CORNELL
LAB of ORNITHOLOGY
LIBRARY
at Sapsucker Woods
Illustration of Bank Swallow by Louis Agassiz Fuertes
MYRTICE A. BLATCHLEY
Yt. (Go. blot Facer,
| Wtllb, bet neches ait heoik
pape?
Dep ae, 0PO9.
NOILVNINHSLX2 JO UYSONVGA NI (so6t) MON
Yona GOOM
soiiong zisseBy sinoy Aq ‘eogr 4ystatdop
USEFUL BIRDS
AND THEIR PROTECTION.
CONTAINING
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE MORE COMMON AND USEFUL SPECIES OF
MASSACHUSETTS, WITH ACCOUNTS OF THEIR FOOD HABITS,
AND A CHAPTER ON THE MEANS OF ATTRACT-
ING AND PROTECTING BIRDS.
BY
EDWARD HOWE FORBUSH,
ORNITHOLOGIST TO THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD OF
AGRICULTURE.
*
ILLUSTRATED BY THE AUTHOR,
C. ALLAN LYFORD, CHESTER A. REED, AND OTHERS.
Second Edition.
PUBLISHED UNDER DIRECTION OF
THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE,
BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE.
1907.
orp
CVE RTES
=
G95
7
Ab
BLI7OT
APPROVED BY
THE STATE BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
PRINTED BY
WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS,
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Resolves of 1905, Chapter 51.
A RESOLVE TO PROVIDE FOR PREPARING AND PRINTING A SPECIAL
REPORT ON THE BIRDS OF TILE COMMONWEALTH.
Resolved, That there be allowed and paid out of the treasury of the
Commonwealth a sum not exceeding three thousand dollars for prepar-
ing and printing, under the direction of. the state board of agriculture, in
an edition of five thousand copies, a special report on the birds of the
Commonwealth, economically considered, to include the facts relating
to the usefulness of birds and the necessity for their protection already
ascertained by the ornithologist of the state board of agriculture, to be
distributed as follows : — Two copies to each free public library in the
Commonwealth ; two copies to each high school, and two copies to such
schools in towns which have no high school as the school comniittee
may designate; one copy to the library of congress, and one copy to
each state or territorial library in the United States ; twenty-five copies
to the state library ; five copies to the governor; two copies to the lieu-
tenant governor and each member of the council; two copies to the
secretary of the Commonwealth; two copies to the treasurer and re-
ceiver general; two copies to the auditor of accounts ; two copies to the
attorney-general, and one copy to each member of the present general
court applying for the same; the remainder to be distributed under the
direction of the state board of agriculture. [Approved April 14, 1905.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Resolves of 1907, Chapter 77.
RESOLVE TO PROVIDE FOR PRINTIN(G( ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE
REPORT ON THE BIRDS OF THE COMMONWEALTH.
Resolved, That there be allowed and paid out of the treasury of the
Commonwealth, a sum not exceeding twenty-five hundred dellars for
printing five thousand additional copies of the report on the birds of
the Commonwealth. From the copies so printed each member and
each elective officer of the general court for the year nineteen hundred
and seven shall receive ten copies, and each assistant clerk of the
general court, the doorkcepers, messengers and pages shall receive
one copy. Copies may be sold by the secretary of the state board of
agriculture at a price not less than the cost thereof, and additional
copies may be printed for sale at the discretion of the secretary, the
expense thereof to be paid from the receipts from such sales. Any
amount received from sales shall be paid into the treasury of the
Commonwealth. [Approved May 8, 1907.
PREFACE.
In preparing and submitting this report the fact has been
kept in mind that the material prosperity of the state and
nation depends very largely on agricultural pursuits. An
attempt has been made, therefore, to make the volume ser-
viceable to both agriculturist and horticulturist. The author
of this report believes, with Townend Glover, that an ac-
quaintance with the useful birds of the farm is as important
to the farmer as is a knowledge of the insect pests which
attack his crops. Those who open this volume expecting
to find within its covers a guide to the birds, a manual
for the collector, or a systematic account of the birds of
Massachusetts, will be disappointed, for its scope is chiefly
economic.
The plan of the report as outlined before the legislative
committees has been followed to the letter.
In undertaking the work, the author has attempted to
counteract in some measure the effects of some phases of
modern civilization and intensive farming which operate to
destroy or drive out the birds; and it is hoped that the book
will be of some service as a source of useful information for
the bird protectionist. As no report prepared with such a
purpose can exert much influence unless widely read, it has
been written in a popular style, with little scientific verbiage.
A part of the material was prepared between the years
1891 and 1900, during the author’s experience as field di-
rector for the State Board of Agriculture in the work of
destroying the gipsy moth. Chapters I. and II. are partly
composed of revised and rewritten portions of papers pub-
lished during that time. Chapter III. is based largely on
observations made during that period by two faithful, capable
workers, — Messrs. C. EK. Bailey and F. H. Mosher. Owing
vi PREFACE.
to Mr. Bailey’s untimely death and Mr. Mosher’s occupation
in a new field, it was deemed best to publish some of the
field notes of these observers with little editing, in order to
avoid any possible distortion of their evidence.
In presenting in Chapter I. some of the evidence, given by
the earlier writers, regarding the utility of birds as protectors
of crops and trees, it has been necessary to use such material
as was obtainable. No carefully guarded experiments or
observations in this direction were made until the latter part
of the nineteenth century, and it is only recently that scien-
tific investigators have been employed in this little-known
field. It is not an alluring task for the scientist, in which
his work brings him neither material reward, credit, nor
honor.
That portion of the final chapter which treats of the means
of attracting birds is drawn mainly from six years’ experience
at the author’s home at Wareham, Mass. The first three
chapters were mainly written there. Most authors quoted
or cited in these chapters are given full credit.
The remaining chapters, which are largely based on the
author’s own investigations and observations, were written
and the proof was read while he was away from home, in the
woods, or travelling from place to place, often at a distance
from any ornithological library. Under such circumstances
it was impossible to quote verbatim, but in most cases authors
are named when facts have been gathered from their writings.
The averages of the components of the food of each species
are taken mainly from the publications of the Bureau of Bio-
logical Survey of the United States Department of Agricul-
ture, except where credit is otherwise given.
Thanks are due to Dr. L. O. Howard, who has read
critically that part of the introduction devoted to insects,
and the author is greatly indebted to him for information ;
also, more than he can tell, to Mr. William Brewster for
counsel and suggestions ; and especially to Mr. J. A. Farley,
" who read a large part of the manuscript.
The limited time at the author’s disposal has prevented
such painstaking revision and abridgment of the manuscript
PREFACE. vii
as would be required to attain the highest literary excellence ;
but both manuscript and proof were critically read by Mrs.
A. Drew, whose work has added much to the appearance of
the volume, and whose suggestions have been very valuable.
Mr. F. H. Fowler has placed the author under great obli-
gations by doing a large amount of clerical work, and giv-
ing much assistance in his official position as first clerk and
librarian of the State Board of Agriculture.
The scientific ornithological nomenclature is that of the
American Ornithologists Union. The grouping of birds
according to their habitats (as birds of woodland, etc.) is
based more on their food habits than on their choice of
nesting sites. This classification is of necessity arbitrary,
and not always consistent, for it is sometimes influenced by
other considerations, such as are evident in the inclusion of
the Whip-poor-will among birds of the air.
The nomenclature of plants is mainly that used by Britton
and Brown in their Flora of the Northern United States,
Canada, and the British Possessions, except in some cases
where Dr. Judd or other authors are quoted. That of insects
has been derived from various sources at different times,
and for this reason some of the scientific names are not the
latest.
In the original plan of the report no descriptions of species
were included; but the suggestion was made by Mr. J. A.
Farley that it would be useless to descant to a man on the
usefulness of the Chickadee if he did not know the bird.
The brief, untechnical descriptions of bird, nest, eggs, and
bird notes, and the illustrations of the species, are all in-
tended as helps to identification. The descriptions of birds
are calculated merely to call attention to the principal colors
and marks that serve to identify birds afield. Brief descrip-
tions of haunts, habits, and manners are also given, as guides
to identity.
A species that is found throughout the year within the
limits of the State is denominated a resident. No attempts
have been made to give fixed dates of arrival and departure,
for these vary somewhat in different parts of the State, as
viii PREFACE.
well as in different seasons; but the months in which each
species is most commonly seen are given. For example,
the season for the Tree Swallow is given as April to Septem-
ber; but no mention is made of the fact that it sometimes
appears in small numbers in March; neither is it stated that
this bird has been seen in flocks in southeastern Massachu-
setts in late October and even in November, for such occur-
rences are unusual. It may be taken for granted that most
of the insect-eating birds that arrive in March or April come
in the latter part of those months, while most of those that
depart for the south in September or October leave in the
earlier weeks of their respective months.
Our attempts to represent the songs of birds in printed
syllables are not often of much assistance to the beginner,
for they lack the variation, quality, and expression of bird
songs, and birds do not sing in syllables. Also, the imagi-
nation of the writer often greatly affects these syllabic rendi-
tions, as may be seen by comparing the various sentences
attributed by different people to the White-throated Sparrow.
Nevertheless, some such imitations of bird songs which are
now accepted and are quite generally considered helpful are
given in this report; in other cases the author’s own inter-
pretations of well-marked bird notes are given.
The line cuts of birds, nesting boxes, appliances, etc., are
mainly reproductions of the author’s pen and ink sketches
and drawings. The attitudes have been caught by sketch-
ing the living birds afield ; but as most of the drawings were
necessarily made in winter, the measurements and the details
of markings were taken mainly from bird skins. While this
method does not give so good results as does the use of the
dead bird, it obviates the necessity of killing birds for the pur-
pose. The sketches for Figs. 19, 22, 23, and 25 were sug-
gested by half-tone plates in American Ornithology. Figs.
1, 27, 53, 71, 73, 79, 109, 113-117, 142, and 143 were made
from pen drawings by Lewis E. Forbush. The wood-cuts
of insects were taken chiefly from Harris’s Insects Injurious
to Vegetation, Flint’s Manual of Agriculture, and various
papers published by Dr. A. S. Packard while serving as ento-
nologist to the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture.
PREFACE. ix
Mr. C. Allan Lyford has given valuable assistance in taking
photographs illustrating bird feeding, nesting boxes, etc.
The author is also greatly indebted to Messrs. C. A. and
C. K. Reed for the use of half-tone plates from American
Ornithology ; to Mr. Frank M. Chapman, the Massachusetts
Commission on Fisheries and Game, Mr. A. C. Dike, and
others, to whom credit is given in the text or captions, for
the use of photographs, half-tone plates, or cuts; and to
Messrs. William Brewster and Ralph Holman for the use of
bird skins. Plates VI. and VII. are from E. A. Samuels.
The credit for the publication of this volume rightly be-
longs to the State Board of Agriculture, which, through its
secretary, introduced and advocated the resolve providing
for preparing and printing; to the Massachusetts Audubon
Society, which supported the resolve before the Legislature ;
to the various associations, officials, and friends who upheld
the resolve ; and to those members of the House and Senate
who were instrumental in securing the appropriation which
made possible the production of the report. For its many
shortcomings the author alone is responsible.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
IntRopuctory.— THE UTILITY oF Birps IN NATURE, . i ‘ F 1
Carter I.—TuHE VaLur or Birds TO Man, . 5 $ : - 23
Primitive Man's Relations to Nature, ‘ 23
Changed Relations produced by Agriculture, . 5 : 3 . 2
Man at War with Nature in the New World, . ‘ 4 a 25
The Increase of Insect Pests, . ‘ ‘ ‘ Pi ‘ ‘ ¥ «
The Number of Insects, . ‘ , ‘ * 4 ‘ 4 ~ 28
The Reproductive Capacity of seuss: ‘ * . ‘ 7 a . 28
The Voracity of Insects, . x % F . - ‘ ~ . . 380
The Great Loss to American Agriculture by Insect Ravages, . 3 . 31
Losses by Insect Ravages in Massachusetts, 36
The Capacity of Birds for destroying Pests, 40
The Digestion of Birds, é ; i = : : . 40
The Growth of Young Birds, . . : : ‘i - 42
The Amount of Food required by Young Birds, z x ‘ - 44
The Time required for Assimilation of Food, . . . . 49
The Number of Insects eaten by Young Birds in the Nest, é . OL
The Amount of Food eaten by Adult Birds, . ‘ 4 * e ff
Birds save Trees and Crops from Destruction, - . ‘ ‘ » 68
The Increase of Injurious Insects following the Destruction of Birds, . 72
The Destruction of Injurious Mammals by Birds, . ‘ * a . 76
The Value of Water-birds and Shore Birds, . ‘ q A “i . 80
The Commercial Value of Birds, . : ; 7 . 81
The Atsthetic, Sentimental, and Educational 1 Value of Birds, a . 85
CuHapter II.— Tue UTtiLity or Birps In WOODLANDS, . , ; - 90
The Relations of the Bird to the Tree, . . 7 . 7 F . 91
The Forest Planters, : a qi : i ‘ a s ‘82
The Influence exerted by] Birds and Squirrels on the Succession of
Forest Trees, . . ‘ 7 . 7 7 i Hi . 96
The Tree Pruners, . i ‘ ¥ ‘ ‘ ‘ : j . 99
The Guardians of the Trees, . : ‘ - ‘ a 4 ‘ . 100
CuapTeR III.—Birps as DESTROYERS oF Hairy CATERPILLARS AND
Puiant Lice, é é é 3 i z 5 » ih
CHAPTER I1V.— THE Economic iia oF BirpDs IN THE ORCHARD, . 149
CHAPTER V.— Sone Birps oF ORCHARD AND WOODLAND, a ‘ 155
Woodland Thrushes, , ; 3 5 ? ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ « 155
Kinglets, . é - : : . , A : t i . 160
Nuthatches and Tits, 7 ; 7 i . e ° é ‘ . 163
xii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER V.—SonG Birps or ORCHARD AND WOODLAND — Con.
Creepers, 7
Thrashers and Mockingbirds, 7 ‘ .
Warblers, . 4 ‘ : 2 * * :
Vireos, . é * i ‘
Waxwings,
Tanagers, . " " s "
Finches, Grogbeaks, and Towhees, .
Blackbirds, Grackles, Orioles, etc., .
CHAPTER VI.—SonGLESS BIRDS OF ORCHARD AND WOODLAND,
Flycatchers, ;
Hummingbirds, 3 ‘ : ‘ ‘ . ‘ é
Woodpeckers, . . . . " ‘ . .
Cuckoos, Kingfishers, etc.,
Grouse, Partridges, etc., .
CuarTeR VII.— THE UTitity oF BirDS IN FIELD AND GARDEN, .
CHAPTER VIII.— Birps or FIELD AND GARDEN,
Thrushes and their Allies,
Wrens, . 4 Z . 2 A
Sparrows, . . “
Blackbirds, erties etc., ‘ i
Pigeons and Doves, . 2 “ ‘ ‘ : .
Grouse, Partridges, etc., . z és . j * <
Pheasants, : c 3 : 7 . .
Snipe, Sandpipers, Woodcock, etc., F x
CHapTeR IX.—Brirps or THE AIR,
Swifts, . x * . 7 ‘ ‘ P
Nighthawks, iSite sane nk etc.,
Swallows, . 7 ‘ F ‘ ‘ i ‘ : ‘
CHAPTER X.— BirDS OF MARSH AND WATERSIDE,
Perching Birds,
Rails,
Herons,
1 Water-fowl, ei ; ‘1 <
CHAPTER XI.— CHECKS UPON THE INCREASE OF ae Birps,
The Destruction of Birds by Man, . : ‘ i ‘ #
The Natural Enemies of Birds,
Introduced Four-footed Enemies,
Cats, . Ci r 7 fi 2 . . . <
Native Four-footed Enemies, .
Squirrels, . x 2 * ‘ ‘ A
Rats and Mice, . q é
Feathered Enemies,
Hawks,
Owls, . , . 5 ‘ 4 é :
Crows and Jays, * i a * ‘ é ‘
- 185
« 203
+ 209
. 211
« 215
. 224
. 229
+ 229
. 240
» 245
« 266
+ 275
+ 282
+ 282
. 292
. 294
+ 812
» 823
» 825
. 3382
. 334
. 339
PAGE
177
178
262
. 341
- 343
. 3849
. 349
. 350
. 351
» 853
» 354
. 856
. 361
- 862
. 362
. 364
. 864
« 366
« 366
. 366
. 867
. 368
CONTENTS.
xiii
CuarTeR XI.— CHECKS UPON THE INCREASE OF UsEFuL Birps — Con. PAGE
Feathered Enemies— Con.
The House Sparrow, . . 370
Shrikes, : ‘ . 370
Other Bird Enemies, . ‘i . ‘ . . 371
Reptilian Enemies, . Z 4 2 : ¥ * ‘ < ~ ott
Fish, ‘ ‘ ‘ 3 : ‘ : ‘ d . 371
CHAPTER XII.— THE PROTECTION oF BIRDs, . 372
Methods of attracting Birds, . 373
Feeding and Assembling the Winter ‘Birds, . 377
Attracting the Summer Birds, . . . 384
Providing Nesting Places about Buildings, . . 886
Bird Houses and Nesting Boxes, . ' . ° . . 388
Furnishing Nesting Material, . « 893
Feeding the Summer Birds, . 3899
Attracting Water-fowl, . 7 : ‘ 7 . 402
The Protection of Birds against their Natural iienis ‘ « 403
The Protection of Farm Products from Birds, . . 410
To protect Grain from Crows and Other Birds, . « 411
To protect Small Fruits, . . 412
To protect Chickens from Hawks and tiieh » 412
General Protective Measures, . . 413
Game Protection, ‘ . : . 414
Measures and Legislation necessary for the Protection of Game and
Birds, é . 4 . » 415
Artificial eaecceea of Game Birds, . 417
The Movement for Bird Protection, : ‘ 418
Papers on Ornithology, published by the wehaaadba eceta: aiaes Board of
Agriculture, ‘ ‘ . . . . 421
INDEX, . ¥ . . 423
FigurE
FicurE
FIGURE
FIGuRE
FIGURE
FIGuRE
FIcurE
FigurE
FIGURE
Figure
FIGURE
Figure
FIGURE
FIcurE
FIGURE
Figure
FIGURE
FiIcure
FIGURE
FIGuRE
FIGurE
FIGURE
FicgurRE
FIGURE
FIcurE
FicurEe
FIGURE
FIcuRE
FIGURE
Figure
FIGURE
FIGURE
FiguRE
FIGURE
FIGuRE
FIGURE
FIGURE
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
1.—The Archzopteryx, . . a . i ‘
2.— Ground Beetle, .
3.—Cutworm, .
4.— Noctuid Moth,
5.—F ly and its Larva, 4 . . 7 . . ‘
6.— Chestnut Beetle or Weevil, . : . i : ‘
7.— Caterpillars, the Larve of Butterflies, . .
8. — Pup or Chrysalids, . z ‘i
9.— Predaceous Beetle, the Lion Beetle or One titans
10. — Predaceous Beetle, a Tiger among Insects, . A 3 *
11. —Hymenopterous Parasite, a ‘ ‘ 2
12. — Host Caterpillar with Cocoons of a Parasite upon its Back,
13.— Tiger Beetle, .
14.— Chinch Bug,
15. — Colorado Potato Beetle,
16. — Hessian Fly,
17. — Alimentary Canal of Bluebird,
18. — Young Cedar Bird on its First Day, .
19. — Young Cedar Birds less than Three Weeks old,
20.— Young Grouse, ‘
21. — Young Woodcock,
22. — Young Robins, F . ‘ F . . ; : .
23.— Young Crows, . :
24. — Passenger Pigeon feeding aig meadaetieilane
25.— Chipping Sparrow feeding Young, .
26. — Yellow-throat catching Birch Aphids,
27.— Western Cricket, ‘
28. — Gulls saving Crops by killing cuit, i :
29.— Warblers destroying Plant Lice, . . F . :
30. — The Winged Seed of White Pine, . : i i ‘ .
31.—A Forest Planter, . ‘ x é
32. —Ruffed Grouse, ‘‘ budding,” F ‘ :
33.— The Diligent Titmouse, . : i : : i
34. — Winter Tree Guards, ‘ * 4 . . ‘ ‘ 4
35. — Destructive Bark Beetle, ¥ : Z x
36. — Woodpecker hunting Borers, - a ‘ é
37. — Larva of the Cecropia Moth, . ‘ : ;
+ 101
PAGE
11
11
14
14
14
15
18
18
18
19
S&SSERERESERSERERENRE
63,
66
71
92
94
99
104
- 107
» 107
- 110
Xvi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Figure 38.— Woolly Bear Caterpillar,
Figure 39.— Yellow Bear Caterpillar, .
Ficure 40.— Caterpillar of the White-marked Faded Moth,
FIGURE
FicurE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGuRE
FIGgurE
Figure
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FicurEe
FIGuRE
FiIGgurE
FIGuRE
FIGuRE
Figure
Figure
FicurE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
41.
42.
43.
44,
45.
46.
47.
48.
49,
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
. — Catbird,
61.
60
— Web of the Brown-tail Moth Caterpillar,
— Nashville Warbler, .
— Caterpillar of the Brown-tail Moth,
— Warblers feeding on Young Caterpillars of the Giney Moth, .
— Egg Cluster of the Gipsy Moth,
— Wilson's Thrush,
— Wood Thrush,
— Golden-crowned Kinglet,
— Chickadee,
— Eggs of the Tent Casati Moth,
—Codling Moth, Parent of the Apple Worm,
— Fall Cankerworm Moth,
— Apple Twig with Eggs of the neon Moth, .
— White-breasted Nuthatch,
— Nuthatches,
— Wood-boring Beetle,
— Red-breasted Nuthatch,
— Brown Creeper,
—Brown Thrasher, '. 7 7
— Northern Yellow-throat, .
Ficurer 62.— Oven-bird and Nest,
FIGURE
FIGURE
Figure
FiGurE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FiGuRE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGuRE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIcurr
FIGuRE
Figure
FIGure
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
15.
76.
77.
78.
— Black and White Warbler,
— Chestnut-sided Warbler, . 4
— Yellow Warbler,
— American Redstart,
— Black-throated Green Warbler,
— Pine Warbler, . ‘ ‘
—Mpyrtle Warbler, . .
— Woolly Apple Tree Aphis,
—Red-eyed Vireo, . . .
— Warbling Vireo, .
—Yellow-throated Vireo, .
—Cedar Bird, . ‘
— Passing the Cherry, .
— Good Work in the Orchard,
— Scarlet Tanagers and Gipsy Moth Gaisinitiaen
— Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Male,
Ficure 79.— Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Female,
FicureE 80.—Towhee, .
Ficure 81.— Purple Finch, 3 :
Ficure 82.— American Goldfinch, ‘i ‘
.
. 169
» 169
. 172
. 173
» 175
. 176
- 180
. 189
- 191
+ 193
« 195
. 197
. 199
+ 201
- 202
« 202
- 204
+ 206
» 208
+ 209
+ 210
+ 211
- 212
+ 216
« 217
. 219
+ 221
« 222
PAGE
« 120
. 120
. 121
» 1380
» 133
- 133
135
148
157
. 158
» 161
. 164
. 167
168
177
182
187
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xvii
PAGE
FicureE 83.— Baltimore Oriole, . * r 5 5 ‘ ‘ » 225
Figure 84.— Pea Weevil, ‘ . 226
Ficure 85.— Tent Caterpillars, Fags, 3 and peony - 226
Figure 86.— Click Beetle, i a . 227
Ficure 87.— Cucumber Beetle and Curculios, . 227
Ficure 88.— Gipsy Moth, Male, . . 280
Ficurer 89.— Cankerworm, . ‘ ‘ ‘ 5 » B81
Figure 90.— Wood Pewee, . - 2 3% x . 232
Figure 91.—Tortricid Moth, . 232
Ficure 92.— Tussock Moth, » 232
Figure 93.— Phoebe, . c ‘ a 3 a . . 233
Figure 94.— Moth of Spring Cankerworm, . . 234
Figure 95.— Wood-boring Click Beetle, . 6 - 2384
Fiaure 96.— Brown-tail Moth, . ‘ . 234
Ficure 97.— Kingbird, . 236
Ficure 98.— Cetonia Beetle, : a ‘ a ; ' ; » 238
Ficurse 99.— May Beetle, . « 238
Ficure 100.— Hummingbirds about Two Weeks old, . 242
Figure 101.— Hummingbird feeding Young, » 243
Ficure 102.— Young Hummingbirds nearly tledged, . 244
FieureE 103.— Skull and Tongue of Woodpecker, . 246
Ficure 104.—Spearlike Tongue-tip of Downy Woodpecker, . 246
Ficure& 105.— Pine Borer, . ‘ a . « 2AT
Figure 106.— Pales Weevil, % . 248
Figure 107.— Cocoon of Codling Moth sioeall by Woodpecker, , . 251
Figure 108.— Apple Tree Borer, . ‘ « : . 251
Figure 109.— Section of Young Tree saved ‘ Depiiy edad: rl . 253
Figure 110.—Downy Woodpecker and his Work, » 253
Figure 111.— Bark pierced by Downy Woodpecker, . 254
Ficure 112.— The Same, showing the Channels made by Bark i . 254
Ficure 113.— Pine Top killed by Pine Weevil, « 255
Fiacure 114.— Tree ruined for Timber by Pine Weevil, . 255
Ficure 115.—Section of Red Maple tapped for Sap, . 257
Ficure 116.— A Similar Section, . 257
Figure 117.— Hairy Woodpecker, . 258
Ficure 118.— Flicker, . . 61
Freurgr 119. — Black-billed Baska : . 264
Figure 120.—Caterpillar of the Io Moth, . - é ‘ . 264
Figure 121.—Spiny Elm Caterpillar, . : ‘ . . ‘ * . 264
Figure 122.— Fall Web Worm, 265
FicurE 123.— Red-humped Caterpillar, ri . 272
Ficure 124.— Tree Hoppers, - j zi ‘ « 273
Ficure 125.— American Robin, . 4 ‘ x ‘ . 282
FicureE 126.— White Grub, . ‘ Fi ‘ é ‘ A F . 288
Ficure 127.— Bluebird, 5 : % ‘ * 4 ‘ 4 . . 291
Xvill
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
FicurE 128.— The Bluebird’s Bread, . 292
Ficurr 129.— Indigo Bunting, Male, . 298
Ficure 130.—Indigo Bunting, Female, - 298
Figure 131.—Song Sparrow, - 299
FicureE 132.—Slate-colored Junco, . 301
FicureE 133.— Field Sparrow, - . 802
Ficure 134.— Chipping Sparrow, 7 7 « 3803
Ficure 135.— Moth of the Tent Caterpillar, » 804
Ficure 136.— Chipping Sparrows hunting Beet Worms, - 304
Figure 137.— Tree Sparrow, a : ‘ é - 306
Ficure 138.— White-throated ee . 807
Ficure 139.— Vesper Sparrow, . 3il
Ficure 140.— Crow Blackbird, . 314
Ficure 141.— Meadowlark, a BIT
Ficure 142.— Red-winged Blackbird, Male, « B19
Ficure 143.— Red-winged Blackbird, Female, » 320
Ficure 144.— Bobolink, Male, and Army Worm, 322
Figure 145.— Bobolink, Female, . . ‘ » 823
FicurE 146.— Bob-white, » 825
Ficure 147.— The Morning Call, . » 827
Ficure 148.— Ring-necked Pheasant, » 832
Figure 149.— Purple Martin, Male, . 847
Ficure 150.—Purple Martin, Female, . 348
Fiaure 151.—Salt-marsh Caterpillar, . 349
Figure 152.— Army Worm, . 349
Ficurr 153.— Swamp Sparrow, A . 350
Ficure 154. —TItalian Sportsman and his eee Owl, . 359
Ficure 155.— Blue Jay, ‘ ‘“ ‘ i ‘ . 369
Ficurer 156.— Northern Shrike, : . 370
Ficure 157.—Seed Catkins of Gray Birch, . 2 374
Ficure 158.— Fruit of Virginia Juniper or Red Cedar, . 377
Ficure 159.— Downy Woodpecker feeding on Suet, - 380
Ficure 160.— The Birds’ Christmas Tree, » 881
Figure 161.— The Birds’ Tepee, . 382
Frieure 162.— Design for a Sparrow-proof Shelf, « 883
Ficurer 163.— Mr. Chapman’s Bird Bath, . 3886
Ficurs 164.— Phosbe’s Nest in Box, . 888
Ficure 165.—Sparrow-proof Box, . 3889
Ficure 166.— Birch-bark Nesting Box for Ohigkaaves, . 891
Ficure 167.— Shingle Box for Bluebirds, i . 892
Figure 168.— Chickadees feeding Young in Observation ae « 895
Figure 169.—A Martin Box, . 396
Figure 170.— A Martin Barrel, - . . ; . 397
Ficure 171.— Zinc Bands to prevent Cats or Squirrels from pea Trees
or Poles, . ‘ : : . é
. 410
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Xix
Woop Duck (Colored Plate),
Puate I.— The American Silkworm Moth,
Puate II.—The Destructiveness of the Gipsy Moth,
Puare III.— Expensive Work of destroying the Eggs of the
Gipsy Moth in Woodland Parks,
Puate IV.— Red-eyed Vireo feeding Young,
PLatTE V.— Chickadee, with Insects in its Beak,
PuiatEe VI.— Field or Meadow Mouse,
PLatEe VII.— White-footed or Deer Mouse,
PiatE VIII. — A Useful Mouse-eating Owl,
PLaTE IX.—Regurgitated Ow] Pellets,
PLATE X.— The Same Pellets, dissected, . , ‘
PuiatTeE XI.— Albatrosses on Laysan Island, H. I.,
PuLatE XII.—The Cecropia Moth, .
PuateE XIII.— Web of Tent Caterpillar,
attacked by Birds, .
PLATE XIV.— Various Stages of the Brown-tail Moth,
PuLatE XV.— Various Stages of the Gipsy Moth,
PLATE XVI.— General View of Georgetown Woodland,
PuLatE XVII.— Pines, Oaks, and Other Trees, stripped by the
Omnivorous Caterpillars of the Gipsy Moth,
PuatTE XVIII.— Luna Moth,
PLATE XIX.— Least Flycatcher on Nest,
PLATE XX.— Downy Woodpecker at Nest Hole,
PLATE XXI.—Ruffed Grouse on Nest,
PLATE XXII.— Ruffed Grouse, One Day old,
PuaTE XXIII.—Ruffed Grouse, Four Months old,
PLATE XXIV.—Ruffed Grouse, strutting,
XXV.— Robin’s Nest in Hollow Tree,
XXVI.— Robin on Nest, .
