2o6 NATURAL SCIENCE. Sept.. 



" Any marshman can point out the glaring errors of the meretricious 

 and false woodcuts illustrating Yarrell and Saunders." As a matter 

 of fact, Mr. Saunders' " Manual of British Birds " is embellished with 

 some beautiful little woodcuts by a no less talented draughtsman 

 than Mr. G. E. Lodge, whose cuts of the barred warbler and 

 goshawk were directly based on living birds. A little further on, 

 Mr. Emerson exposes the superficiality of " the Son of the Marshes," 

 " whose writings possess but little artistic charm " (5/1;). Nor is he 

 content with informing us that Mr. Saunders' manual is 'cataloguy' 

 [whatever that may mean] , and " far from lucid." He soon finds 

 fault with the writings of those who have, alas ! joined the majority, 

 and can no longer splinter a lance in self-defence. Poor Richard 

 Jefferies " did not know summer from spring," and his natural history 

 notes have been discovered by our new prophet to be " inaccurate." 

 We admit that Jefferies had no more claim than Mr. Emerson him- 

 self to be considered a scientific naturalist ; but Mr. Stevenson 

 belonged to the first rank of British ornithologists. We are gravely 

 informed that Mr. Stevenson " did not know intimately the outdoor 

 life of the birds he wrote about from personal observation ! " It was 

 reserved for Mr. Emerson to expose the " inartistic nature " of 

 the accomplished man whom all his contemporaries delighted 

 to honour ; he has also detected the worthlessness of Mr. 

 Stevenson's " pseudo-poetical vein." The truth seems to be that 

 Mr. Emerson is an accomplished egotist, and will have us 

 measure all other naturalists by his own high standard of merit. 

 Nor must we forget to inform the readers of this notice, that though 

 Mr. Emerson bases his text professedly on his personal observations 

 alone, in sober truth most of the more noteworthy accounts of 

 Norfolk birds were supplied to him by humble marshmen, whose 

 valuable experiences are a marked feature of this book. Having thus 

 drawn attention to the points upon which Mr. Emerson has gone out 

 of the way to court unfavourable criticism, we have much pleasure in 

 commending the dainty essays on feathers, fur, and scales, which make 

 up our author's zoological treatise. If Mr. Emerson could be persuaded 

 to leave alone the beam which he thinks he sees in his neighbour's 

 eye, and to polish up his prose a little more — for it is not always either 

 lucid or grammatical — we feel sure that his poetic fancies would find 

 a large number of admirers. Mr. Emerson knows how to observe the 

 wild creatures of the fens, and his criticisms are generally based upon 

 reflection. For example, his remarks upon the habits of the rook 

 {Corvus fyiigilcgus), though they may contain no new facts, yet state 

 the facts already familiar to practical men with praiseworthy accuracy. 

 And the more we read, the more favourably we are impressed. 

 Whether Mr. Emerson thinks fit to discourse upon pheasants or rats 

 or eels, his freshness and vivacity are equally reliable, and cannot 

 fail to afford great enjoyment to him who reads. It is true that these 

 pages lack much of novelty. Mr. Emerson has seen the Great Reed 

 Warbler in Norfolk. He even asserts that he has seen the Desert 

 Wheatear, though as to that we must beg to register a verdict of "not 

 proven," for we do not understand that Mr. Emerson has studied 

 ornithology across the seas ; rare wheatears are not to be identified at 

 a glance even by experts, certainly not by amateurs. Some of his 

 essays are rather meagre ; that, for example, in which he informs us 

 that "the goldfinch, or 'draw-water,' is not a bird of graceful build 

 nor sweet song, yet is he dear to the Philistine, who loves variegated 

 colours, because he satisfies a rude barbaric taste for colour ; for he 

 is a ' gay bird,' and he is great at parlour tricks, like his lover ; for 



