122 Recent Literature [jan. 



mentioned. However the following papers bearing on this point could 

 with advantage have been abstracted or cited in the bibliography. 

 Burns, F. L. A warbler census. Osprey, Vol. 2, No. 4, Dec. 1897, pp 

 48-50. 

 " A sectional bird census. The Wilson Bulletin. N. S. Vol 



8, No. 4, Dec. 1901, pp. 84-103. 

 Forbes, S. A. An ornithological cross-section of Illinois in Autumn. Bui 

 111. State Lab. Nat. Hist., Vol. 7, 1907, pp. 305-335. 

 " The mid-summer bird Ufe of Illinois: a statistical study 



Am. Nat., Vol. 42, Aug. 1908, pp. 505-519. 

 Hales, H. The birds on a farm. Oologist [Willard's]. Vol. 5, 1880, pp 



73-75. 

 McAtee, W. L. Census of four square feet. Science, N. S., Vol. 26, 

 Oct. 4, 1907, pp. 447-449. 



Some remarks on the economic significance of birds call for further 

 comment here. On pages 8 and 10 Shelford notes the incongruities of 

 protection based on sentimental grounds. We have no quarrel with these 

 statements, since upon the basis of sentiment alone, the protection of all 

 groups may be urged with equal propriety. 



The protection of birds for economic reasons is an entirely different 

 matter, and to the reviewer, seems to rest upon an adequate foundation. 

 Shelford says " Other things being equal there are but two more reasons 

 for special measures for the preservation of birds, than for the preservation 

 of reptiles, amphibians, or insects. First, birds are subject to destruction 

 by reckless gunners. Second, they are less dependent upon natural condi- 

 tions .... and are better able to survive after land has been put under 

 cultivation than some other groups." (p. 11.) 



Two additional reasons for the protection of birds, one would say without 

 reservation, should be enough to warrant preferential protection for them. 

 The second reason given by Shelford touches the heart of the matter. 

 Birds are abundant and very adaptable. They have to a large degree that 

 independence of environment to which man owes in part the dominance he 

 now enjoys. Birds have a greater potentiality for good than any other 

 group of metazoa. The abundant small mammals are excluded for the 

 same reason as vegetarian insects, their economic tendencies are too largely 

 adverse to the best interests of man. Contrasted with other groups of 

 predators upon the enemies of man, birds are greater destroyers and more 

 mobile than any other group, they are more abundant than the mammals, 

 and less subject to great fluctuations in numbers than the parasitic and 

 predaceous insects. 



There are few who would deny that as a group birds are more useful and 

 less injurious, insects less useful and more injurious. As reasons for mun- 

 dane activities usually go, those for special protection for birds are cogent. 



Shelford stands pat in referring to " that detestable avian rat, the Eng- 

 lish sparrow." This again is a matter of sentiment, the bird is detestable 

 to those who detest it. The following facts should not be forgotten. The 



