formerly, but it still nests here in a few scattered localities.
_C. cornix_, the Hooded, Norway, Danish, or "Royston" Crow, is an
autumn immigrant as of yore, but not especially from the Faroee
Islands; both species (or forms as by some regarded) are immigrants
from the east, but the latter, as a rule, occupies a more northern
range than the former. The Raven (_C. corax_) is now a very rare
visitor to Norfolk; it is probable that it last nested in this
county in the year 1859. The Jackdaw, or Caddow, is common enough,
but the Chough (_Pyrrhocorax graculus_) is quite unknown in
Norfolk. Although the Magpie must have been well known to Browne I
find no mention of it in these notes.
Coruus maior Rauens in good plentie about the citty wch makes so few
Kites to bee seen hereabout. they build in woods very early & lay egges
in februarie.
Among the many monedulas or Jackdawes I could neuer in these parts
obserue the pyrrhocorax or cornish chough with red leggs & bill to bee
co[=m]only seen in Cornwall. & though there bee heere very great [num
_crossed out_] store of partridges yet [not _crossed out_] the french
Red leggd partridge[45] is not to bee met with [heere _crossed out_].
the Ralla or Rayle[46] wee haue counted a dayntie dish. as also no small
number of Quayles. the Heathpoult[47] co[=m]on in the north is vnknown
heere as also the Grous. though I haue heard some haue been seen about
Lynne. the calandrier or great [_Fol. 19_] great [_sic_] crested lark
Galerita I haue not met with heere though with 3 other sorts [of Larkes
_written above_] the ground lark woodlark & titlark.
[45] The Red-legged Partridge is now common enough; it was
introduced into the Eastern Counties at Sudbourne and Rendlesham,
in East Suffolk, in or about the year 1770, by both the Marquis of
Hertford and Lord Rendlesham. How quickly they established
themselves may be judged from the fact that in the season of 1806-7
of 1,927 Partridges killed at Rendlesham 112 were Red legs, but
they do not seem to have spread very far. A second introduction,
this time into West Suffolk, much nearer to the Norfolk border, at
and about Culford, was effected in the year 1823, and from this
centre they rapidly spread into Norfolk, in which county also
others were imported by the resident proprietors.
[46] The Land Rail (_Crex pratensis_) or Daker hen, is doubtless
here referred to, as the Water Rail has already been mentioned (p.
15 _ante_) as "a kind of _Ralla aquatica_." This bird is a summer
visitor, by no means common and very uncertain in its numbers. The
same applies to the Quail, which appears to be less frequent than
formerly, no doubt from the great destruction on the Mediterranean
coast in spring of the birds migrating to England. In the summer
and autumn of 1870 we had an unusual influx of these latter birds.
[47] How far the indigenous race of Blackgame, which undoubtedly
lingered for many years about Wolferton and Sandringham, still
exists, it is difficult to say; examples turn up occasionally, but
so many of these birds have been introduced and turned off in
different parts of the county in the course of the past forty
years, that it is impossible to speak with certainty.
Stares or starlings in great numbers. most remarkable in their [great
_crossed out_] numerous [_written above_] flocks [about the _crossed
out_] wch I haue obserued about the Autumne when they roost at night [up
_crossed out_] in the marshes in safe place upon reeds & alders. wch to
obserue I went to the marshes about sunne set. where standing by their
vsuall place of resort I obserued very many flocks flying from all
quarters. wch in lesse than an howers space came all in & settled in
innumerable [quantitie _crossed out_] numbers [_written below_] in a
small compasse.
Great varietie of finches[48] and other small birds whereof one very
small [one _crossed out_] calld a whinne bird marked with fine yellow
spotts & lesser than a wren. there is also a small bird called a chipper
somewhat resembling the former wch comes in the spring & feeds upon the
first buddings of birches & other early trees.
[48] In his fifth letter to Merrett Browne says, "I confess for
such little birds I am much unsatisfied on the names given to many
by countrymen and uncertain what to give them myself." This is
painfully apparent in the cases of the two little birds here
referred to as the "Whinne-bird" and the "Chipper." From the
description of the former, "marked with fine yellow spots and
lesser than a Wren," also with a "shining yellow spot on the back
of the head," it seems likely that the Gold-crested Wren is
intended. The Chipper, he says, "comes in the spring and feeds upon
the first buddings of birches and other early trees;" he also calls
it "_Betulae carptor_," and says that he sends a drawing to Merrett;
a third mention is as follows: "That which I called a _Betulae
carptor_, and should rather have called it _Alni carptor_ ... it
feeds upon alder buds, nucaments, or seeds, which grow plentifully
here; they fly in little flocks." I can only suggest that this bird
may be the Siskin, which fairly answers the description. It visits
us in small flocks on its way north very early in the year, feeding
upon the seeds of the alder, birch, and larch trees. One would
however have thought that the Siskin would have been well known to
Browne, as it evidently was to Turner, Willughby, and Ray. Merrett
mentions it under Turner's name of "Luteola."
