262 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol. vi. 



knov/ledge of the biid's habits is also necessary, othen\ise a 

 recommendation may be made having an exact!}'' contrary 

 effect to that intended. We much prefer his alternative of 

 dressing the seed-corn -with something A\hich renders it 

 distasteful to birds. 



In the case of the Sky-Lark, ^h] Hammond shows that the 

 bulk of its food consists of Meed-seeds, though it also eats 

 some harmful insects, more especially in summer, and a small 

 proportion of crop-leaves and " small seeds." He sees no 

 reason why it should be specially protected, although its 

 M holesale slaughter is to be deprecated. 



Concerning the Bullfinch, Mr. Collinge has little good to 

 say, and his analyses show that " for quite half the j'ear it is 

 most destructive in fruit orchards, causing considerable 

 losses to growers, which far outweigh any little good it may do 

 in keeping down the spread of weeds." 



In her paper Miss L. Florence details the stomach-contents 

 of a number of specimens of many species, but no one species 

 is treated in a sufficiently thorough maimer to enable any 

 conclusion of value to be dra\\Ti concerning its economic 

 status, and the summaries merely indicate the frequency of 

 the items of food, a system which does not recommend 

 itself to us. The paper, however, contains many facts that 

 will interest ornithologists. 



We have included Mr. McAtee's paper in this notice in 

 order to draw attention to the difficulty of ascertaining what 

 bird is really harmful or beneficial to agriculture even after 

 most careful analyses of the stomach-contents of a large 

 number of specimens have been made. Mr. McAtee's paper 

 is by way of answer to Mr. C. W. Mason, who in his report on 

 " The Food of Birds m India " states that, " comparative 

 bulks of foods, if expressed merely as percentages, are of 

 absolutely no value whatever," and that " what we want to 

 know is the exact number of grains of com," etc., taken. 

 We will not follow Mr. McAfee in his somewhat lengthy 

 arguments, but he advances a number of good reasons to show 

 that the percentage-by-bulk system used in conjunction ^ith 

 the numerical system is most valuable. Certainh' there are 

 weak points in both sj'stems, for hoAv can we estimate the 

 value in grains of a\ heat of say ten weevils, or the equiA alent 

 in fruit-buds of an ounce of injurious insects ! 



It should be remarked, however, that British investigators 

 appear to have adopted the numerical system, and we advise 

 them to study Mr. McAtee's arguments in defence of a method 

 A\ hich has been in continuous use by the Biological Survey, 

 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, since 1895. H.F.W. 



