OBSERVATIONS AND QUERIES. 189 



Museums may be wondrously competent in a certain branch of ornithology, 

 it does not necessarily follow that oology is also their forte ! By the way, I 

 was glad to see so favourable a notice in the Ornithologist touching the new 

 work on "British Birds, with their Nests and Eggs," now being issued by 

 Messrs. Brumby and Clarke. At the price it is simply a gift to the public, 

 and, as such, should be exempt from harsh criticism ; but now that I am on 

 the question of the identification of eggs, there can be no harm in my pointing 

 out the blunder that has occurred with regard to the naming of the eggs of 

 the Whinchat and Stonechat on the first coloured plate of the new enterprise, 

 especially, too, as I have had a letter from the publishers thanking me for 

 pointing out "a grave error," and intimating that a slip correcting it will 

 shortly be issued. I should much like to know ivho passed the proof of this 

 plate, for it is absurd to suppose it was not first submitted to some oblogical 

 expert ! — H. S. Davenport. 



Breeding Habits of the Sparrow-Hawk. — I cannot acquiesce in Mr. 

 F. B. Whitlock's suggestion, that I have misapprehended the drift of his 

 paper on the above subject. It was a side issue to which I took exception, 

 and do so still. It seems impossible to read Mr. Whitlock's concluding 

 paragraph in the July number (page 82) of the Ornithologist without 

 reflecting that surprise is ostensibly implied at a pair of Sparrow-Hawks 

 having neglected to repair to one or other of a couple of Magpies' empty 

 nests of the year for breeding purposes. The word "only" in the very 

 forefront of the paragraph in question either possesses some sort of 

 significance, or else, surely, is wholly without meaning. In my exj>erience, 

 Sparrow-Hawks never by any chance breed in new (though empty, or 

 deserted, or term them what you will), nests, erstwhile the property of 

 Carrion-Crows and Magpies, nor do they have recourse to "the tops of 

 fairly tall trees " for rearing their offspring. I am far from wishing to raise 

 a verbal quibble over what, or what not, may be defined as deserted nests, 

 but there is generally a vast spectacular difference betwixt a Magpie's nest 

 from which the young have recently flown, and the same structure a year 

 or two later, after it has been subjected to the rude buffetiugs of the storms 

 and gales of intervening winters. Is this weighty fact to be entirely lost 

 sight of ? Nevertheless, the concluding paragraph of Mr. Whitlock's paper 

 in the October number (page 165) of the Ornithologist, not only supplies the 

 key to the reason of my uncompromising dissent from the theory with which he 

 has apparently identified himself, but goes a long way to emphasise the justice 

 of my contention that I have not missed the essence of his remarks. He 

 writes : " I see no reason, therefore, why, in the particular instance to which I 

 alluded " — and it was against the seeming inference drawn therefrom I beg to 

 parenthetically point out I argued so strongly — " the Sparrow -Hawks should 



