how surely the birds know their enemies! see how the wrens and robins and bluebirds pursue and scold the cat, while they take little or no notice of the dog! even the swallow will fight the cat, and, relying too confidently upon its powers of flight, sometimes swoops down so near to its enemy that it is caught by a sudden stroke of the cat's paw. the only case i know of in which our small birds fail to recognize their enemy is furnished by the shrike; apparently the little birds do not know that this modest-colored bird is an assassin. at least, i have never seen them scold or molest him, or utter any outcries at his presence, as they usually do at birds of prey. probably it is because the shrike is a rare visitant, and is not found in this part of the country during the nesting season of our songsters.
but the birds have nearly all found out the trick the jay, and when he comes sneaking through the trees in may and june in quest of eggs, he is quickly exposed and roundly abused. it is amusing to see the robins hustle him out of the tree which holds their nest. they cry "thief, thief!" to the top of their voices as they charge upon him, and the jay retorts in a voice scarcely less complimentary as he makes off.
the jays have their enemies also, and need to keep an eye on their own eggs. it would be interesting to know if jays ever rob jays, or crows plunder crows; or is there honor among thieves even in the feathered tribes? i suspect the jay is often punished by birds which are otherwise innocent of nest-robbing. one season i found a jay's nest in a small cedar on the side of a wooded ridge. it held five eggs, every one of which had been punctured. apparently some bird had driven its sharp beak through their shells, with the sole intention of destroying them, for no part of the contents of the eggs had been removed. it looked like a case of revenge; as if some thrush or warbler, whose nest had suffered at the hands of the jays, had watched its opportunity, and had in this way retaliated upon its enemies. an egg for an egg. the jays were lingering near, very demure and silent, and probably ready to join a crusade against nest-robbers.
the great bugaboo of the birds is the owl. the owl snatches them from off their roosts at night, and gobbles up their eggs and young in their nests. he is a veritable ogre to them, and his presence fills them with consternation and alarm.
one season, to protect my early cherries i placed a large stuffed owl amid the branches of the tree. such a racket as there instantly began about my grounds is not pleasant to think upon! the orioles and robins fairly "shrieked out their affright." the news instantly spread in every direction, and apparently every bird in town came to see that owl in the cherry-tree, and every bird took a cherry, so that i lost more fruit than if i had left the owl in-doors. with craning necks and horrified looks the birds alighted upon the branches, and between their screams would snatch off a cherry, as if the act was some relief to their outraged feelings.
the chirp and chatter of the young of birds which build in concealed or inclosed places, like the woodpeckers, the house wren, the high-hole, the oriole, is in marked contrast to the silence of the fledglings of most birds that build open and exposed nests. the young of the sparrows,—unless the social sparrow be an exception,—warblers, fly-catchers, thrushes, never allow a sound to escape them; and on the alarm note of their parents being heard, sit especially close and motionless, while the young of chimney swallows, woodpeckers, and orioles are very noisy. the latter, in its deep pouch, is quite safe from birds of prey, except perhaps the owl. the owl, i suspect, thrusts its leg into the cavities of woodpeckers and into the pocket-like nest of the oriole, and clutches and brings forth the birds in its talons. in one case which i heard of, a screech-owl had thrust its claw into a cavity in a tree, and grasped the head of a red-headed woodpecker; being apparently unable to draw its prey forth, it had thrust its own round head into the hole, and in some way became fixed there, and had thus died with the woodpecker in its talons.
the life of birds is beset with dangers and mishaps of which we know little. one day, in my walk, i came upon a goldfinch with the tip of one wing securely fastened to the feathers of its rump, by what appeared to be the silk of some caterpillar. the bird, though uninjured, was completely crippled, and could not fly a stroke. its little body was hot and panting in my hands, as i carefully broke the fetter. then it darted swiftly away with a happy cry. a record of all the accidents and tragedies of bird life for a single season would show many curious incidents. a friend of mine opened his box-stove one fall to kindle a fire in it, when he beheld in the black interior the desiccated forms of two bluebirds. the birds had probably taken refuge in the chimney during some cold spring storm, and had come down the pipe to the stove, from whence they were unable to ascend. a peculiarly touching little incident of bird life occurred to a caged female canary. though unmated, it laid some eggs, and the happy bird was so carried away by her feelings that she would offer food to the eggs, and chatter and twitter, trying, as it seemed, to encourage them to eat! the incident is hardly tragic, neither is it comic.
certain birds nest in the vicinity of our houses and outbuildings, or even in and upon them, for protection from their enemies, but they often thus expose themselves to a plague of the most deadly character.
