( 298 ) 

 HEPORT ON THE 1912 INQUIRY. 



BY 



M. VAUGHAN, m.a., m.b.o.u. 



Introductory. 



It will be as well to explain briefly the principles on 

 which tliis report has been drawn up. The results of 

 each schedule have been carefully tabulated ; a separate 

 report of each species has been made out ; and a series 

 of maps has been prepared, a selection of which is 

 published. In man^^ cases no answer to the third 

 question (" Were numbers in 1912 above or below the 

 average ? ") has been received, so it is only possible to 

 decide approximately whether a majority of observers 

 considered the numbers in 1912 above or below the 

 average, and no exact standard of comparison is possible. 



That certain species do vary in number considerably 

 from year to year there can be no doubt, whether we 

 confine ourselves to the facts recorded in the schedules 

 or look on the question from a wider point of view. To 

 quote two examples : — 

 " Whitethroat. 22 pairs, 1912, 34 pairs 1911. Tunbridge 



Wells." (H. G. Alexander.) 

 " Spotted Flycatcher. Very common 1912. Quite scarce 

 1911. Beaulieu." (P". Gosse.) 



Where no return regarding a particular species has 

 been entered attention is drawn to the fact, as this 

 negative evidence seems to be of some value in determining 

 the position of a species. 



In each report the inference which may fairly be drawn 

 from the figures has been pointed out ; interesting facts 

 have been noted ; and an attempt has been made to 

 decide whether the decrease of any species is general 

 or only local and made up by a corresponding increase 

 in an adjacent area, though the reports do not often 

 contain enough information for tliis point to be decided 

 with any degree of certainty. The reports received 

 from Scotland and Ireland were so few that it has been 



