near this place, and it very soon died after being picked up. A common storm petrel was also found under similar circumstances. The forktailed petrel has occurred very sparingly here, and I have not seen a specimen for many years. Two other specimens of Thalassidroma Leachii were picked up, one on the banks of the Tamar, near Launceston, and the other in the heart of Bodmin Moors, from fifteen to twenty miles inland.-Edward Hearle Rodd; Penzance.

Forktailed Petrel at Plymouth.—A specimen of the forktailed petrel was captured alive, in a court behind a house in Plymouth, on the 3rd of December: it died in the course of the day. Another specimen was taken ou the Tamar.-J. Brooking-Rowe; 9, Princess Square, Plymouth.

Nest within Nest.-One of the most interesting instances of abnormal nidification which I met with during last summer was the case of a blue titmouse (Parus cæruleus), which had formed its nest and laid eight eggs at the bottom of a blackbird's nest, into which the titmouse had inserted its own nest, as a little cup fits into a larger one. This was taken on the 5th of June, 1865, at Plompton, Sussex, and makes a very pretty object in its glass box. I have also known the same bird to build on the open bough of a spruce fir, like a chaffinch. In both instances, no doubt, the aberrant character of these structures arose from the absence of holes and decayed trees in the vicinity. I also saw a swallow's nest (Hirundo rustica) on a hedger's glove at the end of a beam.-George Dawson Rowley; 5, Peel Terrace, Brighton, January 18, 1866.

Turtle in Cornwall.-On the 3rd of January, as some children were playing on the beach at Hemmock, one mile to the westward of the Dodman Head, they saw a turtle endeavouring to make its way up a small stream of water which flows across the beach into the sea having fetched a gaff from their cottage, they hooked it out of the stream and secured it. I saw it on the following day, and its weight was 23 lbs. It was taken to Megavissey, and bought by a fisherman there to send to the London market. If, therefore, its shell is wanted by any collector, the purchaser in town might probably be traced. I believe the turtle is numbered amongst our British reptiles; but whether this specimen had crossed the Atlantic, being driven here by the fierce south and south-westerly winds we have had this autumn, or whether it was swept from the deck of some homeward-bound ship, must be mere matter of conjecture.-William Willimott; The Rectory, St. Michael Caerhays, St. Austell, in the 'Field' Newspaper.

On the Occurrence of the Spinous Shark in Mount's Bay, Cornwall. By THOMAS CORNISH, Esq.

A SPECIMEN of the spinous shark was captured about a mile off shore at the back of Mousehole Island, in Mount's Bay, on the night. of Friday, the 15th of December, 1865. It was taken by some men who were fishing for conger, and on conger bait, so that it took its bait on the ground. The bottom where it was caught was shingly,

and the water about ten to twelve fathoms deep. The place is in a strong tideway, and is a very favourite fishing-ground for small fish. As the fish is a rare one in British seas, I trouble you with a somewhat detailed description.

Its dimensions were as follows:

Length over all

from eye to origin (or insertion) of caudal fin. Greatest girth, immediately before origin of pectoral fins Girth, immediately behind the after ends of the pectorals

laid flat and backwards

Girth, immediately before origin of first dorsal

Greatest depth (about the middle of the pectoral fins laid
flat and backwards)

Greatest breadth (at same place)

Gape, with loose fleshy substances on either side of it in

The teeth were peculiar and bicuspidate, as described by Yarrell (ed. 1836, Suppl. to vol. ii. p. 59), large and placed in one single row on the extreme outside edge of each jaw. There was no tongue, but close inside the teeth of the lower jaw there was a semidetached membrane, under which on each side of the jaw, but not in front, there were teeth partly developed. There were similar teeth on each side, but again not in front, of the upper jaw, but there was not, or I failed to detect, any similar membrane. The upper jaw was considerably projectile when I saw the fish, which was about ten hours after its capture, it was capable of easy protrusion to the extent of about two inches. The lower jaw was fixed. The eyes were large, and round rather than oblong, and the pupil was perpendicularly oblong and of a peculiar mother-of-pearl light green hue when the fish was brought

to me.

The lateral line was very conspicuous, of a light colour, running parallel to the back throughout the entire length of the fish down to the very extremity of the upper lobe of the caudal fin. It was slightly raised and rough, but free from spines.

The position and shape of the fins and tail were as shown in Yarrell's Supplement (see above), p. 56, and in Couch's 'British Fishes,' vol. i. p. 54, and were, especially as to the anal and caudal fins, very unlike Yarrell's figure, Supplement, p. 54. Its shape, however, as will be seen from the measurements above given, was much Supplement, p. 54.

like that of the figure in Yarrell's It had in no way the appearance of a

floating fish. It was a long squat creature, reminding one of the monk, the angel fish and other bottom-feeders. Its fins, which were all well forward or well aft, very stout and thick, and very small in proportion to its length, seemed to imply a fish with powers of creeping along the bottom and of turning rapidly, by the aid of its powerful dorsal, anal and caudal fins, rather than a fish which could swim rapidly. Its spiracles on both sides were unfortunately destroyed by the gaff in effecting its capture: I could only, therefore, note that they were in the place proper for them in this description of shark.

In colour the fish was, above, of a dull leaden hue, the ridge of the back, the head and fins being darkest, and the extreme top of the snout rounding off flesh-coloured; and below, of a dirty white. I saw on it no other colours than these.

