LETTERS TO MR. GRIMSHAW, MR. WISE, AND MR. TEGETMEIER
The Red-bearded Bot fly—Deer and Ox Warble flies—Caddis flies—Black
Currant mites—Crusade against the House Sparrow—Miss Ormerod’s
pamphlet and Mr. Tegetmeier’s book on the Sparrow.
The grouping of the letters to three correspondents, so differently
interested in Entomology and other branches of Biology, was more a
matter of dates than of any scientific relationship in the subject
matter. (1) Mr. Grimshaw, the well-known authority on Scottish Diptera,
was also the first investigator to show that the so-called “frosted”
condition of heather was caused by a beetle larva; (2) Mr. Wise was one
of Miss Ormerod’s most interested correspondents in questions relating
to fruit-growing and market-gardening; and (3) Mr. Tegetmeier was her
colleague through the trying days of the Sparrow controversy, in which
Miss Ormerod was subjected to bitter personal attacks by her opponents.
He was always ready to lend assistance in relation to questions dealing
with birds and the four-footed animals.
_To Percy H. Grimshaw, Esq., F.E.S., &c., Museum of Science and Art,
Edinburgh._
TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS,
_August 14, 1895_.
DEAR SIR,—I write at once to thank you very much for the copy of
your paper on the _Cephenomyia rufibarbis_ (Red-bearded botfly),
in the “Annals of S. Nat. Hist.” Will this be the attack figured
(in its effect on the deer) in Dr. Brauer’s spirited
frontispiece to his “Œstridæ”?[63]
[In the last few days I have had sent a nice specimen of the
Throat Deer botfly, _C. rufibarbis_, which I alluded to in my
nineteenth Report. It is a very handsome fly, more than half an
inch long, and of very broad make (three-eighths across the
abdomen), thickly clothed with very dark hair (but much either
mixed with or tipped with orange), and on each side of the
thorax a good-sized pale patch, and beneath the chin the red
beard from which it takes its name. I scarcely think it would
occur in the New Forest, but, if it did, it would be quite a
rare prize.][64]
Have you (if I may venture to ask) extended your researches to
the _Hypoderma_ (Warble fly), of our British deer? It would be
usefully interesting, I think, if we could work this up. I am
doing what I can, with help from some of the head-keepers, &c.,
and when deer-stalking is going on I am promised a warbled
red-deer’s hide for examination.
[Illustration:
Rather larger than life; line showing natural length.
FIG. 32.—RED-BEARDED BOTFLY, _CEPHENOMYIA RUFIBARBIS_, MEIG., BRAUER,
AND SCHINER.
]
_August 17, 1895._
I had much pleasure in receiving your letter this morning, and
only wish I had a duplicate of the _Hypoderma bovis_ (Ox warble
fly, fig. 5), to spare—I would most gladly offer it, but now I
have only one. I never had many, and with my best endeavours I
cannot get people to rear them. I quite hope to have a hide of a
red-deer presently, and I think one might make out the larva of
the _H. diana_ (Deer warble fly), at least, by reference to fig.
6, tab. viii.—what do you think?
May I ask you to do me the pleasure of accepting the enclosed
copy of the “Œstridæ,” lately come rather curiously to my hands.
It was sent through a mistake instead of the separate impression
of Dr. Brauer’s “Tabanidæ,” and as I knew how difficult it was
to procure (especially with the plates), I kept it, feeling sure
it would be useful to some friend. I have a copy which I have
worked with for years, so I hope that you will not hesitate to
give me the pleasure of making this copy as useful as I am sure
it will be in your hands. I wish it were in better order. I see
that beneath the frontispiece of this copy is a reference to p.
186 in the “Biologie von Cephenomyia, &c.,” but I suppose my
frontispiece is a “proof before letters,” for there is no
reference or description. The two are the same edition.
_January 9, 1897._
My _rufibarbis_ was sent to me by Mr. Dugald Campbell from
Strathconan Forest, Muir of Ord, Ross-shire. I received it on
June 8th, then quite fresh—and such a beauty! With its long
thick coat it almost might be called furry, and the “glance” on
the hairs was lovely. It was rather darker in some parts (that
is, ran to rather more foxy red on the centre of the upper fore
part of the abdomen), than is noted by some observers, so that
it was very richly coloured, and its red beard was very
handsome. I have had a figure taken of it, with great care, and
if when you see it (for of course I hope you will accept a copy
of my next Annual Report, on publication), you think you would
like to borrow it any time for one of your papers, I should be
only happy to lend it you.
