homes
in regions selected by the croaking Raven for his
abiding place at all seasons of the year, always show
great concern whenever a solitary Raven, or worse
still a pair of them, came near their nest of young, it
is safe to infer that the solicitude they manifested
was due to a knowledge obtained, perhaps, by bitter
259
experience that, if the Mephistophelean-like eyes of
the powerful marauder, attired in his funereal coat, dis-
covered their precious treasures they would soon be
“gobbled up” to help supply Mr. Raven’s gastronomic
needs, which are great, and likewise most varying, as
is the case with all omnivorous animals.
THEY CONSUME MANY INSECTS.
‘The Raven will consume annually a good many in-
sects, particularly the numerous ground-inhabiting
and wood-destroying beetles; crickets, grasshoppers
and “grub worms” he eats with great gusto.
Beetles and grubs he generally finds about old
stumps and dead logs. On two occasions I have seen
Ravens hunting in newly plowed ground for larvae,
beetles and mice. They feed on different kinds of
small mammals, besides young Hares, as previously
mentioned; and they have been known to attack and
kill Flying Squirrels and Chipmunks, but their usual
articles of food in the way of mammals are the differ-
ent species of mice which abound in woods and fields.
EAT BERRIES, NUTS, FROGS AND SNAKES.
Ravens will eat, with great relish, different kinds
of berries which grow wild, and often in great abund-
ance, in the mountainous districts. Cherry, peach and
apple trees, which are not uncommon in many wild
mountainous places remote from human habitation.
are often visited by Ravens to feed on the ripe or
ripening fruit. In the Autumn or Winter season, like
the Ruffed Grouse, Ravens may be seen at times hunt-
ing abeut apple trees for the seeds of the fruit which
they collect from the ground, or by pecking into the
260
rotten and frozen apples which hang on the twigs;
and, like their saucy relations, the Jays, dressed in
jaunty plumed hats, white vests and bright blue coats,
they eat chestnuts, beechnuts, acorns and other seeds
known as “mast.” They catch frogs and sometimes
kill and devour small sized snakes. They will go in
shallow water to catch fishes which they consume.
Most flesh eating animals, either birds or quadru-
peds, which obtain their livelihood by open warfare,
do not show an inclination to feed upon carricn and
offal unless compelled to do so by reason of the
scarcity of normal food supplies.
THEY SOMETIMES PREFER CARRION.
The Raven, however, has the habit of subsisting, in
part at least, on such a menu, even when other food
could be obtained with the usual cunning and activity
displayed by this race of pilferers. Of this I was
fully convinced some three years ago, when visiting
at Glen Union, Clinton county, Pa., where two or
three families of Ravens had their headquarters in
rocky cliffs, some four miles in the interior. At ir-
regular intervals some of the meddlesome tribe would
come down to dwellings, along the Susquehanna river,
and steal a young chicken cr rob a hen’s nest; and,
on one occasion, I noticed two of them in a vine,
along the road near the railroad station (Glen Union),
eating “frost” or chicken grapes, a common article of
diet, by the way, for the Pheasant or Ruffed Grouse.
These Ravens daily came to the places where the
~ woodsmen ate their dinners and fed the horses, and in
a short time after being allowed to pick up, un-
molested, pieces of bread and meat about the camp,
they became quite tame, unless they saw a stranger
261
appear about the place, when they flew off in, ap-
parently, great anger. By some accident a horse was
killed and its body hurled into a deep ravine. By
this mishap I learned that Ravens were very partial
to horse flesh, as they daily visited the decaying carcass,
and seemingly made little or no efforts te obtain other
kinds of food.
When deer are shot and eyiscerated Ravens come
around and feed on the refuse matter. At such times
they generally are seen in pairs, but sometimes sev-
eral are together.
THE FISH CROW.
The Fish Crow, smaller than the Common Crow,
elossy black with green and violet reflections, occurs
chiefly about maritime districts of the Atlantic Coast,
from Long Island to Florida. In Pennsylvania the
Fish Crow is found, in the summer season, along the
shores of the Delaware river and about the Susque-
hanna river from Columbia, Lancaster county, south-
ward. The Fish Crow has the same bad habit which
has made such a blot on the good name of its near
kinsman, the Common Crow, namely, that of robbing,
Audubon tells us, other birds of their eggs and young.
However, such deeds of rapine, on the part of the Fish
Crow, are, it is believed, much less frequent than is
the case with the Common Crow.
Some observers, however, assert that Meadowlarks,
Clapper Rails, Terns, Quails and other smaller species
of birds suffer the loss of many of their eggs and
yonng through the thieving propensities of Fish Crows,
which are common about the sea coast regions.
262
THE COMMON CROW.
This well-known species is common, during all
seasons of the year, in Pennsylvania. At times,
other than when breeding, these birds are gregarious
and often collect in large flocks. Dr. C. Hart Mer-
riam, Chief of the Biological Division of the U. 8.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D, C., in
briefly summarizing the food habits of the Crow, in
a letter of transmittal that appears in Bulletin No. 6,
prepared by his assistants, Messrs. W. B. Barrows and
E. A. Schwarz, whose exhaustive report, entitled,
“The Common Crow of the United States,” is based
on nearly a thousand stomach examinations of Crows
taken during all seasons, and careful field notes, says:
WHAT THE CROW IS CHARGED WITH.
“The most important charges brought against the Crow are:
qd) That it pulls sprouting corn; (2) that it injures corn in
the milk; (8) that it destroys cultivated fruit; and (4) that it
feeds on the eggs and young of poultry and wild birds.
“All of these charges are sustained by the stomach exami-
nations, so far as the simple fact that Crows feed upon the
substance named. But the extent of the injury is a very dif-
ferent matter.
RESULTS OF CRITICAL ANALYSES.
“In order to ascertain whether the sum of the harm done
outweighs the sum of the good, or the contrary, the different
kinds of food found in the stomach have been reduced to
quantitative percentages and contrasted. The total quantity
of corn eaten during the entire year amounts to 25 per cent.
of the food of the adult Crow, and only nine and three-tenth
per cent. of the food of young Crows. Leaving the young out of
consideration, it may be said that in agricultural districts
about one-fourth of the food of Crows consists of corn. But
less than 14 per cent. of this corn, and only 3 per cent. of the
total food of the Crow, consists of sprouting corn and corn in
the milk; the remaining 86 per cent. of the corn, or 97 per cent.
263
of the total food, is chiefly waste grain picked uphereand there,
mainly in winter, and is of no economic value,
DO TRIVIAL DAMAGE TO FRUIT.
“In the case of cultvated fruits the loss is trivial. The same
is true of the eggs and young of poultry and wild birds, the
total for the year amounting to only one per cent. of the food.
“As an offset to his bad habits, the Crow is to be credited
with the good done in destroying noxious insects and other
injurious animals. Insects form 26 per cent of the entire food,
and the great majority of these are grasshoppers, May beetles,
eut worms and other injurious kinds. It is shown that during
the May beetle season, in May and June, these beetles form
the principal insect food of the Crow. Only a few stomachs
do not contain them, and stomachs are often filled with
them. The fact that the May beetle season coincides with the
breeding season of the Crow is of special importance, the
principal insect food of nestling Crows consisting of these
beetles. ae el
DEVOUR LEGIONS OF BEETLES AND GRASSHOPPERS.
Mr. Schwarz also finds that grasshoppers occur in the!
stomachs throughout the year; during May beetle season they
occur in the vast majority of stomachs, but usually in mod-
erate numbers; that with the disappearance of May beetles
towards the end of June they increase in numbers until in
August and throughout the fall they constitute by far the
greater part of insect food, often occurring in astonishing
numbers, often forming the only insect food.
“To the same side of the scale must be added the destruc-
tion of mice, rabbits, and other injurious rodents by the Crow.
“In the summing up of the benefits and losses resulting from
the habits of this bird, it is clear that the good exceeds the
bad and that the Crow is a friend rather than an enemy of
the farmer.”
THE CROW DESTROYS ARMY WORMS.
During the months of July and August, 1896, when
the writer was engaged in studying the Army Worm,
(Leucania unipuncta), Which preyed upon cereals,
(particularly oats) grass, etc., in this State to the ex-
264
tent probably of $300,000 (estimated) abundant oppor-
tunity was afforded to learn what species of birds and
other animals subsisted on the voracious larvae.
While conducting these investigations, in different
parts of Pennsylvania, several hundred birds of
various species were shot and examined. These post-
mortem examinations, as well as observations in the
field, demonstrated conclusively that Crows and Crow
Blackbirds were, perhaps, the most useful of all birds
in devouring army worms.
CROWS AND BLACKBIRDS.
The viscera of twenty-three Crows, old and young,
which were captured in different counties of the State,
and in localities where army worms were abundant,
were in many instances, found to be gorged with the
remains of these larvae. Crows also ate large num-
bers of pupae. I noticed Crows or Blackbirds, espe-
cially the Common Crow Blackbird, to be quite numer-
ous in nearly all fields where the crawling hosts were
abundant, and these dark-colored and badly abused
birds, by their constant warfare on the worms, did
much to keep in check the damage to cereal and other
crops. Crows were generally to be observed singly or
in pairs, sometimes in parties, five or seven indi-
viduals, but the Blackbirds were often noticed in good
sized flocks. One flock of Blackbirds numbered fully
seventy-five individuals and they all seemed to be
intently engaged for a considerable time in the morn-
ing or evening, as well as at intervals in mid-day,
destroying the Army Worm. A Crow would eat a
handful of the worms at a single meal; the number
which a single bird would devour in a day was im-
mense.
265
FARMERS PRAISED THEM.
Several farmers whose premises I visited when in-
vestigating the ravages of the Army Worm expressed
great surprise when they were informed that Crows
and Blackbirds fed almost wholly on the voracious
insect-pests which were devastating the oats, barley,
corn and grass fields. When specimens of these birds
were shot and the contents of their stomachs exposed,
they admitted that the birds were not as bad as it
was commonly supposed.
SOME BAD HABITS.
The Crow’s fondness for eggs and young of domesti-
cated fowls, as well as his penchant for despoiling the
nests of numerous wild birds of their eggs and young,
is well known; then again the Crow visits the corn-
field in the springtime and in the Autumn he often
does considerable damage. These carnivorous tastes
and grain-eating habits of the Crow have caused, it
seems, a great many of our farmers to place Mr. Crow
under ban.
The Crow Blackbird, like the Common Crow, de-
stroys the eggs and young of different species of bene-
ficial birds which nest in orchards, parks and gardens,
and he also often, like the Crow, visits the cornfield
or cherry tree. However, if farmers would take the
trouble in the Spring when Crows and their bright-
eyed relatives—the Blackbirds—are at work in corn-
fields to carefwully investigate, they would tind, no
doubt, as the writer has, that these birds are not
there for the purpose of destroying corn, but to save
it from crawling foes which hide beneath the soil.
17*--11
266
THEY EAT GRUBS AND “BUGS.”
Reader, if you doubt this statement take the
trouble, sometime in the Spring, when you see Crows
and Blackbirds in a cornfield when the corn is an
inch or two above the ground, to sheot some of the
birds, open their stomachs, and the chances are ten
to one you will discover that these “corn-pulling”
birds have nothing but “cutworms,” other larvae, and
beetles in their food receptacles.
SOMETIMES STEAL THE CORN.
The Crow, undoubtedly, at times, particularly in the
fall when the farmer is slow about taking corn in
from a ‘field, sometimes does considerable damage.
In the Spring this bird also occasionally does a good
deal of mischief in cornfields. This same statement
may likewise be made concerning the Blackbird.
However, notwithstanding the fact that both species
of birds just mentioned destroy more or less corn, the
great amount of good they do by destroying innum-
erable insect foes which prey constantly, during the
summer season, on grain, fruit and garden crops, is,
according to my judgment, considerably in excess of
losses incurred from casual predatory visits which
these omnivorous birds make to the growing or
ripened corn.
THEY DEVOUR EGGS AND NESTLINGS.
If it was not for the bad habit which the Crow has
of destroying eggs and young of beth poultry and
wild birds, and the same is true of the Crow Black-
bird which has acquired quite an appetite for eggs
and nestlings of different species of small wild birds,
267
there could be no possible reason for doubt in the mind
of any naturalist about both of these well-known
species being far more beneficial than harmful to the
farmer and fruit grower. Sportsmen also view the
Crow and Crow Blackbird, especially the former, in
an unfavorable light because they will often destroy
the eggs and sometimes the young of game birds,
Grouse and Quail, Meadowlarks, ete. Along the salt
water marshes of the Atlantic Ocean, when collecting
specimens with my genial and gifted friend, the
naturalist, Mr. C. M. Busch, we have observed Crows
pillaging the nests of Terns and Mudhens, or Clapper
Rails, as ornithologists call them.
THE JAYS.
Two species of Jays—that is, feathered Jays—in.
cluded in the sub-family GARRULINAE, are at-
tributed to the fauna of Pennsylvania.
One of these, the Canada Jay, a native of the dis-
tant north, is seldom found as far south as this State,
where it has only been taken as a rare straggler in
winter.
THE BLUE JAY.
This bird, of bright color, saucy, independent ways
and mimicking voice, is common and well-known to
every farmer’s boy, woodsman and hunter. While all
admire him, because of his showy coat and cunning
habits, he is, nevertheless very generally regarded
with disfavor because of his mischievous traits of
character.
Blue Jays, like some school boys, seem to go out of
their way to hunt trouble, and usually they get it,
268
but, often, not until they have caused a good deal of
bother or suffering to others about them.
DISTRIBUTION.
The Blue Jay has an extensive range, being found
over the whole of the United States east of the Great
Plains, from the warm climate of the Gulf of Mexico
northward to the dreary wilds of the Fur Countries.
In Pennsylvania, and, it is said, in most parts .of
their range, they remain throughout all seasons of the
year. These beautiful birds commonly resort to
forests to breed, vet they do not live like hermits in
the woods, for when searching for food they frequently
come about orchards, gardens, meadows and farm
buildings. In the cold winter season when the
ground is covered with snows these birds will visit
the farmer’s corn crib, and like the Crow Blackbird,
and Red-headed Woodpecker, peck at corn which can
be reached from the outside through the slats.
SOMETIMES SEEN IN FLOCKS.
Jays when breeding commonly are seen in pairs,
but in the late summer and fall it is not unusual to
find them in small flocks; on different occasions I
have seen twenty or twenty-five of them feeding in
beech, chestnut or apple trees. Blue Jays, as is the
habit of other members of their family, will feed on
different cereals, but of all the grains, corn or maize
is the one most preferred.
| seeds, ete.
4 | March i4, 1885,] Volusia county, Fla.| Remains of fishes, beetle, oats
| | and corn.
5 | April 29, 1885,| Volusia county, Fla.) Cray-fish, minnow and _ different
| insects.
6 | May, 1885, Volusia county, Fla.) Remains of fishes and green col-
cred beetle.
303
A Florida fisherman, during the early part of April,
1885, caught a number of “perch” which spoiled before
a market could be found for them. The decaying car-
casses were tossed into the river, to float away or to be
“cobbled up” by the voracious “catties.” Several of
these defunct fishes lodged among the shell rocks lin-
ing the banks. Probably an hour after the castaways
had jain along the riverside, three Crow Blackbirds
were seen—quoting the phraseology of a “cracker” who
wus present at the time—*to jine de fish and feast
‘emselyes to plum fulness.” After the departure of
the sable visitants, inspection of the feeding place
revealed that the birds had picked out the eyes of
seven, or all but one, of the fishes, three of which were
considerably torn about the abdominal regions. ‘The
mutilated condition of the belly muscles is mainly at-
tributed to the fact that the fish had been eviscerated
before having been thrown away, hence these incised
parts were more accessible to mandibular action than
other and unbroken parts of the scaly anatomy. er.
tainly there is no cbyious reason why the abdominal
and neighboring pectoral portions of a “perch” should
be more palatable to the sprightly “White-eyed Jack-
daw,” as the native Floridians are accustomed to term
the species.
THE BRONZED BLACKBIRD.
The Bronzed Grackle (Q. quiscula aenus, Ridgw.)
is the common Crow Blackbird found in Pennsylvania
west of the Allegheny mountains. In eastern Pennsyl-
vania this bird is rather rare. This variety differs
from the typical gutscula chiefly in having a uniform
brassy-colored body, and wings and tail purplish or
violet, never blnish,
304
THE HERONS AND BITTERNS.
The family Ardeidae contains, it is said, about seventy-five
species which are very generally dispersed throughout all parts
of the globe. A few species wander to cold countries but the
great majority of these waders inhabit the lower temperate and
tropical countries. In different localities throughout the United
States about eighteen species and varieties (local or geograph-
ical races) are recorded by modern writers: and of these
nine species have been taken during recent years in Pennsyl-
vania. Some species occur with us as regular summer resi-
dents, while others are observed here only as transitory visi-
tors in the spring and fall migrations.
These birds frequent muddy banks of rivers, creeks, lakes
and ponds; they are also found about swampy meadows and
marshy places, particularly if the latter are well supplied with
pools of shallow water, protected by trees or bushes. Birds of
this family often remain quiet or inactive in daytime, but as
evening approaches, or in the night, they go out, like the Owls,
in quest of food, which they secure by rapid and dexterous
thrusts of their long, spear-like bills.
‘Birds of this family subsist chiefly on various kinds of fishes,
frogs, snakes; and they also eat other kinds of animal food,
such as large insects, field mice, lizards, toads, cray-fish,
leeches, ete., and some of the birds of this group eat rats as
well as the young of birds of other species which breed about
their favorite feeding resorts. The Great Blue Heron, the
Night Heron and the Great Bittern all, it is asserted, have been
observed to catch ducklings of both wild and domesticated
species. Last year a farmer near Harrisburg shot a Great
Blue Heron which he said had killed several young chickens
which were about a carp pond near his spring house.
The damage which Herons or Bitterns do to wild birds or
domesticated fowls is very insignificant; indeed, it is very sel-
dom that a Heron or Bittern attempts to capture the young
of any feathered animals.
a 1
7 7
i ry ;
a : > \ ‘
1
”y i 4
F
:
‘
} 1
: .. ’ } '
t
F
q
;
*
t é
I
i
;
f
oh
is 9 :
we oe aan
ny q
” :
: -
7
,
GREAT BeUve ERON:
305
GREAT BLUE HERON.
Ardea herodias.
DESCRIPTION.
Adult.—Bill about six inches long, chiefly yellow; dusky on
culmen; eyes yellow; legs and feet blackish, yellowish about
toes; lores greenish-yellow or bluish. The color of bill, legs
and lores vary greatly not only with age and season but also
with individuals. The male, larger than female, is about four
feet long and about six feet from tip to tip. Forehead and
central portion of crown white, surrounded on sides and be-
hind with black; long occipital feathers black; neck chiefly
brownish-gray; feathers on middle (in front) of lower two-
thirds of neck, with a showy streak of black, white and rusty,
chin and upper part of neck in front white. Tibiae (‘‘thighs’’)
and edge of wing reddish brown; upper parts and tail light
bluish slate color; long scapular feathers and long straggling
feathers on lower neck. The young are different in many re-
spects from the above, ‘but can always be known by their
large size and a general resemblance to the adult.
Habitat.— North America, from the Artic regions southward
to the West Indies and Northern South America.
This bird, the largest of our Herons, is a summer
resident in various localities in this State. During the
last ten years, however, several favorite breeding re-
sorts in eastern Pennsylvania, which were annually
visited by this and other species, have been broken up
by boys and men who destroyed the birds, old and
young, simply because their feathers would bring a
few dollars, and, as they remarked, “there’s no law to
stop it.”
I have no doubt that the time will soon come when
this beautiful Heron will be known in this Common-
wealth only as a rare straggling visitant.
THE NEST AND EGGS.
The nest is made of large sticks and twigs, and
placed on the larger limbs of trees which grow usually
20--TT
306
near the water. The eggs vary in number from three
to five; they are light blue in color, and about the size
of those of our common domestic fowl.
DANGEROUS WHEN WOUNDED.
This bird, and the same is true of other Herons,
when wounded and unable to escape, is one which can-
not be handled with too much caution, as it frequently,
with its sharp and powerful bill, inflicts severe, dan-
eerous, and sometimes even fatal wounds. In Florida
I met a hunter who had an eye destroyed by one of
these birds which he had winged and carelessly at-
tempted to pick up.
ITS FLESH IS QUITE PALATABLE.
By some, particularly residents of certain of the
southern states, the flesh of the Great Blue Heron is
considered quite a delicious morsel. Some few win-
ters ago, when camping in the cypress swamps of Flor.
ida, I, more from necessity than choice, eat the breast
meat of this bird and also that of the Water Turkey
(Anhinga anhinga), which preys exclusively on fish, and
although I did not especially relish the dish, IT must
admit that toa hunery man it was in no way disagree-
able. i
WHAT NUTTALL SAYS OF ITS HABITS.
The following interesting observations on the food-
habits are given by Nuttall:
“Fish is the principal food of the Great Blue Heron, and for
this purpose, like an experienced angler, he often waits for
that condition ‘of the tide which best suits his experience and
instinet. At such times they are seen slowly sailing out from
their inland breeding haunts, during the most silent and cool
307
period of the summer’s day, selecting usually such shallow
inlets as the ebbing tide leaves bare or accessible to his
watchful and patient mode of prowling; here, wading to the
knees, he stands motionless amidst the timorous fry, till some
victim coming within the compass of his wily range is as in-
stantly seized by the powerful bill of the Heron EA fa A
If large, the fish is beaten to death, and commonly swallowed
with the head descending, as if to avoid any obstacle arising
from the reversion of the fins or any hard external processes.
On land our Heron also has his fare, as he is no less a suc-
cessful angler than a mouser, and renders an important ser-
vice to the farmer in the destruction he makes among most
of the reptiles and meadow mice. Grasshoppers, other large
insects, and particularly dragon-flies, he is very expert in
striking, and occasionally feeds upon the seeds of pond lilies,
contiguous to his usual haunts. Our species, in all probability,
as well as the European Heron, at times preys upon the young
birds which may be accidentally straggling near their solitary
retreats.”
In the months of Mareh and April, 1885, I examined
the stomachs of twenty-three of these birds which had
been killed by plume-hunters in Orange and Volusia
counties, Florida. Twelve birds had fed entirely on
fish; three had taken fish and cray-fish; two, small
snakes; one, frogs and fish; one,fish and a few feathers:
one, traces of beetles; three birds were destitute of all
food materials.
308
GREEN HERON.
Ardea virescens.
DESCRIPTION.
Length about eighteen inches; extent of wings about twenty-
six; bill rather stout, about two and a half inches long, and
about half an inch longer than tarsus (ankle).
Adult in Summer.—Top of head, and lengthened crest glossy
green; sides of head and neck, except a dusky streak in front,
bright chestnut or maroon; wing coverts and upper surface of
wings and tail feathers glossy green, wing coverts edged with
brownish and whitish; inner primaries with narrow white tips;
long scapular plumes bluish-white glossed with green, lower
parts grayish, darkest on sides. [Bill greenish-black, except
mandible on lower surface, also lores and eyes yellow; legs
greenish yellow.
Young.—Head less crested and dull greenish black, back and
upper parts generally greenish; long scapular plumes absent;
wing coverts much more broadly bordered with brown and
whitish than adult; many of larger wing feathers have snowy
white tips; chin, throat and front neck, whitish with dusky
streaks; sides of head rather pale raddish-brown; lower parts,
whitish with dusky stripes; edge of wing as in adult white;
color of eyes, legs and bill, very similar to old bird.
Habitat.—Canada and Oregon, southward to northern South
America and the West Indies; rare or absent in the middle pro-
vince.
The Green Heron is known by a variety of local
names, some of which are much more expressive than
elegant. This bird, the most common and abundant
of all our Herons, is found throughout the State, fre-
quenting rivers, streams and ponds. It arrives in this
section occasionally as early as the first week in April,
from the southern states, where it resides when the
chilling blasts of winter have frozen over our streams
and marshes. This species sometimes breeds in small
companies; generally, however, but two or three pairs
are found nesting together.
GIRIE(E IN Inte iReOUNE
309
THE NEST AND EGGS.
The nests, built of sticks and twigs, are placed in
low bushes or small trees adjacent to a stream or pond.
The nests frequently are built in apple orchards. In-
deed, the largest number of nests that I ever found in
one locality was in an apple orchard along the Brandy-
wine, where for several years some twenty-five or
thirty of these birds annually resorted. While it is
true that I have found these Herons breeding in small
numbers with the Night and Great Blue Herons in
Pennsylvania, and also in Florida in company with the
Little Blue, Louisiana and Snowy Herons, and even
sometimes in the colonies of Water Turkeys and Cor-
morants, I think, as a rule, they usually prefer to re-
main by themselves during the season of reproduction
as well as at other times. Various writers state that
the eggs are four in number. I have examined many
nests and considered the usual complement to be not
less than five; frequently six eggs are laid. The eggs
are pale blue and larger than those of our common
pigeon.
EATS FISH, INSECTS, FROGS, ETC.
This species feeds much more frequently on
insects than other of the herons that reside with us.
Nuttall writes of the Green Heron in the following lan.
guage:
“He is also particularly attracted by artificial ponds for fish,
not refraining even to visit gardens and domestic premises
when any prospect of fare may offer. He is, at the same time,
perhaps as much in quest of the natural enemy of fish, the
frog, as of the legitimate tenants of the pond. These bold and
intrusive visits are commonly made early in the morning,
towards twilight, and he not unfrequently, when pressed by
hunger, or after ill-success, turns out to hunt his fare by day
310
as well as dusk, and at such times, collects various larvae,
particularly those of the dragon-fly, with grasshoppers and
different kinds of insects. At other times he preys upon small
fish, crabs and frogs, for which he often lies patiently in wait
till they reappear from their hiding places in the water or
mud, and on being transfixed and caught, which is effected
with great dexterity, they are commonly beaten to death, if
large, and afterwards swallowed at leisure.”
STOMACH EXAMINATIONS.
Nineteen birds, examined by me, were found to have
fed on the different materials named below :
Date. Locality. Food Materials.
Barnegat, N. J.,_ .....- « Beetles ana other insects.
Chester county, Pa., “Fall-fish.’’
2 Chester county, Pa., Frog and minnows.
April 29, 1879, | Chester county, Pa. Fragments of insects and small
quantity of hair probably that
of a field mouse.
1880, | Chester county, Pa., ..| Beetles.
1880, Delaware county, Pa., Frog.
1s81, | Chester county, Pa., ..| Remains of smali fishes.
1881, | Chester county, Pa., ..| Beetles and other insects.
1882, | Laneaster county, Pa., Fishes and frogs.
1882, | Cheste> county, Pa., ..] Remains of small fishes.
1882, | Chester county, Pa., Remains of small fishes.
1882, | Chester county, .Pa., ..| Remains of small fishes.
1882, | Chester county, Pa., Remains of small fishes.
1883, | York county, Pa., ..... Dipterous and other insects.
9, 1892, | Lancaster county, Pa., Dragon-fiy and young Rail (Sera)
. 1892, Chester county, Pa., Frog and beetles.
1894, | Chester county, Pa., ..| Hair of small mammal
1896, | Dauphin county Pa., ..| Remains of fish and beetles.
1896, | Sullivan county, Pa., ..] Feathers and beetles.
ys
BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT HERON.
SUL
BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT HERON.
Nycticorax nyeticorax naevius.
DESCRIPTION.
Bill very stout and thick; maxilla slightly curved; bill and
tarsus each about three inches long; head and neck large, the
latter quite short; body short and heavy.
Adult.—Length about twenty-five inches; alar extent, about
forty-four; bill black, lores greenish-yellow; eyes, red, legs yel-
lowish; top of head and middle of back glo y-greenish black
(sometimes dull black with little or no greenish); a narrow
stripe on forehead reaching to eye; sides of head chin, head,
throat and under parts white, often tinged with a faint yel-
lowish or a very delicate light purple color; wings and tail
ashy-blue; neck, except in front, similar but paler. The adults
frequently have three long and white occipital feathers, which
when rolled together, appear as one thick round feather.
Young.— Bill (dried skin) black and yellowish; iris light yel-
low; legs yellowish, upper part light brown, spotted or
streaked with whitish; tail about same as adult; sides of head
and neck, and under plumage generally, striped with whitish
and dusky. A. young bird before me differs from the last
chiefly in having top of head and large spece between shoulders
dull brownish gray, without spots.
Habitat.—America, from the British possessions southward
to the Falkland Islands, including part of the West Indies.
Next to the Green Heron the Night Heron is unques-
tionably the most abundant of the family in this State,
The adult birds are easily distinguished from other
Herons by the black feathers on top of head and back,
red eyes, and frequently three long white feathers,
which grow from the base of the head. The appella-
tion, Night Heron, is highly appropriate, as this bird
is mainly nocturnal in its habits. During the day-time
the Night Heron is inactive, and generally is found
perched on a log or the limb of a tree in a quite nook
about the swamps and streams. As twilight ap-
proaches this drowsy wader becomes, as it were, a new
being—impelled, no doubt, by the pangs of hunger—he
312
stands erect, the loose and shaggy plumage, which be-
fore seemed ill adapted to his body, now fits neatly and
closely as he carefully walks to the extremity of the
dead and decorticated limb on which he has been doz-
ing and suddenly, with a loud squawk, launches him-
self into the air, uttering at short intervals his harsh
note, and rising above the trees of the forest, he speed-
ily visits some favorite mill-dam. These birds arrive
in Pennsylvania about the 25th of April and remain
until the latter part of September. They seem to re-
pair at once on their arrival in spring to localities
where they are accustomed to breed. After the
breeding season, i. e., about the middle of August,
when the young are amply able to take care of them-
selves, these birds forsake their nesting places and be-
come quite plentiful along the rivers, streams and
bushy marshes.
THEY BREED IN COLONIES.
The Night Heron rarely, if ever breeds singly, but
always in large companies. I have visited, on differ
ent occasions, two of these breeding resorts and found
from twenty-five to seventy-five nests, which like those
of the other species, were built of sticks and placed
usually in high trees. The eggs three or four in num-
ber are a pale sea-green color and measure about 2
by 14 inches. In Berks county, near Blue Rock, for
many years, this species annually reared their young
in the edge of a large woods along the margin of which
was a good-sized stream. In this place many of the
nests were built in a bunch of saplings, some fifteen or
twenty feet high and so small in diameter that it was
impossible to climb them. Wilson has very properly
said that the noise of the old and young in one of these
313
breeding places would induce one to suppose that two
or three hundred Indians were choking or throttling
each other. The same writer, in referring to examina.
tions which he made, states that the teeth of the
pectinated claw were thirty-five or forty in number,
and as they contained particles of the down of the
bird, showed evidently from this circumstance that
ihey act the part of a comb to rid the bird of vermin
in those parts which it cannot reach with its bill.
FOND OF GOLD FISH.
A geutleman residing near West Chester, some years
ago, had large numbers of gold-fishes in a pond near
his residence. One day he caught twenty-five of these
fish and placed them in a small pool, intending to re-
move them the following morning. “About bedtime,”
he said, “I heard a loud squawking, and going out saw
two Night Herons actively engaged in catching these
fish. I shot one of these robbers, and on making an
investigation found only one of the fish remaining.”
The late Isaac G. Darlington of West Chester, in-
formed me he on one occasion shot a Night Heron in
the act of killing his young ducks on a pond near his
house.
“An incident may illustrate the habits of the Night Heron,
and perhaps of the whole family. A Night Heron had been
noticed for several days sitting on a tree near a branch of
White Clay creek. It was at length shot and brought to me,
with the tail of a large fish projecting four inches beyond its
bill. On removing the fish (a sucker Catostemus, which must
have been twelve inches long), its head and shoulders—except
the bony portions—were eaten away by the gastric liquor of the
stomach.’’—Michener.
THEY SUBSIST MAINLY ON FISH.
I have examined the stomachs of twenty odd of
these Herons, adults and young, which have been shot
314
in June at the breeding-grounds, and found in all only
the remains of fishes. In two or three immature birds
taken in August and September, | have discovered a
few grasshoppers and portions of insects.
Hon. Hiram Peoples, of New Providence, Lancaster
county, Pa., who devotes much attention to fish culture,
raising large quantities of Bass and Goldfish for the
markets, says he is bothered a great deal by Fish
Hawks, Night Herons and Kingfishers. He states that
ihe depredations of these birds in his fish ponds be-
came so humerous that he offered a premium of fifty
cents for each Fish Hawk cr Night Heron, and ten
cents for eyery Kingfisher which was killed on his
premises. This offer induced several neighbors’ boys
to make particular efforts to destroy the feathered
fishermen. Mr. Peoples estimates that he lost an.
nually from fifty to seventy-five dollars worth of fishes
through the visits ‘of these birds before he began kill-
ing them and paying bounties for their heads.
AMERICAN BITTERN.
3otaurus lentiginosus.
DESCRIPTION.
Adult.—Bill yellowish, dusky on ridge; bare space in front
of eyes greenish-yellow; legs and feet greenish-yellow; eyes
yellow. Length, about twenty-six inches; extent, about forty-
five inches. General ecclor brownish-yellow, top of head dull
brown; upper parts finely freckled and variegated with differ-
ent shades of brown, blackish and whitish; chin and throat
white with brown streak; a broad and glossy black stripe
about three inches long on upper part of neck.
Habitat.—Temperate North America, south to Guatemala
and the West Indies.
This as well as other species are very commonly but
erroneously called Cranes. The American Bittern is
known to nimrods and fishermen in many sections of
» the name of “In-
dian Hen” is likewise applied to this bird as well as
the Yellow-billed Cuckoo.
the State as “Green-legged Crane;
HAS A LOUD VOICE.
This Bittern is a summer resident in Pennsylvania,
arriving early in April and remaining sometimes as
late as the early part of November. Its notes are loud
and quite remarkable and under favorable circum-
stances they may be heard at a distance of at least
three quarters of a mile. These notes are of two kinds.
One known as the “pumping” call is described as fol-
lows: pump-er-lunk, pump-er-lunk, pump-er-lunk, and
the other is so like the sound made by driving a stake
in the mud, that it has given rise to one of the com-
mon names of this bird, namely “Stake-driver.”
With us this species is seen singly or in pairs fre-
quenting chiefly the thick swampy places about mead-
ows, rivers and lakes.
316
THE NEST AND EGGS:
The frail nest of this bird is on the ground. The
eggs, three to five in number, are brownish-drab, un-
spotted and about two inches long by about one and
one-half inches broad.
ITS FOOD.
The Bittern feeds on fish, cray-fish, frogs, tadpoles,
snakes, snails, different kinds of insects, particularly
grasshoppers and beetles. It catches mice and other
small-sized quadrupeds which it chances to come across
in its secluded retreats, and sometimes it will kill the
young of ducks aond Rails.
317
CHAPTER V.
MAMMALS.
Nearly fifty well defined species, and a number of
subspecies, varieties or races of four-footed wild ani-
mals are found in Pennsylvania. The Bison or Buffalo
has long since been exterminated; the last American
Elk or Wapiti was taken about thirty-five years ago in
Elk county, and the Beaver, a valuable and harmless
fur-bearing animal, is also extirpated. There seems
to be little room for doubt that the North American
Wolf, the Canada Lynx, or “Loup Cervier,” as it is
ralled by the French Canadians, and the Panther are
no longer to be found in this State.
“NEW FACES WILL MEET US.”
Future investigations of our modern naturalists,
some of whom delight to discover and name new
“races,” will, no doubt, if instituted with proper indus-
try, materially augment the number given above. A
Sealtaken two years ago in the Delaware river at Ches-
ter City, Delaware county, was an accidental straggler.
Two Leopards, a ‘Tiger, several Wolves, Coyotes,
Prairie Dogs, a Badger, and Hares, which have been
captured, according to different reports received dur-
ing the past four or five years, were, of course, escaped
captives, and they cannot properly be included in the
mammalian fauna of Pennsylvania.
VALUABLE FUR-BEARING SPECIES.
The mammals which occur with us are permanent
residents, but birds, or many of them, on the other
hand, reside here only during certain periods of the
year.
The most important and yaulable fur-bearing ani-
mals at present found in this State are the Black Bear,
Minks, Skunks, Muskrats, Otter, Raccoon, Opossum,
Fisher and Marten. Of this list the two last men-
iioned are restricted to a few sparsely settled districts,
and even in such remote and uninhabited wilds they
are seldom seen.
Some mammals, for example the Wildcat, Black
Bear, Foxes, Minks, Meadow Mice, Muskrat, Wood-
chuck and a few others, when present in a locality in
any considerable number, do much damage and should
be destroyed. It is not, however, wise on just to
wrongfully condemn certain of the common animals
found about the farmer’s cultivated enclosures, or in
the forests, when it is known, at least to naturalists,
that the gcod they do far outweighs their depredations
to poultry, game or yegetable crops.
DISTURBING NATURE'S BALANCE.
Widespread misconception of the true relation
which mammals, birds and insects have to man’s in-
terests have dome much in recent years in this and
other countries to militate against the welfare and
comfort of mankind.
The truth of this can be shown by briefly referring
to some mistakes made by the intreduction of species
with a view to naturalization or otherwise, and the
cruel, useless slaughter of others, thus disturbing the
319
Balance of Nature, and resulting in an enormous loss
that falls, especially, on farmers and horticulturists.
GREAT ERRORS.
The English Sparrow, twenty-tive or thirty years ago,
was brought to Pennsylvania because it was believed
he would destroy insect pests which defoliated shade
and fruit trees, and attacked cultivated crops. Since
this bird has become established, not only in Pennsy1-
vania, but generally throughout the United States
and Canada, it has been learned he is a most undesira-
ble addition to our fauna. He devours cereals, fruits.
buds and blossoms of fruit, shade and ornamental
trees, as well as different kinds of garden produce.
He Joves the tender buds of grape vines and their ripe
fruit. In the famous Erie grape belt of this State, it
is estimated that nelish Sparrows annually destroy
from $30,000 to $35,000 worth of grapes.
INSECTIVOROUS BIRDS DRIVEN AWAY.
These little feathered pests, great fighters that they
are, live continually about human habitations from
Which they drive away numerous kinds of beneficial
birds that formerly did great service to the human race
by aiding to repress pestiferous insect foes that the
pugnacious, grain-eating Sparrow disdains to touch,
It is stated thai not less than seventy-two kinds of
birds which are found throughout the wide area of this
continent, where this imported bird nuisance is now
ensconced, have been driven by English Sparrows
from their old-timed nesting haunts about the habita-
tions of man.
The people pow want the English Sparrow de-
stroyed, and many favor a bounty for his mischiveous
head. But such a method of exterminating this bird
320
will never do, because popular ignorance of birds, to-
gether with man’s greed for pecuniary gain, would
bring about the extermination of great numbers of
beneficial song and other birds which would be called
“English Sparrows.”
HAS AGRICULTURE PROFITED?
With a view of “benefiting agriculture” and pretect-
ing poultry and game in Pennsylvania bounty acts
have been enacted which allowed hunters to slay with
indiscriminate hand many of the most useful birds and
mammals. This legislation, brought about by popular
prejudice and a deplorable ignorance of the habits of
animals placed under ban, has cost thousands and
thousands of dollars in cash paid out of the county
funds. While it is true the original money outlay was
great (indeed, it proved a serious burden to taxpayers
in some sections of the Commonwealth) the loss or
fruit of such folly will be much more from a money
standpoint to our farmers than the large sums first
expended. Even during the past three or four years,
as an echo of the odious scalp act of 1885, we hear,
from different sections of this State, of the great dam-
age done by Meadow Mice, Rats and Rabbits. Strange
is it not that many people who now complain of ro-
dents and insects doing so much harm to their property,
were, and are even yet, firm believers in paying boun
ties?
When a man goes to the shop or market place to
make a purchase, it is a common saying, “He pays his
money and makes his choice;” so it is with the bounty
question. Continue to pay premiums for beneficial
birds of prey and mammals which live largely on det-
rimental forms of animal life, and we will have more
321
mice and insects, but the farmer and horticulturist
will, in many instances, have considerably less ready
cash to purchase insecticides, spraying machines and
other insect destroyers that are now necessary for
almost every sucessful farmer and fruit grower to
possess.
DANGER OF IMPORTING FOREIGN SPECIES.
The importation of foreign species of insects as well
as other forms of animal life often results disastrously.
Nature aims to restrain the over development of one
species by means of another;
“Small fleas have smaller fleas to bite ‘em,
And these have smaller fleas ad infinitum.”
and as Mr. Gerald McCarthy* states:
“When a species is transported to some distant locality it is
apt to leave behind its corelated restraining species, and hence
in its new home it is enabled to multiply more rapidly and do
more damage than in its native home.”
SOME TROUBLESOME PESTS.
The Gipsy Moth, introduced by accident into the
Bay State, has ravaged a portion of Massachusetts,
and over $750,000 have been spent to eradicate this
destroyer of foliage, thus far with only partial sue-
cess. Investigations proved that many kinds of birds
(some of which were called poultry and game destroy-
ers) devoured the larvae of the Gipsy Moth. When
this became known and it was learned that great num-
bers of these feathered benefactors were being de-
*The diseases and insects affecting fruit trees and plants,
with remedies for their destruction, by Gerald McCarthy, Botan-
ist and Entomologist, published Aug. 22, 1893, as chapter 11,
Bulletin No. 92, of the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
Station. ;
21--IT
322
=
stroyed in large numbers for millinery and other dec-
orative purposes a popular clamor arose against such
practices and the Massachusetts lawmakers recently
showed much good sense by enacting a law prohibiting
the killing and use of song and insectivorous birds for
the millinery trade.
The Elm-leaf Beetle, an exotic, is another costly ex-
ample of meddling with Nature’s plans.
Rabbits were introduced in Australia. They in-
creased with prodigions rapidity, and so abundant and
destructive did they become that for a time their ray-
ages threatened to ruin the country.
German Carp have been placed in many of the best
fishing grounds in Pennsylvania. This mistake is dis-
covered when it is too late, perhaps, to prevent them
from depopwating the waters in which they live of
desirable and valuable fishes.
MOTHER EVE AND HER SUCCESSORS.
When Mother Eve started the first sewing society
over which she ruled supreme in the Garden of Eden,
and began to make wearing apparel she was, so rec-
ords say, content to dress in plain and abbreviated
garb. Women of the present age, particularly some
who “stride the wheel,” pattern after Eve’s short skirts;
and lovely woman also delights to adorn her shapely
form with Nature’s beauties of both plant and animal
kind. Of course, no one would dare to believe that
women of this generation could ever be induced to em-
ploy the primitive fig leaf dress of her ancient and re-
nowned ancestor, even if the demands of fickle fashion
should eventually revert to the days when Eve did all
her own house work, spanked, and otherwise cared for
the babies, and besides all this, mate her own hats,
323
bonnets and clothing without the aid of a single fash-
ion plate; for history does not show that Adam even
once applied to Worth, of Paris, or any other costumer,
to get his faithful spouse guides to aid in adorning her
person. :
Women’s vanity and the requirements of fashion
have, within the past twenty years, brought about the
destruction of millions and millions of bright-coated
song and insectivorous birds. These beneficial feath-
ered creatures—servants and friends of the human
race—inhabit chiefly the cultivated possessions of
man, where myriads of destructive insects and larvae
breed so prolifically and do inestimable damage.
Since the wearing of insectivorous birds on hats has
become popular, it is learned that many crops that,
prior to this barbarous custom, were grown without
much difficulty, cannot now be successfully raised to
maturity without the employment of insecticides
which, forturately, modern economic entomological
scientists have discovered to aid the husbandman in
suppressing insect enemies.
EXPERT IN ELUDING OBSERVATION.
Mammals are shy and wary, which, with the fact
that most of them do not moye about during the broad
daylight, enables these creatures to readily elude ob-
servation. With the exception of Red Squirrels, Chip-
munks, Gray Squirrels, Foxes, some of the Mice, Cot-
tontails, the Woodchuck, Muskrat and an occasional
Deer, the average sportsman, or fisherman, seldom sees
any of our mammals. ‘This is chiefly due to the fact
that they so often remain hidden during the daylight
in secure retreats where only those who are acquainted
with their habits and haunts can discover them with
any degree of certainty.
324
Mammals are both nocturnal and diurnal. The
Gray Squirrel, Chipmunks, Woodchuck and Red Squir-
rels seem to move about more in the daytime than any
others; and Dr. Merriam says the Gray Squirrel and
Chipmunk are the only two “that-have not been seen
after nightfall.”
The Racccon, Skunks, Bats and Flying Squirrels are
decidedly nocturnal in their habits; but, as Dr. Mer-
riam states:
“Byen these are occasionally seen abroad during cloudy days,
and do much of their hunting in the twilight. The truth of
the matter seems to be that very few mammals range about
much during the brightest part of the day, or darkest part of
the night, these being the times when most of them do the
greater part of their sleeping. It is between the dark and the
daylight, before sunrise in the morning and in the dusk of
evening, when the faint light obscures their outlines and hides
their movements, that the larger number do their hunting.
Many of them are also out during cloudy days and moonlight
nights; and in winter, when the ground is white with snow, they
apparently circumambulate all night long.”
SOME ARE SOUND SLEEPERS.
“The phenomenon of hibernation, which enables many mam-
mals to endure a climate to the severity of which they would
inevitably succumb were they to remain active throughout the
year, and to thrive in regions where they would starve during
certain seasons but for their ability to become dormant when
searcity of food prevails, is well exemplified in a number of
our species. The following are known to pass a greater or less
period of the winter season in a condition of lethargy: The
Bear, Raccoon, Bats, Gray Squirrel, Chipmunk, Woodchuck,
and Jumping Mouse. Of these the Woodchuck (Ground Hog)
affords the most remarkable example. With astonishing reg-
ularity and precision, and utterly regardless of the state of
weather or condition of his food supply, he sinks into his bur-
row about the 20th of September,* and is rarely seen again be-
*In some sections of Pennsylvania this animal does not re-
tire to winter quarters, it is said, before the middle of October,
and he is often seen in the early part of March and sometimes
in February.—B, H, Warren,
325
fore the middle of March. It frequently, indeed usually, hap-
pens that the time chosen for entering upon the execution of
this singular proclivity is during fine, warm, weather and at a
time when the fields are clothed with a luxuriant growth of his
favorite food, clover. In fact the Woodchuck retires to the cold
dark recesses of his cheerless subterranean abode to commence
a period of voluntary seclusion, to enter upon a state of com-
plete oblivion and absolute lethargy, at the very time when one
would naturally suppose he would most enjoy himselt above
ground.
“The Gray Squirrel, on the other hand, remains out nearly
the entire winter, and withdraws to its nest in some hollow tree
only during the severest weather. The Raccoon and Bear fur-
nish examples of animals whose dormant periods are interme-
diate in duration between those above cited.
“Hibernation is, after afl, merely a profound sleep, intensified
and protracted. During ordinary sleep respiration is slackened
and the temperature of the body is lower than when the animal
is awake. The longer the sleep continues the less frequent do
the respirations become and the lower does the temperature fall,
till finally the condition of deep and continued sleep—the true
lethargy of hibernation—is attained. This apparent phenom-
enon, then, is a genuine physiological process, differing in de-
‘gree only from ordinary sleep. It is the result of conditions of
environment, and has become an hereditary habit, enabling cer-
tain mammals to exist during a period when their usual food
supply is cut off. The dormant state is sometimes brought on
by extremes of temperature, but this is not often the case.”’—
From The Vertebrates of the Adirondack Region, Northwest-
ern New York, By Dr. C. Hart Merriam, pp. 28, 29.
Animals like the Minks, which often make long
journeys to good hunting grounds, or others such as
the Foxes, Weasels, Wildcat, ete., which frequently
range over large areas of territory, have no difficulty
to obtain necessary food supplies, consequently hiber-
nation with them is not a necessity to maintain exis
tence.
ABUNDANCE OF SOME MAMMALS.
In many sections of Pennsylvania, mammals—parti-
cularly species which are readily disposed of to fur
326
traders—appear to be very much more abundant than
has been commonly supposed. The plentitude of some
of these species which destroy annually large numbers
of domesticated fowls, game, etc., accounts, in a large
degree, for the great loss which is every year sustained
by farmers and poulterers.
About three years ago the writer began to collect
statistics and data concerning the fur-bearing and
poultry-destroying mammals which are found in Penn-
sylvania. Efforts in this direction were eminently
successful and a large amount of interesting and in-
structive material was obtained from fur dealers, hun-
ters, trappers and naturalists throughout the State.
Unfortunately, however, the fire which burned the
State Capito] building in February, 1897, destroyed
this material which, with everything else in the office
of the writer, was consumed. At first, when the re-
ports from some sources showing great numbers of
animals taken yearly for the pelts or bounty began to
reach the office, they were looked upon with doubt
and it was thought they were sent without proper in-
quiry or by mistakes, unwittingly made. The fig-
ures given, in some cases, were so surprising, that
after consultation with the Secretary of this Depart-
ment, who in common with the Zoologist, was desirous
of publishing for public use no misleading statistics,
special efforts were made to verify a number of the
returns where there was any possible room for doubt
as to reliability, ‘These efforts showed—barring a few
reports from professional scalp hunters and over-zeal-
ous fur-buyers—that the returns made to this Depart-
ment were correct, and where defective, it was be-
cause the persons preparing them had been so cautions
as to underestimate rather than exaggerate. In
chapter IX of this document a number of “bounty rec-
ords” are published. While some of them, are per.
haps, not entirely accurate they nevertheless show
plainly that large numbers of poultry and game con-
suming animels are present in nearly every section of
the State.
