112 
ORNITHOLOGIST 
[ Vol. 11-No. 7 

Evidence of Misfortune. 
BY A: Ww. P- 
All familiar with the egg-depositing proclivi- 
ties of the larger moths, know that they place 
them with almost mathematical accuracy upon 
the underside of leaves of their food plants in 
groups of three and five, and as if the larvee-sus- 
taining power of the bush were considered by the 
female many are not laid upon a single shrub. 
While the female moth may lay from seventy- 
five to one hundred eggs, it is unusual to find fif- 
teen of the larve feeding upon a single bush. 
For two reasons, probably, this care is exercised, 
first, to secure to all sufficient food; second, to give 
them better protection. For while a few only 
slightly defoliate a shrub, the entire brood would 
rob it of its leaves before the larvee were half 
grown, so that their presence would be made 
manifest to the poorest observer, and they would 
be more liable to be destroyed by their enemies. 
Only in one instance have I known this pre- 
caution to be neglected. A number of years ago 
at Watch Hill, R.1., I took from a small wild 
plum bush sixty-two half-grown larvie of the 
Samia cecropia moth, and this brood told the 
story of their unusual assemblage quite as clearly 
to the intelligent observer as though they had 
heralded it with tongues or sent forth in type, for 
no good moth mother would have risked so large 
a family to one little shrub could she have spread 
her pinions and flown to other shrubs in the 
neighborhood. 
CORRESPONDENCE. 

The Study of Ornithology and its 
Relation to the Decrease of Our 
Birds. 

EDITOR ORNITHOLOGIST AND OO LoaIsT, Sir: That there 
is a decrease of our birds is admitted by nearly all, though 
some competent observers claim that there is not, save 
among a few restricted species of water birds, and even the 
writer fails to detect the alarming scarcity that some would 
represent (generally in poetry) as already a deplorable fact, 
anda glance at my cherry trees this morning would con- 
vince the most confirmed alarmist that some species were 
still in existence. 
Accepting, however, the general verdict of the *‘de- 
crease of our birds,” the causes that produced this effect 
next claim our attention. These have been fully set forth 
and discussed in this magazine in a manner which has won 
my admiration, and which will, doubtless, be of far more 
value than the one-sided affusions of some other journals, 
even for protection, 
As this magazine is devoted to Ornithology I shall men- 
tion that science only as one of the ‘* causes” of the de- 
crease of birds, and further, it is the only allowable “cause” 

if I may use such undefined language. The study of orni- 
thology is a legitimate science, as much so as any in the 
great field of natural history, and if properly carried out 
will result in no evil to our feathered tribes. Such can be 
accepted as an established fact, and half a century of orni- 
thological study in this country has proved it, for to-day 
the scarcity of birds in any locality can be traced to other 
causes than the student of Bird-life. Neither can the 
study of this most deiightful science be considered asa 
‘*cruelty to animals” as a certain society would fain have us 
believe. ‘*That nothing has been created in vain,” and 
therefore should be spared, is an argument often used 
against the prosecution of ornithological research. It might 
be well to inform such as wield that maxim against the 
science, that it is equally applicable to all created life, and 
if its advice were heeded, all the different branches of the 
zoological sciences would be unavailable in usefulness, for 
no distinction is made in the advent into this world be- 
tween a minute insect or a brilliant bird, both are ‘‘created” 
and ‘‘notin vain.” Who, then, has the privilege to dictate 
as to which object of life is to be spared; yet entomology 
is a science upheld by all, as it should be, but nothing is 
said against the taking of life, while the ornithologist comes 
under the edict of cruelty and the destroying of valuable 
life. Too much distinction is made by those who use the 
argument quoted above, and in its application it appears a 
little “‘ too thin,” although as a distinguished naturalist and 
a good man once remarked to me, “ Birds are an order of 
lify created for the benefit of alittle higher order of life 
which we call man, by furnishing him an agreeable out door 
pastime, with a pleasing and beautiful result,” and if the 
actions of our ornithologists, irrespective of station or 
“ scientific ability,” can be considered as an index of their 
belief, then we are most happily a unit. 
We were told some time ago about the ‘‘nicely adjusted 
machinery of nature” with such effect that for fully siz 
minutes I hardly dared to touch a bird, jest I should be re- 
sponsible for some break in the complicated mechanism. 
Did it ever occur in the mind of the reader that Genus 
Homo, in which all ornithologists are classed, is a part of 
nature’s ‘‘machinery,” and if the desire is given them to 
destroy, why isit not one of the workings of the aforesaid 
“nicely adjusted machinery” as much as the preying of one 
race of animals upon another. The above argument may 
seem unfounded and unworthy, but it is only proving of 
the rule in a new light. 
The most serious aspect of the case is to be found among 
the ornithologists themselves. I am sorry to see this. ‘A 
house divided against itself cannot stand,” and a harmo- 
nious union among the American crnithologists is to be de- 
sired. To be sure we have a ‘‘Union,” but what isin a 
name? The disposition of the members of the “ Union” 
to ignore the privileges of the young student of ornitholo- 
gy was of no ayail, and ‘‘pseudo-scientists” still hold their 
own, and I think the compound name will be contracted to 
a simple one ere long. Perhaps the most amusing proceed- 
ings of certain ornithologists and fish and game ‘ protec- 
tive” societies, is their efforts for our birds. We have had 
some startling statistics presented, and exhortations 
abounding in all the flow of rhetorical composition, but how 
about the examples? What is the history of the Swain- 
son’s Warbler in South Carolina and the prominent orni- 
thologist connected with their slaughter, who himself or by 
a proxy, secured all that could be found? But never mind, 
he ig one of the committee for the protection of American 
birds. ‘Ab uno disce omnes.” 
I give no advice for the protection of our birds, though I 
most earnestly wish it. Too much has been said. Let the 
reader do his own thinking from the points barely hinted at 
in the foregoing.—W. DeForrest Northrup, M. D. 
