BY TOM IREDALE, 779 



and "The MiUtou-bird " the words " Petrel or," and at the bottom, 

 "Norfolk Island Petrel, Phillip's Voyages, pi. 10, p.l61, Latham 

 Syn. 2, p. 334." No. 281 is a drawing of a similar bird with all 

 the breast and abdomen covered with grey down; Watling's 

 original note reads "Norfolk Island Mutton Bird in second or 

 middle state." Here airain is inserted " Petrel or " between 



O 



" Norfolk Island " and " Mutton Bird," and there is added " Nor- 

 folk Island or Fuliginous Petrel a Young Bird, Latham Syn. 

 Suppt. 2, p.334:. No. 282 is of a bird with a black bill and feet, 

 and suggests Oestrelata rather than Puffinus; it is obviously not 

 the same as the two preceding, and just as clearly the same as the 

 Petrel figured in Phillip's "Voyage," where, however, the legs are 

 differently coloured and described. Watling originally wrote 

 " A Norfolk Island Bird." Later he added " Fuliginous Petrel, 

 Latham, Syn. Suppt. 2, p.33i;" but that species appears on p. 333, 

 and is jllajaqiceus aequinoctialis Linne. 



The history and identification of the Watling drawings will be ■ 

 found in the " History of the Collections of Natural History in ■ 

 the British Museum " (A'^ol. ii , 1906). As preface to the draw- 

 ings, is a " Catalogue of Drawings of Birds, referring to my 

 General Synopsis of Birds," and above this heading is a note 

 "N.B. This Catalogue was wrote by Dr. Latham, author of the 

 General Synopsis of Birds." Of this note Dr. Sharpe says, 

 "probably in tlie handwriting of Mr. James Lee himself"; but 

 it is certainly Watling's. Every letter agrees with the writing 

 on the drawings correctly assigned to Watling, as evidenced by 

 bis signature. 



In this Catalogue appeal's " 280-1-2, Norfolk Island Petrel. 



•'»' 



app 



Sup. 2,334," showing that Latham confused the Puffinus and 

 Oestrelata. Of 280, Dr. Sharpe wrote(p.l52) "This figure is in 

 my opinion intended to represent Piiffinus cldororhynchus Less., 

 to which it bears a very strong resemblance. If I am correct in 

 this supposition, the ' Norfolk Island Petrel' of Latham cannot 

 be referred to the Oestrelata neglecta Schl., as has been suggested, 

 in the Catalogue of Birds (.xxv., p. 41 2)." In making this sug- 

 gestion. Dr. Sharpe has overlooked the description where the taih 



