The Zoologist — September, 1866. 387 



and the arguments ran liigh and became hot. They at length agreed to refer it to me, 

 and both parties approached, vociferously advancing their theories ; one half persisting 

 that the young hippopotamus had been bullied by his father, and the other adhering 

 to the mother as the cause. I, being referee, suggested perhaps it was his uncle, 

 ♦ Wahillahi sake /' ' By Allah it is true !' Both parties were satisfied with the 

 suggestion."— '^/6er< N'yanza,' brj S. W. Baker (vol. i. p. 66). Some readers may 

 perhaps smile at these imaginative and speculating disputants, and wonder what argu- 

 ments could be used in favour of either the paternal or maternal hypothesis, seeing 

 that there was an entire absence of knowledge of all antecedent facts; the avuncular 

 hypothesis so humourously introduced has certainly no less claim to consideration, even 

 though it may have no more. Are we not now in exactly the same position as regards 

 the spider hypothesis and the mouse hypothesis !" is there not in this case also an entire 

 absence of the knowledge of all antecedent facts ? Let me suggest a third hypothesis, 

 which has certainly as much claim to consideration as either of the others. Being 

 lately at Leominster, my brother informed me of a collection of moths' wings he had 

 observed in the lower compartment of a building in his garden which was always kept 

 closed at night, with the exception of an aperture over the door, about fifteen inches 

 square : I immediately examined the spot, and found on a landing or flat at the top 

 of some steps leading to the upper story a great number of the wings of the under- 

 mentioned Lepidoptera, — Chelonia caja, Triphsena pronuba, T. orbona, Xylophasia 

 polyodon, CucuUia umbralica, Plusia Iota, P. Gamma, Apamea oculea and Acronycta 

 Psi : about the middle of this landing the wings were absolutely crowded together, 

 and intermixed with a very considerable quantity of the excrements of a bat: 'there 

 were other wings ou every one of the steps, and a greater number suspended in the 

 cobwebs, which occurred here and there in all parts of the apartment. It may be 

 added that a longeared bat (Plecotus aurilus) was seen, night after night, careering 

 round the building, and also hawking for Noctuae that frequented the full-blown 

 flowers in the immediate neighbourhood. Immediately after the investigation the 

 landing and steps were cleared, of the wings and excrement, and on a visit to the spot 

 the next morning (it was half a mile distant from my brother's residence) I found a 

 fresh deposit of wings, twenty-eight in number, good evidence that seven more moths 

 bad been brought to the block, and a fresh deposit of excrement exactly of the same 

 kind as before. Now I might possibly settle the spider or mouse question by 

 suggesting that an nncle of the moths had committed the murders in question, but 

 with so similar a case before my eyes, I cannot escape the conviction that the 

 graphically described scene in the cave at Ilkley was caused by a bat. — Edward 

 Newman; Leominster, August 4, 1866. 



P.S. August 20, 1866. When this was written I had not the most remote con- 

 ception that Mr. Doubleday was taking up the subject, and would gladly withdraw 

 this note, but that I had a leading partner in the investigation, who will have cause 

 for dissatisfaction should I exclude the ray of light which has been thrown on the 

 subject by our joint researches. — E. N. 



Spider or Mouse. — I have just read Mr, Clogg's criticism (S, S. 349) on Mr. 

 Birchall's "Note on the Field Mouse" (S. S. 8), and believe that both he and 

 Mr. Birchall are mistaken in supposing that either mice or spiders destroyed the 

 moths, the wings of which were found in such numbers in a cave at Ilkley. J am 

 convinced that the real culprits were bats. When my friend Robert Dix lived at 



