NOTIONS ABOUT THE SHRIKE'S SHAMBLES 551 



Dot the case), and whereas the grasshoppers are all stuck up 

 in natural attitudes as if they were alive (though they are not 

 so fixed, in fact), therefore this is done to decoy birds that feed 

 upon grasshoppers ; for if this be not so, and if the insects be 

 stored up for future use, how long would one or even two grass- 

 hoppers last a Shrike f But if the intention be to seduce little 

 birds, then that number, or half as many, or fewer still, would 

 be good bait all winter. And so forth. 



Wilson, with his usual good sense, has disposed of this theory* 

 "pretty fanciful," as he calls it, in a rather satirical as well as 

 practical way. He notes that grasshoppers themselves are the 

 favorite food of the Shrike, and that they would make the very 

 poorest bait for our small winter birds, which are mostly gra- 

 nivorous; that there is no necessity for a stratagem of such 

 refinement and cruelty, as the Shrike is abundantly able to 

 capture all the birds he wants in open chase ; and, finally, that 

 the Grow and Jay may be supposed with equal probability to 

 be laying baits for mice and flying squirrels, when they hoard 

 up their corn. The bait theory may be safely discarded. 



Another idea is, that the Shrike avails himself of a thorn to 

 secure his prey whilst he is devouring it, just as a Hawk or 

 Owl would use his claws for the same purpose ; and that this 

 has become such a habit that the Shrike may spit, and then 

 leave untouched, the carcases he does not wish to devour. Un- 

 doubtedly, the bird's feet and claws are weak in comparison 

 with his stout beak, large head, and powerful muscles of the 

 neck and breast ; but no one can doubt the bird's ability to hold 

 his prey securely while he tears it to pieces. Any one who has 

 had a Shrike scratch him should be satisfied of this. 



There is another notion, that the Shrike impales his victims 

 in the excess of his cruelty, from sheer love of inflicting pain. 

 But this argues a moral obliquity which we can ascribe to no 

 bird, if indeed any moral quality whatever can be discovered 

 in their actions. It is true that a cat tortures a mouse, and 

 seems to delight in inflicting pain. I cannot but believe, how- 

 ever, that the cat is unconscious of the mouse's misery ; that 

 what she enjoys is not the suffering of her victim, but the 

 exercise of her natural powers. Excessive destrqctiveness, as 

 when cats or weasels kill more animals than they can devour, 

 is very frequent j but it implies neither cruelty (in a moral 

 sense) nor mere wantonness ; it is a legitimate result of their 

 rapacious nature, and for the rest, the animals may have a 



