EXTERMINATION OF ANIMALS. 190 



destruction of any species of bird or other animal nearly extinct, for the 

 mere purpose of placing it among a collection of stuffed skins, is an un- 

 justifiable and unpardonable act, the commission of which may leave a 

 gap in the chain of beings, and, by furnishing a subject in future ages, 

 for much fruitless discussion, speculation, and doubt, impede the pro- 

 gress of knowledge. The sensations of a true lover of nature, or (if 

 you think that designation too poetical and sentimental, as some do) 

 of a true naturalist, would, I conjecture, partake more of regret than of 

 pride, upon the reflection that his hand had destroyed the last of a race 

 of beings. , 



The egret and the crane were formerly plentiful throughout Eng- 

 land, as is proved by the immense numbers that were served up at 

 ancient feasts.* The great demand for these birds as delicacies for the 

 table led to their extirpation in this country. No mention can I lind of 

 the time at which the egret became extinct among us ; but it must have 

 been prior to the time at which Pennant wrote (1768), as he observes 

 that he had not met with a single specimen, but took his description of 

 the bird from one in Dr. Mauduit's cabinet at Paris. 



The crane ( Grus cinerea), it is well known, is not now a resident in 

 this country, as it was in the days of Aldrovand and Willoughby, when 

 they bred in our marshes, and a tine of twenty-pence was inflicted upon 

 those who removed or destroyed its eggs. Ray says that in his time 

 they abounded during the winter in Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire. 

 William Turner, the old English botanist, in his account of the prin- 

 cipal birds of Pliny and Aristotle, published in 1544, mentions his hav- 

 ing frequently seen the young birds in our marshes. Pennant upon 



* Since writing the above I have seen Selby's new volume of Illustrations of 

 British Ornithology ; and I find that he suspects, with Dr. Fleming, that the 

 egret of our ancient gourmands was nothing more than the lapwing ( Vanellus 

 cristatus). He adduces certainly some very strong facts to disprove that their bird 

 was the egret, but he does not prove by research or otherwise that they designated 

 the lapwing the egret. His principal and only point for objecting to the conclu- 

 sion that the bird in question was of the latter species, is derived from the circum- 

 stance of the early writers not having mentioned it as a native of Britain. " Wil- 

 loughby, in his description of the Lesser White Heron (which is without doubt 

 the bird now under consideration), expressly states that the specimen from which 

 it was taken was obtained in Venice ; and he never alludes to this bird as inhabit- 

 ing or visiting the British Islands. Pennant is the only writer who adduces any 

 evidence of the egret having been killed in Britain ; and even that evidence is far 

 from being conclusive, as it only amounts to his having once received from Angle- 

 sea the feathers of a bird shot there, which he conjectured to be those of the 

 egret." Selby's Illustrations of British Ornithology, vol. ii. page 22. 



