36 APPENDIX : NOS. XXXVI.—XXXVII. 
readily distinguished. The principal characters, the shortness of 
the toes of the hind feet and the bluntness of the snout, are neither 
alluded to in the figure nor in the description; and no account is 
given of the less important differences of colour. I would wish, too, 
that something had been said of the very obvious distinctions in the 
skeletons of the: two species; but where external characters are so 
marked, this perhaps was thought unnecessary in a popular work. 
It is not stated that the “lateral carinz ” are developed in the skin. 
The two upper ones are very remarkable, but I even question the 
existence of the lower ones, to which Mr. Bell alludes. Justice is 
hardly done to the peculiar reticulated style of markings, and to the 
three longitudmal zones of colour, which are so beautiful and 
characteristic. 
Rana escuienta.—My. Bell appears to admit this as a truly British 
species, without the slightest hesitation or warning to his readers. 
I have formerly expressed my reasons (Zool. 1821) for doubting its 
true claims ; not that I would for a moment question the fact of 
Mr. Bond having found it at Foulmire, but only that I doubt very 
much whether it had been there for many years. Mr. Bell does not 
tell us whether he means that his father lived near Foulmire, by saying 
[ed. 2, p. 111] that he was a “ native of those parts,” or simply that he 
lived in the Fens. Now, that the Edible Frog is not generally distri- 
buted in the Fens I feel confident. I constantly examined the Frogs in 
the fens of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire during three years, 
and I am sure that all I saw were of the common species: besides 
myself, they could not have escaped the notice of far more accom- 
plished naturalists—such as Mr. Jenyns—who have passed a great 
part of their lives in the Fens. Alas! I hear Foulmire is now 
drained : the subject ought to be most carefully searched into before 
it is too late. 
Edinburgh, 
November 30, 1849, 
VX RV UL. 
OccuURRENCE OF A Forercn Bat 1n ORKNEY’. 
(‘ Zoologist,’ vill. (1850) pp. 2695, 2696. ] 
Mr. Newman, in the preface to the volume of the ‘ Zoologist’ for 
1849, refers to my paper with the above heading (Zool. 2348). 
He seems to infer that it was rather “slow” of me not to seize 
so plausible a pretext for adding a new Bat to the British list. 
Mr. ——, Mr. , and Mr. are men of far better spirit ; 
they have shown some most exotic-looking birds to be truly British. 
But as Mr. Newman says that I “‘do not attempt to account for its 
presence in the Orkneys, and that the subject requires more minute 
1 [See Nos. XXVI. and XXXIX.—Ep.] 
