The Zoologist— Julv, 1873. 3611 



(A. pratensis, Baillon) in the neighbourhood of Saxmundham, in this county, 

 and once caught two, a male and female, in one trap and in one night, upon 

 a piece of artificial rockwork, which indeed they seem to be very partial to ; 

 the female, which I kept for several months, fed principally upon grass, 

 bread, nuts, and fruit of various kinds, and became very tame : they make 

 prettier pets than the common meadow mouse, both in colour and form. 

 Two or three instances have come to my knowledge of the longtailed field 

 mouse having been taken in dwelling-houses. I remember several being 

 caught some years ago in a dairy, attracted there perhaps by the milk. One 

 I had in a cage killed and partially devoured a smaller one of its own species, 

 though well supplied with food at the time. There is something very 

 kangaroo-like in the actions of this graceful little animal, not only in the 

 long bounding leaps which it takes (in which the comparatively small fore 

 limbs take but little part), but more especially when it is moving slowly 

 about while feeding. I have seen one of these mice raise itself to nearly its 

 full height when sitting upon the edge of a vessel no thicker than a common 

 tea-cup, the large and powerful hinder feet only grasping the edge. I fancy 

 this species is more strictly nocturnal in its habits than any of the three 

 British voles. — G. T. Rojie ; Leiston, Suffolk. 



Wild Birds Protection Act. — I am sorry to read the remarks (Zool. 

 S. S. 3576) of my friend Mr. Pickard-Cambridge on this Act. I am 

 certainly not an admirer of it, but his strictures are founded on an entire 

 misapprehension as to facts. With his opinions I have nothing to do, 

 though I would observe that if the Act is "objectionable in princij^le," 

 equally objectionable in principle must be a certain admonition (Deuteronomy 

 xxii. 6, 7), to which he doubtless accords respect. But Mr. Pickard-Cam- 

 bridge asserts that the Act "was conceived by shortsighted sportsmen, 

 and brought forth by ornithologists many generations behind the times." 

 A very short statement of the case will show that neither of these assertions 

 is correct. The Act is due to the Wild Fowl Protection Bill, printed in 

 the ' Zoologist' last year (S.S. 3139), and prepared by the Close-Time Com- 

 mittee of the British Association, appointed at Edinburgh in 1871, and 

 consisting of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Dresser, Mr. Harting, Canon Tristram, and 

 myself. I am conscious of possessing many old-fashioned ideas, and there- 

 fore I am not at all disconcerted at being considered an ornithologist behind 

 the age, but such a description will hardly apply to many of my colleagues. 

 I will also plead guilty to being "short-sighted" (in a physical sense), but 

 I am sure that of our Committee the term " sportsman " can only apply to 

 Mr. Harting, while without divulging our secrets I may add that the idea of 

 the Wild Fowl Bill did not originate with the author of ' Hints on Shore- 

 "Shooting.' It may be, however, that the members of our Committee 



