Asati iim aiiiale < Ms , ing ae Sire Ee a TR te Pubs ape - aye aged cab te * rite SIE I é * ’ Bee kee oy 2 A cmap ets, 9 : ond : 4 ped nal : bry? pe . Sakina ren Fath “2: te : wk é . ; ade ot cele EL omeal a. : le BR Me ahh, ; Fore woe ope 5 ies a age et att ah Sie 7 Snedlg a We BEAT pe 4 4 - . ‘ 5 sages Matson mc Ad PABAITT 18 Ee ed Ciel ticecamenahhd - 3 nee A - Telsgce «ir POE ETM lee Ate ET: oy a cae Sewanee Te = Patent Sap ine ste a> AHS goal ston pal .Aew ell 1H Fo jet avis Tati eR SP te eal. See mm ie girlie th ed ghey ay EGS BN. ane amt RII ae SY fats des Hee Dit acy ephedra % tree te x tet : Qe 2. arte OFF ae Bee NE eat oe eo Mm » va ny ath athens xr Grains a es he ol ee aS ee eer ee * Tt ieee : . “i on wee Si radce mieten aan A ipa Feat “ 1 tg ar se : rhea eet * fa 4) =y Co gered: O17 a - : wrt ae i Se Reeteete ee SOD tM AAI ee ee a arr ere Tiberias i? peat me " ee ls Cg al 1 Museum OF d (Cee » "es - 7, & & 2 1869 THE LIBRARY THE ZOOLOGIST: ly A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF Newer RA LS. HISroRrR ¥. FOURTH SERIES.—VOL. XIII. EDITED BY Week. DIsSiraNT. LONDON: WEST, NEWMAN & CO., 54, HATTON GARDEN. SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & CO., Lrp. Lo Og, By sary faa te & ,§ PUBLISHERS ' eee s Z 4 es 19. hw A Gre it Mn — PREFACHE. THE present volume is of a more general zoological character than any of its immediate predecessors, and if some subjects are less represented, that omission marks the varied studies of its contributors rather than any editorial direction. That ‘THE Zoouoaist’ is taking a wide view of animal life is a subject for congratulation ; it is characteristic of its title, and is a fulfil- ment of its function. The faunal descriptions and lists are an important feature, and in this volume alone we can, among other communications, refer to Dr. Clark’s ‘‘ Notes on Cornish Crustacea,’ Mr. Patterson’s ‘‘ Rough Notes on the Fish and Fisheries of Kast Suffolk,’ Mr. Cummings’s ‘“‘ Notes on the Fauna of Lundy Island,” Mr. Arnold’s investigations on the Eastbourne Crumbles, and Mr. Harcourt-Bath’s memoir ‘‘ On the Vertical and Bathymetrical Distribution of the British non- Marine Mollusca, with Special Reference to the Cotteswold Fauna.” This work is of the greatest importance in British Zoology, and can be, and we trust will be, largely increased in the future. In Ornithology, during what may be called the ‘ Crossbill year,” our ‘‘ Notes and Queries’ contain many valuable records ; in annual reports are continued those of Mr. Gurney on Norfolk and Mr. Aplin on Oxford; while Messrs. Thorpe and Hope have commenced their digest of the Natural History Record Bureau at Carlisle. In the bionomical pursuit of bird-watching, so pregnant with fresh facts in animal psychology, Mr. Selous iV PREFACE. has turned his attention to the ‘‘ Nuptial Habits of the Black- cock,” while in another ornithological byway Dr. Leiper has described a new species of parasitic Filaria in the Thrush. Mr. Dewar’s ‘‘ Notes on the Feeding-habits of the Dunlin” are of the greatest interest ; Mr. Blathwayt has brought up to date an account of the Lincolnshire Gulleries, and Mr. Boyd Watt has compiled a good ‘‘ Bibliography of London Birds.” In Philosophical Zoology, Prof. McIntosh has contributed a learned and judicious pronouncement on ‘‘The Darwinian Theory in 1867 and Now”’; the “ List of the Zoological Gardens of the World,” by Capt. Stanley Flower, is a thorough and com- plete treatment of the subject; Mr. Elmhirst’s ‘‘ Notes from Millport Marine Biological Station,’”’ we hope, will be continued, and mention must be made of the lengthy and complete enum- eration, with bibliographical references, of the ‘‘ Hymenopterous Parasites of Rhynchota,”’ by Mr. Claude Morley. In conclusion, the thought must be driven home to all of us, by the perusal of a single volume of this publication, how much can and is still to be done in British Zoology alone. A com- petent zoologist could devote his life’s work to studying the animal life—in all its phases—of his own garden; he could soon compile a list of names, but a complete knowledge of the life-histories of these species is known to few indeed, while the bionomics of the whole of the living creatures to be found on a half-acre patch may be safely said to be at present outside the mental recognition of any one naturalist. THE ZOOLOGIST No. 811.—January, 1909. NOTES ON THE FEEDING-HABITS OF THE DUNLIN (TRINGA ALPINA). By J. M. Dewar. Waar follows is mainly a record of a certain phase of the Dunlin’s active life, from direct observation and from a study of the imprints left on the feeding-grounds. Its relations with other birds and with its own kind are bound up so intimately with its feeding-habits that no apology is needed for dealing with them now. Several species are named in the books as associates of the Dunlin, and the information is sufficient to indicate that the smaller waders are its most intimate companions. The Dunlins feed alongside of the larger waders, and pass through their flocks as a body, but as a general rule they do not mingle freely with birds much larger than themselves. When they fly along the coast in search of a feeding-place the Dunlins are likely to pitch beside any species of wader, and they may not stay if it is taking food which does not suit them. I have seen a party alight beside Knots which were devouring small mussels, and after a momentary glance take to flight. Common in winter is the sight of a party of Dunlins tripping along in the wake of -a Ringed Plover. They follow the long runs of the Plover, and probe eagerly close to it at each halt. At least one of them is sure to examine the place from which the Plover extracted some- thing at the end of its run. They probe alittle on the way, and Zool. 4th ser. vol. XIII., January, 1909. B 2 THE ZOOLOGIST. occasionally the Ringed Plover doubles back in an attempt to secure whatever a Dunlin is on the point of taking. Sometimes Dunlins working independently of other species alight to probe for a short time, and fly away without having found anything off value as food. This is true especially of smooth stretches of sand. At the same time, they are quite able to find their own food, and a large part of their feeding is done in the absence of other species, or in places where the mingling of species is a coincidence. The relation of this species to others may be regarded from a different point of view. Dunlinsin search of food are remarkably easy of approach; at rest and in the company of other waders § they are not so confiding. Their absorption in the work of § finding food is apparently complete until the cries of the other species, most of them alert to a degree, warn the Dunlins to beware. When Ringed Plovers give the warning I find usually that the Plovers alight first and the Dunlins later. Where Dunlins are asleep, a few Ringed Plovers may be standing wide- awake or running about amongst the sleeping birds, ready to call at the approach of danger. It is not that the Dunlins need the warning, for they are less approachable when they are sleeping than when they are feeding actively. I am inclined to believe that Dunlins are more partial to the company of other waders as the shooting season advances, especially in districts where they are harassed severely. In spring and autumn they are seen more often alone. On one occasion I witnessed a peculiar action by two members of a party of Dunlins and Ringed Plovers which were resting on the high- water mark—the Plovers watchful as usual, the Dunlins appa- rently asleep. About an hour after the time of full tide, when the latter were waking up and stretching their wings, an in- dividual of each species detached itself from the flock and ran some fifty yards over the sand to the water-line. The Ringed Plover led the way, and the Dunlin followed closely. Arriving at the water-line the Plover looked about and ran quickly to certain spots, in which it dug its bill, the Dunlin inspecting and tapping the same spots after the Plover. Having done this the Plover turned and ran back to the flock with the Dunlin imme- diately behind probing here and there on the way. The flock FEEDING-HABITS OF THE DUNULIN. 3 remained quietly for a few minutes, then flew to the place which had been inspected by the pair, and began to search eagerly for food. What the mental state underlying these actions may be is largely a matter of opinion. It seems to be a variable and varying blend of curiosity, sociability, and selfishness, if we humanize the motives for the convenience of description. Per- haps long-continued dependence on the sense of touch has reduced the acuteness of vision below the level maintained by birds with which the Dunlin associates intimately—an acuteness of vision most necessary in dealing with areas showing the most trifling signs of the presence of food. Ido not mean that there is an actual diminution in the keenness of vision. What I venture to suggest is that Dunlins sometimes forget to use their eyes. Habitually absorbed in the art of rapid and incessant probing, they are inclined to depend on other eyes for the detection of danger; on feeding-grounds which show slight surface markings or none at all their actions indicate that they are unable to find hidden objects without applying the test of touch, and as in a given time the bill covers a more limited field than a keen sense of vision does, they may rely in part, and it may be unconsciously, on the judgment of other birds. Apparently they take an interest in the doings of their neigh- bours, and on occasion they: act as if they were assisting or robbing each other. Usually the small animals are seized, extracted from the ground and swallowed rapidly—so rapidly ‘that the steps are not always easy to follow. Sometimes there is delay, particularly when worms of fair size are captured. If not too late, the Dunlins may forestall the first-comer, and by their interference allow the object to escape, but as a rule the capture of a big mudworm is the signal for the nearest Dunlins to hurry to the spot, not to probe immediately but to examine the place by sight, then to tap and probe once or twice and dis- perse. - I have notes of two instances of a less common kind. A Dunlin probed into a colony of mudworms and tugged vigorously without result. It was seen by another, which introduced its bill alongside that of the first. Both pulled together several times, and extracted a worm about three inches long. The second arrival took the worm a short distance away and devoured BQ 4 THE ZOOLOGIST. it piecemeal ; the other resumed probing immediately. A Dun- lin pulled a fairly large worm out of its burrow so far and apparently was unable to move it farther. The Dunlin dis- played its excitement by tugging energetically, and by stamping on the mud with its feet. Another ran up at once and displaced it, not by direct attack but by introducing its bill into the burrow and seizing hold of the worm. ‘The former let go and retreated a few paces. It soon returned and seized the free end of the worm. ‘Together they dragged the worm out of its burrow, and in the act of being swallowed the worm broke, and each bird got a portion. : We may impute human motives to these attractive birds, but a little consideration will show the propriety of trying to find an explanation in closer agreement with what is known of their character. In the general case, the sight of a Dunlin capturing a small animal of unusual value was sufficient to distract the attention of other Dunlins from their own occupations, and to revive a train of memories in their minds, of which the automatic and outward expression was a general movement to the area to see and probe for themselves. This I have called “ curiosity ” for want of a better word, but it is not exactly so, for the Dunlins would know perfectly what was likely to be found. In the two special instances matters went farther, and while the primary intention may have been robbery, the subsequent actions seemed to be something more pardonable. If, in the general case, the first Dunlin had not been so prompt in swallowing the worm, plainly the new-comers would have attempted to secure it, and if in each of the special instances the second Dunlin went forward with the same idea in its mind as I imagine to occur in the general case, we may suppose that the continued presence of a struggling worm would fill its mind with the one idea of securing the worm, so that other ideas would be crowded out or placed in abeyance. This does not deny them a lively sense of meum and tuum. I have never known Dunlins to interfere with another species which was struggling with a resisting worm, but the respect which they entertain for other species would have full play from the first, and would prevent their minds from be- coming saturated with the idea of securing the worm. Once the single idea has been allowed to develop (and its development FEEDING-HABITS OF THE DUNCIN. 5 would not be hindered by consideration of the first-comer, because the Dunlin would have no reason to expect opposition ; as far as can be seen, Dunlins do not fight with one another or display resentment) the Dunlin goes forward unable, unless some potent interruption overturns the state of its mind, to receive impressions, and incapable of performing actions other than those called into being by the one idea. It is engaged with nothing but the capture of the worm, and when the worm is swallowed the incident is forgotten. The first Dunlin is in a similar condition. Already occupied and excited by the idea of securing the worm, it becomes frantic when the worm resists extraction unduly, and in such a state it is not able to consider what the new-comer is going to do. It may continue to tug at the worm as if nothing had happened, or it may be driven away temporarily paralyzed by the shock of the second Dunlin’s approach. Then the idea of securing the worm, dissipated for a moment by the fresh impression, returns with absorbing force, and the Dunlin goes back to the worm as if no other bird was there. Now a Curlew, to take an example in similar circumstances, would never think twice of questioning the right of an intruder, but then the Curlew is sedate in its ways, and for a bird its mind is fairly well balanced. ~The Dunlin, on the contrary, is a nervous, feverishly energetic, excitable bird, and the thread which connects its reason and consciousness with its bodily functions is slender and easily cut. A lack of self-control may be assumed for another reason. The Dunlin is one of those waders which are liable to “‘ bobbing ’’—that peculiar, rhythmical, backward jerk of the head and body, or of the head alone—in moments of excite- ment from anxiety, fear, and other cavses. During eack jerk and sometimes during the series the eyes have a dull and vacant expression, but the observer must be very near to see this. It may be said that the frantic excitement of the Dunlin is due to fear of robbery—that its continued endeavour to secure the worm is the feeble expression of its resentment. On the surface this explanation is satisfactory, but if we try to analyse the actions by themselves, and in relation to the general activi- ties of the bird, and to picture what is going on within the skull, 6 THE ZOOLOGIST. it will be seen that the former explanation, apparently the more complex, isin reality the simpler. So that any slight or unusual excitement or irritation will act on the centres of the brain pre- siding over the motor system through the sense organs without the control or intervention of the higher centres—in other words, without knowledge and understanding, will set in motion actions which habit has associated with particular sensations, and what appears to be robbery and the prevention of robbery resolves itself into automatic though complex movements which in fair- ness may be excused. Turning to the way in which the Dunlin finds its food, I wish first to mention the senses of smell and hearing as possible guides. Much has been made of the difficulty of approaching wildfowl down-wind, and the cause has been sought in a keen sense of smell. This may be perfectly true, but it happens that these birds rise up-wind either as a matter of convenience or of necessity, and travel for a time towards the observer who is approaching down-wind. Hence an early start must be made to maintain the margin of safety that each species finds neces- sary. Of hearing, I can say little, and that not much to the point.* While it is impossible, without making a difficult and need- lessly cruel experiment, to deny the importance of the senses of smell and hearing, the general evidence places both below two of whose value there can be no doubt—the senses of sight and touch. It is convenient to group them according to their use singly or together, if we remember that there is no hard-and-fast line between each, and that there is scarcely anything to which both cannot be applied. Sight alone is represented by surface- feeding, and by work in places crowded with open burrows in which the occupants are near the surface and within view; touch alone by the exploration of seaweed, of ground under water, of muddy and sandy ooze, and the sand along the high-water mark; sight and touch by work on areas in which the food supply is scanty and the signs of it indefinite, and in dealing with mud Crustacea which have retreated into the recurved portions of their burrows. ; Surface-feeding includes the search for small objects drifting * Cf. Patten, ‘ Aquatic Birds,’ p. 277. FEEDING-HABITS OF THE DUNLIN. 7 in the wash of the sea and in streams, for small insects and spiders* crawling on the land, but the common form of surface- feeding is the capture of small univalves. When the acorn- shells that encrust the rocks in many places die they leave behind them rings of lime, each narrowing towards the top and adherent to the rock at the base. In these asylums small Peri- winkles dwell in comparative safety, and wherever they are numerous they become objects of interest to the Dunlin. At certain times molluscs are seen in large numbers on expanses of sand after the tide has ebbed, and in myriads on the ooze of some land-locked bay or harbour. The Dunlin, attentive to the signs, runs swiftly over the sand, turning at the end of its beat to cross the area in a fresh direction. When a considerable number are present the general effect of the crossing and re- crossing is of a game of inviting and avoiding collisions which ‘may go on ceaselessly for an hour at a time, and it is only at long intervals that a Dunlin is seen to bend down and seize hold of a small univalve. At any time it may turn aside from its course with the utmost rapidity to take a molluse which has caught its eye in passing. The same thing occurs on the mud and on the rocks, only the speed is limited by the nature of the ground. They run shorter distances at a time, and incline to move in one general direction, though they run this way and that as the signs dictate. Here again they pick up shells at long intervals of time and space. From a study of the birds’ habits alone it is difficult to under- stand this boundless display of energy, and if the gizzards were not packed with shellst the actions of the Dunlins might be taken to prove that something else was the object of pursuit. On the sand and rock the shells are present in hundreds, on the mud they are crowded together so closely that scarcely an inch of ground separates one from another, yet the Dunlins select a shell here and a shell there for some reason or other. True the shells on the sand vary in size, and many of them are too large for the Dunlins’ throats to pass, while in the case of the shells on the rocks a limit is imposed by the relative size of the Peri- winkles to that of the surrounding rings. But these restrictions ** Alston, ‘ Zoologist,’ 1866, p. 513. + Swinhoe, ‘ Ibis,’ 1863, p. 412. 8 THE ZOOLOGIST. do not apply to the shells on the mud, which scarcely vary more than from an eighth to a sixth of an inch in length. These mud shells afford a possible explanation. Close inspection shows that they rest upright on the mud, that large numbers of them are empty, and that many others are in an unhealthy condition. The gentle flow of the tide is insufficient to disturb their balance, and the general appearance of all is the same. If we watch quietly we may see a shell here and there move slightly, rest for a while, and move slightly again. It is the same with the shells on the wet sand and the rocks. In this, as I venture to think, we have an explanation of the Dunlin’s feverish display of energy and apparent delicacy of taste. It overruns the ground watching for the slightest movements made by the molluses from time to time. In this way it guards itself against shells which are empty and shells whose occupants are dead or dying. Some other waders do the same thing in a different way, but the only way open to the Dunlin is to run ceaselessly hither and thither. : In similar fashion the Dunlin treats areas of mud crowded with the open burrows of worms and thin-skinned Crustacea, providing a sufficient number of the occupants are near to the surface. Itis, however, more circumspect in its movements, it runs more slowly, and at the last moment, when on the point of making a capture, it rushes forward or to one side and plunges its bill quickly into the mud in an attempt to seize one of the lurking animals on which it feeds. Search by touch alone is to some extent a misnomer. A certain amount of visual information is necessary to begin with, and it is a valuable adjunct during the process of tapping. The Dunlin proceeds slowly a step or two at a time in no particular direction, and drives its bill rapidly up and down in and out of the ground, testing it very completely in front and on both sides. From time to time it runs or flies to a fresh place and begins again, but there is no evidence to show that the new place is chosen for any special reason. In the course of the up and down movement the bill shows a noticeable tremor.* At times this tremor is more marked, and is seen to be vertical. To close inspection it reveals itself as a lesser up and down movement * Macgillivray, ‘ History of British Birds,’ iv. pp. 207-213. FEEDING-HABITS OF THE DUNLIN. 9 with a minute deviation of direction at each downstroke. So each stroke of the bill is of a compound nature. There is the main stroke, and during it a number of lesser strokes, which bring the point of the bill into contact with a larger surface. At intervals the Dunlin finds something good to eat. This is made plain by its eagerness, by the deeper sinking of the bill, the snapping of the mandibles and their sudden withdrawal, grasping an object which, if small enough, is swallowed before the bill is entirely clear of the ground. If contact is made with a worm the bill is propelled downwards over the upper end of the worm by a number of quick thrusts, the mandibles being separated during the thrusts and closed tightly on the worm between each, when the reverted cusps on the palate and the edges of the mandibles prevent the worm from slipping back into its burrow. The result is that an equal length of the worm is grasped by the whole length of the bill, and the worm is ready for extraction, which is effected by one or more steady and gentle pulls. The need for this even distribution of pressure is understood when the extreme softness and fragility of the worms are taken into account. The method of feeding by touch alone is applied to soft ground under water, to muddy ooze and shifting sands in which food is abundant and exhibits no surface markings, to seaweed whether attached to the rocks or drifting up shore on the waves, to moss and spongy turf, and to the strip of firm sand along high-water mark. This part abounds usually with Sandhoppers and the larve of flies which leave no visible marks by which they can be traced. The process here is more one of rapid tapping than of probing the sand. As they flounder over very soft ooze they may be seen to plough the mud steadily with their bills, and to draw them about asif they were tracing patterns of complicated design. Probably they act under water in the same way, but it is not easy then to be sure. Where sight and touch are given together, I mean to express uncertainty as to which sense is the more important. They are illustrated by the movements of Dunlins on smooth and fairly dry sandy areas, inhabited by a moderate number of thin- skinned Crustacea. These animals in their subterranean bur- rowings leave aggregations of minute pits here and there on the 10 THE ZOOLOGIST. surface of the sand. These impressions may be mistaken for those of a bird, and have been attributed to worms. The Dunlin runs over the sand looking for these marks, and also, as I imagine, for disturbances of the sand made by the movements of the crustaceans. When it decides on a likely place it probes the sand rapidly in a certain direction until it comes on the small animal. The same method is applied to Sandhoppers, and the Dunlin is remarkabiy agile in leaping to secure the crustacean if it jumps. When they are racing over the wet sands during the ebb in search of univalves they are attentive to the worm-casts, and can be seen now and then to plunge their bills hurriedly into casts and to draw out small worms. The extrusion of the casts is not continuous. It occurs periodically, and, as the worms are very near to the surface at the time, I believe the Dunlins overrun the sand on the look-out for castings in the moment of extrusion, when they are able to capture worms which may be out of reach at other times. The same combination is used on areas showing no visible surface- markings, and where the supply of food is limited. The Dunlins probe for a while in one place, and look about for another place to treat in the same way. So engaged they are most liable to sight objects it may be a yard away, and to run swiftly to secure them. This applies to several kinds of ground, and includes the search for small bivalves in the sand. On muddy areas crowded with open burrows, into which the inhabitants have retired as far as they can go, the Dunlins run about looking for what they can find. The worms are beyond reach, but many of the Crustacea have the terminal portions of their burrows recurved ; in some cases the blind ends are within a quarter of an inch of the surface and close to the entrance. The Dunlin inspects these burrows, and in some instances taps gently round the entrance with an evident purpose, for it sud- denly plunges the bill very obliquely into the mud and reaches upwards with the point. Even then it may miss its object, and the bill is seen to travel in a curved course towards the entrance of the burrow as if following the crustacean, the capture of which may be signalled at any moment by the snapping of the man- dibles. For a long time I puzzled over these actions, repeated so frequently, and it was not until I found mud plastic enough FEEDING-HABITS OF THE DUNLIN. 11 to admit of section that I saw the nature of the recurved burrows and the operations of the Dunlin upon them. The imprints left by the Dunlins on the sand and mud are worthy of consideration. In surface-feeding there is nothing to note save, perhaps, the absence of certain univalves from their tracks. On the areas of open burrows single probings are seen often wide apart, and, as I will explain later, they are of the deep variety. As a rule each coincides in position with a burrow. For an obvious reason, ground under water, very liquid ooze, and wet sand show no markings, or else they are so - much run as to be of no value. The firm sand along the high- water mark is best for the purpose. The hidden animals leave no surface-markings, and the Dunlins tap and probe rapidly in search of food. When they have been on this kind of sand for any length of time it becomes covered with the tracks of feet and bill. The imprints made by the bill are of three kinds,* distinguished not so much by the sharpness of their differences as by the frequency with which the average forms occur. They are a slight double dent in the sand made by a gentle pressure with the point of the bill; a shallow probing, an eighth to a . quarter of an inch in depth, usually but not invariably divided into two compartments by a transverse septum of sand; a deep probing, a quarter to half an inch or more in depth, and com- plete in the sense of having no septum. The relative frequency of the three kinds is variable and depends on a number of con- ditions, of which the appetite of the Dunlin, the nature, position, and relative abundance of the hidden animals seem to be the most important. As much of the sand is covered only at spring tides, imprints are added at each high water during neap tides, until the imprints nearly cover the sand for considerable stretches, especially if the Dunlins are many and no rain has fallen.. Excluding sand which has been visited more than once, we find that the distribution of imprints is patchy, crowded together in some places, scanty in otherst—that they are more numerous near clumps of seaweed and decaying vegetable matter. The larve are more plentiful in these situations, and may lie in bundles close to the surface under contiguous imprints, which * Macgillivray, ‘ History of British Birds,’ iv. pp. 207-213. + Ibid. 12 THE ZOOLOGIST, shows that the Dunlins miss more than they find. The tap- pings and septate probings may occur singly or in lines of two or three each, and may or may not end in a deep probing. Deep probings may be found together or singly at wide intervals, with or without associated septate probings. The number of con- tiguous tappings and septate probings may be great. I once counted forty in line, gradually deepening to end in a complete probing, and on another occasion forty-seven, when no deep probing was present. This was on a small patch of half-dried mud overlying coarse gravel, and when the mud was sifted nothing was found. The contiguous lines of probings may be straight or curved, directed forwards or to one side, and a fairly common form is a circle of ten to twenty tappings and septate probings, ending in a complete probing near the first tapping. As a general rule, ten to a hundred imprints are found on the square foot, of which rather less than half are deep probings, but the ratio may be as high as one in three hundred, or even one in five hundred. To produce a tapping the mandibles are required to be separated one millimetre at the tip, to produce a septate probing two or three millimetres. The length of a septate probing is five to six millimetres, which is considerably shorter than the seven or eight millimetres of a double probing made experimentally with a closed bill, and the ten to thirteen millimetres of the double complete probing occurring in nature. The deep probing is directed slightly forwards, is cylindrical in the upper part, and expanded towards the end into a semi- bulbous form, the concavity being on the front aspect of the probing, a relation which can be learned by comparing the probing with the corresponding footmarks. That the mandibles are separated in the act of tapping and probing runs contrary to accepted opinion; while the con- struction of the bill, with its guarded tip, points to its use with the mandibles closed. Direct observation of so small a detail is not easy on account of the Dunlin’s rapid movements, but it can be made when the bird comes between the observer and still water which is reflecting the light of a white cloud. I have chanced on these ideal conditions twice. On the first occasion during rapid probing the mandibles were separated all the time. The degree of separation varied a little, and at times FEEDING-HABITS OF THE DUNLIN. 13 the bill was opened up to its base. On the second occasion the bill was sometimes opened and sometimes closed during the downstrokes, but I suspect that the apparent closure was due to my inability to see a trifling separation of the mandibles towards the tip of the bill. Though the shallow probings are not always septate, formation of the delicate septa may be pre- vented by various causes, and in default of a septum it is seldom that a semilunar ridge cannot be found across the floor of each probing. The present view gains support from observation of the actions of waders which are larger and slower than the Dunlin; septa occur, to my knowledge, in the shallow probings of the Lapwing, Snipe, Common Sand- piper, and Redshank, and the method attains its greatest development in Starlings and Rooks, which often test the ground with the tips of the mandibles separated as widely as they can be. So there is evidence for the belief that the mandibles are separated during search, and that the separation increases as the bill goes deeper, but they remain nearly parallel until the bottom of the deep probing is reached, when, as a writer has suggested,* the terminal part of the upper mandible is expanded in contact with the capture—a movement which ap- pears to be reflected in the form of the deep probing. The partial separation of the mandibles makes introduction of the bill more easy, it increases the tactile area, and may, by com- parison between the two points of contact, afford a clearer idea of the form and consistence of hidden objects. One advantage of the extensile mechanism lies in the fact that the minimum quantity of sand has to be pushed aside,t though I am unable to agree with Mr. Workman in supposing that the bill is closed during introduction, to prevent the mouth from being filled with dirt. The existence of septa in the shallow probings seems tome to prove that the open bill can be driven into and out of the - ground without being soiled, but when the bird makes a capture it has to swallow the material of which the septum is composed. In this way I account for the large quantity of extraneous matter, sand, mud, rootlets, and the like, which is found in the * Pycraft, ‘Ibis,’ 1893, p. 361. + Workman, ‘ Ibis,’ 1907, p. 614. 14 ; THE ZOOLOGIST. stomachs of some waders killed on soft ground. It does not appear to be an inconvenience to them, and the friction gene- rated by the particles of sand and mud during the act of pre- hension may help the birds to deal with the slippery animals which are their food. When the supply of food is scanty the imprints are reduced to a small number per square foot, and usually they are of the deep kind, but have lost the typical form. This is due to the Dunlins feeding by sight and touch together, when the apparent tremor of the bill becomes more marked. The probings are expanded irregularly. They may be elongated, wedge- shaped, with the base directed downwards, or converted into circular pits, and if they are opened gently the walls are seen to be covered with numbers of nipple-shaped depressions. On the level sands, where active Crustacea are the objective, we see long lines of footmarks leading in every direction, and here and there isolated deep probings, or lines of contiguous septate probings, each line ending in a complete probing. Where it is sandworms, we see in places a single deep probing in the most recent part of a worm-casting, which is always small. I have tried probes made of various materials, but for delicacy of touch none of them is equal to bone covered with soft skin. When contact is made with a living animal a peculiar quivering sensation is experienced, like that felt on touching a vibrating chord. At the same time the animal, especially if it is a worm, stiffens itself preparatory to making its escape. If it is a shell it appears to rise up slightly and proceed slowly to close its operculum or valves. This feeling can be obtained not only by contact with the probe, but also, after a little practice, through a quarter of an inch of intervening soil. It is, I imagine, a sensa- tion like this that guides the Dunlin, in addition, of course, to the disturbance of sand and mud which the animals make when in motion, and it serves to distinguish living animals from inanimate objects offering an equal degree of resistance* to the bill. * Macgillivray, ‘ History of British Birds,’ iv. pp. 207- 213. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LONDON BIRDS. By Hues Boyp Warr. ANNEXED is a brief list which is believed to contain entries of the principal works on the above-named subject, but which can probably be amplified, particularly for suburban districts within the area of Greater London. County avi- faunas, such as Harting’s ‘ Birds of Middlesex,’ Christy’s ‘ Birds of Essex,’ and Bucknill’s ‘Birds of Surrey,’ have not been included. List UNDER AUTHORS. 1. Apams, A. Leira: ‘‘ Birds of London,” ‘The Field,’ London, Jan. 16th, p. 46, and 28rd, p. 70, 1875. 2. Bravan, A. H.: ‘Birds I Have Known.’ Illustrated. 8vo. London, 1905. Contains two chapters on ‘‘ London Birds.”’ 3. CunpaLL, J. W.: ‘London. in the remarkable sternum itself, in the chevron bones of the caudal region, late union of neural arches and bodies of vertebre, long symphysis of man- dible, in the teeth, and in the absence or rudimentary condition of the pelvis. - Paleontology reveals transition forms between Cetacea and Sirenia. Hali- therium, again, links the Sirenia and hoofed animals. Zool. 4th ser. vol. XTIT., March, 1909, I 98 THE ZOOLOGIST. peculiarities in the formation of the placenta deemed to be con- clusively human are present in the Anthropoid Apes. Haeckel, indeed, asserts that the descent of man from extinct Tertiary Anthropoid Apes is proved as plainly as the descent of birds from reptiles, or the descent of reptiles from amphibians. The Neanderthal skull and the fossil Ape-man (Pithecanthropus erectus) from Java are unhesitatingly believed by Haeckel to be ‘‘the missing links.’’] Undismayed by the difficulties presented by the geological record, Darwin goes on to account for the absence of ancestry to the occasionally complex fossils in the old Silurian rocks by hinting that perhaps we see in the granitic rocks the trans- formed strata long anterior to the Silurian epoch. Dr. Car- penter is of opinion that an important link is to be found in EKozoon, which he and its discoverers, Sir William Logan and Dr. Dawson, consider to be a gigantic Foraminifer. Careful observation by others, however, negative this view. It is a well-known fact that a species which has been extin- guished never reappears. The evolutionists ask with foree—Why, on the hypothesis of independent creation, were the failing species not re-created in those regions so well adapted for their well-being? They assert, for instance, that no part of the world now offers more suitable conditions for Wild Horses than the Pampas and other plains of South America, a fact that is well enough proved by the facility with which they have run wild and multiplied enormously since their introduction by the Spaniards in comparatively recent times. Why, on the principle of original and direct adaptation of species to climate, were they not reproduced ? Darwin’s hypothesis alone, say they, gives the clue. The chain of direct descent was completely broken by the extinction of the first race of Horses. In the most distant parts of the earth, again (gach as North America, Tierra del Fuego, India, and the Cape of Good Hope), the organic remains in certain beds have a close resemblance to each other. Natural Selection, says Darwin, has caused this by gradually spreading the dominant forms of life throughout the successive strata. Agassiz states that Darwin’s whole chapter on the geological record appears to him as a series of illogical deductions and THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 99 misrepresentations of the modern results of the science. In vigorous language he portrays the beliefs which Darwin would have us entertain, and adds his view of the real state of the facts, e.g.: He (Darwin) would have us believe that each new species originated in consequence of some slight change in those that preceded, when every geological formation teems with types that did not exist before. He would have us believe that animals disappear gradually, when they are as common in the uppermost bed in which they occur as in the lowest or any inter- mediate bed. Species appear suddenly and disappear suddenly in successive strata. Agassiz also denies that the fossiliferous deposits took place during subsidence, and instances the whole of North America as being formed of beds that were deposited during successive upheavals. [To-day the evolutionists bring forward a vast amount of evidence from every quarter of the globe in favour of descent with modification in almost every group in the animal kingdom. Nowhere have these views spread with greater acceptance than on the Continent of Europe, and especially in Germany, where Haeckel and Weismann in their several fields in zoology, and Strasburger in botany, have conspicuously laboured. In our own country the work of Huxley, Flower, Avebury, Galton, F. M. Balfour, Lankester, Romanes, Bateson, Weldon, Poul- ton, and many others have brought to light important facts which are of permanent value irrespective of their theoretical bearings. ] Some most interesting facts are given by Darwin and his supporters in expounding the geographical distribution of plants ‘and animals, with regard to oceanic islands. The absence of terrestrial mammals and batrachians and the presence of bats is held as inexplicable on the theory of creation. Darwin also adverts to the fact that at St. Helena there is reason to believe that the naturalised plants and animals—that is, those imported by man—have nearly exterminated the native productions; and he taunts the defenders of the doctrine of the creation of each Separate species in its most appropriate locality by saying that they will have to admit that a sufficient number of the best adapted plants and animals were not created on oceanic islands; for man has unintentionally stocked them from various sources 12 100 THE ZOOLOGIST. far more perfectly than did Nature. Sir Joseph Hooker, again, observes that no other theory explains so many of the facts connected with the distribution of plants in oceanic islands, of which he specially instances the Canaries, Azores, and St. Helena in the Atlantic, and Kerguelen in the South Indian Ocean. In the five or six great plans on which the animal kingdom is constructed Darwin saw only the hidden bond of inheritance. Thus he explained the similarity of pattern in the hand of Man, in the flipper of Seal, and in the wing of Bat. It is hopeless to account for these by utility or the doctrine of final causes (Teleology), and Owen admits this. Darwin explained this by the Natural Selection of successive slight modifications, and showed that however much modified there would be no tendency to alter the framework of bones. Why, he asks, should similar bones have been created in the formation of the wing and leg of a Bat, used as they are for such totally different purposes; that a bird like a Thrush (Dipper) should have been created to dive and feed on subaquatic insects? Why should teeth have been created in young calves that never cut the gums, or in Guinea- pigs that shed them before they are born; and that teeth should be present in young Finner Whales when the adult animal is toothless ? On the contrary, with regard to classification his antagonists hold that from the beginning there could have been no com- munity of origin between the several branches of the animal kingdom, since they are founded on different plans of structure, and so with the subordinate groups. Darwin is charged with denying the existence of design in the material universe. In one chapter he says :—‘‘ If our reason bids us admire with enthusiasm a multitude of inimitable con- trivances in Nature, this same reason tells us, though we may easily err on both sides, that some contrivances are less perfect. Can we consider the sting of the bee as perfect which, when used against many attacking animals, cannot be withdrawn, owing to its backward serratures, and so inevitably causes the death of the insect by tearing out its viscera?” This passage has been cited in accusing him of sneering at the designs of Providence, and in denying any agency beyond that of a blind THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 101 chance in the development or perfection of the organs or instincts of created beings. His followers say that the adoption of his theory would leave the doctrines of final causes, utility, and ‘special design just where they were before. Darwin made so much of the resemblance amongst the young of vertebrate animals that he thought it probable all the members in the four great classes, viz. Mammals, Birds, Rep- tiles, and Fishes, were the modified descendants of one ancient progenitor, which was furnished in its adult state with branchie, had a swim-bladder, four simple limbs, and a long tail fitted for aquatic life. In regard to the resemblances between young animals, Agassiz states that the embryo of the American Freshwater Turtle and the embryo of the Snapping Turtle resemble one another far more than the different species of the former in their adult state; a young Snake resembles a young Turtle or a young bird much more than any two species of Snakes resemble one another ; and yet not a single fact can be adduced to show that any one egg of an animal has ever produced an individual of any species but its own. Dr. Asa Gray sums up that Darwin’s theory, leaving man out of the question, very well accords with the great facts of zoology and comparative anatomy, or goes far to explain both the physio- logical and structural gradations and relations between the two kingdoms, and the arrangement of all their forms in groups subordinate tu groups, all within a few great types; that it reads the riddle of undeveloped organs and of structural con- formity, of which no other theory has offered a scientific expla- nation, and supplies a ground for harmonizing the two funda- mendal ideas which naturalists and philosophers conceive to have ruled the organic world, though they could not reconcile them, viz. adaptation to purpose and to the conditions of existence, and the Unity of Type. While the theory seems inadequate to the task it so boldly assumes, it must be remembered that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are con- fessedly ignorant. Those who imagine it can be easily refuted and cast aside must, he says, have imperfect or very pre- judiced conceptions of the facts concerned and of the questions at issue. 