APPENDIX. 689 



as I have fliewn tkat a fparrow may be taught to 

 fing the linnet's note, I fcarcely know what fpe- 



cies 



" niunt receptaculam, ut cont -a feras abunde valentur # '% 

 as alfo in the 52c! chapter of his tenth book, that the perdix 

 lays white eggs, which is not true of the common partridge. 



But there are not wanting other proofs of the conjecture I 

 have here made. 



Ariftotle fpeaking of this fame bird, fays, TW (izv ffspdiaw, 

 01 xaKHaQi^acnv, 01 5e Trpuari f . 



Now, the word, KaKKaQi&<n is clearly formed from the call 

 of the bird alluded to, which does not at all refemble that of 

 the common partridge. 



Thus alfo the author of the Elegy on the Nightingale, 

 who is fuppofed by fome to be Ovid, hath the following 

 line : 



" Caccabat hinc perdix, hinc gratitat improbus anfer." 

 fo that the call of the bird muft have had fomething very 

 particular, and have anfwered nearly, to the words KUHKaQi^Ei 

 and caccabat* 



I find, indeed, that M. de Buffon contends % that the ntzp\% 

 of Arijiotle does not mean the common partridge, but the 

 bartavel, with regard to which, I ihall not enter into any 

 difcuiTion, but only obferve, that moll of his references are 

 inaccurate, and that he entirely miitakes the materials of which 

 the neft is compofed, according to AriJiotWs iixth book, and 

 iirffc chapter. 



But the ftrongefl: proof that perdix fignifies the red legged 

 partridge is, that the Italians to this day call this bird pemice y 

 and the common ioxtftarna §. 



This alfo now brings me to the proofs, of fiurnus in this 

 pafTage of Statius fignifying the common partridge, and not the 



* Lib. x. c, 23. f Lib, IV. c. 9, % Orn, T. II. p. 42a § See Olina. 



Jiarling, 



