On the anatomy and habits of the water-ousel (Cinclus aquaticus) / by Edwards Crisp.

  • Crisp, Edwards, 1806-1882.
Date:
[1865]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the anatomy and habits of the water-ousel (Cinclus aquaticus) / by Edwards Crisp. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    3/4 (page 51)
    OF Till-' WATEU-OUSKI . I860.] n great measure account for the diving-powers of this bird and its progress uuder water. As might be expected, too, from the frequent motion of the tail, the caudal muscles are much developed. On comparing the visceral anatomy of this bird with that of the other British Merulidre, all of which I have dissected, with the exception of White’s Thrush (Turdus whitei), very little proportional difference is observed. The length of the intestinal tube in the Redwing (T. Hiacus) is 14 inches; the brain weighs 16 grains, the pectoral muscles I/O grains, the weight of the body being about 2\ oz. In the Fieldfare (T. pilaris), weighing 4£ oz., the brain weighs 26 grains, and the intestinal tube measures 22 inches. In the Ring-Ousel (T. torquatus), weight 3 oz. 180 grains, the alimentary canal is 13£ inches in length, and the weight of the brain is 26 grains; and these parts in the Missel-Thrush (T. viscivorus), in the Blackbird (7T. merula), and Song-Thrush (T. musicus) are of nearly the same proportionate length and weight. In the young Water-Ousel that I have dissected, I observed nothing remarkable in its anatomy. So that, as regards the visceral anatomy, there is no important difference between the Water-Ousel and the other members of this group, although among the British Merules this is the only bird that feeds exclusively on animal food; but, to show how the habits of a bird may be altered in this respect, I have mentioned a young Water-Ousel that was reared under a Bantam, and fed on porridge (P. Z. S. 1859, p. 200). Some writers upon this bird have spoken of the claws as being well adapted for holding on to stones and other objects at the bottom of the water; but on comparing the claws of the Water-Ousel with those of the other Merulidce, it will be seen that the bird has no advantage of this kind, although the comparatively blunted form of the claw would lead to the inference that it is used for the purpose mentioned. The bones of the Water-Ousel, like those of the other British mem- bers of this group, contain no air* ; and it is singular that the skele- ton of the Fieldfare, Redwing, and Missel-Thrush (birds of passage) should in this respect resemble that of the short-flighted Water-Ousel. As regards the food, I am afraid that we cannot entirely acquit this bird of occasionally destroying the fry of fish ; but I know of no reli- able evidence to prove that it takes the ova. In the three specimens before the Society, the gizzards of all contained Entomostraca, and one of them a Gordian (Gordius aqualicus). In others that I have dissected, I have discovered chiefly Entomostraca and the larvae of Phryyanea; indeed 1 have found that its food is very similar to that of the young Salmon (Salmo salar). Mr. Gould, in his present work ‘The Birds of Great Britain’ (part 1), mentions that he examined five of these birds that were shot on the River Usk, in Nov. 1859, and that no trace of spawn was found in any of them ; their hard gizzards were entirely filled with the larvae of Phryyanea and the Water-beetle (Ilydrophilus). One had a small Bullhead (Cottus yobio), which the bird had doubtless * I need scarcely say that some of the cranial bones of birds, like those of mammals, contain air. [3]