XXVII.— Wren at Nest Hole, ‘
XXVIII.— Chipping Sparrows feeding their vous,
XXIX.— American Woodcock,
XXX.— Nighthawk, . é
XXXI. — Whip-poor-will, < - 7 .
PLatTeE XXXII.— A Swallow Roost,
PLatE XXXIII.— Nest Robbers, a
PuatE XXXIV.— Work which drives out the Birds,
PLatE XXXV.—Cat with Young Robin, . .
PLatE XXXVI.— Barred Owl, . i
Puate XXXVII.— Blue Jay’s Nest in data 8 ioe: :
Prate XX XVIII. — Fruits that are valuable as Bird Food,
Puate XXXIX.—A Bountiful Repast, Z ‘ ‘
Piate XL.— A Scratching Shed, ‘ é . . ‘
Puatre XLI.—Chickadee seen through Window, at eins s
Home,
which had been
PLatEe
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
Frontispiece
faces page 31
between pages 38 and 39
between pages 38 and 39
faces page 51
faces page 54
faces page 76
faces page 76
faces page 78
faces page 80
faces page 80
faces page 82
faces page 109
faces page 118
faces page 137
faces page 142
faces page 144
faces page 144
faces page 214
faces page 229
faces page 249
faces page 267
faces page 268
faces page 268
faces page 270
faces page 283
faces page 289
faces page 293
faces page 304
faces page 336
faces page 341
faces page 341
faces page 343
faces page 359
faces page 360
faces page 362
faces page 367
faces page 369
faces page 375
faces page 378
faces page 378
faces page 380
¢
XX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Puate XLII. — Chickadees on Pork Rind, é é . faces page 380
PLATE XLIII.— Ermest Harold Baynes taming a Ohiictenfiads . faces page 381
Puate XLIV. — Chickadee feeding from the Hand, . ‘ . faces page 381
PuatrE XLV.—Chickadees seen on a Frosty Morning, through
Author’s Window, a . faces page 382
Puate XLVI.—A Red-breasted Nuthatch at the ‘e Window, . faces page 382
PuaTtE XLVII.— Bird Houses and Nesting Boxes, . 5 . faces page 391
PLATE XLVIII.— Inexpensive Nesting Boxes, : faces page 392
PuLaTE XLIX.—Chickadee about to enter its Nest, in an Old
Varnish Can, . . ‘ i 5 rl e . faces page 392
Puate L.— Owl Box, at Sia s Home, . P between pages 394 and 395
Pirate LI.— Owl on Nest, . : ‘ : ‘ between pages 394 and 395
Piate LII.—Chickadee’s Nest, made of Cotton, in Box on
Author’s Window, é ‘ ‘ ‘ between pages 400 and 401
PuatTE LIII.— Chickadee on Nest, . é . between pages 400 and 401
Puate LIV. — Mother Chickadee bringing Food to Young,
between pages 400 and 401
PiatE LV.— Mother Chickadee cleaning Nest, between pages 400 and 401
Piatre LVI.— Domesticated Canada Goose on Nest, F . faces page 417
USEFUL BIRDS AND THEIR PROTECTION.
INTRODUCTORY.
THE UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE,
There is no subject in the field of natural science that is
of greater interest than the important position that the living
bird occupies in the great plan of organic nature.
The food relations of birds are so complicated and have
such a far-reaching effect upon other forms of life that the
mind of man may never be able fully to trace and grasp them.
The migrations of birds are so vast and widespread that the
movements of many species are still more or less shrouded
in mystery. We do not yet know, for instance, just where
certain common birds pass some of the winter months. Some
species sweep in their annual flights from Arctic America
to the plains of Patagonia, coursing the entire length of the
habitable portion of a hemisphere. Many of the birds that
summer in northern or temperate America winter in or near
the tropics. Some species remain in the colder or temperate
regions only long enough to mate, nest, and rear their young,
and then start on their long journey toward the equator.
The annual earth-wide sweep of the tide of bird life from
zone to zone renders the study of the relations of birds to
other living forms throughout their range a task of the
utmost magnitude. This vast migration at once suggests
the question, Of what use in nature is this host of winged
creatures that with the changing seasons sweeps over land
and sea?
Our first concern in answering this question is to deter-
mine what particular office or function in the economy of
nature birds alone are fitted to perform. The relations
2 USEFUL BIRDS.
they may bear to the unnatural and semi-artificial conditions
produced by the agriculturist may then be better under-
stood. The position occupied by birds among the forces of
nature is unique in one respect at least; their structure fits
them to perform the office of a swiftly moving force of
police, large bodies of which can be assembled at once to
correct disturbances caused by abnormal outbreaks of plant
or animal life. This function is well performed. A swarm
of locusts appears, and birds of many species congregate to
feed upon locusts. An irruption of field mice, lemmings, or
gophers occurs, and birds of prey gather to the feast from
far and near.
This habit of birds is also serviceable in clearing the earth
of decaying materials, which otherwise might pollute both
air and water. A great slaughter of animals takes place,
and Eagles, Vultures, Crows, and other scavengers hasten to
tear the flesh from the carcasses. A dead sea monster is
cast upon the shore, and sea birds promptly assemble to
devour its wasting tissues. The gathering of birds to feed
is commonly observed in the flocking of Crows in meadows
where grasshoppers or grubs abound, the assembling of
Crows and Blackbirds in cornfields, and in the massing of
shore birds on flats or marshes where the receding tide
exposes their food. :
A study of the structure and habits of birds shows how
well fitted they are to check excessive multiplication of
injurious creatures or to remove offensive material. Birds
are distinguished from all other animals by their complex,
feathered wings, —the organs of perfect flight.
The tremendous muscular power exhibited by birds is only
such as might be expected in creatures provided with such
perfect respiratory, circulatory, and assimilative organs. The
strength of birds as compared with that of man is enormously
out of proportion to their size ; but it is largely concentrated
in the muscles that move the wings, for it is by flight that
the bird is enabled to live. No other animals have such
sustained power of flight or such perfect command over
themselves while in the air. Even the bat, which is a most
skillful flyer, being remarkably quick in aerial evolutions,
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 3
cannot ‘at its best equal the bird. I once saw a bat make
seven attempts to catch a moth fluttering along the still sur-
face of a moonlit river. A Swallow could have seized it at
once with no perceptible effort. No creature can equal the
soaring of the Eagle or Vulture, or that of the Man-o’-War
Bird as it sails on high above the storm; while the speed
that the Hummingbird attains is such that the eye can
scarcely follow its most rapid flight.
Birds are provided with wings to enable them (1) to pro-
cure food, (2) to escape their enemies, (3) to migrate.
All birds have wings, though a few, like the Apteryx, have
them only in arudimentary form. Others, like the Penguin
and the Ostrich, have small wings, but cannot raise them- |
selves in the air.
All birds that cannot tly, however, are reminders of a past
age, and are not fitted to live on the same earth with man.
Such birds are either already extinct or in a fair way to
become so, either at the hands of man-or at the teeth or
claws of the dogs, cats, or other animals that man introduces.
Flight alone might save the few that remain. The Great
Auk, using its wings only in pursuing its prey under water,
disappeared before the onslaught of the white man; while
the Loon, flying both under water and above it, still sur-
vives.
Birds are pursued by many enemies. Water-fowl fly to
the water and dive to escape the Hawk or Eagle, and fly to
the Jand to escape the shark, alligator, or pike. Sparrows
fly to the thicket to elude the Hawk, and to the trees to
avoid the cat. Evidently this great power of flight was given
to birds to enable them not only to concentrate their forces
rapidly at a given point, but also to pursue other flying
creatures. Birds can pursue bats, flying squirrels, flying
fish, and insects through the air. Bats and insects are their
only competitors in flight. Comparatively few insects can
escape birds by flight, and this they do mainly by quick
dodging and turning. The speed at which birds can fly on
occasion has seldom been accurately measured. The maxi-
mum flight velocity of certain wild-fowl is said to be ninety
miles an hour. Passenger Pigeons killed in the neighbor-
4 ‘USEFUL BIRDS.
hood of New York have had in their crops rice probably
taken from the fields of the Carolinas or Georgia, which
indicates that within six hours they had flown the three or
four hundred miles intervening, at about the rate of a mile
a minute.? ;
The rate of flight of a species must be sufficiently rapid
to enable it to exist, and so perform its part in the economy
of nature.
Birds find distant food by the senses of sight and hearing
mainly. The sense of smell is not highly developed, but
the other perceptive powers are remarkable. The perfection
of sight in birds is almost incomprehensible to those who
have not studied the organs of vision. The keen eye of the
Hawk has become proverbial. The bird’s eye is much larger
in proportion to the size of its owner than are the eyes of
other vertebrates. It is provided with an organ called the
pecten, by which, so naturalists believe, the focus can be
changed in an instant, so that the bird becomes nearsighted
or farsighted at need. Such provision for changing the focus
of the eye is indispensable to certain birds in their quick rush
upon their prey. Thus the Osprey or Fish Hawk, flying
over an arm of the sea, marks its quarry down in the dark
water. As the bird plunges swiftly through the air its eye
is kept constantly focussed upon the fish, and when within
striking distance it can still see clearly its panic-stricken
prey. Were a man to descend so suddenly from such a
height he would lose sight of the fish before he reached the
water. The Flycatcher, sitting erect upon its perch, watch-
ing passing insects that are often invisible to the human eye,
in like manner utilizes the pecten in the perception, pursuit,
and capture of its prey. Most of the smaller birds will see
a Hawk in the sky before it becomes visible to the human
eye. The Vulture, floating on wide wings in upper air,
discerns his chosen food in the valley far below, and as he
descends toward it he is seen by others wheeling in the dis-
tant sky. As they turn to follow him they also are seen by
others soaring at greater distances, who, following, are pur-
* American Ornithology, Wilson and Bonaparte, Vol. IV, pp. 319, 320. Evi-
dently a quotation from Audubon's Ornithological Biography.
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 5
sued from afar by others still, until a feathered host con-
centers from the sky upon the carrion feast.
Birds are lower in the organic scale than the class of
mammals which includes man, the four-footed animals, and
even the seal and the whale. Birds are closely allied in
structure to reptiles. The earliest bird known, the Archee-
opteryx, had teeth,
two fingers on each
wing, and along rep-
tilian tail adorned
with feathers. Still,
notwithstanding the
comparatively low
place which is given
by the systematists
to birds, their
physical organiza-
tion excels in some
respects that of all
otheranimals. They
surpass all other
vertebrate animals
in breathing power
or lung capacity, as
well as in muscular
strength and activ-
ity. The tempera- Fig. 1.—The Archeopteryx, a bird with teeth. Re-
ture of the blood is stored from the Jurassic epoch. About one-fifth natural
‘ 2 . size; after Chapman.
higher in birds than
in other animals, and the circulation is more rapid. To
maintain this high temperature, rapid circulation, and great
activity, a large amount of food is absolutely necessary.
Food is the fuel without which the brightly burning fires
of life must grow dim and die away. Birds are, therefore,
fitted for their function of aerial police not only by their
powers of flight and perception, but also by their enormous
capacity for assimilating food. When food is plentiful,
birds gorge themselves, accumulating fat in quantities.
Shore birds frequently become so fat during the fall migra-
6 USEFUL BIRDS.
tions that, when shot, their distended skins burst open
when their bodies strike the ground. This accumulation of
fatty tissue may aid to tide the birds over a season of
scarcity, but the moment they need food they must seek
-it far and wide, if need be, as they cannot live long with-
outit. Birds are not always the ethereal, care-free creatures
of the poet’s dream. In time of plenty, the joys of flight,
of sunshine, of singing, of riding swinging boughs, or toss-
ing to and fro on flashing waves, are theirs to the full;
but in times of scarcity, or when rearing their helpless
young, their daily lives are often one continued strenuous
hunt for food. Food, therefore, is the mainspring of the
bird’s existence. Love and fear alone are at times stronger
than the food craving. The amount of food that birds are
capable of consuming renders them doubly useful in case of
an emergency.
The utility of birds in suppressing outbreaks of other an-
imals by massing at threatened points is of no greater value
in the plan of nature than is the perennial regulative influ-
ence exerted by them individually everywhere as a check on
the undue increase of other forms of life.
He who studies living birds, other animals, or plants, and
the relations which these living organisms bear to one
another, will soon learn that the main effort of each plant
or animal is to preserve its own life and produce seed or
young, and so multiply its kind. He will see, also, that the
similar efforts of other organisms by which it is surrounded
tend to hold its increase in check.
The oak produces many hundreds of acorns; and were
each acorn to develop into a tree, the earth eventually would
be full of oaks, for all other trees would be crowded out.
But many animals feed on the acorns or the young seedlings ;
other trees crowd out the young oaks; caterpillars feed on
the foliage; other insects feed on the wood and bark, de-
stroying many trees; so, on the average, each oak barely
succeeds in producing another to occupy its place.
Certain moths deposit hundreds of eggs in a season; and
were each egg to hatch and each insect to come to maturity
and go on producing young at the same rate, the entire earth
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 7
in a few years would be carpeted with crawling caterpillars,
and the moths in flight would cover the earth like a blanket
of fog. But under natural conditions the caterpillars that
hatch from the eggs of the moth are destroyed by birds,
mammals, insects, or other animals, by disease or the action
of the elements, so that in the end only one pair of moths
succeeds another. If every Robin should produce five young
each yéar, and each Robin should live fifteen years, in time
every square foot of land on this continent would be packed
with Robins; but the surplus Robins are killed and eaten
by various other birds or by mammals, each striving to
maintain itself; so that, eventually, the number of Robins
remains about the same.
Thus we see that, while birds, insects, other animals, and
plants are constantly striving to increase their numbers, the
creatures that feed upon them operate continually to check
this undue multiplication. The Hawk preys upon the smaller
birds and mammals. The smaller birds and mammals feed
on insects, grass, seeds, leaves, and other animal and vege-
table food, each virtually endeavoring to gain strength and
increase the numbers of its race at the expense of other
living organisms.
There is a competition among various dissimilar organisms,
also, in seeking certain kinds of food. Grazing mammals,
such as cattle, sheep, and deer, eat grass. Grass is eaten
also by birds, mice, and insects. If any one kind of these
creatures should be left without check, and become too
numerous, it might consume the food supply of all.
In the great struggle for existence, each perpetuating
form of life that we call a species is really an expansive
force, that can be restrained and kept in its proper place
only by the similar expansive forces (other species) by
which it is surrounded. It is as if the whole field of ani-
mal and vegetable life consisted of a series of springs, cach
exerting a pressure in all directions, and each held in place
only by the similar expansion of the springs surrounding it.
This action and reaction of natural forces constitute what is
known as the balance of nature. Any serious disturbance
of this balance is always fraught with serious consequences.
8 USEFUL BIRDS.
All animals and plants are sustained and nourished by
air, water, and food. Food supplies the material for growth
and development. Its abundance increases the energy and
fertility of a species, —its ability to produce young abun-
dantly. The study of the food and food habits of birds and
other animals is of the utmost importance, for by this study
alone we are enabled to trace their life relations to each.
other, to plants, and to man. Some progress has ‘already
been made in this study. We know in a general way the
character of the food of some of the common birds of the
United States ; but we know so little as yet of the food of
the smaller mammals, the reptiles, batrachians, many insects
and other lower animals, that it is impossible to tell what
may be the ultimate effect of the destruction of any one of
these animals by birds.
On the other hand, no one can tell what grave and far-
reaching results might follow the extermination of a single
species of bird; for it is probable that the food preferences
of each species are so distinctive that no other could fill its
place.
Birds are guided by their natural tastes in selecting their
food, unless driven by necessity. Of the food which suits
their tastes, that which is most easily taken is usually first
selected. In the main, species of similar structure and
habits often choose similar food, but each species usually
differs from its allies in the selection of some certain favorite
insects. Were a species exterminated, however, its place
might be taken eventually by the combined action of many
species, for nature always operates to restore her disturbed
balances.
The complexity of the food relations existing between
birds and other organisms may be indicated hypothetically
by a brief illustration. The Eagles, larger Hawks, and Owls
feed to some extent on Crows, and probably the nocturnal,
tree-climbing, nest-haunting raccoon also robs them of eges
and young; otherwise, they seem to have very few natural
enemies to check their increase. Crows feed on so many
different forms of animal and vegetable life that they are
nearly always able to find suitable food; therefore they
are common and widely distributed.
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 9
The general fitness of the Crow is admitted by all. Un-
doubtedly it has a useful work to perform in the world ; but
a careful study of its food habits shows so many apparently
harmful traits that it may well leave the investigator in some
doubt as to the Crow’s value in the general plan. Crows
rob the nests of Robins, eating very many eggs and young
birds ; they therefore constitute a serious check on the in-
crease of this species. Robins feed largely on common black
beetles, called ground beetles (Carabide), which run about
on the ground, hiding under stones and other rubbish. As
these beetles are not quick to fly by day, \
and are easily caught, they form a consid-
erable part of the food of many ground-
frequenting birds. But ground beetles
feed, to a greater or less extent, on other
insects. The question then arises, Is not
the Robin doing harm in killing ground
beetles, and does it not merit the destruc-
tion of its eggs and young by the Crow? igo Ground
If the Robin’s habit of eating these beetles beetle.
is harmful, is not the Crow rendering a service by destroy-
ing a bird so apparently destructive as the Robin? Perhaps,
if there were too many Robins, they might eat too many
ground beetles, and thus become the indirect cause of the
destruction of much vegetation, by saving the lives of the
caterpillars and other harmful insects that the ground beetles,
had they been left to themselves, might have destroyed.!
Many ground beetles that are eaten by the Robin feed
much on vegetable matter.?- This makes these beetles doubly
useful in one respect, for they can maintain their numbers
1 These questions can be answered only by one having a thorough knowledge
of the food of our ground beetles, —a knowledge which no living man yet pos-
sesses; but enough has been learned to throw some light on their food habits.
Insects that feed promiscuously on other insects are generally classed as bene-
ficial in so far as they take insect food, even though they may destroy some
so-called useful insects; for, as the so-called injurious insects far outnumber the
useful ones, it is considered safe to regard the habit of feeding on insects a bene-
ficial one. :
2 The ground beetles of the genus Calosoma and those of some closely allied
genera are believed to feed entirely on animal food, as their structure fits them
for that alone. They feed ravenously upon both beneficial and injurious insects,
and when too numerous they devour one another. These are not the beetles that
are generally eaten by the Robin, however, but rather by the Crow.
10 USEFUL BIRDS.
when insect food is not plentiful, and so be ready to check
any increase of insects which may occur. On the other
hand, if they become too numerous, they may create serious
disturbances by destroying grass, grain, or fruit. I have
witnessed attacks made by certain of these beetles on grain
and strawberries; and were they not held in check by
birds, it is probable that they would soon become serious
pests. Their destruction by Robins and other birds tends
to keep these beetles within those normal bounds where
they will do most good and least harm; while the check
kept by the Crow on the increase of the Robin may pre-
vent the latter from destroying too many ground beetles.
If certain low-feeding caterpillars became so numerous as to
be injurious, ground beetles and Robins would feed largely
on them. The caterpillars would then largely take the place
of the beetles in the Robin’s food. The beetles, therefore,
would increase in numbers, and the force of both bird and
beetle would be exerted to reduce the caterpillars to their
normal limit. This accomplished, the Robin would again
attack the ground beetles, and thus tend to reduce them
to normal numbers.
Let us now go back to the beginning of our chain of
destruction. The Eagles, Hawks, Owls, and raccoons may.
indirectly allow an increase in the number of Robins by
preventing too great an increase of the Crow. But Hawks
and Owls also prey on the Robin, and, by dividing their
attention between Robin and Crow, assist in keeping both
birds to their normal numbers. Whenever Crows became
rare, Robins as a consequence would become very numerous,
were it not that the Hawks also eat Robins. (Hawks and
Owls eat also some species of insects that are eaten by both
Robin and Crow.)
There are compensations in the apparently destructive
career of the Crow. An omnivorous bird, it seems inclined
to turn its attention to any food which is plentiful and readily
obtained. It is a great feeder on May beetles (miscalled
“June bugs”), the larvee of which, known as white grubs,
burrowing in the ground, sometimes devastate grass lands
and also injure the roots of many plants, including trees.
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 11
The Crow is also a destroyer of cutworms. These are
the young or larve of such noctuid moths or “millers”
as are commonly seen fluttering from the grass by any one
who disturbs them by walking in the
fields. Robins also feed largely on
cutworms, as well as on the white Fig. 3.—Cutworm.
grub of the May beetle. When these insects are few in
number, a part of the usual food supply of both Robin
and Crow is cut off. This being the case, the hungry
Crows are likely to destroy more young
w, Robins and other young birds than
usual, in order to make up the supply
of animal food for themselves and their
ravenous nestlings. Ina few years this
would decrease perceptibly the number
of Robins and other small birds, and would be likely in
turn to allow an increase of May beetles and cutworms.
As these insects became more plentiful, the Crows would
naturally turn again to them, paying less attention to the
young of Robins and other birds for the time, and allowing
them to increase once more, until their multiplication put
a check on the insects, when the Crows would of necessity
again raid the Robins.
The Blue Jay may be taken as another instance of this
means of preserving the balance of nature. Hawks and
Owls kill Blue Jays, Crows destroy their eggs and young ;
thus the Jays are kept in check. Jays are omnivorous
feeders. They eat the eggs and young of other birds, par-
ticularly those of Warblers, Titmice, and Vireos, — birds
which are active caterpillar hunters. But Jays are also
extremely efficient caterpillar hunters. Thus the Jays
compensate in some measure for their destruction of cat-
erpillar-eating birds, by themselves destroying the cater-
pillars which they unconsciously have allowed to increase
in numbers by destroying these birds. Like the Crow,
they virtually kill the young of the smaller birds, and eat
them, that they (the Jays) may eventually have more in-
sect food for their own young. When this object has been
attained, the Jays may again, perhaps, allow an increase of
Fig. 4.—Noctuid moth.
12 USEFUL BIRDS.
the smaller birds, the survivors of which they have unwit-
tingly furnished with more insect food, thus making con-
ditions favorable for the increase of the smaller birds.
These oscillations or alternate expansions and contractions
in the numbers of birds or insects are usually so slight as
to escape common observation. It is only in those cases
where they are carried to extremes that they result disas-
trously. Under nature the checks on the increase of birds
are essential, else they would increase in numbers until
their food supply had become exhausted, when they would
starve, and other consequences even more grave and much
more complex would then follow.
While these examples of the way in which the balance of
nature is preserved may be regarded as somewhat hypothet-
ical, they probably approximate what actually takes place,
although the feeding habits of birds undoubtedly produce
far more complicated results than are here outlined.
It is a law of nature that the destroyer is also the protector.
Birds of prey save the species on which they prey from
overproduction and consequent starvation. They also serve
such species in at least two other ways: (1) the more
powerful bird enemies of a certain bird usually prey upon
some of its weaker enemies; (2) these powerful birds also
check the propagation of weakness, disease, or unfitness, by
killing off the weaker or most unfit individuals among the
species on which they prey, for these are most easily captured
and killed.
We have seen already that Jays, which are enemies of
the smaller birds, are preyed upon by the more powerful
Crows, Hawks, and Owls. These latter also destroy skunks,
weasels, squirrels, mice, and snakes, all of which are also
enemies of the smaller birds. No doubt these animals would
be much more injurious to the smaller birds were they with-
out these wholesome feathered checks on their increase.
In a state of nature, albino birds er those that are rendered
conspicuous to their enemies by any unusual mark or color
are soon captured by some bird of prey, and seldom live to
perpetuate their unfitness.
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 13
An experience with domestic Pigeons, related to me by
Mr. William Brewster, will serve as proof of this state-
ment. He had kept a flock of twenty-five or thirty Pigeons
in confinement at Cambridge for many years. Under such
protective domestication the individuals of the flock had
assumed a variety of shades and colors. There were blue
Doves, white Doves, and many pied individuals varying
between the two extremes. He removed the flock to. his
farm in Concord, where they were at liberty to roam at will
during the day. Here they were attacked by Hawks, and
in five years’ time the white and pied birds were practically
all weeded out, and the flock consisted of blue rock Doves
alone.
The preservation of birds by the weeding out of sickly
or wounded individuals did not escape the notice of Prof.
Spencer F. Baird, who wrote : —
It has now been conclusively shown, I think, that Hawks perform an
important function in maintaining in good condition the stock of game
birds, by capturing the weak and sickly, and thus preventing reproduc-
tion from unhealthy parents. One of the most plausible hypotheses
explanatory of the occasional outbreaks of disease amongst the grouse
of Scotland has been the extermination of these correctives, the disease
being most virulent where the game keepers were most active in de-
stroying what they considered vermin.!
It appears, then, that under natural conditions the birds of
prey destroy merely the unfit and surplus individuals of the
species on which they prey, and do not, on the whole, reduce
their numbers below what the land will support.
The relations of birds to insects merit the most profound
thought and study. No one can study intelligently the effect
produced by birds upon insect life unless he first acquires
some knowledge of the habits and transformations of insects,
and is able to distinguish the so-called injurious and -benefi-
cial groups. A brief explanation here of the transformations
of insects will better enable the reader to understand the
terms used later in describing them as food for birds.
1 Letter from Prof. Spencer F. Baird to Mr. J. W. Shorton, published in the
Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 1882, Vol. V, pp. 69, 70.
14 USEFUL BIRDS.
Most insects emerge from eggs, which ordinarily are de-
posited and fixed by the female parent in positions where
the young will find suitable food in readiness
for them when the eggs hatch. Some insects
bring forth their young alive, but this is an
Fig. 5.—Fly ana exception to the general rule. The young
itslarva. —_ insect that emerges from the egg is called the
larva (plural, larve). Some larvee are provided with short
legs or feet, others have none that can be seen; but all are
without wings, and move about mainly by crawling. Their
principal occupation is to feed. Some species, such as the
Fig. 6.— Chestnut beetle or weevil, enlarged. wu, larva or grub, enlarged;
b, young larva in chestnut, natural size.
leaf-eating caterpillars, rest during certain parts of the day;
others, like the larve of fiesh-feeding flies, apparently feed
constantly. As all eat enormously and grow rapidly, they
are capable, when in great numbers, of doing much harm or
good, as the case may be. The larve of flies are commonly
called maggots or slugs, those of beetles are called grubs,
and those of butterflies and moths are called caterpillars.
Much of the injury
done by insect pests
is attributable to the
Jarvee 5; a lthou g h Fig. '7.— Caterpillars, the larvee of butterflies.
some, like certain leaf-eating beetles, are injurious in the per-
fect form. During the rapid growth of a larva the skin is
shed several times, until full size is reached, when the next
transformation is effected, and the larva becomes a pupa or
chrysalis. -Among the butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera)
the insect often spins from within itself a thread, which it
weaves into a case or cocoon which encloses it while in the
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 15
pupal form. This stage it passes without food and while
fixed to some object. The pup or nymphs of some other
insects, however, move about freely, as is the case with
locusts, grasshoppers, and like insects (Orthoptera).?
The pupa finally throws
off its outer shell, and
emerges a fully developed
or perfect insect or imago
with wings; although some
insects which, like some
birds, have lost the use
of their wings, never fly.”
After the union of the sexes
the female insect eventually
deposits the eggs for the Fig. 8.—Pupe or chrysalids.
next generation. Thus we have four forms which insects
assume: (1) the egg, (2) the larva, (3) the pupa or nymph,
(4) the imago or perfect winged insect.
Practically all living animals of appreciable size, as well
as most plants that are visible to the unaided eye, furnish
food for certain insects. Other insects feed on dead animals,
dead trees, or other decaying animal or vegetable matter.
A certain larva has been known even to tunnel into marble.
Those insects which feed on live vegetation or living animals
are capable of doing great harm if they increase unduly;
while those that feed only on dead animals or dead and
decaying vegetation can do only good in nature, although
they may be injurious to man by destroying hides, furs, pre-
served meats, or clothing.
It is difficult to perceive the usefulness of those so-called
injurious species which feed on the different parts of plants ;
still, the larvee that eat the buds, the caterpillars that feed
1 In the Orthoptera the transformations are imperfect; the larve of grass-
hoppers, for example, are provided with well-developed legs, and much resemble
the imago or perfect iisect, but are without wings. In this stage they are usually
called nymphs. As they approach maturity they enter what is virtually an im-
perfect pupal stage, but retain their shape, limbs, and activity. They now show
rudimentary wings, but it is only at maturity that they are capable of flight.
2 The Thysanura, or lowest order of insects, including ‘‘ bristle tails,” “‘ spring
tails,” ‘‘ fish moths,’’ and the like, never become winged or develop any trace of
wings.
16 USEFUL BIRDS.
on the leaves, the borers that attack the twigs, and the insects
that destroy the blossom or the fruit, all probably, when in
normal numbers, exert a useful influence by a healthful and
necessary pruning, which at least does no injury to the tree.
It is only when these insects increase abnormally in numbers
that they seriously injure or destroy many vigorous plants
and trees. During such outbreaks birds often come to the
rescue of the trees. Birds feed very largely on such insects,
and by keeping down their excessive multiplication perform
a great service in the economy of nature.
Here the keen senses and remarkable flight powers pos-
sessed by birds aid them in concentrating their forces imme-
diately when and where they are most needed. The rule
will bear repetition here that, other things being equal, birds
will take such suitable food as is most plentiful and most
easily obtained. This is especially true of the feeding of
birds on insects, although there are some insects that are so
protected by prickly spines or acrid secretions that few birds
will eat them. Such are the caterpillars of the mourning-
cloak butterfly (Huvanessa antiopa) and the imagoes of the
Colorado potato beetle (Doryphora decemlineata) .
