Mr. H. Seebohm on the Ornithology of Siberia. 351 



» 



Pallas, apud Teraminck (Man. d'Orn. iv. p. 620), is identified 

 with M. lugubris (Man. d'Om. iii. p. 175), which undoubtedly 

 includes the Japanese bird. Our bird therefore stands as 

 M. lugens, probably of Pallas apud Kittlitz, partly of Pallas 

 apud Temminck, certainly of Temminck and Schlegel. Since 

 it only involves a change of authority and not of name, this 

 seems to me to be a case in which we may safely avail our- 

 selves of the strict letter of the rules of nomenclature, and 

 call our bird Motacilla lugens, Temm. et Schl., on the ground 

 that this name was " clearly defined " for the first time in the 

 'Fauna Japonica,^ — rejecting also Swinhoe^s name of M. 

 japonica, as having been subsequently given, under the erro- 

 neous impression that the name M. lugens " had already been 

 applied to the very different western species " {vide P. Z. S, 

 1870, p. 130). 



It is somewhat remarkable that such an eventful day's '' rat- 

 hunting " should end without a kill, that of the three rats 

 started {M. lugubris, Pall., M. lugens, Pall., and M. lugens, 

 Illig.) eveiy one should be run to earth, and that there is the 

 strongest probability that all the three " rats " are phantom 

 rats, myths. It is still more remarkable that the references 

 to these names should be quoted with so many blunders ; but 

 perhaps the most remarkable circumstance of all is, that Pro- 

 fessor Newton, in the note already twice referred to, should 

 have " made another complication " by starting a fourth 

 phantom rat, M. lugens, Illig. apud Schlegel"^. 



Motacilla flava, Linn. 



I shot a solitary example of the Blue-headed Wagtail with 

 the white eye-stripe on the 11th June, on the Arctic circle. 

 This bird had probably accidentally migrated with the large 

 flocks of M. viridis beyond his usual latitude. 



* Since the above was written, Professor Newton has pointed out to 

 me that in all probability it was Bonaparte who first ascribed the name 

 " lugens " to lUiger in 1850, the correctness of which statement Midden- 

 dorfF no doubt took for granted in 1861. Professor Newton desires to 

 correct his footnote (Newton's ' Yarrell,' i. p. 541) as follows :■ — " .... 

 and the Japanese form therein appeared as ' M. lugens,' a name ascribed by 

 several writers, and amongst them Bonaparte (Consp. Av. i. p. 250), to 

 Illiger ; but whether ...."' 



