590 MOTACILLIDyE. 



near Edinburgh* (Man. Br. Orn. i. p. 169) ; by Mr. Steven- 

 son, more than once, in Norfolk ; by Mr. Rowley, several 

 times, at Brighton ; and by Mr. Marcus Packard s twice on 

 the Severn (Zool. s.s. p. 2222) ; while Mr. Hancock has one 

 shot from the nest at Chepstow in Monmouthshire, 18th 

 April, 1854 (Ibis, 1865, p. 237). Several of these specimens 

 have, by the kindness of their owners, been submitted to 

 the inspection of the Editor, who, when crossing the North 

 Sea, from Gottenburg to Hull, in October 1869, observed 

 some examples on board the steamer, one of which remained 

 until within a few hours of sighting the English coast. 



Regarding then Anthus rupestris as specifically identical 

 with A. ohscuriis, the Rock-Pipit may be said to occur along 

 the whole coast of Norway from the Varanger Fjord, where it 

 breeds not uncommonly, southward, and the west coast of 

 Sweden, appearing occasionally on the shores of the great 

 lake Venern, and to frequent most parts of the shores of the 

 Baltic. Thence it can be traced along the coast of Denmark, 

 Holland, Belgium and Avestern France as far as Bayonne, 

 but seldom far from the seaside. It is also pretty plentiful 

 on the Channel Islands. It is doubtless to be found further 



* Macgillivray, close observer as he was, did not detect the difference, above 

 stated, between this form and the American species. He had not kept, it is true, 

 the examples which he shot, 2nd June, 1824, but only his notes made at the time, 

 with which he comjjared two specimens in the Museum of Edinburgh, said to 

 have been shot near that capital in August 1824, and a third from the Saskat- 

 chewan. All these birds he considered to belong to one species, which he further 

 erred by terming Anthus spinoletta, for it is clear on carefully reading what he 

 says that not one of them was of that species. His first and briefer description 

 of the birds obtained by himself (torn. cit. p. 169) seems to be that of an 

 undoubted A. rupestris, but his more elaborate description (pp. 170, 171) appears 

 certainly to be that cf the American A. ludovicianus, and that of the female 

 (p. 171) to refer again to A. rupestris. Further to complicate the matter Mr. 

 Morris, some years since, called the birds mentioned by Macgillivray the "Red- 

 throated Pipit" and figured A. cerrtnus (for which see above, page 579, note) as a 

 JJritish species. Dr. Bree (B. Eur. ii. -p- 165) pointed out this mistake, which has 

 however been repeated by its author in his latest edition. To the same species 

 Mr. Morris also erroneously ascribed some birds, of which he was told by Mr. 

 Gray, seen near Dunbar in 1846, and others killed in the same neighbourhood a 

 few years later. These possibly belonged to A. rupestris, but not having been 

 preserved the point must remain doubtful. 



