28o 



gave it as many mealworms as it would eat, which 

 soon put things right. I have never found mealworms 

 do any harm, even when I have given more than was 

 necessary to satisfy the birds. 



[There is absolutely nothing in a mealworm to 

 harm a bird, not even the chitinous outer covering. 

 The prejudice that exists against them in many 

 quarters is perfectly senseless, and is due only to the 

 imagination of those who know nothing either of 

 the analysis of a mealworm or the physiology of 

 digestion, whether in birds or other animals. There 

 is but one objection to the use of what I have seen 

 described as the *' useful but imperfect (!) mealworm " 

 — that is, the price they command. Any other ob- 

 jection is onl}' worthy of the author of the astound- 

 ing dictum that since spiders live on insects, a few 

 of these given to a bird represent much insect food. 

 —Ed.]. 



Concerning IRoofts— botb Milb anb 

 (Tanie. 



By W. Geo. Creswei,!,, M.D. 

 fContimied front page 265 J. 



With regard to the bare face patch it is general!}' 

 believed, since 3'oung birds always exhibit the 

 feathers and stiff hairs that we see in all the other 

 members of the Corvine family, and since the Rook 

 is the only one which habitually digs in the ground 

 (the Hooded Crow only following the plough for a 

 limited season), that this patch is caused simply b}' 

 attrition. And while there is evidence in favour of 



