Bird Notes and News 



OBITUARY. 



The death of Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt, Dominion 

 Entomologist and Consulting Zoologist of the 

 Canadian Government, which occurred on 

 February 29th, is a grievous loss to the cause of 

 Bird Protection and to the economic study 

 of bird life throughout the Empire. Dr. 

 Hewitt, who was only 35 years of age, was 

 formerly lecturer in zoology in Manchester 

 University, and when there drew attention to 

 the necessity for this study, in an address before 

 the British Association, which led to the 

 appointment of a joint committee of the 

 Association and the Board of Agriculture to 

 investigate the food of birds. It was also 

 owing to him that the experiment of encouraging 

 birds by the installation of nesting- boxes was 

 successfully tried to stay the ravages of larch- 

 disease at Thirlmere. In 1909 he went to 



Ottawa, and has since inaugurated important 

 national schemes in nature-reserves and bird- 

 protection, while the passage of the historic 

 International Treaty with the U.S.A. for 

 protecting migratory birds is owing greatly to 

 the ability and energy with which he promoted 

 it on the Canadian side. In recognition of his 

 services in this respect the Gold Medal of the 

 R.S.P.B. was awarded to Dr. Hewitt in 1917, 

 and there had been hopes of presenting it to 

 him at the Society's Annual Meeting this year. 

 He cabled his regret at being unable to reach 

 England by March 16th, on the visit home for 

 which he was starting, and a few days later 

 was seized with influenza, developing into 

 pneumonia, which proved fatal. No worker, 

 in his own special and vitally important line 

 of study, or in the whole field of nature-pro- 

 tection, could be more keenly regretted. 



Economic Ornithology. 



Dr. Walter Collinge has recently published 

 reports of investigations into the food of the 

 Nightjar and the Little Owl, in both cases 

 favourable to the birds. The Nightjar has 

 probably never been accused, save by rank 

 ignorance and country superstition ; and it is 

 to be hoped its reputation is now fully cleared 

 of absurd allegations based on its old names of 

 Goatsucker and Night-Hawk. It is wholly 

 insectivorous, 88 per cent, of its food, according 

 to Dr. Collinge, consisting of harmful insects. 

 He adds that bird and eggs should be protected 

 during its summer sojourn in this country. 

 It is one of the birds scheduled by the Act of 

 1880, so that so far as the law goes it has been 

 completely protected for forty years. What 

 the gamekeepers do is another thing. To many 

 of them it is the Fern " Owl," and has as short 

 shrift as owls in general. 



THE FOOD OF THE ROOK. 



Mr. W. W. Little, writing from the Remount 

 Depot, Romsey, sends to the Society a useful 

 comment upon a report on the food of the 

 Rook, contained in an article on wild birds, 

 useful and harmful, by Dr. Walter Collinge, 

 published in the September (1919) Strand 

 Magazine. Dr. Collinge, who is well known to 

 hold the Rook in small favour, sums up its food 

 as follows : injurious insects, 23"9 per cent. ; 



slugs and snails, 3"2 ; cereals, 35*1 ; potatoes 

 and roots, 13'4 : — 



" Now we have had a deal of discussion here 

 lately on this very subject, and I have contended 

 that the Rook does more good than harm to the 

 farmer. I have offered to wager that an examination 

 of the crops of birds shot at random would prove this. 

 Dr. CoUinge's article comes, then, at an opportune 

 time ; it has been shown to me as proving the case 

 against the Rook. But does it ? 



" Dr. Collinge's facts I cannot dispute, but I don't 

 think his conclusion is justified by them. He appears 

 to me to have lost sight of two things : — ■ 



" (1) A caterpillar will eat in a day several times its 

 own weight of food — I believe the figure is seven times 

 — and judging by my own experience of slugs and 

 snails I should think they are not far behind. Sup- 

 posing the figure to be only four times, then Dr. 

 Collinge's figures show that while a number of Rooks 

 consume 100 lbs. of cereals, potatoes and roots, they 

 will also consume over 55 lbs. of injurious insects, 

 slugs and snails in one day. Had these been allowed 

 to live, they themselves would probably have con- 

 sumed 220 lbs. of food, nearly all of it (as I gather 

 from their being classed as injurious) the farmers' 

 produce, besides what they would have destroyed 

 without consuming. 



" (2) These injurious insects, slugs and snails, were 

 they not destroyed by the Rooks would in a great 

 measure propagate their species, and but for the 

 Rooks might become a perfect plague. 



" Consequently, it seems to me that instead of 

 proving the case against the Rooks, a careful interpre- 

 tation of Dr. Collinge's facts proves the case over- 

 whelmingly in their favour as beneficial to the 

 farmer." 



