Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

See te, aie 2

&

:
a.
a
4

3

Se ‘ he “» a er pants : 4 ee “
PEs ae eee Sele ee eee
_AUTHOR’S EDITION,

; y

FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
: | AGRICULTURE FOR THE YEAR 1888. .

Pye Onn lee

“we

*

x -

C. HART MERRIAM, M. D.,,

RA
Mea Bz
YRECEIVED @

x JUN-27 1889 +

«GOVERN

~

: ‘FICE.
ete Ae eee

et

J. M. RUSK,

Be aidaty of Aytiultute

AUTHOR’S EDITION.

FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE FOR THE YEAR 1888.

REPORT

OF THE

ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST,

C. HART MERRIAM, M. D.,

EE YY HAR. 1Sss.

WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIOE.

1889.
22052 OR——

CON TEN Ts.

Page.
Mentor Ob PEamcriintar . 7 2 pepe ee | 08 = oA Soc oes somes wee oo eae Seen wis ain 477
EOE Me WOE Kee noone eee ae 2 ie ieee cence wscen sk ets 477, 473
McHhMenieberitialiyins se sees ae ote oa ears ae 2 Sno scat eleae 478
PimvemMmeMianW OF GONe (nl LOee pote. 55 Oe asain sale eons caer ea 478-480
Mammals and Birds exhibited at the Cincinnati Exposition ........----.--- 480-481
fie Gearraphical Distr bution Of Species. ..2..- 22. ------.-5-S- ¢- = 2. sno -- 482-484
Special reports:
(1) Introduced Pheasants, by Dr. C. Hart Merriam: ......-..-.--------- 484-4838
(eine Mink, try be © Part Merriam .2 2.2255 nach 2 ase eae eo tos 488-490
(3) The Snaee: Fiecw kt oby Drsok. K. Wishorss2202 a2 le ones ene ae 491-496
(Aye ine) short-eared, Owl. by Wr A. K. “Wisher ..---= 1... -'- -<- 225 sa25-=56 496-498
(5) Phe Hoeoteot Crows, by Walter B. Barrows’. ..< 2.0.2. .+-2-< 2---.--- 498-535 |
(6) The Rose-breasted Grosbeak, an Enemy of the Potato Bug, by Walter
Lb SL EST le a ge ae And eee eg 535, 536
The special report on The Food of Crows contains the following subdivisions :
SpE OMmnIHEORE UG AUTOW 202 con Se aoe oo Sane saccee oles asae sea eeeece- 500
Injury to Indian Corn, Wheat, and other cereals . ....-......-..-------- 500-506
Payanyee aise ceresis than Cori... 2.52 2- fasta ce eee wa neree noes 506
2 Ui De Ey DID EIS NGS ROE SE eo See ae ee a ee 506, 507
Other Vegetable Food of the ter Se eRe eke Bost es Sean ee 508
PRC sEMUMTIOn OF NOXIOUS SeCdS. ...-.. ...0 25 “2-55 ss cSee cee ene eens 508-510
The Crow as a Destroyer of the Eggs and Young of Poultry and Wild Birds 510-515
Sian PoE CU ELINY rs see cc 2a eee see t eee See Beene we oes 515-518
The Crow an Enemy of Grasshoppers..-.------- waicel Meiers Sis See ae 519, 520
Dimi ce rth Otaho-DCOtles * -...- 5 24-45 psss20 -ssecs scanes coe coe ees 520, 521
The Insect Food of the Crow, as revealed by examination of Stomachs.. 521-523
The Crow as an Enemy to Field Mice and other small Quadrupeds .----. 523
Miscellaneous Animal Food of the Crow ..-.--...---- ne sa ee pe 523, 224
Speer ees Ae AVON CO! 80 Son oi is ae toa on tan’ see acess code ose 524
PePPEEERU COON OCLOY (oo aa 5 ee oan ae se ah cet ce tees eee 525
Sema oe ewridence from all SOUTCES -...-.. .--- ---- -2-- seen ee see 5-- 525
Results in detail of the examination of stomachs of the Common Crow
MEMES TET ECIETNES | on a ee oi ok peice awc eee soos esse asan 525-534
Results in detail of the pe ae pfstommctsof the Fish Crow (Corvus
PEM BIR sic = a Sn ru A. emcee acae ne 534, 535

<> RECEIVED 1
x JUN 27 1889 + -

oo He ates

theehy Noni ea

arabe: a ae
4 sat Hee)

Ges)

Ee eas * 7 Tt vu

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAM-
MALOGIST.

WASHINGTON, D. C., January, 1889.

Sir: I have the honor to submit herewith my third annual report
* upon the operations of the Division of Economic Ornithology and
Mammalogy, covering the year 1888. It consists of five parts, as
follows: (1) Scope of the work; (2) methods of inquiry; (3) statement
of work done during the year; (4) the geographical distribution of
species; and (5) special reports embodying results of investigations.
Respectfully,
C. Hart MERRIAM,
Chief of Division of
Ornithology and Mammalogy.
Hon. NorMAN J. COLMAN,
Commissioner of Agriculture,

In my last report two bulletins were mentioned as ready for the
printer. One of these, on the English Sparrow in America, is still
in the hands of the Public Printer. The other, on Bird Migration
in the Mississippi Valley, was issued in November, 1888. It is a
compact octavo volume of 313 pages, accompanied by an admirable
colored altitude map of the Mississippi Valley, showing in different
tints the contours of 100, 500, 1,000, and 2,000 feet, and also the posi-
tion of the observation stations. The publication of this work is an
event of much importance both to the Department of Agriculture
and to the science of ornithology. Its distribution to the regular
observers of the Division has resulted in the receipt of letters from
hundreds of persons desirous of securing it, many of whom have
volunteered their services as observers; and it has given a great
stimulus to the study of ornithology in the region of which it treats—
a region covering more than one-third the total area of the United
States, and including considerably more than half the species and
subspecies of birds known to inhabit North America. It affords a
more substantial foundation for the detailed study of the distribu-
aes migration of birds than exists in any other portion of the
world.

SCOPE OF THE WORK.

The scope of the work of this Division, as defined by act of Con-
gress, is, “‘the promotion of economic ornithology and mammalogy,
an investigation of the food habits, distribution, and migrations of
North American birds and mammals, in relation to agriculture, hor-
ticulture, and forestry.” The function of the Division, then, consists

477

478 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

in the collection of facts relating to the above subjects, and in the
arrangement and publication of these facts in the form of special
reports and bulletins. The field thus outlined is so large, and the
amount of money appropriated for the work so small, that it is im-
possible to cover more than a very limited portion of the ground;
hence of necessity the investigations thus far made have been along
special lines. At the same time, since it costs no more to ask ten
questions than it does to ask one, it has been the policy of the Divi-
sion in preparing its circulars and schedules to request more infor-
mation than can be put to immediate use, hoping that at some future
time it may be possible to elaborate and publish the whole. The
result of this course is the receipt of an immense mass of material
of great value, which the limited force of the Division is wholly
unable to handle.

METHODS OF INQUIRY.

The principal ways of gathering information are, (a) by personal
observation on the part of the staff of the Division and its special
field agents; (b) by the co-operation and assistance of farmers and
others in extending these observations over the entire country; (c)
by the collation of what has been already published on the subject;
and (d) by examination of stomach contents in the laboratory. With
these objects in view general circulars and schedules on the migration
and geographical distribution of birds have been sent out twice
each year, and special circulars, asking for detailed information on
particular subjects, have been issued from time to time.

STATEMENT OF WORK DONE IN 1888.

The work of the Division during the year 1888 has been confined
to the collection and elaboration of material relating to the general
subjects already mentioned.

My last report contained tabulated results of the critical examina-
tion of more than a thousand stomachs of hawks and owls, prepared
by Dr. A. K. Fisher, assistant ornithologist. The work in this direc-
tion has been continued during the past year, and the final results,
together with copious notes on the distribution and food habits of
the species concerned, will appear in a special illustrated bulletin al-
ready in an advanced stage of preparation.

Another assistant, Prof. Walter B. Barrows, has spent much time
in the examination of the stomachs of crows, the results of which are
incorporated in the present report.

In undertaking to identify the stomach contents of fruit-eating
and seed-eating birds, it became evident at once that no substantial
progress could be made without a reference collection of seeds, berries,
and the pits of fruits. Such a carpological collection does not exist
either in the Department of Agriculture or the United States National
Museum. Therefore it has been necessary for members of the Di-
vision to collect this indispensable material in order to carry on the
work of identifying the stomach contents of crows, blackbirds, and
many other species.

Considerable progress has been made in arranging for publication
the large amount of information in hand relating to the depreda-
tions of Blackbirds, but this work, as well as that relating to the
Rice-bird or Bobolink, is held back temporarily for lack of sufficient
competent field observation and experiment to complete the investi-
gations and determine the economic status of the species.

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 479

Perhaps the most important feature of the work of the year has
been the collection and partial arrangement of material for one or
more bulletins on the Pocket Gophers and Ground Squirrels of the
United States, an undertaking of surpassing importance to the agri-
culturists not only of the Mississippi Valley but of nearly the
whole of the western two-thirds of the continent. The magnitude
of the losses occasioned by these animals, and the imperative de-
mand for remedies, are almost unknown in the Eastern States. Dur-
ing the past summer an energetic field agent has devoted much time
to this work in Nebraska, Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah, and the
chief of this Division visited parts of Montana, Washington Terri-
tory, Oregon, and California in order to study personally the differ-
ent phases of the problem there presented, as well as the remedial
measures employed by the inhabitants.

The attempt to remedy the Gopher evil by the award of bounties
has proved as useless as in the case of the Rabbit plague and Sparrow
scourge ; and the persistency with which this method is resorted to
shows the necessity for a compilation of bounty laws and their re-
sults, at least in the United States. Such a compilation was begun
two years ago in connection with the Sparrow investigation, and has
been continued since, its scope having been enlarged to cover all legis-
lation directly affecting undomesticated birdsand mammals. During
the year 1888 letters have been written to all the county treasurers of
Minnesota, Dakota, and Iowa, two hundred and eighty in number,
asking if bounties were paid on Gophers, and, if so, requesting specific
information as to the statute or ordinance under which said bounties
were offered, the dates between which the law was held operative,
and the amounts disbursed on account of each species. A synopsis
of the information received in reply to these letters will appear in
the Gopher bulletin.

A not unimportant incidental feature of the routine work of the
Division consists in the identification of specimens of birds and
mammals sent to the Department for this purpose. Among those
received during the year 1888, in addition to those sent by private in-
dividuals scattered over the whole country, were small collections
from the Geological and Natural History Survey of Canada (includ-
ing several species new to science), and from the museum of Lavalle
University at Quebec. The total number of specimens received for
identification in 1888 considerably exceeded a thousand. The num-
ber is constantly on the increase, and it is hardly necessary to add
that great good is done by thus diffusing among the people an accu-
rate knowledge of the birdsand mammals with which they are sur-
rounded.

_* The routine work of the Division has been reduced to a system
designed to expedite the various operations involved, and to facili-
tate reference to and future collation of the voluminous material col-
lected ; but the amount of office work largely increases from year to
year, and has already assumed dimensions disproportionate to the
working force.

General circulars and schedules relating to the migration and geo-
graphical distribution of North American birds are mailed semi-
annually to nearly three thousand regular correspondents, and cir-
‘culars on special subjects are prepared and sent out as occasion
demands.

Scores of thousands of small birds are killed each year by striking
the light-houses along the coasts and lakes of the United States and

480 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Canada, and the keepers of these lights are requested to transmit to
this Division full accounts of the phenomena accompanying such
catastrophes, together with specimens (heads and wings) of the birds
killed. The material thus contributed is sufficient in itself to occupy
an assistant during the entire year, and when to this is added the
equally valuable reports of many hundred voluntary inland observers
throughout the United States and Canada, it will be seen that little
can be accomplished with the present force of the Division, now al-
most exclusively occupied in the more purely economic phases of
the work.

All information received, whether in reply to circulars or con-
tributed independently, is indorsed with the name and address of its
contributor, the date, and a brief statement of its contents; it is then
filed and indexed for ready reference. Careful separation is made of
notes relating to the different subjects under investigation in order
to facilitate its ready access and arrangement for bulletins or reports
on special species or groups of species. A record index of all mat-
ter received is kept on cards printed for that purpose, and arranged
alphabetically according to localities. General interest in the prac-
tical work of the Division increases, and a very large item of office
work is that which relates to the regular correspondence of the day.
Upwards of three thousand letters were answered during the year
1888, many of which necessitated considerable research in order to
answer the inquiries contained. All communications received are
promptly acknowledged, and press copies are taken of all letters
written.

CINCINNATI EXPOSITION.

In the summer and fall of 1888 an exposition, entitled the ‘‘ Centen-
nial Exposition of the Ohio Valley and Central States,” was held at
Cincinnati, Ohio, opening July 4 and closing November 8. Asa
part of the exhibit of the Agricultural Department this Division
placed on exhibition a collection of the birds of prey of the United
States. Through co-operation with the United States National Mu-
seum the series of species shown was very complete, nearly every
known species of North American Hawk and Owl being represented
by at least one specimen. In many cases the young as well as the
adults were exhibited, and both sexes where the plumage of the male
differs from that of the female. To each specimen was attached a
large printed label, giving its common and scientific names, its distri-
bution, and its food. Following is an example of one of these labels :

RED-TAILED HAWKE.
Buteo borealis (Gm.).

Habitat.—Eastern North America to and including the Missis-
sippi Valley; north to the Fur Countries; south through eastern
Mexico to Guatemala.

Food.—Mice and other small mammals, toads, snakes, frogs,
and crawfish, with an occasional chicken or small bird.

Of 311 stomachs examined, 258 contained mice and other mam-
mals; 24, insects; 29, poultry or game birds; 35, other birds; 9,
batrachians or reptiles; 4, offal; 3, crawfish; and 29 were empty.
Two hundred and ten examined by the Division contained 270
mice.

a.

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST.

481

The following species of birds of prey were exhibited:

Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo borealis).
Western Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo borealis
calurus).
Harlan’s Hawk (Buteo harlani).
Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni).
Zone-tailed Hawk (Buteo abbreviatus).
Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus).
Red-bellied Hawk (Buteo lineatus ele-

).
White. tailed Hawk (Buteo albicaudatus).
Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo latissimus).
Rough-legged Hawk (Archibuteo lago-
us).
Miveriean Rough-legged Hawk (Archi-
buteo lagopus sancti-johannis).
Squirrel Hawk (Archibuteo ferrugineus).
Harris’s Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus
harrisi).
Mexican Black Hawk (Urubitinga an-
thracina).
Goshawk (Accipiter atricapillus).
Mexican Goshawk (Asturina plagiata).
Osprey or Fish Hawk (Pandion haliz-
tus).
Audubon’s Caracara (Polyborus cheri-
way).
Golden Eagle (Aquila chryszetos).
Bald Eagle (Halizeetus leucocephalus).
Duck Hawk (Falco peregrinus anatum).
White Gyrfalcon (Falco islandus).
Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus).
Sparrow Hawk (Falco sparverius).
Pigeon Hawk (Falco columbarius).
Richardson’s Merlin (Falco richardsoni).

Aplomado Falcon (Falco fusco-ccerules-
cens).

Mississippi Kite (Ictinia mississippiensis).

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus).

Swallow-tailed Kite (Elanoides forfica-
tus).

Everglade Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis).

Marsh Hawk (Circus hudsonius).

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter velox).

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperi).

Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus).

Western Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus
subarcticus).

Great Grey Owl (Scotiaptex cinereum),.

Snowy Owl (Nyctea nyctea).

Barred Owl (Syrnium nebulosum),

Spotted Owl (Syrnium occidentale),

Barn Owl (Strix pratincola).

Hawk Owl (Surnia ulula caparoch).

Richardson’s Owl (Nyctala tengmalmi
richardsoni).

Saw-whet Owl (Nyctala acadica).

Screech Owl (Megascops asio).

Flammulated Screech Owl (Megascops
flammeolus).

Ferruginous Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium
phaleenoides).

Pigmy Owl (Glaucidium gnoma).

Elf Owl (Micropallas whitneyi).

Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia
hypogeea).

Short-eared Owl (Asio accipitrinus).

Long-eared Owl (Asio wilsonianus).

In addition to the series of birds of prey above enumerated, the
Division put on exhibition the following other birds of known eco-

nomic importance:

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus).

Cowbird (Molothrus ater).

Yellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthoceph- |
alus xanthocephalus).

Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius pheeni- |
ceus).

| Rusty Blackbird (Scolecophagus caro-

linus).
Purple Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula).
| Boat-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus major).
Meadow Lark (Sturnella magna).

| Bob-white (Colinus virginianus).

A collection of mammals also was exhibited, comprising the fol-

lowing:

Opossum (Didelphis virginianus).
Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus).

Beechey’s Spermophile (Spermophilus |

grammurus beecheyi).

Richardson’s Spermophile (Spermophilus
richardsoni).

Striped Spermophile (Spermophilus tri-
decemlineatus).

Red Squirrel (Sciurus hudsonius).

Muskrat (Fiber zibethicus).

Meadow Mouse (Arvicola riparius).

Rice Field Mouse (Oryzomys palustris).

White-footed Mouse (Hesperomys leuco-

pus).
House Rat (Mus decumanus).
Pocket Gopher (Geomys bursarius),

Gray Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bulbiv-
orous).

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatus).

Rabbit (Lepus sylvaticus).

Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda).

Mole (Scalops aquaticus).

Star-nosed Mole (Condylura cristata).

Skunk (Mephitis mephitica).

Badger (Taxidea americana),

Weasel (Putorius erminea).

Mink (Lutreola vison).

Gray Fox (Urocyon virginianus).

Red Fox (Vulpes fulvus).

Prairie Wolf or Coyote (Canis latrans).

Wildcat (Lynx rufus).

482 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES.

The subject of the geographical distribution of species is one whose
importance from the economic stand-point can hardly be overesti-
mated, and one which ought to receive vastly more attention than
can possibly be given it with the present limited means at the dis-
posal of the Division. As the work of the geologist in his search
for coal-fields and mineral wealth must be preceded by the work of
the topographer, who furnishes him maps on which to indicate the
position of his discoveries, so should the work of the economic zoolo-
gist be based on a knowledge of the geographic distribution of spe-
cies. Were this knowledge available, both the agricultural experi-
ment station and the intelligent farmer, wherever located, would
derive great benefit therefrom, and millions of dollars now spent in
indiscriminate experimentation might be saved.

In order to understand this fully it is necessary to bear in mind
certain fundamental facts and laws. It is a matter of common ob-
servation that different groups of animals and plants inhabit differ-
ent regions, even in the same latitude; that some forms are almost —
cosmopolitan in distribution, while others are restricted to very lim-
ited areas; that the ranges of very dissimilar species are often geo-
graphically coincident; and that, as a rule, animals inhabiting con-
tiguous areas are more nearly related than animals inhabiting remote
areas. The recognition of these facts early led to the attempt to
divide the surface of the earth, according to its animal life, into
“faunal” districts. The term “‘fauna” is used to designate the sum
of the animal life of a region.

As a general rule it may bestated that the causes which govern
the distribution of one group of land animals govern also the dis-
tribution of other groups of land animals, and of plants as well.
It follows that a plant or animal found abundantly inhabiting any
part of a particular faunal area will be found in other parts of that
area, subject, of course, to local restrictions. The practical applica-
tion of this knowledge is obvious.

In experimenting with a crop or garden plant of limited natural
or artificial* range it would be necessary only to ascertain the extent
of the faunal area in which it thrives in order to know just where it
might be introduced with every prospect of success, soil and other
local modifying influences being suitable. Moreover—and this per-
haps is of even greater importance from the economic stand-point—
the possession of this knowledge would indicate in advance the limits
of the area outside of which the plant would not flourish. Plants
are much more susceptible than animals to minor environmental in-
fluences, such as slight differences in altitude and soil, daily varia-
tions in temperature, humidity, exposure to sunlight, and protection
from wind; therefore slight local conditions which would be unno-
ticed in the case-of mammals or birds must be carefully considered
in the case of plants.

This is but one of the ways in which a-knowledge of the distribu-
tion of species would be of advantage to the practical agriculturist.
It would help him also in his relations with injurious and beneficial
species, as he would know beforehand just what species were to be
looked for in his immediate vicinity. Furthermore, in the case of
noxious animals or weeds which from time to time suddenly extend

* By artificial range is meant the range resulting from the voluntary acts of man.

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 483

their range, it would be possible, if the faunal status of a particular
species had been previously ascertained, for farmers living within
the particular area or province likely to be invaded to prepare in
advance for its coming, or to avoid its inroads altogether by plant-
ing crops not affected by it. On the other hand, farmers living out-
side of the region over which this species would be likely to pass
might greatly increase their revenues by giving special attention to
the cultivation of the particular crops affected by it. In short, a
knowledge of the faunal areas and provinces of the United States,
coupled with the results of intelligent experimentation on the part
of the various agricultural stations, would enable our farmers to
select the crops best adapted to their localities, and would put an
end to the present indiscriminate experimentation by which hun-
dreds of thousands if not millions of dollars are needlessly expended
each year. Agriculture and biology must be studied from the
geographic stand-point before we can hope to avail ourselves of the
means within our grasp for the rapid advancement of these sciences.
But geography is only a part of the broader science of physiography.
Physiography deals with the earth’s exterior in relation to the atmos-
phere; it attempts to correlate the forms of the land—the mountain
ranges, table lands, plains, valleys, and water-courses—its geologic
structure, soil, elevation above sea level, and slope exposure in rela-
tion to sunlight, with the phenomena of climate, including tempera-
ture and moisture in their various aspects.

Our aim should be to explain the distribution of animals and plants
by means of a knowledge of the conditions which govern this distribu-
tion, and to formulate the laws which are operative in bringing about
the results we see. In other words, we are to study cause and effect
in the relations of physiography to biology. A comparatively meager
supply of information is sufficient to indicate in a general way the
faunal subdivisions of aregion, but for mapping the exact boundaries
of such areas a vastly greater and more precise fund of knowledge
is necessary. The way in which such maps are prepared is by col-
lecting all available authentic records of localities where the par-
ticular species has been found. This is done by compilation of pub-
lished records, by examination of labels of museum specimens, and
by work in the field, the latter being by far the most important. The
facts thus brought together are arranged alphabetically, and are tabu-
lated under the head of ‘‘Species.” The localities are then indicated by
colored spots on an outline map, the space surrounded by the spots
being washed in witha paler tint of the same color. A separate map
is devoted to each species. Faunal maps are made by combining a
large number of species maps. In making such combinations it is
found asarule that a considerable percentage of the species maps
fall into certain well-defined categories whose color patches are essen-
tially coincident. The composite resulting from the co-ordination of
these maps may be held to represent the natural faunal areas of a
country. Several such areas may be characterized by the common
possession of species not found elsewhere, and may be combined to
constitute a faunal province; several provinces a region, and several
regions a realm or primary zoo-geographical division of the earth’s
surface. Having ascertained the actual extent and limitations of the
faunal districts, it remains to correlate the facts of distribution with
the facts of physiography. Foremost among the influences known
to affect the distribution of terrestrial forms of life are the protean
elements and manifestations commonly termed climate. To stop at

484 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

the word ‘“‘climate” is a profession of ignorance. We must look to
the separate elements that go to make up climate, and must study
the physical features which determine the so-called climatic condi-
tions prevalent in any region. Among the most potent of atmos-
pheric influences are temperature, humidity, and wind, each of which
must be considered both singly and in combination with one or both
of the others.

