802 Retrospective Criticism. 



dnclus, though a shy bird, is to be found by streams on the moors of the 

 north of England ; and if you could induce any who have an opportunity to 

 favour yoti with observations on its habits, so as either to confirm or con- 

 tradict this supposed habit of walking on the bottom of streams, I think it 

 would be useful. — Thomas Thompson. Hully Sept. 9. 1828. 



The Solitary Snipe. — The beak of the solitary snipe (fig. 34. p. 147.) is 

 made as long as that of the woodcock and common snipe, if not longer,, 

 whereas it is invariably shorter. Having seen many hundreds of those birds 

 abroad, I have almost always found their beaks to be about [the dimensions 

 destroyed by the wafer] of an inch shorter than those of the woodcock or 

 common snipe. — Your constant Reader. June 5. 1829. 



Mountain Cock. — Has not J. M. made some confusion (Vol. I. p. 296.) 

 in speaking of the birds which, at a particular season, form the im- 

 mediate objects of the sportsman's attention. He mentions moorcock, 

 ptarmigan, heathcock, and mountain-cock. If we except the Capucaila, 

 or wood-grouse (Tetrao Urogallus), which, I believe, has long been extinct 

 in this island, I am not aware that there are more than three other indi- 

 genous species of grouse, viz. the blackgame, or heathcock {T.Titnx); 

 the red-game, or moorcock (T. scoticus), and the ptarmigan {T. iagopus). 

 It is not apparent, therefore, to what species the name of mountain-cock 

 applies. Should it not be entirely omitted? — B. Coventry, Sept. 5. 1828. 



Rallus aqudticus. — One complaint more, and I have done. In your 

 figure of Rallus aquaticus (Vol. I. p. 289.), the bill is made straight at the 

 apex, whereas it should have been slightly curved downwards. The bird 

 also is in too erect a posture, and the figure entirely fails of expressing the 

 character of the bird so admirably represented by Bewick. — Id. 



Certain little Moths. — In the Magazine of Natural History (Vol. I. 

 p. 295.), speaking of the appearance of certain little moths, the larvae of 

 which had been so destructive to the leaves of plants, J. M. says, " they 

 prove to be the Phalae'na Pyralis of Linnaeus." I am at a loss to know 

 what insect is meant by this. Pyralis is not the specific name of any Lin- 

 nean species, but is employed by that naturalist to distinguish a family or 

 subdivision of his genus Phalae'na, under which he placed about eighteen 

 species in his Systema Natures : it is now adopted as a regular generic name 

 for that particular family of moths. From J. M.'s account of the insects 

 in question, I should suppose that they could not even belong to the genus 

 Pyralis at all, but rather to that of Tortrix or TYnea. — Id. 



Tarsus of Chlanius vestitus, — Sir, Having met with a curious formation 

 in the tarsus of a specimen of Chlanius vestitus, I send you the following 

 account of it : — By the accompanying figure {Jig. 86.) you will see that 

 the fourth joint of the tarsus, instead of being straight, is bent, 86 

 and has a projection from one side of the base, upon which is 

 fixed what appears to be a supernumerary joint of a very different 

 shape from the other joint, and having a depression in the middle, 

 as if for the articulation of a terminal joint. This supernumerary 

 joint was perfectly visible when the insect was in a fresh state. All 

 the other legs of this insect were formed in the usual manner. The 

 tarsus thus affected is the intermediate one on the left side. To some the 

 noticing of so minute a fact as the above may appear ridiculous ; but it 

 must be considered that insects having a horny covering to their bodies, 

 and casting their skin many times before coming to perfection, are less 

 likely to be deformed than most other animals. I therefore consider a 

 variation so great as the above worthy of obsei*vation. I remain, Sir, &c. 

 — Cacale. Camhridge, April \Q. 1829. 



Zoological Researches. — In noticing the first number of my Zoological 

 Researches and Illustrations, p. 51., of your Second Volume, the manner in 

 which your critique is worded seems likely to deprive me of the merit of 



