358 The Field Naturalist's Quarterly November 



" 2. The robin's plumage is more olive than greyish brown. 



"3. The sand-martin is mouse-coloured, not brown. 



" 4. The flycatcher does not frequent large trees, as the words seem 

 to imply. 



" 5. The willow-wren does not haunt the upper branches of trees. 



"6. I have never seen an oven shaped like a long-tailed tit's nest." 

 — Reginald Haines, Uppingham. 



[Any further correspondence on this topic must be restricted strictly 

 to the zoology of the subject. — Ed. F. N. Q.] 



Viper Incident. — " Whilst walking across Horsey Warren, Norfolk, 

 on 27th August ult., with several other members of the Sea Breach 

 Commission, my attention was suddenly attracted by one of our party 

 jumping up into the air with uplifted arms, and simultaneously calling 

 out, 'A snake, a snake ! ' I immediately hurried up and searched for 

 that snake, and soon discovered a large female viper coiled round upon 

 herself, with her head ready to strike. I settled her with my walking- 

 stick, and subsequently measured her 24 inches. On dissection I 

 found that she contained nine young vipers, the largest measuring 6| 

 inches ; and, although they were not near enough to a natural birth to 

 have absorbed the yolk-sac, one or two of them struck at my knife, so 

 much so that several cautions were addressed to me by the onlookers. 

 A curious coincidence was that the attacked party was the only man 

 with us who was wearing knickerbockers ; but whether the viper did, as 

 he averred, coil round his leg, — he shaking her off and receiving no hurt, 

 — or whether, as is more probable, his fright upon setting his foot down 

 in close proximity to her extended body made his imagination jump, I 

 must leave. Anyhow, I myself was fortunate enough to be bitten on 

 the hand by a wasp last week without being stung !" — MAURICE C. H. 

 Bird, Brunstead Rectory, Stalham. 



Answers to Correspondents. 



W. S., Pontrilas. 



Thanks for the enclosures. We are unable to see in them any 

 evidence whatever for the belief in the doctrine of Maternal Impres- 

 sions, which, so far from being accepted by the majority of scientific 

 men, has, as far as we know, never been received by anyone who could 

 justly be placed in such a category. We are speaking, of course, of the 

 present generation. A very elementary knowledge of physiology and 

 embryology is sufficient to negative the idea, which, like many others, 

 has derived its popularity from ancient superstition and a certain number 

 of coincidences. A mother sees a mutilated or malformed man, and it 

 happens that she brings forth a malformed child. But every woman 

 sees malformations during pregnancy, and very few have malformed 

 children. The children of women engaged in nursing and surgery are 

 not peculiarly liable to malformations. When an instance does occur 



