206 



THE AGRICULTUKAL NEWS. 



June 30, 1917. 



THE MONGOOSE IN BARBADOS. 



The Barbados Official Gaiette of May 1, 1917, contains 

 the report of a selecc Commitiee of the House of Assembly 

 appointed to consider the question of taking measures for the 

 extermination or reduction of the mongoose. 



The date of the introduction of this animal into the 

 island is given as 1879. The object wis the destruction of 

 Tats, which caused much damage by gnawing the standing 

 canes. It is conceded that the numbers of rat-eaten canes 

 have been greatly diminished, but the Committee is disposed 

 to attribute some influence towards this result to the general 

 adoption of seedling canes witli harder rinds. It should, 

 however, be noted in this connexion, that in .Jamaica, in the 

 years succeeding 1872. when the mongoose was introduced, 

 striking testimony was given to the great reduction of damage 

 in that island. A pamphlet dated 1882, by Mr. (now Sir 

 Daniel) Morris, Director of Public Gardens and Plantations, 

 contains evidence to this effect, and mentions further, that 

 according to a correspondent, there was already a notable 

 diminution of damage in the Below and Above Cliff 

 districts of Barbados, in which the mongoose had become 

 abundant. 



The Committee are however satisfied that whatever 

 useful influence the mongoo.se exerted in the past, it has so 

 far changed its nature as to be no longer, unless under special 

 circumstances, the enemy of the rat. This conclusion seems 

 mainly to be based on instances of rats and mongoose living 

 peaceably together in a cage until the latter were impelled by 

 starvation to make a meal of the former. This evidence is open 

 to objections. First, animals in captivity usually reveal little 

 of their natural habits, which are exhibited only in respon.se 

 to the appropriate circumstances of their natural environment. 

 Every boy who has tried to keep wild creatures knows how 

 commonly they refuse even the most suitable food. Second, 

 the form of check most commonly exercised on one animal 

 by another, and the most effective form, consists not in the 

 destruction of adults, which have means of escaping in one 

 ■way or another, but in the destruction of the more or less 

 helple.ss young. 



Another piece of evidence adduced is the result of the 

 examination of fifty-nine mongoose stomachs which, in one 

 case only, contained material resembling rat remains. This 

 is not nearly sufficient to establish a negative, nor is the 

 oeees.sary evidence given that the method of feeding on rats 

 is such as to leave recognizable remains. Weasels undoubtedly 

 feed on rabbits, but it would be a matter of considerable 

 difliculty to establish this by //os< iiuyttem examinations. 



There is some inconsistency involved, after the con- 

 clusion that the mongoo.se is no longer the enemy of che 

 rat, in the direction of attention later in the report to 

 the fact that the driving of the rat from the open fields into 

 the estate buildings by the mongoose has caused enormous 

 loss by the destruction by the former of harness leather, stock 

 feed, etc' 



Whatever the real facts of the rat question may be, it 

 is no longer, in the view of the Committee, the matter of 

 principal concern. This is to be found in the increas- 

 ing damage (held to be a menace to the future of 

 planting in Barbt.dos) attributed to insect pests. It is 

 believed that the mongoose, by destroying insect-eating 

 birds, lizards, and toads, 'has so upset the equilibrium of 

 tropical nature in this island that the results of such 

 disturbance have at last begun to make themselves seriou.sly 

 felt.' 



The pests indicated as ha\ing seriously increased are 

 the root borer, the moth borer, and the .scarabee. Of the 

 an'mals supposed to have controlled these pests in the past 



the ground lizard is specially mentioned as having become 

 exceedingly scarce throughout the Island. The 'frog' {Bufo 

 7iviri)ius, itself an introduction) is also recorded as much less 

 plentiful than formerly. The drying up of ponds is conceded 

 to have had an influence on this. 



It would seem to be questionable whether the reduction 

 in the numbers of birds in certain localities may not be 

 attributed with more probability to the progressive clearing 

 away of trees and cover, than to the effect of the mongoose, 

 as held by the Committee, in causing the rats to live in trees 

 and acquire a taste for the contents of birds' nests. Certainly 

 the insectivorous birds recorded as natives of the island are 

 plentiful enough in the suburbs of Bridgetown, in spit^ of the 

 abundance of rats also to be found there. So far as the 

 writer's observations go, th>» same can be said of other districts 

 where sufficient cover obtains. If the planters are really 

 concerned to have the co-operation of toads and birds, the 

 provision and repair of ponds, and the display of a little 

 tolerance for trees and bushes on waste patches of ground 

 are direct and effective measures to this end. 



That the mongoose cannot altogether be held responsible 

 for the increased prominence of the root borer, is shown by 

 the equal increase of attention given to this pest in islands 

 where the animal has not been introduced. It is a general 

 truth with regard to human observation, that 'one sees only 

 what one knows'. Evidence which has been passed over a 

 thousand times without notice, becomes, when once its signifi- 

 cance is pointed out, apparent on every hand. 



The conclusion reached then, from the perusal of this 

 report with an open mind, is that while public feeling is 

 against the mongoo.se, the actual case against it is not 

 proven. To form a reliable estimate of the results of the 

 introduction, results that in many cases are very indirect, it 

 would be necessary that long and careful investigations 

 should be made by competent observers. Such an enquiry 

 would at this time moreover be much hampered by the 

 absence of reliable evidence as to previous conditions. 



There is another aspect of the case. Given that the 

 introduction of the mongoose has caused changes in the 

 composition of the local fauna to the disadvantacre of 

 cultivated crops, is it the most hopeful way to try to undo 

 those effects by reducing the numbers of the mongoose, as 

 recommended in this report, or would it not be wiser to 

 accept an accomplished fact and to adopt more direct means 

 of protection against the effects complained of? Few would 

 question that the mongoose has come to stay, or that 

 efforts to reduce its numbers by means of bounties, 

 if they have any visible effect at all, will, to retain that 

 effect, need to be continued in perpetuity. And it cannot 

 be taken for granted that even a notable reduction in 

 the prevalence of the mongoose would lead to the restora- 

 tion of previous conditions. 



The methods of direct control of the insect pests indicated 

 cannot be claimed to be complete, but if there were any 

 dispo.sition shown towards their adoption, they could doubtless 

 be improved upon. As it is, they offer more prospect of 

 relief than is to be obtained from invocations to Nature, 

 conceived as a revengeful godde.ss upset in her 'equilibrium' 

 and only to be appeased by an offering of the blood of the 

 intruder. 



A writer in a recent Trinidad journal asks a pertinent 

 question: — If pfojile are really suffering from the depredations 

 of the mongoo.se, why don't they set about killing them' That 

 they don't do so, he remarks, makes us doubt the sincerity of 

 their complaint. Why should they want rewatds for benefit- 

 ing themselves' 



W.N, 



