3 6 4 



Recent Literature. T^ 



eared Owls were under observation from Dec. 25, 1898, to Feb. 22, 1899, 

 and one Short-eared Owl from Feb. 26 to March 26, 1899. The pellets 

 were gathered regularly once each week, not only from beneath their 

 roosting trees but from beneath the trees that served as their casual 

 feeding perches, the number of Owls frequenting these roosting and 

 perching trees being also noted daily. The results are given in tabular 

 form, showing the number and species of Owls under observation each 

 day, the number of pellets gathered at each collection, the contents of 

 the pellets, and the daily food average, which, consisting almost wholly 

 of small mammals, varied from 1.57 to 2.16 for each Owl daily. A sum- 

 mary of the contents of the food pellets found under the roosting tree of 

 the Long-eared Owls is thus stated: "2 birds, 1 Blarina, 2 Peromyscus 

 leucopus, 1 Mus musculus, 6 Microtus pinetorum, 319 M. penusylvanicus, 

 and 18 undetermined individuals of Microtus." The contents of the pel- 

 lets gathered under the other roosting tree, occupied by the Short-eared 

 Owl, and occasionally by one of the Long-eared Owls, is thus sum- 

 marized : " 1 Cambarus [crayfish], 5 birds, 2 Blarina parva, 1 Zafus 

 //udsonius, and 105 Microtus penusylvanicus." Pellets were gathered from 

 under a number of other trees, all within the radius of an eighth of a 

 mile, which served as feeding perches, which are thought to have been 

 all, or nearly all, produced by these same Owls. "The^e pellets con- 

 tained the remains of 5 small birds (including Regulus, Junco, Certhia), 

 3 Blarina brevicauda, 3 B. parva, 1 Blarina undetermined, 2 Zapus 

 hudsonius, 3 Peromyscus leucopus, 1 Microtus pinetorum, 139 M. penusyl- 

 vanicus, and 4 undetermined individuals of Microtus." Thus these five 

 Owls, in the space of about one month, destroyed 12 small birds, 10 

 shrews, and 600 field mice, of which the greater part were the common 

 meadow vole or ' meadow mouse.' The examination of food pellets 

 gathered at other localities gave similar results, except that the remains 

 of no birds were found. 



Mr. Montgomery concludes his very interesting and valuable paper as 

 follows : " In conclusion, it may be noted that these data add further 

 support to the well-proven results of ornithologists, that our local Owls 

 (with the possible exception of the Great Horned Owl) are of the great- 

 est benefit to the agriculturist. Our three commonest local Owls, the 

 Screech, Long-eared, and Short-eared (as well as the rarer Acadian and 

 Barn Owl), are indefatigable destroyers of mice and insects. But since 

 this is the case, and since the group of the Owls is one of great interest 

 to the naturalist, it is to be hoped that future students of their dietary 

 habits will avoid studying their stomachs for this purpose, and in order 

 not to destroy them examine their food pellets instead." — J- A. A. 



Lantz's 'Review of Kansas Ornithology.' 1 — This very carefully pre- 



1 A Review of Kansas Ornithology. By D. E. Lantz, Manhattan, Kan. 

 Read before the Academy Oct. 28, 1897. Trans. Kansas Academy of Science, 

 1896-1897, pp. 224-276. July, 1899. 



