> li ie 
Aue, 28, -1884,] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
83 
memory of that young woman in the refreshment saloon and | that he 
her spit curls. 
followed the consumption of that pie, and I cherish the | mony a a has been received, indeed, so mel 
as felt obliged to appeal to the sparrows’ friends for 
reports on their side of the house. 
My yacation was up and I -had nothing to show for it ex- | be addressed to Dr. Holder at the Museum. 
cept my dyspepsia. 
Now, won't somebody tell me where I can go and haye 
a little fishing where no confounced telegrams can reach 
me. Does any good fellow want a companion for a camp 
out in the woods or on top of some inaccessible mountain? 
“Oh for a lodge in some vast wilderness.” PODGERE. 
alatuyal History. | 
FRUIT-EATING BIRDS. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
What ‘‘Byrne” says about the catbird in your issue of 
Aug. 7 is only too true, as T- have learned to my cost. I, 
also, am engaged in growing small fruits for market, and if 
‘Wilmot’ had been on my plantations during the berry sea- 
son this year I think his mind would have undergone a 
change. Here he would have seen the robin, catbird and 
thrush in their glory, and in flocks of 201060. From the 
tone of his remarks I will venture the assertion that he never 
saw 40 or 50 robins in a single flock. Had he been here the 
2d of July 1 would have shown him a single flock of over 
150. I would haye proved to him that the robin can scent 
a patch of ripe raspberries nearly a mile, and that they will 
come up the wind, plunge among the bushes and devour the 
fruit with a voracity and heedlessness of their surroundings 
that would cxasperate the most sentimental naturalist in the 
world if he were depending upon his fruit crop for a living. 
For the edification of “‘Wilmot” I present a table showing 
the result of my investigations of the contents of the crops 
of 30 birds shot at different hours of the day during the 
months of June and July. 
The method of investigation adopted was to open the 
erop, pick over the contents and divide them into two 
masses—fruit in one and all other materials.in the other— 
then the percentage of each was estimated. 
Tnsecis, worms and vegetable matter were not separated 
and classified, the principal object of the investigations being 
to ascertain what percentage of the whole food consisted of 
fruit. Sand and gravel were set aside and not included in 
the estimates. 
CONTENTS, 
| 7 : 
DATE, Hour, BIRD. 2 fh 3 
ga | é 
& ee 
June 5 6 A.M. Robin, 4 6 
June 7 3 P.M. Robin, 2 8 
June 10 5 A.M, Thrush, 5 5 
June il 6A. M, Catbird, 1 9 
June 11 9 A.M. * Meadowlark, 9 1 
June 11 10 A. M, Robin, 2 8 
June 13 VP. M. Robin, 2 8 
June 14. 1P. M. Catbird, 2 8 
June 19 5 A. M. Thrush, 4 6 
June 28 4P.M. Robin, 1 9 
July 3 6A. M, Catbird, % 94 
July 3 4P.M. | Robin, 1 9 
July 5 5 A.M, Ropin, 0 10 
July § 10 A. M. Thrush, Q 8 
July 8 8 A. M. | +Meadowlark, 10 0 
July 12 11 A. M, | + Robin, 0 10 
July 15 VTA. M, Thrush, 8 7 
July 15 10 A, M. Robin, 1 9 
July 15 11 A. M. Catbird, 0 10 
July 16 9A, M. || Sparrow, 1 9 
July 16 3 P.M. § Bee Martin, 6 4 
July 19 5 A. M, Catbird, 1 9 
July 19 6A. M. ° Thrush, 2 8 
July 19 6 A. M. Robin, 2 8 
July 26 7 A.M. | Robin, 3 7 
July 26 10 A. M. Blackbird, 9 1 
July 26 4P.M, Cathbird, | 2 8 
July 26 6P.M, Thrush, 3 q 
July 28 8 A. M. Robin, 1 9 
July 28 5 P. M. Robin, 2 8 
1 
* On strawberry patch about fifteen minutes. 
+ Shot among raspberry bushes. 