Its skin was perfe tly free from scales, and was (or at least rapidly after death became-I cannot certainly affirm which) slimy. It was covered all over (except on the very belly itself) with very numerous small spines, precisely of the sort described by Yarrell, none exceeding the third of an inch in length, and all very sharp, the larger ones curved and the smaller ones straight, or not yet developed into a curve perhaps they were distributed without any apparent arrangement whatever, and became fewer and smaller over the head until those on the snout were rudimentary merely they were present on the fins, but were small there. A very large number of small ones were congregated on a curious callous, mobile and based in the skin, about the size of a crown piece, which existed about half-way between the pectorals and first dorsal and half-way between the ridge of the back and the lateral line, but as I found nothing corresponding to this on the other side I suppose it to be merely the callous of an old wound. The spines were all based in the skin itself, and were exceedingly mobile. The whole skin, and indeed the whole fish, was, to the touch, of the loosest, flabbiest nature, and portions of the fish which were raised and dropped always lay as they fell, just as is the case with the monk and angler. It reminded me, as I have said, strongly of these ground-feeders, and had anything but the tight tubby appearance given to it in recent descriptions. It was a long, lowlying, flabby fish.

Its snout was broad, flat and rounded, and, so to speak, overhung its mouth, which, when closed, was, owing to the projectile character of the upper jaw, less overhung by the upper jaw than is usual in

sharks.

There were some three or four round dark spots on the head and near the ridge of the back in various parts of the fish, but I found no similar spots on the corresponding parts, and incline to think them accidental: they were mostly about the size of a crown-piece. I found them first on my second inspection of the fish.

The fish was opened in my presence on Tuesday, the 19th of December. We found in it two very large lobes of milt, apparently almost ready to be shed. Its liver was very soft, and very colourless; in fact, it was not a healthy liver at all, unless it had been affected by the period during which the fish had been dead (but it did not stink), The stomach was small, and communicated with the anal aperture by one long gut. In the stomach we found the head of a gray gurnard, cut off just across the nape and down the line of the operculum, so clean that we fitted it with the greatest ease to the shoulders of the same fish, which we also found undigested: these two bits of fish had undergone so little digestive action that I suppose they may have been the bait with which the fish was taken. There was also in the stomach a small bit of sea-weed (common oreweed, and showing no sign of digestive action on it whatever), and some digested food of a dark brown colour.

I wish it to be understood that I am merely supplementing the descriptions of this rare fish given by Yarrell and Couch. My specimen differs evidently very much from the figures given by them, but it also agrees so well with their descriptions that I think it must be the same. fish. Anyhow, if its skin turns out tough enough, and not too gelatinous, I hope to have it shortly stuffed and properly set up in our Museum here.

It is to be observed that we have lately had here a long succession of southerly and south-westerly gales and wind.

THOMAS CORNISH.

Penzance, December 20, 1865.

Is it Spider or Mouse ?-A very similar occurrence to that related by Mr. Birchall, in the last number of the 'Zoologist' (S. S. 8), in his note on the field mouse, came under my notice some time since, the only difference being that there was no mouse connected with it. On going into a small house in my garden, which was used for the purpose of keeping garden tools, I was surprised to find the floor strewn with the wings of various butterflies and moths; on seeking for the cause, I found, as Mr. Birchall did, a large spider's web, to which very many wings were hanging: the greatest accumulation of wings was under the web; many were hanging on the wall

SECOND SERIES-VOL. I.

P

below, whilst there was not one to be found on any other part of the walls. Being puzzled to find a reason for such an accumulation of wings I set to work to find a solution, when, after a short time, I came to the same conclusion as Mr. Birchall did at first; but, unlike him, I can see no good grounds for changing my opinion, for on closely examining the wings I found them cut off close to the body, in such a manner as to leave no doubt in my mind that the operation must have been done by some very small mouth, much smaller than that of a mouse, whilst I think the mouse would have caused much more damage to the wings than the real operator did. Then arose the question, Why? I think, plainly, because the spider, finding he could not drag the flies into his den with their wings attached without doing much damage to his web, proceeded to cut off the wings; then, throwing them out of the web, he would be able to drag the body away and feed on it at his leisure. Having thus, as I then and now think, successfully solved the difficulty, I swept away the web and spider, when all deposit of wings ceased, not one being found afterwards. The wings were, in most cases, those of the white large and small cabbage butterfly, one set of the little tortoiseshell, and a few moths I forget of what species. The only evidence at all produced by Mr. Birchall against the mouse is that he caught one in the cave: certainly it may, in some measure, implicate him; but then I think the fact of a spider's web, with the known propensities of that insect, being found in both Mr. Birchall's and my case, is sufficient to point to the spider being the actual "marauder," and that the field mouse does not possess the habit Mr. Birchall assigns him.-Stephen Clogg.

Erratum.-At page 9, line 20, of Mr. Birchall's communication, to which Mr. Clogg refers, for rocks read web: on reading Mr. Birchall's very interesting communication I was certainly struck with an idea similar to that which Mr. Clogg has expressed; I mention this circumstance without wishing to influence the opinions of others.-E. Newman.

Gonocerus venator at Box Hill.—Twice, at a long interval during fifteen years, I have taken a single example, by beating the box trees on Box Hill, in May; but although I have beaten about the bush nearly every May, and also in other months, these two were all that rewarded my diligence. Still, it would be hazardous to say that the insects have not been there during any of those seasons, knowing as we do how many fortuitous circumstances must often happen together to enable an entomologist to find some particular species. Be this as it may, it is certain that on the 23rd instant [May] I was lucky enough to get eight males and eight females of this coveted beauty. They affect the shoots that stand out from the bushes, and are fond of sitting on the top of them in the bright sunshine, and taking short flights from one to another; and when one is in the net you are not sure of him, as he has a strong propensity to fly out of it. Fieber gives oaks and hedge-roses as the habitat of this species; with us it is exclusively found on the box.-J. W. Douglas, in ' Entomologist's Monthly Magazine.'