Finally, the interrelation of plants and animals must not be lost
sight of. Here we have to do with the influences of vegetation—of
forests, thickets of undergrowth, plains of sage-brush, prairies of
waving grass, and the multitude of other forms which plants assume
in their efforts to hide the bare surface of the earth—upon the dis-
tribution of animal life. Conversely, the effects of animal life in
checking or limiting the growth and dispersion of plant life remain
to be considered. And this takes us back to the original economic
work of the Division.

The great importance of a knowledge of the geographic distribu-
tion of species, particularly in view of the large sums recently ap-
propriated for the establishment of agricultural experiment stations
in various parts of the country, has led the Division to undertake the
preparation of anumber of colored maps showing what is now known
of the distribution of particular species of mammals and birds. Only
a beginning has been made, and further progress must be slow for
want of adequate means tocarry onthe work. Competent field agents
must be sent to many parts of the country to collect information be-
fore the work can be completed. It is hoped that the means of doing
this will be granted the Division.

SPECIAL REPORTS.

The following special reports will be found herein :

(1) Introduced Pheasants. By Dr.C. Hart Merriam, Ornithologist.

(2) The Mink (Lutreola vison). By Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Orni-
thologist.

(3) TheSparrow Hawk. By Dr. A. K. Fisher, Assistant Ornitholo-

gist.

(4) The Short-eared Owl. By Dr. A. K. Fisher, Assistant Ornithol-
ogist.

(5) The Food of Crows. By W. B. Barrows, Assistant Ornitholo-

gist.
(6) The Rose-breasted Grosbeak, an Enemy of the Potato Bug.

INTRODUCED PHEASANTS.

PACIFIC COAST REGION.

Four flourishing colonies of introduced Pheasants now exist in the
Pacific Coast region. The most northerly of these is on the south
end of Vancouver Island, near Victoria ; the second on Protection
Island, in Puget Sound ; the third at the junction of the Willamette
River with the Columbia; and the fourth in the middle portion of
the Willamette Valley. The twe latter colonies are now separated
by so narrow a strip of territory that they will doubtless become
united during the nextfew years. The above facts were ascertained by
personal observation in the early autumn of 1888. All of the Pheas-

Tee Ss ee

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 485

ants comprising the three colonies last mentioned appear to have
been imported from China by Judge O. N. Denny. Concerning the
exact dates of the several importations, and the number and kinds
of birds imported, it is difficult to obtain positive information, as
may be seen from the somewhat conflicting testimony appended to
this article. The species positively ascertained to be present in the
Oregon colonies are the following : The Golden Pheasant (Chrysolo-
phus pictus), Green Pheasant (Phasianus versicolor), and Ring
Pheasant (Phasianus torquatus), of which the latter is by far the

most abundant. Iam not aware that the so-called English Pheas-

ant (Phasianus colchicus) is found in Oregon, though it is the species
most frequently introduced in the Eastern United States.

On Protection Island, near Port Townsend, in Puget Sound, there
are at present three species of imported Pheasants, namely: The
Golden, the Mongolian or Ring-necked, and the Silver. They were
sent there by Judge O. N. Denny, from China, along with two other
species which soon disappeared and have not been since heard from.
One of the latter seems to have been a species of Partridge. I was
told that these birds were sent to Protection Island for the pur-
pose of breeding and multiplying in order that they might be ex-

orted to stock various parts of the Pacific ccast region, particu-
arly in Oregon and California. The owner of the island, a Mr.
Powers, was paid at first to take care of the Pheasants, to feed them
when necessary, and to keep off shooters. After the first year or
two, however, the pay was discontinued and the Pheasants became
the property of the owner of the island. JI am intormed that the
island has been sold recently, together with the Pheasants, to some
one in California. The Golden Pheasants and Ring-necks have mul-
tiphed and are now abundant, but the Silver Pheasants have de-
creased, and not more than about a dozen are left. They are shy
and keep in the woods. The Golden Pheasants are tame, and will
even eat from the hand. The Ring-necks are said to be the most
numerous of all, and to be as wildasthe native Grouse. About half
the island is cleared and has grown up to grass, the remaining por-
tion being covered with dense evergreen forests and undergrowth.
I am told that the Crows, doubtless Corvus caurinus, have learned
the nesting habits of the Pheasants and are likely to prove a check
to their increase, as they devour the eggs.

Mr. A. H. Morgan, of Portland, Oregon, has given me the following
information concerning the importation of Pheasants into Oregon:
All the birds imported were sent from China by Judge O. N. Denny,
then consul-general to Shanghai, at a total cost of about $300. They
were shipped to Mr. Morgan, my informant, who personally looked
after and liberated them.

PHEASANTS.—The first importation (1881?) consisted of Mongolian
Ring-necks, with the exception of three Sand Grouse or Partridges,
which latter were never heard from after their liberation. This
batch was shipped on a vessel which went to Puget Sound. The
Pheasants were put into chicken crates and sent from Puget Sound
to Portland, where Mr. Morgan received them. Most of them died
on the way, but twelve males and three females reaching Portland
alive. These were taken at once to the farm of George Green, at
the mouth of.the Willamette River, about 12 miles from Port-
land, where they were set at liberty. Though wild they returned
to the barn-yard to feed with the chickens. This was in spring.
During the summer two of the three hens were observed wath

486 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

broods, and it was thought that the third hen was successful also in
rearing young. At all events they began to spread in the fall of the
same year, and were found on Sophia Island as well as at several
places on the main-land before winter. They wintered well, and
have been increasing ever since. They are now common. Soon
after their importation the legislature passed a special act for their
protection.

The second importation (1882?) consisted wholly of Mongolian
Ring-necks. Thirty-five or thirty-six birds, about half of each sex,
were sent direct from China to Portland, where they arrived in
fair condition. They were taken to Washington Butte, about 12
miles east of Albany, in the Willamette Valley, and there liberated.
Within two months a pair was observed on a farm 50 miles from
the place where they were set at liberty. They crossed the river
into Polk County the same year, and are now abundant in Polk, Ma-
rion, and Linn Counties. The two original colonies have never met,
there being an area across the Lower Willamette where Pheasants
have not yet appeared. Some complaints of their depredations in
grain fields have been made by farmers.

SAND GROUSE.—In or about 1881 nine Sand Grouse were liberated
on the Clatsop Plains. They promptly disappeared and have not
been heard from since.

The American Field for January, 1885 (p. 57), contains the fol-
lowing notice:

Arrival of Chinese Game Birds.—Judge O. N. Denny, who arrived here from
China by the last steamer, says the Portland Oregonian, brought with him thirty
baskets and seven'crates of Chinese game birds. They comprise specimens of six
varieties of the pheasant family, and arrived in splendid order, only four of about
ninety birds shippedhaving died; * * * of the number thirty-one are Golden
Pheasants. * * * The remainder are Silver, Copper, Green, Trogapan, and
Ring-necked Pheasants, there being only a few of the latter, of which Judge Denny
made several shipments while in China, which are now doing well and increasing
rapidly in various sections of the State.

Mr. Asher Tyler, of Forest Grove, Oregon, has kindly written the
following in reply to my inquiries on the subject:

From the time the Pheasants mentioned in your letter were imported by Judge
O. N. Denny I have watched them closely and have learned their habits thor-
oughly.

(i) The Ring-necks were let loose in 1882. Fifteen females and ten males were
placed on Judge Denny’s farm, 95 miles south of Forest Grove. Two years ago
two or three were seen in our neighborhood. Now (January 21, 1889) there are
about two hundred of them in our vicinity, having spread very rapidly and increased
wonderfully. The females produce from fifteen to eighteen eggs of good size at
each litter, and hatch them all. Some of them lay two litters a year or season, and
raise all their young. The old ones have lots of nerve; will fight a hawk, or any-
thing that comes near them. The cocks will go ina barn-yard and whip the best
barn-yard fowls we have, and run things according to theirown notion. They are
very hardy and stand our winters well. Their favorite haunts are low grounds near
fields of grain, on which they depredate. They are very destructive to gardens as
well. They nest in old straws tacks, stubble fields, or grass patches, beginning in
May. Farmers while plowing often find their nests, take the eggs, set them under
barn-yard hens, and raise the young easily. They become very domestic. I do not
hear of their crossing. I have one that is a favorite with all who know him. His
plumage is beautiful, having twenty-nine shades and colors blending over the body.
The weight of the males is about 5 pounds; of the females, 4 pounds.

(2) The Golden Pheasants presented by Judge Denny to the Rod and Gun Club,
of Portland, Oregon, two or three years later, were placed on Protection Island,
Puget Sound, and have become numerous. A pair was set at liberty on the Clatsop
Plains, near Astoria, where they have increased rapidly. Occasionally one is seen
in our vicinity, about 90 miles from: where they were turned loose four years ago.
Yesterday I saw two pairs of Golden Pheasants a short distance from town. Their

|
‘

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 487

habits are about the same as those of the Ring-necks. They are hardy, easily do-
mesticated, but not as prolific as the Ring-neck. Their flesh is white and tender.

(8) The Tragapan Pheasant.—Only two females came through alive. They were
turned loose on Protection Island with the Golden. I have not been able to get any
account of what became of them after being turned out.

The above birds are all protected by State laws for two years longer, but in sev-
eral of the counties they have become so numerous that farmers kill them asa
nuisance. Report says that whole fields of wheat have been destroyed by them,
and that gardens are torn up—not even onions being exempt from their appetities.
Great complaints are made against them. The legislature of our State has been
petitioned to repeal the law protecting them. (Letter dated January, 1889.)

Dr. F. 8. Matteson writes from Aumsville, Marion County, Oregon,
under date of January 22, 1889:

The bird in question was sent here from China by Hon. O. N. Denny, American
minister to that country, some seven years ago. There were two importations,
one of which I did not see, but I think there were fifteen or twenty hens, with a less
number of males. Now they are plentiful in most parts of the Willamette Valley,
but Iam not informed that they have as yet passed outside of it. They aremorea
bird of open ground than the native Pheasant. They seek brush and timber for
shelter when flushed. but will not ‘‘tree” foradog. They usually make a loud cack-
ling noise when flushed. They lie close, and run and hide with remarkable dexter-
ity, and area hard bird to get. This Pheasant is well adapted to take care of himself,
is increasing fast,and has evidently come to stay. Heis voted a nuisance by the
farmer, and Iam afraid his introduction will prove a calamity to the country, what-
ever it may be to the sportsman. He is a vigorous fighter, and there are many
reports of his going through the farmers’ roosters. Cases are reported of his crossing
with the hens. He isdestructive in gardens, and in patches of berries and small fruits.
I am of opinion that he robs the nests of other birds. The Quail have nearly disap-
peared in this locality since his advent, and I think heistoblame. He ispretty good
eating, about like our native Pheasant, but [am inclined to regard him as a gaudily
painted deception and afraud. But we have got him, and our State law for his
protection has yet four years torun. Happily, however, it is fast becoming ‘‘ more
honored in the breach than in the observance.” That he will overrun the United
States, at least all but the heavily timbered portions of it, I have no doubt. All the
plains country 2nd untimbered hills and mountains between this coast and the At-
lantic are adapted to him, especially the more southern parts, and I see nothing to
prevent him from spreading himself. The State that protects him will make a
grave error, for he is of no use except as a ‘“‘ game bird,” and will crowd out many
other useful kinds. He ‘“‘roosts” on the ground, hiding in grass or weeds. The
hen lays, on the ground, from twelve to eighteen eggs at a clutch, and raises two
and sometimes three broods inaseason. The male ‘‘ crows” something like a young
domestic rooster just learning the art, and flaps or rather flutters his wings a/fter-
ward. He will sit on a fence and crow for hours, in plain view, when you have no
gun, but if you think you can get him when you have your gun, try it and see!

Mr. R. S. Barr, also of Aumsyille, Oregon, writes as follows:

In the spring the male goes alone. Mornings they crow like our common cock of
the barn-yard. They hatch about the Ist of May. They are very destructive birds
both to grain and small fruits. The Pheasant is naturally a tame bird. When not
disturbed he often comes in the chicken yard and fights the chickens. It is generally

_ believed that he destroys the eggs and young of useful native birds, but we have no

proof of this. There is a law to protect him here, but it is generally disregarded by
the people. (Letter dated January 24, 1889.)

Mr. George 8. Johns writes that at Kalama, Wash., they are
abundant and on the increase. It is evident that the birds found
there came from the colony at the mouth of the Willamette River,
only about 30 miles distant.

Mr. L. Belding, of Stockton, Cal., contributes the following:

Some years ago a flock of English Pheasants was put out in the woods of Santa
Cruz County, Cal., but nothing has been seen or heard of them since. Colonel Hay-

mond, of San Mateo, has a number of these birds, English and Japanese, but he has
had no success in raising them; when let out they suddenly disappear and nothingjis

- seenorheardof them. Mr. Howard, near by, has experimented with the same bird.

A88 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

A few weeks since he informed me that his foreman told him he had seen a flock of
twenty-two. The birds mentioned are the only ones experimented with. Certainly
thus far the experiments in California are not a success. In Oregon they have met
with great success.

The Portland Oregonian of January 30, 1889, contains the follow- ©
ing letter from Hon. T. T. Geer in relation to the Pheasant legisla-
tion:

. THE MONGOLIAN PHEASANTS,

SALEM, OREGON, January 29.
To the Editor of the Oregonian:

The Oregonian seems to misunderstand the main feature of the Mongolian Pheas-
ant bill now before the legislature.

_ While the bill as introduced by myself does repeal the original act of protection,
the game laws of the State are amended so as to afford the same protection to
Mongolian Pheasants as to all other birds of similar nature.

Those of our people who are unused to these birds would upon further acquaint-
ance view this bill in a different light. In the matter of ‘‘ multiplying” they seem
toregard themselves as having been specially included in the original biblical in-
junction, and are striving, in season and out, for first money. * * * You had
just as well provide for the prevention of the extermination of grasshoppers; as
a farmer, however, I not only have no objection to them but rather admire them,
and would not for a moment favor a measure that would tend to act even as a
check to their propagation.

In the Sunday Oregonian you admit that ‘‘in some places they do damage to
grain fields,” but excuse them for the reason that the damage ‘‘ doesn’t amount to
much in the aggregate,” and the inference is that they must be unmolested until
their damage does amount to ‘‘ much in the aggregate,” and then the protection
may be withdrawn safely.

It is a curious argument that confesses a thing to be a ‘‘ nuisance” now by ad-
mitting that it injures a few of our farmers, but still insists that protection must be
extended to it until it becomes strong enough to reach all our farmers and then
turn loose.

Iam a friend to the Mongolian Pheasants, and willingly favor giving them the
same protection afforded our other birds, but where they are numerous enough to
destroy grain fields it certainly ought to be lawful to kill them, and in those sec-
tions of the State where there are none it is not at all likely many will be killed.
**T shall vote for the bill.”

T. T. GEER.

THE MINK (Lutreola vison).

The Mink inhabits the whole of the United States, excepting the
arid regions, which are unfitted for its habits of life. It is a species
of great economic importance, beth on account of the value of its
fur and on account of its injurious habits. As an enemy to the
poultry yard it ranks ahead of the Weasel and all other North Ameri-
can mammals. Furthermore, it kills large numbers of fish, as it
not only swims and dives with facility, but can remain long under
water, pursuing and capturing its prey by following it below the
surface. Oftentimes its destructiveness in this respect renders it a
serious obstacle to the industry of fish culture. Away from the
vicinity of man it habitually feeds upon small mammals, birds and
their eggs, fish, frogs, turtles’ eggs, and the like. In the nest of a
Mink I once found the remains of a muskrat, a red squirrel, and a
downy woodpecker. Its harmfulness is offset in a measure by the
good it does in killing injurious rodents, particularly muskrats and
common rats and mice. Hence, although an acknowledged enemy
to the poultry raiser and fish culturist, it is a public benefactor 1n
localities where muskrats damage dikes, canals, irrigating ditches,

Report of the Ornithologist and Mammalogist, U. S. Department of Agricufture, 1888.

“(NOSIA VIOSYLN 7) ANIL SHL

a tk ee ee

ee

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 489

and ponds. At the same time, in the ight of our present knowl-
edge, it must be regarded as more injurious than beneficial, at least
so far as the farmer is concerned. From the farmers’ stand-point it
is interesting principally as an enemy to barn-yard fowls. Though
amphibious, and commonly inhabiting the borders of ponds and
streams, it makes long excursions, and is frequently found in places
remote from water-courses. It often takes up its abode in or near
the poultry-yard or duck-pond, remaining there for weeks. Its
small size and nocturnal habits help to conceal its movements, and
the daily loss of a fowl is commonly attributed to the skunk, fox,
weasel, or owl.

The Mink is remarkably strong for so small an animal, and has
been known to drag a Mallard Duck more than a mile in order to get
to its hole, where it was joined by its mate.

In times past, whenthe fur of the Mink commanded a higher price
than at present, Mink farming has been carried on successfully as a
profitable industry. The females beginto breed when one year old;
the period of gestation is six weeks, and from three to ten young are
born at atime. In the latitude of New York thereis but one littera
year, and this is brought forth in the early part of May.

The best way to capture a Mink is by means of a steel trap, prop-
erly concealed and baited with a bird or fish. Professional trappers
find the Mink attracted by the smell of an oil made from fish that
have been allowed to decay in a loosely corked bottle placed in the
sun. The odor from this oil is said to be effective at considerable
distances, and a few drops of it will often entice a Mink into the
trap when no bait is visible.

The following examples of testimony from farmers and others in-

_ dicate the extent of its depredations:

Dr. William C. Avery, or Greensborough, Ala., writes that in the
spring of 1887 the poultry house of his sister was visited two or three

times a week by a Mink until at least a dozen hens were killed.

David H. Henman, of Willows, Dak., writes that in December,
1886, a Mink killed all of his hens in one night. He says:

The third night he killed the cock, and I found him in the hen-house the next
morning taking his breakfast. One of my neighbors lost fifty-one fowls in one
night by one Mink, which was found in the morning finishing his meal; he was
killed with a stick; only two chickens were left alive.

William H. Ferrit, of Bristol, Ill., says:

The Mink is the worst enemy to poultry that we have. He follows up small

streams and destroys thousands of eggs and poultry.

W. H. Head, of Bristow, Iowa, says:

In January, 1887, a Mink visited the poultry house of my brother, and in one
night killed eighteen full-grown fowls. The hen-house is about 40 rods from a large
marsh where Minks are plentiful. During the past winter my brother lost more

- than one hundred fowls from these pests. We once set a large Cochin hen in the

banking of an old strawstable. This wassometimein June. Early one morning I

observed a large Mink near thestable. A few days later I examined the nest. There

was but one egg left. The next morning I went to the stable and found the hen
missing. Reaching back into a hole behind the nest, and feeling the hen, I pulled
her out. She was dead, with a hole in her neck which the Mink had made to suck
her blood. The next day my brother shot the Mink. We then took away the bank-
me ce the stable and found most of the eggs unbroken, and also found five young

* John B. Lewis, of Eubank, Ky., writes:
In the summer of 1884 I lost seven chickens in one night bya Mink. The night
following I caught the Mink on its return to the hen-house. Again on the night of
22052 OR 2

490 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

November 16, 1887, a Mink entered our hen-house and killed one hen. The follow-—
ing night I killed ié on its return.

William G. Voorheis, of South Frankfort, Mich., writes:
One Mink killed thirty-nine hens in three nights. I caught the animal.

G. C. Dinsmoor, of Austin, Minn., writes:
I had five ducks and two hens killed by a Mink; caught him in the act.

N. W. Wright, of Farmland, Ind., writes:

I have known a Mink to kill as many as ave four grown chickens in one night
in this neighborhood. It was caught in a trap on its return the next night.

H. J. Giddings, of Sabula, Iowa, writes:

In September, 1886, a Mink got into my poultry house and killed ten ducks and
twelve chickens, killing from two to eight in a night. I caught him, after which
no more were taken.

W. B. Hall, of Wakeman, Ohio, writes:

The past season Minks have been very troublesome on my farm, killing many
chickens, often several in a night. They killed fifteen chickens that would have
weighed 3 pounds or more. In another week ten more were killed. Since then we
have lost two or three more at a time, until in all about forty-five were killed. I
have tried various means of trapping, and have finally succeeded in getting rid of
most of the Minks.

Mr. George S. Johns, of Dilley, Oregon, writes:

I have known one Mink to kill thirty-one grown chickens in one night, and
another Mink to kill sixteen half-grown turkeys in one night. I caught the Mink
on both occasions.

A. J. Johnson, of Hydeville, Vt., writes:

This season a friend lost nearly all of his chickens and ducks by Minks. His
poultry house was near the river, and the animals were seen by hin.

Marcus 8. Crane, of Caldwell, N. J., writes:

A Mink dug a hole under the door of our duck pen one night and killed three
ducks. I puta steel-trap in the hole next night and captured the Mink.

Hon. Robert B. Roosevelt, of Sayville, Long Island, N. Y., writes.

In the course of a week I lost seven spring chickens and caught the Mink which
killed them. We have suffered in a similar way from Minks before.

J. W. Van Kirk, of Milton, Pa., writes:
On one occasion I lost eight ducks by a Mink: each one was bitten in the neck.

J. W. Johnson, of Meriwether, 8. C., writes:

When Minks are numerous they are very destructive, sometimes killing as many
as a dozen chickens in one night.

J. H. Shank, of Hickory, W. Va., writes:

Minks are very destructive to chickens, killing sometimes as-‘many as a dozen in
one night.

Z. L. Welman, of Stoughton, Wis., writes:

A: neighbor lost a flock of ducks by a Mink, which he killed. Another neighbor
lost a dozen hens by a Mink; he killed it also.

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 491

THE SPARROW HAWK (Falco sparverius).

By Dr. A. K. FISHER.

The Sparrow Hawkis probably the best known as well as thesmall-
est and one of the handsomest of American hawks.

It ranges over the entire continent of temperate North America,
breeding in suitable localities from Maine to California, and from
the fur countries south into Mexico. Its nest has been taken as far
north as Foi: .tesolution (lat. 62°), on Great Slave Lake, which prob-
ably is near the most northern limit of its distribution. It is reported
as rare in most parts of New England, tlfough there are certain sec-
tions where it is fairly common. In the mountains of the West and in
most parts of the South it is abundant, and at certain times of the
year is common on the Great Plains. In winter a few hardy indi-
viduals remain in southern New England and New York, but the
species as a winter resident is not common until the latitude of Mary-
land and Virginia is reached; thence southward it becomes more and
more plentiful. In the Mississippi Valley it does not range quite so
far north in winter as along the Atlantic, for few are found above
the 38th parallel. Along the Pacific coast it winters considerably
further north than at the East.

This little Hawk guards the vicinity of its home or hunting ground

492 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

with zealous care, resenting the invasions of the larger species. The
writer has often seen a Red-tailed or Red-shouldered Hawk enter a
locality in which a Sparrow Hawk was perchedon the top of some
tall tree, evidently thinking he had a prior right to the whole region.
Assoonas the large hawk approached near enough, the Sparrow Hawk
launched out in pursuit, and in a very short time the intruder was
convinced that hunting could be carried on to better advantage in
other places. In making anattack the Sparrow Hawk always rises
above its enemy and darts down, striking with bill and talons.

In a iocality where it is very little molested it is quite tame and
unsuspecting, often allowing a person to approach as near as 20 yards
before taking wing, and when flushed it flies but a short distance.
It is quite another matter to advance upon one in places where it is
more or less hunted. Experience seems to have taught it just how
far a gun will carry, and generally it will leave the perch just before
an effective point is reached. After following it for an hour or more
and taking a few chance shots, the gunner usually gives up in dis-
gust and leaves the hawk in as good spirits as when first seen.

