refutation, it cannot possibly produce, in the space of one short week, a series of feathers capable of supporting the bird through the air.

Again, the precocious flying of the young birds argues precocity of feathers; and this would authorise us to look for precocity of lustre in the male. But Mr. Audubon informs us that the male does not receive its full brilliancy of colour until the succeeding spring: and I myself can affirm, from actual observation, that the additional plumage which adorns some humming-birds does not make its appearance till towards the middle of the second year.

Were it necessary, I could show to naturalists their error, in sometimes mistaking a male humming-bird of the first year for a full-plumaged female. I am fully satisfied in my own mind that the internal anatomy of all humming-birds is precisely the same, except in size; having found it the same in every humming-bird which I dissected in Guiana and Brazil. Now, as the young of the humming-birds in these countries require more than a week to enable them to fly, and as Mr. Audubon's humming-bird differs not in internal anatomy from them, I see no reason why the young of his species should receive earlier powers of flying than the young of the humming-birds in the countries just mentioned.

66

A word on the cradle. Mr. Audubon tells us that the little pieces of lichen, used in forming the nest of the hummingbird, are glued together with the saliva of the bird." Fiddle! The saliva of all birds immediately mixes with water. A single shower of rain would undo all the saliva-glued work on the nest of Mr. Audubon's humming-bird. When our great

master in ornithology (whose writings, according to Swainson [I. 45.], will be read when our favourite theories shall have sunk into oblivion) saw his humming-bird fix the lichen to the nest, pray what instrument did it make use of, in order to detach the lichen from the point of its own clammy bill and tongue; to which it would be apt to adhere just as firmly as to the place where it was intended that it should permanently remain? Charles Waterton. Walton Hall, Nov. 19.

1833.

The Virginian Partridge. Virgil.

"Like the turkeys, many of the weaker partridges often fall into the water while thus attempting to cross, and generally perish; for, although they swim surprisingly, they have not muscular power sufficient to keep up a protracted struggle." (See Biography of Birds, p. 388.)

Birds which can "swim surprisingly" will never "perish"

by the act of swimming; neither would they be under the necessity of having recourse to "a protracted struggle" in a movement which requires no struggle at all. A bird struggling in the act of swimming, in order to save itself from drowning, is about the same as if we were to struggle in our usual act of walking, lest we perish therein. The very mention of “ a protracted struggle" argues that the partridge cannot swim. A partridge on the water is nearly in as great a scrape as a shark on shore. The latter, by floundering, may, perchance, get into the water again; still we cannot say that a shark moves surprisingly on land: and the former, by help of its feet, may possibly reach the river's bank, through an element as fatal to it as the shore is to the shark. All birds, whether alive or dead, must naturally float on the surface of the water; but all birds cannot swim: otherwise those birds which we commonly call land birds would have to be new-modelled in form, and would require a very different kind of plumage.

We startle at the novel information of a partridge "swimming surprisingly," and we are anxious to know what sudden change has taken place amongst the birds in the western hemisphere, whilst our eastern birds remain in statu quo. For example's sake, let us examine a waterhen, which, like the partridge, is not web-footed; still it swims remarkably well. Its body is nearly similar in shape to a boat; the arrangement of its feathers is most admirably calculated to resist the entrance of the water; while its every motion, when in the act of swimming, is full of gracefulness and confidence. It moves to and fro by a very gentle action of the feet, and it may be seen, for hours together, enjoying itself on the deep in perfect security. This bird may be truly said to swim surprisingly; but it is never doomed to keep up a protracted struggle by means of muscular power, in order to save its life, on an element where it runs no risk of perishing.

Now let us look at a partridge floating on the river. The form of its body is very unlike that of the waterhen, and, though it cannot possibly sink, still it is in the utmost fear of death, and tries to reach the shore by an evident and vehement struggle. Its feathers immediately become saturated with water, whilst the cold strikes deeply into its body. Death is fast approaching; the wings are soaked with flapping on the water, and at last appear extended quite motionless on the surface of the stream; the legs are cramped and stiffened; the mouth is open; the head falls, and, after a few convulsive efforts to support itself, down it drops for the last time into the water, and the bird dies. This is the fate of the partridge which Mr. Audubon assures us can "swim sur

prisingly." The mere motion of its legs, to propel its floating body towards land, in order to escape from certain death on an element where it was never intended by Nature to exist, even for the space of one short hour, has been magnified by Mr. Audubon into an important act of "swimming surprisingly."

If the admirers of Mr. Audubon should try to force us to agree with their great naturalist, that partridges can "swim surprisingly," then it behoves us to call upon them to declare that every bird in the creation can swim. Our little tomtit, till now a land bird, must be proclaimed to swim surprisingly, and have a place amongst the waterfowl; because, on tumbling accidentally into a washing-tub, he has "muscular power sufficient to keep up a protracted struggle" till he reaches the side.

How delighted Ovid would have been, had he seen a partridge swimming surprisingly, or a goatsucker flying off with a mouthful of eggs! We are told in ancient history that the stomach of Mithridates was poison-proof: I wonder if his leg also was poison-proof; so that he could have danced, without danger of sudden death, in the fatal American boot mentioned by Mr. Audubon in his wonderful story of the rattlesnake's swallowing a squirrel tail foremost. Charles Waterton.

-

The Wandering Albatross (Diomedèa éxulans L.) (VI. 147.); its size (VI. 372, 373.)-I have a stuffed specimen, which was given me by your correspondent, "A Grenada Subscriber." Its dimensions are:-Length from the tip of the bill to the end of the tail, 4 ft. 2 in.; expansion of wings about 11 ft. 4 in.; the humerus measures 17 in. in length, the radius 18 in., and the pinion, with its quills, 27 in.: the tail is very short, not exceeding 4 in.-A Subscriber. Vale of Alford, Nov. 20. 1833. The Bird called " Booby" by Sailors (VI. 373.) is the Pelecànus Sula: it is often caught, while asleep, on the yards. The Noddy (Sterna stólida) is also frequently captured in the same manner. I have seen both so taken. - Id.

