6

the following extracts, which we have no doubt will be read with interest: "Proprietors of pine forests often destroy Capercaillies in the doubtless just belief that they do considerable damage to the trees by picking out the leading buds, thus dwarfing and rendering the tree unfit for timber. Some naturalists, and proprietors of forest land as well, assign the results of stunted growth, turfy appearance of young trees, and deterioration of Scotch fir in this country to one or both of two other causes :-(a) The importation of impure seed, and hybrid strains,' causing an inferior growth of less healthy wood, less able to stand the rigour of late frosts than the native and undegenerate Scotch fir, which latter is still to be found in some parts of Scotland, although native and healthy seed is scarce, or becoming so. It has been the fashion, too, of late years purposely to plant stunted and inferior kinds to provide cover for game. (b) The ravages of insects, principally beetles. Of these, Hylurgus piniperda attacks the cores of the buds and young shoots, piping the latter, and causing the former to drop off, stunting the growth of the trees, and making them bushy and useless. Another species bores into the wood and back of the stem, not to speak of ten or a dozen other beetles, as well as Tenthredinida, Nematus, Coccus, and their larvæ, which feed upon the leaves. The actual work of destruction carried on by the bird and by the insects may perhaps be easily distinguishable in most, if not in all, cases; but the results in after years to the trees cannot always be so easily assigned to the work of any one of them. To these two causes perhaps a third may be added with safety,-improper exposure, insufficient drainage, unsuitable soil; in short, bad forestry, and late frosts and bright suns acting upon unacclimatised or inferior plants, no doubt in some cases has something to do with it. Arising from these facts is the question whether these insects or their larvæ, individually or collectively, attack truly healthy native trees equally with diseased or inferior foreign importations. In answer to this we have Mr. Dunn's evidence that they do, but he only speaks of one out of many pinedestroying species, viz., Hylurgus piniperda. He informs us that this beetle for the most part attacks trees under twenty-five years of age. If, as he affirms, Capercaillies only attack trees which are healthy, its attacks some day will be confined to trees above that age, if the Hylurgus become very populous throughout our forests. Notwithstanding strong evidence to the contrary from Mr. Dunn and Mr. Brown, of Perth, Capercaillies feed largely upon insects. This is specially the case when birds are young, but the probability is that grown birds do so also at certain seasons. We have seen that young birds feed largely upon the larvae of Tenthredinida and other insects, and insect larvæ which live upon or are destructive to pines. The questions of interest arising from these facts are:- -What appreciable damage can be laid to the charge of the insects, individually or collectively, or their larvæ ? Mr. Crawford, manager on the property of Clathick,

informs us regarding the ravages of two species of beetles that out of three hundred and fifty trees cut upon the estate, one hundred and twenty were dead, or at least gone in the top, owing, he believes, entirely to their ravages. Can anyone in the same way produce appreciable proofs of damage which can be laid correctly to the charge of the Capercaillie, and if so to what extent? What amount of good can be traced to the destruction of insect life by the Capercaillie? How long does the insect-feeding age of the birds continue? What insects or larvæ, and what amount of them, do the young Capercaillies consume? Do the old birds never eat insects, beetles, or larvæ of any kind? To solve these and other minor questions the crops and gizzards of both young and old birds should be examined with the critical eye of the entomologist, and exact statistics of the contents of each crop and gizzard noted down under each separate specimen, with the dates and localities, and when possible the probable or exact age of the bird. Birds from a day or two old up to the adult stage should be critically examined during the summer and early autumn months. Special attention should be paid to the presence of larvæ in the mouths, throats, and crops of young birds as soon after death as possible, or even of living young birds. Positive identification of the insects is of the highest importance, and the number of individuals should be carefully counted. Where personal entomological examination is practicable of the crops and gizzards of newly killed birds, such should be taken advantage of. Where personal entomological examination cannot be instituted, the crops and gizzards of each bird should be kept separately in close muslin bags, with parchment labels attached, and the whole dropped into alchohol: an ordinary wide-mouthed pickle-jar would probably hold three or four crops and gizzards, or more if the birds be young. The jars can then be forwarded to entomologists

