Why he bowed to his food and to everybody and everything that presented

itself before him was a riddle that I never solved. A materialistic

friend suggested that he was adjusting the focus of his wonderful eyes,

and the action was certainly like that of an optician examining a lens;

but I feel that there was something more ceremonial about it. This

punctiliousness cost him his dinner once. I was curious to know what he

would do with a mouse, so, having caught one alive, I slipped it quietly

into his cage. He was more surprised than ever before, raised himself

erect, bowed to the earth once, twice and three times, stared, bowed

again and so on until, to his evident astonishment and chagrin, the

mouse found an opening and was gone. The lesson was not lost. A few days

later I got another mouse, to which he began to do obeisance as before,

but very soon and suddenly, though as softly as falling snow, he plumped

upon it with both feet and, spreading his wings on the ground, looked

all round him with infinite satisfaction. The mouse squeaked, but he

stopped that by cracking its skull quietly with his beak. Then he

gathered himself up and flew to the perch with his prize.

One thing I noted about Tommy most emphatically. He never showed a sign

of affection, or what is called attachment. He maintained a strictly

bowing acquaintance with me. He was not afraid, but he would suffer no

familiarity. He would come and eat, with due ceremony, out of my hand,

but if I offered to touch him he was surprised and affronted and went

off at once. When I moved to another house I found that I could not

continue to keep him, so I sent him to the zoological garden, where I

visited him sometimes, but he never vouchsafed a token of recognition.

His heart was locked except to his own kin.

But since that time, when I have seen an owl, even a barn owl, or a

great horned owl, swiftly cross the sky in the darkness of night, I have

felt that I could accompany it, in imagination, on its secret quest. It

will arrive silently, like the angel of death, in a tree overlooking a

field in which a rat, whose hour has come, is furtively feeding, all

alert and tremulous, but unaware of any impending danger. The rat will

go on feeding, unconscious of the mocking curtsey and the baleful eyes

that follow with mute attention its every motion, until the hand of the

clock has moved to the point assigned by fate, and then it will feel

eight sharp talons plunged into its flesh. I have seen the fierce dash

of the sparrow hawk into a crowd of unsuspecting sparrows, I know the

triumph of the falcon as it rises for the final, fatal swoop on the

flying duck, and I have watched the kestrel, high in air, scanning the

field for some rash mouse or lizard that has wandered too far from

shelter. The owl is also a bird of prey, but its idea is different from

all these.

VII

THE BARN OWL

A FRIEND OF MAN

A thunderstorm has burst on the common rat. Its complicity in the spread

of the plague, which has been proved up to the hilt, has filled the cup

of its iniquities to overflowing, and we have awakened to the fact that

it is and always has been an arch-enemy of mankind. Simultaneously, in

widely separated parts of the world, a "pogrom" has been proclaimed, and

the accounts of the massacre which come to us from great cities like

Calcutta and Bombay are appalling and almost incredible. They would move

to pity the most callous heart, if pity could be associated with the

rat. But it cannot.

The wild rat deserves that humane consideration to which all our natural

fellow-creatures on this earth are entitled; but the domestic rat (I use

this term advisedly, for though man has not domesticated it, it has

thoroughly domesticated itself) cannot justify its existence. It is a

fungus of civilisation. If it confined itself to its natural food, the

farmer's grain, the tax which it levies on the country would still be

such as no free people ought to endure. But it confines itself to

nothing. As Waterton says: "After dining on carrion in the filthiest

sink, it will often manage to sup on the choicest dainties of the

larder, where like Celoeno of old _vestigia foeda relinquit_." It kills

chickens, plunders the nests of little birds, devouring mother, eggs and

young, murders and feeds on its brothers and sisters and even its own

offspring, and not infrequently tastes even man when it finds him

asleep. The bite of a rat is sometimes very poisonous, and I have had to

give three months' sick leave to a clerk who had been bitten by one. Add

to this that the rat multiplies at a rate which is simply criminal,

rearing a family of perhaps a dozen every two or three months, and no

further argument is needed to justify the war which has been declared

against it. Every engine of war will, no doubt, be brought into use,

traps of many kinds, poisons, cats, the professional rat-catcher, and a

rat bacillus which, if once it gets a footing, is expected to originate

a fearful epidemic.

