THE BRITISH AVIFAUNA. 
153 
1698, was rare and difficult to meet with in June, 1883, about the 
time of its second “ discovery.” In one locality there the wren 
must surely have been fairly safe, viz., the great cliff, Conacher 
(1,220 ft.), on the face of which luxuriant herbage grew in every 
cleft and fissure. The writer in the Zoologist was of opinion that 
it would take some of the best cragsmen in the Alpine Club to 
extirpate it ; and he corrects the general idea that St. Kilda is 
entirely barren, saying that, on the other hand, it possesses no 
phanerogams including elder (planted), Salix herhacea, Calluna 
vulgaris, Erica cinerea, and honeysuckle. 
That “ the noblest and most beautiful forms, all those which 
gave greatest lustre to our wild bird life, were first singled out for 
destruction . . . . ; leaving only the forms that had no 
distinguishing mark,” is really too cruel and scathing a remark 
to make about poor little England’s birds while we still possess 
goldfinch, bullfinch, chaffinch, kingfisher, hawfinch (increasing), 
yellow wagtail and green woodpecker in plenty, for beauty ; 
and, even in crowded England (not to speak of Scotland and the 
isles) herons, greater black-backed gulls (in winter) and cor- 
morants, for bigness. We have lost some big birds it is true. 
For the loss (or rather for the diminution in numbers — for I do not 
think any of the resident species are absolutely exterminated yet, 
and some of them were perhaps never very common) of most of our 
diurnal birds of prey, we must undoubtedly blame man directly. 
But the rapidity with which the kite (which from historical evidence 
seems to have been quite a common bird at one time) changed 
from a common to a rare species, is remarkable and very curious.* 
From what we know of it, the kite seems to have been essentially 
a bird of the woods ; and it was exterminated in most English 
counties before game-preserving had reached anything like the 
height to which it has now come. Perhaps the destruction of 
woods in many parts of the country weakened its position. And 
the farmer’s wife could never have loved the kite. Indeed, if we 
had many kites in England now it would be bad for poultry 
keepers, if we are to judge by what was written on the subject in 
the seventeenth century. We lost the capercaillie it is true, 
more by destruction of forest than anything else, and have got it 
again. We have lost the bustard, which would have been hard 
to keep under altered conditions, and the great auk, too, though 
history does not tell us definitely when the latter bred on English 
coasts. To keep the great auk would have been as difficult as to 
keep the moa ; it seems to have been ill adapted to live in a time 
when the doctrine (and practice) of the survival of the fittest is 
pushed so strongly. If we have lost the crane, it is equally true 
* Lord Lilford writes : — “ I have also heard it stated that the kites were ex- 
terminated by a very severe winter, and this, I think, is more likely, for although 
most of the records sent in to me are somewhat vague as to date, from what I 
can gather our kites seem to have disappeared suddenly, and not gradually 
diminished in numbers, as though shot and trapped off by gamekeepers .” — Notes 
on Birds of Northamptonshire. 