The Sparrow Hawk builds its nest in hollows of trees, either in nat-
ural excavations which are formed by erosion of the dead wood by
the elements, or in holes made by the larger woodpeckers. If the
flicker (Colaptes) is the bird imposed upon, which is most often the
case, it never openly battles with the hawk for the retention of its
home, but sometimes annoys the latter by removing the nesting ma-
terial as fast as it is deposited, making it finally necessary for one of
the hawks to remain near to guard the nest.

The cavity chosen is usually a considerable distance from the
ground, rarely under 20 feet and often in the tops of the highest
trees. In the West, on account of its mode of nesting, the species is
more or less restricted in the breeding season to the near vicinity of
timber, though in some localities it nests in cavities in limestone
cliffs or in holes made by kingfishers in the sand banks. It has been
stated that occasionally the deserted nests of crows or other birds are
made use of, but this habit must be extremely rare. Capt. Charles
E. Bendire, whose field experience in the West has been extensive
and varied, and cften in places where birds by force of circumstances
are not able to follow a fixed habit, informed the writer that on one
occasion only did he suspect this hawk of breeding in an open nest.
In the case in point the evidence was anything but satisfactory, for
although the birds were seen near the nest, which was situated in a
very large tree, he thought there might have been a cavity which
was not visible from the ground. In California, Prof. B. W. Ever-
mann has found it using the deserted nest of the magpie (Auk,
vol. iii, p. 93). This is not so strange, for we might expect the en-
trance in the side of the canopied nest of the magpie, simulating an
opening in the side of a tre®, would attract the hawk, especially ina
locality where desirable hollows are scarce.

Dr. William Wood mentions the following interesting instance of
departure from its usual nesting habit:

A farmer made a dove-house inside of his barn with holes through the sides of
the building communicating with it. A pair of doves that had nested there were
attacked and killed by a pair of Sparrow Hawks, who took possession of their nest,
laid four eggs, and commenced to sit. (American Naturalist, Vol. vu, No. 5, p.
268, May, 1874.)

In Florida it commences to breed early in March; in the latitude
of New York about the middle of May, and in the northern part of

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 493

its range it is probably June before the eggs are deposited. The
number of eggs in one nest is usually five, rarely more.

Its ordinary flight is irregular and not long continued. Even in
migration it often stops to rest on a tree top or fence post, where it
may remain a considerable time. Still % is capable of very rapid
flight. Itrarely if ever soars as do most of the other hawks. Some-
times it makes a succession of rapid beats of its wings and sails for
a short distance, but usually, when in search of food, instead of cir-
cling, it hovers, remaining stationary with rapid-moving wings. If
it perceive its quarry it drops to the ground to seize it, and, if suc-
cessful, bears 1t away to a neighboring stub or fence pole to devour.

Food.—The subject of the food of this hawk is one of great inter-
est, and considered in its economic bearings is one that should be
carefully studied. The Sparrow Hawk is almost exclusively insect-
ivorous except when insect food is difficult to obtain. In localities
where grasshoppers and crickets are abundant these hawks congre-
gate, often in moderate-sized flocks, and gorge themselves continu-
ously. 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 can not be appeased without undue
exertion. Then other kinds of insects and other forms of life con-
tribute to theirfare; and beetles, spiders, mice, shrews, small snakes,
lizards, or even birds may be required to bring up the balance. In
some places in the West and South telegraph lines pass for miles
through treeless plains and savannahs. For lack of better the Spar-
row 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 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, Mont., during the latter part of August and
early part of September, 1888, were kindly turned over to this Division
for aon. They contained little else than grasshoppers and
crickets.

Mr. W. B. Hall, of Wakeman, Ohio, writes to us on the subject
as follows:

The Sparrow Hawk is a most persistent enemy of the grasshopper tribe. While
the so-called Hawk law was in force in Ohio, I was township clerk in my native
village and issued certificates 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 con-
tained the fur and bones of a meadow mouse (Arvicola riparius).

The following from the pen of Mr. H. W. Henshaw substantiates
what we have said in regard to their fondness for grasshoppers:

Itfinds * * * anabundant supply of game in the shape of small insectivorous
birds; but more especially does its food consist of the various kinds of coleopterous
insects and grasshoppers, of which it destroys multitudes. In fact, this last item is
the most important one of all, and where these insects are abundant I have never
seen them have recourse to any other kind of food. (Zool. Expl. West of 100th
Merid., Vol. v, 1875, p. 414.)

The late Townend Glover, formerly Entomologist of the United
States Department of Agriculture, states that the beneficial traits of
this hawk more than counterbalance any harm it may do, and says:

In proof of this, a Sparrow Hawk, shot in October, among a flock of reed or rice
birds, was found to be filled with grasshoppers, and contained not the slightest
vestige of feathers or bones of birds. This bird was remarkably fat. (U.S. Agric.
Report, 1865, p. 37.) R

494 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Mr. C. J. Maynard, writing on the food of the Sparrow Hawk at
Miami, Fla., says:

They have nothing to do but to pick up grasshoppers, of which they appear never
to tire. Itis true that they can find green grasshoppers and brown grasshoppers,
grasshoppers with wings and wingless grasshoppers. but still, as far as any distinc-
tive taste is concerned, there must be but little variation. Yet to all appearances

the hawks are satisfied, for I never saw one take any other kind of food. (Birds of
Eastern North America, 1881, p.297.)

_ In the vicinity of Washington, D. C., remarkable as it may appear
to those who have not interested themselves specially in the matter,
it is the exception not to find grasshoppers or crickets in the stom-
achs of Sparrow Hawks, even when killed during the months of Jan-
uary and February, unless the ground is covered with snow.

It is wonderful how the birds can discover the half-concealed, semi-
dormant insects, which in color soclosely resemble the ground or
dry grass. Whether they are attracted by aslight movement, or dis-
tinguish the form of their prey as it sits motionless, is difficult to
prove, but in any case the acuteness 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 shows the number
to be so small, compared with that of the noxious species, that it is
hardly worth considering.

After the severe frosts of autumn and in winter, when insect life
is at its lowest ebb, the Sparrow Hawks devote more time to the cap-
ture of mice and small birds. Asa rule, the birds which they cap-
ture 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 sea-
son 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. Inthis
way they manage to destroy a vast number of mice during the colder
months.

In the spring, when new ground or meadow is being broken by the
plow, they often become very tame if not molested. They fly down,
even alighting under the very horses for an instant in their endeavor
to capture an unearthed mouse or insect.

The following letter from W. P. McGlothlin, of Dayton, Colum-
bia County, Wash., dated February 12, 1887, contains some interest-
ing facts on this particular subject:

There is a small hawk here called the Sparrow Hawk. It comes about the ist of
March and leaves with its young about August Ist. On their arrival they are in large
flocks and seem very hungry, I have hada number follow my team all day long
and even alight for amoment on the plow beam. When a mouse was unearthed it
was captured in an instant and quickly killed. The hawks seem to know just when
their victims are dead. They settle on something suitable to their fancy and com-
mence eating the eyes, and then soon finish. For two weeks this mouse catching
goes on. I have sometimes seen them chase and catch small birds. They pair off
and drive some woodpecker from his cozy nest in an old tree, where they lay from
four to six eggs. When they have young the small chickens x must t suffer. “About
two each day for every nest seems to satisfy them. --

‘

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGISI AND MAMMALOGIST. 495

Mr. Thomas MclIlwraith, in his ‘‘ Birds of Ontario,” gives the fol-
lowing on the food of this hawk:

Though sometimes seen near the farm-house it does not bear the stigma of having
felonious intentions towards the occupants of the poultry yard, but is credited with
the destruction of large numbers of mice. * * * It also feeds freely on snakes,
lizards, grasshoppers, etc., but has the true falcon etiquette of taking only what is
newly killed (p. 150).

In the opinion of many people, unaccountable as it may appear,
the benefit accruing from the destruction of a great number of mice
or other injurious mammals or insects by hawks does not offset the
damage done by the capture of one bird or chicken. This, of course,
is not thecase with those intelligent farmers who recognize the bene-
fit done by this little hawk, and are not prejudiced against it if it
exacts a moderate interest now and then in the shape of a young
chicken or bird. In May and June, when the hawks are busy hatch-
ing their eggs and rearing their young, there is less time for them |
to procure their favorite food. It is during this period, as we might
expect, that a very large proportion of the birds which they capture
in thecourse of the yearis taken. It is also at this time that we hear
complaints of their depredations in the poultry yard. Sometimes
they take young birds from the nest, for Mr. Austin F. Park, of Troy,
N. Y., mentions the finding of unfledged birds among their stomach
contents. From the following note it may be seen that occasionally
they take also old birds from the nests:

In Elizabeth, N. J., several years ago, I saw a pair of Sparrow Hawks fly up under
the eaves of an old barn and drag a couple of swallows out of their nests. (Mer-
Tiam, Review of the Birds of Conn., 1877, p. 85.)

That the Sparrow Hawk at times attacks and kills comparatively
large birds is vouched for by Dr. Coues, in his Birds of the North-
west. He says:

I have seen it overpower and bear away a thrasher, a bird inch for inch as long
as itself, and nearly as heavy.

And we have found remains of the meadow lark in the stomachs
examined.

In the accompanying table a summary is given of the food of the
Sparrow Hawk, arranged according to months. Itis based upon data
derived mainly from the examination of stomachs made by myself
in the Department of Agriculture.

It is to be regretted that during certain months, notably May and
June, we were unable to obtain more specimens for examination.
The available number is so small thatthe result here given probably
would be totally changed by the addition of a dozen specimens to
each of these two months.

Of the one hundred and sixty-three stomachs examined, not one
contained the remains of poultry. Thirty-one birds were found, of
which twenty were various species of sparrows, three were meadow

-larks, one was a vireo, one a warbler, one a quail,* and five could

not be determined as the feathers and other parts were too much
broken up to admit of identification.

'* This record of finding the remains of a quail in the stomach of aSparrow Hawk
is given second hand, from an examination made in Nebraska. Westrongly sus-
pect, unless the quail was a very young bird, that one or the other small hawks was
mistaken for the Sparrow Hawk,

496 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Table giving a summary of food of the Sparrow Hawk, arranged according to months.

| No. of | | Tice or | Reptiles |
. speci- | p; | other | and
Months. TeHid Gao jn eae mam- | batrach- | sects. | Remarks
amined. | | mals. |. ians. |
Se eee — Te ee (ees OS se +
PUY: BMS a dc ere, ar ayo gays ya Se eas REM 27 (a DA Ne tray lak. tea ne 52
2 DU LIA PRSpeow abeneeetotogcboT taste 12 2 | BO apecn eee 29 | 1 empty.
VEE Ey OES ee ory eo ec oeetee 17 3 | 8 | 1 41 ee
SUT UG Se SAGARA IOEE SCOR b CET Dee 12 i | iH) 3 75 | 1 empty.
[cE pad se nea abe Sage aaa 2 1 pHa aad ae oa 4
PRTC AS oS Aap a eRe eee Paes ae 3 Sees ha chores [eames eae 7
AWN it ol Scaceep a Sa aia Soe Ge a aD a aee 18 | 2 | ciel ee SS ee | 17
PANTO UIS ihe eels oe ke Taos a ahs oH dl arse 8 ene 5 x | 263
Septentber a: Abe ieee elias. 18 1 | 2 | 2 | 271
Octopenn t's i. sere eee see eer: t dccoceeesee | 5 Mn re ee se 31
INOVCTNICE A sora nerd heme Meise We alee =| 5 ibas Seees's i Aes Ss ee 12
DW CCCIINEE F< ease ret ee eras Geo 23 11 1: Bal reacties 2 96
AMG) 2311s BURA ee gl 8 5 og 2 ee ae 163 31 79 8 | 1,125 | 5 empty.

THE SHORT-EARED OWL (Aszio accipitrinus).
By Dr. A.-K. FISHER.

The Short-eared Owl is a bird of extended distribution, ranging
over the greater part of both hemispheres. In Africa it has been
found as far south as Abyssinia in winter. It has not been recorded
from Australia. In a northerly direction it reaches the southern

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 497

part of the Arctic regions, whence southward it probably breeds
more or less commonly in favorable localities throughout its range.

The nest is a rough affair made of coarse grass and sticks, loosely
drawn together and sparsely lined with fine material and feathers
from the parent bird. It is placed on the ground, often in a depres-
sion made to receive it, under some bush or among high grass. In
exceptional cases it has been found in a clump of low bushes, or
otherwise slightly elevated. The eggs, from three to five in num-
ber, are deposited in April or May, according to the latitude of the
nesting ground.

The Short-eared Owl is pre-eminently a bird of the open country,
including the coast marshes and islands covered by bushes and high
grass. Inthe United States it ismuch more common in winter, when
it receives large reinforcements from the North. During this season
of the year single individuals are usually met with, and less often
small colonies, composed of four or five birds. Possibly these are
families which have never been separated, having migrated in com-
pany from their nesting grounds.

The food of this ow! consists largely of mice and other small mam-
mals. A number of species of insects, birds, and reptiles also may
be mentioned as occasionally contributing to its fare. Fully 90 per
cent. of the stomachs examined in the Department of Agriculture
contained nothing except meadow mice. The remains of as many
as five mice were found in one stomach, and several contained three
or four each. Prof. F. E. L. Beal reports finding nothing but mice
in the stomachs of a pair which he killed in Story County, Iowa.
They were shot in an artificial grove swarming with small birds.

Mr. Austin F. Park, of Troy, N. Y., in a report on the food of
Hawks and Owls, which he kindly sent to this Department, mentions
mice and no other kind of food as found in the stomachs of this
species.

Of the other mammals which this owl feeds upon may be mentioned
shrews, gophers, and sometimes small rabbits.’ Shrews are not un-
common in the stomach contents. Dr. J. C. Merrill, in mentioning
the food of this bird at Fort Klamath, Oregon, says:

In one specimen a pellet ready for regurgitation contained ten nearly perfect
skulls of a shrew, a species of which, and field mice, were nearly always found in
the stomachs. (Auk, Vol. v, April, 1885, p. 146.)

Unfortunately we have been unable to procure stomachs of this owl
from the Western plains which are infested with ground squirrels
and gophers, hence we do not know to what extent it feeds upon
these rodents. It does not feed as extensively on insects as either
the Barred or Screech Owls, but there are reports enough on the
subject to show that grasshoppers, crickets, and beetles at times
form a considerable portion of its food. It is quite exceptional for
this owl to feed upon birds. Out of about fifty stomachs examined
by us at the Department not over four contained bird remains.

Only once have we found more than one bird in a single stomach.
_ This was ina specimen shot in the vicinity of Washington, D. C.,
late in November; it contained the remains of two Juncos and one
Fox Sparrow.

A notable violation of its usual habit of feeding upon mice may
be quoted from Mr. William Brewster as follows:

_A small colony of these birds had established itself upon a certain elevated part
of the island [Muskegat], spending the day ina tract of densely matted grass.

498 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Scattered about in this retreat were the remains of at least a hundred Terns that
they had killed and eaten. Many of these were fresh, while others were in every
stage of decomposition, or dried by the sun and wind. In each case thé breast had
been picked clean, but in no instance was any other portion disturbed. Every day
at a certain time these owls sallied forth in search of fresh prey. We used regu-
larly to see them about sunset, sailing in circles over the island or beating along the
crests of the sand-hills. They were invariably followed by vast mobs of enraged
Terns, which dived angrily down over the spot where the Owl had alighted, or
strung out in the wake of his flight like the tail of a comet. The Owl commonly
paid little attention to this unbidden following, and apparently never tried to seize
his persecutors while on the wing, but on several occasions we saw a sitting bird
pounced upon and borne off. Sometimes in the middle of the night a great outcry
among the Terns told where a tragedy was being enacted. (Bull Nutt. Ornith. Club,
Vol. Iv, p. 19).

The folowing important evidence of the economic value of the
Short-eared Owl is from the fourth edition of Yarrell’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 mis-
chievous, 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 1648. In 1754 the same thing is
said to have occurred at Hilgay, near Downham Market, in Norfolk, while within
the present 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 rendering 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 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. An additional fact of some interest was noticed
by Wolley, namely, that under such circumstances the owls seem to become more
prolific than usual.

THE FOOD OF CROWS.
By WALTER B. BARROWS, S. B:, Assistant Ornithologist.

The economic status of the Common Crow (Corvus americanus)
has been discussed so often, and yet with such uncertain results, that
it was one of the first birds to receive attention when the Division
was organized in 1885, being particularly mentioned in the circular
issued that year. Several hundred replies to the questions contained
in that circular were received during that and the following year,
and much additional information was collected by subsequent cor-
respondence. A request for stomachs of the Crow was contained in
the circular issued in 1886, and although the responses to this have
not been as numerous as could be desired, a number of correspond-
ents have given material assistance, so that itis possible to append
to the present paper the results of the dissection of eighty-six
stomachs of the Common Crow (Corvus americanus) and twelve of
the Fish Crow (Corvus ossifragus). Thus the material athand fora
study of the food of Crows, though by no means abundant, is never-
theless considerable, and sufficient progress has been made in its 1n-
vestigation to justify the publication of some of the results. One of
the main objects of the present paper, however, is to call the atten-
tion of farmers and others to the disputed and unsettled questions
relating to the Crow and to secure their aid and co-operation in col-
lecting evidence which will hasten a final settlement of these points.

It is unnecessary at the present time to refer to the numerous con-

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 499

tributions to our knowledge of the Crow’s habits made from time to
time during the last century, but it may be broadly stated that but
three strong points in its favor have ever been claimed for the Crow
even byits warmest friends: These are (1) the habit of destroying
injurious insects; (2) the habit of catching mice; and (8) the habit of
eating carrion. <A few writers, mainly men of very limited experi-
ence, have maintained, it is true, that the Crow never does any harm
worth mentioning; but the more rational of his defenders admit
freely that alarge amount of damage is done, but claim that this is
more than compensated by the good habits just specified. Of these,
the carrion-feeding and mouse-eating habits have been the weaker
arguments, and the place of the Crow as a beneficial bird has rested
mainly on the ground of its supposed services in the destruction of
noxious insects.

On the other hand, the injuries inflicted by the Crow are more
varied, those most commonly complained of being: -

(1) Destruction of young grain, particularly Indian corn on first
coming up.

(2) Destruction of ripe or ripening corn and other grain.

(3) Destruction of ripe or ripening fruits of some kinds.

(4) Destruction of various other vegetable products.

(5) Destruction of the eggs and young of poultry.

(6) Destruction of the eggs and young of wild birds.

Nearly every one in the least familiar with the habits of the Crow
will readily admit that the bird is more or less beneficial or injuri-
ous in the ways indicated above, but the greatest diversity of opinion
exists as to the degree of benefit or injury to be assigned to each cat-
egory.

The Division has succeeded in bringing together a large amount of
opinion on these points, and a considerable amount of what may be
regarded properly as evidence. Moreover, some additional charges
against the Crow have been preferred and some further claims of
merit are brought forward. Statements of mere opinion carry little
weight unless the facts on which these opinions are based are fully
known. On the other hand, the careful record of any actual expe-
rience with the Crow is entitled to thoughtful consideration, the
weight to be given to such evidence being modified only according
to the known fitness or unfitness of the observer to appreciate all
the elements entering into the case.

As the entire question relates primarily to the food of the Crow, it
is obvious that the careful examination of a sufficient number of
Crow stomachs would be the only certain method of settling all ques-
tions; but the number of stomachs required necessarily would be very
great, and in order fully to-weigh the evidence thus afforded, full
‘notes as to locality, date, time of day, character of place where killed,
age of bird, etc., are indispensable.

About one hundred stomachs, accompanied by such data, have been
carefully examined thus far, and a summary of the facts revealed
will be found on a following page. Unfortunately, however, most
of these stomachs were those of adult Crows, and very few of them
were taken during the spring and early summer, when the Crow is
Supposed to be most beneficial.

1é has proved more difficult than was expected to secure Crows
‘during the spring and summer months, but a special effort will be
made during the season of 1889, and it is hoped that a large number
of stomachs may be collected and examined. Those of young Crows

500 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

are particularly desired, but those of Crows of any age if taken dur-
ing spring or summer will be very acceptable. Persons willing to
aid the Division in this way will be furnished with instructions and
materials on application to the ornithologist, and all costs of trans-
portation will be defrayed by the Department.

In response to questions relating to the food habits of Crows replies
have been received from upwards of five hundred persons, and the
information afforded by these replies, in combination with the re-
sults of dissection, form the basis of the following report.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE CROW.

The Common Crow (Corvus americanus) occurs in variable abun-
dance throughout the whole of the United States; most numerously,
perhaps, east of the one hundredth meridian, though it is far from
uncommon in California. In most of the Rocky Mountain region it
is rather scarce.

Although the larger number migrate southward in winter from
the northern tier of States, returning again in earliest spring, prob-
ably a few spend the entire winter at the north, even in northern
Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the lower half of the Mississippi Val-
ley, however, and in the Middle Atlantic and Gulf States millions of
Crows remain from November to March; collecting in some local-
ities in immense flocks, repairing regularly to favorite places to
pass the night, and scattering over the surrounding country dur-
ing the day. In the breeding season they are distributed more
evenly, and notes on their food habits have been received from all
parts of the country.

Along the Atlantic coast, from Long Island to Florida, another
species, the Fish Crow (Corvus ossifragus) is found associated with
the Common Crow, and the two species are so nearly alike in general
appearance and habits that at gunshot range even a practiced or-
nithologist can not always separate them. But the Fish Crow aver-
ages decidedly smaller than the Common Crow, has a different voice,
and when in hand is otherwise readily distinguished by one accus-
tomed to study birds. Probably a few notes from the Atlantic sea-
board may refer to this species instead of to the Common Crow, but
this will not affect materially the questions under consideration. In
the detailed report of the examination of stomachs the two species
are treated separately.

INJURY TO INDIAN CORN, WHEAT, AND OTHER CEREALS.

It seems almost superfluous to say that the Crow at certain times
and places is very destructive to crops of sprouting grain, for its corn-
pulling habits were well known even in colonial times, and from that
day until the present, wherever the birdis at all abundant, a newly
planted corn-field without scare-crows has been the exception and not
the rule. Doubtless the destruction is greatest during the first week
or two after the corn appears above ground, butif all reports are to be
credited considerable harm is done by digging up the seed-corn directly
after planting, even before the grain has begun to germinate. One
observer states that the Crow eats corn ‘‘from ten minutes after plant-
ing until the blades are three inches high,” and more than a score of -
other observers state definitely that the Crow not only pulls up the
young plants, but digs up the newly sown seed. Several observers

)
)

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 501

state that the Crow scratches up planted grain, but this probably isa
mistake, for such a habit has never come to our notice, and it would
seem to be entirely foreign to the nature of the bird. Crows are
known to watch the operation of corn-planting, occasionally with evi-
dent interest, and many a farmer knows that any grain left uncov-
ered is likely to be eaten at once. In some cases it is even unsafe to
allow the corn to be dropped much faster than it can be covered,
since the observant Crow plunders the hill beforeitismade. Itis but
natural to suppose that so intelligent a bird as the Crow would be
able to locate the hills after the planting is done, and to unearth
with the bill any grains which have been but lightly covered. This
is all the more likely inthe case of birds which have been watching
the planting and have picked up the scattered grains left entirely
uncovered, especially if the farmer has followed the time-honored
custom of stamping or “‘ firming” the center of the hill with the head
of the hoe.

Among the reports bearing upon this point are the following:

From George H. Berry, North Livermore, Me.:

The Crows dig corn before it breaks the ground, and do great damage pulling
the young corn and also digging potatoes.

