became apparent that the dogs had blundered, for the reptile was a
lizard. The mistake in identity, was, however, excusable, for in size,
shape, colouring, and marking it so closely resembled an adder that I was
not readily convinced to the contrary. Placing the two pieces into which
the shot had divided the creature in juxtaposition, I sympathised with
the dogs more strongly, feeling certain that no one would have hesitated
to give the harmless lizard a very bad character. Before firing the fatal
shot the distention of the body had confirmed my opinion as to identity,
and the method of partial concealment and of lying inert were significant
of the dangerous little snake. I had no doubt at the time, too, that it
emitted a deceptive odour, which, being similar to that of the adder, had
been chiefly instrumental in exciting extraordinary suspicion on the part
of the terriers.

Dogs of another generation were concerned in a repetition of this
experience in its significant details more recently. Having crossed a
creek ahead, frantic appeals were made, but before I could reach the spot
the excitement got beyond bounds, and I saw one of them snap up
something, shake it viciously, and toss it away with every manifestation
of repugnance and caution. Again I presumed the squirming reptile to be
an adder, for the dogs, with bristling backs and uplifted lips, walked
round it gingerly, sniffing and starting as if it were most fearsome and
detestable. The bulk of the reptile gradually subsided, confirming the
opinion that the dog had actually killed an adder, a feat I had never
known it perform. Investigation again proved that an innocent lizard
parading as an offensive snake had lost its life. Does not this evidence
suggest that the lizard assumes the similitude and the odour of the
adder, its tactics of concealment, and its characteristic habit of
puffing itself out in order to warn off its foes? The spontaneous,
unsuborned, and independent evidence of two sets of dogs cannot be wholly