26 Mr. J. A. Harvie Brown on the 



having been procured there on June 29, 1839 (' F. F.' p. 55) ; 

 and Alston and myself saw two specimens in the flesh at 

 Suzma, on the south coast of the White Sea, about 90 versts 

 west from Archangel. Its occurrence in the N.C. District is 

 not actually on record, although those seen by us were not far 

 removed from the western boundary of it. 



(36) {Totanus stagnatilis, Bechst.) No number. 



I find this included in a list of the birds in the museum 

 made by me in 1875 ; but I think there must have been some 

 mistake, as I have no recollection of seeing a specimen there, 

 and I find no other notice of its presence nor evidence of its 

 occurrence in the Northern Division. 



(37) Crex pratensis^ Bechst. No. 181 in Table. 



The only one on record appears to be the solitary specimen 

 noticed by Goebel (J. fur Ornith. 1873). In 1872, when we 

 were at Archangel, Alston and I imitated the cry in presence 

 of our boatmen, who appeared readily to recognize it (' Ibis,' 

 1873, p. 67). As Meves, however, and also Lilljeborg seem 

 to consider it rare at even much more southerly localities, it 

 is possible that we may have misunderstood our men, or our 

 men may have misunderstood us. We have, however, the 

 above single positive record of its occurrence, and so can admit 

 it to a place in this list. 



(38) Anser cinereus, Meyer. No. 185 in Table. 



Mr. Alston and I record this species as occurring in the 

 N.C. District ; but I consider now that some doubt attaches to 

 this record. It is possible, however, that it may be reinstated 

 in the N.C. District, as Schrader has recorded it from the 

 N.W.*, and it is said to occur in East Finmark and to breed 

 in West Finmark at Tamsof. Herr Goebel also records the 

 possible ("?" sic) occurrence of it to the southward (J. fur 

 Orn. 1871, p. 22 footnote). 



(39) Anas strejjera (L.). No number. 



Extreme doubt attaches to even the occuiTcnce of this 

 species within our limits ; and, as Herr Goebel has pointed out, 

 still more attaches to the record of its breeding, or having 

 bred — the eggs in the museum at Archangel being marked 

 "Archangel," while the birds are labelled (or catalogued?) 

 from Astrakan. This error or uncertainty seems to have arisen 



* J. fiir Om. 1853, p. 244. 



t Sommerfeldt (Dresser, ' Zoologist,' 1867, p. 773). 



