20 The Irish Naturalist, February, 1923, 



Our correspondent raises a question of which many solutions have 

 been offered — as will be seen on reference to such standaid works as 

 Furness's " Variorum Edition of Shakespeare," and Wright*s " English 

 Dialect Dictionary "' ; but the re -raising of the subject should be welcomed 

 as affording to Irish students the opportunity of throwing any fresh light 

 that has fallen into their hands on a still unsolved enigma. 



The most remarkable feature common to all the meanings that have 

 been proposed for the word " scamel " in the passage in question is 

 that not one of them is free from some strong objection. It is to be feared 

 that in this respect the Shellduck and Merganser will fare no better than 

 other claimants ; for, as neither of these birds rears its young on rocks, 

 Caliban would be promising himself rather a " wild goose chase " in 

 making the offer he did if either of them were the creatures in his mind. 



If, however, this objection be over-ruled, and birds nesting elsewhere 

 than on rocks held admissible, a strong claimant at once presents itself 

 in the Bar-tailed Godwit, for which, as stated in Stevenson's " Birds of 

 Norfolk " and confirmed by later writers (see Kirk Swann's " Dictionary 

 of English and Folk Names of British Birds ") the term " scamel " is 

 still in actual use among shooting men in some districts of East Anglia. 



In Newton's " Dictionary of Birds " the Godwit is definitely and 

 rather abruptly set aside, the nature of its breeding-haunts being probably 

 the sole reason for its exclusion from the list of possible claimants. 

 Evidently, no critic is remorseless enough to suggest that Shakespeare 

 may have fallen into a mistake as to where the Godwit nested ; and 

 Professor Trench, whom we have consulted on the subject, rules out as 

 equally untenable the hypothesis that Shakespeare purposely made 

 Caliban commit a blunder. If, however, this objection is fatal to the 

 Godwit, it must be equally so to any other species whose young are not 

 reared on rocks. 



Such readings as "sea-mew," "sea-mall," " sea-gelV and even 

 " stannel " {i.e., the Kestrel) — supposed to have been corrupted by 

 careless printing into " scamel " — have apparently been put forward to 

 get rid of the difficulty that none but a rock-nesting creature will do 

 One may reasonably question, however, whether either young gulls or 

 young Kestrels would have been esteemed a tempting offer for Stefano's 

 " royal table." In this respect, at least, the Godwit has a marked 

 advantage over the other claimants ; but the field is clearly open for 

 other suggestions, and we hope that some may yet be put forward. 



C. B. Moffat. 

 Dublin. 



