and shrubberies near the house for some time; and others had been seen, but were not killed. On February 21., another male was brought to me, shot at Chastleton, a village about three miles from Daylesford House. I have preserved all these birds. Upon examining their stomachs, I could find nothing but the kernels of the pomes or fruits (unbotanically called berries) of the hawthorn bushes which they had been frequenting.-T. G. Chipping Norton, Oxon, March 6. 1833. Notices of the occurrence of the hawfinch in Ireland are given in Vol. V. p. 582. note ‡, p. 734.; Vol. VI. p. 81. The remarks in Vol. V. p. 582. note ‡, describe the structure of this bird's powerful bill, and are valuable. Mr. Hewitson states, in his British Oology, t. 43., that his friend Mr. Doubleday, during May and June, 1832, discovered several nests, with eggs, of this bird in Epping Forest; "in some instances in bushy trees, at the height of five or six feet, and in others near the top of firs, at an elevation of twenty or thirty feet." Mr. Hewitson adds, "This bird has before been said to breed in this country, but the instances are very rare, if not altogether doubtful;" overlooking, possibly, the instance given in our Vol. I. p. 374. by T. F., who describes the nest and eggs as he observed them. J. D. The Chiffchaff Pettychaps (Sylvia lòquax Herbert), and the Rufous Pettychaps (S. rufa Latham). (p. 447.) I have, in the Field Naturalist's Magazine [for Oct. 1833, p. 423-447.], endeavoured to extricate the several species of Sylvia, as the genus is now very properly restricted to the pettychaps or willow wren group, from the confusion in which they have been involved. I should not, therefore, have here offered the following observations on this subject, had not Professor Rennie's paper (published in the Field Naturalist's Magazine for February, 1833) on the Sylvia rùfa and S. hippolais of the Continent been, in p. 447., adduced as a correct elucidation of the species of this genus. The common chiffchaff of this country (S. lòquax Herbert, S. hippolais of other British authors) is a distinct species from the S. rufa; and perfectly distinct also from the S. hippolais of the Continental writers. I have now before me specimens of all three; but the skins of the two latter, unfortunately, have been taken from individuals that had died in the cage, and are, in consequence, so much injured, that it is impossible to draw up from them a minute technical description; the specific differences between them are, however, very obvious. The Common Chiffchaff (Sylvia loquax Herbert) most closely resembles the willow wren, or garden pettychaps (S. Trochilus of authors, but might, from its charming melody, be more fitly named S. melòdia), but may, at once, be distinguished from it by the dark brownish black colour of the legs and feet, by the comparative shortness of the wings, by its smaller size, and by the general darker and more brownish hue of the plumage. Although it is the smallest of the three common British species, the tibia bone of the leg is longer than that of either the wood wren (S. sibilàtrix), or the willow wren (S. Trochilus auctorum, S. melòdia? [Blyth]). This bone, I may here observe, is shortest in the wood wren; which last species has also the gape of the mouth considerably wider than in any of the others. The chiffchaff chiefly inhabits woods; and though it has been said by most authors to haunt particularly the neighbourhood of firs and other evergreens, I think it will be found that the individuals which frequent such situations will turn out to be of the species S. rùfa, confounded hitherto with the other, from the similarity of their notes. The common British chiffchaff seems to be entirely overlooked by Continental writers, unless (what, indeed, is not improbable) one of the birds alluded to by M. Temminck as varieties? of S. rùfa may refer to it. The Sylvia rufa is a rather smaller species than S. lòquax, and of a shorter make; the ridge of the bill is more depressed, and the legs and feet are of a very pale colour; the general hue of the upper parts, which in the chiffchaff are tinged with greenish, in the rufous pettychaps incline toward a slightly reddish brown, and the under parts have a faint but decided tinge of russet; the only indication of the prevailing characteristic colour of the genus being a little greenish yellow under the wing. I am sorry that the injured state