Birds on the British list : their title to enrollment considered, especially with reference to the British Ornithological Union's list of British birds : with a few remarks upon evolution and notes upon the rarer eggs
S SS SS \ SQQQG \ . ~ WN S SS WH \ SS SS AAV SS WOH QW QQ NS WA QQ QQ.. MY. SS WOO SS : S ~ SS. : is S s SS : - a SS $ Ss : ‘ ; ANS : : ~: MHA See Ci Z LE y CELL tis == i Loca q : ee a. tee We = =i oe ; ie -<s _ = ay See ae Sls sees eee eee a —— we —. o " en —l 1a Dee eee Ls ee er ee ek ee i 4 7563 7 SAGE ONTAD tbhde \ DEC 21 1981 Bevo ee ON THE BRITISH LIST: Their Title to Enrolment considered, ESPECIALLY 673 WITH REFERENCE TO THE BRITISH ORNITHOLOGICAL UNION’S LIST OF BRITISH BIRDS: WITH A FEW REMARKS UPON ‘ EVOLUTION, AND NOTES UPON THE RARER EGGS. Tropaa BY THE REV. GREGORY SMART, M.A. (LATE SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.) s 287 | SEP 21 1886 2 LONDON: &. a R H. PORTER, 6, 5 TeNTEND STREET. PRESTON: H. _ AKE}Y 36, FISHERGATE. 1886. Va cle fate. | dem al, Vues tutnn pallet, Cinaplernowk of Tk CuMor = oh ee Ma tonlae ~ YE Cun |6. BF. BIRDS ON THE BRITISH LIST. Their Title Considered. O PERSONS who are desirous to make a collection of Birds; or their eggs; and to confine that col- lection to those of this country; it is of importance to be clear as to what birds are, or are not British: and it appears to me that ‘British Birds,’ and ‘Birds on the British List’ are not quite the same thing. The difficulty of determining which are ‘ British Birds’ consists in the different views which those Ornithologists take, who, by their experience, and publi- cations, are justly accepted as law-givers. The difficulty, as to what Birds should be upon the British List, consistsin the azthenticity or non-authenticity of their ‘occurrence’ in these Islands. The evidence, when fairly put can be competently judged by most persons who take an interest in the subject. But it has been most differently admuztted, or rejected by our best men. It seems manifest, if a dis- tinction be drawn between ‘British Birds,’ and ‘ Birds on the British List,’ that a szmgle occurrence of any wild bird, from natural causes, should entitle that bird toa place on our List; but it should take much more to constitute it a British Bird. Upon how much more the iv Doctors are not agreed, as will be seen when their judgments pass in review. Sometimes a single occurrence is sufficient ; sometimes that is sufficient if it be a Pale- arctic bird; but the single American visitant is rejected. Sometimes fwo occurrences admit the bird, whilst one of our best Authorities once went so far as to say that no bird should be considered British that did not breed in the land. Mr. Dresser says in his article on the Black-billed Cuckoo: “Tf there 1s no doubt that a species has been obtained on one or two occasions, and their 1s no probability of its being one escaped from confinement, and also if its range 1s such as to admit of its having been driven by stress of weather, or straggled to the locahty where it has been obtained, tt 1s better to include and figure it than to pass it over in silence.’ And this because there may have been others unrecorded, and it tends to keep Naturalists on the look ont for the species. This mention of the range, and the effect of storm and wind upon the birds movements, when taken with Mr. Baird’s opinion, should certainly dispose of the exception taken to American species: in this gentleman’s opinion the occurrence, out of all proportion, of American birds in Britain, compared with their record on the Continent of Europe, not even excepting Heligoland, is due to the prevalence of Westerly gales on the Eastern coast, especi- ally at the period of the Autumnal Migration; ‘when they follow its coasts, or cross tts curves, often ata con- siderable distance from land, or ata great height above it and are carried away to sea, mainly about latitude 45°, the line of the greatest intensity of winds, the first land they can make 1s Lingland, whence the fact that most of the species have occurred on the British Islands, as well as Heligo- Vv land, equally well fitted to attract stragglers and furnish them a resting place. Mr. Seebohm endorses this view where he says the American visitants probably “cross, or attempt to cross the Atlantic, birds that have lost their way in migrating south- wards from Labrador, or have been driven out to sea by heavy gales. Frobably the greater number of these birds perish ; but some succeed in reaching Europe with or without the help of an occasional rest on the rigging of some of the nurwcrous ships crossing the ocean.” But the same author points out another route by which they reach us: “Most of those birds which vistt this country are inhabitants of the North-west of America, many of them even breeding on the Siberian coast ; and there can be little doubt that they travel across Asia, ap- pearing on our Islands in the great stream of migration which reaches us trom the east.” Such considerations seem to render it more probable that the occurrences of such birds, for an example, as the Red-winged Starling, with its known powers of flight, and which has been taken many times in the years 1843-’44-’65-’66-’67, should have been true occurrences ; than that dealers, and aviary keepers should beso con- tinuously careless