in Iceland respecting the Gar e-fowl. 375 
visits to Christiania and Copenhagen the following year, when he 
first heard of the discoveries of the late Herr Peter Stuvitz and 
Professor Steenstrup, and besides made the personal acquaint¬ 
ance of the last-mentioned illustrious naturalist, who soon after 
published so valuable a contribution to this bird's history*. 
In this paper, therefore, I do not mean to refer much to the 
bird's appearance in other localities, except in one instance to 
correct a very prevalent misapprehension. But, on the other 
hand, I do not claim entire novelty for several of the statements 
I have to make. Some of them have already found their way 
into one book or another—sometimes rightly reported, sometimes 
wrongly. Nor do I profess to be sure that the account I have 
to give is always the true one. It must be remembered that the 
results here recorded are the main points of evidence deduced 
from many authorities, and offered by nearly one hundred 
living witnesses; and though I do not doubt that the greater 
number of these latter are persons of eminently truthful habit 
(for such is the natural characteristic of the Icelander), yet some 
few there are who may have wilfully told falsehoods. Nor 
should it be forgotten that it is, humanly speaking, impossible for 
any two persons, however honestly disposed, to give identically 
the same version of the same events, though most generally in 
such cases the variations will be unimportant. Add to this that 
much of the evidence, though written down at the time by Mr. 
Wolley (whose note-books I have carefully consulted) in a most 
painstaking manner, had to pass through an interpreter; and, 
as nearly all of it referred to a period of many years ago, it will 
not be surprising if some inaccuracies have crept in. 
The particular misconception to which I wish to draw especial 
attention is, that the Great Auk is, or was, a bird of the far 
North—indeed, of the Polar regions. That such an opinion 
prevails, one has only to refer to authorities generally received by 
ornithologists of all countries. Professor Steenstrup, in the 
paper to which I have alluded, has conclusively shown it to be 
unfounded, without, however, having been able to trace the error 
satisfactorily to its source. Por myself, I imagine it to have ori- 
* Videnskabelige Meddelser for Aaret 1855. Kjobenhavn. 1856-1857, 
pp. 33-116. 
