484 PiciDyE. 



1770 be gave a figure of it (pi. ix. fig. 1), be stated (p. 20) 

 tbat it seemed only a variety of bis Greater Spotted Wood- 

 pecker. Yet tbis did not binder bim from subsequently (op. 

 eit. ed. 4, 4to, p. 208 ; Bvo, p. 244) introducing it, but still 

 doubtfully, as a distinct Britisb species. Tbe fact bas long 

 been recognized tbat be, and otber autbors avIio followed bim, 

 mistook tbe red-beaded J'oung of D. major for tbis purely 

 continental bird. An attempt bas lately been made to 

 restore it to our list on a statement by St. Jolin (Nat. Hist. 

 Higbl. ed. 1849, p. 76 ; ed. 1879, p. 89), in wbicb tbe word 

 "medius^' was probably an accidental error for "major", 

 and on tbat of Mr. Harting (B. Middles, p. 108). Mr. 

 Bond bowever assures tbe Editor tbat tbe birds referred to 

 in tbe latter passage, were certainly, as migbt be expected, 

 tbe young of D. major. 



Tbe tbird species is a very recent candidate for admission 

 to tbe Britisb Fauna, and its case is fortunately of tbe 

 simplest kind, resting solely on a sisecimen obtained in Unst 

 by Saxby in September 1861, wben tbat island and otbers of 

 tbe group were visited by D. major in some numbers. Tbe 

 specimen baving passed into tbe possession of Mr. J. H. 

 Gurney, was minutely and accurately described by Messrs. 

 Dresser and Sbarpe (B. Eur. v. p. 21), and by tbem con- 

 sidered a variety of tbat species ; but, being afterwards sub- 

 mitted to Gould, it was declared by bim to be an immature 

 example of tbe Wbite-backed Woodpecker, D. leuconotus, 

 and was accordingly in 1873 included and figured as sucb in 

 bis work (B. Gr. Br. iii. pi. 71). Tbanks to Mr. Gurney 

 tbe Editor bas been allowed to examine tbis specimen, and 

 be bas no besitation in stating tbat Gould's determination 

 was utterly wrong, and tbat beyond all doubt tbe bird is, as 

 originally suggested by Messrs. Dresser and Sbarpe, a 

 variety — sligbtly albescent — of D. major. Tbe reasons of 

 tbis conclusion bave elsewbere (Zool. 1881, p. 399) been 

 fully adduced, and want of space compels tbeir omission 

 bere. It is probable tbat tbe ground of Gould's error lay 

 in tbe fact tbat be bad no example of tbe young D. leuco- 

 notus witb wbicb to compare tbe Sbetland specimen. As it 



