Definition
A Latin phrase from early common law meaning wild fowl or water-fowl. The term designates birds of a wild nature — particularly those associated with rivers, lakes, marshes, and other waterways — that were historically subject to distinct rules of property and ownership under the common law. Because such birds are *ferae naturae* (wild by nature), they do not admit of permanent private ownership in the ordinary sense; property rights in them arise only through capture or lawful reduction to possession.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in early English common law sources concerned with the law of wild animals, riparian rights, and manorial or sporting privileges. Researchers working with historical materials on game law, fishing and fowling rights, or the property status of animals will encounter the phrase in Latin without translation and may not immediately recognize it as a term of art rather than a proper name or geographic reference. Its appearance in 11 East 571 (a King's Bench reporter volume from the early nineteenth century) places it within the context of English sporting rights and the legal rules distinguishing animals *ferae naturae* from domestic animals and animals subject to qualified property. Researchers should cross-reference this term with the broader doctrine of *ferae naturae* and with English game law statutes when tracing the historical treatment of wild fowl as legal property. The phrase does not appear to have migrated into American statutory or case law as a term of art, so researchers working in U.S. jurisdictions will find it primarily in English common law sources and treatises imported into early American legal commentary.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed., Supplemental) defines *fluminab vqlucres* tersely as "wild fowl; water-fowl," with the sole supporting reference being 11 East 571, note. That citation refers to a note within the East Reports, a series of English King's Bench reports spanning the early 1800s. The brevity of the entry reflects the term's narrow scope: it was not a concept requiring elaborate legal analysis but rather a classificatory label drawn from Roman and civil law traditions that English courts and commentators imported to describe the subject matter of fowling rights disputes. The historical dictionaries do not elaborate on any formal legal test for identifying which birds qualify as *fluminab vqlucres*, nor do they address how the category interacted with specific statutory game law regimes. This is a gap researchers should be aware of — the term defines a class of animal by nature and habitat, but the legal consequences of that classification (who may hunt, what property rights arise, what remedies exist for poaching or trespass) must be sourced from the broader body of English game law rather than from the dictionary entry alone.
Jurisdictional Note
The term is rooted in English common law and has no significant independent history in American, Scottish, or other common law jurisdictions as a recognized term of art. Researchers in non-English jurisdictions should treat it as a Latin classificatory phrase rather than as locally operative legal doctrine.