ON THE PINE GROSBEAK. 249 
Crombie, in his ‘ Braemar’ (a work which I have not seen), refers 
to a supposed Pine Grosbeak that he saw near the Bridge of Dee 
at Invercauld. 
Finally, in Prof. Newton’s copy of Bullock’s Sale Catalogue, 
which has MS. notes in it, in the hand-writing of some former 
naturalist,—possibly Dr. Latham,—a female Pine Grosbeak is in- 
cluded and marked as British. In the Sale Catalogue of Mr. Sealy, 
_of Cambridge, also, I see that “Lot 59” is described as “ Pine 
Grosbeaks, three in case, one shot at Doncaster, and one at 
Sheffield.” Whether these were anything more than dealer’s 
localities I am unable to say. 
Having now enumerated a list of five and twenty so-called 
“occurrences” of this bird in Great Britain, I will proceed to 
weed out the most doubtful cases, and consider the claims of 
those that remain. In the first place, then, I dismiss all records in 
which the name of the bird is given without any particulars. I do 
the same with those included in the sale-catalogues, three in 
number. The remainder (fourteen in number) I divide into two 
classes, under the heads of “ mistaken identity,” and “mistaken 
locality.” By mistaken locality I mean that the specimens in 
question were not killed in this country, as those who recorded 
them were led to believe. 
Probable cases of mistaken identity :—8. Forfarshire; 4. Ireland 
(Belfast); 8. Wales (Pembrokeshire) ; 10. Berwickshire; 15. Sussex 
(Petworth) ; 20. Lancashire (Hulston). 
Probable cases of mistaken locality :—7. Norfolk (Yarmouth or 
Raveningham); 11. Kent; 13. Lancashire (Rochdale); 14. Sussex 
(Ashdown). 
We have now only four left to deal with, and it appears to me 
that these are the most worthy of credit :— 
1. The examples met with by Pennant in Aberdeenshire. 
5. Mr. Backhouse’s bird, obtained at Bill Quay, Newcastle. 
12. Mr. Bond’s bird, said to have been killed at Harrow. 
18. The Taunton specimen of 1852, for the correct naming of 
which I have the authority of one of your correspondents, 
Mr. Nicholls. 
I leave it to your able correspondent, the Rev. M. A. Mathew, 
to say what he can for the last-named specimen in his forthcoming 
work on the Birds of the West of England. As regards Mr. Bond’s 
specimen, the only argument which can be used against it is the 
2k 
