246 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
not remove above two or three yards.” It was not until nearly a 
century afterwards that the suggestion was made by Marmaduke 
Tunstall that they were Pine Grosbeaks (Fox, J. c.), but certainly 
the account as left by the observer—a Mr. Roberts—points rather 
to the Crossbill, although no mention is made of the beak, beyond 
the statement that it was “more stubbed and larger than a Bull- 
finch’s.” * 
9. The Pine Grosbeak is named in Hastings’ ‘ Natural History 
of Worcestershire’ (p. 65), in a list of birds which “are all of un- 
frequent occurrence.” The Great Black Woodpecker is named 
also, but as no particulars are given of the occurrence of either of 
them, this record may be dismissed without further comment. 
10. Following the order in Mr. Harting’s list, where the 
records are arranged chronologically, we now go back to 
North Britain. In the list of species to be found in the parish 
of Eccles, in Berwickshire, copied verbatim for me by Mr. Gray, 
from the Statistical Account of the Parish, the Pine Grosbeak is 
thus noticed by Dr. R. D. Thomson, who Mr. Gray tells me was a 
member of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club, and for a long time 
resident in Glasgow :—“ Besides about eighty common birds, the 
parish is occasionally visited by some rarer species; of these may 
be mentioned the Columba turtur (Turtle Dove), Aquila albicilla 
(Sea Eagle), Corythus enucleator (Hawk-finch), Ardea nycticoraz 
(Night Heron), Lanius excubitor (Greater Butcher-bird).” The 
English name of Hawk-finch would lead one to think that a 
mistake had been made. 
11. In Mr. Pemberton Bartlett’s “ Notes on the Ornithology of 
Kent” (Zoologist, 1844, p. 621), the reader is informed that the 
Pine Grosbeak has been “occasionally killed” in the county. 
Mr. Bartlett’s informant was Dr. Plomley, who possibly may have 
referred to a pair of Pine Grosbeaks in the late Mr. J. Chaffey’s 
collection of Kentish birds, which were said to have been killed in 
England, but on whose authority is not known. 
12. Next we come to the late Mr. Yarrell’s specimen, which is 
now the property of Mr. Frederick Bond, in whose collection 
I dare say many of the readers of ‘The Zoologist’ have seen it. 
* From the original account by Lhwyd (Phil. Trans. xxvii. pp. 464 and 466) it 
is plain that the birds could not have been Hawfinches, as might be supposed from 
the description of the bill. The cocks were of a deep scarlet colour; the hens gray, 
with a scarlet breast.—Ep. 
