( 525 ) 



SOME MISCELLANEOUS NOTES ON PALAEARCTIC 



BIRDS. 



By ERNST HAETERT. 



WHEN, in 1897, I wrote for this journal some " Notes ou Palaearctic Birds 

 and Allied Forms" (of. Nov. Zool. IV. pp. 131 — 147), I hoped soon to 

 be able to coutinne my investigations on palaearctic birds. More urgent work, 

 however, has prevented me to work as much in that line as I should have liked; 

 but, ueverthe'sss, I have had some opportunities to collect and to stud)' European 

 birds, and I will here give a few short notes with a view to future more lengthy 

 articles, either by myself alone or together with a brother ornithologist 



I. Certhia. 



I see no reason to deviate from my conclusions about the Tree Creepers, except 

 in a few points. When writing in 1897 I treated C. hrackydarAyla as a sub- 

 species of C. familiai-is. I have now had opportunities to observe both these 

 forms frequently in Germany, especially near Marburg and Berlepsch Castle, in 

 Hesse, and I have studied a large material. I lind that both forms live close 

 together and yet keep separate, although it is quite possible that they mix 

 occasionally and produce hybrids (Deichler, Journ.f. Orn. 1896, p. 450). They 

 have also diiferent notes, that of C. familiaris being longer and not so loud, that 

 of C. brachydactyla, shorter and louder. Also the eggs of C. familiaris have in 

 Germany, as a rule, much smaller spots than those of C. brachydactyla, which 

 have larger and often confluent patches, though exceptions may not be rare 

 (Deichler, I.e.). 



Under these circumstances^the differences in colour, size of bill and hind- 

 claw being constant enough— I think it is necessary to treat C. familiaris and 

 C. brachydactyla as two distinct species. With regard to the British Tree Creeper, 

 I find that it is not nearest allied to C. brachydactyla, but clearly a subspecies 

 of C. familiaris. The length of the bill and hind-claw and the note are those 

 of C. familiaris and not those of ('. brachydactyla. In fact, it differs from 

 C. familiaris familiaris merely in colour, being altogether much more rufous above, 

 the pale marks being narrower and rufous-buft' instead of buffy white, the rump 

 darker and brighter rufous. It must, however, be said that eastern and northern 

 continental examples are much more whitish than western and southern ones which 

 are browner and darker. Some French examples cannot easily be distinguished 

 from British ones, while those from Scandinavia and Eastern Prussia, for example, 

 differ tremendonsly. The exact distribution of C. brachydactyla is not yet under- 

 stood. It is principally a western bird, and yet, as far as 1 know, quite absent 

 from the British Islands. It will probably not be difficult to distinguish several 

 more subspecies of C. familiaris and perhaps also of C. brachydactyla in Europe, 

 but we require more material to do so with some satisfaction. Specimens from 

 Spain and Asia Minor are very remarkable, but our material is too scanty. (Cf. 

 Kleinschm. Orn. Monber. 19U0, p. 169, which appeared while this article was in 

 press). 



