1865.] OF THE WATER-OUSEL, 51 
a great measure account for the diving-powers of this bird and its 
progress under water. As might be expected, too, from the frequent 
motion of the tail, the caudal muscles are much developed. On 
comparing the visceral anatomy of this bird with that of the other 
British Merulide, all of which I have dissected, with the exception of 
White’s Thrush (Turdus whitei), very little proportional difference is 
observed. The length of the intestinal tube in the Redwing (7. 
iliacus) is 14 inches; the brain weighs 16 grains, the pectoral 
muscles 170 grains, the weight of the body being about 2} oz. In 
the Fieldfare (7. pilaris), weighing 43 oz., the brain weighs 26 grains, 
and the intestinal tube measures 22 inches. In the Ring-Ousel 
(T. torquatus), weight 3 oz. 180 grains, the alimentary canal is 
133 inches in length, and the weight of the brain is 26 grains; and 
these parts in the Missel-Thrush (7. viscivorus), in the Blackbird 
(2. merula), and Song-Thrush (7. musicus) are of nearly the same 
proportionate length and weight. In the young Water-Ousel that 
I have dissected, I observed nothing remarkable in its anatomy. 
So that, as regards the visceral anatomy, there is no important 
difference between the Water-Ousel and the other members of this 
group, although among the British Merules this is the only bird 
that feeds exclusively on animal food; but, to show how the habits 
of a bird may be altered in this respect, I have mentioned a young 
Water-Ousel that was reared under a Bantam, and fed on porridge 
(P. Z. S. 1859, p. 200). 
Some writers upon this bird have spoken of the claws as being well 
adapted for holding on to stones and other objects at the bottom of 
the water ; but on comparing the claws of the Water-Ousel with those 
of the other Merulide, it will be seen that the bird has no advantage 
of this kind, although the comparatively blunted form of the claw 
would lead to the inference that it is used for the purpose mentioned. 
The bones of the Water-Ousel, like those of the other British mem- 
~ bers of this group, contain no air*; and it is singular that the skele- 
ton of the Fieldfare, Redwing, and Missel-Thrush (birds of passage) 
should in this respect resemble that of the short-flighted Water-Ousel. 
As regards the food, I am afraid that we cannot entirely acquit this 
bird of occasionally destroying the fry of fish ; but I know of no reli- 
able evidence to prove that it takes the ova. In the three specimens 
before the Society, the gizzards of all contained Entomostraca, and 
one of them a Gordian (Gordius aquaticus). In others that I have 
dissected, I have discovered chiefly Entomostraca and the larvee of 
Phryganea ; indeed I have found that its food is very similar to that 
of the young Salmon (Salmo salar). 
Mr. Gould, in his present work ‘The Birds of Great Britain’ 
(part 1), mentions that he examined five of these birds that were 
shot on the River Usk, in Nov. 1859, and that no trace of spawn was 
found in any of them; their hard gizzards were entirely filled with 
the larvee of Phryganea and the Water-beetle (Hydrophilus). One 
had a small Bullhead (Cottus godio), which the bird had doubtless 
* T need scarcely say that some of the cranial bones of birds, like those of 
mammals, contain air. 
