46 
THE CONDOR 
Vol. XIV 
However, this seemingly very moderate 
attack upon butterflies, surpasses in amount 
of execution all previous records of the destruc- 
tion of butterflies by birds in the United States 
combined. Whether they are too dry and 
dusty to be worth chasing or whether they are 
too active on the wing to be easily caught, or 
whether for some entirely different reason, the 
fact remains that butterflies are very little in 
demand with birds in the United States. Four 
records of birds eating butterflies are all that 
are afforded by the records of the examination 
of more than 40,000 stomachs in the Biological 
Survey, and one of these probably relates to 
the capture of a very recently emerged speci- 
men, or to one torn from the pupa before emer- 
gence, as it was accompanied in the stomach by 
a pupa of the same species. This was an Epar- 
f^yreus tityrus taken b}' a crow. The other rec- 
ords are Endamiis (sp.?) eaten by a yellow- 
billed cuckoo, and two pierid butterflies cap- 
tured by kingbirds. Hence the fact that five 
of the species studied by Mr. Bryant utilized an 
unpopular kind of food, and that one of them 
did this to a considerable extent, gives all the 
more weight to the observation, as proof of the 
rule that birds usually take advantage of the 
abundant food supply created by an insect out- 
break. (Dn the whole Mr. Bryant's work is 
well done and his final conclusions are sound. 
In referring to Professor F. E. L. Beal’s ac- 
count of the Say phoebe, however, he misin- 
terprets the statements there made. Professor 
Beal says that moths and caterpillars, not but- 
terflies, forms ten percent of this bird’s annual 
food. The case of the ash-throated flycatcher 
is similar. As the data given above shows, 
neither species %vas found by Professor Beal to 
take butterflies. The opinion expressed on 
page 200 that it “will be shown birds have an 
important part to pla}' in the destruction of the 
butterflies’’, is hardly borne out by the facts 
presented. — \V. T. IMcAtee. 
Useful Birds of South Australia — Our 
P'eathered P'riends. Protected Native Birds. 
[By A. G. Edouist] ( —Journ. Dept. Agr. South 
Australia, xiv, no. 9, April 1911, pp. 848-855; 
no. 10, May 1911, pp. 9,36-938; no. 11, June 1911, 
pp. 1038-1042; no. 12, July 1911, pp. 1136-1140). 
In the July-August number of The Condor 
(xiii, no. 4, p. 142) the reviewer noticed the 
first of the articles above cited. Apparently 
the series is now finished. F'or a work pur- 
porting to set forth the economic value of birds, 
remarkably little is said about the food. On 
the average less than two printed lines are 
devoted to a characterization of the food of each 
species, and for nine out of a total of nineteen 
species this statement amounts to no more than 
an assertion that the bird is insectivorous. Of 
course the reviewer understands that no spec- 
ialized work in economic ornithology has been 
undertaken in Australia, but those whom the 
author is seeking to impress with the value of 
certain South Australian birds, have a right to 
demand more explicit information regarding 
food habits. Especially justifiable is this de- 
mand, since the pages of the Emu, and other 
publications on Australian birds, contain 
numerous specific references to the food of 
birds, many of which relate to one or another 
of the nineteen species treated by our author. 
It is not unreasonable to expect that these 
references should be collected by Australians 
interested in bird protection; but nevertheless, 
we have several publications on the “useful 
birds’’ or the “insectivorous birds’’ of certain 
States, which contain very sparing references 
to bird food. 
A few instances from the papers now being 
discussed will illustrate this unfortunate ten- 
dency. The author says of the spotted bower- 
bird (Chlainydodera maculata) \ “Food; chiefly 
seeds and berries of native plants’’ (no. 11, 
p. 1038). Mr. F. B. Campbell F'ord notes that 
in Queensland this species feeds largely on 
white-cedar berries (Emu ii, pt. 2, Oct. 1, 1902, 
p. 101), and Mr. A. J. North says: “It is very 
destructive in gardens, eating nearly every 
kind of cultivated fruit and berries, being 
especially fond of chilies, and the seeds of the 
introduced pepper plant (Schinus moUe). In 
the stomachs of the specimens I have examined, 
I also found portions of unripe tomatoes, grape 
skins and seeds, and whole raisins’’ (Special 
Catalog I, Australian Museum, vol. i, part 2, 
1902, p. 44) . On another page (46) it is noted 
that the bird is fond of figs and grapes. Mr. 
Robert Hall adds that it is asserted by some 
observers that this bird is the greatest pest the 
orchardist has to contend against. ... In 
Queensland they favor small fruits of a 
bright color, such as guavas, to the detriment 
of the grower” (The Useful Birds of South- 
ern Australia, 1907, p. 252). 
Our author’s statement therefore is shown to 
be not only excessively brief and generalized 
but also inaccurate. 
Regarding the grey shrike-thrush (Collyri- 
ocichla harmonica) the author ungrammati- 
cally remarks “Its food is chiefly insectivor- 
ous, and often consists of caterpillars” (no. 10, 
p. 936). North says (1. c., p. 93) that it feeds 
on insects and their larvae, worms, snails, centi- 
pedes and small lizards. H. S. Dove specifies 
hairy caterpillars as part of its diet (Emu x, 
pt. 2, Oct. 1910, pp. 136-137), and Mr. D. Le 
Souef, the genial ornithologist whom many of 
us have had the pleasure of meeting in the 
United States, states that they take the eggs of 
other birds and that one was seen to pick up a 
chestnut-bellied quail killed by a hunter (Emu 
