— 
¥ 
make his living—nay, to be protected in doing so as 
long as he did not exercise his calling to the detriment 
of the community. Of course this view will not suit the 
spasmodic writers of letters to the 7émes and other 
newspapers with their passionate appeals on behalf of the 
harmless Hedge-Sparrow and the unappreciated Tomtit. 
Who is there that systematically persecutes either ? 
- Certainly not the bird-catcher even of the blackest dye, 
begrimed with the soot of Seven Dials or Spitalfields. 
Are there not just as many Hedge-Sparrows and Tomtits 
in this country as there is room or food for? Are there 
not now many more Skylarks and Chaffinches than there 
were before heaths were broken up and bogs drained, 
plantations made and “vermin” killed by the game- 
keepers? But our excellent enthusiasts cannot see this : 
with them are alike despicable and detestable the gar- 
dener who will not believe that the Bullfinch is actuated 
by the purest and most benevolent motives in nipping off 
his apple-buds, and the farmer who doubts whether the 
Sparrow's ravages in his ripening grain are counter- 
balanced by that saucy bird’s services in the cabbage- 
garden, To them all birds are at all times bent’on bene- 
fiting the human race. No statement in this direction is 
too gross for such people to swallow. The last we have 
met with is one of the most absurd. Inthe Quarterly 
Review for the present month (p. 402), we read that from 
some nameless moors the sportsman has been driven by 
the vipers, and the abundance of the vipers is owing to 
the extermination of “ their natural enemy, the beautiful 
peregrine falcon”! Such a story is not worth refuta- 
tion ; its original teller has said “ that which is not,” and 
the man who gravely repeats it is an idiot or worse.* 
But now to conclude, we beg leave to offer the following 
suggestions :— 
Ist. That the “ Wild Fowl Protection Bill” be passed 
as originally introduced, with the possible exception of the 
sentence whereby fowls proved to have been imported 
from any foreign country are exempted. 
and. That a “ Bill for the Regulation of Bird-catchers ” 
be brought in—its chief feature being the absolute prohi- 
bition of bird-catching by means of traps, springes, or nets 
during the spring months—say from April 1 to July 1, 
and that at other times of the year such engines should 
not be used within (say) 50 yards of any highway. 
. 3rd. That the “sport” of Swallow-shooting be abso- 
lutely and at all times prohibited ; and finally we may 
add that if a Chancellor of the Exchequer should ever 
take a hint from North Germany and lay a tax on birds in 
cages, we in the name of our Nightingales shall thank him. 
FAUNA DER KIELER BUCHT 
Fauna der Kieler Bucht. Zweiter Band: Prosobranchia 
und Lamellibranchia, nebst einem supplement zu den 
Opisthobranchia. Mit 24 tafeln. Von H. A. Meyer und 
K. MGbius. Small folio, 139 pp. (Leipsic, 1872.) 
E are rejoiced to see the second volume of this 
excellent “ouvrage de luxe.” Like the first volume, 
the second bears evident marks of having been prepared 
* It is painful, however, that such folly should be countenanced by reviews 
which in other respects are deservediy of high repute. But in no depart- 
ment of criticism is there such a want of competent writers as in Zoology. 
We are not exaggerating when we say that nine out of ten reviews of zoolo- 
4 works are written by men who have no sound knowledge of the elements 
of the science, 
“NATURE 
Peer re ther to 
~ 
wee 8 = 
with the greatest care. The illustrations are inimitable and 
life-like : we venture to say that no such figures of Mol- 
| lusea and their shells have ever been published in any 
country. 
The introduction to the present volume contains an 
account of the currents, saline ingredients, and tempera- 
ture of the water in Kiel Bay, together with elaborate 
tables of the latter properties in comparison with those 
in some other parts of the North Atlantic and in North 
Japan, as well as a notice of the peculiarities, distribution, 
and frequency of occurrence of the Kiel Bay Mollusca, 
and relative abundance of the genera and species in 
proportion to that of the Mollusca in Great Britain, 
Christianiafiord, and the Sound. 
The body of the work embraces the subclass Proso- 
branchia (comprising the orders Cyclobranchiata, Pectini- 
branchiata, and Siphonobranchiata) of the class Gastro- 
poda, a supplement to the first volume in respect of 
the other sub-class Opisthobranchiata (orders Pleuro- 
branchiata and Pellibranchiata), and the Lamellibranchia 
(order Lamellibranchiata of the class Conchifera), with 
short diagnoses in Latin, and full descriptions in German 
of all the species given in the work. The admirable 
figures amply illustrate every character of the living 
animal and its shell, some being of the natural size, and 
others magnified 300 times. 
-We are not told whether any Brachiopod, marine 
Pulmonobranch, or Cephalopod inhabits Kiel Bay ; but 
assuming the list to be complete, we find 23 species of 
Conchifera, and 40 of Gastropoda, being altogether 63 
species. There are 562 species of Mollusca inthe British 
seas. This great difference may arise from the brackish 
nature of the water in Kiel Bay; and to the same cause 
may be attributable the small size of all the Mollusca, 
except Mytilus edulis, which is usually stunted on the 
open sea coast. 
The authors have satisfactorily shown that the genus 
Triforis (erroneously changed by Deshayes to Z7iphoris) 
is distinct from Cerithium, although belonging to the 
same family, between which and Cer7thiopside it appears 
to be intermediate. The principal difference consists in 
the animal of Zrzfor7s having a retractile proboscis ; and 
Lovén’s description of 7. ferversa was doubtful on that 
point. Other writers on the Mollusca have done nothing 
to help us in the classification of this difficult group. 
The shells are distinguishable by the shape of the mouth, 
which is very peculiar in 7yiforis; and the sculpture of 
the apex differs from that of Cerithixm—an important 
character which might have been advantageously repre- 
sented in the plate before us. 
We hope the authors will not take amiss a few slight 
criticisms. Their Rissoa inconspicua is not Alder’s 
species, but R. alve/la of Lovén. AR. octona of Linné is 
probably a variety of Hydrobia ulve, judging from his 
description and the habitat “in Sveciz subpaludosis.” 
The species described and figured by Meyer and Mébius 
as RF. octona has two more (viz. ten) whorls; it is not 
horn-colour, but variegated ; the mouth is oval, and not 
“fere orbiculata ;” and Linné does not mention the ribs 
which characterise the Kiel Bay species. The figures of 
Rissoa striata do not show the foot-appendage or caudal 
cirrus, although it is described in the work. Amphisphyra 
should be U¢riculus. 
