# The Zoologist/4th series, vol 4 (1900)/Issue 712/Notes and Queries

Published in The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 4, issue 712, p. 477–485
NOTES AND QUERIES.
MAMMALIA.
Wild Cat.—Will any one of the contributors to 'The Zoologist' refer me to the best picture from life of the Wild Cat—say, in the next number of 'The Zoologist'?—and I will be much obliged.—J.A. Harvie-Brown (Dunipace, Larbert, Stirlingshire).
Oared Shrew in Suffolk.—On Sept. 5th I met with a Water Shrew (Sorex fodiens), of the variety formerly known as the Oared Shrew (S. remifer)—cf. Bell—and considered specifically distinct from the ordinary white-bellied form. It was a pregnant female, and so large that before picking it up I took it for a half-grown Mole. It was found by a Dog among long grass in a meadow in this parish, some five or six yards from the nearest ditch. Hoping to have more time the following day to examine it thoroughly, I placed it for the night in a closely-wired Mouse-cage, with some water, a bed of dry grass, and some earth containing a plentiful supply of earthworms, one of which it at once seized and devoured. Next morning, however, the Shrew was nowhere to be found. It had managed in some unaccountable manner to escape from its cage. It was certainly a good deal larger than an average-sized House-Mouse (Mus musculus). The snout was rather broad and flattened, and there were no white hairs on the ears. Its climbing powers were considerable, for it not only ascended easily the upright wires of its cage, but even made its way along the top, clinging back downwards to the wires. The fact of its being with young at this season seems to denote that more than one litter is produced during the year. Many years ago, on the bank of a pond in this parish, I saw, but was unable to catch, one of these animals, which I believe to have been still larger.—G.T. Rope (Blaxhall, Suffolk).
Hybrid Dog and Fox.—In the new Museum at Worcester, standing upon a shelf in the recess set apart for local mammals, there is a stuffed animal, labelled Wolf, which I suspect is a hybrid between a Dog and a Fox. Pasted up alongside is an old and, I think, dateless newspaper cutting, containing a sensational account of the behaviour of the "monster" during the time just preceding its destruction. The paragraph was too long to copy in full during the time at my disposal, but to the best of my recollection the pith of it is as follows: The animal entered a cottage in a village in Worcestershire, and quietly laid down under a table. Roused ​from its rest by the crying of a child, it was making for the sound with the purpose of devouring its originator, when a Cat, with less discretion than is usually displayed by this feline, flew at the intruder, but in the tussle that ensued was torn limb from limb, and afterwards devoured piecemeal on the spot. The subsequent proceedings I forget, but the "Wolf" apparently continued to hang about the cottage, till some passing labourers, apprised of its doings and probable intentions, attacked and killed it. The alleged ferocity and unmistakable, albeit superficial, Wolf-like aspect of the animal, coupled, may be, with the circumstance that it was not recognized as the property of any of the farmers or Dog-owners of the neighbourhood, seem to have been the considerations which led the good people into whose hands the beast fell to settle offhand that it must be a "Wolf escaped from a menagerie," the expansion of the predicate being only justified as a corollary of the first part. Judging from the size of the teeth, the creature was adult. It is rather larger than a Fox, and has a bushy tail and erect ears. The legs and the head, so far as could be seen, except for a blackish patch in front of the ear, are a rich fawn-colour; the back is black, mottled with dark grey, the tail being much the same shade on the back, and without a white tip. Apart from its slightly superior size, it differs strikingly from a Fox in having the ears and feet fawn instead of blackish, and in the absence of white from the lips and throat. Of Wild Dogs, it is perhaps the Black-backed Jackal that it most calls to mind, although much stouter in build and smaller in the ears than that elegant species. It also resembles a small cock-eared colley, and might pass muster as such amongst a crowd of mongrels. A suspiciously "foxy" look about the beast, however, inclines me to the belief that it is the progeny of a Fox, and probably some country Sheep-dog. It would be interesting to learn if there are any authenticated cases of hybridism between the two species, and, if so, what were the characters of the "hybrids."—R.I. Pocock (Nat. Hist. Museum, South Kensington).
[In 'The Zoologist' for last year (p. 240) an abstract was given of a communication by the Rev. J. Conway Walter, which appeared in the 'Naturalist' for April of that year, on "Fox and Dog Hybrids near Horncastle."—Ed.]
AVES.
