Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 6 (1902).djvu/100

70 by Nathaniel Salmon in his 'Antiquities of Surrey,' which I have always regarded as being meant to indicate the Black Grouse, I am not aware of any further notes published upon the importation of this species into Surrey. It may well be that if the actual date of this Col. Challoner's attempt could be ascertained, it may be found that it was considerably later that 1829, and, if so, Mr. le Marchant's informant may be quite correct within a few years. I have heard from another source that it is believed that Mr. Bray did introduce the species near Shere; but, as I have said before, nothing definite.— (Epsom, Surrey).

Little Bustard in Sussex.—On Dec. 16th, 1901, a specimen of Otis tetrax was shot near Burpham, Sussex, and was sent to Mr. W.B. Ellis, taxidermist, Arundel. It was a female, and weighed 26 oz. (St. Albans).

[The above is a light weight. The weight of one shot on Drayton Moor, Somersetshire, in 1894, was 2 lb. 2 oz. (cf. Harting's 'Handbook of British Birds,' p. 165).— ]

On the Feigning of Injury by the Lapwing (Vanellus vulgaris) to attract attention from its Young.—Allow me to demur to the interpretation placed on some words of mine, culled from 'The Zoologist' (1897, p. 473), by Mr. Bernard B. Riviere (ante, p. 29). If he will turn to pages 27 and 28 of 'The Zoologist' for 1898, the reason for my repudiation of the views ascribed to me will be at once apparent. Meanwhile, I may repeat, for the benefit of those not possessing the back volume in question, that I should never dream of allying myself with such dogmatic reasoning as would deny the possibility and exceptions to almost any rule. Mr. Riviere not only wrongly infers that by the word "devices" I must mean the simulation of injury, but concludes that "we have here two experienced observers expressing their disbelief in the fact that the Lapwing ever employs the ruse of 'shamming wounded' on behalf of its offspring." Nothing of the kind, so far as I personally am concerned; Mr. Selous can answer for himself. Moreover, I would invite attention to two words in the sentence I have quoted; I refer to the words "ever" and "offspring." With regard to the first, who would be so rash, after a prolonged and profound study of Nature, and her frequently inconsistent and contradictory ways, as to deal in uncompromising negatives where she is concerned. I should not. As for the second, I make a vast distinction between eggs in the nest and young birds out of it when dealing with the behaviour of the parent birds. I used the word "nests," implying that eggs in process of incubation were in my mind; your correspondent, as may be seen, writes of the "offspring"