644 LARID^. 



I am in the belief that the Iceland Gulls have been generally 

 associating with them, and, in fact, that they are not so 

 exclusively maritime in their habits as has been described. 

 Moreover, it is seldom that I have observed the Iceland Gull 

 following the shoals of Garvies (Cliipea sprattus), or fishing 

 for them in the manner of the Kittiwake (Rissa tridactijlci), 

 or even to the same extent as the Glaucous or other large 

 Gulls. They seem rather to hold aloof from the other species 

 when the latter are fishing, and fly often in pairs far inland 

 over the mud-flats. Upon other occasions, on firing a shot 

 in the early morning, when the crowd of Gulls was resting 

 on the edge of the mud, I have observed that they almost 

 invariably wing their way to the above-mentioned field ; and, 

 when the tide rises, and the fishermen begin drawing their 

 nets, do not, like the other species, flock down to feed on the 

 fish which escape through the meshes, and which struggle 

 for a time near the surface. 



*' Upon the 15th of January I again paid an early visit to 

 the coast, and took up a position on the pier. Thousands 

 of great Gulls — Lams marinus, L. fiiscus, L. glaucus, and 

 L. argcntritKS—yveve massed together on the mud-edge, and 

 on examining them carefully with my glass, I could dis- 

 tinguish many of the more slender-built Iceland Gulls 

 amongst them. At length one adult Iceland Gull flew past 

 me, and I fired, but ineffectually. With the rushing noise 

 of many wings, the great body of Gulls rose, at the report of 

 the gun, and, along with other flocks lower down the firth, 

 winged their way, as before, inland, and the air became filled 

 as by a snow-drift. 



"Before they all took wing, however, I had a good oppor- 

 tunity of comparing the Glaucous and Iceland Gulls when 

 at rest, and the experiences of this, and of another trip com- 

 bined, have led me to the following conclusions : — Apart 

 from the inferior size of L. Icucopterus, which in itself alone 

 cannot be accepted as a criterion for distinction, this species 

 can be separated by the field naturalist from the Glaucous 

 (tuII, by its neater, more slender appearance, standing higher 

 on its legs, having a more cuneate shape posteriorly, and the 



