60 
BIRD-LIFE. 
throat; and this idea is in no way incompatible with 
other physiological experiences. Up to the present time 
sufficient observation has not been brought to bear on the 
subject, so as to establish it as a law, though we find it 
confirmed in many of the singing birds known to us.* 
No attempt to represent the voice of a bird on any 
instrument has, as yet, been successful. Certain call- and 
decoy-notes, perhaps even strophes of a song, can be 
imitated with some degree of success after much practice. 
Some authors have endeavoured to reproduce the song of 
the Nightingale and Philomel Nightingale, by means of 
words and syllables, but they have entirely failed to make 
more than a burlesque of it. The following is a specimen 
of such an attempt to represent the composition of the 
Thrush, though it is, after all, but a feeble imitation:— 
“ Quis quis arat? 
Quis quis arat? 
Vir arat, vir arat. 
Ipo ! prope, tpo, prope, 
Corpusculum in gutture meo, 
Corpusculum in gutture meo. 
Quomoclo hoc ex illo emoliendum est. 
Quomodo hoc ex illo emoliendum est ? 
Consiliis, consiliis, consiliis! 
Quo vero consilio ? 
Quo vero consilio ? 
Tir - - - ri - - - 11 - - - itt.” 
Only that person will be able to convey even a semi- 
correct representation to the uninitiated, of a bird’s song, 
* In conjunction with most ornithologists we cannot, in the remotest degree, 
concur with the theory set forth in this sentence, first originated by Dr. Ludwig 
Brehm (‘ Naumannia,’ 1855, p. 54); on the contrary, there is more to be said 
against than in favour of the above idea. Hausmann (‘ Journal of Ornithology,’ 1855, 
p. 348) lays before us the most conclusive arguments in contradiction of the same, 
to which Dr. L. Brehm (‘Journal of Ornithology,’ 1856, p. 250) was only able to 
reply in defence of his theory by counter-arguments, manifestly weaker than those 
advanced by his opponent.— Dr. 0. Finsch Bremen . 
