194 



NA TURE 



\Pec. 30, \\ 



of a local faunist on so delicate a question. However, 

 the local faunist should recognise the fact that a long list 

 is not necessarily " a strong list " — to use Dr. Babington's 

 expression — and if space allowed us to go into details we 

 should be inclined to strike off not a few species from his 

 register. It is true that this would not materially 

 alter his position, for a corresponding number would 

 on the same ground have to be struck off the 

 register of other counties. In reality, no one has 

 ever doubted that the Suffolk roll is one of the highest to 

 be found in England. Perhaps it would stand only second 

 to that of Norfolk on the English record, for though both, 

 so far as published lists go, are inferior to that of York- 

 shire, we are persuaded that this last has been unduly 

 swollen. We have a strong suspicion that a Kentish list 

 would run any of them very hard ; but we here speak 

 without facts, for ornithologists have long been scarce in 

 Kent, and no attempt at a Kentish list has been made for 

 many a year. The comparison instituted by Dr. Babing- 

 ton between the ornithological wealth of Suffolk and 

 certain other counties is in some measure fallacious, — the 

 last list of Susse.x birds, for example, dates from 1855 (not 

 1865 as he inadvertently states), while practically it was 

 compiled in 1849, since which time a good many things 

 have happened. Comparison with inland counties is of 

 course misleading, and probably the well-known published 

 catalogues for Cornwall, Somerset, Northumberland, and 

 Durham, and for the Humber district, are alone those 

 with which catalogues for Suffolk and Norfolk can be 

 rightly compared ; while the county last named, from the 

 abundance of ornithological observers it has produced, is 

 manifestly favoured in the race. One other thing may 

 perhaps be mentioned in this connection, and that not so 

 much for Dr. Babington as for authors of future "Avi- 

 faunas" ; the ornithological richness of a district depends 

 far more on the number of its real inhabitants than on 

 the number of species which have occurred as stray 

 visitors within its limits and only bo)idfide travellers. As 

 regards large areas this is a truth so obvious that our 

 remark may seem to be a platitude, but as regards small 

 areas the consideration is too often overlooked. 



Among all the English works on local ornithology with 

 which we are acquainted. Dr. Babington's holds a peculiar 

 place. Its contents are distinctly matters of fact, or of what 

 passes for fact ; in other words, it is a sumniary of records. 

 No one would pretend to say that any book of this kind is, 

 or could be, exhaustive ; but the author has done his best 

 to make his work so, and the infinite pains he has taken to 

 be precise are present on every page — for every page 

 bristles with references that have obviously cost him im- 

 mense labour to collect, and his patient industry in culling 

 them deserves the highest praise. On the other hand, 

 this very precision may not unfrequently mislead the 

 unwary. Unless the reader have a competent knowledge, 

 elsewhere obtained, he may be apt to presume that the 

 fact of such or such a species having been recorded as 

 occurring or breeding at such or such a place and at such 

 or such a time is an indication that it has not occurred 

 or bred there at any other time. For the sake of those 

 who are beginners, or ill-instructed in ornithology, and 

 they ought to form a majority of those who use this 

 book, it would have been better had the author uttered a 

 warning against this kind of misconception, which in 



many cases is certain to follow from this concise method 

 of citing previously recorded observations. Experts, of 

 course, will not be taken in by it, but we think it may 

 deceive others. Experts, however, unless they be accus- 

 tomed to the way in which local floras are compiled, have 

 some right to complain of the application of botanical 

 methods to a fauna — for it is plain that the " Catalogue 

 of the Birds of Suffolk " is planned on essentially the 

 same principle as would have been a catalogue of the 

 plants of the same county, and not according to any 

 zoological precedent. 



A few words are Dr. Babington's due on another matter. 

 To most zoologists his name will be new, and yet he 

 entered the field of biological literature nearly five-and- 

 forty years ago ! His ornithological appendix to Potter's 

 " History and Antiquities of Charnwood Forest," pub- 

 lished in 1842, was a respectable, not to say ambitious, 

 performance for an undergraduate ; and, while showing 

 rudiments of the same scrupulosity as is seen in the 

 present work, is equally removed from loquacity, though 

 containing some information that the British ornithologist 

 would not willingly let die. Both in conception and 

 in execution it naturally has been surpassed by later 

 pubHcations, nor can it be regarded as the original pre- 

 cursor of the numerous local " Avifaunas " of Britain 

 The primacy in this respect ' belongs, we believe, to. 

 one the author of which has lately died, and to his 

 memory we take this occasion of offering a passing 

 tribute. The " Ornithological Rambles in Sussex," to 

 which was added a catalogue of the birds of that county, 

 appeared in 1849, the work of Mr. Arthur Edward Knox, 

 who died on September 23, 1886, having nearly completed 

 his seventy-eighth year. Mention of this observant 

 naturalist, agreeable author, and accomplished gentleman 

 is all the more needed, since his death obtained scant, 

 if any, notice in the newspapers of the day, though 

 column after column in their broad sheets chronicled 

 the career of a successful horse-jockey who expired not 

 long after. Mr. Knox, it is true, never assumed the 

 character of a man of science any more than that of a 

 man of letters, yet his literary style was of the best, while 

 few professed naturalists more thoroughly practised scien- 

 tific methods of observation, and none could more fully 

 appreciate scientific worth. His three works — that al- 

 ready named, his " Game-Birds and Wild Fowl," and his 

 "Autumns on the Spey " — all of the kind that is usually 

 called " popular," have some characteristics that at once 

 distinguish them from so many others to which that 

 epithet is commonly applied. They are always accurate, 

 seldom trivial, and never vulgar. 



To return, however, to Dr. Babington's httle volume. 

 Its value, notwithstanding some shortcomings to which 

 we have referred, is great, and the recorded facts, with 

 which, as already stated, it is crammed, are such as no 

 " British " ornithologist can afford to neglect. As a final 

 mark of attention, let us notice that Dr. Babington's 

 scholarly instinct has inspired him with enou,gh courage 

 to be the first writer who has corrected an unhappy mis- 

 take made by Linnaeus, and restored (pp. 200-203) the old 



^ Of course there are several other local li-its of older date, from that of 

 Markwick downwards, including "The Norfolk and Suffolk Birds" of 

 Sheppard and White.ir ; but these Wire published in journals (mostly in the 

 Linnean Transactions), and we are here speaking of separate wjrks the 

 scope of which is ornithology alone. 



