No. 4.] THE CROW IN MASSACHUSETTS. 289 



year would amount to eighteen and one-fourth ounces. 

 Assuming that the young birds or eggs eaten l)y the crow 

 average one ounce each in weight, which is perha[)s a higli 

 average, we have eighteen and one-fourth birds or eggs to 

 each crow as its record for the season. If we allow only 

 ten families of crows of live each for one of our larger west- 

 ern townships, the fifty crows would destroy over nine hun- 

 dred young birds or eggs. Whether such destruction 

 should be regarded as " trivial" seems, in the present state 

 of our knowledge on the subject, largely a matter of opin- 

 ion. When, for reasons previously given, we consider that 

 in all probability the stomachs examined did not give a full 

 record of the devastation committed in this manner by the 

 crow, it seems possible that the bird may deserve the bad 

 name it has been given as a destroyer of the j^oung and 

 eggs of other birds. But it is difficult, if not impossible, 

 to determine, at least by stomach examinations of the crow, 

 whether the birds that are destroyed, or those resulting 

 from the eggs even, would have been of sufiicient economic 

 value, if allowed to live, to more than offset the balance in 

 favor of the crow for services rendered by destroying in- 

 sects and injurious mammals. 



It is evident, from the excellent report made by Mr. 

 E. A. Schwarz on the examination of the insect food con- 

 tained in the crows' stomachs obtained by the Department 

 of Agriculture, that the crow would be a great blessing to 

 the farmer during the spring, summer and early fall, were 

 its diet confined to insects.* Its services in destroying 

 grasshoppers and May beetles and their progeny, the de- 

 structive white grub, are not generally appreciated. Add 

 to them the destruction of cut worms, click beetles and 

 weevils and other destructive insects, and the farmer is 

 well able to spare such of his insect friends as the crow 

 destroys, i. e., the ground beetles and soldier l)ags. We 

 must, therefore, agree with Mr. Schwarz that " the facts, on 

 the whole, speak overwhelmingly in favor of the crow, and, 

 taken alone, w^ould be at variance with the prevalent opinion 

 hitherto held, and yet held, regarding the economic status of 

 the crow as an insectivorous bird." Mr. Schwarz makes some 



* " The Common Crow of the United States," pages 5G, 67. 



