68 



HARD WICKE ' S S CIE NCE- G SSIP. 



hills that terminate just above the gravel pits. A 

 friend of mine has also found two or three species of 

 maritime beetles on Cannock Chase. — Jno. E. 

 Nozvers t Burton-on-Trcnt. 



Floral Monstrosities. — Seeing your article in 

 the February number of Science-Gossip on A 

 Double Sunflower, brought to my mind a similar 

 monstrosity in ox-eye daisy {Chysanthemum leucan- 

 themum), which: was growing wild in Westhoughton 

 in July, 1888. The scape was to all appearance like 

 those of other flowers, but on the top were two 

 perfect flower-heads. — John Fletcher. 



The Disappearance of British Plants. — The 

 British Association appointed a committee " for the 

 purpose of collecting information as to the disap- 

 pearance of native plants from their local habitats." 

 At the 1889 meeting this committee presented a 

 "second report," which was printed in the "Journal 

 of Botany" for 1889, pp. 359-365. This is far too 

 long to reproduce in Science-Gossip, so I propose 

 to merely make a few observations on the general 

 purpose of this report, and to ask the readers of 

 Science-Gossip to give any assistance they can in 

 the prevention of the undue gathering of our native 

 varieties. The committee are severe on dealers, and 

 rightly so, for though "bread" will hold its own 

 before sentiment, still in my opinion the buyers are 

 worse than the dealers. Look at our ferns. Time 

 was when I could, within three miles of my home, 

 gather twelve species ; it would puzzle any one now 

 to find half that number. Day after day in spring do 

 we see these gatherers pass with their baskets loaded. 

 This report is confined to Scotland, and it would 

 have been well had the committee have allowed 

 some competent botanist to have looked it over ; 

 it would have avoided such mistakes as "Primula 

 scotica Hut. Marsh near Edinburgh, Pentland Hills ; 

 practically extirpated. — G. A. P." Of course the 

 plant meant is P. farinosa, which, however, is still 

 to be found within a good walk of " Auld Reekie." 

 The actual (or supposed) disappearances are of less 

 interest than the general principle involved. The 

 greed for rare plants is, I regret to say, very great. 

 One instance in my own experience will suffice. 

 Some years ago I mentioned in Science-Gossit 

 that I had seen Orchis simia in plenty. What I 

 actually did see, was twenty-three specimens in full 

 flower on one bank. I will not (for very shame) say 

 how many letters I received asking for the "exact 

 station " where I found this very rare species. To 

 those who know me I need hardly say that to no one 

 has that habitat ever been given; and I feel sure 

 that I could easily walk to the spot again, as it was 

 one very unlikely to be disturbed. Why cannot 

 botanists be satisfied with a fair share of what they 

 find ? Suppose those who have gone before us had 

 gathered specimens in the wholesale way that some 

 present botanists do, our "finds" would have been 



much diminished ; and we have surely the right to 

 think of others who will come after us. It requires 

 great care before any one can assert that a plant has 

 disappeared, and some years' visiting of the station. 

 The truth is, plants appear, disappear, and reappear 

 in a most remarkable manner, and very difficult to 

 account for without a careful study of the surround- 

 ings in situ, and a residence near. What is wanted 

 is, that any botanical readers of Science-Gossip 

 who can give any authentic information of the dis- 

 appearance or extirpation of any plants in their 

 neighbourhood, the probable cause, or suggestions as 

 to the why and wherefore ; whether from drainage, 

 cultivation, felling or "grubbing" of woods, extir- 

 pation by dealers, collectors, or "botanists," or any 

 information that may lead to a reasonable deduction, 

 will do so to the Secretary, Professor Hillhouse, at 

 the offices of the British Association in London. — 

 Arthur Bennett. 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



Sparrow's Eggs. — Mr. Tracy mentioning having, 

 found two specimens of sparrow eggs coloured at the 

 smaller end is very interesting, and I hope if other 

 collectors have met with many of them they will 

 record the fact, for it appears curious that in the very 

 many hundreds of the eggs of the sparrow I have 

 examined that I should have only found one specimen. 

 It also appears curious that with the sparrow pigmy 

 and double eggs should be so infrequent. I have 

 met with but one of the former, and not one of the 

 latter. — J. P. Nunn. 



Kestrel's Eggs. — The taking of the two clutches 

 of the eggs of the kestrel mentioned by Mr. Lines 

 helps to confirm the statement I made in your 

 journal some time back, that taking a few clutches 

 of eggs in no way diminishes our stock of birds. — 

 Joseph P. Nunn. 



Birds' Eggs. — While there is a good deal that is 

 interesting in Mr. Wright's article on birds' eggs in 

 your January number, one cannot but ask, what does 

 it all amount to merely that all the eggs in a nest are 

 not precisely alike ? Considering the infinite variety 

 in nature it would be strange if they were. Moreover,, 

 the peculiarity in question is not confined to birds. 

 My tabby cat has just given birth to four kittens, two- 

 tabbies like herself, one black, and one black and 

 white. My neighbour's fox-terrier has just had a litter 

 of puppies ad marked differently. In fact I know a 

 family of twelve children, all differing from each 

 other, some with fair hair some with dark ; some tall 

 and some short ; some with noses inclined to turn up, 

 and some with noses inclined to turn down, and yet 

 up to this time I have not heard of any one writing a 

 magazine article calling attention to the variety in my 

 friend's family, and if such differences exist elsewhere, 

 why should we think it strange that a bird does not 

 lay all her eggs of one pattern. I fear that one result 

 of the article in question will be to set many of your 

 readers hunting after birds' nests in order to verify or 

 disprove Mr. Wright's statements. It is hardly worth 

 while, and the mischief would exceed any good to be 

 gained. Judging from your exchange column, the 

 practice of plundering birds' nests is much too 

 prevalent and needs repressing rather than stimu- 



