narrated in good faith, is that the animal "fell into the hollow where
the men were at work, and was taken up by them in ignorance of the mode
in which it had come there," or that "it may have hidden in the hollow
of a tree during the autumn and winter, and on the return of spring
found itself so far inclosed within its hiding-place as to be unable to
escape." This latter suggestion would be more worthy of attention were
the winter season the period in which, in our climate, periodical
additions are made to the living wood, so as to narrow the entrance, or
in which augmentations of bulk occurred to Toads, so as to prevent them
from getting out where they got in;--but unfortunately the reverse of
both suppositions is true. As to the former suggestion, while it may
possibly serve to dismiss a few of the published statements, there are
others which it would be absurd to explain thereby.
True to its principles of never shutting the door to the investigation
of any natural history subject, the _Zoologist_ has, during the eighteen
years of its existence, been a medium for collecting and preserving
facts bearing on this question. The pages of this periodical form an
invaluable storehouse to the philosophic naturalist, who wishes to
pursue his science undeterred by the ridicule of sciolism or the frown
of authority. Let us search its treasures, then, expecting to find
stories of diverse grades of credibility, of which the editor wisely
leaves his readers to judge for themselves.
In May 1844, the Rev. J. Pemberton Bartlett of Kingston, in Kent, an
experienced naturalist, mentions the following fact as having just come
under his own notice:--"Only a few weeks since, in cutting down a
fir-tree here, the workman discovered, completely imbedded in the
centre, a Toad, which had doubtless been there some years, as the tree
had completely grown over it; it must have been kept alive by absorbing
the moisture of the tree. It was not in a completely torpid state, and
after being exposed to the air a few hours, it crawled in true toad-like
style. The age of the tree in which it was found was, as far as I could
judge from the number of circles, about twenty-five years."[98]
In reply to an inquiry whether he himself saw the Toad, and counted the
timber-rings, Mr Bartlett favours me with the following note:--
"EXBURY PARSONAGE, NEAR SOUTHAMPTON,
_February 22, 1861_.
"DEAR SIR,-- ... _I_ quite believe that Toads _do_ live in stone, but I
have found it very difficult to get the facts from eye-witnesses. The
imbedded Toad in the fir-tree, mentioned by me in the _Zoologist_, I
saw, and, as stated there, I counted the rings of the tree. I believe it
to have been the common Toad; but it looked rather more flabby, and not
quite so round in its proportions, as toads generally do; in fact,
instead of being 'puffed up' as they commonly are, it was considerably
_down in the mouth_, from its close imprisonment! The cavity in which it
was fixed appeared to have been originally a crack or fissure in the
side of the tree; whether caused by decay, or made by a nuthatch or some
other bird, I cannot say. The wound appeared to have healed, as the bark
had apparently closed over it. The question now arises, Was the Toad
_young_ when it got into the hollow? and did it grow after it became a
prisoner? Or had it come to years of discretion, when it took that
unfortunate step, or rather crawl, into the cavity where it was so long
to be imprisoned? And _why did_ it remain there so quietly, while the
bark gradually grew over its prison-house? The answer that I should
give to the first of these questions would be, that probably it had
arrived at a state of _toadhood_ when it took refuge in the tree, and
_did not_ grow afterwards. My theory why it remained ensconced there so
quietly is this, that probably it might have been accustomed for some
time to take refuge by day in this hole, from whence it would set out on
its nocturnal rambles, and probably 'not go home till morning;' that on
some occasion, 'when daylight did appear,' it returned to its accustomed
haunt, and there squatted, winking and puffing, after its night's
exploits, as toads are wont to do; that, on that luckless day, some
felled tree or trees were laid up against the fir-tree that contained
its abode, and that the tree or trees remained there till the bark
closed so as to prevent its escape. What makes this idea the more
probable is that the place where the fir-tree grew had, for probably
years, been used as a place to store felled timber, as it was used for
that purpose at the time I saw the Toad.
