Part 1

The Iowa Ornithologist Vol. 2. Salem, Ia., January 1896. No. 2.

Sea Birds That Visit Iowa.

FRANK H. SHOEMAKER, HAMPTON, IA.

Paper read before the First Congress of I. O. A.

Under this heading I have considered the species of four orders—Pygopodes, Longipennes, Steganopodes and Anseres. This is indeed an inexact classification of “sea birds,” but will meet the requirements of the subject in this case. The order Anseres is probably as a whole the least entitled to a position under the general heading, but owing to the maritime habits of many of the species the entire order is included.

The following list is essentially a compilation, since my residence within the state has been too far removed from watercourses or lakes to furnish opportunity for personal observation. My chief authority throughout is the Report on Bird Migration in the Mississippi Valley during the years 1884 and 1885. Frequent reference is made also to a list of the birds of Iowa, compiled by J. A. Allen, constituting Appendix B in Vol. II of the State Geological Survey of 1870. No more than a passing mention of species can be made at this time.

The order Pygopodes has five representatives in this state—three grebes and two loons. Holbœll’s Grebe is a species of northern regions, coming south in winter occasionally to the upper portions of the Mississippi Valley. The Horned Grebe is an allied species, more common than the former, though not abundant; it is occasional in Iowa as a migrant, but it is doubtful if it ever winters in any part of the state. The Pied-billed Grebe, popularly known by a more forcible as well as a more fittingly descriptive name, occurs in all parts of the state as a summer resident, nesting quite commonly, though its eggs seldom appear in the cabinets of those who do not know the peculiar nesting habits.

The family Urinatoridæ is represented by two species: the Loon proper, Urinator imber, and its ally, the Red-throated Loon. The former is the more common variety, inasmuch as it nests in the north and appears regularly during migrations, while the latter variety, the Red-throated Loon, is a distinctively northern species, and appears only during the winter, very irregularly. Three years ago I saw a flock of Red-throated Loons on a small lake in Franklin county, and after a long detour and much careful crawling in a layer of snow and mud, succeeded in approaching near enough to secure two of the birds at one shot. This is the only time I have found loons of either variety in a flock; the class is not gregarious and I would not be convinced of the identity until I had the birds where I could compare with description.

The order Longipennes has ten representatives in Iowa, four of the species being gulls and six terns. The Great Black-backed Gull is mentioned by Allen as a rare migrant occurring within our borders. It is probable that none have been seen within recent years. The Herring Gull migrates over nearly all of the Mississippi Valley. Franklin’s Gull breeds from southern Minnesota northward, passing through Iowa during migration, but is not a common variety. Bonaparte’s Gull is strictly northern in its nidification, wintering on the gulf coast and traversing Iowa during migrations. The Gull-billed Tern is chiefly a coast bird breeding on the Gulf of Mexico, but is occasionally reported from the various portions of the Mississippi Valley. The Caspian Tern was taken by J. W. Preston in central Iowa, but should probably be considered as a straggler. It is an irregularly distributed species and is found chiefly along the gulf coast. Forster’s Tern is a common variety in northern Iowa, and is generally distributed over the state as a summer resident, wintering on the coast. The Common Tern, according to Mr. Preston before quoted, has been taken in Central Iowa. The Least Tern, while chiefly coastwise in its habitat, is occasionally found in various parts of the Mississippi Valley. I do not know at what place nor at what season specimens have been taken in Iowa, but Mr. Allen names it in his list. The Black Tern is the most common of the class with us as a summer resident.

Of the Steganopodes there are two species. The Double-crested Cormorant winters south and is common during migrations. I have taken several specimens in Franklin county. The American White Pelican winters in the gulf states and passes through Iowa to its breeding place in the north.

