CHAPTER XXX. 



WILD BIRDS IN RELATION TO FRUIT GROWING. 



By Walter E. Collinge, D.Sc, F.L.S., F.E.S., M.B.O.U., 

 Lecturer on Comparative Embryology and Zoology in St. Andrew's University. 



The relationship existing between wild birds 

 and fruit growing is by no means the simple 

 matter that some people would lead us to 

 suppose; indeed, the longer we study the 

 question the more difficult and intricate does 

 it appear. Nevertheless we now have con- 

 siderable data, obtained from investigations 

 extending over fifteen years, which enables us 

 to fix with greater precision than previously 

 the economic position of a large number of 

 species, that is to say, we now know the per- 

 centages of the different kinds of food that 

 each species consumes and the ratios these 

 bear to one another. 



This information has been obtained by 

 examining the stomach and intestinal contents 

 of large numbers of birds from all parts of 

 the country, and during each month of the 

 year, and whilst the results obtained may not 

 hold good for a particular district, they do 

 show us the nature of the food as a whole 

 and the particular quantities of each item 

 that a bird feeds upon. 



If such an investigation were made upon 

 the birds obtained in one district only, it is 

 very possible that the results would show 

 variations from those here given, due to the 

 local conditions as regards food supply, and 

 the scarcity or abundance of the species con- 

 cerned. 



It will, we think, be obvious that such a 

 method of estimating the food of any species 

 of wild bird has great advantages over all 

 others, for it is exact and at once shows the 

 average significance of the food, further, it 

 takes cognizance of all the food consumed, 

 and we are thus enabled to state definitely 

 the economic status of a species, which is not 

 possible by any other method. 



Observations made in the field or orchard, 

 whilst very useful, are seldom exact enough. 

 Every investigator knows of instances where 



birds have been shot "devouring fruit" or 

 " eating garden peas," and when the stomach 

 contents have been examined not a particle of 

 vegetable matter has been found. It therefore 

 behoves us to deal very warily with such 

 observations, made, no doubt, in the best of 

 faith, but nevertheless faulty. 



In endeavouring to fix the economic position 

 of any species of wild bird, it is of the utmost 

 importance that we should place on one side 

 prejudice, hearsay, and preconceived ideas, 

 and rely only upon scientific facts and sound 

 judgement. 



Take the case of the Thrushes, both specie* 

 are condemned by practically all fruit growers. 

 It is perfectly true that they do destroy a 

 certain amount of fruit, in some cases greater 

 than in others, but if the fruit grower destroys 

 these birds and so thinks that he will have a 

 larger crop of fruit, I am certain that he will 

 be disappointed, for the number of injurious 

 insects that these birds destroy more than 

 compensates for the amount of fruit destroyed. 

 Unless thrushes were very much more nu- 

 merous than at present it would ba a very 

 short-sighted policy to destroy them. 



In the case of the Starling we have very 

 different conditions. This species is far too 

 numerous. There must be hundreds of star- 

 lings for every thrush in the country, in 

 consequence of which they do an enormous 

 amount of harm. 



The Bullfinch stands in rather a different 

 category. It is not over-abundant, but from 

 January to the end of May it is wholly 

 destructive, and as its food for the remainder 

 of the year is of a neutral nature, it commits 

 great harm with practically no compensating 

 advantages. 



What we want the fruit grower to reilise 

 is that a bird must not be condemned as 

 injurious to fruit growing simply because at 



