NOTES. 133 



failed to identify a single Scaup, though Tufted Ducks were 

 abundant, as they had been for years previously." In 

 December, 1897, when working at the second edition of the 

 " Manual," Saunders gave me to understand, in a letter now 

 before me, that he was dropping the record, having made up 

 his mind it was a case of " mistaken identification." 



During part of the time when Stark was studying medicine 

 in Edinburgh, he and I frequently took ornithological rambles 

 together, and delightful outings they were, for Stark was a 

 most interesting companion. It was in 1882 that he exhibited 

 the " Scaup's " nest and eggs to the Royal Physical Society, 

 and the following year I twice accompanied him to Loch Leven 

 in the nesting season. Of course we looked out for Scaups, 

 but could detect none. Tufted Ducks, however, were 

 common, and we found several of their nests. The Tufted 

 Duck, it should be noted, had been proved to breed there eight 

 years before, and had probably done so for a much longer 

 period (c/. my notes on the species in Ann. S.N.H., 1896, pp. 

 148-155). It seemed strange that Scaups only, that is, as op- 

 posed to Tufted Ducks, were noted by Stark in 1880, and he 

 frankly admitted the possibility of his having made a mistake 

 in identification. I may here say that he frequently com- 

 plained of injury to his eyesight through using the micro- 

 scope. The opinion I then formed, and still hold, is that 

 the nest in question was not a Scaup's but a Tufted Duck's. 

 When the nest and eggs were on view in Stevens' auction 

 rooms in June, 1902, I asked Saunders to tell me what he 

 thought of them. His reply was : "I should say Tufted, 

 decidedly." I do not know into whose hands this lot passed 

 at the sale. Perhaps some reader of British Birds can 

 tell me. William Evans. 



[Although we much regret having omitted to refer to the 

 first edition of the " Manual," we are not altogether sorry to 

 have been instrumental in resuscitating this erroneous record, 

 since it has drawn forth these interesting details from Mr. W. 

 Evans. The original record is a very important one and is 

 very positively stated in the fourth edition of " Yarrell," 

 and it is only right that all ornithologists should be put in 

 possession of the exact facts with regard to it, so that they can 

 judge for themselves. The details in the Appendix to the 

 first edition of the " Manual " miss a very important point, 

 viz., that Stark noted only Scaups in 1880, and the entire 

 suppression of the record in the second edition, coupled with 

 the comment that " assertions respecting the breeding of this 

 species in Scotland lack confirmation," is somewhat misleading 