A kind of Anthus [or _crossed out_] Goldfinch [_written above_] or
fooles coat co[=m]only calld a drawe water. finely marked with red &
yellowe & a white bill. wch they take with trap cages in norwich gardens
& fastning a chaine about them tyed to a box of water it makes a shift
with bill and legge to draw up the water unto it from the litle pot
hanging [abot the length of _crossed out_] by the chaine about a foote
[downe _crossed out_] belowe.
[The account of the Roller, which is written on smaller paper, will be
found improperly inserted among the Fishes, between pp. 30 and 32 as
follows:--]
[_Fol. 31._] On the xiiii of May 1664 a very rare bird was sent mee kild
about crostwick wch seemed to bee some kind of Jay.[49] the bill was
black strong and bigger then a Jayes somewhat yellowe clawes tippd
black. 3 before and one clawe behind the whole bird not so bigge as a
Jaye [the _crossed out_.]
[49] This note is interesting as the first record of the occurrence
of the Roller in Britain, to which country it is a rare wanderer.
Although it had long been known on the Continent, its identity
seems to have puzzled Browne, and he imagines (as did others, both
before and after him,) it to be some kind of Jay; later, in his
second letter to Merrett (January, 1668), he says that it answers
to the description of _Garrulus argentoratensis_ (the name given by
Aldrovandus to whom it was known), and calls it "the Parrot-jay."
This is five years after the original note was made, and we find
that the words _Garrulus argentoratensis_, written by the same hand
but with a different pen and ink, have been added subsequently,
doubtless as the result of further information. In another letter
he mentions having sent the bird to Merrett, but adds, "If you have
it before I should bee content to have it againe otherwise you may
please keep it."
The head neck & throat of a violet colour the back upper parts of the
wing of a russet yellowe the fore & part of the wing azure succeeded
downward by a greenish blewe then on the flying feathers bright blewe
the lower parts of the wing outwardly of a browne [the _crossed out_]
inwardly of a merry blewe the belly a light faynt blewe the back toward
the tayle of a purple blewe the tayle eleuen fethers of a greenish
coulour the extremities of the outward fethers thereof white wth an
eye[K] of greene. Garrulus Argentoratensis [_the name added in a
different ink and pen_].
[K] Tinge, shade, particularly a slight tint.--"Imp. Dict."
NOTES ON CERTAIN FISHES AND MARINE ANIMALS FOUND IN NORFOLK.
[MS. SLOAN. 1882. FOL. 145-146. ALTERED TO 21 AND 22, AND 1830 FOL.
23-30 AND 32-38.]
[The introductory remarks, paragraphs one to three, will be
found in the volume of the Sloane MSS. numbered 1882 (labelled
"Notes on Generation"), on pages 145 and 146, which are altered
to 21 and 22. They were placed in their present position by
Wilkin, but although appropriate, there is nothing to show that
they belong to the set of notes here reproduced, and they may
form memoranda for the beginning of some essay never completed.
The contents of the volume in question are of a very
miscellaneous character, and consist of fragmentary notes, which
appear to be memoranda jotted down at random.]
[_Fol. 21/145._] It may well seeme no easie matter to giue any
considerable account of fishes and animals of the sea wherein tis sayd
that there are things creeping innumerable both small and great beasts
because they liue in an element wherein they are not so easely
discouerable notwithstanding probable it is that after this long
nauigation search of the ocean bayes creeks Estuaries and riuers that
there is scarce any fish butt hath been seen by some man for the large &
breathing sort thereof do sometimes discouer themselues aboue water and
the other are in such numbers that some at one time or other they are
discouered and taken euen the most barbarous nations being much addicted
to fishing and in America and the new discouered world the people were
well acquantd with fishes of sea and riuers, and the fishes thereof haue
been since described by industrious writers.
