Maechs. 1898-] 
FOREST AND STRElAM. 
183 
it's hafder'n the last one, 'n' when I get home I'm plumb 
done up." 
''Same here," I answered. 
The sun hung like a ball of gold and reflected pink 
tints on the snow as we crossed the river, sleeping under 
its icy coat, and climbed the hill into toAvn, where blue 
smoke spirals wound up from chimneys and savory odors 
came down the gentle evening air, as the busy" house- 
wives prepared the supper for tired men. 
"Hello, been huntin'?" "Git anything?" inquired our 
acquaintances as we passed. 
"Yep," answered the boy, and they all knew him well 
enough to know that he meant a good bag. 
"Well, 'SO long," said the boy, "let me know when 
yeh run out o' meat. I know where we can get more." 
"So long," I answered, turning in at the gate and 
walking up the broad path of light that made a ruddy 
glow on the creaking sidewalk. El Comancho. 
Value of the Mole to Agriculture. 
Bulletin No. 31 of the Pennsylvania Department of 
Agriculture has lately been issued. It has to do with the 
economic value of the mole in its relation to agriculture, 
Mr. Thomas Edge, State Secretary of Agriculture, has 
commissioned Harry Wilson, of Gum Tree, Pa., to pre- 
pare a report on this interesting subject, and in a bro- 
chure of forty-two profusely illustrated pages our author 
.presents the results of his investigations on "The Eco- 
nomic Status of the Mole." Appreciating the high stand- 
ard of scientific work now being done by American stu- 
dents in economic ornithology and mammalogy, we are 
naturally curious to know who Mr. Wilson is and how 
much he has done to enlighten the Pennsylvania farmer 
and zoologist on the vexed mole question. 
It may make little apparent difference to the agricul- 
turist, but the zoologist is not a little shocked to see in 
his Letter of Transmittal that Mr. Wilson has a very 
limited acqtiaintance with nomenclature or the construc- 
tion of ordinary zoological names. In consequence, 
throughout Part I., pages 11 to 25, we have abundant er- 
,rors of spelling, classification and use' of words, indi- 
. eating a lamentable lack of ordinary literary fitness for 
^the task imposed. As an instance, we may cite page 11, 
in which, at the outset of the work, there are three 
.typographical errors, two misspelt names and two seri- 
lous mistakes of nomenclature, in the short synoptical 
(key at the top of the page. The author quotes (or rather 
.misquotes) freely from Prof. Baird's work of 1857 as to 
the characters of the species and genera, evidently ig- 
norant of the fact that Mr. F. W. True had published* 
a complete revision of all our American moles, in which 
the entire subject covered by Mr. Wilson has been 
brought to date from a scientific, and in some respects 
an economic, standpoint. 
On page 17 Mr. Wilson gives us some "Miscellaneous 
Notes" on the common mole (Scalops aquatints') , mhich 
are of value as adding somewhat to our knowledge of 
the habits of that species, the actions of this mole in 
swimming evidently being based on his personal obser- 
vations, though the author fails to say so. The fact 
that Scalops aqtiaticus can swim, however, is not an 
argument in favor of the propriety of Linnjeus's specific 
name, as Mr. Wilson inclines to think. The most 
strictly terrestrial mammals can, when forced to take 
the water, swim better than the common mole, and it 
remains a fact that our knowledge of the habits of this 
species shows it to be one of the least aquatic of the 
American Talpidae. 
* Proceedings Nat, Museum, Vol. XIX., 1896. 
FLORIDA INDIAN MODE OF DEER HUNTING. 
From Le Moyne's Narrative— 1564. 
In his treatment of the star-nosed and Brewer's moles 
the author not only follows the misleading systematic 
arrangement of fifty years ago, but in such a way as 
to show that he had no personal acquaintance whatever 
with either species, and he rnakes no attempt to treat 
of their habits. 
In Part II. the economic relation of these moles to 
agriculture and their distribittion in Pennsylvania is dis- 
cussed. The economic question is treated on the basis 
of the examination of thirty-six stomachs of Scalops 
aqtiaticus taken in eastern Pennsylvania between June 19, 
1896, and Oct. 13, 1897. No examinations of the stomachs 
of the star-nose mole are recorded. Fortunately these 
mole stomachs were submitted in several cases to the 
proper specialists, and the identifications can be relied 
upon as representing the fullest and most accurate record 
of the food of the common species throughout the year 
which we j^et possess. In this respect, and this only, 
has Mr. Wilson's work justified the time and expense 
devoted to it by the State Department of Agriculture, 
an expense, however, out of all proportion to the re- 
sults attained. 
Of the 36 specimens examined, all contained animal 
food-matter; 27 had eaten earthworms in common with 
other material; 7 had eaten earthworms alone; '27 had 
eaten insects of which a large proportion were injurious 
species, as Lachnosterna; 9 had eaten insects only, and 
10 had taken vegetable matter in connection with insect 
food. None had taken vegetable matter only. Only 2 of 
those containing vegetable matter-could have devoured it 
intentionally; one of these had short sections of grass 
blades in its stomach, apparently bitten off piece by 
piece, but as this stomach also contained a June bug 
or May beetle. Prof. Howard thinks the mole was only 
indirectly responsible. In the other case the frag- 
ments of nearly a whole grain of corn were found. 
