There remains to be considered an incident closely connected with the subject of this paper. On Jan. 24, 1915, a Sunday morning, there was a running fight in the North Sea between the First Battle-Cruiser Squadron under Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty and the German cruisers 'Derfflinger,' 'Seydlitz,' 'Moltke,' and 'Blücher,' and other minor vessels. The 'Blücher,' as is well known, was sunk during this engagement. The position of the vessels during the action has not yet been made public, but they must have been some distance from the shore before our ships came within range of the enemy, for, while the sound of the firing was heard near the Lincolnshire coast, nothing but a 'soughing in the ear' was observed about one hundred miles farther inland at Ripleth, near Ripon. During the battle, from about 10 to 11.30 a.m., there was much agitation among the pheasants in various parts of the north of England. According to the parish-clerk at Saxby in Lincolnshire, 'There be rare goings on in the North Sea the morn; the pheasants is all over the place with their fuss ;' and his remark was made before the news of the battle arrived. Similar observations were made in various parts of Yorkshire, at Lowther near Penrith, and even at places in Cumberland which are probably 200 or 250 miles from the scene of the firing. There can be little doubt as to the close connexion between the gun-firing and the disturbance of the pheasants, for, in woods near Burgh-le-Marsh in Lincolnshire, the firing and the crowing of the pheasants were heard together.

In what way are pheasants affected by the distant gun-firing? Do they actually hear sounds which are too deep or too faint to produce any effect on the human ear? Or is it that they are in some way susceptible to the evanescent air-vibrations or are alarmed by movements due to those vibrations?

We know, indeed, very little about the varying capacity of the human ear for appreciating the low roll of distant gun-firing. We know still less about the powers of birds and animals for hearing such vibrations. The only evidence with which I am acquainted is their behaviour during earthquakes. For instance, during the Hereford earthquake of 1896, pheasants crowed at a distance of 111 miles to the north-west of the origin; the

sound was heard to a distance of 170 miles in the same direction. During the Doncaster earthquake of 1905, the farthest place at which pheasants were affected is 38 miles from the origin; the sound was heard on an average for 62 miles from that place. The evidence is not quite conclusive, for pheasants are not so uniformly distributed as human beings over the country. So far as it goes, however, it seems to show that the pheasant's ear is less sensitive than our own to very deep sounds.

On the other hand, it must be remembered that even human beings are affected by sound-waves in other ways than through the ear. When there is a loud report close at hand we instinctively wink. It is the reflex action of the eyelids to protect the eyeballs from injury when the air-waves suddenly impinge upon them. It is possible, indeed, that pheasants never hear the report of guns at all, however close they may be, and that it is merely the resulting air-vibrations striking on their bodies that alarms them. On the whole, however, it seems more probable that the air-waves act only indirectly on the birds. We have seen that the reports of the guns during the Cherbourg review were heard for 107 miles, but that for 30 miles farther the airvibrations were strong enough to make windows shake and rattle. In the same way, far beyond the Lincolnshire woods in which the guns were heard on Jan. 24, inaudible waves would speed their way across the country. During their passage low trees and undergrowth would suddenly sway and quiver. The birds resting on them would be alarmed by the abrupt though slight disturbance, and would rise with the excited cries which they utter when somewhat similar movements are caused by the passage of earthquake waves.

CHARLES DAVISON.

Art. 13.-THE COURSE OF THE WAR ON LAND.

BOTH in the various theatres of operations, and in the field of politics connected with the war, the past three months have been marked by notable events. The period has been one of exceptional activity on the part of the enemy, which seems to denote a desperate effort to attain a favourable decision during the current campaigning season. As was expected, for reasons given in the last article, the Germans have continued to devote their energies to the western theatre of war. The Austrians have massed a considerable force in the Trentino for the invasion of Italy. The bulk of the Turkish army has been transferred from the Near East and from Syria to oppose the Russian and British forces in Armenia and Mesopotamia; and the Bulgarians, by seizing the Rupel Pass, and by hostile demonstrations at other points in Macedonia, have caused General Sarrail some embarrassment, and created fresh friction between the Greek and the Allied Governments. The abortive insurrection in Ireland and the naval adventure in the North Sea, though outside the strict limits of our subject, must be mentioned incidentally as forming part of a comprehensive scheme for weakening the Allies by land and sea, and for keeping their forces dispersed, by which the Germans hoped to facilitate the attainment of their main purpose.

