4 THE AU DG BONS BU EE Eee 
"There are two essentially different kinds of ornithology: systematic or scientific, 
and popular. The former deals with the structure and classification of birds, their 
synonymies and technical descriptions. The latter treats of their habits, songs, nest- 
ing, and other facts pertaining to their life-histories. . . Popular ornithology is the 
more entertaining, with its savor of the wildwood, green fields, the riverside and 
seashore, bird songs, and the many fascinating things connected with out-of-door 
Nature. But systematic ornithology, being a component part of biology — the 
science of life — is the more instructive and therefore more important.’ 
W. L. McAtee (Auk, 34[3]:249, 1917) has expressed the belief that 
F. E. L. Beal and Forbes were ‘‘the founders of the scientific method of 
studying the economic value of birds.’”’ It is enlightening, too, to find that 
the book, Birds in Their Relations to Man (Weed, C. M., and N. Dearborn. 
Lippincott Co., 1903) is inscribed “To Stephen Alfred Forbes. . .whose 
classic studies of the economic relations of birds will long remain the model 
for later students.” 
Coues (Coues, E., Nuttall Ornith. Club Bul., 8[2]:105) believed him to 
be “Our best authority upon the insect food of birds. . .” It should be 
noted that in 1884 the University of Indiana awarded Forbes the Ph.D. 
degree “‘by thesis and examination,” his thesis being “The Regulative Ac- 
tion of Birds Upon Insect Oscillations.” 
It was natural for the orderly mind of Forbes to see that an appraisal 
of the economic importance of birds required more than a knowledge of 
food habits. It was also necessary to have some knowledge of the numbers 
and kinds of birds present in specific habitats during the different seasons. 
The resulting bird censuses are classics in American ornithology. These 
censuses are reported in six papers; however, most of the data may be seen 
in two papers (Forbes, S. A., and A. O. Gross, Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bul., 
14[6] :187-218, 1922; 14[10]:397-458, 1923). 
His understanding of the effect of predation on prey populations was 
surprisingly in advance of his time. In an early paper (Forbes, S. A., JIL. 
Lab, Nat. Hist. Bul. 1[8]:11, 1880) he observed that “The annihilation of 
all the established ‘enemies’ of a species would, as a rule, have no effect to 
increase its final average numbers.” 
His views on the dynamics of animal populations, too, are remarkably 
modern. He (Forbes, S. A., Jil. Lab. Nat. Hist. Bul. 1[8]:9, 1880) con- 
vineingly argues that “The fact of survival is therefore usually sufficient 
evidence of a fairly complete adjustment of the rate of reproduction to the 
drains upon the species.’”’ On page 11 of the same paper, he points out that 
the “real and final limits of a species are the inorganic features of its en- 
vironment, — soil, climate, seasonal peculiarities, and the like.” In another 
paper (Forbes, 8. A., Ill. Hort. Soc. Trans. for 1881. 15:122, 1882) he rea- 
sons that excessive animal populations are “in one way or another, self- 
limiting.” 
Forbes’ remarkably progressive views apparently failed to carry him 
much in advance of contemporary concepts with respect to wildlife manage- 
ment, for his thinking seems to have been limited largely to the encourage- 
ment of restrictive laws. He (Forbes, S. A., Jll. Acad. Sct. Trans. for 1912, 
5:40, 1912) once observed that “Our resident game birds would all have 
been gone long ago if it had not been for the restraints of law put upon 
the activities of the hunter. . .” In this same paper (p. 46) he made a plea 
for the Illinois Academy of Science to support by resolution the “Anthony 
Bill” (Migratory Bird Act of 1913), then under consideration in the House 
of Representatives. 