From a few reports, received from several reliable
sources, and which luckily were not destroyed by the
flames, extracts as follows are made: In the populous
and rich agricultural county of York, Mr. J. G. Patter-
son, of Stewartstown, says:
“The fur—chiefly Muskrats, Skunks, Opossums, Raccoons,
Minks and Foxes—obtained in 1895, sold for about $20,000."
Hon. Jas. G. Mitchell, of Hamilton, Pa., a gentleman
who is esteemed by all who are acquainted with his
legislative career, to be one of the most loyal advocates
the farmers and laboring classes ever sent to the Penn-
sylvania Senate, writes that:
“From the township of Perry, where I reside, there was, in
the winter of 1895 and ‘96, at least $1,000 worth of fur shipped
to New York. These raw furs, many of which I purchased, con-
sisted chiefly of Skunks, Muskrats, Minks and Foxes. A good
many Opossums and some Wildcats are taken in our county.
I consider $12,000 a very conservative estimate to place on the
fur-bearing animals annually taken in Jefferson county.”
THE WORK OF TWO TRAPPERS.
In the county of Huntingdon, so ably represented in
our Legislative halls for many years, by Hon. P. M.
Lytle, who has won distinction for his rare oratorical
ability and persistent advocacy of all matters which
would benefit farmers and the workingman, there re-
sides an individual named John P. Swope, who has
won great local prominence because of his thorough
knowledge of the habits of undomesticated mammals,
828
which, with his marvelous skill as a trapper and hun-
ter, enables him to make a good yearly income. In
relation to this trapper’s work for the years 1895 and
1896 the following paragraphs are clipped from two
reliable newspapers of Central Pennsylvania:
“John P. Swope, the noted trapper of Alexandria, takes the
premium for scalps during the year 1895. Following is the
record of payments to him each month by the county treasurer:
February, $8; March, $25.50; April, $37.25; May, $14.50; June,
$38.50; July, $85.00; August, $49.00; September, $48.25; October,
$101.50; November, $81.00; December, $100.75. Total for eleven
months, $590.25,
“The whole amount paid to all persons for scalps during the
year was $1,157.00, of which Mr. Swope received more than one-
half. He was in town on Thursday last and received money
on the following: 12 foxes, 13 minks, 1 wildcat—$27.26 for Jan-
uary, 1896.",-—Huntingdon Globe.
The Bellefonte (Centre county) Democrat, of Decem-
ber 3, 1896, publishes the following relative to Mr.
Swope’s record during ten and a half months for 1896:
“John P. Swope makes a handsome living at gunning and
trapping. Gunners and trappers in Huntingdon county are dis-
playing considerable activity at the present time, but peculiar
interest centres in the success of John P. Swope, of Alexandria,
who is without doubt king among trappers in central Pennsyl-
vania. Mr. Swope does nothing but trap the whole year round,
and he makes more money at this business than the majority
of men receive in individual salaries; in fact, he gets each year
from Huntingdon county an amount that few of the “big’’ men
of the community would refuse to accept as an annual stipend.
Mr. Swope is well up in the art of trapping. He has many im-
itators, but none of the latter meet with any great degree of
success. It is said that Swope has about fifty traps set nearly
all the while, and his time is pretty much occupied in making
inspections at certain intervals. It is known that he can trap
on the same ground where others fail. This has been demon-
strated. His success has inspired jealousy on the part of imi-
tators. On one occasion, at least, he was warned by White
Cap noticss to keep off the premises of those who have vainly
tried to achieve a measure of his success.
No
“Mr. Swope's record in trapping and killing animals for which
a premium is allowed by legislative enactment and the amount
he has received from Huntingdon county in the ten and one-
half months of the present year, are shown in the following
statement: 739 foxes, at. $1.00 each, $739.00; 13 wildcats, at $2.00
each, $26.00; 1,290 minks, at 25 cents each, $322.50. Total $1,087.50."
A WYOMING COUNTY TRAPPER.
The note books of Mr. G. F. Smith, a trapper and
hunter of Mill City, Wyoming county, Pa., show that he
has taken the following mammals in his neighborhood:
“In 1889 and 1890, 23 foxes; 43 raccoons; 37 skunks; 19 minks;
2 wildcats; 31 muskrats; 1 bear. 1891, 17 foxes; 21 raccoons; 42
skunks; 7 minks; 3 wildcats; 3 muskrats; 1 bear. 1892, 19 foxes;
33 raccoons; 60 skunks; 3 minks; 5 wildcats; 18 muskrats. 1893,
21 foxes; 61 raccoons; 58 skunks; 7 minks; 4 wildcats; 1 muskrat.
1894, 18 foxes; 17 racccons; 44 skunks; 4 minks; 3 wildcats; 2
muskrats. 1895, 20 foxes; 30 raccoons; 51 skunks: 1 mink; 3
muskrats. 1896, 28 foxes; 52 raccoons; 26 Skunks. Total, 146
foxes; 257 raccoons; 318 skunks; 41 minks; 18 wildcats; 58 musk-
rats; 2 bears.”
In 1896 Mr. Smith captured an opossum which is re-
ported to be a rare visitor in that region.
REPORTS FROM SOME FUR DEALERS.
MR. BUSH, of Mercer County:
Mr. Charles Bush. of Greenville, Mercer county, Pa.,
writing under date of May 10, 1896, says:
“In reply to your circular can only say that I have not been
in the fur business during the past ten years, but from ten to
fifteen years previously, I handled a great many furs in this
section of northwestern Pennsylvania. The following is the
list and about the number handled: red foxes, from five to six
hundred (I should judge perhaps not more than one-fourth of
the number handled at present); gray foxes, from 200 to 300, at
present one-fourth the number; raccoons, 1,000, at present one-
half the number; mink, 400 to 600, at present one-half the num-
ber; otter, 20 to 25 pelts, they are scarce and rare at present;
21*--I
330
opossums, 200 to 300, quite plentiful at present; skunks, 2,000,
and they are about the same at present.
“The above figures are, to the best of my recollection, the
number of furs I handled. At the same time there were sev-
eral others buying furs through this section.”
MR. LEWIS, OF JEFFERSON COUNTY.
Mr. E. C. Lewis, of Reynoldsville, Jefferson county,
states that the number of skins he annually handles
is about as follows:
“Twenty bears; 125 minks; 150 skunks; 25 red foxes; 10 gray
foxes; 200 raccoons; 250 muskrats; 8 otters; 15 wildcats.”’
Mr. Lewis also adds the following lines:
“T consider foxes, weasels, wildcats and the mink detrimental
to both farmers and sportsmen; am earnestly in favor of a
bounty on these last-named animals. I have seen where wild-
cats killed deer from one to two years old.”
MESSRS. JORDAN & SON, OF LUZERNE COUNTY.
Messrs. N. P. Jordan & Son, extensive hatters and
furriers, of 46 West Market street, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.,
in a letter of April 21, 1896, say:
“In reply to your letter of the 15th inst., we beg to state that
during the past few years we have obtained from hunters and
trappers, in this region, pelts as follows: 1 otter, 61 minks, 25
red foxes, 4 gray foxes, 372 skunks, 29 'coons, 6 opossums, 486
muskrats. This represents a very small portion of the animals
captured in this vicinity, as a large majority of the hunters
send the pelts direct to the market or sell them to representa-
tives of different firms, who have men out continually during
the fur season, scouring the country to buy up raw furs. We
have no record of our purchases during previous year, but the
above is about the average annually. Our books show about
the same amount each year for several years in the purchase
of skins, which, of course, indicates an equal number of pelts.”
MESSRS. WEIL, OF CHESTER COUNTY.
The Zoologist is indebted to Messrs. Morris and
Moses Weil, fur dealers of West Chester, Pa., for the
331
following data concerning the number of pelts they
handle yearly, and which they buy in Chester and
neighboring counties, territory which embraces many
of the most productive and valuable farms in this
Commonwealth:
“There are from 300 to 500 persons in Chester county (which,
by the way, ranks as the third agricultural county in the United
States) whose chief occupation is trapping. The average yearly
eatch of a skillful trapper of skunks is about 100, but some in-
dustrious and skillful trappers secure considerably more than
this number. Except along the Brandywine and its large tri-
butaries few muskrats are taken in Chester county. Exper-
ienced ‘rat’ trappers along the historic Brandywine average
about 100 ‘rats’ a season. One individual last year caught be-
tween 200 and 300. We obtain about 200 minks annually. These
animals by reason of their aquatic habits, are found chiefly
along the Brandywine and its large feeders, and they also fre-
quent mill dams, where stone and rubbish are plentiful. We
have handled annually for the last five years not less than
5,000 skunks, of which 75 per cent. were taken in Chester county.
Our books for the last five years show that we have purchased
on an average each year, the following additional fur-bearing
animals: 8,000 muskrats, 2,000 opossums, 25 red foxes, 500 rac-
coons. We never got a gray fox in Chester county, from which,
at least, three-fourths of all the pelts we obtain come. We are
the largest buyers of raw furs in Chester county, and in our
opinion it would be a fair estimate to say we buy one-half of
the skins taken in this region, so by doubling the figures given
you can form a good idea of the number of fur-bearing animals
which yearly are marketed from Chester and a few districts of
the neighboring counties.”
yee
edn
SKUNK.
Mephitis mephitica.
DESCRIPTION.
A heavily-built animal, about the size of the house cat, al-
though its body is shorter and more bulky; weighs about
eight pounds; its legs are short, ears low, eyes brown, with a
long bushy tail. Color black (some examples maroon and
white). The white markings vary greatly in extent and de-
tail; some examples of the genus have a small white head
spot only, but the common pattern has narrow white frontal
(head) stripe, a broad nuchal (neck) white patch, from which
diverge on either side of back, and extend to or near the two
stripes of white. The tail may be black, but oftener it is
marked with white especially terminally.
Habitat.—This species, including its varieties or subspecies,
oeeurs generally throughout temperate North America.
This familiar animal generally hides in some dark
retreat during the daylight although occasionally on
cloudy days he is seen abroad and he also hunts in the
twilight. The species technically known as mephitica
and a form or subspecies called the Carolinian Skunk,
Mephitis mephitica elongata as defined by Mr. Bangs,
with perhaps other subspecies, are in Pennsylvania,
where many thousands ef these animals are annually
killed for the fur trade. Indeed, the long and heavy
coat of this mammal is so valuable in the fur markets
that Skunk farms are conducted on an extensive and
profitable basis in New York, Ohio and other states.
The Skunk, in different shades of dress, which, for the
purposes of this article, it is not necessary at this time
to discuss, is one of the common mammals of our
State.
SOME OF ITS COMMON NAMES.
Many persons know the animal by the name of Pole-
cat, a term applied to a small, brownish-black, ferret-
i
;
4
i
a 2
;
;
5
;
;
t
'
:
:
; es
a :
,
i
i
;
j
;
,
» 1
a ,
4. 5
' ;
i
Lal
‘
333
like creature—a member of the Weasel group—which
inhabits the temperate zone of Europe and Asia. The
common domesticated Ferret, so frequently employed
to hunt Rabbits and Rats, is, it is believed, a descen-
dant of the Polecat of the Old World. Some furriers
sell Skunks—those lacking the white stripes on backs
—under the name “Alaska Sable,” and many ladies
wear these pelts and never know they once covered
the backs of vile-smelling and insect-devyouring ani-
mals of the genus Mephitis.
SOME OF ITS ENEMIES.
This well-known quadruped, it matters but little
whether called Canadian Skunk, Carolinian Skunk,
Polecat or “Alaska Sable,” has numerous enemies to
contend with, notwithstanding the wise provision
nature has made to enable it to prevent their near and
dangerous approach. The Skunk has great confidence
in its battery and is often enabled, when acting on the
defensive, or, if aroused by either anger or fright, to
protect its life from preying animals, by discharging
from the anal glands a yellowish fluid of most pene-
trating and sickening odor. This, however, is not
always the case, and the slow-moving Skunk often be-
comes a victim of its own temerity inspired, doubtless,
by too much confidence in the repelling powers of the
contents of its perfume reservoirs.
Among carnivorous mammals, the Wildcat, Red
Fox, Mink and Weasel will attack and kill Skunks.
Large Hawks, particularly the Red-tailed species and
the powerful Goshawk, also capture them. The Snowy
Owl, when pressed by hunger, will, it is stated, some.
times make a meal on a Skunk which happens to cross
its path; and the Great Horned Owl often attacks
334
Skunks. On two occasions I have known that re
mains of recently killed Skunks were discovered in
nests occupied by Great Horned Owls; and at different
times I have secured owls of this species which were
so strongly scented with odor that there was no room
to question what they had been feeding upon or med-
dling with. Mr. Thomas H. Jackson, of West Chester,
Pa., writing in the “Ornithologist and Oologist,” June,
1886, says:
“Great Horned Owls are liberal providers for their young.
I have frequently found full grown Rabbits lying in the nest
beside the young, and scarcely a nest visited did not have a
strong odor of Skunk, while bones and feathers were scattered
around attesting to the predaceous habits of the proprietors.”
Chief among all the enemies which the poor and
well-disposed Mephitis has to guard against is man,
who should often protect rather than persecute this
animal.
THEY DO MUCH GOOD.
Of all our mammals this species is probably the most
valuable to the farmer and fruit grower. The insect
eating habits of this nocturnal prowler are so gener.
ally known to the farmers of the hop-growing districts
of the Empire State that local laws have been enacted
for the protection of the much abused and persecuted
Skunks, which Dr. C. H. Merriam very truly says, is
“Pre-eminently an insect eater; he destroys more beetles,
grasshoppers and the like than all our other mammals together,
and in addition to these devours vast numbers of mice.’
From numerous reports received at the Department
of Agriculture from farmers, poulterers and sports-
men in Pennsylvania it is quite evident that the odorif-
erous Skunk is not regarded with much favor; in fact,
but a small number of our correspondents appear to
know that he possesses any especial inclination to eat
insects and destructive larvae. The general impres-
sion seems to be that this animal reaches the acme of
bliss when he can gain an entrance to a hen coop and
devour chickens or suck eggs; and it matters but little
how old the latter may be.
SPORTSMEN GENERALLY DESPISE SKUNKS.
A number of sportmen who spend considerable time
every year in the woods and fields give the Skunk a
record blacker than the pelt of the most marketable
Polecat.
With few exceptions the testimony from sportsmen
is that the main thing the Skunk lives for in this region
is to devour the eggs of Grouse, Quail and other birds
which nest on or close to the ground. Such opinions
concerning the Skunk are wrong, yet they are, unfor-
tunately, quite generally entertained by a large class
of our citizens whe become unjustly prejudiced against
this useful mamma! and destroy him and his family.
when in reality these animals are of great benefit on
the farm where detrimental insects and sleek-coated
rodents are almost continually at work preying on the
crops.
DR. MERRIAM'S OBSERVATIONS.
1
GCencerning the food habits of the Skunk, Dr. C.
Hart Merriam, of Washington, D. C., a gentleman who
is universally regarded as one of the most eminent and
reliable economic zoologists in America, says:
“He preys upon mice, salamanders, frogs, and the eggs of
birds that nest on or within reach from the ground.
“At times he eats carrion, and if he chances to stumble upon
a hen’s nest the eggs are liable to suffer; and once in a while
336
he acquires the evil habits of robbing the hen-roost. Still, as a
rule, Skunks are not addicted to this vice, and it is with them
very much as it is with dogs and cats; for every now and then
a dog will get into the habit of killing sheep, and a cat of kill-
ing chickens and sucking eggs, and yet we do not wage a war-
fare of extermination against them, collectively, on account
of the sins of a few of their number.
“He is of the greatest practical value to the hop-grower,
for he frequents the hop-yard with great regularity, and greed-
ily devours the insect pests that, from their numbers and de-
structiveness, always injure, and sometimes ruin the crop. *
* * Indeed, the benefit that accrues to the farmer from the
occupancy of his premises by a family of these useful animals
ean hardly be over-estimated. They are large eaters and sub-
sist almost exclusively upon his greatest enemies, mice and in-
sects.
“Of the truth of this assertion he may easily convince him-
self by merely taking the trouble to examine any bit of ‘Skunk
Sign’ that he happens to come across; for in the summer sea-
son, their dejections consist wholly of the indigestible chitenous
coverings of beetles, grasshoppers and other insects.*”
These statements from the facile pen of the genial
and able Merriam, together with such information as
any one can readily gain by devoting a little study to
the Skunk in his native haunts should cause the
thoughtful farmer’s boy to hesitate before destroy-
ing every Skunk and its family which he may come
CPOSS.
SOMETIMES DISTRESSES OTHER NIGHT TRAVELERS.
Of course we know it’s very trving on a “fellow’s
felins’” when he goes out, “as the shades of night are
falling,’ in a nice clean buggy drawn by a well kept
trotter, to run over a clumsy prewling Skunk when he
is hurrying to see his best girl; but always bear in
mind it might have been much worse if that best girl
*The vertebrates of the Adirondack region, N. E. New York,
Dec, 1883,
337
had been with you. Yet, under such circumstances,
the Skunk should not be too severely censured; the
chances are he would suffer more from the unexpected
meeting than you.
Remember, also, the Skunk tribe should not be per-
secuted because you may on one occasion have been
unfortunate enough to have gotten a good supply of
perfume when “a wooing vou would go.”
INTERESTING AND VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS,
The information on succeeding pages of this paper
under the caption, “What Farmers, Poulterers and
Sportsmen Say About Skunks,” is both interesting
and instructive, although it shows a wide difference
of opinion as to the good or eyil which these mam-
mals do.
While it is true that many of these contributors,
who have kindly taken the trouble to send their views
on the food-habits of Skunks, condemn them, it is a
fact worthy of note, in this connection, to observe that
no one of these correspondents who has examined the
stomachs of any considerable number of Skunks is
found denouncing them. According to my experience
Skunks, either alive or dead, are very disagreeable to
handle, and to this fact, no doubt, must be largely
attributed the censure so many persons heap on them.
Furthermore, Skunks are most active in the night
time and the many good deeds they do about the farm-
er’s possessions are not nearly so easily seen as are the
results of their occasional predatory visits when they
kill chickens or suck eggs.
THE SNEAKING CAT AND CUNNING RAT.
Tam a lover of birds—gime, song, insectivorous, and
raptorial kinds—and with the exception of a few, en
22--IT
838
deavor, in my feeble way, to protect these beautiful
creatures which a thoughtful Maker placed on earth
to assist mankind. I certainly would have a much
higher regard for Skunks if they evinced less industry
in sceking the eggs and young of ground-nesting feath-
ered tenants of the fields, clearings and forests, when
they go in search of May beetles, larvae, Mice and
other enemies of agriculture. However, I am inclined
to the opinion that Skunks are often blamed for rob-
bingneststhat have been visited by other pilfering ani-
mals.
The common house cat—concerning which Dr. A. K.
Fisher truly says:
“That gigantic * * * fraud, is petted and fed and given
a secure shelter from which it may emerge in the evening to
spread destruction among the feathered tribe’—
does a great deal of mischief in the poultry yard and
devours all the wild birds, both old and young, it can
catch. It is a sly robber and frequently its depreda-
tions are charged to other animals.
Rats, likewise, are cunning and vexatious pests, and
their deeds of rapine are often unjustly placed to the
discredit of Skunks, Hawks, Owls, Weasels, ete.
THEY CATCH BENEFICIAL INSECTS.
It is unquestionably true, as intimated by my friend
Dr. Thornton (see page 359), that Skunks consume bene-
‘ficial insects, particularly predaceous ground beetles
which, with their larvae, catch Army Worms, Cut-
Worms, ete., yet the painstaking investigations of
economic entomologists and mammalogists, prove be-
yond all doubt that the noxious forms of insect pests
which they feed upon are the ones which in the great
Beaty)
inajority of cases so often distend the stomachs of
Skunks they dissect.
THESE FARMERS DEFEND SKUNKS.
The very instructive paragraphs (see page 344) from
the pen of Hon. F. N. Meore, a loyal friend, and one
of the best and most successful advocates of the agri-
cultural interests that ever represented Bradford
county in the Pennsylvania Legislature, explains in
a very succinct manner the good habits of Skunks.
The terse communication from Mr. Moore’s pen shows
that the Patrons of Husbandry of his locality have,
by a little careful observation, learned the great worth
of these animals which are of so much service in pro-
tecting their potato and corn crops from “white grubs”
that in recent years have been doing a great amount
of damage in many parts of this Commonwealth.
SKUNK FARMING.
This industry, when properly conducted, is said to
be a very profitable business. The writer is unable
either from personal observation or practical exper-
ience to give any information on this matter. In view
of the fact that a number of requests have come to
this office from farmers and others who desired to
learn some facts about Skunk farming, the following
extracts are made from an interesting paper written
by Mr. Arthur D. Warner, and published in the “Rural
New Yorker,” Feb. 13, 1892:
“One of the pioneers in the Skunk-breeding industry is Mr.
Henry Gurnsey, of Lima, N. Y. Mr Gurnsey has been for a
number of years a dealer in Skunk and other furs, and about
six years ago determined to attempt the breeding of Skunks
in confinement. He first inclosed a portion of his backyard by
a tight board fence, and sank planks in the ground below the
340
fence. Then he trapped or bought a few pairs of Skunks, and
placed them in the inclosure. The experiment was a success
from the first. The Skunks increased so rapidly as to become
at length somewhat of a nuisance within the corporate limits
of a village, and Mr. Gurnsey decided to remove them to some
point in the country where he could engage in Skunk farming
on a scale worthy of the name. He found a suitable location
about three miles east of Lima village, and formed a partner-
ship with Mr. W. Shaddack, who owns a part of the land now
occupied by the farm and who assists in caring for the ani-
mals.
THE FARM.
“About five acres were inclosed. A trench was dug in line
with the proposed fence, and planks were sunk in it a depth
of two feet; then it was filled in on both sides of the fence with
small stones, which were covered with earth. The part of the
fence above ground is tight and four feet high. On a recent
visit to this farm a faint but characteristic odor warned us of
the proximity of the “ranch.” On arriving, it became evident
at once that a steep sidehill, underlaid by a tenacious clay
subsoil and which would be worthless for other purposes, is the
proper thing for Skunk breeding. It is only on steep land that
the burrows can be made with ease, and all of them have good
drainage. The hill rises to a height of perhaps 150 feet above
the road which runs along the base.
“The face of this incline is honeycombed all over its surface
by hundreds of Skunks’ ‘‘nests,’’ but during the greater part
of the day a casual passer-by will see little of interest within
the inclosure at any season. Only occasionally will a Skunk,
driven out by hunger, make its way to a portion of some
freshly slaughtered animal that has been placed there for
food. But about six P. M. on summer days, and somewhat
earlier in the spring and fall, the colony begins to show signs of
activity, black heads appear, then bodies emerge and make
their way down zig-zag paths of their own making toward the
point where food is placed; from this time on during a consid-
erable portion of the night the hillside may be said to be
literally alive with Skunks.
THEIR FOOD.
“The question of obtaining food for them is the all-absorbing
one with the proprietors of the ranch. During the Woodchuck
season they are out day after day scouring the country for
a
341
these animals, and other hunters are also kept busy. But
Woodchuck, ‘coons and other small game are not found in
sufficient numbers, and a large supply of meat is obtained in
the shape of domestic animals which have outlived their period
of usefulness, or have met an untimely death. The wants of
the Skunk breeders are pretty well known all through this sec-
tion of county, and they are often summoned by telephone,
letter or verbally to go and relieve a man of a decrepit horse, a
dead cow, or abandoned sheep. When the supply of meat be-
comes too great for immediate use, it is cut from the carcasses
and salted down in ‘barrels in the cellar of one of the buildings
which are attached to the ranch. Later on this meat is taken
up and boiled in a large cauldron, meal is added, and the mix-
ture as well as water for drinking, is placed in a series of
troughs along the base of the hill. As Skunks become semi-
dormant, they consume but little food during the coldest parts
of winter. In spring and fall, carcasses are left out for several
days until consumed. As this can not be done in hot weather,
the cooked ration is fed largely. The Skunks breed in early
spring, eight or ten making a litter. By fall the young ones
are full-grown, and cannot be told from the old. Overfeeding
must be guarded against, as it reduces the size of the litter.
THEIR NESTS.
“Recently I visited the farm during the annual killing, which
begins about December 1. Six or eight men were at work on
the steep hillside digging out the Skunks, which are placed in
sacks, held by helpers. These holes or nests are made by the
proprietors with spade and shovel, by digging downward into
the bank for three or four feet. As it is hard to dig under it
without causing it to cave, an earth roof is not generally made;
instead, the large cavity is nearly covered with rails and boards,
and dirt is thown over.
“Skunks burrow but little, and in a wild state appropriate the
holes of Woodchucks and other burrowing animals. New
holes are made as fast as the colony seems to require them.
There is no regularity as to the number inhabiting a hole; not
less than two or three were found, but in some cases fifteen
or twenty had crowded together in one hole.
IN SLAUGHTERING SEASON.
“The males also were found collected in one portion of the
grounds. At the “Skunk harvest’? the roofs are thrown off
the holes, and a little digging brings out all that are inside.
342
When a bag is filled, the man throws it over his shoulder and
carries it down to the skinning room. Here the animals are
sorted. The best marked are saved for breeding, one in ten
being a male. They will be kept in the building until all have
been dug out, when they are turned into the inclosure. Those
to be killed are taken outside and dispatched by a blow on
the head, and skinned as soon as dead. Only rarely do they
throw scent at this operation. The skins are hung up to dry
with the flesh side out. The building contained many Fox,
‘Coon and Muskrat skins, besides hundreds of Skunk pelts. The
output of the ranch will be about 800 skins this year, as many
live Skunks will be kept for the next year’s breeding. Before
the carcasses are removed after skinning, the fat is cut off
and tried into oil. Good black skins are worth in the neigh-
borhood of $1.50 each.’’
WHAT FARMERS, POULTERERS AND SPORTS-
MEN SAY ABOUT SKUNKS.
ADAMS COUNTY.
DR. C. E. GOLDSBOROUGH, Hunterstown:
Polecats are an abomination; they kill chickens, rob hens’ and
birds’ nests, bee nests; but they are supposed also to destroy
much vermin. We have Skunks or Polecats very common.
Woodchucks or Groundhogs rare in lowlands, tolerably common
in highlands. Rabbit or Cottontail numerous everywhere.
Wildcats common in the mcuntains of the county; field or
meadow mice very common; Minks, Moles and Weasels com-
mon, Foxes common, Muskrats very common; Squirrels, Rac-
coon and Opossum common.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
JOHN NELSON, Talley Cavey:
They will not let us get an egg if they can have their way;
have caught them in the act of stealing eggs of fowls.
ARMSTRONG COUNTY.
Dr. L. B. SCHNATTERLY, Freeport:
They are a great enemy to the farmers’ poultry and very de-
structive to nests of Partridge (Quail) and Pheasant. Mr.
343
James Harbison tells me that he caught a Polecat destroying
a nest of eggs of Quail that was just ready to hatch out. The
Groundhog will do the same.
BRADFORD COUNTY.
E. M. ANGLE, Potterville:
Skunks are destructive to Rabbits, Pheasants and Quail. I
have known them, with the Red Fox, to be the most destructive
to the above-mentioned game. Proof—localities where the
Skunk and Fox are nearly extinct you will find said game in
plenty and vice versa. They are also injurious to the farmer’s
fields; in the absence of game, poultry, etc., they will take to
the meadows and pastures and if the land be sidehill or slop-
ing will commence at the lower side and turn over every
movable stone that is not too large for their strength, in search
of ants, tumble-bugs, eggs and crickets, and some certain grubs
and worms. This, some may say, is beneficial; if so, the damage
done is so much greater than the little good, that the good sinks
into insignificance. I had a meadow of about three acres
sloping to the northeast about two years ago, well seeded to
timothy and clover, and when mowed of a splendid stand; di-
rectly after mowing they commenced in the aforesaid way
at the bottom and turned the stones over a few rods of ground
every night (for like all evil doers they work at night) until
they reached the top; by that time there had accumulated the
same food under the stones again and they would overturn
every stone, placing the stone on new grass after having left
it just long enough to kill the grass where it lay, the sun, wind,
and covering having destroyed the grass until the field was
ruined until taken up and newly seeded. Having witnessed the
aforesaid charges against this animal I have no hesitation in
saying they are one of the farmer’s foes. Yes, sir, they are
worse than a mortgage on your farm drawing compound inter-
est, for they increase faster and in a greater ratio, and I am
in favor of a light bounty, say, with the present price of furs,
twenty-five cents per head, but please don’t give a larger one
to the justice unless the law be so amended that the said jus-
tice of the peace must skin them.
I consider the Skunk very injurious for the following reasons:
In localities where farmers do not have good protection for
their poultry they will destroy both old and young that roost
low enough for them to reach. They are cunning fellows and
show great wisdom. If a young turkey or guinea fowl are
344
apt to wander to a distance that they may hide their nesting
place, the Skunk, keen of scent, soon locates the nest and eats
the eggs; should the birds be lucky enough to lay their quota
and commence setting, of course, the odor is still stronger and
the Skunks can scent at a greater distance; they will drive off
the birds and eat the eggs, being careful to save the birds
that they may keep them supplied with such toothsome food
and will not kill “the goose that lays the golden egg,” until
they see they are not likely to get any more or are driven by
excessive hunger to attack the mother bird. This same being
true should they come upon the mother bird while with their
young they will destroy the young by piecemeal as they will
have need, not like the Mink or Weasel, destroy for the blood
and leave several dead in a pile.
HON. F. N. MOORE, North Orwell:
Skunks are quite plentiful in my locality, but twenty years
ago they were much more numerous, and at that time we did
not experience the great losses we now sustain in our mead-
ows through the ravages of white grubs which are the larvae
of the May beetle or tumble-bug. In this region we grow po-
tatoes extensively for the eastern markets and experience ma-
terial losses to the potato crops as well as to corn by reason
of the white grub eating them. These inroads made by the
white grub became of such a serious character that it brought
out discussion among our farmers at local grange meetings,
when it was learned that the potato and corn fields, most ad-
jacent to sections where Skunks harbored, were least damaged
by these larvae. Observation proved that the Skunks, to get
the grubs, dug small round holes in the hills and rows of the
potatoes. The testimony of our observing and intelligent farm-
ers is that the Skunk is the greatest enemy to these noxious
pests, for he not only seeks them in the plowed ground, but
will dig for them in the meadow and pasture lands.
Skunks, as is well-Known to every one, will turn over flat
stones, pieces of wood, ete., which serve as harboring places
for crickets, ants, grasshoppers, army worms, may beetles and
other forms of insect life which subsist on the farmer’s crops.
While it is true the Skunk occasionally will visit the hen roost
or get under the barn to the dismay of the farmer's dog, and
the disgust of the farmer’s boy, yet the damage which he does
in the poultry yard is light when compared with his beneficent
services, rendered in destroying insects, mice and other ver-
min which attack the farmer's crops by day and night. The
B45
Skunk is the most profitable source of revenue of any of the
fur-bearing animals captured by the juvenile trappers and
hunters in our section. Many a boy is made happy with a new
pair of skates, and a cheap shotgun, secured by barter at the
country store in exchange for pelts of this highly perfumed
animal.
My observation as a practical farmer is that these animals
are certainly friends, not enemies of agriculture, and that the
indiscriminate slaughter of them or a bounty which will en-
courage their extermination would be prejudicial to the farm-
ing interest.
J. S. GAY, Terrytown:
Skunks are very injurious; they are very plentiful and will
eatch all the chickens that they can find; also suck eggs.
W. R. PARK, Athens:
Injurious; destroy eggs, game and eggs of game birds. Being
a sportsman I desire to protect game and favor the killing of
Skunks.
BUTLER COUNTY.
JOHN F. WEAKLY, Slippery Rock:
I think Skunks are a benefit as they live almost entirely on
bugs and worms.
CARBON COUNTY.
M. E. KEMERER, Weissport:
Skunks kill chickens and other kinds of poultry.
CENTRE COUNTY.
T. H. HARTER, Bellefonte:
I think the Polecat is the most destructive to our game as
it does its work at night and catches the birds while hatching.
In my opinion Skunks are injurious- because they feed upon
game when they can get it. I consider them next to the Hawk
in destructiveness to game.
346
CAMBRIA COUNTY.
MR. PIERSON, Dysart:
Skunks eat eggs of the ground birds (the kind that are bene-
ficial to the farmer, such as Thrush, Catbird and native Spar-
row). They have killed a great amount of chickens around
here; have lost some myself and set traps and caught them
in my hen house. They are injurious.
JOHN F. THOMAS, Carrolltown:
While the Skunk devours many insects and other vermin, it
is obnoxious to the farmer and sportsman. They are invaria-
bly abroad on wet nights, when they may be found prowling
about the barn or hen coop, and have even been killed in cel-
lars of inhabited houses. Their methods of procuring insects
manifests much cunning. I have seen them go about a field in
the evening overturning all small flat stones in their way, and
quickly gather up all the surprised bugs and beetles. It is un-
suspecting and may be taken with a steel trap very easily.
CHESTER COUNTY.
THOS. B. DARLINGTON, West Chester:
The Skunk or Polecat is a frequent visitor to the poultry
yard, for poultry or eggs, or both, and breaking up setting hens.
A. SHARPLESS, West Chester:
The Skunk has been pretty plentiful here in years past. I
think it is more beneficial to the farmer than otherwise. True,
old ones sometimes destroy young chickens when exposed at
night, but their food seems principally to be noxious insects; I
long since forbid their destruction on my farm. There will be no
danger here of any surplus of these animals, as the value
of their pelts is such that trappers will keep their numbers
down.
HARRY WILSON, Gum Tree:
In my opinion are one of the most beneficial animals; their
principal food as shown by their stomachs and excretions are
insects, such as beetles and grasshoppers. I had an illustration
of their food habits shown to me a couple of years since. I
had been hunting Groundhogs one summer evening and re-
turning through a clover field near a woods I saw a small black
BAT
animal moving about in the grass near my intended path. I
soon found on nearer approach it was a half-grown Skunk;
so coming to a stand I watched its methods of getting a liveli-
hood; it wandered first one way and then another until it
came within a few feet of me standing quite still; it never took
the least notice of me. It was searching for grasshoppers as
was evident from its actions. Walking with its short steps it
made a sort of stiff, wrigglelike progress; when it came across
a grasshopper, stiffened by cold and dew after night-fall, which
would hop but two or three inches, it gave a short spring
placing both paws on the ‘hopper which it proceeded to eat at
leisure. I watched this Skunk until too dark to see its opera-
tions any longer and his method of capturing was always the
same—catching the insect with his paws first. When a Skunk
however, acquires a taste for hen eggs and young chickens,
death alone, I believe, will stop his ravages in the poultry yard,
and I have had annoyance given me by them; but the death is
easily affected; an egg containing strychnine proves very tempt-
ing and he commits suicide. I believe that could the Polecat be
educated to abandon the habit of using perfumery and eating
a chance chicken (which might afterwards die of gapes) which
might come in his way, he would become a highly beneficial
and useful animal to mankind.
DR. WALTER VAN FLEDRT, West Grove:
Skunks ‘beneficial; stomach usually filled with insects.
= CLEARFIELD COUNTY.
J. BLAIR READ, Clearfield:
Injurious. Destroying poultry.
JAMES THOMAS, Curwensville:
I had forty young and an old turkey killed in three sueces-
sive nights by a Skunk. I trapped it and it was not a very
large one either.
ABRAHAM NEVELING, Coalport:
Skunks are injurious; they destroy poultry and eggs.
E. GARD EDWARDS, Ramey:
Skunks are more injurious than otherwise on account of dep-
redations on poultry.
348
W. J. STULL, Coalport:
Skunks injurious; destuctive to poultry.
ENOS BLOOM, New Millport:
The Skunk or Polecat is very common and very destructive
to poultry and eggs. They are so bold that they will enter a
poultry house or anywhere else that they can, in broad day
light. They are very destructive to Pheasants and Partridges,
eating both eggs and young.
CLINTON COUNTY.
L. M. CASTETTER, Green Burr:
Some people think Skunks harmless, but they are the most
destructive animals to birds that build their nests on the
ground, such as the Lark, Quail and Pheasant, as they are
fond of such food as birds’ eggs and young birds. They visit
the poultry yards very often in our section and kill lots of poul-
try; they are very plentiful because not every one will kill them
on account of the offensive musk they will discharge when pur-
sued. Our Quail are very scarce, and I blame nothing but the
Skunk for it.
CRAWFORD COUNY.
W. G. SARGEANT, Meadville:
Skunks do no especial harm; many are taken for their fur.
HON. J. B. PHELPS, Conneautville:
The Skunk is the farmer's friend. I have watched them hunt-
ing grasshoppers and digging out grubs in the field.
H. C. KIRKPATRICK, Meadville:
The Skunk destroys poultry and eggs; and in my opinion is
injurious, but to what extent I cannot tell.
COLUMBIA COUNTY.
E. H. DAVIS and JOHN M. BUCKALEW, Fishing Creek:
Would estimate that about 1,000 skins of Skunks are obtained
annually in this section.
Polecats catch a few mice, bugs and insects when they can-
not get a meal of Quail, Pheasants or their nests of eggs or
349
young, or rabbits or their nest of young. We sometimes offer
a local bounty to the boys—to the one producing the most
scaips—and always see beneficial results in Quail and Pheas-
ant increasing, as well as Rabbits thereafter.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
JACOB MEIXEL, Boiling Springs:
Skunks are injurious; they destroy young chickens and leave
a disagreeable odor. I have known Skunks, Opossums, Wea-
sels and Mink to kill much poultry and game; they generally
destroy all that are at one place.
FAYETTE COUNTY.
N. W. MILLER, Uniontown:
Skunks are valuable; they exterminate field mice and rats.
Some of our farmers have forbidden the trapping of Skunks on
their farms, because they keep their meadows free from rats
and mice.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
HON. A. NEVIN POMEROY, Chambersburg:
Skunks are injurious; destroy poultry.
GREENE COUNTY.
B. F. HERRINGTON, Waynesburg:
Skunks beneficial; they destroy a great many meadow mice.
HUNTINGDON COUNTY.
GEO. S. APPLEBY, Decorum:
Skunks injurious; they destroy poultry.
INDIANA COUNTY.
WM. D. ROMBACH, Saltsburg:
Skunks are very injurious to all game, while they destroy
many moles and mice; their pelt is big premium to kill them.
L. C. OBERLIN, Smicksburg:
Last winter I believe I handled over 1,000 Skunk skins besides
350
hundreds of other kinds. Skunks are plentiful all over the
country; I am sure that they are beneficial to the farmer; they
kill mice, destroy bee, wasp and yellow jacket nests. Very lit-
tle harm to poultry. On the other hand their hides are very
valuable.
SAMUEL BOTHELL, Shelocta:
I think they destroy quantities of bugs, grasshoppers and
bumble bees, grubs, ete., that are more of a pest than they.
R. W. WEHRLE, Blairsville:
Injurious.
JUNIATA COUNTY.
W. H. KNOUSE, Swales:
T am firmly convinced that Skunks are beneficial. I have
known them to harbor in buildings and have not heard of a
single instance in which they destroyed poultry or eggs of
which they are somtimes accused. To the contrary, they de-
stroy large numbers of field mice, bugs and worms. My boys
catch them sometimes and upon examination we find that the
contents of their stomachs verify this statement.
MR. WELLINGTON SMITH, Mifflintown:
The Skunk is the boldest and most plentiful of all poultry
destroyers; I have really killed as many as six in one season
right in my barn. Last summer I shot one in broad daylight
in the feed entry. It is surprising how nicely they can eat your
eggs for a long time before you know what becomes of them
and eat your chickens too. His depredations will always be
saddled somewhere else.
LANCASTER COUNTY.
Messrs. H. M. ENGLE & SON, Marietta:
The Skunk is quite common and the damage done by them is
not very great. I know they destroy eggs and poultry; whether
they destroy field mice, as it is claimed, I do not know.
LACKA WANNA COUNTY.
F. L. BENJAMIN, Kizers:
Skunks occasionally kill chickens and eat their eggs.
351
A. C. SISSON, La Plume:
Skunks occasionally destroy poultry and eggs in a small way,
but subsist principally upon bugs, worms, ants, etc., and are a
benefit rather than a damage to farmers. The Skunk is one
of the farmers’ best friends, and should be protected to the
fullest extent. He lives largely upon insects that are detrimen-
tal to the farmer. The May beetle and its larvae, that are so
rapidly becoming destructive to many of our crops, are es-
pecial favorites with him, and unless the wholesale trapping
and killing of these useful animals is prohibited by stringent
legislation, strawberry growing will soon become entirely un-
remunerative in many localities, for it is generally believed that
if the Skunk could be let alone, he would keep this pest in check
to a very great extent. The damage to the potato crop by the
white grub is rapidly increasing, and calls loudly for prompt
action to suppress this evil.
In these days of agricultural depression, when new industries
are eagerly sought that offer profitable results, we would re-
commend Skunk farming. It has been demonstrated that these
little animals can be grown to an almost unlimited extent, and
at the same time afford a pleasant and lucrative employment.
Our American ladies delight in wearing the excellent fur of
these little animals, although usually under the assumed name
of expensive furs of animals now nearly extinct. The pelt of
a black Skunk will bring from $1.50 to $2.00 each, and the oil
of a fat Skunk $1.00. They are as prolific as swine; they usually
breed twice in a season, and drop from six to twelve at a litter;
they are easily domesticated and become as gentle as kittens,
and can be handled with impunity, if the tail is used as a han-
dle. Unlike our farm stock, they require no feeding in winter;
they hibernate, only making their appearance at rare intervals
when the weather is mild; their food is refuse meat and bones
from the butcher’s shop, mush made of wheat bran and cows’
milk. When they are ready for slaughter, they are first chloro-
formed, and when the oil is extracted they can be fed to the
rest of the herd. The Ithaca Fur Company, of Ithaca, Nees;
have perhaps the most extensive Skunk farm in the United
States, situated about seven miles from that city, where sev-
eral thousands of these useful animals may be seen at any
time during the summer months by those who care to inves-
tigate this comparatively new and unique enterprise.
ZIBA SCOTT, SPRING BROOK:
The Skunk is a very mischievous animal, he is not a fast
runner, but sneaks around the chicken coops at night and
352
sucks all the eggs he can find. If a hen or turkey steals its
nest in the field and sets there he is pretty sure to get the eggs.
He serves the Quails and Pheasants the same way.
LEHIGH COUNTY.
W. B. K. JOHNSON, Allentown:
Skunks. In a poultry yard I should not want them; they love
eggs too well and have often come from the woods to steal
eggs in our barns during winter and were caught entering a
square hole for cats to enter; after feasting on eggs were not
able to repass and were caught.
LUZERNE COUNTY.
JOHN E STOCKER, Ashley:
Skunks are injurious and dangerous. I know of a family by
the name of Bergers, who lived along what is known as the
middle road between Ashley and Buttonwood, about a mile from
here, who had a very nice flock of ducks and chickens. There
isa running stream about a stone's throw from the house, and
on the side of a small hill they had built a coo»d to house their
flock; it was not long before Mr. Berger noticed the number
of his flock going down; his idea was that they were stolen.
One night he had occasion to go out on a bright moonlight
night; he noticed what he thought were two dogs playing in
the road; he moved a little closer and soon found they were
Skunks; he was attacked by them and it was all he could do to
get away. Had it been a child instead of a man, the result
would haye been the child would have been killed or nearly so.
Mr. Berger's suspicion was aroused and he made a hunt around
his premises; the nest containing five young was found under
the pen; of course they were all killed, as was one adult.
M. B. TRESCOTT, Harveyville:
The Skunk is injurious. It is a great destroyer of eggs, rob-
bing hens’ nests, particularly those “setting,” and destroying
whole broods of young chickens in a night and sometimes
killing an old one. I have known a number of instances where
they have got into out kitchens and cellars, and spoiled by their
“scent,’’ nearly everything stored there. I do not know of any
good they do.
353
LAWRENCE COUNTY.
HON. A. L. MARTIN, Enon Valley:
Preserve the Polecat.
McKEAN COUNTY.
Cc. W. DICKINSON, Norwich:
I certainly think the Skunk does more good than harm for
he is an enemy to the grasshopper, the cricket, the white grub,
and nearly all kinds of beetles. The Skunk lives on the above
named insects, and only when they are scarce will he make
a raid on the farmer's poultry or eggs. I have known Skunks
to kil! chickens and devour a whole nest of eggs
NOAH H. PARKER, Gardeau:
The €kunk never does any damage except he gets into the
chicken coop and then he will sometimes kill several in one
night and often will repeat his visits if left undisturbed.
G. R. BROWNELL, A. P. POPE and W. R. PAGE, Smethport:
Kill chickens and furnish material for fur capes.
A. P. BREWER, Norwich:
Skunks are quite plentiful in this county and are considered
a great nuisance on account of their unpleasant perfumery, and
because they are destructive to eggs and young chickens.
J. B. OVIATT, Norwich:
Consider the Skunks a benefit to the farmer as they catch
mice, beetles, larvae, etc.
MERCER COUNTY.
A. D. McCRACKEN, New Lebanon:
We have had young chickens killed and so have our neighbors,
as many as fourteen at one time; supposed it was a Skunk or
Polecat, for when a Skunk was captured we lost no more chick-
ens that year. Skunks are considered by some beneficial to the
farmer; I think they are injurious. They are becoming scarce
which I believe will be beneficial to the farmer and poultry
raiser.
23--TT
354
M. C. OSBOURN, Henderson:
The Skunk I think is a friend to the farmer in many ways;
he sometimes may kill a chicken, but this is overbalanced by
the good he does in the field by killing mice and other harmful
forms of animal life.
ARTHUR MARTIN, Sandy Lake:
We have the Skunk; they are the farmer’s friend; they de-
stroymoremicethan any animal we have; we havea great many
mice in our clover fields; we will notice late in the fall when
a small skift of snow falls, the clover field is travelled over and
a great many mice killed in a single night by a Skunk.
MIFFLIN COUNTY.
JOS. W. KYLE, Milroy:
Injurious.
MONROE COUNTY.
H. T. FRANKENFIELD, Frutcheys:
I would consider Skunks beneficial to the farmer, as they
catch the Meadow or Field Mice.
MRS. ALMA S. WILLISTON, Frutcheys:
Last April my boy of ten years trapped a Skunk in our next
neighbor’s chicken yard and wanting to sell her to a “Skunk
Park” on the Delaware, about five miles from here, he put her
in a box and kept her until he had a chance to send her to the
park; he had her two days when she gave birth to a litter of
seven; of course he was more anxious than ever to keep her
until the little ones were large enough to sell, so he tried giv-
ing her fresh eggs, one three times a day; she liked them well
and the whole family throve nicely; she would take the egg
between her front feet and bore a small hole in the end with
her teeth and suck the contents. We kept them three weeks
and then took them to the park. In the meantime the mother
became so tame my boy could handle her with impunity, take
out the little ones when he liked and look at them without the
mother interfering at all. I was sorry he did not keep them
until they grew large for at the park they had poor success in
raising the young. They said the old ones ate them; I do not
know why, as the one we had seemed very fond of the little
ones,
EMIL ULRICH, Stroudsburg:
If it were not for his odoriferous propensities I should think
the Skunk a great friend of the farmer. He may occasionally
destroy a nest, eat some young birds, but his delights are
ground hornets’ nests and grubs and worms, after which he
will dig in the field. I have noticed the numerous small holes
made by skunks when searching for grubs.
MONTOUR COUNTY.
J. L. BRANNEN, Exchange:
Skunks are injurious to poultry and game.
PERRY COUNTY.
Fr. M. McKEEHAN, Ferguson:
Skunks are tolerably common in our parts; more numerous
than they were a few years ago. They are certainly destruc-
tive of game, destroying the eggs and brood; they also destroy
young rabbits. They seldom now approach farm buildings to
molest young poultry as they did fifty years ago, for as the
country is improved they are destroyed.
C. R. NOYES, Westport:
Skunks rob chicken and turkey nests and frequently kill tur-
keys and chickens.
PIKE COUNTY.
C. P. MOTT, Milford:
Skunks are not very numerous in our county, and the mice,
etc., detroyed by them more than compensates for the very
small damage that they do to poultry.
POTTER COUNTY.
O. J. JACKSON, Borie:
The Skunk does some damage to poultry.
SNYDER COUNTY.
F, J. WAGGENSELLER, M. D., Selinsgrove:
Skunks are injurious; have known them to kill chickens, de-
stroy birds and small game.
356
SOMERSET COUNTY.
E. B. HOSTETTER, Kingswood:
The Skunk is a very injurious animal, will kill all the feath-
ered fowls, such as chickens, turkeys, pheasants, quail, ete.
JEREMIAH PHILLIPS, Garrett:
Skunks suck eggs and sometimes catch chickens and ducks,
but not often.
