173 



THE ZOOLOGIST. 



A few preliminary remarks on the chief features of the 

 following report will not be without interest. 



The Mammalia of Yorkshire were for the most part so well 

 known at the time of publication of the Handbook that but 

 little is required by way of addition or correction, except so far 

 as regards the two groups— the Bats and the Cetaceans — which 

 appear to be always the most imperfectly-studied groups of mam- 

 mals in any district. With respect to the Bats, the result of 

 Roebuck's investigations has been that, with the assistance of 

 correspondents, the geographical range of some of the forms in 

 Yorkshire has been studied to some purpose. One species is 

 added to the list, and two others— hitherto only recorded for the 

 county on the strength of isolated occurrences — have been fully 

 confirmed as inhabiting it, one of the latter indeed proving 

 to be a common and widely-distributed form. There is yet 

 good work to be done in this group, for Daubenton's Bat — 

 which will probably be found sooner or later — has not yet been 

 detected. Yorkshire appears still to remain the northern limit of 

 the range of the Noctule, for Mr. R. Morton Middleton informs us 

 that its reported occurrence in South Durham was not confirmed. 



The study of the Cetaceans is much more difficult, from their 

 habitat and large size ; and our only liope is that a competent 

 naturalist may be at hand in the event of the capture of animals 

 of this order. 



Birds.— Numerically the Yorkshire avifauna remains at 307, 

 the addition of the Rustic Bunting being counterbalanced by the 

 subtraction of the Barbary Partridge. Sliould, however, specific 

 rank be accorded to Pallas's Great Grey Shrike, as is done by 

 Mr. Seebohm, this form would have to rank as an addition. 



Here it will be advisable to call the pointed attention of our 

 readers to the two paragraphs at the head of p. xxxvii. of the 

 Introduction to our Handbook, which appear to have been 

 overlooked by some of our critics, who might thei-e have learned 

 that we never allowed or recognised the claims of such dubious 

 records as those of Richard's Pipit, the Purple Martin, the Great 

 Black Woodpecker, the Hairy Woodpecker, the Little Owl, the 

 Acadian Owl, the Harlequin Duck, the Passenger Pigeon, the 

 Virginian Colin, the Sooty Tern, and the Laughing Gull. None 

 of these are included in our numerical summaries, although in the 

 body of our work we felt it quite within our duty to give the 



