-qy jp.StUM q \ tM 2008 January 2008 • Vo 1.101 Kermadec Petrel ■ / * * f _ - . M| * ^ Reintroductions Mourning Dove ISSN 0007-0335 British Birds Established 1907, incorporating The Zoologist, established 1843 Published by BB 2000 Limited, trading as ‘British Birds’ Registered Office: 4 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8SF British Birds is owned and published by BB 2000 Limited, the directors of which are John Eyre (Chairman), Jeremy Greenwood, lan Packer, Adrian Pitches, Richard Porter and Bob Scott. BB 2000 Limited is wholly owned by The British Birds Charitable Trust (registered charity No. 1089422), whose trustees are Richard Chandler, Jeremy Greenwood, Peter Oliver and Bob Scott. British Birds aims to be the leading journal for the modem birder in the Western Palearctic We aim to: •> provide a forum for contributions of interest to all birdwatchers in the Western Palearctic; publish material on behaviour, conservation, distribution, ecology, identification, movements, status and taxonomy; ♦> embrace new ideas and research; •> maintain our position as the respected journal of record; and interpret good scientific research on birds for the interested non-scientist. British Birds Editor Roger Riddington Assistant Editors Caroline Dudley & Peter Kennerley Editorial Board Dawn Balmer, Ian Carter, Richard Chandler, Martin Collinson, Chris Kehoe, Robin Prytherch, Nigel Redman, Roger Riddington, Steve Votier Art Consultants Robert Gillmor 8t Alan Harris Photographic Consultants Robin Chittenden & David Tipling Rarities Committee Chairman Colin Bradshaw Secretary Nigel Hudson Chris Batty, Chris Bradshaw, Phil Bristow, Lance Degnan, Martin Garner, James Lidster, Mike Pennington, Adam Rowlands, Brian Small, John Sweeney Notes Panel Will Cresswell, Ian Dawson, Jim Flegg, Ian Newton FRS, Malcolm Ogilvie, Angela Turner (Co-ordinator) Annual subscription rates Libraries and agencies - £89.00 Individual subscriptions: UK - £48.00 Overseas surface mail - £54.50 Back issues Single back issues - £6.50 Available from British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Rarities Issue - £12 (available as above) Please make all cheques payable to British Birds Guidelines for contributors Full details are available on the BB website. www.britishbirds.co.uk EDITORIAL CIRCULATION Spindrift, Eastshore, & PRODUCTION Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS 4 Harlequin Gardens, Tel: 01950 460080 St Leonards on Sea, Papers, notes, letters, illustrations, etc. East Sussex TN37 7PF Roger Riddington Tel & fax: 01424 755155 E-mail: editor@britishbirds.co.uk ‘News & comment’ information Design & Production Mark Corliss E-mail: m.corliss@netmatters.co.uk Adrian Pitches, 22 Dene Road, Tynemouth, Tyne & Wear NE30 2JW E-mail: adrianpitches@blueyonder.co.uk Subscriptions & Administration Rarity descriptions Hazel Jenner Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat, E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk St Mary’s, Scilly TR21 0LL E-mail: secretary@bbrc.org.uk Printed by Hastings Printing Company Ltd ADVERTISING: for all advertising matters, please contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd, B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6X1 Tel: 020 8881 0550 Fax: 020 8881 0990 E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Front-cover photograph: Female Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus, Cyprus, May 2006. Richard Chandler joticron joculars, Telescopes & Accessories Opticron equipment and a copy of our current Catalogue call 01 582 726522 or visit our on-line Catalogue at www.opticron.CO.uk PO Box 370, Unit 21, Titan Court, Laporte Way, Luton, Beds, LU4 8YR, UK Fax: 01582 723559 E-mail: salescopticron. co.uk A OASIS BGA MONOCULAR 42mm OG internally focused roof prism waterproof monoculars with long eyerelief and superb images. Size: 43x1 36mm Weight: 290g. 8x42 £139, 10x42 £149 y the best lightweight and compact close roof prism birdwatching binoculars money jy. 8x42 7.0°, 10x42 6.5°. Finished weights d 700g. at models feature N-type coating with Oasis coating and a 3-stage retractable eyecup bly. 30 year guarantee. £549, 10x42 £549 665 GA ED FIELDSCOPES erfect choice for users wanting a high quality, lightweight yet iable fieldscope. Main features include; ose focus, all new fully multi-coated optical system with ED extra .v dispersion OG trogen waterproof with soft touch full body rubber mouring sy to use centrally positioned focusing wheel with egrated 9:1 ratio accurate focusing adjuster lished weights around 1050g - 90° rotating tripod sleeve with 45° incremental stops lly compatible with Opticron SDL, HDF & HR eyepieces lephoto option available for SLR photography i year guarantee >5 GA ED body £449, GS 665 GA 45/ED body £449 eeces: SDL 16-48x £229, HDF from £129 SDL ZOOM EYEPIECE Designed to maximise the performance of your new or existing Opticron fieldscope & offering the optimum balance between FOV and resolution coupled with exceptional viewing comfort. Price £229 Don’t miss our Bargain selection for 2008 Argentina - Andes 10 days - £1,890 Departs 7 Jan, 25 Feb, 7 Apr, 28 Jul, I Dec Argentina - Chaco 10 days - £1,890 Departs 14 Jan, 3 Mar, 14 Apr, 4 Aug, 8 Dec Australia - Endemics India - Bharatpur & Chambal 9 days - from £1,295 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 27 Dec India - Corbett Country 9 days - £1,250 Departs 26 Jan, 22 Nov India - Endemic Birds of Annamalai Nepal - A Very Special Offer! 10 days - £1,295 Departs 26 Jan, 16 Feb, 3 May Nepal - Ibisbill Trek 10 days - £1,495 Departs 10 May Panama - Uganda 9 days - £1,395 Departs 6 Mar, 30 Oct Venezuela - Off the Beaten Track 9 days - £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, I Nov Venezuela - Andean Endemics 9 days - £1,495 Departs 2 Feb, 15 Nov Venezuela - Llanos 9 days - £1,495 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 8 Nov Zambia 9 days - from £1,550 Departs 18 Feb, 10 Nov, 19 Dec 9 days- £1,195 Departs 2 Feb, 22 Nov India - Family Tour Spices & Elephants 9 days - from £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Temples & Wildlife 9 days - £1,525 Departs 9 Feb, 5 Apr, 18 Oct, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Tigers & Forts 9 days - £1,345 Departs 9, 16 Feb, 25 Oct India - Goa 9 days- £1,195 Departs 14 Nov India - International Animal Rescue 10 days - £1.550 Departs 15 Feb, 14 Nov India - Kerala’s National Parks & Backwaters 9 days - £1,350 Departs I Mar, IS Nov India - Southern India’s Endemics 12 days - from £1,550 Departs 6 Mar, 15 Nov, 20 Dec India - Wildlife & Cuisine 9 days- £1,295 Departs 9, 16, 23 Feb, 8 Mar, 8 Nov, 27 Dec Kazakhstan 9 days- £1,595 Departs 8, 16th May Kenya 10 days- £1,595 Departs 7 Nov Malawi 10 days- £1,595 Departs 3 Feb, 6 Apr Nepal 10 days - from £1,495 Departs 2, 9th Feb, 29 Mar, 20 Dec Canopy Tower 9 days - £1,595 Departs 16, 23 Apr, 12 Nov South Africa 10 days - £1,550 Departs 8 Feb, 28 Mar, 5 Sep South Africa’s Cape 10 days - £1,495 Departs 14 Mar, 22 Aug South Africa - Zululand 10 days - £1,595 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 13 Sep Southern Morocco 10 days - from £1,195 Departs 8 Feb, 14 Mar, 4 Apr Sri Lanka 10 days - £1,495 Departs 16 Feb, 8 Nov A Thailand J: 10 days - £1,590 Departs 15 Feb, f _ , _ of WA 12 days - £2,250 Departs 12, 26 Sep Australia - Queensland 13 days - £2,590 Departs II Nov Bolivia - Lowlands 10 days - £1,395 Departs 10 Feb, 9 Nov Bolivia - Highlands 12 days - £1,595 Departs 17 Feb, 16 Nov Botswana 10 days - £1,695 Departs 14 Nov Brazil 10 days - £1.495 Departs 7 Mar, 19 Sep Cuba 12 days - £1,790 Departs 8 Mar Ecuador - Choco 9 days - £1,350 Departs 22 Nov Ecuador - Tumbesian Endemics 9 days- £1,395 Departs 7 Sep Ecuador - Cock-of- the-Rock 9 days - from £1,250 Departs 15 Jan, 9 Feb, 15 Mar, 21 Aug, 18 Oct, 15 Nov Ethiopia 10 days - from £1,295 Departs 8 Feb, 21 Mar, 7 Nov, 19 Dec Ethiopian Endemics 10 days - £1,295 Departs 15 Feb, II Apr, 14 Nov Florida 9 days - £1,590 Departs 18 Feb Gambia 12 days - £1,190 Departs 7 Nov India - Birds & Mammals 9 days - £1,350 Departs 1, 15 Feb, 4 Apr, 14 Nov For our New Brochure call a ®gj^ 01962 733051 or visit our Website N naturetrek.co.uk NATURETREK, CHERITON MILL, CHERITON, ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE S024 ONG E-mail: info@naturetrek.co.uk BirdLife PREFERRED BY rHOSE WHO KNOW. PENTAX. A revelation in binocular viewing. . When it comes to keeping a keen eye on birds and nature, nothing compares to Pentax. With state-of-the-art performance and silky smooth handling, Pentax DCF ED binoculars are the preferred choice of nature-lovers the world over. They deliver precise, accurate images over long viewing periods, thanks to a raft of advanced optical technologies, such as high-tech ED glass to enhance sharpness and eliminate colour fringing, Super Multi Coating on all lens surfaces, and BaK4 prisms for unsurpassed clarity. What's more, they're built to take the toughest conditions. With a strong and light magnesium chassis, rubber coating and full water, dirt and fog protection. Just like our multi-award winning digital SLR cameras, Pentax DCF ED binoculars simply set the standard for image capture. They're pure Pentax. Available at leading Pentax Camera Stores - visit our website for details. Penta TECHNOLO DCF ED 10x43 yvww.pentax. co.uk Get closer to natur "Toki, an adult male cheetah, has known mt since he was 3 months old. There is complt trust between us. I would estimate that his eyesight is 8 — 1( times more acute than my own, so to stanc chance of matching his view of the world, I trust my Zeiss". SIMON KING, Wildlife Film-Maker. I Zeiss 8 x 32 T* FL Zeiss 10 x 32 T* FL Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, Equatorial Kenya, 2005. Victory FL Binoculars = the best optical image quality of their class, minimum weight and optimum ergonomics and handling - these are the unbeatable benefits supplied by Victory FL Binoculars and their special objective lenses with fluoride glass (FL). For more information, please telephone: 01707 871 350 or visit www.zeiss.co.uk. I! zei: We make it | British Birds! j Volume 101 • Number I • January 2008 - 9 JAM 2008 2 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds Ian Carter, Peter Newbery, Phil Grice and Julian Hughes 26 Mourning Dove on North Uist: new to Britain Brian Rabbitts 3 I Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? Tim Melling 39 Optimising digital images David Tipling Regular 43 Reviews Collins Field Guide - Birds of the Palearctic: Passerines Birds in a Village: a century on Manx Bird Atlas Where to Watch Mammals in Britain and Ireland The Lapwing Arctic Flight: adventures amongst northern birds Images from Birding The Birds of Scilly features 48 News and comment Adrian Pitches 50 QS Rarities Committee news 50 Recent reports Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds Ian Carter ; Peter Newbery, Phil Grice and Julian Hughes -Sr f 1 m Red Kites Milvus milvus in the Chilterns. Richard Allen ABSTRACT There has been increasing interest in recent years in reintroducing birds lost from Britain (or parts of it) as a result of human activities. In many respects, reintroduction is an extension of other ‘hands-on’ approaches to conserving birds, including creation and management of suitable habitats, protection of nests and the provision of food or artificial nest-sites. Carefully considered reintroduction projects can be expensive and take many years to plan, implement and monitor but, in addition to restoring the species in question, may have substantial benefits for a wide range of wildlife. In contrast, poorly planned or inappropriate projects can be detrimental to wildlife. Current legislation is, we believe, in need of revision to ensure that future reintroductions achieve their objectives and are of a high standard in their implementation. Case studies are used that illustrate the achievements of well- organised bird reintroductions in Britain and to highlight some of the problems that can arise. Finally, we look ahead to the role that reintroductions could play in the future conservation of British birds. 2 © British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 2-25 c The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds > Few bird species around the world have escaped the adverse impacts of human activities, either directly through persecu- tion, or indirectly through habitat degradation and destruction. In many cases, populations are far smaller than historical levels and the ranges of many species have been greatly reduced or fragmented. Birds in Britain have been particu- larly affected by human activities - some species now occupy a much diminished range, while others have been lost altogether. There is now great interest in restoring the depleted popula- tions of these species and in assisting the return of species that have become extinct at a local, regional or national level. The ‘hands-on’ approach During the last decade or more, government and voluntary conservation groups have endorsed an approach to conservation that identifies priority species and habitats for recovery, sets time-limited goals and establishes a programme of work to achieve these. This requires good monitoring of populations and, for birds, we are fortunate to have an army of dedicated observers who survey, count and report sightings to schemes that co-ordinate their efforts. The recovery of a depleted population requires us to identify, understand and tackle the factors that led to its decline. This may take years of research and experimental habitat management before the appropriate measures can be put in place on a sufficiently large scale. For example, many of the changes to farmland management designed to improve conditions for declining farmland birds have come about only after more than a decade of research and conservation action. The rate of response by birds to improve- ments in their habitats or to the removal of lim- iting factors varies, as does the degree of human assistance required to conserve them: • Some birds respond to beneficial changes without additional human intervention. For example, Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus and Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus numbers recovered steadily following suc- cessive restrictions in the use of the most toxic and persistent organochlorine pesti- cides from the early 1960s; both species have now fully reoccupied the areas from which they were lost (Greenwood et al. 2003). • Since truly natural habitats have been all but lost in Britain, many birds that we value are maintained or restored with human assis- tance through the re-creation or mainten- ance of suitable semi-natural habitats, provision of artificial food or nest-sites, or I . Wing-tags fitted to Red Kites Milvus milvus are an important aid to monitoring the movements of released and wild-fledged birds. This individual fledged from a nest near Dingwall, Highland, in June 2003 and was photographed (and identified from its tags) here near Oundle, Northamptonshire, in December 2004. British Birds 101* January 2008 • 2-25 3 Richard Chandler The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds even the active control of competitors or predators (Cade & Temple 1995). Nature reserve managers essentially make choices about which species will be favoured, based on their conservation status, when imple- menting habitat management measures on their reserves. • For a small number of species, recolonisa- tion of suitable habitats within a reasonable timescale is unlikely unless they are reintro- duced. Is reintroduction the right approach ? Reintroductions are the subject of considerable debate, even within the ornithological commu- nity. They involve direct human intervention, and some people are uncomfortable with wildlife being ‘manipulated’ even though re- establishment projects are seeking to restore species that disappeared as a direct result of human interference. When, as part of essential post-release monitoring, birds carry wing-tags or radio-transmitters, the perceived loss of ‘wildness’ may be further increased. Others are concerned that reintroductions divert money and effort away from habitat enhancement or preventing the decline of other species. By con- trast, some reintroduction enthusiasts feel that conservation organisations have insufficient imagination, that the guidelines relating to re- introductions are overly burdensome and that ‘just opening the cage’ would be the most effec- tive way to advance nature conservation. If a long-term view is taken of species restoration, most reintroductions actually involve a rather small amount of human inter- vention. How many of us pause to think about the role played by direct human intervention when watching a Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus lek in the Scottish Highlands? We may, of course, be fully aware that the species is present only because, following extinction, birds were released by humans in the nineteenth century (Batten et al. 1990). But sufficient time has passed for this neither to affect our enjoyment of the spectacle nor to preclude considerable effort to ensure that the species does not go extinct once again. Ultimately, one’s view of reintroductions is a value judgement, though no more so than the decision to conserve a species through any other technique. Our view is that reintroduc- tion can play a valuable role in the recovery of populations. However, based on experience in Britain and elsewhere, the range of species for which it is appropriate at a given time is rela- tively small. Moreover, problems can arise if projects are carried out when they are unneces- sary or do not follow agreed international guidelines. Legislation affecting reintroductions The priority attached to restoring the fortunes of species in decline or that have become extinct is enshrined in a number of interna- tional conventions, notably the 1992 Conven- tion on Biological Diversity (popularly known as the Rio Convention). Article 9(c) requires contracting parties to ‘Adopt measures for the recovery and rehabilitation of threatened species and for their reintroduction into their natural habitats under appropriate conditions.’ There is also a requirement under EU Directives to ensure that protected species (and habitats) are maintained in, or restored to, favourable conservation status. It may come as a surprise to many people that there are few restrictions on the release of native plants and animals into the wild. Quite correctly in our view, the Wildlife & Country- side Act (1981) restricts the release of ‘non- native’ species - defined for birds as those that are not ‘ordinarily resident’ or a ‘regular visitor’ to Britain in a wild state. However, the majority of birds, including some established non-native species (on Category Cl of the British List), can be released into the wild, provided that birds are obtained through legitimate means, such as captive-breeding, taking from the wild under licence, or legal importation from other coun- tries. There is a mechanism to prevent the release of certain bird species where specific problems have been identified. It is an offence to release a species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act unless licensed by the relevant government department or statutory conserva- tion agency. The Barn Owl Tyto alba , for example, was added to Schedule 9 in Britain in 1992 in order to prevent further inappropriate releases. However, adding a species to Schedule 9 is a cumbersome procedure and it tends to happen only after serious problems have already been identified. A requirement to have a licence to release any species into the wild, native or non-native, would allow all conservation proj- ects to be carefully assessed and would provide some statutory underpinning for the interna- 4 British Birds 101 ‘January 2008 • 2-25 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds tionally accepted IUCN guidelines described below. To avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, the continued release of some species, such as gamebirds for shooting, could be permitted through a general licence. Projects that involve the release of birds into unsuitable habitat, or of birds poorly adapted to life in the wild, where they have little chance of survival, may contravene animal cruelty" legisla- tion such as the Abandonment of Animals Act (1960). However, in practice, this is difficult to enforce and we are not aware of any prosecu- tions under this legislation for releases of birds into the wild. Guidelines and policies In the absence of legislation governing the re- introduction of birds in Britain, responsible organisers of schemes look to guidelines pro- duced by the World Conservation Union (IUCN 1995). These encompass all aspects of ! the planning, funding and implementation of a reintroduction project; and aim to encourage high standards of practice and avoid unneces- sary or inappropriate reintroductions. These ; guidelines are not legally binding but have been adopted by the statutory conservation bodies and most voluntary" groups in Britain. Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB, for example, will fund or support only those re- introduction projects that comply with the guidelines. Appendix 1 (pp. 24-25) summarises the key criteria contained within the IUCN guidelines. One aspect not covered by the IUCN guide- lines is the likelihood of natural recolonisation. There is little point in embarking upon an expensive and time-consuming project if there is a good chance that the species will recolonise an area naturally within a reasonable period. This is recognised in JNCC’s Policy for Conser- vation Translocations of Species in Britain (2003), which makes it clear that, before car- rying out a reintroduction project, ‘...the poten- tial for natural range expansion to result in the colonisation of the candidate recipient site/s over a known timescale should be considered.’ There is often no objective, quantitative means to assess this likelihood and, while knowledge of a species’ capacity to disperse from population centres into suitable habitat is helpful, it remains a matter of judgement as to how rapid a dispersal capacity is acceptable. Humans tend to judge what constitutes a ‘long time’ by refer- ence to their own lifespan, and while to some the chance of natural recolonisation in 50 years is acceptable, to others this is far too long to wait. It is also subject to the inherent unpre- dictability of natural recolonisation; for example, who would have foreseen the Red- billed Chough’s Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax return to Cornwall in 2001 when the species has failed to become re-established in apparently suitable habitat around the Irish Sea, much closer to source populations? Bird reintroductions Table 1 provides a list of 12 species subject to reintroduction attempts in Britain, plus one in Ireland, since 1950. The majority of projects were carried out for conservation reasons although, for the two gamebirds, providing a population of birds for shooting may also have been a consid- eration. For Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis releases, one motive was apparently the provision of a source of wild birds from which young could be harvested for falconry (Malcolm Hen- derson pers. comm.), although this probably applies to only some of the individuals involved. Only reintroductions involving Red Kite Milvus milvus, Northern Goshawk and White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla can yet be considered to have been successful. Several others show posi- tive signs, but are still in an early phase. Some have been carried out as well-planned projects over a period of years, but others have involved ad hoc, unplanned releases of a small number of individuals. Red-billed Choughs in Cornwall A small population of Red-billed Choughs nat- urally recolonised The Lizard peninsula in southern Cornwall in 2001, providing the first successful breeding for more than 50 years in 2002 (Carter et al. 2003). The recolonisation followed considerable efforts to improve the clifftop grassland habitats on which the birds depend for foraging. Prior to the unexpected influx of birds in 2001, the possibility of re- introducing the species to Cornwall had been discussed, and the suggestion made that birds bred in captivity at a local wildlife centre could be used as release stock (Meyer 2000). Once it became clear that natural recolonisa- tion was a real possibility, English Nature (now Natural England) and the RSPB concluded that reintroduction was not necessary at this stage. British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 2-25 5 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds Table 1. Species that have been the subject of reintroduction projects in Britain and Ireland. Species Locality Lead organisations Years Notes (including progress to 2007) Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix Upper Derwent Valley, Derbyshire Severn Trent Water pic, National Trust 2003- ongoing 119 captive-bred birds so far released. Grey Partridge Perdix perdix Many sites in lowland Britain The Game Conservancy Trust and private landowners Ongoing Still at the experimental stage with various release techniques being evaluated. Red Kite Milvus milvus Black Isle (1989-93), Nature Conservancy Chiltern Hills (1989-94), Council, Natural England, Rockingham ( 1 995-98), RSPB, Forest Enterprise, Trossachs (1996-2001), Scottish Natural Heritage, Yorkshire ( 1999-2003), Welsh Kite Trust, Dumfries Sr Galloway Golden Eagle Trust (2001-05), Gateshead (2004—06), Aberdeen (2007-), Co. Wicklow (2007-) 1989- ongoing 653 birds released, initially taken from wild in Germany, Sweden and Spain, but more recently from re-established southern England and Black Isle populations and from Wales. Self-sustaining breeding populations established in all but the most recent release sites. At least 400 breeding pairs in England and around 85 in Scodand. White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Western Scotland (1959,69,75-85, 93-98), northeast Scodand (2007-), Killarney National Park, Republic of Ireland (2007-) Nature Conservancy Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, RSPB, Golden Eagle Trust, National Parks & Wildlife Service 1959- ongoing Small-scale attempts in 1959 and 1969 failed to establish breeding birds. 140 wild eaglets from Norway released in two reintroduction phases in western Scotland. Self-sustaining population now established with over 30 pairs. So far, 1 5 birds released in northeast Scotland and another 15 in Killarney National Park, all from Norway. Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Many sites across Britain Individual falconers 1960s-70s Populations re-established in many areas with birds of Scandinavian origin - escapes from captivity and deliberate releases, perhaps totalling 250 birds. Current estimate of about 400 breeding pairs in Britain. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Glenveagh National Park, Co. Donegal Irish Raptor Study Groups, The Golden Eagle Trust and others 2000- ongoing 50 wild birds translocated from Scotland and released. Five territories occupied in 2006. Two pairs laid eggs in 2007, one young fledged. Osprey Pandion haliaetus Rutland Water, Leicestershire 8; Rudand Leicestershire & Rudand Wildlife Trust, Anglian Water 1997-2001, 2005 64 wild birds from Scotland released in first phase. First bred in 2001 but lack of returning females inhibited population growth; further 1 1 birds released in 2005. Two pairs bred successfully in 2007. Com Crake Crex crex Nene Washes, Cambridgeshire RSPB, Natural England, Whipsnade Wild Animal Park 2002- ongoing 400 captive-bred birds released, derived from German, Polish and Scottish stock. Female and wild-bred chicks seen in 2004. At least one calling male in 2005, four in 2006, five in 2007. Great Bustard Otis tarda Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire Great Bustard Group 2004- ongoing 69 birds released, hatched from wild-taken eggs in Russia, in 2004—07. Minimum of 12 birds alive by September 2007. First breeding attempt in 2007 but unsuccessful. 6 British Birds 101* January 2008 • 2-25 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds Table 1. (continued) Species that have been the subject of reintroduction projects in Britain and Ireland. Species Locality Lead organisations Years Notes (including progress to 2007) Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Pensthorpe, Norfolk Pensthorpe Waterfowl Park 2003 Captive-bred birds released. Several failed nesting attempts. Adults left area. Bam Owl Tyto alba Many localities across Britain Barn Owl Trust, Hawk & Owl Trust ( Barn Owl Conservation Network), private individuals Mainly in 1980s and 1990s Wild population c. 4,000 pairs, but contribution of captive-bred birds unknown. Licences for release not issued by Defra after 2002. Red-billed Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Cornwall Paradise Park Wildlife Sanctuary" 2003 Six captive-bred birds released in 2003 but all had died or disappeared by the end of the year. Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus Cornwall RSPB, Natural England, Paignton Zoo, National Trust, Zoological Society’ of London 2006- ongoing 119 juveniles, translocated from the wild Devon population, released in 2006-07. At least 12 breeding attempts in release area in 2007 and minimum of 11 young fledged. downland, open grassy heaths and other exten- sive areas of lowland grassland. Ploughing of grasslands caused them to decline and, as the species was a highly prized gamebird, hunting and egg-collecting were probably the main factors that led to their eventual extinction by around 1840 (Brown & Grice 2005). A major stronghold was in Wiltshire, although the bird held on longest in parts of East Anglia. At present, Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire appears to provide the largest area of potentially suitable habitat and to have the best chance of supporting a self-sustaining population. During the 1970s, attempts were made to breed young from semi-tame Great Bustards taken from the wild in Portugal. The birds were held in large, enclosed pens on Porton Down, Wiltshire but, although eggs were laid, no viable chicks were ever produced (Waters 2001). Although reintroduction was the ultimate aim, no birds were released into the wild. Neverthe- less, the general perception is that a reintroduc- tion project was undertaken but was unsuccessful. In 2002, the Great Bustard Group proposed a new project that was assessed favourably against the IUCN guidelines and started in 2004 (Osborne 2002). Even though the source of birds and the release methodology for this project are very different, perceptions about the earlier ‘failure’ have made some people (and organisations) wary about supporting it. The new project involves removing eggs from vul- Given the uncertainties about using captive- bred birds, it was feared that releasing poten- tially maladapted birds might interfere with the natural behaviour of the wild birds, a particular concern as the wild population was so small and vulnerable. A contrary view was taken by Paradise Park Wildlife Sanctuary, which made the decision to try to bolster the gene pool of the small wild population by releasing captive-bred birds. It released six Red-billed Choughs in West Penwith in west Cornwall in summer 2003 (www.chough.org). One bird drowned in a cattle trough, another was lost to a Peregrine soon after release and a third was shot. By the end of the year, no birds remained as potential recruits to the wild population, having all either perished or dispersed (Ray Hales pers. comm.). RSPB and Natural England believe that re- introduction could play a useful part in the restoration of the Red-billed Chough’s former range, including to Cornwall, if natural recolonisation is ultimately unsuccessful. However, we believe that the current wild birds in Cornwall should be given a chance and that there are many issues to be resolved before there is a satisfactory translocation method for this highly social species (Carter & Newbery 2004). Great Bustards in Wiltshire Great Bustards Otis tarda were once widely dis- tributed in Britain - from Devon across southern England and as far north as Yorkshire - on chalk British Birds 101* January 2008 • 2-25 7 David Kjaer The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds 2. David Waters, Director of the Great Bustard Group, fitting wing-tags and a satellite transmitter to a four-month-old Great Bustard Otis tarda imported from Russia, just before release on Salisbury Plain, September 2007. nerable nests in the Saratov region of Russia, where the population is thought to be stable but where many clutches are lost to agricultural operations. Eggs rescued from vulnerable sites in arable fields are hatched in incubators in Saratov and the chicks are then imported to Britain. After a period of quarantine, they are transferred to the release pen on agricultural land at the edge of Salisbury Plain. Birds released in the first year suffered high mortality, particularly through colliding with fences and predation by Red Foxes Vulpes vulpes. Remedial measures have reduced the number of deaths from collisions but levels of Fox predation have remained high. Most of the birds surviving at the end of 2005 left Sal- isbury Plain, perhaps owing to the onset of hard weather — several moved to Dorset and Somerset, but there were also sightings in France as far south as Toulouse. In spring 2006, they began returning to the release site, and juvenile males were even seen displaying. By September 2007, 12 of the 69 birds released so far were known to be alive (A1 Dawes pers. comm.). The first breeding attempt by released birds was made in spring 2007, although this was unsuccessful. The Great Bustard Group intends to continue to release birds over a ten-year period, with the aim of establishing a sustainable population of around 100 birds, the estimated carrying capacity of Salisbury Plain. Barn Owl release projects Barn Owls have a long history of being released into the wild in Britain, largely because they are easy to breed in captivity and a large number of young are produced each year (Evans 1996). Shawyer (1998) esti- mated that in the mid 1980s, at least 1,500-2,000 birds were released annually by about 400 different opera- tors. Some releases could be termed local reintroduc- tions, in that Barn Owls were believed to be absent in the surrounding country- side. Others were reinforce- ments, aimed at bolstering an existing wild population. A survey of Barn Owls in 1982-85 provided an estimate of around 4,400 breeding pairs in Britain, a substantial decline on numbers present in the 1930s (Shawyer 1987). By 1995-97, and following the release of many thousands of birds into the wild, the pop- ulation was estimated at around 4,000 pairs (Toms et al. 2001). This strongly suggests that the factors that led to the decline in Barn Owl numbers were still operating. These include the loss of nest-sites in old trees and buildings, a reduction in prey through intensive farming methods and, in some areas, high mortality rates through road collisions (Percival 1991). Other factors may also be involved, such as sec- ondary poisoning by modern rat poisons. The British countryside is clearly less suitable for Barn Owls than in the past and the release of huge numbers of captive-bred birds has not succeeded in improving the bird’s fortunes. Where habitat is reinstated and nest-sites are available, Barn Owls are capable of spreading naturally to recolonise areas without the need for release projects (Shawyer 1998). As well as wasting effort, the repeated releases of Barn Owls risked distracting attention from the habitat measures that the species desperately needs. The Barn Owl has highlighted several prob- lems that can arise with release projects. One is the welfare of released birds. Captive-bred birds released into the wild with no adult birds to support them and no previous experience in 8 British Birds 101* January 2008 • 2-25 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds the wild can suffer a much higher level of mor- tality than is the case in wild birds. Barn Owls released into areas lacking suitable habitat have little chance of surviving. Others were intro- duced into areas where the wild population was probably already at, or near, carrying capacity, forcing the newly released birds to compete with the wild birds for food and nest-sites (Per- cival 1991; Shawyer 1998). There was also potential for released birds to introduce inappropriate genetic material into the wild population (Hanna 1992; Shawyer 1998). Much of the Barn Owl stock in captivity is derived from birds found sick or injured and taken into care for treatment. It seems likely that these birds include a disproportionately high number of individuals with low genetic fitness, which predisposed them (or their ances- tors) to illness or injury in the first place. There is also a risk that birds bred in captivity for several generations will become genetically selected for traits that are advantageous in a captive environment but are a handicap when living in the wild: selection for larger size, increased tameness or reduced vigilance for predators, for example (Hanna 1992). Finally, although the captive Barn Owl pop- ulation in Britain involves a majority of birds of the native race alba, which occurs naturally in Britain and Europe, it also includes birds of other races, of which there are at least 33 world- wide (Mikkola 1983). Some of these have undoubtedly been released, since genetic sequencing of Barn Owl carcases by the Veter- inary Laboratories Agency found that the majority of sampled birds had genetic signa- tures indicating genes of other races in whole or part (R. Mandell unpubl., pers. comm.), and thus a dilution of the native gene pool. We do not doubt that a small number of well-planned release projects have succeeded in restoring Barn Owls to areas of countryside from which they had been lost, particularly where releases were carried out in conjunction with habitat restoration work to improve the availability of prey and/or nest-sites (see Meek et al. 2003, for example). But, overall, we believe that such releases have been generally unhelpful. As Shawyer (1998) commented, ‘Reintroduction may have limited opportunities in some circumstances and in a few areas, for speeding up recovery, but in general this prac- 3. Barn Owl Tyto alba, Cambridgeshire, July 2007. This species has remained widespread in Britain and is able to recolonise areas of suitable countryside naturally, without the need for direct human intervention. It has been added to Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) in order to prevent inappropriate releases. British Birds 101 'January 2008 • 2-25 9 Simon Stirrup lain Leach The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds tice seems to meet more of a human need than one for the Barn Owl itself.’ White-tailed Eagle There is good evidence that White-tailed Eagles were once widely distributed across Britain (Love 1983; Yalden 2007). The species gradually disappeared, as persecution progressively reduced its range to the west and north during the nineteenth century, leading to its ultimate extinction as a breeding bird by 1916. Small- scale reintroduction attempts, in 1959 in Argyll and in 1969 on Fair Isle, failed but they planted an idea and yielded useful information on tech- niques that might be used in a larger-scale ini- tiative. Between 1975 and 1985, the first phase of a larger-scale reintroduction project was under- taken by the Nature Conservancy Council on Rum, off the west coast of Scotland, where 82 eaglets imported from Norway were released. The first successful breeding occurred in 1985 on the Isle of Mull (Love 1988). Low breeding performance in the first decade suggested a high risk of eventual extinction (Green et al. 1996), and so more young birds from Norway were released in Wester Ross, Highland, between 1993 and 1998. In 1999 the population reached 20 territorial pairs and in 2006 the landmark of 200 young fledged since the start of the project was reached (see also table 1). This population is now securely established (Bainbridge et al. 2003) but, on current form, it will be a very long time before it spreads beyond western Scotland. In 2007, to encourage further spread, releases were started at a new site in eastern Scotland, again using birds imported from Norway. Norwegian birds were also released at Killarney National Park in the Republic of Ireland in 2007, the first year of a reintroduction programme there. Reintroducing a top predator can cause anx- ieties from some land users. A small number of farmers in western Scotland were concerned about predation of lambs by White-tailed Eagles. Organisations involved in the reintro- duction took this concern seriously, commis- sioning work to determine the impact on farming (Marquiss et al. 1999). This found that, on the Isle of Mull, a maximum of 37 lambs were killed each year by White-tailed Eagles, though some of these would have died anyway. The loss to the island’s farming economy is more than offset by the minimum £1. 4-million 4. Adult White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, Scotland, June 2006. A species with relatively undemanding habitat requirements that would be widespread in Britain and Ireland but for past human persecution and is now benefiting from reintroduction. British Birds 101* January 2008 • 2-25 10 r V The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds income as a result of tourism directly attribut- able to the presence of White-tailed Eagles (Dickie et al. 2006). Livestock farmers can receive payments to manage their sheep in ways that reduce the likelihood of lamb predation. Red Kite In the mid 1980s, the Red Kite was one of only three globally threatened species found in Britain, and thus a high conservation priority. It was lost as a breeding species from England and Scotland by around 1880 as a result of human persecution. The small surviving Welsh popula- tion was increasing slowly but the bird remained vulnerable as long as it was restricted to one relatively small area. There were no signs, at that stage, of natural recolonisation of suit- able lowland countryside in central and eastern Britain. The Nature Conservancy Council and the RSPB thus embarked on an ambitious re- introduction programme. The first releases took place in 1989, initially on a trial basis in order to test release methods and develop an approach that would allow the programme to proceed successfully (Evans et al. 1997). Breeding populations at each of the first two release sites - the Chiltern Hills in southern England and the Black Isle in northern Scotland - were successfully established by the mid- 1990s, using young birds imported from Spain and Sweden (Evans et al. 1997). Release pro- grammes have since been set up in a further seven areas, using nestlings from the reintro- duced populations and Wales to establish new populations. The two most recent projects, involving releases at a site near Aberdeen, North-east Scotland, and in Co. Wicklow, began in 2007. Self-sustaining breeding populations have now been established in all but the most recent release sites. Meanwhile, Red Kites in Wales have increased more rapidly than previ- ously and spread into England, breeding in border counties since 2004. The methods used have remained largely unchanged, as described in Evans et al. (1997). Plastic wing-tags and radio transmitters enable the juvenile kites to be tracked during the early years of re-establishment. The transmitters also enable the carcases of dead birds to be recov- ered, so that the cause of death can be estab- lished. As a scavenger that often forages around human settlements, the Red Kite is highly vul- nerable to illegal poison baits and to accidental secondary poisoning when scavenging on poi- soned rodents (Burn et al. 2002; Carter 8c Grice 2002) . Illegal persecution is most severe in Scot- land, where poisoning is strongly associated with driven grouse-shooting (Whitfield et al. 2003) ; over 35% of Red Kites released or hatched on the Black Isle between 1989 and 2001 were killed by illegal poisoning. This pop- ulation has fallen well behind that of the Chilterns, despite the same number of birds being released in the two areas over roughly the same period and the breeding productivity being similar (Wotton et al. 2002; fig. 1). This illustrates the importance of thorough post- release monitoring, particularly in the early years of re-establishment, so that problems can be identified quickly. Initiatives are underway to tackle these problems and there are encour- aging signs that the impact of poisoning has been reduced in some of the release areas. Importantly, this will benefit a wide range of species that are affected by poisoning. A recent development is the release of 5. Young Red Kites Milvus milvus being lowered to the ground from a nest in the Chilterns, June 2005. Young have been taken from this population for release in Northamptonshire, Yorkshire, Northumbria and Scotland since 1996. British Birds 101 ‘January 2008 • 2-25 Gerry Whitlow The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds Fig. I. Red Kite Milvus milvus populations in the Chiltern Hills, southern England (red) and the Black Isle, northern Scotland (blue). Intensive monitoring has highlighted serious problems with illegal persecution at the latter release site and this is the main reason for the dramatic difference in fortunes for these two reintroduced populations. captive-bred birds reared at private raptor centres. Several centres hold pairs of adult Red Kites, often birds found injured that are not fit for return to the wild. The Hawk Conser- vancy Trust in Hampshire has released a number of captive-bred young as well as older, rehabilitated birds into the surrounding countryside (www.hawk-conservancy.org/ redkitereleaseproject.shtml ). While this project has been carried out to high standards in order to avoid many of the potential problems inherent with captive breeding, there is no guarantee that others will be as rigorous. One problem associated with captive breeding is the difficulty of rearing young without the birds becoming imprinted on humans or overly familiar with them and their structures. This has been a major problem for the Californian Condor Gymnogyps californi- anus project in the USA: captive-bred birds are at high risk of electrocution through an apparent association with man-made struc- tures and a resulting tendency to perch on electricity poles (Snyder & Snyder 2000). Some released condors have even been found wandering around campsites in search of food, showing little fear of humans. Red Kites are not especially wary of humans compared with some other birds of prey and often forage around villages and the edges of towns. The potential for tame or imprinted captive- bred birds to take this one stage further and actively solicit food from people is a concern, as the species may then be perceived by some as a nuisance. Of 1 1 birds released by the Hawk Conservancy Trust since 2002, two have been found dead under power lines close to the release site, killed by electrocution. This is a very small sample but prompts the question, as with the Californian Condors, whether captive-reared Red Kites may be susceptible as a result of their captive upbringing and increased familiarity with human structures. There is limited information on the fate of the surviving birds, although several are apparently still in the release area. Ospreys at Rutland Water The return of breeding Ospreys Pandion hali- aetus to Scotland in 1954, after being persecuted to extinction at the beginning of the twentieth century, is one of Britain’s best-known conser- vation success stories (Dennis & McPhie 2003). The population now numbers over 200 nesting pairs, and as it increases so migrant Ospreys are seen more frequently at lakes and reservoirs in England. In 1986, an attempt was made to attract passing Ospreys to breed at Rutland Water in the East Midlands. An artificial nest was constructed in the top of a tree on a high point overlooking the reservoir. In 1994, a young female remained at the reservoir throughout the summer, sparking the idea of translocating Scottish Ospreys (Dennis 1996). A proposal for a five-year re-establishment project by the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust, which manages Rutland Water nature reserve, was financially supported by the site owners, Anglian Water. An IUCN assess- ment and local consultations were carried out and, during 1996-2001, 64 juveniles taken from nests in Scotland were released at Rutland Water. As well as being fitted with radio trans- mitters, a small number were also fitted with satellite tags, so that their migration route to wintering grounds could be tracked. A pair of reintroduced Ospreys has bred at Rutland since 2001 (with a second pair in 2003 and 2007) and, by 2007, 19 young had been 12 British Birds 101* January 2008 • 2-25 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds 6. Young Ospreys Pandion haliaetus taken from nests in Scotland at the release pen at Rutland Water. August 2005. The front of the pen has been lowered to allow the birds to fly free. fledged. In 2006, two of these wild-fledged young, reared at Rutland in 2004, returned to the site, the first time that wild-fledged birds have done so. In 2005, because the majority of birds returning to Rutland Water were males, a further 1 1 Scottish Osprey chicks were released, of which nine were females, in an attempt to redress the balance. Meanwhile, Scottish Ospreys have continued to increase and expand their range and breeding has occurred in northern England, in Cumbria, since 2000. In 2004, two pairs of Ospreys bred in Wales, the male of each pair having been originally released at Rutland Water. A single pair has bred in Wales each year since 2005. Corn Crakes on the Nene Washes The Corn Crake Crex crex was once widespread and locally common across Britain, but declined rapidly from the end of the nineteenth century as a result of agricultural change, specifically the mechanisation of mowing and the earlier cutting of meadows (Norris 1945; Green & Stowe 1993; Stowe et al. 1993). The UK Biodi- versity Action Plan sets a long-term target of re- establishing Corn Crake populations in parts of its former range. Concerted habitat management has helped to swell the number of calling males to over 1,100 in Scotland, but there has been pre- cious little expansion of its restricted range. Young birds typi- cally return to within a few kilo- metres of where they were fledged and most grassland areas away from western Scotland are still too intensively managed to support Corn Crakes. A trial reintroduction has been underway since 2001, based at the RSPB’s Nene Washes reserve in Cambridgeshire, where manage- ment has improved conditions for Corn Crakes (Green & Gibbons 2000). The project, a partnership of the RSPB, Natural England and the Zoological Society of London, latterly with assistance from the Pensthorpe Conservation Trust, aims to establish a self-sustaining popula- tion of at least 50 calling males. Owing to the difficulties of obtaining suffi- cient young birds from an established wild pop- ulation, juveniles from a captive population in Germany were used to establish a captive- breeding programme at Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, Bedfordshire. Initially, the females incubated and hatched their clutches, but they proved to be poor mothers and reared few chicks. Now, once the clutch is complete, it is hatched in an incubator. The captive females lay two or even three clutches of up to ten eggs each summer. The chicks are hand-reared for 7. Breeding Ospreys Pandion haliaetus at the nest in June 2006, a tangible result of the reintroduction project at Rutland Water.This nest has been used every year since 200 1 . British Birds 101* January 2008 • 2-25 13 John Wright Andy Hay/RSPB-images Andy Hay/ RSPB-images The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds 9. Captive-bred Corn Crake Crex crex just before release on the Nene Washes, Cambridgeshire, September 2004. the first few days, after which they feed them- selves. Human contact is minimised to avoid imprinting and ensure that the chicks behave as wild birds after release. They are moved to the release site at around 12 days old, when they are ringed and released. Radio telemetry has shown that they stay at the release site for around two weeks before departing at night. Of the 400 birds so far released, only a very small number have returned to the Nene Washes. Four males were trapped at the site in 2006, three of which were released in 2005, and five singing males were recorded in 2007. While this has demonstrated that released Corn Cirl Buntings in Cornwall The Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus was formerly widely distributed across southern Britain but a post-1940s decline turned into a full- blown population collapse by the mid 1960s. By 1989, only 118 territories were located, all but a handful in south Devon (Evans 1992). Research carried out to iden- tify the habitat requirements for this species found that weed-rich stubble fields were important in winter and spring to provide seed food, large hedges and scrub were required as nesting sites and invertebrate-rich rough grassland was essen- tial to provide food for the chicks (Evans 1997). A suite of agri-environment prescriptions was developed to satisfy the bird’s requirements in south Devon, promoted by dedicated land-man- agement advisers. The population responded well, growing to 453 occupied territories by 1998 and 697 in 2003 (Wotton etal. 2004). Despite the population increase, there were losses from the fringes of its range, leaving the species vulnerable to a chance event, such as a 8. Ten-day-old Corn Crake Crex crex at the captive-rearing facility at Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, Bedfordshire, July 2002. Crakes will come back to the release area, return rates are lower than predicted. The overwinter survival of Scot- tish Corn Crakes has, for example, been estimated at 34% for first-year birds (Green 1999). The breeding and release programme has been adapted to counter possible reasons for this: genetic diversity within the captive breeding population has been increased through the addition of wild birds from Poland and Scotland, and young birds have been released only when their body weight is close to that of an adult. There has been only one confirmed breeding record so far at the release site, although others may well have gone unde- tected. 14 British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 2-25 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds 1 0. The art of nest-finding in order to collect Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus chicks from south Devon in 2006, and (inset) one of the nestlings, just a few days old, for translocation to Cornwall. I I. Captive-reared Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus chicks about 12 days old at the rearing/release site in Cornwall in 2006 - part of the reintroduction project run by R.SPB, Natural England, the National Trust, Paignton Zoo and the Zoological Society of London. winter with prolonged snow cover. This prompted an investigation into the feasi- bility of reintroducing Cirl Buntings to parts of their former range. Although captive-breeding was ini- tially favoured to limit the number of birds taken from the wild, trials demonstrated that the success rate was low. After reassessing the impact on the population of taking birds from the wild, a small- scale trial in 2004 involved the release of 13 wild- hatched, captive-reared Cirl Buntings back into south Devon. Detailed monitoring showed that at least four birds survived to adulthood, paired with wild birds and bred successfully. A full- scale reintroduction pro- gramme began in 2006, in which chicks taken from Devon were reared in cap- tivity and released at a site in Cornwall. So far, 119 birds have been released in an area where Cirl Buntings were present until the 1990s and where a significant area of farmland has recently been restored to provide suitable habitat. Survival rates of released birds have been good and, in 2007, birds released the previous year made 12 breeding attempts, resulting in a minimum of 1 1 fledged young. It is anticipated that releases will con- tinue here for a further two years, and that habitat management on farms both here and, potentially, at future release areas will provide benefits for a range of farmland passerines. Black Grouse in the Peak District Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix ceased to breed in the Peak District in the early 1990s. The reasons are unclear, although, as elsewhere in Britain, habitat deterioration is likely to have been a key factor. Following attempts to improve the habitat for Black Grouse in the Peak District, captive-bred birds are being released into the Upper Derwent Valley by Severn Trent Water in partnership with the National Trust. The birds are fitted with radio transmitters to enable monitoring of dispersal and mortality. The first releases were in 2003 and it has taken several years to determine the optimum strategy of releasing males in April and females in July (Bowker et al. 2006). This project is providing information on how to release Black Grouse into the wild, British Birds 1 0 1 • January 2008 • 2-25 15 Julie Wbl/ace/Paignton Zoo Julie Wo/Zoce/Paignton Zoo The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds although the decision to translocate birds to the Upper Derwent Valley did not involve a strategic assessment of whether this was the best place to undertake such a project. This is the only project reviewed here that has started while the species is still in decline across Britain. The priority for the effective conser- vation of Black Grouse remains to discover how to reverse the decline across its existing range. Lessons learnt Whether projects succeed or fail, they provide valuable lessons for those planning reintroduc- tions in the future. Those that do best are well researched and planned, have adequate moni- toring that enables a change of approach during the project (if necessary) and have broad support from the public, species biologists and landowners. In seeking to restore bird popula- tions to the countryside, it is vital that interna- tionally agreed guidelines are followed so that credibility for the technique is retained. Yet it is also important that excessive interpretation of the guidelines does not stifle good projects that will ultimately benefit the species and its habitat. Experience shows that reintroductions require a long-term commitment, because cutting-edge initiatives rarely find immediate success. All of the projects reviewed have faced some setbacks; most are temporary but some may cause projects to fail in meeting their objectives. It is necessary to allow for such set- backs in the planning (and thus funding) of projects, so that lessons are learnt and the strategy can be adapted. In the case of some species, for example Great Bustard and White- tailed Eagle, the species’ long lifespan and low reproductive rate make it inevitable that ulti- mate success will take decades to achieve. Understanding the habitat requirements of the species and ensuring that they are in place are critical factors. Reintroducing Cirl Buntings to Cornwall at the time of their population nadir in the late 1980s would have been a serious mistake. Not only would it have diverted attention from the real problem, but the habitat restoration measures were unproven and taking Cirl Buntings from the wild when the population was little more than 100 pairs could have accelerated the rate of decline. Conservation resources were rightly focused on stemming the population decline and demonstrating that recovery was possible. It was a similar story for the Corn Crake. It took more than a decade of habitat manage- ment in its existing range before the time was right to consider re-establishing populations elsewhere. Although still too early to judge the outcome of some projects, it appears that using birds of wild origin tends to be more successful than using captive-bred birds (see also Snyder et al. 1996). Nonetheless, avicultural experience is still extremely valuable for bird reintroductions; in all the examples discussed here, there is a period when birds are kept in captivity prior to release and the knowledge of bird-keepers and veterinary specialists has been invaluable in ensuring success. Using wild birds is not always possible, either for logistical reasons or because to do so would further jeopardise an already vulnerable population. Of the projects listed in table 1, those for both Red Kite and White-tailed Eagle have been successful using wild-bred birds, while those for Cirl Bunting (having failed with captive-breeding), Osprey and Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos are also using wild-bred birds and all look promising. The methodology for the release of Northern Goshawks has never been published and it is not known whether it involved captive-bred or wild birds or, more likely, both. The releases for both Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta and Red-billed Chough involved captive-bred birds and were unsuc- cessful. The Barn Owl releases also used captive-bred birds and the contribution made to the species’ status is questionable. It is too early to judge whether the Black Grouse project in the Peak District will help to secure recovery for the species in that area. It is evident that the IUCN guidelines are based on real experience and that they have been invaluable in implementing reintroduction proj- ects in Britain. They provide a good benchmark for planning reintroduction projects and for peer-reviewing new proposals. It is also clear that reintroductions are most successful when they combine the experience of people who understand the problems typically faced during re-establishment schemes with that of those who understand the species’ ecology in the wild. Projects that do not meet the IUCN guidelines can cause serious problems and can potentially have an adverse effect on the status of the very species they seek to benefit. 16 British Birds 101 ’January 2008 • 2-25 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds }- Candidates for reintroduction/re-establishment As the number of projects and the profile of the reintroduction concept have grown, so has the list of bird species proposed as potential candi- dates. There are two stages to assessing the suit- ability of a species for reintroduction to a site: firstly, an assessment is made against the IUCN guidelines and secondly, a feasibility study is carried out to determine the most appropriate methodology and to plan the implementation of the project. Table 2 (pp. 20-22) lists those species for which it has been suggested that the population would benefit from reintroduction/transloca- tion. It is not comprehensive, but the species included have been suggested to us during the last decade. There are broadly five categories: 1. Lost as regular breeders Of those regular breeders that have been lost completely from Britain during the last 200 years, only one, the Great Auk Pinguinus impennis is completely beyond help (barring major advances in DNA technology!). White- tailed Eagle and Great Bustard are already the subjects of reintroduction programmes. For species that have ceased to breed regularly, perhaps through habitat deterioration and edge-of-range effects, such as Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus. Wryneck Jynx torquilla , Marsh Warbler Acrocephalus palustris and Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio , our lack of knowledge to rectify the key problems makes them unsuitable candidates for reintroduction at present, but habitat restoration may aid natural recolonisation. A number of species disappeared before regular records were kept, as a result of large- scale habitat loss or persecution. The drainage of the great lowland wetlands, for example, led to the disappearance of a range of species, including Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus, as much as 2,500 years ago. Habitats have changed substantially since that time, but now that ambitious large-scale wetland restoration is underway in many parts of the country, the reintroduction of these species will undoubt- edly be advocated by some. 2. Were they ever here ? For other species, evidence of former occur- rence is scant, at least since Britain was separ- ated from the near-continent. For species such as Eagle Owl Bubo bubo and Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus, there is currently little or no solid evidence of former natural occur- rence. Future research may change our under- standing, though that in itself does not necessarily make them a priority for reintro- duction. 3. Occasional breeders Although not all are included in table 2, there are many species that have bred occasionally in Britain. Some, such as Black Tern Chlidonias niger and Little Gull Larus minutus , occur regu- larly on passage. With suitable habitat, these have the potential to (re)colonise without recourse to human intervention. Another such species is White Stork Ciconia ciconia , for which, besides a record on St Giles’ Cathedral, Edinburgh, in 1416, there is, surprisingly, no record of wild breeding in Britain, although interchange of ’heron’, ‘stork’ and ‘crane’ in his- torical literature makes the evidence difficult to follow with certainty. White Storks have been successfully reintroduced to several localities in mainland Europe, notably in The Netherlands, where the species was close to extinction by the late 1980s but the population now numbers over 400 breeding pairs. The increases in the Dutch population and that along the north coast of France may eventually lead to natural colonisation of southern England. 4. Establishing additional populations The RSPB recently reviewed the role of translo- cation and identified six species for which it has a role in the organisation’s current species recovery work. All are within this category of establishing additional populations of species that are of high conservation priority and some are already the subject of ongoing reintroduc- tion projects. During the next five years, we believe that new projects involving these species deserve a full assessment against the IUCN guidelines, if appropriate, preparing the way for detailed feasibility studies. Common Crane Common Cranes Grus grus ceased to breed in England around 1600, partly as a result of the drainage of major lowland wetlands. A small group, now numbering around 40 individuals and including at least four breeding pairs, has become re-established in Norfolk. The origin of the first two birds in this population has been disputed, but their survival and successful breeding suggest that a British Birds 101 'January 2008 • 2-25 17 Markus Varesvuo The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds wild origin is most likely, probably as vagrant immature birds from northern Europe. The flock has been augmented by immigrants on several occasions since the first arrival, and pairs are breeding successfully with the help of habitat management and nest protection from sympathetic landowners. Up to four young have fledged annually in recent years. Single pairs have now also nested at a site in northern England and (unsuccessfully) in west Suffolk, on the edge of the fens. A number of extensive wetlands, such as the Somerset Levels and the Flow Country, could potentially support self- sustaining populations of Common Cranes, but natural spread to these areas seems unlikely, at least in the short term. Translocation may be an appropriate means of increasing the numbers and range of this species. Techniques for reintroducing populations of other species of crane, notably Whooping Crane Grus americana in North America, are well developed, although imprinting of captive- bred birds and the need to teach migration routes to juvenile birds in the absence of experi- enced adults are potential constraints. However, the Norfolk flock is resident and it seems likely that a reintroduced population would be able to survive the winter in situ, at least in southern Britain. Common Cranes are an important component of European wetland systems and would have a high public profile. As a first step, the RSPB, WWT and Pensthorpe Conservation Trust are undertaking a full assessment against the IUCN guidelines and a feasibility study to identify potential release sites in southern Britain using methods based on experience from crane reintroduction projects elsewhere in the world. Red-billed Chough Initial steps are being taken by the RSPB to devise a strategy for re-estab- lishing Red-billed Chough, since there are large areas of its former range from which it is absent. Because there is little or no published material on release proj- ects involving Red-billed Choughs or other corvids (one exception is the Hawaiian Crow Corvus hawaiiensis), there is no established procedure to follow. A reintroduction would raise some challenging questions. What ages should the released birds be to give them the best chance of surviving and breeding successfully? Can captive-bred birds cope in the wild, espe- cially of a species with such strong social bonds, where young birds learn important behavioural traits from more experi- enced adults? Is the genetic make-up of birds in the captive population certain? Could birds be I 2. A population of Common Cranes Grus grus has become re-established in East Anglia since the early 1980s and has increased in recent years after a slow start. Common Crane populations in Scandinavia are currently thriving and translocation has been proposed as a means to encourage 18 British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 2-25 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds taken from the wild without disrupting the social structure of the donor population? Can the diversity of coastal grassland management be sustained for Red-billed Choughs? Research into these and other issues has con- tinued in 2007 by the RSPB and others, chiefly in Northern Ireland where Red-billed Chough recently disappeared as a breeding species. The results could provide valuable information for projects elsewhere in its former range. The recent natural recolonisation of Cornwall gives some cause for optimism that this species may once again become a familiar breeding bird, but it is less likely that it will reappear unassisted in other parts of its former English range. Histori- cally, Red-billed Choughs nested on cliffs along the south coast as far east as Kent (they are depicted on the coat-of-arms of the city of Can- terbury), and long stretches of clifftop land are under conservation management, and poten- tially capable of supporting Red-billed Chough populations. The nearest breeding sites, apart from Cornwall, however, are in Brittany, south Wales and Ireland, all much farther away than the normal dispersal distance of wild birds. White-tailed Eagle A UK White-tailed Eagle Action Plan produced in 2002 set out the long- term aim of re-establishing the species throughout suitable habitats in the UK. This can be achieved in a reasonable time frame only if further populations are re-established well outside the current restricted range, using the proven techniques for reintroduction developed in western Scotland. The new projects in eastern Scotland and Ireland, which both started in 2007, should help to increase rates of spread to new areas and proposals are currently being developed by Natural England for a new project in East Anglia. Red Kite Reintroduction projects have success- fully re-established Red Kites in several parts of England and Scotland but the species remains localised around the areas in which releases have taken place. Although immatures wander widely, and there are annual records from most British counties, the rate of spread to date sug- gests that it will be a very long time before the ultimate goal, of restoring Red Kites to all suit- I able habitat, is realised. Projects that began in 2007, near Aberdeen and in Co. Wicklow, will j hopefully help to speed up the rate of spread, as will a new project proposed for Northern British Birds 101 'January 2008 • 2-25 Ireland, which could start in 2008. Cirl Bunting The experimental translocation programme in Cornwall will continue for several years. During this time, other sites in the species’ former range will be assessed and managed with a view to long-term restoration of its range, possibly involving further reintro- ductions. Corn Crake The trial translocation in Cam- bridgeshire will continue for several more years, based on the results of releases since 2001. If it is ultimately successful, it will provide the knowledge and experience for potential releases in other areas where large-scale habitat manage- ment can be achieved, so helping to secure the long-term prospects for the Corn Crake and other birds that require extensive grassland habitats across Britain. 5. Maybe, but not yet During RSPB reviews, several other species were considered but rejected as short-term candi- dates. This category will be reviewed regularly in relation to progress in habitat management and changes in the status of the species involved. With the exception of the rare and highly restricted Corn Crake and Cirl Bunting, a group of birds not previously considered for reintro- duction includes farmland species that have declined drastically in recent decades. Some species, such as Sky Lark Alauda arvensis and Linnet Carduelis cannabina, remain widespread and translocation is not appropriate but others now have limited distributions and, being highly sedentary, may find it difficult to re- occupy their former ranges unaided. The Game Conservancy Trust is investigating methods to re-establish Grey Partridges Perdix perdix by translocation, while Tree Sparrows Passer mon- tanus and Corn Buntings Emberiza miliaria might be appropriate candidates in the future. First, however, we need to be certain that popu- lation increases in existing locations can be sus- tained through habitat management and that natural recolonisation of unoccupied but suit- able habitat is unlikely. A species’ international status is also a factor in deciding whether it is a candidate for reintro- duction or re-establishment. Black-tailed Godwit Limosa litnosa has recently been red- listed by the IUCN following a 30% decline in 19 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds Table 2. Species that have been suggested as potentially suitable candidates for new reintroduction projects in Britain and Ireland during the last ten years (species in bold are the subject of ongoing projects). Species Proposed release area (if known) Current status in the UK (and Europe1) Evidence for previous occurrence2 Archaeology and other Recent past historical evidence Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix Northern England Isle of Arran Southern heaths Scarce breeder. UK Red list. (SPEC 3) Widespread in Scotland, England and parts of Wales until the nineteenth century. Fragmented range across uplands of Scotland, England and Wales. Lost from southern England (e.g. New Forest, Exmoor) in the mid twentieth century, and recently from outlying areas farther north (e.g. Peak District, Lancashire). Reintroduction to Peak District underway (see table 1). Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus Former range in Scotland Rare breeder. UK Red list. Former breeder in Scotland, but became extinct in the eighteenth century. Current population is the result of reintroduction in the nineteenth century. Fragmentation of suitable habitat may be preventing range restoration. Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus No historical records in UK. (SPEC 1) Bones found in Oxfordshire dating from fifteenth/ sixteenth century. None Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crisp us East Anglia No historical records. (SPEC 1) Fossil evidence from Yorkshire, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Somerset. None White Stork Ciconia ciconia Rare visitor. (SPEC 2) Fossil evidence. One historical breeding record in Scotland (1416). Breeding attempt in Yorkshire in 2004 involved a rehabilitated wild bird from France and an escape from a zoo in Belgium. Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia Rare breeder and regular passage migrant. UK Amber list. (SPEC 2) Bred in England and Wales until late seventeenth century. Pairs or groups seen at a number of wetland/coastal localities. Several nesting attempts from the mid 1990s, though only one or two successful. Red Kite Milvus milvus Ireland East Scotland Localised breeder in Britain, but not Ireland. UK Amber list. (SPEC 1). Bones and contemporary accounts suggest that it was common and widespread in Britain & Ireland until the early eighteenth and early seventeenth century respectively. Probably extirpated from Ireland in the late eighteenth century and Scotland in the late nineteenth century. Reintroduction carried out in England, ongoing in Scotland and Republic of Ireland (see table 1). White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Eastern Scotland Eastern England Wales Ireland Rare breeder. LIK Red list. (SPEC 1) Widely distributed across Scotland and England, and possibly in Wales. Bred in Scotland until 1916. Re-established in western Scotland by reintroduction. Projects ongoing in eastern Scotland and Republic of Ireland (see table 1). Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Dartmoor Lowland farmland Scarce breeder. UK Red list. (SPEC 3) Widespread in historical times, including lowlands. Breeds in uplands across Britain and Ireland, where limited principally by illegal persecution. Translocation proposals usually linked to removal from grouse moors as part of ‘quota’ system. 20 British Birds 101 ‘January 2008 • 2-25 -^The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds 'y Table 2. (continued) Species that have been suggested as potentially suitable candidates for new reintroduction projects in Britain and Ireland during the last ten years (species in bold are the subject of ongoing projects). Species Proposed release area (if known) Current status in the UK (and Europe') Evidence for previous occurrence2 Archaeology and other Recent past historical evidence Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Wales Scarce breeder. UK Amber list. (SPEC 3) Limited evidence for previous regular occurrence in Wales. Breeds in Scotland and at one site in northern England. Reintroduction to Republic of Ireland in progress (see table 1). Osprey Pandion haliaetus Wales Scarce breeder. UK Amber list. (SPEC 3) Bred until the mid nineteenth century at isolated sites in England and across Scotland. Lost from Scotland as a breeding bird in 1916. Regained as a breeder in Scotland in the 1950s. Reintroduced to central England (see table 1 ); natural colonist to northern England and Wales since 2000. In Wales, pairs include birds released at Rutland. Corn Crake Crex crex Suitable sites across Britain Scarce breeder and passage migrant. UK Red list. (SPEC 1) Widespread and locally common in meadows across Britain until early twentieth century. Remnant population in the Western Isles is increasing. English translocation project underway (see table 1 ). Common Crane Grus grus Rare breeder and regular passage migrant. UK Amber list. (SPEC 2) Fossil evidence in England. Bred until sixteenth century in eastern England. Regular migrant/winter visitor until eighteenth century. Recolonised East Anglia in 1980s, population increasing slowly and now c. 40 individuals, which include several pairs breeding successfully. Stone-curlew Burhinus oedicnemus England Rare breeder. UK Red list. (SPEC 3) Reported from East Anglia from the seventeenth century. Bred on light soils across England as far north as Yorkshire but range now fragmented. Numbers increasing since mid-1990s in core areas (Wessex, Breckland). Ruff Philomachus pugnax England Passage migrant. UK Amber list. (SPEC 2) Historically widespread. Apparently became extinct during the nineteenth century. Bred on Ouse Washes in the 1960s and 70s. Seen annually in suitable breeding habitat but few recent records of confirmed nesting. Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa England Nominate limosa race is localised breeder. UK Red list. (SPEC2) Formerly bred at numerous sites in the East Anglian fens and Yorkshire. About 65 pairs, the majority on the Nene Washes in Cambridgeshire. Eagle Owl Bubo bubo Some breeding birds No firm evidence more known to be of recent than fossil escaped or released remains from c. 9,000 origin. (SPEC 3) years ago. Several pairs known to breed in various parts of Britain, but no evidence that these are of wild origin. Wryneck lynx torquilla Passage visitor. UK Red list. (SPEC 3) Historically widespread and common. Ceased to breed regularly after the 1960s. Marsh Warbler Acrocephalus palustris West Midlands Rare breeder. UK Red list. Not specifically recorded until 1871. Widespread in southern England in the early twentieth century. Breeds in small numbers in southeast England and occasionally elsewhere, but extinct in its former stronghold in the West Midlands. British Birds 1 0 1 • January 2008 • 2-25 21 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds Table 2. (continued) Species that have been suggested as potentially suitable candidates for new reintroduction projects in Britain and Ireland during the last ten years (species in bold are the subject of ongoing projects). Species Proposed release area (if known) Current status in the UK (and Europe ') Evidence for previous occurrence2 Archaeology and other Recent past historical evidence Crested Tit Lophophanes cristatus Deeside Scarce breeder. First recorded 1678 - all records from Speyside. Widespread in pinewoods north and west of the Cairngorms. Habitat in Deeside apparently suitable but fragmentation may prevent natural recolonisation. Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio Passage migrant and occasional breeder. UK Red list. (SPEC 3) Widespread in the nineteenth century in England and Wales. Declined during the twentieth century. Only occasional breeding records since 1988. Red-billed Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Cornwall Kent Northern Ireland Scarce breeder. UK Amber list. (SPEC 3) Records from rocky coasts all around Britain from the sixteenth century. Lost from England as a breeding species in the 1950s. Breeding commenced in Cornwall in 2002 following influx of wild birds. Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus Wales Scarce breeder. UK Red list. First record 1830. Widespread across southern Britain in the 1930s. Post-war population crash to low point of 1 18 breeding pairs in 1989. Now only in Devon, where population is increasing. Cornish translocation project commenced 2006 (see table 1 ). 1 SPEC 1: species of global conservation concern; SPEC 2: unfavourable status and concentrated in Europe; SPEC 3: unfavourable status, not concentrated in Europe. 2 Information on historical occurrence taken from Reid-Henry & Harrison (1988), Holloway (1996), D’Arcy (1999) and Brown & Grice (2005). its world population in the last 15 years. In 2006, there were 65 breeding pairs in Britain, the majority at a single site (the Nene Washes). Although these comprise only a small propor- tion of the European population, there is justifi- cation for improving the species’ status in Britain through protection and management of its current sites and, in time, perhaps through reintroduction, though this would require a full and careful assessment. tion can do much more than just bring a species back to an area from which it has been lost, however. Reintroduced species can be ‘flagships’, encouraging the adoption of conservation- friendly land management and so benefiting a greater diversity of wildlife (e.g. Carter 2005). They can also provide a focus for public interest and enjoyment that can lead to greater support - both moral and financial - for conservation action, and can benefit local economies through wildlife tourism (Dickie et al. 2006). Conclusion We believe that reintroduction can be a valuable tool for bird conservation and have suggested some species for which this approach could be developed over the coming years. The opportu- nities for its use are limited, however, and we have identified only a small number of species that are likely to meet the IUCN guidelines and current conservation priorities. We firmly believe that reintroductions should be conservation-led; to do otherwise could bring the technique into public disrepute, especially if not undertaken to the standards set by the IUCN, and therefore in the light of lessons learnt from earlier projects. Reintroduc- Well-organised and properly implemented reintroduction programmes can be expensive, while monitoring is an ongoing commitment, sometimes for decades. Nonetheless, reintro- ductions currently consume only a very small amount of conservation resources. For example, the spending on agri-environment schemes in England alone for 2006/07 was about £450 million, which compares with substantially less than £1 million currently allocated each year to bird reintroduction projects throughout Britain. Furthermore, reintroductions are often attractive to commercial sponsors; unpalatable though it may be to some, these resources would not necessarily be made available for less 22 British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 2-25 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds glamorous (though no doubt equally deserving) conservation initiatives. The onus is on responsible conservationists to ensure that reintroductions are carried out to a high standard, do not detract from other important issues and form part of a wider strategy for species recovery. In this respect, better legislation would help to ensure that projects are carried out only where they meet internationally agreed standards. Ultimately, however, if we consider that restoring habitats is merited, we should surely adopt a similar approach to restoring the species that belong in these habitats. The need to do both may increase over the coming decades, depending on how climate change alters the survival capacity of our fauna and flora. In combination with habitat creation, translocation could be appro- priate in assisting the movement of habitat- limited species across a hostile landscape in order to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Further debate within the conservation community is required to help to assess the extent to which this approach should be used in the future. Acknowledgments This account is dedicated to the large number of individuals 1 who have supported the various bird reintroduction projects undertaken in recent years, particularly landowners, farmers, gamekeepers and volunteers, without I whose help they would not have been possible. We would also like to thank the many organisations with which j Natural England and RSPB have worked on bird reintroductions, including the National Trust. Forestry Commission England, Forestry Commission Scotland, ] Chester Zoo, Paignton Zoo, Pensthorpe Conservation Trust The Zoological Society of London's Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, Yorkshire Water Anglian Water Gateshead Council, Heritage Lottery Fund, Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Defra. They have provided support, expertise and, in some cases, funding to enable projects to be undertaken. The Zoological Society of London's Institute of Zoology has provided veterinary expertise and health surveillance to help to ensure that projects are carried out to a high standard. References Bainbridge, I. R, Evans, R.J., Broad, R.A., Crooke, C. H., Duffy, K„ Green, R. E„ Love, J. A., & Mudge, G. R 2003. Reintroduction ofWhite-tailed Eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) to Scotland. IniThompson, D. B. A., Redpath, S. M„ Fielding, A. H„ Marquiss, M„ & Galbraith, C. A. (eds.), Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment. 393-406. Scottish Natural Heritage. Edinburgh. Batten, L A., Bibby, C. J., Clement, R, Elliot. G. D., & Porter FL F. 1 990. Red Data Birds in Britain: action for rare, threatened and important species. Poyser, London. Bowker G., Bowker C„ & Warren, A. 2006. 