THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF BIRDS. 



PSITTACI Paroquets, Parrots, Etc. 



The Carolina paroquet, whose range once extended from Maryland lo 

 Colorado and southward, is extinct except in a few southern localities, and 

 hence is now of little economic importance one way or the other. 



COCCYGES-Cuckoos, Trogons and Kingfishers 



The trogon is of no importance to us, being confined to the extreme 

 southern portion of the United States Texas and Arizona. 



The road-runner lives on reptiles, batrachians, small mammals and ia- 

 sects (91). 



The American cuckoos, unlike the European species, are not parasitic in 

 their nesting habits, and are considered among our most useful birds, because 

 they destroy great numbers of hairy caterpillars, which most other birds 

 cannot eat. Caterpillars form 48% of their food, 155 stomachs having con- 

 tained 2,770 caterpillars, an average of 21 each. One contained 251 tent 

 caterpillars, another contained 217 fall webworms. Tent caterpillars, at the 

 time when they are defoliating the trees, form 50% of the food of the 

 cuckoos (92). One contained 325 fall webworm larvae (93). Another con- 

 tained more insects than 522 English sparrows, yet the sparrows have been 

 permitted to drive out the cuckoos (94). Canker worms constituted 75%, 

 other caterpillars 20 % and vine leaf chafers 5 % of the contents of a stomach 

 from a canker-infested orchard (95). Eleven stomachs in Nebraska averaged 

 35 locusts and 13 other insects (96). The nestlings are fed on grasshoppers 

 and smooth caterpillars (97). 



But little can be said in favor of kingfishers from an economic point 



(91) Lantz, U. S. Biol. Surv., Bull. No. 31, p. 51. Anthony, The Auk, Vol. XIV, 

 p. 217. 



(92) Beal, How Birds Affect the Orchard, U. S. Dept. Agric., Yearbook for 1900, 

 p. 297 : The Food of Cuckoos. IT. S. Biol. Surv.. Bull. No. 9, pp. 7-14 ; Farmers' Bull. 

 No. 54, pp. 5-6. 



(93) Judd, U. S. Biol. Surv., Bull. No. 17, pp. 28-29. 



(94) Barrows and Riley, U. S. Dept. Agric., Div. Orn. & Mam., Bull. No. 1, pp. 

 80, 108, 123. 



(95) Forbes, 111. St. Lab. Nat. Hist., Bull. Vol. 1, No. 6, p. 16. 



(96) Aughey, First Rept. U. S. Entom. Com. App., II, pp. 39-40. 



(97) Judd, U. S. Dept. Agric., Yearbook for 1900, p. 428. 



