180 



Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 



Vol. 27, Art. 2 



provides us with further insight into the 

 motivations of the man who guided the 

 program of the Natural History Survey 

 and its parent organizations for many 

 years (1872-1^30). I have come to be- 

 lieve that wildlife research made such an 

 auspicious start in the Survey program not 

 only because of Forbes' professional quali- 

 fications but also because of his intense 

 desire to contribute to knowledge relating 

 to human economv and welfare. W. L. 

 McAtee (1917:249) believed that F. E. 

 L. Beal and Forbes were "the founders 

 of the scientific method of studying the 

 economic value of birds." Birds in Their 

 Relations to Man (Weed & Dearborn 

 1903) is inscribed "To Stephen Alfred 

 Forbes . . . whose classic studies of the 

 economic relations of birds \v\\\ long re- 

 main the model for later students." 



In an early report Forbes (1882«:1) 

 advised : 



The work of the Stats Laboratory of Natural 

 History ... is essentially that of a zoological 

 and botanical survey of the State, conducted 

 with principal reference to economic questions, 

 and to the interests of public education. 



Although economic consideration con- 

 stituted a principal responsibility, such a 

 responsibility is adequately met only when 

 men are willing to meet it and are capable 

 of meeting it. If the desire had not been 

 there, it seems likely that Forbes and his 

 associates would have been content to 

 occupy themselves with the systematics 

 and descriptive records of the native flora 

 and fauna, and wildlife research would 

 have had to find its beginning at a much 

 later date. I marvel at the courage of 

 Forbes' convictions when I consider the 

 statement of Robert Ridgway (1901:1), 

 a close associate of Forbes, on a prevailing 

 attitude of tlie da\' : 



There are two essentially different kinds of 

 ornithology: systrmalir or scientific, and pop- 

 ular. The former deals with the structure and 

 classification of birds, their synonymies and 

 technical descriptions. The latter treats of 

 their habits, songs, nesting, and other facts 

 pertaining to their life-histories. . . . Popular 

 ornithology is the more entertaining, with its 

 savor of the wildwood, green fields, the river- 

 side and seashore, bird songs, and the man\ 

 fascinating things connected with out-of-door 

 Nature. But systematic ornithology, being a 

 component part of biology — the science of life 

 — is the more instructive and therefore more 

 important. 



It is unfortunate that Forbes' responsi- 

 bilities were such that he could not have 

 devoted more time to wildlife research, 

 for he seems to have possessed an under- 

 standing of wildlife biology which was 

 much in advance of his time. In a single 

 early paper (Forbes 1880fl), a number of 

 observations were made which, by their 

 earliness, seem prophetic of views which 

 are credited to relatively recent times. 

 Current beliefs on predation may be seen 

 in "the annihilation of all the established 

 'enemies' of a species would, as a rule, 

 luii'e no effect to increase its final average 

 numbers" (Forbes 1880^: 11). 



Forbes (1880^:8) recognized a need 

 for an understanding of animal popula- 

 tions long before they received serious 

 stud\-. Of this he wrote: 



Our problem is, therefore, to determine how 

 these innumerable small oscillations, due to 

 imperfect adjustment, are usually kept within 

 bounds — to discover the forces and laws 

 which tend to prevent either inordinate in- 

 crease or decrease of any species, and also 

 those by which widely oscillating species are 

 brought into subjection and reduced to a 

 condition of prosperous uniformity. 



It is apparent that this view implies 

 population management in the modern 

 sense. Further implications of manage- 

 ment may be seen in the following 

 statement b\- Forbes (1880«:4): 



It is also plain that if man understands clear- 

 ly the disorders which arise in the system of 

 Nature as a result of the rapid progressive 

 changes in his own condition and activities, 

 and understands also the processes of Nature 

 which tend to lessen and remove these dis- 

 orders, he may, by his own intelligent inter- 

 ference, often avoid or greatly mitigate the 

 evils of his situation, as well as hasten their 

 remedy and removal. 



Forbes (1880^7:9) seems to have been 

 well on the way toward an understanding 

 of density dependent factors as used by 

 today's students of animal populations, as 

 well as modern views on predation, when 

 he wrote: "The fact of survival is there- 

 fore usually sufficient evidence of a fairly 

 complete adjustment of the rate of re- 

 production to the drains upon the 

 species." That his understanding of the 

 effect of density dependent factors on 

 animal populations was astonishingly 

 well advanced is evident in his (Forbes 

 1882Z»:122) reasoning that excessive pop- 

 ulations are, "in one way or another, self- 



