HERTFORDSHIRE ORNITHOLOGY. 
31 
The explanation is probably to be found in the general similarity 
of the bird to the skylark. To quote again from Mr. Hudson: 
“ In appearance the woodlark is a lesser skylark, with a shorter 
tail in proportion to the body, and no apparent difference in colour, 
except that the spots on the breast and the pale streak over the 
eye are more conspicuous. It ranks with the six or eight finest 
British songsters, but it is the least known of all, being very 
generally mistaken for the skylark. The mistake is easily made, 
the song having the same character, and being a continuous stream 
of song, delivered in the same manner. He differs, however, from 
the skylark in his manner of rising; that bird goes up and up, 
not vertically, but inclining now to this side, now to that, with 
intervals of suspension : the woodlark ascends in circles, and 
finally does not attain to so great a height. He also sings from 
his perch on a tree, and rises from the tree to sing aloft, in this 
point resembling the tree-pipit ” Mr. Saunders adds: “The 
woodlark may always be distinguished from the skylark by its 
smaller size, more pronounced crest, much shorter tail, more 
slender bill, and by the very broad buffish white stripes which run 
backward over each eye to the nape, where they join and show up 
the dark ear-coverts.” 
It is, of course, a much easier matter to trace out these differences 
in appearance when the birds lie on the dissecting-table before you, 
than when they are out in their native wilds and a passing glimpse 
may be the only chance of identification permitted to the observer. 
I trust, however, that the notes here given may enable some of 
our members in the north of the county to certify the resident 
character of this species. We ought nht to allow ourselves to 
do such injustice to one of our resident species, and one moreover 
that is included amongst our finest songsters, as to let both his 
presence and his song be placed to the credit of one of his near 
relations, however estimable a fellow that near relation may be. 
I have now given what I hope is a very fair summary of the 
work that has been done in compiling the records of our county 
ornithology. I have also pointed out one or two respects.in which, 
in my opinion, careful and intelligently-directed observation may 
improve this record. Naturally enough, the question arises in 
everyone’s mind—Is not the subject of birds practically worked 
out ? Is it possible to do more ? Can we hope to add any more 
to the list of species already seen ? If not, what more can be done ? 
If the pursuit of ornithology led only to the compilation of 
a list of species, I admit that the subject is practically worked out 
so far as Hertfordshire is concerned. But does it? Surely, when 
we have succeeded in identifying and naming a bird, and placing 
that name on a list, we have done only the very least that can 
be done. We want to know, if possible, its history, and as 
Mr. Seebohm has well said: “The real history of a bird is its 
life-history. The deepest interest attaches to everything that 
reveals the little mind , however feebly it may be developed, which 
lies behind the feathers.” 
