ford, by a lad while out shooting Blackbirds and Snipes.
Considering it a hen of the former, he sold it to Dr. Robert
Burkitt, who skinned and preserved it : the sex, however,
was not noted. The specimen was exhibited by the late Mr.
Thompson at the meeting of the British Association held at
Cork in August, 1843; and the brief notice in that part of
the ‘ Report ’ of the Association for that year which contains
the “ Transactions of the Sections ” (p. 71) seems to be the
first printed announcement of the occurrence. In May, 1845,
the same gentleman made known (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist,
xv. p. 308, note) a few more particulars of the fact, as above
given, and in January, 1846, Dr. Burkitt presented the skin
to the Museum of Trinity College, Dublin, where, however,
it is unfortunately not at the present time forthcoming.
Dr. Burkitt most kindly allowed me the use of liis bird
for this work, and the figure and description here given were
taken from this Britisli-killed specimen.
By Thompson, and in former editions of this work, the
specimen just mentioned was referred to the Cudor figured
by Le Vaillant in his ‘ Oiseaux d’Afrique ’ (pi. 107, fig. 2)
and, in 1818, named by Vieillot (Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat.
xx. p. 258) Turdus aurigaster; but a comparison of Le
Vaillant’s figure with the description of the bird shot in Ireland
has for some time convinced several ornithologists, and
among them the present Editor, that this reference was
erroneous. The Cudor, though belonging to the same
genus, differed very remarkably in plumage, possessing a
head which, if not black, was decidedly darker than the
shoulders and back, while the throat and lower parts generally
were white. In the Waterford bird, on the contrary,
the head was but little darker than the rest of the upper parts,
and the lower parts, or at least the throat and breast, were
but little lighter. There can therefore be no doubt as to
the latter having been mistaken for Le Vaillant’s Cudor,
which, it may be mentioned, has been shewn by Prof. Sun-
devall not to be an African bird at all, but a species long
known from Java ; while, on the other hand, the description
which follows, and a coloured drawing of the Waterford bird,
kindly lent by Dr. Burkitt to the Editor, induce him to refer
it, almost without hesitation, to the very well-known Pycno-
notus capensis *—a common species at the Cape of Good
Hope, of which Mr. Edgar Layard in his ‘ Birds of South
Africa ’ writes as follows (p. 138) :—
“ These birds are found in great abundance in the neighbourhood
of Cape Town, and indeed throughout the whole
colony. They migrate according to the fruit season, and
are especially partial to figs and grapes. They also feed
largely on the berries of the ‘ Persian Lilac,’ and when that
tree is in fruit, any number might be shot by a person lying
in ambush near. When feeding, they keep up a continual
chattering, and as they usually go in flocks of ten or fifteen
in number, their presence is soon detected.
“ These birds conceal their nests so skilfully, that they
are rarely detected, notwithstanding their numbers. I t is
composed of rootlets, lined sometimes with hair and feathers,
and is generally placed in the fork of a tree or bush. The
eggs, three or four in number, are a lovely pale pink, densely
spotted and blotched with dark pink and pale purple, presenting
a most beautiful appearance.” One sent by Mr.
Layard to the Editor measures -95 by '65 in.
The bill black ; the irides probably dark brown; the head,
neck, back, wings and tail uniform umber-brown; the
feathers on the forehead and crown slightly elongated, forming
a crest when elevated, the plumage of the whole head
being a shade darker in colour than that of the body; throat
and neck in front clove-brown, becoming lighter on the
* The mistake is more singular since the present species, having been already
figured by Brisson (Ornithologie, ii. p. 259, tab. 27, fig. 3) as the Merle brun
du Cap de Bonne Bsperance, was also very fairly represented by Le Vaillant in
his work before quoted (pi. 105) under the name of the Brunet, originally conferred
upon it by De Montbeillard (Hist. Nat. des Ois. iii. p. 390) and subsequently
adopted by Latham (Synops. ii. part i. p. 70). If the rule of priority extended
to vulgar as to scientific names it would be necessary to use the last author’s
“ Brunet Thrush” for this species—an outlandish term which would certainly
have the merit of showing that the bird, however it may have reached Ireland,
as there is no room to doubt it did, has no just claim to be considered otherwise
than a foreigner.