OUR SUMMER MIGRANTS.

OUR SUMMER MIGRANTS.

AN ACCOUNT OF
THE MIGRATORY BIRDS
WHICH PASS THE SUMMER IN
THE BRITISH ISLANDS.

BY J. E. HARTING, F.L.S., F.Z.S.

AUTHOR OF A “HANDBOOK OF BRITISH BIRDS,” A NEW EDITION OF WHITE’S “SELBORNE,” ETC., ETC.

ILLUSTRATED FROM DESIGNS BY THOMAS BEWICK.

LONDON:
BICKERS AND SON,
1, LEICESTER SQUARE.
1875.

CHISWICK PRESS:—PRINTED BY WHITTINGHAM AND WILKINS,
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE.

PREFACE.

For those who reside in the country and have both leisure and inclination to observe the movements and habits of birds, there is not a more entertaining occupation than that of noting the earliest arrival of the migratory species, the haunts which they select, and the wonderful diversity which they exhibit in their actions, nidification, and song.

There is something almost mysterious in the way in which numbers of these small and delicately formed birds are found scattered in one day over a parish where on the previous day not one was to be seen; and the manner of their arrival is scarcely more remarkable than the regularity with which they annually make their appearance.

That most of them reach this country after long and protracted flights, crossing the Mediterranean, the Bay of Biscay, and the English Channel is an undoubted fact. They have been seen to arrive upon our shores, and have been observed at sea during their passage, often at a considerable distance from land.

But how few of those who notice them in this country know where they come from, why they come, what they find here to live upon, how, when, and where they go for the winter!

In the following chapters an attempt has been made to answer these questions, and to give such information generally about our summer migratory birds as will prove acceptable to many who may be glad to possess it without knowing exactly where to look for it. Some of these sketches were originally published in the Natural History columns of “The Field” during the summer of 1871, and as a reprint has frequently been asked for, I have now carefully revised them and made some important additions and emendations, besides adding to the series a dozen or more chapters which have never before appeared.

The illustrations, from designs by Thomas Bewick, will, it is conceived, add considerably to the attractiveness of the volume, and will enable the reader to dispense with particular descriptions of the species, which it might be otherwise desirable to furnish. These may be found, moreover, in other works devoted to British Ornithology.

James Edmund Harting.

July, 1875.

CONTENTS.

Page [The Wheatear] 1 [The Whinchat] 9 [The Stonechat] 13 [The Wood Warbler] 16 [The Willow Warbler] 24 [The Chiff-chaff] 28 [The Nightingale] 32 [The Blackcap] 44 [The Orphean Warbler] 51 [The Garden Warbler] 59 [The Common Whitethroat] 67 [The Lesser Whitethroat] 71 [The Redstart] 74 [The Sedge Warbler] 81 [a]The Reed Warbler] 83 [The Grasshopper Warbler] 86 [Savi’s Warbler] 88 [The Aquatic Warbler] 91 [The Marsh Warbler] 92 [The Great Reed Warbler] 101 [The Rufous Warbler] 103 [The Pied Wagtail] 106 [The White Wagtail] 110 [The Grey Wagtail] 112 [The Yellow Wagtail] 117 [The Grey-headed Wagtail] 121 [The Meadow Pipit] 124 [The Rock Pipit] 130 [The Tree Pipit] 135 [The Water Pipit] 138 [Richard’s Pipit] 142 [The Tawny Pipit] 146 [The Pennsylvanian Pipit] 149 [The Red-throated Pipit] 152 [The Spotted Flycatcher] 155 [The Pied Flycatcher] 160 [The Swallow] 170 [The Martin] 184 [The Sand Martin] 187 [The Common Swift] 191 [The Alpine Swift] 199 [The Nightjar] 204 [The Cuckoo] 219 [The Wryneck] 242 [The Hoopoe] 249 [The Golden Oriole] 262 [The Red-backed Shrike] 276 [The Turtle-dove] 282 [The Landrail or Corncrake] 288 [General Observations] 299 [Conclusion] 330 [Index] 335

THE WHEATEAR.
(Saxicola œnanthe.)

One of the earliest of our feathered visitors to arrive is the Wheatear, which comes to us as a rule in the second week of March; and, although individuals have been seen and procured occasionally at a much earlier date, there is reason to believe that the spring migration does not set in before this, and that the birds met with previously are such as have wintered in this country; for it has been well ascertained that the Wheatear, like the Stonechat, occasionally remains with us throughout the year. It is a noticeable fact that those which stay the winter are far less shy in their habits, and will suffer a much nearer approach.

The name Wheatear may have been derived either from the season of its arrival, or from its being taken in great numbers for the table at wheat harvest. Or, again, it may be a corruption of whitear, from the white ear which is very conspicuous in the spring plumage of this bird. Many instances are on record of Wheatears having come on board vessels several miles from land at the period of migration, and from the observations of naturalists in various parts of the country it would appear that these birds travel by night, or at early dawn. I do not remember any recorded instance in which they have been seen to land upon our shores in the daytime.

In Ireland, according to Mr. Thompson,[1] the Wheatear arrives much later than in England, and does not stay the winter. With regard to Scotland, Macgillivray states[2] that it is nowhere more plentiful than in the outer Hebrides, and in the Orkney and Shetland Islands; and from the fact of his having observed the species near Edinburgh on the 28th of February, we may infer that a few, as in England, occasionally remain throughout the year.

The number of Wheatears which used to be taken years ago upon the South Downs in autumn was a matter of notoriety.

“Hereabouts,” says an old chronicle of East-Bourne, “is the chief place for catching the delicious birds called Wheatears, which much resemble the French Ortolans;” and Wheatears play an important part in the history of this town. Squire William Wilson, of Hitching, Lord of the Manor of East-Bourne, was in Oliver Cromwell’s time vehemently suspected of loyalty to the Stuarts; and one Lieutenant Hopkins, with a troop of dragoons, swooped down on Eastbourne to search the squire’s house, and, if needful, arrest him as a Malignant. The squire was laid up with the gout; but Mistress Wilson, his true wife, with the rarely-failing shrewdness of her sex, placed before Lieutenant Hopkins and his troopers a prodigious pie filled with Wheatears, “which rare repast,” the chronicle goes on to say, “the soldiers did taste with so much amazement, delight, and jollity,” that the squire upstairs had ample time to burn all the papers which would compromise him, and when Lieutenant Hopkins, full of Wheatear pie, came to search the house, there was not so much treasonable matter found as could have brought a mouse within peril of a præmunire. At the Restoration the Lord of the Manor became Sir William Wilson of Eastbourne, a dignity well earned by his devotion to the Royal cause; but the chronicle goes on to hint that Charles II. was passionately fond of Wheatears, and that possibly the liberality of the squire, in supplying his Majesty’s table with these delicacies, may have had something to do with the creation of the baronetcy.

The abundance of Wheatears at certain seasons on the Hampshire downs was noticed by Gilbert White in a letter to the Hon. Daines Barrington in Dec. 1773. Since this excellent naturalist penned his observations, however, many changes in the haunts and habits of birds have been remarked. For example, the Hawfinch, which he referred to as “rarely seen in England, and only in winter,” is now found to be resident throughout the year, and nesting even in the proximity of London and other large cities. The Landrail, which he noted as “a bird so rare in this district that we seldom see more than one or two in a season, and those only in autumn,” is now so plentiful in the same neighbourhood that I have shot as many as half a dozen in one day in September, within a few miles of Selborne. The Common Bunting, which in 1768 was considered to be a “rare bird” in the district referred to, may now be heard there in full song—if song it can be called—throughout the month of May. Whilst walking from Liss to Selborne, I have on two occasions met with a bird which Gilbert White had not observed—the Cirl Bunting; and, to return to the Wheatears, these birds, which were formerly so plentiful in autumn that the shepherds trapped them by dozens, are now far less numerous at the same season, and the practice of snaring them has perceptibly declined.[3] It was remarkable that, although in the height of the season—i.e., at wheat harvest—so many hundreds of dozens were taken, yet they were never seen to flock, and it was a rare thing to see more than three or four at a time; so that there must have been a perpetual flitting and constant progressive succession.

The Wheatear is partial to commons and waste lands, old quarries, sand hills, and downs by the sea, and it is in these situations that we may now look for him without much fear of disappointment. Like all the chats, the Wheatear is very terrestrial in its habits, seldom perching on trees, although often to be seen on gate-posts and rails, where a broader footing is afforded it. Its song is rather sprightly, and is occasionally uttered on the wing. The contrast between the spring and autumn plumage of this bird is very remarkable. If an old bird be examined in September, it will be found that the white superciliary streak has almost disappeared; the colour of the upper parts has become reddish brown; the throat and breast pale ferruginous, lighter on the flanks and belly; while the primaries and tail at its extremity are much browner. On raising the feathers of the back, it will be found that the base of each feather is grey; and in spring this colour supersedes the brown of winter, which is worn off, and the upper parts assume a beautiful bluish grey, while the under parts become pure white. In this species, therefore, it is evident that the seasonal change of plumage is effected by a change of colour in the same feather, and not by a moult.

The nest of the Wheatear is generally well concealed in the crevice of a cliff or sandbank, or in an old rabbit burrow. Where these conveniences are not accessible, the nest may be found at the foot of a bush, screened from view by grass or foliage. The eggs, five or six in number, are of a delicate pale blue, occasionally spotted at the larger end with pale rust colour.

The geographical range of the Wheatear is very extensive for so small and short-winged a bird. It is found in the Faroe Isles, Iceland, and Greenland; in Lapland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark; throughout Europe to the Mediterranean; in Egypt, Arabia, Asia Minor, and Armenia.

THE WHINCHAT.
(Saxicola rubetra.)

Seldom appearing before the end of the first week in April, the Whinchat arrives much later than the Wheatear, and is much less diffused than that species. By the end of September it has again left the country, and I have never met with an instance of its remaining in England during the winter months. On several occasions correspondents have forwarded to me in winter a bird which they believed to be the Whinchat, but which invariably proved to be a female, or male in winter plumage, of the Stonechat—a species which is known to reside with us throughout the year, yet receiving a large accession to its numbers in spring, and undergoing corresponding decrease in autumn.

In the southern counties of England the Whinchat is sometimes very numerous, and may be found in every meadow perched upon the tall grass stems or dockweed. The abundance or scarcity of this species, however, varies considerably according to season. In some years I have noticed extraordinary numbers of this little bird, and in others have scarcely been able to count two or three pairs in a parish. I have generally found that a cold or wet spring has so affected their migration as to cause them apparently to alter their plans, and induce them to spend the summer but a short distance to the north or north-west of their winter quarters.

It is a little remarkable that in Ireland the Whinchat is far less common than the Stonechat, the reverse being the case in England. Mr. Thompson says, in the work already quoted (p. 175), “In no part of Ireland have I seen the Whinchat numerous, and compared with the Stonechat it is very scarce.” In the south of Scotland, according to Macgillivray, it seldom makes its appearance before the end of April, that is, more than a fortnight after its arrival in England. It extends to Sutherland, Caithness, and the outer Hebrides (cf. More, “Ibis,” 1865, p. 22), and has occasionally been met with in Orkney, but not in Shetland. In winter it migrates to the south-east, and at that season is not uncommon in Egypt, Nubia, and Abyssinia, travelling also through Asia Minor, Arabia and Persia, as far eastward as the north-west provinces of India. In a south-westerly direction this species, passing through Spain and Portugal, proceeds down the west coast of Africa to Senegal, Gambia, and Fantee.

The Whinchat differs a good deal in its habits from the Wheatear, and on this account, as well as on account of certain differences of structure, it has been placed with the Stonechat and other allied species in a separate genus (Pratincola). It is doubtful, however, whether these differences are sufficient to entitle them to anything more than a specific separation.

The Whinchat perches much more than does the Wheatear, and may be seen darting into the air for insects, after the manner of a Flycatcher. It derives its name, of course, from the fact of its being found upon the whin, or furze, a favourite perch also for its congener the Stonechat. The derivation of the word whin I have never been able to ascertain.

Although the two species are frequently confounded, the Whinchat may be always distinguished from the Stonechat by its superciliary white streak, by the lighter-coloured throat and vent, and by the white bases of the three outer tail feathers on each side. Both species make a very similar nest, which is placed on the ground and well concealed, and lay very similar eggs, of a bright blue faintly speckled at the large end with rust colour.

THE STONECHAT.
(Saxicola rubicola.)

As has been already stated, the Stonechat may be found in a few scattered pairs throughout the country all the year round. At the beginning of April, however, a considerable accession to its numbers is observed to take place, owing to a migration from the south and south-east. It takes up its residence on moors and heaths, and many a lonely walk over such ground is enlivened by the sprightly actions and sharp “chook-chook” of this little bird. The male in his wedding dress, with jet black head, white collar, and ferruginous breast, is extremely handsome; and the artist who is fond of depicting bird-life would scarcely find a prettier subject than a male Stonechat in this plumage upon a spray of furze in full bloom.

In Ireland the Stonechat is considered to be a resident species, and this is attributed by Mr. Thompson to the mild winters of that island. In Scotland, on the contrary, Sir Wm. Jardine has observed that the Stonechat is not nearly so abundant as either the Whinchat or the Wheatear, and frequents localities of a more wild and secluded character. It ranges, however, to the extreme north of the mainland of Scotland, and is included by Dr. Dewar in his list of birds which he found nesting in the Hebrides. It is said not to breed in either Orkney or Shetland.[4]

The geographical range of the Stonechat is rather more extensive than that of the Whinchat, for besides being found throughout the greater part of Europe to the Mediterranean, it goes by way of Senegal to South Africa, and extends eastward through Asia Minor, Palestine, and Persia, to India and Japan. In Europe, however, its distribution is somewhat remarkable, inasmuch as it is confined chiefly to the central and southern portions of the continent, and in Norway and Sweden is unknown. The Whinchat, on the other hand, breeds in these countries, and has been met with as far north as Archangel. In winter the male Stonechat loses the black head, and the colours in both sexes are much less vivid than in summer. Here again, as with the Wheatear, the change of plumage seems to be effected by a change of colour in the same feathers, and not by a moult.

Apropos of this subject, the reader may be referred to an article contributed by me to the Natural History columns of “The Field,” 16th September, 1871, on variation of colour in birds.

THE WOOD WARBLER.
(Phylloscopus sibilatrix.)

Although often taken to comprehend every species of warbler, Professor Newton has recently shown[5] that the genus Sylvia of Latham should be restricted to the group of fruit-eating warblers next to be described, and that the generic term which has priority for the willow wren group is Phylloscopus of Boie.

From its larger size, brighter colour, and finer song, the Wood Warbler deserves to be first noticed; and the first step should be to distinguish it from its congeners. Perhaps none of the small insectivorous birds have been more confounded one with another than have the members of this group, not only by observers of the living birds, but by naturalists with skins of each before them. Taking the three species which annually visit us—i. e., the Wood Warbler, the Willow Warbler, and the Chiff-chaff—it will be found on comparison that they differ in size as follows—

Not only is the Wood Warbler the largest of the three, but it has comparatively the longest wings and the longest legs. The wings, when closed, cover three-fourths of the tail. In the Willow Wren, under the same circumstances, less than half the tail is hidden. The Chiff-chaff’s wing is shorter again. In my edition of White’s “Selborne,” founded upon that of Bennett, 1875, pp. 56, 57, will be found a long footnote on the subject, with woodcuts illustrating the comparative form of the wing in these three birds. Mr. Blake-Knox, in “The Zoologist” for 1866, p. 300, has pointed to the second quill-feather, depicted in a sketch accompanying his communication, as being an unfailing mark of distinction.[6] When we reflect, however, upon the variation which is found to exist in the length of feathers, owing to the age of the bird, moult, or accident, too much stress ought not to be laid upon this as a character. At the same time there is no doubt that, taken in connection with other details, it will often assist the determination of a species. After examining a large series of these birds, I have come to the conclusion that, as regards the wings, the following formulæ may be relied on: Wood Warbler, 2nd=4th; 3rd and 4th with outer webs sloped off towards the extremity. Willow Warbler, 2nd=6th; 3rd, 4th, and 5th sloped off. Chiff-chaff, 2nd=7th; 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th sloped off.

The Wood Warbler is much greener on the back and whiter on the under parts than either of its congeners, and has a well-defined superciliary streak of sulphur-yellow, which, in the Willow Wren, is much shorter and paler. The legs of the Wood Warbler and Willow Wren are brownish flesh-colour, while those of the Chiff-chaff are dark brown. After the first moult, the young of all three species are much yellower in colour than their parents. Hence the mistake which Vieillot made in describing the young of P. trochilus as a distinct species under the name of flaviventris.

