Letters, Announcements, ^c. 121 



pounced on as new to me, or in a phase of plumage which had 

 never occurred to me. My next shot brought home a G. capen- 

 sis, and then I felt sure that our first was new. On my return 

 to the ship I went to book, but could not find described a stage 

 of plumage quite that of our specimen. Next day we saw, sitting 

 on a buoy near the Admiralty -jetty, a bird in the full plumage of 

 G. carho, with the white spot on the thigh very visible, and a 

 bird in the young state. I did not like to fire at them, so near 

 the houses and dockyard ; but botli Capt. Sperling and I agreed 

 that they were G. carho. When I reached home I compared 

 my specimen with that described in my book, as above mentioned, 

 aud to my astonishment found I had certainly a distinct spe- 

 cies. More than this, I found that during my absence in England 

 last year my son had shot another, probably at Kalk Bay, 

 near Simon's Bay, had detected the difi"erence, and had had it 

 mounted ; but, owing to the crowded state of our shelves, it had 

 been put out of sight and forgotten. While hunting up informa- 

 tion, I came on Prof. Schlegel's description of Graculus lucidus 

 (Licht.), which accords with my " No. 698.^' One marked 

 difference between the two birds is in the number of rectrices, of 

 which there are 14 in G. lucidus and 12 in my G. carho, though 

 I see that Macgillivray (Hist. Br. B. v. p. 380) gives this species 

 14 also *. 



Of one thing I am certain, Graculus carho is only a late 

 arrival in this country. I have often been out on False Bay 

 and along its shores, and never saw one, or anything like one, 

 before ; 1 am sure it is not yet in Table Bay. I have had a look 

 round, and only the two usual species G. lucidus and G. capensis 

 are to be seen. Is this another instance of a species extending 

 its limits ? Is it a migration for temporary reasons, or will it be 

 permanent ? At all events I wish to recoi-d its first appearance 

 here and to correct an error in my catalogue. 



Yours faithfully, 



E. L. Layaud. 



* ["We believe that IMacgillivray is right, and are inclined to suppose 

 that the specimen referred by INIr. Layard to G. carho must belong to 

 some other species. — Ed.] 



