480 PERISOREUS INFAUSTUS. 



the remains of the nest miglit have been '. I have no recoiled inn of seeinir 

 any eg-r;; of this species in Pastor Sommerfelt's collection at Nvboro- in I800, 

 and I think if there had been one it would have impressed itself on mj^ memory, 

 as I then believed that the three which Mr. Wolley had obtained the year beft)re 

 were the only specimens known, and my conviction still is that, setting aside 

 those mentioned by Prof. Nilsson, tliey were the first which were discovered '^. 

 I consider, then, that the Pastor was mistaken as to those which were sent to 

 him from Karasjok in 1852. I have not the least wish to inipug-n his good 

 faith or that of the finder of tliem. He was new to the country, and had no 

 means of knowing- what the eggs would be like. Moreover, he did not appre- 

 ciate the need of carefully identifying eggs, especially those that were new to 

 him, but thought it enough to submit his prizes (as I have mentioned was his 

 practice) to an expert like Dr. Kjierbolling, who was pre-eminently one of those 

 who believe that eggs can be determined by guess, and was wholly ignorant of 

 tlie precise method of authentication followed by Mr. Wolley and those of his 

 school. Had the Pastor published his statement in Mr. Wolley's lifetime, it is 

 possible that the latter miglit have taken notice of it, but he would very likely 

 have thought it not worth while to do so ; just as I was content in a commu- 

 nication to Mr. Dresser (Birds of Europe, iv. p. 475) to let the matter pass in 

 silence, as I knew it might cause annoyance to a man whom I held in great 

 esteem ; but now, all the parties to the business being removed, I feel it incum- 

 bent upon me to make the facts plain, and leave any deduction from them to 

 the public. I am bound, however, to add that Prof. Sundevall in 1862, though 

 erroneously giving 1850 for the year (Svenska Foglar, p. Ill), naturally 

 accepted Pastor Sommerfelt's statement, for, not being aware of the facts 

 above stated, he had no reason whatever to hesitate about it.] 



§ 2600. Tliree. — Rowtos-jarwi, Finland, 1854. 



0. W. tab. xiii. figs. 1, 2. 

 Brought to me [as Kuukainen\ by Michel Keimio from Rowtos- 



^ [As before mentioned. Prof. Nilsson had in 1835 described what the nest was 

 said to be like, llerr Malm had already stated tliat during his travels in Lapland iu 

 1841-42 he had met with several nests of the species, but always empty (Naturhist. 

 Tidsskr. ser. 2, i. p. 193 ; Arch. Skand. Beitr. p. 283). llerr Schrader, who was with 

 him part of the time, did not find a nest (Jouru. fiir Orn. 1853, p. 249), nor had any 

 previous travelling naturalist in Lapland {of. Lowenhjelm, K. Vet.-Akad. Ilandl. 

 1843, p. 391 ; and 1 845, pp. 407, 445). Dr. von Middendorft" in the far east of Siberia 

 found a nest with naked young in 1844 (Sib. Keise, ii. 2, p. 157), and, writing 

 in 1867 (pp. cit. iv. p. 1046, note 8), said that llerr V. Falck had told him of his 

 having found it breeding in Finland, though when or where was not stated. — Ed.] 



- [The two eggs described by Dr. Baldamus in ' Naumanoia ' for 1853 (p. 425), 

 from Finland, which he thought could scarcely be those of any other species than 

 this, were shewn, by the figure of one of them which he gave in the same journal 

 the next year (fig. 2), to be as unlike what we know its eggrs to be as can be 

 required to prove that his supposition was unfounded. — Ed.] 