102 THE ZOOLOGIST. The opponents of the Theory, on the other hand, while giving credit to Mr. Darwin for his great candour, logical skill, and his extensive knowledge of Natural History, say that he has not proved his case, viz. that species are mutable. One of them concludes with the statement which he says has never been im- pugned: ‘‘ Classification is the work of science, but species the work of Nature.” [Such, then, is a brief outline of the hypothesis of Evolution as expounded by Mr. Darwin, and which has shed a new light on biological researches, and, on the other hand, of some of the antagonistic views. Evolution, as Prof. Allman tersely puts it, depends on two admitted faculties of living beings—heredity, or transmission of character from parent to offspring, and adaptivity, or the capacity of having these characters more or less modified. This theory has met with wide acceptance, and is held by many to suggest a more satisfactory explanation of the main facts in zoology, botany, and geology than any other. Moreover, Darwin has enabled observers to extend the effect of known causes to cases in which they have not been suspected, and has given a fresh impulse to studies of the structure, development, and relation- ship of animals. The meaning of this will be more evident by reference to one or two examples. Thus in the Lower Hocene of North America is a small five-toed animal (Phenacodus), from which the ancestry of the Horse can be traced. In the same formation is another—Hohippus—of the size of a Fox, with four well-developed toes and a rudimentary fifth in front, and three toes behind. In the next higher division of the Eocene another —Orohippus (Hyracotherium)—of similar size appears, with four toes in front and three behind. Then a third (Mesohippus), the size of a Sheep, presents itself in the subsequent formation (Miocene), with three functional toes and the splint of another in front, and three behind. In a somewhat higher horizon Miohippus (Onchitheriwm) occurs with a similar structure, except that the splint-bone is reduced in size. Protohippus (Hipparion), of the size of a Donkey, again appears in the Pliocene above, and exhibits three toes in front and three behind. Further up- ward comes Pliohippus, a near ally of the Horse, with only a single functional toe to each foot, but differing in the structure THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 103 of the teeth. Lastly, the true Horse is found just above this horizon, and the series is complete. It appears therefore reasonable to conclude that this series of gradations is best explained by the theory of Evolution. In the same way Dr. Smith Woodward traces upward from small ancestors the gigantic Ground-Sloths and Armadillos of South America, in which the land area may have been more extensive—even per- haps connected with a great Antarctic continent which included Australia—a hypothesis supposed to be favoured by the finding of the large, extinct Horned Tortoise both in Queensland and Patagonia. Moreover, ‘‘ strange Ungulates (Toxodontia, Typo- theria, and Lipoterna), which in some respects resembled rodents, can also be traced in the same region from small progenitors to gigantic representatives. Some of the Lipo- terna were one-toed, and were curious mimics of the Horse, of the northern hemisphere”’ Further, the riddle of the occurrence of gills in the young of the Land Salamander of the Alps, which never enter the water and of course never use their temporary gills, as also the presence of gill-clefts in the young of the higher vertebrates, is surely fairly read by the supposition or theory that such have probably had aquatic ancestors. The Zoéa-stage, again, in the young of the Shore-Crab points to a long-tailed progenitor; just as the birth of the young Flounder in a shape similar to that of a young Cod (and having an eye on each side) indicates theoretically a common ancestry, the turning of the eye to the other (coloured or upper) side being a subsequent adaptation to suit its ground-haunting habits. Mr. Darwin and the evolutionists may fairly claim that their hypothesis embraces a greater number of phenomena and sug- _ gests a more satisfactory explanation of them than any other theory yet propounded. This much even those reared in the schools of Goodsir and Oken, Owen and St. Hilaire, must frankly admit, though, as shown by Prof. Cleland of Glasgow, they must, apart from all external influences, supplement the theory by a definite evolution of organization dependent on a definite cause. While the evolutionary theory explains the order and fitness of the organic beings on the surface of the earth, it does 104 THE ZOOLOGIST. not fully explain the vital properties, for instance, of living protoplasm, viz. the heredity and adaptivity of Prof. Allman, notwithstanding all the labours of Weismann and Semon. Haeckel, however, holds that all living plasm has a psychic life, but that the higher psychic functions, particularly the pheno- mena of consciousness, only appear gradually in the higher animals. Prof. Francis Darwin, again, insists that the dim beginnings of habit or unconscious memory in the movements of plants and animals must have a place in morphology, and in his able and ingenious Presidential Address to the British Association he concludes by stating that the mnemic hypothesis of Evolution makes the positive value of Natural Selection (which has been taunted with being a negative power) more obvious. There can be no doubt that memory goes far down in the animal scale. Special difficulties present themselves to the investigators of complex groups, for example, the Polychete Annelids and Starfishes. In the former it is hard to decipher the ways of natural or other selection in the marvellous general variety, yet individual fixity of structure in the bristles and hooks. For instance, in such forms as Harmothoé, not only do the bristles in front differ from those in the rear, but the dorsal and ventral divisions of each foot present a characteristic variation from the upper to the lower edge of each fascicle. Moreover, every member of each species shows precisely the same variation anteriorly and posteriorly, and from the dorsal to the ventral border of each division of the foot. Further, a single bristle or hook of almost every species of annelid retains its characteristic. structure from generation to generation, so as to be a key to the species. Nevertheless, it occasionally happens that two forms come so near each other that it is hard to decide as to specific identity or difference. In regard to the latter (Echinoderms), the younger Agassiz, confining his remarks for the moment to the Sea-urchins, stands aghast in calculating the possible combinations that can be produced by the modifications of ten of the most characteristic features. He is of opinion that the making of a genealogical tree is a hopeless task. THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 105 In conclusion, while difficulties in detail, the imperfection of the geological record, and perhaps the chase of a phantom which never can be seized, prevent the complete realization of the Evolutionary theory, there can be no doubt that it has given a creat impetus to the study of the Natural Sciences. For this science is mainly indebted to the patient industry, the resolute endurance of physical delicacy, the philosophic caution, and the powerful intellect of Charles Darwin, who long before the ap- pearance of the ‘ Origin of Species’ was honoured and esteemed for various researches, including his works on the Cirripedes, on Coral Reefs, and on the Voyage of the ‘Beagle.’ His works bearing on Evolution since that date (1859) have spread his fame over the whole civilized world, and as a naturalist made his name imperishable. ] 106 THE ZOOLOGIST. ROUGH NOTES on DERBYSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY, 1906-1908. | By tHe Rev. Francis C. R. Jourpain, M.A., M.B.O.U., &c. (Continued from vol. x. p. 142.) Or late years I have contributed a series of Ornithological Notes to the ‘Journal of the Derbyshire Archeological and Natural History Society,’ and the present paper therefore con- tains aréswmé of the more important occurrences therein recorded during the past three years, in addition to several records which have hitherto been overlooked. MAMMALIA. Lesser SHREW, Sorex minutus, L.—One found in a wood near Repton by Mr. T. Rumney in 1908. It has already been re- corded from this district by Mr. Storer, but is evidently not common. Pouecat, Putorius putorius (L.).—Mr. Rumney also found the remains of what appears to have been a Polecat near Repton. The last occurrence of this species in an undoubtedly wild state was at Bradley, near Ashburne, in 1900. Bapesrr, Meles meles (L.). —On June 13th, 1907, I saw two half-grown Badgers at Osmaston, which had been taken from an earth in Shirley Park. Two were dug out of an earth at Sutton-on-the-Hill on Jan. 22nd, 1908. The male weighed twenty-six pounds. OrrEeR, Lutra lutra (L.).—A female, forty-four inches long, was trapped on the Dove, near Okeover, towards the end of January, 1907. AVES. Sone-TurusH, T’urdus musicus, L.— A nest with the un- usually large number of six eggs was found at Clifton on June 8rd, 1906. DERBYSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY. 107 Buacxpirp, 7. merula, L.—A remarkably early nest in a shrubbery at Mapleton contained young birds on March 6th, 1906. Clutches of six are not nearly so rare with this species as with the Thrush. Two were reported to me in 1906, one from Keginton and one from Clifton. StonecuHat, Pratincola rubicola (L.).— A nest with five eggs, found by Mr. G. Pullen late in the summer of 1907, is the only recent record of the breeding of this species in the county. NIGHTINGALE, Daulias luscinia (L.).— One reported by Messrs. R. Hall and W. Statham as singing for several nights at the end of April, 1907, in Matlock Dale. It then disappeared, but one was heard a few days later at Duffield. Last heard on May 13th. Mr. Walton also notes the occurrence of this bird near Derby in 1908 (‘British Birds,’ ii. p. 66). Common WuitetHroat, Sylvia communis, Lath.—On May 29th, 1907, I came across a nest with six eggs, the only one I have ever seen in Derbyshire, where the clutch varies from four to five as a rule. : CuirrcHarr, Phylloscopus collybita (Vieill.). — A single bird was noticed by the River Dove, near Ashburne, on March 10th, 1906, an early date even for this hardy little bird. Of late years it has become quite scarce in the south-west of the county, except in one or two favoured spots. Reep-Warsier, Acrocephalus streperus (Vieill.).—The usual clutch of this species in the Trent Valley consists of four eggs, and sets of five are quite unusual, so that I was the more sur- prised to find a nest with six eggs in a small bush overhanging Sudbury Pond on June 20th, 1907. GRASSHOPPER-WARBLER, Locustella nevia (Bodd.).—Mr. F. H. Sikes found two nests of this somewhat erratic visitor in 1907, one near Rocester, and the other near Beeston Tor, in the Mani- fold Valley. It is strange how this species varies in numbers from year to year, but on the whole it seems to be less numerous than ten years ago. Tree-Preit, Anthus trivialis (L.).—On May 28th, 1907, I found a nest with five pale blue eggs, quite unmarked, and not unlike those of the Wheatear, but the bird was not on. On June 2nd I was astonished to find a Tree-Pipit sitting on the nest! Mr. D. Welburn has a clutch in which one or two of the 108 THE ZOOLOGIST. eggs approach this set in colour, but I do not know of any other instance of a clutch of unmarked blue eggs being found in England, although I believe a similar set has been once met with in Denmark (1898). GreAT GREY SHRIKE, Lanius excubitor, L.—On Feb. 1st, 1907, I had a good view of a Great Grey Shrike, which got up from a hedgerow in front of us while motoring near Bradbourne. Its flight was weak, and it seemed unable to gain upon the car, and finally turned aside to some isolated thorn-bushes in a field, but would not allow itself to be approached again. RED-BACKED Sarike, L. collurio, L.—Mr. T. Rumney reports a pair as breeding near Repton in 1908. They have now quite ceased to nest on the hillsides near the entrance to Dovedale. Pirp FrycatcHer, Muscicapa atricapilla, L.—A male, on migration, seen by me between Clifton and Norbury on May Ist, 1908. The only other bird of this species I have seen in this district was also a cock, at Ashburne, on May 14th, 1887, but it is occasionally noticed on passage both in the Dove and Derwent Valleys. Probably the inconspicuous plumage of the hen causes it to be overlooked. Hovse-Martin, Chelidon urbica (L.).—Several House- Martins’ nests may be seen annually, built on the beams inside an open shed, and underneath the roofing, instead of on an outside wall, as is usually the case, at the ‘ Deg and Partridge Hotel,’ Thorpe. Unlike the Swallows’ nests in similar sites, the entrance of the nest is at the side, and the nest is not open at the top. GREENFINCH, Chloris chloris (L.).—A nest with the unusually large number of seven eggs was found in a hedgerow at Ashburne on June 9th, 1906. CrossBiLL, Loxia curvirostra (L.).—A flock visited the Ash- burne district in the early spring of 1904, and two were shot at Yeldersley on Feb. 24th and 26th. Swirt, Apus apus, L.—In 1908 the main body of Swifts left the Ashburne district on Aug. 9th-10th, but on Aug. 25th a party of eight birds was noticed by Mr. J. Henderson at Maple- ton, and at intervals three or four birds were constantly seen in the Dove Valley till Sept. 1st, when only a single bird was noticed, as was also the case on Sept. 4th and 5th. On Sept. 14th Mr. J. Henderson saw one at Mapleton in the morning, DERBYSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY. 109 and both he and I distinctly saw another (or the same bird) at Ashburne in the afternoon of the same day. Previous latest records :—Sept. 1st, 1885; Sept. 4th, 1887 (one) ; and Sept. 3rd, 1905 (one). Nieutsar, Caprimulgus europeus, L.— Mr. G. Pullen found these birds breeding on Breadsall Moor in 1906 and 1907, and Mr. C. H. Wells found a nest with two eggs in a fir-wood near Ambergate on June 8th, 1908. Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, L.—Mr. T. Rumney informs me that a Cuckoo’s egg was found in a Willow-Warbler’s nest at Repton in 1908. Though not an uncommon foster-parent, I have no previous record of this species for the county. Tawny Own, Syrnium aluco (L.).— Mr. C. H. Wells found a Tawny Owl incubating three eggs on a ledge of rocky cliff in Dovedale on April 17th, 1908. One of the eggs was not covered, and showed up, white and conspicuous. A second nest found by Mr. Wells not far from Ambergate was in a similar situation, but contained only one egg on April 19th, though three more were subsequently laid. All the other nests found in this district (where the Tawny Owl is by no means uncommon) have been placed either in holes of trees or on rude platforms naturally formed by the accumulation of rubbish between boughs, or in old Rooks’ nests. Four eggs is also an unusually large clutch for a Derbyshire bird, but a nest found at Mapleton on March 26th, 1908, also contained this number. LirrLe Own, Athene noctua (Scop.).— One clearly identified by Messrs. H. G. and A. G. Tomlinson while sitting in a privet- bush in a wood close to Mr. Tomlinson’s house at Burton-on- Trent on Nov. 5th, 1906. RovGH-LEGGED BuzzarD, Buteo lagopus (Gm.).— One seen at Ashford-in-the-Water, Feb. 13th, 1907 (W. Boulsover). Honry-Buzzarp, Pernis apivorus (L.).—A considerable im- migration of these fine birds must have taken place in the autumn of 1908. A ‘‘Golden Eagle” was reported in the local papers to have been seen near Dovedale on Aug. 22nd, while on Sept. 2nd Mr. J. Henderson, Jun., caught a glimpse of two Buzzards (sp. ?) soaring near Ashburne, and on Sept. 10th a very dark Honey-Buzzard was received for preservation at Ash- burne, which had been shot at Osmaston, probably on the 110 THE ZOOLOGIST. previous day. Numerous other specimens have been recorded in ‘The Zoologist,’ ‘British Birds,’ ‘The Naturalist,’ &c., as having been shot in various parts of England, Wales, and Ireland. Hossy, Falco subbuteo, L.— One shot at Sudbury in June, 1906, by the keeper. PEREGRINE Fatcon, F’. peregrinus, Tunst.— One reported as having been shot at Biggin by Mr. Bosley on Aug. 81st, 1901. Another seen by Mr. J. Henderson near Newhaven on Sept. 80th, 1908. Meruin, F’. esalon, Tunst.—Three nests of this beautiful little Falcon were taken by keepers on the North Derbyshire moors in the spring of 1908. It is wonderful that this bird should still exist in spite of the unremitting persecution to which it is subjected. Wiup GssEse, Anser sp.?.— A “‘gagele”’ of eighteen Wild Geese was seen by Mr. G. Pullen on Jan. 12th, 1908, but the weather was too misty to identify the species. On Dec. 18th another flock passed over Hanging Bridge in V-formation, while during the previous week a smaller party of about eight birds alighted in the meadows by the River Dove. These were certainly ‘‘ Grey’’ Geese of some species. [Eeaypr1an Goose, Chenalopex egyptica. — One shot on a pool near Staveley in the spring of 1906 (Canon Molineux).] WuHoopEr, Cygnus musicus, Bechst.—Three seen near the River Dove (Hanging Bridge) on March 28th, 1906, and five seen flying down the Henmore Valley on April 2nd, two of which alighted at Birdsgrove, while the other three went on to Calwich. Mr. Henderson and I both identified these birds as Whoopers. Brwicxk’s Swan, C. bewicki, Yarr. — Three passed close over- head on Feb. 6th, 1907, flying up the Dove Valley, between Clifton and Mayfield. Pocuarn, Fuligula ferina (L.). — A fine drake, strong on the wing, seen on the ponds at Osmaston, on June 18th, 1906. It is quite possible that this bird may have been breeding at the time. Mr. Storrs-Fox records two Pochards seen on Ashford Lake, near Bakewell, on Jan. 27th, 1907. He had only once before seen a Pochard here. On March 27th, 1908, I saw two couple of these Ducks on the lake at Calwich Abbey. DERBYSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY. 111 Turtep Duck, F’. fuligula (L.).— On one of the islets at Os- maston I flushed a Tufted Duck from a nest, or rather heap of egos, which were obviously the produce of three or more birds. Altogether there were twenty-eight eggs in the nest, but the bulk of them were quite cold. Common Scoter, Gidemia nigra (.).— One seen on the wing near Ashburne by Mr. G. M. Bond on Jan. 19th, 1906. This may have been a pricked bird, for a ‘‘Black Duck,’ unable to fly, was reported to me from a stream in the neighbourhood. A drake had been shot within a mile of the spot on Nov. 4th, 1904. Pauuas’s SAND GRousE, Syrrhaptes paradoxus (Pall.).— I find that the two examples of this species which are stated in Whit- lock’s ‘ Birds of Derbyshire,’ p. 184, to have been killed in July, 1889, were really shot in June, 1888. QuatL, Coturnix coturnix (L.).—One caught at Chaddesden on June 20th, 1908 (G. Pullen). TurnsTone, Strepsilas interpres (L.). — This is an addition to our county list, as no definite occurrence has hitherto been recorded, although there is little doubt that it has occurred in the Trent Valley. Three were killed during the night of June 1st, i906, near Longcliffe. One of these was sent to Mr. Adsetts for preservation, and has now passed into the Calke Abbey collection. . OysTERCATCHER, Hematopus ostralegus, L.— One shot on March 16th, 1900, at Parwich by Mr. Naylor. Grey PHauaropg, Phalaropus fulicarius (L.).—One shot some time between Dec. 15th and 17th, 1906, on a small pond not far from Winster, by Mr. G. Wood. It is now in the possession of the Rev. J. R. Ashworth, of Hartington, and is the eighth speci- men definitely recorded for the county. GREEN SanppIPER, J'otanus ochropus (L.). — One flushed from the side of the upper pond at Osmaston on July 10th, 1908. Wurmsret, Numenius pheopus (L.).—One shot at Parwich on May 19th, 1906, by a keeper named Brownlee. Buack Tern, Hydrochelidon nigra (L.).— One shot at Aston Hall, and sent to Mr. Adsetts for preservation on Aug. 27th, 1908. Buack-HEADED Guu, Larus ridibundus, L. — Two seen at Bakewell by Mr. W. Boulsover on May 23rd, 1907, and nine on 1]2 THE ZOOLOGIST. the following day on Calton pastures (a late date for this species). Mr. A. Cox also records this bird in winter plumage from Spondon in March,'1908. HERRING-GULL, L. argentatus, Gmel.—One seen at Derby on April 13th, 1908 (A. Cox). Lesser Buack-BackeD Guu, L. fuscus, L.—A flock of fifteen flew over Clifton on Aug. 11th, 1907, and, curiously enough, on Aug. 11th, 1908, about twelve were again seen near Clifton, and on the following day I again saw eight large Gulls in the dis- tance, which were either this or the preceding species. Lirtte Aux, Mergulus alle (L.).—One was picked up dead on the ice at Sudbury Pond on Nov. 29th, 1904, by Mr. J. Bottrell, who has the bird still in his possession. GREAT CRESTED GREBE, Podicipes cristatus (L.). — Two pairs of these fine birds breed annually on the ponds at Osmaston, and in 1907 a pair bred for the first time on the pond at Yeldersley. A pair or two also nest at Sudbury. Manx SHEARWATER, Puffinus anglorum (Temm.). — One was captured alive in a bakehouse at Alvaston, near Derby, after the gale of Sept. 8th, 1908, where it had taken refuge. This is the thirteenth record of this species for the county, and it is inter- esting to note that in almost every case of which we have details the bird was obtained on the September migration. (.-142-: ) NOTES AND QUERIES. AVES. The Reported Great Bustard in Yorkshire.—In ‘The Zoologist’ (ante, p. 78) it is stated by Mr. Morley, under the head of ‘ Orni- thological Notes from Scarborough,” that a Great Bustard had been shot near Cloughton last December. Some of the feathers of the bird were sent to me, and it was easy to see that it had been no Bustard but a female Szlver Pheasant. Although I had no doubt myself on the subject, I sent on the feathers to the Natural History Museum, where my opinion was confirmed. I saw a letter from Mr. Bennett, in which he spoke of the legs and feet and the space round the eye being of a bright red —W. H. Sr. Quintin (Scampston Hall, Rillington, York). Nottinghamshire Bird Notes. — The following recent occurrences in the county of Nottingham are of sufficient interest to be placed on record :— GREAT SPOTTED WooDPECKER (Dendrocopus major).—One speci- men at Calverton, March, 1908. Tawny Own (Syrntvwm aluco).— One at Eastwood, December, 1907. Lirtthe Own (Athene noctwa)—One at Widmerpool, Dec. 10th, March, 1907; one in the Trent meadows opposite Clifton Grove, 14th, 1908. RoUGH-LEGGED BuzzarD (Buteo lagopus). — One shot near Bing- ham, 1907. - Pink-FooreD Gooss (Anser brachyrhynchus).—A pair were shot in the meadows by the Trent at Gunthorpe on Dec. 26th, 1907. There is only one previous record of the occurrence of this rare bird in the county. SHOVELER Duck (Spatula clypeata).—One on the pool near Trent Bridge, Nottingham, August, 1908. Rurr (Machetes pugnax).—One shot at Colwick, December, 1907. Bar-TAILED Gopwit (Limosa lapponica).—One at Hoveringham, on the Trent, Jan. 2nd, 1909. All these specimens have been acquired for the local collection of birds in the Natural History Museum at University College, Notting- ham.—J. W. Carr (University College, Nottingham). 4ool 4th ser. vol. XIII., March, 1909, K 114 THE ZOOLOGIST. Prs Ors; Trachinotus ovatus an Enemy to the Queensland Oyster Fisheries. One of the Blue Books recently received from the Colony of Queens- land gives particulars of the Oyster fisheries in Moreton Bay, which supply the city of Brisbane. The cultivation of the Oyster-banks, by thinning out the tops of the reefs and by culling out clumps, is pro- ceeding apace. The banks have been much benefited by the regular rains which have visited Queensland and the bays and estuaries. The fishing in Moreton Bay during the year has been highly satis- factory. Mullet is to be got at all times in the bays, rivers, and inlets, while from Moreton Bay large supplies of Whiting, Taylor, Gar, Bream, and other kinds have been drawn. Owing to the in- creasing number of Sharks infesting the Bay, it is suggested that a bonus be given per gallon on Shark-oil, and a bonus per ton on ferti- lizer made from the carcases. Dugong fishing has been going on briskly. Fish and Prawns have been very plentiful off the coast, and the Queensland authorities are hopeful that the representatives of the Scottish fishermen who recently visited Australia, and who are negoti- ating for an Australian fishing centre, will settle on the Queensland coast. The Oyster fisheries have been attacked lately by ‘‘ a peculiar kind of fish, which works in droves, and crushes the shell of the young Oysters with little apparent effort.” The Report continues :—‘‘ These fish I have seen working, but they are very shy, and it seems almost impossible to catch them. In appearance they resemble the ‘big green Toad,’ with similar jaws, and run to as much as three feet six inches in length, with a peculiar feathery top to the tail; they work in rows, and will cut a track through a bank of young Oysters, leaving the white broken shell iooking as if a steam-roller had passed over it To prevent this the lessee went to the expense of fencing in about ninety acres with galvanized wire-netting, which plan, he informs me, has proved very successful.” A specimen of this fish has at length been captured, and has been found to be a large sample of the species known as Zrachinotus ovatus, or, to coin a vernacular name, the “Snub-nosed Swallow-tail.”” The genus inhabits the inter-tropical seas of both hemispheres.—THE LONDON CORRESPONDENT OF THE ‘NortH QuEENSLAND Heratp’ (Bassishaw House, Basinghall Street, H.C.). (The food of Trachinotus carolinus ‘seems to consist very largely of small bivalve shells,” &c. (Investig. Aquat. Resources and Fisheries NOTES AND QUERIES. 115 of Porto Rico; Washington, 1900, p. 140). In Texan waters “ the Oyster has but few enemies, the Drumfish* being the only one dreaded” (Proc. Nat. Fish. Congr. Florida, 1898, p. 314)—Eb.] OBITUARY. CHARLES BERRY. AtTHouGH little known, save by West of Scotland naturalists and geologists, Charles Berry, who died Feb. 1st, 1909, is well worthy of some brief commemoration in the pages of ‘The Zoologist.’ Destined to spend fifty-three years of his life in the small and secluded village of Lendalfoot on the Ayrshire coast, engaged in the arduous occupa- tion of a sea-fisherman, he “found himself” in quiet, patient, and continuous natural history observations and pursuits, winning a well- deserved reputation for first-hand local knowledge and accuracy. Perhaps the proximity to Lendalfoot of the great bird-station_of Ails Craig had some effect in making ornithology his favourite pursuit. His information was always at the disposal of inquirers, and year alter year his observations and returns were amongst the most valuable included in Mr. John Paterson’s “Reports on Scottish Orni- thology,” published in the ‘ Annals of Scottish Natural History.’ So far as writing is concerned, he was, however, of the ‘mute, inglorious”’ class, and it is only now, at the time of his death, that ornithologists in general have the opportunity of learning something of his work. In the ‘Glasgow Naturalist’ (the new journal of the Natural History Society of Glasgow, issued last month—February), an article by him on the “ Birds of Lendalfoot”’ appears (pp. 5-23), the only writing of his ever published, I believe. It is one of the most remarkable examples of purely personal and strictly local orni- thological work ever done, confined as it is to a four-mile radius and the adjoining waters, and, as the writer says, ‘I thought it better not to add a single bird but those I have myself seen and in most cases handled.” In these circumstances, to be able to enumerate one hundred and sixty-two species, ninety-five of which nest (including the Ailsa Craig records), shows that Mr. Berry came very near making the utmost possible out of his opportunities. Unfortunately he did not live to see his work in print, but it has secured his position and repute high amongst Scottish local ornithologists——H. B. W. * Pogonias cromis ’. 116 THE ZOOLOGIST. NOTICES OF — NEW BOOKS: A Treatise on Zoology. Edited by Sir Ray Lanxester, M.A., LL.D., F.B.S., &e. Part I. Introduction and Protozoa. First Fascicle by 8. J. Hickson, F.R.S., J. J. Lister, © F.R.S., F. W. Gamsre, D.Sce., &c., A. Wintry, M.A., D.Sce., &e., H. M. Woopcock, D.Sc., the late W. F. R. Wetpon, F.R.S., and EK. Ray Lanxerstser, K.C.B., &c. Tus volume contains the first fascicle of part i., and is just published; the second fascicle appeared in 1908, and was then reviewed in these pages. The two fascicles fully bear out the claim made for them by their Editor, that they ‘‘ give a more complete account of the Protozoa than is to be found in any similar work hitherto published.” To the ordinary biologist and evolutionist this volume is of the greatest importance, for in the Introduction Sir Ray Lankester discusses ‘‘The Dividing-line between Plants and Animals.” Tor the main difference we are directed to the fact that ‘‘ animals are unable to assimilate—that is, to utilise as food the simpler chemical compounds of carbon or of nitrogen. They can only take their nitrogen from food which is in the elaborate form of combination which is called a proteid; they can only take their carbon either from a proteid or from a carbohydrate or a hydrocarbon.” ‘‘ Plants, on the contrary, are (with certain exceptions) able to take up as food the compounds of carbon and of nitrogen, which may be called the stable or resting condition of those elements—namely, the simple oxide of carbon—carbonic acid gas, and the simple compound of nitrogen and hydrogen which is called’‘ammonia, or the oxide of nitrogen which forms nitrates.’ ‘The obvious and predominant difference in the make and habit of plants as compared with animals is thus con- nected with the very great and definite difference in the nature of the food of the two groups.” The debatable ground is limited to the chlorophyll-forming Flagellata, including some for which ‘it is not possible to draw a sharp line and assign them NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. 117 definitely either to the Animal or to the Plant series.” This question, which lies on the very bedrock of biology, is not only very fully discussed, but is enunciated by an authority whose judgment on such questions should be nulli secundus. Our space precludes reference to the many separate contri- butions by the different authors who have produced this volume, but sometimes a particular subject is focussed in biological con- sideration, and eventually filters through the press to the ‘‘ man in the street.’’ Such is the topic of minute animal parasites which are admittedly negotiators in disease, and readers who would desire to have an adequate idea of this terrible animal organization—worse than the army and navy of a competitive nation, more to be feared and less easily conquered—may be directed to Dr. Woodcock’s chapter on ‘‘ The Haemoflagellates or Trypanosomes, to which is attached [a gift to Zoologists] a List of known (Natural) Hosts of Trypanosomes and Allied Forms.” This, with the literature relating to these creatures, brings the subject up to date, and is a timely and valuable contribution. The Life of Philibert Commerson, D.M., Naturaliste du Roi; an Old-World Story of French Travel and Science in the Days of Linneus. By the late Capt. S. Pasrrmup Oniver, R.A., and edited by G. F. Scorr Exuior, F.L.8., &c. John Murray. Capt. Ouiver did not live to publish his book; he, however, before his death handed over all his material to Mr. Scott Elliot, who has worthily completed the task, and taken us back to the early days of modern zoology. Commerson was a botanist first and an ichthyologist to a some- what less degree, while his life’s work centres round the well- remembered voyage of De Bougainville, whom he accompanied as naturalist, though in the second vessel of the expedition. He died at the age of forty-six years, on the Island of Bourbon, thus not returning to France, where he was assured of much honour, as eight days after his death (1773) he was, in Paris, elected a member of the Academy of France by a unanimous vote in a full assembly, and at the same time the Cordon of the Order of St. Michael was conferred upon him, appreciations of which he was destined to remain in ignorance. In these old days before 118 THE ZOOLOGIST. the advent of steam-power, much more was found to interest a naturalist on board a sailing-vessel—with the greater expanse of ocean covered by her erratic wind-dependent course, and the opportunities afforded by calms—than is experienced nowadays on the straight high roads of the ever-speeding liners; and those of us who have made an early voyage under sail can well realize the altered conditions which so greatly limit the observations of a travelling zoologist. A curious proposition was enunciated by Commerson in relation to the shoals of Scomber which followed his vessel: ‘‘The surface of the sea, exposed to the glare and fierce heat of the tropical sun, becomes disagreeable to them, so they seek the neighbourhood of a high coast-line, where, under lofty rocks and promontories, they can play and gambol in full shelter.” This suggested the shelter they find on the shady side of vessels, and may thus account for much of their presence in some latitudes. The results of Commerson’s collecting on this voyage were prodigious ; the work he loved gave him no rest, wore him out, and practically caused his early death. His achievements in botany are well known to all followers of that science, and in that he excelled. As regards his other discoveries, we may use the valuation of Mr. Scott Elliot :—-‘‘ As a geologist, the value of his mineralogical specimens and his account of the Bourbon volcanoes have been justly acknowledged by Bory de Saint- Vincent. M. Duméril discovered his collections and drawings of fishes still unpacked in an attic of Buffon’s house. These form a very large and valuable proportion of Lacépéde’s ‘ His- toire Naturelle’ (published in 1801). His manuscripts on the mammalia of Madagascar and the Mascarenes were unearthed in the library of M. Hermans at Strasbourg, and freely used by Cuvier, who also generously acknowledges his indebtedness.”’ Commerson was reared in a country and in an age when dreams of a noble savage and the freedom and moral excellence of primitive races were being freely propagated. His estimate of his ‘‘ dear Tahitians” and his argument as to ‘‘ What con- stitutes robbery ?”’ may probably meet the views of some extreme thinkers of to-day. He was a born naturalist and a self-made martyr to natural science ; his economical views would have gained the approval of Rousseau, but his great contributions to NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. 119 botany and zoology should not, and never will be, forgotten while those sciences are studied, and the thanks of all are due to Mr. Scott Elliot for giving us an excellent sketch of the naturalist and his environment. Catalogue of the Noctwide in the Collection of the British Museum. By Sir Grorer F. Hampson, Bart. Published by the Trustees of the British Museum. Tuis is vol. vii. of the author’s great monograph of the moths of the world, and is another instalment to a knowledge of the Noctuidae, and relates to the large subfamily Acronyctine, which comprises some three thousand species belonging to over three hundred genera, and are calculated to occupy three volumes of the Catalogue. As we are told that the manuscript dealing with the remainder of the subfamily is ready for press and will be issued in two volumes probably in 1909, we must congratulate Sir George Hampson on his energy and determination, for to pro- duce a single volume is no light task, the present one occupying no fewer than seven hundred and nine pages. With the large amount of material at hand, the habitats or localization of the species is most extensive, so that we have here the facts for the study of the geographical distribution of the Noctuide. ‘To those writers who conclude that a fairly wide separation in latitude and longitude must also denote specific difference, the tabulated distribution of some of these moths will appear as a disturbing element for consideration. Thus, to take a single species, Perigea capensis: this insect is described as common to the Ethiopian region, including Madagascar and Mauritius; by Egypt and Sokotra distributed throughout British India and the Malay Archipelago; recorded from the Solomon, Marshall, and Fiji Islands; and found in Queensland. In the synonymy we are not surprised to find that it has been described under different names no fewer than four- teen times! And this is not a unique example to be found in these pages. We also have a thorough generic revision, with keys to the genera, and also to the species when the genera are sufficiently extensive to require that aid, with numerous blocks in the text to illustrate the structural characters and 120 THE ZOOLOGIST. general appearance, accompanied by a further instalment of coloured plates, which now reach the respectable figure of one hundred and twenty-two. Sir G. Hampson is writing a monu- mental series of volumes the contents of which will take long to grow old. EDITORIAL GLEANINGS. Tue ‘Hvening News’ recently sent a special. correspondent to Darwin’s village, and from his report we extract the following state- ment that should be preserved :—I had been told to look up Mr. John Lewis in the village, who used to do all the carpentry and joining work for the house. JI found him in his cottage, a short hale man with white hair and beard and a rare smile. ‘“ I hear you are quite an old friend of Mr. Darwin’s.” He straightened himself at once. ‘‘T went to him sixty years ago as a page for two years. I was fifteen then. Now I am seventy-five. I made Mr. Darwin’s coffin” (this with a look of important affairs). ‘ They buried him in Westminster Abbey, but he always wanted to lie here, and I don’t think he’d have liked it. I made his coffin just as he wanted it; all rough, just as it left the bench, no polish, no nothin’. But when they agreed to send him to Westminster they had to get another undertaker. And my coffin wasn’t wanted, and they sent it back. This other one you could see to shave in. I kept the coffin by me a longtime. I thought I might sell it. I got several bids of fifty poun’, but didn’t part with it. One gentleman I told about it said, ‘Ask two hundred, you'll get it easy. But Inever did. I can show you letters from America and Germany about it.” ‘‘What became of the coffin?” I asked, ‘“Isold it for ten pounds to a young chap that kept a beerhouse out at Farn- borough. He’s dead since then.” I gathered that the coffin is still in the ‘‘beerhouse.” ‘Darwin laid in that coffin thirty-one and a half hours exactly. I put him in myself.”—Hvening News, Feb. 12th, 1909. A REMARKABLE case Claimed the attention of the medical staff at the West Norfolk and Lynn Hospital on Sunday. 7 =i at ¥ i j Tale . hi \ a _ a - : { ; i . i - uf bp : ‘ a : _ Se . > ' ° ' ? : y= p eb - 7 ; f ty 4 ' pts ' cd * ~ : t ' a } t * 9 ‘ * a \ ' 7 . ks § if : 2 ; ‘ae ‘ 9 . Pe » be © ~ + 7 ef ) Aa / - or) 5 ~~ =~ ae en oe =m hey Ai ; ” Rags" Ky » - “+ » rn Doe » * ~ ot ‘ a P Zool. 1909. Plate TI VIEWS IN THE Gi1zA (HiGyptT) ZooLoGicaAL GARDENS. Pee AO LOGLST No. 815.—May, 1909. A LIST OF THE ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. By Caprain STanuey §S. FLower. (Puate IIT.) I. Preface. III. Modern Zoological Gardens. II. Harly Zoological Gardens. | IV. Bibliography. I. PREFACE. ConsipErinG the wide interest taken in Zoological Gardens, not only by zoologists but also by the general public, it seems remarkable that no list of these institutions, with any pretension to completeness, appears to have been published. It is hoped that the publication of this present list will call attention to the subject, and may be the means both of bringing to light historical notes of other old menageries, unknown to me but perhaps familiar to some readers of ‘ The Zoologist,’ and also be of present and future use to the executive officers of Zoological Gardens in exchanging notes and publications, and especially in making that personal acquaintance of each other which is so important for mutual help and improvement in pro- fessional knowledge. Of the existing Zoological Gardens, the senior appears to be the Imperial Menagerie of Schonbrunn, Vienna, founded in 1752, then that of Madrid 1774, and then Paris 1793. Zool. 4th ser. vol. XIII., May. 1909. 0 162 THE ZOOLOGIST. Karly in the nineteenth century a quite new departure was made in the British Isles by the establishment of standing menageries that were neither the appendages of Royalty nor Government institutions. Between 1828 and 1836 five Zoolo- gical Gardens, owned by societies of private individuals, were started: four of which (London, Dublin, Clifton, and Man- chester) still exist. This example was followed by the Low Countries; societies were formed, and the Zoological Garden of Amsterdam was founded in 18388, and that of Antwerp in 1848. The idea was then taken up in Germany, resulting in the opening of the Berlin Zoological Gardens in 1844. In 1850 the Zoological Gardens of the World thus consisted of eleven institutions :—Schonbrunn, Madrid, Paris, London (Regent’s Park and Surrey), Dublin, Clifton, Manchester, Am- sterdam, Antwerp and Berlin. But in the second half of the nineteenth century such in- stitutions began to be quickly established, not only in Europe, but also in Australia, America, Asia, and, finally, Africa. Al- though from time to time some of these have closed, others are always coming into existence, and the aggregate number con- tinues to increase. The number of fairly large public Zoological Gardens existing in 1908 may be, approximately, taken as fifty- seven, but including smaller collections of animals, kept up in Botanical Gardens and Public Parks, it reaches a total of ninety- five: but as there are probably a certain number of institutions of the existence of which I may be, unfortunately, ignorant, it may be calculated that the total number of standing menageries exceeds one hundred. Many fine private collections of living wild animals also exist, notably that of His Grace the Duke of Bedford at Woburn Abbey, but these do not come within the scope of -this present article. I would like to be allowed to take this opportunity of acknow- ledging my sense of obligation to the many kind friends in many lands by whose help I have been enabled to collect the material for this compilation: especially am I indebted to my brother, Mr. Victor A. Flower, who when travelling in Europe, Asia and America, has been so good as to always send me notes on the various Zoological Gardens that he has visited. ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 163 II. Karty ZootocicaL GARDENS. The ancient Egyptians, as is profusely demonstrated by in- scriptions and mummied remains, kept various species of wild animals in captivity, but the first Zoological Garden properly so called appears to have been established in very early times in China. This institution was founded by Woo-Wang (Wong- Wang), the first Emperor of the Chow (Tscheu) Dynasty, who ruled over the northern parts of China rather more than a thousand years before the Christian era. It is noteworthy that the Chinese, thus early realizing the educational value of such an institution, called it ‘‘ The Intelligence Park.”’ In Greek and Roman times, as is well known, collections of wild beasts were made in foreign lands and brought to the chief towns for exhibition. This was not done however from purposes of interest in the animals themselves or for the cause of science, but for display and public slaughter. It is recorded that Lions, Leopards, Bears, Elephants, Rhinoceros, Antelopes, Giraffes, Camels, Hippopotamus, Ostriches and Crocodiles, in incredible numbers, were killed in the arenas of Rome: killed either in mutual combat, or at the hands of professional gladiators or condemned criminals and slaves, in order to gratify the popular appetite for sensation. An exception to this brutality can however be made in the case of Alexander the Great (856-323 B.c.) who, it appears, caused extensive collections of rare and unknown animals to be transmitted to his old tutor, the great philosopher and zoologist Aristotle (884-322 B.c.). In later times Royal Personages frequently kept menageries of wild animals, aviaries of birds and ponds of fish: partly for Sport, partly as pets and partly for exhibition to their personal guests and visitors. In these collections, many of which still exist, was the origin of the modern Zoological Gardens. In Europe the public Zoological Garden may be said to have gradually evolved from the Royal menagerie, but in America a period of three hundred and thirty-eight years intervened be- tween the overthrow of the Imperial Mexican Menagerie in 02 164 THE ZOOLOGIST. 1521, and the foundation of the Philadelphia Zoological Society in 1859. In England the first recorded Royal Menagerie was at Wood- stock, Oxfordshire, in the time of King Henry I. (1100-1135). This was transferred to the Tower of London, apparently in the reign of Henry III. (1216-1272)), and kept up there till after 1828. A second English Royal Menagerie existed at Windsor. Kewshould perhaps also be mentioned here: the famous Botanical Gardens, founded privately in 1551, which are now about two hundred and fifty acres in extent, at one period contained a menagerie. Ina book entitled ‘ The Picture of London for 1808’ are the following particulars concerning the collection of animals then kept in Kew Gardens :—‘ The Aviary contains a large collection of birds of all countries. In the Flower-garden are to be seen all kinds of beautiful flowers, and in its centre a bason of water, well stocked with gold fish. The Menagerie contains Chinese and Tartarian pheasants, and various large and exotic birds, with a bason stocked with waterfowl, in the centre of which is a pavilion in the Chinese manner” (fide §. Goldney, ‘Kew Gardens,’ London 1907). In France King Philip VI. (1828-1350) had a menagerie in the Louvre at Paris in 1388. Charles V. (1864-13880) had menageries and aviaries at Conflans, Tournelles and in Paris — (fide EK. T. Hamy). Louis XI. (1461-1483), who is said to have introduced and established the Canary-bird in Europe, formed a menagerie at Plessis les Tours in Touraine. After the death of Louis XI. the Royal French Menagerie was re-established at the Louvre, special missions were sent to North Africa &c. to obtain specimens, and the collection was rapidly growing, when on the 21st of January 1583 the entire menagerie came to a violent end: Henry III. (1574-1589) saw in a dream Lions, Bears and Dogs tearing himself to pieces, and in consequence “ had all the Lions, Bulls, Bears &c. killed with shots of arquebus” (fide E. T. Hamy). Henry IV. (1589-1610) kept up a very small menagerie, but one which included an Elephant. Louis XIII. (1610-1648) kept some mammals and birds at his hunting lodge at Versailles, and his son Louis XIV. (1648-1715) in 1663 founded the cele- brated Versailles menagerie, the ‘‘ Menagerie du Pare.” During the first twenty-five years of its existence this collection received ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 165 very numerous additions, particularly from the French Consul at Cairo. The stock of animals during this period is said to have reached ‘‘ several thousands.”’ For nearly a hundred years this Versailles menagerie appears to have been kept in good order, and was of the greatest value to the zoologists of those times. But during the later years of Louis XY. (1715-1774) it fell to a very low ebb of efficiency, and abuses were prevalent. It is said that a Camel was supplied, at the cost of the State, with six bottles of Burgundy wine daily, and that when the animal died a soldier of the Swiss Guard petitioned to be given the vacant billet of Court Camel. In October 1789 the menagerie was almost destroyed by the Parisian mob: the only animals that survived this attack were a Senegal Lion, a Dalmatian Hound, an Indian Rhinoceros, a South African Quagga, an Algerian Hartebeest and a Moluccan Pigeon (fide HK. T. Hamy). | The idea of forming a collection of live animals in the old- established Botanical Garden of Paris is apparently due to Buffon, _ but he died in 1788 without seeing the realization of his plan. By the law of the 10th of June 1793 the Paris Museum of Natural History was reorganized, and later in the same year the Jardin des Plantes menagerie was started. ‘The animals were first lodged under the galleries of the Museum, and later on were housed in that part of the Garden between the great Chestnut Avenue and the street now called the Rue Cuvier, known as La Vallée Suisse: where their successors still remain. The first animals reached the Museum on the 4th of November 1793; they were a Sea-Lion, a Leopard, a Civet-Cat and a Mon- key, and were at once taken charge of by Etienne Geofiruy Saint-Hilaire, then twenty-one years old. The next day the arrivals included a White Bear and two Mandrills, and in the following spring the few surviving inhabitants of the Versailles “menagerie were brought to the Garden. _ Of the early German menageries I have been able to obtain but little information. Herr Schoepf mentions, in his ‘ Gedenk- blatter,’ 1552 as the earliest date when an Imperial menagerie existed, and says that the Dresden menagerie was started by Kurfurst August I. in 1554: up to 1737 the only animals men- tioned as having been kept at Dresden are Mandrills, Lions, 166 THE ZOOLOGIST. Tigers, Leopards, Indian Cats, Bears, Swine and Porcupines, but in 1747 a young Rhinoceros from Bengal was exhibited alive there. The first recorded Zoological Gardens in the New World were those of King Nezahualcoyotl, the ‘‘ Hungry Fox” (born about 1403, died about 1475) at his capital of Tezcuco, on the east side of the lake, in Mexico. Prescott, ‘ History of the Conquest of Mexico’ (edition of 1878, p. 85) mentions these Gardens as con- taining basins of water ‘‘ well stocked with fish of various kinds, aviaries with birds glowing in all the gaudy plumage of the tropics,” and also states that ‘‘many birds and animals which could not be obtained alive were represented in gold and silver.”’ In the following century there were two such Gardens in America: Iztapalapan and Mexico itself.. On the 7th of November 1519 Hernando Cortés entered Iztapalapan, then governed by Cuitlahua (Montezuma’s brother), and saw its celebrated gar- dens in their prime. Prescott, p. 261, mentions the ‘‘ aviary, filled with numerous kinds of birds, remarkable in this region both for brilliancy of plumage and of song,” and also the basin “‘ with different sorts of fish.” Montezuma II., Emperor of Mexico (born about 1479, elected King 1502, died 1520), appears to have maintained large Zoolo- gical Gardens at his capital (see Prescott, pp. 286, 287). There were extensive gardens “filled with fragrant shrubs and flowers, and especially with medicinal plants.” Among the buildings ‘‘was an immense aviary, in which birds of splendid plumage were assembled from all parts of the empire. . . . Three hundred attendants had charge of this aviary, who made themselves acquainted with the appropriate food of its inmates, oftentimes procured at great cost, and in the moulting season were carefnl to collect the beautiful plumage, which, with its many-coloured tints, furnished the materials for the Aztec painter.” ‘A separate building was reserved for the fierce birds of prey.” For the feeding of which Prescott (p. 286) says that five hundred turkeys were allowed per day; but from Oviedo’s original account in Spanish, in Prescott’s Appendix (p. 679) it appears that these five hundred birds were the daily rations of not only the fifty ‘‘Eagles,” but also of the carnivorous mam- mals and of the great Snakes, as bulky as a man’s leg. ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 167 The main menagerie building was a great hall 150 “‘ feet” long, by 50 wide. Oviedo, in his contemporary account (op. cit. p. 679), writes :—‘‘En entrando por la saia, el hedor era mucho é aborrecible 6 asqueroso’”’ (on entering the hall the stench was detestable and loathsome), a detail which Prescott does not men- tion, but that we can well imagine to have been true. Prescott tells us that ‘‘ The serpents were confined in long cages lined with down or feathers, or in troughs of mud and water. The beasts and birds of prey were provided with apart- ments large enough to allow of their moving about, and secured by a strong lattice-work, through which light and air were freely admitted.’ ‘‘ Ten large tanks, well stocked with fish, afforded a retreat on their margins to various tribes of water-fowl, whose habits were so carefully consulted that some of these ponds were of salt water, as that which they most loved to frequent.” There was also “‘a strange collection of human monsters” and dwarfs. The destruction, by fire, of the House of Birds, in 1521, is graphically told by Prescott (p. 515). III. Mopern Zoonoaican Garpens (arranged alphabetically under Continents, and in Europe under Countries). AFRICA. 1. Auexanpria, Eaypr.—Since 1907 a small menagerie has been maintained by the Municipality in the Nouzha Garden, a beautiful park just outside the city. Entrance is free. The collection is under the care of Monsieur Louis Monfront, Direc- teur des Parcs et Plantations de la Ville. 2. Durzpan, Narau.—Municipal menagerie in Mitchell Park. 3. GEzira, Catno, Haypr.—His Highness the Khedive Ismail Pasha established a collection of live animals in the gardens of his palace at Gezira. The late Sir William Flower records in his diary of the 2nd of April 1874 seeing there :—‘‘ Two African Elephants, seven Giraffes, sixteen Lions (of all ages), three Leo- pards, two Servals, one Spotted Hyena, three Nylghaies, four Hartebeests, two Leucoryx, smaller Antelopes, Deer, Kangaroos, Secretary Birds, Flamingos, good collection of Pheasants and fowls, Emu, &c.”’ All that now remains is the Aquarium, built by Ismail Pasha, adjoining his menagerie, which, after having 168 THE ZOOLOGIST. been untenanted for about a quarter of a century, was recon- structed by the Egyptian Public Works Department and opened to the public in 1902. 4. Giza, Carro, Eaypt.—Ismail Pasha also had magnificent Gardens laid out round his palace at Giza. In one of these Gardens, known as the ‘‘ Haremlik,” which was constructed in about the years 1867-1872, were several aviaries for birds, and, I believe, a few mammals were also kept; but it was not a z00- logical garden nor were visitors ever admitted to it. -In 1891 however, when it was decided to have a Zoological Garden for Cairo, the Government allowed this garden to be used for the purpose, and later in 1898 the area was more than doubled by the addition of part of the adjoining “‘Selamlik”’ Garden. The Giza Zoological Gardens are now a Government institution ad- ministered by the Public Works Department. The present writer is the Director of these Gardens and of the Giza Aquarium, with Mr. Michael J. Nicoll as Assistant-Director. Annual and special reports are published. 5. Kuarroum, Supaxn. — The Khartoum Zoological Gardens were started in 1901 in the centre of the city, but moved to their present site on the tongue of land between the White and Blue Niles in 1908. The gardens, which are free to the public, are under the Municipality, but the collection of live animals is under the Game Preservation Department, of which Mr. Arthur L. Butler is Superintendent. 6. Pretoria, TransvaAt.—The Transvaal Zoological Gardens originally started in a yard near Market Square in 1898, and were moved to their present site in 1899. The Director is Dr. J. W. B. Gunning, who is also Director of the Transvaal Museum, which post he has occupied since 1896. An illustrated Guide-book is published. 7. Tunis.—Dr. P. L. Sclater has recorded (P.Z.8. 1898, p. 280) visiting ‘‘the private collection of living animals be- longing to the Bey of Tunis at the palace at Marsa.” At the time of Dr. Sclater’s visit there were some interesting exhibits, but whether this menagerie is still kept up, and if so to what extent it is open to visitors, I have been unable to ascertain. ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 169 America, Nortu. 8. Bautimore.—-There is said to be asmall Zoological Garden in Druid Hill Park, the latter being seven hundred acres in extent. 9. Burrato, New York. — The Buffalo Zoological Gardens started in a small way in 1895, under the supervision of the Park Superintendent. They were reorganized in 1898, and are now under the Park Commissioners, the President in 1908 being Mr. George C. Ginther, and the Secretary Mr. George H. Selkirk. The present Curator of the zoological collection is Dr. Frank A. Crandall, who has been in charge since the 1st of March 1898. An annual report is published. 10. Cepar Rapips, lowa.—Zoological Gardens established in City Park, 1908. 11. Cincinnatt1.— A privately owned Zoological Gardens started in 1875, said to contain a very fine collection. Mr.8. A. Stephen is the Director. 12. Cutcaco.—I am told that the Zoological Garden in Lin- coln Park, Chicago, is one of the largest in the world. The Superintendent is Mr. R. H. Warder, who is assisted by Mr. C. B. de Vry as Head Keeper of the Animals. 13. CLEVELAND, Onto.—The zoological collection was started about 1903; it is situated in Wade Park and managed by the Cleveland Park authorities. 14, Denver, CoLorado. — Privately owned Zoological Gar- dens, first opened in 1889. The proprietress for some years was Mrs. Elitch Long. The Gardens are now managed by Mr. E. P. Horne. 15. Detroit, Micuigan.—A small Zoological Garden, and, I am told, an excellent Aquarium, maintained by the State in Belle Isle Park, under the direction of the Commissioner of Parks and Boulevards. Mr. M. L. Hurlbut is Secretary to the Commissioner. 16. Kansas Crry, Mrssourr.— The Kansas City Zoological Society was organized in December 1907, to maintain a big menagerie in Swope Park. Mr. W. V. Lippincott is President, Mr. H. R. Walmsley Secretary, and Mr. I. S. Horne Director. 17. Los ANncELEs, Catirornia. — Zoological Gardens estab- lished in Idora Park, 1908. 170 THE Z00LCGIST: 18. Mempuis, Tenn. — Zoological Gardens established in Overton Park, 1908. 19. Minwavuxer, Wisconsin. — The Zoological Gardens in Washington Park were started in 1905 with two Bears, three Foxes and some Virginian Deer. In the three years 1906, 1907 and 1908 extraordinary progress seems to have been made, a large collection of animals has been formed, and _ sufficient financial support has been forthcoming to admit of spending over £12,000 on cages and paddocks. The governing body is the Board of Park Commissioners. Mr. Daniel Erdmann is Presi- dent, Mr. Frank P. Schumacher is Secretary, Mr. Ed. H. Bean is the Director ; he has had charge of the collection since March 1906, when it was still in its infancy. 20. New Orteans.—A zoological collection was started a few years ago in Audubon Park, but I have been unable to obtain any information as to its progress. 21. New York (Centrat Parx).—The Zoological Gardens in Central Park were founded in 1865; they are supported by the Municipality. This collection is famous for its success in breed- ing animals, notably Hippopotamus. 22. New York (Bronx Park).—The Zoological Park in Bronx Park, under the management of the New York Zoological Society, was founded in 1898. This Society also looks after the New York Aquarium. ‘The present officers are :—Secretary Mr. Mad- ison Grant, Director Dr. William T. Hornaday, Scientific As- sistants Messrs. Raymond L. Ditmars and C. William Beebe, Director of Aquarium Mr. Charles H. Townsend. The publica- tions of this Society, bulletins, annual reports, and guide-books are remarkable for the excellence of the photographs of animals by Mr. Elwin R. Sanborn. 23. Oxusnoma City.—Zoological Gardens established in City Park in 1908. - 24, PHiLADELPHIA.—Zoological Gardeng in Fairmount Park, belonging to the Zoological Society of Philadelphia (incorporated 21st March 1859), and managed by a board of twenty ‘‘ directors,” of whom eighteen are elected by the Society and two by the City Councils. The Secretary and General Manager is Mr. Arthur Erwin Brown, and the Superintendent of the Gardens is Mr. ~ Robert D. Carson. An annual report is published, a special ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 171 feature of which is the classified list of autopsies made during the year in the Pathological Laboratory. 25. Pirrspure, Pennsyntvanta. — Highlands Park is said to contain a good zoological collection. 26. Porrnanp, Oreaon.—Zoological Gardens established in City Park in 1908. | 27. San Francisco, Cauirornia.—I have been unable to ob- tain any recent news of this institution, the existence of which I only know of from an illustrated guide-book that a friend lent me about eight years ago. 28. SPRINGFIELD, Mass.—A small collection in one of the City Parks. Mr. C. EH. Ladd, Superintendent. 29. Sr. Lovrs, Missourrt.— Zoological Gardens started in 1903, under the Park system. 30. Tacoma, WasHineron. — Free Public Gardens, with a growing zoological collection. 31. Totepo, Onto.—The Zoological Garden, started in 1900, is under the Park and Boulevard Department of the City. Mr. M. L. Moore is Superintendent of Parks and Boulevards. The Board of Park Commissioners is contemplating the removal of the present menagerie to a larger park, and housing it in a per- manent fashion. 32. Toronto, CanaDa.—Zoological collection, started about 1900, in charge of the Commissioner, City Parks Department. 33. VANcouvER, Canapa. — Public Park with small zoological collection (fide W. H. D. le Souéf, Zool. Soc. of Victoria, 44th Annual Report (1908), p. 18). 34. Wasuinaton, D.C. — An important collection in the National Zoological Park, founded in 1890, under the manage- ment of the Smithsonian Institution. Dr. Frank Baker is the Superintendent. AMERICA, SOUTH. 35. Banta, Braziu.—A small zoological collection in a public park just outside the town. Mr. M. J. Nicoll visited this garden on the 26th of December, 1902, and tells me that the menagerie then only contained some Peccaries, Parrots, Curassows and a Peacock. : 36. Buumenav, Brazin.—Zoological Gardens opened in 1870 ; no longer existing. 172 THE ZOOLOGIST. 37. Busnos Arres.—Municipal Zoological Gardens. Founded by General Sarmiente in 1874. The present Director is Signor Clemente Onelli. Thisinstitution publishes an illustrated guide- book, and a quarterly scientific journal. 38. GEORGETOWN, British Guiana.—A menagerie existed at one time in the Botanical Gardens of Georgetown. Manatees, Anteaters and other interesting South American animals were exhibited here. 39. Para, Brazin.— An interesting menagerie attached to the Museum of Natural History and Ethnography, named the ‘Museu Goeldi,” after its weil-known former Director Dr. Emilie A. Goeldi. The present Director is Dr. Jacques Huber, and the Superintendent Dr. Emilia Snethlage. A periodical ‘‘ Boletim ” is published by the Museum. 40. Rro pe Janetro.— Zoological Gardens under the director- ship of Mr. Kirschnur. ASIA. 41. Baneaxox, S1am.—In 1896-1898, when I lived in Bangkok, there was a Zoological Garden there, the property of His Majesty the King of Siam, open free to the public on certain days. The collection contained mammals, birds, some fairly large Croco- diles, and small aquaria for fish. From time to time very in- teresting local animals were exhibited (see P.Z.S. 1900, pp. 369 and 371). Iam told that this menagerie no longer exists. 42, Baropa, Inp1sa.— A zoological collection in the Park, owned by the Maharaja of Baroda, who allows the public to visit it freely. 43. Bompay, Inp1a.—Zoological collection in the Victoria Gar- dens. Mr. C. D. Mahaluxmivala, Superintendent. These Gar- dens are round tke Victoria and Albert Museum ; the best thing is the enclosure for Lions, an irregular oval space of grass and trees, perhaps about one hundred feet long by sixty wide, sur- rounded by a railing, but with no roof, and a smal! sleeping ~ place at one end. The railings are about fifteen feet high, curved inwards at the top, and of very light appearance. 44, Caucutra, Inp1a.—The large Zoological Gardens at Ali- pore, Calcutta, were founded in 1875. They are well known throughout the world to zoologists, who have not personally visited India, by two useful publications :— ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 173 (i). ‘Guide to the Calcutta Zoological Gardens,’ by the late Dr. John Anderson, F.R.S., 1888. (ii). ‘ Handbook of the Management of Animals in Captivity in Lower Bengal,’ by Ram Bramha Sanyal, 1892. Rai R. B. Sanyal Bahadur, who died on the 13th of October, 1908, will always be remembered in connection with the Cal- cutta Zoological Gardens, in which he worked for thirty-three years. This institution is managed by an Honorary Committee, of ~ which Lieutenant-Colonel EK. H. Brown, of the Indian Medical Service, is Secretary. Mr. Bejoy Krishna Basu, Veterinary In- spector, was appointed Assistant Superintendent of the Garden by the Government of Bengal on the 25th of February, 1907. An annual report is published. 45. Cotompo, Cryton.—A small menagerie is maintained in the Gardens of the Museum, of which Dr. A. Willey is the Director, 46. Hanor, Tonxin.—A collection of live animals is kept in the Botanical Gardens. Monsieur Louis Jacquet, Directeur Jardin botanique de Hanoi, Monsieur Farant, Chef du Jardin. 47. Jarpur, Inp1a.—Small zoological collection. 48. Krioro, Japan.—Municipal Zoological Gardens ‘‘ which are situated right in the city, the Gardens are nicely laid out and have a splendid Flight Aviary, as well as a good Carnivora House.” There is also a Deer Park, with very fine old cedar and pine trees at Nara (fide W. H. D. le Souéf, Zool. Soc. of Victoria, 44th Annual Report (1908), p. 12). 49. KurracHEE, Inp1a.—Zoological Gardens of which great things were expected about eleven years ago, but which appa- rently have not progressed during recent years. 50. Lanore, Inp1a.—A small Zoological Garden is said to exist at Lahore. 51. Manruua, Parnipprnes.—Under the Government of Spain a few animals were kept in the Botanic Gardens, but these Gardens became the site of a battle and were completely de- stroyed. A certain number of mammals, birds and reptiles are now exhibited alive in the Public Gardens, and it is proposed to have a regular Zoological Garden in Manilla. = 174 THE ZOOLOGIST 52. Osaka, Japan.—When the menagerie in the Singapore Botanic Gardens closed, the Tiger, Crocodile and some other large animals were sent to Osaka: but I have been unable to obtain any information as to what sort of menagerie or garden exists at Osaka. 53. Prexin, Catva.—Zoological and Botanical Garden, recently | started, or re-started. 54. Puxer, Junxcgeynton, Mataya.— The Puket (Tongkah) Government maintains a small Zoological Garden, open free to the public. The collection is said to consist of a Tiger, two Leopards, two Black Panthers and two Crocodiles. 55. Raneoon, Burma.—The Zoological Garden in the Victoria Memorial Park is managed by the Park Administration. The Secretary is Mr. W. Shircore of Barr Street, Rangoon. I under- stand that the ground was given by the Government, and. the park, &c., laid out with funds subscribed by the public as a memorial to Queen Victoria. The institution was opened by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, when in Rangoon, on his last Indian tour. The Zoological Garden is about fourteen acres in area (but there is already some talk of an extension), and adjoins the Royal Lakes. In the Elephant House there is said to be one of King Theebaw’s ‘‘ White’ Elephants. 56. Sargon, Cocuin-Cuina.—A large garden, botanical at one end, zoological at the other. Monsieur E. Haffner, Director. 57. SINGAPORE, STRAITS SETTLEMENTS. — A very interesting account of the Menagerie at the Botanic Gardens of Singapore, from its foundation in 1859 to its end in-1905, has been written by Mr. Henry N. Ridley, F.R.S., Director, Botanic Gardens, Singapore, and published in the ‘ Journal’ of the Straits Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, No. 46 (December, 1906), pp. 183-194. It is greatly to be hoped that a Zoological Garden may be re- started in Singapore. 58. SoURABAYA, JAVA.—Some sort of a collection of animals appears to have been in existence at Sourabaya, but 1 have no definite information concerning it. 59. Trmor Dinu, Portuaurse Mauaya. — In the Public Gar- dens there is a collection of live animals. Mr. W. H. D. le Souéf, Zool. Soc. of Victoria, 44th Annual Report (1908), p. 11, men- ——- ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 175 tions that he saw there Monkeys, Deer and Birds, including Cassowaries. 60. Toxyo, Japan. — The Japanese Government Zoological Garden is in the large Uyeno Park, where are also situated the Imperial Museum, Observatory, Library, &c. Dr. K. Tayama, of the Tokyo Imperial University, acting for Prof. Ishikawa, was good enough to inform me in August 1908 that the Director- ship was vacant: I have not yet heard if an appointment has been made. Mr. Henry Scherren, in the ‘Field’ for the 14th of September, 1907, has given a short account of this collection. Mr. W. H. D. le Souéf, Zool. Soc. of Victoria, 44th Annual Report (1908), p. 12, mentions that there are also to be seen at Tokyo freshwater Fish and Turtle hatcheries, a small but good Aquarium, and, in the Imperial Botanical Gardens, many aviaries for birds and some waterfowl on the ponds. 61. Trivanprum, Travancore, Inpra.—The Trivandrum Mu- seum and Public Gardens, of which the menagerie forms part, were founded in 1859. A sketch of the origin and progress of these combined institutions has been written by Mr. H. 8. Fer- guson, the late Director, and published in the Report on the Trivandrum Museum for M. EH. 1075 (a.p. 1899-1900). The present Director, who was appointed on the 2nd of July, 1904, is Lieutenant-Colonel F. W. Dawson. AUSTRALASIA. - 62. AprLaipr.—The Gardens of the South Australian Zoolo- gical and Acclimatisation Society were founded in 1879. The present Director is Mr. Alfred C. Minchin. An annual report is published. 63. Mrtpourne.—The Gardens of the Zoological and Accli- matisation Society of Victoria were founded in 1857. Mr. W. H. Dudley le Souéf is the present Director. An annual re- port is published. In Melbourne there is also an Aquarium, where aquatic mammals, birds, and reptiles are kept as well as fish, in the Exhi- bition Buildings, under the control of the Exhibition Trustees. Mr. James EK. Sherrard is the Secretary. This Aquarium was commenced in 1884 and opened in 1885, and is apparently the oldest institution of its kind in Australia. Others have 176 THE ZOOLOGIST. subsequently been established at Sydney, at Bondi, and at Coogee. 64. Perta.—The Zoological and Acclimatisation Gardens at South Perth, Western Australia, were founded in 1898. The President is the Honourable J. W. Hackett, and the Director is Mr. HE. A. le Souéf. 65. SypNey.—The Gardens of the New South Wales Zoolo- gical Society were founded in 1879. The executive officer, whose duties correspond with those of the Directors of the other Austra- lian Gardens, is Mr. A. Sherbourne le Souéf, the Secretary. An annual report is published. 66. Weruurneton, New Zratanp. — A Zoological Garden has been started at Wellington in 1908. Mr. A. E. L. Bertling is the Superintendent. EKEUROPH. AUSTRIA. 67. Cracow.—A small menagerie in the Park Krakowski, under the care of the Director of the Botanical Gardens. 68. ScHonprunn, Vienna.—The Imperial Menagerie of the Palace of Schonbrunn was founded by Francis I., Emperor of Germany (1708-1765) and Maria Theresa (1717-1780) in 1752. These Gardens are the property of, and kept up at the expense of, His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria, who allows the public free admittance to the greater part of the grounds. It is not only the oldest Zoological Garden in the world, but one of the very best, and has reached its present high state of efficiency under the charge of Inspector A. Kraus. 69. Troprpau, Austrian-Sruesra. — This town has not got a zoological garden, but a trading menagerie, founded in 1867,” now owned by Herr Joseph Pilz. 70. Vienna.—The citizens of Vienna have from time to time been able to see other collections of live animals besides that of Schonbrunn. In 1802 a government menagerie was established, which was accidentally destroyed by fire in 1848. A zoological garden was founded in 1868, but closed in 1866. The ‘“‘ Vi- varium,” built in 1872, came to an end from want of financial support about December, 1898. Finally in 1901 the Institute of Experimental Biology came into being, and, being assisted by ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 177 annual subventions from the Government, will have, we hope, a long and successful career. , The ‘‘ Tierpark ” at Brunn belonging to the Viennese firm of Carl Gudera (established 1867) must also be mentioned. BELGIUM. 71. Anrwere.—The beautiful garden and large menagerie of ‘‘ La Société Royale de Zoologie d’Anvers”’ are well known. They were founded in 1843. The present Director is Monsieur Michel |’ Hoést. 72. Brusseus. — Zoological Gardens founded 1851, closed 1878. 73. Guent.—The Zoological Garden of Ghent was founded in 1851. I knew it well at one time, and was very sorry to hear that it had been closed in 1904. 74. Lizaz.—A small Zoological Garden on an island in the river, founded in 1861, which has been recently closed (1904 ?). Britis Isis. 75. Brruinauam.— A zoological garden has existed in the suburbs of Birmingham at some time during the last twenty-five years, but no definite information is at present available. 76. Buackroot.—No zoological garden, but a large menagerie and very fine Aquarium in the “‘ Tower,” under the management of Mr. James Walmsley. 77. Brianton.—About ten years ago a prospectus was issued concerning a Zoological Garden about to be started at Brighton, but apparently the idea was not carried out. The Brighton Aquarium is well known. 78. Carpirr.—The only public collection of live animals in Wales appears to be a small Zoological Garden recently started by the Municipality of Cardiff. 79. Cuirron. — The Bristol, Clifton and West of England Zoological Society owns the small but excellent Zoological Gar- dens on the edge of Clifton Downs, which were founded in 1835. This institution is managed by a Committee of twenty-seven members, Dr. A. J. Harrison being Treasurer and Chairman, Mr. W. C. Beloe Honorary Secretary and Mr. E. W. B. Villiers 4ool. 4th ser. vol. XIII., May, 1909. P 178 THE ZOOLOGIST. the executive Superintendent. [Illustrated guide-books and annual reports are published. 80. Crystan Pauacr, SyprEnqHamM.—An aquarium, a small menagerie and some waterfowl in the gardens have been long maintained in this institution: this collection has recently (1907) been augmented by the loan of the large private menagerie belonging to Mr. Robert Leadbetter of Hazlemere Park, Buck- inghamshire. An illustrated guide-book of this latter is pub- lished. 81. Dusuin. — An account by Prof. D. J. Cunningham, F'.R.S., of the origin and early history of the Royal Zoological Society of Ireland, which was founded in 1830, was published in 1901. The Society is governed by a Council, the President for 1908 being the Right Honourable Jonathan Hogg, the Honorary Secretary is Dr. R. F. Scharff, of the Dublin Museum. Mr. Thomas Hunt, who had been resident Superintendent since February 1890, retired in 1907, and Captain L. C. Arbuthnot was appointed to succeed him, and took over the duties from the 1st of December, 1907. Illustrated guide-books and annual reports are published. 82. Epinpureu. — A Zoological Garden formerly existed in the capital of Scotland; a short account of what it contained in May 1858 by ‘‘W.C.M.” was published in the ‘Scotsman’ for the 15th of September, 1908. A movement is now on foot to re-start a Zoological Garden in Edinburgh, a provisional Committee has been formed, Messrs. James Anderson and T. H. Gillespie have been appointed Joint- Secretaries and Mr. W. Burn Murdoch the first Treasurer. 83. Guasaow.—The so-called ‘‘ Scottish Zoo,’ founded about 1901, in the New City Road, Glasgow, which belongs to Mr. Bostock (Bostock and Wombwell’s Menagerie), is reported to be closing this year. Mr. William Nicol, ex-Bailie, has recently, in the ‘ Glasgow Herald’ for the 4th of February, 1909, made practical suggestions for a Municipal Zoological Garden in Glasgow. 84, Ipswich.—The Municipality of the county-town of Suf- folk have a small collection of live animals, I am told, in a public park. 85, Liverpoon.—A Zoological Garden was founded, if my ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 179 information is correct, in Liverpool in 1884 with a capital of £30,000, but closed in 1886. Two exhibitions of live animals now exist in Liverpool: the Aquarium in the Museum, and Mr. W. S. Cross’s trading mena- gerie in Karle Street. 86. Lonpon (Reaent’s Parx).— The Zoological Society of London is par excellence the leading institution of its kind in the world, both by reason of its invaluable scientific publications, and for possessing the Zoological Gardens. The Zoological Gar- dens which from their foundation in 1828 to the present time have proved of such immense value and pleasure to generations of visitors, and which during the many years that they were ad- ministered, with such extraordinary ability and energy, by Dr. Philip Lutley Sclater, F.R.S., and the late Mr. Abraham Dee Bartlett obtained the great reputation which they now hold among the practical naturalists of all countries. The origin and history of the Regent’s Park menagerie can be learnt from the ‘ Record of Progress ’ published by the Society in 1901, and from Mr. Henry Scherren’s book ‘ The Zoological Society of London’ which was published about 1906. The pre- sent executive officers are-Dr. Peter Chalmers Mitchell, F.B.S., Secretary, Mr. Reginald Innes Pocock, Superintendent, and Mr. Arthur Thomson, Assistant Superintendent. 87. Lonpon (Surrey).—The Surrey Zoological Gardens were founded about 1829 by Mr. Edward Cross, the proprietor of the famous Exeter Change menagerie. They were closed in 1856. 88. Lonpon (Battersea Park).—A small collection of deer and birds is maintained in this park, on the south side of the Thames, by the Municipality ‘‘ London County Council.” 89. Mancuester.—The Zoological Gardens, Belle Vue, Man- chester, are the property of the Messrs. Jennison. The Jennison family have owned and managed this institution since its founda- tion in 1886. An illustrated guide-book is published. 90. Sournzenp.—A few years ago a menagerie was maintained at the ‘‘ Kursaal”’ at Southend in Essex, but apparently no longer exists. I have heard that there was one also at Margate in Kent. 91. Sournrort.—A Zoological Garden was started at South- P2 180 THE ZOOLOGIST. port in Lancashire in 1906, under the joint proprietorship of Mr. Nathan Yates and Mr. W. Simpson Cross. Since 1908 Mr. Yates has been sole proprietor. DENMARK. 92. CopENHAGEN.—The ‘‘ Zoologisk Have’ of Copenhagen was founded in 1859, and is this year celebrating its ‘‘ Jubi- leum.” Mr. Julius Schiott is Director. FRANCE. 93. Lyons.—The beautiful Pare de la Téte-d’Or, 114 hectares* in area, was laid out in 1857, but apparently the menagerie was not stocked till 1872. This zoological collection belongs to the Municipality of Lyons and is open free to all visitors. The present Director is Monsieur P. Didier, Médecin Vétérinaire. 94. MarsEIttes. — These Zoological Gardens, founded in 1855, were originally connected with the Jardin d’Acclimatation of Paris, but in, or about, 1898 were taken over by the Munici- pality of Marseilles, to whom they now belong. They are under the care of Monsieur Pierre Illy, Directeur des Travaux Neufs et Plantations de la Ville. 95. Nicn-Ciminz.—A small, privately owned Zoological Gar- den was opened to the public on payment towards the end of the nineteenth century, and was closed about 1906. 96. Paris (JARDIN DES PLANTES).— As mentioned earlier in this paper the famous menagerie attached to the French Govern- ment Museum of Natural History was started in 1798. The present Director of the Museum is Prof. Edmond Perrier. Prof. Edouard Louis Trouessart is in charge of the menagerie (mam- mals and birds), assisted by Monsieur L. E. Sauvinet. Prof. Léon Vaillant has charge of the reptiles. 97. Paris (JARDIN D’AccLIMaTaTIoN).—The Jardin zoologique d’Acclimatation is not a government institution, but is owned by a society, and occupies a site, in the Bois de Boulogne, lent by the Municipality of Paris in 1858. This site has to be handed back to the Municipality on the 81st of December, 1962. The buildings were commenced in 1859, and the garden was formally opened by the Emperor Napoleon III. on the 6th of October, 1860. The present Director is Monsieur Arthur Porte. * A hectare = nearly 24 acres, ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 181 GERMANY. 98. Atx-LA-CHapauLe.—A small Zoological Garden was opened at Aix about 1886, and closed about 1903. 99. ALFELD-oN-LeineE.—This little town in the Province of Hanover does not possess a zoological garden, but contains two important trading menageries, those of Herr C. Reiche and of Herr Ruhe. 100. Beruin.—The famous Zoological Gardens of Berlin were founded in 1844. The wonderful collection of mammals and birds that they now contain is too well known to require more than mention here. The Director is Prof. Ludwig Heck, and Dr. O. Heinroth is scientific Assistant. The Berlin Aquarium is a separate institution. 101. Bresuav. — One of the chief Zoological Gardens of Kurope. Founded 1865. Director, Herr F. J. Grabowsky. 102. Casset.—No longer existing. I am not aware of the dates when this garden started or was closed. 103. Cotoenr.—A large Zoological Garden founded in 1860. The site being involved in the scheme of fortification for the defence of the city, the garden authorities were restricted by military conditions in erecting buildings in various parts of the grounds. Certain of the animal houses had to be so constructed _ that, if necessary, they could be completely cleared away within a given number of hours so as to afford a clear field of fire for the guns of the fortress. Within the last few years however these regulations have been relaxed. The present Director is — Dr. L. Wunderlich. The Aquarium of Cologne is not connected with the Zoolo- gical Gardens, but is situated in the neighbouring “Flora” Gardens. | 104. Drespen. — Zoological Garden in the Grosse Garten, founded in 1861. Director, Comm. Rat. Adolf Schoepf. 105. Dusseuporr. — Zoologischer Garten ‘ Scheidt-Keim- Stiftung.” Founded 1874. Dr. Hermann Bolau, Director. As is the case with several of the German Zoological Gardens, a very short annual report is published. 106. Eiperretp.—A small Zoological Garden, founded in 1879. Herr Keusch has been Director since about 1903. 182 | THE ZOOLOGIST. 107. Franxrort-on-Matn. — Zoological Gardens founded in 1858. The area of the grounds is small, but the collection of animals is very rich. There is an Aquarium in the gardens. The present Director is Dr. Kurt Priemel. 108. HatiE-on-Saau.—Zoological Garden founded in 1901, and rapidly growing under its first Director, Dr. G. Brandes. An illustrated popular periodical is published. 109. Hampura.— One of the chief Zoological Gardens of Kurope. Founded 1863. Director, Prof. Dr. J. Vosseler. Besides guide-books and annual reports, an illustrated popular periodical is published. There is an Aquarium in the gardens. 110. Hampure-Sre.uincen. — Herr Carl Hagenbeck’s very original Tierpark was formally opened in 1907 at Stellingen ; his well-known trading menagerie had long been established in Hamburg. 111, Hampurc-GrossporsteEn.—The Tierpark of Herr August Fockelmann is a trading menagerie established in the grounds of a country house. 112. Hanover.—Zoological Garden in the Hilenriede, founded in 1868. Director, Dr. E. Schaff. 113. Jena.—A small Zoological Garden started in 1901, but closed in 1906. Herr Hugo Hahn was the proprietor. 114. Karusrune.—Zoological collection, started in 1864, in Stadt Garten. Herr F. Ries is Garden-director. 115. Konrasperc.—The Konigsberger Tiergarten (founded in 1896), like that of Cologne, has, I am told, had to be laid out in such a manner that in case of war its buildings will not mask the defenders’ guns. The collection is said to be a good one, and a large number of fish are kept. The Director is Geh. Comm. Rat. H. Claass. | 116. Krersup.—Zoological Garden founded in 1887, since closed (1884 ?). 117. Leipsta.—A very nice Zoological Garden founded in 1876. The former proprietor and present Director is Comm. Rat. E. Pinkert. 118. Limpure-on-Lann. — This town has no zoological gar- den, but is the headquarters of Herr J. Menges, the well-known dealer in wild animals. 119. Lusecxk.—A small Zoological Garden about which I am ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 183 in some doubt, as I have been told it was closed in 1904, but also heard it ‘‘ well spoken of” in 1907. 120. Munnavsen.—A small Zoological Garden founded in 1868, but nearly destroyed in 1870, when it became the site of an encounter between the French and German troops. It is now under the Municipality, Herr H. Schwantge being the Superintendent. 121. Muncuen-Guappaco.— A small Zoological Garden for- merly existed at this town. 122. Muntcu.—The Zoological Garden founded in 1863 ap- pears to have come to an end in 1866. A new institution is now in process of formation. A collection of deer and waterfowl has long been maintained at Nymphenburg, in the neighbourhood of Munich. 123. Munstrr.—The Westphalian Zoological Gardens were founded in 1875. Herr Heinrich Goffart is the Inspector in charge. Dr. H. Recker, the Director of the Natural History Museum of the Province, and other local gentlemen form an honorary committee of management. 124. Posen.—Zoological Garden started in 1881. Herr Max Meissner is Director. 125. Souincen.—A small Zoological Garden owned by Wittwe G. Baver. . 126. Stertin.—The small Zoological Garden of Stettin ap- pears to have had a chequered career; originally opened in 1882, it closed in 1884, was re-started, but closed again in 1903, but was open in 1907 with however a collection of only about siX mammals and a few dozen birds, and these mostly domestic, I am told. 127. Sturraart.—The Zoological Gardens of the capital of Wiirtemburg have had various changes both of management and of site. The old Royal Menagerie dates from 1812. The garden that became so well known under the Directorship of Herr A. Nill from 1870. The existing garden of which Herr Theodor Widmann is proprietor is only a few years old. 128. Uum-on-Danuss. — There is no zoological garden at Ulm, but at Donautal is the trading Tierpark and wild animal depot of Herr Julius Mohr, jun. 184 THE ZOOLOGIST. GREECE. 129. ArHeNs. — Zoological Gardens. Dr. W. Germanos, Director. HoLnanp. 130. Amsterpam. — The Society ‘‘ Natura Artis Magistra”’ owns the great institution, founded in 1888, which comprises not only a large menagerie and gardens, but also a museum of general zoology, a museum illustrating the fauna of Holland, an ethnographical museum, a very good library, and one of the chief aquariums of the world. The present Director is Dr. Coenraed Kerbert, and the Librarian Mr. G. Janse. 131. Haavun.—Small Zoological Gardens, founded in 1863, belonging to the Koninklyk Zoologisch Botanisch Genootschap. A peculiar feature of the organization of this society is that the resident executive officer may only hold office for a very limited period ; thus in the last nine years the Directorship has been held in succession by Major D. N. Dietz, Mr. L. J. Dobbelmann and Mr. J. W. van de Stadt. A detailed annual report is published. 132. Rorrerpam.—The Rotterdamsche Diergaarde was founded in 1857. The present Director of this well-known institution is Dr. Johannes Buttikofer. Hounaary. 133. Bupa-Prst. — Zoological Gardens founded 1867, tem- porarily closed 1907. Tray. 134. FLorence.—In 1487 “ Malfota, Envoy of the Sultan of Egypt, Kaitbai,”’ brought a Giraffe alive to Florence for Lorenzo de Medicis (fide HK. T. Hamy); and other foreign animals have been kept in captivity there from time to time. In recent years I have heard the “‘ Zoological Gardens” of Florence spoken of, but have no definite information on the subject. 185. Genoa.—In 1903 I saw a small collection of animals, that might be almost called a Zoological Garden, in the beautiful Di Negro Gardens at Genoa, adjoining the famous Zoological ~ Museum of which the Marquis Doria is Director. 136. Pauermo, Siciuy.—I have been told that there is a collection of wild animals in a garden, or park, near Palermo, but from information kindly supplied by the Zoological Museum of Palermo, I learn that there is no zoological garden there. ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF THE WORLD. 185 137. Roms.—A Zoological Garden is now being formed. PorTUGAL. 138. Lispon.—Jardim Zoologico e de Acclimacao em Portu- gal. Sociedade Anonyma de Responsabilidade Limitada. The collection is in the Parque das Laranjeiras at Lisbon. Consel- heiro José Joaquim Ferreira Lobo is the President of the Board of directors. Russia. 139. Heustnerors, Finuanp.—Zoological Garden founded in 1888. Kapten M. Tamslander is the present Director. 140. Moscow.—Imperial Zoological and Botanical Gardens founded in 1864. Monsieur Vladislav Andrevitch Pogogersci is the present Director. 141. Sr. Pererspurc.—Zoological Gardens founded in 1871. 142. Warsaw, Potanp.—I have been unable to obtain any information about this collection, and imagine that it no longer exists. SPAIN. 143. Barcetona.—Municipal Zoological Park started in 1892. Senor Francisco de A. Darder y Llimona is the Director. 144. Maprip.—The venerable Zoological Gardens of Madrid date from 1774. Senor Luis Cavanna is the present Director of the ‘‘ Parque Zoologico del Retiro.” 145. XeREs.— Zoological Garden founded in 1864, owned by a society or company. This institution was apparently still going in the “eighties,” but I have no certain news of when it ceased to exist. SWEDEN. 146. SkaNnsEN, StockHoLm. — Zoological Gardens, in connec- tion with the Museum, started in 1891. Dr. Alaric Behm is the Director. Illustrated guide-books are published. SWITZERLAND. 147. Bate.—Zoological Gardens founded in 1874. Dr. G. Hagmann is the present Director. Annual reports and guide- books are published. 148. St. Gauuien. A small collection chiefly of European animals. 149. Zurico.—A small collection, chiefly of foreign animals, was formed in 1902, but came to an end in 1906 (fide G. Loisel). 186 THE ZOOLOGIST. TURKEY. 150. ConsTaNTINopLE.—A collection of live animals in a gar- den belonging to His Imperial Majesty the Sultan. I do not know to what extent visitors are admitted. Addenda. Four Zoological Gardens should be added :— 1. Bucuarest, Roumanta. 2. Hauirax, YorKsHIRE, ENGLaAND.— To be opened in May 1909 at Chevinedge, Salterhebble, near Halifax. 3. JOHANNESBURG, SoutH Arrica.—Zoological Garden in Her- man Kekstein Park. 4, Szecuuen, Cu1na.—Zoological Garden in newly laid out public park. IV. BrpiioGRAPHy. 1829. E. T. Bennett: ‘ The Tower Menagerie.’ London. 1866. F. Schlegel: ‘ Die Zoologischen Garten Europas.’ Breslau. I have been unable to see a copy of this book. 1878. P. L. Martin: ‘Die Praxis der Naturgeschichte,’ III. Weimar. 1886. A. Schoepf: ‘Gedenkblatter.’ Dresden. 1890. ‘ Lidt Zoologisk-Have Statistik.’ Copenhagen. 1898. EK. T. Hamy: ‘The Royal Menagerie of France.’ Washington (Smithsonian publication, 1155). 1908. C. V. A. Peel: ‘The Zoological Gardens of Europe.’ London. 1906. S. S. Flower: ‘ Report on Mission to Europe, 1905.’ Cairo. 1907. G. Loisel : ‘Rapport sur une Mission scientifique dans les jardins et établissements zoologiques publics et privés du Royaume-Uni de la Belgique et des Pays-Bas.’ Paris. Ditto: ‘De l’Allemagne, de l|’Autriche-Hongrie, de la Suisse et du Dane- marck.’ Paris. 1908. S. 8. Flower: ‘ Notes on Zoological Collections visited in Europe, 1907.’ Cairo. 1908. G. Loisel: Articles in the ‘ Revue scientifique’ for the ard and 10th of October, 1908. Paris. ( 187 ) NATURAL HISTORY RECORD BUREAU (1908): THE MUSEUM, CARLISLE. By D. Losn Trorvr & Linnaeus EK. Hops, Keepers of the Records. Many notes continue to be sent in to the Bureau, and though the number of contributors is not large—that is to be expected— a knowledge sufficient to enable an observer to identify at sight our local fauna, either mammal, bird, reptile, or fish, is not to be gained in a few hours. The tendency in some quarters to accept nature notes and records unreservedy has nothing to re- commend it, but is greatly to be deprecated. The majority of our records naturally relate to ornithology, birds being perhaps the most attractive class to the nature student, and many interesting notes are herewith given. We are glad to note that the Cumberland County Council, realizing the need for a more detailed order respecting the pro- tection of the smaller wild birds, has curtailed the season during which these birds may be caught, and also given protection to their eggs. We also note with satisfaction that the charming but now somewhat rare Goldfinch is placed under complete pro- tection (neither bird or egg may be taken at any season), and that birdcatching is prohibited on Sundays. A most interesting feature of bird-life occurred in the early months of the year, following a spell of fairly seasonable weather in March and early April, during which many of our resident birds paired, and some few summer migrants arrived. Winter again set in on April 24th, when we had four inches of snow followed with frost for several days, with cold east and north- east winds. On April 24th we had the unusual phenomenon of Swallows flitting over the snow-covered ground, and young Thrushes hop- ping amongst the snow. During the night of April 23rd eighteen to twenty degrees of frost were registered, and at Head’s Nook two nests of young Thrushes were reported to be frozen to death. With the approach of May the wind changed, and the weather 188 THE ZOOLOGIST. became mild, a change which was quickly noted by all wild life. On the nights of April 80th and May 1st the largest migration of birds recorded for many years passed over Carlisle. Migra- tion had been retarded during the previous cold and stormy weather, and birds appeared to be passing over in one great mass migration. Between eleven and twelve o’clock of the night of May 1st the air seemed full of birds; there was an incessant chorus all round, and from out the babel were recognized (D. L. T.) the notes of Curlew, Oystercatcher, Redshank, Black- headed Gull, Geese, Mallard, Wigeon, Twite, and Warblers; even the House-Sparrow was on the move, one flying against the house-wall at Loshville as Mr. Thorpe was entering. During the following few days the Blackcap, Garden-, Sedge-, and Willow-Warblers were noted, and also Lesser Tern, Redstart, Swift, Spotted Flycatcher, Common Whitethroat, and Yellow Wagtail; the Cuckoo and Corn-Crake were also heard. On May 6th the Whooper Swan, which had returned to the Eden on Feb. Ist, appeared to be restless; on the following day it was missing. We have in previous reports commented upon this interesting and most unusual occurrence.* The bird has now returned in 1909 for the fifth time, the date of its arrival being Feb. 28th, exactly four weeks later than last year (1908), which in turn is two months later than the date of its arrival in the previous winter. The dates of its arrival and departure up to the present are as follows :—Arrived (in young plumage), December, 1904, left May 8th, 1905 ; returned Nov. 16th, 1905, left April 29th, 1906 ; returned Nov. 30th, 1906, left May 7th, 1907 ; returned Feb. Ist, 1908, left May 6th, 1908; returned Feb. 28th, 1909. Thus it is seen that, although the dates of leaving are fairly uniform, the dates of arrival vary considerably, and have been later each year since its first arrival in December, 1904. On the last two occasions (Feb. 1st, 1908, and Feb. 28th, 1909) its arrival was followed by cold wintry weather, though previously the weather had been comparatively mild, tending to show that its arrival is to a great extent controlled by climatic or atmospheric conditions. | Strangely enough, its return was reported to us in December, 1908, but the bird was not afterwards seen. It was subsequently * Of. Erie B. Dunlop, Zool. 1906, p. 193. NATURAL HISTORY RECORD BUREAU. 