Birds are quick to assemble wherever in the woods the
disappearing foliage denotes the presence of great numbers
of destructive caterpillars, or where patches of dead and.
dying grasses indicate that grubs are destroying the grass
roots on meadow or prairie. Birds flock to such places to
feed on the easily procured insects, and so take a prominent
part in repressing such insect outbreaks. This is so well
known as to be worthy of only passing mention here, were it
not to inquire whether the birds that assemble in such locali-
ties do not neglect their normal and special work of hold-
ing in check certain species elsewhere. If the Robin, for
example, which feeds normally on such ground-frequenting
insects as white grubs, cutworms, grasshoppers, March flies,
and ground beetles, goes to the woods to féed on caterpillars,
as is sometimes the case, does it neglect to devour any one
of the insects on which it usually feeds, and so give this
insect a chance to increase? If so, it would be merely sup-
pressing one outbreak and permitting another. But birds
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 17
do not neglect any one element of their ordinary food in
such cases. They neglect them all, both animal and vegetal,
for the time being, and turn to the npw abundant insect food
that is more readily accessible. This I have observed in
studying outbreaks of cankerworms, and Professor Forbes
records a similar experience with birds feeding on canker-
worms.!
This apparently agrees with the experience of the forest
authorities in Bavaria during the great and destructive out-
break of the nun moth (Liparis monacha) which occurred
there from 1889 to 1891. The flight of Starlings collected
in one locality alone was credibly estimated at ten thousand,
all busily feeding on the caterpillars, pupz, and moths.
Enormous flights of Titmice and Finches were similarly
engaged. The attraction of Starlings to such centers be-
came so great that market gardeners at a distance felt their
absence seriously .?
Evidently in such cases the birds, changing their usual
fare entirely for the time being, remove their restraining
influence from both useful and injurious insects, leaving one
to exert its full force as a check on the other, until the urgent
business of the serious outbreak of grasshoppers, caterpillars,
or some other pest has been attended to; then the birds
return to their usual haunts and food, and exert the same
repressive influence as before.
Although the insects which are potentially injurious are
greatly in the majority, there are many species which per-
form a very.apparent useful function in nature. Such are
the bees and some of their allies of the order Hymenop-
tera, — insects which travel from flower to flower in search
of sweets, and, becoming loaded with pollen, fertilize the
blossoms, rendering the trees fruitful. Other insects seem
especially adapted to hold the potentially injurious species
in check. Some which are called predaceous insects attack
other insects and devour them, as do the ground beetles
1 The Regulative Action of Birds upon Insect Oscillations, by S. A. Forbes.
Bulletin No. 6, Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History, 1883, p. 21.
2 Protection of Woodlands, by Herman Fiirst. English edition, translated by
John Nisbet, 1893, p. 126.
18 USEFUL BIRDS.
(Carabide) already mentioned, the tiger beetles (Cicinde-_
lide), the ladybirds (Coccinellide), and many of the true
bugs. Such insects are often miscalled parasites, but they
do not merit this misnomer.
The predaceous beetles are
the wolves, lions, and tigers of
the insect world. They hunt
down their prey, pouncing
upon it and killing it when
found. Often these insects
are so ravenous that they con-
tent themselves with drawing
' the life blood and other juices
from their quarry, leaving the
J rest to be devoured by ants
Fig. 9.—Predaceous beetle; the lion OF other scavengers. While
Nepean the larger predaceous beetles
attack many of the larger insects, smaller species, such as
ladybirds, assail other minute insects, such as the aphids
or plant lice.
The bugs are the vampires of the insect world. Armed
with a strong proboscis, the bug pursues its
prey, pierces it and sucks its juices, leaving it
drained and lifeless ; but the so-called parasitic
insects feed in a manner entirely different.
Certain families of the Hymenoptera’ and
Diptera contain parasitic genera and species.
These insects range in size from that of a large
wasp down to that of a small midge. Most of Fig. 10.—Pre.
* ae * daceous beetle;
them have the habit of depositing their eggs a tiger among
on, or in, the bodies of other living insects. IERIE,
Each ichneumon fly is armed with a long
Kk ovipositor, which operates somewhat like a
hollow sting, by means of which it is en-
abled to pierce the skin of the larve of
other insects and pass its eggs through the
ao a ee puncture, depositing them in the body tis-
Imago, natural size Sues beneath the skin. These eggs soon
ond enlarged, hatch, and the young larve, emerging from
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 19
them, feed first upon the fatty portions of the caterpillar
in which they find themselves. The caterpillar thus unwill-
ingly becomes their host, furnishing them with food and
lodging from and within its own substance. When they
have made their growth, and it is nearly time for them to
pupate, they attack the vitals of their host, killing it, and
then pupating either within or upon its body. Soon they
emerge as perfect flies, the females
again seeking other caterpillars as
hosts for their progeny. Often
these parasites do not kill their
sey Fig. 12.— Host caterpillar, with
host until it has sought some place cocoons of the parasite upon its
back.
of safety and pupated. Every cat-
erpillar or pupa thus destroyed nourishes one or many of
these parasites, to emerge and attack surviving caterpillars.
The parasites themselves, however, are often attacked in the
same manner by a secondary parasite, which destroys them
precisely as they destroyed the caterpillar. The larger pri-
mary parasites may deposit a single egg or only a few in
each caterpillar, while the smaller ones may deposit the
entire brood in the body of a single caterpillar.
Birds eat both predaceous and parasitic insects. We have
seen that they eat ground beetles, many of which are pro-
vided with acrid secretions that are supposed to render them
disagreeable and offensive to the taste, and so
give them a certain immunity from their ene-
mies. Evidently, however, it takes a very
strong flavor to take the edge off a bird’s
appetite, for birds eat bugs; and any child
who has ever eaten berries from the bushes,
and inadvertently put one of the berry-eating
bugs in his mouth, knows how disgusting their
Fig.13.—Tiger flavor is. There are some useful insects that
beetle; auseful are seldom eaten by birds. The very smallest
by very few are beneath the notice of most birds. The
eae tiger beetles and some of the useful flies
are so quick that birds find it difficult to catch them.
Wasps and bees, though eaten by some birds, can protect
themselves very well with their stings. Probably, however,
20 USEFUL BIRDS.
birds eat a great many caterpillars containing parasites,
though birds will reject any caterpillars that show signs of
weakness or disease. The question then arises, Is the bird
doing harm by eating caterpillars or other larve containing
parasites? The bird certainly ends the destructive career
of the larva at once. The parasites would have ended it
eventually ; but had it been left to them, it might have gone
on for some time in its destructive career, doing as much
injury as if not parasitized; the parasite merely destroys it
in time to prevent it from propagating its kind. So far the
evidence is in favor of the bird. The question remains,
however, whether the bird and its young would eventually
destroy more caterpillars than would the progeny of the
parasites had they not been eaten by the bird. This question
evidently is unanswerable. Birds act as the primary check
on the increase of destructive insects; parasitic insects are
the secondary check provided by nature to operate in con-
junction with the birds, or to supplement the regulative
action of birds where the number of birds is insufficient to
check the increase of insects.
Birds sometimes kill many of the imagoes of parasitic
insects in flight, where such insects are numerous. At first
sight, this would seem to condemn the birds; on further
study, it seems probable that this is often a harmless habit.
Where parasitic insects are found in great numbers, it is
probable that the birds destroy mainly the surplus flies,
which otherwise, failing to find hosts for their young, would
merely live out their time and die without issue were they
not killed by the birds. Such harm as birds do in killing
primary parasites may be offset by the killing of secondary
parasites by birds, for this acts as a protection to the pri-
mary parasites.
Certain predaceous bugs feed not only on insects but also
on vegetable food. They also attack other predaceous or
useful insects. Birds, by preventing their undue increase,
may prevent excessive injury to both useful plants and
insects.
All reasoning from known premises leads to one conclusion
UTILITY OF BIRDS IN NATURE. 21
regarding the utility of birds in nature. It may be stated
confidently, as a general rule (not without exceptions, how-
ever), that, in the natural order of things, the species that
is kept within normal numbers without great fluctuations,
whether beast, bird, reptile, batrachian, or insect, will serve
a useful purpose; while the species that increases unduly
will devour too much animal or vegetable food, and, by dis-
turbing the balance of nature, become a pest. It is the
abnormal increase of the gipsy and brown-tail moths and
the “English” Sparrow in this Commonwealth that has
been responsible for the injury they have done. If birds
do well their part in holding in check native insects, small
mammals, reptiles, batrachians, and other forms of life on
which they feed, they have fulfilled their mission, even if
in doing this they destroy some individuals of some species
that are classed as useful.
This, then, is the chief mission of the birds in organic
nature: to fill their peculiar place in preserving the balance
of nature’s forces, —a place that cannot be filled by any
other class of animals.
In much of the foregoing it appears that the birds are
engaged in checking the increase of insects and other ani-
mals, exerting that check constantly when and where it is
most, needed. The vegetable food of birds is perhaps of
less importance, but here also they exercise a restraining
influence by destroying seed as wellas in other ways. They
also exert a beneficial influence by planting seed.
Birds also play a great part in the distribution of plants,
the upbuilding and fertilizing of barren islands, and a minor
part in the distribution of insects. Wild-fowl and Herons
may sometimes carry small seeds for many miles embedded
in particles of mud which adhere to their feet. Where this
mud drops from their feet, the seeds may sprout and grow.
The fruit-eating birds are among the most valuable of tree
planters, distributing the seeds far and wide. Certain insects
which cling to the feet or feathers of birds are sometimes
distributed in this way. The part taken by birds in forest
planting and fertilizing barren lands will be taken up far-
22 USEFUL BIRDS.
ther on, in connection with their relations to forestry and
agriculture.
Taken all in all, the relations of birds to the natural world
are beneficent. Evidently birds are an essential part of
nature’s great plan. This being the case, they must be
serviceable to man also, for man, the animal, is a mere inte-
gral part of nature.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 23
CHAPTER I.
THE VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN.
Birds are classed as useful or injurious only as they affect
man or his property. In an uninhabited country birds can-
not be ranked as beneficial or harmful, good or bad, for there
is noagriculture. There the earth, untroubled by man, brings
forth vegetation, and animals after their kind. Nature’s laws,
working in harmony, need none of man’s assistance. The
condition of the earth before man appeared is typified in the
Biblical account of the garden of Eden.
PRIMITIVE MAN’S RELATIONS TO NATURE.
We have seen that under such natural conditions all birds
are essential to the general welfare, each filling well its
appointed place. But trouble and discord come to Eden.
Man appears, and becomes the dominant power on the earth.
He sets up artificial standards of his own, and bids nature
conform to them. He is constantly at war with nature. He
classes wild creatures as injurious, provided they either in-
jure his person, or cause him loss by destroying or harming
any of his property or any of the wild animals or plants
which he regards as useful. He considers all wild creatures
beneficial that contribute directly or indirectly to his own
welfare, or to the increase in value of his property.
He is often in error, even from his own standpoint, in
thus classifying animals, owing to an insufficient knowledge
of their food habits ; but the principle holds good, and stand-
ards change with the acquisition of knowledge.
Man in a savage state lived, like other animals, in harmony
with nature. At first he practised no agriculture and domes-
ticated no animals. He made war mainly upon his fellows
and the larger beasts of prey, killing them in self-defence
or for food. (It seems prebable that primitive man was
a cannibal.) Otherwise, he fed altogether upon the wild
24 USEFUL BIRDS.
products of forest, meadow, sea, lake, or river. The only
creatures that he then could regard as injurious were those
that attacked his own person or the persons of his family.
Any irruption of animals, such as vast herds of deer, bison,
or antelopes, hordes of monkeys or rats, flights of birds or
locusts, outbreaks of caterpillars or other creatures, was
about as likely to benefit as to injure him. For instance,
when locusts became so numerous as to destroy a part or all
of his vegetable food, he followed the example of other
creatures, and, by feeding for the time on the superabundant
locusts, exerted an influence toward restoring the balance
of nature. (There are still savage tribes in various parts
of the earth that eat monkeys, rats, locusts, grubs, or
caterpillars. )
In times of plenty primitive man feasted, as did other
animals ; and in times of want, like them, he starved. But
usually he was indifferent to any ordinary injury done to the
animal or vegetable life around him, .as he owned no prop-
erty, and could readily move his camp from a region of
want to one of plenty.
CHANGED RELATIONS PRODUCED BY AGRICULTURE.
With the beginning of agricultural practice, however, all
this was changed. When man began to domesticate animals,
he faced immediately a host of enemies. Wild animals and
birds attacked his cattle, horses, sheep, goats, and hogs, or
devoured their young. Tormenting insects stampeded his
herds, or carried disease and death among them. His poul-
try were decimated by scores of rapacious animals. When
he began to plant seed and raise grain, both his growing
and his garnered crops were attacked by a host of ene-
mies; for now he had begun to disturb nature’s balance,
and nature asserted herself in the effort to resume her inter-
rupted sway. This was the beginning of a war with nature
which will never cease so long as man inhabits the earth ;
for the agriculturist does not work altogether with nature,
but largely against her. Most of the animal and vegetable
forms that he produces are at variance with those produced
by nature, and must be continually fostered and protected
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 25
if they are to maintain their artificial characters and excel-
lences. Left to themselves, the various breeds of domesti-
cated Pigeons would all disappear, merging into the original
Dove from whence they sprang. All artificial varieties of
animals, plants, and fruits would, under nature, become, in
time, like the wild stock from which they originated. Hence
man must wage war continually against organic nature, in
order to maintain his artificial standards against her inex-
orable laws.
The beginning of agriculture was the first step toward
civilization as well, for the necessity of remaining near his
crops to guard them from their enemies compelled the prim-
itive farmer to erect a permanent habitation. This took his
attention from war and the chase, for much of his time was
now occupied in tilling the soil and caring for his crops and
animals.
- The slow growth of primitive agriculture in the older
civilized countries gave time for a gradual adjustment of the
forces of nature to the new conditions established and main-
tained by man. The gradual or partial clearing away of the
forests occupied centuries. The planting of crops merely
kept pace with the natural increase of population, while
the destruction of wild animals and their replacement with
domesticated species were similarly gradual and progressive.
So, although in the older countries agriculture suffered much
from the pests to which its operations must always give rise,
it remained for the peopling of newer lands to develop the
greatest difficulties in the path of the farmer.
Agriculture produces an increased food supply. The
population increases correspondingly, and the overflow seeks
new fields. In these new lands, of which America is the
most prominent example, the conditions of civilization and
agriculture have replaced with marked rapidity those of
savagery and primeval nature.
MAN AT WAR WITH NATURE IN THE NEW WORLD.
All the greater changes that were effected gradually by
man in Europe, where, in the course of centuries, civiliza-
tion was slowly evolved from savagery, —all these stupen-
26 USEFUL BIRDS.
dous changes, — were wrought here in a few years by the
tide of immigration from the eastern world.
Tn many communities only a score of years elapsed be-
tween the subjugation of the unbroken wilderness and the
building of a farming town or growing city. In Massachu-
setts the settlers cut down the forest; killed off most of the
larger mammals and birds ; imported and bred horses, cattle,
and poultry ; cleared and planted much of the arable land ;
introduced many new plants; and rapidly changed the ap-
pearance of the country from that of a wilderness to that of
an agricultural colony. Thirty years after the landing of
the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth, eastern Massachusetts was
well colonized; with several growing seaport towns; with
prosperous farms, fertile fields and green pastures; with
flocks and herds grazing on many a hill, where the wild
Indian and the red deer formerly roamed.
All these changes, taking place so rapidly, produced great
disturbances in the economy of nature. As the wolf, lynx,
puma, and bear were killed or driven away, the smaller
animals on which they had formerly preyed increased in
numbers and attacked the crops. Crows, Blackbirds, and
many insects, finding in the grain crops new sources of food
supply, swarmed upon them and multiplied exceedingly.
Birds and insects attacked the cultivated fruit. Thousands
of acres of cleared meadow land were producing crops of
grass. Given this increased food supply, locusts and other
grass-eating insects increased in numbers. The settlers,
meantime, were destroying the Heath Hen, Quail, Plover,
Blackbirds, Hawks, and Crows, the natural enemies of the
locusts. As time went on, many new plants were introduced
from Europe, and in some cases insect pests unwittingly
were brought with them. The two succeeding centuries
brought about a tremendous immigration from Europe. As
settlement extended into the western States, great fields of
wheat and other grains were established, covering the plains
in some instances as far as the eye could see. Hundreds of
thousands of acres were planted to orchards and vineyards;
great areas near the cities were devoted to garden vegetables ;
north and south, corn, wheat, and cotton clothed the land.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 27
THE INCREASE OF INSECT PESTS.
Insects introduced from foreign lands found here a para-
dise, in which to multiply, in the great areas planted year
after year to the same crops. Having escaped their native
enemies, they had come to an abundance of food in a land
where many of the insect-eating birds and other insectivo-
rous animals had been much reduced in number by the unwise
policy of the settlers. Hence the rate of increase of im-
ported insect pests in America has far exceeded that of the
same insects in their native lands.
Certain native American insects, finding their food plants
destroyed by the cutting down of the forests or thé break-
ing up of the prairie, turned their attention to the crops
of the farmer, and became important pests.
Such are the cutworms (Noctuide) ; : their
name is legion. Others, having been reached
in their desert or mountain homes by the
advance of civilization, left their natural food
for the more succulent plants raised by man,
and so spread over the country from farm pig. 14.—cninch
to farm. Such are the chinch bug and the ce a en.
Colorado potato beetle, which, as civilization
advanced westward, met it and spread toward the east.
The enormous losses which have occurred in the United
States from the destruction of growing crops by insects must
seem incredible to those who do not realize how vast are the
numbers of insects, how stupendous their power of multi-
plication, how insatiable their voracity.
When we fully appreciate the consuming powers of insects,
they assume an economic importance greater than can be
accorded to the ravening beast of prey. Let us consider
briefly, then, the potency for evil that lies hidden in the tiny
but innumerable eggs of injurious insects, which require only
the warmth of the summer sun to release from confinement
their destructive energies.
28 USEFUL BIRDS.
THE NUMBER OF INSECTS.
The number of insect species is greater by far than that
of the species of all other living creatures combined. More
than three hundred thousand have been described. There
are many thousands of undescribed species in museums.
Dr. Lintner, the late distinguished State entomologist of
New York, considered it not improbable that there were a
million species of insects. The number of individual insects
is beyond human comprehension or computation.
Dr. Lintner says that he saw at a glance, in a small extent
of roadway near Albany, more individuals of a single species
of snow flea, as computed by him, than there are human
beings on the entire face of the earth. A small cherry tree
ten feet in height was found by Dr. Fitch to be infested with
an aphid or plant louse. He estimated (first counting the
number of these insects on a leaf, the number of leaves on a
branch and the number of branches on the tree) that there
were twelve million plant lice on the tree; and this was only
one tree of a row similarly infested. To give the reader an
approximate idea of the number of insects on the tree, it
was stated that, were a man to count them singly and as
rapidly as he could speak, it would require eleven months’
labor at ten hours a day to complete the enumeration.!
In the days of their abundance the Rocky Mountain locusts
in flight filled the air and hid the sun. From the high peaks
of the Sierra Nevada they were seen filling the valleys below
and the air above as far as a powerful field glass could bring
the insects within focus. The chinch bug in countless mil-
lions infests the grain fields over towns, counties, and States.
The army worm moves at times in solid masses, destroying
the crops in its path.
THE REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF INSECTS.
Insects are enormously productive, and, were the progeny
of one pair allowed to reproduce without check, they would
cover, in time, the entire habitable earth.
” Our Insect Enemies, by J. A. Lintner. Sixteenth Annual Report, New
Jersey State Board of Agriculture, 1888-89, pp. 293, 294.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 29
The rapidity of propagation shown by some insects is per-
haps without a parallel in the animal world.
In order to give some idea of the powers of multiplication
of the Colorado potato beetle, the Canadian
Entomologist states that all its transformations
are effected in fifty days; so that the result of
a single pair, if allowed to increase without
molestation, would in one season amount to Meee ais
over sixty millions.} beetle.
Speaking of the great power of multiplication shown by
plant lice or aphids, Dr. Lintner says that Professor Riley,
in his studies of the hop vine aphis (Phorodon humuli),
has observed thirteen generations of the species in the
year. Now, if we assume the average number of young
produced by each female to be one hundred, and that every
individual attains maturity and produces its full complement
of young (which, however, never occurs in nature), the
number of the twelfth brood alone (not counting those of
all of the preceding broods of the same year) would be
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (ten sextillions) of indi-
viduals. Where, as in this instance, figures fail to convey
any adequate conception of numbers, let us take space and
the velocity of light as measures. Were this brood mar-
shalled in line with ten individuals to a linear inch touching
one another, the procession would extend to the sun (a space
which light traverses in eight minutes), and beyond it to the
nearest fixed star (traversed by light only in six years), and
still onward in space beyond the most distant star that the
strongest telescope may bring to our view, — to a point so
inconceivably remote that light could only reach us from it
in twenty-five hundred years.
The remotest approach to such unchecked multiplication
on the part of this insect might paralyze the hop-growing
industry in one season. While the aphids may represent
the extreme of fecundity, there are thousands of insect
species the unchecked increase of any one of which would
soon overrun a continent. Mr. A. H. Kirkland has com-
1 Report of Townend Glover, entomologist, in Annual Report of the United
States Commissioner of Agriculture, 1871, p. 74.
30 USEFUL BIRDS.
puted that the unrestricted increase of the gipsy moth would
be so great that the progeny of one pair would be numerous
enough in eight years to devour all the foliage in the United
States.
THE VORACITY OF INSECTS.
Many insects are remarkably destructive because of the
enormous amount of food which they must consume to grow
rapidly to maturity. Many caterpillars daily eat twice their
weight of leaves; which is as if an ox were to devour, every
twenty-four hours, three-quarters of a ton of grass.1
This voracity and rapid growth may be shown by the
statement of a few facts. A certain flesh-feeding larva will
consume in twenty-four hours two hundred times its original
weight ; a parallel to which, in the human race, would be an
infant consuming, in the first day of its existence, fifteen
hundred pounds of food. There are vegetable feeders,
caterpillars, which during their progress to maturity, within
thirty days, increase in size ten thousand times. To equal
this remarkable growth, a man at his maturity would have
to weigh forty tons. In view of such statements, need we
wonder that the insect world is so destructive and so potent
a power for harm ??
Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, who introduced the gipsy moth
into this country, was occupied for some time in raising
silkworms in Medford, Mass. He made a special study of
the American silkworm (Telea polyphemus). Regarding its
food and growth he says :—
It is astonishing how rapidly the larva grows, and one who has had
no experience in the matter could hardly believe what an amount of
food is devoured by these little creatures. One experiment which I
made can give some idea of it. When the young worm hatches out, it
1 A probable cause for this voracity in the case of herbivorous larve is that the
stomachs do not have the power of dissolving the vegetable matter received into
them, but merely of extracting from it a juice. This is proved both by their
excrement, which consists of coiled-up and hardened particles of leaf, which,
when put into water, expand like tea, and by the great proportion which the
excrement bears to the quantity of food consumed (Kirby and Spence’s Ento-
mology, p. 259).
? Our Insect Enemies, by J. A. Lintner. Sixteenth Annual Report, New
Jersey State Board of Agriculture, 1888-89, p. 295,
PLATE I.--The American Silkworm Moth (Telea polyphemus).
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 31
weighs one-twentieth of a grain; when ten days old, it weighs one-half
a grain, or ten times the original weight; when twenty days old, it
weighs three grains, or sixty times the original weight ; when thirty days
old, it weighs thirty-one grains, or six hundred and twenty times the
original weight; when forty days old, it weighs ninety grains, or eight-
een hundred times the original weight; and when fifty-six days old, it
weighs two hundred and seven grains, or forty-one hundred and forty
times the original weight.
When a worm is thirty days old, it will have consumed about ninety
grains of food; but when fifty-six days old it is fully grown, and has
consumed not less than one hundred and twenty*oak leaves, weighing
three-fourths of a pound; besides this, it has drunk not less than one-
half an ounce of water. So the food taken by a single silkworm in
fifty-six days equals in weight eighty-six thousand times the primitive
weight of the worm. Of this, about one-fourth of a pound becomes
excrementitious matter, two hundred and seven grains are assimilated,
and over five ounces have evaporated. What a destruction of leaves
this single species of insect could make, if only a one-hundredth part
of the eggs laid came to maturity! A few years would be sufficient for
the propagation of a number large enough to devour all the leaves of
our forests.!
When we consider the dangers arising from the immense
numbers, fecundity and voracity of insects, the fact that
insects new to cultivated crops are continually appearing
becomes a source of grave apprehension.
THE GREAT LOSS TO AMERICAN AGRICULTURE BY
INSECT RAVAGES.
Economic entomologists, who are constantly increasing
our knowledge regarding insect pests, discover every year
new species attacking important crops or trees. Dr. Lintner
made a list of the insects injuring apple trees in the United
States, which was published in the appendix to his first
report as entomologist of New York State. It contained
one hundred and seventy-six species, while large though
lesser numbers have been found on the plum, pear, peach,
and cherry.
The study of the insect enemies of the forest trees of the
United States has not yet progressed far enough to deter-
1 The American Silkworm, by L. Trouvelot. American Naturalist, Vol. I,
p. 85.
32 USEFUL BIRDS.
mine with approximate accuracy the numbers of insects that
infest our forest trees. The forest insects of some sections
of Europe have been studied longer, and the numbers of in-
sects found injuring the principal trees are surprising. Kal-
tenbach enumerates five hundred and thirty-seven species
of insects, from central Europe, injurious to the oak; to the
elm he ascribes one hundred and seven. The poplars feed
two hundred and sixty-four species; the willows harbor
three hundred and ninety-six ; the birches, two hundred and
seventy; the alder, one hundred and nineteen; the beech,
one hundred and fifty-four; the hazel, ninety-seven; and
the hornbeam, eighty-ecight. Among the coniferous trees,
the pines, larch, spruce, and fir, collectively, are attacked
by two hundred and ninety-nine species of insects.1
Dr. Packard enumerated over four hundred species which
prey upon our oaks, and believed it not improbable that
ultimately the number of species found on the oaks of the
United States would be from six hundred to eight hundred
or even one thousand.?
The list of insects which feed on grasses, cereals, field and
garden crops is very large and constantly growing, for it is
continually receiving accessions from both native and foreign
sources. The destructiveness of some of these insects is so
enormous and widespread that the financial loss resulting
therefrom amounts to a heavy annual tax on the people of
the United States. Hence since the first settlement of the
country the amount of this annual tax has been increasing.
In 1854 the loss in New York State alone from the ravages ,
of the insignificant wheat midge (Diéplosis tritic’), as esti-
mated by the secretary of the New York State Agricultural
Society, was fifteen million dollars. Whole fields of wheat
were left ungarnered. So destructive was this insect in the
following years as to stop the raising of white wheat, and
reduce the value of all wheat lands forty per cent.®
1 Die Pflanzenfeinde aus der Klasse der Insekten.
? Insects Injurious to Forest and Shade Trees, by A. S. Packard. Fifth Report
of the United States Entomological Commission, 1886-90, p. 48.
3 Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, by A. S. Packard. Ninth Annual
Report of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territo-
ries, 1875, p. 709.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 33
In 1856, in Livingston County, New York, two thousand
acres on flats which would have yielded thirty bushels of
wheat per acre were not harvested because of the destruc-
tive work of this insect.1
Dr. C. L. Marlatt, of the Bureau of Entomology of the
United States Department of Agriculture, who has made
careful calculations of the loss. still
occasioned by the Hessian fly (Cecido-
myta destructor) in the wheat-growing
States, says that in comparatively few
years does it cause a loss of less than
ten per cent. of the crop. On the val-
uation of the crop of 1904 this would
amount to over fifty million dollars.
Dr. Marlatt states that in the year 1900
the loss in the wheat-growing States Figs 16.“ iaadtinn ay,
from this tiny midge undoubtedly ap- ee
proached one hundred million dollars.?
The chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) attacks many staple
crops, and has been a seriously destructive pest in the
Mississippi valley States for many years, where it injures
chiefly wheat and corn. Dr. Shimer in his notes on this
insect estimates the loss caused by it in the Mississippi
valley in 1864 at one hundred million dollars,? while Dr..
Riley gives the loss in that year as seventy-three million
dollars in Illinois alone.t These are only a few of the
extreme losses. Year after year the injuries from the
depredations of this bug have amounted to many millions
of dollars.
The cotton worm (Alabama argillacea) has been known
as a serious pest to the cotton crop for more than a century.
The average loss in the cotton States from this caterpillar
* First Annual Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New
York, by J. A. Lintner, 1882, p. 6.
2 The Annual Loss occasioned by Destructive Insects in the United States, by
C. L. Marlatt. Yearbook, United States Department of Agriculture, 1904, p. 467.
3 Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, by A. S. Packard. Ninth Annual
Report of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories,
1875, p. 697.
4 First Annual Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New
York, by J. A. Lintner, 1882, p. 7.
34 USEFUL BIRDS.
for fourteen years following the civil war was estimated at
fifteen million dollars per year.
In 1873 the injury to the cotton crop reached twenty-five
million dollars, and later averaged from twenty-five million
to fifty million dollars annually.2- Now a new enemy, the
Mexican cotton boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis), threatens
equal destruction.
The Rocky Mountain locust (Melanoplus spretus) began
to destroy crops as soon as the country it inhabits was set-
tled, and is still injurious. From time to time its enormous
flights have traversed a great part of the Mississippi valley.
It reached a maximum of destructiveness from 1874 to 1877,
when the total loss from its ravages in Kansas, Nebraska,
Iowa, Missouri, and neighboring States, including injury by
depression of business and general ruin, was estimated at
two hundred million dollars.?
In those years this devastating insect swept over the Missis-
sippi valley. Wherever its vast flights alighted or its young
developed, they destroyed nearly all vegetation, ruining
great numbers of farmers, causing a famine in the land, and
driving many people to emigration. This was an extreme
calamity, such as is not likely to occur again.
A still larger but more widely distributed loss from insect
pests, however, is still borne annually by the American
people. Dr. Lintner states his belief that the annual and
periodical injury caused by cutworms in the United States
is greater than that caused by the Rocky Mountain locust.
In September, 1868, Prof. D. B. Walsh, editor of the
American Entomologist, estimated that the country then
suffered to the amount of three hundred million dollars
annually from the depredations of noxious insects. By the
census of 1875 the agricultural products of this country were
valued at two billion, five hundred million dollars. Of this
* Fourth Report of the United States Entomological Commission, by C. V.
Riley, 1885, p. 3.
? Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, by A. S. Packard. Ninth Annual
Report of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Terri-
tories, 1875, p. 591.
* Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, by Riley, Packard, and Thomas.
