ZOOLOGICAL NOTES 197 



Closterium Leibleinii, Kiitz. Kemback. 



/?. Ralfs. Tent's Moor, with zygospores ; Mount 



Melville. 



,, Diance, Ehr. Tent's Moor. 

 ,, calosporum, Wittr. Tent's Moor. 

 ,, Venus, Kiitz. Tent's Moor. 

 ,, incurvum, Breb. Tent's Moor. 

 ,, parvulum, Nag. Mount Melville. 

 accrosum, Schrank. Tent's Moor; Kemback; Mount 



Melville. 



,, costatum, Corda. Tent's Moor. 

 striolatum, Ehr. Tent's Moor. 

 ,, arcuation, Breb. Tent's Moor. 

 ,, rostratum, Ehr. Kemback. 

 Kutzingii, Breb. Tent's Moor. 

 Cornu, Ehr. Tent's Moor. 



ZOOLOGICAL NOTES. 



Roekall and its Avifauna. In " Chambers's Journal " for 

 March last there appeared at pages 161-163 an interesting, graphic, 

 and circumstantial account of ' A Visit to Roekall ' made in the 

 summer of 1891 in the steam yacht "Norah." According to this 

 narrative, a party landed and spent some time on the rock ; the 

 writer of the account paying special attention to the bird-life, hitherto 

 practically unknown. The Kittiwake was the commonest species. 

 Herring Gulls, Lesser Black -backed Gulls, Puffins, Razorbills, 

 Guillemots, were numerous ; and amongst them an occasional Little 

 Auk was observed. Tiny Petrels had burrows in the guano-capped 

 summit of the rock. Terns hovered among the Gulls, and a Skua 

 and a Fulmar were noted. We were extremely interested in these 

 records relating to the birds of this unique Atlantic rock, and 

 through the kindness of Messrs. Chambers were put into communi- 

 cation with the anonymous writer of the article. To our great 

 astonishment we received in due course the following reply to a 

 letter requesting further information : " I am sorry you should have 

 taken an imaginary description of a visit to Roekall only meant 

 to amuse for a contribution to science. I never was at Roekall." 

 We can only say that such an explanation of the article never 

 occurred to us, and is irreconcilable with its whole tenor. We 

 accepted it as a useful, and truthful contribution to the very scanty 

 knowledge of Roekall. Now, we can only regard it as a very repre- 

 hensible bit of writing, for which the proprietors of the journal, 

 it is hardly necessary to say, are in no way responsible. EDS. 

 1 E 