But I need not linger any more among rats, which are not my subject. I

am writing in the hope that this may be an opportune time to put in a

plea for a much persecuted native of this and many other countries,

whose principal function in the economy of nature is to kill rats and

mice. The barn, or screech, owl, which is found over a great part of

Europe and Asia and also in America, was once very common in Britain,

inhabiting every "ivy-mantled tower," church steeple, barn loft, hollow

tree, or dovecot, in which it could get a lodging. But it was never

welcome. Like the Jews in the days of King John it has been relentlessly

persecuted by superstition, ignorance and avarice. Avarice, instigated

by ladies and milliners, has looked with covetous eye on its downy and

beautiful plumes; while ignorance and superstition have feared and hated

the owl in all countries and all ages. In ancient Rome it was a bird of

evil omen.

Foedaque fit volucris venturi nuncia luctus,

Ignavus bubo, dirum mortalibus omen.

In India, to-day, if an owl sits on the house-top, the occupants dare

scarcely lie down to sleep, for they know that the devil is walking the

rooms and marking someone for death. Lady Macbeth, when about the murder

of Duncan, starts and whispers,

Hark! Peace! It was the owl that shrieked,

The fatal bellman.

And even as late as the nineteenth century, Waterton's aged housekeeper

"knew full well what sorrow it had brought into other houses when she

was a young woman," Witches, like modern ladies of fashion, set great

value on its wings. The latter stick them on their hats, the witches in

Macbeth threw them into their boiling cauldron. Horace's Canidia could

not complete her recipe without

"Plumamque nocturnae strigis."

We may suppose that in Britain these superstitions are gone for ever,

killed and buried by board schools and compulsory education. If they are

(there is room for an _if_) they have been succeeded by a worse, the

superstition of gamekeepers and farmers. It is worse in effect, because

these men have guns, which their predecessors had not. And it is more

wicked, because it is founded on an ignorance for which there is no

excuse. How little harm the barn owl is likely to do game may be

inferred from the fact that, when it makes its lodging in a dovecot, the

pigeons suffer no concern! Waterton (and no better authority could be

quoted) scouts the idea, common among farmers, that its business there

is to eat the pigeons' eggs. "They lay the saddle," he says, "on the

wrong horse. They ought to put it on the rat." His predecessor in the

estate had allowed the owls to be destroyed and the rats to multiply,

and there were few young pigeons in the dovecot. Waterton took strong

measures to exterminate the rats, but built breeding places for the

owls, and the dovecot, which they constantly frequented, became prolific

again.

But granting that the owls did twice the injury to game with which they

are credited, it would be repaid many times over by their services.

Waterton well says that, if we knew its utility in thinning the country

of mice, it would be with us what the ibis was with the Egyptians--a

sacred bird. He examined the pellets ejected by a pair of owls that

occupied a ruined gateway on the estate. Every pellet contained

skeletons of from four to seven mice. Owls, it may be necessary to

explain, swallow their food without separating flesh from bone, skin and

hair, and afterwards disgorge the indigestible portions rolled up into

little balls. In sixteen months the pair of owls above-mentioned had

accumulated a deposit of more than a bushel of these pellets, each a

funeral urn of from four to seven mice! In the old Portuguese fort of

Bassein in Western India I noticed that the earth at the foot of a

ruined tower was plentifully mixed with small skulls, jaws and other

bones. Taking home a handful and examining them, I found that they were

the remains of rats, mice and muskrats.

The owl kills small birds, large insects, frogs and even fishes, but

these are extras: its profession is rat-catching and mousing, and only

those who have a very intimate personal acquaintance with it know how

peculiarly its equipment and methods are adapted to this work. The

falcon gives open chase to the wild duck, keeping above it if possible

until near enough for a last spurt; then it comes down at a speed which

is terrific, and, striking the duck from above, dashes it to the ground.

The sparrow hawk plunges unexpectedly into a group of little birds and

nips up one with a long outstretched foot before they have time to get

clear of each other. The harrier skims over field, copse and meadow,

suddenly rounding corners and topping fences and surprising small

birds, or mice, on which it drops before they have recovered from their

surprise.

The owl does none of these things. For one thing, it hunts in the night,

when its sight is keenest and rats are abroad feeding. Its flight is

almost noiseless and yet marvellously light and rapid when it pleases.

