Page:The Zoologist, 3rd series, vol 1 (1877).djvu/275

Rh Crombie, in his 'Braemar' (a work which I have not seen), refers to a supposed Pine Grosbeak that he saw near the Bridge of Dee at Invercauld.

Finally, in Prof. Newton's copy of Bullock's Sale Catalogue, which has MS. notes in it, in the hand-writing of some former naturalist,—possibly Dr. Latham,—a female Pine Grosbeak is included and marked as British. In the Sale Catalogue of Mr. Sealy, of Cambridge, also, I see that "Lot 59" is described as "Pine Grosbeaks, three in case, one shot at Doncaster, and one at Sheffield." Whether these were anything more than dealer's localities I am unable to say.

Having now enumerated a list of five and twenty so-called "occurrences" of this bird in Great Britain, I will proceed to weed out the most doubtful cases, and consider the claims of those that remain. In the first place, then, I dismiss all records in which the name of the bird is given without any particulars. I do the same with those included in the sale-catalogues, three in number. The remainder (fourteen in number) I divide into two classes, under the heads of "mistaken identity," and "mistaken locality." By mistaken locality I mean that the specimens in question were not killed in this country, as those who recorded them were led to believe.

Probable cases of mistaken identity:—3. Forfarshire; 4. Ireland (Belfast); 8. Wales (Pembrokeshire); 10. Berwickshire; 15. Sussex (Petworth); 20. Lancashire (Hulston).

Probable cases of mistaken locality:—7. Norfolk (Yarmouth or Raveningham); 11. Kent; 13. Lancashire (Rochdale); 14. Sussex (Ashdown).

We have now only four left to deal with, and it appears to me that these are the most worthy of credit:—
 * 1. The examples met with by Pennant in Aberdeenshire.
 * 5. Mr. Backhouse's bird, obtained at Bill Quay, Newcastle.
 * 12. Mr. Bond's bird, said to have been killed at Harrow.
 * 18. The Taunton specimen of 1852, for the correct naming of which I have the authority of one of your correspondents, Mr. Nicholls.

I leave it to your able correspondent, the Rev. M.A. Mathew, to say what he can for the last-named specimen in his forthcoming work on the Birds of the West of England. As regards Mr. Bond's specimen, the only argument which can be used against it is the Rh