# The Zoologist/4th series, vol 4 (1900)/Issue 708/Notes and Queries

Published in The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 4, issue 708, p. 278–282
NOTES AND QUERIES.
AVES.
Occurrence of the Water-Pipit (Anthus spipoletta) in Sussex.—On Feb. 27th last I received for identification a Pipit from Mr. G. Bristow, of St. Leonards. The letter accompanying the specimen stated that it had been shot on Feb. 19th at Hollington, near St. Leonards, by a boy named Peacham. On comparing the bird with the descriptions in Dresser's 'Birds of Europe,' I came to the conclusion that it must be a specimen of Anthus spipoletta. This identification was afterwards verified by Mr. Howard Saunders. The bird was a hen by dissection.—N.F. Ticehurst (Winstowe, St. Leonards-on-Sea).
Flycatcher feeding on Worms.—On May 12th I noticed a Flycatcher (Muscicapa atricapilla), which had only arrived that morning, feeding on worms. The day was cold and wet, and probably flies were scarce, and the bird weary. Is this unusual? I do not remember a similar case coming under my observation.—R.H. Ramsbotham (Meole Brace, Shrewsbury).
Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopus major).—On Tuesday, May 15th last, about 7 p.m., I was in my garden on Greenhill, Evesham, and, hearing the peculiar rattling noise attributed to these birds in common with the smaller Spotted Woodpecker, I followed the sound which proceeded from the plantation adjoining the garden. I found it very difficult to determine the exact spot the noise came from; for one moment it appeared close at hand, and the next some considerable distance away. In the plantation there are a quantity of dead or dying beech trees, and, thinking it probable the noise proceeded from one of them about fifteen yards or more beyond me, I stood behind the trunk of a tree and waited. Fancying I saw a slight movement in a Scotch fir tree nearer to me than this beech tree, I watched carefully, and soon discovered a Woodpecker perching close against the trunk of the fir, its breast only being visible to me, its head and beak then being hidden by the trunk of the tree. All at once the bird began hammering with its beak at a dead branch which joined the tree-trunk where it sat, and the strange ringing rattle was produced. With the aid of a powerful glass I was able to observe the action of the bird carefully, and found myself scarcely able to believe that such a sound could be thus made. The branch was sharply hit or pecked by the bird ​with the point of the beak, and its head was moved with extraordinary speed so that the action appeared almost continuous. I estimate the continuation of each period of hammering at five or perhaps ten seconds, which was followed by a somewhat longer pause. The bird was of very brilliant plumage—evidently the male bird—and the noise had been repeated four or five times when it was joined by a second bird, evidently its mate. The pair then moved to another part of the tree, and to the leafy branches of a beech tree standing between me and the fir, and it was only at times that I could distinguish them before they flew away. My presence was quite unsuspected by them, and I am convinced that the rattling was the call-note of the male bird, as it is said to be. Upon the meeting of the birds the noise was at once discontinued, and the only sound the birds made were soft twittering noises, as if speaking to one another. The branch used as a sounding-board was of considerable size, and at a height of about fifteen or twenty feet from the ground. The bird whilst hammering was almost sitting at the union of the tree and the branch in an upright position, and its beak was moved nearly horizontally, being very slightly inclined downwards. With the aid of the glass I clearly saw marks of the beak upon the bough.—Oliver H. New.
Breeding of the Shoveler (Spatula clypeata) in Kent.—On May 3rd last I put up a pair of Shovelers from a piece of water in Romney Marsh; I got a good view of them through my glasses, and saw them a second time about half an hour later, when they flew back over my head. I searched the neighbouring rush, tufts, &c, but was unable to find any nest. On going back, however, to the same place on May 19th, I saw the hen bird swimming, followed by nine young ones a day or two old. The cock bird was not visible on this occasion. So far as I am aware, this is the first record of the Shoveler breeding in Kent.—N.F. Ticehurst (Winstowe, St. Leonards-on-Sea).
Breeding of the Garganey (Querquedula circia) in Kent.—I have the pleasure of recording, I believe for the first time, the breeding of the Garganey in Kent. My brother found the nest on May 2nd in Romney Marsh. It was situated in quite a dry place in some long grass, and between thirty and forty yards from the nearest water. When first seen the nest consisted of only a few strands of dead grass, and contained one egg. On May 3rd there were two eggs, and a lot more grass-strands had been added to the nest, which was so well covered up and hidden that we had some difficulty in finding it again. On May 7th the nest contained six eggs, which were sparsely covered with down and a few grass-stems, the nest itself, owing to its increasing size, being much more easily seen than before. Subsequently, on May 12th, we found a second nest containing ​five eggs and the remains of a sixth, which had been broken probably by being trodden upon by a sheep. The nest was deserted, the remaining eggs being glued to the nest by the contents of the sixth, the spaces between the eggs being occupied by a small growth of mildew. The amount of down in this nest was much less than that in the first, but still there was quite enough to surely identify the eggs by, the down being quite characteristic, and wholly unlike that of the Common Teal. I have suspected that this bird bred in Romney Marsh for some years, ever since having been told by a former resident there that a pair or two of Garganeys generally turned up at a certain spot about the 1st of May every year, but that so far as he knew they did not breed.—N.F. Ticehurst (Winstowe, St. Leonards-on-Sea).
