Distribution of Birds in North Russia. 23 



The statement, therefore, in my paper in 'Proc. Roj. Phys. 

 Soc. Edinb.' (1875-76, p. 81) is premature and unfounded. 



Obs. — [Sylvia salicaria (L.)). Prof. Newton mentions 

 (Yarrell, vol. i. p. 421) that " Herr Meves found it pretty 

 numerous at several places in North-west Eussia." All Herr 

 Meves's records of it, however, apply to localities south of our 

 limits. I would therefore take the opportunity of pointing 

 out that the expression " N.W. Eussia " in this and other 

 instances must not be considered equivalent to our " N.W. 

 Disti-ict." 



(26) " Sylvia hypolais " (sic). No. 107 in Table. 



This record by Bystrov-Brandt is the only one I can find 

 of the occuiTence of what it may be presumed is intended for 

 Hypolais icterina (Vieill.) so far north. One skin is men- 

 tioned in the " List " as having been sent from Mezen ; but 

 all other records I find of its occurrence are from localities 

 considerably to the southward of om* limits. Judging from 

 analogy, I am inclined to consider that this must have been 

 an exceptional instance of its occumng so far north in Eussia, 

 as its range in Norway only reaches to 67° N. (Collett). 

 Vide Introductory Eemarks in this paper. 



Obs. — Acrocephalus dumetorum^ Blyth [Salicaria magni- 

 rostris (Lillj.)). I can hardly admit this within our limits 

 yet, though it is possible that it may be found as far north 

 as Archangel. Lilljeborg records it as occurring " between 

 Kargopol and Cholraongory ;" but I find no positive record of 

 its occurrence at the latter locality. 



(27) [Phylloscopus neglectusj Hume.). No number. 



This species is now found to have been erroneously ad- 

 mitted to our list of " Birds of the Lower Petchora," as the 

 specimen which was thought to belong to this species turns 

 out to be merely a pale variety of P. tristis, and not true P. 

 neglectus (' Ibis,' 1876, p. 503, and Appendix to our paper 

 " Notes on Birds of the Lower Petchora," issued with the 

 separate copies). 



(28) Phylloscopus Gaetkii^ Seebohm, ' Ibis,' Jan. 1877, p. 92 

 ( = P. major ^ Tristram, nee Forster). No. 112 in Table. 



We are now able to add this to the European list and to 

 the fauna of the N.E. District, as the bird mentioned by 



