"to settle in places yet unknown, to take possession of lands, towns, islands, castles, fortresses, &c. belonging to Gentiles and infidels," &c. It is a matter of doubt whether any voyages were undertaken in consequence of these last letters of licence. But though Cabot's voyage was deemed unprofitable, his coast discoveries were very extensive, and it is by no means impossible that the turkey might have been introduced by his or some of the subsequent expeditions into England. As for the often repeated couplet given by Baker

"Turkeys, carps, hoppes, piccarel, and beer,

Came into England all in one year—”

About the fifteenth of Henry VIII. (1524): there is no reliance to be placed upon it, as far at least as the fish is concerned; for Dame Juliana Barnes, or Berners, Prioress of Sopewell Nunnery, mentions, in the Boke of St. Alban's, printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1496,* the carp as a "deyntous fisshe;" and the price of pike or pickerel was the subject of legal regulation in the time of our first Edward.

Mexico was discovered by Grijalva in the year 1518, and we soon after find a description of the turkey as one of the productions of the country by Gomarra and Hernandez, the latter of whom gives its Mexican name "Huexolotl," and makes mention of the wild birds as well as the tame. Oviedo, whose work was published at Toledo in 1526, describes the turkey well, as a kind of peacock of New Spain which had been carried over to the islands and the Spanish Main, and was about the houses of the Christian inhabitants; so that it is evident that, when Oviedo wrote, the bird had been domesticated. Heresbach states that they were brought into Germany about 1530, and Barnaby Googe (1614) declares that "those outlandish birds called ginny-cocks and turkey-cocks, before the yeare of our Lord 1530 were not seen with us.” But Barnaby had without doubt Heresbach's book before him when he wrote; and, indeed, the observations of the German author may be traced throughout the pages of the English writer on husbandry.

Pierre Gilles, in his additions to Ælian (1535), gives a most accurate description of the turkey, as being then in Europe. Pierre had not at that time been farther from his native country than Venice, and he says that he had seen it, and that it was brought from the New World. In 1541 we find a constitution of Archbishop Cranmer directing that of such large fowls as cranes, swans, and turkey-cocks, there should be but one dish; and we find the bird mentioned as no great rarity at the inauguration dinner of the serjeants-at-law in 1555. The learned brothers had upon that occasion two turkeys and four turkey chicks charged at four shillings each, swans and cranes being valued at ten shillings, and capons at half-a-crown. Champier, who is supposed to have written his treatise "De Re Cibaria " thirty years before it was published, (the publication was in 1560,) notices them as having been brought but a few years back from the newly-discovered Indian islands. Zanoni quotes a sumptuary law of Venice, made in 1557, prescribing the tables at which these birds might be served. The municipality of Amiens presented in the year 1566 twelve turkeys to the king; and Anderson, in his "History of Commerce," says that they were first eaten in France at his majesty'st marriage in 1570. This assertion of Anderson does

The first edition is said to have been printed in 1481, at St. Alban's.

+ Charles IX.

not seem to rest on any foundation, and we know that in 1573, they had become so common in England that they formed part of the usual Christmas fare at a farmer's table. Tusser, in his "Five Hundreth Points of Good Husbandry," remarks this, and also that they are ill neighbors to peason and hops. Hakluyt, in 1582, mentions "turkey-cocks and hennes" as having been brought into England about fifty years past.

Upon the whole evidence we think a verdict must be given in favour of the Spaniards as the importers of this great addition to our poultryyards; and we think that its introduction into this country must have taken place about the year 1530, and into other parts of Europe very nearly at the same time. Pennant, indeed, says, "It was first seen in France in the reign of Francis I., and in England in that of Henry VIII. By the date of the reign of these monarchs the first birds of this kind must have been brought from Mexico, whose conquest was completed A.D. 1521, the short-lived colony of the French in Florida not being attempted before 1562, nor our more successful one in Virginia till 1585, when both those monarchs were in their graves."

The weight to which this bird will attain has been stated to be enormous we have given some of these statements, and there has been doubtless good deal of exaggeration. But even now the wild birds arrive at a great size. Mr. Audubon gives from 15lb. to 18lb. as the average, and mentions one in the Louisville market which weighed 361b., and whose breast-tuft was upwards of a foot long. The length of the cock figured by Audubon was four feet and an inch, and the expanse of the wings five feet eight inches. The Prince of Musignano,* who has given a very interesting account of the habits of the wild turkey, says that birds of 30lb. weight are not rare, and that he had ascertained the existence of some which weighed 401b. The average weight of a wild hen appears to be about 9lb.; but in the strawberry season, when they are so fat as to burst with the fall after being shot, they occasionally reach 13lb.