The Bearded Tit: a Correction corrected.—Mr. Ridsdale's note upon this subject (ante, p. 422) is entertaining, but, if he wishes us to believe that Gesner really figured the Bearded Tit, I am afraid he will require to produce some further corroborative evidence. Belon figures the Great, Blue, and Long-tailed Tits, and refers to the Marsh-Tit, but not to any other that I can discover. Gesner, who comes next in chronological order, figures the Coal, Crested, and Marsh-Tits, as well as those figured by ​Belon; but his seventh figure does not represent the Bearded Tit, as Mr. Ridsdale gives us to suppose. It represents one of two things—either his Parus sylvaticus, which was possibly a Fire-crest (from his description of the red colour of its crown, and its other tints), or else the bird with a black head reported to him from France as the Mounier. Aldrovandus refers to the Penduline Tit, if I understand him rightly; but I cannot make out that even Aldrovandus, with all his knowledge of European birds, had ever come across the Bearded Tit. For my part, I see no reason to doubt the correctness of Mr. Gurney's original statement; nor will anyone, I believe, who studies the text of Belon, Gesner, and Aldrovandus with sufficient care.—H.A. Macpherson (The Rectory, Pitlochry, Perthshire).
[Mr. Ridsdale's correction (?) was submitted to Mr. Gurney before publication for any comment he might care to make, but he naturally assumed that his critic must be correct.—Ed.]
Movements of Starlings.—As an appendix to my paper on this subject (ante, p. 131), I should like to add that since writing it I have been told of another "roost" at Petton Park, between Shrewsbury and Wem. The roost consists of large clumps of laurels, rhododendrons, and other evergreen shrubs. The gardener, Mr. Tatton, states that the Starlings resort there in enormous numbers from December to March! This is most interesting, as at that period the other roosts in the county are nearly deserted. It would appear that the Petton roost is the last resort of the Starlings, because in these evergreens they find warmth and shelter when the trees in the other roosts are bare. The roost described by Mr. Corbin (Zool. 1879, p. 215) is of a similar character. He speaks of it as being still used at the end of March. During the present season I have not found a single case of the Starling rearing two broods.—H.E. Forrest (Shrewsbury).
Some Notes on the Swift (Cypselus apus).—May 5th. First Swift appeared. 6th. Four together on the wing this evening. 7th. The full complement of our Swifts for this village seem to be already with us. I believe there is generally little delay after the appearance of the first arrivals before the complete number are with us. 15th. With the cold east winds we had about this date Swifts seemed entirely absent upon the wing, remaining in their nesting-holes and other accommodation, evidently preferring warmth with starvation to facing the uninviting elements. 31st. Windy; very few Swifts upon the wing. 7 p.m., a Swift in the previous year's nesting-hole on the roof of my house. No eggs at present.
June 8th.—Having been from home since previous note, I have been unable to visit the nest before to-night at 9 p.m., when I found the Swift sitting on three eggs, little doubt the laying of one female, as I have never ​seen more than the one pair enter the nest. Last year the first egg was laid on June 5th.12th. As the Swifts were ceasing their noisy gatherings, and after the males had evidently accompanied the females in many instances to their nests, they returned again to the gathering, and in their further manœuvrings gradually reached a good altitude; here they seemed to eventually cease their screamings, and the flock to limit themselves more and more to a restricted area, until eventually they merely floated in company upon the wing—not in the so-called "night-flight," but in their "aerial sleep." Unfortunately, owing to the now fast decreasing light, these actions, even with a good glass, could not be studied for any length of time. 19th, 7.30 p.m. Six or more Swifts were circling around my house, and constantly flying up to the entrance of the nesting-hole, where the one was sitting, inviting, as it were, the sitting bird to join in their social gathering (if such a noisy concourse can be so termed) which was about to commence. 20th. The Swifts, whilst incubating, and, in fact, at all times whilst within the nest, seem absurdly tame, allowing me to handle them daily, and feel beneath to take particulars of the eggs under incubation, and not in any single instance leaving the nest, although the exit was always open. Occasionally I would be greeted by a flapping of wings, or the rubbing of the beak against my fingers in their attempt to peck me. 23rd. Eggs still in nest. 24th, 8.30 a.m. Two of the eggs hatched; one remains. Incubation lasts at least sixteen days. 26th, 6.30 a.m.; cold and windy. Both Swifts on nest, now containing three young.