Although the majority of the Sylviidæ are fruit-eaters, the species now under consideration are almost entirely insectivorous;[7] they are also more strictly arboreal in their habits, and as regards the character of their nests, they differ remarkably from other members of the Sylviidæ in building domed nests on or near the ground, instead of cup-shaped nests at a distance from it. The Yellow-billed Chiff-chaff—or Icterine Warbler, as it should now be called[8]—however, forms an exception to the rule, as will be seen later. As these little birds make their appearance at a season when caterpillars and destructive larvæ begin to be troublesome, the good they do in ridding the young leaves and buds of these pests is incalculable. I have watched a Willow Wren picking the green aphis off a standard rose-tree, and have been as much astonished at the quantity which it consumed as at the rapidity of the consumption. The Wood Warbler is not nearly so sociable as either the Willow Warbler or the Chiff-chaff. It keeps to the tops of trees in woods and plantations, and seldom comes into gardens; hence it is not so often seen. Although not rare, it is somewhat local, and in the British Islands, it appears, is confined exclusively to England and the south of Scotland. Mr. Thompson has included it with hesitation amongst the birds of Ireland; for although the description given to him of certain birds and eggs seemed to apply to this species, it was stated that the nest which contained the eggs was lined with feathers. Now, the Willow Wren invariably makes use of feathers for this purpose, but the Wood Warbler does not. The nest of the latter is composed entirely of dry grass and leaves, occasionally mixed with a little moss; and although I have sometimes found horsehair inside, I do not remember to have seen or heard of an instance in which any feathers were employed. The eggs, five or six in number, are white, closely freckled over with reddish brown.

Mr. Blake-Knox, a well-known naturalist, resident in the county of Dublin, says (“Zoologist,” 1866, p. 300), “I tried very hard this year to add the Wood Wren to our Dublin avifauna, and though I killed some dozens of snowy-white-bellied Willow Wrens, they were all the common Sylvia trochilus. That the bird is Irish I am sure, for I have heard it. Should an Irish ornithologist see this, will he try for it, if he should live in a wooded district, such as the counties Wicklow and Wexford? I am sure it is neglected for want of a certain distinction.” Since this note was published, the Wood Wren has actually been obtained in Ireland, a specimen having been shot in the county of Fermanagh by Sir Victor Brooke, and preserved by him in June, 1870. Another was obtained the same year at Glen Druid in the county of Dublin, as reported by Mr. Blake-Knox. Both Sir William Jardine and Macgillivray have referred to the Wood Warbler being found northward to the middle districts of Scotland, a circumstance which appears to have been overlooked by Mr. Yarrell, since he says (vol. i. p. 349, 3rd edit.), “I am not aware of any record of its appearance in Scotland.” This statement, however, has been rectified in the fourth edition of this standard work by Professor Newton, who remarks: “In Scotland it is known to breed regularly in the counties of Dumfries, Wigton, Lanark and Berwick, the Lothians and Perthshire, and occasionally in those of Roxburgh, Selkirk, Renfrew and Stirling.” Mr. A. G. More, in an article “On the Distribution of Birds in Great Britain during the Nesting Season,” published in the “Ibis” for 1865, observes (p. 26), that the Wood Warbler “in Scotland ranges further north than the Chiff-chaff, having been observed by the Duke of Argyle in Argyleshire and at Balmoral.”

According to Mr. Robert Gray, of Glasgow, it has been observed in Inverness and Aberdeenshire, and Mr. Edwards has found it in Banffshire.

Beyond the British Islands the Wood Warbler is found throughout Europe, though rare in the north, and it extends eastward to Siberia and southward to Algeria, Egypt and Abyssinia. It arrives in this country generally about the middle of April, and leaves again in September.

THE WILLOW WARBLER.
(Phylloscopus trochilus.)

The Willow Warbler is much more generally distributed than the last-named bird; but it is possible that it is considered commoner from the difference in the haunts of the two species—the Wood Warbler, as already remarked, keeping further away from habitations. As a rule, the Willow Wren arrives in this country about the end of the first week in April—that is to say, before the Wood Warbler, but not so early as the Chiff-chaff, which is the first of the genus to appear.

Yarrell speaks of these birds as “having acquired with us the general name of Willow Warblers, or Willow Wrens, from their prevailing green colour;” but Thompson, in his “Birds of Ireland” (i. p. 192), says, “this name was doubtless bestowed upon the bird originally on account of its partiality to willows, which I have frequently remarked, the twigs and branches of the common osier (Salix viminalis) abounding with aphides, being on such occasions its chief favourite.” There is yet another suggestion—i. e., that the name may have been bestowed from the circumstance that these little birds make their appearance just as the willow is budding.

It is marvellous how these tiny creatures can sustain the protracted flights which are necessary to transport them from their winter to their summer quarters; and yet that they make these long journeys is well ascertained. On the 23rd of April a Willow Wren came on board a vessel eighty miles from Malta and fifty from Cape Passaro, the nearest land. Two days later another alighted on the rigging sixty miles from Calabria, and one hundred and thirty-five from Mount Etna. On the 26th of April, eighty miles from Zante and one hundred and thirty from Navarino, a Willow Wren and a Chiff-chaff were found dead on board, presumably from exhaustion, as they were apparently uninjured. Many other such instances are on record.

The present species may be regarded as the commonest of the three which visit us, being generally dispersed in favourable localities over the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. Although it has not been met with in the Hebrides, the Willow Wren has occasionally been seen in Orkney, and the late Dr. Saxby has recorded a single instance of its occurrence in Shetland. Through every country in Europe it seems to be well known as a periodical migrant.

The winter quarters of the Willow Wren are to a certain extent those of its congeners, that is to say, Northern Africa and Palestine, where it is very numerous in the cold season, but it has been found much further southward. Mr. Ayres sent a specimen to Mr. Gurney from Natal; the late Mr. Andersson met with it in Damaraland, S.W. Africa; and Mr. Layard some years since procured specimens at the Cape. As is often the case with allied species, the remarks as to habits and food which have been applied to the Wood Warbler will apply almost equally well to the present species. The distinction between the birds themselves has been already pointed out. The nests of the Willow Wren and Chiff-chaff are both lined with feathers, the eggs of the former being white spotted with red; while those of the latter are white spotted with purple, chiefly at the larger end.

Varieties in this group of birds are rarely met with, and it may therefore be worth notice that in May, 1861, a primrose-coloured Willow Wren was shot at Witley Park, in the parish of Witley, Surrey, and forwarded for inspection to the editor of “The Field.”

THE CHIFF-CHAFF.
(Phylloscopus rufa.)

Although the smallest of the three species, the Chiff-chaff is apparently the hardiest of them all, for it often braves the winds of March, and makes its appearance in England long before the leaves have given signs of approaching summer. As I have already pointed out the means of distinguishing this little bird from its congeners, and have referred to its nest and eggs, it will suffice to state that, like the Willow Wren, it is a regular summer visitant to England, Scotland, and Ireland; that it is the earliest of the summer warblers to visit us; and that it remains with us until the first week of September, when it migrates to the south-east to spend the winter in a warmer climate. It appears to be common at that season in Italy, Sicily, the Maltese Islands, and Asia Minor; and Mr. Blyth has found it as far to the eastward as Calcutta.

Old English authors, who knew the Garden Warbler as the Greater Pettychaps, gave the Chiff-chaff the name of the Lesser Pettychaps, presumably from its general resemblance to it in miniature. These two names, however, may now be considered as obsolete.

Whilst on the subject of Willow Warblers, we may refer to the fact that a single example of another species, P. hypolais (vel icterina, the oldest name for it), which is common enough on the other side of the German Ocean, is recorded to have been taken in England, and another in Ireland. The bird is known as the Yellow-billed Chiff-chaff, Melodious Willow Warbler, and Icterine Warbler.[9] So long ago as June, 1848, the English specimen referred to was killed at Eythorne, near Dover, and the fact was communicated by Dr. Plomley to Mr. Yarrell, who published it in his “History of British Birds.” A second British example of this species was shot at Dunsinea, county Dublin, in June, 1856, and is now in the Royal Dublin Society’s Museum.[10] In size it equals the Wood Warbler, and resembles it somewhat in colour, but it has a shorter wing (2·75 in. instead of 3 in.); the whole of the under parts are sulphur-yellow, and the legs and toes are slate colour. These characters may serve to distinguish it at once should it again be met with by ornithologists in England. Should its song be heard, all doubts would at once be set at rest, for as a warbler it is far superior to any of the three species just mentioned. I have had many opportunities of seeing and hearing this little bird in Holland, and can testify to the power and variety of its song. Frequently I contrived to get within a few feet of it, and could almost see the notes as they poured out of its tiny throat. The eggs when fresh are the most lovely imaginable, being of a bright pink with dark purple spots, scattered chiefly at the larger end. The nest, as I have already hinted, is cup-shaped, and placed at a little height from the ground; the bird in this respect departing from the usual habit of the Willow Warblers.

These notes being intended rather as suggestions for those who desire to know a little about our summer birds, than as a condensed history of the species, I may observe, in concluding this chapter, that those who are anxious to glean further particulars about the Willow Warblers and their allies, will do well to consult an excellent article on the subject by Professor Schlegel, published (in French) in 1851 in the “Proceedings of the Royal Zoological Society of Amsterdam.”

THE NIGHTINGALE.
(Philomela luscinia.)

In common with one or two allied species, the Nightingale differs so materially in structure and habits from the garden or fruit-eating warblers (Sylvia), with which it has been generally associated, that most naturalists nowadays are agreed in regarding it as the type of a separate genus (Philomela). For want of a better English name, and as indicating their haunt, the members of this genus may be called “thicket warblers.” As regards structure, they differ from the Garden Warblers in having the bill less compressed towards the tip, and wider near the gape; the legs much longer and not scutellated, the toes more adapted for walking than perching. In habits they are more retired, concealing themselves in thickets and copses, living a good deal on the ground, where they find the principal portion of their food, and building a loosely-constructed nest on or near the ground, instead of a more compact structure at a distance from it.

The sole representative of this genus in England is the far-famed Nightingale; and of all the summer migrants to this country, no species probably has attracted more attention, or given rise to more speculation and discussion amongst naturalists. The most remarkable fact in connection with its annual sojourn in England is its very partial distribution. When we find this bird in summer as far to the westward as Spain and Portugal, and as far to the northward as Sweden, we may well be surprised at its absence from Wales, Ireland, and Scotland; and yet it is the fact that the boundary line, over which it seldom if ever flies, excludes it from Cornwall, West Devon; part of Somerset, Gloucester, and Hereford; the whole of Wales (à fortiori from Ireland), part of Shropshire, the whole of Cheshire, Westmoreland, Cumberland, Durham, and Northumberland. I am well aware that the Nightingale has been stated to have been heard and seen in Wales, Cumberland, and even in Mid-Lothian (see “Zoologist,” p. 241); but, even if they could be relied on in every case, which is doubtful, these instances can only be regarded as exceptional. In those counties only to the east of the line indicated can the bird be considered a regular summer visitant. Mr. Blyth has expressed the opinion[11] that the Nightingale migrates almost due north and south, deviating but a very little indeed either to the right or left. “There are none in Brittany,” he says, “nor in the Channel Islands, and the most westward of them probably cross the Channel at Cape la Hogue, arriving on the coast of Dorsetshire, and thence apparently proceeding northwards, rather than dispersing towards the west; so that they are only known as accidental stragglers a little beyond the third degree of western longitude.” They arrive generally about the end of the second week in April, and it is a well-ascertained fact that the males invariably precede the females by several days. In 1867 three London birdcatchers, between April 13 and May 2, took 225 Nightingales, and the whole of these, with five or six exceptions only, were cock birds. The previous year these same bird-catchers had supplied the dealer by whom they were employed with 280 Nightingales, of which not more than sixty were hens. From these statistics we may infer that in no locality would Nightingales be more plentiful if unmolested than in the neighbourhood of London; but if one dealer only is instrumental in capturing between 200 and 300 in the season, it is easy to account for the scarcity of the species. On the arrival of the hen birds the cocks soon pair, and assist in building, during which time, and during the time the hens are sitting, they are in full song. When the young are hatched the males leave off singing, and busy themselves in bringing food to the nest.

The song generally ceases before the end of the first week in June. Occasionally, however, I have heard a Nightingale sing on throughout June, but accounted for this by supposing that the nest had been robbed, and that the cock was singing while the hen hatched a second brood. Naturalists who live in London need not travel more than five miles from Charing Cross to hear the Nightingale in full song. Nay, a friend who is well acquainted with the note, has heard the bird frequently in Victoria Park, which is only two miles distant from the Bank of England, and on several occasions attentive observers have recognized the unmistakable notes of the Nightingale in the Botanical Gardens, Regent’s Park, and in Kensington Gardens.

It is curious how wide-spread is the belief that the Nightingale warbles only at eve. The reason, no doubt, is that amidst the general chorus by day its song is less noticed or attended to. But that it sings constantly by day is a fact, of which we have satisfied ourselves repeatedly. Moreover, it is by no means the only bird to sing at night. The Sedge Warbler, Grasshopper Warbler, Woodlark, Skylark, and Thrush, may often be heard long after sunset; while the Cuckoo is frequently to be heard at midnight, and the Landrail constantly.

It would appear that of the large number of persons who profess a love for song birds very few, comparatively, have the ear to distinguish a song unless they can see the author of it. Hence it frequently happens that they listen to a Thrush or Blackcap in the early spring, and immediately inform their friends that they have heard the Nightingale weeks before it has reached this country.

Many poets have perpetuated the odd belief that the mournful notes of the Nightingale are caused by the bird’s leaning against a thorn to sing! Shakespeare, for example, in his “Passionate Pilgrim,” says:

“Everything did banish moan,

Save the nightingale alone.

She, poor bird, as all forlorn,

Lean’d her breast up-till a thorn;

And there sung the dolefull’st ditty,

That to hear it was great pity.”

These lines, by the way, although generally attributed to Shakespeare, and included in most editions of his poems, were written, it is said, by Richard Barnefield in 1598, and published by him in a work entitled “Poems in divers humors.”[12] Shakespeare’s Lucrece, however, invoking Philomel, says:

“And whiles against a thorn thou bear’st thy part

To keep thy sharp woes waking.”

Fletcher speaks of

“The bird forlorn,

That singeth with her breast against a thorn.”

And Pomfret, writing towards the close of the seventeenth century, says:

“The first music of the grove we owe

To mourning Philomel’s harmonious woe;

And while her grief in charming notes express’d,

A thorny bramble pricks her tender breast.”

The origin of such an odd notion it is not easy to ascertain, but I suspect Sir Thomas Browne was not far from the truth when he pointed to the fact that the Nightingale frequents thorny copses, and builds her nest amongst brambles on the ground. He inquires “whether it be any more than that she placeth some prickles on the outside of her nest, or roosteth in thorny, prickly places, where serpents may least approach her?”[13]

In an article upon this subject published in the “Zoologist” for 1862 (p. 8029), the Rev. A. C. Smith has narrated the discovery on two occasions of a strong thorn projecting upwards in the centre of the Nightingale’s nest. It cannot be doubted, however, that this was the result of accident rather than design; and Mr. Hewitson, in his “Eggs of British Birds,” has adduced two similar instances in the case of the Hedge Sparrow.

The nest of the Nightingale is a very loosely-made structure, composed for the greater part of dead leaves, and placed upon a hedge bank, generally at the root of some stout shrub or thorn. The eggs, usually five in number, are, like the bird itself, of a plain olive-brown colour. The young Nightingales are spotted like young Robins, having the feathers of the upper portions of the plumage tipped with buff colour. In some respects the Nightingale assimilates very much in habits to the Robin; and advantage has been taken of this in localities where the Nightingale is unknown to introduce its eggs into the nests of Robins, with a view to having the young reared in the neighbourhood, and so induced to return to it. But although, as regards hatching and rearing, the plan has been successful, the birds have never returned to the place of their birth. For some inexplicable reason, a limit appears to be set to the migration of the Nightingale, which has no parallel in the case of other migrants.

As autumn approaches it moves southwards towards the Mediterranean, and spends the winter months in North Africa, Egypt, and Asia Minor. We cannot help thinking that the Nightingale and many other birds which visit us in summer and nest with us, must also nest in what we term their winter quarters; otherwise it would be impossible, considering the immense numbers which are captured on their first arrival, not only in England, but throughout central and southern Europe, to account for the apparently undiminished forces which reappear in the succeeding spring.

The late Mr. Blyth, however, was of a different opinion. Criticizing the above remarks, he wrote:—

“The only birds known to me that breed in their winter quarters are two species of Sand-martin (Cotyle riparia and C. sinensis). In India I have been familiar enough with birds in their winter quarters, and have no hesitation in asserting that migratory species (with the remarkable exceptions named) do not even pair until they have returned to their summer haunts. Were they to do so, I could not but have repeatedly noticed the fact, and must needs have seen very many of their nests and young.”

