The Mission of Birds

WHEN it was announced last spring that the city government of Boston, through the Committee of the City Council on Public Squares, was making arrangements for the introduction of the European House-Sparrow into the Common and the Public Garden, one of our fellow-citizens was at the pains to wait upon his Honor the Mayor, and remonstrate against what he was pleased to call an unwise experiment. He spoke of their introduction as an experiment, either ignorant or forgetful of the entire success that had attended their naturalization in New York and the adjacent towns and cities of New jersey. It was unwise and absurd, he said, because if the object were to destroy or to keep down destructive insects, this would be better accomplished by the cultivation of insectivorous birds, among which the European House-Sparrow was not classed, &c. As if the insectivores of authors actually did devour the “ insects injurious to vegetation,” and were the only family of birds that did so !

Such was the sum and substance of his protest against what we then regarded, and still regard, as a very important step in the right direction, and one which we sincerely trust the casualties of the past season have only delayed, but have not arrested. Had the remonstrance come from an unintelligent person, or from one with no scientific pretensions, we would not have attached any particular importance to so total a want of appreciation of the subject upon which such decided opinions were given. But here the case was far otherwise. The remonstrant was a gentleman of high scientific reputation in branches of culture closely interwoven in interest with the suppression of noxious insects. To the dicta of such an one, speaking as with authority, some importance is naturally attached. The mere fact that one from whom we seem to have the right to expect a more accurate knowledge in such matters showed himself so utterly at fault is of itself a pregnant suggestion. It awakes a train of reflections touching the whole subject of birds, the seeming evil done, and the often unseen or unappreciated benefits conferred by them. How absolutely wanting in information nearly all of us are, — even the best informed in other respects,— in regard to the real practical economic value to mankind of the whole feathered race! How limited our knowledge! How short-sighted our views! We are as yet, with only here and there a most rare exception, unlearned even in the alphabet of this science ! Even our systematists, with all their supposed knowledge of their subject, have but added to our confusion, and have only led us astray, when they have attempted to divide the feathered tribe into insectivores, supposed to feed only on insects, granivores, as if they ate nothing but seeds, omnivores, who are supposed to devour a little of everything, and so on. Herein the danger of a little learning is clearly made manifest. Naturally enough, our friend the Sparrow aforesaid is mentioned as a grain-eating bird. And while we cannot, with a conscientious regard for the truth, venture to deny his occasional indiscretions in this direction, it is none the less absurd, and in the face of positive evidence, for us, or for any one, to rush to the extreme conclusion in the opposite direction, and declare that seeds are his exclusive, or even his principal, food. More than this, we are equally in error if, misled by this nomenclature, we suppose that the Sparrow and all his clan of gross - feeders, who belong to all orders, and have no exclusive groups, do not devour at least as many insects, especially the more injurious ones, as the families which the scientific world believes par excellence insect-eaters.

The fact is, all our systems that attempt any such arbitrary classification are absurd, untenable, founded in error, and, of course, only lead to confusion and hopeless entanglement. Of all the eight or nine thousand species that inhabit the globe, the proportion cannot be very large of those which are supposed to be exclusively insect-eaters. The number is yet smaller, — indeed, we almost doubt if there are positively known to be any birds of any kind, — which are not, at certain periods of their lives, largely insectivorous. This is certainly true in regard to nearly all those generally known in our books as granivores, while all genera of birds known to our systematists as omnivorous are, without exception, the most active, persistent, and valuable destroyers of those insects from whose ravages our gardens, our parks, our lawns, and our farms would have, but for their intervention, the most to apprehend. To this large variety of birds, to which we can give no more significant name than that of gross-feeders, the world is most indebted for keeping within any limits those destructive insects which would otherwise make earth uninhabitable.