Pliny seemes to short in the estimate of their number in the ocean, who
recons up butt one hundred & seventie six species. butt the seas being
now farther known & searched [_21/145 verso_] Bellonius much enlargeth.
and in his booke of Birds thus deliuereth himself allthough I think it
impossible to reduce the same vnto a certain number yet I may freelie
say that tis beyond the power of man to find out more than fiue hundred
sorts [kinds _written above_] of fishes three hundred sorts of birds
more than three hundred sorts of fourfoted animalls and fortie
diversities of serpents.[50]
[50] This estimate of the number of species of birds and fishes
existing is amusing in the light of the present knowledge of the
subject. Of course any such estimate can only be approximate, and
open to constant emendation; but according to a statement in the
"Zoological Record" of 1896, it was believed that there were
something like 386,000 described species: 2,500 of which are
mammals, 12,500 birds, 4,400 reptilia and batrachia, 12,000 fishes,
50,000 mollusca, 20,000 crustacea, and 250,000 insecta; the smaller
divisions I have omitted. And whereas only about 10,000 species of
plants were known to Linnaeus, Professor Vines in his address to the
Botanical section at the Bradford meeting of the British
Association, 1900, states that the approximate number of recognised
plants at present existing is 175,596; but this is far short of the
total of existing species. Professor Saccardo states that there are
250,000 fungi alone, and that the number of existing species in
other groups would bring the total up to over 400,000.
[SLOANE MSS. 1830, FOL. 23-38.]
[_Fol. 23._] Of fishes sometimes the larger sort are taken or come
ashoar. A spermaceti whale[51] of 62 foote long neere Welles. another of
the same kind 20 yeares before at Hunstanton. & not farre of 8 or nine
came ashoare & 2 had yong ones after they were forsaken by ye water.
[51] In the muniment room at Hunstanton Hall there exists a book of
MSS. notes relating to their estates, kept by Sir Hamon and Sir
Nicholas le Strange, between the years 1612 and 1723. From this
book Mr. Hamon le Strange has been good enough to send me an
extract containing the full particulars of the stranding and
disposal of a Sperm Whale 57 feet long, which came ashore on their
Manor of Holme, on the 6th December, 1626, the skull of which is
still in the courtyard at Hunstanton Hall.
Browne had not come to reside in Norwich at that time, and the
chapter on the Spermaceti Whale in his _Pseudodoxia Epidemica_, was
inspired by a subsequent occurrence of the same kind, for, as
appears from the above note, a larger individual, 62 feet long,
came ashore at Wells 20 years later, which he says led him to
further inquiry. This would indicate about the year 1646 as the
date of the latter occurrence, whereas in his third letter to
Merrett, written in 1668, he states that it happened "about 12
years ago," or in 1656. There is probably an error in one of these
dates.
Another example seems to have been found at Yarmouth about the year
1652, for we find Browne writing in that year for particulars of
its "cutting up." (See Appendix E.)
In the postscript to a letter also in the muniment room at
Hunstanton, dated June 11th, 1653, written to Sir Hamon le Strange,
who had been consulting him professionally, Browne says: "I pray
you at your leisure doe mee the honor to informe mee how long agoe
the Spermaceti Whale was cast upon your shoare & whether you had
any spermm with in any other part butt the head." It will be
noticed that in both the letters referred to he is anxious to
ascertain in what part of the body the "sperm" was situated,
doubtless for the purpose of confuting the "vulgar conceit" as to
the origin of the "sperm" referred to in the second paragraph of
his treatise in the _Pseudodoxia_. His investigations also probably
first led to a certain knowledge as to the nature of the food of
this animal.
These, however, although the first to be recorded in this county,
were not the first or only occurrences of the kind, for there is in
the parish church of Great Yarmouth the base of the skull of a
Sperm Whale, used as a chair, for the painting of which a charge of
five shillings appears in the churchwardens' accounts for the year
1606; many such events in European waters are to be found recorded.
But the most interesting circumstance with regard to these whales
is the statement that "two had yong ones after they were forsaken
by the water." This event renders it highly improbable that they
were Sperm Whales, for the stragglers of that species which have
been met with in our waters, and indeed in the northern seas
generally, have been almost invariably solitary males, or, in one
or two instances "schools" of young males. In the only instance in
which both sexes were found, the school was composed I believe of
immature individuals. (_Vide_ J. Anderson, "Nachrichten von Island,
Groenland, und der Strasse Davis," Frantfurt (1747), p. 248.)
Moreover, this view is confirmed by a letter which will be found in
Appendix B., where the following passage occurs:--"And not only
whales, but grampusses have been taken in this Estuarie ... and
about twenty years ago four were run ashore near Hunstanton, and
two had young ones after they had come to land." A so-called
Grampus which came ashore on the 21st July, 1700, was from a
description and drawing in the le Strange MS. above quoted, a male
_Hyperoodon rostratus_, apparently nearly adult.