for identification of the contents. Dr. Buchanan White, of Perth, has promised assistance in the identification of insects. Mr. Robert Collet, of Christiania, who takes a great interest in the matter, will also devote some share of attention to it in Norway. Mr. Maloch, Perth, has promised to preserve any crops and gizzards that come in his way. Capt. Colquhoun, of Clathick, has offered assistance; and Mr. Maclellan, Superintendent of Parks, Glasgow, has also taken an interest in the subject. There is still a considerable degree of scepticism evinced by many as to the utility of such enquiries; unthinkingly they often pooh! pooh! the efforts of naturalists to get at the more minute truths, which do not always appear on the surface, but upon which not uncommonly the whole question at issue. hinges. Investigations often begin in ignorance, and from a spirit of enquiry develop truths of considerable interest. Men are not all Argus-eyed naturalists, who can detect at once, at all times, and under all circumstances, the reasons for everything. If such were indeed the case Natural History would be robbed of half its charms,"

NOTES FROM THE NEW FOREST, ON WOODPECKERS.-On May 26th I started in company with my brother from a village in the New Forest in search of Woodpecker's eggs. After taking a Wryneck's nest en route, with seven eggs, from an old tree in an orchard, we reached the forest, where the trees and glades, and fern and solitude-endless as it seemsoffer a perfect paradise to the ornithologist. We were soon made

aware of the fact that the Green Woodpecker is common there, for though we seldom caught a glimpse of him, yet his loud and merry laugh, as it echoed through the trees, and was answered far away by another of his species or his mate, seemed to say, "Don't you wish you may catch me." We noticed that before rain these birds were always more noisy. We soon found several trees with suspicious round holes,-generally beech trees, which are very numerous and very fine in the forest; but as the holes were, in all cases but one, some distance from the ground (from about fifteen to twenty-five feet), and as neither of us could " swarm" trees, we began to despair, without a ladder and a good chisel, of being successful. At last, towards evening, and after searching all day, we found a tree to which my brother thought he had seen a Woodpecker go. There sure enough under the tree were quantities of little bits of wood, as if some one had been chopping there. This being a sure sign that the Green Woodpecker has been at work (for they always clean out and deepen the nesting hole), we looked up and saw a hole some twenty feet from the ground, but it did not look fresh, or as if used. However, by aid of some branches I managed to get up, but could not get my hand in, as the birds invariably make the hole just, and only just, large enough to admit themselves. I knocked the tree, but no sign of any bird, though we heard a laugh or two from one in the trees near; as I descended out flew the old bird from the identical hole. What was to be done? we had no doubt there were eggs in, and get them we must. Off we set to a cottage we had seen some half a mile away (houses are very few and far between in the New Forest), borrowed a ladder they happened to have, asked for a saw which, being about a yard long, would not do, and finally succeeded in getting a large hammer and chisel, and the owner thereof to accompany us. On reaching the tree, our guide, somewhat like a squirrel, was soon up; and as the blows of his hammer resounded through the forest the chips flew off, and in ten minutes the hole was large enough to admit one's hand. I got up, and found the old bird sitting on four eggs, which were quite fresh. The bird was released, and the eggs blown. There was no nest; the eggs, which are pure white, and look like pearls before blowing, were snugly laid on the rotten wood. This seems to be the case with all the species. The Green Woodpecker generally lays seven eggs, and I should think from the date, May 26th, that the bird had been previously disturbed, and laid again. We saw several eggs, taken about May 12th. The birds seemed to prefer beech trees (perhaps from

their being more numerous than any others), and selected either isolated ones, or one of two or three. It may be where the timber is thick and closely planted the trees are younger, and not adapted for boring into. The entrance hole is round, or sometimes oblong, and has to go some inches in, according to the thickness of the tree, before reaching the middle, or rotten part, when it goes down from two to three feet. There are often two holes ; whether one is an escape hole in case of danger, or whether as the bird deepens the hole year by year she taps it into another place for convenience, I am not prepared to say. I am disposed to think it is made as an escape hole. I found near Penmaenmaur, North Wales, this year, on May 29th, a Green Woodpecker's nest, with young ones just hatched. Our guide informed us that he knew of a "Magpie-Woodpecker's" nest, from which we inferred he meant the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker. He took us to a small, dead, stripling oak, or remains of one, ten feet high, and there at the top in a small hole, similar to what a Cole Tit would make, was the nest, or rather the eggs. We soon cut the hole open, and found six eggs in,—white, smaller than the Wryneck's, and hard sat. We managed, by great perseverance and care, to blow four of them. The bird seemed very shy, and left before we reached the spot. As the tree was in the midst of several hollies the eggs would never have been discovered, but from the fact of a noisy Great Tit, whose nest was in the same tree, having attracted our guide to the spot, and caused him, after seeing the " Magpie," as he called her, to search for the nest. This kind of Woodpecker seems far less numerous than the green.-H. G. TOMLINSON (The Woodlands, Burtonon-Trent).

