SB UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULLETIN No. 868 Contribution from the Bureau of Biological Survey E. W. NELSON, Chief Washington, D. C. PROFESSIONAL PAPER January 10, 1921 ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING IN THE UNITED STATES By E. R. KALMBACH and I. N. GABRIELSON Assistant Biologists CONTENTS Problems Raised by the Starling 1 Sources of Information 2 Distribution and Abundance 3 Description 8 Life History 9 Economic Status In Other Countries ... 13 Food Habits in the United States .... 15 Animal Food of Adults 15 Insects 15 Millipeds 25 Spiders 25 MoIlus1(s 26 Miscellaneous Animal Food . . 26 Vegetable Food of Adults 26 Cherries 26 Berries 29 Apples 29 Pears and Peaches ....'... 30 Grapes 30 Corn 31 Page Food Habits in the United States — Contd. Vegetable Food of Adults — Contd. Small Grain 34 Garden Truck 34 Wild Fruit 35 Miscellaneous Vegetable Food . 37 Food of Nestlings 37 Observations from Blind .... 39 Stomach Examination- 40 Animal Food 41 Vegetable Food 43 Food Preferences at Different Ages 44 Relation to Other Species of Birds ... 46 Natural Enemies 53 Eradica^on of Roosts 54 Control Measures 56 Legislation 57 Summary of Evidence 57 Conclusion 59 J^^%J-U WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1921 N JAN 21 1921 'MF.iviTS DIVISION ^ r^ 1- ^ ^ / S15K3 Bui. 868, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. PLATE I. PLUMAGES OF STARLINGS. Adult male (spring). Young in juvenal pliuuage, Adult female (spring). Adult, male and female (faU). UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE .,, BULLETIN No. 868 Contribution from the Bureau of Biological Survey, E. W. NELSON, Chief. S^?^^^u Washington, D. C. PROFESSIONAL PAPER January 10, 1921 ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING IN THE UNITED STATES By E. R. Kalmbach and I. N. Gabkielson, Assistant Biologists. CONTENTS. Page. Problems raised by the starling 1 Sources of information 2 Distribution and abimdance 3 Description 8 Life history 9 Economic status in other countries 13 Food habits in the United States 15 Animal food of adults 15 Insects 15 Millipeds 25 Spiders 25 MoUusks 26 Miscellaneous animal food 26 Vegetable food of adults 26 Cherries 26 Berries 29 Apples 29 Pears and peaches 30 Grapes _ 30 Com 31 Page. Food habits in the United States — Continued. Vegetable food of adults — Continued. Small grain 34 Garden track 34 Wild fruit 35 Miscellaneous vegetable food 37 Food of nestlings 37 Observations from blind 39 f Stomach examination 40 Animal food 41 Vegetable food 43 Food preferences at diflerent ages. . 44 Relation to other species of birds 46 Natural enemies 53 Eradication of roosts 54 Control measures 56 Legislation 57 Summary of evidence 57 Conclusion 59 PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE STARLING. MINDFITL of the disastrous results that have attended the intro- duction of exotic forms of wild animal life, farmers and bird lovers generally have looked with apprehension on the introduction and spread of the European starling in the United States. Wlien the destructive careers of such introduced forms as the brown rat, the house mouse, and the English sparrow are considered, not to mention the annual toll in millions of dollars now being paid to satisfy the appetites of numerous insect pests that have been unwittingly brought from abroad, it is not to be wondered at that the deliberate importation and liberation of a considerable number of another species of bird that has since increased enormously in numbers should produce discussion. 182334°— 21 1 2 BULLETIN 868, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Criticism came first only from those who foresaw in the light of previous experiences what might be the result of an unhampered spread of the starling. For a number of years the birds were con- fined to a small area about the place of importation, New York City, and there they were of interest chiefly to ornithologists. Their spread, however, in the early years of this century to the neigh- boring suburban and farming sections of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut brought them more intimately in competition with our native birds and in close contact with growing crops. The starling was heard from immediately. Reports of its aggressive tactics against native birds became frequent: Flicker nests were said to be usurped by the wholesale; the houses of bluebirds and wrens were sharing a similar fate; young robins were being dragged from their nests and killed; and the food supply of certain native birds was being seriously reduced by the ever-increasing flocks of the foreigner. From farmers, too, came criticism: Cherries, ber- ries, apples, and pears were reported damaged; in spring garden truck suffered; and in midsummer sweet corn was attacked by the birds. Even from the cities came complaints of the noise and filth connected with the large roosts of late summer and fall, established usually in a residential section. Few indeed had a good word to say for the new- comer. The occasional words of praise, however, were significant. Coming usually from careful observers, these appeared to indicate that, despite its bad points, the starling was destroying terrestrial insect pests at a rate surpassed by few, if any, of our native birds. From such conflicting testimony it was apparent that an accurate estimate of the starling's worth could be secured only by extensive field observation, supplemented by careful laboratory examination of the contents of a large number of stomachs collected under diverse conditions and representative of every month in the year. It was imperative that this be done in order that an intelligent attitude might be reflected in legislation enacted for the bird's protection or control. Such work the Bureau of Biological Survey began in the spring of 1910, and the results of its investigation are discussed in the following pages. SOURCES OF INFORMATION. In conducting field work it was planned to visit as many points in the six States in which the starling was common in 1916 as one season's work by two investigators would permit.^ Effort was 1 Field work in the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, as well as on Long Island, New York, was conducted by I. N. Gabrielson; and in I'ennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York (except Long Island), by E. R. Kalmbach. This involved continuous observation from the beginning of April to the middle of October, a period in which all forms of damage of which the starling had been accused could be investigated. The authors collaborated in the examination of the material collected and in the preparation of the manuscript. ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STAELIIS^G. 3 made to visit places from which complaints had come, and enough of these were investigated to give a good idea of the habits of the star- ling in areas where it had acquired an unfavorable reputation. There were secm-ed for this investigation a total of 2,466 well- filled stomachs, probably a greater number than has ever before been used for investigating the food habits of a single species of bird. Of these, 309 were of nestlings. Approximately two-thh'ds of the material was collected by representatives of the Biological Survey, the remainder being secured from reliable collectors, who at the same time submitted many economic notes of interest. Of these stomachs 1,250 were collected in Connecticut, 814 in New Jersey, 269 in New York, 62 in Pennsylvania, 43 in Massachusetts, 27 in Rhode Island, and 1 in Delaware. Besides these there were gathered 160 additional stomachs only partially filled with food. Wliile these were not suited for estimating percentages, they fm*- nished considerable information concerning food items. " In response to a chcular letter sent under date of June 15, 1915, to nmnerous bhd students, horticultm'ists, and practical farmers, 269 replies were received. The follomng questions, embodied in that circular, will give an idea of the data obtained: 1. About what year did the starling appear in yoiir neighborhood? 2. Is it now common? When did it become so? Abundance as compared with other species. 3. Is the bird destructive to fruits? State kmds and, if possible, the approximate amount of damage. 4. Does the starling damage any other crops or property? 5. What are the relations of the starling to other Inrds? 6. Where plenty of nest boxes have l;)een placed, has friction between the starling and other species decreased? 7. At what time of year do starlings begin to flock? Are they more destnictive when in flocks than at other times? 8. Does the starling spend the winter in your locality? 9. FrcMn your ol^servations do you consider the starling injurious or beneficial? Besides the replies to these requests, correspondence from other sources has yielded many facts that have been incorporated in tliis bulletin. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF THE STARLING. ^ The starling {Sturnus vulgaris) is native to all l)ut the most north- ern parts of Europe, and also occupies the same latitudes in the western two-thu-ds of Siberia. Migration in fall takes the bulk of the species to countries bordering on the Mediterranean, and a portion to the warm latitudes as far east as Hindustan. Several related species and su])species of starlings occupy adjacent sections and even portions of the same areas in the southeastern part of tliis 2 Most of the data here presented concerning the introduction and spread of the starling in the United States prior to 1916 have been compiled by W. L. McAtee, of the Bureau of Biological Survey. 4 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. range. The starling lias been introduced and established as an inte- gi'al part of the fauna of Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. In North America attempts have been made to establish it at Cin- cinnati, Ohio (1872, 1873); Quebec, Canada (1875); Central Park, New York City (1877, 1887, 1890, 1891); Portland, Oreg. (1889, 1892); Allegheny, Pa. (1897); Springfield, Mass. (1897); Bay Kidge, N. y. ; and a few other localities. The bird gained a foothold at Portland, but now is scarce or extinct in that vicinity. Apparently the introductions of 1890 and 1891 into Central Park, New York City, are the ones which resulted in the permanent establishment of the species, and from this colony have been derived the thousands of birds now scattered over the northeastern ITnited States. The starling has not spread \vith the rapidity characterizing the English sparrow's occupation of the country. One reason is that this bird apparently does not travel in box cars; another, that it has not been introduced into so many localities nor carried from place to place by man. Nevertheless, it has steadily "wddened its breeding range and each year performs more and more extensive migrations. For six years after its fii'st successful introduction into Central Park the starling did not breed beyond the limits of greater New York. In 1896 it was confined as a breeding species to New York City, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. By 1902 it had reached Norwalk, Conn., and Ossining, N. Y., on the north; and Bayonne, N. J., on the south. By 1906, territory as far north as Wethersfield, Conn., and as far southwest as Trevose, Pa., was occupied. In 1908, Providence, R. I., and Philadelphia marked the extremes of its breeding range; and by 1913, Hadley, Mass., and Westchester, Pa., had been reached. The bu'd bred not far from Washington, D. C, in the summer of 1916 and in the same season was found breeding as far north as the south- ern boundaries of New Hampsliii-e and Vermont, while toward the northwest it had extended its breeding range as far as Oneida County, N. Y. (see map, fig. 1). In its post-breeding wanderings the. starling has been recorded from a much greater area, extending in 1916 from southern Maine to Norfolk, Va. On November 10, 1917, one speci- men was collected as far south as Savannah, Ga. Inland it has been seen at Rochester, N. Y., Wheeling, W. Va., and in east central Ohio. As a breeder the starling is by no means uniformly distributed thi-oughout its range. In the first place, it is decidedly partial to thickly settled agricultm'al sections. It shows also a preference for the vicinity of the coast and the larger river valleys-, and in its spread over the country lowlands are populated first. In the strip of terri- tory from New York City to New Haven, Conn., where the starling in 1916 seemed to be the most abundant breeding bii-d, it was con- ECONOMIC VALXTE OF THE STARLING. fined to a narrow belt of low, flat, or rolling farm land within 8 or 10 miles of salt water, and, ^^'itll tlie exception of the Housatonic Fig. 1.— Breeding range of the starling at various periods from 1896 to 1916. Since 1916 this range has been extended so little that it is not indicated on the map . Valley, there were few bhds inland. East of New Haven the starling was restricted mainly to the shore. In most of the Con- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. necticiit River valley below Middletown, where it is narrow, with wild, rough land reacliing often to the water's edge, the starling was scarce; but north of Middletown, where the valley widens until several miles of rich cultivated bottom land lie between the wooded hills, the bii'd was very abundant. Up the river as far north as Springfield, Mass., the starling was as common a breeder as the robin. North of Springfield it was not present in great numbers, although favorable conditions for food and nest sites prevailed. According to a count made in 1916 by the bird club of Springfield, that city contained a breeding starling population of 5,000. Amherst, Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield, Mass., had colonies of var}^- ing sizes, those of Amherst and Greenfield approximating 1,000 and 500, respectively. In eastern Massachusetts and in Rhode Island the bu'ds were only local in distribution. On Long Island a line drawn from Oyster Bay on the north to Bay Shore on the south roughly marked the eastern boundary of the region of abundance. East of this line the bu'ds were generally, but not abundantly, dis- tributed on the north and south shores. They were absent from the center of the island except for a few in cultivated clearings. In 1916, the starling was extremely abundant in northeastern New Jersey, where it had been established about the cities of Newark, Paterson, Montclair, Elizabeth, and Plainfield for at least 15 years. It was also quite generally distributed throughout Somerset, Middle- sex, Hunterdon, and Mercer Counties. In the northern parts of Monmouth, Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties it was locally abundant. There were very few, however, in the pine barrens in the southeastern part of the State, or in the hilly sections to the north, comprising all of Sussex and Warren Counties and parts of Morris, Passaic, and Bergen Counties. Up the Hudson the starling's abundance was restricted to the vicinity of the larger towns, Peeks- kUl, Newburgh, and Poughkeepsie having the greatest numbers. The narrowness of the valley prevented a general distribution along the lower Hudson. In Peimsylvania the bulk of the starling popu- lation was stiU confined to the vicinity of Philadelphia. The familiarity of the starling with human abodes, and the daily visits to a single feeding ground of the same post-breeding flock are the two factors that have given many persons an exaggerated idea of the abundance of the species. Few have attempted to estimate relative numbers during the breeding season. It is believed that in aU of Hud- son County, most of Essex and Union Counties, and the southeastern and southern parts, respectively, of Passaic and Bergen Counties, New Jersey, the starling in 1916 had reached a state of maximum abundance, beyond which it wiU not increase as a breeder. The same may be said of the area immediately to the east and northeast of Brooklyn and New York City and extending along the Connecticut ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 7 shore as far as Bridgeport. It is possible, of course, for the size of post-breeding roosts and winter flocks to be further augmented in this section by an increased breeding population in adjacent country. Taking this area as a whole, the starling about equaled the English sparrow as a breeder. In the residential sections of some of the cities it outnumbered the sparrow, but it in turn was greatly outnumbered about the freight yards, markets, business streets, and dumping grounds ; and even in many of the rural sections the sparrow predomi- nated. Beyond this area of maximum abundance, centers of starling population, where the starling as much as equaled the English spar- row as a breeder, were quite restricted and often isolated from other colonies by many miles. Consequently, exaggerated ideas regarding the average abundance of the starling throughout its range were also held by persons living in the vicinity of localized colonies. A dis- tance of but a few miles mil at times reveal great difl'erences in star- ling abundance. At BernardsviUe, N. J. (July 22-25), starlings were too scaj'ce to make collecting profitable, although at Mendliam, only 6 miles to the north, the brood of the year was so abundant about the farms close to the village that the bhds infhcted severe damage to the cheriy crop. At Somerville, N. J. (June 5-8), only 10 miles from Plainfield, a center of starling population, the same unfavorable collecting conditions were met. At Freehold, N. J. (September 18- October 1), the location of a roost in the town accounted for an unusual abundance of starlings on the near-by farms, especially in early morning and late afternoon. After the roost had been eradi- cated, the starling could not be placed any higher than tenth in a list of birds of the surrounding country, arranged accorcUng to their abundance. In 1916, there was a vast area along the borders of the starling's range where the bird was too scarce to be of any great economic sig- nificance. This applied to most of Massachusetts and Rhode Island; New York, north and west of Kingston ; Pemisylvania and Delaware, outside of a 30-mile radius of Philadelphia; and New Jersey, south of a line drawn from Salem to Toms River. In this region many farmers were wholly unacquainted with the bird and very few had complaints to make. With a knowledge of the starling's habitat and food preferences, both in Europe and in this country, and of the bird's ability to adapt itself to new environment, some conjecture may be ventured as to its ultimate distribution in the United States. Until 1916, the Allegheny Mountains appeared to be an effective barrier against progress to the west, but now that numbers have been reported at points west of the divide, the spread through the low, fertile farmland of Ohio and Indiana may be rapid. There appears no reason why 8 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. the starling, once established in the Mississippi Valley, should not readily extend its range as far north as the middle of Michigan, Wis- consin, and Minnesota. To the south, it will probably go nearly, if not actually, to the Gulf coast, though it may always be scarce as a breeder in the southern part of this area. To the west, the Great Plains with their scarcity of suitable nesting sites, and back of them the Rocky Mountains with their high altitudes, w^ill bar the starling for many years from reachnig the Great Basin or California by either a northern or a southern route. DESCRIPTION OF THE STARLING. Even in areas where the starling has been long established uncer- tainty exists as to its identification. Post-breeding flocks of red- winged blackbirds are often called starlings, and the damage they do is often attributed to the latter. The great difl'erences between the plumages of the young and of the adults, as well as the great change in the appearance of the old birds from fall to spring, also lead to confusion. The starling, howeverj bears several conspicuous marks of identification, and when these are borne in mind, one will have little trouble in recognizing the bird. The adult starling is about 8| inches long, and its weight is about equal to that of the robin; but its short, drooping tail gives it, when at rest, a chunky, humpbacked appearance. From early spring until the middle of June the adult bird may be singled out at a dis- tance by its being our only black bird having a rather long, sharp, yellow bill. In the male the base of the lower mandible is somewhat darkened with livid; in the female these parts are simply paler yellow. After the breeding season, and coincident with the molt, the entire bill darkens until it is nearly black. The molt is usually completed by the middle of September and leaves the starling a much changed bird. The feathers of the sides of the head, breast, flanks, and under- parts have white tips, so that from a distance the bird has a gray, mottled appearance. At close range, however, the starling is a handsome bird in this plumage ; the dark parts of the feathers of the throat, breast, and flanks are resplendent with iridescent reflec- tions of purple, green, and blue; while on the back, with its green and bronze iridescence, the feathers are tipped with brown. The tail and wings are dark, some of the feathers of the latter being edged with brown. During winter most of the white tips to the feathers on the breast and underparts wear oft, leaving the bird dark below, with the iridescent reflections stiU present. (See frontispiece.) On leaving the nest the young are a uniform dark olive-brown on the back, and below they are at first somewhat streaked with lighter markings, but soon become unicolor; the throat is white or buffy. The first molt begins about the same time as that of the adults. ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE .STARLING. 9 The first new feathers appear on the sides of the breast, the flanks, and the center of the back, while the plumage of the head is the last to change. During July, August, and early September, young birds in all stages of the molt may be found. When the plumage has completely changed the young can not with certainty be cUstin- guished from the adults, although they tend to have larger white tips to the feathers below. In flight the starlmg may be confused with a few other species. From its habit of sailmg on fixed wings for considerable distances it is often mistaken for the purple martin, but a little watching will reveal the starling's greater speed. When m flocks starlings may be distinguished from other gregarious species with which they often associate by the v/onderful coordination of action between the in- dividuals of the flock, their rapid whig beats, gi'eat speed, and ability to alter direction instantly. In searchmg for food the starlmg walks rather rapidly and with little change in pace, keeping up a conthiuous zigzag course when on grassland, seldom hesitating unless to pick up food. The contention of many bird lovers that the starling's lack of song is a good reason for not allowmg it to supplant native songsters is open to controversy. While its notes, outside of a clear whistle or two and a coarse rasping note of alarm, are subdued and lack melody, should one chance to be close to a male starlmg putting forth his best efforts, the results will be as fascinatmg as the more celebrated whisper songs of the catbird or of the brown thrasher. The starlmg is a mimic par excellence and has the notes of a number of our native birds already in its repertohe, a fact that has oftfen led to error in identification when the observer placed too much confi- dence in notes alone. Perhaps the bird most frequently imitated is the wood pewee, whose plaintive "pee-a-wee" is reproduced with such delicate skill that it can not be distmguished from the song of the woodland flycatcher itself. The mellow tones of the bluebird's call are given with almost equal fineness. In areas where the bob-white is common its two-noted whistle is readily taken up by the starling and executed in a way that closely resembles the orighiaL Notes of the red-winged blackbnd, gracl^e, field sparrow, flicker, blue jay, Carolma wren, and English sparrow also are given, but less frequently. Young starlings have a harsh, hissing, or rasping note, which seems to have its origin as a feedmg call, but is given for some time after leavmg the nest. LIFE HISTORY. During the first week in April the wintering flocks of starlings begin to decrease in numbers as the birds mate an^ 1 "V"' w^ .— ■ s> \ ■' • ^-^ W /^ng^j?^ ■Mi ^^^ ...x. ^ ^fe5iijS&« m^^ Starlings at Hackensack, N J., Roost. Photograph taken at about .';undo\vn while most of the birds were singing. A few moments later these starlings, along with luindreds of others, sailed out over a near-by marsh, where they roosted among cat-tails in company with many red-winged blackbirds. ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 13 movement. All the birds in one locality collect into a single roost, hut in addition to this there is a large increase in the flocks along the scacoast and a considerable movement southward from the breed- ing area. For tlu'ee years a varying number of starlings appeared in a fall roost in Washington, D. C, before breeding birds were first found in 1917. Other localities south of the breeding range have also reported wintering flocks for several years before the birds have become permanent residents. ECONOMIC STATUS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.^' While the behavior of the starling in its native home and in coun- tries to wliich it has been introduced can not be interpreted as a certain indication of its conduct under the new conditions it will meet in tliis country, its activities elsewhere will serve to call atten- tion to its capabilities for doing good or harm. Tliroughout most of its breeding range in Europe, partic.ularly in France, Germany, and Hungary, the bird is held in great esteem and is encouraged, by the erection of nest -boxes, to breed about farms and gardens. The chief German authorities, with one exception, have considered the starling more beneficial than injurious. The birds there do consid- erable damage to grapes and cherries, and to a smaller extent injure various cultivated berries. On the other hand, they feed freely upon injurious snails and slugs, beetle larvae, caterpillars, maggots, and grass- hoppers. Among their prey are such pests as ticks, gadflies, stable flies, cockchafers, fern beetles, pine weevils, fir weevils, spruce moths, and field and mole crickets. French authors mention damage by the starling to olives and grapes, but are unanimous in declaring the species useful. It is significant, moreover, that, although one of their articles was pub- lished in a viticultural journal, damage to grapes, one of the greatest points made against the starling, was not considered sufficient to exclude the bird from the list of useful species. In Belgium the starling is said to be very useful and its damage in- significant, as it prefers an insect diet. It eats about the same pests as in Germany, and in addition wireworms, grass moths, plant lice, and oak leaf-rollers. The late Otto Herman, distinguished Hungarian ornithologist, asserts * that, taking its feeding habits of the whole year into consid- eration, the starling does a thousand times more good than harm and richly deserves protection. Starlings have rendered particularly efficient service during locust plagues in Hungary. The single Swiss author consulted gives the bird about as much adverse criticism as praise; and a communication from Tunis states 3 The data presented under this topic were compiled by W. L. McAtee, of the Biological Survey. * Herman, Otto, Nutzen und Schaden der Vogel, Leipzig, p. 181, 1903. 14 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. that on isolated plantations migrating starlings sometimes take the entire olive crop. In 13 of 18 general articles on the starling in Great Britain it is stated that the bird is more beneficial than injurious; one article says that while the bird is valuable now, its habits are undergoing a change for the worse, and four state that although very useful in grasslands and forests, the starling is entirely too numerous for the best interests of fruit growers. Exhaustive investigations of the bird's habits have been made by Gilmour, Newstead, Collinge, and the national board of agriculture. After reviewing the whole question of the starling's economic status the board of agriculture concludes ^ that "on the whole * * * the information at present collected goes to show that, in view of their great partiality for insect food, starlings are, from the forest standpoint, entirely useful, whilst in agriculture and gardening their usefulness far more than outweighs the occasional harm done." Summing up, it may be said that in Europe the verdict on the star- ling is distinctly favorable; of 35 works dealing in a general way with the economic status of the bird, only 7 report adversely. It is note- worthy, moreover, that the findings of all the thorough and more scientific investigators have been in favor of the species, although some authors admit that at present starlings are too numerous in some localities. In most countries where the bird has been introduced, the case is different. In Australia and Tasmania testimony concerning starlings is generally unfavorable. Their great faults are driving away native birds and preying upon fruits. They have by no means lost their insectivorous tastes in their new home; in fact, they are credited with suppressing plagues of grubs and crickets which destroy grain and grass. Their numbers have become so great, however, that after the breeding season enormous flocks band together and at times descend upon orchards, vineyards, or gardens, where they make great havoc with the crops. The introduction of the starling into New Zealand does not seem to have resulted so unfavorably as in Australia. In 1907, just 40 years after the first importation, James Drummond published an account of the activities of the species in that country^** His con- clusions were based on the testimony submitted by many farmers who had experience with the birds, and were to the effect that the starling was one of the most valuable of insectivorous birds. * Board Agr. and Fisheries (London), Leaflet 4.5, Rev. ed., 4 p., June, 1905. 8 New Zealand Dept. Agr., Div. Biol, and Hort., Bull. 16, 1907. •ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 15 FOOD HABITS IN THE UNITED STATES.^ Examination of 2,157 stomachs of adult starlings^ showed that 57 per cent of the annual food was animal and 43 per cent vegetable. During the months from April to November, inclusive, excepting July, animal matter made up more than half the food, the maximum being taken in April and May (91.22 per cent and 94.95 per cent, respectively). In July, with the great abundance of mulberries and cherries offering an unlimited supply of luscious fruit, of the 52.67 per cent vegetable matter taken, nearly all, or 50.74 per cent of the total, consisted of these two items. In February, animal food dropped to the lowest point in the year, 28.17 per cent. The average, however, for the four winter months from December to March was 31.5 per cent, a remarkable showing when circumstances are consid- ered. The great majority of these winter stomachs were collected in New Jersey and Connecticut, and in view of the usual climatic condi- tions in these two States it seems noteworthy that starlings were able to secure such a relatively high proportion of animal food. ANIMAL FOOD OF ADULTS. INSECTS. Of the total yearly food of the adult starling, 41.55 per cent is composed of insects, a greater proportion than is shown in the food of most of our native birds of similar habits. The monthly per- centages of insect food are as follows: January, 27.66; February, 23.81; March, 23.87; April, 32.61; May, 49.94; June, 52.26; July, 41.98; August, 56.92; September, 52.83; October, 57.8; November, 54.0; December, 25.2. During winter many hibernating insects or the bodies of dead insects which have been preserved by the season's cold are eaten. Among these, beetles, weevils, stinkbugs, grasshoppers, caterpillars, and lepidopterous pupse are conspicuous. As the fields become more thoroughly gleaned the percentage of insects eaten decreases, until in February and March it reaches its minimum, 23.81 per cent and 23.87 per cent, respectively. In April, as insects begin to appear in numbers, the percentage rises, and during the months from May to November, except in July, when the starling temporarily abandons an insect diet to feast on wild fruit, over half the total food is insects. As the character of the insect food of a bird is of vast importance in fixing its economic status, the different groups of insects in the food of the starling will be taken up in the order of their importance. ' Graphic summaries of the food habits of adult and young starlings are presented in figures 2 and 3 (p. 38 and p. 45, respectively); and the relative proportions of the various food elements are set forth in percentages in Tables II and III (p. 39 and p. 44 ^respectively). *" Included with the stomachs of the adult birds here discussed are stomachs of juvenile birds that had left the nest and were shifting for themselves. 16 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGETCr^TURE. It must be remembered that in ascertaining the economic worth of a bird not all the insects eaten can be placed to its credit, as many are of great value because of their predacious or parasitic habits. CoLEOPTERA (Beetles). Of the 41.55 per cent of insect food consumed by the starling, nearly half (19.59 per cent) consists of beetles. These are divided among numerous families, but weevils, carabids, and scarabseids, in the order named, are of the greatest importance. The Rhynchophora, or weevils, stand first among the Coleoptera in the proportion of food furnished, 8.5 per cent of the starling's food being from tliis som-ce. In feeding on this group the starling is doing a very useful work, as the snout beetles include some of the most destructive insects with which man has to deal. Weevils are eaten every month in the year. The smallest quantity taken in any one month was 3.13 per cent in October, and the largest, 20.16 per cent in a winter month, February. An examination of the monthly percentage table (p. 39) shows that there are two periods of the year in which weevils form over 10 per cent of the food.. The first is in July (13.36 per cent) and August (10.91), when many species are emerging; and the second is in January (14.10) and Feb- ruary (20.16), when the starlings are feeding on hibernating forms. One of the most interesting food habits of the starling is in its rela- tion to the clover leaf weevil (Hypera punctata), a European insect wliich has long been introduced and acclimated in the United States and wliich does serious damage to the clover crop in some seasons. It is known that the starling habitually feeds on tliis insect in England, but it apparently goes far beyond its normal liabit in feeding on it in this country. Nearly half (1,125) of the 2,301 adult birds exam- ined had eaten clover leaf weevils, and 12 had taken their larvae. Of these no less than 54 had taken 10 or more weevils for one meal and 106 had taken from 5 to 10 weevils. The largest number of larv8e eaten was 49, taken by a bird collected in New Jersey in May. These formed 38 per cent of the stomach contents. Twenty-six was the greatest number of adults from one stomach, and these, together with 6 other weevils, formed 95 per cent of the food. In February, 288 of the 398 stomachs examined contained remains of this beetle, and in January, 33 of 84. In July, 211 of 375 birds and in August, 216 of 347 had taken tliis weevil. In every month of the year the starling is searcliing the grasslands and weed patches for the clover leaf weevil. The liigh percentage revealed in January and February would seem to indicate that Hypera p>unctata hibernates in far greater numbers than has been commonly believed, for it is scarcely conceivable that so many dead insects would be left in as good condition as are many of these this Bui. 868, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Plate III. 4 h i ^ > u *^ ^mbISH^S^hSw- 1^ ij 1* ii iit 9 «»■• •J id *t *■ •* |4 % »* Fig. I.— Stomach Contents of Juvenile Starling. Nearly 95 per cent of this bird's food consisted of tlie remains of 26 clover-leaf weevils, the heads, thoraces, and wing covers of which may be seen at the left of the picture. The large mass in the upper right-hand corner is ad.ditiohal debris of the same insects; below it are parts of a clover-root weevil; and in the lower right-hand corner are fragments of the skin of a cultivated cherrj. » » » 1 1 $ III i)\^n>^\ ) >ll%l%l»l ^ ) S/» !> t^^ 1 IIIMIIl II 1 « 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 • 1 t t 1 « % |»|«t»i« t^tKi S'-^U 4 • #'«%««•'■ t til i t 1 « « ^ %^ x ^ ^ ^ i » "^ » N . ^ ^ ^y^iy ^ Fig. 2.— Stomach Contents of Juvenile Starling. Except for a few bits of vegetable rubbish, shown in the extreme lower right-hand corner of the picture, all of this bird's food consisted of flies in one stage or another of development. There were present 1 adult and 76 puparia of Muscidae, at least 85 sarcophagid larvae, and another puparium. This bird apparently had been feeding in the vicinity of carrion or garbage. ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 17 late in winter. For example, one bird from Massachusetts in January had eaten 14 of these weevils and 4 others, wliich made a total of 26 per cent of its food. A Connecticut bird taken in the same month had also eaten 14 of these weevils, wliich formed 32 per cent of the food. In these two months 14 of the birds had taken more than 5 Hypera at a single meal. (PI. Ill, fig. 1.) Another weevil eaten in considerable numbers is the lesser clover leaf weevil (Phytonomus nigrirostris) . Seventy-thi-ee of the 2,301 adult birds had fed on this insect. The greatest number taken was 9 by each of 2 birds. The clover root curculio (Sitona Tiispidula), the larvae of which feed on the roots of various species of clover, is also a favorite article of diet, having been taken by 505 adult star- lings. It was foimd most abundantly in the same months as the clover leaf weevil, as 27 of 84 birds taken in January, 119 of 398 taken in February, 83 of 375 in July, and 86 of 347 in August had eaten it. The birds frequently took numbers of this species, 36 having taken 5 or more. An August bird from Pennsylvania had eaten 30 adult clover root curculios, and one from New Jersey had taken 31. The closely related weevil Sitona Jiavesctns, which has similar injm-ious habits, is preyed upon to a less extent, only 33 of the 2,301 adults having eaten it. One of these, however, taken in Connecticut during August, had devoured 17 of the weevils, and several others had taken 2 or more. The strawberry crown girdler (Qtiorhynclius ovatus), the larvas of which feed on the roots of strawberries and other plants, had been eaten by 60 adult starlings, and the closely related weevil (Otiorliyn- cJhUS sulcatus) known in Em-ope as the black-vine weevil, had been taken 7 times, Barypeithes pellucidus, another weevil known to attack strawberries and found in southern New England and adja- cent States, had been taken by a single bird, which had made 75 per cent of its meal on 167 individuals. In point of numbers taken, SpTieTwpliorus, a group of destructive weevils known as billbugs, which bore into the seeds and stems of grain, stands next to the clover weevils, as at least 225 starlings had eaten them. Of these the "bluegrass billbug" {S. parvulus), which had been eaten by 104 birds, was most frequently taken. These insects sometimes do considerable damage to timothy. Five other species of this genus, all of them injurious, were taken in varying numbers by the bu-ds. Phyxelis rigidus was found in 90 stomachs, one of which contained 13 individuals. As the starling stomachs examined often contained several species of these injurious weevils, a few of the more interesting ones are mentioned here. In a July stomach from Pennsylvania 20 Hypera punctata^ 14 Sitona hispidula, and 2 Sphenopliorus sp. formed 95 182334°— 21 3 18 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. per cent of the contents, A New Jersey bird taken in the same month had made 60 per cent of its meal on weevils, as follows: 3 Hypera •punctata, 9 Sitona Mspidula, 1 Sitonafiavescens, 1 PJiytonomus nigri- wstris, 1 SpJienophorus parvalus, and fragments of one other weevil. An August bird taken in Connecticut had eaten 13 Hypera punctata, 3 PJiytonomus nigrirostris, and 1 other weevil, making of these 72 per cent of its meal. Another bird from the same State collected in January had eaten 9 Hypera punctata, 2 Sitona Mspidula, and 3 Splienopliorus parvulus, which formed 50 per cent of the total stomach contents. From the foregoing data it is evident that the starlmg is a very effective enemy of such weevils as feed on grass or forage crops. This is particularly noticeable in regard to the clover pests, and it is safe to assert that the starling is the most effective hird enemy of the clover weevil in America. It seems natural that the Carabidse, or ground beetles, being to a large extent grass-inhabiting forms, should be present in the star- ling's food, of which they constitute 5.71 per cent. As this famil}^ contains both beneficial and injurious insects it will be necessary to consider it in some detail. During the months from April to October, inclusive, carabids furnish a considerable portion of the food, varying from 4.56 per cent in October to 13.02 in August. They are among the first beetles to appear in spring, and are promptly sought for by the starling. This is strikingly shown by their increase in the food from 1.07 per cent in March to 7.31 per cent in April. The maxi- mum consumption of these insects is in August and September (13.02 per cent and 12.93 per cent, respectively, of the food). During the other months the number taken is small and in no case forms much more than 1 per cent. Inasmuch as ground beetles seldom occur in nature in as great numbers as some of the plant-feeding beetles, their presence in star- ling stomachs is usually limited to a few individuals. They were found, however, in moderate numbers in nearly every stomach col- lected during the summer. Comparatively few of the large predatory carabids of the genera Carahus and Calosoma are captured by the starling, as, of 2,301 birds, only 20 had eaten the former and 3 the latter. Pterostichus, a genus of small beetles living largely on animal matter, was found more frequently, 160 birds out of 2,301 having fed on it. One member of this genus, P. lucublandus, a medium-sized beetle, was found in 102 stomachs. Tliirteen birds had captured members of the genus Di- cselus, a highly beneficial group which feeds on insects, and 67 had eaten various species of Platynus, beetles with somewhat similar food habits. Ninety-five stomachs contained members of the genus ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 19 Chlxnius, also insectivorous, and in 36 were the remains of Casnonia pennsylvanica, a curious and easily recognized little carabid. By far the greater part of the carabids eaten by the starlmg are those that are known to be somewhat vegetarian in habits, notably certain members of the genera Harpalus and Anisodactylus. These beetles feed to a considerable extent on grass seeds and pollen and, therefore, can not be classed among the more beneficial carabids. Eight species o:^ Harpalus were identified in the material exammed, and in 277 stomachs the identification could be carried down only to the genus. Harpalus caliginosus, the largest member of the group, was identified in 144 stomachs, and H. pennsylvanicus in 79. One hundred and tliirty-eight birds had eaten beetles referable to Ani- sodactijlus, but these could not be specifically identified. Of the four species of this genus found in starlmg stomachs, A. rusticus, identified in 65, was the most common. Carabids of the genus Amara, that are to a considerable extent vegetarian in their feeding habits, were eaten by 151 of the starlings examined; Scarites suhterraneus was found in 14 stomachs; and Agonoderus pallipes, which is injurious to sprouting corn, in 3. Wlien feeding heavily on carabids, thfe starling usually secures a number of species. For instance, a bird shot in New Jersey in April, that had made 91 per cent of its meal on carabids, had eaten 1 Amara, 1 Anisodactylus, 1 Platynus cupripennis, and 1 Agonoderus; while a June bird from the same State had taken 20 Amara penn- sylvanica and at least 2 other carabids, these forming 75 per cent of the stomach contents. A July bird from Connecticut that had made 13 percent of its meal on beetles of this family had varied the menu by taking 2 Pterostichus lucublandus, 1 Bemhidium quadrimaculatum , 2 Harpalus sp., 2 Anisodactylus rusticus, and 1 other carabid. A New Jersey bird taken in the same month had devoured 19 Amara, 3 Ago- noderus, 2 Anisodactylus; 1 1 Harpalus, and 2 other carabids, which totaled 84 per cent of the food. A Pennsylvania bird collected in August had eaten 1 Harpalus caliginosus, 2 H. pennsylvanicus, 10 H. erythropus, 5 PterosticJius lucublandus, 1 Anisodactylus, and 1 other carabid — items wliich formed 72 per cent of the stomach contents. It must be admitted that in its fondness for terrestrial carabids the starling does some harm by consuming useful forms, but a study of the above data shows that only a small part of the Carabidse eaten are of the decidedly beneficial species. The scarabseids, or lamellicorn beetles, follow the weevils and carabids in the quantity of food furnished the starling, 2.24 per cent coming from this source. Of these by far the most important are the Ma}^ beetles (PJii/llopJiaga, adults of the notorious white grubs), which furnish the bulk of the 2.24 per cent. Both adults and larva3 are eaten, the former more frequently. No less than 11 species of 20 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. this genus were identified in the food of the starling, and from 4 to 8 individuals were frequently found in a single stomach. One bird collected in June had eaten 12. Approximately 300 of the 2,301 adults had taken May beetles, most of them in May, when they formed 11.04 per cent of the food. Dung beetles of the genera ApJiodius and Atsenius were commonly eaten, and Canthon and Onthopliagus less frequently. Investigations conducted in 1919 to determine the bird enemies of the recently imparted Japanese beetle {Popillia japonica) revealed the fact that the starling preys also on this insect; 2 of 6 starlings collected at Riverton, N. J., in August, had fed on it. The Staphylinidse (rove beetles), Chrysomelidae (leaf beetles), Elateridfe (click beetles), Tenebrionidse (darkling beetles), and others were taken in varying numbers. Most of these are small forms, and a considerable number could be destroyed without appreciably affecting the various percentages. Among the beetles of these families which were frequently eaten were many of economic interest, a few of which are here mentioned. Drasterius elegans, the larva of which is a wireworm that feeds on the roots of corn and other grains, had been eaten by 17 of the 2,301 adult starlings; Agriotes mancus, a species of similar habits, by 4; and Colaspis hrunnea, a small leaf beetle that attacks beans, strawberries, and other cultivated plants, by 56. Near Medford, N. J., it was stated that starlings had been seen working through a potato patch picking up potato beetles. Corrob- orative evidence was lent to this observation by finding the potato beetle {Leptinotarsa decemlineata) in the stomachs of 24 of 2,301 adult starlings and in 15 of 325 nestlings. Several birds had taken 4 indi- viduals, while two nestlings had been fed 6 and 7, respectively. Many other chrysomelids, all of which are more or less harmful, are included in the food of the starling, the genera Typophorus, Nodonota, Zygo- gramma, CalligrapTia, Oallerucella, Oedionychis, and Chsetocnema ap- pearing regularly, though in small numbers. The only darkling beetle taken in numbers was Opatrinus notus, found in the stomachs of 82 adults. Aside from these, a long list of other beetles, a few beneficial but most of them injurious, were iden- tified in small numbers. On the whole, it may be said that the evi- dence obtained by a study of the starling's destruction of Coleoptera is overwhelmingly in the bird's favor. Orthoptera (Grasshoppers, Crickets, and Locusts). While grasshoppers are not the serious pest in the Eastern States that they sometimes become west of the Mississippi, they neverthe- less exact a certain annual toil from crops. A conservative estimate ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 21 of the annual loss in this country due to the grasshoppers is $50,000,000." This would be much greater were it not for the con- trolling influence of insectivorous birds. Some of these, among which may be placed the starling, secure practically all of their insect food during September and October from this source, stopping thereby the depredations of millions of these insects and preventing the future development of countless millions more. Orthoptera, among wliioh the shorthorned grasshoppers (Acri- dida^) and crickets (Gryllidae) predominated, constituted 12.41 per cent of the annual food of the adult starlings examined. August to November, inclusive, are the months of greatest consumption, the percentages being 22.30, 30.75, 38.95, and 38.26, respectively. De- cember and January are represented by 4.76 and 4.42 per cent, while from Februarys to July few Orthoptera are secured, a fact quite logically explained by the life history of the insect. The extent to which the adult starling resorts to this food is shown by the fact that of the 2,301 stomachs examined over 800 contained the remains of Orthoptera, and during the height of the grasshopper season, from August to November, inclusive, 577 of 772 birds had fed on them. When hay fields are being cut and raked in the latter part of August and early in September, flocks of juvenile starlings secure practically all their sustenance from these insects, supplemented with wild black cherries (Prunus serotina) and elderberries (Sambucus canadensis). Of a series of 20 birds collected in one hayfield near West Englewood, N. J., 16 had fed on Orthoptera, including acridids and crickets of the genera Gryllus and Nemohius. Still more remarkable is a series of 138 stomachs collected from September 20 to September 28 in the vicinity of Freehold, N. J. : All but 9 of these contained grasshoppers or crickets, and in bulk the insects formed 24 per cent of the food. That Orthoptera are abundant and sought for faithfully in the cool days of October is shown by a series of 11 stai lings secured near Meriden, Conn. : These insects had supplied food for all of these birds and formed the sole content of 5 stomachs, and in bulk formed over 85 per cent of the total food taken. These 11 birds had destroyed no less than 40 grasshoppers, 77 crickets, and 1 locustid; 24 of 25 starlings secured in the vicinity of Meriden, Conn,, in November, had also subsisted on Orthoptera to the extent of over 58 per cent of their food. In the stomachs of 6 of these, Orthoptera formed over 90 per cent of the contents. Individual stomachs frequently contained sui'prisingly large num- bers of crickets and grasshoppers. Inasmuch as information on this point is secured usually by counting the jaws of these insects, it often 9 Marlatt, C. L., The Food Bill of Destructive Insects of the United States, Reclamation Record, vol. VIII, no. 9, p. 427, September, 1917. 22 BULLETIN 868, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. happens that the undigested remains of previous meals are recorded, but from the rapidity of digestion observed in other passerine birds, it seems highly probable that all particles of a starling's meal will have either been digested or passed on to the intestines in the course of a few hours. With this fact in mind, the significance of the fol- lowing data may be appreciated: A juvenile bird secured in September had eaten 7 short-horned grasshoppers (Acrididse), 1 field cricket (Oryllus), and no less than 47 small striped ground crickets (NemoMus) ; a second bird from the same flock had taken 5 grasshoppers, 2 field crickets, and 47 small striped ground crickets; and a third, 6 grasshoppers, 1 locustid iXi- fJiidium), 1 field cricket, and 42 small striped ground crickets. In 19 other stomachs the last-named insect numbered 20 or more Even the larger acridids were at times taken in quantity: A starling collected on September 2 had consumed 22, along with a locustid. Another had taken 16 acridids, 3 locustids, and 2 field crickets. A third ate 13 acridids, 3 locustids, 2 field crickets, and 1 small striped ground cricket. Among the grasshoppers eaten by starlings were the red-legged locust {Melano])lus femur-rubrum) , the green-striped locust (Clior- tophaga viriclifasciata) , and a number of the small grouse locusts (Tet- tiginae). Besides the field cricket {GryTLus fennsylvanicus) and the small striped ground cricket {Neinolnus fasciatus) , a single specimen of the mole cricket {Gryllotcdpa horealis) was taken. Additional re- lated species were also eaten by nestling starlings, a discussion of whose relation to Orthoptera is presented on page 42, Lepidoptera (Mainly Caterpillars). Lepidopterous remains in the food of the starling are composed almost entirely of the larvae, or caterpillars, the greater part being consumed by nestlings (see p. 41). In the stomachs of adults these insects constituted 6.04 per cent of the yearly food. May and June are the months of greatest consumption, when such food forms 13.97 and 20.56 per cent, respectively, of the total. In September cater- pillars formed less than 1 per cent (0.83) of the diet, while the remain- ing months of the year are represented with quantities varying from 1.04 per cent to 5.69 per cent of the food. Of the 2,301 stomachs of adult starlings examined, 538 contained the remains of caterpillars; 20 contained pupae; and 30, adult Lepi- doptera. In June, the height of the caterpillar season, over half (115 of 205) of the adult birds used in this investigation had fed on Lepidoptera in one form or another, while in the preceding month 81 of 133 had taken such food. Conspicuous among those birds which had fed extensively on caterpillars is a series of 31 adults collected in the middle of June, ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 23 near Flemington, N. J. Only one had failed to eat such food, which on the average formed 27.8 per cent of the bulk. In point of num- bers, a starling collected at New Haven, Conn., takes the honors. In this bird's stomach were the remains of no less than 40 caterpillars, which formed 98 per cent of the food. The terrestrial feeding habits of the starling limit the variety of caterpillars eaten, but this very restriction has permitted the bird to distinguish itself as a most effective enemy of that notorious pest, the cutworm. Wliile caterpillar remains are not the most satis- factory items for identification in stomach contents and only occa- sionally are in condition for specific determination, the material in fully two-thirds of the starling stomachs could be referred with a fair degree of certainty to the family Noctuidae. Corroborative of what stomach exammation has revealed is a bit of testimony secured from field observations on a farm at Adelphia, N. J., where starlmgs were observed doing exceptionally good work on the army worm. A rather heavy mfestation of this insect had resulted in considerable damage, when a large flock of juvenile star- lings started to feed regularly in the infested area ; within a few days the worms had practically disappeared from those fields. That other terrestrial caterpillars may find an enemy in the starling is recorded by an observer near Bloomfield, N. J., who, in the fall of 1915, witnessed starlings feeding on the larvae of the cabbage butterfly. In only a few instances were hau'y or spiny caterpillars found in stomachs of adults. Among these were the American tent cater- pillar (Malacosoma americana) , an arctiid, and a "silver spot" {Argynnis cyhele). One reason for not finding more spiny or hairy caterpillars may be explained by an incident observed at Norwalk, Conn., where a starling was seen to eat a tent caterpillar inuch after the fashion of the Baltimore oriole, by forcing out the soft parts and leaving the hairy skin hanging on the limb. Miscellaneous Insects. Of other orders of insects from which starlings secm*e part of their sustenance, Hymenoptera, including bees, wasps, and ants, is best represented. This is of little importance, however, as tlje average monthly percentage is only 1.75, a great part of which is composed of ants. Most of this food is consumed during the summer, the monthly percentages from April to October inclusive being as follows : 1.11, 3.33, 3.41, 2.56, 2.14, 2.49, and 3.79. None of the late fall, winter, or early spring months were represented by as much as 1 per cent. Connected with the capture of Hymenoptera is one of the oddest activities of the starling. While primarily teri'estrial feeders, soon after the fu'st of August young starlings were seen catchmg insects on 24 BULLETIN 868, U. s. DEPARTMEISTT OF AGRICULTURE. the wing, much after the fashion of true flycatchers. From a perch on a dead upper limb the birds would spy insects several yards away, fly out, and dexterously captm'e them. Later, after the first of Octo- ber, starlings changed their tactics, adopting methods similar to those of swallows or martins in securing flying insects. The best illustra- tion of these activities was furnished in northern New Jersey on a calm day above a warm, sunlit meadow. Here a dozen or more star- lings were sailing about and capturing insects at a height of about a hundred feet from the ground. Under such conditions one not ac- quainted with the starling would certainly have mistaken the birds for martins, for, combined with a form which is quite similar, was this fhght evolution, which imitated the martins perfectly. Many ants in the winged stage are captured by starlings in their aerial evolutions, some are picked up on the ground, and others are secured from the branches of trees. On September 5 a number of juvenile starlings were noted diligently searching for and picking up food from the upper branches of a spruce. To some extent their actions imitated those of chickadees or warblers, though they were not so sprightly. One of these bu'ds was collected and its stomach found to be filled with ants. Ants of the genus Myrmica are most frequently eaten by the star- lings. Lasius, Formica, and ApJisenogaster also are taken. Bene- ficial ichneumonoid Hymenoptera were found in over 75 of the 2,301 stomachs of adults, but in most cases only a single insect each. The infrequent occurrence of bees and wasps in the food also indicates that they, as well as the ichneumons, are picked up here and there, no special effort being made by the starling to secm-e them. Hemiptera, true bugs, form only an unimportant part (less than 1 per cent) of the food of the starling. March is the month of greatest consumption, due mainly to the