We shall offer no other apology than our own shortcomings for raising our voice in behalf of the entire race of feathered creatures, nearly all of which we believe to be life-long benefactors to the human race. Our incompetence to do justice to this self-imposed task we fully admit ab initio. But some one must make a beginning ; and how can we better serve the cause we have at heart than by thus venturing to appeal, in behalf of our clients, the unappreciated birds, to a few facts, not to be gainsaid, which point unerringly to the great hidden arcana, in reserve for future explorers of a boundless and almost untrodden field of research ? The need of light upon this question is but too painfully apparent. When we hear of such a protest from such a source as we have just named, — or when we find one of our most honored and esteemed scientific men passing by in total and oblivious silence the most complete and triumphant vindication of the Sparrow, made only a few years since under the auspices of the Senate of France,— or when one who styles himself “ Curator of Zoölogy in the Massachusetts State Cabinet,” in the year of our Lord 1867, in his “ Birds of New England,” pronounces wholesale denunciations against the mischievous and destructive character of such birds as the Crow, the BlueJay, the Purple Grakle, and the like,— we cannot hold our peace.

We do not propose to attempt an exhaustive treatise on this subject. Nor can we discriminate in favor of this or against that class, family, or genus of birds. We know but too little in regard to any, and may not therefore venture to speak with much positiveness as to their relative merits or demerits. In regard, however, to a few points of some moment, we feel secure, both through our own observations, and yet more through those of others far more trustworthy. Of these points we shall venture to write, and shall essay to vindicate the claims to our grateful consideration even of some of those species which have been most complained of, and are most subject to unfavorable prejudice.

And here we would premise. The mischief which these birds do is often of daily occurrence, is open, palpable, and not to be gainsaid. And yet these very birds are often really our greatest benefactors. Let us take up first for our consideration the Robin. Where will you find, hereabouts, one more complained of, more generally denounced, than he? Is he not, by common consent, pronounced by most of our fruit-growers the pest of horticulturists ? Does he not steal our cherries, plunder our strawberries, strip our currant-bushes, pilfer our raspberries, help himself to our choicest grapes, and, if we have some rare Shepardia berries, will not the glutton take the whole ? And does he not, some one else will add, attack and spoil our handsomest pears? In reply to the last charge we cannot respond affirmatively. We do not believe it, and if it were true, we would say to whoever made this charge:

“ My dear sir, it only serves you right. You should not leave summer pears on the tree long enough to become so soft as to tempt a bird to peck at them. Your fruit should have been gathered when so hard that no bird could molest it, and thus you would have saved your pears and improved their quality ! " But we are getting off our track, and will return to the Robin.

With the exception of the pear-accusation, which we believe to be bosh, we admit the truth of all these charges,— but what then ? What do they prove ? Simply that the worst traits in the character of the Robin are those which, unfortunately for his reputation, are the most apparent, and which are brought home to the notice of all who have fruit to be plundered, while his beneficial deeds escape the general observation. The Robin is eminently one of those who delight in doing good by stealth, but alas ! he is very rarely put to the blush by finding it fame. The world, as a general thing, is but too prompt to recognize the mischief he does, but knows little or nothing of his good deeds, far overbalancing his faults.

Fortunately for the reputation of the Robin, careful and faithful friends have looked into his record, and the result of their investigations prove him to be an invaluable friend to the farmer, and demonstrate by indisputable evidence that his services are of an indispensable importance. Nearly eleven years since, the very same gentleman who this last summer signalized his imperfect knowledge of birds by protesting against the European Sparrow’s coming to Boston, because it was not an insect-eater, at a meeting of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society introduced a motion in favor of the presentation of a petition to the State Legislature, in the name of the Society, praying for the repeal of all legislation for the protection of the Robin. After an animated discussion, in which it was shown that the Robin was not even then without strong friends, the Society, instead of adopting the motion, very wisely voted to look into the matter before they thus committed themselves, and referred the whole subject of the habits of the Robin to a select committee, who were desired to make a very thorough investigation. Fortunately at the head of this committee was placed J. W. P. Jenks, Esq. of Middleboro’, an ardent and zealous friend of the bird. He entered upon his duties with an alacrity and an interest, and completed them with a fidelity and a thoroughness that reflect upon him the highest credit. The leisure hours of an entire year were devoted by this gentleman to a careful and minute investigation of the subject committed to his charge. Day by day, and at all hours of the day, he procured specimens of the birds for the purpose of carefully examining the contents of their several stomachs, for evidences of the general character of their food. Robins were thus obtained by him, both from the villages and from the more rural districts, apart from gardens and orchards. Beginning with the first week in March, 1858, these examinations were continued, with more or less frequency, until the same month of the succeeding year.

