# The Zoologist/4th series, vol 3 (1899)/Issue 692/Notes and Queries

Published in The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 3, issue 692 (February, 1899), p. 78-88
NOTES AND QUERIES.
MAMMALIA.
CARNIVORA.
Cats in London.—The number of Cats in London, and their depredations on wild birds in our parks, having been variously estimated, I applied for information to the manageress of the "London Institution for Lost and Starving Cats," who has obliged me with the following communication.—Ed.
"I have much pleasure in replying to your letter, and in giving you the information you require. According to Mr. Hudson's book, 'Birds of London,' the number of Cats in our great metropolis cannot be less than three-quarters of a million, and the stray and starving ones certainly not under 80,000 to 100,000. The number of Cats we have taken in during the three years from the 22nd January, 1896, to 22nd January, 1899, is exactly 13,994. The first year we received 2450, the second year 4010, and this third year 7527, making a total of 13,994 Cats. We could increase the number tenfold but for want of means, and, in consequence, want of hands and premises. Depôts ought to be established in every part of London, with one headquarter to take the Cats collected daily at these various stations. Also a tax ought to be levied on Cats, so as to decrease the shocking number of stray and starving Cats which now infest our streets, and thereby lessen the abominable cruelties to which they are exposed. We are only in our infancy as yet, but I hope, with energy and push, we shall in a few years' time establish an institution on similar lines to the Battersea Dogs' Home, with the exception that we search for Cats in every available corner, and call for them at people's request free, but with the prayer for a little help. I should think the probable number of Cats in London could be easily estimated. There are few houses which do not shelter at least one Cat, and every tenement has, with few exceptions, one. Cats have on an average three litters a year of at least three kittens at a time, and the Cats breed at six months old. A Cat's age ought to extend to about ten years, but this is only when they have good homes and are taken in at night. Cats exposed to all the hardships of weather hardly live beyond five years, and stray Cats very few months after they are deserted. We have received Cats in one or two instances twenty-two years of age, and several over eighteen. These of course were great pets, with ​every care lavished on them. A Cat is a delicate animal, with innumerable ailments. It easily becomes ill. It is a cowardly animal—if I may so express myself—and allows itself to die by not struggling against its malady, though at the end it dies hard. When a Cat gets a cold, or pleurisy, or distemper, it loses, through its nose being 'bunged up,' all taste and sense of smell. The moment it cannot smell its food it will not touch it, and dies of starvation even with a dish of food alongside it. Therefore a Cat, when ill, must at once be forcibly fed, or it will let itself die. Every one of these 13,994 Cats have passed through my hands, therefore I ought to know something about them."
Polecats in Wales.—Last November I had two of these animals (Mustela putorius) sent to me from a certain district in Cardiganshire, where they are not so uncommon as is supposed. They were both males, and in excellent pelt. The larger of the two is a beauty, his total length 23 in., length of tail 7 in., weight 2 lb. 3 oz. The fur is of great length and thickness. —Oxley Grabham (Heworth, York).
White Stoat.—Although the winter has been so mild, I procured, during the last week in December, the whitest Stoat (Mustela erminea) that I have in my collection; barring the black tip to the tail and a few brown hairs round each eye, it is pure white. Its dimensions were—total length, 12½ in.; length of tail, 3¼ in.; weight, 6¼ oz.; female. As will be noticed, the tail is very short, and the black tip only measured half an inch. Now, in my small series of skins, this is the second short-tailed Stoat that I have procured. The assumption would be that they had met with some accident, and part of the member was missing; but they were both skinned by myself. The tail tapered off to a fine point as in normal specimens, and there was nothing to indicate that any injury had been received. I should mention that the other of these short-tailed Stoats is a male. A friend of mine has a theory that these white Stoats are in several ways different to the common form—more slender in make, fur more silky, &c.—but in this I cannot agree with him. Certain it is, however, that they differ inter se very considerably in the length of their tails, and in the size of the black tip at the end.—Oxley Grabham (Heworth, York).
AVES.
