THE ZooLocist—FEBRUARY, 1872. 2941 
shot. The true White's thrush (Turdus varius of Pallas) has fourteen tail- 
feathers, whereas the missel thrush has but twelve.— J. H. Gurney; 
Marldon, Totnes, January 8, 1872. 
White’s Thrash.—I see, in an editorial remark to Mr. Gurney’s note on 
White’s thrush, in your January number (Zool. 8. 8. 2912), you discredit the 
reports of the occurrences of this bird, on the authority of a correspondent 
whose name you do not mention. As two of these occurrences were 
recorded by me, perhaps you will allow me to say a few words on the 
subject: the first, recorded in the ‘ Zoologist’ for 1870, as having been 
killed near Taunton by Mr. Beadon, was brought to me in the flesh by 
Mr. Beadon himself on the 7th of January, a time of year at which the 
missel thrush has lost the early plumage, in which alone it could by any 
possibility be confounded with White's thrush; moreover, besides myself 
and our Vicar, the Rev. M. A. Mathew (who both feel ourselves perfectly 
competent to distinguish a White's thrush from a missel thrush), several of 
your best known correspondents have seen this bird—both the Mr. Gurneys, 
Mr. Harting and Mr. Gatcombe: we could scarcely all six have passed 
a young missel thrush as a White’s thrush. As for the other, recorded by 
me in the ‘Zoologist’ for 1871, I did not see it in the flesh, but when 
I did see it I looked carefully at it before I recorded it, as I wished to 
convince myself that it was not set up from a foreign skin; but I now 
entertain no doubt on that subject, not only from the appearance of the 
bird itself, but also from other evidence I have been able to collect con- 
cerning it. Both Mr. Mathew and Mr. Bidgood, the curator of the Museum 
at Taunton, a good practical birdstuffer, who saw it at the time that I did, 
quite agree with me that the bird was set up from a freshly-killed specimen. 
This bird was subsequently sold to Mr. Bine, of Bishop’s Hall, in whose 
collection Mr. Gatcombe saw it, and was so pleased with it that he took it to 
London to show to his ornithological friends there, who would undoubtedly 
have discovered the mistake had there been one. I am perfectly aware that 
in your ‘ Montagu’s Dictionary’ you say that this bird has no claim to a place 
in the British list, but since that time several occurrences in various parts 
of the British Isles have been recorded in the ‘ Zoologist’: one of them, 
quoted from the ‘ Field,’ is probably doubtful, as the bird was not obtained ; 
but of the others there can, it seems, be no reasonable doubt. This increase 
in the number of occurrences would seem to show either that up to that time 
the bird must have been overlooked, which is by no means improbable (my 
bird would have been given to the ferrets the next day had I not happened 
to meet Mr. Beadon out hunting), or that the species is extending its 
geographical range to the westward, as the missel thrush is said to be doing 
to the northward in Scotland, in which case it would be interesting to know 
if more frequent occurrences than hitherto have been observed in other 
parts of Europe within the last few years.—Cecil Smith. 
SECOND SERIES—VOL. VII. K 