But why is the bird called turkey or turky ?+ Every one has observed the changing hue of his wattle from red to blue when he is excited. In the small edition of Belon (1557) there is a cut of a triad of these birds, under the title of "Gallo d'India, Coq d'Inde " (Dinde Dindon), and beneath is the following quatrain :

"Quand à orgueuil ce coq au Paon approche,

Et fait sa queue en roue comme luy,
Les Barbillons et creste d'iceluy

Sont de couleur à l'azurée proche."

This "azurée" is very like the Turquois or Turquoise-Gemma Turcica-and is eminently characteristic of the bird. We do not presume to give this as a solution, but merely mention the hint for lack of a better.

Charles Lucien Bonaparte.

In Lawson's time Coona was the name for a turkey in the language of the Tuskeruro Indians, and Yauta in that of the Waccons or Woccons. The same author, speaking of the Indians, says, "They name the months very agreeably, as one is the herring-month, another the strawberry-month, another the mulberrymonth. Others name them by the trees that blossom; especially the dogwoodtree; or they say, We will return when turkey-cocks gobble,' that is, in March and April."

Willughby and others notice the anger into which the turkey is thrown by the display of anything dyed of a red colour; but that is not the only hue that provokes it, if we may believe a catalogue of pictures printed in Germany for the special benefit of the English; for there, we remember, was the following lot :-" A Turkish Cook inflamed to choler by a Blackzer Boy." Whether the writer had ever heard or read of Garrick's performance in the court-yard, with Sambo for audience, we know not: but from other internal evidence we suspect that it was a bonâ fide catalogue, written undoubtedly in choice English. For instance, another picture was thus announced-" Nymphs bathing into a mountainous landskip: Satyrs snooks about 'em."

But to return to our turkey. He is considered particularly dull, we know, but we can't help dat. The author of "Tabella Cibaria" proves it upon the bird that it is so stupid or timorous that if you balance a bit of straw on his head, or draw a line of chalk on the ground from his beak, he fancies himself so loaded or so bound, that he will remain in the same position till hunger forces him to move. We made the experiment." We never did; but we doubt it not, though we cannot accept it as proof of stupidity. How much wit may be necessary to balance a straw may be doubtful; but gallant chanticleer has never been charged either with fear or folly, and yet you have only to take him from his perch, place him on the table by candlelight, hold his beak down to the table, and draw a line with chalk from it so as to catch his eye, and there the bird will remain spell-bound, till a bystander rubbing out the line, or diverting his attention from it, breaks the charm. Many a fowl have we thus fascinated in our boyish days. Whatever may be the character for stupidity that the turkey has earned for itself in a domestic state, no such charge can be established against it in its native woods, where its vigilance and cunning are acknowledged by the hunters to their cost. Even in the poultry-yard the attentions of the turkey-cock to the female and the young, aye, and the courage with which he will defend the brood from dogs and other intruders, have been noticed. He has been known to take the sole charge of the brood upon himself, and to sit upon the eggs. The editor of the pretty and interesting volume on Gallinaceous birds* "I once says, knew it take place upon two addled eggs, which the hen had long persevered upon, and upon which he (the turkey-cock) kept his place a fortnight." This was certainly being paternal overmuch.

We must insert the following anecdote of the sagacity of a half-reclaimed bird, from the pen of Audubon, by way of set-off.

"While at Henderson, on the Ohio, I had, among many other wild birds, a fine male turkey, which had been reared fram its earliest youth under my care, it having been caught by me when probably not more than two or three days old. It became so tame that it would follow any person who called it, and was the favourite of the little village. Yet it would never roost with the tame turkeys, but regularly betook itself at night to the roof of the house, where it remained until dawn. When two years old it began to fly to the woods, where it remained for a considerable part of the day, to return to the enclosure as night approached. * Naturalist's Library—Ornithology, vol. iii.

Feb.-VOL. XLIX. NO. CXCIV.

P

It continued this practice until the following spring, when I saw it several times fly from its roosting-place to the top of a high cotton-tree, on the bank of the Ohio, from which, after resting a little, it would sail to the opposite shore, the river being there nearly half a mile wide, and return towards night. One morning I saw it fly off, at a very early hour, to the woods, in another direction, and took no particular notice of the circumstance. Several days elapsed, but the bird did not return. I was going towards some lakes near Green River, to shoot, when, having walked about five miles, I saw a fine large gobbler cross the path before me, moving leisurely along. Turkeys being then in prime condition for the table, I ordered my dog to chase it and put it up. The animal went off with great rapidity, and, as it approached the turkey, I saw, with surprise, that the latter paid little attention. Juno was on the point of seizing it, when she suddenly stopped, and turned her head towards me. I hastened to them, but you may easily conceive my surprise when I saw my own favourite bird, and discovered that it had recognised the dog, and would not fly from it; although the sight of a strange dog would have caused it to run off at once. A friend of mine happening to be in search of a wounded deer, took the bird on his saddle before him, and carried it home for me. The following spring it was accidentally shot, having been taken for a wild bird, and brought to me on being recognised by the red riband which it had around its neck. Pray, reader, by what word will you designate the recognition made by my favourite turkey of a dog which had been long associated with it in the yard and grounds? Was it the result of instinct or of reason-an unconsciously revived impression, or the act of an intelligent mind?" A question to be asked.