The Booby is not a Name, even among Sailors, for the Albatross. (VI. 373.) —J. D. has, I think, been misinformed as to the application, by sailors, of the term "booby" "to any long-winged bird of a whitish colour," and to the albatross as one such. Although the ornithological terms of sailors are probably usually applied indefinitely enough, it appears, from Pennant's British Zoology, that the solan goose, or gannet, is the "booby." In a work called The Natural Historian the characters of the booby are given technically and in detail, but the scientific name is omitted. The albatross and the penguin have both obtained, among our sailors, the name of

Cape sheep (see Rennie's Architecture of Birds, p. 37.); and the gannet is designated the "booby."-James Fennell. Aug. 1833.

66

The late Rev. Lansdown Guilding, in a communication lying by us, made in relation to the admirable remarks of K. in II. 186., on the acquired wariness of birds, has remarked: -" The booby, and other birds celebrated for their stupidity and contempt of the destroyer man, are cunning enough in places much frequented: it is only when they are met with in desert places, or during the season of incubation, that they exhibit a stupid inattention to danger.”—J. D.

Mr. Blyth's Identification (VI. 516.) of the Species of Thrush which W. L., who describes (VI. 218.) its Migration, deems an unrecognised one, with the Redwing (Túrdus iliacus). — Sir, If W. L.'s species of thrush (VI. 218.), of which he saw "thousands" in the Island of Harris, in the month of June, prove to be not a new species, but merely the redwing (Turdus iliacus), as suggested by Mr. Blyth (VI. 516.), it will go near to establish the fact (hitherto, so far as I am aware, not known to naturalists) of these birds remaining throughout the summer, and breeding in the northern parts of Great Britain. It is much to be wished that W. L. had procured a specimen of his thrush, in order to put the point beyond dispute. Of the musical powers of the redwing I entertain no doubt; for even in winter, when the weather is very fine, and still more in the spring, they will congregate on the top of a large tree, along with their friends the fieldfares, and begin to tune their pipes, uttering in concert a low, murmuring, half-stifled song, as it were an earnest of what they can do when in full voice. Many birds, as the chaffinch, blackcap, nightingale, &c., when first they commence their song in the spring, sing but imperfectly, giving only detached fragments of their melody; as if, from disuse, they had partly forgotten their notes, and were out of practice. Yours, &c.-W. T. Bree. Allesley Rectory, Nov. 6. 1833.

Dates of the Redwing's Appearance. Among those I have given in VI. 516., for "months," in that for 1832, line 14. from the bottom, read "weeks." — Edward Blyth. Nov. 26. 1833.

The Distinctions and Synonymes of the British Species of Sylvia. (VI. 447. 521.)—Mr. Blyth's words, in VI. 521., represent me as adducing, in VI. 447., Professor Rennie's paper in No. 2. of The Field Naturalist's Magazine " as a correct elucidation of the species of the genus" Sylvia. My words in VI. 447,448. are, "Professor Rennie's admirable elucidation of the species Sylvia hippolàis and rùfa.”

Mr. Blyth asserts (VI. 521.) that "the common chiffchaff of this country, S. lòquax Herbert, S. hippolàis of other British authors) is a distinct species from the S. rufa." I agree in the opinion that the S. lòquax is identical with the S. hippolàis of British authors; but I do not stop here, as I consider the S. rufa identical with it also, from the fact that the song, habits, and manners of the chiffchaff, as long known to me, accord fully as well with the descriptions of S. rùfa, as these are given by Continental authors, as they do with those of the "S. lòquax of Herbert," or "the S. hippolais of other British authors: in addition to which, the dimensions and plumage of the specimen that I most particularly examined, and which was shot when in the act of uttering its singular song, coincided with those of the S. rùfa as they are detailed by Temminck, Rennie, &c.-W. Thompson. Donegal Square, Belfast, Nov. 28. 1833.

The Red Viper. (VI. 399. 526.)- Another specimen of this viper was brought me on Sept. 13. 1833: its length was 9 in. E. N. D. asserts (VI. 526.) that the red viper is the young of the common one; but I cannot consider this as proved, till the vipers of intermediate size are captured and described. I have never been able to procure any but full-grown vipers, and young ones yet unborn: the latter are greyish, with dark markings, and show no signs of the peculiar colour of the red viper. Now, although colour alone is not sufficient to characterise the species of Ophídia, yet any marked difference of size would certainly form a specific distinction. If, therefore, the red viper should prove never to exceed 10 in. in length, or if a series of young common vipers could be procured, of various sizes, but uniform in colour with the old ones, the distinctness of the red viper would be proved. I trust some of your readers may be able to decide this question. I am obliged to E. N. D. for his "information" that the number of scuta in snakes is variable; but if he will look at my communication, in p. 400., he will find that I have there stated the same thing.

The Black Viper, mentioned by Mr. Blyth (VI. 527.), differs from the common one only (I believe) in being of a darker colour; and is, therefore, deservedly considered a variety. H. E. Strickland. Nov. 22. 1833.

The Black Viper. (VI. 527.)- When E. N. D. says (VI. 526.) "there is but one species of viper or poisonous reptile in England, he forgets the black viper (Cóluber Préster of Linnæus); to the existence of which, in the west of England, Mr. Blyth also alludes doubtfully, in VI. 527. Of this species, I have seen, at different times, alive and at large, two specimens in the Isle of Wight, one of