MUSEUM, N. W. P. AND OUDH, LUCKNOW. 443 
as the ten published volumes permit of this, the names 
adopted in the British Museum Catalogue are also given, 
together with a reference to the page and volume of this work 
where the species is described. 
The species included in the Catalogue are mostly common ; 
but I notice a specimen of the Knot (881—TRINGA CANUTUS, 
Lin.) said to have been obtained in Lucknow. Now in the 
first place I should like to know whether Mr. Reid is abso- 
lutely certain of his identification of the specimen. I do not 
think I have ever seen an Indian-killed specimen of this 
species—all hitherto sent me as such have been 7” crassirostris. 
If the identification be correct still I cannot consider, seeing 
that this was one of the old Museum specimens, that there 
is any certainty that it really was procured at Lucknow or 
anywhere within Indian limits. If, however, Mr. Reid can, 
for any reason, be certain that the bird was really obtained at 
Lucknow and is a veritable Knot, then it is, I think, the gem 
of the collection, since, so far as I know, no other Indian-killed 
specimen of this species exists. Thus far I have hitherto 
considered that the Knot did not occur within our limits, and 
if Mr. Reid can show that it really has so occurred, it will be 
a matter of some interest.* 
The Pink-footed Goose (946—ANSER BRACHYRHYNCHUS, 
Baill.), of which the Museum contains two specimens, is ex- 
cessively rare, and these are, I believe, the only Indian-killed 
specimens of this species now in existence. But there is no 
doubt that it does occur in Northern India, as I myself once 
shot a pair. 
_ The Bronze-capped Teal (966b¢s—QUERQUEDULA FALCATA, 
Georg.), of which also there are two specimens obtained 
near Lucknow, is Jikewise a rare species ; but I have obtained 
specimens of it in past years from Lucknow, Calcutta, Kurnal 
and Sultanpore, so that it is nothing like so rare as the Pink- 
footed Goose. 
No other species entered in the Catalogue seems to call for no- 
tice ; but one correction occurs to me as necessary. Having enter- 
ed correctly 27—Agquila mogilnik, Gmel. (The Imperial Eagle) 
and 27bis— Aquila nipalensis, Hodgs. (The Bifasciated Eagle) 
separately, Mr. Reid adds the note:“Inthe B. M. C. this 
species” (the Bifasciated Eagle) “is considered to be iden- 
tical with A. mogilnik. It is generally, however, thought 
* Since the above was written the specimen referred to was kindly sent me for 
identification, It turned out to be a Curlew Sandpiper in summer plumage. 
It appears always to have stood in the Museum as the Knot, and the plumage 
corresponding tolerably with Jerdon’s description of that bird, and he having omitted 
a description of the summer plumage of the Curlew Sandpiper, the error, des- 
pite the great difference in the size and bills of the two species, was allowed, inad- 
vertently, to be perpetuated in the New Catalogue.—A. O. H, 
56 
