THE SILVEREYE.

Grey River Argus, 21 November 1928, Page 6

THE SILVEREYE.

WHERE DID IT ORIGINATE (To thij Editor) Sir, —As one keenly interested in the articled appearing in J’uui bSTiuday supplement on New Zealand flora and Aiuna, i thought the fUlow.bg contribution to the Nelson ;papcmight be to the point:— With reference to the statement that “the silvereye was not blown across from Australia at all.” but originated from caged p-As releases, by whalers in the vicinity of Pelorus Sound, the Bush and Biiu Protection Society would deem itself very fortunate if it could be conclusively proved that this was the origin of the “Blightbird” a fact which appan nt ly escaped the notice of bir Waltei Buller who published information giving the date when they first appeared in Nelson and Canterbury Hit year 185 b. lie, how- ver, said they had been seen about Milford bounu in 1832 and were believed by Di Hector to be an indigenous species, from the vxtit ;me south of New Zealand. Of late years it has been universally accepted that Zosterops lateral tor ius it is now known in the officia. Checklist of the Birds of Australia, Zosterops maturina) migrates regularly to New Zealand. No less authority than Dr Leach, D.Sc., President of the Royal Australian Ornithologists Union in his “An Australian Bird Book,” wrote, “The Maoris who have a name ror ev* ry native auimnl and plant, caiitkl it the “Stranger.” Its presence nas been accounted fvr by some authorities as being due to the fierce winds.... having blown it over from Australia. However, not satisfied with’ spreading throughout New Zealand it has spread to the Chata'-u Islands and a flock was re-, ported recently a considerable distance from the Coast, apparently look ing for fresh fields or rather islands to colonise.”

In March 1926, Mrs Moncrieff re c >ved Tepo.ts from the North Island that thcie had been a sudden inliux of Ahite-eyes, and it yas presumed tins came from Australia. Gradually they worked their way south and were

i‘ carded as arriving in Nelson about a week af.cr receiving word that they had btTe> recorded in Wairarapa. Whether they do more harm than good in Australia is summed up by Dr Leach as follows. /‘Though it desLoys grapes and oti.er soit fruit it aLo completely destroys aphides, that it is appropriately called the •Bright Bird, ’ i de balance is strongly in its favour tor it is probably but taking fair toll of them which will not have reacheu matu. ity but for its labour, and the .abourer, ev’ a if a bird, is worthy ot its hii\.”

To appreciate the valuable services of the •Wnite-eye” in New Zealand “Wakcfied is n.commended to read Dr J. Meyer’s article ion the bird m question in the New Zealand Journal of Agriculture” Vol xxvii. No 1 20th July 1923, wherein tli birds harm ful and beneficial ways are ci’ arly set Gut. The following is a short quotation:— “The. person who must uear the whole weight of the Whiteeye’s unfortunate proclivity for fruit is the orchard!t ana it is not to be expected that he will be so altruistic .is to maintain a corps of winged i-pjratorsi which will work solely in the interests of the farmer aud forester. Fortunately it happ ns that it is the orchard itself—the scene of its crimes—that the good points of the white-eye are displayed to the best ui.vantage It is no exuggi ration to 'Say that nearly every major insect pest in New Zealand orchards at one stage or another of its existence is searched out and eaten by parties of white-eyes There can be no ques tion that th'-** value of the aervicrenderl d by the white-eyfe in the orchard destroying insect pests Throughout the year more than counterbalance the depredations com mitted during the r{pc fruit season.” “Wakl field” will find the article most excellent reading. During a howling gale on the Kiakoura Coast white-eyes were feeding 2n apples left out in a packing case. Though eager, noisy, feeders nothing was seen to warrant “Wakefield’s” contentious tKUt they were the greediest and most quarrelsome little wretches imaginable.” Severe hungei makes most animals quarrelsome aud even man has been known to forger his table manners when faced with starvation.

“Wakefield” is right in supporting the bellbird aud tui to be agents helping to fertilise plant with deep flowets Together with the white-eye they belong to a race of honeyeaters, especially adapted for that purpose: 65 per ceftf of the New Zealand forest plants and trees, including every timber tree except the kauri and beeches arc dispersed solely by birds hence the reason why it is so important to preserve nathtJ birds if we wish to

tain the bush. Re the fear the Shining CuekF may spread fireblight from the Nd xj" the South Island, ‘‘Wakefield* rest assure that the likliho< very remote. Its chief diet is fay caterpillar, an ag»'nt which does not frequent apple pear trees, the host of fireblight. Should for the sake of eupposition a bird rub aarainst fire blight, it is the opinion of authorities best versed in such matters that exposure to the sun and air would render the infection harmless by the time the bird reach'd the South Island, therefore though one would not like to say such a thing is quite impossible, the danger from the bird’s carrying fireblight is alnegligible. _ t