Yours sincerely,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.
_To Charles D. Wise, Esq., Estate Office, Toddington, Winchcombe,
Gloucestershire._
TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS,
_April 16, 1896_.
DEAR MR. WISE,—If it would not give you too much trouble I
should be very glad of some information about the case of Caddis
worms attacking water-cresses. You will know these grubs quite
well as the creatures that go about in shallow ponds or ditches
with a case formed round them. Sometimes this is of very little
shells, but at home the commonest kind was made of little
morsels of rush or stick, with little leaves webbed up with it.
There is a very large trade in water-cresses from the little
river here, but there are such quantities of trout in it, that
probably these keep the Caddis worms in moderate limits, and I
only now and then see their flies, the so-called “Water moths”
in the summer. Mr. Richard Coe, Weston Farm, Guildford, has
kindly sent me some excellent specimens of Caddis worms and
cases, which I am very glad to have. The chief natural helpers
against over-presence of Caddis worms appear to be fish of
various kinds, but the increase of birds which naturally feed on
fish—herons, &c.,—destroys the balance of nature, and Caddis
worms increase.
[Miss Ormerod, quoting Mr. Coe in her Report for 1896, says (p. 156):—
“Whenever we find a bed of cresses attacked, we clear away all
the plants, drain off the water, and leave the bed perfectly dry
for two or three weeks in the autumn, previous to the winter
planting. If afterwards we find traces of the worm, we wait
until the plants are well established, then we increase the
volume of water and swim the bed, and pass the backs of wooden
rakes over the tops of the plants very thoroughly. This process
brings the bulk of the worms to the surface, and they are let
off down-stream with the surplus water.”
[Illustration:
Water moth, magnified, and lines showing natural size (after
Westwood); Caddis worm “cases” of _Limnephilus flavicornis_,
magnified.
FIG. 33.—CADDIS WORMS, LARVÆ OF CADDIS FLY OR WATER MOTH, _MORMONIA
NIGROMACULATA_.
]
To Dr. Fletcher she also wrote as follows:—
“Did I tell you about the Caddis worm attack on water-cresses?
So much harm was being done that the unlucky grower was in much
trouble, and on running the matter up it appeared that formerly
there were numbers of trout in the water, but lately the
landlord’s wife had a fancy to encourage herons, and so came the
curious sequence. The herons cleared off the insect-loving
trout, so the vegetable-eating insects got ahead, and the
watercress grower could not pay the rent of his half acre of
cresses. I suggested that as the herons were encouraged by the
lady, perhaps she, if applied to, might to some degree make good
the damages!”]
_March 5, 1897._
DEAR MR. WISE,—You asked my views about moles at Strawberry
roots. I should say it would be quite worth while to spare them
as you are doing, and see what comes of it. If they take the
_Otiorhynchus_ grub (of Orchard and Hop weevils) this would meet
a difficulty which we hardly know how to fight at present, and
if the moles took these grubs one might hope that they would
take other underground kinds, which are kitchen garden pests,
almost unconquerable by other remedial means. I should doubt,
however, whether they would be of much service against Winter
moth chrysalides (fig. 30). Very likely I am not right, but the
mole seems to me to prefer more open ground and a larger scope
of operations.
_April 8, 1897._
So far as I know the only treatment for Black Currant Gall mite,
_Phytoptus ribis_ (fig. 65), which has been in a measure
successful, is that reported by Mr. J. Biggs, of Laxton, East
Yorkshire, in my seventeenth Annual Report, p. 93. There, if you
will turn to it, you will see we have treatment to clear the
pest from all localities, whether straying on the twigs or on
the ground; or in the buds, this by breaking them off. Mr. Biggs
observed, writing on the 20th of April, 1892: “You will, I am
sure, be interested in knowing that I have, to a certain extent,
prevented the _Phytoptus_ utterly ruining my black currant
trees. As you suggested in a letter of last March, we syringed
the bushes twice with the solution of Paris-green, which I
procured from Messrs. Blundell, and gave the soil all under the
bushes a good coating of caustic lime; I also gave the bushes
another dressing of the Paris-green. Just when the buds appeared
this spring I had a boy gathering all the little knobs off the
trees. The result has proved as satisfactory as I could expect,
considering the condition of the trees last year, and I have
every prospect of securing a good half crop. Our neighbour’s
trees in this village are utterly ruined, scarcely a leaf to be
seen, and the trees completely covered with the affected knobs.”