Confining ourselves here to such portions of the results as may have a direct bearing upon the points we seek to establish, we find that Professor jenks has demonstrated, among other things, that during the whole of March, April, and May not a particle of vegetable matter of any kind whatever could be found in the food of the robins. Insects, in large quantities, varying greatly as to kind, condition, and development, were during all these months their sole and exclusive food. The larvæ of a species of fly known to naturalists as the Bibio albipennis of Say, formed a large proportion of the contents of their stomachs. Not unfrequently as many as two hundred of these insects, in this stage of development, were taken from a single bird, and for the most part wherever any were found they were the only food in the bird’s stomach.

It next became important to inquire, What are these larvæ ? What is the peculiarity of this insect either in the larva-form or the more perfect imago ? And does any importance attach to their destruction ?

It is made to appear from the evidence of the highest authorities cited by Professor Jenks, —and, we may here add, their testimony is entirely corroborated by that of others equally trustworthy, — that the whole class of insects belonging to the genus of Bibio is a kind of fly whose larvæ would be, if not kept in check, exceedingly destructive to the roots of plants, feeding upon them and frequently causing them to wither and die. In Europe, the analogous species with our own, called the Bibio marci, is known to feed upon the roots of strawberry plants, vines, flowers in pots, &c., and does great mischief to plants in earth that has not been disturbed during the autumn and the succeeding spring. Entire beds of ranunculuses have been known to be completely ruined by these insects year after year.

Now it is very evident that what is known to happen in Europe from the destruction wrought by the larvæ of these insects might occur with us, —indeed, would be very sure to occur with us, —but for the timely and invaluable services of our much-abused Robin. During all the spring months, from early March until almost June, the Robins are rendering to us the all-important service of destroying these destructives, of which service, but for the faithful investigations of their friend Mr. Jenks, the world might never have been made aware. The larvæ of this insect live together in large swarms, are exceedingly numerous, the parent being very productive, and depositing her whole stock of eggs in a single spot. The Robin finding one of these colonies rarely leaves it until the whole swarm is exterminated.

Nor is it entirely a matter of inference that the activity and zeal of the Robin in destroying these insects avert from us the consequences that follow from their unchecked abundance. Mr. Jenks refers to a noteworthy instance in which the slaughter by a shootingmatch created a great scarcity of birds in a certain locality, and a vast extent of grass-land in that neighborhood became withered and dried up, as if a fire had passed over it. Why it did so no one could then conjecture, but we can now perceive that just such consequences would follow from an undisturbed growth of these destructive worms.

Professor Jenks’s investigations further show that in May and June these larvæ were replaced in the stomach of the Robin by a variety of insects, among them various caterpillars and beetles of the family Elateridœ, the parents of the well-known wire-worms, so destructive to corn and other seeds. Later in June strawberries and cherries were detected in the birds’ crops, but almost always largely intermingled with insects. It was noticed that Robins shot in the more rural districts at this season, at a distance from gardens. and fruit-trees, were generally found to have chiefly fed upon insects, and to a comparatively small extent upon fruit, showing that they do not go to a distance to obtain this kind of food. This mixed diet of insects and berries was found to continue until October, though after July their vegetable food consisted chiefly of elder and poke berries and other wild fruit. Later in the season they fed almost exclusively upon grasshoppers and other orthopterous insects.

