Drake was struck by lij 
together with two horse 
amount of hay. Twoh 
were saved. Loss esti. 
ning struck the barn of 
cy Point, damaging a 
pigs. Several people 
stunned by the bolts. 
At Waltham a bolt st 
house owned by Chai 
Adams and Ash strei 
badly crac ked. 
another electr 
A Maine W oman 
Tremon 
There was another 
last night. It happei 
The police say that 
Freeport, Me., while 
mont street, near Ma 
and carried some feel 
north, the number of 
She was picked up by 
and hastily conveyed t 
eral Hospital in a her 
her injuries were fou 
scalp wound on left i 
tiple bruises. 
The condition ol.tr 
jured by the electric-i 
avenue Monday aftern 
day. John Baxter is 
doctors think that Joh 
£4' /KM. 3-ViV 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
483 
latimil Jjiztory. 
THE WOODCOCK’S WHISTLE. 
SENT TO THE 
Sentences Impose 
Superior Cj 
In the Superior Cr 
Judge Thompson sent 
seven years in State pi 
killing Michael Hale 
June 26. 
Edwin Richardson, f 
the tailor shop of 
place, April 22, was 
State prison. Richard 
years’ sentence, havin 
bridge a short time a 
committed in Somerv 
Dr. Edward de la Gi 
saulting police Lieut 
cane at Station 5 on M 
N OTHING that I have read for a long time has inter- 
ested me so much as Mr. Trumbull’s account of his 
captive woodcock. It certainly deserves the encomium 
which you bestow on it editorially, for it is a fascinating 
story as well as an important piece of evidence. Never- 
theless, I cannot think you justified in saying that it 
“would seem to finally dispose of the vexed question as 
to how the woodcock whistles,” or in assuming that those 
“who have taken the ground that the sound is made by 
the wings” are now proved to be wholly in the wrong. 
Mr. Trumbull, it is true, appears to entertain the same 
opinion, but he is less positive, and his article affords in- 
ternal evidence either that his conclusions are not wholly 
sustained by the observations on which they rest or that 
he has failed to express these conclusions with entire 
clearness and precision. 
For example, he says in one place that the vocal notes 
of his bird were so like the whistling of ducks’ wings as 
actually to deceive his companion, Mr. Marchant, into 
the belief that wild ducks were passing over at the time;- 
yet in the closing paragraph of his article he affirms that 
“when a woodcock ‘twitters’ he squeals, pipes, squeaks, 
rather than whistles,” and adds, “The sound made m 
swift flight by the wings of this and other species— many 
of our ducks, for example— is perhaps more appropriately 
termed a whistle.” Again, while asserting quite posi- 
tively in two different connections that he, as well as 
several friends who were fortunate enough to participate 
in the observations, were convinced that some of the 
vocal notes were identical with those made by free birds 
during ordinary flight, he admits that they “were seldom 
so loud or energetic as those of the flushed bird, nor were 
most of them like those heard in the cover. Yet at 
almost every trial there was at least one squeaky enough 
to be regarded as very nearly the sound we were listening 
for, certainly enough like it to convince any doubter who 
happened to be present that a flushed cock ‘calks with his 
mouth.’ ” . . 
I do not call attention to these passages m any spirit ot 
idle controversy, nor with the least intention of discredit- 
ing the observations to which they relate, but simply be- 
cause they appear to me to furnish some grounds for sus- 
pecting that Mr. Trumbull’s observations have not proved 
quite all that he, as well as you, Mr. Editor, seem disposed 
to claim. . „ _ 
In a letter that appeared in the issue of Forest and 
Stream for Aug. 22, 1889, 1 called attention to the marked 
variation of the woodcock’s whistle, and, in concluding, 
said: “That while I believe most firmly that all the vari- 
ous modifications of whistling and twittering which the 
woodcock makes while flying are produced by the nar- 
row, stiffened primary quills, I do not wish to be under- 
stood as denying that at least some of these sounds may 
be vocal.” I confess that these words were added at the 
close of my letter more with some vague idea of guard- 
ing against possible error than from any real expectation 
that they might come true; but during the two shooting 
seasons that have passed since they were written I have 
been struck repeatedly by the apparent vocal quality of 
some of the sounds accompanying a woodcock’s flight, 
and more than once have felt strong suspicions that my 
original position in the matter might be partly wrong. 
