24 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[Am 1, 1889. 



THE WOODCOCK AND THE WORM. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



The following, corning from Audubon, ought to bear a 

 good deal of weight on the question raised in yonr last 

 issue as to how the woodcock get their food from the mud 

 by boring. He says on page 20, Vol. VI. (of the edition 

 of Roe, Lockwood & Son, New York, 1801) : " The food 

 of the woodcock consists principally of large earthworms, 

 of which it swallows as many in the course of a night as 

 would equal its own weight. It obtains its food by per- 

 forating the damp earth or mire, and also by turning the 

 dead leaves in the woods and picking up the worms that 

 lie beneath them. On watching a number of individ- 

 uals probing mud in which a number of earthworms had 

 been introduced, in a tub placed in room partially dark- 

 ened, I observed the mrds plunged their bills up to the 

 nostrils, but never deeper: and from the motion of the 

 parts at the base of the mandibles I concluded that the 

 bird has the power of working the extremities so as to 

 produce a kind of vacuum, which it enables it to seize 

 the worm at one end and suck it into its throat before it 

 withdraws its bill, as do curlews and godwits." 



Some summers ago, while shooting woodcock, I ob- 

 served some birds in an old field ditch under some wil- 

 lows; these birds were in the open ditch and were feeding 

 or boring in the mud: it was early in the morning, but 

 the sun was well up, so that Ihad full chance to see them: 

 they were not twenty to twenty-five feet away. These 

 birds acted as Audubon relates that his tame birds did, 

 that is, they ran the bill deep into the mud, held it there, 

 and appeared to suck in with their throats, but on the 

 withdrawal of the bill I never saw the worm. Now with 

 snipe, I have often seen the worm after the bill is with- 

 drawn, and more often have taken the worms from their 

 mouths after they were shot. 



There is one point I don't understand in regard to the 

 construction of the woodcock's bill, nor can I reconcile 

 it with the sucking theory, and that is that, unlike the 

 snipe's, the woodcock's upper bill overhang's the lower, 

 or more properly speaking, the lower bill is shorter and 

 fits into the upper; and if I am right, it is stiff at the 

 ends and not soft and capable of being opened like the 

 snipe's. Now if this is so, how can he open his bill while 

 in the mud to suck, and not open the whole length of it? 

 A Bnipe can; he opens just the very end and makes a 

 tube of his bill. I have not a woodcock head with me, 

 and an old one would be too dry to surely test this point, 

 but I am quite sure a woodcock's biU is as I describe it. 



Boston, Mass. E. B. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



"A Study of Woodcock," by "Paul Pastnor." in Forest 

 and Stream for July 18, is certainly a remarkable con- 

 tribution to the literature of the subject of which it 

 treats. Indeed, one hesitates to take the writer seriously 

 or to feel quite sure that his "little old wood witch hob- 

 bling about with a very long black cane," did not befog 

 his senses by some potent spell, under the influence of 

 which he dreamed, instead of saw, the curious things 

 which he describes so pleasantly. But, as he truly ob- 

 serves, "many mirth -provoking theories, in the course of 

 modern investigation, have become science." and it would 

 be not less unsafe than ungenerous to positively ridicule 

 or discredit any of his observations or theories, however 

 fanciful they may seem. Moreover, most of them, as I 

 shall presently show, are by no means as new as their 

 author apparently thinks. For convenience of discussion, 

 the leading points in his article may be briefly restated 

 and considered as follows: 



(1) That the woodcock possibly has a song. There is no 

 doubt about this, for the fact has been recorded and more 

 or less freely commented on by several observers. (See 

 American Sportsman, IV., 1874. p. 19: the same, pp. 41, 

 Torrey's "Birds in the Bush," pp. 223-225; Nuttall's 

 Manual, "Water Birds," pp. 196-197). The bird sings in 

 the air during the mating season, in the evening twi- 

 light, rising in a spiral course to the height of three or 

 four hundred feet, thence descending in zigzag lines, at 

 the same time uttering warbling notes, which, to my 

 ears, at least, are very sweet and musical, recalling the 

 sound produced by a water whistle such as boys sell in 

 the streets of our cities. I have witnessed this perform- 

 ance many times at various places, and on several occa- 

 sions have traced the bird's flight from the ground to the 

 highest point which it reached and back to earth again. 



(2) That both the European and American woodcock 

 ick up and carry off their young is also a fact attested 

 y many observers, although writers differ in their im- 

 pressions as to the way the thing is done, some asserting 

 that the chick is carried in the parent's bill: others, on 

 her back; others, in her claws, and still others, that it is 

 held pressed close to her body between her thighs. The 

 last view seems to be supported by the best evidence, 

 although it is not improbable that the method varies at 

 different times. An article on the subject in the Zoolo- 

 gist (third series, Vol. III., pp. 483-440) is accompanied 

 by on illustration, depicting the European woodcock 

 carrying itsyoung very much as "Paul Pastnor" describes. 