Such, in brief, is he substance of Professor Jenks’s important observations. They cannot but be regarded as a triumphant vindication of the claims of the Robin to our grateful protection. They establish beyond dispute that, during seven out of the nine months in which the Robins are with us in any numbers, they are exclusively our benefactors and nothing else, — doing us nothing but good, and that of the highest importance. And if, during six or eight weeks, those birds of this species, which make their home in our villages for want of sufficient insect food, do share with us our small fruit, they are at the same time earning their wages by the destruction of injurious insects, beyond the power of man to reach; while the Robins who reside in the country, out of temptation’s way, rarely trouble our fruit, but confer upon us only benefits.

So much for Professor Jenks’s testimony ; but this is not the whole story of the Robin. Thus far we have only taken into our account the food of the adult birds. We have said nothing as to that which they provide for their young. This very important chapter in their history Mr. Jenks appears to have overlooked, perhaps not being aware how different the food given by birds to their young often is from that which they eat themselves. As a general rule, the food of all young birds is, as far as may be possible, of an animal and chiefly of an insect character. Certainly the Robin is no exception to this general rule. And even those birds which in an adult state feed almost entirely upon seeds will be found to be fed, when fledglings, almost entirely upon insects. It is this most important fact that enhances so greatly the value to man of the entire class of birds, and which changes a seeming enemy and depredator into his best friend.

As we have said, the Robin is far from being an exception to this rule. Although we find in Mr. Jenks’s valuable paper no corroboration of this fact, fortunately evidence of the highest authority is not wanting.

Professor Daniel Treadwell of Cambridge, in September, 1858, submitted to the Boston Society of Natural History an elaborate paper, giving in carefully prepared details certain important facts observed by him relative to the feeding and the growth of young Robins, The great value of this paper consists in the evidence it furnishes of the enormous amount of animal food necessary for the development and growth of the young of this species. We cannot give in detail Professor Treadwell’s experiments, and it is enough for our purpose to state that they demonstrate that a young Robin consumed fortyone per cent of animal food more than his own weight in twelve hours, before he began to gain, and that after he had eaten this amount his own weight was fifteen per cent less than the food he had consumed. That he absolutely needed this large proportion of food was shown by his falling off in weight while he had less. Even when fed on raw beef the young bird consumed nearly his own equivalent each day ; and after eating this amount daily for thirteen successive days, his weight was then hardly twice in amount that of his daily supply of raw beef. These facts demonstrate the immense power of these birds to destroy insects. Besides earth-worms, which are not always to be had, especially in grass-lands or in a time of drought, Robins feed their young very largely with both the larvæ and the imago of the whole family of cut-worms and many others of the most destructive varieties of insects. Wherever the land is turned up at this time, whether by the hoe, the spade, or the plough, you will always find these birds on the sharp lookout for these your worst enemies, but also the choicest titbits for their own family. And when we take into consideration the fact that each pair of Robins usually rears on the average at least three broods of four or five each in a season, and that for some twenty or thirty days each young Robin requires twice his own weight of insects for his food, then we may form some idea of the immense amount of benefit conferred by one pair of these birds and their offspring in a single season upon their immediate neighborhood.

And not only are we assured, by the observations we have referred to, of the large number and great importance, in an agricultural point of view, of the insects thus destroyed, but the writer’s own personal observations as to the character of the food of the young Robin enable him to add testimony of the most positive and satisfactory kind. In the summer of 1867 a pair of Robins built their nest on the top of a lattice porch over his door and immediately under his window. In so exposed a place, in full sight both from above and from below, everything that transpired in the nest could be easily noticed, and without disturbing its occupants. They were very closely observed after the young appeared; and, so far as they were seen, the nestlings were fed until they left their nest entirely with the moths of the family of Agrotididæ, or subterranean caterpillars, commonly known as cut-worms.

