Mr. Seebohm on Middendorff's Credibility

Abstract

MR. SEEBOHM writes (antea p. 385): “There is no reason to believe that Middendorff ever found the eggs of the little stint. The eggs which he records as being those of Tringa minuta were probably those of Tringa ruficollis and possibly those of Tringa subminuta.” To me these statements seem made in oblivion of the facts, and as some years ago I exhibited in London (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1861, p. 398) one of the specimens on which doubt is thus thrown, I beg leave to show that there is no reason for believing that distinguished explorer to have been mistaken. The only eggs he records (Sib. Reise, II. ii. p. 221) are four, the parent of which he caught under his game bag. No other nest is mentioned, and this one was found on July 1, 1843, in the Taimyr peninsula, which is admittedly as well within the range of T. minuta, as it is outside of that recorded for T. ruficollis (cf. Palmén, Vega-Exped. Vetenskapl. Jakttagelser, v. tab. 4). Though not recognising these two birds as good species, Von. Middendorff had carefully noticed (tom. cit. p. 222) the difference between examples obtained in the far East (Ochotsk) and in the high North (Taimyr), expressly stating that the latter agreed with Naumann's figure which undoubtedly represents T. minuta in summer plumage. As to T. subminuta, I am not aware of any evidence of its occurrence in the Taimyr, and by conjecture only can it be ascribed to that district; but the supposition that a single nest can have belonged to both T. ruficollis “and possibly” T. subminuta, is a masterpiece of conjecture wholly above my power of comprehension.