(3) I have never seen anything to indicate that the 

 woodcock has a strongly developed bump of curiosity; 

 but there seems to be no reason for challenging your cor- 

 respondent's observations on this point, which are cer- 

 tainly very interesting and apparently quite conclusive. 



(4) The assumption that the woodcock is only semi- 

 nocturnal, although doubtless, contrary to the general 

 impression of sportsmen, is perhaps correct. I have 

 never detected a wild bird in the act of boring in the 

 day time, but in the stomachs of several specimens, 

 killed at about mid-day I have found fragments of earth 

 worms. This would seem to be strong presumptive proof 

 of diurnal feeding, for earth worms must be very rapidly 

 digested in the stomach of a healthy woodcock. 



(5) It is certainly possible that the evening flights of 

 woodcock may be occasionally undertaken, as your cor- 

 respondent believes, simply to enjoy "a mad, merry 

 whirl in the air;" but nothing that I have seen warrants 

 such a conclusion. On the contrary, after observing 

 these flights on many occasions and at various places 

 and seasons, I am convinced that the birds rise at even- 

 ing from the thickets in which they have spent the day 

 merely to seek richer but more exposed feeding grounds, 

 where they dare not trust themselves by daylight. The 

 fact that "Paul Pastnor's" birds flew into open meadow 

 is significant in this connection. 



(6) The assumption that the woodcock does not secure 

 its food by boring, but that the holes which it makes in 

 the mud are intended to serve as passages through which 



earthworms may be lured to their fate by the simulated 

 sound of rain, produced by the subsequent dancing and 

 fluttering of the bird on the surface above, is apparently 

 an original, and certainly a rather startling theory. 

 From the nature of the case such a theory cannot be dis- 

 proved, but it may be discredited, partly on the ground 

 that observations made in the field at night, even in the 

 clearest moonlight and with the aid of a good glass, can- 

 not be wholly reliable, partly by evidence that the bird 

 sometimes gets its food in simpler ways. 



Audubon, "watching several individuals probing mud in 

 which a number of earth worms had been introduced, in 

 a tub placed in a room partially darkened," concluded 

 "from the motion of the parts at the base of the mandi- 

 bles * * * that the bird has the power of working their 

 extremities so as to produce a kind of vacuum, which 

 enables it to seize the worm at one end and suck it into 

 its throat before it withdraws its bill, as do curlews and 

 godwits (" Birds of America," Vol. VI., pp. 20-21). I am 

 not aware that this supposition has been since veri- 

 fied, although it does not seem improbable that the wood- 

 cock, without withdrawing its bill, may sometimes suck 

 up very small earth worms or other minute animals found 

 in soft mud. However this mav be, it certainly fre- 

 quently, if not habitually, employs a different method, 

 at least with earth worms of fair s.ze. 



In July, 1878, I saw a live woodcock in the possession 

 of Mr. C. J. Maynard. He had it from a boy who flushed 

 it m a garden, whence it flew against the side of a house, 

 falling sufficiently stunned to be easily captured. It 

 recovered in a short time and was placed in a large 

 box, prepared for its reception by covering the bottom 

 several inches deep with loam, sinking a basin of water 

 in the center, and planting tall living weeds about the 

 back: and sides. When I first looked in the bird was 

 squatting among the weeds, nor did any motion on my 

 part avail to cause it to shift its position, save by 

 shrinking a little closer to the ground, but when 

 a live screech owl was brought and held against the wires 

 that covered the front of the cage, the woodcock at once 

 rose and advanced to meet its vis-cl-vi,s. Singularly 

 enough the owl seemed to be the more frightened of the 

 two. Indeed, the woodcock showed no perceptible fear. 

 After the removal of the owl the woodcock ran about 

 freely, exploring all the corners of its limited domain, 

 and probing the earth vigorously, but apparently with- 

 out success, although it left no spot untried. Its long 

 bill was thrust downward with wonderful rapidity and 

 on every side in quick succession, the motion strongly re- 

 sembling that of a man spearing eels. Then the bird 

 would take a step or two and try again. Sometimes it 

 would stop and apparently listen with its head held 

 slightly on one side, the ear directed downward. Again 

 it would stamp with its feet quickly and forcibly, several 

 times in succession, then hold its head very near the 

 ground, evidently listening for the movements of sus- 

 pected worms beneath, for, immediately afterward, it 

 twice probed rapidly and closely over the spot to which 

 its ear had been applied. It rarely stood erect, and 

 moved with a skulking gait, the head drawn in between 

 the shoulders and slightly raised and lowered, with a 

 nodding motion, between each step. When frightened, 

 it held its tail nearly erect and spread to the utmost the 

 down lower coverts, drooping beneath the tail feathers 

 in a vertical, fan-shaped fringe. When undisturbed, and 

 always when feeding, the tail was depressed and closed. 

