168 THE RINGED GUILLEMOT. 



the breeding stations on the coast; nor had any of the fishermen, (who 

 are usually very correct in their observations on these matters,) ever seen, 

 or been accustomed to hear of it. 



This author's account, which is the least prejudiced and most scientific, 

 is written in excellent taste, and shews a marked appreciation of what might 

 or ought to constitute a specific difference. 



The late Professor Macgillivray, who had a comprehensive and most 

 accurate knowledge of marine ornithology, describes his Uria troile, in his 

 "Manual of British Ornithology," from a specimen of the bird now under 

 consideration, apparently through sheer contempt of any claim it had to 

 be considered different. "In summer," he says, "it has a white line round 

 the eye," etc., and finishes his description by adding, "some individuals want 

 the white lines on the head." This author knew Guillemots too well to 

 believe that the absence of these lines was the exception to the rule; 

 consequently in his subsequent extended work on "British Birds," he makes 

 an awkward attempt to follow previous writers by introducing the "Bridled" 

 Guillemot as a lately-described species, under the name of Uria lachrymans. 

 In addition to a carefully-prepared specific description, he gives a woodcut, 

 shewing the head with its white lines and slender bill, which, when con 

 trasted with the figure of the Common Guillemot preceding it, shews at 

 once he felt anxious to make a species of it. His characters, which he 

 says were noted from examination of specimens, differ from those pointed 

 out by Sir W. Jardine; for while the latter author states, and shews by 

 his diagrams, that the angle of the lower mandible is near the base, and 

 very slightly developed, Mr. Macgillivray asserts it is further from the base 

 than that of the common species, and is prominent! As a piece of ori- 

 ginal description he remarks that the interdigital membranes are full in the 

 bridled bird, and emarginate in the other; but from unlimited means of 

 judging, I can hardly say the so-called distinction is of any value. Com- 

 pare the feet of those before you with the single member cut from a 

 common bird, and you will not find a shade of difference. 



Mr. Gould, in his "Birds of Europe," mentions his doubts of the specific 

 value of the marks which distinguish the Binged Guillemot. These he 

 considers as nothing more than the white lines; yet he figures and describes it 

 as distinct, leaving others to judge. Sir W. Jardine, M. Temminck, and some 

 others consider it as a separate species, as likewise did the late Mr. Yarrell- 



The safest position with regard to it is to wait for further evidence 

 before deciding, as any undue eagerness to settle the matter can never 

 advance our information on the subject. Mr. Archibald Hepburn, in a paper 

 read before the Wemerian Society of Edinburgh, and afterwards published 

 in the proceedings of the "Berwickshire Naturalists' Club," gives an elabo- 

 rately-prepared account of a specimen which was killed at the Bass Bock, 