with their valuable birds, as to allow such numbers to escape; for it is well to remember that it cannot be supposed that a// the birds which escape are captured, nor all that are captured recorded. I have once or twice lost birds from my Aviaries, but they were never captured, or at any rate never recorded : the Plumhead Parrakeet, the Pope (‘Passerina Lavata’), and I have seen the Cardinal (‘ Passerina Cullata’) flying about in my brother’s grounds; none of these were re- corded ; of such great rarities as have been seen once, and have evaded the gun, wherever they have flown to, vi there has seldom been a second record, except in the case of the Flamingo. So it was with the Agyptian Vulture, seen in company with the bird shot in Somersetshire, in 1825 ; unless it were one of the two seen at Bridgewater, in 1826, it is not known that the bird was ever again seen. So it was with the Demoiselle Crane, (seen with its mate); which was shot, in Orkney, 1863; and there are many like instances; the second bird was never, so far as is known, seen again. Nor is it possible to compute, if twelve birds like the Red-winged Starling are captured, and recorded, how many more may be abroad that are captured, but mot recorded ; and how very many more may be abroad neither captured, nor recorded: it were an interesting problem to solve, if on twelve occasions, ranging over so many years, Agelzeus Phceniceus is carelessly lost from confinement, and observed, how many more times must bird-fanciers have lost Red-winged Starlings, which have roamed the country where no Naturalist has been by to take note, or taking note, taken trouble to record. Sometimes occurrences have been set down to the score of ‘escaped, on the plea that such a species was not a wanderer ; as the Purple Gallinule, but, per contra, it is recorded that our Corn Crake has occurred casually on the East coast of North America, including Greenland (Bulletin, U.S. National Museum, 1881). There have been 14 occurrences of the American Bittern. Sometimes occurrences are rejected from unlikelihood through other causes: thus the Swallow-tailed Kite is not included in his fine work on the birds of Europe, by Mr. H. E. Dresser: and I believe it is partly on the plea, that being an insectivorous bird mainly, it would not probably vil leave its own region for these cold shores; but it has not been supposed, I imagine, that rare birds which have visited Britain have done so always, or perhaps even often of their own free will; and Brewer, in his North American Oology, says of this bird “zt 7s a great wanderer.” We are promised, I believe, another splendid work from able Naturalists, to which Lord Lilford’s name is appended, may we not hope that many difficulties, and seeming inconsistencies will be removed, and reconciled; and above all things the question which affects the Arztish authenticity of certain species set at rest. I have no right to do more than express a desire for information, having had but little experience; and being far removed, not only from persons who do understand these matters, but also from any library to which I could have resort to save me from errors on a complicated sub- ject ; except when, during a short holiday, I have been able to spend a few hours in the British Museum, or the University Library (Cambridge). To resume the consideration of the title of certain Birds to be enrolled upon the British List, there is the case of the Gallinules: these beautiful birds are not un- frequently imported, and kept in confiement ; if they are _unpinioned we may presume they are placed in enclosed aviaries, where surely they are carefully preserved, being valuable and expensive birds: if they are Jzmzoned they may be placed in open enclosures ; if hese escape they would be known at once to be ‘escaped.’ Nor could they range ‘far from their owner’s preserves; long-legged skulkers though they be,before by their brilliant appearance they would be observed, and claimed. Neither I presume can it be said, as has been said concerning the innumerable Geese that have been rejected amongst the ‘escapeds,’ that the pinioned parents pro- bably bred on some of the ornamental waters in parks, Vili and that their broods have been allowed to range: if this extraordinary circumstance had taken place, the escape of British-bred Gallinules, surely we should have heard of it: there are no less than three species rejected by our Authorities, as ‘escaped,’ the Purple Gallinule, the Green-backed Gallinule, and the Martinique Gallinule, which bird, I believe, the American List calls the Purple Gallinule; and of these species, 20 /ess than seven have been captured since 1863, and there are others recerded : and it is significant that the American species was found in Ireland, in 1846; I donot know that any enquiry was made at that early date, as to who, in Ireland, was keep- ing these birds wpzn20ned. Again there is the case of birds which have occurred mm pairs, or at any rate in cozfles, here, also, there is diversity of opinion as to whether they should, or should not be enrolled. The Andalusian Hemipode for example, it is ad- mitted that on the first occurrence of this species ¢wo birds were shot. But Mr. Seebohm rejects the occurrence on the plea that the bird is freguently kept in confinement and may possibly