ESQUIMAUX CURLEW. giQ 



delicious. They arrive at Hudson's Bay in April or early in 

 May ; pair and breed to the north of Albany Fort among the 

 woods ; return in August to the marshes, and all disappear in 

 September.'' * About this time they return in accumulated 

 numbers to the shores of New Jersey, whence they finally 

 depart for the south early in November. 



The Esquimaux curlew is eighteen inches long, and thirty- 

 two inches in extent ; the bill, which is four inches and a half 

 long, is black towards the point, and a pale purplish flesh 

 colour near the base ; upper part of the head, dark brown, 

 divided by a narrow stripe of brownish white ; over each eye 

 extends a broad line of pale drab ; iris, dark coloured ; hind 

 part of the neck, streaked with dark brown ; fore part and 

 whole breast, very pale brown ; upper part of the body, pale 

 drab, centred and barred with dark brown, and edged with 

 spots of white on the exterior vanes ; three first primaries, 

 black, with white shafts ; rump and tail-coverts, barred with 

 dark brown ; belly, white ; vent, the same, marked with zigzag 

 lines of brown ; whole lining of the wing, beautifully barred 

 with brown on a dark cream ground ; legs and naked thighs, 

 a pale lead colour. 



The figure of this bird, and of all the rest on the same plate, 

 are reduced to exactly one half the size of life. 



[Mr Ord adds, in his reprint, " I have some doubts whether 

 or not this species is the Esquimaux curlew (N. borealis) of 

 Dr Latham, as this ornithologist states his bird to be only 

 thirteen inches in length, and in breadth twenty-one ; whilst 

 that above described is eighteen inches long, and thirty -two 

 in breadth. Besides, Latham's species has a bill of two inches 

 in length, and the bill of mine is four inches and a half long. 

 I am aware, however, that the bills of some birds increase 

 greatly with age ; and if it should turn out hereafter that the 

 two birds are identical, the specimen from which Latham took 

 his description must have been quite immature."] 



* Arct. Zool. vol. ii. p. 163 ; Phil. Trans, lxii. 411. 



