196 THE CONDOR Vol. XXXIV

Harrissons’ studies in this interesting sub- Protozoa, Porifera, Coelenterata, Nema- ject may continue as additional data will thelminthes, Trochelminthes, Molluscoida, be valuable.-A. WETMIME. Echinodermata, which represent a rela- tively small per cent of the food of birds, he has treated each phylum as a unit, McAm ON THD EFFESXIVENE~SS IN whereas in the phyla Arthropoda, Mol- NATIJREJ OF THE So-CALLDD PROIITICTIV~ lusca, and Chordata he has considered ADAPTATIONS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM, each order separately and in many cases CHIEFLY AS ILLUNRATBD BY THE] FWD has listed in tables the families of certain HAEXTS OF NEARCTIC Bmns.-In‘ this im- orders showing the number of identifica- portant contribution to ornithology in par- tions and the percentage of identifications ticular and to zoology in general, Mr. Mc- among those of the entire order. He has Atee has made available to zoologists the not discriminated, however, between types results of an amazing amount of data on of predators within each group, but has the food habits of Nearctic birds-data lumned them all together. His results which have been accumulating in the rec- might be somewhat different were he to ords of the United States Biological Sur- consider each species of predator sepa- vey for the past forty-five years. This rately. report should be of value to all students At the end is a useful bibliography of of natural history whether interested in over 500 titles. Mr. McAtee states that \Tertebrates or in invertebrates. these titles are chiefly those from which The data presented in this report are notes supplemental to his tabulations were based on records of animals identified in gleaned. The bibliography is primarily one the stomach contents of about 80,000 of predation, pertaining to literature on Ncarctic birds. The stomachs were ex- predatory animals and their foods, and so amined in the Biological Survey and the far as possible, entries are distributed a.c- determinations of species were made by cording to the thing eaten and are ar- specialists there in the various fields rep- ranged according to the phyla or orders resented. The 80,000 stomachs represent to correspond with divisions of the text. a wide range of species of all of the fam- Throughout the text Mr. McAtee stresses ilies of birds occurring in the region, the the principle that predation is in propor- birds being collected at all seasons and in tion to population-that the ruling cri- practically all parts of temperate America. terion in choice of food is availability, and The total number of identifications of that the so-called potective adaptations animals from the stomachs, counting those in animals are of little or no significance of whatever degree, once for each time as far as the predators are concerned. identified irrespective of the number of Further he indicates that indiscrimina- individual specimens concerned, was 237,- tion rather than discrimination in the at- 399. Ten phyla ranging from Protozoa to tack upon animal food is the rule in bird Chordata were represented. The phylum predation. To quote from his summary Arthropoda was represented by the largest on page 144: number of identifications, with 210,752, “Considering bird predation alone this and Porifera by the smallest number, with principle [predation in proportion to popu- two identifications. In no other institu- lationl leads to a high degree of indis- tion in the country has such a. volume of criminancy in attack upon the whole king- data been collected on food habits of birds. dom of animal life. The combined attack It is therefore extremely valuable to stu- of birds plus all other predators still more dents throughout the country to have this closely approaches complete indiscrimi- mass of data digested, summarized, and nancy. In other words there is utilization made available for use as Mr. McAtee has of animals of practically every kind for done. food approximately in proportion to their In his discussion of the animals used as numbers. This means that predation takes food by birds Mr. McAtee treats each place much the same as if there were no phylum separately. He has followed a uni- such thing as protective adaptations. And form system throughout with the following this is only another way of saying that sub-headings under each group considered : the phenomena classed by theorists as pro- Protective Adaptations, Bird Enemies, tective adaptations have little or no effec- Other Enemies, Discussion. In the phyla tiveness. “Natural Selection theories assume dis- 1 Smithsonian Misc. Cd.. 85, March 16, 1932, 201 pp. crimination in the choice