escape: But is it frequently so kept ? I have for many years had large aviaries of birds; and to stock them have continually visited all the principal dealers in London, and Liverpool, but I never was shewn an Hemipode. Mr. Cross, one of our largest importers, informs me that he never had the Hemipode but once, and then sold it to a foreigner. Nor have I ever observed it in any Zoological Gardens in England, or on the Continent: not that this fact is conclusive in the least that it is not occasionally to be found in confinement. The question, however, is: how do Aviary keepers ix contrive to let out both their birds at the same time. Another question is, if they are so let out in company, how is it that they are so composed as to keep together, and not rather so flutterred as to fly wildly in any direction, and so disperse: the Hemipodes we can imagine flying a short distance, and at night being attracted by each other’s call: but in the instance of the Demoiselle Cranes, which occurred in Orkney, and are rejected on the ‘same plea, and with more unanimity; two birds escaping would probably, one or other, take a far distant flight, and, in the first agitation of renewed liberty, probably a divergent one, from its companion. How rarely we hear of birds being mzssing about the tume previous to the capture of these supposed ‘escapeds,’ there is ove instance in the Flamingo, of August, 1873. This bird, about which there is no unanimity as to its occurrence under natural conditions, was sufficiently conspicuous to be observed more than once, namely in Essex, before it was shot in Sheppey; and may probably have been the bird which Mr. Bartlett knew to have escaped fron the London Zoological Gardens, on the 1gth of the previous July. It would have been interesting to have known the exact particulars of this escape, how it came about, it had been a guide by which to comprehend the question of the escapes of the larger birds; at any rate only one ap- pears to have regained its liberty ; which last consideration might be taken as valid in some instances, for example that of the Griffon Vulture, for their rejection. Without doubt, many of the small Foreign birds escape from confinement. More than once when visiting dealers’ shops, I have seen them loose, and flying about ; and this makes it the more surprising that, (considering what absolute proof has been required of the natural b x occurrence of certain birds): Turdus Atrigularis, and Emberiza Pusilla, should have got themselves enrolled by an almost universal consensus: as to Emberiza Rustica it is even recorded by Professor Newton as being known to have escaped from its cagein April, 1870, in England. ‘Atrigularis’ and ‘Pusilla’ are admitted to the British Ornithologists Union List, published in 1883, fom only one occurrence: whilst the cumulative evidence for the ad- mission of the Great Black Woodpecker is bowled over by our Naturalists, asa man might bowl down thirty nine-pins, one after the other. Still more surprising is it that certain birds should have been mentioned, even for rejection, upon what seems an authoritative list of our birds: asthe Nonpareil Finch (Cyanospiza Ciris), which has been brought over almost in flocks from America; and of which probably many have escaped from the dealers’ shops; the only reason for its record may be its early occurrence in the Century (1802), when perhaps it may not have been so common an introduction as it is now. The Mocking Bird also is printed only to be justly dismissed in the brief words “‘ Specimens imported in cages occasionally escape, but there ts no authentic instance of this LNorth American Bird having occurred wild in Europe.” African Finches are imported in thousands, yet the escape of one, in 1853, Crithagra Chrysopyga has been allowed to disfigure this List by its notice and dismissal, the mention of Sterna Bergii also, whose record was a joke, which was also a fraud, serves no good purpose. Sabine’s Snipe is treated as a melanism of that bird, under the heading “Common Snipe,” and it is a pity that the ‘Bimaculated Teal’ has not been referred in like manner, as a hybrid, to the paragraph upon the ‘Teal.’ The occurrences of the the Alpine Chough, in 1881 and 1882, are not noticed at all. Xi Of birds which have been from time to time recorded, and rejected, which would with little or no probability have been kept in confinement from the nature of their food, and other causes; there are one Vireo, one Fly- catcher, three Swallows, one Martin, one Bee-eater, and one Roller. How is it with exotic Mammalia which are quite as likely to escape from confinement as Birds, are they recorded with even comparative frequency as ‘occurring’ in these Islands. There is also the consideration of drzef, and easy Reference to individual species; to which end, is it not to be desired that the American system, or some system on the same lines should be adopted: all their birds are known immediately by the Vumber they bear on their List; and if, later, another kindred bird has to be introduced a distinguishing Letter is added; thus The Snow Goose (Chen Hyperboreus), is 591. The Lesser Snow Goose of Cassin (Chen Hyperboreus Albatus), is 591a. Four Buzzards, 436a, b, c, and d, have been added after No. 436, Buteo Borealis. Our Bird List, however, is not likely to