lew, some of the kite, others of the woodcock, some of the peacock, some of the parrot, and some of the falcon. But let not the reader be alarmed at this diversity of rendering, since it is the necessary consequence of the scantiness of references to the bird in the sacred text, and the absence of all description of its character and qualities, in those passages in which it is spoken of. The truth is, that it is only referred to in the catalogue of birds prohibited by the Mosaic code, (Lev. xi. 19; Deut. xiv. 18;) and it is only from the import of its name, or the known character of the birds with which it is grouped, that we can form any conjecture of its specific character. That the creature intended is some species of water bird, there can be little doubt, if we give the sacred writer any credit for propriety in his grouping, or system in his arrangement; but what that species may be, we are unable to decide. The Hebrew name is from a root which signifies to breathe short, or snort through the nostrils, as in anger; and as the heron is said to be of a very irritable disposition, it may, perhaps, be the bird intended,

IT is extremely uncertain what bird is intended by the Hebrew, in (Lev. xi. 18), rendered by our translators, the swan. The samé word is used in a subsequent verse to denote the mole, according to our version, but more probably, as Bochart has shown, the chameleon. The root from which the word is derived, signifies to breathe, respire, &c.; and Geddes remarks, that if etymology were to be our guide, it would seem to point to a well-known quality in the swan, that of being able to respire a long time, with its bill and neck entirely under water, and even plunged n the mud.