To my suggestion that from Mr. Layard’s observation of young birds there, the Common Swallow, H. rustica, probably breeds at the Cape during the season that it is absent from the British Islands, Mr. Blyth replied:—

“According to my experience of Hirundo rustica (and I have had the best opportunities for observation), it decidedly does not breed in its winter quarters. Some birds of this species, which pass their non-breeding season within the tropics, may migrate south instead of north, and breed in the summer of the southern hemisphere instead of that of the northern hemisphere; but there is no reason to suppose that they are the same individuals. Were it so, the Cape colony would indeed be flooded with Hirundo rustica. Besides, these birds renew their plumage (as the Cuckoo likewise does) when in their winter quarters; whereas the Sand-martins (Cotyle), as I am all but sure from recollection, resemble the great majority of our summer migrants in moulting before they take their departure equatorward. That our British Sand-martin (C. riparia) breeds in Egypt during the winter months is noticed in the “Proceedings of the Zoological Society” for 1863 (p. 288), and that its ordinary representative in India and the countries eastward (C. sinensis) does the same I can vouch from personal observation, having myself taken both eggs and young about the turn of the year from their burrows in the banks of the Hugli; while Mr. Swinhoe noticed their breeding when in their winter haunts, in the “Ibis’ for 1863, p. 257, and 1866, p. 134.”

THE BLACKCAP.
(Sylvia atricapilla.)

Five species may be conveniently grouped under the generic term Sylvia, or Fruit-eating Warblers, and these, with one exception, visit Great Britain regularly in the spring. Two of them, the Blackcap and Garden Warbler, enjoy little more immunity from traps and birdlime than does the Nightingale. Their fine song marks them at once as the prey of the professional bird-catcher, and during the month of April immense numbers are taken daily. The Whitethroat and Lesser Whitethroat are also sought after as cage-birds, but not to the same extent, for their song is neither so musical nor so varied.

In no part of the country are these four species more plentiful than in the south-eastern counties of England; and the neighbourhood of the metropolis seems to have some special attraction for them. Far from shunning “the busy haunts of men,” they appear to be nowhere more at home than in our gardens and orchards. The reason is obvious as soon as we become acquainted with their habits, and the nature of their food. We then discover that their motives are not so disinterested as we might suppose, since the real attraction is fruit. Upon this the parent birds live to a great extent; and after bringing up their young upon various kinds of insects which infest fruit trees—in which they unquestionably do us good service—they introduce their progeny at length to the more palatable pulp upon which they themselves have been faring so sumptuously. No wonder, then, that the large market-gardens of Kent, Surrey, and Middlesex should entice such numbers of these little birds to remain in their vicinity throughout the summer.

The Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) is the earliest of the genus to make his appearance, and seems to be hardier also than any of his congeners. Many instances are on record of Blackcaps having remained in this country throughout the winter, and this has been noticed as particularly the case in Ireland. It is rather singular that Mr. Yarrell, in referring to the sister isle, says that the Blackcap “has been taken, once at least, in the north of Ireland,” as if he were of opinion that its occurrence there were doubtful, or at least extremely rare. Mr. Thompson, in his excellent “Natural History of Ireland” (vol. i. p. 183), notices the Blackcap as a regular summer visitant there; but he adds that it must be considered very local. In Scotland it is considered rare, being confined chiefly to the south; but since the observations were published from which these remarks are drawn, considerable changes seem to have taken place in the local distribution of many species of birds. This is notably the case with the Blackcap and Garden Warbler, both of which have followed cultivation, and now are found commonly in localities where twenty years ago they were either unknown or stated to be extremely rare.

The Blackcap, like the Nightingale, appears to migrate almost due north and south, and ranges from Lapland to the Cape. It is resident in Madeira, the Azores, and the Canaries, and is also found throughout the year in Northern Africa and Southern Italy. In the fine collection of African birds (Passeres and Picariæ) belonging to Mr. R. B. Sharpe, I have seen a specimen of the Blackcap from Senegal. In Spain and Portugal it is found only on the migration in spring and autumn. Mr. Godman, in his interesting work on the “Natural History of the Azores,” has described a curious variety of the Blackcap which is found in these islands, “having the black marking on the head extending to the shoulders and round under the throat,” and he was informed that individuals were sometimes found with “the whole of the under parts of the body black.” This variety appears to have been met with also in Madeira, from whence it was described by Heineken (“Zool. Journ.,” v. p. 75). A figure of it will be found in Jardine and Selby’s “Illustrations of Ornithology,” pl. 94.

However much observers may be deceived by song, there is no mistaking either sex of the Blackcap as soon as the bird comes in view. The black crown of the male and the brown crown of the female suffice to distinguish the species amongst every other of our summer migrants. There is something very peculiar, too, about the half-hopping, half-creeping motions of all the Fruit-eating Warblers, which distinguishes them at once from other small birds frequenting the same haunts.

The males invariably arrive some days before the females; but both sexes seem to leave the country much about the same time—that is, early in September.

The nests of all the species in the genus Sylvia, as compared with those of the finches and linnets, are slovenly and loosely-made structures; and that of the Blackcap is no exception to the rule. The birds take some pains, however, to conceal it, and both male and female bestow a good deal of trouble upon it. It is generally placed a few feet from the ground, and is composed of dry bents, and lined with horsehair. The eggs, usually five in number, are white clouded with pale brown, and sparsely spotted with black towards the larger end. They closely resemble the eggs of the Garden Warbler, but differ in being smaller, and as a rule of a warmer tint; the pink or reddish-brown colour with which the eggs of the Blackcap are often suffused is not found in those of its congener. Both sexes take their turn at incubation, relieving one another to feed; but the male will often feed his partner on the nest, and then sit and sing to her. As to the song, it is simply delightful. I refrain, however, from attempting a description, for two reasons. The attempt has been made very often, and mere verbiage can convey but a very faint notion of its nature. It must be heard to be appreciated. If I were asked the question, “How am I to know the song when I hear it?” I would reply, “Approach the bird as slowly and as noiselessly as possible, until you can see the individual singing.” This is the only way to learn the songs of birds. The note of each species then becomes impressed upon the memory, and can afterwards be detected without hesitation when the bird is not in sight. To acquire this knowledge, however, of the songs of birds, one thing is necessary—an ear for music. This, unfortunately, cannot be imparted by teaching; and unless it exist as a gift of nature, the delight of music can never be experienced. There is this consolation, however, for those who are not musicians—they cannot feel so much the loss of a pleasure which they have never experienced.

THE ORPHEAN WARBLER.
(Sylvia orphea.)

The Orphean Warbler, as its name implies, is another noted song bird; but, though not uncommon in some parts of Europe and Asia, its claim to be included amongst our British warblers rests on very slender grounds. So long ago as July, 1848, a pair of this species were observed in a small plantation near Wetherby, and the hen bird was shot and forwarded to Sir William Milner, who informed Mr. Yarrell of the fact. On this single instance it was included by the last-named naturalist in his “History of British Birds.” Since the last edition of that work was published (1856), there is reason to believe that the Orphean Warbler has occurred again at least on two occasions in England. In June, 1866, the late Sergeant-Major Hanley, of the 1st Life Guards, well known as a bird fancier, purchased a young warbler, which had been chased and caught by a boy near Holloway. Mr. Blyth, who saw it in the following December, pronounced it to be without doubt a female Orphean Warbler. As the bird when caught was unable to fly, it is evident that a pair must have nested in the neighbourhood. I have seen a nest and eggs which were taken in Notton Wood, near Wakefield, in June, 1864, which certainly appertained to none of our common warblers, and the eggs could not be distinguished from well-authenticated eggs of Sylvia orphea.[14] Mr. Howard Saunders has reported a similar nest and eggs from East Grinstead. The eggs differ from those of the Blackcap and Garden Warbler in being white, spotted, chiefly at the larger end, with ash-grey. The bird may be briefly described as a large form of the Blackcap, exceeding it by half an inch in total length, and by a quarter of an inch in length of wing, the male having the black crown which characterizes our well-known songster, and resembling it generally in appearance. It differs, however, in having the bill shining black instead of horn colour, the under parts white instead of grey, the legs brown instead of slate colour, and the outer tail feathers margined with white instead of being uniformly grey. In habits and mode of life it assimilates, as might be expected, very much to the species with which we are so familiar. Those who have seen the nest, state that it is large for the size of the bird—a loose and open structure, rather shallow, and generally placed in a low bush near the ground. Mr. Yarrell has given very scanty information about this species, particularly as regards its geographical distribution, from which it might be inferred that very little is known of it. This, however, is not the case.

While the Blackcap migrates almost due north and south, the Orphean Warbler migrates westwards and northwards from the east and southeast, and vice versâ. In North-west India, particularly in the neighbourhood of Umballah, it is tolerably common. The Rev. Canon Tristram found it numerous in Palestine, and especially abundant under Mount Hermon. Messrs. Elwes and Buckley include it in their list of the birds of Turkey (“Ibis,” 1870, p. 19), and Lord Lilford has noted its occasional occurrence in spring in the Ionian Isles. Rüppell includes it amongst the birds of Arabia and Egypt,[15] but either it is not very common in Egypt, or it has escaped the searching eyes of many English ornithologists in that country. Mr. O. Salvin found it tolerably common in the Eastern Atlas, and it has also been met with in Tripoli (cf. Chambers, “Ibis,” 1867, p. 104). As it is thus found in North Africa, and, according to Professor Savi, is a summer visitant to Italy, one would naturally expect to find it in Malta; but Mr. C. A. Wright, who has paid great attention to Maltese ornithology for many years, states that he has never met with it himself, and that only one instance of its occurrence in Malta is known to him. In Spain it has been observed as a summer visitant both by Lord Lilford and Mr. Howard Saunders. The last-named naturalist says (“Ibis,” 1871, p. 212) that it nests there in May, and refers to the frequent inequality in the size of eggs in the same nest—a peculiarity which does not seem to have been previously noticed. In Portugal it appears to be only an occasional summer visitant, apparently not straying so far westward as a rule. I am not aware that it has been found further to the south-west than Morocco. Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake met with it in this country in 1867, but considered it rare.

According to the observations of Von der Mühle, in his “Monograph of the European Sylviidæ,” and of Captain Beavan on various birds in India (“Ibis,” 1868, pp. 73, 74), there is good reason to believe that both the Blackcap and the Orphean Warbler completely lose the black crown in winter, and reassume it at the approach of the breeding season.

Criticizing these remarks, however, the late Mr. Blyth wrote:—

“Do the males of these birds lose the black cap in winter? Certainly not the former—at least as observed in captivity—and therefore I cannot help doubting exceedingly that they do so in the wild state. Upon a bad Indian drawing of the Orphean Warbler, reproduced in the ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society’ for 1851 (p. 195, pl. 43), the supposed Artamus cucullatus was sought to be established. The habits of the Orphean Warbler are thus described in Jerdon’s ‘Birds of India’—in which country, by the way, it passes the winter, the males then retaining their black cap:—‘It frequents groves, gardens, hedges, single trees, and even low bushes on the plains; is very active and restless, incessantly moving about from branch to branch, clinging to the twigs, and feeding on various insects, grubs, and caterpillars, and also on flower buds. It is sometimes seen alone, at other times two or three together.’ Undoubtedly it must needs feed also on soft fruits. The hen of this bird bears an exceedingly close resemblance to the Lesser Whitethroat, except in size; while the cock bird further differs in having the black cap at all seasons. There is likewise in India the Sylvia, or Curruca, affinis, which resembles our Lesser Whitethroat, excepting in being as large as our Common Whitethroat. The latter bird has lately turned up in the north-west of India; and the British Lesser Whitethroat is the only one of the group which extends its range eastward to Lower Bengal, where it occurs, however, only above the tideway of the rivers, upon the sandy soil in which the Baubul (Vachelia farnesiana) grows plentifully. There I have observed our familiar little friend in abundance during the winter months, but never upon the alluvion or mud soil; and the same remark applies to Hippolais rama. It has been suggested to me that there may be a race of “Blackcap’ that visits Eastern Europe, the males of which have a rufous-brown cap like the females. In our race of Blackcap the diversity of the sexes is very noticeable, even in nestlings.”

Captain Beavan, in the article before referred to, says: “Specimens of the Orphean Warbler, procured on the 22nd of October, had no trace whatever of a black head, and were considered by Colonel Tytler to be the young of the year; but in my opinion the state of the plumage was not sufficiently juvenile; and I think that the old birds adopt a different colouring according to the time of year, probably putting on the black head as the breeding season approaches.” To this observation the editor of the “Ibis” appended the following note: “That this view of the case is correct there is probably little doubt (cf. Von der Mühle, ‘Monogr. Europ. Sylv.,’ p. 48).”

From these observations it was surmised that the same might be the case with the Blackcap.

THE GARDEN WARBLER.
(Sylvia hortensis.)

To those who are unacquainted with the bird, the Garden Warbler may be best described as equal in size to the female Blackcap, resembling it in colour without the chestnut crown, having the belly pure white instead of greyish white, and the legs lighter in colour. It appears much later than the Blackcap, seldom arriving before the end of April. Both sexes are alike in outward appearance; but it has been ascertained, by careful observers who have dissected the birds, that the males invariably arrive in this country before the females. Pennant, Montagu, and other old authors, called this bird the Greater Pettychaps, while they bestowed the name of Lesser Pettychaps—presumably from its resemblance in miniature—upon the Chiff-chaff.

Throughout England the Garden Warbler appears to be pretty generally distributed. Mr. A. G. More, however, in his essay on the Distribution of Birds in Great Britain during the nesting season (“Ibis,” 1865, p. 25), speaks of it as scarce in Cornwall and Pembrokeshire, and absent from Wales. Mr. Rodd, on the other hand, characterizes the Garden Warbler as a summer visitant to East Cornwall, and says it “breeds annually in the woods at Trebartha, in North Hill, from whence specimens of its nest and eggs have been received.”[16] He adds also that it has once been met with near Penzance; and that in the autumn of 1849 several specimens were obtained from Scilly. Dr. Bullmore, in his “Cornish Fauna” (p. 17), confirms Mr. Rodd’s statement that it is a summer visitant to East Cornwall.

It will be remarkable if this bird is not found to be common in some parts of Wales, since it not only occurs in Ireland, but is not nearly so scarce there as the observations of Mr. Thompson would lead us to suppose. In his “Natural History of Ireland” (Birds, vol. i. p. 185), this naturalist refers to the Garden Warbler as extremely rare in Ireland, and notices its occurrence only in the counties of Cork and Tipperary. If I mistake not, Mr. Blake-Knox has met with it in the county of Dublin; I have myself observed it in Wicklow; and Sir Victor Brooke has lately assured me that in the county of Fermanagh, about Lough Erne, it is common in summer, and nests regularly in the neighbourhood of Castle Caldwell, to the north-west of that county. In the same neighbourhood, he added, the Blackcap is unknown. When we remember the number of naturalists with whom Mr. Thompson was in correspondence in all parts of Ireland, it is singular that so few of them should have been able to report the presence of this bird in their respective districts. I have already referred to the changes which have taken place in the local distribution of many species of birds within the last twenty or thirty years, and there is no reason for doubting that the statements published by Mr. Thompson in 1849, and the observations of naturalists of the present day, are both perfectly correct, and that the Garden Warbler, like many other birds, is now common in localities where formerly it was unknown. The number of resident naturalists in Wales is very small as compared with England; nevertheless, it is to be hoped that those who have the opportunity will examine into the truth of the alleged absence from Wales of this bird, and publish the result of their investigations.

