I900.] Moffat. — The Birds of Ireland. 257 



That the famous bird was actually cooked and eaten does 

 not, we repeat, say much for Mr. Colville as an ornithologist ; 

 and when we remember the numerous errors as to Irish birds 

 which have been set right by re-examination of specimens 

 long after they had been killed, it seems peculiarly unfortunate 

 to have a new departure made in the direction of accepting a 

 species so unsatisfactorily vouched for. Mr. Ussher has 

 himself played an important part in securing the rectification 

 of erroneous records of the Nightingale, Montagu's Harrier, 

 King-Bider, and Hooded Merganser, which, prima facie, had 

 much higher authority in their favour than can be claimed for 

 the Crested I^ark. The figure in the Penny Joufnal would 

 appear from Sir W. Russell's language to have been a copy of 

 that in the edition of Buffon to which he refers, and therefore 

 is. of little importance; and apart from that figure there is 

 literally no authority at all for the bird, against whose inclusion 

 in the Irish list we earnestly protest. 



We will not dwell at any length on the question of the 

 L,esser Spotted Woodpecker's claims to retention among our 

 birds, but we believe the time has arrived when it ought to be 

 ** turned out." No specimen exists, though Glennon the bird- 

 stuffer stated to Watters that " six or seven " had been sent 

 him for preservation at different times. That so many should 

 have been sent to one taxidermist, while no other evidence 

 of the bird's occurrence in Ireland has been produced from 

 that day to this, is simply incredible. Watters appears to 

 have been shown two specimens in Glennon's shop, but in 

 view of the bird-stuffer's manifestly unreliable statement about 

 the " six or seven," we should be slow to accept his evidence 

 as to where the two had been killed. Glennon's data were 

 sometimes proved to be at fault, as in the instance of a certain 

 Ruppell's Tern, which he palmed off as Irish by way of a 

 "practical joke/' Under such circumstances, the present 

 position of Dendrocopus nnnoroii our list is most unsatisfactory. 

 It is just such a case as Appendices exist for dealing with, and 

 to place it elsewhere is, in our humble opinion, to deprive the 

 Appendix of all raison d'etre^ 



In conclusion, we would wish to remove a slight error which 

 might mislead visitors to the Belfast Museum. Mr. Ussher 

 states, on Mr. Barrington's authority, that the supposed 



