NOTES AND QUKRIES. 63 



out of shot, and I always consider it quite an event to shoot a 

 Greenshank. 



December 1st. I have seen about six examples this autumn 

 of the Long-tailed Duck, Harelda glacialis, shot in this neigh- 

 bourhood or at sea ; one of these was a female, very distinctly 

 marked about the head and neck, the rest young of the year. 

 They are seen far out at sea, also in shallow waters near the 

 coast, and near the mouths of sluices and havens where the tide 

 mixes with the fresh land-water. In the evening, at flight time, 

 I have known them fly inland to pitch in " flashes" on open fresh 

 waters near the coast. I have seldom known the adult male as 

 far south as the Humber mouth. 



Dec. 8th. I saw weighed to-day a Curlew which was slightly 

 over forty ounces. 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



The word "feral."— I quite agree with Mr. Wharton that knowledge 

 ought to contribute to the growth of language, but the word " feral " looks 

 like an addition to language from the very opposite to knowledge. The state 

 of the case is this ; that " feral " (or feralis) means simply " funereal," or 

 "relating to the Feralia Festival" (I do not deny that it had certain other 

 secondary meanings, as "ferale helium," a war productive of funerals, but 

 " wild," or anything like it, was not one of them) ; that certain writers have 

 used it carelessly, supposing that it was connected with "ferus," which 

 Mr. Wharton admits that it is not, being, as he says, from a totally 

 different root; and that other writers have adopted it without sufficient 

 examination. It is hardly worth while saying anything from the " useful 

 variant" point of view, for it would be quite possible for an ingenious 

 person to argue that chalk and water would be a useful variant for milk. 

 And I see every reason, therefore, including simple accuracy, why this 

 absurd etymological blunder should be gainsaid. I cannot admit Mr. 

 Chapman's plea of euphony for confusing two distinct and unrelated words. 

 It would be adding insult to injury were we to persist in calling a man 

 "Tom" whose real name was "John," and, on his remonstrating, attempt 

 to console him by saying that it was for the sake of euphony, and that his 

 real name was practically obsolete. It was not " much indignation," as 

 Mr. Wharton suggests, which moved me to protest against this base-born 

 term, but a consideration of the far greater precision which botanists have 

 brought to bear on the same question— partly, if I remember right, at the 



