18 Prof. J. Reinhardt on the Birds observed in Greenland. 



L. argentatoides, Rich, (the only race of argentatus admitted by 

 him as American)^ this doubtful species hem^ paler even than the 

 L. argentatus proper, and consequently differing still more from 

 my L. affinis. 



The specimen described in 1853, and still the only one which 



1 have seen of my L. affinis, is in the Royal Museum. 



111. RissA TRiDACTYLA (Linn.). 



112. Pagophila eburnea (Gmel.). 



113.? Pagophila brachytarsa (Holb,). 



Holboll established this Gull (which I have never seen) upon 

 three specimens, obtained at different times, but unfortunately 

 lost even before the publication of his memoir on the Avifauna 

 of Greenland. Afterwards he seems to have failed in his endea- 

 vours to get more examples, and I doubt whether any collection 

 possesses an authentic or type specimen. This is much to be re- 

 gretted. Different authors also do not quite agree in the characters 

 which they ascribe to the supposed new species, and it seems to 

 require further investigation before it can be finally admitted. 

 Indeed, Holboll gives his Larus brachytarsus a tarsus 5 lines 

 shorter than that of P. eburnea, while Brehm, who identifies 

 Holboll^s Gull with his P. nivea, admits only a difference of 



2 lines in the length of the tarsus (Vogelfang, p. 344). Again, 

 Bonaparte, who also adopts Brehm's name, and has examined a 

 specimen in the Paris Museum brought from Spitzbergen by 

 Gaimard, does not mention the length of the tarsus, but makes, 

 in direct opposition to Holboll, Bruch, and Brehm, the new spe- 

 cies larger than the true P. eburnea (Consp. ii. p. 230). 



Lastly, it may be observed here, that it is a slight error of 

 Bruch (in which he has been followed by Bonaparte and Brehm) 

 to confine the Pagophila brachytarsa to North Greenland (Ca- 

 banis' Journ. 1854, p. 106; 1855, p. 287); indeed, Holboll 

 says positively that he obtained one of his three specimens at 

 Godthaab in South Greenland. 



114, ^Rhodostethia rosea (Macgill.). 



In my former lists this species is not admitted ; the reason it 

 is so here is, that I have been told by a trustworthy person that 



