164 



The Ottawa Naturalist 



[Vol. XXXII. 



98. OSPREY, Pandion haliactus. 



One flew directly over our camp on May 26, 

 1917. Noted in 1918 by Young, from May 5 to 

 Aug. 6. Said by the Ward brothers to be rare. 



99. LONG-EARED OWL, Asio Tvilsonianus. 



In 1917 we received descriptions evidently re- 

 ferring to this species and were shown an old nest 

 that seemed corroborative evidence. The suppos- 

 ition is confirmed by Mr. Job who reports finding 

 four young of various sizes in an old crow's nest 

 on opposite side of the lake June 28, 1912. 



100. '^^SHORT-EARED OWL, Asio flammeus. 



The commonest owl in 1917, seen nearly every 

 evening, and often during the day, beating along the 

 lake shore or over the old reed beds and marshes. 

 In 1918, however. Young only noted single in- 

 dividuals three times during the entire season, April 

 30 to May 15, taking one on May 2. 



101. ^GREAT HORNED OWL, Bubo virginianus. 



In 1917 occasional large owls were glimpsed or 

 heard of during the spring visit and on Sept. 17th 

 one was taken. It is referable to the Arctic 



Horned Owl, D. v. subarciicus, but not absolutely 

 typical and with slight tendencies towards the West- 

 ern Horned Owl, B. v. pallescens. During the 

 winter of 1916-17 a large flight of these birds, 

 together with Goshawk and Snowy Owls, came from 

 the north, obviously driven into new fields by the 

 dearth of rabbits. Without doubt the Horned Owls 

 had an appreciable influence in the destruction of 

 upland game; though, as a night hunter, it was 

 probably the least harmful of the trio. Young only 

 noted one individual in 1918, on July 21 ; by its 

 dates a probable breeder. 

 102. *SNOWY OWL, Nyctea nyclea. 



From the accounts of the Ward brothers, it is 

 evident that unusual numbers of this species accom- 

 panied the flight of Goshawks and Great Horned 

 Owls in the winter of 1916-17. Being more of a 

 diurnal and open country hunter than the Horned 

 Owl probably this species was largely instrumental 

 in the destruction of the grouse. In 1918, Young 

 saw individuals from April 30 to May 15, taking 

 one on May 2. 



(To be continued) 



THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUE OF PREHISTORIC HUMAN BONES 



By Harlan I. Smith, Museum of the Geological Survey, 



Ottawa, Canada. 



Why do we bring so many human bones into a 

 museum? Why is one skeleton not enough? Such 

 questions are always surprising for it would seem 

 that anyone might think of many reasons why we 

 should collect the bones and why one skeleton would 

 be as unrepresentative as one man is unrepresenta- 

 tive of his race. If we were to describe a tall, 

 bearded man and say that he is representative of the 

 English, it would be untrue, for there are short 

 Englishmen and there are beardless Englishmen. 

 These features of Englishmen are only two of a great 

 many that could be mentioned. Likewise it is 

 necessary, if we are to know an ancient people, to 

 have enough skeletons to enable us to obtain average 

 measurements and a representative series for study 

 of the type. 



The age at which an individual died can be 

 determined approximately from his bones. If we 

 have enough skeletons, we can determine how many 

 individuals died in infancy, how many as little 

 children, how many in middle age, and how many 

 lived to be very old. This information regarding 

 a primitive or savage people would be interesting 

 in comparison with the same facts regarding our 

 own people. We are often told that Indians were 

 very healthy and lived to an old age, but in arch- 

 aeological explorations we find the bones of a great 



many children and young people as well as those 

 of old people, showing that many of the Indians 

 died young. 



Fairy tales about the bones of giants and dwarfs 

 are common. One can hardly think of a place he 

 has explored where he has not been told of the 

 finding of the bones of a giant, yet giants are very 

 rare and of all the hundreds of skeletons that I 

 have dug up and of the thousands seen in museums, 

 I have yet to find so large a specimen. In fact, the 

 skeletons are no larger than those of the people with 

 whom we daily mingle. 



The bones of children, easily determined, are 

 often mistaken, by those who know nothing of such 

 subjects, for bones of dwarfs. 



A human skull that would hold "at least a peck" 

 figures frequently among stories told by people who 

 have probably never dug up a single skeleton, but 

 who tell of what they have seen someone else find. 

 Where all these extraordinarily large skulls are now 

 is a mystery, for certainly they are not to be seen 

 in our excavations, or in museums. The same is 

 true in regard to the story of the leg bone of a man, 

 told at practically every place in North America 

 where I have carried on explorations. One end of 

 the bone was put on the ground and the other 

 end came nearly to the waist; but such bones 



