158 The Wilson Bulletin — No. 88 



Now the uest of the catbirils was in a bush located on a stee}- hillside. 

 The blind being higher, enabled the observer to see over and around the 

 bushes. Flies SAvarmed aliout on the foliage of these bushes, and the 

 observer in the blind could see the catbird capture them and feed them 

 To the young birds in the nest. A number of these flies were caught and 

 submitted to an entomologist from Ames College, who was teaching that 

 subject at the laboratory, and who named the tiies as above. The paper 

 did not state that every fly fed to the young birds was recognized as to 

 kind. In the tables II and III they are simply listed as "Flies." The 

 enumeration in the text may have been based upon specific data, or it may 

 have been a general estimate leased upon memory, and still lie an 

 accurate statement. 



The original statement is perfectly safe, and scientifically accurate, 

 notwithstanding the obstinate misinterpretation by the critic. 



Now, in regard to the mosquitoes, which are also denied by AV. L. ]\[. 

 in the statement above quoted. The one mosquito recorded in the cat- 

 bird paper (page 179) was obser\ed under the following circumstances, 

 as communicated to me by the author of that paper: "The old bird was 

 on the nest, and I was in the blind. As it was only 8:00 a.m., a few 

 mosquitoes were still about. One in the blind buzzed around my face, 

 and I struck at it with my hand. It flew out of the peep-hole, and as 

 I idly followed its flight it lighted on a leaf within six or eight inches of 

 the nest. The old bird immediately snapped it up and fed it to one of 

 the nestlings. ' ' 



With reference to the mosquito records in the Yellow Warbler study 

 (Wils. Bull., XXV, June, 1913, p. 5.5), I can only call the reader's atten- 

 tion to the fact that as the observer sat in the blind, the nest was almost 

 as close to his eyes as is a newspaper while being read — not over two 

 feet away. The bill of a Yellow Warbler is only 3.5 mm. wide at its 

 base, while the terminal third of it is not over a single millimeter in 

 width. Thus even the body of a mosquito could scarcely be entirely con- 

 cealed in the bill of such a bird. I am well aware that it is almost 

 a waste of time to be discussing the question whether .a mosquito was ac- 

 tually seen or not; lint I would simply remark that when the possibility 

 of it is so evident, it would seem that the critic is rather forcing an issue. 

 When we admit the possiliility of seeing one mosquito, the repetition 

 of it, even to sixty-five times, should give us no greater concern. 



Our captious reviewer displays a lack of knowledge of this kind of 

 field work, and its methods, when he questions an observer 's ability to 

 count 5, 6, or 7 Mayflies in the beak of a Brown Thrasher at the nest. 

 May I be permitted to call attention to a few elementary facts ? 



The date on which these seemingly large numbers of Mayflies were 

 recorded was June 28, at which time the Mayfly swarms Avere at their 

 maximum. In the evening dense clouds of them filled the air, and during 

 the day the grass was full of them. Frequently the old l)irds fed in the 



