WOODCOCK. 249 



differ not only in size and markings, but also in native climate. 

 Hence the absurdity of those who would persuade us that 

 the woodcock of America crosses the Atlantic to Europe, and 

 vice versa. These observations have been thought necessary, 

 from the respectability of some of our own writers, who seem 

 to have adopted this opinion. 



How far to the north our woodcock is found, I am unable 

 to say. It is not mentioned as a bird of Hudson's Bay, and> 

 being altogether unknown in the northern parts of Europe, it 

 is very probable that its migrations do not extend to a very 

 high latitude ; for it may be laid down as a general rule, that 

 those birds which migrate to the arctic regions, in either 

 continent, are very often common to both. The head of the 

 woodcock is of singular conformation, large, somewhat trian- 

 gular, and the eye fixed at a remarkable distance from the bill, 

 and high in the head. This construction was necessary to 

 give a greater range of vision, and to secure the eye from 

 injury while the owner is searching in the mire. The flight 

 of the woodcock is slow. When flushed at any time in the 

 woods, he rises to the height of the bushes or underwood, and 

 almost instantly drops behind them again at a short distance, 

 generally running off for several yards as soon as he touches 

 the ground. The notion that there are two species of wood- 

 cock in this country probably originated from the great dif- 

 ference of size between the male and female, the latter being 

 considerably the larger. 



The male woodcock is ten inches and a half long, and six- 

 teen inches in extent ; bill, a brownish flesh colour, black 

 towards the tip, the upper mandible ending in a slight knob, 

 that projects about one-tenth of an inch beyond the lower,* 

 each grooved, and in length somewhat more than two inches 



* Mr Pennant (Arctic Zoology, p. 463), in describing the American 

 woodcock, says that the lower mandible is much shorter than the upper. 

 From the appearance of his figure, it is evident that the specimen from 

 which that and his description were taken had lost nearly half an inch 

 from the lower mandible, probably broken off by accident. Turton 

 and others have repeated this mistake. 



