BIRDS CLAIMING TO BE ACCOUNTED BRITISH. 257 
Nor have we yet done with Durham, for it is set down 
in Sir C. Sharp’s “ History of Hartlepool,” (app. XVII.) and 
in Cumberland in a list by Mr. Robson (Zool., 4166), but in 
my opinion both are obvious mistakes. 
In September, 1863, a man of the name of Emerson shot 
at Epworth in Lincolnshire a Sandpiper, which was pro- 
nounced by the local birdstuffer to be a Spotted Sandpiper, 
and as such it was recorded, together with a Ruddy Shel- 
duck and a Bittern by Mr. S. Hudson (Zool., g291); but 
serious doubts having been expressed about them, it was 
suggested that they should be examined by a competent 
naturalist, when the Ruddy Shelduck proved to be some- 
thing very different; and I cannot help thinking that the 
same fate would have befallen the Spotted Sandpiper had 
it been forthcoming, but its owner had discreetly sold it to 
a commercial traveller at a public house, and I have traced 
it no further. 
About this time two were shot at Retford (Notts.), ac- 
cording to a provincial newspaper, but I can say nothing 
about them as I have not seen them or the newspaper. 
The “Yorkshire Post” likewise makes mention of one in 
some “ Miscellaneous Rural Notes for 1867,” by Mr. Roberts, 
giving I believe Scarborough as the locality, but this was 
certainly a case of mistaken identity, as was in all pro- 
bability the other. 
A Spotted Sandpiper is stated in Harting’s “Birds of 
Middlesex,” p. 180, to have been shot at Kingsbury reservoir, 
a large sheet of water near London, considering its inland 
situation much affected by waders. Its possessor was 
Mr. Milton, and at his sale in 1852 at Stevens’ it was 
bought by the well-known collector, Mr. Bond. It was lot 
75, and entered as killed at Kingsbury. Mr. Bond traced 
the specimen, which he has kindly permitted me to see, to 
a person named Crane, who formerly worked for Mr. Ward 
the taxidermist, and who he believes stuffed it, but no facts 
s 