Mr. Trumbull has now shown conclusively that it was 
partly wrong, for I no longer doubt that some at least 
of the sounds which I believe to be made by the wings 
are really vocal. But has he proved that all are vocal? 
What becomes of the testimony of those of us who have 
held slightly wounded birds by the bill and heard the 
ringing sounds bf the flushed cock coming directly and 
unmistakably (as we have thought) from the beating pin- 
ions; at first, as the wings moved rapidly and vigorously, 
in a coutinous silvery trill, then, as the bird became tired 
and relaxed its efforts, more faintly and disconnectedly, 
each note exactly accompanying a downward stroke of 
the wing. Were our birds also “talking with their 
mouths” and deluding us the while by idle pantomime? 
What, moreover, can be the function of the attenuated 
primaries (I suppose we may no longer call them whistling 
quills)? How does Mr. Trumbull explain the fact (at- 
tested by several good observers) that moulting woodcock 
who lack these quills never whistle, and the still more 
significant fact (which I have noted repeatedly, especially 
during the last two seasons) that birds which have nearly 
finished the moult and have the stiffened primaries nearly 
but not quite fully grown whistle more faintly than do 
birds in perfect plumage? Is the woodcock dumb when 
moulting and does he afterward graduate his vocal twit- 
ter in nice accord with the different stages of growth of 
his curious primary quills? 
These and similar questions have occurred to me in 
thinking over Mr. Trumbull’s testimony. I do not see 
how they can be answered if we must conclude that Mr. 
Trumbull is wholly right and we of the other side wholly 
wrong. It is as if some high authority on dogs were to 
assert that pointers and setters depend wholly on their 
sense of hearing in searching for game, and m proof of 
such assertion were to narrate a series of the most con- 
vincing experiments. A dog was first hunted with his 
eyes and nose bandaged in such a way that it was impos- 
sible for him to see or smell anything. He made a num- 
ber of staunch points and was observed to pause and 
listen attentively while drawing on his birds. When 
pointing there was a slight but significant raising and 
lowering of the ears. Then his nose and eyes were freed 
and his ears stuffed tightly. While in this condition he 
ran over bird after bird and evinced unmistakable sur- 
prise and disgust at flushing them. None of the motions 
of the nose or lips which have been mentioned by writers 
as accompanying the act of drawing on game were de- 
tected, although they were carefully looked for. It was 
ascertained, however, that the nose was of some use m 
finding a piece of meat. These experiments were made 
in the presence of a number of well-known sportsmen, all 
of whom expressed astonishment at the result, but 
acknowledged it no longer possible to deny .that a dog 
discovers the presence of game solely by his sense of 
^Suclf'a comparison may seem absurd on first thought, 
but is it really so after serious consideration? In the two 
cases there is of course this difference; the dog has been 
so long and closely associated with man that the precise 
nature of the functions performed by his eyes, nose and 
ears may be assumed to be very perfectly understood; 
whereas, the woodcock, despite the fact that it is so 
generally hunted, is certainly known intimately but to 
few, if indeed to any one. Nevertheless I confess I am 
almost as ready to believe that my pointer’s nose is a 
mere ornamental appendage and that I have to thank his 
keenness of hearing for the many birds that he has 
enabled me to bag, as I am to credit the assumption that 
the woodcock’s attenuated primaries are used merely to 
produce sounds similar to those “made by many kinds of 
birds,” and that a flushed cock talks only “with his 
mouth.” I admit that dogs are occasionally guided in 
the direction of a bird by some noise that it makes and 
that at times they point game which they see but do not 
smell; but I have abundant proofs that scent is the faculty 
on which thev chiefly depend. . 
So with the woodcock I have had experiences which 
have convinced me that the sound ordinarily made by the 
rising bird is produced by the wings. Mr. Trumbull, on 
the other hand, has heard this sound or something very 
like it given by a captive woodcock which, at the time, 
was standing on the ground with its wings tightly closed 
and which accompanied the notes by a slight but evident 
movement of its throat or breast. Sure of the correctness 
of his own impressions he not unnaturally concludes that 
the senses of other observers must have deceived them, 
and accordingly passes over their testimony in silence in 
drawing tiis final conclusions. If it must be admitted 
that the sounds which he has shown to be vocal are iden- 
tical with those which some of us believe we have traced 
to the wings, the question is indeed settled, for, however 
good our proofs, Mr. Trumbull’s are obviously better, and 
it is idle to claim that the same sounds are produced in 
radically different ways. But may there not be two 
sounds seemingly much alike but really of different 
character and origin? 