July 4th, 9.5 p.m. Unless the nights are calm and warm, I do not think the Swifts ever sleep upon the wing. To-night was a perfect time for them, and they gave me a splendid opportunity of seeing them ascend. Several descended before the others rose to any considerable height; altogether about twelve remained in the company. One of the old birds remained with the two young (the third young one having died) throughout the night. 5th. The female (presumed in every instance) spends the greater part of the day with her young, and is now far more pugnacious than when with eggs. The feeding of the young does not take place continuously throughout, or at any particular part of the day; the female will leave the nest for some considerable time (even an hour or more), and returns with evidently sufficient food to satisfy the young for several hours at least. From present observation I do not think the male takes any share in providing for the young. 8th, 12 to 1 p.m. Female remains with young; 3 to 30, no Swift approaches the nest; 4.30 to 5.30, female absent from young, and did not return; 6.30, female on nest, and remained there all the evening. The male slept in company with the female. The one which I think was the female objected, as usual, to my intrusion, but the ​male allowed me to remove him from the nest without protest whilst I satisfied myself of the two being there. In the majority of instances the female alone remains with young. When putting one's hand into the nest for investigation (which is always necessary owing to the total absence of light whence these observations are taken) the young open their mouths to be fed sufficiently wide to enable me to put my finger fully into their throats. 15th. Young are becoming very pugnacious, flapping at and pecking one's hand.
August 4th, 7 a.m.—Very windy. Both old and two young in nest. 10th. Young still in nest. 11th. The young left the nest previous to midday, and evidently remained on the wing throughout the remaining portion of the day. Time of young remaining within the nest: six weeks, six days. 12th. One Swift only at roost in nest. 19th. Swifts noticed in this locality for the last time, seemingly in their usual number. 23rd. One Swift seen in adjoining parish. 24th. Three together in another district two miles distant.—J. Steele-Elliott (Clent, Worcestershire).
Cuckoo breeding in London District.—In connection with the note on this subject (ante, pp. 438–9), it may be of interest to record that on June 6th, 1896, I found a Whitethroat's nest containing four eggs, one of which was a Cuckoo's. This was in a hedge within a few yards of a public footpath, and close to Hampstead Heath. On May 23rd in the following year (1897), I found a Hedge-Sparrow's nest in the same locality with one egg of that bird and a Cuckoo's. The latter was not blue, and not unlike eggs of the Sedge-Warbler in colour. Both these Cuckoos' eggs were quite unlike each other. I believe that in the collection of Cuckoos' eggs, with the nests and eggs of the foster-parents, in the British Museum, those that are laid in Hedge-Sparrows' nests are not blue. In each of the above records the foster-parent was observed on the nest.—Basil W. Martin (Elm Lodge, Hampstead).
Observations on the Cuckoo in Aberdeen.—There was a continuation of the singing of this bird (Cuculus canorus) up to July 15th. As near as could be estimated there were about ten young ones seen about my farm; certainly an increase as regards former years. They exhibited a variety of colours, from blue to rufous. A young one, which was rufous, with a large white spot on the crown of the head, was handled on June 17th. This one had either removed from the nest to be sheltered from the rain, or had flown from the nest in sunshine, and then had become unable to fly through the heavy rains accompanying a thunderstorm on the date mentioned. Its feathers seemed quite sufficiently grown for flying, but these birds are evidently much influenced by wet, especially if the weather becomes cold at the same time. I noticed, during cold days on and about Aug. 4th, that some young ones chirped on continually; in fact, their cries were pitiable. ​Of course these were still attended to by the foster-birds, but whether the crying was for food or on account of the cold, I cannot say. Perhaps both. It might be surmised that the cold would awaken the appetite, provided it did not interfere with the health of the bird; and it is also probable that certain forms of insects were not so easily available in cold as in warm weather. There was a young one flying about on Aug. 10th, with a foster-bird in attendance; this being the latest date on which I saw them. The whole of the foster-birds were Mountain Linnets (Linota flavirostris).—Wm. Wilson (Alford, N.B.).