of prey. The July, 1932 PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 197 printiple of proportional predation so ob- tectively adapted are eaten in greater vious from the data contained in this pa- numbers than species which occur in lesser per vitiates those theories for it denotes numbers, and which are perhaps less pro- indiscrimination, the very antithesis of tectively adapted, I fail to find convincing selection.” evidence to indicate that the per cent of The above statements about the ineffec- the total population of the species eaten is tiveness of protective adaptations and as great or greater in the species with the about Natural Selection theories being greater numbers. It seems to me that it vitiated by the evidence produced in the is important to know the ratios of indi- paper, call for a brief discussion of the viduals eaten to the total population of the evidence and its interpretation. I do not species before one uses this as critical evi- offer the following as a criticism of the dence one way or the other. value of the paper; I am merely suggest- That birds tend to be indiscriminate in ing what seems to me to be a more logical their attack upon animal life, as far as interpretation of the data presented, only food species are concerned, is shown by as it concerns protective adaptation and Mr. McAtee, but that they are indiscrimi- Natural Selection. nate as far as individuals within a species If I interpret Mr. McAtee correctly he are concerned is not, I believe, shown by is thinking of bter-specific rather than his data. Mr. McAtee cites Pearl on “Rela- intro-specific competition when he speaks tive Conspicuousness of Barred and Self- of the ineffectiveness of protective adapta- colored Fowls” (Amer. Nat., 45, 1911, pp. tions. Inasmuch as the incipient stages in 107-117) as evidence against the theory the formation of a new variety or sub- of protective coloration. Pearl reported species are to be found within the popu- that “natural enemies” captured in one lation of the species, it seems that here is year 325 individuals out of a total of 3443, the place to look for the r6le, if any, that a flock which contained both barred and is played by Natural Selection. We should self-colored fowls. To quote again from naturally expect that a species whose McAtee, page 131, “By all theories of pro- numbers of individuals were great would tective coloration, the latter [self-colored be subject to more predation than one fowls] are the more conspicuous and whose numbers were small, and Mr. Mc- should pay a higher toll to predatory Atee produces evidence to bear this out, enemies. Of the total number of birds hut why should this vitiate the theories of 10.06 per cent were self-colored and of all Natural Selection? the eliminated birds 10.77 per cent were On page 129 we find the following: “The self-colored. Thus these monochrome birds sparrows, most persecuted of all [birds], were taken almost exactly in proportion because most available, represent almost to their numbers in the whole flock.” As the acme of protectively colored birds a matter of fact the self-colored birds did . . . “; and on page 133, “Muridae [Crice- pay a slightly higher toll. This difference, tidae] (mice and rats) are secretive, although slight, if it were found in nature elusive animals with what would be called and continued over a sufficient period of highly protective coloration, but this does time‘ might be sufficient to cause the ex- not prevent their being the staple mam- tinction of the one variety and the per- mal food of birds.” petuation of the other, assuming, of course, These and similar examples in other that all other conditions were equal in the groups of animals are apparently used as two varieties. At any rate I cannot see evidence against the theories of protec- that this is conclusive evidence against tive adaptations and Natural Selection. the theory of protective adaptation. It is Might not the mere fact that certain an experiment carried on under artificial species of animals are so numerous indi- conditions over a short period of six cate that their large numbers are due in months and the only factor considered part to protective adaptations, be they was color. Might not there have been color, structure, or fecundity, else they other factors, such as alertness, speed in ’ might, with their numerous enemies, be retreating from enemies, or pugnacity on reduced to small numbers or even extinc- the part of the fowls being preyed upon, tion? Certainly the rate of mortality and which were quite as important as color? the rate of reproduction must be about The reader should not be misled bv the the same, to preserve a uniform number positive manner in which Mr. McA& at- of individuals which make up the species. tempts to force his point throughout the Furthermore, granting that these abun- paper. He denounces emphatically the dant forms which are supposed to be pro- theories of protective adaptations and 198 THE CONDOR Vol. XXXIV

