On Anser erythropus and its Allies. 269 



to the light-keepers, Messrs. Ayers, Gilpin, and Hambling, 

 for their great kindness, attention, and co-operation on all 

 occasions during my residence on the rock. To Professor 

 Newton and Sir Michael Foster my grateful acknowledg- 

 ments are due for the kindly interest they took in the 

 furtherance of my project : without their influential aid my 

 visit to the Eddy stone would not have been accomplished. 



XVII. — On Anser erythropus and its Allies. 

 By J. H. GuRNEY, F.Z.S. 



Mr. F. Coburn, of Birmingham, has announced in 'The 

 Zoologist' (1901, p. 317) an event of considerable interest 

 to British ornithologists, namely, that a Lesser White- 

 fronted Goose, ^?i5er erythropus (= A. minutus Naum.), was 

 killed during the preceding January in Norfolk. I under- 

 stand that this rare bird was taken in the Wash, and sent along 

 with some Coots and Knots to a poulterer in Birmingham 

 Market by a reliable fisherman at King^s Lynn, but, of 

 course, it is as likely to have been obtained on the Lincoln- 

 shire side as in Norfolk. The weather, when it was shot, 

 was fine with westerly winds. Mr. Coburn has since been 

 good enough to give me an opportunity of comparing his 

 specimen with several examples of the White-fronted Goose 

 {A. albifrons), and as its beak, which is the important 

 feature, is intermediate in size between those of its two 

 allies, I hope that a few remarks will not be out of place 

 with a view to further establishing its identity, and also the 

 specific value of the three closely allied species, A. albifrons, 

 A. erythropus, and A. gamheli. 



The American species, or subspecies, A. gamheli Hartl., is 

 generally recognisable by its comparatively large beak and 

 its blacker underparts. It ranges over the whole of North 

 America, while there are three specimens in the Natural 

 History Museum from Japan, where its range meets that of 

 A. erythropus. Details of its distribution are given in 

 'North American Birds,' vol. i. pp. 44-8-454, and in the 

 ' Catalogue of Birds,' vol. xxvii. p. 95. Opinions differ as to 