189 thought that the bird had arrived but had been killed; happily this rumour proved incorrect, when the bird actually arrived in February of this year. We are frequently asked, ‘‘ Where does this bird spend its summer?” never known them do before; both together being sometimes at the nest, while I sat watching their proceedings but a few yards away. It was not possible to climb the ten feet of smooth rock, but a day or two later we explored the nest by executing a flank movement. It was composed outside chiefly of moss—of course, with the hole in tke side—and deftly hidden under a projecting stone; the young birds were crammed into it, and it was very wet with heavy rain, so we abstained from taking them out to note the nature of the lining, which was no doubt as usual of dry grass and hairs without feathers. At other spots along the road, such as I have described above, we met with Bonelli again, but were unable, in spite of minute search in at least one place, to find another nest; nor did I again have such good opportunity of observing the parent birds. I may say, in conclusion, that the outward appearance of Bonelli is slightly different, to my eye at least, from that of the other three Phylloscopi; the upper parts are greyer than those of Chiffchaff and Willow-Wren in the breeding season, and the wash of yellow on the under parts is barely visible to the eye, even with the aid of a glass. There is a faint eye-stripe, but you have to look carefully for it. For other details I must refer the reader to the excellent account of Prof. Fatio, quoted above. As with most of these little Warblers, the voice is really the one easily attainable point of identification; and I think that when this has been once heard, it can never, in spite of its unobtrusive gentleness, be mistaken or forgotten, AMERICAN EGRETS AS VICTIMS TO FASHION. By Dr. A. Menecaux, Assistant, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. [Translated by the Author from a communication to ‘La Nature,’ March, 1909. | _ Iris known that in Kurope there are two species of a genus of Wading Birds belonging to the Heron group to which the name of Kigrets is applied on account of the ornamental plumes arranged in a bunch on their back, namely, the Great White Heron or Large Egret (Ardea alba, L.) and the Little Egret (Garzetta garzetta (L.]). Their distribution embraces nearly all the Old World, and they are a little larger in size than similar species of America. The Large American Egret or Garza blanca of South America (Herodias egretta (Wilson) or Ardea leuce, Licht.) greatly resem- bles her sister of the Old World. Like her, she is of a beautiful white colour, but the ornamental plumes which both sexes possess are longer and have a thicker stem. The bare parts of the tibiee are always black, like the tarsi and claws. The lores are chrome-yellow, as is the bill, which often in the case of the sitting bird is marked by a continvous black line along the culmen. The “aigrettes,” which go beyond the tail, appear in July to mark the breeding plumage, and they fall in October when the young leave their parents. It follows that the winter plumage is the same as that of summer, with the exception that the ornamental plumes are wanting. The young have a white downy plumage, without aigrettes. The male attains to a total length of thirty- eight inches. The Snowy Heron, Little American Egret or Chumita of the . indigenous breeds (Leucophoyx or Ardea candidissima, Gm.), is much smaller in size than the one above referred to, viz. twenty inches. The body is entirely white, but the bill is black, except at the base of the lower mandible. The lores are 246 THE ZOOLOGIST yellow and the tibie and tarsi black. The ornamental plumes, produced by both sexes, thus form a train on the back, and are of great delicacy. They are arched at the point towards the tip and in front, owing to which they have been termed ‘‘ crosses” by the trade. On the nape is a crest, a tuft of fine elongated plumes, ‘‘ non-recurved-like,” on the fore neck. These are more developed in the male than in the female. In winter both sexes lose these beautiful feathers. The young bird has an occipital crest before it produces the dorsal feathers of the adult. These two species of Egrets are found throughout the whole of the temperate and tropical zones of America, from the United States to Chili and Patagonia. They live in colonies consisting of thousands upon thousands of birds, in heronries established — in the lagoons which form rivers at the time of periodic rise. These families are particularly numerous in the immense lagoons and marshes formed by the Orinoco and its affluents, which can only be reached by the boats called ‘‘pirogues” in the midst of hordes of Caimans, whose length varies from sixteen to twenty- three feet. These waters are also inhabited by numerous ferocious and voracious fishes, the Pirayes and the Caribes, always on the alert to seize and devour anything that comes in their way. The slightest movement of the water attracts them by the thousand. Woe to the young Egrets and even to the im- prudent hunter who comes within the reach of the Caimans. It is the large Egret which is the first to nest about the beginning of July. The small species does not arrive until the young of the large species have left the nest in October. The nests of both species are made of dry twigs; they are flat, placed three or six feet above the water-level on the mangroves, guava, and other marsh-trees, where the vegetation is very dense. The nest of the large Egret is from eight to ten inches in diameter, and contains two or three blue eggs. The nest of the smaller species is built nearer the water, but it is of the same con- struction, and has either two or three bluish eggs. These are not hatched until the end of November. Among these colonies various nests are found belonging tog the Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaja ajaja, L.), to the Crested Boat-bill (Cancroma cochlearia, L.), to the Anhingas (Plotus anhinga, L.), to the Red Ibis, and, lastly, to the American Wood Ibis (Tantalus AMERICAN EGRETS AS VICTIMS TO FASHION. 247 loculator, L.). The last-named build on the tops of masses of foliage, where they break the twigs to form a kind of platform for their nests. All this busy multitude, fully engaged in search- ing for food and for rearing their young, fill the air with their cries which are as deafening as manifold. From July to October, during the nesting and rearing season, the male and female possess their ornamental feathers ; those of the male of the large species are the longer, and have a thicker stem than those of the female. In the male of the smaller species the tip of the feathers is very strongly curved, whereas in the female it is scarcely arched. In France these feathers are named in the trade ‘‘aigrettes”’ and ‘“‘crosses,’’ whereas in England they are known as “ ospreys.’’ They are made up in small packets of forty sprays, which are called “‘ parures”’ or “‘sets’’; the small Egret produces forty to fifty sprays, weighing a little more than one gramme. A thousand sprays weigh an ounce (thirty grammes) ; it takes thirty-three thousand sprays to make a kilo. The “‘ ospreys”’ of the Asiatic species are heavier, as it only re- quires eight hundred of them to make the ounce and twenty- seven thousand the kilo. With the large species it is just the opposite. The Kegrets of the American variety are heavier ; each bird produces from forty-five to sixty, weighing 6°5 to 8 grammes. Two hundred and forty of these go to the ounce and eight thousand to the kilo, whereas in the case of feathers of Asiatic origin three hundred go to the ounce or ten thousand to the kilo. The wholesale price of these feathers is very variable, even during the course of a year. According to the requirements of fashion it may rise to eighty francs per ounce for ‘‘ aigrettes”’ or two thousand seven hundred francs per kilo, and two hundred and fifty francs an ounce for ‘‘ ospreys”’ or eight thousand three hundred franes per kilo; but these prices may fall to almost nothing when they are out of fashion. The chief country producing these feathers is Venezuela, where they are also sent from Colombia and from Brazil. It is stated that the incursions by the natives have already diminished the number of Egrets in these regions; but it is well to guard against any exaggeration, as there is no need to make holocausts of Kgrets to obtain their ornamental feathers. In fact, M. Geay, 248 THE ZOOLOGIST. who lived for many years in Venezuela, in Darien, in French Guiana and in Conteste, ascertained that the breeding plumage of these birds is ephemeral, and that this decoration which ap- pears in July has all fallen off by October. This also takes place with the Chumita, but somewhat later. During the moulting season each year beautiful feathers may be seen scattered about in large numbers on the bushes and under the trees in the neighbourhood of the lagoons and small watercourses where these birds fish daily, and which are frequently situated at a considerable distance from their heronries. The natives gather these feathers (which would otherwise be wasted) up by the pound and sell them, consequently neither of the two species suffer any detriment. When these feathers are picked up in good time they are, says M. Geay, as beautiful as those taken from the killed birds. Under no circumstances are they plucked from the living bird. : M. Geay assures us that the huntsmen always spare the young birds which have no ornamental feathers, and that in a heronry the young orphans are never abandoned, but are fed by the neighbours. These birds in this matter furnish us with a touching example of social solidarity. To manage such a source of revenue it is evident that the heronries must not be depopulated by the huntsmen. Only we must not admit without convincing proofs that the existence of both species, distributed on so vast a scale, can be jeopardised by | hunting excursions conducted during a comparatively short period in such restricted areas as those they affect. The conditions in the Old and New World are very far from being the same, and the protective measures necessary in the Old World may indeed not be indispensable in the New. The decrease which it is thought has been ascertained 1s more likely due to a change of domicile of the birds caused by hitherto uninhabited regions having become the home of man. These birds, when leaving places that had become too noisy or dangerous owing to the vicinity of man, would look for some in- accessible spots where their security would appear to be greater. This would therefore be a particular case in a general fact, the withdrawal of the wild species on the advance of man. The caprice of fashion can hardly be more than a very AMERICAN EGRETS AS VICTIMS T'0 FASHION. 249 secondary cause; its exigencies are so uncertain in their period- icity and duration, and cause such fluctuations in price, that the plumage of one species is at one time enormously costly, and at another the prices are so low that the search for feathers be- comes unremunerative and ceases altogether. It is then that the species finds time to recuperate. ‘This is the case at the present moment in regard to Humming-Birds, at one time in such great — demand. Under these circumstanceg, it would seem that the Bill, accepted by the English House of Lords and referred back to the House of Commons, the object of which is to restrict decora- tive birds to those used for purposes of food, and which would prohibit in England the importation and sale of the plumage of all those species that serve for decoration alone, would over- step the purpose in view, and would be seriously detrimental to the trade and to feather-dressers. This is a very complex question, towards the solution of which still further information seems essential. As to Egrets, the real remedy would probably lie in domesti- cation, by means of which these two species would lose their migratory instinct, just as tame Ducks and Geese have lost it. The difficulties would not be insurmountable, but probably much less than those which the English colonists at the Cape have had to overcome in domesticating the Southern Ostrich. Various attempts have already been made, but they have not been perse- vered in for a sufficiently long period. On this subject the Editor reprints a Leaflet issued by “‘ The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,” which bears a diffe- rent construction :— Dealers in plumes are circulating statements to the effect that the Egret or “Osprey” plumes are moulted feathers, and that the birds are not killed in order to procure them. In particular a letter is being largely disseminated both in England and Australia, headed “Importation of Plumage Prohibition Bill—How the Osprey Feathers are Procured.” It is in imitation type-writing, signed ‘ Leon La- glaize,” and dated “ Buenos Ayres, July 29th, 1908,” but there is no indication of the persons to whom it is addressed or by whom it is 250 THE ZOOLOGIST. circulated. This letter professes to give an account of regions in Venezuela and Argentina where, it says, the birds are strictly pro- tected in the nesting-time by ‘‘a sort of armed police composed of natives,” the impression conveyed being that these vast llanos, covered by the flood-waters of the great rivers, resemble English shooting preserves where patrolling keepers warn off the village poacher. It further states that ‘the natives in charge paddle their canoes, circu- lating under the trees, and go on picking up the feathers that have fallen into the water during the night”; also that after the breeding season a “ valuable amount of feathers” is collected from the aban- doned nests: ‘‘The feathers have been skilfully rolled in to furnish and soften the interior. These nest-feathers are of the best kind, for they have been pulled off by the bird itself before laying the eggs.” In order to test the amount of truth in this document, and in similar stories, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has obtained the facts of the case from H.B.M.’s Ministers in Venezuela and Argentina, and from well-known scientific authorities in other parts of the world where Egrets breed and “Osprey” hunters are at work. The letters are printed in the Society’s Leaflet No. 60, ‘“Moulted Plumes.” The following extracts contain the pith of the — matter :— Sir Vincent Corbett, H.B.M. Minister at Caracas, writes (Jan. 14th, 1909) :—‘ From the evidence before me I have no manner of doubt that the vast majority of the Egret plumes exported to Europe are obtained by the slaughter of the birds during or about the breeding season, and that no effective regulations exist or indeed, owing to local conditions, can exist for the control of this slaughter, and that the letter of Mr. Leon Laglaize, of July 29th, 1908, gives a completely erroneous impression of the conditions under which the industry of collecting the plumes is conducted in Venezuela.” The information enclosed, coming from several correspondents; states :—‘‘In the Tucacas district the coast is one continuous man- grove swamp intersected by creeks. At certain times of the year flocks of Hgrets, returning from their feeding-grounds, pass over these swamps in the evening. Shooting parties, armed with all sorts of nondescript firearms, wait for them up the creeks, and when over- head fire a volley right into the middle of the flock. The dead and wounded birds are then collected, the plumes torn out, and the bodies thrown back into the water. The large ‘garceros’ are those of the Orinoco frequented by the birds during certain months of the year. The owners no doubt do their best to protect the birds, not from any AMERICAN EGRETS AS VICTIMS TO FASHION. 251 humane motive but for fear that they should abandon the ‘garcero ' if disturbed too much; but this is always difficult. It is not like preserving a covert. Persons who pay for the right of collecting the plumes have no scruples about destroying the birds. Thevr object is to get as much as they possibly can for their money. The short or ‘crosse’ feathers from the Little Egret are exclusively collected from birds shot for the purpose. These feathers are so delicate that they are broken and torn in the bushes and thorns before they are moulted, and the dropped feathers are therefore valueless for trade purposes. The difference between feathers collected from birds which have been killed and feathers moulted by the birds is notable and easily recog- nized. The former, called ‘live feathers’ out here, are much superior in appearance, they possess greater brilliancy, smoothness, and elas- ticity; while the latter, called ‘dead,’ are dull, brittle, and dirty. Statements circulated that the feathers are collected from abandoned nests, and that Indians make their living by picking up moulted feathers, do not appear to be founded on fact. The birds are in full plumage after the month of June, and they begin to moult in October. The nesting and breeding season begins in August, during the height of the wet season, and by November the young birds are fledged. The Little Egret breeds somewhat later than the larger Heron. The season for collecting feathers begins about July and continues to the end of November.” H.B.M. Consul at Rosario, Santa Fé (Argentina), writes (Jan. 16th, 1909) :—*‘ Some few years ago, owing to the demand for feathers of the Heron and other birds and the high prices paid, the birds which formerly were very plentiful on the islands bordering all along the River Parana were almost exterminated by the islanders and others, who made a profitable living in hunting them. Although this country has provided laws to prevent shooting out of season, such laws are seldom enforced—in fact, in the inland island districts where the birds exist, or used to, it would be impossible, owing to the vast district, to enforce the laws. As far as I am aware there are no ‘Egret farms’ established in the Argentine, and if shooting, as it is, is prohibited in some parts by landowners, it is solely with a view to prevent their herds being injured by inexperienced sportsmen.” Mr. J. Quelch, B.Sc. (Lond.), formerly Curator British Guiana Museum, Adviser to the Government for the granting of Licences to kill Wild Birds, writes (Noy. 29th, 1908) :—‘‘ During a residence of Seventeen years in British Guiana, and with an experience of travel ranging from the Hastern Orinoco to the borders of Surinam, and 252 THE ZOOLOGIST. inland into Brazil and Venezuela, along the eastern upper waters of the Amazon and the Orinoco, I have never known nor heard of any such method of collection as that described by Mr. Laglaize. Until the Government in Demerara put into force the stringent provisions of the Wild Birds Ordinance, a brisk trade was carried on by many people in the export of birds’ skins, and largely of Osprey plumes. These feathers were obtained by killing the Egrets in the breeding season and cutting off the skin of the back on which the plumes were borne.” Mr. H. EH. Dresser, author of ‘The Birds of Europe,’ writes (Noy. 16th, 1908) :—‘ All I can say is that I do not believe the state- ments in it. Out of hundreds of Egrets’ nests which I have examined I have never found one in which were feathers of the birds themselves amongst the lining, certainly never a single one of the so-called ‘Osprey’ plumes. I never heard of any trade being done in moulted plumes, and do not believe the tale about the Egret colonies being farmed out for cast plumes.” Mr. Frank M. Chapman, Curator of the American Museum of Natural History at New York, writes (Nov. 30th, 1908) :—‘ So far as my own somewhat extended experience in our Southern States is con- cerned, I may say without fear of contradiction by those in a position to know that moulted Egret plumes are never gathered for com- mercial purposes.” Mr. Gilbert T. Pearson, Secretary of the National Association of Audubon Societies, writes (Dec. 1st, 1908) :—‘‘ In the most populous Egret colonies that I have ever visited, cast-off plume feathers are so scarce that an entire day’s search would not reward the hunter with enough to decorate one lady’s hat. The feathers are never used for lining the nest, as the latter is composed entirely of dead sticks and twigs.” Mr. H. HE. Mattingley, in the ‘Emu,’ the organ of the Australasian Ornithologists’ Union, writes:—‘‘ The only method by which the hunters are able to obtain Egrets’ plumes in quantities is to shoot the birds on their nests.” ( 253 ) ORNITHOLOGICAL NOTES FROM NORTH DEVON. By Bruce F. Cummines. On May 1st, while on Braunton Burrows, near the Hospital Ship, I heard a Grasshopper- Warbler (Locustella nevia) ‘ reel- ing’”’ for some minutes, and eventually caught a good view of the bird as it crept to the top of a bush in which it was concealed, and then flew off to another. This Warbler is a rare bird in North Devon, and Messrs. Matthew and D’Urban state, in ‘The Birds of Devon,’ that they were never able to detect it here. I watched subsequently, but I do not think the bird remained in the district. A Green Woodpecker (Gecinus viridis), found frequenting the sandhills, was shot by Mr. C. Petherick, a mariner, who has “been abroad,” and, to his surprise, it was not a Parrakeet. A French Partridge (Caccabis rufa) was picked up under the telegraph-wires, near Barnstaple, in March of last year. Our wet climate seems very uncongenial to the bird, and it is rarely reported, at all events in the north of the county. Three nests of the Buzzard (Buteo vulgaris) were said to have been found last spring in the woods around Combe Martin, ‘while in the Lynton district this bird breeds even more freely ; but the woodmen appear to have become corrupted beyond all salvation, and I am told that they robbed something like fifteen nests of the Buzzard last year around Lynton alone! I saw one nest at Lynton in the “lap” of an oak with a huge girth, which contained a couple of eggs which subsequently were stolen, much to my reeret. The Watersmeet Valley, Lynton, during the summer, is alive with the song of the Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus minor) and the Wood-Warbler (P. sibilatriz). I have never seen the latter before in any other part of the county, and it is, most distinctly, a very local bird. In the same valley I saw a pair of Redstarts (Ruticilla pheenicurus), which were obviously breeding. The 254 THE ZOOLOGIST, Redstart is rare in the Barnstaple district, and scarce every- where in North Devon. They were the only pair of birds which I have found actually resident in North Devon. While on Exmoor, near Brendon, in June last year I watched a certain bird for some time, and satisfied myself that it was a male Harrier, but I do not know which species. I think it must have been the Hen-Harrier. The female was also present, and the probabilities are that they were resident. A Short-eared Owl (Asio accipitrinus) was flushed on Halsinger Down, Braunton, by members of the Botanical Walk, on July 16th. This is one more instance of this bird being in the Braunton district during the summer (vide Zool., January, 1907, p. 28). During September I noticed a Ring-Ouzel (Turdus torquatus) in the Tavy Cleave, near Dridestowe, Dartmoor. On Exmoor, according to my own somewhat limited experience of the district and to the wider experience of others, the Ring-Ouzel has become very much reduced in numbers, and is not so often seen as it used to be. : There was a Purple Sandpiper (Tinga striata) on the River Taw in the second week of December, and also several single Grey Plover about, and numbers of Golden Plover. On Jan. 2nd I spent the best part of the afternoon watching two Brent Geese in the water near Crow at the estuary. A White-tailed Eagle (Haliaétus albicilla) was shot during March by a farmer near West Buckland, who saw it sailing over a field, and thought it was going to attack his lambs. The bird was set up by a Barnstaple birdstuffer, at whose premises I saw it afterwards. The bird was in poor plumage, and the tail was very much abraded, several of the shafts of the tail- feathers being quite bare of barbs. This indicates, perhaps, former captivity, as the state of the tail might well have been caused by being dragged over the bottom of acage. The colour of the tail was a dirty sandy colour, the weight, in the flesh, ten pounds, wing expanse a little over seven feet. The bill was brownish black, and the cere was not yellow but of a dark brown shade. There were numerous bristles on the skin around the base of the bill. The specimen was that of a young bird. Ae: cording to Messrs. Matthew and D’Urban, the majority of the ORNITHOLOGICAL NOTES FROM NORTH DEVON, 255 White-tailed Eagles obtained in this county have been imma- ture birds. I was glad to observe last spring a pair of Redshanks (T'’otanus calidris) on Braunton marshes, which evidently had a nest in the vicinity. I madea repeated search for the nest, and subsequently the gamekeeper, Mr. J. Petherick, stumbled across the young birds in a marsh not far from his house. The young were still unable to fly, and were accompanied by the old birds in great distress. Although the Redshank has often been suspected of breeding in the north of Devon, I am not aware that the suspicion has been hitherto definitely substantiated by fact. The only other record I have seen of its nesting in the county is one made by Mr. I. A. §. Elliott, who found young birds in June, 1894, at Slap- ton Ley, South Devon. The keeper told me he had never known the birds breed on the Braunton marshes before, nor had he ever seen them there in the breeding season until now, and my own observations agree with this. This year there were two pairs on the marshes in April, but latterly only one pair. This pair I have repeatedly watched, yet have not succeeded, nor has the gamekeeper, in finding either the young or the eggs. On May 24th last the keeper showed mea nest of the Shoveler (Spatula clypeata) situated in a marshy field near the duck-ponds at the Taw estuary. The young birds had hatched out three days before, but the down and feathers, together with the broken ege-shells, were quite sufficient to bear out the statement of the keeper, who saw the female sitting. He is a careful observer of the birds of his district, and thinks a pair have bred on the ponds every spring since 1906, the year I first recorded this species as resident (Zool., January, 1907, p. 22). 256 THE ZOOLOGIST. NOTES ON THE FISHES OF JAPAN.*—No. IV.+ By Prorrssor McInrosu, M.D., LL.D., F.RB.S., &c. BEtoneine to the group of the Mackerels and Perches is the pelagic Istiophorust orientalis, T. & §., a Sail-fish of ten feet in length, and weighing 164 lb., having a huge dorsal fin which stands more than the depth of the body above it, and which may, as Dr. Gunther says, be used as a sail before the wind. The dorsum of the fish has a dark green glow with bluish dots, the large dorsal fin being of a similar hue with bluish-black dots. The annual catch of this fish is about 11,823,687 lbs., and it is captured by means of harpoons, and generally consumed fresh. It is excellent food. As a rule it swims in pairs, with the huge fin erect and above water, especially in windy and rough weather, when the fishermen more easily approach it to hurl a harpoon; the line is then paid out until the fish, after furious efforts, exhausts itself. A figure on the same plate with the foregoing represents T'etrapturus albidus, Poey, which much resembles the Sword-fishes in habits, and is probably caught and eaten like the foregoing, though no remarks accompany it. Three members of the Herring Family (Clupeide) are dealt with in this fascicle, viz. Clupea pallasi, C. & V., Etrumeus micro- pus, T. & §., and Engraulis japonicus, T. & 8. The first, or North Pacific Herring, is perhaps the most important Japanese fish, both as food and as a fertilizer in farming. Like our own Herring, its record shows no diminution, and there are probably ereater numbers of this fish in the Pacific—just as there are sreater numbers of the Common Herring in the Atlantic—than any other species. Even were it possible to remove every other species of fish and those which prey on them, the supply for * ‘The Economic Fishes of Japan,’ by Professors Otaki, Fujita, and Higurashi. No. I. vol. v., four plates. Shokwabo, Tokyo, Japan. 1909. + Previous communications on this subject will be found in ‘ The Zoolo- gist,’ 1904, p. 247; 1906, p. 143; 1907, p. 450. | Histiophorus, Giinther. oo NOTES ON THE FISHES OF JAPAN. 257 man would be very considerable. Bjornson’s statement that wherever a ‘“‘school” of Herring touches the coast of Norway there a village springs up would be applied by Starr Jordan, with good reason, to Scotland, Newfoundland, and from Alaska to Japan. The authors of the ‘ Fishes of Japan’ observe that the total catch for 1901 was 7,825,380 lbs., in 1902, 8,979,580 lbs., and in 1908, 9,746,680 lbs. The fishery takes place chiefly in March and April off Hokkaido, when the temperature of the water is 42°80° (6°C.), and frequent visits are made by the ‘schools’ during the year to the shallow water inshore. Its eges are deposited on the seaweeds and the bottom in masses, as in the British form, and each is said to deposit from 40,000 to 110,000 eggs, a considerably larger number, if correct, than in the case of the British Herring, which has from 20,000 to 47,000. The egg is transparent, 1 mm. in diameter, and with an oil globule. Fishing is by gill-nets and pound-nets, of which a sketch is given. Besides the Herring itself the roe is dried, and forms an important article of diet in Japan. The Urume-iwashi (Htrwmeus microps), the second form, is found on the eastern shores of Japan, keeping to the deeper water, and seldom visiting the bays except to spawn. It is caught by gill-nets, seines, and a portable pound-net called “ Hachida-ami,”’ which is set horizontally, the fishes being led to it by three boats carrying torches, two extinguishing their lights when they reach the net. The net is then lifted, and when nearly hauled the third boat also puts out its light. No statistics are given of the captures, but they are probably con- siderably less than is the case of the North Pacific Herring, It is consumed either fresh or dried in the sun. The Japanese Anchovy, which resembles our own, extends from the south of Hokkaido to Kiushiu. Its egg is also pelagic and ovoid with a reticulated yolk. ‘‘ Schools” of Anchovies visit the bays from April to June to spawn. They are captured by drag-seine, sweep-nets, and a kind of set-net. Besides being used as an article of food, it is employed as a fertilizer on farms, like the Sprat of the Firth of Forth. The fry are also largely used in the dietary of the Japanese, a sufficient proof of their great abundance, and in a country where such captures have been made for ages. Zool. 4th ser. vol. XIII., July, 1909. Xx 258 THE ZOOLOGIST. Two Gadoids, a group so interwoven with the fortunes of the British Fisheries, are alluded to in this fasciculus, viz. Pollachius brandti, Hilgend, the Madara or Common Codfish of Japan, and Theragra chalcogramma, a lean Gadoid. The former is found in ~ latitudes above 40° N. on rough ground, the most important fishery being off the west coast of Hokkaido. It attains a length of 4-7 ft. and a weight of 38 lbs. It is chiefly used in the dried state, and the roes are also salted and dried. It spawns in January and February, and the pelagic eggs are 1°4 mm. in — diameter, and are hatched in thirteen days at a temperature of 44°6° I’. (7° C.), and therefore in this respect do not differ much from the British Cod. It is captured mainly by gill-nets and trawl-lines somewhat after the fashion of those on our own coast. Statistics are not given up to date, but, in 1901, 6,175,000 lbs. was the total catch. It will be interesting for future naturalists to watch the progress of this fishery in Japan, surrounded as it is by sea like Britain, and with the vast North and South Pacific oceans in continuity. History will probably repeat itself as the fishing industry in Japan extends. | The other Gadoid or Suketo-dara (Theragra), the Alaska Pollack, is a deep-water fish somewhat like a Whiting, though the tips of the pelvics are longer and the first anal short. It is a valuable food-fish widely diffused through the North Pacific, attains a length of two feet, and is the cause of important fisheries off the Japanese coasts. In 1895 the total catch was 11,717,690 lbs. It would have been instructive if the authors had added statistics of this and other food-fishes up to date, but per- haps such were not available. The Alaska Pollack spawns in the shallow waters in April, but no mention is made of the eggs, which are probably pelagic. It is captured by similar methods to the former. The last of the series is the so-called ‘‘ Dolphin” or Dorado (Coryphena hippuris, L.), a fairly large, swift, predaceous fish well known in all warm seas, but which does not seem to reach so large a size (6 ft.) as in other seas, the Japanese form being 33 ft. and having a weight of 18-15 lbs., for it is not indicated that capture of the smaller forms is preferred for economic purposes, as in the case of the Tunny. It is esteemed both in the fresh and the salted condition, and is as popular in Western Japan as § NOTES ON THE FISHES OF JAPAN. 259 the Salmon in the North-east. It spawns in May and June, when it seeks the proximity of a wooded coast, and the young, which differ in their elongated form and in other respects from the aduli, are stated to be seven or eight inches long in six months after they are hatched. It would be important, how- ever, to follow their development from the egg. It is captured by hook and line, but also by an ingenious method with a decoy- bush and raft constructed of bamboo. When the fishes congre- gate under the raft they are caught by hooks baited with Squids. Another method is to encircle by means of two boats the decoy- bush and bamboos by a loop of a seine-net, whilst a third boat by and by enters the circle and drives the Dolphins into the fish- pocket by beating the surface of the water with sticks, and then the circle is closed. The plan of using strong bare hooks beneath the fishes and jerking them out of the water would seem to be adapted for this fish when congregated under the decoy-bush and raft of bamboos. The Plates in this fascicle are four in number and represent eight species. Their execution would do credit to any country. The artist, K. Ito, is to be congratulated on his work, and similar commendation is merited by the lithographer, E. Koshiba. x2 260 THE ZOOLOGIST. TWO UNRECORDED ‘CHALLENGER’ HYDROIDS rrom THE BERMUDAS, with a NOTE on tor SYNONYMY of CAMPANULARIA INSIGNIS. By James Rircuir, M.A., B.Sce., Natural History Department, The Royal Scottish Museum. In the course of an examination—due to the kindness of Mr. R. Kirkpatrick, of the British Museum—of the type speci- mens of Campanularia insignis, Allman, collected by the ‘ Chal- lenger,’ two epizoic Hydroids were observed creeping upon the larger colonies. These must have been overlooked by Allman, for they are not mentioned in his account of the ‘ Challenger ’ Hydroid collection ; and since they extend the gevgraphical ranges of their species considerably, and are new to the fauna of the Bermudas, it seems worth placing their occurrence on record. Lafoéa venusta, Allman, 1877. A very few of the hydrothece of this species are scattered over the stems of C. insignis, but no gonosome occurred in con- nection with the specimens examined. It is a striking fact, to which Dr. Jaderholm* has already drawn attention, that of the recorded occurrences of L. venusta, on each occasion the colonies were climbing over the stems and branches of Obelia (Lytoscyphus) marginata, Allman, and of it alone. This is true again of the ‘ Challenger’ specimen, for, as stated below, C. insignis, Allman, 1888, is a synonym of O. mar- ginata, Allman, 1877. L. venusta appears to be confined to the tropical and sub- tropical portions of the western board of the North Atlantic Ocean. It has been recorded from Logger-Head Key, nine fathoms (Allman, 1877); from ten miles north of Zoblos Island (Clarke, 1879); from Anguilla, Antilles, one hundred to one hundred and fifty fathoms (Jiéderholm, 1903); and the present * Jiderholm, E., ‘ Arkiv fér Zool., utg. af Kgl. Svenska Vetenskapsakad.’ 19038, Bd. i. p. 274. ! HYDROIDS FROM THE BERMUDAS. 261 occurrence, from off the Bermudas, thirty fathoms, widens the geographical range considerably northwards. Aglaophenia cylindrata, Versluys, 1899. There is little to distinguish the trophosome of this species from that of A. rhynchocarpa, Allman, and indeed, were it not for the rather marked differences in the corbule—that of the former having been described by Jaderholm,* that of the latter by Allmant and Nutting{—one would be tempted to regard the two designations as synonymous. In the examples growing over C. insignis, corbule are unfortunately absent, and in identi- fying them with A. cylindrata I have relied upon the different proportions of the hydrotheca, the less marked concavity of the anterior profile, and upon the fact that in every point the ‘ Chal- lenger ’ specimens agree with the minute and careful description and figures of Versluys. There is considerable diversity in the shape assumed by the chitinous distal end of the hydrothecal keel. Dimensions :—Length of colony up to20 mm. Stem inter- nodes: length, 0°29-0°34 mm.; diameter, 0°15-0°22mm. Hydro- theca: length, 0°24-0'°27 mm.; diameter at mouth, 0°14 mm.; proportion of adnate part of mesial sarcotheca to length of hydro- theca, less than one-third. The species has hitherto been found only in the Antilles: from Testigos Islands (Versluys), and from Anguilla (Jaderholm). The present record, ‘‘ off Bermudas, thirty fathoms,” is much further north. These species were climbing on the specimens described by Allman in 1888 as Campanularia insignis. Dr. Billard, having examined the type specimens of this species in the British Museum, declares that they do not differ from C. juncea (Lyto- scyphus juncea) of the same author, both of these being synonyms of Ksper’s species, Lytoscyphus fruticosus.§ * Jaderholm, E., ‘Arkiv for Zool., utg. af Kgl. Svenska Vetenskapsakad.’ 1903, p. 297, pl. xiv. fig. 2. + Allman, J. G., 1877, ‘Mem. Mus. Comp. Zoo. Harvard,’ vol. v. No. 2, p. 40, pl. xxiii. fig. 8. {| Nutting, C. C.,1900, ‘* American Hydroids. Part I. The Plumularide,”’ p. 90 (Spec. Bull. Smithson. Inst. Washington). § Billard, A., ‘ Sur les Haleciide, Campanulariide, et Sertulariide du Challenger’ (Comptes rendus Acad. Se. Paris, Dec. 14th, 1908, p. 1). 262 THE ZOOLOGIST. I am not prepared to admit, however, that L. insignis and L. juncea are identical, for in the hydrotheca alone characters exist apparently sufficient to distinguish the two forms. Thus, while ZL. juncea has a hydrotheca shaped like the bowl of a clay pipe, with an almost straight abcauline and a strongly humped adcauline profile, LZ. insignis has an almost symmetrical hydro- theca, with both abcauline and adcauline profiles nearly straight. In the former, again, the proximal portion of the hydrotheca narrows suddenly in forming the peduncle; in the latter the transition from hydrotheca to peduncle is very gradual, the hydrotheca tapering gently from rim to base. Again, while in L. juncea the rim is bordered by a double line (Pictet),* in those hydrothece of Z. insignis which I have examined only a single line is present, the thickened band of chitin lying exactly along the border of the cup, while in the Ceylon species it lies well within the margin. Some difference seems to occur in the gonangia also, for while Congdonf figures for ZL. insignis both furrowed and smooth gonothece, scarcely any of which exceed the length of the hydro- thece, Miss Thornely’s figures of ZL. juncea show that the gono- thece are considerably larger than the hydrothece, ‘‘ about one- third as long again.” Pictet’s figures, on the contrary, make the gonangia of L. juncea shorter than the hydrothece. It seems improbable, therefore, that L. juncea and L. insignis are synonyms, but there can be no doubt that Campanularia in- signis, Allman, 1888, is identical with Obelta marginata, Allman, 1877. The distinctions pointed out by Allman§ are insignificant. Indeed, the inverted cone shape which he attributes to the hydrothece of the latter describes exactly those of the former, while the ‘“‘annular segment between the peduncle of the hydro- theca and its supporting internode ’’—characteristic of Campanu- * Pictet, C., 1893, ‘Etude sur les Hydraires de la Baie d’Amboine” (Rev. Suisse de Zool. T. i. p. 37). + Congdon, E. D., ‘‘ The Hydroids of Bermuda” (Proc. American Acad. Arts and Se. vol. xlii. No. 18, p. 467, figs. 10 and 12). t Thornely, L. R., ‘On the Hydroida.” In Report on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar, by Prof. W. A. Herdman, F.R.S., Suppl. Rep. vol. vill. Royal Soc. London, 1904, p. 114, pl. 1, figs. 1, La. § Allman, J. G., 1888, ‘Report on the Hydroida”’ (Scientific Res. ‘ Chal: lenger,’ Zool., vol, xxiii. p. 19). HYDROIDS FROM THE BERMUDAS. 263 laria insignis—occurs on only a few hydrothece, and even there is abnormal, signifying the occurrence of a truncation of the hydrotheca and subsequent regeneration (cf. the same pheno- menon as described by me in T'hyroscyphus tridentatus).* The minute characters of the two ‘‘species” are in absolute agree- ment, and even the fact that the parasitic Hydroid, Lafoéa venusta, which hitherto has always been found on Obelia margi- nata, now occurs on Campanularia msignis, points to the identity of the two. It is significant also that Jaderholm found on a specimen of Obelia marginata, from the Antilles, the epizoites Lafoéa venusta and Aglaophenta cylindrata, both of which we have now recorded as occurring upon the type specimens of Campanu- laria insignis. It is clear, therefore, that Allman’s name, Campanularia in- signis, is a Synonym, and must fall into disuse. Since the charac- ters of Obelia marginata place it in Pictet’s genus Lytoscyphus, priority decides that Lytoscyphus marginata must be regarded (until the evidence of the alleged identity of L. juncea and Cam- panularia insignis has become more conclusive) as the name by which the species should be known. * Ritchie, Jas., 1909, “‘Supplementary Report on the Hydroids of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition” (Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. xlvii. part i. p. 75). 264 THE ZOOLOGIST., NOTES ON THE COMMON MAYFLY (EPHEMERA VULGATA) AND OTHER SPECIES. By Gorpon DALGuiEsH. ‘Tue name of “‘ Mayfly” is a somewhat paradoxical one, since the perfect insect is found in greater numbers in June than May. Previous to this year (1909), the earliest date I had of its appear- ance was June 2nd, but this year I noticed it first on May 19th. Larvule. Nymph. Imago. ]iPHEMERA VULGATA. This early ‘‘ hatch’ was in all probability due to the long spell of lovely warm weather. From the ‘ Fishing Gazette’ of May 22nd I quote the following notes :— ‘‘Mayflies on May 15th and 16th on the Colne at West Drayton”’ (W. H. Bates). ‘‘ Mayfly appeared here on the Pinsley on May 15th. I saw to-day (May 16th) a fair basket made [Trout presumably! dap- ping with the Mayfly’ (P. Summerville). ‘‘Whilst having lunch in my fishing-hut I noticed several Mayflies rise to the surface of the river [Darenth], and they were blown away over the fields by a strong north-west wind ” (W. B. Leaf). The following extracts are taken from my note-book :— ‘‘“May 19th.—Common Mayfly up at Sweetwater, Witley, NOTES ON THE COMMON MAYFLY. 265 Surrey, flying in bright sunshine at 3.30 p.m. There was a soft south-west wind blowing, and it was very warm. Only a very small ‘hatch,’ consisting of males only. A few specimens of E. danica were seen at Brook at 6 p.m., these also being males. ‘‘May 19th.— Sweetwater, Witley, Surrey. Evidently a considerable ‘hatch’ had taken place during the past hours, judging from the shed nymph-pellicles floating on the water, and there were a considerable number of male fiies on the wing at 38p.m. Their flight was only of short duration, and kept up at intervals of from one to two minutes. During their periods of rest they settled on grass some way from the water; wind south-west, as before. When walking their pace is slow, and in their movements reminding one very much of that of the Mole- Cricket. . Their front legs are seldom used for progression, but held straight in front in a supplicating manner, like those of a Mantis. Just after alighting the caudal sete are spread con- siderably, but closed again directly afterwards. “May 21st.—Numbers on the wing at 3.30 p.m. Day very hot, and a slight north-east breeze blowing. The flies seen were of both sexes. After pairing, which was of too short duration to allow of any close observations, the female insect flew on to a high branch of a fir-tree, and remained clinging wings down- ward. ‘The male insect fluttered into the close herbage bordering the pond. From 3.30 p.m. to 5.80 p.m. I was absent from the place, but returned again at 6 p.m., and found swarms of females flying over the water and depositing their eggs. Now perhaps it | is right to assume that some hours must elapse before the im- pregnated eggs are fit to be deposited, as, after pairing, I have never seen the female fly direct to the water, but, as before stated, fly up on to a tree. I had good opportunities for watching the female deposit her eggs, which was effected thus: flying slightly above the water she would dip every now and then as if seeking a suitable place. When this was found she would alight bodily on the water and jerk her abdomen up and down, wings and caudal Sete being widely spread. She then curved the end of her abdomen downwards, and with the three sete spread out to their fullest extent and just resting on the water the eggs were dropped in a shower, which looked like minute white substances resem- bling the roe of a fish. The wings at this time were held clear 266 THE ZOOLOGIST. of the water, as these will not stand immersion, and once they get wet the fly is quite helpless. After the deposition of the egos life seems to leave the insect, and it remains spread out flat, ‘ spread-eagle’ fashion, in a condition that is technically known to anglers as a ‘spent gnat.’ I saw numbers of male insects alight for a few seconds on the water, and then fly away. This action on the part of the male gave rise no doubt to the supposi- tion that ‘after the eggs are passed into the water they are ferti- lized by the male,’* for I noticed that the males frequently flew on to the water just after oviposition. The oviduct is on the eighth abdominal segment, and as soon as the eggs are laid two small bladder-like sacs protrude from each side, filled apparently with air, which readily burst when a slight pressure is used. “May 22nd.—Sweetwater. I arrived at the side of the water at 6 p.m., and found the Mayflies in prodigious swarms, the females predominating, and flying swiftly over the water deposit- ing their eggs. The day had been very warm, and a soft south- west breeze blowing. De Geer says, from his observations, that ‘the males greatly exceed the females.’ ”’ As it will be seen by the above notes, according to my own observations, that on the first and second day only males were seen; therefore it is reasonable to assume that the males make their appearance first, and live for a considerably longer period than the females. According to the observations of former years, I note that males always put in an appearance first. The beautiful and wonderful dancing flight performed by the Mayfly — is chiefly enacted by the male insect, and generally when the sun is very hot, and again towards the cool of the evening. If, during their flight, the sun is hidden by a passing cloud, they immediately sink to rest on a grass-stem. The female’s one and sole duty is, after pairing, to rest awhile and then deposit her eggs; after that she dies. The eggs when first laid are enclosed in a thin transparent covering, which breaks as soon as it touches the water, and the eggs are dispersed and sink at once. Reference was made in a former paper (Zool. 1908, p. 459) to the long anchoring threads attached to the eggs, and these threads I detected myself under the high power of the microscope. Wishing to get some eggs for microscopic examina- * Swammerdamm, ‘‘ Ephemeri vita &e.” NOTES ON THE COMMON MAYFLY. 267 tion, I took some glass tubes filled with spirit to the water’s edge, and caught a female in the act of depositing her eggs, and induced her to lay in the tube. These eggs were examined im- mediately on my return home, and I then detected the threads referred to. A few days after I examined the eggs again, and the threads had all disappeared, dissolved by the alcohol. The egos are provided with some sticky property. Some adhered persistently to the side of the glass tube, and it required a good deal of shaking and rinsing with alcohol to release them from their hold and sink in the liquid. The eggs are bean-shaped, and appear when first laid, and under a one-sixth inch objective, of a greenish colour. This colouring matter dissolves after a time in alcohol, and the eggs are then, as they appear when fresh to the naked eye, white. I have never, so far, been fortunate enough to see the actual emergence of the fly from the nymph. Swammerdamm says :—‘‘ When the larve have left their burrows they make their way with all speed to the surface, and the transformation is effected with such rapidity that even the most attentive observer can make out little, except that the winged fly suddenly darts out from the midst of the water.’’ The claspers of the male fly are shaped like pincers, and somewhat resemble those of an earwig. In the female they appear, under a powerful lens, like minute hooks. “Ts the Mayfly disappearing ?”’ is a question that has been mooted lately. In the ‘Fishing Gazette’ for May 22nd is the following :—‘‘ There is no doubt that the Mayfly and many other water-flies have become extinct on many rivers; they seem to die out first in the upper parts, and gradually appear only lower and lower down. The clearing away of sedges, shrubs, bushes, and trees from the banks and neighbourhood of the rivers exposes the flies more to the exterminating influence of birds, wind, and weather, as well as by removing the natural shelter necessary for nuptial congress. For this reason I do not believe it is reasonable to expect any transplanting of the fly to be successful unless there is plenty of natural shelter. . . . I think that the plan of attempting to stock by transplanting larve offers the best chance of success.” The Surrey Trout Farm at Haslemere make it part of their 268 THE ZOOLOGIST. business to breed Mayflies for the express purpose of exporting the larve to ponds and streams from which the insect is absent. It is stated that eight hundred thousand eggs were obtained from one hundred and twenty females.