Page:HouseSparrowGurney.djvu/69

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
IN AMERICA.
55
1874. Coues, E. English Sparrows [Passer domesticus], Amer. Nat. viii. No. 7, July, 1874, p. 436.

Having expressed, in the Key to North American Birds, p. 146 (1872), apprehensions that the sparrows would soon begin to interfere with the native species, Dr. Coues prints a statement from Mr. T. G. Gentry, verifying the anticipation. Says Mr. Gentry, referring to sparrows in Germantown, Pa.: 'They increase so rapidly, and are so pugnacious, that our smaller native birds are compelled to seek quarters elsewhere.' Dr. Coues continues: 'I did not expect the bad news quite so soon. Probably it will not be long before we hear the same complaints from other places. … There is no occasion for them (the sparrows) in this country: the good they do in destroying certain insects has been overrated. I foresee the time when it will be deemed advisable to take measures to get rid of the birds, or at least to check their increase.'


1874. Coues, E. The Sparrow [Passer domesticus] War. Amer. Sportsm. v. Nov. 21, 1874, p. 113.

'Several articles which have lately appeared in The American Naturalist and American Sportsman, from my pen and others, indicate that a pretty lively contest is likely to result. Much as I dislike controversy … I am just as willing to stand corrected as to prove anybody else wrong. The personal aspect of the question is a matter of the utmost indifference to me. … It is a more important question than it looks at first sight, and it is daily growing more so. Now let us accumulate evidence.'


1874. Gentry, T. G. English Sparrows [Passer domesticus]. Amer. Nat. viii. No. 11, Nov. 1874, pp. 667-672.

Attesting the molestation of various American native birds by the sparrows, in amplification of his previous testimony to the same effect (tom. cit. p. 436); and denouncing as groundless the charges of misrepresentation brought against E. Coues and himself by T. M. Brewer (tom. cit. p. 556). The article is notable among those opening the controversy.