The order Anseres has thirty species which have been taken in Iowa. The fish-eating ducks have three representatives, the American, Red-breasted, and Hooded Mergansers, all of which I have seen in Franklin county. The American Merganser winters south and nests north, passing through Iowa as a migrant, one of the earliest. The Red-breasted Merganser is said to be an occasional winter resident in favored portions of the state, but is more common as a migrant. The Hooded Merganser is a hardier species than the former, wintering further north, though not frequently in Iowa, owing to the freezing of almost all the water courses.

The Mallard is an early and abundant migrant. The Black Duck is chiefly an eastern species, seldom found west of the Mississippi River, but according to the Report on Bird Migration it has been known to breed in Iowa. The Gadwall migrates in great numbers to congregate on the gulf coast, but is said to winter in some parts of Illinois and possibly in Iowa. The Baldpate ranges all over North America, wintering far south. The Green-winged Teal breeds chiefly above the United States border, but is a common migrant. The Blue-winged Teal nests further south, sometimes in this state. The Shoveller breeds from Minnesota northward, migrating commonly through Iowa.

The Pintail, the subject of our frontispiece, is an early migrant, but unlike the greater number of the ducks which migrate first it does not nest exclusively in the far northwest. It is a common breeder at Heron Lake, Minn., and at Spirit Lake, Iowa, and has been known to nest in portions of Illinois. The Wood Duck is a summer resident throughout the Mississippi Valley. The Red-head is a common migrant, its range being almost identical with that of the Pintail. The Canvass-back is known to breed at Heron Lake, but I have seen no Iowa record. The Blue-bill and Lesser Blue-bill, or Scaup, ducks occur chiefly as migrants, but are summer residents in the northern part of Iowa, there being several records of nesting at Clear Lake, in Cerro Gordo county. The Ring-neck also has been found breeding there, this being the most southern record of its nesting. It is, of course, chiefly a migrant. The Golden-eye breeds north of Iowa, our only notes on the species classing it a migrant and rare. The Bufflehead is chiefly a migrant, but is a summer resident in the northern part of the state. The nesting has been noted at Clear and Spirit Lakes. The Harlequin Duck is one concerning which I find no definite Iowa notes, but on the strength of Mr. Allen’s list it may be named as a winter visitor. The Black Scoter is another species concerning which specific notes are wanting, but it is mentioned by the same authority. There is a record of the Surf Scoter at LaPorte, accredited to G. D. Peck in the Report on Bird Migration. The Ruddy Duck is a migrant, according to Allen.

Among the geese, we have the Blue Goose, a regular migrant, which breeds on Hudson’s Bay; the Lesser Snow Goose, a regular migrant, chiefly following the rivers; the White-fronted Goose, which is known as a migrant in all parts of the Mississippi Valley north of southern Illinois, where it has been known to winter; the Canada Goose, the best known of the Anseres; and the Brant, which occurs as a migrant. The last named is so uniformly confounded with the Lesser Snow Goose that reports on the species are very likely to be inaccurate.

The two varieties of Swans, the Whistling and Trumpeter Swans, occur in Iowa. According to the Report on Bird Migration, the Trumpeter Swan has been found nesting near Newton, Iowa. The Whistling Swan is named on the authority of Mr. Allen’s list.

Note—During the discussion which followed the reading of the paper, Mr. Morton E. Peck reported the occurrence of the Ring-billed Gull and the Man-’o-War Bird at LaPorte, his home place. Mention was made also of the Least Tern, the species having been seen in Winnebago county.

The Protection of Our Birds.

WILLIAM W. LOOMIS, CLERMONT, IOWA.

Paper read before the First Congress of I. O. A.

The question how to prevent the depopulation of our feathered friends is beginning to be agitated by many ornithologists and it might be well for us to spend a few moments in discussing the problem. For convenience sake let us consider the subject under three heads: Are birds useful? Is there an unnecessary destruction of them? And if so, how can they be protected?