But with regard to the life history of the pest, I believe it
breeds entirely in the infested buds, and I believe also breeds,
_i.e._, lays eggs, there at any time during the winter. I know
that the nearly allied nut-_Phytoptus_ does, for I have seen
them. Outside the buds, so far as I know, the life is wholly
spent in sheltering in crannies or straying about, on the stems,
or on the ground. What we want, appears to me to be, to clear
the mite by syringings from the stems when the buds (of which we
have now the galled growth) are first beginning to form. But I
do not see how we could do this, for we should ruin the fruit.
My only hope for real prevention where black-currants are grown
on this large scale, is in an alteration of the method of
cultivation. As it stands now, the mites can convey themselves,
or be carried by wind-borne leaves, or may creep from one bush
to another on the ground, but if there could be a mixing of some
field crop in strips with the black-currants, I believe it would
do a deal preventively. If the ground between the rows were
occupied by some crop that the _Phytopti_ would not pass, it
could not fail to lessen their presence. Even strips of
strawberries or of gooseberries would be beneficial. I wonder
whether kainite would be a good remedial application? It might
kill all the mites that are about, but it is quite plain to me
that, as nothing that has been tried for so many years answers
thoroughly, we are on the wrong lines and need a new plan. I
wish you would, at your leisure, tell me what you think of
mixing crops, and if you could let me have just a few little
bits of galled twigs for figuring, I should be very much
obliged. I wish I could help better about the matter, but so far
the attack appears to have fairly baffled us all.
_April 13, 1897._
I am very much obliged for these remarkably fine specimens of
Currant galls, which reached me safely this morning. About the
life history of the _Phytopti_, I do not think that anything
more is recorded than what both you and I know. But as we know
well that the mites are in the galls (such as you send me), it
seems to me that what we have got to act upon is their condition
(or locality, rather) in the time between their leaving these
galls and when they are starting new attack in the embryo buds.
I wish I could tell you more, but I do not see how to get at the
point of locality, excepting by watching shoots with a hand
magnifier. I really am quite at a loss as to what can be done.
_April 19, 1897._
I wrote out to Vienna to Professor Dr. A. Nalepa, who is the
great authority on the _Phytoptidæ_, and he is much interested
in hearing about this great spread of attack, but is not able to
give us better advice, as to practical remedies, than what we
are already trying. (See also p. 248.)
He says very truly, that looking at the winter quarters of the
mite pests being most especially in the buds, such measures as:—
(1) Breaking off and destroying the infested buds.[65] (2)
Cutting off the infested shoots just above the ground, and so
getting new shoots. (3) Only using uninfested pieces for
propagation—could not, he thinks, fail to be of service, if
carried out carefully. I quite agree with Dr. Nalepa so far as
that, without these measures, infestation would be worse than it
is. In a small amount of growth (such as bushes in a private
garden), I can speak from my own personal experience of having
sometimes satisfactorily checked the spread of these or similar
causes of injury by employing dressings. But it is a very
different matter where blackcurrant bushes are grown by acres
together; and I greatly doubt whether, even if consideration of
cost were put aside, it would be within possibility to get this
wood (or grove) of bushes, so examined and so expurgated of
evil, as not to leave centres for spread.)
It always strikes me as a very curious circumstance that (so far
as I am aware) the black currant is not affected by this
_Phytoptus_ on the Continent, or at least in the large part of
it in which the attacks are noted by Kaltenbach or Taschenberg.
Do you think it can be that the black currant is there of a
somewhat different kind which repels _Phytoptus_ attack, just as
some kinds of American vines are not as subject as others to
_Phylloxera_? It occurs to me that it may be well worth while to
import some hundreds of plants and plant them, of course on what
is considered clean ground, and see what comes of it. I should
like your views after you have well thought the matter over. I
cannot expect the expense of an experiment of mine to be borne
by any Company, but I should much like it trustworthily tried,
and if you could give me some guidance as to where to apply on
the Continent, and cost (a rough estimate), I might be able to
get the plants, and with your permission send a good consignment
to yourself.
