IO MAN AND ANIMALS 



destroyed. The parasites, especially, are often more beneficial to man's 

 interests than the animals which devour them, and which take good and 

 bad without the slightest discrimination from our economic point of 

 view. Because of their destruction of parasitic insects Severin (8) argues 

 that birds should not be protected. Certain mammals and reptiles often 

 show a decided superiority over certain birds in this respect, in that they 

 are strictly predatory and are not directly noxious at any time of year 

 as are some birds which feed upon grain. 



Many animals feed extensively upon insect pests when they are 

 numerous and accordingly threaten a crop. This is true of spiders, 

 insects (n), amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds (8), especially 

 those that are largely predatory. This fact is the only sure guaranty 

 of the economic value of many birds, and is perhaps overworked by the 

 fanciers of the group. This value belongs equally to certain insects, 

 so that if birds were not devouring such insects along with pests, these 

 hexapods would probably be able to put the pests down. The other 

 vertebrates also would probably be able to put down the pest without 

 the aid of the birds; Forbes has said that a balance would finally be 

 reached if all the vertebrates were exterminated (see 26). 



In the preceding pages we mention " sanity toward nature." 

 Sanity toward nature is based upon a full knowledge of available facts. 

 Partial knowledge, if fully depended upon, is as dangerous as falsehood, 

 for it leads to false interpretations. We must know nature, not a part, 

 but the whole, if we wish to treat the simplest everyday problem of 

 our relations to animals intelligently and justly. 



Why protect birds? Is the present attempt justified? In the 

 answer to these questions all sentimentalism should be laid aside. It 

 is sometimes urged that birds have a greater aesthetic value than other 

 animals. This it seems is unjustified unless the songs of some constitute 

 the justification. Persons with only a small acquaintance with insects, 

 mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals find as much beauty 

 in these groups as the bird fancier does in his. All groups should be 

 preserved for their aesthetic value as the appreciation of it depends 

 entirely upon temperament, 1 training, and especially a knowledge of the 



1 A few persons known to the writer are repelled by birds because of their claws, 

 scaly legs, and other reptilian characters. Many admirers of nature and animals are 

 not attracted by birds because as a rule they must be seen from a distance. Inquiry 

 at close range necessitates either shooting or capturing the bird and neither is a par- 

 ticularly aesthetic operation. In the case of capture, only a short period of necessary 

 neglect usually renders the surroundings and often also the bird not only not aesthetic 



