From Nature. HABITS OF BURROWING CRAYFISHES IN THE UNITED STATES. ON May 13, 1883, I chanced to enter a meadow a few miles above Washington, on the Virginia side of the Potomac, at the head of a small stream emptying into the river. It was between two hills, at an elevation of one hundred feet above the Potomac, and about a mile from the river. Here I saw many clayey mounds covering burrows scattered over the ground irregularly both upon the banks of the stream and in the adjacent meadow, even as far as ten yards from the bed of the brook. My curiosity was aroused, and I explored several of the holes, finding in each a good-sized crayfish, which Prof. Walter Faxon identified as Cambarus diogenes, Girard (C. obesus, Hagen), otherwise known as the burrowing crayfish. I afterwards visited the locality several times, collecting specimens of the mounds and crayfishes, which are now in the United States National Museum, and inaking observations. At that time of the year the stream was receding, and the meadow was beginning to dry. At a period not over a month previous, the meadows, at least as far from the stream as the burrows were found, had been covered with water. Those burrows near the stream were less than six inches deep, and there was a gradual increase in depth as the distance from the stream became greater. More over, the holes farthest from the stream were in nearly every case covered by a mound, while those nearer had either a very small chimney or none at all; and subsequent visits proved that at that time of year the mounds were just being constructed, for each time I revisited the place the mounds were more numerous. The length, width, general direction of the burrows, and number of the openings were extremely variable, and the same is true of the mounds. Usually the main burrow is very nearly perpendicular, there being but one oblique opening having a very small mound, and the main mound is somewhat wider than long. Occasionally the burrows are very tortuous, and there are often two or three extra openings, each sometimes covered by a mound. There is every conceivable shape and size in the chimneys, ranging from a mere ridge of mud, evidently the first foundation, to those with a breadth one-half the height. The burrows near the stream were seldom more than six inches deep, being nearly perpendicular, with an en largement at the base, and always with at least one oblique opening. The mounds were usually of yellow clay, although in one place the ground was of fine gravel, and there the chimneys were of the same character. They were always circularly pyramidal in shape, the hole inside being very smooth, but the outside was formed of irregular nodules of clay hardened in the sun and lying just as they fell when dropped from the top of the mound. A small quantity of grass and leaves was mixed through the mound, but this was apparently accidental. The size of the burrows varied from half an inch to two inches in diameter, being smooth for the entire distance, and nearly uniform in width. Where the burrow was far distant from the stream, the upper part was hard and dry. In the deeper holes I invariably found several enlargements at various points in the burrow. Some burrows were three feet deep, indeed they all go down to water, and, as the water in the ground lowers, the burrow is undoubtedly projected deeper. The diagonal openings never at that season of the year have perfect chimneys, and seldom more than a mere rim. In no case did I find any connection between two different burrows. In digging after the inhabitants I was seldom able to secure a specimen from the deeper burrows, for I found that the animal always retreated to the extreme end, and when it could go no farther would use its claws in defence. Both males and females have burrows, but they were never found together, each burrow having but a single individual. There is seldom more than a pint of water in each hole, and this is muddy and hardly suitable to sustain life. The neighboring brooks and springs were inhabited by another species of crayfish, Cambarus bartonii, but although especial search was made for the burrowing species, in no case was a single speci. men found outside of the burrows. C. bartonii was taken both in the swiftly running portions of the stream, and in the shallow side pools, as well as in the springs at the head of small rivers. It would swim about in all directions, and was often found under stones and in little holes and crevices, none of which appeared to have been made for the purpose of retreat, but were accidental. The crayfishes would leave these little retreats whenever disturbed, and swim away down stream out of sight. They were often found some distance from the main stream under rocks that had been covered by the brook at a higher water-mark; but although there was very little water under the rocks, and the stream had not covered them for at least two weeks, they showed no tendency to burrow. Nor have I ever found any burrows formed by the river species Cambarus affinis, although I have searched over miles of marsh land on the Potomac for this purpose. The brook near where my observations were made was fast decreasing in volume, and would probably continue to do so until in July its bed would be nearly dry. During the wet seasons the meadow is itself covered. Even in the banks of the stream, then under water, there were holes, but they all extended obliquely without exception, there being no perpendicular burrows, and no mounds. The holes extended in about six inches, and there was never a perpendicular branch, nor even an enlargement at the end. I always found the inhabitant near the mouth, and by quickly cutting off the rear part of the hole could force him out, but unless forcibly driven out it would never leave the hole, not even when a stick was thrust in behind it. It was undoubtedly this species that Dr. Godman mentioned in his "Rambles of a Naturalist," and which Dr. Abbott (Am. Nat., 1873, p. 81) refers to C. bartonii. Although I have no proof that this is so, I am inclined to believe that the burrowing crayfishes retire to the stream in winter, and remain there until early spring, when they construct their burrows for the purpose of rearing their young, and escaping the summer droughts. My reason for saying