Tepe he as UF Dea BLOUNe “Bi UST oki N 3 
Howard (National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoirs, XV, First 
Memoir: 1-54, 1982). 
He was a gifted writer, and his papers display a simplicity, conciseness, 
and clarity not often seen in scientific treatises. Harlow B. Mills has ex- 
pressed the belief that Forbes will surely be ‘discovered’? some day as an 
“essayist of the highest quality.” D. A. Brown (Grierson’s Raid, Univ. Ill. 
Press, p. 2, 1954) concluded that ‘Both Stephen Forbes and his older 
brother, Henry Forbes, were sensitive observers and recorders of events, 
persons, and everything that came into their ken, and many passages of their 
letters and journals, particularly Stephen’s, are written with unusual 
eloquence and beauty.” 
The scientific accomplishments of Forbes were remarkable. He was a 
giant among the naturalists of his generation. Indeed, after reading one of 
his early papers dealing with animal populations, I was prompted to re- 
port that several of his observations were so far in advance of their time 
that they seemed “prophetic of views which are credited to relatively re- 
Pemetiiies st scott, 1..G:, lll. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bul., 27[2]°7180, 1958). 
A thorough measure of Forbes’ scientific contributions would be an ex- 
tensive undertaking, requiring the services of specialists from several dis- 
ciplines. Perhaps here, nevertheless, it will be permissible for us to consider 
at least some of his research and his professional views on wildlife. 
His research on the food of birds was 
among the earliest investigations of the 
Natural History Survey. As a matter of 
fact, it is my belief that: “These studies 
accompanied and probably assisted in 
the accomplishment of the reorganiza- 
tion which converted the Illinois Museum 
of Natural History into a State Labora- 
tory of Natural History on July 1, 1877. 
The reorganization was accompanied by 
a new conception of purpose, relieving 
the members of the staff of the prepara- 
tion of museum displays and allowing 
them to concentrate on research. Al|- 
though I have been unable to uncover 
direct evidence of it, I feel certain that 
the change was manipulated by Forbes 
and members of the Illinois State Horti- 
cultural Society.” (Scott, T. G., Ill. Nat. 
Hist. Surv. Bul., 27[2]:179, 1958.) 
Forbes’ research on the food of birds 
Porheman Later Years became one of the outstanding early con- 
tributions to avian biology. In addition 
to reflecting Forbes’ professional qualifications, it reveals his desire to con- 
tribute to knowledge relating to human economy and welfare. He did not 
study the food of birds simply because it interested him, but because he 
considered it economically desirable to know more about the significance of 
birds feeding on weed seeds and insect pests. This concept of purpose in- 
volved courage, because it required a departure from the kind of research 
considered worthy of a qualified scientist’s attention at the time. For ex- 
ample, no less a contemporary than Robert Ridgway (The Birds of North 
and Middle America. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bul. 50. Part I:1, 1901) held the be- 
lief that: 
