278 Mr, J. A. Harvie Brown on the 



blank space, I have considerecl, either that the evidence I 

 have is too unsatisfactory to enable me to arrive at any con- 

 clusion as to their presence or absence, or that the species are 

 indeed absent from these localities *. 



In Table II. I have used more elaborate signs to show 

 the abundance or scarcity of the species in each of three 

 districts : thus : — rare, -I- ; once seen, i^ ; twice seen, |^ ; 

 thrice seen, ^ ; common, |1 ; very common, ff ; very abun- 

 dant, \\. This, I believe, will make the tables of more 

 practical use for comparison with other tables of species fur- 

 ther east or west than if they only represented the particulars 

 shown in Table I. 



If we look at this paper as having reference entirely to the 

 distribution of species in their relation to the parallels of lati- 

 tude, and entirely apart from meridians of longitude, and apart 

 from the more devious lines of migration, we may of course 

 conclude that though certain species do not pass, or are not 

 found to be present at certain localities, nevertheless, in order 

 to reach the higher latitudes at which we are able to record 

 them, they must have passed through or been present at other 

 localities upon these same parallels of latitude, to the east or 

 west of our points of observation, 



I have purposely avoided the question of longitudinal 

 distribution . at present, as our data for determining that, or 

 even approaching to a determination, are too scanty. There 

 remains an immense tract of ornithologically unexplored 

 country in Northern Russia: — -Jirsi, the Kola peninsula 

 and west of the White Sea up to the Finnish frontier in the 

 west, a land composed of vast tundra and forest and river ; 

 secondly, between Mezen t and Archangel in the west, and 



* Negative evidence in matters of tliis kind is seldom very satisfactory ; 

 and I prefer to leave the question of their actual absence to be proved by 

 future observations, to hazarding guesses as to their jirobabk absence. 

 Those who peruse the paper may draw deductions for themselves in this 

 matter. I have even included such species as Squatarola helvetica in this 

 class ; but see a paper by me on migration (Proc. Glasg. Nat.-Hist. Soc. 

 vol. iii. pt. 1, p. 44, 1875-76), and also Seebohm on the same subject in 

 Rowley's Oru. Misc. (vol. i. pt. iv. p. 239). 



t The neighbourhood of Mezen has been tolerably well explored. As 

 early as 1841 Herr Bystrov collected at Mezen (see Brandt, " List of 

 Skins of Mammals and Birds (62 species) sent by Herr Bystrov of 

 Mez^n to Zool. Mus. of the Academy," Bull. Sc. de I'Acad^mie de St.- 

 Petersbourg, vol. x. 1842, p. 350) ; and of late years Mons. Ignati N. Piot- 

 tuch has from time to time forwarded considerable numbers of specimens 

 from that locality and from Archangel. Graf Hofftnannsegg and his 

 assistant Herr Hencke also collected for some years in these districts ; but 

 little remains on record of their discoveries either there or on the Petchora, 

 which they also visited about twenty years ago. There is a short notice 

 by Hencke (Allgemeine deutsche naturh. Zeitung, 1856, p. 236, Dresden), 

 and another immediately following by Hofftnannsegg, which, as far as I 



