of the preserves which they establish and the care that is taken to
limit shooting days and stop illegal gunning on the grounds. At the
same time they point out that the preserves prove so attractive to
the birds that practically all individuals normally scattered over
large areas are congregated there, where they are exposed to regular
slaughter by the most skilful shots and the ultimate destruction is
probably hastened. As to the introduction of non-native species the
author’s verdict is strongly opposed to the practice. They rightly
assert that the native species are better adapted to our country and it
is our duty to use all our efforts toward their conservation.
The systematic account of the various species naturally occupies most
of the text and is admirably done. Under each heading come paragraphs
on: other names; description; marks for field identification; voice;
nest; eggs; general distribution; and distribution in California. Then
follows in larger type a general account of the habits and history
of the species and its relative importance as a game bird. The birds
included are the Geese, Ducks and Swan; Spoonbill and Ibises; Cranes,
Rail, Gallinules and Coots; Shorebirds; Quail and Grouse; Pigeons and
Doves, 108 species in all. The technical nomenclature follows the A. O.
U. ‘Check-List’ and so do the vernacular names except where they are
not in accord with Californian usage. This is perfectly proper in a
work of this kind especially as the other names are usually mentioned
as well. It is rather amusing however to the eastern ornithologist to
read of the Mud-hen “known in booklore as the Coot.” The authors would
find that along the Atlantic Coast “Mud-hen” means the Clapper Rail
while “Coot” is by no means a book name in the Eastern States. A little
further information on this point might save some of their readers no
little trouble, especially as they refer in one place to the “Mud Hen
in the east, meaning the Coot.” Twelve of the colored plates are by
Fuertes and represent that artist at his best while four are by Major
Allan Brooks. They form a valuable addition to the published portraits
of American birds and add materially to the attractiveness of this well
printed volume.
This work will prove of great importance to many different classes of
readers: the sportsman will learn more about the game birds of the
state than can be found in any other volume and will find the important
recognition characters of each species clearly set forth; the bird
student, be he amateur or professional, will find it an invaluable work
of reference and the conservationist will find in it the facts and
suggestions for which he has been seeking. The bibliographies will also
prove of the greatest help to those who wish to carry their studies
farther and to consult the other works on the subject.
It is encouraging to know that one of the authors of this work, Dr.
Bryant, was called, before his task was completed, to fill an important
position in the California Fish and Game Commission, and we wish that
all the State Game Commissions might be induced to seek men of this
type to carry on their activities—surely that is a most important point
in game conservation.—W. S.
=Mathews’ ‘The Birds of Australia.’=—Part IV of Vol. VII of Mr.
Mathews’ great work[37] brings us almost to the end of the Cuckoos,
only a portion of the text of the Coucal remaining to be completed,
so that the next part after considering the Lyre Bird will begin the
Passeres.
The present number treats of the genera _Cacomantis_, _Vidgenia_,
_Owenavis_, _Chalcites_, _Lamprococcyx_, _Eudynamis_, _Scythrops_ and
_Polophilus_. The most interesting species among these is the giant
“Channel-bill,” _Scythrops_, which lays its eggs in the nests of Crows
and Crow-Shrikes, birds of about its own size. It has a remarkably
loud call and is often active at night, resembling in the latter
particular our American Black-billed Cuckoo, while curiously enough
its appearance is considered to indicate approaching storms and it
is known as “Stormbird” and “Rainbird” just as our own Cuckoos are
named “Rain Crows.” Further investigation of the origin of this belief
would be well worth while for those interested in the “folk-lore” of
ornithology. There are eleven plates of the various species and one of
the tails of Bronze Cuckoos, all by Grönvold, and among the best that
have appeared.
We notice one new genus, _Vidgenia_ (p. 327), type _Cuculus
castaneiventris_ Gould, and one new race _Cacomantis pyrrhophanus
vidgeni_ (p. 326).—W. S.
=De Fenis on Bird Song in its Relation to Music.=—This paper[38] is one
of the most important and carefully prepared contributions to the study
of bird song that has recently appeared. M. de Fenis has considered
his subject systematically, under various headings and the results of
his investigations are summed up in his conclusion that “The laws of
musical development are the same for the music of man as for the song
of birds,” which corresponds essentially with Mr. Henry Oldys’ views on
the subject.
