5* 



NATURE 



[May 15, 1884 



new court) was covered with water to the depth, at 1 p.m., 

 when it was greatest, of four to five feet. The level of the 

 paddock is much lower than that of the ground surrounding 

 it. . . . Therefore, on Wednesday, August 6, I cut a trench 

 from the north-west angle of the paddock across the raised 

 path. . . . The water had drained off by Saturday even- 

 ing, August 9. The rush of water from the west across 

 the Fellows' garden had carried with it into the paddock 

 a great quantity of worms, which, when the water had 

 subsided, were observed, some very large, lying dead 

 under the water. As the water drained off, these lay on 

 the paddock and on the slopes of grass surrounding it, 

 and the smell of them infected the air till Friday, 

 August 15." 



Mr. Russell's observations go to show that the worms 

 found dead were not all worms that had lived in the pad- 

 dock, but those which had got washed out with the earth 

 from the Fellows' gardens, and so they perhaps perished 

 sooner being in the water. It is probable that worms buried 

 deep in the earth under submerged meadows may, if they 

 remain underground, hold out through much longer floods. 

 However I gather that a large number perished in the 

 adjoining parts of the Backs, and were seen on the paths 

 and slopes as soon as the flood began to subside. Many 

 of them were of exceptionally large size. I have heard of 

 land injured by floods where the injury was supposed to 

 be principally due to the destruction of all the earth- 

 worms. It is probable that the growth of peat-mosses 

 may be in great part referred to the fact that the condi- 

 tions were unfavourable to earthworms, for had they been 

 there they would have worked up the vegetable matter 

 into mould. 



But there must be something besides floods that makes 

 earthworms migrate. 



If we drive a stick into the earth and move it about so 

 as to shake the ground, the earthworms will come out to 

 the surface and scuttle away in all directions. This was 

 a common way of getting worms for fishing, and we used 

 to be told, as Darwin notices, that the worms came out 

 because they thought a mole was digging after them. 



There must be however some other reason why worms 

 will often come out to the surface in the daytime, and 

 hurry away across a gravel path or on to a road, and 

 why they then seem so much less sensitive to tremor of 

 the ground about them than do the worms that come out 

 to feed on the lawn. 



From the analogy of other more highly organised 

 animals I could not help thinking that there must be 

 some creature that hunted the common earthworm, some 

 worm ferret that drove them out. Many who have passed 

 their lives in the country know well when they see a large 

 field-mouse cantering down a road and showing little fear 

 of man that a fiercer enemy than man is following the 

 poor little animal with untiring certainty. If you draw 

 aside and watch, you will soon see a weasel following by 

 scent. Even a hare or rabbit will at length lie down 

 paralysed with terror, and give itself up to the stoat that 

 has followed it with deadly pertinacity. The sudden 

 appearance of one or two strange birds in a neighbour- 

 hood has often been a source of wonderment, and it has 

 sometimes been suggested in explanation that they had 

 been chased by birds of prey and got up into strong cur- 

 rents of air. Those who have seen a peregrine drive a 

 flight of rooks up into the sky can easily see how this 

 might happen. In the cases to which I am referring the 

 earthworm comes out like a hunted thing. I have also 

 noticed that many of the worms that I found dead or 

 torpid were maimed ; generally they had their tail cut off, 

 and this when there had been no digging in my garden 

 for a long time, and although there are few birds that 

 would touch them. I have frequently observed that the 

 earthworms were apparently unwilling to go to ground 

 again though I have tried to make them in order to watch 

 the rate and manner in which they buried themselves. A 



few days ago, however, I saw, I believe, the explanation 

 of most of the cases I had been observing. A large earth- 

 worm about nine inches long, bright, clean, and healthy- 

 looking, was moving somewhat irregularly on the earth of 

 a flower-bed. On stooping to examine it, I found a small 

 yellow animal with a brown head holding on within about 

 half an inch of the tail end of the worm. I sent it to 

 Prof. Westwood, who writes : " Your worm-eating larva is 

 evidently one of the Carabidae, probably Stcropus madi- 

 dus" (see Gardener's Chronicle, 1854, p. 613). It was 

 not disturbed by my taking up the worm, but went on 

 biting its way round the worm, holding on like a bulldog, 

 and bettering its hold every now and then. It had nearly 

 got round the worm, leaving a lacerated ring. The 

 wounded part seemed somewhat swollen, but on this 

 point I am not clear, as the unequal power of extension 

 of the wounded part may have produced the effect of 

 swelling. Mr. Edwin Laurence has recorded (Nature, 

 vol. xxvi. p. 549) a similar circumstance observed by 

 him in France, where, however, the larva seems to 

 have attacked the worm differently, and with a view to 

 killing it rather than cutting off a portion, and from his 

 description, moreover, it would not appear to be the larva 

 of the same species. He suggests that the numerous 

 birds in England may have destroyed such an enemy of 

 the earthworm. A sparrow would probably take the larva, 

 and not touch the earthworm. One would have thought 

 that the earthworm would have a better chance of rubbing 

 off his deadly enemy in the earth than above ground, as a 

 salmon is said to clean himself in a gravelly river, but we 

 want further observations on this curious question, as 

 well as on several others raised by the inquiry, How 

 are worms transported to out-of-the-way places ? and How 

 long can they live in soils of various degrees of permea- 

 bility when the surface is flooded ? 



T. McKennv Hughes 



THE LOW BAROMETER OF JANUARY 26, 1884 



IN the end of January we gave a brief notice (see 

 NATURE, vol. xxix. p. 316; of the unprccedentedly 

 low barometric readings which were observed on the 

 evening of January 26 in the middle districts of Scotland 

 over which the centre of that great storm passed. The 

 lowest reading, reduced to 32"- and sea-level, then given 

 was 27 '332 inches, and was observed by Mr. George 

 Croucher at Ochtertyre, near Crieff. Tin- still remains 

 the lowest reading observed during the storm, and as it is 

 absolutely the lowest known to have been observed in 

 Europe, if not indeed the lowest on any land surface of 

 the globe since the invention of the barometer, it is desir- 

 able to give an accurate record of it in NATURE. 



On that occasion, Mr. Croucher's observations included 

 the barometer, its attached thermometer, and a thermo- 

 meter hung outside the window, it being too stormy to 

 venture out. The observations near the time of greatest 

 depression, corrected for instrumental errors and reduced 

 to 32' and sea-level, were, in inches, 27-631 at 7 p.m., 

 27-527 at 7.45 p.m., 27-420 at S.30 p.m., 27-390 at 9 p.m., 

 27-332 at 9.45 p.m., and 27-365 at 10.15 P- m - T ne correct- 

 ness of these readings is amply attested by the hourly 

 barometric readings made at a considerable number of 

 the Scottish meteorological stations that evening. 



At the meeting of the Royal Meteorological Society on 

 February 20, a paper was read on the storm of January 26, 

 in which it is remarked that "the lowest readings of the 

 barometer (reduced to 32- and sea-level) yet reported were 

 27-32 inches at Kilcreggan, and 27-332 inches at Ochter- 

 tyre." The observations at Kilcreggan were made with 

 an aneroid, whose errors were unknown. From the hourly 

 observations made at the different stations in Scotland, 

 the isobars for each hour have been drawn, and, from a 

 comparison of the Kilcreggan observations with these 