First Report of the United States Entomological Commission, 1877, pp. 115~122.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 35
amount, Dr. Packard says that in all probability we annually
lose over two hundred million dollars from the attacks of
injurious insects. In the report of the Department of Agri-
culture for 1884 (p. 324) the losses occasioned by insects
injurious to agriculture in the United States, it is said, are
variously estimated at from three hundred million to four
hundred million dollars annually.
Prof. C. V. Riley, in response to a letter of inquiry, in
1890, stated that no very recent estimate of the injury done
by insects had been made; but that he had estimated, some
time previously, that the injury done to crops in the United
States by insects exceeded three hundred million dollars
annually.
Dr. James Fletcher, in his annual address as president of
the Society of Economic Entomologists, in Washington, in
1891, stated that the agricultural products of the United
States were then estimated at about three billion, eight hun-
dred million dollars. It was believed that a sum equal to
about one-tenth of this amount, or three hundred and eighty
million dollars, was lost annually through the ravages of
injurious insects.
It is evident that, in spite of the improved methods of
fighting insects, the aggregate loss from this source increases
in proportion as the land under cultivation increases.
The most recent estimate of the loss occasioned by insect
injury in the United States which has come to my notice is
that of Dr. C. L. Marlatt, who by careful estimates approxi-
mates the percentage of loss to cereal products, hay, cotton,
tobacco, truck crops, sugars, fruits, forests, miscellaneous
crops, animal products, and products in storage.
Dr. Marlatt attributes an annual loss of eighty million
dollars to the corn crop alone, and approximates the loss to
the wheat crop at one hundred million dollars each year.
The injury to the hay crop is estimated at five hundred and
thirty thousand dollars, while the codling moth alone is be-
lieved to injure fruit crops to the amount of twenty million
dollars annually.
This statement, based on the value of farm products as
given in the reports of the Bureau of Statistics of the United
36 USEFUL BIRDS.
States Department of Agriculture for 1904, gives the loss
from insect depredations for that year as seven hundred and
ninety-five million, one hundred thousand dollars; and this
is believed to be a conservative estimate of the tax now im-
posed by injurious insects on the people of the United States,
without reckoning the millions of dollars that are expended
annually in labor and insecticides in the fight against insects.+
LOSSES BY INSECT RAVAGES IN MASSACHUSETTS.
The proportion of this loss that Massachusetts is called
upon to bear has not received the attention that it deserves.
Some figures, however, may be given. In 1861 the army
worm (probably Heliophila unipuncta) swept eastern Mas-
sachusetts. The damage done to crops, according to Dr.
Packard, exceeded five hundred thousand dollars.22 We have
no estimates of the loss occasioned by more recent invasions
of thisinsect. Prof. C. H. Fernald ® estimates that an amount
of cranberries equal to one-third the possible crop of the Cape
Cod region is annually destroyed by insects. Thus a sum
not less than five hundred thousand dollars is yearly lost to
the people of that region.
In 1890 Dr. Henry H. Goodell, president of the Massa-
chusetts Agricultural College, stated that it was costing the
farmers of the United States. two million dollars, and the
farmers of Massachusetts eighty thousand dollars, each year,
to hold the Colorado potato beetle in check by the use of
Paris green.
In 1901 Hon. J. W. Stockwell, then secretary of the
Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, asked me to esti-
mate the annual loss to the Commonwealth through the rav-
ages of insect pests. My estimate, which seemed to me at
* The Annual Loss occasioned by Destructive Insects in the United States, by
C. L. Marlatt. Yearbook, United States Department of Agriculture, 1904, p. 464.
* First Report on Injurious and Beneficial Insects of Massachusetts, by A. S.
Packard. Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1870,
Part I, p. 353.
5 In Bulletin No. 19 of the Hatch Experiment Station of the Massachusetts
Agricultural College, Professor Fernald gives statistics of the cranberry crop,
and evidence from which his estimate is made.
* Agricultural Education, by H. H. Goodell. Sixth Annual Report of the
Rhode Island State Board of Agriculture, 1891, p. 186.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 37
the time a most safe and conservative one, was three million,
one hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Stockwell also asked
Dr. H. T. Fernald and Mr. A. H. Kirkland, both expert
economic entomologists, to make, independently, a similar
estimate. Their replies follow, showing how they made up
their figures. These gentlemen had every facility for obtain-
ing knowledge of insect injury in the Commonwealth. It
will be seen that their approximations considerably exceeded
my own. Dr. H. T. Fernald says :!—
Years ago a number of experts, figuring independently, came to the
conclusion that for farm, market-garden and orchard crops the loss by
the attacks of insects in an average year would represent one-tenth of
the value of the crop, or about two million, six hundred thousand dollars
for Massachusetts. Recently, however, prominent entomologists have
expressed the opinion that this per cent. istoolow. Three factors have
caused this change: first, the concentration of crops of the same kind
into large contiguous acreage; second, the introduction of over one
hundred pests from foreign countries, which have been here long enough
to make their presence seriously felt; and third, the great reduction in
the number of insectivorous birds. ~
I believe it will be entirely safe to take fifteen per cent. of the crop
valuation of Massachusetts, and that you will be sufficiently conserva-
tive in using that amount as representing part of the damage. I have
never scen a cherry tree killed by plant lice, yet I have often seen lice
so abundant on cherry trees as to much reduce the crop, which is true
of a large proportion of our crops; and it is loss of this kind which is
covered by the fifteen per cent. estimate, . . . but how are we to place
a money value on the defoliation of an elm tree unless it be repeated
year after year until the tree dies? I would be inclined to add, to the
fifteen per cent. estimate already given, two hundred and fifty thousand
dollars for labor, apparatus, poison, etc., used in the fight against
insects, and another two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to cover
damage actually done, but which cannot be reduced to figures, making
a total yearly damage of four million, four hundred thousand dollars for
Massachusetts.
Mr. Kirkland says : ! —
The best figures available for estimating the loss caused by pests in
this State are those of the 1895 census. From the report of this census
T have taken figures giving the value of certain crops notably attacked
‘ Report of Secretary J. W. Stockwell, Annual Report of the Massachusetts
State Board of Agriculture, 1901, pp. xiii, xiv.
38 USEFUL BIRDS.
by insects, and have estimated in each case the probable average yearly
rednetion in value caused by these pests. The data used are given be-
low. Ihave tried to make a conservative estimate in the case of each
product, since, to have any value, such an estimate should fall below
rather than above the actual amount. Even then the figures afford
material for serious reflection on the part of agriculturists.
Percentage
Value Amount
Baoouers of Product. coma: of Damage.
Greenhouse products, oe} $1,749,070 10 $174,907 00
Hothouse and hotbed products, ox) tis 97,227 5 4,861 35
Nursery products, . oP Gal 182,906 15 27,435 90
Wood products,. . . Sy a) os 2,780,314 20 556,062 80
Cereal products, i ca Ss 1,104,578 5 55,228 90
Fruits, berries, and nuts, be ot os 2,850,585 25 712,646 25
Hay and fodder cues sah Ms 8 12,491,090 10 1,249,109 00
Vegetables,. . Bl. EN te 6,389,533 20 1,277,906 60
Tobacco, me ea Aa 5 Ran of 544,968 10 54,496 80
Property : —
Fruit trees, vines, etc... . . . 7,924,878 10 792,487 80
Totals, . & & & &. w $36,115,149 $4,905,142 40
Assuming the accuracy of these data, and exclusive of the damage
wrought by insects to our woodlands, street trees, parks, ete., we have
in round figures five million dollars as the average annual damage from
insects to agricultural products and property in this Commonwealth.
While the cost of insect injury is enormous, the expense
of fighting injurious insects in the attempt to protect crops
and trees from their ravages is proportionately great. In
recent years Massachusetts has had, and is still having, a
costly experience in attempting to control or suppress an
imported insect.
The gipsy moth (Porthetria dispar), a well-known pest
of European countries, was introduced into Medford, Mass.,
by Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, in 1868 or 1869. Twenty years
later the moths had increased in numbers to such an extent
that they were destroying the trees and shrubbery in that
section of Medford where they were first liberated.
They swarmed over the houses of the inhabitants, invaded
their gardens, and became such a public nuisance that in
1890 the Legislature appropriated fifty thousand dollars for
their extermination. It was learned within the next two years
that the moths had spread over thirty towns. The State
CPUBLLMIS JaIsV) ‘eo¢eT ‘eune ‘saeTTd1a380
Aq peyeyseaop ‘uojsurpry ‘yteg syooy AmojoueW, ‘qo Asdin oy} jo ssouaatjoniiseq euL—‘I] ALWId
CS68T ‘aIMgNOIS VY JO pIlvog 93819 syosntoesse 94 JO Joder
jenuue st} WOLZ) “sy1eq puelpoo~, ut yo Asdiy ay jo s33q ayy sutfosap jo yO“, sAtsusdxg — ‘TIT @ LW1d
ates
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 39
Board of Agriculture was given charge of the work in 1891,
and over one million dollars were expended within the next
ten years in the attempt to exterminate the insect. As at
the expiration of that time all the larger moth colonies had
been destroyed, the Legislature, deeming further expendi-
ture unwise, gave up the work, despite the protest of the
Board of Agriculture, and its prediction that a speedy rise
of the moth would follow the cessation of concerted effort
against it. This prediction has been abundantly fulfilled,
and the policy of the Board has been fully justified.
Dr. Marlatt, who in 1904 visited the region infested by the
moth, reported to the Bureau of Entomology at Washington
that the people of the infested district were then fighting the
insect at a greater annual cost than that formerly assumed
by the State. Since the State gave up the work, a single
citizen, Gen. Samuel C. Lawrence of Medford, has expended
over seventy-five thousand dollars to protect the trees and
plants on his estate.
Finally, in 1905 the Legislature was obliged to renew the
fight, and appropriate the sum of three hundred thousand
dollars for work against both this insect and another im-
ported pest, —the brown-tail moth (Huproctis chrysorrhea) ,
which had been introduced into Somerville some time in the
latter part of the nineteenth century.
The State has also been obliged to call on municipalities
and individuals to assist in the work of suppressing these
moths, at an annual expense to those concerned which ex-
ceeds all previous yearly expenditures for this purpose.
These insects have gained a much larger territory than
ever before, and thousands of acres of woodland have been
attacked by them during the present year (1905), and many
pine and other trees have been killed.
The gipsy moth has been found in Rhode Island, Connect-
icut, and New Hampshire, and the brown-tail moth is also
spreading into other States.
The prospect now seems to be that our protective expenses
against these two insects, as well as the injury done by them,
will increase constantly ; and that other States also will be
put to similar expense, with no prospect of permanent relief
40 USEFUL BIRDS.
save by such checks as may come, in time, through natural
causes.
In view of the dangers threatened by insect increase and
voracity, how fortunate it is for the human race that so many
counter-checks are provided against the multiplication of
these destructive creatures. If we could increase by so much
as one per cent. the efficiency of the natural enemies of
insects, a large proportion of the loss occasioned by insect
injury might be saved. Hence the importance of the study
of these natural enemies, among which birds hold a high
place,
THE CAPACITY OF BIRDS FOR DESTROYING PESTS.
When we realize the losses that insects are capable of in-
flicting, we see at once that birds, in their capacity of insect
destroyers, continually operate to prevent the destruction of
some of our most important industries. If birds are present
in sufficient numbers, they will prevent the excessive increase
of any kind of a pest which they will eat.
The number of birds required: to accomplish this highly
desirable end need not be very large in comparison with the
number of insects; for each bird can devour an incredible
number of insects, and the young birds in the nests require
more of this food, in proportion to their size, than do their
parents.
The Digestion of Birds.
The digestive organs of birds are so constructed and
equipped that they can both contain and dispose of a very
large quantity of food. The stomachs of many species
quickly separate the indigestible portions of the food from
the digestible parts, and the former are thrown out of the
mouth, thus relieving the stomach of much worthless mate-
rial, and enabling the bird immediately to consume more
food. The alimentary canal (including the crop, gullet or
cesophagus, the first division of the stomach or proventricu-
lus, the gizzard, gigerium or second division of the stomach,
the intestine and the cloaca) consists of a tube reaching from
mouth to anus, conveying the food. The nutritious qualities
of the food are drawn off by the lacteals as it passes; the
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 41
refuse is voided. Thisis digestion. The food is often manip-
ulated, crushed, or divided by the beak. It then receives
saliva from the mouth, and passes through the pharynx into
either the gullet (a muscular and membranous tube) or crop
(a pouch), as the case may be, organs capable
of great distention, and connecting with the
first division of the stomach. MHere, then,
is the first receptacle of the food. Birds
of prey, Herons and some other large birds
sometimes fill the gullet to the very mouth,
while awaiting the digestion of the food in
a stomach already full. The Pelicans have
also another great receptacle or pouch, ex-
ternal and beneath the beak, where a store
of food can be carried. Many of the smaller
birds also are able, after filling the stomach,
to stow away a still larger supply of food
in the gullet. The stomach is large, and
usually capable, by distention, of contain-
ing a considerable quantity of food. The 2-92
food passes from the gullet or the crop to pig, ie ‘Alimen-
the proventriculus or glandular portion of — tary canal of Bluc-
bird, reduced; after
the stomach. This is where the process Auduvon. a,,gu!-
of digestion begins. Mixed with salivary, ee
ingluvial, and proventricular secretions, the eens fb in-
food next passes to the gizzard or muscular re ;
division of the stomach, where the food grist is ground fine.
Among seed-eating birds the heavy, powerful muscles of
this portion of the stomach are, with the rough, calloused
stomach lining, assisted in their work by sand and gravel
which are swallowed. This mineral matter takes the place
of teeth in grinding the food.
In vegetable-feeding birds the intestine is very long and
much coiled, while the digestive tract is generally shorter
and simpler in the flesh-eating and fish-eating species. All
the processes of digestion are remarkably rapid. The sali-
vary glands, the liver and the pancreas all quickly pour their
copious secretions into the alimentary canal; the food is
chylified after impregnation with the biliary and pancreatic
42 USEFUL BIRDS.
fluids ; the chyle is drawn off by the lacteals, and the residue
is excreted. The vigor, perfection, and rapidity of these
processes in insect-eating birds are such as might be expected
among animals of such high temperature, perfect respiration,
and rapid circulation. :
The various dilations of the digestive tract serve well their
purpose of enabling the bird to consume the large amount
of food necessary for its maintenance. Digestion is partic-
ularly rapid in the growing young of most birds, for they
require not only food sufficient to sustain life, but an extra
supply as well to enable them to increase daily in size, and
to grow, in a few days, those wonderful appendages that we
call feathers.
The Growth of Young Birds.
The growth of many birds from the egg to the hour of-
flight requires less time than is needed by some insects to
reach the flight stage. It is most significant that young birds
can develop as rapidly as can many in-
sects on which they feed, for it shows how
readily, under favorable conditions, the
increase of birds might keep proportion-
f ate pace with that of insects. Weed and
= = Dearborn, in their interesting manual, en-
Fig. 18.— Young Cedar titled “Birds in their Relations to Man,”
ys
naked, blind,andhelp- state that they watched four young Song
less, with mouth open
for food. Reduced; Sparrows that were out of the nest on the
eee Teme eighth day. Mr. Owen records another
instance where a brood of young Song Sparrows were
fledged and left the nest within the same period.! Probably
this is exceptional ; but many of the smaller birds rear their
young from the egg to the first flight within two or three
weeks. Mr. Owen found that on one particular day this
family of five young Song Sparrows increased in average
weight forty-eight per cent., while the smallest bird gained
fifty-five per cent. in a single day.
The young of perching birds (Insessores) come into the
world tiny creatures, either naked or covered with down,
' A Family of Nestlings, by D. E. Owen. The Auk, Vol. XVI, No. 3, July,
1899, pp. 221-225.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 43
blind, and helpless; yet in a few days, or at most a few
weeks, they havé grown to nearly the size of their parents,
and produced a perfect
suit of feathers, including
the strong quills of wings
and tail. In a few weeks
more they are able to
begin a journey of hun-
dreds or thousands of
miles over land and sea,
in their first migration.
The young of precocial
birds, such as Grouse,
Snipe and Plover, are
able to run about soon
after they are hatched. i
Young Grouse learn to fly Fig. 19.— Young Cedar Birds, less than three
when quite small, but they eee
develop more slowly than do the young of the smaller
altricial birds. It is difficult, therefore, to determine the
amount of food they
require, as they leave
the nest at once and
wander from place to
place, picking up
their own food.
The young of the
altricial perching
birds, however, re-
main quite helpless in
the nest until nearly
fledged, affording an
Fig. 20.— Young Grouse, just from the egg, but able excellent opportunity
NS: for the investigator
to determine the amount and character of their food, and
to watch the progress of their development. We can learn
how much food such young birds require by feeding them
in confinement.
44 USEFUL BIRDS.
The Amount of Food required by Young Birds.
It seems necessary to the health and comfort of the nest-
ling bird that its stomach be filled with food during most
of the day. Nearly half a century ago Prof. D. Treadwell
called attention to the great
food requirements of the
young Robin. Two young’
birds from the nest were
selected for his experiment.
. LL One soon died of starvation,
c- as the supply of food given
Sey —7_ them at first was much too
DoS small. The food of the re-
SS ee maining bird was gradually
Fig. 21.— A young Woodcock, ready to jncreased from day to day,
leave the nest. $ :
until on the seventh day it
was given thirty-one angleworms; but there was no increase
in its weight until, on the fourteenth day, it received sixty-
eight worms, weighing, all told, thirty-four pennyweights.!
Later the same bird ate x
nearly one-half its own
weight of beef in a day.
A young man eating at
this rate would consume
about seventy pounds of
beefsteak daily. The
Robin even when full
grown required one-third
of its weight of beef
daily.
Mr. Charles W. Nash fed a young Robin from fifty to
seventy cutworms and earthworms a day for fifteen days.
While experimenting to see how many cutworms the bird
would eat in a day, he fed it five and one-half ounces of this
food, or one hundred and sixty-five cutworms. As the
Robin weighed but three ounces in the morning, it must
We ae,
Fig. 22.— Young Robins, in the nest.
* The Food of Young Robins, by D. Treadwell. Proceedings of the Boston
Society of Natural History, Vol. VI, pp. 396-399.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 45
have eaten, during the day, a quantity one and five-sixths
times its own weight.!
Three young Robins, about ten days old, fed by their
parents, were watched by Weed and Dearborn. By an in-
genious method of weighing and calculating, the observers
arrived at the conclusion that apparently there was eaten a
daily amount equal to more than half the birds’ own weight.?
Mr. Daniel E. Owen kept a young Hermit Thrush, which
ate regularly half its weight of raw steak daily, and would,
he says, probably have eaten as much more had it been fed
oftener.?
In 1895 two young Crows were kept and fed by Messrs.
A. H. Kirkland and H. A. Ballou, then my assistants, from
August 7 to September 2, when one bird was killed by
accident. The survivor was kept until September 14, when
it was killed to determine some points regarding digestion.
These birds were confined in a large cage or enclosure in an
insectary, and were also allowed access during the day to
an enclosed yard, which they reached through the window.
This gave them considerable exercise.
A careful record was kept of most of their food. Never-
theless, they occasionally picked up some sprouted grain in
the yard, and probably a few insects that could not be re-
corded or weighed. For this reason the quantity of the daily
food supply recorded is probably, on the average, too low,
or, in other words, on the safe side. Some of the smaller
animals fed to the birds (toads, frogs, and salamanders) were
not always weighed, but they were measured and could be
compared with others of known weight, so that the weight
was approximated closely.
The birds were well grown when they were first received ;
but the amount of food at first given them probably was not
sufficient for their needs, as their weight did not increase,
although they were fed a variety of both vegetal and animal
1 Birds of Ontario in their Relation to Agriculture, by Charles W. Nash.
Toronto, Department of Agriculture, 1898, p. 22.
? Birds in their Relations to Man, by Clarence M. Weed and Ned Dearborn,
1903, p. 65.
5 Notes on a Captive Hermit Thrush, by Daniel E. Owen. The Auk, Vol.
XIV, No. 1, January, 1897, pp. 1-8.
46 USEFUL BIRDS.
food. They were designated by number. On August 20
No. 1 weighed seventeen ounces and No. 2 fourteen ounces.
That day the two birds had two ounces of tomato, five ounces
of sweet corn, fifty grasshoppers (about three-fourths of an
ounce), —in all, nearly eight ounces, —and they also had free
access to some grain in the yard. As their weight remained
the same, they were fed the next day one-half ounce of
tomato, one ounce of corn, one ounce of muskmelon, five
ounces of meat, one ounce of beets, and fifty grasshoppers,
—in all, fully nine ounces. An apple also was eaten to
some extent, and there was still some grain in the yard.
Nevertheless, each bird lost about an ounce in weight that
day.
They were fed at about the same rate the following day,
and, as they were losing weight, they were given on the
23d two ounces of melon, all the grasshoppers that could be
collected near their place of confinement, four frogs, a sala-
mander, two ounces of tomato, and five ounces of corn. On
this diet the Crows regained some of the weight they had
lost, weighing the next morning sixteen and one-half and
thirteen and one-half ounces respectively. On the 24th they
were fed more than twelve ounces, and the larger bird lost
half an ounce and the smaller gained about the same weight.
On the 25th they received over seventeen ounces of food,
the smaller bird gaining another half ounce and the larger
bird remaining the same. No. 1 now weighed sixteen ounces
and No. 2 fourteen and one-half ounces. The next day,
with twelve ounces of food, the smaller bird lost one-half
ounce and the larger bird made no gain. Evidently where
any gain was made by one bird on this amount of food the
bird either got more than its share, or found some food in
the yard.
On August 28 nearly twenty-seven ounces of food were
given. This was all vegetal matter except thirty grass-
hoppers (one-third of an ounce). J¢ was all eaten, and
apparently all needed, for neither bird increased in weight,
No. 1 losing half an ounce. It seemed evident throughout
the experiment that the birds required much animal food,
and when vegetal food alone was given, a larger amount
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 47
than usual was needed. The next day about twenty ounces
of food, containing a large proportion of animal matter, were
given; and on August 30 the larger bird had again regained
its weight of seventeen ounces, while the other held its own.
So far the experiment seemed to show that when they were
fed from twenty to twenty-five ounces of a ration containing
both animal and vegetable food the birds held their own or
gained slightly ; but if fed less than twenty ounces of this
ration, one or both of the birds fell off in weight.
After the death of one bird the other and all its food were
weighed daily. All opportunity to secure scattered grain or
other food than that weighed was denied. The greatest
weight reached by this bird was eighteen and one-half ounces
on September 13, on which date it was fed as much corn,
cucumber, and tomato as it cared to eat, also a frog, two
toads, twenty-seven grasshoppers, thirty-one borers, eight
beetles, and eighteen crickets. The record of the twelve
days during which this bird was alone seems to show that
less than eight ounces of food daily was hardly sufficient for
its needs, as on a less amount it tended to lose in weight,
while when the amount was increased to ten ounces or more
the tendency toward a daily gain in weight was marked.
When the quantity of food given these birds was largely
reduced in any one day, there was a corresponding reduction
in their weight. On September 13 the larger Crow was given
only two ounces of tomato, fifty-six grasshoppers, twelve
crickets, and a little grain, —in all, not much over three
ounces of food. The next morning it had lost one and
one-half ounces in weight. The fact that a bird, while in
confinement and without a great amount of exercise, could
lose nearly ten per cent. of its weight in a single day, even
when fed a quantity of food equal to about one-sixth its
weight, shows how dependent birds are upon their supply
of food.
If this single experiment can be regarded as conclusive,
we may assume that young Crows, when fledged, absolutely
require a daily amount of food equal to about one-half their
own weight; and it is evident that they will consume much
more than this to their own advantage if they can get it. It
48 USEFUL BIRDS.
seems quite probable that a young bird at liberty, depend-
ing largely on its own exertions to procure food, and thus
exercising more than in confinement, would require still
more food to repair the consequent extra waste of the
tissues.
Others have made similar experiments with Crows in con-
finement. Samuels says that he has kept specimens in cap-
tivity, and has proved by observation that at least eight
ounces of such food as frogs, fish, etc.; are eaten daily by
our common Crow. He says that a Crow can live on a very
limited allowance, but believes eight ounces to be a reasonable
amount. He leaves us to infer that he is speaking of adult
Crows, which undoubtedly require less food than their grow-
ing young.!
Weed and Dearborn kept a wounded adult Crow in a small
box, twelve by thirteen by twenty inches. In these cramped
quarters, where the bird could hardly stretch its wings, it
ate fish for three days in succession at the rate of four and
eighty-three hundredths ounces per day,—more than a
quarter of its own weight, or about half what our young
Crows ordinarily required.”
Probably the amount of food eaten by this captive bears
about the same proportion to the quantity eaten by a vigor-
ous Crow at liberty that the food taken by a prisoner in
solitary confinement, or that consumed by a sedentary clerk,
bears to the amount required by a strong man at hard labor,
or by a prize-fighter in training.
The amount of food taken by young birds could not be
disposed of by such limited powers of digestion as are given
to other animals. What a wonderful contrast is presented
between the quantity of food required by the hot-blooded,
quick-pulsing, active bird, and that needed by the cold-
blooded vertebrates. Many reptiles can live for months
without food. Even some of the mammals do not eat at
all during their hibernation.
1 Birds of New England, by Edward A. Samuels, 1870, p. 359.
2 Birds in their Relations to Man, by Clarence M. Weed and Ned Dearborn,
1903, p. 61.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 49
The Time required for Assimilation of Food.
If we assume that the stomach and cesophagus of a young
Crow can contain but an ounce of food, then the bird would
be required to digest from eight to twelve meals a day,
according to its appetite and opportunity. The question at
once arises, How can any digestive system complete such a
task? Experiments were made with our young Crows to
determine the time required for
digestion. The birds were kept
without food until the stomach
and intestines were empty.
They were then fed insects’ eggs,
in the belief that some parts of
the shells would escape the grind-
ing processes of the stomach and
be voided in the excreta. Sub-
sequent occurrences justified this
belief. Ten experiments of this
kind were made with the two
birds. Fig. 23.— Young Crows, well
From the time when the birds nee
began to feed until the time when the first eggshells were
dropped in the excreta there elapsed, on the average, one
hour, twenty-nine minutes and forty-five seconds. The
shortest time was forty-eight minutes, and the longest one
hour and fifty-four minutes. This, it should be noted, was
not merely the time that the food remained in the stomach,
but the full interval occupied in digesting and assimilating
it, for within this period at least a part of the food had
passed the entire digestive tract.
In most cases all evidence of the food used in the experi-
ment had disappeared from the excreta in from tio to two
and one-half hours. If we contrast this with the slower
digestion of man, we shall see how birds readily dispose of
more meals each day than a man is capable of digesting. To
learn how long food remains in a Crow’s stomach, it would be
necessary to kill a large number of Crows, each being killed
at a longer or shorter interval after it had filled its empty
50 USEFUL BIRDS.
stomach. I am not aware that this has ever been done, but
have no doubt that the majority of the farmers of Massachu-
setts would not object to the destruction of a considerable
number of young Crows for this purpose, or any other.
The Crow which was accidentally killed had fed freely
upon grasshoppers for twenty minutes, and died ten minutes
after the close of the feeding period. An examination of
the alimentary canal showed the stomach to be quite full,
but less than fifty per cent. of its contents, consisting mainly
of the hard parts of wings, thoraces, and legs, was in a con-
dition to be recognized. The strongly chitinized pronota
and hind femora of the grasshoppers offered the most resist-
ance to the digestive processes. The other fifty per cent.
of the stomach contents had been so finely divided, in the
very brief time that it had been in that receptacle, that one
would hardly have cared to express a positive opinion as
to its identity. This condition of stomach contents is not
unusual. In examining the contents of birds’ stomachs we
often find more than fifty per cent. of the food so finely
comminuted and mixed as to be practically unrecognizable.
The presence of insects in a bird’s stomach is sometimes made
known by a mere mandible or some other recognizable por-
tion, which has resisted for a time the grinding of this remark-
able digestive organ. It is significant, however, that, in the
thirty minutes intervening between the beginning of a feeding
period and death, the stomach had thoroughly pulverized
half the food eaten.
This experiment was carried further with the second Crow.
On September 14 the only food materials given the bird were
six crickets and eleven grasshoppers. These it ate within
four minutes, and thirty minutes later it was killed.
Only about twenty-five per cent. of the stomach contents
was recognizable, but this is not all. The alimentary canal
was thirty-six inches in length, and in the intestine at a
distance of from twelve to fifteen inches from the stomach,
and again at twenty-five to twenty-eight inches from that
organ, were found a few small pieces of the fore wings of the
grasshoppers. As the bird had not been fed since 4 o’clock
in the afternoon of the previous day, these remains probably
(Photograph by
eyed Vireo feeding Young.
PLATE IV.— Red-
A. Reed.)
C
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 51
came from the insects fed to it not more than thirty-three
minutes before it was killed.
In summing up the results, Mr. Kirkland says: “I think,
from what we have seen, that we might expect to find the
gizzard empty in from one to one and one-half hours.”
Such an experiment should be carried further, but enough
was learned to show that the stomach of a young Crow prob-
ably can be filled with food and emptied of the digested
material from eight to twelve times a day during the long
days of midsummer, when their appetites are at their best.
Digestion in some of the smaller birds is doubtless even
more rapid, for they are enabled to dispose of a still larger
amount of food in proportion to their size. Mr. Owen in-
forms us that the time required for a blueberry to traverse
the digestive tract of his Hermit Thrush was practically an
hour and a half. Mr. C. J. Maynard once told me that in
a similar experiment a Cedar Bird passed the residue of food
within thirty minutes after the food was taken. Weed and
Dearborn found that a blackberry was digested by a young
Cedar Bird in half an hour.
The Number of Insects eaten by Young Birds in the Nest.
The remarkable appetites of young birds keep their de-
voted parents very busy supplying food most of the time
from morning till night. The mother bird spends practically
all her time either in searching for food, brooding, protect-
ing, and feeding the young, or cleaning the nest (for all the
smaller birds that nest openly are obliged to dispose of the
excreta of their young, that it may neither befoul the nest
nor betray its location to their enemies). Most of the visits
made by the old birds to the nest during the day are for the
dual purpose of feeding the young and keeping the nest
clean. Records kept of the number of these visits show
the industry of the parent birds and the food capacity of
the young.
