LAND BIRDS. 725 
no means generally. The song is a strong, clear, liquid warble, with 
perhaps no claim to very great beauty or remarkable purity of tone, yet 
it is after all one of the most satisfactory songs of the summer, and in spite 
of all criticism the bird has fully earned the place which it has in popular 
affection. That its call-notes, and particularly its cries of distress and 
alarm, are harsh and disagreeable cannot be denied, but the bird can 
hardly be blamed for this fact. 
The main criticism and dislike which the bird provokes come from the 
fact that it is a voracious fruit eater and under some circumstances does 
a large amount of injury to small fruits. It is particularly fond of cherries, 
strawberries, raspberries and grapes, but it attacks (at least occasionally) 
every small-fruit which grows, either wild or cultivated, and is much 
addicted to pecking into ripening orchard fruits, particularly apples and 
pears of the earlier varieties. For this reason the fruit-grower comes 
to detest the bird and can hardly be blamed if he overlooks the benefit 
which he undoubtedly receives from the good work done in the consumption 
of insects. However, there is plenty of evidence that the good work of 
the Robin in this respect is commonly overrated and that where very 
abundant the mischief done to the fruit grower is by no means atoned 
for by the injurious insects eaten. 
Probably no American bird (with the possible exception of the Crow) 
has been the cause of so much difference of opinion as the Robin, and at 
various times its food has been investigated with more or less care by 
observers of fair ability, after plans not always the most scientific. It 
is impossible in this place to give even a brief resume of such work, but 
those interested should consult the writings of Treadwell, Jenks, Slade, 
Lyle, Wilcox, King, Aughey, Forbes and Beal, references to which are 
given in the appendix to this volume. 
Prof. 8. A. Forbes, in his investigations in Jllinois, examined the stomachs 
of 114 Robins collected in various places during the spring and summer 
months. He examined first the stomachs of 41 Robins collected in March, 
April, May, June, July and August, and found that 28 percent of the food 
was fruit while 2 percent of the remainder consisted of spiders and myria- 
pods, and all the rest (presumably 70 percent) was insects. Of these, 
20 percent were caterpillars and 7 percent eround beetles (harpalinz). 
In addition there were 64 percent of injurious beetles, including 2} percent 
of curculios, 8 percent of orthoptera, and 14 percent of injurious myria- 
pods, 16 percent in all, to offset 28 percent of fruit, the other elements 
about balancing each other. ‘I therefore conclude,” he says, “that these 
41 Robins taken together had certainly done, just previous to the time 
of their demise, fully as much harm as good, as far as we can judge from 
the contents of the stomachs” (Trans. Il]. State Hort. Soc. Vol. 13, 1879, 
p. 132). The subsequent examination by Prof. Forbes of 73 more Robins’ 
stomachs did not materially change his conclusions, although further 
investigation convinced him that the ground beetles eaten were not as 
valuable as had been supposed, and that therefore the Robin was doing 
comparatively little harm in eating these insects. He concludes: “We 
can reduce the question finally to about this form: Will the destruction 
of 17 quarts of average caterpillars, including at least eight quarts of 
cutworms, pay for 24 quarts of cherries, blackberries, currants and grapes? 
For my own part I do not believe that the horticulturist can sell his small- 
fruit anywhere in the ordinary’ markets of the world at so high a price 
as to the Robin; provided of course that he uses due diligence that the 
