1326 Birds. 



submergence. And yet, if he will turn to my paper (Zool. 757), he will observe that 

 I have expressed myself thus : — " If then W. H. S. maintains that moorhens or any 

 other birds, can keep themselves in what I call a state of submergence, without the aid 

 of weeds or flags, or other objects external to themselves, I beg leave to differ from 

 him. If he means only that the moorhen, together with various other birds, is capa- 

 ble of maintaining itself in what I call a partially submerged state, I cordially agree 

 with him." As I have said, then, he must have overlooked this, when penning the 

 notes to which I have referred ; for at the commencement he writes, " On the 31st of 

 January last, I had the most perfect and complete opportunity of observing a moorhen 

 while partially submerged." The observations then, made at that time, and recorded 

 in the 'Zoologist' (Zool. 877), go for nothing as to the point really at issue; that point 

 being the question of complete submergence. I have already defined what I mean by 

 " submergence," clearly and accurately (Zool. 497 and 756) : and, so far as I could, 

 took all pains not to be misunderstood. My definition is as follows: — "remains sub- 

 merged, with merely its BEAK thrust out for the purpose of respiration ; " and surely 

 there ought to be no misunderstanding or mistake in the case of such a definition as 

 this. Now in his account (Zool. 877) Mr. Slaney says, first, " it reappeared with its 

 head and neck only above the water;" next (Zool. 878), "it appeared once more 

 amongst the flags, at first with its head only above the water ; " and lastly, " at first, 

 only the head and neck were raised above the surface ; but shortly it raised up the 

 upper part of the body also, leaving all the under portion of the body, and all but the 

 head, neck, and just the top of the back and tail completely under the water, and in 

 that state,'' &c. " And its remaining in that position was totally without the aid of 

 any hold upon the flags or weeds, for I could distinctly see the feet gently moving in 

 the water, to resist the current and to keep the bird stationary." Now to what does 

 the fact here recorded amount ? Simply to this. The moorhen is seen in what Mr. 

 S. himself calls a partially submerged state, and does not use its feet, as instruments 

 of grasping, to maintain itself therein : a matter, that is, which I have never disputed, 

 and have stated over and over again. Further, I am not quite sure on what grounds 

 Mr. Slaney applies the phrase " hypothetical strictures " to my remarks on his " for- 

 mer observations." I state as a fact, not as an hypothesis, that I have seen the moor- 

 hen's feet — the bird being veritably submerged at the time — actually employed as the 

 means of retaining its submerged position by their grasp upon the weeds. And I add 

 the fact, not the hypothesis, that when I have shot the moorhen in its submergence, on 

 taking it from the water, I have found fragments of weed yet in the grasp of the feet. 

 I think, moreover, that Mr. Slaney underrates the tenacity of weeds, (Zool. 878). 

 When decayed, of course they are frail enough. But how long do decayed weeds 

 maintain their erect position in the water ? Is not one of the very first effects of decay 

 upon the weed, that the mass gives way and sinks entirely ? So long as they stand, 

 if I may use the phrase, I think they would be sufficiently strong to hold the moorhen 

 down : and when fallen, they would be out of the moorhen's reach. Besides, what a 

 " goose " the bird must be, if, on finding that the first bit of weed laid hold of, was 

 giving way, it did not " mend its hand " by renewing its hold or changing its place. 

 Depend upon it, a moorhen knows better than to be foiled by any failure of this kind : 

 and depend upon it too, that when weeds are yet within a few inches of the surface, 

 they are strong enough for the moorhen's wants. And moreover, surely Mr. Slaney, 

 who maintains that a submerged moorhen requires no assistance — not even that of a 

 rotten weed — to maintain itself in its submergence, should not argue that a rotten 



