order that those parts which were out of reach of the bill might equally receive the benefit of lubrication, it applied them to the feathers already lubricated. Still, unfortunately for our controversy, the unctuous matter was of such an invisible nature, that Mr. Henslow confesses he never could detect what it was that his dove procured from the gland, though the bird even allowed him to remove the feathers while it was pinching the nipple. When I see birds in the act of rubbing their head and cheeks on the back and other parts, after bathing, or after a shower of rain, I consider it an operation to get quit of the moisture; and, when I observe them doing it on a dry plumage, I fancy that they are either dislodging vermin, or rectifying the disordered webs of the feathers, or doing both. Perhaps, too, the act of rubbing may impart to them a pleasing sensation, like unto that which we ourselves receive on rubbing our faces with the hand.

Mr. Audubon, who managed to see a large American squirrel go down into a rattlesnake's stomach, tail foremost, was favoured one day with an extraordinary sight of the contents of the gland in question. He saw the entire plumage of an eagle, three feet seven inches long, and ten feet two inches of alar extent, in a complete state of lubricity! In speaking of this eagle, he says [Vol. I. p. 119.], "the whole plumage looked, upon close examination, as if it had received a general coating of a thin, clear, dilution of gum arabic." He tells us, also, that the glands of this eagle were "extremely large, and their contents had the appearance of hog's lard which had been melted and become rancid." Now, only let the reader take into consideration the proportional size of the gland on the eagle's rump; and, after comparing it with the magnitude of the whole plumage, let him calculate the immense quantity of lubricating oil which would be absorbed by the feathers, before the plumage could exhibit the appearance of a general coating of a thin, clear, dilution of gum arabic." After this, I think, he will agree with me, that one hundred glands would not suffice to produce such a supply of lubricating matter. Moreover, Mr. Audubon tells us, that, when he dissected his eagle, he found the glands extremely large, and their contents had the appearance of hog's lard which had been melted and become rancid. After the discharge of such an amazing quantity of lubricating matter as that which, he says, appeared upon the whole plumage of the bird, I state that the glands ought to have been extremely empty, and their appearance, not extremely large, but extremely flaccid. By way of a concluding summary, I beg to offer three short reasons why I reject the

old and long-received notion that birds lubricate their feathers: first, because any oily application is injurious to feathers; secondly, because we have no incontrovertible proof, from any writer, that birds do actually lubricate their plumage; thirdly, because, after years of close observation, I have never once been able to detect birds in the act of lubricating their plumage.

Mr. Westwood's communication (p. 160.) is very interesting. I was not aware that the petrel could be kept alive so long in solitary confinement, especially when taken from its incubation. I think that it must have sucked (if I may use the word) the applied train oil, both as a means of nutriment, and as a way to clean the pectoral plumage of its incumbrance. Then, again, I am totally at a loss to account for its dipping the breast voluntarily into the oil; unless it were that hunger and confinement, added to a week's instruction, operated conjointly, with the prisoner, to cause it to imitate a process which it would never have performed, when free, in its own native haunts. Lubrication must have been out of the question, otherwise, having so fine an opportunity, it would not have attended solely to the breast, and neglected the other parts of its plumage.

[The Green Sandpiper, p. 149.] I beg to take this opportunity to inform Mr. Doubleday, that I know nothing of the haunts of the green sandpiper, except from books; I have never seen it here. Charles Waterton, Walton Hall, March

19. 1833.

On Birds lubricating their Plumage from an Oil Gland. (p. 162.) — Sir, In consequence of the remarks of Mr. W. G. Barker (p. 162.) on mine (Vol. V. p. 588.), I again trouble you. Since I parted with the turtle dove, I have reared a ringdove (Colúmba Palúmbus Lin.) which fell from its nest in our garden one windy day last August, and, like the former bird, is allowed the range of my room, and is perfectly tame. Generally, when pluming itself, it applies its bill to the rump gland three or four times, by pinching it, and on withdrawing the bill, immediately scratches it first on one side with one claw, and then on the other with the other, as if to get rid of something unpleasant which it had procured (the turtledove I never observed to do so), and then it will go on pluming. I had also a skylark (Alaúda arvénsis Lin.) which I reared from the nest, and whenever it was let out of its cage on the floor it would begin pluming, and applied to the gland and acted afterwards in precisely the same way the ringdove does, except that the leg was always thrust between its wing and body. Mr. Barker says, it is evident that my

remarks on Colúmba Túrtur, prove nothing at all. I am, it is true, no ornithologist, and my former remarks merely went to show the possibility of birds using something from the rump gland when pluming, by their being able to apply it to their head and neck, as Mr. Waterton had asserted (Vol. V. p. 414.) that their being unable so to do was proof positive" they did not use any thing.

66

The article in the Field Naturalist's Magazine for February, p. 75. "On the Rump Gland in Birds," translated from the writings of M. Reaumur, does not quite clear up the point to me; for, although that author was satisfied that birds do not use such gland for any purpose in pluming, I never saw my birds apply to that gland except while pluming, though they often plume without; but in what manner they use it, whether merely for the bill, or on their feathers, I cannot determine. I believe the birds I have mentioned as having seen frequently pinch the nipple on the rump gland when pluming have what are called soft bills, and are very different to those Mr. Barker mentions (p. 162.), namely, the kestrel, Washington eagle, and jackdaw, which have hard beaks, and of whose habits I know nothing.- H. Henslow. St. Albans, March 11. 1833.