My assistant, Mr. F. H. Mosher, watched a pair of Red-
eyed Vireos feeding their young on June 13, 1899. There
were three nestlings, about one day old. At this early age
the young of most small birds are fed mainly by regur-
52 USEFUL BIRDS.
gitation. The parent birds swallow the food, and probably
soften or partly digest it, ejecting it afterwards through their
own mouths into the open mouths of the young. No attempt
was made, therefore, in this case, to determine the character
or amount of the food, for fear of disturbing the parents and
interrupting the regularity of the feeding. The birds were
fed between 7 and 8 a.m. four-
teen times; between 8 and 9,
nine times; between 9 and 10,
twelve times; between 10 and
11, seven times; between 11
and 12, sixteen times; between
12 and 1, nine times; between 1
and 2, twelve times; between
2 and 3, fifteen times; between
3 and 4, thirteen times; and be-
tween 4 and 5, eighteen times.
It will be seen that one or
\ the other parent came to the
: \N nest with food one hundred and
Fig. 24.— Passenger Pigeon feeding twenty-five times in ten hours,
by regurgitation. From Samuels. even when the observer was
watching near by; but this leaves four hours unaccounted
for, to fill out the long June day, from dawn to evening.
The feeding periods averaged less than six minutes apart dur-
ing the time the birds were watched; so it seems probable
that, had the entire record for the day been kept, at least
one hundred and fifty visits to the young would have been
recorded. Young birds are fed oftenest at morning and even-
ing, or during the hours when these Vireos were not watched.
Mr. Mosher watched a pair of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks
feeding their young on June 12, 1899. The young were
nearly ready to leave the nest, as one of them stood on a
branch near its edge. The nest was situated about fifteen
feet from the ground, in the top of a slender white birch in
the woods. The ground was well covered with hazel bushes
about three and one-half feet high, which nearly concealed
the observer. During the first half hour he made no record,
as the birds were alarmed by his presence. As they com-
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 53
menced bringing food regularly, he began the record at 6
A.M. Between 6 and 7 they came to the nest fifty-two times ;
between 7 and 8, forty-seven times; between 8 and 9, forty-
three times; between 9 and 10, thirty times; between 10
and 11, thirty-six times; between 11 and 12, twenty-seven
times ; between 12 and 1, thirty-two times; between 1 and
2, thirty-eight times; between 2 and 3, forty-one times;
between 3 and 4, twenty-two times; between 4 and 5, fifty-
eight times. The majority of the larve seemed to be leaf
rollers from the oak trees. The female came on the average
about three times to each two visits of the male; he was
occupied much of the time in keeping other birds away from
the vicinity of the nest.
When the young of most insect-eating birds are well grown,
the parents feed them whole insects just as they are picked
up. With a glass, therefore, the insects brought by these
Grosbeaks could be seen in the birds’ beaks. Their lusty
youngsters were fed almost entirely on insect larve or cater-
pillars taken from the forest trees. On only four visits did
either parent bird bring less than.two larve each. In eleven
hours, then, they made four hundred and twenty-six trips,
and must have fed their nestlings at least eight hundred and
forty-eight larvee or caterpillars, and possibly more, as a bird
has been observed to carry as many as eleven small cater-
pillars on one visit to its young.
In comparing the records of the two nests as given above,
it is noticeable that the Grosbeaks fed the young much oftener
than did the Vireos. This difference is due mainly to the
fact that about the time the young birds are ready to fly,
as were these Grosbeaks, they require much more food than
when first hatched, as was the case with the Vireos. This,
of course, is mainly owing to their increased size. The dif-
ference in the number, age, and size of the young probably
accounts largely for the great variation in the number of
visits made to them by the parent birds, as recorded by dif-
ferent observers.
I have published some notes on the feeding of young
Chickadees by the parent birds. Six visits were made to
these young within thirteen minutes. In each case the bills
o4 USEFUL BIRDS.
of the parent birds were filled with a mass of small insects,
mainly ants and plant lice, to which were added a few spiders.
These young were also fully fledged.?
The number of young in the nests of the smaller perch-
ing birds is usually from three to five. In the case of the
Chickadees mentioned above there were seven, and in another
case that I have recently observed there were nine. Chick-
adees and Wrens, because of their insectivorous habits and
the large broods they rear, probably reach the maximum in
the number of insects brought to their young.
Dr. Judd gives an account of the feeding of some young
House Wrens by the mother bird alone. These young Wrens
were about three-fourths grown, and were visited one hun-
dred and ten times in four hours and thirty-seven minutes.
They were fed, during this time, one hundred and eleven
insects and spiders. Among these were identified one white
grub, one soldier bug, three millers (Noctuide), nine spiders,
nine grasshoppers, fifteen May flies, and thirty-four cater-
pillars. On the following day, in three hours and five min-
utes, the young were fed sixty-seven times.?
Professor Aughey states that during a locust year in
Nebraska he saw a pair of Long-billed Marsh Wrens take
thirty-one small locusts to their nest inan hour. It is inter-
esting to note that a pair of Rock Wrens that he watched
took just thirty-two locusts to their nest in another hour.’
Another observer is reported by Dr. Barton to have seen
a pair of Wrens coming from their box and returning with
insects from forty to sixty times an hour. In an exceptional
hour they carried food seventy-one times. He estimates
that at that time they took from the garden six hundred
insects per day.*
Few people, unfortunately, who are qualified for the task,
1 Two Years with the Birds on a Farm. Annual report of the Massachusetts
State Board of Agriculture, 1902, p. 129.
2 The Birds of a Maryland Farm, by Sylvester D. Judd. Bulletin No. 17,
United States Department of Agriculture, Division of Biological Survey,
pp. 45, 46.
3 Notes on the Nature of the Food of Nebraska Birds, by S. A. Aughey. First
Report of the United States Entomological Commission, 1877, Appendix, p. 18.
4 Fragments of the Natural History of Pennsylvania, by Dr. B. 8S. Barton,
Part I, 1799, p. 22.
j oF
Biig
PLATE V.—Chickadee. Female, with mass of insects in her
beak, entering nesting box at author’s window. (From Ameri-
can Ornithology.) :
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 55
have both the time and patience to watch the feeding of young
birds for an entire day. Dr. C. M. Weed and Mr. W. F.
Fiske, however, have accomplished this feat. They watched
the nest of a Chipping Sparrow from 3.40 a.m. to 7.49 p.m.
on June 22,1898. The valuable record of these observations
Fig. 25.—Chipping Sparrow feeding young.
shows that these two birds, having only three young in the
nest, visited it at least one hundred and eighty-two times
during that day; and Dr. Weed says that they made almost
two hundred trips, although some of the trips evidently were
made to furnish grit for grinding the food. The birds were
busy from daylight to dark, with no long intermission. The
food, so far as identified, consisted largely of caterpillars.
Crickets and crane flies were seen, and it was believed that
a great variety of insect food was brought. !
A committee on useful birds, selected from the Pennsyl-
vania State Board of Agriculture, reported that an observer
had watched the nest of a pair of Martins for sixteen hours,
from 4 a.m. until 8 p.m., to see how many visits the parent
birds made to the young. One hundred and nineteen visits
were nade by the male and one hundred and ninety-three by
the female.? _
1 The Feeding Habits of the Chipping Sparrow, by C.M. Weed. Bulletin
No. 55, New Hampshire College Agricultural Experiment Station, 1898.
2 C. C. Musselman, in Agriculture of Pennsylvania, 1887, p. 105.
Or
os
USEFUL BIRDS.
The number of insects consumed daily by young birds in
their nests is difficult of estimation, because of the variation
in size among insects and the great difference in size between
the mature insect and the newly hatched larva. Five hun-
dred of the young larve of a moth might occupy less space
in the stomach of a bird than would the moth itself; while a
thousand aphids might take no more room than a full-grown
caterpillar. Nevertheless, many estimates have been made,
based on known data, as to the number of insects fed to
young birds.
The introduced House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), com-
monly called the English Sparrow, undoubtedly eats fewer
insects, here, in proportion to the rest of its food than any of
our smaller native birds. The young are fed very largely on
grain and other non-insectivorous food. Still, a Sparrow’s |
nest in the city of Paris is said to have contained seven hun-
dred pairs of chafer wing-cases.1
Mons. P. Pélicot gives a table of the estimates, made by
several foreign authors, of the numbers of insects eaten by
Sparrows in a given time. These approximations vary from
that of Blatin, who estimates that two Sparrows will destroy
twelve hundred chafers in twelve days, to that of Tschudi,
who believes that a single Sparrow will destroy fifteen hun-
dred larvee within twenty-four hours.?
Bradley mentions watching a bird’s nest and discovering
that five hundred caterpillars were consumed in one day.®
He says (according to Samuels) that a pair of Sparrows
will destroy thirty-three hundred and sixty caterpillars for
a week’s family supplies. A single pair of Sparrows is
reported to have carried to the nest five hundred insects in
an hour.
These statements may be exaggerated, but if they approx-
imate the facts, what immense numbers of insects must be
1 Notes on Recent Progress of Agricultural Science, by David A. Wells. Re-
port (on Agriculture) of the United States Commissioner of Patents, 1861, p. 323.
2 A Favorable View of the English Sparrow, a Review of ‘“‘Un Passereau
a Protéger,”’ Insect Life, Riley and Howard, Vol. IV, 1891, p. 153, published by
the United States Department of Agriculture.
5 Birds and Bird Laws, by J. R. Dodge. Annual Report of the United States
Commissioner of Agriculture, 1864, pp. 436, 437.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. a7
consumed by the young of native Massachusetts birds that
are fed almost entirely upon insect food.
Weed and Dearborn watched three young Cedar Birds in
the nest for the fifteen days they remained there, and found
that they each devoured not less than ten ounces of food in
that time, or more than ten times their weight on the day
they left the nest. .
The Amount of Food eaten by Adult Birds.
There is no way of determining how much food is required
daily by the adult bird, except it be kept in confinement ; in
that case, the food taken can be weighed or measured. This
has been done. Dr. Stanley mentions sixteen Canaries which
ate one hundred grains of food per day, or an amount equal
to about one-sixth of their weight, which is probably much
less than wild birds of the same species would eat.1 Seed-
eating birds, like the Canary, however, require less food
than the insectivorous species, as their food is more con-
centrated. Mr. Robert Ridgway, the distinguished ornithol-
ogist of the Smithsonian Institution, makes the statement in
the American Naturalist for August, 1869, that a Western
Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), which he kept in a cage,
devoured one hundred and twenty locusts in a single day.
Compared with the wild bird, the specimen that is caged
or confined is a poor, weak thing at best, short of breath,
low in vitality, and lacking the vigorous assimilative powers
of the free bird. Keepers of cage birds, who know well
the capacity of their pets, find it difficult to believe that
wild birds can possibly consume the amount of food that
actually has been found in their stomachs by economic
ornithologists.
When the reader is told that thirty grasshoppers were found
in the stomach of a single Catbird, he conjures up a mental
photograph of the full-grown grasshopper (the imago) that
he sees in the field in late summer, and fails to remember,
perhaps, that grasshoppers come from eggs, and in their
growth to maturity may be found of all sizes, between that
of the newly hatched insect and the full-winged hopper.
’ History of Birds, p. 225.
58 USEFUL BIRDS. e
While the Catbird’s stomach might not be large enough to
contain thirty full-grown locusts, it would easily contain more
than thirty small ones. The statement that thirty grasshop-
pers were found in the Catbird’s stomach might also need
modification in another way. The least fragment of an in-
sect found in a bird’s stomach is usually considered good
proof that the bird has eaten that insect. There might be
found in the stomach of a bird a mass of unrecognizable
material, from which the expert would be able to sort out
and recognize enough of the harder parts of different grass-
hoppers to prove that thirty of these insects, of consider-
able size, had been eaten within a certain time, even though
a greater part of those first swallowed had already disap-
peared from the stomach.
Prof. F. E. L. Beal writes me as follows regarding the
methods used at the United States Department of Agri-
culture in counting the insects’found in the stomachs of
birds : —
In the case of grasshoppers and caterpillars it is the jaws (mandi-
bles) that are counted. Birds when not sleeping appear to eat all the
time when not occupied in other duties, such as nest-making or feeding
their young. The process of digestion is continuous. The more easily
digested parts pass out of the stomach very quickly, but the hard parts
remain somewhat longer. In this way when a bird is feeding upon
grasshoppers the jaws of those first eaten remain after the rest of
the body has passed on. When the stomach is opened the jaws are
counted, and for every two we estimate at least one grasshopper killed.
In cases where only a few insects were involved I have taken the pains
to pair the jaws, and in this way have often found that the number that
had been eaten was more than half the number of jaws. In this work
each head that appears to be whole is carefully examined, to see that it
has not lost one or more of its jaws; were it not for this precaution,
the insect might be counted twice. Caterpillars, like grasshoppers,
are easily broken up, and so the heads are counted when whole; other-
wise the jaws are counted.
The variation in size of different species of insects should
also be considered. While the caterpillars of some species
of moths reach three or four inches in length, others never
grow to be half an inch long.
These and other similar considerations, well known to
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 59
the economic ornithologist, lead him to accept as facts the
extreme statements made by competent investigators.
It will be seen from the foregoing explanations that, while
a large number of injurious insects found in a bird’s stom-
ach may indicate its usefulness, it may not always mean that
it has eaten a great bulk or quantity of such food.
The question which most interests the farmer, however,
is, not so much what birds require to sustain life, as how
much they will eat if they can get their fill. If in times of
plenty birds will eat more than they really need, then they
become more useful or injurious, as the case may be, than
they would be if they ate only, enough to live. The amount
of food that has been found in birds’ gizzards indicates that
they will eat until surfeited.
Professor Beal, who has examined the contents of over
twenty thousand stomachs, says, regarding this habit :—
The majority of people have no idea of how much these insects can
be compressed in the stomach of a bird. -It is often the case that when
a stomach has been opened, and the contents placed in a pile, the heap
is two or three times as large as the original stomach with the food all
in it. Moreover, in the cases where remarkable numbers of insects
have been found, the crops or gullets usually have been full, as well as
the stomach itself. It is a fact, perhaps not generally known, that with
birds that have no special enlargement of the gullet in the nature of a
crop, the whole gullet is used for the purpose; and when favorite food
is abundant, the bird will fill itself to the throat. I have seen a Snow-
bird so full of seeds that they were plainly in sight when the beak was
opened, and from the bill to the stomach was a solid mass of seed.
The stomachs of birds are often packed so hard and tight with food
that it is a wonder how the process of digestion can go on; but it does,
nevertheless.
In giving the maximum amounts of food found in birds’
stomachs, I shall be obliged to refer to the publications of
the Bureau of Biological Survey of the United States De-
partment of Agriculture; and it is but just to say here
that the world owes much to Dr. Merriam, chief of the
Bureau, for his indefatigable labors in behalf of science and
agriculture.
In connection with the work of the survey, the contents
of more than thirty-five thousand bird stomachs have been
60 USEFUL BIRDS.
examined, and much has been done in observing the feed-
ing habits of birds in the field. The work in economic orni-
thology performed by Merriam, Fisher, Barrows, Beal, and
Judd is of great value. Its results rank above those of
all other similar investigations, and must be considered as
authoritative.
Professor Beal found in the stomach of a Yellow-billed
Cuckoo two hundred and seventeen fall webworms, and in
another two hundred and fifty American tent caterpillars.
Two Flickers were found to have eaten respectively three
thousand and five thousand ants. Sixty grasshoppers were
found in the stomach of a Nighthawk.
Professor Harvey found five hundred mosquitoes in a
Nighthawk’s stomach. In this case the insects must have
been fully grown, as the larve of the mosquito are found
mainly in water, and the Nighthawk takes its food on the
wing. The stomach of this useful bird is much larger in pro-
portion to its size than that of most other birds; but sev-
enty-five hundred seeds of the yellow wood sorrel had been
eaten by a Mourning Dove, sixty-four hundred by another,
and ninety-two hundred seeds, chiefly of weeds, were found
in another. Here we have twenty-three thousand one hun-
dred seeds, mostly those of weeds, eaten at a meal by three
birds. Probably where these Jarge numbers are given, the
result is approximate, and is arrived at by counting a part
of the contents for a measure, and from this estimating the
rest in bulk.
Dr. Judd says that the stomachs of four Bank Swallows
contained, all together, just two hundred ants, and that a
Nighthawk has been known to eat one thousand at a single
meal. He speaks of seventeen hundred seeds of weeds hav-
ing been taken at one feeding by a Bob-white; three thou-
sand leguminous seeds were found in the stomach of another,
and no less than five thousand seeds of pigeon grass were
taken from a third. Dr. Warren has taken twenty-eight
cutworms from the stomach of a Red-winged Blackbird.
Stomachs of Snowflakes have each contained from five
hundred to fifteen hundred seeds of amaranth. Professor
Forbes found in the stomachs of seven Cedar Birds a number
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 61
of cankerworms varying from seventy to one hundred and
one each, the number found in most cases averaging nearly
one hundred for each bird.
A Ruffed Grouse, killed in winter, had in its crop twelve
leaves of sheep laurel and four hundred and thirty-five buds
and bits of branches, all taken for its morning meal. The
crop of another contained over five hundred buds and twigs.
As these birds eat such food both at morning and at night, it
would seem that they must require daily, for these two meals
alone, between eight hundred and one thousand buds and
twigs.
The following notes, received from Professor Beal since
the above was written, are of great interest : —
,
From the stomach of a Franklin's Gull (Larus franklinit) there were
taken seventy entire grasshoppers and the jaws of fifty-six more; from
another, ninety grasshoppers and one hundred and two additional jaws ;
from another, forty-eight grasshoppers and seventy more jaws ; and still
another contained sixty-seven grasshoppers. Another stomach of this
species contained sixty-eight crickets. These grasshoppers and crickets
were each more than one inch in length. We examined the stomach
of a Franklin’s Gull which contained three hundred and twenty-seven
entire nymphs of dragon flies, each three-fourths of an inch in length.
In the stomach of a Cliff Swallow were found one hundred entire
beetles (Aphodius inquinatus), with remains of others. These insects
are a little more than three-eighths of an inch in length. We are now
examining birds’ stomachs from Texas, and from the stomach of a Yel-
low-billed Cuckoo were taken the remains of eighty-two caterpillars
that originally were from one to one and a half inches in length. From
another stomach were taken eighty-six, and from forty to sixty from
several others.
All evidence acquired by observation as to the amount of
food eaten by wild birds at liberty must perforce be frag-
mentary, for such observation is necessarily limited to brief
periods. The difficulties attending such work make its re-
sults somewhat uncertain and unsatisfactory ; nevertheless,
some information as to the quantity of food eaten by wild
birds may be obtained in this way. Vultures are said to so
gorge themselves that they are unable to fly. Ihave known
+ Birds in their Relation to Man, ly Clarence M. Weed and Ned Dearborn,
1903, p. 62.
62 USEFUL BIRDS.
a Goshawk in winter to kill a domestic Cock of more than
its own weight, and devour the greater part at two meals.
I have learned, by following certain Warblers and Titmice
through the woods, that their search for and consumption of
insects are almost continuous during most of the forenoon.
As the noon hour approaches they become less active, and
on warm days devote some tine to resting and bathing. In
the afternoon their activity increases, until toward night
their quest for food is almost as strenuous as in the early
morning. They are, therefore, actually engaged for the
larger part of the day in capturing and eating insects. In
feeding wild birds in winter I have noticed that Chickadees
come to the food supplied for them about three times an hour
all day long, and that in the intervals they are mainly occu-
pied in finding their natural food. On May 28, 1898, Mr.
Mosher watched a pair of Northern Yellow-throats eating
_plant lice from the birches in the Middlesex Fells Reserva-
tion, where these insects swarmed. He was equipped with
a good glass, and concealed close to the spot where the birds
were feeding, and so was able to count in turn the number
of times each bird picked up an insect. One of these War-
blers apparently swallowed eighty-nine of these tiny insects
in one minute. The pair continued eating at this rate for
forty minutes. Mr. Mosher states that they must have eaten
considerably over seven thousand: plant lice in that time. It
would seem impossible for the birds to crowd that number
of insects into their stomachs ; but we must remember that
the insects were infinitesimal in size, soft-bodied, easily com-
pressed in the stomach, and quickly digested, so that by the
time a part were eaten those first taken would be well dis-
posed of, leaving room for more. Mr. Mosher is a very
careful, painstaking, and trustworthy observer ; undoubtedly
his statement is accurate; but, to eliminate any possibility
of error, we will assume for purposes of calculation that
they ate only thirty-five hundred in an hour.
A pair of Yellow-throats (presumably the same) were seen
to come daily and many times each day to the birch trees
which were infested with these aphids. Probably they spent
at least three hours each day feeding on these insects. If
VALUE OF BIRDS VO MAN. 63
the two birds ate only thirty-five hundred an hour for three
hours a day, they would consume ten thousand five hundred
aphids each day, or seventy-three thousand five hundred in
a week. It requires no
draft on the imagination
to see how such appe-
tites may become useful
to the farmer if they are
satiated on his insect
enemies.
Two Scarlet Tanagers
were seen eating very
small caterpillars of the
gipsy moth for eighteen minutes, at the rate of thirty-five
a minute. These birds spent much time in that way. If
we assume that they ate caterpillars at this rate for only an
hour each day, they must have consumed daily twenty-one
hundred caterpillars, or fourteen thousand seven hundred
in a week. Such a number of caterpillars would be suffi-
cient to defoliate two average apple trees, and so prevent
fruitage. The removal of these caterpillars might enable the
trees to bear a full crop. It is easily possible, therefore,
for a single pair of these birds in a week’s time to save the
fruit of two average apple trees, —a crop worth from two
to five dollars or more, according to the productiveness of
the trees and the price paid for apples.
Fig. 26.— Yellow-throat catching birch aphids.
BIRDS SAVE TREES AND CROPS FROM DESTRUCTION.
Since birds evidently operate to check insect outbreaks, it
follows that in their capacity of insect destroyers they must
in many instances have saved trees and crops from destruc-
tion by insect pests. If, however, we turn to the literature
of agriculture, entomology, and ornithology, we shall not find
it replete with such instances. Still, there are enough on
record to show that conspicuous services of birds have been
noted oceasionally ; and I am convinced by my own experi-
ence that such checks to insect increase occur commonly, but
escape both observation and record.
Some brief but striking accounts of this class of occur-
64 USEFUL BIRDS.
rences may be gleaned from European records. Samuels
writes that in Pomerania in 1847 an immense forest that was
in danger of being utterly ruined by caterpillars was very
unexpectedly saved by Cuckoos, which, though on the point
of migrating, established themselves there for some weeks,
and so thoroughly cleared the trees that the next year “ neither
depredators nor.depredations were to be seen.”! He also
speaks of a European outbreak of the gipsy moth (Bombyx
dispar) in 1848, saying that the hand of man was powerless
to work off the infliction, but that on the approach of winter
Titmice and Wrens paid daily visits to the infested trees,
and before spring had arrived the eggs of dispar were en-
tirely destroyed. This account agrees with the following
translation from Altum :—
In the year 1848 endless numbers of the larvee of Bombyx dispar had
eaten every leaf from the trees of Count Wodzicki, so that they were
perfectly bare. In the fall all the branches and limbs were covered
with the egg clusters. After he had recognized the impracticability of
it, he gave up all endeavor to remove them by hand, and prepared to
see his beautiful trees die. Towards winter numerous flocks of Titmice
and Wrens came daily to the trees. The egg clusters disappeared. In
the spring twenty pairs of Titmice nested in the garden, and the larva
plague was noticeably reduced. In the year 1850 the small feathered
garden police had cleaned his trees, so that he saw them during the
entire summer in their most beautiful verdure.?
According to Reaumur, these larve were so extremely
numerous on the limes of the Alle verte at Brussels in 1826
that many of the great trees‘of that noble avenue were nearly.
defoliated. The moths swarmed like bees in the summer.
They were also very numerous in the park, and if one-half
the eggs had hatched in the following spring, probably scarce
a leaf would have remained in these favorite places of public
resort. Two months later, however, he could scarcely dis-
cover a single egg cluster. This happy result was attributed
to the Titmice and Creepers, which were seen busily running
up and down the tree trunks.?
1 Agricultural Value of Birds, by E. A. Samuels. Annual Report of the
Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1865-66, pp. 116, 117.
* Translated from Forstzoologie, II, 1880, p. 324.
® Reau. i387. Cited by Kirby and Spence in their Introduction to Entomology,
1857, pp. 117, 118.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 65
The value of birds has already been recognized at the
antipodes. Australian farmers have suffered greatly from
inroads of locusts upon their crops and pastures.
The Australian correspondence of the Mark Lane Express
of March 7, 1892, had a paragraph relating to the value of
the Ibis to farmers during the locust incursions of that year
and the year previous. In the Glen Thompson district
several largé flocks, one said to number fully five hundred
birds, were seen eating the young locusts in a wholesale
manner. Other insectivorous birds were flourishing upon
the same diet. Near Ballarat, Victoria, a swarm of locusts
was noted in a paddock; and just as it was feared that all
the sheep would have to be sold for want of grass, flocks of
Starlings, Spoonbills, and Cranes made their appearance, and
in a few days made so complete a destruction of the locusts
that only about forty acres of grass were lost.1
American farmers have had many similar experiences.
When the Mormons first settled in Utah their crops were
almost utterly destroyed by myriads of crickets that came
Fig. 2'7.—The western cricket that destroyed the settlers’ crops at Salt Lake,
Natural size; after Glover.
down from the mountains. Hon. Geo. Q. Cannon, as tem-
porary chairman of the third irrigation congress, told how it
happened. The first year’s crop having been destroyed, the
Mormons had sowed seed the second year. The crop prom-
ised well, but when again the crickets appeared, the people
were in danger of starvation. In describing the conditions
in 1848 Mr. Cannon says : —
1 Insect Life, Riley and Howard, 1891-92, Vol. IV, p. 409.
66 USEFUL BIRDS.
Black crickets came down by millions and destroyed our grain
crops; promising fields of wheat in the morning were by evening
as smooth as a man’s hand, —devoured by the crickets. .. At this
juncture sea Gulls came by hundreds and thousands, and before the
crops were entirely destroyed these Gulls devoured the insects, so that
our fields were entirely freed from them... ‘The settlers at Salt
Lake regarded the advent of the birds as a heayen-sent miracle. .
I have been along the ditches in the morning and have seen lumps of
these crickets vomited up by the Gulls, so that they could again begin
killing. «
These “lumps of crickets” were probably pellets com-
posed of indigestible portions of the insects, regurgitated
by the birds. These crickets (Anabrus purpurascens) tray-
Fig. 28.— Gulls saving crops by killing crickets.
elled in enormous hordes, stopping at no obstacle, even
crossing rivers. Several times afterward the crops of the
Mormons were attacked by them, and were saved by the
Gulls.!| Dr. A. K. Fisher is authority for the statement
1 This account of the deliverance of the Mormons by the Gulls is vouched for
by many witnesses. See Irrigation Age, 1894, p. 188; also, Insect Life, Vol. VII,
p. 275; Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1871, p.
76; Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Agriculture, 1871, p. 79;
and Second Annual Report of the United States Entomological Commission,
1878-79, p. 166.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 67
that the bird referred to is undoubtedly Franklin’s Gull
(Larus franklinti), which occurs in enormous flocks about
the small fresh-water lakes of the northwest, and feeds in
great companies on Orthoptera of all sorts. The Gulls were
practically canonized by the grateful Mormons, and protected
by both law and public sentiment, as a recognition of their
worth.
Similar services were performed by birds during the great
locust ravages which followed the settlement of the Missis-
sippi valley. When large swarms of locusts appeared, nearly
all birds, from the tiny Kinglet to the great Whooping Crane,
fed on them. Fish-eating birds, like the Great Blue Heron,
flesh-eating birds, like the Hawks and Owls, shore birds,
Ducks, Geese, Gulls, —all joined with the smaller land birds
in the general feast. Prof. Samuel Aughey learned this
by dissecting birds and observing their feeding habits in
Nebraska. In a paper published by him in 1877, but not
often quoted, he gives some of the practical results of the
work done by birds in protecting crops from the mighty
swarms of locusts which were devastating most of that
region. He says: —
In the spring of 1865 the locusts hatched out in countless numbers in
northeastern Nebraska. Very few fields of corn and the cereal grains
escaped some damage. Some fields were entirely destroyed, while
others were hurt to the amount of from ten to,seventy-five per cent.
One field of corn northwest of Dakota City was almost literally covered
with locusts, and there the indications were that not a stalk would
escape. After, and about the time the corn was up, the Yellow-headed
Blackbirds in large numbers made this field their feeding ground.
Visiting the field frequently, I could see a gradual diminution of the
number of the locusts. Other birds, especially the Plovers, helped the
Yellow-heads ; and, although some of the corn had to be replanted once,
yet it was the birds that made the crop that was raised possible at all.
During the same season I visited Pigeon Creek valley, in this county,
and I found among the eaten-up wheat fields one where the damage
done was not over five per cent. ‘The Irishman who pointed it out to me
ascribed it to the work of the birds, chief among which were the Black-
bird and Plover, with a few Quail and Prairie Chickens.
Professor, Aughey speaks of a locality where, on several
old fields, locusts hatched to the number of about three hun-
68 USEFUL BIRDS.
dred to the square foot. Birds soon found them, and the
ground was frequented by Blackbirds, Plover, Curlews,
Prairie Chickens and small land birds. Long before the
middle of June most of the locusts had disappeared. In
1886 locusts, he says, invaded Cedar and Dixon counties in
swarms that darkened the sun. Nevertheless, at one point
under observation the great number of birds that attacked
these insects very materially lessened their numbers. In
1869 more than ninety per cent. of the locusts in one
neighborhood were destroyed, apparently by birds, in one
week. Other experiences are given, and several interesting
letters from farmers are published, one of which follows : —
Dear Sir:—In answer to your question about the birds and the -
locusts, I must say this: every farmer that shoots birds must be a fool.
I had wheat this last spring on new breaking. The grasshoppers came
out apparently as thick as the wheat itself, and indeed much thicker. I
gave up that field for lost. Just then great numbers of Plover came,
and flocks of Blackbirds and some Quail, and commenced feeding on
this field. They cleaned out the locusts so well that I had at least
three-fourths of a crop, and I know that without the birds I would not
have had any. I know other farmers whose wheat was saved in the
same way. S. E. GoopMorE.
FREMONT, NEB.