of my specimen prevents me from giving a more minute description of this bird; but sufficiently marked characters are here mentioned to distinguish it easily from the chiffchaff. I have hitherto searched in vain for the species in this part of Surrey, but am nevertheless strongly inclined to suspect that it will be established ere long as a regular summer visitant to the fir districts in the south of England. The young in their nestling plumage, I am informed, are of a dull ashy brown; those of S. lòquax are much more beautiful than the adult birds, the upper parts being of a livelier green, and the whole under parts with the eye-streak being of a uniform fine pale yellow: the eggs, however, of these two species are hardly to be distinguished. [Sylvia hippolais Temminck and Bechstein.] Mr. Gould, in his valuable work on the Birds of Europe, has said that M. Temminck has, probably by mistake, reversed the synonymes of his S. hippolàis and S. Trochilus. It does not, however, require much acumen to perceive that M. Temminck's description of S. hippolàis will not accord with either of these species, as described by British authors, and that the difference between their measurements is very much greater than that between those of the chiffchaff and the willow wren. A specimen of Temminck's bird (the S. hippolàis Tem. and of Bechstein, S. polyglótta of Viellot and Ranzani, le grand pouillot of Cuvier, Hortícola polyglótta* Blyth), is now in my possession. It is of about the size and shape of a blackcap (Ficédula atricapilla†): the bill is large, and formed much like that of a nightingale; longer, and not quite so thick, and the rictorial bristles are smaller and less conspicuous than they are represented at page 52. of the Field Naturalist's Magazine. Temminck has accurately described its plumage; and if, in addition, he had merely mentioned that it was a fine songster, an immense deal of confusion would have been prevented. Its nest, a fine specimen of which is in the collection of Professor Rennie, is of a most beautiful and solid construction, and differs essentially in character from that of any other known European warbler. - Edward Blyth. Tooting, Surrey. [For figures, &c, of three sylvias, see Vol. III. p. 519.] A Canary Bird (Fringilla canària L.) which was situate near a Gas Lamp, and would, on Music being played, sing at Night.I have often, in my evening walks to Blackness, been delighted by listening to a bird of this species, whose cage is hung opposite a brilliant gas light, pouring forth its gleeful melody responsive to the soldiers' bugles, as loudly and as merrily as if the sun were shining. -Wm. Gardiner, jun. Dundee, April 6. 1833. The Materials of the Nest of the Common Wren (Troglodytes vulgaris), Vol. I. p. 344., Vol. III. p. 568., Vol. V. p. 738., Vol. VI. p. 172. Though the nest is most generally constructed of moss, with a lining of feathers and hair, yet the materials are varied with the locality. In dry sandy banks it is composed of dried moss, mingled with fibres of grass; in mossy braes among furze, of moss and decayed straw; on the branches of trees, of moss and lichens; and in clefts of rocks, of dried leaves, similar in colour to the stone.-Id. Birds' Nests in singular Places. (Vol. V. p. 286. 289. 735., Vol. VI. p. 32. 68. 140. 154. 454.) As a parallel case with that recorded in p. 455., it may be mentioned, that Mr. See the Field Naturalist's Magazine for May, 1833, p. 204. I was, however, wrong there in stating that Temminck's S. hippolais did not refer to this bird. For an arrangement of the British warblers, see the Field Naturalist's Magazine for October, 1833. Barnes of Swindon, in Wiltshire, bears testimony to the fact of a swallow building in a bed-room regularly occupied, and upon the heel of a shoe hung up therein. The young ones were there hatched, and, according to a statement in the Dorset Chronicle, August 8. 1833, had not at that date left the nest. W. B. Clarke. Parkstone. - On Martins and Swallows, the instances given are in Vol.V. p. 285. 735., Vol. VI. p. 32. note*, 454. 524. That, in p. 455., of swallows building, in two successive years, their nest on the crank of a bell-wire, in the passage of an inhabited house, and rearing their young there, is very remarkable.