ns 
FIFTEENTH REPORT. 
conditions that I hesitate to seek for nests less I make the destruction 
greater. 
It would look as if the birds nesting in low growing trees, barring 
interference by men, have the better chance to produce young. Those 
in the higher places have climbing animals, strong winds, and predatory 
birds to contend with in larger numbers, though the ground nesters 
have a better scheme of coloration and their nests are more difficult for 
man to locate. Those nesting in trees appear on the whole to have a 
better chance than the ground nesters; and those using holes in trees 
apparently are better off than ones nesting outside. I, however, wish it 
understood that I do not claim the above deductions as indisputable 
facts. My study of the subject is insufficient to base a rule. 
Taking it for granted that the deductions are true, what can man 
do to assist our wild birds? In 1012, the purple Martins (Progne subis) 
visited a house erected for them on the Farm, but after staying three 
days deserted and nested instead in a hole formerly used by a Red- 
headed Woodpecker in a telegraph pole. As near as I could learn, they 
had eight (8) young. Three of those were found dead on the ground, 
making just five for the eight pair of birds living in that colony. An- 
other Martin box had sixteen (16) pairs and brought out forty (40) 
young from a scientifically built nesting box. Not one of these young 
were destroyed so far as we could learn. Twenty Bluebird boxes were 
given by the Michigan Audubon Society in 1910 to prize winners in 
various parts of the State, and every one was reported as occupied by 
Bluebirds (Sialia Sialis). Fourteen wrote that these birds were suc- 
cessful in rearing their young and one brood was reported as destroyed 
by a cat. No definite information could be obtained as to the other five. 
From reports of thirty-two house Wren (Troglodytes iEdon) boxes 
used last year, (1912) twenty-seven successfully reared their young, 
three abandoned their nest, one was found with young dead in the box 
and a cat destroyed the other brood. These reports were from Detroit, 
Grand Rapids, Saginaw and Toledo. Of four boxes taken by Tree 
Swallows (Tridoprocne bicolor) three reared their young and the cat 
got the fourth. I located two House Wrens nesting on Belle Isle in the 
Detroit River last year, but the eggs in both nests were destroyed. It 
stands to reason that the chances of hatching the eggs in a nesting box 
is more certain than in the open where they are a prey to animals, 
wind storms and rain. Therefore it would appear that man, by putting 
out bird houses, and keeping control of the cat, could materially aid in 
increasing at least some of our desirable birds. The study of bird houses 
is also essential. I erected a Martin box above my barn in 1911. That 
year a number of young Martins were killed by falling, because the 
porch outside the nesting hole was too narrow. This was remedied in 
1912 and none perished in this way. Mr. Baskette in his book entitled, 
‘‘The Story of the Birds,” says: “Few things are so destructive of 
little birds as their premature escape from the nest.” The young birds 
in natural nesting conditions appear to take flight earlier than from 
nesting boxes. Of course many of our wild birds will not nest in 
boxes, but other protective methods can be provided. The United States 
Biological Survey and other agencies studying wild birds keep placing a 
higher estimate on their economic value and if their estimates are cor- 
rect. it would be but patriotic for our citizens to further the protection 
of these friends. 
