118 



€]}i fxtiu^nl 



I remark in "The Retrospeot" of "The Naturalist" for January last, some observations on 

 "Plants with Unnaturally White Flowers," in which the writer states that most of the plants 

 he found with such, were growing in situations much shaded, or after a long continuance 

 of showery weather, and their difference in colour may very reasonably be ascribed to a deficiency 

 of sunlight; but I have noticed in situations near the sea many plants with white flowers growing 

 where they are fidli/ exposed to the sun's influence, not in an)' way stunted in their growth. 

 On the Sandy Warren here, close to the sea, the following are frequent with white blooms, 

 though plants of the usual colours are also common in the same spot, namely, Lycopsis vulgaris, 

 Cynoglossum officinale, Erodiiim cicutarium, Myosotis collina, Carduus tenuifolius, and Veronica 

 Chamocdrys, but the latter not common. In these instances we must ascribe the change of hue 

 to peculiar properties in the soil, certainly not to any want of solar light. A white variety 

 of Callima vidgaris occm-s on the hills in the same situations as the plant is usually found in. 

 Digitalis purpurea with white flowers grows on Greenaleigh, a hill close to the sea. Ballota 

 nigra 1 occasionally see with white blossoms in the hedge banks. — Isabella Giffoed, Minthcad, 

 Somerset, March, 1854. 



Preserving Birds and Small Quadrupeds by means of Ether. — In answer to Mr. Mc' Intosh's 

 inquiry in "The Naturalist" of the present month, I beg to state that I have frequently made 

 use of ether in the preservation of birds; I believe I took the idea from some notes of Mr. 

 Waterton on bird-stulfing. Taking out merely the entrails of the bird, I fill the cavity with 

 a solution of sublimate of mercury in spirits of wine; this remains a few minutes, according 

 to the size of the specimen, when it is drained oflF, and the cavity filled with a piece of wool 

 soaked in ether, and heat applied for a moment or so : the visible etfect is the immediate turning 

 white of the eyes. I find birds thus preserved keep for years even when exposed without glass. 

 While on the subject of preservation without removing the flesh, I may mention a curious 

 circumstance which came under my observation: — A Tree Creeper which I had intended to 

 stuff was shut up in a cupboard, and laid upon a glove which had been used in painting, and 

 covered with common black paint. Leaving home, I forgot my bird for two months; on my 

 return I expected to find it in a state of putrefaction, but on the contrary it was in perfect 

 preservation. I kept it for a year or more, when I opened it, and found the whole body, as 

 well as the entrails, dried up, and as hard as a board: I have no doubt it would have kept 

 for years. I may as well add that there were bottles of ether and sublimate of mercury in the 

 same cupboard. I never tried ether on a bird larger than the Oxeye. — R. P. Alington, 

 Eectory, Swinhope, Lincolnshire, March, 1854. 



May not the egg stated by Mr. F. W. S. Webber, to have been found in a Hedge Sparrow's 

 nest, have been in reality the production of a Cuckoo? Among the eggs of this species almost 

 every imaginable variety is to be found. I do not happen to possess one very closely resembling 

 the egg of the Red-backed Shrike, but I have some quite as strongly-marlced varieties. — S. Stone, 

 March 15th., 1854. 



On the 2nd. day of the present month I captured a specimen of the Small White Butterfly, 

 {Tontia rapa;.) Has any reader of "The Naturalist" met with so early an occurrence of this 

 insect? I do not remember ever having before taken it till towards the end of April or the 

 beginning of May.— Idem. 



In the February number of "The Naturalist" I am asked by Dr. Morris the exact locality of 

 a specimen of Asplenium fontanum which was given me in December last. The specimen alluded 

 to was gathered by the Rev. W. H. Hawker in Hampshire, who, in a note read at "The 

 Phytologist Club" on December 27th., 1852, says, "I am advised, for obvious reasons, not to 

 publish the exact locality, but will add, that it is 'not a hundred miles' from the place whence 

 I date this." The note is dated "Ashficld Lodge, Petersfiold, Hants." The exact locality, 

 therefore, I am unable to give, but it was gathered not a hundred miles from Ashficld Lodge, 

 Petersfield, Hants. Mr. Hawker's note is one of great interest, and well worthy the perusal of 

 all the readers of "The Naturalist;" it is to be found in the "Phytologist" for January, 1853. In 

 Mr. Moore's "Handbook of British Ferns" this locality is also mentioned.— H. C. Stuaht, Christ's 

 College, Cambridge, February 16th., 1854. 