The Grampus (_Orca gladiator_) (mentioned in the next paragraph) is
frequently met with in the British seas, and has repeatedly
occurred on the Norfolk coast. Some early occurrences are on
record, for instance in Mackerell's "History of Lynn," twelve are
said to have come ashore near that town in 1636, and another in
1680. Two very juvenile examples were taken off Yarmouth in
November 1894.
A grampus aboue 16 foot long taken at yarmouth [3 or _crossed out_] 4
yeares agoe.
The Tursio or porpose is co[=m]on the Dolphin[52] more rare though
sometimes taken wch many confound with the porpose. butt it hath a more
waued line along the skinne sharper toward ye tayle the head longer and
nose more extended wch maketh good the figure of Rondeletius. the flesh
more red & [fa _crossed out_] well cooked of very good taste to most
palates & exceedeth that of porpose.
[52] There can be no doubt that the Common Dolphin (_Delphinus
delphis_) is here referred to, and indeed this species might
reasonably be expected to be met with on our coast, as its range
extends at least as far to the north as the Scandinavian waters,
but so far as the writer is aware Browne's is the only record of
its having been met with in Norfolk. The White-beaked Dolphin (_D.
albirostris_) is not unfrequent, but it is clear that Browne does
not refer to that species.
In the "Vulgar Errors," Browne devotes a whole chapter (chapter ii.
of the fifth book) to a learned treatise on the "Picture of
Dolphins," and in one of the letters to his son Edward (Sloane
MSS., 1847), dated June 14th [1676?], he writes feelingly as an
anatomist, evidently fearing that a specimen then available might
be wasted, instead of being reserved for scientific purposes; for,
says he, "if the dolphin were to be showed for money in Norwich,
little would bee got; if they showed it in London they are like to
take out the viscera, and salt the fish, and then the dissection
will be unconsiderable." He then refers to the dolphin "opened when
the King was here," and describes its anatomical peculiarities,
adding that Dame Browne cooked the flesh "so as to make an
excellent savory dish of it," and that "collars" thereof (steaks
cut transversely) being sent to the King, who was then at
Newmarket, for his table, they "were well liked of." It is evident
therefore that he was present at the dissection of two of these
animals.
The vitulus marinus[53] seacalf or seale wch is often taken sleeping on
the shoare [4 _crossed out_] 5 [_written above_] yeares agoe one was
shot in the riuer of norwich about surlingham [wh _crossed out_] ferry
having continued in the riuer for diuers moneths before being an
Amphibious animal it may bee caryed about aliue & kept long if it can
bee brought to feed some haue been kept many moneths in ponds. the
pizzell the bladder the cartilago ensiformis the figure of the Throttle
the clusterd & racemous forme of the kidneys [_Fol. 24_] the flat &
compressed heart are remarkable in it. in stomaks of all that I have
opened I have found many [short _crossed out_] wormes.
[53] There is in the present day a considerable number of Common
Seals inhabiting the sand-banks of the Wash between the Norfolk and
Lincolnshire coasts, and they are frequently captured by the
fishermen; nor has the habit of straying into fresh-water deserted
them, for in recent years they have been taken in the River Ouse at
Bluntisham, forty miles from the sea. Three other species of Seal
have been taken on the Norfolk coast, viz., _Phoca hispida_, _P.
barbata_, and _Halichoerus gryphus_.
I haue also obserued a scolopendra cetacea[54] of about ten foot long
answering to the figure in Rondeletius wch the mariners told me was
taken in these seas.
[54] A Scolopendra, ten feet long, is at first rather startling,
but on referring to Rondeletius's _Libri de piscibus Marinis_ (lib.
xvi. p. 488), I find that under the name "Scolopendra" he includes
at least three distinct forms--i., _S. terrestris_, a centipede;
ii., _S. marina_, certain species of Nereidiform polychaet worms;
iii., _Scolopendra cetacea_, regarded as a Cetacean and figured
with a Cetacean blow-hole. With regard to this remarkable figure my
friend, Dr. S. F. Harmer, has favoured me with the following
note:--"In the account given Rondeletius is evidently writing from
report; the figure is also no doubt borrowed, and may have been
'improved' when redrawn; it seems to me that it is based upon some
kind of Tunny, although he figures a Tunny earlier in the book
(lib. viii. p. 249). The idea of the lateral appendages might have
been derived from the dorsal and ventral finlets of a Tunny; but
the first four finlets on each side are imaginary structures, and
in a wrong position. I can offer no opinion with regard to the
nasal appendages." Jonston (_De piscibus_, p. 156, Tab. xliv.) also
gives a similar figure of _Scolopendra_ _Cetacea_, which appears to
be a further modification of Rondeletius's figure; here it has
teeth, shown like those of the Sperm Whale, and an extra dorsal-fin
is added; the number of lateral appendages is the same, and a
column of water proceeding from the blow-hole is falling gracefully
forward. It is worthy of notice that Rondeletius also figures the
Saw-fish [Pristis] with a blow-hole.