The topics which are discussed in the paper are: song of birds in
its relation to habits and habitat; difficulties encountered in the
notation of bird song; birds which repeat their song regularly; birds
which vary their melody but preserve the same rhythm; birds which
imitate; birds which improvise.
Many musical and syllabic representations of songs are presented
showing some original methods of notation, and illustrating the
variation in the song of a single species, especially of the Wren and
the Nightingale. An interesting table also shows the relative pitch of
the songs of various species of birds in comparison with the range of
the human voice and other sounds. In this there seems to be a fairly
regular correspondence between the weight of the bird and the pitch of
the voice; the highest notes belonging to the smallest and lightest
birds.
Those interested in this fascinating subject, which demands
considerable musical as well as ornithological knowledge, will do well
to read M. de Fenis’ valuable paper.—W. S.
=Dwight on a New Gull.=[39]—In an examination of a series of upwards of
fifty specimens of the Western Gull (_Larus occidentalis_) Dr. Dwight
shows that the species is clearly divisible into two races, the typical
bird of Audubon ranging south at least to Trinidad, California, and a
darker mantled form with less gray on the primaries, ranging along both
coasts of Lower California north to the Farallon Islands. This latter
race Dr. Dwight describes as _Larus occidentalis livens_ (p. 11).—W. S.
=McAtee on the Food Habits of the Mallard Ducks.=—The latest ‘Bulletin’
issuing from Biological Survey treats of the food of the Mallard and
Black Ducks.[40] A very large amount of data is presented showing what
a great variety of animal and vegetable species go to make up the bill
of fare of these birds.
Ninety per cent of the Mallard’s food we learn consists of vegetable
matter, more than a third of which is made up of the seeds, roots,
leaves and tubers of sedges and grasses, and about a fifth, of similar
portions of smart-weeds and pond weeds. Of the ten per cent of animal
matter mollusks contribute 5.73 and insects 2.67.
The food of the Black Duck differs materially from that of the Mallard,
largely owing to its frequenting the salt marshes and bays along the
coast. Only about three fourths of its food is vegetable and fully half
of this consists of pond weeds and other submerged plants. Half of
the animal food is composed of mollusks, the edible mussel being the
favorite, while crustacea furnish eight per cent.
The Southern Black Duck (_Anas fulvigula_) living in a region where the
food supply is not affected by cold winters, feeds more largely upon
animal matter, forty per cent of its food being of this nature, the
greater portion consisting of mollusks. Its vegetable food is largely
grasses and smart-weeds.
This report is of especial interest on account of the extensive
propagation of these ducks in a semi-domesticated condition and it is
another illustration of the thoroughness of Mr. McAtee’s researches
along these lines. A half-tone plate of the Mallard and Black Duck
from a drawing by Fuertes illustrates the pamphlet. In connection with
duck food attention should be called to a recent note by Mr. Alex.
Wetmore[41] on lead poisoning among water fowl, in which he states that
the shot gathered up by ducks in the neighborhood of shooting stands
proves fatal to many individuals. It is ground up in the stomachs by
the pebbles therein contained and causes severe diarrhœa followed by
slow paralysis. By experiment it was found that six number six shot,
when swallowed, were fatal in every case.—W. S.
=Stone on Birds of the Canal Zone.=—In ‘The Auk’ for 1913, pp. 422-429,
there was published a list of North American birds observed in the
Panama Canal Zone by Lindsey L. Jewel. Mr. Jewel died before he was
able to prepare a report on the main portion of his collection. His
birds later became the property of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia and have been identified by Dr. Stone, who has reported
upon them in the present paper.[42] In order to make the list of more
general use he has added the names of all other species which had been
reported from the Zone by previous writers. The list therefore includes
432 species of which 236 are represented in Mr. Jewel’s collection.
An introduction calls attention to the collections which had been made
in the Zone in previous years, while the list proper contains numerous
field notes on the various birds, taken from Mr. Jewel’s manuscript
memoranda, including accounts of the nest and eggs of a number of
species. The South American Swift _Chætura chapmani_ Hellmayr, is
recorded from the isthmus for the first time on the basis of two
specimens secured at Gatun, July 9, 1911, while the capture of a
specimen of _Stelgidopteryx serripennis_ (Aud.) Gatun, December 18,
1910, would seem to extend its range somewhat to the southward.
