398 Mr. A. Newton on Mr. J. Wolley's Researches 



quiries about this specimen have not yet resulted in obtaining 

 any further information respecting it *. 



I am well aware that nothing but the extraordinary interest 

 that attaches to this bird warrants me in occupying so much 

 space. It must be remembered that it is not merely a matter 

 with which ornithologists only are concerned, but is one of far 

 higher and more general importance. " A consideration of such 

 instances of modern partial or total extinctions," says Professor 

 Owen [loc. cit.) in reference to this very case, " may best throw 

 light on, and suggest the truest notions of, the causes of ancient 

 extinctions." If this be not sufficient excuse for me, I must 

 urge the great difficulty I have had in condensing the numerous 

 particulars of information which Mr. Wolley's labours have 

 placed at my disposal. It would have been far easier to have 

 been more diffuse. In Iceland all, with but one exception, were 

 eager to tell us all they knew, and that in the most careful 



* While on the subject of the bird's occurrence in this part of the world, 

 I wish to remark on Mr. Cassin's statement in Prof. Baird's ' Birds of 

 America' (p. 901), touching the Great Auk " figured by Mr. Audubon, and 

 obtained by him on the banks of Netofoundland," &c. Now in 1857 I was 

 assured by Mr. Bell, the well-known taxidermist at New York, who knew 

 Mr. Audubon intimately, that he never possessed but one specimen of this 

 bird ; and if we turn to Prof. MacGillivray's ' History of British Birds ' 

 (vol. v. p. 359), we find him saying that he never saw but two examples of 

 the species, one in the British Museum, and " the other belonging to Mr. 

 Audubon, and procured by him in London." I have also to set right a 

 mistake made on this side of the water. In their Catalogue of Norfolk 

 and Suffolk Birds, printed in the 'Linnean Transactions' (xv. p. 61), 

 Messrs. Shepherd and Whitear say, they had been told by Sir William 

 Hooker that a Great Auk had been " killed near Southwold " in the latter 

 county. That eminent botanist, however, has most kindly informed me 

 that not only has he no recollection of any such occurrence, but, having 

 taken some trouble to inquire about it, be is satisfied that the statement 

 originated in error. I must add further, that the reported instance of a 

 bird taken near Marlow in Buckinghamshire, on the estate of Sir William 

 Clayton, first ])ublished, I think, by Dr. Fleming (Brit. Anira. p. 130), on 

 Mr. Bullock's avithority^, seems to me very unlikely. On the other hand, I 

 may mention that Sir William Milner tells me that within the last few 

 years he has become possessed of a fine Great Auk, which he has reason 

 to believe was killed in the Hebrides. This bird, I am informed, was 

 found to have been stuffed with turf. 



