KINGFISHERS ON THE THAMES
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—" E. M. N.," in his article on the Thames, deplores the almost total absence of the kingfisher. I hope I am wrong, but I greatly fear that the abnormally high water level during last year's breeding season is responsible. For the first time in many years' experience of the river, I failed to see a single kingfisher during a launch trip from Richmond to Lechlade, above Oxford. In other years I had noted them even in populated districts ; for example, among the boathouses at Oxford and elsewhere.- The Thames king- fisher was comparatively tame.
A possible explanation came from an enquiry which I made some miles below Leehlade. The country folk stated with some confidence that the cause of the absence of these beautiful birds was the fact that they were drowned in their nesting holes. It will be remembered that the water was several feet above the usual level at this period. Naturalists are the best judges as to whether the parent birds would remain on their nests with their eggs, or young, in the face of rising water ; but country folk are keen observers, and they may not be very far wrong. In many parts the water was almost up to the level of the banks, owing to the heavy rains.
Against this theory there is the possibility that the birds may have deserted their usual haunts, and gone to more congenial districts for breeding purposes. Or they may have left their nests, and saved themselves. Let us hope
Previous page