_April 27, 1897._
I have to-day heard from Dr. Ritzema Bos about the _Phytoptus
ribis_, and he tells me that in Holland he knows many localities
where this infestation is a scourge to fruit-growers, but it is
always the black currant which is attacked. They do not have it
there in the red currant, _Ribes rubrum_. He says that he is not
acquainted with any better remedies than those mentioned in my
letter, but that he considers it an excellent idea to seek for
varieties or families of black-currants, _Ribes nigrum_, which
may be “_Phytoptus_ proof.” He does not himself know positively
whether there are districts in Holland not attacked by the
_Phytoptus_, and whether in attacked districts there may be
varieties that do not suffer. Therefore he is going to ask for
information on this head from horticulturists and fruit-growers,
and will write me again. I think it is very kind of him to take
so much trouble to help us, and from his position I expect he
will easily obtain whatever information is to be had, and I will
be sure to let you know. It is very curious about the red
currant being attacked in some parts of the Continent and not in
others.
_November 30, 1897._
I have this afternoon heard from Professor J. Jablonowski,
Assistant at the State Entomological Station, Budapest, that he
“sends now the promised black-currants.” I expect these will be
supposed “mite-proof” plants, as he says that he hopes they will
be serviceable for the proposed experiment—but he does not
explain; only that they have been given to him by his friend,
the Director of the Horticultural Institute, Desiderius Angyal
(I do not know what prefix I should write). When the plants
arrive I propose to divide them (if you please) between yourself
and Mr. John Speir—it would be exceedingly interesting if there
really should turn out to be a mite-proof black currant. But
meanwhile Professor Jablonowski would very much like to have a
specimen of the mite galls, for he has never seen them. If it
would not be too much trouble, I should be very greatly obliged
if you would be kind enough to let me have two or three bits of
twigs with galls, if any are showing enough now to be
noticeable, and I would send them on.
_December 4, 1897._
Many thanks for the supply of galls, which I shall duly send to
the Professor, and I earnestly hope that he will not infest
Hungary with them! The consignment came to hand from him
yesterday evening, but it is in the form of shoots as cuttings,
so I now send you about half in a registered letter. If the
pieces root properly I should think it would be best to plant
them amongst the infested currants—as they are so few it would
not be much trouble—and there is just a chance that they may be
mite-proof. I do not myself (much as I regret it) think that
there is any safety in washes and that sort of treatment, but as
I write the idea comes into my mind whether, as with us, the
_Ribes rubrum_ (red currant) seems mite-proof—anything could be
done by grafting black on red. Would they graft? or is my idea
quite chimerical? The black currant shoots are var. “bang-up,”
which suggests England as their original country.
I do not know whether you have to do with importing apple fruit,
but I see from Dr. Fletcher’s (Canadian) Entomological Report
that there is a newly observed fruit maggot in, I think (without
special reference), the District of Columbia.
_December 17, 1897._
I cannot be sure of your bulb attack without developing the fly,
but I should conjecture that the mischief was most likely caused
by the Narcissus fly. This is now known as the _Merodon
narcissi_, Fab., but from the varieties in colour to which it is
subject, I believe it has been known under all the following
specific names: _ephippium_, _transversalis_, _nobilis_,
_constans_, _ferrugineus_, _flavicans_, and _equestris_.
It is a fair-sized two-winged fly, and appears to be (in grub
state) a severe plague to Narcissus and Daffodil growers in
Holland, &c., especially in bulbs imported from the South of
Europe.
In Verrall’s list of British Diptera I only find one species of
_Merodon_ named and that is _equestris_, which on the principle
mentioned on the preceding page, might be synonymous with all
the other (?) species. The grubs feed in Narcissus and Daffodil
bulbs and turn to chrysalides in the ground, but I do not find
anywhere that there is any known remedial measure. It seems to
me that the only way if a bed were much infested would be
literally to trench it, and so turn down the chrysalides. You do
not mention whether your bulbs are home grown. If they are
imported, could not you suggest to your “consigner” that unless
he sent you bulbs without maggots in them, you purposed applying
elsewhere?
_May 12, 1898._
Excepting one specimen your caterpillars are not yet nearly full
grown! If you will turn to “Lappet moth” in my Annual Reports
for 1893 and 1894, you will find “the brutes” figured—perhaps
get a hint where they may have come from.
It was about this attack amongst others that I gave so
much annoyance to “Entomologists” by recommending that,
notwithstanding their beauty and rarity, it would be
highly desirable to make them yet more rare!
[Illustration:
Male and female; and caterpillar; also apple twig with leaves eaten
away—all from life.
FIG. 34.—LAPPET MOTH, _GASTROPACHA QUERCIFOLIA_, LINN.
