a space a mile in diameter. There are perhaps songs in our woods as mellow and brilliant as is that of the closely allied species, the water-thrush; but our bird's song has but a mere fraction of the nightingale's volume and power.

Strength and volume of voice, then, seem to be characteristic of the English birds, and mildness and delicacy of ours. How much the thousands of years of contact with man, and familiarity with artificial sounds, over there, has affected the bird voices is a question. Certain it is that their birds are much more domestic than ours, and certain it is that all purely wild sounds are plaintive and elusive. Even of the bark of the fox, the cry of the panther, the voice of the 'coon, or the call and clang of wild geese and ducks, or the war-cry of savage tribes, is this true; but not true in the same sense of domesticated or semi-domesticated animals and fowls. How different the voice of the common duck or goose from that of the wild species, or of the tame dove from that of the turtle of the fields and groves. Where could the English house-sparrow have acquired that unmusical voice but amid the sounds of hoofs and wheels, and the discords of the street. And the ordinary notes and calls of so many of the British birds, according to their biographers, are harsh and disagreeable; even the nightingale has a guttural, ugly" chuck." The missel-thrush has a harsh scream; the jay a note like "wrack,"

"wrack"; the field-fare a rasping chatter; the blackbird, which is our robin cut in ebony, will sometimes crow like a

cock and cackle like a hen; the flocks of starlings make a noise like a steam saw-mill; the whitethroat has a disagreeable note; the swift a discordant scream, and the bunting a harsh song. Among our songbirds, on the contrary, it is rare to hear a harsh or displeasing voice. Even their notes of anger and alarm are more or less soft.

I would not imply that our birds are the better songsters; but that their songs, if briefer and feebler, are also more wild and plaintive, in fact, that they are softervoiced. The British birds, as I have stated, are more domestic than ours; a much larger number build about houses and towers and out-buildings. The titmouse with us is exclusively a wood bird; but in Britain three or four species of them resort more or less to buildings in winter. Their red-start also builds under the eaves of houses; their starling in church steeples and in holes in walls; several thrushes resort to sheds to nest, and jackdaws breed in the crannies of the old architecture, and this in a much milder climate than our own.

They have in that country no birds that

answer to our tiny lisping wood-warblers genus Dendroica, nor to our vireos, Vireonida. On the other hand, they have a larger number of field-birds and semi-game birds. They have several species like our robin; thrushes like him and some of them larger, as the ring-ouzel, the missel-thrush, the field-fare, the throstle, the red-wing, White's thrush, the rock-thrush, the blackbird,these, besides several species in size and habits more like our wood-thrush.

Several species of European birds sing at night besides the true nightingale-not fitfully and as if in their dreams, as do a few of our birds, but continuously. They make a business of it. The sedge-bird ceases at times as if from very weariness; but wake the bird up, says White, by throwing a stick or stone into the bushes, and away it goes again in full song. We have but one real nocturnal songster, and that is the mockingbird. One can see how this habit might increase among the birds of a long-settled country like England. With sounds and

| voices about them, why should they be silent too? The danger of betraying themselves to their natural enemies would be less than in our woods.

That their birds are more quarrelsome and pugnacious than ours I think evident. Our thrushes are especially mild-mannered, but the missel-thrush is very bold and saucy, and has been known to fly in the face of man when he has disturbed the sitting bird. No jay, nor magpie nor crow can stand before him. The Welch call him master of the coppice, and he welcomes a storm with such a vigorous and hearty song, that in some countries he is known as storm-cock. He sometimes kills the young of other birds and eats eggs,-a very unthrushlike trait. The white-throat sings with crest erect, and attitudes of warning and defiance. The hooper is a great bully; so is the greenfinch. The wood-grouse-now extinct I believe-has been known to attack people in the woods. And behold the grit and hardihood of that little emigrant or exile to our

shores, the English sparrow. Our birds have their tilts and spats also; but the only really quarrelsome members in our family are confined to the fly-catchers,-as the kingbird, and great-crested fly-catcher. None of our song-birds are bullies.

Many of our more vigorous species, as the butcher-bird, the cross-bills, the pine grosbeak, the red-pole, the Bohemian chatterer, the shore-lark, the long-spur, the snow-bunting, etc., are common to both continents.

Have the Old World creatures throughout more pluck and hardihood than those that are indigenous to this continent? Behold the common mouse, how he has followed man to this country and established himself here against all opposition while the native species is becoming more and more scarce! And when has anybody seen the American rat, while his congener from across the water has overrun the continent! Both our rat and mouse or mice are timid, harmless, delicate creatures, compared with the cunning, filthy and prolific specimens that have fought their way to us from the Old World. There is little doubt also that the red fox has been transplanted to this country from Europe. He is certainly on the increase, and is fast running out the native gray species.

