The Zoologist — May, 1874. 3971 



the nest was woven; and, stretching its wings apart and backwards, it 

 elbowed the pipit fairly over the margin so far that its struggles took it 

 down the bank instead of back into the nest. After this the cuckoo stood 

 a minute or two, feeling back with its wings, as if to make sure that the 

 pipit was fairly overboard, and then subsided into the bottom of the nest. 



" As it was getting late, and the cuckoo did not immediately set to work 

 on the other nestling, I replaced the ejected one and went home. On 

 returning next day both nestlings were found dead and cold, out of the 

 nest. I replaced one of them, but the cuckoo made no effort to get under 

 and eject it, but settled itself contentedly on the top of it. All this I find 

 accords accurately with Jenner's description of what he saw. But what 

 struck me most was this : the cuckoo was perfectly naked, without a vestif^e 

 of a feather, or even a hint of future feathers ; its eyes were not yet opened, 

 and its neck seemed too weak to support the weight of its head. The 

 pipits had well-developed quills on the wings and back, and had bright 

 eyes, partially open ; yet they seemed quite helpless under the manipula- 

 tions of the cuckoo, which looked a much less developed creature. The 

 cuckoo's legs, however, seemed very muscular; and it appeared to feel 

 about with its wings, which were absolutely featherless, as with hands, the 

 ' spurious wing ' (unusually large in proportion) looking like a spread-out 

 thumb. The most singular thing of all was the direct purpose with which 

 the bUnd little monster made for the open side of the nest, the only part 

 where it could throw its burthen down the bank." 



The whitish spaces at the base of the rook's beak attracted 

 Mr, Blackwall's attention, as it has done that of every other 

 ornithologist, and he is not the only writer who has argued in 

 favour of both the popular solutions of this phenomenon. In 

 my editorial capacity I have been compelled to read all that has 

 been written on this phenomenon, and, I fear, with small profit : 

 perhaps the suggestion of Mr. Knox that the specific name of the 

 rook should be altered from Frugilegus to fodiens may by some 

 regarded as settling the question, but I confess that to me it was 

 not perfectly satisfactory. An incident occurred within my own 

 knowledge. I was assured that a gentleman had three rooks 

 brought up from the nest which were perfectly without this rook 

 characteristic. I visited the rooks in question, and found them in 

 fine condition and resplendent in glossy plumage, and decently 

 clothed with feathers about the beak ; in fact, they possessed every 

 character of the carrion crow. On inquiring I found that a keeper 

 had taken the nest at or near Eltham, and the owner of the birds 

 could assign no satisfactory reason for considering them rooks 



