30 
^rAKSTI liUNTTNO, 
thin" except the sliortness, stoutness, and eonvex'ity of 
the beak, and in tlic "reater distinctness and brilliancy 
of the colouring, llonaparte, on the contrary, not only 
admits the ]\Iarsh Hunting as a distinct sjiccics, but 
adds another, whiclr is said to be intermediate in 
character between tliis and schcenicAilus, under the name 
of S. intermedia, the E. intermedia of Michahclles, the 
E. canneti of Brehm; and he places the three in a 
new genus, that of Schccnicola. Ihoux also denies that 
the Marsh can ever be confounded with the Reed 
Bunting; and Degland adds several points of distinction 
to those given by Tcmminck, which I have incorporated 
after verification in my specific diagnosis. Dcgland 
thinks that Tcmminck did not know the true E. 
jxilustris, but that the specimens upon which he as- 
sumed its identification with E. scliceniculus were, in 
fact, larger specimens of this latter species. In a note 
which I have just received from Professor Blasius, of 
Brunswick, that distinguished naturalist places this bird 
as a variety of E. schceniculus. 
Such being the difference of opinion about the 
specific distinctness of this bird, let us hear what 
Savi himself says about it. I copy the following from 
his “Ornitologia Toscana,” tome secondo, p. d2: — “The 
Zigolo of which I speak has been for some time in 
the hands of ornithologists. The Bunting, of which 
there is a drawing in the ‘Storia degli Uccelli,’ under 
the name of 3Iigliarino di Padulc, is clearly recognised 
by the form of its beak, as belonging to this species. 
In the Museum of Turin, and in that of the Jardin 
des Plantes at Paris, it is preserved as a variety of 
Emheriza schceniculus. Signor Dott: Pajola sent it to 
me last year from Venice, describing it as a new 
species. I had long fancied it was distinct, but as 
