
 
		balance  of  Nature  are  seldom profitable,  and  it  is  said  that  
 wherever Rooks  or  other  birds  of  the kind have been  effectually  
 destroyed,  the  result  has  shewn  that  the  proceeding  
 was  a  mistake,  and  that  agriculturists  to  save  their  crops  
 were compelled to reinstate the birds they had exterminated.*  
 Yet  the  experience  thus  gained  is  usually lost  on  all  save  
 those  immediately concerned  in  the  affair,  and  accordingly  
 every  now  and  then  in  some  place  or  other,  but  mostly  in  
 Scotland,  agitation  on  the  subject prevails.!  This  occasionally  
 leads  to  a more or less  general persecution being ordered  
 and  for  a time  carried  on,  but  it  frequently happens  that the  
 landlord  is  better  advised  than  his  tenants,  and  after  the  
 first outbreak  of  discontent his  influence  contrives  that their  
 destructive  efforts  shall  gradually cease. 
 The  food  of  the  Rook,  as  already  shewn,  consists  principally  
 of  worms  and  insects!,  which,  from  the  numbers  of  
 the  birds,  are  consumed  to  an  enormous  extent.  But  its  
 diet is extremely varied,  and  almost  any other  kind  of animal  
 matter, even carrion, fishes  and  small birds and mammals are  
 acceptable,  besides  many  vegetable  products.  Newly-sown  
 grain §  until  it  has  sprouted well above the  ground  requires  
 watching,  and  ripe  corn,  especially if  laid  by  the  wind  or  
 when  cut and in  sheaves,  sometimes  suffers  severely from the 
 Though  reference to instances  of  this  kind  is  made  by  many writers,  the  
 Editor  is  unable to find any  document in which the details  of  a  single  case  are  
 satisfactorily  given :  the nearest approach  to  one is perhaps Mr. C.  J.  Cox’s note  
 (Zool.  p.  8953). 
 f   Such  a movement was  excited in  the  South-west of  Scotland  in  1838,  but it  
 seems  to  have  been  allayed  by  the  late  Sir J.  Stuart-Menteath by  a  pamphlet  
 entitled  ‘ Farmers v.  Rooks ’  which  the  Editor  however  has  not  seen.  He has  
 been more fortunate,  thanks to Mr.  Harvie Brown,  in regard to  a  correspondence  
 which arose  in  1844  between  Mr.  Hog  of  Newliston  and  his  tenantry.  In the  
 former controversy  Selby,  and in  the latter Waterton,  took part. 
 + Melolontha  solstitialis,  Phylloperiha  horticola,  several  species of Agriotes,  
 Agrotis  segetum  and  A.  exclamationis,  and  Tipula  oleracea  may  be  specially  
 named. 
 §  Yet there is much truth in Jesse s  remark that when the ploughman and  the  
 sower  are  at  work  in  the  same  field,  the  former will  be  followed by a train  of  
 Rooks,  while  the  latter  will  be  unattended,  and  his  grain  remain  untouched.  
 However the  castings  of Rooks, found under  the trees  they frequent, prove  by the  
 husks they  contain  that these birds do  eat com, and sometimes a good  deal of  it. 
 depredations  of  tbis bird.  Perhaps however  the  potato-crop  
 is that which is commonly most injured hy it,  unless  care be  
 taken to  drive off  the marauders both in  the planting-season  
 and  when  the  tubers  are  mature.  Acorns,  beechmast  and  
 berries also  contribute to the Rook’s support, and when opportunity  
 offers  fruits,  especially cherries  and walnuts,  are  often  
 taken,  as  are  fir-cones  for the larvae they contain.  In hard  
 frosts  it will  attack  turnips,  hut  its  object  seems  to  be  as  
 much the  grubs  by which they are  frequently infested  as  the  
 plants  themselves.  Much has been  said  of  its  egg-stealing  
 propensity, which indeed cannot be denied, but it  seems to  be  
 chiefly indulged in  during droughts, when the  scanty herbage  
 leaves  exposed  the  nests  of  many birds  that  breed  on  the  
 ground;  and it is  certain that, if Rooks were half so  destructive  
 to  game  as  many people think,  hardly  a  covey  of  Partridges  
 would be hatched.  Among the minor  supplies of  the  
 Rook may be  mentioned  the  caterpillars which  occasionally  
 infest  the  foliage  of  oaks,  the  galls  (Zool.  s.s.  p.  8628)  
 formed  beneath  the  leaves  of  the  same  trees,  and,  as  Mr.  
 Knox informs the Editor, may-flies  drifted  by the wind to  a  
 river-bank. 
 The Rook chiefly  inhabits wooded  and cultivated  districts.  
 In  autumn  the  rookery  is  generally  frequented  for  some  
 days by the birds  belonging  to  it,  and  they are  seen  sitting  
 on  or  about  the  old  nests,  occasionally  carrying  sticks,  as  
 though  intent  on  breeding,  while  hardly  a year  passes  but,  
 in one part  of  the  country or another, matters proceed  so far  
 that eggs  are laid and hatched at that  season.  According to  
 Jesse,  the  unpublished  papers  of  Gilbert White  mention  a  
 nest with young in  it  on Nov.  26th.  Sir C. Anderson wrote  
 the Author word  that  in  1817  a  pair  of  Rooks  had  a  nest  
 with  eggs  at  Lea  near  Gainsborough  in  the  same  month,  
 and like  information was  received  from  Mr.  Rodd  as  regards  
 Cornwall  in  1836.  So  many  similar  cases  have  since  been  
 recorded  that  enumeration  of  them  is  needless.  It  seems  a  
 mistake  to  term  them,  as  is  often  done,  instances.of  late  
 breeding :  they  should  rather be considered premature, since  
 the  breeding-season must be held to  be  ended by the  annual 
 VOL.  II.  Q  Q