Distribution of Birds in North Russia. 17 



Notes and Criticisms of Doubtful Records in Part II. 



Having now indicated the total number of species recorded 

 as belonging to the fauna, and having marked as doubtful and 

 requiring further confirmation some of these records, it may 

 be as well to state my reasons for excepting these from the 

 thoroughly authentic list, so that, should I be in error, the 

 species may all the more easily be reinstated at any future 

 time. 



In the Table, and also in the following notes, decidedly 

 doubtful records, resting upon what appear to me insufficient 

 data, are enclosed in brackets and have no number preceding 

 them. 



Besides the above there are others which are open to a 

 certain amount of doubt, and, though recorded as occurring or 

 having occurred in the Archangel Government, may have 

 been procured from localities south of our present limits. As 

 already mentioned above (p. 9), these species in the Table 

 and in the following notes are retained in the numbering, 

 and are not enclosed in brackets, but are marked with a 

 query (?) in the columns. 



(1) Buteo vulgaris, Bechst. No. 4 in Table. 



Prof. Newton, writing in 1871 (Yarrell's ' British Birds/ 

 vol. i. p. 112), puts the recorded northern range of this species 

 as " between Lake Onega and Archangel," on the authority 

 of Lilljeborg, and says : — " From this point its course is not so 

 easily traced, few of the Russian ornithologists having met 

 with it except in the southern provinces of their country." 

 In our collection of North-Russian birds I have a Common 

 Buzzard shot by myself at Ijma, near Archangel, in 1872 ; 

 and Alston had a young bird taken from a nest at the same 

 locality {vide ' Ibis,' 1873, p. 58). 



(2) Buteo desertorum, Daud. No. 5 in Table. 



This was added to the fauna of the north-central district by 

 Mr. F. C. Craemers, who received one specimen from Arch- 

 angel, since when two more, one in adult dress, were sent by 

 Mr. Piottuch, all three being now in Mr. H. E. Dresser's 

 collection. 



(3) Mihms ictinus, Savig. No. 8 in Table. 



1 am unwilling to altogether relinquish the record given by 

 my friend Alston and myself (' Ibis,' 1873) of the occurrence 

 of this species at Archangel, but perforce must do so in part, 



* Herr Meves (J. fiir Orn, 1875, p. 432) states that this species is not 

 uncommon in the Government of Perm, near Kxingur. 



Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 4. Vol. xx. 2 