The Little Owl in Flintshire?—In collecting materials for a fauna of North Wales, I have lately had occasion to look into old records as far back as the beginning of the century. One of the problems presented for solution was this—Has the Little Owl (Carine noctua) ever been obtained in North Wales? Yarrell and Morris mention it as having occurred in Flintshire, but give no particulars. Montagu, writing of it under the title of the Sparrow-Owl (Noctua passerina, Savigny), notices that the descriptions of plumage given by various authors show many discrepancies. He did not, apparently, perceive that three species had been confounded together under the title of Little Owl. These we now know as Carine noctua and Nyctala tengmalmi; the third—the form called Strix passerina by Linnaeus— has never occurred in Britain. Traced to its source, the statement that Carine noctua has occurred in Flintshire appears to rest on the testimony of Pennant. Let us see what he says. In his 'Tour in Wales,' speaking of the detached hundred of Maelor in Flintshire, he states that that rare British species, the Little Owl, had been taken in some woods near Overton. In his 'British Zoology,' 1812, p. 270, he states, in general terms, the Little Owl (Strix passerina) "is sometimes found in Yorkshire, Flintshire, and also near London." The allusion to Flintshire probably refers to the Overton bird. Later writers have copied this statement without question. I think, however, that the description given by Pennant indicates that the bird was Nyctala tengmalmi, not the species now known as the Little Owl (Carine noctua). The editor of the fourth edition of 'Yarrell' was also of this opinion, for on p. 155 he writes:—"The 'Little Owl' figured in the folio edition of Pennant's 'British Zoology' was probably of this species" [N. tengmalmi]. Yet on p. 179 he still speaks of the Little Owl as having occurred in Flintshire. If it could be proved that Pennant's Overton Owl was Carine noctua, the much-debated question as to the admission of the Little Owl to the British list might be considered settled; at that period it is unlikely that it could have been an escaped or imported bird. Now, to sum up the evidence. So far as we know only one Little Owl has been obtained in North Wales. (Dr. Dobie records another at Gresford, but suggests a doubt as to species.) That one was apparently Nyctala teng​malmi, and was taken at Overton, Flintshire. If so, Carine noctua has not occurred in Flintshire, despite the oft-repeated statement that it has.—H.E. Forrest (Shrewsbury).
Red-crested Pochard in Yorkshire.—A fine specimen of the Redcrested Pochard (Fuligula rufina) was shot on a marsh near Redcar on Jan. 20th, 1900, and is now in my possession. It is, I believe, the first recorded example of this rare Duck for Yorkshire.—T.H. Nelson (The Cliffe, Redcar).
Stone Curlew in Cleveland in Winter.—An example of the Stone Curlew (Œdicnemus scolopax) was brought to me on Dec. 16th, 1899, by a man who had caught it alive during a snowstorm on the sand-hills east of Redcar. The occurrence of this species in Cleveland is at any time unusual, but its presence here in mid-winter is so exceptional as to be worthy of record.—T.H. Nelson (The Cliffe, Redcar).
Curlew at Sea.—It is, I think, a rare occurrence for Numenius arquata to be seen any distance out at sea. On the last homeward voyage of the Union Castle Liner 'Norman,' in August, about eighteen hours after leaving Madeira, I observed a Curlew flying over the water, and making for the ship, evidently with the intention of seeking refuge thereon. Several times did this usually cunning bird fly up to within gunshot, but sheered off again each time, and ultimately disappeared altogether, frightened no doubt by the weird aspect of the ship—her huge white side, her red funnels from which streamed black smoke, her decks alive with passengers, and forging her way through the water at sixteen knots an hour. The bearings of the 'Norman' at the time were 40° N. 12° 1' W., or, approximately, fifty miles from land.—Richard Crawshay (109, Jermyn Street, S.W.).
[It is probable that the ship did not greatly frighten the bird. We have already recorded capturing a Storm-Petrel (Procellaria pelagica) on board this very vessel, the 'Norman,' near the Cape Verde Islands (Zool. 1899, p. 557). On another vessel of the same line, the 'Norham Castle,' we found the ship to be a regular avian rendezvous (cf. ibid. 1898, p. 509).—Ed.]
PISCES.
Sun-fish in the Yarmouth Roads.—A short Sun-fish (Orthagoriscus mola), about two feet long, was floundering about in the Roads on Sept. 5th, and was secured by some fishermen, who had little difficulty in effecting the capture. A friend purchased it for me, but, owing to the non-delivery of a post-card, I missed obtaining it before going wrong, and being thrown away among the offal.—A. Patterson (Ibis House, Great Yarmouth).
MOLLUSCA.
Molluscs eaten by Wood-Pigeons.—On Sept. 5th, whilst shooting on the confines of the Bog of Allen, Co. Kildare, I killed a Wood-Pigeon, in whose crop I found thirty-nine Snails, which appeared to me to be Water-Snails. An instance of this sort has never come under my notice. The bird was in first-rate condition, and corn in the neighbourhood at this time of year is easily obtainable. There was nothing else in the crop save two hawthorn-berries and one oat. T send you by this post some of the Snails, and shall be glad to hear whether this is an unusual occurrence.—H. Marmaduke Langdale (Compton Vicarage, Petersfield, Hants).