‘ Another farmer wrote that the locusts hatched in immense
numbers in his corn fields, but flocks of Blackbirds came and
destroyed the insects, so that he raised a good crop. In an-
other case, related by State Senator Crawford, a wheat field
was swept clean by the locusts when the wheat was about
two inches high; but flocks of Blackbirds came and de-
voured the locusts, and the wheat sprang up again and made
a-good crop. The members of the United States Entomo-
logical Commission were much impressed with the value of
birds as locust destroyers. They said that the ocular dem-
onstration of the usefulness of birds as insect destroyers was
“so full and complete that it was impossible to entertain any
doubt on this point.” In one instance a farmer took one
of the members of the commission out into the field, to
show him how numerously the young locusts were hatching.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 69
When they arrived, the insects had disappeared from the
place where they had been so abundant in the morning.
The statement by the family that a flock of Blackbirds had
been there during the farmer’s absence solved the mystery.
In another instance a garden was attacked by an innumer-
able host of little locusts. The owner battled bravely with
them for awhile, but at last, giving up in despair, sat down
to watch the destruction of his vegetables and flowers, when
suddenly a flock of Blackbirds alighted on the young cot-
tonwoods he had planted in his yard. Having chirped a
song, as if to cheer him, they flew into the garden; when
they left, an hour or so later, the dreaded “hoppers” were
gone, and his garden was saved.}
A severe outbreak of the forest tent caterpillar (Malaco-
soma disstria) occurred in New York and some of the New
England States in 1897-98. Thousands of acres of wood-
land were devastated, great damage was done to the sugar-
maple orchards of New York and Vermont, and the injury
extended into Massachusetts. Birds and other natural ene-
mies attacked the caterpillars vigorously in many localities,
and by the year 1900 the plague had been reduced so that
the injury was no longer seen. Miss Mary B. Sherman of
Ogdensburg, N. Y., wrote on May 18 of that year that the
town was then full of birds which were feeding on the cater-
pillars. There had been numerous Warblers in the maples,
and the Orioles, Sparrows, Robins, Cedar Birds, several
species of Warblers, and probably the House Wren, were
killing caterpillars. Birds were reported in large numbers
in the county. On May 26 she wrote again, stating that
there were practically no caterpillars left, cold weather hay-
ing killed many, and the birds apparently having destroyed
the remainder.”
The good accomplished by birds in quelling great insect in-
vasions should be patent to all, but very few people realize
what the birds are doing. Many Nebraskans failed to notice
1 First Report of the United States Entomological Commission. Riley, Pack-
ard, and Thomas. 1877, pp. 335, 336, 338-344.
2 Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New York, by
E, P. Felt, 1900, p. 1019.
70 USEFUL BIRDS.
that birds were feeding on the locusts until Professor Aughey
called their attention to this fact by articles published in the
press.
Birds are doing the same kind of work in Massachusetts
to-day, in repressing smaller outbreaks of common insects.
Had we more observing people to record such services, their
amount and variety probably would astound us. Professor
Beal saw a family of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks clear the potato
beetles from a potato patch of about one-fourth of an acre.
Mr. E. W. Wood of West Newton, a well-known horticultur-
ist, informed me that during one season, when the spring can-
kerworms (Paleacrita vernata) became quite numerous in his
orchard, a pair of Baltimore Orioles appeared, built a nest
near by, and fed daily upon the cankerworms. This they
continued to do assiduously; by the time the young birds
were hatched, the numbers of the worms were considerably
reduced. The birds then redoubled their diligence, carry-
ing ten or eleven worms to the nest at once. Soon the
cankerworms had disappeared, and there has been no trouble
from them for many years.
Instances were recorded during the first State campaign
against the gipsy moth, from 1890 to 1895, where small
isolated moth colonies appeared to have been suppressed
and even annihilated by birds. A serious outbreak was
discovered in Georgetown, Mass., in 1899. It had been in
existence for a long time, but its spread had evidently been
limited by the great number of birds that were feeding there
on all forms of the moth. Several months later the State
abandoned the work against the moth, and little hope was
entertained that anything more than a severe check had been
given the insect in Georgetown. Nevertheless, in the six
years that have since elapsed comparatively few moths have
been found in that locality. The most feasible explanation
of this seems to be that up to 1906 the birds have kept the
numbers of the moths below the point where they can do
appreciable injury.
I have had several opportunities, within the last fifteen
years, to watch the checking of insect uprisings by birds.
One morning in the fall of 1904 I noticed in some poplar
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 71
trees near the shore of the Musketaquid a small flock of
Myrtle and Black-poll Warblers, busily feeding on a swarm
of plant lice. There were not more than fifteen birds. The
insects were mainly imagoes, and some of them were flying.
The birds were pursuing these through the air, but were also
seeking those that remained on the trunks and branches. I
watched these birds
for some time, noted
their activity, and 3
then passed on, but AY J
returned and ob- , afi MEY if
served their move- , ¥
ments quite closely
at intervals all day.
Toward night some
of the insects had
scattered to neigh-
boring trees, and a
few of the birds
were pursuing them
there; but most of
the latter remained
at or about the place
where the aphis
swarm was first seen, and they were still there at sundown.
The swarm decreased rapidly all day, unti] just before sunset
it was difficult to find even a few specimens of the insect.
The birds remained until it was nearly dark, for they were
still finding a few insects on the higher branches. The plant
lice I had secured for identification were destroyed or lib-
erated during the night, probably by a deer mouse which
frequented the camp ; so the next morning at sunrise I went -
to the trees to look for more specimens. The birds, how-
ever, were there before inc, and I was unable to find a single
aphis on the trees. The last bird to linger was more suc-
cessful than I, for it was still finding a few ; but it soon gave
up the effort, and left for more fruitful fields. Probably a
few insects escaped by flight; but in examining the locality
in 1905 I could not find one. The apparently complete
Gi
; ni i
; a an Ny
Fig. 29.— Warblers destroying a swarm of plant lice.
72 USEFUL BIRDS.
destruction of these insects may have been due in part to
the hard winter that ensued, but the effect produced by the
birds was most obvious.
Such instances of the quelling of insect outbreaks by birds
are noticeable, but the regulative influence steadily and
perennially exerted by them, which tends to keep hundreds
of species of injurious insects below the point where their
injury to trees and plants would become apparent, is very
seldom appreciated.
THE INCREASE OF INJURIOUS INSECTS FOLLOWING
THE DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS.
Many cases have been noted where the destruction of birds
has been followed by an immediate increase in the numbers
of injurious insects. Frederick the Great, king of Prussia,
being particularly fond of cherries, was annoyed to see that
the Sparrows were destroying his favorite fruit. An edict
was issued ordering Sparrow extermination. All the re-
sources of the fowler were brought to bear, and the cam-
paign was so successful that not only were the Sparrows
destroyed, but many other birds were either killed or driven
away by the extraordinary measures taken against the Spar-
rows. Within two years cherries and most other fruits were
wanting. The trees were defoliated by caterpillars and other
insects, and the great Frederick, seeing his error, imported
Sparrows at considerable expense to take the place of the
birds that had been killed.?
In the year 1798 the forests in Saxony and Brandenburg
were attacked by a general mortality. The greater part of
the trees, especially the firs and pines, died as if struck at
the roots by some secret malady. The foliage was not de-
voured by caterpillars; the trees perished without showing
any signs of external disease. This calamity became so gen-
eral that the regency of Saxony sent naturalists and skillful
foresters to find out the cause. They soon found it in the
multiplication of one of the lepidopterous insects, which in
its larval state fed within the tree upon the wood. When-
1 Agricultural Value of Birds, by E. A, Samuels. Annual Report of the Mas-
sachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1865-66, pp. 116, 117.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 73
ever any bough of the fir or the pine was broken this insect
was found within it, and had often hollowed it out even to the
bark. The naturalists reported that apparently the extraor-
dinary increase of the insect was owing to the entire dis-
appearance of several species of Woodpecker and Titmouse,
which had not been seen in the forest for some years.!
In 1858 Kearly wrote to the Entomclogists’ Intelligencer
that a friend who had been spending a short time in Belgium
informed him that in the previous year Sparrows and other
birds had appeared in the park at Brussels in unusual num-
bers. These birds probably were attracted by an unusual
supply of insect food; but complaint was made of the
Sparrows as a nuisance, and their destruction was ordered.
“But,” says Kearly, “it now turns out that in exterminat-
ing the birds the park goers have got rid of one evil only
to entail upon themselves a greater. Throughout the past
summer the place has swarmed with insect pests.” He says
also that the larva of the gipsy moth stripped nearly all of
the trees of their foliage, and was one of the chief offenders.
He adds that, had the authorities known what Kirby and
Spence say on this subject (regarding the destruction of
this insect by birds in Brussels in 1826), they would have
remained guiltless of killing their feathered protectors.
During the year 1861 the harvests of France gave an un-
usually poor return, and a commission to investigate the
cause of the deficiency was appointed at the instance of the
Minister of Agriculture.22 The commission took counsel
of experienced naturalists, St. Hilaire, Prevost, and others.
By this commission the deficiency was attributed in a great
degree to the ravages of insects which it is the function of
certain birds to check.
It seems that the French people had been killing and
eating not merely the game birds, but the smaller birds
as well. Insect-eating birds had been shot, snared, and
trapped throughout the country. Fruit-eating and grain-
eating species especially had been persecuted. Birds’ eggs
1 Utility of Birds, by Wilson Flagg. Annual Report of the Massachusetts
State Board of Agriculture, 1861, pp. 66, 67.
2 Notes on the Progress of Agricultural Science, by David A. Wells. Report
of the United States Commissioner of Patents, 1861, pp. 322, 323.
74 USEFUL BIRDS.
had been taken in immense numbers. A single child had
been known to come in at night with a hundred eggs, and
the number of birds’ eggs destroyed in the country each year
was estimated at eighty to one hundred millions. Before
such persecution the birds were actually dying out. Some
species had already disappeared, and others were rapidly
diminishing. As an apparent result of the destruction of
birds, the vines, the fruit trees, the forest trees, and the
grain in the fields, had suffered much from the attacks of
destructive insects, that had increased as a result of the dis-
turbance of nature’s balance caused by the decrease of birds.
In one department of the east of France the value of the wheat
destroyed by insects in a single season was estimated at five
million francs. It was concluded that by no agency save that
of little birds could the ravages of insects be kept down.
The commission called for prompt and energetic remedies,
and suggested that the teachers and clergy should endeavor
to put the matter in its proper light before the people.
In 1895 I received a letter from Mons. J. O. Clercy,
secretary of the Society of Natural Sciences, Ekaterinburg,
Russian Siberia, in which he stated that the ravages of two
species of cutworms and some ten species of locusts had con-
tributed (together with the want of rain) to produce a famine
in that region. One of the evident causes which permitted
such a numerous propagation of insect pests was, he said,
the almost complete destruction of birds, most of which had
been killed and sent abroad by wagonloads for ladies’ hats.
A law for the protection of birds was then enacted, and, said
M. Clercy, “The poor little creatures are doing their best
to reoccupy their old places in the woods and gardens.” The
reoccupation, however, did not go on as rapidly as did the
destruction.+
Mr. R. E. Turner, in an important paper upon insects,
read before an agricultural conference at Mackay, Quecns-
land, stated that he considered that the decrease of insectiv-
orous birds, owing to their indiscriminate shooting by the
Kanakas on the plantations, had a great deal to do with the
1 The Gipsy Moth, by E. H. Forbush and C. H. Fernald, p. 206. Published
by the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1896.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 75
increase of the sugar-cane insects, particularly white grubs,
which were then so abundant.!__A similar effect was observed
by the early settlers of America to follow the shooting of
the birds which attacked their crops. Kalm states, in his
Travels in America, that in 1749, after a great destruction
among the Crows and Blackbirds for a legal reward of three
pence per dozen, the northern States experienced a complete
loss of their grass and grain crops. The colonists were
obliged to import hay from England to feed their cattle.
The greatest losses from the ravages of the Rocky Mountain
locust were coincident with, or followed soon after, the de-
struction by the people of countless thousands of Blackbirds,
Prairie Chickens, Quail, Upland Plover, Curlew, and other
birds. This coincidence seems significant, at least.
Professor Aughey tells how this slaughter was accom-
plished. He says that the Blackbirds and many other birds
decreased greatly in Nebraska in the twelve years previous
to 1877. He first went to the State in 1864. He never saw
the Blackbirds so abundant as they were during 1865 over
eastern Nebraska. Vast numbers of them were poisoned
around the corn fields in spring and fall during the twelve
years, so that often they were gathered and thrown into
piles. This was done in the belief that the Blackbirds were
damaging the crops, especially the corn. Great numbers of
birds of other species were destroyed at the same time. A
single grain of corn soaked with strychnine would suffice to
kill a bird. In one autumn, in Dakota County alone, not
less than thirty thousand birds must have been destroyed in
this way. Regarding this slaughter he wrote : —
Supposing that each of these birds averaged eating one hundred and
fifty insects each day, we then have the enormous number of onc hun-
dred and thirty-five million insects saved in this one county in one
month that ought to have been destroyed through the influence of birds.
When we reflect, further, that many of these birds were migratory, and
that they helped to keep down the increase of insects in distant regions,
the harm that their destruction did is beyond calculation. The killing
of such birds is no local loss; it is a national, a continental loss.?
1 Insect Life, by Riley and Howard. 1894, Vol. VI, No. 4, p. 333.
2 First Report of the United States Entomological Commission. Riley, Pack-
ard, and Thomas. 1877, pp. 348, 344.
76 USEFUL BIRDS.
Professor Aughey gathered statistics regarding the killing
of Quail and Prairie Chickens for the market during this
period, and concluded that in thirty counties the average
yearly slaughter of these birds must have been at least five
thousand Quail and ten thousand Prairie Chickens for each
county, or four hundred and fifty thousand birds in all. We
can only conjecture as to how great was the destruction of
other game birds.
The poisoning of birds in the west permitted an increase
of many other insects besides the locusts. A farmer from
Wisconsin informed me that, the Blackbirds in his vicinity
having been killed off, the white grubs increased in number
and destroyed the grass roots, so that he lost four hundred
dollars in one year from this cause.
THE DESTRUCTION OF INJURIOUS MAMMALS BY BIRDS.
The injury to trees and crops by insects is not the only
evil that has followed the destruction of birds and other
animals by man. Rapacious birds hold a chief place among
the forces which are appointed to hold in check the gnawing
mammals or rodents, which breed rapidly, and, unless kept
within bounds, are very destructive to grass fields, crops, and
trees. The great swarms of lemmings which have appeared
from time to time upon the Scandinavian peninsula are his-
torical. Their migrations, during which they destroy the
grass or grain in their path, until finally they reach the sea
and perish in a vain attempt to cross it, have been recorded
often. A similar increase of rodents may take place any-
where whenever their natural enemies are unduly reduced in
numbers. Such cases are on record in England and Scot-
land. In Stowe’s Chronicle, in 1581, it is stated : —
About Hallontide last past (1580) in the marshes of Danessey Hun-
dred, in a place called South Minster, in the county of Essex, there
sodainlie appeared an infinite number of mice, which overwhelming the
whole earth in the said marshes, did sheare and gnaw the grass by the
rootes, spoyling and tainting the same with their venimous teeth in such
sort, that the cattell which grazed thereon were smitten with a murraine
and died thereof; which vermine by policie of man could not be de-
stroyed, till at the last it came to pass that there flocked together such
—
’
PLATE VI.— Field or Meadow Mouse. A prolific and destructive
species, held in check by Hawks and Owls.
PLATE VII.— White-footed or Deer Mouse. A destructive wood
mouse, the increase of which is controlled by Hawks and Owls.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. V7
a number of Owles, as all the shire was able to yield, whereby the
marsh-holders were shortly delivered from the vexation of the said
mice. The like of this was also in Kent.
This reads a little like a fable or legend, and we must be
permitted to doubt the statement as to the cause of the
“murraine ;” but the accuracy of the story, in the main, is
corroborated by the records of later occurrences of a similar
nature in the same region. Childrey also records this occur-
rence in his Britannia Baconica, 1660, p. 14.
Similar “sore plagues of strange mice” were experienced
in Essex again in 1648, near Downham Market, Norfolk, in
1745, and again in Gloucestershire and Hampshire in 1813—
14.1 With regard to Norfolk, the following extract is of
interest : —
Once in about six or seven years, Hilgay, about one thousand acres,
is infested with an incredible number of field mice, which, like locusts,
would devour the corn of every kind. Invariably there follows a pro-
digious flight of Norway Owls, and they tarry until the mice are entirely
destroyed by them.?
Notwithstanding that both the cause and remedy of these
frequent outbreaks of field mice were apparent, the de-
struction of their natural enemies by man still goes on. In
1875-76 a noted outbreak of mice occurred in the borders of
Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire, and Dumfriesshire, also in parts
of Yorkshire. The abundance of the mice attracted Hawks,
Owls, and foxes in unusual numbers. In 1892 an alarming
increase of these field mice again occurred in the south of
Scotland. In Roxburgh and Dumfries alone the plague was
estimated to have extended over an area of eighty thousand to
ninety thousand acres.? A preponderance of opinion among
farmers was reported, tracing the cause of this outbreak to
the scarcity of Owls, Hawks, weasels, and other so-called
vermin. All these animals, and Crows also, are to be
ranged among the natural enemies of mice. The state-
1 See Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, 1892, p. 223, and papers there
cited.
2 Gentleman’s Magazine, 1754, Vol. 24, p. 215.
® Report to the Board of Agriculture on the Plague of Field Mice or Voles in
the South of Scotland, 1892,
78 USEFUL BIRDS.
ment made by Childrey as to the assemblage of Owls when
the field mice swarmed in Essex in 1580 received confirma-
tion during 1892. Local observers reported that, after the
great increase of voles was noticed, the Short-eared Owl
( Otus brachyotus) became much more numerous on the hill
farms, and that many pairs, contrary to precedent, remained
to breed.
Dr. W. B. Wall expresses the opinion, from his experience
with the pests, that their chief enemies are the Owl and the
Kestrel (a Hawk), which do more to reduce their ranks than
all the traps of the farmers and the “microbes of the scien-
tists” combined. Both farmers and game keepers in England
and Scotland are inclined to regard these birds as vermin, to
be shot at sight.
In some parts of the United States the destruction of the
natural enemies of rodents by man has been so complete that
these animals have greatly increased in numbers. Prairie
hares, or Jack rabbits, as they are called, became so numer-
ous in some States at times that they could not be kept in
check by ordinary hunting, and the people of whole town-
ships congregated to drive them into great pens, where
thousands were killed with clubs. Gophers or spermophiles
have so increased in numbers that they have become pests.
Farmers have been obliged to resort to extraordinary meas-
ures to destroy them. Jn Montana such large sums were
paid out in six months of 1887 in bounties for the destruc-
tion of ground squirrels or gophers and prairie dogs, that
a special session of the Legislature was called to repeal the
law, lest it should bankrupt the State.
In New England our common hares (miscalled rabbits)
are kept in check in thickly settled regions by hunters; but
the field mice, which are not subject to this check, have
increased so rapidly in many localities that during the hard
winters of 1903-04 and 1904-05 thousands of young fruit
trees in the New England States were attacked by them and
ruined. These mice have become so numerous that in some
places young trees cannot be grown unless protected from
them. They also destroy a great quantity of grass and grain,
some small fruit, and vegetables. Unfortunately, the food
habits of these little animals have never been fully studied.
Sereech Owl.
PLATE VIII.—A Useful Mouse-eating Owl. (From Warren,
after Audubon.)
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 79
Enough is known, however, to show that they have some
beneficial habits, as well as some injurious ones; but they
constitute a very potential force for harm, on account of their
great fecundity. Ido not know how many young our com-
mon species can produce ina year, but two female European
field mice kept in captivity gave birth to thirty-six young
within five months. The tally was ended by the escape of
one of the pair, else there probably would have been re-
corded a still larger number. The interval between the birth
of one litter of young and that of the next was only from
twenty-four to twenty-nine days: This shows the danger
that might easily arise from the unchecked increase of a
creature which, feeding upon both crops and trees, is capable
of unmeasured devastation. It also shows the folly of ex-
tirpating those Hawks and Owls which are known to feed
largely on field mice, for they constitute the only natural
force, that can quickly assemble at a threatened point, for
the reduction of these pests.
The number of small rodents eaten by the rapacious birds
is almost as remarkable in proportion to their size as is the
number of insects taken by smaller birds. Lord Lilford says
that he has seen a pair of Barn Owls bring food to their
young no less than seventeen times within half an hour,
and that he has fed nine mice in succession to a young Barn
Owl two-thirds grown.! During the summer of 1890 a pair
of Barn Owls occupied a tower of the Smithsonian building
at Washington. It is the habit of Owls to regurgitate the
indigestible portions of their food. Dr. A. K. Fisher found
the floor strewn with pellets of bones and fur which these
birds and their young had thrown up. An examination of
two hundred of the pellets gave a total of four hundred and
fifty-four skulls: two hundred and twenty-five of these were
meadow mice; two, pine mice; one hundred and seventy-
nine, house mice ; twenty, rats; six, jumping mice ; twenty,
shrews; one, a star-nosed mole; and one, a Vesper Spar-
row.2. In my examinations of the stomachs and pellets of
1 An article on the Barn Owl, by W. B. Tegetmeier. Field, Vol. LXXV,
No. 1956, June 21, 1890, p. 906.
2 The Hawks and Owls of the United States, by Dr. A. K. Fisher. United
States Department of Agriculture, 1893.
80 USEFUL BIRDS.
small Owls I have almost invariably found that the food
consisted very largely of field mice and wood mice, with a
few shrews, and rarely a bird or two. Several species of
Hawks seem to feed almost entirely on field mice, small
reptiles, batrachians, and insects.
The young of Hawks and Owls remain a long time in the
nest, and require a great quantity of food. They probably
tax the resources of the parent birds excessively in the etfort
to find enough food for them ; hence some species are forced
to commit depredations on the poultry yard, while a few kill
birds and poultry from choice. But most of these birds are,
on the whole, useful to the farmer. Dr. Fisher, having ex-
amined the contents of two thousand six hundred and ninety
stomachs of Hawks and Owls from various parts of the United
States, and collected the evidence of many observers, con-
cludes that Owls are among the most beneficial of all birds ;
and that Hawks, with possibly one or two exceptions, are in
some degree beneficial to the farmer.
THE VALUE OF WATER-BIRDS AND SHORE BIRDS.
Many shore birds are to some extent insectivorous. Many
Gulls and Terns might be reckoned among the friends of the
farmer, were they fully protected by law and public senti-
ment, as they now are in some countries and in some west-
ern localities in our own country. But here they have been
so persecuted that they usually keep well away from the
vicinity of field and farm. Even as it is, however, they ren-
der some service to man. Certain water-birds are useful to
navigators, fishermen, and pilots. In thick summer weather
the appearance of Terns or Gulls in numbers, or the sound
of their clamorous voices, gives warning to the mariner that
he is nearing the rocks on which they breed. Shore fisher-
men enshrouded in fog can tell the direction of the islands
on which the birds live by watching their undeviating flight
homeward with food for their young. The keen senses of
sea birds enable them to head direct for their nests, even in
dense mist. Fishermen often discover schools of fish by.
watching the sea birds, that, like the larger fish, pursue the
small fry.
PLATE IX.—Regurgitated Owl Pellets.
of bones and fur, also feathers of a Robin, were left near author's
house by Screech Owls.
These pellets, composed
4
sypce CVI VIIPINA
8 eeeer Bie Me r
x
PLATE X.— The Same Pellets, dissected. The fur is shown in a
pile on the right, and, on the left, portions of skulls and other
bones of mice, shrews, and moles, eaten by the Owls.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 81
Navigators approaching their home port during seasons
of bird migration welcome the appearance of familiar land
birds which are seen while land is still far out of sight. Mr.
Frank M. Chapman has shown, in an interesting paper on
the ornithology of the first voyage of Columbus, that we
possibly owe the discovery of America by Columbus to the
fact that he happened to approach the land at the right time
and place to cross the line of the fall flight of land birds that
were going from the Bermudas to the Bahamas and Antilles.
The discouraged seainen were on the verge of mutiny, and
might have compelled Columbus to return to Spain, had not
small land birds come aboard unwearied and singing. The
course of the vessel was changed to correspond with the
direction of their flight, and the voyage was thus shortened
two hundred miles and pursued to its end.!
The well-known services of Vultures, which destroy gar-
bage and carrion in the tropics, have no real counterpart in
the north. Crows are of some use, but Gulls and other
water-birds are most valuable to man in this respect, in that
they devour the garbage and refuse that are cast into harbors
and arms of the sea, thus undoubtedly preventing the pollu-
tion of many bays and beaches by floating filth and refuse
from great cities.
Sea birds must be reckoned among the chief agencies which
have rendered many rocky or sandy islands fit for human
habitation. The service performed by birds in fertilizing,
soil-building, and seed-sowing on many barren islands has
entitled our feathered friends to the gratitude of many a
shipwrecked sailor, who must else have perished miserably
on barren, storm-beaten shores.
THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF BIRDS.
In all the foregoing we have considered mainly “the good
offices that birds voluntarily take upon themselves in our
service.” We have yet to take into account the tax which
we impose upon them for our own revenue of profit or
pleasure, —a tax which we collect unsparingly, and with the
strong hand of force.
1 Papers presented at the World's Congress on Ornithology, 1896, pp. 181-185,
82 USEFUL BIRDS.
This tribute of flesh, blood, and feather is levied largely
upon those orders of birds which in domestication become
poultry, and in the wild state are known as game birds ; but
many small land birds have become victims of man’s greed,
and the sea birds have been forced to contribute to his food
supply.
The eggs of certain Gulls, Terns, Herons, Murres, and
Ducks that breed in large colonies find a ready sale in the
market, or furnish a part of the food supply of the people
who live near these breeding places. Wholesale egging was
carried on along the coast of Massachusetts and other New
England States, until the Gulls and Terns were in most cases
driven away from their breeding places. The inhabitants
along the shores of the southern States, as well as those
“on the Pacific coast, gathered the eggs of the sea birds by
boatloads for many years. For nearly fifty years Murres’
eggs were collected on the Farallone Islands and shipped
to the San Francisco market. It is said that in 1854 more
than five hundred thousand eggs were sold there in less than
two months. This must have been an important item in the
food supply of the young and growing city. Mr. H. W.
Elliot mentions that on the occasion of his first visit to
Walrus Island in the Behring Sea six men loaded a badarrah,
carrying four tons, to the water’s edge with Murres’ eggs.
On Laysan, one of the Hawaiian Islands, there is a great
breeding place of an Albatross (Diomedea immutabilis).
Such immense quantities of their eggs have been gathered
that cars have been loaded with them.' All this egg collect-
ing, however, should be stopped, for it tends to exterminate
the birds, and all the eggs needed for human consumption
can be produced by poultry.
Sea birds which breed on isolated islands or barren shores
feed mainly on animal food, which they get from the sea.
Guano consists of the excreta and ejecta of sea birds, mixed
with the remains of birds, fish, and other animals. It is found
on the gathering places of these birds. In the rainless lati-
1A Review of Economic Ornithology in the United States, by Dr. T. S.
Palmer. Yearbook, United States Department of Agriculture, 1899, pp. 271, 272.
See this paper also for an account of the guano trade.
Cuqnjouoy ‘sure “ff Aq ydersoyoyg) ‘S839 TIAL popvo] Wo9q ABT SIBd
aIoIpM ‘spaq vas Jo aov[d Surpsatq y “] ‘HW ‘pue[s] ueskeT uo sassoneqiy — ‘IX ALV Id
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 83
tudes of the Pacific, near the equator, guano once accumulated
in tremendous deposits. It dried quickly, and where there
were no rains to wash it away it was preserved with most of its
fertilizing constituents intact. The guano found on islands
outside the dry latitudes is of less value, as its nitrogen is
quickly washed out or dissipated. The importance of guano
as a fertilizer was recognized in Peru by the Indians more
than three centuries ago. Under the Incas the birds on the
Chincha Islands were carefully protected, and the deposits
of guano jealously guarded. It is said that the penalty of
death was inflicted on any one who killed birds near these
rocks in the breeding season.
Humboldt, returning from his travels in tropical America
in 1804, carried some samples of guano to Europe, and first
called attention to the value of the deposits of this substance
on the Chincha Islands; but it was nearly forty years later
that guano became a stimulus to intensive agriculture, and
furnished a source of revenue to civilized nations. The vast
deposits on these three islands covered the rocks in some
places to a depth of ninety or one hundred feet. The amount
still undisturbed in 1853 was estimated by the official sur-
veyors of the Peruvian government as twelve million, three
hundred and seventy-six thousand, one hundred tons. Its
use was first attempted in England in 1840; at that time the
beds seemed inexhaustible. The guano trade soon became
so important as to be a source of diplomatic correspondence
between nations. It is said to have brought Peru and Chile
to the verge of war. By 1850 the price of Peruvian guano
had advanced in the United States to fifty dollars a ton, and
American enterprise began to seek guano elsewhere.
Americans have since filed with the government claims
to bout seventy-five guano islands in the South Pacific or
in the Caribbean Sea. The vast deposits on the Chinchas
are nearly exhausted, and fertilizers are now manufactured to
supply the demand. Undoubtedly, however, the discovery
and use of guano marked the beginning of the present enor-
mous trade in commercial fertilizers. The manurial value
of the phosphoric acid and nitrogen contained in fish has
now become quite generally recognized, and fleets of small
84 USEFUL BIRDS.
vessels are employed in seining menhaden and other fish for
use in the manufacture of fertilizers.
Notwithstanding the value of birds to man as destroyers
of insects and vermin, they are killed and utilized by him
in various ways.
The destruction of game birds has been so great in Mas-
sachusetts, and the demand so much in excess of the supply,
that birds are now imported from other States and from
other countries. It is becoming a serious question, with
those most interested, how we shall so regulate the shooting
of game birds that the supply may be kept up. The game
birds of America have a great intrinsic value as game. The
flesh of many is considered to rank high among delicacies.
The pursuit of these birds has formed a large part of the
occupation of many members of the rural population during
the shooting seasons, and a vast business has grown out of
the traffic in birds’ flesh. Anenormous game business has
been carried on by provision dealers in this country, and the
demand for game is continually increasing. Few accurate
statistics of the amount of game sold are obtainable; but
Mr. D. G. Elliot, writing in 1864, states that one dealer in
New York was known to receive twenty tons of Prairie
Chickens in one consignment, and that some of the larger
poultry dealers were estimated to have sold from one hun-
dred and fifty thousand to two hundred thousand game birds
in the course of six months.!
