NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. 495 
With the commentaries of so many previous editors to fall 
back upon, there was less excuse for tripping than there otherwise 
might have been, and we fear that Mr. Davies has relied too 
strongly upon his own acquaintance, or rather want of acquaintance, 
with some of the subjects dealt with in the text.. A few instances 
will suffice. In a note to White’s observation that ‘a little 
yellow bird still [2. e., in August] continues to make a’ sibilous 
shivering noise in the tops of tall woods”’ [Letter X. to Pennant], 
Mr. Davies suggests that the Grasshopper Warbler is intended. 
But the Grasshopper Warbler is not a little yellow bird, nor is it 
in the habit of frequenting the tops of tall woods. White 
obviously referred to the Wood Wren. At page 41 Mr. Dayies 
states that there are about twenty species of British Bats. 
Fourteen is the number of species included by Mr. Bell in the 
last edition of his ‘ British Quadrupeds,’ and one or two of these 
have occurred so very seldom as scarcely to entitle them to be 
termed indigenous. The supposition that there is only one 
species of Newt in this country would not have been hazarded 
had Mr. Davies referred to Bell’s ‘ British Reptiles,” or the more 
recent work with the same title by Mr. M. C. Cooke. In ‘The © 
Zoologist’ for February last (p. 61), will be found a note which 
establishes the existence of three species of Newt in the British 
Islands. It was previously supposed that there were four. The 
statement that the Pied and Grey Wagtails do not migrate 
(p. 112), is not.in accordance with what has been observed of these 
birds, although we have not space here to enter upon proofs. 
We cannot say much for, the engravings. The. best are 
copies (electros, we presume), of Wolf’s illustrations to Johns’ 
‘ British Birds in their Haunts,’ engraved by Whymper.| . These 
were charming when they first appeared, but as they have been 
published ‘some seventeen years, and have been used over and 
over again in different books, many of them are much worn, and 
the impressions consequently are not satisfactory. Of the rest, 
some, as, for instance, the Weasel (p. 51), and the Shrike (p..108), 
are mere caricatures. The editor, we feel sure, can have had no 
hand in selecting the illustrations, or he would never have allowed 
a poor representation of a Fallow-deer to do duty for a Red-deer 
(p. 20), or have put forth the portrait of a Common Curlew as a 
faithful likeness of the Stone Curlew, or Thick-knee (p. 55). 
Nor would hé have given us (as on p. 86), a picture of the 
