1922.] Letters, Extracts, and Notes. 389 



It does not appear to me possible that Kentish Plovers 

 should appropriate the eggs of Little Ringed Plovers, as this 

 was not a solitary instance, for altogether five nests of these 

 eggs which Mr. Buiiyard questions were found in 1920, and 

 yet not a single Little Kinged Plover was observed in tiie 

 district in that year. 



Messrs. Jourdain and Witherby were quite justified in 

 assuming that these eggs, which so closely resemble Little 

 Ringed Plovers ', were Kentish Plovers ', because of my 

 assurance to the former that they belonged to that species, 

 and neither Mr. Witherby nor an\ observer had recorded 

 the Little Ringed Plover from this island before 1921. 



Philip W. Munn. 



Puerto Alcudia, 

 Majorca. 

 30 January, 1922. 



Sir, — When I exhibited the eggs of the Kentish Plover 

 taken by Captain P. W. Munn in 1920, which closely 

 resembled those of the Lesser Ringed Plover, no nests or 

 eggs of the latter species had ever been found on the island 

 although Capt. Munn had searched carefully for them. In 

 1921 he discovered two pairs and was at once struck by the 

 dissimilarity of the notes and habits of the two species. 



As Mr. Bunyard frankly admits that he has never seen 

 the Lesser Ringed Plover or its nest, and that his knowledge 

 of the eggs is based solely on specimens obtained by 

 purchase or exchange, it is difficult to see how his opinion 

 can carry any weight when opposed to that of experienced 

 field naturalists who are well acquainted with both species. 

 It has now been proved by the observations of reliable 

 ornithologists that the Kentish Plover occasionally lays eggs 

 of the type normally associated with the Lesser Ringed 

 Plover, and also that the Lesser Ringed Plover lays eggs 

 spotted and streaked with black like those of the Kentish 

 Plover. 



Ground-building birds, when kept ofl:' their eggs for any 

 length of time, may for brief periods brood eggs of other 



