In article ,
"Mary Fisher" writes:
|
| I am getting too old. My memory of "where" is not what it was.
| If I recall, it was in some 19th century childrens' books and others
| that had references to empty houses.
|
| I doubt that wax would have been left in empty houses.

Yes, it was. The aristocracy often lived in different houses during
different times of year, and such durable consumables were not moved
with the inhabitants. The same would have happened with the people
(e.g. some shepherds) who had fixed accomodation but lived away from
it for extended periods.

| Beeswax was the standard hard
| wax in the UK before the industrial revolution.
|
| You think I don't know that? :-)

Of course you do - others may not.

| I have seen that - but am not prepared to swear that the mice regarded
| them as MUCH more edible than PVC. The damage was the amount that is
| typical for potatoes or PVC.
|
| So that - and your C19th children's books, are your evidence?

Sigh. It is not all. As I said, I have had several people tell me
the same, and I have seen references in other books, too.

| I asked for evidence. I doubt that you'd accept that :-)

I would accept it as evidence. If you can provide evidence that you
know the difference between mouse damage and other damage, I would
regard it as proof that mice sometimes eat such candles. I did NOT
claim that beeswax was a significant item of a mouses diet, or that
they favoured it as food.

Please do distinguish (a) evidence from proof and (b) evidence of
occurrence from evidence of prevalence.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.