Mr. Wilson's conclusions as to the economic status 
of the mole, referring in this case solely to the common 
Scalops aqiiaticiis, may thus be summarized: i. Stomach 
examinations with very few exceptions (and these per- 
haps fortuitous), acquit the mole of intentionally de- 
vouring vegetable food. 2. The mole is strictly in- 
sectivorous (independently of its earthworm diet), de- 
vouring a larger proportion of injurious than of bene- 
ficial insects. 3. Having so proved it, is equivalent to 
proving that its work is beneficial to agriculturists, the 
mechanical injury to vegetation due to its burrowing 
being more than compensated by its destruction of 
noxious insects. 4. The ravages of field mice and other 
small burrowing rodents which follow the runways of 
the mole are almost always the cause of the popular 
prejudice against the latter animal. 
We agree largely with these conclusions so far as thej' 
go, and only wish that our author had been able to give 
judgment as to the star-nose mole. From what we 
know of its habits and distribution, however, as well as 
Its scarcity in arable lands, it is safe to say that a more 
harmless mammal than the star-nose does not exist. 
As to the excessively rare Brewer's mole, Pennsylvania 
agriculture has still less to fear. Mr. Wilson questions 
Its existence in Pennsylvania, but Mr. True records a 
specimen in his "Revision" taken at Hollidaysburg, in 
Blair county. The habitat of this species is largely 
confined to deep, cool, coniferous forests. 
An important and generally ignored subject in tile 
economy of the mole is the significant fact that its food 
consists largely of earthworms. Most investigators 
seem to think that if it can be proved that the mole 
eats nothing but earthworms and insects, then he is clear 
of suspicion and an unmixed benefit to agriculture. One 
of Mr. Wilson's correspondents significantly says that 
he considers the common mole injurious to growing 
crops "by its destruction of earthworms"! It seems most 
pertment that the next question for our agricultural de- 
partments along this line of research should be first to 
decide whether Darwin's views as to the value of earth- 
worms to soils and agriculture are correct. This once 
decided in the affirmative, it remains for the champions 
of the mole to prove that its destruction of worms is 
a necessary check to their excessive increase, and that 
the mechanical effects of the mole worker on soils are 
of greater volume than that of the worms it destroys. 
Another matter, in which the mole figures largely in 
hilly districts, where the soils are easily washed by 
rains, is its agency in the denudation of top soils. In 
some parts of the Ohio Valley the effect of their tun- 
neling on arable hillsides is most disastrous. 
The forty answers from correspondents to 125 circu- 
lars sent out by Mr. Wilson for information as to the 
habits and distribution of the common mole and the 
star-nosed mole in Pennsylvania, are of some value 
where coming from trained or conscientious observers. 
On going over the list, however, it is evident that a large 
percentage' are not only unable to distinguish between 
the two species (many observing people never saw a 
star-nose mole), but also do not distinguish between the 
underground labors of a mole and those of the Wilson's 
meadow mouse (Microius pennsylvaniciis) and the pine 
mouse or burrowing field mouse (Microtus pinetonm). 
Mr. Wilson's studies have evidently made him a friend 
of the mole, but on page 33 he gives us some hints as to 
how to banish or exterminate it where its workings in 
the lawn and garden become particularly vexatious. His 
suggestions as to banishment are to be recommended, 
not only from a humanitarian standpoint, but as of prac- 
•tical utility, for it is notorious that the destruction of 
moles by traps or other device is most ineffectual. 
Viewed as a whole, Bulletin No. 31. of the Pennsyl- 
vania State Department of Agriculture, on "The Eco- 
nomic Status of the Mole," is. to say the best of it, a 
disappointing brochtire. From the standpoint of the 
zoologist and scientist it is lamentably behind the times, 
and on that account misleading. 
Did we not know that the methods pursued by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in its Division 
of Economic Zoology have as yet failed to utilize the 
naturalist in preference to the favorite and the politician, 
Pennsylvania scientists would have greater cause to look 
to their laurels. In 1896 the State Zoologist under the 
ne\v_ regime, no doubt desirous to make some siiowing 
of his fitness for the position, issued Bulletin No. 6, on 
"Taxidermy" ! appending thereto the game and fish laws 
of the Commonwealth. Under the transparent guise of 
a manual for students in "Economic Ornithology," this 
Bulletin teaches Pennsylvanians how to collect birds 
and their eggs, with no other object, apparently, than 
that of the ordinary writer of such works who follows 
taxidermy merely as a matter of business. 
It would be interesting to know what Thomas J. Edge, 
our Secretary of A.griculture, thinks of this Bulletin, 
with Its "game panels" and "screens" and directions 
for blowing birds' eggs, as a factor in economic orni- 
thology. If the as yet half uttered verdict of scientists, 
naturalists and Audubon societies were made his cri- 
terion, no doubt Mr. Edge would prefer to say nothing 
about that Bulletin. 
We are glad that the Mole Bulletin, despite its la- 
mentable defects, represents conscientious effort, and 
that it furnishes those who are able to detect its errors 
some valuable data upon the subject, and that in direct 
bearing upon economic zoology. For this we are thank- 
ful and willing to give Mr. Wilson fullest credit, realiz- 
ing how hard it is to refuse the honors and responsi- 
bilities which men will thruut upon us. Meanwhile, let 
us pray for that form of civil service in our Common- 
wealth which will soon enable Pennsylvania to keep 
pace with American progress in the far-reaching domain 
of economic zoology. S. N. Rhoads. 
AcADEMV Natorai, SCIENCES, Philadelphia, Feb. 2. 
