THE HARE. 19 



The Common Hare of Great Britain, Lepus (imulns, Linn., 

 Is not found in Ireland. 



The Irish Hare, Lepus Hihernicus, Bell. 

 The Alpine Hare, Lepus vanahUis, Pallas. 



The following paper was communicated by me to the Royal Irish 

 Academy, in ^lay, 1838, and was published in the Transactions, vol. 

 xviii. part 2 : — 



" On the Irish Hare (Lepus Hiherniais). — The Earl of Derby was the first 

 to call the attention of English zoologists to the differences existing between the 

 common hare of Great Britain and that of Ireland; and, for the purpose of 

 having the matter duly investigated, he, in April, 1^33, transmitted specimens of 

 the Irish hare to Mr. Yarrell, who exhibited them at a meeting of the Linnaian 

 Society. In the montli of July, in the same year, this gentleman introduced 

 the subject to the Zoological Society, at the same time pointing out some of the 

 more prominent characters which distinguish the two animals. With regard to 

 the specific difference of the Irish hare, Mr. Yarrell did not, on either occasion, 

 offer an opinion. Mr. Jenyns, in his Manual of British Vertebrate Animals, 

 published in 1835, introduced the Irish hare as a variety of the Lepus timidus, 

 with tlie remark, tliat it ' might almost deserve to be considered a distinct 

 species.' Mr. Bell, in his work on British Quadrupeds, completed in 1837, 

 judging from external character, brought it forward, for the first time, as a differ- 

 ent animal from the common hare of England. In a communication to the 

 Magazine of Zoology and Botany for August, 1837, Mr. Eyton stated that, 

 from an investigation of the anatomical characters of the Irish hare, he defected 

 such differences as ' would probably distinguish it as a species distinct from the 

 common hare, did no other characters exist' (vol. ii. p. 283). 



" Having thus looked retrospectively to the Irish hare, from the first simple 

 announcement of the characters in which it differs from the Lepus timidus, until 

 from internal as well as external evidence it is considered specifically different, 

 it may be thought unnecessary to treat further on the subject, but the sequel 

 will, I trust, show that it has not yef? been entirely exhausted. 



" The very erroneous idea prevails in some quarters that the hare of Ireland 

 was not known to differ from that of England, until the subject was introduced 

 in London, in the year 1833. Respecting the former animal Mr. Bell obserses, 

 that ' it is certainly a very remarkable circumstance that it should have remain- 

 ed unnoticed until so late a period, and can only be accounted for by the fact 

 that it is the only hare found in Ireland, and that therefore the opportunity of 

 comparison did not frequently occur' (p. 342). The difference between the 

 hare of Ireland and that of England and Scotland has, however, though not 

 committed to the press, been long kno^\^l in this country to the oldest sportsmen, 

 dealers in animal skins, and such other persons as had the opportunity of ex- 

 amining them.* Yet, strange to say, to naturalists generally, what is here 



* On account of the difference between these animals in the two countries, 

 the late David Ker, Esq., upwards of thirty years ago, had some hares brought 

 from England, and turned out on the largest of the three Copeland Islands, off" 

 the coast of Down, where, however, they did not much increase, and long since 

 became extinct. About twenty years ago, a sporting iriend, when visiting the 

 Island of Islay, off" the coast of Argyleshire, killed several individuals of the 

 Irish hare, as well as of the indigenous one ; and, on pointing out the former to 

 some persons resident in the island, was informed that they were not any 

 novelty, as the species had been introduced from Ireland by the chief proprietor 

 of the island, but at what period I have not learned. It may be in reference to 

 these that Daniel, in his Rural Sports, observes, with respect to the size of 

 hares in different parts of the British Islands, that " the smallest are in the 

 Isle of Islay." In a journal kept by that distinguished naturalist the late John 



■ (5 2 



