1 On the slipperiness of the barrier between science and sentiment (or sensibility) in the eighteenth century see, for example, Spary, Emma C., Utopia's Garden: French Natural History from Old Regime to Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, esp. Chapter 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Riskin, Jessica, Science in the Age of Sensibility: The Sentimental Empiricists of the French Enlightenment, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Clark, William, Golinski, Jan and Schaffer, Simon (eds.), The Sciences in Enlightened Europe, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999, especially Part 3, ‘Humans and Natures’, pp. 169–304.Google Scholar Moving into the nineteenth century, the divide between science and sentiment gains new salience as an actor's category. This transition is documented, with a provocatively broad brush, in Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter, Objectivity, Cambridge, MA: Zone, 2007, esp. Chapters 3 and 4.Google Scholar

2 On this more explicitly Victorian approach to the ‘problem’ of sentiment and emotions in natural history see Endersby, Jim, ‘Sympathetic science: Charles Darwin, Joseph Hooker, and the passions of Victorian naturalists’, Victorian Studies (2009) 51, pp. 299–320Google Scholar; and a recent ‘Focus Section’ in Isis: White, Paul (ed.), ‘Focus: the emotional economy of science’, Isis (2009) 100, pp. 792–851.Google Scholar Two crucial sources on the problem of the boundaries and nature of scientific knowledge in this period are Lightman, Bernard (ed.), Victorian Science in Context, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Daunton, Martin (ed.), The Organisation of Knowledge in Victorian Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

3 [Alfred Newton], ‘1. Report on the practicability of establishing ‘A Close Time’ for the protection of indigenous animals, by a Committee appointed by the British Association, 1869–1880. British Association Reports. London; 2. The Wild Birds’ Protection Act 1880, with Explanatory Notes. London (“Field” Office) 1880’, Quarterly Review (1881) 151(301), pp. 100–114, 102–103.

4 Newton, Alfred, ‘Address to the Department of Botany and Zoology’, in Report of the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, London: John Murray, 1876, pp. 119–125, 125.Google Scholar

5 Alfred Newton, ‘Testimony before the Select Committee on Wild Birds Protection’, 19 June 1873, ‘Report from the Select Committee on Wild Birds Protection’, p. 34. A copy of these proceedings is held in a bound volume entitled ‘Bird Preservation’ in Cambridge University Library, MS Add. 9839/5/1, Alfred Newton Papers, henceforth CUL, MS Add. 9839/5/1.

6 Newton, op. cit. (4), p. 125.

7 In this essay, the category of ‘sentiment’ has been chosen – over, for example, ‘feelings’ or ‘emotions’ – because it dominated the discussions of Newton and his contemporaries.

8 On the more general significance of the boundary between science and non-science and of the discourse between the two in this period see Martin Fichman, ‘Biology and politics: defining the boundaries’, in Lightman, op. cit. (2), pp. 94–118.

9 His father, William, owned a set of sugar plantations in the West Indies and was Member of Parliament for Ipswich, while his mother, Elizabeth, was herself the daughter of the MP for York. The only monograph-length biography of Newton was commissioned immediately after his death and was written by a former student. See Wollaston, A.F.R., Life of Alfred Newton: Professor of Comparative Anatomy, Cambridge University, 1866–1907, London: J. Murray, 1921.Google Scholar For further biographical details see Evans, David E., ‘Newton, Alfred (1829–1907)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004Google Scholar; and Innes, Shelley, ‘Alfred Newton’, in Lightman, Bernard (ed.), Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century British Scientists, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, pp. 1474–1476.Google Scholar

10 The literature on natural-historical travel in this period is immense, but for instructive examples about its importance for the training of naturalists see Endersby, Jim, Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008Google Scholar; Sachs, Aaron, The Humboldt Current: Nineteenth-Century Exploration and the Roots of American Environmentalism, New York: Penguin, 2006Google Scholar; and Browne, E. Janet, Charles Darwin: Voyaging: A Biography, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

11 On the rise of ornithology as both a discipline and a profession see Farber, Paul, The Emergence of Ornithology as a Scientific Discipline, 1760–1850, Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Barrow, Mark V. Jr, A Passion for Birds: American Ornithology after Audubon, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

12 The most comprehensive source on the great auk is Errol Fuller, The Great Auk, Southborough: Errol Fuller, 1999. The story of the auk's extinction, and the fixing of 1844 as its ‘date’, appears on p. 359, as well as in, for example, Bourne, W.R.P., ‘The story of the great auk (Pinguinis impennis)’, Archives of Natural History (1993) 20, pp. 257–278.Google Scholar The persistence of the idea of this story's ‘precision’ is embodied in an exhibit case entitled ‘Exploring Extinction’ at the Harvard Museum of Natural History, in which a great auk specimen is accompanied by a plaque that reads, in part, ‘There are no species on earth for which the precise date and time of extinction is known, except, perhaps, for the Great Auk.’