'Black Grouse re-introduction in the Upper Derwent Valley, Peak District National Park.' Unpubl. progress report. Brown, A., & Grice, R 2005. Birds in England. Poyser London. Burn, A. J., Carter, l„ & Shore, R. F. 2002.The threats to birds of prey in the UK from second-generation rodenticides. Aspects of Applied Biology 67: 203-2 1 2. Cade.TJ., &Temple, S. A. 1 995. Management of threatened bird species: evaluation of the hands-on approach. Ibis 137 (Suppl. I): 161-172. Carter 1. 2005.The benefits and dangers of species reintroductions: lessons from the Red Kite reintroduction programme and other bird reintroductions. In: Rooney, R. Nolan, R, & Hill, D. (eds.), Restoration, Reintroduction and Translocation, I 1 7- 1 22. Proc. 20th conference Inst. Ecol. Env. Management, Southport. — & Grice, R 2002. The Red Kite Reintroduction Programme in England. English Nature Research Reports No. 45 1 . English Nature, Peterborough. — & Newbery, R 2004. Reintroduction as a tool for population recovery of farmland birds. In: Vickery, J. A., Evans, A. D., Grice, RV.Aebischer N.J., & Brand-Hardy, R. (eds.), Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds II: the road to recovery, 22 1 -229. Ibis 1 46 (Suppl. 2): 221-229. — , Brown, A., Lock, L.Wotton, S„ & Croft, S. 2003. The restoration of the Red-billed Chough in Cornwall. Brit Birds 96: 23-29. Cunningham, A. A. 1 996. Disease risks of wildlife translocations. Conserv. Biol. 1 0: 349-353. D'Arcy, G. 1 999. Ireland's Lost Birds. Four Courts Press, Dublin. Dennis, R 1 996. A Proposal to Translocate Ospreys to Rutland Water, England. Anglian Water and Leicestershire and Rutland Trust for Nature Conservation. — & McPhie, F.A. 2003. Growth of the Scottish Osprey Pandion haliaetus population. ln:Thompson, D. B. A., Redpath, S. M„ Fielding, A. H„ Marquiss, M„ & Galbraith, C. A. (eds.), Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment. 1 63- 171. Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh. Dickie. I., Hughes, J. H., & Esteban, A. 2006. Watched Like Never Before: the local economic benefits of spectacular bird species. RSPB, Sandy, (www.rspb.org.uk/lmages/ watchedlikeneverbefore_tcm9- 1 3308 1 .pdf) Evans, A. D. l992.The numbers and distribution of Cirl Buntings breeding in Britain in 1989. Bird Study 39: 17-22. — 1 997. Cirl Buntings in Britain. Brit Birds 90: 267-282. Evans, I. M. 1 996. Criteria for the consideration of translocation as an aid to conserving birds in the United Kingdom. In: Holmes, J. S„ & Simons, J. R. (eds.), The Introduction and Naturalisation of Birds, 49-55. The Stationery Office, London. — , Dennis, R. H„ Orr-Ewing, D. C„ Kjellen, N., Andersson, R-O., Sylven, M„ Senosiain, A., & Carbo, F. C. 1 997.The re-establishment of Red Kite breeding populations in Scotland and England. Brit. Birds 90: 1 23-138. Green, R. E. 1 999. Survival and dispersal of male Corn Crakes Crex crex in a threatened population. Bird Study 46 (Suppl.): 2 1 8-229. — & Gibbons, D. W. 2000.The status of the Com Crake Crex crex in Britain in 1 998. Bird Study 47: 1 29- 1 37. — & Stowe, TJ. l993.The decline of the Corncrake Crex crex in Britain and Ireland in relation to habitat change. J.Appl. Ecol. 30: 689-695. — , Pienkowski, M.W., & Love, J. A. 1996. Long-term viability of the reintroduced population of the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in Scotland./ Appl. Ecol. 33: 357-368. Greenwood, J.J. D„ Crick, H. Q. R. & Bainbridge, I. R 2003. British Birds 101* January 2008 • 2-25 23 The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds Numbers and international importance of raptors and owls in Britain and Ireland. ln:Thompson, D. B. A., Redpath, S. M„ Fielding, A. H„ Marquiss, M„ & Galbraith, C.A, (eds.), Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment, 25-49, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh. Hanna, L 1 992. The Possible Impacts of Releasing Captive- bred Barn Owls in Britain. JNCC Report No. I24.JNCC, Peterborough. Holloway, S. 1 996.The Historical Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1875-1 900. Poyser London. IUCN. 1995. IUCN/SSC Guidelines for Reintroductions www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/reinte.htm Lever, C. 2005. Naturalised Birds of the World. Poyser London. Love, J. A. 1983. The Return of the Sea Eagle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. — 1 988. The Reintroduction of the White-tailed Sea Eagle to Scotland: 1 975-1987. NNC Research and Survey in Nature Conservation Report No. 1 2. NCC, Peterborough. Marquiss, M„ Madders, M„ Irvine, J„ & Carss, D. 1 999. The Impact ofWhite-tailed Eagles on Sheep Farming on Mull. Institute ofTerrestrial Ecology, Banchory. Meek,W. R„ Burman, R J., Nowakowski, M., Sparks, T H„ & Burman, N. J. 2003. Barn Owl release in lowland southern England - a twenty-one year study. Biol. Conserv. 1 09: 27 1 -282. Meyer R. 2000. The return of the Red-billed Chough to England. Brit Birds 93: 249-252. Mikkola, H. 1 983. Owls of Europe. Poyser London. Norris, C.A. 1 945. Summary of a report on the distribution and status of the Com Crake Crex crex. Brit Birds 38: 1 42- 1 48, 1 62- 1 68. Osborne, R E. 2002. Application to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for a Licence to Re-introduce Great Bustards Otis tarda to Britain. Great Bustard Consortium, Salisbury. Percival, S. 1991. Population trends in British Bam Owls - a review of some possible causes. Brit Wildlife 2: 131-140. Reid-Henry, D„ & Harrison, C. 1 988. The History of the Birds in Britain. Collins, London. RSPB, 2000, 2001 BirdCrime 2000, Bird Cnme 2002: offences against wild bird legislation. RSPB, Sandy. Shawyer C. 1 987. The Barn Owl in the British Isles: its past present and future. The HawkTrust London. — 1998. The Barn Owl. Arlequin Press, Chelmsford. Snyder, N„ & Snyder H. 2000. The California Condor: a saga of natural history and conservation. Academic Press, London. Snyder, N. F. FL, Derricksor, S. FL. Beissinger. S. R., Wiley, J.W., Smith.T B.,Toone,W. D„ & Miller B. 1996. Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conserv. Biol. 1 0: 338-348. Stevens, D, R, & Blackstock,T H. 1 997. Genetics and nature conservation in Brrtain: the role of the statutory conservation agencies. ln:Tew,T E., Crawford.TJ., Spencer J. W., Stevens, D. R. Usher M. B„ & Warren, J. (eds.), The Role of Genetics in Conserving Small Populations, 1 93-203. British Ecological Society Symposium, JNCC, Peterborough. Stowe, Tj„ Newton, A. V„ Green. FL E„ & Mayes. E. 1993. The decline of the Com Crake Crex crex in Britain and Ireland in relation to habitat J.Appl. Ecol. 30: 53-62. Toms, M. R, Crick, H. Q. R, & Shawyer C. R. 200 1 .The status of breeding Bam Owls Tyto alba in the United Kingdom 1995-97. Bird Study 48: 23-37. Waters, E. 200 1 . The Great Bustard. The Great Bustard Group, Salisbury. Whitfield. D. R, McLeod. D. FLA., Watson, J., Fielding, A. H.,& Haworth, R F. 2003. The association of grouse moor in Scotland with the illegal use of poisons to control predators. Biol. Conserv. I 14: 157-163. Wotton. S., Rylands, K., Grice, R, Smallshire, D.. & Gregory, R 2004.The status of the Cirl Bunting in Britain and the Channel Islands in 2003. Brit Birds 97: 376-384. — , Carter I., Cross, A. V„ Etheridge, B„ Snell, N„ Duffy, K„ Thorpe, FL, & Gregory, R D. 2002. Breeding status of the Red Kite Milvus milvus in Britain in 2000. Bird Study 49: 278-286. Yalden, D.W. 2007.The older history of the White-tailed Eagle in Britain. Brit Birds 1 00: 47 1 -480. Ian Carter and Phil Grice, Natural England, Northminster House, Peterborough PEI 1 UA Peter Newbery and Julian Hughes, RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SGI 9 2DL Appendix I. A summary of key criteria contained within guidelines produced by the World Conservation Union (IUCN 1995) on reintroductions. These are not legally binding but have been adopted by the statutory conservation bodies and many voluntary groups in Britain. 1. The principal aim of a species reintroduction should be to establish a viable, free-ranging population of a species that has become globally or locally extinct in the wild. It should be reintroduced within the species’ former natural range. Conservation reintroductions are about restoring native species that have been lost from an area as a result of human activities. There are considerable dangers associated with the introduction of species outside their natural range (e.g. Lever 2005) and there is rarely a conservation justification for doing so. The level of evidence required to meet this criter- ion can spark considerable debate, and some flexi- bility and ecological pragmatism is necessary. For example, the landscape has changed so much during the last few hundred years that it would be too restric- tive to require evidence of past occurrence from a precise release site; presence in the general area should, we suggest, be sufficient. A wealth of written, cultural and archaeological references are available to the ornithological histo- rian in Britain, but each should be weighed on its own merits according to the species, its habitat and past human use of birds for food or hunting. On the technical question of whether or not a species has occurred previously in Britain, conser- vation organisations look to the BOU for guid- ance, and we welcome their recent decision to assess historical and archaeological evidence. Species that have not occurred in the last few hundred years are, currently, doubtful contenders for reintroduction as climate and habitats have changed substantially. 24 British Birds 1 0 1 * January 2008 • 2-25 c The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds ) 2. Reintroduction should take place only where the habitat and landscape requirements of the species are satisfied. The factors that caused the original decline of the species should have been identified and eliminated or reduced to a satisfactory level. It is not just a question of whether a species formerly occurred in an area, but whether there is sufficient extent of habitat of a suitable quality to enable a self- sustaining population to be restored. There is little point in spending considerable resources on releasing birds into unsuitable habitat or into areas where the factors that caused extinction are still operating. Not only is the project unlikely to be successful, but it risks ‘wasting’ birds from donor populations. In most cases, reintroduction projects are only appropriate once there is some certainty that the cause of the decline has been reversed and, for example, sufficient areas of suitably managed habitat have been re- instated, as with the Cirl Bunting reintroduction in Cornwall. Importantly, we believe that bird reintro- duction projects should, in many cases, stimulate and drive large-scale habitat restoration, thus benefiting a wide range of species. 3. It is desirable that source animals come from wild populations, which should be closely related geneti- cally and show similar ecological characteristics to the original native stock. Taking young direct from the wild is usually the most straightforward option for obtaining birds for reintro- duction. Captive-breeding is an alternative, though it comes with the risk that birds may be less well adapted to the wild through familiarity with people or through genetic selection for traits better suited to life in captivity (Hanna 1992). More stringent efforts may also be required in captive-bred situations to limit the introduction of harmful pathogens into the wild (see Cunningham 1996 for a review of the disease risks associated with translocation projects). Because conservation reintroductions aim to restore what should be present naturally, birds for release should be as close as possible genetically to the original population. This will usually increase the chances of the project succeeding as individuals with substantial genetic differences from the original native stock may be less well adapted to local conditions (e.g. Stevens & Blackstock 1997). However, in future, if reintroduction is used to respond to losses brought about by climatic change, meeting these genetic cri- teria may prove challenging or even ill-advised. 4. Removal of individuals for reintroduction must not endanger the captive stock population or the wild source population. It is clearly important to ensure that reintroduction projects do not risk harming existing populations. This will usually require the use of biological data to model the difference in population growth with and without taking birds for release. Measures to min- imise impacts on the donor population include leaving at least one chick in every nest from which young are taken (e.g. Red Kite, White-tailed Eagle and Osprey) and, for the Great Bustard, taking eggs only from nests that would otherwise be destroyed by farming operations (Osborne 2002). 5. There should be a well-planned monitoring pro- gramme so that each reintroduction is a carefully designed experiment. This should include the collec- tion and investigation of mortalities. No matter how much research is carried out and how carefully planned a reintroduction project is, there will be some uncertainty as to how released birds will fare in the wild, particularly if the species has long been absent from the area. This is best dealt with through a monitoring programme, often requiring tagging or radio-tracking individuals, so that as com- plete a picture as possible can be obtained of the fate of released birds. Unexpected problems can be identi- fied at an early stage and measures taken to address them. The IUCN guidelines refer to organising re- introductions so that they are a ‘carefully designed experiment’, clearly emphasising the importance of learning from the initial stages of release projects. While this is a sensible approach, it is vital that experimentation does not become a substitute for thorough background research and planning. Every effort should be made, before a release project begins, to establish the reasons for the loss of a species and to ensure that conditions are once again suitable for it to prosper. 6. A thorough assessment of the attitudes of local people to the proposed project is necessary to ensure long-term protection of the reintroduced population. This is especially important for species that are con- troversial because of their potential impacts on other species or the interests of local people and land man- agers. Some species were originally lost because of negative human attitudes towards them and will be successfully restored only if people in the release areas are supportive. Public consultation over the release of Red Kites in Yorkshire found that the owners of grouse moors were hostile to the project. They feared that Red Kites would interfere with shooting by ‘spooking’ Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus and making them harder to drive. While this seemed unlikely, the proposed release site was moved some 10 km farther away from the nearest grouse moor. In the early stages of the project, two Red Kites were found dead on moors, killed by poison (RSPB 2000, 2002), demon- strating the very real threat posed by individuals hostile to the project. This raises a question about the extent to which one interest group should have the power of veto over a proposal. Taking account of alternative views and adapting a proposal makes sense if it increases the chance of success. But the experience of the proposal to reintroduce the European Beaver Castor fiber to Scotland is salutary. In this case, opposition from a few individuals stymied a project that had a very strong measure of public and conservation support. British Birds 1 0 1 • January 2008 • 2-25 25 Mourning Dove on North Uist: new to Britain Brian Rabbitts Atlantic depressions skirting the north of Scotland in September 1999 brought an unprecedented influx of North American waders to the Outer Hebrides. On North and South Uist, these included at least eight Semi- palmated Sandpipers Calidris pusilla (a species for which there had been no previous records on the islands), at least two White-rumped Sand- pipers C. fuscicollis, a Baird’s Sandpiper C. bairdii and three Pectoral Sandpipers C. melan- otos. In October, Benbecula, the middle island in the group, weighed in with an American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica and a Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris. For much of the autumn, winds blew from the west quarter but during the second of two spells when they turned to the east, in mid October, another arrival from the New World was discovered, a Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata (the second for the islands) in the Sycamores Acer pseudoplatanus at Grogarry Lodge, South Uist. It was accompanied by a Melodious Warbler Hippolais polyglotta — only the third record for the islands. It seems unlikely that the Yellow-rumped Warbler reached Britain during these easterlies, and it presumably made landfall elsewhere earlier in the month before moving south through the islands. Apart from an unusual southward move- ment of Pomarine Skuas Stercorarius pomarinus (eventually becoming by far the largest number ever recorded here in autumn), birding was then fairly quiet until early November, when reports of a yellowlegs sent me hurrying once more to Benbecula. And, after a long search, there it was: a Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca, another second for the Outer Hebrides. Later in November, a Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps was yet another second record and another stellar bird for Ben- becula but, in between the yellowlegs and the grebe, the icing on the cake in an already excep- tional year for New World vagrants was a first, not only for the islands but for Britain too, a Mourning Dove Zenaida macroural As things turned out, Brian Hill (BIH), a I birding friend from Somerset, and I were to drive past a particular garden in my home } township of Carinish several times during 13th and 14th November, oblivious as to what lay beyond the fence. On the second date, after J exploring several sites on North Uist with little reward, we arrived home near dusk to a phone , message from the owner of that garden, Maire MacPhail, who described a bird that she did not ! recognise - ‘brown with black markings and has ; a white edge to its tail when it flies’. My initial ! reaction was that it was probably a Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus but, after being i persuaded to ring her back, the additional information (such as walking instead of hopping and being the size of a small dove) was 1 intriguing! Some five minutes later, we were at the garden looking at a small dove sat on top of a wooden fence. After a few moments to gather my thoughts, the penny dropped and I realised that it was a Mourning Dove! This was a species ! I had seen many years ago in Canada and BJH agreed with the identification, having seen the ’ species in the USA. The bird appeared exhausted but it did make a short flight to another part of the fence and, • upon alighting, spread its long tail, which was broadly and conspicuously tipped white. Earlier that day the dove had been seen feeding on chicken feed, put out especially for it, and Maire’s husband, Angus, told us that he had seen it briefly the previous day. We left the bird to go to roost and returned home to look at a few books. After we had made sure of our iden- tification, the news was released to Birdline Scotland. Shortly after first light the next day (15th), > we were back at the garden, where the 26 © British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 26-30 Mourning Dove on North Uist: new to Britain Mourning Dove was still present. Around 30 birders managed to see it on this date, most arriving on the flight from Glasgow at midday. Throughout the day, the bird was mostly inac- tive and closed its eyes for long periods but it did perk up occasionally, made several short flights and fed on the chicken food. It was watched until 16.35 hrs, when it left the fence, where it had been perched for the best part of an hour, and flew down into the garden to roost. To the disappointment of many who had arrived by ferry, which docked late in the day, the bird apparently did not survive a third night, as there was no sign of it the following morning. Overnight, the weather had turned much colder with some hail flurries and a fresh northwesterly. Despite an extensive search, we did not find the corpse. which showed conspicuous long white tips to the outer feathers. The visible greater coverts showed thin pale fringes; the inner primaries were fresh, while the outer two appeared dis- tinctly browner and worn. Although this species generally has a complete post-juvenile moult, these worn juvenile outer primaries confirmed that the bird was in first-winter plumage. It did show the dark neck-spot of an adult, a feature that was absent on the first-winter Mourning Dove found on the Isle of Man in October 1989 (Sapsford 1996). The legs were pinkish-red. Weather conditions prior to discovery The weather situation over western Scotland between 9th and 13th November was anticy- clonic, with light and variable winds. During Description A small dove, appearing smaller than Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto, with plumage in good condition. The head and breast were mostly buff-brown with lighter ear-coverts and chin, which appeared as a stripe on each side of the bill at certain angles. A blue-grey tinge was apparent to some crown feathers, while the belly and undertail-coverts were slightly brighter buff- brown and the flanks greyish. Most of the upper- parts were olive-brown with some large, randomly spaced black spots on the inner wing-coverts, rear scapulars and tertials; when the bird was viewed rear- end on, the markings on the tertials appeared to form quite a neat pattern running down the inner edges of the closed wings. The rump appeared to be indistinctly barred and the longest feathers in the closed tail were greyish. A noticeable feature during short flights and just before alighting was its long, graduated tail, I 3 & 14. First-winter Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura, Carinish, North Uist, Outer Hebrides, November 1999. British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 26-30 27 Brian Hill Nic Hallam c Mourning Dove on North Uist: new to Britain > this period, the weather was dry and partly cloudy. Despite the bird’s obviously poor state of health, the prevailing weather conditions do not suggest that the Mourning Dove was a recent arrival on this side of the North Atlantic. There are three possible scenarios that could have led to its arrival on North Uist: Ship assistance, with the bird departing before the ship made landfall, and spending an unknown flight period between ship and shore. This would be consistent with its apparent condition. If it is assumed that the bird made an unaided crossing, then the most suitable weather prior to its discovery occurred on 5th and 6th November, when a fresh northwesterly airstream crossed the region. Prior to this, warm-sector southwesterlies had crossed the North Atlantic between North America and Iceland from 1st to 3rd November. It is possible that the dove had been displaced towards Iceland and subsequently reoriented in north- westerlies on 5th, associated with the clearer weather of a ridge of high pressure. This would bring it to the southeast and landfall in the Western Isles. If the bird made a direct crossing of the North Atlantic, it would probably have got caught up in the very strong warm southwest- erly winds over North America and departed no later than 30th October. This would see it arriving somewhere in western Scotland on the night of 2nd November, some 1 1 days before its discovery. Status in North America Mourning Dove is the most abundant and widespread dove in North America, breeding from southeast Alaska and southern Canada to central Panama and the West Indies. Northern populations are migratory within this range, some moving south as far as Panama, while small numbers regularly winter north to northern Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Occurrences within the Western Palearctic An emaciated first-winter Mourning Dove found in a Heligoland trap at the Calf of Man Bird Observatory on 31st October 1989 was the first record for the Western Palearctic (Sapsford 1996). Until recently, it also represented the first British record but, as the Isle of Man is a British Crown Dependency, it does not form part of Brian Rabbitts, 6 Carinish , Isle of North Uist HS6 5HL Great Britain and BOU no longer includes birds occurring there on the British List. Conse- quently, the North Uist Mourning Dove becomes the first British record. At the time of this observation, there had been just one other Western Palearctic record, a first-winter female collected (illegally) on Heimaey, Iceland, on 19th October 1995 (Petursson 1996). Subsequently, the first for Sweden was at Brannas, Soderman- land, on 3rd-llth June 2001, while the first for the Azores occurred on Corvo on 2nd November 2005 (Alfrey 2005). The North Uist bird remained the sole British record until last autumn, when another first-winter Mourning Dove appeared on North Uist, at Carnach on 1st November 2007 (plate 15). To add to the sense of history repeating itself, this bird was found just 4 km from Carinish, the site of the earlier record, and was also found by BR; it was present until 7th November, allowing more mainland birders to catch up with it than was the case in autumn 1999. Then, on 2nd November (the day after the Carnach bird’s discovery), as dusk was gathering on Inishbofin, a small island off the coast of Co. Galway, Anthony McGeehan came upon the first for Ireland: another first-winter, this individual was present until 15th November at least (plate 16). In addition to these Western Palearctic records, there are also records from Greenland. It is interesting to note that Mourning Dove was not one of the 38 species predicted by Robbins (1980) as the ‘most likely candidates for successful transatlantic crossing’. He did, however, include it in a wider list of 35 candi- date species, of which eight have now occurred in Britain & Ireland, reinforcing the unpre- dictability of vagrancy from North America. Acknowledgments Most of all thanks to Maire MacPhail, for without her phone call the Mourning Dove would have remained undiscovered. Thanks also to Norman Elkins for supplying details of the weather conditions prevailing over the North Atlantic before it was found. References Alfrey, R 2005. American vagrants on the Island of Corvo, Azores, in October 2005. Birding World 1 8: 465—474. Petursson, G. 1 996. Mourning Dove new to Iceland. Bliki 17:27-28. Robbins, C. S. 1 980. Predictions of future Nearctic landbird vagrants to Europe. Brit. Birds 73: 448-457. Sapsford, A. 1 996. Mourning Dove in the Isle of Man: new to the Western Palearctic. Brit Birds 89: 1 57- 161. 28 British Birds 101 ’January 2008 • 26-30 Mourning Dove on North Uist: new to Britain EDITORIAL COMMENT Colin Bradshaw, Chairman of the British Birds Rarities Com- mittee, commented: 'Birders have been waiting for another Mourning Dove ever since the Manx bird in 1989, and it was no surprise that it turned up in the Outer Hebrides, which have become Britain’s premier site for North Amer- ican vagrants in the last ten years. Peak numbers appear on passage in Nova Scotia in October so the dates of the records from Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man, in the period from late October to early November, all fit the expected pattern. There is little chance of misidentification if care is taken, although to distinguish between the numerous species of small doves from Australasia and Africa in cap- tivity, the identification should be based on a combination of size, the distinctive dark spot- ting on the tertials, scapulars and inner coverts and the long pointed tail.’ Bob McGowan, Chairman of the British Ornithologists’ Union Records Committee, commented: ‘Mourning Dove is resident over the greater part of North America, and the northernmost populations are migratory, some reaching the Atlantic seaboard in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, though autumn migration is generally towards the south or southwest. Principal flyways avoid significant water bodies and only 13 birds ringed in the USA have been recovered in Cuba, though in spring and autumn birds have been sighted in trans-Gulf migration. Accordingly, although Western Palearctic occurrences are few, there is a possi- bility of transatlantic vagrancy, given appro- priate weather conditions. ‘Such conditions prevailed in autumn 1999, as evidenced principally by the extraordinary influx of Nearctic waders to Scotland that fol- lowed a series of depressions over the Atlantic in September. While the arrival in North Uist of a North American Mourning Dove was cer- tainly a surprise, its occurrence towards the end of this particular influx of waders, in an appar- ently exhausted condition, was in accordance with natural vagrancy. ‘Identification as Mourning Dove was straightforward (since the description was sup- ported by good-quality photographs), but determination of the subspecific taxon of this first-winter bird was not possible, as plumage and size differences between the two most wide- Gary Jenkins Anthony McGeehan c Mourning Dove on North Uist: new to Britain J 1 6. First-winter Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura, Inishbofin, Co. Galway, November 2007. spread subspecies are slight, even in adults. ‘The Committee was reassured on vagrancy potential by the precedent, ten years earlier, of the Isle of Man record. The highly emaciated condition of that bird, also a first-winter, was strongly indicative of unassisted passage by an autumn migrant; and there are other recent autumn records from Iceland and the Azores (see above). Further enquiry has revealed the existence of a few breeders of Mourning Dove in Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium and, possibly, France. Nevertheless, it is extremely rare in collections in Europe, known to have bred on only a handful of occasions, and has a very low potential for escape. Its close congener Socorro Dove Zenaida graysoni is more com- monly bred in captivity but has not, to our knowledge, been recorded as an escape. In any regard, because of the North Uist locality, genuine vagrancy must outweigh the possibility of escape. The bird’s age and the near concur- rence with a significant Nearctic wader influx are, therefore, indicative of natural vagrancy. ‘With such strong supporting evidence pointing to a natural occurrence, it was accepted as being of wild origin and was added to Category A of the British List.’ Looking back One hundred years ago: ‘YELLOW-BREASTED OR WILLOW-BUNTING ( Emberiza aureola Pallas) IN NORFOLK. An immature female of the above species was shot by Patrick Cringle, a son of one of Lord Leicester’s watchers, on the Cabbage Creek Marsh, near Wells, Norfolk, on 5th Sep- tember, 1907. I saw the bird in the flesh the same day with Mr. Alec. J. Napier, of Holkham. The latter for- warded it for preservation to Mr. T. E. Gunn, the taxi- dermist, of Norwich, who identified it — and his identification was confirmed, I believe, at the meeting of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society, on 28th October, 1907, by Mr. J. H. Gurney and Mr. Southwell... F. G. Penrose’ (Brit. Birds 1: 263, January 1908) British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 26—30 30 A paper from the British Ornithologists’ Union Records Committee Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? Tim Melling ABSTRACT In April 1908, a dark-morph Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta was reportedly found dead in Cheshire. The record was accepted by BOURC for more than 60 years but was removed from the British List in 1971 because the species was considered to be relatively sedentary in the South Pacific. More recent work has shown that Kermadec Petrel wanders widely in the Pacific and that it may have been recorded in the Atlantic. Since the original reasons for rejection were no longer valid, BOURC decided to review the record. The Committee concluded that it was not impossible for a Kermadec Petrel to occur in British waters but the circumstances surrounding this record made it unlikely to have been a genuine vagrant. Moreover, a commercial taxidermist involved with the record made substantial financial gains from the specimen. Such circumstances are frequently associated with fraud. The Tarporley record On 1st April 1908, a dark-morph Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta was reportedly found dead under a tree near Tarporley, Cheshire, by ‘a man who attends the weekly market in Chester’ (Newstead 8c Coward 1908). The bird was taken to Arthur Newstead, a Chester-based taxider- mist, on Saturday 4th April 1908; it was pur- chased by him the following day and he subsequently preserved the specimen. Although Saturday was market day in Chester, and we know that the finder attended the weekly market, there is no evidence that Newstead bought the bird at the market. At that point, the bird’s identity had not been fully established. Arthur Newstead con- tacted his brother Prof. Robert Newstead the next day, 5th April; Robert saw the bird in the flesh and took measurements that same evening. It was skinned and prepared the fol- lowing morning by Arthur Newstead. On 8th April, Robert Newstead, a former curator of the Grosvenor Museum, Chester, compared the specimen with material in Liverpool Museum; he tentatively concluded that it was a Kermadec Petrel (known at the time as SchlegeTs Petrel Oestrelata neglecta). T. A. Coward was contacted by Robert Newstead for a second opinion and Coward saw the freshly mounted specimen (but clearly not the spread upperwing and under- wing) on 14th April; he agreed that it was a Ker- madec Petrel. The identification was later verified at the British Museum (Natural History; BMNH) by Dr R. Bowdler Sharpe and Mr F. du Cane Godman, and the specimen was exhibited at meetings of the Zoological Society (12th May 1908; Coward 1908) and the British Ornitholo- gists’ Club (BOC, 20th May 1908; Oldham 1908). Robert Newstead and Coward published the record in BB, complete with a photograph of the mounted specimen by a third Newstead brother, Alfred (Newstead & Coward 1908; plate 17). Coward later arranged for the purchase of the specimen for the Grosvenor Museum, where it still remains today (plates 18 & 19). T. Iredale, who had studied the species on its breeding grounds, later questioned the identification and © British Birds 101 • January 2008 * 31-38 31 c Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? > 17. TheTarporley Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta; this photograph appeared in British Birds in 1 908 (Newstead & Coward 1 908). The bird has been mounted standing up, an uncharacteristic position for a petrel. suggested that it was far more likely to be the very similar species now known as Trindade Petrel P. arminjoniana (Iredale 1914) [note that, for the purposes of this paper, Trindade Petrel and Herald Petrel Pterodroma heraldica are con- sidered separate species]. However, the speci- men was reassessed by W. R. Ogilvie-Grant of the BMNH, reconfirmed as Kermadec Petrel, and exhibited as such at a BOC meeting in March 1914 (Ogilvie-Grant 1914). The record was included by Hartert et al. (1912), and formally accepted in A List of British Birds (2nd edn, BOU 1915). The reputa- tion and involvement of both Robert Newstead and Coward undoubtedly helped to establish the record’s credentials. Kermadec Petrel remained on the British List for more than 60 years, but was removed following review in 1971 (BOU 1971). A record of Gould’s Petrel P. brevipes from Cardiganshire in 1889 was removed from the British List at the same time because its origin seemed inadequately proven (P. brevipes was then treated as a subspecies of Collared Petrel P. leucoptera, although it is now generally considered as a separate species, e.g. Gill & Wright 2006, Onley 8t Schofield 2007). In 1971, BOURC concluded that Kermadec Petrel was relatively sedentary and had not been unquestionably recorded beyond the Pacific. The Committee was also concerned about the lack of details over the discovery of this extraor- dinary record. The circumstances of the discovery Tarporley is about 13 km southeast of Chester, 20 km from the nearest estuary and almost 40 km from the open coast. The corpse was apparendy quite fresh when found, but the slightly shrunken eyes suggested that it had been there a day or two; there were no signs of it having been in captivity. The bird was full-grown and, upon dissection, was found to be a male; the stomach was empty', which is a common feature of storm-driven birds. The weather conditions at the time also appeared to support natural occurrence. According to a contemporary' newspaper article written bv Coward: ‘For a few day's before, the wind had been blowing with considerable force from the west and I have no doubt the bird had been driven across the 60 miles [96 km] from Cardigan Bay before it realised it was out of its element. It may, of course, have come up the Dee estuary' and crossed the shorter stretch of land as it attempted to battle against a sidewind.’ Between 25th and 31st March 1908, the wind direction was between NNW and SSW, and on 31st the wind speed in Manchester wTas 21 mph [34 kph] (New'stead 8c Coward 1908). A number of errors have crept into subse- quent accounts of this bird (including the sup- position that the bird was bought at the Chester market, the bird’s moribund state when found and confusion over the roles of the three New- stead brothers - e.g. Evans 1994, Palmer 2000, Watola 2004) and this paper seeks to present a true record of events. Kermadec Petrel There are two subspecies of Kermadec Petrel, juana and neglecta , w'hich differ only' in size. The nominate form neglecta breeds on a number of islands in the South Pacific (Lord How'e Island, Austral Pitcairn Islands and the Kermadec Islands), w'hile the larger juana 32 British Birds 101 ‘January 2008 • 31-38 Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? breeds on Juan Fernandez, San Ambrosio and San Felix Island, off the coast of Chile, but also in the South Pacific. There is a small outlying population in the southwest Indian Ocean on Round Island (Brooke et al. 2000). Outside the breeding season, the species wanders beyond the equator to 39°N in the central Pacific and to 42°N in the western Pacific ( contra Bannerman & Lodge 1959), although some birds remain around the Kermadec Islands throughout the year (Davies et al. 1991) and the species is a vagrant to New Zealand and eastern Australia. Kermadec Petrel is polymorphic, with light, dark and intermediate phases. Davies et al. (1991) found that, on Raoul Island, 17% were light morph, 37% dark and 46% intermediate, while the figures for Meyer Island were 9%, 13% and 78% respectively. The dark phase of Kermadec Petrel is confusable with Trindade Petrel, which is also polymorphic (and treated here as a full species); hybridisation between Kermadec and Trindade Petrels is thought to occur on Round Island (Richard Dale pers. comm.). Kermadec Petrels are iden- tifiable by the prominent pale primary shafts on the upperwing (e.g. Onley and Schofield 2007), of which the basal third at least is always white. Adult Trindade Petrels usually have dark primary shafts; these are sometimes pale at the base, although the pale area is never as extensive as on Kermadec Petrel (Brinkley & Patteson 1998). Apparent hybrids have horn- coloured primary shafts, with any white restricted to the very base of the feathers (Richard Dale pers. comm.). Plates 20-22 show the primary-shaft coloration of a Ker- madec Petrel, Trindade Petrel, and a presumed hybrid respectively. In 1908, the population of Ker- madec Petrels on Raoul Island (then known as Sunday Island) was esti- mated at 500,000 individuals (Iredale 1914). The Raoul population is now almost extinct, owing to predation by introduced domestic cats and rats, and harvesting by humans (Merton 1970). The total world population of Kermadec Petrel is now estimated to be 5,000-10,000 pairs (Davies et al. 1991). The BOURC review The recent review of the Tarporley record was prompted by Imber (2004), who suggested the existence of a small breeding population in the South Atlantic and that three dark-phase speci- mens collected at Ilha da Trinidade, off Brazil (two on 8th April 1913 and one on 28th December 1975), had previously been over- looked in collections as Trindade Petrel. They were reidentified by Imber as Kermadec by the white primary shafts, although Tove (2005) sug- gested that Trindade could also show white primary shafts. A sound recording of an apparent Kermadec Petrel had also been made on Ilha de Trinidade (da Silva 1995), although no sonogram was available for analysis (Tove 2005). Imber also gave details of five extralim- ital records of Kermadec in the North Atlantic: the Tarporley bird; one filmed at Hawk Moun- tain, Pennsylvania, during a cyclone on 3rd October 1959 (Heintzelman 1961); and three records of dark-phase birds off North Carolina. These last three records comprised sightings on 18 & 19. The Tarporley Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta has been remounted since the photograph in Newstead & Coward (1908) and the angle of the head has been altered, but otherwise the specimen is unchanged. Plate 19 shows the pale primary shafts with obvious white at the base. British Birds 101 - January 2008 - 31-38 33 Tim Melling Tim Melling Richard Dale Katrina Cook © Natural History Museum, Tring Vikash Tatayah Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? > 22. Presumed hybrid Kermadec Pterodroma neglecta xTrindade Petrel R arminjoniana showing horn-coloured primary shafts; Round Island, 2007. 29th May 1994, 25th May 2001 and 26th May 2002, the most recent two being photographed (Brinkley 1996; www.patteson.com). The two photographed records were only tentatively identified by Imber as Kermadec Petrels. Trindade Petrels are rare but regular visitors to the deep waters off Cape Hatteras, North Car- olina, but these two birds had been identified as Identification The Tarporley specimen was examined by the author in July 2007. It does conform to dark- phase Kermadec Petrel of the nominate subspecies neglecta ; and a combination of biomet- rics and plumage characters rules out all other possibilities. In terms of biometrics, Trindade Petrel would have a j longer tail and shorter toes than the Tarporley bird (see table 1). The extensive and con- spicuous white primary shafts (see plate 19) also confirm the identification as Kermadec; i unfortunately, as the specimen is rigidly mounted, it was not possible to examine the underwing pattern. The measurements made by Robert Newstead on 5th April 1908, before the specimen was mounted, gave the wing length as 11.1” (282 mm), which is too short for a male possible Kermadec Petrels because they appeared to show some degree of white on the upperwing primary shafts (Pat- teson & Brinkley 2004). The Pennsylvania record, though originally accepted, was later rejected by both the American Birding Association (ABA 2002) and the AOU (AOU 2004). Tove (2005) considered all of these North Atlantic records of Kermadec Petrel questionable, including the 1994 bird, which he had seen himself and which he main- tained was a Trindade Petrel. Kermadec Petrel was removed from the British List partly because the species was thought to be relatively seden- tary in the South Pacific (BOU 1971). The subsequent infor- mation that showed it to be more dispersive and wide- ranging, wandering regularly into the northern Pacific (e.g. Davies et al. 1991) and possibly into the North Atlantic (Imber 2004), prompted BOURC to review the record. 20. Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta, showing typically strikingly pale primary shafts; Round Island, 2007. 2 1 . Trindade Petrel Pterodroma arminjoniana, showing dark primary shafts, with a small amount of whitish at the very base of the feathers. British Birds 101 'January 2008 • 31-38 34 Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? Table I. Biometrics (with range and sample size) of theTarporley petrel and museum specimens of male Kermadec Pterodroma neglecta and maleTrindade Petrels P. arminjoniana. Measurements of the Tarporley petrel by Robert Newstead and T. A. Coward; Kermadec Petrels from (Davies et al. 1991); Trindade Petrels from specimens at the British Museum (Natural History) by Katrina Cook. All measurements in mm. Tarporley P. neglecta (Kermadec Islands) P. n. juana (Juan Fernandez Island) P. arminjoniana Wing length 282 287.4 (276-296, n=9) 298.9 (290-307, n=49) 285.6 (280-292, n=5) Tail length 102 102.2 (98-106, n=9) 105.8 (102-113.3, n=49) 117.2 (106-124, n=5) Tarsus 38 39.4 (37.5—41.2, n=8) 40.3 (38.6-41.8, n=49) 36.0 (34-38, n=5) Toe 53 53.1 (50.5-57, n=5) 53.8 (51.4-56.1, n=49) 46.2 (44-48, n=5) BUI 30 30.1 (28.9-32.6, n=10) 30.5 (29.2-32.5, n=49) 29.0 (28-30, n=5) of the larger subspecies juana. The tail length of 4” (= 102 mm) would be at the lower limit for male juana , but in the middle of the range for neglecta. The tarsus and toe measurements also fit neglecta better, whereas bill length is consis- tent with either subspecies. Timing of the record The April date seems at first unusual as it coin- cides with the species’ breeding season. Ker- madec Petrels have a protracted breeding season, laying their single egg between October and February. A typically long period of incu- bation and fledging follows (some 50-52 days of incubation, 110-130 days to fledging; Davies et al. 1991). Post-breeding adults leave Lord Howe Island and Raoul Island between April and June; those from Meyer Island depart somewhat later, from July to October. A late March or early April arrival in Britain thus seems highly unlikely for a breeding bird; the distance by sea from the Kermadec Islands to Cheshire is around 25,000 km via the tip of South America and 22,000 km via the tip of South Africa, while that from Round Island is nearly 16,000 km. The period of greatest abun- dance in the North Pacific was November to January (Gould & King 1967), presumably mainly from the later-nesting populations on Meyer Island. The three possible records of Ker- madec Petrel off North Carolina (see above) were all in late May, while that from Pennsyl- vania was in early October. It is of course pos- sible that a failed breeder could wander north earlier, while full-grown but sexually immature seabirds could potentially turn up at any time. Additional details A closer look at the events surrounding the Tar- porley record reveals various suggestive details. Newstead & Coward (1908) stated simply that the finder regularly attended the weekly market in Chester. However, a contemporary news- paper article by Coward refers to the finder as a farmer, adding that the bird was found in a field; Coward 8c Oldham (1910) confirmed these details. A farmer in rural Cheshire would be unlikely to be familiar with British seabirds and consequently unlikely to realise that this bird would have any more monetary value than (say) a Leach’s Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leu- corhoa or Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus. The price that Arthur Newstead paid for the bird is unknown, but is unlikely to have been a large amount. A letter from Robert Newstead to Coward on 12th April 1908 says: ‘I should have asked you earlier (about) this find but my brother was anxious to secure the bird before anything was done in the matter.’ This state- ment seems odd because Arthur had already bought the bird by the time Robert saw it, yet Robert wrote to Coward apologising for the delay a full week later. Perhaps the finder may have taken the bird to Arthur to have the speci- men prepared (since Newstead was a taxider- mist) rather than to sell it; this might explain Arthur’s initial anxiety, particularly if he realised the potential worth of the specimen. However, Arthur Newstead remained strangely reticent about the bird, even when he owned it. A postscript to the 12th April letter from Robert Newstead to Coward states: 'PS No one else in Chester but my brothers and myself know of the record; and my brother Arthur is anxious that the matter shall rest with you and me for the present.’ Could this reluctance be explained by Arthur suspecting or knowing that the record was fraudulent, and his concern over possible exposure? Arthur Newstead was clearly aware of the British Birds 101 'January 2008 * 31-38 35 c Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? > monetary value of his specimen. Another letter from Robert Newstead to Coward, dated 13th May 1909, says: ‘Had the bird been in the pos- session of anyone but my own relatives it could have found its permanent resting place in Chester Museum. My brother Arthur looks upon the bird as so much capital and he is determined to sell and not to give.’ A reply from Coward to Robert Newstead on 14th May 1909 states: ‘If the committee will raise £2.10.0, 1 feel fairly certain that I can raise the other £2.10.0. 1 am not a rich man, but I would rather give £1 myself than let it go...’ The dates show that Arthur held onto his specimen for at least 13 months until the requisite fee - the specimen was eventually purchased for £5 - was raised. Eventually the specimen was purchased by subscription for the Grosvenor Museum, where it remains today (CHEGM 1908,7175). Note that although the specimen was purchased in 1909, the registration process used the date of collection in the accession number. Correspon- dence from Coward to Robert Newstead on 14th May 1909 shows that both Coward and Charles Oldham (who exhibited the specimen at the BOC meeting in May 1908) were intending to pay £1 each, while Robert New- stead had agreed to pay 10 shillings. It is not known how much they eventually paid, but the remaining sum was supplied by eleven sub- scribers: A. W. Boyd, S. G. Cummings, J. Lyon- Dennison, W. H. Dobie, T. Hadfield, G. R Miln, F. Nicholson, W. Shone, A. O. Walker, Alfred Newstead plus Arthur Newstead, who is also listed among those benefactors who subscribed for its purchase for the museum. Using the average earnings index, £5 in 1909 was equivalent to around £1,820 in 2005, which gives some idea of the significance of the fee paid to Arthur Newstead. Moreover, Robert Newstead claimed (in a letter to Coward on 13th May) that ‘I ran the whole of the Natural History department [at Grosvenor Museum] on an annual expenditure of £20 — it was often less!’ Was the Tarporley record a fraud? Both Coward and Robert Newstead had excel- lent reputations and there is no reason to suspect that they would have been involved in any fraud. Coward was an acknowledged expert on birds. By 1908, he had already published The Birds of Cheshire (1900) with Charles Oldham, and was working on the landmark ‘Wayside and Woodland’ series The Birds of the British Isles and their Eggs (Coward 1920). Robert Newstead was curator of the Chester (Grosvenor) Museum from 1886 until 1905, and maintained links with the museum thereafter. He held a Fel- lowship of the Royal Society and was also a Chester City Magistrate from 1913 to 1946. It is less easy to be confident that either Arthur Newstead or the unnamed finder were not involved in fraud, as both profited from the specimen. Arthur was fully aware that it had great value, while the small delay between Arthur first seeing and subsequently buying the specimen might suggest that the finder was also aware that it was valuable. There seems to have been no concern about fraud at the time. Even though Robert New- stead and his friend Coward might have been reluctant to consider Arthur Newstead’s involvement as suspicious, it seems unlikely that they would have been willing to pay such a high price for a bird that had not arrived here in natural circumstances. Nevertheless, the account of the finding circumstances - the bird being found in a field by a farmer - came entirely from Arthur Newstead, and there was no independent corroboration. Coward later expressed a general concern over fraudulent records: ‘Greedy collectors, by no means an extinct class, have only themselves to thank for much of the fraud which surrounds the “iden- tity” of species’ (Coward 1922), although, by arranging to pay such a high price for this specimen for the museum. Coward may have fuelled the trade that he later criticised. At the time, there were already two Pterodroma petrels on the British List (as noted above, the 1889 Gould’s Petrel was subsequently removed, although the record of Black-capped Petrel P. hasitata from Norfolk in 1850 still remains), so ; the occurrence of a third species would not have seemed implausible to both Coward and Robert Newstead. The bird was found under a tree in a field, the implication being that it had flown into the tree. This in itself would be extremely unusual and indeed no physical evidence of collision ' injuries, such as damage to the bill or broken bones, was reported. Records of unusual seabirds inland in Britain are rare, but not unprecedented. The first two records of Black- browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris were I both found inland, and alive - in Cam- bridgeshire in 1897 ( Ibis 1897: 625) and in Der- British Birds 101* January 2008 • 3 I -38 36 Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? byshire in 1952 {Brit. Birds 46: 110-111, 307-310); a Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens appeared in a field in Shropshire in 2005 (Eaton et al. 2005); while Cory’s Calonec- tris diotnedea. Great Puffinus gravis and North Atlantic Little Shearwaters P. baroli have all turned up alive at inland sites, records of the last-named species including one in Cheshire (Brit. Birds 51: 354-355; 53: 158). In addition, within the past year there has been the remark- able saga of the overland Yellow-nosed Albatross T. chlororhynchos , with records in Derbyshire and inland Lincolnshire (see Brit. Birds 100: 512-513). Elsewhere in Europe there are even more unlikely records, such as the Madeiran Petrel Oceanodroma castro found on a frozen lake in Finland in 1993 (Birding World 6: 65). Seabirds can travel enormous distances and rare seabirds can turn up almost anywhere; consider, for example, the Long-billed Brachyramphus perdix and Ancient Murrelets Synthliboramphus antiquus and Aleutian Tern Onychoprion aleutica that have all appeared in Britain. Nonetheless, Kermadec Petrel is excep- tionally rare in the Atlantic. Only three speci- mens exist (from Ilha da Trindade; see above), and the identity of these has been called into question (Tove 2005). None of the North Atlantic records can be regarded as certain, although in the author’s opinion, the Pennsyl- vanian record does appear to be Kermadec Petrel. It is conceivable that the specimen arrived in Britain by ship. By 1908, there was known trans- portation of frozen specimens to Britain from the southern hemisphere. For example, two Wilson’s Storm-petrels Oceanites oceanicus of the most southerly race exasperatus were labelled in Rothschild’s collection as bought frozen from Leadenhall Market on 2nd March 1905 (Brit. Birds 56: 33-38). If stored appropri- ately on the journey, such specimens would have the appearance of freshly obtained birds. The port of Chester was receiving only occasional vessels at this time (three ships in 1907; P. Lynch pers. comm.). However, ports were operational on both sides of the Mersey, and at Salford with the opening of the newly constructed Man- chester Ship Canal. Any of these ports could conceivably have been the entry point. Ideally, when assessing a potential first for Britain, BOURC wishes to know exactly who found the specimen. However, we have to accept that many nineteenth- and early twen- tieth-century published reports of rare birds made no reference to the actual finders. These were not infrequently manual labourers, who were unlikely to write up and publish such notes themselves. BOURC voted to uphold the rejection of this record in the light of the new information (BOLIRC in prep.). Members agreed that the arrival of a Kermadec Petrel inland in Britain would be possible, but extremely unlikely. The fact that a Manx Shear- water ringed in Britain was recorded in Aus- tralia shows that seabirds of this size are potentially capable of making such a journey (Kinsky & Fowler 1973). However, the prov- enance and the involvement of Arthur New- stead, a professional taxidermist who brought the record to light and clearly sought to profit from the bird, combine to raise significant doubt that this bird was a genuine vagrant. BOURC concluded that the record was not suf- ficiently robust to stand as the sole occurrence for Britain and the Western Palearctic. Acknowledgments Both current and past members of BOURC have contributed to the assessment of this record: Colin Bradshaw, Martin Collinson, Andrew Harrop, Andrew Lassey, Ian Lewington, Bob McGowan, Eric Meek, Richard Millington, Tony Prater and Steve Votier Andrew Harrop and Bob McGowan have commented extensively on early drafts of this paper while Ken Spencer's input is gratefully acknowledged. Richard Dale provided much useful discussion and photographs of Kermadec and Trindade Petrels, and their hybrids. Ian Dawson provided helpful references. The Alexander Library in Oxford supplied correspondence from T A. Coward's archive. Katrina Cook (Natural History Museum, Tring) measured skins and provided photographs of Pterodroma petrels. The National Museums of Scotland permitted access to the skin collections to help confirm the identification. Kate Riddington at Grosvenor Museum, Chester, provided access to the Tarporley specimen and supplied much information on the Newstead brothers, including correspondence between Robert Newstead and T. A. Coward. Pam Lynch, Heritage Officer, Chester City Council, provided information on Chester Port, Chester Markets and Arthur Newstead. W. R. R Bourne contributed helpful comment on this record prior to reassessment by BOURC. References American Birding Association (ABA). 2002. ABA Checklist birds of the continental United States and Canada. 6th edn.ABA, Colorado Springs. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2004. Forty-fifth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 121: 985-995. Bannerman, D. A., & Lodge, G. 1 959. The Birds of the British Is/es.V ol. 8. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. Brinkley E. S. 1996. Seabird: 358.Trinidade/Herald Petrel discussion, parts I and 2, distributed by seabird@uct.ac.za British Birds 101 ‘January 2008 • 31-38 37 Richard Dale c Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? > — & Patteson, B. 1 998. Gadfly Petrels of the Western North Atlantic. Birding World I 1 : 34 1 -354. British Ornithologists’ Union (BOU). 1 9 1 5. A List of British Birds. 2nd edn. BOU, London. — 1971. Records Committee: Fifth Report. Ibis I 1 3: 142-145. Brooke, M. de L., Imber M.J., & Rowe. G. 2000. Occurrence of two surface-breeding Pterodroma on Round Island, Indian Ocean, Ibis 142: 154-158. Coward, T. A. 1 908. Proc. Zool. Sac. Load. Part 2: 433. [no title] — 1920. The Birds of the British Isles and their Eggs.Warne, London. — 1 922. Bird Haunts and Nature Memories. Warne, London. — & Oldham, C. 1 900. The Birds of Cheshire. Sherratt & Hughes, Manchester — & — 1910. The Mammals and Birds of Cheshire.V ol. I of The Vertebrate Fauna of Cheshire and Liverpool Bay (ed.TA. Coward). Witherby, London. da Silva, G. L. 1 995.'Aspectos da biologia reproductia de Pterodroma arminjoniana na llha daTrindade, Atlantico Sul.’ Unpublished MSc dissertation. University of Rio de Janeiro. Davies, J. N„ Marchant, S., & Higgins, RJ. (eds.) 1991. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol. I: Ratites to Ducks. OUR Melbourne. Eaton, M., Bradbury, R„ & Bowden, C. 2005.The Magnificent Frigatebird in Shropshire. Birding World 18: 479^*8 1 . Evans, L. G. R. 1 994. Rare Birds in Britain 1 800-1990. Privately published. Gill, F„ & Wright, M. 2006. Birds of the World: recommended English names. Helm. London. Gould, RJ„ & King, W. B. 1 967. Records of four species of Pterodroma from the Central Pacific Ocean. Auk 84: 591-594. Hartert, E„ Jourdain, F. C. FL.Ticehurst, N. F„ & Witherby, H. F. 1 9 1 2. A Hand-list of British Birds. Witherby, London. Heintzelman, D. S. 1961. Kermadec Petrel in Pennsylvania Wilson Bull. 73: 262-267. Imber M.J. 2004. Kermadec Petrels ( Pterodroma neglecta ) at llha daTrindade, South Atlantic Ocean and in the North Atlantic. Notorms 5 1 : 33-40. Iredale.T. 1 9 1 4.The surface-breeding petrels of the Kermadec group. Ibis ( 1 0) 2: 423—436. Kinsky, F. C., & Fowler, J. A. 1 973. British-ringed Manx Shearwater in Australia Brit Birds 55: 86-87. Merton, D.V. 1 970. Kermadec Islands expedition reports: a general account of bird life. Notornis 17: 147-199. Newstead, R., & Coward,! A. 1 908. On the occurrence of Schlegel’s Petrel ( Oestrelata neglecta ) in Cheshire. A new British and European bird. Brit Birds 2: 14-17. Ogilvie-Grant, W. FC 1914. Bull. Brit Orn. Club 33: 1 24. [no title] Oldham, C. 1 908. Exhibition of a specimen of Schlegel’s Petrel ( CEstrelata neglecta ) from Tarporley, Cheshire. Bull. Brit Orn. Club 21: 101. Onley, D„ & Schofield, R 2007. Albatrosses. Petrels and Shearwaters of the World. Helm, London. Palmer, R 2000. First for Britain and Ireland 1 600- 1 999. Arlequin Press, Chelmsford. Patteson, B„ & Brinkley, E. S. 2004. A petrel primer: the gadflies of North Carolina. Birding December 2004: 586-596. Tove, M. H. 2005. Kermadec Petrel (Pterodroma neglecta ) in the Atlantic Ocean - a rebuttal. Notornis 52: 56-58. Watola, G. 2004. Do Kermadec Petrels occur in British waters? Birding World 1 7: 240-24 1 . Tim Melling, RSPB, Westleigh Mews, Wakefield Road, Denby Dale, West Yorkshire HD8 8QD ' ^Rw/oclec (Lbe,l - /J.uJtj u AewMclctk flukiC m ca ex A-ic.. rtu©. C fig U/Vwlwlof V£{ jfcif faweii, -c b *Vi) tjHAlUA ( Vj whive q&h kaw hd&v \WA-OA. tW , Mp/wlvt filfiuU k/i ib, Join. JGAAut&s avj UttifftiWl cx<6v ikxtloj CiaaJ Avc/.) jb jOfc(f (WJ0UUU\0 M* / CLa CLa\ Ov'Wvrcu j ' i c^t tv , fiiA 'fere-vJ Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta. Round Island, 2007. 38 British Birds 101 ‘January 2008 • 31-38 Optimising digital images Digital photography has opened up a whole new world for many birders, while for seasoned bird photographers too the advantages have been enormous. Now that the interlude of days or weeks while images are processed has been consigned to history, the facility to see immedi- ately whether you have a ‘keeper’ or need to try again has encour- aged more and more of us to experiment and take pictures of the birds we see. This short article has been prompted by my involvement with the judging of the British Birds Bird Pho- tographer of the Year competition, still the most prestigious com- petition bird photogra- phers can win in Britain. Each year we see a few entries that could have been vastly improved by a little judicious cropping or better understanding of how to process a digital image on the computer. 1 hope that the following notes will help those entrants to the competition who need some guidance and, in particular, encourage digiscopers to enter. I hope too that the information will be helpful to the thousands of birders who are now leaving home with a digital camera as part of their basic birding kit. Once the shutter has been pressed, most images can be substantially improved by photo- editing software. Just about all compact cameras come with basic software, while if you are a DSLR (digital single lens reflex) user, it is likely that you are using Photoshop or another similar 23 & 24. This image of the long-staying Little Crake Porzana parva on Unst, Shetland, in June 2007 was quite tricky to achieve. When the bird did appear, it was often on the move and little time was available for composing the picture, so I rattled off lots of shots with the inevitable result that the bird was in the middle of the frame. I have cropped the photograph to put emphasis on the bird and help remove a lot of the extraneous background that took attention away from the bird. | © British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 39-42 39 David Tipling David Tipling David Tipling David Tipling David Tipling Optimising digital images c :> software package. Whatever software you use, the tools and the principles of what you are attempting to achieve — to improve the look and quality of the image - are the same. Below 1 have set out a few simple steps which should help those new to the digital arena. All photo- editing applications, whether they be Photoshop Elements that is commonly shipped with cameras or other makes, will have tools to do what 1 describe. If you use advanced image- editing software such as the full version of Photoshop, and if you shoot your pictures in the RAW format, then the chances are you will do most of the adjustments 1 describe below in what is known as a 'RAW converter’ before converting your image to a TIFF for a few final fine adjustments. The processes below are applicable to the tools in a RAW converter but are tailored more in favour of those who shoot in the IPEG format and import their JPEG images straight into their photo-editing software. Cropping The first job is to decide whether your picture would benefit from cropping, and most pictures will. Cropping the image will allow the bird to appear bigger in the picture, while a careful crop, bearing in mind the subject’s placement, will lead to a better composition. Many photog- raphers rely on their middle autofocus sensor in the viewfinder to focus on the bird, which will invariably lead to the bird being in the centre of the frame. It is desirable to avoid this if a pleasing composition is sought, although for a variety of reasons this is often not possible. 25-27. This beautiful male Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator photographed in Lapland in March would often perch on this pine tree. Because it is quite small in the frame, I have plenty of potential to crop the photo in a variety of ways, even making it into a vertical picture. It is often desirable to have your bird looking into space, so I have left more room on the side the bird is facing; you can experiment to see the difference this creates over the feel of the picture. 40 British Birds 101* January 2008 • 39—42 Optimising digital images c } Exposure and contrast The use of exposure and contrast tools can really make a significant difference to your image. I would suggest avoiding the automatic tools that do the adjustments required at the click of a mouse. These can sometimes offer a perfect fix but more often do too little, too much or alter the colours of the image. It is best to use the contrast and brightness sliders and alter the image to your taste. This is quite a crude way of doing it and you may wish to be far more precise with your adjustment. If using Photoshop Elements or more advanced photo- editing software, you can use a tool known as ‘Levels’; this offers much more subtle control. The chart in Levels is a histogram which maps the brightness values across the image. The lightest pixels are plotted on the right, the darkest on the left. On a well-exposed image, the range of pixels will stretch across the graph; bunching on the left or right will occur only if the image is of a pre- dominantly dark or light scene. If there is a gap between the right-hand or left-hand edge of the plotted pixels and the sides of the graph, dragging the sliders to the start of the pixels at either end will help to make the lightest pixels lighter and the darkest pixels darker. The slider in the middle con- trols the mid tones and by moving this you can increase or decrease con- trast, which can make a big difference. By increasing contrast in mid tones you can often help to make a bird stand out more from its background. If your picture has been taken on a dull day, this control will help to lift the image, transforming what might be a flat-looking picture and giving it some oomph’! Colour problems In the old days of film you might have some- times wondered why the colours of your prints didn’t seem quite right. Digital images can suffer colour problems too. These may be down to the white-balance setting on your camera or to the light casting a warm glow; or perhaps your images look too washed out. The Hue/Sat- uration filter can help and as with all the other filters, you will need to experiment to find the finish you like. Sharpening Sharpening your image is best done last and this again is very much down to judgement, looking at the screen to see how you are 28 & 29. This image of Pink-footed Geese Anser brachyrhynchu s was slightly underexposed (plate 28), so I used the Levels tool to lighten it (plate 29). I could have used the Brightness and Contrast tool to do the same thing but with less finesse. British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 39—42 41 David Tipting David Tipling David Tipling David Tipling Optimising digital images c > setting is low, only those pixels closest to the edge will be sharpened; I tend to have the Radius set at 1.8 and never higher than 2.0. Finally, the Threshold setting determines how far different pixels must be from the surrounding area before they are con- sidered to be edge pixels and therefore sharpened. I nor- mally leave the 30 & 3 I . This photograph of a Blackbird Turdus merula was taken in my garden early one frosty morning.The light was very flat, so I used the crude but nonetheless effective Brightness and Contrast tool to give the image much more punch (plate 3 I ). affecting the image. Sharpening creates increased contrast along light and dark borders. Many programs offer auto sharpening to various levels, but these can be unsatisfactory and if your editing software has it, I would suggest using the Unsharp Mask filter. This has a percentage slider; as a rule of thumb most images will need sharpening between 75 to 180%. The second slider down is the Radius and this determines the number of pixels either side of the line of contrast (the edge) that will be affected by your adjustment. If the Radius David Tipling Quietways, 9 Eccles Road, Holt, Norfolk NR25 6HJ setting at 0 as every- thing then gets a little sharpening. However, if your image was captured at a high ISO setting, for example in excess of 400 ISO, and it shows some noise (like grain effect in film), you can increase the Threshold setting when you sharpen to help prevent the noise becoming too obvious. Be wary of over-sharpening; if you start to see halos appearing around the edges of your bird, you know that you have gone way too far. The above steps are a very basic introduction to dealing with digital images. All these controls rely on the photographer using their judgement as to what looks good to them on the screen or, ultimately, on a print. One final point to remember is that, when working with digital images, there is always more than one way to achieve the same result; for example, the Levels tool or Brightness and Contrast controls can be used to achieve the same effect. 42 British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 39-42 Reviews COLLINS FIELD GUIDE - BIRDS OF THE PALEARCTIC: PASSERINES By Norman Arlott. HarperCollins, London, 2007. 240 pages; 80 colour plates; numerous distribution maps. ISBN 978-0-00-714705-2. Hardback, £25.00. This is the first guide to attempt to cover the whole Palearctic region and it was with some excitement hat I awaited my review copy. After a brief introduction and short sections on the geographic area and species covered, nomen- clature, identification and bird topography comes the real sub- stance of the book - 80 colour plates with relevant texts facing each species. Distribution maps occupy the remaining 48 pages. There is still much debate over the southern boundary of the Palearctic region and in this book the author follows the boundary adopted by Beaman, thus including the whole of Arabia. I found the inclusion of all American vagrants a little odd, especially as some of this space could have been utilised more usefully to give further details on some eastern species for which there is currently little available information in field-guide format. The approach to taxonomy is very conservative. Despite the author’s claim that most major subspecies are illustrated, there is, for example, no mention of races of Subalpine Warbler Sylvia cantil- lans or Orphean Warbler S. hort- ensis, even though the latter is now generally recognised as comprising two different species. On the flip side, however, the wagtail plates usefully illustrate the head and upper bodies of males of ten sub- species of flava and eight sub- species of alba wagtail. The plates are inevitably a little crowded and are limited to adult plumages only. They are of variable quality but many of them are very good. I particularly enjoyed drooling over the chats and thrushes (Turdidae) but was disap- pointed by the Phylloscopus war- blers. Sadly, I suspect that the author has been let down by the colour reproduction in places. The text is quite limited and comprises short sections on field notes, song/call and habitat. The field-notes section is particularly disappointing and really lets the book down. Although space is tight, many texts will offer little or no help in trying to resolve an identification. For example, we are told that Sky Lark Alauda arvensis forms winter flocks while Oriental Lark A. gulgula is more secretive than Sky Lark; and that Blyth’s Pipit Anthus godlewskii is very similar to Richard’s Pipit A. richardi but walks a little bit more horizontally. This space could have been used so much more effec- tively, even if it gave just one useful pointer on how to separate species from their close congeners. In essence, the reader is left to try and distinguish structural or plumage differences solely from the plates. When it comes to more complex groups, e.g. Bradypterus, Cettia or Phylloscopus warblers, the weakness of the guide becomes readily apparent. This is a surprisingly slim volume for subject matter covered, and the cost. In my view, a real opportunity has been lost. Even at double the size it would have been small enough to take into the field and yet so much more space would have been available for illustrating important juvenile/first-winter plumages and delivering more useful identification texts. Notwithstanding these com- ments, it is a considerable achieve- ment for one man to have produced both the texts and illus- trations and Norman Arlott should be congratulated on this. If you enjoy browsing through books to remind yourself of what you have seen, or dream of what you might one day get the oppor- tunity to see, then you will undoubtedly enjoy this book which brings so many of these species together for the first time. If, on the other hand, you are hoping to use this book as a field guide, then I am afraid it would fall woefully short in much of the region that it covers. I love to browse and dream, however, so I for one look forward to the accompanying volume on non-passerines, which is appar- ently in production. Paul Harvey BIRDS IN A VILLAGE: A CENTURY ON By Brian Clews. Wildguides, Old Basing, 2006. 132 pages; colour and black-and-white photographs. ISBN 978-1-903657-15-7. Hardback, £14.50. W. H. Hudson, who died in 1922 at the age of 80, was a prolific author who wrote much about the English countryside and its birds. His many books include Birds in a Village (1893), to which Brian Clews decided to add what he terms 'response chapters’ to reflect the changes that have taken place in the same village during the intervening century. This is an interesting idea, though one that fails to work, in my opinion, because the so-called ‘response chapters’ do not match the quality of Hudson’s original text. The employment of a good copy-editor would have eliminated many of the obvious irritations, such as the unlikely statement that ‘dozens [of people] had feinted’ [sic] in the heat of a recent summer at the Wimbledon tennis tournament. Pete Combridge — i © British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 43-47 43 Reviews C > MANX BIRD ATLAS: AN ATLAS OF BREEDING AND WINTERING BIRDS ON THE ISLE OF MAN APR I L 1998 TO MARCH 2003 By Chris Sharpe (principal editor), Liverpool University Press, 2007. 389 pages; numerous line-drawings and colour maps. ISBN 978-1-84631-039-3. Hardback, £60.00. With fieldwork for the BTO/ IWC/SOC Bird Atlas getting underway this winter and a number of local atlas projects starting up in tandem with the UK and Ireland project, there will be a great deal of interest in the publi- cation of this atlas of the birds of the Isle of Man. In the preface, David Gibbons, organiser and principal author of the last BTO/ IWC/SOC Atlas, declares that 'there is little doubt that this project is fast becoming a world leader among bird monitoring and survey work of this kind.’ Anyone taking a quick glance through this heavy tome and seeing the detailed and professionally presented colour maps will soon be of the same opinion. This is clearly a produc- tion that many will be aspiring to for many years to come. This goal may, however, be beyond the reach of many. The Manx Bird Atlas project is unusual for our islands in that it was run almost completely by paid sur- veyors working to a very precise methodology and organised to an almost military precision. For instance, all breeding season field- work was conducted only on dry mornings during the period from just after dawn until mid morning, and only on days when wind speed was below force 4 on the Beaufort Scale. Visits were timed (two hours) and restricted to single 1-km squares. The location and activity of every bird using the square was mapped and the data transcribed onto a new map after the fieldwork before being entered onto a com- puter database which included rig- orous checks to ensure that nothing was lost. Colony counts were made separately so as not to compromise the optimum time of day for field- work. Additional data on scarcer species were also taken account of to ensure the most accurate distri- bution maps. With conditions such as this, the organisers were as sure as they could be that the best total number of each species found was compiled and, most importantly, the methods are so robust that they can be repeated in the future and produce highly comparable results. Oh for such conditions for most local and national adas projects! But what of the actual book? After introductory chapters, which include details of habitats on the island, the history of the project and the methods used, the bulk of the book consists of the expected species accounts. These follow the usual standard adas format, with an attractive line-drawing above detailed text and a fact box indi- cating seasonal presence, popula- tion estimates and statistics, plus (for most breeding species) a pair of maps comparing distribution at 5-km square level in 1977-81, taken from the Birds of the Isle of Man (Cullen & Jennings 1986), with that in the present survey. A page of between one and four maps faces the text. I was pleased to see that the text follows a standard sequence, which usually includes a descrip- tion of the maps, naming sites and areas - this helps to bring the maps to life for those familiar with the island or those who wish to under- stand the avifauna better. One sig- nificant feature of this project is the production for the first time of both summer and winter popula- tion estimates for all species occur- ring on the island. The robust methodology means that these esti- mates are also robust and reliable. Of course, the key feature of an adas is the maps, and in this publi- cation they cannot be faulted. For many species there are four maps. One or two distribution maps use coloured squares at the 1-km level to show summer and/or winter presence; the summer maps also use coloured dots on top of the squares to indicate breeding status (pos- sible, probable or proved breeding). Then there are usually one or two abundance maps using coloured shading of the type we are now familiar with from the BTO/IWC/SOC 1988-91 Breeding Atlas , but here of course the scale is much finer allowing great detail. The flat low-lying plain in the north of the island consistently holds the greater abundance of many species. The colours chosen are pleasing to the eye but some may cause prob- lems for colour-blind readers. All maps have a background showing the relief of the island, which is very helpful in interpreting the results. This new atlas offers a defini- tive and reliable statement on the breeding and wintering avifauna of the Isle of Man. It is not cheap, but I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone familiar with the Isle of Man and also to those interested in local atlases. There is much to be learnt from this book. Mark Holling WHERE TO WATCH MAMMALS IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND By Richard Moores. A8cC Black, London, 2007. 295 pages; many line-drawings and maps. ISBN 978-0-7136- 7161-2. Paperback, £16.99. Not being very knowledgeable about mammals, I looked at this little book with interest. Its format will be familiar to those readers who know the regional bird equiv- alents, beginning with an intro- ductory section that covers aspects such as Conservation, Mammals & the Law, and Equipment. I found the section on Fieldcraft inter- esting. In an era when, for many birders, this seems to comprise remembering to put the pager in your pocket and the ‘sat-nav’ in the car, and then looking for a crowd of telescopes all pointing in 1 one direction, I read sections on Patience and Stealth with some- 44 British Birds 101 ’January 2008 • 43—47 Reviews C ) thing akin to nostalgia! For the mammalian tyro, this is followed by a valuable section on the groups of mammals and their identification in the field. Reading about identifying bats (Chir- optera) from their ‘slaps, clicks, ticks, tocks and warbles’ (you need an electronic detector) made me appreciate once again that birds are diurnal. The main part of this book comprises details of 215 sites in Britain, with information on access, habitat and target species for each site, plus a list of the com- moner mammals that also might be found. For many of these sites there are sketch maps and, for those sites that I know, these look pretty good. However, the pages discussing Ireland are a bit thin, mostly limited to a list of cetacean sites. All in all, I think this is a useful and informative little book that will certainly provide you with an idea of how to maximise your chances if (like me) you have never seen a European Polecat Mustela putorius or a Pine Martin Martes martes in the wild, or want to renew acquaintanceship with a Wild Cat Felis silvestris. David Parkin THE LAPWING By Michael Shrubb. T & AD Poyser, A&C Black, London, 2007. 232 pages; colour photographs; line- drawings by Robert Gillmor; many maps, graphs, tables, etc. ISBN 978-0-7136-6854-4. Hardback, £40.00. My goodness, I never thought that I would be reviewing a book on the (Northern) Lapwing Vanellus vanellus more than 50 years after I wrote my own ( The Lapwing in Britain , Brown 8r Sons, London & Hull, 1953). Mine remained the standard work up to at least 1987 (Peter Weaver, The Lapwing, Shire Natural History Series, Aylesbury) but it is now superseded. A good athlete must feel a twinge of regret when he sees his national record broken, but at the same time he rejoices at the progress of his sport. And so it is here: I congratulate Mike Shrubb and his publishers on a superb book. Detailed and thorough are words that spring to mind, yet it is very readable, especially in those sections where the author draws upon his lifetime experience as a farmer. He has a real affection for his Lapwings, and it shines through. The illustrations - mostly by Robert Gillmor - complement the text and are a delight in themselves. On one point of detail, I’m sorry that very little attention is given to the Lapwing’s remarkable adaptation of assembling on indus- trial rooftops, for this is how thou- sands of them now spend half their time for half the year across much of northern England. People are apt to call these assemblages ‘roosts’, which is not exactly true: they are refuges where the birds while away their time during the day, as gulls (Laridae) also often do. The roofs have to a large extent replaced reservoir edges, a habitat now almost lost to Lapwings through increased use for public recreation. A great deal of fieldwork is reported on, both in Britain and abroad, some of it completely new to me; for example, the revelation that Lapwings are by no means always monogamous. Indoors, so to speak, I have waited for years to see someone analyse the BTO nest record cards for Lapwing. Mike Shrubb has now done that, with rewarding results. I hesitate to mention the book’s price, but £40.00 was a full month’s wages in my day and it still seems rather high. I do also have to say that this is not a book for the beginner, though for serious ornithologists and, of course, for Lapwing enthusiasts, it is absolutely essential. K. G. Spencer ARCTIC FLIGHT: ADVENTURES AMONGST NORTHERN BIRDS By James McCallum. Langford Press, Peterborough, 2007. 180 pages; numerous field sketches. ISBN 978-1-904078-26-5. Hardback, £38.00. lames McCallum is a Norfolk-based wildlife artist whose work is already known and appreciated by many who have seen his several books and exhibited work. His work is almost exclusively executed in the field in a quick-fire manner and, unsurpris- ingly, he lists Eric Ennion and John Busby, among others, as influences on his style. Earlier in his career, his creative work occurred in tandem with wardening duties on Blakeney Point, and his ability to work outside oblivious of time and discomfort has held him in good stead for the adventures disclosed in this book. Like very many of us, he has been fascinated by the wintering and passage waders and wildfowl of East Anglia and dreamed of joining them on their summer sojourn. Like very few of us, he made that leap through a series of fortunate chance meetings to do just that. Not once but four times he has ‘summered’ in the north, with pro- longed trips in Scandinavia, Alaska and eastern Siberia, sometimes joining research teams, where by virtue of almost continuous day- light he combined research with drawing (when did he sleep?). Each trip account begins with an introduction by a companion or ‘trip fixer’, who explains the circum- stances of each expedition; all of these allude to the intensiveness of James at work, and the surprise at both volume and quality of the work produced in the harsh and testing conditions of the Arctic. James’s own texts then explain more British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 43-47 45 Reviews C > about the birdlife, liberally inter- spersed by his sketches, which help to tell more. In both word and art it is mouthwatering, our winter birds on their breeding grounds in unbe- lievable species combinations and doing amazing displays. The book is both fascinating and delightful. The sketches themselves are of course not highly detailed in a feather-by-feather way, but have a kind of detail of their own; they capture the essence by uncluttered economy, often a sure bold line fleshed out in swiff watercolour. A confident flow of co-ordination between brain, eye and hand assures that most hit the spot. For nearly all of us James’s sketches are the nearest and nicest way we will ever get to seeing the minute-by-minute life of a newly acquainted Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus pair, or a Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria chick leave the nest. If you enjoy the spontaneity of field-sketch art, this is a book for you. Alan Harris IMAGES FROM BIRDING By Michael Warren. Langford Press, Peterborough, 2007. 