+ Was among raspberry bushes all A. M. Was recognized by loss 
of portion of tail. 
| Was among raspberries over an hour. 
§ Shot among raspberries; was there about fifteen minutes, 
The fruit found in crops consisted of strawberries, rasp- 
berries, blackberries and cherries. 
There were a few wrens and bluebirds nesting about the 
place, and I am so fond of them that I had not the heart to 
kill any of them; but close observation convinced me that 
they are among the most valuable insectiyorous birds we 
ave. 
During the past fruit season, in my endeavors to save my 
crops, I killed 123 robins, 32 thrushes and 44 ecatbirds. I 
have fully determined that if Lraise a crop next year I will 
get the benefit of it. I shali make such arrangements with 
sundry youth in this vicinity as will insure the destruction of 
1,000 robins, thrushes and cathirds if they pour in upon me as 
they did this year. 
“Wilmot” may stand aghast at this statement, but he can-: 
not alter cold facts, My fruit crop is of vastly more import- 
ance to me than the vaporings of a sentimental person who 
is in nowise injured by the pests he defends. PICKET. 
CHRISTIAN County, Ill. 
Hornets AnD House Fires.—Boston, Aug. 21.—Read- 
ing the note in your paper of the 14th, about bees and hor- 
nets killing flies, | thought that perhaps the writer of the 
article might be interested to learn that in some parts of 
Eastern Massachusetts, if a colony of hornets build their 
nest near a farmhouse, the occupants never disturb them. 
The hornet will never sting a person unless provoked, but 
will cruise around the whole day, seizing flies and carrying 
them to a convenient resting place, where the juice is sucked 
out and the remnant discarded. If a person is attacked by 
hornets, the best thing he can do is to throw himself on the 
ground and keep perfectly quiet, The hornets will buzz 
around spitefully enough, but if no movement is made they 
will never sting, and will soon go off. I have tried this plan 
mapv times, and always with success; thotgh once it was 
about as much as I could do to remain still, while a ‘‘yellow- 
belly” buzzed around inside my shirt, having gone in be- 
tween my neck and collar.—H. J. T. 
Sparrow Trstrmony.—The committee on the English 
sparrow question will make its report at the annual meeting 
of the American Ornithologists’ Union, Sept. 26, in the 
Muscum of Natural History at Central Park. ‘The chair- 
man, Dr. J. B. Holder, reports that an abundance of testi- 
_ —T 
THE CATBIRD SPEAKS. 
(DEDICATED TO HIS RIVAL, THE TOMCAT.) 
ILL you? 
Won't you? 
If not, why don't you 
Listen to me? 
While out of the bushes 
My melody rushes, 
And be dream-drowned 
In a musical swound? 
Ah! hold your breath 
While you suck the peth 
Of my song through your ears 
(if they’re long enough). Sobs, tears, 
Laughter, cackle, gossip, sneers, 
Just as good as any of the beers, 
Small or strong, brewed by Bass. 
Or in wood or in glass, 
And a great deal cheaper: see? 
Haw! Haw! 
That from the jaw 
Of the crow, you know, 
With his parson’s coat and nose so long, 
Sartainly his’n aint much of a song. 
IT can sing it but he can’t mine; 
Not as a singer can he ever shine, 
I mind me of once he tried it with me, 
And the very next day he hung by the heels 
To frighten his friends from a farmer’s fields. 
Perup! Purup! 
That is the robin, 
I wish *t he *s in Hurope 
With the one we was nursin* 
But now are a cursin’. 
"Twas he stole Byrne’s cherries, 
And all his nice berries; 
He was always a robbin’. 
One bird of his name 
And others of game 
(The worms 
That squirms), 
And folks of their fruit, 
Him let Byrne shoot. 
Where blows 
The Yankee nose 
In autumn, I heard one holler, 
As loud as a dinner horn, 
Acrost a feller, 
The whiles he husked a shock of corn. 
I mixed his call 
With the frost of fall 
By Suckermuck, . 
