COMMON OBJECTS OF THE COUNTRY.
[Illustration: A]
THE
COMMON OBJECTS
OF
THE COUNTRY
BY THE
REV. J. G. WOOD, M.A., F.L.S.
AUTHOR OF THE “ILLUSTRATED NATURAL HISTORY,” “COMMON OBJECTS
OF THE SEA-SHORE,” “MY FEATHERED FRIENDS,” ETC., ETC.
_WITH ILLUSTRATIONS BY W. S. COLEMAN_
SIXTEENTH EDITION
LONDON
GEORGE ROUTLEDGE AND SONS, LIMITED
BROADWAY, LUDGATE HILL
MANCHESTER AND NEW YORK
1897
ROUTLEDGE’S BOOKS FOR THE COUNTRY.
_With Plates Printed in Colours, Crown 8vo, Cloth, 3s. 6d. each._
Wood’s (Rev. J. G.) Common Objects of the Seashore.
Illustrations by G. B. SOWERBY. 12th Edition.
Wood’s (Rev. J. G.) Common Objects of the Country. 150
Illustrations by COLEMAN. 14th Edition.
Our Woodlands, Heaths, and Hedges. By W. S. COLEMAN. 4th
Edition.
Moore’s British Ferns and Allied Plants. 10th Edition.
Coleman’s British Butterflies. 200 Figures. 16th Edition.
Atkinson’s British Birds’ Eggs and Nests. 18th Edition.
Wild Flowers: Where to Find and How to Know Them. SPENCER
THOMSON. 22nd Edition.
Haunts of the Wild Flowers. By ANNE PRATT. 3rd Edition.
Wood’s (Rev. J. G.) Fresh and Salt-Water Aquarium. 2nd Edition.
Wood’s (Rev. J. G.) Common British Moths. 100 Illustrations by
E. SMITH, T. W. WOOD, and W. S. COLEMAN. 8th Edition.
Wood’s (Rev. J. G.) Common British Beetles. 100 Illustrations
by E. SMITH and T. W. WOOD. 2nd Edition.
Roses and their Culture. By W. D. PRIOR. 2nd Edition.
PREFACE.
In the following pages will be found short and simple descriptions of
some of the numerous objects that are to be found in our fields, woods,
and waters.
As this little work is not intended for scientific readers, but simply
as a guide to those who are desirous of learning something of natural
objects, scientific language has been studiously avoided, and scientific
names have been only given in cases where no popular name can be found.
In so small a compass but little can be done; and therefore I have been
content to take certain typical objects, which will serve as guides, and
to omit mention of those which can be placed under the same head.
Every object described by the pen is illustrated by the pencil, in order
to aid the reader in his researches; and the subjects have been so chosen
that no one with observant eyes can walk in the fields for half-an-hour
without finding very many of the objects described in the book.
COMMON OBJECTS OF THE COUNTRY.
CHAPTER I.
EYES AND NO EYES--DIFFICULTIES OF OBSERVERS--THE
BATS--LONG-EARED BAT--ITS UTILITY--SPORT AND MURDER--SONG
OF THE BAT--A BRAVE PRISONER--HOW BATS FEED--HAIR OF BAT
AND MOUSE--WING OF THE BAT--THE FIELD-MOUSE--ITS STEALTHY
MOVEMENTS--HARVEST MOUSE--WATER RAT--AN INNOCENT VICTIM.
Every one has read, or at least heard of, the tale entitled “Eyes and
no Eyes”; which tale is to be found in the _Evenings at Home_. Now this
story, or rather the moral of it, is, in my opinion, as often used
unfairly as rightly.
Although there are those who pass through life with closed eyes and
stopped ears, yet there are many more who would be glad to use their
eyes and ears, but know not how to do so for want of proper teaching.
To one who has not learned to read, the Bible itself is but a series
of senseless black marks; and similarly, the unwritten Word that lies
around, below, and above us, is unmeaning to those who cannot read it.
Many would like to read, but cannot do so; and it is in order to help
such, to bring before them the first alphabetical teaching, that the
following pages are written.
