IV 
to divide England into two parts, one of which should be in the 
charge of Mr. Leigh and the other of Mr. Theobald, who has 
been assisted by Mr. W. McGowan. During the earlier part 
of the period, therefore, both investigators were receiving 
birds from all parts of England, while later on their specimens 
were mainly drawn from their respective districts. This explains, 
for the most part, why the majority of the birds reported upon 
by Mr. Leigh came from the northern counties of England and 
those dealt with by Mr. Theobald from the south. The methods 
adopted by each investigator have followed similar lines, but 
the work has been carried out independently. It is, therefore, 
interesting to note that the facts ascertained from the two inves- 
tigations are in most respects very similar, but that in the case of 
one bird the conclusions drawn are very different. It is, perhaps, 
to be regretted that an agreement has not been reached in this 
case, and the divergence of views may lead to the opinion that the 
question has not been settled ; but if this leads the reader to 
study the evidence and to draw his own conclusions from the 
facts laid before him it will probably be of advantage in the 
long run. 
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, 
Whitehall Place, London, S.W., 
May, 1916. 
