3oo Correspondence. [May, 
snakes being killed with young inside of them that were hatched 
in the soil, which proves beyond doubt that they must have been 
swallowed. Ocular testimony confirms the opinion, in both in- 
stances, that the young were swallowed” (p. 195). 
The only point to be settled, so that it “ may be made clear to 
all,” I have alluded to as follows : — 
“ I consider the testimony so complete that nothing could be 
added to it, although it would be very interesting to have a care- 
ful examination of the anatomy of the snake to ascertain the 
physical peculiarities connected with the phenomenon described ” 
(p. 3). I am not aware of the throat of a snake having been 
examined to see whether it could allow an instant passage for 
her young. There is nothing to justify us in supposing it could 
not, especially at the time nature calls for it. If a throat were 
examined, it should be that of a snake that was alleged or sup- 
posed to have swallowed her progeny ” (p. 26). “ It has often 
occurred to me that the female snake must have two throats, — 
one for ordinary purposes, and the other to give a passage to her 
young ; or one throat for a certain length leading by a valve, as 
it were, to another that enters the chamber that contained the 
eggs, and which doubtless becomes the receptacle of the young 
when hatched. It will be difficult to find this passage unless 
when it is in use, for it will become so contracted at other times 
as to escape any observation that is not very minutely made ” 
(p.- 36). “ The next thing to be considered is the anatomy of 
the snake immediately after the birth of her progeny ; but that 
could not be so easily ascertained as that she swallows them ” 
(P- 39 )- 
White of Selborne’s definition of the phenomenon alluded to, 
viz., that the viper “ opens her mouth and admits her helpless 
young down her throat on sudden surprises,” is more corredt than 
the shorter one, “ swallowing,” in common use. The conclusion 
which I drew from my researches on this subjedt, and which I 
have not seen controverted, was the following : — 
“ Besides vipers swallowing their young, I repeat what I have 
said in the work (p. 29), ‘ I lay it down as an axiom that we 
must hold that all snakes (when living in a state of nature) 
swallow their young, till the opposite can be proved of any par- 
ticular species of them ’ ” (p. 198). 
It has often surprised me that so simple a question as this 
should have been considered a “ vexed ” one, in the case of such 
common-placed animals as vipers, or snakes of any kind, and 
that it has not been “ settled ” within a century after being 
prominently brought into notice by White of Selborne, when it 
should have been decided in “ three minutes by the clock” on 
the evidence so elaborately furnished by me. I notice, from 
“ Land and Water,” that Miss Hopley prepared her book from 
attendance at the Zoological Gardens and a visit to America, and 
from writers on the subjecft from whom she has “ quoted co- 