"After the discovery of this Toad in the fir-tree, I tried several
experiments on Toads, by burying them in closely-sealed flower-pots, at
a depth of nearly three feet. I much regret that I cannot find my notes
on the subject; but I remember perfectly the main facts of one. The Toad
was placed in a flower-pot, with another turned over it, and well
cemented together--the two holes in both pots being also closely
cemented up. It was buried between two and three feet deep in the
garden. At the end of three months I took it up, and weighed the Toad,
and found it had lost a very little in weight. This I did again at the
end of three months more; it was then quite lively, and had lost again
but little in weight. I replaced it as before, and on taking it up the
third time, I found the pots had, probably the cement not having been
dry when buried, slipped on one side, and the moisture had got in, and
consequently the poor Toad was dead, as well as buried! Now, surely if a
Toad could live _six months_ hermetically _sealed_ in a flower-pot,
without air or food--why not a much longer time?...--Believe me, yours
faithfully,
"J. PEMBERTON BARTLETT."
The Rev. W. J. Bree of Allesley, also an excellent zoologist, alluding
to some queries by Mr E. Newman, communicated the following facts:--"I
quite agree with you that the statements about Toads found in solid
stone are mostly very unsatisfactory. One instance of the kind I have
seen, as briefly stated, _Mag. Nat. Hist._, ix. 316. The Toad appeared
to me neither more nor less than our common species, although I
certainly did not examine it scientifically. The stone was the new red
sandstone of geologists; and was brought up, as I was told, some yards
from below the surface. I understood the Toad, and the two portions of
stone in which it was found inclosed, were deposited in some medical
museum at Birmingham. The animal would not have been discovered but for
an accident: the workmen were carting the stone away, and the block
containing the Toad happened to be placed on the top of a great load,
and accidentally fell from the cart to the ground, and, breaking by the
fall, brought to light the incarcerated reptile, which, I conclude, was
somewhat injured by the fall, as there was a fresh wound on one side of
the head, and it appeared to be blind of one eye. The Toad died, I was
informed, the second day after it was discovered, partly, in all
probability, in consequence of the injury. When I say the block of stone
was _solid_, this statement requires some qualification: the two parts
of the stone fitted together exactly, and quite close, except where the
cavity was in which the Toad lay; but from this cavity there was
evidently a flaw on one side towards the extremity, and a discolouring
of the substance of the sandstone, so that although the two portions
fitted together, they might not have been (on one side of the cavity)
very firmly united. This circumstance, perhaps, may detract from the
value of the example; nevertheless, it is unaccountable how the animal
could have got into the position in which it was found: it is not
conceivable, I think, that it should have been there ever since the
first formation of the rock, and there certainly appeared to be no means
by which it could have entered the rock in its present state, even
admitting (what we know to be the fact) that Toads have the power of
getting in and out of a very small orifice."
The author of the next account, signed "E. Peacock," is unknown to me;
and it does not appear whether he speaks from personal observation or
not. He says, "A few days ago, two labourers, employed at a stone quarry
at Frodingham, near Brigg, Lincolnshire, found, at a depth of five feet
below the surface of the ground, and between two blocks of stone (lias),
a living Toad: the interstice between the stones was filled with yellow
clay, and there did not appear the least possible aperture by which
anything could have passed."[99]
Even from remote India we have reports of the same phenomenon. A
correspondent from Serampore sends the _Zoologist_ the following:--"Last
Wednesday, Feb. 7, 1849, on severing the branch of a tree, apparently of
the tamarind species, I found a Toad in the centre of the wood, entirely
excluded from light and air. The appearance of the animal was rather
extraordinary. The body seemed full of air, and the skin soft and puffy,
and of a light yellowish colour, with the exception of the extremities
of the feet, which were hard and dark. The creature when exposed to the
air seemed rather uncomfortable, and drew in its head just like a turtle
when alarmed. It was thrown into a tank, when the water around, to the
space of about a foot on either side, became perfectly white, like milk.
