Common Snipe 7^ 



^' Gick-jack " : these two syllables, repeated ad >iati$eam, convey 

 a very good notion of the Snipe's song. 



Ahnost every writer on bircis lias made an attempt to reprochice 

 this sound in the form of a printed word, and each one has strung 

 together an entirely different arrangement of vowels and consonants 

 to that end : 



Here are some examples : 



1. Pralle (Hanover) . . . . " (jick-jack, gick-jack." 



2. Macgillivray . . . . " Zoo-zee, zoo-zee." 



3. Wolley . . . . . " Keet koot, keet koot." 



4. Stevenson . . . . . " Chuka chuka." 



5. Seebohm and H. Brown . . " Tjick-tjuck, tjick-tjuck." 



6. Harting . . . . . " Chook, chook." 



Yarrelland ,, -p- , , • , 



7. -r, .... Imker, tmker. 

 ^ 1 hompson 



8. Lilford . . . . . " Cheevuck, cheevick." 



This list might be almost indelimtely increased, but the instances 

 I have given show, I think, the futility of trying to put a bird's song 

 into the form of a printed word. In the Snipe's call we have the 

 simplest form of song imaginable ; two short syllables of the same 

 length, the second varying slightly from the first in sound, repeated 

 over and over again. Now, suppose you presented these verbal 

 representations of the note to an intelligent person entirely unfamiliar 

 with the sound, what would it profit him ? He would read, with 

 amazement the extraordinar\' variety of words put before him. 

 He would repeat " Tinker, tinker," " Chook, chook " and " Gick- 

 jack," each combination would produce an entirely different effect, 

 and he would remain in a condition of complete mystification of 

 the real sound that each writer tries to convey by an entire!}' different 

 set of letters. 



" Gick-jack " happens to reproduce exactly the vocal sound to 

 my ears ; many of the others are equally useful, provided o)ily you 

 knoxe the note beforehand. Macgillivray 's " Zoo-zee " is to me nearly 

 as good as Pralle's " Gick-jack." Wolley's " Keet-koot," and 

 Stevenson's " Chuka chuka " are very satisfactory ; and yet these 

 four efforts have nothing in common except their brevity. 



To those who knon' the song, almost an\' one of them would 

 serve well enough as a written representation : to those who do )io( 

 they are worse than useless, and this multiplicity of words ca}i cause 

 nothing but confusion. 



Perhaps some day we ma\' induce the birds to sing into a gramo- 

 phone, and get popular records. But, until such times, a bird's 

 song can only be learnt at first-hand from the songster himself, 

 and no amount of written words will ever giv^e us a true conception 

 of the real sound produced. 



Passing now from the two sounds which are universally admitted 



