Historical Review. 



CHAPTER II. 



HISTORICAL REVIEW, 



" Der wird stets das Beste missen, 

 Wer nicht borgt, was andre wissen." 



Riickert. 



Until quite recently comparatively little work had been carried 

 out in this country upon economic ornithology. In most of the 

 works on British birds the information given is scanty and in 

 general terms, indeed, it is significant that scarcely a writer on 

 economic ornithology has thought it worth while repeating these 

 statements. 



The Bibliography (p. 93 ) contains, I think, all the more 

 important papers published in this country, and references to many 

 others. Gurney (57) in 1885 published a paper on the house 

 sparrow, showing the exceedingly destructive nature of this bird. 

 Gilmour (54) in 1896 dealt with the wood pigeon, the rook, and the 

 starling, and was the first investigator in this country to carry his 

 observations over a whole year and on a reasonably representative 

 number of specimens, thus the sitom<adh contents of 265 pigeons, 355 

 rooks, and 190 starlings were examined. 



Archibald's series of papers (3 & 4) bring together practically all 

 that was known up to 1894. Slater's contribution (104) is more of a 

 bird-lover's appeal on behalf of our "feathered friends." In 1897 

 (95) Ormerod and Tegetmeier isued a pamphlet dealing with the 

 house sparrow as a pest. Hooper (68) in 1906 published a valuable 

 contribution to the subject, the outcome of careful observation, 

 indeed, it may be said to form the first comprehensive survey of 

 the subject published in this country. This was followed by a 

 further contribution in tEe following year (69). Theobald (109 N 

 gave a useful review of the subject in the same year. Thorpe and 

 Hope (111) have investigated the food of the black-headed gull, as 

 also Laidlaw (80). 



In 1908 Archibald (5) supplemented and completed his former 

 work. Newstead's paper (92) of the same year was the first one 

 since Gilmour J s to set forth the results of examinations of stomach 

 contents. So far as the questionable species are concerned it does 

 not afford much assistance, however, as the number of individuals 

 examined was, in most cases, too small, the numbers being: 



