SOME FACTS AND FICTIONS OF ZOOLOGY. 83 



little Shells ; having within them little Birds, perfectly 

 shap'd, supposed to be Barnacles." Here again the descrip- 

 tion applies to the barnacles ; the " little birds " they are 

 described as containing being of course the bodies of the 

 shell-fish. 



" The Shells," continues the narrator, " hang at the Tree 

 by a Neck longer than the Shell ; " this " neck " being repre- 

 sented by the stalk of the barnacle. The neck is described 

 as being composed " of a kind of filmy substance, round, 

 and hollow, and creassed, not unlike the Wind-pipe of a 

 Chicken ; spreading out broadest where it is fastened to the 

 Tree, from which it seems to draw and convey the matter 

 which serves for the growth and vegetation of the Shell and 

 the little Bird within it." Sir Robert Moray therefore agrees 

 in respect of the manner of nourishment of the barnacles 

 with the opinion of Giraldus already quoted. The author 

 goes on to describe the " Bird " found in every shell he 

 opened ; remarking that " there appeared nothing wanting as 

 to the internal parts, for making up a perfect Sea-fowl : every 

 little part appearing so distinctly, that the whole looked like 

 a large Bird seen through a concave or diminishing Glass, 

 colour and feature being everywhere so clear and neat" 

 The " Bird " is most minutely described as to its bill, eyes, 

 head, neck; breast, wings, tail, and feet, the feathers being 

 " everywhere perfectly shaped, and blackish-coloured. All 

 being dead and dry," says Sir Robert, " I did not look after 

 the Internal parts of them," a statement decidedly incon- 

 sistent with his previous assertion as to the perfect condition 

 of the " internal parts ; " and he takes care to add, " nor did 

 I ever see any of the little Birds alive, nor met with anybody 

 that did. Only some credible persons," he concludes, 

 " have assured me they have seen some as big as their fist" 



This last writer thus avers that he saw little birds within 

 the shells he clearly enough describes as those of the bar- 

 nacles. We must either credit Sir Robert with describing 

 what he never saw, or with misconstruing what he did see. 

 His description of the goose corresponds with that of the 



