NOTES AND QUERIES. 515 



disgrace, and into danger of sharing the fate of the scores of harmless 

 Kestrels which are annually destroyed. Yet it seems hardly fair to class 

 the belief that Cuckoos suck eggs with such absurd fancies as that Night- 

 jars suck the milk of goats, or that Cuckoos become hawks in winter. 

 Hitherto I have supposed that this belief arose from the Cuckoo having at 

 times been seen with its own egg in its mouth preparatory to depositing it 

 in a nest. But this year I have heard two stories, based upon careful 

 observation, which I must confess have rather shaken my faith in the 

 Cuckoo, and which I will relate, and then leave your readers to form their 

 own deductions. (1) Near Haddon Hall is a signal-box. One day this 

 year the signalman saw a Cuckoo alight on the bank of the cutting near his 

 box. As it did not rise again at once, but appeared to be busily engaged 

 on the bank, he left his box, and went to the spot to satisfy himself as to 

 the nature of the bird's doings. As he approached, the Cuckoo flew up, 

 and just where it had been he found a Wagtail's nest with one egg in it, 

 but on the bank outside the nest were the broken shells of other eggs. 

 (2) A gamekeeper was crossing a moor (about six miles north-east of this 

 place) when a Cuckoo rose from the ground a few yards in front of him. 

 He at once went to the spot from which it rose, and there found a Grouse's 

 egg partly sucked. I have seen the egg, and certainly the slit (for it was 

 not a round hole pierced in the egg) was such as a Cuckoo's bill might be 

 expected to make. 



Some of the fallacies mentioned by Mr. Davenport result from ignorance 

 and nothing else, but others arise from inexperience only. It is hardly 

 surprising that to a casual passer-by the Landrail should appear to ventrilo- 

 quise. The same may be said of the burring of the Nightjar. Mistakes 

 are sometimes made because an observer takes for granted facts are univer- 

 sally and invariably true when they have been proved by his own personal 

 experience. But is it not equally foolish for an ornithologist to suppose 

 that a phenomenon has never occurred merely because it has not come 

 under his own notice ? Take the case of the Swift on the ground. Mr. 

 Davenport considers it a popular fallacy resulting from ignorance to suppose 

 that a Swift cannot arise again from the ground. Mr. Howard Saunders, 

 in his ' Manual,' merely states that, " contrary to the popular belief, the 

 birds are able to raise themselves from the ground." But he does not 

 imply that they are always able to do so. No doubt they very often are able 

 thus to raise themselves. Nevertheless, my own experience would have led 

 me to the contrary conclusion, for I have never seen a Swift rise from the 

 ground, though from time to time I have picked them up and thrown them 

 into the air, and then they have flown away. 



I should be glad to know whether experienced field naturalists in 

 general consider it a " preposterous notion " to suppose that a Lapwing may 



