2 
Young. More yellow than the adults, being of a pale citron on the nuchal patch, cheeks, and underparts ; 
the head brownish black, with tufts of grey down on the occiput; back greenish olive; spots on the 
wing-coverts yellowish white; flanks brownish. 
Obs. The chief distinction between the Coal Titmouse of the British Islands and P. ater of the Continent 
consists in the olive-brown back of the former bird. From pictures and descriptions which we have 
seen in published English works it would appear, if these are really accurate, that our bird in summer 
becomes a little greyer on the back; but we have not ourselves come across a specimen which was 
without that olive-tinge which first induced us to separate the two forms specifically. Our friend 
Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., was so kind as to procure for us a series of specimens killed by him on his 
estate at Northrepps in the spring of 1872; and they were all distinctly olive on the back, while one 
that was shot about the same time near Beverley by Mr. Boyes may, without exaggeration, be said to 
be yellowish olive in colour. Since we described the species, we have shown specimens of our English 
Coal Titmouse to several continental ornithologists; and they all declare that such a bird was never 
seen by them in their respective countries. We invite further attention to this subject. 
Explanation of the Plate. On the Plate accompanying this article we have figured the three European 
Coal Titmice. The Algerian species (P. /edouci) is not unlike the immature birds of the other two. 
P. ater and P. britannicus are both figured in winter dress ; so that the differences are very apparent. 
Tus species, which we have found it necessary to separate from Parus ater, is the common Coal 
Titmouse of the British Isles, where it replaces the Blue-backed continental Coal Titmouse. So 
far as we have hitherto ascertained, it appears to be confined to Great Britain; but it may 
hereafter be found to straggle across to the Continent. In England and Wales it is tolerably 
common everywhere. Mr. Hearle Rodd records it as not uncommon in woods, especially in the 
eastern parts of Cornwall. Mr. Gatcombe finds it tolerably numerous in the woods of Devonshire 
during the whole year; we ourselves have often observed it in Sussex, Surrey, and Essex. 
Harting says that in Middlesex it is more numerous in autumn and winter, but resides in the 
country all the year round. He has found it nesting at Kingsbury, Edgeware, Elstree, and 
Harrow. Respecting its range in the United Kingdom, our friend Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., 
writes to us that “ Montagu, writing in 1802, says the Coal Tit ‘is not so plentiful a species 
as the Marsh,’ an assertion in which he was followed by Graves, Selby, Fleming, Jenyns, and Mac- 
gillivray, but which does not agree with modern experience. It is decidedly now quite as common 
as the Marsh-Titmouse in England, and in Scotland and Ireland much commoner. I have often 
noticed that you never find both common in one place; where one preponderates, the other is 
rare, and vice versd, and the same with the Stonechat and Whinchat.” Mr. Selby writes that 
in Scotland he found it abundantly in all the pine-forests, which seem to be its appropriate and 
favourite habitat, to the comparative exclusion of the other species. In these extensive tracts, 
covered by the natural growth of the country or planted by the great landed proprietors, it has 
both a secure retreat and a constant supply of food. And as regards its present range in that 
country we give the following notes sent us by Mr. J. A. Harvie-Brown, viz. :—‘ This species is 
exceedingly abundant in many localities in Scotland, but is far from being so in many others. 
For instance, in the east of Stirlingshire it does not equal in numbers either the Great Tit 
(Parus major) or the Blue Tit (Parus ceruleus), whilst in the west of the same county it 
