268 MUSCICATA ATRICAPILLA. 



MUSCICAPA ATRICAPILLA, Limiceus. 

 PIED FLYCATCHER. 



§ 1141. 7k;o.— From Mr. R. Mansfield, 1843. 



§ 1142. Four. — Cumberland. From Mr. J. Hancock, 1851. 



§ 1143. /S'h/'.— Kengis, 8 June, 1853. " J. W." 



Tliese were found by my Eiiinish interpreter Theodore, shortly before 

 coming to Kengis-bruk, some distance within the Arctic Circle. He 

 liad got out to walk, and suddenly called out that he had found a 

 nest. Ascending the bank, I saw it in the hole of the stock of a 

 birch-tree such as a Woodpecker might occupy, but there was only 

 just room for the nest. There were six eggs, five blue and one white \ 

 The nest was made of fine roots with several bits of filmy birch-bark 

 interspersed. I at once saw that it belonged either to a Redstart or 

 a Pied Flycatcher, though I had not seen the latter bird for some 

 days. However, watching near the nest, a little brown bird flew up, 

 and imn\ediately afterwards an unmistakable common Pied Fly- 

 catcher (a male bird) — not M. albicollis. I saw proofs that they were 

 paired, and I could see clearly with ray glass that the first was a hen 

 Pied Flycatcher. The spots on these eggs appear to be the dung of 

 lice. 



^ 1144. Six. — Saivo-rauotka,TorneaLappmark, 30 May, 1854. 

 "Bird shot, J. W." 



In an old hole made by a Picas minor and in the immediate neigh- 

 bourhood of its nest [§ 634] . I had gone on shore with my men 

 thinking I heard a Siberian Titmouse, and believing that the belt of 

 wood Avould be favourable for finding its eggs. While I was at the 

 Woodpecker's nest, Larhis Abraham brought me a stump bodily in 

 which was this nest. Believing it to be a Redstart's, I slighted it, but 

 said I would go and look for the bird, and that Abraham should re- 

 place the stump. Elias went with him and came back shortly, saying 

 that the bird had white on the wing and was not the common Vyer- 

 lintu.'^ Going, I found it was a Pied Flycatcher, Avhich flew round and 



' [The diflerenco in colour is now, July 1889, quite appreciable. — Er>.] 

 ■^ [I have not elsewhere met with this name, or anything like it, and cannot guess 

 at its meaning. It is doubtless spell as it soundi'd. — Ed.] 