The limit of the Garden Warbler’s range northwards in the British Islands has not been satisfactorily ascertained. That it is found in many parts of the south of Scotland we know from the observations of Macgillivray and the late Sir William Jardine; but we have yet to learn whether it penetrates to the Highlands or visits the Hebrides. According to Selby, it is found throughout the greater part of Scotland; but Mr. Robert Gray, in his recently published “Birds of the West of Scotland,” is disposed to think that it is not commonly distributed. It is, as he says, very difficult to judge of the comparative numbers of so shy a bird, as it is even less frequently noticed, save by the patient observer, than some other species of greater rarity. “In the sheltered and wooded districts of the midland and southern counties,” he adds, “it is one of the most attractive songsters, tuning its loud and gleeful pipe on the top of some fruit tree an hour or two after daybreak, and again about the dusk of the evening. These love notes, however, are not of long continuance, for the bird becomes silent after the young are hatched, unless a second brood is reared, when the same wild yet mellow blackbird-like song is again for a short time heard. Mr. Sinclair has observed the Garden Warbler at Inverkip in Renfrewshire, where the richly-wooded preserves afford it a constant shelter during its summer sojourn.” In Shetland, according to Dr. Saxby,[17] it is a rare autumn visitor, usually occurring in September. By exercising great caution he has sometimes approached within a few feet of the bird, and watched it picking the green aphides from the sycamore leaves. It does not appear to have been observed in Orkney. Its range northwards in Europe, according to Nilsson, extends to Sweden, where it is observed to be a regular summer visitant, arriving in May and leaving in August. In all the countries bordering the Mediterranean it appears to be well known. Mr. Saunders informs me that it is common in Spain in spring and autumn; and Mr. Wright, referring to its presence at the same seasons in Malta, where it is known as the far-famed “beccafico” of the Italians, says that as many as a hundred dozen are sometimes brought in at a time.[18] Lord Lilford has once found this bird nesting in Epirus.[19] The late Mr. C. J. Andersson met with it as far south as Damaraland, South-west Africa. In habits the Garden Warbler closely resembles other members of the genus. Shy and restless, it differs from the Blackcap in its inferior powers of song, and from the Whitethroats in being less garrulous. It is nevertheless a beautiful songster, and will sometimes sit in the midst of a thick bush in the evening, like a Nightingale, and maintain a continued warble for several minutes without a pause. Its song is somewhat irregular, both in time and tune, but it is wonderfully mellow for so small a bird. It sometimes commences its song like a Blackbird, but always ends with its own. In some of its actions it resembles the Willow Wren, for it seems constantly in motion, hopping from bough to bough in search of insects, and singing at intervals. It is very partial to fruit of all kinds, but at the same time destroys vast numbers of caterpillars, spiders, and aphides. Much against my inclination I have shot a few Garden Warblers in the spring soon after their arrival, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of their food, and can therefore affirm, from personal inspection, that they destroy quantities of insects which are destructive to foliage. Under the head of Blackcap, I have referred to the nest of the Garden Warbler for the purpose of comparison, and need only add here that it is generally well concealed, and that, unless the owner is seen near the nest, it is oftentimes not very easy to distinguish the eggs from those of its congener, which have been already described.

THE COMMON WHITETHROAT.
(Sylvia cinerea.)

Far from leading a retired life like the last-named bird, the Whitethroat forces itself into notice by its noisy chattering and repeated sallies into the air. We cannot walk along a country lane in May without being reminded at every twenty yards of the presence of this demonstrative little bird. With crest-feathers erect and half-extended wings, it bustles in and out, gesticulating loudly, and seems to live in a perpetual state of excitement.

The country lads call it the “Nettle Creeper,” from its frequenting overgrown ditches and hedgebanks where the nettle is plentiful, amongst the stems of which it builds its nest. It comes to us about the third week in April, and remains until the end of August. It is very generally distributed in the British Islands, and is as common in Ireland as it is in England. In the north of Scotland it is said to be rare; but a correspondent of Mr. More finds it breeding regularly in Mull and Iona.[20] It visits Scandinavia in summer, and is found also at that season in Russia and Siberia. It is one of the commonest birds in spring and autumn in Malta, and is occasionally observed in Corfu in September and October. In winter it is not uncommon in Asia Minor and North-east Africa. Amongst the birds collected at Aboo, North-west India, by Dr. King, in September, 1868, Mr. Hume found one which both he and M. Jules Verreaux identified at once as Sylvia cinerea. Unlike the Garden Warbler, the Whitethroat sings a good deal on the wing, sometimes returning to the branch it has just left, after the manner of a Tree Pipit, sometimes re-alighting elsewhere. The song, which is commenced on arrival, generally ceases early in the month of July. Its habits, and as Mr. Thompson says, the grotesquely earnest appearance which the erected crest, feathers, and distended throat impart when singing, render this bird one of the most interesting of our warblers. It seems to prefer the tallest and thickest hedgerows, where there are plenty of brambles and briars, and ditches which are choked with weeds and nettles. It does not keep, however, to the fields and lanes, but visits our gardens and orchards in company with its young to pilfer currants, raspberries, and other fruit when ripe. The caterpillars to be found on the currant trees are favourite morsels with this bird, and we should not forget that if it takes a few currants it is also the means of saving a good many.

The nest of the Whitethroat is generally placed near the ground, amongst nettles or other rank herbage, and is constructed of dry grass-stems and horsehair. The eggs, usually five in number, are minutely speckled all over with ash-brown or ash-green, and spotted at the larger end with gray. I have watched an old Whitethroat bringing food to its young, and have been surprised to see in how short a space of time it contrived to find food and return to the nest. Sometimes it was impossible to see even with a glass what this food was, but at other times I could plainly discern a caterpillar wriggling between the mandibles.

THE LESSER WHITETHROAT.
(Sylvia sylviella.)

This is not nearly so common a bird, nor so generally distributed in Great Britain, as the last-named. It is confined more or less to the midland and southern counties of England, is very rare in Scotland, and unknown in Ireland. Mr. Rodd, in his “List of Birds” before quoted, says the Lesser Whitethroat is only seen in Cornwall during the autumn migration, and then only occasionally at Scilly. In Wales it appears to be equally scarce (cf. More, “Ibis,” 1865, p. 25), but it is possible that, from its general resemblance to the last-named bird, it may have been often overlooked. The respective measurements of the two species are as follows:—

Independently, however, of its smaller size, the Lesser Whitethroat may be distinguished by its black ear-coverts, and by the absence of the pale rufous edgings to the secondaries, which are so conspicuous in the larger species. The legs also are slate-coloured instead of yellowish-brown.

In haunts, habits, and mode of nesting the two species are very similar, and what has been said of one will apply almost equally well to the other. Both arrive also about the same time—namely, the third week in April; and by the end of August, when the young are strong enough to shift for themselves, they depart again southwards. Although the nests of the two species are very similar, the eggs of the Lesser Whitethroat have a much clearer ground-colour, and are never so profusely freckled as those of its congener. On the contrary, the spots of ash-brown, or ash-green, are almost always at the larger end, leaving the smaller end of the egg almost spotless.

The range of the Lesser Whitethroat southward is probably more or less identical with that of the Common Whitethroat. It is abundant in Spain in winter and early spring, but does not remain to breed there. In Malta, strange to say, it has only been recognised once; but in Egypt and Nubia, especially from Dendera to the First Cataract, it is very numerous in winter. Individuals of this species have been seen to alight on vessels in the Mediterranean, even when upwards of sixty miles from the nearest land, and thus its ability to migrate from Europe to Africa, and back, is sufficiently established. Eastward it penetrates to Lower Bengal, where, in the cold season, it is said to be not uncommon.

THE REDSTART.
(Ruticilla phœicura.)

Sprightly in its actions, and more vividly coloured than many of our Summer Migrants, the Redstart cannot fail to attract attention in the districts which it frequents during its sojourn with us. It would be difficult, indeed, to find a more beautiful little bird than the male Redstart in his nuptial plumage. The pale grey colour of the head and back, relieved by a silvery white spot upon the forehead and a jet-black throat, contrasts strongly with the bright chestnut of the breast, upper tail coverts, and tail. From the bright colour of its tail, in fact, it has derived the name Redstart, which is simply the Anglo-Saxon equivalent for “Red-tail.” “Fire-tail,” “Brand-tail,” and “Quick-start,” are other local names by which it is variously known. The last-named has reference to the singularly characteristic movement of the tail, which is rapidly flirted horizontally instead of vertically, as in the case of most other birds.

Upon this point, however, there seems to be some difference of opinion. Macgillivray, a high authority in such matters, observes, “As to the motion of the tail in this bird, which has supplied some observers with a subject of dispute, I am convinced that it is vertical—that is, up and down, and not alternately to either side, although at each jerk the feathers are a little spread out, as is the case with those of many other birds of this order, as the Stonechat and Whinchat.” I feel sure, notwithstanding this opinion, that I have frequently observed a horizontal movement.

Its mode of progression on the ground has been compared by the same observer to that of the Wheatear, “for it neither walks nor runs,” he says, “but advances by leaps.” I cannot, however, completely endorse this view, for I have frequently seen a Wheatear run, and at times very rapidly. “Unless on a wall, or on bare ground, however, it seldom hops much, for it procures its food chiefly by sallying after insects on the wing, or by alighting on the ground to pick up those which it has observed amongst the herbage, and on trees it flies from branch to branch.”

Although generally distributed in England and Scotland, the Redstart is nowhere very common, being most plentiful, apparently, in the southern counties of England, and becoming rarer as we proceed northward. In Ireland it is scarcely known at all, and does not visit the Hebrides. On the Continent, however, it has a tolerably wide range, extending from Archangel throughout Scandinavia and the whole of Europe, except Portugal, to the Mediterranean, which it crosses to visit North Africa, Egypt, and Abyssinia for the winter season.

The haunts which it affects in this country are generally not far removed from human habitation, and it is not unusual to find the nest, containing five or six pale-blue eggs, upon a peach or plum-tree against a wall; upon a cross-beam of a summer-house; or in a hole of a wall or tree, as opportunity may serve. The eggs are very similar to those of the Hedge Sparrow, but are invariably smaller and paler. It picks up most of its food, such as small beetles, spiders, and worms, on the ground; and its actions when thus engaged remind one more of the Robin than of the Wheatear, as Macgillivray thought. At other times it will sit upon an exposed branch, and dart forth into the air, like a Flycatcher, to secure a passing insect. Its song, though sprightly, is weak and seldom prolonged. It is generally poured forth from some bough or other “coign of vantage,” but is occasionally uttered as the bird hovers on the wing, or flies from spray to spray.

Although a very shy bird, the Redstart occasionally takes up its quarters close to the house, and when once it has selected a site for its nest and hatched its young, it manifests such attachment for them as to allow a very near approach, and will even permit a visitor to stroke it as it sits upon the nest.

The beauty of its plumage, its sprightly and at times incessant song, and the good which it effects in ridding plants and fruit-trees of the green aphis, commend it to the notice and protection of all owners of gardens.

The Common Redstart has scarcely quitted our shores in autumn before its congener, the Black Redstart (Ruticilla tithys), arrives to pass the winter here, and occasionally even to linger on until the more familiar species returns again with the spring. But since it is properly regarded as a winter visitant to this country, any lengthened description of the species, and of its haunts and habits, would be out of place here. I shall therefore merely observe that it may be distinguished from the Common Redstart by the sooty-black colour of the breast and belly, which parts in the other are orange-brown, and that it generally arrives about the first week in November, and remains until the end of March or beginning of April.

The origin of the specific name “tithys” seems to be somewhat doubtful, although several ornithologists have attempted an explanation. Hemprich and Ehrenberg (“Symbolæ Physicæ,” fol. bb), and Von Heuglin (“Orn. Nord-Ost Afrika’s,” i. p. 334) have referred it to τίτης, ultor, with which, however, in the opinion of Professor Newton (“Ann. Mag. Nat. History,” Ser. 4, x. p. 227), it can have nothing to do. Professor Newton himself, in the magazine just quoted, and in a footnote to his edition of Yarrell’s “History of British Birds,” i. p. 333, writes: “Sylvia tithys (by mistake) Scopoli, Annus I. Historico-naturalis, p. 157 (1769). This naturalist admittedly took his specific name from Linnæus, who spelt the word ‘titys’ as did Gesner; but the best classical authorities, Stephanus, Porson, and Passow, consider ‘titis’ to be right. This originally meant a small chirping bird, and is possibly cognate with the first syllable of our titmouse and titlark.” After the opinion expressed by such authorities, it may appear somewhat presumptuous on my part to offer a suggestion; but there is yet another explanation, which has apparently been overlooked. Might not the word “tithys” (more correctly “tithus”) be derived from the Greek adjective τιθός, θή, θόν, which has the same signification as τιθασός, that is, ‘reared up in the house, domesticated.’ Compare the domestic hens of Dioscorides, τιθαὶ ὄρνιθες. The term “domesticated” would be well applied to the Black Redstart, which is a very familiar bird, frequently perching on house-tops and garden walls, and building in holes and crannies in the neighbourhood of man’s dwelling.

THE SEDGE WARBLER.
(Salicaria phragmitis.)

Leaving the woods, gardens, and plantations, and proceeding to the river side, we meet with a very different class of birds—the river warblers. This is a very numerous family, and were we about to treat of all the known species, it might be advisable for simplicity’s sake to group them into sub-families. As we are confining our attention, however, for the present, to those species only which have been met with in the British Islands, it will be less confusing if we dispense with this subdivision, and notice them under the same generic name—Salicaria. The various members of this genus may be distinguished by their short wings, rounded tails, tarsus longer than the middle toe, large feet, long and curved claws, and large hind toe with strong curved claw. They differ, too, from other warblers in their habit of singing at night. There are eight species which have all more or less a claim to be included in the British list, although three only can be regarded as regular summer migrants. These three are the Sedge Warbler (S. phragmitis), the Reed Warbler (S. strepera), and the Grasshopper Warbler (S. locustella). The others are Savi’s Warbler (S. luscinoides), the Aquatic Warbler (S. aquatica), the Marsh Warbler (S. palustris), the Great Reed Warbler (S. arundinacea), and the Rufous Warbler (S. galactoides).

The Sedge Warbler and the Reed Warbler generally arrive much about the same time in April, but, from some unexplained cause, the latter is much more restricted in its distribution than the former. The Sedge Warbler is found throughout the British Islands, but the Reed Warbler is almost unknown in Ireland, and its nest has only once been met with in Scotland.[21] As a rule, it is seldom, if ever, to be seen further north than Yorkshire and Lancashire, and does not breed either in Devon or Cornwall. It may thus be said to be almost confined to the eastern, midland, and south-eastern counties of England. Beyond the British Islands, too, it is less erratic in its movements than its congeners. The Sedge Warbler visits Scandinavia, Russia, and Siberia, and is found throughout Europe in summer, and in North Africa and Asia Minor in winter. The late Mr. Andersson sent specimens even from Damaraland, S.W. Africa. The Reed Warbler does not migrate as far north as this; but Mr. Gurney has received a specimen from Natal; and if we may rely on the identification of specimens obtained by Mr. Hodgson, it ranges as far eastward as Nepal.

I have sometimes heard persons express their inability to distinguish these two species apart; but there ought to be no difficulty in the matter. The Sedge Warbler has a variegated back, with a conspicuous light streak over the eye; the Reed Warbler has a uniform pale-brown back, and the superciliary streak very faint. The actions of the two birds are not unlike, but their nesting habits are very different. S. phragmitis builds on the ground or very near it, making a nest of moss and grass, lined with horsehair, and laying five or six eggs of a yellowish-brown colour, with a few scattered spots or lines of a darker colour at the larger end. S. strepera suspends its nest between reed stems or twigs, round which a great portion of the nest is woven, and the entire structure is much larger, deeper, and more cup-shaped. The materials are long grasses, flowering reed-heads, and wool, the lining being composed of fine grass and hair. The eggs, five or six in number, are greenish-white speckled with ash-green and pale-brown. The habit which the Reed Warbler has of occasionally nesting at a distance from water is now probably well known to ornithologists. It was noticed by Mr. R. Mitford in the “Zoologist” for 1864 (p. 9109), and subsequently by the writer, in “The Birds of Middlesex,” 1866 (p. 47), and by the author of “The Birds of Berks and Bucks,” 1868 (p. 81). Mr. B. Hamilton Booth, of Malton, Yorkshire, communicated the fact of his having discovered a nest of the Reed Warbler in a yew tree, built so as to include three or four twigs as if they were reeds, and placed at a height of at least twelve or fourteen feet from the ground. He accounted for the nest being built at such a height, and in a tree, on the supposition that the first nest had been destroyed by the rats which infest the place, and the birds had taken a precaution for future safety.

THE GRASSHOPPER WARBLER.
(Salicaria locustella.)

The third species of this genus which is a regular summer migrant to this country is the Grasshopper Warbler, so called from its peculiar sibilant note. In its general appearance it is most like the Sedge Warbler, but is larger in every way, and has the upper part of the plumage more variegated, no superciliary streak, and the throat minutely spotted. This last feature, however, is peculiar to the male. In habits, haunts, and in the character of its nest and eggs, the Grasshopper Warbler differs entirely from the two species above mentioned. It delights in a dense undergrowth or thick hedge-bottom, where it creeps about more like a mouse than a bird, and is extremely difficult to catch sight of, pausing at intervals to seize an insect or to give forth its remarkable note. Its well-made and compact nest, so different from the slovenly structure of the Sedge Warbler, is placed upon the ground, and carefully concealed. The eggs, five or six in number, are amongst the most beautiful of small birds’ eggs. When blown they are white, minutely freckled over with brownish-red; but before the yolk has been expelled they are suffused with a delicate rosy tint, which afterwards unfortunately disappears. The Grasshopper Warbler is a regular summer visitant to Ireland, and is also found in the south of Scotland. Its retiring habits probably cause it to be overlooked, and were it not for its loud note it would doubtless often escape notice altogether. It does not appear to be anywhere a numerous species, and its geographical distribution has not been yet clearly defined. It is observed in Southern Europe at the periods of migration, and we may therefore presume that it accompanies its congeners and other small summer migrants to North Africa, Asia Minor, and Palestine.

