ZOOLOGICAL NOTES 



197 



Closterium Leibleinii, Kiitz. Kemback. 



ft. Ralfs. Tent's Moor, with zygospores ; Mount 

 Melville. 

 „ Diance., Ehr. Tent's Moor. 



„ calosporum, Wittr. Tent's Moor. 



,, Venus, Kiitz. Tent's Moor. 



„ incurvwn, Breb. Tent's Moor. 



,, fiarvidum, Nag. Mount Melville. 



„ aceroswn, Schrank. Tent's Moor; Kemback; Mount 



Melville. 

 costatum, Corda. Tent's Moor. 

 striolatum, Ehr. Tent's Moor. 

 arcuatum, Breb. Tent's Moor. 

 „ rostratum, Ehr. Kemback. 



„ Kutzingii, Breb. Tent's Moor. 



Cornu, Ehr. Tent's Moor. 



35 



33 

 33 



33 



ZOOLOGICAL NOTES. 



Roekall and its Avifauna. — In " Chambers's Journal " for 

 March last there appeared at pages 1 61-163 an interesting, graphic, 

 and circumstantial account of ' A Visit to Roekall ' made in the 

 summer of 1891 in the steam yacht "Norah." According to this 

 narrative, a party landed and spent some time on the rock ; the 

 writer of the account paying special attention to the bird-life, hitherto 

 practically unknown. The Kittiwake was the commonest species. 

 Herring Gulls, Lesser Black -backed Gulls, Puffins, Razorbills, 

 Guillemots, were numerous ; and amongst them an occasional Little 

 Auk was observed. Tiny Petrels had burrows in the guano-capped 

 summit of the rock. Terns hovered among the Gulls, and a Skua 

 and a Fulmar were noted. We were extremely interested in these 

 records relating to the birds of this unique Atlantic rock, and 

 through the kindness of Messrs. Chambers were put into communi- 

 cation with the anonymous writer of the article. To our great 

 astonishment we received in due course the following reply to a 

 letter requesting further information : " I am sorry you should have 

 taken an imaginary description of a visit to Roekall — only meant 

 to amuse — for a contribution to science. I never was at Roekall." 

 We can only say that such an explanation of the article never 

 occurred to us, and is irreconcilable with its whole tenor. We 

 accepted it as a useful, and truthful contribution to the very scanty 

 knowledge of Roekall. Now, we can only regard it as a very repre- 

 hensible bit of writing, for which the proprietors of the journal, 

 it is hardly necessary to say, are in no way responsible. — Eds. 



3 E 