* For the successful rearing of the larve running water is absolutely essential. Ephemera danica, a slightly smaller species than E. vulgata, appears about the same time as the latter, and according to my experience is not a common insect; neither does it occur in anything lke the abundance of that insect. The wings are clear without markings, and shine with a beautiful iridescent gleam. The caudal sete are very long, about twice the length of head and body, and are two in number. The flight of this insect is much swifter than EH. vulgata, and it never ascends to a very great height. The flight resembles that of a dragonfly (Odonata). They frequent streams, and those with a gravel and sandy bottom. I have frequently taken the male insect a long distance from any water, and both sexes are fond of settling in the middle of a road. The larva is of a dark brown colour, and I have taken them about half an inch in length. They become much paler, almost transparent, before emergence. ‘They have three caudal sete. At Frensham Great Pond, in South-west Surrey, on May 22nd, I found that thousands of the small Mayfly mentioned previously (‘ Zoologist,’ 1908, p. 458) had ‘‘ hatched” out, and left their pseudo-imago skins and nymph-pellicles on posts about twenty yards from the water, and these were also thickly intertwined among the herbage by the roadside in soft white masses, which from a distance resembled the hairy fruit of the willow. The nymph of this small fly, unlike that of E. vulgata, leaves the water and climbs up a reed} to undergo its metamorphosis, and finding their pellicles so far away from the pond was at first astonishing until I realized what had happened, not thinking it possible that the nymph could have crawled all that distance. What had happened no doubt was what was witnessed by Réaumur. * * Wishing Gazette,’ May 22nd, 1909. + I found the reeds by the pond-side covered with nymph-pellicles like the cast skin of a dragonfly larva. NOTES ON THE COMMON MAYFLY. 269 He says :—‘“‘ The cast skin is sometimes carried up into the air, clinging to the tail-filaments, and an Ephemera in this state seems twice as long as usual.” The great difficulty in collecting Ephemeride for purposes of identification is their extreme fragility and the tendency to shrivel up when dry, until all the chief features are destroyed. The specimens I have collected I now keep in spirit in glass tubes. This method of preserving specimens I have found most satisfactory, as the spirit hardens them, and they can afterwards be handled with comparative safety. For their capture I have found a small net made of the finest possible gauze of great service. 270 THE ZOOLOGIST. NOTES AND QUERIES. MAMMALIA. | Erythristic Variety of the Field-Vole-—On July 7th I had brought — to me a curious variety of the Field-Vole (Microtus agrestis) which had been found dead in a clovei-field near Shrewsbury. The upper parts were of a pale fawn-colour, the under parts white. The animal was a full-grown male.—H. EH. Forrest (Shrewsbury). AVES. The Lesser Redpoll (Linota rufescens) at Hampstead. — The Lesser Redpoll has again bred here this year. Two or three pairs returned to the Heath by the latter end of May, and on June 9th I found a nest just completed, and which was placed in the top of a furze-bush. Five eggs in all were laid in this nest, and incubation lasted fourteen days; the hen bird commenced to sit when the first egg was laid. I have noticed that this bird, like some others, occa- sionally swallows the feeces of its young, but whether this practice is only resorted to by birds when they know or suspect themselves to be under observation would be difficult to ascertain. The Lesser Redpoll is a very late breeder here, but the vegetable down which seems so essential for the lining of their nests could not be procured much before the end of May or the beginning of June.—H. Meyrick (Holly Cottage, The Mount, Hampstead, N.W.). The Occurrence of the Bean Goose in Cumberland.—In Messrs. Thorpe and Hope’s article in ‘The Zoologist’ (ante, p. 187) on the observations made by the Natural History Bureau for the County of Cumberland numerous references are made as to the occurrence of the Bean Goose by Mr. Nichol, for instance: March 19th, flock seen flying ; March 12th, some seen; Oct. 5th, a flock of forty seen; Dec. 30th, flock of eighty seen; and also on Dec. 7th, flock of Greylag seen. As the Bean Goose is a comparatively rare species in England and Scotland, and when found usually as a stray bird or birds in a flock of other Grey Geese, and, moreover, it being quite impossible to identify between the four species when on the wing and silent, how, may I ask, did Mr. Nichol know that they were Bean Geese? No mention is made NOTES AND QUERIES. 271 of the Pink-footed Goose, which is without doubt the most plentiful of the Grey Geese frequenting England and Scotland, at all; and did not the birds he called Bean rather belong to this species? The flock of Greylag seen on Dec. 7th is also open to some doubt owing to the date, but is possible. If Mr. Nichol is a wildfowler he will know that it is impossible, with any degree of certainty, to identify between the four species when in a skein, if silent, and even when in a gaggle only the White-fronted can be identified with any certainty. No mention is made of any being shot or identified in that way, so I conclude, as the letterpress says, that he only identified them as Bean and Greylag at a distance. Of course, the calls of all the Wild Geese, both Grey and Black, differ, but some of them so little that they must have all been heard again and again, and birds shot out of each par- ticular skein or gaggle heard, before the best observer can be certain of them. With all due respect to the gentlemen concerned, I think that Bean should read Pink-foot, especially as many fowlers do not know the Pink-foot under that name, but class both Bean and Pink- foot under the former head, although, of course, quite a distinct species with characteristics quite its own. — H. W. Roginson (Lans- downe House, Lancaster). Nesting of the Wigeon in Cumberland. — On the short note mentioning Messrs. Thorpe and Hope’s record of the breeding of the Wigeon in Cumberland on April 30th, 1908, at Bassenthwaite (ante, p. 191), may I be allowed to make a few comments, and ask incidentally if the small feathers among the down were iden- tified correctly, and, further, whether or no this is meant to be the first record for that county and place? If the latter is the case, may I quote Mr. W. J. Farrer’s note in ‘The Field’ for Aug. 1st, 1903, as follows:—‘‘In reference to my note on Wigeon nesting in Bassen- thwaite, I may state that I have for some years suspected the bird of breeding in the locality, as I have seen three or four pairs all through the spring and summer months. This year [1903] I kept careful watch on one pair from April 20th, when first seen, until May 10th, when I found a female bird sitting on ten eggs. The nest was situated close to the edge of a small rock on the marshes at the head of Bassenthwaite Lake. I am quite sure as to the identity of the birds, and have seen them many times since up toa month ago (July).” I know myself for a fact that the Wigeon does nest at Bassenthwaite, as on July 13th, 1904, I saw a female followed by a brood of young about the same place where Mr. Farrer found his nest the year before. Great care, of course, must always be taken in identifying the eggs of 272 THE ZOOLOGIST. the Duck, as the following incident will show: In 1901 Mr. Robert Patterson recorded the nesting of the Wigeon near Belfast. The bird was not identified, but eggs and down agreed with those of that bird. This record was accepted everywhere until two years later, when the same gentleman wrote and contradicted the statement, as on further examination of the down the small feathers found therein proved the nest to be that of the Shoveler. It may be of interest to state that a Wigeon nested in the early summer of 1907 on the private lake of a friend of mine in North Lancashire. On the lake, which is natural and of considerable size, he placed a pair of pinioned birds of which the female shook off her pinions almost at once, and disappeared for some weeks to reappear with a brood of young, which she had apparently hatched on a smaller lake in the vicinity. The drake remained on the large lake all the time, being finally shot accidentally at the flight as recently as last November, when he too had appa- rently just shaken off his pinions, judging from the tremendous height at which he was flying. Incidentally it may be mentioned that these young Wigeon and their mother were as wild as possible, far more so than the foreign birds which arrived in the autumn, and not one of them was shot. Did Messrs. Thorpe and Hope actually see the bird settling on her eggs, or only near the nest? If the latter only, that is no evidence of the nest being her own, just as my evidence of the brood there on July 18th is of little value, as the brood might have been that of a Mallard or some other species following what was undoubtedly a hen Wigeon.—H. W. Roxsinson (Lansdowne House, Lancaster). Redshank (Totanus calidris) carrying Young (?).—Mr. A. H. Pat- terson, in his Notes on Mud-flat Birds, says (ante, p. 211), ‘‘ Whether it [the Redshank] carries its young as the Woodcock does at times I am not sure, but I strongly suspect it.” Facts have come to my knowledge which I think go to prove that this is not the case. Red- shanks have of recent years nested close to the town of Stafford, and between the Sewage Farm they frequent and a small muddy pond, close to which there is generally a nest, runs a main road, upon which there is much traffic. A few years ago, and again this year, after the young were hatched, the old birds have been seen in great distress owing to their not being able to get their young ones across this high road, and on both occasions the young have been caught by a humane signalman, who occupies a signal-box on the railway close by, and carried to the sewage marsh, apparently to the great satisfaction of — the parent birds. Now if the Redshank carried its young I think the NOTES AND QUERIES 2738 old birds would have done so in the instances I have given. I believe on the first occasion the distress of the old birds lasted several hours before the signalman discovered the cause of their trouble.—JOHN R. B. Maserrexp (Rosehill, Cheadle, Staffordshire). Mr. PattrErson, in his interesting article, ‘Some Mud-flat Bird- Notes’”’ (ante, p. 211), referring to the Redshank, says: ‘‘ Whether it carries its young as the Woodcock does at times I am not sure, but I strongly suspect it.” A few years ago a relative of mine, who has all his life lived close to the haunts of this bird, told me that he had seen a Redshank on the wing carrying a young bird between its legs. This he did without any leading up to the subject or reference to this habit in the Woodcock. He evidently considered it a very remarkable thing, and asked me whether I had ever known of a like occurrence. —G. T. Rope (Blaxhall, Suffolk). Notes from Wilsden, Yorkshire.—From an ornithological point of view the present breeding season so far has had some quite exceptional features. The Cuckoo up to the end of May was exceedingly scarce; not more than perhaps four Cuckoos had arrived in all Bingley Woods. At or about this date we received large accessions, but, strange to say, I have sought assiduously in all likely places to find a Cuckoo’s egg, but have failed up to the present; neither has one been recorded as having been found by anyone else, though during the month of June Cuckoos have been quite abundant, this late arrival in such numbers in June having probably been caused by the presence of myriads of caterpillars, upon which they must have largely fed. A similar move- ment among Cuckoos occurred here some three or four years ago. The scarcity of their eggs in June can only be explained on the supposition that they laid their eggs previously to their coming here. When at Hastings Museum in May last my son showed me the nest of a Pied Wagtail which had been found near Hastings, and which con- tained four eggs and one egg of the Cuckoo. Previously to the egg of the Cuckoo having been deposited the nest had contained six eggs, but at the time of the introduction of the egg of the Cuckoo two of them mysteriously disappeared. Whether these were removed by the Cuckoo—and I have little doubt on this point—or through some other agency, it is unquestionably true that nests containing a Cuckoo’s egg or eggs have seldom their full complement. Prof. New- on’s explanation of this point, in his monumental work, ‘ Dictionary f Birds,’ seems somewhat weak and inadequate to account for he phenomenon in question. My son also showed me the nest Zool. 4th ser. vol. XIII., July, 1909. Y 274 THE ZOOLOGIST. of a Linnet containing two Cuckoo’s eggs and one egg of the dupe, while recently, when in Monsaldale, in Derbyshire, a person told me he had found the egg of a Cuckoo in the nest of a Thrush.—li. P. BurTERFIELD (Wilsden). Pics Cais: A Monster Pike.—On the 16th May last, when Salmon-fishing on Lough Conn, Co. Mayo, Mr. Charles Scroope, of Ballina, captured a monster Pike, weighing thirty-five pounds, on an artificial minnow. Its dimensions were: Length, 47 in.; girth, 244 in.; length of head, 13 in.; and spread of tail, 11 in. It was in splendid condition, and I never saw a fish of such depth of body. The Pike was taken on the Salmon run in about five feet of water. It was weighed and measured immediately on being brought ashore in the presence of four credible witnesses, so there is no mistake as to its weight or dimensions.—RoBertT WarREN (Moy View, Ballina). (>~275' -:) NOTICES: OF NEW BOOKS. The Foundations of the Origin of Species; a Sketch written in 1842 by Charles Darwin. Edited by his son, Francis Darwin. Cambridge: Printed at the University Press. Tuis Essay has been printed by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for presentation to the Delegates of Universities and other learned Societies attending the celebration at Cam- bridge on June 22nd of the centenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and of the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the ‘Origin of Species.’ We read that the MS. was hidden in a cupboard under the stairs which was not used for papers of. any value, and only came to light after the death of Mrs. Darwin in 1896 when the house at Down was vacated. It is a digest of the principles on which seventeen years later the book of the nine- teenth century was to be the result. The “‘ foundation,” as it has well been called, is a landmark, it indicates the evolution of the ‘Origin of Species,’ and bears witness to the prolonged patience and concentration of thought and study attending its composition. Is the effect of this epoch-marking publication yet fully estimated ? If its mission is considered to begin and end with biology, then its force is still unappreciated, for it has moditied and influenced all contemporary thought even in quarters where biology is a stranger. Theology was confronted with the relation of man to other animals, so far at least as his corporeal existence is concerned, and the survival of the fittest became an axiom with the philosophical historian and the practical statesman. We are familiar at all events with the phrase, ‘‘The Method of Descartes,’ but have we sufficiently appraised either the ‘‘ Method of Darwin” or the subtle way in which hig patient construction has become a mental formula, one now alike used by opponents and disciples? Even if imagi- nation may anticipate a time when his conclusions may be 276 THE ZOOLOGIST. neglected, his ‘“‘Method”’’ will endure and become hoar with time. The doctrine of the struggle for existence is unanswerable; — it could be interpreted by the ‘‘ man in the street”’ as equivalent to the saying that all living creatures, plants as well as animals, have to “fight it out among themselves.” The result of that struggle and the lines on which it is fought is the cardinal thesis of Darwinism, and has made that question the dominant one even with biologists who may not be considered as altogether orthodox ‘‘ selectionists.”’ The ‘Origin of Species’ is not de- pendent on its cleverness but on its wisdom; it is not to be patronised as the brilliant theory of a genius, but to be valued as the production of a sage; its greatest danger is from fiery apostles — who insist that it is to be accepted as a revelation once given and for all time. If it has largely explained the how, it has not, nor could it have been expected to have, demonstrated the why. The Life of a Fossil Hunter. By Cuarues H. Sternperc. New York: Henry Holt & Co. London: George Bell & Sons. Ir any book can convey to the general reader a conception of the zoological past by the paleontological record, this is the one. Much is taught by personal narrative, for such books are much more widely read than purely scientific publications, and the suggestions of the first are more easily appreciated by the ordinary reader than the more scientifically arranged facts of the latter, which by the uninitiated are easily misunderstood. In Darwin's well-known narrative of his voyage in the ‘ Beagle’ - how many paleontological and geological conclusions have been widely disseminated and assimilated among readers who may § possibly have read none of his other works! As Mr. Sternberg remarks near the end of his book: ‘‘ The life that now is, how small a fraction of the life that hasbeen! Miles of strata, moun- tain high, are but the stony sepulchers of the life of the past.” The life of a fossil-hunter is a somewhat new experience. We are familiar with those of animal and plant collectors, but have not before, at least so far as the present writer is aware, realized the adventures, hardships, and methods of one who may be said to have lived among ancient and prehistoric surroundings, and™ NOTICES OF NEW. BOOKS. 277 to have studied and discovered remnants of a vanished zoology. As we peruse these pages we feel, as evolutionists, how dim is the past, how unknown the future ; perhaps when we know more of the first we may hazard some guesses as to the second. Mr. Sternberg truly observes that fossil-hunting ‘‘is as capable of improvement as any other form of human endeavour.” Once “we went over, in a few months, all the chalk in Western Kansas. . . . Now it takes us five years to get over the same ground. Then we dug up the bones with a butcher knife or pick, and packed in flour sacks with dry buffalo grass which we pulled with our fingers. Some strange animals were created by Cope and Marsh in those early days, when they attempted to restore a creature from the few disconnected bones thus carelessly collected. Now we take up great slabs of the chalk, so that we can show the bones in situ, that is, in their original matrix, so that they may be the more easily fitted together in their natural relations with each other.”’ Some interesting reminiscences of the late Prof. KE. D. Cope in the field are given by Mr. Sternberg :—‘‘ Cope’s indefatigability, too, was a constant source of wonder to us. We were in excellent training, after our strenuous outdoor life in the Kansas chalk- beds, while he had just been working fourteen hours a day in his study and the lithographer’s shop, completing a large Govern- ment monograph, writing his own manuscript and reading his own proofs. When we first met him at Omaha he was so weak that he reeled from side to side as he walked; yet here he climbed the highest cliffs and walked along the most dangerous ledges, working without intermission from daylight until dark.” “He used to talk to me by the hour, arranging the living and dead animals of the earth in systematic order.” Sternberg did not only collect for Cope, but subsequently for Zittel, as the contents of the Munich Museum testify. As an ardent paleontological enthusiast he has not made a fortune by his long service, but he has his reward: ‘‘I have accomplished the object which I set before myself as a boy, and have done my humble part towards building up the great science of pale- ontology. I shall perish, but my fossils will last as long as the museums that have secured them.”’ 278 THE ZOOLOGIST. EDITORIAL GLEANINGS. ‘Curist’s CoLLEGE Macazine’ (Cambridge), xxiii. No. 70, is a ‘Darwin Centenary Number.” Mr. T. HE. Pickering writes on ‘Shrewsbury Days”; Mr. A. E. Shipley on “ Charles Darwin at the Universities”; the Master of Christ’s College contributes a most interesting and original article on ‘‘Christ’s College in the Years preceding the Entry of Charles Darwin”; ‘Darwin and the Linnean Society’ is from the pen of Dr. B. Daydon Jackson. ‘“ Letters from Charles Darwin to Alfred Russel Wallace’? (two of which are pub- lished for the first time), with Notes by Mr. Francis Darwin ; ‘““Present-day Darwinism,” by Mr. Leonard Doncaster; and “ Dar- win’s Animals and Plants,’ by Mr. T. H. A. Marshall, complete another publication to be added to the Darwinian bibliography. In his copy of the ‘Journal of Researches” the Editor some twenty years ago affixed the following cutting, which it may be inte- resting to reproduce at this time :— “ ta see one during all the hard weather last winter).— H. G. ATLEE © NOTES AND QUERIES. 351 speaking of birds at a reasonable distance ; Geese flying in “ skein” or ‘gagele”’ at a distance of half a mile or upwards could scarcely be determined, and would not be noted unless the occurrence was exceptional. The Pink-foot, Bean, and Grey Lag Geese are all com- mon in season on the Solway marshes, and although the Pink-foot is undoubtedly the commonest of the three, it does not appear to fre- quent the lower marshes as much as the Bean, and on the upper marshes the combined numbers of Bean and Grey Lag run it pretty close. During the last two winters the game and poultry shops of Carlisle contained quite as many of the two latter species as of brachyrhyncus, a good eriterion of the comparative rarity or other- wise of wildfowl. Perhaps we on the Solway have better oppor- tunities of observing the various species of Geese than is afforded to Mr. Robinson, and it may surprise him to hear that at times the Wild Geese on one particular marsh can only be estimated in thousands, and it is possible frequently to hear the calls of the three species mentioned at one time, and with the aid of a glass to distinctly make out the different species. There is never the least difficulty with the Grey Lag in flock, as the blue shoulder of the adult is most con- spicuous, and the longer beak and generally darker coloration of the Bean is almost quite as unmistakable to the experienced observer ; moreover, it is probably as easy for Mr. Nichol to identify these Species at a distance of from two to four hundred yards as it is for some people to do in the hand, even if they know certain charac- teristics. We are quite sure that when Mr. Nichol says Bean Geese, he has been able to distinctly identify them as “Bean” and not “ Pink-foot,” and Mr. Robinson may be assured that they were that species. We need not reply to the query as to correct identification of Grey Lag on Dec. 7th: the date is not exceptional. With regard to Mr. Robinson’s further letter respecting the breed- ing of Wigeon at Bassenthwaite in April, 1908, we hardly see the point of his criticism. Has it escaped him that this is another note by Mr. W. J. Farrer, and is neither the first or second record to this Bureau of such occurrence, but simply a record of the fact that a Wigeon was nesting there at that time? Mr. Farrer clearly esta- blished his identification as correct in the first instance in 1903, as Mr. Robinson’s quotation shows: ‘I found the female bird sitting on ten eggs’’; his later records therefore cannot be doubted. The par- ticulars of a pinioned Wigeon breeding in North Lancashire may be interesting, but has no bearing upon the Bassenthwaite case. Several pairs of Wigeon breed on an estate in North Cumberland, but they 352 THE ZOOLOGIST. were introduced, though now in a feral state. Neither is there any parallel between the Bassenthwaite case and the case of mistaken identification of Shoveler’s eggs at Belfast. It may in some instances be difficult to distinguish between the eggs of various ducks; there is of course more or less variation in the eggs of all birds, but it is again largely a matter of experience, and Shoveler’s eggs are usually distinct from those of Wigeon, without the evidence of down or feathers. The Shoveler breeds regularly in the Solway district.— Linnzus E. Horr & D. Losu Tuorps, The Museum, Carlisle. Birdsnesting in August.—It is three years ago since I sent my last notes under this heading to ‘ The Zoologist.’ This year I was again in the same village in Cambridgeshire for the August Bank Holiday. On Saturday, July 31st, I walked from the station to the village through a narrow belt of trees alongside the road. Here I found a nest of Spotted Flycatcher with half-fledged young on a dead fir- bough close up to the trunk. A little further on was a nest of Song- Thrush in the hedgerow with nearly fledged young. Next I came across a Wren’s nest about four feet from the ground in a bush beside a pine tree, and, feeling something soft moving inside, I opened up the hole, and found it to contain a litter of young Shrews, apparently the common species (Sorex vulgaris). There were four or five of them, more than half-grown. I believe the Shrews generally build on or under the ground—at all events, this is the first family I have ever found in a bird’s nest. Then a Wood-Pigeon went from its nest in a beech tree, and a few yards further on I found a Turtle-Dove sitting on two eggs. Alongside the road I founda Linnet with three fresh eggs in a hawthorn bush. On Aug. Ist I followed a dyke or drain for about a mile and a half through the cornfields. Put a Common Bunting (£. miliaria) from its nest of four nearly fresh eggs amongst the long grass on the edge of the dyke. In the hawthorn bushes along its course put a Wood-Pigeon off a newly-made empty nest, and found another sitting on two eggs. Both these nests were very substantial structures, fully six inches in depth, and looking more like Crows’ than Pigeons’ nests. Saw a party of young Hedge- Sparrows and another of young Whitethroats fluttering amongst the thick herbage, having evidently only just left their nests. Found a Linnet with two fresh eggs, a Turtle-Dove with two deserted eggs, each having a hole pecked in it, and another nest of the same species with two fresh eggs. The heavy rain at midday put a stop to any further search that day. On Aug. 2nd I examined some pollard- willows, and found three nests of Tree-Sparrow, each with five eggs, ee NOTHS AND QUERIES. BD: wo one set fresh another partly incubated, and the third with the young hatching. Several nests of House-Sparrow in a stall alongside con- tained fresh eggs and young birds respectively, and in the hedgerow adjoining was a Song-Thrush with young. On a straw-stack in an adjacent field, I was told, a French Partridge had nested, but its nest had been disturbed a fortnight previously when some of the straw had been taken away for thatching the hayricks. I counted sixteen eggs scattered about under the stack in a half-rotten condition in various stages of incubation. Along the roadside I found the Linnet’s nest which had three eggs on Saturday now contained five, and found two more nests with five eggs and one egg respectively, all fresh; also a Yellowhammer with two and another with four eggs. By the side of a ditch I found a Common Whitethroat with three eggs apparently _hard-sat, and not many yards away was a young Cuckoo almost fully fledged in the nest of a Hedge-Sparrow. This is the latest date at which I have ever found a young Cuckoo in the nest, although I have found a new-laid egg of the Cuckoo in a Whitethroat’s nest in the first week in July. On the morning of Aug. 3rd I found two nests of Turtle-Dove with one and two fresh eggs respectively, a nest of Hedge-Sparrow with four eggs all sucked, whilst a few yards further on was another new nest with one fresh egg, two nests of Linnet with four and two eggs respectively, and four nests of Yellowhammer with one, four, two, and three eggs respectively. In the afternoon I returned to town.—Rosert H. Reap (Bedford Park, W.). A Correction.—In the note appended to the record of the White Chaffinch (ante, p. 315) the word “eggs” was unfortunately omitted. It should read: “‘ Mr. Dresser, in his ‘Man. Pal. Birds,’ says of the eggs of this bird, ‘ occasional varieties,’ &c¢.”—Ep. ee EEA The Smooth Snake (Coluber lavis).—It is interesting to know that this somewhat local reptile is still found in the Forest, and upon the heath-lands on the opposite side of the Avon, where it was first established as a British species. The localities where I formerly found it are being gradually built over, but during the summer a gentleman, wishing to secure one of the snakes for a friend, asked me if I could tell him where to find it. Having searched near its old haunts he succeeded in capturing three specimens, one a very fine female measuring fully twenty-five inches in length, and of a very dark colour, but having the characteristic dark ‘ crown” and _ black Zool. 4th ser. vol. XIII, September, 1909. 25 354 THK ZOOLOGIST. line running from the gape. Contrary to its general habit, this speci- men appeared to be very lethargic, but undoubtedly it was near changing its skin, as the “scales” had already grown over its eyes— (one person who saw it suggested blindness)—but when placed in a box with the other two it fought and bit furiously at the smaller one, which was, I suppose, of the same sex. These two, sixteen and eighteen inches in length respectively, were very prettily marked, and appeared iridescent, especially about the head, when the sun shone upon them. After retaining them two or three days the person for whom they were secured declined to have them, because of the diffi- culty of keeping and providing food, so they were taken back to their native heath and there liberated. My limited experience points to the fact that the species in question prefers dry and sunny situations, and is seldom found in damp places such as the common natriz delights to inhabit; this latter I have often seen in the water, but levis never, and I think it is often supposed to be an Adder, and is killed in consequence.—G. B. Cornin (Ringwood, Hants). AMP EE TT AS Palmated Newt (Molge palmata) in Hertfordshire.—On June 27th I took several examples of this Newt from a pond in Ashridge Park. The species does not seem to have been recorded hitherto for Hertford- shire.—CHARLES OLDHAM (Watford). OBATUA RAY THOMAS SOUTHWELL. By the death of Mr. Southwell ‘The Zoologist’ has lost one of its oldest contributors and Norfolk one of its best naturalists. He passed away on Sunday, Sept. dth, at his residence, 10, The Crescent, Norwich, in his seventy-ninth year, having rallied from an alarming breakdown in January of last year, about which time he wrote to us saying his work was done, a statement we rightly refused to accept, and he subsequently acquired a considerable amount of bodily and mental vigour. According to the ‘Hastern Daily Press,’ in a notice evidently written by a competent authority, “Mr. Southwell was a native of King’s Lynn, and the greater part of his days he had spent as a OBITUARY. ddd member of the clerical staff of Gurney’s Bank, afterwards Barclays’, which he had served at Lynn, Fakenham, and, chiefly, at Norwich. A voracious reader and a born naturalist, he used his leisure hours to such good effect that by the time he had reached middle life his reputation as an ornithologist was already considerable. He edited the third volume of Stevenson’s ‘ Birds of Norfolk,’ compiling it from matter which Stevenson had himself left, and adding to it copious notes. He brought out also a new edition of Lubbock’s ‘ Fauna of Norfolk,’ to which he made various additions. His work on ‘Seals and Whales of the British Seas’ is everywhere recognized as an able and authoritative treatment of a somewhat neglected subject. It would be too long a task to follow Mr. Southwell in all his literary enterprises. Suffice it to say that he wrote with skill and freedom, and touched a great variety of natural history subjects. Perhaps the best of his more fragmentary work was done in connection with the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society, whose secretary he was for several years, and whose president he was in 1894. The work by 306 THE ZOCLOGIST,. which he is most popularly known is perhaps his ‘ Guide to the Castle Museum’ (Jarrolds). He was a member of the Zoological Society and the British Ornithologists’ Union. He served on the Castle Museum Committee and the Norfolk and Norwich Library Committee. He actively interested himself in the formation of the new Museum Association at Norwich, and he was one of the leading spirits of the Science Gossip Club. Mr. Southwell leaves two daughters. His wife predeceased him about five years ago.” Mr. Southwell appears to have first contributed to the pages of ‘The Zoologist’ in 1869, when he described a nesting of the Little Grebe, and since that time very few volumes indeed of our Journal have appeared without some interesting and valuable communication from his pen, and also for a very considerable number of years his annual reports on the northern “ Seal and Whale Fishery ” which possess an importance in zoological literature which subsequently will reach a fuller estimation. He was a naturalist of the old school, now, alas! represented by sadly diminished numbers, and was an extremely cautious and accurate recorder ; his writings exhibit an absence of con- troversy, though in his private correspondence he was a very candid critic. We will conclude with a cutting from an appreciation written by our contributor Mr. A. H. Patterson :—‘ Mr. Southwell will not be remembered so much as an original observer and litterateur as a careful and painstaking compiler, and by the excellent work he has accomplished in simplifying and completing the work begun by others. Of his one published book, ‘The Seals and Whales of the British Seas,’ he was not at all proud, and, indeed, has expressed his dissatisfaction with it to me in strong terms. Yet his researches among the Finnipedia and Cetacea of our islands have been of great service in reducing froma chaotic state the nomenclature and classi- fication to a well-arranged system, and his editing of Arctic whaling records and logs is appreciated all through the world of science. He was foremost to give credit where credit was due, and deeply resented literary and scientific cribbage.” NOTICHS” OF NEW BOOKS. The Making of Species. By Dovauas Dewar, B.A., &c., and Frank Finn, B.A., &. John Lane. Tuts book appears to have been written with two intentions: one to criticize much evolutionary theory, the other to give a popular abstract of many of those theories which to-day, more or less, occupy the biological outposts. The authors are dis- satisfied with much of the dogma that has been built upon these theories, and in this protest, for the work is highly polemical, many naturalists will probably not be too greatly shocked; at the same time the pages would not have suffered in argument had they been written in a more subdued style. As regards Darwinism the authors clearly point out that the dogma of the all-sufficiency of natural selection is not to be ascribed to Darwin, who ‘‘at no time believed that natural selection explained everything,” and they further remark that it is Wallace who claims the all-sufficiency of natural selection, in which he is followed by Weismann and Poulton, and they ‘dub the school”’ which ‘‘ holds this article of belief... the Wallaceian school.” In connection with this subject, however, one statement is cryptic. We are told that the Darwinian theory ‘has the defect of the period in which it was enunciated. The eighteenth century was the age of cocksureness, the age in which all phenomena were thought to be capable of simple explanation.’’ Is not this antedating the theory by a century ? and is the mental affliction to which our authors refer quite a thing of the past ? The section devoted to mimicry is a piece of careful and judicious criticism, and one that will well repay the perusal of the extreme advocates of that theory. Instances of false mimicry where the mimicking species inhabit widely separated continents are not infrequent, and Messrs. Dewar and linn give examples in both mammals and birds, to which many other instances could be added. They pertinently observe :—‘‘ We 358 THE ZOOLOGIST. may perhaps call the cases which the theory of mimicry is unable to account for ‘ false mimicry,’ but in so doing we must bear in mind the possibility that some at any rate of the examples of so-called mimicry may, on further investigation, prove to be nothing of the kind.” We cannot follow the discussion of most of the cognate theories on the subject, but readers will find the abstracts of many of them given in an easily understandable manner. But we are still only on the fringe of a demonstration ; ‘‘ at present our knowledge of the causes of variation and mutation is practi- cally nil.” In reading books and papers on what may be called external or superficial evolution it is a marked feature that the genus Homo seems to be let severely alone; but why? The different colorations of mankind and the distinct racial cranial developments ought to be included in the postulate of ‘ the all- sufficiency of natural selection,” as well as the peculiarities of insects, as a rule, and of other animals less frequently. We neither venture to affirm nor deny the possibility of this demon- stration, but it is necessary to advance the theories of mimicry and protective resemblance into anthropological studies before we have exhausted the argument or absolutely proved the thesis. The Wild Beasts of the World. By Frank Finn, B.A., FAabe) (her la Or & lh. Co iblack. Wirn part 17, recently published, this serial work is com- pleted, and forms two handsome volumes. The publishers claim that it is ‘fa very beautiful book to look at, a fascinating book to read, and a valuable book to possess.’ As a richly illustrated work, with Mr. Finn’s carefully compiled text, these claims may be admitted, and as a popular introduction to a knowledge of ‘the larger and nobler types”’ of terrestrial mammals it is in advance of similar publications. The coloured illustrations may perhups as a whole be described as too brilliant in hue, but the drawings on which they are founded are by Louis Sargent, C. EH. Swan, and Winifred Austen. If it can scarcely be described as a treatise on zoology, it is certainly one of the best ‘‘ nature books’ that we have seen; while the text will bear comparison with that of our standard popular ‘‘ Natural Histories.”’ EDITORIAL GLEANINGS. SourH AFRICA is advancing outside the dreams of millionaires. In the ‘ Transvaal Weekly Illustrated,’ just to hand, we have a report of Prof. Thomson’s lecture on ‘‘ What we Owe to Darwin,” before a congested and crowded audience at Johannesburg, in the Assembly Hall of the Transvaal University College, and with the Anglican Bishop of Pretoria as Chairman. The following extracts are typical of the Address :— “The evolution idea was known to Greek philosophers; it came from Aristotle to Hume and Kant; it linked Lucretius to Goethe. It was made more actual by pioneers of modern biology such as Buffon, Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, and others, and became current intellectual coin when Charles Darwin, Alfred Russell Wallace, Her- bert Spencer, Huxley, and Haeckel won the conviction of most thoughtful men. It showed how each stage of life was linked to the one before, back and back, until all was lost in the thick mists of life’s beginnings. In dealing with the evidence he claimed that all facts known were evidences of evolution, and that just as the Whale had rows of teeth that never came through and beneath feet of blubber concealed a hind-leg, so man was a perfect collection of relics, like the buttons and tabs on his garments, which had long ceased to have any functional use, but had a highly interesting history. An instance of this survival was the word Leopard, the ‘o’ in which was no longer sounded, but which served to remind us that the ancients believed that animal to be a cross between the ‘Leo’ and the ‘ Pard.’ ‘Darwin was the liberator of human intelligence. The ‘ Origin of Species’ had been called the Magna Charta of intellect. It freed the intellect from the tyranny of dogma, attacking realms hitherto considered inaccessible to science. It threw light, in a hopeful way, upon man’s nature, it gave new light to literature, even to theology ; and it could lead us in the future to an almost undreamt-of control of .life. The evolution idea was now part of the intellectual inheritance of every man. It had given the world a new outlook. Older than 360 THE ZOOLOGIST. Aristotle, from being an a prior? anticipation, it became a detailed interpretation, of which Darwin was chief interpreter. From a model interpretation—an explanation of the mode by which things came—it became a causal theory, the most convincing part of which would always be called Darwinism. We had to take into considera- tion, besides the personality of Darwin, the work of other pioneers, the development of thought, social changes, the ripening of public opinion. But granted that the man and the moment came together, we had still to remember that Darwin succeeded where others had failed, had put forward a more plausible theory of the process than others had been able to do; and that of his condescension he wrote so that all men could understand.” In the ‘ Avicultural Magazine,’ published this month, Dr. A. G. Butler contributes an interesting article on ‘‘ Morality in Birds.” He thus concludes :—‘ Touching the question of mewm and twwm, we all know that birds have no conscience ; they rob one another whenever the chance offers, and believe to the full in the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. They do, however, sometimes seem to be compassionate towards young birds left orphans, for I have known a Robin to help to rear young Thrushes when a cat had killed her own young and one of the parent Thrushes had been shot; yet it is probable that this was only a way in which the arrested feeding-fever was working itself out, and no more creditable than is the love of female children for dolls. If, therefore, there is any moral sense in birds, it would seem to be limited to the female sex, and as a guard against pairing between parent and child. .... In the case of fanciers’ birds— Canaries, poultry, Pigeons, and even Barbary Doves—I have little doubt that all moral sense is lacking, owing to man’s constant supervision, high feeding, and other things which encourage an un- natural condition; all experiments, therefore, should be conducted with birds which retain their wild character and have not been long under man’s care.”’ ia _ x jj neat ve | a VEY Ht WAL Tene (7, | Zool. 1909. Plate IV. Britt (Rhombus levis), VARIETY. elt Be Ze). O40 GTS 'T No. 820.—October. 1909. ROUGH NOTES ON THE FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. By Artuyur H. Patterson. (PuatE IV.) For the following rough and random notes on the Fish and Fisheries of the North-eastern part of the County of Suffolk I offer no apology: their compilation has been to me an inter- esting task, gathered as were many of the facts on some very pleasant odd-day outings during my summer holidays of 1909. Some of these excursions will be noticed in the context. I have to thank several gentlemen for valuable help rendered me in piecing together the list of species, the first of its kind, I believe, for Kast Suffolk, and their names will be a sufficient guarantee for accuracy and veracity. Many of the rarer records have been gleaned from the pages of that excellent journal, the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ ‘Transactions.’ I frankly admit the crude- _ness of these ‘‘ notes,” but I hope they will form a nucleus for more elaborate and exhaustive work. As the premier fishing-port of Suffolk, I take my bearings from Lowestoft, which, to quote from a Suffolk directory, “‘ ranks next to Yarmouth among the most important fishing stations on the Eastern Coast, and is a handsome and rapidly improving market-town, bathing-place, and sea-port. It is pleasantly situated on the most easterly point of England, upon an Zool. 4th ser. vol. XIII., October, 1909. 