]
_December 5, 1900._
Do you happen to have seen the Woburn Report containing, amongst
a good deal of information, an account of results of experiments
_re_ Black currant mite? I would with pleasure lend you my copy,
if you please; there is a little in it, as to their views about
hydrocyanic acid—the very great difficulties of applying it to
broadscale treatment—and a politely expressed hope that further
experiment may lead to useful results. The experiment of moving
cut down plants, even if steeped in methylated spirit and water,
has not succeeded. Mine had a charming little crop of mite galls
on those only moved to my clean ground, and even the steeped
plants were not quite without them. In this case four of the
twelve plants died, the others were sickly, and all of the two
dozen sent me flowered profusely but did not produce one
currant!
Yours very truly,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.
_To W. B. Tegetmeier, Esq., F.Z.S., M.B.O.U._[66]
TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS,
_July 3, 1897_.
DEAR MR. TEGETMEIER,—I am greatly obliged by what you tell me
about your intentions as to publishing a book on “The House
Sparrow,” _Passer domesticus_. My idea is this—that for popular
use (farmers and gardeners)—the evidence of what the food of the
house sparrow really is, needs to be put plainly before them by
means of records of trustworthy investigations of the contents
of their crops. For this I have been taking the returns of Mr.
Gurney, and some of Colonel Russell, who used to help me; an
abstract of the U.S.A. Board of Agricultural Investigations,
&c., &c.; also from my own Annual Reports, some lists, and
observations of birds which are named as destroying insects—this
to show that we do not wholly rely on _Passer domesticus_! With
other material I propose to make a sort of 8 or 12 page
“leaflet” or small pamphlet, and send it out gratuitously. I
believe it would have an enormous circulation, and would not
interfere with your much more valuable standard book. But I am
exceedingly desirous to act completely in conjunction with you.
To me it would be a very great advantage. I quite reckon on
being violently attacked, but it did me no harm before to be
threatened to be shot at, also hanged in effigy, and other
little attentions. Still it was disagreeable!
[Illustration:
FIG. C.—HOUSE SPARROW, _PASSER DOMESTICUS_.
]
[Miss Ormerod’s case against the House Sparrow or avian rat is briefly
given in the following summary, appended to the aforementioned leaflet,
of which nearly 36,000 were printed and issued to applicants:—
“We find, in addition to what all concerned know too well
already of the direct and obvious losses from sparrow
marauding, that there is evidence of the injurious extent to
which they drive off other birds, as the swallows and martins,
which are much more helpful on account of their being wholly
insectivorous; also that, so far from the sparrow’s food
consisting wholly of insects at any time of the year, even in
the young sparrows only half has been found to be composed of
insects; and of the food of the adults, it was found from
examination that in a large proportion of instances no insects
at all were present, and of these many were of kinds that are
helpful to us or harmless. It is well on record that there are
many kinds of birds which help us greatly by devouring
insects, and that where sparrows have systematically been
destroyed for a long course of years other birds have fared
better for their absence. Attention should also be drawn to
the enormous powers of increase of this bird, which under not
only protection, but to some extent absolute fostering, raises
its numbers so disproportionately as to destroy the natural
balance.
“Here as yet we have no movement beyond our own attempts to
preserve ourselves, so far as we legally may, from Sparrow
devastations; but in the United States of America (of the
evidence of which I have given a part) the Association of the
American Ornithologists gave their collective recommendation
that all existing laws protecting the sparrow should be
repealed, and bounties offered for its destruction; and the
law protecting the sparrow has been repealed in Massachusetts
and Michigan. Dr. Hart Merriam, the Ornithologist of the
U.S.A. Board of Agriculture, also officially recommended
immediate repeal of all laws affording protection to the
English sparrow, and enactment of laws making it penal to
shelter or harbour it; and Professor C. V. Riley, Entomologist
to the Department, similarly conveyed his views officially as
to it being a _destructive bird, worthless as an insect
killer_. In Canada, on October 6, 1888, at the Annual Meeting
of the Entomological Society of Ontario, Mr. J. Fletcher,
Entomologist of the Experimental Farms of the Department,
strongly advocated the destruction of the sparrow; and in
reply the Hon. C. W. Drury, Minister of Agriculture (who
attended the meeting as head of the Agricultural Department of
Ontario), stated ‘that this destructive bird was no longer
under the protection of the Act of Parliament respecting
insectivorous birds, and that every one was at liberty to aid
in reducing its numbers.’ Reasoning on the same grounds as to
procedure in this country, we believe that similar action is,
without any reasonable cause for doubt, called for here. The
amount of the national loss, by reason of ravaged crops and
serviceable birds driven away, may be estimated, without fear
of exaggeration, at from one to two millions a year. Much of
their own protection lies in the hands of farmers themselves;
and sparrow clubs, well worked, and always bearing in mind
that it is only this one bird that is earnestly recommended to
their attention, would probably lessen the load to a bearable
amount; and we believe that subscriptions, whether local or
from those who know the desirableness of aiding in the work of
endeavouring to save the bread of the people from these
feathered robbers, would be money wisely and worthily spent.”
