BULWER'S PETREL. 763 



the Ure, near Tanfield in Yorkshire, on 8th May 1837, was 

 brought to Capt. Dalton of Slenningford, near Ripon, a 

 gentleman, as I learn, who had succeeded to a collection of 

 stuffed birds begun by his father. The father was Col. Dalton, 

 who, curiously enough, had sent Bewick the specimen of the 

 Common Stormy Petrel (also found dead in that neighbour- 

 hood) from which the figure and description in his well-known 

 work was taken (' British Birds,' ist Ed. ii. pp. 249-251). At 

 the end of last May Mr. W. Eagle Clarke applied to Mr. Carter, 

 and the first result of the latter's inquiry was to find that the 

 Dalton collection had been dispersed by sale just a week before. 

 Fortunately all the cases of stuffed birds had been bought by 

 persons living in Ripon, and, having obtained their names 

 from the auctioneer, Mr. Carter, after many failures and 

 some loss of time, discovered in the possession of Mr. Jacobs, 

 the head-master of the Choir School in that city, the case and 

 the specimen before you, labelled Procellaria hiilwerii, which 

 he had bought with others at the Dalton sale. Beyond this 

 fact, however, there was no note or anything to identify 

 the specimen with the object of the search. Mr. Carter 

 thereupon undertook to inquire of the surviving members 

 and connections of the Dalton family, and, fortunately, again, 

 one of the latter, being Mr. George Clarke of Tanfield House, 

 Bedale, a son-in-law of Capt. Dalton, was found, who not 

 only remembered the specimen perfectly well, having seen it 

 ' scores of times,' but produced an old manuscript note he 

 had made on the margin of a ' Bewick ' (in which he had been 

 accustomed to record ornithological observations), to the 

 effect that this bird was ' found dead on the bridge at Tanfield,' 

 and had been given to his father-in-law, who had it ' preserved 

 by the late John Stubbs of Ripon, fishing-tackle maker and 

 bird-stuffer.' Mr. George Clarke also remembered the owner 

 having several times refused the offer of twenty guineas 

 for the specimen, which, it appears, had been put away in a 

 lumber room and wholly forgotten. I think, therefore, 

 that no doubt can be entertained of our having before us the 

 remains of the very bird which was found dead at Tanfield, 

 as recorded by Gould, and that we are much indebted to the 