From G. Douglas Robertson:

While resident in southeastern Nebraska 1 have heard farmers complain that the
Crow picked the kernels of corn out of the ground just after planting, and know
that when the corn commenced to come up the ground was bare in many places,
but whether this was the fault of the Crows or of the machine that planted it I can
not say.

From W. T. Craig, San Francisco, Cal.:

In Santa Cruz County Crows were observed to eat the corn while planting, and
they continued to do so until it was three inches high, pulling it up and feeding
upon the grain attached to the rootlets. They destroyed four or five acres, and
were then driven away. :

From C. W. Costellow, Waterborough, Me.:

Crows dig up and eat corn as soon as it is planted, and continue to do so until the
growing spears absorb the kernel. Occasionally in the same way they dig up and
eat potatoes just planted.

While these and similar reports seem to show that in some cases
the Crow actually digs up the seed even before it germinates, many
trustworthy witnesses state that they have never known itto un-
earth well-covered grain until the sprout appeared at the surface.
This, however, is merely negative evidence and only tends to show
that the former habit is far less general than the latter.

As has been suggested by more than one observer, the Crow is

’

often blamed for the work of the chipmunk, the latter being known

to dig up the newly planted kernels very frequently, especially along
the edges of fields near woods. But the chipmunk does not extend
his raids far from the edges of the field, and, moreover, he is not
known to dig up newly planted potatoes, so that the dozen or more
reports which charge the Crow with this last offense give additional
weight to the testimony relating to the digging upof corn. Any one
who has an opportunity to make exact observations on this question
will confer a favor by communicating the results to the Department.

The manner in which the Crow attacks corn which is just coming
up is but too well known to most farmers, yet perhaps few of them

have actually seen it pull the young shoots from the ground, and
3 doubtless there are many who still disbelieve that the object of the

502 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

7

pulling is simply the swollen grain at the root. From several hun-
dred reports of damage to young corn, we select a few to show the
way in which the harm is done.

Byron J. Peckham, of Westerly, R. I., wrote in 1885:

Corn seems to suffer most because the Crows get a large amount for little labor.
Their modus operandi is to wait until the corn has shown itself above the ground
and then pull it and devour the kernel at the roots. The injury done consists
largely in the trouble of replanting at a time when other work demands the atten-
tion of the farmer.

F. K. Steele, of Annapolis, Md., says:

As the young shoots peep out of the ground the Crow may be seen digging them
up. From the time of their first appearance above the ground until the kernel has
been absorbed by the growing plant it is destroying the crop. This period lasts two
or three weeks, according to the quickness of the growth of the grain.

The injury consists of an uneven stand, requiring replanting. This seldom pays
for the trouble, since the corn which was not disturbed by the bird has the start and
occupies all the soil with its roots; therefore the replanted corn grows slowly and
spindling, and makes fodder principally.

J. M. Nipp, of Bolton, Mo., gives the following interesting ac-
count of one of his observations:

But few Crows learn to pull up corn, but one that does will pull ten hills per
minute. June 27, 1884, I planted three acres of corn on wheat stubble, the wheat
having been hauled away. Ten days after planting I saw eight Crows in the field;
from appearances they were two parents and six young. One was pulling the corn,
one standing idle, and six eating the grain after it was pulled up. I watched them
about forty minutes, and then went and counted the fresh pulled stalks where they
had bee: there were four hundred. One-third of the three acres was taken at that
time. I then supplied them with wheat in the bundle, and no more was taken.

The amount of damage to corn during spring and early summer
is certainly very great in some sections, and undoubtedly it would
be much greater but for the almost universal custom of protecting
the fields in one way or another. Of course, it is absurd to say how
great the loss would be in case all precautions were neglected, and
even in the case of actual damage it is impossible to estimate fairly
the amount of the loss. Among nearly two hundred and fifty re-
ports of more or less serious injury, less than one-fifth contain any
figures from which the actual loss can be inferred even approxi-
mately, while hardly a dozen state definitely the acreage planted and
the proportion destroyed or damaged.

The following examples of the evidence on this question will give
a fair idea of the harm occasionally done. It will be noticed that
they represent widely separate sections of the country:

Osceola, Ark.—One flock ruined a field of several acres.

Coventry, Conn.—In one field of three acres about half was destroyed; other fields
badly damaged, probably one-third pulled up.

Osceola, Ill.—Destroyed about two acres for me last year (1885) just as it was com-

ing through the ground,

Plymouth, Me.—Has been observed to destroy whole fields of from one to three
acres.

Rochdale, Mass.—Crows this year (1885) pulled one-third or more of the corn in
my fields in spite of cotton lines stretched quite thickly over the fields.

Nebraska, Ind.—Have known the injury to amount to one-third of the crop.

Burlington, Iowa.—Have known one-third of a five-acre field to require replant-

ing. :

Sand Hill, Mich.—Often destroys over half the. crop when planted near a patch
of woods. Fields sometimes are nearly destroyed.

Bolton, Mo.—One-third of a field of three acres was taken.

Madison, Nebr.—The damage along the woodlands of the Elkhorn is ten per cent.
of the planting.

ag
REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 508

Caldwell, N. J.—Damage often from one-tenth to one-third of the field.

Alfred Centre, N. Y.—Sometimes they make a second planting necessary; in one
case a field of three acres was almost entirely pulled up.

Ithaca, N Y.—In spite of all our efforts they almost destroyed the crop in a large
part of one field.

Locust Grove, N. Y.—In 1884 a large field was ruined by Crows in spite of all
precautions. It was ‘“‘strung” at more frequent intervals than usual, a number of
dead Crows were displayed at various points, and it was replanted twice, but all to
no avail, for almost the entire field was lost.

Penza, Ohio.—Once saw a field on the 4th of July which had been destroyed four
times by Crows, and they were still working on it.

Gap, Pa.—Think they sometimes destroy five per cent. of the crop.

Frogmore, S. C.—The damage sometimes amounts to over 50 per cent., but this is
only in fields near woodland.

Brandon, Vt.—One-half to three-fourths of an acre was pulled from a three-acre
field. ;

West Pawlet, Vt.—In 1883 and 1884 I knew the Crows to pull the corn so com-
pletely in fields of ten or twelve acres that all the ground had to be planted.over.

Omro, Wis.—One piece of four acres was about two-thirds destroyed.

The ten following samples may be taken as showing more nearly
than the preceding the averuge character of the reports noting dam-
age to young corn:

Smelley, Ala.—Much damage some years, others none at all.

Brookfield Centre, Conn.—A small piece in a secluded spot was almost entirely
destroyed.

Vermillion, Dak.—In some fields on the Missouri bottoms Crows often have
destroyed two or three successive seedings of corn, but only in fields near timber.

- Marietta, Ga.—The damage is sometimes excessive, depending la: gely on loca-

tion of field.
| Louisville, Ky.—The damage has been greatly exaggerated. Formerly it was
sometimes great, but it is many years since Crows have done any harm in my neigh-
borhood by pulling up corn. They find other food in abundance and have forgotten
their old habits.

South Frankfort, Mich.—Injurious only in exceptional cases, and to a limited ex-
tent.

Minneapolis, Minn.—The extent of the injury is measured only by the oppor-
tunity.

Watkins, N. Y.—Farmers complain of their pulling corn in the spring as soon as
it appears above ground; and corn is injured in this way sometimes so that it har-
vests one-eighth to one-fourth less than if it had not been touched. But not one
farmer in twenty is injured as much as stated.

Mount Vernon, Ohio.—Have known them to be quite troublesome in pulling corn
when it is two or three inches high, * * * but their attacks appear to be only
periodical, perhaps many years apart.

Berwick, Pa.—The damage is sufficient sometimes to compel the farmer to replant,
yet the amount of injury done is not often of much account. There are excep-
tional cases when fields planted near their resorts have suffered considerably.

.

A careful examination of all the available evidence bearing on
this question brings out one or two points which are doubtless famil-
‘iar to many farmers, but may be new to some. Other things being
equal, the greatest damage is done where Crows are most abundant;
and fields nearest their nests are much more likely to be plundered
than those at a distance from woods. Nevertheless, in the latter case,
if the fields are also at a distance from the farm-house and are not
specially protected, they may suffer more than other fields which,
although near the woods, are so situated as to be easily watched from
the house. It isof the utmost importance, moreover, that the Crows
be prevented from beginning to take corn from a field; for after
_ visiting it once they are far more likely to come again, and there is
abundant evidence that after a Crow has once formed the habit of
-corn-pulling it is almost impossible to prevent his gratifying his taste
as long as he lives.

504 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRI@6ULTURE.

Sometimes the shooting of one or more of the thieves on their first
visit to a corn-field will effectually prevent further depredations, but
this is not always the case. Scarecrows, windmills, glittering tin,
twine, and even the swinging bodies of their slain comrades, do not
have the desired effect at alltimes. Other methods have been tried
with more or less success, but all the successful plans involve the
expenditure of considerable time, and often a little money as well.

The most generally successful plan of which we have any knowl-
edge consists in coating the corn with tar of some kind before plant-
ing, in which case Crows are said to let it entirely alone. Mr. J. V.
Henry Nott, of Kingston, N. Y., thus speaks of this method:

I have used for years coal-tar on my seed corn to keep the Crow and chipmunk
from eating it. I think it better than scarecrows, as it allows the Crow to roam
over the field and pick up insects. I soak the seed over night, and after draining
oif the water thoroughly stir the tar through it by dipping a small stick in the tar,
and then vigorously stirring the seed with it until all is a brown color, after which
I stir in plaster until the seed looks like sugar-coated pills. The only objection is
that a planter can not be used.

Essentially the same method is used for corn and other grain
throughout a considerable part of the Eastern and Southern States,
and apparently with good success. Wood ashes, or even dry earth,
may be used in place of the plaster, the only use of which is to pre-
vent the grains from sticking together-or to the hand of the planter.
On many of the rice plantations of South Carolina anu Louisiana
the same method is resorted to to prevent blackbirds or ‘‘rice-birds”
from eating the newly sown grain or pulling up the young shoots.
It is said that the young shoots from grain thus ‘‘tarred” have a
strong taste and smell of the tar even until they are several inches
high and beyond danger of being uprooted by birds. However thi:
may be, the grain itself is certainly unpalatable to Crows, and the)
' seem to be satisfied after a few trials that corn of that kind is not
worth pulling.

Mrs. Margaret Musick, of Mount Carmel, Mo., states that ‘‘ young
corn may be effectually protected by feeding the birds boiled corn or
soaked corn, sown broadcast, two quarts to ten acres.”

Edward Paschall, of Doylestown, Pa., mentions a similar method
used at that place. He says:

Samuel Hart, of this place, a farmer, protects his corn-field every spring against
Crows by simply scattering some loose grain every day around his entire field of ten
acres; every other day will answer, provided the supply is not exhausted. This
method has been practiced with entire success for many years, and though Crows
are very numerous, no corn is pulled up. The entire cost, as estimated by Mr. Hart,
is the time required and a total of half a bushel of corn.

In some places grain soaked in strychnine has been used to kill
Crows, but although they doubtless can be exterminated in this way,
the method is attended with some danger to other. birds, and to do-
mesticated fowls, while it is not altogether certain that the entire
extermination of Crows is desirable at the present time. They are
known to do some good—how much is not definitely known, but in
another part of this report will be found a summary of the evidence
on this point.

It may be remarked here that many farmers as well as other ob-
servers contend that the Crow when pulling up corn is only search-
ing for cut-worms or other injurious insects, and in support of this
assertion it has been claimed repeatedly that the old Crows do not
eat the corn so pulled, nor carry it to their young. This question

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 505

will be fully treated under the head of Insect Food of the Crow, and
it need only be remarked here that, while Crows undoubtedly eat
many cut-worms and other insects, there is very little evidence that
they pull young corn for any other purpose than to get the kernel
at the root.

The depredations of the common Crow do not cease, except tem-
porarily, when the young plants are too well rooted to be pulled
with ease. After the ears are formed and the kernels well filled out
the Crow again visits the corn-fields, and sometimes does serious dam-
age. At that time the young are as large as their parents, several
families are commonly associated in a flock, and sucha party is capa-
ble of a large amount of mischief in a comparatively short time.
About fifty complaints of injury to “‘ green corn,” ‘‘corn in themilk,” —
‘roasting ears,” and ‘‘ ripening corn,” have been received, and from
these we select a few samples. 3

From U. G. Gordon, Barry, Ohio:

The Crows ate corn here while it was in the milk last August and September (1886),
some farmers hereabouts losing one-fourth of their crop. They came in flocks,
thousands at a time.

From 8. T. Kimball, Ellington, Conn.:

It is in the fall that the Crow does his mischief by taking corn in the milk and
after itis cut. Last year I judge that I could have picked up a bushel of cobs per
acre at the time of cutting. The damage was done wholly by Crows.

From Edwin B. Clark, Waxahachie, Tex..

Crows eat corn while in the “‘ roasting-ear” stage, that is, before it has hardened
or matured, say about four months after planting. Their depredations, however,
are confined to corn-fields along creeks or branches of streams where they rear their
young in trees. The corn hardens so quickly that the Crows’ work is of short dura-
tion, hence the destruction is not considered alarming.

From George C. Bunsen, West Belleville, Il.:

It not only picks up the young corn but when the corn is in the milk it is after it
again, tearing open the husk and feeding on the kernels freely. It comes into the
corn-fields for this purpose in great swarms and does a great deal of mischief,

From N. W. Wright, Farmland, Ind.:

During the last few years the Crows in this section of the country flock together
in the fall (about August),and when the corn is soft they tear the husk from the
ears and eat the grain, greatly damaging thecrop. This fall I have passed fields
adjoining woods where nearly every ear was so mangled as to be seriously injured.

From Charles E. Ingalls, East Templeton, Mass. :

The Crow has been known to eat corn when ‘‘in the milk.” My attention has lately
been called to several instances of this kind where the corn-stalks were pulled down,
_ the ears stripped on one side, and the kernels pecked out. This mischief was
‘charged to ’coons until I showed the real culprit.

Crows also eat considerable quantities of ripened corn, but they do
not appear to like it as well as when in the milk. Mr. W. B. Hall,
of Wakeman, Ohio, states that tame Crows which he has kept at
various times ‘‘ would not eat dry grain, but were very fond of green
corn when husked.”

From upward of seventy reports of damage to ripened corn a few
are selected.

From Hugh N. Starnes, Marietta, Ga.:

In the fall some damage is done to corn in the ear, after ripening and before
gathering, but the damage is inconsiderable.

22002 OR 3

506 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

From D. C. Shely, Nicholasville, Ky.:

I have known Crows to destroy one-fourth to one-half of a corn crop when
left out in winter and everything else was snowed under. There is no necessity
for any such loss if the farmer would secure his crop in reasonable time.

From H. A. Koch, College Hill, Ohio:

Crows frequent the corn-fields in such numbers that their depredations seriously
affect the crop, especially when the corn is left standing in shock long.

From H. C. Griswold, Watkins, N. Y.:

At the present time (September 30, 1885), two or three hundred Crows are feeding
upon standing corn.

INJURY TO OTHER CEREALS THAN CORN.

Although the Crow attacks and injures other grains than corn its
depredations on these crops are far less general and serious. About
fifty reports of such injury have been received, the losses complained
of relating to wheat, rye, oats, barley, and rice. As with corn, the
greatest damage is done by pulling up the sprouting grain, but more
or less is eaten while ripening, or even when hard. <A few samples
of the evidence are appended.

From F. H. Holmes, Rio Vista, Cal.:

The Crow does some damage in the grain sections around Rio Vista to wheat and
barley, just after sowing and until it is well sprouted.

From W. E. Dingman, Newton, Iowa:

In some instances it is known to pull up and eat wheat and rye when two or three
inches in height. The damage has not been very extensive in either case.

From Asher Tyler, Forest Grove, Oregon:

The Crows congregate here in large flocks, but are only destructive to new-sown
wheat.

DAMAGE TO OTHER CROPS.

About a dozen reports, nearly all from New England and Canada,
mention the Crow as destructive to potatoes, the worst mischief be-
ing done by pulling up the young plants in order to get the partly
decayed pieces planted as “‘ seed.” Occasionally sweet potatoes and
beans are pulled up in the same way, and in some of the Southern
States the Crow digs up pea-nuts both as seed and when ripening,
sometimes causing considerable loss. The following notes from cor-
respondents illustrate this class of injuries:

From 8. F. Cheney, Grand Manan, New Brunswick:

The Crow will take the potato seed out of the hill and pull up the potatoes when
nearly ready to hoe.

From Manly Hardy, Brewer, Me.:

I have known newly planted potatoes to be destroyed by the acre. Have only
known Crows to attack potatoes within a few years (1889).

From Charles F. Goodhue, Webster, N. H.:

Crows are very troublesome some years by pulling corn and digging up newly
planted potatoes, destroying both just as they appeir above ground. The damage
done to corn and potatoes varies from a few hills to nearly two acres. Sometimes
nearly the whole crop is destroyed.

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST, 507

From Walter Hoxie, Frogmore, S. C.:

The Crow destroys seed corn and rice invariably, unless tarred. It is yet more
destructive to pea-nuts and sweet potatoes.

From J. W. Johnson, Meriwether, 8S. C.:

Crows are very destructive to pindars [pea-nuts], scratching them up about the
time they mature.

From John M. Richardson, Daingerfield, Tex.:

I have known the Crow, assembling in immense flocks, to do great harm to the
pindar [pea-nut] crop in South Carolina. As the nuts approached maturity the fields
had to be guarded by men and boys with guns from early dawn to late dusk.

In some parts of the country the Crow seems to have acquired a
taste for water-melons, doing no little damage to this important crop.
Mr. H. E. VanDeman states that at one time, on his farm at Genoa,
Kans., he was obliged to cover some of his water-melons with grass,
weeds, etc., in order to protect them from a family of Crows which
otherwise would have ruined them all. They began to ‘“‘ plug” the
melons as soon as they were nearly ripe, going from one to another
until they found one which suited them, spoiling many which they

did not eat. Reports of similar damage have been received from

Georgiaand South Carolina, one planter complaining that his melons
are attacked before they are half grown, and another estimating his
loss from the same cause at 10 per cent. of the crop.

Occasionally Crows do much damage to ripening fruit, but they
generally find an abundant supply of wild fruits, and do not care to
run the risk of a near approach to the garden unless the display is
particularly tempting.

Virgil Green, of Bullville, N. Y., says:

I have known Crows to strip a large cherry tree of its fruit when the cherries
were beginning to ripen.

George Donaldson, of Gilbertsville, N. Y., says:

The Crow eats strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, and cherries.

Half a dozen other complaints of damage to cherries have been
received. Apples are more rarely attacked, but a few reports of in-
jury to this fruit are at hand, of which the following is one:

From HK. M. Wilson, Belfast, N. Y.:

Crows sometimes seem to eat apples on the trees in the fall of the year, damaging
the largest and finest fruit. However, I am not positive in this matter, the evi-
dence being circumstantial, so to speak. Crows were seen in apple trees, and the
fruit was now and then pecked and eaten on one side, plainly by a bird witha large
beak. My father tells me that he has seen Crows eating apples in an orchard.

From the fact that Crows feed largely on wild grapes, it seems a
little strange that they do not visit the vineyard more frequently,
but as yet very few complaints on this score have been received.
One vineyard of several acres lying just outside the limits of the
city of Washington, D. C., has suffered considerable ioss for several
years from the frequent attacks of Crows. One of the assistant or-
nithologists visited it in September, 1886, and again in the same
month in 1888, and found abundant evidence that the owner did not
exaggerate when he stated his loss to be at least one-fourth of the
erop. Notonly were Crows frequently seen eating the grapes, but

two which were shot during the first visit had grape seeds in their

stomachs,

508 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE,

OTHER VEGETABLE FOOD OF THE CROW.

‘In addition to the fruits and vegetables already mentioned as
forming a part of the Crow’s food, there are very many wild fruits,
berries, seeds, and nuts, on which the Crow feeds largely at times,
but the consumption of which is of little account to the farmer under
any circumstances.

The vegetable matter contained in the eighty-six stomachs exam-
ined was as follows:

Vegetable Contents of Stomachs. EE Ty

oo

Ol ~T Hr He O09 OO 0 CO Cr

IR eOI SAE SGORB. Sie Gn kv dig on oa aw BRA SEA Ric Ok A
RES Su Ee eerk © RS Aw 218 SG Ca POA K Sa ale CRIN Baerg, GRISEA
: Sd SC Aes th a ei Rei S 8 Sa es Catal oy a
omens OF ASOrDs GF ehestauts .. 6 SR Cee eee
cherries, cultivated varieties ¢ 20.0 ow a oe ws SR
ERIC: GOONS Fy eos ko. Sk Was cake Rk KU re

co)

naw HSMPeS EP ICeEUS) <n) a x A a cas aie GS ORS ap RE

Bee PUP. MOU WOMANS Ah <n cw cans canthna vate one s mene ate eae eee
SISOS OE SERS Te Se oe ci da wd aa © Oe WANS Ue a 8 oti RR RO Ee
blackberries or raspberries «4.6/0. akg Ws. coh ck eis anieane oe
PUEDE Res sw aee win nbn seh bon a mys Chen hE Se RR
SUGUMHSFOF MUsk-MElON ... 2% 60s wns n ani as eee see

UCD NOES oe as 5 850 5 ws « alg RR & hak Ng Oe See oe anes
Virpinia creeper (Ampélopsis) . oS os ol a Se § wd Oe ie
dogwood or cormel (COrnmus) «0 .sijsaina Gwacabas kant Gua eee

bay berry; Giyries).. ..c5 Siwia es Sos Sen eR ee Ree ee
common (harmless) sumachs (FtAws): . .. 04... ok cn ca ces CRS Oe

poison sumach and poison ivy (hws)... Of Go4n ow. Vsaase amen

aumiper Or TOR Cedar octane wens scons 5 isan hs Eee ener
pend-weed (Polyqonwia). «ooo. oc Sis vc San reek ae ee

Wald Tice (Aisa) ain 6, oS AW ane tak LAR cee ee

nie Ome SOCKS, © 6. 0.0.55 nsninn as aman Wiss ba ein ie RRC
DS ES OES LO Ea era RI CRA ar Eee a IRE ESS A
De aR cia cia 5 5 w win fh eink ars SA SRR Gbemh ERS gs Ree ae

me pt pet
HP ORD 20 R09 09

The Crow is known also to eat the berries of the wintergreen, poke-
weed, elder, smilax, and hackberry; and doubtless it also feeds upon
numerous other berries and seeds.

During autumn, and especially in the districts where grain is not
readily obtainable, a favorite food of the Crow is acorns, beech-nuts,
or chestnuts, immense quantities of which are consumed. It may
be mentioned incidentally also that in parts of Louisiana and Texas,
and probably in other States, the Crow injures the pecan crop to a
considerable extent.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF NOXIOUS SEEDS.

An interesting fact, which has come to light recently through the
examination of Crow stomachs, is the discovery that the berries of
poison sumach (Rhus venenata) and poisonivy (Rhus toxicodendron)
are eaten in large numbers by the Crow.

The poison ivy (also called poison vine, poison oak, mercury or
mercury vine, etc.), is too well known to need any description. The
poison sumach (also called swamp sumach, poison elder, poison dog-

Ph) eS ee er ee uo
REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 509

wood, etc.) is a shrub or small tree, confined mainly to swamps and
wet places, and less generally known than the ivy, though its poison
is much more powerful. Both species bear straggling bunches of
greenish-white, waxy berries, which cling tightly tothe stems through
the entire winter and thus are readily obtained by Crows even when
the ground is deeply covered with snow. Each berry contains a
single large seed or stone surrounded by asmall amount of wax-like
pulp, which appears to contain considerable nutritious matter.