i refer to the vermin with which their nests often swarm, and which kill the young before they are fledged. in a state of nature this probably never happens; at least i have never seen or heard of it happening to nests placed in trees or under rocks. it is the curse of civilization falling upon the birds which come too near man. the vermin, or the germ of the vermin, is probably conveyed to the nest in hen's feathers, or in straws and hairs picked up about the barn or hen-house. a robin's nest upon your porch or in your summer-house will occasionally become an intolerable nuisance from the swarms upon swarms of minute vermin with which it is filled. the parent birds stem the tide as long as they can, but are often compelled to leave the young to their terrible fate.
one season a phoebe-bird built on a projecting stone under the eaves of the house, and all appeared to go well till the young were nearly fledged, when the nest suddenly became a bit of purgatory. the birds kept their places in their burning bed till they could hold no longer, when they leaped forth and fell dead upon the ground.
after a delay of a week or more, during which i imagine the parent birds purified themselves by every means known to them, the couple built another nest a few yards from the first, and proceeded to rear a second brood; but the new nest developed into the same bed of torment that the first did, and the three young birds, nearly ready to fly, perished as they sat within it. the parent birds then left the place as if it had been accursed.
i imagine the smaller birds have an enemy in our native white-footed mouse, though i have not proof enough to convict him. but one season the nest of a chickadee which i was observing was broken up in a position where nothing but a mouse could have reached it. the bird had chosen a cavity in the limb of an apple-tree which stood but a few yards from the house. the cavity was deep, and the entrance to it, which was ten feet from the ground, was small. barely light enough was admitted, when the sun was in the most favorable position, to enable one to make out the number of eggs, which was six, at the bottom of the dim interior. while one was peering in and trying to get his head out of his own light, the bird would startle him by a queer kind of puffing sound. she would not leave her nest like most birds, but really tried to blow or scare the intruder away; and after repeated experiments i could hardly refrain from jerking my head back when that little explosion of sound came up from the dark interior. one night, when incubation was about half finished, the nest was harried. a slight trace of hair or fur at the entrance led me to infer that some small animal was the robber. a weasel might have done it, as they sometimes climb trees, but i doubt if either a squirrel or a rat could have passed the entrance.
probably few persons have ever suspected the cat-bird of being an egg-sucker; i do not know that she has ever been accused of such a thing, but there is something uncanny and disagreeable about her, which i at once understood, when i one day caught her in the very act of going through a nest of eggs.
a pair of the least fly-catchers, the bird which says chebec, chebec, and is a small edition of the pewee, one season built their nest where i had them for many hours each day under my observation. the nest was a very snug and compact structure placed in the forks of a small maple about twelve feet from the ground. the season before, a red squirrel had harried the nest of a wood-thrush in this same tree, and i was apprehensive that he would serve the fly-catchers the same trick; so, as i sat with my book in a summer-house near by, i kept my loaded gun within easy reach. one egg was laid, and the next morning, as i made my daily inspection of the nest, only a fragment of its empty shell was to be found. this i removed, mentally imprecating the rogue of a red squirrel. the birds were much disturbed by the event, but did not desert the nest, as i had feared they would, but after much inspection of it and many consultations together, concluded, it seems, to try again. two more eggs were laid, when one day i heard the birds utter a sharp cry, and on looking up i saw a cat-bird perched upon the rim of the nest, hastily devouring the eggs. i soon regretted my precipitation in killing her, because such interference is generally unwise. it turned out that she had a nest of her own with five eggs in a spruce-tree near my window.
then this pair of little fly-catchers did what i had never seen birds do before; they pulled the nest to pieces and rebuilt it in a peach-tree not many rods away, where a brood was successfully reared. the nest was here exposed to the direct rays of the noon-day sun, and to shield her young when the heat was greatest, the mother-bird would stand above them with wings slightly spread, as other birds have been know to do under like circumstances.
to what extent the cat-bird is a nest-robber i have no evidence, but that feline mew of hers, and that flirting, flexible tail, suggest something not entirely bird-like.
probably the darkest tragedy of the nest is enacted when a snake plunders it. all birds and animals, so far i have observed, behave in a peculiar manner toward a snake. they seem to feel something of the loathing toward it that the human species experiences. the bark of a dog when he encounters a snake is different from that which he gives out on any other occasion; it is a mingled note of alarm, inquiry, and disgust.
