LAND BIRDS. 725 



no means generally. The song is a strong, clear, liquid warble, with 

 perhaps no claim to very great beauty or remarkable purity of tone, yet 

 it is after all one of the most satisfactory songs of the summer, and in spite 

 of all criticism the bird has fully earned the place which it has in popular 

 affection. That its call-notes, and particularlj- its cries of distress and 

 alarm, are harsh and disagreeable cannot be denied, but the bird can 

 hardly be blamed for this fact. 



The main criticism and dislike which the bird provokes come from the 

 fact that it is a voracious fruit eater and under some circumstances does 

 a large amount of injury to small fruits. It is particularly fond of cherries, 

 strawberries, raspberries and grapes, but it attacks (at least occasionally) 

 every small-fruit which grows, either wild or cultivated, and is much 

 addicted to pecking into ripening orchard fruits, particularly apples and 

 pears of the earlier varieties. For this reason the fruit-grower comes 

 to detest the bird and can hardly be blamed if he overlooks the benefit 

 which he undoubtedly receives from the good work done in the consumption 

 of insects. However, there is plenty of evidence that the good work of 

 the Robin in this respect is commonly overrated and that where very 

 abundant the mischief done to the fruit grower is by no means atoned 

 for by the injurious insects eaten. 



Probably no American bird (with the possible exception of the Crow) 

 has been the cause of so much difference of opinion as the Robin, and at 

 various times its food has been investigated with more or less care by 

 observers of fair ability, after plans not always the most scientific. It. 

 is impossible in this place to give even a brief resume of such work, but 

 those interested should consult the writings of Treadwell, Jenks, Slade, 

 Lyle, Wilcox, King. Aughey, Forbes and Beal, references to which are 

 given in the appendix to this volume. 



Prof. S. A. Forbes, in his investigations in Illinois, examined the stomachs 

 of 114 Robins collected in various places during the spring and summer 

 months. He examined first the stomachs of 41 Robins collected in March, 

 April, May, June, July and August, and found that 28 percent of the food 

 was fruit while 2 percent of the remainder consisted of spiders and myria- 

 pods, and all the rest (presumably 70 percent) was insects. Of these, 

 20 percent were caterpillars and 7 percent ground beetles (harpalinae). 

 In addition there were 6^ percent of injurious beetles, including 2^ percent 

 of curculios, 8 percent of orthoptera, and H percent of injurious mja-ia- 

 pods, 16 percent in all, to offset 28 percent of fruit, the other elements 

 about balancing each other. "I therefore conclude," he says, "that these 

 41 Robins taken together had certainly done, just previous to the time 

 of their demise, fully as much harm as good, as far as we can judge from 

 the contents of the stomachs" (Trans. 111. State Hort. Soc. Vol. 13, 1879, 

 p. 132). The subsequent examination by Prof. Forbes of 73 more Robins' 

 stomachs did not materially change his conclusions, although further 

 investigation convinced him that the ground beetles eaten were not as 

 valuable as had been supposed, and that therefore the Robin was doing 

 comparatively little harm in eating these insects. He concludes: "We 

 can reduce the question finally to about this form: Will the destruction 

 of 17 quarts of average caterpillars, including at least eight quarts of 

 cutworms, pay for 24 quarts of cherries, ])lackbcri'ics, currants and grapes? 

 For my own part I do not believe that the horticulturist can sell his small- 

 fruit anywhere in the ordinary markets of the world at so high a price 

 as to the Robin; provided of course that he uses due diligence that the 