 Mr. Maynard told me that the bird ate half a pint of 

 earth worms twice each day. 



It will be observed that during the observations just 

 recorded, I did not actually see the woodcock secure an 

 earth worm; in fact, it is quite certain that of the many 

 thrusts which it made while I was watching it, none was 

 successful, for I stood within a few feet of the cage into 

 which a strong light penetrated freely. If I remember 

 rightly, Mi-. Maynard said that no earth worms had been 

 put into the cage for several hours previous to my visit, 

 and that the bird had probably nearly or quite exhausted 

 its last supply. Hence its ill success in boring had no 

 special significance. The attitude of listening was most 

 suggestive, however, and the subsequent rapid and ex- 

 citing boring about the spot to which the bird's ear had 

 been applied convinced me that its stamping was simply 

 for the purpose of startling the worms and inducing them 

 to betray their whereabouts by the sound, however slight, 

 of their movements beneath the surface. Robins listen 

 in a similar way before locating and dragging forth an 

 earth worm. They also sometimes stamp just before 

 listening, although this action is not as vigorous and 

 strongly marked on their part as it was with the wood- 

 cock. If the latter stamped for the purpose of simulat- 

 ing the sound of rain, and thereby inducing the worms 

 to come to the surface, why did it not, after executing 

 its "war dance," remove a step or two, or, at least, as- 

 sume a position of watching instead of listening and im- 

 mediately boring again? 



Fortunately it is needless to multiply arguments in 

 support of this view, for Mr. Maynard actually saw his 

 bird, after stamping and listening, "turn either to the 

 right or left or take a step or two forward, plunge his 

 bill into the earth and draw out a worm which he would 

 swallow, then repeat this performance until all the worms 

 were eaten." ("Birds of Eastern North America," pp. 

 374, 375). Then this statement proves that the woodcock 

 is perfectly able to "withdraw a worm from the ground 

 with its bill," despite "Paul Pastnor's" incredulity on 

 that point; while taken in connection with the other facts 

 and arguments above detailed, it also proves that the 

 "war dance" serves — at least sometimes — the purpose 

 which I have explained. 



Since writing the above I have come upon the follow- 

 ing in an early number (Vol. I., No, 16, p. 251) of Forest 

 and Stream: 



"Did our readers ever see a woodcock 'boring?' We 

 have, and this is how he did it: Once on a time we sur- 

 prised one of these gentry at his matutinal occupation, 

 and so intent was he that he never noticed our presence. 

 We had always supposed that he thrust his long bill into 

 the moist earth and drew out his grub, snipe-fashion, 

 and swallowed it; but no, he pegged away vigorously at 

 the ground, something as woodpeckers hammer, digging 

 deeper and deeper, until he actually stood on his head to 

 reach the greatest depth. Then when he had one hole 

 bored he began another, and so continued until he had 

 made nine, as [we ascertained by counting afterward. 

 But never a worm or grub did he draw forth from sub- 

 terranean sources. He had been merely preparing his 

 little stratagem, setting his traps, so to speak, and when 



all was ready he laid down on his stomach, with his bill 

 flat to the ground, and commenced beating the perfor- 

 ated earth violently with his wings. Presently a little 

 worm or a grub or other insect came to the surface, and 

 peering above the edge of one of the holes was inconti- 

 nently sucked into the long protruding bill. Directly 

 afterward a red well-scoured angle worm was victim- 

 ized— we coidd see it distinctly as it passed into the bill— 

 and possibly others would have followed had not our 

 stupid dunderhead of a setter worked up on the scent 

 and flushed the bird." 



This note, which was apparently written by Mr. Chas. 

 Hallock, the then managing editor of Forest and 

 Stream, curiously confirms as well as anticipates "Paul 

 Pastnors" observations. Although it does not mention 

 the "rain" theory, it undeniably gives the latter much 

 added probability. Indeed, if Mr, Hallock (?) was de- 

 ceived in his impressions, the behavior of his bird maybe 

 fairly regarded as proving that the woodcock some- 

 times gets its food in the way that "Paul Pastnor" main- 

 tains. 



Before concluding I should like to add a word about 

 the whistling sound which the woodcock makes when 

 flying. In your ed.torial remarks in the issue of July 18 

 you say that you "believe that it is not made by the 

 wings, and could give reasons which to us appear 

 conclusive." Will you kindly give these reasons? 

