52 Grey Partridge 



to which volume I would refer you for details on Partridges" 

 plumage. 



In 1891, Mr. Grant published one or two papers on the subject. 

 The question he sets himself to answer was this, " What are the 

 differences by which a male Partridge can always be distinguished 

 from a female Partridge after they are mere chicks ? " He opened 

 bv showing the fallacy of the horse-shoe mark on the breast as a 

 sexual distinction. He quotes from all the best-known writers, 

 Yarrell, Dresser, Seebohm, Irby, Saunders and Naumann, the great 

 German ornithologist. Most of them describe the horseshoe in the 

 female as being either entirely absent or represented only by a few 

 scanty spots, and the remainder state that the horseshoe is not 

 assumed by the female till the second or third year. From his 

 own observations he deduced the following facts : — 



1. That both male and female Partridges possess the chestnut 

 iiorseshoe patch. 



2. That the patch is best developed in the young female, i.e.,. 

 the bird of the year, and gradually becomes less and less marked. 



3. That in certain districts, more especially on the light, sandy 

 soils of the Eastern Counties, the horseshoes in the female are not 

 well developed, and are sometimes entirely absent, even in young 

 birds. This he doubtfully attributes to the effect of soil or climate. 



I have shot Partridges in many different parts of Scotland 

 and England, and I am in entire agreement with him, that the patch 

 is well developed in the \^oung female almost imiversally, the excep- 

 tion being certain Eastern Counties, including Suffolk, where a good 

 horseshoe in the young female is uncommon, and where the white 

 horseshoe (i.e., entire absence of chestnut feathers) is not very rare. 



The importance of the horseshoe question is very great. It 

 has happened over and over again that orders have been given at the 

 end of the season, on certain estates where the shooting has proved 

 unsatisfactory, to destroy a certain number of cocks, in the hope that 

 the reduction in males, particularly old males, would prove beneficial 

 to the stock the following year. 



The keepers are, in consequence, told off to shoot as many 

 birds with a well-developed horseshoe as possible. It is certain 

 that if they execute these orders with any success, they must be 

 killing hens with the cocks, and not merely hens, but yoinig hens, 

 which have their horseshoe especially well developed, and which are, 

 of course, the birds beyond all others they want to protect. Under 

 these circumstances, it is not surprising that the results are not so 

 satisfactory to the shooting stock as the originators might wish. 



Having excluded the horseshoe as a mark of sexual distinction, 

 Mr. Grant shows that there is one guide to the sexes which he believes 

 to be infallible. This is the difference in the marking of the lesser 

 and middle wing coverts. In the male, without going into detail, 

 these leathers (Fig. 5, A) show a central buff stripe down the shaft of 



