342 The Wilson Bulletin — No. 91 



[their youugr] by regiirsitatiou." He says in part " In our studies 

 on the passerine birds we liave succeeded in following the feeding 

 of at least one out of a brood, from the moment it left the egg 

 until it left the nest, in the cases of the yellow warltler, the cat- 

 bird and the meadowlark .... and in each of these instances there 

 has been no feeding l)y regurgitation. This is known simply from 

 the fact that the food has been visible in the bird's bill."' 



Tlie fact stated in the last sentence l>y no means disproves re- 

 gurgitation. That food is visible in the bill is nt) proof that the 

 gullet does not also contain food. The species above mentioned 

 sometimes, at least, feed by regurgitation. In ]Mrs. Wheelock's 

 article on " Regurgitative feeding of nestlings " in the Auk for 

 January, 1905 (pp. 54-70), this capable field oliserver records more 

 than thirty-five species of birds as feeding their young by regurgi- 

 tation including all of the species Professor Stephens says were 

 not observed to use this method. 



Professor F. E. L. Beal has seen the following species feed their 

 young by regurgitation : Rufous hummingbird, Arkansas goldfinch. 

 California towliee. black-headed grosbeak, and the Eastern robin. 



The writer knows from personal experience, that the cardinal,, 

 the rose-breasted grosbeak, the Eastern goldfinch, the English spar- 

 row, and the red-eyed vireo feed their young at least in part by 

 this method, the finches almost wholly. This is a longer list of 

 birds than Professor Stephens claims acquaintance with and may 

 show that my definition of limited experience in this field of work 

 is quite different from his own, and that it does not justify tlie 

 slur he pleases to record on page Kit). 



5. " The examination of a stomach will give, at best, the story 

 of only three or four hours of the bird's life" (p. 1(50). 



True, but when enough stomachs are collected, all of the hours 

 will be typically represented. 



0. "What [foodl is unrecognizable cannot be taken into a<'Count. 

 except as 'unknown.' or as 'miscellaneous.' if the taltles or dia- 

 grams do not show this, must we not conclude tliat the writer has 

 discarded the unidentified material?'' (p. KJl). 



Professor Stephens will find entries under miscellaneous animnl 

 and miscellaneous vegetable food in practically every formal report 

 by the Biological Survey upon the food of birds. None of the nm- 

 terial is discarded. 



7. "Too often the adherent of stomach examination publishes 

 only his percentage results, without the detailed data upon which 

 his percentages are based, which are necessary in a strictly scien- 

 tific piece of work" (p. 101). 



It is impracticable to publish detailed analyses of luuidreds and 



