THE AUDUBON NOTE BOOK. 



MEMBERSHIP RETURNS. 

 The registered membership of the Society on 

 Nov. 30 was 42,246, showing an increase of 1,462 

 during the month, due to the following sources: 



New York 323 Kansas 1 



Massachusetts 615 Iowa n 



New Hampshire 4 Illinois 17 



New Jersey 4' Missouri 13 



Maine 48 Ohio 47 



Connecticut 56 Michigan 10 



Vermont 26 Indiana : 



Pennsylvania 52 California 5 



District of Columbia 3 Rhode Island i 



Florida 3 Minnesota 15 



Maryland 6 Indian Territory i 



Georgia 3 Dakota 60 



Kentucky 15 Canada 86 



Texas i T 



1462 



C. F. Amery, General Secretary. 



ECONOMIC ORNITHOLOGY. 



A REPLY. 



Editor Audubon Magazine: 



The October number of the Audubon Magazine 

 (page 211) contains a notice of the "preliminary re- 

 port on economic ornithology" recently published in 

 the annual report of the Department of Agriculture 

 for 1886. 



In reading this notice I was surprised to see 

 several incorrect statements of fact, and was aston- 

 ished to find myself accused of expressing opinions 

 that I have never held. 



In regard to the English sparrow, the report in 

 Kjuestion contains the following: "In advance of 

 the publication of the special bulletin on the English 

 sparrow question, which will contain in detail the 

 evidence on which the following statements are based, 

 it is thought desirable at the present time to set forth 

 some of the results of the investigation for the inform- 

 ation of the general public," etc. In view of the 

 above, I beg to ask for the facts which led my critic 

 to say: "It occurs to us that the investigation does 

 not appear to have been conducted in the same 

 scientifically impartial spirit that resulted in the ac- 

 quittal of the hawks and owls." Inasmuch as the 

 report on the English sparrow has not yet been pub- 

 lished, I would like to ask what my critic knows 

 about the facts upon which the conclusions have been 

 based, or the spirit in which the investigation has 

 been conducted; also, what led him to assert that 

 the replies received to our circular on the sparrow 

 are '^ all condemnatory"? 



After disposing of the sparrow, the reviewer states: 

 "On the same grounds we are disposed to take ex- 



ception to the sweeping conclusion that all birds sub- 

 sisting on grain are inimical to man, those only being 

 beneficial which prey on mice and insects. " I respect- 

 fully challenge the editor of the AuDunoN M.\g.\zine 

 to show that I have ever expressed, either in print or 

 in conversation, any opinion which can be construed 

 into the views here attributed to me. I beg to pro- 

 test against this sort of wholesale misrepresentation, 

 which is due, of course, to carelessness on the part 

 of the reviewer, who could not have read the report 

 he has seen fit to criticise. 



In conclusion, mav I ask if the editor of the Audu- 

 ]!ON Mag.-vzine considers it entirely fair to lead his 

 readers to regard as an enemy to the good cause he 

 upholds the very man to whose efforts is largely due 

 the formation of the Bird Protection Committee of 

 the American Ornithologists' Union, from which 

 committee the Audubon Society movement is a direct 

 outgrowth? C. Hart Merriam. 



Washington, D. C, Oct. 20, 1S87. 



While it is plain from the above that Dr. Merriam's 

 position was not correctly defined by us in the infer- 

 ences which were drawn from his preliminary report 

 on the house sparrow, it is at the same time unfor- 

 tunate that he should not have been more explicit in 

 stating his position in the text of that report. If, 

 for instance, the testimony received by the Bureau- 

 was not all condemnatory, it is strange that in the 

 abstract given us, nothing favorable to the bird should 

 have appeared. We are quite willing to modify our 

 statement, and to say that as the printed "results of 

 the investigation" contain no hint of any testimony 

 favorable to the bird, it is only fair to infer that it 

 was all unfavorable. Perhaps it was such an oiiiis- 

 sion of anything in defense of the sparrow that gave 

 us the impression that the investigation was not 

 strictly impartial. Our remark relative to Dr. Mer- 

 riam's classification of birds as beneficial or injurious 

 was based on this statement in the report, that "the 

 food of all species consists either of animal or vege- 

 table matter or both, and its consumption must be 

 serviceable or prejudicial to the interests of mankind. 

 Therefore, according to the food it eats, each bird or 

 mammal may be classed under one of two headings 

 — beneficial or injurious. Many species are both 

 beneficial and injurious, and it is impossible to assign 

 them to either category until the percentages of their 

 food elements have been positively determined and 

 the sum of the good balanced against the sum of the 

 evil. 



"It is well known that certain birds and mammals 

 are directly destructive to farm crops, causing a loss 