this is that I found one burrow which on my first visit was but six inches deep, and later had been projected to a depth at least twice as great, and the inhabitant was an old female. I think that after the winter has passed, and while the marsh is still covered with water, impregnation takes place and burrows are immediately begun. I do not believe that the same burrow is occupied for more than one year, as it would probably fill up during the winter. At first it burrows diagonally, and as long as the mouth is covered with water is satisfied with this oblique hole. When the water recedes, leaving the opening uncovered, the burrow must be dug deeper, and the economy of a perpendicular burrow must immediately suggest itself. From that time the perpendicular direction is preserved with more or less regularity. Immediately after the perpendicular hole is begun, a shorter opening to the surface is needed for conveying the mud from the nest, and then the perpendicular opening is made. Mud from this and also from the first part of the perpendicular burrow is carried out of the diagonal opening and deposited on the edge. If a freshet occurs before this rim of mud has a chance to harden, it is washed away and no mound is formed over the oblique burrow. After the vertical opening is made, as the hole is bored deeper, mud is deposited on the edge, and the deeper it is dug the higher the mound. I do not think that the chimney is a necessary part of the nest, but simply the result of digging. I carried away several mounds, and in a week revisited the place, and no attempt had been made to replace them; but in one case, where I had, in addition, partly destroyed the burrow by dropping mud into it, there was a simple half-rim of mud around the edge, showing that the crayfish had been at work; and as the mud was dry the clearing must have been done soon after my departure. That the cray; fish retreats as the water in the ground falls lower and lower, is proved by the fact that at various intervals there are bottle-shaped cavities marking the end of the burrow at an earlier period. A few of those mounds farthest from the stream had their mouths closed by a pellet of mud. It is said that all are closed during the summer months. How these animals can live for months in the muddy, impure water is to me a puzzle. They are very sluggish, possessing none of the quick motions of their allied C. bartonii, for when taken out and placed either in water or on the ground they move very slowly. The power of throwing off their claws when these are grasped is often exercised. About the middle of May the eggs hatch, and for a time the young cling to the mother, but I am unable to state how long they remain thus. After hatching they must grow rapidly, and soon the burrow will be too small for them to live in, and they must migrate. It would be interest. ing to know more about the habits of this peculiar species, about which so little has been written. An interesting point to settle would be how and where it gets its food. The burrow contains none, either animal or vegetable. Food must be procured at night, or when the sun is not shining brightly. In the spring and fall the green stalks of meadow grasses would furnish food, but when these become parched and dry they must either dig after and eat the roots, or search in the stream. I feel satisfied that they do not RALPH S. TARR. From The Whitehall Review. tunnel among the roots, for if they did so | positively afraid of being insulted in pubthese burrows would be frequently met lic, and therefore stayed indoors, while with. Little has as yet been published the queen not unfrequently dropped a hint upon this subject, and that little covers that she would like to be rid of such a only two spring months, April and May, husband. The birth of a son and heir, and it would be interesting if those who who afterwards became James VI. of have an opportunity to watch the species Scotland and I. of England, did not mend during other seasons, or who have ob matters. Mary was told that means could served them at any season of the year, be found for putting things right without would make known their results. imperilling the legitimacy of her son, whose birth had, of course, rendered a dissolution of the marriage out of the question. Then arose James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. He undertook to remove the king; whether with or without the collusion of the queen need not be discussed. Certain it is that he executed his purpose. Not to go too much into detail respecting a matter which is one of the best-known incidents in English history, let us come at once to this Duke of Albany's miserable end. He had fallen sick at Glasgow. Mary brought him back to Edinburgh, and lodged him in a lonely house not far from Holyrood. Bothwell gained access to the place by bribing Darnley's servants, and caused a quantity of gunpowder to be laid under the chamber in which he slept in order to blow him into the air. 66 Alarmed," says Ranke, "at the noise made by opening the door, the young sovereign sprang from his bed. While trying to save himself he was strangled, together with the page who was with him. The gunpowder was then fired, and the house laid in ruins." So perished another Duke of Albany, and not the least remarkable of the number. The title fell to his son, but was practically extinct, for on the accession of the son as James VI. it was merged in the crown. In 1600 King James, having a second son, Prince Charles, desired a title for him, and chose that of Duke of Albany. Was ever choice more unlucky? For this duke of the illfated name became afterwards Charles I., and was beheaded by his faithful Commons. A personality so familiar needs no description, and we pass on to the next creation - namely, that by King Charles II., who conferred the title on his brother James, Duke of York. He was known before his accession to the throne (James II. of England) as the Duke of York and Albany, a conjunction of names that is familiar even to modern ears. When James became king the title was again merged in the crown, but for the last time. We have now got past the age when a violent death was the common form in which misfortune overtook men in high station, and henceforth the history of the ON the extinction of