HAMILTON: MAMMALOGY IN NORTH AMERICA 667 



The name of this Division is unfortunate as it conveys an erroneous idea of the nature 

 of its work. The division is in effect a biological survey, and should be so named, for its 

 principal occupation is the preparation of large-scale maps of North America, showing 

 the boundaries of the different faunas and floras, or life areas. 



The results of these explorations bore fruit in 1894, when the divisional report 

 for that year announced that the problem of temperature control of the geo- 

 graphic distribution of animals and plants had been solved. The Weather Bureau 

 had provided temperature data which, when plotted on the biogeographic maps, 

 conformed with a high degree of exactness to the boundaries of the life zones as 

 established by Merriam. 



For a decade, the biological exploration of North America continued. The 

 geographic distribution of species in the West received major attention until 1906, 

 when the Bureau of Biological Survey, as it was now called, again shifted its 

 emphasis to economic problems. Merriam had selected his staff with care. His 

 counsel and training of the young field agents did not go unrewarded. To one of 

 his younger field naturalists, J. Alden Loring, Merriam wrote more than a score 

 of letters in a matter of eight months. These are replete with instructions, criti- 

 cism of skins, and helpful advice. It is presumed he carried on as lively a corre- 

 spondence with his other field assistants. When he was not in the field, Merriam 

 found time to initiate the Fauna series. From 1889 to 1896, this indefatigable 

 scientist authored the first eleven of the fanual series, all of monographic scope. 

 These were the first revisions and serious taxonomic studies ever made on North 

 American mammals. They stand as a monument to ]\Ierriam's industry and taxo- 

 nomic judgment. The advance of mammalogy at this time was fortunately not 

 dependent on the resources of the government. In 1899, Edward H. Harriman 

 organized and financed an expedition to Alaska, members of the Biological Survey 

 sharing in the investigation. In succeeding years, the scope was enlarged to 

 include Canada and Mexico. 



In 1907, Congressional hearings resulted in partial abandonment of the dis- 

 tributional studies. More emphasis was expended on practical pursuits. The well 

 known reports of Professor David Fj. Lantz now appear. Many of these are con- 

 cerned with injurious rodents and measures for their control. 



The undercurrent of public opinion that dictated this shift to a practical point 

 of view was a sound one. With the amazing growth of agriculture and the conse- 

 quent increase in the value of its products, information was sorely needed on the 

 control of the many pests which took a huge annual toll. The agriculturist was 

 no longer content with reports detailing the habits, distribution, and characters 

 of the pests which pilfered his crops or destroyed his livestock. A new supply of 

 food was available to the wolves and coyotes, and the stockmen took the brunt of 

 this toll. An investigation of the wolf in relation to stock raising was published 

 by Bailey (1907). This was followed by a shorter article by the same author, in 

 which emphasis was placed on den hunting, with the subsequent destruction of 

 the litter. Following the recommendations outlined in these reports, an estimated 

 1,800 wolves and 23,000 coyotes were accounted for in a single year. Not until 

 1915, with increasing depredation from predatory animals, did Congress relieve 

 the Forest Service of this effort. With a sizable appropriation to the Survey, 

 Congress directly ordered the destruction of "wolves, coyotes and other animals 

 injurious to agriculture and animal husbandry on the national forests and the 