Great Grey Shrike in Warwickshire.—A specimen of Lanius excubitor was taken by a birdcatcher at Harbury Spoil Banks, near Leamington, on Dec. 27th, 1898. It was caught on the bird-lime, having made a dash at the stuffed decoy Goldfinches fixed upon a bush. Evidently a young bird of the year, as I noticed the markings on the edges of the breast feathers were very distinct. When I saw the bird a fortnight after it had been ​taken it had become comparatively tame and accustomed to confinement.— J. Steele-Elliott (Clent, Worcestershire).
Great Grey Shrike at Scarborough.—On Dec. 30th a Great Grey Shrike (Lanius excubitor) was killed on the shore a little to the north of Scarborough. The bird had apparently just arrived, and was making its way towards the cliff when first noticed.—W.J. Clarke (44, Huntriss Row, Scarborough).
Strange Nest of a South African Bush Shrike.—I found a nest of the Pied Bush Shrike (Bradyornis silens) near the Fountains, Pretoria, Transvaal, on Nov. 6th, 1898. The nest was about eight feet from the ground, in the fork of the stem of a small thorn tree. It was built purely of twine. I examined it carefully, but could not find any other material used in its construction. The inside was lined with small white feathers. It contained three eggs of a pale green colour, splashed with red at the larger ends.—Alex. Ross (Johannesburg, Transvaal).
[Fountain Grove is a short distance from Pretoria, and is a favourite resort. There is a hostelry there, many picnics held, and many corks drawn. Hence the twine.—Ed.]
Scoters in Hants and Isle of Wight.—Mr. Percival-Westell's note on these birds (Œdemia nigra), appearing in your last December number (p. 505), rather puzzles me. Knowing the localities mentioned well for a number of years, I have found the provincial name of "Isle of Wight Parsons" applied to Cormorants, and though frequently having met with Scoters, their flight has been of such a character that a description of them as "lazily winging their way" would require some qualification. Since 1866 I could number the instances of having met with them on my fingers, but out of the breeding season they are met with frequently by the shore boatmen, who usually describe them to me as "some of them 'ere Scouter Ducks." In November last year I had one close to me diving amongst the rocks between Bonchurch and Shanklin, and a party of five flew by me out by the wreck of the 'Eurydice' in March, 1878. However plentiful Scoters may be, they are not generally known as "Isle of Wight Parsons," nor do they breed there.—H. Marmaduke Langdale (The Vicarage, Compton, Petersfield).
Scoters in South Hants?.—When I wrote that the Scoter (Œdemia nigra) was called the "Isle of Wight Parson" (Zool. 1898, p. 505), I was fully aware that the common Cormorant was subject to the same appellation, and I should have stated this in the first instance. In spite of Mr. A.G. Headley's assertions, I still adhere to the fact that I saw the common Black Scoter every day during my fourteen days' vacation in the ​county in the middle of August last, either at Hayling Island, the Isle of Wight, or flying across the sea from one to the other; and that the drum-major at Eastney Barracks told me that they could always be seen all the year round. When I pointed one out to him, not twenty yards distant, he remarked, "We call those Isle of Wight Parsons"; and others confirmed this statement. I am a young ornithologist, and only too pleased to be corrected in any statements I may make, and I am much indebted to Mr. Headley for pointing out the error I made in regard to the Scoter's flight. Those I saw did fly rapidly, and it was a grave slip on my part to say they lazily winged their way. The word regularly should have been substituted for lazily.—W. Percival-Westell (5, Glenferrie Road, St. Albans).
Late Stay of Land-Rail.— On Dec. 3rd I had a freshly-killed specimen of the Land-Rail (Crex pratensis) brought to me. On dissection it proved to be a female, and showed no signs of having suffered any injury which might have prevented it migrating at the usual time.—W.J. Clarke (44, Huntriss Row, Scarborough).
