154 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



[see, however, further letter, p. 155, W. E.]. The example seen by 

 them on the water in St. James's Park tells us nothing, for we know 

 that Charles II. had many foreign fowls there. It is uncertain when 

 Ray's " Synopsis " was composed, for it was not published till after 

 his death. My own impression is that he kept on adding to the 

 MS. so long as he lived : but that does not in this case signify, as 

 he assigns no country for this species. 



" Jonston gives us no help at all, for his work is little more than a 

 compilation from Aldrovandus. You rightly suppose that nothing is 

 to be learnt on this matter from the latter, from Belon or Gesner. 1 



"Albin figured the species, and must have had a fresh specimen 

 to draw from ; but he does not say where he got it, and indeed he 

 adds scarcely anything to what Willughby had already said. 



" So much for your direct inquiries. 



" Charleton has been cited as mentioning this species in his 

 "Onomasticon Zooicon " (1668). Here is what he says (p. 100), 

 under the general heading " BOSCAS " : " 4. Glaucius (ab oculorum 

 colore), Gallis Morillo. Qujenam avis sit, nondum compertum habeo ; 

 nisi eadem cum ille, quam vulgo Pochard vocant." The same passage 

 is repeated in his " Exercitationes " a few years later, and I think not 

 much can be made of it. Granted that Morillo(?i) is the French 

 name of the Tufted Duck, there is nothing to show that he had ever 

 seen one. 



"Pennant, in the first edition of his "British Zoology" (1766), 

 includes the Tufted Duck and gives a figure of it. This is the 

 earliest positive statement of its being a bird of this country that I 

 can find, though, as I have above suggested, we may, I think, fairly 

 conclude that Willughby and Ray meant it to be so accounted [see 

 further letter, p. 155, W. E.], and we cannot doubt that Albin's figure 

 was from an example obtained in England. 



" From Pennant's time, of course, the species has been regularly 

 enrolled, but authors have had singularly little to say about it as 

 you may see by looking at Bewick, Montagu, and others of less 

 consequence. Hoy was certainly mistaken in the eggs he ascribed 

 to it, one of which was figured by Hewitson in his first edition ; 

 and Yarrell's account of the bird in his first edition (1842) is 

 meagre enough. It was not till 1849 that it was known to breed 

 in England (on Malham Water, in the West Riding of Yorkshire 



1 The species seems to have been first described by Belon and Gesner, 

 independently, in 1555. The former tells us the French called it " un Morillon," 

 and the latter says it was called " Riisgen " by the people of Meissen in Saxony, 

 thus showing that the bird was then well known both in France and Germany. 

 Professor Newton (in. lit. 16.3.96) cites these authors as follows : 



"Petit Plongeon espece de canard," Belon, " Histoire de la Nature des 

 Oyseaux," p. 175 (1555)- 



"Anas fuligula," Gesner, "Historic Animalium," Liber iii. p. 116 (1555). 



"Anas cirrhata," ide?n, torn. cit. p. 117. W. E. 