13 An account of Newton's travels can be found in Wollaston, op. cit. (9), pp. 11–39 and 73–92.

14 Modern ecologists would recognize a density-dependent non-linearity – the Allee effect – at work in the rapid depletion of such huge populations, but for Victorian naturalists the loss was largely a mystery. See Halliday, Tim, Vanishing Birds: Their Natural History and Conservation, Austin: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1978, p. 41Google Scholar; and Fuller, op. cit. (12), p. 63.

15 According to some historians of the brief seventeenth-century encounter between European sailors and the dodo, the bird tended to be understood more as an exotic aberration than a viable link in the chain of being. Confined to a tiny, distant island, encountered ephemerally, and leaving few remains, the Dodo ascended to the realm of the mythical almost immediately. For the most complete treatment of the topic see Fuller, Errol, Dodo: From Extinction to Icon, London: Collins, 2002Google Scholar.

16 The most comprehensive source on this topic is Rudwick, Martin J.S., Worlds before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008Google Scholar; see also his The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Paleontology, 2nd edn, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985, especially Chapter 4, ‘Uniformity and progress’, pp. 164–217.Google Scholar The best source on Lyell's Principles is Secord, James A., ‘Introduction’, in Lyell, Charles, Principles of Geology, New York: Penguin Classics, 1997 (first published 1830–32), pp. ix–xliii.Google Scholar Lyell's impact on Darwin is well documented, not least by Darwin himself. See, for example, Herbert, Sandra, Charles Darwin, Geologist, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005Google Scholar; and Rudwick, op. cit., pp. 347–362.

17 For a brief treatment of the link between ‘process thinking’ and the idea of extinction see Damuth, John, ‘Extinction’, in Keller, Evelyn Fox and Lloyd, Elizabeth (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992, pp. 106–111.Google Scholar

18 Orton, James, ‘The great auk’, American Naturalist (1870) 4, pp. 539–542, 542.Google Scholar

19 Owen, Richard, ‘On the extinction of species’, in, idem, On the Classification and Geographical Distribution of the Mammalia, London: J. W. Parker & Son, 1859, p. 56, Appendix A.Google Scholar

20 For a full treatment of the causes of this confusion see Fuller, op. cit. (12), pp. 52–87; and Gaskell, Jeremy, Who Killed the Great Auk?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 125–150Google Scholar.

21 Fisher, James, ‘Alfred Newton and the auk’, Bird Notes and News (1945) 21, p. 76.Google Scholar

22 Newton, Alfred, ‘Notes on the ornithology of Iceland’, Appendix A in Sabine Baring-Gould, Iceland: Its Scenes and Sagas, London: Smith, Elder, and Co., 1863, pp. 399–421.Google Scholar ‘Lay’ was the term Newton chose to frame the portion of that essay directed specifically at his audience. On the prevalence of this designation, and on the problems associated with defining what was understood as non-lay, see Barton, Ruth, ‘“Men of science”: language, identity, and professionalization in the mid-Victorian scientific community’, History of Science (2003) 41, pp. 73–119.Google Scholar

23 Newton, Alfred, ‘The gare-fowl and its historians’, Natural History Review (1865) 5, pp. 467–487, 487.Google Scholar

24 Newton, op. cit. (5), p. 32.

25 Newton, op. cit. (4), p. 125.

26 On the larger issue of turning the government into a ‘client’ for science, though with the distinction of remuneration (which Newton never sought), see Waller, John C., ‘Gentlemanly men of science: Sir Francis Galton and the professionalization of the British life-sciences’, Journal of the History of Biology (2001) 34, pp. 83–114, 102.Google Scholar

27 Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. 52.