2F 362 THE ZOOLOGIST. eminence, rising from the German Ocean, 11 miles E. by N. of Beccles, 7 miles S. of Yarmouth, 25 miles E.S.E. of Norwich, . and 114 miles N.E. of London.” Having said this for Lowestoft, I may make reference to the quiet, sleepy little town of Southwold, situated a few miles to the south of Lowestoft, itself a fishing centre, referred to in White’s directory as ‘a creek under the port of Lowestoft,” which at the present moment has shaken itself into sufficient wakefulness as to make promise of some development in its Herring-fishing ambitions. Southwold’s long-delayed chances of improvement seem to have been taken advantage of in 1907, when the overcrowding of Yarmouth and Lowestoft harbours by fishing-boats from Scotland, and from other English ports, made a demand for further accommodation. Several of the boats ran into Southwold and landed their catches. In this incident certain energetic townsfolk saw their opportunity, and at once made effort to provide better harbour room, not without much pessimistic prophesying, tinged with fearfulness, on the part of the fishing interest at the premier Herring port. In the course of 1908 quite a little muster of Herring-boats fished out of Southwold, which made the following number of landings, viz.: Scotch, 119; English, 177. From Mr. H. J. Sayers, a fish-merchant of Southwold, I learn that 1097 trunks of trawl-fish were landed there for the twelve months ending December, as well as 4452 crans of Herrings, and 122,250 hun- dreds of Mackerel, the bulk of these fishes arriving between September and December. He stated to me (July, 1909) that the harbour was being dredged to a depth of fifteen feet at low water, and that great preparations were then on the way to pro- vide pickling-plots and gutting-sheds, while a considerable fleet of boats was expected in for the autumn fishing of 1909. In August, 1906, the harbour was in a chaotic state, the piers worm-eaten and weather-worn, with notices here and there warning the stroller not to venture thereon ; the bar at the river entrance was visible at low water. On Aug. 4th of the present year [1909], in company with Mr. Percival Westell, I revisited Southwold, and found its harbour and approaches undergoing quite a phenomenal metamorphosis; the ancient breakwaters had disappeared, and were replaced by modern structures; a FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 368 concrete quay-heading made, with piling extensions extending along the north side as far as Walberswick. New gutting-sheds had been built, and large areas of the original marsh and sand- dune levelled, raised, and in places concreted, in preparation for the Herring harvest. A Herring-mart, surroundcd by some seventeen merchants’ offices, stores, sheds—even a restaurant and a Seotch Girls’ Rest—had cropped up; and there is a promise of great things in store for the resuscitated port. Nearly four hundred Scotch lasses are expected this coming season, with a corresponding number of male labourers and participators in the fishing. Mr. H. J. Sayers, who kindly piloted us round, speaks most optimistically of the future of the port. Yarmouth, Ramsgate, and Lowestoft boats have used the harbour with encouraging results. That Yarmouth should see, in the development of Southwold, a menace to her prosperity as a Herring port is absurd; Yar- mouth can still retain the lion’s share, and if the local authority [without hindrance from the Commissioners, with the jealousy of Norwich behind them], instead of haggling and wasting money over law proceedings, would spend it for increased accommoda- tion, a fishing of yet huger dimensions would ensue. There are plenty of Herring shoals off Southwold, in the latter part of the fishing especially. I have seen a ‘‘ punt” bring in a fine autumnal catch of Herrings of a quality unsurpassed. The old-worldness of Southwold, and its beach, notwith- standing the assumption of modernity in the matter of catering for visitors, is still an observable and interesting feature. The fishermen’s storage huts remain on the south foreshore, with many quaint hints for the artist, and some eighty small fishing- boats, called ‘‘ punts,” fish from the beach, being hauled up into a north and a south contingent when operations are over in the bay, known as Sole Bay—a suggestive title. ‘They are marked L.T. (port of Lowestoft), the dues being under that port’s authority. Southwold has ambitions for a separate authority. These sturdy little ‘‘ punters,” of some twenty feet in length, are built mauch on the lines of a ‘‘ gig’’; they are fitted with a lug- foresail (without a boom) and a small mizen; the mizen-mast starts straight up from the stern-post. They sail well, but the foresail flaps ungracefully when luffing up into the wind. The 2F2 364 THE ZOOLOGIST. men in turn fish for Sprats with a drift-net, for Soles and other fish with a trawl; Shrimps are dredged for at other times. I can conceive of no more delightful an experience for an amateur fisherman, or an ardent student of marine zoology, than to ship aboard one of these little vessels and spend a fine summer’s day trawling in the bay. I overhauled several of the recently returned boats, finding in the refuse among the billage quite a number of species of fish—Gobies, tiny Whitings, Bibs, Flounders, Pogges, Plaice, Soles, Suckers, &c., not to mention Sand-Stars, ‘‘ Five Fingers,” Swimming Crabs, Hermits, various Shells, Alcyontwm, and even Sea-Anemones. On the sands around several of the boats, ‘‘ stowed”’ already for the morrow’s fishing, I saw heaps of “common objects” that would have delighted Gosse; but I considered the fishermen exceedingly wasteful, for many of the young Soles, Skate, and other flat fishes should have been returned to the sea. I watched several of the fishermen measuring their catches of Soles on a piece of board notched to regulation length, those reaching a fishmonger’s standard being placed in one heap and immediately gutted. I understood they obtained eighteenpence a pair for these, the smaller ones being retailed at proportionate prices by the men themselves. From forty to a hundred Soles did not seem to me to be a bad haphazard catch; but Southwold fishermen, like others, are sad grumblers, and bewail the de- parted glory of their offshore fishing. They may have reason, considering the waste referred to; they grumble also about the harbour, but several are beginning to use it. Among the catches I observed several Lobsters and Edible Crabs. I was severely bitten by a Swimming Crab (Holsatus), which has a most peevishly strong grip. My finger was inflamed for hours after, and I can quite sympathise with the fishermen’s wholesome detestation of the species, which is abundant and extremely agile. JI enumerated nineteen species of fish in my ramble round. Anent the measuring of Soles, Mr. W.S. Everitt, of Lowestoft, related to me an amusing story of Frank Buckland’s credulity, when visiting Lowestoft as a fish-commissioner :— “T am delighted with your offshore fishermen,” said the genial Buckland. ‘Why, I actually saw one fellow whom I Raucy Map . 4 a SHOWING gS District WORKED = rs £ RWER NARE Fathom, Lone \\ aaethy i nae V2) See 40Lm SA paw. as og. y ~S yh fy = Ny CATT i) eis A ya , (e] <4 Be Ua we nr , , ond ; Ss ; SIZEWELL on AwER AL O¢ 497 za Py e Ups sa se's42 “a 4 we. ALE & ed is A. Palen (999 366 THE ZAOOLOGIs, - went out with spreading Sole after Sole upon a thwart, occa- sionally throwing one overboard.” ‘‘ What are you up to?” asked Buckland. ‘‘See them snotches cut there ?”’ asked the man; ‘‘ well, them as don’t touch ’em, nose and tail, goes over- board again!” Mr. Everitt, with a smile, assured me that the wily fellows, who had wind of Buckland’s enquiries, had cut these purposely for his edification. It was easy to obliterate the newness of the notches with a finger-print of grease or tar. In a letter received later in August from Mr. R. J. Canova, he referred to “‘ a considerable quantity of Salmon-Trout caught here in May and June, and in the autumn in draw-nets along the shore. The trawlers,” he continues, ‘‘catch Brill in Sole Bay. . . . At this time of the year [August] you probably know that the alongshore boats are catching the finest Soles possible. . . » - 1 do not know of a better place for good, well-fed Soles.” This inshoreing of Soles takes place all along our eastern coasts in the warmer months, undoubtedly for the purposes of spawn- ing. There are a number of suitable spawning-grounds, an old and intelligent trawler* assures me, as at Sizewell Bank and some other adjacent ‘‘spots.’’ He told me an interesting in- cident of falling across a spawning resort for Soles near Palling (Norfolk). By accident he dropped his small trawl in “a likely spot,’ and brought up some fine examples packed with spawn, filling a fish-trunk with excellent fish, but some actually shed their full-ripe ova in the boat, so that the bottom-boards were covered and made slippery, and they had to mop them free of it. He and his two partners made preparations for another day’s foray, highly elated, but they ‘‘ didn’t get a bloomin’ Sole in the net.’”’ His opinion was that they “came to the day, shed their spawn, and wor gone!”’ I am astonished that this species should be so plentiful inshore, considering the constant pursuit of it. Buckland asserts that a Sole one pound in weight carries about 134,000 eggs. Sprat-fishing at Southwold is pursued contemporary with that of Aldeburgh. From Mr. H. J. Sayers, of Southwold, who kindly replied to several questions submitted to him, I learn that the * Bob Colby; an interesting character figuring in two or three of my recently published books on the East Coast. FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 367 number of boats working out of that port in Sprat-time is about fifty. Fishing commences at the end of October, and lasts until the middle of December. Sprats, he assured me, realized from three shillings to eight shillings per bushel, but I might take the average at five shillings. An average catch of some fifty to sixty bushels was the take per boat, with average earnings of from £10 to £15; £20 was reckoned exceptional. None were sold last year for manure; a few were smoked, the majority being sent away fresh. The ridge of sandhills on which Southwold is situated extends northwards to Gorleston cliffs, Lowestoft standing midway upon the highest portion of them; immediately below Lowestoft, at the northern extremity, a range of undulating sand-dunes slopes seaward into an intermixed shore of hard sand and shingle, without clay. The south beach is narrow, a mere ribbon of sand between sea-wall and sea, upon which the wintry breakers dash with furious onslaught, often severely damaging the foreshore, notwithstanding the bold fight made by the inhabitants who spend much money and ingenuity in groining and theorising. The harbour, with its basins, divides the town into two distinct portions. Immediately behind Lowestoft are the waters of Lake Lothing and the River Waveney, the latter of which ‘‘ in ancient days sought its junction with the ocean through Lake Lothing, between Lowestoft and Kirkley. Its channel, which is proved to have been shallow by the discovery of fossil Elephants’ teeth, .. . was open in Camden’s time.’’* It would be beside the mark to enter into details of the long fight between the sea and the shifting sands which makes up the earlier history of this now navigable waterway—its irruptions, inundations, and the like. One remarkable tide, in 1791, burst over the isthmus of sand, carrying away a bridge built at Mut- ford in 1760; ‘‘ on this occasion the salt water flowed over every surrounding barrier, and forced the fishes into the adjoining fields, where they were found, weeks afterwards, sticking in the hedges.” These possibilities for good or evil at length suggested what has since turned out to be a successful compromise with nature. In 1814 a survey was made to ascertain ‘‘ whether or not it was * «History of Suffolk,’ by Rev. A. Suckling, 368 THE ZOOLOGIST. practicable to open a communication with the sea at Lowestoft” ; in 1821 a report was published, estimating the cost at £87,000. Yarmouth, of course, opposed this scheme. Royal assent was given in 1827, and the scheme completed in 1833. Before entire completion the sea was admitted through the lock-gates :—‘‘ The salt water,’ says Suckling, ‘‘ entered the lake with a strong under-current, the fresh water running out at the same time to the sea upon the surface. The fresh water of the lake was raised to the top by the eruption of the salt water beneath, and an immense quantity of yeast-like scum rose to the surface. .... At a short distance from the lock next the lake there was a per- ceptible and clearly defined line where the salter water and fresh INCE? Asmacks Lake Lothing was thickly studded with the bodies of Pike, Carp, Perch, Bream, Roach, and Dace; multitudes were carried into the ocean, and strewn afterwards upon the beach, most of them having been bitten by Dog-fish, which abound in the bay. It is a singular fact that a Pike of about twenty pounds in weight was taken up dead near the Mutford end of the lake, and on opening it a Herring was found in it entire.” Here we have had shown in a limited area how the fauna of a locality can be eliminated or altered. Lake Lothing has been changed from a haunt of freshwater fishes into a receptacle for shoals from the sea. All beauty has been eradicated, and the place is, as Christopher Davies* tersely remarks, ‘‘ at low water . as malodorous as the worst of Dutch canals.”’ That the deep sluggish waters of the Waveney did at one time run freely into the sea below old Lowestoft is an undoubted fact; the same changes which affected the broadland district, joining the little archipelago of islands to the mainland (thanks to silt from the rivers and drift-sand brought from the sea), had their effects upon Lothing-land. I have shown the general appearance of Hast Norfolk, including Lowestoft’s position, at the time of the Romans, in a recent publication, to which the reader may refer.t The history of Lowestoft (Lestoffe, Laystoft, or, as it was anciently designated, Lothnwistoft, probably acquired its name from Lothbrog, the Danish noble, who in- advertently landed here in a.p. 864), owing to its contiguity to * © Norfolk Broads and Rivers,’ published in the eighties, + ‘Wild Life on a Norfolk Estuary,’ p. 2. FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 369 Yarmouth, is very much mixed up with the beginnings and de- velopment of the larger and busier Norfolk borough, more especially as their maritime pursuits are kindred, although Lowestoft must have been in existence while the very site of the former was still under the sea. Lowestoft fishermen un- doubtedly plied their trade upon the adjacent waters long ere the Yarmouth fishermen spread their nets to dry upon the rising sand-dunes on which stands the Herring metropolis, and it is equally probable that the East Coast Herring-fishery, origi- nating at Lowestoft, in some measure transferred itself to Yarmouth. From the earliest times considerable rivalry, which often developed into active hostilities, characterized the progress of these two ambitious towns. Dutchmen added to the discord in trying to usurp the fishery to themselves, or at least to mono- polise a goodly share of it.* Frequent appeals to the successive reigning monarchs were made to adjust matters: King John, Kidward I., Edward III., Henry III, Richard IJ.—all had a finger in the debatable pie. Charles I. did not mend matters much, although in the Civil Wars, and while Yarmouth sided with Cromwell, Lowestoft was loyal to the unhappy, wrong-headed King. The history of Yarmouth is punctuated by accounts of these long wearisome quarrels with Lowestoft, while over sixty pages of small type does. Gillingwater devote to them in his ‘History.’ On the concluding page of these sordid chronicles he brings the contentions down to Charles II.’s reign, and to a point where Lowestoft evidently scores: ‘‘ Thus,” he emphatically writes, ‘‘ was the last effort of the Yarmouth men to monopolise the Herring-fishery totally frustrated, and the Lowestoft people have enjoyed the free exercise thereof without any interruption ever since.” During the early part of Charles I.’s reign, Nashe wrote his celebrated ‘Lenten Stuffe, or the Praise of the Red Herring.’ Being a Lowestoft man, he naturally took sides in the controversy against Yarmouth, and it goes without saying that it was the Lowestoft Red Herring which inspired his muse. Swinden (‘ History of Yarmouth’) characterizes it as nothing more than ‘‘a joke upon our staple—Red Herrings.”’ It would * I must refer the reader to Gillingwater’s ‘History of Lowestoft,’ chap. iii., popular edition, published by Arthur Stebbings, 1897, Lowestoft. 370 THE ZOOLOGIST. be untrue to say that Yarmouth does not to this day look upon Lowestoft with a somewhat jealous eye. Gillingwater’s* account of the Herring Fishery, with a few alterations in details, and the description of the Herring curing, are pretty well descriptive of what occurs to-day :— ‘‘The Herring season,” he says, ‘‘ begins on the Hastern _ Coast of England about a fortnight before Michaelmas, and con- tinues to Martinmas. The number of the boats annually em- ployed at Lowestoft .. . from 1772 to 1781 was about 33, and the quantity of Herrings caught in each of those years was about 714 lasts, or 21 lasts to a boat, which makes the quantity of Herrings caught by the Lowestoft boats during that period to be 7140 lasts. These Herrings were sold, upon an average, at about £12 10s. per last, which makes the whole produce arising from the sale of the said fish to be £89,250.” The number of boats employed in the Herring Fishery and the value of the season’s catches continually fluctuated. After 1781 the boats decreased to eight in number, owing to the war with the Dutch and other countries. But more peaceful times saw satisfactory developments, and Lowestoft to-day has become a most formidable, albeit peaceful, rival to Yarmouth. In 1854 there were 82 fishing boats, in 1864 they had increased to 167. The autumnal Herring voyage in that year (1864) amounted to 4675 lasts. Frank Buckland (‘Fisheries Report,’ 1875), when making special inquiries into the state of the Kast Coast fisheries, stated that, on the authority of a well-known Lowestoft fish-merchant, the spring Herring Fishery was then of great value to the Lowestoft people, upwards of one thousand men and boys being engaged in it, and a sum arising to £380,000 was put into circulation. He gives a table of statistics that covers a period of eight years, which is appended (p. 3871) :— ‘ He further stated that from eighty to ninety boats went out from Lowestoft and a number from Gorleston to catch these spring Herrings, and that a great quantity of them were sold to the Dutch and French fishermen as bait for their long lines to catch Halibut and Plaice. To my mind, that was all they were fit for, for the North Sea spring Herring is dry and taste- * € History of Lowestoft,’ 1790. FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 371 less, differing in quality from its successor, the midsummer Herring, which waxes fat on Opossum Shrimps, Gammaride, and other small crustaceans and copepods that abound in the North Sea during the warmer months.* The Herring then HERRINGS CAUGHT AT LOWESTOFT. | | Spring Midsummer Autumnal oe | eae | Herrings. ere | Lasts. Lasts. Lasts. Se 1,521 304 2,645 aes | ho Gl 3,613 ee rn nd ttn e's 30 538 | 75 5,711 are ues) oe a | 5,226 B55, ots. eiesn Gather! cw 88e\! | 4,675 Sere 1,887 sy 10,973 Meee ec. capi ae nr sn 9,173 7S ee Bs pelts @ Sh. 108 | | [Then not yet | begun. ] makes the fattest and tastiest of bloaters, and are of a far more exquisite flavour than the fuller-roed and milted fishes of the late autumn. In more recent times the number of boats has been hugely augmented, and the catches of correspondingly vaster propor- tions. In 1904 the total number of lasts taken during the twelve months was 27,174, as against Yarmouth’s 40,091. The boats then fishing out of Lowestoft Harbour numbered 282 local vessels and 291 Scotch boats. In 1907 a further increase was noted; Yarmouth, with 220 local and 720 Scotch and other boats, captured 52,122 lasts, whilst Lowestoft reaped a very satisfactory harvest of 39,197 lasts (13,200 Herrings to the last), as the “‘ take” of 251 Lowestoft boats and 413 Scotch and other vessels employed. It may be interesting to append the follow- ing returns of the separate months, which cover the spring, midsummer, and autumnal voyages. ‘These and the return for 1908 are from Mr. T. J. Wigg’s paper on the “ Herring Fishery ”’ * From the stomach of a six-inch Herring, on April 13th, 1890, I took one hundred and forty-three Opossum Shrimps. 372 THE ZOOLOGIST. in the ‘Transactions’ of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society :— RETURN OF HERRINGS LANDED AT LOWESTOFT IN 1907. Month. Lasts. | Month. Lasts. PRIVUEY oot aermeoweabep a Brought forward... 1,277 Webruary 23.c..605.ccuke re a a UY: Ce seca aeiioe siete: 37 iaeln Wacdcaene ceca ae Oa NWO UBUD oo. Bates hea eees 28 PUTT ae ete ee eee Bio | SSOMuOna er gear, 00 ee: 75 May oK ans tet aeenteoncaae LOO a cOctobers...1.5 eee 15,602 UNIO See ee eaten t64-)-Novermiber’...2,.25..s2e. 18,579 — | December ............... 3,099 Carried forward ... 1,277 Motal ys... .2 39,197 lasts. Return oF HERRINGS LANDED AT Lowegstort 1n 1908. Month. Lasts. Month. Lasts. JaMUAEY . Psagiurne, scenes ~- Brought forward... 663 Bebruary ~s5: scc.wet een iets: oie is ditty aoe see tate eee 48 Manche ci trc acaoong ee PAU un Wiese bP ic tree te Sores am pl 26 so) oll ee bebe en tie arene er A 500 | September ............... 252 Wyo satiten ee canoer 40+) Qetobet=). eevee cdneus: 15,476 UNG: ence cae oe resent. a8 | November... ser cess eae 16,701 —— |. December. ............,+. 2,084 Carried forward ... 663 Wotal: acemeees 39,250 lasts. ‘‘ Being arrived on the fishing-ground,” says Gillingwater, ‘in the evening (the proper time for fishing), they shoot their nets, extending about 2200 yards in length and eight in depth, which, by the help of small casks, called ‘bowls,’ fastened on one side, at a distance of 44 yards from each other, cause the nets to swim in a position perpendicular to the surface of the water. If the quantity of fish caught in one night amounts to only a few thousands they are salted, and the vessels, if they have no better success, continue on the fishing-ground two or three nights longer, salting the fish as they are caught, till they have obtained a considerable quantity, when they bring them into the roads, where they are landed and lodged in the fish-houses. Some- times when the quantity of fish is very small they will continue on the fishing-ground a week or ten days, but in general they bring in the fish every two or three days, and sometimes oftener, which frequently happens, and instances have been known where FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 373 a single boat has brought into the roads, at one time, twelve or fourteen lasts.”’ In these days of steam and feverish haste the boats, in- dependent of winds and tides, hurry to the more convenient dock-quays, often laden to an inconvenient degree with a single night’s catch. The “ spitting,’ hanging, and smoking of Herrings still goes on as formerly, but the bulk of the catches are nowadays merely gutted and packed in brine in barrels, the deft-fingered Scotch lasses in their hundreds and even thousands, as in Yarmouth, altering the whole complexion of the curing industry. The exports now consist principally of salted Herrings ; the bulk of these go to the Baltic ports, Germany and Russia absorbing the greater proportion of them. In the early days competition and trickery evidently occurred, and frauds were even practised in the packing of smoked Her- rings; bad quality and meagre-sized fishes then went to the bottom of the barrel, a trick that the workman, I will warrant, was not wholly responsible for. A complaint was made to the Government in the days of Charles II., praying that this grievance might be redressed. The purport of this complaint showed that even the barrels’ cubic inches were not always above suspicion. It was decreed: ‘“‘ That from and after the first day of August, 1664, no white or red herring of English catching shall be put up to sale in England, Wales, or towne of Berwick- upon-Tweed but shall be packed in lawful barrels or vessels, and what shall be well, truly, and justly laid and packed; and shall — be of one time of taking, salting, saveing, or drying, and equally well packed in the midst, and every part of the barrel or vessel ; and by a sworn packer,” &c. The oath was as follows :—‘‘ You shall well and truly doe, execute, and perform the office and duty of packer of herrings . . - 80 help me God.” In its palmiest days the Mackerel fishery at Lowestoft did not reach very large dimensions. ‘‘ The principal advantages which the merchants receive from the fishery,’’ as Gillingwater points out, “is that of employing the fishermen and keeping them at home for the Herring season, more than emolument to themselves.” The same reasons were assigned by the Yarmouth 374 THE ZOOLOGIST. merchants for pursuing there what has ever been a more or less precarious business. The Mackerel season began in the middle of May, and continued until the end of June. This restless and wandering species was ever capricious; in fine, calm weather the catches were always poor, the fish swimming deeper in the sea, and it is probable that it was sufficiently cunning and alert to avoid the nets provided for its ensnaring. Rough, breezy weather, ‘‘ with plenty of colour in the water,’* as an old Mackerel catcher described it, is always most favourable, rousing the fish from below, and bringing them to the surface within reach of the fatal meshes. ‘‘Next morn they rose and set up every sail ; The wind was fair and blewa Mackerel gale.’’+ —Dryden. Gillingwater presents us with a number of statistics respect- ing the Mackerel Fishery in what he terms ‘“‘ An Account of the Mackerel Fishery at Lowestoft from 1770 to 1785 inclusive.” This appertains principally to the number of boats employed annually, and the amounts realized from the sale of the fish. 1 append a few of these dates, omitting several for the sake of © brevity :— Year Boats £ Souede 1 AS aes See an A a ee ea oe 2,401 2 24 Lae ee cea EE ee eee ep ae 3,179 5 1 Wf ae ae eee Nar SO cae Matec velstomere 2,012 5° 0 AGG) eaten eae BO 228 eee eatae ten 1,595 17 84 AGS) het tteaee ious be DAL estoy baehe aeske iss 1,295: 19'* de ABO Ss toes erm tins 10 Ee en eee ee 1,559 3 10 AD Ar scoters etege cee 16 (average per ) 136- 12 WSL, secre rbaspentee fe 20 | boat ) 119° o fiz 1 BO Bods tues cee AN Miter Ee Retin ertrr 249 8 84 [* Supposed to be the greatest Mackerel season ever known at Lowestoft. | Gillingwater’s “‘ greatest season’ was eclipsed in 1821, when the catches reached huge proportions. On June 30th sixteen Lowestoft boats caught Mackerel to the value of £5252, being an average of £328 per boat, and it was estimated that a sum of * Most likely due to the presence of minute marine creatures upon which the Mackerel may be feeding. + Dr. Johnson, in his ‘ Dictionary,’ describes a Mackerel gale as ‘‘a strong breeze, such as is desired to bring Mackerel fresh to market.’’ I prefer to take the generally accepted idea of a stirring wind. . FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 375 £14,000 was realized by owners and men in the fisheries off the Suffolk coast on that one day. Nall,* writing in 1866, states that ‘‘ the Lowestoft catch a few years ago averaged about fifty lasts annually; latterly, from the unprofitable results of the venture, fewer boats have been engaged in it, the fishermen prosecuting in preference the spring and summer Herring fishery.” At the time of writing he averred that the ‘‘Mackerel fare-ing” had almost died out. On his authority it may be stated that in 1854 twenty boats were enoaged, earning £3460; 1855, six boats, earning £930; 1858, ten boats, earning £710; 1862, three boats, earning £27. In those days the Kast Coast Mackerel were brought to the beach, a practice which was followed, I believe, at both ports until recent years; they were sold by private contract and by public auction. The markets for the fish were London and the principal towns in Kast Anglia. ‘To London consignments were de- spatched in fast-sailing cutters then employed by the London fish- mongers. The introduction of railways and preservation by means of ice have tended to a wider transportation, and to more regular prices. The highest price on record for Mackerel occurred in May, 1807, when the first boat-load from Brighton realized forty guineas per hundred of six score—seven shillings each! In the following year Mackerel struck the neighbour- hood of Dover so plentifully that they were sold at sixty for a shilling. Frank Buckland brings down the history of the ‘‘ Fare-ing”’ to a more recent date. ‘‘In former years,” he says, ‘‘ Mackerel realized a large price; now the merchants have to compete with very fine fish caught off the Irish coast, ...and-also with immense numbers from Norway. These are packed in ice.” .. . Similar conditions prevail to-day, and it is a curious fact that, for a number of years following Buckland’s inquiries, the local fishery was hardly worth pursuing, the Mackerel changing their immigration until the time of the autumnal Herring-fishing, when on some occasions they became so abundant that several Yarmouth and Lowestoft boats changed their Herring-nets for Mackerel-nets. * * Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft,’ by John Greaves Nall. 376 THE ZOOLOGIST. — A few items selected from Buckland’s Report are appended :— ee Hundreds caught Total amount > (120 in each hundred). realized. Re ee TB O4 a sie hee O20 co" a 0 DS OG feijosGivneeeh eds 2,367 POG a toe A) SOB yes wees chs oie: 4,124 0,155 O O TOMO Sree cee 6,612 8,265 0 0 OW an, Gece ee 3,034 4,167°. 0-0 LS (Eee as ne 3,147 3,933 15 0 To Mr. H. J. Henderson, the present Harbour Master at Lowestoft, I am indebted for the past two years’ records :— MackEREL FisHine, 1908-9. Mackerel feeds Month. gee "5 Equal to eee of 1908. 1909. : oo ' Hundreds | Hundreds ag pooh UeaieraeR OM re 22 LS 1908, 1908, MY deat ates 6,802 4 502 202 lasts. 49 boats. FADE ans Nera etettier wee. 13,344 15,484 1909, 1909, To July 11th 94 537 205 lasts. 54 boats. Total. pons 20,262 20556 407 lasts. —_—— The average price for each year would be about nine shillings per hundred of one hundred and twenty fish. Against the above, the Wharf Master’s figures, at Yarmouth, are as follows :— From April 1st, 1908, to March 81st, 1909: Boats, 45; lasts, 239 = 1,390,000 fish. From April 1st, 1909, to August 20th, 1909: Boats, 47; lasts, 256 = 1,560,000 fish. The capricious movements of the Mackerel have already been hinted at; they seem to come as they like, and stay away when the humour seizes them. I am satisfied that these apparent ff eccentricities are entirely due to tidal and other influences, which ff FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 377 affect the natural economy of the species. Mr. W. A. Dutt* gives a graphic account of a glut of Mackerel at Lowestoft in the winter of 1897, an unusual time of the year for such an occurrence :—‘‘In the winter of 1897,” he writes, ‘‘ when the _ Mackerel season was at its busiest, almost unprecedented catches of fish were landed on the wharves. Soon after dawn during those winter days the drifters [Herring ?] came sailing in, and often by ten o’clock in the morning the Waveney Dock was so full of boats that the fish had to be heaped on the trawl-market. And still the heavily laden craft kept crowding in, until there was hardly a pier or jetty that had not a score of boats along- side. Day after day similar scenes were witnessed. ... So close to the shore were the Mackerel shoals that the drifters were in port in little more than an hour after they had hauled in their nets, and then it was often hours before the catches were landed. . . . In early spring many of the Lowestoft boats .. . join the Cornish boats engaged in Mackerel fishing off Land’s End and the Scilly Isles.” Iam not prepared here to enter largely into the matter of temperatures of the German Ocean, which vary in successive years; but temperature and the varying strength of the tides undoubtedly greatly govern the peregrinations of all marine creatures, and an abundance of food naturally controls the movements of those creatures which prey upon it. The spring and summer of 1906 were exceedingly interesting to me by reason of the many species of crustaceans and fishes that came to hand. My note-book for that year was crowded with ‘in- stances”’ and ‘‘ finds.’ Herring-syle and the smaller crustaceans were legion. The autumn saw many rare ichthyological visitors on our shores; among these was the rare Scomber thunnina, hitherto unrecorded for British waters. Off Lowestoft were cap- tured two Thresher Sharks (in September), and another off Yarmouth. Unusually big tides set in on a north-west wind on the springs—a rather abnormal cireumstance—and I noted an invasion of Sprats early in October. Probably these causes contributed to a great influx of Mackerel off the East Coast in May, 1906. The ‘Yarmouth Mercury’ of May 26th thus refers to this:—‘‘A good many years ago the East Coast Mackerel * Vide ‘Highways, Byways, and Waterways of East Anglia,’ p. 135. Zool. 4th ser. vol. XITT., October, 1909. 26 378 THR ZOOLOGIST. fishing was one of Yarmouth’s most important industries... . Suddenly the Mackerel left the neighbourhood, but in time they appeared in abundance off Cornwall. ... For the last two seasons, however [the local boats which followed them to Cornish waters], they have been anything but successful. Again the — centre of interest shifts. As unexpectedly as the dandies of the British Seas left one of their old haunts, as unexpectedly have they reappeared in their legions a few miles from Yarmouth. Getting well among them, .... Saturday [May 19th] was a record day. Upwards of forty boats arrived with good catches, some having as many as a last {12,000 fish]. . . . Should it transpire that the Mackerel have returned for good in anything like their old numbers, it will be a great boon to Yarmouth and Lowestoft.” The references to caprice and unusual appearances and dis- appearances call to mind a remarkable inshoreing of this species in November, 1875, when the Harbour Master of Lowestoft wrote Mr. T'. Southwell that a large number had been taken at that late season of the year. He remarked: —‘‘The large quantity landed at our market this autumn is a very unusual thing, as they are only caught on this coast in May and June.” A similar abundance was recorded by myself in ‘ The Zoolo- gist, * when immense shoals struck the Suffolk coast. On Nov. 12th a glut occurred at Lowestoft ; several boat owners hurriedly changed their Herring-nets for Mackerel-nets. The drifter ‘Nugget’ landed just four lasts, or nearly 50,000 fish. The nets were so full that one-half could not be stowed in the net- room; ‘‘the remainder, still ‘ gilled,’ lay in a huge heap piled on the deck.’ In some cases nets ‘‘ grounded”’ (sank) with the weight of fish. There were formerly two other fisheries pursued from the East Coast ports, known as the North Sea and the Iceland Fisheries. These flourished more especially in the middle of the seventeenth century. Swinden says that, in 1644, Yarmouth sent 205 vessels, 182 going to the former, and 23 pursuing the latter. These, however, being greatly harassed by foreign foes and kingly rapacity—for the king made raids, or exacted heavy tolls (the same thing!) upon the catches for provisioning his * Vide ‘ Zoologist,’ 1908, pp. 448-9. FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 3879 fleets—gradually declined, and were never afterwards revived. Lowestoft had annually sent thirty boats; in 1720 they were reduced to five. Mr. Copping, an eminent Lowestoft merchant, sent the last boat from this port to the North Sea in 1748. Cod and Ling (which proves the fishery to have been a line fishery) were the principal catches ; in a good season the boats would return with four hundred for each craft. These fishes were cured by pickling them in casks; some were dry salted. They were afterwards despatched to foreign ports. ‘‘The livers were a considerable article,’ says Gilling- water, ‘‘and there is a trench still visible upon the Denes, a little to the north of Lowestoft, where stood the coppers where they used to boil the livers.” The trawl fishery has of late years become of considerable importance to Lowestoft, thanks greatly to the fostering in- fluences of railway patronage. In plain words, Lowestoft owes much more to the enterprise of the Great Hastern Railway Com- pany than to the original energy of its own inhabitants. I can- not get much information with regard to the beginnings of the trawling industry in this port. Ata meeting of the Royal Com- mission (inquiring into the East Coast Fisheries in 1863), which was convened at Lowestoft in the November of that year, Mr. J. Robertson, then Collector of Customs, in giving evidence, stated that at that moment the Herring and Mackerel boats numbered 176, with ‘‘eight smacks employed in the trawling only.” At that time Yarmouth had a fleet of some 150 smacks, which had increased to 400 sail in 1875. In a few years Lowestoft shot ahead. To-day the number of trawlers fishing from Lowestoft is some 300 vessels, whilst those from the port of Yarmouth are less than the number of fingers on one’s hand! I have heard it stated that Lowestoft’s “start” dated from the advent there of Sir Morton Peto, after his rebuff at Yar- mouth, whose development he had greatly desired, as well as certain political honours for himself. At any rate, to his enter- prise and liberality in promoting docks and railway connections with the Great Eastern Railway, supplemented by the helping hand of the Company itself, Lowestoft owes much—indeed, most of its present-day prosperity.* * For account of harbour developments, see White's ‘ Directory.’ 262 380 THE ZOOLOGIST.. = The Fish-markets are situated exceedingly near to the sea. The three ‘“‘basins”’ or docks are fairly commodious, and the wharves convenient, but the outlet to the sea is all too narrow. On certain winds, or when a rush of boats takes place, the harbour is not easy to negotiate either in or out. The Herring and Mackerel markets and the Trawl market are distinct. Most of the business in the latter takes place in the morning, whilst the Herring markets, deserted at other periods of the year, pre- sent an indescribably busy scene from early morning until late into the night during the Herring fishery. The Trawl market is carried on all through the year. There had been a spell of fine calm weather early in August (1909) ; on the 11th and 12th very few smacks had landed but small catches. Prices ruled high. It was reported in a local paper that a record price had been made in Yarmouth on the llth. The one solitary smack that came into the harbour had landed some Plaice. One “trunk” (of eight or nine stone) had realized £310s. This had been eclipsed by Lowestoft, a ‘trunk ” of Plaice having gone as high as £3 14s. I was extremely fortunate, on the 13th, in seeing no fewer than one hundred Lowestoft and other smacks in the trawlers’ basin at that port, the whole area being covered by a fleet of these beautiful yacht-like craft (fifty or sixty tonners). I had left Yarmouth by an early train, with several Yarmouth fish-buyers, with their tubs, who had gone over with me to the fish-market, which presented a unique spectacle. Before nine o’clock there had been spread hundreds of ‘‘trunks’”’ of Plaice, ‘‘ Roker,” Brill, Dabs, ‘‘ Lemon Soles” (Smeared Dabs), Whitings, Had- docks, Codlings; huge Turbots and Cods, Congers and heaps of offal (small Red Gurnards, undersized Dabs, Plaice, &c.) lay in heaps at odd corners. There rumbled, hither and thither, huge springless trollies and sack-barrows over the uneven slime- splashed concrete, emptied, or piled with ‘‘trunks”’ of fish, to and from the smacks, each trundled by one or two gaunt, daring, uncouth smacksmen. Then above this uproar and the riot of voices rang the ear-splitting clanging of auctioneers’ bells, and the stentorian bellowing of hoarse-throated salesmen, who yelled ‘‘ This way Haddock buyers!’’ ‘‘ Now you Sole buyers!” and ‘This way Roker!’ There would be an excited crowd FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 381 winking and nodding to a shouting auctioneer, whilst another would be shrieking his wares to an audience of four! There was a glut—it was Friday, too, and the boats that had been held back for days had come in pell-mell on the first advantageous shift of wind. Visitors thronged to see the strange scene, and those who were slow to move got mixed up sadly with trunks and fish and barrows. I confess that I had to lay my ear close to catch the purport of the fish-salesmen’s clamorous bellowing, and had frequently to ask some bystander what the selling prices closed at. The following prices, as showing the differences attendant upon a ‘‘glut’”’ or “‘ famine,” may be interesting : — Aug. lith. Per trunk. Aug. 18th. Per trunk. Piatee s,s ccc £3 14s. £1 15s. to 18/- “Roker”... 28/— to 30/— (Price I could not catch)* SOLS ghee. £12 to £13 £3 8s. SPT DAN SS 5 wins snin'hy 17/- 6/— to 4/- 15 11 6) alae i a ie 18/- 4/-, 8/—, 12/- ‘Lemon Soles ”’ (fine) -... 18/- The fluctuations in prices shown on the 138th are to be accounted for by the differences in size and quality, as well as fewer buyers as the time passed on. I was by no means im- pressed by the general run of the fish; many of the ‘ Roker” (Thornback Rays) were no larger than dinner-plates, Codlings ran to about a pound in weight, Whitings were undersized, and many others were by no means ‘‘ prime” fish. A fair-sized John Dory (Zeus faber) was the only fish that might be termed curious. One had need go to the wharf day by day, as Mr. Southwell did in 1901,+ to see ‘‘strangers” thrown down upon the pavements, e.g. Porbeagles, Sting Rays, Sturgeon, Torpedo Rays, &c. There was nothing beyond the common-place market fishes—not a Crab, Lobster, Whelk, Squid, or Porpoise. From what information I gathered the smacks had been scraping about in the home waters of the North Sea, certainly not beyond Cromer Knowle; and I also noticed more than one ominous Shake of the head when I asked if these smacks were paying. If ‘Steam-trawlers should put into Lowestoft the sailing craft might at once cease to trawl. I am not alone in believing so. The ** There were very few full boxes of Roker. + Vide * Zoologist.’ 382 THE ZOOLOGIST. trend of the fishing is northward—ever northward. Yarmouth has lost its trawling industry; I somehow fear that Lowestoft will some day follow suit. How can they long compete against the northern ports which send their ever-restless steam-fleets to the Iceland waters and the far-away north White Sea ? It was with some degree of relief that I left the Trawl-market for the quieter Herring basin, into which only a few shrimpers were sailing to sort over their catches of the morning.* These consisted mainly of Sand Shrimps (Crangon vulgaris) of a goodly size, among which were many small Jelly-fishes (Cydippe pileus), and nota little red seaweed. I noticed they did not pick the weed from the Shrimps, but shook out the crustaceans from the weed! I had armed myself with several packets of tobacco, and was speedily on more than speaking terms with the shrimpers, whose boats I boarded, and whose catches I overhauled. I was not a little astonished to find but a half-dozen ‘‘ Pink Shrimps ” (Pandalus annulicornis)—the Aisop’s Prawn. “Pink ’uns,” said one fisherman, ‘“ won’t sell at Lowestoft ; they want brown ’uns!”’ which is the reverse of Yarmouth. They therefore fish on sandier bottom, avoiding the “rough” (Sabelle) grounds. And whereas some of the Yarmouth catches have been as high as twenty pecks for a tide, not one of these boasted a catch of more than three pecks, and they seemed well content at that. In one boat I saw several Soles; the best of these were purchased by a fishmonger. These men seem to have regular buyers, and then dispose of the smaller fish privately. I was not impressed by the variety of the ‘‘ captures” taken with the Shrimps. In one boat was a fine Sprat (Clupea sprattus). Among other refuse I ‘“‘ noted” the Lesser Weever, Piked Dog- fish, Skulpins, small Bibs, Whitings, and Herring-syle, not to mention a number of Pipe-fishes (Syngnathus acus), Yellow Gobies (Gobius auratus), very small Dabs, Soles, Spotted and Thornback Rays, Flounders, Pogges, and a few Little Squids (Loligo rondeletti) and a L. media. I saw a few. Swimming Crabs, and two beautiful examples of Portwmnus variegatus. * A fortnight later (Aug. 30th) this basin was crowded with freshly painted Herring-drifters, all high-busy getting nets and stores aboard for the autumnal Herring fishing. FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 383 A few boats were of the Yarmouth build and rig—broad- beamed, cutter-rigged ; others were of the Southwold and Alde- burgh “‘ punt” type, and a few of a nondescript order, one being a queerly metamorphosed yacht—some twenty-five to thirty in all. The men were not enamoured of the ‘rough ground”’ north of Lowestoft, so favourite with Yarmouth men.* On the piers, like so many Cormorants looking for prey, sat perched in various attitudes some two hundred Atherine anglers, seeking ‘“‘Sand Smelts.” One old gentleman, of philosophic appearance, armed with a light rod and a crow-quill, pulled out forty silvery-sided beauties in about an hour. These small fish anglers were still in evidence on the 30th, catching greater or lesser numbers. The Shrimp-boats had all been moored when I arrived at their quarters, and the men gone home with their catches. The retreating tide had left on the shore at the east side numbers of creatures thrown out as refuse; among them many Sand-stars (Ophiocoma rosula) and empty valves of . the Mactra stultorum (the Radiated Trough-shell). I saw a Pholas, numerous small Whitings, and a host of three-inch Bibs. ‘‘Them little pouts,” [Bibs] said an old salt, ‘‘die suner ’an any fish livin’; they fare to blow up and float dade directly they come out of the water. There’s lots of big ’uns come off there [indicating Lowestoft Ness] later on, and perwide good fishin’.”’ “You have no draw-netting at Lowestoft?” I queried. ‘‘ No— none; there’s too many groynes,’ he answered. ‘‘Any Smelt- ing?” ‘No, sir, if you mean ‘Cucumbers,’ but they catch a few in the basins ‘long wi’ them silver-sided ones.” From another interesting fellow I gathered that some sixteen Lowestoft boats engage in the November Sprat fishing, while carts from Kessingland and Southwold run up to the Lowestoft market with Sprats, and the boats from those places occasionally run in with their catches. He himself had Kel-pots in the basins. I was accosted by a young fellow, on leaving the Herring basin, who offered me some fine Flounders at a shilling per dozen. He had taken them, with some Eels, in the basin in a folding hoop-net. On leaving the wharves I strolled around the older part of Lowestoft, situated below the cliff, taking note of the fishing premises, which do not seem of that roomy and important size * Vide ‘Nature in Eastern Norfolk,’ p. 101. 384 THE ZOOLOGIST. one is used to at Yarmouth. The sandy dunes were being levelled (on the 30th), and prepared for the use of the Scotch girls, whose numbers are increasing each fishing season. The most interesting trip during my holiday investigations was to Aldeburgh, on Sept. lst. There were but few visitors on the stony beach, at the foot of whose steep incline the sea-waves have eternally rattled the rounded pebbles. There seemed in the everlasting rattle the sobbing of some disappointed great Evil Spirit. The boats were out a-trawling, Soles above all else their quest, and they would not be home till noon. So I tramped along the apex of that unbound shingly rampart—scrunch, scrunch—to Slaughden, a tiny hamlet a mile from the town. How far its roots went down in the stone-heap I could not say, but there flourished with great grey-green leaf-tufts the yellow- horned poppy (Glacium flavum), a most delightful seaside wild flower; sorrel and coarse thistles grew sparsely; Brassica oleracee, Salsola kale, Crambe maritima, Vicia lutea, and some other shore-plants that I did not recognise, cropped up here and there. ‘The only birds I saw were a few grey Gulls. There was not a Tern in evidence, and this, too, where there was, but three or four years since, a well-protected colony ! * At Slaughden I made the acquaintance of an entertaining old man of the sea, a Mr. Chatton, of charming personality, a boat-builder, shipwright, eel-catcher, sea-angler, and spratter in turn. Irom him I gathered that there were from twenty-five to thirty Sprat-boats at Aldeburgh, carrying three, sometimes four, and rarely but two hands. The boats were ‘‘ punts’’ of about twenty feet. A ‘‘fleet”’ of nets carried by a spratter was com- posed of thirty nets, that spread a full half-mile, of small mesh, and three fathoms deep. They had no deadly stow-nets on that coast, which killed the fry of every kind of fish. The Sprat Fishery was on from the end of October until late in December, sometimes till Christmas-time, and on rare occasions Sprats were taken early in the spring. Sprats were uncertain, like — Mackerel. Their presence could be detected; even if a bit windy the sea where they were would be like glass, and oily in appearance [as I have seen water in which Herrings had shoaled] ; * Cf. the destruction of Terns in ‘ Wild Life on a Norfolk Estuary,’ pp. 273-278. FISH AND FISHERIES OF HAST SUFFOLK. 385 sometimes they gave the water the appearance of being ruffled by the wind. ‘‘ Did the sea-birds trouble them?’ He assured me that the Gulls were a great nuisance; they seized on the nets and pulled them out of the water, shaking out the Sprats. Those that ‘‘ worked’’ and those that looked on quarrelled over the spoil, to the spratter’s disgust. The ‘‘ Willows” (Guillemots and Razorbills) did not interfere with the nets, but dived in among the shoals, as did the Red-throated Divers. Occasionally they got fast inthe meshes and were drowned. Sprats were sold by the bushel; they were sent to London in boxes; from ten shillings to twelve shillings a bushel was a good price at the beginning of the season, which went down to four shillings and five shillings towards the latter part of it. A good eatch was from forty to fifty bushels, and as much as a boat could well carry. The boats used years ago to shoot a number of bushels each into a yawl and send it to Yarmouth—this was thirty years since, but it paid better now to send the bulk to London. There were none sold off this coast, under ordinary conditions, for manure. From him I gathered that Grey Mullet were plentiful at times in the estuary of the Alde; Bass were numerous also, and afforded great sport to sea-anglers. Smelts were netted, and Hels trawled for at night; there was fine sport sometimes in winter pritching for Hels. - Hanging in Chatton’s boat-shed were three or four ‘‘ pritches,”’ a kind of Hel-spear, made of thin iron rod scarcely stouter than bicycle-spokes, spread like the fingers of one’s hand, each point being sharp and upturned. The shaft is long and extremely light, the whole apparatus weighing about 23 lb., whereas a Norfolk ‘‘ Hel-pick ’ weighs 7 lb. The “ pritch”’ is said to have the advantage of not cutting the Eel, which often happens with the spear... . At noon the boats returned; they came in on the beginning of the ebb-tide, and negotiated the steep, awkward beach with extreme care, coming straight on, carefully avoiding a broadside, which would not only be very dangerous in anything like a rough sea, but difficult to right. Two or three active fellows were in waiting at each landing with “skids,” long flat spars with an iron facing, which were thrust under the stout billage-streaks of 386 THE ZOOLOGIST. the boats to prevent them sinking in the yielding shingle. A rope was speedily attached to the keel, and the boat heaved by a sturdy winch over the high angle of shingle on to the beach. I noticed but few species of fish in the boats, the catches evidently being sorted when the trawl is hauled. A bag-net which averaged enough Soles to fill a bucket was invariably thrown ashore from each boat; these after being rinsed in the sea were immediately gutted on the beach. Some “ Roker,” Blue Skate, Spotted Ray, and Plaice of small size, with a couple of large Edible Crabs and a Lobster were all the other species noted. A few Sand-stars and some broken Sabelle told of the nature of the eround ‘‘ worked.” The men were exceedingly courteous and communicative. The boats are marked I. H. (Port of Ipswich). I roughly paced the trawl-beams at from eighteen feet to twenty feet. The beach is woefully lumbered up with old gear, winches, boxes, broken Crab-pots, &c. There attaches some considerable interest to the chequered histories of these Hast Suffolk fishing towns, figuring as they did largely on the panorama of the ages; but too much room cannot be given to a survey of them, however brief. A very condensed and succinct account of the past and successive fisheries of Lowestoft, Southwold, Dunwich, and Aldeburgh, full of curious phrasing, is given by Miss IE. M. Hewett in the ‘ Victorian History of Suffolk,’ vol. 11., in a chronologically arranged manner. I venture to quote from two short items in Hele’s ‘Notes about Aldeburgh,” ‘‘in respect of the fishery.’ They are couched in the quaint language of the period, in each case referring to rights in dispute. One is an indenture between William Saunbrugge, Prior of the Priory of our Lady of Snape . .. on the one part, und Robert Cosard, John Benselyn, Robert Bayer, &e..... granteth by these present writings to the said Towne and Tene- ments that whereas they paid in the Old time ? for every boat .... going to fishing for sperling [Smelts] in spurling time shall pay yearly for evermore to the said Pryor,” &c. Hele also gives a copy of an indenture :—‘‘ The counterparte of an Indenture between the Citye of London ana Aldburgh that the Aldburgh men should pay no duties at London for unlading Her- rings Spratts Coals salt and other things.—Dated Ist Dec. 1608.” Reference must be made to a sporting pastime which in- FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 387 creases in interest year by year. I refer to sea-angling, which has become not only a means of recreation to hundreds of lovers of the rod, but of a source of revenue to professional men, who cater at the various seaside resorts for those who cast angle. There are men and boats always obtainable at Aldeburgh, South- wold, Lowestoft, Gorleston, and the villages along the coast. At Aldeburgh flat-fish swarm in the bay; and there is said to be ‘* Lobster-catching on the Thorpe Rocks in the summer.” Ama- teurs, for a consideration, can generally find a skipper willing to ship them even during the November ‘‘ spratting.” Sea-fish may be taken at Slaughden; and at night, I understand, ‘‘ the beach {in late autumn] is illuminated by the lanterns of enthusiastic Isaac Waltons.”’ Mr. Clarke, of Aldeburgh, states that shoals of fish are found from one hundred and thirty to three hundred yards from the shore, while, if the sea is too rough for fishing, the waters at the back of the town are available. At Southwold equally interesting sport may be obtained under similar conditions, while the piers are favourite resorts. Lowes- toft also offers favourable opportunities for sea-angling. Mr. F. G. Robson, Master of Claremont Pier, Lowestoft, has kindly furnished me with the following statistics :— Season FROM OcroBer 6TH to DreceMBER 5TH. 1905. | 1906. BY MIMUNAS oi. wo 21 bp JAS eg 0 01 ss as eet 71,029 Lic ule aR eae 2,220 Cease Ts. TOT Pang ists weepalehates 383 Dabs.) eaveschs:. 206 Pehle civians «ic Oh ors » 4524, | OGAL, 7s; 72,022 1907. 1908 PN UGTA Scan canna isi Die he KN ndings decks cats. 46,008 ls TS 981 OG eet cefasccnss 4,285 Beets ees cree tee 1,382 16 Ltt MD teal ite he 29,165. Moe aone te es 51,404 In an article to ‘The Zoologist’ (1901), on ‘‘ Lowestoft Fish-wharf,” the late Mr. T. Southwell, presented us with an entertaining view of that busy fish-market, detailing an inter- esting catalogue of species he met with during a few days’ researches among the catches of the trawlers and drifters, con- cluding his paper by a frank admission that “it would not be 388 THE ZOOLOGIST. right to claim the fish we see landed here as belonging to our immediate neighbourhood. The steam-trawlers go far afield, .... but there are others which make their captures nearer home, and by the exercise of due caution a shrewd guess may be formed and often accurate information obtained as to the locality of their origin.” He further regretted there was ‘‘ nobody living there who takes an interest in the subject.” I have shared that regret, and have often wished that there was some enthusiastic Suffolk ichthyologist competent to supply such a catalogue as would bear a fair comparison with the large list of those already known to have occurred in Norfolk waters. Both at Aldeburgh and Southwold, as well as at Lowestoft and the fishing villages between, rare fish must occasionally be met with. It was quite by accident that, since I had penned the - greater part of this paper, I fell in with Robert Wake’s ‘ South- wold and its Vicinity’ (1839). In this interesting volume there is a bare list of the marine species of that neighbourhood, with but two lines of introduction. He, however, concludes the list with a sort of footnote, remarking: ‘‘ Besides the above, numberless nondescript small fish are occasionally taken in the trawl-nets.” What an interesting array these ‘‘ nondescripts ” should make! Wake gives us a list of fifty-one species, from which two so-called species must be eliminated, and two allowed to remain with a ?. These will be noted in the list that follows. Thanks to Mr. Southwell’s paper for providing me with an incentive to research, my endeavours to draw up a bona fide list of respectable dimensions afforded me a most interesting series of flying visits to the chief fishing stations in Hast Suffolk. It has been my pleasure to verify species already recorded, and to add several hitherto unnoticed. I previously possessed a number of “records” of fish which had come into my hands, and there were a few, of rarer sorts, figuring in the lists included in the ‘ Transactions’ of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society, which were of service to me. I suppose I may term this an initial collective list of the Kast Suffolk species ; I hope its publication will offer inducement to still further research. I may add that I consider greater credit is due to him who, already having had the ground prospected, fills up gaps (which I have certainly left) and adds fishes hitherto unrecorded. ; FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 389 The Freshwater Fishes of the East Suffolk district are neces- sarily few, and should be thoroughly ‘‘ worked out” with ease ; the Marine species, however, from the vast scope of the con- stantly moving salt tides, must always afford a chance of finding and identifying new-comers and stragglers, the uncertainty of whose advent, coupled with their probability, should always keep the investigator on the qui vive. Fritton Lake, to which is attached Lound Run, lying midway between Yarmouth and Lowestoft, is a long, narrow, tree- embowered sheet of water, over two miles in length, nearly half a mile across at its widest part; its waters, in the hotter months, hold in suspension a vast amount of vegetable organ- isms, which give them a peasoup-like appearance. Shoals of large and very slimy Bream inhabit its depths, and form the sreater part of the anglers’ catches. Roach and Perch are abundant, as are Tench, and Crucian Carp, -which, however, rarely take the hook. Pike are plentiful, but seldom trouble the angler in summer-time. This lake is exceedingly beautiful, and a great resort of Wild Duck, Wigeon, Tufted Duck, and others of the Anatide, great numbers of which are taken annually in the decoys.* Oulton Broad, a wide, clear, yacht-crowded expanse of water, contains about one hundred acres, and is joined to the Waveney by a “dyke” a mile and a half long, which the un- initiated fail to distinguish from the river itself. Perch-fishing was at one time a noted pastime here, the fish resorting to the vicinity of the lock for the sake of the Shrimps that abounded. Grey Mullet were at one time numerous in the neighbourhood of Oulton Broad and Lake Lothing at certain periods. Than Mr. W. 8. Everitt, a noted yachtsman and sportsman, whose estate borders on Oulton Broad, no one knows this beautiful lagoon better, he having lived in its vicinity for several decades. In the course of a chat with him on Aug. 17th last he greatly added to my interest in this favourite Broad. He could not tell me offhand as to its degrees of salinity, which is heavier than that of the Norfolk Broads, for a certain quantity of salt water constantly escapes into it through the lock which divides it from Lake Lothing. He assured me there were still a few small Rudd therein, and that the Perch are much smaller than of yore; that * Of, ‘Nature in Hastern Norfolk,’ pp. 54-57. 390 THE ZOOLOGIST. Carp, which never take a hook, and Tench also are found. On one occasion some ditches had been ‘“‘ fyed out,” and the great accu- mulation of Anacharis and other weeds removed, when hundreds of very small Tench took up their quarters there, and grew most rapidly. He referred to the partial migration of Bream which at certain periods came to the Broad in shoals, returning to the rivers at other seasons—a subject well worth studying. The Mullet, that in the earlier half of the last century were abundant on the Oulton Broad in August, were now much scarcer, and came in May; they delighted in lukewarm water that was constant around certain works. Mr. Everitt, in conjunction with some other sportsmen inter- ested in game-fishes, near the end of the seventies turned down in various directions sundry ‘“‘finger-length Rainbow Trout, Salmon (Salmo salar), and half-breds” from Bungay downwards, but they were never afterwards heard of, probably falling a prey to Hels, Pike, and other ichthyophagous creatures. Golden Tench, nine inches in length, were turned out into various ponds at Haveringham, Oulton, and Park’s Hill. At the former places they did not thrive, the Herons no doubt finding them out. At the latter place they seem to have done well, growing to fourteen inches and scaling three pounds. There were also small ones discovered, which suggests multiplication. Some ‘‘ Looking-glass”’ Carp (Cyprinus specularis) were turned into a North Cove pond at a little later period, but did not prosper; Mr. Everitt thinks that the Otters, which he pronounced ‘still too common” (!), found them out and destroyed them. I visited Lowestoft on July 22nd (1909), taking a ramble on my way around Oulton Broad and Lake Lothing, my prin- cipal objective being an inspection of the natural history speci- mens exhibited in the well-known ‘ Wherry Hotel’ at Oulton. Herein I found a very interesting collection of birds, including a Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea), Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), Pallas’s Sand Grouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxus), and others, all shot in the neighbourhood. Here also were numerous cases of preserved fishes, of rare or record celebrity, among them being a Bream (Abramis brama) of 63 1b. With it is cased a 22 lb. fish which I believed to be a hybrid Bream x Roach. Both fish were taken on Aug. 13th, 1881. A Black Bass (Centropristes FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 391 atrarius) is exhibited as the only survivor (!) captured out of a consignment from Austria that had been deposited in local waters; the others, it is believed, were all devoured by the Oulton Pike. Tench, Rudd, and Dace are represented, and a Golden Tench of 2 lb. from a pond near Lowestoft. There are some fine Perch, taken from one catch, and a well-preserved plaster cast of a fine lot of Roach, which suggests Buckland. Host Horne believes that the falling-off in the numbers of fresh- water fishes in that locality is greatly due to the disturbance caused by motor and steam launches, which fling a turbulent wake into the reeds, beating the vitality out of the ova thereto attached. There would seem some truth in this theory. On the edge of asmall arm of Lake Lothing, cut off from the main Broad by a railway embankment, and probably scarcely so salt, although connected by a sluice, I found dead examples of Gasterosteus aculeatus, varieties of both the Rough-tailed and Quarter-armed Stickleback. These had probably been killed in sexual fights; they were males in good colour, but had been bitten, apparently by crustaceans. It was odd to see stretches of reeds and sedges forefronted by ‘“‘ Raw” (Chetomorpha linum) and ‘‘ Cabbage” (Ulv@ lactuca), species of semi-marine plants so commonly found on Breydon mud-flats, in among which I saw Idotea and Spheromida, which were lively and busy enough. In the basins of the outer harbour Atherines were abundant, and Herring-syle was flashing in the sunlit waters. There are numerous ponds, mostly private, scattered about Hast Suffolk which I should like to have explored, as well as riverways, locks, &c. I visited the Waveney on Aug. 12th, in company with Mr. H. E. Hurrell, who is keen on Rotifera and Polyzoa, and from what I saw of the life teeming in its trans- lucent depths, and in odd corners rank with water-plants, I sincerely envied those whose opportunities to study it were better than mine. The Waveney, the Blythe, and the Alde, with heir circuitous meanderings and marshy connections, invite areful research; while further to the south-east of the county till more magnificent opportunities offer in the wide-spreading stuaries of the Deben, the Orwell, and the Stour, whose marine auna should provide excellent lists. To come back to the marine fishes of East Suffolk—there is 592 LAE ZOChOGISE: much to be done by careful observation ; draw-netter’s catches are to be watched to some profit, whilst shrimpers and wolders and punters, who trawl and dredge in the shallows and deeps around the Corton, Newcome, and Barber Sands, the Holm, the Sizewell Bank, and Aldeburgh Napes and the Ridge—the ‘rough grounds ” and the sandy stretches—meet with a great variety of genera, some of which, as the Gobide, the Blennies, and the flat- fishes, muster quite a number of individual species. As a case in point—on June 16th, 1906, during a walk along Southwold beach, on which I casually looked into the boats drawn up awaiting the morrow’s tide, I recognized no fewer than eighteen species, among them the Pogge, Spotted and Thornback Rays, Tope, Picked Dog, Greater Weever, and a very beautiful fresh Pilchard. To further augment the list, investigations should be carried on in winter as well as in summer, for during storms and severe weather curious fishes, as the Opah and the Ray’s Bream, muddled among the sand-banks, might be washed ashore. Some of-my rarest finds at Yarmouth, e.g. the Miuller’s Scopelus (Maurolicus borealis) and the above-named species, have been thus unceremoniously tumbled upon the beach. The good- fellowship and co-operation of fishermen should be enlisted; there are ways of winning their help and sympathies besides an occasional serew of tobacco, and were they assured that a reasonable price attached to the bringing in of a strange although to them a worthless fish, it would soon find its way into the hands of a generous collector. The good offices of sea- anglers also are not to be despised, and even the urchins who loaf around quaysides may be made useful in adding to a naturalist’s happiness. . The List of Species which follows is by no means a complete one; there are many gaps, even among the commoner species, to be filled in—fish which I am certain are to be found, and ff have been, but, as I have not had proper verification, have been necessarily left out, to be discovered and added by any person having time as well as inclination to follow my lead. The abbreviations are as follow:—Nor. N. 8. means ‘ Trans- actions’ of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society; [ J], not indigenous or doubtful. (To be continued.) ( 393 ) SOME SWISS BIRDS OBSERVED AT THE RHONE GLACIER, KLEINE SCHEIDEGG, AND MACOLIN, JURA BERNOISH, IN 1909. By Rey. Caarues W. Benson, LL.D. I neLp for some weeks in July and August, 1909, three chaplaincies in Switzerland :— 1. Rhone Glacier, 5742 ft. above sea-level. 2. Kleine Scheidege, 6768 ft. above sea-level. 3. Macolin-over-Bienne, 2883 ft. above sea-level. I venture to contribute some observations of the birds noted at these three stations, and also on the Grimsel Pass and the Furka, and up to a height of 8120 ft. July 9th we left Meiringen in the diligence with five horses for Gletsch, the Rhone Glacier Hotel. When we had been out for about four hours we arrived at the Handeck Falls and Hotel, and were there told that further progress was impossible, as the Grimsel Pass was blocked with snow. We therefore reluctantly returned to Meiringen for the night. Next day we set out again, and were enabled providentially to get through, as rain had set in. But on the following day—Sunday—this changed to snow, and the Grimsel had seven feet deep of snow in it, and icicles, I was assured, at least one foot and a half long. The wires were all down, and even the iron rails fastened on stone posts on the road. Of course all communication was stopped, and travellers who came down by the Furka intending to pass over the Grimsel had to remain at the Rhone Glacier Hotel. The authorities told me that this was quite an unparalleled state of things in their experience—such a snowfall in July was a thing unheard- of before. Large numbers of soldiers with pioneers in front and many labourers set to work and opened the Pass for traffic by the Wednesday following. Before the great snowfall reached the valley, I noticed some Common Swifts and Wheatears not very far from the hotel, but they seemed to disappear 4ool, 4th ser. vol. XIII., October, 1909, 2H 394 THE ZCOLOGIST. after the first day of the snowstorm, and I did not see them again. My list for the Rhone Glacier Valley proper did not include more than half a dozen birds. Linnets and Redpolls were very numerous, Black Redstarts, Water Pipits, White Wagtails, and House-Martins were about all. When the weather moderated, however, and we were able to walk over the Grimsel and Furka roads, we added to the number. Wrens were very plentiful and in full song almost to about 7000 ft., and to my great surprise I heard Bonelli’s Warbler and the Garden-Warbler at the same height. A few Alpine Choughs and Snow-Finches were also seen. Descending towards the Oberwald, 4816 ft., 1 observed the Wood-Warbler, the Whinchat, and many Goldcrests, and for the first time the House-Sparrow, though I had observed the Hedge-Sparrow on the Furka Strasse. A bird which I heard near the top of the Grimsel Pass was quite new to me, and I am very anxious to identify it if possible. The height was about 7000 ft., and the note of the bird, constantly repeated, sounded exactly like ‘‘ Titchi, duck, duck.”* There were evidently two birds answering each other, and in exactly the same phraseology. I never heard these notes before nor have I since, though on two occasions I revisited the spot, hoping to see and hear the utterers. When I approached the spot where the birds were, they were immediately silent, but shortly after I saw on a rock some distance away, and one which I could not approach, a brown bird with pale breast, somewhat like a Garden- Warbler. I could not, however, be sure that this was the bird whose notes attracted me, though I think it was. Near the Grimsel I also observed a Rock Thrush descending singing with uplifted wings close to the Todten See, ‘‘ Lake of the Dead.” I once had a similar experience on the Pilatus Kulm. Some distance above Grindelwald was the only place where I noted the Meadow-Pipit, and, at Interlaken only, the Serin Finch, but Chaffinches and Redpolls were extraordinarily numerous. At the hotel on the top of the Furka Pass I found the House- Martins nesting, and circling at a great height in the air at an * Mr. Warde Fowler suggests a Wheatear, SOMH SWISS BIRDS. B95 elevation of about 8000 ft., but nowhere did I find Swallows higher than about 3000 ft. The Marmots in the Rhone Valley kept up their shrill whistling all day long, but it was difficult to sight them. When we left the Rhone Glacier Hotel our next post was the Kleine Scheidegg, 6768 ft., and there I was led to expect many bird residents, such as ‘‘ Blackcocks, Mountain Cocks (sic), Mountain Swallows,” &c., but I could only find the following :— Crow, Redpoll, Black Redstart, Water-Pipit, and Siskin, or “* Zeisig,’”’ as this little bird is called in Switzerland ; but on the rocks over the Kiger Gletscher Station, 7620 ft , the first station on the wonderful Jungfrau Railway, there were many Alpine Choughs, and the air was filled with their shrill cries. { thought, also, that on one evening I saw one of the Ravens reported from the Lauberhorn circling round the station. Redpolls were very numerous, and were to be found all along the descent from the Kleine Scheidegg to Grindelwald. On the Lauberhorn, 8120 ft., and the Mannlichen, 7695 ft., there were no birds whatever. My third chaplaincy was at Macolin-over-Bienne, Jura Bernoise, 2883 ft., a lovely spot with views embracing the distant Alps from Sentis to Mont Blanc, and there I noted thirty-two species; the most remarkable being the Common Buzzard, the Black Kite over the Lake of Bienne, and the Alpine Swift— numbers of these birds were circling round the Stadtkirche at Bienne; but I saw none at Berne, where, at one time, they were so numerous. Jays were also very plentiful in the pine-woods, and Willow-Warblers and Chiffchaffs were calling ; Crested Tits were also common. I should think that in May this would be & splendid station for observing birds, as the woods are really magnificent, reaching down 1500 ft. and more to the lake below. It is easy also of access from England, being only about two hours from Bale, whilst it can be reached even more speedily from Belfort. On the whole, I noted fifty-two species in Switzerland, but I should probably have observed more were it not that my localities were for the first month at such high altitudes, and for the last in August, one of the most unfavourable months in the year for bird observation. 396 THE ZOOLOGIST. Macolin was reached from Bienne by a funiculaire in fifteen minutes, and at the station in Bienne Swallows had a nest near the roof, and the second brood were just beginning to fly as we were leaving at the end of August. Hverything had been done to ensure their safety, perches and other conveniences had been provided, and the station was each year frequented by these birds. In one year we were told that they built in the carriage itself which went up and down every hour about 1500 ft. to Macolin; they hatched out a brood going backwards and forwards with the car, and when the young were fairly well grown, - allowed them to go up by themselves, and waited until they came down again to give them food. ¢ B97 ) NOTES AND QUERIES. AVES. The Whinchat at Wilsden.—Pratincola rubetra is not nearly so numerous as it was in the sixties in this district. Its scarcity, how- ever, has been most marked within this last decade. Whether this may be due to natural or artificial or to both causes it would be difficult to say. The almost total disappearance of whin-covers from this neighbourhood may be one contributory, but cannot be the sole determining factor in the problem, since it is by no means confined to such places, but used to be quite at home nesting in our meadows, and next to the Titlark was the nest in which the Cuckoo used to deposit its egg; but I never once found the egg of the Cuckoo in the nest of this species that resembled the egg of the fosterer in the least degree, not even the type which approaches that of a Pied Wagtail. My only wish is that in the future it may yet return to our district in greater numbers to breed on our heathy wastes. Its well-known call-notes amid such associations, even now, awaken many pleasant memories.—H. P. BuTTERFrELD (Wilsden). Marsh-Warbler in Bucks.—T wo years ago I observed the nesting of the Marsh- Warbler at Thorpe, in Surrey, and recorded the same (Zool. 1908, p. 137), it being the first known instance of Acrocephalus palustris breeding in the county. Two nests were then found, the first with four eggs on June 14th, and a second nest on the 25th, also with four eggs. Last year I spent considerable time throughout the summer in trying to rediscover the birds around the same place, but was not successful, and I came to the conclusion that their occurrence was merely accidental. I was on the river on June 14th this year, and went ashore to inspect a very dense nettle-bed not very far away from the historic Magna Charta Island. Immediately on landing I found a Reed-Warbler’s nest in an osier along the river front, which con- tained two eggs and one Cuckoo’s. In proceeding to make my way through the tall dense nettles, I came suddenly upon the nest and two well-marked eggs of the Marsh-Warbler, and here also there was a Cuckoo’s egg, though of a different type to the one I had just 398 THE ZOOLOGIST. previously found in the Reed-Warbler’s nest. I was very surprised and pleased to again find the Marsh-Warbler breeding, and especially so at finding a Cuckoo’s egg in the nest, for there are very few instances of its occurrence in England. The nest was placed some twelve yards back from the river on firm though damp ground; it was not more than eighteen inches from the ground, and was com- posed entirely of dry round bents, fairly substantially made, and having two live nettle-stems woven into the sides. The actual spot was in the parish of Wraysbury, in the county of Bucks (Wyrardis- bury, as it used to be called), and is not more than five miles from the Surrey plantation where I met the birds in 1907. I informed my friend Mr. Edward Pettitt, of Wraysbury, of my find, and, as he is in- terested in ornithology, asked him to let me have any further news of the birds. On June 30th he succeeded in finding another nest in the same nettle-bed, and within a yard or two of my previous nest; this nest contained four Marsh-Warbler’s eggs and one Cuckoo’s, the latter being of a third type—that is to say, quite distinct from either the egg I found in my Marsh-Warbler’s nest or in the Reed- Warbler’s. This second nest was again built of dry bents and placed about eighteen inches from the ground, and had two pieces of dead loosestrife and two live nettles woven into the sides. It may be that the Marsh-Warbler is attempting to establish itself along this part of the Thames, but more evidence is required before one can form an opinion on this point. I may say, how- ever, that previous to 1907 I had never met the bird in these parts, though I had worked along the river for many years, and always hoped to meet it one day—GranHam W. Kerr (Ditton Lodge, Datchet). Raven in Surrey.—On the 12th September last I both heard and saw a Raven (Corvus corax) flying overhead here. The peculiar croaking sound was unmistakable. I believe this bird has not been previously, or at all events for many years, recorded in Surrey.— N. P. Fenwick, Jun. (The Gables, Esher, Surrey). Cormorant in Warwickshire.—Replying to Mr. Smalley’s sugges- tion (ante, p. 350), the bird I recorded (ante, p. 8315) was of course, as I stated, a Cormorant and not a Shag. The Common Cormorant varies considerably in size, but the usual length seems to be about 36 in.; wing from 12°5 in. to 14:00 in. The bird I referred to was a small, young example, and thin. Its wing,was 13 in.—O. V. APLIN (Bloxham, Oxon). NOTES AND QUERIES. 399 Nordmann’s Pratincole in Yorkshire.—A specimen of Nordmann’s Pratincole (Glareola melanoptera) was shot at Reedholme, near Danby Wiske, on August 17th. It was flying with a flock of Green Plover at the time. — R. Fortune (5, Grosvenor Terrace, Hast Parade, Harrogate). Machetes pugnax in Co. Mayo.—-It may interest some readers of ‘The Zoologist’ to know that a Reeve was shot by Mr. H. Knox, of Greenwood Park, on August 30th last near Daleybann Lough, Bella- corick, Co. Mayo. This is only the fourth specimen that I know of shot in this western district, all being solitary birds shot during the autumn migration.—RoBert WARREN (Moy View, Ballina). NOTIONS. -OF NEW. BOOKS. The Kea: a New Zealand Problem. By Groner KR. Marriner, F.R.M.S. Williams & Norgate. Apart from the ornithological point of view little can be said in favour of this bird; to the sheep-farmers it is too frequently a cause of heavy loss, to the sheep themselves it is a cruel and fatal vivisector. It has, however, been said—and Dr. Wallace in his ‘ Darwinism’ largely popularised the idea—that the bird actually burrows into the living sheep, eating its way down to the kidney, which forms its special delicacy, an erroneous statement and unnecessary, for the Kea’s record is black enough without this suggestion. Mr. Marriner has written an excellent and exhaustive life- history of this destructive bird, and clearly proves, apart from the kidney myth, that if extermination at the hands of the sheep-farmers eventually ensues it will have earned its fate, though it is probable that it will survive in greatly diminished number rather than be added to the list of extinct birds. It inhabits the alpine regions of New Zealand, where the severity of the winter is especially felt, and ‘‘ builds its nest, lays its egos, hatches and rears its young, all during the severest months of the winter.” It appears that all Keas do not kill or even 400 THE ZOOLOGIST. attack sheep; ‘usually one or two old birds, known as ‘ sheep- killers,’ do the killing, and the others share the spoil’; neither do the Keas ‘‘ choose the lambs or weaklings, but in most cases the choicest of the flocks is killed.”’ Their depredations may be estimated by the complaint of one sufferer: ‘‘One year I had a bad muster; four hundred woolly sheep came in at the beginning of winter, when the snow fell and the sheep could not get away. I placed them, as I thought, in a safe position, on the hillside close to where I lived. In spring, when I went to have a look at them, the Keas had killed about two hundred of them.” It is not surprising to read that a price has been put upon the heads of these marauders, usually 2s. 6d., though sometimes as much as 10s. We may feel a certain amount of pity for the destruction of birds who poach over our agricultural lands and orchards, but for the Kea, who puts the sheep to a particularly cruel and lingering death there need be little clemency. There will never be perfect peace between man and other animals; the most humane and tender-hearted florist would gladly sign a decree for the utter extermination of slugs by the most effica- cious means. Some teachings of Socialism, the right to live with the right to share, fortunately fail with the treatment of the Slug and the Kea. There can be little doubt that the Kea has, comparatively speaking, recently acquired its carnivorous propensities, and the different theories proposed to account for this change in habits are fully discussed by the author, who has successfully shown how a small volume can be written on a single bird, readable from beginning to end and containing all we want to inom The pages are well and fully illustrated. Correction.—The publishers of ‘The Wild Beasts of the World,’ reviewed in our last issue (ante, p. 358), are T.C. & H.C. Jack, and not T. C. & I. C. Black, as printed. THE ZOOLOGIST No. 821.—November, 1909. AN OBSERVATIONAL DIARY on tor NUPTIAL HABITS ors crue ~ BLUACKCOCK > (TETRAO TETRIX) mum SCANDINAVIA ann ENGLAND. By Epmunp SELovs. (Part I. ScaNDINAVIA.) In the spring of 1907 an opportunity was given me through the kindness of Mr. Biesert, a Swedish gentleman of distinguished political and other attainments, to study the nuptial habits of Blackcocks in the neighbourhood of his wood-pulp manufactory in Wirmland. Mr. Biesert being absent from home, on account of his health, and the old friend, for some years a member of his household, with whom I had been going to pass the time, having also to leave, through some unforeseen circumstances, I found myself in the novel position of being alone in a handsome and luxurious residence on the borders of a beautiful lake amidst Scandinayiau pine-forests, with servants the most obliging and accommodating, in attendance, to whom, however, I was unable to say the shortest sentence except through the Engelsk-Svensk volume of a large dictionary, thoughtfully left on the table, which, if it were a question, would be answered, again by means of the Svensk-Engelsk portion. On the same basis less the dictionary which was not of portable size, I had also a forester ; but Herr Hoglind, the courteous and talented manager of the adjoining works, was always at hand through the telephone to 4ool. 4th ser. voi. XIII.. November, 1909, 21 402 THE ZOOLOGIST. adjust matters whenever, in the way of difficulty, they ‘‘ grew to a point.” With all this, however—the romantic or novelistic part of the story—ornithology has nought to do, and I, therefore, leave it, to come, at once, to the scientific results of my visit— for field natural history is as scientific as astronomy, or any laboratory work. April 12th, 1907.— This morning, having failed with the Capercailzies, I tried the Blackcocks, getting to the shelter I had put up, a day or two before, some time between three and four. At about 4 there was the angry ‘‘ whush-ee”’ note of a Blackcock on the ground, and, shortly afterwards, the musical rookooing one—the ‘‘ whirble”’ as I call it—of several from surrounding trees. This continued at intervals till, at about 5, three or four cock birds appeared on the ground, but at aconsiderable distance from where I sat. Also they kept getting behind a young fir, by which, though it was only some three feet high, and pro- portionately small, they were yet very much hidden. Still I was able to see most of what went on. The great feature was the spreading out of the tail, by which the curled feathers on either side became a very marked feature, much enhanced by the bunch of white ones between them. The two white spots on the shoulders were also very conspicuous, and beyond all, perhaps, the red comb or sere above the beak. The birds would stand or walk with the tail expanded in this manner, and the head held down except when, at intervals, with a little start and a note that seemed to express sudden impatience they craned it up- wards, and sometimes, but by no means always, gave a little leap into the air. A quick succession of such movements on the part of some became a sort of dancing over the ground, in which I recognized, but very faintly, the astonishing performance of which on one occasion only, now some 8 or 9 years ago, I was a witness in Norway. LBesides this, some birds faced, and even sparred a little at each other, but it was a very feeble and half- hearted affair, suggesting either that these particular individuals were not good fighters, or—which is perhaps more likely—that the season is as yet too early for the martial spirit to have become properly developed. April 13th.—Started very early with Jacobsen (the forester), but wasted valuable time in unsuccessful quest of Capercailzies, NUPTIAL HABITS OF THE BLACKCOCK. 403 and it was only on our return, much later, that we visited the lek of the Blackcocks, and, creeping up the rocky ridge bounding it on one side, saw two or three of them on the ground. It was the same thing as yesterday, but even poorer, since it was almost over. Still there was a dance or two over the ground, more particularly of one bird, but if this was intended as a challenge, it was not responded to by any of the others, so that there was not even the semblance of a fight. The running and jumping were, each time, ushered in by a short flight, low over the sround, from the place where the bird had up to then been standing, and with the impetus of this, as it were, the leaping began. It was, I think, accompanied with some angry notes, but if so, they were hardly to be heard, so that the vocal effect produced by the bird I saw in Norway, which hissed and spluttered like an angry cat, was wholly wanting, and the dance itself not comparable in intensity. After a little of this the bird flew into one of the surrounding fir-trees, where it sat making the rough yet musical notes which are as characteristic of these northern fir-forests as is the Wood-Pigeon’s cooing of our own woods. It then flew down again, and continued its ground per- formances for some time longer, and, when it next left, was accompanied by another bird, the two flying from one tree to another, and settling, at length, in closely adjoining ones, where they whirbled at one another. In the display of the Blackcock some of the white feathers of the tail are seen above the black ones, even when the bird stands fronting one. There are also two white spots, violently conspicuous, on each shoulder, or thereabouts. What part, if any, is played in all this by the hen bird? As yet I have not seen one anywhere, though probably, had any been about in the open, my glasses would have searched them out. This, however, is quite in keeping with the nuptial doings of the Ruff. She has no doubt yet to make her entry into the drama. Though unsuccessful in seeing what I wanted to, with the Capercailzies, this morning, yet I had a good view, through the glasses, of one, a hen bird sitting on the very top of a fir-tree, which may be the accustomed perch chosen. The Blackcocks 212 404 THE’ ZOOLCGIST. also fly up into the tops of their trees, if not always into the top bough. April 15th.— Up at 3 and went with the forester to the Black- cock lek, where he left me. I did not go into the shelter, but sat under a small fir-tree on the ridge, which commanded a much better view. From about 4, when it was still dark, the birds were noisy, first the rookling or whirbling note from the trees around the open space, and then, from the ground, apparently, those curious, loud, angry notes, having a sort of wheezing, whishing or sneezing sound in them, intensified sometimes, during the excited ‘‘dance,’ as I have myself heard, before now, into a sort of hiss. The best rendering of the note I can give on paper is ‘‘to-whash”’ or ‘‘to-whay.’’ It comes very suddenly and scrapily out of the gloom. Miungled with this I now hear, from time to time, a softer, quite different note, which may possibly be that of the hen; but it is impossible for me to see anything, and this is mere conjecture. A little before 4.30 there is a pause, both the “‘ to-whashing ”’ or ‘‘to-whaying’’ note—this last, I think, is nearer—from the ground, and the ‘‘rookling”’ one from the surrounding trees, cease, and with this it becomes gradually light. The place seems entirely deserted, and it is only in the distance, over a wide stretch of country, that I hear the latter occasionally. The stillness now, at 5, is striking. It is now 5.15, and, for some time, I have not caught the faintest note of a Blackcock. It seems as though there was a short space of nuptial activity amongst the birds, the first thing in the morning before light, and then, with the coming of day- light, a long pause. 5.25. — The whirbling now in evidence again, but very slightly. At 5.45 a Blackcock comes sailing, like a Pheasant with spread wings, across the open space, and settles in a fir, just skirting it. He sits there erect, on its very top, his head held well up, as though listening for any impudent rooklings. Now they begin, but far off. He does not answer, and his first note is that angry ‘‘to-”’ or ‘‘tir-whay’’ which I had connected wita the bird being on the ground, but proves now to be independent of situation. Afterwards when three more males sit in firs NUPTIAL HABITS OF THE BLACKCOCE. 405 skirting the space—two, again, at the very tip-top—it is heard from one or another of them, and now the first-comer begins to rookle continuously. The note is now longer than before, and has a greater volume of sound init. It is a sort of talking, and begins to sound, after a preliminary ‘‘ roor”’ or two, wonderfully like the sentence, ‘‘ Give him his coppers; he’s going to take the electric.” This may be fanciful, but so I suppose is the con- stantly repeated remark, or dark allusion, of the ‘“‘ Brain-fever ” Bird in India, and having heard the thing once it is impossible not to go on hearing it, with increasing distinctness, every time the sound goes up, which it does continually, or almost so, during a whole hour, till I leave. At long intervals the bird stops to utter the more angry-sounding note, which is the only relief from this distracting hallucination. At 7.30 no other birds are there, and I go. April 17th.—Up at 3, and get to the place about 3.40. First ‘‘ tir-whay ” note at 3.45, and now come some very loud and striking ones. Then the rookling, and that other and more plaintive-sounding note that I have spoken of. With them all the air is now quite vocal. Itis all amongst the belt of trees, however, and probably from amongst their branches. ‘‘ Choc- choc-kerade,”’ in soft, complaining, yet resonant tones, represents, fairly well, the plaintive-sounding note. 4.5.—I can now see some birds—at least two in the arena; three or four, as it turns out, for all at once, now, at 4.15, there is a sudden and instantaneous flight of all of them back into the trees. 4.25.—It is now light, and the pause I spoke of, the other day, seems to have commenced. All around the arena silence reigns. At 5.30 three birds, and then another one, fly down into the arena. They stand, or make a step or two, spreading out their tails, as described, and then two approach each other, uttering that note which I have called the plaintive one—very soft and plaintive-sounding it is—and conjectured might belong to the hen, but which would now seem to be the note of war par excel- lence. Once or twice the birds approach in this manner, but the utmost they do is to make a slight feint at one another. Then, all at once, all four—for there are not more—rise and fly into 406 THE ZOOLOGIST. the trees. From these rookling now proceeds, and the ‘‘ Give him his coppers; he’s going to take the electric” is as apparent as ever. It seems likely, therefore, that when i heard all these ‘notes in the darkness the other morning some of the birds, at any rate, were in the arena, though it being, perhaps, a little darker then, I did not see them. Whilst still dark it is a good deal warmer than at and after daybreak, and whether for this reason or that the sexual stimulus is not yet fully developed, the birds seem shy, as yet, of remaining for long on the ground— certainly shyer than some days ago, when the weather was finer and warmer. These last two mornings—Monday and Wednes- day—there has not been any of that darting and flying about over the ground, and springing into the air, that, though little compared to the tremendous ‘‘ dance”’ which I once saw in Nor- way, in May, has yet been the most noticeable feature of these present nuptial performances. The difference between the earlier and later form of this sexual whirlwind, as it may be called— between the breeze and the whirlwind—is very great, insomuch that one would hardly at first, or without the evolutionary habit of thought, suppose that the one could have passed into the other. Nevertheless, the last is merely the first intensified, or, at any rate, if one imagines a constant addition, can very well be seen in this light. In speculating on the meaning of this frenzy, as at its height it may be well called—indeed it then beggars description—of the Blackcock, its probable course of development must be con- sidered. At first, as shown by my observations of the 12th and 13th, the actions indulged in are no more than slight exaggera- tions of ordinary flying and running about over the ground. There is little or nothing suggesting some special object to which they are adapted. They seem the outcome of general excite- ment, or, speaking more accurately, the more or less generalised outcome of a special kind of excitement, which we must hold to be the sexual kind, since, though the sexual instinct may be the greatest provocative of the combative one, we cannot identify it with this, but must suppose it to be anterior to and producing the other, as a consequence of itself. All creatures, whether combative or not, become thus excited during the pairing-time, such excitement standing, as I suppose, in direct connection NUPTIAL HABITS OF THE BLACKCOCK. 407 with the physiological development proper to the season. I would consider, therefore, that these violent motions are, in their in- cipency, at any rate, sexual rather than combative, to whatever end and object they may have been ultimately shaped, whether to that of terrifying rival males by a warlike display, or rousing the amatory feelings of the hen bya courting one. Also, should evidence of any more special end be wanting (end is perhaps the better word, as not implying consciousness), the benefiting of the bird through mere violent activity—erotic athletics one might call it—would be a quite sufficient one. Observation is the only path by which we can arrive at true notions in regard to all this. At present I have observed that the birds, when they have seemed most like fighting, when they have most made believe of it as I may say—for of true fighting there has been as yet nothing—have sometimes, at any rate, if not always, approached and thus feinted, without any previous display of this sort—at least that seemed to stand in any imme- diate connection with it. This was certainly the case, this morning, when there was a little of this advancing, confronting, and half-hearted threatening—only a very little certainly—but not any previous saltatory movements. Probably Blackcocks sometimes quarrel and fight out of the breeding-season. It would be interesting to observe whether they then indulge in these antics. If not, they are, probably, not of the war-dance order. The same argument might even be applied in the case of a quarrel with another species, since if such actions, whatever their origin, have now become fighting ones, or such as usher in fighting, then fighting at any time and for any reason ought, one would think, to produce them. Thus male Stone Curlews, when threatening one another in the spring-time, fan the tail very effectively—which I look upon as essentially a sexual dis- play. I have, however, seen one of these birds—when the two Species were intermingled over a sandy area—make a rush ata Pheasant, who fled most ignobly, and the tail was not then fanned. Surely if the action had been evolved along lines of intimidation it would have become so essential a point in combat that it could never be dropped. So much then, for the present, in regard to the war-dance or challenging theory of these actions. As to that of sexual display, the hens have not yet put in an 408 THE ZOOLOGIST. appearance, which, however, is far from conclusive against it, since not merely association of ideas, in rivalry, but the season itself, without their presence, would be sufficient to produce them. In the evening I questioned the forester, through the inter- pretership of Herr Hoglind, in regard to certain statements which I had dimly understood him to make, as to certain winter habits of the Blackecocks here—to wit, their burrowing in the snow and eating their own excrements. From finding so many little collections of these in the fcrest—the whole country is either lake or forest, with open spaces of rock, moor, or peat-hag —I had surmised that it was the habit of the birds to void them in one spot, either coming to it singly, or at different times, or else collectively, for, from such heaps being frequently found in the open, they could not be accounted for as having fallen from their roosting-trees. Jacobsen, however, says that such collec- tions are made by one and the same bird that has burrowed down in the snow and remained there for several days, or even weeks, if I understood him correctly—or say a week or ten days— eating their excrements many times over. He says that hard weather and scarcity of food oblige them to do this, and that it is their regular habit. Asked if several birds might not burrow in the snow together, like this, and the number of excrements be thus accounted for, and if they did not go together in winter, he said that they did go together, but that each one would make its own hole in the snow, so that there would be one here and another there, close together perhaps, but not united—a sort of Blackcock warren in the snow, it would seem. It seems to me possible, however, that though each bird makes its own separate hole in the snow, which indeed one would expect, yet that several may come together under it and stay thus for the sake of warmth. Yet even thus they would occupy some space, and it would, in fact, be impossible for such compact heaps as I have found to be produced by more than one bird, unless they had a special habit of voiding their excrements in one particular spot —and this seems highly improbable. I do not, however, see how the fact of the birds eating their excrements, as a means of nourishment, is made out, since Jacobsen did not profess to have actually seen them do so, which would have been difficult under NUPTIAL HABITS OF THE BLACKCOCK. 