The Hawkeve Ornithologist and Oologist. 



.V 



as follows: Song birds and useful 

 species 30; useful but not song birds, 

 3S; birds of doubtful and negative 

 value, 108. Among those classed as 

 of negative value are some really ob- 

 jectionable as destroyers of useful 

 species, namely, the shrikes and jays. 

 The others in the negative list are 

 chiefly terns, gulls, grebes, and shore 

 birds." 



"To this I may add my own obser- 

 vation, made yesterday, of a large 

 wholesale milliner's stock in this city. 

 Taking a dozen or two of boxes at 

 random from the stock, here is the 

 list: Twenty-four tropical black- 

 birds (South American;) 24 tropical 

 orioles; 20 tropical kingfishers-habitat 

 Mexican border to Brazil, 12 tropicals, 

 (South American;) 6 large and 

 very wicked-looking jays, (not 

 recognized as North American;) 

 pigeons of a species whose 

 habitat is West Indies, Central 

 and South America; 12 white-shoul- 

 dered blackbirds, not North Ameri- 

 can; 24 maroon tanagers, Brazilian; 

 6 heads of California quail; 1 red- 

 shouldered blackbird; 137 skins, of 

 which 7 only are undoubtedly North 

 American, and none of these 7 song 

 birds. 



"I should not omit to mention the 

 statement of my friend Mr. Dury as 

 to seeing 'bluebirds by the bushel' in 

 a taxidermist's stock in New Jersey. 

 Now Mr. Dury does not say how 

 many bushels, but we may suppose 

 three bushels at one hundred skins 

 to the bushel to be aprettyfairstock. 

 Three hundred bluebirds killed in the 

 State of New Jersey, with an area of 

 8.320 square miles, is equal to one to 

 about every thirty square miles and 

 we are not assured that they were 

 taken all in one season either. Does 

 any one suppose that this one blue- 

 bird to thirty square miles would cre- 

 ate a noticeable gap in the fauna? 

 but how small are these figures, and 

 how scanty the facts as compared 



with those relating to the gull, terns, 

 herons, &c. To be sure, we find men- 

 tioned by Mr. Allen, and quoted by 

 your committee, 'the million of rail 

 and bobolinks' killed in a single sea- 

 son near Philadelphia. These, how- 

 ever, have been destroyed annually 

 for the benefit of Philadelphia and 

 New York epicures for many years 

 before bird wearing came into fashion, 

 so it is out of the question to charge 

 their destruction to 'bird wearing 

 ladies.' And even with this formida- 

 ble rate of destruction we do not see 

 that either species has become ex- 

 tinct or even noticeably diminished 

 in numbers. But suppose we consider, 

 for the sake of argument, that birds 

 are destroyed equally for millinery 

 purposes— songsters and beneficial 

 species along with those of negative 

 value economically considered. To 

 what extent are bird wearers respon- 

 sible for their destruction? 



"Prominent among the statements 

 made in Mr. J. A. Allen's paper, and 

 quoted by your committee in the use 

 of birds for millinery purposes, is the 

 assertion that 10,000,000 American 

 women are of a 'bird-wearing age and 

 proclivities.' Some might consider 

 this an exaggeration, which it proba- 

 bly is, but for the sake of a basis we . 

 will admit it to be true. Mr. Allen 

 further estimates, allowing for the 

 making-over necessities of the eco- 

 nomically disposed ladies, that 5,000,- 

 000 birds per year will be required to 

 satisfy the demand. 



'"Now, what effect practically will 

 this have on the bird fauna of Ameri- 

 ca, for as two-thirds or more of the 

 birds of any one North American lo- 

 cality are migrants, and many of 

 them pass from South to North 

 America, and vice versa, we must es- 

 timate the effect on the continent at 

 large, as we do not limit the bird- 

 wearing ladies to any one locality. 

 Moreover, the ornithologist who at- 

 tempts to identify the contents of 



