BRUNNICH'S GUILLEMOT. 77 



after Briinnich, and gave some interesting details on its 

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

 Trans, xii. p. 538). 



This species has been included in the British list upon 

 somewhat slight 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 the strength of a short 

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

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

 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 whether even Sabine's identifications of the 

 Brlinnich's Guillemot and the Little Auk on the wing, can 

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

 birds from the coast of Kerry in the breeding-season since 

 his time. As regards a bird received from Youghal 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 the same specimen of which 

 Macgillivray says that he found it among some skins from 

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

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

 p. 2059) that Brlinnich'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 



