Two recent publications offer different assessments of the career of the famous British nurse Florence Nightingale. A book by Anne Summers seeks to debunk the idealizations and present a reality at odds with Nightingale's heroic reputation. According to summers, Nightingale's importance during the Crimean War has been exaggerated: not until near the war's end did she become supervisor of the female nurses. Additionally, summers writes that the contribution of the nurses to the relief of the wounded was at best marginal. The prevailing problems of military medicine were caused by army organizational practices, and the addition of a few nurses to the medical staff could be no more than symbolic. Nightingale’s place in the national pantheon, summers asserts, is largely due to the propagandist’s efforts of contemporary newspaper reporters.
By contrast, the editors of a new volume of Nightingale's letters view Nightingale as a person who significantly influenced not only her own age but also subsequent generations. They highlight her ongoing efforts to reform sanitary conditions after the war. For example, when she learned that peacetime Living conditions in British barracks were so horrible that the death rate of enlisted men far exceeded that of neighboring avian populations, she succeeded in persuading the government to establish a Royal Commission on the Health of the Army. She used sums raised through pubic contributions to found a nurses' training hospital in London. Even in administrative matters, the editors assert, her practical intelligence was formidable: as recently as 1947 the British Army's medical services were still using the cost-accounting system she had devised in the 1860's.
I believe that the evidence of her letters supports continued respect for Nightingale's brilliance and creativity. When counseling a village schoolmaster to encourage children to use their faculties of observation, she sounds Ike a modern educator. Her insistence on classifying the problems of the needy in order to devise appropriate treatments is similar to the approach of modern social workers. In sum, although Nightingale may not have achieved al of her goals during the Crimean War, her breadth of vision and ability to realize ambitious projects have earned her an eminent place among the ranks of social pioneers.

    Grassland songbirds often nest in the same grassland-wetland complexes as waterfowl, particularly in a certain part of those complexes, namely, upland habitats surrounding wetlands. Although some wildlife management procedures directed at waterfowl, such as habitat enhancement or restoration, may also benefit songbirds , the impact of others, especially the control of waterfowl predators, remains difficult to predict. For example, most predators of waterfowl nests prey opportunistic ally on songbird nests, and removing these predators could directly increase songbird nesting success. Alternatively, small mammals such as mice and ground squirrels are important in the diet of many waterfowl-nest predators and can themselves be important predators of songbird nets. Thus. Removing waterfowl-nest predators could affect songbird nesting success through subsequent increases in small-mammal populations.

    In 1995 and 1996, researchers trapped and removed certain waterfowl-nest predators. primary raccoons and striped skunks, then observed subsequent survival rates for songbird nests. Surprisingly. They observed no significant effect on songbird nesting success. This may be due to several factors. Neither raccoons nor striped skunks consume ground squirrels, which are important predators of songbird nests. Thus, their removal may not have led to significant increases in populations of smaller predators. Additionally, both raccoons and striped skunks prefer wetlands and spend little time in upland habitats; removing these species may not have increased the nesting success of songbirds in the uplands enough to allow detection.