Upon the destructive character of these ravagers of our gardens we need not here enlarge. If any are curious to learn more in regard to them than, we have space to tell them, they can find their criminal record fully set forth in the pages of Harris, and in successive reports of our State Board of Agriculture ; while those who already know more about these pests than they would wish to do, who have been eyewitnesses to their ravages in their own strawberrybeds, or who have seen their rising rows of early peas, their first outcropping of corn or other plants, all swept off, almost in a single night, by these secret destroyers, — they at least can appreciate the approbation and gratitude with which the writer witnessed the commendable efforts of friend Robin towards the extermination of the foe. It is a matter capable of mathematical demonstration, that this single pair of Robins have more than earned their full right and title to all the cherries they can eat, so long as they may be spared to remain with us, the guardian angels of our garden.

We have thus devoted a large portion of our space to an extended defence of a single species. We do so for several good and sufficient reasons, because in this vicinity it is one of the most generally denounced of its family, because its true character has been more thoroughly and carefully investigated than that of any other, and because, with the single exception of the HouseSparrow of Europe, it is the most striking instance we can call to mind wherein a bird clearly shown to be one of our greatest benefactors is generally held in disrepute by the very persons whom he most benefits.

We will now more briefly refer to other instances where the benefits conferred on man by certain birds are positive, demonstrable, and important, but in which, so far as we are aware, the same exact measures for a thorough examination of their respective habits have not been resorted to. We do not, therefore, possess the same conclusive evidence of the value of their services as in the case of the Robin, and cannot so readily offset the sum of their transgressions.

The common Cat-bird of New England is not a general favorite ; why it is not so we are utterly at a loss to conjecture. Its harsh cry, which it only utters when it is anxious for the safety of its brood, is certainly an insufficient reason, for at all other times it is a beautiful singer. In its habits it is friendly and familiar, never molesting our fruit to any important extent, and it is a constant and active benefactor in the destruction of insects of the most injurious character, such as several kinds of caterpillars, the grub of the May-beetle, — generally, though improperly, called muck-worms, and one of the most mischievous enemies to all vegetation we have among us, —and a very large variety of other insects, in various stages of development. More active and enterprising than the Robin, it searches for and drags to light all those hidden workers of evil, the subterranean caterpillars of all descriptions. Woe to the muckworm or the cut-worm whose habitat the Cat-bird discovers ! The culprit is at once dragged forth to light, and summarily punished. This we have witnessed in numberless instances.

One rainy day, the past summer, as we sat by a window looking out upon the flower-bed, our attention was attracted to a Cat-bird apparently buried head and shoulders in the soil and trying to extricate himself. Our first impulse was to run to his rescue, supposing him to be in danger from some hidden enemy; but we soon discovered our mistake when we saw him gradually emerge, dragging out with him, not without some difficulty, a very large grub of the May-beetle, which he had detected in the very act of eating the roots of our favorite geranium. The offender was forthwith pounded to a jelly, and in this condition borne off to the bird’s nest hard by, where it no doubt gladdened the heart of one of his nestlings.

Our good opinion of the Cat-bird is confirmed by the recent experience of President Hill of Cambridge. A favorite elm, near his house, was attacked last summer by a large swarm of the vanessa caterpillar. They rapidly devoured its foliage, and threatened soon to despoil the tree of its beauty. One day, when he was about to bring ladders and attempt their removal, and was considering whether this was practicable, he observed a Cat-bird fly to the tree and begin to destroy the caterpillars. Seeing this unexpected relief, he deferred any interference and awaited the result. Nor was he disappointed. In a few days the Cat-bird entirely cleared the tree. The writer was an eyewitness to a similar result, but in this case the tree attacked by the vanessa worm was a poplar, and the birds which cleared them out were Baltimore Orioles.