DR. H. D. MOORE, New Lexington:
Skunks. Both beneficial and injurious, but I believe the in-
jury outweighs the benefit. If there were not any ground-nest-
ing birds or fowls, I have no doubt he would make a good liv-
ing on grubs, bugs, etc. I have a very poor opinion of the
Skunk. He is entirely too familiar; when he goes on a visit
he is liable to stay a whole week, and if you disturb him the
whole neighborhood finds it out and everybody is down on him
and every effort is made to destroy him, bounty or no bounty.
Allow me to digress a little from your question and say that I
haven't the least idea in the world what the Skunk was created
for. He doesn‘t seem to have any sense at all. I never knew
one to turn short around and start for home; if he didn’t find a
barn, or log, or the fence around a ten acre field to turn him
he would go on and on forever. I have met him at all hours
of the night, on the road, on the walks all around my house,
office and stable, and he always has the right of way. Coming
home late at night I have found him in possession of the prem-
ises. By maneuvering around and calling to my wife to hand
the shot gun out of the back window, I have been able to con-
vince him that he had been jumping my claim.
JOSIAH PILE, New Lexington:
Skunks are injurious, they will come to the farmers’ barn at
night and if there are any young chickens about the barn that
are not shut up he is sure to get them; it matters not how
many young chickens are there he generally takes them all;
it is no mystery when the farmer gets to his barn in the morn-
ing and finds them all gone what has taken them—the smell
tells the story. I cannot see in what way they are a benefit.
357
SULLIVAN COUNTY.
OTTO BEHR, Lopez:
Think Polecats are beneficial to the farmer; the damage they
do in oceasionally eating the eggs out of a nest out doors, or
catching a setting hen is more than balanced by the insects they
feed on.
J. K. BIRD, Millview:
The Skunk is one of the worst pests the farmer has, often
coming to our doors and poultry houses and robbing eggs and
young chickens from under the hen, and many times killing old
fowls. I would recommend a bounty of one dollar on Skunks.
Cc. F. HUNSINGER, Colley:
I consider the Skunk more of a benefit than an injury, for the
reason that I know of many parties who trap them, making
good wages selling their hides and a good fair income by frying
out the oil from the carcass, which is useful and valuable.
SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY.
JASPER T. JENNINGS, New Milford:
The Skunk does little or no damage to crops of any kind.
Their principal depredations are among the chickens and
young poultry. I have often known a whole brood of young
chickens to be destroyed by them in a single night. They often
burrow under some rock or go into a Woodchuck hole near the
farmer’s dwelling and prowl forth at night in search of prey;
they are great destroyers of meadow mice, and they dig out
hornets and bumble bees’ nests for the larvae of the bees; they
are rarely seen in the day time, but when so found will often
follow a person to throw their almost unendurable odor upon
him. Skunks bring forth several young at a time and increase
very rapidly. They are taken quite extensively in the fall of
the year when their fur is good, by means of a stone trap,
set with a figure four, denominated a ‘dead fall.’ The bait
is generally composed of a chicken’s head or entrails; the boys,
as well as some men, derive no little pleasure, as well as some
profit, in running a line of traps.
S. S. THOMAS, Lynn:
Skunks very common; think fully 3,500 are killed im this county
annually. Woodchucks, about one to the square acre. Rabbits,
quite common, diminishing before ferrets. Wildcats, quite rare;
in fact, almost unknown in this part of the county. Meadow
mice, exceedingly thick some years, in others rare. Minks and
Weasels quite common. Foxes, quite common, but diminishing.
Squirrels: Pine, common; Gray, plenty when they migrate this
way; Black, nearly or quite extinct. Raccoon occasionally seen;
less plentiful than formerly. Opossum very rare. Black Bear
unknown in this part of the county; one killed near here some
twenty-five years ago.
Am inclined to believe that the Skunk by his ceaseless war
on other vermin compensates for the damage. he does to the
poultry. I have twice caught him at the hee hives scratching
the outside of the hive to bring out the inmates and devouring
them as fast as they appeared. This was just at daylight in
the morning.
M. B. LYMAN, Lynn:
Skunks. Beneficial in killing mice, grasshoppers, insects and
other noxious insects, evidenced by upturned stones and shal-
low punctures in meadows where they are often seen.
TIOGA COUNTY.
P. W. REXFORD, Mansfield:
I think Skunks are injurious for they rob all birds’ nests that
are on the ground, and they are bad on poultry.
UNION COUNTY.
GEO. W. CHAMBERS, Mifflinburg:
Skunks are certainly of no benefit to farmers or anybody else.
I know that I have a good deal of trouble with them and I
would be willing to help pay fifty cents for every scalp. I have
had to fight them for years. If they get under a floor in a
barn or house they destroy all the eggs and chickens in a short
time. The act paying fifty cents a sealp should never have
been repealed; if it had not there would not now be a Skunk
in this county and that would have been a benefit to the
whole country.
DR. THOS, C. THORNTON, Lewisburg:
Poultry raisers in this section suffer considerable loss yearly
from the depredations of hawks included in the genus Accitpi-
359
ter. The Great Horned Owl and sometimes the Barred Owl also
destroy domesticated fowls. The Duck Hawk, and its smaller
relative the Pigeon Hawk, and the Bald Hagle will kill domes-
ticated fowls. Among mammals, the common Weasel, Mink,
Wildcat, and both kinds of Foxes also destroy a large amount
of poultry every year; and these four-footed depredators in
common with the raptorial birds above cited do a great deal
of mischief by destroying game—birds and mammals—as well
as many kinds of small beneficial song birds. The Mink, which
lives in the vicinity of water courses, in addition to doing
many other ‘bad deeds, destroys fish; large-sized trout seem
to be most agreeable to the taste. While hawks and owls,
like some of their mammalian cotemporaries, do not, so far as
T can learn, disturb the eggs of poultry or wild birds, we have
the pestiferous Skunk which is a most adroit nest robber. This
animal, like many other evil doers, goes about in the dark to
kill poultry or eat their eggs, and when these cannot be readily
obtained he attacks the eggs and broods of all ground-nesting
birds he can find. Skunks do much damage to poultry, and
the havoe they make among game birds, especially Turkeys,
Quail, Pheasants and Woodcock, should prompt every lover of
the dog and gun to extirpate these sneaking and sly pilferers.
They of course prey to some extent on different forms of in-
sect-life, but, possibly, it may be they consume almost as many
beneficial species as they do of noxious kinds. Some observers
believe this to be the case, and if they are correct, then there
can be no room for doubt that the whole Skunk race should be
exterminated as their ravages in poultry yards, to game, and to
insect-devouring birds is well established.
Cc. K. SOBER, Lewisburg:
The Skunk, or Polecat, as this nocturnal quadruped is called
by many, is, according to my observation, a most despicable ani-
mal, While it is probably true that he destroys some destruc-
tive larvae and beetles which subsist on the farmer's crops,
the damage he and his numerous family occasion by frequent
visits to the hen coops is considerable. I think the loss to the
farmer and fruit-grower, through the destruction of the eggs
and young of insectivorous birds by Skunks, is much greater
than the good these animals do by devouring crop-destroying
insect pests. Sportsmen who desire to see the game birds in-
crease, very generally favor the extermination of Skunks he-
cause they devour the eggs and young of Pheasants, Turkeys,
Quail and Woodcock; and they sometimes eat young Hares.
360
They also catch, it is said, destructive mice in meadows where
they hunt for food; but in such places, I have little doubt, they
do much injury to small song and insectivorous birds, as they
will not hestitate to rob all the nests which they can reach as
they slowly and methodically hunt over the ground in the
twilight, moonlight and dark.
VENANGO COUNTY.
L. T. WILT, Franklin:
Skunks are no doubt beneficial as well as injurious. If left
alone they will injure no one, except in case of extreme hun-
ger or on being molested. Why not rate him among the higher
order of mammals, on account of nature endowing him with
the faculty as chemist of preserving so fine a weapon of de-
fence and in so fine a chemical state of subdivision and in so
small a laboratory and capable, with a very slight effort on his
part, to open his laboratory and in an instant perfume so great
an amount of atmosphere.
H. C. DORWORTH, Oil City:
I consider Skunks injurious for the reason that they will
kill poultry and eat eggs. I have been told that the stench
from these animals is readily taken up by milk; I know that
local dairymen are bothered by these animals.
Many instances of Weasels and Polecats killing poultry in this
county have occurred. I know of a case where a farmer hearing
a commotion in his chicken coop went to investigate; he got
there in time to see a Weasel killing the eighteenth chicken.
James Black, of Black Siding, this county, not long ago lost
twenty fine White Brahmas. The Weasel had come up through
a crack in the floor, killed the whole flock and dragged every
chicken to the crack. The owner found his twenty chickens in
a row along this crack with their heads drawn down through
it. The Polecat does rot kill as many chickens at one time as
a Weasel; one or two usually satisfies his hunger.
WASHINGTON COUNTY.
GEORGE MONTGOMERY, Washington:
The Skunk has been very destructive at times to our poultry,
a few years ago one was quartered under the coal house,
not more than twenty feet from the kitchen door, and took
two dozen full grown hens before we discovered his where-
361
abouts. I had no dog at the time and that was perhaps the
reason he took quarters so near the house. There was another
one a few years after, which was under a pig pen in the orchard
that gave me considerable trouble, and destroyed many eggs
and chickens, before I succeeded in killing him. There is one
at the present time staying under our barn, which we have
not succeeded in capturing; he has killed many chickens for us
the past summer and eaten a great many eggs. There have
been six Skunks killed on this farm this year. I have been
advised to let the one remain at the barn so long as he does not
kill the chickens, and have a dead sheep or something of the
kind for him to nibble at, but my sentiments don’t tend that
way.
JAS. S. NEASE, Washington:
During the year 1870 Skunks were very abundant in Wash-
ington county. I saw one in the town of West Alexander in the
chicken coop eating a young chicken; I think it had killed two
or three and destroyed some eggs under a hen. This was early
in the evening, about eight o’clock. Father shot it while it was
eating the chicken. During that winter Skunks would come into
the yards in town and on soft nights, scratch on the bee hives
and when the bees came out would eat them; this weakened the
hive. When the ground was muddy (the kind of weather
Skunks prefer to travel) they would leave the hives muddy
where they scratched it at the hole left for bees to enter. At
this time the Skunk was hunted but very little for its fur, but
in a few years thereafter the fur brought a good price and
they have become very much scarcer. The incentive in obtain-
ing its pelt has so reduced it in numbers that it now ought to
be protected for the good of the farmers. They now stay far
from dwellings and those which remain are needed to kill
mice, yellow jackets, hornets and bumble bees. The Skunk
when not exceedingly numerous is very useful. The price of its
fur makes it much sought after and keeps its numbers greatly
reduced. It should be protected for a year or two.
WAYNE COUNTY.
G. C. BELL, Maplewood:
Injurious by eating up our small birds’ eggs.
G. W. WOOD, Equinunk:
Skunks are odious and ordorous; destructive to poultry; worsy
even than Foxes.
23*--TT
362
PAUL SWINGLE, S. Canaan:
Skunks are very injurious by destroying poultry.
JOHN KELLOW, Carley Brook:
Skunks like good fat poultry, but I do not think they are very
destructive; they also catch mice; while we do not know how
many mice they catch, they might balance accounts.
E. B. GAGER, Dyberry:
Skunks kill our chickens and eat our eggs.
GEO. FRANC, Ariel:
Skunks, quite common. Destructive to poultry.
GEO. M. DAY, Dyberry:
Skunks are beneficial. They destroy many bugs, beetles,
squash bugs, bumble bees, nests, ete. Where do they collect
and bottle up their ammunition for defence if not in our fields
and pastures? Step on a lot of the large bugs found on the
squash and pumpkin vines, then interview a Polecat, at a
safe distance, and see if the perfume is not the same. Now
if they are willing to pick up a living in that way, and grow
fat on it, why not let them?
Cc. W. PENNELL, Hemlock Hollow:
The Skunk is very destructive to poultry of all kinds and is
quite plentiful here. I have known the Skunk to destroy nests
of eggs and whole broods of young chickens in a single night.
I am sure it was a Skunk, as I put a steel trap in a nest with
a few eggs and caught him the next morning. Think the
State should pay a bounty on the Skunk.
N. F. UNDERWOOD, Lake Como:
Skunks are plenty here; do not do much damage; they will
oceasionally kill chickens.
PETER COVEY, Newfoundland:
Skunks are common; from personal knowledge know they are
injurious to poultry.
WESTMORELAND COUNTY.
JOHN NICHOLAS, Bradenville:
The Polecat is an animal most unpleasant in many respects,
but must, like all other animals, have been created for some
363
purpose. It is only within one year that I have discovered
their use to man. Most all animals prey upon one another, the
Skunk upon field mice and what is called the “hop grub;’” he
should be protected as beneficial to man.
W. C. SLOAN, Sloan:
Skunks carry off young chickens.
YORK COUNTY.
DR. WM. B. BIGLER, East Prospect:
Skunks are injurious. I know they will destroy eggs and
sometimes chickens.
Mr. I. D. HOWELL, York:
Skunks or Polecats are plentiful, and in my opinion, based
on experience and observation of over fifty years, they are the
most destructive vermin in the whole catalogue as regards
wild game and all forest birds that hatch or build their nests
on the ground: Wild Turkey, Pheasant, Partridge or Quail,
Woodcock or Snipe, Lark, Whip-poor-will, or Night Hawk,
Sparrows, and all of the bird kind which nest on the ground.
They are great workers, constantly rooting over the surface of
the ground, turning up the leaves and decayed matter, hunting
bugs, ‘“‘clocks,’’ ants, worms, insects of all kinds. These habits
bring them in direct contact with the hatching fowl; the mother
bird usually escapes but the eggs or young birds are easy prey
for the Skunk. I have known them to take the eggs from under
a tame turkey and not disturb the old bird. They are a great
damage to all kinds of poultry, they sometimes go in families,
as many as eight together.
OTHER STATES.
DAKOTA.
I. H. TROCH, Watertown:
Skunks, Foxes, Muskrats, Minks, Rabbits and Mice are
common and injurious.
WISCONSIN.
ALBERT BOEHN, LaCrosse:
Skunks are destructive to poultry and their eggs.
364
RED SQUIRREL.
Sciurus hudsonicus.
DESCRIPTION.
Body longer than the tail; body averages 6%4 to 74 inches
long. Weight, about half a pound. (Fox Squirrel, old adults,
sometimes weigh fully two pounds). Its rather broad ears, in
winter, are coated with long hairs, and those on back of ears
form a short tuft. The tail is flat and narrow. In summer,
soles of feet are naked, but furred in winter, except tubercles
at base of toes. Upper parts grayish rusty; a bright, reddish-
brown, broad band extends from the top of head down middle
of the back, and on upper surface of the tail. Lower parts, ex-
cept the tail, are white or whitish; under surface of tail, rusty,
blackish and gray. Eyes, brown; teeth (incisors) yellow.
Habitat.—This species, “including its varieties, is found over
most of North America, extending north to the limit of forest
vegetation, and south over the northern two-thirds of the United
States.”
The Red Squirrel or Chickaree is common through-
out this State. Many persons, particularly those re-
siding in the mountainous districts, call this animal
the Pine Squirrel, or “Piney.” It is spoken of some-
times by sportsmen and hunters who are not famil-
iar with the Fox Squirrel, as “Fox Squirrel.” Of
course such an appellation is erroneous and mislead-
ing. The Chickaree is not over one-third the size of
an old Fox Squirrel, from which it can easily be dis-
tinguished by its white under parts, brighter-colored
dorsal markings, as well as its greatly inferior size.
ALBINISM.
Partial or complete albinism is common among
birds. We often see white or whitish colored Black-
birds, Crows, Sparrows, Hawks, Owls, etc. This freak
of nature—a result of the absence of coloring matter—
may be observed in many mammals; Squirrels, espec-
“TayuyuINOS Gay
at
FTSAYYINOS Gay ONIG IY
‘|
FIOW TOMO Olas Ove
365
ially, are often captured which are wholly or partially
white. During the past five years the writer has se-
cured seven specimens of albino Red Squirrels. One
of these was taken back of a farmer’s poultry house
where for several days he had been seen at different
times. When the owner of the premises first observed!
the Squirrel he thought “it was a ‘white’ Weasel which:
was after mice and rats,” but as the brood of young
chickens decreased daily it was determined to watch
for the depredator.
HIS LAST CHICKEN.
A boy took a good position near the old hen and her
brood. Presently a white animal was seen to come
from a near-by woods, and running along the fence
rails make a straight course to the hen coop, where he
seized a young chicken and started off. The boy shot
the thief, I bonght it, and reader, you can see its:
stuffed skin reproduced on the accompanying plate,
No more chickens were stolen until a pair of bold hun-
ery Cooper’s Hawks came that way and killed eleven,
inthreedays, when the boy succeeded in shooting them,
and finding their nest with five young, nearly ready to
fly. This was when bounties were paid and the suc-
cessful boy got $3.50 for the seven hawks from a neigh
boring justice of the peace, who on a former occasion
paid fifty cents each for the heads of several Night-
hawks, two Shrikes, which were called “bird-hawks;”
and, it is said, he also paid for and burned the heads
of turkeys and domesticated fowls, believing them to
be the remains of poultry and game destroying hawks
or owls.
DESTROYS MANY BIRDS.
Although the Red Squirrel will eat mast, cereals,
366
berries, fruits, roots, seeds, buds, certain kinds of ten-
der fungi, as well as other plants, and sometimes, it is
said, even catch insects, he is decidedly carnivorous in
his tastes.
Trappers despise him because he steals meat with
which they bait their traps; and he does much mis-
chief by destroying birds which nest in forest and
shade trees where he loves to live, propagate and dep-
redate. He is often seen in the apple or pear orchards
destroying fruit or robbing nests. I have several
times seen this noisy and agile marauder devouring
birds of different species. Robins, Flickers, Vireos,
Wilson’s Thrush, Wood Thrush, Cat bird and several
kinds of Sparrows, as well as other species of song
birds are victims of this Squirrel’s attacks. The able
and venerable Mr. John Burroughs gives the sprightly
and wicked Mr. Sciurus a “knock-out” blow in the fol-
lowing language:
“Nearly all the birds look upon it as their enemy and attack
and annoy it when it appears near their breeding haunts. Thus,
I have seen the Pewee, the Cuckoo, the Robin and the Wood
Thrush pursuing it with angry voice and gestures. If you wish
the birds to breed and thrive in your orchards and groves, kill
every Red Squirrel that infests the place.”
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.
Many testimonials of the Red Squirrel devouring
native birds, and destroying—“entting off’—growing
fruit, particularly pears and apples, have come to this
office. The impudent and frolicsome Red Squirrel also
sucks the eggs of birds of many species; among game
birds the Ruffed Grouse suffers often from his visits,
for he spends much time on the ground.
Mr. James Carnes, Clearfield, Pa.. writes:
“The Pine Squirrel, which is so common in our woods, is one
of the worst pests, as he destroys so many pheasants’ eggs.”
367
Mr. B. F. Shaffer, Nittany, Centre Co., Pa., says:
“Saw a Red Squirrel eating the brains of a young Robin.
These squirrels are a great nuisance where plentiful. They kill
different kinds of wild birds and suck their eggs, and they also
sometimes catch young poultry.”
Mr. H. M. F. Worden, of Harrisburg, and a gentle.
man who has been one of the most earnest advocates
in the Commonwealth for better laws to protect game,
fish and insectivoreus birds, says:
“Hor some time I doubted the statement that the Red Squirrel
would catch and kill young birds, but recently I know that a
pair of these squirrels killed and devoured a nest of young
robins. I have also learned, on making inquiry among some
of my friends who are well acquainted with Chickarees in
their native haunts, that these mammals often destroy young
birds, and, in the course of a year, do a good bit of damage.”
SOME OF HIS PURSURERS.
The Red Squirrel has his own troubles and must not
only keep his eyes open for men and boys with guns,
or traps set for his destruction, but he has to be on the
alert for Hawks and Owls which often catch him in an
unguarded moment. Red Squirrels, in common with
other species of the Squirrel family, are often de-
stroyed by the forest fires which almost every year, in
this State, consume thousands of dollars worth of
property, besides destroying a great amount of animal
life.
ADDITIONAL FACTS OF HIS LIFE HISTORY.
Dr. C. Hart Merriam makes the following remarks,
which portray in a most pleasing and entertaining
manner, much that is of interest:
“The Chickaree combines qualities so wholly at variance, so
unique, so incomprehensible, and so characteristic withal, that
368
one scarcely knows in what light to regard him. His inquisi-
tiveness, audacity, inordinate assurance, and exasperating inso-
lence, together with his insatiable love of mischief and shame-
less disregard of all the ordinary customs and _ ecivili-
ties of life, would lead one to suppose that he was
little entitled to respect; and yet his intelligence, his
untiring perseverance, and genuine industry, the cunning clev-
erness displayed in many of his actions, and the irresistible hu-
mor with which he does everything, command for him a certain
degree of admiration. He is arrogant, impetuous and conceited
to an extreme degree, his confidence in his own superior capa-
bilities not infrequently costing him his life. In fact, these con-
tradictions in character and idiosyncrasies in disposition render
him a psychological problem of no easy solution.
“From earliest dawn till the setting sun has disappeared be-
hind the distant hill, the Red Squirrel enlivens the silent soli-
tude of the forest with his merry ways and saucy chatterings;
and he may sometimes be discovered in the darkest hours of
the night stealing softly over the ground—bent, doubtless, on
some errand of dubious propriety.
SOMETIMES ACTIVE AT NIGHT.
“Moonlight evenings he is often as active, though not so noisy,
as during the day, and in early autumn he vies with the Flying
Squirrel in nocturnal nut-husking exploits.
“Though an expert climber, delighting in long leaps from
bough to bough, which he executes with grace and precision,
he spends far more time on the ground than other arboreal
Squirrels, sometimes even making his home in holes in the
earth.
HE SEEKS THE FENCE RAILS.
“Old logs, stumps, wood-piles and brush-heaps are favorite
places of resort, and by excavating burrows beneath, he con-
verts them into the securest of retreats. Our fences serve as
highways upon which he travels from wood to wood, and the
zig-z:g rail fence in particular is one of the boons of his exis-
tence, It is his most frequented path, his playground, his race-
course, and when pursued, his readiest means of escape. It is
the step-ladder from which he leaps into the branches of neigh-
boring trees, and the place where he meets his friends at all
hours of the day. He frequently follows it to the farm-house
and takes up his abode in the woodshed or other outbuilding,
placing his nest between the ceiling and roof, or in some other
369
equally out-of-the-way spot, whence he is with great difficulty
dislodged.
KEEPS JUST OUT OF REACH.
“He is the least wary of the Squirrels, rarely taking trouble
to hide himself at the approach of man. In fact, on such oc-
casions he usually assumes an aggressive attitude, chippers,
shakes his tail in an impudent and wholly uncalled for manner,
but takes care to keep just out of reach. This daring fearless-
ness is clearly the result of the fact that he is not worth the
powder necessary for his destruction, and he is therefore tol-
erated, though an acknowledged nuisance. But there are times
when his conduct becomes so scandalous that the shot gun is
brought out for his suppression. He is soon deeply impressed
with the range and effect of this weapon, and though many of
his brothers may have perished before the warning was heeded,
he now becomes, in this particular locality, the most circum-
spect of brutes. He scorns the thought of running away, but
grows so vigilant, sly, and crafty that the farmer is put to his
wits end to devise means for his riddance.”
THE GRAY SQUIRREL'S FOE.
The indefatigable, nut-hunting, bird-destroying Red
Squirrelisarelentlessfue of Gray Squirrels, whichhave
good reason to fear his vicious onslaughts. In conclu-
sion I regret that it has been necessary to write and
quote as has been done, but to be accurate such a
course had to be followed. We can say, as has been
-said “kill all the pesky Red Squirrels,’ but to those
who are familiar with the woods and its tenants, I am
sure if the merry and shrill note, chir-r-r-r-r, of the
Chickaree was forever hushed in death, we would miss
him greatly and be glad to welcome him—cruel,
wicked and bad as he is—back to the scenes of child-
hood days.
24--IT
370
OPOSSUM.
Didelphis marsupialis virginiana.
DESCRIPTION.
Variable in size; weight from six to ten pounds; measures
from twenty to thirty-two from end of pointed snout to tip of
the tail; the tail, about as long as the head and body, is very
flexible and, except at the base which is hairy, is covered with
seales, which enable the ’possum to cling with absolute security
to the limbs, amongst which he climbs with great dexterity. The
eyes are brown. Fur of body is quite soft, and woolly, thickly
sprinkled with long white and blackish hair that gives the
animal a shaggy dress. Sides of head, face, throat and chin,
whitish, with a more or less brownish area about the eyes;
legs and feet blackish brown; the ears, conspicuous, rounded
and lengthened, are dark-colored and naked; belly whitish.
The long white and blackish hairs of the body give the animal a
frosted, dusky appearance. In antediluvian times when father
Noah “lived and built himself a bark,’’ ’tis said, the possum
had long and numerous hairs covering his long and tapering
tail; such a condition does not now exist, and this nakedness
has been facetiously accounted for in the following stanzas,
taken from Mr. A. M. Brayton’s report:*
WHY DE HA’R IS MISSIN’.
Go ’way fiddle—folks is tired a-hearin’ you a-squawkin’.
Keep silence for your betters—don’t you hear de bango talkin,?
About de ’possum’s tail she’s gwine to lecter—ladies, listen!—
About de ha’r what isn’t dar, an’ why de ha'r is missin’.
De ark she keeps a Sailin’, an’ a sailin’, an’ a sailin’;
De lion got his dander up, an’ like to bruk de’ palin’—
De sarpints hissed—de painter yelled—tell, what wi'd all de
fussin’.
You ec’u’dn’t hardly heah de mate a-bossin’ roun’ an’ cussin’.
Now Ham, de only nigger what was runnin’ on de packet,
Got lonesome in de barber shop, an c’u’dn’t stan’ de racket;
An’ so for to amuse he-self, he steamed some wood an’ bent it,
An’ soon he had a bango made—de fust dat was invented.
He wet de ledder, stretched it on, made bridge, an’ screws, an’
apron;
An’ fitted in a proper neck—'’twas very long an’ tap’rin’.
He tuk some tin, an’ twisted him a thimble for to ring it;
An’ de mighty question riz, how was he gwine to string it?
*Report of Geolog. Sur. of Ohio, Vol. IV. Zoology, page 170,
as a quotation from Scribner's Monthly, January, 1878,
a
6
OP OS SWIM:
+
fa
371
De ’possum had as fine a tail as dis dat I am singin’;
De ha’rs as long an’ thick an’ strong—des fit for banjo-stringin’;
Dat nigger shaved ’em off as short as wash day dinner graces,
An’ sorted ob’em by de size, from little e’s to basses.
He strung her, tuned her, struck a jig—twas ‘“‘Nebber min’ de
wedder”’;
She soun’ like forty-'leven bands, a playin’ all togedder;
Some went to pattin’, some to dancin’; Noah called de figgers,
An’ Ham he sot and knocked de tune, de happiest ob niggers!
Now, sence dat time—it’s mighty strange—dere’s not de slight-
est showin’
Ob any ha’r at all upon de ’possum’s tail a-growin’.
An’ curi’s, too—dot nigger’s ways; his people nebber los’ ‘em—
For where you finds de nigger, dar’s de bango an’ de 'possum!
Habitat.—Common and abundant in the South; generally rare
or of irregular occurrence north of latitude of Central Pennsyl-
vania. In some of the northern parts of this State the Opos-
sum is almost unknown.
This animal, which is so abundant in the southern
states where it is highly prized for food, is quite num-
erous in the southern parts of Pennsylvania. Jn the
the counties of Delaware, Chester, York, Lancaster,
Cumberland, Dauphin and several others Opossums
are plentiful.
3,500 A YEAR IN CHESTER COUNTY.
The Messrs. Weil, extensive fur buyers, of West
Chester, Pa., say they have, for the last six years, an-
nually purchased about 2,000 *possum skins in Ches-
ter and neighboring counties, and that fully two-thirds
of this number were obtained in Chester county. x
=
379
occasionally smashed fence posts and rails, where bene-
ficial birds of prey so often waited and watched, in
daylight and dark, for insidious foes which consumed
the land owner’s crops.
Finally several of the Fox hunters—those who pur-
sued Foxes for pleasure alone—who knew much of the
damage done to poultry hy Foxes with young, made up
a purse, and agreed to pay farmers who were digging
out old Foxes and their whelps, for all the domesti-
cated fowls that were killed. Jt was further stipu-
lated that Mr. and Mrs. Reynard’s heirs should not be
slain for bounty, but when caught should be kept alive,
until a certain size, when they were to be liberated.
This arrangement saved the lives of many Foxes.
A DIVERSION ENJOYED BY MANY.
Fox hunting for pleasure—a most exhilarating and,
to many, enjoyable diversion—is engaged in by some
of the foremost citizens of Chester, Delaware, Mont-
gomery, Lancaster, Washington and perhaps a few
other counties. In these localities there is more or
less sentiment expressed in favor of Foxes.
THEY SAY HE DOES MUCH GOOD.
Some gentlemen, and I believe they are sincere in
what they say, claim that:
“Foxes subsist chiefly on mice, rats, or other rodents; and
also consume great quantities of grasshoppers and ‘bugs’; and
that the consumption of these pests is of far more value, pe-
euniarily considered, than is the occasional turkey, chicken,
duck or goose, which are rarely stolen, unless other food sup-
plies run short.”
These persons seldom, if ever, refer to the Fox’s
keen sense of smell, and acute hearing, which, with his
380
bright, sharp eyes, enable him, with wily strategy and
soft, cautious tread, to destroy nearly all kinds of ter-
restrial birds, ranging in size from the old Wild Tur-
key which weighs twenty-five pounds, to an Oven-bird
that weighs about a couple of ounces. Of course such
a lack of knowledge is pardonable, for it is a known
fact that few people who hunt in bright red clothes,
find time to look on the trail of death which almost
daily marks the Red Fox’s path. They know him sim-
ply as a crafty and pretty creature, which by marvel-
ous tricks is so often enabled to baffle the hounds, as
he speeds through the valleys, across broad fields, over
hill-tops, cressing streams, running on logs, or along
fence-tops, and when tired defiantly shakes his much-
prized “brush” and tossing his head, hides in the rocks.
SHEEP-KILLING DOGS AND FOXES.
Some sheep-killing dogs, it is asserted, will not com-
mit their costly and vexatious depredations near home,
and many claim that the Red Fox which has his wife
and little ones near a farmer’s hen coop will rarely
visit it with evil intent, unless reduced to extremity
by hunger’s pangs. This, perhaps, is in some in-
stances true, but if Mr. Fleetfoot Fox does not steal
poultry, or young lambs near his burrow, so often
usurped, he certainly does plenty of this kind of work
away from his home. He is built for speed, and often
travels over a large space of country on foraging ex-
cursions. When he leaves his vigilant wife and play-
ful children and hies away on these food-hunting ex-
peditions it is not uncommon for some neighboring rel-
ative who also left his family in a snug den—about
which bones, feathers, hair, and other animal remains
381
are scattered—to come and steal the poultry and lambs
or young pigs of the farmer, which the other crafty
Fox allowed to live unmolested. Naturally the result
of this is that Foxes are, very generally, despised by
farmers and poultry raisers, and they, not unwisely,
destroy these “pesky brutes.”
SOME OF HIS NUMEROUS VICTIMS.
Sportsmen who have taken the pains to investigate
the habits of Foxes, particularly the Red Fox, abhor
them and urge their extermination, because it has been
ascertained that where these marauders are abundant
game of all kinds decreases with astonishing rapidity.
The fact is well established that Foxes destroy, with
indiscriminate greed, almost all species of desirable
game—birds and mammals—which they can master.
The fact that they will kill young fawns is beyond dis-
pute and shows that the doe has in the artful Fox, as
well as the sneaking Wildcat, foes which need con-
stant watching. If it was customary for crafty and
sagacicus Foxes to hunt in packs, like Wolves do, there
unquestionably would be a much greater paucity of
Virginia Deer than at present exists in Pennsylvania.
IT have in my museum a Black Bear, about as big as a
large house cat, which was obtained from a woodsman
who said he found it at a Red Fox’s den.
SOME ANIMALS FOXES KILL.
Among the numerous kinds of wild birds and mam-
mals which Foxes destroy, remains of the following
have been found in their stomachs or at their dens:
MAMMALS.
Fawn,
Varying Hare,
Gray Rabbit (Cottontail),
Gray Squirrel,
Black Squirrel,
Red Squirrel,
Chipmunk,
Woodchuck,
Opcssum,
Skunk,
Muskrat,
Weasel,
Mice,
Rats.
BIRDS.
Wild Turkey,
Ruffed Grouse,
Mongolian Pheasant,
Quail,
Woodcock,
Field Plover,
Sora,
Wood Duck,
Mallard,
Dove,
Meadowlark.
Nighthawk,
Screech Owl,
Song Sparrow.
This list, so far as the feathered animals are con-
cerned, could be materially increased as there is
probably hardly a species of the bird family which
nests on the ground that has not suffered from the
raids of Foxes, which devour with alacrity any of them
—old or young—and if these cannot be caught they
eat the eggs. The lox hunts in daytime as well as at
night. He will eat carrion if nothing better can be
found, and fish, it is said, are also sometimes agreeable
to his palate. Some writers say he will eat ripe grapes
and many other kinds of fruit, which is no doubt true,
but I have never known either the Red or Gray Fox
to feed on a vegetable diet.
FOXES LOVE LAMB CHOPS AND PORK.
As several gentlemen have sent communications to
this office defending Foxes and also asserted that these
animals seldom, if ever, disturbed lambs, and that it
383
was absurd to say that they would go near a vicious old
sow when she had a litter of young, I wrote to Dr. L.
W. Schnatterly, a well informed naturalist, of Free-
port, Armstrong county, Pa. I knew he resided in a
section of the Commonwealth where Foxes were said
to be very numerous, and much addicted to stealing
lambs, poultry and young pigs. The doctor kindly
took the trouble to interview on this subject a number
of his farmer friends and other reliable gentlemen.
The facts thus cbtained are told by Dr. Schnatterly in
the following words:
Mr. John Ehrenfelt, a farmer and stock dealer of Armstrong
county, tells me that every spring the Foxes stole many of
his lambs, and the only way he could prevent it was to take
a dead one, fill‘it with arsenic or strychnine and leave it where
they would get it. He says he has cleaned the Foxes out many
times that way.
Mr. Geo. Ralston, farmer, Armstrong county, has lost many
lambs by Foxes but could never catch the cunning fellows at
their work, but has found many lambs’ pelts and skeletons at
their dens. Along the Allegheny river hill which adjoins my
farm there is a den of them now and they are around my barn-
yard weekly.
Mr. Geo. Sterick, formerly a farmer but now one of our
townsmen, who used to be a great hunter says that all along
the river and Buffalo Creek hills, you can see bones of lambs,
pigs, turkeys, chickens and other game that would make a cart
load at the many different Fox dens in the rocks.
Mr. Thos. Hill, farmer, Armstrong county, occasionally loses
a few lambs and he supposes they have been taken by Foxes,
but as he lives several miles back from the North hill they
don’t molest him very much.
Mr. Homer Iseman, formerly a farmer but now an oil and
gas driller, relates what he witnessed only one year ago. He
and Abe Thompson were drilling a well in Westmoreland
county. Near where they were at work was a large flock of
sheep and lambs. The latter were out playing one morning
and a large Red Fox came down to the lambs. The Fox
crouched down as a cat does and lay there motionless. The
lambs played closer and closer until they came within a few
384
feet of the animal. The Fox made a leap and caught a lamb
and started off with it for its den on the Creek hill; the men
began to yell and they frightened the Fox so it dropped the
lamb but it was crushed so it died.
Mr. J. E. Hodel, of Allegheny county, says that he and Jas.
Henderson blamed a Fox for stealing their poultry; they
sought for her den and dug her out. It was an old she Fox
and they found several bushels of bones of lambs, pigs, ducks,
geese, turkeys in an ante-chamber or dining room, by side of
den.
Mr. Geo. Murphy, farmer, Armstrong county, tells me that
several years ago a drover with sheep and lambs was passing
his place and the lambs gave out and were left there a day;
during that time a large Fox paid them a visit, caught and
killed one, and then perched itself on the fence to bask in the
sunshine. He went to get a gun to kill it but when he came
back it had taken its prey and left. Not long after a sow had
a litter of pigs in the woods; he heard them -making a noise
one day and went to see what was the matter. A big fight was
on between the old sow and the Fox; the Fox would run at
the sow like a dog, and then the sow would run at the Fox to
drive it away from the pigs that were huddled in the nest; this
was repeated several times until the Fox got the sow real mad
and she made at the Fox and run it several yards from the
pigs. The Fox then, quick as speed would let it, bounded
round past the sow into the nest, grabbed a pig in its mouth
and was gone before the sow could get back to the nest. He
had to take the sow and pigs home to keep the rest from be-
ing stolen.
Mr. Thos. Stroup, farmer, Armstrong county, had four lambs
taken in one week by Foxes. The lambs were one week old.
Mr. Samuel Reddick, farmer, Armstrong county, had a sow
with a litter of pigs in the woods near house in a rail pen. A
Fox or Foxes, made nightly visits to the pen and took seven
pigs and the sow became so frantic and enraged that she tore
the rail pen down to get at the intruder. The pigs were a
week old.
Mr. Thos. Jack, farmer, says there is nearly a cart load of
bones of all kinds of small animals at some Fox dens along
the river hill near Logansport. None of the above gentlemen
ever heard of Foxes attacking calves or killing them.
These remarks refer to both the Red and Gray
Foxes but by far the greater amount of damage
385
was done by Red Foxes, as they are much more
common. Dr. Schnatterly writes that farmers
generally tell him they lose many lambs every
spring by Foxes that come about chiefly at
night. The indignant farmers and stock raisers
know that Foxes commit these depredations as they
find the remains of lambs at the Foxes’ dens among
the rocks.
WHERE PHEASANTS THRIVED.
I call to mind a locality in.Centre county, where all
the natural conditions are most favorable for Ruffed
Grouse to live and multiply. Second growth white
pine and hemlock thickets, and extensive patches of
large rhododendrons (buck laurel) abound; wild fruits
and berries, chestnuts, acorns, arbutus, ferns, together
with other kinds of plant-food they. live on, are plenti-
ful in and around the old slashings and abandoned log
and tram roads. But the noble Ruffed Grouse has for
the past three years been very scarce there. Four
years ago this splendid game bird abounded in this
locality where I have often known a good marksman
to shoot in a day’s tramp, of eight or ten miles, from
six to a dozen of them.
FOXES DID IT.
Some may say hunters killed all the birds; this, how-
ever, is not the case, but it is very clearly shown that
Foxes are largely responsible for the Pheasants’ dimi-
nution. When these birds abounded in this particu-
lar locality, preying birds and mammals, other than
Red and Gray Foxes, hunters and trappers found to be
fully as plentiful as they now are when the Pheasants
are so scarce. The farmers who live in the valleys
25-11
386
that separate the mountains of this romantic region
say Foxes have increased rapidly and their destruc-
tion of domesticated fowls, young lambs, and occa-
sionally young pigs, causes individual losses, estimated
to be from five ($5) to twenty-five ($25) per farm. These
depredators are so cunning and sly that even the most
experienced trapper rarely is able to catch one in any
of the devices no matter how artfully placed.
TALKED ABOUT FOXES AND GOT SOME VOTES.
Recently I met a man, who formerly lived in the lo-
cality previously referred to, and as we traveled
through the tangled underbrush, over old fields, and
across disused log roads, and saw on the snow num-
erous “signs” of Foxes, we met three farmers who had
just shot a Gray Fox which they were skinning. My
companion knew the men, with whom politics and
Foxes were discussed for a few minutes, then we sep-
arated. As the dinner gongs were sounding in the
valley below, we sat down to lunch at a spring where
a bright-eyed Weasel, in dark coat, peeped at us for
an instant, through the matted roots of an upturned
tree.
THE WEASELS.
My companion said:
“Tf you had been ready with the auxiliary barrel you could
have had that animal. It is one of the smaller of the two
species of Weasels that we have in these parts. This inquisi-
tive and active little fellow kills rabbits and birds, but he
catches great numbers of mice, and eats insects, and probably,
in the course of his life, does more good than harm. The
other species—the Common Weasel—so abundant in many lo-
calities and found, no doubt, all over the State, I think is a
nuisance as he not only kills game but, oftentimes, cleans out
all the chickens in your coops.”
387
GOOD FOXES ARE DEAD FOXES.
Seeing that I was interested in his observations, my
companion continued and spoke about as follows:
“During the last forty years a large portion of my time has
been spent in lumber camps and places like you see about us.
I have always taken a deep interest in wild animals, and am
quite familiar with their haunts and curious ways. Some of
them are, through a lack of proper knowledge, often most
wrongfully condemned, but Foxes should not be included in
this abused group. Careful observation leads me to say, good
Foxes are dead Foxes, but their skins, if the animals are de-
stroyed by poison, will not bring the highest market price; and
expert fur-dealers readily recognize the ones which have been
killed with poison.
“T am told that down in the vicinity of Philadelphia people—
but surely they are not farmers—love and protect the Foxes,
and say they are good things to have around farms to destroy
vermin. I, of course, don’t know anything about the habits of
Foxes which live down there, but I doubt if they are a whit
better than the ones you an hour ago heard those men talk-
ing about in such harsh terms.
THEY COULDN’T UNDERSTAND.
“You remember, I smiled and winked at you, but said noth-
ing, when ‘Andy’ talked about dead Foxes as he pulled the
Pheasant’s breast meat out of the Fox’s stomach you asked
him to cut open; and, no doubt, you call to mind that all the
men said they couldn’t understand why it was that four or
five years ago a man with a pair of good dogs might hunt all
day and never start a Fox, but now, if all the ‘run-ways’ were
covered by good marksmen, a party would get three or four
in a day. When I first came here, about fourteen years ago,
Foxes were very numerous, and when I fcund they killed so
many Pheasants, Wild Turkeys and Rabbits, as well as all
kinds of poultry, and sometimes young lambs, I tried to trap
them but had poor success; they were too smart.
VALUABLE INFORMATION.
“One day as good luck would have it, I hired a man who
had spent much of his time, in early life, with trappers in the
far west. He suggested, that if I wanted to kill Foxes, it
388
could easily be done by shooting some sparrows, charging them
with strychnine, and placing them where Foxes rambled. Be-
fore beginning this (to me) new mode of warfare against the
cunning Foxes which had so often defeated me in former years,
I spent about a week shooting sparrows, and I took some
chickens’ heads, and nearly twenty tame pigeons which I shot,
and scattered these about places where Foxes loved to rove.
These birds and heads were not poisoned; they were only put
out to let the sly robbers learn how easily they could get a
good meal by coming to my premises.
ANDY, IT WAS STRYCHNINE, NOT DISEASE.
“The second week I followed the man’s advice and soon dead
Foxes were found scattered around over the mountains, in
fields; generally, however, they were found near water. The
farmers and woodsmen were astonished and always believed
some fatal disease had attacked these animals. I followed this
plan, every season, with the result that Foxes, after the first
two years, were hardly ever seen.
BIRDS INCREASED.
“The Pheasants increased rapidly, and many of these little
ground birds which you know by different names, were much
more plentiful then than they are now. Four years ago I left
this place; no more Sparrows were put out for wandering
Foxes, and, you see, as they increase Pheasants decrease, and
the Wild Turkey is rarely, if ever, seen in places where five
years ago it was of common occurrence.
HOW TO FIX THEM.
“If you ever want to destroy Foxes get a lot of Sparrows—
English Sparrows are worthless—and open the belly, pull out
the insides, then put in the cavity as much strychnine as you
can hold on the point of the small blade of an ordinary pocket
knife, then push the entrails back; take about three poisoned
birds and put them in a place together; hang them on a low
bush or twig, lay them on a stump, or anywhere in the Foxes’
feeding grounds, away from human habitation.
WHAT A CHESTER COUNTY FARMER BELIEVES.
“Sometime ago you sent me a circular asking about birds
and animals, I will send you some memoranda which can, if
389
they are worth the space, be used in your books, but I do not
care to have my name go with them, as I make no pretensions
to be either a naturalist or a writer.
HAWKS AND OWLS.
“There are several kinds of Hawks and Owls about our farm
and most of them do little harm because they live chiefly on
Mice. Of course, every now and then a pair of big Hoot Owls
(Great Horned), which nest in February in the woods, come
around and steal some chickens, but they, too, eat Mice, Rats,
and Rabbits, all of which, when numerous, are a nuisance.
Then there are two varieties of slimly-built Hawks, with long
tails, that every spring are very troublesome when the hens
hatch out their broods. These Hawks will sometimes dash
by you and carry off a young chicken under your very eyes. My
son, last year, shot two, and the taxidermist who stuffed these
birds called them the Cooper's Hawk, and the Sharp-shinned
Hawk. These names may be right but we call them Chicken
Hawks. When they can not get chickens they kill birds such
as the Robin, the Lark, the Dove, and lots more of smaller
kinds that I call field and ground chippies; and these Hawks
always kill Partridges when any are about, but won't catch
grasshoppers and Mice as the little Sparrow Hawk does. They
do much mischief and I believe should be killed.
WEASELS, SKUNK AND MINK.
“When the Skunk gets in the habit of visiting the hen roost
or stealing eggs he had better be dead so far as the farmer
and poultry raiser are concerned; but Skunks generally, I be-
lieve, would rather eat grub-worms, June-bugs, grasshoppers,
crickets, other kinds of insects and Mice. When these can be
found they don’t often come about to rob our hens. I like the
Weasel because he kills so many Mice and Rabbits, but then
he, too, frequently comes to rob us of poultry, and his visits
mean the death of many fowls. The Mink is a very bad neigh-
bor. A family of Minks did much damage to our fish in the
pond last year, and killed a lot of ducks, and several chickens;
then the boys, luckily one day, found the Minks in their nest
under an old ‘building near the dam, and they killed them all.
There are not very many Minks about these parts, at least, 1
have not seen or heard of any for nearly twelve months past.
I never knew the Red Squirrel to disturb chickens but he kills
a good many Robins and some other small birds. Rats are
great poultry thieves; and once I saw a Mouse eating a chicken,
390
two or three days old, which I believe it caught. 'Coons and
‘Possums both catch chickens, but neither is half as bad in this
respect as the Red Fox.
THE FOX A TERROR.
“This wily and sagacious animal is not only fond of chickens
but he will catch ducks, turkeys and geese whenever a chance
is offered. He menaces the lives and happiness of all birds
which brood on the ground; he is a terror and most adroit in
this line of contemptible plunder. The great scarcity of Part-
ridges (Quail) in this and neighboring counties, where some
years ago they were quite abundant, I think is mainly due to
the Fox devouring the eggs and young, and the old birds too,
if he can catch them. However it may be, as some say, that
mowing machines have been, in part, the cause of the pleasing
eall ‘Bob-White’ becoming so scarce; but as already stated I
blame the sharp-nosed Fox for the scarcity of the plump,
white-throated whistler.
EVERYBODY KILLED FOXES THEN.
“Sixty years ago, when I was a boy, everybody killed all the
Foxes they could; they were usually shot, as they were very
hard to catch in traps. About ten years ago one of our boys
bought a new shot gun, and early one bright spring morning
when the birds were singing their sweet, joyous songs of praise
to the Giver of all that is good, I took it and slowly made my
way through the dewy grass, behind a hedge row, to some rocks
where I knew a family of Foxes lived. Reaching the place I
Saw an old Fox and five young ones, about half grown, devour-
ing one of my neighbor’s ducks. I shot both barrels and killed
two of the young, and the rest scampered into the den in the
rocks. I felt well satisfied with my success and took the ani-
mals down to the house.
HE PLEAD AND ALMOST CRIED FOR FOXES.
“You can imagine my surprise when my nephew, a young
man of about twenty, nearly cried when he saw the dead Foxes,
which he said he had paid our hired man to watch so no harm
might come to them.-He told me how they destroyed mice,
caught all kinds of harmful bugs, hunted grasshoppers, and
killed Rabbits which consumed the cabbage and barked young
fruit trees when deep snows covered the ground. Finally I
promised not to shoot any more Foxes, and the agreement has
391
not been broken. I was at a loss to understand how he had
become so impressed with the good deeds which he attributed
to Foxes, yet seemed to know nothing of their evil ways.
HOUNDS AND A BOB-TAILED HORSE.
“Later on I found he had an interest in a pack of dogs, which
in winter season he followed with fancy dress, colored like the
British wore at the Battle of Brandywine where some of his
ancestors died; and he had a bob-tailed saddle horse, that
could run and jump the fences. When I was young we didn’t
have such things, but times, and the ways of people, have
changed most remarkably. I sometimes think as I learn of
baneful results of many of these changes that it is well that
my eyes have grown dim, that my hands have lost their
cunning, my steps become tottery, and that soon I shall depart
this life and rest in peace, love and contentment with my God
above. Foxes now live unmolested on the farm and although
they often take chickens or ducks I never complain, as the
money value is small, probably not over five or ten dollars a
year from all Foxes, and the other kinds of poultry-catching
pests. When my good wife, who sleeps in the church yard over
the hills, and I began life ten dollars was considered a good
deal, but now it don’t seem) to be valued by young people, par-
ticularly if some one else earns it, and gives it to them to
spend. A boy or girl rarely appreciates the true value of dol-
lars, unless they earn them by honest work.
