( 418. ) 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
MAMMALIA. 
RODENTIA. 
Conduct of a Rabbit when pursued by Dog.—One day in July last, 
when my daughter was walking in my garden here, a little Dog which was 
with her put up a Rabbit (Lepus cuniculus) from one of the flower-beds, 
which was chased for a short distance by the Dog, when it squatted in the 
grass, the Dog running round it, wagging its tailand barking. After afew 
moments it started off again, but, after running about one hundred yards, 
again squatted, the Dog running round and barking at it as before; when 
the Rabbit, which was quite full-grown, allowed my daughter to pick it 
up, and she brought it to me. It seemed as if dazed, and made no attempt 
to escape.— Wm. Borrer (Cowfold, Horsham, Sussex). 
[There are many records, and from all parts of the world, of wild 
animals taking refuge with man when pursued by their enemies.— ED. | 
AVES. 
The So-called St. Kilda Wren.—In a review of one of Mr. C. Dixon’s 
publications—I fancy the title had something to do with vanishing birds — 
in the ‘Spectator’ of July 30th ult., the writer refers to Mr. C. Dixon as 
the discoverer of the St. Kilda Wren (Troglodytes hirtensis). Possibly 
some reader of ‘The Zoologist’ will correct me if I am in the wrong, 
though I have certainly long been under the impression that the St. Kilda 
Wren was “discovered” years before Mr. C. Dixon ever set foot on the 
island, and that every well-informed ornithologist was aware of—well, the 
fact. I gather from my researches that exactly two hundred years ago, in 
1698, the possession of a Wren by St. Kilda was recorded by Martin, in 
his ‘ Voyage to St. Kilda’; that in Macaulay’s ‘ History of St. Kilda,’ 1764, 
the species is again mentioned; that in 1831 Atkinson paid a visit to the 
- island and identified the little bird; while, in June, 1883, Barrington like- 
Wise came across it on some half-dozen occasions, though he failed to secure 
aspecimen. As Mr. C. Dixon’s journey to St. Kilda was not undertaken 
till 1884, I fail to appreciate the validity of the claim put forward by the 
late Henry Seebohm on behalf of his understudy, and repeated by an 
anonymous reviewer in the ‘Spectator’ only so recently as last month 
