2 4 
/wo VA.xxxn/ Al x. 
THE WOODCOCK AND^f HE^WORM. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
The following, coming from Audubon, ought to bear a 
good deal of weight on the question raised in yonr last 
issue as to how the woodcock get their food from the mud 
by boring. He says on page 20, Yol. YI. (of the edition 
of Roe, Lockwood & Son, New York, 1801): “The food 
of the woodcock consists principally of large earthworms, 
of which it swallows as many in the course of a night as 
would equal its own weight. It obtains its food by per- 
forating the damp earth or mire, and also by turning the 
dead leaves in the woods and picking up the worms that 
lie beneath them. On watching a number of individ- 
uals probing mud in which a number of earthworms had 
been introduced, in a tub placed in room partially dark- 
ened, I observed the birds plunged their bills up to the 
nostrils, but never deeper; and from the motion of the 
parts at the base of the mandibles I concluded that the 
bird has the power of working the extremities so as to 
produce a kind of vacuum, which it enables it to seize 
the worm at one end and suck it into its throat before it 
withdraws its bill, as do curlews and godwits.” 
Some summers ago, while shooting woodcock, I ob- , 
served some birds in an old field ditch under some wil- 
lows; these birds were in the open ditch and were feeding 
or boring in the mud; it was early in the morning, but 
the sun was well up, so that I had full chance to see them; 
they were not twenty to twenty-five feet away. These 
birds acted as Audubon relates that his tame birds did, 
that is, they ran the bill deep into the mud, held it there, 
and appeared to suck in with their throats, but on the 
withdrawal of the bill I never saw the worm. Now with 
snipe, I have often seen the' worm after the bill is with- 
drawn, and more often have taken the worms from their 
mouths after they were shot. 
There is one point I don’t understand in regard to the 
construction of the woodcock’s bill, nor can I reconcile 
it with the sucking theory, and that is that, unlike the 
snipe’s, the woodcock’s upper bill overhang’s the lower, I 
or more properly speaking, the lower bill is shorter and 
fits into the upper; and if lam right, it is stiff at the 
ends and not soft and capable of being opened like the 
snipe’s. Now if this is so, how can he open his bill while 
in the mud to suck, and not open the whole length of it? 
A snipe can; he opens just the very end and makes a 
tube of his bill. I have not a woodcock head with me, 
and an old one would be too dry to surely test this point, 
but I am quite sure a woodcock’s bill is as I describe it. 
Boston, Mass. E. B. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
“A Study of Woodcock,” by “Paul Pastnor,” in Forest 
and Stream for July 18, is certainly a remarkable con- 
tribution to the literature of the subject of which it 
treats. Indeed, one hesitates to take the writer seriously 
or to feel quite sure that his “little old wood witch hob- 
bling about with a very long black cane,” did not befog 
his senses by some potent spell, under the influence of 
which he dreamed, instead of saw, the curious things 
which he describes so pleasantly. But, as he truly ob- 
serves, “many mirth-provoking theories, in the course of 
modern investigation, have become science,” and it would 
be not less unsafe than ungenerous to positively ridicule 
or discredit any of his observations or theories, however 
fanciful they may seem. Moreover, most of them, as I 
shall presently show, are by no means as new as their 
author apparently thinks. For convenience of discussion,; 
the leading points in his article may be briefly restated! 
and considered as follows: 
(1) That the woodcock possibly has a song. There is no i 
doubt about this, for the fact has been recorded and more \ 
or less freely commented on by several observers. (See 
American Sportsman, IV., 1874, p. 19; the same, pp. 41, 
Torrey’s “Birds in the Bush,” pp. 223-225; Nuttall's 
Manual, “Water Birds,” pp. 196-197). The bird sings in 
the air during the mating season, in the evening twi- 
light, rising in a spiral course to the height of three or 
four hundred feet, thence descending in zigzag lines, at 
the same time uttering warbling notes, winch, to my 
ears, at least, are very sweet and musical, recalling the 
sound produced by a water whistle such as boys sell in 
the streets of our cities. I have witnessed this perform- 
ance many times at various places, and on several occa- 
sions have traced the bird’s flight from the ground to the 
highest point which it reached and back to earth again. 