Sailing over field, lane and hedgerow and examining the ground as it

goes, it finds a likely place and takes a post of observation on a fence

perhaps, or a sheaf of corn. Here it sits, bolt upright, all eyes. It

sees a rat emerge from the grass and advance slowly, as it feeds, into

open ground. There is no hurry, for the doom of that rat is already

fixed. So the owl just sits and watches till the right moment has

arrived; then it flits swiftly, softly, silently, across the intervening

space and drops like a flake of snow. Without warning, or suspicion of

danger, the rat feels eight sharp claws buried in its flesh. It protests

with frantic squeals, but these are stopped with a nip that crunches its

skull, and the owl is away with it to the old tower, where the hungry

children are calling, with weird, impatient hisses, for something to

eat.

The owl does not hunt the fields and hedgerows only. It goes to all

places where rats or mice may be, reconnoitres farmyards, barns and

dwelling houses and boldly enters open windows. Sometimes it hovers in

the air, like a kestrel, scanning the ground below. And though its

regular hunting hours are from dusk till dawn, it has been seen at work

as late as nine or ten on a bright summer morning. But the vulgar boys

of bird society are fond of mobbing it when it appears abroad by day,

and it dislikes publicity.

The barn owl lays its eggs in the places which it inhabits. There is

usually a thick bed of pellets on the floor, and it considers no other

nest needful. The eggs are said to be laid in pairs. There may be two,

four, or six, of different eggs, in the nest, and perhaps a young one,

or two, at the same time. Eggs are found from April, or even March, till

June or July, and there is, sometimes at any rate, a second brood as

late as November or December. This owl does not hoot, but screeches. A

weird and ghostly voice it is, from which, according to Ovid, the bird

has its Latin name, Strix (pronounced "Streex," probably, at that time).

Est illis strigibus nomen, sed nominis hujus.

Causa, quod horrenda stridere nocte silent.

It is a sound which, coming suddenly out of the darkness, might well

start fears and forebodings in the dark and guilty mind of untutored

man, which would not be dispelled by a nearer view of the strange object

from which they proceeded. White, ghostly, upright, spindle-shaped and

biggest at the top, where two great orbs flare, like fiery bull's-eyes,

from the centres of two round white targets, it stands solemn and

speechless; you approach nearer and it falls into fearsome pantomimic

attitudes and grimaces, like a clown trying to frighten a child. And now

a new horror has been added to the barn owl. The numerous letters which

appeared in _The Times_ and were summarised, with comments, by Sir T.

Digby Pigott, C.B., in _The Contemporary Review_ of July 1908, leave no

reasonable room for doubt that this bird sometimes becomes brightly

luminous, and is the will-o'-the-wisp for believing in which we are

deriding our forefathers. All things considered, I cannot withhold my

sympathy and some respect for the superstition of aged housekeepers,

Romans and Indians. For that of gamekeepers and farmers I have neither.

All our new schemes of "Nature study" will surely deserve the reproach

of futility if, in the next generation, every farmhouse in England has

not its own Owl Tower for the encouragement of this friend of man.

VIII

DOMESTIC ANIMALS

Long before Jubal became the father of all such as handle the harp and

the organ and Tubalcain the instructor of every artificer in brass and

iron, Abel was a keeper of sheep, but the sacred writer has not informed

us how he first caught them and tamed them. If we consult other records

of the infancy of the human race, they reveal as little. When the

Egyptians began to portray their daily life on stone 6,000 or 7,000

years ago, they already had cattle and sheep, geese and ducks and dogs

and plenty of asses, though not horses. They got these from the

Assyrians, who had used them in their chariots long before they began to

record anything.

Further back than this we have no one to question except those shadowy

men of the Stone Age who have left us heaps of their implements, but

none of their bones. They were not so careful of the bones of horses,

which lie in thousands about the precincts of their untidy villages, but

not a scrawl on a bit of a mammoth tusk has been found to indicate

whether these were ridden and driven, or only hunted and eaten.