[Illustration:
FIG. D.—TREE SPARROW, _PASSER MONTANUS_
]
In his little book, “The House Sparrow,”[67] Mr. Tegetmeier
writes:—“There is no species with which _Passer domesticus_ is likely to
be confounded except the Tree sparrow, _P. montanus_ (the only other
species indigenous to this country) which is less numerous and which is
readily distinguished by its smaller size, being only 5½ instead of 6
inches in length, and by its having black patches in the middle of the
white feathers on each side on the neck, and two distinct bands of white
across the wing in place of one.” “The so-called Hedge-sparrow or
Dunnock, _Accentor modularis_, is wrongly named. It is a purely
insect-eating bird, and neither in its structure, habits nor food is it
closely related to the House sparrow. It does not occur in large
numbers, and is highly beneficial as an insect destroyer.”]
_July 10, 1897._
DEAR MR. TEGETMEIER,—Your letter received this morning is a very
great pleasure to me—in fact, a great relief to my mind, for I
was truly sorry to feel I might be trespassing on far more
authoritative work. I should like to shorten my work if I could,
but when we meet, I hope you will set me right as to condensing
and all other matters. If we could rout _P. domesticus_ it would
be a national benefit. Much looking forward to our meeting on
Tuesday.
_August 4, 1897._
I think “House Sparrow” shapes up nicely altogether, and I have
this morning received a letter from Dr. M. E. Oustalet,
President of the “Comité Ornithologique permanent,” at Paris, to
say that he has not been able to find any indication of
destruction of sparrows having taken place by order of
Government in the districts that I inquired about.
_August 16, 1897._
Application for our leaflet is very satisfactory. The
Staffordshire County Council has taken up distribution, and the
farmers and parish authorities are again encouraged to begin
sparrow clubs. I have experienced tremendous denunciations of my
own brutality from the Rev. J. E. Walker. I enclose the second,
as he purposes to relieve his mind further in the “Animal’s
Friend.” Please not to return it. I returned his book with my
compliments and thanks for sight of the same, and requested that
should he desire to make any further remarks relative to the
leaflet that he would not address them to me, but to you as my
colleague in the work.
_August 21, 1897._
In very little more than a week a new impression was needed to
keep up to demand—and we are making way well with this second
5,000. Many of the applications are from centres—and great
satisfaction is often expressed at the information being made
available. The Agent-General for New Zealand asked for a supply,
and Mr. Morley, Lord Spencer’s agent, is taking up the matter
well; and as Lord Spencer appears to steadily set his face
against sparrows, I hope that when he comes home we shall get
some support there. A fair proportion of clergymen want copies
for distribution to parishioners, or for sparrow clubs, which is
satisfactory—and amongst all the great mass of applications
there have not, I think, been more than five or six at all
upholding _P. domesticus_, and these have been mostly quite
trivial observations.
Mr. Morley was in a difficulty about how to keep the birds for
counting, as in warm weather they got unpleasant. I suggested
preserving their heads in salt and water—if I remember rightly
this was how they managed the difficulty in South Australia.
Altogether I think we are doing well—there are a good many
inquiries as to the best methods of destroying the bird—but I
always say that you will deal with this in your work. The good
folks have not attacked me again personally by letter.
I should have liked to write just a short note to the “Field” to
mention how well the matter has been taken up, but I did not
feel sure whether you would wish me to do it? Would you think
well of just mentioning the large demand yourself? On several
days the applications ran to above a hundred letters. I am
keeping the letters, for in some there is very practical
observation as to the great injury done by sparrows—especially
attacking corn on allotments.
_August 22, 1897._
I am trying—if the thing be possible—to rout people out of the
time-honoured old holes that they creep into—as the emigration
of the sparrows—also the Maine and Auxerre story. These, I
think, we have managed.
* * * * *
[The following is an extract from the “House Sparrow” pamphlet:—
“For many years mention has been made, by those who consider
sparrow preservation desirable, of great disasters following on
some not clearly detailed methods of extermination, or expulsion
of the sparrow in the countries of Hungary and Baden, and also
in the territory of Prussia; and, nearer our own time, in Maine,
and near Auxerre in France. With regard to the three first
named, a record will be found in our own ‘Times’ for August 21,
1861, p. 7.