be so largely added to, as to have the natural objection raised to this plan: no doubt the system, if having its conveni- ence, is open to objection. The egg collector has been one of those most accommodated, it being so simple, and so less disfiguring to write 591a on an egg, in place of ‘Cassin’s Snow Goose,’ especially if it is to be done in indelible ink, as has been insisted upon by one of our legislators. I would venture to suggest that if, in course of time, the Monograph of the Birds of the World, drawn up in his Catalogue of Birds of the British Museum, by Mr. Sharpe b2 xii were numbered ; by recognising on the British List their numbers, as Birds shall stand upon the World’s list, the above difficulty would be obviated; and the American accommodation enjoyed by the British Collector of Birds, or their Eggs. The word Co/lector brings me to a matter on which I would venture a few words, which to me seem reason- able. Mr. Seebohm divides Ornithologists into four classes; of which the first alone is zdea/; he who studies Orni- thology from all the four several points of views of the Anatomist; the Student in the Museum of stuffed birds ; the Literary Man; and the Field Naturalist. It is not Mr. Seebohm who condemns either of these as superficially trivial: but I have seen it brought for- ward, in an American publication, that all credit should be reserved for those alone who, by following the birds into their haunts, enjoy scenery, and gain health. This judgement, probably from one whose speciality it is to do this, shuts out all who have not time, or opportunity, or health, or even youth, even the man who when young, and able, followed, as did Wolley, and Seebohm, the birds from latitude to latitude, through difficulty, and danger, to their extremest northern summer haunts; he also when old and unable becomes, per force, the mere collector, and library naturalist. According to this, enthusiasm for so charming a pursuit does not exceed the height which the Kentish school boy attains when he goes a trespassing after the eggs of the Goatsucker, in the Archbishop’s park, for is not he also a genuine field naturalist in embryo, with, as yet, ambition only to fill the string on which he hangs his treasures; but which may hereafter carry him to the Antarctic pole. A collection of bird’s eggs! At first blush there is Xill a savour of the private school about it. A collection of China! a collection of Paintings! it seems greatly beneath consideration by such comparison : it really is as greatly above; for are they not as clearly evidence of God’s design, as China and Painting are evidence of Man’s. It is a collection of things of the greatest beauty in form, texture, and colour ; and of the most infinite variety and subtlest distinction amongst species; although broadly defining the genera, or families; so subtle that it takes long practice to be able to distinguish with proximate certainty the difference between, for instance, the eggs of the Grey, Golden, and Pacific Plovers; of the Common, Redbreasted, and Wilson’s Snipes ; of the Trumpeter, and Common Swans; of the Common, and Parrot Crossbills ; and of many other kinds. We heard, not long since, of a China plate being bought at an auction, for something under a thousand pounds; it was a matter of surprise: but of not more surprise to some than that the Great Auk’s egg should be bought for fifty pounds: yet one was the work of man, and could be repeated to-morrow ; the other is the work of God, and, thanks to man, cam never be repeated. It has been said that the egg collector is only de- sirous to have more, and rarer, of his pretty bead-like toys than his neighbour. This is taking for granted that his pleasure in his collection is solely in their pretty appearance, as they lie in artificial nests; but it is possible that what really is attractive to him and to those to whom he shows them, is their connection with those exquisite creatures which enliven his walks, cheer his heart, announce his summer season, and render his landscape ten thousand times more charming by their moving, noisy presence; as every XIV person who lives by the sea-side can testify that it does during the close season, when the selfish gunner’s hand is stayed, who, for his own short hour of private gratifi- cation, has made the coasts a desert during the rest of the year for a whole town-full of his neighbours, who would have taken infinite delight in the presence of those beautiful living things, whose absence renders every landscape a comparative blank. The desire is condemned also in the collector to have more and rarer than his neighbour, and this is imputed as a low ambition, yet it is amdztion, and it is so prevalent as to be, if the truth were told, universal; but wzthout ambition nothing would go forward in art, or in science: curiosity alone would not be sufficient to sustain men. If men had none to whom to show, or explain their treasures, and inventions, they would soon cease to collect, or invent. If everybody had the eggs of the Knot, and Solitary Sandpiper there would be no more pleasure in possessing them, and in showing them; than in pos- sessing the eggs of the American Robin, and the Hedge Sparrow. The difficulty in getting some of the eggs is the charm which set Mr. Seebohm his task, to procure the unknown