Leaving, then, the Cat-bird as one whose value to the cultivator is beyond dispute, we turn to a bird that of all others perhaps in this country has the fewest friends, and against whom, as by almost common consent, an incessant, bitter war of extermination is waged. We mean, of course, our common Crow. But that it is a bird of uncommon sagacity, one whose experience has taught it to beware of man and to keep the sharpest lookout for its own safety, it would long since have been added to the increasing catalogue of extinct species. State governments have set a price upon its head, and as many as forty thousand have been slaughtered in a single year under the authority of the broad seal. Whole communities have leagued together and have raised large sums of money to be expended in promoting its extermination. But so long as men depended upon the gun alone, and made use only of powder and shot, the wily Crow could laugh to scorn their futile endeavors to circumvent and destroy him. But the case is very different now, since the deadly strychnine places within the reach of his assassins a cheap, convenient, and sure means of exterminating his race, and the Crow is fast disappearing from our land.

We can regard the possible extermination of this bird in hardly any other light than that of a calamity. If this ruthless and cowardly warfare is not arrested before it is too late, our farmers will have—as in many places they have already — occasion bitterly to regret the loss of the Crow’s indispensable services.

We have been eyewitness to the destructive ravages in large districts of our own State, by certain insects which the Crows would have kept in check, if they had not been nearly exterminated in that neighborhood.

While we must regret the short-sighted madness — we can call it no less — which thus prompts whole neighborhoods and States even to promote the wholesale destruction of these birds, we can but admit that, in certain localities and under peculiar circumstances, the Crow may appear to be so great a nuisance that the victims of his rapacity naturally become exasperated at his misdeeds, and combine for his destruction. Wilson relates that, in the vicinity of Newcastle, Del., the Crows collected in immense numbers in the low islands of the Delaware River, and from that rendezvous sallied out, committing depredations in the immediate neighborhood that were almost incredible. Entire fields of corn were laid waste by the thousands of these birds that alighted upon them at once. Like the stragglers of an immense and undisciplined army, they spread themselves over the field, plundering and destroying wherever they alighted. Who can wonder that in that part of the country the Crow was universally execrated as a plunderer and destroyer ?

His destructiveness in digging up the newly planted Indian corn is too notorious to be disputed. Nor can we deny that he will, whenever he finds the opportunity, destroy the egg and the young of the smaller birds, and rob hens’-nests and kill young chickens. All these charges are but too true, and furnish strong reasons for his being generally held in disrepute.

Yet that there is a bright side even to the character of the Crow, that to the community as a whole the good he is constantly doing greatly exceeds its mischief, we do most fully believe. At least, before the present exterminating warfare against him shall have been carried to a fatal end, it is to be hoped the question of his value may be determined by positive facts, and not too hastily denied by crude theorists upon imperfect and superficial data, or assumptions as likely to be imaginary as real.

Great stress has recently been laid, in a work more pretentious than accurate, upon the Crow’s destruction of the eggs and young of other birds, magnifying into an enormous amount of mischief the few isolated instances that chanced to fall under the writer’s notice. Before we give full credit to his conclusions, we insist upon a little more exact evidence in regard to the frequency of these offences. Our own experiences do not lead us to believe their correctness. Unquestionably the instinct of a Crow would lead him to do all the mischief of this sort that he had the opportunity of doing, but, most fortunately, there is also an instinct equally powerful that prompts other birds so to conceal their nests that they are safely hidden from him. The few cases that fall under our notice in which the Crow discovers and attacks them are, as we believe, exceptional and rare.

The injury done to newly planted maize by the Crow can be prevented by several simple and inexpensive expedients. The suspending of white or light-colored cord around and across the field is a sure preventive. The Crow, ever on its guard against traps, is too wary to venture within the supposed snare. So, too, the soaking of corn in the water of distillation from the manufacture of kerosene, for the same or some other reason effectually secures the seed from being molested by the Crow. A kinsman of ours, residing on Milton Hill, where Crows still survive, has tried this experiment with complete success. In other cases, boys have been employed to watch the newly planted fields until the corn is up. All which sufficiently proves that to save our corn it is at least not necessary to exterminate this bird.