NESTING HABITS OF THE KESTREL AND SPARROWHAWK.-In most works on ornithology the Kestrel is said to build its own nest; sometimes taking, however, the deserted nest of a Crow or Magpie; and just vice versâ for the Sparrowhawk. During the last three or four years I have examined personally a considerable number of Kestrel's nests, with the view of ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the above statement, with the following result:-All but five, out of about thirty, were in old Magpie's nests. Sometimes I found the dome entirely removed, at other times it was left on. In no case did I find they had taken the trouble to line the nest, save now and then two or three pieces of sheep's wool were added. Of the other five, four were in crows' nests, and the remaining one was perhaps of the Kestrel's own manufacture; but of that I am doubtful. As to the trees the nests were in, most preferred elms, then oaks, some fir trees, two ash trees, and the last laid in a Magpie's nest in a thorn bush! The number of egge was generally five, a few of four each, and three of six each. I have not been able to examine nearly so many Sparrowhawk's nests, it being a very much rarer bird in most of the Midland Counties.

Almost all of the nests I found were undoubtedly of the Sparrowhawk's own make, one or two were in crows' nests, and I never found one in a Magpie's. They generally preferred fir tree, especially Scotch, and, unlike the Kestrel, they do not like building in an open country; the latter appear indifferent, but Sparrowhawks greatly prefer a fir tree spinney. The eggs vary in number from four to six; the last nest I found was in a larch tree, and contained the latter number. When the young Kestrels are hatched the parents supply them with rats and mice in large quantities. By the time the young are ready to fly the nest will be found to be quite flat at the top, owing to the accumulation of " pellets," composed of the indigestible parts of their prey, that the birds eject. The number of mice and rats destroyed by a single pair of these birds in one season is perfectly marvellous. I have never found any remains of birds in either the nest or the "castings." Not so, however, with the Sparrowhawk; the young seem to be fed in a great measure on Missel Thrushes; and the latter bird, more than any other, serves to satisfy the hunger of the parents. They are also very fond of little rabbits, greenfinches, and sparrows. Both species of birds lay eggs differing very much in size and colour: Sparrowhawk's are just as frequently blotched at the smaller end as they are at the larger; and Kestrels lay two varieties, one having deep red for the ground colour, the other brown.C. MATTHEW PRIOR (The Avenue, Bedford).

PUGNACITY OF THE WATERHEN.-The Common Waterhen is known to be a species in which combats between individuals (probably males) frequently occur; but the following description of such a contest noted by an eye-witness, who communicated it to me, may perhaps be worth recording. The occurrence took place in a wood at Northrepps, Norfolk. on the 31st July. My informant says::- I saw a regular combat between two Waterhens yesterday. On hearing a noise amongst some elder bushes I went close to where the birds were fighting. They had taken fast hold of each other's wings, near the body, with their feet, and were rolling over and over, pecking each other meanwhile with their bills. After two or three minutes they rested, and then began again, till I separated them, when I found that one appeared to have been injured in the eye by the attack of its opponent."-J. H. Gurney (Northrepps, Norfolk).

PROVINCIAL NAMES OF BRITISH BIRDS.-Having for some time collected Scotch local names of birds, I am much interested in Mr. Little's notes of those used in Cornwall (p. 222). With Scotch names it is very hard to define the district to which many belong, the same being used in places far apart. In some cases also the same are used in different districts for different species. The origin of many of these names would form a curious study, and would no doubt bring to light much of interest to the philologist as well as to the naturalist. Some of the names given in the Old Statistical