“This gives a translation from the French paper, the ‘Moniteur,’
of a report on four petitions relative to preservation of small
birds which had been presented to the French Corps Législatif.
The report contains much information, but in respect to the
emigrations of the sparrow because the bird was aware of the
plots that were being laid against its safety, the statements
cannot be said to carry any weight. The following extract is
inserted, as it is important to agriculturists to have a correct
copy of the baseless statements they are sometimes called on to
believe. The passage is as follows:—
“‘Now, if the facts mentioned in the petitions are exact,
according to the opinion of many this bird ought to stand much
higher than he is reputed. In fact, it is stated that a price
having been set upon his head in Hungary and Baden, the
intelligent _proscrit_ left those countries; but it was soon
discovered that he alone could manfully contend against the
cockroaches and the thousand winged insects of the lowlands, and
the very men who offered a price for his destruction offered a
still higher price to introduce him again into the country.’ ...
‘Frederick the Great had also declared war against the sparrows,
which did not respect his favourite fruit the cherry. Naturally
the sparrows could not pretend to resist the conqueror of
Austria, and they emigrated; but in two years not only were
there no more cherries, but scarcely any other sort of fruit—the
caterpillars ate them all up; and the great victor on so many
fields of battle was happy to sign peace at the cost of a few
cherries with the reconciliated sparrows,’
“With regard to the destruction and consequent results stated to
have occurred in Maine and near Auxerre, at present our very
best endeavours have failed to find that the statement of this
having occurred rests on any authoritative basis; and the only
definite notice of the subject which we have found is, that in
the neighbourhood of Auxerre there was an injudicious
destruction of small birds generally, not only of _Passer
domesticus_.” See ‘The House Sparrow at Home and Abroad,’ by
Thomas G. Gentry, p. 26, Philadelphia, 1878.”]
_August 22, 1897._
DEAR MR. TEGETMEIER,—But there is a third story—though I name
this with more reverence than they always do—the New Testament
allusions translated in our version, the “sparrow.” I find in a
copy of the “Ecclesiastical Slavonic” Scripture which I have
here (the authorised edition of the Russian Greek Church) that
the word is _bird_; in the ordinary modern Russian it is
sparrow. Unfortunately I do not understand Greek—but this could
easily be looked up in the Greek Testament. I am trying to find
a scholar who knows what the respective words for bird and
sparrow are in Aramaic, which I believe was the dialect of
Palestine in the time of our Lord. Mr. Rassam, the explorer,
can, I believe, talk a number of these Eastern dialects, but he
always told me that he did not enter on them grammatically or
technically.
_September 3, 1897._
I see by a local paper that Miss Carrington’s leaflet, “Spare
the Sparrow,” is out, and is procurable from the Hon. Sec. of
the Humanitarian League, 53, Chancery Lane, London, W.C., price
1d. I have now written to the Hon. Sec., enclosing 8d., and
requesting him to send six copies to myself, and two to
yourself. This leaflet, I think, will be spirity. There are only
a few lines quoted, but if the rest is so discourteous and
inaccurate it will not be of much value.
Amongst applicants for my leaflet, the Duchess of Somerset and
also Lady Alwyne Compton have asked for copies, which I am glad
of. If it were “fashionable” not to protect sparrows this would
go far with some people. I am longing to see the reply leaflet.
I expect I am roundly abused, but I think it is rather strong to
head something or other in the “Animal’s Friend” for September
“God Save the Sparrow.” I expect we shall very likely have Maine
and Auxerre, and Frederick the Great, and the cherries and
cockroaches and the whole story resuscitated!
_September 11, 1897._
The Secretary of the Yorkshire Union of Agricultural
Associations asked for some leaflets, and with his consent I
have sent him down 2,000 copies, which gives one for each
member of the Agricultural Clubs or Chambers in the Yorkshire
Union, and the matter is to be brought before the next
quarterly meeting, with the view, the Secretary says, of
seeing about asking the Board of Agriculture to remove _P.
domesticus_ from the list of protected birds. Mr. Crawford
wrote me acknowledgment of receipt of the leaflets I sent by
his desire to the Board of Agriculture, and said that next
week, when the Secretary returns, they will be laid before the
Board. I wonder what they will do? Daily applications are
running from seventeen or eighteen to thirty—and some very
good. To-day I have one from Smyrna and one from Stavanger,
Norway.