28 Newton never tired of recalling his early conversion to Darwinism – going so far as to document the experience in an essay commissioned by Macmillan's Magazine in 1887. See Newton, Alfred, ‘Early days of Darwinism’, Macmillan's Magazine (1888) 57(340), pp. 241–249.Google Scholar The commission itself was made on the basis of Newton's presidential remarks before the Biological Section of the BAAS in 1887, in which Newton strongly hinted at his own early role as a proponent of the theory of natural selection. See Newton, Alfred, ‘Address to the Biological Section’, in Report of the Fifty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, London: John Murray, 1887, 726–733.Google Scholar

29 Some contemporaries, including Newton's biographer, simply noted it. See Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. 104. In an obituary in The Ibis, Newton was said to have accepted Darwinism because it ‘went a long way towards solving his own difficulties’. Indeed, the author continued, Newton ‘simply adopted the new philosophy, not being in need of conversion’. See ‘Alfred Newton: Obituary’, The Ibis (1907) 9th series, 1, pp. 623–633, 632. Emphasis original. Others have argued that age was determinative: Newton's generation was statistically much more likely to adopt the theory than was Darwin's own, as has been demonstrated in an exhaustive quantitative survey of reviews and reactions to the Origin of Species in contemporary journals. See Ellegård, Alvar, Darwin and the General Reader: The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the British Periodical Press, 1859–1872, repr. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1990Google Scholar (first published 1958), esp. Appendix I, ‘Statistical analysis of the press reaction’, pp. 338–367. For a good summary of this topic in general see Bowler, Peter J., ‘Scientific attitudes to Darwinism in Britain and America’, in Kohn, David (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985, pp. 641–681.Google Scholar

30 For examples, see Archibald Geikie, ‘Introduction’, in Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. ix; I. Bernard Cohen, ‘Three notes on the reception of Darwin's ideas on natural selection (Henry Baker Tristram, Alfred Newton, Samuel Wilberforce)’, in Kohn, op. cit. (29), pp. 589–608; and England, Richard, ‘Natural selection before the Origin: public reactions of some naturalists to the Darwin–Wallace papers (Thomas Boyd, Arthur Hussey, and Henry Baker Tristram)’, Journal of the History of Biology (1997) 30, pp. 267–290.Google Scholar

31 According to Geikie, ‘Newton was a strong Conservative, instinctively opposed to the abrogation of any ancient usage’, a fact that helps explain his passion for encyclopedic work. Geikie, op. cit. (30), p. ix.

32 Newton, Alfred, A Dictionary of Birds, Volumes 1 & 2, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1893–1896.Google Scholar For an argument that this evinced Newton's conservative intellectual bent see Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. 108. It seems that Newton seldom speculated on theoretical issues: ‘to matters of philosophical speculation it may be said that he was almost indifferent’. See Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. 244.

33 For an example of a contemporary characterization, see [William Bateson], ‘Professor Newton’, Magdalene College Archives, University of Cambridge, Group F, Private Papers, F/AN. On Newton as an ‘old school’ zoologist, see Geison, Gerald L., Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology: The Scientific Enterprise in Late Victorian Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, p. 119.Google Scholar The classic account of the rise of experimentalism in this period is Allen, Garland, Life Science in the Twentieth Century, New York: Wiley, 1975Google Scholar, which builds on Coleman, William, Biology in the Nineteenth Century, New York: Wiley, 1971.Google Scholar While Allen has since retracted the language of ‘revolt’, the general growth of what Coleman called ‘the experimental ideal’ has survived in the literature.

34 Geikie, op. cit. (30), p. ix.

35 Newton was famous for opposing ‘alterations in the College dinner, the introduction of an organ into the chapel, the presence of ladies at divine service’. See Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. 107.

36 Alfred Newton to Edward Newton, 25 July 1860, published in Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. 119.

37 Newton, Alfred and Newton, Edward, ‘On the osteology of the solitaire or didine bird of the island of Rodriguez, Pezophaps solitaria (Gmel.)’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1869) 159, pp. 327–362.Google Scholar As was the habit of the Royal Society, a much shorter abstract was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Vol. 16 (1868), p. 428–433) prior to the full publication.

38 Newton and Newton, op. cit. (37), p. 358.

39 For further examples of Newton's work that support this hypothesis about the interaction of his Darwinism and traditional morphological practice see, among others, Newton, op. cit. (23); and idem, ‘On existing remains of the gare-fowl (Alca impennis)’, The Ibis (1870) 12(2), pp. 256–261. Peter Bowler has made a similar argument about the relationship between theory and practice in the work of Darwin himself. See Bowler, op. cit. (29), p. 655. On treating theory primarily as a framework for practices see Renwick, Chris, ‘The practice of Spencerian science: Patrick Geddes's biosocial program, 1876–1889’, Isis (2009) 100, pp. 36–57, esp. n. 57.Google Scholar