It is no matter of marvel that many an observant person becomes
bewildered among natural objects; that he is lost amid the variety of
animal, vegetable, and mineral life in which he lives; and that, after
vainly attempting to comprehend some simple object, he finds himself
baffled, and so in despair ceases to inquire into particulars, and
contents himself with admiration of and love for nature in general.
Objects change so rapidly and so constantly, that there is hardly time to
note a few remarks before the season has passed away; the object under
examination has changed with it, and a year must elapse before that
investigation can be continued.
From experience I know how valuable are even a few hints by which the
mind can be directed in a straight course without wasting its strength
and losing its time by devious wanderings. Only hints can be given,
for the limits of the volume forbid any lengthened discussion of
single objects; and, besides, the mind is more pleased to work out a
subject according to its own individuality than to have it laid down as
completed, and to be forbidden to go any further.
Almost every object that is described by the pen will be figured by the
pencil, in order to assist the reader in identifying the creature in an
easier manner than if it were merely described in words.
Of the birds I shall not be able to treat, as they alone would occupy
the entire space of this volume; and, for the same reason, only a short
account can be given of each object.
As in the scale of creation the mammals fill the highest place, we will
speak of them first, taking, as far as possible, each creature in its own
order.
Perhaps there are few people who would not feel some surprise when they
learn that the very highest of our British animals is the Bat. Usually
the bat is looked upon with rather a feeling of dread, and is regarded as
a creature of such ill-omen that its very presence causes a shudder, and
its approach would put to flight many a human being.
There is certainly some ground for this feeling; for the night-loving
propensities of the creature, its weird-like aspect, its strange devious
flight, and more especially its organs of flight, are so interwoven with
the popular ideas of evil and its ministers, that bats and imps appear to
be synonymous terms.
Painters always represent their imps as upborne by bats’ wings, furnished
with several supplementary hooks; and sculptors follow the same principle.
In consequence, all bats and objects connected with bats are viewed
with great horror, with two exceptions: a cricket-bat and a bat’s-wing
gas-burner.
Now, I cannot but think that this is very hard on the bats. It is said
that the African negroes depict and describe _their_ evil spirits as
white; and that, in consequence, the negro children fly in consternation
if perchance a white man comes into their territory.
Yet, a white man is not so very horrid an object after all, if one only
dare look at him; and the same remark holds good with the bats.
[Illustration: COMMON LONG-EARED BAT.]
A very pretty creature is a bat, more especially the long-eared species,
_Plecotus communis_, as it is scientifically called, and its habits are
most curious. It is well worth the time to watch these little creatures
on a warm summer’s night, as they flit about in the air, and to note the
enjoyment of their aërial hunt. They are fearless animals; and provided
that the observer remains tolerably still and does not speak, bats will
often flit so close to his face that he could almost catch them in his
hand.
Their flight is very singular, and reminds one of the butterfly in its
apparently vague flitting. Indeed, there are many large moths that fly by
night who can hardly be distinguished from the bats, if the evening be
rather dark, so similar are they in their mode of journeying through the
air.
From this peculiarity of flight, they are accounted difficult marks for a
gun; and it is unfortunately a custom with some ruthless powder-burners
to practise by day at swallows and by night at bats. Now, even putting
the matter in its lowest form, it is wrong to shoot swallows; for they
are most useful birds, and serve to thin the host of flies and other
insects that people the summer air.
As regards the swallow, this is well known, and does serve to protect it
from some persons who have more compassion than the generality. Moreover,
the swallows, swifts, and martins are extremely pretty birds, and their
beauty is in some degree their shield.
But the bat is as useful a creature as the swallow, and in the very same
way; for, when the evening comes on, and the swallow retires to its nest,
the bat issues from its home and takes up the work just where the swallow
leaves it--the two creatures dividing the day and night between them.
Therefore, let those who refrain from swallow shooting include the bat in
their free list.
Some there are whom nothing can restrain from killing, for the instinct
of slaughter is strong in them. With them nothing is valuable unless it
is to be killed. If it can be eaten afterwards, so much the better; but
the great enjoyment consists in the mere act of killing.
