214 Cincinuati Society of Natural History, 



population of the Americas, 2,000 millions instead of 3, 000 mil- 

 lions adopted by Dr. Langdon. And the number destroyed for 

 millinery purposes, 15,000,000 per annum. This alone gives a 

 mortality rate of i\ i)er thousand. 



The small bad boys of the country are certainly as numerous 

 as the fasliionable ladies, and are not less fatal to bird life. What 

 with their pea-shooters, rubber-guns, and slings, and their nest rob- 

 bing propensities, it is certainly fair to assume that they produce a 

 mortality of 10,000,000 per year. • This would raise the mortality 

 rate from 7^ to 12^ per thousand. Then sportsmen cer 

 tainly kill enough birds to raise this figure to 13 or 14 per 

 thousand. 



It has been asserted by Dr. Langdon that a mortality of 20 to 

 25 per thousand in the human race excites no comment, and the 

 question is asked why should a mortality of 3^ per thousand amcng 

 birds cause such a furore. Let us examine into this a little further. 

 We have seen that the mortality among birds due to the causes which 

 we are fighting is probably not less than 13 per thousand instead 

 of 3;^. Moreover this is a mortality in excess of the natural or un- 

 avoidable mortality among the birds. So that the (question instead of 

 being as propounded becomes this, if a human mortality of 13 over 

 and above the average mortality commands attention, why should it 

 not when occuring in the bird tribe? Now does such an increase in 

 human mortality command attention ? This question has been 

 answered for me by Dr. W. S. Christopher by a comparison with a 

 few figures from the Health office of this city. The average mortal- 

 ity in Cincinnati during the ten years included between 1875 ^"^ 

 1884 was i9tVo per thousand. During the year 1882, the mortality 

 was 24j%2„ per thousand, or 4fVo above the average, but a lit- 

 tle more than one-third of the useless mortality among birds, and 

 we all remember whether the small-pox epidemic of that year was 

 startling or not. Would an epidemic three times as severe be 

 sufficient to call the attention of citizens to the death rate ? I think 

 it would. I am also informed that such an increase in the death 

 rate is only the result of epidemic influence; now we must remem- 

 ber that such an epidemic, if I may use the expression, is 

 now afflicting the birds, or has been afflicting them for a number 

 of years and instead of decreasing, it bids fair to increase and to 

 continue. With such a case I ask you, are we not right in asking 

 protection for the birds? 