But the Allies, on their side, have not been idle. The Russians had devoted themselves to the reorganisation of their arrangements for the supply of men and munitions for the army, with a success which enabled General Polivanoff, the War Minister, to declare, on Feb. 8, that a permanent reserve of a million and a half young recruits had been assured, and that the munition crisis no longer existed. There was reason to hope that they would be able to take the offensive when climatic and other conditions should be favourable, a hope which recent events seem to have justified. The expansion of the British army, and the calling-in of some troops which had become superfluous in other regions, had enabled Sir Douglas Haig to occupy the entire line from Ypres to the Somme, thereby releasing a large force to augment the French reserves, and to assist in the operations about Verdun. This extension of the British front in France,

in addition to our commitments in other parts of the world, made the question of providing drafts for the maintenance of our armies even more urgent than before, and appears to have caused the Government at length to recognise the inadequacy of the quasi-voluntary system on which they had relied.

After the Government's first proposal to introduce compulsion by instalments had been unhesitatingly rejected, Parliament passed, in April last, with trifling opposition, the Act imposing liability to military service on all men of military age. This remarkable event marks an epoch in the history of the nation; and the willingness with which the obligation to serve was generally accepted, by proclaiming our determination to win the war, has afforded much encouragement to our Allies and caused our enemies some disquietude. The insignificance of the small but noisy clique which organised the campaign against conscription, and scorned no artifice to mislead and divide the nation on the subject, has been made manifest to the world. The military authorities have been relieved from the load of anxiety which oppressed them for more than a year. They can now rely on obtaining recruits, when needed, in numbers calculated to ensure an adequate supply of drafts, and to enable the training to be conducted on a uniform and progressive system, conducing both to economy and to the best results. Although the recruits will not be ready to take their places in the fighting line for some months, the new measure promises to save the army from the decline which threatened to sap its strength before the end of the present year.

The Russo-Turkish campaign in Armenia has developed much as was anticipated. The Russian right wing, advancing along the Black Sea coast, defeated the Turks on the Kara Dere on April 14, and by a rapid pursuit occupied Trebizond four days later. A portion of the defeated Turks fell back to a position barring the road which, branching at Gumushkaneh (40 miles south of Trebizond), leads to Erzingan and Erzerum. The re

mainder continued their march to Baiburt (60 miles W.N.W. of Erzerum), where the Erzerum road crosses the Chorokh valley, and formed a useful addition to

the force opposing the the Russians in that region. About the same time the expected Turkish reinforcements appeared in strength between Erzerum and Erzingan, with the result that for several weeks there was severe fighting in this region, the battle swaying to and fro without decisive result. Ultimately the Russians were thrown on the defensive both in the Kara Su and Chorokh valleys; and, while Erzerum was never seriously menaced, they were prevented from opening up the road to Trebizond, which would have been of great value as a new line of supply. While these events were proceeding in the north, the Russian left wing continued its southward and westward progress from the neighbourhood of Bitlis towards Mosul (the ancient Nineveh) and Diarbekr; and engagements were fought on both lines with favourable results, till, about the middle of May, the Turks received an accession of strength which enabled them to stem the Russian advance in this quarter also.

The situation thus established has not changed materially. So far as can be ascertained from the meagre reports, General Yudenitch is on the defensive on a front which may be roughly described as passing, from Trebizond, some forty or fifty miles west of Erzerum and Mush to a point a few miles south of Bitlis. The Turks, by means of reinforcements brought from Gallipoli and Syria, have established something like an equilibrium of forces, which, so far as can be foreseen, is not likely to be disturbed in the near future. For their army, in view of the difficulty of obtaining guns and equipment, has probably reached its utmost development; while the principal combatants are fully occupied in more important theatres of war.

As we pass from Armenia to Mesopotamia the operations of the Russian forces in Persia attract notice. At the middle of May a detachment made a dramatic appearance at Rowanduz, eighty miles east of Mosul, having crossed the Perso-Turkish frontier after fighting an action with a body of Turks and Kurdish auxiliaries at Suj Bulak, south of Lake Urnmish; and shortly afterwards the occupation of Sardasht and Bana was announced, Persian towns in close proximity to the frontier some distance further south. To casual observers