_September 19, 1897._
The applications are going on so well that I have had to order a
fourth 5,000 of the leaflets to be printed as soon as can be
managed, and of these over 2,000 are bespoken. A few days ago
3,000 were wanted for a Scotch centre, the Agent-General for New
South Wales will send out 500, and other distributions are
floating about; I think this is not bad.
_October 16, 1897._
As you will see by the enclosed, I am now working on the
twenty-first thousand. I have only about fifty copies left, and
Mr. Newman has sent out some of the twenty-second thousand, so I
think that we are doing well. One of the largest amounts asked
for lately has been 1,000 for the Lancashire County Council, and
also a little while ago Lady Aberdeen wrote for a small supply
from the Government House, Canada.
_October 27, 1897._
I hope you will be pleased to hear that I have brought our
sparrow work under the notice of Mr. [now Sir Ernest] Clarke,
Secretary, Royal Agricultural Society—I hope in a way to advance
our work. I sent him a couple of the twenty-second thousand,
with a sort of report letter, giving some points. Mr. Clarke has
replied very courteously that he is much obliged for my
interesting letter, which he will lay before the Society’s
Zoological Committee. Also that, as he is occasionally asked for
the leaflet, it might “save me (E. A. O.) unnecessary
correspondence” if he were able to send copies to inquirers. I
am delighted to follow up this suggestion—for practically it is
the Royal Agricultural Society distributing for us, and thus
giving their marked approval. I wonder what will come of the
Zoological Committee’s consideration. As the President of the
Society has such an exceedingly bad opinion of the sparrow, I
hope we may get some good colleagueship. I am perpetually asked
how to destroy sparrows, but I refer the inquirers to you. I am
longing to hear when your book will come out—surely it will have
a good circulation. I am well advanced now in the twenty-second
thousand, and the information is well spread, for we have a
splendid notice—much more than a column—in the “Madras Mail,”
and I have had two applications from scientific U.S.A. centres.
I am still dispensing knowledge about the evil ways of _P.
domesticus_ so steadily that I have had to order a sixth
impression.
The store of letters grew to such a size that a week or two ago
I sent them (excepting about seventy which were to some degree
private) in a great parcel to Mr. Janson, and I have arranged
with him that this great mass, perhaps of 1,500 or 1,600
letters, should be sorted out into those that are merely
applications for leaflets and those which contain any
information.
The overwork and worry was too much for me, joined to my bad
fall, and I was very far indeed from well for some time with
gout and exhausting troubles, but I am better, and regaining
strength.
_September 14, 1898._
I most truly think it a great distinction that my name should be
associated [on the title-page of “The House Sparrow”] with that
of an Ornithologist of such world-wide reputation as yourself,
and as it is your wish I very heartily agree. The only
alteration I would suggest is that the word “Miss” should be
removed. I do not like the word if it is not quite needed; and
would it not be well to add a reference to my being an
authorised agricultural worker? It may protect me from some
“mendacities,” and, a better reason, show that we are attentive
to all three of the points (Ornithology, Entomology, and
Agriculture) on which anti-passerine observation rests.
I like your frontispiece (figs. C and D, kindly lent by Mr.
Tegetmeier) very much. It is very pretty as well as very useful.
When your book appears I shall like to get some copies to send
to some of my own friends, British and extra-British.
_April 15, 1899._
It was a great pleasure to me to see “The House Sparrow”
yesterday, followed this morning by your kind and cordial
letter. I like your book exceedingly; it appears to me to be
exactly what is needed. Chapter IV. [Diminishing the Sparrow
Plague] meets the want which is greatly felt, and your voice
being raised against poisoning will do good. I propose to send
samples to the Agents-General of South Australia and New
Zealand, where the “Avian Rats” are special pests; also to Mr.
McKinnon, for the benefit of the Republic of Uruguay.
I think one or two would be well placed in the hands of the
Department of Agriculture, U.S.A. I suppose that in an obviously
much-needed matter like this it is hopeless to expect our Board
of Agriculture to do anything. But I have, besides the above,
several centres of work which I hope to make use of.
I do hope that your book will have the success that it deserves,
and be of infinite benefit. I like it thoroughly—its pretty
dress, the good figures and readable type on strong paper; it is
a National gift, in your good and authoritative working up of
the subject, and I feel myself honoured to be associated with
you in the good work and the pummelling, which I dare say we
shall get more of!
With my very kind regards and remembrances, believe me,
Yours very sincerely,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------