146 



BIRDS. 



abodes on marine cliffs. In the west, as I have said, there are one 

 or two places where there are still a few pairs which affect inland 

 cliffs, but it may be possible that in the west they may not yet be 

 considered quite so decadent a species, and so still maintain a 

 precarious foothold in such unusual places. But it is evident that 

 this remark can only be hypothetical, and as such may be dismissed. 

 In support of the theory of decadence having set in, and if we look 

 at the known distribution on the Continent, we must arrive at the 

 conclusion that we have little chance to have any reaction or restora- 

 tion of it from natural dispersal. Personally, 1 leave that an open 

 question, difficult to solve, and I prefer to accept the explanation 

 which I have endeavoured to give, especially as Chough was never a 

 Scottish word nor name for the Urd. 



Connected with its sea-cliff haunts, it may not prove inappropriate 

 in this place to criticise a statement by Seebohm, who says the 

 Chough lives in colonies — which may still be partially correct — and 

 then goes on to say, "and a haunt of the Chough is usually also a 

 sea-birds' haunt." 



I can only say that that is not the case in Scotland, or at least at 

 any localities with which I am acquainted, and I may add I have 

 been at a good many. Nothing has been more decided in my 

 experience than the fact that the sea-cliffs inhabited by Choughs 

 have been singularly destitute of sea-bird population. And I may 

 add, that the only locality in England where I have seen the 

 Choughs at their breeding haunts, viz. in Cornwall, the cliffs 

 occupied by them were equally untenanted by sea-birds. If it is 

 their usual habit to nest in colonies in England, that habit is an 

 almost perfect stranger to any Scottish haunts I am acquainted with. 



[Nucifraga caryocatactes (i.). Nutcracker.^ 



Of doubtful occurrence.] 



^ In reply to inquiries I had made, I am informed that Macgillivray's specimen is 

 no longer in evidence in the University Museum in Edinburgh (v^^hich was amalgamated 

 with the general collection in the novr Royal Scottish Museum). And I fear also it is 

 too late in the day to trace out any more particulars about the specimen which was 

 stated by Macgillivray to be, at the time he wrote, in the possession of a Mr. Hender- 

 son. The Orkney specimen is, however, still preserved in the Royal Scottish Museum. 



A reference to Newton's fourth edition of Yarrell — footnote — shows that Macgillivray 

 did not say that the specimen he described was shot in Scotland (Yarrell, 4th ed., 

 vol. ii. p. 332), but distinctly says only that "the individual from which I have taken 

 the above description belongs to Mr, Thomas Henderson, Coates Crescent, Edinburgh." 

 The fact is there was no such thing as a "Macgillivray's Scottish-killed specimen"' 

 {op. cit. p. 584). I merely mention the Nutcracker here as observation in a footnote. 