eggs of six well-known birds, the Knot, the Curlew Sandpiper, the Grey Plover, the Little Stint, the Sanderling, and Bewick’s Swan; which has resulted in the production of two of the most delightful books which have enriched the subject, being second not even to Wolley’s Egg-work. The difficulty, nay the present zmpossibrlity, for curiously enough this is the only collection that can be made, I believe, which to make complete, the collec- tor is bound to possess that which no human eye, so far as has been recorded, has seen, and yet which can be XV proved to demonstration to exist; let us say the egg of the Solitary Sandpiper. It is a collection also which can be enjoyed, when almost complete, in a reasonable compass; ascan medals, coins, and enamels. The collector of Pictures, with even a noble house, and a noble income, might prefer to have examples of Paolo Veronese, or Murillo; some might even desire Rubens, and Snyders; but for the sake of room has to be content with Ruysdael, Teniers, and Wilkie. So also the Ornithologist might prefer groups of stuffed birds similar to those now in course of addition to the South Kensington Museum, under Dr. Ginther, where one pair of small birds, with their natural sur- roundings to form a perfect picture, requires many cubic feet of room. These tastes can be, generally speaking, very partially indulged. There is another advantage in collecting eggs, over the collecting of Birds, it being admitted that rarities are too ruthlessly sought. The egg collector spares the birds; the bird collector exterminates them: he spares them in the hope that they may yet again furnish him with their treasures; and some who in making up their clutches are not so over desirous that their whole clutch should be laid by one bird, will leave one or two of the eggs for the parent’s consolation and encouragement. Iam aware that, ina few instances, it may be brought against the bird’s nester that he shoots the parent birds for tdentification ; as in the case of the Little Stint ; yet this is only necessary in case of almost indistinguishable eggs which after all are very few; and in this particular case, Mr. Seebohm having convinced us that the eggs of Minuta are not in the least like the eggs of Temminckii; which are still doing duty for them in many cabinets; Xvi the necessity to do so ceases to exist: and moveover it is a very different thing, for genuine sczentific purpose, to shoot an extremely common bird within the Arctic circle for the sake of identifying the eggs, and which would also serve as an article of food, from shooting the one Devonshire Nightingale, in full song, to prove that it had so sung, in that unusual county; which thing was actually done, and triumphantly recorded in one of our Naturalist periodicals. Thus a gentlemen records in the Zoologist (p. 2528), the discovery of four Night Herons near Ermebridge, in Devonshire, May 23rd, 1849, all of which he suc- ceeded in “bagging;”’ about a week later, from informa- tion he received, he renewed his search, and killed two more and on the 22nd June, two more were secured : was any comment made upon this in the periodicals devoted to those who profess to be /overs of birds. It was by shooting the parent birds that many eggs were at first identified; few are the eggs which cannot now be labeled by experienced judges; the Nutcrackers for example; I doubt greatly that the Jackdaw, Jay, or Magpie could lay an egg that an experienced Naturalist should mistake for this bird’s. But the difference between eggs of the Chough, and of the Alpine Chough is so indistinguishable, that only from a most reliable source would one accept the former; it ought, of course, always to be the larger, but is it ? As to what sources, whence eggs are procured, are reliable, we are obliged to put faith in reliable persons; who in turn must trust to their collectors being reliable : without this we could scarcely get together two-thirds of our desiderata. In every collection that I have seen the collector has had to thus rely for some of his rarest specimens: it is Xvil quite impossible for every person to track the egg and the bird to their authenticity as Seebohm tracked his Bewick Swan on the Siberian Tundra. If we are to have the egg of ‘Mc.Queen’s Bustard,’ and ‘Pallas’ Sand Grouse,’ we must trust Herr Tancré, and he his collector ; we cannot all visit Turkestan. I have been told, I can- not vouch for the truth, that to hunt for the egg of the Courser, on its Algerian plains, one would require an escort of soldiers for protection. I have said almost all eggs can be discriminated by experienced persons; and to this end Mr. Seebohm’s admirable work is valuably subservient ; his system of comparison of one egg with another ; both as to the like- ness or the dissimilarity is especially useful. One would have liked more notice taken of the texture of certain eggs. And here the, otherwise almost perfect, illustrations sometimes fail, the glossiness, or dulness were quite within the artist’s means of representation ; it is true that some eggs of the same species are glossier than other some; but in my limited collection (I have but full clutches gener- ally, rarely a series, and therefore here, as everywhere else, I speak under correction), the Charadriidz are (with the exception of the