Manchester Memoirs, Vol Ivi. (19 12), No. 8- 5 



to in local lists or county avifaunas may be errors in 

 identification. 



The bird is included for Lancashire by Mitchell, on 

 the strength of one seen at Ormskirk "a few years ago" 

 by Thomas Williams, who was ''certain of its identity."" 

 Many of the records in the " Naturalist's Scrap Book " are 

 unconvincing, and I am surprised that Saunders, when 

 editing the second edition, did not display his usual 

 caution, but apparently accepted this note. He may 

 have satisfied himself that it was correct, but even if it 

 was, what is there to prove whence the bird came ? 



Taking into consideration the sedentary habits of 

 the species, I am of opinion that there is no proved case 

 of regular migration. There are several fairly recent 

 instances of the bird having been met with on the eastern 

 and southern shores, or even taken off-shore on ships, but 

 why should not a bird wander coastwise or be drifted out 

 to sea ? Borrer obtained two in Sussex in 1877, and learnt 

 that they had been released intentionally shortly before 

 by a man who had found difficulty in feeding his captives. 

 There is, of course, a possibility of unintentional wander- 

 ing, due perhaps to wind-drift, from the Continent to 

 England. 



The Little Owl, however, deserves a place in our 

 avifauna as a vi'dl-established and successful colonist ; it 

 must be placed in the same category as the pheasant, 

 which no one now refuses to acknowledge as a British 

 bird. 



It is too late to discuss the wisdom of the introduction — 

 the deed is done ; the bird is here. But it is well to examine 

 carefully and without prejudice the charge which is now- 

 brought against it — that it is destructive to game. Owls, 



' ' " Birds of Lancashire,"' 2nd edition, 1892, p. 120, ex. " Naturalist's 

 Scrap Book," 1863, p. 5. 



