264 



UTILITY OF THE BARN OWL. 



J. H. GURXEY, JuN., F.Z.S., M.B.O.U., 



Kcs7vick Hall, Noriuich. 



In the autumn of 1865 a Barn Owl {Strix flaminea) was brought to 

 a naturaUst at Tonbridge, Kent, to be stuffed, which belonged to a 

 gentleman at Leigh near Tonbridge, whose wife stated that she had 

 picked up the owl, dead, on their barn floor, and that beside it lay a 

 very large rat, also dead. There is little doubt, adds my informant, 

 that an encounter had taken place between them, the injuries received 

 by each being sufficient to cause death, for the Owl had been severely 

 bitten by the rat. 



This is only one more instance of the utility of the Barn Owl, 

 which does not obtain the protection which by law it is entitled to. 

 It would have been much better if only the Barn Owl had been 

 included in the schedule of Protected Birds, and not all Owls, as it 

 is impossible to restrain gamekeepers — at any rate in Norfolk — from 

 killing the Tawny and Long-eared Owls, and the law as it stands 

 becomes a dead letter as far as Owls are concerned, and thus the 

 Barn Owl — the most useful ally the farmer has — is rapidly becoming 

 a very rare bird in the eastern counties. A still greater anomaly in 

 the Act is that any sort of legal protection should be afforded to the 

 farmers' enemies, the Sparrow and Ring Dove, which do far more 

 harm than good, and are quite undeserving of it ; yet only persons 

 expressly appointed by owners and occupiers are legally entitled to 

 kill them in the close-time [43 and 44 Vict., c. 35, 7th Sep., 1880]. 



NOTE—ORNITHOLOG Y. 



Unusual Nesting-site for Missel Thrush. — One of my boys found a nest 

 of the Missel Thrush ( Turdiis viscivorus) in a wall which formed part of the 

 boundary of a pasture bordering upon Barden Moor. If I had not had autoptical 

 proof of this record I should have surmised either that the nest was not in situ, 

 or, what would have appeared more probable, a nest of the Ring Ouzel. Whether 

 this departure from its usual habit had been induced with a view to its greater 

 safety I am unable to say, but when passing through an adjoining plantation we 

 were struck with the many remains of birds v/hich had undoubtedly fallen victims 

 to birds of prey. 



We noted the Pied Flycatcher {Miiscicapa hichiosa) nesting in Barden Tower. 

 — E. P. P. BUTTERFIELD, Wilsden, ^lay 28th, 1888. 



In the 'Fell' district of Upper Wensleydale, I, my son, and others, used 

 frequently to find the Missel Thrush nesting in stone walls, or in fissures of vertical 

 crags on the open moor-slopes. We assigned the fact to super-abundance of the 

 bird relatively to tree supply ; still, though far from proven,' one cannot fail to be 

 struck by the theory Mr. Butterfield adumbrates — that ' inherited memory ' (to use 

 Romanes" word) of disaster following on the practice of a time-honoured custom, 

 has led the older and wiser birds to a protective variation in habit. The eggs of 

 the crag-breeding birds were, I am sure, larger and finer in character ; the eggs 

 of the plantations (used presumably by the younger generations) less boldly 

 marked and smaller. The matter is well worth patient investigation. — F^ A. L ees. 



Naturalist, 



