

PINE-GROSBEAK. 179 



It is more than likely that in one case the birds seen were only 

 common Bullfinches, in others that the Crossbill has been 

 mistaken for the Pine- Grosbeak, while in others again that it 

 has been confounded with the Hawfinch, and the result of a 

 diligent but impartial investigation of the evidence on which 

 are based the claims of the present species to be accounted 

 " British " shews that it can only be considered a very occa- 

 sional, and perhaps not always a voluntary, visitor ; for, since 

 the days of Edwards, it has been not uncommonly brought 



(4) A flight said by the Messrs. Paget (Nat. Hist. Yarm. p. 6) to have been seen 

 on Yarmouth Denes in Nov. 1822 ; (5) One seen near Petworth in Sussex, by a 

 Mr. Mellersh, a few years before 1849, as mentioned by Mr. Knox (Orn. Rauibl. 

 Ed. 3, p. 211) ; (6) One supposed to have been observed Aug. 20th, 1850, in 

 Corriemulzie, Braemar, by Macgillivray (N. H. Dee Side, p. 403) ; (7) One 

 believed to have been seen by Col. Druminond-Hay (Harting ' Handb. Br. B.' p. 

 114) at Dunkeld ; and (8) Two seen, Nov. 8th, 1868, feeding on the seeds of an 

 arbor-vitse at St. Germain's in Cornwall, as Mr. Gatcombe informed Mr. J. H. 

 Gurney, jun. (Zool. 1877, p. 248). 



We then have a class of cases wherein specimens are alleged to have been 

 killed in the British Islands, but about which doubt may be reasonably enter- 

 tained. Of these are : (1) One, recorded at third hand by Thompson (N. H. 

 Irel. Birds, i. pp. 275,. 276) and recognized from a very indifferent figure (Shaw 

 and Nodder's ' Nat. Misc.' pi. 685) by a person whom there is no reason to sup- 

 pose was a competent authority, is said to have been killed at the Cave-hill near 

 Belfast in or prior to 1819 ; (2) A female stated by Fox in 1827 (Svnops. Newc. 

 Mus. p. 65) to be in his possession " through the favour of Mr. Yarrell," and to 

 have been shot near Welwyn in Hertfordshire a statement, however, which 

 never having been publicly verified by the Author of this work must therefore 

 be held erroneous ; and (3) Two said to have been killed in Feb. 1848 in 

 Ashdown Forest, Sussex, one of which, an adult male, was seen by Mr. Kuox, 

 who has now reason to disbelieve the statement. The statement as to a bird in 

 Hampshire by Mr. Reeks (Zool. p. 9023) originated, as he has informed the 

 Editor, in a mistake 



Lastly there are many records in which the species is named as having occurred 

 in Great Britain, but obviously without discrimination. Among these may be 

 cited : (1) Kirkmichael, Dumfriesshire, by Burgess (Stat. Ace. Scotl. 1791, i. p. 

 60) ; (2) Washing Green, Midlothian, by P. Neill, it is supposed (Allan Ram- 

 say's 'Gentle Shepherd, &c. with illustrations' 1808, i. p. 271) ; (3) Worcester- 

 shire, by Hastings (N. H. Worcest. 1834, p. 65) ; (4) Hulston, by Rylands on 

 Glazebrook's authority (Nat. 1837, p. 352) ; (5) Kent, by Mr. P. Bartlett 

 from Plomley's statement (Zool. p. 621) ; (6) Eccles in Berwickshire, by James 

 Thomson (New Stat. Ace. Scotl. iii. Berwicksh. 1845, p. 53) ; and (7) Somerset- 

 shire, by the late Mr. W. Baker (Archseol. and N. H. Soc. Somersetsh. Proc. 

 1849-50, pt. ii. p. 144). Fuller details of many of these statements than it is 

 here possible to give have been furnished by Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun. in the 

 'Zoologist' for 1877 (pp. 242-250). 



