Birds. 9291 
the duck really was, never having seen the same species befure; but on coming to 
Epworth again, a short time since, he said he had seen a male specimen of Anas 
rutila (not British) at Mr. Storrs, birdstuffer, of Doncaster, and requested me to go 
and see it, and I am sorry I have not yet had time to do so: he said it was very dif- 
ferent from our specimen. In September, 1864, a sandpiper was shot by a man of 
this town, and taken by him to Mr. Gravil, birdstuffer, of the same place, who said it 
was the spotted sandpiper (Totanus macularius). The man took it away to show to a 
friend, and unfortunately went to a public-house and sold the bird to a stranger, who 
bought it with the intention of having it preserved. Mr. Gravil told me the next 
day he was quite certain of the species: he said the man promised to take the bird 
back to him the next day. I do not know the address of the man who bought it, 
although I know he lives near Doncaster; and if I can find him, and the bird is still 
in existence, I shall have great pleasure in sending you more particulars. — Samuel 
Hudson ; Epworth, July 15, 1864. 
Bridled Guillemot at Flamborough Head.—At Zvol. 9251 I find a communication 
from Mr. Harting which refers to my note of the capture of the bridled guillemot at 
Flamborough Head (Zool. 9211). If Mr. Harting will kindly scan my remarks once 
more he will observe that he has—doubtless most inadvertently—imisquoted me. Mr. 
Harting states that I assert this bird to he “ of such rare occurrence that one has not 
been seen there (Flamborough) for many years,” &c. What I said in reality was, 
that it is “ quite an exceptional circumstance to meet with Uria lacrymans (then); I 
go on to say, “ It is three years since Z obtained a specimen of this latter species, and 
the bird lad been shot and stuffed several years previously,” &c. Mr. Harting will 
observe that I do not venture to assert that no specimen of the bridled guillemot has 
“been seen at Flamborough for many years,” but that Z have only obtaived two spe- 
cimens during a period of three years, and that it is quite an exceptional cireumstance 
to meet with this bird at Flamborough. This statement I believe to be perfectly 
correct, and there is no doubt that on this coast Uria lacrymans is, as Mr, Harting 
states, “a scarce bird.” I perfectly coincide with Mr. H. in his expressed doubts as 
to the propriety of considering U. lacrymans a distinct species from U. troile. I have 
dissected both species most carefully, and have read the accounts of those who know 
them both in their native fastnesses, habits and nidification. The only decided differ- 
ence between the two birds appears to be the white line round the eye and extending 
from the posterior angle of the eye backwards and downwards for about an iuch anda 
quarter. Indeed this difference has been referred by some authors merely to age, or 
those variations in plumage we so frequently observe in many species of birds.— W. W. 
Boulton; Beverley, September 13, 1864. 
Sandwich Tern Shot at Flamborough.—I have just received in the flesh a good 
specimen of the Sandwich tern. It was shot off Flamborough Head by Mr. Thomas 
Leng, of that place, on the 25th of July last. On dissection, I fuund it to bea mature 
female. I have never previously heard of this tern being taken in our neighbourhood, 
although we have the common tern (Sterna hirundo), the arctic tern (S. arctica), the 
black tern (S. nigra) and the little tern (S. minuta) ; the first and last of these in con- 
siderable numbers at Spurn, on the mouth of the Humber (where they breed) ; also in 
variable numbers all along the coast. The black tern is only an occasional visitant. 
Id. ; July 26, 1864. 
Manz Shearwater Shot at Flamborough—On Monday last, the 18th inst., I received 
in the flesh a most perfect specimen of this bird. It had been shot off Flamborough 
