BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



39 



SIR HERBERT MAXWELL ON THE 

 SPARROW. 



An appeal has been circulated through the 

 public Press, which, if I understand it aright, 

 is intended to enlist Sparrow clubs for the 

 destruction of rats and rat clubs for the 

 destruction of Sparrows. Now, this seems to 

 be a mistaken proposal, founded on the 

 assumption that the house Sparrow is a kind 

 of vermin as destructive and detestable as 

 the grey rat. Nothing could well be further 

 from the truth. . . . Sparrows are not 

 in the same category as rats, either morally or 

 physically. At certain seasons they are 

 mischievous, but at others they are distinctly 

 beneficent, which rats never are. Sparrows 

 eat a lot of grain and wheat ; in towns, where 

 grain is not grown, they pick crocuses to 

 pieces in spring, which is very aggravating to 

 the natty householder and the diligent park- 

 keeper ; but they also eat a vast number of 

 caterpillars, grubs, and various insects which 

 are hurtful to various crops. Decimation, 

 perhaps, but, in the name of Lydia, not 

 extermination. I submit that the case against 

 the Sparrow is not sufficiently grave to justify 

 the extirpation of his race. Sparrows go in 

 flocks in hedgerows round harvest fields. If 

 bad weather delays the operation of leading 

 they get more than their fair share of grain ; 

 but the farmer can protect himself by 

 expending two or three cartridges among 

 them. If an indiscriminate crusade were 

 declared against Sparrows, there would be a 

 great throwing up of hats (so to speak) in 

 lepidopterous and coleopterous circles. Green 

 caterpillars would grin delighted, and chafers 

 would greatly chortle. But the crusade would 

 not succeed, for every town is a Sparrow 

 preserve, whence these dingy but light-hearted 

 little rascals would spread outwards to replace 

 their slaughtered brethren of the farmyards. 

 Meanwhile, much mischief would be wrought 

 in another direction. Members of Sparrow 

 clubs are not as a rule practised ornithologists. 

 In their eagerness to win the prize for the 

 best bag they would net the bushes at night. 



Linnets and Finches, Buntings and Warblers 

 would be destroyed by hundreds, and much 

 of the good result of the Wild Birds Acts 

 would be undone. — Pall Mall Gazette, Sept. 

 16th, 1908. 



"THE FEEDING HABITS OF BIRDS." 



Mr. C. Gordon Hewitt, of Manchester 

 University, read a paper before the meeting 

 of the British Association at Dublin, on 

 September 4th, on a proposed " Enquiry into 

 the feeding habits of British birds." He 

 remarked that it was becoming increasingly 

 difficult for zoologists studying economic 

 problems to form a definite opinion with regard 

 to the economic status of many species of the 

 birds of our islands, such as, for example, the 

 Rook, Jay, Starling, Chaffinch, and other 

 finches, and many others. This difficulty was 

 entirely due to the absence of any precise 

 information as to the food habits of our birds. 

 There existed a large amount of evidence 

 obtained from observers, such as fruit-growers, 

 game-keepers, sportsmen, and others ; and 

 although some of this might be useful, much of 

 it had been distorted on its way through the 

 prejudiced glasses of the observer. What was 

 really necessary in order to obtain as 

 accurate a conception as possible of the 

 economic status of any species of bird was 

 the actual dissection and recording of the 

 contents of the crops and stomachs of a large 

 number of individuals killed not only in 

 different months of the year, but also in 

 different localities. The Wild Birds Pro- 

 tection Act did not rest, in its presenl 

 application, on a proper scientific basis. Its 

 provisions should be framed on the basis of 

 the economic value of the birds to be pro- 

 tected. It was a common belief that Rooks 

 were very destructive to field crops, when 

 subsequent investigation showed that they 

 had more largely fed on insects. — An 

 interesting discussion followed tin's paper. 

 Professor C. J. Patten (Sheffield) deprecated 

 the wholesale destruction of Bullfinches under 

 the mistaken idea that they were dangerous 

 to certain crops. Mr. R. J. Ussher pro- 

 tested against the wholesale destruction of 

 Owls, and especially of the Barn Owl in 

 certain parts of Ireland, where it seemed to 

 be the fashion to have a stuffed Owl in many 

 of the houses. It was deplorable that a bird 

 of such use as the Barn Owl should be 

 indiscriminately marked out for destruction. 