Why should it be recorded that Cadmus invented letters? Why should we

inquire who first made gunpowder and glass? Why should every schoolboy

be taught that Watt was the inventor of the steam engine? Can any of

these be put in the scale, as benefactors of our race, with the man who

first trained a horse to carry him on its back, or drew milk with his

hands from the udders of a cow? The familiarity of the thing has made us

callous to the wonder of it. Let us put it before us, like a painting or

a statue, and have a good look at it.

There is a farmhouse, any common farmhouse, just one of the molecules

that constitute the mass of our wholesome country life. A horse is being

harnessed for the plough: its ancestors sniffed the wind on the steppes

of Tartary. Meek cows are standing to be milked: when primitive man

first knew them in their native forests he used to give them a wide

berth, for his flint arrows fell harmless off their tough hides, and

they were fierce exceedingly. A cock is crowing on the fence as if the

whole farm belonged to himself: he ought to be skulking in an Indian

jungle. The sheep have no business here; their place is on the rocky

mountains of Asia. As for the dog, it is difficult to assign it a

country, for it owns no wild kindred in any part of the world, but it

ought at least to be worrying the sheep. If there is an ass, it is a

native of Abyssinia, and the Turkeys are Americans. The cat derives its

descent from an Egyptian.

But all these are of one country now and of one religion. They know no

home nor desire any, except the farmhouse, in which they were born and

bred, and the lord of it is their lord, to whom they look for food and

protection. And what would he do without them? What should we do without

them? It is impossible to conceive that life could be carried on if we

were deprived of these obedient and uncomplaining servants. High

civilisation has been attained without steam engines; education, as we

use the term now, is superfluous--Runjeet Singh, the Lion of the Punjab,

could neither read nor write; the human race has prospered and

multiplied without the knowledge of iron; but we know of no time when

man did without domestic animals.

It is vain to speculate how the thing first came about, whether the

sportive anthropoid ape took to riding on a wild goat before he emerged

as a man keeping flocks, or whether some great pioneer, destined to be

worshipped in after ages as a demigod, showed his fellows how the wild

calves, if taken young, might be trained into tractable slaves; and it

is hopeless to expect that any record will now leap to light which will

give us knowledge in place of speculation. But it might not be

unprofitable to seek for some clue to the strange selection which the

domesticating genius of man has made from among the multifarious

material presented to it by the animal kingdom. If we do so we shall

almost be forced to the conclusion that domesticability is a character,

or quality, inherent in some animals and entirely wanting in others.

Let us begin with pigeons, a very large group, but one that shows more

unity than any of the other Orders into which naturalists divide birds.

It embraces turtle doves of many species, wood pigeons, ground pigeons,

fruit pigeons and some strange forms like the great crowned pigeon of

Victoria. Of all these only one, the common blue rock, has been

domesticated. The ring dove of Asia has been kept as a cage bird for so

long that a permanent albino and also a fawn-coloured variety have been

established and are more common in aviaries than birds of the natural

colour; but the ring dove has not become a domestic fowl, and never

will. In this instance there is a plausible explanation, for the blue

rock, unlike the rest of the tribe, nests and roosts in holes and is

also gregarious; therefore, if provided with accommodation of the kind

it requires, it will form a permanent settlement and remain with us on

the same terms as the honey bee; while the ring dove, not caring for a

fixed home, must be confined, however tame it may become, or it will

wander and be lost.

But this explanation will not fit other cases. What a multitude of wild

ducks there are in Scotland and every other country, mallards, pintails,

gadwalls, widgeons, pochards and teals, all very much alike in their

habits and tastes! But of them all only one species, and that a

migratory one, the mallard, has been persuaded to abandon its wandering

ways and settle down to a life of ease and obesity as a dependant of

man. In India there is a duck of the same genus as the mallard, known as

the spotted-billed duck (_Anas poecilorhynchus_), which is as large as

the mallard and quite as tasty, and is, moreover, not migratory, but

remains and breeds in the country. But it has not been domesticated: the

tame ducks in India, as here, are all mallards. The muscovy duck is a

distinct species which has been domesticated elsewhere and introduced.

