# The Zoologist/4th series, vol 3 (1899)/Issue 698/Notes and Queries

Published in The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 3, issue 698, p. 368–372
NOTES AND QUERIES.
MAMMALIA.
MARSUPIALIA.
How does the new-born Kangaroo get into the Mother's Pouch?—From an exceedingly interesting book recently published, 'Wild Animals in Captivity,' by A.D. Bartlett, the late superintendent at the London Zoological Gardens, I extract the following:—"The excitement and curiosity evinced by most persons when they witness the young Kangaroo protruding from the mother's pouch naturally leads to the question, 'How it got there?' a question not yet satisfactorily answered. Long have we been trying to unravel the mystery, and some of the ablest naturalists have bestowed considerable attention upon it, and spent much valuable time with a view to solve it." In the Rev. R. Owen's 'Life of Professor Owen,' however, I find a curiously contradictory statement. It is that of a note in Mrs. Owen's diary at so early a date as Nov. 14th, 1844, which appears to definitely settle the above question. She says:—"Also interesting letter from Lord Derby. A Kangaroo at Knowsley has been watched till the matter so long in doubt is cleared up. She has been seen taking the newborn tiny Kangaroo in her fore-paws and putting it in the pouch." It seems almost inconceivable that Bartlett, so intimate as he was with Prof. Owen, should have remained unaware of this fact.—W. Barrett Roué (Clifton, Bristol).
In reference to the above communication of Dr. Roué, the interesting question of "How does the new-born Kangaroo get into the mother's pouch?" mentioned in 'Wild Animals in Captivity,' remains unsolved, I believe, just as my father stated. I remember many long conversations on that point with my father, who had the greatest opportunity of knowing all about the breeding of these animals, and we came to the conclusion that the worm-like young passed through a duct or canal in the mammary glands from the womb to the pouch, which would only be perceptible at the time of birth. Had Prof. Owen believed that the mother would pick up a miserable naked worm-like creature with her paws and place it in the pouch, I fancy that he would have made that statement long ago. Waterhouse, in his 'Mammalia,' vol. i. Pouched Animals, published in 1846, does not even mention how the young gets into the pouch; he had access to Prof. Owen ​and all his papers. Cassell's Nat. Hist., quoting some other authority, says, "The mother places it in her pouch," without giving any idea of how that is performed. It is easy to make a statement, but it is not so easily confirmed. One can understand a Cat or a Dog picking up its young in its mouth and carrying it away, but it is too human-like for a Kangaroo to pick up that wretched worm and put it in her pouch. What would happen if it was born in the jungle in the dark? —Edward Bartlett.
[Lumholtz writes:—"The large Kangaroo bears a young 'no larger than the little finger of a human baby, and not unlike it in form.' This helpless, naked, blind, and deaf being the mother puts in an almost inexplicable manner into the pouch with her mouth" ('Among Cannibals,' p. 379). Aflalo states that the actual fact of the Kangaroo's birth was observed at the "London Zoo.... It was there proved that the little 'joey' is brought into the world in the usual way, and forthwith conveyed to the comfortable receptacle, and affixed to a teat by the dam, which held the lifeless-looking little thing tenderly in her cloven lips" ('A Sketch of the Nat. Hist, of Australia,' p. 29). There is evidently much confusion on this interesting question. —Ed.]
AVES.
Is the Whinchat a Mimic?—Referring to Mr. Godfrey's note (ante, p. 267) anent this question, my brother and I had indubitable evidence of the imitative powers of Pratincola rubetra (cf. Zool. 1877, p. 384). Again, I heard one when crossing a meadow in May or June, 1897, near this village, which allowed me to approach within a very few yards whilst singing on the top of a wall; and, although perhaps not gifted with such a range of mimetic powers as the bird heard in 1877, yet it so closely imitated the song of the Blackcap, in addition to the reproduction of callnotes of various birds, as to fairly astonish me. It may be said in passing that whilst executing its imitative performance its attitude indicated intense passion, and altogether different to its movements and habits when it resumed its ordinary song, at which time it was more active and much wilder, and would not suffer a near approach.—E.P. Butterfield (Wilsden, near Bradford).
Arrivals of Spotted Flycatcher and Nightjar.—The question whether the Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa grisola) is the last to arrive of our summer migrants must, as far as this district is concerned, be answered in the negative, the Nightjar (Caprimulgus europæus) arriving on an average more than a week later. I should like to ascertain from your readers whether ​their experience is the same in other parts of Britain. Nightjars here seem to have a partiality for feeding upon Hepialidæ, arriving about the time when H. velleda appears, and not leaving the heaths for any considerable distance until the end of June or beginning of July, when it is to be seen in the fields near the village feeding upon H. humuli.—E.P. Butterfield (Wilsden, near Bradford).
The Delinquencies of Starlings.—Mr. Fox (ante, p. 269) asks whether others have observed feuds to exist between Swifts and Starlings. Such quarrels are not at all of uncommon occurrence, and in one haunt at least Sturnus vulgaris, is frequently ejected on the arrival of Cypselus apus notwithstanding that possession is nine points of the law, being apparently overpowered by mere numbers as I should think, for it is hardly conceivable that Swifts could single-handed be a match for Starlings.—E.P. Butterfield (Wilsden, near Bradford).