Dotterel), and notably the Pratincole is, much less glossy than the Scolopacidz ; compare the Killdeer, and Ringed Plovers; with the Common and Spotted Sandpipers; and then compare the illustrations. Mr. Seebohm apologises for the illustrations; there is always the difficulty of accurate representation in the matter of hand portraiture; and the further difficulty in mechanical transfer, for multiplication of the copies for publication; but, with a few exceptions, which may mainly be put down to the transfer, this apology is not needed. The eggs are exquisitely rendered; and in ad- XVlil vance of anything I have hitherto seen in my opinion ; to select a few that are most excellent, those of the Gulls, and Skuas, perfection being reached in Bonaparte’s Gull, and Richardson’s Skua, they seem to lie on the page, altt-relievt. On the other hand the Accentor’s eggs are glossy as, or glossier than the Redstart’s, and Chat’s: and the American Cuckoo’s, which have no gloss, are as glossy as may be; and the calcareous look, which they seem to share with the Cormorants to some extent, is not at all suggested. At any rate the drawings are the work of an artist who has “drawn the ball.” I remember a water colour Artist, of established renown, going to Carey’s Academy to learn drawing, he decided to begin at the beginning ; and he spent nearly a week upon “ the ball.” After that he used to say ‘‘ his eyes were opened,” and, when in- specting pictures, he could always tell whether the artist had learnt to draw “the ball.” Mr. Seebohm says that one reason why he has not given illustrations of the birds themselves is that the “pretty” woodcats in Yarrell disheartened him; I believe he is in earnest here; but I would suggest this feeling to have been a misfortune, the few later drawings added to Yarrell are good ; witness the Flamingo; but this praise cannot be accorded to the old illustrations; in the first place very many of them look as if they were taken from stuffed birds forced into unnaturally graceful positions. Persons must have been often in nature struck with the stiff stilted look of the Herons, Gulls, and Plovers in repose ; standing on legs like slender posts; as the idea is given in the Flamingo’s picture alluded to. Compare the Herons in Yarrell ; compute the size of the heads of birds, especially of the Falconide and Anseres, with their bodies; look at their grasp on their perches or ground which XIX the feet of many birds have, or rather have not; observe how, against the canon of art, the dark part of the birds is forced forward by a light background; the light, by a dark ; what a knife-like edge their feathery outlines have. How different is the work to some of that in Mr. Dresser’s ‘Birds of Europe;’ how different to Wolf’s work, on the walls of the Zoological Gardens’ Museum; of course I know there is only one Wolf. Is there anything in those volumes of Yarrell equal to the charming little vignette ‘‘the Common Sandpiper’s Nest,” in Seebohm’s book. To see the advance in art compare the vignette at the end of the article on the ‘ Puffin,’ in Yarrell. Yet certain excellencies, or exceptions may be found in one, as the Night Heron; and in the other, as the be- haloed eggs in the Pheasant’s nest. The pictures in Yarrell have doubtless an attractive prettiness, but I do not believe that (although my stuffed birds do so) Owls in repose shew their shanks as they do in his work, and in Museums. To one interested in the branch of Oology, and my own attention, more devoted to field Entomology, reverted two years ago to an old love long in abeyance, and not now to be practically studied in the field: To one interested in this study, Mr. Seebohm’s book is invaluable, if after having access to it, persons, even tyros, continue to be taken in by dishonest men, it must be their own fault, because what may be taken for warn- ings against being deceived by specious misrepresentation, and the prevalent substitution of varieties of common eggs for rare eggs of price, are continuous through the work. It is an absolute fact that in more than one establish- ment in a great thoroughfare running east and west in XX London, you can for a comparatively small sum, for four or five shillings each, buy the eggs of the Andalusian Hemipode, Buff breasted Sandpiper, Knot, Curlew Sand- piper, and many others nearly as rare, and the Little Stint for £1, and, after an interview with some friend who understands the subject, find yourself in pos- session of small Quail’s eggs, and varieties of Redstant’s and Snipe’s, and the yellow type of Temminck’s Stint; the value of all which may reach 2s. 6d. This system, for it has survived sufficiently long without practical exposure to be called a system, is not confined to London (though elsewhere it may partly be the result of ignorance in the dealer himself), and is well known, not only in the trade, but by any private collector of experience, but it is not known to the school boy who has saved up his pocket money with view to become pos- sessed of some special rarity, which he has long coveted. It is fortunate that there are persons in whom con- fidence remains unshaken, as Mr. Marsden, Mr. Doncaster, Herr Moschler, Herr Schliter, Mr. Pember, Mr. Abbott Frazar. It might be said “let young persons buy their own experience:”’ but I was too much