I am sure that nearly everyone enjoys listening to the song birds, but here in America we often do not consider the beauty of anything or the pleasure it furnishes, as much as the dollars and cents it produces or saves. So the first thing to be decided is, are birds, financially speaking, beneficial? A recent number of the Youth’s Companion had an article on the protection of birds. It says “We have thirty species of insects which subsist on our common garden vegetables and our apple orchards have fifty kinds of insect enemies.” It then names the birds that are making steady warfare against the pests, and adds, “The estimated annual destruction of crops by insects in the United States is more than four hundred millions of dollars.” Now the more birds that are killed, the greater becomes the damage done by vermin, and it is plain to be seen that if the birds were allowed to multiply it would not be long before they would save to the United States this four hundred million dollars. Would not this be a benefit?

Concerning the usefulness of birds many persons, especially culturists, seem to have erroneous ideas. Every farmer keeps one or more cats to rid his buildings of rats and mice, and he willingly compensates them for their services by giving them a liberal supply of food; but many of these estimable men fairly get beside themselves if a hawk robs them of a chicken. Now I claim that the hawks kill enough noxious animals to more than recompense them for the loss of their chickens. To sustain this statement let me refer you to the time when the legislature of Pennsylvania passed the “Scalp Act.” This act placed a bounty of fifty cents on every hawk and owl that was killed. What was the result? Well, in eighteen months the state paid out no less than ninety thousand dollars in cash and saved to the farmers one thousand, eight hundred and seventy-one dollars in chickens.

This made eighteen dollars apiece for every chicken that was saved. Rather expensive poultry. But this was not the worst, for as fast as the hawks and owls decreased, the rodents and other pernicious animals increased, and that year the loss of crops which the department of agriculture attributed to the excessive number of injurious animals was estimated to be about two million dollars. Does this not prove that the raptores as a class are beneficial?

The robin is a bird that has incurred the enmity of gardeners. The horticulturists near Boston sent a petition to the legislature requesting that the robin be taken from the list of protected birds. An investigating committee was appointed who found by examining robins’ stomachs that nine-tenths of its food consists of an injurious larvæ, proving beyond all doubt that the bird was a great benefactor.

A gentleman from Michigan who signs himself “Amicus Avium” has given special attention to the phœbe and has estimated the amount that this bird annually saves the state. One pair of birds from March 15th to October 1st, rears two broods or ten birds. Each bird eats thirty insects an hour eight hours a day. The gentleman then finds the entire number of insects destroyed and estimates that if they were permitted to live, each one would do one-thousandth of a cent damage to fruit, grain or lumber. Allowing one and a half pair of birds for every square mile in the state, would make a saving of over three and one-fourth million dollars.

I have dealt with only a few species, but have tried to select those that deal with the entire feathered tribe.

Now if we grant that birds are useful, let us turn to the second head of our subject.

No one wishes to leave the forests and prairies in their primitive condition for the sake of the birds, even when he knows the progress of civilization has caused and will continue to cause a decrease in American bird population. We know that there were the same avicular cannibals before the advent of the white man, as there are to-day, but it will take a long time before the hawks or blue jays or cow birds can exterminate a single species. It is of greater evil-workers that I wish to speak.

First is the English Sparrow. These disreputable Britons were brought here to destroy the span-worm, and they must be credited with having done their work well. A limited number might be a good thing, but surely their introduction has proved a case where “remedy is worse than disease.” A few years ago these birds were sold for four dollars a pair, and now I do not know but what one could be supplied with them at four cents a pair, so rapidly have they increased. These foreigners are of such a quarrelsome and pugnacious nature that the native songsters have had to retreat from place to place before them. And now our feathered friends are far from their favorite haunts, and greatly reduced in numbers; unless a helping hand is given they will be compelled to follow in the footsteps of the Great Auk. Of course we have no statistics to show the number of birds that the sparrow destroys, but it is evident to the observer that unless war is declared against him, we must say good-bye to many of our native songsters.