They contrive to disguise the ugliness of the thing by giving it any name
but the right one; but, in spite of the name, the thing exists. And I
wonder, if they were to look very closely into themselves, whether they
would not find there a decided desire to kill men, provided that they had
no reason to dread the consequences. Those who have practised the sport
unanimously say that nothing is so exciting as man-hunting and killing
and that all other sport is tame in comparison.
The chief name under which this profanity is disguised is that of
“Sport,” a word which always reminds me of the “Frog and Boys” fable.
There are actually men who are audacious enough to declare that there is
no cruelty in “sport”; that foxes are charmed at being hunted, and that
pheasants derive a singular gratification from getting shot. Now, I never
was either a fox or a pheasant; but I entirely repudiate the assertion
that any animal likes to be chased or to be wounded; and, moreover, I
disbelieve the sincerity of the man who can say such a thing. If he
says openly that he finds excitement in the chase, and means to gratify
himself without any reference to the feelings of the creatures which he
chases, I can understand while I disapprove. But when a man justifies
himself by asserting that any animal likes to be hunted, I can hardly
find epithets too contemptuous for him; and I could see him run the
gauntlet among the Sioux Indians with but small pangs of conscience.
Some again call themselves Naturalists, and under the shelter of that
high-sounding name occupy themselves in destroying nature. The true
naturalist never destroys life without good cause, and when he does so,
it is with reluctance, and in the most merciful way; for the life is
really the nature, and that gone, the chief interest of the creature
is gone too. We should form but a poor notion of the human being were
we only to see it presented to our eyes in the mummy; and equally
insufficient is the idea that can be formed of an animal from the
inspection of its outward frame. Nature and life belong to each other;
and, if torn asunder, the one is objectless and the other gone.
Lastly, let me remind those who find such gratification in destroying,
that the word “Destroyer” is in the Greek language “Apollyon”.
As we do not intend to treat of the dead and dried bodies of animals, but
of their active life, we return to our bat flitting in the evening dusk,
and, instead of shooting him, watch his proceedings.
Every creature is made for happiness, and receives happiness according
to its capacity; and it is very wrong to suppose that, because _we_
should be miserable if we led the life of a vulture, or a sloth, or a
bat, therefore those creatures are miserable. In truth, the vulture is
attracted to, and feels its greatest gratification in, those substances
which would drive us away with averted eyes and stopped nostrils. The
sloth is, on the authority of Waterton, quite a jovial beast, and
anything but slothful when in his proper place; and as for the bat, it
sings for very joy. True, the song is not very melodious, neither is that
of the swift, or the peacock, nor, perhaps, that of the Cochin-China
fowl, but it is nevertheless a song from the abundance of the heart.
There are many human ears that are absolutely incapable of perceiving the
cry of the bat, so keen and sharp is the note; a very razor’s-edge of
sound.
More than once I have been standing in a field over which bats were
flying in multitudes, filling the air almost oppressively with their
sharp needle-like cries. Yet my companion, who was a musician,
theoretically and practically, was unable to hear a sound, and could not
for some time believe me when I spoke of the noisy little creatures above.
The sound bears some resemblance to that produced by a slate-pencil when
held perpendicularly in writing on the slate, only the bat’s cry is
several octaves more acute. I never but once heard the sound correctly
imitated, and that was done by a graceless urchin, during a long sermon
one Sunday morning. He had contrived to arrange two keys in such a
manner that, when grated over each other, they produced a squeaking sound
that exactly resembled the cry uttered by the bat. So, by judicious
management of his keys, he kept the congregation on the look-out for the
bat, and beguiled the time much to his satisfaction.
Of so piercing and peculiar a nature is the cry, that it gives no clue
to the position or distance of the creature that utters it, and it seems
to proceed indiscriminately from any portion of the air towards which
the attention happens to be directed. The note of the grasshopper lark
possesses somewhat of the same quality.
Even in confinement the bat is an interesting creature, and discovers
certain traits of character and peculiarities of habit which in its
wild state cannot be seen. I might here refer to several stories of
domesticated and tamed bats; but as they have already been given to the
world, and my space is limited, I prefer to give my own experiences.