409 the circumstances. Not that the thing seems unlikely in itself, but since excrements are supposed to be the waste products of food, how should the birds be nourished by them, many times in succession? Moreover, the explanation would seem to be destructive of the phenomenon to be explained. Such heaps, however, certainly seem the products of a considerable space of time, and if the bird is all that time in the one spot, under the snow, which is what Jacobsen says, how is it nourished? As Jacobsen has passed his whole life in these forests, his father having been forester (the equivalent here of gamekeeper, or rather game-getter) before him, he may be supposed to have intimate knowledge of the bird’s habits. The Capercailzie, he says, does not burrow in the snow, its food consisting entirely of pine-needles, so that it would never be driven to do so. In explanation of a large heap of over a hundred droppings of this bird under a tree, he said it would be from the same one roosting always on the same branch. To me it seems more likely that the Blackcock burrows under the snow to get food. But to do this it would have to move about, and, here again, these compact heaps of droppings seem rather curious. April 18th.—To-day, unfortunately, was a blank, for having arranged with the forester not to call me any more, since I could now find my way to the lek alone, even in the dark, I overslept myself. April 19th.—Called by the night watchman at 2.80, and started shortly after 3, getting to the ridge from which I watch in the first twilight of dawn. It is night, however, in the dark forest, and, as yet, silence. Then, just asl get settled and com- posed, in my rugs, comes the first almost sleepy “ tir-whay,”’ then a pause, and another—still sleepy—and then several others no longer so, and now I hear the flight of a bird or two down, as I think, into the arena, where I-seem for a moment, amongst the shadows, to distinguish one black form. Then comes the first imperfect whirble with another or two in the distance, whilst the “‘ tir-whaying”’ increases, though with fluctuations. Another near rookle. I can take no note of the hour, my watch (price 7s. 6d.) having become incapacitated for the second time. I have hardly been here ten minutes, however. Some loud, fierce-sounding “ tir-whays,” whilst the full 410 THE ZOOLOGIST. rookle—‘‘ give him his coppers, &c.’’—sounds now here and there. I can make out no birds, but from the sounds, some seem to be down, and might even be fighting. Very loud, harsh and fierce, now, are the “ tir-whays” (or ‘‘ choc-heys”’), and a white tail or two, as I think, gleams for a moment through the mist and frost of the bog—for it is in a part of a large swampy ‘‘ peat-hag”’ or ‘‘ moss’’—which is the Swedish word—only just crossable, that the birds gather or should gather. I can see one now, clearly, and then the black body—blacker than night— whilst, from the sounds, birds seem to be flying and leaping, here and there, over the ground. The only one, however, that I can see distinctly, and keep in view, seems to be pretty quiet. Rookling comes all round about, now, as light slowly struggles out of the darkness. Before this, too, I have heard the plaintive- sounding, but really bellicose, ‘‘ choc-choc-kerada’”’ note. Now, however, when morning has really come, I can make out no birds. Yes, one now—a coal-black blot. But the early pause has come, and there are none on the arena. Frost is over moss, grass, and bog-heather, and amidst the sombre green of the fir- trees the slender white stems of the birches—here mere saplings —slash the air in innumerable perpendicular cuts. All the sky to the westward is now a deep, dusky blue—almost purple— whilst slowly, from the eastern horizon, a brightness begins to climb. The silence and still beauty of the scene is impressive, and one might think that the birds were impressed with it, since, for a considerable time, now, there has not been a note of one. Now, after a long interval, and in broad daylight—though the sun has not yet topped the firs, only fired them a little— the whirbling recommences, having been preceded by the harsher note. A hen bird now flies down into the arena, and is courted first by one and then another cock that I had not seen before. She alights at some distance from either, and one comes over to her some time before the other. He courts her much in the way of the common Pheasant, passing by her, first on one side and then the other, and, as he does so, tilts his whole body sideways and downwards, towards her, so that she gets a near view of its NUPTIAL HABITS OF THE BLACKCOCK. 411 whole upper surface, the upper part of the farther side* (owing to the tilt) and the whole nearer side, consisting principally of the carefully drooped and spread wing. There is also the crimson- combed head, held down, with the swelled, glossy neck for her inspection, and of course the ornate tail. Thus poised, as it were, the bird passes in front of her, coming from behind, and then round on the other side, when he turns and repeats, and it is noticeable that the part wanting to complete the full circle is where, if he were to make it, he would pass directly behind her. Thus she gets as much of all the decorated parts as it is possible for her to do in a single coup d’wil—the tail, if I mis- take not, being also tilted, so that the whole Cupid’s bow of it is visible. The thick white feathers behind it do not seem so capable of being shown in this posture. A considerable portion of their ends, however, project over the black arch—or between the double arch—of the tail, and the rest must also be con- spicuous, at least in flashes, and particularly when the cock passes in front of the hen, before turning to repeat his display on the other side. She has then a full view. Now when cock birds face one another, to fight, and when they strut, or face, or turn, by themselves, the tail is fanned, the wings lowered, and the head, though sometimes lowered, generally held erect. But this particular tilt of the body, as also a certain pace and look, which belong to it, is entirely wanting. This is most signifi- cant, for the object of the tilt is unmistakable, and demands the presence of the hen. Also it is to the female alone that one wing only—that nearest her—is presented and spread in a very particular way. The hen bird seems by no means unalive to these attentions, which, however, may be not now so ardent as they probably become later on. Her manner is very conscious, and she has almost a nervous look. She does not, however, yield to them, but walks forward in a series of little starts, with pauses between. After a while the other (or another) cock comes up, and the two court her, in the above-described way, one on each side, but I again notice that the courtship does not seem very ardent, nor do the cocks, though they have made a show of fighting before, * This seems to me now a little doubtful, though I have it on my notes (like Justice Stareleigh). It is unimportant—the bird shows quite enough. 412 THE ZOOLOGIST. show any signs of doing so now. The hen passes on, and after awhile flies into the surrounding fir-belt, and now that she is gone the two cocks again advance against each other, and there are the beginnings of a half-hearted fight between them. Thus the presence of the hen, on this occasion, has not brought about a combat, but rather diverted it. It is the very same observa- tion which I have made, day after day, in the case of the Ruffs, whilst these were in the very height of the sexual frenzy. Itis, in fact, obvious that if male birds assemble specially to court the hens, fighting must interfere with this object, so that if the courting is really the more important matter of the two, we might expect it to become gradually weaker, and, as it were, broken up, in birds which have developed these habits. On the other hand, if fighting, rather than courting, were the object of such assemblies, it is strange that ordinary observation gives quite a contrary idea. According to their relative importance, the one element, as it seems to me, must be weakened by the other, so that by what we see, in the presence of the hen, we may judge of such relative importance. This is not the only hen that has appeared this morning. Another has sat on a baby fir within the arena, with a cock beside her on another one, whilst several others have flown over the ground and come down in the trees that encircle it. A sreater number of cocks, too, than I have before seen have swept from this tree to that, whilst some half-dozen, perhaps, have come down upon the place, or sat in small firs close upon it, two of the former rookling continually. During this rookling the head is lowered, and the feathers of the neck swell and move. ‘Then, with a sort of start, the bird raises its head, gives a little jerk of the wings, and stretching upwards, utters the fierce ‘‘choc-kai”’ note. There have been some little runs over the ground, but not very vigorous, and the leaping off it has been almost, if not quite, wanting. It was entirely wanting in the presence of the hen, forming no part of the display. All this last has been in the bright sunshine, which floods now both trees and arena. It is, however, most bitterly cold, and I can sit still no longer. But all, I think, is over for this morning. The birds, therefore, are obviously in a more coming-on NUPTIAL HABITS OF THE BLACKCOCK. 413 disposition than they were, either the day before yesterday or any morning since I came, before it, nor is it likely that they were more forward before I came, since it is evident now, as I feared, and as is confirmed by Jacobsen, that I have come too early. Were it not for my oversleeping myself yesterday, I might almost say positively that this has been the first appear- ance of the hen upon the scene; yet, even now, only one has actually come down into the arena. In all, perhaps, some half a dozen cock birds entered it, but never all at the same time— four, I think, was the limit, exclusive of the one hen. When one or other of the cocks advanced towards another, to fight— or, at any rate, with this thought in its mind—it would make a sort of elastic quick step—hardly or only just a run—-but not those remarkable leaps into the air, even as I have seen them made here, much less as I have in Norway (only, however, as I have before said, on one occasion). The war-dance—to call it so, for convenience sake—seems a special feature, which, as yet, has hardly come into play. I cannot say, as yet, therefore, whether it has more to do with fighting or courting. (To be continued.) 414 THE ZOOLOGIST. ROUGH NOTES ON THE FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. By Artruur H. Patterson. (Continued from p. 392.) List or Kast Surroux FisuHes. THREE-SPINED STICKLEBACK (Gasterosteus aculeatus).—lIt is safe to state that this species in its several varieties is plentifully distributed in all the ponds and ditches in the county. I found near Lowestoft examples of the Rough-tailed (G. trachurus) and Quarter-armed (G. gymnurus). TEN-SPINED STICKLEBACK (G. pungitius).—I have found this in company with the Three-spined, in ditches bordering on the Waveney. Mr. C. W. Long informs me it is found in ditches near Oulton, and also in the Ham, between Lowestoft and Oulton Broad. : FIFTEEN-SPINED STICKLEBACK (G. spinachia).— Said to have been taken in the estuary of the Alde. Perou (Perca fluviatilis).-- Much has been written of ‘the bold-biting Perch ’”’ as an inhabitant of Suffolk waters. Browne* makes reference :—‘‘ Perca or Pearch great & small. Whereof such as are in Braden on this side Yarmouth in the mixed water make a dish very daintie & I think scarce to bee bettered in England.” Lubbockt referred to the species (1848) as plentiful in the Bure and Waveney. He cites St. Olave’s asa ‘‘celebrated station for anglers,” where, ‘‘if Shrimps are up as high as the bridge, it is generally found that Perch are there also.” The favourite bait used by anglers was the Ditch Prawn (Palemon varians), which abounds in the brackish marshland ditches. To- day St. Olave’s would be the last place chosen for Perch-fishing, * Natural History of Norfolk,’ by Sir Thos. Browne. Edited by the late T. Southwell, p. 52. 1902. + ‘Observations on Fauna of Norfolk,’ by Richard Lubbock. Second edition, with notes and additions, by the late T, Southwell, p. 191. 1879. FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 415 although Bream and Roach are still occasionally to be taken on the neap-tides. The deepening of Yarmouth Harbour has “ let in’? so much more salt tide, which pushes up the rivers some- times to an alarming extent. Christopher Davies* gives an account of a Perch taken in the ‘‘ new cut”’ (between Haddiscoe and Reedham), weighing 7 lb. (!); and of a barber in Beccles who had captured ‘‘ eleven Perch, weighing 2 1b. each, in one spot, in a couple of hours, using Gudgeon as bait.” One is recorded as taken at Geldeston Lock, of 4 lb. weight. AmrricaN Rost Prercow (Scorpena dactyloptera).—On April . 24th, 1894, I obtained what I believe to have been the first of this species taken off the East Coast. It was captured in a Shrimp-net ; length, 5} in. An 8 in. example came to me from Lowestoft, on Dec. 11th, 1895; and yet another was sent me by Mr. F’. C. Cook in the spring of the present year (1909). Bass (Labrax lupus).— Locally known as ‘‘ Sea-Perch,”’ this species is by no means rare off the Suffolk coast. Wake, of Southwold, curiously enough, omits it. Several have been captured off Claremont Pier, Lowestoft (Robson). Mr. Clarke, of Aldeburgh, had known one netted there weighing 18 lb., and one taken on a rod in August, 1906, scaling 163 lb. This fish is rarely taken off Yarmouth, and then runs of very small size. Mr. Whistler, of Aldeburgh, assures me that spinning for Bass provides excellent sport in the estuary of the Alde. [Buack Bass (Micropterus salmonoides).—An introduced species, which did not flourish ; had it done so I think anglers would have very soon desired the extirpation of so voracious a fish.| RurFe (Acerina vulgaris).—Plentifully found in Fritton Lake, giving anglers who fish in shallows considerable trouble by its persistently taking the baits. The wisest thing to do when dis- covered by it is to shift to another spot as soon as possible. SurmMuLtet (Mullus surmuletus). — Mostly taken among Mackerel. Mr. Howard Bunn states that ‘‘ very fine specimens are taken [Lowestoft], and at times very plentifully.”’ SeA-Bream (Pagellus centrodontus). — ‘‘ Once or twice I have seen this on the [Lowestoft] market’ (W. A. Dutt). Mr. Howard Bunn states that examples up to 4 lb. are brought in. * © Norfolk Broads and Rivers,’ new edition, p. 21, 1884, 416 THE ZOOLOGIST. GILTHEAD (Chrysophrys aurata).—An accidental visitor. One is recorded from Pakefield, near Lowestoft, in April, 1829. This fish is named the ‘‘Gilthead’’ because of the brilliant golden spot or crescent between the eyes. Minuer’s Taums (Cottus gobio). — Mr. Dutt informs me that, when a boy, he used to catch Miller’s Thumbs in a “beck ” connected with the Waveney at Ditchingham, near Bungay. Mr. C. W. Long assures me there are a goodly number of this species to be found at Beccles. Faruer-LAsHErR (C. scorpius).— Taken in Shrimp-nets, and known at Lowestoft and at Aldeburgh as the ‘ Bull-rout.” This — large-headed, spine-armoured species (which is nicknamed at Yarmouth the ‘‘Hummer’”’) Dr. Day (‘ British Fishes’) sug- gests is ‘‘a degenerated variety of the Greenland Bull-head.” Very beautifully coloured examples of Cottus granlandicus are occasionally brought into Yarmouth by the shrimpers. It un- doubtedly extends its range further south. Busauis (C. bubalis).—Occasionally brought into Yarmouth by shrimpers fishing between the port and Corton. It does not run so large as the preceding, from which it is easily distinguished by the very long spines upon the gill-covers. Four-HoRNED Cortus (C. quadricornis).—On March 3rd, 1907, I received three examples of this species, the longest measuring 8} in., from the neighbourhood of Lowestoft.* I have since seen one taken off a pier at Yarmouth. The Cottide are distinguished by their bulky heads and the fan-like spread of the pectoral fins. Rep Gurnarp (T'rigla cuculus). — Small ones occasionally taken off Lowestoft with Shrimps. I saw one there on August 30th, about 8 in. in length, thrown out with the refuse from a Shrimp-boat. Southwold (Wake). Tus-FisH (7'’. hirundo).—Fine examples brought to the Lowes- toft wharf in May and June from the deep seas. Mr. Whistler informs me it has been taken off Aldeburgh. Locally known as the ‘‘ Latchet.” SrreakeD GurnarD (7’. lineatus).—An example of this short- nosed Gurnard, taken off Lowestoft on March 9th, 1896, came nto my hands. * Of. * Zoologist,’ 1907, p. 461, FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 417 Poaar (Agonus cataphractus).—Sir Thomas Browne calls it: “A little corticated fish about 8 or 4 inches long ours answering that weh is named piscis octangularis by Wormius, cataphractus by Schoneueldeus. Octagonis versus caput, versus caudam hexa- gonius.” ‘‘A MS. note in Berkenhout says it was called at Lowestoft a Beetle-head (1769)” (T. Southwell). Abundant along the east coasts. I found numerous examples at South- wold among ‘‘refuse,” and many small ones at Aldeburgh, Sept. 1st (1909). This queer little fish is entirely encased in bony plates. GREATER WEEVER (T'rachinus draco). —Common enough on Lowestoft wharf among “ offal.” An example taken on a hook off Claremont Pier (Robson). Referring to the poisonous pro- perties of its first dorsal fin, Sir Thomas Browne says : “‘ If the fishermens hands bee touched or scrached with this venemous fish they grow paynful and swell.’’ This detested although toothsome fish is still notorious for its dangerous properties, while seine- and deep-sea fishermen still cautiously approach it when freshly shot out of the nets. Lesser WEEVER (1’. vipera).—-Taken in shallow waters abun- dantly along the Suffolk coast. When strolling by the bank of the Blyth, at Walberswick, in company with Mr. Percival Westell, on August 4th, 1909, we came across quite a small heap of these fishes that had evidently been flung out of a boat, or had been, as he suggested, hooked by some urchin. Numbers are taken off Gorleston in draw-nets. On August 26th, 1909, I saw some visitors’ children playing ‘‘ fish-shops” with quite thirty of these fish, some of unusual size; they were handling them with impunity. Yarmouth smelters show the utmost disgust with this species, and are very careful not to handle it. At Southwold (Wake). - Matere (Sciena aquila).— A fine specimen of this noble fish, a strageler undoubtedly from the Mediterranean, where it is well known, was cast ashore at Thorpe, near Aldeburgh, on August 30th, 1868; length, 5 ft.; weight, 84 lb. The man who secured it thought it was a monster Bass, a fish it somewhat resembles, the spiny-rayed first dorsal fin much resembling that of the commoner fish. The tail, however, is truncated or rounded, that of the Bass being concave or forked. Two others Bm Zool. 4th ser. vol. XIII., November, 1909, 2K 418 THE ZO00OLOGIST. are recorded for the Norfolk coast, as having been taken in the Herring-nets. MackEreL (Scomber scomber).—‘‘ Scombri are mackerells in greate plentie,”’ says Sir Thomas Browne, ‘“‘ though . . . a com- mon fish yet our seas afford sometimes large & strange ones as I have heard from fishermen & others. & this yeare 1668 one was taken at Lestoffe an ell long by measure & presented to a Gentleman friend of myne.” This must have been either a Tunny or a Bonito (8 ft. 9in.!). The largest Mackerel I have ever seen was one taken off Yarmouth on October 21st, 1898; weight, 8lb. 7 oz.; length, 214 in.; girth, 12 in. [ScRIBBLED MackerEu (S. scriptus).—This by some authorities is referred to as a variety of S. scomber. Occasionally found at Lowestoft among the preceding. There chance-time is found among the Mackerel a variety (concolor), blue-backed, but entirely without the familiar stripings. | Tunny (S. thynnus).—This is the species that Browne (see Mackerel) referred to. The Pagets* mention ‘‘ small specimens [as] not infrequently taken during the Mackerel fishery.” In Lowe’s ‘Notes’ is a record from Mr. Gurney as follows: —‘“‘ An immature specimen, taken off the Suffolk coast near Southwold, I believe, is preserved in the Norwich Museum ”’ (Nor. N. 8.). Pinot Fisu (Naucrates ductor).— The late Mr. J. H. Gurney (Nor. N. 8.) says :—‘‘ Many years ago I saw a specimen freshly caught off the Suffolk coast, and sent for preservation to the late Mr. J. Tims, of Norwich, in whose house it was unfortunately destroyed by a fire on the premises.” Dory (Zeus faber).— The local trawlers catch an occasional John Dory at Southwold” (R.J. Canova). ‘‘ Occasionally in the Aldeburgh trawls”’ (Whistler). Is in no repute in Hast Anglia for the table. Boar-FisH (Capros aper).— Mr. T. E. Gunn, of Norwich, in his ‘ Catalogue of Fishes,’ exhibiting at the Great International Fisheries Exhibition in London, 18838, refers to an example which was ‘‘ caught off Lowestoft in May, 1881.” I have seen only two—one taken in a Shrimp-net the same year; the other was washed up on the beach in May, 1882. * Sketch of the Natural History of Great Yarmouth,’ by C. J. and James Paget. 1834, FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 419 Scap (Trachurus trachurus). — ‘‘ Frequent off Lowestoft ”’ (J. H. Gurney in Nor. N.8.). ‘‘ Has been taken off Claremont Pier, Lowestoft’? (Robson). ‘‘ Not so frequent off Aldeburgh ” (Whistler). ‘‘ Before the herrings there comonly cometh a fish,” says Sir Thomas Browne, “ about a foot long, by the fishermen called an horse... . of a mixed shape between a mackerell & an herring.” It is known generally as the ‘‘ Horse-Mackerel.”’ Sworp-FisH (Xiphias gladius). — One brought into Lowestoft on Sept. 27th, 1893. Length, 9 ft. It had been entangled in a Herring-net. Another landed there, Sept. 27th, 1897. I under- stand that one was also recorded in November, 1882. LirtLe Gosy (Gobius minutus). This tiny fish frequents the estuaries all along the Suffolk coast. Haunts muddy resorts. YELLOW-SPECKLED GoBy (G. auratus).— Preferring a sandy habitat, this species abounds off the eastern coasts. I found examples in the Southwold and Lowestoft boats. WuirtE Gosy (Latrunculus albus).—I found one specimen in a Southwold boat in June, 1906. {I have six Gobies on my Yar- mouth list, and am convinced that they all would be found off the Suffolk coast if carefully looked for.] YELLOW SKULPIN (Callionymus lyra).—Abundant off Gorleston. I saw several at Lowestoft, August, 190%, in the Shrimp-catches. Lumpsucker (Cyclopterus lumpus).— ‘‘ By some esteemed a festiuall dish though it affordeth butt a glutinous jellie & the skin is beset with stony knobs after no certain order’”’ (Browne). On Mr. Gunn’s ‘Fish List’ he refers to a fine example caught off Lowestoft on Jan. 30th, 1882; weight, 113 lb.; length, 20} in. ; girth, 26in. The roe was developed and contained thousands of eggs; Mr. Howard Bunn assures me that he has had this fish ‘‘in all colours,’ and up to 28 lb. in weight. I have seen numerous young ones taken by the Shrimp-boats in spring the size of walnuts, which they much resemble in shape, of a rich emerald-green colour. Hele, in ‘Notes about Aldeburgh,’ men- tions ‘‘an enormous specimen, weighing over fifteen pounds,” captured off that place, March 15th, 1868. Length, 223 in. “ Occasionally at Aldeburgh in trawl-nets’’ (Whistler). South- wold (Wake). Sea-Snait (Liparis vulgaris). — Abundant all along the East Coast. I found it plentiful among the ‘‘refuse” on Southwold 2k 2 420 THE ZOOLOGIST. beach, and at Aldeburgh. Several at Lowestoft (August, 1909). This species is variously striped and marbled. Monracu’s Sucker (Ll. montagui).—I found two at Southwold, August, 1909. ANGLER (Lophius piscatorius).—On the authority of the late Mr. T. Southwell, quite a number of this species were captured in the Mackerel-nets of Lowestoft in the autumn of 1897, a most unusual circumstance, I should consider, for such a sluggish, clumsy, ground-loving species. Mr. Dutt has seen examples at Lowestoft. ‘‘ Fishing-Frog,’’ Southwold (Wake). Wour-FisH (Anarrichas lupus).— “ Catfish.’ Mr. Dutt men- tions seeing several on the Lowestoft fish-market. This species, filleted and smoked, and made bright yellow with anatto, has of late years come into favour, and is sold as ‘“‘ Grimsby Haddock.” The flesh is excellent eating, but not in much request, except under the disguise of smoked fish, or when fried at the fish-shop, where questions are seldom asked. Butter-FisH (Centronotus gunnellus).—Known as “‘ Nine Eyes,” from the spots on the extended dorsal fin, and also as the Spotted Gunnel, this species is a common capture off Gorleston. I failed however, although carefully searching for it, to find it at either Aldeburgh or Southwold. A fine example brought me from a Lowestoft Shrimp-boat, September 9th, 1909, by Mr. I’, C. Cook. Viviparous BLENNY (Zoarces viviparus),— Common. Has been taken off Claremont Pier, Lowestoft. I saw a fine one netted in the Herring-basin, August 380th, 1909. ‘‘ Caught at Aldeburgh ” (Whistler). Breeds on this coast. ATHERINE (Atherina presbyter). — This beautiful little fish seems to be remarkably abundant in all the Lowestoft basins throughout the summer months. Itis most industriously angled for by young and old, and is known as the ‘Silver Smelt.”. “Occasionally at Aldeburgh ”’ (Whistler). Grey Muurer (Mugil capito).—This species used to swarm up. Breydon fifty years since, and was common twenty-five years ago; thence it found its way up the Waveney and other local rivers, showing up in numbers in Oulton Broad. Col. Leathes (‘Rough Notes’) refers to a plan that was successful in its capture. Two men would row over the Broad, one holding a FISH AND FISHERIES OF EAST SUFFOLK. 421 light barbed spear, which he would adroitly throw into a shoal of Mullet, ‘‘ success very often attending the cast.”’ He was not smitten with the fish’s edible qualities. Numerous at times at Aldeburgh, where it has been known to attain a weight of 93 1b. A nine-pound example is my largest recorded fish for Great Yarmouth. Southwold (Wake). Mr. Gurney writes :— ‘“‘] have seen some fine specimens taken on the Suffolk coast, at the mouth of the River Orwell” (Nor. N. §8.). [Lesser Grey Muuturer (M. chelo)—On November 10th, 1890, an example of this little-known species was foully hooked on Breydon. Length, 73 in. Dr. Gunther identified it as a variety known as M. septentrionalis. 1 have no doubt this example was not alone, but that in all probability it (with its companions) was making for the waters of the Waveney. ] Bauuan Wrasse (Labrus maculatus).—‘‘ A young one, about eight inches long, was taken with hook and line in the outer harbour of Lowestoft in August, 1852 ’’—‘‘ J. H. G.” in Lowe’s ‘Notes’ (Nor. N.S.). Mr. Howard Bunn has had several ex- amples in for preservation. [The Jago’s Goldsinny (Ctenolabrus rupestris) has on several occasions been brought to me by Yar- mouth shrimpers during the past three summers. I cannot positively describe this as a Suffolk species, although the boats fish often as far south as Corton, and in all probability one or two, if not more, may have been taken off the Suffolk coast. It would be interesting to look for this fish, which grows to a span in length, is of a lively, almost goldfish-red when freshly taken, with decided black spottings on the base of the tail and on the anterior part of the dorsal fin. Other Wrasses undoubtedly occur.) The Labride are widely distributed in British waters, preferring rocky haunts. They run to a considerable size, and by some are adjudged good eating. The flesh to me is soft and glutinous, with the bones over-much pronounced. Their colours are brilliant, especially during the breeding season. (To be continued.) THE ZOOLOGIST. CHECK-LIST OF THE GENERIC NAMES OF LEECHES, WITH THEIR TYPE SPECIES. By, Rosrer “fT... burrs. Mob. “EAs. Helminthologist to the London School of Tropical Medicine. Abranchus, Johannson, 1896. Type: A. brunneus, Johannson, 1896. Acanthobdella, Grube, 1850. *Type: A. peledina, Grube, 1850. Actinobdella, Moore, 1901. *“Type: A. imsquiannulata, Moore, EOE: Adenobdella, Leidy, 1885. Type: A. oricola, Leidy, 1885. Albione, Savigny, 1820. Type: A. muricata, Linneeus, 1767. Archeobdella, (Original not found.) Astacobdella, Vallot, 1840. Type: A. branchialis, Vallot, 1840. Aulastoma, Moquin-Tandon, 1826. “Type: A. nigrescens, Moquin- Tandon, 18206. Batrachcobdella, Viguier, 1879. *Type: B. latastei, Viguier, 1879. Bdella, Savigny, 1820. (*Type: Hirudo nilotica, Savigny, 1820), preoce. 1795. Blennobdella, KE. Blanchard, 1849. “Type: B. depressa, Ki. Blan- chard, 1849. Branchellion, Savigny, 1820. “Type: B. torpedinis, Savigny, 1820. Branchiobdella, Odier, 1823. “Type: B. astacz, Muller, 1806. Calliobdella, v. Beneden et Hesse, 1863. Type: ? C. lopha, v. Beneden et Hesse, 1863. Centropygus, Grube, 1858. *Type: C. yocensis, Grube, 1858. Chthonobdella, Grube, 1865. *Type: Hirudo limbata, Grube, 1865. Clepsine, Savigny, 1820. Type: Hirudo bioculata, Bergmann, 1757. Codonobdella, Grube, 1872. Type: C. truncata, Grube, 1872. Cyclicobdella, Grube, 1871. Type: C. lumbricoides, Grube, 1871. Cyclobdella, Wegenbergh, 1877. Type: C. glabra, Wegenbergh, 1377. Cystobranchus, Diesing, 1859. ? Type: C. respirans, Troschel, 1850. ~* ype, only species originally in the genus. + Type, designated. GENERIC NAMES OF LEECHES. 423 Dactylobdella, vy. Beneden et Hesse, 1864. “Type: D. mustela v. Beneden et Hesse, 1864. Dermobdella, Philippi, 1867. Type: D. purpurea, Philippi, 1867. Diestecostoma, Vaillant, 1890. Type: D. mexicana, Baird, 1869 (for Heterobdella, Baird). Dina, BR. Blanchard, 1892. +Type: D. quadristriata, Grube. Dineta, Goddard, 1908. “Type: D. cylindrica, Goddard, 1908. Diplobdella, Moore, 1900. *Type: D. antellarwm, Moore, 1900. Entobdella Blainville. (Original not found.) Epibdella, Blainville, 1828. Type: Hirudo hippogloss:, Linneus, £767. Erpobdella, Blainville, 1828. Type: Hirudo vulgaris, Linneus, 1767. Eubranchella, Baird, 1869. Type: Hirudo branchiata, Menzies, iy 23% , Geobdella, Blainville, 1828. Type: Trocheta viridis, Dutrochet, 1817. Geobdella, Whitman, 1886 (preocce. 1828). Glossiphonia, Johnson, 1816. Type: G. tuberculata, Johnson, 1816. Glossobdella, Blainville, 1828. Type: Hirudo complanata, Lin- nus, 1767. Glossopora, Johnson, 1825, nomen noyum for Glossiphonia. Gnatho, Goldfuss et Schinz, 1828. Type: Hirudo pisciwm, Miller, 1774. Gyrocotyle, Diesing, 1850. Type: G. rugosa, Diesing, 1850. Hemadipsa, Tennent, 1860. Type: H. ceylanica, Bosc., 1802. Hementaria, Filippi, 1849. Type: H. ghilianii, Philippi, 1849. Hempcharis, Savigny, 1820. Type: Hirudo pisciwm, Miller, 1774. Hemopis, Savigny, 1820. Type: Hirudo sanguisuga, Linneus, 1767. Helobdella, Blanchard, 1896. +Type: Hirudo stagnalis, Linneus, 1767. aaa “ete 1815. (Type: Hirudo complanata, Muller), preoce. Hemuibdella, v. Beneden et Hesse, 1863. “Type: H. solee, v. Bene- den et Hesse, 1863. Hemuiclepsis, Vejdovsky, 1883. +Type: Hirudo marginata, Miller, 1774. Herpobdella, vide Erpobdella. Heterobdella, vy. Beneden et Hesse, 1863. Type: H. pallida, v. Beneden et Hesse, 1863. 44 THE Z00LOGIST: Heterobdella, Baird, 1869. (Type: H. mexicana), preocc. 1863. Hexabdella, Verrill, 1872. *Type: H. depressa, Verrill, 1872. Mippobdella, Blainville, 1828. Type: Hemopis sanguisorba, Savigny, 1820. | Hirudella, Munster, 1842. Type: H. angusta or H. tenws, Munster, 1842 (doubtful fossil). Hirudinaria, Whitman, 1886. Type: Hirudo yavanica, Wabhl- berg, 1855, Mirudo, Linneus, 1767. Type: Hirudo medicinalis, Linneseus, ti Gir. Histriobdella, v. Beneden, 1858. *Type: H. homari, v. Beneden, 1858. Hybobdella, Wegenberg, 1877. Type: H. doringit,, Wegenberg, 1877. Ichthiobdella, Blainville, 1827. Type: I. geometra, Blainville, 1827. Jatrobdella, Blainville, 1828. Type: Hirudo medicinalis, Lin- neeus, 1767. Leptostoma, Whitman, 1886. (Type: LZ. pigrum, Whitman, 1886), preoce. 1837. Limnatis, Moquin-Tandon, 1827. Type: Hirudo nilotica, Savigny, 1820. Linvnobdella, Blanchard, 1893. {Type: L. mexicana, Blanchard, 1893. Inostonum, Wagler, 1831. “Type: ZL. coccimewm, Wagler, 1831. Lophobdella, Poirier et Rochburne, 1884. “Type: L. quatrefagesz, Poirier et Rochburne, 1884. Lumbricobdella, Kennel, 1886. Type: L. scheffert, Kennel, 1886. Macrobdella, Philippi, 1872. *Type: M. valdiviana, Philippi, 1872. Macrobdella, Verrill, 1872. *Type: Hirudo decora, Savigny, 1820. Mesobdella, Blanchard, 1893. *Type: H.gemmata, Blanchard, 1898. Microbdella, Blainville, 1845. (Original not found.) Mierobdella, Moore, 1900. Type: M. biannulata, Moore, 1900. Mimobdella, Blanchard, 1897. Type: ?M. japonica or M. butti- kofert, n. spp., Blanchard, 1897. Myzobdella, Leidy, 1851. “Type: M. lugubris, Leidy, 1851. Nephelis, Savigny, 1820. +Type: Hirudo vulgaris, Muller, 1774. Nephelopsis, Verrill, 1872. *Type: N. obscura, Verrill, 1872. Notostomum, Levinsen, 1881. *Type: N. leve, Levinsen, 1881. Ophibdella, v. Beneden et Hesse, 1863. *Type: O. labracis, v. Beneden et Hesse, 1863. GHNERIC NAMES. OF LEECHES. 425 Orobdella, Oka, 1895. Type: O. whitmane (probably), or O. ajumatr, O. octonaria, n. spp., Oka, 1895. Oxyptychus, Grube, 1848. Type: O. striatus, Grube, 1848. Oxytonostoma, Malm, 1863. Type: O. typica, Malm, 1863. Ozobranchus, Quatrefages, 1852. ?Type: O. branchiatus. Pachybdella, Diesing, 1850. Type: P. rathkez, Diesing, 1850. Pecilobdella, Blanchard, 1893. {Type: Hurudo granulosa, Savigny, 1820 (subgenus of Lamnatis). Paleobdella, Blainville, 1828. Type: Hirudo nilotica, Savigny, 1820. Philemon, R. Blanchard. (Original not found.) Philobdella, Verrill, 1872. Type: P. floridana, Verrill, 1872. Phornuo, Goldfuss et Schinz, 1820. Type: Hirudo muricata, Linneeus, 1767. Phytobdella, Blanchard, 1892. *Type: P. meyert, Blanchard, 1892. Pinacobdella, Diesing, 1850. *Type: P. kolenattc, Diesing, 1850. Piscicola, Blainville, 1828. Type: Hirudo piscowm, Miller. Placobdella, Blanchard, 1893. ? Type: P. rabotz, Blanchard, 1893, Planobdella, Blanchard, 1892. Type: P. modesta, Blanchard, 1892. Platybdella, Malm, 1863. ? Type: P. sexoculata, Malm, 1863. Podobdella, Diesing, 1850. *Type: P. endlichert, Diesing, 1850. Pontobdella, Leach, 1815. Type: P. verrucata, Leach, 1816. Praobdella, Blanchard, 1896. Type: P. biitinerz, Blanchard, 1896. Protoclepsine, Moore, 1898. *Type: P. sexoculata, Moore, 1898. Protoclepsis, Livanow, 1902. “Type: Hirudo tessellata, Miller, 1774. Pseudobdella, Blainville, 1827. Type: Hemopis nigra, Savigny, 1820. Pseudobranchellion, Apathy, 1890. *Type: P. margor, Apathy, 1890. Saccobdella, vy. Beneden et Hesse, 1865. Type: S. nebalie, v. Beneden et Hesse, 1865. Salifa, Blanchard, 1897. *Type: S. perspicax, Blanchard, 1897. Sanguisuga, Savigny, 1820. Type: Hirudo medicinalis, Lin- neus, 1767. Scaptobdella, Blanchard, 1897. “Type: S. horstz, Blanchard, 1897. Schlegelia, Wegenberg, 1877. (Type: S. nepheloides, Wegenberg, 1877), preoce. 1864. 426 THE ZOOLOGIST. Scorpenobdella, Saint-Loup, 1886. Type: S. elegans, Saint-Loup, 1886. Semrscolex, Kinberg, 1866. +Type: S. ywvenalis, Kinberg, 1866. Semilageneta, Goddard, 1908. «Type: S. hallr, Goddard, 1908. Theromyzon, Philippi, 1867. *Type: 7. pallens, Philippi, 1867. Toriz, Blanchard, 1898. Type: 7. mirus, Blanchard, 1898. Trachelobdella, Diesing, 1850. Type: T. miilleri, Diesing, 1850. Trochetia, Dutrochet, 1817. *Type: YT. subviridis, Dutrochet, LSK7: Typhlobdella, Diesing, 1850. Type: TZ. kovatsz, Diesing, 1850. Whitmana, Blanchard, 1887. Type: Leptostoma pigrum, Whit- man, 1886 (for Leptostoma, preocc.). Xerobdella, Vrauenfeld, 1868. *Type: X. lecomte:, Frauenfeld, 1868. The following generic names are not included in the lists pub- lished by Scudder (‘Nomenclator Zoologicus’), the ‘ Zoological Re- cord’ (Index, 1880-1900) :— . Archeobdella, Astacobdella, Chthonobdella, Dermobdella, Dina, Hubranchella, Gnatho, Hemadipsa, Microbdella, Notostomum, Whit- mana, Xerobdella. ON THE HYMENOPTEROUS PARASITES OF RHYNCHOTA. By CuaupEe Mortury, F.E.S., F.Z.S. (Concluded from p. 347.) 95. Aphis papaveris, Fabr. From an Aphis on Papaver somniferwm, Giraud bred (Ann. Soc. Fr. 1877, pp. 415-427) Praon volucre, Hal., Trioxys auctus, Hal., Allotria castanea, Htg., Encyrtus atheas, Walk., Pachy- neuron aphidiphagus, Ratz., Isocrates eneus, Nees, and I. vulgaris, Walk. Reinhardt, however, bred quite different insects from maps papaveris (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1857, p. 77; l.c. 1858, p. 12; et Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1859, pp. 194-6), since these were Pachycrepis clavata, Walk., Aphelinus flavicornis, Forst., A. tibialis, Nees, and Tetrastichus diaphantus, Walk. (cf. Gaulle, Cat. 103-107). 96. Aphis cardui, Linn. Aphidius cardui, Marsh. (Bracon. d’EKurop. ui. 594) was bred by Bignell in Devon very commonly from this species in the middle of July, while of A. cirsii, Hal., he bred but one, in June, and it is to this species that Marshall is of opinion (I. c. 589) Buckton refers as the commoner parasite. From an Aphis feeding on Carduus nutans Kieffer records his new Lygocerus antennalis, var. subserratus. 97. Aphis instabilis, Buck. Only Bignell has recorded (Trans. Devon. Ass. 1901, p. 690) the presence of parasites upon this species; he bred Aphidius eirstt, Hal., from it in South Devon, on June 18th, 18838. 98. Aphis sambuci, Linn. Gaulle tells us that the Cynipid, Allotria circumscripta, Htg., has been bred from this species, which is said to be common in Britain (cf. Cat. 26). I took it at Cosham, Hants, July, 1909. 428 THE ZOOLOGIST. 99. Aphis myosotidis, Koch. Three direct parasites have been bred from this species by Bignell in Devon. The commonest probably is Aphidius avene, Hal., with its hyperparasitic Allotria cursor, since he bred but two of each sex of A. matricarie, Hal., on Oct. 22nd, 1884, and but once, on the same date, A. polygoni, Marsh. (cf. Br. d’Kurop. 11, 572, 592, 603). 100. Aphis amygdali, Fonsc. The figure of Buckton’s inadequately described Cynips atri- ceps (Mon. Aph. 11. 106 et 150, pl. Ixxiii. fig. inf.), which he bred from this Aphis, clearly shows it to be a Cynipid and no “‘ Diplo- lepis,”’ to which, believing it a genus of Proctotrypide (!), he wished later (i1. addenda) to ascribe it. Cameron was unable to interpret it, and I have failed to find the type in Buckton’s collection, now in the British Museum; but a study of the figure leads me to believe it an “‘ artistically” drawn femaie of Allotria minuta, Htg. 101. Aphis aparines, Kalt.t Allotria posticus, Htg., was bred from an Aphid under this name by Kirchner (Cat. 31). 102. Aphis euphorlie, Koch. From Aphides on Huphorbia paralias, supposed by Marshall to be this species which is not mentioned as British by Buckton, Bignell bred two males of the new Aphidius euphorbie, Marsh., on July 4th, 1885. 103. Aphis crithmi, ? auct. Bignell bred Aphidius crithmi, Marsh., from this species in + It is not now known to which of our Aphidiine such aphidiphagous species as Ichnewmon aparines, Schr., I. dipsaci, Schr. (employed by Giraud), and I. aphidiphagus, Schr. (F. B. ii. 808, Bavaria), I. aphidum, Linn. (F. 8. 1643, misplaced by Spinola and restored by Fallen to the Aphidune), or Cryptus aphidum, Fab., may belong. It was, I believe, Van Leeuwenhoek | who first noticed Hymenopterous parasites upon Aphididae in his ‘ Arcana Nature’ in 1695. Frisch, Cestoni, and De Geer first gave accurate accounts of their metamorphoses. Ichnewmon aphidum, L., is synonymised by Hali- day, with some doubt, with his Aphidius cirsii (Ent. Mag. 1835, p. 101), and Westwood (Introd. ii. 182) refers the ‘‘ Cinips de l’Ichneumon des Pucerons ” of Geoffroy (11. 805) to the Chalcidide. HYMENOPTEROUS PARASITES OF RHYNCHOTA. 429 Devon on July 2nd, 1884, and A. lonicere, Marsh., from it on the following day (Trans. Devon. Ass. 1901, p. 689). 104. Aphis pteridis, ? auct.* From an Aphid under this name Dalla Torre (Cat. 111.) tells us that Reinhard has bred Aphelinus euthria, Walk. 105. Aphis medicaginis, ? auct.* Three parasites, all apparently indirect, are said by Kieffer to attack this species, or, more correctly, his Lygocerus aphidum and L. subtruncatus are recorded from an aphis on Medicago sativa, which we may suppose to belong here. The other Cynipid is Alloxysta scutellata, Kief. 106. Aphis monarde, ? auct.* Howard tells us in his ‘ Revision of the Apheline of North America’ (p. 24) that an Aphis of this name is attacked by Aphelinus malt, Hald. 107. Aphis primule, ? auct. Both Dourst and Gaulle (Cat. 87) record Aphidius rufus, Gour., as parasitic upon this species, which is not indicated by Buckton, though probably the same as that mentioned by New- man (Ent. Mag. 1836, p. 208) as inhabiting the cowslip, but not primrose. 108. Hyalopterus prunt, Fabr. His Macrostigma aphidum is recorded from this species by Rondani (Bull. Soc. Ent. Ital. 1874, p. 134 et l.c. 1877, p. 184). 109. Hyalopterus arundinis, Fabr. His Lygocerus antennalis has been mentioned by Kieffer as preying upon Aphis arundinis (André, Spp. Hym. Europ.). 110. Chaitophorus popult, Linn. The only known parasite of this common species is [Hypsi- camara ratzeburgt, as given by Reinhard (Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1859, pe 195). + Goureau’s breeding of Aphidius rufus was, I believe, first published by Dours (Cat. Hym. France, 1874, p. 81), and he ascribes the parasite to Forster. Dours’ hosts are so unreliable as a whole, however, and have recently been so thoroughly revised by my friend M. de Gaulle, that I have not troubled to examine his work, mainly culled from Goureau in this respect, very closely. 430 THE ZOOLOGIST. 111. Chaitophorus aceris, Linn. Haliday described (Hnt. Mag. 18338, p. 490) his T'rioarys aceris, of which he says, ‘‘ Prodiit mihi ex Aphidibus Aceris Pseudoplatani Julio mense,”’ from the same specimen as is figured and described by Curtis (B. E. pl. et fol. 883) under the name Aphidius cars, through the latter erroneously supposing it to have been bred from an aphis on Cursiwm (Carduus) arvense. Curtis’s name should, however, be restored, on account of its two years’ priority. Aphidius restrictus, Nees, and A. rose, Hal., are also given as preying upon this species by Gaulle (Cat. 87). Ratzeburg’s Chrysolampus (Sphegigaster) aphidiphagus is probably a hyperparasite; he says of it (Ichn. d. Forst. 1. 181 et i. 184), ‘‘Spater hat Hr. Bouché dasselbe Thier aus Aphis Aceris erzo- gen.’ Buckton gives (Mon. Aph. 11. 125) a remarkable account of receiving two oviparous females of this species from Mont- pellier, which had deposited three apparently normal eggs en route; the latter were left exposed, and the following morning were found to consist merely of shrivelled membranes. Their parents had already been parasitised by a species of Aphidius, and Buckton suggests that the latter’s larve had penetrated the eggs within the Aphides’ bodies. He, however, thinks that the parasites may have been Pteromali, one species of which, P. ovulorum, Forst. (given at l.c. 154, though not associated), is known to lay its eggs within those of Aphids; and of it Buckton says: ‘‘ The parasitic egg afterwards discloses the young grub, which attacks the aphis hardly older than itself.’ But I have never heard of an egg, containing a Hymenopterous parasite, attaining the larval state. Surely the mere pressure of a foreign substance within the host-egg, to say nothing of its ruptured shell, would preclude development; and certainly the whole account requires confirmation. 112. Pterocomma pilosa, Buck. Six females of Aphidius pterocomme, Marsh. (Bracon. d’ Europ. ii. 579), were bred in Devonshire on June 24th, 1889, by Bignell from this species. 113. Cryptosiphum gallarum, Kalt. Allotria victriz, Westw., and Kieffer’s new A. orthocera are said by Gaulle tu have been raised from this species (Cat. 26, 27). HYMENOPTEROUS PARASITES OF RHYNCHOTA. 431 114. Callipterus betularius, Kalt. Marshall knew but a single female of his Triorys betule, and this had been bred from the present host by Bignell in Devon- shire (Bracon. d’Kurop. ii. 554). 115. Callipterus coryli, Goet. The Chalcid, Myina flava, is said by Buckton (Mon. Aph. ii. 156 et ii1. 18) to oviposit freely in the larve of both this and the following species. Cameron (Phyt. Hym. ii. 2831, following Kaltenbach) records Allotria brachyptera, Htg., from an Aphid on Fraxinus, which is probably referable to the present species, since it is the only one mentioned by Buckton as feeding on ash. 116. Callipterus quercus, Kalt. The common and polyphagous Praon volucre, Hal., is said by Marsh. (Bracon. d’Europ. ii. 540) to prey upon this common species, together probably with its hyperparasites, Allotria uwll- richi, Isocrates vulgaris, and Lamprotati. Bignell also bred in Devon the unique specimen of Aphidius calliptert, Marsh. (I. ¢. 610) from this host. Giraud bred his Tetrastichus aphidum from an ‘‘ Aphis sur Quercus’’ (Ann. Soc. Fr. 1877, p. 432), and Myina flava also attacks it, as noticed under the last species. 117. Pterocallis alni, Fabr. This abundant species is said by Kieffer to be parasitised by his new Alloxysta transiens. 118. Pterocallis juglandicola, Kalt. In the middle of September, 1907, at Sibton Abbey in Suffolk, I took a large winged female of this species, whose dead body was attached to the cocoon of an already emerged species of Praon. 119. Pterocallis tiie, Linn. Praon flavinode, Hal., a rare species with us and unknown on the Continent, has been bred from this species in Devonshire by Bignell on Oct. 1st, 1883 (Trans. Devon. Ass. 1901, p. 688) ; its hyperparasites may be Kieffer’s new Allotria albipes, which he records from Aphis tilie, and the Chaleid, Myina flava, of whose parasitism upon the present host Buckton (Mon. Aph. 11. 18) was doubtful. 432 THE ZCOLOGIST. 120. LacHNus. Giraud gives two parasites, Allotria forticornis, Gir., and Megaspilus fuscipes, Nees, as preying respectively upon the Aphids of Pinus pumilio, and, according to Perris, on those of P. maritimus. These probably belonged to this genus (cf. Ann. Soc. Fr. 1877, pp. 416, 434). 121. Lachnus pint, Linn. Aphidius pini, Hal., has been bred from this species on Abies excelsa by Bignell in Devonshire on Feb. 16th, 1886, the host of which had been captured during the preceding September, and possibly a different one of the same genus on Pinus sylvestris and Abies larix by Haliday (Marsh. Bracon. d’Europ. 1. 567). Mar- shall’s unique female of his Aphidius abietis was also bred by Bignell ten days after capturing the host on Abies excelsa in Cann Woods, Devon, on Aug. 6th, 1886 (1. c. 566).