398 
Letters, Announcements, fyc. 
The bird is still in immature plumage; and until after its 
next moult it will, I think, be impossible to determine (ex¬ 
cept by dissection in case of death) whether it is a male of 
Falco peregrinus or a female of either F. barbarus or F. minor; 
but I am decidedly of opinion that it is not an example of 
F. peregrinator , as that species, when in immature dress, al¬ 
ways has, so far as I have observed, the longitudinal dark 
marks on the breast and abdomen narrower than they are in 
this specimen, and the paler interspaces decidedly tinged with 
rufous. I am, &c., 
J. H. Gurney. 
Sirs, —In the last number of f The Ibis' (< anted, , p. 164) 
Mr. Seebohm gives a detailed description of the rufous-tailed 
Shrike, which has been shot on Heligoland. After having 
examined the specimen and collated with other skins, he says, 
“ I submit that the Heligoland bird is Lanius isabellinus, 
Hempr. & Ehr. (1828),=A. arenarius, Blyth (1846), = L. 
phcenicuroides, Sev. (1876)." 
I have not had the pleasure of examining this Heligoland 
Shrike; but I have received, by the kindness of Mr. Gaetke, 
a longer description, which I have published (Journ. fur Or- 
nithologie, 1875), and from which I suppose the bird not to 
be Lanius phcenicurus, Pall., but a nearly allied species, pro¬ 
bably L. phoenicuraides of Severtzoff. In identifying the 
Heligoland Shrike with L. isabellinus, Hempr. & Ehr., Mr. 
Seebohm is perhaps right ; but in identifying this last-named 
bird with L. phcenicuroides, Sev., he is not right. These two 
Shrikes are nearly allied, but not the same. In a little ac¬ 
count of the genus Otomela, Bp. (Journ. fur Ornithologie, 
1875), I have referred to the specific differences between 
these rufous-tailed Shrikes. The examination of the large 
series of L. isabellinus and L. phoenicuroides which Mr. Mo¬ 
dest Bogdanow has collected in Turkestan has confirmed my 
opinion. 
I am, &c., 
H. Schalow. 
Berlin, N., Nieder-Schonhausen, 
6th June, 1877. 
