BRUNNICH'S GUILLEMOT. 77 



after Briinnich, and gave some interesting details on its 

 habits in bis 'Memoir of the Birds of Greenland' (Linn. 

 Trans, xii. p. 538). 



Tbis species has been included in tbe Britisb list upon 

 somewbat sligbt evidence. Thompson (B. of Ireland, iii. 

 p. 213) adduces Sabine as an authority for its occurrence on 

 the coast of Kerry, in July 1833, on tbe strength of a short 

 notice of eleven lines in W. Ainsworth's ' Account of the 

 Caves of Ballybunian,' App. A. p. 78 (1834). Sabine, bow- 

 ever, merely says, " Of sea birds I recognised in flight * * * 

 — of guillemots, the troile, Brunnichii, grylle and alba " : 

 the last word a misprint for " alle." Readers must decide 

 for themselves whetber even Sabine's identifications of tbe 

 Briinnich's Guillemot and the Little Auk on tbe wing, can 

 be trusted ; but at all events no one has recorded those 

 l)irds from the coast of Kerry in tbe breeding-season since 

 bis time. As regards a bird received from Yougbal by Dr. 

 Harvey of Cork, about the 1st February, 1850 (Thompson, 

 loc. cit.), it seems possible that it really was a Briinnich's 

 Guillemot, being described as " very black where that colour 

 prevails." Sir J. C. Ross's statement (App. Narr. Second 

 Voy., p. xliv.), " I have also met with it at Unst, the 

 northernmost of the Shetland Islands, and in several parts 

 of Scotland " ; must be accepted with reserve, for neither by 

 Saxby nor by any other competent ornithologist has it been 

 found in Shetland up to the present time. As regards 

 Orkney, all that Baikie and Heddle can say in 1848 is that 

 one shot there several years previously was in the College 

 Museum, Edinburgh : probably tbe same specimen of which 

 Macgillivray says that he found it among some skins from 

 Orkney belonging to tbe late Mr. Wilson, janitor to the 

 University. The late Sir W. E. Milner asserted (Zool. 

 p. 2059) that Briinnich's Guillemot was found breeding on 

 the rock of Soa, St. Kilda, where one egg was taken ; but the 

 correctness of his identification, or rather that of Graham of 

 York, may be questioned, inasmuch as no subsequent visitor 

 has been able to see or hear of it. Equally unsatisfactory is 

 Mr. Thomas Edward's bare statement (Zool. p. 6971) that 



