Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 1 (1897).djvu/547

Rh disgrace, and into danger of sharing the fate of the scores of harmless Kestrels which are annually destroyed. Yet it seems hardly fair to class the belief that Cuckoos suck eggs with such absurd fancies as that Nightjars suck the milk of goats, or that Cuckoos become hawks in winter. Hitherto I have supposed that this belief arose from the Cuckoo having at times been seen with its own egg in its mouth preparatory to depositing it in a nest. But this year I have heard two stories, based upon careful observation, which I must confess have rather shaken my faith in the Cuckoo, and which I will relate, and then leave your readers to form their own deductions. (1) Near Haddon Hall is a signal-box. One day this year the signalman saw a Cuckoo alight on the bank of the cutting near his box. As it did not rise again at once, but appeared to be busily engaged on the bank, he left his box, and went to the spot to satisfy himself as to the nature of the bird's doings. As he approached, the Cuckoo flew up, and just where it had been he found a Wagtail's nest with one egg in it, but on the bank outside the nest were the broken shells of other eggs. (2) A gamekeeper was crossing a moor (about six miles north-east of this place) when a Cuckoo rose from the ground a few yards in front of him. He at once went to the spot from which it rose, and there found a Grouse's egg partly sucked. I have seen the egg, and certainly the slit (for it was not a round hole pierced in the egg) was such as a Cuckoo's bill might be expected to make.

Some of the fallacies mentioned by Mr. Davenport result from ignorance and nothing else, but others arise from inexperience only. It is hardly surprising that to a casual passer-by the Landrail should appear to ventriloquise. The same may be said of the burring of the Nightjar. Mistakes are sometimes made because an observer takes for granted facts are universally and invariably true when they have been proved by his own personal experience. But is it not equally foolish for an ornithologist to suppose that a phenomenon has never occurred merely because it has not come under his own notice? Take the case of the Swift on the ground. Mr. Davenport considers it a popular fallacy resulting from ignorance to suppose that a Swift cannot arise again from the ground. Mr. Howard Saunders, in his 'Manual,' merely states that, "contrary to the popular belief, the birds are able to raise themselves from the ground." But he does not imply that they are always able to do so. No doubt they very often are able thus to raise themselves. Nevertheless, my own experience would have led me to the contrary conclusion, for I have never seen a Swift rise from the ground, though from time to time I have picked them up and thrown them into the air, and then they have flown away.

I should be glad to know whether experienced field naturalists in general consider it a "preposterous notion" to suppose that a Lapwing may