Nesting Habits of the Moorhen (Zool. Dec. 1898, p. 506; ante, p. 30).—We are well aware that birds differ somewhat in their habits in different localities, but this is often an adaptation to surroundings. My experience with regard to the species in question (Gallinula chloropus) is that it seldom, if ever, covers its eggs on leaving the nest, at least in this neighbourhood. In my birdsnesting days I have seen many nests and eggs of the bird, as I sometimes had the privilege of boating upon some three or four miles of the river Avon, which, being strictly "preserved," was a fine nursery for the reed-loving species, and I do not recollect ever finding a nest in which the eggs were even partially covered, except perhaps where the parent bird, alarmed at my near approach, had scuttled off, and in her haste had drawn a promiscuous reed across her eggs, with no attempt at concealment; indeed, the number of eggs in the nest was often discovered before a very near approach, and this notwithstanding the approximate hue of the ground colour of the eggs and the reeds of which the nest was made; it often seemed to me the similarity in colour of nest and eggs were protective items not to be overlooked. On one occasion, in particular, I remember finding a large branch of a tree which, during the winter flood, had been washed down and stranded in the very midst of a shallow and lagoon-like part of the river; on a projecting portion of this branch, standing up some two feet out of the water, the decaying reeds, &c, had accumulated, and on the top of it was a Moorhen's nest quite exposed, and the eggs were easily detected at a distance, as on account of the shallowness of the water at the time it was with difficulty the punt could be got to the spot; and I may ​here remark that, although the river was unusually wide at this particular place, yet within two hundred yards of the site of the nest a wood came down almost to the water's edge, the higher trees of which were occupied by a "Rookery," which one would think would have been an inducement for the Moorhen to use every precaution to protect her home; so unlike the habits of the Little Grebe, the eggs of which are invariably covered more or less. It always seemed a mystery to me how the latter bird managed to cover up her eggs so adroitly, and, greater mystery still, how she managed to hatch them in such a situation. With regard to the nidification of the Moorhen, I have often found that a much larger number of nests seem to be constructed than are ever used; but for what purpose is this apparent waste of time and labour? We are well aware the same thing occurs with other species—the Lapwing, for instance; possibly some annoyance or unsuitable site is discovered after the work is begun, but in many instances another nest is made in close proximity to the one deserted. I have not found a large amount of variation in the eggs of this species, but on one occasion I discovered a nest containing three eggs which differed somewhat from the normal type, in that the larger end was much darker than the other portions of the shell, which was almost spotless except upon this darker zone.—G.B. Corbin (Ringwood, Hants).
With reference to Mr. W. Hewitt's interesting note on this subject (Zool. 1898, p. 506), may I be permitted to give the results of my small experience? I have never found nests of the Moorhen with the eggs covered over, neither when the first egg only has been laid, nor when the clutch has been complete. Only last year (1898), I examined, in this neighbourhood, more than a dozen nests of the Moorhen, and not one of them had the eggs covered over in any way. It is a well-known fact, however, that the Little Grebe, or Dabchick, invariably covers its eggs over on leaving the nest. With regard to Mr. Hewitt's suggestion as to the local variations in the habits of birds, I may say that what Moorhens' nests I have found in other parts of the country—e.g. Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, Herts, Hants, and Suffolk—have never had the eggs covered over.—Basil W. Martin (Darley Abbey, Derby).
With reference to Moorhens covering their eggs, I have one record of a bird of this species doing so, or partly doing so, after her full clutch was laid. This was near here, on May 21st, 1894, when a Moorhen I disturbed off her nest containing nine eggs, partly covered them with pieces of seaweed and a fresh green leaf or two. She had then laid her full clutch, but was only just beginning to sit, as the eggs were fresh. On July 19th of that year I found, close to the same spot and probably belonging to the same pair of birds, one Moorhen's egg lying on the bare ground, with a few bits of reed placed round it; on visiting the spot a few days later there were ​four eggs in quite a respectable nest, as good as these birds usually make on land. On neither of these two latter occasions was there any attempt to cover the eggs.—A. Bankes (Beaulieu, Hants).