Many birds are used every year to supply the demand of fashion. Mr. A. J. Allen claims that there are ten million American women of a “bird wearing age and proclivity,” and that it takes five million perfect birds to supply them. The greater number of these are killed during the breeding season and someone, I do not know who, will have to answer for the hundreds of little birds that are left in the nest and allowed to starve to death. Let us count one little bird for each pair of old ones, this will make two and a half million. (Now some will say that this is too many. Certainly! Not near all are breeding, but all that are, have from one to six to a dozen offspring.) This makes in all seven million, five hundred thousand birds that are annually used to decorate hats and bonnets. Wholesale dealers count one hundred birds to the bushel. This would make seventy-five thousand bushels, or more than enough to fill ninety-three box cars. It is difficult for the mind to conceive of such vast numbers of birds, and to think that they are used for what seems to us, a worse than useless purpose. But what arouses the greatest indignation in the lover of birds, is to see these same feather-bedecked women go to Sunday School, get up before a class of boys or girls and say, “You mustn’t rob birds’ nests, because it is wicked and only bad boys do that.” It is to be hoped that the “New Woman” will bring with her new and better ideas for decorating her head-gear.

Other destroyers of birds are the Great American Egg Hogs—the imitation naturalists who cover up their crimes with a veil they call science. These might be divided into two classes; those who collect for mercenary purposes and those who collect simply to amass a great variety of birds and eggs. Then we find a sub-class, those who are always collecting and have not time to study just then, but expect to do that after awhile. Why it is that these persons collect so many birds and eggs of the same species is a mystery. One complains about his hard luck, saying he got only one hundred eggs all day, one brags about taking one hundred and seventy-five eggs of a rare bird; another boasts about “scooping” as he called it, one hundred and twenty dozen in one day. What is the object of this wholesale destruction?

If it were permissible for me to criticize so eminent a naturalist as Dr. Coues, I would say I do not agree with him. He says in his “Key,” “How many birds of the same kind do you want? All you can get. At least from fifty to one hundred, and more of the commoner varieties.” That is all right for colleges and museums, where there are many persons to examine the specimens, but not for the private collector. I am afraid that the worthy gentleman himself would soon object if each of the several thousand collectors in the United States would follow his advice. It is difficult to see how he expects to advance science so much more by his one hundred stuffed birds than by the student who goes out and takes notes from life. I will quote from Emerson, “The bird is not in its ounces and inches, but in its relation to nature, and the skin or skeleton you show me is no more a heron, than a heap of ashes or a bottle of gases into which his body has been reduced, is Dante or Washington.” We cannot tell about the character or habits of a person by examining his body after he is dead and embalmed, yet it is by preserved specimens of birds that the worthy gentleman attempts to work. What is needed is more students and less collectors.

We all know of the great damage done by the pot hunters and the small boy who robs nests and kills birds “just for fun,” but this can be remedied by proper laws. It is the question of how to protect the birds against other enemies, that we are to discuss.

What is to be done with the English Sparrow? One man suggests that if every collector would invest in an air-rifle and use it on them it would reduce their numbers. This might help, but I am afraid that it would take more air and patience than could be found. Out of the many ways which have been suggested, the only feasible one—at least in my mind—it now employed by a few of the states, paying a bounty on the pests.

To prevent or rather change the fashion for wearing birds, some advocate legislative action against hats trimmed with feathers. It is a question in my mind whether such a course would prove feasible, for the ladies have as much right to use the birds that way as some of our collectors have to hoard them away in their cabinets. It is quite generally agreed that the only way is to appeal to the better nature of the ladies and trust them to put away the fashion and take up something more in keeping with the close of the nineteenth century. Many ways are suggested for bringing the subject before the public. One is by placing placards in street cars, another is by distributing slips in churches, on which are printed a few statistics showing the number of birds that it takes to supply the demand, etc.