It jumped out of the water immediately, apparently not liking the
coldness. I did not have opportunity of observing it further, which I
regret, as the animal got concealed in the long grass on the side of the
tank, and was thus lost. The general supposition as to the mode by which
animals get inclosed within trees, is their taking shelter in the cavity
of a tree when very young, and the growth of the tree filling up the
cavity, and thus imprisoning the animal. But this supposition, if true
in the present case, makes the circumstance now related the more
extraordinary. The tree is an old one, upwards of fifty feet high, and
having a trunk more than three feet in diameter; and the height from the
ground at which the Toad was found was about twelve feet. We must
suppose the Toad to have got into the tree when within a foot from the
ground: how many years old then must the animal be?"
The mention of the whitening of the water in which the Toad was immersed
is to my mind a strong corroboration of the veracity of the preceding
narrative. It is not a circumstance at all likely to occur to a mere
inventor, as it does not in the least bear on the question of
incarceration, and there is no attempt to explain it. I have
occasionally seen fluids rendered partially opaque by the outflow of a
milky secretion from animals immersed in them, as in the case of the
curious _Peripatus_ of Jamaica, which, when put alive into spirits,
discharges a considerable quantity of white fluid, which diffuses in the
alcohol. The Toad was probably distinct from our common English species,
but we know that the latter secretes a yellow acrid fluid in some
abundance in the follicles of its skin, and this might be poured out
under the excitement of alarm or anger.
In the summer of 1851, the Academie des Sciences was interested
(according to the public papers) with this question. In digging a well
at Blois, in June of that year, "some workmen drew up from about a yard
beneath the surface a large flint, weighing about fourteen pounds, and
on striking it a blow with a pickaxe, it split in two, and discovered,
snugly ensconced in the very centre, a large Toad. The Toad seemed for a
moment greatly astonished, but jumped out, and rather rapidly crawled
away. He was seized and replaced in the hole, when he settled himself
down very quietly. The stone and Toad, just as they were, were sent to
the Society of Sciences at Blois, and became immediately the subject of
curious attention. First of all, the flint, fitted together, with the
Toad in the hole, was placed in a cellar, and imbedded in moss. There it
was left for some time. It is not known if the Toad ate, but it is
certain that he made no discharge of any kind. It was found that if the
top of the stone were cautiously removed in a dark place he did not
stir, but that if the removal were effected in the light, he immediately
got out and ran away. If he were placed on the edge of the flint, he
would crawl into his hole, and fix himself comfortably in. He gathered
his legs beneath his body; and it was observed that he took especial
care of one of his feet, which had been slightly hurt in one of his
removals. The hole is not one bit larger than the body, except a little
where the back is. There is a sort of ledge on which his mouth reposes,
and the bones of the jaws are slightly indented, as if from long resting
on a hard substance. Not the slightest appearance of any communication
whatsoever between the centre and the outside of the stone can be
discovered, so that there is no reason to suppose that he could have
drawn any nourishment from the outside. The committee, consisting of
three eminent naturalists, one of whom has made Toads his peculiar
study for years, made no secret of their belief that the Toad had been
in that stone for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years; but how he could
have lived without air, or food, or water, or movement, they made no
attempt to explain. They accordingly contented themselves with proposing
that the present should be considered another authentic case, to be
added to the few hundreds already existing, of Toads being found alive
imbedded in stone, leaving it to some future savant to explain what now
appears the wonderful miracle by which Nature keeps them alive so long
in such places. But the distinguished M. Majendie suggested that it was
just possible that an attempt was being made to hoax the Academy, by
making it believe that the Toad had been found in the hole, whereas it
might only have been put in by the mischievous workmen after the stone
was broken. Terrified at the idea of becoming the laughing-stock of the
public, the Academy declined to take any formal resolution about the
Toad, but thanked the committee for its very interesting communication;
and so the subject dropped."
This statement does not, to be sure, bear about it that character of
precision which should mark the report of a scientific body, nor is it
verified by authority; but the terror ascribed to L'Academie at the idea
of being hoaxed, and the instant quashing of the inquiry, are so true to
nature, so accurately characteristic of our august associations of
savans, that I cannot help believing the story.
Here is another, which has the air of a _bona fide_ account, though I
have no knowledge of the writer, nor does he himself seem to pretend to
personal autopsy of the discovery.
