BUFPLE-HEADED DUCK. 223 



Messrs. Paget in their " Sketch of the Natural History 

 of Yarmouth " (p. 11., foot note) as follows : — "Mr. 

 Miller has a specimen which he considers proves that 

 the morillon (Anas glmtcion, of Linn.) is different from 

 the golden-eye. It was an old male bird, but is fully one- 

 third less than the males of the golden- eye, and the bill 

 is considerably shorter ; besides which the plumage is 

 rather different." 



It is now well known that at that time (1834), and 

 even later, the various plumages presented by the 

 golden-eye, and the long period the male takes to assume 

 his full dress, were but little understood by some of the 

 best-informed ornithologists. The gunners of Yarmouth, 

 and perhaps elsewhere, sjaoke of two kinds, by the names 

 of rattle-wing " and " little rattle-wing " respectively, 

 the former being the adult golden-eye, and the latter 

 the so-called " morillon " of Bewick and other writers, 

 now universally recognised as the immature stage of the 

 same bird. It is, therefore, not surprising that the 

 Pagets and Lubbock were unable to clear up the con- 

 fusion, and the last, as may be seen from his conversa- 

 tion (quoted by Yarrell in the account of the buffle- 

 headed duck given in his earlier editions), as well as 

 from information received through Mr. Girdlestone, and 

 published in the " Fauna of Norfolk,"^ was inclined to 

 believe that the " little rattle- wing " — a common bird 

 enough — was the present rare species, the complete 

 verification of the occurrence of which, according to 

 Lubbock, we owe to Yarrell, though the fact was not 

 made known to the world until July, 1842, when part 

 xxxi. of the first edition of his " British Birds " 

 appeared. 



It must be remarked that the British Museum con- 

 tains a specimen of the buffle-head duck, with the 

 assigned locality, " Norfolk, from Mr. Hubbard's collec- 

 tion ; " but, as has been elsewhere remarked (Lubbock, 

 " Fauna of Norfolk," ed. 2, p. 165, note 156), its authen- 

 ticity is more than doubtful. 



* As regards this matter, see also a letter from Girdlestone to 

 Lubbock, printed iu tlie " Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich 

 Naturalists' Society " (vol. ii., pp. 398, 399). 



