upon the Rump of Birds. 435 



bird, and that it is not as if some clownish hand were to prick 

 the gland with the bill. Mr. Waterton has also taken care 

 to forget what I had said [p. 161.], about the bills of ducks, 

 &c, " who chiefly use this oil, and to whom it is especially 

 useful." Mr. Waterton contends, that I could not see tame 

 ducks apply their bills to the gland, it being covered over 

 with down. Now, I have never said at all that I could see 

 the gland. I have twice distinctly stated, that the " feathers 

 prevent our seeing what is going on ; " and when I did say 

 that I had seen these birds turn back the feathers, when want- 

 ing to express the oil, I certainly never said, or could say, 

 that I had seen the gland; for every one knows (and knew 

 without Mr. Waterton's information) that the bodies of ducks 

 have a thick covering of down, over and above which lie 

 their feathers, through which neither T. G. of Ciitheroe, nor 

 myself, has ever said that he could see the gland. I only said, 

 that I had seen tame ducks apply their bills to the gland, evi- 

 dently meaning to that part of their bodies where even Mr. 

 Waterton has not attempted to deny that the gland is situated. 

 I have seen them, I say, apply their bills over the root of the 

 tail, and then apply their bills to their feathers. Now this 

 certainly looks suspicious ; and, by another simile, " I will 

 description the matter" to Mr. Waterton, "if he be capacity of 

 it." On that ever memorable occasion, which Mr. Waterton 

 has so feelingly described to us [p. 268.], is it to be inferred, 

 that, because his hair would not allow us to see his head, 

 therefore, it is to be asserted, that he was not able " caput 

 scabere?" I do maintain that, if it is to be said that, because 

 we cannot see through the down which covers it, the gland of 

 a duck that is pressing it with its bill to extract the oil which 

 it contains, that therefore the duck does not press it, or 

 that we have no right to say that it does ; I do say, that we 

 must likewise assert the contradictory of Mr. Waterton's 

 assertion : because his hair would not allow us to see his head, 

 that he could not be engaged extirpante pediculos because, 

 to be sure, we could not see his actual scalp the while. 



Now, how r ever, I have to pass on to the next item, where 

 Mr. Waterton again contradicts, not me, but himself. He 

 tells us (and I should wish to know whether he intends this 

 as an answer to my question, whether any birds are without 

 the oil gland), he tells us, that " the gland in birds, whether 

 they be land fowl, or water-fowl, is always perfectly deve- 

 loped, and its capaciousness proportionate to the size of the 

 bird." I will leave him to reconcile this with his statement, 

 that his barn-door fowl has no tail (meaning, in charity we 

 will suppose, no oil gland). Meantime I will suggest another 

 query* He says that he can now set the question at rest ; that 