bitten myself, when at the University of Cambridge, to view that process of pur- chase with any complacency, or even patience; and I should be delighted if any word of mine were useful to protect the shallow pocket of unwary youth. In my University days you might visit the fens of Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire, and the broads and coasts of Norfolk, and come back, as I have done, with the spoils of the Moor Buzzard, Great Crested Grebe, and Savi’s Warbler ; and fromthe fenmen procure British specimens (mine are still unfaded) of the Redshank, Oyster Catcher, Avocet, Reeve, Kite, Montagu’s, and Hen XX1 Harriers, Black-tailed Godwit, Norfolk Plover, Bittern, eggs which I believe can hardly be procured there again, owing to the system of drainage of the fens, which has extinguished another old friend, the magnificent British insect, the Large Copper Butterfly. But this is not all you could get, for you could get taken in gloriously by purchasing eggs in the town, re- ceived no doubt from honest fenmen as Reeve’s, Snipe’s and Redshank’s; and retailed, according to their variety, under the high sounding titles of the rarest Limicolez. The mention of their titles reminds me that I have often wondered that an authoritative list has not, so far as I know, been published which has all éhe Synonyms of the various birds, this want, severely felt in the B.O.U. List, is made up for us in Mr. Seebohm’s admirable work. In that list to which I refer not even the szmgle syn- onym upon which the Americans have fixed for thezr own birds is quoted; a publication which is a bare List, or little more, might well have satisfied this want: but one must decide from other sources whether ‘the Lesser Scaup’ be the ‘ Little Blackhead’ of its native land: ‘Totanus Solita- rius’ be ‘Rhyacophilus Solitarius;’ ‘Puffinus Obscurus’ be ‘Puffinus Auduboni.’ To identify the species on this list, with those on European, and American lists one must turn to Seebohm’s volumes. There is one excellence however; which requires to be carried much further, the translation of the classical nomenclature: for much there is beyond the speculation of even a fair scholar, as the clumsy word Podilymbus with its surprising origin, which however is explained, and the nomenclature of the Alcidz also explained. Why in this list are proper names, used specifically, allowed but a small initial letter, boysi, adamsi, wolfi; XXii why should not the same rule prevail tor our Avifauna which has been acted upon by the Oxford and Cambridge Entomological Society in their ‘‘Accentuated List.” There the specific, as well as generic names have capital initials; thus Dale’s insect is not Plutella dalella but P. Dalella. If rendered in English the incongruity would be apparent. It is no great wonder that the origin of ‘ Hippolais,’ and ‘Pomarinus’ is lost in obscurity, future generations of ordinary readers which know not the name of Hume may ponder vainly over humei and humii. Which of the Muses is it that presides over derivatives and is answerable for the changes in the letters from the Greek which we meet with in English-spelt words: and who would recognise, at first blush, a Foochow Wood- pecker in M. fokiensis ! Besides the question as to what Birds should be ad- mitted to the British list; upon which, as will be seen, our chief authorities are not agreed. There is also the question as to the consecutive Ar- rangement of Genera, and Species, upon which there is almost more disagreement. It has been said that the eggs themselves by the similarity of their appearance should go some way to- wards suggesting the order of the Families. Some eggs however seem to be very aberrant ; thus the eggs of the ‘Rufous Warbler,’ are very unlike the rest of the British Warblers; one from my clutch from the south of Spain, comes very near in appearance to the egg I have of Richard’s pipit (South Siberia, Severtzow). Whilst among the white eggs of the Hirundinide the twice spotted eggs of the Swallows cannot be accounted for on the theory of the Common Ancestor. In size, texture, colour, markings, and general effect the eggs of the Pipits He between the eggs of the Wagtails, XX and Larks; and in this order Yarrell arranged them; and Newton has not disturbed; this order also Mr. Seebohm follows. But the B.O.U. List has introduced the Shrikes, Martins, Finches, and Crows between the Pipits, and Larks. Alluding to the way in which the birds have been placed, and displaced, in and from the divers Genera; Mr. Seebohm characteristically says of ‘Aluco Flammeus,’ “ The Barn Owl has been knocked about by modern Ornt- thologists from genus to genus, until it can scarcely find rest for the sole of its foot.” Whilst his own views upon the grouping of the genera seem to me to be so perfectly ‘ the system of common sense’ that I venture to quote a short extract from his British Oology Vol. I, p. 146. “The Owls are avery well defined group of birds ; and are associated, by Sclater, with the Cuckoos, the Par- rots, the Birds of prey, the Pelicans, the Herons, and the Ducks: Forbes places them with the Goatsuckers, Rollers, and Beeeaters: Gadow allies them with the Parrots, the Birds of prey, and the Galiinaceous birds. Here again three authorities do not all agree as to any of the families which are allied to the