516 Subaquatic Habits of the Dipper. 



force which enabled them to descend to it ceases to act. 

 Hence I infer that the body of a bird, impelled to the bottom 

 by the aid of the feet and wings, must rise again when de- 

 prived of that aid. I can easily conceive, however, that the 

 dipper, by the use of its legs and wings, may manage to keep 

 sufficiently near the bottom to be enabled to turn over the 

 pebbles with its bill in quest of food ; because, in this posi- 

 tion, the legs and wings would have power to act, and they 

 would tend to counteract the rising motion of the body. I 

 maintain positively, that a bird cannot, by any chance, walk 

 on the ground under water. The moment it attempted to do 

 so, the legs and wings, by the altered position of the body, 

 would be deprived of all depressing power ; and the body 

 itself would be raised up towards the surface by the fluid 

 in which it is immersed. This would put an effectual stop 

 to all proposed perambulations at the bottom of the stream. 

 This is only theory, and theory may err. I often used to 

 watch the dipper, when in Northumberland ; but I own that 

 I never had courage to follow it to the realms below, in order 

 to have a clear and distinct view of its proceedings. Twish 

 that old Nicolas Pesce were alive in these days. I would 

 engage him to put this very important ornithological question 

 at rest for ever. Old Nicholas was quite at home under water. 

 His toes and fingers {credat Judceus) were said to be webbed ; 

 and he could take in at one gulp as much breath as would 

 serve him for a whole day. They tell us, he would often 

 spend five days together in the midst of the waves, and live 

 on the fish which he caught. The roaring gulfs among the 

 Lipari Islands were a kind of Hyde Park promenade to him. 

 Nick would resort to them whenever he felt inclined to' take 

 an airing, either for his amusement, or for the benefit of his 

 health.— Charles Waterton. Walton Hall, July 8. 1835. 



[Since Mr. Morris made the incidental reference, in p. 375. 

 note *, to the question of birds' oiling their feathers, he has 

 sent us a discussion on it of eleven foolscap pages of manu- 

 script. The discussion includes arguments on the views of Mr. 

 Waterton and others, published in this Magazine; which views 

 of others were not fully present to Mr. Morris's mind when 

 he made the passing reference to the subject which Mr. 

 Waterton has quoted and combated above. Mr. Morris's 

 communication was delivered on August 5. We are, for our 

 own part, tired of discussion on the subject; but if Mr. Morris 

 will give us a comprehensive page on the subject, we will give 

 space to this quantity.] 



The Robin is not Non-Frugivorous, as represented by J". Z). 

 (p. 241, 242.); and if not eminently Frugivorous, as taught by 