168 pages; colour paintings and sketches. ISBN 978-1-904078-24-1. Hardback, £38.00. Many of you will know Mike Warren from the British Birdwatching Fair, cutting a fine artistic figure alongside his easel, pondering the next brush- stroke on his latest painting - always willing to chat about birds, painting and the current predicament of a dodgy Midlands football team. Many more of you will also know of him through his beautifully intricate paintings that graced some of the covers of Birds magazine between the 1960s and 1980s and an article in Birds by Nicholas Hammond - in the good old days when the RSPB magazine had room for both artwork and photos. An artist who birds or is it a birder who paints? Let’s settle for bird artist. Warren has many times had to face the dilemma of whether to stay in one place painting and miss some- thing in the next hedge, or keep going and not satisfy the creative urge. This is overcome by carrying a small sketchbook at all times and making rapid studies of birds both common and rare; sometimes they are cap- tured with just a few pencil marks. With sketchbooks brimming with ideas and images, the seeds are sown for future paintings. This fascinating process forms the concept to Images from Birding and has been reflected throughout, with a very pleasing layout of little field studies set along- side studio paintings. In some ways, the book could be described as a bird-artist’s field guide; the paintings of birds follow the old Voous order, so it’s simple to dip into the right pages to see if your favourite bird has been cap- tured in watercolour. It is almost impossible to select the painting I would most like to see on my wall, because my fancy changes with each browse through the book - though I do fall for the Wrens Troglodytes troglodytes on pages 114-115 and the Goldcrests Regulus regulus on page 140 every time. OK, it’s a fair cop. I’m an unashamed fan; but then it is very difficult not to be. Mike is a master of composition and design, but the skill that puts his paintings onto another level is his ability to place the bird naturally into its habitat, without it looking as if it was shoe- horned in - check the Sedge Warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus on page 135 and Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus on page 77 in this respect. His texts are straightforward and as a rule he lets the pictures do the talking, but I did enjoy the little dig at BBRC for not approving one of his records (a White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii on Anglesey in 1963)1 Again, those at Langford Press deserve to have praise heaped upon them for maintaining the high standard they have set with this series of sumptuous volumes. Judging by their latest catalogue, I won’t be stuck for things to put on my next Christmas list. Dan Powell THE ISLES OF SCILLY By Rosemary Parslow. Collins New Naturalist, London, 2007. 450 pages; many colour photographs and illustrations. Paperback ISBN 978-0-00- 220151-6, £24.99. Hardback ISBN 978-0-00- 220150-6, £34.99. The surname ‘Parslow’ (John and Rosemary) is synonymous with wildlife in Scilly, and Rosemary in particular is an expert of the flora and skilled in her knowledge of the fauna of the islands. I doubt that there is another person as well suited as she is to the task of com- posing a book about Scillonian natural history. She has visited the islands annually since 1958, ini- tially as a junior scientific assistant at the British Museum of Natural History, but now as a tour leader sharing with others her ency- clopaedic knowledge of the natural history of the islands. Rosemary has now condensed this knowledge into a wonderful new book to share it with a wider audience. The New Naturalist series aims ‘to interest the general reader in the wildlife of Britain by recapturing the enquiring spirit of the old natural- ists’. Rosemary is one of those enquiring naturalists and she achieves that aim to perfection. The book comprises 17 chap- ters. After an insightful introduc- i tion, the next three chapters deal with history. Chapter 2 covers geology, and includes a fascinating section about the submergence of Scilly as water levels rose, trans- forming what amounted to one main island 2,000 years ago into the multitude of islands and islets that we see today. Chapter 3 looks at people and their influence on the islands from medieval times, with particular reference to material transformations that have created the modern-day landscape of Scilly. >h Birds 101* January 2008 • 43—47 46 Reviews < > Chapter 4 introduces Scilly’s natu- ralists, from the generalist Robert Heath in the mid 1800s to the spe- cialists of today. We learn that there have been many interesting charac- ters involved over the years, who between them have amassed and published a wealth of information about the natural history of Scilly. The next three chapters focus on the islands: St Mary’s; the so-called 'off-islands’ - the four remaining inhabited islands of St Agnes, Bryher, Tresco and St Martin’s; and the uninhabited islands. These chapters provide a general intro- duction to the complexion of the islands, for the most part in terms of habitats and the main flora and fauna to be found, and scenes and habitations to be witnessed. By this stage of the book, the reader has developed a sound understanding of many facets of Scilly that facili- tate a full appreciation of the details of flora and fauna to come. Six subsequent chapters are sys- tematic in their coverage of the main types of habitat in Scilly and their flora, the wildlife that fre- quents these habitats, and key issues that affect habitat and wildlife alike. For example, the islands’ economy has drastically influenced the habi- tats, and the bulb fields, dominant for many years, have provided ideal conditions for the growth of inter- esting/rare species of flowering plants, which are presented in a sys- tematic list. The bulb industry is now in decline, threatening some of these rare plants. Scilly’s climate permits native and many intro- duced plants to coexist side by side as it allows frost-sensitive flora to survive, and human habitations may be swathed in palm trees and other exotics. The main habitat types covered in these chapters are the sea and marine environment, the coast, grassland and heathland, woodland and wetland, cultivated habitats, and gardens. Chapters 14—16 deal with the insects and other terrestrial inverte- brates, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and birds. These chap- ters are not intended to be all-inclu- sive and far-reaching, but they do provide an interesting introduction to the main species and are clever in highlighting those which are of par- ticular interest and, depending on season, may be seen by a keen-eyed visitor to Scilly: Hummingbird Hawk-moth Macroglossum stel- latarum, Clouded Yellow butterfly Colias croceus, ‘Scilly Bee’ Bombus muscorum scyllonius, Scilly Shrew Crocidura suaveolens , Grey Seal Hali- choerus grypus , Puffin Fratercula arctica and Hoopoe Upupa epops. Finally, chapter 17 looks to the future. There are numerous topics of concern that need to be dealt with, even in a ‘feel-good’ book such as this, and Rosemary explores the medium- to long-term issues of sea-level rise and climate change, together with the here-and-now issues of housing, tourism and wildlife, changing farming practices and introduced species. She is prag- matic rather than pessimistic about the future, understanding that change is inevitable and that there have been losses (e.g. the recent loss of Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii as a breeding species) and there may be gains, albeit by way of introduc- tions. As the author recognises, ‘there is still a community of people on the islands and none of them would appreciate living in a museum’. The 209 illustrations are spread evenly throughout the volume, exactly where needed and not clus- tered in the middle or at the end. This must increase production costs and Collins is to be applauded for bucking the publishing trend of profit maximisation by producing a book within the spirit declared for the New Naturalist series. Depicting classic scenes, landscape, flora and fauna, there are many contributions by well-known bird and wildlife photographers (although the author’s own material is of equal standing), while artwork of wildlife by celebrated Scilly veterans Ian Wallace and Ren Hathway animate what is already a lively text. Come on - treat yourself to this wonderful book about the natural history of the Isles of Scilly. The book wraps up Scilly between its covers and permits you to take the islands back home, where you can open the covers and release and experience the wonders of Scilly in your living room again and again and again. Robert L. Flood ALSO RECEIVED SOUNDS OF THE BRITISH COASTLINE: A JOURNEY IN SOUND ALONG THE SHORES OF BRITAIN British Library Sound Archive, 2007. Single CD, playing time 70 minutes. ISBN 978-07123-0533-4. £9.95. RSPB CHILDREN’S GUIDE TO BIRDWATCH ING - 2ND EDN By David Chandler and Mike Unwin. Christopher Helm, A8cC Black, London, 2007. 128 pages; many colour illustrations and photographs. ISBN 978-0-7136- 8795-8. Paperback, £6.99. A PHOTOGRAPHIC GUIDE TO BIRDS OF PERU By Clive Byers. New Holland, London, 2007. 144 pages; 252 colour photographs. ISBN 978- 1 - 84537-613-0. Paperback, £7.99. RSPB POCKET GUIDE TO BRITISH BIRDS By Simon Harrop, illustrated by Dave Nurney. Christopher Helm, A&C Black, London, 2007. 192 pages; almost 750 colour illustrations; 174 colour distribution maps. ISBN 978-0- 7136-8707-1. Paperback, £4.99. WHERE TO WATCH BIRDS IN THE WEST MIDLANDS - 3RD EDN By Graham Harrison, Steve Coney, Frank Gribble, Helen J. Griffiths and Jim Winsper. Christopher Helm, A8cC Black, London, 2007. 344 pages; numerous maps, line drawings. Covers almost 90 sites or areas in detail; fully revised and updated. ISBN 978-0-7136-6419-5. Paperback, £16.99. British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 43—47 47 News and comment Compiled by Adrian Pitches Opinions expressed in this feature are not necessarily those of British Birds The discovery of a new bird taxon is always exciting; if it is a wader, and a migratory one at that, it is not only exciting, but also almost unbelievable. David Bakewell and BB Assistant Editor Peter Kennerley are to be congratulated (and envied) for their recent discovery of a small plover in Malaysia and Singapore that has all the hallmarks of a new taxon, and indeed, in due course, perhaps a new species. Clearly one of the Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus group, with breast-side patches, it differs from the (sympatric) far- eastern race of Kentish ( C. a. deal- batus ) in being slightly larger, with a proportionately larger head, paler sandy-brown upperparts, longer, pink or flesh-toned legs, and, in the case of the males, white, unmarked lores giving them a white-faced appearance, on account of which Bakewell and Kennerley have named it ‘White-faced’ Plover (plate 32). These birds were first seen in Singapore in 1993-94 by Peter Ken- nerley, but remained (in the absence of a photo or a specimen) no more than an account in a notebook until David Bakewell asked Kennerley about several unusual plovers he had found in Penang, Malaysia, in November 2006. Some of these birds then remained until early March 2007. In winter plumage when first encountered, the apparent males had acquired a black frontal bar, bright orange crown and black breast-side patches by A new plover? early February, after which the birds disappeared. The apparent females moulted to reveal a warm russet- brown crown, ear-coverts, loral line, and breast patches. From these observations it is assumed that the plovers were win- tering in Malaysia and Singapore, and that they then commenced migration back towards their unknown breeding grounds, which from the timing of the observa- tions and the progress of moult are presumably somewhere farther north. By posting these details on Surfbirds http://www.surfbirds. com/Features/plovers I 108/ malayplovers.html, Bakewell and Kennerley hope that birders will now look out for the plovers and report any sightings. Research on these birds, including a detailed review of the races of Kentish Plover, is ongoing. In due course, we look forward to learning more of these delightful small plovers, which seem to have the potential to be a ‘new’ species, and urge those birding in southeast Asia (and farther north) to look out for them and report back any sightings. ( Contributed by Richard Chandler) 32. The brightest and most well marked of the three male ‘White-faced’ Plovers observed, following moult into breeding plumage, Penang, Malaysia, 5th February 2007. In breeding plumage/White-faced' Plover is particularly distinctive, especially the males, with their ‘white-faced’ appearance. Note also the leg length and colour, and the isolated dark alula on the otherwise pale closed wing. Bird Photograph of theYear 2008 This, the oldest and still one of the most prestigious of the modern bird photographic competitions, is free to enter and will again be sponsored by A&C Black, Collins, The Eric Hosking Charitable Trust and ZEISS. The top prize this year will be a pair of the superb ZEISS Victory FL 8 x 42 binoculars. The competition seeks to recognise the best and/or the most scientifically interesting bird pho- tographs. Preference is given to photographs taken in the Western Palearctic (Europe, North Africa and the Middle East), but those of species on the Western Palearctic List taken anywhere in the world are also eligible. Up to three images, each taken during the pre- vious year (in this case 2007), may 48 © British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 48^49 < News and comment > be submitted by each photographer. For full details of the rules, please visit our website www.britishbirds.co.uk/bpy.htm As well as the main category, there will again be a prize for the best digiscoped entry.The closing date for entries will be 31st March 2008. The winning entries will be exhibited at the British Birdwatching Fair in August, where the awards will be presented. Entries should be submitted to Peter Kennerley, 16 Coppice Close, Melton, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 1RX; e-mail peterkennerley@onetel.net Changes to the British Birds list of birds of the Western Palearctic As stated previously (e.g. Brit. Birds 99: 53), SB’s policy regarding the implementation of taxonomic changes has been to adopt the recommenda- tions made by the BOURC’s Taxonomic Sub-committee (TSC). In 2007, the TSC proposed a series of recommendations, which BB will embrace from 1st January 2008. These recommendations include some changes at the species level, brought about by taxonomic splits (listed in Appendix 1), and changes to generic and scientific names (listed in Appendix 2). Further details surrounding the justification and background to these decisions can be found in Ibis 149: 853-857, or online at http://www.blackwell- synergy.com/doi/full/ 1 0.1 I I I /j. 1 474-9 1 9X.2007.00758.X British Birds maintains a list of the birds recorded within the bound- aries of the Western Palearctic, which can be downloaded from the BB website (http://www.britishbirds.co.uk/bblist.htm); this list has now been fully updated to take account of all the latest changes proposed by the BOU. Appendix I. Changes to the existing list: new names resulting from taxonomic splits. Herring Gull Larus argentatus is now treated as three separate species: Caspian Gull L. cachinnans (monotypic), American Herring Gull L s mithsonianus (polytypic, including the races smithsonionus. vegae and mongolicus) and Herring Gull L argentatus (polytypic, including the races argentatus and argenteus). ! Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmorotus Is now treated as two separate species: Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmorotus (monotypic) and Long- billed Murrelet Brachyramphus perdix (monotypic). Appendix 2. Changes to the existing list: new generic or scientific names proposed by the BOU. ! Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti (formerly A. adalbertii) i Allen's Gallinule Porphyrio alleni (formerly Porphyrula alien i) American Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinica (formerly Porphyrula martinica) Grey-tailed Tattler Tringa brevipe s (formerly Heteroscelu s brevipes) Willet Tringa semipalmatus (formerly Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) ‘ Little Gull Hydrocoloeus minutus (formerly Larus minutus ) Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus Philadelphia (formerly Larus Philadelphia) Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus (formerly Larus ridibundus ) . Brown-headed Gull Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus (formerly Larus brunmcephalus) Grey-headed Gull Chroicocephalus cirrocephalu s (formerly Larus cirrocephalus ) Slender-billed Gull Chroicocephalus genei (formerly Larus genei) j Sabine's Gull Xema sabini (formerly Larus sabini ) Aleutian Tern Onychoprion aleuticus (formerly 0. aleutica ) Sooty Tern Onychoprion fuscatus (formerly 0. fuscata) I Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon (formerly Ceryle alcyon) i Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius (formerly Zoothera naevia ) I Willow Tit Poecile montana (formerly P. montonus) The best place to see phalaropes in Britain. . . Is the West Midlands? BB reader Des Jennings wrote in to point out that the Grey Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius at Upton Warren, Worces- tershire, in November 2007 was the third species of phalarope at the site last year, following the Red-necked P. lobatus in early summer and a Wilson’s P. tricolor in September ( Brit . Birds 100: plate 322). Can any inland site match that? Request Bob Flood is currently preparing an article on all-dark storm-petrels for BB, and is seeking the following: • Observations of wrecks of Leach’s Storm-petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa , e.g. in northwest England, giving dates, the approximate number of Leach’s seen on each date, and, if any, the number of Leach’s showing a noticeably restricted white rump or an apparently all-dark rump. • Ringing data of Leach’s at colonies where an approximate percentage can be given of the colony population that exhibited a noticeably restricted white rump or an all-dark rump. • Any observations of possible Swinhoe’s Storm-petrels O. monorhis in the North Atlantic, either at sea or from headlands. • Photographs of Least Storm-petrel O. microsoma, Ashy Storm-petrel O. homochroa , Leach’s Storm- petrel (dark), Swinhoe’s Storm- petrel, Markham’s Storm-petrel O. markhami , Black Storm-petrel O. melania, Matsudaira’s Storm-petrel O. matsudairae and Tristram’s Storm-petrel O. tristrami ; and ‘darkish’ phase of White-bellied Storm-petrel Fregetta grallaria and Polynesian Storm-petrel Nesofregetta fuliginosa. Please submit observations and/or photographs to Bob Flood at 14 Ennor Close, Old Town, St Mary’s, Isles of Scilly TR21 ONL, e-mail tubenose@tiscali.co.uk British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 48^19 49 Rarities Committee news BBRC and BOURC seek records of vagrant Canada Geese Although it is more than two years since Canada Goose was split into two species, Greater Branta canadensis and Lesser Canada Goose B. hutchinsii , neither species is currently on category A of the British List. Both species appar- ently occur in Britain as vagrants, but their status requires further clarification. The ‘conventional’ 10 or 1 1 taxa are now divided between the two species, but there is major variation within some of the recog- nised taxa. The confusion among birders is understandable. BBRC and BOURC need to work closely together to establish three things: On the basis of which records can either species be added to category A of the British List? Can we identify potential vagrants to species and subspecies? What is the status of each of the various taxa? We need the help of observers who have seen either species in Britain in a potentially wild (vagrant) state. Even if you do not know what form you saw, and even if you feel that the bird’s origin was doubtful, the record will be of value. There is no date limit so any record from any year is welcome, but records need to be well docu- mented. Photographs would be ideal (as many images as possible are helpful - and not just the good ones) but field notes will also be acceptable alone provided they were contemporaneous. An assess- ment of size, bill structure and plumage tones are all important, along with date (month/year at least) and location. All accepted records will be acknowledged in the usual way in the BBRC report. It is probably best not to assume that someone else will be sending in a complete record; all data can make a contribution. Descriptions and photographs should be e-mailed or sent by post to the BBRC Secretary (see below) by 31st March 2008. We will scan and return any non-digital images by return. Photocopies or scans should suffice where there are only field notes. ZEISS The British Birds Rarities Committee is sponsored by Carl Zeiss Ltd. Chairman: Colin Bradshaw, 9 Tynemouth Place, Tynemouth, Tyne & Wear NE30 4Bj Secretary: Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat St Mary’s, ScillyTR2l OLL Recent reports Compiled by Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey This summary of unchecked reports covers early October to early December 2007. Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis Caerlav- erock (Dumfries & Galloway), 13th-25th November; Hayling Island (Hampshire), 24th-28th November, then Chichester (West Sussex), 30th November to 10th December. Black Duck Anas rubripes Ventry (Co. Kerry), 26th November. Blue-winged Teal Anas discors North Bull Island (Co. Dublin), returning bird from 21st October into December. Ferrugi- nous Duck Aythya nyroca Horning, 12th October, then Martham Broad (both Norfolk), 13th October; Chew Valley Lake (Somerset), 28th October and 10th November; Theale Gravel-pits (Berkshire), 15th-24th November and 3rd December; Corbet Lake (Co. Down), 24th November to 5th December; Abberton Reservoir (Essex), ; 24th November. Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Stourhead (Wiltshire), 20th October to 4th November; Lough Fern and Inch Island Lake (Co. Donegal), 21st October intermittently to 2nd December; Woolhampton Gravel-pits ' (Berkshire), 28th October to 16th November; Fetlar (Shetland), 1 1 th— 28th November; Stourbridge Basin (West Midlands), 12th j November; Clea Lake area (Co. Down), 25th November; Draycote Water (Warwickshire), , 27th November to 10th December; Loch Leven (Perth & Kinross), 8th December; Blagdon Lake (Somerset), long-stayer to 21st November. Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Quoile Pondage (Co. Down), ! returning bird from 24th November. SO © British Birds 101 • January 2008 • 50-56 Recent reports C > 33. First-winter Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias , St Mary’s, Scilly, December 2007; the first for Britain, if accepted. Pacific Diver Gavia pacifica Mount’s Bay (Cornwall), 23rd-29th November and 10th December. White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii Selsey Bill/Church Norton (West Sussex), 1st October intermittently to 17th November; Whitburn (Co. Durham) and Hartlepool Head- land (Cleveland), 13th October; Castle Eden Dene (Co. Durham), 31st October; Sher- ingham (Norfolk), 6th November; Cley, 9th November, then Blakeney Point (both Norfolk), 10th November; Girdleness (North-east Scot- land), 9th November; Flambor- ough Head (East Yorkshire), 10th November; Nesting (Shet- land), one or two, 10th— 15th November at least; Cullernose Point, presumed same Boulmer (both Northumberland) and St Abb’s Head (Borders), 11th November; Fetlar, one or two, 12th November to 4th December. Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira/feae Mizen Head (Co. Cork), 15th October. Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus Titchwell : (Norfolk), 19th-20th October. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Large influx in second half of October, with individuals in Berkshire, Devon (two in December), Kent (two), London, Som- erset, East Sussex and West Sussex (two in December); and then during November/ December, with others in Co. Cork (two), Cornwall (up to seven, possibly 11), Dorset (at least six and possibly ten), Glamorgan, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Scilly, Co. Wicklow and East Yorkshire. Great White Egret Ardea alba The recent influx continued, with new arrivals in Cam- bridgeshire, Cumbria, Der- byshire, Essex, Outer Hebrides, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, London, Co. Louth, Kent, Norfolk (up to three), Northamptonshire, Notting- hamshire, Oxfordshire, Scilly, Shropshire, Suffolk (two), East Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Great Blue Heron Ardea hero- dias St Mary’s (Scilly), 7th-8th December. Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus Long-stayer inter- mittently at Marshside RSPB and Warton Marsh (both Lancashire 8c N Merseyside) until 1st December; various localities in Somerset, 2nd-16th November, probably same West Alv- ington, 1 8th— 2 1st November and Bowling Green Marsh (both Devon), 23rd-24th November. Black Kite Milvus migrans Walmesley Sanctuary (Cornwall), 18th October; Coldharbour Lagoon 34. Juvenile Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus, Greylake RSPB reserve, Somerset, November 2007. British Birds 101 * January 2008 • 50-56 51 Rich Andrews Danni Borrett Micky Maher Steve Voung/Birdwatch Richard Smith Recent reports C ) 35. First-winter White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis, Kenfig Pool, Glamorgan, October 2007. 36. ‘Wilson’s Snipe' Gallinago gallinago delicata, St Mary’s, Scilly, October 2007. 37. Adult Bonaparte’s Gull Larus Philadelphia carrying pipefish (Syngnathidae), Fishtown of Usan, Angus, November 2007. (Kent), 30th October; Nocton Heath (Lincolnshire), long- stayer to 7th November. White- tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Willows Green (Essex), 10th November; Cholderton/ Quarley/Shipton Bellinger area (Wiltshire/Hampshire), at least 18th November to 10th December. Gyr Falcon Falco rus- ticolus Lewis (Outer Hebrides), 1 1 th— 14th November. Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola Ballyconeely (Co. Galway), 24th October. Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Pool of Virkie (Shetland), long-stayer to 19th November. American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica Reports from Cambridgeshire (two), Ceredigion, Co. Cork, Cornwall (two), Co. Derry, Co. Donegal, Co. Down, Dumfries & Galloway, Co. Galway, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire (two), Lothian, Co. Mayo (two or three), North-east Scotland (two), Northumberland, Outer Hebrides (two), Shetland (two), Co. Wexford and East Yorkshire, with eight of the arrivals during 1 3th— 16th October and another five during 20th-22nd October. Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Roscarberry (Co. Cork), 8th October; Gann Estuary (Pembrokeshire), 14th-23rd October; Ballycotton (Co. Cork), 25th— 3 1st October. Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Lewis, 12th October. White- rumped Sandpiper Calidris fusci- collis Pool of Virkie, 17th-22nd October; Kenfig Pool (Glam- organ), 29th October to 9th November; Inishbofin (Co. Galway), 1st November; Kil- coole (Co. Wicklow), 10th November. Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Loch Leven (Perth & Kinross), 12th- 15th October. ‘Wilson’s Snipe’ Callinago galli- nago delicata St Mary’s, 3rd 52 British Birds 101 ’January 2008 • 50-56 Recent reports < > October to 28th November, with another 18th-23rd October at least, and two again 29th November to 1st December. Long-billed Dowitcher Limno- dromus scolopaceus Dundalk Docks (Co. Louth), 17th October; Bowling Green Marsh, 24th October to 8th December; Lough Beg (Co. Derry), lst-23rd November; Bally- cotton, 1 Oth— 1 3th November; Bewl Water (Kent), 12th November; Seal Sands/Seaton Snook (Cleveland), 1 3th— 1 4th November; Belfast Lough (Co. Antrim), 30th November; long- stayers at Branston Island (Lin- colnshire) to 14th October and Oare Marshes (Kent) to 16th October. Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis Mull (Argyll), 12th October. Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Foula (Shet- land), 11th October. Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Roger- stown (Co. Dublin), 14th October; St Mary’s, 15th and 17th October; Roscarberry, 19th October to 28th November; Minsmere (Suffolk), 30th October to 9th November; Montrose Basin (Angus), 10th November to 10th December. Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Lisvane/Llanishen Reservoirs (Glamorgan), 20th October to 9th December; Tourig River, Youghal (Co. Cork), 1 4th— 28th November. Grey Phalarope Phalaropus fuiicarius High count of 198, Annagh Head, Mullet (Co. Mayo), 15th October. Laughing Gull Larus atricilla New birds near Cleggan (Co. Galway), 19th October, on St Mary’s, 30th October, and at Firth (Shetland), 8th December. Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan Farmoor Reservoir (Oxford- shire), 1 Oth— 1 1th November. Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadel- 38. First-winter Blyth’s Pipit Anthus godlewskii, Tresco, Scilly, October 2007. 39. Pechora Pipit Anthus gustavi, Goodwick Moor. Pembrokeshire, November 2007. 40. Buff-bellied Pipit Anthus rubescens, Clahane, Liscannor, Co. Clare, October 2007. Sritish Birds 101 • January 2008 • 50-56 53 Eric Dempsey Dave Stewart Steve Young/Birdwatch Simon Stirrup Steve Stansfield Recent reports C > phia Rattray Head (North-east Scotland), 20th October; Ardmore (Co. Waterford), 28th-29th October; Fishtown of Usan/Boddin Point (Angus), 11th November to 9th December; Peterhead (North-east Scotland), 25th November to 9th December. American Herring Gull Larus smithsonianus, Cobh (Co. Cork), 24th November. White-winged Black Tern Chlidonia s leucopterus Loch of Skene (North-east Scotland), 2 1st— 28th October. Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri, returning bird, Cruisetown Strand (Co. Louth), from 29th October. Briinnich’s Guillemot Uria lomvia Girdleness, 7th November; Cley, 12th November. Little Auk Alle alle Huge passage early November, including, on 9th, 18,713 Fame Islands (Northumberland, and 7,143 there on 10th); 3,470 St Mary’s Island (Northumber- land) in 6 hours; 5,043 Whitburn; 2,800 Flam- borough Head in 8 hours; and 1,088 Gibraltar Point (Lincolnshire) in 7.5 hours. On 11th, 1,010 Collieston (North-east Scot- land) in 30 minutes; 3,475 Dunbar (Lothian) in 3 hours; 18,900 St Abb’s Head (Borders) in 4 hours; 28,803 Fame Islands; 8,000 Culler- nose Point in 5 hours; 2,840 St Mary’s Island in 2 hours; 11,218 Whitburn in 8 hours; and 2,874 Hartlepool Headland in 7 hours. Another strong movement in late November included 6,170 past the Fames on 25th. Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura North Uist (Outer Hebrides), 1st— 7th November; Inishbofm, 2nd to at least 15th November (see plates 15 & 16). Red-rumped Swallow Cecropis daurica Mizen Head, 1 4th— 1 5th October; Rusheen Bay (Co. Galway), 24th October; Tory Island (Co. Donegal), 27th October to 4th November; Lewis, 28th October; St Mary’s, 28th October. Blyth’s Pipit Anthus godlewskii Tresco (Scilly), 16th-23rd October; Sumburgh (Shetland), 1 7th— 1 8th October; Sennen, 20th-23rd October and 16th November, perhaps same Land’s End (both Cornwall), 31st October to 6th November; Nanjizal (Cornwall), 1st November; Fair Isle, 27th October. Olive-backed Pipit Anthus hodgsoni Fair Isle, 12th October; Foula, 13th October, then three 14th and one 16th; Sumburgh, 18th October; Wells Woods (Norfolk), 27th-29th October. Pechora Pipit Anthus gustavi Toab (Shetland), 1 2th— 1 4th October; Robin 4 1 . Adult male Red-flanked Bluetail Tarsiger cyanurus, Bardsey, Gwynedd, October 2007; the first record for Wales. 42. Red-flanked Bluetail Tarsiger cyanurus, Scatness, Shetland, October 2007. British Birds 101* January 2008 • 50-56 54 Recent reports Red-flanked Bluetail Tarsiger cya- nurus Scatness (Shetland), 13th— 1 4th October; Flambor- ough Head, 20th-23rd October; Cot Valley (Cornwall), 3rd November. Pied Wheatear Oenanthe pleschanka Wells-next - the-Sea (Norfolk), 4th November. Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti Towyn (Conwy), 20th November; Horsey (Norfolk), 24th November to 10th December; Burniston (North Yorkshire), 27th November to 10th December. White’s Thrush Z oothera dauma Sumburgh, 13th October; Thorngumbald (East Yorkshire), 20th October, found dead. Grey-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus St Mary’s, 12th-22nd October; Cape Clear, 15th October. 43. First-winter male Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti, Horsey, Norfolk, November 2007. Paddyfield Warbler Acrocephaius agricola Quendale (Shetland), 9th- 14th October. Blyth's Reed YVarbler Acrocephaius dume- iorum Mizen Head, 8th— 1 4th - October; Tarmon, Mullet Penin- sula (Co. Mayo), 1 2th— 1 4th October; Bryher (Scilly), 1 2th— 23rd October; Helendale Shetland), 1 2th— 1 3th October; (Jnst (Shetland), 1 3th— 1 4th October. Subalpine Warbler Sylvia cantillans Fair Isle, : c Hood’s Bay (North Yorkshire), 24th October; Goodwick Moor (Pembrokeshire), 19th-23rd November. Red-throated Pipit Anthus cervinus Flamborough Head, 1 2th— 1 3th October; St Mary’s, 12th, 14th and 27th October; St Agnes (Scilly), 13th October; Mizen Head, 14th October; Cape Clear (Co. Cork), 21st October. Buff-bellied Pipit Anthus rubescens Lissagriffin (Co. Cork), two, 7th-20th October; Clahane, Liscannor (Co. Clare), 7th-13th October; Ben- becula (Outer Hebrides), 18th October; Bally- cotton, 31st October to 10th November; Land’s End, 2nd-14th November; Carnsore Point (Co. Wexford), 2nd November; Red Barn, Youghal, 25th November to 5th December. 20th-29th October. Greenish Warbler Phyllo- scopus trochiloides Cape Clear, 11th- 16th and 20th October; Mizen Head, 13th October; near Galley Head (Co. Cork), 17th-24th October. Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis Unst, 10th November. Hume’s Warbler Phylloscopus humei Holkham (Norfolk), long-stayer to 17th October; Cot Valley, 24th October; Penrhyn Bay (Conwy), 18th November. Radde’s Warbler Phylloscopus schwarzi St Agnes, 11th October; Nanquidno (Cornwall), 12th-14th October; Old Head of Kinsale (Co. Cork), 14th October; Rosevear (Scilly), 14th October; Leasowe (Wirral), 16th October; Tresco, 17th October; 44. White’s Thrush Zoothera dauma, Sumburgh, Shetland, October 2007. iritish Birds 101 'January 2008 • 50-56 55 David Gifford Robin Chittenden www.harlequinpictures.co.uk James Hanlon Richard Stonier Recent reports C > October; Fair Isle,i 22nd-23rd October; Bishopstone Glen (Kent), 25th-28th October; St Agnes,! 25th-29th October; Kynance Cove (Corn- wall), 27th October; Porthcurno (Corn-! wall), 1 st— 3 rd November. 45. First-winter Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata, St Mary's, Scilly, October 2007. Skomer (Pembrokeshire), 17th October; Toab, 18th October; St Mary’s, 19th October; Church Cove (Cornwall), 21st October; Mizen Head, 3rd November. Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fus- catus Easington/Spurn (East Yorkshire), 10th— 12th and 25th-28th October; Porthgwarra (Cornwall), 10th October; Warden Point (Kent), 1 1th October; Sumburgh, 12th-14th October; Unst, 12th October; Out Skerries (Shetland), 12th and 16th October; Cape Clear, 14th October; Foula, 15th October; Ballycotton, 22nd-23rd October; Cot Valley, 22nd-24th Penduline Tit Remiz pendulinus St Mary’s< intermittently! 1 2 th— 2 1st October Spurn, 20th October Rye Harbour (Eas Sussex), 20th October Tresco, three, 2 6tF] October; Minsmere 4th-6th November; Dingle Marshes (Suffolk) up to four, 12th-25th November; Marazioi Marsh (Cornwall), 17th November. Isabellim Shrike Laniu s isabellinus Mizen Head, 19th— 2 Is October. Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor Ders ingham Bog (Norfolk), 1 5th— 1 6th Octobei Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Dunquinn (Cc Kerry), 14th October. Arctic Redpoll Cardueli hornemanni Quendale, 1 2th— 1 3th October Unst, 13th October; Collafirth (Shetland), 14tl October; Yell (Shetland), 14th October; Trest (Shetland), 17th October; Bressay (Shetland 19th October; Loop Head (Cc Clare), four, 29th-30th Octobei Tarmon, two, 29th October! North Uist, 3rd-4th Novembej Bewick-upon-Tweed (Northum berland), 15th November. Blackpoll Warbler Dendroid striata St Mary’s, two, 9th-20t October, one to 23rd. 46. First-winter male Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus, St Agnes, Scilly, October 2007. Pine Bunting Emberiza leuct cephalos Fair Isle, 25th Octobe to 10th November. Rusti Bunting Emberiza rusticj St Mary’s, 1 4th— 1 5th October Sumburgh, 14th Octobe St Agnes, 22nd Octobe Rose-breasted Grosbea Pheucticus ludovicianus St Agnej 23rd-29th October. 56 British Birds 101 - January 2008 • 50— ^ Classified advertising Payment for all classified advertisements must be made in advance by VISA, Mastercard or by cheque payable to British Birds. Copy deadline: 10th of the month. Contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd., B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550. Fax: 020 8881 0990. E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Holiday Accommodation Scotland ELLARY ESTATE - MOST ATTRACTIVE | choice of self catering cottages and chalets situated on the shores of Loch Caolisport. While you are at Ellery you are at liberty to go i anywhere you please. There are hill walks, many lochs and burns where you can fish, numerous wildliife, birds, flowers, etc. The perfect location for the true country lover. For a full colour brochure please write to The Booking Office, 1 Ellary 7 Lochgilphead, Argyll PA31 8PA. Tel: ,01880 770232. Fax: 01880 770386. Email: info@ellary.com Overseas FLORIDA VILLA - near Disney, birding ind golf. Tel: 01462 457350. Aavw.hibiscusfloridavilla.com i PROVENCE - CAMARGUE. Two s/c cottages. 1 Rogers, Mas d’Auphan, Le Sambuc, 13200 I 3RLES, France. Tel: (0033) 490 972041 Email: 1 3.m.rogers@wanadoo.fr Pager Service New SMS News Service Free Trial Online also | Pagers & Internet News iiwww.rarebirdalert.co.uk Birdwatching Holidays Optical Equipment See the cutest face of POLAND join our wildlife tours linked with low fare flights1 to Warsaw & Cracow! www.birding. tel. +48 12 2921460 Polish BIRD SERVICE touroperator since 1990 Cassowary House . _ Rainforest Birding and Cassowaries, Riflebirds and Red-necked Crakes in the garden. Comfortable accommodation, excellent food, expert guiding. A great centre for access to Cairns, Reef and Atherton Tablelands. All your birding needs. Phil and Sue Gregory: ph (61) 7 40937318 PO Box 387, Kuranda, Queensland 488. Australia sicklebill@optusnet.com.au www.cassowary-house.com.au Top Makes , Top Models , Top Advice , Top Deals, Part Exchange Show Room Sales 01925 730399 FOCALPOINT www.fpoint.co.uk Credit/debit cards accepted Books Read the News First UPDATED original BIRDWATCHER’S LOGBOOK A concise way to record your observations. Monthly, annual & life columns for 968 species, garden birds, migrants, index & diary pages. Send £8.75 to: Coxton Publications, Eastwood, Beverley Rd, Walkington, Beverley, HU 1 7 8RP. 01482 881833 Books BIRD BOOKS BOUGHT AND SOLD. Visit our website for our online catalogue Visit our shop and see our extensive collection. Hawkridge Books, The Cruck Barn, Cross St, Castleton, Derbyshire S33 8WH. Tel: 01433 621999. Email: books@hawkridge.co.uk. Web: www.hawkridge.co.uk BACK NUMBERS of bird and natural history periodicals. Free catalogue from D. 8c D. H. W. Morgan, The Pippins, Allensmore, Hereford HR2 9BP. E-mail: stjamestree@uk2.net, www.birdjournals.com :tok British Birds Binders Larger format BB Binders are available in the following options: Wirex - Royal Blue or Brown, Cordex - Brown only. We also now have in stock binders for the old size (A5) BB available in Brown Wirex only. Price for ail binders: £8.95 each Either complete and return the attached order form, call the British Birds office or order online at www.britishbirds.co.uk using our secure site. Binder(s) in: Royal Blue Wirex : _! Brown Wirex ! I Brown Cordex ] Brown Wirex (old size) at £8.95 each. I enclose my cheque for £ payable to British Birds. Name: Address: I Post Code: Tel No: E-mail: British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Tel and Fax: 01424 755155 E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk nhbs Environment Bookstore ' Wildlife | Science \ Conservation , New at NHBS Winter 2007/8 offers an excellent selection of birding books, all of which are available at NHBS Enn Bookstore - supplier of the most comprehensive and up-to-date range of birding titles. A selection of equipment for birders is also now available, including: Nest Box Camera Kits, one cv. featured here; the RemememBird device, - the first digital audio recorder to have been designed tia for birders; and the BirdVoicePEN, which delivers bird calls by pointing a pen at specially designed f c and stickers. We will continue to expand the range of products we can offer birders throughout 2c£ □ The Birds of Scotland Edited by Ron Forrester Ian Andrews et at. Two full-colour A4 hardback volumes. Illustrated with more than 900 first-class photographs and 1,500 charts, maps and tables, this landmark publication is a must for everyone with an interest in birds - from the casual naturalist to the professional ornithologist, and for bk | Jan 2008 | £75.00 | #168578 □ Essential Guide to E n the Isles of Scilly Bob L Flood, Nigel Hudson arBc Thomas A concise, up-to-date and accafc count of all species and sub-sa-. ably recorded on and around s« Including a chronological revie ft on the island; information on rgr; month-by-month account of b ir island and much more Hbk | 2007 | £44.99 | #17091' □ The Birds of Gwent Baker Provides detailed information on the range and status of bird species at coun- level. Each title includes a breakdown rarity records, and there are intro- sections describing the area's , climate, ornithological history conservation record, as well as a of the best sites to visit. | Dec 2007 | £39.99 | #167901 From BirdLife International □ Birds and People Bonds in a Timeless Joumf Nigel J Collar, Adrian J Long, ■ tr Robles Gil and Jamie Rojo A portfolio drawn from the wors est bird photographers, which x. and celebrates our unique relnr: with birds, examining their role 1 art, agriculture and science. Hbk | Dec 2007 | £29.99 | #1^ □ Birds of Trinidad and Tobago Floyd E Hayes, Martyn Kenefick and Robin L Restall A field guide that uses relevant images from “Birds of Northern South America’’ to create new plates specific for Trinidad and Tobago. It intends to assist in the field identification of every species that occurs here. Pbk | Jan 2008 | £19.99 | #166395 □ The Ornithologist’s! Dictionary Johannes Erritzoe, Kaj Kamp'F Winker and Clifford B Frith The more than 5,000 definitio, 0 and terms of interest to omith pg brief and to the point, at the sj# as being comprehensive and 2c practical, portable and easily an volume that every omithologi:# always to keep close to hand Hbk | Dec 2007 | £14.00 | #1 8 □ Finding Birds in Ireland The Complete Guide Eric Dempsey and Michael O'Ctery This comprehensive and beautifully il- lustrated reference guide is a must-have for dedicated and casual birdwatchers alike. The authors of the award-winning Complete Guide to Ireland's Birds cover over 400 of the best birdwatching sites in , north and south. | 2007 | £14.99 | #171612 RARE BIRDS 2008 □ Rare Birds Yearboo2 Edited by Erik Hirschfeld The complete bird story, contas date information on flight, ansrr ing, communication, breedings migrations and life cycles. Spita features on the most impress plus a huge catalogue that pr-le- 1 500 different species makes is must-have for every bird enth ia Pbk | 2007 | £18.95 | #16971 Find over 100,000 natural history titles at www.nhbs.com WWW. nhbs .com The most comprehensive range of natural history titles on earth 2-3 Wills Rd, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5XN, UK | Fax 01803 865280 | Tel 01803 865913 I customer.services@nht . n onment Bookstore has an extensive range of field and travel guides available for any travelling birder. To see * r ge of titles visit our website, www.nhbs.com and click Browse by Geozone on our homepage. " 2 NHBS Environment Bookstore: BTseabirds, Shorebirds and WiidfowT~ j< ature Nest Box a it: Colour, Wired, □ Field Guide to the Albatrosses. Petrels and Shearwaters of the World g >e way in high- i sy-to-use camera it 1 for watching garden ... u y bird box with integrat- K'aw and quick release fc cket •S' tion colour video cam- t It in Infra Red illumina- aMg 24hr viewing a an be adapted for recording other wildlife, such as provide a forum for contributions of interest to all birdwatchers in the Western Palearctic; publish material on behaviour, conservation, distribution, ecology, identification, movements, status and taxonomy; embrace new ideas and research; •> maintain our position as the respected journal of record; and ♦> interpret good scientific research on birds for the interested non-scientist. ISSN 0007-0335 British Birds Editor Roger Riddington Assistant Editors Caroline Dudley 8c Peter Kennerley Editorial Board Dawn Balmer, Ian Carter, Richard Chandler, Martin Collinson, Chris Kehoe, Robin Prytherch, Nigel Redman, Roger Riddington, Steve Votier Art Consultants Robert Gillmor 8c Alan Elarris Photographic Consultants Robin Chittenden 8c David Tipling Rarities Committee Chairman Colin Bradshaw Secretary Nigel Hudson Chris Batty, Chris Bradshaw, Phil Bristow, Lance Degnan, Martin Garner, James Lidster, Mike Pennington, Adam Rowlands, Brian Small, John Sweeney Notes Panel Will Cresswell, Ian Dawson, Jim Flegg, Ian Newton FRS, Malcolm Ogilvie, Angela Turner (Co-ordinator) Annual subscription rates Libraries and agencies - £89.00 Individual subscriptions: UK - £48.00 Overseas surface mail - £54.50 Back issues Single back issues - £6.50 Available from British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Rarities Issue- £12 (available as above) Please make all cheques payable to British Birds Guidelines for contributors Full details are available on the BB website. www.britishbirds.co.uk EDITORIAL CIRCULATION Spindrift, Eastshore, & PRODUCTION Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS 4 Harlequin Gardens, Tel: 01 950 460080 St Leonards on Sea, Papers, notes, letters, illustrations, etc. East Sussex TN37 7PF Roger Riddington Tel & fax: 01424 755155 E-mail: editor@britishbirds.co.uk ‘News 8c comment’ information Design & Production Mark Corliss E-mail: m.corliss@netmatters.co.uk Adrian Pitches, 22 Dene Road, Tynemouth, Tyne 8c Wear NE30 2JW E-mail: adrianpitches@blueyonder.co.uk Subscriptions & Administration Rarity descriptions Hazel Jenner Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat, E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk St Mary’s, Scilly TR21 0LL E-mail: secretary@bbrc.org.uk Printed by Hastings Printing Company Ltd ADVERTISING: for all advertising matters, please contact: Ian Lvcett, Solo Publishing Ltd, B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550 Fax: 020 8881 0990 E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Front-cover photograph: Juvenile/ first-win ter Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus, Seahouses, Northumberland, January 2008. John Malloy REFERRED BY HOSE WHO KNOW. ‘PENTAX. A revelation in binocular viewing. ?When it comes to keeping a keen eye on birds and nature, nothing compares to Pentax. ‘With state-of-the-art performance and silky smooth handling, Pentax DCF ED binoculars are the preferred choice of nature-lovers the world over. They deliver precise, accurate ’images over long viewing periods, thanks to a raft of advanced optical technologies, such ;as high-tech ED glass to enhance sharpness and eliminate colour fringing, Super Multi Coating on all lens surfaces, and BaK4 prisms for unsurpassed clarity. What's more, they're built to take the toughest conditions. With a strong and light ■magnesium chassis, rubber coating and full water, dirt and fog protection. Just like our multi-award winning digital SLR cameras, Pentax DCF ED binoculars simply set the .standard for image capture. They're pure Pentax. Available at leading Pentax Camera Stores - visit our website for details. Penta right ■ TECHNOLOGY & Don’t miss our Bargain selection for 2008 India - Bharatpur & Chambal 9 days - from £1,295 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 27 Dec India - Corbett Country 9 days- £1,250 Departs 26 Jan, 22 Nov India - Endemic Birds of Annamalai 9 days - £1,195 Departs 2 Feb, 22 Nov India - Family Tour Spices & Elephants 9 days - from £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Temples & Wildlife 9 days - £1,525 Departs 9 Feb, 5 Apr, 18 Oct, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Tigers & Forts 9 days - £1,345 Departs 9, 16 Feb, 25 Oct India - Goa 9 days - £1,195 Departs 14 Nov India - International Animal Rescue 10 days - £1,550 Departs 15 Feb, 14 Nov India - Kerala’s National Parks & Backwaters 9 days - £1,350 Departs I Mar, 15 Nov India - Southern India’s Endemics 12 days - from £1,550 Departs 8 Mar, 15 Nov, 20 Dec India - Wildlife & Cuisine 9 days - £1,295 Departs 9, 16, 23 Feb, 8 Mar, 8 Nov, 27 Dec Kazakhstan 9 days- £1,595 Departs 8, 16th May Kenya 10 days - £1,595 Departs 7 Nov Malawi 10 days - £1,595 Departs 3 Feb, 6 Apr Nepal 10 days - from £1,495 Departs 2, 9th Feb, 29 Mar, 20 Dec Nepal - A Very Special Offer! 10 days - £1,295 Departs 26 Jan, 16 Feb, 3 May Nepal - Ibisbill Trek 10 days - £1,495 Departs 10 May Panama - Canopy Tower 9 days - £1,595 Departs 16, 23 Apr, 12 Nov South Africa 10 days - £1,550 Departs 8 Feb, 28 Mar, 5 Sep South Africa’s Cape 10 days- £1,495 Departs 14 Mar, 22 Aug South Africa - Zululand 10 days- £1,595 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 13 Sep Southern Morocco 10 days - from £1,195 Departs 8 Feb, 14 Mar, 4 Apr Sri Lanka 10 days - £1,495 Departs 16 Feb, 8 Nov Thailand £ 10 days - £1,590 Departs 15 Feb, / 14 Nov Uganda 9 days - £1,395 Departs 6 Mar, 30 Oct Venezuela - Off the Beaten Track 9 days - £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, I Nov Venezuela - Andean Endemics 9 days- £1,495 Departs 2 Feb, 15 Nov Venezuela - Llanos 9 days - £1,495 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 8 Nov Zambia 9 days - from £1,550 Departs 18 Feb, 10 Nov, 19 Dec Argentina - Andes 10 days - £1,890 Departs 7 Jan, 25 Feb, 7 Apr, 28 Jul, I Dec Argentina - Chaco 10 days - £1,890 Departs 14 Jan, 3 Mar, 14 Apr, 4 Aug, 8 Dec Australia - Endemics of WA 12 days - £2,250 Departs 12, 26 Sep Australia - Queensland 13 days - £2,590 Departs II Nov Bolivia - Lowlands 10 days - £1,395 Departs 10 Feb, 9 Nov Bolivia - Highlands 12 days - £1,595 Departs 17 Feb, 16 Nov Botswana 10 days - £1,695 Departs 14 Nov Brazil 10 days - £1,495 Departs 7 Mar, 19 Sep Cuba 12 days- £1,790 Departs 8 Mar Ecuador - Choco 9 days - £1,350 Departs 22 Nov Ecuador - Tumbesian Endemics 9 days - £1,395 Departs 7 Sep Ecuador - Cock-of- the-Rock 9 days - from £1,250 Departs 15 Jan, 9 Feb, 15 Mar, 21 Aug, 18 Oct, 15 Nov Ethiopia 10 days - from £1,295 Departs 8 Feb, 21 Mar, 7 Nov, 19 Dec Ethiopian Endemics 10 days- £1,295 Departs 15 Feb, II Apr, 14 Nov Florida 9 days- £1,590 Departs 18 Feb Gambia 12 days - £1,190 Departs 7 Nov India - Birds & Mammals 9 days- £1,350 Departs I, 15 Feb, 4 Apr, 14 Nov For our New Brochure call js 01962 733051 or visit our Website naturetrek.co.uk NATURETREK, CHERITON MILL, CHERITON, ALRESFORC HAMPSHIRE SQ24 ONG E-mail: info@naturetrek.co.ul BirdLife frits to savour ■ th fully rubberised armouring and exceptional ergonomics - these are the I the ATS and STS 80 and 65 telescopes, which aTe immediately noticeable client high-contrast edge-to-edge images with a wide field of view, delity and sensational close-up focussing are amongst their inherent values, the optic is also impressive with compact design and identical magnification 'ep'-eces regardless of the body. Swarovski Optik's observation telescopes are crowned :tion with a simple, noiseless movement, thanks to the easy to use focussing system. 1 K LTD Pertywood Business Park, Satfords, Surrey RHi 5 JO, Tel, 01737-856812, Fax 01737-856885 SWAROVSKI O P T I K www.swarovskioptik.com "Red necked Phalaropes can be very tricky to pick out in their rri habitat. Scanning the grasses with the fine optics of my Victory makes the job a little easier, even against the light". SIMON KING, Wildlife Film-Maker. Zeiss 8 x 32 T* FL Zeiss 10 x 32 T* FL Simon is using Zeiss Victory FL 8 x 32 binoculars, with a close focus of 2 metres. With the best optical image quality of their class, minimum weight and optimum ergonomics and handling - these are the unbeatable benefits supplied by Victory FL Binoculars and their special objective lenses with fluoride glass (FL). For more information, please telephone: 01707 871 350 or visit www.zeiss.co.uk. We makt British Birdsf^^* 5 - FEB 2008 Volume 101 • Number 2 • February 2008 p | rp;ruQ J0RARY 58 Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons in southwest England Edward J. A. Drewitt and Nick Dixon 68 The mysteries of bird migration - still much to be learnt Franz Bairlein 82 Olive-tree Warbler in Shetland: new to Britain Hugh R. Harrop, R.oddy Mavor and Peter M. Ellis 89 S3 The Carl Zeiss Award Colin Bradshaw, on behalf of BBRC 90 The BB/ BTO Best Bird Book of the Year 2007 John Marchant, Dawn Balmer, Andrew Gosler, Peter Hearn, Robin Prytherch and Bob Scott Regular features 92 Notes Display flight of Little Bittern Phil Palmer and Paul J. Willoughby Active food parasitism in the Grey Heron /. Sevcfk and J. Rajchard Aerial food pass by Pallid Harrier at winter roost Pete and Susan Combridge Opportunistic egg predation by Oystercatchers Trevor Jones Winter use of urban amenity grasslands by Turnstones and other waders Christopher F. Mason Rooks gathering nest material Lynne Farrell 97 Letter Scientific names: abbreviations and pronunciation James Ferguson-Lees 1 00 Reviews Field Guide to the Animals and Plants oj Tristan da Cunha and Gough Island Birds of Wiltshire Remarkable Birds The Clements Checklist of the Birds of the World Philip’s Guide to Birds of Britain and Europe John Kirk Townsend: collector of Audubon’s western birds and mammals Finding Birds in Ireland The Untrodden Combes Flights of Fancy 1 05 News and comment Adrian Pitches 1 07 S3 Rarities Committee news BBRC welcomes new member 1 08 Recent reports Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey © British Birds 2008 Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons in southwest England Edward J.A. Drewitt and Nick Dixon ABSTRACT Despite extensive research on city-dwelling Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in mainland Europe and other parts of the world, little has been undertaken and published in the UK. We analysed the diet of Peregrines in three cities in southwest England - Bristol, Bath and Exeter - between 1998 and 2007. The wide range of prey species taken included many species associated with a variety of non-urban habitats. Some prey species appear to be hunted at night, while on migration. This paper summarises the diet of Peregrines in urban areas and reviews their night-time hunting behaviour. The diet of Peregrine Falcons Falco pere- grinus in the UK is best known from the analysis of prey remains collected from nest-sites in habitats such as sea cliffs, moor- land, upland crags and lowland quarries (Rat- cliffe 1993), but little has been published on the diet of Peregrines in urban areas. The results of the most recent national survey showed that about 4% of the UK’s breeding Peregrines are found in towns and cities throughout the year, along with an increasing number of non- breeding and wintering individuals (Dixon 2000; Crick et al. 2003). Until recently, informa- tion about their diet has been fragmented, and the assumption has been that they feed pre- dominantly on urban species, especially Feral Pigeons Columba livia (Ratcliffe 1993; Tully 1997). FFowever, the accessibility of some urban nest-sites allows comprehensive samples of prey debris to be obtained throughout the year and in this paper we describe the prey remains col- lected from three cities in southwest England over a 6-9 year period. Study sites and their use by Peregrine Falcons Urban-dwelling Peregrines were studied in the cities of Bristol, Bath (Somerset) and Exeter (Devon). In Bristol, Peregrines regularly roost | on the tallest office buildings in the city and on one of the University buildings. Both adults and immatures were present throughout the year, although only sporadically during the mid- summer months. In Bath, a pair regularly roosts | on St John’s Church in the city centre and prey remains were also recovered from Bath Abbey. Peregrines have been using Bath as a non- breeding site since the late 1990s. A pair showed signs of breeding behaviour in 2000, but first bred in 2006, following the erection of a nestbox by the Hawk and Owl Trust in 2004. In 2006, four chicks were hatched and three fledged successfully; two chicks fledged in 2007. Peregrines have been using a church tower in Exeter since 1987 and have bred there since 1997 (Dixon & Drewitt 2002); the pair has fledged young successfully each year since then. Peregrines are often faithful to their wintering sites and those studied in Bristol and Bath during the non-breeding seasons may have been the same birds visiting annually (van Dijk 2000; Taranto 2007). A wide range of habitats are found within an 58 © British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 58-67 Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons 47. The prey taken by urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in Britain comprises an extraordinarily wide range of species, many of which are not generally associated with urban habitats. 8-km radius of each of the three cities. Bristol (city population 410,500) contains parkland, rivers, many trees and other green open spaces. Bath and its surroundings (population 175,600) has rivers, parkland, mixed agricultural land and woodland within 8 km of the centre. Exeter (population 119,600) and its environs contains more diverse habitats, including four river systems and associated water meadows, tidal reaches and mudflats on the estuary, deciduous and coniferous forest and mixed agricultural land as well as urban, suburban and industrial areas (all data from National Statistics www. statistics.gov.uk). Methods Prey debris (see below) was collected at regular intervals at the Peregrines’ roosting and breeding sites over the following periods: from October 1998 to December 2005 in Bristol; from March 2000 to July 2007 in Bath; and from June 1997 to July 2007 in Exeter. Weekly visits to three sites in Bristol and two sites in Bath were made from mid September to April, while monthly visits were made from May to August. In 2006 and 2007, both sites in Bath were visited daily. The Exeter site, which sup- ports a breeding pair with year-round occupa- tion, was visited weekly throughout the study period. Here, in addition to the weekly collec- tions, there was an annual clearance of the gulleys, gutters and drainpipes of the church in November. At all sites, a careful search for prey debris was carried out below the buildings used for roosting/breeding, and on ground areas and roofs/gutters within approximately 20 m of the roost/nest-site. Sites were walked in the same pattern on each visit. A wider search (up to 50 m from the roost/nest-site) was carried out following strong winds. Debris collected included carcases (whole or incomplete), heads, skulls, legs, feet, wings, feathers, rings and pellets (see Oro & Telia 1995). Remains were dried after each col- lection for subsequent analysis. Prey species were identified mostly with the help of refer- ence material (chiefly Jenni 8c Winkler 1994, Brown et al. 2003, www.ups.edu/x5662.xml, www.michelklemann.nl/verensite/start/index. html). Occasionally, items were confirmed only after comparison with museum specimens, either at the Natural History Museum (Tring) or at Bristol’s City Museum 8c Art Gallery. To avoid duplication, careful identification of remains was required over a period of days and sometimes a week or more after a partic- ular item was discovered. Some prey is cached by Peregrines and eaten over a period of time and sometimes the remains of individual items were found on more than one day. The minimum number of individuals was estab- Britlsh Birds 101 • February 2008 • 58-67 59 Markus Varesvuo Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons which emphasises the diversity of prey taken and the opportunistic nature of hunting Pere- grines in our towns and cities. A total of 5,275 individual prey items were identified. Feral Pigeons were the most important prey species, comprising 42% of prey by frequency and 63% by weight. Other significant prey species were Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris (9% by frequency and 3% by weight), Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto (4% and 4%), Redwing Turdus iliacus (4% and 1%), Greenfinch Carduelis carduelis (4% and 1%) and Eurasian Teal Anas crecca (2% and 4%) (see fig. 1). Fig. 2 shows the variation in the most frequent prey species eaten throughout the year in Exeter. Over half of the Starlings eaten in the summer months were juveniles. Along with Collared Doves and Blackbirds Turdus merula Common Swifts Apus apus were an importani component of summer diet, comprising 99i of prey. Fig. 3 shows a selection of nocturna migrants and how the numbers we recordec among Peregrine remains at all three site' varied across the year. As might have beer expected, most species show a peak durin* migration seasons and in winter; the om obvious exception is Blackbird, which was mos important between March and August, illus trating the greater importance of local Black Fig. 2. Seasonal variation in prey composition of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in Exeter, 1 998-2007. Figures show number of individual items identified in each month during the study period. Gulls and terns Swifts and hirundines 2% Duck 3% Sparrows, finches and buntings 10% Fig. I . Prey composition of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in Bristol, Bath and Exeter, 1998-2007 (n=5,275). lished by checking, for example, for duplication of the same wing feathers or legs as well as for feathers from birds of a different age or sex class. Feather condition and weather-related damage was important in assessments of how fresh the remains were. Results Prey species taken at each of the three sites are given in Appendix 1. A total of 98 species were recorded, ranging in size from Goldcrest Regulus regulus to Mallard Anas platyrhynchos. 60 British Birds 101 * February 2008 • 58 — f c Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons )irds ( particularly young) in the Peregrine diet :ompared with migrants (although the peak nonth is March, which presumably includes nany migrants). discussion )ur study amalgamates data from three sepa- ate urban areas in Britain and we believe that he large sample of prey recorded makes it rep- esentative of the diet of urban Peregrines cross Britain. Prey remains examined by us rom other, smaller-scale studies elsewhere in he UK (including the cities of Coventry, Derby, London, Taunton and Worcester) upport this. Appendix 1 confirms that the diet if urban Peregrines is remarkably diverse and hat these raptors regularly hunt prey species hat are rarely encountered in urban environ- tents. The finding that Feral Pigeon is the tost frequent prey species is consistent with ther studies of city-dwelling Peregrines Sommer 1989; Ratcliffe 1993; Schneider 8c Widen 1994; Tully 1998; Rejt 2001; Serra et al. 001; Carter et al. 2003; Marconot 2003; Rejt 8c ielicki 2007). , The prey remains retrieved are merely a ;cord of what was brought back to the urban tes we monitored and may under-represent the ill complement of prey that is caught or taken t other feeding sites, unknown and less regu- larly used. In addition, the indirect sampling method may over-represent certain species, par- ticulary larger birds. Loss of remains due to scavenging, weather, height of the buildings used (all 60 m or more in our study), street cleaning, etc. may also bias or limit the results (Oro 8c Telia 1995; Rogers et al. 2005; Ruddock 2007). Feral Pigeons The proportion of Feral Pigeons in the diet of Peregrines in our study (42% of 5,275 items) is higher than for most other urban sites in Europe. The percentage composition throughout the year is 32% (of 486 items) in Warsaw, Poland; 16% (n = 268) in Belfort, France; 11% (n=624) and 26.6% (n= 128) at two different sites in Berlin, Germany; 30% ( n =46 ) in Florence, Italy, where Peregrine Falcons just winter; and 40.2% (n=107) in Plzen, Czech Republic, in the summer (Sommer 1989; Schneider 8c Wilden 1994; Mlikovsky 8c Hruska 2000; Rejt 2001; Serra et al. 2001; Marconot 2003). This higher representation may be due partly to our large sample size, but probably also reflects differences in population size and availability of Feral Pigeons among the cities mentioned. Seasonal changes in the proportion of Feral Pigeons in the Peregrine’s diet may be related to variation in local populations of both breeding 70 i Little Grebe Moorhen Woodcock Common Snipe Blackbird Fieldfare Song Thrush Redwing Fig- 3. Seasonal variation in prey composition of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in Bristol, Bath and Exeter, 1 998-2007, showing certain key species (note that Feral Pigeon Columba livia is excluded to emphasise the patterns of the other species). Figures show number of individual items identified in each month during the study period. itish Birds 101 • February 2008 • 58-67 61 c Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons > feral and exercising domestic (e.g. racing) pigeons, increased demand for food to feed chicks and the presence or absence of alterna- tive prey. A pattern similar to that shown by our results was found in Warsaw where, between June and September, Feral Pigeons comprised 43% of the diet, falling to only 10% between October and December (Rejt 2001). Common Starlings Starlings are an important part of the diet of British Peregrines, particularly during the breeding season, when many juveniles are taken. Although the proportions vary season- ally, the overall value of 9% (of 5,275 items) is a little lower than that for Belfort (11%) and Berlin (15%) (Sommer 1989; Marconot 2003), which may reflect the decline in the Starling population of southern England (Robinson et al. 2005). In the breeding season, Starlings account for 19% of the diet in Exeter, very similar to the 18% found in Berlin but much higher than 6% in Warsaw and 0.9% in Plzen (Schneider & Wilden 1994; Mlikovsky & Hruska 2000; Rejt 2001). Common Swifts Common Swifts appear to be an important component of the diet in the breeding season in southern England (9% of 689 items) and are taken in similar proportions in Warsaw (9%), Berlin (9.4%) and Florence ( 14%); in Plzen they comprised just 2.8% of the summer diet (Schneider & Wilden 1994; Mlikovsky & Hruska 2000; Rejt 2001; Serra et al. 2001). Distances travelled Tracking Peregrines from regular roosts or breeding sites has shown that foraging flight dis- tances range from less than 2 km to 43 km, with the exception of one extraordinary flight of 79 km in one trip (Ratcliffe 1993; Enderson & Craig 1997). Recent radio-tracking studies of Peregrines in Canada have shown similar daily movements of urban-breeding birds (Peregrine Foundation 2006 www.peregrine-foundation.ca/ trackem.html ). Recent work in Italy suggests that urban Peregrines do not hunt in the vicinity of the nest, that hunting occurs predominantly 1-5 km from the nest and that local populations of Feral Pigeons, Collared Doves, Blackbirds, Western Jackdaws Corvus monedula and Star- lings were not affected by Peregrine predation (Taranto 2007). In Florence, Peregrines take many birds flying over the city and have a par- : ticular preference for high-flying rather than mid- or low-flying species (Serra et al. 2001). Nocturnal migrants Some of the prey species recorded in our study are normally shy and secretive, typically flying only short distances and then mostly at night or at dawn and dusk, and migrate mostly at night. These include Common Quail Coturnix coturnix, Little Tachybaptus ruficollis and Black- necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis, Water Rail Rallus aquaticus, Corn Crake Crex crex, Moorhen Gallinula chloropus , Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus and Woodcock Scolopax rusticola. Other, less secretive prey, including Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur, thrushes, Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe and Brambling Fringilla tnontifringilla, will also migrate at night (Rejt 2001; Wernham et al. 2002). In addi- tion, Dunnocks Prunella modularis have been taken in large numbers during the autumn, hinting at a rather large and poorly known movement of Dunnocks at this time of year. In our study, these species appear to be taken chiefly during the months when they normally ; migrate into or through southern England, or are involved in localised movements (Wernham et al. 2002). Most are present in Peregrine diet during the autumn/winter months and again in February/March as they migrate north. With the notable exception of Blackbird, most are effectively absent from the diet in midsummer. Redwings are predated most heavily in November, and Common Snipe in March and November-December, when their winter popu- lations probably peak in southwest England (Wernham et al. 2002). During this period, Peregrines may catch more prey than they need to survive and cache the surplus (Ratcliffe 1993). Little Grebes are taken in small numbers all through the year, suggesting that they are moving at night between stretches of water throughout the year and so are not caught solely during spring and autumn migration. Similar findings with respect to Quails and Corn Crakes have been reported from France, Poland and the Czech Republic (Mlikovsky & I Hruska 2000; Rejt 2001; Marconot 2003). Nocturnal hunting Evidence that Peregrines hunt nocturnally in Britain is relatively recent (Tully 1997). Else- 62 British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 58-67 c Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons where, however, Peregrines are known to hunt at night at various times of the year and their increasing presence in towns and cities is cre- ating further evidence for this behaviour (DeCandido 8c Allen 2006). Nocturnal hunting behaviour of urban-dwelling Peregrines has been recorded in North America, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia and across Europe (Sommer 1989; Olsen et al. 1998; Ferguson-Lees 8c Christie 2001; Serra et al. 2001; DeCandido & Allen 2006). Our study has highlighted several prey species that are most likely to have been caught at night. Black-necked Grebes, for example, fly predominantly at night and are already rested on water before first light (Jordan 2001 ). Other species, such as Woodcock, may have been taken at dusk or dawn but were more likely to have been caught at night - there are no roding Woodcocks in the vicinity of our study areas (Farrell et al. 2001; Rose 2005). Such birds may be drawn to city lights in the same way that migrants are attracted to lighthouses (Rejt 2001; Marconot 2003; DeCandido & Allen 2006). Evidence of nocturnal hunting behaviour illustrates just how well adapted Peregrines are to the urban environment, since they are well able to maximise feeding opportunities there. Studies in France, Germany and The Nether- lands describe how Peregrines use artificial light directed onto buildings at night to their advan- tage, attacking prey at short distances and using the shadows to avoid being dazzled while ooking for a potential kill (Kladny 2001; Mar- :onot 2003). During the peak migration period af quarry species in Berlin and New York, Pere- grines are not observed hunting until after sunset (Sommer 1989; DeCandido 8c Allen 1006). In southern Taiwan, Peregrines use a tall bridge tower which is illuminated at night and 'eturn with live or freshly killed prey; peak ■eturn rates are during 05.00-09.00 hrs and 19.00-23.00 hrs. During 140 hours of filming, 79.5% of the 44 prey items recorded were wrought in between 19.00 and 20.00 hrs and bnly 20.5% during daylight hours (Huang 8c j ieveringhaus 2005). In The Netherlands, a Peregrine cache on an ndustrial chimney contained hundreds of )irds, mainly Moorhens, Water Rails, Eurasian Teals and Common Snipes. The site, illumi- tated at night, is on a main migration route for hese species and it is thought that they were irobably taken at night while on passage (Van Seneijen 2000). In Warsaw, studies of breeding urban Peregrines have shown that more than 10% of all feeding or prey deliveries to young take place at night, particularly between mid- night and 04.00 hrs (Rejt 2004). Direct observations from the Empire State Building, New York, have revealed Peregrines regularly hunting nocturnal migrants such as Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus and Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula. The presence of at least three Peregrines at any one time was significantly more likely on evenings when more than 50 migrants were counted passing over during the night and most observations were noted in October (DeCandido 8c Allen 2006). In Binghamton, New York State, noc- turnal migrants such as American Woodcock Scolopax minor, Virginia Rail Rallus limicola and ‘Wilson’s Snipe’ G. g. delicata have all been found as prey items (Robert DeCandido pers. comm.). Nocturnal behaviour in non-urban habitats Nocturnal behaviour in non-urban habitats has also been recorded. Ancient Murrelets Synthlib- oramphus antiquus, Cassin’s Auklets Ptychoram- phus aleuticus, Fork-tailed Storm-petrels Oceanodroma furcata and Leach’s Storm-petrels O. leucorhoa in North America are hunted over the sea at night or during crepuscular hours (Ratcliffe 1993; Rejt 2004). At cliff sites in Co. Down, the hunting of bats (Chiroptera), begging calls from chicks and movements to retrieve what is thought to be cached prey have been recorded at night (Marc Ruddock pers. comm.). Radio-tracked Peregrines in Somerset have also shown evidence of flying and prob- ably hunting at night (Nick Williams pers. comm.). Woodcock has appeared in over 70% of prey lists across Britain (Ratcliffe 1993). In southern Scotland, Woodcock comprises 4% of the winter diet, while in Northumberland it is as high as 6% by frequency and 13% by weight (Mearns 1982; Dixon 2005). In South Wales, between October and May, Woodcock com- prises 2.1% of the diet (n= 1,541), the majority probably being taken at night, though a propor- tion may be taken at dawn and dusk between March and May, during roding flights (Dixon 8c Richards 2005). Countershading plumages and their possible effects on predation Many of the key migratory species taken by Peregrines at night are waterbirds with ‘counter- Iritish Birds 101 • February 2008 • 58-67 63 Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons shading plumages’ (Bretagnolle 1993; McNaught & Owens 2002; Ruxton et al. 2004; Speed et al. 2005). A pale belly and dark back may work well when birds are on the water, camouflaging them from aerial predators above and food such as fish and invertebrates from below, but may be counter-productive when flying at night in arti- ficially illuminated areas. Under such condi- tions, pale underparts are strikingly obvious from below, while Peregrines perched on high vantage points will see low-flying migrants as dark silhouettes against the illumination. Bats The presence of bats in the Peregrine’s diet is occasionally recorded in continental Europe, Africa and North America (Cramp & Simmons 1980; Ratcliffe 1993; Jenkins & Avery 1999; Mlikovsky & Hruska 2000; van Dijk 2000; Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001; Lee & Kuo 2001; Serra et al. 2001; Carter et al. 2003; Rejt 2004; Peter Wegner pers. comm.; Matyas Prommer pers. comm.). In our study, Peregrines caught Noctule Bats Nyctalus noctula in both Exeter and Bath and this is probably linked to the habit of hunting at dawn/dusk or at night. Acknowledgments The research was partially funded by Bristol Zoo/National Lottery Millennium Awards Scheme and the Hawk and Owl Trust. From the former Stephen Woollard and Chris Sperring offered support and helped to raise awareness of the project. Thanks are due to everyone who has assisted and advised during the project, in particular Rainer Altenkamp, Nigel Ball. Andy Baxter Axel Braunlich, Nick Brown, Robert DeCandido, Andrew Dixon, Graeme Goodall, Father Tom Gunning, Louisa Hazelton, Denzil Large, Graham Roberts, Colin Shawyer John Tully, Philip Wright and John Yates. Thanks are due to Edmund Flach at Whipsnade Zoo for supplying Corn Crake feathers for reference. Mike Bailey, Marc Ruddock and Dr Rob Thomas provided statistical assistance and along with Richard Bland, Elizabeth Drewitt and John Tully gave helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. References Bretagnolle, V. 1 993. Adaptive significance of seabird coloration: the case of Procellariiformes. Am. Nat. 1 42: 141-173. Brown, FL, Ferguson, J„ Lawrence, M., & Lees. D. 2003. Tracks and Signs of the Birds of Britain and Europe: an identification guide. 2nd edn. Christopher Helm, London. Carter K. M„ Lacki, M. J„ Dzialak, M. FL, Burford, L. S„ & Bethany, Ft 0. 2003. Food habits of Peregrine Falcons in Kentucky. J. Raptor Res. 37: 344—349. Cramp, S., & Simmons, K. E. L. (eds.) 1 980. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.The Birds of the Western PalearcticM ol. 2. OUR Oxford. Crick, H„ Banks, A., & Coombes, FL 2003. Findings of the National Peregrine Survey 2002. BTO News 248: 8-9. DeCandido, R, & Allen, D. 2006. Nocturnal hunting of Peregrine Falcons at the Empire State Building, New York City, NY. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. I 1 8: 53-58. Dixon, A. 2005.The prey of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus at breeding territories in Northumberland. Trans. Nat Hist Soc. Northumbria. 64(3): I 1 1-120. — & Richards. C. 2005. Peregrine Falco peregrinus predation ofWoodcocks Scolopax msticola: evidence of I nocturnal hunting. Welsh Birds 4: 221-226. Dixon. N. 2000. A new era for Peregrines - buildings, bridges and pylons as nest sites. BTO News 229: 10-11. I — & Drewitt E. 2002. Prey selection by urban nesting Peregrine Falcons in 200 1 . Devon Bird Report 2 1 0-2 1 3. j Enderson.J. H„ & Craig, G. FL 1 997. Wide ranging by nesting Peregrine Falcons ( Falco peregnnus) determined I by radiotelemetry. J. Raptor Res. 3 1 : 333-338. Farrell, I.. Hibbert, FL, & Reay. FL (eds.) 2002. Devon Bird Report 2001 . Devon Bird Watching and Preservation Society. Ferguson-Lees. J.. & Christie. D. A. 200 1 . Raptors of the World. Christopher Helm, London. Huang, K.Y. & Severinghaus. L L 2005.The nocturnal hunting behaviour of a diurnal raptor, the Peregrine Falcon, in southern Taiwan. Fourth Asian Raptor Research I and Conservation Network Symposium. Taiping, Perak. Malaysia Jenkins, A. FL, & Avery, G. M. 1 999. Diets of the Peregrine and Lanner Falcons in South Africa J. Raptor Res. 33: 190-206. Jenni, L, & Winkler FL 1 994. Moult and Ageing of European Passerines. Academic Press, London. Jordan, R 200 1 . Grebes: keeping watch on the fiery eyes. BBC Wildlife 19:48-54. Kladny, M. 200 1 . Slechtvalk jaagt 's nachts op kokmeeuwen. I [Peregrine Falcon hunts Black-headed Gulls at night] Slechtvalk Nieuwsbrief. Dutch Peregrine Workgroup 7(2): I I . [In Dutch] Lee.Y., & Kuo.Y 200 1 . Predation on Mexican Free-tailed Bats by Peregrine Falcons and Red-tailed Hawks. J. Raptor Res. 35: I 1 5-123. Marconot, B. 2003. [Nocturnal hunting behaviour of the Peregrine Falco peregrinus at Belfort] Ornithos 10: 207-21 I. [In French] McNaught M. K., & Owens, I. R F. 2002. Interspecific variation in plumage colour among birds: species recognition or light environment? J. Evol. Biol. 15: 505-514. Mearns, R 1 982. Winter occupation of breeding territories ' and winter diet of Peregrines in South Scotland. Ornis Scand. 1 3: 79-83. Mlikovsky, J., & Hruska, J. 2000. Food of the Peregrine Falcon ( Falco peregrinus ) in Plzen, Czech Republic. Buteo I I: 125-128. Olsen, R. Doyle, V., & Boulet M. 1 998. Variation in male provisioning in relation to brood size of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus. Emu 98: 297-304. Oro, D„ & Telia, J. L. 1 995. A comparison of two methods for studying the diet of the Peregrine Falcon.). Raptor Res. 29: 207-210. Ratcliffe, D. A. 1 993. The Peregrine Falcon. 2nd edn. Poyser London. Rejt, L 200 1 . Feeding activity and seasonal changes in prey | composition of urban Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus. Acta Ornithologica 36: 165-169. — 2004. Nocturnal behaviour of adult Peregrines at the nest during nestling period. Vestnik Zoologii 38: 87-90. — & Sielicki. S. 2007. Feeding activity and seasonal changes in prey composition of Peregrines ( Falco p. peregrinus ) in Poland. Peregrine Conference. Piotrowo/Poznan, Poland. Robinson, R A., Siriwardena, G. M„ & Crick, H. Q. P 2005. 64 British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 58-67 < Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons Status and population trends of Starling Sturnus vulgaris in Great Britain. Bird Study 52: 252-260. Rogers, A. S„ DeStefano, S„ & Ingraldi, M. F. 2005. Quantifying Northern Goshawk diets using remote ! cameras and observations from blinds. J. Raptor Res. 39: 303-309. Rase. H. (ed.). 2005. Avon Bird Report 2004. Avon Ornithological Group, Bristol. I Ruddock, M. 2007.The importance of Peregrine diet studies in resolving predator-prey conflicts. Peregrine Conference. Piotrowo/Poznan, Poland. Rjxton, G. D„ Speed. M. R, & Kelly, D.J. 2004. What, if anything, is the adaptive function of countershading? Anim. Behaviour 68: 445^45 1 . Schneider. R & Wilden, I. 1 994. Choice of prey and feeding activity of urban Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus during the breeding season. In: Meyburg B.-U., & Chancellor; R D. (eds.), Raptor Conservation Today, 203-209. WWGBR Berlin, London & Paris. Serra, G„ Lucentini, M„ & Romano, S. 200 1 . Diet and prey selection of nonbreeding Peregrine Falcons in an urban habitat of Italy. J. Raptor Res. 35: 6 1 -64. Sommer R 1 989.The diet of the Berlin Peregrine pair Pica 16: 120-128. Snow, D. W„ & Perrins. C. M. 1 998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic - Concise Edition. OUR Oxford. Speed, M. R, Kelly, D.J., Davidson, A. M., & Ruxton, G. D. 2005. Countershading enhances crypsis with some bird species but not others. Behav. Ecol. 1 6: 327-334. Taranto, R 2007. Patterns of urbanisation and hunting strategies of urban Peregrine Falcons in Italy. Peregrine Conference. Piotrowo/Poznan, Poland. Tully.J. l998.The diet of urban Peregrines. Avon Bird Report 1997: l29-l36.Avon Ornithological Group, Bristol. van DijkJ. 2000. Zwolse Slechtvalken op middelbare leeftijd. [Wintering Peregrines from juvenile to middle age.] Slechtvalk Nieuwsbrief Dutch Peregrine Workgroup 6(2): 6- 10. [In Dutch] Van Geneijen, R 2000. Slechtvalken jagen op nachtelijke trekvogels [Peregrines prey on night migrants], Slechtvalk Nieuwsbrief Dutch Peregrine Workgroup. 