Stomachs of Crows taken in every month from September to March,
and in different localities from Massachusetts to wignds were found
to contain these seeds, sometimes in large numbers. In one case one
hundred and fifty-three seeds of poison ivy were found in a single
‘stomach; in several cases the number was more than one hundred, |
and the average in nineteen stomachs exceeded fifty.

At a large Crow-roost on the Virginia side of the Potomac, near
Washington, the droppings of the Crows are literally full of these
seeds, usually accompanied by many seedsof the harmless (red-ber-
ried) sumachs, and astill smaller number of those of the flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida) and the sour gum (Nyssa). The same is
true of the large roost near Baltimore, Md., whence Mr. C. L. Ed-
wards, ofthe Johns Hopkins University, sent to the Department seeds
of all the above species more than a year ago. The seeds of poison
Ny and poison sumach had been found previously in Crow stomachs
collected near Washington, but for lack of a good reference collec-
tion of seeds they remained unrecognized until December, 1888, when
they were identified by the writer.

In order to give some idea of the number of these seeds consumed by
| the Crow it may be stated that a single pound of the dried excrement
taken from the roost in the national cemetery at Arlington, February
8, 1889, contained by actual count 1,041 seeds of poison ivy and 341
seeds of poison sumach, in addition to 3,271 seeds of other sumachs,
95 seeds of Virginia juniper, 10 seeds of flowering dogwood, and 6
seeds of sour gum. The material, which covered about four square
feet, was taken at random from above the layer of leaves, and rep-
resents the average deposit on the roost. As the roost covers up-
_ ward of fifteen acres, some idea may be formed of the number of
these seeds deposited tl.ere.

It is a well-known fact that the germination of many kinds of
seeds is hastened by their passage through the digestive organs of
birds and other animals, and hence it was believed at once that the
Crow was aiding in the distribution of these poisonous plants. In
order to place the matter beyond question, however, seeds taken from
_ the Arlington roost were tested in several ways, and not only was

their vitality found to be unimpaired, but they were found to ger-
minate more quickly than seeds taken from the vine. Of one hun-
dred seeds of Rhus venenata from the roost, moistened and kept
warm, ten sprouted within forty-eight hours, and twenty more within
the next five days. One hundred and fifty seeds of the same kind and
from the same source were planted in a flower-pot in the greenhouse,
and at the end of fourteen days one hundred and thirty of them had
become vigorous seedlings from one to two inches high, and several
_ more were breaking the ground. Similar results were obtained with
_ seedsof Rhus toxicodendron from the roost, while seeds taken from
_ the vine had not sprouted at the end of fourteen days. Thus it_be-
_ comes certain that these seeds are improved rather than impaired by
their passage through the digestive organs of the Crow, and this bird

510 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

therefore is doing incalculable harm by sowing broadcast the seeds
of a poisonous vine and a more poisonous shrub, both of which un-
fortunately are far too abundant already.

THE CROW AS-A DESTROYER OF THE EGGS AND YOUNG OF POULTRY
AND WILD BIRDS. ;

More than three hundred and fifty of our correspondents have con-
tributed notes relating to the Crow as arobber of the nests of domes-
ticated fowls and wild birds. About seventy of these state simply
that ‘‘no damage of this kind has been observed,” but with this ex-
ception the evidence is almost wholly unfavorable to the Crow. Two
hundred and seventy-eight observers state distinctly that they know
of more or less mischief of this kind committed by Crows. One
hundred and forty-seven have personal knowledge of its carrying off
young chickens, and one hundred and seventy-four report damage
to domesticated fowls. There are twenty-five complaints of injury to
the eggs and young of turkeys, and about a dozen instances of simi-
lar damage to ducks and geese.

Rather more than ten per cent. of the reports on domesticated
fowls state that the damage is slight or occasional, but on the other
hand upward of fifty observers report frequent and serious depreda-
tions, many of them stating that the Crows do much more damage
than hawks. It is significant that out of more than three hun-
dred and fifty replies to the question covering the subject of dam-
age to domesticated fowls and wild birds only five are positively
favorable to the Crow. Seventy others are negatively favorable in
that they report no injury observed, without, however, giving any
indication of the extent of the opportunities for observation. The
reports of damage come from all parts of the United States and
Canada where Crows are found, and as a rule the notes are clear
and exact.
As one result of all the information thus far collected it may be

stated that the Common Crow is a serious enemy of poultry, all the
more dangerous because so often unsuspected, and because of its
remarkable cunning and stealth. It is also askilful and inveterate
robber of the nests and eggs of wild birds.

The entire evidence submitted on this subject is well worth read-
ing, but lack of space forbids the insertion of more than a few exam-
ples under each of two heads.

DESTRUCTION OF THE EGGS AND YOUNG OF POULTRY,

More than one-third of all the reports relating to damage to poul-
try specify frequent or serious loss. It appears from these notes
that not only does the Crow rob the hens, ducks, and turkeys which
steal their nests in the brush, woods, or meadows, away from the
farm-yard, but it frequently comes within a few steps of the house
or barn, destroying all nests not absolutely inaccessible to it or snatch-
ing up the downy young about the very doors. Usually such visits
are made very early in the morning, or at times when no one is at
hand to prevent the theft, but frequently the robber becomes em-
boldened by success and makes his visits in the middle of the day
and with apparent disregard of alldanger. Moreover, as in the case
of some hawks and dogs, certain individuals become particularly ad-
dicted to chicken stealing, and return day after day to the same
place, seldom failing to secure a victim at each visit.

we

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 511

The following notes from different parts of the country will serve
to illustrate the Crow’s methods in relation to eggs and chickens:
From Owen Durfee, Fall River, Mass.:

May 5 [1888], while walking by afarm-house near the city, I saw a Crow’sail over
the house and finally settle down on a stone wall about 100 feet from the house, and
begin watching the young chickens running about in the lot and through the wall
under him. Oneof the chickens ran under him, and after eyeing it a moment, he
turned to the next one, which was perhaps a week or ten days old. When this one
was about six feet from him, he dropped down over it and struck at it two or three
times with his beak. Then he acted as though about to eat it on the spot, but a
young rooster running at him, he picked up the chicken and carried it off still
squawking in his beak.

From William H. Lewis, Pawtucket, R. I.:

T have known the Common Crow to take chicks when they were from one to six
weeks old. I know of a case where twenty have been lost this season,

From H. Nehrling, Freistatt, Mo..

T have frequently observed Crows stealing the eggs from my poultry-yard. They
do this very slyly and guietly. Assoon as the eggs are hatched they carry off young
chickens whenever they can get them. With the exception of Cooper’s Hawk I do
not know such a bold robber as the Crow. One day in April one of these birds
perched on the fence, only a few steps from my house. An old hen with about a
dozen chickens which were only a few days old was in my barn-yard. Suddenly the
Crow swooped down, caught a chicken with its bill, and went off, flying away
near the ground. In a few weeks the Crows carried off about twenty chickens,
which varied in age from one day to four weeks.

From H. R. Landis, Landis Valley, Pa.:

When the young are hatched the Crows are very bold, coming up to buildings,
and in one case that came under my notice they took from one to four chickens
each morning, nearly annihilating a brood of about one hundred.

From J. W. Van Kirk, Milton, Pa.:

I have seen Crows catch young chickens, and frequently have seen them carry-
ing off eggs of both the domestic fowl and wild birds. We have had on different
occasions whole nests of sitting turkeys and chickens robbed by them. In some
cases the eggs were taken from under the hens while on their nests.

From David A. Vail, Atlanticville, N. Y.:

On several occasions I have known the Crow to catch and carry off young chick-
ens from the hen-yard. I have known him to return regularly every day for a
chicken, and get it, too, unless some one was on the watch to frighten him away.

From J. V. Henry Knott, Kingston, N. Y.:

I have seen the Common Crow eat eggs, and have caught him by baiting a steel-
trap with anegg. The man in charge of the gas-works at Saugerties told me this
spring that he had to cover his chicken-yard with wire to save the chickens from
the Crows, and that he saw them catch the chickens repeatedly.

From W. K. Nelson, Augusta, Ga.:

The Common Crow will steal eggs; I have poisoned the eggs and killed the
ow.

From Frank B. Hancock, Casky, Ky.:

' The Common Crow undoubtedly catches young chickens and steals eggs. They
have caused me more trouble in that respect than hawks. My home is situated on
the south side of a woodland. A colony of Crows located in that woodland in 1870.
This spring (1885) I have watched them carefully, and have seen them steal chick-
ens before they were past the downy stage and carry them away to their young. I
ee 2 oad family charged with $25 worth of nice chicks stolen in April and

ay, 1885.

Occasionally the Crow attacks full-grown fowls, as evidenced by
the following notes:

512 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

From George A. Boardman, Calais, Me.:

The Common Crow has been observed to catch young chickens and steal eggs,
and also full-grown hens.

From Erney Tulley, Penza, Ohio:

I have never known of Crows killing young chickens, but I once surprised two
Crows fighting an old hen in a little bunch of willows, and have no doubt that
they would have killed her in time had I not interfered. .

In all probability these were cases in which the hens were weak
and partially disabled, or else the Crows were driven to desperation
by hunger, and took advantage of unusually favorable circumstances.

The following reports show that the Crow uses the same methods
on turkeys, ducks, and geese as on chickens:

From W. V. Hardy, Holman Station, Ind.:

In the spring of 1885 the Crows visited our turkeys’ nests every day, also geese,
nests, doing a great amount of damage.

From F. H. Holmes, Rio Vista, Cal.:

On the Lower Sacramento River, I knew of one Crow which killed no less than
thirteen young ducks in the space of three days during a cold, rainy spell in Febru-
ary, though otherwise I never knew it to do any damage to young poultry.

From Fred. 8. Odle, Lapeer, Mich.:

Two years ago in this locality I noticed an instance where Crows stole eggs from
a duck’s-nest, and carried them nearly a quarter of a mile to their own nest. I
found an egg on a stump about half way, wth only two claw marks in it. ‘The
nest of the Crow was in a small pine and had young in it at the time,

From Gideon Mabbett, Rodney, Miss.:

I have seen Crows come to the house and carry off nearly the whole setting of
young ducks in one day.

From John A. Weems, Flora, Ala.:

The Common Crow is the worst egg thief I ever had to contend with. I have
never known Crows to catch young chickens, but they have destroyed at least one
hundred turkey eggs for me during the last spring and early summer.

From D. EK. Pannepacker, Chalfont, Pa.:

On May 15, 1888, while I was slowly making my way through the forest, I noticed
a Crow some 150 yards ahead of me. I thought his peculiar antics meant some-
thing, and upon coming closer to him I noticed that he was teasing a setting turkey.
‘ I found too that he was not alone, but was assisted by his mate. He ran up to the
turkey, seized hold of its tailfeathers, and then when the turkey rose to defend her-
self against his impudence, his mate ran up in front of the turkey, thrust his beak
through an egg and flew off to his nest. In about fifteen minutes they returned,
but by some means or other became aware of my presence and flew away, nor did
they return at any time while I watchedthem, though they managed eventually to
steal eleven out of thirteen of the eggs.

From Thomas W. Florer, Waxahachie, Tex.:

A farmer’s man here had abrood of some fifty turkeys, and a Crow having a nest
of young in a neighboring wood commenced appropriating the young turkeys until
the brood was reduced to fifteen. These were kept close until as large as quails and
there was no further molestation.

In connection with this habit of the Crow the most favorable re-
port received came from Mr. J. M. Nipp, of Bolton, Mo., who says:

Individual members of the Crow family, like those of the human family, are capa-
ble of learning bad habits.

Less than one Crow in twenty learns to steal eggs or young chickens, and they
are only bad when feeding their young. Two years ago last spring one got to tak-

eS ee ee le

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 513

ing chickens from our yard. I watched him fly to the nest, and next morning
when the sun was an hour high I killed the young Crows to see what they had been
fed on for breakfast. They had been fed one chicken, eight mice, and twenty-two
grasshoppers. It was easy to count the chicken’s feet, mice’s tails, and grasshoppers’
heads when the five pouches were opened.

DESTRUCTION OF EGGS AND YOUNG OF WILD BIRDS.

No observant person will deny that the Crow does serious damage
to the eggs and young of wild birds. The instances of such depre-
dation which have come within the knowledge of most farmers or
other persons living in the country are far too numerous to leave a
shadow of doubt on this score in any unprejudiced mind.

_ Yet for every instance of such robbery witnessed by man thou-
sands musttake place without his knowledge. Persecution by Crows
is doubtless a very large factor among the influences which cause so
many birds to crowd about human habitations during the nesting
season, and yet the relentless Crow follows them even to the eaves
and window-sills of houses, taking their eggs and young in spite of »
every precaution.

The evidence on this point, contributed by our observers during
the past few years, is replete with accounts of such forays, and the
only wonder is that robins, thrushes, blackbirds, and many other
species continue to rear any young at all. The reports on this sub-
ject number one hundred and fifty or more,'and contain minute de-
scriptions of the destruction by Crows of the eggs or young of more
than twenty-five species of wild birds. ‘The list includes the robin,
wood thrush and other thrushes, brown thrasher, wrens, English
sparrows and other sparrows, blackbirds of several species, Balti-
more and Bullock’s orioles, woodpeckers, swallows, kingbirds, wax-
wing, warblers, bluejay, Carolina dove, quail, prairie chicken, wood-
cock, night herons and other waders, wild ducks, and sea-gulls. In
addition to these specific statements, very many observers state that
all kinds of small birds suffer from Crows, while others say that it
kills “‘many kinds” or ‘‘all kinds which can be obtained.”

Naturally the robin is one of the most frequent sufferers, and
perhaps its losses are more likely to be noticed than those of less
familiar birds. The following reports indicate something of the
nature and extent of the inroads upon this species:

From Prof. F. E. L. Beal, Lunenburgh, Mass. :

I have known the Crow to rob the nest of a robin of its eggs on several occasions,
always at the first peep of light. In one instance the nest robbed was within six feet
of the open window of a chamber where I slept.

_ From Charles F. Goodhue, Webster, N. H.:

The Crow has been known to rob every robin’s nest in a good-sized apple orchard,
and to come within eight rods of the house and carry off four young robins in the
course of one day.

From J. W. Van Kirk, Milton, Pa.:

Last spring (1886) out of ten robins’ nests around our building, nine were robbed
of eggs by the Crow. One of the nests was not over 20 yards from the house. The
robin lays from three to five eggs, and you can safely say that at least forty robins
were thus destroyed inside of eight acres of ground.

From Dr. A. K. Fisher, Sing Sing, N. Y.:

A great number of nests of the robin, wood thrush, and in fact many other birds,
are robbed of their eggs, and I have often observed Crows flying away with young
birds in their bills, followed by the outraged parents.

In ‘examining the contents of Crows’ stomachs in spring, I have detected the
presence of birds’ eggs in a number of cases.

514 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Such instances might be given by the score, but we have space only
for enough samples to show that we have not overestimated the ex-
tent of the mischief or the number of species which suffer.

From C. 8. Paine, East Bethel, Vt.:

Crows come into our shade trees early in the morning and take the eggs and
young of the oriole and robin; I think that over half of the nests of our small birds
are destroyed by them.

From William Proud, Chico, Cal.:

Crows destroy great numbers of eggs and young of small birds. The hanging
nest of the oriole (Icterus bullocki) seems to be a favorite mark for them.

From D. Y. Overton, Burlington, Iowa:

The Common Crow, especially at the East, is an inveterate robber of birds’ nests,
and also destroys their young. I have seen him at the nests of the robin with the
eges in his mouth; and have seen him with young bluejays in his beak as he took
them from the nest.

From Dr. Frank H. Braymer, West Pawlet, Vt.:

The Crow eats the eggs and young of other birds, particularly of the robin, wax-
wing, thrush, etc.

From Charles A. Davis, Burlington, Vt.:

I have seen Crows catch and carry to their nests eight or ten young bank swallows
which were feathered out.

From Manly Hardy, Brewer, Me.:

It destroys the eggs and young of all birds whose nests itcan reach. I have seen
night-herons’ eggs thus destroyed by the hundred.

From Samuel N. Rhoades, Haddonfield, N. J.:

The Crow steals eggs and young birds from the purple grackle, red-winged black-
bird, robin, kingbird, Carolina dove, quail, and woodcock. It also destroys the eggs
of several species of herons.

The last report and the two following may interest sportsmen, as
they illustrate a very common habit of the Crow, and one which will
account in a large measure for the decrease of game birds in some
parts of the country.

Prof. D. E. Lantz, of Manhattan, Kans., writes:

I have not known the Crow to trouble the poultry-yard in Kansas, but it is a
noted robber of the eggs of quail and pinnated grouse.

Dr. A. B. MacCrea, of Berwick, Pa., writes:

A friend was mowing in the meadow this summer (1885)and uncovered a quail’s
nest containing some twenty eggs. He concluded to place them under a hen and
went to the barn for a basket; when he returned a Crow was finishing his dinner
on the last egg

In all the dark history of the Crow’s relations to other birds there
is nothing which can be fairly called a bright spot, and only here
and there a record is found which serves to render the page a little less
gloomy. One of these grains of comfort is found in the fact that in
its wholesale attacks on other birds a few species suffer which are
scarcely better than itself. The bluejay and the purple grackle are
known to destroy the eggs and young of smaller birds, and their own
nests are frequently pillaged by the more powerful Crow. Under
favorable circumstances Crows are known to destroy the eggs and
young of the English sparrow, and they have done good seryice in
this way about the Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, D. C.,

ig
REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 515

where it isno uncommon sight during the summer to see a Crow
(most often perhaps the Fish Crow) feeding on the young of these
birds.

INSECT FOOD OF THE CROW.

In attempting to study the insect food of the Crow, two different
questions present themselves at the outset. These are: (a) How
many insects does the Crow eat? and (b) What kinds of insects does
it eat? The first question was answered ina general way more than
half a century ago, and there is no reason now to deny the oft-re-
peated statement that the Crow feeds largely on insects. The second
question, however, is not only much more important but much less
easily answered; for not all insects are injurious, and comparatively
few persons can discriminate between the useful and harmful, espe-
cially when watching them from a distance or examining those which
have been crushed and swallowed by a bird.

While, therefore, the field-notes of casual observers may help ma-
terially to answer the question as to the extent to which the Crow
feeds on insects in general, they can seldom be relied upon for an ac-
curate knowledge of the insect species destroyed. Asalready stated,
this latter question must be answered mainly by the critical study of
the stomach-contents of large numbers of Crows. Nevertheless, the
accumulated observations of years as to the Crow’s manner of feed-
ing, together with notes on places most visited at certain times, and
the insects most abundant inthose places at such times, must not be
disregarded, many such observations being of the greatest practical
value.

In the course of the present investigation on the Crow, hundreds of
notes on its insect-eating habits have been received from correspond-
ents, andin many cases the observationsare of great interest and value.
Not afew of these notes relate to observations made under peculiarly
favorable circumstances, and though we can not feel perfectly sure
of the correct identification, for example, of the Hessian fly and army-
Worm, we see no reason tio doubt the statements of any farmer as to
grasshoppers and potato beetles, or even cut-worms and ‘‘white
grubs.” It is true they may nct know the scientific names of the
particular species of grasshopper or grub noted, but the observation,
though less valuable on this account, is still of definite worth. A few
observers have examined stomachs of Crows occasionally, and their
testimony in regard to the insects found therein therefore possess
unusual value, but the larger number by far base their statements
entirely on field observations.

A few farmers contend that the Crow rarely or never eats insects
of any kind, while others simply state that they have never seen it
do so, and express a favorable or unfavorable opinion as to the prob-
ability of such a habit. These, however, are individual exceptions,
the great majority of observers stating emphatically that the Crow
does eat insects, and that he eats many; in fact, the unanimity of
opinion on this point is rather surprising, and much of the most fa-
vorable testimony comes from men who are most severe on the Cro

_ as regards its other habits.

In this connection, the evidence furnished by the stomachs exam-
ined in the Division during the past year is interesting. The insects
contained in these stomachs have been submitted to the Entomolo-
gist of the Department, and a summary of the results of his exami-
nation will be found in another place; but while examining the other

516 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

components of the food it was easy to separate the insect material
from the rest, and to estimate the proportion which it formed of the
entire food.

The following table, showing the amount of insect food in the stom-
achs examined, contains several points of interest:

Table showing the amount of insect food in the stomachs of eighty-six Crows (Cor-
wus americanus), arranged by months.

|
| Average

| Average
No. of | _No- of | Percentage | percentage | peg
Month, stomachs | Stomachs | of stomachs| of insect | ° ,0es°
=: examined, | containing| containing food one
‘| insects. | insects. in stomachs st ro
containing it.| Stomac
| examined.
[ease
ARN AYA cere sian eee es temo me tee 14 | 4 | 28.6 4. 2.
MEDLUALY Fn cisw ches cee cemeawaee mee & 6 | 1 16.7 if .17
eats aS node ncaa do ccccosesosaence i 1 100. ik | 1.
Tie 9 RGR ee Sein Seine nt ee ee | Pee eS foarte re eM INN CY mete et
VERY astaec cis lca is & Soweto eee eee Se 3 3 100. 76. 76.
TITEIOES AGRA noe SARA CCee ma crear 3 3 100. 14.7 14.7
Aes BRE eee casio ee ee eee eee a6 14 87.5 32.6 28.5
BMS Reo Sein cans cco neeael as =, Oleg. Sea She cathe cates accom tee See en ee
SES Rig Ree eG os 6 Al 6 85.7 33. 28.3
MEeber yeep as ous «cine eee eeeel 13 10 76.9 12.8 9.8
INGV ERI DOE tec <tc sien os asco teense 3 3 100. 17.3 17.3
PecemMber sys coos ceeelces were | 20 18 90. 5:9 5.4
| 86 63 | 73.2 19.7 | 14.5

It appears from the above table that sixty-three of the eighty-
six stomachs of the Common Crow which were examined, er more
than 73 per cent., contained some insect food, the average amount
in each of the sixty-three stomachs being nearly 20 per cent., or
one-fifth of the entire food. Fourteen and one-half per cent. of all
the food contained in the whole eighty-six stomachs consisted of
insects, and this in spite of the fact that two-thirds of these stomachs
were from birds taken during the colder half of the year, namely, be-
tween October 1 and April 1.

At first sight it seems still more remarkable that 90 per cent. of the
stomachs taken in December contained some insect food, while but
874 per cent. of those taken in July contained insects. Those taken
in July, however, contained in the aggregate more than five times as
much food of this kind as those taken in December.

Again, of the fourteen stomachs taken in January, but four con-
tained insect remains, as against eighteen out of twenty taken in De-
cember. By consulting the detailed results of the examination,
however, the reason is evident; for ten of the January birds were
taken at East Hartford, Conn., when the ground was mostly covered
with snow, while most of the December birds were taken near Wash-
ington, D. C., when the ground was mostly bare.

These few facts show how essential is the examination of large num-
bers of stomachs in order to secure accurate results, but nevertheless
it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Crows eat insects freely
at all seasons of the year, and that the main reason why they do not
eat as many in cold weather as in warm is simply because they are
not to be had then. These conclusions receive additional confirma-
tion from the reports of observers, very many of whom state that the
Crow feeds on insects at all times of the year, but is especially destruct-
ive to them when they are exceptionally abundant.