Under the note on Reiffer’s Hummingbird, Dr. Stone presents reasons for
reverting to the name _Amazilia_ for this and other species recently
called _Amizilis_ and designates _Ornismia cinnamomea_ Less, as the
type of the former genus. Besides containing much original data the
paper will be a convenient hand list for future students of Panama bird
life.—S. T.
=Shufeldt on the Young Hoatzin.=—Dr. Shufeldt[43] has studied the
skeleton and pterylosis of some young Hoatzins submitted to him by Mr.
Robert C. Murphy. While his observations seem simply to confirm those
of previous writers he has presented some good photographs of both
the external appearance of the young bird and the skeleton and has
compiled a useful bibliography of papers relating to this interesting
species.—W. S.
=Riley on Celebes Birds.=—In studying a collection of Celebes birds
obtained by Mr. H. C. Raven in the north peninsula and the mountains of
the middle part of the Island, and presented to the National Museum by
Dr. W. L. Abbott, Mr. Riley[44] found a number of new forms which are
described in the present paper in advance of the complete catalogue of
the collection.
A Thickhead apparently allied to _Pachycephala_ is regarded as
representing a new genus is described as _Coracornis raveni_ (p. 157),
while a Cuckoo Shrike related to _Malindangia_ of the Philippines also
becomes the type of a new genus and is named _Celebesia abbotti_ (p.
158). The other new forms are, _Caprimulgus affinis propinquus_ (p.
155); _Collocalia vestita aenigma_ (p. 156); _Rhamphococcyx centralis_
(p. 156); _Lophozosterops striaticeps_ (p. 157); _Cataponera abditiva_
(p. 158); and _Cryptolopha nesophila_ (p. 158).—W. S.
=Oberholser’s ‘Mutanda Ornithologica V.’=—This[45] is the fifth of
a series of papers which Dr. Oberholser has been issuing calling
attention to necessary changes in the nomenclature of birds in various
parts of the world. The species here treated are all Woodpeckers.
_Iyngipicus pygmæeus_ (Vig.) he shows must hereafter be known as
_Yungipicus mitchellii_ (Mahl.), the specific name being preoccupied
and the generic name not following the original spelling. _I. auritus_
(Eyton) becomes _Y. moluccensis_ (Gmel.), the latter specific name
being earlier. _Dendropicos minutus_ (Temm.) is preoccupied and is
renamed _D. elachus_ (p. 8) while _Campethera punctata_ (Valencien.)
becomes _C. punctuligera_ (Wagl.), for the same reason. _Gecinus
striolatus_ (Blyth) is in like case and becomes _Picus xanthopygius_
(Bonap.), _Gecinus_ giving way to Picus as explained by Hartert (Vögel
Palaarkt. Fauna VII, p. 889).—W. S.
=Miller’s ‘Birds of Lewiston-Auburn and Vicinity.’=—Well prepared
local lists have a very definite value and when they are prepared in
a way to help the bird student their value is doubled. Such a list is
Miss Miller’s well printed brochure on the birds of Lewiston-Auburn,
Maine.[46] It consists of notes on 161 species which have been observed
in recent times in the region covered, together with 40 additional
species of water birds seen by others in the vicinity. Not only is the
nature of the occurrence and relative abundance of each species in the
main list given, but there are interesting accounts of their habits
from personal observation and appropriate quotations from standard
works and popular writings on nature, which make the text attractive
and readable. Preliminary pages treat of the bird-life of the four
seasons and there are some supplementary suggestions to bird students
and a table of migrants in the order of their spring arrival. The
dedication is to Prof. J. Y. Stanton at whose suggestion the list was
prepared and who “was the author’s inspiration in all her bird study.”
His death occurred while the work was in press and the addition of
the portraits makes it in a measure a memorial to him. We might call
attention to the fact that this excellent list does not contain a
scientific name except in a reference to the origin of the domestic
pigeon. The A. O. U. numbers are given in parentheses and the A. O. U.
vernacular names are used with the addition of others when necessary.
Thus is a matter that seems to trouble many bird students, easily
disposed of! If the use of scientific names were limited to scientific
publications there would be far less criticism of the changes in them.
Miss Miller’s little book is an excellent model for a present day local
list for the use of the amateur bird student who wishes a reliable and
helpful hand book.—W. S.
