VENOMOUS TOADS.

67

"Pied Piper," also regards the toad as an enemy of

mankind:

"Creatures that do people harm—

The mole and toad and newt and viper."

Perhaps it is scarcely necessary to say that the supposition that a toad is venomous is quite unwarranted. No reptile, or batrachian, strictly speaking, could be less harmful or more useful than our little friend Bufo. It is true that when molested he exudes from his skin a slimy, acrid substance, which is nauseating to animals that venture to take hold of him, though I have never heard of one being poisoned thereby. And as this exudation is the timid creature's sole means of defence, and as it prevents him receiving more molestation than he already has to put up with, we can only admire the Providence which bestowed it upon him. I have kept many toads as pets, and have found them to be harmless and interesting, and not wanting in intelligence. They became so tame that they would feed from my hands, and so soon as they knew they had nothing to fear from being handled and examined in a way which could not have been pleasant, they ceased to exude their glandular secretion.

There is a story told of a drunken man who for a wager, in a public-house, chewed a toad's head off and subsequently became dangerously ill. The dirty ruffian ! But this mad trick in no way proved that

the toad was "venomous." The acrid secretion in the toad's skin would be quite sufficient to cause the man's illness. Many another creature which is provided by a good and wise Providence with a peculiar secretion for self-defence would have brought on the same illness if treated in the same disgusting way; not a few beetles and flies could be named amongst this number. The idea of a toad spitting venom is, of course, ludicrous, though it is even to-day a very common belief, especially among children.

It has been pointed out to me that the "venom " of toads may have reference to the viscous secretion on their tongues, by which they lay hold of the insects and other "small fry" which form their diet. This substance, it is said, when brought into contact with a wound will cause serious illness, and has been known even to result in death. There, however, seems to be nothing in this contention. Not long ago the newspapers told us that a scratch by a cat had caused a man's death, and the bite of a dog, even when the animal was in perfect health, has been known to set up acute blood poisoning. I should be very chary of letting the saliva of any kind of animal come in contact with a cut or sore; but if such happened by accident, and I were in consequence to suffer from blood poisoning, I should not denounce that animal as 66 venomous."

"It is strange," says the author of the famous Natural History of Selborne, "that the matter with regard to the venom of toads has not yet been

TOADS AS MEDICINE.

69

settled." This was in 1768. In the minds of naturalists the question, I believe, is now entirely settled, though Frank Buckland regarded the toad as poisonous. But amongst the mass of people there is still, and I am afraid always will be, a firm-rooted opinion that the toad is a venomous creature, and it is loathed and detested accordingly. Schoolboyspitiless in their treatment of things they dislike— stone it and pelt it as they did ages ago, fearful of going too near it lest it should spit its venom upon them. Probably I stoned it myself when I was a youngster-I hope not!-for I believed it to be an evil and vicious thing; and poor, unoffending, useful little creature, it seems to bear upon it a brand of evil, not a precious jewel, and will be hated and persecuted for evermore.

In White's Selborne there is an interesting entry with reference to the healing of cancer by the application of a toad, though it does not appear that the "cure" obtained a very widespread popularity. "Several intelligent persons," says White, "both gentry and clergy, do, I find, give a great deal of credit to what is asserted in the papers, and I myself dined with a clergyman who seemed to be persuaded that what is related is matter of fact." But Mr. White, rightly, was very sceptical as to the efficacy of this horrible nostrum, and believed that the woman who claimed to work the "cancer cures "finds it expedient to amuse the country with this dark and mysterious relation."

General credence has been given to the theory that toads are able to live for long ages in solid blocks of stone without the possibility of nourishment reaching them. In scientific minds this theory for long enough found acceptance, and to-day there are many well-informed people who still give it their support. In order to put the popular belief-much more popular then than now-to a thorough definite test, Dr. Buckland, father of the well-known naturalist, deposited twenty-four toads in cells carved out of stone, covered with glass for purposes of inspection. Twelve of the cells were twelve inches by five inches, made in coarse oolitic limestone, and twelve, six inches by five inches, in compact siliceous sandstone, the former being so porous as to be easily permeable by water, and probably by air, but the latter being very compact. These blocks of stone containing the unfortunate prisoners, twelve of them being large toads and twelve small, were placed in Dr. Buckland's garden beneath three feet of earth on November 26th, 1825. Within thirteen months of this date all the toads in the sandstone and the small toads in the limestone were dead, although the glass in some instances had been cracked, and in one of the cells "a large assemblage of minute insects" was found. Before the end of the second year all the large toads in the limestone were also dead. Dr. Buckland also tried the experiment of placing toads in holes cut in the trunk of an apple-tree, with the result that at the end of a year "every

TOADS IMPRISONED IN ROCK.

71

one of the toads was dead, and their bodies were decayed."

A few years ago, while excavations were being made in the North of England, a living toad was discovered which apparently must have been entombed for many years in the solid rock. In order that the circumstances might be scientifically investigated and reported upon, the toad was sent to the Rev. Dr. Tristram, F.R.S., to whom I am greatly indebted for a letter giving the features of the report, which he published in the Press at the conclusion of his investigations.

"It proved," he says, "that the animal could not have been for very long where it was found. It was a female full of spawn, and in the stomach were various insects, chiefly earwigs and small beetles, and also bits of straw and a small maggot, but no winged insects. It must have fallen down a crevice, and unable to escape (probably having fallen when very small) depended for food on such substances as accidently fell into the cavity which imprisoned it. It had only partially shed its skin, not having had room to throw it off, and it still adhered to the fore part of the body and the head. It may have been a year or two in the position in which it was found, but it is impossible that it could have existed there much longer. The most important piece of evidence, the cavity itself, was never found."

This interesting statement, together with the above-mentioned experiments, proves pretty conclusively that so-called imbedded or imprisoned toads are by some means or other provided with nourishment during their incarceration. But, as in