Not long ago, I received a message from a neighbouring grocer, requesting
me to capture a bat which had flown into the shop, and which no one dared
touch.
When I arrived, the creature had taken refuge on an upper shelf, and
had crawled among a pile of sugar-loaves that were lying on their sides
after the usual custom. We pulled out several loaves near the spot where
the bat was last seen, and by casting a strong light from a bull’s-eye
lantern, discovered a little black object snugly ensconced at the very
back of the shelf.
I pushed my hand towards the spot, but for some time could not seize the
creature, as it was so tightly packed, and squeezed into a corner. At
last the bat gave a flap with one of the wings, which I caught, and so
gently drew my prisoner forwards.
He was a brave little fellow, as well as discreet, and bit savagely at my
fingers. However, his little tiny teeth could not do much damage, and I
put him into a cage which I brought with me.
The cage was originally made for the reception of mice, and was of a rude
character--the back and ends being of wood and the front of wire. In a
very few minutes after his entrance into the cage, the bat climbed up the
wooden back, by hitching his claws into the slight inequalities of the
wood, and there hung suspended, head downwards.
When so placed, his aspect was curious enough. The claws of the hind legs
being fixed into a crevice, so as to bear the weight of the body, the
wings were then extended to their utmost, and suddenly wrapped round the
body. At the same time the large ears were folded back under the wings
and protected by them, the orifice of the ear itself being guarded in a
very singular manner.
If the reader will refer to the figure of the bat on page 4, he will
see that inside the great ear is a sharply-pointed membrane, somewhat
resembling a second ear. This membrane is called the “_tragus_,” and when
the large ears are tucked away out of sight, the tragus remains exposed,
and gives the creature a very strange appearance.
When the bat is living, the ears are of singular beauty. Their substance
is delicate, and semi-transparent if viewed against the light; so much
so, indeed, that by the aid of a microscope the circulation of the blood
can be detected. As the creature moves about, the ears are continually in
motion, being thrown into graceful and ever-changing curves. If people
only knew what a pretty pet the long-eared bat can become, they would
soon banish dormice and similar creatures in favour of bats.
It was rather a remarkable circumstance, that the bat of which I have
just been speaking would not touch a fly, although one which I had in
my possession some ten years since would eat flies and other insects
readily. Whenever it took the insect, it daintily ate up the abdomen and
thorax, rejecting the head, wings, and legs. But my second bat entirely
refused insects of any kind, and would eat nothing but raw beef cut up
into very small morsels. I never had a pet so difficult to feed.
If the meat were not perfectly fresh, or if it were not cut small enough,
the bat would hardly look at it. Now if a bit of raw meat about the size
of a large pin’s head be placed in the air, a few minutes will dry and
harden its exterior; and when this was the case, my bat did not even
notice it. So I had to make twenty or more attempts daily before the
creature would condescend to take any food.
When, however, it _did_ eat, its mode of so doing was remarkable enough.
It seized the meat with a sharp snap, retreated to the middle of the
cage, sat upright--as in the engraving already alluded to--thrust its
wings forward to form a kind of tent, and then, lowering its head under
its wings, disposed of the meat unseen.
[Illustration]
From the movement of the neck and upper portion of the head, it would be
seen that the creature ate the meat much after the manner of a cat; that
is, by a series of snaps or pecks; for the teeth are all sharply pointed,
and have no power of grinding the food. These teeth can be seen in the
accompanying sketch of a bat’s skull.
In many parts of England the bats are called “Flitter-mice,” and are
thought to be simply mice plus wings. This opinion has been formed
from the resemblance between the general shape, and especially that of
the fur, of the two animals. But if we look at the teeth, we find at
once that those of the bat are sharp and pointed, extending tolerably
equally all round the jaw-bone; while the teeth of the mice are of that
chisel-shaped character found in the rabbit and other rodent animals.
Now if we turn to the fur, and examine it with a microscope, we shall
there find characteristics as decided as those of the teeth.