=Recent Papers by Bangs.=—In ‘The Auk’ 1918, p. 441, Mr. Arthur
T. Wayne states that on two occasions he saw Black-throated Green
Warblers, in the maritime region of South Carolina, building a nest and
carrying nesting materials during April. Mr. Bangs[47] now describes
one of these April birds as a new subspecies and states that Mr.
Wayne sent him a series of seven specimens all of which differed from
northern birds in the same way—_i. e._, in duller coloration and
smaller bill. The new form is named _D. virens waynei_ (p. 94). In
another paper[48] he discusses the species of the genus _Paecilonitta_
as it is now to be spelled, following the original publication. He
recognizes _P. bahamensis bahamensis_ (Linn.), Florida to Brazil;
_P. b. rubrirostris_ (Vieill.), from southern South America; _P.
galapagensis_ Ridgw., Galapagos Isls.; _P. spinicauda_ (Vieill.),
southern South America; and _P. erythrorhyncha_ (Gmel.), Madagascar and
Africa.
_Peles_ (p. 92) is proposed[49] by Mr. Bangs as a new genus for
_Caprimulgus binotatus_ Bp.—A review of the South American Short-eared
Owls[50] leads him to recognize three neotropical races. These are
_Asio f. breviauris_ (Schlegel) from southern South America; _A. f.
bogotensis_ Chapman, from the Bogota Savanna, and _A. f. sanfordi_ (p.
97) subsp. nov., from the Falkland Islands.
Another paper[51] deals with the races of _Dendroica vitellina_ Cory,
and a new form is described from Swan Island which Mr. Bangs names _D.
v. nelsoni_ (p. 494). It is somewhat intermediate between the other
forms—the typical race of Grand Cayman and _D. v. crawfordi_ Nicoll,
from Little Cayman and Cayman Brac.—W. S.
=Economic Ornithology in Recent Entomological Publications.=—Items
pertaining to this subject continue to accumulate slowly. Those on hand
pertain to the following insects:
Larch bark-beetles and borers.—In a general account of insects
affecting the larch in Erie County, N. Y., is the following interesting
information, relating to the work of woodpeckers.[52]
“The work of woodpeckers is much in evidence and seems to be an
efficient agency in reducing to some extent the numbers of the brood
of several of the more numerous bark-boring insects. The birds seem
to work in two ways—first by making small conical holes through the
bark into the sapwood to obtain the larvæ of the larger species of
beetles which have gone there to hibernate or to pupate, and secondly
by removing practically all of the bark on large areas of the trunk to
uncover the brood (larvæ, pupæ and young adults) of the bark beetles.
“In some cases this work reached an unusual degree of efficiency.
For instance one particular tree forty or fifty feet high and about
14 inches in diameter, had had nearly all of the bark removed from
the ground to the very tip. This tree had been heavily infested with
_Dendroctonus simplex_, _Polygraphus rufipennis_ and other borers, but
only a small per cent of the original infestation had survived the
woodpeckers’ thorough search for food. Of course all of the infested
trees had not been so thoroughly gone over by the birds and a number of
such trees had apparently not been found by them at all. However, it
is safe to say that the woodpeckers were an efficient force, working
toward the return of the normal balance of nature which had been upset
by the breeding of certain species of insects above the danger level,
due to the girdling, season after season, of a number of the larches by
farmers. It is not believed that the woodpeckers will be able unaided
to reduce the numbers below the danger level, as long as more trees
are girdled each year, but should this practice cease it is possible
that they would be able eventually to obtain the upper hand and that
conditions would return to normal.”
Lepidopterous root-borers.—The grape root-borer (_Memythrus
polistiformis_) for which no parasites are known was seen to be
eaten in the adult stage by the Crested Flycatcher (_Myiarchus
crinitus_).[53] Two other Flycatchers, the Kingbird and Phoebe, are
recorded as enemies of both the greater and lesser peach-tree borers
(_Sannenoidea exitiosa_ and _Synanthedon pictipes_).[54] All of these
insects are not only seriously destructive, but from their secluded
habits in the larval stage, have few parasite enemies and are difficult
to control by man. They belong to a family of moths all of which in the
adult condition more or less closely mimic wasps and other hymenoptera
and which have been supposed, probably mistakenly, to derive some
advantage from this resemblance, in the way of immunity from predatory
enemies.
Cankerworms.—An investigation of the relation of birds to cankerworms
near Lawrence, Kansas, has had the same result as those made by
several previous students, among whom were Riley, Forbes and Forbush.