Va ee es ee Ul SUC

‘3
Ss

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 517

Turning now to the reports of observers as to the kinds of insects
eaten, we find additional testimony favorable to the Crow.
The following list gives the names of all insects on which the Crow
= pad to feed, together with the number of observers reporting each
ind:

:
Names. ae | Names. oe
Insects of all kinds............ Lei AEnny-W OEMS td hss Pa S55 Se 3
Insects, kind not specified...... ot a ODACCO-WOFrMS 03,0506 os ds eens 2
SEASSHOPPers’s . iiss waid cele cleeie es Oe ie Barbe WORDIS i24)<). 2s aielssiccre ale 7
OnE Rae Ae ee AP ee a 8 || Worms, kind not specified..... 10
EPMATCHSLS® =< ain an cre, a eae. «cwes ts ¢ gs SAT ae Gf Si's = oa 2
Seventeen-year cicada.......... 2 || ‘‘ Bugs,” kind not specified .... 6
eo WW BESO EMDSS so oc cine 6 2.c0e<> v's oon bene caterpillar fo yoo. Yea dol 1
Grubs, kind not specified....... AQ || Apple-tree worm.............. 1
OE SOOO Soros whese ekiajavs ee bos AA | RC HEI K OT VOLE: ct he > ff mts id ce Oe 1
Eig OS hs on ss a asn A winlnnt, 6 '<)<7s se O) le WOnmomOLIig: sca. cre ote es caterers i
PENG ANOS oie ssc Some svete ee +. < rage \(eel 21/10 220) 0 ee Pek Mee em 1
atatey DEGLES. veut. ess bss ee. Gta, SMM ers S at tices Sea auie oie tee trees 1
Beetles, kind not specified...... a essicitieiby ta07 OS kee es aston 1
Wareepilars. Josc7 see d's atest NE COCOONS 251. MRS ELS chee Pees 2
WMIRG WORMS clr. s sate yc ete sss Gj Crysalads 9.23 tek PS ie Be 2

A glance at the above list shows that certain groups of insects are
reported by large numbers of observers, and it is interesting to note
that in almost every case the insects so reported are decidedly injuri-
ous. Thus grubs and ‘white grubs” aggregate eighty-one reports,
cut-worms are mentioned in forty-four, and grasshoppers in eighty.

Among the numerous reports which mention a considerable variety
of insects the following may be instanced:

From William Proud, Chico, Cal.:

It is a great devourer of grubs, caterpillars, chrysalises, etc.; including wire-
worms, larvee of cockchafer, beetles, army-worms, grasshoppers, and any other
noxious vermin that falls in the way.

From Marcus 8S. Crane, Caldwell, N. J.:

It frequently visits newly plowed fields for grubs and worms, and I think it also
searches for cut-worms in the corn-fields. I have noticed Crows feeding in a meadow
the morning after it was mowed, and think they destroy a great many grasshoppers,
bugs, and caterpillars.

From Elisha Slade, Somerset, Mass.:

Crows feed upon injurious insects at all times of the year, and very sensibly re-
duce the number of cut-worms, larve of the May bug, and the bugs themselves,

- wire-worms, and various caterpillars which infest the field, orchard, pasture, and

meadow. From more than a quarter of a century’s observation, I consider the Crow
of more benefit to the agriculturist in its destruction of insects than injury to the
grain, eggs, and chickens; Iam a farmer myself and have had several disastrous
visits from the Crows.

From Dr. Morris Gibbs, Kalamazoo, Mich.:

The Crow has been observed to feed upon injurious insects, such as orthoptera,
coleopterous larvee, and chrysalids of lepidoptera, especially Cecropia cocoons.

From Dr. Hiram A. Cutting, Lunenburgh, Vt.:
It has been observed to eat caterpillars, potato beetles, and grasshoppers; also

white grubs and cut-worms.

Very many farmers must have noticed the habit which the Crow
has, in common with various blackbirds and some other species, of

518 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

following the plow, especially in spring or early summer, or of fre-
quenting recently plowed fields. The Crow, under these circum-
stances, is generally credited with destroying large numbers of grubs
and other insects, and there can be little question that this reputation
. is fully deserved.

The following notes, selected almost at random from a large num-
ber, will give a fair idea of the evidence on this point:

From K, EK. Mason, Accotink, Va.:

I have had them follow me all day when I have been plowing, picking up the
grub-worms. They are evidently voracious feeders and not nice as to diet, but
boubtless draw the line on any of the caterpillar family. A friend of mine having
shot one cut his craw open and found so many insects that he said he had killed his
last Crow. I think if the Crow was less disturbed there would be less wormy roast-
ing ears.

From Ff’. Stephens, San Bernardino, Cal.:

The Crow is in the habit of following after the plow, picking up cut-worms, white
grubs, larvee, etc., sometimes in large quantities.

From T. Scott Fisher, Kast Brook, Pa.:

I watched a pair of Crows follow me day after day last spring [1886] while plowing
sod, and saw one Crow pick up twenty-five to forty white grubs, cut-worms, and
wire-worms at one time and then fly to the woods for an hour or so, then back and
at it again.

No doubt the Crow does very much good in this way, and it is pos-
sible that the observed facts of this kind have led some people to
believe, without other evidence, that Crows when pulling up corn
are only in search of insects. Much interesting opinion has been
contributed on this subject, together with no little good evidence.
The following samples serve to illustrate the subject:

From Dr. J. R. Mathers, Buckhannon, W. Va.:

It is the opinion of many farmers that the Crow is unearthing cut-worms at the
base of the corn instead of pulling up the corn, the uprooting being only an accident.

From William G. Coutan, Brackney, Pa.:

IT am convinced from personal observation that the Crow pulls corn in search of
grubs and worms. For where large quantities have been pulled up the grain is left
intact on the sprout.

From F. R. Welsh, Philadelphia, Pa.:

On three or four occasions I have known Crows to pull up corn from two to four
inches high. I do not think they eat the green top; their object seems to be to get
at the seeds, which they invariably eat.

From John C. Linville, Gap, Pa.:

It feeds largely on the large white grub, the larvee of the May beetle. When the
common cut-worm is very numerous I have seen the Crow dig something out of
the hill of corn and leave the corn unmolested; I think he was catching the worms.

From D. E. Pannepacker, Chalfont, Pa.:

A field of corn is adjacent to my school-house. On the 13th of May the corn was
planted, and on the 22d of May I first noticed the tender shoots above the ground.
The field previous to the cultivation was covered with a thick growth of sod, favor-
able to the existence of the grub and wire-worm. It wasbut natural, too, for these
insects to remain, and not having the tender shoots of timothy, clover, and other
grasses to satisfy their appetites, they turned their attention to the growing corn.
The despised Crow here rendered most excellent service, for though he pulled up the
corn, I noticed each time the well known track of the wire-worm, or the worn path
of the grub.

The fact that Crows usually eat the corn from the sprouts which
they pull has been spoken of in another part of this article, and is

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 519

too well known to need any demonstration. That they sometimes
leave part of it untouched after pulling is also undoubtedly true, but
thiscan hardly be used as an argument to show that it was pulled for
other purposes. Where food of any kind is very abundant, the Crow
probably selects the morsels which please him best, and the fact that
some is left untouched only shows that he exercises his judgment in
selecting his food.

An observation which has been used sometimes as an argument for
the Crow is the fact that the greatest damage to corn by the Crowis
in precisely the localities where the greatest injury is done by cut-
worms and grubs, namely, on pasture land, mowing land, or newly
cleared fields which have been broken up and planted in corn. The
natural inference is that the Crows are attracted by the abundance
of grubs, and incidentally do more or less mischief tothe corn; but
a moment’s thought will show that a simpler explanation lies in
the fact that such newly broken fields are generally those farthest
from the farm-house, and hence less easily protected, so that the Crow
seeks them in preference to the more exposed fields, and without ref-
erence to the abundance of insects there. The obvious test of guilt
or innocence in such cases would be to shoot a few Crows after they
have spent some time in the field and subject their stomachs to care-
ful examination. The claim so often made that such a test would
show nothing, since the soft worms would digest more rapidly than
the corn, has no weight whatever, for all grubs capable of injuring
corn have hard jaws or other parts which are not only indigestible,
but which often are so characteristic as to make it an easy matter to
identify the particular species of grub, cut-worm, or caterpillar to
which they belong.

On the whole, the evidence thus far collected does not seem to
give much weight to the belief that Crows eat many grubs or cut-
worms in fields where corn is coming up. Nor is there any obvious
reason why they should, since the grubs are more abundant in grassy
fields than in cultivated ground, and, except at times when the sur-
face has been recently disturbed, we should expect the birds to look
for them anywhere rather than in corn-fields.

When edible insects of any kind are particularly abundant, birds
doubtless feed more largely on themthan at othertimes. Thisis well
shown by the numerous published reports of the havoc wrought by
pecs among the seventeen-year cicada in the years of its great abun-

ance.

The following statement by Mr. J. Percy Moore, of Philadelphia,
Pa., is one of several reports showing that the Crow is no exception
to this rule. Mr. Moore writes:

When the seventeen-year cicada appeared this summer (1885) the Crow fed ex-
tensively on both its pupz and imagoes. The young were fed to some extent on
the pupz on May 30. As they had not at this time appeared above the ground,
I suppose the Crows obtained them in plowed fields.

THE CROW AN ENEMY TO GRASSHOPPERS.

Probably the most marked example of the good which Crows do by
destroying insects is found in their attacks on grasshoppers, crick-
ets, and kindred insects. Eighty observers report the Crow as feed-
ing extensively on grasshoppers, and there can be no doubt that

much good is doneinthis way. The following examples show some-
thing of the extent of the benefit occasionally done:

a a

520 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE,

From Charles F. Goodhue, Webster, N. H.:

At this season Crows are of some benefit to the farmer, as they feed mostly on
grasshoppers. To-day (August 22) a flock of nearly a hundred were observed ina
pasture badly infested with grasshoppers, upon which they evidently were feeding.

From A. I. Johnson, Hydeville, Vt.:

Crows have some very good qualities, catching countless numbers of crickets
and grasshoppers after the hay is cut. They can be seen at almost any time of
day on the meadows catching grasshoppers. I observed one pair of old Crows this
summer (1885) when I was haying, that were feeding their young almost entirely
(if not quite) on grasshoppers; the old Crows would alight on the mown land within
eight or ten rods of me, and after catching a hopper or two would fly to their young
that were on the fence and there feed them with the hoppers.

From W. E. Saunders, London, Ontario, Canada:

Last summer (1885) I watched a flock of probably two thousand Crows catching
grasshoppers.

From J. B. Underhill, Fork Union, Va.:

As to the insect diet of the adult I can not testify, having never examined the
gizzards. The gizzards of two young which were taken from the nest were filled
to overflowing with grasshoppers, and each contained one or two kernels of corn.

From Morris M. Green, Boonville, N. Y.:

Near Boonville Ihaveseen the Common Crow feeding on grasshoppers during the
summer months. Some fields seemed to be fairly black with the birds pursuing the
grasshoppers in every direction. One day noticing a flock of Crows frequenting a
particular field, I visited the place, and found that the roots of the grass had been
completely eaten away, so that the sod or turf could be taken by the hand and
rolled up like a rug or carpet. A farmer living in the vicinity told me that the
Crows visited the place every day to feed upon the grubs that destroyed the turf in
this way. The grubs or larve were about three-fourths of an inch in length; body
whitish, with some dull plumbeous underneath; head blackish.

Many other reports of similar work might be cited, but the above
will suffice. We may add, however, that, judging from the numer-
ous reports received, Crows regularly visit new-mown fields forthe
purpose of eating the grasshoppers thus left exposed. Probably a
score of observers have noted this fact in their reports.

DO CROWS EAT POTATO BEETLES ?

Among the reports received are six or more which mention the
potato bug or potato beetle among the insects which are eaten by
the Crow. George H. Berry, of North Livermore, Me., says:

It eats grasshoppers, potato bugs, and Cleisiocampa larvee [tent caterpillars].

Charles W. Beckwith, of Frederickton, Canada, says:

ft eats the Colorado potato beetle to a small extent, not enough to be of much ap-
parent benefit.

W. EK. Dingman, of Newton, Iowa, says:

I have observed it feeding on the potato bug and grasshoppers, quite extensively
on June 21, 1886.

Other observers make similar statements, while still others say
that it has never been seen to eat this beetle at all,and even appears
to shun it altogether. Mr. W. B. Hall, of Wakeman, Ky, states
that he could not in any way tempt his tame Crows with potato bugs.
His account of the insect-eating habits of his pets‘is so interest-
ing and suggestive that it is inserted here entire:

Crows are decidedly insectivorous if domestication does not alter their habits.
At different times I have kept Crows which were taken from the nest when nearly

full fledged. They became very tame so that I had a chance to watch their actions
and manner of feeding. I find that they are not particular in their diet as to

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 521

whether the insect is what is termed injurious or beneficial. They feed greedily on
the different species of cut-worm (Agrotis), and on the white grub (larva of Lachnos-
terna fusca). When plowing they will follow in the furrow and pick up every
grub or beetle in sight; and when their appetites are satisfied they fill their beaks
with insects and hide them under sticks, leaves, or stones. I have often taken the
pains to look up their hiding places and count the insects thus hidden and I have
been astonished at the numbers. They kill predaceous beetles but do not often eat
them, I think on account of the peculiar odor most of them emit. For the sake of
experiment, I have taken the Crows toa board or stone whichon being removed
exposed many black beetles (mostly Galerita). They would pounce on a beetle,
give it a pinch through the head or thorax, drop it, and seize another with such ra-
pidity that but few if any escaped. I could not on any condition tempt their ap-
petites with Colorado beetles, squash bugs, cucumber bugs, or any of the soldier
bugs or lady birds (Coccinella). I had a male Crow that would eat the cabbage
caterpillar (Pieris rapce) with evident relish while his mate disdained such plebeian
diet. They would kill the sow bugs (Oniscus) and species of Myriapoda, but would
not eat them.

THE INSECT FOOD OF THE CROW AS REVEALED BY EXAMINATION
OF STOMACHS.

Among the eighty-six stomachs of the Common Crow examined,
sixty-three were found to contain insect remains, and these remains
were submitted to the Entomologist of the Department, Prof. C. V.
Riley, who caused a critical study of them to be made, and has in
preparation a full report, showing the number and kinds of insects
represented in each stomach, with notes as to their habits and eco-
nomic importance. A brief summary of the more important facts
brought out by this investigation is given herewith. It has been
prepared by the writer from a preliminary report to the Entomolo-
gist by Tyler Townsend, assistant, who, with the aid of the other
members of the entomological force, made most of the determina-
tions. The full report will appear in a bulletin on the Crow, which
is now in preparation in the Ornithological Division.

The stomachs examined contained the remains of about ninety-
two species of true insects, represented by about five hundred speci-
mens. About 10 per cent. of these can not be classed properly as
either beneficial or injurious, and the remainder are divided pretty
evenly between the two. The following table shows the orders rep-
resented, as well as the number of species and individuals in each,
and these are further classified under the heads beneficial, injurious,
and neutral:

Table showing the nature of the insect food in sixty-three stomachs of the Common
C

TOW.
Species. Individuals,
Bene- | Inju- | Neu- Bene- | Inju- | Neu-
ficial. | rious. | tral. | Total. ficial. | rious. | tral. Total.
Efymeneptera.......00...0.0.00000- 16 1 0 17 || 126 8 0 134
SIUC OPECI ideals «ins vicacsces seca : 0 6 0 6 0 16 0 16
eae 22 ner octeesco sekeeacopseese il 0 0 i! 1 0 0 1
REA DUCTAI evo, cieie osciee oienise cesses 23 16 8 7 | 8h 57 32 174
BRPUUQHCED acces ee crccsscccccac--- 1 1 1 3 | 1 1 1 3
PROMO CEH tore ce occ acces re ccce vas: 0 17 0 17 | 0 150 0 150
PARSER PDCES Saw cisisin vic's'ns ca eseseics 0 0 1 1 (ey ) 0 18 18

ire
z
;
arg
|
|
Oo
i
~
2
|
‘|
tw)
|
‘|
cor)

In addition to the true insects mentioned above, the stomachs contained remains
of at least three species of spiders and two of myriapods, sixteen specimens in all,
and all beneficial.

22052 OR——4

529 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

The order Coleoptera (beetles) is most numerously represented, and
a majority of the species are beneficial. It is an interesting fact that
no less than eighteen species of predaceous beetles (Cicindelide and
Carabide) are included in this number, together with nearly a dozen
species of the scavenger beetles (Scarabeide). Some of these are
species possessing disagreeable odors, and it is somewhat surprising
that the Crow should take them unless other food was scarce. They
occur most abundantly, however, in stomachs taken in May, June,
and July, when other food must have been abundant. Among the
injurious beetles identified are the flat-headed apple-tree borer (Ohrys-
obothris), of which a single specimen was found; May beetles (Lach-
nosterna) in five stomachs (nine specimens in one); and a few other
borers and leaf-feeders. Three small weevils were taken from one
stomach and considered ‘‘injurious insects,” as they are, but it is
probable that they were hidden in kernels of corn which were eaten
by the Crow.

The order Orthoptera (grasshoppers, crickets, etc.) is well repre-
sented by one hundred and fifty specimens belonging to seventeen
species. Twenty-eight stomachs contained examples of this order,
and the results of stomach examination in this case bear out the
statements of observers and show that in this direction the work
done by the Crow is entirely beneficial, as all these insects are more
or less injurious.

The order Hymenoptera, including the wasps, bees, ants, etc., is
represented, in the material taken from the Crow’stomachs, by one
hundred and thirty-four specimens belonging to seventeen species,
all but one of which are beneficial. A species of saw-fiy, decidedly
injurious, was found in one stomach, and seven larve of the same or
another species in a second stomach. One of these stomachs, how-
ever, also contained the remains of a young bird, apparently a nest-
ling, and it isnot improbable that the saw-flies came from this source.
Two other stomachs contained remains of ichneumon flies belonging
to different genera. These are among the most beneficial of insects,
destroying particularly large numbers of caterpillars.

Only one other order requires special mention, viz, the Lepidoptera.
In this are included the butterflies and moths, the larve of which
are almost invariably destructive. Contrary to what might have
been expected, the Crow stomachs do not show many representatives
of this order. Six species, five of which are decidedly injurious, were
recognized, but the sixteen specimens were distributed among nine
stomachs. The family Noctwide, which includes the cut-worms,
was represented by nine specimens in six stomachs ; that is, but six
Crows out of eighty-six had eaten any cut-worms.

In concluding this imperfect summary of the insectivorous habits
of the Common Crow it must be conceded that the showing is not very
favorable for the bird.

Considering merely the testimony of observers, the conclusion
would be favorable in the main, for 1t appears that the Crow eats in-
sects throughout the season, at many times in large quantities, and
often of the most injurious kinds. To be sure they are mainly ter-
restrial or subterranean kinds, but they are decidedly injurious in
the main, and few if any beneficial insects are said to be taken.

In the light of the stomach examinations, however, the case
assumes a different complexion, for although the evidence from
this source confirms in some respects the testimony of observers,
it indicates also that beneficial and injurious insects are taken in

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 523

nearly equal quantities, and thus the good done at one time may be
fully neutralized at another. The force of this point is much weak-
ened by the small number of stomach examinations made, and by
the fact that so few Crows were taken during the summer months ;
but the zndications point to an omnivorous habit in general, and to
the destruction of good and bad insects indiscriminately.

As has been sugyested by many previous writers and reiterated
by numbers of our own observers, the harm done in the destruction
of eggs and young of insectivorous birds during spring and early
summer is beyond all computation; and itis difficult for one familiar
with the magnitude of the Crow’s iniquity in this direction to believe
that any destruction of injurious insects or other animals can fully
atone for it. Yet even here another factor should be taken into
account, as it must be borne in mind that many of the small birds
killed by the Crow are not strictly insectivorous, while some of them,
in their thefts of fruit and other crops, continually tend to even their
own accounts with the farmer, and occasionally even overdraw
them.

THE CROW AS AN ENEMY TO FIELD MICE AND OTHER SMALL QUAD-
RUPEDS. ‘

Aside from the insect-eating habits of the Crowits most beneficial
trait probably is the killing of field mice. Of these it is a great
destroyer, hunting up the nests and devouring young and old when-
ever they can be caught. There isabundance of evidence that Crows
are very skillful at such hunting, and undoubtedly they form one of
the strong checks on the increase of these prolific and destructive
rodents, Among the reports of our correspondents are twelve which
eee this habit of mouse-hunting, and from these we select a

ew:

From James O. Whittemore, Fairfield, Me.:

I have observed Crows catching insects and field-mice all the yearround. The
general impression among farmers is to tolerate Crows at all seasons except the
early spring.

From O. P. Hitchings, Winfield, N. Y.:

The Crow has the reputation of catching field-mice, especially just after the grass
has been cut.

From F. A. Sampson, Sedalia, Mo.:

After mowing I have seen Crows feeding on what I supposed to be grasshoppers;
they also catch and eat mice.

We have received one report also from William J. Howerton, of
Florence, Ariz., who writes as follows:

The Common Crow of this section is of some economic value, as I have observed it
catching and killing the common pocket gopher.

MISCELLANEOUS ANIMAL FOOD OF THE CROW.

Probably no family of birds in existence is more truly omnivorous
than the Crows; almost anything eatable is utilized when hunger
ee though at other times they are more scrupulous about their
food. It is useless, therefore, to attempt to give a complete category
_ of the items which may enter into the Crow’s diet, and as many of
_ them have no bearing on the economic aspects of the question it is

524 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

unnecessary to dwell on the subject here; any one who is curious to
know exactly what ninety-eight Crows had eaten just before they
were killed can consult the list of stomach examinations with which
this paper concludes.

The animal matter contained in the stomachs of eighty-six Com-
mon Crows examined was as follows:

Z No. of
Animal contents of stomachs, Seer

found.
Carrion’ @. jo ate ont 3's Gio woe 0:5 die oe 0's ois'e opiate mine pie ee en er | 14
Bemains Of mice fee ss... assests akc a os Dee Oe: ee | =
BEALS pee fee be ake 6 5c cic's oo Ue doh ates ke tne ee ee oe 1
ETS EMSs a fe Soo a Sos oc iccg se kine Migictie: oa) fs, GRA eae ee eee ae a)
SaNaIMAHGGH «coi is sacs cede ees Usk le ee Pe ee eee if
BESTE oes Reis ad oS, 6d a 000 5 o Hee Cee sine ed ae eee 9
CEMVESNE . 2 oe ko kien oon pete ete te ean iae cee eee eee 6
OHNE CEUSLACCANS.. .. <.u.s week eee eele kb ca woe eee 5
anussels or :clams:;.<. 3-22. pees Seo Ce CR ee eee 4
snails of various kinds: &. 26 fei c£ 52. ee ee ee eee 6
THISECUSS OAs Gag Fiale wis ore © Me RR ee ee eee ee 63
SPIGELS) Foal. aoe Ss ce ees vise eee eee eee eee 2
INV FIAPO swiss, iva be 5 eas See ea eke Coe een ae eee ee 1

The following statement from Mr. John M. Richardson, of Dain-
gerfield, Tex., is interesting in this connection from itsnovelty. Mr.
Richardson writes:

The Crow is known tocatch young terrapins, and there is reason to believe that
it destroys other small reptiles. I remember a rock-crowned hill on the east bank
of the Wateree, between Manchester and Statesburgh, in Sumter County, Ga., that
was almost covered with remains of small terrapins and land tortoises carried
there, killed, and devoured by Crows.

THE CROW AS A SCAVENGER.

