lo Coward, Note oji the Little IV I and its Food. 



same as the one previously mentioned. The shrews may 

 have eaten the worms and the sand may have been taken 

 by the owl in the stomachs of the shrews. Major 

 Barrett-Hamilton quotes Mr. A. H. Cocks when describing 

 the habits of a captive water shrew, whose diet consisted 

 largely of worms.^' "Of these (worms) I reckon that 

 she eats quite one-and-a-half her own bulk daily, and 

 fully twice her own weight. The amount which passes 

 from her, consisting chiefly of the earth contained in the 

 worms, is on a correspondingly surprising scale." 



I have said that it is unfair to draw conclusions as to 

 the economic value of a species from slender data. I will 

 o-o further. It is unwise to draw dividing lines between 

 useful and harmful creatures : the animals and plants 

 work together, and their life histories are inextricably 

 interwoven. Who are we to pass judgment upon them ? 



In his most useful paper on "The Food of Some 

 British Birds,"" Prof R. Newstead divides his insects into 

 three groups — injurious, beneficial, and indifferent, Very 

 roughly the first group is composed of carnivorous, the 

 second of phytophagous, and the third of coprophagous 

 insects. From the insects found in the crops, stomachs, 

 and pellets of certain birds, and also from observations on 

 their habits, he estimates the economic value of these 

 birds to mankind. To a certain extent this is perfectly 

 justifiable, but before we acclaim or condemn we must 

 remember one or two facts. The bird does not wait to 

 ask if the insect is injurious or beneficial, nor does the 

 beneficial carnivorous insect trouble about the moral 

 character of its prey. The phytophagous insect may feed 



!=> G. E. H. Barrett-Hamilton, "A History of British Mammals," 

 pt. ix., p. 146. London, 191 1. In progress 



1* " Supplement to the Journal of the Board of Agriculture," xv., No.- 9, 

 looS. 