The following summary of the matter is quoted and abstracted from a
report[55] by Mr. Walter H. Wellhouse.
“Next to unfavorable weather, the birds are the most important natural
enemies of the cankerworms. Probably no insect is a favorite food of
more species of birds than the cankerworm larva. It lives exposed on
the outside of twigs and leaves where the birds can easily secure it,
and is without distasteful hairs or spines on its integument. The
English Sparrow, which is said to have been imported into America
to check the ravages of this insect, is no doubt our most efficient
cankerworm eater in the cities. We have watched these much-despised
birds picking larvæ from the elms at all hours of the day from early
morning to twilight, and even during rains. The Robin is also an
efficient destroyer of cankerworms, especially of the moths which are
found at the base of the tree. The writer has seen flocks of Bronzed
Grackles alight in the tall elms in Lawrence, and, moving from branch
to branch, noisily devour great numbers of larvæ. Having exhausted the
supply on one tree they moved in concert to another tree to continue
the feast.
“Many of the more timid birds which are not found in the cities so
commonly as the English Sparrow and Robin are just as efficient enemies
in the country.
“Mr. C. D. Bunker, curator of mammals in the Dyche Museum, secured
a hundred birds from a grove four miles from Lawrence and carefully
estimated the percentage of cankerworm larvæ found in their stomachs.
They were taken near the edge of the timber where they could easily
have returned from the surrounding fields with other food, and the
grove is composed of several species of trees, only a small per cent
being elms infested with cankerworms.”
The hundred bird stomachs reported upon represent 39 species of birds,
all but three of which had eaten cankerworms. Eighteen of the species
had at least one individual which had eaten 100% cankerworms. Including
birds previously mentioned in the literature as enemies of cankerworms
the list now totals 75 species.
White Grubs.—Mr. Norman Criddle has an extremely interesting note on
the bird enemies of white grubs (larvæ of _Phyllophaga spp._) in a
recent article[56] on these pests in Manitoba. He notes that
“Robins are eager seekers after White Grubs, and have been known to
frequent infested fields for weeks. Crows, apart from their habit of
following the plough, are also very useful as grub searchers; the same
may be said of Flickers.”
The following extract contains a specific recommendation that farm
practice be planned chiefly with a view of best utilizing the services
of birds in destroying white grubs; a remarkable tribute to the
effectiveness of practical economic ornithology:
“Birds are most persistent followers of the plough during their
breeding season or while migrating; gulls and terns from May 16th to
June 22d, and for a short time late in July; crows and blackbirds,
including grackles, from the time grubs appear in May until July 1st.
“From the foregoing we reach the conclusion that to attain the best
possible results under conditions existing in Manitoba, ploughing
should be done between May 14th and July 1st, and at an average depth
of five inches. The idea is, of course, to turn up as many grubs, eggs,
or pupæ as possible, a majority of which will, in all probability, be
picked up by birds. Many eggs will be destroyed by the plough alone,
but it is advisable to harrow as soon as possible after ploughing,
as by this means numerous egg cells will be broken, causing a large
percentage of deaths among the eggs and newly-hatched young, besides
exposing them to attack by birds. Exposed pupæ will also be destroyed
by this method.
“So far as the interests of farming is concerned, it will be observed
that the above recommendations do not in any way clash with the best
cultural methods. There is good reason for believing, too, that they
will prove of value in the destruction of wireworms.
“With reference to the large part birds are expected to play in this
work, it may be claimed that birds are not always present in sufficient
numbers, and that their capacity is, after all, limited. Granting
this to be true in certain districts, we must remember that white
grubs are only found within comparatively close range of trees, and
that their principal habitats coincide with the haunts of Crows, the
most persistent of all plough followers. Thus, if there are no Crows
present the farmer and sportsman are probably largely to blame, and the
question then resolves itself into the economic one as to which does
most harm, the Crows or the white grubs. We do not think there can be
much doubt on this point in grub-infested localities. The writer has
personally seen fully ninety per cent of white grubs exposed picked up
by Crows when he was himself the ploughman.
“Blackbirds are more dependent upon water than Crows, hence are not
so evenly distributed, but when present prove very efficient grub
destroyers. Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are also extremely useful in this
respect, and probably largely compensate for their parasitic habits by
this means.”—W. L. M.
FOOTNOTES: