MR. ALSTON ON THE BRITISH MARTENS. 445 
that it ‘is found in Great Britain; but is much less common in 
England than the former; it is sometimes taken in the counties 
of Merioneth and Caernarvon, where it is distinguished from the 
other kind by the name of bela goed, or Wood Martin, it being 
supposed entirely to inhabit the woods, the bela graig to dwell 
only among the rocks. Though this is so rare in these parts, yet 
in Scotland it is the only kind; where it inhabits the fir forests, 
building its nest at the top of the trees.’ * 
Pennant was followed by subsequent writers without much 
additional information being supplied. ‘Thus Bingley states that 
the ‘Common Martin’ is ‘not very uncommon in many of the 
southern parts of Great Britain and Ireland ;’ while ‘Pine Martins 
are sometimes, though rarely, observed in the wooded and thinly 
inhabited districts of Wales and Scotland, and two or three of the 
northern counties of England.’ t+ 
Fleming gives the habitat of Martes yagorum as ‘In woods and 
rocks in the south of Scotland and England;’ that of M. abietum, 
‘in the wooded districts of Wales and Scotland ;’ but adds thut 
‘the characters of these two species are ill-defined.’ t 
The Rev. L. Jenyns, in his excellent ‘Manual,’ considered that 
Mustela foina was ‘more generally diffused’ than M. martes, which, 
he says, ‘inhabits the fir-woods of Scotland: occurs also sparingly 
in the West of England.’§ 
Edward T. Bennett, then Secretary of the Zoological Society, 
discussed the question of the distinctness of the Beech and Pine 
Martens in 1835, evidently inclining to the belief that they were 
specifically identical, and referring two British specimens then in 
the Society's Museum to the former and two others to the latter 
race.|| What was the ultimate fate of these examples I know not; 
but it is to be remarked that no exact localities are mentioned, 
and that the supposed ‘ Beech Martens’ had ‘dirty-white breasts :’ 
not improbably they were faded specimens. 
Two years later appeared the first edition of Mr. Bell’s standard 
work, in which he gave separate figures and descriptions of the 
two Martens, but ‘with the precaution of a protest against being 
* «British Zoology’ (1763), i. p. 81. 
t ‘Mem. Brit. Quad.’ (1809), pp. 164, 169. 
{ ‘Hist. Brit. Anim.’ (1828), pp. 14, 15. 
§ ‘Man. Brit. Vert. An.’ (1838), jee 
|| ‘Gard. and Menag, of the Zool. Soc.’ (1835), i. pp. 227—240. 
