This page has been validated.
Natural History of the NIGHTINGALE.
(Continued from Page 405.)
IT has been aſſerted by many reputable naturaliſts, both ancient and modern, that the nightingale never ſings near its neſt, for fear of its being diſcovered by that means; but I will beg leave to affirm from a long courſe of obſervation and experience in ornithology, (which indeed for many years paſt has been my chief ſtudy,[1] and principal amuſement) that it always ſits and ſings not far from the ſpot where all its affections are centered; and any one who is curious enough to ſearch the hedge-row where it delivers its muſic, will frequently find the neſt
near
- ↑ As the generality of naturatiſts, and particularly thoſe who have wrote on ornithology, have been too credulous and inaccurate, and abound with errors, the author of the above, to obviate theſe inconveniences, has, with great application and indefatigable ſtudy and induſtry, compoſed a Natural Hiſtory of Britiſh Birds on a new plan, i.e. by a ſtrict attention to nature herſelf, without regard to any thing ſaid by others on the ſubject. Such a work can want no recommendation, as it muſt be valuable to every one who would wiſh to acquire ſome proficiency in this delightful and pleaſing department of natural hiſtory. The author of this performance has not like his predeceſſors and contemporaries, clandeſtinely copied the miſtakes of preceding writers; but to make it as perfect as poſſible, has abſolutely been at the trouble and expence of procuring almoſt every bird he has mentioned, and ſo taken an exact deſcription: he has alſo been at the pains of examining the neſt, eggs, &c. of each ſpecies, and made many new diſcoveries with relation to their neſtlings, never before taken notice of. Throughout the whole great care has like-wiſe been taken clear up the faults, and rectify the miſtakes, to correct the blunders, and explode the errors of former writers; who, inſtead of copying nature, and repreſenting things with juſtneſs, plainneſs, and perſpecuity, have, too often added from their own imaginations, and impoſed on the reader ſcarce any thing but fables, fictitious ſtories, and chimerical abſurdities. The works of the ancients, particularly that of Aldrovandus, Pliny, Ariſlotle, Geſner, &c. &c. are replete with ſuch dry extraneous matter and impertinent ſtuff, as is really diſguſting to a ſerious reader; the moderns alſo are in ſome meaſure culpable, as they too frequently tranſcribe them, and again confirm what the ancients imprudently, and without ſufficient teſtimony aſſerted. Johnſton, Ray, Edwards, Abin, Brookes, Pennant, and many other of our modern celebrated naturaliſts, have, for want of ſufficient obſervation, diligence, and experience, mentioned many things, in reſpect to birds, contrary to fact and real truth, which I ſhall make appear hereafter.[*] Thus one of them tells us in his deſcription of the cuckoo, that it builds a neſt like other birds with thorns, long graſs, hay, &c. hatches, and brings up its young. The ſame author informs us that the water-wagtail is a bird of paſſage, and is never ſeen in this country in winter—that the crow, the raven, and the pie, like the rapacious tribe, kill and eat ſmall birds—that the white owl has a hooting note, and never appears in moon light evenings, all which aſſertions are certainly falſe, as muſt be obvious to every one who is the leaſt converſant in this part of natural hiſtory. Another modern writer would make us believe that the jay builds in boles of trees, and is a carnivorous bird. The miſſel thruſh, if we credit this author, lays eggs like thoſe of the throſtle,
