LIST OF XOltFOLK UlUUS. 
281 
111. Paiirot Crossbill* {Loxia pityopsittacus). 
Professor Xewton has recorded a reel male shot at Piddlesworth, 
some years prior to 1851 (‘Zoologist,’ 1851, p. 3145), the only 
Norfolk specimen known. 
[G. Ped-wixoed Starlixo {Agehvtis phceniceus). 
A Ked-wingcd Starling — the second British specimen — was 
shot on Barton Broad in June, 1843. It is not an 
uncommon cage-bird, but there is no reason why it 
sliould not have crossed the Atlantic.] 
112. Starlino [Sii/niiis vulgaris). 
A very common resident, in addition to which enormous 
numbers of migrants come to us in autumn. Seven hundred and 
twenty-four Starlings and Larks are said to have been caught in a 
single night at Cromer lighthouse (‘Zoologist,’ 1875, p. 436G). 
Jlany fly against our lloating light-ve.ssels. On October 24tli, 1884, 
tlie Principal of the “Leman and Ower’’ reckoned tliat live 
thousand passed his vessel (Si.xth Beport on Migration, p. 53). 
jMany other instances might be given. In Heligoland the Starling 
is looked upon as one of the most numerous of migrants {l.c.), 
“ immense numbers ” and “ astounding flights ” being recorded 
as passing. — G. 
113. Kose-coloured Pastor {Pastor roseus). 
A Ivose-coloureil I’.rstor was shot as long ago as 1747 at 
Bougham, as recorded by G. Edwards (Nat. Hist, of Biixls, 
vol. iv. p. 222). Since that time many others have been recorded 
chiefly near the coast {cf. Stevenson, ‘Birds of Norfolk,’ vol. ii. 
p. 253), including some fine males with splendid crasts, but of 
late years only two have been shot in Norfolk. 
114. Raven {Corx'us corax). 
Quite extinct as a resident ; the last nests were at Shadwell, 
Ickburgh, Beachamwell, and !Mclton. A pair used to nest on the 
ruined steeple at South Walsham ; another pair nested as near to 
Norwich as the “Violet Grove” at Earlham, when my father was 
a boy. Stragglers are said to liave been seen from time to time on 
the coast, but no example has been shot for many years. — G. 
• The Pine Grosbeak is included in ‘ The Birds of Norfolk,’ but apparently 
the evidence is not suflicient for retaining it {cf. ‘ Zoologist,’ 1877, p. 215). 