On Monday last, September 20, while some workmen were engaged in getting
iron ore at a place called Paswick, in the north of this county,
[Derby,] they came upon a solid lump of ore, which, being heavier than
two men could lift, they set to work to break with their picks, when, to
their surprise, in a cavity near the centre of the stone, they found a
Toad alive. The cavity was much larger than the Toad, being nearly six
inches in diameter, and was lined with crystals of what I suppose to be
carbonate of lime. The stone was about four yards from the surface of
the ground; it is now in the possession of Mr Haywood of Derby, by whose
men it was found; but unfortunately the Toad was not preserved after its
death, which took place almost immediately on its exposure to the
atmosphere.[100]
_Audi alteram partem._ Mr Plant of the Salford Museum tells us, both in
sorrow and in anger, a story, doubtless more amusing to us who read it
than to him, of his adventures among the toad-finders. When geologising
in the neighbourhood of Chesterfield, a quarryman, whom he had invited
to share a bottle of porter, informed him in confidence that Toads
inclosed in stone were plentiful thereabout. "He said he had often found
them, and that he knew a stone before it was broken that would contain a
Toad; giving me long and circumstantial accounts of the whole
phenomenon: and, to convince me of the truth of his statement, he took
me to the quarry (a carboniferous sandstone) that I might see the stones
out of which he said the Toads had been released. I examined the stones
and the whole quarry very attentively, and listened to the emphatic
testimony of other miners present. After complying in an agreeable
manner to their remark that the day was warm, and the water of the
quarry not much in favour, I made a simple proposal of this nature:--I
promised to pay to any one of them the sum of twenty shillings for the
next stone in which they found a Frog or Toad when the stone was broken
in two. They should catch the Frog if he bolted out of the hole, replace
him, and fit the stones together again, afterwards despatching it to me
in that condition. I further promised to pay the sum of forty shillings
to any one of them who should procure me a stone, unbroken, in which he
considered a Toad or Frog was imprisoned, if, on breaking it myself,
such turned out to be the case. These conditions were to remain in force
for twelve months; and as the means of conveyance to my address, which I
gave them, would occasion little or no trouble, the offer was readily
accepted by the miners; who also, to express their confidence in soon
being able to supply the order, proposed that it would be all safe if I
advanced a little cash on account; which however I resolutely declined
doing. And now what will the credulous believers in these 'Toads in
stone' who read the _Zoologist_ say, when they learn that I visited the
quarry twice during the twelve months, in order to fetch the Toads
which never came by rail? I always found the men there blasting tons of
new rock, splitting stones for every building purpose, yet dry-throated
and sullen; for, alas! most unaccountably during that long twelve months
they found plenty of holes--not Toad holes--in the sandstone, but the
reptiles had been banished as effectually as ever they were from the
Emerald Isle."[101]
[Illustration: TOAD IN A HOLE.]
This was disheartening, certainly: and we do not wonder that Mr Plant
became "a total disbeliever in these 'simple tales.'" Still, it is just
possible, that immured Toads may exist, though Mikey of the Chesterfield
quarry, in hope of the advance, did brag a little too confidently of the
commonness of the occurrence. That, within one twelvemonth, within the
limits of one quarry, no such Toad turned up, even under the stimulus of
the proffered forty shillings, can scarcely be admitted to be absolutely
conclusive proof of the negative, at least not to us who were not placed
in the painful position of _gullees_. Mr Arthur Hussey of Rottingdean
justly remarks, when presenting some evidence _per contra_, that we
should not think the innocence of a culprit was established by his
asserting, when sundry witnesses affirmed they saw him commit the
offence he was accused of,--that he could produce ten times the number
who would swear they _did not_ see him.
"During the summer of 1846," writes Mr Hussey, "in the formation of a
railroad, about half a mile from Pontefract, in Yorkshire, the works
were carried a 'depth of four feet through a rock betwixt lime and
sandstone, about the junction of the two formations:' the rock being so
firm as to require blasting. 'It is entirely free from beds of any kind,
or what the workmen term "backs," running up it,' but therein are 'an
infinite number of small nodules of a harder quality, entirely
crystallised in the interior.' After blasting, the labourers were much
surprised to find among the fragments several of these nodules, each one
containing a Frog, as many as seven having been counted after one
'shot.'
