On Birds nesting around Bury St Edmunds

PRIORITY.

67

one genera (numbered under individual families) into which fall our forty-three species of Dragonflies.—Now I ask you, Sir • If the two very simplest groups of our Insects, totalling only 111 species, take eighteen months to complete, and then only in respectto their genera, when may we hope the total 15,000 kinds to be nnished : in yet another Century ? The rational reply actually works out at just under 203 years hence (for genera)!

Even at so remote a date as 2138, synonymy is too elusive to ensure persistence, be the work totally comprehensive.

W e wiU acce l a n d P satisfy ourselves with the ipse dixit of Masters who have already spent their lives in the subiect • Meyrick's, Fowler's, Saunders', Theobald's and, as far as it goes' Verrall s nomenclature. Their work shall be fixed for Englishmen, with new species and additions to our fauna interpolated at their natural positions. We will be of one mind, retaining our household words ; and the foreigner shall work out for himsuch synonymy as may be unfamiliar in his ears. For half a Century I have suffered from the Priority chimera; henceforth I follow naught but solid, staid philosophers of demonstrated worth. i his is my personal stance ; and, since I crave for no cosmopolitan correspondence, I enclose my card and sign myself 6 J thus, Sir, Yourg( Suffolk; 15 October 1935.

Lapis Sacer.

[Our Member assures us that, when expressing the above opinions, he had no knowledge of Mr. Hudson of New Z^aland's plea for " a Stable Nomenclatuie" (EMM. 1935 p p 16-7) The parallelism of these antipodean conclusions is most, or almost, Singular—and suggestive of intermediate agreement.—Ed.]

ON

BIRDS-NESTING

AROUND

B Y D R . CLAUD B . TICEHURST, M . A . ,

BURY.

M.B.O.U.,

etc.

on the 1934 good number of the Transactions ana promptness of lts publication ; it is most readable and very aitterent from certain other periodicals which seem to be dying ot inanition. I was naturally most interested, as the author of A H,story of the Birds of Suffolk' that was published during W A in Mr. Frank Burrell's remarkable discoveries near Burv 1 I rans. supra ii, p. 204), some of which certainly call for comment.

CONGRATULATIONS

68

ON BIRDS-NESTING AROUND BURY.

1. The Marsh Warbier (Acrocephalus palustris, Bch.).—As regards this bird in Suffolk, every one of which I received Information proved to be erroneous and due to wrong identification. Suffolk is a good deal north of its known breeding ränge, and the claim that it is to be numbered amongst our breeding birds should be based on very definite evidence. Has Mr. Burreil any evidence beyond his discovery of nests and eggs which he attributed to this species ?

4. Blue-headed Wagtail (Motacilla flava, L.).—In this case too, definite evidence should be forthcoming. This bird is known as an irregulär passage-migrant on the east coast. Did Mr. Burreil satisfactorily identify a male as indubitably breeding ? The female, of course, one cannot teil in the field from the common Yellow Wagtail, M. Raii, Bon. 6. The Cirl Bunting (Emberiza cirlus, L.).—Mr. Burrell has been more fortunate than I was in finding this Bunting to breed in Suffolk. In every alleged case that came under my own notice the birds turned out to be Yellow Buntings, E. citrinella, L. Further details would be necessary befoie admitting the claim of this species to be recognised as a Suffolk breeder.

10. Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus, L.).—Though a nest was recorded on Cavenham Heath in 1872, there is some doubt as to whether the identification were correct. This Harrier possibly may have nested in Suffolk between that date and 1831, when Hoy recorded i t : but there is no certainty. Hence its rediscovery in 1917 merits rather fuller details than are given, especially about the grounds upon which identification is based.

13 & 14. Barnacle and Brent Geese (Bernicla leucopsis, Bch. et brenta, Pall.).—Does Mr. Burrell seriously suggest that these arctic Geese have bred in a wild State in Suffolk ? I suspect they could be only captivity birds.

25. The Common Sandpiper (Tritiga hypoleucus, L.).—As I wrote at page 367 of the ' Birds of Suffolk,' it would not be surprising to find that a pair occasionally nest where small running streams exist. There I gave one instance as given to me, and some others which were very doubtful. Therefore Mr. Burrell's discovery at Icklingham merits a much more detailed account.

26. Blackheaded Gull (Larus ridibundus, L. [not marinus, as printed.—Ed.]).—It would be interesting to hear details of this nesting, if the information is additional to that given at page 408 of my Birds of Suffolk. [We posted a copy of this Article to Mr. Burrell on 12 March last, with a request that he should afford us additional details. As no reply has been yet received from him, it is obvious that further data, upon the eight questions raised by Dr. Ticehurst, are not adducible.—Ed.],