December 1, 1897.] 



KNOWLEDGE. 



291 



These berries are juicy, and seem to contain none of that 

 vegetable oil which tits enjoy ; but the marsh tits regularly 

 remove the ripe berries from the honeysuckle over my 

 door. — Ch.\eles A. Witchell, Eltham. 



Nesting of the Swallow {H. nistica). — At the close of 

 April, 1885, during an action of ejectment by a pair of 

 swallows against an intruding and pugnacious sparrow, 

 their nest was dislodged from the eaves, fell, and was 

 destroyed. After two days' examination of various posi- 

 tions they built a nest in a much-frequented out office, 

 above the window, within two inches of the floor of the 

 loft above, and within three feet of the head of anyone 

 engaged at the table beneath. Here they reared two 

 broods of five each, the whole party migrating on the 20th 

 September. A pair returned on April 28th, 1886, to 

 discover that a robin had taken possession. The question 

 of tenancy not having been raised, they constructed 

 another nest upon a beam a short distance away. In this 

 they reared one brood ; then built an additional nest against 

 an adjoining floor joist, in which the second brood of five 

 were reared, all leaving on the 24th September. From isS.'i 

 to 1897 careful watch has been maintained. It was noted 

 that they arrived at early dawn between the 22nd and 

 29th of April in each year, and migrated between the 22nd 

 and 29th of September — never earlier or later, except in 

 1891 and 1892, when they arrived on the 7th and 9th of 

 May respectively. In 1892 two new nests were constructed 

 and utilized — each brood reared in separate quarters. There 

 are now four nests on the beam, which have been built 

 and maintained in perfect repair by one pair of birds, and 

 at present show no signs of neglect by the builders. 

 It would appear from the above that the swallow some- 

 times divides a portion of the time between the incubation 

 of the first brood and the advent of the second in con- 

 structing additional tenements, without neglecting the 

 nurture of its young. It was observed that the male 

 chiefly devoted himself to building operations, while 

 assisting his mate in providing for the family. — W. Dunn, 

 Withycombe, Exmouth. 



Lesser Kestrel in Alerdeenshire (The Field. November Ctli, ]S9T, 

 p. 717). — Mr. Elton Lee reports that a female lesser kestrel {Falco 

 cenehris) was shot at Bojndie, Aberdeenshire, in the last week of 

 October. Although this bird is common in many parts of the South 

 of Ktirope, we believe that this is but the fifth example recorded for 

 the British Isles. 



yoddii Tern in Cheshire (The Zoologist, Korember, 1S97, p. 510). — 

 Mr. F. Congreve has found, in a small collection of birds, an immature 

 specimen of a noddv tern (Anous stolidits), which is said to liave been 

 shot on the Dee marshes some six jears ago. As the noddy tern has 

 only been obtained twice in Europe, it would be of the greatest 

 interest to have some further evidence as regsirds this specimen. As 

 the bird was shot so long ago, it would be difficult, perhaps, to decide 

 if it was a truly wild one, or had escaped from some ship or elsewhere. 



Black-winged Siill in Somerset (The Zoologist, Xorember, 1697, 

 p. 511). — Mr. Stanley Lewis reports that a specimen of this very rare 

 visitor — as regards the AVest of England — was shot at Sedgmoor in 

 July, 1896, and is now in his possession. 



Ferruginous Duck in Devon (The Field, Xovember 13th, 1897, 

 p. 788). — Mr. Tegetmeier reports the occurrence of the second 

 example of this duck recorded in Devon. The bird, which is an adult 

 male, was shot on Kovember Sth, on Slapton Ley, and was identified 

 by Mr. W. Jesse. It is remarkable that the only other example of 

 tliis duck recorded for Devon was shot in the same locaKty in !N'ovem- 

 ber, 1874, and was also identified by Mr. Jesse. 



All contributions to the column, either in the nay of notes 

 or photograplis, should be forwarded to Habry F, Witherby, 

 at 1, Eliot Place, Blackheath, Kent. 



Note. — The first issue of K.NowLEnGE containing British 

 Ornithological Notes was that for October, 1897. 



Urttrrs. 



[The Editors do not hold themselves responsible for the opinions or 

 statements of correspondents.] 



■ THE LIFE HISTORIES OF THE Bt^ITlSH MARINE FOOD 



FISHES." 



To the Editors of Knowledge. 



Sirs, — Your reviewer has referred in such kindly terms, 

 in your last issue (November 1st), to the conjoint work 

 of Dr. Mcintosh and myself upon " The Life Histories of 

 the British Marine Food Fishes," that I feel sure it is 

 unintentionally that he has done us an injustice. His 

 remark with regard to the " spirit of rivalry " between 

 " the North and the South," and its context, can imply 

 nothing if not that we have ignored the work done by the 

 southern biologists. 



The implication is worded cautiously, but, followiLg upon 

 a direct accusation to this efiect by Dr. E. E. Lankester 

 in Xtiture of August 12th, it will certainly convey to your 

 readers much more meaning than, I would believe, your 

 reviewer intended. 



The accusations made by Dr. Lankester were as un- 

 founded as they were unworthy of so distinguished a 

 zoologist ; but the editor of Xutnre, with a partiality for 

 which this magazine is not unknown, declined to publish 

 any statement to this effect. 



Under these circumstances I trust you will allow me to 

 correct your reviewer's remark, as it naturally appears to 

 corroborate the accusations referred to. 



Dr. Mcintosh and myself have spared neither time nor 

 means in attempting to produce an epitome of the present 

 state of knowledge in regard to the department dealt 

 with, and it will be a matter of surprise if your reviewer 

 can instance any of, ejj., Mr. Cunningham's work which 

 has not been alluded to and freely acknowledged. The 

 name of this indefatigable worker alone occurs nearly a 

 hundred times in the text, and all our sources of information 

 have been freely acknowledged by hundreds of foot-notes. 



I have elsewhere had occasion to allude to the way in 

 which !Mr. Cunningham has treated the labours of Dr. 

 Mcintosh, and, as far as I am aware, he has had at least 

 a free opportunity, had he thought fit, to reply. 



Dr. Lankester, and, to a lesser extent, your reviewer, 

 have accused us of the very faults which I had to indicate 

 in " Marine Marketable Fishes." The former has avoided 

 the onus of supplying substantiating statements to this 

 and to other serious charges, by the questionable but 

 effective means of an editorial gag. I trust that in fairness 

 to us you will allow the latter to at least indicate, in less 

 general terms, wherein we have shown our inclination 

 "to ignore, more or less, the work of the other" (i.e., 

 " the marine biologists of the South "). 



The University, St. Andrews, A. T. Mastebman. 



November 5th, 1897. 



TMy remarks were general because they apply to the 

 book as a whole. Throughout the volume the work of 

 St. Andrews is put more prominently forward than work 

 done elsewhere. This is, of course, not unnatural, and it 

 seems to me that Mr. Masterman is ill-advised to assert 

 otherwise. As an instance of work referred to in a way 

 which deprives it of importance, the investigations of Mr. 

 Cunningham on the growth of fishes may be cited. In 

 this subject Mr. Cunningham led the way, yet no one 

 would gather that such was the case from the manner in 

 which it is dismissed by Messrs. Mcintosh and Masterman. 

 It may also be remarked that the credit of the discovery 

 of the hermaphroditism of Myxine is in the book wrongly 

 given to Dr. Nansen. 



With regard to Xatiire, it is worth pointing out that no 



