556 The Zoologist — January, 1867. 



No. 2. A much smaller bird, recorded by Mr. Rodd as a female : — Whole upper sur- 

 face gray, less pure and blue than No. 1, witlTslight mixture of rusly about the head. 

 The streak through eye much broader, with no indicatiou of an upper white edge. 

 Under surface white, but not very pure, and mixed with a rusty tin^e. Distribution 

 of white, &c. Bar, on primaries only, forming one spot, no white on scapulars. 

 Secondaries slightly tipped. Four central tail-feathers black, the rest tipped and based 

 with white, the white chiefly at the base, and the proportion of black to white greater 

 than in No. 1 : outer feather white. The black of this bird is really more brown than 

 black, the eye-streak being the nearest approach to real black. 



No. 3. Slightly smaller than No. 1. Apparently adult female of that bird. Upper 

 surface blue-gray, with a good deal of rusty tinge, especially on top of bead. Eye- 

 streak duller than No. I, with whitish edge above. Under surface dirty white, with 

 greyish crescentic marks. Distribution of white, ^c. Bar, on primaries only, forming 

 one spot. Scapulars tipped, but less largely and purely than No. I. Secondaries 

 and some of the primaries tipped. Greater wing-coverts edged and lipped with 

 rusty white, forming a narrow line across the wing. Tail as iu No. I, but rtaher less 

 white. 



No. 4. Nearly the same as No. 3, but the crescentic markings fewer and fainter 

 and liro spots on wing. Query, an immature male of No. 1. If so, it would seem that 

 two spots on the wing are distinctive of the male and one of the female of L. 

 excubitor. 



Nos. 1, 3, 4, are clearly of the same species, viz. L. excubitor, agreeing in all 

 those points in which they differ from No. 2. The points of difference are these: — 

 1st, as to size. No, 2 is a much smaller bird than the other. The tail is three- 

 quarters of an inch shorter than in No. 1. Wings from carpal joint same length. 

 This makes No. 1 look a shorter winged and longer tailed bird, in proportion to its 

 size, than No. 2. 2nd. Beak of No. 2 stouter in proportion to bird, and the ridge 

 of the upper mandible more quickly curved. 3rd. Distribution of white, especially in 

 the tail : in No. 2 the black predominates, — in No. 1 the reverse. This point of 

 difference, as well as that of size, is correctly noticed in the 'Zoologist' for 1850 

 (Zool. 2650). 



No. 1 is undoubtedly the bird known as L. excubitor, and so described in Yarrell, 

 who, however, does not mention the spots in the wing of the female as differing from 

 those in the male. Pennant, Selby, Bewick, Temminck, Gould and.Montagu, all 

 seem pretty clearly to describe the same bird as L. excubitor ; though they all speak of 

 only one spot of white on the wings. No. 2 is not described by any of them. It seems, 

 however, pretty clearly to be a distinct bird. Being so, and being a smaller bird, is it 

 rightly called the " greater northern shrike (L. borealis) ;" and where is it described ? It 

 would be an assistance if any persons having specimens of the gray shrike would say, 

 having reference to the points of difference above named, to which species they belong. 

 It would enable us to judge which of the two is the most common, and whether those 

 differences are true points of distinction between two species; especially if they would 

 notice anything in which the differences named are not borne out. No. 2 being a 

 female, a description of the male bird is desired, and can perhaps be furnished by some 

 one. — /. H. Jenhinson ; December, 1866. 



PS. I think in all probability some of those noticed as " greater Dorthem 

 shrikes" are merely L. excubitor; e.g. 'Zoologist * 1850 (Zool. 2619), where a female 



