264 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol.xiv. 



KESTREL TAKING A DUST-BATH. 



To the Editors of British Birds. 



Sirs, — I am much interested in Mr. Ruttledge's letter. I have 

 not had an opportunity of seeing a wild Kestrel take a dust-bath, 

 but judging from the behaviour of the bird in captivity, no doubt 

 the habit is a constant one. My experience may be worth recording. 

 I had in my possession for nearly thirteen years an eyess female Kestrel. 

 She was seldom placed on the screen perch, but was kept on a block 

 surrounded with sand, and in this she frequently took a bath with the 

 greatest enjoj'ment, although she always had a water-bath when my 

 Peregrines were offered theirs on the lawn. If allowed, she would 

 also dust on a gravel path. The maintenance of health and beautiful 

 plumage was greatly assisted by these cleanly habits. 



During the long period named this little falcon lived in perfect 

 condition, moulting every year with the utmost regularity, her primaries 

 growing rapidly, quite free from weakness or hunger-trace. 



R. E. Coles. 

 New Milton, Hants., March, 1921. 



Sirs, — I do not remember to have seen Kestrels taking dust-baths 

 in this country, but in southern Europe and north Africa it is by no 

 means unusual to see both the Common Kestrel and the Eesser Kestrel 

 doing so. I have seen a score or more of the latter dusting within a 

 few yards. In north Africa the Lanner may often be seen dusting, 

 and the Little Owl dusts, like a Partridge, wherever it is. 



E. G. B. Meade-Waldo. 

 Hever, Kent, March ijth, 1921. 



IMMATURE SPOTTED SANDPIPERS. 



To the Editors of British Birds. 



Sirs, — I have recently been reading Mr. Coward's book on The 

 Birds of the British Isles. In it he states concerning the Spotted 

 Sandpiper {T. macidaria) : "The most constant distinction is that the 

 broad brown bar on the secondaries is continuous." I used to regard 

 this as the decisive mark myself, until I shot a bird in Sussex whicli 

 had a continuous bar of the same width all across. The authorities 

 at the British Museum settled that it was nevertheless a Common 

 Sandpiper (T. hypoleiica) and asked to retain it as an unusual specimen ; 

 it is now on view with wings extended in the bird gallery. This test 

 must therefore be abandoned, and as far as I can make out in the case 

 of immature birds, the only distinctions lie in the shorter and stouter 

 beak (probably somewhat variable) and the slighter markings at the 

 side of the fore-neck. If there is any other distinction, perhaps .someone 

 will kindly set it forth. E. C. Arnold. 



[As in the Common Sandpiper the brown band on the secondaries is 

 usually broken, this test should not be abandoned, but those birds 

 which have the band continuous should be critically examined. Miss 

 A. C. Jackson (Vol. XII., p. 41) gives the following further distinctions 

 in the juveniles of the two species. The Spotted Sandpiper has " the 

 lower throat white, not streaked olive-brown and the feathers of the 

 sides of the breast luiiforni greyish-olive-brown with very faint buff 

 tips and without the faint subterminal sepia markings usually present 

 in the Common Sandpiper." — Eds.j 



