NATURAL HISTORY NOTES 
15 
318 . Frogs Attacking Fish. — In Nature Notes of December, 1905, 
p. 229, poor harmless froggy has a serious and startling accusation brought 
against him. Some mistake must, I think, have been made in identifying the 
animal seen to sharply attack “ a rather languid roach ” in Mr. Strong’s pond. 
As to the fish afterwards found dead with red marks underneath their bodies, 
the frogs certainly had no hand in the matter. Our common frog, Rana tern- 
poraria , has neither the inclination nor the ability to cause any harm to fish. Even 
if he were murderously inclined, his extremely minute teeth and comparatively 
weak jaws would be powerless to effect any injury upon them. It seems not 
improbable that the “ red marks ” may have been bruises received during the 
process of capture, or again that the assailant may have been the larva of Dyticus 
marginalis or some other water beetle. One of these formidable and voracious 
creatures may sometimes be seen hanging on the abdomen of a small fish and 
literally eating up its victim alive. The size of the fish is not mentioned in your 
correspondent’s note. G. T. Rope. 
Blaxhall, Suffolk. 
S 19 . Instances of frogs “ attacking ” objects in the water, such as dead rats, 
dead or dying fish, &c. , are not uncommonly noticed. But do they really 
“ attack,” and if they did have their jaws the power of doing injury? It seems 
impossible for a frog to have caused the “ red marks on the belly of roach as 
if bitten,’’ spoken of in p. 229 of our December issue. The solution may be 
this. Frogs like to sit on an object floating in the water, and will make frantic 
efforts in attempting to mount anything that moves and turns over with their 
weight. These struggles may be mistaken for attacks. 
December , 1905. Edmund Thos. Daubf.ny. 
320. British Lepidoptera. The late Mr. William Buckler’s collection 
of British Lepidoptera. In the November number of Nature Notes (p. 216) 
Mr. Daubeny says that he believes this collection is in the possession of the Ray 
Society. Will you permit me to state that it was presented to the Natural 
History Museum, South Kensington, by Mr. Robert Newbery, and is now on 
view in the Public Insect Gallery. 
November 2i. W. F. Kirby. 
321. Roman Snails. — With regard to the supposed modern introduction 
of Helix aspersa and Helix pomatia into England there can be no doubt that 
this belief is founded on an error. Helix aspersa is now known to occur in a 
number of pre-Roman beds. It occurred in the kitchen-midden at Hastings, 
and in a deposit at St. Catherine’s Down, Isle of Wight, both of which are 
Neolithic, whilst it is also known from Greenhithe (Bronze age), Walthamstow, 
Newbury and Harlyn Bay, all of which are pre-Roman, whilst it is known from 
a cave deposit in Ireland, where it was contemporary with a Pleistocene fauna. 
Helix pomatia is known from a deposit at Reigate, which is probably Neolithic. 
From these facts it is obvious that these two species are really indigenous to 
these islands, though there can be no doubt that the range of H. aspersa has 
been extended by human agency. 
Benenden , Mackenzie Road , Beckenham. A. S. Kennard. 
322. Argonaut and Nautilus.— Both belong to the Order Mollusca and 
Class Cephalopoda , and are akin to the cuttlefish or octopuses in progressing through 
the water by ejecting water through a syphon. The Nautilus, Nautilus pompilius, 
the Pearl or Chambered Nautilus, belongs to the Sub-order Tetrabranchiata , or 
has four gills, while the Argonaut, the Paper Nautilus, Argonauta argo has 
only two, and belongs to the Sub-order Dibranchiata. It was formerly thought 
that the Argonaut used its arms as oars or sails, whereas it only uses them to 
cover its shell and repair damage to its secretion of new material. The poets 
(notably James Montgomery), wrote of the Argonaut as if it rowed itself along 
“with a tier of oars on either side,” but Dr. A. Wilson ( Illustrated London 
News, December 2, 1905), says the animal would sink if it raised its arms, 
as they attach the shell to the body. Dr. O. W. Holmes, in his poem on the 
Chambered Nautilus, is evidently aware that that mollusc cannot sail or row 
itself, but it was not the Nautilus, N. pompilius, as he suggests, which the poets 
wrote about, but Argonauta argo. Dr. A. Wilson calls the latter a“ groundling,” 