“J hope you will deal fully with the birds and animals, and
write books without a lot of big Latin names, so that our school
children can read them and know more about the true relations
that these creatures have in the broad field of nature. The
lack of proper information about insects, birds, animals and
plants is a source of much loss to those who engage in agricul-
ture.
HOW HE BEHAVES ACROSS THE OCEAN.
In the Old World Foxes appear to be just as bad as
they are on this side of the Atlantic. The European
Red Fox, eminent writers say, has no specific identity
from our Red Fox. To show how the Fox acts in other
lands the following extracts are transcribed from Dr.
Brehm’s Life of Animals:
392
“The Fox preys on all animals from a young roe to a beetle,
but principally Mice. * * * He spares neither old or
young, and zealously pursues Hares and Rabbits, and even at-
tacks young roes or Deer. He not only plunders the nests of
all birds brooding on the ground, devouring both eggs and
young, but also tries to overcome the old birds, and not infre-
quently succeeds in doing so. He swims and wades through
swamps and marshes, in order to reach the birds which brood on
the water, and there are cases on record where he has killed
brooding Swans. He also attacks tame poultry and effects an
entrance into isolated farm-yards at night; and if he is afforded
a good cover, he pursues the poultry even in broad daylight.
In large orchards and vineyards he is a more frequent visitor
than one imagines. There he catches grasshoppers,. May-bugs
and their grubs, Rain-worms, ete., or gathers sweet pears,
grapes or berries. At the river bank he tries to surprise a fine
Trout or a stupid Crab; at the sea-shore he empties the nets of
the fishers; in the forest he robs the nooses spread by the hun-
ter. In this way his larder is always well stocked and he be-
comes straitened in circumstances only when the snow is very
deep and impairs his opportunities. Then he is satisfied with
anything edible, not only with carcasses, which he will feed
upon at any season and seems to like, as all Canidae (dog fam-
ily) do, but even with an old, dried-out bone or a piece of half-
rotten leather. Quite frequently, also, he visits the encamp-
ments of wood-choppers to pick up the remains of their repast.
When his hunger is half satisfied, he plays long and cruelly
with his prey before dispatching it. * x MY Only the
pangs of hunger can goad him into reckless actions; but when
he has been long deprived of food he becomes downright im-
pudent. In broad daylight the hungry Fox will put in an ap-
pearance in a yard, seize upon a Chicken or Goose before peo-
ple’s very eyes, and hasten away with his prey. He is much
averse to parting with the booty so arduously procured, and if
he is compelled to relinquish it, he repeatedy returns to see
whether he still cannot make away with it. The same bold-
ness is occasionally displayed by him under circumstances
calling for immediate flight. Once a Fox, which was being
hunted by hounds, and had twice heard the shot buzzing by,
seized a sick Hare in his flight and carried it with him for a
considerable distance. Another was surrounded in a field; he
came out, attacked a wounded Hare, killed it before the eyes
of the huntsmen, rapidly buried it in the snow, and then fled
directly through the line formed by the sportsmen.”
393
THEY DO FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
Field observation and post mortem examinations
show that Foxes unquestionably do far more harm
than good. The great destruction of. wild birds is, I
believe, of more loss to agricultural interests than the
benefit such interests receive from Foxes catching de-
structive mammals, grasshoppers and other forms of
insect life. Foxes not only destroy all kinds of song
and insect-eating birds and eggs they can get, but they
consume game of all kinds—and many, of the game
birds, at certain seasons of the year eat harmful in-
sects. Advices from different parts of our State, es-
pecially in scme of western counties, show that Foxes
kill a great many young lambs, and sometimes destroy
whole litters of pigs; this means a loss of money which,
in the aggregate, is considerable every year. The de-
struction of all kinds of domesticated fowls by Foxes
is shown on succeeding pages to be a serious hindrance
to poultry raisers. There is little doubt that Foxes—
both species—destroy annually many thousands of dol-
lars worth of poultry in Pennsylvania. Gray Foxes
do less injury to poultry interests because there are
less of them in our State, and, as a rule, they seem to
prefer to stay in woods and thickets away from the
habitations of man. The Gray Fox seems to want to
keep away from man’s improved possessions, and
while he often steals the poultry of farmers about the
outskirts of the dark thickets and tangled underbrush
he lives in, his evil work consists mainly in destroying
beneficial birds and game. The Gray Fox is a good
traveler, but he does not, when searching for food, it
appears, wander over so much territory as his red-
coated relative. In the southern states where Gray
Foxes are much more numerous than they are with
25*--IT
394
us, they catch large numbers of Quails; and in this
State Quail, Wild Turkey and Ruffed Grouse or Pheas-
ants, and their nests, are destroyed by the sneaking
gray-coated depredators whenever they can surprise
the birds or find their carefully-concealed homes.
WHAT FARMERS, POULTRY RAISERS AND SPORTS-
MEN SAY ABOUT RED AND GRAY FOXES.
HON. N. B. CRITCHFIELD, Jenners Cross Roads, Somerset
County:
A neighbor had a flock of eighteen turkeys, consisting of
mother lien and seventeen half-grown ones, destroyed by a
Fox in one night during last summer. It was believed to be a
Red Fox because a track was outlined by feathers dropped on
the way for a distance of over a mile into a piece of woodland
where it could be plainly seen that the turkeys were dragged
into a hole under a ledge of rocks, and around the hole were
feathers and bones of other fowls that had been taken. The
mother Fox may have had help from the paternal occupant of
the den, but of that we cannot be certain. On the second morn-
ing after this wholesale destruction my attention was attracted
by the vigorous barking of a Fox at a spot near where the tur-
keys were when they were taken and when I gave his foxship
chase he went directly to the den of which I have spoken. We
have both Red and Gray Foxes; they are detrimental; the Red
is much more common and destructive than the Gray.
A. W. COLEGROVE, Colegrove, McKean County:
Both Red and Gray are found here. Red is very plentiful.
They are very destructive to game; they, with the Wildcats, will
exterminate it in a short time if something is not done to ex-
terminate them. A large portion of this county is old slashings
and bark peelings which makes an ideal haunt for them.
E. O. AUSTIN, Austin, Potter County:
Both Red and Gray Foxes are plenty. The Red predominating
and most destructive to poultry. The Gray and Red Samson
Foxes are very shy of clearings and all prefer small wild game,
and all are persistent mousers; either kind, as well as the
Wildcat, will kill and eat the Porcupine, skinning him with
395
almost a single snap and jerk. They occasionally take pou)-
try or a young lamb,.but I consider them far more beneficial
than detrimental to the farmer. I have had young lambs
carried off by Foxes, but have never had or heard of calves
being injured by Cats or Foxes. About ten years ago an old
she Fox was so persistent after a weak lamb near my house
that she would not be frightened away and I was compelled
to shoot her.
The Mink, Fox and Wildeat will attack and kill turkeys,
ducks, geese and chickens. The Weasel also is at times very
destructive to poultry, yet people often take great trouble to
get a Weasel to put in their barns on purpose to drive away
the rats and mice. The Great Horned Owl is also very destruc-
tive to poultry, especially to young turkeys and chickens. The
Owl, too, is probably the worst of any creature on the Pheasant
or Ruffed Grouse. It matters little how many start in to
winter, the Owls, with the help of the Fox, will diminish their
numbers greatly by spring.
A. JUDSON SMITH, New Millport, Clearfield County:
Both species are found here, but the Red is more plentiful
than the Gray, and the Red more sly and destructive than the
Gray. They are not numerous enough to do much damage to
poultry, although I lost a setting turkey hen and her eggs last
season, and I hear of some others; but some parties here claim
they are beneficial in destroying meadow mice. They destroy
Rabbits and while we do not grieve over that, we would prefer
they leave the Pheasants alone, which they do not seem dis-
posed to do.
B. ALEXANDER, Conemaugh, Cambria County:
We have both species and both deemed equally destructive
to poultry and game and small birds. Our Grouse, Rabbits and
Quail are almost exterminated by the depredations of these
animals. Many complaints from farmers about destruction of
fowls and young lambs. These animals are very numerous
since the removal and refusal of our commissioners to pay the
bounty.
E. P. CAMPBELL, West Pittston, Luzerne County:
Both kinds are here: Red most common. Killed three young
and two old Foxes; the male was red and full grown, the fe-
male gray; these were the dam and sire of three pups; they are
as strongly marked a cross gray and red as I ever saw; I ex-
amined the stomach of one of the two-thirds grown pups and
it contained Field Mice and remains of Pheasants.
GEO. W. HILL, Media, Delaware County:
I have lived on or ‘been interested in some farm in Delaware
county for sixty-five years and have noticed particularly the
habits of Red Foxes and believe them to be beneficial to the
farmer. Many of our best farmers are of our opinion, and
will not suffer them destroyed or disturbed. It is true where
they have pups they will occasionally take chickens, but never
until the stock of Groundhogs, Muskrats and Mice are ex-
hausted. I have known them to carry Groundhogs and Musk-
rats one-half mile to their young and have watched them catch
Mice and pile them up eight or ten in a heap after they had
eaten all they wanted, and verily believe by destroying these
animals they more than pay for all the poultry they eat. We
have no Gray Foxes.
DR. J. E. CLEVELAND, Canton, Bradford County:
We have the Red, Gray and Cross Fox. The first quite com-
mon and all equally destructive in proportion to their num-
bers. Foxes destroy a great many Field Mice and not a few
Woodchucks; but, on the whole, I believe them detrimental
to the farmer.
When a boy on my father’s farm I went to a back pasture to
drive home the sheep; as I got in sight of the flock they were
huddled together and looking towards the woods; I soon dis-
covered the cause of their fright. A Fox was making towards
the woods as fast as his burden would let him. The farm dog
gave chase and the Fox dropped his prey and scampered off. I
found a lamb still bleeding that the Fox was carrying off. The
sheep had dropped the lamb that day but it was large and
had apparently been on its feet and nursed. Several lambs had
disappeared mysteriously. Several days after while hunting for
drummers (no game laws then), I found a hollow log with feath-
ersofGeese and Turkeys, skulls of Woodchucks and bits of lamb
skin with the wool on scattered around. I stopped up the end of
the log with stones, secured help and an axe and took out of
the log the mother Fox and five whelps. I hear complaints
every year from the farmers among whom I practice of their
losing poultry. Grown and half grown fowls are usually taken
in the day time and by Foxes, If a large number of fowls are
397
taken from a neighborhood a search generally reveals a den
of young Foxes with abundant evidence of where the lost
poultry has gone. Chicks that are destroyed at night are
generally at roost near the farm buildings where a Fox dare
not come. A steel trap usually proves the marauder to be a
Skunk. Last summer one of my patrons complained of losing
hens eggs and blamed the domestic cat. I took an egg and
with the sharp point of a knife made a small hole in one end
of it and worked in a grain or so of strychnine and requested
it to be put in the nest after the hens had gone to roost, and
to be looked after early in the morning. The egg disappeared
and a full grown Skunk was found dead a few rods from the
hen house. Rats destroy the eggs of poultry.
RANDALL BISBING, Minsi, Monroe County:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes. They occasionally take
a chicken or turkey for a change, but they fairly earn them
by catching large quantities of bugs and beetles and grasshop-
pers. Yet I believe if the bounty was taken off their heads they
would become so plentiful that they would be a great detriment
to poultry raisers. I have caught Foxes, Minks, Skunks, Opos-
sum, Wildcats and Weasels in the act of killing poultry. Can-
not remember the number killed. Foxes as a rule kill but one
bird at a time and carry it away if they have young to feed.
They will come for chickens every day or every other day.
A, friend had ten young turkeys taken by Foxes this last sum-
mer; he found the family house and dug out two young ones,
Red and one ‘Cross Bar, and this confirms a theory of mine
that the Cross Bar Fox is only a freak of nature. The Mink
and Weasel will kill from one to a dozen fowls at a time, and I
think the Weasel is the most destructive to poultry and Rab-
bits, yet they prefer Rats to ‘Chickens, and won't kill the latter
as long as Rats are plenty.
P. FRANK RANGLER, Lewisburg, Union County:
I consider the Fox the worst enemy to our game birds. Near
the close of the last season I was hunting Pheasants along the
“White Deer Creek’’ well up in the mountains, when just at
evening I shot a fine bird that fell on the opposite side of
the creek, and as I could not cross the creek without walking
at least a mile or get wet, I concluded to let the bird go until
morning, when I would hunt that side of the creek. The next
morning I started with the assurance of having at least one
dead bird to begin with, but what was my disappointment
398
when coming to where I had marked the bird—only to fina a
lot of feathers—a Fox having claimed the other share during
the night. There being several inches of snow I saw that this
fellow had left his trail at least thirty yards—went straight to
the dead bird and after devouring it returned by the same track
to the old road and went up on the mountain. Now then, if a
Fox can scent a dead bird that distance how many Pheasants do
you suppose one Fox will kill in a year? and how about the
young birds that cannot fly or protect themselves at all? Foxes
destroy a great many Turkeys, Chickens and Ducks for our
farmers. Both species of Foxes are found in this and neigh-
boring counties, but the Red Fox is the most numerous. The
Gray Fox don’t often come about farm buildings, but he
catches all the poultry he can which wanders near his fav-
orite haunts in the woods and slashings, he devours large
numbers of ground-nesting birds and is probably as bad as
the Red Fox in destroying Pheasants. I certainly favor a
bounty for the heads of these cunning rascals,
J. H. DAVIS, Water Street, Huntingdon County:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes; the former is the most
common. The Fox and Polecat have often taken whole broods
of chickens from us; the Polecats come within three rods of the
house and interview the occupants of the coop.
HON. CHAS. LUHR, St. Mary’s, Elk County:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes, and the Red predomin-
ate. They will visit very often the hen roosts and are very
bad about destroying game, especially Pheasants and Rabbits.
Both detrimental.
J. R. LEHMAN, Warrior's Mark, Huntingdon County:
We have both Gray and Red Foxes. The Red is the most
common and destructive to chickens and turkeys. Consider
both kinds detrimental to the farmer.
HON. P. M. LYTLE, Huntingdon County:
Both Red and Gray occur here. Red species is the most
common and most destructive to game and poultry. Both
kinds are detrimental to the farmer. ,
L. WELLS, Wyalusing, Bradford County:
Both kinds found here. Red is most destructive to poultry,
because it is more numerous than the Gray. Both kinds de-
399
vour a great deal of game and catch some Mice. Consider them
detrimental.
FRED. L. KRAEMER, Williamsport, Lycoming County:
We have both the Red and Gray Foxes in our county. The
Red is the most common and destructive in our neighborhood.
P. S. STOVER, Lavonia, Centre County:
We can hardly raise turkeys at my place because of the
Foxes; we have to watch them nearly all day in summer.
DR. A. D. JOHNSTON, Allegheny:
We still have the Red Fox, thanks to his superior cunning.
They are not very abundant. They do help themselves to the
farmer’s chickens occasionally. No bounty should ‘be paid
for them. The sportsman will take care of them that they do
not ‘become too abundant.
W. C. BABCOCK, Blossburg, Tioga County:
Red Foxes are plenty, the Gray scarce; very destructive to
game. Are detrimental to farmers because they destroy so
much poultry. They catch a good many Mice and some insects
also.
ABNER FAGUE, Picture Rocks, Lycoming County:
I have known Wildcats to kill young Deer and Foxes to kill
young lambs. The Red Fox is most common and destructive
to poultry of all kinds. Both Red and Gray Foxes are great
destroyers of game, and they also consume large numbers of
small song birds. They are very bad tenants on the farm: The
Mice and other enemies we have which Foxes catch do not
compensate farmers and poultry raisers for fowls they lose
by the Foxes’ cunning raids.
W. H. HERBERTSON, Brownsville, Fayette County:
I often see where Foxes have got in their work on both do-
mestic fowls and game birds. Foxes and Hawks are our
worst enemies in this section and we kill all that we can, and
the Gun Club has been paying fifty cents per head on all
killed within six miles of our town,
400
A, P, YOUNG, Millville, Columbia County:
Have had Turkeys and Chickens on different occasions taken
by Foxes; Skunks will rob nests. There should be a bounty on
Foxes.
DAVID COPE, Leonard, Chester County:
Red Fox rather common and I consider this anima] detrimen-
tal to the farmer.
F. H. FASSETT, Meshoppen, Wyoming County:
Red Fox common, Gray Fox rather scarce. Both are detri-
mental; they destroy poultry, game and song birds which brood
on the ground.
CAPT, JOHN M. BUCKALEW, Fishing Creek, Columbia
County:
Foxes, Minks and Weasels all destroy poultry. Have many
times found feathers and bones of domestic fowls at dens of
Foxes; also have seen both Foxes and Minks carrying off
poultry. :
Red Foxes and occasionally Gray are found here. Red com-
mon and quite destructive to game and song birds and their
nests. Gray believed to be quite as much so, as he is inclined
to. climb.
H. K. MENSCH, Muney Station, Lycoming County:
_ Foxes have destroyed many Turkeys and Chickens for me and
my neighbors.
W. F. WAGNER, Coalport, Clearfield County:
Both kinds are here, the Red Fox most common. Both spe-
cies are detrimental to the farmer. They destroy a large amount
of poultry and are persistent hunters of game. Pheasants and
all birds which build on the ground are destroyed by Foxes,
A. W. WRIGHT, Colfax, Huntingdon County:
Have known Foxes on different occasions to kill lambs, and
know of numerous instances where he caught Chickens and
Turkeys. Weasels often destroy poultry—Turkeys as well as
Chickens. Foxes, both Gray and Red, are certainly very detri-
mental to farmers. They destroy many broods of the Wild
Turkey, and Pheasants are one of their main articles of diet.
401
PROF. H. T. FERNALD, State College, Centre County:
Both species are found about here, but the Red Fox is much
more plentiful than the Gray. They do much damage to poul-
try and game.
TOWNSEND PRICE, Canadensis, Monroe County:
Foxes and Minks catch a good many Chickens and Ducks.
Skunks and Foxes destroy eggs. Foxes do a great deal of
damage to game interests by devouring so many Pheasants and
Rabbits.
J. E. HALLOBAUGH, Patterson, Pa.:
We have both the Red and Gray Fox; consider them detri-
mental to farmers.
SAMUEL M. DOWNS, Mauch Chunk, Carbon County:
Have both Red and Gray Foxes. Gray is the most common
and destructive to game and poultry. I consider both kinds
detrimental to the farmer.
I. D. HOWEUL.
Foxes, Red and Gray, are quite plentiful and increasing; since
the premium for killing is stopped there is no inducement to
hunters to capture them. The Fox is ever prowling round im-
proving every chance, and is very bold and daring. Several of
my neighbors Jast year lost their hatching Turkeys and the
whole brood by a Fox; a few days ago a neighboring farmer
had one killed in sight of his house by a Fox. The Fox occa-
sionally carries off a Lamb; would steal all of them but for the
old dam that is usually on guard. Last spring a year ago,
there were some fifty Foxes caught in this section by three hun-
ters. The Red Fox is the worst.
M. C. OSBORN, Henderson, Mercer County:
We have some Red Foxes, but they are no good to the farmer;
I think they hunt Mice and young Rabbits, but the farmer
ean get along without them.
THOS. B. DARLINGTON, West Chester, Chester County:
Foxes are more plenty than welcome and farmers who are
not hunters would be glad if there was not a Fox in the county;
26--IT
402
they take a great deal of poultry and birds as anyone may see
by going to a den when they have a litter of young to feed;
it has been my opinion for a long time that they destroy a lot
of Partridges while roosting on the ground at night; they also
catch the Redwing Blackbird and other species which nest on
or near the ground.
DR. A. B. MacCREA, Berwick, Columbia County:
Both kinds here; Red common; they are destructive to poultry
in the back districts. They are very detrimental to game.
ALFRED SHARPLESS, West Chester, Chester County:
Foxes are rather plenty and no doubt carry away many
Chickens, Ducks and Geese that cannot be accounted for from
the farmer's flocks. His presence here is a nuisance because
of his bringing out sportsmen and dogs who daily traverse the
country throwing down and destroying fences in their reckless
pursuit of him. A bounty should be placed on his scalp.
JAS. S. NEASE, Washington, Washington County:
The Red Fox only is found here. Destroys some Rabbits
and occasionally Ruffed Grouse and Quail. Foxes destroy bum-
ble bees, yellow jackets and Mice. I consider them to be bene-
ficial to the farmer.
GEO. MONTGOMERY, Washington, Washington County:
A farmer who lives in the western extremity of this county
told me he had nineteen Turkeys killed by Foxes last fall. Do
not know of any Gray Foxes in this county. The Red Fox is
very destructive to game and poultry, and has been known to
steal a whole litter of young Pigs. They kill a great many Field
Mice, but I think they might be classed as detrimental to the
farmer.
JOSIAH PILE, New Lexington, Somerset County:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes; the Red is the most
common and destructive. I consider both species detrimental
to the farmer.
E. B. HOSTETLER, Kingswood, Somerset County:
We have Foxes, both Red and Gray. They will kill Lambs,
Chickens, Turkeys, Pheasants, Rabbits, etc,
403
W. J. STULL, Coalport, Clearfield County:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes; the Gray are very
rare, the Red more common and destructive to poultry and
game. I consider Foxes detrimental to the farmer.
JOHN KELLOW, Carley Brook, Wayne County:
The times are so numerous where I have personally suffered
from the depredations of the Red Fox that I cannot detail them.
Eivery year we lose from five to twenty Turkeys by them. Three
years ago I lost eleven out of a flock of twenty Turkeys, and in
the daytime while the workmen in a neighboring hay field were
looking on. The Turkeys were catching grasshoppers in a pas-
ture lot adjoining the hayfield, but at some distance from the
men; there was a woods close to the pasture, and when the
Foxes attacked them they flew in every direction. It was near
evening. As soon as the workmen told us we went for them and
recovered four or five before dark; the next morning we found
four or five in the trees; in all we got nine out of twenty.
Sometimes the Foxes will find a hen Turkey sittting on a nest
of eggs, when they take both Turkey and eggs. I could tell
of scores of their depredations. It would take a ream of paper
to detail all of the mischief of the red devils.
JEREMIAH PHILLIPS, Garrett, Somerset County:
Three years ago, right in our neighborhood, there were about
100 young Foxes caught for premiums, and if they had made
their escape the farmers could not have raised any Lambs or
poultry. One spring there was a den of a Fox close by my fath-
er’s, and he caught about sixty Turkeys and probably twice
as many Chickens in the neighborhood. One Sunday we heard
a racket among our hens. My father walked out to see what
was wrong, and there was a Fox going for them. He went
back to the house, got his rifle and shot him; he had killed
eight chickens. I could name several cases like this. I have
on several occasions found dens which were well filled with the
remains of poultry, Pheasants, small song birds and Lambs.
SAMUEL BOTHELL, Shelocta, Indiana County:
Both species occur here; about eight Red to one Gray. They
both are very detrimental; they thin out Rabbits as nothing
but a very hard winter will do.
Have personal knowledge of Foxes carrying off young Lambs,
A few years ago I lost eight; they take them any age under
404
three weeks. Crows will kill very young Lambs by picking their
eyes out.
I have personal knowledge of most all domesticated fowls
being killed, carried off and injured by Foxes, Minks and
Hawks. Last summer a Fox reared its young within half a
mile of our poultry yard, and they carried off for us from
twelve to thirty full grown Chickens during the daytime. We
saw them several times. A few years ago we lost seventeen
half-grown Chickens in one night, presumably by a Mink—any-
way by a blood sucking animal. I have often noticed Crows de-
stroying young birds, their eggs and the eggs of fowls.
A. C. SISSON, La Plume, Lackawanna County:
Foxes, both Red and Gray are found here; Red the most
common and destructive to poultry and game; they are no
benefit to the farmer, but detrimental. Foxes occasionally take
young Lambs.
JAMES THOMAS, Curwensville, Clearfield County:
Foxes, both Red and Gray are very destructive and very
plentiful, destroying poultry and game; also carry away young
Lambs, and are highly detrimental to the farmer.
HARRY WILSON, Gum Tree, Chester County:
I have never seen any but the Red Fox in Chester county. I
have seen this Fox catch grown hens in daytime. I once saw
a Fox catch a hen which owing to her weight he was unable
to carry; the Fox after dragging it a short distance took the
hen by the head, threw it across his body over the shoulders
and ran with its head to one side. It is generally believed that
Foxes live in holes, but I have more than once come upon them
in daytime sleeping curled up dog fashion in fence corners; so
I believe except as a refuge, and during breeding season, and
while the litter is yet young, Foxes do not live in holes. I do
not believe that Foxes are more detrimental to farmers than
beneficial. They destroy a vast amount of Field Mice. I have
never had a Fox visit my hen roost or poultry yard except when
they had a litter. I have on two occasions seen a Fox chase
sheep, but in both cases as the sheep ran to buildings, the Fox
gave up the chase. I once dug out a litter of young Foxes for
the Fox bounty; there were five in the hole. I found along the
passage way leading to main burrow two pockets or recesses,
in the side of the hole; both, like the nest, were lined with dried
405
grass, and contained Chicken feathers, bird feathers, Rabbit
fur, bones and a much decomposed Weasel.
DR. L. W. SCHNATTERLY, Freeport, Armstrong County:
Both species occur here; the Red most common and destruc-
tive to poultry. They destroy a great many broods of young
Quail and Pheasants. [Both kinds destroy young Lambs.
GEORGE W. CHAMBERS, Mifflinburg, Union County:
We have the Red and Gray Foxes; the Red the most com-
mon; the Gray stay more on the mountains, but the Red ones
come into the valleys and live among the rocks, where they
are safe. They do considerable damage, and are the most de-
structive to poultry and game on account of their roving dis-
position. A few years ago an old Fox made her home in a
piece of timber not far from my home. Turkeys that were
hatching out in the field were killed. We tried to find her but
could not until a little snow fell, when one evening we found
a hollow tree in which we supposed she had some young hid;
being late, we concluded we would wait until morning, and that
night the snow melted. In the morning we cut down the tree,
but she had taken them away in the night. The tree was filled
up with Turkey and Chicken bones. They destroy many Quail
and Pheasants. I do not think that the Fox scalp act should be
repealed, for they would become so plentiful as to become a
great nuisance to farmers.
F. J. WAGENSELLER, M. D., Selinsgrove, Snyder County:
We have both the Red and Gray Fox; the Red is the most
common and the most destructive to game and poultry. I con-
sider them detrimental to the farmer, and one of the chief
causes of the decrease of game.
W. R. PARK, Athens, Bradford County:
Both Red and Gray Foxes are present, but Red most plenti-
ful and destructive to game. Would consider them detrimental
to farmers in many ways.
F. M. McKEEHAN, Ferguson, Perry County:
Foxes are common, but few Gray ones; ordinarily Foxes do
not do much harm to poultry, but destroy much wild game.
When they have their den of young the old she one becomes
406
very bold. A gentleman told me last spring a Fox made a raid
on his poultry nearly every morning. He was on the lookout for
it; when he saw it coming he ran for his rifle, when the lady
of the house cried out ‘‘the Fox!” The Fox then turned and
ran for an old hen, never stopping; but as he grabbed the hen,
he shot; the Fox ran on, the hen rose and flew to barn dropping
dead; the Fox had bitten her in the head.
Mr. Isaac Orwan, who has given considerable thought and
attention to our mammals, says, when in Northumberland
county, he found a den of Foxes around which were pelts and
bones of Lambs. A Mr. Park residing near there had lost about
fifteen Lambs. Another time he found a den where a Weasel
had just been caught and brought in. He has frequently found
dens where there were plenty of poultry feathers.
JASPER T. JENNINGS, New Milford, Susquehanna County:
The Fox often destroys Partridges and other kinds of game,
and is probably more of an enemy to the hunter and sports-
man than he is to the farmer.
AARON WEIDNER, Arendtsville, Adams County:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes; the Gray are the most
common and destructive to game and poultry. I consider both
detrimental to the farmer.
Cc. P. MOTT, Milford, Pike County:
Foxes are quite numerous, but their natural food of Squirrels,
Rabbits, Birds, Mice, Moles, etc., so nearly furnish their wants
that their slaughter of poultry near clearings and habitations
are infrequent. They, like the Weasel, Mink, Wildcat and
Groundhog, appear to have no usefulness to compensate for
their depredations and should go.
JOHN F. THOMAS, Carrolltown, Cambria County:
Foxes are known to be destructive to all smaller game, par-
ticularly Rabbits and Ruffed Grouse (when hatching) as well
as to the Quail. We have in this county both Red and Gray
Foxes, but the Red predominates and is the most destructive.
I think the Fox (either kind) highly detrimental as regards the
preservation of our game.
H. C. KNOUSE, Swales, Juniata County:
Gray Foxes are rare; Red Fox is a great enemy of both poul-
try and game; they depredate in day time and make bold to
407
come close to the house; but the greatest damage they do is
among Turkeys, since Turkeys take a wide range and are
therefore more exposed.
C. W. DICKINSON, Norwich, McKean County:
Have both Red and Gray Foxes in this county, but the Red
is the most common. They do but little damage to poultry;
they catch a good many Rabbits and Partridges and many
kinds of small birds. I think the Fox does as much good as he
does damage, for I know he catches a good many Squirrels,
Woodchucks and Field Mice. The Fox is a great hunter. I have
seen an old she Fox with five Mice in her mouth at one time
that she was carrying to her young. I have seen a Fox with
four Chipmunks (Ground Squirrels) in her mouth at once,
therefore I certainly think the Fox does more good than dam-
age to the farmer.
I have known of Foxes killing Turkeys, Geese and Chickens;
a Fox killed five setting Turkeys for me in a single season and
devoured all the eggs. The Turkeys were sitting on 101 eggs in
the five nests. I saw the Fox tracks in the soft ground around
four of the nests and found where the Fox had carried some
of the Turkeys to its den for its young.
GEO. M. DAY, Dyberry, Wayne County:
Mr. H. W. Adams, two years ago lost nearly 100 chickens,
mostly by Foxes. Red .Fox is most common here. I have paid
bounty on seventy-two Foxes this fall and winter; sixty-nine
Red and three Gray Foxes, so give the Red Fox credit for
most good or evil as the case may be. If the farmer has too
many Chickens scattered around his fields, Mr. Fox is ready
and anxious to help him care for them, or if grasshoppers and
Mice abound he is ever ready to reduce the crop. I watched
a pair of young Foxes one frosty October morning playing, hop,
skip, etc., but a nearer view showed they were busy catching
grasshoppers, and they kept it up an hour or more; at other
times they are very busy looking for Mice, and do more good
that way than we usually give them credit for. An old time
way to get them is to go out early in the morning (say in No-
vember) and call them up by imitating the squeak of a Mouse.
H. T. FRANKENFIELD, Frutcheys, Monroe County:
Red and Gray Foxes we have here and plenty of them. I
consider them detrimental to the farmer and sportsman. I have
408
found whole coveys of Quail destroyed in a single night; they
eat what they can and bury the rest, the same as a Dog does.
I found not long ago where a tree had blown down; the tree
lay high on the stump, the top on the ground; snow falling on
the trunk formed a hole or cavity under the tree; the Quail
went under for shelter or roost; the Fox sprang in the hole, and
I think destroyed them all. By going to their dens where they
have their young you can find feathers of poultry and game.
SAMUEL D. IRWIN, Tionesta, Forest County:
Reynard is well represented in the western part of Forest
county, on the hills and among the rocks in the neighborhood
of farms; both Red and Gray, the Red being the most plenti-
ful, constituting, I should judge, seventy-five per cent. I do not
consider the Fox beneficial to the farmer, especially if he wishes
to engage in poultry raising. Mr. Hinton, of Tionesta township,
in one week lost forty chickens out of two hundred, through
the agency of Foxes. They got so bold that they carried off
Chickens in daylight. They are extensively trapped and hunted
for their pelts and scalps, on which there is a bounty in this
section.
WIM. D. ROMBACH, Saltsburg, Pa.:
Both Red and Gray Foxes; think Red are most numerous,
and they are the most destructive. Both detrimental.
» E. GARD EDWARDS, Ramey, Clearfield County:
Foxes are common and they are more destructive to game
than poultry.
D. KISTLER, Kistler, Perry County:
The Fox destroys Wild Turkeys, Grouse and any other bird
he can get. Foxes carry off Lambs, and all of them ought to die,
Foxes are plentiful in this locality, and they destroy a great
deal of poultry.
J. K. BIRD, Millview, Sullivan County:
We have the Red Fox. They destroy poultry of all kinds;
also Pheasants and young Lambs.
M. B. TRESCOTT, Harveysville, Luzerne County:
I have seen Foxes catch Turkeys by daylight out in the open
fields, and Chickens the same way, and carry them to their
409
burrows. I have followed and caught the whole nest of Foxes,
both old and young. Several years ago my father found some-
thing had killed our Chickens, twenty-two in number; were all
gone but one. He followed the trail and found the whole
twenty-one dragged off to hiding places. The last one, still
warm, was dragged into a hollow black ash. We pulled the
chicken out and found a Mink (a very large one) had gone in
first and was still trying to drag the “old rooster’ in after
him, but the hole was too small. I came home one night and
found an Owl of very large size had lit down in the back yard
and was feeding on a Goose. I had a whole flock of Pigeons de-
stroyed in one night by Owls. Their roost and boxes were in
a long shed; we found one Owl glutted so he could not fly; the
others had flown to a piece of woods about twenty rods off,
and after a little search we found three of the Owls there una-
ble to fly. I had a brood of half-grown Guineas destroyed the
same way. I have seen Crows dart down into a chicken yard,
pick up a young Chicken and fly off, and have seen Hawks do
the same, and sometimes take a full grown hen. I might write
much more in the same line of my own experience with Minks,
Foxes, Weasels, Crows, Hawks and Owls.
JOHN E. STOCKER, Ashley, Luzerene county:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes; the Red is the most com-
mon on our mountains; they are of no value to farmers, as
they destroy poultry if not secured in sheds; they are very de-
structive to Pheasants and Rabbits—to the young Pheasants
especially; oftentimes along the rocks one will find their drop-
ping composed mostly of Rabbit hair and toenails. English
Sparrows were fastened to bushes with their entrails taken
out and stuffed with poison; some Foxes were taken in that
manner, also some Dogs. Oftentimes some railroaders coming
down the mountains would see Foxes feeding on some recently
killed Cow, or be running along the track in quest of Wood-
chucks or the Cottontail, feeding on corn or grain dropped from
grain cars.
GEO, FRANC, Ariel, Wayne County:
Foxes are quite abundant and very destructive to domestic
fowls and small wild birds.
PETER COVEY, Newfoundland, Pa.:
Foxes are numerous; we have both Red and Gray, and they
are about equal in their destructiveness to game and poultry;
410
they are quite troublesome to farmers here. I haye personal
knowledge of the loss of thirty-two half-grown Turkeys in one
night. Am confident that Foxes did it by the feathers scat-
tered in all directions. Have frequently seen Foxes carry off
poultry.
ENOS BLOOM, New Millport, Clearfield County:
Have both Red and Gray Foxes; the Red is the most plentiful
and is detrimental to the farmers; they kill and destroy poul-
try and kill young Lambs, and are also very destructive to wild
birds, such as Pheasants and various other species which the
State should protect; particularly is this true of the young
Pheasants. It is the habit of the young Pheasant on being first
alarmed to poke its head under a leaf or grass, leaving the
body exposed, and the Fox scents them and makes many
feasts on them.
N. F. UNDERWOOD, Lake Como, Wayne County:
Concerning the breeding habits of Red Foxes would say that
John F. Jaycox, a hunter and trapper of this place, killed a
female Fox here only a day or two ago, which contained six
young ones; the usual litter is, I think, three or four. Red
Foxes very common; have paid bounty on thirty or forty this
winter. Gray Fox rare. Foxes destroy considerable poultry
as well as much game, Pheasants, Rabbits and small birds.
GEO. W. WOOD, Equinunk, Wayne County:
Foxes are numerous, and very destructive to poultry. Wayne
county paid in 1893 over $700 as bounty on Foxes, Wildcats, ete.
EMIL ULRICH, Stroudsburg, Monroe County:
Gray Foxes are most common and they steal many Chickens.
Consider them detrimental to a farmer, and favor bounty on
them.
DR. H. D. MOORE, New Lexington, Somerset County:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes. The Red Fox is most
destructive to poultry; he seems to be more cunning and bold
than the Gray Fox. Both are equally destructive to game.
Beneficial to farmers by destroying Field Mice.
DR. C. E. GOLDSBOROUGH, Hunterstown, Adams County:
We have Red Foxes common in our lowlands, and Red and
Gray Foxes equally common on the mountains. Red Foxes
411
are more destructive because larger, swifter and bolder. Both
kinds are detrimental to the farmer.
Foxes, I am satisfied, do much mischief to turkeys while
hatching, and with their young; am led to this belief from hay-
ing suffered on one occasion until I killed three Foxes,
when the trouble ceased. Weasels come next in de-
stroying Chickens.
L. T. WILT, Franklin, Venango County:
Both Red and Gray; the Red more abundant, hence more
destructive to poultry and game. They prey on the Ruffed
Grouse during the whole year; they are experts in taking a
Ruffed Grouse in winter when they have plunged under the
snow. The Fox jumps zigzag past the hole in the snow, and
as the bird raises takes him on the wing. The writer never
saw a case where it would score a miss. Detrimental to the
farmer, and likewise to the game interests. :
GEO. K. BOAK, Pine Glen, Centre County:
We introduced Wild Turkeys in our game preserves and the
Wildcats and Foxes destroyed them, both old and young, re-
gardless of efforts made to exterminate them by poison and
traps. We have both Red and Gray Foxes; they are very de-
structive to game and poultry in this region.
OTTO BEHR, Lopez, Sullivan County:
Have only seen Red Foxes in this county. Think they are
beneficial to the farmer. They catch multitudes of grasshop-
pers, beetles and insects of all kinds, and lots of Wood and
Meadow Mice. My brother found a nest of young Foxes not
more than a week old, that had forty-two Mice and Squirrels
in it, mostly all Mice. There is occasionally a Gray Fox shot
here, but not often.
B. F. HERRINGTON, Waynesburg, Greene County:
No Gray Foxes; the Red Fox is quite numerous and is detri-
mental to some extent from the fact that he preys on the
poultry, and has been known to carry off young pigs and
lamhs.
J. L. BRAUNER, Exchange, Montour County:
Red and Gray Foxes are found in our county, and both are
destructive to the farmer’s poultry and game,
412 3
M. E. KEMERER, Weissport, Carbon County:
Foxes kill great numbers of our Chickens, Turkeys and Ducks,
and they also destroy considerable game of different kinds.
HON. A. L. MARTIN, Enon Valley, Lawrence County:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes. They are detrimental.
They annually destroy a large amount of poultry.
J. S. GAY, Terrytown, Bradford County:
Both Red and Gray Foxes are found with us, but the Red
ones are more common; both species are destructive to the
farmer as they catch poultry.
A. P. BREWER, Norwich, McKean County:
Foxes I consider a great benefit to farmers, as they catch a
great many Mice.
GEO. S. APPLEBY, Decorum, Huntingdon County:
We have plenty of both, and they do much damage to poultry
raisers. They also devour a great deal of game of various var-
ieties,.
PAUL SWINGLE, S. Canaan, Wayne County:
Foxes, both Red and Gray, do a large amount of damage to
farmers in this region by destroying poultry.
MR. PIERSON, Dysart, Cambria County:
Have Red and Gray Foxes in quantities about equal. The
Foxes of Cambria county destroy more game than all the hun-
ters. Have trailed a Fox and have known him to kill and eat
four Pheasants in one night, and kill one Rabbit and eat the
head of it. Like the Wildcat, Foxes are hard on young Pheas-
ants, Rabbits and Turkeys. -
B. F. BENNET, Pike County:
Have both Red and Gray Foxes; both detrimental to farmers.
They destroy a gool deal of game, particularly Grouse.
THOS. SEABORNE, Newlin, Pa.:
Foxes are perhaps the worst animals we have, destroyiag
Chickens, Turkeys, Ducks and Geese.
413
Cc, R. NOYES, Westport, Perry County:
Foxes are destructive to poultry and game.
ARTHUR MARTIN, Sandy Lake, Mercer County:
We have some Foxes, mostly Red; they destroy poultry and
wild game to a considerable extent.
CHAS. HICKOX, Oliverburg, Pa.:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes; the Red most plentiful
and very detrimental to the farmer.
T. B. HOOVER, Wellsville, Pa.:
We have Red Foxes. They are considered detrimental to the
poultry interests.
FRED SAXEHE, Taxidermist and Naturalist, West Pittston, Pa.:
We have both the Red and Gray Foxes in our county. The
Red is most common, and is the most destructive to poultry
and game. I consider that both kinds are detrimental to the
farmer. There was a man in town that owned a Fox a couple
of years ago, and it got loose one night and killed four Chick-
ens in a neighbor's hen roost. Foxes will also eat eggs of
chickens.
A. D. McCRACKEN, New Lebanon, Mercer County:
We have both the Red and Gray Foxes; the Red most num-
erous and destructive to game and poultry. I consider them a
detriment to the farmer.
JAS. LINDSAY, Utica, Pa.:
We have both Red and Gray Foxes here and they do con-
siderable damage to poultry. They also destroy many kinds
of small wild birds.
T. H. HARTER, Bellefonte, Centre County:
Foxes are very destructive to Pheasants.
A. W. RHOADS, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.:
Red Foxes are common and numerous; Gray Foxes rare. The
Red Fox is a great destroyer of game birds and poultry. They
are highly detrimental to the farmer.
414
HON. G. C. BROWN, Yorkana, York County:
Have known Foxes to kill and eat Lambs of forty to fifty
pounds weight. I have poisoned six with one Lamb carcass,
and all were lying dead at one time along with a Hawk and
three Crows.
NOAH H. PARKER, McKean County:
Foxes are the most destructive of any animal we have here.
They prey upon domestic fowls and birds of any kind when-
ever an opportunity presents itself.
R. W. WEHRLE, Blairsville, Indiana County:
Farmers in this section have told me that Foxes have killed
large numbers of Lambs.
J. H. VAN ETTEN, Milford, Pike County:
Little difference as to species. Both kinds destructive to
game and poultry. One hundred and eighty of both kinds
killed in year 18938 in Pike county.
JACOB B. MEIXEL, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County:
We have both kinds of Foxes in our county. The Red Fox
does the most damage to game. I consider Foxes enemies to
farmers.
W. G. SARGEANT, Meadville, Crawford County:
Red Foxes are not very abundant and occasionally a Gray
one is seen. I consider that they should be exterminated be-
cause they destroy our game birds, especially young Grouse.
GEO. R. BROWNELL, A. P. POPE and W. R. PAGE, Smeth-
port, Pa.:
Farmers lose many Lambs by Foxes each spring.
L. C. OBERLIN, Smicksburg, Indiana County:
Foxes are common and destructive to poultry and game.
The Red are the worst. I never knew a Gray to kill poultry,
but still they may be detrimental.
JOS. W. KYLE, Milroy, Mifflin County:
Foxes are quite common and the Red Fox is the most num-
erous. They are very destructive to poultry and game. I re-
gard them to be detrimental to the farmer.
eI
“KX OS AVYS
415
GRAY FOX.
Urocyon cinereoargenteus.
DESCRIPTION.
Nearly as large as the Red Fox, but perhaps a little more
chunky and has shorter legs. It is not subject to the marked
variations of pelage already described in the Red Fox. The pre-
vailing color is a frosted grayish-black; each of the long hairs
projecting above the thick coat of yellowish and grayish fur,
and so conspicuous on upper parts generally are starting at the
roots, whitish, then dusky, then white, about % of an inch) and
black (about 4% an inch) to ends. Cheeks and throat are whit-
ish. The ears behind and about base, side of neck, streak
across the chest, edges of abdomen, and more or less of legs,
reddish or cinnamon brown. Lower parts are whitish and pale
yellowish brown or reddish. Tail is blackish above, has dark
tip, and is rusty below. More or less blackish about muzzle. A
whitish patch on each side of nose.
Habitat.—A southern species. “Occurs in Oregon, Texas and
California, and with the Red extends from the Atlantic to the
Pacific. It is not common in New England and only accidental
in Maine and Canada. It is more southern than the Red Fox,
being the prevailing species from Virginia southward.’’—Bray-
ton, Mammals of Ohio.
The Gray Fox, when pursued by dogs does not, like
the Red, lead the barking hounds long distances, but
will play hide and seek with them, oftentimes in a very
small area of territory.
EE CIRCLED, AND TURNED IN AND OUT.
Some years ago I was hunting Pheasants in an old
bark peeling along the Susquehanna river, above Lock
Haven, and flushed eight or ten birds which scattered
and hid along the mountain side, and in a deep ravine.
On one side of this ravine there was a dense patch of
laurel, with lots of decaying logs, fallen tree-tops, and
lichen-covered bowlders. This place was nearly half a
mile long and about half as wide. Two hounds were
in there making lively music, and their exertions
416
caused me to lose several good shots as they flushed
and drove away several Pheasants and a Wild Turkey.
The noisy dogs kept running to and fro in this thick
covert for at least two hours and I thought they were
after Rabbits, but finally a Gray Fox came out into a
path and a man shot it. When the Fox was killed the
hounds left and we were not bothered any more. My
companion said it was a very commen habit of this
species, when pursued by dogs in thick underbrush, to
act as this one did.
RARE, IF FOUND AT ALL, IN SOME COUNTIES.
Gray Foxes are frequently met with in different, in
fact almost all, sections of the State, but there are
probably fifteen times as many, if not more, of the Red
Foxes in Pennsylvania. I have never seen a Gray Fox
in Chester county where I have spent several years in
field work, and the Messrs. Weil, who make a special
business of purchasing raw furs in Chester, Lancaster,
Montgomery and Delaware counties, say they never
have had but one Gray Fox, and that was killed in
Maryland. Fox hunters in Chester, Delaware and
Montgomery counties report that they never find any
Gray Foxes.
THEY TAKE TO TREES.
The Gray Fox to escape its enemies will sometimes
ascend the inclined trunk or large pendent and low
limbs of trees. Up in the wilds of Clinton county,
where this species is of frequent occurrence and a
menace to the existence of its ground-dwelling feath-
ered neighbors, it seems some of them possess monkey-
like ability as tree climbers; at least, such inference
can be drawn from the following paragraph published
417
by Mr. S. N. Rhoads* in his list of Mammals of Cen-
tral Pennsylvania:
“Regarding the dexterity of this species climbing trees the
junior Nelson (Seth I.) told me he had seen one ascend after
a Squirrel to the height of sixty feet on an erect dead pine
stripped of its bark. It did this voluntarily, literally ‘shinning’
twenty-five feet up the branchless trunk and backing down
again as a ‘boy would do it. He has known his dog to run
them up an erect tree eighteen inches in diameter, the first limb
of which was twenty feet from the ground.”
I have often heard of the climbing powers of the
Gray Fox but never knew they possessed such remark-
able dexterity as that which is reported to have
been seen by young Mr. Nelson. However, Clinton
county has plenty of good water, an invigorating cli-
mate, numerous Pheasants, plenty of ether wild birds,
lots of Cottontails, a good many Varying Hares, an
abundance of small rodents, and a share of domesti-
cated fowls about the places where Gray Foxes sneak,
murder and hide, and it may be such advantages all
tend to give certain of these animals powers, inclina-
tions and elevations which Gray Foxes do not com-
monly assume.
HE LOVES THE WOOD AND UNDERBRUSH
Messrs. Coues and Yarrow. in alluding to this spe-
cies, say:
“It is not a burrowing animal, at least to any great extent;
and when it digs, the burrow is simple with a single entrance.
It lies concealed in rank herbage, beneath or inside fallen logs,
under partially excavated stumps and similar retreats. This
habit is in evident correlation with its woodland range, for
having no such protection as the Red Fox, which takes to the
earth any where it is forced to abide where there are the nat-
*A contribution to the Mammalogy of Central Pa. Proc., Acad.
Nat., Sci., Phila., April, 1897.
27-II
418
ural means of concealment just mentioned. This same habit,
moreover, causes a certain modification of the animal’s range
with the settling of a country; in clearing off forests the Gray
Fox is forced to seek elsewhere, although in effect the cir-
cumstances that cause removal of one species are precisely
those that invite the other, the Red Fox being able to exist in
settled regions where the other could find no suitable resorts.
It is this that makes the Red a greater nuisance to the farmer;
it sticks close to the farm yard, being forced, in a measure, to
thus supply itself, owing simply to its being in more cultivated
districts. The Gray Fox subsists more extensively upon the
wild game of his habitat. Another distinctive feature is the
climbing powers of the Gray Fox, much greater than would be
expected from an animal with non-retractile claws, and no
great ‘hugging’ powers. When hard pressed the Gray Fox is
treed as regularly as the Red is earthed. The climbing seems
to be simply an agile leaping along on inclined trunk, or from
bough to bough, through it has been noted that the animal can
climb a small trunk by clasping or even with its claws like
a cat or Raccoon” (Brayton’s Mams. of Ohio).