6(1): 6. [In Dutch] Wernham, C.V.Toms, M. R, Marchant,]. FI., Clark, J. A., Siriwardena, G. M„ & Baillie, S. R. (eds.) 2002. The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland. Poyser, London. Edward J. A. Drewitt, Bristol’s City Museum &Art Gallery, Queen’s Road, Bristol BS8 1RL; i- mail ed_drewitt@hotmail.com Wick Dixon, Churchgate, Drewsteignton, Devon EX6 6QU Appendix I . Prey species identified from remains found at the roosting and/or nesting sites of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in Bristol, Bath and Exeter, 1 998-2007. Average weights taken from Snow & Perrins (1 998); all measurements of mass in g. Bristol Exeter Bath Unit Number of Total mass items (%) biomass (%) Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope 1 1 750 2 (0.04) 1,500 (0.14) Eurasian Teal Anas crecca 28 52 46 325 126 (2.39) 40,950 (3.88) Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1 4 1,100 5 (0.09) 5,500 (0.52) Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 1 552.5 1 (0.02) 552.5 (0.05) Common Quail Coturnix coturnix 1 105 1 (0.02) 105 (0.01) Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 4 3 11 161.5 18 (0.68) 2,907 (0.52) Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 1 374 1 (0.02) 374 (0.04) Leach’s Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 1 45 1 (0.02) 45 (0.004) Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 4 226 4 (0.08) 904 (0.09) Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 1 204 1 (0.02) 204 (0.02) Water Rail Rallus aquaticus 1 2 6 130 9 (0.17) 1,170 (0.11) Corn Crake Crex crex 1 160 1 (0.02) 160 (0.02) Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 1 15 12 330 28 (0.53) 9,240 (0.87) Common Coot Fulica atra 1 800 1 (0.02) 800 (0.08) Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 1 540 1 (0.02) 540 (0.05) Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 3 275 3 (0.06) 825 (0.08) Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula 5 64 5 (0.09) 320 (0.03) European Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria 9 24 10 220 43 (0.82) 9,460 (0.90) Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola 2 1 235 3 (0.06) 705 (0.07) Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 13 27 18 230 58 (1.10) 13,340 (1.26) Red Knot Calidris canutus 2 135 2 (0.04) 270 (0.03) Dunlin Calidris alpina 2 14 13 47.5 29 (0.55) 1,377.5 (0.13) Jack Snipe Lynmocryptes minimus 1 6 70.5 7 (0.13) 493.5 (0.05) ritish Birds 101 • February 2008 • 58-67 65 Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons Appendix I. (continued) Prey species identified from remains found at the roosting and/or nesting sites of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in Bristol, Bath and Exeter, 1998-2007. Average weights taken from Snow & Perrins (1 998); all measurements of mass in g. Bristol Exeter Bath Unit Number of Total mass items (%) biomass (%) Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 9 40 71 110 120 (2.27) 13,200 (1.25) Woodcock Scolopax rusticola 10 30 46 300 86 (1.83) 25,800 (2.44) Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 1 15 1 320 17 (0.32) 5,440 (0.51) Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica 3 340 3 (0.06) 1,020 (0.10) Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 6 480 6 (0.11) 2,880 (0.27) Common Redshank Tringa totanus 5 117.5 5 (0.09) 587.5 (0.06) Greenshank Tringa nebularia 1 200 1 (0.02) 200 (0.02) Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus 1 86 1 (0.02) 86 (0.01) Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos 2 55 2 (0.04) 110 (0.01) Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus 1 2 810 3 (0.06) 2,430 (0.23) Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus 13 11 46 300 70 (1.33) 21,000 (1.99) Little Tern Sterna albifrons 1 56 1 (0.02) 56 (0.01) Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis 9 1 245 10 (0.19) 2,450 (0.23) Common Tern Sterna hirundo 4 130 4 (0.08) 520 (0.05) Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii 1 112.5 1 (0.02) 112.5 (0.01) Little Auk Alle alle 1 165 1 (0.02) 165 (0.02) Feral Pigeon Columba livia 161 1,038 1,009 300 2,208 (41.86) 662,400 (62.69) Stock Dove Columba oenas 3 300 3 (0.046) 900 (0.09) Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus 6 30 55 449 91 (1.73) 40,859 (3.87) Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto 10 105 81 205 196 (3.72) 40,180 (3.80) Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur 2 3 2 140 7 (0.13) 980 (0.09) Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus 8 3 117.5 11 (0.21) 1,292.5 (0.12) Little Owl Athene noctua 2 2 180 4 (0.08) 720 (0.07) Common Swift Apus apus 1 65 6 43.5 72 (1.36) 3,132 (0.30) Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 3 9 40 12 (0.23) 480 (0.05) Green Woodpecker Picus viridis 1 4 15 185 20 (0.38) 3,700 (0.35) Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major 23 36 85 59 (1.12) 5,015 (0.47) Sky Lark Alauda arvensis 1 3 28 38 32 (0.61) 608 (0.12) Sand Martin Riparia riparia 2 13.5 2 (0.04) 27 (0.003) Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 2 19 2 (0.04) 38 (0.004) House Martin Delichon urbicum 5 1 19 6 (0.11) 114 (0.01) Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis 1 23.5 1 (0.02) 23.5 (0.002) Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis 6 18 18.5 24 (0.45) 444 (0.04) Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea 1 2 18 3 (0.06) 54 (0.01) Pied Wagtail Motacilla alba 12 28 21 40 (0.76) 840 (0.08) Dipper Cinclus cinclus 2 66.5 2 (0.04) 133 (0.01) Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 1 2 9.5 3 (0.06) 28.5 (0.003) Dunnock Prunella modularis 7 26 20.5 33 (0.63) 676.5 (0.06) Robin Erithacus rubecula 4 17.5 4 (0.08) 70 (0.01) Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe 1 3 23.5 4 (0.08) 94 (0.01) Blackbird Turdus merula 3 97 57 102.5 157 (2.98) 16,092.5 (1.52) Fieldfare Turdus pilaris 17 32 47 100 96 (1.82) 9,600 (0.91) 66 8 ritish Birds 101* February 2008 • 58-67 Diet and prey selection of urban-dwelling Peregrine Falcons Appendix I . (continued) Prey species identified from remains found at the roosting and/or nesting sites of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in Bristol, Bath and Exeter, 1 998-2007. Average weights taken from Snow & Perrins ( 1 998); all measurements of mass in g. Bristol Exeter Bath Unit Number of Total mass items (%) biomass (%) Song Thrush Turdus philomelos 1 33 26 82.5 60 (1.14) 4,950 (0.47) Redwing Turdus iliacus 10 88 110 62.5 208 (3.94) 13,000 (1.23) Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus 5 3 125 8 (0.15) 1,000 (0.09) Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla i 9 23.5 10 (0.19) 235 (0.02) ( Common Whitethroat Sylvia communis 2 3 19 5 (0.09) 95 (0.01) Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita! 5 9 5 (0.09) 45 (0.004) Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Goldcrest Regulus regulus 1 2 5.75 3 (0.06) 17.25 (0.002) Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus 5 11 11 16 (0.30) 176 (0.02) Treat Tit Parus major 9 14 18 23 (0.44) 414 (0.04) i Coal Tit Periparus ater 1 9 1 (0.02) 9 (0.001) ! Eurasian Jay Garrulus glandarius 11 19 165 30 (0.57) 4,950 (0.47) Vlagpie Pica pica 1 14 13 227 28 (0.53) 6,356 (0.60) i A'estern Jackdaw Corvus monedula 1 8 40 220 49 (0.93) 10,780 (1.02) look Corvus frugilegus 1 310 1 (0.02) 310 (0.03) Carrion Crow Corvus corone 3 1 510 4 (0.08) 2,040 (0.19) Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris 10 252 219 75 481 (9.12) 36,075 (3.41) douse Sparrow Passer domesticus 28 96 31 124 (2.35) 3,844 (0.36) Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs 31 44 23.5 75 (1.42) 1,762.5 (0.17) drambling Fringilla montifringilla 1 3 23.5 4 (0.08) 94 (0.01) Creenfinch Carduelis chloris 4 63 135 88.5 202 (3.83) 5,757 (0.54) Coldfmch Carduelis carduelis 18 56 16.5 74 (1.40) 1,221 (0.12) iiskin Carduelis spinus 2 1 14.5 3 (0.06) 43.5 (0.004) .innet Carduelis cannabina 2 10 18.5 12 (0.23) 222 (0.02) .esser Redpoll Carduelis cabaret 1 10.5 1 (0.02) 10.5 (0.001) . Sullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula 6 9 21 15 (0.28) 315 (0.03) 'ellowhammer Emberiza citrinella 1 2 30.5 3 (0.06) 91.5 (0.01) | feed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus 1 4 20.5 5 (0.09) 102.5 (0.01) scaped cagebirds iockatiel Nymphicus hollandicus 14 90 14 (0.27) 1,260 (0.12) iudgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus 10 2 28 12 (0.23) 336 (0.03) tose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri 3 117.5 3 (0.06) 352.5 (0.03) lanary Serinus canaria 1 28 1 (0.02) 28 (0.003) Jnidentified birds | Jnidentified wader 3 1 110 4 (0.08) 440 (0.04) ’nidentified passerine 5 32 5 (0.09) 160 (0.02) lammals irey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 1 550 1 (0.02) 550 (0.05) town Rat Rattus norvegicus 2 2 397.5 4 (0.08) 1,590 (0.15) ' Joctule Bat Nyctalus noctula 1 1 29.5 2 (0.02) 59 (0.003) ’nidentified mammal 1 40 1 (0.02) 40 (0.004) ■ OTAL 326 2,354 2,595 5,275 1,056,579.75 (100) (100) tish Birds 101 • February 2008 • 58-67 67 The mysteries of bird migration - still much to be learnt Franz Bairlein ABSTRACT Bird ringing has unveiled many mysteries of avian migrations, notably routes and destinations. However, there is still much to be explored by the use of ringing and other marking techniques. Satellite tracking, geolocation and global positioning systems are new tools, as well as particular chemical and molecular markers which appear to be very useful in the study of bird migration by delineating origin of birds and connectivity between breeding and non-breeding grounds. Understanding of bird migrations also gained much from captive studies about the internal mechanisms in the control of bird migration, but we still lack knowledge about external factors, such as food availability, weather, competitors, parasites or diseases. This paper summarises ongoing studies on Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenanthe to illustrate the benefit of such an integrated approach. Future migration research must aim much more at comparative research and a more integrated approach at various spatial and temporal scales, and linking various sub-disciplines. It is also important to realise that migration is only one part of the life-cycle of a migrating species. Thus, linking migration and breeding is another future challenge, for both basic science and conservation of migratory birds. For centuries, the seasonal arrival and departure of bird species to and from their breeding grounds remained a mystery. Although these events were described by early observers such as the wall and floor painters of ancient Egypt, Aristotle and the Emperor Friedrich von Hohenstaufen (who recognised that, in the northern hemisphere, birds moved south in autumn and north in spring), very little information was available about particular origins or destinations, although there were some intriguing clues. One example concerns a female White Stork Ciconia ciconia that was observed and later shot at its nest in Mecklenburg, northeast Germany, on 21st May 1822; embedded in the bird was an 80-cm long spear of the type used by tribes in central Africa (plate 48; Kinzelbach 2005). This was the first evidence that migrating White Storks winter in tropical Africa. The study of bird migration by ringing Our knowledge of bird migration improved dramatically with the development of bird ringing, first practised by the Danish schoo teacher Hans Christian Cornelius Mortensen ir 1899 (fespersen & Taning 1950; Bairlein 2001 )i For the first time, birds were ringed in a con certed effort to unravel the mystery of thei movements, although bird ringing had occa sionally been used for that purpose in earlie times (Bairlein 1999). After Mortensen, system atic ringing for the study of bird migration wa first introduced by Johannes Thienemann ii 1903, at the newly founded (in 1901) ‘Vogel warte Rossitten’ on the Courish Spit, on the eas shore of the Baltic (Stresemann 1951) Although ringing was much criticised by anim; welfare protestors at that time, its developmeij for the study of migration continued, and wit great success. Also in 1903, bird ringing bega © British Birds 101 * February 2008 • 68—8 68 The mysteries of bird migration c at the Hungarian Centre for Ornithology. In 1909, Hugo Weigold started ringing birds on the island of Helgoland, Germany, while H. F. Witherby and A. Landsborough Thomson first introduced ringing in Great Britain that same year. It was also in 1909 that the first birds were ringed in the USA, but systematic ringing in North America started only in 1920, with the collaboration of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Dominion Wildlife Service of Canada. Organised ringing began in Switzer- land in 1911, in Sweden in 1912, in The Nether- lands and France in 1914, and in Finland in 1916. Subsequently, bird ringing gradually developed as a routine technique used by avian scientists worldwide and many countries founded ‘Ringing Centres’. Since migrating birds ignore political boundaries, international collaboration in the study of bird migration was essential. Conse- quently, in 1963, the national Ringing Centres in Europe founded the ‘European Union for Bird Ringing’ (EURING); they agreed on a common code to computerise ringing and recovery data, and to gather recovery data in a centralised database. The EURING database was established and maintained at the Dutch Ringing Centre in Heteren until 2005, when it was moved to the BTO in Thetford, Norfolk. Currently, the EURING database contains details of some 2.3 million recoveries (Chris du Feu pers. comm.), an extraordinary resource for the analysis of bird movements (for details see /.ww.euring.org). Such an effort would not have been possible without the many enthusiastic volunteer ringers whose spare-time activities are so important for avian science. These volunteers are trained to extremely high levels, the training being co-ordinated by national ringing centres, and participate in targeted scientific projects. This degree of collaboration between profes- sional and amateur ornithologists is unique among biological sciences worldwide. For many decades, the major interest in and objective of bird ringing was to understand the migration routes and non-breeding distribu- tion of birds. As early as 1910, Thienemann published the first 35 recoveries of ringed White Storks, while, in 1929, von Lucanus compiled several hundred recoveries of 127 ! species and identified the major migration routes of European birds. The first ‘Migration I Atlas’ was published by Ernst Schiiz and Hugo Weigold in 1931, and contained 262 maps British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 68-81 > showing some 9,200 recoveries of 151 species. After about 100 years of bird ringing, various migration atlases have now been published, either nationally (Yamashina Institute for Ornithology 1996; Fransson & Pettersson 2001; Wernham et al. 2002; Bakken et al. 2003 & 2006; Bonlokke et al. 2006) or internationally (Zink 1973-1985; McClure 1974; Zink & Bair- lein 1995); these and the many papers which have analysed recoveries of single species or species groups have unveiled many of the former mysteries of bird movements (Bairlein 2001). The hundreds of thousands of recoveries of ringed birds are supplemented by abundant observational data on the occurrence and spatial and temporal distribution patterns of migratory species (e.g. Glutz von Blotzheim & Bauer 1966-1998, Moreau 1972, BWP, Keast & Morton 1980, Curry-Lindahl 1981, Brown et al. 1982-2000, Hagan & lohnston 1992, Poole et al. 1992-2002, Rappole et al. 1995, Greenberg & Marra 2005, Wisz et al. 2007). Consequently, the annual movements of many bird species, together with their non-breeding distribution, at least for birds breeding in the northern hemi- sphere, are fairly well known. 48. White Stork Ciconia ciconia carrying central- African spear. This individual was shot at its nest in Mecklenburg, northeast Germany, in May 1822. 69 Courtesy of Prof. Dr R. Kinzelbach, Rostock, Germany < The mysteries of bird migration New techniques In recent years, new techniques have supple- mented bird ringing and even widened its scope for establishing migratory routes (Bairlein 2003). One of the most widely used of the new method- ologies for tracking the routes of individual migrants is that of satellite telemetry, and numerous studies have been conducted. This enables a much more detailed spatial and tem- poral resolution of avian migrations and helps to identify migratory routes, stopover sites and win- tering grounds, especially of birds for which com- paratively few recoveries are available or could be obtained, such as larger or rare species. The tech- nique has so far been applied only to compara- tively large species (e.g. storks (Ciconiidae), cranes (Gruidae), geese (Anatidae), raptors), owing to the weight of the transmitters, but miniaturisation of transmitters and improved receiver sensitivity is likely to enable application to smaller species. Geolocation (GLS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) are two other new tools to track migrating birds on a worldwide scale (von Htinerbein et al. 2000; Weimerskirch & Wilson 2000; Gauthier-Clerc & Le Maho 2001; Wilson 2001). Geolocation is based on real-time measurement of ambient light intensity to deter- mine geographic co-ordinates, while GPS receives data from satellites for calculating a bird’s posi- tion. Initially, these techniques required an archival tag on the bird to collect the data and subsequent recapture of the bird and recovery of the logger. However, recent developments to link GTS and GPS to satellite transmitters allow the stored data to be downloaded without recapture. Biotelemetry and bio-logging have become chal- lenging new tools in the study of bird movements and bird behaviour (for reviews see Cooke et al 2004, Ropert-Coudert & Wilson 2005). In addition to electronic wizardry, recently established chemical and molecular markers may be used to establish the origin of migrants and to delineate bird migration routes (Webster et al. 2002). The earth’s surface varies in its chemical composition. Through diet, birds carry a signature of that chemical composition in their tissues. Stable isotopes are found to function as natural markers and provide new insight into the location histories of highly mobile animals by delineating the origin of birds feeding in areas where diets differ in isotope composition (e.g. Hobson & Wassenaar 1997, Alisauskas et al. 1998, Bensch et al. 1999, Hobson 1999, Chamberlain et al. 2000, Ruben- stein et al. 2002, Hobson 2003, Lott et al. 2003, Bearhop et al. 2005, Yohannes et al. 2007). Simi- larly, trace-element composition of plumage can be used to identify the origins of migrating birds (e.g. Parrish et al. 1983, Szep et al. 2003). Innate migratory behaviour In recent decades much has also been revealed about the endogenous control of avian migra- tions (for reviews see Alerstam 1990, Gwinner 1990, Berthold 1996, 2001, Bairlein 2002, Bair- lein et al. 2002, Berthold et al. 2003). For their first outbound migration, young migrants appear to be equipped with an innate knowl- edge about timing, distance, direction and ener- getic demands. They are capable of finding their way by using external means of orientation - the sun, the stars, or the earth’s magnetic field (e.g. Wiltschko & Wiltschko 2002, 2003). The vast quantities of data gathered during a century of modern bird migration research might suggest that there is not much left to be explained. However, there is still much to be explored with respect to migration routes and innate migration template conspecifics other species competition predation parasites realised migration Fig. I. A complex set of factors is involved in shaping an innate migration template into realised migration. The order of the factors does not imply a hierarchy of relevance. 70 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 68-8 1 The mysteries of bird migration ; the distribution of migrants, migration systems, winter ecology of migrants, the integration of migration in the annual cycle of a migratory species, and life-history aspects of migration (Bairlein 2003; Piersma et al. 2005). The remainder of this paper will focus on a case 'Study with Northern Wheatears Oenatithe oenanthe , which illustrates that bird migration research is still a dynamic subject. The factors affecting migration - a case study with Northern Wheatears In order to understand migration and to reveal different migration strategies, we need to learn more about the external factors which affect migration and which mould an innate template into actual migration patterns (fig. 1). Recent theories predict that, in order to opti- mise their migration, birds should minimise either the time spent on migration or their total energy expenditure, and that predation risk is a further criterion to be considered (Alerstam & Lindstrom 1990; Alerstam & Hedenstrom 1998). While migrating, birds spend about 90% of the entire migration period at stopovers in order to store or to replenish fuel for the next flight (Hedenstrom & Alerstam 1997); the flight itself is of only minor importance in terms of , time. Consequently, understanding stopovers ' and how birds adjust stopover decisions with respect to their migration strategy is crucial to an understanding of how migrating birds organise their journey. For migratory birds, the timing of their arrival on the breeding grounds (in relation to their competitors) is an important factor affecting breeding success (e.g. Currie et al. 2000, Smith & Moore 2005). If birds are under time pressure, the rate of fuel deposition and the bird’s departure fuel load are the two major factors affecting departure decisions (Alerstam & Lindstrom 1990). Birds maximising the speed of migration 1 (i.e. minimising the time spent on migration) i should leave a stopover site quickly if food is not j easily available - in theory at the point when fuel deposition rate is too low for the bird to reach the | expected average speed of migration for the i whole journey (Alerstam & Lindstrom 1990). However, models of optimal migration are based ' °n the assumption that suitable stopover sites are , available all along the migration route and that a bird may make a stopover whenever it wants to. In reality, many species are restricted in their choice of stopover sites, either because suitable 3 habitats are scarce or distributed patchily, or because ecological barriers like oceans or deserts hinder resting and/or refuelling. Thus, prior to embarking on a flight across an ecological barrier, birds have to prepare for a long-distance flight by intense fuelling. For successful fuelling, birds rely on an appropriate supply of food (in terms of quality as well as quantity; Bairlein 2002). During a migratory stopover, a bird does not necessarily find the kind of habitat which fits all its require- ments. Consequently, after landing, a bird has to establish whether conditions at a site are suffi- cient for refuelling, and it must evaluate the pros and cons of staying there or continuing in the hope of finding better habitat elsewhere. If a bird does not find adequate conditions for refuelling and/or surviving at a given site, it should leave quickly and this decision is particularly impor- tant for birds facing an ecological barrier. Suc- cessful migration also involves predator avoidance and the ability to interpret weather conditions at take-off, but studies examining these complex inter-relationships are scarce. In order to investigate the effects of immi- nent long-distance flights on stopover behav- iour and departure decisions, researchers at the Institute of Avian Research are studying the Northern Wheatear. This nocturnal, long-dis- tance migrant has a nearly circumpolar distri- bution and a fascinating migration system (fig. 2). On migration it occurs in a variety of Fig. 2. Schematic representation of possible migration routes of Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenanthe. Distribution map from Cramp (1988). British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 68-81 71 H. Schmaljohann Franz Bairlein The mysteries of bird migration < 49. Spring trap with male Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe. 50. Colour-ringed Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe perched on a digital balance placed in the field. lowland habitats including meadows, arable land, beaches and other habitats with sparse vegetation (Cramp 1988; Glutz von Blotzheim & Bauer 1988). In the northern breeding range, two subspecies are distinguished, both of which overwinter in Africa. Nominate oenanthe breeds in Great Britain and in an area ranging from continental Europe via Siberia as far east as Alaska (Cramp 1988). ‘Greenland Wheatear’ O. o. leucorhoa breeds in Iceland, Greenland and eastern Canada and is one of the few passerine Greenland and Iceland (Dierschke & Delingat 2003). Whereas Scandi- navian birds face sea cross- ings of only 50-150 km when heading northeast towards Schleswig-Holstein or Denmark, or a maximum of 500 km when flying to southern Norway, much longer flights are necessary for Greenland/Icelandic birds to reach stopover sites in Scotland (c. 1,000 km) or their breeding areas (up to 2,500 km). Because such long flights require suffi- cient preparations, one hypothesis is that leucorhoa adjust their stopover behaviour more carefully for intense fuel deposition than do oenanthe before their (relatively) short-distance flights. Furthermore, leucorhoa would be expected to be more selec- tive in terms of weather conditions at departure because strong headwinds and orientation errors would have a much greater impact on long-distance flights than short-distance ones. As a bird of open landscapes, Northern Wheatear is a convenient study species that can be easily trapped using baited spring traps (plate 49) and many individuals can be identi- fied to subspecies in the hand (Svensson 1 992).i Once colour-ringed, they are easy to observe at stopover sites owing to their habitat choice and visibility. Moreover, they can be attracted to remote-controlled baited balances placed in their habitats (plate 50) so that data on refuel- ling can be gathered without retrapping the birds. Helgoland is a small island of some 150 ha in the southeastern North Sea (54°H’N 07°55’E), 53 km off the mainland coasts of Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony and 43 km from the nearest Wadden Sea island of Wangerooge (also part of Germany), which offers various stopover habitats for Northern Wheatears. Apart from the village and somq small bushy areas, most of the island is open migrants regularly covering distances of more than 1,000 km over sea. During both autumn and spring migration, the two subspecies occur together at stopover sites in northern and western Europe, including Helgoland, where oenanthe of Scandinavian origin mingle with leucorhoa breeding in habitat and Northern Wheatears generally occur in two main habitat types: sandy beache; with beds of rotting brown algae, with kelp flies (Coelopidae) and their larvae as the only (bui abundant) food supply; and grassland habitat: with interspersed open patches and boulders with various ground-dwelling arthropods foil 72 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 68-8 The mysteries of bird migration " rood 'Delingat & Dierschke 2000). These cir- ;umstances and the general habits of Northern Wlieatears make the entire set-up unique for examining the stopover behaviour and deci- sions of a migrant species. Phenology On Helgoland, Northern Wheatears occur from late March to early June, peak spring migration being in early May, and from late July to early November, peak autumn migration being between late August and mid September (Dier- schke & Delingat 2003; Dierschke et al. 2005). Compared with nominate oenanthe , leucorhoa migrate earlier in spring and later in autumn. In spring, the median dates of trapped birds are '2nd May for leucorhoa and 7th May for oenanthe , in autumn, the comparative dates are 11th September and 31st August respectively. In spring, males migrate earlier than females in both subspecies, although significantly so only in leucorhoa , for which the median date is 27th April for males and 4th May for females. During the early part of autumn migration, including the first peak in late August/early Sep- tember, oenanthe occurs almost exclusively, while from mid September onwards leucorhoa is more prominent and outnumbers oenanthe in the latter part of the autumn. Habitat use | As described above, two different habitats are available to migrant Northern Wheatears on Helgoland: beach and grassland. In terms of their suitability for stopover wheatears, they differ in various respects. In spring, the two habitats were used equally but in autumn an increasing proportion of wheatears in beach habitats was attributed to declining food sup- plies in grassland habitats compared with wrack beds on beaches with their abundant kelp flies (Delingat & Dierschke 2000). The proportion of wheatears found in grassland was significantly correlated with the number of invertebrates col- lected in net sweeps; and the latter measure declined during autumn migration. Conversely, the proportion of wheatears observed in beach habitats increased with estimated abundance of kelp fly larvae. In spring, pecking rates tended to be higher in grassland (6.4 pecks/two-minute period in grassland compared with 4.4 on the beach), but were significantly higher on the beach in autumn (9.8 on beaches versus 6.5 in grassland; Delingat & Dierschke 2000). The British Birds 101- February 2008 • 68-8 1 } density (birds/ha) of wheatears was generally much higher in beach habitats. Individually colour-ringed birds revealed different patterns in utilisation of the two habi- tats. Grassland birds were transient and explorative and most individuals departed on the day of arrival; they were characterised by high mobility on the island, having significantly larger dispersal distances than beach birds. In contrast, a higher proportion of beach birds stayed for at least one night and remained rather stationary, often exhibiting territorial behaviour, which was rare in grassland birds. Territories on beaches contained patches of wrack (up to 250 m2) and these were defended against conspecifics and other passerines. On beaches, 34% of the wheatears showed aggres- sive encounters, but only 3% did so in grass- land. Wheatears do not seem to settle in grassland; instead they switch to the more prof- itable beaches if they remain on the island. A greater proportion of Northern Wheatears stayed in the beach habitats and stopovers were longer on beaches than in grassland (Dierschke 2003). These data clearly reveal the role of habitat quality in stopover decisions. Length of stopover and body condition Food availability at stopover sites and the resulting gain in body mass per day (fuel depos- ition rate) are expected to play a major role in optimal behaviour decisions. Time-minimising migrants aim to feed as quickly as they can and move on rapidly, and would thus be expected to show a positive correlation between fuel depos- ition rate and departure fuel loads; while energy-minimising migrants will remain at a stopover site for as long as it takes to reach their optimum fuel load for the next leg of the journey, regardless of fuel deposition rate (Aler- stam &Lindstrbm 1990). In spring, the two subspecies of Northern Wheatear on Helgoland differ in the respective proportion of birds staying on the island, and their length of stopover. In oenanthe, 9% of males and 14% of females did not depart on the day of ringing, while in leucorhoa 40% of males and 30% of females stayed on the island for at least one day. However, a greater proportion of early migrating oenanthe stayed compared with late migrating oenanthe (Dierschke & Delingat 2001). For birds which stayed on the island, the length of stopover did not differ significantly between the subspecies, although many 73 The mysteries of bird migration c > Fig. 3. Body mass gain of Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenanthe on Helgoland during spring migration (from Dierschke & Delingat 2001). leucorhoa (26.8 ± 5.7 g, n=138) than in oenanthe (24.4 ± 2.1 g, n=210). When foraging in beach habitats, wheatears gained mass by 1.7 g per day in spring (fig. 3) and 1.8 g per day in autumn, which is close to the maximum rate of mass increase in a passerine of that size (Lindstrom 1991). Since leucorhoa stay longer, the difference in body mass between the two subspecies at departure is much larger than on the day of ringing. oenanthe stayed for only one day, while most of the long-stayers were leucorhoa. At first capture, most oenanthe showed low to moderate fat scores (scores 1-4 on a scale of 0-9; Kaiser 1993), whereas 15% of leucorhoa were very fat and scored 5-7, although the average fat scores did not differ significantly between subspecies (Dierschke & Delingat 2001). Moreover, the breast muscle score (Bair- lein 1994) did not differ between subspecies. However, standardised body mass (adjusted for size differences, since leucorhoa is on average larger than oenanthe) was significantly higher in Fuel deposition rate and departure fuel load Changes in body mass during stopovers are generally difficult to measure using capture and recapture efforts so, to examine the relationship between food availability, fuel deposition rate and departure fuel load, supplementary food (bowls with mealworms) was provided. These bowls were attached to digital scales and the body mass of colour-ringed birds visiting these feeders could be read from a distance to the nearest 0.1 g, using binoculars or a telescope. During the experiment, the scales were observed daily throughout most daylight hours. During their stay, wheatears used this unlimited food supply for fuel deposition. The relation- ship between fuel deposition rate and departure fuel load in spring differed between the two sub- species, and tended to differ also between males and females in leucorhoa (Delingat et al. 2006; fig. 4). For male leucorhoa , the relationship between fuel deposi- tion rate and departure fuel load is strongly positive (and almost statistically significant), so this' group can be considered time- minimisers (Alerstam & Lind- strom 1990). Female leucorhoa) tended to show a weaker rela-i tionship between fuel deposition rate and departure fuel load, reflecting a compromise between time- and energy-minimising; while oenanthe leave the island at a particular departure fuel load irrespective of fuel deposition rate, an energy-minimising 1.2 1.0 - "O 8 0.8 - "q3 D strategy. But female leucorhoa leave the island with a higher fuel load than oenanthe , which I reflects the difference in onward migration dis- tance. The two subspecies are able to accumulate fuel at the same rate (fuel deposition rate; Delingat et al. 2006) but show significant differ- ences in their departure fuel loads. Most leu- corhoa left the island with a much higher fuel oad compared with their arrival, but male 'oenanthe (there are few data for females) ncreased their stores only slightly (Dierschke et \al. 2005; fig. 5). The rate of refuelling for the whole stay was similar in both male (0.133 T/day) and female (0.135 g/day) leucorhoa, but ower in male oenanthe (0.083 g/day). (Note :hat fuel deposition rate as given here is a rela- :ive measure of body mass gain, calculated by dividing body mass gain by lean body mass. Lean body mass is the estimated body mass without visible fat - see Delingat et al. 2006.) In leucorhoa with a stopover length of more than wo days, departure fuel load ranged from 0.497 o 1.102 in males (mean 0.856) and from 0.554 o 0.828 in females (mean 0.695) (note that departure fuel load is also a relative measure: a ael load of 0.5 means that the bird’s weight is j 50% above lean body mass). Departure fuel oad was not correlated with wing length (body >ize) nor with a dominance index which reflects he wins and losses in intraspecific aggressive nteractions observed at the mealworm bowls (Dierschke et 1 1. 2005). Departure fuel load in emale leucorhoa was lower than or males, but nonetheless suffi- fient to enable them to bypass -topover sites en route. Thus, ime selection seems to be more pronounced in males and may be he reason why males migrate earlier. However, females are not ible to reach Greenland without idditional refuelling elsewhere, jwhich supports the idea that emale leucorhoa adopt a com- promise strategy of time- and mergy-minimising. Intraspecific lggressive interactions between :olour-ringed birds were pre- dominantly won by the initiator, py males and by larger birds; fuel oad and subspecies did not iffect the outcome. Although, compared with females, males were more often dominant at the feeding stations or held territo- ries, refuelling patterns could not be explained by dominance. Subordinate or non-territorial birds did not refuel at a lower rate or depart with lower fuel loads than dominant or territo- rial birds. In non-territorial birds, the restricted access to feeding stations was compensated by larger doses of food taken per visit, leading to the same energy intake as that of dominant and territorial birds. Therefore, competition during stopover could be eliminated as the reason for differential timing of migration of males and females (of course, this result may be species- specific). Time allocation In order to identify factors which influence time budgets, and thus possibly limit the refuelling of passerine migrants, the time allocation of Northern Wheatears on Helgoland was exam- ined (Dierschke et al. 2003). Full-day observa- tions revealed that Northern Wheatears on stopover spent 51-67% of the daylight period foraging. Large parts of the day were also spent resting or being vigilant, whereas flying, preening and aggressive behaviour were of minor importance. The density of wheatears did not influence the time devoted to foraging and aggressive behaviour, and the time spent resting/being vigilant was not correlated with Fig. 5. Arrival fuel load (white) and departure fuel load (grey) of subspecies and sex classes of Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe on Helgoland in spring, for birds staying at least two days (after Dierschke et al. 2005). Departure fuel load is a relative measure - see text, above left. British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 68—81 75 The mysteries of bird migration "N J c lasts 1-7 minutes, but can last up to 33 minutes after a raptor flight. Predation risk was assessed by recording all raptors posing a threat to passerines. The daily threat from raptors fluctu- ated between 0 and 4.7 raptor flights per hour, with a maximum of 53 flights per day. Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus was the most abundant species, accounting for 75% of all flights. The results showed that predation risk influ- enced the stopover decision. Birds experiencing more danger showed lower rates of refuelling (fig. 6), indicating that danger indirectly affected the stopover pattern via the effect on fuel deposition rate - time-minimisers avoid stopover sites with low fuel deposition rate when better refuelling conditions may be expected elsewhere (Schmaljohann & Dierschke 2005). Lighter birds were more likely to be pre- dated than heavy birds (Dierschke 2003), indi- cating that the role of fuel load with respect to predation (in theory, heavy birds should be less able to escape from predators as they are less manoeuvrable) is less important than exposure to predators (in theory, birds in poor condition are more vulnerable to predators because they are forced to spend more time foraging and less time being vigilant). In addition to this field experiment, a labo- ratory experiment was carried out (Dierschke & Walter in prep.). Northern Wheatears were trapped under licence and, in the laboratory, were exposed to different degrees of predation danger using a Sparrowhawk model, and either unlimited or restricted (5 g mealworms) food supply, during which time their diurnal and nocturnal activity was recorded. Whether wheatears were active or inactive at night, resembling 'departing’ or ‘staying’, was dependent on fuel deposition rate, fuel stores, and predation risk. The proportion of ‘departing’ birds was significantly higher among those wheatears exposed to the Sparrowhawk model than those in the other groups. Birds with unlimited food were recorded ‘departing’ to a lesser degree than those with restricted food availability; while ‘departing’ birds had higher evening fuel loads and lower fuel deposition rates than ‘staying’ 76 British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 68-81 Fig. 6. Correlation between total daily fuel deposition rate and the total rate of raptor flights for Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenanthe staying on Helgoland more than three days beyond the day of arrival (from Schmaljohann & Dierschke 2005, modified). Fuel deposition rate is a relative measure - see p. 75. predation risk (measured by an index of fly- over raptors). Several observations showed that refuelling on beach habitats, which presented the most favourable feeding conditions and allowed high rates of body mass gain, was meta- bolically limited. The total time devoted to for- aging was independent of day length, and supplementary food (mealworms) was com- pletely ignored, indicating that reduced for- aging effort would not improve net energy gain. In the poorer grassland habitat, in contrast, there was a marked response to supplementary food. Although this suggests that refuelling is limited by the amount of food available and the costs of obtaining it, foraging times were the same as on the beach. In grassland, the behav- iour pattern of birds refuelling was probably distorted by a high proportion of transient and explorative individuals. Predation risk and stopover Experiments testing predictions of optimal migration theory have so far concentrated on time and energy as the elements that birds strive to minimise during migration. Taking advan- tage of the great variation in numbers of migrating raptors over Helgoland, a field experiment looking at predation risk as a pos- sible factor in stopover decisions of migrating Northern Wheatears was carried out (Schmaljo- hann & Dierschke 2005). Wheatears show time- consuming antipredator behaviour: they either stop feeding when detecting birds of prey and try to hide behind or under stones, or they ‘freeze’ by staying motionless. Freezing usually The mysteries of bird migration 5 I . Male Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe of the nominate subspecies, which migrate somewhat later in spring and earlier in autumn compared with the Greenland/Icelandic subspecies leucorhoa; Helsinki, Finland, April 2004. r V rirds. Moreover, diurnal activity was significantly tigher in birds with low 'ood supply than in those vith unlimited food. These data suggest that migrating Northern Wheatears try to eave a stopover site with nappropriate fuelling con- ditions, even during the daytime, despite the fact ithat they are normally noc- turnal migrants. Weather and departure As well as being influenced by stopover-site characteris- tics, the decision to embark on migratory flight is affected by weather: strong headwinds or drift will increase fuel consumption, while overcast conditions may compromise orientation. During spring migration, wind conditions did not seem to play a major role in the departure decisions of Northern Wheatears on Helgoland (Dierschke & Delingat 2001; Dierschke 2006). However, when a comparison was made between birds staying or departing, cloud cover was signifi- cantly greater for the former group (for both ! subspecies) and the majority of stays coincided with a nearly completely overcast sky. Visibility seems to be an important factor in the decision to depart, which is in line with previous results that visual cues are important in the orientation of migrating birds in general (Akesson & Backman 1999). This was further illustrated when combining tailwind conditions and cloud cover. The percentage of departing leucorhoa was considerably lower with a completely over- cast sky. When both weather variables were unfavourable, only a few leucorhoa left the island. By contrast, most oenanthe departed irrespective of weather conditions. Only when both weather variables were favourable were no differences between subspecies observed in the percentage of departing birds. These results suggest that factors which are probably important in the decision to depart or stay differed between subspecies. In leucorhoa , few birds departed with bad or deteriorating weather conditions (wind and cloud), whereas departures of oenanthe seemed to be little affected by those factors; this may be attributed to the differences in onward migration flight. In summary, almost all oenanthe departed quickly, irrespective of refuelling and weather conditions, whereas many (but not all) leucorhoa seemed to prepare for a long-distance flight and carefully adjusted departure to weather conditions. Departure direction A release experiment was conducted to study the departure direction of Northern Wheatears from Helgoland (Dierschke & Delingat 2003). Wheatears trapped in spring during the day were caged until the evening (food and water were provided in captivity). One hour before sunset, the cages were exposed to the natural sky. When the sky was completely dark, the birds were equipped with a 0.16-g activated green lightstick, taped to the two outermost tail feathers. The birds were then released and their departure direction observed and measured to the nearest 5° with a compass. Cloud cover, wind force and wind direction at release were recorded. Both subspecies showed the same propor- tion of birds departing immediately after release but differed significantly in their departure direction. Most of the Scandinavian oenanthe departed northwards, while Greenland/Ice- landic leucorhoa headed predominantly north- British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 68-81 77 Markus Varesvuo The mysteries of bird migration c > s Fig. 7. Initial departure directions of Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenanthe in a release experiment on Helgoland in spring (after Dierschke & Delingat 2003). west (fig. 7). Departure was affected by the weather - many more birds departed with a clear sky and departure was then faster than on evenings with cloud cover. These data reveal that the southern North Sea is at the northeastern edge of the flyway of leucorhoa and one of the last areas where they switch their northerly migration, which starts in western Africa, towards the northwest to reach their breeding grounds. A few may even con- tinue to southern Norway before they switch direction, but (as ringing recoveries reveal) most leucorhoa change their spring migration direction at lower latitudes (Zink 1973; Wernham et al. 2002). European patterns of Northern Wheatear migration In order to look at spring migration patterns of Northern Wheatears on a wider scale, depar- ture fuel loads at eight stopover sites across Europe were recorded, and related to flight dis- tance and optimality models (Delingat et al. 2006). Mean fuel loads of wheatears at various stopover sites in western Europe were generally rather low, with variability being highest in the North Sea (Wilhelmshaven, northern Germany, and Fair Isle, as well as Elelgoland; fig. 8). Results showed that leucorhoa carried higher fuel loads than oenanthe ; differences were moderate when migrating over land but more pronounced when approaching the sea crossing at Helgoland and on Fair Isle. Individual leu- corhoa on Helgoland were recorded with fuel loads of more than 90% of lean body mass without supplementary feeding. Flight range estimates for oenanthe showed that most birds trapped during migration were probably in sufficient condition for a ‘night-long’ flight. Mean fuel loads (see definition on p. 75) were 0.05, which would be sufficient for a 7-hour flight. Fuel loads below 0.11 were shown by 75% of all oenanthe and, consequently, they could fly less than c. 600 km in 15 hours. Only the upper 5% showed fuel loads of more than 0.23, which would provide sufficient energy to fly about 1,200 km in 28 hours. In other words, most birds on migration over the European continent deposit sufficient fuel to fly at least a few hours each night. Very few birds, especially in southern Europe, deposited sufficient fuel stores to enable them to migrate more than two successive nights without refuel- ling during the day; 95% would have to refuel after one night of migration, before dusk the fol- lowing day at the latest. Flight range estimates suggest that wheatears in general refuel every day after nocturnal flights and do not prepare for longer, non- stop flights as long as no signifi- cant barrier has to be crossed. The data on leucorhoa suggest that this subspecies in general also migrates over continental Europe using short flights. Only an imminent barrier crossing forces them to deposit large fuel Fig. 8. Mean and upper range (value) of departure fuel loads of Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenanthe trapped on spring migration at different sites in southern and western Europe. GIB: Gibraltar; FUE: Fuentes de Nava, western Spain; VEN: Ventotene, Italy; WHV: Wilhelmshaven, northern Germany; HEL: Helgoland; FI: Fair Isle (from Delingat et al. 2006, modified). Not all ringing sites captured both subspecies. Departure fuel load is a relative measure - see p. 75. 78 British Birds 101 * February 2008 • 68-8 1 c The mysteries of bird migration ) loads, exceeding by far those that were observed for oenanthe. Regarding the importance of arrival date and condition at the breeding grounds for migrating passerines, it seems that selection acts on migratory behaviour to favour a ‘numerous-stops-and-flights strategy’ on migration over continental Europe (Delingat et al. 2006). Conclusion and perspectives Since their introduction to bird migration research by Alerstam & Lindstrom (1990), models of optimal bird migration have been tested by very few field studies (Carpenter et al. 1983; Lindstrom & Alerstam 1992; Fransson 1998a, b). The ongoing study on Northern Wheatears summarised here is the first of suffi- cient complexity to deal concurrently with various factors that might be involved in the organisation of migration. It is also the first that relies largely on colour-ringed birds and their individually assigned behaviour rather than looking in general at non-marked individ- uals. Some of the key findings of this study can be summarised briefly: • Compared with Scandinavian-bound oenanthe, Greenland-/Iceland-bound leucorhoa migrate earlier in spring and later in autumn. • Habitat quality of stopover sites is impor- tant; wheatears did not settle in grassland, but used the more profitable beaches, where stopovers were longer. • A greater proportion of leucorhoa than oenanthe stayed on the island for at least one day. ; • Male leucorhoa showed a strong positive relationship between fuel deposition rate and departure fuel load and can be consid- ered time-minimisers; female leucorhoa tended to show a compromise between time- and energy-minimising; while oenanthe are energy-minimisers. • Competition during stopover was not responsible for the differential timing of migration of males and females. • Predation risk influenced stopover decisions and birds experiencing more danger showed lower rates of refuelling. • Few leucorhoa departed in bad or deteri- orating weather conditions (wind and cloud), whereas departures of oenanthe seemed to be little affected by those factors. This study confirmed model predictions for time- and energy-minimised migration, but it also showed that the effect of weather on stopover and departure decisions should not be underestimated and might lead to shorter or longer stopovers under favourable or unfavourable weather conditions, respectively, than predicted by the current optimality models (e.g. Alerstam & Lindstrom 1990, Hedenstrom & Alerstam 1997, Alerstam & Hedenstrom 1998, Weber et al. 1999). Moreover, flight route and length of impending flight have to be taken into consideration when modelling optimal bird migration. This study is the first that links manifold quantitative field and laboratory studies under controlled conditions, so providing a unique opportunity to investigate the interplay between internal (genetic) and external factors in the control of avian migration. This will also help to explain more about flexibility in migratory behaviour and the adaptability of this behaviour to a changing environment - for example, habitat changes on a local, regional and global scale, and climate change. Climate change is affecting bird migration (e.g. Walther et al. 2002, Hiippop & Hiippop 2003, Bairlein & Hiippop 2004, Thorup et al. 2007), although in a very complex manner, and as well as affecting the process of migra- tion itself, this will have consequences for sub- sequent breeding and demography (e.g. Both et al. 2006a, b). Migration is an integral part of the annual life-cycle and the life-history of a migrant species, and future research should emphasise the relationship between migratory performance and reproductive performance, and vice versa (Bairlein 2003; Drent et al. 2006). These studies would greatly benefit from improved miniaturisation and avail- ability of remote data loggers and receiver platforms so that many birds could be tagged and tracked, and the connectivity between migration and breeding performances evalu- ated through data based upon individual animals. Acknowledgments I wish to thank the entire 'wheatear group' at the Institute of Avian Research very much, namely Julia Delingat, Volker Dierschke, Ivan Maggini, Bettina Mendel, Heiko Schmaljohann and Annegret Walter. Volker Dierschke made valuable comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. The project is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 68-81 79 The mysteries of bird migration c > References Akesson, S„ & Backman, J. 1 999. Orientation in Pied Flycatchers: the relative importance of magnetic and visual information at dusk. Anim. Behav. 57: 8 1 9-828. Alerstam.T 1 990. Bird Migration. Cambridge UR Cambridge. — & Hedenstrom, A. l998.The development of bird migration theory. J. Avian Biol. 29: 343-369. — & Lindstrom, A. 1 990. Optimal bird migration: the relative importance of time, energy, and safety. In: Gwinner E. (ed.). Bird Migration: physiology and ecophysiology: 331-35 1 . Springer- Verlag, Berlin. Alisauskas, R.T., Klaas, E. E, Hobson, K. A., & Ankney, C. D. 1 998. Stable-carbon isotopes support use of adventitious color to discern winter origins of Lesser Snow Geese./ Field Ornithol. 69: 262-268. Bairlein, F. 1 994. Manual of Field Methods. European-African Songbird Migration Network. Instftut fur Vogelforschung, Wi Ihelmshaven. — 1999. Hundertjahre wissenschaftlicheVogelberingung: Ruckblick - Einblick - Ausblick. Der Falke 46: 260-268. — 200 1 . Results of bird ringing in the study of migration routes. Ardea 89 (special issue): 7- 1 9. — 2002. How to get fat: nutritional mechanisms of seasonal fat accumulation in migratory songbirds (review). Naturwissenschaften 89: I — 1 0. — 2003. The study of bird migrations - some future perspectives. Bird Study 50: 243-253. — & Huppop, 0. 2004. Migratory fuelling and global climate change. Advances Ecol. Research 35: 33 — 47. — , Elkins, N., & Evans, R 2002. Why and how do birds migrate? ln:Wernham, C.V.,Toms, M. R, MarchantJ. H„ Clark, J. A., Siriwardena, G. M„ & Baillie, S. FL (eds.), The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland: 23^43. Poyser London. Bakken.V., Runde, O., &Tj0rve, E. 2003 & 2006. Norsk Ringmerkngsatlas.Vols. I & 2. Stavanger Museum. Stavanger Bearhop, S.p Fiedler W„ Furness, R. W.Votier S. C., Waldron, S„ Newton, J„ Bowen, G., Berthold. R, & Farnsworth, K. 2005. Assortative mating as a mechanism for a rapid evolutionary divide. Science 3 1 0: 502-504. Bensch, S., Andersson.T, & Akesson, S. 1 999. Morphological and molecular variation across a migratory divide in Willow Warblers Phylloscop us trochilus. Evolution 53: 1925-1935. Berthold, R 1 996. The Control of Bird Migration. Chapman & Hall, London. — 200 1 . Bird Migration: a general survey. OUR Oxford. — , Gwinner E, & Sonnenschein, E. 2003. Avian Migration. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Bonlokke.J., Madsen, J.J..Thorup, K„ Pedersen, K.T, Bjerrum, M„ & Rahbek, C. 2006. The Danish Bird Migration Atlas. Forlaget Rhodos A/S & Zoologisk Museum, University of Copenhagen. Both, C., Sanz.J.J., Artemyev, A. V., Blaauw, B„ Cowie, R.J., Dekhuisen, A. J.. Enemar A.Jarvinen, A., Nyholm, N. E. || Potti, J., Ravussin, R-A., Silverin, B„ Slater F. M„ Sokolov, L.V.,Visser M. E„ Winkel, W„ Wright, J„ & Zang, H. 2006a. Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca travelling from Africa to breed in Europe: differential effects of winter and migration conditions on breeding date. Ardea 94: 51 1-525. — , Bouwhuis, S., Lessells, C. M„ &Visser M. E. 2006b. Climate change and population declines in a long- distance migratory bird. Nature 44 1 : 296-298. Brown, L. H„ Urban, E. K., & Newman, K. 1 982-2000. The Birds of Africa. Academic Press, London. Carpenter F. L., Paton, D. C„ & Hixon, M.A. 1 983. Weight gain and adjustment of feeding territory size in migrant hummingbirds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 80: 7259-7263. Chamberlain, C. R. Bensch, S„ Feng, X„ Akesson, S.. & Andersson.T 2000. Stable isotopes examined across a migratory divide in Scandinavian Willow Warblers Phylloscopus trochilus trochilus and P. L acredula reflect their African winter quarters. Proc. Roy. Soc. bond. B 267: 43-48. Cooke, S.J., Hinch, S. G.,Wikelski, M„ Swedish Andrews, R. D„ Kuchel, L.J., Wolcott, T G„ & Butler, RJ. 2004. Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology TREE 19:334-343. Cramp, S. (ed.) 1 988. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Vol. 5. OUR Oxford. Currie. D., Thompson, D.B.A., & Burke, T 2000. Patterns of territory settlement and consequences for breeding success in the Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenonthe. Ibis 142:389-398. Curry-Lindahl, K. 1981. Bird Migration in Africa. Academic Press. London. Delingat, J., & Dierschke.V. 2000. Habitat utilisation by Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenonthe stopping over on an offshore island during migration. Vogelwarte 40: 271-278. — , — . Schmaljohann, H„ Mendel, B„ & Bairlein, F. 2006. Daily stopovers as optimal migration strategy in a long- distance migrating passerine: the Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenonthe. Ardea 94: 593-605. Dierschke.V. 2003. Predation hazard during migratory stopover: are light or heavy birds under risk? J. Avian Biol. 34: 24-29. — 2006. Factors determining stopover decisions in migrating passerines on an offshore island. Acta Zool. Simca 52 (Suppl.): 594-598. — & Delingat, J. 200 1 . Stopover behaviour and departure decision of Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenanthe facing different onward non-stop flight distances. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 535-545. — & — 2003. Stopover of Northern Wheatears Oenanthe oenanthe at Helgoland: where do the migratory routes of Scandinavian and Nearctic birds join and spirt? Ornis Svecica 1 3: 53-6 1 . — , — , & Schmaljohann, H. 2003.Time allocation in migrating Northern Wheatears ( Oenanthe oenanthe ) during stopover: is refuelling limited by food availability or metabolically? J. Ornithol. 144: 33-44. — , Schmaljohann, H„ & Mendel, B. 2005. Differential timing of spring migration in Northern Wheatears: hurried males or weak females? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57: 470^480. Drent, R, Fox,T, & Stahl, J. (eds.) 2006.Travelling to breed. Ardea 94: 299-7 1 3. Fransson.T. 1 998a. Patterns of migratory fuelling in Whitethroats Sylvia communis in relation to departure. J. Avian Biol. 29: 569-573. — 1998b. A feeding experiment on migratory fuelling in Whitethroats Sylvia communis. Anim. Behav. 55: 153-162. — & Pettersson, J. 200 1 . Swedish Bird Ringing Atlas.V ol. I . Naturhistoriska riksmuseet and Sveriges Onritologiska Forening, Stockholm. Gauthier-Clerc. M„ & Le Maho.Y 2001 . Beyond bird marking with rings. Ardea 89 (special issue): 221-230. Glutz von Blotzheim, U„ & Bauer K. M. 1966-1998. Handbuch der Vogel Mitteleuropas. AULA- Verlag, Wiebelsheim. Greenberg, R„ & Marra, R R 2005. Birds ofTwo Worlds. Smithsonian, Washington D.C. Gwinner, E. 1 990. Bird Migration: physiology and ecophysiology. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. Hagan III, J. M.. & Johnston, D.W. 1992. Ecology and 80 British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 68-81 The mysteries of bird migration C Conservation of Neotropical Migrant L andbirds. Smithsonian Inst Press. Washington. Hedenstrom, A.. & Alerstam.T 1 997. Optimal fuel loads in migratory birds: distinguishing between time and energy minimisation./ Theor. Biol. 1 89: 227-234. Hobson, K.A. l999.Tracing origins and migration of wildlife using stable isotopes: a review. Oecologia 1 20: 3 1 4-326. — 2003. Making migratory connections with stable isotopes. In: Berthold. R, Gwinner E„ & Sonnenschein, E. (eds Avian Migration: 379-39 1 . Springer Berlin. — & Wassenaar L I. 1 997. Unking breeding and wintering grounds of neotropical migrant songbirds using stable hydrogen isotopic analysis of feathers. Oecologia 1 09: 142-148. Huppop. O., & Huppop. K. 2003. North Atlantic Oscillation and timing of spring migration in birds. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 270: 233-240. Jespersen. R. &Tining, A. 1 950. Studies in Bird Migration being the Collected Papers of H. Chr. C. Mortensen. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Kaiser. A 1 993. A new multi-category classification of subcutaneous fat deposits of songbirds./ Field Ornithol. 64: 246-255. Keast A. & Morton, E. S. 1 980. Migrant Birds in the Neotropics: ecology, behavior, distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian Inst Press, Washington. Kinzelbach. R 2005. Der Pfeilstorch. Basilisken Presse, Marburg. Undstrom, A. 1991. Maximum fat deposition rates in migrating birds. Orris Scand. 22: 12-19. — & Alerstam.T 1 992. Optimal fat loads in migrating birds: a test of the time minimisation hypothesis. Amer. Notur. 140:477-491. Lott, C. A.. Meehan.T D„ & Heath, J. A. 2003. Estimating the latitudinal origins of migratory birds by using hydrogen and sulfur stable isotopes in feathers: influence of marine prey base. Oecologia 1 34: 505-5 1 0. McClure. H. E. 1 974. Migration and Survival of the Birds of Asia. SEATO, Bangkok. Moreau. R E. 1 972. The Palaearctic-African Bird Migration Systems.Academic Press, London. Parrish, j. R, Rogers, D.T, & Prescott, F. 1 983. Identification of natal locals of Peregrine Falcons ( Falco peregrinu s) by trace-element analysis of feathers. Auk 1 00: 560-567. Piersma.T. Perez-Tris, J.. Mouritsen, H„ Bauchinger U.. & Bairlein, F. 2005. Is there a 'migratory syndrome' common to all migrant birds? Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 1046: 282-294. Poole, A. F„ Stettenheim, R, & Gill, F. B. 1 992-2002. The Birds of North America. The American Ornithologists' Union and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Washington, D.C. & Philadelphia. RA. Rappole.J. H.. Morton. E. S.. Lovejoy Ill.T E., & Ruos.J. L. 1995. Neorctic Avian Migrants in the Neotropics. Smithsonian Institution, Front Royal. Ropert-Coudert,Y. & Wilson, R R 2005. Trends and perspectives in animal-attached remote sensing. Front Ecol. Environm. 3: 437^144. Rubenstein. D. R, Chamberlain, C. R. Holmes, RT„ Ayres, M. R, Waldbauer J. R. Graves, G. R, &Tuross, N. C. 2002. Linking breeding and wintering ranges of a migratory songbird using stable isotopes. Science 295: 1 062- 1 065. Schmaljohann, H.. & Dierschke.V. 2005. Optimal migration and predation risk a field experiment with Northern Wheatears (Oenanthe oenantheJ.J.Anim. Ecol. 74: 131-138. Schuz, E., & Weigold. H. 1931. Atlas des Vogelzuges. R. Friedlander & Sohn. Berlin. Smith, R. J„ & Moore, F. R 2005. Arrival timing and seasonal reproductive performance in a long-distance migratory landbird. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57: 23 1 -239. Stresemann, E. 1951. Die Entwicklung der Ornithologie von Aristoteles bis zur Gegenwart. F. W. Peters, Berlin. Svensson, L 1 992. Identification Guide to European Passerines. 4th edn. Privately published. Stockholm. Szep.T, Moller A. R.Vallner.J., Kovacs, B„ & Norman, D. 2003. Use of trace elements in feathers of Sand Martin Riparia riparia for identifying moulting areas./ Avian Biol. 34: 307-320. Thienemann, J. 1910. Der Zug des weiGen Storches (Ciconia ciconia). Zool.Jahrb. (Suppl.) 1 2: 665-686. Thorup, K.,T0ttrup, A. R, & Rahbek. C. 2007. Patterns of phenological changes in migratory birds. Oecologia 151: 697-703. von Hunerbein. K„ Hamann. H.-J., Ruter E„ & Wiltschko, W. 2000. A GPS-based system for recording the flight paths of birds. Naturwissenschaften 87: 278-279. von Lucanus, F. 1 929. Die Ratse/ des Vogelzuges. H. Beyer & Sohne, Langensalza. Walther; G.-R, Post. E„ Convey, A„ Menzel, A.. Parmesan, C„ Beebee.TJ. C„ Fromentin, J.-M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O.. & Bairlein, F. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change (review). Nature 4 1 6: 389-395. WeberT. R, Fransson.T, & Houston. A. I. 1 999. Should I stay or should I go? Testing optimality models of stopover decisions in migrating birds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46: 280-286. Webster M. S.; Marra, R R, Haig, S. M„ Bensch, S„ & Holmes. RT 2002. Links between worlds: unraveling migratory connectivity. TREE 1 7: 76-83. Weimerskirch, H„ & Wilson, R. R 2000. Oceanic respite for wandering albatrosses. Nature 406: 955-956. Wernham, C.V.Toms, M. R. Marchant.J. H., Clark J. A., Siriwardena, G. M„ & Baillie, S. R. 2002. The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland. Poyser London. Wilson, R. R 200 1 . Beyond rings on birds for the determination of movements: wither the archival tag? Ardea 89: 231-240. Wiltschko, R, & Wiltschko, W. 2003. Avian navigation: from historical to modern concepts. Anim. Behav. 65: 257-272. Wiltschko. W, & Wiltschko. R. 2002. Magnetic compass orientation in birds and its physiological basis. Naturwissenschaften 89: 445^152. Wisz, M. S., Walther B. A., & Rahbek, C. 2007. Using potential distributions to explore determinants of Western Palaearctic migrant songbird species richness in sub-Saharan Africa./ Biogeography 34: 828-84 1 . Yamashina Institute for Ornithology. 1 996. Atlas of Japanese Migratory Birds (Passerines 1 961-1 995). Yamashina Institute for Ornithology, Abiko. Yohannes, E„ Hobson. K.A., & Pearson, D.J. 2007. Feather stable-isotope profiles reveal stopover habitat selection and site fidelity in nine migratory species moving through sub-Saharan Africa./ Avian. Biol. 38: 347-355. Zink G. 1 973, 1 975, 1981, 1 985. Der Zug europaischer Singvogel: ein Atlas derWiederfunde beringter Vogel. Lfg. I -4. AULA- Verlag, Wiesbaden. Zink G.. & Bairlein. F. 1 995. Der Zug europaischer Singvogel: ein Atlas derWiederfunde beringter Vogel. Vol. 3.AULA- Verlag. Weisbaden. Franz Bairlein, Institute of Avian Research, ‘Vogelwarte Helgoland] An der Vogelwarte 21, D-26386 Wilhelmshaven, Germany; e-mail: franz.bairlein@ifv.terramare.de British Birds 101* February 2008 • 68-8 1 81 Olive-tree Warbler in Shetland: new to Britain Hugh R. Harrop, Roddy Mavor and Peter M. Ellis ABSTRACT An Olive-tree Warbler Hippolais olivetorum at Boddam, Shetland, on 16th August 2006 was the first record of this long-distance migrant in Britain and northwest Europe. Identification was initially problematic owing to misconceptions regarding the field appearance of this species, but was established retrospectively from photographs. Identification of Olive-tree Warbler and its separation from similar species is discussed. Prevailing weather conditions in the days preceding the bird’s discovery were conducive to an arrival from southeast Europe. At about 13.30 hrs on 16th August 2006, RM found a Hippolais warbler in a small garden at Boddam, Shetland. He identi- fied it as an Icterine Warbler H. icterina based on its open-faced expression, yellowish-orange sides to the bill, greyish upperparts, pale under- parts with a cream wash to the upper breast, striking whitish wing-panel and grey-blue legs. He also observed the bird tail-dip twice. Inter- estingly, his initial impressions were that the bird was similar to Barred Warbler Sylvia nisoria in size but, with no other birds present for comparison, he dismissed this as an artefact of seeing an unfamiliar bird in strange sur- roundings. He contacted Angus Murray at Bird- line Scotland, who thought that the bird sounded worthy of further investigation and passed the information on to PME. PME was intrigued by the report and headed quickly to the garden at Boddam where, after half an hour or so, he managed a few brief views of the bird (the garden was private and viewable only from the public road). He became convinced that it must be an Eastern Olivaceous Warbler H. pallida but contacted Paul Harvey (PVH) for a second opinion. PVH arrived at about 16.40 hrs, together with several other observers, and was rather startled by his first brief views: the bird appeared large and grey, with an incredibly striking, silvery wing-panel and a broad, deep-based bill, and Olive-tree Warbler H. olivetorum sprang to mind. A few minutes later, however, the bird appeared in a Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus at the back of the garden, where it appeared altogether less impressive and immediately began dipping its tail in the manner typical of Eastern Olivaceous Warbler. Despite some reservations over size and plumage features, all observers eventually agreed with PME s identification and the news I was put out on the local grapevine just before ! 17.00 hrs that the bird was an Eastern Oliva- i ceous Warbler. More observers, including HRH, j arrived at Boddam shortly afterwards. Detailed description The bird did look large, especially in flight, and was considered by HRH and PVH to be the size of Blackcap S. atricapilla or Garden Warbler S. borin. Attempts to compare it with Icterine Warbler suggested that it was of similar size, or possibly a little larger, and it certainly looked quite pot-bellied at times. There was, however, clearly some confusion over size interpretation as PME felt the bird to be as small as a Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus and, subse- quently, others suggested that it approached Barred Warbler in size. Upperparts The upperparts were a pale, cold grey, although PME considered there to be a slight brownish tone. © British Birds 101* February 2008 • 82-88 82 do jjdw uSni-i dojjoi-i uSrih-i Olive-tree Warbler in Shetland: new to Britain A short, fairly obvious supercilium extended to the eye and was bordered below by an indistinct dark eye-stripe (loral bar), which appeared to extend just beyond the eye. The forehead was usually ‘sloping’ and rather Acrocephalus- like, but occasionally the warbler raised its crown feathers and the forehead then appeared to be steeper. At other times the head shape appeared more rounded. The wings were especially striking, showing broad, silvery-white fringes to the tertials, secondaries, greater coverts and alula. The resulting wing-panel was evident even in flight. The alula was black and considered to be the darkest part of the bird. The greater coverts were dark-centred and the tertials appeared vari- ously dark-greyish-centred or darker, depending on the light and viewing angle. The flight feathers were dark. The primary projection was estimated to be about two-thirds of the length of the exposed ter- tials (though photographs subsequently showed that primary projection was longer, c. 80-90%). The tail showed distinct white outer webs to the outer tail feathers and these were obvious in flight and when perched. PME noticed fine white tips to the outermost pair of tail feathers on one occasion. The tail itself was otherwise greyish and not particularly contrasting with the upperparts, although Mark Chapman (MC) considered the tail to be darker than the upperparts. Underparts The underparts were rather plain whitish. Bare parts The bill was undeniably broad and deep-based, but was not felt to be excessively long and was, therefore, in proportion with the head. The lower mandible and sides of the upper mandible were a yellowish-orange and the oilmen was dark horn. The legs were robust and grey in colour. The eye was dark. Voice The bird called occasionally. PVH rendered this as a subdued deep ‘tchuk’ with, on occasions, something of a Great Reed Warbler A. arundinaceus tone to it, although HRH heard a much louder call, which he transcribed as a deep ‘tuc’ reminiscent of a loud and deep Lesser Whitethroat S. curruca. These calls were reminiscent of calls we had heard from Eastern Oliva- ceous Warbler and recordings of the calls of Eastern Olivaceous Warbler on the iPod we had with us. 52-55. Olive-tree Warbler Hippolais o/ivetorum, Boddam, Shetland, August 2006. British Birds 101* February 2008 • 82-88 83 Hugh Harrop Hugh Harrop c Olive-tree Warbler in Shetland: new to Britain ) Behaviour Perhaps the most persuasive feature in determining the bird’s identification was the constant tail-dipping. When moving through cover and when the back end of the bird could be observed deep in cover, it could be seen to persistently dip its tail down from the hori- zontal every two or three seconds. This was not accompanied by any fanning or opening of the tail and all the observers present with relevant experience felt that these movements matched their experience of Eastern Olivaceous Warbler. HRH and MC did on one occasion notice the bird wave its tail in a com- plete ‘oval’ and spread it three times in succession before switching back to its normal tail-dipping. Reviewing the possibilities Because of the apparent size, bill depth and the striking wing-panel, we discussed the possibility of the bird being a ‘grey-and-white’ Icterine Warbler, or one of the Hippolais species not yet on the British List, including Western Olivaceous H. opaca , Upcher’s H. languida and Olive-tree Warbler. HRH played recordings of the calls of Eastern Olivaceous, Upcher’s and Olive-tree Warblers, and the songs of Eastern Olivaceous and Olive-tree, but the bird did not respond. Initially, the possibility of Upcher’s Warbler was taken most seriously because the size seemed to fit that species best, but it was elimi- nated on the basis of tail movements, the equal spacing of the tertial tips and the fact that the tail was not dark enough (although having sub- sequently seen a range of photographs of Upcher’s Warbler, we acknowledge that our approach to eliminating this species at the time was simplistic). Although Olive-tree was undoubtedly a good fit on plumage, it too was dismissed based on our perception of the bird’s size and its tail movements; none of us were aware of any literature suggesting that Olive- tree Warbler would ever tail-dip so persistently. Over the next few hours the bird remained deep in cover in the original garden, occasion- ally visiting an adjacent garden. It made spor- adic forays through the trees, where it gave reasonable although usually partially obscured views. Occasionally it would fly across the garden, but for one period of over an hour it was not seen at all. Occasionally, it betrayed its presence with its a subdued, deep ‘tchuk’ call. At around 20.15 hrs, the bird sat out in the open for a period of no more than three seconds, allowing HRH to get some rather poor, but what would prove to be extremely significant, photographs (plates 52-55). Establishing the identification That evening, all observers who had voiced an opinion left the bird believing it to be an Eastern Olivaceous Warbler. For reassurance about some of the features that we felt were anomalous for Eastern Olivaceous, notably bill depth, upperpart colour and silver edgings to the tertials and greater coverts, PVH e-mailed one of HRH’s images to Brian Small. Unfortu- nately, this image was accompanied by com- ments describing the bird’s tail movement and our perception of its size. Based upon these comments, no concerns were expressed and the identification as Eastern Olivaceous remained unchanged. The following morning, HRH dis- cussed the bird at length with PVH, particularly the primary projection, which photographs established to be much longer than had been estimated in the field. Images of the bird were posted on the internet but, over the following week or more, only three people contacted any of the main observers to express some doubts about the identification - Paul French, Paul Leader and Paul Whiteman. Bearing in mind these com- ments, and still concerned about what the pho- tographs showed, particularly in terms of the primary projection, HRH e-mailed a photo- graph of the bird to Hadoram Shirihai (HS) on 4th September. His response, that the bird was j ‘most probably an Olive-tree Warbler’, was truly | shattering! More photographs of the bird were : quickly sent to HS, and also to Killian Mullarney (KM) and Lars Svensson (LS). HS’s ! initial suspicions were quickly confirmed and the identification was supported by comments I from KM and LS. The bird was clearly an Olive- ! tree Warbler but, from our point of view, this was greeted by none of the normal euphoria associated with nailing a ‘first for Britain’! Among the pro-Olive tree Warbler features HS, KM and LS pointed out from the photo- I graphs were: • long primary projection; • deep orange tinge to the pale areas of the strongly built bill; • supercilium limited to the region above the indistinct loral stripe; • narrow, pale ‘eye-lids’; • greyish head and dorsal areas contrasting with dark wings; • strong wing-panel composed of pale fringes to the greater coverts and tertials; • strong, long grey legs; 84 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 82-88 Olive-tree Warbler in Shetland: new to Britain > • long tail (despite proportionally long primary projection) with extensive white edges. HS also added that the Lesser Whitethroat- like deep ‘tuc’ call fitted that of Olive-tree Warbler, which he was familiar with in autumn. On further examination of the photographs, it can be seen that the first primary was minute as it is not apparent at any time; this also supports the identification as Olive-tree Warbler. The bird’s identification was discussed at length in Harvey et al. (2006). Size and tail movements Two key features that are not apparent in the photographs are the size of the bird and the tail movements. Our preconceived impression of what an Olive-tree Warbler should look like and how it should behave had a direct bearing on the initial misidentification of the Boddam bird. These features are poorly documented and even misleading in the readily available litera- ture, and the comments below may go some way to clarifying the appearance and behaviour of Olive-tree Warbler in the field. Size In retrospect, it is quite clear that this was a large bird and we made a gross error of judge- ment in allowing ourselves to believe that it was small enough to be an Eastern Olivaceous. A search of published biometrics by PVH sug- gested that, while Olive-tree Warbler is likely to invite comparison with Barred Warbler, perhaps heightened by plumage similarities, it is quite likely that many Olive-tree Warblers will appear smaller than that species in the field. Although wing length of the two is similar, on average Barred Warbler has a longer tail and a signifi- cantly greater body mass, typically up to one- third heavier than Olive-tree Warbler. In fact, published weights of migrant Olive-tree War- blers are similar to those of Garden Warblers. With this in mind, the often-quoted size com- parison of Olive-tree Warbler with Great Reed Warbler is surely greatly exaggerated. Tail movements Our understanding of the apparently diagnostic tail movements of Hippolais warblers has been well and truly turned on its head by this experi- ence. In fact, this behaviour contributed more than any other single feature to the collective misidentification. The Boddam Olive-tree Warbler persistently dipped its tail down from the horizontal every two or three seconds, rem- iniscent of the supposedly diagnostic manner of Eastern Olivaceous Warbler. The tail-dipping of the Boddam bird was not accompanied by calling, but this has been the case with some Eastern Olivaceous that we have observed. Most recent publications that have high- lighted tail movements of Olive-tree Warbler suggest that these consist of waving the tail from side to side, or tail-dipping accompanied by the tail being fanned. Interestingly, however, there is a comment in Cramp (1992) relating to a migrant Olive-tree Warbler in Saudi Arabia that was observed pumping its tail down regu- larly for ten minutes, while Baker (1997) referred to Olive-tree Warblers flicking their tails in shallow downward movements, and sometimes fanning them at the same time. Comments in Urban et. al. (1997) also mention that the species flicks its tail, but with no further explanation of movements. Additional thoughts Once the identification debate had been opened up, PVH sent six photographs of the bird to David Pearson, who has extensive experience of Olive-tree Warbler from Kenya. Some of his helpful comments are reproduced below: ‘My first impressions, based, I suppose, on the colour of the upperparts and bill, were that this did not look quite right for Olive-tree. But on consideration of proportions and structure (especially wing and bill) and the prominence of the whitish wing-feather edgings, I believe it fits perfectly well and I don’t see what else it can be. ‘Bill size and shape is right for Olive-tree, but the overall pinkish look in some of the photos put me off. Olive-tree in the field always seems to show an orange-yellow tinge to the lower mandible. But there is an orange-yellow look in photographs 4 and 5, for example. ‘The long wing with almost 100% primary projec- tion and eight evenly spaced primary tips is diag- nostic, I think, given that this is clearly not an aberrant Icterine (bill too large, legs too robust, supra-loral stripe too prominent). It certainly rules out Upcher’s and Eastern Olivaceous Warbler. The legs look too strong for Upcher’s or Eastern Oliva- ceous Warbler. If the photo can be relied upon, they are grey without any pinkish or brownish tinge, and this too should rule out the smaller grey Hippolais. ‘The face pattern fits Olive-tree, especially the short but well-marked supercilium, reaching just to the eye. In Upcher’s and Eastern Olivaceous Warbler this extends to behind the eye. The cheeks appear less dark than Olive-tree sometimes shows, but darker British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 82-88 85 c Olive-tree Warbler in Shetland: new to Britain ) Fig. I. Backward trajectory analysis of air above Shetland at 06.00 hrs on 16th August 2006 (from NOAA HYSPLIT model). The larger symbols along the trajectory represent positions at midnight on each date from 1 2th August.The lower graph illustrates the altitude (m) of the parcel of air with time since 1 2th August.The authors gratefully acknowledge the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) for the provision of the HYSPLIT transport and dispersion model and the READY website (http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready.html) used in this figure. Fig. 2a-d. The weather charts show the ridge of high pressure over southeast Europe on I 3th and 1 4th August. The small warm sector moving across the Baltic states on Nth and 15th was associated with a complex area of low pressure which generated an east to northeast airstream over Scandinavia and the northern North Sea on I 5th and 1 6th. © Crown copyright 2008, charts supplied by the Met Office. 86 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 82-88 Olive-tree Warbler in Shetland: new to Britain than I’d expect on Upcher’s or Eastern Olivaceous Warbler. The upperparts look a bit pale for Olive-tree, but not seriously so. Maybe the bird looked a bit darker grey in the field. There is not an obvious dis- tinction between greyer mantle/scapulars and browner wing-coverts as is typical in Olive-tree, though less marked, I guess, in fresh young birds. But maybe this was apparent in the field. ‘The broad and well-demarcated whitish edges to the tertials, greater coverts and alula would fit, I think, with young Olive-tree, although these are largely worn away in the birds we see in Kenya in November. Young Eastern Olivaceous Warbler in early autumn has less of a wing stripe or panel and the pale edges are buffier. Young Upcher’s would already be worn in August, I think. ‘So a number of features fit first-autumn Olive- tree perfectly, and there seems nothing to seriously challenge this identification. It cannot be any other Hippolais. The bird was described as large. Whereas Eastern Olivaceous Warbler is Reed Warbler-sized or smaller, and Upcher’s is Common Whitethroat S. communis- sized, Olive-tree will appear distinctly larger, though not as big as a Barred Warbler. Olive- tree does dip its tail regularly, perhaps less persistently than Eastern Olivaceous Warbler, but I do not think it accompanies this all the time with a ‘chack’ call as in Eastern Olivaceous Warbler.’ Weather conditions Norman Elkins kindly reviewed the prevailing weather conditions and provided the following summary. Unlike many vagrants, the Olive-tree Warbler’s arrival could be associated with a partic- ularly interesting weather situation. After reviewing computer simulations of the track of the air mass found over Shedand on 16th August (plotting its trajectory during the preceding days), it became apparent that a route from the Black Sea to Shetland via the Baltic States and Scandinavia was quite feasible during the days leading up to its discovery (fig. 1 ). To support this hypothesis, syn- optic charts, satellite images, thunderstorm loca- tion and temperature charts were scrutinised. By superimposing the bird’s likely movements within this air-mass trajectory, it is possible to speculate how it may have arrived in Shetland. Assuming that, as a nocturnal migrant, its passage occurred at an altitude of between 500 m and 1 km, with daylight periods spent off passage, a possible sequence of events unfolds as follows. On 13th August, a ridge of high pres- sure lay over its breeding grounds along the western coast of the Black Sea. Assuming that the bird departed late on 12th August and on a reverse heading, it would have flown north- wards in clear skies and almost calm conditions to reach Moldova, where it remained off passage during the day on 13th. The following night saw a continuation of this northward passage within a plume of warm and light SSE wind ahead of a strengthening cold front. The next period off passage would have been in northern Belarus, where it spent the day on 14th. Skies remained clear but as it continued that night, it began to run into cloud bands and thundery rain associated with a small wave depression. In the circulation of this system, it veered northwest in strengthening southeaster- lies, bringing it into eastern Sweden (c. 62°N), where it remained off passage on 15th. Its final nocturnal stage was in partially clear skies but in an east to northeast windflow in the now weakening warm plume. This carried it across Scandinavia and southwest into Shetland by early on 16th, arriving in a light, misty and damp north to northeasterly wind (see fig. 2). If the bird had spent less time off passage, it would still have taken a similar track, but would have had a departure somewhat later than 12th. Distribution and migration The breeding distribution of Olive-tree Warbler lies exclusively within the Western Palearctic, extending from Croatia south to Greece and from extreme southeastern Romania and eastern Bulgaria south to western and southern Turkey and to northern Israel (Hagemeijer & Blair 1997). The species departs from its breeding grounds from mid July to early September and the main southerly passage through Israel and Syria occurs from mid July to mid August. It winters in eastern and southern Africa, from Kenya south to South Africa. This is the first record of vagrancy by Olive-tree Warbler to the north and west of its breeding range. There have been two previous claims of Olive- tree Warbler: from Scilly in September 1972, and St Kilda, Outer Hebrides, in August 1999. Both were rejected on the basis of being inadequately documented. The date of the Boddam record both fits the species’ normal autumn migration period and matches the arrival dates of some vagrants from southeast Europe. Remarkably, it was found in the same garden as Britain’s first Rtippell’s Warbler Sylvia rueppelli , in August 1977, although, since the latter was in primary moult when discovered, it seems likely that it had arrived in Shetland the previous spring and spent the summer in Shetland undiscovered. British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 82-88 87 Olive-tree Warbler in Shetland: new to Britain Vagrancy from the eastern Mediterranean Olive-tree Warbler joins an increasing list of vagrants with breeding ranges centred on south- eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean to have reached Britain and northwestern Europe in recent years. Although few birders had seriously predicted Olive-tree Warbler as a potential vagrant to Britain, it was mentioned by Wallace (1980) as one of four long-distance migrants which breed in southeastern Europe that could turn up in Britain. Of these predic- tions, two Ruppell’s Warblers had already arrived in the 1970s and a further three have occurred subsequently, while two Masked Shrikes Lanius nubicus and now Olive-tree Warbler have also reached our shores in recent years, leaving only Semi-collared Flycatcher Ficedula semitorquata to make the journey. Other vagrants from southeast Europe which have also reached Britain include four Eastern Bonelli’s Warblers P. orientalis (including an August bird in Shetland) and three Cret- zschmar’s Buntings Emberiza caesia , while Eastern Olivaceous Warbler has occurred on 1 1 occasions, including four in July and August. From slightly further east, several White- throated Robins Irania gutturalis have reached northwest Europe, including Britain, and there have been four August occurrences, from Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands and Belgium. Also from this region, a Cinereous Bunting Emberiza cineracea was discovered in Denmark in May 2005. In the future, perhaps we can look Hugh R. Harrop, Longhill, May wick, Shetland ZE2 9JF Roddy Mavor, JNCC, Dunnet House, 7 Thistle Place, Aberdeen AB10 1 UZ Peter M. Ellis, Seaview, Sandwick, Shetland ZE2 9HH EDITORIAL COMMENT Colin Bradshaw, Chairman of BBRC, commented: ‘When commenting on firsts, it is traditional for the BBRC Chairman to distil the identification features into a couple of sen- tences. On this occasion I am going to break with that tradition as there is nothing I can add to the fea- i tures so well discussed in this article. What is particularly interesting about this record is how a single vagrant can change everyone’s perception of what a species looks like and how it behaves. Prior to the discussions around this record, 1 am fairly confident that most British birders would have described ! Olive-tree Warbler as a large, heavy, long-winged and long-billed warbler that crashes around in trees. The reality, as painfully learnt by some of Shetland and Britain’s top birders is different. Although sym- i pathetic to their plight, we should really be grateful that a chance to change widely held but erroneous ; beliefs has occurred and we now all know what to look for in the future.’ Bob McGowan, Chairman of BOURC, commented: ‘It was not surprising, given the rather brief views of the bird, that field identification was not straightforward. Although it was clearly a Hippolais \ sp., initial indications towards Icterine Warbler were overturned in favour of Eastern Olivaceous. Sub- sequent detailed examination of photographs, however, indicated that it was a first-winter Olive-tree Warbler and it was accepted as such by BBRC and BOURC. It seems that the identification of vagrant Hippolais warblers in Britain has suddenly got more complicated.' 88 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 82-88 forward to the possibility of birds such as Persian Oenanthe chrysopygia and Finsch’s Wheatears O. finschii , Upcher’s and Menetries’s Warblers S. mystacea making landfall in Britain. Acknowledgments We owe a great deal of thanks to Killian Mullarney, Lars Svensson and, in particular Hadoram Shirihai for pointing out the errors of our ways and ensuring that the bird was eventually correctly identified as an Olive-tree Warbler. Paul Harvey was instrumental in documenting the occurrence and this paper is based on much of what he and the authors have already published elsewhere in other ornithological literature. We would also like to thank Mark Chapman for useful discussion about the bird: Brian Small for assisting with our deliberations and looking at skins; Yoav and Gidon Perlman for supplying photographs of Hippolais warblers from Israel soon after the event and commenting on our bird; and David Pearson for his useful comments, many of which are reproduced here. Steve Gantlett provided a tremendous amount of logistical support in sourcing photographs for another article on this bird (Harvey et al. 2006). Norman Elkins provided a detailed summary of the prevailing weather conditions leading up to the bird's discovery. References Baker K. 1 997. Warblers of Europe, Asia and North Africa. Christopher Helm, London. Cramp, S. (ed.). 1 992. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 6. OUR Oxford. Hagemeijer, E.J. M„ & Blair M.J. (eds.) 1997. The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds: their distribution and abundance. Poyser London. Harvey, R, Harrop, H„ Ellis, P, & Mavor, R. 2006.The Olive- tree Warbler on Shetland - a new British bird. Birding World 19: 378-387. Urban, E. K„ Fry. C. H„ & Keith. S. (eds.) 1 997. The Birds of Africa.V ol. 5. Academic Press, London. Wallace, D. I. M. 1 980. Possible future Palearctic passerine vagrants to reach Britain. Brit Birds 73: 388-397. "he Carl Zeiss Award ZEISS 56. Hugh Harrop (left), winner of the Carl Zeiss Award, receiving his prize of ZEISS 7x42 FL binoculars from 88 Editor Roger Riddington in Shetland in January 2008. Undoubtedly one of the most enjoyable tasks in the working year of BBRC is judging the Carl Zeiss Award for the most instructive pho- tographs of a British rarity featured in the most recent BBRC report. We receive a great many stunning photographs each year, testament to the extent of the digital revolution in birding in the past few years, but as well as being aesthetically pleasing these are also an essential source of information. In recognition of their importance, Carl Zeiss Ltd, the sponsors of BBRC, awards a pair of Carl Zeiss binoculars to the photographer judged to have taken the photograph or set of pho- tographs that best fits these credentials. From the records which appeared in the 2006 report (Brit. Birds 100: 694-754), it was a fairly simple task to establish the shortlist of photographs for the award. There were really only two leading candidates, these being the Prawle Long-billed Murrelet Brachyramphus perdix photos by Dave Stone and the Boddam Olive-tree Warbler Hip- polais olivetorum photos by Hugh Harrop. We briefly considered images of the wintering Lin- colnshire Black Kite Milvus migrans, which may yet be accepted as the first individual of one of the eastern races for Britain, and Barrie Widden’s photos from 1982 of the Scilly ‘Northern Harrier’ Circus cyaneus hudsonius, which had been a key reason for acceptance of this race, but we felt that it was difficult to justify presenting the award for photographs that were more than 25 years old. Differentiating between the two front runners was down to circumstance more than anything else. Both sets of photographs were taken after the bird had been identified as one particular species and they were both instrumental in reidentifying the bird as a first for Britain. The difference was that the murrelet stayed around for thousands of birders to see and hundreds to photograph, meaning that, ultimately, identification wasn't based solely on Dave Stone’s photographs. In contrast, the identification of the Olive-tree Warbler, as the preceding account sets out, was based primarily on this one set of photographs, taken in very difficult circumstances by Hugh Harrop; the bird was not seen again and this species would not have been added to the British List without them. This being the case, these pho- tographs (plates 52-55) were ideally placed to be a worthy winner of the Carl Zeiss Award, but in any other year, Dave Stone’s photographs would have been a shoo-in for the award. Colin Bradshaw, on behalf of BBRC do 9 Tynemouth Place, North Shields, Tyne & Wear NE30 4BJ The British Birds Rarities Committee is sponsored by Carl Zeiss Ltd. Chairman: Colin Bradshaw, 9 Tynemouth Place, Tynemouth, Tyne & Wear NE30 4BJ Secretary: Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat, St Mary's. Scilly TR2 1 0LL © British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 89 89 Rob Fray The 88/BTO Best Bird Book of the Year 2007 British Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology announce the winner of the Award for Best Bird Book of the Year. All books reviewed in British Birds or the BTO publications BTO News and Bird Study during the year 2006 were eligible for consideration for this Award. There are no formal judging criteria for this competition. In essence, we are looking for books of special merit that we feel will be appreciated widely among the readers of both BB and BTO News. There were 72 books that were eligible for the 2007 award, rather fewer than usual, but this made it no easier to find a clear winner. In the final vote, taken after long backroom deliberations at the BTO’s Annual Conference in December, no fewer than five of our final top six titles were placed first by at least one judge. Bird books are so diverse in their style and content that com- parisons are necessarily highly subjective. The rankings we offer are very much our own, therefore; in short, we recommend all of the listed books. WINNER: Arctic Flight: adventures amongst northern birds By James McCallum. Langford Press, Peter- borough, 2007 (see Brit. Birds 101: 45-A6). People vary so much in their appreciation of bird art that, over the years, rather few books in this category have scored highly with all six judges. The increasingly impressive Langford Press Wildlife Art Series has caught our atten- tion before, however, notably with a fourth place in 2006. We all applauded James McCallum’s wonderful evocation of the Arctic summer in his beautifully presented paintings and sketches. This is so much more than a book of artwork, however. There are word-pictures, too, describing encounters with many of the most charismatic birds and animals of this endangered ecosystem. A highlight is the Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus account, which runs to 14 pages. Adventures indeed! Publication is timely in view of the increasing public awareness that Arctic wildlife is uniquely vulnerable to global warming. 2nd; Manx Bird Atlas: an atlas of breeding and wintering birds on the Isle of Man By Chris Sharpe (principal editor). Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, 2007 (see Brit. Birds 101:44). Atlasing is topical, especially projects that operate in both summer and winter, now that Adventures Amongst Northern Birds I t, ' James McCallum 90 © British Birds 101* February 2008 • 90-9 1 c The 88/BTO Best Bird Book of the Year 2007 > Manx Bird Atlas An Atlas of Breeding and Wintering Birds on the Isle of Man Principal Editor: Chris Sharpe the 2007-1 1 Atlas of Britain and Ireland has just got under way. The geographical scope of the Manx Atlas may be small, but this is a big book, in all senses - thoroughly professional in every department, and produced to a very high stan- dard. Its mapping, at 1-km resolution overlain on a relief map of the island, is very clear and informative. It is a very difficult act for future county atlases to follow. 3rd: The Lapwing By Michael Shrubb. T. & A. D. Poyser, A&C Black, 2007 (see Brit. Birds 101: 45). We felt this to be the most worthy of the three important Poyser monographs open to us this year. It most ably updates previous studies of this species with the latest research. The author’s insights as an ecologist and as a practising farmer are both informative and stimulating. 4th: Silent Fields: the long decline of a nation’s wildlife By Roger Lovegrove. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007 (see Brit. Birds 100: 385). This unusual book brings into play a previously unrecognised source of historical information on British wildlife - the parish and estate records of birds and animals killed as ‘vermin’ since the sixteenth century. For a few species, including some birds, continual and widespread slaughter took species to extinction within Britain. The book gives important social insights into human behaviour, and reaches conclusions that are relevant to current policies on wildlife management. 5th: Field Guide to the Albatrosses, Petrels and Shearwaters of the World By Derek Onley and Paid Scofield. Christopher Helm, A&C Black, 2007 (see Brit. Birds 100: 509). This well-conceived and nicely executed field guide has been lauded by seabird enthusiasts and is a valuable addition to the seawatcher’s or pelagic birder’s armoury. We rated it higher than the other field guides and regional hand- books that were eligible this year. 6th: Waterbirds around the World Edited by Gerard Boere, Colin Galbraith and David Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, 2006. Although simply a compendium of papers from a scientific conference, in Edinburgh in 2004, this book has been edited to a very high stan- dard and is sumptuously illustrated. Far more than the other books we have chosen, its content is real, cutting-edge science. It is a refer- ence of global significance to wildlife conserva- tion, with Arctic birds and their vulnerability to climate change a recurring theme. Dip into it on the JNCC website (www.jncc.gov.uk), from where all the papers can be downloaded exactly as they appear in the book. Volume 1 1 of HBW ( Handbook of Birds of the World) would quite probably have won the competition had we not agreed at the outset to give it the first of our ‘honourable mentions’ instead. We have continually praised this series, and have awarded it first place on two occa- sions. It is the ultimate bird book, comprehen- sive in its scope and lavish in its execution. Although The Lapwing was scored higher, we were also impressed by the other Poyser mono- graphs, The Goshawk and The Barn Swallow, that were published during our year. Both are highly recommended, and in other circum- stances either could have scored much more positively in our rankings. Finally, Raptors: a field guide to survey and monitoring is, like our sixth-place volume, a publication ostensibly of rather specialist interest but whose high pro- duction standards deserve to earn it a much wider readership. John Marchant, Dawn Balmer, Andrew Gosler, Peter Hearn, Robin Prytherch and Bob Scott do BTO, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU British Birds 101* February 2008 • 90-9 1 91 Notes All Notes submitted to British Birds are subject to independent review, either by the Notes Panel or by the 88 Editorial Board. Those considered appropriate for 88 will be published either here or on our website (www.britishbirds.co.uk) subject to the availability of space. Display flight of Little Bittern On 28th May 2005, we visited a wetland area at Brazo del Este, Andalucia, Spain. As we looked across one of the reed-fringed pools, a female Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus took flight from reeds close to us and flew the length of the pool to land in reeds approximately 400 m away. Almost as soon as she had landed, an adult male took off from the same place and flew across the pool to join her. The male’s display flight was strikingly different from that of the female. It flew with slow, deep and deliberate wingbeats, similar to those of a displaying Razorbill Alca torda, the wings forming a steep ‘V’ at the top of the upstroke. As we watched, the male took flight again and completed a circuit of the pool, employing the same stiff-winged, Razorbill-like flight over a distance of about 600 m before returning to its starting position. We had seen at least four adult male Little Bitterns in nearby reedbeds the previous day, and at least one other adult male occupied the same reedbed as the displaying male. Perhaps Phil Palmer and Paid J. Willoughby Bird Holidays, 10 Ivegate, Yeadon, Leeds LSI 9 7RE the increased competition at the site, due to the high concentration of breeding birds, meant an unusually high frequency of display behaviour. Little Bittern is known to give a courtship call but its 'display’ is poorly documented. H. C. Langley (in Voisin 1991) witnessed some form of display flight, which he described thus: ‘The male flew with neck slightly extended and head held below the body. This flight posture was observed only during courtship activities.’ In : the same book, Bernard King described a male I performing an ‘advertising flight’ in Somerset: a regular flight in a loop from one position, returning to the same spot, at varying intervals from seven minutes to 1 hour and 40 minutes. I Although these earlier observations partly i describe what we saw, it seems likely that the (j Razorbill-like flight may form part of a hitherto undescribed courtship display by Little Bittern. Reference Voisin, C. 1991. The Herons of Europe. Poyser; London. Active food parasitism in the Grey Heron The varied diet of the Grey Heron Ardea cinerea has been extensively documented and cases of both interspecific and intraspecific kleptopara- sitism described (e.g. Vasvari 1951, Owen 1955, Hudec 1994, Sevclk 1999, Lekuona 2002 and BWP). This note describes how herons have learnt to wait for, and attack, Common Buz- zards Buteo buteo and other species at raptor feeding stations in the Czech Republic. The Trebon Basin Biosphere Reserve, some 160 km south of Prague, supports a healthy breeding population of White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla. During winter, reserve staff provide dead fish and poultry for the eagles, this being left at feeding stations on the ice of frozen lakes. Other species have learnt to take advantage of this free food supply, including Common Buzzard, Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis , Magpie Pica pica , Carrion Corvus corone and Hooded Crows C. cornix and Common Raven C. corax. A small number of Grey Herons also remain i in the area for the winter, rather than migrating to southwest Europe with the bulk of the popu- lation, and these birds struggle to survive in periods of hard weather. However, some birds have, adapted their behaviour to exploit the situ- ation at these feeding stations and employ an unusual form of kleptoparasitism. These herons wait for, and will attack, the raptors; the herons may cause them to fly away, or will even take small pieces of fish directly from the bill of Common Buzzards. Typically, Grey Herons arrive at the feeding site early in the morning and then wait at a distance of some tens of metres, often for several hours. When a Common Buzzard flies in and begins to tear apart the frozen fish (the herons are unable to 92 © British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 92-96 xD/\ac uof c Notes > 57 & 58. Grey Heron Ardea cinerea attacking Common Buzzard Buteo buteo at feeding station, Trebori Basin Biosphere Reserve, Czech Republic, January 2003. Plate 58 shows that the attack was successful and the heron feeds on a piece offish torn off by the Buzzard. handle whole frozen fish weighing perhaps several kilograms), the heron flies across imme- diately and attacks the buzzard with its bill and attempts to snatch the separated fish scraps; this process may be repeated several times by the same two birds. We have recorded this behav- iour many times with Common Buzzards and once with a male Northern Goshawk. Indi- vidual herons will protect their spoils from other herons; and often, as one heron flies away it will be replaced by another heron. Until recently, herons always flew away immediately when an eagle appeared but, during the last two years, herons were observed repeatedly attacking a White-tailed Eagle in a similar manner to that described for buzzards. To our knowledge, such attacks by herons upon raptors have not been described previously. Normally, about 100 Grey Herons remain in the Trebon area during winter and this feeding behaviour is used regularly by about half of the overwintering population. Clearly, the herons have discovered a new and successful winter feeding strategy. Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Hanka Cizkova for critical English revision of the manuscript. References Hudec, K. (ed.) 1 994. Fauna CR a SR - Ptaci. Dil I. [Fauna CR and SR - Birds. Vol. I ]. Academia, Praha. (In Czech) Lekuona,J. M. 2002. Kleptoparasitism in wintering Grey Heron Ardea cinerea. Folia Zool. 51:21 5-220. Owen, D. F. 1 955. The food of the Heron Ardea cinerea in the breeding season. Ibis 97: 276-295. Sevcik, J. 1999. Neobvykle potravnf chovanf volavky popelave ( Ardea cinerea). [Unusual foraging behaviour of the Grey Heron Ardea cinerea], Zpravy CSO [CSO News - Bulletin of the Czech Society for Ornithology] 48: 1 9-2 1 . (In Czech) Vasvari, M. 1951. Food ecology of the Common Heron, the Great Egret and the Little Egret. Aquila 58: 23-38. /. Sevcik Administration of Trebon Basin Protected Landscape Area, Valy 121, 379 01 Trebon, Czech Republic; e-mail sevcik@schkocr.cz /. Rajchard (corresponding author) University of South Bohemia, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Biological Disciplines, Studentska 13, 370 05 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic; e-mail rajchard@zf.jcu.cz Aerial food pass by Pallid Harrier at winter roost The communal winter roost of harriers Circus in grassland at Velavadar National Park, Gujarat, India, is the largest known gathering of these birds. Approximately three-quarters of the Bribsh Birds 101* February 2008 • 92-96 harriers attracted to this roost (which has peaked at some 1,500-2,000 birds) are Montagu’s C. pygargus and about a fifth are Pallid Harriers C. macrourus. In addition, a few 93 Jan Sevcik Notes > C Marsh Harriers C. aeruginosus are usually present but Hen Harriers C. cyaneus are rare (for further details see, for example, Clarke 1996). On the evening of 14th November 2006, while watching a pre-roost gathering of harriers perched on an area of flat, sun-hardened mud at Velavadar, we saw a female Pallid arrive car- rying an unidentified passerine in its talons. A juvenile Pallid took off in pursuit of the female and, as they rapidly gained height, an adult male of the same species appeared and shad- owed them from below. At perhaps 100 m above the ground, the female lowered her legs and dropped the prey a distance of some 2—3 m to the pursuing juvenile, which checked and nimbly caught the item. The three harriers then dived away; the male in one direction while the female followed the juvenile in another, all being lost to view in the evening gloom. We had seen aerial food transfers between Montagu’s Harriers at nest-sites on many occa- sions and, based on this past experience, were in no doubt that what we had witnessed was a food pass rather than piracy. Were the two birds related, or did an unrelated juvenile trigger the female’s behaviour? Pete and Susan Combridge 16 Green Close, Whiteparish, Salisbury SP5 2SB Aerial food transfer from males to females and from adults of both sexes to fledged young during the breeding season is a well-known harrier behavioural trait, though it occurs also in some other raptor species (Simmons 2000). We have, however, been unable to find any ref- erence to aerial food passing by harriers outside the breeding season in the literature available to us. The late Roger Clarke, harrier expert and the inspiration behind our visit to Velavadar, com- mented that although he had never witnessed such an event he had heard of a similar occur- rence at that roost in a previous winter, though he was unable to trace the exact details and thus it is unclear which species of harrier was involved. Acknowledgments We would like to thank David A. Christie, who kindly commented on this note when in draft References Clarke. R. 1 996. Preliminary observations on the importance of a large communal roost of wintering harriers in Gujarat (NW India) and comparison with a roost in Senegal (W Africa)./ Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 93: 44-50. Simmons, R. E. 2000. Harriers of the World. OUR Oxford. Opportunistic egg predation by Oystercatchers On 6th March 2007, at Upton Warren Nature Reserve near Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, I watched a pair of Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus feeding on the Flashes, where a number of shingle-covered islands are dotted between two shallow pools. On one island two pale green duck eggs had been abandoned in the open, about a metre apart, completely exposed and unguarded. One of the Oyster- catchers approached an egg and deliberately stabbed it and tried nibbling the contents. The second bird tried to do the same but, between them, they managed to roll the egg into the water, where it sank but was still visible. They attempted to get it back to the bank but suc- ceeded only in pushing it further from the shore. The Oystercatchers then turned their atten- tions to the other egg. One bird stabbed the egg, enlarged the hole then ate the contents, which seemed to be fresh with an obvious yellow yolk. The bird then picked up the eggshell and took it to the water’s edge, where it attempted to wash the egg in a manner similar to that employed when Oystercatchers catch and wash worms. The remaining contents spilled out as both birds tried to eat the egg contents in the shallows. This behaviour appeared confident and determined, suggesting that this was not the first time that the birds had encountered and consumed eggs. Oystercatchers have been recorded previously predating gull (Laridae) and tern (Sternidae) eggs and chicks (BWP) but this is clearly not common behaviour. Trevor Jones 162 Northfield Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham B30 1DX 94 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 92-96 Notes Winter use of urban amenity grasslands by Turnstones and other waders Turnstones Arenaria interpres have often been recorded feeding in fields and also taking a wide variety of unusual foods, including carrion, bread, waste food and oatmeal (e.g. Harris 1979, Cramp & Simmons 1982, Thom 1986, Taylor et al. 1999). In the Wash, Turnstones have been observed feeding on spilt grain and fishmeal at a dock since 1998 (Smart & Gill 2003). Smart 8c Gill considered this novel behaviour to be either the result of the birds locating more profitable food sources at the port or of turning to less profitable supplemen- tary foods owing to a decline in the abundance, availability or quality of intertidal food resources. The second explanation appeared most likely from the evidence presented. My own casual observations in northeast Essex indicate that several species of wader feed regularly on managed grasslands within coastal towns. This use of urban managed grassland was studied systematically in the winter of 2005/06. Eight sites were chosen, ranging from 0.9 ha to 11.1 ha (total area 39.6 ha), at Mistley (adjacent to the head of the Stour estuary), Harwich and Dovercourt (at the mouth of the Stour estuary), Walton-on-the-Naze (two sites) Table I. Numbers of Turnstones Arenaria interpres and mean air temperature recorded at eight urban grasslands in northeast Essex during the winter of 2005/06. Two counts were made each month. Month Total Sites Mean air count used temperature (°C) October 0 17.8 17 2 18.3 November 117 4 11.0 71 5 2.0 December 132 3 6.5 133 5 3.4 January 120 4 5.8 69 3 4.9 February 145 4 3.3 92 3 4.4 March 63 2 4.3 66 2 14.0 April 73 1 8.3 36 1 15.0 May 43 1 16.0 0 14.0 and Frinton-on-Sea (close to the estuary of Hamford Water), Clacton-on-Sea and Brightlingsea (at the mouth of the Colne estuary). The sites included recreation grounds, strips of coastal grassland and playing fields, all with close-mown grass and all with full amenity access. Counts were made over two days in the first and second halves of each month from October 2005 to May 2006, within one hour of high tide (table 1). All waders were counted and the ait- temperature recorded at each visit. Two sites, Harwich (a recreation ground of 1.4 ha) and Frinton-on-Sea (a cliff-top grassland strip of 9.7 ha), were never used by waders, while Dover- court (11.1 ha) held the most waders throughout the period. Turnstone was the most widely distributed and numerous species; other species recorded (maximum count in paren- theses) were Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus (18), Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula (12), Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus (6), Sanderling Calidris alba (6), Dunlin C. alpina (1) and Common Redshank Tringa totanus (26). Numbers of Turnstones peaked in mid- winter and there was a negative correlation between counts and air temperature (r = -0.66, df = 12, P < 0.05). A greater range of sites was used, and a higher diversity of species recorded, on count days following heavy rain, presumably because invertebrates, especially earthworms (Lumbricidae), were closer to the soil surface. At the Dovercourt site, where Turnstones are present throughout daylight hours from early October until mid May, counts at two-hourly intervals for four hours either side of high tide, on single dates in February and April 2006, revealed no consistent pattern of change in numbers over the tidal cycle (rs = -0.35, n = 10, ns). At both the Mistley and Dovercourt sites, Turnstones often fed among Mute Swans Cygnus olor (plate 59) and may have been taking scraps of food (corn, bread) not eaten by the swans. The paddling of swan feet may also have brought invertebrates close to the soil surface, while swan faeces may have attracted invertebrates. The swans may also have provided security from perceived predators, especially dogs. Since the peak count was just 145, only a British Birds 101* February 2008 • 92-96 95 Notes C ) appeared on grasslands in Essex earlier in the winter than birds feeding on grain in the Wash. State of tide had no significant effect on numbers at the Dovercourt site, in contrast to the situa- tion in the Wash. Although the need for supplementary feeding may explain the presence of Turnstones on urban grasslands in Essex, the possibility that some birds find it profitable to feed there, despite the regular disturbance by humans and dogs, cannot be ruled out. 59. Turnstones Arenaria interpres feeding on amenity grassland among Mute Swans Cygnus olor, Dovercourt, Essex, April 2006. small proportion of the winter population of Turnstones in northeast Essex appears to feed on amenity grasslands at any one time. The Stour estuary alone has a mean peak population in excess of 600 birds (Collier et al. 2005). Smart & Gill (2003) similarly found that only a small proportion of Turnstones in the Wash used the port for feeding on any one day. As in the Wash, more birds were observed feeding at the study sites in colder conditions, but Turnstones References Collier M. R, Banks, A. N„ Austin, G. E., Girling, T, Hearn, R. D., & Musgrove, A.J. 2005. The Wetland Bird Survey 2003/04:Wildfowl and Wader Counts. BTOAVWT/RSPB/JNCC.Thetford. Cramp, S„ & Simmons, K. E. L (eds.) 1 982. The Birds of the Western Palearctic.Vol. 3. OUR Oxford. Harris, R R. 1 979. The winter feeding of the Turnstone in North Wales. Bird Study 26: 259-266. Smart, J., & Gill, J. A. 2003. Non-intertidal habitat use by shorebirds: a reflection of inadequate intertidal resources? Biol. Conserv. Ill: 359-369. Taylor M„ Seago, M„ Allard, R, & Dorling, D. 1 999. The Birds of Norfolk. Pica Press, Robertsbridge. Thom.V. 1 986. Birds in Scotland. Poyser Calton. Christopher F. Mason Strome, Top Common, East Runton, Cromer, Norfolk NR27 9PR; e-mail mason270@btinternet.com Rooks gathering nest material From summer 2006 until spring 2007, a family party of Rooks Corvus frugilegus visited my garden in Blairgowrie, Perth & Kinross, regu- larly, often taking scraps of food from the ground. During late March and early April, I noticed a pair of Rooks jumping up and down on a cherry Primus tree in the garden, trying to break off twigs, up to 45 cm in length. At first I Lynne Farrell 41 High Street, Hemingford Grey, Cambridgeshire thought they would not succeed but they perse- vered, usually taking about five minutes to select and break the twig free. Although there were old, brittle twigs lying around in the garden, they selected the more pliable, fresh twigs, which are presumably better for nest construction. PE28 9BJ EDITORIAL COMMENT Although Rooks routinely use fresh twigs when nest-building, Lynne Farrell has provided a good account of the methods employed by the birds. Eds 96 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 92-96 Letter Scientific names: abbreviations and pronunciation Like most international journals on ornithology and other natural sciences, BB rightly includes scientific names. In an age when English names remain far from standardised (and probably can never be to everyone’s satisfaction), the second Latinised word makes it absolutely clear what species is involved and the first demonstrates generic relationships in a way that, say, ‘Common Chiffchaff’ and ‘Willow Warbler’ on their own cannot. Familiarity with scientific names also enables English-speaking bird- watchers to know what species are being dis- cussed in journals and books in other languages. Against this background, I write belatedly to comment on the editorial announcement on ‘Abbreviation of scientific names’ {Brit. Birds 98: 410), which I had overlooked. It included what I regard as a retrograde inconsistency on abbreviations and some inaccurate instructions on pronunciation. I thank Pete Combridge (who drew my attention to the announcement), David Ballance, Paul Castle, Jeremy Greenwood, Nigel Redman, Robin Williamson and, espe- cially, David Christie and Peter Cranswick for encouragement and helpful comments on earlier drafts. British birdwatchers may think that some of the points below are unnecessarily pedantic, but I have often had to use scientific names, particularly in some countries of conti- nental Europe and South America, to discuss bird species with ornithologists unfamiliar with English vernaculars, and conventional pronun- ciations have proved essential for sensible com- munication Abbreviations In the mid 1940s, when I began serious bird- watching, some publications, including The Handbook and BB, used 'JE.' and ‘Gf as abbrevi- ations for A-githalus and CEnanthe (now Aegit- halos and Oenanthe) - which seemed quite logical since ligatures, or diphthongs, could hardly be separated - and also 'Ph: and ‘ ph .’ for all generic and specific names beginning with those two letters. Presumably that was because they represent the single Greek letter or {phi, pronounced ‘fy’ like ‘why’), but in that case why were not Charadrius and chloris, to take another example, abbreviated to 'Ch.' and 'ch!. which similarly represent the single Greek letter X or x (chi, pronounced ‘ky’)? Then diphthongs - along with hyphens, diaereses and all other diacritic marks - were ruled out of scientific names by the 1961 edition of the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature; and, at some point, ail abbrevia- tions of generic and specific names were reduced to a single letter, which I have always thought much tidier. But the editorial announcement in BB for August 2005 stated that, at the beginnings of words, whether in upper or lower case, 'Ph.', ‘Ae! and ‘Oe.’ (no others) were to be reinstated in BB because, to accord with Recommendation 25A of the 1999 ICZN, any abbreviation should be ‘unam- biguous’. There was, however, still no mention of 'Ch.' and 'ch: and now, of course, the British List includes the Ring-necked Parakeet Psittacula krameri where, again, the two letters ‘Ps.’ or ‘ps.’ represent the single Greek letter T7 or i[/ (psi, pronounced ‘psigh’). So, it must be asked, why is BB not now using the two-letter abbreviations for all three of these Greek letters, not just ‘ Ph .’ and ‘ph.’? On the other hand, nearly 80 West Palearctic species have generic or specific scientific names that begin with one or another of those three pairs of letters; thus, all that BB' s U-turn achieves is to reduce, but by no means exclude, possibilities of ambiguity. Developing this argu- ment on a global basis, should BB now be expecting not only the abbreviation 'Ph.' to be used for all the 60-odd genera worldwide whose names begin with these two letters, but also for consistency ‘ Ch .' for another 60 and ‘Ps.’ for a further 40 or so - not to mention all the hundreds of specific names that begin with these three combination letters? Note that I have omitted ‘Pf.’ from this argument - even though it involves 22 genera, among them the gadfly-petrels Pterodroma and the sandgrouse Pterocles - because that represents not one but two Greek letters (which some therefore prefer to pronounce separately), as does the ‘ Gn .’ of the monospecific South American icterid genus Gnorimopsar. Without at least a second letter, the reader does not necessarily know how any abbreviated generic or specific name will continue - except © British Birds 101* February 2008 • 97-99 97 Letter C that the full word is always spelt out elsewhere in the same publication. In some journals, when referring to several species, authors or editors occasionally use two- or even three-letter abbre- viations - recent examples in one paper in Sandgrouse (29: 98-102) included ‘Ay.’ (Aythya), ‘ Ar .’ ( Ardea ), ‘An.’ ( Anthus ) and ‘Chi’ ( Chlido - nias) - but these seem awkward and unneces- sary, as anyone familiar enough with the scientific names to be using them will have no difficulty in relating a single initial to the full name elsewhere. Mispronunciations The editorial announcement in BB then indi- cated that the letters Ae and Oe at the begin- nings of names should both be pronounced like the first ‘e’ in ‘egret’, whereas conventional modern usage in Latin, and therefore in scien- tific names, demands that neither should - wherever it appears in the Latin or ‘Latinised’ Greek word. (Although many scientific names are derived from classical Greek, they must still be given a Latin form.) As Robin Williamson has emphasised to me, Latin pronunciations as used by the Church and in legal phraseology may bear limited resemblance to each other or to those taught - formerly much more widely - in English schools and those adopted for scien- tific purposes. But conventions for the last of these categories must follow some general rules, even if minor disagreements remain (for instance, many now pronounce ‘v’ as ‘w’), while problems can be caused by national variations in the pronunciation of consonants. To give two examples, because ‘z and ‘c’ in Spanish are spoken as ‘th’, the Rock Bunting Emberiza cia tends there to be pronounced ‘Ember-ee-tha thee-a’, whereas Italians may speak its specific name as ‘chee-a’. Such differences could perhaps be avoided by international agreement, but it is the vowel sounds that are arguably the more important for widespread recognition. To use here simple rather than international phonetics, it should be standard in the Latin of scientific names for ae to be pronounced as ‘eye’ and oe as ‘oy’, while it is the long i at the end of a word which should be ‘ee’ (as in ‘deep’) - the last not as an emphasised ‘eye’, which is how many English-speakers interpret the endings of eponymous Latinised names. Thus, taking BB' s examples, Aegypius should in fact be pronounced as ‘Eye-gip-ee-us’ and Aegithalos as ‘Eye-geeth-ah-los’ (each with a hard ‘g’), and Oenanthe as ‘Oy-nanth-eh’; in this last connection, note that Latinised bird names beginning ‘oe’ are usually transliterated from Greek words beginning ‘oi and that Y at the end of a Latin or Latinised word should always be pronounced as a short ‘eh’ (as in ‘aim’). (That English words derived from Latin words begin- ning with ‘ae’, or from Latinised versions of Greek words beginning with ‘ai’, are now pro- nounced in the English language as if they began with ‘ee’ is neither here nor there because, when spoken, it is the scientific names of animals and plants that need to be pronounced sufficiently similarly in all languages if ambi- guity is really to be avoided.) The specific name aedon , which BB also included in its list of ‘ae’ examples, is rather dif- ferent because, before all diacritic marks were discarded by the ICZN, those two letters used to be printed not as a diphthong, but separately with a diaeresis over the e ( Acrocephalus aedon. Troglodytes aedon). Thus, aedon was (and aedon should still be) pronounced, not as ‘ee-don’ or 1 even ‘eye-don’, but as three syllables ‘ah-eh-don’. The same applies - taking one more of a number of other possible examples - to the | four syllables of ‘kris-ah-eh-tos’ in the Golden | Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, which used also to have ! a diaeresis over the V (like other raptor names 1 which end in aetos or aetus, all from the Greek for ‘eagle’). Rules of pronunciations Perhaps I may add a few general rules on con- ventional Latin pronunciation of vowel sounds, j confirmed by such readily available works as Allen (1988) and Morwood (1998). First, however, it should be noted that ‘Most Latin words have corresponding English word sounds, following the same rules for short and long pronunciation of vowels’, but that ‘in Latin, unlike English, all syllables in words are pronounced, including the final e and es’ (Stone J 2005); indeed, e is never mute. Thus, luscin- ioides is sjx syllables with the n as in ‘put’ and all the vowels pronounced individually (giving the ending ‘oh-ee-dehs’ which is found also in, for example, trochiloides). The letters c (also ch) and g should normally be hard, and s (also ps) soft; h should be sounded as in ‘hope’, and au and ei pronounced as in ‘how’ and ‘eight’; also, as shown above, ae as in ‘high’ (unless originally with a diaeresis) and oe as in ‘boy’; but the two- letter combinations of eu and ui may be sepa- ! 98 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 97-99 Letter C | rated as ‘ay-u’ (e.g. leucoptera , arundinaceus, Pheucticus ) and ‘oo-ee’ (e.g. Pinguinus ) - though Stone would pronounce these respec- tively as in ‘feud’ and ‘wee’. (See also reference to l europaeus below.) To take just two examples, the scientific name of the Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs , frequently mispronounced ‘Frin-jilla seelebs’, should be ‘Frin-gilla koylebs’ with a hard ‘g’ and ‘c’, while Poecile , the genus in which certain of the tits are now placed, should be spoken as ‘Poykileh’. Exceptions There is one group of arguable exceptions to some of the above rules and they involve the eponyms - names honouring people. The 1961 ICZN, in dropping diacritic marks, replaced the two dots of the Germanic umlaut and of the Scandinavian vowels d and 6 (also d and 0) with ae and oe (and, similarly, u with ue), thus arriving at the same combinations as the split- ting of the former diphthongs. Although I have not seen it formally stated, I believe that the pronunciations of these pairs of letters in such commemorative names should not be ‘eye’ and ‘oy’ (see above), but should follow those of the original names as, respectively, ‘eh’ and the vowel sound in the English word ‘bird’ (also the 'ue as something between ‘u’ and ‘ee’). Thus, such species and races as kaempferi, holboellii and rueppelli should follow the same pronunci- ations as the north European names to which they relate with ‘ee’ (or ‘ee-ee’) on the end. On James Ferguson-Lees 4 Walnut Close, Rode, Frome, Somerset BA11 6QA > the other hand, the oe in phoebe and the soft ch in chapmani, being based on English names, should both be the same as in English. The same thought may be applied to the pronuncia- tion of the frequent specific name europaeus as ‘euro-pie-us’. (Moreover, just as every ‘c’ in Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti should be pro- nounced as a soft ‘ch’ sound because Francois Cetti was an Italian, so the patronymic in Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla should be ‘By- yaw’, or ‘By-yaw(n)s’ when the apostrophe and ‘s’ are added - not ‘Bay-Ion’ or, worse, ‘Bay-lee- on’ as sometimes heard - since Louis Francois Antoine Baillon was very much a Frenchman.) In conclusion, it seems relevant to point out that the specific name of the increasingly news- worthy bacterium Clostridium difficile is con- stantly mispronounced on television and radio, even by doctors, as if it were an Anglicised version (‘diff-i-seel’) of the three-syllabled French word ‘dee-fee-seef, whereas it is in fact the neuter form of the Latin adjective difficilis (the root also of the English word ‘difficult’) and should be pronounced as four syllables, ‘diff-ick-il-eh’. Perhaps its nickname of ‘C. diff.’ is safer! References Allen, W. Sidney. 1 988. Vox Latina : a guide to the pronunciation of classical Latin. CUR Cambridge. Morwood.J. 1998. A Dictionary of Latin Words and Phrases. OUR Oxford. Stone, j. R. 2005. The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations. Routledge, New York & London. EDITORIAL COMMENT We concede that the reasoning behind the change announced in Brit. Birds 98: 410 had not been fully thought through, and the above letter highlights this fact. After due considera- tion, we shall return to the system of using a single letter for abbreviation of generic and specific names, the chief reason being that we feel that this provides the greatest clarity and ease of use for readers. The convention of using a single-letter abbreviation was reinstated at the beginning of Vol. 101. The issue of how to pronounce scientific names is one that we intend to expand upon at some point in the future. Eds I British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 97-99 99 Reviews FIELD GUIDE TO THE ANIMALS AND PLANTS OF TRISTAN DA CUNHA AND GOUGH ISLAND Edited by Peter Ryan, Pisces Publications, Newbury, 2007. 162 pages; more than 400 colour photographs. ISBN 978-1-874357-33-9. Paperback, £12.00. When I look at a world map and think of the places that I will prob- ably never get a chance to visit, Tristan da Cunha and its neigh- bouring islands head that list - despite actually having a UK post- code! They are not impossible to visit, of course, but the cost and amount of time required to under- take a trip mean that only the keenest of birders take the plunge. Those who do are rarely disap- pointed, but there is always a possi- bility that the weather will upset your plans. This book starts out by describing the geology and general ecology of the four main islands: Gough, Inaccessible, Nightingale and Tristan. Almost half of their land area is protected as nature reserves, while the first two islands are both accorded World Heritage Site status as well. Taxonomically, this book recognises Tristan Alba- tross Diomedea dabbenena as an endemic species, breeding on Gough and Inaccessible. Histori- cally, it has been treated as a race of Wandering Albatross D. exulans, which also occurs as a visitor. Other breeding endemics include [Atlantic] Yellow-nosed Albatross Thalassarche chlororhynchos (treated here as specifically distinct from Indian Yellow-nosed Alba- tross T. carteri), found on all four islands, and Atlantic Petrel Ptero- droma incerta, which is restricted to Gough and Tristan, while all but 200 or so of the world’s 12 million Great Shearwaters Puffinus gravis come from Gough, Inaccessible and Nightingale. There is also an endemic race of Brown [Sub- antarctic] Skua Stercorarius antarcticus hamiltoni , although here included in the genus Cathar- acta and named Tristan Skua. But despite all these wonderful seabirds, the islands are best known for their landbirds, all of which are illustrated with superb photographs. The real value of this work is that it provides a lot of information about these endemic species that is rarely featured else- where. These include Inaccessible Rail Atlantisia rogersi , Gough Moorhen Gallinula comeri, Tristan Thrush Nesocichla eremita , Gough Bunting Rowettia goughensis , Nightingale Bunting Nesospiza questi. Inaccessible Bunting N. acunhae and Wilkins’s Bunting N. wilkinsi. This is quite a small checklist, taking just 38 pages to describe the birds of these islands. A similar number of pages is devoted to the flora (including 40 endemics), while other sections look at mammals, terrestrial invertebrates and marine life. A small section describes how you can visit the islands, although few people are likely to attempt this independ- ently. Proceeds from the sale of this guide will go directly to fund con- servation management on the islands. So even if, like me, you think you will never visit, you can contribute to the islands’ future by purchasing a copy. Keith Betton BIRDS OF WILTSHIRE Compiled by James Ferguson- Lees, Paul Castle, Peter Cranswick, Stephen Edwards, Pete Combridge, Rob Turner and Linda Cady for the Wiltshire Ornithological Society. WOS, Devizes, 2007. 848 pages; 30 colour photographs; 300 maps. ISBN 978-095552700-5. Hardback, £45.00. This is the first fully authoritative avifauna of Wiltshire since A. C. Smith’s in 1887. The initial impetus for the book was provided when the Wiltshire Ornithological Society (WOS) set up a Tetrad Atlas Group in 1994, led by James Ferguson- Lees. The group planned and organised a tetrad breeding survey carried out during 1995-2000 and a tetrad winter survey covering the winters of 1998/99 and 1999/2000. It was not until later that it was decided that the book should also include a full review of the records of all 309 species recorded in the county up to 2000. The detailed systematic list takes up approximately two-thirds of the book. It breaks new ground for county avifaunas in that it includes maps of distribution and relative abundance in both summer and winter for all species of regular occurrence, and popula- tion estimates for both seasons. The summer data, produced at the tetrad level, are particularly revealing when the distribution maps are compared with the rela- tive abundance maps. Areas of high density can be clearly associated with particular habitats by using the set of eight overlays available from WOS ( www.wiltshirebirds. co.uk). You see real evidence of the massive importance of Wiltshire to farmland bird populations if you combine this with the population estimates calculated for every species, for example 2,500 pairs of Grey Partridge Perdix perdix , at least 43,800 pairs of Sky Lark Alauda arvensis and at least 4,510 pairs of Corn Bunting Emberiza calandra , with Salisbury Plain and the Marlborough Downs emerging as key areas for these and other species. The survey also revealed other surprises, most notably an increasing population of several hundred pairs of Yellow Wagtails Motacilla flava breeding in cereals on the Marlborough Downs; this is 100 © British Birds 101* February 2008 • 1 00- 1 04 Reviews C > in contrast with their disappear- ance from the river valleys of the county. Breeding records are sum- marised for several scarce species (mostly raptors) and published here for the first time. For commoner species, the winter survey data concentrate on the use of timed visits to a ran- domly selected sample of 48% of the tetrads, and casual records have been excluded. These data are extrapolated to produce relative abundance maps on a 10-km grid. The winter maps do not work as well as the summer ones, the coarseness of the grid often pre- venting distribution and abun- dance from being related to habitat. It is unfortunate that the methodology used, clearly limited by time constraints, prevented the creation of tetrad distribution maps. These have been produced for 1 1 scarcer species, however, such as Peregrine Falco peregrinus and Great Grey Shrike Lanins excti- bitor , based on all records received. Recent records of all migrant and vagrant species are analysed, and data are presented in tabular or graphical format. The authors also scrutinised the Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine for 1900-73 and other, even older sources which had been overlooked by the authors of pre- vious Wiltshire avifaunas in 1959 and 1981; this produced a wealth of additional data. All species have been placed in their national and European contexts, although the information presented is unneces- sarily detailed and often a brief summary would have sufficed. This is particularly true of vagrant species, where the actual informa- tion relating to Wiltshire records often takes up only around 25% of the text presented. All the accounts are illustrated with attractive vignettes, drawn by a team of local and national artists. The book also contains chap- ters on Wiltshire’s habitats, weather, archaeological records and ornithological history, an update to 2005, a detailed explanation of the survey methods and a comprehen- sive 32-page bibliography of Wilt- shire publications on birds. This is a Herculean effort of which WOS can be justifiably proud. It sets a new standard in the quality of the data presented. As well as being of great interest to birdwatchers both locally and nationally, it provides strong evi- dence which can be used by conser- vation agencies in the county. As the WOS press release states, the Birds of Wiltshire may be regarded as a Domesday Book of the avi- fauna at the turn of the millennium - a firm basis on which all future surveys in the county can build. John Clark REMARKABLE BIRDS By Stephen Moss. HarperCollins, London, 2007. 208 pages; colour photographs. ISBN 978-0-00-723025-9. Hardback, £17.99. The premise behind this book seems fairly straightforward - ask a global range of ornithologists, birders and bird conservationists to name (and justify) their special bird favourites, and then select 100 of these for inclusion in a colourful and beautifully illustrated book, with a short text on each species. So far, so good - but obviously the final choice of the successful candi- dates (from over 500 species) must have been a tricky business. Readers will find their own favourites here, and no doubt i wonder why this or that bird is missing, but I’m not inclined to worry too much about that. Any book of this kind cannot avoid some degree of selectivity, but it seems a little strange that over 40% of the winners are Palearctic species, with African and North American birds featuring less prominently than I would have expected, and Asia and Australasia scoring very poorly. Stephen Moss’s task, to write just a few hundred words on each species, sounds like money for old rope until you actually sit down and try to do it. In the main, I think that he has done remarkably well. Naturally, I looked hardest at those birds I know or like best or, as a conservationist, have had some personal connection with, and I am happy enough. I wish, however, that he had not made the outra- geous statement that Lammergeiers Gypaetus barbatus are so named because lambs are 'their preferred prey’. I very much doubt that he wrote all the photograph captions, as he surely would never say 'Though [Eurasian] Bitterns [ Botaurus stellaris ] are reluctant to fly, they will do so occasionally’, which is frankly ludicrous. Much of the appeal of this book must lie in its photographs, but they are a curious mixture. Some are simply wonderful, or highly .evocative. Others are extremely poor, especially in this age of high- class imagery: why did somebody choose that awful out-of-focus Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus , or a Toco Toucan Ramphastos toco that might well be in a zoo? Supporters (like me) of such wonderful birds as Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus and Wallcreeper Tichodroma muraria will be disap- pointed that these are among the few species relegated to a very small picture. I can imagine all sorts of mixed views about this book, good, bad and. I’m afraid to say, indifferent. This last category worries me a bit, inasmuch as the book is produced in association with BirdLife Inter- national and is partly about spreading the word on bird conser- vation worldwide - which we would all agree is a laudable aim. Presumably that excellent organisa- tion hopes for some financial benefit too. I would love to be proved wrong, but my worry is that neither of these things will achieve the desired result. Sadly, I have to conclude that not enough people will buy or even read this book to make much difference. Mike Everett British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 100-104 101 Reviews C THE CLEMENTS CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD. 6TH EDITION. By James F. Clements, Christopher Helm, London, 2007. 843 pages. ISBN 978-0-7136-8695-1. Hardback, £40.00. This is the first edition of ‘Clements’ to appear since the death of Clements himself in 2005. Update and continued publication of the Checklist is now the respon- sibility of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. The major part of the book is, of course, the world list itself - each species name (vernac- ular and scientific) is listed in bold with a tick box. Subspecies scien- tific names are listed underneath the species title, with the world range of each subspecies. There is space for the reader to add their own notes and comments along- side the text. There is also a retro- spective of James Clements’s life and work on the Checklist, a fore- word by Anthony White of the American Birding Association (ABA), whose official world check- list this is, and a preface by John Fitzpatrick of Cornell. When James Clements pro- duced and updated this book single-handedly, we could admire his Herculean effort and overlook the flaws. Now that it is a product of arguably the greatest academic ornithological institute on the planet, it must stand more severe comparison with competing Checklists. In practice, the most significant competitor is the third edition of The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World (Dickinson 2004), also published by Helm. The strength of ‘Clements’ is perhaps its popu- larity. It has become the ‘Birders’ Checklist’, has established a semi- formal network of forums led by birders who like to spot errors or suggest changes, and is regularly updated officially via the web. The interactive nature of the relation- ship between ‘Clements’ and its readership is likely to continue, and stands in contrast to ‘Howard and Moore’, which has not enjoyed such popular appeal and is not so regu- larly updated. ‘Howard and Moore’, on the other hand, is academically stronger: it lists the author attribu- tions of all taxa, is extensively refer- enced and annotated using over 2,500 citations to the literature, and explains decisions regarding validity and systematics of taxa as footnotes or chapters so that the reader can see which factors have guided the compilation of the list. On all these counts, ‘Clements’ loses out badly. The current edition of ‘Clements’ is more or less the man- uscript that was handed to Cornell 3 by Clements’s estate, with no major alterations - it contains errors and omissions which will not be listed here - many that were picked up by the book’s users were listed on BirdForum I (http://www.birdforum.net/ showthread.php?t=9 I 560) and ; elsewhere and have since been | adopted on the official website ( http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ J clementschecklist), where further I updates will be posted. This does demand the question why the book : was published in print form before the Cornell Lab got the opportu- nity to overhaul it. And if you already have an earlier edition of j Clements that has been kept updated, you might want to wait I for edition 7. Incidentally, software I is available commercially from Santa Barbara Software Products | for updating ‘Clements’, and their 1 website summarises the changes : that had been incorporated since J edition 5 (http://members.aol.com/ , sbsp/clements5thto6th.htm). It is probably still true that if i; you are serious about your World Checklist, you should be using ‘Howard and Moore’. However, at j around two-thirds the price, ‘Clements’, which is about two- thirds as good, but which has a i much stronger support network, is a serious option which is likely to get better. Martin Collinson PHILIP’S GUIDE TO BIRDS OF BRITAIN AND EUROPE By Lars Svensson and Hakan Delin. Octopus Publishing Group, London, 2007. 320 pages; over 500 species illustrated on 137 colour plates; illustrations and numerous colour maps. ISBN 978-0-540-08969-7. Paperback, £9.99. Older readers will recognise the ‘Hamlyn guide’, reviewed by Robert Spencer in 1970 (Brit. Birds 63: 39-40), as the predecessor to this new field guide. Although over half of the plates are largely unchanged, the text has been extensively updated following a complete rewrite when the current authors took it over in 1986. Names adopted are generally traditional while species order and taxonomy reflect the latest thinking. This is the first field guide to include some recent splits (e.g. Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus , Western and Eastern Orphean Warblers Sylvia hortensis and S. crassirostris), although not all are illustrated. Most species accounts are restricted to 100-200 words but few of these are superfluous and italics are used to good effect to emphasise key features. The quality of both text . and plates allow most European species to be readily identified, although relying on the illustrations alone might make identification unnecessarily difficult for some (e.g. juvenile Woodchat Shrike Lanius senator and Reed Warbler Aero- ; cephalus scirpaceus). A very few par- ticularly tricky groups or species pairs will often require reference to specific identification papers or a more detailed handbook. The maps have been revised but appear rather dated, at least for southeast England. Here, for example, the colonisation of the Little Egret Egretta garzetta is not 102 British Birds 101* February 2008 • 1 00- 1 04 Reviews C reflected and Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus is shown as resident throughout, although qualified in the text as rare. Letter codes are well used to indicate British status but some vagrants are at variance with the BOURC list, e.g. Eagle Owl Bubo bubo is included while Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus is not. The inclusion of ‘R’ (resi- dent) for Red-backed Shrike L. collurio is a rare typo. Comparison is invited with the Collins Bird Guide (1999), which has set a very high standard for modern field guides. The Philip’s guide is cheaper, lighter (500 g against 725 g) and slightly smaller. It deals with fewer species as cov- erage does not extend beyond Europe, and the plates are less clut- tered, often making it easier to match up what a particular bird might be. It is also more up to date, at least taxonomically. On the down side, there are fewer illustra- tions and less text per species covered. The plates are more vari- able stylistically and generally not of such high quality, although rarely to a level that is a concern. The Philip’s guide is an extremely good book, at a very low price, but it will probably appeal JOHN KIRK TOWNSEND: COLLECTOR OF AUDUBON’S WESTERN BIRDS AND MAMMALS By Barbara and Richard Mearns. MearnsBooks, Dumfries, 2007. 400 pages; over 350 illustrations, mostly in colour. ISBN 978-0-9556739-0-0. Hardback, £48.00. John Townsend was an American- born ornithologist, whose name is honoured in Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi , Townsend’s Solitare Myadestes townsendi and several species of mammal. His association with the legendary John Audubon and the fabled Oregon Trail means that his life will be of most interest to American readers, but this lovely book, by British authors, should not be overlooked. Barbara and Richard Mearns first came across Townsend while researching the second of their three previous bio-history works ( Biographies for Birdwatchers , Audubon to Xantus , The Bird Collectors). This is a new departure for them, dealing with the life of just one person, while it is also self- published and available from their website, www.mearnsbooks.com. The foundation of this book forms an abridged and annotated text of Townsend’s account of his travels (A Narrative of a Journey Across the Rocky Mountains), and is aug- mented by a summary of his life FINDING BIRDS IN IRELAND By Eric Dempsey and Michael O’Clery. Gill and Macmillan Ltd, Dublin, 2007. 366 pages; many maps and colour photographs. ISBN 978-0-7171-3916-3. Paperback, €19. 99/£14. 99. They say that the Basque fishermen who first discovered the cod fishery on Newfoundland’s Grand Banks swore the entire nation to secrecy over the whereabouts of a resource that led to prosperity. Similarly, previous books of a ‘where to watch’ type on Ireland’s birds have succeeded admirably in throwing visitors off the scent, either through inaccurate maps (‘turn east at Dover’) or by giving direc- tions in Scottish Gaelic. Dempsey and O’Clery are destined to become as famous as Woodward and Bernstein for finally blowing the gaffe on some of the best-kept secrets west of the Isle of Man. The awkward truth is that, not only will Brits, grockles and grannies now flock to previously secret locations such as Killian Mullarney’s back garden or the eponymous Shite Lane (on Galley Head, Cork, p. 248) but should ‘southerners’ twitch the Black British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 100-104 D most to less experienced birders. Users of the Collins Bird Guide are unlikely to discard it in favour of the Philip’s, despite the temptation to go for something a bit more compact. At this attractive price the Philip’s is worth buying for its cov- erage of recent splits. For 98% of the time one could manage in Britain perfectly well with either, but it is the hope of encountering something in the remaining 2% that keeps serious birders going, and few would want to be without their Collins Bird Guide then. Richard Fairbank before and after this journey. One drawback of Townsend’s original book was that it was not illustrated. The delay between the initial research and finally pro- ducing this work has been to everyone’s ultimate advantage. Thanks to recent advances in eco- nomical colour printing, we have a beautifully illustrated book, which includes plates from Audubon’s works, photographs of Townsend’s extant specimens and latter-day photographs of places and species mentioned in the text. If you want to see how to bring to life the activities of an ornitho- logical pioneer, then look no further. Mike Pennington North (or vice versa), their jour- neys will be guided with an accu- racy rivalling a papal touchdown at Knock. In fact, the site maps are so good they are even better than OS maps. For example, Blue Circle Island in Larne Lough, Co. Antrim - 1,000 pairs of terns (Sternidae) and occasional breeding Mediter- ranean Gulls Earns tnelanocephalus - is in the book but missing from OS maps. The map for Tory Island shows more than 100 fields; all that is missing is a big red arrow pointing to a calling Corn Crake Crex crex. Each of 32 counties is treated to its own chapter, which breaks down into numerous site descriptions and maps. Cork alone 103 Reviews C has 37 sites and 18 maps. Curi- ously, neighbouring Limerick has a mere four; the paucity of entries for this county a possible clue to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. The authors have also dis- covered the equivalent of Atlantis - a birdwatching location in Co. Laois (wherever that is). The text is formulaic, as befits the book’s layout, which resembles a gazetteer. In other words, all the beating about the bush is best done alfresco - and concentrating on the right bush. An informative three- page appendix covers Ireland’s main ornithological appeal to for- eigners: seawatching. Optimum wind directions are overlaid against 34 seawatching sites, each of which features in the relevant county treatments. And there’s more. Michael O’Clery’s paintings are everywhere. Many are delightful cameos showing birds in exact Irish locations. My favourites are his Rock Doves Columba livia (p. 12) and Manx Shearwaters Puffinus puffinus passing Cathedral Rocks (p. 268), which is sublime. It is a pity that many illustrations did not get a chance to flower due to the book’s ‘tight’ design. What’s more, there is a five- page list of Irish bird names. How a bunch of po/fm-swilling, binoc- ular-less Celts were able to tell Faoilean Chaispeach (Caspian Gull Larus cachinnans) from Faoilean Mheiriceanach (Yellow-legged Gull I. michahellis ) in the days of Saint Patrick is beyond me. I had just two small quibbles. The first con- cerns the christening of a clump of sallows in the centre of Cape Clear Island as ‘Oli Gully’. The Hippolais which coined the moniker was not Olivaceous H. pallida but Sykes’s H. rama. Perhaps the location could be renamed Ballysykes’s D — Boreen (in Gaelic, Ramatick.il- launeana)7. Second, unless events are moving faster than this review, I see that ownership of the bird obser- vatory on the Copeland Islands has been incorrectly attributed to RSPB, instead of CBO. A forgivable typo, although it would have been so much juicier had it been IRSP (Irish Republican Socialist Party). By way of a fighting chance for the plain birders of Ireland against the likes of Foula and Barra, Dempsey and O’Clery have left one secret intact. This is the whereabouts of the latest autumn vagrant trap off the Kerry coast. Forget the odd Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus, this place has even recorded Swainson’s Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii. I refer, of course, to Inishbermuda. There is no stopping the Celtic Tiger! Anthony McGeehan THE UNTRODDEN COMBES By David K. Ballance. Published privately, Minehead, 2007. 71 pages; 28 colour and one black-and-white photograph; map. A4, ring-bound. Available from the author at Flat 2, Dunboyne, Bratton Lane, Minehead, Somerset TA24 8SQ for £14.00 inch UK p8cp. Subtitled ' being an exploration of the birds of Weir Water and Chalk Water in the parishes of Porlock and Oare in the county of Somerset at the start of the twenty- first century , the author describes the circular route he followed 153 times between August 2000 and February 2007 (including visits in every month of the year). The species list and commentary summarises the occur- rence of all the birds recorded; it includes comments on status and breeding records, and charts the decline in the Dipper Cinclus cinclus and Ring Ouzel Turdus torquatus here, as elsewhere on Exmoor. Also included is a section of historical records, of other records of birds not observed during the transects and of species unrecorded but likely to occur. The author concludes with a warning that visitors are as unlikely to be found by humans as they might be in a Sutherland or Ross-shire glen; he adds, rather grimly, that ‘only the Ravens [Corvus corax ] will come and after them the Carrion Crows [C. corone]'1. This well-pro- duced book will appeal especially to lovers of Exmoor. It may encourage others to follow the author’s meticulous recording on their own patches and may even lead to these particular combes being less untrodden. David Warden 104 FLIGHTS OF FANCY By Peter Tate. Random House Books, London, 2007. 180 pages; black-and-white illustrations. ISBN 978-1-90521-161-6. Hardback, £10.00. This interesting little book is subtitled 'birds in myth, legend and superstition. In his introduction, Peter Tate 1 states that he has not aimed for an all-inclusive survey, I but has rather written about things which have caught his attention and attracted his curiosity over the years. I As long as you bear this caveat in mind, you can enjoy i his wanderings among beliefs and legends, some of which you will recognise, and some of which you will not. I shall say no more than this about the text in general, but I have to say that I found the ‘chapter’ headings annoying in places, as the use of single species names (English and scientific) masked the fact that the account covered a whole group of birds. Owls (Strigiformes) and eagles (Accipitridae) are cases in point. Somebody had the reasonably good idea (for ai book of this sort) of providing something of an atmos- phere by using a mixture of old prints, plus a few newer ones, in black and white. Sadly, this is a dismal failure because of very poor reproduction, no detail at all on sources or artists, and some strange errors. The ‘Stonechat’ Saxicola torquatus , for example, appears to! be a Reed Acrocephalus scirpaceus or Marsh Warbler A. palustris. Mike Everett British Birds 101 • February 2008 • I00-I041 News and comment Compiled by Adrian Pitches Opinions expressed in this feature are not necessarily those of British Birds Bird flu hits Abbotsbury Swannery A gong for Jeremy The inevitable appearance of bird flu in British wild birds has taken place at Abbotsbury Swannery, in Dorset. Three Mute Swans Cygnus olor were found dead in the second week of January, infected with the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain of avian influenza, as BB went to press. Acting Chief Veterinary Officer, Fred Landeg, said: ‘Our message to all bird keepers, particularly those in the area, is that they must be vigilant.’ A statement by Defra said that the swans’ carcases were found fol- lowing routine surveillance. The statement added that a Wild Bird Control Area and a larger, Wild Bird Mon- itoring Area have been set up around the Swannery, covering Chesil Beach and Portland Bill. Culling of wild birds has been ruled out because this might disperse birds further. Belated congratulations to Jeremy Greenwood, who was awarded a CBE in the New Year’s Honours list. Jeremy sits on the board of British Birds and retired as Director of the BTO at the end of 2007; the award is a reflection of his personal commitment to conservation and the effectiveness of his 20-year leadership of the BTO. He told N&c of his reaction to the honour: ‘Delight, though it seems odd to be honoured for doing one’s job, espe- cially as any success has depended on the efforts of so many others, both BTO members and professional col- leagues. The great thing is that this shows that the wider community appreciates what an important contribution BTO makes to conservation through the information and insights provided by its surveys and monitoring.’ Jeremy and Cynthia have moved north to Fife, where he has an honorary chair at the University of St Andrews and ‘can get back to being an ornithologist after 20 years as a manager.’ Landowner penalised for gamekeeper's crimes The Scottish Executive has con- firmed its more robust approach to .wildlife crime by hitting a landowner where it hurts - in the pocket. A farmer in the Scottish Borders has become the first landowner in the UK to have his subsidy payments cut as a punish- ment after his gamekeeper was con- victed of trying to kill birds of prey. George Aitken, who works as a gamekeeper near Lauder, Borders, set traps holding live pigeons Columbidae) and placed dead Common Pheasants Phasianus ■ olchicus laced with poison on moorland close to the Southern Upland Way long-distance footpath. Aitken arrived in court last lune wearing a paramilitary-style balaclava to avoid identification, And was sentenced to 220 hours’ sommunity service. Now, as dis- closed to The Guardian under reedom of information legislation, he Scottish Executive has cut tearly £8,000 from his employer’s European farming grants for failing o protect local wildlife. This is the Irst time that ministers have used vide-ranging powers under Euro- pean law to dock a farmer’s subsi- dies for environmental crimes, even though the legislation came into force four years ago. Wildlife groups have welcomed the move, saying that landowners and shooting estates need to be penalised directly if their game- keepers are persecuting birds of prey or other wildlife on their behalf. The Scottish Executive said that it had docked £7,919 from last year’s single-farm payment and beef calf scheme payments to James McDougal, who runs a large cattle- and sheep-farming business near Lauder - more than the £5,000 maximum for a wildlife crime offence. McDougal, one of Scotland’s highest EU-subsidy recipients, employs Aitken as a gamekeeper on a small pheasant shoot he runs for friends on his land. Lothian & Borders police, the RSPB and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals found two butterfly cage traps near McDougal’s farm at Blythe, each baited with a live pigeon. Pheasant carcases were found beside nearby woods dosed with carbofuran — a banned agricultural chemical - and a similar although legal pesticide called carbosulfan, the first time it had been used to kill wildlife. Highly toxic sodium cyanide was also seized. The investigation was launched after two poisoned Common Ravens Corvus corax were found near the Southern Upland Way, one with ‘significant residues’ of toxic chemicals in its stomach and liver. McDougal initially appealed against the fine, claiming it was excessive. He said he had been unfairly singled out as, unlike grouse moors, his pheasant shoot was a small-scale, private affair. He claimed that he had never author- ised Aitken to use illegal poisons or traps, and had since warned him that he would be sacked for a repeat offence. The Scottish envir- onment minister, Mike Russell, has asked his officials to use their powers more often: ‘It’s absolutely wrong for individuals to have money from the public purse and to commit, or allow others to commit, illegal acts,’ he said. 3 British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 105-107 105 News and comment Bird strike threat to proposed airport Remember 'No Airport at Cliffe’? Well, now it’s 'No Airport at Lydd’. Five years after plans for an airport in Kent were ruled out come... plans for an airport in Kent. In 2003, it was the North Kent Marshes which were under threat from a new airport for southeast England. In 2008, it’s the Dunge- ness peninsula which is under threat from a new airport for southeast England. The operators of Lydd Airport (5,000 passengers a year, or fewer than 100 per week) want to increase capacity 100-fold to 500,000 passengers a year by extending their runway to accom- modate large commercial aircraft such as Boeing 737s and Airbus A320s. There would also be a new terminal at the rebranded 'London Ashford Airport’, which is next door to the RSPB’s 400-ha Dunge- ness reserve. But the RSPB has already mobilised and its most potent weapon is the threat of bird strike to aircraft, confirmed in a report commissioned from Prof. Chris Feare. He describes the airport site as ‘extremely haz- ardous’ and likens the scheme to the abandoned plan to build an airport at Cliffe, another magnet for thousands of birds. Dungeness is the RSPB’s oldest reserve and its largest in southeast England. The reserve and sur- rounding area host up to 120,000 birds in winter and the site itself attracts more than 60 breeding species in summer. Dungeness also has two nuclear power stations (although one has been closed down) and there is the likelihood of a third now that the UK Gov- ernment has sanctioned new nuclear generation. In his report. Prof. Feare says that Lydd’s plan to reduce the bird strike threat is vague and inade- quately considered, and that pilots may need considerable flexibility to avoid putting their flights in danger. He warns: 'It is... remark- able that such an airport develop- ment is being considered in an area where such an abundance of wildlife already exists and receives legal protection, especially as the birds that are numerous in the area include most of the species that are perceived as especially hazardous to air safety in the UK.’ Only light aircraft and small executive jets currently use Lydd. Shepway District Council was scheduled to vote on whether to sanction expansion at Lydd at a special meeting on 30th January. Graham Wynne, Chief Executive of the RSPB, said: This report proves that Lydd’s plan is a non-starter and that it should be scrapped before it goes any further. The threat posed by so many birds sharing airspace with such large planes is so great it makes the expansion plan utterly irrespon- sible. Dungeness is one of the UK’s most important sites for wild birds and other wildlife and it is absurd even to contemplate enlarging an airport next to it.’ Sigmar the Lesser Spotted Eagle RIP The German-bred Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina ‘Sigmar’ that was shot by Maltese hunters as it migrated south in September (Brit. Birds 100: 686) has been put down. There was justifiable outrage in Germany when Sigmar was shot down, as he was part of a publicly funded species recovery project where the weaker chick in an eagle nest is removed and hand- reared, then returned to its nest once it has passed the stage where it would be killed by its sibling. Sigmar was shot down over Malta on 23rd September, two months after he had been ringed and returned to his nest in the state of Brandenburg. Air Malta flew him back to Germany for veterinary treatment but infection in his shattered shin bone forced vets to put him to sleep in December. Sigmar was not satellite-tagged - but six other juvenile Lesser Spotted Eagles that fledged in 2007 were. And one of them has suffered a bizarre fate too. It was hit by a car in Sudan and then seized by the Sudanese secret police, seemingly on account of its GPS satellite tag. The Wildlife Service of Sudan and the German embassy have so far been unable to learn of its whereabouts. First Swift arrives on New Year’s Eve Even before the old year had finished, the first Common Swift Apus apus of the New Year was winging over Cyprus. Colin Richardson reports: 'I have just received the first “spring” record of Common Swift, a single bird seen on 31st December at Oroklini Marsh, southeast Cyprus... This is the first Cyprus December record since 1997.’ 25th International Ornithological Congress The 25th IOC will be held in Campos do Jordao, Brazil, on 22nd-28th August 2010. The Sci- entific Program Committee has been formed and a website is already in place (www.i-o-c.org or www.ib.usp.br/25ioc) for anyone who plans to attend. New Recorder for Cleveland Tom Francis has taken over from Richard Taylor as Cleveland Recorder; his contact details are 108 Ashton Road, Glebe Estate, Norton, Stockton-on-Tees TS20 IRE; e-mail mot.francis@ ntlworld.com 106 British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 105-107 c News and comment > New Bald Ibis sightings add to the mystery Two new sightings of Bald Ibis Geronticus eremita from the tiny Middle Eastern population have been logged, almost 2,500 km apart. Ibises were seen in December 2007 in the Jordan Valley for the first time in 13 years, and also in Djibouti, East Africa, for the first time ever, raising hopes that there are more ibises out there than had been thought. The species was thought extinct in the Middle East in the 1990s before a colony of just six birds was found in Palmyra, Syria, in 2002. Since then, adult and young birds have been fitted with satellite tags by the RSPB and BirdLife Middle East, to try to discover and protect their migration routes and win- tering sites. The tagged adult birds are currently in Ethiopia for the winter. Dr Jeremy Lindsell, a Research Biologist at the RSPB, said: ‘These sightings are great news. They were entirely unexpected and in some ways deepen the mystery of where [the birds] go on migration. The fact that they are in three different sites away from their breeding grounds reflects how little we know of their numbers and where they go. It also shows how essential it is that we keep tracking the birds so that we can protect them throughout their range.’ Early in December 2007, two adult Bald Ibises were seen on the Yardena cliffs, on the Israel/Jordan border, by a researcher surveying Black Storks Ciconia nigra ; they had disappeared when he returned the following day. Two weeks later, a young Bald Ibis was found on the beach at Tadjoura, eastern Djibouti, by a group of Swedish birders. Tracking adult birds was successful in 2006, when three birds flew a total of 6,000 km to the Ethiopian highlands and back last spring. But readings from the satellite tag fitted to a young bird last summer failed in August and the fate of that individual is unknown. The Djibouti find is more significant for scientists because the bird was a juvenile and very few of the 25 birds fledged in Syria since 2002 have returned. Sharif A1 Jbour of BirdLife Middle East said: ‘Unless there is another colony we know nothing of, it seems young Bald Ibis are strong enough to fly as far as Djibouti, which is nearly 2,700 km from Palmyra.’ Laridists of the world unite ! It’s a year to go but here’s a diary date for all gull enthusiasts. The 9th International Gull Meeting will take place in Aberdeen in Feb- ruary 2009. The IGM runs from 26th Feb- ruary until 1st March and will combine a series of evening talks with daytime visits to local gull sites. Talks will focus primarily on identifica- tion and taxonomy, while field visits include trips to Peterhead and Fraserburgh; the meeting coincides with the best time of the year for gull-watching in the area. If you are interested in attending, and especially if you are willing to give a talk, contact Chris Gibbins (c.gibbins@abdn.ac.uk). The best place to see phalaropes in Britain... (cont.) Following on from the item in the January issue (Brit. Birds 101: 49), Paul Marshall and Steve White have pointed out that all three phalaropes on the British List were present on the same day in 1991 at Martin Mere WWT reserve, in Lancashire. A Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor , present from 30th September to 3rd October, was joined by a Grey P. fulicarius on 2nd-3rd October and then, remarkably, a Red-necked P. lobatus on 3rd October! Rarities Committee news BBRC welcomes new member Paul French has been elected unop- posed as the next voting member af BBRC following a recent call for lominations. The vacancy has irisen with the elevation of Adam Rowlands to Chairman, in March :his year. Paul’s experience is extensive both in the UK and abroad, and he has a host of high-quality (and dif- ficult) rarity finds to his name, both in the UK and abroad. BBRC looks forward to wel- coming another exceptionally tal- ented member to contribute to national record assessment. ZEISS The British Birds Rarities Committee is sponsored by Carl Zeiss Ltd. Chairman: Colin Bradshaw, 9 Tynemouth Place, Tynemouth, Tyne & Wear NE30 4Bj Secretary: Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat, St Mary’s, Scilly TR2 1 0LL British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 105-107 107 Steve Seal www.irishbirdimages.com Recent reports Compiled by Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey This summary of unchecked reports covers early December 2007 to early January 2008. Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis Newton Marsh (Cumbria), 13th-15th December, pre- sumed long-stayer from Dumfries & Galloway in November, seen again Cummertrees, 23rd December, then Caerlaverock (both Dumfries & Galloway), 26th December to 7th January; Chichester Harbour (West Sussex), long-stayer to 10th January, occasionally also Hayling Island (Hampshire). Black Duck Anas rubripes Milford, 22nd December to 5th January and Blanketnook (both Co. Donegal), 29th December to 5th January; Ventry (Co. Kerry), long-stayer to 3rd January. Blue-winged Teal Anas discors North Bull Island (Co. Dublin), long-stayer to 6th January. Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca Llan- degfedd Reservoir (Gwent), 7th January; Theale (Berkshire), long-stayer, sporadically to 5th January; Corbet Lake (Co. Down), long-stayer to 6th January. Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Sutton Courtenay/Appleford Gravel-pits (Oxfordshire), 1 st — 1 Oth January; Cheddar Reservoir (Som- erset), 9th January; Clea Lake area (Co. Down), long-stayer to 6th January; Benbecula (Outer Hebrides), long-stayer to 10th January; Fetlar (Shetland), long-stayer to 7th January; Draycote Water (Warwickshire), long-stayer to 10th January; Stourhead (Wiltshire), long-stayer to 1st January. Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Quoile Pondage (Co. Down), long- stayer to 6th January. White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii Bluemull Sound (Shetland), two, 7th January'. 60. Adult male Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca, Corbet Lake. Co. Down, December 2007. 6 I . First-winter male Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis, Draycote Water, Warwickshire, December 2007. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Huge influx continued, particularly into southwest Britain and Ireland, with the following counts probably involving some dupli- cation and overlap. Southwest England Cornwall (up to 50): Sancreed/St Buryan/Drift areas, three long-stayers to 18th December, then at least seven on 21st, 13 on 22nd, gradually increasing to 18 by 31st December and 19 on 1st January. Still 16 in the area on 6th and four on 10th January. At Silyback Reser- voir, four long-stayers to 18th, one to 19th December. Near Helston, five 22nd-24th December, seven on 25th, eight on 26th, then three remaining to 30th December. In St Ives/Halsetown areas, nine on 22nd December, 15 on 23rd, 1 1 to 31st December, and six in the Trencom Hill area to 10th January'. In St Agnes/Newquay/Crantock areas, three 31st December, then five lst-2nd January, seven 4th-5th and nine on 6th January. At Veryan, five on 6th January and six on 9th. Scilly: various islands, up to six 18th December, at least three on 19th (St Mary’s), three Tresco and one St Mary’s 21st, two there 22nd, and one to 25th December. Dorset: Upwey, long- stay'er to 11th December; Abbotsbury, 13th December; Buckland Pipers/Not- 108 © British Birds 101* February 2008 • 1 08- 1 1 0 Recent reports 62. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis, Cardoness, Dumfries & Galloway, January 2008. : i tington/Radipole areas, five 26th December, six 28th December to 1st January and five to 10th January. Devon: Teigngrace, long-stayer to 23rd December, probably same Powderham 24th December to 5th January; South- cott Valley area, one 29th— 3 1 st December, then five 1st January and at least three remaining to 10th January; Otterton, 30th December to 2nd January. Gloucestershire: Fretherne, long-stayer to 10th January. Somerset: Holywell Lake, 1 1 th— 1 4th December; Muchelney, 29th December to 9th January; Chapel Cleeve, 1st January; Leigh upon Mendip, 1 st— 9th January; Steart, 10th January. Wiltshire: Brit- ford Water Meadows, 17th December to 1st January; Downton, two, 21st December. Ireland Cork: Red Barn, Youghal, two, 5th-10th December; Mizen Head, 23rd December to 5th January; Ballincollig, 24th December; Clonakilty, nine, 27th December to 1st January, and 18+ in the area from Clonakilty to Rosscarberry lst-4th January; Cape Clear Island, 28th December; Cobh, 30th December to 2nd January, then three 2nd-6th January; Doneraile, two, 4th January; Rossmore, eight, 7th-9th January. Other records included: Clahane (Co. Clare), 1 5th— 1 7th December; Cartron (Co. Galway), four, 24th December, then three 25th-28th December; Dungarvan (Co. Waterford), two, 29th December to 5th January; Ballydavid (Co. Kerry), two, 1st January, one to 6th; Inch Island Lake (Co. Donegal), 6th January. Elsewhere St Neots (Cam- bridgeshire), 26th-29th December; Dol-y-Bont (Ceredigion), 3rd-6th January; Neston (Cheshire 8c Wirral), 3rd-10th January; Cardoness area (Dumfries 8c Galloway), 24th December to 10th lanuary; Great Bentley (Essex), long-stayer again 18th December; Harbridge (Hampshire), 28th December to 9th January; Martin Mere (Lan- cashire 8c N Merseyside), 14th December; Rodmell (East Sussex), 29th December to 10th 'lanuary; East Lavant (West Sussex), long-stayer to 5th January. Sreat White Egret Ardea alba Aber Ogwen NR Gwynedd), 12th December; Ladywalk NR Warwickshire), 13th December; Staines Moor Surrey), 22nd-26th December; Wicken Fen ’!2nd December, possibly same Paxton Pits ’.4th-30th December and Ouse Washes (all Cambridgeshire) 1 st— 9th January; Catcott Lows (Somerset), 25th December; South Uist (Outer Hebrides), 25th-27th December; Newton (Powys), 30th December to 2nd January; Coss- ington, 30th December to 5th January, same Eyebrook Reservoir (both Leicestershire 8c Rutland), 6th January; Thorpeness/North Warren (Suffolk), 31st December to 10th January; Peacehaven, 1st January, presumed same Piddinghoe (both East Sussex), 2nd January; Cotswold Water Park (Wiltshire), 5th-9th January; Horsey Mill (Norfolk), 5th January; Sellafield (Cumbria), 6th January; Holkham, 7th January, presumed same Blak- eney (both Norfolk), 10th January; Lough Beg (Co. Derry), long-stayer to 8th January; Mock- beggar Lake (Hampshire), long-stayer to 6th January. Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellu s North Slob (Co. Wexford), 1st January, with two on 8th; Warton Marsh (Lancashire 8c N Mersey- side), long-stayer to 6th January. White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Quarley/Shipton Bellinger area (Hampshire), long-stayer to 9th January. Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus Ireland’s first wintering bird continued to be seen at Red Barn, Youghal, up to 1st January. The bird was ringed and this revealed that it was part of a confiscated collection of birds that were hatched illegally by a collector in Germany British Birds 101 * February 2008 • 1 08- 110 109 Fraser Simpson Richard Stonier David Cooper Graham Catley Recent reports (from eggs taken in the wild in The Nether- lands); it was released in Germany in the autumn. American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica Ballycotton (Co. Cork), 9th December. Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius Grove Ferry (Kent), 20th December. ‘Wilson’s Snipe’ Galli- nago gallinago delicata St Mary’s, long-stayer again 21st December to 1st January, with second long-stayer on 25th December. Long- billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Tim- oleague (Co. Cork), 18th December; Lough Beg, long-stayer seen again 8th January; Bowling Green Marsh (Devon), long-stayer to 6th January; Dundalk Docks (Co. Louth), long-stayer seen on 15th December. Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Southwold (Suffolk), 21st December to 8th January; Montrose Basin (Angus 8c Dundee), long-stayer to 8th January; Rosscarberry, long- stayer to 28th December. Spotted Sand- piper Actitis macularius Kinneil Lagoon (Forth), 25th December to 7th January; Lisvane Reservoir (Glamorgan), long- stayer to 6th January. Laughing Gull Larus atricilla Firths Voe area (Shetland), 13th-22nd December; Bideford (Devon), 6th January. Amer- ican Herring Gull Larus smithson/anus Cobh, long-stayer to 30th December; Nimmo’s Pier (Co. Galway), returning bird, 9th December to 1st January. Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus Philadelphia Liscannor (Co. Clare), 7th December; Cobh, returning bird, 28th-29th December; Fishtown of Usan/Lunan Bay (Angus), long-stayer to 19th December; Peterhead (North- east Scotland), long-stayer to 5th January. Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Nimmo’s Pier, returning bird, 22nd December to 2nd January; Wexford FFarbour, 30th-31st December. 63. First-winter male Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti, Burniston, North Yorkshire, December 2007. 64. Hume's Warbler Phylloscopus humei, Beachy Head, East Sussex, January 2008. V 65. White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys, Cley, Norfolk, January 2008. Blyth’s Pipit Anthus godlewskii Polgigga (Cornwall), 24th January. Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti Crewe (Cheshire 8c Wirral), 1 2th— 1 4th December; Burniston (North York- shire), long-stayer to 2nd January. Hume’s Warbler Phylloscopus humei Cot Valley (Cornwall), 22nd December to 7th January; Beachy Plead (East Sussex), 31st December to 10th January. White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Cley (Norfolk), 6th-10th January. Little Bunting Emberiza pusilla Wormwood Scrubs (London), 6th January. 1 10 British Birds 101 • February 2008 • 108-1 10 Classified advertising Payment for all classified advertisements must be made in advance by VISA, Mastercard or by cheque payable to British Birds. Copy deadline: 10th of the month. Contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd., B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550. Fax: 020 8881 0990. E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Holiday Accommodation Scotland ; ELLARY ESTATE - MOST ATTRACTIVE choice of self catering cottages and chalets situated on the shores of Loch Caolisport. While you are at Ellery you are at liberty to go inywhere you please. There are hill walks, many lochs and burns where you can fish, numerous wildliife, birds, flowers, etc. The perfect location I for the true country lover. For a full colour orochure please write to The Booking Office, Ellary 7 Lochgilphead, Argyll PA31 8PA. Tel: ) 1880 770232. Fax: 01880 770386. Email: nfo@ellary.com Overseas PROVENCE - CAMARGUE. Two s/c cottages. ■ Rogers, Mas d’Auphan, Le Sambuc, 13200 ' I UlLES, France. Tel: (0033) 490 972041 Email: 1 5.m.rogers@wanadoo.fr New SMS News Service Free Trial Online also S 1 Pagers & Internet News www.rarebirdalert.co.uk i Read the News First Birdwatching Holidays See the cutest face of POLAND join our wildlife tours linked with low fare to Warsaw & www.birding. tel. +48 12 2921460 Polish BIRD SERVICE touroperator since 1990 Books UPDATED original BIRDWATCHER’S LOGBOOK A concise way to record your observations. Monthly, annual & life columns for 968 species, garden birds, migrants, index & diary pages. Send £8.75 to: Coxton Publications, Eastwood, Beverley Rd, Walkington, Beverley, HU 1 7 8RP. 01482 881833 BIRD BOOKS BOUGHT AND SOLD. Visit our website for our online catalogue Visit our shop and see our extensive collection. Hawkridge Books, The Cruck Barn, Cross St, Castleton, Derbyshire S33 8WH. Tel: 01433 621999. Email: books@hawkridge.co.uk. Web: www.hawkridge.co.uk BACK NUMBERS of bird and natural history periodicals. Free catalogue from D. 8c D. H. W. Morgan, The Pippins, Allensmore, Hereford HR2 9BP. E-mail: stjamestree@uk2.net, www.birdjournals.com Optical Equipment Binoculars & Telescopes Top Makes , Top Models . Top Advice , Top Deals, Part Exchange Show Room Sales 01925 730399 FOCALPOINT www.fpoint.co.uk Credit/debit cards accepted of British Birds Binders Larger format 88 Binders are available in the following options: Wirex - Royal Blue or Brown, Cordex - Brown only. We also now have in stock binders for the old size (A5) 88 available in Brown Wirex only. Price for all binders: £8.95 each Either complete and return the attached order form, call the British Birds office or order online at www.britishbirds.co.uk using our secure site. Please supply Binder(s) in: Lj Royal Blue Wirex [ Brown Wirex L I Brown Cordex Brown Wirex (old size) at £8.95 each. I enclose my cheque for £ payable to British Birds. Name: Address: Tel No: Post Code: E-mail: British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Tel and Fax: 01424 755155 : E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk Celebrate Easter with Thousands of Migrants For more details and for booking Wildwings • www.wildwings.co.uk www.eilatbirdsfestival.com Tel: +44 (0)-1 17-965-8333 TER N AT I O N A L SPRING MIGRATION FESTIVAL EILAT 2008 24-31 March 2008 Guided tours to the best birding destinations in Eilat, led by Israel's best local guides Lectures and presentations from some of the world's leading birdwatchers. •Raptor ID workshops with Dick Forsman. •Passerine ID workshop with Per Alstrom. U'ioUiwS Society for the Protection of Nature in I Israel Ornithological Cerd Sunbinl The best of birdwatching tours Sunbird has a fantastic range of tours to all parts of the world and a team of professional tour leaders waiting to take you there. We also arrange private, tailor-made tours for individuals or groups. For full details of all our tours visit ^°r for a free brochure call 01767 262522 or email: sunbird@sunbirdtours.co.uk •Great Birding •Great Value •Great Fun Bushnell Zeiss Diascope 65FL kit including 15-45x Zoom and stay-on case Swarovski ATS80HD Kit including 20-60x Zoom and stay-on case Leica Televid apo 62 kit including 16-48x Zoom and stay-on case -£1426 Advanced Fusion Hybrid Lens System XTR Lens & Prism Coating RainGuard PC-3 Coated Bak4 prisms Locking Diopter and Locking Focus Wheel 1 it SWAROVSKI Dialogue with nature ' 8x32 EL rrp £1110. .our price... 10x32 EL rrp £1170. .our price... 8.5x42 EL rrp £1245. .our price... 10x42 EL rrp £1310. .our price... Price Promise We work hard to keep our prices competetive & will We both part-exchange and buy quality equipment Conditions apply. Ask for details. UK Mail Order Next Day Delivery Postage & Insurance £8 for most items. isalHKs-'Jkw Open 9am-5.30pm Mon-Sat. E.&O.E. All prices quoted include Please check availability before VAT@17.5%. Prices subject to change making a special journey. All goods subject to availability. londoncameraexchange optics in Hampshire BR Ultravid ...rsp £1110. .our price.. 2 BR Ultravid^g^SP £1170.. our price.. BR Ultravid £1230. .our price.. 2 BR UltravicT ...rip £1290. .our price.. Discover the wonders of nature With the wonders of technology IT* FL rrp £985. .our price.„ B T* FL rrp £1 01 5.. our price... T* FL rrp £1055.. our price... B T* FL rrp £1095..our price... Conquest rrp £430. .our price... Conquest rrp £470. .our price... Conquest rrp £655.. our price.,,-- Conquest rrp £700.. our price... 15 The Square Winchester S023 9ES aww.LCEGROUP.co.uk 01962 866203 winchester@Icegroup.co.uk nhbs Environment Bookstore Wildlife I Science I Conservation New at NHBS Backiist Bargains 2008 - Our exciting annual feature has returned for the new year. This year we are | to offer an absolute treasure-trove of books from over 40 major publishers - 3000 titles at up to 45% ‘f we have icluded a small selection of our birding titles for you to browse (offer ends 31/03/2008). A selection of equipment for birders is also now available from our website, including: Nest Box Cais the RemememBird device, the first digital audio recorder to have been designed by a birder, for biia the BirdVoicePEN, which delivers bird calls by pointing a pen at specially designed field guides and sti. • rde will continue to expand the range of products we can offer birders throughout 2008. □ Essential Guide to BJ the Isles of Scilly Bob L Flood & Nigel Hudson ei A concise, up-to-date and accu| count of all species and sub-sp* ably recorded on and around tls Including a chronological revie if on the island; information on m □ The Birds of Scotland | Edited by Ron Forrester & Ian Andrews et al. Two full-colour A4 hardback volumes in a slip case. Illustrated with more than 900 first-class photographs and 1,500 i charts, maps and tables, this landmark publication is a must for everyone with an interest in Scottish birds. ! Hbk | 2008 | £75.00 | #168578 month-by-month account of birf island and much more. Hbk | 2007 | £44.99 | #170911 □ Birds by Colour M.Duquet & A.Larousse et al Fabulous new artwork illustrates all the commoner species of western Europe and helpful captions point out the key features of each species. The second half of the book is a more traditional- type field guide in taxonomic order, using colour photographs instead of illustrations. Pbk I 2008 | £12.99 I #169880 From BirdLife International □ Birds and People Bonds in a Timeless Journe Nigel J Collar. Adnan J Long. Fn Robles Gil and Jamie Rojo A portfolio drawn from the woriojp est bird photographers, which c« and celebrates our unique relalfi with birds, examining their role 9 art, agriculture and science. Hbk I 2007 I £29.99 1 #170740.1 □ The Birds of Zambia An Atlas and Handbook R.J.Dowsett & D.R.Aspinwall et al This book presents detailed accounts of the more than 750 species known in Zambia. Maps present a clear picture of distribution. Detailed text also complements the maps. Pbk | 2008 | £29.99 | #172927 A Climatic Allas of Fnmpfaa Breadin': Birdk □ A Climatic Atlas of Ejf Breeding Birds Brian Huntley et al A comprehensive exploration cie relationships between the distrk birds breeding in Europe and tip climate, and how future climatic may alter each species' potent h distribution. Covers 431 specieP accounts are also included fori native and 16 introduced sped Hbk | 2008 | £44.99 | #172768 □ Where to Watch Birds in New Zealand More Than 30 of the Country’s Best Birding Locations Kathy Ombler In Where to Watch Birds in New Zealand Kathy Ombler introduces more than 30 of New Zealand's finest birding sites, with a full description of the location as well as a list of the birds to watch out for Pbk | 2007 | £12.99 | #170608 □ Birds of Surrey Jeffery J Wheatley This is a book in which the aut t beyond the perception that Suip overcrowded county with little birdlife. He reveals an attractiv 0- of compact and contrasting larc? : governed by abrupt variations underlying geology. Hbk | 2007 | £35.00 | #160568 Find over 100,000 natural history titles at www.nhbs.com WWW. nhbs .com The most comprehensive range of natural history titles on earth 2-3 Wills Rd, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5XN, UK | Fax 01803 865280 I Tel 01803 86591: ronment Bookstore has an extensive range of field and travel guides available for any travelling birder. To see f ge of titles visit our website, www.nhbs.com and click Browse by Geozone on our homepage. a| list Bargains 2008 Offer ends 31/03/2008 [ Seabirds, Shorebirds and Wildfowl ■ <2926 £105 00 £69 99 hbk 1 ars and their Allies #105584 £105.00 £69.99 hbk 1 ormorants & their Relatives #132925 £105 00 £56.99 hbk | ese and Swans #132928 £460.09 £107.99 hbk j os #132929 £405:00 £56.99 hbk nd Bird Behaviour #142406 £34 99 I .ight: The Art of Lars Jonsson #128946 £34.99 □ Field Guide to the Albatrosses, Petrels and Shearwaters of the World i to the Birds of Nepal #107846 Partridges and Grouse #66365 '-.'J 36414 molers #107849 S 5 #101886 J ierries #2675 e Penguin #132969 ‘ ■ :irds to Your Garden #98783 ■ t #144658 ^■llimate Change #153134 •"-If Dorset #146209 3^.#ffolk #134412 '•- iiBiy: Health and Disease #119200 : -m History of Ornithology #66411 o[ logy #157188 ■ ii n Identification Guide #851 la Trusts Guide to Birds #127476 - :4i to the Birds of Nepal #107846 £24-09 £44-99 r op no L j J J -J can nn LOU uu pn nn LjJ. JJ coa no LjH c/c/ £42-95 £4-2-99 rpc nn LutTiJU rnn nc Z. LJ ZJU non nn LO J. J J non nn 2L O «J . sJ pc nn non nn T-C. U - J U £50.05 £34.00 £4t99 £24-99 £19.99 hbk £19.99 hbk £14.99 pbk £25.99 hbk £22.99 hbk £34.99 hbk £22 99 hbk £19.99 hbk £24 99 hbk £7.50 pbk £35.50 hbk £57.99 hbk £22.99 hbk £22.99 hbk £43.99 hbk £17.99 hbk £32.50 hbk £19.99 hbk £2.99 pbk £14.99 pbk #66425 □ Shorebirds #146385 □ Flight Identification of European Seabirds #166387 □ Peterson Reference: Gulls of the Americas #168787 □ Field Guide to New Zealand Seabirds #162575 □ Waterbird Population Estimates #157616 £19.99 pbk £49.50 hbk £24,99 pbk £24.50 hbk £12.99 pbk £25.00 pbk UK and Europe □ Finding Birds in Ireland #171612 £14,99 pbk □ Philip's Guide to Birds of Britain and Europe #165691 £9.99 pbk □ Birds of the Palearctic - Passerines #128714 £25.00 hbk □ Manx Bird Atlas: An Atlas of Breeding and Wintering Birds on the Isle of Man #161068 £60.00 hbk □ The Birds of Gwent #167901 £39.99 hbk □ New Naturalist #103: The Isles of Scilly #127511 £24.99 pbk □ New Naturalist #103: The Isles of Scilly #127510 £44.99 hbk □ The Birds of Essex #161080 £39.99 hbk Rest of the World srral pi g #166386 £39.99 hbk B s of the World #160648 £24.99 hbk T * n Birds #170171 £34.99 pbk - ioi)f the Birds of the World. Volume 12 Picathartes to Tits 'll «5S #38603 £145.00 hbk reRjl yearbook 2008 #169718 £18.95 pbk r'ijm Birding (Wildlife Art Series 15) #169828 £37.99 hbk ~fm : Adventures Amongst Northern Birds (Wildlife Art Series TT2| £37.99hbk ■'S a# list #104: A History of Ornithology #151697 £24.99 pbk : ‘ ai| list #104: A History of Ornithology #151698 £44.99 hbk en its Checklist of the Birds of the World #167912 £39.99 hbk ie jfinitive Visual Guide #167076 £29.99 hbk □ Collins Field Guide: Birds of the Palearctic - Passerines #128714 £25.00 hbk □ Birds of Trinidad and Tobago #166395 £19.99 pbk □ Field Guide to Birds of E Africa #151078 £24.99 pbk □ Field Guide to the Birds of W Africa #146211 £29.99 pbk □ A Photographic Guide to Birds of Japan #161077 £24.99 pbk □ All the Birds of Brazil #151692 £29.95 pbk □ Roberts Bird Guide. Comprehensive Field Guide to Over 950 Bird Species in Southern Africa #164925 £17.99 pbk □ Field Guide to the Birds of S America: Non-Passerines #142299 £24.99 hbk Seabirds, Shorebirds & Wildfowl d' itching □ Birds of Northern South America, Volume 1&2 #156090 □ Field Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica #162622 □ A Field Guide to the Birds of China #101745 □ Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka #83310 □ The Birds of Kazakhstan #167774 □ Birds in Europe #150394 □ Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand #156936 □ Guide to the Birds of China inc. Hong Kong #167068 SSE £85.00 pbk £19.99 pbk £39.95 pbk £39.95 pbk £44.99 hbk £30.00 hbk £29.50 pbk £7.99 pbk Bird Sounds & DVDs o atch Birds in Britain #120341 be Bad Birdwatcher #162947 a atch Birds in World Cities #154814 s Yearbook and Diary 2008 #169193 _V-i«ket Logbook #170075 H ters #166110 ~ ... Hq to Identify Birds #38713 ...aejto Go Birding Before You Die #169746 B, ng in the Fast Lane #157718 . Sd i-East China #162234 £19.99 pbk £7.99 pbk £16.99 pbk £16.75 hbk £8.50 hbk £14.99 pbk £12.99 pbk £14.95 hbk £9.99 pbk £29.50 pbk □ The Sound Approach to Birding #163551 £29.95 hbk+CD □ The Birds of Britain and Europe, 6-DVD Set #146254 £35.19 DVD □ The Bird Song of Kenya and Tanzania #140136 £9.99 CD □ The Art of Pishing #164822 £11 .50 pbk+CD □ Birding in Spain #160634 £12.95 DVD □ BWPi 2.0:Birds of the Western Palearctic Interactive #164224 £139.00 DVD-ROM □ BBi (British Birds Interactive) 1907-2007 #169546 £98.99 DVD-ROM □ The Life of Birds #164230 £19.95 DVD ■ General Wildlife )rt r via this form, phone, fax, email or online Se ;e postage & packing charges ue to £5 £10 £30 £45 £65 £100 +£100 DVD CD KJ>S- 3dtl E-mail Goods total £ P&P total £ Total £ ib No si i here *d t my Visa/Mastercard/Maestro/AMEX sire) Start date | | | / | | j Issue No | j j j j AMEX - Start date Expiry date | | | / | LI / LI J c-LLI — Manfrotto Hide Mount £599 £569 £219 £229 £459 £469 £899 £979 £1059 £1350 £1420 £1217 £1359 £1039 £979 £1280 case £1495 case £1129 £149 £1563 £1233 OPTICS 01872 263444 www.swoptics.co The British Trust for Ornithology based in Thetford, Norfolk, is looking for enthusiastic and dedicated individuals for the following new vacancies: COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER (£20,687-£22,986 + pension) Registered Charity Noj Responsibilities include editing the Trust's magazine and mana| our house style. WEBSITE MANAGER (£19,121-£21,246 + pension) (2-year+ contract) To take day-to-day control of our website and take forward itsl development. Closing date for receipt of applications is 1pm on Friday 15 Februan For full particulars and an application form visit our website: http://www.bto.org/vacancies or contact Sophie Foulger o*^ 01842 768247 (email: jobs@bto.org). Please quote reference Bl! South West Optics 22a River Street Truro Cornwall UK TR1 2SJ 01872 263444 sales@swoptics.com OPTIC WANTED! For the Travel Trade • Tour Leaders • Website and IT Manager • Marketing Managfi Full-timers to combine tour-leading and office-based product and operation tasks. Birders, botanists and particularly all-round naturalists sought to fill the above posts. Meticulous attention to detail, accuracy, common sens^ good literacy, numeracy, telephone skills and love of ha work are amongst the many skills required. Fun-loving, outgoing and personable character essence Please post typed CV and accompanying hand-written| letter to: Naturetrek, Cheriton Mill, Arlesford, Hants SO 24 ONG • Tel: 0 1 962 73305 1 • Over 800 Products Available On www.swoptics.co.uk • Secure Online Ordering Quality Second Hand Stock Regularly Available Compasses. GPS, Digiscoping Accessories, Magnifiers also in s • Next Day Delivery on orders placed before midday! • Digiscoping Cameras in Stock e.g. Nikon P5100 + Leica D-Lux| • All prices are subject to change - please check website for details r&EO Opticron Binoculars 8x40 Aspheric WA Porro 8x42 Countryman Oasis : 10x42 Countryman Oasis 8x42 Imagic BGA - Special 10x42 Imagic TGA 8x42 Verano Oasis 8x20 Gallery Mono Scope Opticron Binoculars 8x42 BGA SE - New ! 10x42 BGA SE - New 8x32 BGA SE - New 8x42 DBA 10x42 DBA 8x42 DBA Monocular 8x42 BGA Monocular Zeiss Binoculars 8x32 T* FL LT ! 7x42 T* FL LT 8x42 T FL LT 10x42 TFLLT : Green or Black available 8x40 Conquest 10x40 Conquest Leica Binoculars Ultravid 8x32 BR Ultravid 8x42 BR : Ultravid 10x42 BR : Ultravid HD 8x42 : Ultravid HD 10x42 ! Ultravid HD 8x32 Ultravid HD 7x42 Swarovski Binoculars 8x32 EL 8.5x42 EL 10x42 EL Swarovski Scopes Swarovski ATS 80 HD, case, zooi Swarovski ATS 65 HD, case, zoo; All in stock - call for best price Tripods Velbon Carbon Fibre 635 - 157 Head £179 Velbon Carbon Fibre 535 - 157 Head £159 Velbon CX586 £59.99 Velbon UP4000 Monopod £19.99 Manfrotto VIEW Tripods from £129 SLIKD3 £119 Wide range Velbon and Manfrotto in stock Opticron Scopes ES80ED, 20-60 Zoom HDF, Case GS665 ED, Zoom, Case Mighty Midget 2 with 15-40 Zoom NEW SDL Super Zoom GS665, HDF Zoom, Case ES80 SD, Zoom, HDF, Case Zeiss Scopes See web for full range Diascope 85 TF L: 20-60 Zoom, case Diascope 65 TF L: with 15-45 Zoom, Case DC4 Eyepiece Nikon Coolpix P5100 Nikon D80 body Nikon D300 body Leica Scopes APO Televid 77 20-60 Zoom, APO Televid 62 16-48 Zoom, Digital Adapter 2 Nikon Zeiss Rainguard Leica Rainguard Op Tech Neck Strap Op Tech Tripod Strap Car Window Mount Calotherm Cleaning cloths, sprays. Kay Optical (1962) UNRIVALLED EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE AND SERVICE * Sales & Repairs * Binoculars * Telescopes * Tripods, etc www.kayoptical.co.uk and www.bigbinoculars.co.uk 89(B) London Rood, Morden, Surrey SM4 5HP Tel: 020 8648 8822 Fax: 020 8687 2021 Email: info@kayoptical.co.uk Open: Mon-Sat 9-5 (lunch 1-2) Location: Southern edge of Greater London. 15 mins drive from M25. (for example vio the A3, then take the A298 Wimbledon/Merton slip-road) or 2 mins walk from Morden underground (turn right). See our website for a mop. Parking: 50 yards past our premises - first left r* 1 1 Alternative venues to Morden at which you can try and buy our equipment rieiCL in the field are given below. We aim to show our full range of equipment HflX/C ^ut ^Ps us t0 you if you us know your interests before each miyj field Day. Repairs can also be handed in/collected. 1 0.00am to 4.00pm usually. • Mail order • Same day despatch • Part exchange • Used items • Package deals • Credit available Sevenoaks Wildfowl Reserve On the A25 between Riverhead and Sevenooks - Bol and Ball Station 2 March, 6 April, 4 May, 1 June Pagham Harbour LNR On the B2145 inlo Selsey, West Sussex 24 Feb, 30 March College Lake Wildlife Centre On the B488 near Bulbourne, Tring, Herts. 13 April Dinton Pastures Country Park Near Reading (M4, A329(M) Woodley turnoff) then A329 to Winnersh and Winnersh Station (B3030) 23 March, 1 1 May Bough Beech Nature Reserve/ Reservoir About 4 miles south of the A25/A21 junction (access from B2042 or B2027) neor Ide Hill, Kent. Inlo centre north of reservoir. 1 7 February, 16 March, 20 April Canon, Helios, Kowa, Leica, Manfrotto, Miyauchi, Nikon, Opticron, Optolyth, Sentinel, Swarovski, Zeiss, etc. Used items also on our web site. For subsequent Field Day dates, phone or see our website For more information on the complete range of RED FIELDSCOPES iv ng the highest optical performance and reliability in even the toughest field & >ns, the HR 80 CA ED and sister HR 66 GA ED are among the best terrestrial >es money can buy. Main features include; ■ment ED APO objective lens delivering stunning images without chromatic ration 1 + N-type combination coating for amazing l jr contrast across the magnification range I to 88x HR66, 24x to 120x HR80) i >er armoured & nitrogen waterproof i compatible with SDL, HDF and HR eyepieces >hoto option for SLR cameras >1 ?ar guarantee Si ]A ED body £549, HR 66 GA ED/45 body £599 31 ]A ED/45 body £799 tit ;s: HDFT 28xWW/38xWW £149, HDF T 1 8-54x/24-72x £179, 1 54x/24-72x £229, Telephoto HDF £149 Taking photographs through your telescope is now easier than ever with our extensive range of telephoto and photoadapters. For more information see our TELEPHOTOGRAPHY page at www.opticron.co.uk DBA MONOCULAR SLR TELEPHOTOGRAPHY Derived directly from DBA binoculars and delivering an unbeatable combination of resolution, colour reproduction and viewing comfort. 8x42 £249, 10x42 £249 AC BGA SE ic BGA SE is our 6th generation Imagic will change your preconceptions of what '"fl] expect for £400 in a roof prism binocular, aif g true to the original design ideal; a - c :ompact, lightweight binoculars packed fh atest optical features, the new models up le challenge to 'premium' roof prism cuis offering outstanding performance and ’ f« money. £ 9, 7x42 £389, 8x42 £399, 10x42 £409 Nikon Just add a Nikon eyepiece, bracket and Coolpix camera... then enter, discover and explore an exciting new world of brilliant, up-close images with amazing color and detail. Nikon makes it all easy for you with your choice of portable, affordable, user-friendly scopes and all the accessories you need. So get into digiscoping now! Spotting Scope RAM 82 WP + New DS Spotting scope Eyepiece + Digital camera Bracket FSB-6 + COOLPIX P5000/P5100 Fieldscope ED50 + 16x Wide DS Fieldscope Eyepiece + Digital camera Bracket FSB-6 + COOLPIX P5000/P5100 Life up close Fieldscope ED82 + Fieldscope Digital SLR Camera Attachment FSA-L1 +D40x www.nikon.co.uk 0800 230 220 Nikon Sport Op Spot-on digiscoping. British Birds h 2008 • Vol. 101 I Long-billed Murrelefcs fellow Bitte ISSN 0007-0335 British Birds Established 1907, incorporating The Zoologist, established 1843 Published by BB 2000 Limited, trading as ‘British Birds’ Registered Office: 4 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8SF British Birds is owned and published by BB 2000 Limited, the directors of which are John Eyre (Chairman), Jeremy Greenwood, Ian Packer, Adrian Pitches, Richard Porter and Bob Scott. BB 2000 Limited is wholly owned by The British Birds Charitable Trust (registered charity No. 1089422), whose trustees are Richard Chandler, Jeremy Greenwood, Peter Oliver and Bob Scott. British Birds aims to be the leading journal for the modern birder in the Western Palearctic We aim to: ♦> provide a forum for contributions of interest to all birdwatchers in the Western Palearctic; publish material on behaviour, conservation, distribution, ecology, identification, movements, status and taxonomy; v embrace new ideas and research; ♦> maintain our position as the respected journal of record; and <• interpret good scientific research on birds for the interested non-scientist. British Birds Editor Roger Riddington Assistant Editors Caroline Dudley 8t Peter Kennerley Editorial Board Dawn Balmer, Ian Carter, Richard Chandler, Martin Collinson, Chris Kehoe, Robin Prytherch, Nigel Redman, Roger Riddington, Steve Votier Art Consultants Robert Gillmor & Alan Harris Photographic Consultants Robin Chittenden & David Tipling Rarities Committee Chairman Colin Bradshaw Secretary Nigel Hudson Chris Batty, Chris Bradshaw, Phil Bristow, Lance Degnan, Martin Garner, James Lidster, Mike Pennington, Adam Rowlands, Brian Small, John Sweeney Notes Panel Will Cresswell, Ian Dawson, Jim Flegg, Ian Newton FRS, Malcolm Ogilvie, Angela Turner (Co-ordinator) Annual subscription rates Libraries and agencies - £89.00 Individual subscriptions: UK - £48.00 Overseas surface mail - £54.50 Back issues Single back issues - £6.50 Available from British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Rarities Issue - £12 (available as above ) Please make all cheques payable to British Birds Guidelines for contributors Full details are available on the BB wTebsite. www.britishbirds.co.uk EDITORIAL Spindrift, Eastshore, Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS Tel: 01950 460080 Papers, notes, letters, illustrations, etc. Roger Riddington E-mail: editor@britishbirds.co.uk CIRCULATION & PRODUCTION 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Tel & fax: 01424 755155 ‘New's & comment’ information Adrian Pitches, 22 Dene Road, Tynemouth, Tyne & Wear NE30 2JW E-mail: adrianpitches@blueyonder.co.uk Rarity descriptions Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat, St Mary’s, Scilly TR2 1 0LL E-mail: secretary@bbrc.org.uk Design & Production Mark Corliss E-mail: m.corliss@netmatters.co.uk Subscriptions & Administration Hazel Jenner E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk Printed by Hastings Printing Company Ltd ADVERTISING: for all advertising matters, please contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd, B403A The Chocolate Factor)", 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550 Fax: 020 8881 0990 E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Front-cover photograph: Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator, Finland, March 2006. Hugh Harrop EFERRED BY HOSE WHO KNOW. PENTAX. A revelation in binocular viewing. When it comes to keeping a keen eye on birds and nature, nothing compares to Pentax. With state-of-the-art performance and silky smooth handling, Pentax DCF ED binoculars are the preferred choice of nature-lovers the world over. They deliver precise, accurate ■mages over long viewing periods, thanks to a raft of advanced optical technologies, such as high-tech ED glass to enhance sharpness and eliminate colour fringing, Super Multi Coating on all lens surfaces, and BaK4 prisms for unsurpassed clarity. What's more, they're built to take the toughest conditions. With a strong and light magnesium chassis, rubber coating and full water, dirt and fog protection. Just like our multi-award winning digital SLR cameras, Pentax DCF ED binoculars simply set the standard for image capture. They're pure Pentax. Available at leading Pentax Camera Stores - visit our website for details. w i»entax.co.uk Don’t miss our Bargain selection for 2008 Argentina - Andes 10 days - £1,890 Departs 7 Jan, 25 Feb, 7 Apr, 28 Jul, i Dec Argentina - Chaco 10 days - £1,890 Departs 14 Jan, 3 Mar, 14 Apr, 4 Aug, 8 Dec Australia - Endemics of WA 12 days - £2,250 Departs 12, 26 Sep Australia - Queensland 13 days - £2,590 Departs II Nov Bolivia - Lowlands 10 days - £1,395 Departs 10 Feb, 9 Nov Bolivia - Highlands 12 days - £1,595 Departs 17 Feb, 16 Nov Botswana 10 days - £1,695 Departs 14 Nov Brazil 10 days - £1,495 Departs 7 Mar, 19 Sep Cuba 12 days - £1,790 Departs 8 Mar Ecuador - Choco 9 days - £1,350 Departs 22 Nov Ecuador - Tumbesian Endemics 9 days - £1,395 Departs 7 Sep Ecuador - Cock-of- the-Rock 9 days - from £1,250 Departs 15 Jan, 9 Feb, 15 Mar, 21 Aug, 18 Oct, 15 Nov Ethiopia 10 days - from £1,295 Departs 8 Feb, 21 Mar, 7 Nov, 19 Dec India - Bharatpur & Chambal 9 days - from £1,295 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 27 Dec India - Corbett Country 9 days - £1,250 Departs 26 Jan, 22 Nov India - Endemic Birds of Annamalai 9 days - £1,195 Departs 2 Feb, 22 Nov India - Family Tour Spices & Elephants 9 days - from £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Temples & Wildlife 9 days - £1,525 Departs 9 Feb, 5 Apr, 18 Oct, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Tigers & Forts 9 days - £1,345 Departs 9, 16 Feb, 25 Oct India - Goa 9 days - £1,195 Departs 14 Nov India - International Animal Rescue 10 days - £1,550 Departs 15 Feb, 14 Nov India - Kerala’s National Parks & Backwaters 9 days - £1,350 Departs I Mar, 15 Nov India - Southern India’s Endemics 12 days - from £1,550 Departs 8 Mar, 15 Nov, 20 Dec India - Wildlife & Cuisine 9 days - £1,295 Departs 9, 16, 23 Feb, 8 Mar, 8 Nov, 27 Dec Kazakhstan 9 days - £1,595 Departs 8, 16th May Kenya 10 days - £1,595 Departs 7 Nov Malawi 10 days - £1,595 Departs 3 Feb, 6 Apr Nepal 10 days - from £1,495 Departs 2, 9th Feb, 29 Mar, 20 Dec Nepal - A Very Special Offer! 10 days- £1,295 Departs 26 Jan, 16 Feb, 3 May Nepal - Ibisbill Trek 10 days- £1,495 Departs 10 May Panama - Canopy Tower 9 days - £1,595 Departs 16, 23 Apr, 12 Nov South Africa 10 days - £1,550 Departs 8 Feb, 28 Mar, 5 Sep South Africa’s Cape 10 days- £1,495 Departs 14 Mar, 22 Aug South Africa - Zululand 10 days- £1,595 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 13 Sep Southern Morocco 10 days - from £1,195 Departs 8 Feb, 14 Mar, 4 Apr Sri Lanka 10 days - £1,495 Departs 16 Feb, 8 Nov Thailand 10 days - £1,590 / Departs 15 Feb, Uganda 9 days - £1,395 Departs 6 Mar, 30 Oct Venezuela - Off the Beaten Track 9 days - £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, I Nov Venezuela - Andean Endemics 9 days - £1,495 Departs 2 Feb, 15 Nov Venezuela - Llanos 9 days - £1,495 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 8 Nov Zambia 9 days - from £1,550 Departs 18 Feb, 10 Nov, 19 Dec Ethiopian Endemics 10 days - £1,295 Departs 15 Feb, II Apr, 14 Nov Florida 9 days - £1,590 Departs 18 Feb Gambia 12 days - £1,190 Departs 7 Nov India - Birds & Mammals 9 days- £1,350 Departs I, 15 Feb, 4 Apr, 14 Nov For our New Brochure call ^ Sfei 01962 733051 or visit our Website naturetrek.co.uk NATURETREK, CHERITON MILL, CHERITON, ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE S024 0NG E-mail: info@naturetrek.co.ii, BirdLifc www.birdguides.com better birding through echnology... BIRDGUIDES# www.birdguides.com BirdGuides, PO Box 4104, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S25 9BS BIRDGUIDES# bettec txrdlrtg tnrcciQb technology ■ mmm t www.birdguides.com Wednesday 5th September 2007 BirdGotdes things you better binSng tl on British and Insh biros, comprehens best products for birdwatchers every* Wood Sandpiper Best of BirdGuides Volume 1 A DVD compilation of the very best BirdGuides footage shot over the past year. Over SO species to feast your eyes on covering some of the most desirable and sought-after British birds, including White- billed Diver, Slavonian Grebe (summer plumage), Gannet (plunge diving) White-tailed Eagle, Montagu's Harrier, Dotterel, Ruff (lekking). Btuethroat (a stunning singing bird), and more. Running time 80 minutes. RSPB Encouraging Year for Nesting Birds at Lake Vymwy Introductrg British 8lrds inltrcaiv Attract**. icarcnjBlt D1 i Bouiao x«r la set satgnted to lOaotlfy: tordsourds fc ' \ U 0 Technical support v vw.birdguides.com - the No.l website for birdwatchers. 0 _ ed with information on birds and where to Ich them, www.birdguides.com is an rpensible resource for anyone interested in ;. You'll quickly find the latest news, views and most up-to-date technology to help you get most from your birding. out which birds are near you and learn more it them - there are masterclasses on i|tification, the latest stunning photos of birds t by our readers plus a rich source of mation about every species and site in in and Ireland. BirdGuides eStore is packed with brilliant birding accessories. Browse our range of bird reference works to use on your computer - there's something for everyone, from beginners to hardened twitchers. You'll also find our hugely popular DVD-videos. Join Dave Gosney in the "Birding in..." series as he travels around the world in search of the most desirable birds. Share in the highlights and familiar birding frustrations from the Arctic to Florida. Or brush up on your identification skills with the DVD Guide to Bird Identification and the brand new edition of the DVD-ROM Guide to British Birds. . -. -t SPECIAL DVD- ROMS OFFER: To order visit , www.birdguides.com/dvdoffer or call us on: 0800 91 93 91 9am-5pm Mon-Fri International orders: +44 1909 560992. "Scanning for seabirds can result in many hours with my binoci to my eyes. The wrong optics can cause severe eye-strain and job I can't afford to use anything but the best". SIMON KING, Wildlife Film-Maker. *%&*'<*• - Simon is using Zeiss Victory FL binoculars with a unique coating system, precision glass and a light weight, which makes them ideal for prolonged use. These are the unbeatable benefits supplied by Victory FL Binoculars and their special objective lenses with fluoride glass (FL). For more information, please telephone: 01 707 871 350 or visit www.zeiss.co.uk. We make ^ British Birds- Volume 101 • Number 3 • March 2008 * i ^ ■T.txnammm the >mjmi WT'TO iRY MVSV ' 1 2 MAR 2008 Prtcochi i l.u TR!NG UDR.ARY I 1 2 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology Tony (A. D.) Fox and Stuart Bearhop 1 3 I Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain Kevin Rylands 1 37 The Dorset Yellow Bittern Tim Melling, Robert Y. McGowan and Ian Lewington Regular features 1 30 Request Report on scarce migrant birds in Britain 1 42 Conservation research news Mark Hancock, Ian Dillon and Rowena Langston 1 44 Letters Origins of White-billed Divers in western Europe Erik Hirschfeld Murrelets in Europe Norman Elkins Species associating with Common Stonechats Ewan Urquhart Colour nomenclature and Siberian Chiffchaffs Alan R. Dean Further thoughts on Siberian Chiffchaffs Philippe }. Dubois and Marc Duquet Corrections to the 2005 BBRC report Ian Wallace 1 5 1 Notes Unusual Marsh Harrier plumages Andrew Bloomfield Artificial feeding of Hen Harriers in the Peak District Andrew Heath and Helen Armstrong Singing by female Marsh Tits: frequency and function Richard K. Broughton Carrion Crow attacking Grey Squirrel Doug Messenger 1 57 Reviews British Birds interactive (BBiJ The Bird Songs of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East The Birds of Kazakhstan Skomer: portrait of a Welsh island The Birds of Lundy The Birds of Scotland True to Form Between the Tides Atlas of the Birds of Delhi and Haryana The Ornithologist’s Dictionary Feathers: identification for bird conservation 1 65 S3 Rarities Committee news Siberian Chiffchaffs in Britain 1 66 News and comment Adrian Pitches 1 7 1 Recent reports Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey © British Birds 2008 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology Tony (A. D.) Fox and Stuart Bearhop ABSTRACT The use of mass spectrometry to analyse the stable-isotope ratios of bird tissues has become an important new tool for research ornithologists in the last 20 years. Because stable isotopes vary geographically and according to specific biological processes in the environment, they provide a unique forensic means of understanding more about avian biology and ecology than we can learn using conventional techniques alone. The stable-isotope ratios present in different tissues of birds reflect the ratios in the environment at the time those tissues were constructed. However, because of the rapid turnover of some tissues compared with others, an individual bird will bear within its body constituents a record of its present and past exposure to different isotopic environments. Because the stable-isotope ratios of specific elements vary geographically (e.g. hydrogen along oceanic to continental gradients) and between habitats (e.g. nitrogen and carbon in marine versus terrestrial ecosystems), they offer a unique means of studying the ways migratory birds move between different parts of the planet and of understanding the habitats they exploit.This review looks at some of the innovative ways in which the technique has been used in a variety of recent studies of birds. The technique is not restricted to breaking new ground in high science; in terms of understanding migration strategies, the importance of breeding, migratory and wintering habitat and the feeding ecology of birds, the study of stable-isotope ratios is becoming ever more important in supporting conservation actions. It is lucky for us, and for contemporary ornithology, that many chemical elements come in more than one form. You might not think so at this point but, hopefully, no matter how boring you find sub-particulate chemistry, by the end of this article you will have been per- suaded that this is indeed the case! Although geologists have studied stable-isotope ratios in materials for almost 50 years and their use, therefore, is not new, their application to the study of birds has taken off only in the last 10-20 years, as access to the instrumentation required for their analysis (mass spectrometers) 1 12 has improved and analytical procedures have become cheaper and more efficient. As our understanding of the processes affecting the distribution and abundance of stable isotopes J in nature increases, so does the number and range of potential applications. It therefore seems timely for a brief review of this rapidly evolving field of ornithology, to see how widely the techniques have been applied to date and to consider the potential for future applications. The term ‘stable-isotope ratios’ sounds complex, but the concept is in fact relatively simple. In nature, each chemical element tends © British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology C Box I . Measuring stable-isotope ratios using mass spectrometry Stable-isotope ratios are measured using a mass spectrometer. This equipment measures the ratio of the electric charge of a particle in relation to its mass. This is achieved thanks to Newton’s second law of motion, namely that the acceleration of a particle is inversely related to its mass. The mass spectrometer vaporises the sample and converts the constituent parts into ions, charged par- ticles that are then accelerated from a chamber and concentrated into a narrow beam which is sub- jected to a strong magnetic field. Because each isotope atom has a unique combination of mass and charge when ionised, the magnetic field bends the stream of particles to a different degree dependent on these two characteristics. For instance, light hydrogen will be deflected less by the magnetic field than heavy hydrogen, so the stream of concentrated ions comprising a mixture of these two isotopes will separate in the chamber and arrive at two different points in the detection part of the apparatus, dependent on their mass. Detectors can be positioned in the detector chamber, according to the degree to which the ion stream of a specific element of specific mass and charge would be expected to be deflected. To determine the relative abundance of one isotope to another, the machine measures the relative charge arriving at the different positions expected for each isotope. For hydrogen and many common elements, this means collecting the electric current from two streams originating from the two different isotopic forms, but for some elements with more isotopes, more detectors are required (see below). Although the theory is straightforward, in reality the differences in mass between isotopes of the same element are typically incredibly small and the less abundant isotopes in a sample usually very rare, so modern mass spectrometers have to be extremely sensitive to obtain accurate measurements. The wider application of stable-isotope research in ornithology in recent years has undoubtedly been due to both the increased availability of such machines in universities and research establishments throughout the world and the tech- nological developments allowing rapid throughput of large numbers of samples. to occur in one or more forms, called isotopes. These isotopes differ in the number of neutrons present in each atom; the more neutrons, the heavier the atom and the greater the atomic mass. Stable isotopes persist over prolonged periods of time - unlike radioactive ones, which are unstable and decay rapidly so that their ratios in the environment change more quickly over relatively short time periods. The impor- tant point here is that the ratios of many stable isotopes of common elements in the environ- ment reflect well-defined natural processes which often differ in time and space. For example, hydrogen is an abundant element that has two stable isotopes, the normal ‘light’ form (conventionally denoted as 'H, because it has [one proton and no neutrons in its atom, so there is just one subatomic particle in the nucleus) and the ‘heavy’ form (also known as deuterium, and denoted 2H because it has two particles in its nucleus, one proton and one neutron). Deuterium is relatively rare in nature - sea water contains one deuterium atom to approximately 6,500 light atoms of hydrogen, j Nevertheless, despite the fact that deuterium is always much the rarer member of the pair, the actual ratio of these two stable isotopes varies substantially around the globe, for instance Irtish Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 with ambient temperature. It is this type of variation in stable-isotope ratios that offers such a remarkable range of possibilities, many of which are discussed below, which we can use to improve our understanding of the natural world around us. The atomic mass of the hydrogen respon- sible for forming water makes a difference to its physical properties. ‘Heavy water’ is formed from oxygen combined with the isotope deu- terium (atomic mass 2) and is denser than Tight’ (ordinary) water, which is formed from oxygen and hydrogen (atomic mass 1). Heavy water tends to be precipitated out of clouds before light water, so as moist air travels inland, the amount of heavy water is increasingly depleted. This means that highly continental areas (such as the middle of the Russian Arctic) receive much lower levels of deuterium in pre- cipitation compared with Europe’s western seaboard, which experiences a much higher rel- ative proportion of heavy water in precipita- tion. A similar process happens with increasing altitude, meaning that in mountainous areas, we can also expect deuterium to be less abun- dant in precipitation than in comparable lowland areas. All this gives us good reason to believe that 113 Markus Varesvuo c The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology > o -o ■n c -80 -90 8.° o ■ -100 -U s_ C3 C3 £ CL c E rgans are maintained in an aqueous solution ind supplied with energy and nutrients, derived >artly from the bird’s own body stores, but pre- lominantly from the environment in which the >ird finds itself at a given point in time. Conse- [uently, the stable-isotope ratios of blood espond more rapidly to the urrounding isotopic envir- mment than those ‘locked ip’ in feathers and claws. In act, studies have shown hat, even within the blood onstituents, blood cells and ’lasma have different stable- sotope turnover rates: 'lasma generally replaces :self every 3-5 days whilst vian blood cells may have a alf-life of up to four weeks Hobson & Clark 1993; lobson 2005). Hence, if the quid and cellular fractions f a blood sample are sepa- ated, it is possible to ompare isotopic dietary omposition over the past Uw days (using plasma) ith that of the past few 'eeks (based on the sepa- ited blood cells). Specific rgans show other patterns ver time, because they may e constructed and broken ■itish Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 down at specific stages in the annual cycle when the bird is exposed to different environments with different patterns of isotopes. For example, breast muscles, typically built up during prepa- ration for migration, will be formed using protein derived from food consumed at pre- migratory staging areas where such body changes take place. These staging areas may have very different stable-isotope signatures compared with both the wintering and the breeding grounds. Like the feathers, muscles may retain a record of a bird’s movement for particular periods of the life cycle. However, in contrast to feathers, muscle is replaced con- stantly and the original signal is gradually quenched over time. Other tissues, including bone collagen, may integrate stable-isotope ratios over longer periods of time, giving even more opportunities for their use in tracing the chemical history of a single individual. ‘Capital’ versus ‘income’ breeders Such isotopic knowledge about specific organs is also important when it comes to under- standing how females invest nutrients in their eggs, not least in deciding between the ‘capital’ (using body stores as the raw material for eggs) 68. Several stable-isotope studies have been carried out on Red Knots Calidris conutus.This individual was ringed and colour-marked in May 200 1 in Delaware Bay, where Red Knots of the race C. c. rufa stage and refuel on the eggs of horseshoe crabs (Merostomata).This bird was photographed here at Fort Myers, on Florida’s Gulf Coast, in August 2003, where Red Knots were thought possibly to be of the race C. c. roselaari, breeding on Wrangle Island and northwest Alaska, and which are thought to use the east Pacific flyway. However, stable-isotope studies now confirm that birds wintering in the Gulf of Mexico are of the race rufa. I 19 Richard Chandler The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology c versus ‘income’ (deriving nutrition for egg for- mation from diet) strategy (see Drent et al. 2006). This is particularly important for high Arctic breeders, such as geese, which have little time on the nesting grounds to accumulate the reserves of protein and fat required to form eggs. How important are the stores of nutrients and energy that these birds carry with them from the spring staging areas and even the win- tering grounds, compared with those they can glean from the snow-covered tundra on their arrival? In situations where the isotopic signa- tures of wintering, spring staging and breeding areas differ (which, fortunately for us, is often the case), it is possible to gain some insights. For example, based on the stable-isotope ratios of carbon (13C/12C) and nitrogen (15N/i4N) in the adults and different parts of the eggs, it has been found that high Arctic Greater Snow Geese Anser caerulescens atlanticus derive more than two-thirds of the resources invested in their eggs from the tundra breeding areas, and that less than one-third is brought with them as body stores from elsewhere (Gauthier et al. 2003). In contrast, many high Arctic waders apparently do not mix nutrients stored in their body tissues from staging areas with those derived at the nesting grounds (Klaassen et al. 2001). In this case, Arctic invertebrates derived from tundra ecosystems have distinctly different stable-isotope ratios from those of the estuaries where the birds winter and stage in spring. Analysis of the eggs and down of hatchlings from ten different Arctic-breeding waders, including long-distance migrants such as Red Knot Calidris canutus, showed isotopic ratios characteristic of Arctic invertebrates rather than those of marine estuaries - showing that these Arctic waders are ‘income’ not ‘capital’ breeders as previously thought. You are what you eat - describing diet through the use of stable-isotope measurements Carbon and nitrogen are just as interesting when it comes to inferring what birds have been eating, as opposed to where they have been or where nutrient stores came from. Plants tend to contain less 13C than the atmos- phere because the processes involved in carbon dioxide uptake tend to discriminate against 13C - the reason being that 13C is heavier than 12C (and is consequently slower to defuse into leaves and cells) and forms slightly stronger chemical bonds than the lighter isotope. | Almost all plants on the planet fall into two l categories based on their exclusive use of one of the two contrasting ways of assimilating carbon ! dioxide into their cell metabolism. The vastj majority (about 95% of known species) begin | this process by forming pairs of three-carbon- atom molecules and are called C3 plants. Thei remaining 5% form four-carbon-atom mole-l cules and are known as C4 plants; such plants' tend to be adapted to warmer or more arid; environments. Despite being in the minority,! however, the C4 plants include some important | crop species, notably some cereals and maize, | which fractionate the two carbon isotopes dif- ferently from C3 plants. Plants can also differ in their stable-nitrogen-isotope signatures as a consequence of variation in a number of processes, with nitrogen fixation and soil chemistry being important drivers; and it isi worth remembering that the latter is heavily1 influenced by agricultural activities such as fer- tiliser applications. All this means that there are different stable-isotope ratios of different ele- ments in plant tissue, even when they grow in close proximity, which in turn means that we can differentiate the diets of, for example, Lesser Snow Geese A. c. caerulescens that feed on natural marsh vegetation, on farmed rice or on maize. The geese exploit three food sources with distinctively different carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes and if individuals specialise on j any one food type, it shows up in their body tissues. By analysing stable-isotope ratios in individual geese, Alisauskas & Hobson (1993) showed that, when faced with a choice of winter feeding areas, individuals appeared to specialise on particular foods, a mechanism that appeared to define feeding subpopulations i on the basis of feeding ecology and habitat choice. The forensic knowledge locked in the feathers of an individual bird enables! researchers to look back at precisely what that individual has been feeding on. As the Lesser Snow Goose example shows, this can highlight differences in feeding ecology, diet and habitat use between individuals. In that case, the same 1 information could have been derived by col- lecting droppings from marked individuals, but that would be a laborious and in reality difficult project. For groups such as diving seabirds, however, it is generally impossible to get detailed information about what individuals British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 120 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology c feed on and how they obtain their food. Using stable-isotope ratios in both feathers and blood, Bearhop et al. (2006) were able to show sex dif- ferences in the diets of Gentoo Penguin Pygoscelis papua, Kerguelen Shag Phalacrocorax verrucosus and South Georgian Shag P. atriceps georgianus, which, in the case of the last species, persisted over long time periods. These differ- ences probably relate to differences in body size, the larger males being able to dive deeper than females. More intriguingly, there were strong relationships between feather and blood isotope ratios in the two shags, suggesting that individ- uals are highly specialised in terms of diets and that specialisation is maintained over long periods (because the feathers were grown in the non-breeding season and the blood was sampled during nesting). In other words, birds have individual ‘tastes’ and differ in what they eat, which is probably dependent upon the foods that a particular individual is adept at catching. Similar age- and sex-specific differ- ences in diet have also been shown among Southern Giant Petrels Macronectes giganteus using similar techniques (Forero et al. 2005). Another study of south Atlantic diving birds used stable isotopes in feathers to show that four different species of petrel from Kerguelen Island dispersed over a much wider range of habitats (coastal to oceanic waters from Antarc- tica to the tropics) compared with the same four species on South Georgia, which wintered mainly locally around the archipelago (Cherel et al 2006). These studies demonstrate the poten- tial of stable-isotope analysis of feather tissue for locating the moulting areas of seabirds that undergo complex migration patterns every year, especially in helping to investigate foraging ecology during the poorly known non-breeding period (Cherel et al. 2000). Of course, if you eat junk food, it too will show up in your body! For this reason, stable- isotope ratios of scavengers (such as crows (Corvidae) and gulls (Laridae)) that use rubbish tips and other sources of human waste may be highly variable and extremely exotic, because they tend to eat anthropogenic material imported from around the world, all reflecting the varied isotopic environments in which they originated (Hobson et al. 2004b). On the other hand, these remarkable mixes of stable-isotope signatures can be useful in showing how impor- tant birds are in the nutrient cycles of urban landscapes. A study in Japan has shown that up 69. Gentoo Penguins Pygoscelis papua. Sea Lion Island, Falklands, November 2007. For some groups of birds, such as diving seabirds, detailed information on diet is almost impossible to collect.The stable-isotope ratios of both feathers and blood of Gentoo Penguins revealed significant differences in diet between males and females (Bearhop et al. 2006). These differences probably relate to body size, with the larger males being able to dive deeper than females. British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 121 David Tipling David Tipling c The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology > 70. Southern Giant Petrel Macronectes giganteus. Ushuaia, Argentina, October 2006. Individual birds may be more specialised in their diet than we realise - to some extent, birds have particular 'tastes' and differ in what they eat - and this probably depends on the foods that a particular individual is adept at catching. Stable-isotope studies have confirmed age- and sex-specific differences in diet among Southern Giant Petrels (Forero et al. 2005). to 53% of the phosphorus and 27% of the total nitrogen input to evergreen forest fragments in urban landscapes came from the droppings of the large roosting aggregations of Jungle Crows Corvus macrorhynchos (Fujita & Koike 2007). Using stable-isotope analysis, they could show that the crows played an important role for the woodland by importing nutrients in their faeces which were derived from rubbish (from fish, livestock, and/or C4 plants such as corn) with high 13C and 15N ratios, gleaned from residen- tial and business areas, which would not nor- mally appear in such an ecosystem. There are many other pitfalls and shortcom- ings when considering the use of stable isotopes in the tissues of birds to determine their prey, which confirms the need always to study both predator and prey to understand the processes involved. For example, freshwater birds may feed on fish that spend most of their life in the sea but which migrate up rivers temporarily - for example to spawn — and thus will have dif- ferent signatures from birds feeding on local, non-migratory fish. However, an understanding of such processes will invariably enable the use of such anomalies to be used to advantage in furthering our understanding of avian diets. Understanding how factors operating throughout the annual cycle affect bird abundance (‘carry over’ effects) We have already seen that the study of stable i isotopes can be a powerful approach in under- standing some of the more complex patterns in avian ecology. In particular, as in the ‘capital’ versus ‘income’ breeder debate, it helps us to connect different phases in the annual cycle and understand better how factors operating at one point in the cycle affect an individual at other times: ‘carry over’ effects. It is well known that, for migratory birds, early arrival on the breeding grounds in good physical condition is an important prerequisite ; for successful reproduction. American Redstarts i Setophaga ruticilla arrive at nesting areas over a period of about a month, with later arrivals often in poor condition. These late arrivals not only have diminished chances of finding a good territory but their poor condition is likely to affect survival too. Nothing was known about the causes of these differences until a stable- 1 isotope study of their Jamaican winter quarters revealed that winter habitat quality determined the birds’ physical condition and departure date from the wintering grounds, and in turn their ! 122 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology c condition and arrival time in nesting areas (Marra et al. 1998). Birds wintering in Black Mangrove Avicennia germinans forest (the best quality habitat) began their spring migration earlier and in better condition than those win- tering in secondary-growth scrub (a lower quality habitat). The two habitats were charac- terised by different amounts of C3 and C4 plants so that isotope signatures of invertebrate prey differed between mangrove and scrub; and this in turn could be detected in muscle tissue of birds arriving on the breeding grounds in spring. Similarly, studies of stable-isotope ratios in the claws of Black-throated Blue Warblers Dendroica caerulescens in the Bahamas during spring migration showed that birds wintering in better quality habitats were in better condition (with greater fat stores and larger pectoral muscles) than those in suboptimal scrub habi- tats (Bearhop et al. 2004). Again, good condi- tion during spring migration is likely to translate into earlier arrival and/or better con- dition on return to the breeding grounds, which in turn has consequences for reproduction. These two studies show that events in tropical wintering areas affect the condition of migratory songbirds during migration, their reproductive success on the breeding grounds and, potentially, survival. They also provide some evidence that winter habitats may be limiting in such species, forcing less fit individuals to exploit suboptimal habitats, in which they are less successful than fitter birds in better habitats. Both studies are examples of research that not only revealed a great deal about the ecology of bird populations, but provided vital information to support effective conservation, in this case, the importance of natural forest as wintering habitat for North American passerine migrants. Another fascinating study that concerns ‘habitat matching’ between summer and winter involves Ice- landic-nesting Black-tailed Godwits Limosa limosa islandica. Gunnarsson et al. (2005) used stable isotopes to determine the habitat quality used by marked individuals which could be followed to the wintering grounds. The analysis of 13C isotope ratios in feathers grown in late winter showed that those godwits which used estuarine sites in Europe at that time (the best overwintering habitats) tended to breed on the most produc- tive sites in Iceland; in other words, individuals that occupy higher quality breeding sites also used better quality wintering sites. Since adult godwits are highly philopatric (returning to the same site year after year), the initial choice of winter habitats by juveniles (which are not accompanied by their parents from the breeding areas) may be crucial to the future sur- vival, timing of migration and reproductive output of those individuals. Using stable isotopes to unravel migration routes and identify winter quarters The technique can also be extended to delineate migratory divides and provide indication of the potential wintering areas of some long-distance migrants. Willow Warblers Phylloscopus trochilus are particularly amenable to such studies since, unlike many other species, they undergo two complete flight-feather moults each year. Thus, 7 1 . Icelandic Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, Iceland. June 2006. Stable-isotope studies have shown that individuals nesting in high-quality breeding sites are those which occupy better quality wintering habitats (Gunnarsson et al. 2005). British Birds 101* March 2008 • I 1 2- 1 . 30 123 Richard Chandler Markus Varesvuo c The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology 72. Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus, Estonia, May 2005. We have little information on the wintering ranges of the two subspecies of Willow Warbler that breed in Europe, P. t trochilus and P. t acredula. Stable-isotope analysis of wing feathers grown on the wintering grounds suggests that the two subspecies remain quite separate in their African winter quarters, separated either geographically or by habitat (Chamberlain et al. 2000). feathers collected early in the breeding season contain information on winter habitat selection. In Sweden there are two subspecies of Willow Warbler, with only marginally overlapping breeding ranges: P. t. trochilus breeds mostly at latitudes below 61°N whereas P. t. acredula tends to breed at latitudes above 63°N. Chamberlain et al. (2000) measured the 13C and 15N isotopes of feathers from the two subspecies, which they found to be isotopically distinct. They showed that the average 13C and 15N ratios in wing feathers (grown on the African wintering quar- ters) of acredula were significantly higher than those in wing feathers of trochilus. This con- firmed the sparse ringing data, which hinted that the two subspecies occupy geographically (and isotopically) distinct wintering grounds in Africa or used different habitats (exploiting dif- ferent diets) in the same area. A study of dif- ferent breeding populations of Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica showed a similar pattern. Stable-isotope ratios in the feathers of birds breeding in Switzerland were significantly dif- ferent from those in the feathers of birds that had bred in England (Evans et al. 2003). The 13C signatures of Swiss birds were significantly lower than those of English birds, but 15N signatures did not differ between the two populations. Here, the authors concluded that Swiss birds probably feed on prey in winter that are more reliant on C3 vegetation, from woodlands, than the prey of English birds, which are more reliant on C4 vege- tation, from grasslands. In contrast, a study of a single population of Barn Swallows breeding in Denmark showed a very clear bimodal distribution of both carbon and nitrogen stable-isotope ratios that strongly suggested two discrete and different wintering areas for birds exploiting the same nesting area (Moller & Hobson 2004). Atkinson et al. (2005) I used 13C and 15N isotopes in flight feathers of Red Knots to identify at least three dif- ferent discrete wintering I areas used by birds caught on spring migration in Delaware ; Bay, northeast USA, en route to their high Arctic ■ breeding areas. The data suggested that around 58% probably wintered in Bahia Lomas (in Chile), c. 30% in Florida, c. 6% in Rio Grande (Argentina), while the remaining 8% were not classifiable. This sort of approach has been used i on a much wider spatial scale to determine the wintering localities of a range of wader species, j based on flight-feather stable-isotope chemistry I of birds captured on their breeding grounds (Farmer et al. 2004). In this case, a combination of different isotopes present in feathers grown in the winter quarters could be used with some success to identify where breeding birds win- tered, even discriminating birds from two closely spaced wintering sites in Tierra del Fuego. Using sequences of feather regrowth to understand avian biology In the case of the Baikal Teal (see study men- I tioned above), and indeed virtually all wildfowl, ; the flight feathers are all grown simultaneously, and all will reflect the isotopic characteristics of the moult site. However, most other birds moult flight and body feathers sequentially, which means that adjacent feathers on a bird will reflect the particular chemical environments prevailing at the time of construction. Hence, Thompson & Furness (1995) were able to show that the diet of Fulmars Fulmaris glacialis British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 I 124 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology C changed during the period of sequential primary moult. A Fulmar’s innermost primaries are regrown at the end of the chick-rearing period, while the outer feathers are progres- sively replaced well into winter. Isotopic ratios showed that the birds were consuming prey from increasingly lower in the marine food chain as the primary moult progressed. In long- distance migrants, these differences provide clues about where specific feathers were grown, and help us to understand the often highly complex moult strategies adopted by some birds, such as Savi’s Warbler Locustella luscin- ioides, which may replace feathers twice in the annual cycle (Neto et al. 2006). Such knowledge of moult patterns is also essential for sup- porting effective conservation. Until recently, the sub-Saharan African wintering quarters of the Globally Threatened Aquatic Warbler Acro- cephalus paludicola were completely unknown. Such a lack of information about the wintering grounds hampers conserva- tion efforts, so Pain et al. (2004) looked at stable- isotope ratios in the flight feathers of Aquatic War- blers, which were known to be grown on the wintering grounds. Although the results were not sufficient to pinpoint the winter quarters accurately, they did find sig- nificant differences in I3C ratios, indicating that geo- graphic segregation of pop- ulations also occurred in the winter quarters. Even more interestingly, they found that winter isotope signa- tures were correlated with breeding latitude and longi- tude, suggesting strong links between the breeding and wintering grounds and pos- sibly some evidence of leapfrog migration. Subse- quently, the discovery of a significant wintering popu- lation of Aquatic Warblers in northwest Senegal, perhaps holding up to a third of the world popula- tion of the species, owed much to the role of stable- isotope analysis in signposting likely regions of West Africa. The technique also confirms the importance of stopover sites, since studies of the stable-isotope ratios in the feathers of migrating passerines in sub-Saharan Africa show close similarity from year to year ( Yohannes et al. 2007). This has enormous con- servation implications, because it shows that these migrating birds feed on the same prey every season, emphasising that their site fidelity and habitat selection makes them highly vul- nerable to habitat change and destruction in staging areas. Stable isotopes can reveal facets of the evolutionary process As well as revealing much about migration pat- terns, stable isotopes can also help to explain the evolution of the migratory process. Bearhop et al. (2005) used habitat-specific stable-isotope signatures to study Blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla. 73. Fulmar Fulmaris glacialis, Westray Firth, Orkney, April 2004.The majority of birds moult their feathers sequentially and, for larger birds, the stable-isotope composition of particular feathers may show how diet changes as the moult progresses. Thompson & Furness (1995) mapped the changing diet of Fulmars, in which moult begins at the end of the breeding season and is often not completed until late winter. British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 125 Hugh Harrop Hugh Harrop The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology During the last 50 years, Blackcaps have been increasingly wintering in Britain and northern Europe, and studies have shown that this new migratory behaviour has a genetic basis. Bearhop et al. (2005) showed that birds win- tering in new areas (Britain & Ireland) could be distinguished from those using traditional win- tering areas in Iberia and North Africa, based on stable-isotope signatures in their claws. Moreover, the study showed that these two groups of birds mated assortatively with respect to wintering area - in other words, they mated with birds from the same wintering areas far more often than would be expected by chance. They found evidence that this was probably because birds wintering farther north were more likely to arrive back at their breeding areas before those wintering farther south. This mechanism effectively keeps the two types sepa- rate, even though they overlap in their breeding ranges and habitat. Furthermore, birds win- tering farther north also produced larger clutches and fledged more young. This clearly shows that birds adopting the 'new’ winter strategy were far more successful at producing young than those retaining the ‘traditional’ strategy. This is striking evidence for the mech- anism behind the rapid increase in the numbers 1 of Blackcaps coming to British and Irish bird 1 feeders in winter. These findings are not just m important for our knowledge about Blackcaps, I they also describe a fundamentally important 1 process in the evolution of migratory divides, n new migration routes, and wintering quarters. I In particular, the results show that the timing of |* breeding is a way in which subpopulations of I birds may become genetically isolated, even though they overlap in breeding range and I habitat. Marine versus terrestrial stable-isotope ratios Another facet of using carbon and nitrogen stable-isotope ratios is that l3C and l5N tend to « be much more abundant in marine ecosystems (i compared with freshwater or terrestrial systems, . and their ratios in bird tissues can be used, therefore, to demonstrate to what degree indi- vidual birds forage in the two habitat types. [I This has great advantages for comparing longer-term differences in foraging strategies I* between both individuals and species. For 1 example, Bearhop et al. (1999) used isotopic 74. Female Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla. Grutness, Shetland, October 2004. Stable-isotope work has added to our knowledge about the Blackcaps which are now wintering - very successfully - in Britain & Ireland. Birds wintering farther north are likely to arrive back on their breeding grounds earlier than those wintering in Iberia; this helps to keep the two groups separate and, since early breeders are generally more successful, bodes well for the continuing rise in winter sightings at British and Irish bird tables. 126 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • I 12-130 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology C 75. Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, Littleport, Cambridgeshire, November 2006. Bearhop et al. ( 1 999) analysed the feathers of Cormorants shot under licence at inland waters in England to provide support for the idea that coastal-breeding birds switch their diet from predominantly marine prey in the breeding season to become freshwater specialists at inland sites in winter. profiles of feathers grown at different times in the annual cycle to investigate variability in the amount of marine protein in the diet of Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo in England. Coastal-breeding birds were sampled at inland sites in winter. Stable-isotope analysis of the flight feathers, which are renewed after the breeding season, showed that most birds had been feeding exclusively on freshwater fish prior to being sampled. Coastal breeders had thus become freshwater specialists at inland sites during the non-breeding season - and do not commute between inland waters and the sea to feed in the winter. By using stable-isotope ratios in blood samples, it has also been possible to chart the shift in diet of wintering Brent Geese Branta bernicla , from sea grasses such as Zostera in early winter to the point where they are feeding almost exclusively on terrestrial grasses in spring (Inger et al. 2006). A similar approach has been used to estimate the relative propor- tion of marine and terrestrial protein in the diets of gulls feeding on rubbish tips (Hobson 1987). Even within the marine environment, it is possible to use 13C and 15N ratios in bird tissues to see at which trophic levels birds are feeding, because both elements show higher values at higher levels in the food chain. Stable carbon isotopes in the Pacific also reflect an inshore versus offshore gradient in prey that can help to identify where seabirds are feeding (Hobson et al. 1994). It is often important to know what seabirds are feeding on (zooplankton, crus- taceans, small pelagic fish, etc.), but studies of diet based on stomach contents, direct observa- tions or prey remains collected at breeding colonies give only a snapshot of diet over time and are often biased towards items that are resistant to digestion (Votier et al. 2001). Several studies have now shown that stable- isotope analyses confirm the trophic relation- ships of seabirds suggested by the results of conventional methods, and many have helped to explain how different species can co-exist by feeding on different prey (e.g. Hobson et al. 1994, Dahl et al. 2003, Forero et al. 2004). Applications using stable isotopes of other elements Yet other elements present in geological sub- strates characterise local isotopic ratios which influence those in the food chain and which can then be detected in a given organism. Some ele- Brttish Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 127 Simon Stirrup Julian Hough The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology c ments, such as sulphur, strontium and lead (all occur in four different stable isotopic forms), can be used because they show geographical differences linked to geological patterns or to pollution by humans. Sulphur can be useful where predators exploit a mixture of terrestrial and marine prey, because sulphur 34S ratios tend to be higher in marine systems than in ter- restrial ones (Lott et al. 2003). Strontium has been shown to be useful in North America, for example, where high 87Sr ratios are typical of geologically old crystalline rocks of the Appalachian Mountains, in contrast to lime- stone bedrock elsewhere. Chamberlain et al. (1997) caught Black- throated Blue Warblers on their Caribbean wintering grounds and identi- fied birds from different breeding areas based on strontium isotope ratios in tissues. Lead from earlier industrial sources (such as petrol additives or residues from mining or smelting) provides another potential source of informa- tion about spatial patterns. Pain et al. (2007) used lead isotope analysis to show that the most likely source of lead responsible for poisoning Red Kites Milvus milvus in England was ammu- nition used to kill animals on which the kites were scavenging. Some concluding thoughts This review has barely scratched the surface of the literature available on the use of stable- isotope analyses in current ornithology, but then the ornithological world has hardly begun to scratch the surface of the possibilities this technique opens up. The availability of stable- isotope-ratio measurement offers such a vast range of forensic possibilities for the study of birds that there is no doubt that its future appli- cation will further extend our knowledge in the coming years. One particular field that offers exciting prospects is that of ornithological archaeology. In fact, one of the first ornithological applica- tions of the technique was an investigation of the foraging habits of the Great Auk Pinguinus impennis based on isotopic signatures of bone collagen (Hobson &Montevecchi 1991). Stable- isotope analysis has also been applied to the ageing of seabird colonies (based on 13C and 15N influence in soils from marine habitats; Hawke 2004), as well as to examining changes in diet over extended timescales (e.g. Fulmars in the North Atlantic over a period of c. 90 years, where birds shifted from feeding on offal asso- ciated with whaling activities at the turn of the twentieth century to prey of lower trophic status in recent times; Thompson et al. 1995). In this sense, col- lections of museum speci- mens around the world assume an even greater importance when consid- ering the many secrets that might be revealed by feather analysis. One such major project is already underway, analysing feathers of Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris speci- mens, to try to establish former breeding and win- tering areas more accurately and in turn better under- stand its present status and potential for recovery. In a rapidly changing world, it is all the more important that we under- stand changes in habitat use and migratory behaviour that are occurring among 76. First-summer male Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens, Connecticut, USA, May 2006. Although hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon have been the most widely used elements in stable-isotope work, other elements may be significant too. Based on strontium isotope ratios in tissues, Chamberlain et al. ( 1997) identified Black-throated Blue Warblers from different breeding areas among the birds they caught on the wintering grounds in the Caribbean. 128 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology : C birds in relation to major human developments and climate change. It is also increasingly important that we understand the importance of breeding, wintering and staging habitats in the annual cycle to particular bird populations. As shown in this article, stable-isotope studies can play a major role in providing new infor- mation, which can then play a direct role in effective conservation. It is crucial that research effort continues to support stable-isotope research, now and into the future. Acknowledgments We thank the many people who have enlightened us about the use of stable isotopes, most importantly Keith Hobson, who has been the major pioneer in this field and who has been gracious in his help, advice and support in using the technique. Thanks also go to the many authors and co-workers that have been responsible for applying the technique to the many different fields of ornithology. | Grateful thanks also to Gabriel Bowen for supplying the i global map of deuterium isotope ratios. References Alisauskas, RT. & Hobson, K. A. 1 993. Determination of Lesser Snow Goose diets and winter distribution using stable isotope analysis./ Wildl. Manage. 57: 49-54. Atkinson, R W„ Baker, A. J„ Bevan, R M„ Clark. N. A., Cole, K. B„ Gonzalez. R M„ Newton, J„ Niles, L J„ & Robinson, RA. 2005. Unravelling the migration and moult strategies of a long-distance migrant using stable isotopes: Red Knot Calidris canutus movements in the Americas. Ibis 147:738-749. Bearhop, S.. Hilton, G. M.,Votiec S. C., & Waldron, S. 2004. Stable isotope ratios indicate that body condition in migrating passerines is influenced by winter habitat. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B (Suppl.) 27 1 : S2 1 5-S2 1 8. — . Phillips, R A., McGill, R, Cherel.Y, Dawson, D„ & Croxall, J. R 2006. Stable isotopes indicate sex-specific and long- term individual foraging specialisation in diving seabirds. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 311:1 57- 1 64. — .Thompson. D. R, Waldron. S., Russell, I. C., Alexander; G„ & Furness, R.W. 1999. Stable isotopes indicate the extent of freshwater feeding by Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo shot at inland fisheries in England. J.AppI.Ecol. 36:75-83. — . Fiedler W, Furness, R W.Votien S. C„ Waldron, S„ Newton. J„ Bowen, G„ Berthold, R. & Farnsworth, K. 2005. Assortative mating as a mechanism for the rapid evolution of a migratory divide. Science 3 1 0: 502-504. Bowen, G. J.. Wassenaar L I.. & Hobson, K. A. 2005. Global application of stable hydrogen and oxygen isotopes to wildlife forensics. Oecologia 1 43: 337-348. i Chamberlain, C. R, Bensch, S„ Feng, X., Akesson, S., & Andersson.T 2000. Stable isotopes examined across a migratory divide in Scandinavian Willow Warblers ( Phylloscopus trochilus trochilus and Phylloscopus trochilus acredula) reflect their African winter quarters. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 267: 43^t8. — . Blum.J. D., Holmes, FIT, Feng, X., Sherry, TW„ & Graves, G. R 1 997.The use of isotope tracers for identifying populations of migratory birds. Oecologia 1 09: 132-141. Cherel.Y.. Hobson. K. A., & Weimerskirch, H. 2000. Using stable isotope analysis of feathers to distinguish moulting and breeding origins of seabirds. Oecologia 122: 155-162. — , Phillips, R A., Hobson, K. A., & McGill, R. 2006. Stable isotope evidence of diverse species-specific and individual wintering strategies in seabirds. Biol. Letters 2: 301-303. Dahl.T M„ Falk-Petersen, S., Gabrielsen. G. W., Sargent, J. R, Hop, H„ & Millar R M. 2003. Lipid and stable isotopes in Common Eider Black-legged Kittiwake and Northern Fulmar: a trophic study from an arctic fjord. Marine Ecol. Progr. Ser. 256: 257-269. Drent R H., Fox. A. D., & Stahl, J. 2006.Travelling to breed. J.Ornith. 147: 122-134. Evans, K. L, Waldron, S„ & Bradbury, R. B. 2003. Segregation in the African wintering ranges of English and Swiss Swallow Hirundo rustica populations: a stable isotope study. Bird Study 50: 294—299. Farmer A. M., Abril, M„ Fernandez, J., Torres, C„ Kester C„ & Bern, C. 2004. Using stable isotopes to associate migratory shorebirds with their wintering locations in Argentina Ornitologia Neotropical 1 5: 377-384. Forero, M. G„ Bortolotti, G. R, Hobson, K. A„ Donazar J. A., Bertelloti, M„ & Blanco, G. 2004. High trophic overlap within the seabird community of Argentinean Patagonia a multiscale approach./ Anim. Ecol. 73: 789-80 1 . — , Gonzalez-Solis. J., Hobson, K. A., Donazar J. A., Bertelotti, M„ Blanco, G., & Bortolotti, G. R 2005. Stable isotopes reveal trophic segregation by sex and age in the Southern Giant Petrel in two different food webs. Marine Ecol. Progr. Ser. 296: 1 07-1 1 3. Fox, A. D„ Christensen, T K., Bearhop, S., & Newton, J. 2007. Using stable isotope analysis of differing feather tracts to identify moulting provenance of vagrant birds - a case study of Baikal Teal Anas formosa in Denmark. Ibis 149:622-625. Fujrta, M„ & Koike, F. 2007. Birds transport nutrients to fragmented forests in an urban landscape. Ecol.Appl. 17: 648-654. Gauthier G., Bety.J., & Hobson, K.A. 2003. Are Greater Snow Geese capital breeders? New evidence from a stable-isotope model. Ecology 84: 3250-3264. Gunnarsson.T G., Gill, J. A., Newton, J., Potts, R M„ & Sutherland, W.J. 2005. Seasonal matching of habitat quality and fitness in a migratory bird. