The Zoologist — March, 1870. '2005 



escape it entangled itself in the line of a jack trimmer, and hanjjing tethereil, as it 

 were, in mid-air, of course presented an easy mark to the gun. This specimen has 

 been preserved at Mr. Franklin's establishment at Birmingham. — A. M. Brmviie. 



" The Muinmt/ Specimen of Ale a impennU at Halifax, "S^ova Scolia." — Under the 

 above beading (which to me does not seem very applicable) the last number of the 

 'Zoologist' (S. S. 1982) contains a note by Mr. J. Matthew Jones, in which he is 

 pleased to term a statement published by Mr. Henry Reeks, on ray authority, 

 "incorrect." This statement is to be found not at page 1835 of the ' Zoologist,' as 

 printed in Mr. Jones's note, but at page 1855, and consists of a remark written by me, 

 which I gave Mr. Reeks permission to use. Though I kept no copy of it, I doubt not 

 it has been accurately printed. I am somewhat surprised that a naturalist of Air. 

 Jones's sagacity and position should so positively and unceremoniously have denied 

 the correctness of this statement, especially since the "explanation '' he offers in no 

 way disproves its truth. The facts of the case are simple. The Bishop of Newfound- 

 land having, in the auiumn of 1863, sent me the imperfect " mummy " of a great auk, 

 which was exhibited by me to ihe Zoological Society on the lOth of November of that 

 year (P. Z. S. 18d3, pp. 435—438; Zool. 9122—9124), and subsequently furnished 

 most of the material for Prof. Owen's paper in the Zoological ' Transactions,' I begged 

 his Lordship to use his best endeavours to i)rociire for me a second and more perfect 

 one. In answer to that application he kindly wrote to me, under date of" St. John's, 

 N. F., 18 May, 1864," telling me of various failures in the accomplishment of my 

 wish, but holding out good hope of ultimate success. The envelope of this lettei-, 

 which is now before me, bears, among other post-marks, that of "Cambridge, Ju. 7, '64," 

 showing approximately the time of its arrival in England. I, however, had sailed for 

 Spitsbergen on the 1st of June; consequently the letter did not reach me till my 

 return from that country some months afterwards, and it was not until the 29th of 

 October that I was able to answer it. On receipt of my answer the Bishop wrote to 

 me again, and I must in self-defence quote an extract from his letter, dated " St. John's, 

 N. F., 15 Dec, 1864." After expressing his regret at the unavoidable interruption in 

 our correspondence, his Lordship says : — " However I have the satisfaction of knowing 

 that you were informed of the safe arrival of your kind and interesting communications 

 by Mr. Jones, to whom I forwarded your paper and the photograph of the mummy. 

 In forwarding them, I requested him to thank you for them and make you acquainted 

 with the second and more perfect specimen, which I had sent to hiui, and w/tieh I 

 should have sent to you, if I had received an earlier answer to my letter tvhich you found 

 on your return to England." I beg leave to call the attenti')n of your readers to the 

 sentence I have emphasized. They will doubtless he of opinion that the slatrnient 

 which Mr. Jones called " incorrect " was exactly the reverse, and I think that gentle- 

 man must admit this to be the case. — Alfred Newton ; Maydalene College, Cambridge, 

 January 31, 1S70. 



Common and Sandwich Terns at Spurn. — I am much obliged to Mr. Boyes for his 

 note referring to my remarks (Zool. S. S. 1944) on the breeding of these terns at Spurn. 

 Although never having taken the eggs of the common species at Spurn, I have always 

 been under the impression that this, as well as the lesser species, bred there. My 

 opinion was based on information received from our fishermen who visit the Point, and 

 also from residents there, and was further strengthened by hiving mvself seen during 



SECOND SEBIKS — VOL. V. Q 



