Tue ZooLocist—Aveust, 1872. 3183 
active in the spring of the year. In this neighbourhood I noticed a great 
number of hills in a field of young clover last March. I have seen spots in 
grass-fields on which there were more mole-hills than grass. On these 
places it was impossible to mow the grass. The moles in this district are 
very numerous and destructive. The other day I noticed a piece of French 
beans, the rows of which were undermined longitudinally, the moles, 
I presume, having in this case found food among the roots of the beans. 
There were no hills; the land being very light, the miners could make 
passages without making hills: they are more destructive in gardens than 
they are in fields. They are generally most numerous in light soils which 
have been manured, but I have seen them in barren lands, on clay soils 
and on hills. I saw their casts, newly made, in the winter of 1863, on the 
top of Ingleborough, which is the highest hill in Yorkshire but one. 
I consider moles injurious, either in the field or garden.—G. Roberts ; 
Lofthouse, near Wakefield. 
Wild-fowl Protection Bill.—On the motion for going into Committee Mr. 
Auberon Herbert carried an “instruction” enabling the Committee to 
extend it to all wild birds. He was opposed by Mr. Johnston, who has 
charge of the Bill. Mr. Herbert’s friendly feeling towards birds is well 
known, and there is no doubt his motive is a kind one, but it appears to 
me rather more likely to damage than to serve the cause which ornithologists 
have so much at heart. An Act prohibiting the destruction of all wild 
birds cannot be enforced, and is not likely to remain the law of the land.— 
Edward Newman. 
Are Guernsey Birds British?—I regret that my meaning was not made 
clearer in my answer to Mr. C. B. Carey’s query (Zool. 8. 8. 3066). I 
first assumed, hypothetically, that by “British” people in general meant 
“found in Great Britain and Ireland and their adjacent islets;” but the 
inference from what followed was this, that nothing could be considered 
“ British” in a scientific sense except the productions of Great Britain, and such 
islands as belong geographically to it. Under this rule the actual distance of 
an islet from the main land is of secondary importance. I should 
undoubtedly call the Shetlands adjacent to Scotland, and should consider 
them as certainly part of Great Britain in a geographical sense, as in the 
same sense I should hold the Channel Islands to be part of France. I am 
not aware what rule is followed by French naturalists, but I conceive that 
they ought to include the productions of the Channel Islands in their 
general works on French Natural History. Properly speaking “ British” 
would not signify the productions of Ireland; and thus Mr. Blackwall 
correctly gave the title of ‘Spiders of Great Britain and Ireland’ to the 
work in which he included Irish, as well as English and Scotch spiders. 