Whatever wrong the Crow commits against the cultivators of the soil may, by a little painstaking, be materially lessened or wholly prevented. The benefits he confers are both numerous and important. During the time he remains with us he destroys, so says no less authority than Wilson, “myriads of worms, moles, mice, caterpillars, grubs, and beetles.” Audubon also affirms that the Crow devours myriads of grubs every day of the year, — grubs which would lay waste the farmer’s fields, — and destroys quadrupeds innumerable, every one of which is an enemy to his poultry and his flocks. Dr. Harris also, one of the most faithful and accurate observers, in speaking of the fearful ravages sometimes wrought in our grass-lands and gardens by the grub of the May-beetles, adds his testimony to the great services rendered by the Crow in keeping these pests in check. Yet here in Massachusetts, regardless of such testimony in their favor, we have nearly exterminated these birds, and the destructive grubs, having no longer this active enemy to restrict their growth, are year by year increasing with a fearful persistence. We have seen large farms, within an hour’s ride of Boston, in which, over entire acres, the grass was so completely undermined and the roots eaten away, that the loosened turf could be rolled up as easily as if it had been cut by the turfing-spade. In the same neighborhood whole fields of corn, potatoes, and almost every kind of garden vegetable, had been eaten at the root and destroyed. Our more intelligent farmers, who have carefully studied out the cause of this unusual insect growth, have satisfied themselves that it is the legitimate result, the natural and inevitable consequence, of our own acts. Our short-sighted and murderous warfare upon the Crow has interrupted the harmonies of nature, disturbed her well-adjusted balance, and let loose upon agriculture its enemies with no adequate means of arresting their general increase.

We might extend almost indefinitely our evidence of the practical value of birds as shown by facts, and instead of an article compile a volume, giving instances of the beneficial intervention of other varieties of birds, some of them also among our most maligned species, in behalf of our rural interests. But our space will not permit. We can only very briefly refer in passing to a few instances upon which we would gladly dwell more at length.

The measure - worm of the Middle States, so successfully driven from the squares of New York by the English Sparrow, but still ravaging the parks of Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, has two very powerful enemies among our native birds, which would be abundantly able to keep them in check were they themselves unmolested. They are the Cedar Bird and the Purple Grakle. Unfortunately, both of these birds are under the ban of the unreflecting and prejudiced : one because he helps himself to our cherries, the other because he is accused of making free with our corn-fields at harvesttime.

The canker-worm still riots in almost undisturbed possession of our orchards. Each year extends the area of its ravages, and witnesses the loss of millions of dollars’ worth of fruit, the growth and development of which it prevents. We have many native birds which would prey upon and keep down these pests,—most of them, too, harmless and inoffensive species,— but the murderous gun and the still more destructive cat have so thinned their ranks that they are now too few to cope with the worst enemies of the orchard. Yet there are powerful auxiliaries whom we might call in most effectually where circumstances favor. The domestic pigeon has been shown, by the testimony of Dr. Jeffries Wyman, to feed its young with enormous quantities of these worms. And it is a well-established fact that gardens and orchards protected by the inmates of the dovecot have been known to be kept free from them, when all around the trees of other grounds were devastated. The common domestic fowls also, under favorable circumstances, is of great service in destroying the canker-worm. But their presence cannot generally be permitted, nor their services made available.

The Blue - Jay, whose good name and fame our space will not permit us here to vindicate, has recently been rendering very valuable and efficient services to the dwellers on the lake shore of Ohio. Our venerable friend, Dr. Jared P. Kirtland of Cleveland, informs us that the tent caterpillars — Clisiocampa americana — which with us are such pests in the orchards, have been attacked and destroyed by the Blue-Jay so thoroughly that hardly a specimen can now be found on the entire lake shore. These good deeds of the Jay, we are happy to add, are appreciated by the enlightened cultivators of that State, who overlook their depredations for the sake of the greater good they do, and are wiser in their generation than our own Solons, who allow these birds no mercy.

