238 Correspondence. 



One nest contained 6 eggs ; many nests contained 5 eggs ; a few were 

 empty ; most nests had 5 eggs in the two collections. If each nest had 

 contained 5 eggs, there would have been 1,795. A few nests, but not more 

 than ^o, were missed as they were very difficult to get at. 



The eggs varied much in colour, shape and size. 



In a few the young were hatched. These were mostly nests that had 

 been missed during the first collection. One nest, 49 feet from the ground, 

 contained a Common Fowl's egg, unbroken. Some people affirm it is an 

 owl's egg, but it is bigger than an owl's egg — and Rooks have been seen 

 to fly off with hen's eggs. 



It is quite evident the birds did not lay a second lot of eggs in the same 

 nest, because the total is not more than five to a nest, which is the usual 

 number, and on May 5th we looked at several nests a third time, and found 

 nothing in them. A few nests, not more than 24, were built later, but 

 whether they were the same or late birds is difficult to say. Eggs were 

 laid in the newly-made nests. 



After the nests had been robbed, the birds flattened the nests down, 

 but in a few cases a new nest was built on the top of the old one. 



Another year I should recommend waiting until after they had finished 

 laying, say the 15th of April, before taking any eggs, because it could be 

 done at one collection, and I don't think any would lay a second time. 



It is much easier taking eggs than young birds. It is not a pleasant 

 job taking the young just hatched. 



As a rule we did not average shooting more than 200 at our Annual 

 Rook Shoot in May, so if every one of the 1,617 eggs had become a rook, 

 and we only shot 200, what becomes of the other 1,400 ? It is obvious 

 that very many die yearly either from disease, fighting or stress of weather. 



Our Rookeries do not vary in numbers very much from year to year, 

 as the following record shows > — 1914, 3f'3 nests ; 1915. 35^ '• 1916, 355 ; 



1917. 344 ; 1918, 359- 



We hold a record for many years, and I find that the year 1832 = 208 

 nests; 1842=^186; 1852 = 344; 1862 = 193. No record was kept from 

 1864 to 1906. 



It remains to be seen if the birds will desert the Rookery, and I hope 

 they will not. Personally I don't think rooks do the amount of harm 

 that farmers imagine ; but I believe they do a lot of good by killing 

 slugs and other vermin. Jackdaws and Wood Pigeons do far more harm 

 and are a real nusiance. But if they are to be reduced taking the eggs is 

 the easiest way, and the least cruel ; if, however, young rooks are considered 

 a good thing as food, it would be best to wait until about the first week 

 in May, when the young could all be taken from the nests before thay can 

 fly. If, say, 1,200 young could be got in this way, it is obvious there would 

 be more food than the old way of shooting. But it would require a butcher, 

 or some person accustomed to taking life ; I should not care for the job ! 



As regards damage to newly-planted corn, we tried the experiment 

 of planting li; acres of oats and letting it take its chance ; then two weeks 

 later we planted 7 acres more, and had it carefully watched, and as far as 

 I can see the crop from the former is going to be as good as from the latter. 

 It seems to me that if farmers plant corn it should be their duty to watch 

 it for a few weeks until it has begun to grow, and not blame nature, and 

 it could easily be done by a man or a boy going round a few times a day with 

 a gun. 



Anyone disposed to grumble at birds should read one of Longfellow's 

 Tales of a Wayside Inn, called ' The Birds of Killingworth.' 



Samuel Clough, Steeton Hall, near Keighley, May 23rd, 191 8 



Mr. Edward Sandeman has an interesting paper on ' The Derwent 

 Valley Waterworks ' in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution 

 cf Civil Engineers. 



Natuialist, 