The eighty-six stomach examinationsof the Common Crow showed
food in but fourteen cases which could properly be called carrion; —
but it is a well-known fact that during seasons of scarcity Crows eat —
large quantities of carrion. Nevertheless the good done in this way ~
has been very greatly overestimated, for itis almost certain that they
prefer fresh food to carrion, and only take the latter when more agree-
able food is scarce. This is mainly during winter and early spring
when, in cold climates, no harm would be done if the carrion were
allowed to lie uneaten.

During warm weather, when the decay of animal substances is
more unpleasant and perhaps more dangerous to health, the Crow
rarely touches a carcass at all, but any animal which dies at that Z
time, together with any carcasses left from earlier in the season, are —
soon disposed of by insects and thenatural processes of desiccation —
and decay :

In warm climates the black vultures and turkey buzzards render —
the services of Crows entirely superfluous. Undoubtedly there are —
times when Crows are serviceable in the removal of carrion, but in
most cases there is no excuse for its presence in places where it can &
do any harm.

SON es Cg anther

Popeyes

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 525

Food of the Fish Crow.

The food of the Fish Crow has been represented usually as con-
sisting more strictly of marine products than that of the Common
Crow; and it has been supposed also not to pull corn or feed on
ripening grain, but to devote more time to fruit and perhaps to in-
sects.

The examination of the twelve stomachs of Fish Crows does not
bear out all these statements, for no one of the stomachs contained
any trace of fish or any marine product, except a few bits of shell in
onestomach. Only three of the stomachs contained any traces of in-
sects (these mostly grasshoppers), while five contained carrion, and
eight contained grain and berries. No one of these stomachs con-
tained any seeds of poison ivy or sumach.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FROM ALL SOURCES.

It appears, therefore, from acareful consideration of all testimony,
published and unpublished, that—

I, Crows seriously damage the corn crop, and injure other grain
crops usually to a less extent.

II. They damage other farm crops to some extent, frequently doing
much mischief.

III. They are very destructive to the eggs and young of domes-
ticated fowls.

IV. They do incalculable damage to the eggs and young of na-
tive birds.

V. They do much harm by the distribution of seeds of poison ivy,
poison sumach, and perhaps other noxious plants.

VI. They do much harm by the destruction of beneficial insects.

On the other hand— |

VII. They do much good by the destruction of injurious insects.

VIII. They are largely beneficial through their destruction of mice
and other rodents.

IX. They are valuable occasionally as scavengers.

The careful examination of large numbers of stomachs, and the
critical study of the insect food ofthe Crow, may change materially
_ the present aspect of the question; but so far as the facts at present
known enable a judgment to be formed, the harm which Crows do
appears to far outweigh the good.

' RESULTS IN- DETAIL OF THE EXAMINATION OF STOMACHS OF THE
4, COMMON CROW (CORVUS AMERICANUS).
‘ [Note.—The following records of dissection are from examinations of stomachs
_ preserved in alcohol and forwarded to the Department of Agriculture by the col-
_ lectors whose names accompany the records in the list below. Unless otherwise

stated the determinations of the various items of stomach contents have been made
} entirely by members of the Division, the writer being responsible for the larger
_ part. The percentages of the food elements in each case are to be regarded simply
i as approximate; they are merely careful estimates,no exact measurement being
+ practicable. As elsewhere stated, the remains of insects were referred to the En-
tomologist of the Department, for critical study, and a summary of his preliminary
report has been given on a previous page. j

2648. Male. Schraalenburgh, N. J. January 2, 1886; 9.30a.m. F. J. Dixon.

: Animal matter, 0 per cent.; vegetable, 90; gravel, etc., 6; indeterminate, 4,
Stomach less than half full.

Contents.—Fragments of corn, acorns, etc.; 3 bits of insect legs; fine mud-
like matter not determined; a little sand and gravel.

526

2649.

7012.

7013.

4433,

4434,

4435,

4437,

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Female. Schraalenburgh, N. J. January 2, 1886; 10.30a.m. F. J. Dixon.

en aaa 7 per cent.; vegetable, 90; gravel, etc., 3. Stomach well

ed.

Contents.—Remains of corn; pumpkin and cucumber seeds, and perhaps
other seeds: remains of muscular fiber, probably from a mussel or clam
as some of it was attached to a piece of a shell, apparently that of bivalve;
afew bits of shell and a little sand; no remains of insects.

Chester County, Pa. January 12, 1887. Dr. B.H. Warren.

Animal matter, 25 per cent.; vegetable, 50; gravel, etc., 25. Stomach about
two-thirds full.

Contents.—A few bits of corn (kernels), and a large amount of hulls of corn
or other grain, with some other vegetable fiber; 4 seeds of poison ivy
(Rhus toxicodendron); 2vertebrze of small bird* and several fragments of
bone of small fish*; 3 or 4 small beetles and a large quantity of other
insect remains, and one spider; a good supply of coarse gravel.

Chester County, Pa. January 15,1887. Dr. B. H. Warren.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 90; gravel, etc., 9. Stomach about
three-fourths full.

Contents.—One hundred and fifty-three seeds of poison ivy (Rhus toxicoden-
dron), about 125 seeds of sumach (Rhus glabra); egg-case of a spider: insect
remains; a fair amountof sand and gravel; a quantity of finely pulverized
vegetable matter mixed with fine sand.

Male. East Hartford, Conn. January 15, 1887; a. m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 75; gravel, etc., 15. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Remains of kernels of corn, forming about 70 per cent. of entire
stomach contents; about 15 seeds of common sumach (Rhus) and 1 seed of
poison sumach (Rhus venenata); about 10 per cent. of bits of flesh and
ligament of some animal, probably carrion; a large amount of cleansand
without pebbles; no insect remains.

Female. East Hartford,Conn. January 15, 1887; a.m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 15 per cent.; vegetable, 10; gravel, etc., 75. Stomach less
than half full.

Contents.—Three unknown seeds, prebably of apple, pear, or quince; a small
amount of vegetable matter like pulp of fruit; a single hog bristle and a
number of bits of meat, probably carrion; a large amount of sand with-
out any gravel or pebbles; no insect remains. d

Female. East Hartford, Conn. January 16, 1887; a.m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 15 per cent.; vegetable, 10; gravel, etc., 75. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—A few skins of berries or seeds in small bits, and a little other fine
vegetable débris; asingle hog bristle and bits of animal tissue, probably
carrion; about 2 per cent. of insect remains, all of a single insect; a large
amount of sand, and two or three small pebbles.

Male. East Hartford, Conn. January, 16, 1887; 2p.m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 3; gravel, etc., 92. Stomach almost
empty.

Colima “ote or two hog bristles and a few shreds of animal membrane,
probably carrion; a few bits of hulls of corn or other grain; a little sand
and many small fragments of some hard black mineral; no insect re-
mains, 7

Female. East Hartford, Conn. January 16, 1887; 2 p.m. Willard E.
Treat.

Animal matter, 35 per cent.; vegetable, 60; gravel, etc., 5. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—About 100 seeds of poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron), and 7 seeds of
common sumach (Rhus); about 35 per cent. of shreds and bits of animal
membrane, probably carrion; a little sand, and five or six small pebbles;
no insects.

Male. East Hartford, Conn. January 16, 1887; 2p. m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 40 per cent.; vegetable, 10; gravel, etc.,50. Stomach almost
empty.

all seeds of harmless sumach (Rhus) and a few hulls and skins
of other seeds or grain; one hog bristle and a few shreds and small
masses of muscle and tendon, probably carrion; sand without pebbles;
no insects.

* These bones were identified by F. A. Lucas.

sl ee ee

;
3

4438.

4451.

4452.

3059.

4461.

4462.

4463.

3139.

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 527

Male. East Hartford, Conn. January 16, 1887; 2 p.m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 14 per cent.; vegetable, 85; gravel, etc., 1. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Remains of about 20 kernels of corn, 9 or 10 of them nearly entire;
about 80 seeds of harmlesssumach (Rhus); one or two hog bristles, and
many shreds and bits of meat, probably carrion; a very little sand; no in-
sects.

Female. East Hartford, Conn. January 31, 1887; 10 a. m. Willard E.
Treat.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 48; gravel, etc., 47. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Remains of kernels of corn, mostly hulls; one or two small shreds
of meat (carrion ?); a dozen or more caddis-tly cases and some of the legs
of the larve [Tyler Townsend]; a large amount of sand and gravel.

Male. East Hartford, Conn. January 31, 1887; 10a.m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 50 per cent.; vegetable, 50; gravel, etc.,0. Stomach less than
half full.

Contents.—Scraps and shreds of meat and animal membrane (carrion ?); about
120 seeds of harmless sumach (Rhus), and other remains of the berries;
no gravel or sand; no insects.

Male. ~ East Hartford, Conn. January 31,1887; 10a.m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 50 per cent.; vegetable, 42; o ‘ravel, etc., 8. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Shreds and tendinous masses of animal matter, probably carrion;
remains of a few acorns or chestnuts; 77 seeds of poison ivy (Rhus toa-
icodendron); about 175 seeds of harmless sumach (Rhus); a small amount
of gravel and sand; no insects.

Male. Sandy Spring, Md. February 4, 1887; a.m. H.H. Miller.

Animal matter, 0 per cent.; vegetable, 87; gravel, etc., 10; indeterminate, 3.
Stomach well filled.

Contents.—Corn almost entirely, more than half of it in large pieces, some
nearly entire kernels and a large quantity of hulls; about 10 per cent. of
gravel and sand, the bulk of it being rusty quartz; a small amount (38 per
cent.) of fine ‘‘ mud,” not identifiable; no insects.

East Hartford, Conn. February 14, 1887; 10a.m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 40 per cent.; vegetable, 50; gravel, etc., 10. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Remains of corn and perhaps other grains, with a few bits of grass
and hulls of seeds; about 60 seeds of harmless sumach ( Riaws); apparently
of two distinct species; 2 seeds of red cedar (Juniperus); a large amount
of muscular fiber, fat, and sinews, probably carrion; sand and gravel; no
insects.

Female. East Hartford, Conn. February 14, 1887; 10 a.m. Willard E.
Treat.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 45; gravel, etc., 50. Stomach nearly
empty.

Contents.—Remnants of corn and hulls; afew bits of acorn shells; a bit of
skin (without hair) of some animal; a single hog bristle; a fair amount
of fine sand, and two or three small pebbles; no insects.

Female. East Hartford, Conn. February 14, 1887; 10 a.m. Willard E.
Treat.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 45; gravel, etc., 50; indeterminate, 4.
Stomach about half full.

Contents.—About 100 seeds of harmless sumach (Rhus), and a considerable
amount of hulls, skins, etc., of these or other seeds and fruits; a few
minute bits of the hard parts of insects; a little very fine black ‘‘ mud,”
not determined; sand, gravel, and bits of coke.

Male. East Hartford,Conn. February 14,1887; 10a.m. Willard E. Treat.

Animal matter, 75 per cent.; vegetable, 0; gravel, etc., 25. Stomach almost
empty.

Contents.—One hog bristle; a very little muscular fiber and sinew and some
fat, doubtless all carrion; a small amount of fine sand; no insects.

Male. West Goshen, Pa. February 15, 1886. Dr.B.H. Warren.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 93; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach about

- half full.

Contents.—Remains of numerous kernels of corn; 6 seeds of sumach; a small
bone from tarsus or carpus of some animal, apparently of the size of a
dog or sheep; a single piece of slate about one-half inch long; no insects,

528

1531.

1379.

5010.

d011.

2514.

2677.

3045.

3769.

2516.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Male. Washington, D.C. March 13,1886; 4p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.
Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable. 97: gravel, etc.,2. Stomach well filled.
Contents.—Unidentified vegetable matter mainly; a few bits of corn or other

grain, with some hulls, bits of grass, and what appears to be young sprouts
of some vegetable: 3 or 4 small seeds not identified: a single claw of a cray-
fish and a few bits of insect remains: no pebbles and very little sand.

Young. Saint Louis, Mo. May 23.1885. Otto Widmann.

Animal matter, 99 per cent.: vegetable, 0: gravel, ete., 1.
Contents.—Many bones of frog: numerous fragments of insects; a very little

sand.

Nestling. Gainesville, Va. May 13.1887; 5p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 90 per cent.; vegetable, 0: gravel, etc., 0; indeterminate, 10.
Stomach well filled.

Contents.—Mainly insects: a few bones of a small frog: about 10 per cent. of
fine *‘mud,” apparently a mixture of animal, vegetable, and mineral
matter, but not determinable: no sand or gravel.

Nestling. Gainesville, Va. May 13, 1887: 5 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 90 per cent.: vegetable, 7; gravel, etc., 1: indeterminate, 2.
Stomach about two-thirds full.

Contents.—Six or eight small pieces of vegetable matter, apparently bits of an
acorn or chestnut: a few shreds of vegetable fiber: 2 or 3 minute bones of
a fish: 3 bits of shell, probably of snail: a single small pebble and a few
grains of sand; a large amount (nearly 90 per cent.) of insect remains,
among which pieces of beetles are numerous; a small amount of fine
mud-like material, probably from the insects.

Adult female. Sing Sing, N. Y. June 30, 1886: 3p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.: vegetable, 99: gravel, etc., 0. Stomach full.

Contents.—Mainly corn, one whole kernel and many large pieces, and a large

amount of hulls and finely pulverized corn; 3 stones of cherries (culti- -

vated): a few bits of black vegetable material like the shell of an acorn;
a few bits of the hard parts of beetles: no sand or gravel.

Young. Englewood, N. J. June 27, 1886: 5 p.m. F. M.Chapman.
Animal matter, 95 per cent.: vegetable, 5; gravel. etc., 0. Stomach well filled.
Contents.—Remains of a small bird, apparently an unfledged young: remains

of insect larve and insects, but these may have come from the stomach
of the young bird eaten by the Crow; a few bits of the hulls of corn, and
other vegetable débris.

Adulkt(?). Peterborough, Madison County, N. Y. June, 1886. G. S, Mil-

ler, jr.
Animal matter, 3 per cent.; vegetable, 95; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach well
d

ed.

Contents.—Kernels of corn, oats, and a few of wheat, together with a large
quantity of hulls, mainly of oats: a few small fragments of insects: 4
small pebbles, and a very little sand.

Male. Immature. Peck’s Island, New Jersey. July 1, 1886: noon. J.
Percy Moore.

Animal matter, 15 per cent.: vegetable, 10; gravel. etc.,75. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—Mainly sand and bits of shell; two or three bits of seaweed and a
very little other vegetable mattex; 1 gasteropod shell about half an inch
long: 3 or 4 joints of a crustacean’s legs; hundreds of minute fish verte-
bree, almost microscopic; about 5 per cent. of insect remains in very fine

ieces,
Male. Immature. SingSing,N.Y. July 1,1886; 9a.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 99 per cent.: vegetable, 0; gravel, etc., 0; indeterminate, 1.
Stomach about half full.

Contents.—Insects, mainly larve: a few bits of what appears to be bark or
wood, but not positively identified: no sand or gravel.

Male adult. Sing Sing, N. Y. July 1, 1886; 9a.m. Dry. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 2 per cent.; vegetable, 95; gravel, etc., 3. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Nine cherry stones, with skins and pulp of about 3; fragments of
corn or other grain, and the hulls of same: about 20 seeds of Rubus sp.:
and 6 or 8unknown seeds: afew remains of insects, apparently beetles; 5
small pebbles and a little sand.

Dr. Fisher says the cherry stones are from cherries which grow every-
where in the woods about Sing Sing, and probably have escaped from cul-
tivation. They are very dark when ripe, almost black,

ween oe

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 529

2517. Male adult. Sing Sing, N. Y. July 1, 1886; noon. Dr. A. K. Fisher.
Animal matter, 65 per eee vegetable, 38; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach well

filled.

Contents.—Seven cherry stones (like those in No. 2516), and bits of skins and
other débris of fruit; about a dozen seeds of Rubus, apparently the red
raspberry (R. strigosus); large quantity of insect remains, one or two in-
sects nearly entire; a very small amount of sand.

2518. Male adult. Sing Sing, N.Y. July 1, 1886; 1 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.
Animal matter, 70 per cent.; vegetable, 30; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach full.
Contents.—Nineteen cherry stones (like those in No. 2516): a few bits of fruit

skins and vegetable fiber; a very large amount of insect remains; four
small vertebrze of small, tailed batrachian, perhaps a salamander (iden-
tified by F. A. Lucas).

2519. Male adult. Sing Sing, N. Y. July 2, 1886; 10.30 a.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.
Animal matter, 60 per cent.; vegetable, 40; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach well

r filled.

Contents.—Six cherry stones (like those in No. 2516), and a very little other
vegetable matter; bones and flesh of a small bullfrog (identified by F. A.
Lucas). No trace of insects or gravel.

2520. Female adult. Sing Sing, N. Y. July 2, 1886; 1 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 50 per cent.; vegetable, 50: eravel, etc., 0. Stomach little
distended.

Contents.—Five stones of cherry (like those in No. 2516); remains of insects;
no gravel.

2521. Female adult. Sing Sing, N.Y. July 2,1886; 1.30 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 60 per cent.; vegetable, 40; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach nearly
empty.

Contents.—One cherry stone (like those found in No. 2516), and a single frag-
ment of some other fruit stones; insect remains: no gravel.

2522. Female adult. Sing Sing, N.Y. July 2, 1886; 2.30 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter,33 per cent.; vegetable, 65; gravel, etc.,2. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Four cherries, whole or nearly so, and stones of twelve more
(like those in No. 2516), with a very little other vegetable matter; bones
of a frog, forming about four-fifths of the animal matter, the remainder
being fragments of insects: a single pebble and a very little sand.

2678. Young. Nigger Pond, Ramapo Mountains, N. J. July 4,1886; 5 p.m. F.
M. Chapman.

Animal matter,10 per cent.; vegetable, 90; gravel, etc.,0. Stomach nearly
empty.

Contents.—A few pieces of acorns, peas, or kernels of corn; three or four small
berries, probably of the heath family, perhaps blueberries (Vaccinium);
two or three pieces of animal matter, possibly bits of marine worms;
two or three bones of small fish: no sand or gravel.

2679. Young. Nigger Pond, Ramapo Mountains, New Jersey. July 4, 1886; 5
p. m. EF. M. Chapman.

Animal matter, 3 per cent.; vegetable, 97; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—Numerous fragments of the flesh of some nut, fruit, or grain,
not determined, perhaps of acorn, as there are many fragments of shell
resembling that of an acorn; 2 pistils of flowers nearly an inch long; a
few bones of small fish; no trace of insects or gravel.

2866. Male adult(?), Peterborough, Madison County, N. Y. July 14;1886. G.S.
Miller, jr.

Animal matter, 60 per cent.; vegetable, 30; gravel, etc., 4; indeterminate, 6.
Stomach well filled.

Contents.—Remains of oats (mainly the hulls); fine grass and some other
vegetable fiber; bones and nearly all the teeth of a . field-mouse (Arvicola
riparius), forming about 25 per cent. of the whole stomach contents;
about 30 per cent. of insect remains; about 6 per cent. of fine ‘* mud ”
not identifiable.

4886. Young. Hillsborough, New Brunswick, July 15,1886; 3to4p.m. Jonathan
Dwight, jr.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 45; gravel, etc., 45. Stomach nearly
empty.

Contents.—Remains of seeds and berries, two kinds of seeds not recognized;
remains of insects; 10 pebbles; no sand,

530

4887.

4888.

4962.

735.

1540.

1541.

2240.

2698.

2242,

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Male, young. Hillsborough, New Brunswick. July 16,1886;8a.m. Jonathan
Dwight, jr.

eer eS 30 per cent.; vegetable, 65; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach less than

Contents.—A piece of moss about half an inch long; hulls of five or six rasp-
berries; seven seeds of red raspberry (Rubus strigosus); remains of a
large cutworm; no gravel or sand.

Female, young. Hillsborough, New Brunswick. July 16, 1886; 8 a. m.

Jonathan Dwight, jr.

sree pee 1 per cent.; vegetable, 99; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach less than

Contents.—Hulls and a few seeds of raspberry; two small, unknown pods not

yet ripe; twelve or fifteen very small seeds, possibly those of strawber-—

ries; a single fragment of some beetle; no gravel or sand.

Male, immature. Hillsborough, New Brunswick. July 29, 1886; 5. p. m.
Jonathan Dwight, jr.

Se er 20 per cent.; vegetable, 80; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach about

a ;

Contents.—A large amount of pulp and skins of some fruit not identified
(the pulp looks like that of an early apple, but the skins are too thin); two
stones of some species of Prunus, perhaps a beech plum; remains of
insects, mainly (?) beetles, but one large cutworm; no gravel.

Immature. Sing Sing, N. Y. September 18, 1885; 10 a. m. Dr. C. Hart
Merriam.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 60; gravel, etc., 20; indeterminate, 15.
Stomach well filled.

Contents.—Twenty-two stones of wild cherry (Prunus serotina); 9 of cornel
(Cornus sp.?), and 3 unidentified; also pulp of above berries; a few pieces
of what appears to be an acorn or chestnut; various hard parts of insects.

Alfred Centre, N.Y. September 20,1885; a.m. F.S. Place.

Animal matter, 45 per cent.; vegetable, 53; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach full.

Contents.—Fragments of the ‘‘meat” of some nut or large seed; pieces of
acorns or chestnuts; numerous fragments of fruit pulp, probably apple;
many insect remains (45 per cent.); 5 small pebbles; no sand.

Alfred Centre, N.Y. September 20, 1885; a.m. F.S. Place.

Animal matter, 40 per cent.; vegetable, 60; gravel, etc., 0, Stomach full.

Contents.—Seven stones of wild cherry (Prunus serotina); 5 or 6 triangular
seeds (of Polygonum ?); skins and other vegetable matter from both the
preceding, and some long vegetable fiber from some other plant; numer-
ous insect remains; no sand or gravel.

Male. Washington, D.C. September 7,1886; 11 a.m. W.B. Barrows.

Animal matter, 0 per cent.; vegetable, 70; gravel, etc., 5; indeterminate, 25.
Stomach almost empty.

Contents.—One grape seed; vegetable fiber finely divided; 2 or 3 bits of sand-

and gravel; fine mud-like material, not identifiable; no insects.

Male. Washington,D.C. September 7,1886; 1l1a.m. F.A. Lucas.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 80; gravel, etc., 10. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—Grape seeds and skins, with a little pulp and much vegetable fiber;
other vegetable material not identifiable; 7 seeds of poison ivy; sm
amount of gravel; a few insect remains.

The grape seeds are undoubtedly those of cultivated grapes, as this
bird and No. 2239 were shot near a vineyard, the owner of which com-
plained of the great damage done by the Crows.

Alfred Centre,N. Y. September 7,1886. F.S. Place.

Animal Saab 95 per cent.; vegetable, 5; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach less than
half full.

Contents.—One stone of wild cherry and a very little fine vegetable matter,
probably from the fruit of the same; several grasshoppers and perhaps
other insects; no gravel.

Male. Shelter Island, New York. September 11, 1886; a.m. W.W. Worth-

ington.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 85; gravel, etc.,5. Stomach well filled.

Contents.—about 50 seeds of bay-berry or wax-berry (Myrica cerifera); hulls
of corn or some other grain, with a few small bits of the grain; a little
fine vegetable material, not identified; remains of the legs of a small crus-
tacean; 4 small snail shells (marine); 2 vertebrze of small fish; a few frag-
ments of insects; a little sand.

a i Ah

4587.

4588.

2269.

1439.

1444.

2064.

1141.

1515.

3940.

4080.

1460.

‘REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 531

Male. Shelter Island, New York. October 1, 1886; a.m. W. W. Worth-
ington.

