THE COMMON CROW— Continued 
or very shortly after these feathered 
nest-iobbers had swallowed such food. 
The urgent necessity for a speedy ex- 
amination of the crop and gizzard of a 
crow or jay which devours an egg is 
clearly shown by the following letter 
i < cent lj receh ed at the Everhart 
museum from Dr. C. B. Cochran of 
West Chester. Pa., one of the leading 
food chemists of the country. 
West Chester, Pa., Oct. 12th, 1914. 
To Dr. B. H. Warren, Director, Everhart 
Museum, Scranton, Pa. 
Dear Dr. Warren: I am unable to answer 
yc.ur question by knowledge obtained by 
actual observation. However, I am willing 
to express an opinion based upon my knowl- 
edge of the digestive apparatus of birds and 
of the phenomena of digestion in these ani- 
mals. It is my belief that the white or yolk 
of eggs taken into the alimentary canal of 
the crow would rather rapidly pass through 
the crop, the glandular stomach anii the 
gizzard, so that in a half hour after inges- 
tion it would be difficult To detqqt , the edible 
portion of the egg in atiy i afe theoe qrgans. 
In its passage through the glandular 
stomach the egg vyou'd De j^iVed W it In gastric 
juice and from that time' difeedtibn dnd 
absorption of the proteid matter would prp- 
ceed rapidly. It is my opinion that if a! 
crow was shot two hours after it had been 
eating eggs it would be very difficult to find 
egg substance in any part of the alimentary 
canal, even though the contents of the canal 
were submitted to chemical analysis. 
If a single small-sized egg, like that of a 
robin, was mixed with other animal food in 
the alimentary canal of a crow, it woulc be 
exceedingly difficult at the end of an hour, 
or perhaps in a considerably shorter time, 
to detect the presence of egg substance. 
If the examination was limited to crop 
and gizzard the evidence of an egg might 
be lacking at the end of one-half hour. 
Very truly yours, 
(Signed) C. B. COCHRAN. 
Under date of October 8, 1914, Mr. H. 
W. Henshaw, chief of the biological 
survey at Washington, D. C., in re- 
ferring to a report on crows recently 
made by Dr. Warren to the biological 
survey, says, in part: 
Dear Dr. Warren : In the absence of Mr. 
Nelson, I am acknowledging receipt of yc,ur 
two letters of October 6th and 7th respective- 
ly, enclosing certain notes on crows and 
other birds. We find this data of much 
interest and are very glad to incorporate 
some of it in our permanent records. With 
regard te the crow I am impelled to add the 
following notes for your consideration. Tak- 
ing the country at large there is no doubt 
of the general fact that the crow here and 
there does a good deal of damage, but on 
t.jhe other hand, a comprehensive view of 
the relations of the crow to the farmer will 
show that he is not as black as sometimes 
painted. 
NOTES FROM H. W. HENSHAW 
Crow notes from chief of biological 
survey: 
We have considerable evidence, which in- 
dicates that in the destruction of the eggs 
and young of wild birds, the fish crow is a 
worse offender than the common species. 
This obnoxious habit is doubtless aggravated 
by the fact that the former bird has easy 
access to numerous defenseless species 
which nest in colonies ana as frequently the 
birds destroyed are on game preserves the 
loss is keenly felt. Strange to say the same 
cah be said of the other maritime species 
(Corvus caurinus) of tne northwest coast,, 
where destruction to various water fowl has 
been recorded. This kind of work on the 
part of the common crow is most frequent 
in and about parks, preserves and suburban 
communities, where all species enjoy equal 
protection and where this bird soon becomes 
very bold in his hunting. Under such con- 
ditions, where it is our desire to foster cer- 
tain species in rather abnormal abundance, 
the reduction in the number of crows seems 
to be the only practical course. In the ex- 
amination of over 1,100 stomachs of crows 
collected throughout our eastern and central 
states, this one redeeming reature has been 
revealed; that the bulk of the damage is 
done early enough in the season, as a rule 
when the crows have young, so that prob- 
ab / most of the birds may raise a second 
brood at a time when there is little fear from 
crows. The actual loss of bird life, there- 
fore, is probably not as great as it appears 
to be. 
In the destruction ef poultry, the problem 
is of entirely local character. We have 
heard complaints of this kind coming from 
one farmer, whereas, his neighbor never 
loses a chick or egg. The proximity of a 
nest of young and hungry crows and the 
availability of a poultry yard where none 
tc,o careful methods of housing the nesting 
fowls and young chicks are employed seem 
to be the important factors governing such 
work. Frequently the aestruction of one 
particular brood of crows will terminate all 
damage of that sort about the farm. 
The fact that we have numerous testi- 
monials from farmers who raise considerable 
poultry entirely unmolested by crows, even 
though the birds are abundant in the gen- 
eral vicinity, leads us to tnink that careful 
poultry management will reduce this evil 
to a minimum. 
It is our opinion that legislation governing 
the crow is at present ideal in most of our 
states, where actual protection is not af- 
forded and yet few wholesale campaigns of 
destruction are enacted. 