Owls; which I place as my second family ; with the caution to the reader that it may, or may not be related to the families which precede, or follow it. To the ordinary observer the Owls appear to be closely related to the Birds of prey, by the form of their bill, and claws, and by the shape of their eggs; they appear to be specially related to the Harrvers by their facial disk, to the Ospreys, by thetr reversible third toes, and to the Eagles by their feathered tarsi: tt ts difficult to believe that all these characters are accidental, and when we find such difference of opinion among scientific men as to their true affinities, it 1s difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion XX1V that the value of osteological, myological, and other inter- nal characters havebeen somewhat overrated.” Probably the ordinary observer will gladly subscribe to this system of common sense, but then his opinion is of little more service than to lead him to urge our author- ities to endeavour to reconcile their conflicting, and indeed perplexing views. My purpose in introducing amongst my notices of disputed birds, the ames of birds which are not disputed, but whose eggs are very rare, is the hope that so I may in a few instances confirm the knowledge which we al- ready possess, and perhaps even add to it. If my opinion varies from our authorities in some details, I repeat that I only give my own impression, founded simply upon the single clutches which I possess, seldom from a series; of some of the eggs there is, I believe, elsewhere, no English series; sometimes no clutch; _per- haps two eggs, or one, if even that. Ido it also in the hope that I may assist to preserve the inexperienced from the risk which attaches to the collection of birds’ eggs, a greater risk I believe than that which attends any other department of Natural History, or Art. Tae GRIFFON VULTURE. (VuLTuR FUuLvus.) Admitted to the B.O.U. List. Admitted by Professor Newton. Admitted by Mr. H. Seebohm. The first bird to be considered stands as an instance of the Liberal interpretation of ornithologists as to what birds should, or should not, be admitted as British Birds. There has only been one ‘occurrence,’ the Jrish mmstance, and upon this it is admitted by the British Ornithologists’ Union in the lst of British Birds com- piled by their committee in 1883. It is recorded as having been in perfect plumage; the implied argument here is that it was not an ‘escaped’ bird. It was also in perfect health, and very wild and savage; but it is more than probable that a bird of this species, after tasting the sweets of liberty, would be both savage and wild, in the opinion of its captor; and if it had recently escaped would have been in good condition, even if unsuccessful in hunting on its own account after regaining its liberty, being one of a tribe that alternately gorges and fasts ; and any person examining the Vultures in the Jardin des Plantes, and other aviaries, will find many birds in as perfect plumage as their fellows at liberty ; indeed more perfect, for Mr. Chapman says “ ¢he claws and feathers I of the wild birds are much abraded by attrition on the rocks.” It appears to me, therefore, that it is eminently a bird whose admission to the list is open to the objections which are brought against many of those rejected. How- ever, it is admitted by the Compilers of the British Orni- thologists’ Union List, on whose Committee many of our first-class authorities appear; by Professor Newton, in his edition of Yarrells birds; by Mr. Seebohm, in his History of British Birds. THE EGYPTIAN VULTURE. (VuLTUR PERCNOPTERUS. ) Admitted to the B.O.U. Last. Admitted by Newton. Admitted by Seebohm. The first record of the occurrence of this bird, I think, fairly removes it from the list of probable escapeds, for the reason that when the Somersetshire bird was shot in 1825, another bird, sapposed to have been its mate from the fact that it did not for some few days quit the neighbour- hood, had been seen in its company: it seems most im- probable that any keeper could manage to lose doth of his valuable birds a¢ the same time. In addition also toa second occurrence in Essex, Mr. Mudie, in his ‘ Feathered Tribes,’ states that two dirds of this species were seen at Bridgewater in 1826. It seems, therefore, to be with propriety that the authorities have admitted this bird to the British list, yet zot as a British btrd. HIEROFALCO. Our authorities seem to be at variance whether two, or three species stand upon the British list. 3 The B.O.U. List gives three: Hierofalco gyrfalco ; H. Candicans; and H. Islandus. Professor Newton gives two: Falco Candicans ; F. Islandus. Mr. Seebohm gives two: Falco Gyrfalco; F. Candi- cans; and two intermediate forms: F. Gyrfalco—Candi- cans; and F. Candicans—Gyrfalco. Of these it would appear that F. Gyrfalco is the Norwegian form; F. Candicans the Greenland; and F. Islandus the Iceland. The occurence of F. Gyrfalco mentioned in the B.O.U. List is 20¢ alluded to, I believe, by Newton. See- bohm says that the example was immature, was shot at Orford, in Suffolk, on Oct. 14, 1867, by Mr. George Hunt, in the act of devouring a hen. My eggs of F. Gyrfalco from Torn Lapland, have rather more gloss than those of Candicans, and Islandus; from Greenland, and Iceland. RED-FOOTED FALCON. 