Animal matter, 25 per cent.; vegetable, 60; gravel, etc., 15. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—Fragments of acorns or chestnuts, and, perhaps, of some other
seeds, but these mainly; remains of a crayfish; 4 or 5 minute bits of an
insect; considerable sand, but no pebbles.

Male. Shelter Island, New York. October 1, 1886; a.m. W. W. Worth-
ington.

naire matter, 0 per cent.; vegetable, 100; gravel, etc.,0. Stomach less than
half full.

Contents.—Remains of a dozen or more kernels of corn; about 50 stones of
bay-berry (Myrica cerifera); a single stone of some wild Prunus, probably
the beach plum (P. maritima); 3 small claw tips of a crab or crayfish, prob-
ably taken as gravel (?); no insects.

Female,adult. Sing Sing, N. Y. October 2, 1886; 3p.m. Dr.A.K. Fisher.
Animal matter, 2 per cent.; vegetable, 95; gravel, etc., 3. Stomach full.
Contents.—Nineteen seeds of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida); 17 seeds of

bay-berry (Myrica cerifera); bits of shell of chestnuts and large amount
of chestnut ‘‘meat;” 8 vertebree and other small bones of a small fish;
minute bits of the shell of insects; little sand and gravel.

Essex Junction, Vt. October 8, 1885; 10 a.m. Charles A. Davis.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 10; gravel, etc., 89. Stomach nearly
empty.

Contents.—Skin and pulp of a single fruit, perhaps a grape, but no seeds; large
quantity of sand and gravel; minute fragments of the hard parts of in-
sects.

Winfield, N. Y. October 4, 1885; 10a.m. O. P. Hitchings.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 5; gravel, etc., 85; indetermin-
ate, 5.

Contents.—A few bits of oats and perhaps other grain; a mixture of finely
pulverized vegetable and mineral matter, forming a fine black mud; a
Jarge amount of sand and pebbles; a few fragments of insects.

Female. Broadway, Queens County, N.Y. October 16, 1886; noon. Wil-
liam Dutcher.

ape pes 18 per cent.; vegetable, 75; gravel, etc., 7. Stomach well

ed.

Contents.—Remains of acorns or chestnuts; remains of insects; gravel, includ-
ing many bits of shell.

Adult. Sing Sing, N.Y. October 18,1885. Dr.A.K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 75; gravel, etc., 10; indeterminate, 5.
Stomach well filled.

Contents.—Fragments of acorns or chestnuts; about 50 seeds of poison su-
mach; remains of various insects: skins and pulp of a few berries.

Watkins, N.Y. October 20, 1885; 8.45a.m. H.C. Griswold.

Animal matter, 25 per cent.; vegetable, 25; gravel, etc., 50. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—Fragments of seeds, one of which appears to be that of a squash or
melon; a little unidentifiable vegetable matter; remains of insects; sand
and gravel.

Male. Rockville, Conn. October 22, 1886. H.K. James.

Animal matter, 60 per cent.; vegetable, 35; gravel, etc.,5. Stomach full.

Contents.—Remains of some large seed, possibly corn or beans of some kind;
large quantity of insect remains, mainly grasshoppers; small quantity of
gravel, mostly bits of quartz, but one fair-sized garnet.

Male. East Hartford, Conn. October 22, 1886; noon. C. C. Hanmer.

Animal matter, 2-per cent.; vegetable, 96; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach full.

Contents.—Remains of acorns or chestnuts almost entirely, and mainly with-
out any bits of shell; a small amount of insect fragments in very small
bits; a few pieces of charcoal, and a very little sand.

Male. Redford, Mich. October 26, 1885; 7 a.m. (Killed over corn-field.)
William J. Muldragh.

eee se aes 0 per cent.; vegetable, 99; gravel, etc., 1. Stomach about

alf full.

Contents.—Mainly fragments of the pulp or flesh of some nut or berry, pos-
sibly acorns; 2 grape seeds; 3 small pebbles, no sand; no insect remains;
no traces of corn.

532

1201.

1202.

1250.

2301.

1709.

1518.

4600.

1269.

1298.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Male. Washington, D.C. October 30, 1885; 4p.m. Dr.C. Hart Merriam.}
Animal matter, trace; vegetable, 89 per cent.; gravel, etc., 5; indeterminate, 5.
Stomach well filled.
Contents.—Twenty or thirty kernels of corn in fragments; 21 stones of flow-
ering dogwood (Cornus florida); 125 seeds of poison ivy; sand and gravel,
and what appears to be fine mud; notrace of insect remains.

Female. Washington, D.C. October 30,1885,4p.m. Dr.C. Hart Merriam.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 94; gravel, etc., 5. Stomach full.

Contents.—About 40 seeds of Virginia creener (Ampelopsis quinquefolia);
about 50 seeds of grapes (Vitis), at least 2 species: about 20 seeds of poison
ivy, 1 of poison sumach, and 30 more unidentified; pulps and skins of
grapes and other fruit; bits of sea-weed, grass, and unrecognizable veg-
etable matter; a few bits of insects; sand, gravel, 2 or 3 bits of mollusk
shell, and single, worn claw of crayfish.

pals Washington, D.C. November 14, 1885; 11.80 a. m. Dr. A. K.

isher.

Animal matter, 8 per cent.: vegetable, 90; gravel, etc, 2. Stomach full.

Contents.—Nine seeds of Virginia creeper (Ampelopsis); 12 stones of flower-
ing dogwood (Cornus florida); fragments of about 5 kernels of corn; a
few hairs of a small mammal (probably mouse); 1 very small gasteropod
shell; bones of the head of a small fish; minute fragments of one in-

sect.

Adult. Washington, D.C. November 7, 1886; 4.30 p. m. H. W. Henshaw.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 65; gravel, etc., 20; indeterminate, 5.
Stomach full.

Contents.—Remains of acorns, chestnuts, and perhaps other seeds; a single
grape seed. and some hulls of corn or other grain, with much fine vege-
table matter like saw-dust; a considerable amount of sand and gravel;
remains (fine) of many insects.

Male. Calhoun, Ga. November 28, 1885. R. Windsor Smith.

Animal matter, 75 per cent.; vegetable, 10; gravel, etc., 15.

Contents.—Twenty-four seeds of poison ivy; a small snake, 8 inches or more
in length; a small snail (Helix); 1 very large spider ; remains of many in-
sects, constituting almost 40 per cent. of entire stomach contents: 4 or 5
pebbles of the size of kernels of corn, and some sand; a very little unde-
termined vegetable matter.

Male. Watkins, N. Y. December 15, 1885;4 p.m. H.C. Griswold.
Animal matter, 12 per cent.; vegetable, 63; gravel, etc., 25. Stomach full.
Contents.—Remains of corn, acorns,.or chestnuts; some other seeds too much

comminuted to determine ; numerous insect remains; large quantity of
gravel.

Male. Rockaway Beach, Long Island, N. Y. December 17,1885. Jonathan
Dwight, jr.

Animal matter, 95 per cent.; vegetable, 0; gravel, etc.,5. Stomach nearly
empty.

Oonitiis The animal matter of one or more sheil-fish (apparently a mussel
and a barnacle, as bits of shell belonging to these are also contained); a
very little sand; no insects.

Female. Washington, D. C. December 2, 1885; 4p.m. Dr, A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 75; gravel, etc., 20; indeterminate, 4,
Contents.—Fragments of 1 or 2 acorns or chestnuts: large quantities of the

‘‘skin” or hulls of grain, apparently of kernels of corn; 30 seeds of
poison ivy; large amount of sand and gravel; some vegetable fiber and
mud; numerous but small fragments of the hard parts of insects.

Female. Washington, D. C. December 17, 1885; found dead. Dr. A.K.
Fisher.

Animal matter, 90 per cent.; vegetable, 2; gravel, etc., 8. Stomach about
one-fourth full.

Contents.—One cocoon of some insect, and 2 smaller cocoons, or egg-bags of
spider; 12 or 15 small fragments of much-worn bone, perhaps taken as
‘“oravel;” a few bits of vegetable membrane, apparently epidermis of
some grain; a very small amount of sand and gravel. .

Washington, D.C. December 17, 1885; found wounded. Dr. A. K. Fisher.
Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 85; gravel, etc., 8; indeterminate, 2.
Contents.—Remains of 3 or 4 kernels of corn and the hulls of many more; 90

to 100 seeds of common sumach, apparently Rhus glabra; fragments of
insects; gravel and sand; about 2 per cent. of fine mud-like material, not
determined.

1299.

1300.

1301.

1802.

1303.

1304.

1311.

1312.

1318.

1314.

REPORT OF THE CRNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 5338

Female. Washington, D.C. December 19, 1885; 4-5 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 80: gravel, etc., 19. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Seven seeds of harmless sumach: a large amount of vegetable
matter, part of which may be bits of corn, acorns, etc., but the bulk
seems more like sea-weed; a few fragments of the hard parts of insects;
a large amount of gravel and fine sand, with 2 or 3 bits of shell.

Male. Washington, D.C. December 19, 1885: 4-5 p.m. Dr. A.K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 0 per cent.; vegetable, 90: gravel, etc., 10. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Fragments of corn; 75 seeds of poison ivy: 60 seeds of common
sumach and 1 seed of grape: gravel and bits of coal and brick; no in-
sect remains.

Male. Washington, D.C. December 19,1885: 4-5 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, trace; vegetable, 75 per cent.; gravel, etc., 24. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—‘* Mast ” (i e., acorns, chestnuts, and similar material), and large
quantities of the epidermis of some grain, perhaps corn: 68 seeds of poison
ivy; large amount of sand, gravel, etc.; minute fragments of insects.

Male. Washington, D.C. December 19, 1885; 4-5 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 85; gravel, etc.,14. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Fragments of many kernels of corn, and two entire kernels: about
15 seeds of common sumach; 30 seeds of poison ivy: sand, gravel, and 5
or 6 good-sized bits of mother-of-pearl; a few small fragments of insects,
and one insect nearly entire.

Female. Washington, D.C. December 19,1885; 4-5 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter 1 per cent.; vegetable, 94; gravel, etc. 5. Stomach well filled.

Contents.—About 20 whole kernels of corn, and fragments of as many more;
7 seeds of grape; about 60 seeds of common sumach; 5 seeds of poison
ivy; gravel, coal, and sand; a few remains of insects.

Male. Washington, D.C. December 19, 1885: 4-5 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 70; gravel, etc.,25. Stomach about
two-thirds full.

Contents.—About 10 entire kernels of corn (without skins), and as much
more in fragments: 2 seeds of poison ivy; gravel, and bits of coal; about
5 per cent. of insect remains.

Male. Washington, D.C. December 23, 1885; 4-5 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Aninal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 60; gravel, etc., 30. Stomach full.

Contents.—Particles of wheat or corn, 3 or 4 kernels in all; 100 seeds of com-
mon sumach: remains of sea-weedsand other vegetable matter; remains
of a few small crustaceans (perhaps isopods); fragments of mussel shell
with parts of the mussel attached; minute pieces of insects; considerable
sand, and many pebbles.

Male. Washington, D. C. December 23, 1885; 4-5 p.m. Dr. A.K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 40 per cent.; vegetable, 50; gravel, etc.,10. Stomach full.

Contents.—One kernel of corn nearly entire, pieces of several more, and a
large amount of hulls and other vegetable débris; 20 or 25 seeds of harm-
less sumach, apparently of two species; remains of a small crab or cray-
fish; 10 or 12 small bones of a fish; numerous remains of insects (grass-
hopper legs, etc.), and pieces of myriapods; sand, gravel, and pebbles,
with 1 or 2 bits of shell.

Male. Washington, D. C. December 23, 1885; 4-5 p.m. H. W. Henshaw.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 15; gravel, etc., 70; indeterminate, 14.
Stomach full.

Contents.—Seeds and gravel mainly, with a little mud and fine vegetable ref-
use: traces of insects in addition to 2 or 3 small beetles entire; about
forty seeds of common sumach, and about 80 of poison ivy; afew small
bits of some grain, in all equal to about two kernels of wheat. Among
the gravel was a small, worn, crayfish claw.

Male. Washington, D.C. December 23, 1885; 4-5 p.m. H.W. Henshaw.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 60; gravel, etc., 30. Stomach full.

Contents.—Pieces of corn, perhaps 4 or 5 kernels in all; bits of grass, hulls,
vegetable fiber of various kinds, and considerable fine ‘‘mud,” apparently
all vegetable; 6 or 8 pieces of the carapace of a crayfish; fragments of
mussel shell (Unio ?); many small bones of common mouse (J/us mus-
culus), with some of the teeth; many fragments of insects, much com-
minuted; sand, gravel, charcoal, and one or two imperfect snail shells.

534

1315.

1316.

1317.

2528.

4117.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTUKE.

Male. Washington, D. C. December 23, 1885; 4-5 p.m. H. W. Henshaw.

ee pull, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 97; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach well
filled.

Contents.—Mainly kernels of corn whole or in fragments, and the hulls of
same; bits of the shell of acorns and a few bits of the kernel of same; 4
seeds of poison ivy; 1 seed of bind-weed, (Polygonum ?); about 100 very
a ee seeds; a very few fragments of- insects;.a very little gravel
or sand.

Female. Washington, D.C. December 23, 1885; 4-5 p.m. H. W. Henshaw.

Animal matter, 3 per cent.; vegetable, 72; gravel, etc., 25. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—A few bits of corn and hulls of same; pieces of grass and very
fine vegetable débris, part of it apparently the shell of some bony seed;
4 or 5 small beetles, and minute portions of hard parts of others; sand
and gravel; small tuft of mammal’s hair, probably of cat or dog; frag-
ments of one or more legs of crayfish; eight or ten kernels of wild rice
(Zizania aquatica); 2 unknown seeds.

Female. Washington, D. C. December 23, 1885; 4-5 p.m. H. W. Henshaw.

Animal matter, 2 per cent.; vegetable, 83; gravel, etc., 15. Stomach about
three-fourths full.

Contents.—Mainly pieces of corn and hulls of same; 123 seeds of poison ivy;
a little fine vegetable matter not determined; minute pieces of the hard
parts of insects; gravel and fine sand form about 15 per cent. of the
entire contents.

Male. Washington, D. C. December 25, 1886. F. A. Lucas.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 50; gravel, etc., 25; indeterminate, 20.
Stomach well filled.

Contents.—Remains of acorns, chestnuts, and similar material, in small pieces;
about 20 per cent. of other vegetable material, similar in color, but like
fine mud, and probably part vegetable and part sand; bones of a small
fish, forming 4 or 5 per cent. of contents; a single leg of some insect, and
2 or 3 other minute insect fragments; gravel, consisting mainly of mother-
of-pearl and fine sand.

Female. East Hartford,Conn. December 15, 1886;10a.m. C.C. Hanmer.

Animal matter, 15 per cent.; vegetable, 60; gravel, etc., 20; indeterminate, 5.
Stomach well filled.

Contents.—Remains of acorns, both shells and ‘* meat;” a few bits of thorn-
apple (Crategus ), but no seeds; bits of grass and finely divided vegetable
matter; a considerable amount of fine, dark hair, probably of mouse ;
perhaps 5 per cent. of insect remains; a large amount of pebbles and
sand; about 5 per cent. of fine ‘‘mud” not determined,

RESULTS IN DETAIL OF THE EXAMINATION OF STOMACHS OF THE

1382.

1338.

1334.

FISH CROW (CORVUS OSSIFRAGUS).

Male. Washington, D.C. March 16, 1886; 4p.m. Dr. A.K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 93; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach full.

Contents.—Eleven seeds of cat-brier (Smilax glauca); 2 seeds of sour gum
(Nyssa multiflora); afew bits of corn and many hulls, together with other
fibrous vegetable matter; 2 small masses of animal fiber, apparently flesh
of some mammal; single feather, probably of chicken; a very little sand,
etc.; no insect remains.

Female. Washington,D.C. March 16, 1886; 4p.m. Dr.A.K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 88; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—Two or three kernels of corn, and hulls of more, with some other
vegetable matter; bone of some mammal (probably taken with gravel); 2
or 3 feathers, kind not determined; among the gravel was a bit of shell
(of Unio?) and several bits of egg-shell (hen’s) ; no insects.

Female. Washington,D.C. March 16, 1886; 4p.m. Dr. A.K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 98 per cent.; vegetable, trace; gravel, etc., 2. Stomach about
one-third full.

Contents.—A. mass of meat and sinews, doubtless carrion; a very few small
bits of coal and sand, and one or two bits of egg-shell (hen’s); a very few
vegetable fibers, perhaps of grass; no insects.

1339,

13386.

657,

2284.

2802.

2583.

1310.

1318.

REPORT OF THE ORNITHOLOGIST AND MAMMALOGIST. 5385)

Male. Washington,D.C. March 16, 1886; 4p.m. Dr.A.K. Fisher.
Animal matter, 75 per cent.; vegetable, 5; gravel, etc., 20. Stomach about

one-third full.

Contents.—Shreds of meat, and strips and small sheets of animal membrane,
not identifiable, doubtless carrion; a few bits of grass and woody fiber;
particles of sand and pebbles, and numerous small pieces of egg-shell
(hen’s), together with fragments of a mussel shell (Unio ?), and 2 small
bones, apparently mammalian, but discolored and probably taken as
gravel; no insects.

Washington,D.C. March 16, 1886; 4p.m. Dr.A.K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 5 per cent.; vegetable, 75; gravel, etc., 5; indeterminate, 15.
Stomach about half full.

Contents.—Mainly remnants of oats with the hulls, and corn in fine pieces; a
little meat fiber; a few downy feathers; 3 or 4 unknown seeds; some sand
and gravel and bits of egg-shell (hen’s); no insects.

Female, immature. Sing Sing, N. Y. September 10, 1885; 6.30 a.m. Dr.
A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 0; vegetable, 100. Stomach half full.

Contents.—Fragments of oats, pieces of acorns or chestnuts; unrecognizable
vegetable matter; no traces of animal food,

Male. Washington, D. C., November 1, 1886. F. A. Lucas.

Animal matter, 10 per cent.; vegetable, 90; gravei, etc., 0. Stomach about
two-thirds full.

Contents.—Seeds, pulp, and skins of about 20 poke-berries (Phytolacca decan-
dra); remains of two or three grasshoppers, and perhaps other insects;
no gravel.

Male. Washington, D. C., November 1, 1886;3 p.m. F. A. Lucas.

Animal matter, 65 per cent.; vegetable, 30; gravel, etc.,5. Stomach well filled.

Contents.—Five grape seeds, pieces of grape skins, many fragments of grass-
hoppers (and other insects ?), a little sand, bits of egg-shell, one scale from
shell of a tortoise, probably all taken as gravel.

Female. Washington, D. C., November 7, 1886; 4.30p.m. H.W. Henshaw.
Animal matter, 35 per cent.; vegetable, 65; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach well filled.
Contents.—Seeds and skins of about 20 small grapes, apparently ‘‘ frost

grapes” (Vitis cordifolia); about 130 seeds of poke-berry (Phytolacca);
heads, wings, and legs of several grasshoppers; no gravel or sand except
ene small piece of mica.

Male. Washington, D. C., November 19, 1886; 9.30 a.m. William Dutcher.

Animal matter, 50 per cent.; vegetable, 50; gravel, etc., 0. Stomach nearly
empty.

Contents.—Three seeds of poke-berry and one or more skins of same; 3 seeds
of red cedar (Juniperus virginiana); no insect remains; no gravel.

Male. Washington, D.C. December 23,1885;4-5 p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.

Animal matter, 1 per cent.; vegetable, 96; gravel, etc., 3. Stomach about
half full.

Contents.—Two or three grains of wheat, and many fragments of this or
other grain; 2 seeds of Virginia juniper; many fragments of some black,
bony seed, looking much like ground coffee; 2 or 3 small ‘‘ pin feathers”
still inclosed in the sheath except at tip; many small fragments of egg-
shell (hen’s); a very little sand, and 1 bit of stone; no trace of insect
remains.

Female. Washington, D.C. December 25,1885; 4-5p.m. Dr. A. K. Fisher.
Animal matter, 50 per cent.; vegetable, 50; gravel, etc., 0.

Contents.—Meat (probably carrion); 8 seeds of sour gum (Nyssa multiflora);
4 seeds of flowering dogwood, 1 seed of grape, 5 seeds of hackberry (Celtis
occidentalis), 2 unknown seeds; no gravel or insect remains.

THE ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK
(Habia ludoviciana).

AN ENEMY TO THE COLORADO BEETLE OR POTATO BUG.

As early as 1873 Mr. Henry H. Mapes noted the fact that the Rose-
breasted Grosbeak fed freely on potato bugs near Kalamazoo, Mich.
(Am. Naturalist, vit, 493). In the same journal, in 1875, W. F.

536 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

Bundy made the following statement with regard to this habit of
the Grosbeak at Jefferson, Wis.: ;

I noticed last summer that great numbers of the Colorado potato beetle were de-
stroyed by the Rose-breasted Grosbeaks. The farmers hold these birds in great favor,
and are very careful to prevent their destruction. They were so abundant in this
region last summer as to hold in check the vast army of these ravagers of the potato
crop. (dm. Naturalist, Ix, p.375.)

Since this time the habit has been noticed repeatedly throughout
the country, and in 1885 reports of this kind were received at the
Department of Agriculture from the states of Connecticut, Illinois,
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.

In 1886 Prof. F. E. L. Beal, formerly of Ames, Iowa, wrote as fol-
lows:

The Rose-breasted Grosbeak feeds upon the Colorado potato beetle in all its stages.
I observed this habit in central Iowa, and noticed that each year it became more
general, the birds of this species seeking the potato-field more and more each season.
I observed one small field near my house that was much infested with the beetles.
but the birds found it, and in a few weeks I searched the field but could not dis-
cover a single beetle, young or old.

From many reports received since, we select the following:

From M. R. Steele, Decorah, Iowa:

As the Rose-breasted Grosbeak raises only one brood, and devours many Colorado

potato bugs, which many other birds do not eat, it deserves special encouragement.
Farmers know its value.

From George H. Selover, Lake City, Minn.

The Rose-breasted Grosbeak is thought, and with reason, too, to be beneficial on
account of its destroying the potato bug. It is the only bird I have observed that
would come under this head. It destroys the common potato bug very extensively;
so extensively, in fact, as to deserve the name of ‘‘ Potato-bug bird ” given it in so
many localities.

From K. M. Hancock, Waukon, Iowa:
The Rose-breasted Grosbeak has more than made amends for its pea-stealing by

its determined warfare upon the Colorado potato beetle, helping very materially to
keep down this pest.

From Orville L. Larkin, East Otto, N. Y.:

I have been observing the habits of the Rose-breasted Grosbeak and would say
that it is a decided enemy of the Colorado beetle, devouring both the larva and the
mature beetle, shucking the wings off from the latter much as the canary does the
hulls from bird seed.

From B. T. Gault, Chicago, Il.:

The Rose-breasted Grosbeak may be regarded as the farmer’s friend on account
of its fondness for the Colorado potato beetle and chinch-bug.

These reports show that this bird already is a valuable friend of
the farmer and is deserving of the most careful protection and en-
couragement. The little harm which it is known to do—solely the
destruction of a few peas, small fruits, and buds or blossoms—is
trifling in comparison with the value of its services in the potato-
field. Moreover it is one of the most beautiful of all our native birds,
and in addition to its striking plumage has a pleasant warbling song
which is constantly heard during the nesting season.

In some of our smaller Eastern cities this species nests freely in the
shade trees and hedges along the streets, as well as in the gardens and
orchards about the houses; and doubtless in most cases all that 1s
needed in order to secure its presence more generally is the provision
of suitable trees and shrubbery for nests, and the assurance that its
young and eggs will not be molested.