all but indiscernible against the bird's natural background of dead and dying leaves when viewed from a distance of but a very few feet, and it is in his daytime lair alone that the 'cock needs the protection of colour. The one conspicuous thing-and a very conspicuous thing it is-about a squatting woodcock is that large, liquid, lustrous eye, the eye of a bird of the night, which looks like a big black bead shining from the bed of leaves. The woodcock's eye it is which frequently betrays the bird's presence to a human being. Did Nature but prompt the 'cock to close or almost close its eyes on the approach of an enemy, it would be well nigh as lost to sight among the dead foliage as a lappet moth.

The woodcock varies considerably in the tints of its plumage and very considerably in size and weight. Perhaps no other bird shows greater variation in size when in a wild state. On account of this diversity in size and colouring it was for long believed by sportsmen and naturalists that there were three and even four distinct kinds of 'cock. As late as our own time the belief that there are separate species of the birds lingers in some parts of the country. I suppose it may be taken that such a belief was quite a natural one in olden days by those who ever thought upon the subject, for people then were wont to believe almost anything

concerning natural history, however improbable it might really be. The common 'cock, the large muffled 'cock, and the little black or dark 'cock were usually declared to be distinct species by those who put pen to paper concerning Rusticola, while the white or buff bird was not infrequently given as a fourth. Besides the difference in the shade of the plumage of individual birds-pale, normal, and dark-pure sports in feathering have been recorded from time to time. One, for instance, is described as having the body a light ash tint with bars of delicate rufous hue, the tail brown, and the legs flesh colour; another as having the head of a pale red, the body white, and the wings brown; a third as being practically black throughout. Buff, cream-coloured and pure white woodcock have often been shot. The finest known specimen of the pure white bird is that preserved at Melton Constable in Norfolk, the seat of Lord Hastings. The bird was killed on the estate.

The average weight of the woodcock works out at something between eleven and twelve ounces. A very small bird will weigh as little as eight ounces or but a trifle over, a very fine one as much as fifteen or sixteen ounces. Occasionally one hears of the death of a phenomenal specimen which has turned the scale

at an ounce or two over the pound. Yarrel mentions a gigantic woodcock, shot in the year 1801, weighing no less than twenty-seven ounces. Another of twenty

four ounces was killed soon afterwards. Evidence as to the accuracy of the recorded weight of these birds is little to be doubted, if indeed it is not quite conclusive.

I have always when thinking of 'cock found myself compelled to believe that up till a century or so ago there existed in small numbers a distinct species of large woodcock of which the birds mentioned in the preceding paragraph were members. Such a species, numerically small and less well-equipped than the common 'cock for fighting the battle of life, might have been totally exterminated by a single winter of exceptional severity setting in with exceptional abruptness. From what one can glean, these very large birds were at one time so far common, especially in the eastern counties, as to be generally known by the rustics as 'double woodcock.' Their other name, muffled 'cock or muff-'cock, seems to imply some peculiarity in the growth of the feathers—perhaps something bearing a resemblance to that of the ruff. We never come across birds of anything like the size, or birds having any such peculiarity of plumage, as might lead us to say that we had killed a muffled 'çock in

our own day, nor has any bird of the kind been heard of for many decades. Though a great deal of what was written on nature subjects a hundred or more years ago has to be taken with more or less caution, we cannot doubt the quondam existence of the double woodcock. The only question of doubt is whether the bird was an enlarged variety of the common woodcock or whether it was a distinct species which passed out of existence something like a century ago. The latter seems to me very much more probable than the former. It is difficult to imagine a bird, the very largest examples of which encountered by us at the present time are only an ounce or two over the pound, ever throwing off specimens --specimens up to twenty-seven ouncesof such size and with such frequency. If the woodcock only so short a time back sported thus freely, it would sport as freely now. Such things in a wild creature do not change in a hundred years, if they do in a thousand. Yet neither we nor our fathers have ever seen or shot a double woodcock. Picture two wild birds of the same species lying side by side, the one weighing twenty-seven ounces and the other eight ounces. Then there is the peculiarity, for I think we must assume the peculiarity, of plumage which gave rise to the name

K

of muff, muffed, or muffled 'cock. It is a pity of pities that no double woodcock should ever have been preserved and handed down for our examination.

There are—in spite of a great deal that has from time to time been said to the contrary-no external signs whatever which will disclose the sex of a woodcock, and to the best of my knowledge there has never been made an examination of a number of 'cock such as would satisfactorily decide the question as to whether or not all the small birds we shoot are cocks and all the large ones hens. It is generally assumed, and, I think, correctly, that the females are to be known by their larger size. The sportsman thinks too much of the merits of his bag and the feelings of his cook to countenance the mutilation of a batch of birds necessary to prove this. If Lord Ardilaun, or some other highly-favoured sportsman, would consent to set aside twenty of the largest birds and twenty of the smallest at the end of a woodcock shoot, and have them examined and reported upon by some properly qualified person, the question would be finally set at rest-and I should be surprised to hear that a single hen was found among the small birds or a single cock among the large ones. As a rule, the plumage of a large 'cock is lighter in shade than that of a small one.