2I6 
NATURE NOTES. 
again. On the whole the figures are bad, and while some are ver}' good, others 
are as bad as any we have ever seen. When will publishers understand that a 
bad figure is worse than useless? It is impossible to say what species some of 
these figures really do represent ; but that purporting to portray a peregrine 
falcon is, if anything, a bad likeness of one of the northern falcons. Curiously 
enough, precisely the same figure, misnamed in the same way, is used in the 
work called The Birds of our Islands, already noticed. Some other figures 
are wrongly named, a dotterel does duty for a golden plover, and a pair of 
gargancy for common teal. These things must have annoyed the author a good deal, 
for we cannot think that he can have had a voice in the choice of the illustrations. 
We have received another instalment* of the excellent publications on economic 
ornithology issued by the United States Government. The present bulletin con- 
tains brief abstracts of the results of good studies of about thirty grain- and insect- 
eating birds. As the question of the good and harm done by our own birds 
is occupying a considerable amount of interest at the present time, we think 
that an abstract of the introduction to this eminently scientific pamphlet will 
be read with pleasure and profit. It is pointed out that there is a tendency 
to dwell on the harm rather than the good which birds do. “ Whether a bird 
is injurious or beneficial depends almost entirely upon what it eats, and in the 
case of species which are unusually abundant, or which depend in part upon 
the farmers’ crops for subsistence, the character of the food often becomes a 
very practical question. If crows or blackbirds are seen in numbers about 
cornfields, or if woodpeckers are noticed at work in an orchard, it is not perhaps 
surprising that they are accused of doing harm. Careful investigation, however, 
often shows that they are actually destroying noxious insects, and also that even 
those which do harm at one season may compensate for it by eating noxious 
species at another.” Within certain limits birds feed upon the most accessible 
food. Thus, as a rule, insectivorous birds eat the insects that are most easily 
obtained, provided they are not peculiarly disagreeable. It is not probable that 
a bird habitually passes by one kind of insect to look for another which is more 
appetising. In order to be positiv«f,as to what a bird really eats it is necessary to 
examine its stomach. When birds are suspected of doing damage a few indivi- 
duals should be shot and examined to settle the question. The Biological 
Survey of the Department of Agriculture has been for some years conducting 
a systematic investigation of the food of species believed to be of economic 
importance. Thousands of birds’ stomachs have been carefully examined, 
and the results published from time to time. The practical value of bird-; 
in controlling insect pests should be more generally recognized. It is easy 
to exterminate the birds in an orchard or grain field, but extremely difficult 
to control the insect pests. The value, too, of seed-eating birds as weed de- 
stroyers is not appreciated. Weed-seed forms an important item of the winter 
food of many of these birds, and it is impossible to estimate the immense numbers 
of noxious weeds which are thus annually destroyed. “ Birds are protected by law 
in many States, but it remains for the agriculturist to see that the laws are faith- 
fully observed ” — a remark which we may well take notice of ourselves. The 
whole report deserves to be carefully studied. Until our Government undertakes 
some such systematic investigation, the controversy upon the merits of our English 
birds will go on, though private investigators may form a fairly accurate opinion 
for themselves. 
O. V. AruN, 
* Some Common Birds in /heir Kela/ion to AgrituUnre. By F. E. L. Beal, 
B..S., Assistant Ornithologist, Biological Survey, jrp. 40, 8vo. Washington : 
Government Printing Oftice, 1897. 
