1042 WOODCOCK 
WOODCOCK (A.-S. Wude-coce, Wudu-coc and Wudu-snite), a 
bird as much extolled for the table, on account of its flavour, as by 
the sportsman, who, from its relative scarcity in regard to other 
kinds of winged game, the uncertainty of its occurrence, as well as 
the suddenness of its appearance and the irregularity of its flight, 
thinks himself lucky when he has laid one low. Yet, under favour- 
able conditions, large bags of Woodcocks are made in many parts 
of Great Britain, and still larger in Iveland, though the numbers 
are trifling compared with those that have fallen to the gun in 
various parts of the European Continent, and especially in Albania 
and Kpirus. In England of old time Woodcocks were taken in nets 
and springes, and, though the former method of capture seems to 
have been disused for many years, the latter was practised in some 
places until nearly the middle of the present century (cf. Knox, 
Game-birds and Wild Fowl, pp. 148-151) or even later. 
The Woodcock is the Scolopax rusticula? of ornithology, and is 
well enough known to need no minute description. Its long bill, 
short legs and large eyes—suggestive of its nocturnal or crepuscular 
habits—have often been the subject of remark, while its mottled 
plumage of black, chestnut- and umber-brown, ashy-grey, buff and 
shining white—the last being confined to the tip of the lower side 
of the tail-quills, but the rest intermixed for the most part in 
beautiful combination—could not be briefly described. Setting 
aside the many extreme aberrations from the normal colouring 
which examples of this species occasionally present (and some of 
them are extremely curious, not to say beautiful), there is much 
variation observable in the plumage of individuals, in some of which 
the richer tints prevail while others exhibit a greyer coloration.® 
1 In the legal sense of the word, however, Woodcocks are not ‘‘ game,” though 
Acts of Parliament require a ‘‘ game licence” from those who would shoot them. 
2 By Linneus, and many others, misspelt 7usticola: the correct form of Pliny 
and the older writers seems to have been first restored in 1816 by Oken (Zoologie, 
ii. p. 589). 
3 This variation is often, but not always, accompanied by a variation in size 
or at least in weight, which last is very great, though it seems to have been 
exaggerated by some writers. <A friend who has had much experience told me 
that the heaviest bird he ever knew weighed 16} oz., and the lightest 9 oz. and 
a fraction. The paler birds are generally the larger, but the difference, whether 
in bulk or tint, cannot be attributed to age, sex, season or, so far as can be ascer- 
tained, to locality. It is, notwithstanding, a very common belief among sports- 
men that there are two ‘‘species” of Woodcock, and many persons of experience 
will have it that, beside the differences just named, the ‘‘little red Woodcock ” 
invariably flies more sharply than the other. However, a sluggish behaviour is 
not really associated with colour, though it may possibly be correlated with weight 
—for it is quite conceivable that a fat bird will rise more slowly, when flushed, 
than one which is in poor condition. It may suffice here to say that ornitho- 
logists, some of whom have taken a vast amount of trouble about the matter, are 
