



lO 



Transactions of the [Sess. 



can walk as easily upon the bed of a river under water as it can 

 on dry land ; while others, again, scout the idea as nonsensical 

 and contrary to reason. One authority is ready to make oath that 

 it possesses the former power, and asserts that he has ocular 

 demonstration to prove it ; another argues to his own satisfaction 

 that this is impossible, as its specific gravity is not sufficient to 

 keep it at the bottom. Both disputants agree, however, upon this, 

 that it can dive and swim beneath the surface to perfection : in 

 reality, it actually flies through the water — using its wings for 

 that purpose precisely in the same manner as it does when skim- 

 ming through the atmosphere. About this latter fact there can be no 

 doubt, but its walking on the bed is quite another matter. It would, 

 be presumptuous on my part to offer an opinion upon the vexed 

 question, although I am bound to confess that my own ideas on the 

 point are strongly in favour of its inability to perform the feat. 

 It is just possible, nevertheless, that the exponents of the former 

 theory may be right to a certain extent, as its feet are well adapted 

 for clutching firmly, ergo it may be able to hold on for a short space 

 to one spot : but that it can continue to walk will require more 

 substantial evidence than has as yet been adduced in support of the 

 hypothesis. This amphibious habit renders the species an attrac- 

 tive one to naturalists ; but it has also developed an interest of a 

 totally different character in the minds of another class, whose 

 feelings towards it are akin to those which Baillie Nicol Jarvie 

 imputes to Helen Macgregor, when he remarks that her reception 

 of him was " on the north side o' freendly." The class referred to 

 are Salmon and Trout preservers, who used to — and do even yet to 

 a considerable extent — wage a war of extermination against this 

 harmless creature. The reason for this hostility is by no means 

 satisfactory, especially in this, as we are accustomed to consider, 

 enlightened age. 



The bird is accused of devouring immense quantities of Salmon 

 and Trout ova, and, as a natural consequence, of destroying the 

 breed of these fish. Now it is notorious that many of its maligners 

 have never taken the trouble to investigate for themselves the 

 truth of this accusation, but are content to go on kilHng the 

 species simply because the belief that it is detrimental to fish- 

 culture has been taken for granted for such a length of time, that 

 now it almost forms part of the creed of an angler. That it may 

 eat ova occasionally is admitted ; but that it makes a practice of 

 this, or destroys large quantities, is a statement denied by our 

 most eminent ornithologists, many of whom have made this bird 

 a special study. Such authorities as Sir William Jardine, M'Gilli- 

 vray, Yarrell,- and in our own day Professor Newton, Thomas 

 Edward of Banff, and many others, have expressed themselves 

 more or less emphatically against this imputation ; and I venture 



