494 Recent Literature. on 
overbalance almost unanimous testimony, based on many years of experi- 
ence on the other side of the proposition. Mr. Brooks gives considerable 
space to general discussion of Economic Ornithology and the Protection 
of Useful Birds. Treatment of birds by systematic groups however makes 
up the bulk of the report.— W. L. M. 
Bird Pests in War Time.!— Recent publications of the British Board 
of Agriculture and Fisheries show that war has brought home the necessity 
of controlling crop destroying pests, birds as well as mammals. Thus 
sparrows are coupled with rats and rooks with rabbits. The formation of 
rat and sparrow clubs is advised and the details of organization, and 
amounts of bounties they may pay are specified. For sparrows the rates, 
in each case for a dozen, are: one penny for eggs, two pence for young, and 
three pence for adults. Various methods of combating sparrows and rooks 
are advised, those involving the destruction of eggs and young being most 
favored. ‘The sparrow is definitely classed as ‘‘small vermin”’ for which 
under certain restrictions poisons may be legally laid. To conserve lead 
the use of ammunition for destroying pests is permitted only under license. 
—W. L. M. 
Field Study of the Food of Nestlings. — The 1915 volume of the 
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science which has just come to 
hand (June 25, 1917) includes an article on ‘The Food of Nestling Birds.’ 2 © 
This paper contains detailed records of the number of feedings of broods of 
the Brown Thrasher, Robin (10 nests), Wood Pewee (2 nests) and King- 
bird. The general nature of the food also is shown. 
So far as this data goes, it is good, but it does not have the value implied 
by the authors in their somewhat inaccurate remarks upon another method 
of studying the food of nestlings. ‘It is contended,” say they, ‘‘that the 
stomach contents afford the only accurate and reliable method of study of 
the food of birds. We believe that this method is not applicable to the 
food of nestling birds for two reasons: first, the food is soft and not readily 
identifiable; and the second and more important reason is that the food 
is digested very rapidly. The stomach contents do not serve as a criterion 
of the quantity of food that is eaten in the course of a day”’ (p. 232). 
The remark in the last sentence is true; we must depend upon field 
observations to a large extent for ideas upon the quantity of food consumed. 
It must not be inferred however, that stomach examination is useless in 
this respect; on the contrary, it has served as the basis for a number of 
valuable estimates. 
The declarations of Messrs. Enders and Scott, relating to the identifica- 
tion of the food of nestlings by stomach examination are wide of the mark 
1 Leaflet No. 84, 1916, and Bulletins 2 and 4 of Series A, 1917. 
2 Enders, H. E., and Scott, Will, pp. 323-337. 
