Definition
"Fluminz vqlucres" is a Latin phrase appearing in early common law sources, rendered in Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) as meaning wild fowl or water-fowl. The term belongs to the category of *ferae naturae* — animals that by their nature are wild and undomesticated — and carries legal significance in the context of property rights over animals, riparian rights, and the law of capture.
As wild creatures, fluminz vqlucres were not subject to absolute ownership while living in a state of nature. A person could acquire a qualified property interest in them by reducing them to possession through capture or killing, but that interest was extinguished if the birds escaped and returned to their wild state.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in early English common law sources and is not in active use in modern legal writing. Researchers encountering it will most likely do so in older treatises, Year Books, or case reporters dealing with the law of animals, game, hunting rights, or riparian property.
The single citational anchor in the historical record — 11 East, 571, note — points to a volume of East's Term Reports, an English case reporter covering King's Bench decisions from the early nineteenth century. Researchers working in Law Mind sources should treat this as an archaic term of art that functions as a category marker rather than an operative legal standard in modern doctrine.
The broader doctrinal framework into which this term fits — the *ferae naturae* classification and the qualified property rule — survived robustly into American common law and remains relevant in wildlife law, hunting rights, and environmental property disputes. The Latin label dropped away; the underlying rule did not.
Researchers should be alert to inconsistent spelling across historical sources. The term as rendered in Black's 2nd Ed. reflects orthographic variation common in Latin legal phrases transcribed from older manuscript or print sources, and alternate forms may appear in period sources.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides the only entry in the Law Mind corpus for this term, defining it tersely as "Wild fowl; water-fowl" and citing 11 East, 571, note. The brevity of the entry is consistent with Black's treatment of Latin terms that were already receding from active legal usage by the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries — the entry serves as a gloss rather than a doctrinal exposition.
No broader elaboration appears in the available historical dictionary sources. The citation to East's Term Reports suggests the term had at least some judicial currency in English common law courts of the early 1800s, but the "note" designation indicates it appeared in an editorial or marginal annotation rather than as a holding. Researchers should not infer from this citation that the term was a frequently litigated category; it more likely represents a doctrinal label employed by annotators summarizing the law of animals.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This term originates in English common law and has no recognized counterpart in modern American statutory or regulatory wildlife law. Jurisdictions that inherited the common law *ferae naturae* framework apply its principles — particularly the capture rule and the extinguishment of possession upon escape — without reference to the Latin classification terminology.
---