Mmichester ATevtoirs, Vol. hi. (191 2), No. 8. 7 



evidence is unsatisfactory ; and considering how tlie hard 

 bones of mature birds and mammals are broken into 

 fragments, it is possible that softer bones might be digested. 

 I do not intend to argue, from the few pellets which I have 

 personally examined or that 1 know have been examined 

 by others, that the Little Owl is or is not a useful bird ; 

 I merely offer the information derived from these 

 examinations as a contribution to our knowledge of the 

 habits of the bird, and to add a few words on the 

 weakness of arguments based on insufficient data. 



Mr. L. E. Adams found evidence that the following 

 animals had been preyed upon in a small series of pellets 

 from Northamptonshire : Field vole, 8 ; shrew, 7 ; wood 

 mouse, 2 ; rat, i ; rabbit, i ; beetle, i.'" Mr. Jourdain also 

 quotes an analysis of pellets examined by Von Schwep- 

 penburg : Voles, 8r8 % ; mice, 88 % ; birds, 3"2 % ; bank- 

 vole, 2-9 % ; shrews, rS % ; rats, -3 % ; bats, -3 %'' 



Unless the examiner is an expert anatomist, and 

 unless he is certain that he has secured all the pellets 

 which were thrown up in a given time, the analysis is not 

 reliable. From observations on a captive Barn Owl, I 

 discovered that the whole of the rejectamenta from a 

 single meal was not thrown up in one pellet, and this is 

 supported by the fact that we frequently find odd jaw- 

 bones of mammals in a pellet. I can only pretend to 

 recognise portions of the crania of mammals and birds, 

 and occasionally other bones, such as a portion of a 

 sternum, a pelvis, or foot. Elytra, legs, or mandibles of 

 insects may serve for identification, but there is always a 

 large quantity of fragmentary remains which may represent 

 more individuals than we can actually be sure about. It 

 is, however, usually possible not only to recognise certain 



^"- F. C. R. Jourdain in "The British Bird Uook,'" ii,, p. 391, 

 London, 1911. 



