APPENDIX. 689 



as I have fhewn that a fparrow may be taught to 

 fing the linnet's note, I fcarcely know what fpe- 



cies 



" niunt receptaculum, ut contra feras abunde valentur * '% 

 as alfo in the 52c! chapter of his tenth book, that the perdix 

 lays white eggs, which is not true of the common partridge. 



But there are not wanting other proofs of the conjecture I 

 have here made. 



A-'.jhth fpeaking of this fame bird, fays, Tuv {jlev nzftiKuv, 



CI KCUOiCcQlfalV, 01 OE TT^l'dTL f . 



Now, the word, KxxKaSiCzo-t is clearly formed from the call 

 of the bird alluded to, which does not at all refemble that of 

 the common partridge. 



Thus alfo the author of the Elegy on the Nightingale, 

 who is fuppofed by fome to be 0<vid, hath the following 

 line : 



" Caccabat hinc perdix, hinc gratitat improbus anfer." 

 fo that the call of the bird mull have had fomething very 

 particular, and have anfwered nearly, to the words Kouuiot&^u 

 and caccabat, 



I find, indeed, that M. de Buffon contends % that the ntzfi£ 

 of Ariftotle does not mean the common partridge, but the 

 bartavel, with regard to which, I ihall not enter into any 

 difcuffton, but only obferve, that moll of his references are 

 inaccurate, and that he entirely miilakes the materials of which 

 the neft is compofed, according to AriJlotWs fixth book, and 

 firfl chapter. 



But the flrongeft proof that perdix figniiies the red legged 

 partridge is, that the Italians to this day call this bird pernice, 

 and the common fort ftarna §. 



This alfo now brings me to the proofs, of Jlurnus in this 

 palTage of Statius fignifying the common partridge, and not tht 



* Lib, x. c. a-j. f Lib. IV. c, 9. % Orn. T. II. p, 42s § See Olina. 



jiarling, 



