Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.1038/101325d0
Is there not even a fallacy in the argument against this bird which is supported by a note in NATURE of June 6, p. 271? You say that because 52 per cent. of the rook's food is injurious, 19.5 per cent. neutral, and 28.5 per cent. beneficial, therefore “it is impossible to ignore the fact that at present this bird does considerably more harm than good,” even though, as you admit, 23.9 per cent. of the rook's food consists of injurious insects.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 2 | |
| downloads | 6 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts