404 
spring they remained with us until April 21 st - feeding at that time 
on the Spruce & Larch Firs. The Rough-legged Falcon visits the 
Rabbit warrens in Norfolk [ew]ery season, som[e] ye[<m‘ in] con- 
siderable numbers. The Short-eared Owl has al$[o bee]\\ fou[mZ In 
stay cj- breed o]n some of the heathy lands of the western part 
[of Norfolk. A specimen of TVjocellaria Leachii was picked up 
this last [winter at Coggeshall, in Essex,] apparently in an exhausted 
state. On the [ 20th May, 1827 , a pair of the Pra]tincole, Glareola 
austriaca, were shot nea[r Yarmouth. A speci.me]n of the Gallinula 
minuta, of Montagu was [shot near Yarmouth last] May. 
I have received several sp [ecimens of Godwits, Scolopax cegoceph- 
ala,] & Limosa, at different times from. Yarmouth. A few of 
them breed a?m]ually in the fens near Yarmouth, \[n the same 
locality as the Ruffs, wit]\\ wh[ic]h they are sometimes taken. 
Th[e Red-legged Partridge is numerous] here, & on the heathy 
tract near the [coast it far exceeds the common] species in numbers. 
A Long-legged Plover [teas shot on the banks of Breydo] n Broad, 
near Yarmouth, in M[ay, 1823, in which neighbourhood also 7??.]ost 
of our rare Water Birds h [ave been met with during the last] 8 or 
10 years. I should have [much pleasure, if you wished it, in 
forward] ing you specimens of the Lesser W [hitefhroat, with its 
nest and eggs. I am, Sir, ?/]our obed nt humble 
[servant, J]ohn D. Hoy. 
[Pride aux] John Selby Esq®- 
[TwiJzell House 
N ORTHUMBERLAND. 
[A copy of this letter, which is in an injured condition, was printed by 
Dr. Bree in the Field newspaper for November 9th, 1867, from a transcript 
in the handwriting of, and lent to him by, Mrs. Lescher. Some part of 
that portion which is now missing must then have been in existence, but the 
letter had probably already sustained some damage. Yet the remains prove 
that the published version is not altogether accurate, and in particular the 
passage about the Pratincoles, which was entirely misunderstood, and has 
naturally led to further comment (cf. Stevenson’s Birds of Norfolk , ii, p. 64, 
note). It will be seen that there was nothing improbable in Hoy’s statement. 
An attempt has been made here to restore the missing' portion with the help 
of the older copy— the words supplied being enclosed by square brackets. 
But that readers may judge for themselves how far this conjectural restora- 
tion may be justified, Dr. Bree’s version of the concluding part of the letter 
is here subjoined : — 
