18 FoRTy-sixiH Report on the 



A speciirien of JN^umenius arquatus, said to have been taken on 

 Long Island, N. Y:^ — The collection of the New York State 

 Museum contains a specimen of Curlew labelled ''Numenius 

 longirostris, Long-billed Curlew, male, taken on Long Island in 

 1853/' The specimen proves to be a European Curlew 

 (IVumenius arquatus). Mr. William Dutcher has compared the 

 specimen with specimens of ]>Jumenis arquatus in the American 

 Museum of Natural History in New York City, and says that 

 there is not the slightest doubt that the bird belongs to that 

 species. This being the case, the statement on the label that the 

 bird ^vas taken on Long Island becomes an interesting one. 

 Mr. Brewster, Mr. Ridgway and Dr. Merriam inform me that, so 

 far as they know, the species has never been recorded as occurring 

 in an American locality. 



The annual reports of the New York State Museum (or 

 Cabinet) record but three specimens of Long-billed Curlew^ 

 Numenius lono^irostris. as havino^ been received into the State 

 collection, v?z., one specimen (without data of any kind) recoj'ded 

 in the 1st Report, p. IT, 1848; one male recorded as part of -the 

 De Rham collection, 4th Report, p. 36, 1851; one male recorded 

 in the 7th Report, p. 1"^, 1 854. This last specimen was received 

 in 1853, as it is recorded in ^'Appendix A. Catalogue of the 

 quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, etc., added to the 

 State Cabinet of Natural History, from January 1st, 1853, to 

 January 1st, 1854." 



At the present day there are three specimens in the State 

 collection labelled " Numenius longirostris. Long-billed Curlew," 

 viz., one without data of any kind — corresponding in this respect 

 to the entry in the 1st Report ; one in the De Rham collection, 

 marked '"male" — corresponding to the entry in the 4th Report; 

 the third is the specimen of Numenius arquatus under considera- 

 tion and is labelled ''Male, taken on Long Island in 185 i" — cor- 

 responding in sex and date to the entry in the 7tli Report. The 

 report contains no record of the locality in whicli the specimen 

 was taken. The writer does not consider this omission as of any 

 importance except that it may be looked upon as in a measure 

 supporting the suppositioh that the bird came from some locality 

 within the State of New York. The older Reports of the State 



* Reprinted from the Auk, October, 1892. 



