The Zoologist — August, 1866. 349 



of British Fishes' (vol. i. p. 81). I forwarded two of the above examples to Dr. J. K. 

 Gray, of the British Museum, who coiiCrmed my impression, but appears to consider 

 that species only one of the uiany varieties of the common three-spiued kind. — T. E. 

 Gunn ; Norwich, June, ]866. 



Occurrence of the Allice Shad (Alosa communis) ott the Aberdeenshire Coast — A 

 female specimen of the above rather rare fish north about here was taken on the 7ih of 

 June, in a net set for salmon, near Peunan Head, on the estate of Auchmidden. It 

 may be of interest to at least some of the readers of the ' Zoologist' to learn that the 

 specimen was exceedingly full of ova or spawn, the grains large, of a reddish yellowish 

 colour, and seemingly ready to be extruded. — Thomas Edward; Banff", July 11, 

 1866. 



Ray's Bream near Liskeard. — A beautiful specimen of that rare fish, Eay's bream 

 (Brama Rayii) was washed on shore here on the 4th instant; it was brought to me 

 before ii was quite dead. Mr. Couch, in his ' History of British Fishes,' gives an 

 excellent figure of it, but it is quite impossible to paint the brilliant metallic mirror- 

 like appearance, as seen in the living fish. — Stephen Clogg ; Looe, July 16, 1866. 



Spider or Mouse. — In my communication to the ' Zoologist' (S. S. 105), it will be 

 seen that I refrained from commenting on Mr. Birchall's "Note on the Field Mouse' 

 (S. S. 8) as much as I possibly could, but as he has again referred to the same subject 

 in the 'Zoologist' for June (S. S. 284), I beg to offer a few reasons, derived from his 

 communications, why I think it could not be possible for a mouse or mite to be the 

 agents in causing the deposition of moths' wings, as seen by him in the cave at Ilkley. 

 If mice dine at night, when the Noctuae are on the wing, could they possibly capture 

 the great number of moths required for such a deposit as described by Mr. Birchall ? 

 or if, on the other hand, they dine by day, is it probable they would take the trouble to 

 drag so many hundreds of moths into an open cave merely to eat them there? or 

 could they do so without causing considerable damage to the wings or le;iving a 

 trace of their teeih on them ? I think all these questions may be safely answered in 

 the negative. Mr. Birchall acquits birds and bats, because he " found no other 

 traces of their presence," and, without saying he found any traces of mice, he jumps 

 to the conclusion that they must be the agents, and thinks those conclusions confirmed 

 because, on setting a trap in the cave, an unfortunate mouse falls a victim to his 

 snare; this, I think, is not evidence against the mouse, as I believe field mice may be 

 caught almost anywhere if a trap is set i'or that purpose, their abundance and prowling 

 propensities being such that they pry into every nook and corner when seeking their 

 food, which 1 have always considered to be of a vegetable kind. Mr. Birchall tells us, 

 in his fiist communication, " In one corner was a spider'? web, from which large 

 numbers of wings were suspended, no doubt carried there by gusts of wind," yet in his 

 reply he writes, " very few wings were under the web or near it at all.'' How can he 

 reconcile the two statements ? and surely the gusts of wind which would be likely to 

 raise the wings to the web would scatter the wings " in the corner," as well as those 

 " nearer the entrance, just where a current of air would not deposit them." The reply 

 is so full of contradictions to his first communication that I think Mr. Birchall must 

 have forgotten what he wrote at first, and suits bis reply, as he thinks, to his own case, 



