BIRDS. 



although many naturalists get rid of any such difficulties by simply 

 pooh-poohing abilities of observation all round, and dismissing their 

 records "as amongst the things that were, ' and therefore not worthy 

 of any attention. 



The old Statistical Account mentions them in Dunkeld as "rare" 

 (vol. XX. p. 439) in 1798, and there is collective evidence that they 

 were rarer (or less observed ?) at that time anywhere in Scotland, as is 

 shown by quotations like the following : "Has only appeared within 

 the last twenty years in Birse " (Dee), and " first seen by the author " 

 (old Statistical Account, vol ix. p. 339). " Xot previously known in 

 the county" {i.e. Urr, Kirkcudbright — Solway), etc. Then Don 

 spoke of it as " a rare bird " in Angus at the time he wrote (viz. 1813). 

 In the New Statistical Account it is mentioned as breeding " in the 

 AVood of Balgay, Forfar." Now (1904) common and resident 

 throughout in all suitable localities as a nesting species, and well 

 known to be a strong migrant to our coasts in winter besides. 

 These flights may well be described as periodical outbursts from 

 the Continent. 



Resident around Fordoim, 1896 {auct. Mr. J. Milne). Very 

 common around Loch Rannoch in April 1902 {amt, E. Godfrey). 



Mr. Da^ddson does not consider it "at all common " in the district 

 he sends his notes from. 



fulus ignicapillus (C. L. Brehm). Fire-crested Wren. 



Constantly confused by recorders and ordinary observers. This is, I consider, 

 greatly due to the confusion led up to by the names not being descriptively 

 distinctive for the purposes of the ordinary observer. The term " Firecrest " 

 may, and I am sure does, often lead to error, as the colour of the crest of a 

 male Goldcrest is fire-coloured as well as that of the closely allied form. 

 Perhaps some one of our natiu-alists, instead of introducing gxeater difficulties 

 in nomenclature, will rather help to clear away some such as the above- 

 mentioned, and thus do some real service and offer some real help to the field- 

 naturahst ! 



The status of this bird is described thus by Mr. J. H. Gurney : " The 

 Scottish records stand much in need of confirmation" {Zool., May 1889, 

 p. 172). Personally, I have little faith in any of them. I have "worried" 

 out more than one " false scent." As regards the present area, I find that in 

 most cases the male Goldcrest has been viewed even at a few yards' distance 

 only and believed to be a Firecrest, and been so proclaimed. I have many 

 communications of similar nature, which when worked down to solid ground 

 do not bear scrutiny — and have not in most cases. Indeed, only can such 

 things be put beyond cavil by persons not accustomed to have seen true Fire- 

 crests in their native haunts, by securing the specimens and carefully preserving 



