1918. j 
The N.Z. Journal of Science and Technology. 
255 
Acclimatization of Birds in New Zealand. 
Sir, —The subjects dealt with in the papers by W. E. Collinge and H. W. 
Simmonds in the second and third numbers of the Journal have already 
been touched upon in several interesting papers in the Transactions of the 
New Zealand Institute , as the following list shows :— 
1873. R. W. Fereday. Injuries to Vegetation . . . and Expediency of intro¬ 
ducing Insectivorous Birds. Vol. 5, pp. 289-94. 
I 878. D. C. Wilson. Disappearance of the Small Birds of New Zealand. Vol. 10, 
pp. 239-42. 
1891. T. W. Kirk. Note on the Breeding Habits of the European Sparrow in New 
Zealand. Vol. 23, pp. 108-10. 
1898. A. Bathgate. Notes on Acclimatization in New Zealand. Vol. 30, 
pp 266-79. 
1904. A. Bathgate. The Sparrow Blague and its Remedy. Vol. 36, pp. 67-79. 
1903. W. T. L. Travers. The Bird as the Labourer of Man. Vol. 35, pp. 1-11. 
1907. J. Drummond. On Introduced Birds. Vol. 39, pp. 227-52. (Reprinted 
by N.Z. Department of Agriculture as Bulletin 16, “ Our Feathered 
Immigrants, 1907.”) 
There is no doubt that the habits of the birds change more or less on 
their introduction into another country, where both climatic conditions and 
food-supply are different from those to which they are accustomed. Accord¬ 
ing to Mr. Collinge's paper, for instance, the starling is in England classed 
among the injurious birds—owing, it is true, to its numbers and the sky¬ 
lark among the beneficial. In New Zealand, apparently, their positions are 
reversed : nothing but good is spoken of the starling, and the skylark is 
classed, though not unanimously, as next to the sparrow in destructiveness. 
Though suggested much earlier, vigorous action in acclimatizing small 
birds and game birds began about 1863 ; and already bv 1872, or in less 
than nine years, the as vigorous persecution of the small birds as a pest 
had begun. The greenfinch, blackbird, and house-sparrow seem the chief 
offenders, especially the house-sparrow, concerning which there appears to 
be a nearly unanimously adverse opinion. There is no doubt that he confers 
great benefits, if he makes great depredations : he is still an avid insect 
feeder during great part of the year, including in his diet the large noisy 
cicada. He also has a habit which, whilst it may appear harmful, may 
really be beneficial. I have noted particularly that when the flower-buds 
of the tree-lucerne are forming he is very busy among them, evidently in 
search of food. It may possibly be the flower-buds, though the trees do 
not flower the less ; or it may be that he, like the gardener-persecuted bull¬ 
finch, is simply searching for buds in which there is a cankerous grub - 
and these already useless buds he destroys. The kaka provides an analogous 
case. He was at one time accused of destroying the growing bush in his 
search for grubs, but he only attacks wood into which his instinct tells him 
the grub has made his way. 
It would seem that there are already enough insectivorous birds in New 
Zealand—renough, that is, from a utilitarian standpoint or why the neces¬ 
sity for destroying so many of those we already have ? If the sparrow were 
exterminated and his place taken by other birds, the case of Hungary might 
be repeated, where the sparrow was at great expense destroyed and then at 
great expense re-established. Mr. Simmonds suggests that more purely 
insectivorous birds, such as titmice, might, by lessening the food-supply, 
lessen the numbers of the more objectionable birds. But the objectionable 
birds are the most vigorous ones—that was one of their great recommenda¬ 
tions originally—and it is more likely that before the number of house- 
sparrows is lessened other insectivorous birds native to New Zealand the 
fantail, the grey warbler, the brown creeper, and the blight-bird—would be 
reduced or quite exterminated ; and the song of all four is infinitely superior 
