130 The Naturalist in Siluria. 



speculating on what sort of a meal it would make. But 

 the toad was in a very agony of fearj as could be told by 

 its air and attitude. 



Night coming on, I had several shovelsful of earth 

 thrown into the pot, and so left mole, toad, grubs, and 

 worms — the mole's leg released from its tether. In the 

 morning the quadruped was found dead on the surface of 

 the mould, while the batrachian, with some of the anne- 

 lids and larvae, were alive underneath it. 



Now, the question is, what killed the mole ? It had 

 not been taken in a trap, or otherwise previously injured, 

 nor could it have died of hunger, as there were earth- 

 worms in plenty around it. Did a despairing sense of 

 captivity cause its death ? If so, why did not the same 

 happen to the one with Mr. Allen, which lived three 

 weeks in captivity ; indeed, until he released it ? Having 

 become a sort of pet with him, he did not like killing it. 



Then, was the death of my mole due to some venomous 

 substance exuded by the toad in the water-like fluid ? 

 The last seems the most probable explanation. 



The writer referred to above affirms that the mole " is 

 most assuredly a conferring benefactor on the farmer, and 

 by perforating the soil and throwing up earth it improves 

 the natural pastures." He seems to overlook the fact 

 that the mole's victim, the earth-worm, does all this in a 

 much better manner — so efficiently as to have had a 

 chapter devoted to it by England's earliest naturalist, 

 Gilbert White, and a whole book by her latest and greatest, 

 Charles Darwin. If the mole were such a benefactor to 

 the farmer, it is rather strange perverseness that he, 

 whether grazier or agriculturist, has been for hundreds of 

 years waging war upon it, many being annually out of 

 pocket considerable sums for its destruction. And money 