The killing of birds for sport has a certain economic affin-
ity with market hunting, in that it supports a large trade in
guns, ammunition, boats, dogs, and all the tools, appliances,
and impedimenta of the sportsman. It furnishes employment
to guides, dog breakers, and boatmen, and helps support
many country hostelries and seaside hotels. The manufac-
ture of firearms and ammunition for sportsmen has become
a great industry. Altogether, many thousands of men are
dependent for a part of their livelihood on the killing of
game for sport or food, while a still larger army finds its
chief outdoor recreation in the pursuit of game birds. The
+ Report of the United States Commissioner of Agriculture, 1864, pp. 383, 384.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 85
value of game birds to the farmer, epicure, marketman, and
sportsman should insure them the most stringent protection.
Nevertheless, some of the migratory species, through lack
of effectual protection, have already been so reduced in num-
bers that they are no longer of any commercial importance.
The domestication of birds probably was coincident with
that of animals, and grew from the desire of the primitive
agriculturist to have always at hand a fresh supply of deli-
cate and nutritious animal food. No other animals can ever
be so adapted to the environments of civilization as to fur-
nish us with a similarly valuable supply of both meat and
eggs.
The poultry business of this country has grown to such
importance that the total value of the annual poultry prod-
uct has reached nearly three hundred million dollars. Mas-
sachusetts imported probably about eighteen million dollars’
worth of poultry products in 1903. When we consider that
in all the centuries the work of domestication has included
but a few species, it is evident that the possibilities in this
direction have not been exhausted.
Within the last half-century fashion has been responsible
for the killing of millions of birds for the millinery trade.
This trade is now limited by laws making it illegal to kill or
use most native birds, except game birds, for this purpose.
Instances of the destruction of birds for millinery purposes
will be given in another chapter. The American demand
for feathers for ornamental uses is now largely met by
articles manufactured from the feathers of domestic fowls
and game birds. The demand for Ostrich plumes has re-
sulted in the establishment of a new industry in America, —
the raising of Ostriches.
There has been a growing demand for American song birds
for cage purposes ; but this traffic is now prohibited by law.
THE ZSTHETIC, SENTIMENTAL, AND EDUCATIONAL
VALUE OF BIRDS.
Thus far I have written solely from the standpoint of
“enlightened selfishness,” entertaining no consideration of
the esthetic, humane, sentimental, or educational. I have
86 USEFUL BIRDS.
attempted to look at birds solely from the utilitarian point
of view, and to demonstrate the fact that their contributions
to man’s welfare have at least a material value. Now let us
turn for a moment from the contemplation of such utility
of birds as money can measure to “some of the higher and
nobler uses which birds subserve to man.” In so doing we
step at once from the beaten path of economic ornithology
into a boundless realm, sacred to art, letters, sentiment,
and poetry on the one hand, while on the other lie the fair
fields in which we may take up, if we will, the fascinating
study of birds, which may end merely in delightful experi-
ences, or lead to the class room, the museum, the laboratory,
or the closet of the systematist. Wherever it may lead us,
this phase of our subject is of the highest importance, and
demands the most serious consideration. Although presented
last, its benefactions should perhaps come first among the
items which go to make up the sum of our indebtedness to
birds.
The beauty of birds, the music of their songs, the weird
wildness of their calls, the majesty of their soaring flight,
the mystery of their migrations, have ever been subjects of
absorbing interest to poets, artists, and nature lovers every-
where. Prominent among the undying memories of men
are mental pictures of the birds of childhood, their coming
in the spring, their nesting, and their chosen haunts. Many
an exiled emigrant longs in vain to hear again the outpour-
ing melody of the Skylark, as it soars above the fields of
England. Many a New England boy, shut in by western
mountains, yearns for the bubbling, joyous song of the Bob-
olink in the June meadows. The characters and traits of
birds, their loves and battles, their skill in home building,
their devotion to their young, their habits and ways, —all
are of human interest. Birds have become symbolic of cer-
tain human characteristics ; and so the common species have
come to be so interwoven with our art and literature that
their names are household words. What biblical scholar is
not familiar with the birds of the Bible? Shakespeare makes
over six hundred references to birds or bird life. Much of
the best literature would lose half its charm were it shorn of
poetic allusions to birds.
VALUE OF BIRDS TO MAN. 87
Birds often have inspired the poets. Bryant’s lines ” To
a Water-fowl,” and Shelley’s “Skylark,” each exhibit a phase
of such inspiration. These are but instances of the stimu-
lating power exerted on the mind of man by the bird and
its associations. Some of the grandest poems ever written
have been dependent on their authors’ observation of birds
for some touch of nature which has helped to render them
immortal. Thus Gray, in his famed “Elegy written in a
Country Churchyard ” : —
The breezy call of incense-breathing morn,
The Swallow twittering from the straw-built shed,
The Cock’s shrill clarion, or the echoing horn,
No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed.
Who, reared in a country home, can fail, as he reads
these lines, to recall the twittering of the Swallows under
the spreading rafters in the cool of early morning? The
mental contemplation of that peaceful pastoral scene, the
train of tender recollections of the time of youth and inno-
cence, all tending toward better impulses and higher aspira-
tions, are largely due to the mention of the familiar bird in
its association with the home of childhood. Is not literature
the richer for the following lines of Longfellow in his “Birds
of Passage ”?
Above, in the light
Of the star-lit night,
Swift birds of passage wing their flight
Through the dewy atmosphere.
I hear the beat
Of their pinions fleet,
As from the land of snow and sleet
They seek a southern lea.
How much of life and color the presence of birds adds to
the landscape! ‘The artist appreciates this. What marine
view is complete without its Gulls in flight? How much a
flock of wild-fowl adds to a lake or river scene!
Birds are a special boon to child life, and a never-ending
“source of entertainment to many children who live upon
isolated farms, where the observation of birds’ habits adds
greatly to the rational enjoyment of existence.
It is not a far ery from the poet to the philosopher, and
88 USEFUL BIRDS.
he also sees a value in birds for the opportunity they afford
for the culture of the intellect. Every page of the book of
nature is educational. But, as Dr. Coues says, there is no
fairer or more fascinating page than that devoted to the life
history of a bird. The systematic study of birds develops
both the observational faculties and the analytical qualities
of the mind. The study of the living bird afield is rejuve-
nating to both mind and body. The outdoor use of eye, ear,
and limb, necessitated by field work, tends to fit both the
body and mind of the student for the practical work of life,
for it develops both members and faculties. It brings one
into contact with nature, — out into the sunlight, where balmy
airs stir the whispering pines, or fresh breezes ripple the blue
water. There is no purer joy in life than that which may
come to all who, rising in the dusk of early morning, wel-
come the approach of day with all its bird voices. The nature
lover who listens to the song of the Wood Thrush at dawn
—an anthem of calm, serene, spiritual joy, sounding through
the dim woods —hears it with feelings akin to those of the
devotee whose being is thrilled by the grand and sacred music
of the sanctuary. And he who, in the still forest at even-
ing, harkens to the exquisite notes of the Hermit, — that
voice of nature, expressing in sweet cadences her pathos and
her ineffable mystery, — experiences amid the falling shades
of night emotions which must humble, chasten, and purify
even the most upright and virtuous of men.
The uplifting influence that birds may thus exert upon the
lives of men constitutes to many their greatest value and
charm. Giten
BIRDS, CATERPILLARS, AND PLANT LICE. 137
caterpillars from the web and ate them. There were two Crows in the
brown-tail moth tree when I came in sight of it. I saw one of them
peck twice at the branch, and swallow something. In attempting to get
nearer to them I made a noise, and frightened them away. Could find
nothing on the branch they were on except brown-tail moths, which
they were eating. The next visitor was an Oriole, who came to the
tree and ate thirty-four larve in six minutes, then flew away. He
hammered each larva once or twice before swallowing it. The next
visitor was a Wilson’s Thrush. He first perched on a small oak on the
top of the ledge, then hopped to the dry leaves, and seemed to be
searching among them for food for about five minutes. Then he flew
to the tree and took a larva while in sight and swallowed it. He
probably took more while in the tree. He was in the tree four minutes.
He then flew down and began searching in the grass. A Red-eyed
Vireo perched in the oaks and searched for about nine minutes. I saw
him take over fifty larvae of various kinds from the leaves, some of
which were leaf-rollers. I could see him picking insects from the under
sides of the leaves. ‘Io accomplish this he would grasp the petiole with
his feet, and hang, back down, and pick the larvee off. He then went
to the apple tree and took twenty-nine larvee (brown-tail) before flying
across the boulevard. He was in the apple tree about six minutes. He
beat nearly every one on the branch before eating it.
From this and later experiences it seems that many birds
have learned to eat the larve of the brown-tail moth even
when the caterpillars reach an age when the detachable hairs
are dangerous. Probably by shaking off these hairs the birds
render the larve eatable, and even fit to feed to their young.
May 25.—A Golden-winged Warbler came to the oak trees next
the boulevard, and sang for nearly five minutes in a low, wiry voice.
He then began searching for food. Frequently I would see him take
some small green larve from the leaves, but could. not tell what kind
it was. He then flew to the apple tree and picked eleven brown-tail
larvee from the leaves and swallowed them, after hammering them on
the limbs. He probably took more while feeding in the tree, about
eight minutes. He then flew over the ledge. A pair of Orioles were
back and forth over the ledge, and would occasionally stop and eat the
brown-tail larvee for a moment or two, but did not make a long stay
while I was there. They had probably got their fill earlier in the day.
An Indigo Bird lit in the top of one of the oak trees for a moment, then
flew to the apple tree and ate six of the brown-tail larve, and was then
chased out by the English Sparrows. Three of the Sparrows perched
in the tree and picked off two or three brown-tail larve apiece, then
flew to the boulevard. A pair of Scarlet Tanagers perched for about
138 USEFUL BIRDS.
twelve minutes in the apple tree, and were busy all the time eating
brown-tail larve. I could see but one distinctly, and he ate forty-three
brown-tails that I saw, and probably a few more, but not many.
May 26.—I watched a Maryland Yellow-throat on the low willow
sprouts, and saw him pick off fifty-two gipsy moth larve before flying
away. Isaw Warblers flying in and out among the trees, taking one
here and another there all the time I was there, but could not watch
any one individual for any length of time. The Yellow Warblers were
taking them from the trunks as well as the sprouts, and also in the tops
of the tall trees. A pair came to a bunch of sprouts near me, and I
counted thirty-five gipsy larve that they took in the two minutes they
were there. A pair of English Sparrows have a nest in a hollow tree in
the grove, and they are almost continually chasing the Warblers and
other birds that come near them ; but I did not see them feed any in the
grove, —they go out to the streets and dooryards. The Redstarts were
also eating large numbers of the larve. One that I got near enough
to observe ate thirty-one gipsy larvee before he left the clump of willows.
At the brown-tail moth tree a Black-billed Cuckoo came, and, going
to a branch where the larva: were very numerous, began eating them
greedily. Te had taken four mouthfuls when a Robin, that has a nest
in a pine tree near, chased him out. A Yellow-throated Vireo came to
the tree and ate fourteen brown-tails in less than five minutes. He
probably ate many more, as he could not be distinctly seen nearly all
of the time. A Red-eyed Vireo came to the opposite side of the tree
and ate several larve, but his doings could not be clearly seen. A
male Indigo Bird perched on the topmost branch of the apple tree and
sang for several minutes, then hopped down a branch or two and
picked the larvee from the branch. I saw him eat sixteen of them
(brown-tails) after he had hammered them on the branch.
May 27.—A Yellow-billed Cuckoo came to a willow tree near me
and ate forty-seven forest tent caterpillars in six minutes, then flew
to a small maple tree and sat on a branch for nearly ten minutes and
plumed his feathers, then returned to the willow and ate sixteen more,
and flew away. He would take the caterpillar and hammer it once
or twice, then swallow it. A Blue Jay caine, and took two of the
forest tent caterpillars and flew away with them. A male Redstart ate
three forest tent caterpillars. He would take one, fly to a neighboring
branch, hammer it well, swallow it, then go back for another. A male
Oriole came to the tree three times during the forenoon, and fed on the
forest tent caterpillars. The first time he came he stayed four minutes,
and took eighteen caterpillars ; the second time he stayed seven minutes,
and took twenty-six larvee; and the last time he stayed about ten min-
utes, and ate fourteen larve. At the brown-tail moth tree there were
quite a number of birds feeding in the surrounding trees, but not nearly
all the species visited the apple tree. A Red-eyed Vireo came to the
tree and would take the brown-tail moth larvee and hammer them a
BIRDS, CATERPILLARS, AND PLANT LICE. 139
few minutes, then pull the larger ones to pieces, and swallow them;
the smaller ones she would swallow whole. I saw her eat fifteen in the
eight minutes she was in the tree. A Catbird came to the tree, picked
four brown-tail larvee from the branch, and ate them, and would prob-
ably have eaten more, but a Robin chased her out of the grove toward
the boulevard. She would give the larve a knock or two, then swal-
low them.
May 29. A pair of Blue Jays were very busy carrying food to their
young. They came twenty-four times to a willow tree, with forest tent
caterpillars on it, during the three hours I was there, and took at least
two or three larve each time. Once they went to some hazel bushes
near by, where a Chestnut-sided Warbler was sitting, and would prob-
ably have taken the eggs, if I had not interfered. A White-breasted
Nuthatch came to a willow and climbed around the trunk for a time,
when she found two forest tent caterpillars. She ate one after hammer-
ing it for a moment, but passed over the other. I saw her pass over
two others in the same way, apparently preferring to pick the smaller
insects from the bark. These were so small that I could not see what
they were. A Wood Thrush took two of the forest tent caterpillars and
ate them, and later in the day I saw a Wood Thrush go to the apple
tree and eat five of the brown-tail larvae, and then fly away. Isawa
Flicker alight on an ant hill and make a hole in the hill with her bill,
and pick up the ants. She was busy in this way for nearly fifteen min-
utes, and must have eaten large numbers of them. I found in the thick
woods a few oak trees that were badly infested with forest tent cater-
pillars, and there were quite a number of them on the low bushes on
the ground. A Chewink came to the brush, scratched in the leaves and
pulled out large grubs, but I could not make sure what they were. , She
then hopped about and took six of the forest tent caterpillars, beat them
on the ground, and atethem, An unwise move on my part frightened
her away. A Black-billed Cuckoo came and gorged himself. He ate
twenty-nine forest tent caterpillars at first, then rested between ten and
fifteen minutes, then ate fourteen more. He would shake and hammer
one on the branch, then swallow it, and pick up another. A Nashville
Warbler came to the apple tree, picked a brown-tail larva from the
leaves, beat and shook it for about thirty seconds, and swallowed it;
then took another, hammered it in the same way, and swallowed it.
He then flew to the low shrubs. A Robin was passing to and fro, but
I did not see her eat any of the brown-tails; she seemed to eat nothing
but what she took from the ground. The angleworns were plentiful
that day, and she had no appetite for anything else.
May 81.— An Indigo Bird came to the brown-tail moth tree, took a
brown-tail larva from the leaves, and flew to a low branch, shook and
hammered the larva, and ate it. He then went back, took another, and
flew with it to a neighboring oak, ate the larva, and flew away. A
Warbling Vireo sung and fed in the oak trees for nearly thirty minutes.
140 USEFUL BIRDS.
Te then went to the apple tree and took a brown-tail moth larva, picked
it to pieces, and swallowed it. He then took another, and was proceed-
ing in the same way, when he was driven out by the English Sparrow,
and flew up over the ledge out of sight. A pair of Red-eyed Vireos were
in the oaks near the apple tree for a long time, foraging. They would
hold on to the petiole of the leaf, hang with their heads down, and take
insects from the under sides of the leaves. One of them went to the
apple tree, took a brown-tail larva from the leaves, beat it on the branch,
and swallowed it. His mate then flew across the street, and he followed.
A Yellow-throated Vireo went to a small oak tree and took three gipsy
moth Jarvee that were resting ona burlap band. She scarcely stopped
to shake them at all, but swallowed them at once. A pair of Chestnut-
sided Warblers were busy taking cankerworms to their young. They
averaged one each, every three minutes for nearly thirty minutes. In
the mean time they themselves ate quite a number. The young could
not have been more than a day old. A Yellow Warbler came to an oak
tree on the edge of the orchard and took two forest tent caterpillars, then
flew to the thick apple trees and fed on cankerworms. Four Waxwings
visited the orchard for a few minutes and ate a few cankerworms, but
they seemed to be picking into the blossoms of the young fruit more than
anything else. A Redstart took a forest tent caterpillar fromr a branch,
hammered it, and ate it. He then flew out and caught a small moth,
then flew into the thick woods. A female Black and White Warbler
took a forest tent caterpillar from the trunk of an oak, flew with it to
the ground, hammered it until she broke it in pieces, and then swal-
lowed the pieces.
JuNE 1.— An English Sparrow came to the apple tree, took a brown-
tail moth larva, and, after hammering it for a moment, flew away with
it to her young. A Field Sparrow came to the open space around the
apple tree, foraged among the bushes for a few moments,
then perched in a small oak and sang. He then flew to the
apple tree, took a brown-tail larva, flew to the ground with it,
and ate it. He then flew to the open fields across Highland
Avenue. A pair of Orioles came to the tree, and the male
ate sixteen and the female twenty-five brown-tails. They
were in the tree seven minutes. A Yellow-billed Cuckoo came to the
tree and stayed about eighteen minutes, including a rest he took. He
ate thirty-four brown-tails, then rested seven minutes, and
ate twelve more. He would give them a couple of shakes,
and swallow them. The Robin coming in spied him, and
chased him out. A Rose-breasted Grosbeak visited a tree
for a moment and took at least five brown-tail larva.
He probably took more, as he was not in sight all the time. A pair
of Chickadees also visited the tree; they stayed about five minutes.
One ate nineteen brown-tail larves, and the other ate eight that I saw ;
he probably ate many more, as I could not watch him all the time,
.
BIRDS, CATERPILLARS, AND PLANT LICE. 141
being occupied with the other bird. A Yellow-throated Vireo came
through the place, visited the tree for a moment, and took two larvee,
then passed on. A male Golden-winged Warbler ate two forest tent
caterpillars, after hammering them a long time until he got them in
pieces. A female Black and White Warbler took a forest tent cater-
pillar from the trunk of a tree near me, flew to the ground and beat it
until she got it in pieces, when she took the inside parts and flew away
to her young, leaving the other parts on the ground; she did not come
back for them. A Red-eyed Vireo took a forest tent caterpillar from
a branch and hammered it, then he pulled it to pieces and ate it all.
The next one he treated in the same way, except that he ate only the
inside, and dropped the skin and head to the ground. ‘ ¥ « 29
woolly apple, f 5 P ‘i ‘ ‘ é : i . 208, 252
Aphodius inquinatus, . é : é : é : i i 7 - 61
Ardea herodius, , a ‘ ‘ , ‘ 7 7 . 352
Army worm, . . : : . ; : . 36, 218, 295, 316, 323, 330, 349
Asio accipitrinus, . F . F 5 ‘ ‘ : . 7 < . 367
wilsonianus, . F ‘é ‘ ‘ ‘ 7 ' 3 . 368
Audubon, John J.,. ‘ 5 . ‘ 3 @ ‘ a 194, 263, 346, 347
Aughey, Samuel, . ‘ . a ‘ 4 ¥ i 54, 184, 200, 335
Auk, Great, . ‘ 3 i : ‘ ‘ é i é 5 3, 354, 356
Bailey, Charles E.,. . 124, 142, 166, 169, 170, 175, 178, 214, 240, 241, 253, 256
S. Waldo, . : a A . . 7 : ‘ . ‘ . 3870
Baird, Spencer F., . é ‘ é a « 4 . a i é . I
Ballou, H. A., . * ; A : < ‘ ‘ : 7 . » 45
Bangs, Outten, ‘ : ri : 7 i 7 : . . . 238
Bark louse, oystersel. 5 é ‘ ‘i , ‘ ‘ ~~ 168, 175
Barton, B. S., . - ‘i 7 ‘i k ‘ ‘ 4 ‘ . . 54
Baskett, J. M., . . z : ‘ : i c z : 3 . 259
Baynes, Ernest Harold, . . » 420
Beal, F. E. L., > 88, 59, 61, 162, 211, 226, "997, 234, 236, 239, 259, 264, 283, 285,
293, 305, 318, 321, 342
Beetles, Colorado potato, ¥ ‘ ; * - 16, 27, 29, 216, 218, 330, 342
elm-leaf, . : 4 ‘i 7 * - 207, 211, 234
May, . A ‘ 7 a ‘6 § 10, 11, 183, 220, 227, 234, 238, 348
rose, . ‘ * ‘ * ‘ 2 * ‘ . 160, 348
striped cucumber, . 7 ‘ i i . 227, 234, 342, 348
Bendire, Charles, . i x . ‘ # ‘ x Fs ‘ » 232, 255
426 INDEX.
PAGE
Bibio albipennis, . : * ; ; . * 7 * * . 286
Bird, Myrtle, . ‘ i 5 4 é 3 s ‘ ‘ . 201
Planting, ‘i é : . , fi ‘ _ 7 : : . 179
Teacher, % ‘i ‘ . . ‘ J . 7 . 7 . 188
Birds as tree planters, . . : a . . a i ‘ . 98
pruners, . ‘ 7 : A é i , ‘ » 99
flight of, ‘ # é 4 ‘ ‘ ; ‘ ‘ ¥ s « 2
Bittern, American, ‘ < < : f : e . a i . 352
Least, A i ei , ‘ 5 . : ‘i A ‘ . 352
Blackbird, Cow, . i i . ‘ ‘ F , 0 . 320
Crow, . : a ‘ _ 5 7 114, 130, 135, 313, 371
food of, ‘ A P r i . é . 815
Marsh, . r ‘ ‘ ‘ a * . 319
Red-winged, i: 3 ‘ . 60, ‘114, 122, 125, 198, 180, 131, 319
food of, . . . 7 - 820
Rusty, . . : . 7 ‘i 5 2 a ; . 122, 312
Skunk, . ‘ 5 a - a a 3 é : * « 322
Western Crow, . ‘ ‘ ‘ 5 ‘ - : é . 313
Yellow-headed, . é ‘ : c , a a a . 67
Blackbirds, . r ‘ § ‘i : . . - i - 2, 69, 75, 76
Blissus leucopterus, Z . ; é : . . i ‘ . 83
Bluebird, ‘ . . ‘ : ‘ ‘i q i . 115, 290, 389
food of, . é 7 7 . 4 ; . c i . 291
Bobolink, . ; ‘ ‘ ‘ é i ‘ . ‘ ‘ 125, 127, 322
food of, . 4 7 ‘ i . . . . r « 323
Bob-white, ‘ % ‘ ‘i : : 5 e a 7 . + 60, 325
food of, . e i . ? ‘ ‘i F j _ . 881
Bombyx dispar, % ‘ 7 7 4 ‘ . ‘ Fi ‘ . . 64
Borer, bronze birch, . : i i 7 f ‘ . ‘i ‘i . 254
maple, . Fi F ei Fi 4 a f . : . ‘ . 254
Brewer, Thomas M., 5 A . 847
Brewster, William, i 13, 218, 243, 267, 269, 331, ‘338, 390, 404, 410, 418, 420
estate of, zi : . i * + 403
Bruchus hibisci, . : ‘ : ¥ . i ‘ ‘ x a 178
Bruner, Lawrence, . x i j . . ¥ . * ‘ z . 109
Bubo virginianus, . , ‘ . ‘ « ‘ é a : ‘ - 367
Bucculatrix pomifoliella, ‘ ‘ * . “ * : , ¥ » 252
Buckham, James, . ‘ i é 3 fi 7 a 7 . 343
Bull bat, 4 ¥ ‘ a ‘ ‘ . ¥ 4 ‘ . 341
Bunting, Bopniieed; . . . . . . a ‘ F ; - 311
Black-throated, w ‘ 4 r é « ‘ # ‘ . 306
Cow, ‘ r A - ‘ r ‘ a ‘ , . . 320
Indigo, . ‘ 2 Fi % a ‘ i . 115, 122, 298
Burroughs, John, . . ; é fi é 189, ‘190, 199, 226, 312, 363, 371
Butterfly, mourning-cloak, . . 3 , 3 3 ‘ ‘ 16
caterpillar of, f ‘ oy 2 é « 227
parsley, eggs of, . ‘ ‘ i ‘ ‘ 4 ‘ - - 305
Cabbage worms, . 7 - ‘ ‘ , ‘ ‘i ‘ : ‘ . 802
Canary, Wild, ‘ : , e p é ji jr . ‘ . 194, 222
Cankerworm, fall, . : 7 7 a ‘ z ‘ . ‘ . . 169
spring, + 70, 170
Cankerworms, Fi 125, 127-129, 131-135, 140, 141, 115, 181, 188, 191, 195, 210,
221, 231, 295, 302, 304
Carpocapsa pomonella, . . ‘ . ‘ ‘ . ‘ ‘ . » 151
INDEX. 427
PAGE
Carpodacus purpureus, . 3 a . 220
Catbird, . : : : 57, 58, 108, 109, 115, "129, 125-128, 139, 181, 283, 371
food of, . ‘ i - 182
Caterpillars, American tent, . 117, 118, 123, 126, 127, 130-136, 195, 208, 226, 302,
304, 343
brown-tail moth, ; . . 130-140, 184, 302, 304, 370
forest tent, . 6 5 + 69, 120, 125, 127, 138-140, 175
gipsy moth, . 63, 125, 126, 128, 129, 133-136, 138, 141, 144, 145,
157, 160, 175, 181, 184, 188, 195, 205, 208, 218, 226,
333, 369
oak, . r é a . . 7 $ Fi i A . 272
red-humped, r ‘ F ‘ * Fl a ‘ s 272
tussock moth, . é & i a r x 8 7 » 120
Cecidomyia destructor, . 5 7 ‘ 7 ‘ ‘ : : i . 33
Cedar Bird, . ‘ * 7 ‘ : 7 : . 51, 57, 60, 69, 209
Certhia familiaris annerioane, : ‘ 3 . 5 a 5 a . 177
Chetura pelagica, . . . . ; : : ‘ d . 340
Chapman, Frank M., . ‘ % ‘ ‘ a $ ‘81, 91, 197, 250, 386
Chebec, . * ‘ r ‘ . ‘ é . . é , . 229
Chermes lenctfetia,« ‘ : q : i . f é 3 ‘ i . 223
Cherry Bird, . . * : ’ * ‘ * ‘ " - 209
Chewink, . . bank 126, 107, 139, 218
Chickadee, . . * B8, 115, 122, 124, 129, 130, 136, 140, 143, 145, 146, 163, 400
food of, . , i ; 167-171
Chinch bug, . Z 3 i : i a ‘| » 27, 28, 33
Chip Bird, Chinen, Chippy, ‘ ri , ‘ % . 4 . ‘ . 803
Chordeiles virginianus, ‘ ‘ ‘ F : ‘i : ‘ : . 341
Circus hudsonicus, . ‘ z r : ‘ $ : ‘ P P . 267
Cistothorus stellaris, a . ‘i : . 7 . 7 ‘ ‘ . 850
Clercy, J. O., ‘ : ‘ ” ¥ s 4 ‘ 2 : ‘ . 74
Coccyzus americanus, . : 2 7 : . z 7 : Fi - 265
erythropthalmus, . ¥ : ‘ : ; ‘ é i . 263
Colaptes auratus luteus, 7 . . . . 7 3 3 ; - 260
Coleman, Robert H., . ; ; ‘ s 7 é ‘ ‘ 3 . 186
Colinus virginianus, 3 a . . . ‘ . . ¢ a - 325
ColWWaG.g ee % = ho & & & we «. w 610
Contopus virens, . ‘ : ® r ‘ r ‘ i ‘ ¥ . 231
Corydalus cornutus, zi : ‘ 7 : ; ‘ : ‘ ‘ . 214
Cotton worm, . ‘ : ; é ‘ é ‘ é ~ @8e
Coturniculus savannarum sopesbeinac 4 ‘ ri 7 4 i ‘ . 308
Cowbird, * a 7 ‘ . ; ‘ i ‘ ‘ : - . 320
Crane, Whooping, . i : é é * : ‘ a ‘ a . 67
Creeper, American Brown, . . . : : : s 2 - 177
food of, 7 7 : . z ; ‘ . 178
Black and White, . 2 é 4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ¥ . 144,191
Crickets, western, . . 65, 66
Crow, . 2, 8-11, 26, 45-50, ts, 97, 114, 15, 125, 126, 129, 137, 145, 146, 333, 369
trapping the, . . . 406
Cuckoo, Black-billed, . . 5 114, 115, 125, ‘128, 136, 138, 139, 142, 144, 263
food of, : . 264
Yellow-billed, . j ‘ 60, 61, 114, ‘15, 126, 128, 138, 140, 146, 265
food of, ’ % 266
Curlews, . i ‘ 68, 75
Cutworms, . 11, a1, 34, 44, 157, 160, 181, 183, “987, 291, 295, 315, 316, 318, 330
Cyanospiza cyanea, ‘i . : . 298
428 INDEX.
PAGE
Dearborn, Ned, . " . 45, 48, 61
Dendroica estiva, . - ‘ . r . 194
coronata, « 201
pensylvanica, « 192
vigorsii, . - 200
virens, . 198
Diacrisia virginica, . 120
Dickcissel, ‘ » 855
Dike, A. C., ‘ 362, 408, 420
Diomedea immutabilis, . 82
Diplosis tritici, i, 22
Dobson, ‘ 4 4 » 214
Doryphora decemlineata, . 16
Dove, 4 13, 25
Carolina, . 324
Mourning, 60, 324
Turtle, . 324
Duck, Black, . ‘ : : : : : . 353
Wood, . 7 * é ~ ' c a i . 353
Dutcher, William, . . * ‘ . 3863, 418, 419
Eagle, Bald, . 866
Egrets, destruction of, . 3857
Elaphidion villosum, 99
Elliot, D. G., . ‘ ei 84
H. W., e ‘ 7 . 82
Ellsworth, J. Lewis, . 419
Euproctis chrysorrhea, 39
Euvanessa antiopa, 16
Falco columbarius, . 3866
peregrinus anatum, . 3866
sparverius, . 3866
Fannin, J., . 332
Farley, J. A., : » 283
Felt, E. P., ; . 69, 120, 247
Fernald, C. H., . 7 142, 240, 346
H. T., . 37
Field, G. W., . 419
Finch, Crimson, . 220
Grass, . . 311
Purple, 122, 125, 220
food of, - 221
Fire Hang Bird, . 3 + 224
Fisher, A. K., 3 : ¢ A . 66, 79, 80, 206
Fiske, W. F., “ ‘ é é ‘i a ‘ . 55
Fitch, Asa, 28, 255
Flagg, Wilson, 73, 204, 287
Fletcher, James, 4 ‘ ‘ » 85
Flicker, , ‘ 60, 126, 139, 146, 249
Northern, . , F fl . 122, 260
food of, : ; . 261
tongue of, . » 261
Flies, crane, . i ‘ 207, 211
house, . z .