 I must confess that nothing in connection with 

 the habits of this interesting bird seems to me 

 surer than that its shrill silvery whistle, which so 

 thrills the heart of every sportsman, is produced 

 by the wings. My grounds for this conviction are: (1) 

 That I have over and over again had the same experience 

 as that given by your correspondent, " H. D. N." (Forest 

 and Stream, Vol. XXXII., No. 25, July 11, 1889, p. 510), 

 of shooting birds that did not whistle and finding that 

 they were without the small, stiff, attenuated primary 

 quills, while in no instance have I ever known a bird 

 which lacked these quills to make the least whistling- 

 sound; although I do not deny— indeed, I have seen 

 repeated instances of the fact— that a full plumaged 

 woodcock possessing these quills sometimes rises without 

 whistling. (2) That twice upon picking up wounded 

 woodcock by their bills I have had them beat their wings 

 vigorously as if flying, producing at the same time the 

 usual shriil whistle. One of these birds flapped so slowly 

 that the whistle was not continuous, but on the contrary, 

 made up of closely connected, but still separate, notes, 

 each of which could be distinctly associated with a stroke 

 of the wing. In both instances I held the bird's mandi- 

 bles tightly together. 



Surely nothing could be more conclusive than this. 

 Assuming that it settles the origin of the sound, we are 

 led naturally to consider what advantage a bird derives 

 from it ability to whistle with its wings, for it is an uni- 

 versally-admitted law of nature that no highly specialized 

 or peculiar function is developed in any animal except to 

 serve some definite purpose, either of use or ornament. 

 Now the attenuated primaries, as I prefer to call them, 

 whistling quills, are present and equally developed in 

 young as well as old birds of both sexes, and at all seasons 

 excepting during the moult. It is evident, then, that 

 they are not secondary sexual characters. The woodcock 

 is also the only member of its family with which I am 

 familiar which does not habitually and frequently utter 

 some vocal whistle or call when flying. As far as is 

 known the love-song already described, a harsh, night- 

 hawk-like paip, made only when the bird is on the 

 ground, and chiefly, if not wholly, by the male during 

 the mating season, and a low pufl, given in connection 

 with the paip, are the only vocal notes which the wood- 

 cock utters. Why then may not its wing- whistling serve 

 the same purpose as the vocal calls of other waders, viz., 

 to inform its companions of its movements and approxi- 

 mate position ? This, at least, has seemed to me a logical 

 inference from the facts just stated. 



Cambridge. Mass. WILLI AM BREWSTER 



THAT STINGING SNAKE. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



Your number of July 11 contained a very interesting 

 and instructive communication from Miss Catherine C. 

 Hopley upon my favorite subject— snakes. As a good 

 deal of Miss Hopley's letter was devoted especially to my 

 enlightenment, I hope, through your courtesy, to be per- 

 mitted to thank her, and express' my high appreciation of 

 her kindness. 



I am especially indebted to Miss Hopley for elucidating 

 the question as to whether venomous snakes shed their 

 fangs periodically; and, indeed. I had myself concluded 

 that they do so, from the invariable provision of young- 

 ones to take the places of the mature fangs when dis- 

 placed, as nature could hardly be expected to provide so 

 lavishly and with such regularity for the probably infre- 

 quent occasions when the supplementary fangs would be 

 needed to repair accidental breakage. 



As regards the other question, of the existence or not 

 of stinging snakee, which Miss Hopley has effectually 

 set at rest, I believe she taxes me with rather more cred- 

 ulity on the subject than my observations of inquiry war- 

 ranted. I had myself made the same reflections which 

 she suggests, that is, that the existence of such a species 

 could hardly have escaped the investigations of natural- 

 ists. I am also aware that most unscientific people are 

 more credulous about snake myths than about any other 

 subject, except perhaps those of ghosts and the efficacy 

 of remedial nostrums. Still, having heard quite a n am- 

 ber of intelligent and generally veracious white men 

 positively aver that they had seen and killed such 

 snakes, I think I may be pardoned for making inquiry 

 touching the matter of scientific authority. Mr. Walter 

 Clark, of this place, a man of education and intelligence, 

 assured me that he had killed a snake with a sting in its 

 tail this spring, and thought he could procure me a speci- 

 men. I have offered ten dollars to any one who will 

 bring me a live specimen of the stinging snake. 



In conclusion I wish to say to Miss Hopley that I have 

 derived more inf orrnation about snakes from her writings 

 than from any other source, as no scientific snake litera- 

 ture has ever fallen into my hands, and my knowledge 

 of them is mainly gathered" from my own cursory obser- 

 vations in the woods. Coahoma. 



Olabksdale, Miss. 



P. S, — A friend at my elbow affects to see something 

 very ludicrous in the idea of a denizen of the Mississippi 

 swamps going to London for information about snakes, — 



