■^0.2.] COUES ON PASSER DOMESTICUS. 187 



1878. Brewer, T.M. Tlie Sparrow [Passer doiuesticus].— A Note from Dr. Brewer. 



< Boston Daily Advertiser, Feb. 25, 1878. 



"Protesting" against J. Diswell's letter as "tlie extreme discourtesy on tiie part of a total 

 stranger," who had presumed to state the results of his dissections of 39 Sparrows, and aver- 

 ring that he [T. M. Brewer] has "neither the time nor the inclination to consider the opin- 

 ions given by the young gentlemen of the NuttaU Club." See 1878, Nuttall Oknith. Club. 

 1878. Brewer, T, M. [On Orgyia leucostigma as food of Passer domesticus.] 



< Proc. JBost. SoG. Nat. Hist, for 1877, xix. 1878, pp. 260-262. 



It may be noted here, that Sparrows supposed to be devouring the eggs or larvi^ of this 

 insect, may have been digging into empty cocoons. The article includes a note from Dr. H. 

 Hagen, intimating his belief that the Sparrows do not interfere with native birds. See 1878, 

 PURDIE, H. A 



1878. Brewer, T. M. Defending the Sparrows [Passer domesticus]. — A Distinguished 

 Boston Naturalist Protests Against Their Extermination. < The Fast (Wash- 

 ington, D. C), Dec. 7, 1878. 



T. M. Brewer having been apprised of E. Coues's communication to the Commissioners of 

 the District of Columbia, hastened to interfere, 7nore suo. The present paragraph is a dio-est 

 of his letter to the Commissioners, warning them against a proposition "so unjust to our 

 benefactors, so unwise in itself, and so wholly unreasonable" as that made to them by Dr. 

 Coues; imploring them to confer with "his life-long friend, Prof. Baird"; bringing F. Provost 

 this time to the front instead of J. Galvin ; attempting to confound Dr. Coues out of his own 

 mouth by an incompleted reference to the latter's "Key to North American Birds"; and tak- 

 ing issue on each point of Dr. Coues's "assumptions"; thus verifying one or more of the five 

 categories of persons in which Dr. Coues had classed the Sparrows' defenders. 



1878. Brewster, W. The Nuttall Ornithological Club of Cambridge. <^ Boston 

 Daily Advertiser, Mar. 20, 1878. 



A card representing the obvious inaccuracy of calling the members of the Club "boys," 

 T. M. Brewer and others being of theii' number. 



1878. C. E. H[amlix]. The English Sparrows [Passer domesticus]. < Tne Times 

 (Bath, Me.), Feb. 26, 1878. 



This is a report of the discussion of the Nuttall Club by a person who was present at the 

 meeting, and a resume of the evidence supporting the charges brought against the Sparrow; 

 with a long array of facts from personal observation. "1st. It is found wherever the spar- 

 rows have become established, they are annually driving out more and more completely 

 our most valued native bu'ds." "2nd. The sparrows have been seen repeatedly to destroy 

 the eggs and young of other birds by blows with their bills." "3d. Wherever the English 

 sparrows have become abundant, it is found that they make foraging expeditions in flocks, 

 from cities and villages which they prefer for abodes, into the grain fields of the surrounding 

 farms." "4th. In the region about Boston, the sparrows fail to compensate for the evil they 

 commit." These four propositions are supported by testimony of eye-witnesses. The article 

 occupies two columns, and y/as written from Cambridge, Mass. 



1878. " CoRViN." A Sparrow's Chirrup from Europe. < Forest and Stream, Nov. 23, 

 1878. 



Being "much amused at the bitterness which the sparrow-war in America has assumed;" 

 the vsa-iter chirrups pleasantly on the subject. 



1878. Coues, E. The Sparrow [Passer domesticus] Pest. <] The Country, Jan. 19, 

 1878. 



Citing the observations of Dr. Sacc, Rev. et Mag. de Zool. sii. p. 94, in evidence of the extra- 

 ordinary fecundity of these birds. A female laid 35 eggs in as many days. 



1878. Coues, E. The Ineligibility of the European House Sparrow [Passer domesti- 

 cus] in America. <^ Amer. Nat. xii. No. 8, Aug. 1878, pp. 499-50.3. 



This is a general statement of the case, indicting the Sparrow, with specific charges, and 

 recommendations. It asserts that in the case of the Sparrow, the history of the white-weed 

 and the Norway rat is repeated. It divides the friends of the Sparrow into five categories, 

 only one of which is regarded as entitled to serious attention in discussing the matter upou 

 scientific and economic grounds. The fifth category is said to consist of " a very few intelligent 

 and scientific persons, who recognize fully what little good the sparrow undeniably does, and 

 shape a favorable argument mainly from the undisputed advantages which result from a cer- 

 tain just and proper number of sparrows in Europe." The argument is shown to be thoroughly 

 fallacious, as it does not apply to the present American state of the case. The specifications 

 against the birds are thus stated: 1. They neglect entirely, or perform very insufficiently, the 



