2h6 
CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 
The Organ of Locality, and the Migration of Birds. 
To the Editor of the Naturalist. 
Bewsey House, March 2, 1838. 
My dear Sir, —In the note at p. 129, annexed to my paper on the “ Migra¬ 
tion of Birds,” you have evidently mistaken my meaning. I do not mean, nor 
did I state, that in the first instance the organ of Locality was absent in migratory 
birds. I fully agree with you in the opinion that “ birds were originally , and 
still are, impelled to migrate by the innate faculty of Locality,” and that u the 
feeling of hunger or of cold would only impel the animal to seek food, and would 
not teach it that by crossing the seas sustenance could be obtained.” My argu¬ 
ment was merely to prove that, primarily, coldness of climate and want of 
nourishment were the only causes of the periodical excitement of the organ—not 
that they originated the organ itself. It was not the propensity, but the excite¬ 
ment of it, at stated periods , which was the object of discussion. A reference to 
the paper will, I think, make this evident. If it does not, the fault is mine, for 
not having expressed my sentiments more clearly. I am obliged to you for 
having called my attention to it, as this explanation will prevent others com¬ 
mitting the same mistake. 
Yours very truly, 
Neville Wood, Esq., &c. Peter Rylands. 
£Our criticism referred chiefly to our correspondent’s opinion (p. 129) that, “at 
first, the coldness of climate, and want of nourishment, were the only causes of 
migration .” This is the opinion of many naturalists, but Phrenology satisfac¬ 
torily demonstrates its utter impossibility. Taken separately, the passage we 
have quoted justified our note; but, in conjunction with the rest of the paragraph, 
Mr. Rylands’s meaning is probably sufficiently obvious. We are glad to find 
that there is actually no difference of opinion between Mr. R. and ourselves, and 
beg to thank him for his kindness in pointing out our misapprehension of the 
passage alluded to.— -Ed.] 
Strictures on the Wood-cuts in Yarrell’s “ British Birds.” 
To the Editor of the Naturalist. 
Dear Sir, —You have in The Naturalist (Vol. II., pp. 281, 379 ; Yol. III., 
pp. 57, 165, 225) reviewed the parts of Mr. Yarrell’s BritishBirds as they have 
appeared; and as I do not think that you have sufficiently deprecated the falling- 
