RINGED PLOVER. 575 



August. Very often several " mock " nests are formed, 

 and on one small patch of shingle, within a space of 

 twenty square yards, at the Teesmouth, I counted no fewer 

 than six of these, in addition to the true nest. Owing to 

 the persecution to which the birds have been subjected in 

 past years they have had recourse to strange nesting situations 

 in the Tees district, and have resorted to the heaps of slag 

 near the Breakwater, and to the sand-hills forming the Cleve- 

 land Golf Club course. Of other curious sites may be 

 mentioned the top of a low wall ; a hollow in a slag ball ; 

 a space between the metals of a railway running along the 

 Breakwater ; another within two or three yards of the firing 

 point of the Rifle Club ; while the centre of a heap of dried 

 cow dung has also been utilized for nesting purposes, and 

 the prettiest and best protected nest I have seen was amongst 

 a clump of daisies. In unexpected positions such as these 

 the birds frequently succeed in hatching their eggs. 



A few pairs only nest on the Spurn promontory, and also 

 at one or two spots higher up the Humber estuary. As yet 

 a clutch of five is unreported from the Tees area, though 

 one was discovered at Spurn in June 1880 (W. Eagle Clarke, 

 Zool. 1880, p. 356). 



A variety of this bird, having the mantle of a stone 

 buff colour, is recorded by Mr. J. Whitaker {op. cit. 1882, 

 p. 79), as having been obtained at Scarborough in 1882, and 

 a similar specimen in the Tunstall Museum was probably of 

 local origin (Fox's " Synopsis," p. 90). 



Local vernacular names in use are : — Ring or Ringed 

 Dotterel on the Humber and Tees ; Ring-Neck on the Tees ; 

 Sand Runner and Sand Dotterel at the Humber ; Sand 

 Lark, and Sea Lark in the Allan MS. (1791) and Graves's 

 " Cleveland " (1808). 



[Lesser Ringed Plover {Mgialitis curonica, Gmelin). An 

 example of this small Plover was recorded by the late J. C. 

 Garth of Knaresborough as taken at Whixley on 30th July 

 1850 {Zool. 1850, p. 2953), but an examination of the specimen 

 in Mr. Garth's collection led me to beUeve that it is merely 



