OK THE SIBERIAN PECTORAL SANDPIPER. 
367 
unworthy of trust, sent a second note to ‘The Zoologist,’ dated 
August 14th of the same year, and which will be found at 
page 2568 of that magazine, referring to his previous communication, 
and concluding with the following remark : “ I fear that I was 
imposed upon with respect to this specimen, and that it is in 
reality a foreign one.” On the 30th March, 1850, Mr. Gurney 
gave this bird (with others) to the Norwich Museum, instructing 
Mr. Reeve to place it in the British collection, but without any 
locality. Everybody who knew Mr. Gurney will be perfectly 
aware of the extreme caution he exercised in matters of this kind, 
and will not bo surprised at his at once rejecting the bird in 
question ; but 1 should like to bo allowed to state some reasons 
which have led me to think that in this instance he acted 
precipitately. (1) Tringa acuminata , although described and 
named by Iforsfield in 1820, could not have been a very well- 
known species to British ornithologists in 1848, and even the 
Pectoral Sandpiper would have been a most unlikely species for 
this man to have obtained otherwise than by its accidentally 
falling to his gun ; how much more unlikely, therefore, would it 
be for him to obtain in any other way an example of the Siberian 
form. The lved-winged Starling (Aye! mis phoeniceu * <), on the 
contrary, a species frequently imported alive into this country, 
is by no means an unlikely bird to have been selected for a 
dishonest purpose, and the circumstance of an example of this 
bird having actually been obtained in Norfolk in June, 1843, may 
have suggested the deception. (2) The time of year, also, is in 
favour of the bird being genuine, for all the Norfolk-killed Pectoral 
Sandpipers which have since been obtained have occurred (with 
a single exception) in September or October ; the bird in question, 
an adult in autumn plumage, is therefore appropriate to the season. 
(3) It seems not improbable that the large sum obtained, honestly 
it may be, by this man for the Sandpiper, may have tempted him to 
fraud on a subsequent occasion. (4) Air. Roberts, who has had great 
experience in mounting birds from skins, and who recently restutfed 
this bird, tells me that he has no hesitation in saying that it was 
originally set up from the flesh, and that it was badly shot in the 
neck and leg. After carefully weighing the evidence pro and con, 
I am of opinion that Mr. Gurney, annoyed at the attempted 
imposition with regard to the Red- winged Starling, too hastily 
c c 2 
