Letters, Extracts from Correspondence, Notices, (Sfc. 115 



south coast. The following is a copy of the note received from 

 Mr. Pratt, respecting the individuals in question : — 



" 44 Ship Street, Brighton, 

 "December 1864. 

 "Dear Sir, — Mr. Jeffreys informed me, last evening, that you 

 would like to see a specimen of our Water-Pipits. We beg there- 

 fore to forward by rail to you the remaining specimen ; the other 

 the Bishop of Oxford has taken to London to be examined : 

 unfortunately we cannot give the date of capture of either of 

 the specimens. The one we send was received from another 

 naturalist, who obtained it near Worthmg ; the other was killed 

 by a young gentleman near here, and given to us in the flesh. 



" With respect, &c., 



"John Pratt/' 



This brief notice may induce those who take an interest in 

 our native birds, and who may be favourably located, to look 

 more closely into the subject of these Rock- or Shore-Pipits, as 

 in all probability the present bird occurs more frequently in our 

 island than we are aware of. The^. spinoletta and A. obscurus 

 are of about the same size; but the former may be readily dis- 

 tinguished from the latter by the vinous colouring of its throat 

 and breast, and by the under surface being totally devoid of 

 spots or markings, and by having in all stages, I believe, the 

 outer tail-feathers white or nearly so, while in A. obscurus they 

 are clouded with grey and brown. 



I am. Sir, yours obediently, 



John Gould. 



Mr. John Pratt has himself communicated a note, on the 

 subject of these specimens, to the ' Zoologist ' for October last 

 (Zool. p. 9279). We believe, however, he is in error in sup- 

 posing his to be " the first recorded occurrence of this species in 

 our country." Nearly twenty years since, Mr. Thomas Webster, 

 of Manchester, mentioned in the same periodical (Zool. p. 1023) 

 his having observed three birds at Fleetwood, in October 1843, 

 which he had " not the slightest hesitation " in identifying 

 with a Pipit described by M. Deby (Zool. p. 980) as " Anthus 

 aquaticus, Bechst.,'' and which, to all appearance, were totally 



I 2 



