MOOE-HEN, WATEK-HEN. 423 



I thinlr, clearly pointed out in the following notes by 

 my friend Mr. F. Kitton, of this city, who, after a 

 careful microscopical examination of the feathers in this 

 specimen as compared with those of the ordinary type, 

 remarks, *'the microscope does not show any organic 

 difference between them. The quill and shaft are alike 

 in both, as are also the down and lower barbs. The 

 upper barbs are divested of the pennules [the barbules 

 and other minute subdivisions of the web or vane] 

 thus producing the alteration in colour and rough 

 appearance of the bird. I believe that from some 

 physical cause the bird has not moulted, and the more 

 exposed portions of the feathers are worn and broken, 

 as would naturally be the case with feathers retained 

 for two seasons. The pennules on the upper barbs are 

 rubbed off, and the tips of the barbs absent; precisely 

 the same appearance is produced by drawing the barbs 

 of a perfect feather between the nails." I may add 

 that I dissected this bird at the time, but failed to 

 discover any internal evidence of disease. It proved 

 to be a female, the ovary apparently healthy, and con- 

 taining a number of minute eggs about the size of 

 millet seed. A second example, which I purchased 

 recently and was said to have been killed some few 

 years back, at Ludham, differs only in being much 

 smaller, the former being the usual size of an adult 

 water-hen, the latter a bird about three quarters 

 grown. From the colour of the bill and legs, however, 

 the Ludham example would seem to be adult, and its 

 smallness may be partly owing to a contraction of the 

 skin in stuf&ng. 



Mr. A. Newton, as I have recently ascertained, also 

 possesses a specimen of this kind, which was killed 

 near Buckenham House, Norfolk, in November, 1857 ; 

 and in some notes supplied me by the Rev. H. T. Frere, 

 of Burston, I find two water-hens recorded as light fawn- 