But how many of our readers are there who have never seen a wild turkey; and of those who have not, how few may care to read a technical description of the bird! and yet to some it may be interesting. The Prince of Musignano, in his "Continuation of Wilson's North American Ornithology," was the first who gave an authentic figure of the wild turkey; and nearly at the same time (about eleven years ago) M. Vieillot published one in his "Galerie," from a specimen in the Paris Museum. But it is to the magnificent work of Audubon, “The Birds of America," that we owe a perfect representation of the male, the female, and the young, upon a grand scale, and with a minuteness of accuracy that an ornithologist alone can appreciate, though every one must be struck with the truth of the life-like portraits. We are aware that, prior to the appearance of the above-mentioned works, there were figures for instance, those introduced into a landscape in the account of De Laudonière's Voyage to Florida, in De Bry's Collection, and Brickell's, in his Natural History of North Carolina-but these are not only apocryphal, if they are to be considered as unadulterated representations of the wild bird, but too imperfect to be available.

The following description, from the pen of the late lamented Mr. Bennett, appears to us to embody the best parts of all that have appeared, and we accordingly select it.

"Those who have seen only the domesticated bird can form but a faint idea of its beauty in a state of nature. When fully grown, the male wild turkey measures nearly four feet in length, and more than five in the expanse of its wings. Its head, which is very small in pro

portion to its body, is covered with a naked, blueish skin, which is continued over the upper half of its neck. On this skin are placed a number of wart-like elevations, red on the upper portion and whitish below, interspersed with a few scattered blackish hairs. On the under part of the neck the skin is flaccid and membranous, and extends downwards, in the shape of large wattles. From the base of the bill, at its junction with the forehead, rises a wrinkled, conical, fleshy protuberance, with a pencil of hairs at the tip. This protuberance, when the bird is at rest, does not exceed an inch and a half in length, but on any excitement becomes elongated to such an extent as to cover the bill entirely, and to depend below it for several inches. The lower part of the neck, at its junction with the breast, is ornamented by a singular tuft of black rigid hairs, separating themselves from the feathers, and reaching as much as nine inches in length. The feathers of the body are long and truncated, and generally speaking may each be subdivided into four parts. Their base is formed by a light fuliginous down, which is followed by a dusky portion. This again is succeeded by a broad shining metallic band, changing to copper colour or bronze, to violet or purple, according to the incidence of the light; while the tip is formed by a narrow black velvety band, which last is wanting on the neck and breast. From this disposition of the colours results a most beautiful changeable metallic gloss over the whole body of the bird, which is however less marked on the lower part of the back and tail-coverts.

"The wings, which scarcely extend beyond the base of the tail, are convex and rounded. They are furnished with twenty-eight quillfeathers; the primaries are plain blackish, banded with white, while the secondaries have the relative extent of these markings so reversed that they may be described as white banded with blackish, and tinged, especially towards the back, with brownish yellow, The tail measures more than fifteen inches in length, is rounded at the extremity, and consists of eighteen broad feathers, which, when expanded and elevated, assume the form of a fan. It is brown, mottled with black, and crossed by numerous narrow undulating lines of the same. Near the tip is a broad black band, then follows a short mottled portion, and lastly a broad dingy yellowish band. The feet are robust, have blunt spurs about an inch in length, and are of a red colour, with blackish margins to the scales, and claws of the same dusky hue. The bill is reddish and horncoloured at the tip; and the irides are dark brown.

"The female is considerably smaller, not exceeding three feet and a quarter in length. Her bill and legs are less robust, the latter without any rudiment of a spur; and her irides similar to those of the male. Her head and neck are less denuded, being covered by short decomposed feathers of a dirty gray. Those of the back of the neck have brownish tips, producing a longitudinal band on that part. The caruncle on the forehead is short and incapable of elongation; and the fasciculus on the breast is not always present. The prevailing tinge of the plumage is dusky gray, each feather having a metallic band, and a grayish terminal fringe. On the feathers of the neck, and under surface, the black band is for the most part obliterated. All the parts, without exception, are duller than those of the male; less white exists on the primary wingfeathers, and the secondaries are entirely destitute of bands. The tail is similar in colour to that of the male.