193 



THE NOTCH-EAEED BAT, {VESPERTILIO EMARGINATUS.) 



BY W. P. COOKS, ESQ. 



Three months absence from my home has been the cause of my not 

 correcting an error in the "Falmouth List" sooner. The Vespertilio emarginatus 

 is a very rare visitant in our locality; and during the last eight years I have 

 only examined two specimens. The fii'st specimen was brought to me in the 

 year 1845; and was said to have been shot by a person of the name of 

 Symons, in Love, or Fox's lane, Woodlane, Parish 

 of Budock. It measured from tip of nose to 

 rump, two inches and three-eighths; tail, seven- 

 eighths of an inch; wings, when expanded, 

 measured nine inches. The ears were erect and 

 deeply notched on the outer edge; tragus, long, 

 styliform; fur, chestnut brown on the back and 

 sides — paler beneath. The second was shot by 

 a young sportsman in the year 1847, Pan.scoth 

 lane, Budock Parish. Length, one inch and three-quarters; tail, live-eighths and 

 one-sixteenth of an inch; wings, eight inches and a half; far, on the back 

 and sides, light reddish brown ; abdominal and inguinal regions, whitish. The 

 ears were notched on the outer edge, but not so deeply as in the first 

 specimen. 



The Mus intermedius; I consider it to be nothing more than a dwarfish 

 variety of Mus decumanus. 



Falmouth, August 26^^., 1851. 



EYES OF THE COMMON MOLE, (TALPA VULGABIS.) 



BY S. HAXNAFORD, ESQ., JUST. 



I WAS much surprised on reading Mr. Smee's ^'Instinct and Reason," to 

 observe the following: — ^'There is a common animal in the fields, which being 

 almost exclusively in the dark, in subterraneous passages, has no eyes. This 

 creature is the Sleek-skinned Mole. It is a common proverb to speak of a 

 person as blind as a mole, but it is equally common to hear the casual 

 observer speak of the error of the proverb; because on turning aside the haira 

 on each side of the head, a little black tubercle appears, which is called an 

 eye. These black tubercles have no optical contrivance, and a distinguished 

 physiologist has shewn that the little tubercle is not supplied by the optic 

 nerve. In consequence of this creature having no eyeballs, there are no sockets 

 in the skull to receive the eyeballs." — Instinct and Reason, page 26. 



This was so much at A'ariance with my own ideas on the matter, that I 

 immediately consulted all the works on Natural History in my possession, but 

 did not find a single corroboration of Mr. Smee's assertion. I give the following 



VOL. I. 2 c 



