232 BULLETIN 17 4, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



post were several insects (some of them still alive) of the two species com- 

 monly known as "salmon flies" and "trout flies." On the ground at the foot of 

 the post were several snail shells, a green prune (picked into), and several 

 cherry seeds with stems attached. 



Johnson A. Neff (1928) has much to say about the economic status 

 of this Avoodpecker, mainly in Oregon. A few quotations from his 

 paper will serve to show the vast amount of damage to the fruit 

 grower that it does in sections where it is abundant, mainly in sum- 

 mer and fall. He says that Prof. Beal (1911) "mentions one case in 

 Washington wherein the birds tore the paper at the corners of packed 

 boxes of apples left in the orchard over night, picking into every 

 apple within reach, and necessitating the repacking of every box 

 attacked." 



S. D. Hill wrote to Mr. Neff: 



In some sections and seasons they will destroy carloads of fruit, especially 

 in orchards near timber. I have known them to do 50 percent damage to a 

 pear crop in the Peyton district on upper Rogue River." Jackson Gyger, Ash- 

 land, wrote: "In 1924 the loss on S'pitz and Delicious apples was about 75 

 percent, on Newtowus about 15 percent; Bosc and Anjou pears about 10 per- 

 cent. The loss on trees near oak timber was nearly 100 percent. This season 

 (1925) due to hunting them every day the loss was possibly 50 percent less. 

 I bought $18.00 worth of ammunition to combat them this year. One man can 

 not keep them out of a seven acre orchard, as they will work on one end while 

 you are scaring them out of the other. 



Mr. Neff goes on to say : 



These complaints can not be over-looked, for stomach analyses show only 

 the volume of fruit eaten, not the percentage of fruit damaged per tree, nor 

 the real loss to the orchardist. * * * 



In Oregon, although it sometimes becomes a nuisance in the small fruit 

 plantings of various areas, it centers its destructive activities in the Rogue 

 Valley ; there it flocks in the greatest abundance. * * * 



In this area there can be no question of the objectionable status of the 

 Lewis woodpecker. If the birds would consume each fruit injured, there would 

 be little complaint of their taking the quantity which probably v<'ould satisfy 

 them. They are restless and energetic, however, and always attacking fresh 

 fruit, which with one stroke of the bill is ruined for commercial use. If one 

 aUows only one bite to each fruit, some of the stomachs studied would have 

 contained the samples of as high as two bushels of fruit. In the restricted 

 areas mentioned the Lewis woodpecker is a pest. 



Behavior. — Lewis's woodpecker seldom indulges in the undulating- 

 flight so common to other woodpeckers, though it sometimes swings 

 in a long curve in a short flight from tree to tree. Its ordinary 

 traveling flight is quite unlike the flight of other members of the 

 family; it is strong, direct, and rather slow, with steady strokes of 

 its long, broad wings. At first glance one would hardly recognize it 

 as a woodpecker, for its flight and its appearance are more suggestive 

 of a crow, a Clarke's nutcracker, or a jay. But it is far from clumsy 

 in the air, and its skill in catching insects on the wing demonstrates 



