194 Communications on Birds. 



Later I had several of the nests examined ; one contained the 

 remains of very yonnof birds, another broken e^e^s, but half-a-dozen or 

 more were empty. There was no suspicion of the nests being robbed, 

 the rookery being close to the houses, and no sign of a tree having 

 been climbed. The only apparent cause of the desertion had been the 

 presence of the Cnrrion Crow, and that appears a very inadequate one. 



Though constantly on the look out, I never saw a Eook alight on 

 any of the trees, wiiere the nests had been, till towards the end of 

 the following February, and gradually they increased in numbers; 

 eventually they built nests to nearly forty in number, and have 

 remained here ever since. 



There are lots of Eooks in the neighbourhood, but these trees 

 seemed to be especially avoided till the return of the birds in the 

 end of February 1895. 



8th February 1896. 



Wote on a Brass of John de Wauton and the Family Name. 



There is a great likelihood that the printed form of the Family 

 Name Wanton, in the paper on Brotherwick, based on the authorities 

 cited there (see Antp, pp. 113, 114) is a clerical error, and that the 

 correct word is Wauton. There is a brass at Wimbish, Esse.x, to "Sir 

 John de Wanton (mentioned in Note, p. 113) and his Lndy, 1347," 

 quoted from Wallers' " Monumental Brasses," in " Gentleman's 

 Magazine," March 1864, p. 319, which appears to supply the genuine 

 orthography. This accounts for the forms " Whaicton," " Wauc-hon," 

 given at p. 114. The majority of the names, however, are printed 

 Wanton in the Record Vols., and I can only find once in the 

 printed " Originalia," p. 80, that the spelling is Wauton and not 

 Wanton. 



Since this was written, another example of the name has appeared 

 in the "New County History of Noi thumberland," Vol. ii., p. 65. In 

 1322 and 1328 John de Wauton was Bailiff of Hexham.- J. H. 



Mellerstain and the Ilaillics thereof. — Rectifications. 



At page 125, on the 11th line from the foot, the llth word 

 (Henry) should be Edward. 



At page 132, 5th line from the top, the words bracketed (" marriage 

 contract dated 23rd June 1566") should have come in between 

 the words "wife" and "who" in the 3rd line, instead of where 

 they are. — S.A.L. 



