146 DENDROCYGNA ARCUATA 



The future of all the water-fowl of Australia is very uncertain, especially of the 

 less wary kinds, as I am informed by various letters from Australian bird-lovers, and 

 this species, as well as all the more interesting of the ducks, is doubtless disappearing 

 at the present time. 



Enemies. Nothing especial recorded. 



Damage to Crops. No information. 



Food Value. Reported as excellent table birds by several observers (Sclater, 

 1863; Grabowsky, 1885; and others). 



Hunt. No particular information is at hand, and one would doubtless have to 

 refer to local sportsmen's periodicals from Australia to gather information on this 

 subject. According to Horsfield (1824) it was a favorite object of pursuit in Java 

 a hundred years ago. 



Behavior in Captivity. This Tree Duck has not been kept so commonly in col- 

 lections as have Dendrocygna viduata, D. autumnalis, and D. bicolor, and is not even 

 mentioned by Finn in his book, Fancy Water-fowl, published in 1900. 



It was not present in the Zoological Society's Gardens in London in 1883 and there 

 was only one specimen there in 1896. Finn (London Field, January 9, 1915) 

 mentions several there at that date. It has been on exhibition in the Berlin Gardens, 

 but like all the other Tree Ducks has never bred there (Heinroth, 1911). 



In a letter to me, January 23, 1920, Mr. Hugh Wormald 3 the well-known and 

 successful English breeder of water-fowl, does not mention this species as ever hav- 

 ing been kept by himself. Nevertheless, it has seemingly been kept and also bred 

 in private parks in England, for Heinroth (1911) mentions seeing two pairs of this 

 Tree Duck leading downy young on the estate of the Duke of Bedford. In a letter 

 to me of April 16, 1920, Mr. D. LeSouef, Director of the Zoological Gardens of Mel- 

 bourne, Australia, informs me that Dendrocygna arcnata has been kept there, but 

 has never bred. Mr. F. E. Blaauw writes that he has never kept it and knows of no 

 authentic instance of its having bred in captivity, so that perhaps Heinroth's note 

 refers to one of the other Tree Ducks. 



Rogeron (1903) kept a pair of these birds for four or five years and has some- 

 thing interesting to say about them, but they never bred in his ponds, nor did they 

 ever actually mate, according to his observations. 



He describes them as very gentle and familiar in their habits, coming to him for 

 food with a "twittering" refrain. Not so alert as other ducks, he had to take pains 

 that they received their proper share of food. During the first two winters, which 



