PINE-GROSBEAK. 179 



It is more than likely that in one case the birds seen were only 

 common Bullfinches, in others that the Crossbill has been 

 mistaken for the Pine-Grosbeak, while in others again that it 

 has been confounded with the Hawfinch, and the result of a 

 diligent but impartial investigation of the evidence on which 

 are based the claims of the present species to be accounted 

 ''British " shews that it can only be considered a very occa- 

 sional, and perhaps not always a voluntary, visitor ; for, since 

 the days of Edwards, it has been not uncommonly brought 



(4) A flight said by the Messrs. Paget (Nat. Hist. Yarm. p. 6) to have been seen 

 on Yarmouth Denes in Nov. 1822 ; (5) One seen near Petworth in Sussex, by a 

 Mr. Mellersh, a few years before 1849, as mentioned by Mr. Knox (Orn. Rambl. 

 Ed. 3, p. 211) ; (6) One supposed to have been observed Aug. 20th, 18.')0, in 

 Corriemulzie, Braemar, by Macgillivray (N. H. Dee Side, p. 403) ; (7) One 

 believed to have been seen by Col. Drummond-Hay (Harting ' Handb. Br. B.' p. 

 114) at Dunkeld ; and (8) Two seen, Nov. 8th, 1868, feeding on the seeds of an 

 arbor-vitiT3 at St. Germain's in Cornwall, as Mr. Gatcombe informed Mr. J. H. 

 Gurney, jun. (Zool. 1877, p. 248). 



We then have a class of cases wherein specimens are alleged to have been 

 killed in the British Islands, but about which doubt may be reasonably enter- 

 tained. Of these are ; — (1) One, recorded at third hand by Thompson (N. H. 

 Irel. Birds, i. pp. 275, 276) and recognized from a very indifferent figure (Shaw 

 and Nodder's ' Nat. Misc.' pi. 085) by a person whom there is no reason to sup- 

 pose was a competent authority, is said to have been killed at the Cave-hill near 

 Belfast in or prior to 1819 ; (2) A female stated by Fox in 1827 (Synops. Newc. 

 Mus. p. 65) to be in his possession " through the favour of Mr. Yarrell," and to 

 have been shot near Welwyn in Hertfordshire — a statement, however, which 

 never having been publicly verified by the Author of this work must therefore 

 be held erroneous ; and (3) Two said to have been killed in Feb. 1848 in 

 Ashdown Forest, Sussex, one of w^hich, an adult male, was seen by Mr. Knox, 

 who has now reason to disbelieve the statement. The statement as to a bird in 

 Hampshire by Mr. Reeks (Zool. p. 9023) originated, as he has informed the 

 Editor, in a mistake. 



Lastly there are many records in which the species is named as having occurred 

 in Great Britain, l)ut obviously without discrimination. Among these may be 

 cited : — (1) Kirkmichael, Dumfriesshire, by Burgess (Stat. Ace. Scotl. 1791, i. p. 

 60) ; (2) Washing Green, Midlothian, by P. Neill, it is supposed (Allan Ram- 

 say's 'Gentle Shepherd, &c. with illustrations' 1808, i. p. 271) ; (3) Worcester- 

 shire, by Hastings (N. H. Worcest. 1834, p. 65) ; (4) Hulston, by Rylands on 

 Glazebrook's authority (Nat. 1837, p. 352) ; (5) Kent, by Mr, P. Bartlett 

 from Plomley's statement (Zool. p. 621) ; (6) Eccles in Berwickshire, by James 

 Thomson (New Stat. Ace. Scotl. iii. Berwicksh. 1845, p. 53) ; and (7) Somerset- 

 shire, by the late Mr. W. Baker (Arcbreol. and N. H. Soc. Somersetsh. Proc. 

 1849-50, pt. ii. p. 144). Fuller details of many of these statements than it is 

 here possible to give have been furnished by Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun. in the 

 'Zoologist' for 1877 (pp. 242-250). 