[The specimens forwarded by Mr. Marmaduke Langdale represent the "Amber Snail" (Succinea putris), an amphibious species, seldom seen in the water except in the spring, when on its way from winter quarters in the mud. It is probable that its attack by Pigeons is not unusual. One of my sons keeps a quantity of pond-fish in a garden-tank, and, on my advice, introduced as scavengers a number of Limnæa stagnalis. These molluscs have steadily disappeared, while his Fantail-Pigeons seem to have a great attraction for the sides of the tank. Mr. Langdale's communication perhaps offers a suggestion as to what hitherto seemed a mysterious disappearance. Mr. Collins Baker, who has recently written on the Mollusca of the Chicago Area, states that Passerine birds are fond of Pupa, Vertigo, and small Limaces (cf. Chic. Ac. Nat. Sci.—Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. iii. p. 33).— Ed.]
CRUSTACEA.
Meristic Variation in the Edible Crab.—I forward a sketch and examples of two different malformed claws of Cancer pagurus. I have obtained several Crabs with double and treble pointed large pincer-claws (cf. Zool. 1897, p. 340, and 1898, p. 220), but this is the first time I have met with malformation in the smaller claws. In one the two end claws are fused into one, in the other example they can be worked separately.—A. Patterson (Ibis House, Great Yarmouth).
MYRIOPODA.
Marine Centipede in Somerset.—There are two species of marine, or, rather, littoral Centipedes found in England—Geophilus submarinus and Linotænia maritima. So far as I know, Polperro, on the coast of Cornwall, is the only spot in England where G. submarinus has been collected; L. maritima, on the contrary, has been found at several localities, and is evidently widely distributed. In the British Museum there are examples from Bexhill (H. Scherren) and Polperro (Mr. Laughrin), in England; and from Portmarnock, Co. Dublin (G.H. Carpenter), and the coast of Galway ​(D'Arcy Thomson), in Ireland. The species has also been recorded from the south coast of Devonshire by the late Mr. Parfitt. Hence there is nothing surprising in my recent discovery of it at Portishead, on the coast of Somersetshire, some three or four miles to the south of Avonmouth, at a spot a few hundred yards to the north of the Nove lighthouse, where a small shingle beach forms a convenient bathing-place. I had hitherto looked upon this Centipede as a rarity to be picked up only by ones or twos. Great therefore was my astonishment when, turning over the line of seaweed marking the high spring-tide, to find specimens of all sizes swarming amongst the slimy decaying fronds, and wriggling away into darkness in company with hosts of scuttling Woodlice and hopping Sand-Shrimps; while here and there was a cluster of them feeding upon the remains of one of these crustaceans. I afterwards looked for this Centipede under the weed on the beach beneath Aust cliff, in Gloucestershire, some miles to the north of Avonmouth, but without success.—R.I. Pocock (Nat. Hist. Museum, South Kensington).
Vertebrate Fauna of North Wales.—I am preparing materials for a fauna of this district, which has hitherto been sadly neglected. Excellent local lists of birds have been published by Prof. Salter, Mr. F.C. Rawlings, and Dr. Dobie, dealing respectively with the districts of Aberystwith, Barmouth, and the counties of Flint and Denbigh. The Report of the "Parliamentary Commission on Land in Wales" contains notes on birds and mammals by my friend Mr. Ruddy, and others. Eyton's list, published in 1838, is the only one which deals with the whole district, and with all the vertebrates. It is now quite out of date, and of little practical use. Valuable notes have appeared in 'The Zoologist' from time to time, especially during the last ten years. Others, in the Reports of the Marine Biological Committee, Liverpool, and in various books, periodicals, &c. The labour of preparing the description of a fauna of such a wide district is evidently beyond the powers of any one man. I therefore venture to appeal to all readers of 'The Zoologist' to assist in this much-needed work by contributing notes of their own observations. Many practical naturalists in North Wales have already promised me their valued aid; but, in order to arrive at a just idea of the distribution of the common species, it is necessary to collect information from every district. I shall be glad to hear from anyone who is willing to fill up lists, especially as regards Anglesea and Carnarvon. Very little is known about the Fishes and Cetaceans of North Wales; information about these will be most welcome.—H.E. Forrest (Shrewsbury Museum).
* ↑ The eggs are two in number,—Howard Saunders, 'Manual of British Birds.'
* ↑ See further remarks in The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 5 (1901), p. 473–474. (Wikisource-ed.)