It becomes evident on close reading of . Mr. Trumbull s 
article that he is not quite sure of his identification 
of these vocal notes; in other words he hesitates to 
assert that they were positively the same as those 
of the flushed bird. They “were seldom so loud or 
energetic * * * nor were most of them like those 
heard in the cover,” but were sufficiently similar “to be 
regarded as very nearly the sound we were listening for, 
while others “seemed absolute reproductions of those of 
the flushed bird as we remember them; it is, of course, 
impossible to recall them literally enough for nice com- 
parison, no matter how often they have thrilled us. In 
any ordinary case the very frankness of these admissions 
would prevent the critic from using them against a writer 
who shows such evident determination to be entirely fair 
and accurate at possible expense to his argument, and it 
would be manifestly unwarrantable to claim that the 
mere opinions of an ornithologist and sportsman of Mr. 
Trumbull’s standing and experience are not entitled to 
much weight. 
But the case is not an ordinary one, and the entire con- 
fidence which otherwise might be reposed in Mr. Trurn- 
buU’s convictions must be more or less affected by the 
fact that other sportsmen have recorded directly opposite 
convictions based on evidence which cannot be. lightly 
disregarded. In this connection it also seems fair to in- 
sist that if the importance of a direct comparison of 
sounds be conceded, the advantage lies with the support- 
ers— perhaps I should now say the defenders— of the wing 
theory, for their experiments have been made in the 
covers and immediately after listening to the sound of 
the flushed bird. As far as my personal experiences of 
this kind are concerned, I will say that I have no doubts 
whatever that the sound made by the wounded bird as I 
held it in my hand was identical with that which it had 
o-iven on rising only a minute or two before. It may be 
objected that I was deceived as to the origin of this 
sound even although I held the bird within a few inches 
of my’face. I admit that this is possible, but it is not to 
my mind more probable than that Mr. Trumbull was also 
deceived, and that bis captive really made its various 
twitters, squeaks and murmurs by an undetected rubbing 
together or “stridulation” of its stiffened primary quills— 
a theory which I am not, of course, disposed to maintain. 
What I do maintain is simply this, that some of Mr. 
Trumbull’s conclusions relating to the flight sounds of 
the woodcock are not satisfactorily proven by his own 
observations, while they are directly negatived by the 
experience of certain other sportsmen, whose testimony 
should not be arbitrarily dismissed. If, however, it can 
be shown that some of these conclusions have been a 
trifle too broadly drawn and that Mr. Trumbull, m com- 
mon with others who have written on the subject, has 
fallen into error in supposing that all. the characteristic 
flights of the woodcock are produced in the same way, 
most of the difficulties of the case will at once disappear. 
In other words, why may it not be that the “twitter’ as- 
certained by Mr. Trumbull to be vocal has in some of its 
variations so strong a resemblance to a tivitter-like 
whistle made by the wings that the two have been gen- 
erally, if not universally, confused by ornithologists and 
^AtfirstTthought this suggestion may not seem to differ 
materially from that advanced in the closing paragraph 
of Mr Trumbull's article; but Mr. Trumbull apparently 
indorses the idea expressed in his quotation from Frank 
Forrester that the “twitter” and “whistle” are habitually 
given simultaneously by birds of perfect plumage, and m 
this and other connections he distinctly implies that the 
“whistle” is at best a slight and in no way characteristic 
sound, and that it is usually drowned by the vocal note, 
the latter being the sound ordinarily heard from a rising 
W< Now°wliat I have found to be the characteristic sound 
of a full-feathered woodcock on rising and afterward 
during vigorous, protracted flight is a clear, continuous, 
pulsating whistle closely similar to that made by the wings 
of certain ducks, but louder (perhaps because the wood- 
cock is usually nearer than ducks are apt to be) and rather 
more silvery and musical in tone. It is not subject, so 
far as I have observed, to marked modifications of tone, 
but the pulsations vary in distinctness with the speed at 
which the bird is moving. In very rapid flight they are 
often so run together as to be inappreciable. This whistle 1 
believe to be made by the wings, or rather by the well. known 
specialized outer primaries. I have never heard it from 
a bird which lacked these quills, nor on the other hand 
have I known a bird in which they proved to be fully 
developed rise in the ordinary manner without whistling, 
although a crafty old cock will not infrequently steal off 
close to the ground, moving its wings m a peculiar quiv- 