Indeed, I have thought that all forms of life in the Old World were marked by greater prominence of type, or stronger characteristic and fundamental qualities, than with us,—coarser and more hairy and virile, and therefore more powerful and lasting. This opinion is still subject to revision, but I find it easier to confirm it than to undermine it.

IV.

BUT let me change the strain and contemplate for a few moments this feathered bandit, this bird with the mark of Cain upon him-(Collyris borealis), the great shrike or butcher-bird. Usually, the character of a bird of prey is well defined; there is no mistaking him. His claws, his beak, his head, his wings, in fact his whole build point to the fact that he subsists upon live creatures; he is armed to catch them and to slay them. Every bird knows a hawk and knows him from the start, and is on the lookout for him. The hawk takes life, but he does it to maintain his own, and it is a public and universally known fact. Nature has sent him abroad in that character and has advised all creatures of it. Not so with the shrike; here she has concealed the

character of a murderer under a form as innocent as that of the robin. Feet, wings, tail, color, head and general form and size are all those of a song-bird-very much, indeed, like that master songster, the mocking-bird-yet this bird is a regular Bluebeard among its kind. Its only characteristic feature is its beak, the upper mandible having two sharp processes and a sharp, hooked point. It cannot fly away to any distance with the bird it kills nor hold it in its claws to feed upon it. It usually impales its victim upon a thorn or thrusts it in the fork of a limb. For the most part, however, its food seems to consist of insects— spiders, grasshoppers, beetles, etc. It is the assassin of the small birds, whom it often destroys in pure wantonness, or merely to sup on their brains, as the Gaucho slaughters a wild cow or bull for its tongue. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Apparently its victims are unacquainted with its true character and allow it to approach them, when the fatal blow is given. I saw an illustration of this the other day. A large number of goldfinches in their full plumage together with snow-birds and sparrows, were feeding and chattering in some low bushes back of the barn. I had paused by the fence and was peeping through at them, hoping to get a glimpse of that rare sparrow, the white-crowned. Presently I heard a rustling among the dry leaves as if some larger bird was also among them. Then I heard one of the goldfinches cry out as if in distress, when the whole flock of them started up in alarm and, circling around, settled in the tops of the larger trees. I continued my scrutiny of the bushes, when I saw a large bird, with some object in its beak, hopping along on a low branch near the ground. It disappeared from my sight. for a few moments, then came up through the undergrowth into the top of a young maple where some of the finches had alighted, and I beheld the shrike. The little birds avoided him and flew about the tree, their pursuer following them with the motions of his head and body as if he would fain arrest them by his murderous gaze. The birds did not utter the cry or make the demonstration of alarm they usually do on the appearance of a hawk, but chirruped and called and flew about in a half-wondering, half-bewildered manner. farther along the line of trees the shrike followed them as if bent on further captures. I then made my way around to see what the shrike had caught and what he had

As they flew

done with his prey. As I approached the bushes I saw the shrike hastening back. I read his intentions at once. Seeing my movements, he had returned for his game. But I was too quick for him, and he got up out of the brush and flew away from the locality. On some twigs in the thickest part of the bushes I found his victim-a goldfinch. It was not impaled upon a thorn, but was carefully disposed upon some horizontal twigs-laid upon the shelf, so to speak. It was as warm as in life and its plumage was unruffled. On examining it I found a large bruise or break in the skin on the back of the neck at the base of the skull. Here the bandit

adjoining the corn; then back again with his booty. One morning I paused to watch him more at my leisure. He came up out of his retreat and cocked himself up to see what my motions meant. His fore paws were clasped to his breast precisely as if they had been hands, and the tips of the fingers thrust into his vest pockets. Having satisfied himself with reference to me, he sped on toward the tree. He had nearly reached it, when he turned tail and rushed for his hole with the greatest precipitation. As he neared it, I saw some bluish object in the air closing in upon him with the speed of an arrow, and, as he vanished within, a shrike brought up in front of the spot, and with spread wings and tail stood hovering a moment, and, looking in, then turned and went away. Apparently it was a narrow escape for the chipmunk, and, I venture to say, he stole no more corn that morning.

The

had

doubt griped the bird with his strong beak. The shrike's bloodthirsti

ness was seen in the fact

that it did not stop to

devour its prey but went in quest of more, as if

opening a market of goldfinches. thicket was his shambles, and if not interrupted he might have had a fine display of tidbits in a short time.

He is called a butcher from his habit of sticking his meat upon hooks and points; further than that, because he devours but a trifle of what he slays.

A few days before, I had witnessed another little scene in which the shrike was the chief actor.

A chipmunk had his den in the side of the terrace above the garden, and spent the mornings laying in a store of corn which he stole from Manning's field, ten or twelve rods away. In traversing about half this distance, the little poacher was exposed; the first cover going from his den was a large maple, where he always brought up and took a survey of the scene. I would see him spinning along toward the maple, then from it by an easy stage to the fence

CEDAR-BIRDS.