quantity of soldier bugs (Pentatom- idae) eaten, these offensively odored insects forming over 2.5 per cent of the food in this month. As both predacious and plant- feeding forms are found among these insects, the result of an indis- criminate feeding on soldier bugs must be construed as neutral in its effect. In fact, this same construction may be placed on all the Hemiptei^ eaten by starlings. Among the plant feeders were found the chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) , the squash bug (Anasa tristis), and the tarnished plant-bug {Lygus pratensis) ; and among the pre- dacious forms, the assassin bug (Sinea diadema and Melanolestes picipes) . Diptera (flies and their larvae) were present in only a limited num- ber of stomachs and formed a little more than 0.5 per cent of the annual food. Much of this material is secured about garbage heaps and in the neighborhood of cattle, with which starlings are familiar associates. The bu'ds have been seen picking flies from the legs of ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 25 COWS and in a few instances actually alighting upon their backs with the apparent intent of catching flies. In pastures starlings secure maggots by visiting partially dried cow di'oppings, which they thor- oughly riddle by puncturing with their bills. As this material dries it becomes pulverized and scattered over several square feet of sur- face. Under such treatment dipterous larvae not actually eaten by the birds soon die for want of moistiu'e. MILLIPEDS. So far as known, no other bird in this country equals the starling in the destruction of millipeds. These creatures form 11.71 per cent of the adult bu'd's yearljr diet. In April they amount to 54.69 per cent; in May, 42.19 per cent; and in June, 23.66 per cent; and, after a falling off in the later summer months, they again rise to 7.64 per cent in October. The fact that in April 119 adult birds of 132 ex- amined, in May 133 of 140, and in June 146 of 215, had fed on milli- peds, furnishes an idea of the persistence with which starlings search for such food in spring and e&rlj summer. Fifteen of the birds col- lected in April had taken nothing else, and 14 others had secured over nine-tenths of their food from millipeds. At present the economic status of millipeds m this comitry is not fully miderstood. Were the theory accepted that was generally entertained a few years ago that millipeds feed entirely on decaying vegetable matter, the starling's destruction of them would have to be construed of neutral effect. In England, however, millipeds of the same and closely related genera are decidedly destructive in gardens, and recent investigations have shown that they have smiilar habits in this comitry. Damage to beans, strawberries, melons, cucumbers, radishes, and potatoes has been attributed to one species (Julus cseruleocinctus) which is a favorite fCbd item of the starlmg. The full significance of the starlmg' s destruction of millipeds will be Imown only when the habits of these animals are better under- stood. Whether their status be neutral or injurious, in feeding on them the starlmg secures a much needed supply of ojiimal food and at the same tune does not draw materially from the supply of other birds, few of which have shown a preference for millipeds. SPIDERS. Spiders hold by no means the attraction for adult starlings that they do for the nestlmgs (see p. 43) . Of the 2,30 1 stomachs examined, 480 contained spiders, which formed 1.48 per cent of the annual diet. In only one month did they constitute over 3 per cent of the ft)od; in December, 17 of 44 birds had eaten spiders to the extent of 3.48 per cent of then- food. Most of the arachnids eaten were wolf spiders (Lycosidae), which are terrestrial in habits and generally 182334°— 21 4 26 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE. considered less distinctly beneficial than some of the other spiders which secure many of the flying insect pests in their silken nets. MOLLUSKS. In contrast with the large numbers of injurious slugs secured by the starling in some parts of its native home, particularly in England, is the quantity and character of the molluscan food of the bird in this country. MoUusks of various kinds, but mainly land snails, formed less than 1 per cent (0.94) of its annual food. A large part of this was secured in October, when 20 of the 108 birds examined had fed on it. These 20 birds were collected along the Connecticut shore, the snails eaten being mainly of the genus Melampus. In no case was a land slug detected. MISCELLANEOUS ANIMAL FOOD. The remains of earthworms, fragments of a crab, a few beach fleas (Orchestia), sowbugs (Porcellio), bones of a salamander (in one stomach) , and bits of fat, suet, or cartilage, secured apparently from garbage dumps or at the winter feeding stations erected to attract birds, fill out the varied animal diet of the starlmg. AU these items combined form only 1.32 per cent of the bird's yearly food, and most of them are secured durmg the winter and early spring months. That the bird's desire for animal food is in a measure satisfied as soon as the whiter' s snow disappears in March is revealed by the quantity of annual garbage consumed in that month, when it forms about 8 per cent of the diet. The main grievance agamst the starling for its consumption of the foregoing food items is entertamed by bird lovers whose generous supplies of suet put out for native birds soon dis- appear when (Jfecovered by a flock of starlings. VEGETABLE FOOD OF ADULTS. CHERRIES. One of the most frequent complaints against the starHng is in connection with its fondness for cherries. From the economic standpoint, this is undoubtedly its most objectionable habit. The cherry is cultivated on a commercial scale in only a part of the starlmg's present range, but is grown as a home fruit, a tree or two about the dooryard, tln'oughout most of its habitat. This condition reliders the crop peculiarly susceptible to attack by robms and star- lings, the two most abundant fruit-eating birds of the region. In 1915, on a farm near Closter, N. J., trees that should have pro- duced $50 to $60 worth of cherries yielded only $10 worth, a loss largely due to starlings. At Bristol, Conn., a flock of about 300 starlings entirely stripped a single tree of its 1916 crop in less than 15 minutes. At Rowayton, Conn., six cherry trees were entirely stripped ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 27 of their fruit by robins and starlings in 1916. These are but examples of the many instances which came to the notice of the wi'iters while in the field of birds taking part or all of the fruit from isolated trees. Of the 2,301 stomachs of adult starlmgs examined, 169 contained cultivated cherries, which formed 2.66 per cent of the yearly food of the species. Early cherries m June were eaten by 67 of the 215 birds examined, while late varieties m July furnished food for 91 of 375. In June, this fruit formed 17.01 per cent of the adult starling's food, and in July, 14.92 per cent. Without attemptmg to mitigate the offense of the starling by calling attention to another notorious cherry thief, some idea of the extent of the starlmg's activities may be gained by comparmg its food habits with those of the robm. From the exammation of 1,236 stomachs of robins, it has been fomid that this species feeds on cultivated fruit to the extent of 8.63 per cent of its annual food, as agamst 4.41 for the starling. During the months of Jmie and July, the robms obtamed 24.58 per cent and 22.71 per cent, respectively, of their food from cultivated cherries, quantities half agam as great as those con- smned by starlings in the same months. Another matter of note is the nmuber of complamts agamst the robm as compared with the number made against the starling for the same offense. This is m part due to the different methods of feeding employed by the two species. The robin is miiversaUy distributed and feeds m loose flocks, individuals of which may be fomid maintaining an almost uninterrupted procession to and from some favorite cherry tree for entire days. At no time will a great number of the birds be found in a tree, but the slow drain on the cherry crop is constant through all hours of dayhght. The birds are frequently feeding young at this time and are carrying cherries to them. On the other hand, star- lings, the young of which are the chief offenders, frequently gather m large flocks, and, swoopmg down on a single tree, completely strip it of fruit while other trees m the neighborhood may remam untouched. As a result, while practically every cherry grower complams of the robin, those who suffer from the more spectacular raids of the star- hng are much more bitter m their complaints. This condition led to an mvestigation at several pomts in Connecticut to determine the relative damage caused by several cherry-eating species, and trees were watched to determine as far as possible the number of birds eatmg the fruit. The summary of the data obtained is presented in Table I. 28 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Table I. — Comparison of depredations by various species of birds on cherry trees in Con- necticut. N amber of birds that came to eat cherries. Date and length of time spent at each tree. Star- lings. Rob- ins. Cat- birds Pur- ple grack- les. Rose breast- ed. gros- beaks. Eng- lish spar- rows. Balti- more ori- oles. Oow- l)irds. Red- winged Ijlack- birds. Blue jays. Chip- ping spar- rows. Total birds. 12 19 17 17 42 14 7 ""9" 1 8 2 1 2 42 1 1 46 1 52 8 5 2 1 1 31 15 i 2 4 i 50 17 4 1 58 1 20 3 52 4 24 July 10, 21irs Totals Percentage 4 3 2 3 4 5 48 113 187 22 6 3 2 1 4 5 370 30.54 50.55 ; 5.94 5.94 1.63 1.35 0.81 0.54 0.27 1.08 1.35 On examination of this table it is found that about half the birds feeding on cherries were robins, less than a third were starlings, and the others were of various species, none numerous enough to be of any consequence. This interesting bit of evidence is confirmed by stomach analyses of robins and starlings. The stomachs of 1 1 robins, collected while feeding m cherry trees, contained 10.27 per cent animal matter and 89.73 vegetable matter, of which 85.73 per cent was cultivated cherries. Forty-nine starlings, obtained under the same circumstances, had fed on animal matter to the extent of 58.12 per cent of their food; and vegetable matter, 41.88 per cent; cultivated cherries formed 36.72 per cent of the total. It was the experience of the wi'iters that shooting a few starlings from cherry trees soon discouraged the survivors so effectually that they seldom returned. The robins, on the other hand, were exceed- ingly bold and paid no attention to any frightening devices placed in the trees or to shooting. Frequently a starlmg or a robin was shot from a tree without alarming other robins feedmg. From the above data it will be seen that the starlmg eats fewer cherries, both individually and as a species, than the robin, although his attacks are much more conspicuous. Accordmg to most ob- servers, the robm, as well as the starlmg, mcreased considerably in numbers in the decade following 1910 throughout the area covered by this mvestigation, and both species are undoubtedly responsible for the mcreasing difficulties of cherry culture. Both species have habits to recommend them on economic grounds, with the starling in the more favorable position on account of its smaller consumption of fruit and much larger consmnption of noxious insects.^" 1" For a detailed record of the robin's food, see Food of the Robins and Bluebirds of the United States, by F. E. L. Beal, Bull. 171, U. S. Dept. of Agr., pp. 2-15, 1915. ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 29 BERRIES. Some complaints of damage to strawberries have been made, but the mvestigation failed to reveal extensive depredations by the starling. A few farmers in New Jersey stated that the birds oc- casionally ate berries, and one farmer in Connecticut shot 9 birds out of a flock that started in on his berry patch. At the discharge of the gun the starlmgs flew away and did not return. Little complaint was made of damage to blackberries or raspberries, and as in most places wild varieties are more abundant than cultivated ones there is little danger of the starling doing much damage to such fruits. APPLES. Field work conducted in September and October was devoted largely to investigating complamts about starlings damaging late fruits, particularly apples. Extensive inquiries were made among the farmers in those sections of New Jersey and Connecticut where the starling was common, and no opportunity of collectmg in orchards was overlooked. Considering the time and attention given to this phase of the subject, it must be stated at the outset that positive incrmimating evidence agauist the starUng secured from personal observation and stomach analysis is small. Of the 2,301 stomachs of adult starlmgs examined, 45 contained the pulp or skui of apples. Only 22 of the 45, however, were among those collected in September and October, the remainder havmg been taken in whiter and early sprmg, when the fruit eaten was manifestly waste, left on the trees or fallen to the ground. In bulk, cultivated fruit other than cherries, of which a large part was apples, formed 1.75 per cent of the total annual food. In September it amounted to 2.19 per cent, and in October, 0.38 per cent. A large part of the stomachs in which apples occurred were secured in small orchards m the vicmity of Adelphia, Monmouth Comity, N. J., whence several complamts had come. On September 22, 1916, a flock of 200 or more juvenile starlmgs were seen feeding on apples in a small orchard of middle-aged trees near Adelphia. Only a few appeared to be eathig the fruit, the remamder being engaged in singmg or preenmg their feathers. After- wards the trees were inspected. The apples in the central top of the trees were the ones sampled, and in many instances it was noted that the birds had gone back to feed on fruit pecked openon previous occasions. An opening an inch or two in diameter was pecked in the skin aii-d then a large portion of the pulp was eaten out tlii'ough this break (see PI. IV, fig. 2). On the following day a flock of birds was observed at work in a tree of russet apples on a neighboring farm. Subsequent inspection of 30 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. the fruit in the tree top showed that probably not over 5 per cent of the apples had been pecked. At Glen Cove, N. Y., a flock of about 100 starlings was noted attacking the fruit in one tree of an orchard where damage had been reported in previous years. On this occasion about one apple in every five was damaged. The owner of this orchard, who was a keen observer of bu'ds, asserted that stai'lings had ruined 10 per cent of liis crop in 1915. Of 30 barrels picked, 3 had to ])e discarded. Isolated apple trees, especially those standing in the middle of hay fields where flocks of juvenile bu'ds ai'e accustomed to feed on insects, are likely to have then- fruit damaged. Such a tree at East Noi-walk, Conn., had nearly every apple pecked, and a similar one was found near Farmington, N. J., but in neither case was the crop of any value, and it was never harvested. Late-miaturing varieties are more likely to be attacked by star- lings than those ripening at the height of the apple season, owing possibly to the fact that the supply of wild fruit, as wild black cherry {Prunus serotina) and sour gum {Nyssa sylvatica), has been mate- rially depleted by that time. The starling's taste for apples, com- bined with its flocking habit, presents a condition which should be watched because of the bird's capacity for damage. At present, however, the aggregate damage done is not great. On no farm given largely to fruit-raising, where the trees were thi-ifty and well kept, was injury to apples observed or reported. The number of extensive fruit raisers in areas of starling abundance who had no complaint to make is legion. At present the bulk of the damage is confined to old orchards and isolated trees. In many cases the damaged fruit is on trees sadly neglected and of inferior quality. PEARS AND PEACHES. In only three stomachs was the pulp of pears found (twice in Sep- tember and once in January) and field work also yielded little posi- tive evidence that the starling damages this fruit. One report from Ambler, Pa., asserted that in 1915 starlings had ruined a whole tree of pears; additional reports of damage came from Bloomfield, N. J., but in none of these was the loss great. Injury to peaches is also slight — one of the more specific reports came from a farmer of Warren, R. I., who stated that in 1914 he had lost about 2 per cent of his crop on account of starlings. GRAPES. To a limited extent starlings have exhibited in this country the same habits that have made them unpopular during late summer in the vineyards of France. Testimony on this point comes entirely ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLIN'G. 31 from outside observers. No grapes were found in the stomachs ex- amined and no damage of this kind was observed by representatives of the Biological Survey. A farmer in the Brookdale section north of Bloomfield, N. J., reported that starlings had severely damaged grapes on a small arbor on his farm, and similar complaints came from a number of farmers in the neighboring sections about Rich- field, N. J. No damage was reported in the extensive vineyards about Vineland, in southern New Jersey, but as the starling was not yet abundant there this can not be looked upon as an indication of its innocence. As in the case of apples, the injury to gTapes is at present trivial in the aggregate and is practically nil in extensive grape-raising sections, but from the starling's reputation in some parts of Europe it will bear watching in these surroundings. CORN. ^ Probably the losses to crops most keenly felt by the farmers living in the intensively cultivated area in northeastern New Jersey, about the cities of Hackensack, Bloomiield, Elizabeth, and Newark, are those infhcted by grain-eating birds on sweet corn. During July and August mixed flocks, sometimes niunbering into the thousands, of grackles, red-winged blackbirds, cowbirds, and, in recent years, starlings, roam through the country, securing the bulk of their sus- tenance from cornfields. Sweet corn, just ready for market, is torn open, some of the juicy kernels eaten, and the ear either rendered unsalable or its market value considerably reduced. In the aggi'e- gate such losses are very gi^eat and in the eyes of the farmers of northeastern New Jersey, the starling is to blame for a large share of the damage. However, as in the case of men, who are often judged by their company, the starling has been accused of deeds perpetrated largely by the species with which it associates. Not only were these birds generally charged with eating as much corn as the grackles and red-wings, an assumption which has been disproved, but many farmers were uncertain of their identification, with the result that flocks of juvenile red-wings were often called starlings and their depredations charged against the latter. Of the total of 2,301 adult starling stomachs examined, 52 con- tained corn, and this formed less than 1 per cent (0.77) of their yearly food. Of the 1,059 starlings collected during the ripening and har- vesting season of July, August, September, and October, only 14 had fed on corn, which constituted only 0.2 per cent of their food during this period. In the planting and sprouting season of April and May, 6 of 249 adult starlings had fed on corn, which formed 0.52 per cent of the food. By far the largest part of the corn eaten by starlings is waste grain secured in winter and early spring. In Jan- 32 BULLETIN 8G8, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. . uary corn forms 1.54 per cent of the diet, in February 2.03 per cent^ and in March 3.49 per cent, the largest proportion recorded for any month. While the result of the examination of so large and thoroughly representative a series of stomachs refutes all the extreme accusa- tions against the starlings as a corn eater, a discussion of field obser- vations made in this connection will emphasize this point and show where the blame lies. A number of complaints had come from the vicinity of West Englewood, N. J. This section was visited in the middle of August, when a survey of some of the most seriously dam- aged fields was made. Much of the sweet corn had been harvested, but there were still some fields of the late varieties in which birds were at work, and in patches of early corn saved for seed a rec^ ord of their activities earlier in the season was found. A farmer of West Englewood, who is familiar with the starling, reported that starlings joined with red-wings in damaging his crop. A census of part of a seed patch on his farm showed that of 863 eare of sweet corn examined, 231 had been injured by birds, a percentage of over 26. On another farm at Teaneck, N. J., fully 33 per cent of the seed corn had been damaged. Examination of a field at Kiver Edge, N. J., revealed 100 damaged ears out of 297 inspected. Several other seed patches in this general vicinity were even more seriously dam- aged, in one case on several hxmdred stalks scarcely a single ear being left unmutilated. An insight of what species were doing such work, and were prob- ably also to blame for most of the injury to seed patches earlier, was secured on a farm near West Englewood, N. J., on August 23. Here a mixed flock of red-wings and grackles were feeding on a field of sweet corn in which pickers were at work. The field was large and the birds would feed in parts distant from the pickers. The owner asserted that already he had 2,500 ears damaged, and that while many of these were still salable they brought reduced prices, only 50 to 75 cents per 100 being paid instead of $2, the market value of perfect ears at that time. A careful watch for several days in this and surrounding fields failed to disclose a single &tarhng feeding there, while the red-wings and grackles spent Httle time elsewhere. Ju- venile red-wings were generally considered starhngs by the farmers of this locality. On a few occasions the investigators observed starlings actuaUy tearing down the husks of corn and feeding on the kernels, but in no case were starlings in large-sized flocks seen inflicting serious dam- age. Positive incriminating testimony has come, however, from other observers. A reliable observer of Glastonbury, Conn., has seen flocks, composed entirely of starlings, doing damage to the corn crop in two fields to the extent of 25 per cent and 10 per cent, respec- Bui. 868, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Plate IV. Fig. I.