upon the Rump of Birds. 269 



feathers of these two hens, I will cheerfully acknowledge that 

 I have been in error. After a shower of rain, the feathers of 

 the rumpless hen dry just as fast, and in as fine order, as the 

 feathers of the hen with a rump; and, if you immerse both 

 these birds in water, the feathers of each will become equally 

 saturated in the same space of time ; and they will dry again 

 in the same space of time, with equal beauty, just as they 

 appeared before immersion. Then it follows, that, if the 

 feathers of a fowl without an oil gland are at all times in as 

 perfect a state as those of a fowl with an oil gland, the oil 

 gland can be of no use whatever, as far as the texture and 

 preservation of the feathers are concerned. Hence I con- 

 clude, that Nature never gave the oil gland to birds in order 

 that they might lubricate their feathers with its contents. 



Occasionally there is a discharge from the gland ; and, when 

 this is the case, the down which surrounds the gland becomes 

 really anointed, and loses every particle of its former light 

 and airy appearance. Now, if this oil thus changes the ap- 

 pearance and very nature of the down in the vicinity of the 

 gland, it could not fail to leave a visible mark on the other 

 parts of the plumage, when supposed to be applied to them 

 by the bill of the bird. But, somehow or other, it so happens, 

 that neither by the scent, nor by the touch, nor even by the 

 sight aided by the strongest magnifying glass, has any body 

 yet perceived the smallest portion of the oil on the feathers 

 of a bird. By the way, Audubon says [I. 119.] he saw the 

 whole plumage of his new species (no new species) of eagle 

 covered with it. But his account contradicts itself. I keep 

 my two fowls purposely for demonstration in matters apper- 

 taining to the oil gland in birds. Any naturalist can have 

 access to them, or can be accommodated with the loan of 

 them, should he wish to add to the experiments which I have 

 already made. — Charles Waterton. Walton Hall, March 5. 

 1836. 



The Question of the Office of the Gland upon the Rump of 

 Birds, (p. 158 — 164.) — The Magazine of Natural History 

 has this morning (March 1.) brought me some witticisms of 

 Mr. Charles Waterton's ; which a little common sense will 

 easily dismiss. When I said that birds " may be seen," be- 

 fore a shower of rain, anointing their feathers with the con- 

 tents of the oil gland which they possess, I used the expression 

 for persons whose eyes are not blinded by prejudice, and I 

 mean to assert a fact (the common interpretation of the words 

 bears me out), and not to hint a possibility; so that it is sheer 

 affectation in Mr. Waterton, in his flippant way, to call the 

 expression " may be seen " " by no means satisfactory." I 



