188 THE OENITHOLOGIST. 



several entries in my note books on the subject ; but they do not record 

 much result from my observations, and are, indeed, to some extent, contra- 

 dictory. The difference is always clear to my ear, but I have always found 

 the greatest difficulty in expressing or writing down the difference satisfac- 

 torily. When talking the matter over with Mr. Warde Fowler, I found we 

 agreed upon this point. I am far from feeling that I have come to a satis- 

 factory conclusion even now, and the only result of my observations, so far, 

 is the impression (quite open to correction) that both the call- and the 

 alarm-notes of the Chiffchaff are sharper and louder than those of the 

 Willow Wren, which are softer and more inclined to be drawn out into 

 tu-it or wee-ep, or twee-et — the syllables are hardly divided. It is worth 

 notice that these birds will utter their call- as well as their alarm-notes when 

 agitated by your near approach to their nest (some other species will actually 

 sing under these circumstances). But this statement as to the difference 

 between the notes is purely tentative ; I should not have published it had 

 not the question been opened, and I am quite prepared to find I am wrong. 

 One difficulty attending observations of this kind consists in the fact that 

 individual birds undoubtedly have slightly different voices ; and a difficulty 

 in comparing the observations of others with one's own arises from the fact 

 that different people hear and write bird notes differently. Meyer makes 

 the alarm-note of the Chiffchaff hoo-id. I am the more inclined to doubt the 

 correctness of my impression, because Seebohm, who has commented on the 

 difference in the two alarm-notes, wrote : — "The alarm-note of the Chiff- 

 chaff is a whit not unlike that of the Willow Wren, but not so loud, some- 

 what more prolonged, and slightly shriller." — O. V. Aplin. 



British Birds' Eggs in Public Museums. — The Editor has inci- 

 dentally drawn attention, in the October issue of the Ornithologist, to the 

 fact of some error having been committed in connection with the identifi- 

 cation of a clutch of Chiffchaff 's eggs in the South Kensington Museum. 

 I looked over what foreigners, I Buppose, would regard as our National 

 Collection not very long ago, and in addition to faulty identification of an 

 egg here and there, I was disappointed to find the contents of the various 

 drawers reflecting no astonishing wealth of credit on those who should be 

 responsible for their well-being and attractiveness. The contemplation of 

 cracked and dirty and dusty and ill-arranged and altogether sorry-looking 

 eggs, is a very qualified joy to a keen oologist. And yet the South Kensington 

 Museum is not by any means singular in displaying eggs with a faulty identi- 

 fication to a gullible jjublic, for I have in my mind a favourite resort of the 

 same kind where a Wood-warbler's nest — with an egg inside, too — does duty 

 as a Willow-warbler's. Lesser Red noil's eggs are labelled Linnet's; Tree- 

 jipit's as Meadow-pipit's; and so on ; but though the majority of Curators of 



