140 MARSH BUNTING. 



his " Zoography," t. 49, as E. pyrrhuloides, which name will of course 

 stand. Temminck doubted whether it was distinct from E. schceni- 

 culus, in anything except the shortness, stoutness, and convexity of 

 the beak, and in the greater distinctness and brilliancy of the 

 colouring. Bonaparte, on the contrary, not only admits the Marsh 

 Bunting as a distinct species, but adds another, which is said to be 

 intermediate in character between this and schceniculus , under the 

 name of S. intermedia, the E. intermedia of Michahelles, the E. 

 canneti of Brehm; and he places the three in a new genus, that of 

 Schcenicola. Poux also denies that the Marsh can ever be confounded 

 with the Reed Bunting; and Degland adds several points of distinction 

 to those given by Temminck, which I have incorporated after veri- 

 fication in my specific diagnosis. Degland thinks that Temminck did 

 not know the true E. palustris, but that the specimens upon which 

 he assumed its identification with E. schce?iicidus were, in fact, larger 

 specimens of this latter species. In a note which I have just received 

 from Professor Blasius, of Brunswick, that distinguished naturalist 

 places this bird as a variety of E. schceniculus. 



Such being the difference of opinion about the specific distinctness 

 of this bird, let us hear what Savi himself says about it. I copy the 

 following from his " Ornitologia Toscana," tome secondo, p. 92: — "The 

 Zigolo of which I speak has been for some time in the hands of 

 ornithologists. The Bunting, of which there is a drawing in the 

 SStoria degli Uccelli,' under the name of Migliarino di Padule, is 

 clearly recognized by the form of its beak as belonging to this species. 

 In the Museum of Turin, and in that of the Jardin des Plantes at 

 Paris, it is preserved as a variety of Emhcriza schceniculus. Signor 

 Dott: Pajola, sent it to me last year from Venice, describing it as a 

 new species. I had long fancied it was distinct, but as on examination 

 of the distribution of colour, the proportions of its quill feathers, etc., 

 I did not find any characters to distinguish it from the other species, 

 and knowing then nothing of its habits, I had never made it known 

 as new, and, to avoid making a mistake, I placed it in the Museum 

 of Pisa as E. palustris. Since then, however, having been able to 

 make some new observations upon the form and habits of the two 

 species, I am persuaded they are decidedly different, and the principal 

 reasons which induce me to form this opinion are the following: — 



The distinctive characteristics of E. palustris and E. schceniculus are 

 the greater size of the former, its head larger in proportion to the 

 rest of the body, its tarsi proportionally shorter and thicker, its upper 

 plumage more distinct in coloration, and its beak differing in form 

 and size. 



