NOV S 1^2 



BULLETIN 



OF THE 



/IbicbiGan ©rnitbological Club. 



Vol. II, No. 3-4. 



Grand Rapids, Mich., July Dec, 1898. 



50 cts. per year. 



6p^ 



Bird SonQ8. 



DR. MORRIS GIBBS. 



LL birds that I have met with 

 have means of expressing them- 

 selves by sound, and though 

 many are far from entertaining to man, it is 

 reasonable to admit that the discordant caw 

 of tlie Crow is as expressive to its mates as 

 is the bubbling melody of the Warbling 

 Vireo to the little Greenlets, or the gutteral 

 honk to the Herons. These songs, call- 

 notes and twitterings differ to a wide degree 

 in the various species, but are nearly iden- 

 tical in birds of a kind — tending to prove 

 that the notes constitute a language, or at 

 least a method of communication. 



There has appeared a work which, I 

 understand, attempts to demonstrate the 

 existence of a language among our near 

 relatives, the monkej^s. I do not doubt 

 that a language exists sufhcient for their re- 

 quirements in every respect, but we are 

 denied the privilege of compreliending it in 

 the least degree. In fact, the notes of 

 birds are as intelligible to our ears as the 

 chattering of monkeys, and taken in con- 

 nection with their movements are as ex- 

 pressive of their desires as the sounds made 

 by any animal we know. Then too, grant- 

 ing that a language exists with each species 

 of animal and bird we must admit that the 

 single croak of the Raven comprehends as 

 great meaning as the single faint chirp of 

 the gorgeous Hummingbird ; and the ecstat- 

 ic warble of the Bluebird is equally expres- 

 sive with the discordant gutterals of the 

 Herons or the weird cry of the Loon. 



There is much that is wortliy of observation 

 in the songs of birds and the time spent in 

 the study of them cannot fail to furnish 

 entertainment. Aside from the pleasure of 

 the true music, we may draw comparisons 

 between the varied ditties, and also the 

 ability is given us to liken many of them to 



tlie words of our language. It is this asso- 

 ciation of the bird with its notes, expressed 

 in words, which often leads us to name the 

 songster. This is well exemplified in the 

 names Whip-poor-will, Kill-deer, Bob-white 

 and a dozen others. Then tliere are scores 

 of others which are known by meaningless 

 names; names, however, whicli are familiar 

 to us and which almost exactly express the 

 call-notes or songs. Under this class we 

 find the Chick-a-dee, Che-bec, Plum-pud- 

 den and Peet-weet. 



Many of these notes can be greatly varied 

 and still meet our requirements, but we 

 have relied upon them so long that usage 

 makes them next to indispensible. When 

 in the South I first heard the notes of 

 the Chuek-will's-widow, a species nearly 

 allied to our northern Whip-poor will but 

 could not fully satisfy myself that the name 

 and notes corresponded, but after becoming 

 familiar with the nightly serenade, the notes 

 resolved into the accepted name. Northern- 

 born people who have moved to the South 

 nearly all call this species the Whip-poor- 

 will, not recognizing the difference in the 

 notes ; yet, surely, if the songs diflfer to an 

 extent equal to the English pronunciation 

 of the names, then the diflference ought to 

 be quickly recognized. 



To one familiar with the songs and call- 

 notes of our birds, the association of the 

 sound with the performer is instantaneous 

 on hearing it. Nevertheless it is quite a 

 rare thing for a stranger to identify a species 

 by its notes, no matter how much alike are 

 its name and notes. Yet it is easy for all 

 to recognize the Jay-jay in the harsh 

 scream of the Blue Jay after the attention 

 has been called to it. No better name 

 could describe our little door-yard flycatcher 

 than the sound jplioe-he^ and yet it is also 

 called Pee-wee as well, and both from a 

 fancied resemblance to its short song. 