From the ducks let us turn to the hens. The partridge, grouse and

pheasant are all dainty birds, but if we desire to eat them we must

shoot them, or (_proh pudor!_) snare them. Plover's eggs are worth four

shillings a dozen, but we must seek them on the moors. The birds that

have covenanted to accept our food and protection and lay their eggs for

our use and rear their young for us to kill are descended from _Gallus

bankivus_, the jungle fowl of Eastern India. How they came here history

records not: perhaps the gipsies brought them. They appear now in

strange and diverse guise, the ponderous and feather-legged

Cochin-China, the clean-limbed and wiry game, the crested Houdan, the

Minorca with its monstrous comb, and the puny bantam. In Japan there is

a breed that carries a tail seven or eight feet in length, which has to

be "done" regularly like a lady's hair, to keep it from dirt and damage.

But however their outward aspects may differ, they are of the same

blood and know it. A featherweight bantam cock will stand up to an

elephantine brahma and fight him according to the rules of the ring and

next minute pay compliments to his lady in language which she will be at

no loss to understand. And if the artificial conditions of their life

were removed, they would soon all lapse alike to the image of the stock

from which they are sprung. This is well illustrated in a show case in

the South Kensington Museum exhibiting a group of fowls from Pitcairn's

Island. These are descended from some stock landed by the mutinous crew

of H.M.S. _Bounty_ in 1790, which ran wild, and in a century they have

gone back to the small size and lithe figure and almost to the game

colour of the wild birds from which they branched off before history

dawned.

If we turn next to the Ruminants, the clean beasts which chew the cud

and divide the hoof, the puzzle becomes harder still. Deer and antelopes

are often kept as pets, and become so tame that they are allowed to

wander at liberty. In Egypt herds of gazelles were so kept before the

days of Cheops. In India I have known a black buck which regularly

attended the station cricket ground, moving among the nervous players

with its nose in the air and insolence in its gait, fully aware that

eighteen-inch horns with very sharp points insured respectful treatment.

Mr. Sterndale trained a Neilghai to go in harness. The great bovine

antelopes of Africa would become as tame, and there is no reason to

suppose that their beef and milk would not be as good as those of the

cow. But no antelope or deer appears ever to have been domesticated,

with the exception of the reindeer.

Of the other ruminants the ox, buffalo, yak, goat, sheep and a few

others are domestic animals, while the bison and the gaur, or so-called

Indian bison, and a large number of wild goats and sheep have been

neglected. The buffalo and yak have probably come under the yoke in

comparatively recent times, for they are little changed; but the goat

and still more the sheep have undergone a wonderful transformation

within and without. Who could recognise in a Leicester ewe the wary

denizen of precipitous mountains which will not feed until it has set a

sentinel to give warning if danger approaches? And here is a curious

fact which has scarcely been noticed by naturalists.

The original of our goat is supposed to be the Persian ibex. At any

rate, it was an ibex of some species, as its horns plainly show. But on

the plains of Northern India, under ranges of hills on which the Persian

ibex wanders wild, the common domestic goat is a very different animal

from that of Europe, and has peculiar spiral horns of the same pattern

as the markhor, another grand species of wild goat which draws eager

hunters to the higher reaches of the same mountains. From this it would

appear that two species of wild goat have been domesticated and kept to

some extent distinct, one eventually finding its way westward, but not

eastward and southward.

The Indian humped cattle also differ so widely in form, structure and

voice from those of Europe that there can scarcely be a doubt of their

descent from distinct species. But both have entirely disappeared as

wild animals, unless indeed the white cattle of Chillingham are really

descendants of Caesar's dreadful urus and not merely domestic cattle

lapsed into savagery. So have the camel, and, with a similar possible

exception, the horse. Was the whole race in each of these cases

subjugated, or exterminated, and that by uncivilised man with his

primitive weapons? There is no analogy here with the extinction of such

animals as the mammoth, for the ox is a beast in every way fitted to

live and thrive in the present condition of this world, as much so as

the buffalo and the Indian bison, which show no sign of approaching

extinction. Our fathers easily got rid of the difficulty by assuming

that Noah never released these species after the Flood, but what shall

those do who cannot believe in the literality of Noah's ark?

As for the dog, its domestication has been the creation of a new

species. The material was perhaps the wolf, more likely the jackal, but

possibly a blend of more than one species. But a dog is now a dog and

neither a wolf nor a jackal. A mastiff, a pug, a collie, a greyhound, a

pariah all recognise each other and observe the same rules of etiquette

when they meet.

Concerning Animals and Other Matters · 第 5 / 11 段