And Tuckernuck, 
And whined it, 
And signed it 
With my name; 
And the same 
Was worth 75ets. or $1,00. 
When he whisper’d 
The cedar bird 
J heard: . 
And I like him first rate 
For the reasons I state. 
He keeps still, as the shy do, 
And don’t eat what I do; 
A sensible chap 
Who keeps shut his trap 
For all things but cherries 
And seeds and berries. 
Who ever heard 
Of a cedar bird 
Who tried 
To eat a fly that flied? 
The frog, 
Ker chog! 
Off a log. 
And then ‘‘Keberlong!”’ 
His not long song. 
Now who could expect 
A bird of self-respect 
And feathers, would attempt 
To vie with one skempt 
Of wings, though with two legs 
More than my two pegs? 
If myself I know 
Never so low, 
Will TL 
Try to fly. 
But then 
I ken, 
And so do you, I’m quite a fellow. 
No thing 
With wing doth sing, 
But what I try to imitate, 
And with his note my throat dilate. 
Hen hawk, bobolink, 
Robin and chewink, 
Song sparrow and thrush, 
Bird in hand, bird in bush, 
Their songs I try to tell you, 
And if I don’t make out 
Inever pout, 
Nor get mad, 
_ Nor sad, 
Nor say dod rat it! 
But up again and at it. 
I'm not purpled nor puryiled, 
Nor snordid nor snurviled 
(Which are words known only to poets and birds), 
But only a brown-coated creature, 
Nor care a snap for the past, nor a fly for the future, 
But only to be a cathbird to-day, 
And in my way 
Have my say. 
“s Horace MuMPSON, 
Schoolmaster in District No. 13, 
Town of Danvis, Charlotte county, Vt. 
Communications should 
“OUR BIRDS IN THEIR HAUNTS.” 
THE AUTHOR'S OPINICN. 
Héitor Forest and Stream: 
Your critic, in his brief and rather summary review of 
> “Our Birds in Their Haunts,” has made some very amiable 
remarks, For instance, that itis “pleasantly written;’ that 
as a rule, the accounts of the habits of the different species 
are excellent, so far as they go; ‘‘that the author has a great 
admiration for nature and a pleasing style;’ that, ‘‘on the 
whole, the book isa good one,” etc,; but he takes special 
pains to relegate it beyond the pale of scientific value, and 
backs up his conclusion by saying, that ‘‘the book does not 
in any sense profess to be scientific.” This last point of 
criticism is very emphatic, and certainly yery important in 
its bearing; since, if true, it would sink the book forever be- 
yond the notice of a very desirable class of readers, namely, 
those who read, more or less, for scientific information. 
Fair criticism should never be shunned by any author, It 
may help him to find his reckoning in a literary career; and 
it is certainly due to the reading community, as a leading 
and educating in literature. But a misleading criticism may 
be a great damage to an author’s literary reputation; and 
what is certainly not to be overlooked, will surely limit in 
every way the results of what may have been very import- 
ant labors, such as, at best, can never be compensated, 
After a careful examination of the review in question, the 
author of the book under review (notwithstanding his high 
esteem for the character of your journal) is under necessity 
of regarding it as decidedly inadequate and misleading. 
The main point of issue to be taken is in the too restricted _ 
use of the word ‘‘scientific.” Very true, ‘Our Birds in 
their Haunts” does not claim to be an authority on the order 
of classification or scientific nomenclature; but if science 
means knowledge, as both its derivation and its application 
would imply, then be it remembered that science has many 
and various points of view. For instance, in ornithology 
we may measure the tarsus and count its scutelle; we may 
count and measure the primaries and rectrices, etc., and 
very properly call this science or knowledge—science in its 
more technical form, In our order of study we may follow 
the most rigid classification—a system by no means certain 
as yet, however—and placing the robin or the wood thrush 
first and some guillamot or auk last, contemplate them on 
pegs or senahede in the closet, and call this science—science 
par excellence. Or, since we have had a good deal of this 
kind of study, decidedly important as one point of view, 
suppose we change our position for once, and study the birds 
in some more obviously natural relations—the relations of 
seasons, times, localities, etc. 