40 Alfred Newton, ‘Introduction’, in idem, op. cit. (32), p. 79.

41 Newton, op. cit. (28), p. 249.

42 Bateson, op. cit. (33).

43 Newton ‘Address to the Biological Section’, op. cit. (28), 732–733.

44 Newton, op. cit. (23).

45 Editorial, Daily Telegraph, 19 September 1876. Copy in CUL, MS Add. 9839/5/1, ‘Bird preservation’ Volume.

46 Alfred Newton to H.B. Tristram, 24 August 1858, quoted in Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. 117.

47 Newton, op. cit. (4), p. 125.

48 Newton, Alfred, ‘Extermination.’, in idem, A Dictionary of Birds, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899 (original in 4 parts, 1893–1896), p. 215.Google Scholar

49 Newton, Alfred, ‘Mr. Grieve on the garefowl’, Nature (8 October 1885) 32, pp. 545–546.Google Scholar

50 Turner, James, Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980Google Scholar; and Ritvo, Harriet, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.Google Scholar On the RSPCA in particular see Brown, Antony, Who Cares for Animals? 150 Years of the RSPCA, London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1974.Google Scholar On Victorian philanthropy in general see Prochaska, F.K., Women and Philanthropy in Nineteenth-Century England, London: Clarendon Press, 1980Google Scholar; and idem, The Voluntary Impulse: Philanthropy in Modern Britain, London: Faber, 1988.

51 For example, see Doughty, Robin, Feather Fashions and Bird Preservation: A Study in Nature Protection, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975Google Scholar; Samstag, Tony, For Love of Birds: The Story of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 1889–1988, Sandy: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 1988Google Scholar; Clarke, Richard, Pioneers of Conservation: The Selborne Society and the Royal SPB, London: The Selborne Society, 2004Google Scholar; and Bargheer, Stefan, ‘The fools of the leisure class: honor, ridicule, and the emergence of animal protection legislation in England, 1740–1840’, European Journal of Sociology (2006) 47, pp. 3–35.Google Scholar Even David Allen, who gives some attention to these matters, argues that ‘the earliest cause’ of bird protection ‘was the finally unbearable scale of the destruction wrought by the latest fashion in women's hats’. See Allen, David Elliston, The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976, p. 177.Google Scholar One exception is Mark V. Barrow Jr, who dedicates a few pages of his recent monograph on the idea of extinction in America to Newton's efforts, mostly as a foil for the absence of an early response in the United States. See Barrow, Mark V. Jr, Nature's Ghosts: Confronting Extinction from the Age of Jefferson to the Age of Ecology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009, pp. 65–66.Google Scholar

52 Newton, Alfred, ‘On the zoological aspect of game laws’, in Report of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, London: John Murray, 1868, pp. 107–108.Google Scholar

53 Newton, op. cit. (49), p. 546.

54 Newton, op. cit. (4), p. 125.

55 Report of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, London: J. Murray, 1869, p. xlviii.Google Scholar

56 Newton, op. cit. (4), p. 125.

57 Newton, op. cit. (52), p. 108. The authoritative work on the founding and early mission of the British Association is still Morrell, Jack and Thackray, Arnold, Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, New York: Oxford University Press, 1982Google Scholar – on its alleged apolitical nature see esp. p. 298. On the general history of the BAAS see Macleod, Roy and Collins, Peter (eds.), The Parliament of Science: The British Association for the Advancement of Science 1831–1981, Northwood: Science Reviews, 1981.Google Scholar On the relationship between politics and expertise in this period see Collini, Stefan, Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain, 1850–1930, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, esp. p. 58.Google Scholar

58 Although Barnes would later change his name to Barnes-Lawrence under the conditions of an inheritance, Barnes is used here in order to reflect how he was known in this period.

59 Sheail, John, Nature in Trust: The History of Nature Conservation in Britain, Glasgow: Blackie, 1976, p. 22.Google Scholar

60 See an account from the 1830s in Waterton, Charles, Essays on Natural History, Chiefly Ornithology, London: Longman, 1839, p. 159Google Scholar.

61 F.O. Morris, to H.F. Barnes, 22 October 1868, Association for the Protection of Sea Birds, University of Hull Archives, Hull History Centre (Henceforth Hull-DSB), 1. Morris, already a famous naturalist who maintained his public image through an almost constant presence in ornithological journals and the popular press, was to become instrumental in the movement against the plumage trade at the end of the century.

62 For evidence of these efforts see H.H. Knocker to H.F. Barnes, 30 October [1868], Hull-DSB, 3; A. Newton to H.H. Knocker, 3 November 1868, Hull-DSB, 6; J.H. Gurney Jr to H.F. Barnes, 10 November 1868, Hull-DSB, 10; J. Cordeaux to [H.F. Barnes], 7 December 1868, Hull-DSB, 16.

