2 
MONTAG U’S HARRIER. 
frequently remarked that their presence caused far less uneasiness to the Redlegs and Peewits than that of 
the Moor-Buzzard : this fact might lead to the belief that they were not destructive to the offspring of 
these birds ; it is, however, possible that their flight while skimming over the marshes, being more rapid, does 
not attract the same amount of attention. A Marsh- Harrier often remains for a quarter of an hour or twenty 
minutes hunting backwards and forwards over an acre of rushes and sedge, swooping down repeatedly to 
the surface, while the present species, as a rule, passes onward without turning to the right or left, only 
pausing for a few moments when the capture of prey appears inevitable. 
The drainage and cultivation of swamps and fens have much restricted the distribution of these Harriers; 
their numbers also have been thinned down by gamekeepers, and their eggs removed to supply the demands 
of collectors ; as yet, however, they are by no means exterminated, and a few pairs still succeed, at not 
unfrequent intervals, in rearing their young in some of the most inaccessible of their old haunts. Some 
fourteen or fifteen years ago, when in quest of this species, I fell in with several pairs in the eastern counties , 
having been misled, however, by a statement (from a well-known sportsman Avliose chances for observation, 
one would suppose, ought to have rendered his remarks reliable) that this Harrier exhibited no white over the 
rump, I allowed the females on two occasions to rise unmolested from their nests without attempting 
to obtain specimens. The males resolutely refusing to permit a sufficiently close inspection to identify their 
plumage with certainty, I was led to believe that all observed in the district were Hen-Harriers ; not 
needing specimens of that species, little attention was paid to either birds or nests. If the females of 
the two species are closely examined it will be seen that though the white band at the base of the tail 
of C. cyancus is decidedly broader, a distinct white line is apparent at the roots of the feathers on 
C. cineraceus ; this marking is especially conspicuous as the bird spreads its wings to rise from the 
ground. The warm brown streaks and the general tint of the flanks, which come well into view as the 
bird mounts in the air, ought to have proved a sufficient guide, had I been better acquainted with the general 
colouring of the females. 
Various means of distinguishing Montagu’s Harrier from its relative have been pointed out by writers 
on natural history ; the plates, however, in several works indicate plainly that little attention could have 
been paid to the specimens from which the sketches were taken. The ruff or frill round the head is by 
no means so perfect as in the Hen-Harrier ; still it is represented in the drawings given by several authors 
as continued prominently below the beak. Macgillivrav tells us that “the ruff is obscure,” and again 
remarks that “the ruff is obsolete;” though somewhat singularly worded, these remarks are evidently 
intended to convey the impression that the ruff or frill is imperfect. The head of the male represented 
in the small woodcut in Yarrell differs from all others that I have seen figured, but agrees precisely in 
the extent of the ruff with specimens I have examined in the flesh, the frill being entirely wanting on 
the throat below the beak. The same author also informs us that “ the third quill feather of the wing 
is much more pointed” than in the Hen-Harrier; this also accords in every instance with the measurements 
I have taken from fresh-killed birds. I am enabled also to add that this feather in Montagu’s Harrier 
is considerably longer than the second and fourth. The third and fourth were found to be almost 
equal in length in several specimens of the Hen-Harrier that came under my observation when taking 
notes on the two species; the fourth, however, is usually allowed to be slightly the longest. My attention 
has also lately been drawn by a friend to another method for distinguishing the species. In Montagu’s Harrier 
the second, third, and fourth primaries only arc einarginated on the outer web, whereas in the Hen-Harrier 
the emargination * is carried on from the second to the fifth primary inclusive. 
* I take the term “emarginate” to mean the cutting away of the edge of a feather. Macgillivray, however, in his Introduction, when 
explaining the terms used in the structure of birds, states as follows: — “ Emarginate, having a notch at the end.” A woodcut is then given, 
representing a feather notched at the point. 