WHAT GRAY FOXES LIVE UPON.
Gray Foxes feed upon all kinds of wild birds they
can catch; the Cottontails and Varying Hare, numer-
ous Mice, other small mammals, some insects, occa-
sionally frogs and sometimes, it is said, non-poisonous
snakes, are all eaten by them. ‘They destroy poultry,
and, as can be seen on previous pages, they devour
Lambs. Farmers and sportsmen, very generally, speak
of Gray Foxes as being little, if any, better in habits,
than the red-coated robbers. Woodsmen who have
learned much of their sneaking ways say they should
all be killed. Some good observer, Audubon I think
it was, said the Red Fox is a sly, bold robber, but the
Gray Fox is a cowardly, skulking sneak-thief.
1
" i
i
i - }
7 7
1
:
i
i
L
— et ait
yt: :
i
cane 4
is
0 Salt
7 “
a)
1 5 a
j
7 f
i"
2 4 :
7
bs
: ne
p
foe)
‘
Oe
’
1
~
EY
'
i 7 { of,
7 Hi Y]
rie ek r
fl ay 7
7 Ae
whee ; oe
) ? LI :
7 5 i
; a iG by
* Goals ity 0
A oe
” - 1 ‘
- or ‘@
ean
“= * i o
- ae , - -
iu Loe 7
i ' vy aF ' /
“
“3 ‘ 7
7 o .
5 ns 5 ‘ i Yen
i i
f 1G
bs
ui i
1
: ” 7
: :
‘= y " oe 1
: 4
i
: , j
a t "
n or ean
Hi va ae
ae
4 0 teh
ee ms
1 i
+
I
}
:
a
:
i
'
i ' r
P 4
7 | oD :
iF heey
’
‘“TASVIM 398V1 YO SNIWNGS
419
COMMON WEASEL.
Putorius noveboracensis
DESCRIPTION.
This species varies greatly in size as well as in coloration.
Length of head and body nine to ten inches, tail four to six
inches, body long and slim. In summer pelage this species is
brown (usually rather dull) above, tail same color, except about
1-3 or % at the end which is always black. Lower parts whit-
ish and pale sulphury-yellow. In winter the pelage is white,
more or less tinged, particularly toward posterior parts with
pale sulphury-yellow; end of bushy tail is black. The many
conditions of dress between the two extremes above noted, give
rise to different common names applied to this animal, and
which have reference to its coat. White specimens I have much
oftener found in the mountainous and northern sections of the
State than elsewhere, and as Mr. Malloy says on a succeeding
page, Weasels in winter are much more apt to be brown of
some shade than white. The male weighs, it is said from five
to eight ounces, and the female about four ounces.
Habitat.—‘Europe, Asia and America, extending north to the
limit of existence of terrestrial mammals. In America south
to very nearly the southern border of the United States, but
no specimens seen from the Gulf States, New Mexico, Arizona or
Southern California.’’-—Coues.
ITS MANY NAMES.
The reasons whereby this little animal gets its name
are worthy of note and so this paper is begun with an
explanation of them.
The technical name Putorius is taken from “putor”
a “bad smell.” It is an appropriate title for both sexes
have the powers of emitting a “peculiar fluid” which
is most offensive and only a little less pungent and
piercing than that of the Skunk. Skinner tells us that
“Stoat” comes from the Belgic “stout” (bold), and in
England he is called Stout to the present time. Cer-
tainly he deserves this name, for game larger than
himself deters him not; long runs through bush and
briar—he seldom takes to the open—carry no fear to
420
his little heart, as he bounds along in great leaps or
runs with remarkable celerity in search cof prey. Not
to the land alone does he confine himself in this search,
however, but in underground passages made by the
Rabbit or Mouse and also in the water, his long slender
body aiding his advance. The unwary bird who has
paused on sume low bush to carol forth his song or
wet his parched throat in the running brook or rest
quietly on the bough in the hush of the night, have
frequently met their death by the teeth of this little
creature. Mr. Wm. Macgillivray says of him “in pro-
portion to his size he is at least as courageous as a
lion.” So much for the cognomen Stout and now let
us turn our attention to that of “Ermine.” Dr. Elliott
Coues in his admirably written work on “Fur Bearing
Animals” says of this one: “Gwillim,” in his “Display
of Heraldrie,” gives the following etymology of Er-
mine:
“This is a little beast lesse than a Squirrel, that hath his
being in the woods of the land of Armenia whereof he taketh
his name.”’
The latter word is sometimes written in English
“ermin” or “ermelin,” and the same term occurs in sev-
eral other languages.
THE IMAGE OF A SERPENT.
The same writer (Coues) also says:
“A glance at the physiognomy of the Weasels would suffice
to betray their character; the teeth are almost of the highest
known raptorial character; the jaws are worked by enormous
masses of muscles covering all the sides of the skull; the fore-
head is low and the nose is sharp; the eyes are small, penetra-
ting, cunning and glitter with an angry green light. There is
something peculiar, moreover, in the way that this fierce face
surmounts a body extraordinary, wiry, lithe and muscular. It
ends a remarkably long and slender neck in such a way that
it may be held at right angle with the axis of the latter. When
421
the animal is glancing around with the neck stretched up and
the flat triangular head bent forward and swaying from one
side to the other we catch the likeness in a moment—it is the
image of a serpent.”
So we have this sanguinary animal compared by
two eminent authorities in this line, as like a lion for
courage and a serpent in manner and appearance.
TWO SPECIES.
While every farmer’s boy or other person who is at
all acquainted with the common furred and feathered
denizens of the woods and fields will speak of different
kinds of Weasels, it does not appear to be generally
known, except, of course, to naturalists or others who
have taken the trouble to investigate the matter, that
there are, it is believed, only two distinct species of
Weasels in Pennsylvania. Many farmers and numer-
ous sportsmen are heard to speak of “white,” “brown,”
“black” and “yellow” Weasels, and consider them to
be different species. The terms big and little are
often applied to these animals, but those employing
them commonly consider the Weasels designated by
the particular adjective used as belonging to the same
species, but of different age and size. The Least Wea-
sel is in some instances undoubtedly mistaken for the
young of the Ermine whether in winter or summer
attire.
THE LEAST WEASEL.*
The Least Weasel, according to the best information
obtained from local naturalists throughout the State,
*The Least Weasel (Putorius cicognani) is ‘“‘very small, length
of head and body six or eight inches, of tail-vertebrae two
inches or less, tail-vertebrae about one-fourth or Jess of the
head and body, tail slender, cylindrical, pointed at tip, which
is concolor or not obviously black; under parts white, rarely,
if ever, tinged with sulphury; coloration otherwise as in com-
mon Weasel.’’—Coues.
422
does not appear to be of very frequent occurrence. In
fact, quite a number of zoological students who are be-
lieved to be entirely competent to distinguish both
species report the Least Weasel to be rare or unknown
in their localities.
Mr. George P. Friant, taxidermist, of Scranton,
Penna., during the past ten years has had over one
hundred Weasels taken within a radius of twenty-five
miles of his home, and of these not more than three or
four were the smaller species. The experience of Mr.
Chas. H. Eldon, taxidermist, of Wiiliamsport, Penna.,
is very similar to that of Mr. Friant. During the past
eight years the writer has collected zoological speci-
mens in almost every county in the State, and in a col-
lection of seventy odd specimens at least six were of
the small kind.
In 1885 and 1886 thirty-seven Weasels, on which
bounty had been paid in Chester county, were ex-
amined and all were found to be the Ermine or Com-
mon Weasel. From evidence at hand it seems that the
Least Weasel is to be found in the northern and moun-
tainous regions of Pennsylvania, and I am inclined to
think it is more plentiful than some observers and
writers believe. Unfortunately a series of about sey-
enty-five skins of Pennsylvania Weasels which I had
were destroyed a couple of months ago when the con-
tents of my office was burned with the State Capitol.
This loss and the destruction of my note books make it
impossible for me to specify the localities from which
the Least Weasels I had came.
THEY CHANGE THEIR COATS.
In one way at least these sprightly animals are not
unlike some modern day politicians who have made
ERMINE oRLARGE WEASEL.
f
\
i 1
%
’ a
othe
2 ,
a
;
ay
i
_ ay 5
’ a ;
i a
,
;
‘
i
s ae
re
:
,
_ + wat
7 a
|
-
Q
j t “:
j ; ‘
423
very hurried and wondrous changes in their political
coats but with some ot whom such change was only
on the surface, as their hearts were always loyal to old,
true and tried friends from whom they separated from
necessity, to join the “bread and butter brigade.”
Some Weasels change their coats, and, in winter, when
snow coyers the ground, they are white, but in summer
brown. Probably such changes also enable these
animals to obtain more easily the necessary livelihood.
However, in any dress, Weasels always carry death and
destruction to animal life about them. Their homes
are frequently to be found in a decayed log, tree
stump, under rocks, about old buildings, ete.
HUNTS HIS PREY BY SCENT.
Concerning his power of hunting his prey by scent,
eminent authorities are positive that he does track
quarry in this manner.
Mr. Hogg, in London Magazine, describes how, in De-
cember, 1531, he observed a Stout hunting in this style.
“I was an eye witness to the fact of a Stout being able to
pursue its prey on scent.”
Coues writes of it as follows:
“Swift and sure footed he makes open chase and runs down
his prey; keen of scent he tracks them.”
DESTROYS POULTRY.
The poultry yard is frequently visited and his apparently in-
satiable desire for rapine is most clearly shown while on these
visits. One chicken will satisfy his appetite, but after that is
gratified he does not leave; he kills and slays without mercy
all the remainder of the poor frightened chickens, until there
are none left, and not until then does he leave the scene of
carnage.
He sucks the eggs also, leaving, in some instances, the un-
lucky farmer, who has unwillingly and unwittingly been his
424
host, completely routed as regards his efforts in the poultry
line.
The Ermine is common and present in all sections
of the Commonwealth.
HIS FOOD.
From the testimony of various writers and other
well-informed and competent observers, it would ap-
pear as if the Weasels, although undoubtedly great de-
stroyers of Mice aud also of Rats, are extremely det-
rimental to poultry, especially Chickens, as well as
game, particularly Ruffed Grouse and Rabbits, to-
gether with many kinds of small wild birds.
Robert Kennicott, in his report of the quadrupeds of
Hlinois, as quoted by Dr. C. Hart Merriam in the Mam-
mals of the Adirondack region of Northeastern New
York, says, in writing of the Common Weasel:
“A more fierce and cruel mammal does not exist in America
than this Weasel. The courage and sanguinary disposition of
the panther are insignificant in comparison, having regard to
the strength of the two. Without hesitation, the Weasel at-
tacks animals five or ten times its own size, and, not content
with killing enough for food, wantonly destroys whatever life
it can. When a Weasel has gained access to a poultry yard
it will frequently kill every fowl within its reach in a single
night. Fortunately, however, this animal, even when abun-
dant, does not enter the farm yard so frequently as might be
expected, appearing to prefer a free life in the woods to easy
but more dangerous feasts on domestic fowls. Meadow Mice
are certainly the greatest pests among mammals in Northern
Illinois, and of these the Weasel destroys great numbers.
FEEDS ON RATS AND MICE.
“Stacks and barnfuls of grain are often overrun with Rats
and Mice; but let a Weasel take up his residence there and
soon the pests will disappear. A Weasel will, occasionally, re-
main for some time in a barn feeding on these vermin without
disturbing the fowls. But it is never safe to trust one near the
425
poultry yard, for when once an attack is made, there is no
limit to the destruction. When the animal has entered stacks
or barns, it has a curious habit of collecting in a particular
place the bodies of the Rats and Mice it has slain; thus, some-
times, a pile of a hundred or more of their victims may be
seen which have been killed in the course of two or three
nights.”
The activity and strength of the Weasel are such
that he is able to climb trees with great ease, either
to escape enemies or to search for food.
This ability as a tree climber enables him to destroy
both the eggs and young of different species of birds
which erect their homes in the forest, shade and fruit
trees.
The nests of Ruffed Grouse, Wild Turkeys and Bob-
white or Quail, besides those of other species of the
feathered kinds which nest on or near the ground, are
often, it is asserted, pillaged by the inquisitive and
bright-eyed Weasels.
Although Weasels hunt both by day and night, the
popular idea seems to be that they are more nocturnal
than diurnal. While it is doubtless true that they sub-
sist, to some extent, on various kinds of insects, parti-
cularly beetles and occasionally grasshoppers, the
amount of insect life which they consume is not, so far
as the observations of the writer have gone, very
considerable.
A RABBIT HUNTER.
Weasels, like the fox hound or trained and well-
bred pointer or setter, follow the tracks of their prey
by the scent. In this way large animals such as Gray
Rabbits and even the Varying Hare are pursued and
overpowered in their securest retreats.
27*--I
426
In regard to its power of hunting by scent, Thomas
Bell, says:
“In pursuing a Rat or Mouse, it not only follows it as long as
it remains In sight but continues the chase after it has disap-
peared, with its head raised a little above the ground, follow-
ing the exact tract recently taken by its destined prey. Should
it lose the scent, it returns to the point where it was lost, and
quarters the ground with great diligence until it has recovered
it; and thus, by dint of perservance, will ultimately hunt down
a swifter and even stronger animal than itself. But this is
not all. In the pertinacity of its pursuit, it will readily take
the water and swim with great ease after its prey.”
I have heard hunters and woodsmen say that
“white” Weasels can easily detect the Ruffed Grouse,
which frequently in winter has the habit of plunging
into the loose snow, and that they destroy many of
these birds in such hiding places.
Audubon, ‘the famous naturalist, records an in-
stance that came under his personal observation, of
where an Ermine captured a Rabbit and after behead-
ing it, the fierce little depredator dragged the body
some twenty yards over the fresh fallen snow, beneath
which it was concealed and the snow slightly pressed
down over it.
HE IS WELL ACQUAINTED WITH WEASELS.
I am indebted to Mr. Hugh Malloy, of Freeland,
Luzerne county, Pa., for the following very interesting
and instructive account of his observations of the
Weasel. I know of no person who has devoted as
much attention to these agile creatures as he has. Mr.
Malloy informs me he has captured during the past
twenty years about fifteen hundred Weasels. What
he says about them in the following paragraphs shows
427
very conclusively that he is thoroughly acquainted
with their haurts ard sanguinary ways:
The Weasel is the only animal to my knowledge that never
rests; it is always on the move and the more game he kills
the more he wants to kill. I have followed the track of this
animal every winter, for twenty years, and I was never able
to run one down by following the track. He never walks; his
jumps are from eighteen to twenty-two inches, and any person
following his tracks on the snow, when there has been a light
snow squall at intervals of two or three hours, during forty-
eight hours as I have done, to learn if he had any home, will
find that he rests only while killing his victim. The snow is
never too deep or the weather too cold for him. I have followed
his track when it was seven degrees below zero, and snow
eight inches deep.
HE KILLS BUT DON’T DISFIGURE.
I have followed the back track to see where he came from
and found eleven dead Rabbits killed by him, and all of them
hidden either in the hole that he started them from or pulled
under the snow; sometimes twenty feet to some brush pile. The
Weasel, to my mind, has a great instinct. If you follow the
track on very deep snow, you will find frequently a small hole
in the snow where he went down and came up, perhaps fifty
feet away; you will discover also, every time, a Rabbit hole at
the very spot that he went into the snow, and if a Rabbit is in
the hole, it will have gone only about twenty yards, when you
find the snow tramped for about six feet square and you may
see a little fur; then look sharp and you will discover where
the Rabbit was pulled back into the same hole, and by putting
a briar or rod into the hole you can twist it fast to a dead
Rabbit, with a small hole between the ear and eye. After it
has killed four or five in a few hours, you will not find any mark
on them, as it sucks the blood without making any visible
marks until you pull the skin off the head and neck.
While the Weasel will stand any cold, when at liberty, if
you confine it in a box or cage, it will be dead in a few hours,
by having to remain still, even when it is not zero weather.
The Weasel has great digestive powers. I find, when it is
getting all the blood it wants, that in about every twenty yards,
in the snow, you will find its excreta about three-fourths of an
inch long, thick as a common slate pencil and like frozen blood.
428
A VERY RESTLESS ANIMAL.
The Weasel is a restless animal. If you happen to come up
to it in rocks where there is no snow you will have to stand
only a few seconds, and you will imagine that you have found
a whole family of them, as his head will be sticking out of sev-
eral holes almost at the same time; but if the snow is on the
ground to the depth of three inches, you will only see him
once, but if you make a large circle around the place where you
saw him last you will find a small hole in the snow and,-a
Weasel track going away from it, that will lead you more than
twenty miles in every direction, and still you will not see him.
In the fall of 1894 I was in a barber shop in Freeland, and
about half shaved when several boys came running to the
door, telling me that a whole family of Weasels were under
the plank side-walk. Of course I pushed the barber away and
jumped out of the chair. There was a very large crowd sur-
rounding the walk, all having clubs and shovels, and a Weasel
head was peeping out of every hole at almost the same time,
and a knot-hole in the sidewalk showed a head about every
thirty seconds and that one was supposed to be the leader. I
joined the crowd of watchers and sent my boy for my flobert
rifle. I shot the first Weasel that showed its head, and told
the boys that I would give them a dollar for every other Wea-
sel that they would see. I did not have to pay a dollar.
WHERE HE PREFERS TO LIVE.
The Weasel frequents the wildest portions of our mountains
and seldoms ventures into any open ground, except when it
has all the game killed in the thickets. It will climb a tree
after a bird’s nest or when chased, but it cannot run down a
tree head foremost like a Squirrel. It will jump from branch
to branch until it gets to the lower branches and then comes
down backwards or jumps. I never saw the Weasel on a very
large tree or up very high on a tree.
WILL SUCK ITS OWN BLOOD.
A Weasel will suck its own blood. In the summer of 1895 T
caught a very fierce looking, coarse haired, dark brown Weasel
in one of my wire traps, and I stabbed him through the wires
with the long blade of my knife in the shoulder; as soon as he
saw the blood he turned his neck, took hold of the wounded
part and sucked all the blood until he swayed back and forth
and fell dead.
429
WILL HELP EACH OTHER OUT OF TRAPS.
One Weasel will let its mate out of a trap. I had a wire trap
set for a Weasel and every time I went to see it the live bait
was eaten and fresh droppings of the Weasel were in the trap,
but no Weasel. I took another trap and set the two close to-
gether and the next time I came I had a very dark brown
Weasel in each trap. One Weasel would go in first and kill
the bait, the other would go half way, put his fore-foot on the
drop, open and put his head out in the hole and come out.
ATTACKED THIS BUNNY IN THE REAR.
I was after a Weasel once when the snow was on the ground
to find where he had killed some game, so that I could set my
trap for him, I found he crossed the track of a Rabbit
that had just come out of a stone wall, and went right
back again. I was surprised to see the track of the Weasel
going away without killing the Rabbit. I pulled away some
stones and found the Rabbit squeezed tight in a very small
opening, between two stones, and only his hind legs sticking
out; but he was dead, and the blood had been sucked by the
Weasel from his hind legs and had made only a very small
opening in the leg.
THE YOUNG.
Weasels have their young between the 15th of April and 15th
of June. I have never found their nest while the young were
in, but I have caught them during that time, with young in
them, and also after having their young, with milk in their teats.
The highest number I found in any one of them was six, one
only had three. The young will foliow the old one until Sep-
tember, when they seem to scatter and go on their own hook.
It is very easy to catch them after they scatter, and these are
the ones that generally get after the chickens before they
learn how to catch game.
A Weasel will always come back to the place where he hid
the game to feed off it when he cannot find any game to kill.
I put a trap by a hidden Rabbit once and I did not catch the
Weasel for six weeks, but in most cases you will be able to
catch them the second or third night.
430
THEY HAVE MANY CHANGES OF DRESS.
I do not believe there are any White Weasels in summer, but I
do know that they are dark brown, light brown, dark red and
light red in winter and that I have caught them every week
from December 1 until April 1. I caught a dark brown, a dark
red and a pure white all in one night, but at different places.
I never caught a ‘“‘maltee’’ Weasel in winter, but have caught
many of them in summer.
The ‘‘Maltee’’ Weasel is very fine furred, no long, coarse hair,
and have a blue shade in the fur. Now this Weasel changes its
coat in November. :
I burned two hundred Weasel skins last winter as the moths
had gotten in them. I could have sent them to you had I
thought you cared for them. I had a card on each one saying
when and where I caught it.
DESTROYS GREAT NUMBERS OF YOUNG GROUSE.
The Weasel is very hard on Grouse until the birds are six
weeks old and able to fly. He will follow them and some-
times kill the whole brood. I found thirteen out of fourteen
killed by a Weasel the very day they came out of the shell
and the fourteenth would have been killed, but I heard the
old Pheasant making a great noise and I killed the Weasel.
The birds were too young to hide under the leaves, the four-
teenth bird was sitting beside the nest. I never saw where the
Weasel killed any old Pheasants, but saw where a Pheasant
carried a Weasel away out of a hole in the snow where
the Pheasant was sitting, when the Weasel came in and at-
tacked it.
KILL ALL THE QUAIL.
The Weasel will kill all the Quail in February and March if
the snow is deep. The birds will go under windfalls and
brush heaps covered with snow. The Weasel will track and
go in after them at night, killing every one; then the farmers
will find them in the spring and think they were frozen. I
found west of White Haven one day (I was after a Catamount),
where a Weasel had killed over one hundred birds. I pulled
out with a stick fourteen of the dead birds; no marks on them,
but track of teeth on neck near the head.
A Weasel will follow a Rabbit on bare groun® the same as
a well-trained dog. I put one off the trail several times. in
ERMINE oR LARGE WEASEL.
be
431
one morning when | was going fishing, and every time he
would find it again, and I soon heard the Rabbit squeal where
the Weasel was killing it.
THE WEASEL PULLED AND I PULLED.
I was going fishing one morning about four years ago, when
1 saw something going slowly across the road about one hun-
dred yards ahead of me. I ran to where I saw it and there a
Weasel was pulling a very large Rabbit through under an old
log; I caught the hind legs of the Rabbit and the Weasel
pulled at the other end. I got a club and tried to kill the Wea-
sel, but I could not hit him. Every time I would let the dead
Rabbit go, the Weasel would take hold of it and begin to pull
it under the log; I laid the Rabbit close to the log and«held
my foot on side of log; when the Weasel put his head out and
was pulling the Rabbit again I put my foot down on top of
him and killed him. The Rabbit was yet warm. I opened it
and found nine young Rabbits almost large enough to make
their appearance in the world, but they were all dead.
WHAT FARMERS AND POULTRY RAISERS SAY.
The following extracts concerning the habits of
Weasels are taken from letters received by the writer
from farmers, poultry raisers, sportsmen and natural-
ists.
JOHN F. THOMAS, Carrolltown, Cambria County:
I have known the Weasel to kill six full grown hens in one
night on my father’s farm. It is supposed that it kills its
victims for their blood only, and all the fowls killed by it, that
I have seen, substantiate this, since, in every case, the blood
vessels of the neck were severed close to the head and there
was apparently no flesh missing. I recollect an experience, when
a boy, that proves them to be remarkably bold at times. I was
pursuing one that had in its mouth a Mouse; in an attempt to
strike it with a stone, I struck the Mouse with such force as
to throw it a distance of eight or nine feet from the fence, when
to my surprise, he immediately left the fence and regained the
Mouse and disappeared along the fence. They seem to have
a greater appetite for Mice and Rats than poultry, as I have
known them to be in my father’s barn for several weeks and
432
yet we never missed any poultry, but there was a noticable
decrease of Rats.
A. W. RHOADS, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.:
The Weasel, I am sure after years of personal experience and
observation and careful study, is the worst enemy the Pheas-
ant and Quail have. I have repeatedly tracked a Weasel that
had followed the track of a Quail and Pheasant in the snow,
and at last came upon the dead birds. I, on one occasion, saw
a nest of thirteen Pheasant eggs, about to be hatched, and in
returning in an hour found that eleven of them had been de-
stroyed by a Weasel which I saw and killed.
c. . MOTT, Milford, Pa.:
Weasels are the greatest destroyers of game and poultry,
and they deserve total extinction. I know of no redeeming
feature or any possible usefulness alive in their wild state.
They are scarce when small game is, and numerous when such
game is easy prey. They seem to be travelers and to such
parts as are prolific of game. There is no escape for the Rab-
bit when once they get its track, and a nest of Grouse eggs
furnishes him a meal, if the hen bird escapes his quick, stealthy
approach. I consider that the Weasel has no equal as an
enemy of game.
ARTHUR MARTIN, Sandy Lake, Pa.:
We have the Weasel; they destroy poultry to a great extent,
sometimes will or have for us, killed whole broods, but at the
same time are great hunters for Mice, Rabbits and small game.
HON. N. F. UNDERWOOD, Lake Como, Wayne County:
Some Weasels; don’t do much damage; they will occasionally
destroy chickens.
D. KISTLER, Kistler, Pa.:
The Weasel abounds and will kill grown chickens.
ENOS BLOOM, New Millport, Clearfield County:
The Weasels are plentiful and also destructive to poultry.
JOHN F. WEAKLY, Slippery Rock, Pa.:
Weasels will kill a whole flock of Turkeys or Chickens at a
time; have known them to kill as high as twenty at a time.
433
C. R. NOYES, Westport, Pa.:
Weasels kill Chickens, but I think not when they can get Rats
or Mice.
The following table contains the condensed reports
of one hundred observers residing in Pennsylvania,
and of these gentlemen, probably not less than eighty-
five are practical farmers and poultry raisers.
The X indicates the animals specified in the column-
heading under which it occurs which the Weasels have
been observed to usually prey upon by the gentlemen
opposite to whose names said mark (X) is placed.
28--IT
‘Ady{Nod dno 0} aZsewep jeoid vuop aaevy AsuL
“poolq
ay} Zuyye} ynq ‘ysay ey} Buy}ee you ‘313
| -}{S uo 38 Joquinu & a}Inb s[l}y 1eSeaMW PUL
“sayin} 10 SYONP ‘SUaHOTYO asfel 0} sserisnq
isnojreoeid B eq PINOA } Pepilends [fe ssayTU
| ‘gAjjonI}sep azjnb aie As
“pred AI}
-[nod 94} uy eseuWep snoiwes Op Aoq} Soul}} TV
"33B
-WBP Snojias OP 0} snoieuInU A]jUe;OyNS ION
“UOLULWOD
‘Joyyospur JO [ap }eerZ ~ op sey} TV
‘goyt UO yUa}xe aSIeT B 03 ISISqns AES
‘guIed 0} Sejuleua }Be13 Ose ale AOUT,
‘spaiq [yews Auew Aoisep AdUL
434
‘s1auJaBj 0} aluosea[qnos} Aiea pues JuePUNTY
“uouLuI0d ayynb ere AdyL
nm MMM
wm
Cd
(oo UsjyeT “WM ‘tezupuded
“00 MIO “@ ‘WM “Id ‘101s
“S09 HIOX “OD “DH ‘NOH ‘uUMOIg
“oo anojuoK “IT “ff ‘ueuTeIg
“oo piojpeig “AW “H ‘“suluMorg
‘oo Bq
-unlod “W 'f 3D ‘MereHond
“oo euRrpur ‘jenueg ‘leq
“00
eUUBMEYNIeT “Cf ‘a ‘Upurefued
sees SOQ WeATTING ‘0770 ‘ay2d
eiqunjod “W ‘f ‘UBULIBUITUYy
Sogn “90 ysalog “f ‘USNBqIy
‘oo UOp
-ZunjunH ‘“s§ agioan ‘Aqaiddy
+ “oo eyqureg “q ‘Jepuexely
*"SHIBWAaY
‘201
'Syey
“s[aqijnbs
“SsyIqqey
‘syuBsBeyq
; ou)
‘asaay)
*syond
*susyoTyO
“ATQINOT
‘spliq PUM [Tews
*S19A.188Q0
‘STUSVAHM AO
35
4
‘sua
-HOWUO SUN JO JV ayy uy way? yUInBo savy
‘aATONAYsap ArVA Pus UOWUIOD
‘aaponajsap uaa puB uoWUOD
ssouod Sunod APSO ‘STMOJ @HBI A[[BUOTSBIIO
*uOUILUOD ALQBIGIOL
‘yysu auo ul SueHOPYO UMOAS-[[NJ 6 Pell euO
‘sexXOW SB PBQ SB ysOUTLE ate AIL
‘SUOHOTYO oT ATPUaNbaty eAwy OM
‘ywstu euo uy poorq ayoyA eB fOAQSEeP TTA
“s[as
“BOA, 2318, Aq aUOp aseurep ynoqge sjuyed
“wood AUBUE aNBU Udls}OdSs PUB SseaUNIey
*S]OSBIAL
0} PaINqpI Ie $ynoO Payons Poolq YA UOlsS
“8000 Quo UO PUNOJ a1aM SuayoYO woes
‘S}YMPU OAZ UL SUANOTYO FP PATI
VyspU auoO uy Suayo}YyoO FL PeallOT
“VUUB}U au
Ul SUHXYO OS IH OF Tesva\, B UAOUY BZA
‘ano00 UeazJO JOU OP ANINod 0} suUO;pEpeided
‘ouresd pues Ajtnod autos AOS IT
‘suaNoTyO puBw syonp Aw [ve pellyy AUT
‘ames puu Aaynod yo puozy ore AOUT
‘aIVUIBP dB[QBaepssuoo Op ATT BUOTSBOOO
*‘[nJ}RUa[d are sper SB BuO] Sv 10778, PYQ TPT
7,UOM PUB SUaeyoTYO 0} SpA JoJord AON) IA
‘aATONIIsep puv uoWMIOD aie AOU
x
nn
id
uw KH
Soo J01eW ‘YT “a ‘4oaoH
qasrwosg “a Pa “Sona o
aetea “H OM mone
Auaysatlv “TL Ud ‘URE OH
Ruojsury ‘sawEr ‘“WOSsS|CIOH
‘00 Suanswsy ‘qooer “PreyttyH
* “oo audBA “A ‘A “OREO
vote Soo PuoJpM “SB “f ‘ABH
“oo sWweEpDY
"9 “7 aid “UsNoLogsployH
“oo TN
-[Anyos Vv Uuyrefued “Meqthr
*0o
eouow LTH ‘“PIapaeHTey
“09
BpUUBARYOeT “q MOH We
“oo
annua “L ‘H ‘Jud persone
aaqsayO “a "SOUT, “UORRUTTEd
ss fo9 ousozny ‘AaIed “Weqod
“oo aussenT ‘Aqsa “ouseICT
* Soo pryarelo “W ‘A ‘SIAed
“oo uBayONW “A “OD ‘WosuyyoId
“oo Jae
-wos “qd "N “WOH “PIeBUOIWO
* 99 ousezny ‘uyor ‘aouTRD
‘oo puRieq
=U ION “Po tq ‘UuOR ‘aIsHID
* Soo yeIseuO ‘pIAeq ‘edop
‘Soo vo1u0ow, ‘“Tyepumy ‘Suyqsyd
436
.
“sHoryo { | |
|suno4 0} 9Aljonajsep AlsA puB uowmMWoDg | | eel x | “00 Auted “W “a ‘UBysayon
| | | | "00))"
‘uouluL0D A[Quia]oy | | | | | x |aajsvoury “5 ‘sep ‘ueiiedgomw
‘ouBs puP | | | |
Aajjnod 0} asvurrp o(quseprsuoo op !zuepunqy | | H }x foo “oo uotug “M CN ‘YOsaaI
| ‘Sd9}}81 poos aie AUT, | x | | | “oo uojuQ ‘UoYeUBIaW ‘Yous
| iil ‘09
| “Aujtned [IH AlTBuoysea00D | oul X jeuueyenbsng “q ‘W ‘UeUAT
“uOUIUIOD §=A[ P1210. x Ix | x [ct Soo Aueyzalry ‘Ysny ‘UUPT
‘snolias jou S}] euOop asevuep jing x (xX | [00 HIG ‘selteyD ‘uoRH ‘1yNnT
| ‘ames yonur
jpue Aaj[nod jo spujy 49430 [ITH Os[e Ady lx | | xX "= “oo uoqIeD “A "W ‘sat
| “s|aqambs Awin x x x | leet x | “* “o9 gapAug ‘J uyor ‘aul
| ‘JYUSIU auo UT SUaxo]YO 0g Pallty sjesvaA. | ul |x| “S09 JasIeulog ‘uOsIBe_ ‘Sul
| ‘UOTSaI SIY} U] e4ed JaYIVI are s[asRaA, | x | x fo oo UNTO M SP ‘eh
| "aATJONAJSap AJOA PUB UOUIWIOD Xx | X [02 UOWTIO “W ‘O ‘48}}01sTe
| ‘Q0IIN PUB S}BYy SulAoujsap Aq poos I ice ‘oo BuuRy
jYontu Op jnq ‘suaHyoTYyo Aolj}sap Al] BUOTsED0O x lx | | | x -anbsng ‘““\L dedser ‘s3ujyuuer
| ‘QATPONA}SAP AIBA 91B Ad | ~ | 1s] x ters “09 oUsBM ‘WOULY ‘sauoLr
Injhue[d amb are ayy x x | Hated x seers “09 JSON “HS 3?ISPH
| jth aed
| a 2 | a a
| elplglplzlelelelelzlel|s
olg Pel aloels ls Oe feessen irene
EM AMIE We veal its a tesa steam pc ts | Dts
e\/e/s |° Spl Se Mea ae thea
| @ | ra 2 | 2 | | liter pe
| | a =A | |
SyIBUaYy | | Pe | | “SIdA1N8QOD
| Pe As
| | a |
| a | | |
| |* |
| | | | | |
| | |
{a3} | a |
‘pINUyUOO—STASVAM AO GOO
437
‘sjuepua s} poojy [edjouyid spoy)
qnq ‘ueHoTYo B yoyBo uey} PUB MOU STeSBIOAL
‘aAljonijsep AlsA pue UOUILIOD
“aATjONIYsap AIGA PuB UOUTUIOD
*Alynod [I] Seuljjeuros
any siey pue ao1jq uo Ayajyo peseys AVL
‘aAT}ONIjsap A1dA ale AOYL
*s1}]nod
Sunox 0} Aj[B}oedse aATJonAJsap AJOA v.1e AOYL
*peq puv uouUi0d oie AVL
‘yyu31u au0
uy susy Aw Jo J pe[ddjio pue peltit [esbeamM WV
‘suo
-yolyo 0} aAT}JONI}Jsep puw juRpuNqeE AT[BOOT
‘gayjonajsep AleA pue UuoUIUIOD A[GQeIe1O.L
‘JauUlIBy 0} [eIOoysueq puB ‘“UOUIUIOD
‘sjumseayd pus s}qqey Al[eloedsa Aowjsaq
‘uowul0d are AeUL
‘aayjonijsep AlaA pue UoUIUIOD
‘aaljonijsep AeA pue snodeuInuU 3}IN%
*ploqd AraA puv UoUWWOd A[QeIZIOL,
“qusyu
auo ul sAayiIn} pue suexosyo Sunof 1% PelIM
“udWIUIOD
‘jasveM B Aq A[zusde1 paeAo1jsep § PBH
‘yallostu Yonu Op pue uoWUIOD are AOL
‘aayjonajsep AeA puB WOUIMIOD
‘suey Sut
-paaiq Ajpefoedsa ‘Aajjnod Ao14sap Ajquenbelg
f ‘yysju euo ut § Palla
‘a\ljondjsap pue snolewuni aynb sae As,
“qusyu
fa01N Mel B exe
euo Ul STMOJ 6 PellIy suo
x
nn
y
“Oo BUUBMBYOWY] "DO “Vy “UOSSIS
“oo BUURPABYORT “BQIZ ‘3300S
teers G09 g1]U9D “'S'U ‘18A03S
Nese 99 ousPA ‘STUNT ‘YNWS
“oo uo}dweyWON “'S ‘f ‘Tle4OS
jr “oo UotuQ “HUB ‘tepduey
“oo uolug ‘JAeT Ad ‘eHooUW
“oo uvayow ‘uYyor ‘Aled
"oo qasaauog ‘e¢ ‘ddd
‘oo sUABM “AA “OD ‘[Teuued
hele)
‘Q0UaIMNET ‘“W 351085 ‘1eulleg
“oo WOIpVI_ “M “M ‘HIPd
“oo puojmeig “gd ‘f¢ ‘sdjeud
“99 eO1UO ‘puesuMOT, ‘901d
= ©o99 uvayom “A ‘f ‘BAO
* 09 BuBIpuy “"O ‘ZL ‘Ulead
j7°*09 WOJUPTD “AL ‘YS “UOSTON
oo
uojsuyyseMm “SG seme ‘estan
‘09 U0}
-SuySeA ‘ad10an ‘A1IUIOSUOTL
oo
jesmauog “Cl ‘H Aq ‘HOO
oo
soueIMReyT “YT ‘vy “UOH ‘URW
“oo plsyrwalo “OD L “UHInW
“oo purtequng “gq ‘£ ‘lexXleW
09
eiqunioD “a "WV Ad ‘BAlOoW
“Goo aulezny ‘seyivyO ‘ULLInW
‘90 puvlestour
59M “ad ‘§ ‘uoH ‘AYdinW
oo
piojpeiq ‘lapuexery ‘e071u0yy
438
‘ell]] eUO 3B SuaHoIYo ET Pall} slesva~y
“emose|qno13 AiaA pue uoUIWIOD
“yus|u
euo Ul SUaHAzYO TZ Peliy :injijus|d vie Avy
‘eATJonIjsep oyinb pue uoulWI0D
-INod ©] eAljONA}sep A[Ie[No}jAIBd aie sjasvaM
‘BATJONAJSep A[Zulpseoxe vie Ady LE
‘aseulep
|snojdes op 0} e104 snosetunu A[quay}oygns ON
|S}2H3S]P Snouleyunow uy snossuinu sie Aayz
|"en dOJ SusyoIyO Auevul AOIjsap Al[[enuue AOUL
| ‘TSSP9M 84} PEA I ynq ‘eaatiaq T
| 18 PeIPT eAeY PIMOA ay puw ‘eT JO ZI ynoqe
Pe [9seeA\ B SuyusJou suo uy pue ‘sua
-HOTYO Sunos 09% ynoqe Jo yooy & pey aouo J
| “AYS1JY}PO0O|q Pus SnoJsuInuU ang
“@A}ONI}sap puke uoWUIOD
|
|
| “‘syIBWeYy
“BplQ PITA [[BUIg
“penunuoo— STHSVAM AO GOO
| | Pl ee
x | | | x
| | x |
| | | . ><
"ly | oy 4 1 |
| b | les
oe
| | Wt lx
| >< |le<] | | ex
| | | | >< ||
| | | |
|
1 4
| | | |
| x
xx|| |e x e
x |X |x |x) x | | one
n
SEE PIE e/2i2la\z
© & |E 3/88 Ey We roy |e
PP . . ao | ®
é |e |s "la/s|¢
fe lets 5 an 3
cal Fj a fa
[t'' “00 eld H ‘f ‘Ue UeA
‘oo Aleui0d
‘uoH ‘WIeS2eL
‘sauler ‘seumoyL
\-UONW ‘I “Vv
|0o Pleysealo
** “oo gusezny ‘gd "IW ‘3}00Sa1L
** 00 PLOJMBIO ‘VW “TI ‘teHONL
‘oo Su01}s
-wIy “M "T “Ad ‘Al1e}7;eUYoS
“00 PIOJMBID “DO "M ‘JURISIeS
“oo vulezny ‘““q uyor ‘194901¢
“ss "09 uosieer “ff ‘paeyunis
"09
Pleyiee1g 4 ‘uospne ~V eons
PuvjsequinyyION ‘I “W ‘138qog
“oo uolun “NM "OD ‘1eqos
} Se ———
*"S1eA1esqo
439
“sjoasu] 782 ‘Dyes Ss} }} ‘SeuTjjEWOS PUY
‘gouW UO peaz os[e AOUL ‘spsiad Trews Pet
fay] aeyM SaouezsUy OM} UMOUZ OARY tsue
-HO!Yo° OF @ATIONISEP AleA 21B Sout} ye ABUL
*£1yjnod 0} 2A]}ON1}Sep AIGA 018 ABUL
‘aAyjonijsep AteA puB UOUIWIOD
-aayjonajsep AleA PUB UOUIUIOD
*yooM 9u0
Ju; suaqoyyo Sunok oF 10 08 ILM OF [aseaM
le mouy ‘JUS}U yxeu ey} & DUB qusju euo
Jur suoesjd 9 I 93 lestoM ® uMOUy xAFH
| -Saynod 0} asdvuep a[qeiepjsuod OP AOUL
| aAtjonajsep AdaA puB snoiseuinu e}nb sy
“Arynod 0} aAyjonsjsep AIeA e7B AQUL
*syeu
pue soy Aus pus ‘guayoyyo Sunod [FX ACUL
| *suoy}}
|-epaidep 3jey} jo seseo Aueul uMOoUy aAeH
4
“00 1838840 “TT ‘f ‘ad ‘usaE A
He 09 Jaz894D ‘YeRyesl “Hopuse\\
09 PIsyIvaIO “A “M ‘JeuseBA\
| 700
uopsununH “MM “VV ‘343;
| sistata sts sinteiele kieicle, piersri Dr. tenuirostris, p. 608
| Hooks 35 » to 40 “ long; found in geese.. Dr. setigera, p. 605
Hooks 51 # to 61 “ long; found in geese,..Dr. sinuosa, p. 604
Hooks 65 # to 72 # long; found in ducks..Dr. anatina, p. 601
7
Hooks 31 # to 36 # long; found in ducks
BNA SCESOy si. Aho ae saree asia tuna } lum with about 80 hooks 7 /# long;
ae | LOM ini CHICK eS eps ecteteicisi el eieleistelesterstatere D. proglottina, p.614
Segments numerous, and_ strobila
(| much longer than 1.5mm ; : 3
( Rostellum with about 100 Hbelans 8 op
| long; found in chickens and (%)
DIFSONS I ce oe eee eects eerie D. echinobothrida, p. 618
3.4 Rostellum with 208 hooks 7 p to 8 #
| long; found in chickens .... ... D. cesticillus, p. 617
Rostellum with about 800 hooks 11 ip
( lon: found in: quails) i256 ence D. circumvallata, p. 615
( Rostellum with 150 hooks 12.8 # long
found! in’ Pheasants cise rc ctssicieis sees ois D. Friedbergeri, p. 624
sa) Rostellum with ca. 60 hooks 11 pf
long; found in pigeons and (7?)
UL sdtekisy, Fda eek cera saan st oekh D. crassula, p. 623
a, Genital pores irregularly alternate
19. DAVAINEA PROGLOTTINA (Davaine, 1860) R. Blanchard, 1891.
(1860, Taenia proglottina Davaine; 1881, “T. proglottidina Day.”
of Piana.)
[Pl]. XV, figs. 194-198; Pl. XVI, figs. 199-202.]
Diagnosis: 0.5mm to 1.55mm long by 0.18mm to 0.50mm broad.
Head club shape to quadrangular, 140 fu to 250 4 long by 136 # to
200 # broad, rather rounded in front and slightly consticted in
G15
back to form neck (108 # broad); apex armed with retractile
hemispherical rostellum 55 # in its antero-posterior diameter and
60 # to 85 uw in its lateral diameter; base of rostellum armed with
about 80-95 hooklets measuring 6.5 p to 7.5 #. Suckers circu-
lar, small (25 # to 35 ~), armed with a single row of hooklets
(6 PL), with rather large, bilobed base. Strobila composed of
2-5 segments, first segment only about 56 /# long, the following
segments increasing in length and width. Genital pores irre-
gularly alternate, situated at the anterior angle. The second
segment possesses well-developed male organs and the anlagen
of the female organs. In the third segment the testicles are
atrophied, the female organs (median posterior vitellarium, two
ovaries, recept. sem., vagina) well developed, but no uterus
present. In the fourth segment all the genital glands are
atrophied, and the segment is filled with numerous isolated
eggs (not in egg capsules); ova 35 # to 40 “; hooks of oncosphere
10 # to 11m. The segments have a great tendency to separate
more or less completely; the last segment, after separating,
remains in the intestine and grows to 2mm long by 1.25mm
broad (larger than the entire worm).
Development: Larval stage is found in slugs (Limax cinereus,
L. agrestis, and L. variegatus, and develops from the oncos-
phere in less than twenty days; fed to chickens, the cysticer-
ecoid becomes adult with 4 segments at the end of eight days.
Host: Chickens (Gallus domesticus).
Geographical distribution: France (Rennes by Dujardin), in
le Nord by Davaine, in Loiret by Lucet, in Indre-et-Loire by
R. Blanchard, and Italy by Grrassi & Rovelli.
Epidemics: Lucet observed a serious epizootic enteritis In
fowls produced by this parasite in Loiret (Railliet, 1893, p. 305).
The life history of this worm has been experimentally
demonstrated and this is one of the few tapeworms of
fowls which can be said to be comparatively well
known from a scientific standpoint.
20. DAVAINEA CIRCUMVALLATA (Krabbe, 1869) R. Blanchard, 1891.
(S819, Taenia linae Rud., pars; 1869, T. circumvallata Krabbe;
1890, T. pluriuncinata Crety.)
[Pl. XVI, figs, 203-211.]
Diagnosis: Strobila 40mm to 150mm long. Head _ pyriform
0.627mm to 0.8mm long by 0.598mm to 0.65mm broad. Rostellum
616
armed with a double row of about 800 minute hooklets, of two
different sizes, the larger and smaller alternating, the larger
hooks 11 # (Krabbe), 16 # (Crety); smaller hooks § “ (Krabbe),
12 @“ (Crety). In the earlier stages (see below T. pluriuncinata)
the suckers are armed with 6-8 concentric rows of instable
hooks which vary in size, but of similar form. Suckers small,
0.186mm to 0.196™m jin diameter. Neck present, thin. Anterior
segments 0.195mm broad by 0.40mm long (after Crety, 1890, p. 2,
the figures should undoubtedly be reversed); middle segments
2mm to 8mm broad by 1mm long; posterior segments 1.5mm long
by 2.5mm broad. Genital pores irregularly alternate in about
the middle of the lateral margin. Male genitalia: In posterior
portion of segment; testicles 15-20 in number, 45 # in diameter,
distributed regularly in median field; the common vas deferens
takes origin in about the middle of the segment, medium por-
tion more or less simple, lateral portion convoluted; upon enter-
ing the cirrus pouch it swells into a vesicula seminalis, 53 4
long by 39 uw broad, distinct only in the younger segments; cir-
rus covered with extremely minute spines, visible only with an
immersion lense. Female genitalia: In anterior portion of seg-
ment. Ovary median near anterior margin, at first transverse,
in the older segments it becomes globose and occasionally ir-
regularly divided into two lateral halves, connected by a me-
dian portion which leads into the oviduct; in middle proglottids
transverse diameter of ovary 0.186mm; oviduct short, runs dis-
tally; vitellogene gland distal of ovary, in youngest segments
appears as a globular sac next to ovary, in older segments
further removed from it and much smaller than it, occasionally
divided; vitelloduct runs from middle of vitellogene gland prox-
imally; shell gland very small, situated between ovary and
vitellogene gland; vagina swells into a receptaculm seminis 58
# by 39 # near the ovary; uterus forms rapidly, suppresses
genital glands, eggs arranged 4-6 or more in egg capsules. Ova
28 pp by 24 uw; hooks of oncosphere 11 y# to 17 w (Krabbe), 3 yu“
to 4 gw (Crety), oncosphere 11 p#.
Type specimen: Berlin museum.
Life history: Unknown.
Host: Migratory quail (Coturnix coturnix) by Rudolphi and
Crety; (C. dactylisonans) by Ninni [Stossich].
Geographical distribution: Italy, by Rudolphi, Crety, and
Ninni.
Blanchard (1891B, p. 434) looks upon Crety’s Taenia pluriun-
cinata as synonymous with D. circumvallata. Crety’s descrip-
tion of T. pluriuncinata is as follows:
’
617
Diagnosis: Strobila up to 105mm long. Head very small
0.318mm broad. Rostellum armed with a double row of alter-
nately larger and smaller hooks, the larger § #, the smaller
5 # long, in form very similar to those of T. circumvallata;
suckers very small, 98 » in diameter, armed with 6-8 concen-
tric rows of hooks, the latter varying in size, but of similar
form. Neck 2.5mm Jong, thin. Young segments 0.323mm broad
by 0.2mm long; middle segments trapezoid, 3mm broad; poster-
ior segments 2mm long; middle segments trapezoid, 3mm broad,
posterior segments 2™m broad by 1mm long. Genital pores ir-
regularly alternate; genital apparatus (very sufficiently de-
scribed); cirrus pouch pyriform, 127 # by 20 #; ova in egg cap-
sules same as in T. circumvallata; diameter of ova 22 # by
16 #; oncosphere 9 4.