On this page is the magnified image of a single hair, taken from the
long-eared bat. It will be seen that the outline of the hair is deeply
cut, and the markings run in a double line. These markings and outlines
are caused by the structure of the hair, which is covered with a regular
series of scales adhering but loosely to its exterior. These scales can
be removed by rough handling, and therefore the aspect of the hair can be
much altered.
[Illustration]
Let us now take a hair from the common mouse, and place it under the
microscope. This being done, we find the result to be as shown in the
accompanying cut.
[Illustration]
The two objects here shown are two portions of the same hair; the upper
one showing the middle of the hair, and the lower being taken from a
portion nearer the root. Both these specimens were taken by myself from
the animals, and drawn by myself by means of the Camera Lucida, so that
they are to be depended on.
To return to my caged bat.
Although it did not do much in the eating way, it frequently came to the
water vessel and drank therefrom; but it was so timid when drinking,
that I could not see whether it lapped or drank. When disturbed, it used
to scuttle away over the floor, in a most absurd manner, but with some
speed. Sometimes it tried to drink by crawling to a spot just over the
vessel, and lowering itself until its nose was within reach of the water;
but the distance was too great for the attempt to be successful. In its
wild state, the bat hunts insects, as they hover over the surface of
water, and drinks as it flies, by dipping its head in the water while on
the wing.
I rather think that my bat must have received some injury from the brooms
and caps that were aimed at it when it entered the shop, for it only
lived a fortnight or so, and one morning I found it hanging by its hind
claws from the roof of the cage, quite dead.
I believe that bats generally die while thus suspended, for it is a very
common thing to find plenty of suspended bats, dry and mummified, when
entrance is made into an unfrequented cave, or a hollow tree cut down,
or, indeed, when any bat-haunted spot is examined.
In speaking of the bat, I have used popular terms, and therefore have
employed the word “wing”. But the apparatus of the bat is not a wing at
all, but only a developed hand. Let the reader spread his hand as wide as
he can, and he will see that between each finger, and especially between
the forefinger and the thumb, the skin forms a kind of webbing, something
of the same kind as that on the feet of ducks and other aquatic birds.
Now if the bones of the fingers were drawn out like wire until they
became some seven or eight feet long, and the skin between them were
extended to the nails of the elongated fingers, we should have a
structure analogous to that of the bat’s wing. The thumb joint is left
comparatively free; and by means of this joint, and the hooked claw
at its extremity, the creature walks on a level surface, or can crawl
suspended from a beam or a trunk. It is very curious to see the bat
stretching out its wings and feeling about for a convenient spot whereon
to fix the hooks.
So tenacious are these hooks, that the baby bat is often found enjoying
an airing by clinging to the body of its mother, and holding firm, while
she flies in search of prey.
It is true that the little creature is suspended with its head downwards;
but it appears quite comfortable, nevertheless. Bat-children do not
suffer from determination of the blood to the brain. Neither do certain
human children, it seems, if we are to take as a criterion those whom we
see hanging half out of perambulators, fast asleep, and rolling from side
to side with every movement of the vehicle.
Both my bats were very particular, not to say finicking, about their
personal appearance. They bestowed much time and pains on the combing of
their fur, and specially seemed to value a straight parting down the back.
It was most interesting to watch the little thing parting its hair. The
claw was drawn in a line straight from the top of the head to the very
tail, and the fur parted at each side with a dexterity worthy of an
accomplished lady’s-maid. The same habit has been observed in other bats
that have been tamed.
There are more than twenty British bats, but the habits of all are very
similar; and so I prefer to take the prettiest, and, having described it,
to leave the remaining species for a future occasion.
Pass we now from the Flitter-mouse to the Mouse.
In the fields, in the farm-yards, in the barns, and in the ricks are to
be found myriads of certain little animals called Field-mice. Acting on
the principle that I have just laid down, I shall take the most common
and I think the prettiest species--the Common Short-tailed Field-mouse,
represented on next page.