Pride of Colour in the Black Swan. (p. 139.) — I should be glad to learn from Sir J. Byerley, how he ascertained that the black swan "considered it would be a mésalliance to consort with a being on whom nature had not lavished the beauty of sable plumes;" and how it was he learned that it "despised the snowy charms of the white female, and refused her because her colour varied from his own." I would ask him how he ascertained the secret motives which made the one refuse to associate with the other, and by what secret means he discovered what it "considered?" Does he understand the language of the black swan? If so, I think if he would only furnish your readers with even the rudiments of it, it would be one of the most entertaining and valuable papers ever communicated to this Magazine. At the conclusion he appears to admire the swan's "pride," and exclaims," what a lesson for man!" The meaning of which exclamation is above my weak comprehension, but I fancy that he hints that it is improper for a black man to marry a white woman. It appears to me that what he has construed into "pride" arose solely from the grief which the swan felt for the loss of its mate; and had one even of the same colour and species been given to it, it might perhaps, from the same reason, have refused that also. James Fennell. March, 1833.

The Great Grey Seamews, or Gulls. (p. 27. 111. 171.)

I dare say Philo-Rusticus (p. 171.) is right about the "great grey gull;" and it is a most discreet thing of these gulls to be so long in making up their minds as to what species they will belong to. As may be seen in p. 111., I had a glimmering of the state of the case.

"The Daker" is a Name for the Corncrake. (p. 114.) - I observe, in p. 114., that, in order to make me speak intelligibly, it is said, "daker [gallinule]." The daker is the corncrake, well known to all countrymen for his midnight and oft-repeated cry of craik craik, craik craik; a noise which I have imitated so exactly, by drawing a bit of stick backwards and forwards along the teeth of a pocket comb, that I have brought the bird within a few yards of me. never heard the name of "gallinule" applied to this bird. — Rusticus. Godalming, March 13. 1833.

I

The Kittiwake in the Isle of Wight, as mentioned by Rusticus of Godalming. (p. 28.)- May I ask Rusticus of Godalming, whose communications I have read with very great pleasure, whether he is quite certain of having met with kittiwakes in the Isle of Wight? I ask this, because I have heard of no other instance of its having been shot so far south, in this country. The kittiwake (Làrus Rissa) differs from the common gull (Larus canus) in wanting the hind toe, in the place of which it has a small warty protuberance; in plumage there is but little difference; in size the common gull is longer, the kittiwake, I believe, rather wider in the expansion of its wings.-E. N. D. March 11. 1833.

By the Mocking-Bird observed at Clitheroe, Lancashire, (p. 72.) T. G., I presume, means the Currùca salicària of Fleming. Had he appended the systematic name to the Lancashire one, he would not have left his communication open to the following query, made to me by one to whom I had lent my copy: "Is the American mocking-bird (Túrdus polyglottis) a spring visitant to England?" W. G. B. March 22. 1833. [T. G., in Vol. V. p. 653., has identified the "mocking-bird" of Clitheroe with the Currùca salicària of Fleming.—J. D.]

Mr. Westwood's Choreia nigro-a'nea (p. 122.) is the Encyrtus hemipterus of Authors.-Mr. Westwood makes (p. 122.) a genus and species, namely Choreìa nigro-æ`nea, of the female of a well-known insect, Encýrtus hemipterus. Is not this carrying name-making a little too far? I would also ask what novelty there is in Mr. Westwood's summary of "the probable number of insect species" [p. 116-120.]?— Lacon. Newcastle, March 12. 1833.

The Scent of Anemone nemoròsa L., and Tris pérsica L.

(Vol. V. p. 758.)- With due deference to Mr. Bree's olfactory nerves (see Vol. V. p. 758.), I still aver that the wood anemone (A. nemoròsa) is most deliciously scented; and, as a proof that I could not mistake it for the "delightful fragrance" which, Mr. Bree rightly observes, abounds in woods, I beg to state that my attention was first called to the fragrance of the flowers of this plant by a gentleman's bringing some of them, which he had gathered during a stroll in the fields, in his hand to the garden. He extolled their fragrance; I smelt to them, and, to my surprise, found them as he represented. I afterwards found that the flowers produced by the plants in the garden were fragrant also; and, a few days after, walking through a wood where the anemone formed a complete carpet, I made the observation published in Vol. IV. p. 442., and alluded to by Mr. Bree, Vol. V. p. 758.

The Persian Iris (I`ris pérsica) I should pronounce to be very strongly scented; but, I recollect, about three years since, a young lady making several visits to the old botanic garden, almost on purpose to enjoy its fragrance (which I had represented to her as most delicious, though somewhat powerful) without her being able to perceive the least scent. As I knew the flowers gave out their fragrance much more plentifully in the sunshine, I one day placed a hand-glass over a cluster of the plants then in full bloom (the sun at the same time shining full upon them), and in the course of an hour the glass was fully charged with odour; upon lifting it off, they were still declared scentless, when, to myself and two other persons present, the fragrance was so great as to be fit (to use a homely phrase) "to knock one down." Allow me just to add, that the person above alluded to was particularly fond of the odour arising from the bruised seed-vessels of the Elshóltzia cristàta, a scent remarkably peculiar, and approved of by few. I speak of a plant widely dissimilar in appearance, and in no way related to the popular beauty Eschscholtzia califórnica.- H. Turner. Botanic Garden, Bury, Feb. 22. 1833.

Obliquities in the Action of the Powers of Sense in some Persons. Sir, Having noticed, on a former occasion (Vol. V. p. 758.), some peculiarities in the scent of I`ris` pérsica and Anemone nemoròsa, flowers which, it seems, prove scentless to the organs of some persons, while to those of others they are highly fragrant, I may be allowed to mention an instance of similar idiosyncrasy relating to other senses. The following has been communicated to me by a friend, who, being in company when the scent of Iris pérsica was made the subject of conversation, informs me that a gentleman