264 



THE BIRDS OF ESSEX. 



that the " Common Gull " they have met with was tlie Black-headed, which is cer- 

 tainly the common Gull of our coast. 



Great Black-backed Gull : Lams marinus. Locally, "Cob " 

 and " Saddleback." 



Common on the coast from autumn to spring, and formerly a resi- 

 dent, but it breeds with us no 

 longer. 



Around Sudbury, King says (20) 

 that it is " not common." He adds, 



" A few years since, a solitary in- 

 dividual remained upon our meadows 

 for a week or two, after a motley flock 

 of Gulls, driven here by stress of 

 weather, had retired. I frequently 

 ^^^P watched it, and it occasionally allowed 

 _ me to approach pretty near." 

 (■<,( At Harwich, Mr. Kerry says it is 



GREAT BLACK-BACKED GULL, 1/15. 



common. He adds, " These birds 

 when in immature plumage, stay with 

 us the whole year, and my impression is that they do not breed before they have 

 attained their mature plumage." 



It is " not rare round Colchester and Paglesham " (Laver). The Rev. J. C. 

 Atkinson says (36, 165) : " It breeds, in some cases, on the marsh or salting- 

 spaces met with so abundantly on some of the southern and eastern shores." 

 Morris says (27a. vi. 186) they are common " in Kent and Essex along the banks 

 of the Thames." The Dictionary of the Thamzs says they " used formerly to 

 breed in the marshes at the mouth of the Thames." Yarrell says (25. iii. 592), 

 " On the flat shores of Kent and Essex at the mouth of the Thames, where this 

 bird remains all the year, it is called a " Cob." Saunders (37), alluding to Yar- 

 rell's statements that it bred at the mouth of the Thames, correctly says "it has 

 long ceased to do so." 



Adriatic Gull : Lams inelajwcephalus. 



This has for some years been regarded as a doubtful British 

 bird, but may now be accepted as a very rare visitor. 



Mr. Seebohm says (45. iii. p. 315) : — 



" The only evidence for its admission into the British List is that of a specimen 

 purchased for the British Museum from Mr. VVhitely, of Woolwich, who stated 

 that it was shot in Januar}', 1S66, near Barking Creek. An accidental change of 

 label, either at the British Museum or on ^Ir. AVhitely's part, is the probable 

 explanation." 



Its claims were also rejected by the compilers of the B.O.U. List, though 

 Harting (38. 175) and others accepted the record as authentic. In this they 

 were probably correct, for about the end of December, 1886, Mr. G. Smith, of 

 Yarmouth, received an adult in winter plumage which had been shot just before 

 on the Breydon Broad, as recorded by Mr. Howard Saunders (29. Feb, 5). There 

 seems, therefoi"e, good reason for admitting it here as a British bird. The origi- 

 nal Essex specimen was a bird of the year, according to Mr. Howard Saunders 

 {Ibis, 1872, p. 79). 



