presence to challenge some regard and approbation from the lovers
of natural history; for, as no man can alone investigate all the
works of nature, these partial writers may, each in their
department, be more accurate in their discoveries, and freer from
errors, than more general writers; and so by degrees may pave the
way to an universal correct natural history. Not that Scopoli is so
circumstantial and attentive to the life and conversation of his birds
as I could wish: he advances some false facts; as when he says of
the hirundo urbica that 'pullos extra nidum non nutrit.' This
assertion I know to be wrong from repeated observations this
summer, for house-martins do feed their young flying, though it
must be acknowledged not so commonly as the house-swallow;
and the feat is done in so quick a manner as not to be perceptible to
indifferent observers. He also advances some (I was going to say)
improbable facts; as when he says of the woodcock that, 'pullos
rostra portat fugiens ab hoste.' But candour forbids me to say
absolutely that any fact is false, because I have never been witness
to such a fact. I have only to remark that the long unwieldy bill of
the woodcock is perhaps the worst adapted of any among the
winged creation for such a feat of natural affection.
(*Annus Primus Historico-Naturalis.)

I am, etc.



Letter XXXII
T Thomas Pennant, Esquire

Selborne, October 29, 1770.