HA RD WICKE' S S CIENCE- G OS SI P. 



69 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



Praying Mantis.— The insect descried by W. 

 Harvey would appear, from the description given in 

 the November number of Science-Gossip, ti belong 

 to the empusse ; probably it is Empusa pauperata. 

 The empusse are distinguished from the genus mantis 

 by the high projections over their eyes which Mr. 

 Harvey described ; also by the legs being furnished 

 with small leaf-like projections. This specimen is 

 very likely a survivor from last year. The eggs of 

 the mantidce are laid at the end of summer. They 

 are placed in peculiar cases, and attached to shrubs 

 or stones, or some such object. The larvae are 

 attached to the interior of the eggs, which are placed 

 in cells, by two silken threads. On their emerging 

 from the eggs, they are suspended in the air at the 

 end of these threads. They then change their skin, 

 and descend to the ground, and search about for 

 food. After this the larvae develop like other 

 orthoptera. — II. P. Fitz-Cerald. 



Motion in Spider's Severed Leg. — Mr. H. 

 E. U. Bull, in Science-Gossip for November, 

 mentions the fact of a spider's leg sustaining violent 

 motion after being severed from the creature's body. 

 This is no unusual circumstance in connection with 

 this spider (name unknown to me), and it has always 

 appeared to me that this severing of the leg from the 

 body was a voluntary action on the part of the spider 

 as a means of diverting the attention of its foes whilst 

 it makes good its escape. For the legs appear to 

 come off with the least touch, and moreover the spider 

 does not seem in the least inconvenienced by the loss 

 of one or two of its legs, as it makes off to a place of 

 safety with all possible speed on its remaining legs. 

 However, it would be interesting to hear the opinion 

 of other readers of this paper on the subject. — IV. 

 Finch, jitn. , Nottingham. 



Paradise Tree. — Can any reader say if there is 

 a plant so called in Trinidad, and where we can find 

 an account of it ? We are told it cannot be moved, 

 so it is not the bird orchid ; that it dies down, or, 

 as was expressed, " sinks to ashes every year." The 

 blossom was described, " white, like a dove's head, 

 with extended wings ! " The party had only read of 

 it. Can it be a " traveller's tale ? "•—J*'. S. 



Unrecognised Birds. — On August 4th, in last 

 year I saw two, to me, remarkable and unusual birds 

 on a Yorkshire moor. Having described them to a 

 game-keeper, he said they were stone-snatches ; not 

 common even on the moors, but very rare in the 

 plains. I shall be glad if one of your readers will 

 tell me more about this bird, for I have not been able 

 to identify it beyond learning from the game-keeper 

 that he calls it a stone-snatch. The colours were so 

 bright and decided that at first I thought a pair of 

 foreign birds had escaped from a cage. The birds 

 were a trifle larger than a king-fisher ; a sharply 

 defined purple or peacock -green band ran from the 

 base of the beak to the back of the head, back and 

 shoulders yellowish-brown, tips of tail and wing 

 feathers yellow ; cry, a shrill kind of chirp ; flight 

 short and jerky. — //. M. Birkdale. 



. Carnivorous Water Voles. — I, too, believe 

 the water vole to be carnivorous. On the banks of a 

 canal near Nottingham (the nearest point being about 

 two miles from that town), occurring for a consider- 

 able distance, we find numerous little heaps of fresh- 

 water shells lying in nooks and crannies, on ledges, 

 and also in the openings of holes in the banks, most 



of them between the water and the foot-path, where 

 it is from two to four feet high, in quantities varying 

 from five to thirty or forty specimens in a heap. 

 Hidden as they generally are by reeds and grass, they 

 are not seen without being diligently searched for, 

 with but very few exceptions. The species found in 

 the heaps are : A. cygnea, U. tumidus, U. pictornm, 

 and D. polymorpha. The shells are all broken, and 

 invariably at the posterior margin, sometimes nearly 

 half the shell gone, more commonly, only a small 

 portion. Some of the shells have distinct marks, 

 showing where an animal's teeth have slipped in 

 trying to bite a piece out. Now, for several reasons, 

 it is clear that no human agency will account for the 

 presence of shells under such conditions. That the 

 water vole lives in the vicinity there is plenty of 

 proof — the presence of dung with the shells, for 

 instance ; and though I have never seen them, except 

 for the fraction of a second once or twice, many times 

 I have started them, and they have startled me with 

 that peculiar "plop," always heard on their taking 

 to the water ; evidently having been reposing in some 

 of the very nooks and crannies mentioned. It would 

 seem that in this instance the water voles are in the 

 habit of bringing up from the bottom of the water, 

 bivalves of various species, selecting a favourite or 

 convenient ledge in a retired spot, there to eat their 

 meal so easily obtained. This, after a mild winter. 

 Probably it is, therefore, a preference for animal food, 

 and not "scarcity" of food, that is the inducement. 

 My only doubt is whether it really is the water vole, 

 or whether it may not be the brown rat. At Sutton- 

 in-Ashfield (Notts) we find evidence very similar, so 

 far as broken and marked shells are concerned. But 

 here they cccur on mud left bare by the retreat of the 

 waters (in a mill-dam) during the past long dry 

 summer. (In this case "birds " have also helped 

 themselves to the supply of animal food present in 

 great plenty in the shape of Anodonta cygnea.) Here, 

 for various reasons, we conclude that rats are the 

 probable aggressors ; though it is quite likely that 

 foxes, weasels, &c, may take their share of the food. 

 At Lincoln, too, evidence has occurred leading to a 

 similar conclusion as to rats feeding on anodons and 

 unios. — Chas. T. Jlfusson, Nottingham. 



Water Voles. — Notwithstanding Mr. Parrot's 

 " conjecture " of the carnivorous habits of the water 

 vole, I continue to believe it to be entirely phyto- 

 phagous. So many people have advanced circum- 

 stantial evidence against it, and so few (in fact, none 

 at all) have had real proof of its flesh-eating pro- 

 clivities that nothing short of the latter will convince 

 me. Two days ago I had a conversation with an 

 enthusiastic fisherman, who had seen a note of mine 

 in Science-Gossip. He was convinced that I was 

 wrong, and was certain that the voles fed upon dead 

 fish, if ever they came across one. But, upon close 

 questioning, I elicited the fact that he had never 

 seen one so engaged during the many years he had 

 haunted a stream where they were unusually abundant. 

 I don't wish for one moment to say that a vole would 

 not touch a piece of flesh if it could get nothing else, 

 though that remains to be proved. But I do assert 

 that flesh is very far from being even an occasional 

 item on its menu. — J. A. Wheldon. 



Water Shrew. — A gentleman having seen the 

 correspondence concerning the supposed carnivorous 

 habits of water voles, wrote to me a few days ago, 

 and suggested that the gnawed shells, which I found, 

 as before described in a previous number of SciENCE- 

 Gossip, were brought there by a water shrew 

 (Sorcx fodicns), which is purely an animal feeder. 



