484 PIClDyE. 



1770 he gave a figure of it (pi. ix. fig. 1), he stated (p. 20) 

 that it seemed only a variety of his Greater Spotted Wood- 

 pecker. Yet this did not hinder him from subsequently (op. 

 cit. ed. 4, 4to, p. 208 ; 8vo, p. 244) introducing it, but still 

 doubtfully, as a distinct British species. The fact has long 

 been recognized that he, and other authors who followed him, 

 mistook the red-headed young of D. major for this purely 

 continental bird. An attempt has lately been made to 

 restore it to our list on a statement by St. John (Nat. Hist. 

 Highl. ed. 1849, p. 76 ; ed. 1879, p. 89), in which the word 

 " medius " was probably an accidental error for " maj or " , 

 and on that of Mr. Harting (B. Middles, p. 108). Mr. 

 Bond however assures the Editor that the birds referred to 

 in the latter passage, were certainly, as might be expected, 

 the young of D. major. 



The third species is a very recent candidate for admission 

 to the British Fauna, and its case is fortunately of the 

 simplest kind, resting solely on a specimen obtained in Unst 

 by Saxby in September 1861, when that island and others of 

 the group were visited by D. major in some numbers. The 

 specimen having passed into the possession of Mr. J. H. 

 Gurney, was minutely and accurately described by Messrs. 

 Dresser and Sharpe (B. Eur. v. p. 21), and by them con- 

 sidered a variety of that species ; but, being afterwards sub- 

 mitted to Gould, it was declared by him to be an immature 

 example of the White-backed Woodpecker, D. leuconotus, 

 and was accordingly in 1873 included and figured as such in 

 his work (B. Gr. Br. iii. pi. 71). Thanks to Mr. Gurney 

 the Editor has been allowed to examine this specimen, and 

 he has no hesitation in stating that Gould's determination 

 was utterly wrong, and that beyond all doubt the bird is, as 

 originally suggested by Messrs. Dresser and Sharpe, a 

 variety slightly albescent of D. major. The reasons of 

 this conclusion have elsewhere (Zool. 1881, p. 399) been 

 fully adduced, and want of space compels their omission 

 here. It is probable that the ground of Gould's error lay 

 in the fact that he had no example of the young D. leuco- 

 notus with which to compare the Shetland specimen. As it 