Natural Selection, but offers no alterna- Mr. Raymond M. Gilmore then gave a tive explanations in their stead. If we are most interesting, illustrated talk upon his to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee summer cruise of the west coast of Alaska would have us do, we should appreciate aboard the coast guard cutter “North- having him give us substitutes as good or land.” His trip occupied the period from better than the ones discarded.-WILLIAM May 5 to November 15, so he became fa- HENRY BURT. miliar with many species of northern birds, whose habits he described entertain- MINUTES OF COOPER CLUB ingly. Incidentally, he told also something MEETINGS of the habits of the Eskimo. Adjourned.-HILDn W. GRINNELL, Sec- NORTHERN DIVISION retary. MARCH. -The March meeting of the Northern Division of the Coouer Ornitho- APRIL.-The April meeting of the North- logical Club was held on Thursday, March ern Division of the Cooper Ornithological 24, 1932, at 8 :00 p. m. in Room 2003, Life Club was held on Thursday, April 28, Sciences Building, Berkeley, with Presi- 1932, at 8:00 p. m., in Room 2003, Life dent Linsdale in the chair and about fifty Sciences Building. Berkelev. with Presi- members and guests present. Minutes of dent Linsdale in The chair ayd about sixty the Northern Division for February were members and guests present. Minutes of read and approved. Minutes of the South- the Northern Division for March were ern Division for February were read. read and approved. The name of Paul Mervyn Annis Ortez, 2127’ Oregon St., Lester Errington, University of Wiscon- Berkeley, was proposed for membership sin, Madison, Wisconsin, was proposed for by Joseph S. Dixon; and Mrs. Elizabeth membership by J. Grinnell. H. Price, 2243 College Ave., Berkeley, by At the request of the Chairman, Mr. E. L. Sumner through the Western Bird- Alden Miller reported upon the Annual banding Association.- meeting of the Club, held in Los Angeles, Dr. Linsdale announced the appointment April 22 and 23. Mr. E. L. Sumner told of the Committee on Conservation au- of banding a Forbush Sparrow in Straw- thorized by action of the January meeting, berry Canon on the morning of April 28. the personnel being Brighton C. Cain, Mrs. Bracelin announced that Mr. Joseph A.lden H. Miller, and W. I. Follett, chair- Mailliard had reported a Cardinal as seen man. Dr. and Mrs. Lynds Jones of Ober- by Mr. Tose in Golden Gate Park on April lin, Ohio, were the Clubs’ guests for the 27. Mr. Bunker requested an explanation evening. as to why a Golden-crowned Sparrow in Miss Rinehart reported a Mockingbird his garden should give the “oh-dear-me” in full song at the California Nursery, call when about to spar with a Nuttall Niles, on March 23, and a flock of Evening Sparrow, but no explanation was forth- Grosbeaks seen at Kentfield. Marin Countv. coming. Alden Miller stated that on April on March 7. Mr. Grinnell ’ asked whether 17 his wife found a Lutescent Warblers’ anyone could contribute an observation nest in Strawberry Canon, containing five which would make it possible to add the eggs. Mrs. Kelly told of seeing a Mal- Evening Grosbeak to the list of Camuus lards’ nest in a eucalyptus tree in Golden ’ ’ birds. Alden Miller replied that in O&o- Gate Park. The nest was discovered in a ber, 1931, he saw two of these birds on crotch of the tree ten or twelve feet above the University grounds near the Life Sci- the ground, and at the time of the dis- ences Building. Mrs. Mead told of seeing covery, April 23, the head of the female about fifty Swans, in three flocks, from was seen over the nest rim. the railway train between Chico and Following the discussion of field notes, Marysville on February 22. Miss Sher- Dr. Carl P. Russell of the National Park man reported a Northern Flicker at her Service gave a talk upon “The Yellow- feeding table in Oakland. Mr. Grinnell stone Museum Program.” This exposition told of noting a Warbling Vireo in Faculty of the admirable work being done by the Glade on March 22. Mrs. Bracelin re- Park Service for the benefit of the thou- ported seeing a Saw-whet Owl near the sands of summer visitors was illustrated Point Bonita target station, and a flock of with an excellent series of slides. about one hundred Cliff Swallows on a Adjourned.--HmA W. GRINNELL, Sec- barn near the San Rafael ferry. retary.