212 Letters^ Extracts, and Notes." 



duckling, and gosling, and this i3 the spelling to be found 

 in the oldest mention of tlie name, which occurs in the 

 'Durham Household Book/ containing the accounts of 

 the Bursar of the Monastery of Durham, a.d. 1530-1534-, 

 The price then paid for these little birds, kno-.vn elsewhere 

 as stint, purre, sand-lark, and ox-bird, was at the rate of 

 4d. a dozen. 



In an article on "English Bird Names," published in the 

 * Field ' of Jan. 12tli, 1884, 1 took occasion to refer to what I 

 conceive to be the proper spelling of tlie name '' dunling,'^ 

 and in the second edition of my ' Handbook of British Birds ' 

 (11)01) I explained more fully the reason for the change. 

 This led to a corrcsp')nd(Mice with the late Professor Newton, 

 ■who, with the ap])ro])ation of Professor Skeat, wrote me that 

 he was convinced of the correctness of my view, and tliat he 

 shoidd adopt the spelling ''dun'ing" wlien next he had 

 occasion to mention the species in ])rint. This he ac- 

 cordingly did in his ' Ootheca Wolleyana,' pt. 3, pp. 225- 

 226, a fact which seems to have been generally overlooked. 

 This, I venture to think, should settle the cpiestion, for no 

 one will dispute the critical acumen invariably disj)layed by 

 the late distinguished professor of zoology in all matters 

 ornithological. Those who may feel any hesitation in 

 adopting the more correct spelling will, in order to be con- 

 sistent, have to consider the logical necessity for dropping 

 the "g''' in such names as titling, bi'andjling, grayling, 

 sanderlmg, duckling, and gosling, thereby providing in each 

 case a veritable cockney termination. 



I am. Sirs, 



Yours, Szc, 



J. E. Harting, 



Edgewood, ^^"e\bridgo, 



SiKS, — In a notice of my paper in the Nov. ZooL 

 (vol. x\iii, pp. 1-22) the reviewer has fallen into a serious 

 CYYOY in concluding ('Ibis,' October 1911, p. 763) that 

 " ^Ir. IMathews i* ready to adopt ' Brisson's ' names '". 