Starlings nesting in Fir Trees.—During May last I found small colonies of Sturnus vulgaris nesting in the fir trees in Burnt Wood, Emborough, near Wells; every lateral branch at an elevation above eight or nine feet was piled two or three inches deep with dead grass, hay, shavings, &c, and on this were deposited the eggs. I climbed up and examined a clutch of four eggs. The gamekeeper informed me that they nested there annually, which perhaps accounted for such a collection of rubbish.—Stanley Lewis (Wells, Somerset).
Rooks in the West-End of London.—Some time since (Zool. 1897, p. 87) I wrote that I feared Corvus frugilegus had ceased to breed in the West-End of London; but I now have the pleasure to record that this year there have been three nests in a plane tree close to Park Lane, not in the park, but opposite to it. It seems somewhat strange that they should choose such a site when the park was so near.—J. Young (64, Hereford Road, Bayswater).
Peculiar Conduct of the Woodcock (Scolopax rusticula).—It has been stated that the female of this species carries her young between her legs. I saw a female rise on a moor in this locality on the evening of June 8th, having her legs hanging down, and the hind part of her body being also in a drooping position. Three other birds—all smaller—soon rose from the same point, and flew in quite the opposite direction, their bodies being in the ordinary flying position. All the birds flew about sixty yards, and the female carried on a continual chirping, evidently feigning great pain. I followed up to where she alighted, when she rose and went away in the direction of the others, flying in the same position as at first. I have no doubt but that all this is a peculiar habit for protecting the young ​of this species. I am not prepared to say whether the three were all young, or an old bird and two full-grown young as the male, being smaller than the female, might have constituted one of the number. The three all remained quiet, and rose singly when the female ceased chirping and joined them, having apparently accomplished her supposed purpose of removing danger by her ruse.—Wm. Wilson (Alford, Aberdeen).
Corrections to Notes from North-West Australia.—I shall feel obliged if you will kindly allow me to correct one or two mistakes that I made in my notes (ante, p. 139):—The Collared Parrakeet I mentioned as occurring here proves to be the Yellow-banded (Platycercus zonarius); also somewhat unaccountably I have (p. 142) written Roller (Eurystomus pacificus), whereas it should be Bee-Eater (Merops omatus). The Sandpiper I mentioned, Mr. A.G. Campbell has since identified as the Grey-rumped (Hecteractitis brevipes). He also informs me the Emu-Wren I secured (p. 140) is undoubtedly a new species, and now named Stipiturus ruficeps.—Thomas Carter (Point Cloates, N.W. Australia).
AVICULTURAL NOTES.
Aiding a Young Cuckoo.—A young Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) was found here on the 20th June, and was so numbed with the cold and wet that it was quite unable to fly, or even move about. It had evidently flown from the nest a day or two before when the weather was very dry and exceedingly warm. It was taken indoors and put into a cage. Next morning it revived, and was fairly docile to handle. It seemed intermediate in the colour of the feathers between blue and rufous, the white mark being conspicuous on the head. It perched on the uppermost bars of the cage, and seemed to endure confinement with remarkable tranquillity, showing none of the pugnacity incidental to its kind when in a nest, and partaking of the refreshments placed beside it. I released the bird when it had thoroughly recovered near the spot where it was found, and observed that its powers of flight were decidedly superior to other specimens of the same bird which I had seen at a similar age. I did not notice any particular birds approach as it flew out of sight among the dense cover of broom, but a pair of Twites were very demonstrative in the vicinity, and might perhaps have been the foster-birds. Although the tail was short and not fully developed, this bird was well-grown. The behaviour of the young Cuckoo was remarkable for a wild bird just newly confined, showing none of those points of temerity or agitation which act so detrimentally upon more wild animals in early captivity. We may possibly assume that the young Cuckoo can obtain support from various sources when deprived of the foster-birds, and will live apart from them by taking up with other birds, ​or in confinement relying upon man himself.—Wm. Wilson (Alford, Aberdeen).
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
A Proposed Correction.—Ought we not all to verify our references? On page 303 the Editor observes that Bonvalot, in his work ('Across Thibet,' vol. ii. p. 64), narrates that Thibetan Horses "feed on raw flesh, as we have seen with our own eyes." There is no such statement in Bonvalot's work, 1889, vol. ii. p. 64. (The work is now before me.) He gives us some statements certainly that remind one of the stories of the famous Baron, as when he tells us, vol. ii. p. 73, "In places there were over six feet of snow, and nowhere have the horses less than up to their necks!"—E.L.J. Ridsdale (Rottingdean, Sussex).
[We print this note as it was sent for publication. We quite agree with the writer that we should all verify our references. Always thankful to be corrected, we again verified our quotation and reference which Mr. Ridsdale disputes, and, to our astonishment, found them perfectly correct. We followed a clue to our critic's communication as to the date of publication and quotation from "vol. ii. p. 73," and then discovered that Mr. Ridsdale had confounded two distinct books, and mixed up two different localities. He has disputed our reference to Bonvalot's 'Across Thibet,' published in 1891, by checking it with the same author's totally different work, 'Through the Heart of Asia,' published in 1889!—Ed.]