— Sweet Corn Damaged by Mixed Flocks of Starlings and Red-Winged Blackbirds. Only a small portion of the com in this patch, saved for seed, was harvested, owing to the depredations of birds. Red-winged blact- birds were chiefly to blame. Fig. 2.— Russet Apples Damaged by Starlings. These apples were from the tops of trees in an old orchard near Adelphia, N. J. Some of the damaged fruit showed evidence that the birds returned to an apple opened on a previous visit. ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 33 tively. A resident of Rochelle Park, N. J., who is well acquainted with the starling, asserted that for several years past these birds had taken toll from his fields. Others also have seen the starlings,, while part of a mixed flock, actually feeding on the ears of corn. Damage to field corn was reported less frequently than to sweet corn, and the reports were subject to the same errors of identification of birds. On one farm west of West Caldwell, N. J., the starling was bitterly criticized for its work on a 2 to 3 acre patch. Some time was spent observing the bird visitants to this field, and it was found that English sparrows were busily engaged in tearing down the husks for an inch or two, as far as their strength allowed, and eating the terminal kernels. In the vicinity of Freehold, N. J., where a large starling-grackle roost was located, flocks of starlings were common about the middle of September in the near-by cornfields. Many of the birds would perch on the top of the cornstalks and sing, fully as many would be on the ground apparently in search of insects, and a few could be noted pecking the ends of the ears. One field of several acres appeared to be a favorite resort, and earlier in the year, when the corn was in the milk, damage had been done there. The proprietor asserted that early in August, when most of the corn was dam- aged, starhngs in a large flock visited his field twice daily, morning and evening. A count in part of the field showed that of the 522 ears examined 136, or more than 26 per cent, had been visited by birds. Over half the opened ears, however, showed the unmistak- able track of the corn worm. It is highly probable that the birds often devoured the insects they exposed in tearing down the husk. Another field, northwest of Freehold, which was visited by large flocks of starhngs in early morning and late afternoon, was carefully inspected, and very httle bird work was found, but a heavy infesta- tion of corn worms had severely damaged the crop. A comparison of the food habits of the starlings and grackles occupying the Freehold roost in September was obtained from the examination of material collected there. Six of the 116 starlings had fed on corn, and in the stomach of one, this grain formed 94 per cent of the contents, in another 60 per cent, in a third 12 per cent, and in the remaining three only 1 per cent each, making an average percentage of about 1 .5 for the lot. Twenty of the 27 grackles shot at the same roost had fed on corn, and in 1 1 tliis constituted the entire stomach contents. The corn consumed by the 27 gracldes formed over 76 per cent of their food. With this was over 11 per cent of other grain, principally oats. To a hmited extent starlings were accused of pulling sprouting corn, both sweet and field varieties. At Mendham, N. J., it was 182334°— 21 5 34 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. reported that starlings had pulled nearly an acre of corn in one field, and at Spring House, Pa., it was asserted that starlings had pulled corn so badly on a 10-acre field that it had to be replanted. Wliile laboratory examination shows that the starling is not an ex- tensive feeder on ripening corn, field observation indicated that where local conditions are favorable, as in the vicinity of roosts, the birds may do damage. The aggregate loss to the corn crop which can be defi- nitely attributed to the starling is not great. Many of the com- plaints against the starling have been based on a misidentification of the species — red-winged blackbirds and grackles being more f reciuently responsible. The aggregate loss to sprouting corn is trivial. The fact that starlings are easily frightened by gunfire and will shun an area after a day or two of shooting suggests effective preventive measures, which have not proved successful in the case of the other two species mentioned. SMALL GRAIN. The farmer has little need to fear the starling as a menace to small grains. Twenty of the 2,301 adult birds examined had fed on small grain, and of these 13 had eaten wheat, 6 oats, and 1 millet. In bulk this formed 0.39 per cent of the food, and fully half of this was eaten at a time of year when it manifestly must have been waste. The few complaints on this score were either so trivial in nature or so widely separated that the aggregate injury is not important. The complaints involved the picking up of newly sown oats, the ''pull- ing" of sprouting oats, and feeding on ripened wheat and millet. At Sound Beach, Long Island, a flock of about 500 starlings was noted feeding in a millet patch, the owner of which claimed that the birds had eaten all the seed from a similar patch in the previous year and that it appeared as if they would repeat the performance. GARDEN TRUCK. From the impossibility of satisfactorily identifying such food items as chewed-up bits of lettuce and spinach leaves, tender pods of peas, pulp of tomatoes, etc., it is apparent that stomach examination does not satisfactorily determine the relation of the starling to garden truck. In no case were such items positively identified in stomachs, though reliable field observers have witnessed attacks on these and other products of the garden at odd times. The depredations are confined mainly to small city gardens, where the succulent green foods are readily accessible to an unusually large number of star- lings. In intensively cultivated truck-crop areas, as in the Brook- dale section, north of Bloomfield, N. J., similar conditions sometimes prevail. ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 35 An observer of Stratford, Comi., has witnessed starlings pecking holes in his tomatoes, and an extensive grower of tomatoes at Strat- ford asserted that of the first three crates of tomatoes picked in 1917 one had to be discarded, owing to the work of starlings. A farmer of Brookdale, N. J., has suffered losses to late tomatoes, and near-by growers complained that starlings scratched out seeds of radish, parsley, and spinach when these were sown under manure in winter and verj^ early spring. Similar complaints were heard in Richfield, south of Paterson, N. J. At Demarest, N. J., a muskmelon patch was inspected after starlings had been at work pulling the young sprouts. Of about 15 hills of 3 or 4 plants each only 7 plants re- mained. On tliis same farm starlings took all of two plantings of onion sets in a small garden near the house. On a farm west of Ora- dell, N. J., sprouting lima beans shared the same fate, and in a small garden in Hackensack, N. J., 150 young lettuce plants were "pulled." A resident of Bay Shore, N. Y., had many of his green peas taken by starlings. These instances are typical of the damage starlings may do to gardens. In the main their work is confined to small plots, and the losses are most keenly felt by the city dweUer who has painstakingly tilled and planted a few square yards of soil. In the extensive truck-crop sections the aggregate damage of tliis kind is not great. WILD FRUIT. The starling is essentially an insect-eating and fruit-eating bird, and wild fruits form the largest single item in its yearly food (23.86 per cent). Both the quantity and variety natui-ally change with the season. In May, when millipeds, beetles, and other insects are abmi- dant, wild fruit disappears entirely from the diet. The first half of Jmie sees little change in the food habits, but as cherries begin to ripen the birds begin to flavor their diet with fruit, wild as well as cultivated; and mulberries (Morns rubra) and June berries (Ame- lanchier) form practically all of the 1.1 per cent of wild fruit taken in this month. In July, with the ripening of red and white mulberries, the starlings enter on a veritable orgy of fruit eating, which continues until well mto October, as one species of fruit after another ripens. In July, 35.82 per cent of the food consists of wild fruit, practically all of which is mulberries and blackberries. A rather open comitry, with occasional groups or single trees of mulberry or wild cherry, furnishes an ideal feeding ground for the flocks of young starlings which wander over the comitry during the summer and fall months. Early in August the chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and later in the month the black cherry (Prunus serotina) and the elderberry (Samhucus canadensis), supply the bulk of the 40.88 per cent which 36 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. represents the fruit consumption for this month. Other fruits taken in small quantities give variety even in the fruit portion of the diet. The 39.51 per cent of fruit consumed in September consists prin- cipally of the black cherry, which holds over from the preceding month,, sour-gum berries (Nyssa sylvatica), Virgmia creeper {Psedera quin- quefolia), elderberry (Samhucus) and small quantities of many other fruits which ripen at this season. By the first week in October many of the juicy berries are gone, although Virginia creeper and sour gum still furnish a considerable supply. These, however, soon disappear, and other sources of food are found in the immense niunber of grasshoppers present at this season and in bayberries {Myrica carolinensis) . These dry, hardj berries furnish the bulk of the 23.76 per cent of wild fruit found in the stomachs collected in this month, and supply a staple food throughout the winter. Wild fruit enters into the winter food in the following percentages: November, 41.80; December, 36.44; January, 19.98; February, 32.90. In all four months practically the only fruits taken are the waxy bay- berries and the seeds of the various species of Rhus, all of which are dry and hard, thinly covered with fruit pulp and skin. The starling apparently feeds on them only when unable to secure any other food. Whenever snow is off the ground the birds commence to search for insects and rctm'n to the sumac and bayberries only when compelled to do so by a fresh snowfall. In March, although there are few insects, available, the feedmg on wild fruit shows a decrease of over one-half, only 13.69 per cent of the month's food coming from this source. Garbage replaces it to a large extent, and it is apparent that the melt- ing of the snow enables the birds to feed more on the ground and depend less on the hard berries on which they had so largely subsisted during the whiter. April, with its increasing abmidance of early insects and millipeds,. shows a practical abandonment of fruit eating by the epecies. Only 0.34 per cent of the food for this month is fruit, and this consists of a few seeds of Rhus and Myrica which escaped the winter's gleaning and have been picked up one or two at a time by different birds. Durmg the five months from October to February the starling takes the seeds of poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron) in quantities vary- ing from 1.42 per cent in January to 7.77 per cent in December, and, while this item forms only 1.71 per cent of the annual food, it is of some economic importance. The seeds are eaten, as are all other berries of a similar natm^e, simply for the thin outer covering of pulp and skin, and the hard parts pass through the digestive tract or are regurgitated, their germinating qualities uninjured. The starling thus becomes an agent in their dissemination, but as the birds so often roost over city streets or in buildings, part of these seeds are ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STAELING. 37 deposited in places where they can not gi'ow. In the actual spread of this noxious weed, the starling is probably less responsible than many of our native birds, which scatter most of their regurgitated seeds where they have at least a fair chance for growth. MISCELLANEOUS VEGETABLE FOOD. Of the total annual food of the starling 13.57 per cent may be classed as miscellaneous vegetable matter. This consists almost entirely of refuse eaten during the winter months, as coffee grounds, orange seeds, beans, parings of various fruits and vegetables, and similar material commonly found on garbage piles. Mast and various grass and weed seeds are also present in insignificantly small quantities. Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and foxtail grass (ChsEiocMoa glauca) were most commonly found, and as the starling habitually feeds in fields and pastures containing an abundance of these two weeds, it is not sm-prismg that a few seeds are occasionally taken. The garbage eaten has no econom.ic significance, even so indirectly as the cutting down of the available food of native birds, as they seldom resort to such food. FOOD OF NESTLINGS. From an economic standpoint, the food habits of nestling passerine birds are, as a rule, more commendable than those of the adults, and when one considers that during the nestling period the young birds of many species outnumber the parents two to one, the importance of knowmg what they are capable of doing is manifest. Then, too, it must be remembered that the food required for the young growmg bird is vastly more than that needed for its parent. During the fu'st few days of the nestling's life, especially, it consumes enormous quantities of food, estimated in the case of some species to be on each day a mass equal to its own weight. This demand for food, much of which consists of injurious insects, is greatest during May, June, and July, a time when growing crops are benefited most by a suppression of their insect enemies. 38 BULLETIN 868, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 5^ 1% (^1 'I' /^^ Fig. 3. — C:hart of food of 295 nestling starlings, showing its changing rharacter during the three stages of nestling life. In Table III, page 44, the same information is presented in percentages. Exphniatory remarks on both chart and table are given on page 44. tion of beneficial gromid beetles and cultivated cherries they are not so culpable as their parents. Correlated with this demonstrated su- periority in food habits are the facts that, bird for bird, nestlings con- sume more food than adults and that in the case of the starlmg they outnumber the adults two to one. Confronted with such an array of favorable testimony the worth of the young starlmg can be scarcely overestimated. 