The Zoologist— July, 1874. 4051 



contrasting it with a young specimen of the missel thrush, and 

 showing very impoi'tant differences. 



11. The last record of White's thrush as a British bird is from 

 the pen of Mr, E. H. Rodd, whose valuable contributions on 

 Ornithology have enriched every volume of the ' Zoologist' from 

 its commencement. This record is published in the February 

 number for the present year. The specimen was killed by one 

 of the keepers of Mr, T. C. Hawkins, of Trewithen, in the parish 

 of Probus, on the I3th or 14th of January, and was presented 

 to Mr. Rodd through the courtesy of Mr. Trethewey, Mr. Hawkins' 

 steward, who at once perceived that the bird was different from 

 any other thrush he had ever seen : this gentleman, writing to 

 Mr. Rodd, says :—" This bird had attracted the notice of the 

 keeper for some weeks before he had an opportunity of shooting it. 

 Each time he saw it, it was feeding in some marshy ground near 

 some ponds, and when disturbed it flew to another portion of the 

 water. The keeper thought it was a species of water-fowl. The 

 cry was very much like that of the common thrush, but the habits 

 quite different." Mr. Rodd, who gives this account in the February 

 * Zoologist' (S. S. 3880), says that this bird so exactly corresponds 

 with Mr, Yarrell's description of the species that there is no 

 necessity of describing it afresh. I may add that the total length 

 of the bird is twelve and a half inches, and the extended wings 

 measure twenty and a half inches ; also that there were fourteen 

 feathers in the tail, a character which most authors describe as 

 distinctive of the species. 



In addition to the specimens actually "obtained" several others 

 may be mentioned as "seen." Of these there are three good 

 instances. 



1st. The Rev. J. C. Atkinson, a first-rate ornithologist, says: — 

 " My attention was drawn to the bird yesterday (Sunday) morning. 

 It was on the grass-plot, not ten yards distant from my study- 

 window, and I was enabled almost immediately to examine it 

 thoroughly by the aid of a very excellent double field-glass, 

 I suppose it was thus under observation from two to three minutes. 

 Again in the afternoon, from the same window, I had a like oppor- 

 tunity of inspection, and as the bird hopped across the grass, it 

 came under my observation from another window, with nearly equal 

 advantage to the observer. It remained in sight four or five minutes 

 this second time, I had no doubt from the moment I caught sight 