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 272: 2319-2323. Hawke. D. J. 2004. Maximum possible age of a petrel breeding colony near Punakaiki (South Island, New Zealand) from radiocarbon and stable isotope analysis of soil./ Roy. Soc. New Zealand 34: 1-7. Hobson, K.A. 1987. Use of stable-carbon isotope analysis to estimate marine and terrestrial protein content in gull diets. Canadian J. Zool. 65: 1210-1213. — 2005. Using stable isotopes to trace long-distance dispersal in birds and other taxa. Diversity and Distributions 11:1 57- 1 64. — & Clark. R G. 1 992a Assessing avian diets using stable isotopes. I: Turnover of 1 3C in tissues. Condor 94: 1 8 1 - 1 88. — & — 1 992b. Assessing avian diets using stable isotopes. II: Factors influencing diet-tissue fractionation. Condor 94: 189-197. — & — 1 993. Turnover of l3C in cellular and plasma fractions of blood: implications for nondestructive sampling in avian dietary studies. Auk I 1 0: 638-64 1 . — & Montevecchi, W. A. 1991. Stable isotopic determinations of trophic relationships of Great Auks. Oecologia 87: 528-53 1 . — & Wassenaar; L. I. 1 997. Linking breeding and wintering grounds of Neotropical migrant songbirds using stable hydrogen isotopic analysis of feathers. Oecologia 109: 142-148. — , Piatt J. F„ & Pitocchelli, J. 1 994. Using stable isotopes to British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 129 The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology determine seabird trophic relationships./ Anim. Ecol. 63: 786-798. — , Aubry.Y, & Wassenaar; L. 1. 2004a. Migratory connectivity in Bicknell's Thrush: locating the missing populations using hydrogen isotopes. Condor 1 06: 905-909. — . Bowen, G.J., Wassenaar, L I, Ferrand.Y., & Lormee, H. 2004b. Using stable hydrogen isotope measurements of feathers to infer geographical origins of migrating European birds. Oecologia 141: 477-488. — , McFarland, K. R, Wassenaar; L l„ Rimmen C. C., Goetz, J. E. 200 1 . Linking breeding and wintering grounds of Bicknell's Thrushes using stable isotope analysis of feathers. Auk I 1 8: 1 6-23. Inger; R., Ruxton, G. D., Newton, J., Colhoun, K., Mackie, K., Robinson, J. A., & Bearhop, S. 2006. Using daily ration models and stable isotope analysis to predict biomass depletion by herbivores./ App/. Ecol. 43: 1022-1030. Kear.J. 2005. Ducks, Geese and Swans. OUR Oxford. Kelly, J. F„ Atudorei, V., Sharp, Z. D., & Finch, D. M. 2002. Insights into Wilson's Warbler migration from analyses of hydrogen stable isotope ratios. Oecologia 1 30: 2 1 6-22 1 . Klaassen, M., Lindstrom, A., Meltofte, H., & Piersma,T 200 1 . Arctic waders are not capital breeders. Nature 4 1 3: 794. Lott, C. A., Meehan, T D„ & Heath, J. A. 2003. Estimating the latitudinal origins of migratory birds using hydrogen and sulphur isotopes of feathers: influence of marine prey base. Oecologia 1 34: 505-5 1 0. Marra, R R, Hobson, K. A., & Holmes, FLT. 1 998. Linking winter and summer events in a migratory bird by using stable-carbon isotopes. Science 282: 1 884-1886. Mehl, K. R., Alisauskas, R.T, Hobson, K. A., & Kellett, D. K. 2004.To winter east or west? Heterogeneity in winter philopatry in a central arctic population of King Eiders. Condor 106:241-251. — , — , — , & Merkel, F. R. 2005. Linking breeding and wintering areas of King Eiders: making use of polar isotopic gradients./ Wildl. Manage. 69: 1 297-1304. Mizutani, H„ Fukuda, M„ & Kabaya,Y. 1992. I3C and l5N enrichment factors of feathers of I I species of adult birds. Ecology 73: 1391-1395. Mailer A. R, & Hobson, K. A. 2004. Heterogeneity in stable isotope profiles predicts coexistence of populations of Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica differing in morphology and reproductive performance. Proc. Roy. Soc. Load. B 271: 1355-1362. Neto.J. M„ Newton, J., Gosler A. G„ & Perrins, C. M. 2006. Using stable isotope analysis to determine the winter moult extent in migratory birds: the complex moult of Savi's Warblers./ Avian Biol. 37: I 17-124. Newton, l„ Hobson, K. A., Fox, A. D„ & Marquiss, M. 2006. An investigation into the provenance of Northern Bullfinches Pyrrhula p. pyrrhula found in winter in Scotland and Denmark. J. Avian Biol. 37: 43 1 -435. Pain, D. J., Green, R E., GieBing, B„ Kozulin, A., Poluda, A., Ottosson, U„ Flade, M„ & Hilton, G. M. 2004. Using stable isotopes to investigate migratory connectivity of the globally threatened Aquatic Warbler Aaocephalus paludicola. Oecologia 1 38: 1 68- 1 74. — , Carter I., Sainsbury, A. W., Shore, R. F., Eden, R, Taggart M. A., Konstantinos, S., Walker LA., Meharg, A. A., & Raab, A. 2007. Lead contamination and associated disease in captive and reintroduced Red Kites Milvus milvus in England. Science of the Total Environment 376: I 16-127. Smith, Ft B„ Meehan, T D„ & Wolf, B. O. 2003. Assessing migration patterns of Sharp-tailed Hawks Accipiter striotus using stable isotope and band encounter analysis./ Avian Biol. 34: 387-392. Thompson, D. R,& Furness, R.W 1995. Stable-isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen in feathers indicate seasonal dietary shifts in Northern Fulmars. Auk I 1 2: 493-498. — , — , & Lewis, S. A. 1 995. Diets and long-term changes in 6I5N and &I3C values in Northern Fulmars Fulmarus g lacialis from two northeast Atlantic colonies. A Marine Ecol. Progr. Ser. 1 25: 3- 1 I . Votier S. C„ Bearhop, S„ Ratcliffe, N„ & Furness, R. W. 200 1 . Pellets as indicators of diet in Great Skuas. Bird Study 48: 373-376. Wassenaar L l„ & Hobson, K. A. 2006. Stable hydrogen isotope heterogeneity in keratinous materials: mass spectrometry and migratory wildlife tissue sub-sampling strategies. Rapid Communications in Moss Spectrometry 20: 2505-2510. Yohannes, E„ Hobson. K. A., & Pearson, D. J. 2007. Feather stable-isotope profiles reveal stopover habitat selection and site fidelity in nine migratory species moving through sub-Saharan Africa .J. Avian Biol. 38: 347-355. Dr Tony (A. D.) Fox, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Biodiversity, National Environmental Research Institute, University of Aarhus, Kala, Grenavej 14, DK-8410 Ronde, Denmark Dr Stuart Bearhop, Centre for Ecology & Conservation, School of Biosciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ 4 Request Report on scarce migrant birds in Britain Finally released from his duties as BBRC secretary during the interregnum between Mike Rogers and Nigel Hudson, Pete Fraser is once more turning his attention to the scarce migrants report. A report cov- ering the years 2004-2006 is now in preparation. The production of this report depends in no small part upon the goodwill of the county and regional recorders who provide the raw data. In order to make the report as complete as possible, data for the rele- vant species, for the years 2004-2006 inclusive, would be gratefully received; these can be e-mailed (prefer- ably as soon as possible) to statistician@bbrc.org.uk! Alternatively, copies of all county or regional reports ■ may be sent to: Pete Fraser, 2 The Parade, Truro, i Cornwall TR1 1QE. Information concerning records for the report for 2004-2006 can be found at www.scarce- migrants.org.uk 130 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 112-130 Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain Kevin Rylands ABSTRACT A Long-billed Murrelet Brachyramphus perdix was discovered at Dawlish Warren, Devon, on 7th November 2006. Initially misidentified as a Little Auk Alle alle, its true identity was established when photographs of the bird were posted on the internet. It was relocated at nearby Dawlish on I Ith November, where it remained until 1 4th. This represents the first record of Long-billed Murrelet for Britain and the second for the Western Palearctic, following the discovery of a dead bird on Lake Zurich, Switzerland, in December 1 997. Subsequently, another individual was discovered, in Romania in December 2006. The identification, distribution and taxonomy of this species are reviewed. On 7th November 2006, Dave Hopkins (DH) discovered what he believed to be a Little Auk Alle alle just south of Lang- stone Rock, Dawlish Warren, Devon. The weather conditions at the time made viewing difficult - the mouth of the estuary was swathed in a thick mist, while bright sunshine further offshore made everything appear in sil- houette. The bird was noticeably smaller than an accompanying Razorbill Alca torda and was diving continuously. DH phoned John Fortey (JEF) with the news that he had found a Little Auk and JEF arrived with some other birders shortly afterwards. Although the bird was still in view, it was drifting out to sea and into the mist, and was still diving regularly. The news was released and the original observers left the bird without ever having had totally convincing views. Several local birders, including myself, had seen Little Auk in the county in the preceding days and only a few people went to see the bird that day. These included Dave Stone (DS), who arrived later that afternoon, by which time the bird had drifted further south (towards Dawlish) and closer inshore, enabling him to obtain some record shots. Later that day, DS submitted his photographs of the presumed Little Auk to the Dawlish Warren website www.dawlishwarren.co.uk and I uploaded them that evening. I thought that the bird looked a bit odd for that species but, knowing that several people had seen it, I assumed that the photos just showed a Little Auk in an unusual pose! The following day, however, DS asked me to remove his pictures from the website as he was convinced he had made a mistake, and photographed a Common Guillemot Uria aalge. I then took a really close look at the pic- tures for the first time: I told him that it was definitely not a Common Guillemot and that my money was on it being a Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratusl As requested, I removed the photographs from the website but I e-mailed them to a few birders in Devon for a second opinion. Of the replies received, some also thought that it resembled a Marbled Mur- relet, but the idea of a North Pacific murrelet in Devon was surely far-fetched. Others, however, were convinced that it was just a Little Auk. Unfortunately, because they were not my pho- tographs, I felt I could not circulate them more widely. Discussions continued into the fol- lowing day, when DS asked me to put the photos back on the Dawlish Warren website, as he felt that identification as a Little Auk had © British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131-136 131 Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain ) now been established. The photos were posted (again) on the evening of 9th November, still labelled as showing a Little Auk, despite growing concerns over the identification. On 10th November, I was able to visit Dawlish Warren for the first time since the bird had been seen, but there was no sign of it. By midday, as far as I was aware, the photos had still not been seen by anybody outside Devon, yet several people were unhappy with the iden- tification. Those expressing doubts and pointing either to Marbled or Long-billed Mur- relet B. perdix included myself, Andrew Stan- bury, Ivan Lakin (IL) and Chris Townend (who left for Namibia before the bird was relocated!), while Mark Bailey and two of the original observers, JEF and Dale Cooper, had also reached this conclusion. Since the photos were now in the public domain, we decided to seek further opinions by posting a link to the photos on the BirdForum website. The first response came within minutes, when Jan Hein van Steenis from The Netherlands said that the bird in the photo- graphs looked like a Long-billed Murrelet! It was soon clear that many birders thought the same: the bird was a murrelet - and, while the improbability of this was still debated, the main discussion centred on whether it looked more like Marbled or Long-billed. The Dawlish Warren website recorded 4,283 hits that day, in contrast to the usual 150! Although the news that the bird was a Long- billed Murrelet was broadcast on the afternoon of the 10th, I was still mindful of the words of caution on BirdForum, particularly those of Steven Mlodinow, who had written an identifi- cation paper on the separation of Long-billed and Marbled Murrelets (Mlodinow 1997). He too thought that the photos showed a Long- billed Murrelet but cautioned against what the field notes might reveal. However, as it had been assumed to be just a Little Auk by all those who had seen it, there were no field notes to support DS’s images. Was this record destined to become another Dawlish Warren enigma, another Elegant Tern Sterna elegans or South Polar Skua Stercorarius maccormickii Although the bird had not been seen since 7th November, confirmation that the photos showed a murrelet, probably Long-billed, were sufficient incentive for a thorough search of the area on 11th November. At first light, I posi- tioned myself at Rockstone, a good vantage point midway between Dawlish Warren and Dawlish town. During the first 40 minutes of scanning I failed to see anything, no auks of any description. But then I located a small bird on the sea off Coryton Cove, Dawlish, over a kilo- metre away. At this distance it looked odd, rather like a black-and-white Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis. I drove around to Dawlish and after a few minutes managed to relocate the bird, about 100 m offshore. Panic instantly set in as I realised that it was the mur- relet! I had to get someone else on the bird so I phoned IL, who I knew was on Langstone Rock and, as far as I was aware, the only other person ; out checking the bay that morning. By this time 1 I was shaking too much to establish the identifi- cation, in fact I even had trouble just trying to stay with the bird in the scope! Eventually, IL arrived (by which time I could hardly stand up!) and he confirmed that I wasn’t seeing things. The news was put out at 08.39 am and the rest is history. Local birders soon began arriving. One of. the first was JEF, who confirmed that it was the same bird that he’d seen on 7th, albeit much closer and in better light. I wandered around in a state of shock for most of the morning, occa- . sionally checking with people that we weren’t all making a horrible mistake! Because it was refound so early on a Saturday morning, large numbers of birders were able to get to the site before dark. During the course of the day, over 1,000 people must have seen the bird, the! accents of the crowd changing as the day went on, from Bristol to South Wales, Midlands,; Manchester and finally the Northeast. The bird was relocated at Dawlish Warren early on the Sunday morning (providing a very welcome patch tick for several observers), and; then moved back again to Dawlish town. It con- tinued to perform superbly to more large crowds until the afternoon of Tuesday 14th November. That afternoon and the following day, the wind picked up from the south and the: sea became much rougher; the bird disappeared and was not seen again, despite reports to the contrary. By the end of the four-day period, it is estimated that over 3,000 birders had travelled to Dawlish to see the murrelet, making it one of Britain’s largest twitches ever. Dawlish, and the Warren, coped well with the influx of birders; no problems arose with viewing or parking, and the unseasonal trade in the local cafes was much welcomed. According 132 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131-136 Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain to several local people, a bird that was without doubt the murrelet had been around Coryton and Boat Cove for several days prior to 7th November, but they had assumed that it was a young Common Guillemot. Detailed description Overall impression The bird had an unusual and very distinctive jizz, unlike any- thing that I had seen before. Although obviously a small auk, it could at times appear extremely grebe-like; when not feeding, it appeared noticeably upright and it tended to extend its neck forward when swim- ming. It was estimated to be approximately two-thirds the size of a Common Guillemot. Upperparts The head, nape, mantle, back and rump looked black at long distance but at close range the background colour resolved into more of a charcoal-grey, with fine paler marbling. The colour on the tail and wings was much darker, contrasting with the rest of the plumage. A thick white line, formed by white inner webs to the upper row of scapulars, extended along either side of the mantle and these converged towards the lower back but did not meet. White feathering on the rear flanks was sometimes ‘fluffed’ out and occasionally reached the lower scapulars, where an extensive region of white feathering was formed that extended along the sides of the mantle above the wings. The head pattern showed dark lores, though with a patch of white curving up between the gape and the eye. Dark feathering below the eye extended across the ear-coverts and along the sides of the neck to the mantle; this was sharply demarcated from the white throat and fore-neck. Two > 77-79. Juvenile Long-billed Murrelet Brachyramphus perdix, Dawlish, Devon, November 2006. These photographs illustrate the key identification criteria, as outlined in the text. In particular, plate 78 shows the indistinct whitish ovals on the nape; this and the other photos illustrate the distinctive differences in head pattern between this species and Marbled Murrelet B. marmoratus - see plates 80 & 8 1 . British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131-136 133 Gary Thoburn George Reszeter John Carter Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain ) large, diffuse oval patches, whitish but flecked with dark brown, were visible on the nape; separated by a darker stripe down the centre of the nape, these were obvious when the bird was viewed from behind. This feature was difficult to see on the original images taken by DS, as the dark line on the side of the neck had been bleached out. There was an almost complete eye-ring, the thin but well-marked upper crescent being most striking. Underparts At distance, appeared simply white but with closer views, the breast was seen to be peppered with small dark crescents (formed by dark fringing to the white breast feathers), although these were less extensive than the pale fringes to the upperparts. The chin and throat were white, with sparse, fine dark feather fringes visible at close range. Bare parts The bill was entirely dark and appeared long, although the actual length was difficult to establish because of the obvious gape-line. The lower mandible was straight, the upper mandible clearly decurved over the distal half, and there was an appreciable downward curve on the cutting edge of the mandibles. There was also a small area of slightly raised feathering at the base of the upper mandible. Behaviour Throughout its stay, the bird performed faultlessly, often remaining close inshore and allowing excellent photographs to be taken. It was a powerful swimmer, often moving several hundred metres offshore in just a few minutes, but always returned to its favoured feeding areas. It frequently chased sandeels Ammodytes and ‘brif (Clupeidae) almost up to the shoreline and was seen to have a very steep dive, on occasions even launching from the water in the manner of a penguin (Spheniscidae). It frequently held its wings slightly drooped. When diving, it pivoted about the body just in front of the wings, held the wings out from the body, and propelled itself below the surface. Dives typically lasted for 45-60 seconds and any fish caught were consumed on the surface before the next dive. When not feeding actively, it would drift offshore for several hundred metres and at times it disappeared from view. Typi- cally, it would return to inshore waters within 30 minutes to an hour, and begin fishing again within 20-50 m of the shoreline. Prevailing weather conditions The prevailing conditions immediately before this bird was discovered prevent any chance of establishing its likely route or actual arrival date. A persistent anticyclone had been present over Ireland and southern Britain since 1st November. Prior to this, a changeable situation had prevailed for several weeks. The murrelet’s discovery did, however, coincide with a large passage of Little Auks along the east coast. It is unlikely that it arrived with the Little Auks and its discovery at this time was probably coinci- dental. Range and distribution Long-billed Murrelet breeds in coastal forests along the Pacific coast of Russia, and possibly south to eastern Hokkaido, Japan, although there are no recent confirmed records there. It is believed to winter in the western North Pacific south to the seas surrounding Japan, but here it appears to be rare in the ice-free regions. Although it is poorly known within both its breeding and wintering range. Long-billed Murrelet is the most frequently recorded of the North Pacific auks in North America away from the Pacific coast. At least 50 Long-billed Mur- relets have occurred at inland localities throughout the USA and Canada (Thompson et al. 2003), many of these east of the Rockies, with others reaching the Atlantic coast. The timing of many of these extralimital North American records falls between late October and early December, suggesting that Long- billed Murrelet is prone to eastward dispersal from the breeding areas. Certainly, the timing of the Dawlish bird coincides with this established period of dispersal. Although the appearance of the Dawlish bird was completely unexpected - many birders had probably never even heard of Long-billed Murrelet before 1 1th November - it was not the first record for Europe as a juvenile was found dead in a fishing net on Lake Zurich, Switzer- land, in December 1997. Long-billed Murrelet was then treated as a race of Marbled Murrelet, and details were published as this species in BB by Maumary & Knaus (2000). Surprisingly, the discovery of a third individual followed just weeks after the Dawlish bird’s appearance, at Porumbacu, Romania, in mid December 2006. The three European birds may possibly have arrived overland via continental Russia. It is certainly feasible that dispersal to the west occurs with equal frequency to that across the North Pacific and North America, and this would represent the shortest and most direct route to Europe. An alternative hypothesis is that of passage across the Arctic Ocean, along the north Russian coast. Both of these options are considerably shorter than a route across the British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131-136 134 Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain North Pacific, North America and the North Atlantic (Maumary & Knaus 2000; Hopkins etal 2006). Identification and ageing The delay in establishing the identification of the Dawlish bird as Long-billed Murrelet was perhaps not surprising and stemmed from a lack of information. Although it was clearly an auk, identification within a North Atlantic context considered extremes from Little Auk to Common Guillemot. Concerns were immedi- ately apparent that it fitted neither of these species - the differences were readily apparent and commented upon by several people who saw DS’s original photographs. Nevertheless, there were no obvious alternatives and the pos- sibility of a North Pacific alcid, although discussed, seemed remote. When observers with experience from that part of the world became aware of the bird, the correct identification was quickly settled. As yet, few field guides illustrate this species, which until recently was treated as a race of Marbled Murrelet. Although the two species are quite different in both struc- ture and appearance, these differences were not illus- trated until the races were split and treated as full species by the AOU in 1997. The identification of this species in a North American context was discussed in detail by Mlodinow (1997). Since then, it has appeared in Sibley (2003), where it is just one of two essentially North Pacific auks to feature, the other being Ancient Murrelet Synthlibo- ramphus antiquus. Separation of the Dawlish Long-billed Mur- relet from Marbled Murrelet now seems straightforward, based upon several diag- nostic plumage features: • The two pale, oval- shaped patches on an otherwise dark nape, which are unique to Long-billed Murrelet. The lack of a white collar - Marbled shows a crescent of white feathering, extending from the throat onto the nape and forming an almost complete collar (plates 80 & 81). The small amount of dark feathering below the eye, which is much less extensive than typically shown by Marbled, forming a straighter border along the cheek between light and dark areas (apart from the pale ‘blip’ above the lores that both species show to a variable extent). The lack of any blackish feathering (breast ‘pegs’) extending from the ‘shoulder’. The white eye-crescents above and below the eye are prominent, whereas on Marbled 80 & 8 1 . Second-calendar-year Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus, Kodiak, Alaska, February 2004. British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131-136 135 Rich Macintosh Rich Macintosh Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain > Murrelet they are less conspicuous. In non-breeding plumage, adult Long-billed Murrelet shows clean white underparts. The Dawlish bird showed pale fringes on the upper- parts and brown barring on the underparts, conspicuous at close range, suggesting that it was still in juvenile plumage. Taxonomy Long-billed Murrelet was originally described (as Cepphus perdix) by Pallas, in 1811, but was included as a race of Marbled Murrelet throughout much of the twentieth century. Con- sequently, it was largely overlooked in the litera- ture and the images of Marbled Murrelet which appeared in the popular guides to North Pacific alcids were based upon the nominate form. Friesen et al. (1996) recommended that Long- billed and Marbled Murrelet should be consid- ered separate species, supported by phylogenetic, evolutionary and biological criteria. Marbled and Long-billed Murrelets were split by the AOU in 1997 (AOU 1997), and this treatment is widely accepted by other taxonomic authorities, including BOU (Sangster et al. 2007). Kevin Rylands 25 Chelston Road, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 2NN Acknowledgments My thanks go to Ivan Lakin and Andrew Stanbury for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. References American Ornithologist's Union. 1 997. Forty-first supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk I 1 4: 542-552. Friesen, V. L, Piatt, J. F„ & Baker A. J. 1 996. Evidence from cytochrome b sequences and allozymes for a new species of alcid: the Long-billed Murrelet (Brachyromphus perdix). Condor 98: 68 1 -690. Hopkins, D„ Stone. D.. & Rylands, K. 2006.The Long-billed Murrelet in Devon - a new British bird. Birding World 1 9: 457-464. Maumary, L, & Knaus, R 2000. Marbled Murrelet in Switzerland: a Pacific Ocean auk new to the Western Paleanctic. Bnt Birds 93: 1 90- 1 99. Mlodinow, S. l997.The Long-billed Murrelet (Brachyromphus perdix) in North America. Birding 29: 460-475. Sangster G., Collinson, J. M., Knox, A. G„ Parkin, D.T., & Svensson, L 2007.Taxonomic recommendations for British birds: Fourth report Ibis 1 49: 853-857. Sibley, D. 2003. Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern North America. Christopher Helm, London. Thompson, C.W., Pullen, K.J., Johnson, R. E., & Cummins, E. B. 2003. Specimen record of a Long-billed Murrelet from eastern Washington, with notes on plumage and morphometric differences between Long-billed and Marbled Murrelets. Western Birds 34: 157-168. EDITORIAL COMMENT Bob McGowan, Chairman of BOURC, commented: ‘Once correctly identified, the Long-billed Murrelet at Dawlish resulted in one of the most significant birding events of 2006. A generally unpredicted species for Britain, this North Pacific auk was observed in the same county as the Ancient Murrelet that appeared in 1990. It is indicative of the vagrancy potential of both species that Long-billed and Ancient Murrelets are casual visitors to interior North America. It is also note- worthy that the only British records of these Pacific alcids have occurred in Devon, though the later Romanian occurrence perhaps lends support to the Arctic route proposed by Maumary & Knaus j (2000). ‘Long-billed Murrelet remains a particularly poorly known species and detailed information on its breeding biology is scant. Nests are believed to be mainly platforms of lichens in old-growth forest and some parts of this habitat across its range are threatened by logging interests and oil exploration. It is on the IUCN Red List of near-threatened species. ‘A comment must be made on the superb quality of many of the images of this bird; these were considered to be among the best ever taken of any rarity and their availability greatly assisted the Committee’s deliberations. ‘As there were no grounds on which to doubt the bird’s wild origins, the Committee agreed to accept this species onto Category A of the British List.’ Colin Bradshaw, Chairman of BBRC, commented: ‘Once better views were obtained and the self- doubt and disbelief overcome, it was fairly obvious that this was not a Little Auk, particularly since the head and bill shape were more reminiscent of Common Guillemot. Identification as Long-billed Murrelet depends on knowing what to look for - the oval patches on the nape (rather than Marbled Murrelets large white collar), the prominent white eye-crescents and the shape of the area of dark feathering below the eye are the best features for separating Long-billed from Marbled. A third North Pacific alcid, Kittlitz’s Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris , is a largely resident species that is readily eliminated by its short bill and essentially white face outside the breeding season. Ancient Murrelet is mid-grey rather than blackish above and all the other murrelets are solidly dark above.’ 136 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131-136 A paper from the British Ornithologists’ Union Records Committee The Dorset Yellow Bittern Tim Melting , Robert Y. McGowan and Ian Lewington 00 O Eo c § 86. The concrete bridge at Radipole Lake where the Dorset Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis was reportedly found. concern. The observers claimed that the bird was found dead at the base of a concrete block’. There are no concrete blocks at Radipole Lake but the concrete bridge still exists (plate 86). Many birds collide with wires and windows, which may be dif- ficult to see in certain conditions, but they rarely collide with highly visible solid objects. Yet the bill is in pristine condition with no scratches or chips. Death through such a collision seems highly unlikely, and the condi- tion of the bill is inconsistent with this hypothesis. On finding a dead rarity, most birdwatchers would surely have taken the entire corpse to the museum; the option of preparing the skin inde- pendently seems particularly odd given that the finders had few taxidermy skills. If they had expected a long delay before the bird was received by the museum, they might have pre- pared it themselves to preserve the specimen, but they took it to the museum just seven days after finding it. The report that one of the finders had returned recently from the Far East is also, in the context of other anomalies, sug- gestive. It is extremely difficult to assess a record such as this, when efforts to trace the original observers have failed and it was not possible to corroborate any of the facts. Nevertheless, the reported circumstances surrounding this record are certainly unusual, perhaps even suspicious. BBRC assessed this record in 2003 and they confirmed the identification as a juvenile Yellow Bittern. They also commented upon the anom- alous shape and coloration of the flight feathers, while the reported circumstances of the record raised many questions. The record was subsequently assessed by BOURC, who also accepted the identification, but it was not accepted onto the British List because of the doubts surrounding the record described above (BOU 2006). Acknowledgments We are grateful to all members of BOURC, past and present, who have commented on this record and on drafts of this article: Colin Bradshaw, Martin Collinson, Andrew Harrop, Chris Kehoe, Andrew Lassey, Eric Meek, Richard Millington, Steve Votier, Grahame Walbridge and Roger Wilkinson. Particular thanks are due to Grahame Walbridge for tracking down the specimen and researching its history. We also thank BBRC for their review of the identification, particularly Brian Small, who provided detailed measurements and photographs of the specimen. In addition: John Ash provided the actual specimen, plus extremely useful comments on the record; Peter Coe allowed us to use his images of both the Radipole specimen and live Yellow Bitterns; Katrina Cook (NHM, Tring) arranged access to the collections atTring; Steve Dudley commented on early drafts of this article; Peter Summers provided expert comment on skin preparation techniques; and Roger Wilkinson gave help and information on the current and former captive status of Yellow Bittern. References Aspinall, S.J., Porter R. F„ & Al-Saghier O. 2004. Four new bird species in Yemen from Socotra. S andgrouse 26: 48-50. British Ornithologists’ Union (BOU). 2006. Records Committee: 33rd Report (April 2006). Ibis 148: 594. Carey G.J., Chalmers, M. L, Diskin, D. A, Kennerley, R R., Leader; RJ., Leven, M. R., Lewthwaite, R. W., Melville, D. S., Turnbull, M„ & Young, L. 200 1 . The Avifauna of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Watching Society Hong Kong. Davies, J. N., Marchant, S„ & Higgins, RJ. (eds.) 1991. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds. Vol. I : Ratites to Ducks. OUR Melbourne. Eriksen.J., Sargeant, D. E„ & Victor; R. 2003. Oman Bird List. 6th edn. Centre of Environmental Studies and Research, SQU, Oman. Gibson, D. D„ & Kessel, B. 1 992. Seventy-four new avian taxa documented in Alaska 1976-1991. Condor 94: 454-467. Hancock, J. A., & Kushlan, J. A. 1984, The Herons Handbook. Croom Helm, London. Morrison, S. G. 1 997. Rare Birds in Dorset. Privately published, Dorset. Rasmussen, PC., &Anderton,J. C. 2005. Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide.V ol. 2. Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Edicions, Washington, DC and Barcelona. Witherby, H. E.Jourdain, F. C. R.,Ticehurst, N. F„ & Tucker B. W. 1938-1941. The Handbook of British Birds. Witherby, London. Tim Melling, Robert Y. McGowan and Ian Lewington, do RSPB , Westleigh Mews, Wakefield Road, Denby Dale, West Yorkshire HD8 8QD British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 137-141 141 Peter Coe Conservation research news Compiled by Mark Hancock, Ian Dillon and Rowena Langston Breeding Great Northern Divers and nest rafts A recent research paper has highlighted the scale of conservation work for Great Northern Divers (Common Loons) Gavia immer in North America. Here, diver populations have been greatly reduced by factors such as past human persecution, current human disturbance, tourist and residential development of breeding sites, pollution, and artificial increases in both predator populations and water-level fluctua- tions. However, the popularity of the birds, both with the general public and with dedicated enthusiasts, has led to an extensive programme of conservation work. One technique in particular appears to be effective for diver conservation - the provision of floating nest rafts. Great Northern Divers, like other divers, nest close to the water’s edge, meaning that nesting attempts may be flooded and fail when water levels rise. Artificial lake management, e.g. for hydro-electricity genera- tion, may be one source of water-level fluctua- tion that affects divers, and earlier studies have shown that rafts may be effective in dealing with varying water levels. DeSorbo et al. (2007) compared the breeding performance of divers on lakes with and without fluctuating water levels. Water-level regime is regulated by law at many sites, so the two types of site are clearly separated. The results were striking: nest success (the proportion of pairs hatching at least one chick) is higher for all pairs using rafts, but the improvement is particularly evident on lakes with fluctuating water levels. Here, the nest l success rate of raft-nesting pairs is double that I of other pairs on the same lake. On these lakes, only the birds using rafts have a chance of nesting success similar to that of divers nesting in natural nest-sites on lakes with stable water levels. The authors estimate that breeding success at lakes with fluctuating water levels, in the absence of rafts, is lower than that needed to maintain the population. They suggest that such sites represent ‘ecological traps’, attractive to divers looking to establish breeding territo- ries but rarely able to support successful breeding attempts. They recommend raft provi- sion at such sites, combined with monitoring of nesting divers. There are signs that, in some parts of the Great Northern Diver’s range in North America, the population is increasing, probably at least partly due to such conservation efforts. I Our own, comparatively tiny, Black-throated Diver G. arctica breeding population has recently been resurveyed - and this population has benefited from nest-raft provision since the 1970s (e.g. Merrie 1996). Perhaps, when survey results are analysed, this population will also show an increase. DeSorbo, C. R„ Taylor K. M„ Kramar D. E„ Fair J., Cooley, J. H. Jnr, Evers, D. C., Hanson, W„ Vogel, H. S., & Atwood, J. L. 2007. Reproductive advantages of Common Loons using rafts.]. Wild. Manage. 71:1 206- 1213. Merrie, T D. H. 1 996. Breeding success of raft-nesting divers in Scotland. Brit Birds 89: 306-309. Allowing silage to set seed is good for birds The increasing polarisation of British agricul- production and western regions by livestock ture, with eastern areas dominated by cereal production, has been one of the major causes of 142 © British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 142-143 Conservation research news > farmland bird declines. Large areas of western Britain are now poor winter habitats for graniv- orous birds owing to a severe lack of weedy habitats providing vital seed food. However, Buckingham & Peach (2006) have suggested that leaving patches of ordinary agricultural grassland to flower and set seed could provide an attractive source of winter food for buntings. Their study was conducted on four grass silage fields in Shropshire and Staffordshire, from which either one or two silage cuts had already been taken. Two 0.5-ha plots within each field were then fenced off and left undis- turbed until the following spring. This allowed the ryegrass Lolium to flower and produce abundant seed that remained attractive to feeding Yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella and Reed Buntings E. schoeniclus throughout the following winter. Light aftermath grazing by cattle was found to reduce seed abundance and did not promote usage by birds. This simple but effective idea has wide potential as an agri-environment measure in grassland-dominated landscapes. Costs to the farmer include the loss of the (least valuable) final silage cut and a small reduction in silage yield the following spring. Farmers could, however, be compensated for their losses through participation in agri-environment schemes like Entry Level Stewardship in England. This study provides a good example of how conservationists can work with the farming industry to provide practical solutions that, with small adjustments, can fit in with current agricultural practices yet deliver crucial resources for farmland birds. Buckingham, D. L, & Peach, W.J. 2006. Leaving final-cut grass silage in situ overwinter as a seed resource for declining farmland birds. Biodiversity & Conservation 1 5: 3827-3845. Collisions with wind turbines A prominent feature of the debate about the desirability of windfarms is their potential neg- ative impact on wildlife - either indirectly, through effects on habitat, or directly, through displacement or mortality. Estimating bird mortality from collision with turbines is fraught with difficulty, however; detection rates by searchers and scavenger removal are key factors that may lead to mortality being underesti- mated. Smallwood (2007) reviewed ten studies that included appropriate trial results and used these to develop models to predict the propor- tion of carcases remaining since the last search. Not surprisingly, searcher detection varied with species group or size of bird. For medium- sized and large birds, vegetation structure did not affect searcher detection significantly but for smaller birds detection differed with vegetation height. More importantly, Smallwood discovered that there appeared to be strong biases in the estimates of scavenger removal (calculated as mean number of days to scavenger removal), tending to lead to lower mortality estimates, in trials of longer duration and where larger numbers of trial carcases were used. This, he sug- gested, was at least partly due to a swamping effect, whereby scavengers were unable to consume all available carcases before they became unsuitable. He also suggested that the use of surrogate species in search detection and scavenger removal trials for those killed by wind turbines may be misleading. Moreover, birds killed by collision with turbines tend to have characteristic damage (wings sheared off, decapi- tation, etc.) and such injuries may increase detec- tion by scavengers compared with the intact, especially frozen, carcases often used in trials. Smallwood concluded that, as with any experiment, simulations should be as represen- tative as possible of the likely situation under test and should, for example, avoid putting out large numbers of carcases that may influence scavenger behaviour. Collision mortality should also be expressed as collisions per kW/hr gener- ated since the previous search. This takes account of the actual output of the turbine, which is more likely to be related to mortality than any simple measure of turbine size or manufacturer’s rating. Although highlighting the problems of trying to compare mortality data from a range of studies using different methods, Smallwood identifies the need for (and provides a basis for) better standardisation and ways of adjusting collision mortality esti- mates for those studies that do not correct for searcher detection or scavenger removal. This is an important contribution, enabling informed conclusions to be drawn on the likely mortality impacts of current and future windfarms. Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. J. Wildlife Manage. 7 1 : 278 1 -279 1 . British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 142-143 143 Letters Origins of White-billed Divers in western Europe The authors of the 2006 BBRC report specu- lated about the origins of White-billed Divers Gavia adamsii seen in Britain (Fraser et al. 2007, pp. 701-702). They suggested that spring birds seen in the Outer Hebrides and the Northern Isles may have wintered in areas farther west and that these birds are among those recorded heading north off the southwest coast of Norway (e.g. Folvik & Mjos 1995, Bell 2006). I agree with this hypothesis but wish to point out that it is likely that a small wintering population exists in the North Sea too, which accounts for the regular sightings along the Swedish west coast in spring. Many ducks, geese and divers migrate south along the west coast of Sweden in spring. They enter the Baltic either overland, via the Bay of Laholm or farther south in Scania or by rounding the southern tip of Scania, and then head north to Arctic and Baltic breeding areas. Judging from migration counts of White-billed Divers, they head either into the Gulf of Finland or continue farther north along the Swedish and Finnish coasts before crossing land to Arctic seas (Hirschfeld 2000). It has always been assumed that White-billed Divers observed heading south off the Swedish west coast in April and (predominantly) May come from the North Sea. They are often asso- ciated with Red-throated Diver G. stellata migration and the peak of occurrence is similar to that in southwest Norway. It seems likely that the Swedish birds must belong to a different winter population than those seen off Norway, which are heading north and do not reach Sweden. Numbers have increased in recent years: the average annual count for Sweden as a whole during 2000-06 was 89 (Bentz & Wird- heim 2001-07), about 10% higher than that during 1990-99 (Hirschfeld 2000). Even if records have decreased in The Netherlands (van der Vliet et al. 2005), there must surely be a small wintering population, perhaps 50-100 birds, somewhere in the North Sea which accounts for the Swedish west-coast records. Presumably, they should be looked for in Danish or German waters, perhaps far off- shore and widely distributed, as suggested by Folvik & Mjos (1995). References Bell, J. 2006. Spring passage of White-billed Divers off southwest Norway. Birding World 1 9: 62-63. Bentz, R-G„ & Wirdheim, A. 200 1 -07. Fagelaret 2000-06. Var Fagelvarld Supplements 35, 37, 40, 42, 44, 45 & 47. Folvik, A., & Mj0s, A.T 1995. Spring migration of White- billed Divers past southwestern Norway. Brit Birds 88: 125-129. Fraser RA. & the Ftarities Committee. 2007. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 2006. Brit Birds 1 00: 694-754. Hirschfeld, E. 2000. Islommarnas forekomst I Sverige. Var Fagelvarld 59: 6- 1 4. van derVliet, R. E„ van der Laan, J., & CDNA. 2005. Rare birds in the Netherlands in 2004. Dutch Birding 27: 367-394. Erik Hirschfeld Hedakersvagen 29D, SE-217 64 Malmo, Sweden; e-mail editor@rarebirdsyearbook.com Murreiets in Europe I was intrigued by fig. 5 in the BB paper describing the first Western Palearctic record of Long-billed Murrelet Brachyramphus perdix (then treated as a race of Marbled Murrelet B. marmoratus; Maumary & Knaus 2000). The figure depicted the 500 hPA (hectoPascals, or millibars) pressure level. The contour lines on the chart are labelled in decametres showing the altitude of this pressure level, e.g. between 540 and 570 decametres (5. 4-5. 7 km) over Europe. Temperatures are also plotted. The text does not explain the chart, although it does describe the windflow (which is frequently very different from that at lower altitudes; Elkins 2004). The statement that ‘the commuting flight overland between the nesting site and the sea occurs at great height (Harrison 1985)’ is unquantified. I have read elsewhere of 2 km being an ‘excep- tional’ height, and it is clear that any such classi- fication of height is purely an author’s opinion. In view of the relatively short distances (maximum 60-100 km) between the sea and the species’ breeding grounds, I doubt that murrelets climb as high as 5 km. 144 © British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 1 44- 1 50 Letters ; For a Long-billed Murrelet to arrive in Europe, any route is exceptionally long. Unlike the largely sedentary Marbled Murrelet, which breeds in North America, Long-billed Murrelet is migratory and, as mentioned in Maumary & Knaus, there are more records of the latter along the Atlantic coasts of North America than any other North Pacific alcid. Inland records of Ancient Murrelets Synthliborhamphus antiquus in late autumn in the USA have been correlated with the strong low-level winds and precipita- tion associated with depressions (Verbeek 1966) and it is probable that most auks use lower air- space. Records of Ancient Murrelet along the Atlantic coast of North America have been pre- sumed to involve birds carried across the USA by storms originating along the Pacific coast. On reaching the Atlantic it is then possible that such a vagrant redirects its migration to end up in Europe (see editorial comment after Waldon Norman Elkins 18 Scotstarvit View, Cupar, Fife KY15 5DX > 1994). Whether any vagrant Long-billed Mur- relets would show the same behaviour is open to question. The weather situation prior to the arrival of the Swiss individual is equivocal regarding any specific route, especially since the timing of its movements are unknown. It is also unwise to compare this vagrancy with that of Siberian passerines, since strong winds are unlikely to initiate their movements, which nat- urally begin in the centre of the Asian continent. References Elkins, N. 2004. Weather and Bird Behaviour. 3rd edn. Poyser London. Harrison, R 1 985. Seabirds: an identification guide. Christopher Helm, London. Maumary, L, & Knaus, R 2000. Marbled Murrelet in Switzerland: a Pacific Ocean auk new to the Western Palearctic. Brit Birds 93:1 90- 1 99. Verbeek N.A. M. 1 966. Wanderings of the Ancient Murrelet and some additional comments. Condor 68: 5 1 0-5 1 I . Waldon, J. 1 994. Ancient Murrelet in Devon: new to the Western Palearctic. Brit Birds 87: 307-3 1 0. Species associating with Common Stonechats In response to the note by R. A. Frost entitled ‘Wren associating with Common Stonechats’ {Brit. Birds 100: 756), the following may be of interest. In Urquhart (2002), I listed the following species as having been recorded associating with Common Stonechats Saxicola torquatus in the UK: Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis, Meadow Pipit A. pratensis. Wren Troglodytes troglodytes, Dunnock Prunella modularis , Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca. Common Whitethroat S. communis, Dartford Warbler S. undata. Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus. Great Tit Parus major, Coal Tit, Periparus ater, Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis. Linnet C. cannabina. Lesser Redpoll C. cabaret, Yellowhammer Etnberiza citrinella and Reed Bunting E. schoeniclus. Similar associations with Common Stonechats have been observed in Tan- zania involving Black-lored Cisticola Cisticola nigriloris and in Menorca involving Sardinian Warbler S. melanocephala. The species listed for the UK are generally more tolerant of an intruder’s approach, giving alarm calls only when a potential predator is 29-41 m away and flying off when the intruder is as close as 11-35 m, whereas Common Stonechats give alarm calls when a potential predator is 101 ± 26 m away and Ewan Urquhart The Old House, Church Street, Kingham, Oxfordshire fly from the intruder when 57 ± 26 m away (Grieg-Smith 1979, 1981). It seems that there is no advantage to the stonechat from such associa- tions and that the associating species are simply profiting from the former’s greater vigilance. Indeed, the associating species appear to have a detrimental effect on feeding activity; Zamora et al (1992) showed that the presence of a Dartford Warbler in a Common Stonechats hunting area affected the latter’s feeding behaviour, causing it to use more perches without capturing prey and to exploit feeding areas less intensively. This reduced prey-catching attempts by 50% during periods when the stonechat was followed by the warbler. References Grieg-Smith, RW. 1 979. 'The behavioural ecology of the Stonechat Saxicola torquata.' Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sussex. — 1981 .The role of alarm responses in the formation of mixed-species flocks of heathland birds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8: 7- 1 0. Urquhart, E. 2002. Stonechats: a guide to the genus Saxicola. Christopher Helm, London. Zamora, R„ Hodar; J. A., & Gomez, J. M. 1 992. Dartford Warblers follow Stonechats while foraging. Ornis Scand. 23: 167-174. OX7 6YA British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 144-150 145 Letters C > Colour nomenclature and Siberian Chiffchaffs A lack of yellow away from the underwing and limited olive in the upperparts are widely recog- nised characters of ‘Siberian Chiffchaff ’ Phyllo- scopus collybita tristis. Additionally, the type description of Blyth (1843) and the works of Ticehurst (1938), Witherby et al. (1938-41), Williamson (1967), Svensson (1970-92 & in prep.) and Cramp (1992) all noted that tristis has brown or grey-brown upperparts and huffish hues 1 in the underparts. Dean 8c Svensson (2005) re-emphasised the significance of ‘brown and buff in the full suite of characters diagnosing true tristis. They noted that these hues were lacking in some Common Chiffchaffs (hereafter simply ‘Chiffchaff’) that were claimed as tristis in the UK and elsewhere. The appearance of such ‘grey-and-white’ Chiff- chaffs is much closer to paler, eastern examples of abietinus than it is to tristis , or even ‘ful- vescetis’, and the degree of greyness and white- ness draws comparisons with Western P. bonelli or Eastern Bonelli’s Warbler P. orientalis. Although the restricted yellow and olive in their plumage is consistent with tristis , their appear- ance does not meet the full suite of characters diagnosing true tristis. The appellation ‘brown and buff is a con- venient shorthand for key aspects of the plumage of tristis, compared with ‘grey-and- white’ Chiffchaffs which lack these hues almost entirely. It is likely that there is no single origin for these ‘grey-and-white’ Chiffchaffs. Some might be greyer examples of eastern abietinus, while those which utter a tristis- like call are probably intergrades between abietinus and tristis (though there is evidence that some pop- ulations of abietinus, or populations currently designated as abietinus, may utter a call closely or precisely matching that of tristis; see also pp. 149-150). Furthermore, it is conceivable that some are from a little-studied population from a remote part of the range and that their classi- fication is not satisfactorily embraced by current taxonomy. Discussions of such plumage variation fre- quently require more subtle colour terminology and reference to less basic hues than simply yellow, olive, brown, buff, grey and white. However, it is evident that there is wide diver- gence in the ‘colour names’ which different observers apply to a particular hue. Indeed, few current observers appear to relate their ‘colour nomenclature’ to any objective reference or to any published colour standard, and even terms such as ‘grey and white’ are applied without any reference to their explicit usage in Dean 8c Svensson (2005). The result is rather arbitrary nomenclature, which inevitably leads to contra- dictory colour names being applied to the same individual Chiffchaff and, conversely, identical colour names being applied to two or more Chiffchaffs of quite different appearance. This is compounded by the fact that some observers will perceive a given hue in a different way from others, as ‘warmer’ or ‘colder’ for example, or find it more difficult than others to distinguish between certain shades of colour, including greys and browns. These problems are not unique to Chiffchaffs and will beset dis- cussions of other species whose distinguishing field marks are primarily colour-related and are relatively subtle or cryptic. This topic has undoubtedly received less attention than it should, from record assessors and authors of identification papers alike. An examination of colour nomenclature as applied to photographs of three ‘eastern’ Chiffchaffs Each of the three birds illustrated in plate 87 has been identified as tristis by at least some observers. However, the majority of people will perceive that the Portland and Stanpit birds are rather similar while the Coleshill bird is quite different. Yet how would different observers describe the principal hues of the plumage of the three birds and convey their differences? To investigate further the issue of colour perception and nomenclature, images of the three Chiffchaffs in plate 87 (with no annota- tions) were distributed to a group of experi- enced observers, who were asked to provide their interpretations of the principal colours and colour-distinctions which they perceived in the three individuals. As a guide, but not a con- straint, reference was made to the ‘List of Colours’ on Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_colours). (For the sake of simplicity, the effects on colour portrayal of light conditions and the colour fidelity of digital cameras and monitors are not considered further in this text - for discussion see Dean (2007) and the tristis forum under Publications/Articles at www.club300.de). 146 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 144—150 Letters C A summary of results Replies were received from 15 observers. Nearly all respondents commented that they had found the exercise difficult, principally in deciding upon satisfactory colour nomenclature to describe accurately the hues they perceived. As anticipated with such well-differentiated plumages, a majority of respondents agreed that: (a) the Stanpit Marsh and the Portland Chiffchaffs were similar and basically brown or grey-brown on the upperparts and off-white below, with a huffish supercilium and a huffish 87. Three ‘eastern’ Common Chiffchaffs Phylloscopus collybita, at Portland, Dorset, in November 2007 ( I a, I b); Stanpit Marsh, Dorset, in February 2007 (lc);and Coleshill, Warwickshire, in March 2005 (Id). The images are here matched with colour swatches based upon those in Smithes Naturalist’s Color Guide ( 1 975). wash at the sides of the breast, although a more prominent grey suffusion was evident on the upperparts of the Portland bird; and (b) the Coleshill Chiffchaff was distinct from the other two and was basically greenish-grey or greyish- green on the upperparts and distinctly white below, with a yellowish tinge to the fore-super- cilium and with sullied flanks (the sullying vari- ously described as grey, yellow, green or buff). However, this consensus existed only where descriptions involved relatively basic hues, such as grey, brown, green and yellow. Where respon- Smoke grey Pale neutral grey British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 144-150 147 Martin Cade Letters C dents offered more subtle descriptions and dis- tinctions, then a much wider divergence of opinion (or nomenclature) was apparent. Hues including beige, drab, dun, fulvous-brown, khaki, mouse-brown, pale taupe, rusty-buff, vinous, and wheat were all cited in descriptions of the Portland Chiffchaff but no two respon- dents employed the same nomenclature. The three Chiffchaffs in this exercise involved two evidently ‘brown-and-buff Chiff- chaffs (both the Stanpit and the Portland indi- viduals being acceptable examples of tristis/'fulvescens in the opinion of the author) while the Coleshill Chiffchaff is an example of the ‘grey-and-white’ Chiffchaffs discussed by Dean & Svensson (2005). When the subtleties of more intermediate and less easily characterised individuals enter the frame, then even greater discrepancies in colour nomenclature can be anticipated. Discussion The need for some kind of ‘colour standard' has long been recognised in natural history research, and there have been a number of sig- nificant publications. However, most if not all are now both scarce and expensive. Among ‘colour standards’ which have been designed specifically for use in a natural history context, the most notable is Robert Ridgway’s Color Standards and Color Nomenclature (1912). This is the ‘classic’ work and included 1,115 hues. It was used extensively by C. B. Ticehurst, for example, in A Systematic Review of the Genus Phvlloscopus (1938). Although it has been reprinted, it is generally rare and expensive and, according to Smithe (1975), there is serious colour deterioration in many copies. Smithe attempted to provide a more man- ageable number of colours, and his work, enti- tled Naturalist’s Color Guide (1975), included just 86 colours, selected to provide a working number and corresponding with hues which Smithe considered were most useful in describing plumage. Each of Smithes ‘colours’ is related to other colour standards and has a numerical notation based upon the Munsell system and spectrophotometric measurements. This provides an objective measure and a system whereby the affects of colour deteriora- tion can be evaluated. More accessible ‘colour swatches’ are avail- able, on the web-based ‘Wikipedia’, for 148 > example, but these are not designed with the , naturalist in mind. Needless to say, many observers, confronted with a particular bird, j will frequently conclude that ‘just the colour | they want’ is not depicted there or in any general colour guide! It is sometimes possible to make a reasonable match between a hue 1 depicted in Smithe and a hue depicted in Wikipedia but often the nomenclature applied is significantly different in each. To avoid ambi- J ; guity when discussing colours, it is essential to | adopt and cite explicitly a named standard. An objective reference removes ambiguity and || enables any third party to understand precisely j] the colour which is cited. The range of colours might be expanded by describing hues as ‘inter- | mediate between’ two colours in a standard ref- j erence or using compound names, combining two colours depicted in a guide, as this still maintains an objective and independent point of reference. As an example of the benefits which this can bring, plate 87 has been annotated with the author’s analysis of some of the principal colours. In view of space constraints here, the treatment is confined to the ear-coverts of the Portland Chiffchaff and the upperparts of all three. The colour swatch and its nomenclature have been generated to match the RGB values of selected colours in Smithe’s ‘ Naturalist’s Color Guide’ and, as well as those employed in the annotation, it includes several other hues which : are often cited in descriptions of Chiffchaffs. Where appropriate, admixed colours are indi- cated by the use of linked lines. It is not sug- gested in any way that the author’s analysis is ! definitive or that more closely matched colours could not be found elsewhere. The purpose in plate 87 is to demonstrate that a correlation can i be achieved between the hues displayed by the Chiffchaffs and colours named explicitly in a published guide. The nomenclature is thereby unequivocal. Copies of Smithe’s guide are now hard to find, unfortunately. For widespread use of stan- dard colour nomenclature to be adopted, there is a clear need for a new and readily available reference for ‘colour standards’, designed with naturalists in mind and including appropriately! chosen colour swatches. While variations in terminology among observers at large are inevitable to some extent, it is surely important that records committees and authors of identi- fication literature employ and encourage some, British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 144-150 Letters ; kind of objective standard for colour nomen- clature. Acknowledgments The following people supplied their perceptions and colour nomenclature for the three Chiffchaffs included in the composite image (plate 87). Their considered responses provided the essential basis for the discussion presented here and I thank them all for the time and effort which they brought to the exercise: Chris Batty, Colin Bradshaw, Greg Conway, Lance Degnan, Richard Fairbank. Martin Gamer, Rob Hume. Chris Kehoe, Antero LindhoIm.Tim Melling, Mike Pennington. Roger Riddington, Kees Roselaar; Brian Small, Andrew Ware References Blyth, E. 1 843. [The original description of'Phylloscopus tristis'] J. Asiatic. Soc. 1 2: 996-997. Cramp, S. (ed.). 1 992. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. > Vol. 6. OUR Oxford. Dean, A. R 2007. Enigmatic 'grey-and-white' Common Chiffchaffs. Brit Birds 1 00: 497^199. — & Svensson, L 2005. ‘Siberian Chiffchaff revisited. Brit Birds 98: 396-4 1 0. Ridgway, FL 1912. Color Standards and Color Nomenclature. Washington, DC. Smithe, F. B. 1 975. Naturalist's Color Guide. The American Museum of Natural History, New York Svensson, L 1 970- 1 992. Identification Guide to European Passerines. I st— 4th edn, 5th edn in prep. Privately published, Stockholm. Ticehurst, C. 1 938. A Systematic Review of the Genus Phylloscopus (Willow-warblers or Leaf-warblers). BMNH, London. Williamson, K. 1 967. Identification for Ringers 2. The Genus Phylloscopus. 2nd edn. BTO.Tring. Witherby, H. F.,Jourdain, F. C. R., Ticehurst, N. F„ & Tucker; B. W. 1 938- 1941. The Handbook of British Birds. Witherby, London. Alan R. Dean 2 Charingworth Road, Solihull, West Midlands B92 8HT 1 The word ‘tone’ is sometimes used in reference to colours. An actual colour value within the visible colour spectrum is correctly referred to as a ‘hue’. ‘Tone’ is a modifier of a particular hue and combines the properties of ‘tint’ (lightening) and ‘shade’ (darkening) of a colour - e.g. ‘pale’ or ‘dusky’, as in ‘pale green’. Smithe (1975) recommended that the term ‘tone’ be avoided. Further thoughts on Siberian Chiffchaffs We read with interest Alan Dean’s letter about enigmatic ‘grey-and-white’ Common Chiff- chaffs Phylloscopus collybita (Brit. Birds 100: 497-499) and the earlier paper by Dean & Svensson (2005). A much earlier paper (Dubois et al. 1995) reached conclusions that are broadly in agreement with those of Dean and Svensson, notably that autumn grey-and-white Chiff- chaffs are probably not tristis but more likely eastern abietinus. The French Rarities Com- mittee has for some time followed the criteria laid down in the 1995 paper (which have their origins in Ticehurst’s 1938 publication) to assess Siberian Chiffchaff claims in France. The matter is probably further complicated by populations of Common Chiffchaff breeding in some parts of the Middle East, especially in southern and northeast Turkey, northwest Syria and possibly in some parts of Georgia. In late April 2006 in northern Syria, thanks to infor- mation provided by David Murdoch, we found a healthy Common Chiffchaff population in the Slenfeh area. The birds were in full song, and one - assumed to be a female - was seen building a nest. The colour of the upperparts of these birds was brown-grey and greenish, and they showed a rather well-marked creamy supercilium, lacking any yellow, i.e. they appeared much closer to abietinus than to tristis. To us, the song was indistinguishable from that of collybita/ abietinus, but the call, heard regularly, was extremely similar to the ‘fiu’ [or ‘few’] of tristis. We both have extensive experience of tristis in the field, both in winter (Iran, Nepal) and on the breeding grounds (Kazakhstan, Siberia); to us, the call of tristis is both well known and distinctive. We concluded that the Slenfeh birds were close to the race (?) ‘ brevirostris’, which is a subtle and questionable variation of abietinus (Lars Svensson in lift.). Birds of this form are said to be more brown- grey than abietinus but, according to Svensson, there is overlap and variation in these charac- ters; there are few specimens in collections to study. We saw similar birds in spring (April and May 1987) in eastern Turkey and others were observed in the Kazbegi region of Georgia in May 2007 ( J. Francois et al. pers. comm.). In conclusion, birds with the appearance of collybita/ abietinus and the call of tristis do exist. Very little is known about the movements and wintering areas of this Middle East/Caucasus form, but it seems quite possible that birds of ‘ brevirostris ’ type could reach western Europe, British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 144-150 149 Letters ( especially during autumn migration. References Dean, A. R.. & Svensson, L. 2005. 'Siberian Chiffchaff revisited. Brit Birds 98: 396 — 4 1 0. Philippe J. Dubois 104 rue Saint-Jean , 95300 Pontoise, France Marc Duquet 22 avenue du Tambourin, 34230 Vendemian, France Dubois, RJ.,Yesou, R, & CHN. 1995. Les Pouillots veloces Phylloscopus collybita de type tristjs/fulvescens en France: statut et criteres d'acceptation par le CHN. Ornithos 2—4: 170-174. (In French) Ticehurst, C. 1 938. A Systematic Review of the Genus Phylloscopus. BMNH, London. EDITORIAL COMMENT Alan Dean has commented: ‘This confirmation of Chiffchaffs with the appear- ance of collybita/ abietinus and the call of tristis is most welcome. It should be noted, however, that Lars Svensson and I did not equate ‘grey-and-white’ Chiffchaffs with eastern abietinus exclusively but identified four possible sources of such individuals, all of which need to be considered.’ Corrections to the 2005 BBRC report Following my texts on the 17 species most recently removed from the BBRC list, in the 2005 BBRC report (Brit. Birds 100: 16-61, 72-104), I should like to register the following amendments. Great White Egret Ardea alba As part of his ini- tiative to archive fully all the pre-1950 rarity records, Keith Naylor has produced more details of the East Yorkshire bird of 1821 and the dis- cussion of it in the nineteenth-century litera- ture. Intriguingly, during its stay of several weeks it avoided several assaults by Hornsea Mere’s owners, falling in the hunting season to a friend of John Gould on ‘his way to meet the hounds’. Arthur Strickland had no doubt that ‘a careful examination... will prove that this bird is properly separated from the large egret of North America.’ I am happy to accept Naylor’s view that the Hornsea bird is the first. However, the BOU’s official sanction of it is still needed. Bill Bourne has pointed out that Great White Egret has also bred recently in France (Marion 1999). Indeed, a wider review indicates a spread into and from seven central and eastern European countries from the late 1980s. American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica The bird on Fair Isle in September 1956 is no longer considered the first for Britain. Two earlier specimens had been either overlooked or misidentified: the first was obtained near Perth, Perth & Kinross, on 3rd August 1883, the second at Loch of Stenness, Orkney, on 26th November 1887 (BOU 2006). Red-throated Pipit Anthus cervinus Bernard ' Tucker’s rendering of this pipit’s abrupt mono- syllable was ‘chup’, not ‘chip’ (Witherby et al. ! 1938-1941). Subalpine Warbler Sylvia cantillans Of the 13 inland records of this species, four have come i from the recording area of the London Natural History Society but none of these was at Barn Elms or Beddington Sewage-farm. I am grateful 1 to Jeffery Wheatley for pointing out what proved to be an erroneous transcription of four Red-throated Pipits. Arctic Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni Andy Stoddart (Brit. Birds 100: 244-245) took me to task for ignoring racial attributions to the form exilipes. I accept his correction but future reviewers should note that Naylor’s catalogue of individual records also ignores text comments, repeating as facts only the details published alongside actual records. Clearly it makes better sense to search the individual rarity reports (and not just Naylor 1996) when the issue is racial identity. References British Ornithologists' Union (BOU). 2006. Records Committee: 32nd Report (October 2005). Ibis 1 48: 198-201. Marion, L. 1 999. L'avifaune du lac de Grand Lieu. Courtier Nature 175: 15-20. Naylor K. 1 996. A Reference Manual of Rare Birds in Great Britain and Ireland. Privately published. Nottingham. Witherby, H. F„ Jourdain, F. C. R, Ticehurst, N. F., &Tucker B. W. 1938-1941. The Handbook of British Birds. Witherby, London. I an Wallace Mount Pleasant Farm, Main Road, Anslow, Burton on Trent, East Staffordshire DEI 3 9QE 150 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 144-150 Notes All Notes submitted to British Birds are subject to independent review, either by the Notes Panel or by the BB Editorial Board. Those considered appropriate for BB will be published either here or on our website (www.britishbirds.co.uk) subject to the availability of space. Unusual Marsh Harrier plumages During the summers of 2005, 2006 and 2007, a male Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus with particularly unusual plumage bred on the RSPB reserve at Titchwell, Norfolk. Instead of a dark, rufous-brown belly contrasting with the paler chest of a typical male Marsh Harrier of the nominate race aeruginosus , this bird showed a completely white belly contrasting with a blotchy chin and gorget of grey- and rufous- brown streaks that extended down onto the breast (plates 88 & 89). The undertail was white, as were the underwings except for black and sharply contrasting primaries. At close range, a peppering of fine russet streaks on the lesser underwing-coverts was visible, while the typical greyish edge to the tips of the second- aries on the underwings was lacking. At dis- tance, its pale appearance with darker throat and upper breast could superficially recall both male Hen Harrier C. cyaneus and male Montagu’s Harrier C. pygargus, and it was fre- quently misidentified as one of these. The bird’s upperparts comprised the typical, three-toned plumage of black primaries, silvery-grey tail and secondaries, and chocolate-brown back and upperwing coverts but, in addition, an obvious white patch on the uppertail-coverts, white pep- pering on greater and primary coverts and an off-white crown. With its striking pale under- parts, this bird showed a superficial resem- blance to the east Asian race, C. a. spilonotus. 88 & 89. Male Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus with The males of this race are variable, with some showing a bold black face but others a dark- streaked head and breast, yet both forms display a white belly. The Titchwell individual most resembled the latter type, although it lacked the dark- (black in some cases) streaked mande and upperwing-coverts of Asian birds. Male Marsh Harriers of the nominate form become more contrasting with age; the back becomes a darker brown and the head, tail, upperwing secondaries and underwing-coverts become paler, while a white rump generally sig- nifies an older bird. It seems likely, therefore, that the Titchwell harrier was a very mature male rather than being partly leucistic. Clarke (1995) drew attention to the occur- rence of leucistic, albinistic and partially white Marsh Harriers, and noted a nest in Italy in 1969, and other nests in Norfolk (three), Suffolk (three) and The Netherlands (one or two) in 1989 from which ‘pied’ juveniles fledged. All had the normal dark, almost black-looking plumage peppered in white. The amount of white varied among these birds, some showing large white areas on the upperwing-coverts and broad tips to the flight and tail feathers, while others had white rump patches, greater- coverts and scapulars. All were noted as having typical golden crowns and chins. Despite these find- ings, there is no mention of such birds in any of the modern field guides, raptor guides or hand- unusual plumage (see text), Titchwell, Norfolk, May 2006. ©British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 151-156 151 Chris Knights Gary K. Smith Notes C > ; 'ti * . « ' 90 & 91. ‘Pied' juvenile Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus, Cley, Norfolk, August 2004. books. Not surprisingly, they often provide a problem to identify when seen for the first time. Since 1995, there have been at least 14 more examples of such juveniles in Norfolk alone (see plates 90 & 91), of variable appearance though with a recurring theme in that the white stretches across the upperwing-coverts, the tips of the flight feathers and the rump (sometimes isolated, sometimes connected to white mantle or scapulars). This does not appear to be a localised phenomenon and in recent years other broods of such birds have also been described from Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire, in 1995, and Minsmere, Suffolk, in 2006. Until recently, it appeared that only fresh juveniles exhibit such traits, leading to specula- tion that these pale plumage marks are lost during their first winter. However, a fledgling from a north Norfolk nest in 2006 subsequently wintered in the area and was present the fol- lowing spring. Although its overall coloration was now much browner, it retained off-white greater coverts, secondary tips and flecking to mantle and underbody. Furthermore, two mature females were observed in Norfolk in 2007 that resembled more muted versions of the striking pied juveniles. One seen near Whissonsett showed an indistinct creamy U- shaped rump patch and obvious creamy greater coverts. A female that summered on the Holkham NNR showed similar markings (including the rump patch), although the cream colour on the greater coverts was restricted to broad tips. In 2004, a different female had sum- mered there, also with a cream rump. All these birds appeared to be muted versions of the more striking ‘pied’ juveniles, although without definitive evidence it is only speculation that they were such birds maturing. Although plumage abnormalities, including melanistic and partially albino birds, have been ! described before (e.g. Clark 1987, Clarke 1995), it seems that the number of birds with such abnormalities being recorded in Britain is1 increasing, though this may be a consequence of the species’ expanding population. The point of this note is to create a greater awareness of their existence, which has been largely ignored in modern literature. Acknowledgments I thank Vernon Eve for first drawing attention to the1 Titchwell bird, Chris Knights and Gary Smith for their photographs, and Pete Clement for his comments. References Clark, W. S. 1 987.The dark morph of the Marsh Harrier Brit Birds 80: 6 1 -72. Clarke, R. 1 995. The Marsh Harrier. Hamlyn, London. Andrew Bloomfield 20 Lancaster Road, Blenheim Park, Sculthorpe, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 7PX Artificial feeding of Hen Harriers in the Peak District In spring 2006, the Hen Harrier Recovery Project (HHRP) run by English Nature (now Natural England) was involved in monitoring 152 breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in the Peak District, with the help of the South Peak Raptor Study Group, National Trust and the British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 1 5 1 — 1 5( Notes ; RSPB. The work focused on two nests, some 2 km apart, in the Upper Derwent Valley, both with male and female birds present. The first nest (Nest 1) was approximately 19 days more advanced than the second (Nest 2). Both nests developed normally, with six eggs laid in each and regular food passes between male and female observed. However, in early June, food provisioning to both females halted abruptly, and a male harrier was not observed in the area again. In order to prevent almost certain breeding failure at both nests, field- workers decided upon the unusual strategy of artificial feeding and quickly obtained the nec- essary licence. Growing raptor chicks need a varied diet of highly nutritious prey. For Hen Harriers in England, small birds such as Meadow Pipits Anthus pratensis and young Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus, together with small mammals such as Field Voles Microtus agrestis , are typical prey items. As we were unable to obtain a natural food supply, captive-bred quail Coturnix sp., with a small number of gerbils (Gerbillinae) and white mice Mus were used, collected frozen from a local supplier. Usually, two or three items of food were put out every day at each of the two nests. At each site, food was initially placed adjacent to the nest in the early morning, in order to min- imise disturbance. However, neither female took food provided in this way and so food was then introduced directly into the nests. This was immediately successful at Nest 2, where the female (still on eggs) accepted and ate the quail carcase provided. However, the reaction of the Nest 1 female (now with five small chicks) was to promptly remove the quail from the nest and dump it several hundred metres away on the moor! This was despite the fact that she would almost certainly not have been able to provide enough prey to rear the chicks without assistance. A second attempt was made to provision the Nest 1 female by breaking the quail into several pieces before placing it in the nest. Initially, the response was the same, with the female imme- diately removing two pieces of the carcase. But the remaining pieces were accepted and it is assumed that the female used them to feed the chicks before she was later seen carrying some to a nearby rock to eat for herself. This method was used several times, before reverting to whole quail carcases, which were now accepted. Although a number of different sites were tried, > including a small table used to raise food off the ground, the Nest 1 female never accepted food that was not placed directly in the nest. The Nest 2 female was much more co-opera- tive. After accepting the carcase placed in the nest on the first occasion, she immediately began taking food for herself from a site c. 40 m from the nest. This continued for several days, during which time she left the eggs only to defe- cate and eat the food provided. However, when the eggs began to hatch, she stopped leaving the nest and so food was again placed directly into it. This continued for 15 days after the first egg hatched, when the female returned to collecting food left away from the nest. During this time, the youngest chick died from starvation, being unable to compete for food with its larger sib- lings, a common occurrence in naturally raised Hen Harrier broods. To prevent this happening to the next two youngest chicks, which were showing signs of weakness, they were force-fed in the nest each day for five days. After this time they were strong enough to compete for food provided by the female. While still making use of the food provi- sioning, both females returned to hunting once the youngest chick was about 21/2 weeks old, although neither caught enough to wholly sustain a brood of five growing chicks. Provi- sioning continued at both nests until shortly after the ten young harriers, five from each nest, had fledged. The young continued to take small amounts of the supplementary food provided for a few days after fledging but it was not long before they could be seen hunting successfully for themselves. Artificial feeding was gradually reduced over a period of a few days to ensure that the birds experienced no difficulties through a sudden cessation of provisioning. The behaviour of the chicks during our brief visits to the nest appeared to show that they were developing normally. Once they were able to stand, a defensive posture was frequently adopted, with wings out and beaks gaping, showing a normal fear response. From the age of about 2Vi weeks, they often hid in the Heather Calhina vulgaris around the nest when the nest was visited and showed no signs of becoming habituated to human visitors. Their growth also appeared to be normal; mean weight at ringing was slightly above average for young Hen Harriers in England in 2006. The progress of the young was followed closely until late August, aided by the radio transmitters British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 151-156 153 Richard Saunders Notes ( fitted to five of the chicks while still in the nest. Their habits and behaviour could not be distin- guished in any way from those of young Hen Harriers with a more normal upbringing which were monitored in the same way by the HHRP. In spring 2007, one of the young female har- riers that fledged from Nest 2 in 2006, identified by her wing tags and radio-transmitter fre- quency, was found breeding on a grouse moor in the Yorkshire Dales. Her partner was an imma- Andrew Heath 8 Trevelyan Close, Claverdon, Warwickshire CV35 8PA Helen Armstrong 83 Huntingtower Road, Sheffield SI 1 7GT > ture male of unknown origin. Five eggs were laid and hatched, and eventually one chick (almost certainly the oldest) fledged. The death of the four other chicks coincided with that summer’s relendess poor weather. This chick and the adult female were also fed artificially after the disap- pearance of the male parent three weeks prior to fledging. However, it is encouraging that this female’s unusual upbringing had not prevented her from finding a mate and breeding. EDITORIAL COMMENT Natural England’s Ian Carter has commented as follows: ‘The situation faced by fieldworkers here was a difficult one. Should nature have been allowed to take its course, which would, inevitably, have resulted in the failure of both breeding attempts, or was direct human intervention justified? When considering this question it is perhaps worth reflecting on the perilous situation faced by the Hen Harrier in England. Natural England’s Hen Harrier Recovery Project recorded just 12 suc- cessful pairs in northern England in 2006, with 46 young fledging (the figures would have been 10 suc- cessful pairs and 36 young fledged without the artificial feeding described above). ‘Another year’s worth of monitoring data has added to the already overwhelming evidence that human persecution is the main factor limiting Hen Harrier numbers. In the past six years, no adult Hen Harriers have disappeared while breeding in the Bowland Fells, Tancashire (an area where Hen Harrier persecution appears not to be an issue), whereas adult Hen Harriers ‘disappear’ from around 60% of nesting attempts on intensively managed grouse moors away from this area. These data strongly suggest that disappearances of adult birds while breeding are unnatural, supporting the case for positive human intervention. ‘Opinions will vary as to whether the use of limited conservation resources for this purpose was justified in this case. What is clear is that 10 more young fledged as a result of the intervention and the work has helped to raise awareness of the plight still facing the Hen Harrier in England.’ 92. Adult female Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus over grouse moor, Forest of Bowland, Lancashire; this particular female is the only Hen Harrier that nests regularly on driven grouse moor in the whole of England. British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 151-156 154 Notes C > Singing by female Marsh Tits: frequency and function Song has been reported from the females of many tit (Paridae) species, although it is gener- ally rare and the circumstances often ill-defined {BWP). For the Marsh Tit Poecile palustris, one study reported female song to be ‘regular’ while two others found it ‘infrequent’ ( BWP ). A further long-term study recorded no female song at all (Morley 1953). The detailed circum- stances of female song also remain unspecified. Long-term research on Marsh Tits at Monks Wood, Cambridgeshire (e.g. Broughton et al. 2006, Hinsley et al. in press), revealed a fuller picture of the frequency and function of female song in this species. Between April 2003 and March 2007, 121 female Marsh Tits were observed over 1,760 hours of field observation. Birds were individually colour-ringed and of known age. Singing was found to be very rare, being recorded from just five females (4%) on six occasions (0.7% of observation days). While males have up to eight song variants {BWP), the female songs were all of one type. This resem- bled one of the common song variants of the local males, being composed of a single note repeated four or five times and transcribed as a soft, sweet rattle: ‘tu-tu-tu-tu-tu’. This is in con- trast to the information given in BWP, where female song units are said to be ‘more variable [than those of the male], not exactly repeated’; and while one song was recorded as having a slurred terminal note, all others were of even quality. Female song was also described as less loud than that of the male but, in my study, volume depended on context. The six song observations at Monks Wood could be assigned to two distinct contextual categories: 1. Signalling the female’s location and attracting the male - characterised by low- volume song in intra-pair communication, used to advertise the female’s location to the male and apparently as a signal for him to join her: a) On 2nd May 2006, a three-year-old female left her nest during incubation to be fed by her mate, before both visited a pond to bathe. After several minutes, the female left the pond, emit- ting begging calls {BWP) while making her way ; back to the nest. The male had lagged 5 m ; behind, out of sight of the female, who uttered a , quiet burst of song, which immediately ! attracted the male to her side. Both then made their way back towards the nest while engaging in courtship feeding (see Morley 1953). b) On 9th May 2006, a second incubating female, aged two years, was called off the nest by her mate. The male was perched 6 m from the nest hole, probably out of sight of the emerging female. On leaving the nest, the female gave two bursts of quiet song, which immediately brought the male to meet her. Both then moved through the nearby canopy while courtship-feeding. c) On 14th June 2006, a six-year old female repeatedly sang quiedy while alone in a territory (territory A) adjacent to the one in which she had bred the previous month (territory B). Territory A was occupied by a recently widowed male, while the female’s own breeding partner remained on territory B; their brood had reached independence and dispersed only days before. The female had occupied territory A with a dif- ferent male in previous years, and may have been returning to this preferred area after parental responsibilities had ended. The function of the singing may have been to attract her breeding partner, although the presence of the widowed male may have prevented him from responding. Her movement had therefore resulted in an effec- tive desertion, so the function of the singing may also have been to attract any male. That the female subsequently paired with the widowed male over the following weeks suggests that this was successful. 