"MORE-PORK."

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3025, 6 April 1867, Page 5

"MORE-PORK."

To the Editor of th» Dailt Southmut Caoss. „ Sib.—l Quite agree with "Australian" as to the ; value of the more-pork in destroying insects; buffo he is mistaken if he thinks that the Australian more- 1 pork is the same as the New Zealand bird called by . that name. The New Zealand more-pork is an owl? (Athene Nova-Zelandiae), while the Australian more- * pork (Podargus humeralis) and the little more-pork (iEgotheles Novse-Hollandiae) both belong to the night-jar or goat-sucker family, which are infinitely more Y&luable as insect-destroyera than the owls. i I must, however, differ from him as to the value of introducing the laughing jackasg or great belted kingfisher into these islands. I am afraid- that it would do more harm, by killing the lizards, than it would do good by destroying insects.—l am, &c, F. W, Huttoit. Epsom, April 3, 1867.

To the Editor of the Daily Southern Cross. . Mr. Editor,— l think I can give your correspondent! s " More-pork" the information he wants. I hare, at , this moment, a more-pork in a cage, and I feed him with raw meat, which he devours, with apparent i satisfaction. I think I can give a tolerable strong , proof that these birds are birds of prey, having sten one of them seize a canary-bird of ours which liad - escaped from its cage, and which we were on the- , point of catching, when a morC-pork swept suddenly down upon it and carried it off j and upon another occasion one flew ii>to our verandah at dusk, and attempted to take anottier" canary out of its cage,*, before our eyes. I think this is proof sufficient thai^ these birds are birds of, prey.— T am,^&c, , -• 1 ~> '''- • ' '* THIRTBEff. $, Hawthofnden, H6wick, April' 3, 1867. .. * p/S. I waß about to send this ty> the post ypster. *' day, when your paper came with another letteir^in ifc: io"n"the subject in question, signed " Australian.^^ I can only say— if the writer, makes no .mistake in-^ bh '.assertions— that his more-porß cannot be th©^ same bird as my more-pork. The bird which I have>>j ralwfys heard called the more-pori^ in New Zealand^ (an*d I have been here nine years) is a small kind of owl of a brown colour. We have plenty of them ia fe our garden, and hear them often talking to each other about a further allowance of pork all night. Perhaps, there ate two kinds of owls called morepork, aod that they are of different habits. If so, I should like to know it, and perhaps your correaI pondent "Australian" can tell me.