MOOR-HEN,—WATER-HEN. 423 
T think, 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 
erown. 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 stuffing. 
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 Rey. H. T. Frere, 
of Burston, I find two water-hens recorded as light fawn- 