SAVI’S WARBLER.
(Salicaria luscinoides.)

Before the fens were drained, it is said that the rarer species, Savi’s Warbler, was not uncommon in the eastern counties of England. The fen-men used to distinguish it from the Grasshopper Warbler by its note, calling the commoner species “the reeler,” the other “the night reeler,” from the resemblance of its note to the whirr of the reel used by the wool-spinners. In Norfolk, according to Mr. Stevenson, it appears to have been known to the marsh-men as “the red craking reed-wren.” The fens of Baitsbight, Burwell, and Whittlesea were formerly noted localities for this species, then regarded as a regular summer migrant; but extensive drainage and increased cultivation of waste land has apparently destroyed the only breeding haunt which had any attraction for it, and it can now be only considered a rare summer visitant. I have once, and only once, seen this species alive in England. This was in a large reed-bed close to the river, near Iken, in Suffolk, in the month of September, 1874. The bird first attracted my attention by the very rufous colour of the dorsal plumage, and as I succeeded in obtaining a near view of it, I feel confident that I was not mistaken in the species. The nest and eggs of this bird are reported to have been taken in Norfolk, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Essex, Kent, and once in Devonshire.[22] In general appearance at a distance it is not unlike the Reed Warbler, but on closer inspection will be found to have the upper portions of the plumage and the tail more rufous, like the Nightingale; hence the term luscinoides which has been applied to it. The English name is borrowed from its discoverer, Signor Savi, who found it in Tuscany, and published an account of it in the “Nuovo Giornale di Litteratura,” 1824, and in his “Ornithologia Toscana,” vol. i. p. 270. The eggs are something like those of the Grasshopper Warbler, but larger and darker; the nest is very different, being composed entirely of sedge, so closely woven and interlaced as to remind one of the mat-baskets which are used by fishmongers. Of the geographical distribution of this bird we have yet a good deal to learn. It does not appear to range very far northwards, but is observed annually in summer in Southern Europe, passing by way of Sicily and the Maltese Islands to Egypt. Mr. Salvin found it abundant in the Marsh of Zana, and Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake met with it in Tangier and Eastern Morocco.

THE AQUATIC WARBLER.
(Salicaria aquatica.)

On three occasions only has the Aquatic Warbler been recognised in England. One taken at Hove, near Brighton, in October, 1853, is in the collection of Mr. Borrer;[23] a second, in my possession, was killed near Loughborough, in the summer of 1864;[24] and a third, believed to have been obtained near Dover, is in the Dover Museum.[25] This bird resembles the Sedge Warbler in size and general appearance, but, in addition to the light stripe over each eye, it differs in having a light stripe down the centre of the forehead; this, being very distinct, furnishes a good means of identifying it readily. The species has been figured by Dr. Bree in his “Birds of Europe,” to which work the reader may be referred for further information and a more detailed description. I may supplement his remarks, however, by saying that Lord Lilford found it common in Corfu in May, and at Nice in August and September;[26] and that Mr. T. Drake met with it in March in Tangier and Eastern Morocco.[27] Now that its occasional presence in this country has been detected, ornithologists should look out for it between April and September, and scrutinize every Sedge-bird they see, on the chance of meeting with the rarer species.

THE MARSH WARBLER.
(Salicaria palustris.)

In appearance this bird resembles the common Reed Warbler, just as the Aquatic Warbler resembles the Sedge-bird. It is one of the plain-backed species, and similarity in appearance as well as in habits causes it doubtless to be overlooked or mistaken for the commoner bird.

From its general resemblance to the Reed Warbler, Salicaria strepera[28] (Vieillot), it has no doubt been overlooked; but when its distinguishing characters have been duly noted it will in all probability be found to be a regular summer migrant to this country. Dr. Bree, when treating of this species in his “Birds of Europe,” says (vol. ii. p. 74): “I think it very probable that this bird is an inhabitant of Great Britain, though hitherto confounded with the Reed Warbler. I think I have myself taken the nest; and Mr. Sweet’s bird, mentioned by Mr. Yarrell, was probably this species.”

In the “Zoologist” for 1861, p. 7755, the occurrence of the Marsh Warbler in Great Britain was recorded by Mr. Saville, who procured a single specimen, subsequently identified by Mr. Gould, and saw others in Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire. He says: “My attention was first attracted to this species some time since, during a visit to our fens, by the marked difference in the song of a bird somewhat similar in appearance to the true S. arundinacea (i. e., strepera); it was louder, clearer, and sweeter-toned than that of the last-named. Its mode of flight, too, was more undulated and quicker. It was more shy and timid, continually retreating to the thickest covert. Never, so far as my experience goes, does it emit notes similar to the syllables ‘chee-chee-chee’ so common to S. arundinacea.”

Another specimen of this bird was obtained in Cambridgeshire by the late James Hamilton, jun., of Minard, during the summer of 1864, and was exhibited at a meeting of the Natural History Society of Glasgow in February, 1865, as recorded by Mr. E. R. Alston in the “Zoologist,” 1866, p. 496.

In the same year, Mr. Robert Mitford gave an account (“Zoologist,” 1864, p. 9109) of a Reed Warbler which he found nesting in lilac trees in his garden at Hampstead, and which at the time was thought to differ specifically from S. strepera, and possibly to be S. palustris. In the summer of 1863 Mr. Mitford had found four pairs of this bird breeding in gardens under similar circumstances, and in July, 1865, he shot two of the same birds, both males, and found, as he says, “two nests similar in structure, and similarly situated to those of the previous year in my garden, from both of which the young had evidently flown only a few days previously. The birds were not in good order, but just beginning their moult. I so arranged the matter that at the time I shot these birds I received from Romney Marsh fresh-killed specimens of the true Reed Warbler, shot in the reeds of the fen ditches; and in comparing the two birds in the flesh together, I have little hesitation in saying that the inland warbler is not our Reed Warbler. I will not enter into the chief points of difference at present, as I hope next May to get a specimen or two in finer plumage.” (“Zoologist,” 1865, p. 9847.)

Mr. Mitford I believe has not altered the opinion which he originally expressed; but, from a careful examination of the birds shot by him, I am inclined to regard them all as S. strepera. This peculiarity in the Reed Warbler of nesting at a distance from water has since been noticed by naturalists in other parts of the country. In 1866 I referred to a confirmation of the fact as communicated by a friend at Ealing,[29] and Mr. A. C. Kennedy, in his “Birds of Berks and Bucks” (p. 81), has alluded to the same habit from his own observation near Windsor. In all probability the birds seen by Lord Clermont in lilac bushes at Twickenham[30] were also Reed Warblers.

Mr. Frederick Bond some time since called my attention to the occurrence of the rarer S. palustris in Norfolk, and kindly lent me a series of skins of both species procured in Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, and Sussex. Of these, two specimens of S. palustris were killed at Whittlesford, Cambridgeshire, many years ago, under the impression that they were S. strepera; and three others near Norwich in June, 1869, under the like misapprehension. They do not differ in any way from skins of palustris from France and Germany, with which I have compared them.

The characters by which this species may be distinguished from S. strepera may be briefly stated as follows:—

Although the colour of the upper portion of the plumage in both is a uniform olive-brown, S. palustris is yellower. It is a somewhat longer bird, with a shorter and broader bill; a buffy-white line, extending from the base of the bill over the eye, is clearly defined. In strepera this line is so faint as to be scarcely discernible. Mr. Yarrell, indeed, considered it to be absent in strepera; but, from this circumstance, and from the fact of his describing the legs of this species as pale-brown, it may be inferred that he had before him, and figured, a young bird.

The first primary in the wing of both is very short, quite rudimentary, in fact; while the third in each is the longest in the wing. In palustris the second primary is equal to the fourth; while in strepera the second is equal to the fifth. It is doubtful whether this can be invariably relied upon, for the length of feathers, even in the same species, will sometimes vary considerably, through age, moult, or accident.

The readiest means of distinguishing the two birds at a glance will be by the colour of the legs and toes. In living or freshly-killed specimens it will be observed that the tarsi and feet of strepera are of a slaty-brown colour, while in palustris the same parts are flesh-colour. In dried skins, the former turns to hair-brown; the latter to yellowish-brown. The tarsus of palustris, moreover, is rather longer and stouter than that of its congener. From this it appears that Mr. Gould in his “Birds of Great Britain” has figured palustris for strepera.

Dr. Bree, in his “Birds of Europe,” has unfortunately figured palustris with slate-coloured legs and feet, which quite alters its appearance, although he has been careful in the text to describe the colour correctly.

The tail in palustris is less rounded than in strepera; the outer tail-feather in the former being not so short as in the latter.

The measurements of the two species, taken from skins, are as follows:—

The nests and eggs differ as much as do the birds themselves.

The nest of palustris is much neater and more compact, and, as regards depth, not more than half the size of that of strepera. The eggs of both are subject to variation; but, as a rule, it may be said that in those of palustris the white ground colour has little if any of the greenish or brownish tinge with which those of strepera are invariably suffused.

I have seen two nests in the collection of Mr. Bond, one containing three, and the other two eggs, taken at Whittlesford, which I have no doubt belonged to palustris.

In Badeker’s work on the eggs of European birds, it is stated that the Marsh Warbler “builds in bushes, in meadows, and on the banks of ditches, rivers, ponds, and lakes. The nest is made of dry grass and straws, with panicles, and interwoven with strips of inner bark and horsehair outside. The rim is only very slightly drawn in. It has a loose substructure, and is by this and its half globular form, suspended on dry ground between the branches of the bushes or nettles, easily distinguished from the strongly formed nest of S. strepera, which is moreover built over water.[31] It lays five or six eggs the beginning of June, which have a bluish-white ground, with pale-violet and clear brown spots in the texture of the shell, and delicate dark brown spots on the surface, mingled with which are a number of black dots. The ground colour also in many fresh eggs is green, but clear, and very different from the muddy tint of the egg of the Reed Warbler. The female sits daily for some hours; but the male takes his turn. Incubation lasts thirteen days.”

It would be extremely satisfactory to establish the fact of the regular migration to this country in spring of the Marsh Warbler; and it is to be hoped that ornithologists in all parts of the kingdom will not omit to investigate the subject, and record their observations.

THE GREAT REED WARBLER.
(Salicaria arundinacea.)

Not only has this fine species visited England on several occasions, but in a few instances it has been found nesting here. It has, therefore, a good claim to be introduced into the present sketch. Specimens of the bird have been obtained, once in Northumberland, and three or four times in Kent,[32] and the eggs have been taken in Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire.[33] The reader has only to picture to himself a bird like the Reed Wren, but twice its size, and he will have an idea of the appearance of the Great Reed Warbler. Nor does the resemblance end here. It makes a nest just like the Reed Wren, but much larger, and lays eggs similarly coloured, but larger. It is a fine species, and its loud and varied notes, when once heard, can never be forgotten. Those who have had opportunities, such as I have enjoyed, on the opposite shores of Holland, of listening to this bird will regret with me that its visits to England are not more frequent. It is possible, as suggested by Mr. Hancock in the earliest notice of its occurrence here,[34] that it may be a regular summer visitant to our island; but its song is so loud and so remarkable, that I cannot think it could escape the notice of any naturalist. The species is tolerably well dispersed throughout Europe, and according to Mr. Yarrell has been found as far eastward as Bengal, Japan, and Borneo. The Eastern bird, however, would appear to be the Salicaria turdoides orientalis of the “Fauna Japonica,” and distinct from the European species. See Captain Blakiston on the Ornithology of Northern Japan, “Ibis,” 1862, p. 317; Mr. Swinhoe on Formosan Ornithology, “Ibis,” 1863, p. 305; and the Rev. H. B. Tristram, “Ibis,” 1867, p. 78, on the Ornithology of Palestine, where both forms occur.

THE RUFOUS WARBLER.
(Aedon galactodes.)

From its peculiar coloration this bird is not likely to be confounded with any other species. Apart from the rufous tint of the upper portion of the plumage which has suggested its English name, the tail is totally unlike that of any of the river warblers; for, instead of being of a uniform brown, it has a broad band of black across both webs of all the feathers (except the two centre ones) towards their extremities, which black band is terminated by white. This is very conspicuous as the bird moves it up and down, and could not fail to attract the notice of anyone who has paid attention to birds. It does not appear, however, that this species has been identified in this country with certainty more than twice, although it may possibly have occurred oftener. A specimen shot at Plumpton Bosthill, near Brighton, in September, 1854, was recorded by Mr. Borrer in the “Zoologist” for that year (p. 4511), and was figured by Mr. Yarrell in the third edition of his “History of British Birds” (i. p. 314). A second, obtained at Start Point, Devonshire, in September, 1859, was noticed by Mr. Llewellyn in the “Annals and Magazine of Nat. History,” 1859 (iv. p. 399), and in the “Ibis,” 1860 (p. 103). It is possible that this may be the Red-tailed Warbler (Sylvia erythaca), six specimens of which are stated to have been taken near Plymouth, and to have occurred there for the first time in Britain.[35] From a want of acquaintance with its habits, this bird has been erroneously called the Rufous Sedge Warbler. It is never found in the neighbourhood of sedge, but on the driest ground, amidst scrub and thick underwood. In fact, as regards structure and habits, it differs in so many respects from the river warblers that it has been generally separated from them, and, except for convenience, ought not to be included in the present sketch. Its real home seems to be North Africa and Palestine; but it is not uncommon in some parts of Southern Europe, and is found (accidentally only) as far north as the British Islands.

THE PIED WAGTAIL.
(Motacilla Yarrelli.)

By many writers on ornithology, the Pied Wagtail has been regarded as a resident species in Great Britain, since it is to be met with in some parts of the country all the year round, but there can be no doubt that large numbers migrate southward for the winter, and return to our shores again in spring. On several occasions when crossing by steamer to the opposite coasts of France and Belgium, I have seen Pied Wagtails passing across and at times even alighting on board the vessel for a short rest.

On quitting the ship they would fly round and round for some seconds with their peculiar undulatory flight, and finally make off for the land in a straight line, often directly in the vessel’s course.

According to the observations of Mr. Knox, the Pied Wagtails which have wintered abroad reach the coast of Sussex about the middle of March, and on fine days may be seen approaching the shore, aided by a gentle breeze from the south, their well-known call-note being distinctly audible from the sea long before the birds come in sight.

The neighbouring fields, where but a short time previously not a bird of the kind was to be seen, are soon tenanted by numbers, and for several days they continue dropping on the beach in small parties. The old males come first, while the females and males of the previous year do not appear until some days later. After resting near the coast for a few days the new comers proceed inland, and any good observer there stationed may perceive how much the numbers of the species increase at this season. About the middle of August there is a general return movement towards the coast, and the Wagtails now first become gregarious. At that time Mr. Knox has frequently observed them in the interior of the county, where they remain but a few days, making way for fresh detachments, which in their turn follow the same route to the sea. At the end of the month, or early in September, they may be seen of a morning, flying invariably from west to east, parallel to the shore, but following each other in constant succession.

These flights continue from daybreak until about ten o’clock in the forenoon, and so steadily do the birds pursue their course that even when one or more of an advancing party have been shot, the remainder do not fly in a different direction, but opening to right and left close their ranks and continue their progress as before. During this transit their proximity to the coast depends to some degree on the character of the country lying between the South Downs and the sea; but as they advance towards Brighton, the migrating bands, consisting chiefly of the young of the year, accumulate in vast flocks, and thus they seek the adjoining county of Kent, whence the voyage to the continent may be performed with ease and security even by birds but a few months old, and unequal to protracted flights.[36]

The habits of the Pied Wagtail are so generally known, that little need be said here upon the subject. Its partiality for shallow water, where it preys upon aquatic insects, and even small fish, such as minnows and sticklebacks, has led to its being familiarly known as the Water Wagtail, although it is not more aquatic in its habits than other members of the genus, indeed, scarcely so much as one species, the Grey Wagtail, whose haunts seem inseparable from the water-side.

THE WHITE WAGTAIL.
(Motacilla alba.)

Closely resembling the last-named in form and general appearance, the White Wagtail long escaped observation as an annual summer migrant to this country. Its distinctive characters, however, are now almost universally admitted, and ornithologists experience little difficulty in recognizing the two species.

