1396 Birds. 





ance. The sentence " that no bird whatever, indeed " was intended to be parentheti- 

 cal. And in the following sentences, viz. " The feet are the instruments, &c." I speak 

 only of the moorhen ; as I think must be apparent on the most cursory perusal, for no 

 one ever would think I could speak of the duck's foot, for example, as tenacious of grasp. 

 In these sentences I certainly do state as a fact, the result of observation, not " that the 

 feet of the moorhen are, beyond question, the instruments by which it holds itself down,'* 

 but that I have seen their feet apparently employed for that purpose ; forasmuch as I 

 have seen their feet when submerged, grasping weeds or flags, (I mention one in parti- 

 cular) ; and that when I have shot them so submerged (" in their concealment " are my 

 words), they have still, on coming to the surface dead, retained fragments of the weeds in 

 the grasp of their toes. It was, and still is, my very decided opinion, my conviction, that 

 the moorhen does use its feet as instruments to hold itself down by. And in the pas- 

 sage in question, it was my intention to convey this conviction, and to give the 

 grounds on which, so far as observation went, I had formed it. I am free to admit 

 that my sentences might have been more accurately constructed ; but I expected no 

 criticism ; and, as soon as I could, tried to supply any defects which there might be in 

 them : and I think that common attention was all that was required to apprehend 

 their meaning. Mr. Slaney (Zool. 1371) says " The term ' hypothetical ' which Mr. 

 Atkinson seems to quarrel with, was used by me, because I did not find in Mr. Atkin- 

 son's previous statement anything that warranted me in believing he wished it to be 

 understood, he actually had either seen, or shot, a moorhen while submerged and 

 holding on by its feet to the weeds to keep itself down." As I have just said, I think 

 my words were quite sufficient to express "my wish to be understood;" and in my 

 reply to Mr. Slaney's first notes I made that wish quite evident by writing (Zool. 757) 

 " I must take the liberty to remind him (Mr. S.) that I do not give my 'explanation' 

 as a theory, but as the result of close and repeated observation. / have again and 

 again seen the feet of the moorhen holding on by weeds or flags" And yet, in the 'Fur- 

 ther Notes,' Mr. Slaney writes " But in the last (May) number, Mr. Atkinson states 

 unequivocally the fact of his having seen and shot moorhens so submerged, and while, 

 &c.'' Now, from the preceding extract it is apparent that I made the " unequivocal 

 statement" in question some eighteen months before the appearance of the May number ; 

 and I therefore think it hardly fair in Mr. Slaney to write as though it were only made 

 for the first time in the May number. Mr. Slaney's comment on the statement so 

 made in the November number for 1844, and repeated in the May number for 1846, 

 is, " This, I confess, * * surprises me not a little." I am somewhat at a loss to account 

 for Mr. Slaney's surprise here. Is it surprise at the " unequivocal statement " of the 

 fact ; or at the fact " unequivocally stated? '' I think it is eighteen months too late 

 for mere surprise at either ; that there need be no surprise at the statement of the fact; 

 and that surprise at the fact ought to be attended with something else than a mere ex- 

 pression of surprise. Moreover, " the six reasons " I " beg " Mr. Slaney " to consider," to- 

 gether with the (inaccurate) view of my observations on decayed weeds, already 

 noticed, also "surprise" Mr. Slaney "not a little;" at least I suppose this is the mean- 

 ing of the sentence, for the verb " surprises " is singular, as his notes are printed. But 

 I cannot help thinking that both facts, and arguments if not preposterously absurd, in 

 controversy, merit something more than mere expressions of surprise. Let the facts be 

 weighed, and the arguments, if fallacious or ill-constructed, be controverted or ex- 

 posed. Mr. Slaney says (Zool. 1370) " There are to me, many other startling circum- 

 stances in Mr. Atkinson's last observations, which I am desired to consider, but which 



