214 
NATURE NOTES 
one. This was, perhaps, not surprising in the close proximity to the scene of the 
fire, but my search was no more successful further afield. For three hours I 
scanned the trees within a radius of a mile, or a mile and a half away, but 
entirely without success, even in a part of the wood separated from the fire by a 
large inland lake. 
Unless my eyes — and those of my companions — have lost their cunning, I can 
only suppose that a general exodus was made by the squirrels in the district to a 
safer retreat. If so, they must have some alarm-cry, which can be communicated 
to those of their fellows who are not near enough to the scene of danger to per- 
sonally grasp the situation. 
Animals are, of course, notoriously afraid of fire, and it may be due to the 
perpetual liability of being overtaken by prairie or forest fires that instinct has 
been developed so strongly in them in the direction of avoiding any and every 
risk therefrom. 
North IValsham, August 12, 1904. A. C. Mackie. 
170. Rabbit Taking to Water. — It is, I believe, an unusual thing for 
rabbits to go into water. One day in July I saw two animals swimming in the 
clear brown water of the river Wharfe. As I watched, one turned back to the shore 
from which both had started, the other deliberately swam across the current to a 
rock, jumped quietly on to it, shook his ears, and hopped away up the wooded 
bank opposite. I cannot actually say that the animal which turned back was a 
weasel, which would explain the rabbit’s taking to the water in his terror to escape 
his pursuer ; but the leisurely manner of the rabbit, his utter unconcern, led me 
to believe that the second animal in the water was another rabbit. The river 
was low, owing to absence of recent rains, so that at almost any point it could be 
crossed by dry rocks and gravel reaches, but the rabbit under discussion chose to 
swim a pool, instead of making use of Nature’s stepping-stones. 
Ethel G. Woodd. 
171. Hens as Mousers. — Barn-door fowls are fond of flesh, and will 
devour any animal small enough for them to swallow. I have frequently seen a 
number of fowls busily engaged in swallowing mice when a rick was being 
threshed, and preferring a nreal off them to the corn which lay in all directions. 
On such occasions a bird may be seen running away with a mouse in its beak and 
pursued by others in their endeavours to dispossess it of the coveted morsel. I 
once knew of a cat that used to catch, but not to eat, shrews, and laid them on 
her mistress’s doorstep, where they were always eaten by the fowls. Shrews, 
however, are not mice, in spite of being commonly called so. 
September, 1904. Edmund Thos. Daubeny. 
172. Humming in the Air. — In the discussion on this matter in your 
pages some persons have thought that bees are the cause ; while others, including 
myself, have held that they are not. On August 28 there was this humniing 
round my house ; the same went on during a walk of a mile in the woods, and on 
returning home at 7 p.m. it was as loud as ever. On looking at my hives I 
found the bees had all gone to bed. 'I'he sound ceased a few minutes later. 
Southacre, Sivaffhain. Edmund Thos. Daubeny. 
August, 1904. 
173. DyticU8, or Dytiscus. — My thanks are due to our editor for his 
admirable note on this (juesiion. The explanation shows that Linne probably 
coined the word in giving a geneiic name to a favourite kind of insects, and that 
Dytiscus is not a mere printer’s error for the classical word Dyticus. 
September, 1904. Edmund Thos. Daubeny. 
174. — I think if our worthy editor will refer to my manuscript he will find 
that I wrote Dytiscus and not Dyticus. At any rate, that was certainly my 
intention. There cannot be any doubt as to which of these words is correct. It 
is not a question of their derivation at all. It depends entirely upon which woid 
was used first. Linne first wrote Dytiscus in 1735 , ^ind he never altered it. The 
word Dyticus first appeared in Geofl'roy’s “ Ilistoire Abregee des Insectes,” 
which was published anonymously twenty-seven years later. Obviously, there- 
fore, in accordance with the law of priority, the spelling must be Dytiscus. I 
would like to add bluntly, but in all sincerity and deference, that this question of 