one day a tragedy was enacted a few yards from where i was sitting with a book; two song-sparrows trying to defend their nest against a black snake. the curious, interrogating note of a chicken who had suddenly come upon the scene in his walk caused me to look up from my reading. there were the sparrows, with wings raised in a way peculiarly expressive of horror and dismay, rushing about a low clump of grass and bushes. then, looking more closely, i saw the glistening form of the black snake and the quick movement of his head as he tried to seize the birds. the sparrows darted about and through the grass and weeds, trying to beat the snake off. their tails and wings were spread, and, panting with the heat and the desperate struggle, they presented a most singular spectacle. they uttered no cry, not a sound escaped them; they were plainly speechless with horror and dismay. not once did they drop their wings, and the peculiar expression of those uplifted palms, as it were, i shall never forget. it occurred to me that perhaps here was a case of attempted bird-charming on the part of the snake, so i looked on from behind the fence. the birds charged the snake and harassed him from every side, but were evidently under no spell save that of courage in defending their nest. every moment or two i could see the head and neck of the serpent make a sweep at the birds, when the one struck at would fall back, and the other would renew the assault from the rear. there appeared to be little danger that the snake could strike and hold one of the birds, though i trembled for them, they were so bold and approached so near to the snake's head. time and again he sprang at them, but without success. how the poor things panted, and held up their wings appealingly! then the snake glided off to the near fence, barely escaping the stone which i hurled at him. i found the nest rifled and deranged; whether it had contained eggs or young i know not. the male sparrow had cheered me many a day with his song, and i blamed myself for not having rushed at once to the rescue, when the arch enemy was upon him. there is probably little truth in the popular notion that snakes charm birds. the black snake is the most subtle, alert, and devilish of our snakes, and i have never seen him have any but young, helpless birds in his mouth.
we have one parasitical bird, the cow-bird, so-called because it walks about amid the grazing cattle and seizes the insects which their heavy tread sets going, which is an enemy of most of the smaller birds. it drops its egg in the nest of the song-sparrow, the social sparrow, the snow-bird, the vireos, and the wood-warblers, and as a rule it is the only egg in the nest that issues successfully. either the eggs of the rightful owner of the nest are not hatched, or else the young are overridden and overreached by the parasite and perish prematurely.
among the worst enemies of our birds are the so-called "collectors," men who plunder nests and murder their owners in the name of science. not the genuine ornithologist, for no one is more careful of squandering bird life than he; but the sham ornithologist, the man whose vanity or affectation happens to take an ornithological turn. he is seized with an itching for a collection of eggs and birds because it happens to be the fashion, or because it gives him the air of a man of science. but in the majority of cases the motive is a mercenary one; the collector expects to sell these spoils of the groves and orchards. robbing the nests and killing birds becomes a business with him. he goes about it systematically, and becomes expert in circumventing and slaying our songsters. every town of any considerable size is infested with one or more of these bird highwaymen, and every nest in the country round about that the wretches can lay hands on is harried. their professional term for a nest of eggs is "a clutch," a word that well expresses the work of their grasping, murderous fingers. they clutch and destroy in the germ the life and music of the woodlands. certain of our natural history journals are mainly organs of communication between these human weasels. they record their exploits at nest-robbing and bird-slaying in their columns. one collector tells with gusto how he "worked his way" through an orchard, ransacking every tree, and leaving, as he believed, not one nest behind him. he had better not be caught working his way through my orchard. another gloats over the number of connecticut warblers—a rare bird—he killed in one season in massachusetts. another tells how a mocking-bird appeared in southern new england and was hunted down by himself and friend, its eggs "clutched," and the bird killed. who knows how much the bird lovers of new england lost by that foul deed? the progeny of the birds would probably have returned to connecticut to breed, and their progeny, or a part of them, the same, till in time the famous songster would have become a regular visitant to new england. in the same journal still another collector describes minutely how he outwitted three humming birds and captured their nests and eggs,—a clutch he was very proud of. a massachusetts bird harrier boasts of his clutch of the egg's of that dainty little warbler, the blue yellow-back. one season he took two sets, the next five sets, the next four sets, besides some single eggs, and the next season four sets, and says he might have found more had he had more time. one season he took, in about twenty days, three from one tree. i have heard of a collector who boasted of having taken one hundred sets of the eggs of the marsh wren, in a single day; of another, who took in the same time, thirty nests of the yellow-breasted chat; and of still another, who claimed to have taken one thousand sets of eggs of different birds in one season. a large business has grown up under the influence of this collecting craze. one dealer in eggs has those of over five hundred species. he says that his business in 1883 was twice that of 1882; in 1884 it was twice that of 1883, and so on. collectors vie with each other in the extent and variety of their cabinets. they not only obtain eggs in sets, but aim to have a number of sets of the same bird so as to show all possible variations. i hear of a private collection that contains twelve sets of kingbirds' eggs, eight sets of house-wrens' eggs, four sets mocking-birds' eggs, etc.; sets of eggs taken in low trees, high trees, medium trees; spotted sets, dark sets, plain sets, and light sets of the same species of bird. many collections are made on this latter plan.
