LAST OF THE INDIGENOUS SCOTTISH CAPERCAILLIES 169 
Pit NS Ohh Ee INDIGENOUS = SCOPTSH 
(GAME BIR CaN OEE aes) 
By HuGH S. GLADSTONE, F.R.S.E., F.Z.S. 
Mr W. R. OGILVIE-GRANT, writing in 1913 about a pair of 
Capercaillies from the “Pennant Collection” then presented 
by the Earl of Denbigh to the Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London, states that “It is quite possible 
that the birds... are of Scottish origin: if so, they are 
the only examples of the old British race of Capercaillie 
known to exist at the present time.” ! There is no evidence 
whatever that these specimens came from Scotland, and 
it may be noted here that in the first edition (1766) of 
his British Zoology, Pennant has added a footnote, “We are 
obliged to Gesner and Willughby for the measurements 
and weights of these birds, having seen only dried specimens 
of them.”* A comparison of the skins of the Capercaillies 
from the Pennant collection with the two plates in the 
first edition of Zhe Lritish Zoology, leads to the conclusion 
that the plates were not drawn from the specimens now 
in the Natural History Museum. This does not, however, 
absolutely preclude the possibility that they may have a 
Scottish origin. In the fourth edition (1776) of The British 
Zoology the footnote above quoted is omitted, for Pennant 
is able to state, “In our country I have seen one specimen 
at Inverness, a male, killed in the woods of Mr Chisolme, 
North of that place,”? and he gives certain details of 
plumage (eg., the colour of the bill and the number of 
tail feathers) which are not derived from the publications 
of Gesner or of Willughby, and which may have been 
obtained from a personal examination of specimens in the 
flesh. The fact that Pennant, between the years 1766 and 
1776, had seen a Scottish specimen of the Capercaillie 
can not be taken as proof that he possessed such a 
British Birds Magazine (1913-14), vol. vil., p. 3. 
Pennant, British Zoology (1766), p. 84, pls. [45], [46]. 
British Zoology, vol. i., 4to (1776), p. 225, and 8vo (1776), p. 264. 
1 
9 
2 
> 
3 