The particular respects in which the White Wagtail differs from its congeners are noticeable chiefly in the summer, or breeding plumage, when the former has a black cap clearly defined against a grey back, while in the latter the black colour of the head merges in the black of the dorsal plumage and no such cap is discernible. In summer both species have the chin black, and in winter the same parts in both are white. In the immature and winter dress it is not so easy to distinguish them, and in form and structure at all ages and seasons no real difference seems to exist. This has naturally raised some doubt in the minds of many as to the validity of the so-called species, a doubt which is strengthened by the circumstance that in regard to haunts and habits the two may be said to be inseparable.

This much, however, seems to be certain, that whereas the Pied Wagtail is generally distributed as a resident species, migrating southward at the approach of winter, the White Wagtail spends only the summer months in this country, and is then very local in its distribution.

Beyond the British Islands the White Wagtail has a much more extensive range than its congeners, being found throughout the whole of Europe, penetrating to the North Cape and even to Iceland, and travelling southward beyond the Mediterranean into Africa, to within a few degrees of the equator.

THE GREY WAGTAIL.
(Motacilla sulphurea.)

Except for the purpose of a momentary comparison, it would be beyond the scope of the present volume to notice the Grey Wagtail here, for this bird does not come under the definition of a Summer Migrant.

It is rather a winter visitant, being most frequently observed in the cold season, although many pairs remain in suitable localities throughout the country to nest and rear their young. Upon this point Professor Newton has remarked that “a line drawn across England from the Start Point, slightly curving round the Derbyshire hills, and ending at the mouth of the Tees, will, it is believed, mark off the habitual breeding-range of this species in the United Kingdom; for southward and eastward of such a line it never, or only occasionally breeds, while to the westward and northward its nest may be looked for in any place suited to its predilections, as above described, whether in this island or in Ireland, where, according to Thompson, it is extensively, though not universally distributed. In Scotland, says Macgillivray, it is rare to the north of Inverness, but it is an occasional summer visitor to Orkney, and in Shetland it occurs towards the end of summer, though it is not known to have been met with in the Outer Hebrides. In the south-west of England its numbers are in summer comparatively small, but it breeds annually in Cornwall and on Dartmoor; and as we pass northward its numbers increase, until in parts of Scotland, perhaps, they attain their maximum. Nests have been reported from Dorset, Wilts, Hampshire, Sussex, and even Kent; but in those counties they are confessedly casual, and only in the case at Chenies, in Buckinghamshire, mentioned by Mr. Gould (‘Contr. Orn.,’ 1849, p. 137), does the species seem to have been more than an accidental settler.”

The Grey Wagtail may be at once distinguished by having the vent and upper tail coverts of a sulphur-yellow, and by its great length of tail. In summer it has a black patch upon the throat, of a triangular shape when viewed in profile, and bordered with white, but in winter this black patch disappears, and the throat is then of a pale yellowish-white.

It has been stated by Temminck and other naturalists who have followed him, that the black throat is the peculiar attribute of the male bird in the summer or breeding plumage; but this is a mistake. Both sexes have a black throat in the breeding season, as I know from having observed them when paired, and from having examined numerous specimens of which the sex had been carefully ascertained by dissection.

The haunts of the Grey Wagtail are somewhat different to those of its congeners. It affects pools and streams, especially where there is a good current, and may frequently be seen perched upon boulders and mill-dams, where it feeds upon the freshwater limpets (Ancylus fluviatilis), and other small mollusca which are found attached in such situations.

The nest is generally placed not far from the water, in some inequality of the bank, or crevice of an overhanging rock. Upon a rugged mountain stream in Northumberland some years since, I daily observed a pair of these birds, and derived much pleasure in watching their building operations. It was some time before I could discover the nest, so skilfully was it concealed, for the birds had selected a crevice in a rock which was much overgrown with moss, and by constructing their nest entirely of this moss, it would easily have escaped observation, had I not patiently watched for the ingress and egress of the owners.

The geographical range of the Grey Wagtail beyond the British Islands has not been satisfactorily determined, in consequence of the difficulty of identifying the species amongst other allied forms which are to be met with in the confines of Europe and Asia. It certainly does not go far north in Europe, perhaps not beyond Northern Germany, but southward it is met with in winter in most of the countries bordering the Mediterranean, as well as in North Africa, Madeira, and the Azores.

THE YELLOW WAGTAIL.
(Motacilla Rayi.)

By many authors the Yellow Wagtails have been separated from the Pied Wagtails under the generic term Budytes, proposed by Cuvier, not only in consequence of their very different colouration, but also on account of their possessing a longer and more strongly-developed hind claw. The numerous intermediate forms, however, which the researches of modern naturalists have brought to light from various parts of the Old World, have rendered this subdivision less necessary or desirable than it may originally have appeared to be. In outward form, internal structure, and habits, they are all Wagtails, and one generic term for the whole has, at all events, the merit of simplicity.

The Yellow Wagtail, whose plumage in the breeding season equals in brightness that of the Canary, is one of the most attractive of all our summer migrants. When running over the pastures and fields of sprouting wheat, the olive-green colour of the dorsal plumage renders it very inconspicuous, but when perched upon some rail, or clod upon the bare fallow, the bright yellow of the under-parts contrasts vividly with the duller surroundings, and at once attracts the attention of the passer-by. Its favourite haunts are the marshes and water-meadows where cattle are pastured. Here it finds plenty of food amongst the insects which are disturbed by the grazing kine, and the numerous small and thin-shelled mollusca which abound in such situations.

When the nest has to be constructed—and it is always upon the ground—more sheltered spots are selected, such as a tussock of rough grass, or the foot of a bunch of tares or clover, and I have occasionally discovered a nest under an overhanging clod upon a bare fallow. Thus in regard to its mode of nesting it differs essentially from the well-known Pied Wagtail. Its note, too, is very different, and its flight much sharper, and with bolder curves. The eggs are quite dissimilar, being so closely freckled over with yellowish-clay colour, like those of the Grey Wagtail, as to appear at a little distance almost uniformly so coloured; whereas the eggs of the Pied and White Wagtails are white, freckled with ash-grey, chiefly at the larger end.

The Yellow Wagtail generally arrives in this country during the first week of April (for many years I have noted the 5th of that month as the average date for its appearance), and it departs during the first week of September. For some time previous to its departure, the young and old assemble in flocks, and it is not unusual to see several united family parties in the meadows, numbering from a dozen to a score of individuals.

Although generally distributed during the summer months throughout the greater part of England and Scotland, it is said to be somewhat rare in Ireland, where its presence has been detected by comparatively few observers. So much more attention, however, is paid to ornithology now-a-days, that this species, like many others, may be reported to be more common than formerly because more observed. In the central and southern portions of Europe it is not uncommon, and crossing the Mediterranean, as winter approaches, it passes down both the east and west coasts of Africa as far as Natal on the one side and Angola on the other. A considerable number, however, pass the winter in Africa, a good many degrees further north.

THE GREY-HEADED WAGTAIL.
(Motacilla flava.)

Similar in form and general colouration to the last-named, amongst the flocks of Yellow Wagtails that visit us in the spring the grey-headed species no doubt often escapes observation. But it is not on this account to be considered rare. On the contrary, there is good reason to believe that it is a regular migrant to this country, and this is not surprising when we consider that it is the common Yellow Wagtail of northern Europe, the true Motacilla flava of Linnæus. It differs chiefly from Ray’s Wagtail in having a well-defined cap of a grey colour on the head, a white instead of a yellow streak over the eye, and a white chin instead of a yellow one.[37] It frequents the same situations as the last-named, and its habits are very similar.

The specimens which have been obtained and recorded as British, and which amount to a considerable number, have been for the most part met with on the coasts of the eastern, southern, and south-western counties of England, and almost invariably in the spring of the year. There can be no doubt that it breeds here; indeed, the fact of its having done so in two or three instances has been already recorded. In the “Zoologist” for 1870 (p. 2343), Mr. J. Watson of Gateshead, near Newcastle-on-Tyne, writes:—“I have seen a good many notices in the ‘Zoologist’ of the occurrence of the Grey-headed Wagtail: it may interest you to hear of its breeding in this neighbourhood. Two nests were found by a friend of mine last year on some swampy ground near here. This year on the 13th of June I found another; and on the 8th of July my friend shot two young birds beginning to assume their mature plumage: one of these birds is in the possession of and was identified by Mr. John Hancock of Newcastle.”

But although the greater number of recorded British specimens have been obtained in the South of England, a few have been noticed from time to time in Scotland, and Dr. Saxby has on several occasions seen the species even as far north as Shetland. Mr. Blake Knox thinks that it occurs in Ireland, but that it is probably much overlooked, or perhaps confounded with the last-mentioned species. As it is common in summer in most of the countries of Western Europe, one would naturally expect to meet with it more frequently at the same season in Great Britain; and the increasing attention which is being paid to ornithology, and especially to the birds of particular districts, will no doubt result in the establishment of this species in the list of British birds as an annual summer migrant.

THE MEADOW PIPIT.
(Anthus pratensis.)

Premising that attention is not confined to species which are British, it is generally admitted by ornithologists that the Pipits are a difficult group to identify. They are subject to such variation in size and colour that it has often happened that one and the same species has been described four or five times as new, under as many new names. Gradually, however, as the researches of naturalists become extended, and the transport of specimens from various quarters of the globe is facilitated, the difficulty wears off, and we are enabled to define with sufficient accuracy the limits of each species and the variations of plumage within those limits.

Were I to confine my remarks in the present instance to those Pipits only which are regular summer migrants to this country, I should not have to mention more than two species. It may be well, however, to take a glance at all those which have a claim to be included in the British list, distinguishing them under the heads of “Residents,” “Summer Migrants,” and “Occasional Visitants.”

Two species only are resident with us throughout the year—the well-known Meadow Pipit or Titlark (Anthus pratensis), and the larger Rock Pipit (Anthus obscurus). Both these, however, are to a certain extent migratory at the approach of winter, assembling in small flocks, and moving from place to place in search of food. The Tree Pipit (Anthus arboreus) visits us regularly in April, and remains in this country until September; and there can be little doubt, from recent observations of naturalists in different parts of the country, that the Water Pipit (Anthus spinoletta, Linnæus, or Anthus aquaticus, Bechstein) is also an annual summer migrant to our shores. At irregular intervals, and in addition to these, we are occasionally visited by Richards’ Pipit, the Tawny Pipit, the Red-throated Pipit, and the Pennsylvanian Pipit. Of the two resident species, as well as the Tree Pipit, it can scarcely be necessary to say much, for their appearance and habits, if not well known to all, are described in almost every book on British birds. After pointing out their distinguishing characters, therefore, my remarks will refer chiefly to the geographical distribution of the species.

The Pipits hold an intermediate place between the Wagtails and Larks, having the slender bill of the former, and, with one exception, the long hind claw of the latter. Like these birds, they live almost entirely on the ground, where they seek their food, build their nests, and rear their young. Low-lying meadows and marshy places, the margin of tidal harbours, and the seashore are the favourite haunts of the Pipits. In such situations, except in very hard weather, they find abundance of food, consisting chiefly of insect larvæ, small beetles, flies, seeds, and minute univalve mollusca. I have almost invariably found, in addition, that the stomachs contain little particles of grit or brick, swallowed no doubt to assist in triturating the food.

The Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis) is the smallest as well as the commonest species to be met with, and is generally dispersed throughout the British Islands, including Orkney and Shetland. It is by no means confined to the plains or open country, but is frequently to be met with on mountain sides, sometimes at a considerable elevation. Tourists and sportsmen must doubtless have remarked this when climbing the Scotch and Irish mountains. The late Mr. Wheelwright, in Lapland, found it “very high up on the fells;” Professor Salvadori remarked it on the Apennines; and Messrs. Elwes and Buckley include it in their list of the birds of Turkey as frequenting the mountains.

In summer it is common in Scandinavia, and Mr. Wheelwright found it nesting in Lapland. It goes as far north as the Faroe Isles and Iceland.[38] According to Professor Reinhardt,[39] Dr. Paulsen, in Sleswick, received a single specimen from Greenland in 1845; but he adds that he (Professor R.) never saw it there himself. The Meadow Pipit appears to be generally distributed throughout Europe, and at the approach of winter emigrates in a south-easterly direction by way of Sicily and the Ionian Islands to Palestine. Lord Lilford states that it is very common in Corfu and Epirus in winter.[40] Canon Tristram found it in large flocks throughout the winter in North Africa, “apparently on passage;” and in Southern Palestine and in the Plains of Sharon he remarked that it was very abundant. According to Sir R. Schomburgk, it occurs as far eastward as Siam; but Mr. Blyth considered the Siamese pratensis to be the Red-throated Pipit (A. cervinus) in winter plumage. It is known to occur in India, however, as Mr. Hume has procured this species near Ferozpore, North-west India; and Mr. Blyth saw specimens from other parts of the North-west provinces. The range of this bird southwards, that is through Africa, seems to be very limited. According to Mr. Saunders, it is common in Spain in winter, but it is not included in Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake’s list of the birds of Morocco; and though Mr. Salvin shot a specimen at Kef Laks in the Eastern Atlas, it appears to occur in North-west Africa exceptionally. The Pipit of the Canaries, originally regarded as A. pratensis, has been described by Dr. Bolle[41] as distinct, under the name of Berthelot’s Pipit (Anthus Berthelotii). But Mr. Vernon Harcourt maintains—and so did the late Mr. Yarrell—that Madeiran specimens can in no degree be distinguished from specimens of A. pratensis from other parts.

THE ROCK PIPIT.
(Anthus obscurus.)

This Pipit, as already observed, is to be found on most parts of our coast throughout the year, except on that portion which extends from the Thames to the Humber, where it is only observed in spring and autumn during the period of migration. For although a resident species, inasmuch as individuals may be found on some parts of the coast throughout the year, it is also, to a certain extent, migratory, receiving a considerable accession to its numbers in spring, and a corresponding diminution in autumn. It may be distinguished from the common Meadow Pipit by its larger size, longer bill, tarsus, and toes, and by its having the upper portion of its plumage of a greener olive. The legs are of a much darker brown, and I have remarked that in freshly-killed specimens the soles of the feet are yellow, a circumstance which appears to have been generally overlooked, but which is worth noticing as an addition to its distinguishing characters. A considerable difference also will be observed in the two outer tail feathers on each side. In the Meadow Pipit the outermost tail feather is for the greater part white, and the next has half the tip of the inner web also white. In the Rock Pipit the same parts of these feathers are not white, although conspicuously lighter than the remaining portion.

The Rock Pipit found in Scandinavia (Anthus rupestris of Nilsson), is considered by some to be distinct from the species which frequents our own shores, but, as I think, on extremely slender grounds. The points of difference have been thus stated: “They consist, so far as we can ascertain, merely in the presence of a bright buff or pale cinnamon tinge on the breast of the male in A. rupestris, and perhaps in that form being of a slighter build than A. obscurus. In the female of the so-called A. rupestris the warm colour is much more faintly indicated; in some specimens it is doubtful whether it exists at all. The outer tail feathers, which in A. spinoletta afford so sure a diagnosis, are in A. rupestris just as dingy as in A. obscurus.”

There can be no doubt that the chemical constituents of colour in the plumage of birds are always more or less affected by climatic agency; and, this being so, one can hardly be justified in founding a new species on mere variation of colour, where there is at the same time no modification of structure. There can be little doubt that the Scandinavian Rock Pipit is identical with our own bird, the slight differences observable being easily accounted for through climate and the season of the year at which specimens are obtained.

The late Mr. Wheelwright makes no mention of this bird when treating of the ornithology of Lapland. Messrs. Godman met with it on the seashore at Bodö, Norway, “in tolerable abundance,” and Mr. Hewitson also saw it in Norway. Although Temminck says that it goes as far north as Greenland, this does not appear to be the case; for Professor Reinhardt, who has paid especial attention to the ornithology of Greenland, states that only two species of Pipit are to be met with there—namely, the American Anthus ludovicianus, which breeds there, and A. pratensis, of which, as above stated, a single specimen only is recorded to have been obtained. It is rather remarkable that Professor Blasius has not included the Rock Pipit in the avifauna of Heligoland, seeing that A. cervinus, A. ludovicianus, and A. Richardi are all stated to have been taken on that island.[42]

Although found upon the shores of Holland, Belgium, and France, it either goes no farther to the south-west, or else it has been overlooked; for neither Mr. Howard Saunders, in his “List of the Birds of Southern Spain,” nor the Rev. A. C. Smith, in his “Sketch of the Birds of Portugal,” give it a place in the avifauna of those countries. Mr. C. A. Wright states (“Ibis,” 1869, p. 246) that he has only obtained a single specimen in Malta. Further eastward, namely, on the coasts of Epirus and Corfu, Lord Lilford found it to be common, and on this account it has been included by Messrs. Elwes and Buckley in their “List of the Birds of Turkey.” I am not sure whether it has been met with in Asia Minor, but probably it does not extend either eastward or southward beyond the coast line of the Mediterranean. The observations of naturalists certainly tend to prove that its proper habitat is Northern Europe, and perhaps nowhere is it commoner than in the British Islands.

