^^A^^ield.Yol 
439 
The Semes op Sight ahd SMBLH.-Dayton, O.-Sditor 
Am^tcanField:-! vefidBirdo'^ article on the senses of 
sight and smell, m buzzards, in your issue of September 3, 
with much interest. But I think Mr. Birdo is mistaken in 
this case, although he says he made experiments which con- 
vince him that buzzards find their food by smell and not by 
sight. The authority is too reliable regarding the sense of 
sight in buzzards to admit of any doubt that they find their 
r ^ lie took the body 
of a dead dog, which had lain for two days, and already 
showed signs of decomposition, and concealed it in a fence 
corner under a dense growth of bushes. Further he says: 
he wind was blowing from the southwest, and I observed 
e buzzards searched the air persistently about forty yards 
from the dog on the northwest side. It was plainly to be 
Men tkat they were guided by scent. The same wind had 
wafted the odor to their nesting place on the bluff, nearly a 
mile away. At length they gave up the search and disap. 
peared. Now, if the sense of smell had attracted the buz. 
wds from over a mile, to within forty yards of the object 
of their search, why did they not succeed in finding it ^ 
Simply because the dog was not visible. I regard Audu- 
bons experiments as infallible; his investigations cannot 
be doubted, for they were too thoroughly executed. It is 
taken for granted by the scientific world, that buzzards 
find their carrion by sight alone. Again, Birdo says : “Any 
one ought to know that a buzzard sitting on its roost cannot 
see its food three miles away, but as soon as decomposition 
sets in he will sniff it from afar and fly to it.” It is under- 
^ood they cannot see their food from a distance of three 
miles, and this is not necessary, for buzzards do not leave 
whTntrvT^^^r’ compelled by hunger, 
when they leave to go in search of food. Their flight is 
seen by other buzzards, and they are naturally attracted un. 
1 1 there are as high as twenty in the flock. These can 
easily survey an area of from two to three miles. If any 
carrion is found by one buzzard, the others will notice this^ 
".T ; 
think Birdo had better extend his experiments more fully, 
as It IS hardly possible to draw conclusions from this sinrfe 
Td oTers^““"* numerous experiments of Audubon 
— Unknown. 
The Sense of Smell in Cathartes aura. 
To THE Editors of the Auk 
A2/-.S;— In his article in the January nuinberof this Journal, Mr. Ira Sayles 
has added another instance to the already long list of fallacious Jiido^’ 
the lemaikable power of scent in the American Vultures. Imioring 
the fact that there is certainly room for some difference of opinion as to 
what constitutes a remarkable power of smell, he sets asid^ as utterly 
worthless the experiments of Audubon, Bachman, and Darwin, and offers 
h.s own chance observations as proof that these able and careful observers 
weie entiiely wrong as regards both their methods and conclusions It 
seems almost superfluous to say that our critic can scarcely have read the 
original accounts of the experiments he condemns, or he would neither 
accuse so thoughtlessly nor explain so easily. 
As to the anatomical evidence introduced, it may be remarked that such 
an argument rom structure to function is often extremely unsafe eveli 
o. the accomplished anatomist, and the danger is greatest where the ex- 
1 eiience ,s least. True, Owen has shown that the Turkey Buzzard has 
well-developed olfactory nerves; but in the same paper (P. Z S V 1817 
to be fl the same nerves wFre ’found 
fully as well developed in the Goose, while even in the Turkey they 
were fairly developed, although only about one sixth as large. Further^ 
moie, this distinguished anatomist, a part of whose testimony Mr. Sayles 
finds so “entirely satisfectory.” closes his paper with the remark, that “The 
above notes show that the Vulture has a well-developed organ of smell 
bu whether he finds his prey by that sense alone, or in what decree "1": 
sists, anatomy IS not so well calculated to explain as experiment.” Again 
accoiding to Owen (Comp. Anat. and Phys. Vert., II, 132), the olfactory 
neives are relatively largest, among birds, in the Apteryx ; yet this bird 
.ppeais to use its power of smell mainly for the detection of the worms 
which fo.m Its daily food, and for which it probes in the ground, thus 
appaiently using its keen scent only at very short distances,- hardly 
moie indeed than the length of its own bill. ^ 
Turning now to the personal observations of Mr. Sayles, let us consider 
le eyidence which he calls “positive,” yet which I regard as entirely in- 
conclusive. In the first place, the data given us are very incomplete, and 
several of the most important points recorded were observed merely by 
ciance, and before any significance was attached to them; and one can 
scarcely help questioning the accuracy of many of the details of such ob- 
servations, especially when it is remembered that the occurrences narrated 
took place more than a dozen years ago, and we are not informed whether 
the narrator writes from memory or from notes taken at the time It is 
doubtful whether, under the most favorable circumstances, the movements 
of Buzzards could be fairly watched at a distance of “more than two miles ” 
and we are not even told how this distance was determined. Again, as the 
observations were simply accidental, it is more than possible that’ single 
Buzzards had already reached the place unobserved by our critic, but not 
without attracting the attention of the distant flock, which responded in 
the usual manner. In order to account for the coming of these first few 
individuals we have only to assume that the dogs had carried out and left 
exposed a few fragments of offal, which would readily be detected by any 
sharp-sighted Buzzard which chanced to be passing, or which may have 
been in the habit of visiting the plantation every morning. * 
Finally, the fact that the birds failed to find the source of the stench and 
Auk " I be glad, in a future number of ‘The 
Auk, to discuss this subiect further nr.,1 • , • r 
evidence on both sides of the question.’ ‘ 
Washmg-ton, D. C. , March 4, 1887. 
Auk, 4, April 
Respectfully, 
Walter B. Barrows. 
1887, p. 
*In March, 1886, the writer received from S E Cassino/tr i ^ 
■Standard Natural History.' a lengthy criticism of his statement^abouuf^ 
scent in Vultures as nnMicKo.i • -vr i about the power of 
by Mr. Sayles, embodied all thrfac°^sTn!:eL°bl-THT‘'t* which was 
additional m at’ter on various 305100^ In" 
above, it was there distinctly stated tlmt a flock orR o P'^rticnlar instance cited 
plantation, and that nothing was thought of it in 
mg about the waod-sAed fthe italics • i wheel- 
offal had been upset by the dogs. P°‘ of 
