24f2 BemarJcs on the Booh 



a noise similar to that of a rushing wind [see p. 239.]. His 

 mischief and his usefulness to mankind might be narrowly 

 looked into, and placed in so clear a light, that nobody could 

 afterwards have a doubt whether this bird ought to be pro- 

 tected as a friend to a cultivated country, or banished from it 

 as a depredating enemy. 



I remember, some fifteen years ago, when I was very anxi- 

 ous to divert a footpath which had become an intolerable 

 nuisance, the farmers in the district said that 1 should freely 

 have their good-will to do so, provided I would only destroy 

 a large rookery in a neighbouring wood. On the other hand, 

 the villagers deplored this proposed destruction, as it would 

 deprive them of their annual supply of about two thousand 

 young rooks. Now the gardener abominated them. He 

 called them a devouring set ; said that they spoiled all the 

 tops of the trees ; and that, for his part, he hoped they would 

 all of them get their necks broken. I myself, for divers 

 reasons, was extremely averse to sign their death-warrant. 

 Were I not fearful of being rebuked by grave and solemn 

 critics, I would here hazard a small quotation : — 



" Mulciber in Trojam, pro Troja stabat Apollo; 

 iEqua Venus Teucris, Pallas iniqua fuit." 



" Vulcan *gainst Troy, for Troy Apollo stood ; 

 Venus was friendly, Pallas was adverse." 



However, at present, it is not my intention to write the life 

 of the rook, or even to enquire incidentally into its vices or 

 its virtues. I merely take up the pen to-day, to show that 

 the nudity on the forehead of the rook, and at the base of 

 both mandibles, cannot be caused by the bird's thrusting its 

 bill into the ground. 



Bewick is the only one in Professor Rennie's long and fan- 

 ciful list of "rudimental naturalists," "literary naturalists,'* and 

 " philosophic naturalists, and original observers," who gives 

 us any thing satisfactory concerning this nudity. He, sensible 

 natm-alist, cuts the knot through at one stroke, by telling us 

 that it is an " original peculiarity." Montagu says that it is 

 acquired by the bird's " habit of thrusting its bill into the 

 ground after worms and various insects." From the study of 

 Professor Rennie, this error is renewed to the public, in the 

 second edition of the Ornithological Dictionary, Let us look 

 into this error. 



Every observer of birds must know that when the young 

 rook leaves its nest for good and all, there is no part of its 

 head deficient in feathers. Before winter, this young bird 

 loses the feathers on the forehead, under the bill, and at the 