(2) That both the European and American woodcock 
pick up and carry off their young is also a fact attested 
by many observers, although writers differ in their im- 
pressions as to the way the thing is done, some asserting 
that the chick is carried in the parent’s bill; others, on 
her back; others, in her claws, and still others, that it is 
held pressed close to her body between her thighs. The 
last view seems to be supported by the best evidence, 
although it is not improbable that the method varies at 
different times. An article on the subject in the Zoolo- 
gist (third series, Yol. III., pp. 433-440) is accompanied 
by on illustration, depicting the European woodcock 
carrying its y oung very much as “Paul Pastnor” describes, 
(3) I have never seen anything to indicate that the 
woodcock has a strongly developed bump of curiosity; 
but there seems to be no reason for challenging your cor- 
respondent’s observations on this point, which are cer- 
tainly very interesting and apparently quite conclusive. 
(4) The assumption that the woodcock is only semi- 
nocturnal, 'although doubtless, contrary to the general 
impression of sportsmen, is perhaps correct. I have 
never detected a wild bird in the act of boring in the 
day time, but in the stomachs of several specimens, 
killed at about mid-day I have found fragments of earth 
worms. This would seem to be strong presumptive proof 
of diurnal feeding, for earth worms must be very rapidly 
digested in the stomach of a healthy woodcock. 
(5) It is certainly possible that the evening flights of 
woodcock may be occasionally undertaken, as your cor- 
respondent believes, simply to enjoy “a mad, merry 
whirl in the air;” but nothing that I have seen warrants 
such a conclusion. On the contrary, after observing 
these flights on many occasions and at various places 
and seasons, I am convinced that the birds rise at even- 
ing from the thickets in which they have spent the day 
merely to seek richer but more exposed feeding grounds, 
where they dare not trust themselves by daylight. The 
fact that “Paul Pastnor’s” birds flew into open meadow 
is significant in this connection. 
(6) The assumption that the woodcock does not secure 
its food by boring, but that the holes which it makes in 
the mud are intended to serve as passages through which 
iearthworms may be lured to their fate by the simulated 
isound of rain, produced by the subsequent dancing and 
fluttering of the bird on the surface above, is apparently 
an original, and certainly a rather startling theory. 
From the nature of the case such a theory cannot be dis- 
proved, but it may be discredited, partly on the ground 
that observations made in the field at night, even in the 
..clearest moonlight and with the aid of a good glass, can- 
not be wholly reliable, partly by evidence that the bird 
sometimes gets its food in simpler ways. 
Audubon , ‘ 1 watching several individuals probing mud in 
which a number of earth worms had been introduced, in 
a tub placed in a room partially darkened,” concluded 
“from the motion of the parts at the base of the mandi- 
bles * * * that the bird has the power of working their 
extremities so as to produce a kind of vacuum, which 
enables it to seize the worm at one end and suck it into 
its throat before it withdraws its bill, as do curlews and 
godwits (“ Birds of America,” Yol. VI., pp. 20-21). I am 
not aware that this supposition has. been since veri- 
fied, although it does not seem improbable that the wood- 
cock, without withdrawing its bill, may sometimes suck 
up very small earth worms or other minute animals found 
in soft mud. However this may be, it certainly fre- 
quently, if not habitually, employs a different method, 
at least with earth worms of fair s.ze. 
In July, 1878, I saw a live woodcock in the possession 
of Mr. C. J. Maynard. He had it from a boy who flushed 
it in a garden, whence it flew against the side of a house, 
falling sufficiently stunned to be easily captured. It 
recovered in a short time and was placed in a large 
box, prepared for its reception by covering the bottom 
several inches deep with loam, sinking a basin of water 
in the center, and planting tall living weeds about the 
back and sides. When I first looked in the bird was 
squatting among the weeds, nor did any motion on my i 
part avail to cause it to shift its position , save by 
shrinking a little closer to the ground, but when 
a live screech owl was brought and held against the wires 
that covered the front of the cage, the woodcock at once 
rose and advanced to meet its vis-A-vis. Singularly 
enough the owl seemed to be the more frightened of the 
two. Indeed, the woodcock showed no perceptible fear. 
After the removal of the owl the woodcock ran about 
freely, exploring all the corners of its limited domain, 
and probing the earth vigorously, but apparently with- 
out success, although it left no spot untried. Its long 