46 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. RELATION TO OTHER SPECIES OF BIRDS. The antagonism between starlings and other birds constitutes one of the most frequently heard complaints against this species. This is especially true in thickly settled regions where the natural nesting sites of hole-nesting birds have been largely replaced with artificial ones in the form of bird boxes. This fact in itself has a tendency to bring to human attention most of such conflicts, as many of the bird boxes are in dooryards where they are under more or less constant observation. It must also be borne in mind that the drivmg out of native species which have been induced by enthusiastic bird lovers to take up sites in the dooryard, will be more keenly felt than the molestmg of breedmg birds at a greater distance from the house and with which there has been less intimate acquaintance. Wliile particular attention was given to this complamt during the breeding season, little antagonism was actually observed. However, as acts of vandalism last for just a moment or two, it is not surprising that more instances were not noted. It is apparent, then, from the nature of the case that data of this kmd must be secured largely from the notes of reliable observers. Those who have had the for- tune to witness such activities report that bluebirds and flickers suffer most, but martins, house wrens, robins, English sparrows, and a few other wild species, as well as domestic pigeons, are also bothered in their nestmg operations. Unrelenting perseverence dominates the starling's activities when engaged in a controversy over a nestmg site. More of its battles are won by dogged persistence in aiuioying its victim than by bold aggression, and its irritating tactics are sometimes carried to such a point that it seems almost as if the bird were actuated more by a morbid pleasure of annoymg its neighbors than by any necessity arismg from a scarcity of nestmg sites. Illustrative of this are the experiences of a pair of bluebirds observed at Norwalk, Comi., build- ing a nest in a cavity high in an ehn tree. On April 8 two starlings were seen sittmg nearby, whistlmg and squealmg. They were not noted attackmg the bluebirds, but the next afternoon the bluebirds had disappeared and the starlmgs were carrying nest material into the cavity. The next day the bluebirds tried to get into a wren box havmg an openmg too small for their passage. A day or two later four bird boxes were erected in the vicinity, and the bluebirds prompt- ly began to build in one. This apparently aroused the displeasure of the starlmgs; so they entered the box and removed the nest material. The same performance was repeated at two of the other boxes, and it was not until the bluebirds had taken up the last box, which was provided with a l|-incli opening, through which the starlings could not pass, that they were able to lay a set of eggs. That misfortune ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 47 still attended the bluebirds was disclosed one morning when the male was found dead beneath the nest and the eggs were deserted by the female. There was no evidence, however, to connect the starlings with the final disaster. Additional reliable evidence of bluebirds being driven out by starlings was secured at Norwalk, Wilton, and West Cornwall, Conn.; Groton, Mass.; Medford, Long Island, N. Y.; and Adelphia, N. J. In contrast with such actions was the situation presented in an orchard at Norfolk, Coim., not far from the scene just described. Here a pair of bluebirds and two pairs of starlings conducted their family affairs peaceably in close proximity to each other. At Hart- ford, Conn., a pair of bluebirds and three pairs of starlings nested in natural cavities in apple trees located in two adjacent city lots. The owner of the property said he had watched the birds closely and did not see any evidence of antagonism between the species. In contests with the flicker the starling frequently makes up in nmnbers what disadvantage it may have in size. Typical of such combats was the one observed on May 9, at Hartford, Conn., where a group of starlings and a flicker were in controversy over a newly excavated nest. The number of starlings varied, but as many as 6 were noted at one time. Attention was first attracted to the dispute by a number of starlings in close proximity to the hole and by the sounds of a tussle within. Presently a flicker came out dragging a starling after him. The starling continued the battle outside long enough to allow one of its comrades to slip into the nest. Of course the flicker had to repeat the entire performance. He did this for about half an hour, when he gave up, leaving the starlings in posses- sion of the nest. On June 19, at Port Chester, N. Y., a controversy was observed be- tween a pair of starlings and a pair of flickers, whose brood was about to leave the nest, which was about 30 feet from the ground and witliin 25 feet of a house. Wlien first observed one of the starlings was perched a few feet from the nest, in the entrance to which was one of the fhckers. Whenever this flicker relaxed its vigilance for a moment one of the starlings would immediately make a dart for the nest opening. A scuffle would ensue in v/hich both flicker and starling- would come tumbling to the ground and a few feathers would fly. In the meantime the other flicker and starlmg v/ould take up the wait- ing game in the tree top. Tins condition had prevailed for several days, and after a day or two more of continuous conflict the fficker succeeded in bringing forth its brood unharmed. The nest cavity was not then taken over by the starlmgs. At Gwynedd Valley, Pa., an observer told of the killmg of two broods of yomig flickers hatched in a tree in liis dooryard. He had prevented the starlings from nesting in this cavity by repeated shoot- 48 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. ing early in spring, but was unable to prevent the destruction of the yoimg flickers, wliich were killed by being dragged from the nest and dropped to the ground. At Closter, N. J., a similar conflict was re- ported in 1915, but in the following year the tables were reversed, for, in a dispute over a nest box only a few rods from the site of the flicker tragedy of the former year, a starling engaged in a struggle for a nest box met its death, apparently in a battle w^ith a flicker. That less serious outcomes sometimes result from starling-flicker feuds was indicated by circumstantial evidence at a point near Hopewell Junction, N. Y. A brood of starlings was occupying a nest cavity recently excavated by flickers in accordance with the approved princi- ples of flicker architecture, the entrance being on the lower side of the limb, protected from drainage. In a neighboring tree was found a brood of 6 half-gro^vn fhckers located in a natural cavity, similar to ones often chosen by starlings, a hollow limb with the entrance exposed upwards and with an opening full 5 inches in diameter. All circumstances seemed to indicate that the birds had simply exchanged nesting sites. Additional reliable evidence of the starlmg's aggres- sive tactics against fhckers, some of which involved the killing of yoimg as well as the usurping of nest sites, came in reports from Hartford, Norwalk (2), West Cornwall, and Portland, Conn.; Woods- town and Adelphia, N. J. ; and Ambler and Maple Glen, Pa. Purple martins suffer to only a limited extent from the starling's demand for nest sites. Throughout Connecticut and much of north- eastern New Jersey the martin is not an abimdant bird, so while houses put up for martins in various localities were usually occupied by starlings and English sparrows, there was little chance of their having been tenanted with martins, even had they not been occupied by the foreigners. One martin house at Norwalk, Conn,, was oc- cupied by a pair of sparrow hawks on one side and three pairs of starlings on the other. At Hadlyme, Conn,, a colony of fully 50 pairs of martins conducted unmolested their nesting operations ui^der the close scrutiny of starlings that nested near by. An observer from Adelphia, N. J,, reported that he had witnessed an attack on martins in his yard. He had erected two martin houses of fo'ur compartments each early in the year. One was occupied by starlings, and when a pair of martins appeared and attempted to take up the other abode a fight occurred. A starling was observed going into the martin house, and after pulling out one of the inmates dragged out the nest material. The martin was subsequently attacked whenever it ap- proached and it finally left the premises. In' this and in another case at Adelphia the martins had come to the boxes for the first time. The two most specific reports received, bearing on the relation of starlings to wrens, are conflicting. In one, at Norwalk, Conn,, a pair of starlings flew to a wren's nest, and pulled the bird out and ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STAKLING. 49 killed it; wliile in the other, at Ambler, Pa., 11 pairs of wrens nested in peace in a yard of about an acre, although starlings were common in the breeding season. The single record of starlings attacking a red-headed woodpecker comes from Baltimore, Md., where a combat was observed over a nest cavity in a telephone pole. That the aggressions of starlings are not entirely restricted to attacks on hole-nesting species is apparent from the fact that after bluebirds and flickers, robins seem to be the birds most frequently molested. Although no observation of this kind was made by the investigators, reliable evidence has come from outside sources. At Ambler, Pa., two nestling robins were killed by starlings, the victims being dispatched by powerful pecks on the head. At East Norwalk, Conn., a starling was seen to peck and break all the eggs in a robin's nest. At the bird sanctuary at Fairfield, Comi., the remains of a robin's nest destroyed by starlings was seen, the caretaker witness- ing this act of vandalism; after the robins had rebuilt the structure it was again destroyed, presumably by starlings. Other corrobora- tive evidence on this point was secured at Gwynedd and ^Spring House, Pa.; Adelphia, N. J.; Southampton, N. Y.; and Hadlyme, Comi. Single attacks on a Baltimore oriole's nest and the young of a cliipping sparrow were reported. It was an almost miiversal observation throughout Connecticut and New Jersey that the English sparrow is decreasing in numbers, and many persons attribute this to the starling. No belligerent acts between these two species, however, were witnessed in the field, though several instances of the usurping of the nesting or roosting places of English sparrows by starlings have been reported. In a number of cases these two species were observed breeding in close proximity, and under one water tank their nests almost touched. A few instances of starlings attacking domestic pigeons were re- ported. At Middletown, R. I., it was found necessary to wage con- stant warfare on the starlings to keep them from nesting in one pigeon loft, where they appropriated for their own domestic affairs the boxes put up for the pigeons. They carried in so much material that they filled the boxes and on one or two occasions dragged it in so rapidly as actually to barricade the setting pigeons, which were entirely unresisting. At Closter, N. J., it was reported that starlings had entered a pigeon loft, driven out the adults, and then,^ cbagging out the squabs, had let them fall to the ground, where they were killed. Opposing testimony was presented from experiences on a squab farm at Stanton, N. J. Here the starlings nested peaceably along with the pigeons and the only trouble that the latter had occurred during cold weather, when starlings in considerable numbers used the coops 50 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. for roosting places. Whenever a lantern was brought into the build- ing at night the starlings flew about in great commotion and, fright- ening the pigeons, caused some of the setting birds to leave their eggs. Starlings were reported on occasions to have driven pigeons even from church towers. At Norwalk, Conn., and Newburgh, N. Y., however, towers were found where pigeons were successfully raising young in the immediate presence of roosting starlings. To determine whether a mere scarcity of nesting sites is the cause of the antagonism between starlings and other species, 24 nest boxes were erected, 12 in the vicinity of Closter, N. J., and 12 about Nor- walk, Conn. These boxes were of a size commonly provided for flickers, measuring approximately 4f by 5f by 16 inches (interior dimensions) and fitted with a 24^-inch hole, and so constructed that the nests could be readily inspected by means of a removable front. In some of these boxes the size of the hole was reduced by tacking on the front small boards containing circular openings, some If inches and some 1 f inches in diameter. These were used to determine the smallest opening through which a starling can pass. The boxes were occupied readily both by starlings and bluebirds; in most cases this was not due to a lack of natural nesting sites, as there were many to be had. In one orchard a pair of starlings showed such a marked preference for a natural cavity that they raised two broods therein, although 3 boxes were in the immediate vicinity, unoccupied at the time their nest was started. Following is a summary of what trans- pired at the 24 boxes: Four boxes failed to have any bird activity connected with them; IS had starling nests started; 14 had starling nests completed; 10 had starling eggs hatched (in 3 other instances the eggs were removed) ; 8 had bluebird nests started, four of which produced young; and 1 had a completed nest of house wrens. None of the 6 bo^es with If -inch opening was occupied by star- lings; 5 of 7 boxes with If -inch opening were occupied by starlings; 10 of 13 boxes with 2^-inch opening were similarly occupied; and at 3 boxes bluebirds were driven away by starlings. In summarizing the evidence bearing on the relation between the starling and our native birds during the breeding season, it is apparent that the bluebird and flicker suffer most. Both have no doubt to a certain extent been driven away from the vicinity of the dooryard. Regarding: the seriousness of these attacks and the ultimate conse- quences to the population of the species it is believed the fears of many bird lovers are exaggerated. While instances such as those cited are numerous and often have resulted fatally to the birds attacked it must be borne in mind that this information is the compilation of more than six months' constant investigation, during which time ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 51 no opportunity to secure data on this point was overlooked. Blue- birds are common and generally distributed in the sections thickly settled with starlings, and although observers have noted their dis- appearance in small areas confined to a dooryard or two, it is the opinion of those who are qualified to judge the general abundance of these birds that in Connecticut and northeastern New Jersey blue- birds have either held their own or increased in numbers in the last few years. Since bluebirds will continue to nest commonly in locali- ties away from human habitation where they have little to fear from starlings, and since even in the dooryard, their nests, eggs, and young may be protected by providing nest boxes having an opening no greater than Ih inches in diameter, there is little danger of the race as a whole being placed in jeopardy. The flicker also will be driven from the vicinity of houses, but it, too, will always find a refuge in wilder situations to which the starling seldom goes. In those parts of Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey where the starling has been a common bird and in competition with the flicker for at least 15 years the latter still maintains as con- spicuous a place in the bird world as it does in other parts of these States where the starling is not yet common. The same can be said of the robin, which in northeastern New Jersey and along the Connec- ticut shore is an extremely abundant bird. Martins are more abun- dant in western, central, and southern New Jersey than in the center of starling population, but such a condition of relative abundance existed before the advent of the starling, and it can not be construed as a result of starling aggression. Neither can the apparent decrease in the English sparrow population throughout New Jersey and parts of New England in the last 10 years be correlated with the spread of the starling, as in many sections where the decrease of the sparrow has been noted the starling has not yet arrived in numbers. As for the other species at present known to be attacked by starlings, the acts of vandalism are so occasional that the effect is negligible and the situation is by no means as serious as that presented by the predatory habits of the "blue jay, the grackle, or the crow,. A consideration of the economic significance of cUsplacing certain native species by the starling involves judgment of the relative worth of the various species. A comparison of the merits of the starling %\nth those of its breeding competitors reveals that it is certainly more valuable than the robin, flicker, or English sparrow; that it has food habits fully as favorable as those of the house wi-en; and that the bluebird and martin are the only species with wliich the starling is in intimate competition whose economic worth might be considered greater than that of the starling. 52 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Field observation sheds some light on the added competition for food imposed upon native species by the presence of the starling. During the breeding season, robins in suburban sections and meadow- larks in the more open country are the species thrown most intimately in contact with the newcomer. The robin finds its customarv^ supply of cutworms in the garden reduced by the diligent search of the star- ling; earthworms, a favorite food of the robin in wet weather, also are taken by the starling, but the supply of these appears to be ample for both. In the case of the meadowlark, such items as cutworms, clover leaf weevils, and other beetles constitute the food supply most frequently sought by both species. After the breeding season the starling comes in competition with several additional species in its search for food. In feeding on meadow and pasture land, its closest associate is the cowbird, and a mixed flock of these two species is a common sight about dairy herds. Contrary to expectation, however, the food habits of the two do not seriously conflict at that time of year. A comparison of the stomach contents of cowbirds and starlings secured from the same flocks showed that while starlings were feeding most heavily on grasshoppers and crickets, cowbirds were satisfying themselves largely by picking up seeds of ragweed and foxtail grass. Similar conditions existed in mixed flocks of starlings, red-winged blackbirds, and grackles roaming through cornfields. Ripening corn formed the major por- tion of the food of the red-wings and grackles, while starlings ate comparatively little. Probably the greatest influence exerted by the starling on the food supply of other birds is occasioned by its consumption of wild fruit diu-ing late summer and early fall. Wild cherry and sour gum trees heavily laden with fruit are soon stripped when a flock of several hundred starlings feeds continually in the vicinity, and, although the total supply of this food is enormous, instances were observed where locally such birds as robins, catbirds, and cedar waxwings were compelled to seek other sources of food. During winter starlings secure a certain portion of the food formerly eaten by English sparrows, especially about dumping* grounds of cities. Where bird lovers have taken pains to attract native species they have often found the foreigner greecUly consuming all the food they could supply, with the result that the cost of attracting birds rose almost to a prohibitive point. Here again must judgment be given on the relative worth of the species concerned before the seriousness of the starhng's consumption of the former food supply of other birds can be understood. After carefuUy weighing all the evidence available, it is safe to state that in the area covered by this investigation the starling is economically the superior of the robin, the catbird, the red-wing, the grackle, the ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 53 cowbird, or the English sparrow, and that in tliis .ompetition for food the meadowlark is the only species whose added difficulty in sustain- ing itself is to be deplored. NATURAL ENEMIES. Very little evidence is at hand regarding the natural enemies of the starling. At Norwalk, Conn., a cat was seen carrying a freshly caught fledgling; and it is probable that a number are thus captured, as cats are numerous in the whole region. Far more robins, catbirds, and other birds are destroyed^ in this manner, however, for starlings are better protected in the nest and are also able to fly better when they leave the nest than are many of our common native birds. Hawks were several times noted flying \\'ith or about flocks of star- lings without attempting to capture any of them. At Bay Shore, N. Y., a curious performance was noted on three successive after- noons. A pair of sparrow hawks used the dead tops of several large locust trees as a lookout point for their hunting. Late in the after- noons the starlings appeared in this locality on their way to roost. As they passed, the sparrow hawks darted out, apparently in pursuit, but they never struck a bird. Instead, both the starling flock and sparrow hawks went through a series of intricate evolutions, appar- ently alternating in the r61e of pursuer and pursued. Occasionally the performance would be varied by a starling swooping down on a hawk as it perched on a limb, driving it oft": then followed the same evolutions as when the hawk was the aggressor. At Freehold, N. J., a sharp-shinned hawk was seen diving into a tree full of young starlings, but the latter, rushing to the center of the thick foliage, escaped harm. At Glen Cove, N. Y., a Cooper hawk was observed to dart from a tree into a passing flock of starlings and, striking one, to carry it away. A young starling was found also in a nest of a Cooper hawk at Wilton, Conn. These instances are enough to show that the birds of prey have learned to take their toll from the newcomer, but give little basis for any estimate as to their effect in checking its increase and spread. Many of the starlings collected were heavily infested with intestinal parasites, but no evidence was secured as to the effect these might have on the mortality of the birds. Cold weather seems to have some effect in checking the increase of starlings as in the vicinity of winter roosts it is common to find dead birds. This is particularly true in northern New Jersey, the region of their greatest abundance. 