A pristes or serra [_written above_] saw fish[55] taken about Lynne
co[=m]only mistaken for a [sha _crossed out_] sword fish & answers the
figure in Rondeletius.
[55] In the "Transactions of the Linnean Society," ii., p. 273, is
an essay by Latham "On the various species of Sawfish," but he does
not mention any British locality. So far as I am aware Browne's is
the only record of the occurrence of this southern species in
British waters, with the exception of a note in Fleming's "British
Animals," p. 164, where it is stated on the authority of the late
Dr. Walker's MS. "Adversaria" for 1769, that _Pristis antiquorum_
is "found sometimes in Loch Long," but Fleming adds that he has met
with no other proof of its ever having visited the British shores.
Browne mentions in his eighth letter to Merrett that he sends him a
"figure in little" of a _Pristis_ which he received of a Yarmouth
seaman, and is so precise in his statement that his fish was
_Pristis serra_ (the _Pristis antiquorum_ of Cuvier), that his
record cannot be disregarded. He specially guards against its being
mistaken for the Sword-fish (_Xiphias gladius_), which has been
taken on several occasions in our waters, and of which he gives
some interesting particulars.
A sword fish or Xiphias or Gladius intangled in the Herring netts at
yarmouth agreable unto the Icon in Johnstonus with a smooth sword not
vnlike the Gladius of Rondeletius about a yard & half long, no teeth [n
_crossed out_] eyes very remarkable enclosed in an hard cartilaginous
couercle about ye bignesse of a good apple. ye vitreous humor plentifull
the crystalline larger then a nutmegge [cleare _crossed out_] remaining
cleare sweet & vntainted when the rest of the eye was vnder a deepe
corruption wch wee kept clear & limpid many moneths vntill an hard frost
split it & manifested the foliations thereof.
It is not vnusuall to take seuerall sorts of canis or doggefishes[56]
great and small wch pursue the shoale of herrings and other fish butt
this yeare 1662 one was taken intangled in the Herring netts about 9
foot in length, answering the last figure of Johnstonus lib 7 vnder the
name of _canis carcherias alter_ & was by the teeth & 5 gills one kind
of shark particularly [_Fol. 25_] remarkable in the vastnesse of the
optick nerves & 3 conicall hard pillars wch supported the extraordinarie
elevated nose wch wee haue reserued with the scull the seamen calld this
kind a scrape.
[56] Various species of Dog-fish are frequent off the Norfolk coast
as elsewhere. The name "Sweet William" is applied to the larger
fish of this kind, especially to the Tope; this appears also to
have been the case in Pennant's time, for alluding to this
vernacular name he supposes it was applied in ironical allusion to
the offensive smell of their flesh and skin. They are objects of
great aversion among the fishermen, owing to the disturbance they
create among the shoals of fish, and the damage they do to both
nets and the enclosed fish. Scarcely a season passes but one or
more specimens of Browne's _Canis carcharias_, or, as modern
Ichthyologists call it, _Lamna cornubica_, the Porbeagle, being
entangled in the drift nets and landed with the herrings. One lies
on the fish-wharf at Lowestoft as I write this note on the 19th of
October, 1900, measuring 7 feet 10 inches in length. Jonston's
figure referred to by Browne is evidently intended for this
species, but he makes a slight error in the reference to the
_Historia Naturalis (De Piscibus et Cetis)_; it occurs in book v.,
and the figure is fig. 6 on Tab. vi., and it is marked _Canis
carcharias alius_ (not alter).
Sturio or Sturgeon[57] so co[=m]on on the other side of the sea about
the mouth of the elbe come seldome into our creekes though some haue
been taken at yarmouth & more in the great [owse _crossed out_] Owse by
Lynne butt their heads not so sharpe as represented in the Icons of
Rondeletius & Johnstonus.
[57] So great is the variation in the snout of the Sturgeon, that
Dr. Parnell in his excellent essay on "The Fishes of the District
of the Forth," describes the Sharp-nosed Sturgeon as a distinct
species under the name of _Acipenser sturio_, and the broad-nosed
form he calls _A. latirostris_. His views, however, have not been
generally accepted, and only one British species is recognised. The
Sharp-nosed variety has been taken here, but the normal form is
much more frequent.