vn Aristotle on Birds 197 



also reddish (viroTvop^vpov)!' These are the true 

 colours of the bird, the under parts of which are of 

 a bright chestnut. But he goes on to say that there 

 is no part of its body without all these three colours, 

 which is not true ; for the red and the blue-green 

 are very distinctly marked off from each other. But 

 this, though incorrect, seems to me to be no more 

 than a proof that Aristotle had never had the bird in 

 his hand, and this is exactly what we should expect ; 

 it was very seldom seen, he says, and when it did 

 present itself to the eye, how were the Greeks 

 to catch it? Without guns this would be a most 

 difficult matter. I conclude therefore without hesita- 

 tion that Aristotle is here describing the effect 

 produced on the eye by the Kingfisher as it darts by 

 you, when you may get a glimpse of all its hues 

 without the chance of marking them off from each 

 other. Had he seen a dead specimen, I am confi- 

 dent that he would have noted (as Pliny did) the 

 white patch behind its neck, as well as the distribu- 

 tion of its tints. As it was, the only other feature 

 that he was able to mark was the long thin bill, 

 which he has described correctly.^ 



I could mention many other birds of which 



1 B. A. ix. 14. In other passages (v. 8 ; viii. 3) I will 

 not undertake to say that Aristotle is alluding to the King- 

 fisher, or the other species (Ceryle rudis) which is also found in 

 Greece. My friend Canon Tristram, in a paper in the IbU for 

 April 1893, maintains that in these passages he is speaking of »- 