The fur of this creature is strongly tinged with red, and by its colour
alone it is easily to be distinguished from the common grey or brown
mouse. Its tail is short and stumpy, looking as if it had suffered
amputation at an early period of life, and its nose is more rounded than
that of the common mouse. Indeed, it has a very bluff and farmer-like
aspect, and looks as if it ought to wear top-boots.
[Illustration: SHORT-TAILED FIELD-MOUSE.]
Common as these little creatures are, they are seldom seen, because they
keep themselves so close to the ground, and assimilate so nearly with it
in colour, that they cannot easily be descried among the grass stalks,
under shelter of which they pursue their noiseless way.
Their speed is not nearly so great as that of the house-mice, but they
are much more difficult to catch; for they wind among the grass so
lithely, and press upon the earth so closely, that the fingers cannot
readily close on them, even when they are discovered.
From this facility of avoiding observation and capture, they seem to
derive much audacity, and run about a field in fear of nothing but the
kestrel.
When first I made a personal acquaintance with these creatures, it was
under rather peculiar circumstances. There is a certain field, which was
given up to football, cricket, hockey, and similar games, as soon as
the grass was converted into hay and removed. One day I was very tired
with running, and lay down to rest on a pile of coats that had been laid
aside; my eyes were fixed on one spot of earth, just visible between the
grass stalks, but without any particular object. Presently I thought I
saw a something red glide across the spot, but was not certain. However,
I leaned over the place and a little farther on saw the same thing again.
So I made a sharp pounce at the object, and found that I had caught a
short-tailed field-mouse.
Now here was this impertinent little animal taking a walk close to the
wicket, in spite of the bats, ball, and runners. In order to watch its
proceedings, I released it, and followed it in its progress. After
watching for a few minutes, I happened to look up for a moment; and when
I again looked for the creature, it was gone, and I could not find it
again.
Subsequently I became sufficiently expert to find them whenever I
wished; and if I wanted a field-mouse, seldom had to examine more than a
square yard of ground without finding one.
They are very injurious little creatures, for they are not content with
eating corn, but nibble the young shoots of various plants, and sometimes
strip young trees of their bark.
Fortunately we have allies in air and on earth, in the persons of owls
and kestrels, stoats and weasels, or the damage done by these red-skinned
marauders would be more than serious.
Some idea of the damage that may be done by the aggregate numbers of
these small quadrupeds may be formed from the fact that in Dean Forest
and the New Forest great numbers of holly plants were entirely destroyed
by them, they having eaten off the bark for a distance of several inches
from the ground. And other trees were favoured with the notice of the
field-mouse, but in a different mode. Great numbers of oak and chestnuts
were found dead, and pulled up; and when pulled up, it was seen that
their roots had been gnawed through, about two inches below the level of
the ground.
Various modes of destroying the marauders were put in practice, such
as traps, poison, &c., but the most effectual was, as effectual things
generally are, the most simple.
A great number of holes were dug in the ground, about two feet long,
eighteen inches wide, and eighteen inches deep. This is the measurement
at the bottom of the hole; but at the top the hole was only eighteen
inches long and nine wide, so that when mice fell into it, they were
unable to escape.
In these holes upwards of forty thousand mice were taken in less than
three months, irrespective of those that were removed from the holes by
the stoats, weasels, crows, magpies, owls, and other creatures.
Like most of the mouse family, the field-mouse is easily tamed; and I
have seen one that would come to the side of its cage, and take a grain
of com from its owner’s fingers.
[Illustration: HARVEST-MOUSE.]
There is another kind of mouse which may be found in the autumn, together
with its most curious nest. This is the Harvest-mouse, the tiniest of
British quadrupeds, two harvest-mice being hardly equal in weight to a
halfpenny.
The chief point of interest in this little creature is its nest, which is
not unfrequently found by mowers and haymakers when they choose to exert
their eyes.
One of these nests, that was brought to me by a mower, was about the size
of a cricket ball, and almost as spherical. It was composed of dried
grass-stems, interwoven with each other in a manner equally ingenious and
perplexing. It was hollow, without even a vestige of an entrance; and
the substance was so thin that every object would be visible through the
walls. How it was made to retain its spherical form, and how the mice
were to find ingress and egress, I could not even imagine. The nest was
fastened to two strong and coarse stems of grass that had grown near a
ditch, and had overgrown themselves in consequence of a superabundance of
nourishment.
