268 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Pub. Doc. 



In addition to the above a cedar waxwing was received 

 early in Jnly from Miss Anrelia L. Dupee of Foxborongli. 

 which was in snch a condition of decomposition that it was 

 disposed of by the clerk who received the body, and never 

 reached the State Ornithologist ; and two other birds went 

 astray in some manner and never reached the office. 



A cuckoo was received from Mr. James A. Lowell, pre- 

 served in alcohol by a taxidermist. This the chemist did not 

 analyze because the alcohol in which it was preserved had 

 not been first analyzed, which would invalidate the result. 



Regarding sixteen of the analyses recorded above which 

 were made at the chemical laboratory of Harvard College, 

 the director, Prof. Charles R. Sanger, makes the following 

 remarks : — 



The results of the above analyses show in all but Nos. 19 and 15 

 negligible traces of arsenic. The amounts of arsenic in Nos. 19 and 

 15, .096 and .076 milligrams, respectively, are also very small in 

 themselves, though relatively larger than the results from the other 

 ten. 



Yon will notice that No. 2, which was plucled, contained no more 

 arsenic in the rest of the body than in the viscera. We examined 

 only the viscera in the majority of cases, as it was reasonably certain 

 that the arsenic, if jiresent, would be localized in the viscera. But 

 No. 19, unplucked, gave little or no arsenic in the viscera, but nearly 

 all in the rest of the body, which included feathers. In No. 15, 

 again, the unplucked body was used. This makes it possible to ex- 

 plain the larger amounts of arsenic in Nos. 19 and 15 by contami- 

 nation of body surface, not necessarily ingestion. If due to ingestion, 

 however, the weight of arsenic found is so small com])ared to the 

 weight of the birds (not over 1 part in 200,000) that one cannot say 

 that death was due to poisoning by arsenic. 



Referring again to my letter to you of July 14, 1909, in which 

 I reported .086 milligrams of arsenic in a bird weighing .3.9 

 grams, we have here 1 part in 45,000. There were also traces of lead 

 in that bird, and, since we have no data concerning the resistance of 

 birds to arsenic, one cannot say that the death of that bird 

 (No. 4a) was not due to poisoning by arsenate of lead. Tests for 

 lead in Nos. 19 and 15 have, however, resulted negatively. 



In conclusion, it seems to me that these sixteen analyses are in- 

 conclusive as to the effect of spraying with arsenate of lead upon 

 birds, and also that any series of analyses are likely to be incon- 

 clusive until we have some dcfuiifo data as to the lethal dose of 



