NATURAL HISTORY NOTES 
97 
genial weather of last autumn it is worth recording that a few blooms still 
lingered on the rose-bushes in Battersea Park until well into November. 
hen pheasant seen at the back of the flower walk in Kensington ( hardens 
on December 25 is my last bird note for the year. This bird, from its lameness, 
was evidently not a genuine wild visitor. 
12, Fentiman Road, Clapham Road, S.ll’. W. Nau.nton Rushkn. 
Cuokoo Myth. — I doubt if Mr. Joseph Collinson’s methoil of treating this 
matter, as exhibited in his recent letters, is persuasive. He postulates, as I 
understand him, the absolute impossibility of the ejection of the native nestlings 
by the young cuckoo. If that be right the question is of course settled. The 
credibility of professing witnesses becomes irrelevant, and the evidence of all 
the P'ellows of the Royal Society and of the Bench of Bishops would be of no 
avail. Those who say that they have seen the feat performed must be either the 
victims of illusions or liars ; and Mr. Collinson seems to choose the harsher 
alternative. But could such a postulate be established ? Do the conditions of 
the case allow it? And if it could, has it Ireen established ? No evidence of 
“observers” could convince us now of the existence of such phenomena as the 
mermaid in her fabled form, or the \'egetable Lamb of Tartary. To be convinced 
thereof we should have to believe that a new earth, if not a new heaven, had 
begun. There would, also, be limits to our belief, or credulity, in the powers of 
the young cuckoo. No observer, however worthy, would make us believe that 
it could lift a ten pound weight. But the compass of the particular question 
must surely lie within the region of uncertainty so far as results of d priori reason- 
ing are concerned. Not one, but all the parts of the cuckoo must be considered ; 
its neck as well as its back ; its wings as well as its legs. Also the relation, in 
the supposed operation, to the structure and behaviour of the fellow-nestling, 
and to the form of the nest. I am not aware that in the simplest case muscular 
strength can be accurately measured by dissection. I should submit, therefore, 
that though it may have been a reasonable opinion that the young cuckoo could 
not practice ejectment, it would be presumption to assert the impossibility of such 
a performance. The question is, I think, to be decided by testimony only. The 
credibility of the testimony is another matter, which I hope to refer to on a future 
occasion. J. L. Otter. 
The substance of Mr. Joseph Collinson’s note on page 76 appears to be that 
all men are liars and some of us especially so. Why ? Because we have happened 
to see (and may believe our eyes I suppose) that which Mr. Collinson has not yet 
seen, but may very shortly, if he will find a robin’s nest with a cuckoo’s egg in it, 
and watch the young cuckoo daily, as I did. I rely on nature, not “ theory.” 
James Hiam. 
In the last number of Nature Notes a correspondent, writing under the 
above heading, ventures “ to deny the accuracy ” of Dr. Jenner’s story of the 
young cuckoo ejecting the eggs or young of its foster-parents from the nest, 
alluding to it as a story “ which Jenner accepted the parentage of.” But Mr. 
Karting in “Summer Migrants,” page 233, states that “Dr. Jenner says 
positively {Phil. Trans., vol. Ixxviii., p. 225), ‘I discovered the young cuckoo, 
though so newly hatched, in the act of turning out the young hedge-sparrow.’ ” 
Even supposing that Dr. Jenner had given this story on hearsay he is not the only 
authority for the tale. In the introduction to Montagu’s “ Ornithological Diction- 
ary,” that author gives an account of the experiments he tried with a young 
cuckoo in order to test the truth of Dr. Jenner’s statement. He says, “At five 
or six days old I took it to my house where I frequently saw it throw out the 
young swallow for four or five days after. ” Are not these trustworthy authorities, 
they both being eye-witnesses of the fact, and men whose words are worthy of 
belief? On such evidence as this may we not accept it as proved? 
E. S. 
A Pied Rook. — I do not know whether pied rooks are common. Amongst 
the flock of rooks which are in the habit of assembling daily on my premises for 
food, there has been for at least three or four years one conspicuous through 
having the exterior feathers of its wings perfectly white. When flying it might 
almost be mistaken for a magpie, except that it is larger. It is more shy than the 
