369 
NOTE ON 
‘THE SUPPOSED INTER-BREEDING OF THE 
MERLIN AND KESTREL 
IN NORTHUMBERLAND IN 1886.’ 
GEORGE BOLAM, 
Berwick-on-Tweea. 
I HAVE just read Mr. F. B. Whitlock’s paper under the above heading 
in ‘The Naturalist’ of this month, and as he says that he has not 
himself seen Mr. Thompson’s original communication, but penned 
his article in the hope that it might catch the eye of some member 
of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club, I venture to send him, through 
you, a copy of the statement. 
This will be found in a short paper entitled ‘Natural History 
Notes from Upper Coquetdale,’ by William Thompson, Harbottle, 
which appears in the ‘ History of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club,’ 
Vol. xii., pp. 128-9, and reads as follows :—‘ Merlin and Kestrel inter- 
breeding. In the Spring of 1886, rather an unusual, or so far as my 
knowledge goes, an unprecedented, thing occurred on Barra Crags. 
A male Merlin Hawk (Falco @salon) mated with a female Kestrel 
(#. tinnunculus), The result was a progeny of four. The keeper 
(Taylor, residing at Angryhaugh) shot the Kestrel and found it feed- 
ing the young on mice, water-rats, etc. A few days after the Merlin 
was trapped, and it then appeared that he was supplying the young 
with grouse, partridges, etc. Mr, Mather, Alwinton, obtained three 
of the young birds, and kept one till it could fly.’ This information 
was communicated to the Club in connection with its meeting at 
Harbottle, on 27th July, 1887, and though in detail it differs, 
Considerably from Mr. Whitlock’s yersion, there can be no doubt that 
the case referred to is the same. 
Apart altogether from the improbability of such inter-breeding, 
the discrepancies between Mr. Thompson’s story and that of the 
keeper, as related to Mr. Whitlock, backed up as the latter was by 
a visit to the nest and the actual taking of the eggs, are quite 
sufficient to dispel any reliance which may ever have been placed in 
the ‘record.’ As Mr. Whitlock has remarked, neither Mr. Thompson 
nor the keeper appear to have been so well acquainted with birds as 
to render a mistake in identity very improbable ; while even though 
the keeper may have been correct as to the birds he actually ng 
vould still be unproved that both belonged to the nest. Both the 
f Upper Coquetdale, 
and it might very easily happen that the keeper, looking suddenly 
Mine Deneraruead z 
Dec. 1892. 