The next and most difficult question to solve is how to convince the farmer that he is injuring himself every time he kills an owl or robin or the other birds that he probably believes to be his enemies. Now we all know that there are some “black sheep” among the birds. It seems to me that one of the objects of our association is to point out to the farmer just which these “black sheep” are. It is perfectly natural and right for a man to protect his property, and even if he knows that many of the raptores are beneficial, he does not like to have them take his poultry. I do not know how to prevent the hawks from taking toll for their work, but if the farmers would build respectable chicken-coops, they would not be troubled with owls, for they being nocturnal are not out until the chickens have gone to roost and it is only the farmer who allows his poultry to sleep in trees that suffers, and we might say in the words of the small boy, “It’s just good enough for him.”

Finally, I would say that the only way to preserve our birds is to present facts to the people showing them the true character of each bird. They can then distinguish how the {} should be treated, protecting their friends and destroying their enemies.

Thus by awakening the farmer to his own interests, securing needful laws, and with a never-ceasing warfare against the pseudo-naturalists and English Sparrow, we may in time hope to recall to their own homes, our favorite friends, the pursued and persecuted birds. As they return to our door yards and take up life as in the days of yore, we will become better acquainted and realize more fully their great mission in this world.

This return will serve as a death warrant to the avaricious collector and as an impetus to the student who devotes his life to the exploration of the characters and habits of these, the favorites of nature.

Notes on the Birds of Iowa.

JOHN V. CRONE, MARATHON, IOWA, COMPILER.

The Vireonidæ, our family for special study this quarter, is quite well represented in Iowa, the reports embracing definite notes from sixteen counties, and upon seven different species. No doubt the notes would have been more profuse were it not for the fact that ornithologists are somewhat tardy in becoming acquainted with the different varieties of our smaller birds.

_624. Vireo olivaceus. (Linn.)_ RED-EYED VIREO.

The Red-eyed Greenlet is of wide distribution, not being confined to the U. S.

In Iowa it appears to be quite generally found. However, the notes show a dearth of either the birds or enthusiastic ornithologists in the west and northwest portions of the state, since it is reported from only one county,—Pottawattamie—in that region, while there are profuse notes on the species from fifteen in the eastern and central parts.

It arrives in the state in late April and early May, breeds during late May and all of June and leaves during the latter part of August or September.

It is a more numerous migrant than summer resident; but is not rare by any means during the breeding season, being reported as “common” or “abundant” by nearly all who mention the numbers found through the period of nidification. Assuming all those who reported on the species to be equally versed in our favorite science, the numbers vary considerably with locality. Most likely this is due to the topography of the country in question.

The nest is pensile—a trite statement to most lovers of birds, yet new to some of our readers perhaps—and is a beautiful and interesting structure. The site varies considerably in elevation as will be seen from the following quotations: “under thirty feet in elm and ash trees;” “swung from the low branch of some bush or tree, between five and ten feet from the ground;” “low branches of large trees or near the tops of saplings;” “near ground between five and twenty feet up;” “lowest limb of maple tree, seven feet up;” “suspended from the fork of a slender limb, usually a few feet up; sometimes quite high;” “almost any height from the ground.”

The “little basket” is “deeper and narrower than that of V. gilvus.” It is “built of interwoven vegetable materials, hempen fibers and the soft inner bark of trees,” a preference being noticed by Mr. Shoemaker for the inner bark of the dead elm and ash. Mr. Giddings reports a nest “composed of grass, pieces of hornet’s nests and spider webs. The hornet’s nest had furnished fully one-half of all the nest. It was lined with hair and fine grass.” Another nest described by Mr. D. L. Savage, was “composed of fibers from the milkweed. Grass and cobwebs were profusely used on the outside.” It was “pensile and cup-shaped and lined with reddish fibers.”

The worst that can be gleaned from the reports on our little Greenlet is, that it, innocently and unwittingly no doubt, helps to sustain that despicable pest, the Cowbird.