THE WEIGHT AND LENGTH OF OTTERS 135 



55^ inches from tip to tip, not stating its weight, but saying 

 it was trapped in the Stour at Spetisbury near Blandford in 

 Dorsetshire. 



The following I quote from " The Field " as being a 

 letter from Captain E. F. Oakley : " The accepted record 

 weight for an Otter is, I believe, 38 lb., but I have one in my 

 possession, stuffed by Rowland Ward, which weighed 42 lb. 

 (wet, in a bag] say 40 lb. Mr. Rowland Ward was unable 

 to accept this as an authenticated record owing to the lack 

 of witnesses, but said that the measurements were larger than 

 those of the Otter which weighed 38 lb. As a matter of 

 fact, I am satisfied myself, Captain Oakley says, that the 

 weight was genuine, since my keeper, a most reliable man, 

 weighed it twice carefully. He trapped it on Spencer's Oak 

 fishing on the Blackwater, in the spring of 1898, underneath 

 the big rock on the left bank." It was again mentioned by 

 Captain Oakley in "The Field" of 26th September 1908. 

 I do not doubt his word, although I take it that he got the 

 details second-hand from his keeper, and did not actually see 

 it weighed, or even in the flesh. If he had deducted, not 2 lb., 

 but 6 or 7 lb., or even more, for a wet Otter in a wet bag, I 

 venture to say that he would have been nearer the mark, and 

 this would bring down its weight to 35 or 36 lb. I have 

 had some experience of wet Otters in wet bags and am sure 

 that the water in the bag and Otter combined would weigh at 

 the very least 6 lb. Messrs. Rowland Ward, to whom I 

 applied for the length of this Otter, replied that it was not 

 measured, and also said that they were unable to give me 

 any information concerning the 38 lb. one quoted in the 

 above letter of Captain Oakley. 



In Millais's " British Mammals," vol. ii., the following 

 weights and lengths of Otters are given, the author quoting 

 Mr. Thomas Southwell, who, I believe, mentioned the 

 heaviest of them in "The Field" of 3<Dth December 1895. 



37 lb. and 48 in. $, 



30 



28 



27 53 







27 lb. and 50 in. $ \ 16 lb. and 43 in. 9 



= 3 >> ,, 5 



!3 48 

 S.I ,,49 



'6 43 ,, 9 

 14 ,, 44 ? 



Surely, some may say, there is something wrong with 

 these figures? The largest dog, weighing 37 lb., only 



