Page:The Zoologist, 1st series, vol 4 (1846).djvu/160

submergence. And yet, if he will turn to my paper (Zool. 757), he will observe that I have expressed myself thus : — "If then W.H.S. maintains that moorhens or any other birds, can keep themselves in what I call a state of submergence, without the aid of weeds or flags, or other objects external to themselves, I beg leave to differ from him. If he means only that the moorhen, together with various other birds, is capa- ble of maintaining itself in what I call a partially submerged state, I cordially agree with him." As I have said, then, he must have overlooked this, when penning the notes to which I have referred ; for at the commencement he writes, " On the 31st of January last, I had the most perfect and complete opportunity of observing a moorhen while partially submerged." The observations then, made at that time, and recorded in the 'Zoologist' (Zool. 877), go for nothing as to the point really at issue; that point being the question of complete submergence. I have already defined what I mean by "submergence," clearly and accurately (Zool. 497 and 756) : and, so far as I could, took all pains not to be misunderstood. My definition is as follows: — "remains sub- merged, with merely its BEAK thrust out for the purpose of respiration ; " and surely there ought to be no misunderstanding or mistake in the case of such a definition as this. Now in his account (Zool. 877) Mr. Slaney says, first, "it reappeared with its head and neck only above the water;" next (Zool. 878), "it appeared once more amongst the flags, at first with its head only above the water;" and lastly, "at first, only the head and neck were raised above the surface ; but shortly it raised up the upper part of the body also, leaving all the under portion of the body, and all but the head, neck, and just the top of the back and tail completely under the water, and in that state," &c. " And its remaining in that position was totally without the aid of any hold upon the flags or weeds, for I could distinctly see the feet gently moving in the water, to resist the current and to keep the bird stationary." Now to what does the fact here recorded amount ? Simply to this. The moorhen is seen in what Mr. S. himself calls a partially submerged state, and does not use its feet, as instruments of grasping, to maintain itself therein : a matter, that is, which I have never disputed, and have stated over and over again. Further, I am not quite sure on what grounds Mr. Slaney applies the phrase "hypothetical strictures" to my remarks on his "for- mer observations." I state as a fact, not as an hypothesis, that I have seen the moor- hen's feet — the bird being veritably submerged at the time — actually employed as the means of retaining its submerged position by their grasp upon the weeds. And I add the fact, not the hypothesis, that when I have shot the moorhen in its submergence, on taking it from the water, I have found fragments of weed yet in the grasp of the feet. I think, moreover, that Mr. Slaney undeiTates the tenacity of weeds, (Zool. 878). When decayed, of course they are frail enough. But how long do decayed weeds maintain their erect position in the water ? Is not one of the very first effects of decay upon the weed, that the mass gives way and sinks entirely ? So long as they stand, if I may use the phrase, I think they would be sufficiently strong to hold the moorhen down : and when fallen, they would be out of the moorhen's reach. Besides, what a "goose" the bird must be, if, on finding that the first bit of weed laid hold of, was giving way, it did not "mend its hand" by renewing its hold or changing its place. Depend upon it, a moorhen knows better than to be foiled by any failure of this kind : and depend upon it too, that when weeds are yet within a few inches of the surface, they are strong enough for the moorhen's wants. And moreover, surely Mr. Slaney, who maintains that a submerged moorhen requires no assistance — not even that of a rotten weed — to maintain itself in its submergence, should not argue that a rotten