964 Fauna of Cork. 



of local lore or local interest. But let the reader judge : here are the 

 bats. 



1. V. pipistrelkis, Linn. Pipistrelle. Common. 



2. P. aurittis, Linn, (sp.) Long -eared Bat. Common. 

 Here are the mice. 



14. M. sylvaticus, Linn. Field Mouse. Common. 



15. M. musculus, Linn. Common Mouse. Common. 



16. M. rattus, Linn. Black Rat. In old buildings in the northern 

 parts of the city of Cork, near Garry cloyne, &c. Rare. 



And is this all that can be said ? We doubt not that these two 

 bats and three Mures do occur, but are there no others ? How inte- 

 resting it would have been, had the author explained to us the cause 

 of absence in the Hanoverian rat, the harvest mouse, the water-rat, the 

 two or three species of short-tailed field-mice, the dormouse, the 

 squirrel, and the hare. We do not say that all these animals exist in 

 the county, indeed we remarked the absence of the English hare 

 throughout Ireland, but surely something should be said on so inte- 

 resting a subject. 



Then we may again inquire, is Ireland so deficient in birds ? We 

 never saw birds so numerous either in species or in individuals, as in 

 this very county, and yet the list is far below that of a carefully com- 

 piled local catalogue in any part of England. One or two of the 

 captures in ornithology are of interest ; for instance, that of the Ful- 

 vous, or Griffon Vulture, already cited, and White's Thrush, which 

 occurred at Bandon, and is now in the possession of Dr. Allman, of 

 Dublin. 



Our criticisms of this very unsatisfactory local list of quadrupeds and 

 birds will, perhaps, be received as a hint by many of our contributors, 

 whose lists still remain unpublished. Our idea of a local list is, that 

 it should contain the name of every species occurring in the district, 

 and therefore that it should be drawn up by a competent observer, 

 that all unauthenticated specimens in museums or private collections, 

 all purchases of interested dealers, should be rejected as apocryphal. 

 We hold, also, that it is not required from the author of a list to 

 glean and reprint histories of each bird, extracted from works of ready 

 access, or to describe plumage, figure, colour, nest, or eggs, if these 

 points are well understood : still, any facts relating to the history of 

 individual birds, either not common to the species, or not recorded ; 

 any facts erroneously treated by our high authorities, any facts bear- 

 ing on the habits, food, or migration, nesting or behaviour of a spe- 

 cies in reference to the particular place to which the list refers ; 



