On Anser erythropus and its Allies. 269 
to the light-keepers, Messrs. Ayers, Gilpin, and Hambling, 
for their great kindness, attention, and co-operation on all 
occasions during my residence on the rock. To Professor 
Newton and Sir Michael Foster my grateful acknowledg- 
ments are due for the kindly interest they took in the 
furtherance of my project : without their influential aid my 
visit to the Eddystone would not have been accomplished. 
XVII. — On Anser erythropus and its Allies. 
By J. H. GuRNEY, F.Z.S. 
Mr. F. Coburn, of Birmingham, has announced in 'The 
Zoologist ^ (1901, p. 317) an event of considerable interest 
to British ornithologists, namely, that a Lesser White- 
fronted Goose, Anser erythropus (= A. minutus Naum.), was 
killed during the preceding January in Norfolk. I under- 
stand that this rare bird was taken in the Wash, and sent along 
with some Coots and Knots to a poulterer in Birmingham 
Market by a reliable fisherman at King^s Lynn, but, of 
course, it is as likely to have been obtained on the Lincoln- 
shire side as in Norfolk. The weather, when it was shot, 
was fine with westerly winds. Mr. Coburn has since been 
good enough to give me an opportunity of comparing his 
specimen with several examples of the White-fronted Goose 
(A. alhifrons)y and as its beak, which is the important 
feature, is intermediate in size between those of its two 
allies, I hope that a few remarks will not be out of place 
with a view to further establishing its identity, and also the 
specific value of the three closely allied species, A. albifrons, 
A. erythropus, and A. gamheli. 
The American species, or subspecies, A. gamheli Hartl., is 
generally recognisable by its comparatively large beak and 
its blacker underparts. It ranges over the whole of North 
America, while there are three specimens in the Natural 
History Museum from Japan, where its range meets that of 
A. erythropus. Details of its distribution are given in 
'North American Birds,^ vol. i. pp. 448-454, and in the 
' Catalogue of Birds,' vol. xxvii. p. 95. Opinions diff'er as to 
