14 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



[Jan. 1, 1870. 



the Redwing. Instances are recorded of Fieldfares 

 having been seen in August and September ; but 

 in several cases, it was found, on inquiry, that the 

 observers had mistaken a flock of Mistletoe Thrushes 

 for the species under consideration, and doubtless 

 this mistake has been oftentimes committed. 

 We lately received a letter from a friend near 

 London, informing us that a flock of Rock Thrushes 

 (Petrocincla saxatilis) had been seen in his neigh- 

 bourhood by two gentlemen of his acquaintance, 

 one of whom was stated to be " well up in English 

 birds and very observant." Such an interesting 

 and at the same time startling piece of news, was 

 enough to put any ornithologist on the alert, and, 

 notwithstanding our impression that the Rock 

 Thrush is not gregarious, and is so extremely rare 

 in England that only one instance of its occurrence 

 here is recorded, we determined from curiosity to 

 ascertain if possible what species had been mis- 

 taken for it. Accordingly, armed with our friend's 

 letter, and furnished with the names and addresses 

 of the observers, we called upon them in turn with 

 a skin of the Rock Thrush in our pocket. From 

 the descriptions which we then received of the 

 appearance, actions, flight, and note of the birds 

 which had been seen, there could be no sort of 

 doubt but that the species was that of our old 

 friend the Fieldfare, and the production of the skin 

 of the Rock Thrush proved conclusively to the 

 observers that they had been mistaken. Now, had 

 we rested content with the assurance that a gentle- 

 man " well up in English birds " had seen the 

 Rock Thrush, or a flock of Rock Thrushes, at such 

 and such a place, and had wc on the strength of 

 this assurance published the fact in one or other of 

 the natural history journals, it is difficult to say 

 what amount of mischief might not have resulted 

 from supplying such data for future ornithologists 

 to found conclusions on. Those who interest them- 

 selves in collecting and publishing accounts of rare 

 birds, cannot be too careful in first ascertaining that 

 the evidence upon which their statements are 

 founded is incontestable. 



But to return to the Fieldfare : few birds seem 

 to attract so much attention at the season of their 

 arrival in this country. During the month of 

 November we see every year numberless short 

 paragraphs in the Field, the Zoologist, and other 

 natural history journals, in which the " first appear- 

 ance " of this species in various localities is duly 

 chronicled and commented on. For six months in 

 the year the Fieldfare is generally dispersed, and 

 tolerably common in most parts of the country. 

 Towards the end of April it disappears, retiring 

 northwards to its summer haunts. 



During its stay with us it frequents the open 

 country, feeding on the small meadow slug (Limax 

 agrestis), of which it seems particularly fond, varying 

 its diet with worms and beetles. As the weather 



becomes colder, and the ground harder, it resorts to 

 the hedgerows to devour the fruits of the dog-rose 

 and white-thorn, commonly known as " heps and 

 haws," and in such situations, traces of its visits 

 are always to be found in the bright red droppings 

 which are noticeable on the ground hard by. The 

 berries of the Ivy and Rowan-tree are also eagerly 

 devoured and in the absence or scarcity of such food, 

 Fieldfares have been observed to attack turnips, 

 digging at the exposed portion of the roots, aud chip- 

 ping off small pieces, which they swallowed with 

 avidity. Several birds which were shot while thus 

 engaged, were found to have the stomach completely 

 filled with such chips. It is probably not often that 

 the Fieldfare is driven to such extremities, and com- 

 pelled to steal turnips like a hungry vagabond. 

 The practice no doubt is a mischievous one, as the 

 farmers will tell us ; for the water lodging in the 

 holes which are pecked by the birds, the roots are 

 rotted, and the crop is seriously impoverished. 



We can make allowances, however, for such 

 damage, when we consider what our own feelings 

 would be under such hungry circumstances. 



J. E. Hakting. 



STUDIES FROM THE ANTIQUE. 



THERE is sometimes a good deal of amusement 

 afforded, if not much instruction, by turning 

 over the pages of those old books which professed 

 to treat upon Natural History a centuryor so ago. It 

 is possible that we shall occasionally come across 

 facts and observations worthy to be placed side by 

 side with more recent records, but in the great 

 majority of the works sold as "Natural Histories " 

 at the time to which we refer, the worthy authors, 

 who we would fain respect if we could, really appear 

 to have put to very little service the powers of 

 observation or reflection which they possessed. We 

 are irresistibly tempted to laugh at many of the 

 statements they made with all due gravity, and the 

 conclusions deduced from the facts (or supposed 

 facts) which they have noted, are often, too, fully as 

 comical. We are accustomed to make apologies for 

 our predecessors in the study of Nature, yet really, 

 after all that can be said in extenuation of their 

 various errors, we cannot help thinking that they 

 ought to have done better. The discoveries of more 

 recent times were within their reach as much 

 as they are within ours, and the strange way in 

 which some of these so-called fathers of science 

 missed things which are palpable to the merest 

 tyro of a naturalist now furnishes an illustra- 

 tion of the homely proverb that "You may take a 

 horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink." 

 A curious old book lies before me which sug- 

 gested these remarks. It bears date 1763, rather 

 more than a hundred years since,— published, too, 

 let it be noted, "in St. Paul's Churchyard, at the 