[Illustration: WATER-RAT.]
If we walk along the bank of a stream or a pond, we shall probably hear
a splash, and looking in its direction, may see a creature diving or
swimming, which creature we call a Water-rat; to the title of Rat,
however, it has but little right, and ought properly to be called the
“Water-vole”.
On examining the banks we shall find the entrance to its domicile,
being a hole in the earth, just above the water, and generally, where
possible, made just under a root or a large stone. Sometimes the hole
is made at some height above the water, and then it often happens that
the kingfisher takes possession, and there makes its home. Whether it
ejects the rat or not I cannot say, but I should think that it is quite
capable of doing so. Many a time I have seen the entrance to a rat-hole
decorated with a few stray fish-bones, which the rustics told me were
the relics of fish brought there and eaten by the water-rat. But I soon
found out that fish-bones were a sign of kingfishers, and not of rats;
and so guided, found plenty of the beautiful eggs of this beautiful
bird. Excepting the eggs of swallows and martins, I hardly know any so
delicately beautiful as those of the kingfisher, with their slight rose
tint and semi-transparent shell. But, alas! when the interior of the egg
is removed, the pearly pinkiness vanishes, and the shell becomes of a
pure white, very pretty, but not containing a tithe of its former beauty.
The piscatorial propensities of the kingfisher are not the only cause
of the slanderous reports concerning the water-vole, and its crime of
killing and eating fish. The common house-rat often frequents the
water-side; and, it being a great flesh-eater, certainly does catch and
eat the fish.
But the water-rat is a vegetable feeder, and I believe almost, if not
entirely, a vegetarian in diet. That it is so in individual cases, at all
events, I can personally testify, having seen the creature engaged in
eating.
In former days, when I thought the water-rats ate fish, I waged war
against them, for which warfare there are great facilities at Oxford.
However, a circumstance occurred which showed me that I had been wrong.
I saw a water-rat sitting on a kind of raft that had formed from a bundle
of reeds which had been cut and were floating down the river. Seeing
it busily at work feeding, I took it for granted that it was eating a
captured fish, and shot it accordingly, stretching it dead on its reed
raft.
On rowing up to the spot, I was rather surprised to find that there was
no fish there; and on examining the reeds, I rather wondered at the
regular grooves cut by my shot. But a closer inspection revealed a very
different state of things; namely, that the poor dead rat was quite
innocent of fish eating, and had been gnawing the green bark from the
reeds, the grooves being the marks left by its teeth. After this I gave
up rat shooting on principle.
Once, though, a rather curious circumstance occurred.
In my possession was a pet pistol, which would throw a ball with great
accuracy, and I considered myself sure of an apple at sixteen paces.
One day, just as I was standing by a branch of the river Cherwell, I
saw a water-rat sitting on the root of a tree at the opposite side of
the river, and watching me closely. The river was not above twelve or
fourteen yards wide; and the rat presented so good a mark that I fired at
him, and, of course, expected to see him on his back.
But there sat the rat, quite still on the stump, and about two inches
below him the round hole where the bullet had struck.
As the creature seemed determined to stay there, I reloaded, and took
a good aim, determined to make sure of him. As the smoke cleared away,
I had the satisfaction of seeing the rat in exactly the same position,
and another bullet-hole close by the former. Four shots I made at that
provoking animal, and four bullets did I deposit just under him. As I was
reloading for a fifth shot, the rat walked calmly down the stump, slid
into the water, and departed.
Now, whether he acted from sheer impertinence, or whether he was stunned
by the violent blow beneath him, I cannot say. The latter may perhaps
be the case, for squirrels are killed in North America by the shock of
the bullet against the bough on which they sit, so that no hole is made
in their skins, and the fur receives no damage. Perhaps the rat was
actuated by a supreme contempt for me and my shooting powers; and, as the
result showed, was quite justified in his opinion.