-J. D. A Snow Bunting's Nest not in the Skull of an Esquimaux. (p. 154.) Since I sent the note on this subject, I have found the original memorandum, of which I had only an imperfect recollection. As I quoted from memory, I fell into a mistake; and I beg you to allow me to correct it, though it is at the expense of the coincidence which I endeavoured to establish, too accurately, between the skulls of Tom Otter and the Esquimaux. "Captain Lyon, in his attempts to reach Repulse Bay in 1824, found some natives of Southampton Island who possessed arrow-heads and knives made of dark-coloured flint these were found also over the grave of a child, on the neck of which a bird [the snow bunting] had built its nest. See Lyon's Voyage, p. 68." If these are not the words of Captain Lyon, they convey his meaning. — W. B. Clarke. Parkstone, July, 1833. - A Pair of Redstarts built their Nest in an inverted Flowerpot (p. 34.), at Wherstead Lodge, near Ipswich, about 4 or 5 years ago. The pot appropriated by this pair was one of the kind used in the forcing of sea-kale (Crambe marítima L.); consequently their nest was, from the larger orifice in the bottom of this kind of pot, more conveniently accessible than in the instance described by Mr. Bree, in page 34. -Henry Turner. Botanic Garden, Bury St. Edmunds, Feb. 26. 1833. The Robin's Confidence in Man. (p. 68.)- As an instance, additional to that described in p. 68., I may mention, that, early in 1832, a pair built their nest, and reared their young, on a pot of strawberry plants, placed to be forced in a hothouse belonging to Mr. Trevethan of this town. The pot stood at the back of the hot-house, and near the glass. The nest was so tightly fitted in and worked to the plants, that, although the pot was frequently, in all the different conditions of the nest, taken down to satisfy the curiosity of visiters, and then replaced, still its contents were not injured. A per The Robin has built and hatched early in 1833. fectly finished robin's nest was accidentally destroyed on January 14th, 1833; and, on the 7th of February, 1833, a nest of young robins was found in some ivy: both nests in this garden. I think these were very early. Were they not? Henry Turner. Botanic Garden, Bury St. Edmunds, Feb. 27. 1833. Plan proposed for introducing new Breeds of Birds into this Country.- Sir, The difficulty and expense attendant on bringing birds alive to this country from distant places being so great, I think the attempt to introduce the eggs in a state fit for incubation well worthy of trial. Several precautions will be found necessary. 1st, The eggs must be kept fresh, by the total exclusion of air. 2dly, The temperature must be kept uniform. 3dly, The eggs should be submitted to as little motion as possible, and the smaller end of the egg should be placed downwards. In order to succeed, I would recommend that the eggs should first be coated with gum arabic, and, when dry, with spirit varnish. The first would be sufficient, if total absence of moisture could be secured. The varnish can be removed by spirit of turpentine, without affecting the gum arabic, as the latter is not soluble in the spirit. Water will afterwards remove the gum. The eggs, when prepared, should be packed in a box of pulverised charcoal, taking care that the eggs are placed with the small end down, and not in contact with each other. The box should be kept continually with the same side up. It would, perhaps, be better if the box were suspended in the cabin. All these precautions may appear troublesome; but they are trifling, compared with the constant attention required by live birds. I have suggested this plan to the secretary of the Zoological Society; and it would afford me much pleasure to learn that a fair trial had been made. A circumstance which some years ago was mentioned gives me sanguine hopes of its success. It was, that some eggs sent to India, simply covered with a coating of gum arabic, had been hatched there with success. Should any of your readers happen to know facts of successful incubation after the eggs had been kept for considerable periods, I hope they will communicate them to the public through your Magazine, as they would materially strengthen the opinion I entertain on this subject, and perhaps induce a more extensive trial of the plan. I am, Sir, yours, &c. Charles M. Willich. London, Oct. 11. 1833. A variety of the partridge bantam, which is of a ginger colour, has legs devoid of feathers, and, from these characters, and the beauty of its proportions, is much admired, is kept, |