246 Bibliographical Notices. 
to Sir Oswald Mosley and Mr. Edwin Brown for the volume before 
us. Though we cannot accord it, notwithstanding the magnificence . 
with which it has been “got up,’’ a position in the highest class of 
local faunas or floras, yet the work contains a good deal that is of 
importance, and is on the whole most creditable to the worthy Staf- 
fordshire Baronet and his coadjutor. 
We should be sorry to say one word to discourage the appearance 
of books of a character similar to this ; but at the same time we must 
state that, in perusing it, we are reminded of certain short-comings 
which make themselves prominent in this ‘ Natural History of Tut- 
bury.’ One of the most remarkable features in the fauna of this 
limited district is the herd of the so-called “wild cattle’? which 
still exists in the park at Chartley, where, it is stated, ‘‘the breed 
has been carefully preserved.” Now the history of this herd, 
together with those that roam under the like conditions in Chilling- 
ham and other parks, deserves much more attention than our authors 
seem to have paid to it. We are told that the breed “is still kept 
in its original purity’’—an expression which is open to at least 
two interpretations. Does it mean simply that common domestic 
bulls and cows are prevented from mingling their blood with the 
‘wild cattle’? or does it mean that the careful preservation of the 
breed “in its original purity” is effected by the timely elimination 
of any calves which show a tendency to “sport”’ from an assumed 
standard of perfection? On neither of these points is any informa- 
tion given us. If the former signification be the correct one, we 
should have liked to know what remedy is provided against the cer- 
tain evil consequences of breeding in-and-in among a limited number 
of animals; while, if the latter interpretation be attached to the ex- 
pression, it would be of the greatest importance to naturalists to 
learn what are the general tendencies of any variations that from 
time to time may arise. That such variations were wont to occur in 
the red-eared Chillingham herd we have good evidence for believing*; 
and it is difficult not to suppose that the same may have been ob- 
served in the black-eared animals so long cherished at Chartley. 
In the matter of birds, the most remarkable fact recorded in the 
present volume is that of the occurrence of a pair of the American 
Red-eyed Flycatcher (Vireosylvia olivacea, Bonaparte)—the ‘“‘ Whip- 
Tom-Kelly”’ of our dis-united cousins—in May 1859, at Chellaston, 
near Derby. Such notices are always worth mentioning, but we are 
far from subscribing to the common opinion that accidental visitors 
of this kind should be enrolled in our lists. One circumstance, 
which, if Mr. Brown’s surmises are to be trusted, is, to say the least 
of it, extremely curious, is the capture, on the bank of the canal near 
Burton, in 1857, of a living specimen of the European Freshwater 
Tortoise. It will be remembered that, in a paper read before the 
* See the excellent paper by Mr. L. Hindmarsh in the first series of the 
‘Annals,’ vol. ii. pp. 274-284. For the convenience of those who interest 
themselves in our British “ wild cattle,’ we may take this opportunity of 
referring to two other notices in the same series, vol. ui. pp. 241 & 356. 
a 
