Papers on the Destniction of Native Birds. 221 



previous remarks will have a "pernicious" effect I can not believe, 

 as they have certainly had, so far, the very ^'■^w^/ effect of influenc- 

 ing the committee, as well as other members of the society, to think 

 for themselves upon the subject, and not simply take for granted the 

 misapplication of statistics by writers in popular journals and 

 elsewhere. 



This is not a mutual admiration society, but a society for the 

 discussion of scientific topics, and no subject can be said to be 

 fairly discussed of which one side only is presented. 



I would ask your attention therefore for a few moments to 

 some of the main points in the committee's papers so far as they 

 apply to the question at issue, /. e. the probable extinction or 

 notable decrease in number of our native song birds by rea- 

 son of their use for millinery purposes. Dismissing then all re- 

 ference to the extinction, by man and other causes, of the wingless 

 or non-flying (and non-singing) birds, such as the Dodo, the Great 

 Auk, &c., and of the mastodon, mammoth, and so on, as entirely 

 foreign to the subject, and waiving the discussion of the market 

 price of mud turtles and other commissary supplies — what then 

 have we left in this second series of papers by your committee? 



Chiefly citations of reduction in numbers of birds used as food, 

 such as the wild pigeon, prairie chicken, wild turkey, and so on ; 

 species whose destruction is inevitable in any civilized country ; 

 which are not song birds, and which were exterminated just as 

 rapidly before the days of bird millinery in this country. More- 

 over, as stress has been laid upon the eeononiie influence of this 

 destruction, it is pertinent here to cite the fact that man replaces 

 these species with tame pigeons, chickens, turkeys, and so on, of 

 more value, economically considered, than the wild ones. 



The statement of your committee that ''all birds are useful" 

 is no more true than that all plants are useful — that is, useful to 

 man ; that all have their use in the economy of nature is indisputa- 

 ble, but we do not for that reason intentionally sow our fields in 

 weeds, and there are "ornithological weeds" as well as botanical. 

 In support of his proposition I have already cited the fact that 

 many species of birds make their "use" felt by man by destroying 

 the very song birds he wishes to preserve, and m evidence I would 

 refer to the various standard works which treat of the life histories 

 of the jays, shrikes, some hawks and owls, crows and other preda- 

 ceous species. To the cpiery of one member of your committee, 

 "What birds are not useful?" . I would further cite the fact that 