208, 235
INDEX. 429
PAGE
Flies, March, . ‘ * 7 : a ‘i Fi z Fi 7 é . 286
May, « ‘ - ¥ ‘i ¥ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ @ ‘ « 130
robber, . é : : 3 P . ‘ . ‘ 239
Flycatcher, Great-crested, . ‘ - é: ‘ 114, 115, 141, 144
Least, . ‘6 : ‘ : : 114, 115, 122, 180, 133, 141, 143, 229
food of, . P : « 231
Forbes, S. A., : 5 ‘ Z & Ae, 60, 155, 160, 181, 183, 210, 272, 285
First, Herman, . ‘ . ‘ 4 . ‘ a x Ut
Galeoscoptes carolinensis, ‘ ‘ ‘ 4 ‘ “ * # * « 2BL
Galerucella luteola, : i ‘ . 3 ‘ ‘ » 207
Gallinago delicata, . : é F ‘ ‘ . : 5 : . 337
Game birds, destruction of, . ‘s z ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘i ‘ 76, 84, 356
Gentry, T. G., ci 5 i r . ‘ . 192, 213, 234, 302
Geolplypis fechas brachidactya * “ % e 3 % z ‘ - 186
Glover, Townend, . ‘ ‘ x ¥ a ‘ ‘ ‘ . 29, 251
Goldfinch, American, . 4 , r 6 ‘ ‘ 5 . 122, 153, 222
food of, S i * z é a ‘ - 223
Goodell, Henry H., . is . ‘ ‘ 5 ‘ ; . i » 36
Goodmore, 8. E., . i " ¥ . . é é é » 68
Gophers, i z ‘ i ‘ . : ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘* ‘ » 8
Goshawk, 2 j 2 é i ’ é ‘ ‘ r é . 62, 366
Grackle, Bronzed, . r , ri - ‘ ‘ . 3 a . 114, 313
Purple, . x * , 4 5 ‘ a P ‘ . 114, 313
Rusty, . » 312
Grosbeak, Biae brassted, ‘52, 115, 122, 125- 128, 131, ‘133, 140, 142, 14, 145, 216
food of, . ‘ s ; . 218
Ground Bird, . x ‘ ; F ‘ “ a é ” : ‘ » 299
Grouse, . ‘ : : 2 i ‘ i 5 4 ‘ 4 z 13, 43
Ruffed, § % $ ‘ 5 3 3 r ‘ ‘ 61, 99, 267
food of, . : r a ‘ ‘i : ‘ ‘ ‘ . 271
food plants, list of, ‘ é é i : F . 273
Grub, white, . . . = ‘ . . ‘ . "40, 76, 181, 289
Guano, . ‘ A ‘ ‘ ‘ zi . ‘ : ‘ 82
Gull, Tikowiiheaded, . * r : ‘ “ ‘ ‘ ‘ ; « 405
Franklin’s, . r ‘ ‘ ‘ < * s ‘ : x 61, 67
Gulls, utility of, . ‘ % ‘ . ‘ ‘“ ‘* ‘ ‘ 80, 81
Hair Bird, ¥ : i * j < ‘ ; ‘ ; ‘ ‘ . 303
Hang Nest, . é . 7 é : . é ‘ és ‘ 7 - 224
Hares, . 3 a 5 . . ‘ ‘i 5 . ‘ . * . 78
Harris, T. W., 3 ‘ : ‘i ‘ ‘ 7 Z j ‘ ‘: . 226
Harvey, F. L., ; : i ‘i 7 . ‘ 5 ‘i é . 60
Hawk, . é ‘ ‘ i ‘ x 4 . 2 P ‘. ‘ « 6
Bog, . é ‘ a s e 3 : : 3 3 . . 867
Chicken, . ‘ é ‘ . é % 2 é , Z . 366
Coopers, . 7 i 2 . 7 : . . $ ‘ . 366
Duck, . ‘ ‘ F , . . z 3 2 : : . 366
ilies Gia © “% oe. Le Se (eo oe: Ge aa
Marsh, . . ‘ 4 . : ; ‘ . : . 867, 406
Pigeon, é ‘ 7 . . . . . . . . - 3866
Red-shouldered, . : : ’ ‘ é “ 5 ‘ . 366
Sharp-shinned, . 5 é . . : é 3 1 : . 366
Sparrow, . ‘ . . . . . . . . : . 366
Hawks, trapping, . . . : 7 . . . . : ‘ . 406
430 INDEX.
PAGE
Heath Hen, . % , ‘ . 26, 266
Heliophila unipuncta, a . 36
Hellgramite, . . . . 214
Helops acreus, " 5 . 178
Henshaw, Henry W., . . 419
Hemerocampa leucostigma, . + 120
Heron, Black-crowned Night, ’ - 351
Great Blue, * : 67, 352
Green, ‘a . . 351
High-hole, Hichtholder, . 260
Hill, Henry B., i . . . 420
Hirundo erythrogaster, J ‘ . 345
Hodge, C. F., . 3 . 267, 269, 211, 373
Hoffman, Ralph, . 7 191, 199, 310
Hopkins, A.D., . 247
Hornaday, William T., . 354
Howard, L. O., 153, 154, 162
Hummingbird, Biwhy-throated; ‘ , . . 122, 240
food of, . ‘ . 242, 244
Hylocichla fuscescens, . . 156
mustelina, . 158
Indian Hen, é ‘ F . 852
Indigo Bird, ; i a : . 187,139, 298
Insects, parasitic, ‘ * a “ , a ‘ 18-20, 240
predaceous, . » 17
transformations of, 13-15
To caterpillar, + 264
Iridoprocne bicolor, ‘ . 344
Isia Isabella, . . 120
Jay, ‘ 12, 94, 404, 409
Blue, : 11, 114, 115, 126, 129, "139, ‘136, 138, 189, 144-146, 369
Jenks, J. Y. P., . 276, 284
Job, Herbert K., . ‘ . 420
Judd, Sylvester D.,
Junco hyemailis,
Junco, Slate-colored,
Kaltenbach, J. H.,
Keyser, Leander S., é 4
Kimball, H. H.,
King, F. H.,
Kingbird, “
food of, .
Western,
Kingfisher, ‘
Kinglet, Goldenerawned,
ee .
Kinglets, .
Kirby and Spence, .
Kirkland, A. H., .
food of, .
121, 178, 181-183, 186, 272, 273, 278-280, 294, 300, 305,
326, 327, 329-331
122,
.
.
- 300
296, 300
. 301
- 32
173, 185
. 326
115, 206, 272
‘114, “115, 127, 136, 141, 143,
145, 235
. 238
. 57
- 262
- 161
. 161
- 160
" 30, 64, 73
. 29, 37, 45, 61, 136, ‘175, 208, 237, 252, 256, 304
INDEX. 431
PAGE
Lachnus strobi, : : - a 4 . . s # « 162
Lanius borealis, . ‘ ‘ 4 5 ¥ ¥ . 3870
Lark, Old-field, . ‘ 3 >
Larus franklinii, . * 4
Minot, H. D., . . 5 . . j . ‘164, 208, 218, 308, 309, 404
Mniotilta varia,
2 oh oe . 316
he He. Sk. CRS oe SETS
‘Lawrence, Samuel C., . i, ‘ ‘ A 4 é . . 39
Leopard moth, . A , 4 ‘i é 5 . 107
Leucarctia acrea, » 112
Lilford, Lord, : : : 2 A : 7 . é ~ 49
Linnet, Gray, é ‘ . " ‘ ‘ : ‘ . ‘ ‘ . 220
Red, & 7 . : $ . 220
Lintner, J. A., ; é ‘ ; : ¥ “ « 28-31, 33, 34
Liparis monacha, . ‘ ‘ i 7 4 ‘ : ‘ 4 4 17
Locust, Rocky mountain, 2 ‘ ‘ i ‘ ‘ ‘ , 28, 34
ravages of, ‘i . . . . . 7 . Fl « 67-69, 74
Lyford, C. Allan, : , . 118
Mackay, George H., f ‘ a : ‘i a . 418
Malacosoma disstria, a 7 . . " c 2 . ‘ 69
Marlatt, C. L., ‘ r , ‘ ‘ ‘i ‘ ‘ “ r 33, 55, 36, 39
Martin, Bee, . : c 4 ‘ ‘ ‘ é , 7 i « 235
Black, . 3 2 - a a . . . 347
Purple, ‘ ; ‘ ‘ % ‘ . 347
food of, ‘i i A ‘ é . 348
Martins, . 7 . 55
Mathews, Semuslor, é ‘“ r é i » 265
Mavis, Red, . a 7 . . . 179
Maynard, C.J., . C ‘ . 51
Meadowlark, é i 7 f ? ‘ . . ‘ é “ . 316
food of, . , . é . 5 5 é . 318
Megascops asio, is . 368
Melanoplus fois Grappa) ‘ . . 4 « 272
Spretus, 3 s < . Fi , é . . 384
Melospiza cineria melodia, . 299
georgiana, . j z é . * ‘ * . ‘ . 349
Merriam, C. Hart, . a ; i ‘ ‘ 7 é ¥ . 59, 419
Florence, ‘ ‘ x a 2 - 7 : . » 236, 241
Merula migratoria, ‘ ‘ # ‘ . ‘ . . . 282
Mice, field, . ‘ . . ‘ , é a ‘ ‘ ' « 17, 78, 80
meadow, é f . 367
Midge, wheat, ‘ 3 ‘ ‘ . iy 7 . 32
Millais, J. G., ‘ ‘ , 3 é . ees 7 f . 405
Millinery trade, - “ ‘i - é 3 . 85, 357
. 191
Mosher, F.H., . F . 51, ‘59, 62, 124, 14, 184, 193, 195, 295, 230, 241, 333
Moth, brown-tail, . . 3 ‘ : . 39, 124, 130, 147, 148, 205, 234
cecropia, F q ‘ js . . e . - 109
codling, : : 3 : 5 : ; 35, 151, 231, 250
fall cankerworm, pews ot ‘ . » 175
gipsy, . . 38, 39, 128, 142-144, 147, 148, ‘192, 205, 214, 231, 232, 234, 238,
259, 333
leopard, 4 ‘ ’ $ ‘ a 1" . 107
luna, . st > es 25 wet. “les. cae. 4a . 214
nun, . : . . 2 ‘ . c c a s 5 . 17
polyphemus, 4 . # » 109
432 INDEX.
PAGE
Moth, tent caterpillar, eggs of, . ‘ . . . . . + 167, 369
tussock, a é Z . . a . . a « 232
Munger, H. C., A : 7 ci . : a : . . . - 326
Musselman, C.C., . , 7 * ‘ ‘ - i . ‘ . 55
Nash, C. W.,. . : : $ ‘i * . . 44, 45, 227, 318, 330
Nectarophora destructor, . : : . “ 2 a ‘ . 304
Nighthawk, . ‘ . fi é ‘ . ‘ i . . - 60, 341
food of, : i é . z ‘ - - $ - 342
Nuthatch, Canada, é é ‘ ¢ ‘ ‘i ‘ ‘ i . 176
Red-breasted, ‘i ‘ ‘ ‘ 4 . * ‘ . 115, 176
food of, . ‘ , i 5 % 3 é . 176
White-breasted, . . 7 e p é . . 115, 122, 171
food of, < ‘ ‘ : 7 i a . 174
Nuthatches, . 5 ’ ‘ “ ‘ ¥ “ a . 163
Nuttall, Thomas, . i 2 ; ‘ z % : i 296, 231, 251, 263
Nyctala acadica, . ‘ a ‘ , ‘ ‘ 4 . ‘ a . 368
Nyctea nivea, 7 w : 7 i : . . 367
Nycticorax nycticorax ceawitie, ‘ x ‘ $ ‘ é ‘ 4 . 351
Oak pruner, . ¥ » 99, 256
Oriole, Baltimore, . 70, “14, 115, 122, 125-198, 131-133, 136, 137, 140, 143, 224, 230
food of, . 7 . F . - 226
Orchard, . 4 * é s x , r e ‘ . 224
Orioles, . s , * i és ‘: x ‘ z r 4 » 69, 108
Osborn, Herbert, . 3 x @ : ‘é a ‘ ‘ 5 . 187
Osprey, American, ‘ ‘ $ “ ‘ é ‘ ‘ ‘ . 413
Otus brachyotus, . 5 . . < . . : 7 . : .
Oven-bird, . , é é j » 115, 122, 124, 127, 134, 141, 144, 146, 188
food of, . ; ; i ‘ . 2 4 ‘ ‘ ‘ . 190
Owen, Daniel E., . ‘ * ‘ ¥ “ x . i : . 42, 45, 51
Owl, Acadian, * 4 ‘ ‘ ‘ < é . 368
American Hawk, . 7 ‘ fj . ‘ 3 : a i . 367
American Long-eared, . . ‘ 7 a 7 ‘ a A . 368
Barn, . : < : : 7 7 7 Pi . - «79, 368
Barred, . . ‘ ‘ r ze ; ‘ ‘ a , . 367
Great Horned, é 5 . ° ‘ ‘ ‘ : . 367
Hoot, . ¥ x * * % ‘ z 7 : - * . 367
‘ Saw-whet, . x a ‘ é ‘ ‘ ; ‘ 3 . 368
Screech, ’ 2 z 3 , % Fi 2 ‘ + . 368
Short-eared, . ‘ i P ¥ ¥ 4 ? a - 78, 367
Snowy, . : . . . . ‘ : ‘ . : 5 . 367
Owls, . 7 F i f ‘ ‘i ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ é 3 . 7
Packard, A.S., ‘ ‘ ‘ : 5 F . 82-36, 111, 112, 256, 348
Paleacrita vernata, 7 4 i * . ; ‘ ‘ y 70
Palmer, T. §., a ‘ F . . : i : r F 418, 419
Pandion hilizetus carolinensis, ‘ i . A ‘ 3 ri : . 413
Papilio polyxenes, . ‘ ‘ ' ‘ “ a é ‘ . i » 305
Partridge, * ‘ ‘ : x ‘ 3 i C § . 267
Parusatricapillus, . “ r - ¥ é ‘ ’ : ‘ ‘ . 163
Pea louse, a . 5 . ‘ ‘ * ‘ 2 . . x . 304
Peabody Bird, ‘ ‘ i ‘ “ ‘ a é é z : - 307
Pear tree psylla, . P . ‘ ‘ ¥ ‘ . ‘ » 158, 377
Pélicot, P., . : ; ; : ; - 5 3 ‘ . . 56
INDEX. 433
PAGE
Pewee, Ste HR Ga. cone oR ch on ere ote 0 62 cratl233
Bridge, . . 233
Wood, 14, 115, 122, 128, 141, 143, 231
food of, . 232
Phasianus torquatus, . 332
Pheasant, Ring-necked, . ‘ " 4 x ‘ ‘ ‘ + 332
food of, . ‘i i - ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ » 333
Philohela minor, . 336
Pheebe, A F 114, 115, 145, 233, 388
Pheebe Bird, . i 2 « 233
food of, . 234
Phorodon humuli, . » 2
Piesma cinerea, . ¥ . 174
Pigeon, Passenger, . 3, 328, 354, 356
Pigeons, domestic, 13, 25
Piranger erythromelas, . 212
Pissodes strobi, ‘ s 168, 254
Plant lice, 7 ‘ 28, 62, 11, 122, 124-128, 175, 196, 203, 221, 223, 339, 344
eggs of, . 162, 223
Platysamia cecropia, 108, 259
Plover, , . : E S 5 26, 48, 67, 68
Upland, oe een 15, 834, 836
Pooecetes gramineus, » 311
Porthetria dispar, . 38
Porzana carolina, . 350
Poultry, . ¥ é » 85
Prairie Chickens, 3 é 67, 68, 75, 76, 84
Proctor, Thomas M., ‘ ‘ 7 , ‘ 93
Psylla pyri, . 153
Quail, 4 ‘ é s * 26, 67, 68, 75, 76, 325
Marsh, . ‘ B é ‘ é ‘ 316
Rail, Sora, . 350
Virginia, . 350
Railroad worm, ri . 7 ‘ - k : ‘ . 231
Rallus virginianus, @ 7 ‘ . A . ‘ : . 350
Raspail, Xavier, ¥ 4 ‘ , ‘ x a 6 . 408
Redstart, American, . 3 . 115, 122, 129, 131, 135, 138, 140, 143, 196
food of, . ‘ r < ‘ ‘ . ‘ - x ASE
Reed Bird, ‘ . . * , ‘ ‘ + 322
Reed, C. A., ‘ P ‘ é 2 ‘ . 199
Regulus satrapa, . . a . . ‘i . , i . 161
Rice Bird, ‘ 5 ; . 322
Ridgway, Robert, . 57, 157, 326
Riley,C.V.,. . 29, 84, 35
Riley and Howard, 5 , . , . . . ‘ 65, 75
Riley, Packard, and Thomas, * “ x x ‘ . 34, 69, 75
Riparia riparia, ‘ . ‘ . ei ‘ - fs . 344
Robin,
American, .
Golden,
Ground, ‘ 3
Wood, . y
food of,
. 9, 10, 16, 44, 45, 115
115, 122, 129, 131-133, 136, 138-140, 147, 282, 315
. . . . . . 285
. . . . ‘ . . - 224
. . . . . . ‘ . ‘ . 218
. - . . . . . . . - 158
434 INDEX.
PAGE
Romaine, C.E., . % a ‘ ‘ . ‘ ‘ x x a « 330
Russell, John S., . . . eee a Me 848
Sanderson, E. D., . « » ‘ . ‘ F ’ ‘ ‘ : . 174
Sandpiper, Bartramian, . ‘ i . < 7 i < ‘ . 3834, 336
Spotted, Fi é é . P ‘ a , 2 . 335
Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied, . ‘ i - ‘ . . 114, 115, 262
Sayornis Phebe, . é ‘ ‘ é ; i ; " _ ci . 233
Scale, San José, . i é ‘6 i ‘ 3 « dak
Schizoneura lanigera, . . 7 . i le F ‘ . + 208, 252
Schizura concinna, é ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ x é ‘ ¥ . 272
Seeds eaten by birds, . " ‘ é ‘ ‘ e 3 " . 281, 296
Seton, Ernest Thompson, a é é z ‘ 3 ‘ - * . 343
Setophaga ruticilla, < ‘ 7 ‘ : 2 ‘ ‘ ‘ . 196
Shaw, Henry, . a : : g x . i i r . . . 142
Shrike, Northern, . . . : 7 7 ‘ 5 . 4 . 370
Shrubs, fruit-bearing, . . é ‘ * ‘ 2 . ‘ ‘ » 874
Sialia sialis, . a . , é i r ‘ é . ‘i 4 » 290
Silkworm, American, . 4 ‘i a ‘ 5 " < . 380, 108
Sitta canadensis, . ‘ , i ‘ « “ ‘ z ‘ i . 176
carolinensis, . ‘ ‘ . * * 4 4 . - a at
Smith, John B., . ‘ ‘ 2 7 ‘ zi c ‘ : . 107
Snipe, . ‘ ‘ ‘* é ‘ ‘ , . é i . 43
Wilson’s, . : : ‘ é . é i‘ , . F . 337
Snowbird, 4 “i , i ‘ : 4 " . i ‘ ‘ 2 oo
Black, . ; ‘ ; : ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ 3 i . 300
Spanworm, currant, i 4 , ‘ i . 112
Sparrow, Chipping, ‘ ‘ 55, 114, 115, 122, 126, 136, 143, 303, 398
food of, . . 304
English, . 21, 56, 114, 134, 136-138, 140, 141, ‘292, 294, 344, 310, 389, 407
Field, : . . ‘ 114, 122, 127, 131, 140, 301
food of, i . ‘ 3 i ea é . 302
Fox, ‘ , 7 i . i " ‘ ‘ ‘ . 296
Grasshopper, . é x . s r . : ‘ 4 . 308
food of, ‘4 5 “ ‘ ‘ F ‘ . 809
Ground, . x ‘ 3 5 ‘ ‘ ‘ f . 299
Henslow’s, ‘ , “ ; 3 f < ‘ 5 f . 309
House, . : : d ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ 56, 206, 225, 292, 370
Savanna, . . r . a ‘ 4 ‘ “i ‘ . 310
food of, . . ; : F . Bll
Song, ‘ ‘ P ‘é $ ‘ ‘42, 114, 128, 134, 141, 296, 299
Swamp, . * ‘ x “ , ‘ ‘ ‘ . 349
Tree, , é é ‘ ‘ ‘a ‘ ¥ ‘ 5 ‘ . 306
Vesper, . ‘ ‘ , a ‘ ‘ i 5 " ‘ » 311
food of, ; 7 : ‘ i é 4 » 312
White-throated, . ‘ "i 5 ‘ ‘ . 114, 122, 131, 307
food of, . . . . x ‘i < - 308
Yellow-winged, a . : S i 3 ‘ : : . 308
Sparrows, food of, . P P é 4 ‘ ‘ : ‘ 5 . 295
Sphyrapicus varius, 3 é ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ 7 ‘ ‘- ‘ . 262
Spizella monticola, ‘ . ‘ ‘ j A 5 4 $ ‘ . 806
pusilla, . . ‘ . . . . . A . : . 301
socialis, . i 3 ‘ : ‘i fs ‘ A i f . 303
Spoonbills, . 7 . . . . ‘ é . . . . 65
Squirrels, . ‘ ‘ < ‘ . : i : i ‘ 94, 364, 408
INDEX. 435
PAGE
Stake-driver, . , . i . i ‘i o js ei ‘ ‘ - 352
Starlings, ‘i ‘ ‘ i ‘ é ‘ ‘ . 7 F : 17, 65
Stockwell, J. W., . o ‘ @ ‘ ‘ a ‘ i . 36, 37
Sturnella magna, . i ‘ : ‘ é ‘ . ‘ ‘ i . 316
Swallow, Bank, . ‘ ‘ : = ‘ ‘ > r . 60, 344
food of, . s . ¢ : a . ‘ ‘ . » 344
Barn, ‘ 3 ‘ i ‘ Ci . . : " . B45
food of, . : : . " é é ‘ fs 3 . 345
Chimney, . ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ * 2 ‘ é - 340
Cliff, i m 5 . ‘ 7 s é 7 . . 61, 346
food of, . : 7 ‘ 3 7 5 ‘ F i . 347
Eaves, . 3 : . . s 3 «: . x . 346, 387
House, . , . 7 : 7 a . 5 : . 344
Tree, ‘ 5 ‘ . ‘ i % é . . 844, 389
food of, . . ‘ * : ‘ : F F é . 345
White-bellied, ‘ ; ‘ " a 4 4 . 344
White-breasted, fi i s . : 3 : p . 344
Swift, Chimney, . : 3 a Zi i 7 " : . 128, 340, 387
food of, é i ‘ i ‘ i . 4 . 3840
Tanager, Scarlet, . i 7 . 68, 115, 122, 125, 127, 135, 137, 144, 146, 212
food of, 4 ‘ ‘ 5 i i ‘ ‘ , « 213
sa é . ‘ i é : . ‘ ¢ fi . 211
Teeter, . : 5 e ‘ z “ , , * . 335
Tegetmeier, w. B., . F i ‘ ‘ ; = ‘ é R . 9
Telea polyphemus, : : é . % i ‘ ‘ ‘ . 380, 108
Telematodytes palustris, . f ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ 7 ‘ . 350
Terns, . : . E - f : e : 2 - . : . 80
eggs of, . 2 z . . . < ‘ ‘ a - 82
Thayer, Abbott H., 7 5 * ‘i ; fi i i és . 418
Bayard, . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ; 7 ‘ a . 417
Theronia melanocephala, ‘ qj ‘ a 7 ; ‘ s ‘ » 239
Thistle Bird, . 7 : : a . ‘ si F ‘ ‘i : . 222°
Thompson, Maurice, f r ‘ ‘ “ ‘ * * ‘ . 246, 258
Thoreau, Henry D., . ‘ é Fi ‘ é : * . 96, 299
Thrasher, Brown, . ° ‘ 4 . A . : ‘ . 115, 134, 179
food of, i fi é ‘ “ . . 180
Thrush, Brown, . “ : ‘ ‘ a ‘ 126, 127, 131, 179
Goldah-vnawnied, : fi f 5 * fd i A ‘ . 188
Hermit, . ‘ ¥ x ‘ * i ‘ ‘ dé . 45, 156
Song, ‘ . . . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘i . . ’ . 158
Tawny, - A ‘ fi . és c ‘ , . . 156
Wilson’s, . F ‘ 7 j , 4 i i 115, 136, 137, 156
food of, . : 3 ’ . Y . 157
Wood, ; . . . ¥ . 98, 115, 126, 127, 133, 134, 139, 158
food of, . : “ ‘ 5 . . i 7 : . 159
Thrushes, é : : F - 5 : A é 3 : : - 108
food of, . * a “ 4 ¢ ¥ “ ‘ ‘ ; » 155
Tip-up, . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ » 335
Titmice, . . . . D ° 7 ' 7 . 17
Titmouse, Hisckravpail, Fi . . . . . . . . . 163
Torrey, Bradford, . . qi 7 : ‘ . . 7 7 : » 199
Towhee, . . F . . : ‘3 : . a 114, 115, 122, 143, 218
food of, . . a , « “ ‘ ; ‘ ‘ « 220
Toxostoma rufum, . ‘ ; i ‘ i 3 i a @ a . 179
436 INDEX.
PAGE
Treadwell, D., ‘ . y ‘ . . ‘ . . 44
Treat, Mary, . f ‘ S ‘ : . e « Wi
Tree hoppers, buffalo, » 212
Trees, fruit-bearing, . 374
Troglodytes aédon, z : ‘ . 3 5 3 . 292
Trouvelot, Leopold, » 30, 31, 38, 108
Turner, R. E., . . ‘74
Tyrannus tyrannus, . + 235
verticalis, 57
Veery, . 156
Vines, fnditdbeaning, . 374
Vireo, Red-eyed, 3 51, 115, 122, 125, 127, 129, ‘136-138, 140-142, 146, 204
food of, . 205
Solitary, . . 203
Warbling, ‘ ‘ 3 ‘ . ' » 115, 206
food of, a _ ‘ - ji * . 207
White-eyed, 115, 203
Yellow-throated, 115, “429, 125, 134, 138, 140-142, 207
food of, . 208
Vireo flavifrons, . 2 ‘ ‘ ‘ - 207
gilvus, . . . 206
olivaceus, . 204
Vulture, . : 7 - ‘ ‘ ‘ . 84
Wake-up, i ‘ * * * . ® ‘ « ‘ , » 260
Walsh, D. B., 34
Warbler, Black and White, 115, 123, 124, 125, "197, 130, 132, 135, 140, 141, 191
food of, « 192
Blackburnian, « 102
Black-poll, Gly kao
Black-throated Blue, 5 ‘ - 122
Green, . 3 : . 115, 122, 198
food of, i ‘ . 200
Blue-eyed Yellow, . 194
Chestnut-sided, 115, 122, 126, 127, 132, 134, 136, 139-141, 192
food of, » 194
Golden-winged, ‘115, 131, 132, 134, 137, 141
Hooded, Fi 185
Magnolia, « 122
Myrtle, 11, 122, 153, 201
food of, . 202
Nashville, 115, 131-133, 139
Palm, ; ‘ é . 186
Parula, . . : ‘ : 115, 122, 126, 132, 398
Pine, é “ * - 200
food of, . 201
Pine-creeping, ‘ ‘ ‘ : F 3 : a i . 200
Yellow, ‘i 115, 122, 127, 182-136, 140, 141, 143, 194
food of, < : - ; A ; . ~ Ans
Yellow-rumped, . . - 201
Warblers, ; : 4 : a : . : » 185
Warren, B. H., : ‘ : 4 . GO, 191, 206, 218, 245, 315
INDEX. 437
PAGE
Waxwing, Bohemian, ‘ , a . 209
Cedar, . : . 115, 131, 140, 209
food of, . 210
Webster, F. M., 259, 346
‘Weed, Clarence M., 45, 48, 55, 168, 183, 202
Weed and Dearborn, A 51, 57, 289
Weevil, Mexican cotton boll, 34, 330
pea, ‘ . 226
white ‘hae. 168, 254
Wells, D. A., - 56, 78
Wheelock, Irene G., . 290
Whip-poor-will, » 342
food of, . 3843
Widmann, Otto, . 348
Wilson, Alexander, 244, 320
Wilson and Bonaparte, . 4
Wood, E. W., : . ‘ - . , 70
Woodpecker, Downy, ‘ . 114, 115, 122, 129, 144, 146, 248, 249
. food of, & 3 5 < ‘ . 250
Gaffer, é . 260
Golden-winged, . 260
Hairy, . . 114, 115, 146, 247, 24s, 258
food of, . . 7 ' js . 259
Partridge, * . 260
Pigeon, . 260
Red-headed, 249, 355
Wren, House, . 54, 115, 292
food of, . 293
Long-billed Marsh, 54, 350
Rock, . . 54
Short-billed asks . 350
Wright, Mabel Osgood, . 223, 242
Yellow Bird, c . 194, 222
Summer, ‘ ‘ . 194
Yellow-hammer, . 260
Yellow-throat, Marytend,
Northern,
_ food of,
Zamelodia ludoviciana, .
Zonotrichia albicollis,
. : ‘ 127, 135, 188, 186
62, 115, 122, 186
187
‘i ‘ . 216
. ‘ . . . 307
Qo
=
ai
=
-
an
2
Ww
a
o
|