Little Crake in Shropshire.—A specimen of this rare bird (Porzana parva) was shot in November, 1898, by Mr. Tatton at Petton Park, seven miles north of Shrewsbury. It was lately recognized by my friend Mr. W. H. Hodges. Subsequently Mr. Tatton lent me the specimen, and I exhibited it at a meeting of the Caradoc Club. Mr. Howard Saunders has also seen it, and confirmed the identification. The occurrence is especially interesting since no authentic records are known, I believe, for any of the western counties north of Somerset.—H.E. Forrest (Shrewsbury).
The Tameness of unmolested Birds.—In a letter received last month (May 10th) from my friend the Rev. A.F. Day, S.J., he gives me some graphic accounts of the confidence shown by wild birds to the inmates of St. Benno's College, St. Asaph, N.W., where theology is the passion rather than zoology, and where skins and eggs are presumably not collected. He writes:—"Nearly all the Robins come freely on to the hand to take the food that is offered them; several will pick it out most dexterously from between the lips. The general accomplishment of cock Chaffinches is to catch fragments thrown up into the air, and one or two (at least) come on to the hand almost as confidently as the Robins; but now that nature's provision is plentiful we more seldom succeed with them or the other occasional birds. The Hedge-Sparrows have lately taken to stepping on to one's hands if lowered towards the ground, and it is with considerable assurance for such modest little creatures. The Coal-Tits have never been shy, but it was considered something of a triumph to get the Blue Tit to follow their example; and now there is even one Ox-eye (Great Tit) that does likewise—him I had on my hand yesterday. Such are the main facts connected with the St. Benno's natural aviary (I mean grounds). A short time ago I had a Coal-Tit firmly perched on my fingers for what seemed at least a minute, whilst excavating half an almond held between my thumb and forefinger. If you don't believe above, come and verify it."—Ed.
AVICULTURAL NOTES.
Hybrid Doves.—Homer Pigeon ♂ X Collared Turtle ♀.—While in Manchester the other day I called upon Mr. Fred Muirhead, of Barnfield, Prestwich, to see his interesting little collection of living animals and birds, and more especially to examine a hybrid betwixt a cock Homer Pigeon and a hen Turtur risorius that I had heard of. It is a male, and was bred in 1899. Its parents were not regularly paired, as it was the result of illicit intercourse, the male parent having already his own household located in the same aviary close beside the Turtle. In appearance the hybrid is of bolder carriage and smarter figure than a Turtle-Dove, while in colour it is all over of a much darker shade, wanting the dark collar, or any indication of it. The neck shows a beautiful vinous reflection similar to that of many dun or red-coloured Pigeons. Across the terminal third of the tail there is an indication of a dark bar. In size it is decidedly larger than the Turtle, slim and elegant in outline. The voice differs markedly from either the Pigeon or the Turtle, and appears to me, allowing of course for the lesser volume of sound, to be exceedingly similar to that of the Wood-Pigeon (Columba palumbus). The hybrid (only one bird of the mésalliance was ​reared) has been mated this season to a Turtle-Dove, but as yet the eggs have proved infertile. According to Count Salvadori ('Cat. of Birds,' xxi. p. 414), T. risorius is a domestic race of uncertain origin. It is not, however, probable that there is anything "composite" about its pedigree. Long domesticity would seem to have developed some tendency to hybridity when opportunity offers. Some instances are noted (loc. cit.) with the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), and with the male Fantail Pigeon, a whole series of specimens being obtained in the latter instance. Mr. Blagg has recorded (Zool. 1891, p. 113) a cross with T. communis, and Mr. W. Williams has also described a similar case (Zool. 1894, p. 64).
Domestic Pigeon × Columba œnas.—Several years ago my friend Mr. James Blacklock, of Southwick, in my own neighbourhood, obtained eggs of the Stock-Dove from the ivy-covered sea-cliffs near his place, and had them hatched under Common Pigeons. The young Stock-Doves were reared successfully, and last year paired with Pigeons. Eggs were laid and successfully hatched, but all the hybrid young produced in successive broods have invariably died when a few days old. This present season the same thing has happened, and no hybrids have lived more than a week or so. I applied in the columns of a fanciers' paper to see if any Pigeon rearer could suggest a remedy, but so far none has been suggested to obviate this aggravating result.—Robert Service (Maxwelltown, Dumfries).
PISCES.
The Pike and its Prey.— The voracity and cannibalism of this "freshwater Shark" is so well known as to need no comment here, and the fact of my present note may be superfluous for the readers of 'The Zoologist'; but until recently I had an idea, from my own small experience in the matter, and information from various anglers, that the Pike invariably swallowed its finny prey head foremost; if so, I have an exception which proves the rule. At the end of January a friend of mine caught a female Pike weighing 18 lb., and, on opening it, a fish of the same species was found in the stomach, weighing originally, I should suppose, from eight to ten ounces; but the flesh of the tail portion of the body was partly digested, as it had been swallowed tail first, which I supposed was somewhat remarkable, as in my limited experience I had not met with a fish in a like position in stomach of either bird or fish, and I have dissected some numbers for the sake of ascertaining their usual food. I can well understand that a comparatively small fish once within the grip of such a tooth-arrayed and ponderous jawed monster had a very remote chance of escape, whether taken head or tail first; and I had been led to believe that if a fish was taken crosswise it was worked in the jaws of its captor until the head of the victim pointed throat-ward. Of course it is well known that the murderous pointed hooks are directed towards the head of the "bait," which seem to upset the theory of head first.—G.B. Corbin (Ringwood, Hants).