A Habit of the Roseate Tern.—I think it is not generally known amongst students of birds that it is alleged (and I have great faith in the allegation) that the Roseate Tern (Sterna dougalli) robs the commoner and allied species with which it associates, of its food, after the manner of the Skuas. Some time ago I asked a friend, although not a professed ornithologist, but who had lived near a colony of Roseate Terns for two or three summers, and had constant opportunities of observing the birds, to give me a few particulars of the habits of this species, and he told me as a positive fact that he had seen the Roseate Tern rob the other Terns of their food, "not once or twice, but hundreds of times," generally whilst on the wing; but he has also seen them take food from the young of the Arctic Tern, with which their parents had just provided them. In fact my correspondent says:—"They fly a great deal swifter than the Common or Arctic Tern. They very seldom fish for themselves; if they see a Common or Arctic Tern with a fish in their bills, they pounce upon it just the same as a Hawk will upon a small bird, and take the fish clean out of their bills; they are very quick. I have even seen them take a fish out of a young Tern's bill that has been in the nest. I can tell a Roseate Tern amongst a thousand Common Terns. When they are flying they seem to be longer in the body and longer in the wings than any other Tern, and they have a very hoarse cry, quite different to any other Tern's. I have never seen three Roseate Tern's eggs in one nest, nor even heard of their laying three eggs." I visited the locality last season, but the majority of the birds had not commenced to lay their eggs, being unusually late in that respect. I did not actually see any Roseate Tern take food from the commoner species, although I watched several of the birds circling and wheeling about for minutes together. This may be accounted for by the fact that they were not busy with nesting operations, and that this robbery is practised much more when the eggs are hatched, even if they do not then obtain all their food in that manner. Whilst in the district I made all enquiries I could respecting this alleged habit of the Roseates, and could get nothing but corroboration, sometimes even without seeking it. One of the local names for this bird is the "Rosette" Tern, probably only a corruption or a misunderstanding of the word "Roseate," and sometimes it is called the "Rosy" Tern; but another local name used more among the natives who know the species is the "pirate" bird, from its habit of robbing the other Sea-swallows. One man with whom I am acquainted, and who has lived near this habitat of the Roseate Terns for eight years, told me he was certain he had seen these birds snatch food from the other Terns very ​frequently, but said it was chiefly done when they had young to feed. I do not know anyone who has had such opportunities of observing this species as my informant, or who is better acquainted with the bird or its habits in the summer season. I also questioned one of the oldest inhabitants—a seafaring man—who I have no doubt has been in the nesting locality of these birds more often than any other living man, and he is convinced the Roseate Tern does rob the other Terns of the small fish they carry in their bills from the sea. Several other men likely to know told me the same. Another striking piece of evidence is as follows:—Whilst I was watching a man repairing a small steam yacht, he remarked to me, "Well, have you been to see the pirates to-day?" That was just after my first visit to the colony in company with the owner of the above mentioned yacht, and it was the first time I had heard the birds spoken of as "pirates." The term had to be explained somewhat before I really understood what was meant. I shall be glad to learn whether any reader can confirm or refute this allegation.—E.G. Potter (14, Bootham Crescent, York).
Iceland Gull at Scarborough.—On Jan. 1st, while fishing from the rocks in the North Bay, I noticed a Gull fly past which I took to be Larus leucopterus from its small size and the absence of black on the primaries. A gunner not very far from me shot down the bird as it passed over him, and brought it to me. It was, as I had imagined, an Iceland Gull in the cream-coloured plumage, with the back inclined for slate-grey, which immediately precedes maturity. The tip of the lower mandible was missing, having apparently been carried away on some previous occasion by a shot. The bird had, however, not suffered by the injury, and was in excellent condition. The stomach was empty. I have only noticed this Gull on two previous occasions at Scarborough.—W.J. Clarke (44, Huntriss Row, Scarborough).
Birds in Kensington Gardens, 1897–1898.—The gradual extermination of most species of birds in London makes it interesting to put on record from time to time those which still exist there, or are to be seen on migration. Mr. Yarrell has somewhere mentioned that in his day seventy-two species frequented Kensington Gardens. During the past two years I have kept a careful note of all the birds which I have happened to see in the Gardens. These I find amount to twenty-seven species. Of these, fourteen species still regularly breed there. The remainder are visitors, some appearing only at the season of migration, but with annual regularity. I have no doubt that more constant or regular observers might contribute to swell the list of visitors, but I have limited my catalogue strictly to birds which I have myself seen, only in Kensington Gardens, and clearly identi​fied. Perhaps some other readers of 'The Zoologist' will send additions to the list.
Song-Thrush (Turdus musicus).—Resident and fairly plentiful, but decreasing gradually.
Blackbird (T. merula).—Resident, but somewhat less plentiful than the last.
Robin (Erithacus rubecula).—Resident and common.