Let us take the air awhile and study the birds in their 
natural haunts. Let us listen to their songs and examine 
gomewhat into the physiology of that wonderful effect in 
nature. Let us contemplate ‘“‘the way of the eagle in the 
air,” and inquire a little into the mechanical laws involved 
in flight—that most wonderful feat in animal locomotion— 
and learn about the aerated condition of the body and bones 
of the birds. AJl these points are treated of in the book in 
question, the writer believing them to be of the most interest- 
ing and vital importance to the knowledge or science of 
birds. Moreover, in pointing out the local habitat of each 
kind, in showing how some species keeps to the swamp or 
marsh, others to the forest, others to the field, and others 
still to the ocean, will the knowledge of these facts be any 
less important than to learn the length of the legs orto count 
the feathers in the tail? Are those sedges and cattails on 
which wrens and redwings perch, or those branches in which 
thrushes sing and warblers warble, any less dignified and 
scientific, than the pegs or whittled standard in the closet? 
Surely to most minds they are more inspiring to that love of 
nature, which is the source of all true scientific knowledge. 
Moreover, the book in question isnot a compilation, not a 
pudding served up for weak stomachs from the stale bread 
of other men’s making; but, for the most part, is a direct re-_ 
port from the field, the forest, the stream, the ocean. It is 
said that the book follows the order of locality, It must also 
be said that every locality treated of is more or less new to 
bibliography, in the sense of knowledge in book form. Such 
a book, we had flattered ourselves, could scarcely fail to be of 
scientific value to the advanced ornithologist, as furnishing 
those shadings of knowled ge especially useful and gratifying 
to the minute specialist. It is a matter of peculiar praise to 
the New England ornithologist that they have not been sat- 
isfied with general works on American ornithology, but have 
made their field a specialty. Indeed, we shall never gather 
the harvest of the science for our continent until this is done 
throughout. This is just what we have been trying to do 
for Western New York and the adjoining regions of the 
great lakes. Nor has this proved to bea barren field. It 
would seem to be a cornering point of several of the great 
geographical areas of distribution, the local study of which 
has changed the record of habitat in the case of a Jarge num~ 
ber of species, 
Some years ago Prof. W. E. D. Scott, of Princeton, N. J., 
was not alittle surprised to find that the hooded warbler 
breeds abundantly in Western New York, even to the shores 
of Lake Ontario. A little later Dr. C. Hurt Merriam wrote 
a second time, to assure himself that the above rather south- 
erly species, and so northerly a species as the Canada 
warbler, could be found breeding in the same locality, as 
stated in my private letter on the breeding of birds in Orleans 
county, N. Y. The article on the horned lark, in the book 
under review, is most noticeably different from any biog- 
raphy given in book form heretofore. Before goimg to 
Georgian Bay three years ago | searched the books on Amer 
ican ornithology in vain for a glimpse in anticipation of 
what I might expect to find there; and the results of my 
investigations were not all what my previous general read- 
ings had led me to expect. On going to Nova Scotia, still 
more recently, I had nothing but the reports of inexperienced 
workers and the rumors of fishermen to guide me in my 
studies. The important link between the avi-fauna of New 
England and Labrador, furnished by this province and also 
Georgian Bay, are somewhat extendedly noted in my book. 
It also contains the first account of the nidification of Bick- 
nell’s thrush, that late and interesting acquaintance of the 
ornithologist, and the first well-authenticated account in 
book form, I think, of the ring-billed gull. 
After all this we are virtually told for our encouragement 
that the work has no scientific value. A book of more than 
600 good-sized pages, in which completeness and compact- 
ness of the essential knowledge of the birds of Eastern 
North America was made a specialty, is consigned to the 
honor of being a “‘primer,” an "A BC” in “bird lore,” use- 
ful only for those who love our birds, indeed, but of no 
special value to those who may have knowledge of them. 
We cannot but feel that this peculiar attitude of the critic is 