Host: Migratory quail (Coturnix coturnix.)
Whether Blanchard is correct in his opinion can be deter-
mined only by a comparison of specimens, but in the mean-
time one is bound to admit that T. pluripunctata can hardly
be admitted as a species upon its present diagnosis.
21. DAVAINEA CESTICILLUS (Molin, 1858) R. Blanchard, 1891.
(1845, ‘“‘Taenia infundibuliformis Goeze,”’ 1782, of Dujardin; 1858,
T. cesticillus Molin; 1881, T. infundibuliformis pars of Meg-
nin.)
[Pl]. XVII, figs. 212-216.]
Diagnosis: Length, 9mm to 45mm (according to Molin), 100mm
to 130mm (according to others). Head globular, 0.5mm to 0.55mm
broad; rostellum convex or hemispherical, not prominent,
0.28mm to 0.32mm broad, armed with about 208 hooks 7 # to 8.8
# long, arranged in two rows; these hooks have a very short
dorsal and a long ventral root; suckers 10 # to 11 # not prom-
inent. Neck very short (Duj.) neck absent (Railliet). Anter-
ior segments 3-5 times as broad as long, being broader than the
head, but very short; the following segments increasing grad-
ually in size and becoming nearly as long as broad, borders
overlapping. Genital pores irregularly alternate. Eggs ellip-
tical 75 # to 85 “; hooks or oncosphere 16 # to 17 # (Railliet) 18
u to 23 “# (Dujardin). Development unknown.
Hosts: Chickens.
Geographical distribution: France (by Dujardin); Italy (by
Molin, Grassi, Rovelli); Denmark (by Krabbe); Turkestan (by
Fedtschenko); Abyssinia (by Pasquale). Epidemics: None re-
corded.
39*--IT
618
Dujardin (1845, pp. 586, 609, Pl. IX, fig. H, 1-2) erroneously de-
termined this worm as T. infundibuliformis; Molin (1858, p. 189)
described it as T. cesticillus. Krabbe (1869, pp. 342-343) found
it in 16 out of 200°chickens in Denmark, and mentions a some-
what similar worm from Siebold’s collection, taken in Egypt
by Bilharz. Piana (1882) records T. cesticillus in Italy and Pas-
quale (1890) says it is the most common form at Massowah
(Abyssinia), where he in one instance took about 300 from one
chicken. Grassi & Rovelli (1892, p. 88) suspect that the inter-
mediate host is a lepidopteron (butterfly) or a coleopteron
(beetle), but this is wild speculation. Stossich (1890A, p. 39;
1890B, p. 53) records the same species in two different publica-
tions, once as being collected in Venice by Ninni, and a second
time as being rather rare in chickens in Trieste. Blanchard
(1891B, p. 434) looks upon part of Megnin’s T. infundibuliformis
as belonging here; the worm in question has, according to
Megnin (1881A, pp. 27-44) 3 rows of hooks on the suckers.
For Neumann's (1888 and 1892) combination T. cesticillus var.
phasianorum which he attributes to Megnin (1887, p. 828), vide
p. 53 (Taenia infundibuliformis var. phasianorum Megnin, 1887,
p. 825 ff., under T. Friedbergeri).
22, DAVAINEA ECHINOBOTHRIDA (Megnin, 1881) R. Blanchard, 1891.
(880, Taenia infundibuliformis of Megnin (pars); 1880, T.
echinobothrida Megnin, nomen nudum; 1881, T. echinoboth-
rida Megnin.)
[Pl. XVII, figs. 217-218.]
Diagnosis: 50mm to 100mm Jong, Imm to 4mm _ broad. Head
small, cuboid, its summit presenting an infundibulum armed
with about 100 hooks, 8 » long, arranged in a double row.
Suckers large, armed with 7 circular rows of hooks, the hooks
of the middle row being the largest; with age these hooks fall
and the suckers gradually become indistinct. Neck nil. An-
terior segments very thin, 50 times broader than thick; fol-
lowing segments increasing gradually in size, the posterior
border overlapping, so that the margin of the strobila appears
serrate. Eggs spherical, 90 # in diameter, arranged in groups
of 6-7 in roundish egg capsules. Development unknown.
Hosts: Chickens (Megnin), ? pigeons (Megnin—possible
another species of worm according to Railliet), and ? pheas-
ants (see Blanchard).
Geographical distribution: France by Megnin. Epidemics:
Megnin states that this did not produce any serious effect in its
hosts.
619
The types of this species should be compared with D. tetra-
gona and T. bothrioplitis, as the worms are very similar, if
not identical. The character of the genital as a specific
difference I can hardly admit for this form. (See the discus-
sion under D. tetragona.) Megnin states that the hooks of
the middle rows of the suckers are the largest and this, if the
observation is confirmed, would separate the species from T.
bothrioplitis.
b. Genital pores unilateral, occasionally alternate.
23. DAVAINEA TETRAGONA (Molin, 1858) R. Blanchard, 1891.
(1858, Taenia tetragona Molin; 1881, T. bothrioplites Piana
(nomen nudum); 1882, T. bothrioplitis Piana.)
[Pl. XVII, figs. 219-227; Pl. XVIII, figs. 228-235.]
Diagnosis: 12™m to 90mm Jong (Molin) or to 200mm (Piana) or
to 250mm (Krabbe), by 1.6mm to 3mm.broad. Head small, tetra-
gonal; retractile rotellum armed with a double row of about
200 hooks, 6 # long. Suckers circular, armed with seven or
eight concentric rows of hooks of varying size. Neck very
long. Anterior segments very short; the following subquad-
rangular, the posterior edges overlapping. Genital pores uni-
lateral or irregularly alternate, situated in or about the middle
of the margin. Eggs arranged irregularly in groups of 5-20
in egg capsules.
Development: According to Piana, the larval stage (Mono-
cercus Dayaineae tetragonae) develops in snails (Helix carth-
usianella or H. maculosa).
Hosts: Chickens.
Geographical distribution: Italy (by Molin, Piana), Turkestan
(by Fedtschenko), Abyssinia (Pasquale), America (Washing-
ton, D. C., by Moore).
Epidemics: Italy by Piana; Washington, D. C., by Moore.
I include T. bothrioplitis in the species D. tetragona
and retain D. echinobothrida as a distinct species,
chiefly in deference to the cpinion of my friends R.
Blanchard and Railliet. Personally I do not see why
the species D. tetragona should be recognized, or why
two of these forms should be united while the third
is kept distinct, for the descriptions of all three forms
620
are incomplete, and, as will be shown in the following
historical review, any arrangement of the three worms
can be looked upon at present only as provisional.
The historical review is given in detail, as these three
(or one?) species represent very important parasites.
Molin (1858, p. 139) first described as Taenia tetra-
gona some tapeworms which he found in chickens in
Padua in December, 1857, as follows:
Caput tetragonum, minimum, acetabulis quatuor angularibus,
alveolo ad basim rostelli excavatum; rostellum inerme, brevis-
simum, obtuso-conicum, in alveolum retractile; collum breve;
articuli supremi brevissimi; postremi subquadrati, imbricati;
aperturae genitales marginales, secundae, in apice papillae
prominulae. Longit. 0.012-0.090; lat. ad 0.002.
Habitaculum. Phasianus Gallus: in intestino tenui, Decembri,
Patavii (Molin).
Like most of Molin’s descriptions, this diagnosis gives us but
little information concerning the parasite he had before him.
It should be noticed, however, that he (probably erroneously)
describes the rostellum) as unarmed, the neck as short (a char-
acter of little or no value), the posterior segments subquadrate
and imbricate, the genital pores as unilateral, the length of the
worm as 12mm to 90mm, breath as 2mm. In other words, there
is neither a single distinctive character nor a collection of char-
acters given in this diagnosis. In his second paper -(1860, pp.
254-255; Taf. VII, 5-8) Molin repeats this diagnosis, gives four
figures of the worm which are almost useless, except fig. 7, in
which the genital pores are figured in the middle of the lateral
margin, and in which some irregularly-shaped masses are
drawn, which evidently represent egg capsules. He also adds
three observations to the effect that he collected 42 specimens
from one chicken, of which number only 2 were mature, the
others being very small. He describes a mosaic structure of
the segment caused by egg capsules, each of which contains
from 5 to 20 ova. Although the rostellum is unarmed, the form
differs in organization from the other unarmed forms. These
are all of the characters ever given by Molin to the species,
and it must, indeed, be admitted that they are not sufficient
to determine any worm with certainty. Molin’s diagnosis,
without the type specimens, is therefore useless.
621
As far as any original observations are concerned Molin’s
species T. tetragona then rested for a number of years.
In 1880 Megnin (1880, p. 119) mentioned T. echinobothrida as a
nomen nudum. In 1881 two parasites of chickens, very similar
to if not identical with T. tetragona, were described as new.
Megnin described and figured T. echinobothrida as new species
with the characters given in the diagnosis above (p. 618.) A
careful study of both figures and description shows that the
most important characters at present to be considered are the
hooks upon the rostellum, said to be about 100 in number, §
/ long, the rows of hooks upon the suckers (6-7 rows), those of
the middle row being the largest; genital pores irregularly al-
ternate; eggs 90 # in diameter, spherical, arranged in groups
of 6-7 in roundish egg capsules.
In March of the same year! (1881) Piana (1882, pp. 3887-391, I
plate) presented a paper before the Accademia delle Scienzei di
Bologna, in which he described as a new species T. bothriop-
litis, a cestode which he found causing serious damage to poul-
try, producing tubercles in the intestine. The chief zoological
characters taken as a basis for the species are as follows:
Head 0.35mm jn diameter; retractile hemispherical rostellum
armed with hooks (number not given, but evidently ca. 200,
form shown in drawing); suckers with seven or eight concen-
tric rows of hooks (form as ‘per drawing), hooks not all of same
size; neck very long, containing ovoid calcareous corpuscles;
genital pores unilateral, situated somewhat below (distally) the
middle of the lateral margin; cirrus short, pyriform; eggs in
egg sacs.
Piana states that Rivolta and Delprato (in Ornitojatria, 1880,
TT. I., f. 5a—not accessible to me) picture the head of a cestode
which produced similar nodules in the intestine of a chicken.
Piana found 2 cysticercoids in Helix (whether in H. carthu-
sianella or H, maculosa is not clear to me) which agree quite
closely with the head of the parasite found in chickens; no
experiments were made to demonstrate that this: cysticercoid
is the larval form of the worm in question, but their specific
1The date of publication of the volume for 1881 is given upon
the cover as 1882, but a preliminary notice of this paper ap-
peared in the Rendiconto in 1881. This preliminary notice,
however, is altogether too incomplete to hold should the ques-
tion of priority be raised between Megnin’s T. echinobothrida
and Piana’s T. bothrioplites. Further, as Piana cites Megnin’s
article in the final paper, Megnin’s name must be given prece-
dence, should these two forms prove identical. Piana’s T.
bothrioplites of 1881 is to all intents and purposes a nomen
nudum, and his species T, bothrioplitis should be dated 1882.
622
identity is assumed from their similarity. Piana was ac-
quainted with Megnin’s paper, but separated his form from
Megnin’s species chiefly on account of the form of the hooks
‘on the suckers, the number of hooks on the rostellum, and the
arrangement of the genital pores. Krabbe (1882, pp. 361-364,
Tab. II, figs. 55-60) published as Taenia tetragona Molin, some
eestodes which Fedschenko had found in chickens in Turke-
stan. He admits the total inadequacy of Molin’s figures and
descriptions, but determines his specimens as T. tetragona on
account of the egg capsules. The characters given are as fol-
lows:
Length to 250mm, breadth, 1.6mm; posterior segments, 1.2mm
long by 1.6mm broad. Head provided with a short and broad
retractile rostellum, surrounded by about 200 hooks arranged
in a double row; hooks measured 6 /# long from the apex of
the prong to the end of the dorsal root; ventral root 11 # long;
suckers surrounded by several rows of similar instable hooks
of different form from those of T. australis. Genital pores
unilateral; cirrus smooth, 21 4 long by 8 y# thick. Eggs ar-
ranged in egg sacs, 10-12 ova in a group, 40 to ca. 90 groups in
a segment.
Since Krabbe’s paper authors have as a rule accepted T. tet-
ragona as a good species. Blanchard (1891B, pp. 433, 436) rec-
ognized D. echinobothrida as a distinct species; recognized D.
tetragona (Molin) as valid, and made T. bothrioplitis a syn-
onym of D. tetragona. Grassi & Rovelli (1892, p. 84) claim to
have recognized both T. tetragona Molin and T. bothrioplitis
Piana, and state that they have found both forms; T. echino-
bothrida Megnin they did not find, but they think it is possi-
bly identical with T. bothrioplitis Piana. Railliet (1893, pp. 306-
307) has followed Blanchard (1891).
From the above it is questionable whether Molin’s specific
name tetragona can be retained, unless the originals can be
found and redescribed, for the description given by Molin is
unrecognizable without the types. It might possibly be re-
tained upon the ground that it is impossible to show that T,
tetragona of present authors is not identical with T. tetragona
Molin. I refrain temporarily from suppressing the name, as
I hope the types may be re-examined. Krabbe’s description of
T. tetragona can hardly be taken into consideration in this
question, as there is nothing to show that his specimens are
identical with Molin’s forms, and as! Krabbe himself admits the
uselessness of Molin’s description and figures. The differences
between the species described by these three authors (Megnin,
623
Piana, and Krabbe) are very slight and can for the most part
be explained by contraction, insufficiency of material, and lack
of details. The description of the hooks of the suckers of T.
echinobothrida (as being so simple) should, I believe, be taken
with reserve. The hooks are very small and are not easily
studied. The fact that the genital pores are described as ir-
regularly alternate by Megnin and unilateral by Piana and
Krabbe is not, in my opinion, a serious difference in this genus.
This opinion, radical as it may appear, is based upon the fol-
lowing observations:
The worms which Dr. Moore found producing a nodular dis-
ease in chickens give rise to the same pathological conditions
as the form described by Piana, and agree with Piana’s species
in regard to the armed rostellum, the form and size of the
hooks, both on the rostellum and suckers, and in almost every
other character mentioned by Piana. The genital pores vary
in different specimens. In some specimens they are entirely
unilateral; in other specimens all but one or two may be on
the same side of the worm; in fact it is often necessary to
mount the entire strobila before it is possible to find an al-
ternating pore; in still other specimens the pores are extremely
irregular. The specimens with irregularly alternate genital
pores agree in all other respects, so far as I can see, with
Piana’s form. The only difference between these specimens
and Megnin’s description appears to be (1) the number of
hooks upon the rostellum (Megnin estimates them at about
100, the American forms possess ca. 200-208); (2) the form of the
hooks on the suckers (possibly due to misintenpretation as the
form of hooks Megnin describes is otherwise unknown in this
group); and (38) the arrangement of the hooks on the suckers
(in Megnin’s form the largest hooks are in the center row, in
the American form the largest hooks are those of the external
row). This latter point of difference should not be given too
much weight, as Megnin evidently made no microtome sections.
and this point could hardly be established definitely otherwise.
In short, I incline to the belief that tetragona, echinobothrida,
and bothrioplitis all represent one and the same species.
624
ce, Genital pores unilateral.
24. DAVAINEA FRIEDBERGERI (von Linstow, 1878) R. Blanchard, 1891.
(1878, Taenia Friedbergeri von Linstow [May 16]; ? 1878, Taenia
agama Megnin [August]; ? 1878, T. infundibuliformis var.
phasianorum Megnin [September]; 1888, T. cesticillus var.
phasianorum Neumann.)
[Pl. XVIII, figs. 236-242.]
Diagnosis: trobila up to 200mm and more long by 2mm to mm
wide. Head pyriform, 0.386mm broad by 0.30mm long; rostellum
armed with a double row of hooks, 75 in each row, 12 4 long;
suckers elliptical, armed with 4-5 rows of hooks, of which those
on the middle row are smallest. Neck thin, 2™m to 3mm long.
Anterior segments very short, the following gradually increase
in length, the distal borders projecting so as to give a serrate
appearance to the worm; in the posterior sixth the segments
become moniliform, the last segments almost globular, fre-
quently orange in color. Genital pores unilateral, in middle of
the margin. Ova 34 # to 388 #, onccspheric hooks 6.5 #.
Development: Unknown; Friedberger and Megnin think that
ants (‘Formica rufa?’’) form the intermediate host, but ex-
periments (Friedberger) were negative.
Hosts: Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus).
Geographical distribution: Germany and France.
Epidemics: Friedberger (1877, pp. 99-112) gives quite
an extensive account of an outbreak of disease among
pheasants which he attributed to the presence of the
large number of tapeworms. A remarkable difference
in the development of .the young pheasants was
noticed. Many of them became sick. The appetite
remained good for the most part, but the animals grew
dull and their feathers became ruffled. Suddenly the
animals would wake up, run around, and take food;
then they would quiet down again, close their eyes, and
finally die.
Several post-mortems were made, and in all cases
numerous tapeworms were found in the intestine. A
625
purulent, desquamative, intestinal catarrh and general
anaemic condition were constant.
In August, 1878, Mégnin (1878A, p. 825) described
as a new species (IT. agama, afterwards (September,
1878B, p. 927) proposing to make it a variety (7. in-
fundibuliformis var. phasianorum), a tapeworm which
he found creating considerable trouble in the pheas-
antries near Paris and Fontainebleau. He gave the
following characters:
Not over 60mm long; head small, with about 100 hooks; neck
variable, long and filiform or short. Head not over 1-4mm proa‘1;
body 1mm to 3mm broad. Ovary fills the entire posterior half
of the body without being localized in each segment; segments
detach themselves as round discs, rather thick, and 1.7™m to
2mm in diameter, filled with eggs, collected in egg-sacs, about
7 eggs being present in each sac and about 80-100 sacs in each
segment. Megnin suggests that ants form the intermediate
host.
The parasites injured their hosts by stopping up the
bowels, but good results in treatment resulted from
administering powdered Kamala mixed with the food.
In the second note Mégnin states that the pores are
unilateral.
Neumann (1888, p. 433; 1892A, p. 471; 1892IB, p. 485) erroneously
attributes the combination Taenia cesticillus var. phasianorum
to Megnin (1887, p. 828); (this reference given by Neumann
should undoubtedly read 1878, p. 928, as there were only 823
pages in the Recueil of 1887, and Megnin apparently did not
publish upon this species in 1887, i. e., so far as I have been able
to trace). Railliet (1898, pp. 308-309) thinks it probable that
Megnin’s species is identical with the worm described by
Friedberger (1877) and named by von Linstow (1878).
40--II
626
2. DAVAINEA CRASSULA (Rudolphi, 1819) Rallliet, 1898.
(819, “T. sphenccephala Rud.,’’ 1810 of Rudolphi; 1819, T.
crassula Rud.,
(21789, Taenia serpentiformis i. T. turturis Gmelin; ? 1800,
Alyselminthus Columbae Zeder; ? 1803, Halysis Columbae
(Zeder, 1800) Zeder; ? 1810, Taenia sphenocephala Rud.; ?
1891, Davainea Columbae (Zeder, 1800) R. Bl.)
[Pl. XVIII, figs. 243-246.]
Diagnosis: 200mm to 400mm long by 4mm broad. Head oval,
rostellum obtuse, armed with about 60 hooks 10 y to 11 / long.
Suckers rounded, armed with spines. Neck rather long. An-
terior segments very short, the following segments a little
longer and very wide, the posterior segments infundibuliform.
Genital pores unilateral. Eggs united in groups of 10-12 in
capsule. Development urknown.
Hosts: Domestic pigeon (Columba livia domestica); European
rock pigeon (Columba livia); turtle dove (Turtur turtur); rock
partridge (Caccalbis saxitilis); ? tame duck (Anas boschas
dom.); parroquet (Psittacus erithacus) [perhaps D. leptosoma?].
Epidemics: None recorded.
Little more is known of this worm than the actual
fact that the parasites described under the synonymy
above are found in pigeons.
Zeder (1800, pp. 281-282) found a worm in the turtle dove which
he named Alyselminthus columbae, changing the name three
years later to Halysis columbae. This worm Rudolphi (1810, pp.
94-95) renamed Taenia sphenocephala, so there is evidently no
doubt that these three terms are synonymous. Rudolphi in-
cludes in his literature a worm which Goeze (1782, p. 394) men-
tioned in a footnote as having been found in the turtle dove
and which Gmelin (1790, p. 3070) quoted from Goeze as Tenia
turturis under T. serpentiformis. It is entirely an assumption
that Goeze’s form is identical with Zeder’s worm, although
Gmelin’s name refers to Goeze’s species. Rudolphi (1819, pp.
154, 506-508) described as T, sphenocephala, evidently consider-
ing them identical with his sphenocephala of 1810, some worms
obtained by Bremser; these were preserved in the Berlin
Museum, were restudied by Krabbe and pronounced identical
with Rudolphi’s supposed new species (1819, pp. 702-704) Taenia
crassula, types of which Krabbe also examined.
627
T. sphenocephala Rud., 1819 and crassula Rud., 1819, are evi-
dently the earliest specific names to which we can refer with
certainty, although the earlier names may be looked upon as
probable but unidentifiable synonyms. Aiccording to page-
priority T. sphenocephala should stand, but as that is an un-
certain earlier synonym, and as Railliet has already used
ecrassula, I retain the latter name for the present.
There are certain other species which must be con-
sidered in connection with this genus, but most of
which are but little known at present. The following
characters are taken from Krabbe (1869) and Blan-
chard (1891, pp. 484-438):
A. Avian parasites:
Davainea struthionis (Parona, 1885)
struthio cameli Rudolphi, nomen nudum; 1819, T, struthionis
Rudolphi, nomen nudum; 1819, T. struthionis Rudolphi, nomen
nudum; 1885, T. struthionis Parona; 1893, T. (Davainea)
struthionis von Linstow.) Parona’s description of this para-
site from ostriches is not accessible to me.
Davainea insignis (Steudener, 1877) R. Bl., 1891 (Syn. 1877,
Taenia insignis Studener). 100mm to 130mm long; rostellum
armed with double crown of minute hooks; suckers also armed
with gyriniform hooks, smaller than those of the rostellum,
points directed inward; host: Carpophaga oceanica. (Original
not at my disposal, I quote from R. Blanchard, 1891, pp. 434-
435.)
Davainea australis (Krabbe, 1869) R. Bl., 1891 (Syn. 1869,
Taenia australis Krabbe). Strobila 400mm Jong, 1.2mm broad;
rostellum with a double row of 340-360 hooks 12 /& to 14 # long:
suckers with hooks, 5 / to 11 /# long; genital pores unilateral;
host: Dromaius Novae-Hollandiae.
Davainea urogalli (Modeer, 1790) R. BIl., 1891. (Syn. after
Krabbe 1869, p. 344; 1846, Taenia tumens Mehlis; 1850, T mi-
crops). Strobila 300mm long; rostellum with double crown of
ea. 100 hooks 10-11 # long; genital pores unilateral; hosts:
Tetrao urogallus; Tetrao tetrix; Cacabis saxatilis; Centrocerus
urophasianus; Tetraogallus himalayanus.
Davainea frontina (Dujardin, 1845) R. BI., 1891. (Syn. after
Krabbe, 1869: 1810, Taenia crateriformis Rudolphi, pars; 1845,
T. frontina Dujardin.) Strobila 100mm long by 1mm _ bproad;
head 380 # broad, rostellum 126 # surrounded by a double crown
of about 300 hooks § # long; suckers 140 # in diameter, armed
Syn. 1810, Taenia
628
with a large number of small hooks; genital pores unilateral;
hosts: Oriolus galbula, Picus viridis, ? P. major.
Davainea circumcincta (Krabbe, 1869) R. Bl, 1891. (1869,
Taenia circumcincta Kralbbe). Strobila 120mm long by 2mm
broad; rostellum armed with a double crown of about 300 hooks
11 # to 12 w long; suckers armed; genital pores ? ; eggs in egg
sacs; host: Ardea garzetta.
Davainea leptosoma (Diesing, 1850) R. Bl., 1891. (1850, Taenia
leptosoma Diesing.) Strobila 160mm Jong by 2mm broad; ros-
tellum with a double (?) crown of hooks 11 / to 13 # long;
hooks on suckers?; genital pores unilateral; host: Psittacus
erithacus.)
B. Mammalian parasites
Bavainea madagascariensis (Davaine, 1870) R. Bl., 1891. (1869,
Taenia madagascariensis (Davaine), found in man.
Davainea Salmoni Stiles, 1895, found in Lepus sylvaticus and
Lepus melanotis.
Davainea retractilis Stiles, 1895, found in Lepus arizonae.
Davainea contorta Zschokke, 1895, found ni Manis pentadac-
tyla.
Genus ECHINOCOTYLE R. Blanchard, 1891.
Diagnosis: Body short and thin. Head elliptical or subspheri-
eal, provided with a long rostellum capable of being completely
retracted, and armed with a single row of 10 hooks; dorsal
root much longer than feeble ventral root. Suckers armed
with three series of hooks, whose prongs point posteriorly; one
series situated in the longitudinal axis of the sucker, one series
on the borders of each side. Type species, E. Rosseteri R. Bl.,
1891.
Development: Cysticercoid (Cercocystis) in the cavity of
Ostracodes.
Hosts: Domestic ducks (Anas boschas dom.); Bengal ducks.
26, ECHINOCOTYLE ROSSETERI, R. Blanchard, 1891.
(1891, ‘“Taenia lanceolata Goeze”’ of Rosseter.)
[Pl. XIX, figs. 247-251.]
Diagnosis: Strobila (young specimens) 1.5mm long with 26 seg-
ments present; breadth, 0.18mm, Head sulbspherical, 85 # to 155
f# long by 75 # to 105 # broad; rostellum long, with single crown
of 10 hooks on extremity, hooks measure 31 @ to 38 p long;
suckers oblong, 67 # to 90 “# by 27 uw to 32 “; muscular wall
629
much reduced, concavity nearly effaced and visible only on
account of the hooks; 100-130 hooks on each sucker with base
7uto8 yw, prong 3 wto4u, Neck 90 puto 140 pw by 45 uw to 70 Hf.
One specimen with 20 segments, last segment 153 # long by 195
/ broad. Genital pores near anterior corner of segment; cirrus
pouch large, extending over halfway across the segment.
Type specimens: Collection Rosseter; Collection Stiles.
Life history: Cysticercoid in Cypris cinera Brady.
Hosts: Adults in tame duck (Anas boschas dom.), experi-
mentally by Rosseter; Bengal duck (Anas sp ?) by Rosseter.
Geographical distribution: Canterbury (Kent), England, by
Rosseter.
Rosseter (1891A., p. 438) presented a communication to the
Royal Microscopical Society stating that he had infected ducks
with a cysticercus and thus raised Taenia lanceolata. There
were from 180-200 minute hooks on the head. A fuller account
is given in his second paper, in which Rosseter (1891B., pp.
224-228) states that he examined the Cypridae of a pond near
Canterbury for eysticercoids, and noticed that Cypris cinera
Brady contained two species of parasites. One was the larval
form of Taenia coronula (—Dieranotaenia coronula); a less
common form occurred in about 2 per cent. of those examined.
The latter form is oval, invaginated anteriorly and provided
with a long caudal appendage; cyst is not fenestrated. While
developing, its substance submits to active contractions,
but when fully developed to a point where it can be trans-
mitted to vertebrates it remains quiescent; rostellum invag-
inated, bearing’ a crown of 10 hooks 32 # long, of which three-
fifths are occupied by the dorsal root; ventral root rather trun-
eate; prong short and slightly curved. Suckers oval, armed
with about 132 hooklets, arranged symmetrically around the
suckers; the hooks are very delicate, about 5 # long.
A large number of crustaceans were fed to a duck daily from
February 19 to March 21. Upon killing the duck a considerable
number of tapeworms, which showed the same characters as
the cysticercoid, were found in the upper portion of the small
intestine. The largest was 1.27mm long; the greater number of
specimens possessed 17 segments. Male organs were well de-
veloped, but the female organs were not visible. Rosseter be-
lieved that the adult parasite which he had thus developed was
Taenia lanceolata Goeze.
Blanchard (1881B, pp. 420-428, figs. 1-2) examined some of
Rosseter’s material and recognized that this form was not
identical with T. lanceolata. He compared it with all the
630
other species recorded for ducks, and with other avian tape-
worms possessing 10 hooks on the head and unilateral genital
pores, and concluded that Rosseter’s cestode represented the
type (E. Rosseteri R. Bl.) of a new genus (Echinocotyle R. BI.).
He added that Rosseter had recently informed him that he
had sometime previous to the discovery of the cysticercoid
placed some ducks imported from Caleutta on the pond in
which he had discovered the parasites; upon making an au-
topsy on one of these ducks Rosseter found it infested with
Echinocotyle. Blanchard concluded from this that the Bengal
ducks imported the parasites with them and infected the pond
in question. Blanchard discusses the adult worm, and from
this description the specific diagnosis given above is written.
Rosseter (1892, pp. 361-366, Pls. XXII-XXIII) again discusses
this species and figures it.
Regarding the supposed introduction of this parasite into
England by ducks from Calcutta, the idea advanced by Blan-
chard seems very plausible. At the same time however, Blan-
chard states (p. 424) that neither he nor Rosseter have been
able to examine any adult specimens. Now, had the Bengal
ducks brought the parasites with them, would not the duck
examined by Rosseter have been infested, in all probability,
with the adult form, although they unquestionably could also
have become infected with a new generation from the crusta-
ceans? I hardly see why the fact that two Bengal ducks were
placed upon this pond a short time before Rosseter discovered
the parasites in the crustaceans bears anything more than a
possible (but not necessary or probable) connection with the
presence of this species in England; the parasite has not yet
been recorded from Bengal.
Genus OPHRYOCOTYLE Friis, 1869.
[Pl. XIX, figs. 252-255.]
Diagnosis: Head enlarged anteriorily, without rostellum, but
with several infundibula whose borders are armed with a very
large number of small hooks; suckers armed with several
transverse rows of hooks; genital pores irregularly alternate.
Type species: O. proteus Friis, 1869. Development unknown.
Hosts: Birds.
No members of this genus are known from domes-
ticated birds or from very closely allied wild birds,
631
Lacazii Villot), and O. insignis Lonnberg, are described
from wild birds.
but two species, O. proteus Friis, 1869 (Syn. 1875, O.
( Infundibulum divided into 5 parts; strobila 10mm
to 25mm long, with about 19 segments; hooks on
suckers arranged in three rows; found in
Tringa alpina, Charadrius hiaticula, Calidris
} arenaria, Larus canus, Limosa rufa ............ O. proteus.
| Infundibulum not divided, but its order undu-
(
lated;; strobila 50mm to 100mm and more long;
found in Haematopus ostrealegus ............. O. insignis.
GENUS INCERT. TAENIA S. L
A number of other tapeworms have been described
from domesticated fowls, but their generic position
can not be determined with the data at hand.
27. TAENIA CANTANIANA Polonio, 1860
[Pl]. XX, fig. 256.]
Polonio (1860, pp. 21-22) describes a supposed new
species of tapeworm as follows:
1. T. Cantaniana Polonio. Caput globosum, centro unbona-
tum; acetabulis cruciatim oppositis ob majorem capitis circu-
lum; collum nullum ;corpus retrorsum dilatatum, articulis
supremis campanaeformibus, sequentibus campanaeformibus
imbricatis trapezoidalis; aperturae genitales marginales. Long,
0.013.
Habitaculum: Meleagris Gallopavo, in intestina, Octobri
Patavi (Polonio).
In his second paper (1860, p. 221) this form is cited and is
figured on Taf. VII, 2 (vide TL, DADS, fig. 256 of this paper).
The pores are evidently unilateral. Von Linstow (1878, p. 122)
includes this among the parasites of the pheasant Phasianus
colchicus, but does not give his authority.
All subsequent remarks upon this species are based upon
Polonio’s statements. Blanchard /(S891/B pp. 439-440) thinks
this form may possibly belong to the genus Davainea, and
takes the following characters from Polonio’s figure:
Suckers large and round; the head seems to be surmounted
by a very short rostellum, probably retractile. The neck is
quite long, distinctly separated from the head. Segments num-
632
ber about 60. Genital pores unilateral; cirrus pouch visible in
twenty-sixth to forty-fifth segments; forty-sixth to sixtieth seg-
ments are gravid. The eggs, so far as can be judged from the
figure, are scattered and isolated as in D. proglottina.
T can not see that Polonio’s description and figure
are sufficient to compel or even to allow the recogni-
tion of this specific name. If the types can be obtained
and restudied, it would of course be proper to rede-
scribe them under the specific name cantaniana, but
until those types can be found it is useless to waste
time speculating as to the possible generic or specific
relations of the parasite. I propose to ignore the
species entirely, on the ground that the specific name
has not been accompanied by a recognizable descrip-
tion or figure.
28. Taenia Delafondi Railllet, 1892.
(1891, ‘“‘Taenia sphenocephala Rud.,” 1810, of Megnin.)
[Pl. XX, figs. 257-262.]
Diagnosis: Strobila 7em to 18cm long, 3mm to 4mm _proad.
Head hemispherical, rostellum and hooks absent. Suckers
large. Neck 0.5mm or more long, at first as broad as head, en-
larging distally. Proximal segments very short, following seg-
ments slightly longer and very broad, lateral margins convex.
Genital pores irregularly alternate, situated near the anterior
quarter of the lateral border; two lateral ramefied uteri visible
as two longitudinal rows of opaque spots; another submedian
series formed by recaptaculum seminis; testicles rather num-
erous. Ova globular 62 yu to 65 mw hooks of oncosphere 11 /
long. Development: Unknown.
Type specimens: In Alfort collection.
Hosts: Domestic pigeons (Columba livia domestica) by Del-
fond, Railliet, Megnin, and von Linstow. Geographical dis-
tribution: France and Germany.
This appears to be a very peculiar form. Its syste-
matic position, as well as its synonymy and anatomy,
seem to me extremely uncertain.
633
29. TAENIA EXILIS Dujardin, 1845.
Dujardin proposed this name for a tapeworm found
in chickens, but the description is so insufficient that
the species should be ignored entirely. The original
des:ription reads:
“Je proposerai de nommer Taenia exilis un autre taenia de
la poule, bien different aussi des precedents, mais dont je
n'ai pas encore eu la tete; il est long de 20mm a (?), large de
0.15mm en avant ,et de 0.95mm en arriere, forme d’articles courts,
transverses; les orifices genitaux sont unilateraux; les penis
sont lisses, assez longs, larges de 0.015mm precedes par une
ample vesicule seminale, remplie des spermatozoides en eche-
veau; les oeufs, presque globuleux, ont trois enveloppes;
lexterne longue de 0.056mm a 0.065mm; la moyenne de 0.(54mm;
linterne de 0.032mm; |’emibryon, long de 0.025mm, a des crochets
long de 0.0125mm,""
Airlong (1875, pp. 427-431) claims to have found the
same worm, although it is not at all evident why he
should think his form identical with Dujardin’s
species. He gives the following characters:
Head is 0.48mm Jong by 0.60mm broad, suckers orbicular 0.20mm
diameter; rostellum short 43 ” in diameter, with a simple crown
of 60 hooks 8 # long; neck 5mm long by 0.15mn: broad; segments
much broader than long; anterior segments 0.33mm to 0.37mm
by 49 » to 50 “, then 1mm by 0.12mm; middle segments 1.5mm
(anterior border) to 1.8mm (posterior border) by 0.6mm. Genital
pores unilateral in anterior third of segment. Penis 36“ by 6
pz. Eggs globular, outer membrane 58 yf to 64 “, inner mem-
brane 30 # to 52 “; hooks of oncosphere 16 /.
30. TAENIA IMBUTIFORMIS Polonio, 1860.
(1898, Mesocestoides imbutiformis (Polonio, 1860) Railliet.)
[Pl. XX, fig. 263.]
Diagnosis: 8mm long, head small, suckers circular. Neck ab-
sent. Posterior portion of strobila thick, anterior segments
linear; following segments bell or funnel shaped; posterior seg-
ments linear bell-shaped. Genital pores situated on one of the
surfaces of the segments. Development: Unknown.
634
Hosts: Wild geese (Anser anser) by Polonio, 1860; von Lin-
stow (1878, p. 155) records it in domesticated ducks (Anas
boschas dom.), but I can not trace his authority.
Geographical distribution: Padua (by Polonio), Polonio is
apparently the only author who has seen this worm.
Polonio (1860A, p. 22) gives the following as original
diagnosis:
3. T. imbutiformis Polonio. Corpus retrorsum incrassatum;
caput minimum; acetabulis orbicularibus anticis; collum
nullum; articuli supremi lineares, posteriores campanulato- im-
butiformes, ultimi campanulati, aperturae genitales laterales
ellipticae. Long, 0.01.
Habitaculum: Anser ferus, in intestinis, Octob. et Nov.
Patavii (Polonio).
Polonio (1860B, p. 121) simply mentions the parasite in hfs
list, and gives a very unsatisfactory figure of the worm. In
this figure a prominent body near the lateral margin is looked
upon as the genital pore. This body has much more the ap-
pearance of a testicle, cirrus pouch, or of a receptaculum
seminis than it has of a genital pore. I am therefore inclined
to doubt very much whether this species is correctly placed by
Railliet (1893, pp. 313-814) in the genus Mesocestoides. Further-
more, the form is altogether too insufficiently described to be
recognizable. The figure shows extreme contraction near the
head.
31. TAENIA MEGALOPS Nitzsch, 1829.
(1825, Taenia anatis marila Creplin.)
[Pl. XX, figs. 264-267.]
Diagnosis: Strobila up to 52mm long by 0.5mm broad proxi-
mally, and 0.75m™m broad distally. Head very large, rather tet-
ragonal, 14mm broad; suckers 0.57m™m to 0.64m™m in diameter;
rostellum absent (?) or not prominent and (?) without hooks.
Anterior segments very short, 12 times as broad as long; pos-
terior segments twice as broad as long, ‘‘narrowed at the base,
spread in form of a bell,” colored yellowish by small longi-
tudinal lines. Genital pores unilateral. Penis smooth, tubu-
lar, 70 # by 23 # “situated on a very prominent and swollen
tubercle.” Ova globular with 2 membranes; outer membrane
47 #, inner 38 u in diameter; oncosphere 32 “, hooks 15 #; the
6385
eggs are scattered through the median portion of the segments.
Development: Unknown.
Hosts: Tame duck (Anas boschas dom.); Brazilian teal (A.
braziliensis); European teal (A. crecca); pintail (Dafila acuta);
white-headed duck (Erismatura leucocephala); tufted duck
(Aythya fuligula); European scaup duck (A, marila); African
teal (A. nyroca).
The chief character for this worm is the large head,
but it seems extremely doubtful whether this should
be taken as the basis of a species. The parasite cer-
tainly can not be recognized with certainty from the
present description, and should be considered as a
doubtful species until some of the original specimens
can be restudied.
32. TAENIA NIGROPUNCTATA Crety, 1890.
[Pl. XX, figs. 268-270.]
Diagnosis: Strobila to 140mm jin length. Head small, 0.382mm
broad; (?) rostellum and hooks absent; suckers 0.166mm by
0.187mm, Neck short, about same breadth as head. Young
segments rectangular, 0.5mm long by 1mm broad; older seg-
ments almost quadrangular, 2mm long by 1.5mm broad; mature
segments 2.5mm to 3mm Jong by 1mm broad. Genital pores ir-
regularly alternate, slightly posterior to the middle of the mar-
gin. Male genitalia: in posterior portion of segment, testicles
12 in number, diameter 58 #, equally distributed at sides of the
uterus; vas deferens convoluted in its lateral portion and in-
flated to vesicula seminalis 0.176mm by 0.098mm within the cirrus
pouch; cirrus pouch pyriform, 0.313mm by 0.137mm, Female
genitalia: Ovary vitellogene gland, shell gland? At anterior
border of the segment a spot is observed in the median line;
from this a median stem runs distally and is divided near the
height of the pore into two portions; the posterior portion, at
least, represents the uterus. Ova 62 uw, with 3 shells; oncos-
phere 46 # by 40 /#; hooks 15 /.
Host: Migratory quail (Coturnix coturnix).
33. TAENIA sp. Conard, MS.
[Pl. XXI, figs. 275-276.]
Mr. Henry 8. Conard (Haverford College) has re-
cently studied some tapeworms from chickens, evi-
636
dently finding more than one species. He has kindly
placed the following abstract of his work upon one
of these forms at my disposal, prior to the publication
of his article.
Head round-conical, somewhat four-angled, broader than
long (0.098mm to 0.136mm Jong; 0.11mm to 0.192mm proad). Aceta-
bula round to elliptical, 0.06mm in diameter, directed slightly
. forward. Neck distinct, terete, 0.5em long. Proglottides trape-
zoidal, broader than long. Genital apertures marginal, always
on the right-hand side of the segment, slightly in front of the
middle. The male organs comprise a tostis; vesicula semina-
lis, cirrus sac and cirrus, vesicula and cirrus being the most
prominent organs of the whole segment. Cirrus very short,
roughened with minute prickles about perpendicular to its sur-
face. Female organs consist of a narrow vagina, large recep-
taculm seminis, and a common ovary and uterus (See von Lin-
stow, 1893). Vagina and cirrus sac are in the same trans-
verse plane and pass dorsal to both longitudinal canals.
Length 35mm; breadth 0.046mm to 0.47m™m; thickness 0.046mm to
0.113mm, Number of segments about 600, becoming as much as
0.39mm Jong. Egg about 0.026mm in diameter; embryos ellip-
soidal, 0.016mm jin diameter; embryo ellipsoidal, 0.016mm by
0.0225mm; hooks about 0.008mm Jong.
Hab: In small intestine of common fowl, shortly back of
gizzard.
Mr. Conard looks upon this form as a species of
Davainea “with unilateral pores,” although he has
not as yet found any hooks upon the head. Final de-
cision regarding the form must be reserved until the
appearance of Mr. Conard’s paper.
FIMBRIARIA Frolich, 1802.
1892, EHpision Linton.)
[Pl. XXI, fig. 271.]
This genus was proposed first by Frolich, and later
by Linton, for tapeworm with an anterior hammer-like
extremity. The scolex is generally (? always) wanting.
Three species F. malleus (Goeze, 1782) Frolich, F. mi-
637
trata, and E. plicatus have been deseribed, but most
authors include them all under the general term Taenia
malleus, which some writers look upon as a patholo
gical condition rather than a distinct species or genus.
34. F. malleus has been recorded from a large nuin-
ber of wild birds as well as from domesticated fowls,
but so far as known it does not play any important
pathogenic role. (See Dujardin, p. 587, for the earlier
literature.)
IDIOGENES Krabbe, 1868.
[Pl. XXI, figs. 272-274.]
The genus Idiogenes with the type and only species
I. otidis was proposed by Krabbe for a tapeworm in
which the scolex is wanting; the anterior segments be-
come ealiciform and function as a pseudo-scolex. (For
an anatomical description see Zschokke, 1889, pp. 114-
127, Pl. IU, figs. 39-47.)
This avian tapeworm had not yet been recorded from
poultry.
ADDENDUM.
During the final proof reading of this paper, I have
received a recent article by Railliet (1896), in which
several new propositions are made concerning certain
parasites mentioned in this report.
Dipylidiinae: The name of the subfamily, Cystoi-
dotaeniae, is changed to Dipylidinae. This change is
in accordance with the International Code and should
be adopted, the word, however, being written Dipyli-
diinae.
Choanotaenia: Railliet proposes a new genus, with
Taenia infundibuliformis Goeze as type, in the follow-
ing words:
638
Le Taenia infundibuliformis Geoeze, que j’avais place prov-
isoirement dans le genre Drepanidotaenia, s’en distingue par
le grand nombre des testicules, et d'une maniere generale par
la constitution de l'appareil reproducteur (Crety). Il merite
done do devenir le type d’un nouveau genre Choanotaenia (de
xsavov entonnoir). Ch. infundibuliformis, intestin de la poule.
(P. 159.)
Although I recognized the great difference in organ.
ization between T. infundibuliformis (as described by
Crety) and the other species of Taenia which have been
placed in Drepanidotaenia, and am inclined to consider
it generically distinct from these worms (see p. 612),
and although I have the highest regard for the opin-
ion of my colleague and for his keen foresight, parti-
cularly in systematic questions, [ prefer to reserve
judgment upon his new genus until its type species
and a few allied forms are more thoroughly under.
stood, especially as it appears to me that T. Infundi-
buliformis, as determined by various authors, is rather
b) d ’
a heterogenous and collective species.
Dicranotaenia sphenoides: Railliet correctly sup-
presses the specific name cuneata Linstow nec Batch
(see p. 595).
EXPLANATION OF CHART.
In the following chart I have given the records of
the tapeworms found in the domesticated poultry and
in the allied wild birds. The sien C signifies that the
parasite is recorded only for domesticated birds, < for
wild birds. © both domesticated and wild birds.
The names of the hosts are given at the left, those
of the parasites at the top. The first row of numbers
refers to the numbers in the A. O. U. check list of
North American birds, the second column of numbers
639
to the corresponding numbers in yon Linstow’s Com-
pendium of Helminthology (1878, 1889).
Por the revision cf the host names I am indebted to
Drs. Fisher and Palmer, of the Division of Ornithology.
As many of the host names used by helminthologists
are not used by modern ornithologists, these gentle-
men have traced out the proper names of the birds in
question from the host names given in helminthologi-
cal articles.
In noting the species of parasites under the various
hosts, it has been extremely, difficult to determine what
records should be accepted and what ones should be
rejected. As nearly all of the older records are based
upon determinations by external form instead of in-
ternal anatomy, I believe the time has come when we
should begin an entirely new series of records of
hosts.!
All records of tapeworms, except in the case of type
specimens where the determination has been made
solely upon external form, should, I believe, be taken
only as approximate and provisional.
ee ee ee
. IThis can easily be accomplished if helminthologists will des-
ignate all new records in some way. In the Revision of the
Adult Cestodes of Cattle, Sheep, and Allied Animals, and also
In my recent article on Fasciola magna, I have commenced
such a new series of host determinations for the parasites of
the domesticated animals by starring (*) the parasites under
each host in those cases where I have examined the species
of parasites from the host in question (or from material said
to have come from that host, as T. denticulata, for instance.
This latter record is, in my opinion, erroneous.)
640
DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.
Plate I, Figs. 1-11.—Cotugnia digonopora.
- Head and neck. x8.
. Head and neck in press preparation. Zeiss 2, A.
. View of armed rostellum, enface, press preparation;
egl., ? glandular cells of rostellum. Zeiss 3, C.
. View of hooks on rostellum. Zeiss 2, 1-12.
5. Side view of isolated hook. Zeiss 3, 1-12.
. Four young segments with genital anlagen. x8.
. Three young segments: d., vas deferens; oOv., ovary.
Zeiss, 1, a3.
. Segments from middle of strobila with organs more
completely developed: d., vas deferens; t., testicles;
tp., cirrus pouch; ov., ovary. Zeiss I, a’.
Fig. 9. Still older segments in which the ‘‘ovaric capsules’
(=egg sacs) are developing: ag., genital pore; Co.,
“ovaric capsules’=egg sacs; d., vas deferens; Ov.,
ovary; p., cirrus; tp., cirrus pouch; v., vagina. Zeiss
1, a3.
Fig. 10. End segments with oncosphere: ag., genital pore; co.,
eggs.
Fig. 11. Longitudinal section of mature segment: co., ‘“‘ovaric
capsules,,—egg sacs; em., oncosphere; ie, eggshell; g.,
eggshell; pr., parenchyma. Zeiss 2, 1-12.
All figures from: Pasquale, 1890, figs. 1-11.
el as =
Daag ei vaNo
Joo ow bo et
2
a
on
Plate II, Figs. 12-29.—Cotugnia bifaria and Amabilia lamelli-
gera.
[Figs. 12-17, Cotugnia bifaria, after Monticelli, 1891, Taf. VIII,
figs. 8-13.]
Fig. 12. Head and anterior segments, greatly enlarged. Mon-
ticelli, fig. 8.
Fig. 18. Young segments, enlarged on same scale. Monticelli,
Aig. 78:
Fig. 14. Middle segments, enlarged on same scale. Monticelli,
fig. 10.
Fig. 15. End segments, enlarged on same scale. Monticelli,
fig. 11.
pe tiiiehe Fan .
= 46 @ Ve ap
' 1 Pee ahe et iiroety,
NPP WROD amy yy
-Out
Fold
Placeholder
This fold-out is being digitized, and will be inserted at
future date.
ee
641
Fig. 16. Segment mounted in glycerine and acetic acid, showing
genital organs; ag., genital pore; df., vas deferens;
ov., Ovary; rse., vesicula seminalis; t., testicles; v..
vagina. Greatly enlarged. Monticelli, fig. 12.
Fig. 17. Armed cirrus, greatly enlarged. Monticelli, fig. 13.
[Figs. 18-20. Amabilia lamelligera. Owen's (1835) original
figures. ]
Fig. 18. Adult strobila, natural size. Owen's ig. 21.
Fig. 19. ‘‘Four segments of the same magnified.” Owen's fig.
