386 BIRDS OF NORFOLK. [APPENDIX B.] 



till they have rested from their flight over the sea, when 

 they continue the journey to their winter quarters with- 

 out further delay. 



Salicaria luscinioides, SAVI'S WARBLER (vol. i., 

 p. 110). I am indebted to Prof. Newton for the following 

 extract from a letter written by Mr. Gurney to Mr. Hey- 

 sham, of Carlisle^ bearing date "January 15, 1841," which 

 clearly proves that the pair of birds recorded (vol. i., 

 p. 112) as having been shot at South Walsham "in the 

 summer of 1843,"* were killed in May, 1840. Mr. Gurney 

 wrote, ( ' I am extremely glad that the bird I sent thee 

 turns out to be the S. luscinoides (what is the English 

 name of the bird for I hate Latin ?) & I beg thou wilt 

 accept it as such. It is the male bird of a pair that were 

 killed last May at South Walsham, a marshy parish 

 about ten miles from here. The female I placed at the 

 time in our Norwich Museum. The only differences 

 which I noticed when they were sent to me (I had them 

 in the flesh) between them and the specimens of the 

 Reed Wren which I had previously seen, were that 

 they were somewhat larger, brown instead of olive, and 

 somewhat more rounded or rather more lanceolate in the 

 shape of the end of the tail, which by the way was, I 

 think, a little larger than in the common sort. Both 

 kinds had a head like a Nightingale in point of shape." 

 It may here be observed that it was not until October, 

 1840, that notice of the species as a British bird was 

 published. As previously mentioned (vol. i., p. 112), 

 Mr. Hey sham's bird was subsequently procured for the 

 Norwich Museum, which, by the transfer of the Lombe 

 collection, now contains the two oldest known pairs of 

 British specimens. 



Of this apparently exterminated British bird it may 

 be desirable to put on record that in 1848 the Rev. 

 W. Allen (as he informed Professor Newton), in com- 

 pany with the late Mr. Brook Hunter, of Downham 

 Market, obtained a nest in Feltwell Fen ; and also that 



* This statement was no doubt based upon that in the " Zoolo- 

 gist" for 1846 (p. 1308), and the error, arising probably from an 

 accidental misprint, has hitherto escaped observation. 