Hedge-Sparrow (Accentor modularis).—A few pairs still resident.
Willow-Warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus).—Very regular visitor on migration, and may be heard daily at the end of April.
Great Tit (Parus major).—Several pairs still resident, but decreasing.
Blue Tit (P. cæruleus).—Resident, and the most abundant of the Paridæ.
Coal-Tit (P. ater).—Now only a visitor, I think.
Marsh-Tit (P. palustris).—A rare visitor. One specimen used to haunt the flower-walk in November, 1898, but, from its plumage, seemed fresh from the country.
Wren (Troglodytes parvulus).—Not uncommon; resident.
Starling (Sturnus vulgaris).—Abundant and resident. Nests in the hollow trees and buildings round the gardens.
Jackdaw (Corvus monecula).—A few pairs frequent the gardens, and nest in the old trees near the Broad Walk.
Carrion-Crow (C. corone).—A pair (and sometimes two pairs, I think) nest regularly near Speke's obelisk. In the winter I have seen parties of four or five in the morning before the gardens are disturbed.
Rook (C. frugilegus).—Only a visitor since 1893, when for the last time twelve nests were occupied at the north end of the Broad Walk. A few Rooks visit the gardens daily, and on Feb. 2nd, 1898, a pair began a nest in an elm on Palace Green, but soon gave up the work.
Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa grisola).—Still a regular summer visitor, and very interesting as the only summer migrant which still remains to nest. For the last two years a pair (and, I fear, the last) have had a nest somewhere near the Albert Memorial and Rotten Row.
Swallow (Hirundo rustica).—A regular and very common visitor on migration.
Martin (H. urbica).—A much less common visitor on migration.
Sand Martin (Cotile riparia).—Rare; but, I think, comes regularly every spring.
House-Sparrow (Passer domesticus).—Very abundant, and probably increasing. In these mild winters I have seen London Sparrows busy nesting on Jan. 25th. Partial albinos seem increasing in numbers.
Chaffinch (Fringilla cœlebs).—Not long ago was resident, but now, I think, only an occasional visitor.
​Pied Wagtail (Motacilla lugubris).—Fairly regular visitor on migration, but only in the early morning. I have seen them in March and December, 1898.
Yellow Wagtail (M. raii).—Very rare on migration. I saw a party of five near the round pond early on April 27th, 1898, but they had departed by 8 a.m.
Swift (Cypselus apus).—Rare visitor on migration. I saw four hawking over the pond on the afternoon of Aug. 8th, 1898, when the gardens were crowded with people.
Tawny Owl (Syrnium aluco).—A pair, I think, of genuine wild birds used to inhabit a hollow tree near the orangery, and hoot loudly at night. They disappeared in the spring of 1897, and I have heard none since.
Wood-Pigeon (Columba palumbus).—Abundant and fearless. A few pairs remain all the year, but most depart in winter. They are early breeders, and I noticed them in pairs and cooing loudly in January.
Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus).—Resident and nests at the Serpentine. I have seen sometimes half a dozen together, but often all disappear for a time, and, I suppose, visit the other London lakes.
Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus).—A winter visitor from October (or earlier) to April. Large parties often make their way from the Thames, but seldom stay long about the pond. Most of them are birds in immature plumage and very fearless.—Harold Russell (Kensington Palace).
Fecundity in Birds.—I have to thank Mr. Storrs Fox for his kindly notice of this subject (ante, p. 23). Perhaps he will excuse me if I in turn touch upon one or two points he brings forward. He says, "Birds cannot be conscious weeks beforehand that the time for their departure is drawing near." If Mr. Fox was in the habit of keeping caged birds he would realize, I think, that a Nightingale, for instance, feels the approach of the period of migration weeks in advance; it is vaguely restless and unsettled. That it argues logically from this feeling of unrest, I could not venture to infer: what I believe is, that the bird is influenced so that it cannot quietly attempt to nest again. I have found in the case of both winter and summer visitors, that the migratory instinct begins to work upon the bird a month or more before it actually leaves. My caged Bramblings, to give a second example, begin to fret before February is out. Mr. Fox extends my suggestion, "a hen of small size could not well lay more than five eggs," from the Finches and Warblers to the Tits. Again I was relying on cage-bird experiences. I have frequently stimulated Finches to lay more than five eggs, with the result that I have subsequently lost the hen: I have had fourteen eggs from a hen Bullfinch in about five weeks, after which she has died. From a foreign bird, neither Finch nor Warbler, I have had forty and fifty eggs in a season with no apparent resulting injury to the parents. ​What I said is, I think, true of Finches, but it can only be extended to other genera with care. Mr. Fox will, I hope, see in another article some notes I had prepared on the other subject he mentions towards the conclusion of his paper, for the kindly criticism of which I am very grateful.—Basil Davies (Lincoln College, Oxford).