22.
Fig. 20. “Longitudinal section of 3 posterior segments, show-
ing the ova collected near the base of the lemniscus.”
Owen's fig. 23.
Plate III, Figs, 21-36.—Dicranotaenia coronula, Dicranotaenia
aequabilis, Dicranotaenia furcigera, and Taenia conica,
[Figs. 21-28. Dicranotaenia coronula: 21-24 after Krabbe, 1869;
25-28 after Mrazek, 1890.]
Fig. 21. Anterior portion of scolex with hooks. x240. After
Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VIII, fig. 216. Host: Domesticated
duck.
Fig. 22. Isolated hook. x920. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VIII, fig.
217.
_ Isolated ovum with oncosphere. x240. After Krabbe,
Tab. VIII, 1869, fig. 218.
Fig.24. Isolated hook. x920. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VIII, fis.
219. From Coll. Siebold. Host: European golden
eye (Glaucionetta clangula).
Fig.
bo
oo
[Figs. 25-28. Cysticercoids from Cypris ovum and C. com-
pressa.
Fig. 25. Fully developed larva, showing the scolex invaginated
in the cyst; and the long tail with the 6 oncospheric
hooks; ex., excretory system: h., cuticle; cu? “pores
of the cuticle’ or ? muscles; hp., hypodermis; p..,
parenchyma of neck, with caleareous corpuscles.
After Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V, fig. 11.
Fig. 26. Another view of a cysticercoid. After Mrazek, 1890,
Tab. V, fig. 12. ‘
Fig. 27. a-c. Isolated hooks. After Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V. fig.
13a-c. 5
41--Il
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig
Pla
642
28a-c. Oncospheric hooks. After Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V. fig.
14a-e.
[Figs. 29-30. Dicranotaenia aequabilis.]
29. Five hooks from the rostellum. x240. After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. VIII, fig. 212, from Rudolphi’s original ma-
terial in the Berlin Museum.
30. Isolated hook from the rostellum. x920. After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. VIII, fig. 213, from specimen in Creplin’s
collection.
\ [Figs. 31-34. Dicranotaenia furcigera.]
1. Isolated hook from the rostellum. x20. After Dujar-
din, 1845, Pl. IX. Fig. A. Host: Wild duck.
. Isolated hook from the rostellum. x920. After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. VIII, fig. 206, from Nitzsch’s original ma-
terial. (See Rudolphi, 1819, p. 528.) Host: Mallard.
. 33. Ovum with oncosphere. x240.. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab.
VIII, fig. 207, from Nitzsch’s original material.
4. Ten hooks on rostellum. x240. After Krabbe, 1869,
Tab. VIII, fig. 205, from material collected in Iceland
in 1863. Host: Mallard.
oo
ow
to
(t)
Fig. 35-26. Taenia conica=? Dicranotaenia furcigera. |
35. Natural size: a, head; b, rostellum; ec, body. After
Molin, Tab. VII, fig. 1.
. 86. Enlarged. After Molin, 1861, Tab. VII, fig. 2.
te IV, Figs. 37-53.—Dicranotaenia sphenoides and Drepani-
dotaenia lanceolata.
Figs. 37-42. Dicranotaenia sphenoides.
. 87. Strobila, natural size. After von Linstow, 1872, Taf.
Ill. fig. 9a, of Taenia cuneata.
. 88. Scolex and anterior segments, enlarged. After von
Linstow, 1872, Taf. III, fig. 9, of T. cuneata.
. 89. Isolated hook from the rostellum. After von Linstow,
1872, Taf. III, fig. 10, T. cuneata.
. 40. Cysticercoid from an earthworm. Koritska, oc. 3, obj.
4. After Grassi & Rovelli, 1892, Tav. IV, fig. 12.
. 41. Transverse section of the same: cav., “cavity of the
gastrula;” cis., cyst; par. est., external wall; par. int.,
internal wall; ros., rostellum: ven., sucker. Koritska.
oc, 3, obj. 7, After Grassj Rovellj, 1392, Tav, IV, fig,
ial
ig: 47.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
- 43.
. 44,
. 45.
- 46.
- 48.
. 49,
. 50.
51.
52.
53.
643
. Three hooks (b, c, and d) from rostellum of T. cuneata;
Koritska, oc. 3, obj. 8; a fourth hook (a) greatly en-
larged. After Grassi & Rovelli, 1892, Tax. IV, fig. 13.
[Figs. 48-53. Drepanidotaenia lanceolata. ]
Original type figure. After Bloch, 1782, Tab. I, fig. 4.
Anterior portion, enlarged. After Bloch, 1782, Tab. I,
fig. 6.
Worm from a goose. Natural size. After Goeze, 1782,
Tab. XXIX, fig. 3.
The eight hooks upon the rostellum. x240. After
Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VI fig. 143.
Two isolated hooks. x920. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab.
VI, fig. 144.
Extruded cirrus. After Feuereisen, 1868, Taf. X, fig. 8.
Cirrus pouch with cirrus. After Feuereisen, 1868, Taf.
figs 9
Isolated segment: a, cirrus pouch; e, testicle; i,
vitellogene gland; k, ovary; m, receptaculum seminis
and vagina. After Feuereisen, 1868, Taf. X, fig. 17.
Some misinterpretations have undouvtedly been made
in th’s figure. The genital system must be restudied.
Head and anterior segments. x100. After Railliet,
1886, fig. 163A; also Railliet, 1893, fig. 195A.
Ovum with oncosphere. x300. After Railliet, 1886, fig.
163B; also Railliet 1893, fig. 195 B.
Head and anterior segments. x100. After Megnin,
1881, Pl. EV, fig. 3.
Plate V, Figs. 54-66.—Drepanidotaenia lanceolata and Drepan-
Fig. 5
Fig.
Fig.
idoteania fasciata.
[Figs. 54-55. Drepanidotaenia lanceolata.]
. Transverse section of segment. x20. After Megnin,
SST ely Way, tiesno:
. Isolated cirrus. x50. After Megnin, 1881, Pl. IV, fig. 7.
[Figs. 56-66. Drepanidotaenia fasciata.]
. Rostellum with 5 of the 8 hooks. x240. After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. VII, fig. 156.
. Isolated hook. x920. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VII, fig.
157.
. Head with extended rostellum possessing § hooks.
After Feuereisen .1868, Taf. X, fig. 1. (‘‘T. setigera”’
=Drep. fasciata.)
644
Fig. 59. Isolated hook. After Feuereisen, 1868, Taf.~X, fig. 2.
(“T. setigera’’—Drep. fasciata.)
Fig. 60. Cirrus pouch. After Feuereisen, 1865, Taf. X, fig. 4.
(‘T. setigera’=Drep. fasciata.)
Figs. 61-62. Cirrus from above and from the side. After
Feuereisen, 1868, Figs. 5, 6. (‘T. setigera’’—Drep.
fasciata.)
Figs. 63-66. Isolated segments: a, cirrus pouch; b, genital pore;
c, testicles; d, cirrus; €, vas deferens and vesicula
seminalis; g, vagina; h, genital cloaca; i, vitellogene
glands; k, ovary; m, receptaculum seminis; n, uterus
(2). After Feuereisen, 1868, Taf. X, figs. 10-13. Feuer-
eisen has probably misintenpreted some of these
organs and they should be restudied.
Plate VI, Figs. 67-76.—Drepanidotaenia fasciata.
Fig. 67. Body of Cyclops agilis, containing a larval tapeworm.
After Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V, fig. 1.
Fig. 68. Larval tapeworm, with enormously long tail, isolated
from the crustacean. After Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V,
fig, 2.
Fig. 69. ( ? Side view.) After Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V, fig. 3.
Fig. 70. Cysticercoid, with anterior portion of the tail. After
Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V, fig. 5.
Figs.71-72. Hooks from, rostellum, greatly magnified. After
Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V, figs. 7-8.
Figs. 73-75. Hooks as seen in position on the rrostellum. After
Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V, figs, 6 and 9a-b.
Fig. 76. After Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V, fig. 10.
Plate VII, Figs. 77-91.—Drepanidotaenia fasciata and Drepani-
dotaenia gracilis.
[Figs. 77-79. Drepanidotaenia fasciata.]
Fig. 77. Cysticercoid with anterior portion of tail. After
Mrazek, 1890, Tab. V ,fig. 4.
Fig. 78. Cysticercoid with extended head; the oncospheric hooks
are still visible in the tail. After Mrazek, 1891, Tab.
Vin tl Sls
Fig. 79. Isolated hook from rostellum. After Mrazek, 1891,
Tab: V.,. fig., 2.
[Figs. 80-91. Drepanidotaenia sracilis.]
Fig 80. ‘‘Taenia collo longissimo.”’ After Bloch, 1872, Taf. IT1,
fig. 3. Is perhaps identical with Drep. gracilis.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
O45
$1. Head of same, enlarged. After Bloch, 1782, Taf. II,
fig. 4.
. $2. Anterior portion of head, showing the arrangement
of the hooks upon the rostellum. x240. After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. VIII, fig. 154.
. 88. Isolated hook. x920. After Krabbe, 1869, fig. 155.
. 84. Strobila, natural size. After von Linstow, 18724,
Taf. XXI, fig. 3. Host: Goosander.
. 85. Head. x90. After von Linstow, 1872A, Taf. XXI, fig. 5.
. 86. Isolated hook. x500. After von Linstow, 1872A, Taf.
Sey ies 2.
. 87. End of proglottid with extruded cirrus. x150. After
von Linstow, 1872A Taf. XXI, fig. 4.
. 88. Head of Taenia gracilis tadornae from the common
sheldrake (Tadorna tadorna). After Lonnberg, 1889,
Pie ees tt
. 89. Free cysticercoid in the perch (Perea fluviatilis). x360.
After von Linstow, 1872A, Pl. XXI, fig. 1.
. 90. Excretory system of the head and neck After Mrazek,
1891, Tab. V, fig. 16. Zeiss 3, D.
. 91. End cell of excretory system. After Mrazek, 1891, Tab.
V, fig. 17. Zeiss 3, F. -
Plate VIII, Figs. 92-99.—Drepanidotaenia gracilis.
92. A cysticercoid in process of development. A differen-
tiation is noticed into the body and the tail, and a
small knob is noticed on the anterior extremity. The
6 oncospheric hooks are present in the tail. After
Mrazek, 1891, Tab. VI, fig. 25.
93. Another stage of the cysticercoid. An invagination is
noticed on the anterior extremity; the middle portion
of the body is occupied by a cavity filled with a
spongy tissue. After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. VI, fig. 26.
g. 94. Cysticercoid with the anterior portion of the tail: h.,
peripheral hyaline layer; e., excretory canals; pr.,
vibratory cells (see Pl. VII, fig), ‘‘Pronephriostomes.”
Zeiss 3, D. After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. V. fig. 13.
. 9. Normal form of hook. Zeiss 3, F. After Mrazek, 1891,
Tab. V, fig. 14.
Figs. 96-98. Three hooks, with variously arranged chitin. Zeiss
Fig.
3, D. After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. V, fig. 15a-c.
99. A cysticercoid with extended head: r., rostellum; c.,
eyst: pr., tail with oncospheric hooks. Zeiss 1, D.
After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. VI, fig. 18.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
646
Plate IX, Figs. 100-111.—Drepanidotaenia anatina.
100 Rostellum with 5 of the 10 hooks. x240, After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. VI, fig. 114.
101. Isolated hook. x920. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VI, fig.
115.
102. Ovum. x240. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VI, fig. 116.
103. Transverse section of a portion of one segment, to
show the anatomy: h., testicles; vd., vas deferens;
bk., fertilization canal; ut., uterus; lm., longitudinal
muscles; s. bl., vesicula seminalis; gz., ganglion cells;
Pp. s., praeputial sac; c., cirrus; cb., cirrus pouch; I.
k., longitudinal canals; (Small dorsal canal; large
ventral canal); r. sem., receptaculum seminis; ov.,
ovary; eig., oviduct; d. st., vitellogene gland; d. g.,
vitello-duct; sch. dr., shell gland; af., canal of same.
After Schmidt, 1894, Taf. VI, Fig. C.
104. Ovum with oncosphere. After Schmidt, 1894, Taf. VI,
_ ke, ah
105. The oncosphere has developed into a round mass in
which a cavity appears. After Schmidt, 1894, Taf.
Wa eter 2.
106. Stage in which the round mass has become elongate;
ebl., terminal vesicle. After Schmidt, 1894, Taf. VI,
fig. 3.
107. Stage with anlage of the rostellum and suckers; the
body has become constricted into the scolex, cyst,
and tail; the excretory system is partly developed.
After Schmidt, 1894, Taf. VI, fig. 4.
108. Transverse section in the second period of develop-
ment. After Schmidt, 1894, Taf. VI, Fig. a.
. 109. Longitudinal section of a later stage of the second
period of development. After Schmidt, 1894, Taf. VI,
Big. ‘b.
. 110. Extended ecysticercoid; s., anterior point of rostellum;
r., rostellum; ex., excretory organ; h, r., posterior
rostellum sac., ebl., terminal vesicle. After Schmidt,
1894, Taf. VI, Fig. B.
. 111. Two isolated hooks from the rostellum. After Mrazek,
1891, Tab. VI, fig. 20.
647
Plate X, Figs. 112-124b.—Drepanidotaenia anatina and Drepani-
dotaenia sinuosa,
[Figs. 112-115. Drepanidotaenia anatina.]
Fig. 112. Cysticercoid with anterior portion of the tail: rm.,
circular muscles; p., (third), parenchymatic layer;
h., fourth layer=neck; hr., posterior rostellum sac;
r., rostellum; ex., excretory system. After Schmidt,
1894, Taf. VI, Fig. A.
Fig.113. Cysticercoid with anterior portion of the tail; h., peri-
pheral layer; ku., cuticle; vl!., muscular fibers; pchl.,
paranchymatic layer; vl2., second layer of fibers;
peh2., internal paranchymatie layer (=neck) with
calcareous corpuscles (vy); e., excretory apparatus;
pr., caudal appendage; j., nuclei of cells in the tail;
he., hooks of oncosphere. Zeiss 3, D. After Mrazek,
19917 Tabe Vi, iz: 19:
Fig. 114. Isolated young hook. After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. VI.
fig. 21.
Fig. 115. Ten hooks taken from the outline of cyst of cysticer-
coid, showing the hooks in position on the rostellum.
After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. VI, fig. 22.
[Figs. 116-124b. Drepanidotaenia sinuosa. ]
Fig. 116. A young worm, natural size. After Zeder, 1800, Tab.
1iI, fig. 5.
Fg. 117. Distal end of a young worm enlarged. a, b, two knobs.
After Zeder, 1800, Tab. III, fig. 6.
Fig. 118. An adult worm, natural size. After Zeder, 1800, Tab.
TE tis. 7:
Fig. 119. Short segments enlarged. After Zeder, 1800, Tab. IIT,
fig. 8.
Fig. 120. Scolex enlarged: f, the long rostellum with hooks; c
ce, d d, suckers; a a, b b, neck. After Zeder, 1800,
Tab. III, fig. 9.
Fig. 121. Two large segments, enlarged: a a, b b, the “vermi-
form sacs; c ec, cirri; d, posterior corners of the
segments. After Zeder, 1800, Tab. III, fig. 10.
Fig. 122. Isolated eggs, enlarged. After Zeder, 1800, Tab. IIT,
feel.
Fig. 123. Rostellum of Drep. sinuosa x240. After Krabbe, 1869,
Tab. VII, fig. 151.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
648
124. Two isolated hooks. x920. a, from a parasite in the
domesticated duck; b, from a parasite in the mal-
lard. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VII, fig. 152a-b.
Plate XI, Figs. 125-139.—Drepanidotaenia sinuosa.
* 125. Segment with genital organs and extruded cirrus.
x35. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. VII, fig. 153.
. 126. Bloch’s original figure of ‘‘Taenia collari nigro,’” from
the domesticated duck; possibly identical with Drep.
sinuosa. After Bloch, 1782, Taf. IV, fig. 11.
. 127. Anterior portion of the same, enlarged. After Bloch,
1782, Taf. IV, fig. 12.
. 128. Segments from the middle of the same, enlarged.
After Bloch, 1782, Taf. IV, fig. 13.
. 129. Cirrus. x210: After Dujardin, 1845, Pl. 9, Fig. D.
Host: Goose.
. 180. A cyclops viridis containing 3 cysticercoids of Drep.
sinuosa: ve., eggs. Zeiss 3, A. After Mrazek, 1891.
Mabe Wis) Hes
. 131. Isolated cysticercoid, to show the proportional sizes
of the cyst and the tail. Zeiss 3, A. After Mrazek,
1891, Tab. V, fig. 8.
. 182. Isolated hook, greatly enlarged. Zeiss 3, F. After
Mrazek, 1891, Tab. V. fig. 10.
. 183a-c. Young stages of hooks. Zeiss 3, F. After Mrazek,
1891, Tab. V, fig. 11.
. 134. Two isolated hooks of a cysticercoid which otherwise
corresponds in fonm to Drep. sinuosa. The form and
size (35 u) of these hooks resemble those of Drep.
setigera. Zeiss 3, F. After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. V, fig.
12.
135. Cysticercoid with anterior portion of tail, drawn from
life. Zeiss 3, D. After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. V, fig. 9.
136. Two isolated hooks from fully developed scolex of
cysticercoid. Zeiss 3, F. After Hamann, 1889, Taf.
I, fig. 9.
. 187. The 10 hooks of the rostellum in position.Zeiss 3, F.
After Hamann, 1889, Taf. I, fig. 10.
. 138. Caleareous corpuscles from the parenchyma of the
scolex. Zeiss 3, F. After Hamann, 1889, Taf. if
fig. 11.
. 1389. A hook of the oncosphere from the tail of a eysticer-
coid, After Hamann, 1889, Taf. I, fig. 12.
GAD
Plate XII, Figs. 140-152.—Drepanidotaenia sinuosa, Drepani-
dotaenia setigera, and Taenia Krabbei Kowalewski nec
Moniez.
[Figs. 140-146. Drepanidotaenia sinuosa.]
Wigs. 140-142. Three successive stages in the development of the
cysticeroid in Gummarus pulex. Zeiss 1, A. After
Hamann, 1889, Taf. I, figs. 4, 5, 6.
Fig. 148. Median longitudinal section through fig. 140. Zeiss 4,
A. After Hamann, 1889, Taf. I, fig. 7.
Fig. 144. Median longitudinal section through a stage nearly
corresponding to fig. 142. Zeiss 4, 4. After Hamann,
1889, Taf. I. fig. 8.
Fig. 145. Fully developed cysticercoid, surrounded by its tail,
s, and a cyst h. Zeiss 3, A. After Hamann, 1889,
Tenie., 1.
Fig. 146. The same without surrounding cyst. Zeiss 3, A.
After Hamann, 1889, Taf. I, fig. 3.
[Figs. 147-150. Drepanidotaenia setigera.]
Vig. 147. Seolex with 6 of the 10 hooks. x240. After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. VI, fig. 117. Host: Domesticated goose.
Fig. 148. Isolated hook of same. x920. After Krabbe, 1869,
Tab. Vi, fig. 118.
Fig. 149. Isolated hook from Rudolphi’s 1819, p. 700B, ‘“‘Taenia
Tab. VI, fig. 120.
sinuosa’’—Drep. setigera. x920. After Krabbe, 1869,
Fig. 150. Cirrus. x240. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. WI, fig. 119.
[Figs. 151-152. Taenia Krabbei Kowalewski nec Moniez.]
Fig. 151. Two isolated hooks of a tapeworm, which Krabbe
(1869, p. 290) found in a goose and determined as “T.
setigera?;’ this form has since been described as T.
Krabbei by Kowalewski, 1895. x920. After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. VI, fig. 121.
Fig. 152. Two isolated hooks from T. Krabbei Kowalewski, 1895
[mee Moniez, 1879.] x1000. After Kowalewski, 1895,
Tab. VIII, fig. 27.
Plate XIII, Figs 153-164.—Drepanidotaenia sinuosa and Drep-
anidotaenia setigera.
Fig. 153. Drepanidotaenia sinuosa. Cysticercoid with anterior
portion of tail; a, b, c, d, layers of the cuticle.
Glycerine preparation. Zeiss I, D. After Hamann,
1889, Taf. I, fig. 2. Host: Gammarus pulex.
650
[Figs. 154-164. Drepanidotaenia setigera. |
Fig. 154. Adult worm, natural size. After Frolich, 1789, Tab.
DV, edig, 1
Fig. 155. Head of same, enlarged, with (a) rostellum and (b)
suckers. After Frolich, 1789, Tab. 1V, fig. 2.
Fig. 156. Three young segments of same, greatly enlarged.
i After Frolich, 1789, Tab. IV, fig. 3.
Fig. 157. Six segments from posterior end, enlarged, with (a)
extruded or (b) partly extruded cirri. After Frolich,
1789, Tab. IV, fig. 4.
igs. 158-160. Three isolated segments with genital organs: a,
cirrus pouch; c, testicles; e, vas deferens with vesi-
cula seminalis; g, vagina; i, vitellogene gland; k,
ovary; m, receptaculum seminis. After Feuereisen,
1868, Taf, X, figs. 14, 15, 16, of “Taenia fasciata.”
Fig. 161. Hook from scolex. After Feuereisen, 1868, Taf. X,
fig. 3. ’
Fig. 162. Transverse section of segment: p., cirrus; v., vagina;
1. m., longitudinal muscles; k., excretory (longitu-
dinal) canals; ov., ovary. Hartnack2, 2. After
Lonnberg, 1889, Taf. I, fig. 7.
Fig. 163. Cysticercoid, with very long tail, from Cyclops brevi-
caudatus. After von Linstow, 1892B, fig. 1.
Fig. 164. Hook from the same. After von Linstow, 1892, fig. 2.
Plate XIV, Figs. 165-186.—Drepanidotaenia tenuirostris and
Drepanidotaenia infundibuliformis.
[Figs. 165-172. Drepanidotaenia tenuirostris. |
Fig. 165. Cysticercoid with tail. x825. After Hamann, 1889,
Fig. A. From the body cavity of Gammarus pulex.
Fig. 166. Caleareous corpuscles of same. x800. After Hamann,
1889, Fig. B.
Fig. 167. Hooks from the rostellum. x800. After Hamann,
1889, Fig. C.
Fig. 168. Cysticercoid with long tail. Zeiss 3, A. After Mrazek,
1891, Tab. V, fig. 3.
Fig. 169. Cysticercoid with anterior portion of tail. Zeiss 3, D.
After Mrazek, 1891, Tab. V, fig. 4.
Fig. 170. Two hooks of same. Zeiss 3, F. After Mrazek, 1891,
Tab: V, fig. ~5.
Fig. 171. The same, greatly magnified. After Mrazek, 1891,
Tab: Vi fies 6:
Fig. 172. Very young stage of cysticercoid of Drep. tenuirostris
(?). The oncospheric hooks are preserved. After
Mrazek, 1891, Tab. VI, fig. 24.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig,
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
651
[Figs. 172-186. Drepanidotaema infundibuliformis. |
173, Goeze’s original figure of worm, natural size. After
Goeze, 1782, Tab. XXXI, A, fig. 1.
174. Head of same, enlarged, showing hooks and suckers.
After Goeze, 1782, Tab. XXXI, A, fig. 2.
175. Posterior segments, enlarged. After Goeze, 1782, Tab.
XXXI, A. fig. 3.
176. Posterior segments with eggs, enlarged. After Goeze,
1782, Tab. XXXI, A, fig. 4.
177. Eggs, enlarged. After Goeze, 1782, Tab. XXXI, A,
heads
178. An inverted piece of chicken’'s intestine, with numer-
ous tapeworms attached. After Goeze, 1782, Tab.
XXXI, A, fig. 6.
. Seolex with hooks. x240. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab.
X, fig. 287.
180a-c. Three isolated hooks. x920. Fig. 180c from Kuch-
enmeister’s collection. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. X,
fig. 288a-c.
181. Cirrus. x240. After Krabbe, 1869. Tab. X, fig. 289.
182. Egg. x240. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. X, fig. 290.
183. Head of “T. infundibulum.” x80. After Cobbold,
1859, Pl. LXIII, fig. 25.
184. Rostellum. After Crety, 1890, fig. 5.
185. Isolated hooks. After Orety, 1890, fig. 6.
186. Mature egg. After Crety, 1890, fig. 8.
=]
o
Plate xO Figs 187-198.—Drepanidotaenia infundibuliformis and
V
Davainea proglottina.
[Figs. 187-193. Drepanidotaenia infundibuliformis.]
. 187. Bloch’s ‘“‘Taenia articulis convideis.” After Bloch,
1782, Tab: ILI, fig. 1.
;. 188. Head of same, enlarged. After Bloch, 1782, Tab. IIT,
fig. 2.
. 189. Transverse section of mature proglottid. After Crety,
1890, fig. 15.
. 190. Part of a longitudinal section of the larval stage from
the body cavity of a fly: cav., “cavity of the gas-
trula;” lac., ‘primitive cavity; sco., scolex; ven.,
sucker. Koritski 8, 8. After Grassi & Rovelli, 1892,
Tav. IV, fig. 14.
ig. 191. Cysticercoid partly extended: par. int., internal wall;
par. est., external wall; sco., scolex. Koritska, 3, 4.
After Grassi & Rovelli, 1892, Tav. IV, fig. 15.
Vig.
B hse.
- 193.
; 194,
652
Anterior extremity of fig. 191. Koritski, 3, 8 After
Grassi & Rovelli, 1892, fig. 16.
Segments from Rudolphi’s specimen of ‘‘Taenia in-
fundibuliformis” in Otis tarda. After Krabbe, 1868,
Tab. III, fig. 5. See text p. 44.
[Figs. 194-198. Davainea proglottina.]
Adult worm: g., Ovary; p., cirrus pouch; r., recepta-
culum seminis; t., testicle; v., vagina; vi., vitello-
gene gland. x95. After R. Blanchard, 189B, fig. 4.
. Head of same with extended rostellum and one partly
detached segment. After R. Blanchard, 1891B, fig. 5.
. Head with retracted rostellum; the first segment is
forming from the neck. After R. Blanchard, 1891B,
fig. 6.
197a-b. Three isolated hooks: a, from rostellum; b, suckers.
After R. Blanchard, 1891B, fig. 7.
Fig. 198. Isolated egg. After R. Blanchard, 1891B, fig. 8.
Plate XVI, Figs. 199-211.—Davainea proglottina and Davainea
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig. ¢
Fig. 2
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
200.
201.
205.
206.
circumvallata.
[Figs. 199-202. Davainea proglottina.]
. Cysticercoid, in which the oncospheric hooks are still
visible: ros., rostellum; ven., suckers; Koritska 3, 8.
After Grassi & Rovelli, 1892, Tav. IV, fig. 7. (Fresh
specimen.)
The same, preserved: boc., opening of the cysticercoid;
cav., “cavity of the gastrula;’ lac., ‘primitive
lacune;”’ sco., scolex. Koritska, 3, 8. After Grassi
& Rovelli, 1892, Tav. IV, fig. 8.
Longitudinal section: boec.. opening of cysticercoid;
cav., “cavity of the gastrula;’’ sco., scolex. Hart-
nack, 2, 7. After Grassi & Rovelli, 1892, Tav. IV,
fig. 9.
2. Young cysticercoid: ven., sucker; cod., tail. Koritska,
3, 5. After Grassi & Rovelli, 1892, Tav. IV, fig. 10.
[Figs. 203-211. Davainea circumyallata.]
- Ovum. x240. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. X, fig. 295.
204.
Head and neck: pr., rostellum; r, line of hooks; v,
sucker; c, neck. After Crety, 1890, fig. 9.
Hook from rostellum. After Crety, 1890, fig. 10.
Ovum. After Crety, 1890, fig. 11.
653
Fig. 207. Frontal section of side of segment, through the cirrus
pouch and vagina: ci., cirrus; va., vagina; sg., geni-
tal sinus; sb., cells of subcuticula. After Crety,
1890, fig. 12.
Fig. 208. Longitudinal section through egg sac: m, external cap-
sule; c, granular content; ov., ovum. After Crety,
1890, fig. 13.
Fig. 209. Scolex of “T. pluriuncinata.” x ca. 50. a, hook from
rostellum; b, hook from sucker; pr., rostellum; v,
sucker; s, head; c, neck. After Crety, 1890, fig. 4.
Fig. 210. Ovum of same. After Crety, 1890, fig. 7.
Fig. 211. Frontal section of segment of same: cl., ventral canal;
et., transversecanal; ur., egg sacs. After Crety, 1890,
fig. 14.
Plate XVII, Figs, 212-227— Davainea cesticillus, Davainea
echinobothrida, and Davainea tetagona.
[Figs. 212-216. Davainea cesticillus.]
Fig. 212. Strobila. After Molin, 1861, Pl. VI, fig. 10.
Fig. 213. Anterior portion of same, and two posterior segments
(middle portion of worm ff, omitted): A, head; b,
ring surrounding the rostellum; ec, rostellum; 4d,
sucker; E, anterior portion of segmented body; ff,
dotted line of omitted segments; GG, two posteiror
segments; h, extruded pen‘s: i, vulva. After Molin,
1861, Pl. VI, fig. 11.
Fig. 214. Hook from rostellum of Dujardin’s “T. infundibuli-
formis Goeze."’ x210. After Dujardin, 1845, Pl. TX,
Migs HE. 2:
Fig. 215. Hook from rostellum. x920. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab.
ax, fig. 293;
Fig. 216. Ovum. x240. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab. X, fig. 294.
[Figs. 217-218. Davainea echinobothrida.]
Fig. 217. Strobila, natural size. After Megnin, 1881A, Pl. V,
Hel.
Fig. 218a-d. Head with appendages: a, head anid neck: b,
armature of suckers; c, hook from sucker; d, hook
rostellum. After Megnin, 1881A, Pl. V, fig. 2.
[Figs. 219-227. Davainea tetragona.]
Fig. 219. Head D, with rostellum (a) and suckers (c), followed
by neck (E). Enlarged. After Molin, 1861, Tav. VII,
fig. 6.
654
Fig. 220. Three posterior segments A. showing genital pores (c)
and egg sacs (b). England. After Molin, 1861, Tav.
Vit, “fig: 7:
Fig. 221. Isolated egg sac with (a) transparent membrane; b,
granular substance; c, embryo in ovum (d). En-
larged. After Molin, 1861, Tab. VII, fig. 8. ;
Figs. 222-223. Head and neck showing armed rostellum and
armed suckers. x35. After Krabbe, 1882, Tab. II,
figs. 55, 56. From material collected by Fedtschenko
in Turkestan.
Fig. 224. Hook from rostellum of same. x920. After Krabbe,
1882, Tab. II, fig. 59.
Fig. 225. A segment showing two longitudinal canals, several
testicles, vas deferens cirrus pouch and genital pore.
x35. After Krabbe, 1882, Tab. II, fig. 57.
Fig. 226. Posterior segment, showing genitl pore and egg sacs.
x35. After Krabbe, 1882, Tab. II, fig. 58.
Fig. 227. Female genital organs: vg., vagina; rs., receptaculum
seminis; bd trsy., transverse collecting canal; cl. ov.,
opening of the ovarian tubules; c. s., seminal canal;
ovd., disc., descending oviduct; glv., vitellogene
gland; vt. ld., vitello-duct; ovd. asc., ascending ovi-
duct; sb. ovd., opening of the ascending oviduct; sbe.
vtld., opening of the vitello-duct; ootp., ootyp with
shell gland. After Diamare, 1893, fig. 4.
Plate XVIII, Figs. 228-246.—Davainea tetragona, Davainea
Friedbergeri and Davainea crassula,
[Figs. 228-235. Davainea tetragona.]
Figs. 228-229. Supposed larvae of ‘“‘Taenia bothrioplitis’’ (—Da-
vainea tetragona) from a_ snail (Helix). Treated
with acetic acid. After Piana 1882, Figs. F, 8, A.,
and F, 8, B, reduced.
Fig. 230. Piece of the intestine of a fowl showing the nodules
(reduced one-third). After Moore, 1895, fig. la.
Fig. 231. The mucosa of the intestine showing ulcerated areas;
also several small and one larger tapeworm attached
to the intestine (reduced one-third). After Moore,
1895, fig. 1b.
Fig. 232. A cross section of the intestine illustrating the thick-
ening of the wall, due to a parge number of the
nodules; also a portion of a tapeworm which has
penetrated the mucors membrane (enlarged). After
Moore, 1885, fig. le
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
655
233. A cross section of a nodule conta:ning a sequestrum
Situated in the outer or longitudinal muscular layer
(circular layer of the muscular wall not affected).
After Moore, 1895, fig. 2a.
234. A section showing a tapeworm and a necrotic mass
w:thin the muscular wall. After Moore, 1895, fig. 2b.
235. A portion of a cross section of the intestine showing
the head of a tapeworm within the muscle and one
lying between the villi with its head resting on the
basement membrane of the mucosa. Enlarged.
After Moore, 1895, fig. 2c.
[Figs. 236-242. Davainea Friedbergeri.]
236. Hook from rostellum. After Friedberger, 1877, fig.1.
237. Hooks from the suckers. After Friedberger, 1877,
fig. 2.
238. Hook of oncosphere. After Friedberger, 1877, fig. 3.
Fig.239. “T. infundibuliformis var. pharisarum,” seu “T
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
agama’—? Davainea Friedbergeri. Natural size.
After Megnin, 1878, Pl. IV, fig. 1.
240. View of head of same. en face, showing armed rostel-
lum and 4 armed suckers. x120. After Megnin, 1878,
PES; fle. 4.
- 241. Hook from rostellum of same. x725. After Megnin,
1878, Pl. IV, fig. 4.
242. Segments of same species. x20. After Megnin, 1878,
Pl. IV, fig. 4.
[Figs. 243-246. Davainea crassula. |
243.“Eggs’”’ (—Ege sacs) magnified. After Rudolphi, 1819,
Tab. III, fig. 19.
244. Hook from rostellum. x920. After Krabbe, 1869, Tab.
X, fig. 301, From Rudolphi’s original specimens.
245. Anterior end of worm, showing rostellum and twce
suckers. x35. After Krabbe, 1882, Tab. II, fig. 66.
From material collected in Turkestan by Fedts-
chenko.
246. Hook from rostellum of same. x920. After Krabbe,
1869, Tab. II, fig. 67.
Plate XIX, Figs. 247-255.—Echinocotyle Rosseteri and Ophryo-
Fig.
eotyle proteus.
[Figs. 247-251. Echinocotyle Rosseteri.]
247. Strobila. x120. After R. Blanchard, 1891B, fig. 1.
Fig. 248. Head with extended rostellum. x500. After R. Blan-
chard, 1891B, fig. 2.
Fig. 249a-b. Hooks: a, from rostellum, x400; b, from sucker,
x2,500. After R. Blanchard, 1819B, fig. 3.
Fig. 250. Isolated segment: 1, evaginated cirrus with spines; 2,
genital tubercle; 3, orifice of same with sphincter;
4, cirrus pouch, with ring of minute sharp spines;
5, seminal canal; 6, mass of spermatozoa. x600.
After Rosseter, 1892, Pl. XXIII, fig. 8.
Fig. 251. Cysticercoid taken from the body cavity of Cypris
cinerea; a hooks on rostellum; b, hooks on suckers.
x360. After Rosseter, 1892, Pl. XXII, fig. 1.
Figs. 252-255. Ophryocotyle proteus. After Friis, 1869, taken
from R. Blanchard, 1891B, fig. 20.
Fig. 252. Strobila.
Fig. 253. Head and neck with retracted infundibulum.
Fig. 254. Head and neck with extended infundibulum.
Fig. 255. Sucker with armature.
Plate XX, Figs. 256-269.—Taenia cantanian, Taenia Delafondi,
Taenia imbutiformis, Taenia megalops, and Taenia nigrop-
unctata.
Fig. 256. Taenia cantania: a, head; b, suckers; c, organ taken
by Polonio for the ‘“‘genital pore?’’; d, well-developed
eggs. After Polonio, 1860, Tav. VII fig. 2.
[Figs. 257-262.—Megnin’s (1891, Figs. A-F.) figures of ‘‘Taenia
sphenocephala’’—Railliet’s Taenia Delafondi.]
Fig. 257. Strobila natural size.
Fig. 258. Head and neck. x60.
Fig. 259. Three sexually segments. x14.
Fig. 260. Eggs. x3875.
Fig. 261. Isolated oncosphere.
Fig. 262. Segmenting egg.
Fig. 268. Taenia imbutiformis: a, suckers; b., middle portion;
ce, caudal portion; d, “genital pores’ (?). After
Polonio, 1860, Tav. VII, fig. 3.
[Fig. 264-267.—Taenia megalops from Brazilian teal (Anas
braziliensis). Coll. Vienna Museum.]
Fig. 264. Strobila natural size. Original.
Figs. 265-267. Three views of head, enlargea. Original.
PEATE ell
I.
l=1!, COTUGNIA DIGONOPORA.
Pel
ea
3),
37-42, DICRANOTAINIA SPHENOIDES.
43-53, DREPANIDOT4ENIA LANCEOLATA.
PEATE 7
Yavavevalaye
-
So 916e8
52
me Oat
ADT = ome One
9 ea
: * 54-55, DREPANIDOT4ENIA LANCEOLATA.
: 56-66. DREPANIDOT4ENIA FASCIATA.
67-76, DREPANIDOTANIA FASCIATA.
“
EASES lies
z ESP S
100-IIl. DREPANIDOTAENIA ANATINA.
PLATE se
3 118.
AB ae
9 y @., ow
2-115. DRES NIDOTAENIA ANATINA.
16-124. DREPANIDOTANIA SINUOSA.
‘
PEATE XI:
X|
he
Sd /
; CMT, TTT Ta TTT
125-139. DREPANIDOTAZENIA SINUOSA.
PLATE Vill.
gle ='S\S), DREPANIDOTAENIA GRACES:
oe oe
wi ~
rs os
PEATE Will:
De aly
<
=i
Sa
Se SSS Se SAE Tete om ene ea
> 2
sa,
aN ay
S
So)
TC
77-79, DREPANIDOTAENIA FASCIATA. 80-91, DREPANIDOTANIA GRACILIS.
34
2!-28, DICRANOT4ENIA CORONULA. 31-34 DICRANOTANIA FURCIGERA.
29-30, DICRANOTAENIA ZEQUABILIS. 35-36,TZNIA CONICA.
PLATE
18-20, AMABILIA LAMELLIGERA.
12-17. COTUGNIA BIFARIA.
a
Gi
fy re
i (2
FA aes
al >
Hl fom
H ae
it (=
f 1s
Ky (omeTl
t =)
a eal
i ay
is
JL a
PUA.
OTT
CACO
wee
cede
|
|
a oe
(cee
Voor
i
{
ha
mc
{
i}
- Le
( (
iS
i
i
raquaee
=
ee aan
7]
mE Sve
ISI
ea
i
et
IK)5}.
| IDE.
187-193.DREPANIDOTANIA INFUNDIBULIFORMIS.
194-198. DAVAINEA RG KGLiO ma TIN VAY.
“
Ny dagiss 9
Ae ron 1 | |
NB
|
CEE
PRON A) \\
\\
O11,
Me
A (
199-202.DAVAINEA PROGLOTTINA. 203-211. DAVAINEA CIRCUMVALLATA.
Oe
_
i
=
ne
i.
_ ae
RATE Oiliir
140-146. DREPANIDOTAENIA SINUOSA. 147-150. D(REPANIDOTANIA SETIGERA.
IS5|-I52.TA NIA KRABBEI KOWALEWSKI.
PISA = XOG
-
256, TANIA CANTANIANA 257-26e. TENIA DELAFONDI.
e63. TENIA IMBUTIFORMIS. 264-267 TENIA MEGALOPS.
268-270, TENIA NIGROPUNCTATA.
é
PEATE XXII.
276.
e7!|, FIMBRIARIA MALLEUS. 272-274, IDIOGENES ORDIS:
275-276, TENIA SP OF CONARD.
‘
iA 49; - ~" cult
a. :
| -
. yi
ws 7 A
: .
U t
' -
:
C
13
r
7 GAS
! *
‘
t oe
a
i
ca
¢
‘aia
i
i
ye
2
ai¢
a
aan
a
; ied
*.
f
ie
my \ 2 i®
i
i] 2
ee
PEATE vill:
clo
226.
212-216, DAVAINEA CESTICILLUS. 217-218, DAVAINEA ECHINOBOTHRIDA.
219-227, DAVAINEA TETRAGONA
PISA Vite
DS
228-235 DAVAINEA TETRAGONA 236-242, DAVAINEA FRIEDBERGERI.
243-246, DAVAINEA CRASSULA.
Dal
is
PEATE Sloe
247-251, ECHINOCOTYLE ROSSETERI. 252-255, OPHRYOCOTYLE PROTEUS.
PEAKE XIN:
Sees 22 Zs as oe
Le BEPC ay
s Sak ALAY
rein
i
||
i
~
Mann
Litt]
e
PW adr node rss sy”
153. DREPANIDOTAENIA SINUOSA. 154-164.DREPANIDOTANIA SETIGERA.
phe
PEATE xIM
=i]
Las
GOSS
ye
ny |
JR
165-172 DREPANIDOTAENIA TENUIROSTRIS.
173-186.DREPANIDOTANIA INFUNDIBULIFORMIS.
657
[Figs. 268-270. Taenia nigropunctata. After-Crety, 1890.]
Fig. 268. Head: v, sucker; c, neck. After Crety, 1890, fig. 3.
Fig. 269. Isolated segment: 1, eggs; m, ovary; p, genital pore;
u, uterus. After Crety, 1890, fig. I.
Fig. 270. Egg with oncosphere. After Crety, 1890, fig. 2.
Plate XXI, Figs. 271-274.—Taenia malleus, Idiogenes otidis and
Taenia sp. Conard, MS.
Fig. 271. Taenia malleus, head and anterior segments. After
Goeze, 1782, Tab. XXX, fig. 3.
[Figs. 272-274. Idiogenes otidis.]
Fig. 272. Pseudoscolex and anterior portion of strobila. The
first four segments form the pseudoscolex. After
Zschokke, 1888, Pl. III, fig. 39.
Pig. 273. Segment with male and female organs: cd., vas defer-
ens; c. e., vas efferens; ci., cirrus; t., testicles; f. d.
v., end of vagina (receptasulum seminis); gl. g.,
ovary; gl. v., vitellogene gland; va., vagina. After
Zschokke, 1888, Pl. III, fig. 42.
Fig. 274. Segment with developed uterus: cap. ut., superior
uterine. cavity; c. d., vas deferens; p. d. ¢., cirrus
pouch; va., vagina After Zschokke, 1888, Pl. III. fig.
46.
[Figs. 275,276. Two diagrams of Taenia sp. from chickens.
After Conard, unpublished.]
Fig. 275. Dorsal view; fig. 276, transverse section: n., nerve; a.
c., dorsal canal; v. c., ventral canal; t. c., transverse
canal; g. c., genital cloaca with pore; c., cirrus; c.
p., cirrus pouch; v. s., vesicula seminalis; t., testicle:
ut., “probably uterus” (or testicle?); v., vagina: r. s.,
receptaculum seminis; ov., probably ovary; s. ¢
iS
probably shell gland; 1. m., longitudinal muscles.
42-1]
CHAPTER VIII.
SOME EGGS.
The five accompanying plates contain twenty-nine
figures of eggs, natural size, of the following species,
all of which occur in Pennsylvania as natives:
PLATE I.
SHARP-SHINNED Hawk.
BARN OWL.
SCREECH OWL.
GREAT HORNED Owt.
SPARROW Hawk.
PLATE II.
MarsH Hawk.
RED-TAILED HAWK.
ComMMON Crow.
PLATE IIT.
CooPrErR’s Hawk.
BARRED OWL.
BLUE Jay.
LonG-EARED OWL.
PLATE IV.
BROAD-WINGED HAwk.
GOSHAWK.
RED-SHOULDERED Hawk.
? SAw-WHET OwL.
PLATE V.
TURKBY BUZZARD.
BALD EAGLE.
Duck Hawk.
et
Ayes ele
SCREECHTOMWIE
BARN OWL.
GREAT HORNED OWL
SPARROW HAWK SPARROW HAWK
FASE
MARSH HAWK.
RED-TAILED HAWK. RED-TAILED HAWK
AMERICAN CROW. AMERICAN CROW.
-
.
ae
7
om & :
1
_
Dai
@
-
PEATE “Wilt,
COOPER'S HAWK. COOPERS HAWK.
BLUE JAY: BLUE JAY
AMERICAN LONG-EARED OWL.
ean NY
BROAD-WINGED HAWK.
BROAD-WINGED HAWK.
RED -SHOULDERED HAWK.
SAW-WHET OWL.
“ ey, 3
weir 4, rie
or nae’ =
= 4 _ = ay
: ‘>.
ies
*
s
“
>. 7 a
.f
PEATE
TURKEY BUZZARD TURKEY BUZZARD
BALD EAGLE
BSIWICK IHIAW Ke: DUCK HAWK.
659
The many changes of plamage which birds have are
fully explained in former chapters, and as there are,
with certain species, great variations in their eggs
nest will sometimes contain eges wholly different in
markings—it has been deemed best to show how
marked these variations are with several of our com-
mon birds. The author is very greatly indebted to
Messrs. Ward. of Rochester, New York, for having
a
kindly selected and loaned from their collection the
specimens from which the accompanying illustrations
have been made.
660
CHAPTER IX.
THE DESTRUCTION OF NOXIOUS ANIMALS.
This chapter contains several papers which deal
with a number of subjects of especial interest. The
Bounty Records given here, although unfortunately
not complete, are without doubt more accurate than
any which have been printed or ever can be published
in connection with the notorious bounty act of 1885.
This statement is made because in a number of coun-
ties the records were destroyed after the data given
in this chapter were compiled.
The scalp act of 1897, which allows premiums for
Wildcats, Foxes and Minks, is given in full. The au
thor of this Measure, Representative G. W. Campbell,
of Fayette county, prepared it with particular care,
and persons who may attempt to practice fraud under
it. will likely get into a great deal of trouble.
Sone of the best methcds known to trappers and
hunters, of capturing and destroying wild animals
which commit so much damage in the poultry yard.
and to game and song birds, are quite fully explained.
The section devoted to Heads is one which, with the
carefully prepared illustrations made from specimens
on which bounties were paid, shows clearly the great
necessity of having some public document that will
enable officials and scalp-hunters to recognize one ani-
mal from another. Tt is ridiculous, to say the least,
that the taxpayers of any county in this Common
661
wealth should pay premiums for heads of game birds,
domesticated fowls, Shrikes, Whip-poor-wills, Sea
Gulls, ete., because local officials may, through igno-
rance, accept them as Hawks or Gwls. House cats and
cur dogs, Squirrels and other mammals should never
again be used to answer for Wildcats, Wolves, Minks
and Weasels.
The citizens of this State are, it appears, strongly
in favor of paying bounties, and while such a feeling
exists it is but proper that this work should be pre-
pared, not ovly to correct wrong impressions, which
are so widespread about many birds and mammals,
but, at the same time, show what species are chiefly
responsible for the enormous destruction of poultry,
game and small sone birds.
662
SOME BOUNTY RECORDS.
The tabulated bounty records which appear on suc-
ceeding pages were paid under the act of June 23,
1885, and the amended act of 1889 which repealed that
portion of the act of °S5 that allowed bounties for
Hawks, Owls and \Veasels. These laws caused an
choimous expenditure of money. It is believed to be
a conservative estimate to state that fully $150,000
were paid out in bounties, and considerably more than
half of this amount was expended for birds of prey or
other kinds of feathered animals which were believed
to be Hawks and Owls. It has been absolutely im-
possible to secure from) a number of counties any
records which would show the number of each species
of bird or mammal on which premiums were paid. In
the majority of cases this is due to the facet that county
officers did not preserve the bounty certificates after
their accounts were audited at the end of each year.
The writer has expended a great deal of time, consider-
able money and experienced a lot of trouble to obtain
all the facts possible in connection with recent scalp
acts, and as a result the records which follow are un-
doubtedly the most complete that have ever been pub-
lished in connection with the scalp act of June 23, 1885.
THE BOUNTY ACT OF 1885.
The sealp act of June 23, 1885, under which so many
birds, ete., were slain reads as follows:
“An act for the destruction of Wolves, Wildcats, Foxes, Minks,
Hawks, Weasels and Owls in this Commonwealth
“Section 1. That for the benefit of agriculture and for the
protection of game within this Commonwealth, there is hereby
established the following premiums for the destruction of cer-
tain noxious animals and birds, to be paid by the respective
66:
counties in which the same are slain, namely; for every Wild-
eat, two doliars; for cvery Red or Gray Fox, one dollar; for
every Mink, fifty cents; for every Weasel, fifty cents; for every
Hawk, fifty cents; and for every Owl, except the Arcadian,
Sereech or Barn Owl, which is hereby exempted from the pro-
visions of this act, fifty cents.”