thus are our birds hunted and cut off and all in the name of science; as if science had not long ago finished with these birds. she has weighed and measured, and dissected, and described them, and their nests, and eggs, and placed them in her cabinet; and the interest of science and of humanity now demands that this wholesale nest-robbing cease. these incidents i have given above, it is true, are but drops in the bucket, but the bucket would be more than full if we could get all the facts. where one man publishes his notes, hundreds, perhaps thousands, say nothing, but go as silently about their nest-robbing as weasels.
it is true that the student of ornithology often feels compelled to take bird-life. it is not an easy matter to "name all the birds without a gun," though an opera-glass will often render identification entirely certain, and leave the songster unharmed; but once having mastered the birds, the true ornithologist leaves his gun at home. this view of the case may not be agreeable to that desiccated mortal called the "closet naturalist," but for my own part the closet naturalist is a person with whom i have very little sympathy. he is about the most wearisome and profitless creature in existence. with his piles of skins, his cases of eggs, his laborious feather-splitting, and his outlandish nomenclature, he is not only the enemy of the birds but the enemy of all those who would know them rightly.
not the collectors alone are to blame for the diminishing numbers of our wild birds, but a large share of the responsibility rests upon quite a different class of persons, namely, the milliners. false taste in dress is as destructive to our feathered friends as are false aims in science. it is said that the traffic in the skins of our brighter plumaged birds, arising from their use by the milliners, reaches to hundreds of thousands annually. i am told of one middleman who collected from the shooters in one district, in four months, seventy thousand skins. it is a barbarous taste that craves this kind of ornamentation. think of a woman or girl of real refinement appearing upon the street with her head gear adorned with the scalps of our songsters!
it is probably true that the number of our birds destroyed by man is but a small percentage of the number cut off by their natural enemies; but it is to be remembered that those he destroys are in addition to those thus cut off, and that it is this extra or artificial destruction that disturbs the balance of nature. the operation of natural causes keeps the birds in check, but the greed of the collectors and milliners tends to their extinction.
i can pardon a man who wishes to make a collection of eggs and birds for his own private use, if he will content himself with one or two specimens of a kind, though he will find any collection much less satisfactory and less valuable than he imagines, but the professional nest-robber and skin collector should be put down, either by legislation or with dogs and shotguns.
i have remarked above that there is probably very little truth in the popular notion that snakes can "charm" birds. but two of my correspondents have each furnished me with an incident from his own experience, which seems to confirm the popular belief. one of them writes from georgia as follows:—
"some twenty-eight years ago i was in calaveras county, california, engaged in cutting lumber. one day in coming out of the camp or cabin, my attention was attracted to the curious action of a quail in the air, which, instead of flying low and straight ahead as usual, was some fifty feet high, flying in a circle, and uttering cries of distress. i watched the bird and saw it gradually descend, and following with my eye in a line from the bird to the ground saw a large snake with head erect and some ten or twelve inches above the ground, and mouth wide open, and as far as i could see, gazing intently on the quail (i was about thirty feet from the snake). the quail gradually descended, its circles growing smaller and smaller and all the time uttering cries of distress, until its feet were within two or three inches of the mouth of the snake; when i threw a stone, and though not hitting the snake, yet struck the ground so near as to frighten him, and he gradually started off. the quail, however, fell to the ground, apparently lifeless. i went forward and picked it up and found it was thoroughly overcome with fright, its little heart beating as if it would burst through the skin. after holding it in my hand a few moments it flew away. i then tried to find the snake, but could not. i am unable to say whether the snake was venomous or belonged to the constricting family, like the black snake. i can well recollect it was large and moved off rather slow. as i had never seen anything of the kind before, it made a great impression on my mind, and after the lapse of so long a time, the incident appears as vivid to me as though it had occurred yesterday."
it is not probable that the snake had its mouth open; its darting tongue may have given that impression.
the other incident comes to me from vermont. "while returning from church in 1876," says the writer, "as i was crossing a bridge... i noticed a striped snake in the act of charming a song-sparrow. they were both upon the sand beneath the bridge. the snake kept his head swaying slowly from side to side, and darted his tongue out continually. the bird, not over a foot away, was facing the snake, hopping from one foot to the other, and uttering a dissatisfied little chirp. i watched them till the snake seized the bird, having gradually drawn nearer. as he seized it, i leaped over the side of the bridge; the snake glided away and i took up the bird, which he had dropped. it was too frightened to try to fly and i carried it nearly a mile before it flew from my open hand."
if these observers are quite sure of what they saw, then undoubtedly snakes have the power to draw birds within their grasp. i remember that my mother told me that while gathering wild strawberries she had on one occasion come upon a bird fluttering about the head of a snake as if held there by a spell. on her appearance, the snake lowered its head and made off, and the panting bird flew away. a neighbor of mine killed a black snake which had swallowed a full-grown red squirrel, probably captured by the same power of fascination.