the first creation of the dukedom of Albany, when Duke Murdoch was executed by James I. (of Scotland), the title remained in total disuse during the remainder of the reign. King James II. revived it, but the second creation was no more fortunate than the first. Conferred upon Alexander, James's second son, the title was borne by him for a few years, and then passed to his son John, who died without issue. Of these two Dukes of Albany history gives us only the record of their names. Their lives appear to have been undistinguished, and the title died with them. A strange contrast this to the tragic figure of the next Duke of Albany, Henry Lord Darnley. This was the third creation, and Darnley was the fifth duke. Misfortune still pursued both the title and its possessor. For a while, it is true, things promised well. Darnley seemed marked out as the chosen favorite of fortune. Mary Queen of Scots married him from a variety of motives: partly, no doubt, because he was young and handsome, and she fell in love with him; partly, also, because he was a descendant of the ancient Scottish kings, and would thus help to strengthen Mary's own position. He was made Duke of Albany nine days before the nuptials in 1565, but he was never known by that title, for on his marriage day he was proclaimed king of Scotland, his name being placed before the queen's by the heralds when they delivered the royal proclamations. The murder of Rizzio, in which Darnley undoubtedly had a hand, was the first step in the fifth Duke of Albany's sudden and swift decline. Mistrusted by the queen, deserted by the lords whom he himself had previously betrayed, he was gradually excluded from affairs, and fell into a condition that could only excite pity and contempt. He was 66 dukedom of Albany becomes less bloody, | king accepted. On May 25, 1811, his while still exhibiting a singular persist- Royal Highness was reappointed comence of instability. In 1716 James II. mander-in-chief, "to the great joy of the created his brother Ernest Duke of York army and of all well-affected persons." and Albany. This prince became Bishop The duke, in his letter of resignation adof Osnaburg on the death of Charles Jo- dressed to his father, made the following seph, Elector of Treves, in 1715, and was among other remarks, which are interestcreated Duke of York and Albany in the ing as showing, even at that time, the following year. He enjoyed the honor for good relations which bound the royal famtwelve years, and then died without issue. ily of England together. "The motives The next Duke of York and Albany was which influence his Royal Highness arise Prince Edward Augustus, created duke from the truest sense of duty and the in 1760 by his brother, George III. We warmest attachment to his Majesty, from know of him that from early youth he was which he has never departed, and which inclined to a maritime life. He was ap- his Majesty has, if possible, confirmed by pointed a midshipman, and embarked on the affectionate and personal solicitude board the "Essex” in 1758, under the he has shown for the honor and welfare command of Commodore, afterwards Earl, of his Royal Highness upon this distressHowe, upon an expedition against Cher- ing occasion to him: to him, as the most bourg. Later on he became captain of kind and indulgent father and as a generthe Phoenix," and served also on board ous sovereign, his Royal Highness owes a the "Hero" and the "Princess Amelia." debt, and his feelings alone would have In 1763 he embarked on a tour through prompted him to forego all considerations Europe, but at Monaco he was seized with of personal interest in the determination a malignant fever, of which he died, in he has taken." Prince Frederick died, 1767, in his twenty-eighth year, unmar- without issue, in 1827, and the peerage of ried. His remains were brought to En- Albany once more expired. Not till 1881 gland and deposited in Henry the Seventh's Chapel. His end presents in some respects a curious parallel to that of the late Duke of Albany. Now we come to the prince who last previous to Prince Leopold bore this ill-fated title. This was Frederick, second son of George III., upon whom the dignity was conferred in 1784. He is remembered as the commander-in-chief of his Majesty's forces, and as having, in 1809, been accused of corruption in the administration of his office. A committee of the House of Commons was appointed to investigate the matter. After a short inquiry, in which Sir Arthur Wellesley bore testimony to the discipline of the army under his command, for which, he said, the country was solely indebted to his Royal High ness, the committee pronounced a "distinct opinion" that "the charge was wholly without foundation." Thereupon the duke, feeling free to approach his Majesty, at once tendered his resignation, which the within seven years of its quincentenary - was it revived, and then it was conferred upon the lamented prince who, although he held it for a brief period only, imparted to it a lustre not only new, but purer than any bestowed upon it by his predecessors. The first Duke of Albany is a great figure in the early history of Scotland. He was king in deed, but not in name; Darnley, the fifth Duke of Albany, was king in name, but not in deed. The sixth, seventh, and eighth dukes all came to the crown of England; the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth dukes all ful filled useful and honorable functions in the high station to which they were born. But through all this long and broken line the title seems to have been the favorite plaything of a relentless fate. It has now, for the ninth time, become extinct, at all events for the present, and in cir cumstances that yield to none that we have recounted in their mournful and even tragic character. For EIGHT DOLLARS, remitted directly to the Publishers, the LIVING AGE will be punctually forwarded for a year, free of postage. Remittances should be made by bank draft or check, or by post-office money-order, if possible. If neither of these can be procured, the money should be sent in a registered letter. All postmasters are obliged to register letters when requested to do so. Drafts, checks and money-orders should be made payable to the order of LITTELL & Co. Single Numbers of THE LIVING AGE, 18 cents. |