“Section 2. It shall be the duty of any person having killed
any animal or bird mentioned in the first section of this act,
and who is desirous of availing himself of the premiums therein
provided, to produce such slain animal or bird before any mag-
istrate, alderman or justice of the peace of the county in which
the same was killed, and make affidavit of the time and place
of killing the same: Provided, That the pelt, if entire from the
tip of the nose of any such animal, may be produced in lieu of
the same when so preferred; and upon the reception of any
such animal or pelt, or bird, it shall be the duty of such mag-
istrate, alderman or justice of the peace, in the presence of
said person killing such animal or b‘rd, and one elector of the
county, to cut off the ears of such animal or the head of such
bird, and in the presence of said persons burn the same.
“Section 3. Upon the destruction of the ears or heads as
aforesaid, the magistrate, alderman or justice of the peace
shall give to the person producing such animal or bird, a cert!-
ficate of compliance with the provisions of this act directed to
the commissioners of the county in which such animal or bird
was slain, which certificate shall contain the following facts:
the kind of animal or bird killed; when, where and by whom
killed, and the date by whom and in the presence of what elec-
tor the ears of said animal or head of said bird was destroyed,
and u;,on the production of such certificate the said commis-
sioners shall give an order upon the county treasurer for th?
payment of the premium or premiums provided by this act, and
it shall be the further duty of the magistrate, alderman or
justice of the peace taking the affidavit, provided in the second
section of this act, to file the same forthwith, or cause the
same to be filed in the office of the commissioners of the county,
and upon filing the same, the said magistrate, alderman or
justice of the peace shall receive from the county treasurer, the
sum of twenty cents, in full compensation for all services under
this act.”
SCIENTIFIC MEN PROTESTED.
Thisunjustand expensive act had only been in force
a few mouths when naturalists and other scientific
664
gentlemen residirg in the borough of West Chester be-
gan to oppose it most vigorously; ind ed the first efforts
made to have the noxious “Scalp Act of 1885” repealed
were begun in Chester county, when early in 1886 the
menibers of the West Chester Microscopical Society,
under the leadership of such prominent and able gen-
tlemen as Dr. Jos. T. Rothrock, Dr. Jesse C. Green, Ex
congressman Washington Townsend, Addison May and
others called a special meeting,
tingsentimenttobring about the repeal of that portion
of the act which allowed premiums for the heads of
beneficial birds. This society published in February,
L886, a pamphlet containing strong resolutions con-
demning the act, with numerous letters from some of
the most eminent ornithologists in the United States,
together with a brief description of the birds of prey
and their food habits. This report was widely circu-
lated throughout Pennsylvania, and as many of the
leading newspapers of the State quoted quite exten-
sively from it a sentiment was soon started in almost
every county of the Commonwealth in favor of, at least,
the beneficial species of Hawks and Owls.
with the view of crea-
OTHERS LABORED TO REPEAL IT.
The members of the State Board of Agriculture,
through Secretary Thos. J. Edge, assisted by the writer,
who at that time had made dissections of over 1,900
stomachs of Hawks and Owls, labored most indus-
triously to show the economic value of the raptorial
birds, and secure the repeal of that part of the odious
Ineasare which prompted the destruction of certain
birds which were of the greatest value to farmers and
fruitgrowers.
665
THEIR EFFORTS WERE SUCCESSFUL.
These cou;mendable efforts which, as previously stated,
originated among scientific men in West Chester, re-
sulted in the abrogation, at the Legislative session of
1887, after a most spirited contest, of that portion of
the act which related to Hawks and Owls. Secretary
Thos. J. Edge and the writer corresponded with county
commissioners, prominent farmers, naturalists and
sportsmen throughout the State, and a condensation
of this correspondence, both for and against the re-
peal, follows:
WHY IT SHOULD BE REPEALED.
We believe the act should be repealed on account of
the following reasons:
1. It causes a drain upon the treasuries of the respective
counties which is not warranted by the results produced.
2. Collectively considered the Hawks and Owls by the de-
struction of injurious rodents and insects, confer a _ benefit
which is much more than an offset for the poultry, game and
small wild birds, which certain of these birds of prey destroy.
3. The Cooper's Hawk, the Sharp-Shinned Hawk, the Gos-
hawk, the Duck Hawk, the Pigeon Hawk and the Great Horned
are detrimental, but if a bounty should be placed on the heads
of these birds all species of Hawks and Owls would be destroyed
by scalp-hunters.
4. The payment of all bounties should be discontinued until
officials can acguaint themselves with birds and mammals so
that premiums will not be paid for heads of Chickens, Turkeys,
Pheasants, Robins, Sparrows, etc., under the belief that they
are Hawks and Owls; and on the other hand officials should
know enough about mammals that the ears of Opossums, Red
Squirrels, house Cats, cur Dogs or pieces of Buffalo skins, Mule
hides, ete., should not be accepted by them for such detrimental
animals as Wolves, Wildcats, Foxes, Minks and Weasels.
5. Increased duties are imposed upon county officers for which
no additional compensation has been provided.
666
6. In a number of cases county officials have been imposed
on and bounties illegally drawn.
7. It encourages a certain class to follow hunting as a means
of livelihood, and to the exclusion of other labor.
8. Self-interest would lead to the destruction of the detrimen-
tal birds and mammals.
9. Farmers and poultry-raisers need no bounty to induce
them to trap and kill birds and other wild animals which de-
siroy their poultry.
10. The repeal of the act will, by the increase of the birds of
prey, cause greater destruction to field mice, which do much
mischief on the farm.
11. The payment of bounties for any purpose is based upon
wrong principles and should be discouraged.
WHY THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE REPEALED.
We believe the act should not be repealed because:
1. This being the first year of its action, the total amount paid
will be greatly in excess of that of any subsequent year, and
owing to the increased scarcity each year, the amount annually
paid will every year be less.
2, By a repeal the good effects of bounties already paid would
be practically lost.
3. The destruction of these birds and other animals is a great
protection to game; Pheasants, Quail and Wild Turkeys, besides
many kinds of Wild Ducks, Snipe and Woodcock, in the way
of feathered game, are destroyed by both Hawks and Owls and
many of these game birds are also killed by Foxes, Wildcats,
Minks and Weasels. Great numbers of Rabbits are annually
devoured by the Hawks, Owls and other animals for which
premiums are paid; the Wildcats destroy many Deer, and Squir-
rels are also killed by Hawks, Owls, Foxes, etc. Game of all
kinds would, no doubt, be much more plentiful if all Hawks,
Owls, Foxes, Minks, Wildcats and Weasels were killed.
4. If Hawks and Owls do not disturb poultry and game, why
is it that all kinds of domesticated fowls, Pheasants, Quail,
Rabbits, etc., show signs of alarm and hurry to cover when a
Hawk or an Owl comes near them?
5. If Hawks and Owls are such great destroyers of insects and
Mice, why is it they will so readily abandon the pursuit of these
pests and get into traps baited with Chickens or small
birds?
O67
6. Many experienced Quail and Pheasant hunters claim that
they often find these game birds by watching for places where
Hawks are waiting, and in the majority of cases the covy of
Quail or Pheasants will be discovered in the vicinity where
Hawks are. Hawks will follow day after day a flock of Quail
and often, especially in severe snowy weather, kill all the
birds.
7. Hawks, particularly the smaller species, kill large numbers
of small song birds, which are valuable as insect destroyers.
8. All laws are liable to abuse and violation, and this one is
no exception to the general rule.
9. The effect of a continuance of the law as it now is will be
to increase the production of poultry and decrease its price.
WHERE SKUNKS WERE PAID FOR.
The records on succeeding pages indicate that in the
county of Clinton, bounties were paid in the year 1885,
1886 and 1887 for 294 Skunks, and during the same
years premiums were allowed in Centre county for 3,370
Skunks. From this it seems evident that both of these
counties had local laws in force which enabled the
county commissioners to pay for these animals. The
Panther, which is included among other animals paid
for in 1886 by Centre county, was, no doubt, another
species which was coyered by a local scalp aet or some
general law which was repealed in 1889.
A FEW WOLVES.
The Lackawanna county records show that four
Wolves were paid fer in 1896. Dr. Isaiah F Everhart
and Mr. Geo. P. Friant, two well informed naturalists,
of Scranton, Lackawanna county, have for many years
collected specimens in this section and they are in-
clined to believe there is some mistake about these ani-
mals, as neither of these gentlemen have heard of a
venuine wild Wolf in that locality within the last
twenty years. Tioga county paid for three Wolves, but
as shown elsewhere in this work they had been brought
from the far west and liberated in Tioga and killed,
66S
CRAWFORD'S ENORMOUS OUTLAY.
The county of Crawford leads all other counties in
the State in the amount of money expended under the
act of 1885. This county paid, it is said, between $10,-
000 and $12,000 in bounties and fees to local officials.
The incomplete records from Crawford show that
nearly 11,000 Hawks and Owls and over 10,500 Minks
and Weasels were paid for in about two years. The
members of the Senate and House of Representatives
from Crawford have always, in recent years, vigorously
opposed all bounty measures which have been under
consideration in our General Assembly and one of the
chief arguments they used was that such legislation,
with the lack of popular knowledge of wild birds and
mammals, enabled designing persons to practice fraud
in numerous ways; Red Squirrels and Chipmunks were
killed for Weasels, Butcher-birds and other feathered
animals were called Hawks and Owls, and their heads
were often of as much value to scalp hunters as the
genuine heads.
PIKE AND LYCOMING COUNTIES.
Pike county is one of the best localities in Pennsyl-
vania for game of different kinds, but unfortunately
this county is infested with a number of market hun-
ters who are skilled in snaring and trapping game.
These poachers, together with Foxes, Wildcats, Minks,
Weasels and Hawks of the genus Accipiter, with the
Great Horned Owl, have almost entirely exterminated
Ruffed Grouse during recent years in some parts of
Pike and neighboring counties. From best information
which can be obtained no efforts were made to practice
fraud in Pike county where under bounty laws since
1885, 1,116 Foxes (both species), 132 Wildeats and: 297
Minks have been killed for premiums.
669
The members of the State Board of Game Cominis-
sioners have given especial attention to the professional
snarers and market hunters in the Pike county district
and reports received show that this illegal work has
decreased during the past year.
In the county of Lycoming, through the energetic ef-
forts of Game Commissioner Mr. E. B. Westfall, mar-
ket hunting and the illegal sale of game has been prac-
tically stopped. This is fortunate, and if the game-de-
vouring Foxes were thinned out Ruffed Grouse would
be much more plentiful and farmers would lose much
less poultry. Lycoming county has a large amount of
territory especially suited to Ruffed Grouse and if it was
not for Foxes, which Mr. Chas. H. Eldon, Taxidermist,
of Williamsport, says are increasing rapidly, these
birds, as well as other kinds of game and small wild
birds, would be much more abundant.
ADAMS COUNTY.
a i
“i . 8 ir)
E : a 3 i s Fa
5 3 z b = = g
A ae fc) cs 2 e 2
1885, 828 ily eee, 4 8 10
1886, 2,976 422 725 | 81 4 | 319
1887, 1,510 695 134 | 78 2 | 194
TT eel Re ee a 70 | 112 U\e
1890, ... 264 | 199 Bile
1891, 261 138 2 ||.
1892, | 301 55 ral
1893, .. | | 315 | 89 AA
1894, | | 344 | 78 Salk
18%, lie 57 10 I Rare
1896, ..| ke | oe
| | = = =
Total 5,314) 1118 2 057 | 854 66 | 523
During the first twelve months of act of 1885
paid $3,800 in bounties.
Adams county
670
ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
This county paid but little bounty under the act of
1885. During sixteen months Allegheny county paid
out only $53.00 in bounties.
ARMSTRONG COUNTY.
Have not been able to get from this county records
but there is little doubt that a considerable amount
was spent for premiums. During the first thirteen
months of the act of 1885 Armstrong county expended
in bounties no less than $1,255.30 for heads of Hawks.
Owls, Foxes, Minks and Weasels.
BEAVER COUNTY.
Commissioners’ Office _
Beaver, Pa., May 28, 1897.
Dear Sir: Your favor of the 27th inst. is just at
hand and in reply I would say: prior to the year 1889
I cannot give the information you ask for in detail, but
I give such facts as our records show as follows:
1885, total amount paid for premium, .................... $15 75
1886, total amount paid for premium, .................. 284 25
1887, total amount paid for premium, .................... 228 25
1888; total amount paid for premitimy 2s. g. cette sae ere 50
1889 five minksi-and\ eleven @foxess) Sesccwle se. ece ce ene dels 12 25
1890, 40 minkstand 183! Foxes) “ojcinnstiee wise cee iee were) LSOROO
USL. 23 minks an die249 ORCS evartareyeiol eee ete =) un
& o a S E
3 = &, Ha fo)
1885 11 122 | 25 221 58
ASG ok te Smee 4,093 4,183 | 225 7,896 530
1887: iol oe 1,021 1,060 | 20 1,976 103
1888, 2 3 | | 5 1
TY RE oe 1 Bal ae Seceees 70 ieee fe
aU) eee Aaa aic| Hs sasneenel leew edehac | 1 | Beadaenit 1
Total, | 5,218 5,370 271| 10,102 693
No bounties were paid in Crawford county after 1891. About
$12,000 were paid in this county, it is said, under this act of
1885; and it is reliably stated that after the act of June 23, 1885,
went into effect Red Squirrels and Chipmunks were as eagerly
hunted by some scalp hunters as were Minks and Weasels.
679
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
Year. | 2 ae -Pa eae 3 z :
eae ete | ©
cies bat
14 5 20 | 9
125} 176| 464 71
84 92 124 60
75 |
110
127
71
A tetem telat (ata tanele,|e/ystedss=
43
“1
696 273 608 140
No bounties paid in 1886.
DAUPHIN COUNTY.
A ; ay = vw.
Year. 3 2 a g : v
a E 2 = a Zz
ic a S = fa o)
1885, COVA Ga@alh BIS: cocers | 15 3
ROOM Er tbtce siete secaece 46| 41| 80| 2) 694 | 36
TRC cea is ee ee 63| 43| 35} 3| 161] 60
sikh Rak Nese ghe eek ea ae ae pam lela oa
1889, aig | eee | 5
1890, . 115| 29 A a
[SU hae Newnes ts 5. 91| 42 rig Ae eae
1892, Alf 102] 408 leaned Ae Gata aon
-| 88 48 qe \Ooaras. eUoneel oncdoc
|, 88|- 0.) - cho: CE aes eel NGS
69] 60|...... [OE IR, SS Oe
766 | 360| 120) 21 s70| 99
680
DELAWARE COUNTY.
This was probably the only county in the State where
many of the alleged noxious animals—Foxes, Minks,
Weasels, Hawks and Owls—were of frequent occur-
rence, that the citizens showed little or no disposition
to kill these animals for bonnty. The county of Dela-
ware has not, I am informed, paid out in bounties dur-
ing the last ten years much above fifty dollars. Dur-
ing the first sixteen months of the act of 1885, Dela-
ware county orly expended $10.20. Foxes are not at
all rare in some sections of Delaware county but
through the efforts of the members of the Rose Tree
and other clubs these sly animals are well protected.
ELK COUNTY.
During the latter part of 1885 and about ten months
in 1886 Elk county paid upwards of 3500 bounties.
chietly on Foxes, Wildcats, Minks and Weasels. All
of these animals, likewise birds of the genus Accipiter,
are quite numerous in Elk county where they destroy
much poultry and game, as well as many species of
small wild birds. Wildcats and Foxes are both in-
creasing in this county, and as they increase Deer,
Grouse, Rabbits and song birds are decreasing.
ERIE COUNTY
| wv ; |
° ‘@ w i | .
Year. ¢ a te | | an
A @ S Z| i
| ) * = | Oy | e
ME 5 q fe)
TSG ern 334 231 827 108
ce Ma a ee || 51 526 371 116 | 103
1885, pene | 19 30 | 58 | 18 | 20
Total, .......| 181
890 | 660) 61 281
681
FAYETTE COUNTY.
No records received from this county. During the
first twelve months of the 1885 act Fayette county paid
about $65 in bounties. From about January 1, 1886,
to July 1, 1886, Fayette county paid for 278 Hawks:
80 Owls; 82 Foxes; 24 Minks, and 6 Wildeats.
FOREST COUNTY.
No records received from this county. During first
fourteen months of act of 1885 Forest paid $350 in
bounties. Wildcats and Foxes are common in Forest
county and they destroy annually much poultry and
game, especially Pheasants and Rabbits. This county
paid in about six months from January 1, 1886, for 110
Foxes; 37 Hawks and 2 Owls.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
ie |
| wi :
a | ) ; 4
Year. S ui | 3 a i =
a | = a 5 & o
re |) 16 | = & = =
|
{RG ER es sceerll Goel en |ja da 210 67 9
ISSO ee aatieet cece oln Bese 49 8 | 247 | 60 30
TE de ike Pace es en eee IE) 77 11 | 296 | 109 62
SIE iy ie ORE: Sc eee aeRoEe eter Hieleets Fe aes eA RRS a eerie
FSCO EMM Sere a te tlalla 2 SAIN ane scale SIO 71 6
TROD eRe ee ark Sa lycee sc) ail te 8 el EV ace
Site oes Sect on bratiee ey a aed eae eee ee 9 408 | 66|......
TROD Meee Ae eer thet tesa | isicetaa| shane 14 407 | 162
TICES Slane NS.o to SOG ERS! Heckel leet jars all 326 | 135
SY odo a ta oe ee ee ES | ee ee ee 320| 95|.....
TIE rte dip ats tom cae Oe eteod enseieel (eee Pee) 204 46 iene as
TROGIR SoS locos cliicostal BL Spe ee
TOtaleene ibe ..| S86 1281) 196 2.912) 834) 102
|
43*--11
682
FULTON COUNTY.
Year. a
v1
Weasels.
Wildcats.
Hawk
Owls
IGE, od adeno nnsiagogncosobonar 15 11 18 2 | 353 20
ERR GH iy etealctleciatn slayater-nutele = tier syeull ee 80 82 12 | 810 90
IBTG coqabdiapgeacaucsdecvon basa || Ils 85 63 20 | 152 91
TEL ae geen eeemene emetic (s/n Slo sce Wey a eana ;
1800)1 Seana Ls trac dee sk nee | pre eet eae
Sh} Ge Sasi gnasanermacorins acne 70 CMiheanoop
a iS Vi aeacie Map eembeide cn SUR i raiso sc aes NOAH
UNOeilow Soaooodedsoecpon acl heer 834 163 89 1,315 201
GREENE COUNTY.
Year.
Foxes.
Weasels.
Minks.
Owls.
1885, a: 3 3 1 2 1
TaSenp ee | 93 585 68 601 197
1887, RE een a 44 398 57 348 176
|
Total,
140 986 126 951 374
Therecords do not show that any bounties were paid in Greene
county after the year 1887.
683
HUNTINGDON COUNTY.*
: a ui
Year. % ma ay = S a
iB o & = a =
es 5 = = || le | 16
S | Pata 1
ah, orlipacodea sa daoocbad 408 135 94 15 748 | 126
ILY (Glenmn Ce oe Be Gono a rnn 20 | 10 1 2 20 3
TRV Rae RAE EEO a OedO 247 | 40 1} |isaiaseollaooe ae
1893, SOGiecrrase 93 Ge Recaou | aonos
1894, 585 | 230 Te nearer
189, - 665 | 928 Be eespecl teekoean
1896, 1,112]. 1,341 BEN coed cs Jerse:
Ubon SaAAb nog 3,633 145 2,727 | 127 768 129
{
*Many more animals were paid for from 1885 to 1896, but rec-
ords in county commissioners’ office do not show what they were.
In 1885, $25.65; in 1886, $239; in 1890, $1,294.20 and in 1891, $1,025.50
were paid in premiums.
INDIANA COUNTY.
n
F . s Amount of
Year. cs Me = Bounty
A & = Paid.
& a S
LSE Meare ateeann tetera peneYete cteterens|| ocaletetyesesmuetea | eresctartieyfetttsi|etsirtaye| «cayiasy * $215 80
SRG ie scecctisreheelstexslausteralete Ses On Bern) Oa acaiy (cece 144 25
ICTY ae ee Ra tenn cad Sos mere ledceaotee.:| Reanptraree Wiser cetc2 607 65
TRGA a eis ae eee cee 40 46) ecb desas 51 25
TL ROG% eee een eee 185 82 | 5 214 50
ATO Ceul y eereyaeletaletersistetei= «| 225 127 5 $1,234 45
The commissioners refused to pay any bounties during the
years 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1896. The county records
unfortunately do not show what kinds of wild animals the
$967.70 was given for in the years 1885, 1886 and 1887, or while
the act of June 23, 1885, was in active operation. (In a period
of about six months from January 1, 1886, this county paid
premiums for 350 Foxes; 250 Weasels; 300 Hawks and 150 Owls.
684
JEFFERSON COUNTY.
2
: a
Year. u g ©
PA sg =
& 2 Ee
1885, 155 130 | 13
LBS GS ae <1 nt-ycvetescrc =e qyntcteyaiat ots roeeteneteetaee cEARnEEA 950 | 798 | 78
PSST y sorceress ch ana lcersayows cre eevccwe ce nan ereel 320 | 270 | 26
1888, es ih |, aah 16
aE he Acoaoo sudo ddiandobordac SbDoAborI cn 358 333 35
1891, 233 | 164 | 13
1892, ests nat Netete 10
ROG, CREAR crayon at OR Bre i > 0 5
TGQ MRP A cA nc Sep Mii Re Coad Ms eee oct ee AR 14
1896, 8
TES Cea Reis teastere)a7e1eisiarsia’ vjsislaveletevsieran tenets 2,016 1,695 | 270
During the years 1889, 1892 to 1896, inclusive, bounties were
only paid in Jefferson county on Wildcats.
LACKAWANNA COUNTY.
)
. 7)
n ul ~
4 wu v o = Z
Year. o ms a iB S z 4
S| eal ees ie z
|| eho Sy ese PSS IN) ae }
SSP nadnik = cee eee 693) careers letortn Rerisical ecaaoe
1886, 102; 63/ 40 24 | 248 29
ASST pe Ae ee ane 100} 30] 92 ]...... “| g4| 18
SSRs air re doer mca ee oe | eae [Pearce Bpaeeeeee nite 13
1889, . OSES soacee (Le S19) | el ae teas
TSO NUE ene a eae | 102] 67 10 | tect oe eee
1891, BSt| a anne 5 Seco ener
1892 95| 148 ng |
1898; trage co een 1 FONE SMO Moosean a
1894, 1300 |) LSTA eee, 191 eee
1895, {) ot) Siva eee eae)
TSQG APEC UL) See ee a a | 108] a4 |... 4| 16
is ak ey Remon emt sm | m8 83g | 129 4| 206 | 327 47
ere ce eer Ss ee el
685
‘VEOPIIM B OG 0} 71 Parat[aq OYM ‘AZUNOD sty}
jo ‘goved ey} JO a013snf B Aq 19a}1IM 9Y} JO ddYJO ay} 0} JUVS SEM }BoO VsnoyY UOUTUIOD B JO pBay IULe
60 282s 90S G& LIL$ | G09 |S ST$ 8 OL 80F$ | 16S 09 890'T$ L69'T oo “78107,
| og SL | 8¢ Map ial aie Roc asee Elie bas [sistas ates see ee ewes ‘9681
eZ Ig | eg | t |e ar t[ecct tees |e eeee sere Mogg
0¢ 19 | Gc tie 0 aokerstea| fa “S68T
00 L6 8L (Ai lise ieee “S681
| 00 86 08 i a ees rea “3681.
ec) 0c IF Sshod| as Seton ones ST goT
00 02 LE stele Baller “55 (OggT
ce) 19 9¢ nent co ODou Hoe oe 5 7 “688
Shedbpmounanseny einyeyet Onin felee\etsioiele .ejeiave'ele thence oer deeses “Appar
0S 96 TFT 09 OOT 16 pee "=" OL 98T 893 4 2 “L881
00 82 &F 00 TE 9% Ne iske i ee ab OS*OLe e1é “988T
0¢ #1¢ 62 00 Tet tT aa] | OOS EC Alek § ie “q88T
QUNOW PR — *oNr VUnOU ‘ON | qunowp oN) “unOWP ON “ONT
|
I
= x a 2 q
= S = 4 p
= a a an P| “1B9K
z £
*ALNNOO YHLSVONVT
686
LAWRENCE COUNTY.
Year. Money Paid.
DSSO Wie araietciecsG
Total, 365 | 224 | 921 403
|
*In about six months from January 1, 1896, Somerset
paid bounties as follows: 14 Wildcats; 69 Owls; 410 Hawks; 250
Weasels; 215 Minks and 270 Foxes.
693
SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY.
In about ten months after act of 1885 became gen-
erally krewn to residents of Susquehanna county boun-
ties amounting to $1,200 were paid. Considerable
money has since been expended but a detailed state-
ment concerning same has not been obtained. Sus-
quehanna in 1885 paid for 19 Foxes; 4 Minks; 5 Wea-
sels, and 6 Hawks and Owls, and in 1886 from January
1, to July 5, for 217 Foxes; 171 Minks; 83 Weasels; 223
Hawks, and 55 Owls.
TIOGA COUNTY.
Tioga county paid in first twelve months under act
of 1885, $1,169 for “scalps.” A large sum has been paid
since then but no detailed statement concerning same
has been obtained.
UNION COUNTY.
ga
Mller & | 8
Year. 3 4 a S =e 4
A & ® ra « B
ie S| = 5 120) °
RSME eee eh RTA | socetleccracel ete cot 6
SRG eRe ee erecta) BOG) AT CB2 2| 390 171
Tye bacadcs ror ee Ne ee nee toad Kane: tl ieee VP \sooseall LKB |) Fal
LIT iS co qu se ance iets AA Aare ames El (iicedeee 2s Roane
1SO0RO Ree eee ko c Reece ol) WBN SEs oe Bulk
ASOT ey Ae is Jepebest ie 7] (i eee Fess!
RODS Lenore eee ee || 70 57 | | 5
TSOG A aa eee I Ree EE. eos eo ( Vine 3 | 6 |
{Sodan ee mer enw eft" 6GG'|\ 966) 5
TSG5e a ene eee eee |) en | 87 | Peck 5
~—4| = =
| |
Motalleieneeu eee. cee. -2)|) (687) || 507 |) TA 30] 875} 243
694
VENANGO COUNTY.
mie’
a Oo 8 x
Year. 3 x 2 B = a
- Aa! o = a =
3 ra t
Ne el Ee ln ic
1886, 58 | is3| 483/ 2] 416] 57
TEI (ae eee Sn ee Ber ee, coll all oakees |e Dl: ek Wh) 2
ERBR, SaaS cx. sce Oren RG ee rallies |b:
AQUOS aRE e gOh ek ris as eee AGS) PR eel ayes eee ee
TELE | SRA co sec eR AeR Nn oe Fesbby | 906) ened: ||ater stl lsaaeaellsoaewe
1902) Wo sees ciate Ste aulh pon eas eee, 2 Bete Neb abs
1903) mec: ok ok ee WaT OB a MTT ape fepral oe Mier
Aguas ema ch 214 | 379) ...... Th |cpeen oa
Te eet shen i ie aE Tepe Steg
GNAET, o.cNebevercamassccon UGE: IWS)! Gam! Geel Aaa) a
WASHINGTON COUNTY.
Amount paid for
Year. all animals,
Total sum paid, ia} sinustefaswiatoie/efalaws)sia.n/elaver quests cen eee eect eee OOS EEO)
Previous to 1890 no records have been retained in county
commissioners’ office; no records of name and number of each
animal kept at any time. During ‘first year the act of 1885 was
in active force Washington county paid for all kinds of animals
$727.50.
WARREN COUNTY.
Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of inquiry of May
28th, [ will say that the amounts paid for bounty for
the years named is as follows: For 1885, $226; for 1886,
$1,524.40; 1887, $707.10; 1888, $37.50; 1889, $64.60; 1890,
$18.15; since which time this county has not paid any
bounty.
695
The Commissieners took the ground in 1887 that the
law was not constitutional and have refused to pay
since, except such amounts as had been paid out by
justicesto those claiming bounty, and simply refunded
to them.
Our accounts are such that to fully answer your in-
quiries would necessitate assorting each voucher filed.
which would require considerble time and some ex-
pense, but if required will make such a report.
Respectfully yours,
J. B. JACKSON,
Clerk.
WESTMORELAND COUNTY.
1SShou eeae see eset nemesis Sciscacsrsnsisccicre cece gevl 00
TERED acs doco dcosdn oaccodce Gade GUC son nO OCD HOSOC A CO gOUn EE aOnG 17 70
LN) ecto op cn DC OC Oo dmc US COLORES DE be CUCU OD GO COUR HOSOaECeanG
TGRIUS as odo cadn du co De nOaO ba DU pO CS OEIA Dood CD COOOCnoy COO geoued 210 20
SUS) Ye eeedete fetaharets tateicterslefeiads(eietetsielisiovelfeielaselcrete!“.ele/s\e\=/aje)=(ain/ateisjs. = si- e\ sis 286 40
WCEP ‘de cddootsone dd od soon seqd DooD0aA aro covUddodD Se. conenarcrae 220 05
IBRD” saoccanntee socntono sodereocdbgn opp sbpUD codooudopeneranS 292 15
IRN ies og yebde cae poodon fade cotede SS osmaren ad buco beEDecds 252 90
TSS, caessoSr ence chocec duc teour do ounogcop anp onoeuenogusedenes 234 90
PTROE alc iartira Sul Chama cry eters ete eisai
-
(2215 3410) “YiNMAN aD ©
a
727
Mink,” the Flying Squirrel a young Weasel, and the
odd-colored Chipmunk a “Weasel.”
DOGS AND WOLVES.
There are in this State cur dogs which, in general
color and appea rance Of the head, do not look unlike
Wolves. The heads of such animals, from all ae-
counts, have in the past frequently been used by
scalp hunters to deceive county oflicials, who
accepted them as Wolves. The resemblance between
these cur dogs and Wolves is so great that it is not at
all surprising that they were substituted for Wolves,
which, as already stated on previous pages, have no
doubt been exterminated:in this State. :
In 1885 or 1886, Prof. S. Ff. Baird, examined a num-
ber of “Wolf scalps” from Pennsylvania, on which
premiums had been paid. Investigation showed that
these so-called “Wolf scalps” had been made from
pelts of Red Foxes and a couple of Woodchucks.
Many and probably all of the counties of Pennsylva-
nia which border other States were called upon to pay
bounties for animals killed or caught outside of Penn-
sylvania. Fur dealers say that many of the Foxes
and Minks which they buy from hunters in the south-
ern part of New York State have the ears clipped off.
The hunters, when questioned about such mutilation,
say the animals came from Pennsylvania. This prob-
ably, in many instances, is true, but there seems to be
very good ground for believing that a good many of
the hunters and trappers of the Empire State, when
they obtain such animals as Foxes, Minks and Wild-
cats, carry them over the State line and obtain boun-
ties which the Pennsylvania lawmakers have provided
each county shall pay.
728
The Scranton Tribune of March 11, 1897, contains
the following concerning a “Wolf” on which bounty
was recently paid in Lackawanna county:
“John R. Johnson stalked into the commissioners’ office yes-
terday and flourishing an affidavit to the effect that he had
killed a Wolf at Waverly January 1, 1897, asked for the ten
dollars, which bounty the State allows for the slaughter of the
most detested and feared of farm pests.
“The commissioners didn’t like to cast any reflections on the
powers of the justice of the peace of Waverly to differentiate
between the pelt of a Wolf and that of an overgrown dog but
they did not hesitate to say that they were at least loth to
believe that it would be generally accepted that Wolves are
to be found in this region. Commissioner Giles Roberts, who
hails from up Waverlyway, vowed that he had never heard of
a Wolf being seen in those parts, although there might be
some roaming about in raiment other than that which would
naturally cover a wolf.
“These misgivings, however, could not hold out against the
Johnson's affidavit that he shot a Wolf; Squire Smith’s affirma-
tion that it was a Wolf and that its ears had been cut from the
pelt, that the ears were cut off and burned in his presence and
that it was unmistakably the pelt of a Wolf.
“Johnson got his ten dollars and went forth to shoot more
Wolves.”
FEATHERED HEADS.
While nuch deception, through both ignorance and
fraud, was practiced by substituting the remains of
wild and domesticated animals for the heads and ears
of mammals on which bounties were paid, this kind of
work was carried to the greatest extent in the way of
feathered animals. Owls and Hawks, from which the
heads were cut off, were, in some instances, so manip-
ulated by skillful and ingenious scalp hunters, who
possessed some knownledge of the art of taxidermy,
that in one instance which came to my notice a single
Long-eared Owl, was so “worked up” that it netted the
hunter one and a half dollars. The neck was cut off
0
= .
+
n é .
x .
i} i : i
. 4 .
'
( 7
Tre .
i “%
: ay
ot y i
7 > =
- ‘ ‘
i er | = ~ i
ie S »
* =
1 » _ ty “
‘ : ; ,
‘ a = =
ay.
’ v t
T
- *
ir i
‘
ul a -
4 i
x
.
+ :
re i , -
‘ =
hy = ' :
‘ 4 ‘
~ ' a
Q
oO
2 ENGLISH SPARROW. 565
6
| RERUN WUE IONS =
=IS (MOSS) GslqWAk eRSMWisis &
2ILNVSVSHd |
729
close to the body and also at the base of the skull, the
flesh of the neck was allowed to remain and the bill
of some bird of prey was held securely te one end of
the mass by fine wire; the second head was manutfac-
tured from breast meat (apparently), and feathers of
body with the bill of an Owl. These two bogus heads,
with those of a lot of Hawks and Owls and three or
four common Weasels, twenty in all, were seen in the
office of a justice of the peace, ready to burn when he
got a good het fire started in his stove.
: TURKEY BUZZARDS AND SPARROWS.
The Turkey Vulture (Fig. 1), was paid for as an
“Kagle-hawk,” which was described by the scalp hun
ter who got the bounty for it as “being very bad on
poultry, especially young turkeys.” The English
Sparrow (Fig. 2), with the heads of some other birds—
Hawks and Owls—and an immature male Pine Gros.
beak and a common Robin—came to Prof. 8. F, Baird
from county commissioners or other officials in the
western part of Pennsylvania, in 1885 or 1886, as the
heads of birds of prey. The fact that these and other
remains of both birds and mammals were sent. to
Prof. Baird and officers of the Pennsylvania State
soard of Agriculture for identification shows plainly
that the officials who sent them were sincere in the
belief that they were heads of some species of bird or
mammal mentioned in the scalp act of June 23, 1885.
The heads of the Pheasant or Ruffed Grouse (Fig.
1), and the Sharp-tailed Grouse (Fig. 2), came from
Prof. Baird’s collection of Pennsylvania heads. The
Sharp-tailed Grouse is not found in this Common-
wealth in a wild state, but the birds are common in
many of our markets.
730
SEA GULLS, CUCKOOS, ETC.
At least two heads of the American Herring Gull
were paid for as Hawks under the act of 1885. The
one illustrated was presented to me by Prof. S. F.
Baird, and another of the same species, killed along
the Susqueharna river, was sent to my office for iden-
tification. The Gull received from Prof. Baird was
called a “White Hawk.” ‘The head of the Yellow-
billed Cuckoo (Fig. 3), was also sent to Prof. Baird
as the head of a “Small Hawk” of some unknown but
detrimental species. The Whip-poor-will (Fig. 1), and
Nighthawk (Fig. 2), heads were secured by the writer
from justices of the peace, and the heads of a female
Wild Turkey (Fig 1), and a common domesticated hen
(Fie. 2), were sent to Prof. Baird as “Hawk heads.”
The Fish Hawk, from which Fig. 1 has been repro-
duced, was shot along the Brandywine Creek. The
man who offered it for bounty explained how much
damage it had done to his chickens, and how, for sev-
eral days, it had lingered near his dwelling watching
for and killing chickens and ducks. On examination
this Fish Hawk’s stomach showed it contained only
the remains of fish. The Cooper’s Hawk, in down)
dress, (Fig. 2), came from Crawford county where, it
is claimed, the eggs of this and other species of Hawks
and Owls were collected and hatched out under hens
or with incubators.
The illustrations of the adults, male and female,
Marsh Hawks, are those of a beneficial species which
were killed in considerable numbers by sealp hunters.
The heads of the Cooper’s Hawks (adult and young or
immature) show the species in different plumage.
This Hawk is one of the worst feathered pests thie
poultry raiser has to contend with.
ROH i |
PNW) deb)
,
8
AMERICAN HERRING (GUE.
(azZIS 3417) a5 Ie
ANGIE Ghelih/ SMEs, zyiKoyal) <2
v
‘
a
»
BES
ffx
a
é
2 COOPERS HAWK. YOUNG
Wt
| FISH HAWK.
5
aad 4
>: :
4 pies 12 +2 ig
rel
~ 4
’ ' Ao
ry ’
i
t
i
fy
i
!
rT
1 ff
i
i
i
i
.
i
we
iW
{( YOUNG)
COOPERS HAWK . ture size)
ADULT )
RED SHOULDERED HAWK .(‘LIFE SIZE!
ma
731
The two heads of Goshawks (adult and young or im
mature), illustrate another species of the detrimental
Hawks which destroy much game, poultry and the
smaller kinds of wild sone birds. The two heads of
Red-shouldered Hawks (adult and young, the latter
known to the older ornithological writers as Winter
Falcon), illustrate a species which is beneficial, as
it rarely preys on poultry or game, but subsists
largely on mice, frogs, grasshoppers and beetles.
(7282 )
RG EAIDOUNIEM OL SO Uy) Vaie sire cis sinlols wcleleleseie icin =lei='=
bounty -of 1885,
efforts to repeal,
FOABONG LOL FEDECH, OLS) cajastenc’ss(c'cic velncsisiciv.os
reasons why should not be repealed,
Albinism,
Animals,
destruction of noxious, reports by counties,
Adams,
BAM CTC IN GY a cress ste sfeimietaloiniclerets siavaralslolelavaitielatsle(s sisteie
SAT SEDORIE Wai cleieleia='siaistaielaretaia whalaieictelm vieiginialels welatefeyslala
Beaver,
Berks,
Blair,
Bradford,
Bucks,
Butler,
Cambria,
Cameron,
Centre,
Chester,
Clarion,
Clearfield,
Clinton,
Columbia,
Crawford,
Cumberland,
Dauphin,
Delaware,
Elk,
Wrle; skies
Fayette,
Forest,
Franklin,
Fulton,
Greene,
Huntingdon,
Indiana, .....
Jefferson,
Lackawanna,
T34
. Page.
Animals, destruction of noxious, reports by counties—Continued.
Lancaster, 685,
Lawrence, 66,
Lebanon, 686
Lehigh, 687
Lycoming, conn O SAGES 687
VEC IS GRIN gerevsizisicte ajc's avo claret the aiatetaiotomerata elatetote dis aceite ote Caters ataneea ate eraieare 687, 688
Mercer, se 688
Miffiin, s..5... 688, 689
Montgomery, 689
Northampton, 689
Perry, 689
Pike, 690
Potter, 690
Schuylkill, 691
Snyder, (9
Somerset, 692
SULA VATS 8a a aint aietpssis!a' efor minis clam emits clare oe Belt eee tere a Salat 692
SEES CUMICTNCANUIN ES voles atetetetersieiotuishelsterictelateteratevs'si=\acstets tote’ elei deter tix (sVataissaiat= eleimtei 693,
Tioga, 693
Union, 695
Venango, 694
Washington, 694
WATERS. reste teeta he See ac ete Sacce eel 694,695
Wicrepreetey VERA) Go eenrnddotmogascrn to Gace ApCeee : aes f95,
Wyoming, ..... 696
fur-bearing, las asletalalate ajefatctele ohare tela st a sleldrerele’abeinteler acters alelelere raters: slant 327, 301
value of in ‘Chester (county, Gitassmnen castes. acme cates se tnreaeenmeteasta ais 330,381
Huntingdon county,
JeMerSom COUNTY, “Gicirc cc arciciet saicincs/asisstercnts slefe,steiets sin clatelecisie aleteteisiots 327,330
Luzerne county, 330
IMEPCOR COUNTY» Jocaistracierclemtenteltteisieth a si cits ements trate inate ateisr(e 329,320
Wyoming county, 32)
York county, 327
which destroy poultry,
game,
destroyed by forest fires,
domestic,
wild,
many yet remain,
those exterminated,
where to hunt,
. 185-548
which are rare, - 502,504
Approvals, WISE, vienna os
Blackbird, Common Crow,
description of, 5
food of, ~.........
Blackfish,
Biunder, a serious, ...
Bob-eat,
Bounties, sentiment in favor of,
paid for animals, .....
Bourty for Foxes,
IMinkS2 enn.
Wildcats, .....
iejbher:Rlos Aon Sedcoopesion
Bunting, indigo,
Butcher birds,
273, 291
Buzzard, Turkey, 138,139, 140,143
description of, sree 137
distribution of, seneeee 0139, 140
food of, + ee+e-138,139
northern breeding limit of, 141
Buzzards, Turkey, ........... CBonecansernen BENG AGS 35
736
Cc.
F Page.
Carp
best places for, 541
Catamount, 502
Cat, Mountain, yes 441
PIS EETYs 7 aie’e’alainisinicye olelasejnjeretelele sielele’etetsterelelericicialataiera(aieletelaloetcletein/aleraleletslefenty areieeteieys 441
Wild, 440, 442, 5
Gescription TOR Mam scurnccchilemcannsna st heeee ss seas ere eat 440, 441
FOO OL, e. neeeen 4, 446, 449, 462.
haunts of, 442,443
increasing, 443,
weight of, 440, 441
Cats, Wild, 335
best places for, 535
(GREE, © Sc5eaGamdoneoe doa odd 0 HaaSaangd Aas ces Sao Sen MaRS Aeeavon 26
Chickaree, -364, 369, 506
Chipmunks, ».. 823, 324
Chipmunk, : 514
Canadian, ise 514
food of, Stats 514
AC OGMS © intimate S04 509
NGOULORT CHI pms ieticys Soe iscinie emer ee teaisensecite es oneeeatto mare shestee es BaayDon
Coyotes, 317
Crow, watch the,
carrion,
fish,
description of,
food of,
voice of,
CTOWS, — isiecseneeraice
common,
charges against the, 262
description of, 280
POOMUROL NG ori oisictsicietn aicrctal hin |s'ale'c/=jcle{s\tieje'slsleselalaiaiaraiotaielee'p (etotee oRtaieints ecole Seen 281
Damage, estimates of, by birds and mammals,
to poultry, game etc., reports by counties,
Adams,
Allegheny, A
Armstrong, 76,77, 119
Beaver, righ stigs 53,80, 119
B@dLOrd):, ise vncaeiscnipan os caeiasecine deehiela seaeecaeenine «-53, 81,121
3, 54, SL, 82, 120, 121
34,80, $1,120
54, 78, 79, 119, 120
Bucks, 55,77, 78, 121
Butler, 55,79
Cambria, 55,56, 88, 124
Cameron, 86
Centre, 56,86, 87.124
Carbon, 57,89
Ghestens Fk. tic ccvsties oon smooet ene iene tes eee ee 57, 82, 122, 125
@larion..
Fishes that catch ducks, .«.---+.+++
Fisher,
Fish, Blue, .«..--.+-++++
Cat, -scewcerecsccee AAC
best places for,
530, 531, 543, 548
543
Fishes,
eatch ducks and birds, ..+-.-+-+seserrereeees
number of species in Pennsylvania,
Fishing, fresh Water, --.-+++++s+eseeees
where to go for the best,
salt WAtET, .-.ecseeeeereeeeteeee
where to go for the best,
: Page.
531, 542, 543, 48
best places for,
Flails, hunted with, ..
Flounders,
Fowls, loss of, by disease, ........++.. 2
number of in United States, = on Bee 2
value of in United States, ne 2
symptoms of, infected with tapeWOrms, ......-++.eseeees eee ees eee 561, 562
Foxes, 377, 378, 534
best places for 584,535
how to catch, -T1T, 720
what farmers, poultry raisers and sportsmen say about, ........ 394, 414
Fox,
description of,
distribution of,
food SOL wre sesccs
hunts trees,
ERG CE etre eieteieintsteterninicininselsiuiviela»
description of,
destroys domesticated animals,
food of,
how to kill the,
kills game,
kills many wild song birds, ........e+sesseeeeees 382
WEI PCH OL: core cis ciuis'e'sosiesteatelss cen up suieecemsnisa wanes a 376
Sampson, 276
Samson, 2 376
Silver, 376, 377
Silver Gr 376
G.
Game Commissioners, good work of, 669
destroyed by smares, ......... c 13
in former years, 30 «489, 492
Ganoga lake, .......... 3
26
637
527
GOB HELWIK, 8 reisicinetele lists ate'eie 147
breeds in Pennsylvania, 172
description of, 171
LOO! Of, aetesteie
Goshawks,
Grouse, Ruffed,
Grackle, Bronzed,
description of,
Hackey, Ground,
Hares,
Alleghenian varying,
wood, . 507
Carolinian wood, 508
northern varying, 507
Hawks,
beneficial,
where found in Pennsylvania,
detrimental,
“little bird,’’
“little blue,’’
Sharp-shinned,
troublesome,
TASEROTS eo oececptncocon
Hawk, Big
Black,
Blue,
Broad Winged, ....... on 187
description of, 187
food of, 188,190
“Brown,’’ 159
Cooper's, 146,165
jaybnsley Gah y ee Sa6saocnodcoadcebooddeodoosinccoaodsscas «146, 147, 169, 170
description of, 165
FOOD MOL ie sdace cee
146, 147, 166,170
mammals killed by, :
birds killed by,
description of,
as a fisherman,
description of,
food” of, <.-...
“Tittle Quail,” .....
Long-tailed chicken,
Marsh,
Partridge,
Pheasant,
description of,
food of,
IBIAEE, doqgcoopbanecsos
Red-shouldered,
birds killed by,
description of,
food of,
Ee rehentrt Gi | Gagucroos cosbt Cochabeduabonoscbopnonpscececnaneo 184
LOOAGIOL isle elelalete eioio's(ulataielatetetalatelclalslefelelel=islelclelele/sievolsistetsteleieteletslateliotelsleleiet= 185, 186
Red-talled, se. cs.ci0.-. 55 17
description of, . 177
food 1Ofs te. sc -182, 183
Rough-legged, 191
description of, 191
food of, 192,194
Hawk—Continued.
Sharp-shinned,
description of,
FOO! OF), vesicacsccccersecerce
small birds killed
SpaTTOW:s) | cceseweeces
description of, - 214
EL OOOL ME sls feris's slsisiniain'slsin'enincielser siesinin sisi/eins 216,220
AnBeCtSTOUNG: Ay cece ecles con celssaninisslee/siele cones . 220
TERS ER tia loonbandoss conodeooedoencoeort -721, 731
American Herring Gull, TA
Chickens, 507 723
Chipmunks Wxtecs sc casi : 72
common Chicken, 723
DOGS. Veccstscacsecnsece 723
common Robin, T24
Ferret, T2A
Ferrets, 123
Flying Squirrel, T24
OREM Ber oactsloeeitemietiaciiaaceneseectoaa clase visc\ciecacicaee
Fox Squirrel,
Gray Squirrel,
ISR RUE | codceceaods
histury of,
Horned Grebe,
Jack Rabbit,
Kittetn’s,
Minks,
Nighthawk,
Opossum,
Owls;) “~s...
Rabbits, oe
Red Squirrel,
Ruffed Grouse,
LED Cent elem CeDOU SG Sm ara racata ate ales eacta\eeta(a o's afeloia(= ala/a slciin\a(s'e a.sia'siaiala eisai siaccie 723
Shrike, , 72
Squirrels, 723
Turkeys, 723
Ue Va ULLC TID ters clstataiaisislajsiare ofa aiereciate njestisteh sternite einis uisiaiaiaiw'a'eiela pa\sieis se’ 724
Weasels, er 7233
SVE] CHIE i atata arainrsitstatniteistatsts[afolvpuierctals afeiGiutaloistsleis siclele sfs)s/alele s cidjeieiais:e/els's eleiciu/ieiaia 7
Wild Turkey, ..... pres lsleve(clnfelelsiete ee ateinin's miatdinciein(e'sscaiinwc.sie cies 723
Whip-poor-will, ...... 724
Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Cae {e-!
Hen Hawk, ..... 177,192
ETON S Mee LCTON Wmm amc eclcelcueninencieccicees airs cis siecle crelesisicisicievicice = Rive 528
VET Ch peetcrate late ulate atefatetetcleta eiatalaiale(eeicincmeaiccteratale eeiacclejaicestsists 528
best places for, < 528
LENG LOTT i were letntaleielsialeletsiaie sierelnialeinisisisiaa’slsisje'slersfaleln(aintclais/slele nistaieiefele'e 528
PEROT amare tareip ola eiekt ses elo aicimalsieistameraie histeielslai ths
ae ae ar Wh peer a
Sai ees
se Ty NE ee
ohne amcspiodrmespa tiem hare gee enna tin Mir age
> y pe 3 i i ot
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIE
WE
nhbird SF995
Diseases and ene
Heth.
ate
Telyteleieiy
fatale tet
altietelesi
ni tet