96 The Irish Naturalist. 



Foley as to fishes, to the I^ord. Archbishop of Dublin and 

 Sir R. Bulkeley as to insects ; while Dr. Scrogs and Mr. Cox 

 took in hand the botanical, and Dr. Molyneux the minera- 

 logical sections. 



In another paper we have short memoranda as to birds, b}' 

 which it appears that the "cock of 3^e wood, Urogallus major,'' 

 and "ye great Irish owle," were found then in Ireland and 

 not in England; while the "magpye" was rare in Ireland 

 and common in England; as also " 3^e comon black crow 

 cornix, quaere whether it be found at all in Ireland?" is a 

 noticeable entry. But to come to the Frog. Under " Quad- 

 rupeds in England and not in Ireland " are noted "Frogg, toad, 

 mole, water rat (vole), and roe in Scotland." From this we 

 learn that Dr. Gwithers was not able to learn of the existence 

 of the Frog at that time in Ireland, and certainly thought he 

 w^as introducing a new animal. It is also well known from 

 contemporary notices that after twenty-five years the colony 

 spread rapidly far and wide. But if we are to accept Dr. 

 Scharflf's proposition, we must conclude that since 1700 the 

 Frog has extended itself from Achill to Dublin, rather than 

 vice versa. Now, if w^e examine the evidence brought forward 

 in favour of its being indigenous, we find Stuart quoting 

 Colgan to the effect that one specimen was first noticed in a 

 pasture field near Waterford about 1630, and that Giraldus 

 Cambrensis records in 1187 another, also in a locality near 

 Waterford. We also have to note that in both cases they 

 were viewed with unfeigned surprise by the inhabitants of the 

 country. Now, if I might be allowed to conjecture that 

 Giraldus's green Frog was the indigenous Natterjack, which, 

 from its colour and more slender proportions, differs greatly 

 from the Common Toad, and might well be taken for an Irish 

 Frog, we should at once have a solution of the m3\ster5^ ; as the 

 retiring habits of the former animal, its peculiar localisation, 

 and its failure to propagate its vSpecies in .such numbers as to 

 spread widely either here or in England, w^ould quite account 

 for its not having been historically recorded since 1630. I 

 think, too, the remarks of Giraldus are very convincing, 

 when, attempting to prove his remarkable aerial germ theory, 

 or the bacterial embryology of his specimen, he points out 

 most cogently that if it had had been engendered by Irish mud 

 • "they would have been found more frequently and in greater 



