An undated letter (probably 1775/’76) on p. 100 of the above book has added to it the colour plate shown above. To see a sparrow-hawk take its prey is a fearful sight, the final swoop to the prey being so lightening fast. The plate correctly shows the sparrow-hawk having gone for the throat of the prey for a quick kill to minimise struggling. As regards the representation of the two birds both show that the artist had an accurate knowledge of the birds in question. The relative sizes of the two birds shows that the sparrow-hawk is but a medium-sized bird, nevertheless in the sparrow-hawk kill that I saw a large wood-pigeon was the prey, much larger than the predator.
The colour plate of the robins (see previous blog) is less convincing, unless robins have grown shorter and plumper since the late 18th century. This line of thought invites some discussion on the relative merits of illustrations v. photographs in modern flora and fauna instruction books. The former can show a scene which allows the most distinctive features of the plant/animal to be seen/studied, although in so doing it can give a misleading impression of the size of the subject/s (as above in my view where the perch looks more like the base of a tree-trunk than the stump of a shrub). Photographs, on the other hand, can be 100% accurate but maybe don’t show the best angle, and anyway need a good photographer. Personally I am on the fence, of my two favourite wild plant reference books one has photos, the other illustrations.
In the letter Rev. White recounts a story of a local boy who climbed up a tree to capture some fledgling sparrow-hawks and failed but found remains of many ‘new-flown swallows and martins’ they having ‘not acquired those powers and command of wing that enable them, when more mature, to set such enemies at defiance’ (p. 101).
(to be continued).