^'''ioif'^^] ^ecen< Literature. 419 



Commission and Agricultural Experiment Station, not this, are for popular 

 distribution, little harm is done. There is much to commend in the fresh 

 point of view manifest thi'oughout the report, for instance, the computa- 

 tions of quantity of food consumed. One is that some 340 tons of insects 

 are eaten daUy in the breeding season by Western Meadowlarks in the 

 Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys alone. On pages 461, 487-8 and else- 

 where Mr. Bryant points out the importance of availability of food modify- 

 ing choice; this is the conclusion reached by all investigators, that within its 

 own sphere a bird is most likely to feed on what is abundant or most easily 

 obtained. The remark (p. 469) that: " If birds should become numerous 

 enough actually to control the number of insects, they would doubtless 

 become a greater pest than the insects themselves," is eminently sane and 

 is worthy of the attention of those who would increase birds to the point 

 where they would render insecticides unnecessary. 



The statement of the relative merits of parasitic insects and bu-ds (pp. 

 470-471) is excellent and is here quoted: 



"It is readily acknowledged that birds are not the only checks on the 

 increase of insects. The very large toU taken by them, however, places 

 them in the front rank as insect destroyers. Parasites can become abun- 

 dant only when their host becomes abundant and do their work effectively 

 only after the insect has had sufficient time to cause damage. Birds in 

 order to keep ahve must wage a continual warfare on insect life, no matter 

 what the abundance. They are evidently therefore, to be reUed upon as 

 more dependable regulators than parasites." 



On pages 480-487 is presented a discussion of the question: " Do pro- 

 tective adaptations of insects protect them from the attacks of birds? " 

 This query is brought forcibly to the attention of everyone who examines 

 the stomachs of birds, and the general tendency is to answer it in the 

 negative. Still the problem deserves full consideration, to which Bryant's 

 chapter is a valuable contribution. One point in this section emphasizes 

 the fact that our knowledge of a bird's food is never final. Having even a 

 very large number of stomachs, we may collect one more and find in it 

 items of food unrepresented in any of the others. Bryant foimd no Cocci- 

 nelUds in the stomachs he examined, and is inclined to take it as an indica- 

 tion that these beetles are " protected." Professor Beal, however, found a 

 Coccinelhd ( Hyperaspis dissoluta) in the stomach of a California Meadow- 

 lark and has found others in those of the eastern species. The fact that 

 CoccineUidae are unusually abundant in California is as apparent from the 

 stomach contents of birds as from any other evidence, a fact which goes far 

 to show that these beetles pay their proportionate toll to the bird world. 



In concluding, surprise must be expressed that Mr. Bryant's report 

 makes no reference to Professor F. E. L. Beal's article on " Our Meadow 

 Larks in Relation to Agriculture, "^ which was wi-itten in response to the 

 same situation that brought forth the pubhcation here reviewed. — W. L. M. 



I Yearbook, U. 8. Dept. Agriculture, 1912, (1913), pp. 279-284. 