"These were not casually seen when exposed, and then disregarded, but
were examined in their stone prisons through very minute holes, some
even preserved in that state for a long period. For example, the relator
states of one specimen, 'I kept this Toad in a cellar for about five
months, during which time it ate nothing, and was without light, the
hole in the stone being covered with a piece of clay, and the whole kept
moist and cool with water.' Of another he says, 'The Frog lived only
about a week, as I kept it in a place which I think was too warm for it,
and also not sufficiently dark and quiet. When the Frogs were disturbed
by the shots, their first desire seemed to be to get under shelter of
some stone, or into their old holes again, shewing thereby that sight
was not wanting, and bodily activity was perfect as far as could be
seen. One thing struck me as singular with regard to the Frog I
kept--its fresh, plump, and healthy appearance, its skin being soft and
transparent. One day, when I was holding my finger over the hole in the
stone, it pushed its head between my finger and the sides of the hole,
and drew its whole body after it on to the table, where it appeared more
like a skeleton than any living animal I have ever seen, but by degrees
it extended itself to its former dimensions.'
"Of the above curious occurrence my only knowledge is derived from the
account written to a distant friend, of which the substance has now been
extracted. The writer is an utter stranger, but he was officially
employed in the operations which resulted in the discoveries; and my
information leads me to believe his report deserving of confidence, for
which reason I have not hesitated to offer this abstract for publication
in the _Zoologist_."[102]
The Rev. Alfred Charles Smith, an excellent and genial naturalist,
favours us with another case, introducing it incidentally in
illustration of the general habit he is denouncing of wantonly
destroying animal life:--"As an instance of this thoughtless cruelty, I
must give an account that has just come to my notice. Some labourers
were pulling down an old wall, in the thickness of which they found one
of those phenomena--so frequently heard of and so unsatisfactorily
accounted for--a Toad completely imbedded in stone and mortar. 'There
was no doubt,' said the labourer who described it, 'that he had been
there for a great number of years, for there was no hole or chink by
which he could have entered or left the place of his long sojourn.'
'Well,' said the listener to his account, 'but are you sure that the
Toad was alive when you found it?' 'No doubt of that, sir,' said the
man, 'for he crawled out of his round hole and was moving away, when I
knocked him on the head with my pickaxe.'
"So here was this poor harmless creature, whose long incarceration in
his gloomy dungeon might have excited compassion in his favour, suddenly
released from his prison, only to be slain by his liberator!"[103]
The next is from the _Caledonian Mercury_. Newspaper zoology is
proverbially untrustworthy, and the editor of the _Zoologist_, who
reprints the paragraph, kindly adds a caveat for the benefit of his
readers,--"_Nimium ne crede Mercurio!_" But, nevertheless, let us look
at it: alone it would stand for little, but, remember, in such questions
as this the evidence is cumulative. "There is at present to be seen at
Messrs Sanderson and Sons, George Street, Edinburgh, an extraordinary
specimen of natural history--a Frog which had been discovered alive in
freestone rock. A few months ago, while some colliers in the employ of
Mr James Nasmyth (lessee of Dundonald Colliery, in Fife, the property of
R. B. Wardlaw Ramsay, Esq. of Whitehill), were engaged in taking out the
pavement of the seam coal, which was freestone, they discovered a cavity
in which a Frog was lying. On touching it the Frog jumped about for some
time, and a bucket of water being procured, it was put into it, and
taken to the surface. On reaching it, the animal was found to be dead.
It was at the depth of forty-five fathoms, or ninety yards from the
surface, in a perpendicular line of strata, consisting of alternate
layers of coal and freestone, with ironstone, and about four hundred
yards from the outcrop surface. The Frog seems to have much of the same
character as the present species. It is very attenuated, which cannot be
wondered at, considering its domicile for so many ages, its original
existence being of course considered contemporaneous with the formation
of the freestone rock in which it was contained."[104]