AMPHIBIA.
Toad in Nest of Titlark.—On the 14th June last year, when exploring some sandhills in the island of Vlieland, in North Holland, I put a Titlark (Anthus pratensis) off her nest, and, on examination, found it contained three eggs, and also what at a first glance I took to be a young bird, and, from its size, perhaps a Cuckoo. On stooping down to examine it closely, I discovered that it was a Toad, and that the bird's eggs were lying on its back. The Toad, on being touched, slowly and deliberately crawled out of the nest, the eggs slipping off its back into the hollow below, and began to bury itself in the sand outside. Inside the nest was an inner rim or ledge, which, from its appearance, looked as if the Toad had rested there some time. Curious to know the effect produced on the eggs, which formed the middle part of this strange sandwich, lying between the breast of a warmblooded bird and the back of a cold-blooded reptile, I broke one of them, and found it nearly fully incubated and healthy. The Toad was a Natterjack (Bufo calamita).—W.H.M. Duthie (Row, Doune, Perthshire).
PALÆONTOLOGY.
A Monstrous Dinosaur.—Assistant-Professor W.H. Reed, of the Geological University of Wyoming, has made a great discovery by unearthing the petrified bones of the most colossal animal ever taken from the earth's crust. This fossil monster was a dweller in the Jurassic age, a Dinosaur, measuring nearly 130 ft. in length, and being perhaps 35 ft. in height at the hips and 25 ft. at the shoulders—an animal so terrible in size that its petrified skeleton alone is believed to weigh more than 40,000 pounds. Prof. Reed made the great find last August while prospecting for fossils ninety miles north-west of Laramie, and during the time which has elapsed since then the members of the University have been secretly at work in its restoration. The skeleton of the animal is so vast that its smallest bone yet found is more than a man can lift, and, with two men constantly at work, it is believed that many months will be required before the monster can be placed on the campus at Laramie. Although its restoration is as yet incomplete, still enough of its bones have been disinterred to establish its zoological position, and to place it in geological history as the king of all animals restored from fossil fields. In comparison to a Mammoth, this animal was in size as a horse to a dog. In the known fossil world there is ​but one creature that can be compared at all with it, and this would be only as a child beside it. The famous Brontosaur at the Yale Museum, at New Haven, is its only animal criterion of measurement. This was an animal of its own kind, a fellow-creature in Wyoming, where for millions of years they have laid together in the same deposit. The skeleton at Yale was restored in 1879 by Prof. Reed, under the direction of Prof. Marsh. Beside this monster, the largest Dinosaurs of Europe, and indeed the world, have remained since its discovery as only pigmies. For years the geological students have made pilgrimages to New Haven to study and to marvel at its immense skeleton. This monster is believed to have been 70 ft. in length, and to have weighed perhaps 80,000 pounds in life. Prof. Reed says that, although it is practically out of the question to give an accurate idea of a living Dinosaur, he should think that the animal now being restored would weigh in life sixty tons, that it had a neck 30 ft. in length, and a tail about 60 ft. in length, and the cavity of its body, with lungs and entrails out, would make a hall 34 ft. long and 16 ft. wide; the head of the animal is very small for the size of the body. There is no building in Laramie large enough to hold it, and when taken there, it will probably be placed temporarily on the campus. The work of restoring has been greatly interrupted by snow, but it is being carried on as rapidly as possible. For a great number of years Wyoming has been known to contain some of the world's most wonderful fossil fields, the first discovery dating back to 1858, and since 1877 Wyoming has been known to have the petrified remains of the largest land animals that have ever lived.—L. Small (777, Lincoln, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.).