558 
APPENDIX. VI.’ 
As we find, from these citations, that so 
many different sorts of birds have learned to 
Ovid, therefore, speaking of the perdia, says, 
«* _- ponitque in sepibus ova,” * 
where the common partridge is seldom known to build. 
Pliny again informs us, ‘‘ perdices spina & frutice sic mu- 
“* niunt receptaculum, ut contra feras abunde valentur,’’t as also 
in the 52d chapter of his tenth book, that the perdix lay white 
egas, which is not true of the common partridge. 
But there are not wanting other proofs of the conjecture I 
have here made. . 
Aristotle speaking of this same bird, says, Twy prev mepdinwy, oF 
naxnnsiCoucr , os Se Tpsourt.t 
Now, the word, xaxxa6:foucr. is clearly formed from the call 
of the bird alluded to, which does not at all resemble that of the 
common partridge. 
Thus also the author of the Elegy on the Nightingale, who is 
supposed by some to be Ovid, hath the following line: 
“* Caccabat hinc perdix, hine gratitat improbus anser.” 
so that the call of the bird must have had something very parti- 
cular, and have answered nearly, to the words xaxxoSit: and cac- 
cabat. 
I find, indeed, that M. de Buffon contends§ that the wep 
of Aristotle does not mean the common partridge, but the barta- 
velle, with regard to which, I shall not enter into any discussion, 
but only observe, that most of his references are inaccurate, 
and that he entirely mistakes the materials of which the nest is 
composed, according to Aristoéle’s sixth book, and first chapter. 
But the strongest proof that perdi signifies the red legged par- 
* Ovid. Met. Lib. VIII.1,258. I shall also refer to 1. 287, of the same 
book: 
*¢ Garrula ramos4 prospexit ab ilice perdix:” 
as it is well known that the common partridge never perches upon a tree, 
+ Lib. x. c. 23, + Lib. iv, c. 9. § Orn. T. H, p. 422. | 
