BIRDS AND INSECTS 163 



of value to the farmer have only been found in a few 

 instances (seven or eight). The insect food of the 

 chaffinch is probably much larger than the records 

 indicate, because so much of it is of such frail nature 

 that it is rapidly destroyed. Many of the insect re- 

 mains were very fragmentary, and therefore very diffi- 

 cult to identify; but it was found that from April to 

 July many species of the destructive weevils (Rhyn- 

 cophora) were taken, and many of the smaller species 

 of lepidopterous adults and larvae. It also takes adult 

 craneflies, whose larva? the leather jackets are so 

 destructive to pasture lands and numbers of the 

 larva? of the winter moth (Chimatobia brumata], 



In the case of the rook, however, there were differ- 

 ences of opinion. Mr. Theobald, who investigated 

 the food of the rooks that were shot in the southern 

 counties, declaring that this bird is more harmful 

 than berfeficial, and Mr. Leigh, who investigated the 

 food of the rooks shot in the northern counties, return- 

 ing a more favourable verdict on behalf of the bird. 

 It is in my opinion very unfortunate that the com- 

 mittee was not summoned to consider these divergent 

 opinions before the reports were issued, and that it 

 should be left to the reader to form his own opinion 

 from the summary of evidence laid before him. 



It seems to me that the whole of the evidence points 

 directly to the conclusion that the rook is a beneficial 

 bird. If we proceed on the plan of balancing one 

 grain of corn and one injurious insect found in the 

 gizzard we find undoubtedly a verdict against the 

 rook; but this method is to my mind entirely mis- 

 leading. An injurious insect destroyed may mean 

 many plants, not grains, of corn saved to the farmer. 

 A grain of corn eaten by the rook may be a grain that 

 would never have been garnered. 



We should regard, therefore, the evidence of one of 



