CORRESPONDENCE. 291 



To the Editor of The Analyst. 



" I will description the matter to you, 

 If you be capacity of it." 

 Sir, 



As you have admitted the animadversions of a Birmingham cor- 

 respondent of The Analyst on an insignificant little work which I 

 lately published, I feel assured you will not refuse to insert the follow- 

 ing reply. My Guide to an arrangement of British Birds, written 

 in great haste, among other numerous avocations, was printed, pri^ 

 marily, for my own convenience, and, secondarily, for the benefit of 

 other collectors of British birds ; and I expressly stated, in the pre- 

 face, that I hoped all due allowance would be made for any typo- 

 graphical or other errors. With regard to the arrangement, I 

 adopted that which I consider still to be the best ; and 1 distinctly 

 pointed out that if a collector were displeased with the relative po- 

 sition of any or every individual bird in the catalogue, he had nothing 

 to do but to change, " ad libitum" the place of each and every case 

 to which the names were attached. But, to the gravamen of the 

 charge : — the strictures of your correspondent arrange themselves 

 under two heads — the first embracing the faults of the author, the 

 second impugning the accuracy of the printer. The one a class of 

 faults that may be said to exist, u^xcos, in the work itself, the other 

 to arise, xa,Ta. a-af^(^i(inKos. On both of these " I will try conclusions*' 

 with him. He asks me on whose authority I admit the Picus 

 mediiis as a distinct species ?■ — simply then on that of Linnaeus, Tem- 

 minck, Bewick, etc. Secondly, why do I admit the Emberiza chlo^ 

 rocephala as such ?— I do so because Gmelin, Linnaeus, Lewin, 

 Brown, Montagu, and Fleming, have described it as a species ; and I 

 include it among the British birds, Bewick alone having mentioned 

 five instances of its occurring in England. As, however, this eru- 

 dite ornithologist seems inclined to consider this bird as merely a 

 variety of Emberiza citrinella (^differing only, "si rite recorder," 

 about the head and neck, it may just be as well to set him right by 

 a comparison of the descriptions of the two species, as given by Be- 

 wick. Having done so, others may form their own opinions re- 

 specting the matter. 



Emberiza citrinella. Emberiza chlorocephala. 



Length somewhat above six inches. It is about the size of the Yellow- 

 Bill dusk}'^ ; eyes hazel ; the prevail- Bunting. The bill dark reddish ; the 

 ingcolouris yellow, mixed with brown head and neck, as far as the breast, 

 of various shades; the crown of the pale olive green, slightly powdered 

 head, in general, is bright yellow, with pale ash grey. The chin and 

 more or less variegated with brown ; throat are pale greenish yellow ; a 

 the cheeks, throat, and lower part of streak of the same colour falls down 

 the belly, pure yellow ; the breast from the corners of the lower mandi- 

 reddish, and the sides dashed with bles, before the auriculars. The 

 streaks of the same ; the hinder part breast and belly are of a light rusty 

 of th^ neck and back are greenish chestnut ; the vent and under coverts 



u2 