54: BUULiETIN 8G8, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. ERADICATION OF ROOSTS. Soon after the first brood of starlings begins to leave the nest, some- times as early as the middle of June, one may find these birds resort- ing to nightly roosts (see pp. 11-13). These may be in trees or in church towers, barn cupolas, sheds, etc.; but up to the advent of cold weather the greatest number of starlings gather in tree roosts. Frequently these are established in the residential sections of cities, where the noise in the evening and early morning, with the attendant filth and odor from their droppings, makes the starlings most unwel- come birds. But by no means all of theL,nuisance should be attributed to starhngs, as in most roosts of any size grackles, robins, English sparrows, cowbirds, red-winged blackbirds, and even purple martins help to swell the numbers. Plainfield, Newark, Orange, Montclair, and Glen Ridge, N. J.; Greenwich, Fairfield, and Hartford, Conn.; Glen Cove, N. Y. ; and Germantown and Ambler, Pa., are a few of the places where roosts, in wliich starlings formed a large part of the assemblage, have proved to be a distinct nuisance. The roost encountered at Orange, N. J., is a typical one. Here, as in many other instances, the birds had selected tall elms and maples overhanging roadways and dooryards. When visited on July 15, 1916, the ground beneath the larger trees was whitened with excre- ment. Feathers from the molting birds and the bodies of those that had died littered the ground, and the offensive odor arising, espe- cially in humid weather, permeated the whole neighborhood. Tliis roost was occupied by starlings, gracldes, and a few hundred robins. Observations made on the incoming birds indicated that the ratio between the number of starlings and grackles was about 3 to 2. During the early evening starlings greatly predominated, but as d"ark- ness deepened the proportion of gracldes increased, wliile the last to enter the roost were robins. On July 17, during four minutes at the height of the influx (6.56 to 7 p. m.) 900 birds entered the roost from the south, and on the following night, during a period of 38 minutes, 3,100 were noted coming from the same direction. From these and other observations it was estimated that the roost was occupied by from 6,000 to 8,000 birds. During the entire process of assembling, the birds that were already gathered kept up an incessant din — the starlings with their variety of wliistles and rasping notes and the gracldes with their monotonous "checks" and unmusical squeaking calls. The clamor gradually lessened as darkness came, but a few of the birds might be heard at odd times all through the night. At the peep of day the gathered thousands would break out with a vol- ume of song that terminated abruptly the slumbers of all light sleep- ers in the vicinity. This accomplished, the birds would depart rather suddenly on their daily search for food. ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 55 In previous years residents of the vicinity had undertaken meas- ures, more or less feeble, to remove the objectionable birds. Some of these afforded temporary relief. Roman candles shot on one or two nights drove the birds away for a short time. Three incan- descent lamps placed in a tree in the center of the roost gave relief to that immediate vicinity. The ringing of a bell placed in another tree sei-ved to drive away the birds in the early morning hours and shorten their annoying daybreak serenade, and a httle desultory shooting also had been done, but with no lasting results. Operations with a view of testing some of these methods of roost eradication were begun on July 17, at the Orange roost. A shotgun was used in the early evening, and when darkness arrived a number of Roman candles were discharged. Five successive nights of attack removed the roost. During these operations two observations of importance in connection with roost eradication were made. One was that the firing of a gun early in the evening, just as the birds are coming to roost, makes a more effective impression than one fired after the colony has settled for the night. When there is still day- light the frightened birds will fly for some chstance before alighting, while later in the evening the birds move onl}^ a few yards from their former perch. It was also noted that in a mixed roost adult star- lings were the first to take flight and young starlings were next to leave; grackles were less easily driven away, wliile robins were prac- ticaUy fearless, few of them leaving the roost even after five nights of attack. The relief obtained, however, was but temporary. In about 10 days the birds, not being further molested, reoccupied the roost. On August 24, a second attempt was made to drive them out, and after 6 nights' shooting they left, not to return that season. On the last 6 nights of September a starling-grackle-robin roost at Freehold, N. J., was attacked with the shotgun only and com- pletely removed. The birds apparently chose a new roosting place at some distance from Freehold, for when the roost had been eradi- cated, comparatively few starlings could be found in the daytime anywhere in the country surrounding the town, where previously they had been common. A single night's shooting at a roost composed entirely of starlings at Fairfield, Conn., during wliich 40 of the birds were kiUed, gave the desired results. A roost at Montclair, N. J., had been a source of considerable trouble for several years and measures had been taken to eradicate it. Roman candles had no effect, but four men using shotguns loaded with blank cartridges for tln'ee consecutive nights succeeded in driv- ing the birds away. However, they moved to a point in Glen Ridge, N. J., where they became equally troublesome. 56 BULLETIN 868, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Experiments were made by the municipal authorities of Montchiir in 1916 to determine the usefulness of a sticky substance applied to the branches of the trees of the roost. This had no apparent effect in deterring the birds, although six or seven trees near the center of the roost had their branches well smeared with it. The sticky, resinous gum used was applied with small paddles, the climbers using a boatswain's chair to reach the upper and outer branches. As in several other cases the shotgun had to be used to bring relief. At Hartford, Conn., several years ago, a roost of about 5,000 star- lings and grackles was established on one of the principal residential streets, where it became such a nuisance that the city authorities took measures to remove it. Objection to the use of a shotgun was made by local bird lovers, who volunteered to drive the birds away by firing Roman candles. Three nights' work, in which from 3 to 15 men armed with Roman candles participated, removed the roost. From present experiences it is apparent that neither the shotgun nor the Roman candle, however, effects a lasting cure. Each one, when used persistently, has served to remove roosts, but in either case vigilance must be used to prevent the birds from reesta))lishing themselves. In a few instances, as at Hartford, Roman candles did the work effectively, but at other roosts such measures have failed. A shotgun loaded with black powder shells, fired on 5 or 6 consecu- tive evenings, will give more certain results. Such treatment can be recommended for eradicating tree roosts of starlings and grackles wherever State and local laws permit. Starling roosts located in church towers, where they have some- times become a nuisance on account of the attending filth, can be abolished by the use of wire screen of a mesh of 1| inches or less. This method is almost universally resorted to in places thickly popu- lated with starlings. CONTROL MEASURES. Outside of the work done on roosts and the activities of caretakers of a few bird preserves, few efforts toward reducing the numbers of starlings have been made, but mention of some of these may be useful to those desiring to control the birds where they are injurious either to crops or buildings. One fact connected with the behavior of starlings brought out re- peatedly in field work is that the birds are'^easily frightened by gun- fire and soon become exceedingly wary. A few gunshots are usually sufficient to drive them away from the vicinity of crops upon which they are feeding. This is especially true when they are eating cherries. Wliere starlings become objectionable about dooryards by reason of the filth connected with their breeding operations, their activities ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 57 may be curtailed by closing all cavities which might be used for nests, or reducing the diameter of the entrances to 1| inches or less. Wliile wholesale destruction of these birds, where extermination of the species in this country is the object sought, can not be recom- mended, occasion may arise where local overabundance will accen- tuate some of the injurious habits of the species, and make a reason- able reduction in their numbers justifiable. Raids on their fall and winter roosts appear to be effective means of accomplishing this. In church towers, especially, large numbers may be easily captured at night. No poisoning method appears practicable in winter, but trapping has met with moderate success on bird preserves. An ordi- nary screen ash-shifter propped up on one side with a stick was used to advantage in one case, and after baiting the area below it, the trap was sprung by pulling a string attached to the supporting stick. LEGISLATION. The popular attitude toward the starling has been reflected in State game laws. In all States where the bird is present even in moderate numbers it has been placed in the list, of exceptions to pro- tection. These States are Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. In Maine, where, in the extreme south- western corner, a few starlings have appeared, these birds have been given protection, subject, however, to a provision in the State game laws whereby any birds or mammals (save beavers) may be killed when destroying crops. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE. FOOD HABITS. The food habits of a bird are of paramount importance in deter- mining its desirability, and in the case of the starling knowledge on this subject is available from evidence revealed from a larger series of stomachs apparently than any heretofore used in the investigation of the food habits of a single species, supported by extensive field observation in areas in this country where the species is most abun- dant. Following are the more important findings: As an effective destroyer of terrestrial insects, including such pests as cutworms, grasshoppers, and weevils, the starling has few equals among the bird population of the northeastern United States. The most serious objection to the starling on economic grounds arises from its destruction of cherries. When its work is combined with that of the robin, which is fully as destructive and much less easily fright- ened, the chances for a successful crop of cherries, especially of early varieties, are poor. 58 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. The starling's work on apples is confined largely to isolated trees and to small, old orchards. Late varieties suffer more than those which mature at a time when there is still a great abundance of wild black cherries available. In the aggregate the apple damage is not great and is practically absent in young, well kept, produc- tive orchards. Injury to peaches and pears is negligible, and the damage to grapes is at present confined to small arbore — the large vineyards suffering very little. Contrary to the opinion of many farmers, especially in New Jersey, the starling secures an extremely small portion of its sustenance from either sweet or field corn. Its association with the actual depredators of cornfields, the red-winged blackbirds and grackles, accounts for its reputation. It is true that the starling, especially in the vicinity of roosts, does inflict some damage on corn, but com- pared with that done by the other species named this is very little. Its damage to small grain is negligible. In the small city or suburban garden the starling's fondness for green stuff" in spring and early summer has been the cause of some complaint, but in large truck-crop sections, where the bulk of such produce is raised, the aggregate loss is trivial. An idea of the economic significance of the starling's food habits is gained by comparison with the food habits of certam well-known native birds, with some of which it frequently associates. A thorough consideration of the evidence at hand indicates that, based on food habits, the adult starling is the economic superior of the robin, catbird, flicker, red-winged blackbird, or grackle. It is primarily a feeder on insects and wild fruit — less than 6 per cent of its yearly food being secured from cultivated crops. What damage it does inflict is due not so much to the character of its food habits as to the fact that the flocking habit has allowed some minor trait to be emphasized to a point where local damage results. The decidedly beneficial character of the food habits of one, two, or sometimes three broods of nestlings, numbering 4 to 6 to the nest, adds mate- rially to the favorable economic status of the species. RELATION TO OTHER SPECIES. While the advent of the starling doubtless has had some effect on native species nesting in the dooryard, it is not believed this bird will jeopardize any species as a whole. EconomicaUy con- sidered, the starling is the superior of either the flicker, the robin, or the English sparrow, three of the species with which it comes in contact in its breeding operations. The eggs and young of bluebirds and wrens may be protected by the use of nest boxes with circular openings 1^ inches or less in diameter. This leaves the purple martin the only species readily subject to attack by the starling, ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STARLING. 59 whose economic worth may be considered greater than that of the latter, but in no case was the distm'bance of a well-estabhshed colony of martins noted. In its search for food the starling also comes in competition with neighboring species, most of which, however, are the starling's economic inferior. The meadowlark appears to be the only species which might be affected by this competition for food whose added difficulty in sustaining itself is to be deplored. ROOSTS. The objectionable habit possessed by the starling in common with several other species, particularly grackles and robins, of congregating in enormous roosts, usually in the residential section of a city, is, next to the damage resulting from the bird's food habits, the source of the greatest economic loss. The persistent use of firearms or Roman candles will remove these nuisances, but vigilance must be employed to prevent the reestablishing of the roosts in other places where they would be equally objectionable. CONCLUSION. It has been the pm*pose of this investigation to determine what should be our attitude toward the starling, in order that a correct judgment might be reflected by legislation governing the protection of the bird. Most of the starling's food habits have been demon- strated to be either beneficial to man or of a neutral' character. Furthermore, it has been found that the time the bird spends in destroying crops or in molesting other birds is extremely short compared with the endless hom's it spends searching for insects or feeding on wild fruits. Nevertheless, no policy would be sound which would give the bird absolute protection and afford no relief to the farmer whose crops are threatened by a local overabundance of the species. Consequently, the enactment of laws that afford protection to the starling, except when it is actually doing or tlu'eatening to inflict damage, appeal's to be the wisest procediu"e. With its ready ability to adapt itself to new environments, the starling possesses almost unlimited capacity for good, but it is potentiaUy harmful in that its gregarious habits may abnormally emphasize some minor food habit which would be indulged in at the expense of growing crops. The individual farmer will be weU rewarded by allowing a reasonable number of starlings to conduct their nestmg operations on the farm. Later in the season a little vigilance will prevent these easily frightened birds from exacting an unfair toll for services rendered. 60 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Table IV. — List of items identified in the food contained in 2,626 starling stomachs examined, and the number of stomachs in which each was found. ^ ANIMAL MATTER. COLEOPTEEA (GENUINA) (BEETLES). Unidentified adults Unidentified larv;u Cicindelidsc (tiger beetles): Cicindela purpurea Cicindela repanda Cicindela punctulata Cicindela sp Cicindela sp. , larvaj Carabidje (ground beetles): Unidentified Unidentified larvae Omophrbn americanum Carabus sylvosus Carabus serratus Carabus vinctus Carabus nemoralis Carabus sp Calosoma sayi Calosoma calidum. Calosoma sp Elaphrus fuliginosus Elaphrus sp Scarites subterraneus Scarites sp Bembidium versicolor Bembidium quadrimaculatum Bembidium sp Patrobus longicornis Pterostichus sayi Pterostichus lucublandus Pterostichus patruelis Pterostichus sp Evarthrus sigillatus Evarthrus sp Amara avida Amara pennsylvanica Amara impuncticollis Amara basillaris Amara fallax Amara musculus Amara sp DicEelus elongatiis Dicaelus sp Platynus cupripemiis Platynus nutans Platynus placidus Platynus crenistriatus Platynus sp Casnonia pennsylvanica Casnonia sp Galerita janus Galerita sp Lebia grandis Lebia sp Cymindis pilosa Cymindis sp Chlaenius tricolor Chlaenius tomentosus Chlaenius sp Anomoglossus emarginatus 1 A total of at least 494 specifically different 106 137 1 1 9 20 1 729 3 1 1 4 12 2 11 1 19 8 1 1 22 2 2 1 3 2 4 121 2 83 3 2 3 21 1 3 1 2 131 1 20 46 1 1 9 15 38 32 1 4 1 1 2 72 103 1 CoLEOPTERA — Continued. Carabida;— Continued. Cratacanthus dubius 11 Agonoderus pallipes 3 Agonoderus testaceus 1 Agonoderus sp 5 Harpalus diclirous 1 Harpalus erraticus 1 Harpalus caliginosus 144 Harpalus faunus 9 Harpalus pennsylvanicus 82 Harpalus compar 18 Harpalus er j'thropus 6 Harpalus herbivagus 2 Harpalus sp 318 Selenophorus pedicularius 1 Stenolophus conjunctus 5 Stenolophus sp 2 Anisodactylus rusticus 89 Anisodactylus carbonarius 1 Anisodactylus baltimorensis 3 Anisodactylus lugubris 1 Anisodactylus sp 224 Dytiscida? (predacious diving beetles): Agabus disintegratus 1 Hydropliilid;e (water scavenger beetles): Tropisternus glaber 2 Tropisternus sp. . r. 1 Pliilhydrus sp 1 Sphacridium scarabasoides 21 Cercyon unipunctatum 1 Cercyon sp 1 Cryptopleurimi minutum 1 Silphidfe (carrion beetles): Unidentified 1 Necrophorus sp 3 Silpha surinamensis 1 Silpha noveboracensis 3 Silpha americana 1 Silpha sp 4 Stapliylinidfe (rove beetles): Unidentified 155 Quedius molochinus 1 Staphylinus maculosus 29 Staphylinus mysticus 9 Staphylinus sp 58 Philonthus politus 1 Philonthus hepaticus 1 Philonthus fusiformis 1 Philonthus micans 1 Philonthus sp 14 Stenus sp 3 Cryptobium sp 2 Hesperobium sp 1 Pfederus littorarius 2 Scaphidiidre (shining fungus beetles): Ba'ocera sp 1 Coccinellidfe (ladybugs): Unidentified adults 18 Unidentified larva? 