THE TREE PIPIT.
(Anthus arboreus.)

Although a regular summer visitant to England, the Tree Pipit, like the Nightingale, from some unexplained cause, is distributed over a very limited area. It never reaches Ireland, and is considered rare in Scotland, although the nest has been found as far north as Dumbarton, Aberdeen, Banff, and East Inverness.[43] Even in Wales and Cornwall it is a scarce bird, so that England may be said to be the western limit of its geographical range. Mr. Wheelwright never met with it in Lapland, but Messrs. Godman found it in June as far north as Bodö, in Norway, and from this latitude southwards to the Mediterranean it seems to be well known in summer. Mr. Howard Saunders says that it is generally distributed in Spain from autumn to spring, and he suspects that some remain to breed on the high plateaux. In Portugal, according to the Rev. A. C. Smith, it is rare. Mr. Wright, of Malta, states that it is very common in the island in spring and autumn, departing in May northwards, and returning in September and October. He adds that a few remain the winter. According to the observations of Lord Lilford, it is now and then seen at Corfu in winter, throughout which season it is found in small flocks, apparently on passage to North Africa. Mr. Layard does not include it in his “Birds of South Africa,” but, according to Professor Sundevall (“Svenska Foglarna,” p. 41), a specimen was killed by Wahlberg on the Limpopo, in Kaffirland, between lat. 25 deg. and 26 deg. S. Canon Tristram found it sparingly distributed in Palestine in winter, and in spring in the Jordan valley. It is recognised by naturalists in north-west India, and there can be little doubt that the Pipit which has been described from that country, and from China and Japan, under the name of Anthus agilis, Sykes, is only our old friend A. arboreus in a different plumage from that which it assumes here in summer. Herr von Pelzeln says[44] that agilis only differs from arboreus in having a stouter bill, and he does not think that it can be specifically distinct, notwithstanding that Dr. Jerdon gives both species as inhabitants of India. On this point Mr. Hume says (“Ibis,” 1870, p. 287): “I took nine specimens of arboreus from England and France, and compared them with our Indian birds. There was no single one of them to which an exact duplicate could not be selected from amongst my Indian series. That all our Indian Pipits known as agilis, maculatus, and arboreus ought to be united as one species under the latter, or possibly some older, name, I can now scarcely doubt.”

THE WATER PIPIT.
(Anthus spinoletta.)

In size this bird equals our well-known Rock Pipit, but may be distinguished by the vinous colour of the throat and breast, by the absence of spots or streaks upon the under parts, and by the outer tail feathers, which are marked with white, as in A. pratensis. It was named spinoletta from the provincial name applied to the bird in Italy, whence Linnæus described it.[45] Pallas, however, altered the name to “pispoletta,” because Cetti affirmed that this was the correct Florentine term, and not spinoletta. Linnæus’s name, nevertheless, on the ground of priority, is entitled to precedence. The species was identified with aquaticus of Bechstein by Bonaparte.[46]

This bird seems to have been first made known to English naturalists by Mr. Thomas Webster, of Manchester, who, in a communication to the “Zoologist” (p. 1023), stated that he had seen three birds at Fleetwood in October, 1843, which he had not the slightest hesitation in identifying with a Pipit described by M. Deby as Anthus aquaticus, Bechstein, and which to all appearance were totally distinct from the common Rock Pipit of our coast. In January, 1860, the Rev. M. A. Mathew, in a letter to Mr. Gould, called attention to the fact of his having procured a Pipit at Torquay, which was subsequently identified unhesitatingly with A. aquaticus of Bechstein. Since that date, Mr. Gatcombe, of Plymouth, has noticed several other specimens in Devonshire, and a great many have been procured in Sussex, chiefly in the neighbourhood of Brighton. Thus the claim of this bird to rank as a British species has come to be pretty well established. M. Baily, in his “Ornithologie de la Savoie,” says that the Water Pipit is common at all seasons of the year both in Switzerland and Savoy. During winter it frequents the wet meadows, marshes, and unfrozen springs in the valleys, and about the end of March or beginning of April ascends the mountains, and resorts to the most sterile plateaux, fields, heaths, and stony places in the neighbourhood of water, where it nests on the ground under stones, sometimes in clefts in the rock, but oftener in the grass beneath the bilberry, whortleberry, or some creeping bush.

In the fall of the year it descends to the warmer valleys and frequents the margins of the rivers, whence it has derived the name of Water Pipit, making its way gradually southward as winter approaches. Mr. Saunders has met with it at Malaga in winter; but apparently it is not common in Spain, and, according to the Rev. A. C. Smith (“Sketch of the Birds of Portugal”) still less so in Portugal. Mr. Wright has met with it once in Malta, having shot a specimen there in November, 1860. It crosses the Mediterranean to North Africa. Canon Tristram met with it in Algeria, and Captain Shelley recognised it in Egypt. In the peninsula of Sinai it was found by Mr. C. W. Wyatt, frequenting the sides of the salt-ponds near Tor, and it is included in Mr. Strickland’s list of the birds of Asia Minor (“P. Z. S.,” 1836, p. 97) as being found on the coast in winter at Smyrna, whence it penetrates to Palestine (Tristram, “Ibis,” 1866, p. 289). Messrs. Elwes and Buckley have enumerated this amongst other species in their list of the birds of Turkey, and Ménétries states (“Cat. Rais. Caucas.,” p. 39) that it is common on the shores of the Caspian in April, May, and June. The range of this bird eastward is at present hardly determined; partly, perhaps, because the Pipits have been a good deal neglected for the sake of more attractive species, and partly on account of the difficulty which travellers usually experience in the identification of this difficult group of birds. That the Water Pipit penetrates to north-west India is to be inferred from the fact that Mr. Hume sent M. Jules Verreaux a specimen for identification from the Punjab west of the Sutlej.

RICHARD’S PIPIT.
(Anthus Richardi.)

Out of compliment to the zealous amateur who first made known an example captured in autumn in Lorraine, the name of Richard’s Pipit has been bestowed on this bird, which is becoming better known to ornithologists in this country every year. Its superior size, stouter bill, greater length of leg, and longer hind claw, at once serve to distinguish it from the commoner species. As compared with the Rock Pipit, the largest of those with which we are most familiar, its dimensions are as follows:

Its occurrence in England has been noted, as might be expected, chiefly on the east and south coasts, in every month between September and April, both inclusive. At least fifty specimens have been seen or procured, distributed as follows: Northumberland, 2; Norfolk, 5; Shropshire, 1; Oxford, 1; Middlesex, 12; Kent, 3; Sussex, 5; Devonshire, 11; Cornwall and Scilly, 8. In the west of England, therefore, it would appear to be very rare, and in Ireland it is unknown.

The most northern locality, I believe, whence this species has been procured, is Heligoland, on which island, according to Professor Blasius, it is said to have been obtained by Herr Gätke.[47]

When staying at Antwerp in May, 1870, I saw three or four specimens which had been taken in that neighbourhood, but the owner of them considered the bird a rarity there. Mr. Howard Saunders obtained a couple near Malaga in the month of February, and learnt that in some winters it is not uncommon in southern Spain (“Ibis,” 1870, p. 216). Signor Bettoni, in his grand work on the birds which breed in Lombardy, mentions Richard’s Pipit as one of the characteristic species of the Lombard plains. “Nevertheless,” says Mr. Saunders (“Ibis,” 1869, p. 392), “he must not be understood to mean that it is in any way abundant, or even constant in that province; for the Count Turati assured me that it has never been discovered breeding there, and that, judging from the number of specimens enumerated as obtained in England, it is more common with us than with them. That its appearance is confined to the plains of Lombardy is probably the author’s meaning.” In Malta it is only found accidentally in spring and autumn, and Mr. Wright, who has paid so much attention to the ornithology of that island, has only been able to mention three examples as having come under his own notice.

It is rather singular that this bird should not cross the Mediterranean, and be found with other European Pipits during the winter months in North Africa. Nevertheless, I have not been able to find any mention of it in any of the North African lists which I have consulted, neither is it included in the late Mr. Strickland’s List of the Birds found in Asia Minor in winter (“P. Z. S.,” 1836, p. 97).

It is much commoner, however, in Asia than in Europe. Mr. Hodgson found it in Nepal,[48] and Mr. Hume says it breeds in Ladakh; Mr. Blyth has recorded its occurrence in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, and Mr. Blanford met with it in the Irawadi Valley. It is included by Sir R. Schomburgk in his List of the Birds of Siam (“Ibis,” 1864, p. 249), and, according to Mr. Swinhoe, is common in North China (Takoo and Peking) in September, and in Amoy, Formosa, and Hainan in winter.

THE TAWNY PIPIT.
(Anthus campestris.)

Easily mistaken for Richard’s Pipit, this bird is, however, of a more sandy colour, and may be distinguished by its short hind claw. In Richard’s Pipit, it will be remembered, the hind claw is very long. Its real habitat may be said to be North Africa and Palestine. Canon Tristram calls it the common Pipit of the Sahara, and Mr. O. Salvin found it abundant on the plateau of Kef Laks and on the plains of Djendeli, in the Eastern Atlas. In Upper Egypt and Sinai it is occasionally plentiful, and is found all over the cultivated coast and hill districts of Palestine, where it is a permanent resident.

“The soil of the Sahara,” says Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun. (“Ibis,” 1871, p. 85), “is in some places soft and sandy, in others hard and pebbly. The Tawny Pipit affects the former, where there is little or no herbage. Its flight is undulating, like that of the Wagtails; and, like the latter, it twitters on the wing.” Canon Tristram, referring to the habits of this species in Palestine, where he obtained several nests on the bare hills, says (“Ibis,” 1866, p. 289), “It is one of the tamest of birds, and particularly affects the mule paths, flitting along in front of the traveller, and keeping unconcernedly a few yards ahead.” “The nest,” says Mr. Salvin, “is composed of roots, with a lining of horsehair, and is placed on the lee side of a bush. The eggs vary very much, some being light-coloured, and almost like wagtails’, while others are much darker and more profusely marked.”

Although, as above stated, North Africa and Palestine may be regarded as its home, the Tawny Pipit ranges a long way to the north and south of this tract, and is common in some parts of Southern Europe in summer. It is found as far northward as Sweden—where, as Mr. Wheelwright has remarked, it is confined to the sandy shores of the south—and accidentally in England, where specimens have been several times procured on the coasts of Sussex, and in Cornwall.[49]

Lord Lilford has observed that it is common in Spain in summer (“Ibis,” 1866, p. 178), an observation more recently confirmed by Mr. Howard Saunders (“Ibis,” 1869, p. 392). In Portugal, according to the Rev. A. C. Smith, it seems to be equally well known.

It is annually observed in Malta in spring and autumn, but never found there during the winter months (Wright, “Ibis,” 1864, p. 61). Lieut. Sperling, however, believes that it is not uncommon on the north coast of the Mediterranean in winter. South of the habitat assigned to it, this bird ranges through Abyssinia (whence I have seen a specimen in the collection of African birds belonging to Mr. Sharpe) to Mozambique, where, according to Lieut. Sperling, it is plentiful in winter; and Mr. Layard has included it amongst the birds of South Africa, having received specimens from Windvogelberg and the Knysna. It has a West African representative in Anthus Gouldii of Frazer (Hartlaub, “Orn. West Afr.,” p. 73), which differs in its smaller size and darker colour, and in having the head of a uniform dull brown, instead of being streaked.

THE PENNSYLVANIAN PIPIT.
(Anthus ludovicianus.)

On the authority of several good naturalists this species is stated to have occurred several times in the British Islands; but the general description of the specimens referred to applies as a rule so well to the Anthus spinoletta above mentioned, that it is extremely difficult to say to which of the two species they belonged. It is of course far more probable that the visitors to our shores would be of European, not American, extraction. At the same time they have been described as according so well in every respect with the American ludovicianus, that we must either admit that the latter bird occasionally visits this country, or agree with Richardson and Swainson (“Faun. Bor. Americana,” ii. p. 231) that it is indistinguishable from aquaticus of Bechstein, that is, spinoletta of Linnæus.

Edwards was the first to notice this bird as a visitant to England, giving a description and figure of a specimen obtained near London in his “Gleanings” (vol. ii. p. 185, pl. 297). Montagu shortly afterwards noticed two in his “Ornithological Dictionary,” one of which had been taken in Middlesex, the other near Woolwich.

Macgillivray, in his “Manual of British Birds,” p. 169, minutely describes two Pipits which were shot near Edinburgh in June, 1824, and which he identifies clearly with the American species.

Mr. Turnbull, in his “Birds of East Lothian,” states (p. 40) that three Pennsylvanian Pipits were shot at Dunbar in East Lothian by Mr. Robert Gray, of Glasgow.

Mr. Bond has a Pipit, identified as belonging to this species, which was obtained at Freshwater, in the Isle of Wight, in September, 1865; while the most recent instance of the occurrence of this Pipit in England will be found in the “Zoologist” for 1870. But anyone who reads the correspondence relating to this instance (“Zool.” tom. cit. pp. 2021, 2067, and 2100) will see how difficult it is to identify a species when the specimen is not in fully adult plumage.

When it is remembered that Anthus ludovicianus, as stated by Professor Reinhardt (“Ibis,” 1861, p. 3), breeds in Greenland, and, according to Professor Blasius, is found in Heligoland (“Naumannia,” 1858), it is certainly not improbable that it should occasionally be found in the British Islands. At the same time it is very desirable that some more convincing evidence than that which already exists of its occurrence here should be placed upon record.

THE RED-THROATED PIPIT.
(Anthus cervinus.)

The present bird has, as yet, been scarcely admitted into the British list. I have seen a specimen in the collection of Mr. Bond, which was killed at Unst, Shetland, on the 4th May, 1854, and about the same year, but in September, another in the same collection was shot at Freshwater in the Isle of Wight.

In the adult plumage the species is easily recognized by the ruddy brown colouring of the upper portions of the plumage, and by the rufous patch upon the throat.

In size it is equal to the Meadow Pipit, and by some naturalists it has been considered a permanent race or variety of that species; but the observations of Prof. Newton on this point[50] certainly tend to show that the species is a valid one. It was met with by him in June, 1855, when in company with Messrs. Wolley and Simpson, in a restricted locality in East Finmark, between Wadsö and Nyborg, and several well-identified nests were procured. A specimen procured in Heligoland is in Herr Gätke’s collection.

It is not uncommon as a winter visitant in Turkey, and Mr. Wright has shot many specimens in Malta, where he says it arrives in small flocks in spring and autumn. In Egypt and Nubia this bird quite takes the place of A. pratensis, and is sometimes very common there. It probably winters also in Palestine, although Canon Tristram, during his sojourn there at that season, only met with a single specimen on the coast of the plain of Sharon. It has been found in China, Japan, Formosa, and Hainan, by Mr. Swinhoe, who suggests that this bird in its winter plumage is the Anthus japonicus of Temminck and Schlegel. Mr. Blyth thinks that it should probably be erased from the Indian list, as the ordinary Himalayan species, A. rosaceus of Hodgson, has been confounded with it. Upon this point, however, much difference of opinion prevails. Dr. Jerdon, in his “Birds of India,” gives rosaceus as a synonym of cervinus, and Mr. Hume is puzzled to distinguish rosaceus from arboreus. He says (“Ibis,” 1870, p. 288): “Typical examples of both species seem unmistakably distinct, but intermediate forms of the most puzzling character occur, of such a nature that it really seems to me impossible to decide to which species they ought to be referred.”

Professor Newton considers that the Red-throated Pipit is as yet scarcely entitled to a place in the list of British Birds; nevertheless it is a bird, as he says, whose migratory habits and wide north-eastern range make it very likely to occur in this country, and probably its recognition as an occasional visitor to the British Islands is only a matter of time and observation.

THE SPOTTED FLYCATCHER.
(Muscicapa grisola.)

The family of Flycatchers is a very large one, having representatives in all parts of the globe; but in the British Islands two species only can with propriety be included in the list of annual summer migrants. It is true that at least one other species has been met with in this country, to which allusion will be made presently; but it cannot be regarded in any other light than that of a rare and accidental visitant.

The Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa grisola), as remarked by the eminent Irish naturalist, Thompson, is probably little known, except to the observant ornithologist. Owing to the dulness of its plumage, its want of song, and its weak call being seldom heard, it is certainly one of the least obtrusive of our birds; the trees, too, having put forth their “leafy honours” before the period of its arrival, further serve to screen it from observation. It is one of the latest of our summer migrants to arrive, seldom appearing before the second week in May, and generally taking its departure during the first week of September. It is found throughout the British Islands, but is much less common in Scotland. It has, however, been found breeding as far north as Sutherland and Caithness. The situation selected by this bird for its abode during its stay with us is generally in the neighbourhood of gardens and orchards, where it takes up its quarters on a wall or fruit tree, and sallies forth into the air after passing insects. The name of Spotted Flycatcher is more appropriately bestowed upon the bird in its immature plumage, when each brown feather is tipped with a buff spot. As it grows older, these spots gradually disappear. It is a wonderfully silent bird, and even when the hen is sitting the male does not, like the males of so many other species, pour forth a song to enliven her. The nest is usually placed on a beam in a shed, in a hole in a wall, or on the branch of a wall-fruit tree, partially supported by the wall; not unfrequently it may be discovered in a summer-house. It is neatly composed of moss and fine roots, and lined with grass, horsehair, and feathers. The eggs, generally five in number, are bluish white, spotted, chiefly at the large end, with reddish brown.

The late Mr. Wheelwright found the Spotted Flycatcher inhabiting Lapland in summer, but observed that it was not nearly so common there at that season as the Pied Flycatcher. In Central and Southern Europe it is a summer resident, passing through Spain and Portugal, Italy, Turkey, and the Ionian Islands twice a year—namely, in spring and autumn. Its course in autumn appears to be south-east by south. Mr. Wright has noticed it as very common in spring and autumn in Malta, arriving there somewhat later than the Pied Flycatcher. It has been noticed by Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., as plentiful in Algeria in summer. Captain Shelley met with it once at Alexandria in May, when it was probably migrating; and Rüppell includes it without hesitation amongst the birds of North Africa.[51] In the middle of October, Von Heuglin found that it was not rare near Tadjura, and somewhat later in the year on the Somali coast. In Palestine Canon Tristram found it breeding in all parts of the country, its favourite nesting-places being in the branches of old gnarled trees overhanging the paths (“Ibis,” 1867, p. 361). How far eastward it extends I am not sure, as in China and Japan an allied species appears to take its place. But south of the Mediterranean it penetrates to South Africa. Mr. Layard says,[52] “the common European flycatcher has been brought by Mr. Andersson from Damara Land in some abundance. And Andersson himself states[53] that the bird is common in Damara and Great Namaqua Land, and is found there throughout the year. Dr. Hartlaub cites it on M. Verreaux’s authority as from the Cape, and Swainson also alludes to it as from South Africa. Since the publication of the work above quoted, Mr. Layard has been enabled to add that his son procured this bird at Grootevadersbosch, near Swellendam. From Lapland, then, to the Cape of Good Hope, and from Portugal to Palestine is a pretty extensive range for so small and weak a bird as our Common Flycatcher. I should not be surprised to hear that it is found even still further to the eastward, for so many of our summer migratory birds spend their winter in India and China, and after all the greater part of their journey would be by overland route, which admits of their travelling by stages, to rest and feed by the way.

THE PIED FLYCATCHER.
(Muscicapa atricapilla.)

From its conspicuous black and white plumage, the Pied Flycatcher is a much more attractive species than the commoner bird. Strange to say, although of similar habits, and living on similar food, it is by no means so common as a species, nor so generally dispersed. Its presence in Scotland is always looked upon as an uncommon occurrence, and in Ireland, until recently, it was quite unknown.

During the month of April, 1875, Mr. Robert Warren, jun., of Moyview, Ballina, co. Mayo, met with this bird for the first time in his neighbourhood, and the following communication from him on the subject was published in the natural history columns of “The Field,” on the 1st of May, 1875:—“It may interest some of your ornithological readers to learn that a Pied Flycatcher (Muscicapa atricapilla) visited this extreme western locality on the 18th of April. My attention was first attracted by seeing it catching insects in the true flycatcher style; but, thinking it rather strange that our common Spotted Flycatcher should appear a month or six weeks earlier than usual, I watched it attentively for some time. It then struck me as having a smaller head and closer plumage than the spotted one, and occasionally I thought I observed some white marks on the wings; but, the evening light just fading, I could not be quite certain of the white marks. Although knowing it to be a flycatcher, I was not satisfied as to its identity, so next morning I returned to that part of my lawn where I had seen it the night before, and again saw it hard at work; but now having better light, and the aid of a field glass, I was not long in making out quite distinctly the white wing marks, which showed me that it was not the common Muscicapa grisola. I took my gun and secured what I believe to be the first specimen of Muscicapa atricapilla ever shot in Ireland. Neither Thompson in his ‘Birds of Ireland,’ nor Professor Newton in his new edition of ‘Yarrell’s British Birds,’ mentions it as a visitor to Ireland, or gives any record of its capture in this island; and Mr. Harting, in his ‘Handbook of British Birds,’ p. 10, says it is unknown in Ireland. The specimen, an adult female, is now in the collection of the Royal Dublin Society.”

To this communication the editor appended the following note:—“Although we always regret to hear of the wanton destruction of a rare bird, we must admit that circumstances sometimes occur to justify an individual capture, and we think the present instance is a case in point. By the actual possession of the bird seen, Mr. Warren has been enabled to establish beyond doubt the fact of the occurrence in Ireland of a species previously unknown there, and has thus a complete answer to any sceptic who might suggest that he may have been mistaken in his identification of it.”

In England the Pied Flycatcher is a regular summer migrant, quite as much as any other of the small birds already noticed. Mr. A. G. More, in his “Notes on the Distribution of Birds in Great Britain during the Nesting Season,” regards it as a very local species, and observes that the nest has occasionally been found in North Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Isle of Wight, Surrey, Oxford, Norfolk, Gloucester, Shropshire, Leicester, and Derby. To these counties I may add Middlesex (for I have known several instances of this bird nesting as near London as at Hampstead, Highgate, and Harrow) and Essex, where the species has been met with at Leytonstone. Yarrell adds Sussex, Suffolk, Yorkshire (where I also have seen it), Worcester, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumberland, and Durham, and on the southern coast, Hampshire. He makes no mention of its occurrence in Wales, neither does Mr. A. G. More in his essay above mentioned. During the summer of 1871, however, several letters appeared in the natural history columns of “The Field,” communicating the fact of its nesting in Breconshire, Denbighshire, and Merionethshire.[54] The sites selected for the nests are usually holes in walls, ruins, and pollard trees, and the nest itself is composed of roots, grass, strips of inside bark and horsehair. The eggs, five or six in number, are of a very pale blue colour, much paler, smaller, and rounder than those of the hedge sparrow. A correspondent who has taken several nests of this bird states that he never found one containing feathers; but I think I have seen one lined with feathers which had been taken out of an old birch tree in Lapland by the late Mr. H. Wheelwright. In this lamented naturalist’s entertaining book, “A Spring and Summer in Lapland,” he states that, although he never met with the Pied Flycatcher on the fells, it was to be found as far north as the birch region extends, and he generally found the nest in small dead birch stubbs by the riverside. Messrs. Godman met with it some way up the mountains to the north of Bodö in Norway, where the birch was also the favourite nesting tree. As it is common in most parts of Central and Southern Europe, and is found as far westward as Portugal, it is rather curious that Professor Savi should have so long overlooked its occurrence in Tuscany. Dr. Giglioli noticed it as abundant at Pisa in April, and, on recording it as new to the Tuscan avifauna, he added (“Ibis,” 1865, p. 56): “When I showed the numerous specimens I had procured to Professor Savi, he was much surprised, and said that, during the forty years he had been studying the ornis of this part of Italy, he had never come across the Pied Flycatcher, which, however, abounds during the spring passage at Genoa, and all along the Riviera.” It is a spring and autumn visitor in Malta; but, though often seen in the valleys and by roadsides in the neighbourhood of trees, it is not so numerous in the island as M. grisola. Mr. O. Salvin found the Pied Flycatcher not uncommon about Souk Harras in the Eastern Atlas, and Mr. Tyrrwhitt Drake saw it during the spring migration in Tangier and Eastern Morocco. A specimen from the River Gambia is in the collection of Mr. R. B. Sharpe. Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., during a recent tour in Algeria, encountered this amongst other familiar birds. He says (“Ibis,” 1871, p. 76): “It was not until April that I saw this species, after which it became common. In the dayats and in the Gardaia, where they most abounded, the proportion of adult males in full summer plumage to young birds and females was as one to five. They looked exceedingly picturesque in the rich foliage of the oases, clinging perhaps to a rough palm stem, though their more usual perch was the upper bough of a bush, whence they would dart off after passing flies.” To this I may add that the note frequently repeated is not unlike that of the Redstart, although softer and more agreeable, and the bird when uttering it often shuffles its wings after the manner of a Hedge Sparrow. Canon Tristram found this bird to be a summer resident in Palestine, and first noticed it in Galilee on April 23rd; but, though remaining to breed, he considered it rather a scarce bird there.

An allied species, Muscicapa albicollis, is generally distributed over the South of Europe, Palestine, and North Africa, which differs from the Pied Flycatcher in having the nape of the neck white instead of black; in other words, the white of the throat extends entirely round the neck. It is found in Greece, Turkey, Tuscany, Spain, Portugal, and France, less commonly in the north of France, and not in Belgium or Holland. It is singular, considering that the two species occupy the same haunts during a great portion of the year, that the White-necked Flycatcher never accompanies its more sable congener to England; yet, so far as I am aware, there is no instance of its occurrence here on record.

What is the cause which operates to restrain one species from migrating, when a closely allied bird of similar habits is impelled to take a long and perilous journey? Truly it is a curious question.

Before taking leave of our British flycatchers, it may be observed that a third species, the Red-breasted Flycatcher (Muscicapa parva), a native of South-eastern Europe and Western Asia, has been met with and procured on three separate occasions in Cornwall. One was taken at Constantine, near Falmouth, on Jan. 24, 1863.[55] A second was captured at Scilly in October of the same year;[56] and a third was procured also at Scilly on Nov. 5, 1865.[57] All the specimens procured were immature. The adult bird has a breast like a robin, which renders it a particularly attractive species. It is said to be not uncommon in the Crimea and in Hungary, extending eastward to Western and North-western India, where it is plentiful,[58] and is found accidentally in Italy, Switzerland, and France. Mr. Howard Saunders has reason to believe that it has been met with in Southern Spain in winter, but Col. Irby is somewhat sceptical on the point.[59]

In Sir Oswald Mosely’s “Natural History of Tutbury” (p. 385), it is reported that a pair of the North American Red-eyed Flycatcher (Muscicapa olivacea) appeared at Chellaston, near Derby, in May, 1859, and one of them was shot. If there was no mistake in the identification of the species, one can only suppose that the birds must have been brought over to this country in a cage, and contrived to effect their escape.

THE SWALLOW.
(Hirundo rustica.)

Few birds have attracted more attention in all countries and in all ages than the Swallows; and the habits of those species which annually visit the British Islands have been so thoroughly investigated and so frequently described, that little originality can be claimed for the remarks which I have now to offer.

There are two points, however, in the natural history of these birds which do not appear to have received from their biographers so much attention as they deserve, viz., the nature of their food, and their geographical distribution. I have repeatedly been asked, “What do Swallows feed upon?” and “Where do Swallows go in winter?” To these two questions I will now endeavour to reply, believing that an exposition of such facts as have been ascertained on these points will be more acceptable to the reader than a repetition of what has been so frequently published on the subject of habits, haunts, dates of arrival, and other minor details.

First, then, as regards food. Dr. Jenner found that Swallows on their arrival in this country, and for some time afterwards, feed principally on gnats; but that their favourite food, as well as that of the Swift and Martin, is a small beetle of the Scarabæus kind, which he found, on dissection, in far greater abundance in their stomachs than any other insect. A writer in the “Magazine of Natural History,”[60] Mr. Main, states that they take two species of gnat, Culex pipiens and C. bifurcatus; and Sir Humphrey Davy saw a single Swallow capture four Mayflies that were descending to the water, in less than a quarter of a minute. Mr. Thompson says[61] that a correspondent of his, Mr. Poole, has found the mouths of young birds filled with Tipulæ, and that Mr. Sinclair, an accurate ornithologist, remarked a number of Swallows flying for some time about two pollard willows, and on going to the place ascertained that the object of pursuit was hive bees, which, being especially abundant beneath the branches, he saw captured by the birds as they flew within a few yards of his head. The assertion that Swallows take honey bees was long ago made by Virgil, and, though not often noticed by writers on British Birds, the fact has several times been corroborated. A writer in the “Field Naturalist’s Magazine” for 1834 (p. 125), stated that, having observed some Swallows seize bees in passing his hives, he shot them, and on opening them carefully, found that, although they were literally crammed with drones, there was not a vestige of a working bee. We learn from Wilson[62] that in the United States bees constitute part of the ordinary food of the Purple Martin; and the Sand Martin has been observed to prey upon the common wasp. Gilbert White remarked that both Swifts and Swallows feed much on little Coleoptera, as well as on gnats and flies, and that the latter birds often settle on the ground for gravel to grind and digest their food. At certain times in the summer he had observed that Swifts were hawking very low for hours together over pools and streams, and, after some trouble, he ascertained that they were taking Phryganeæ, Ephemeræ, and Libellulæ (Cadew-flies, May-flies, and Dragon-flies), that were just emerged out of their aurelia state. The indigestible portions of their food are rejected in the shape of small pellets, just as with the birds of prey. Apropos of these observations, Mr. J. H. Gurney, in October, 1871, wrote me as follows:—“The perusal of your interesting remarks relative to the food of the Chimney Swallow, and especially with reference to its bee-eating propensities, induces me to send you a note of an analogous habit of which I have heard, in one instance, in the Common Swift. An intelligent shepherd in Norfolk, with whom I am acquainted, and who keeps bees, states that a pair of Swifts which nested in the roof of his cottage were so destructive to his bees, by catching them on the wing when they happened to fly rather higher than usual, that he at length destroyed the Swifts in order to free his bees from their attacks. With reference to the food of the House Martin, I may mention that some years since, as I was watching some of these birds skimming over a roadside pond early in the month of May, one of them, as it flew past me, dropped at my feet a water beetle of the genus Dytiscus, nearly, if not quite, half an inch in length. Possibly it had captured a prey too large to be conveniently swallowed.” All the Hirundinidæ drink upon the wing, and are perhaps the only birds that do not alight for this purpose, unless perhaps the Terns and some of the Gulls may be also exceptions to the general rule.

With regard to their winter quarters and geographical distribution, it will be best to trace the movements of each species separately.

The Chimney Swallow (Hirundo rustica), whose early appearance in the spring is only preceded by that of the Sand Martin, spends at least six months of the year with us, and in some years more than seven months. The period of its visit, however, may be said briefly to extend from April to October. Between these two months the bird is found generally distributed throughout Europe, going as far north as Iceland[63] and Nova Zembla,[64] and penetrating even into Siberia and Amurland.[65]

The only Swallow hitherto observed in Greenland—and that only on two occasions—is, according to Professor Reinhardt, the American Swallow, Hirundo rufa of Bonaparte. Now, Bonaparte identifies this (Geogr. and Comp. List, p. 9) with H. rufa of Gmelin, and Professor Baird considers Gmelin’s bird to be the South American species, for which H. erythrogaster of Boddaert is the oldest name. If this identification be correct, one would certainly expect the bird found in Greenland to be the North American species, H. rufa of Vieillot, not Bonaparte, now generally better known by its older name, H. horreorum of Barton. The late Mr. Wheelwright observed the Common Swallow in Lapland, where he saw it hawking about over the high fells at Quickjock, and he fancied it was even commoner there than at Wermland, in Sweden, where it is also an annual summer visitant.[66] Throughout Europe generally, as already remarked, it is everywhere distributed in summer, and in the countries bordering the Mediterranean it is especially abundant at the periods of migration in spring and autumn. Mr. Wright has observed it arriving in Malta in great numbers from the south early in March, and again, on its return southwards in autumn, it is common over the island until October. On the island of Filfla, a few miles south of Malta, the same observer has noticed it in May. At Gibraltar and in Spain Mr. Howard Saunders has detected it as early as February, making its way north; and, as an instance of how these delicate birds at times get blown out of their course by adverse winds, it may be remarked that Prince Charles Bonaparte saw Swallows and Martins at sea 500 miles from Portugal and 400 miles off the coast of Africa. Sir William Jardine has recorded the presence of the Swallow at Madeira, and Mr. Osbert Salvin, writing on May 28 (“Ibis,” 1859, p. 334), says: “Some Swallows came on board when we were 180 miles north-west of the Azores, so that it is probable that the bird is found in these islands.”

On the Senegal River and at Sierra Leone it may be seen all the year round, but is less numerous there from June to September.[67] On the West Coast of Africa the Swallow appears to travel as far south as the island of St. Thomas on the equator, where Mr. Yarrell states it has been met with in January and February.