CATALOGUE OF THE BIRDS OF SUFFOLK. 



207 



Troston, in 1878, by a boy who put his hat over it ; preserved by Mr. 

 Sibley (Bury Free Press, Dec. 6, 1878). One picked up swimming 

 down Abbeygate Street, Bury St. Edmund's, in a great storm of rain 

 in 1846; one at Elmswell in 1867 ; another at Sicklesmere in 1859 

 (Bilson in Journ. Suff. Inst, 46). One shot at Rede Nov. 13, 1872 

 (Creed MS.). 



Months. — January, March, September, October, Novem- 

 ber, December. 



Districts. — All. 



A bird of the sea not unfrequently driven on the coast, 

 and even sometimes far inland, where it is generally found 

 exhausted or dead.§ 



Guillemot, Uria troile (L.). 



5. and W. Cat. 60. Catalogued only. — Spald. List, 

 xxxviii. Catalogued only. 



East Suffolk. 



1. Frequent in the Yarmouth Roads (Paget T., 12) ; a specimen of 

 the ringed variety at Yarmouth Oct. 1847 (J. H. Gurney and W. R. 

 Fisher in Z. 1965) ; another of this variety shot there Feb. 1881 (H. 

 Stevenson in Z. 3rd S. vii., 315). Lowestoft (Freeman v.v.) ; one 

 caught in a fisherman's net off that place, June 16, 1881 (in my posses- 

 sion, C. B. ) ; and one of the ringed variety taken there (Freeman v.v.). 



2. Caught in a net at Southwold in winter plumage (H. V. Remnant 

 in litt). One found dead washed ashore at Thorpe Mere in March, 1879 

 (F. M. Ogilviein Z. 3rd S. iii., 266). Uncertain in its appearance at 

 Aldeburgh, many have been taken there ; it is occasionally found dead 

 along shore (Hele, AM., 163), and it has been caught there in a sprat 

 net (James MS.). 



3. Felixstowe and Walton; a ringed variety shot at Landguard Fort; 

 both the normal bird and the variety are rare in the neighbourhood 

 (Kerry MS.). 



West Suffolk. 



6. One killed at Sudbury by the river about 1879 (Rose v.v., C. B.!). 



§ The following has no claim to be killed near Southwold, Suffolk. He has, 



reckoned as a Suffolk bird : — however, since informed Prof. Newton 



* Great Auk. or G are-Fowl Alca that he has no recollection of .'having 



impennis, L. made such a statement. Sir W. J. Hooker 



S. and "W. (Cat. 61) state that they thought that he may have referred to a 



were assured by Sir W. J. Hooker that a Little Auk, and have been misunderstood 



bird of tnia species was some years since (see Harting's Handbook, 72). 



2d 