1 Mosilla maculata 5 food items have been found in the food of the starling. ECONOMTC VALUE OF THE STx\RLING. 61 Table IV. — List of items identified in the food contained in 2,626 starling stomachs examined, and the number of stomachs in which each was found — Continued. ANIMAL MATTER— Continued. CoLEOPTERA— Continued. Cocciiiellidae —Continued. Hippodamia convergens Hippodamia 13-punctata Hippodamia parenthesis Hippodamia sp Coccinella 9-notata Coccinellasp Adalia bipunctata Scyniniis americanus Erotylidfe (banded fimgus beetles): Languria mozardi Cucujidae (flat bark beetles): Silvaniis surinamensis Histeridfe (shining carrion beetles): Unidentified Hister biplagiatus Hister harrisii * Hister interruptus var. immunis Hister abbreviatus Hister americanus Hister perplexiis Hister subrotundus Hister sp Nitidulidae (sap-feeding beetles): Ips quadriguttatus Trogositidce (grain and bark-gnawing beetles): Teuebrioides corticalis Tenebrioides sp ByrrhidiK (pill beetles): Unidentified Cy tilus sericeus Cytilus sp , Byrrhus sp Heteroceridfe (mud beetles): Heterocerus sp , Elateridffi (click beetles): Unidentified adults Unidentified larvae Adelocera discoideOc Cryploliypniis abbreviatus Monocrepidius lividus Monocrepidius vespertinus Monocrepidius auritus Mouocrepidius bellus-. Monocrepidius sp Drasterius elegans - - Drasterius sp Agriotes mancus Agriotes pubescens Agriotes sp Meianotus sp Limonius griseus '. Limonius interstitialis Limonius plebejus Limonius sp Corymbites pyrrhos Asaphes memuoniiis Buprestida; (metallic wood-borers); Unidentified Diccrca obscura Diccrca lurida 303 29 1 2 2 9 3 13 11 17 12 4 1 1 5 10 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 CoLEOPTEBA— Continued. Lampyridae (fireflies): Unidentified adults 11 Unidentified larvfe 6 Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus 13 Chauliognathus marginatus 12 Chauliognathus sp 2 Telephorus carolinus 4 Telephorus bilLneatus 4 Telephorus sp 5 Polemius sp 1 Cleridae (checkered beetles): Chariessapilosa 1 Scarabajidso (lamellicorn beetles): Unidentified adults 104 Unidentified larvae 34 Canthon Isevis 2 Canthon sp 2 Copris minutus 1 Copris tuUius 6 Copris sp 1 Onthophagus nucliicornis 9 Onthophagus hecate 9 Onthophagus pennsylvanicus 6 Onthophagus sp 6 Ataeuius cognatus 19 Ataenius sp 8 Aphodius fossor 9 Aphodius iimetarius 106 Aphodius granarius 9 Aphodius inquinatus 16 Aphodius stercorosus 1 Aphodius sp 25 Bolbocerosoma farctum 2 Odontaeus cornigerus 1 Gecftnipes splendidus 2 G eotnipes sp 1 Dichelonycha elongata 1 Serica vespertina 2 Serica sp 1 Diplotaxis atlantis 9 Diplotaxis sp 13 Phyllophaga ephilida 1 Phyllophaga fusca 30 Phyllophaga anxia 10 Phyllophaga gibbosa 13 Phyllophaga micans 4 Phyllophaga fervida 3 Phyllophaga fraterna 6 Phyllophaga hirticula 55 Phyllophaga forsteri 10 Phyllophaga crenulata 3 Phyllophaga tristis 41 i'hyllophaga sp 162 Anomala lucicola 7 Anomala sp 31 Cotaipa lanigera 6 Dyscinetus trachypygus 1 Ligyrus gibbosus 10 Ligyrussp 2 Euphoria fulgida 1 Euphoria inda 12 Euphoria sp 8 62 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Table IV. — List of items identified in the food contained in 2,626 starling stomachs examined, and the number of stomachs in which each was found — Continued. ANIMAL MATTER— Continued. CoLEOPTERA— Continued. CerambycidEe (long-lioraed beetles): Unidentified 9 Phymatodes variabi.is 1 Monohammus scutellatus 1 Lepturges querci 1 Tetraopes canteriator 1 Tetraopes sp 1 ChrysomelidiB (leaf beetles): Unidentifled 311 Douacia sp 1 Lema trilineaiu 2 Crioceris asparagi 1 Chlamys plicata 6 Chlamys sp 1 Bassareus sp 1 Cryptoceplialus venustus 8 Cryptocephalus calidus 2 Cryptoceplialus sp 6 Pachybrachys m-nigrum 1 Pachybracliys sp 3 Diachus auratus 1 TyiJopliorus canellus 3 Typopliorus quadiunotatus 8 Typophorus aterrimus 2 Typophorus gilvlpes 1 Tj-pophorus sp 27 Graphops pubesceus 3 Graphops marcassitus 3 Graphops sp 4 Colaspis brunnea - 52 Colaspis sp 31 Nodonota tristis 1 Nodonota pimcticollis 7 Nodonota cl}T)ealis 1 Nodonota sp 12 Labidomera cllvicollis 1 Leptinotarsa 10-lineata 39 Zygogiamina suturalis 17 Zygogramma sp 3 Calligrapha similiti 10 Calligrapha elegans 7 Calligrapha lunata 2 Calligiapha sp 7 Plagiodera viridis 2 Gastroidea polygoni 2 Gastroidca sp 1 Phyllobrotica sp 1 Diabrotica 12-puiictata 3 Diabrotica vittata 1 Diabrotica sp 2 Trirhabda canadensis 2 Trirhabda sp 1 Galerucella amerieana 10 Galerucella sp 63 Monoxia pimcticollis 2 Oedionychis vians 2 OedionycMs thoracica 2 Oedionychis flmbriata 5 Disonycha crcnicollis 1 Disonycha caroliniana 1 Disonycha triangularis 1 Disonycha xanthomelaena 2 CoLEOPTERA— Continued. ChrysomeUdse— Continued . Disonycha sp ,2 Haltica ignita 5 Haltica rufa 1 Haltica sp 1 Systena hudsonias 7 Systena sp 3 Phyllotreta vittata 1 Phyllotreta armoraciae . . 1 Chaotocnema denticulata 13 Chaetocncma minuta 1 Chaotocnema sp 20 Dibolia borealis 1 Microrhopala vittata 35 Microrhopala xerene 2 Microrhopala sp 43 Coptocycla bicolor 1 Coptocycla plicata .♦ 1 Coptocycla sp : 4 Chelymorpha argus 16 Tenebrionidce (darkling beetles): Unidentifled 10 Tenebrio obscurus 1 Opatrinus notus 106 Blapstinus moestus 1 Blapstinus metallicus 1 Blapstinus sp 31 Helops aereus 1 Anthicidfe (antliije flower beetles;: Unidentified 1 Moloidse (blister beetles): Unidentified 2 Meloe amcricanus 1 Epicauta pennsylvanica 1 Rhynchophoea (Weevils): Anthribidse (fungus weevils): Euparius marmoreus 1 Curculionida3 (curculios, or weevils): Unidentified 267 Epicaerus imbricatus 2 Phyxclis rigidus. .■ 93 Otiorhynchus sulcatus 8 Otiorhynchus ovatus 61 Otiorhynchus sp 2 Tanymecus confertus 5 Barypithes pellucidus 1 Sitona liispidula 510 Sitona fiavescens 34 Sitona sp •. 98 Hypcra punctata 1244 Phytonomus meles 3 Phytonomus nigiirosuib 75 Phytonomus sp 43 Listronfftus inaequaiipemiis 1 Listronotus frontalis 1 Listronotus sp 1 Hyperodes sp 37 Pachylobius picivorus 1 Lixus sp 2 Smicronyx comiculatus 1 Bagous sp ECONOMIC VALUE OP THE STARLING. 63 Table IV. — List of items identified in the food contaiified in 2,626 starling stomachs examined, and the number of stomachs in ivJdch each tvas found — Continued. ANIMAL MATTER— Continued. Rhyncuophora— Continued. Curculionidae— Continued. Conotrachelus sp 1 Acalles sp 1 Tyloderma foveolatum 2 Tyloderma acrea 4 Tyloderma sp 2 Cryptorhynchus obliquus 1 CryptorhjTichus fallax 1 Cryptorhynchus tristis 1 CryptorhjTichus sp 1 Ceutorhynchus sp 1 Rhinoncus p>Trhopus 19 Rhinoncus longulus 1 Rhinoncus sp 4 Sphenophorus inaequahs 5 Sphenophorus p?rtinax 1 Sphenopliorus costipennis 1 Sphenophorus melanocephalus 1 Sphenophorus parvulus 110 Sphenophorus zeae 26 Sphenophorus sp 117 Hymenoptera (Ants, Bees, and Wasps.) Unidentified liymenopterans 172 Hymenopterous cocoons 4 Tentlircdinoidea (sawfhes): Unidentified adults Unidentified larvae Arge dulciaria Schizocerus zabriskiei Xipliydria maculata Ichneumonoidea (parasitic wasps): Unidentified Braconid (unidentified) Apanteles torbesi Meteorus sp Chelonella sp Aleiodes intermedius Aleiodes sp Capitonius sp Cymodusa distincta Paniscus geminatus Therion morio Homoptropus sp Scambus sp Pimplidia pedalis Pimplidia sp Itopleetis conquisitor Rhyssa sp Arotes amoenus Itamoplex limatus 2 Itamoplex sp 5 Gambrus sp 1 Phygadeuon sp 3 Hemiteles sp 4 Phaeogenes sp 19 Amblyteles sp ... 1 Cratichncumon sp 24 Pterocormus seminiger 1 Pterocornius sp 19 Pseudamblyteles suturalid. ........... . 1 Pseudamblyteles sp 1 HvMENOPTER.v— Continued. CjTiipoidea (galhlies): Figites sp 3 Formicoidea (ants): Unidentified 374 Crematogaster lineolata 2 Aphaenogastor maria; 1 Aphaenogaster I'ul va subsp 11 Aphaenogaster fulva aquia 4 Aphaenogaster sp 44 Myrmica punctiventrib 1 Myrmica rubra scabrinodis 115 Myrmica sp 45 Lasius niger americanus 12 Lasius niger neoniger 2 Lasius umbratus mixtus 2 Lasius umliratus mixtus apliidieola 2 Lasius clavlger 2 Lasius latipes 1 Lasius sp 11 Formica truncicola Integra 1 Formica pallidc-fulva 4 Formica pallide-fulva var. schaufussi 37 Formica f usca subsericea 62 Formica sp 39 Camponotus herculeanus penasylvauicus. . 34 Camponotus sp 27 Chrysidoidea (cuckoo wasps): Clirysis caerulans 1 Holopygasp 2 Vespoidea (wasps): Unidentified 2 Gonatopus sp 1 Tipliia waldeni 1 Tiphia inomata 2 Tiphia egregia 1 Tiphia transversa 1 Tipliia sp 22 Mutillid 1 Psammochares sp 3 Odynerus sp 1 Vespula maculata 1 Vespula \iilgaris 2 Vespula marginata 1 PoUstes pallipes 4 Sphecoidea (wasps): Didineis texaua 1 Cerceris sp 2 Halictus lerou.xi 2 Ilalictus sp 1 Chloralictus pilosus 4 Chloralictus zephyrus 2 Chloralictus obscurus 1 Chloralictus sp 13 Augoclilora confusci 1 Augochlora sp 1 Sphecodes sp 1 Ptilandrena krigianii 1 Andrena bruimiventris rhodura 3 Andrena forbesi 1 Andrena frigida 1 Andrena sp 4 Osmia sp 1 64 BULLETIN 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Tabi.e IV. — List of items identified in the food contained in 2,626 starling stomachs examined, and the number of stomachs in which each was found — Continued. ANIMAL MATTER— Continued. Hemiptera (True Bugs). Unidentified bugs 92 Cydnidfe (negro bugs): Thyreocoris ater 1 Thyreocoris unicolor 1 Thyreocoris sp 8 Amnestus spinifrons 2 Pentatomidae (stinkbugs): Unidentified 320 Podops cinctipes 1 Brocliymena sp 3 Mormidea lugens 1 Euscliistus servus 1 Euschistus euscliistoides 1 Euscliistus variolarius 7 Euschistus sp s) Coenus delius 32 Thyanta custator 1 Acrosternum hilaris ... '. 1 Stiretrus anchorago 1 Mtneus strigipes 1 Podisus maculiventris 1 Coreidoe (squasli bugs): Unidentified 3 Anasa tristis 1 Anasa repetita 1 Alydus eurinus — 3 Alydus sp 2 LygaeidaB (chinchbugs): Unidentified 39 Bhssus leucopterus 5 Istlimocoris piceus 12 Isthmocoris sp 2 Phlegyas sp 2 Myodocha serripes 9 Ligyrocoris sp 1 Perigenes sp 1 Cryphula parallelogramma 1 Keduviidte (assassin bugs): Unidentified 16 Melanolestes picipes 2 Melanolestes sp 1 Acholla multispinosa 2 Sinea diadoma 6 Sineasp ■. 4 NabidiB (damsel bugs): Unidentified 14 Pagasa fusca 8 Nabis subcoleoptratus 1 Nabis sp 11 CimicidiB (bedbugs): Cime.xsp 1 Miridfe (leaf bugs): ^ Miris dolobratus 2 Lygus pratensis 7 Lygus sp 2 Neoborus sp 1 Cicadidffl (cicadas): Tibicen sp 1 Hemiptera— Continued. Cercopidte (spittle insects): Pliilgenus sp 1 MembracidiX' (tree hoppers): Ceresa diceros 1 Ceresa sp 1 Campylenclua latipes 3 Cicadellidse (leaf hoppers): Unidentified 5fi Agalha 4-punctata 1 AgalUa sanguinolenta 2 Agallia sp ' 1 Draeculacephala niollipes 1 Gyponasp 1 Xerophlnea viridis 1 Acucephalus albifrons 9 Deltocephalus sp 2 Fulgoridae (lanternflies): Unidentified 2 Scolops sp 4 Acanalonia bivittata 1 Orthoptera (Grasshoppers, Locusts, Crickets, (Etc.). Unidentified adults 16 Unidentified eggs 10 Forficulida) (earwigs): Unidentified 1 Acrididae (short-horned grasshoppers): Unidentified 760 Nomotettix cristatus 2 Nomotetttx sp 1 Tettix arenosus 1 Tettigidea parvipennis 1 Tettigidea lateraUs 1 Tettigidea lateralis var. polymorpha 1 Tettigidea sp 8 Orphulella olivacea 1 Stenobothrus curtipeimis 1 Arphia sulphurea 1 Arpliia xanthoptera 1 Chortophaga viridifasciata 3 Hippiscus sp 1 Melanoplus femoratus 2 Melanoplus femur-rubrum 24 Melanoplus atlanis 1 Melanoplus sp 36 Locustidffi (green grasshoppers): Unidentified 54 Orchelimum sp 2 Conocephalus sp 4 Grylhdffi (crickets): Unidentified 332 Gryllotalpa borealis 1 Nemobius fasciatus vittatus 2 Nemobius sp 312 Gryllus peruisylvanicus 4 Gryllus sp 223 Miogryllus sp 2 ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE STAELIXG. 65 Table TV.— List of items identified in the food contained in 2,626 starling stomachs examined, and the number of stomachs in which each was found — Continued. ANIMAL MATTER— Continued. Lepidoptera (Moths, Butterflies, Cater- pillars, Etc.). Unidentified 65 Unidentified eggs 1 Unidentified caterpillars 812 Unidentified pupae 20 Nymphalidse (brush-footed Imtterflies): Argynnis cybele (caterpillar) 1 Arctiidse (tiger moths): Unidentified caterpillar 1 Noctuida; (cutworms): Unidentified caterpillars 24 Nephelodes violans (caterpillar) 1 Nephelodes minians (caterpillars) 22 Cucullia asteroides (caterpillars) 2 Lasiocampidse (tent caterpillars): Malacosoma americana (caterpillars) 3 Malacosoma sp. (caterpillars) 2 Deilepliila Uneata Ccaterpillar) 1 DiPTERA (Flies and their Maggots). Proctacanthus sp Sarcophaga sp Phormia terra^-novse Musca domestica Tipula sp Chrysops sp Leia sp Arachnida (Spiders, Ticks, Etc.). Drassus neglectus... Pachygnatha sp Tetragnatha sp Xysticus luctans. . . Lycosa caroUnensis. Lycosahelluo Lycosa punctulata.. Myriapoda (Centipedes and Millipeds). Diplopoda (millipeds): Unidentified 91.3 Nemasoma minutum 1 Julus caeruleocinctus 10 Chilopoda (centipedes): Unidentified centipedes 7 Crustacea (Crustaceans). Isopoda (wood lice, etc.): Unidentified 15 Orchestia grillus 1 Orchestia sp 1 PorcelUo laevis 2 PorcelUo sp 1 ArmadilUdium sp 1 MoLLUSCA (Snails, Etc.). Unidentified mollusks 71 Nassidfe (basket shells): Ilyanassa obsoleta 3 Zonitidae (glassy snails): Zonites arboreus 5 Gastrodonta suppressa 1 Testacellidpc (flesh-eating land snails): Cochlicopa lubrica 1 Helicidse (land snails): Vallonia sp 11 Aurieulidse (ear snails): Melampus lineatus 28 Littorinidae (periwinkles): Littorina rudis i Pupillidffi (chrysalis shells): Vertigo ovata 1 VEGETABLE MATTER. Unidentified buds 2 Unidentified mast 15 Unidentified vn\d fruit 184 Vegetable garbage 528 Vegetable rubbish 21 Pinacese: Juniperus virginiana (red cedar) 13 Juniperus sp. (juniper) 1 Graminese: Unidentified grass seeds 39 Andropogon sorghum (sorghimi) 2 Paniciun miUaceum (millet) 1 Panicum sp. (switchgrass) 6 Chsctochloa glauca ( foxtail) 11 Chiietochloa sp. (foxtail) 13 Eragrostis sp. (love grass) 1 Anthoxanthum odoratum (sweet vernal grass) 1 Zea mays (corn) 59 Triticum vulgare (wheat) 15 Avena sativa (oats) 6 Cyperacese: Unidentified sedge 4 Carex sp. (sedge) 6 Convallariacesp: Asparagus officinalis (asparagus) 1 Smilacese: Smilax herbacea (carrion flower) 1 Smilax sp. (greenbriar) 1 Myricacese: Myrica caroUnensis (bayberry) 122 Betulacefe: Ahius sp. (alder) 1 Uhnaceae: Celtis occidentalis (hackberry) 9 Moracese: Moras alba (white mulberry) — 45 Morus rabra (red mulberry) 52 Morus sp. (mulberry) 76 Polygonacese: Ruraex sp. (dock) 8 Polygonum lapathifolium (smartweed) 1 66 BULLETIIS^ 868, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTITRE. Table IV. — List of items identified in the food contained in 2,626 starling stomachs examined, and the number of stomachs in which each was found — Continued. VEGETABLE MATTER— Continued. Polygonacese— Continued. Fabacese: Polvgonum pennsvlvanicum (smart- Tri folium sp. (clover) 3 weed) 2 Robinia pseudacacia (locust) 2 Polygonum persicarla (smartweed) 1 Anacardiaceae: Polvgonum sp. (smartweed) 1? Rhus glabra (smooth sumac) 32 Chenopodiaceae: Rhus copallina (dwarf sumac) 1 1 Rhus radicans (poison ivy) 89 Amaranthacese: Rhus vemix (poison oaki 1 Amaranthus sp. (amaranth) 1 Rhus sp. (sumac) Aquifoliacca': 266 Aizoacea;: 1 Ilex verticillata (black alder).. 9. Mollugo verticillata (Indian chickweed). CelastracciT?: Phytolaccacese: Celastrus scandens (bittersweet).. 4 Phytolacca decandra (pokeweed) 20 Vitaceae: Caryophyllaceae: Psedera quinquefolia (Virginia creeper).. 39 Silene media (chickweed) . . 2 Ampelopsis sp. (?) (ampelopsis) Vitis sp. (grape) 2 Berberidaceae: 26 Berberis vulgaris (barberrjO 1 Comaceae: Berberis sp. (barberrj') 3 Comus florida (flowering dogwood) 4 Lauraceae: Comus amomum (kimiikimiik) 1 Sassafras sassafras (sassafras) 3 Comus asperifolia (rough-leaved dog- wood) BrassicaccEe: 1 Brassica sp. (mustard) 1 Comus paniculata (pahicled dogwood) . . 1 Grossulariacese: Comus sp. (dogwood) 3 Ribes sp. (currant) 1 Nyssa sylvatica (sour gum) 44 Rosaceae: Ericaceae: Fragaria sp. (strawberry) 8 Gaylussacia frondosa (huckleberry) 1 Rubus sp. (blackberry) 27 Gaylussacia baccata (huckleberry) 3 Malaceae: Gaylussacia sp. (huckleberry) 3 Sorbus sp. (mountain ash) . . 1 Vaccinium sp. (blueberry). . .. 5 Amelanchier sp. (June berry) 2 Solanaceae: Malus sp. (cultivated apple) 45 Solanum sp. (nightshade) 4 Pyrus sp. (cultivated pear) 3 Plantaginaceac: Amvgdalaceie: Plantago lanceolata (ribgrass) ... 1 Prmaus scrotina (wild black cherry) 207 Plantago sp. (plantain) 6 Prunus virginiana (chokecherry) IS Caprifoliaceac: Primus maritima (beach plum) 1 Viburnum sj). (arrowwood) 19 Prunus sp. (cultivated cherry) 46^1 148 Prunus sp. (wild cherrv^) 62 CompositfP: Cassiaeeee: Ambrosia artemisii folia (ragweed) ... 29 Gleditsia triacanthos (honey locust) 1 Taraxacum taraxacum (dandelion) 4 PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELATING TO THE FOOD HABITS OF WILD BIRDS. AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. The English Sparrow as a Pest. (Farmers' Bulletin 493.) Some Common Game, Aquatic, and Rapacious Birds in Relation to Man. (Farmers' Bulletin 497.) Food of Some Well-known Birds of Forest, Farm, and Garden. (Farmers' Bulletin 506.) Some Common Bh'ds Useful to the Farmer. (Farmers' Bulletin G30.) Common Birds of Southeastern United States in Relation to Agriculture. (Farmers' Bulletin 755.) The Crow in Its Relation to Agriculture. (Farmers' Bulletin 1102.) Propagation of Wild-duck Foods. (Department Bulletin 4()5.) The Crow and Its Relation to Man. (Department Bulletin 621.) Food Habits of Seven Specie^of American Shoal- water Ducks. (Department Bulle- tin 862.) FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Fifty Common Birds of Farm and Orchard. (P'armers' Bulletin 513, colored plates.) Price, 15 cents. Birds in Relation to the Alfalfa Weevil. (Department Bulletin 107.) Price, 15 cents. Eleven Important AVild-duck Foods. (Dei^artment Bulletin 205.) Price, 5 cents. Food Habits of the Thrushes of the United States. (Department Bulletin 280.) Price, 5 cents. Bii'ds of Porto Rico. (Department Bulletin 32(i.) Price, 30 cents. Food Habits of the Swallows. (Department Bulletin 619.) Price 5 cents. Food Habits of the Mallard Ducks of the United States. (Department Bulletin 720.) Price, 5 cents. . Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Sandhill Region of Nebraska: Pt. 1, Waterfowl in Nebraska; pt. 2, Wild-duck foods of the Sandhill Region of Nebraska. (Depart- ment Bulletin 794.) Price, 15 cents. The Relation of Sparrows to Agriculture. (Biological Survey Bulletin 15.) Price, 10 cents. Birds of a Maryland Farm. (Biological Survey Bulletin 17.) Price, 20 cents. The Bobwhite and C)ther Quails of the United States in Their Economic Relations. (Biological Survey Bulletin 21.) Price, 15 cents. The Horned Larks and Their Relation to Agriculture. (Biological Survey Bulletin 23.) Price, 5 cents. Food Habits of the Cxrosbeaks. (Biological Survey Bulletin 32.) Price, 25 cents. Birds of California in Relation to the Fruit Industry. (Biological Survey Bulletin 34, Pt. 2.) Price, 40 cents. Food of the Woodpeckers of the United States. (Biological Survey Bulletin 37.) Price, 35 cents. Woodpeckers in Relation to Trees and Wood Products. (Biological Survey Bulletin 39.) Price, 30 cents. Index to Papers Relating to the Food of Birds. (Biological Survey Bulletin 43.) Price,. 10 cents. Food of Our More Important Flycatchers. (Biological Survey Bulletin 44.) Price, 20 cents. Hawks and Owls from the Standpoint of the Farmer. (Biological Survey Circular 61.) Price, 5 cents. Destruction of the Cotton Boll Wee\dl by Birds in Winter. (Biological Survey Cir- cular 64.) Price, 5 cents. ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 25 CENTS PER COPY A LIBRARY OF CONGRESS