The cabbage-butterfly of Europe, whose larvæ are so destructive that, according to Mudie, were it not for the Sparrow not a single cabbage would be raised in any part of Great Britain, has made its appearance in large numbers on our shores. In the province of New Brunswick and in the neighborhood of Calais, this unwelcome visitor is already abundant. Year by year it is extending the area of its depredations, and each year brings it nearer to our own gardens. How are we to meet this new enemy ? We have no Sparrows as yet domiciled among us. That any of our native birds will show themselves equal to the task of its destruction is, we fear, hardly to be hoped ; so long as the gun and the cat are permitted to restrict their numbers to the minimum, we may not anticipate any present or effectual relief from our natural protectors whose services we repay with ingratitude or neglect.

Somewhere about the close of the winter of 1866, late in February or early in March, a pair of Black-throated Blue Warblers, — a bird supposed never to make its appearance with us before May, — took up their abode in the small yard in the rear of the writer’s house in Boston. Whence they could have come at that season of the year we were unable to conjecture. They were plump, lively, and active, and in excellent condition in every way. They at once made themselves at home, searching every crack and crevice in and about the roof, lattice, and outbuilding for the eggs and larvæ of insects, of which they evidently found an abundance. After having thoroughly explored our premises and exhausted its supply, they proceeded to those of our neighbors, but returned each night to roost on the clothes-line stretched from an upper window to the top of a high trellis. This they continued to do for a week or more. After this we did not see them again.

Their visit to us was followed by notable consequences. The swarms of hairy caterpillars that every year before their advent had so abounded as to be an intolerable nuisance entirely disappeared and have not since been seen. Their entire race seems to have been exterminated by our two little visitors. These Warblers, unfortunately for us, are not residents here, even in summer, but flit rapidly through our State in their spring and fall migrations. But the immense service they are capable of doing, and which they must do somewhere, is shown by what a single pair accomplished with us in the short space of a week.

We have sought to present a few ot the more striking instances of the really remarkable economic value to agriculture, of birds generally but wrongfully held in disesteem. We have suggested rather than attempted to prove that all birds may have their intrinsic value, often, demonstrated to us only too late, when we have slain our benefactors and miss the services they can no longer render. We would say, with Professor Jenks, that our experiences, as well as his, have taught us to believe that “each species of bird has a specific mission in the services rendered by each, in preventing the multiplication of injurious insects and smaller animals. Not only the strictly insectivorous but the rapacious and the granivorous have their duties to perform, bearing directly upon the matter of aiding the tiller of the soil in preserving the balance of favorable and unfavorable influences, from whatever part of the animal kingdom they may come.”

The subject is one of inexhaustible magnitude. We have only bestowed a hasty glance upon a restricted portion of the field of research. In this country the subject is new and the path of investigation almost untrodden. In France, under the patronage of its government, invaluable researches have been made by M. Florent-Prevost, with already many conclusive and satisfactory results. His studies and observations have demonstrated several general laws bearing directly upon the economic value of birds in their relations to man and his interests.

These are, that the same species of birds changes its food according to its age and the season ; that very nearly all the so-called granivorous birds are insectivorous in their immature age, and also during adult age at each period of reproduction ; that some birds of prey, besides being carnivorous, are alsolargely insectivorous at times ; that insects form, in the food of birds, by far the more considerable part; that birds are in general much more useful than injurious to our crops ; and that, even in respect to the greatest part of the granivorous species, the evil which is done at certain times is largely compensated by the destruction of insects which they accomplish at other times.

We are thus led to the same inevitable conclusion with this life-long student of our special subject, that no agriculturist can destroy a bird without knowing that he may expect from the act only injury.