and Starling. The examination of 53 Silver-eyes from seven 

 localities, in eight different months, indicates that they are useful 

 in the winter time, destroying many insects, but when in fiocks 

 in the summer they do much damage to soft fruits, such as figs, 

 grapes, and persimmons. Of 127 Sparrows examined, all but 

 two were from Richmond, and the_ month in which they were 

 killed is not recorded. The verdict is that they are " a pest any- 

 where, in spite of the fact that they eat many insects." But 

 surely, though the pamphlet is called a science bulletin, it is some- 

 what unscientific to examine 125 birds in one locality and then 

 say they are " a pest anywhere." It may be quite true, but the 

 bulletin purports to be the result of a scientific investigation, and 

 not an expression of the author's opinions. 



The examination of 73 Starlings' stomachs resulted in the 

 discovery of wheat grains in three and fruit in one, the remainder 

 chiefly containing insects. In his " Detailed Summary and 

 Verdict " the author says : — " This result, however, does not by 

 any means indicate clearly the destructive tendencies in the 

 direction of vegetable food, as the accessibility of such food must 

 be considered at the time the bird was shot. Unquestionably 

 Starlings feed greatly on cultivated fruits and on cultivated grains 

 during the season when these are available. . . Summed up, 

 it may be stated that the Starling does marked harm to fruit 

 gardens, and that it does some harm to crops, but that it does 

 some good in destroying certain insect pests, such as cut-worms, 

 when these are present in abundance and perhaps other food is 

 scarce. . . Its virtues are unquestionably less than its 

 defects, and no encouragement whatever should be given to its 

 appearance in any part of the country." We see in this case 

 that the author deliberately sets aside the evidence he has 

 collected and gives a verdict founded on his preconceived ideas. 

 We do not maintain that his verdict is wrong, but we think it is 

 decidedly misleading to state in the " Broad Summary of 

 Results " that the Sparrow and Starling " do much more harm 

 than good." The " results " as regards the Starling are exactly 

 opposite. The only result which it seems to us has been reached 

 is to show that many hundreds must be examined before any safe 

 conclusion can be drawn. 



We would like to suggest that in future work percentages of 

 the different classes of food found should be given, as is the 

 custom of modern workers in America and Europe. In an 

 economic investigation what is wanted is a knowledge of the 

 main character of the food — e.g., seeds of crops 3 per cent., weed 

 seeds 19 per cent., insects 53 per cent., indeterminable 25 per cent., 

 at once indicates the habits of the bird without overloading the 

 account with details of each species of insect found. 



In spite of these criticisms we desire to express our appreciation 

 of the great amount of painstaking work which has gone to the 

 making of the bulletin, which should certainly be studied by every 

 Australian ornithologist. — W. B. A. 



