358 THE ZOOLOGIST. 



wards he sent it to Professor Newton, of Cambridge, who placed it in 

 the museum of that town." 



The claims upon our space preclude our making further 

 extracts, and it must suffice for us, on closing the volume, to 

 recommend it cordially to the perusal of our readers. 



We are indebted to the publishers, Messrs. Sotheran & Co., 

 for the loan of the two illustrations which accompany these 

 remarks. 



The Grouse. Natural History by the Rev. H. A. Macpherson ; 

 Shooting by A. J. Stuart Wortley ; Cookery by George 

 Saintsbury. 8vo, pp. 293. With Illustrations. London : 

 Longmans, Green & Co. 1894. 



Most opportunely, like the work last mentioned, this book 

 makes its appearance at the commencement of the Grouse 

 shooting season. It forms the second volume of the ' Fur and 

 Feather ' series published by Messrs. Longmans, the first volume 

 of which (on the Partridge) was noticed in our number for 

 May last. 



Mr. Macpherson, dealing with the natural history of the bird, 

 offers some preliminary remarks on the etymology of the name 

 "Grouse." In so doing, he follows Prof. Newton ('Diet. Birds') 

 in tracing the word to " an old French adjective giiesche, 

 signifying grey, or speckled." It seems rather straining a point 

 to write "or speckled"; for while "speckled" well describes 

 the plumage of the Grouse, and " grey " does not, the strict 

 meaning of griesche is surely grey. We have the modern form 

 of it (grieche) in the French name for the Grey Shrike, Pie 

 grieche, which, by the way, neither of the above-named writers 

 has noticed ; but to say that " the plural word grice was early 

 modified into the singular grows " is to assume that grice was a 

 plural substantive instead of an adjective, and is scarcely sup- 

 ported by the quotation from Cotgrave (1611), whose meaning we 

 take to be that " povle griesche was] a nioore-henne ; the hen of 

 the grice [game 1 or moore game" ; in other words, that Cotgrave 

 employed the word grice as an adjective, and not as a substantive, 

 as Mr. Macpherson assumes. There is yet another explanation, 



