418 Recent Literature. I July 



" Considerable difRculty has been experienced in that there has been, and 

 now is, a difference of opinion as to the criteria to be used in the determina- 

 tion of the economic status of a bird. The ideas which have been advanced 

 in the past, and even those of the present day, appear to be unsatisfactory, 

 or at least untrustworthy. It seemed, therefore, that a review of past 

 methods, with the addition of such new ones as appeared to be valuable, 

 might prove not only interesting but of considerable value to future workers 

 in the field. A similar lack of information regarding methods of stomach 

 examination has been evident. A detailed account of the method used in 

 this investigation, therefore, seems justified." 



To say the least it is rather odd to pronounce untrustworthy, methods 

 which are used almost without change or improvement in one's own work. 

 It is true some pretence is made in this paper of putting unusual weight on 

 field investigations, periodical weighing of nestlings, determination of time 

 of digestion, etc., but it is noticeable that the largest and most solid part 

 of the paper is based on stomach examination. Previous investigators 

 have used all of these methods, have wrestled with the same problems 

 and have unanimously settled upon the examination of stomachs as the most 

 reUable criterion to the economic value of birds. Bryant comes to the 

 same conclusion on the eightieth page of his paper, saying: " It seemed best 

 to concentrate on the usual method of stomach examination." (p. 456.) 



We cannot believe that the ideas advanced in the past, and even thqse of 

 the present day are so very unsatisfactory, when we see how fuUy they are 

 adopted and incorporated in Bryant's discussions. The first paragraph 

 in the paper is paraphrased from Biological Survey Bulletin 43, the second 

 paragraph from Bulletin 30, the section on history of methods in Economic 

 Ornithology differs little from that by Weed and Dearborn,^ and that on a 

 comparison of methods in economic ornithology is largely extracted from a 

 paper ^ by the reviewer. The promised detailed account of the methods 

 of stomach examination is in reality brief, and by no means an improve- 

 ment on that given by Judd in Biological Survey Bulletin 15, (pp. 12-15). 



Notice of originality is served in itahcs, on page 388, in the following 

 words: " The thing that economic ornithology has not afforded us as yet 

 in a detailed study of the food of a particular bird in a given locaUty 

 throughout the whole year." Evidently this is what Bryant counts upon 

 as the chief contribution of his paper to economic ornithology. Yet it is 

 precisely what John Gilmour did in 1894-5,' for three species of birds, the 

 wood pigeon, rook, and starling, of which he examined 265, 355 and 190 

 stomachs respectively, which were collected in all months, chiefly on a 

 single estate in Fifeshire, Scotland. 



As an economic report, the present paper is marred by the extensive 

 theoretical digressions, but as the previous publications of the State Game 



1 Birds in their Relations to Man, 1903, pp. 17-26. 



2 Auk, Vol. XXIX, No. 4, Oct., 1912, pp. 449-464. 



3 Trans. Highland and Agr. Soc. Scotland, 1896, pp. 1-93. 



