Recent Literature. 



107 



and vine chafer was compensated by a genei-al diminution of the ratios of 

 all the other elements, and not by the neglect of one or two alone. If the 

 latter had been the case, the criticism might easily have been made that 

 thei, birds, in helping to reduce one oscillation, were setting others on foot. 



"3. The fact that, with the exception of the indigo bird, the species 

 whose records in the orchard were compared with those made elsewhere, 

 had eaten in the former situation as many caterpillai-s other than canker 

 worms as usual, simply adding their canker worm ratios to those of other 

 caterpillars, goes to show that these insects are favorites with a majority 

 of birds." 



We notice the unexpected fact respecting Fringillidce, that only 7 per 

 cent of the food of 47 individuals of this "seed-eating" family, consisted 

 of seeds, insects making up all but 2 per cent of the remainder. The 

 canker worms alone made 40 per cent. But in this case it must be re- 

 membered that the circumstances were highly exceptional. 



We trust Professor' Forbes will not desist from his good work. Such 

 exact data as these are just what is required for the solution of the general 

 problem which is offered by the relations of the bird-world to agricul- 

 ture.— E. C. 



Economic Relations of Birds again.* — Upon the heels of Prof. 

 Fbrbes's paper, but since the foregoing notice was penned (else the two 

 Contributions to the same subject might have been profitably considered 

 together), comes the very elaborate i-esult of Prof. King's examinations of 

 the food of birds in its bearing upon our agricultural interests. The ques- 

 tion, — one of great economic importance, — seems to be only of late 

 brought forward with sufficient prominence ; and it is evident from what 

 these two investigators have accomplished, that our ornithologists have 

 hitherto taken it up, if at all, only after methods entirely inadequate to its 

 solution. Observations have usually been no more than incidental to our 

 study of the habits of birds, instead of being sufficiently prolonged, exact 

 and systematic to yield sound results. Prof. King's field-work, we are 

 informed, was commenced in 1873, and is apparently only just concluded 

 — his attention during this long period being steadily and rigidly directed 

 to discovering what and how much food Wisconsin birds eat, with the view 

 of classifying these birds in certain categories — primarily those beneficial 

 to or injurious to, man in economic relations. This is certainly a worthy 

 devotion, undertaken in truly scientific spirit, and carried out with an 

 earnest purpose. It should go far toward accomplishing the desired result, 

 ^though we fear the problem is too intricate, involving too many un- 

 known quantities, to be solved perfectly by never so many tabular state- 

 ments of contents of birds' stomachs. We suspect that the general equation 

 reduced to its simplest practical terms will prove in the end to be, that the 

 fewer birds of all kinds killed the better for us. 



* Economic Relations of Wisconsin Birds. By F. H. King. Wisconsin Geologica 

 Survey, Vol. I, chap, xi, pp. 441-610, figg. 103-144. Roy. 8vo. 