63 The Act's precedence is framed in this way in Allen, op. cit. (51), pp. 176–177.

64 The list of precedents cited by the Committee is immense. Some, like domestic game laws, were seen as ‘principles of privilege’ and thus politically problematic. See Report of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, London: J. Murray, 1873, p. 376. The anti-cruelty acts that resulted from earlier RSPCA campaigns were seen as more viable precedents, especially when they were justified in utilitarian terms. On the RSPCA's utilitarian language see Brown, op. cit. (50), pp. 14–15; and Doughty, op. cit. (51), p. 44. On the use of such language by scientists more generally see Goldman, Lawrence, Science, Reform, and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Social Science Association, 1857–1886, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, esp. Chapter 9.Google Scholar In addition to domestic laws, legislation from the Isle of Man and Newfoundland, as well as local acts from France, Germany and the United States, proved influential. See the Report of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting, op. cit. (55), p. 92. On the role of international examples in British animal protection see Harrison, Brian, ‘Animals and the state in nineteenth-century England’, English Historical Review (1973) 88, pp. 786–820, esp. 790.Google Scholar Christopher Sykes, the MP who introduced the bill, drew on similar language before Parliament. See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates 194, London: Cornelius Buck, 1869a, p. 406.

65 Tristram, H.B., ‘On the zoological aspects of the grouse-disease’, in Report of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, London: J. Murray, 1867, p. 97.Google Scholar

66 See, for example, Tristram, op. cit. (65), p. 97; and Newton, op. cit. (52), p. 107. This sort of demarcation also made its way into reports of the Close-Time Committee itself; see, for example, The Report of the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting, op. cit. (4), p. 63. This question is also addressed in Worster, Donald, The Wealth of Nature: Environmental History and the Ecological Imagination, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, esp. pp. 156–170.Google Scholar

67 Newton, op. cit. (52), p. 108.

68 Of those who pushed for the Act of 1869, F.O. Morris was most public in his disappointment with the misjudgement of the close time. See Morris, F.O., ‘Letter’, The Times, 17 August 1885.Google Scholar Copy in CUL, MS Add. 9839/5/1, ‘Bird Preservation’ volume.

69 Opposition to the protection of wading and shore birds stemmed from their status as hunting quarries, since those classes that traditionally partook of the hunt tended to view that pursuit as a right, not a privilege. See Stevenson, H., ‘Paper on the Wild Birds Protection Bill,” Norfolk Chronicle, 5 April 1873Google Scholar.

70 A. Newton to H.F. Barnes, 15 February 1872, Hull-DSB, 169. For further evidence of Newton's conservative strain of thought as regards expansion of the Act see his related letter to Barnes: A. Newton to H.F. Barnes, 10 February 1872, Hull-DSB, 167. The point was reiterated to Barnes by others; see, for example, J.E. Harting to H.F. Barnes, 15 January 1872, Hull-DSB, 168.

71 Report of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, London: J. Murray, 1872, p. 320.

72 A. Newton to H.F. Barnes, 27 February 1872, Hull-DSB, 172.

73 Report of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting, op. cit. (71), p. 320.

74 Report of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting, op. cit. (71), p. 322.

75 Alfred Newton, op. cit. (5).

76 [Newton], ‘1. Report on the practicability of establishing ‘A Close Time’ for the protection of indigenous animals, by a Committee appointed by the British Association, 1869–1880.’

77 Land and Water, December 1884. Copy in CUL, MS Add. 9839/5/1, ‘Bird Preservation’ volume.

78 A. Newton to E. Newton, 10 July 1872, in Wollaston, op. cit. (9), p. 141.

79 [Newton], op. cit. (76).

80 [Newton], op. cit. (76), p. 114.

81 Beer, Gillian, ‘Darwin and the uses of extinction’, Victorian Studies (2009) 51, pp. 321–331Google Scholar.

82 Beer, op. cit. (81), original emphasis.

83 Editorial, Daily Telegraph, 19 September 1876.

84 Newton, op. cit. (4), p. 125.

85 Newton, op. cit. (4), p. 123.

86 For an example of this sort of fatalism see Gray, Robert, ‘Notes on the occurrence of the great auk in Scotland’, in idem, The Birds of the West of Scotland, Including the Outer Hebrides, with Occasional Records of the Occurrence of the Rarer Species throughout Scotland Generally, Glasgow: T. Murray and Son, Edinburgh, 1871, p. 13.Google Scholar

87 Newton, op. cit. (4), p. 125.