2. Territorial advertisement and defence - char- acterised by loud song in extra-pair communi- cation, for the proclamation of territory ownership in antagonistic encounters: a) On 4th April 2005, a pair of first-year birds were involved in a territorial dispute with a neighbouring male. Both the neighbouring male and the female of the first-year pair were engaged in a song duel for several minutes, during which the first-year male remained silent (although he sang on other occasions). The female song was loud and similar to that of a male, although less strident. b) On 2nd March 2005, a first-year female, which had neither a territory nor a mate, was engaged in a song duel with an adult male on his territory border. The female gave numerous bursts of loud song that were similar to the song of a male yet, once more, less strident. This female subsequently bred successfully in a nearby territory, with a different male. c) On 8th March 2007, a pair of first-years both British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 151-156 155 Notes C > responded to a tape-lure of Marsh Tit songs at their territory border. Both birds sang against the tape, the female for at least ten bursts. The female song was loud, though weaker than the male’s, and the terminal note was slurred, e.g. ‘tu-tu-tu-tu-tsup’. Both contexts described above have been reported for female song in other tits, including Great Tit Parus major (Gompertz 1961), Willow Tit Poecile montana (Foster & Godfrey 1950) and Black-capped Chickadee P. atricapillus (Dixon & Stefanski 1970; Ficken et al. 1978). Such singing is rare in all of these species, as found in Marsh Tits here. Singing is common among female Coal Tits Periparus ater, however, also in situations of male absence (Goller 1987). It is unclear why some female Marsh Tits sang on some occasions but not others, and why most females did not sing at all. Out of almost 100 other territorial disputes in which females were present, none was heard to sing, even when lone females were defending territories. Similarly, other recently widowed or deserted females and other incubating females that were temporarily separated from their mates were not heard to sing. The vocalisations and social behaviour of the Poecile genus of North Amer- ican chickadees and Eurasian 'brown tits’ is very complex, however (e.g. BWP, Smith 1993, Mostrom et al. 2002), and highly specific social cues may be necessary to solicit female song, even within the two contexts identified here. References Broughton. R, K„ Hinsley, S. A., Bellamy, R E., Hill. R A., & Rothery, R 2006. Marsh Tit territories in a British broadleaved wood. Ibis 1 48: 744-752. Dixon, K. L, & Stefanski, R.A. 1970. An appraisal of the song of the Black-capped Chickadee. Wilson Bull. 82( I ): 53-62. Ficken, M. S., Ficken, R.W., & Witken, S. R. 1 978. Vocal repertoire of the Black-capped Chickadee. Auk 95: 34-T8. Foster J„ & Godfrey, C. 1 950. A study of the British Willow Tit Brit Birds 43: 35 1-360. Goller F. 1 987. Der Gesang derTannenmeise ( Parus ater): Beschreibung und kommunikative Funktion.J. Omithol. 128: 291-310. Gompertz, T 1 96 1 .The vocabulary of the Great Tit Brit Birds 54: 369-394. Hinsley, S. A., Carpenter J. E., Broughton, R. K., Bellamy, R E„ Rothery, R.Amar.A., Hewson, C.A., & Gosler A. G. In press. Habitat selection by Marsh Tits Poecile palustris in the UK. Ibis. Morley, A. 1 953. Field observations on the biology of the Marsh Tit (2) songs and call notes. Brit Birds 46: 273-280. Mostrom, A. M., Curry, R. L, & Lohr, B. 2002. Carolina Chickadee. In: Poole, A., & Gill, F. (eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 636.The Birds of North America Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Smith, S. M. 1 993. Black-capped Chickadee. In: Poole, A., & Gill, F. (eds.), The Birds of North America. No. 39.The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia PA. Richard K. Broughton, CEH, Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE28 2LS Carrion Crow attacking Grey Squirrel On 10th May 2006 at about 05.15 hrs, I was watching a Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis on the ground from my kitchen window in Liver- pool. Almost directly above the squirrel, high in an Ash Fraxinus excelsior tree, a pair of Carrion Crows Corvus corone had a nest with two unfledged young. One of the crows appeared in the air overhead and the squirrel made a frantic dash for the nearest tree as the crow flew down. The squirrel leapt the last metre and landed on the tree a second before the crow grabbed at it. In the brief struggle which followed, the squirrel was knocked to the ground. The crow’s impetus took it a couple of metres past the squirrel as the latter ran and leapt onto another tree. The squirrel spiralled up and around the trunk of the tree for approximately 2 m, with the crow fol- lowing it. Eventually the crow pulled the squirrel from the tree and flew away with it, out of my sight into the tree canopy. I am quite certain that the crow pulled or dragged the squirrel from the tree using its feet, as I had a clear view of this. As the crow flew away from me, I could see only the tail of the squirrel properly as it was carried off; I assumed that the crow was carrying the squirrel in its feet but cannot be absolutely certain that it had not transferred the creature to its beak by that stage. The whole incident lasted for about 25 seconds, the initial capture at a distance of no more than 20-30 m from my vantage point. Doug Messenger, 103 Hampstead Road, Liverpool L6 8NQ EDITORIAL COMMENT Attacks by breeding Carrion Crows on Grey Squirrels have already been recorded in BB (e.g. Brit. Birds 42: 211-212); in this case, the possibility that the squirrel was carried off in the corvid’s feet makes the observation of particular interest - this behaviour would be normal 1 for raptors but is exceptional for crows. British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 151-156 156 Reviews BRITISH BIRDS INTERACTIVE (BBD Produced by BirdGuides, in association with British Birds, 2007. DVD-ROM containing Vols. 1-99 of the journal British Birds. ISBN 978-1-898110-46-0. £99.00. It has been a personal aim for several decades to acquire a com- plete set of the main journals that I subscribe to, including, of course, BB. What accounts for this desire is somewhat mysterious but I guess it is in part attributable to the ‘listing instinct’ embedded deep within my psyche. This is satiated by the broad sweep of colourful journal spines neatly arrayed on gently sagging shelves in my living room. Add to this the rationale that occa- sionally I will need to follow up a reference to an old paper - and how frustrating if it transpires that it was published just before my col- lection starts, in the mid 1970s or, worse still, in one of my dreaded ‘mislaid’ issues. In the mid 1990s I joined the world of publishing, where it seemed that the top publishers of scientific journals were hell-bent on a race (now largely complete) to digitise their entire archives. These collections were in some cases both enormous (my employer, Elsevier, being responsible for some 1,800 journals) and venerable (the Lancet , for example, will soon be celebrating its 200th anniversary). Since then, the contrast with small independent publishers of popular bird journals, including BB, has been marked: no electronic abstracts, contents lists, PDFs, e-mailed contents alerts... in short, no sig- nificant digital presence at all. Electronic progress was in danger of passing these journals by, leaving them and their fabulous archive of past content marooned, to be read only by their faithful subscribers or those lucky enough to have a nearby university library. Their publishers seemed in dire need of a shake-up that would put the journals back in touch with the outside world, that of search- engine-savvy, PC-connected, modern users. Thus it was with great relief that I learnt, in 2006, that the directors of BB were col- laborating with BirdGuides to produce a digital archive of the entire BB content published between 1907 and 2006 to coincide with their centenary celebrations. Those at BirdGuides are widely acclaimed for their digital nous and energy in delivering superb products such as BWPz to the market, but also had the financial muscle to ensure that BB itself remained focused on its core role - delivering timely, high-quality ornithological papers, news and analysis to the birding community. In short, a well-thought-out col- laboration. Right from the start there were important decisions: should the archive be complete or divided up?; include all the text or just the main papers?; correct the errata or leave them untouched?; be web-based or written to DVD?; and, that old chestnut, be priced affordably or be a post-mortgage retirement aspira- tion? With such issues resolved, progress was admirably swift, testa- ment to the prior experience of the BirdGuides team, who, together with their partners, especially the software house Skylark Associates and the BB board, must be con- gratulated for working together to ensure delivery on time, at the Birdfair, on 17th August 2007. Receiving my copy in its neatly designed protective ‘jewel case’, becrowned with a shot of a Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus in a some- what contemplative pose, I couldn’t help but contemplate the wonders of this digital age. Here, on a single DVD, lay the collective thoughts, opinions and observations of several generations of Britain’s (and at times Ireland’s too!) best ornithologists. The archive’s vital statistics make impressive reading: 40,000 scanned pages, 18,000 images and 9,000 articles, the entire dataset being flagged with basic descriptors (‘metadata’ in today’s digital slang) allowing rapid searching, filtering of results and selection of the reader’s desired content. After slotting the magic disc into the computer, the installa- tion ‘wizard’ duly appeared and a few clicks later I had on-screen a promise of a password that would soon be winging its way to my — ©British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 157-164 157 Reviews C e-mail address (one of several measures against fraudulent misuse). Literally a minute later, the e-mail arrived bearing the promised password and I was soon enjoying my first sight of the data- base itself. It’s at this point that the com- mendably rapid progress so far will slow, when users unfamiliar with the BWPi-derived system meet the product’s user interface for the first time. On starting up, three ‘windows’ will open - a 'Publica- tion Navigator’ window, an ‘Asset Selector’ window and an ‘Asset Browser’ window. Together, they might seem rather demanding at first sight, and indeed an under- standing of each window quickly becomes essential to make efficient use of the product’s undoubted talents. It’s a bit like a car, where initially you have a basic under- standing of the layout and meaning of the gauges in the driver’s instru- ment binnacle but, with time, comes familiarity, and rapid progress from the ‘learner’ phase becomes more confident, needing only superficial glances at the ‘instruments’. This initial lack of familiarity with something that no longer behaves in the simplistic manner of a journal’s pages might well be off-putting for some users, and their experience could, sadly, I have to admit, end there. But, of course, I urge some devotion to the cause as the benefits to be gained from a fuller understanding of the product will enrich your experi- ence of the archive immeasurably, and many of the ‘bells and whistles’ can, after all, be left silent in the background. Key to the user’s ability to display the DVD’s content is gaining an understanding of the options offered by the rather splendid ‘Publication Navigator’. The Navigator comes primed to display one of three possible main indexes accessed through a ‘pull- down menu’: first, the intuitive and essential ‘British Birds interactive’ index arranged by volume and issue (from Vol. 1, issue 1 to Vol. 99, issue 12); next a ‘BBi Species Index’; and finally a ‘BBi Topic Index’. The first index is useful for general browsing in chronological order or darting straight to a spe- cific issue. The second is handy for finding information on individual species, listing an impressive c. 970 species (alphabetically by English, International or scientific name). Clicking on any species presents all major articles, letters, notes and illustrations in the archive relating directly to that species. The final navigator option (and my personal favourite), the BBi Topic Index, features a list of 28 main topic areas representing the BB content, defined within topic headings such as ‘Ecology’, ‘Photography’, ‘Weather/ Climate’, some of which are further subdivided. All signifi- cant articles and graphics ever published have been assigned metadata to allow the content to be displayed in this topic-led arrange- ment. For each of the above-described Navigators, distinguishing between the different types of article or graphic, whether they be the com- ponent parts of an individual issue or, for example, every piece of information on the House Sparrow, is the job of the second of the three main database windows, the Asset Selector window. This presents information on 11 BB article types (Articles, Letters, Recent Reports, etc.) but is also primed to list ‘assets’ such as pho- tographs and charts. These results can be displayed in both text form or as colour-coded ‘thumbnails’, which is extremely useful for men- tally ‘sieving’ the results to get to the most useful articles quickly. Like all the best database tools, the product allows the user to click on checkbox lists to allow, for example, the finding of Articles while deliberately excluding Letters or Notes, etc. to narrow down the list of browsable results. Having found an article or graphic that warrants more detailed examination, you simply double-click the icon in the Asset Selector window to view it opti- mally in the third main window, 3 ! the Asset Browser window. This is the main interface for users to view ■ the search results or a single item 1 of selected content. Files open up | as full-colour files in PDF format for article texts and as JPEGs for photos. Accompanying browser tools allow the size of the article or image to be scaled larger or smaller : to aid ease of viewing, while arrows i allow the user to proceed back and . forth efficiently between recently visited articles and to flit quickly I up and down the pages within each ; article. Impressively, there are options to allow advanced users to I open up a second, parallel, browser, allowing side-by-side comparison of content, especially useful for comparing images of similar species. And for those who really want to stretch the bound- aries of digital products there are i the means to create your own ‘drag i and drop’ compendia of assets. In these, you can mix text, images and charts, effectively creating your own hybrid publications that can be saved as ‘snapshots’ to be ■ retrieved at a later date. So, how is it to use? The product rarely crashes, and searches, even when conducted : through the DVD rather than a saved (c. 6 Gb) copy of the archive, , are tolerably rapid. You must be prepared to invest a little time to I understand how the product works, and the local (DVD-based) and online ‘help’ files are thor- oughly recommended. Don’t expect to be bowled over by the scanned image quality either; this, is adequate rather than stunning because of the need to scan printed pages (leaving visible moire pat- terns and somewhat underexposed blacks) rather than using electronic source files. Do expect to be beguiled by the rich resources that were formerly inaccessible! For me, the most satisfying and novel way to browse the archive was to dispense with the ‘volume and issue’ format and use the Navi- gator to present the contents in Topic Index format, giving me, for example, the unparalleled oppor- tunity to sift through the biogra- 158 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 157-164 Reviews C > phies of over 50 ‘personalities’, from Turner to Tulloch, spanning nearly half a millennium of British ornithology. Next, turning for example to the Migration topic category, who could fail to be tempted by Witherby’s migration notes from Holy Island from the autumn of 1912 or Wallace’s account of the events of October 1971 on St Agnes? It will also prove a goldmine for the creator of the next Trivial Pursuit game for birders: which well-known person- ality mistakenly alerted the air-sea rescue services after ‘scoping a ‘parachutist’ landing on a Kent beach (it was actually an Action Man toy!)? Yes, I have to admit it - I am becoming as hooked on BBi as I am on the real BB. . . Could future releases improve the product? Technology-led appli- cations have a habit of eclipsing past editions with dizzying ease. No doubt future releases of BBi will be similarly impressive, allowing even greater interaction THE BIRD SONGS OF EUROPE, NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST (MP3 EDITION) By Andreas Schulze and Karl-Heinz Dingier. Musikverlag Edition AMPLE, Rosenheim, 2007. Two MP3 discs containing 2,817 tracks of 819 species. Order number 329.490-2MP3, ISBN 978-3-938147-01-6. £55.00. A review of an earlier edition of this excellent collection of Western Palearctic bird sounds has already appeared in BB (Brit. Birds 97: 307-308). In short, this version appears to be exactly the same as the earlier edition, but is published in MP3 format. As a result, the entire j collection comes on just two discs rather than as a set of 17 audio CDs. This collection includes over 19 hours of high-quality recordings of the voices of 819 species (although the taxonomy followed is a little eso- teric). As well as featuring regularly with the same basic starting content. Indeed, while writing this review, two useful updates to BBi became available on the BirdGuides website, further improving the species indexes. Among numerous possible adjust- ments, I can imagine future archives possessing improved at-a- glance presentation of the year or volume of search results. More recent images could be digitised from source files to optimise their appearance. Links could be gener- ated to the abstracts of article ref- erences on other databases via hyperlinks in the PDF files. Finally, perhaps future issues of BB could have electronic presentation built into the production cycle to assist uploading to a server from which subscribers could download annual compendia to add to their archive. To this could be added the trendy aspiration to make the journal conform to a type of ‘open access’ model, meaning unlimited access online to all content, even for non- occurring Western Palearctic species, the discs include the calls or songs of several vagrants from North America and Asia. Particularly useful is the fact that different types of vocalisation are assigned to sepa- rate tracks so that songs and calls can be listened to separately. In total there are 2,817 separate tracks and the total number of recordings is even higher as some tracks contain multiple recordings. MP3 format is well suited for transfer to portable players such as iPods, PDAs or smartphones, and I was able to ‘rip’ the tracks to a PC hard drive using Real Player (I ini- tially tried Windows Media Player but it didn’t want to co-operate, though that may have been down to my own technical shortcomings rather than the file format). Tracks are bundled into folders corres- ponding to the original CD numbers so that the same indexing system applies to both formats. Transferring tracks to a portable player (in this instance a Nokia E61 Smartphone) was then very simple, which is not always the case with subscribers, after a rolling embargo period. At less than £1 per volume and with a Vol. 100 addendum immi- nent1, this compendium is a truly exceptional and affordable product that will pay dividends to amateur and professional birdwatchers alike and will promote the efficiency of ornithological research. Even if you already possess a substantial set of journals, BBi’s interactive nature will open up new avenues of pro- ductive browsing. It deserves to be bought by anyone with an interest in British birds or, indeed, British Birds, the journal that has done more than any other to define the past century of popular British ornithology. David H. Hatton 1 Vol. 100 will be available shortly as a download from the BirdGuides website, free to all those who have bought BBi. Full details will be given in BB as soon as possible. non-MP3 file formats. A small booklet contains a basic English-language index giving species name and track numbers (along with indexes of German, French and scientific names). The bumph on the back of the disc case states that fuller track details will be displayed when played on a PC or MP3 player, but this seems to apply to only some MP3 devices, not the Nokia E61 anyway. Full track infor- mation in English is available on a downloadable 58-page PDF here: www.birdsongs.de/ birdsongs.pdf (a useful source of contents informa- tion for prospective buyers). This includes details of the type of vocali- sation and the number of separate recordings. For example, for Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus you are given the following details: 14/67 0:00 - 0:22 - 0:53 Song of male. 14/68 0:00 - 0:11 Calls. This means that CD 14, track 67 contains two recordings of the song (one lasting 22 seconds followed by another lasting 31 seconds), and track 68 contains 1 1 seconds’ worth of calls. Details of species (avian and non- 159 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 157-164 c avian) heard in the background on some tracks are also given. As noted in the earlier review, it is regrettable that location details for each recording are not provided and it is to be hoped that this Reviews information will eventually be included in a future edition of the PDF. All in all, though, this is the most comprehensive collection of Western Palearctic bird sounds ) currently available, the quality is | very impressive indeed and the | price reasonable. Highly recom- , mended. Chris Kehoe THE BIRDS OF KAZAKHSTAN By Arend Wassink and Gerald J. Oreel. Privately published, De Cocksdorp, Texel, 2007. 288 pages; 488 maps; 70 colour photographs. ISBN 978-90-81 1462-1-0. Hardback, £44.99. Kazakhstan is now firmly on the birder’s map - from being an obscure Soviet republic two decades ago, where visitors were generally unwelcome, it is now an increasingly popular destination for those with a sense of adventure and a yearning for Asia. The country still lacks a proper field guide, and birders have to get by with a combination of books from surrounding areas. Until recently, there was not even a complete list of its birds in English. Then in 2005, Edward and Audrey Gavrilov published The Birds of Kazakhstan (Tethys Ornithological Research II), an unillustrated annotated checklist based on personal research and full access to the Russian literature. It was published in Almaty (the former capital), and although in English, it remains almost impossible to find in the West. The glossier and more compact volume under review is much more accessible. Privately published by the authors in The Netherlands, it is also in English and is readily available. After a short but useful intro- duction to this huge region of Central Asia, illustrated with some good habitat photographs and a few maps, the bulk of the book comprises the species accounts. With an average of 2-3 species per page, each account includes (where relevant) information on sub- species, status, habitat, distribution and migration. The accounts are generally brief with the bulk of the text devoted to distribution. Breeding species are accompanied by a distribution map, occasionally with a second or third map for dif- ferent subspecies, and a bar diagram depicting the species’ presence throughout the year. On the face of it, the maps look very attractive. The county is divided into the 13 provinces and presence or absence is denoted by different shades of green. The main problem with the maps is the very broad picture they present. Each of the provinces is the size of a small country, and even a single instance of breeding merits the entire province being shaded. Neverthe- less, they do give a general idea of a species’ range and more detailed information is often to be found in the text. The emphasis given to sub- species is commendable, especially as many birders are increasingly aware of subspecific variation, and this is a useful feature of the book. Taxonomy and nomenclature are up to date with current thinking, although I was a little surprised to I find no fewer than six full species ! in the Yellow Wagtail Motacilla i flava complex and three in the i White Wagtail M. alba complex, as j well as a few other splits that have not yet gained wide acceptance. ; The book concludes with an j appendix of rejected taxa, a gazetteer of localities and a bibliog- | raphy. The last includes many ref- ; erences to the Kazakhstan Ornithological Bulletin, although none of these includes the titles of | the papers, nor are they referenced in the text. There is more detail in the more academic Gavrilov checklist j| (which also includes identification j criteria for some species and much ' breeding data), and presumably the ; authors of the present volume have ; benefited from the many years of . dedicated research by the Gavrilovs. Nevertheless, a great deal of diligent work has gone into i this newer book, which is easier to , use and carry around. A great bonus is the inclusion of 48 superb j colour portraits of the region’s j special birds. As the authors acknowledge, there is still much to learn about Kazakhstan’s birds and j this book will be indispensable for any birder visiting the region. Let’s j hope that it also promotes wider exploration of this wonderful country. Nigel Redman SKOMER: PORTRAIT OF A WELSH ISLAND By Jane Matthews. Graffeg Publishing, Cardiff, 2007. 159 pages; colour photographs. ISBN 978-1905582-08-2. Paperback, £14.99. The bulk of this book is made up of a sumptuous collection of stun- ning photographs which amply demonstrate why Skomer is still one of the most beautiful places in Britain. If you have ever visited the island and been touched by its beauty, then a flick through the pages of this book will take you back there again and again. From start to finish this book does indeed paint a picture of the island, its history, its current status J and what is actually involved in running a National Nature Reserve. ; These different aspects are cap- j tured in chapters on Water, Land- scape, Populations, Display, | Routine and Nightlife, among others. The book is not crammed 160 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 157-164 Reviews C with text, it isn’t intended to be, but the passages contained within do provide an insight into the island’s life and the photograph captions present a wealth of facts and figures. The book is well written, well researched, accurate and virtually flawless. It contains over 100 colour photographs, as well as a map of the island, general visiting infor- mation and a number of individual pieces of writing that further enhance the book and capture the island’s atmosphere. Jane Matthews has done a first-class job of pulling this together and her passion for a place where she now lives (but intended to visit for only a week) is evident with each page. Half the royalties from the book will be donated to The THE BIRDS OF LUNDY By Tim Davis and Tim Jones. Devon Bird Watching & Preservation Society and Lundy Field Society, Berrynarbor, Devon, 2007. 319 pages; over 100 line- drawings; photographs; maps. ISBN: 978-0-954-0088-7-1. Paperback, £18.95. ISBN: 978-0-954-0088-8-8. Hardback, £35.00. During the last decade, I have visited Lundy on ten occasions with fellow Cambridgeshire birders Ade and Steve Cooper. Our main references regarding the status of Lundy birds until now have been the collection of annual reports contained within our accommoda- tion. This volume has changed all that. The book is the first devoted to Lundy birds since Nick Dymond’s Birds of Lundy published back in 1980. It includes a clear map as well as artwork of the high stan- dard expected from Mike Langman. Introductory sections include a portrait of the island, bird conservation on Lundy, a chronology of Lundy ornithology, ringing, Lundy’s breeding birds and four suggested walks. These are followed by the main section of the book, the systematic list plus asso- ciated appendices, which together run to 242 pages. The systematic list is bang up to date. It includes records up to 25th August 2007 and deals with the 317 species on the ‘full’ island list. The species accounts are highly read- able and blend facts with inter- esting titbits. See, for example, the Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto account for the fate of some of the migrants, the Richard’s Pipit Anthus richardi account for a com- prehensive review of all claimed Lundy records, and the Great Auk Pinguinus impennis account con- tained within the ‘unsubstantiated’ section. Lundy has long been famed as a migration site, and its isolated island nature leads to some intriguing and unexpected statis- tics. For instance, species with a single island record include Goosander Mergus merganser , Eurasian Bittern Botaurus stellaris , Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus, and both Marsh Poecile palustris and Willow Tits P. montana, as well as the sole British records of Ancient Murrelet Synth- liboramphus antiquus. Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe and Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythroph- thalmusl Also of interest to rare- bird aficionados is a record thought to refer to Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius. Tables show that 85,741 birds of 172 species were ringed on Lundy between 1947 and 2006, and some of the movements detailed within the species accounts are most enlight- ening. Reading this volume while on the island may lead one to spec- ulate where the next birds are coming from, as ringing recoveries have linked Lundy with many of the major migration sites within the UK. In conservation terms perhaps the most important breeding species on Lundy is the Manx Shearwater Pufftnus puffinus. Until recently the island had a huge rat Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales, which I think is a fantastic idea. Would I buy this book? Yes, absolutely, because it won’t be sitting on the bookshelf for too long in between me picking it out and thumbing through its pages. Mike Wallen population (both Brown Rattus norvegicus and Black Rats R. rattus), but an intensive trapping campaign has led to their eradica- tion. Lundy was officially declared ‘rat free’ in 2006; this coincided with successful nesting by Manx Shearwaters and Puffins Fratercula arctica and no doubt benefited the latest addition to the list of breeding birds - Water Rail Rallus aquaticus, which bred in 2007. All are fully detailed here. The endnotes contain some 228 references to specific records, revealing the thoroughness of this work. Checking through some of the more significant records from our visits, I noticed a few errors. The authors have, however, indi- cated in conversation their hope to update this volume, perhaps via a website. Re-reading my notes from a visit in October 2007 and refer- ring to this book reveals that we shared in the highest-ever Lundy day counts of Arctic Skuas Stercor- arius parasiticus. Yellow-browed Warblers Phylloscopus inornatus and Siskins Carduelis spinus, in addition to the first claim of Blyth’s Pipit Anthus godlewskii for the island. It is certain that there will be further significant records to be included in any future update. To quote the authors, ‘Whether you have already being visiting Lundy for many years or are a new- comer to the island... we hope you will find within these pages much that is informative and enter- taining and that will add to your enjoyment of Lundy and its birds.’ In this they have surely succeeded. Richard Patient British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 157-164 161 Reviews C THE BIRDS OF SCOTLAND Edited by R. W. Forrester and I. J. Andrews, with C. J. Mclnerny, R. D. Murray, R. Y. McGowan, B. Zonfrillo, M. W. Betts, D. C. lardine and D. S. Grundy. Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady, 2007. Two volumes, 1,634 pages; 900 colour photographs and 1,500 maps and charts. ISBN 978-0-9512139-0-2. Hardback, £75.00 (two volumes). It would be very hard not to be impressed by this epic two-volume work - ‘ BS3 ’ — which follows the previous Birds of Scotland (1953) by Baxter and Rintoul, and Birds in Scotland (1986) by Thom, them- selves inspired by Harvie-Brown’s pioneering Vertebrate Faunas (1887-1904). It represents a superb, authoritative and compre- hensive project, which contains much information from primary sources that was previously unpub- lished. There are several introductory chapters describing various aspects of the historical and present-day avifauna of Scotland in relation to changing habitats and the environ- ment, as well as covering the major milestones in bird recording in Scotland and the network of ornithological recording that exists today. Of particular interest are the potted biographies of a selection of ornithologists who were particu- larly influential in the development of the Scottish scene. In conventional avifauna style, the species accounts form the major part of the book, and each species gets its own ‘chapter’, typi- cally 3-4 pages, usually less for extreme rarities, which includes records up to the end of 2004. There is an appendix listing sup- plementary records of rare birds in 2005/06. The taxonomy follows mostly that of the BOU, and is fully up to date as of January 2008, though there are some differences in the details, which appear to derive from the decision to use The ‘Clements’ Checklist of Birds of the World (Clements, 2007) for taxa not on the British List. The vernac- ular species names also follow BOU, except for Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus, which is retained as ‘Red Grouse’, presumably for sentimental and political reasons! Within the species accounts, the usual summary details on status, world range, taxonomy, habitat and alternative names (including Gaelic) are given. I find it hard to believe that there is an authentic Scottish Gaelic name for Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, but then again I find it hard to believe the record as well. The details are impressive and authoritative. For extreme rarities, summaries of all records are given. Nice touches include the decisions to include (in square brackets) summary details of records of rari- ties that were accepted pre-1958 but that are now no longer accept- able (to ensure that they are not entirely lost from the record), and also the locations in museums of important extant specimens. Important pre-1900 records have been re-researched using the primary literature. Full summary descriptions of population trends, breeding ecology, status and threats are included within the species accounts for commoner birds, and, throughout, there are numerous tables and histograms demon- strating features of occurrence pat- terns. A particular feature of the book is the inclusion of high- quality photographs, taken exclu- sively within Scotland. For the small number of species where no Scottish-sourced photograph was available, there is a black-and- white illustration - these are mostly rare Nearctic passerines, though surprisingly there appears to be no photograph of any Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea from Scotland. The species accounts are Scotland-centric, of course, without being parochial - this book is of international interest. There are adequate refer- II ences to studies and data from the 1 1 rest of the UK or Europe when e appropriate, although there could have been more explicit compar- ' i isons - for example, is a breeding Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus in Oxfordshire any different from a breeding Blue Tit in Perth and Kinross? The production and look of the book is excellent. The review copy ji had the first 16 pages of Volume 1 ■ in the wrong order, but I have not i heard of this happening to anyone • else’s copy. A valuable aspect of the I species accounts is the full and sep- arate treatment, under major sub- ; n headings, of each subspecies that is W accepted as having occurred in Scotland. Unfortunately, this is II accompanied by the universal application of vernacular English ; names for these subspecies, even in cases where no generally recog- : nised English name existed before, ll Inventions such as Western Herring Gull for Larus argentatus ' I argenteus. Continental Lesser Black-backed Gull for L. fuscus Ije intermedius. Western Yellow- I hammer for Emberiza citrinella caliginosa and Levant Desert Wheatear for Oenanthe deserti deserti do nothing but give the ] book a 1920s feel. This practice is 1 inconsistent, arbitrary, and poten- tially confusing. For example, ll under Common Linnet Carduelis cannabina , the nominate sub- species is called Eurasian Common Linnet whereas C. c. autochthona is Scottish Linnet rather than Scottish Common Linnet, giving near- species status to Scotland’s most boring endemic. Under Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita, P. c. abietinus is called Scandinavian Chiffchaff whereas P. c. tristis gets called a slightly doubtful ‘Siberian Chiffchaff, in quotes, whereas the nominate subspecies is subheaded as just Common Chiffchaff rather than (presumably) Western Common Chiffchaff. In contrast, Tyto alba alba , rather than just being called Barn Owl becomes the imprecise White-breasted Barn Owl, and Lanius isabellinus 162 British Birds 101 * March 2008 • 157-164 Reviews C isabellinus is called Daurian Shrike, not even Daurian Isabelline Shrike, perhaps in anticipation of a split. The system, and there are many more examples, also means that for polytypic species where only one subspecies has occurred in Scot- land, that subspecies does not get its own vernacular name. This leads to an inability to recognise Lophophanes cristatus scoticus as Scottish Crested Tit. But let’s get real: the fact that this is all I can find to gripe about does tend to indicate that the authors and editors have done a very good job here. One can imagine John Alexander Harvie- Brown sat in his armchair in 1916, corpulent, wheezing and nearly dead. If he had been able to see a copy of this book, he could have known that his legacy was in good hands, and that Scotland would once again pioneer a new standard in avifaunas. Martin Collinson TRUE TO FORM By David Bennett. Langford Press, Peterborough, 2007. 176 pages, many with full-page and most with some illustrations. ISBN 978-1-904078-30-2. Hardback, £38.00. While I suspect that most of us (me included) know very little about bird art, we birders tend to have fairly firm ideas as to what we like and dislike. Inevitably, our views are strongly coloured by our attitude to identification guides, in one form or another, where we are looking for detail and pinpoint accuracy - plus that absolutely essential ingredient we call jizz. We instinctively know whether the illustrations are ‘good’ and are quick to say if they are not. Things get a lot more difficult when you cross that blurred and often indistinct line from illustra- tion to art. Then it all becomes subjective and likes and dislikes become highly personal things. It ATLAS OF THE BIRDS OF DELHI AND HARYANA By Bill Harvey, Nikhil Devasar and Bikram Grewal. Rupa 8t Co, New Delhi, in association with Oriental Bird Club, 2006. 352 pages; colour photographs; distribution maps. ISBN 978-81-291-0954-1. Paperback, £38.99. This book presents bird records for the Indian states of Delhi (a city state with a human population of BETWEEN THE TIDES By John Threlfall. Langford Press, Peterborough, 2007. 168 pages, most with full- or part-page illustrations. ISBN 978-1-904078-23-4. Hardback, £38.00. was with these rather disturbing general thoughts in mind that I looked at these two large and beau- tifully produced books, new volumes in the highly acclaimed Langford Press Wildlife Art Series. David Bennett’s book is designed to resemble a sort of big field sketchbook, with both quick drawings and fully finished pic- tures. It took me a little while to get used to his style, in particular the way some of the finished portraits crowd out the page, but I grew to like them very much as I browsed more. His mammals are great, and if I had to pick anything from the wealth of bird pictures, I might go very strongly for the Ring Ouzels Turdus torquatus. . . you can almost well over 15 million) and the much more rural Haryana, from 1970 to May 2006. An introductory section includes general accounts and numerous photographs of the more important habitats and birding sites, details of the so- called atlas project and method- ology, and a summary of significant changes in bird popula- tions during the last 35 years. Each of 266 commoner species is dealt with on a single page fea- turing two colour photographs, a text covering aspects of plumage, habitat and habits, seasonality, diet. smell the vegetation, and hear the skirling song. John Threlfall’s volume is very different and produced along alto- gether more formal lines. It restricts itself to estuaries and their times and seasons, and is partly poetic in its text treatment. The style here is also very different, with bold use of colours and con- trasts and what, as a layman, I can only describe as a frequently high risk and adventurous approach to the subject. The results are gener- ally very pleasing, and in some cases outstanding. Again, I could smell the place, and feel the wind on my face, and hear that won- derful wader noise that makes our estuaries so special. You must make up your own minds about books like these. I liked them both very much, largely I think because they reminded me of so many hours in the field in so many different places. I hope we shall see many further volumes in this splendid series. Mike Everett vocalisations, etc. (but not all for each species), and two atlas-style distribution maps. The Delhi map has 24 x 6’ ( 1 / 1 0th of a degree) grid squares, while the Haryana map shows 27 x 30’ (half a degree) grid squares. A system of colour-coded circles depicts records of presence and proved breeding for residents and summer visitors and records of passage migrants and winter visi- tors. However, using different-sized grid squares for the two adjacent distribution maps is confusing, and neither is small enough to properly represent the pattern of occurrence British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 157-164 163 c and highlight areas of no coverage. The recently published Birds in Bhutan (Spierenburg 2005), dealing with a mountainous country with a significantly smaller overall area, contained far more meaningful distribution maps. Reviews There follows 43 pages of short texts covering some 252 scarcer species (many restricted to the hilly country in the extreme northeast of Haryana), 88 of these illustrated with a colour photograph. This is an attractive and well- > produced book that will hopefully encourage many more Indian resi- dents to take up birdwatching, and a Hindi edition would no doubt help to achieve that. Nick Dymond THE ORNITHOLOGIST’S DICTIONARY By lohannes Erritzoe, Kaj Kampp, Kevin Winker and Clifford Frith. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, 2007. 290 pages; many black-and- white illustrations. ISBN 978-84-96553-43-9. Paperback, £12.99. The subtitle of this slimline volume 'ornithological and related technical terms for layman and expert’ sets out, in a nutshell, what it hopes to achieve. It is superficially similar to The Birdwatcher’s Dictionary, pub- lished by Poyser in 1981 (out of print but available second-hand and free online!) but is far more comprehensive and includes many more technical terms totalling more than 5,000 entries. The defi- nitions are mainly short, snappy and to the point, although longer entries are provided where neces- sary to explain a term adequately. One of the book’s stated pur- poses is to assist individuals in reading the English scientific litera- ture. Some fairly simple terms are included on the basis that many readers will not have English as their first language. This approach is understandable, although the inclusion of very simple words such as ‘bird’, ‘egg’ and ‘eye’ is arguably taking things a little too far. The inclusion of frequently used statistical terms is extremely FEATHERS: IDENTIFICATION FOR BIRD CONSERVATION By Marian Cieslak and Boleslaw Dul. Natura Publishing House, Warsaw, 2006. 320 pages; 259 colour illustrations, tables. ISBN 978-83-924410-0-7. Hardback, £25.99. This interesting book is an expanded English-language version of an earlier work (published in Polish in 1999) that was written to assist conservationists, foresters and ornithologists in identifying the wing and tail feathers of certain rare and protected birds. The present volume’s coverage has been extended to deal with 60 species, of which no fewer than 38 are either diurnal raptors (Falconiformes) or owls (Strigiformes). As a compar- ison, five of the most commonly kept domesticated bird species are also included in an appendix. A 28-page introduction briefly discusses a number of relevant topics, these including, for example, feather morphology and the book’s structure. Following this are 14 chapters, each of which covers a particular grouping of birds (though these groupings are not always of closely related species: for instance, Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus is included with four species of small falcon Falco). The level of coverage contained in these sections is often impressive. To take just two exam- ples, the wing and tail feathers of three Buteo species (Long-legged B. rufinus. Rough-legged B. lagopus and Common Buzzard B. buteo - the last including not only nomi- useful, as are the entries for the main bird conservation organisa- tions and their journals from around the world. I thought I detected a slight American bias in a few places with, for example, an entry for jaeger but not skua, and one for the US Migratory Bird Treaty Act but nothing on the EU Birds Directive. The Breeding Bird Survey is listed but this is the annual roadside survey undertaken in the US and Canada, not the BTO survey of the same name. These are no more than minor quibbles. This is a very useful book and has already found a home on my desk well within arm’s reach. Ian Carter nate buteo but also vulpinus, the ‘Steppe Buzzard’) are scrutinised and compared over 18 pages and 19 colour plates. Similarly, four species of harrier (Marsh Circus' aeruginosus. Hen C. cyaneusA Montagu’s C. pygargus and Pallid C. macrourus) are dealt with in 20 pages and 21 colour plates. Despite the restricted number of species covered, and the bias towards diurnal raptors and owls (limitations that the authors freely, acknowledge), there is little doubt in my mind that many European field ornithologists will welcome, this book and find it an invaluable, reference. Hopefully, an enter- prising publisher will commission the production of similar volumes | to cover a much wider range of: species. Pete Combridge 164 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 157-164 Rarities Committee news Siberian Chiffchaffs in Britain Establishing the status of ‘Siberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita tristis in Britain has long been problematic. Central to this problem is the correct identifica- tion of the form - the difficulties of separating true Siberian tristis (originating largely east of the Yenisey) and ‘ fulvescens ’ (on the West Siberian Plain) from abietinus (from Scandinavia and western Russia, west of the Urals ) continue to plague both observers and records committees. In particular, it has become obvious that dif- ferent observers (and indeed records committees) have varying perceptions of what constitutes true tristis and therefore apply dif- ferent threshold criteria for accept- ance into the local record. The recording of this form across Britain can therefore be described as uneven at best and has never been attempted nationally. Conse- quently, our knowledge of the true British status of tristis is incom- plete and we do not yet know definitively whether tristis can best be described as ‘scarce but regular’ I or ‘rare but regular’. Fortunately, three factors have now combined to help us move forward. Firstly, Alan Dean and Lars Svensson have provided welcome clarification over the iden- tification of this form (Brit. Birds 98: 396-410; see also 100: 497-499 and pp. 146-149). Secondly, digital photography has greatly increased the availability of good-quality images of birds in the field, while Similar improvements in sound- recording technology have made recording voice increasingly fea- sible. Thirdly, BBRC is increasingly concerned with the recording of subtle or rare bird forms not previ- ously assessed (see Brit. Birds 99: | 519-645). As a result, we now have :he opportunity to make progress ■vith the Siberian Chiffchaff issue. 'dentification 3 brief resume of the conclusions of Dean 8c Svensson may be useful here. In short, the traditional view that any Common Chiffchaff lacking green in the crown and mantle and lacking yellow in the face and underparts can be labelled tristis has now been refined. True tristis is defined additionally by the presence of pale brown or grey- brown hues above and the presence of warm buff in the supercilium, ear-coverts, breast-sides and flanks. The form ‘fulvescens’ is similar, though may be a little paler overall and may show very limited yellow and olive hues. This clarification has in turn highlighted the problem of ‘grey-and-white’ Chiff- chaffs, which may include eastern abietinus and intergrades between abietinus and tristis, and which match aspects of the traditional view of tristis. However, when they also lack the pale grey-brown and buff hues now firmly linked with tristis, they cannot be assigned to it. In summary, the identification of tristis rests on the following cri- teria: • Absence of olive in the crown and mantle. • Absence of yellow away from the underwing. • Presence of a grey-brown or pale brown hue in the upper- parts. • Presence of warm buff in the supercilium and ear-coverts. • Presence of buff at the breast- sides/flanks. • Very black-looking bill and legs. • A thin, piping, near-monosyl- labic call resembling that of Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula or Dunnock Prunella modularis. • A song markedly different from that of western Common Chiff- chaffs. First steps to better recording We have decided that 2008 should be a trial year in which to try to gain a deeper understanding of the British status of tristis. BBRC is therefore seeking submissions of all Common Chiffchaffs in 2008 con- sidered to be tristis according to the criteria outlined above. Submis- sions may take any of the following forms, but observers and recorders should try to ensure that as many categories of evidence as possible are secured. It is worth empha- sising that any records committee assessing claims of tristis will be reliant on descriptions and photo- graphs which accurately capture critical plumage hues. The precise analysis and description of such hues is therefore vital. Field descriptions Field descriptions will be an important source of information but (particularly when not accom- panied by images or recordings) must be very detailed and focus specifically on a full and precise evaluation of plumage hues. Notes should demonstrate that views were good enough and over a suffi- ciently long period to assess the bird’s true appearance and that full account has been taken of the effect of light conditions on per- ceived hues. Any transcriptions of calls or songs should be as detailed as possible. Photographs Observers are encouraged to take photographs, if at all possible, of any putative tristis. Furthermore, every effort should be made to obtain photographs which repre- sent the bird’s plumage hues accu- rately. These may best be taken in dull, flat light rather than in bright sunshine. An accompanying note setting out to what extent the pho- tographs accurately portray the bird’s appearance would be partic- ularly useful. Sound recordings Sound recordings of calling and/or singing birds should be obtained British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 165-166 i 165 c wherever possible. Modern mobile phones, mp3 players or ipods can often capture adequate recordings. It should be emphasised that this exercise is not intended to for- mally‘accept’ or ‘reject’ claims. This is very much an exploratory, learning process. The priority is to secure as much evidence as pos- sible of the number of true tristis which might be reaching Britain. The assessment process In 2008 we would like all county records committees to assess all claims of tristis against the above criteria and then submit all those Rarities Committee news which meet, or come close to meeting, them to Nigel Hudson, BBRC Secretary. We would also like counties to provide summary details of any claims which are assessed locally as falling clearly outside the criteria. These summary details should include location, date and reason for non- acceptance (for example, plumage not meeting criteria, call or song not meeting criteria, or absence of sufficient critical detail). Both full claims and summary data for local non-acceptances will then be examined outside the ‘mainstream’ flow of BBRC business by a small 3 team, comprising Colin Bradshaw, i Alan Dean, John Martin, Andy I Stoddart and Grahame Walbridge. I Chris Kehoe will contribute to the process on behalf of BOURC. Fol- | lowing the review, conclusions will 1 be presented to BBRC in 2009 with I recommendations on how the | occurrence of this form might best be documented now and in future. : Andy Stoddart, on behalf of BBRC ZEISS The British Birds Rarities Committee is sponsored by Carl Zeiss Ltd. Chairman: Colin Bradshaw, 9 Tynemouth Place, Tynemouth, Tyne & Wear NE30 4BJ Secretary: Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat St Mary's, Scilly TR2 1 OLL News and comment Compiled by Adrian Pitches Opinions expressed in this feature are not necessarily those of British Birds Lewis windfarm ‘ refused ’ It’s a stunning victory for the RSPB but a crushing blow for the economy of the Outer Hebrides. According to the BBC’s Gaelic news service, Radio nan Gaidheal, plans to build one of Europe’s biggest windfarms on Lewis are set to be turned down. It was reported in late January that Scottish Gov- ernment ministers are ‘minded to refuse’ the 181-turbine scheme. It’s believed that environmental con- cerns are behind the decision. More than 5,000 letters of objection to the proposals were received by the Scottish Govern- ment. The RSPB mounted a vig- orous campaign of opposition to such a major construction project in a Special Protection Area that has internationally important breeding populations of raptors and waders. A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘No final decision has been taken and ministers are working towards finalising and announcing a decision in the near future.’ A spokesman for Lewis Wind Power (a consortium of nuclear generator British Energy and construction company Amec) said they welcomed the Scottish Government’s commitment to make a swift decision on the application. Supporters of the turbines pointed to potential economic ben- efits, claiming that more than 400 jobs would be created during con- struction. Local councillors voted by 18 to 8 to support the £500m project in February 2007, but the final decision on the planning application rested with the Scottish Government. Local anti-windfarm campaigner Dinah Murray said the refusal would allow islanders’ lives to return to normal: ‘We were opposed to this development from the start on the visual impact, on the damage to the landscape, the damage to the habitat, the damage to the moorland and also the danger there would be on the roads during construction.’ But Angus Campbell, vice-convener of Western Isles Council, said the Scottish Government’s decision was a ‘bitter blow for the Western Isles’. He said: ‘They must make clear what their vision is for the islands. Are we to become an envir-j onmental museum? Is any develop- ment at all to be allowed in the Western Isles? Those who opposed i this development must now come forward and outline their pro- posals for regenerating the economy of the Western Isles.’ Correction The 1995 IUCN guidelines for reintroductions, mentioned in the paper on bird reintroductions in the January issue of BB ( Carter etaL Brit. Birds 101: 2-25), are now. available from an alternative source: http://www.iucn.org/ themes/ssc/sgs/rsg/rsgcdrom/PDFs/ English.pdf 166 © British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 166-170 News and comment > bird registration weakened by Defra The mandatory registration of captive birds that has done much to reduce the theft of eggs and chicks from the nests of wild birds of prey has been severely curtailed by the Department of Environ- ment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra claims that there ‘is little evi- dence that the Bird Registration Scheme continues to be a useful conservation tool.’ The list of native species on Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (which bird-keepers must register with Defra to prove that birds are of captive origin) has been reduced from 59 to just seven. The list has until now included Endangered non-native species such as Mada- gascar Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vocif- eroides and Galapagos Flawk Buteo galapagoensis. JNCC is the Government’s statutory adviser and put forward a 46-species list but was forced to come back with a far more limited list, of Britain’s rarest raptors only all other groups were excluded). This has resulted in Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus - arguably the number one target for the illegal falconry trade - and Merlin F. columbarius losing the protec- tion they have enjoyed since the Act was passed in 1981. Under the new Defra registration scheme, only the following species must be registered: Honey-buzzard Pernis apivorus , White-tailed Eagle H. albicilla, Marsh Circus aeruginosus ; and Montagu’s Harriers C. pygargus. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, Northern Goshawk ! Accipiter gentilis and Osprey Pandion haliaetus. That Goshawk is retained on the Schedule 4 list is the only crumb of comfort to the i RSPB, police forces, bird clubs and wildlife trusts who lobbied for the 1NCC 46-species list. Chief Constable Richard Brun- ! strom said in the police submission | to the consultation: ‘This (the Bird ; Registration Scheme] is conserva- tion legislation, with a clear j purpose; it should not be weakened I or dismissed in some dogmatic government anti-bureaucracy drive without real thought being given to the consequences, which could be catastrophic for species’ conserva- tion. I would ask that the consulta- tion team take account of the very clear evidence, gathered over years, that unscrupulous individuals are involved in bird-keeping, and that they will seek to exploit available loopholes and mask their activities under a cloak of legitimate activity. There is a real risk inherent in this review that the Government will play into the hands of criminals by naively abolishing effective regula- tion for the wrong reasons. This is criminal law, which exists to con- strain the activity of criminals. It is not simply an unnecessary bureaucratic process, waiting to be abolished.’ Defra justified removing all non-native species from the scheme by citing the current EU ban on wild-bird imports from outside the EU. Duncan McNiven, RSPB Senior Investigations Officer, said: ‘It’s an entirely false argument that the EU’s bird import ban, because of avian flu, has changed the land- scape so much that ‘exotic’ species no longer need to be considered for inclusion. In fact, of the 1 1 Globally Threatened non- EU species pro- posed by JNCC, 10 were already banned from trade under CITES rules before the import ban came into effect. This means that such critically endangered birds as Bali Starling Leucopsar roths- childi and Lear’s Macaw Anodor- hynchus leari will not now benefit from the added protection of having to be regis- tered if kept in captivity in the UK.’ Defra minister Joan Ruddock announced the revisions on 23rd January and, justifying the very few species on the list, said: ‘Controls on the keeping of birds will be directed at those native bird species whose conservation status would be most at risk from being taken from the wild for commercial activities. The revised scheme will introduce proportionate regula- tion. Those bird species considered not at risk will be removed from the scheme and unnecessary burdens placed on responsible bird-keepers lifted.’ The last sentence is perhaps most relevant. This is widely seen in the conservation community as unravelling red tape for the avicul- ture industry. Rather worryingly, Ms Ruddock added: ‘We will work to simplify administrative proced- ures for obtaining permits under CITES to ensure minimum burdens on keepers.’ The new regu- lations apply to England only; hopefully, the devolved administra- tions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will retain a more extensive species list. 93. Raptors such as Peregrine Falco peregrinus will lose out under Defra's revised registration scheme. British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 1 66— 1 70 167 David Tipling c News and comment ) European Union takes Malta to court BirdLife Malta has welcomed the decision by the European Commis- sion to take Malta to the European Court of Justice over the spring hunting and trapping of wild birds, which is illegal under EU law. Every spring since its accession to the EU in 2004, Malta has per- mitted hunting and trapping of Turtle Doves Streptopelia turtur and Common Quails Coturnix coturnix, in direct contravention of the EU Birds Directive. ‘Unfortunately, the Maltese Government has missed many opportunities in the past to solve this case and to avoid Europe-wide embarrassment for the country,’ said Konstantin Kreiser, EU Policy Manager at BirdLife in Brussels. ‘We can only welcome the Com- mission’s decision to take Malta to Court now.’ In the light of the recent development, BirdLife called on the Maltese Government to respond to the Commission’s actions by officially declaring the end of spring hunting in Malta, for 2008 and beyond. ‘If the Maltese Government opens another spring hunting season this year, BirdLife will urge the European Commis- sion to ask the European Court of Justice for an immediate order,’ Kreiser concluded. Based on a complaint by BirdLife, the Commission had started legal action against Malta in 2006 and issued a final warning in the form of a Reasoned Opinion last October, urging the Maltese Government to stop spring hunting once and for all. In the absence of a satisfactory reply from Malta, the Commission eventually decided to take the country to the European Court. Throughout the EU, the Birds Directive protects birds by banning hunting during their spring migration back from Africa to their breeding grounds. Member States can apply derogations under certain conditions, of which the most important one is the absence of an alternative solution. In Malta’s case the Commission concluded that such an alternative is provided by the possibility to hunt the species in autumn. The Maltese Islands are located on an important bird-migration route in the Mediterranean. A recent study analysing the ring- recoveries of birds shot in Malta showed that birds originating from a minimum of 36 European coun- tries fly over Malta on migration. Referring to forthcoming national elections in Malta, Joseph Mangion, President of BirdLife Malta, said: ‘Both Prime Minister Dr Lawrence Gonzi and Leader of the Opposition Dr Alfred Sant should declare now that they will not open a spring hunting season again. The overwhelming majority of the Maltese people believe that spring hunting should end, and that the Government needs to stop this European-wide embarrass- ment for our country.’ Oil company must compensate for biodiversity loss It was one of Europe’s worst tanker disasters. When the ageing oil tanker Erika sank in December 1999, hundreds of kilometres of the French Atlantic coastline were suffocated with toxic heavy fuel that killed or injured 300,000 seabirds. Now an historic court judgement in Paris has ruled that oil giant Total was responsible for the disaster and must pay millions of euros in damages. And, in a legal precedent, the judge ruled that more than 100 groups, including BirdLife, fishermen, sea-salt pro- ducers and oyster farmers, had a right to compensation for the en- vironmental damage caused. This ruling means that polluters can be held accountable for damage to the natural world, as well as to business and economic interests. Total, which chartered the rusting tanker that split in two off the Brittany coast, was found guilty of negligence and fined €375,000 (£270,000). It was also ordered to pay a share of nearly €200m (£144m) awarded in damages to civil parties, including the French state. The Italian certification company that declared the vessel seaworthy, and the ship’s owner and manager were also held responsible. ‘This is a first in France, it’s historic,’ said Allain Bougrain-Dubourg, President of the Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux (LPO - BirdLife in France - see www.lpo.fr/comm/2008/ comm2008-0 I - 1 6.shtml), which was awarded €800,000 in damages. In December 1999 the Erika , a rusting 24-year-old Maltese-regis- tered tanker, was chartered by Total to carry 30,800 tonnes of viscous heavy fuel oil to Italy. Four days after it set sail from Dunkirk, the vessel began to crack off the Pointe de Penmarc’h in Brittany. As the crew struggled with massive gashes that began appearing on the deck, the tanker eventually broke in half in high sea and winds. ‘The ship folded in two like a book closing,’ | the captain recalled. After the crew was rescued, the Erika slowly sank in the Bay of Biscay, some 65 km off the French coast, leaking 20,000 tonnes of oil. The oil started to wash ashore almost two weeks later, killing more than 150,000 birds. Locals described a coating of black goo 1 ‘like thick chewing gum’, sometimes | 30 cm thick, on beaches. Seafood , was banned, fishing was suspended and volunteers rushed to try to | clean the birds that were suffo- cating in what environmentalists i called a ‘black tide’. Some cleaned beaches were blackened again overnight as fresh oil washed in. The slick fouled 400 km of [ coastline and crippled local indus- ; tries, including sea-salt production, oyster farming, fishing, hotels and tourism. The court said that Total, t the world’s fourth-largest oil group, had failed to take into account the age of the ship and 168 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 166-170 c News and comment deficiencies in its maintenance. This carelessness had a ‘causal role in the sinking and, therefore, pro- 1 voked the accident’, the judge said. France’s junior minister for I ecology, Nathalie Kosciusko- Morizet, called the judgement a revolutionary decision’ that would clear up the murky area of who was responsible for disasters at sea. Before the ruling, Total had already spent some €200m on the clean-up operation, and it rejected suggestions that it should pay more. In February 2007, as the Erika trial started, the company announced record annual profits of €12bn. The French state has now been awarded more than €150m in damages to cover the clean-up costs and recovery of the wreckage. Regional governments in the coastal areas of Brittany, Poitou- Charentes and Pays de la Loire were also awarded several million euros to compensate for the massive operation. Another tanker disaster off the Atlantic seaboard of continental Europe which claimed an esti- mated 300,000 seabird lives has provided material for a research study that shows that seabird blood can hold vital clues about the long- term ongoing ecological impact of oil spills. Scientists collected samples from gulls (Laridae) in northwest Spain, close to where the Prestige sank in November 2002. Seventeen months after the disaster, concen- trations of toxic compounds in the birds’ blood were, on average, 120% higher than normal. Writing in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, the Spanish scientists explained why seabirds could be considered good ‘bioindi- cators’ of lasting pollution: ‘Life- history characteristics of seabirds make them particularly vulnerable to oil pollution because they spend much of their lives on the ocean’s Gulls and oil surface, and because their popula- tions concentrate in habitats prone to high oil exposure.’ They added that the birds were also high up the food chain, making them ‘good candidates to monitor the marine ecosystem’. Between May and June 2004, the researchers collected blood samples from 61 adult Yellow- legged Gulls Larus michahellis breeding in seven colonies along the northwest Spanish coast. Four of the colonies were chosen because the sites were in the path of the Prestige spill; the tanker dumped about 60,000 tonnes of oil into coastal waters, causing what has been described as one of Europe’s worst wildlife disasters. Samples from birds in the affected colonies had concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that were on average 120% higher than those taken from gulls at the oil-free sites. ‘Since blood cells are continuously being pro- duced and have a lifespan of several weeks, the presence of PAHs probably indicates a recent incorporation.’ From these data, the researchers suggested that it would be possible, over a period of time, to build up a better understanding of how an area was affected by an oil spill, and measure its recovery. For example, the team took further blood samples from gulls in the affected colonies 12 months later and found that PAH concentra- tions had decreased by about a third. This appears to be the first field study in which levels of PAHs have been measured non-destruc- tively in a vertebrate for the purpose of monitoring oil pollu- tion; the authors claim that their study provides reliable support to the potential use of seabird blood as a monitoring tool for oil expo- sure. Have Spanish rats left the sinking ship ? The wrecking of a Spanish fishing boat in the remote St Kilda archi- pelago was not a human tragedy - all 14 crew members were safely winched off. But it could be an avian tragedy if rats Rattus aboard the trawler Spinningdale make landfall on the islands, which support 500,000 breeding seabirds. As well as the absence of a resi- dent human population, the islands of St Kilda are devoid of rats. To maintain that rat-free status, the National Trust for Scot- land sent its species recovery officer Abbie Paterson out to St Kilda armed with chocolate- flavoured candle wax. He was searching for the tell-tale teeth marks of rats - but initial results suggested that only the endemic St Kilda Field Mouse Apodemus syl- vaticus hirtensis had taken a nibble, lust one pregnant rat escaping the sinking ship could prove devas- tating to one of the most impor- tant seabird colonies in the northeast Atlantic. St Kilda is home to 250,000 Puffins Fratercula arctica , 30,000 pairs of Gannets Morus bassanus and 90% of Europe’s Leach’s Storm-petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa. It’s a sobering thought, but Britain’s last Great Auk Pinguinus impennis expired on St Kilda. Bird fair 2007 raised record sum The 2007 British Birdwatching Fair www.birdfair.org.uk raised £226,000 for BirdLife’s vital conser- i vation work in preventing extinc- tions. The amount raised (yet another record, and which brings the total sum raised by the Rutland Birdfairs to almost £2 million) was announced by the Birdfair organ- isers Martin Davies and Tim Appleton at an event held at The Lodge, HQ of the RSPB (BirdLife British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 166-170 169 c News and comment > Partner in the UK). On receiving the cheque, Dr Mike Rands, BirdLife’s Chief Executive, said: ‘By becoming official sponsors of the BirdLife Preventing Extinction Programme and supporting us so generously, the Birdfair is pro- viding vital funds to help save the world’s most threatened birds.’ The Preventing Extinction Pro- gramme will be the beneficiary of both the 2008 and 2009 Birdfairs too. Birdfair 2008 will be sup- porting a suite of species, including Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gre- garius, Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus, Dwarf Olive Ibis Bostrychia bocagei, Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina , Tuamotu Kingfisher Todiramphus gambieri and Araripe Manakin Antilophia bokermanni , by profiling them in the hope that many new Species Champions will step forward to provide further vital funding. Should hides be subject to rates ? The following intriguing item appeared in the newsletter of the Association of County Recorders and Editors, compiled by Judith Smith: ‘It has come to my attention that the Valuation Office in York- shire has decided that, in two cases in that county, hides are subject to business rates! In the case for which I have the most details, the rateable value on a hide used by a local bird club on a water company’s reservoir was deter- mined at £160 and the rate payable would have been £70. Luckily, the local council has agreed to 100% discretionary relief, which will have to be reapplied for in three years’ time.’ With the rate-fixing season upon us, do any other readers have examples of bird hides rated for business use?! That blessed sparrow! 94 & 95. The Cley White- crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys and just a few of its admirers - and contributors to the church restoration fund. Richard Porter, BB director and one of the main marshals of the event, is seen front left, in the green jacket. The arrival of a North American White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leu- cophrys in Cley, Norfolk, was manna from heaven for British listers, as this handsome bird, although the fourth British record, is the first ‘twitchable’ individual. It has also proved to be a blessing to the village church, St Mar- garet’s. So far during its lengthy stay in the Milage (still present at the time of writing, frequenting the driveway of retired clergyman Richard Bending and his wife Sue), a collection from fund has amassed a staggering £5,650 (to date). It’s proposed that these funds will be used to renovate the big west window that overlooks the site where the sparrow feeds. And a new pane will be created that features an etched or stained-glass White- crowned Sparrow. A worthy com- memoration of the stripey visitor’s stay in Cley - and of birders’ gen- erosity. twitchers for the church restoration Where have all the Mallards gone? The newly published Wetland Bird Survey report, Waterbirds in the UK 2005/06, shows that the decline in Mallard Anas platyrhynchos numbers, first highlighted in the mid 1980s, is continuing. The number of Mallards wintering at the Ouse Washes, on the Cambridgeshire/Norfolk border, the only site in Britain that still holds nationally important numbers, has almost halved since 2002. During the winter of 2001/02, up to 4,457 Mal- lards were counted here. Over the 2005/06 winter, the maximum count was 2,454. The reasons behind this decline are unclear, but could include poor breeding success or milder winters, which may allow birds to remain on smaller waterbodies instead of being forced to congregate at larger sites. 170 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 166—170 David Tlpllng lain Leach Recent reports Compiled by Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey This summary of unchecked reports covers early January to early February 2008. Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis West Wit- tering (West SussexJ/Hayling Island (Hamp- shire), long-stayer to 6th February. Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Coolfinnin Lough (Co. Leitrim), 12th-20th January; North Bull Island (Co. Dublin), long-stayer to 20th January. Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Lough Arrow (Co. Sligo), 18th January to 6th February; Loch Leven (Perth 8c Kinross), 6th-8th February, joined by another 9th February. Long-stayers on Benbecula (Outer Hebrides) to 31st January; at Sutton Courtenay/Appleford Gravel-pits (Oxfordshire) to 9th February; Papil Water, Fetlar, then Kirk Loch, Yell (Shetland), to 10th February; and Draycote Water (Warwickshire) to 10th February. Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Quoile Pondage (Co. Down), long-stayer to 28th January. Pacific Diver Gavia pacifica Llys-y-Fran Reser- voir (Pembrokeshire), returning bird, 16th January to 8th February. White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii Up to three reported occasionally in Bluemull Sound, with long-stayer in South Nesting Bay to 10th February (all Shetland). Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Numbers continue to remain high, although many of the following are long-stayers and movements may account for some presumed new arrivals. Cornwall Sancreed/Drift, peak of 20 between 25th January and 9th February, 14 to 10th; Trencom Hill, five to 12th January, three to 17th; The Lizard, 26th January; Helston, peak of nine on 24th January, four to 31st; St Breock Downs, Wadebridge, peak of eight on 8th February, six to 9th; Cran- tock, peak of nine on 7th Feb- ruary, five to 9th; Stithians Reservoir, two, 4th-7th Feb- ruary, one to 10th; near Looe, peak of 13 on 7th February, three to 10th. Devon Otterton, 20th January and 9th February; Southcott Valley, five to 22nd January, four to 26th and one to 30th; Powderham, peak of three, 8th-10th February, perhaps same Exmouth 1 6th— 1 7th January, two 20th-22nd January and Exminster Marshes 25th January to 5th February; Kingsbridge Estuary, peak of five on 29th January to 9th February; Northam Burrows, peak of four on 1st February; Warleigh Point, 4th-8th February; Plymouth, 7th Feb- ruary, then two on 8th-10th. Dorset Radipole Lake/Buckland Ripers/Nottington, peak of six on 20th January, three to 21st and one to 6th February; Bere Regis, 12th-20th January and 9th February; Poole Harbour/Arne, 1 2th— 1 3th January; Upwey, five to 12th January; Frampton, 21st January and 8th-9th February. Somerset Muchelney, 21st January; Old Cleeve, to 2nd February; Leigh upon Mendip, to 4th February; Steart, 1 2th— 1 4th January; Westhay, 2nd-4th February; near Stretcholt, three, 10th February. Ireland In Co. Cork: Rossmore, eight, to 10th January; Red Barn, Youghal, to 13th January; Clonakilty, 10th to 24th January, seven to 4th February; Rostellon, two, 1 1th January; Carriga- line, 12, 22nd January; Cork City, 28th January to 2nd February; Innishshannon, 29th January; Curraheen, 3rd-7th February. In Co. Galway: Cartron, three to 31st January, two to 4th Feb- ruary. In Co. Kerry: Ballydavid, to 2nd February; Ballytaggart, Dingle, 9th-29th January; Castle- maine, 9th January; Ardfert, two, 13th January to 2nd February, one to 5th; Lawlor’s Cross, 4th 96. Adult Pacific Diver Gavia pacifica, Llys-y-Fran Reservoir, Pembrokeshire, February 2008, © British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 171-172 171 Richard Stonier Roy Harvey Recent reports C > February; WaterviUe, 2nd-7th February. In Co. Waterford: Dungarvan, peak of six on 1st Feb- ruary; Drumlohan, ten, 27th January. In Co. Wexford: Oilgate, 20th January to 3rd February. Elsewhere Maltreath Marsh (Anglesey), 1st Feb- ruary; Lon Glanfred/Llanbadarn Fawr (Ceredi- gion), 2nd-6th February; Neston (Cheshire & Wirral), to 26th January; Cardoness (Dumfries & Galloway), to 11th January; Fretherne (Gloucestershire), to 10th February; Harbridge (Hampshire), to 10th February; Buckler’s Hard (Hampshire), two, 8th— 1 0th February; Salt- fleetby, 30th-31st January, probably same Little Cawthorpe 3rd February and Legbourne 4th— 1 0th (all Lincolnshire); Rodmell, to 17th January, perhaps same Coombe Haven 24th and Piddinghoe 30th January to 8th February (all East Sussex); Chichester (West Sussex), two, 19th-26th January, one to 10th February; East Lavant (West Sussex), 9th February; Hellifield Flash (North Yorkshire), 30th January. Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus North Slob (Co. Wexford), 1 st— 1 5th January, with a second bird 8th-20th; the latter was ringed and subse- quently seen in Lincolnshire, at Lea Marsh 29th January, Huttoft Bank 30th January to 2nd Feb- ruary, and Saltfleet/Donna Nook 2nd-10th Feb- ruary. Youghal (Co. Cork), 16th January; Warton Marsh (Lancashire 8c N Merseyside), long-stayer to 9th February. ‘Wilson’s Snipe’ Gallinago gallinago delicata St Mary’s (Scilly), long-stayer(s), at least one of possibly four since October 2007, to 7th Feb- ruary. Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Langton Herring (Dorset), lst-9th February. Long-stayers at Lough Beg (Co. Derry) to 20th January and Bowling Green Marsh (Devon) to 3rd February. Lesser Yel- lowlegs Tringa flavipes Long-stayers at Montrose , Basin (Angus) to 10th February; Rosscarberry ' (Co. Cork) to 4th February; and Southwold/Walberswick (Suffolk) to 9th Feb- i ruary. Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Long-stayers at Kinneil Lagoon (Forth) to 6th February and Lisvane/Llanishen Reservoirs ' (Glamorgan) to 10th February. Laughing Gull Larus atricilla Southcott Valley • (Devon), 15th January. Franklin’s Gull Larus pip- ixcan Torr Reservoir (Somerset), 13th January, perhaps same as Wareham (Dorset), 17th January, and Chew Valley Lake (Avon), 20th and 29th-31st January. American Herring Gull Larus smithsonianus Nimmo’s Pier (Co. Galway), long- staying adult to 5th January, then lst-winter 25th January to 3rd February; Lewis (Outer Hebrides), 18th January; Sennen (Cornwall), 24th January; Richmond Bank (Cheshire), 2nd February. Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus Philadelphia Ogmore-by-Sea (Glamorgan), I 1 5th— 19th January; South Uist (Western Isles), 1 8th — 1 9th January; Montrose 19th January, same Ferryden (both Angus), 9th February; Portreath (Cornwall), 27th January; Peterhead j (North-east Scotland), long-stayer to 3rd Feb- ruary. Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Long-stayers at Durris Pier/Nimmo’s Pier (Co. Galway) to 7th February and Wexford Harbour to 13th January. Blyth’s Pipit Anthus godlewskii Youghal, long-stayer from November 2007 still present on 27th January. Hume’s Warbler Phylloscopus humei Long-stayers at Cot Valley (Cornwall) to 9th February and Beachy Head (East Sussex) to 14th January. Pen- duline Tit Remiz pendulinus Minsmere (Suffolk), two, 3rd February. White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leu- cophrys Cley (Norfolk), long- stayer to 10th February. 97. Second-winter Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus, Donna Nook, Lincolnshire, February 2008. This bird was ringed as a nestling in Spain, in the Coto Donana in June 2006, and before appearing in Lincolnshire was seen in Co. Wexford (see text). British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 171-172 172 Classified advertising Payment for all classified advertisements must be made in advance by VISA, Mastercard or by cheque payable to British Birds. Copy deadline: 10th of the month. Contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd., B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6X1 Tel: 020 8881 0550. Fax: 020 8881 0990. E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Holiday Accommodation Birdwatching Holidays Optical Equipment Scotland ELLARY ESTATE - MOST ATTRACTIVE choice of self catering cottages and chalets situated on the shores of Loch Caolisport. While you are at Ellery you are at liberty to go anywhere you please. There are hill walks, many iochs and bums where you can fish, numerous wildliife, birds, flowers, etc. The perfect location for the true country lover. For a full colour j brochure please write to The Booking Office, | Elian' 7 Lochgilphead, Argyll PA31 8PA. Tel: 1 D1880 770232. Fax: 01880 770386. Email: nfo@ellary.com I Overseas ’ROVENCE - CAMARGUE. Two s/c cottages. I Rogers, Mas d’Auphan, Le Sambuc, 13200 j VRLES, France. Tel: (0033) 490 972041 Email: , xm.rogers@wanadoo.ff :or Sale ;OR SALE. BB 1982 - 2003 inclusive, inbound. Offers. Tel: 07884 391900. ’ager Service New SMS News Service Free Trial Online also Pagers 8t Internet News wvvw.rarebirdalert.co.uk Read the News First See the cutest face of POLAND Join our wildlife tours, linked with low fare to Warsaw & www.birding tel. +48 12 2921460 Polish BIRD SERVICE touroperator since 1990 1 g* Cassowary House Rainforest Birding and 1 Nature Lodge Cassowaries, Riflebirds and Red-necked Crakes in the garden. Comfortable accommodation, excellent food, expert guiding. A great centre for access to Cairns, Reef and Atherton Tablelands. All your birding needs. Phil and Sue Gregory: ph (61) 7 40937318 PO Box 387. Kuranda, Queensland 488, Australia sicklebill@optusneLcom.au www.cassowary-house.com.au Binoculars & Telescopes Top Makes, Top Models, Top Advice, Top Deals, Part Exchange Show Room Sales 01925 730399 FOCALPOINT www.fpoint.co.uk Credit/debit cards accepted Books UPDATED original BIRDWATCHER’S LOGBOOK A concise way to record your observations. Monthly, annual & life columns for 968 species, garden birds, migrants, index & diary pages. Send £8.75 to: Coxton Publications, Eastwood, Beverley Rd, Walkington, Beverley, HU 1 7 8RP. 01482 881833 Books BIRD BOOKS BOUGHT AND SOLD. Visit our website for our online catalogue Visit our shop and see our extensive collection. Hawkridge Books, The Cruck Barn, Cross St, Castleton, Derbyshire S33 8WH. Tel: 01433 621999. Email: books@hawkridge.co.uk. Web: www.hawkridge.co.uk BACK NUMBERS of bird and natural history periodicals. Free catalogue from D. 8c D. H. W. Morgan, The Pippins, Allensmore, Hereford HR2 9BP. E-mail: stjamestree@uk2.net, www.birdjournals.com British Birds Binders Larger format 88 Binders are available in the following options: We also now have in stock binders for the old size (A5) 88 available in Brown Wirex only. Either complete and return the attached order form, call the British Birds office or order online at www.britishbirds.co.uk using our secure site. Please supply Binder(s) in: [ Royal Blue Wirex Brown Wirex l Brown Cordex 0 Brown Wirex (old size) at £8.95 each. I enclose my cheque for £ payable to British Birds. Name: Address: Post Code: Tel No: E-mail: British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Tel and Fax: 01424 755155 : E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk Kay Optical (1962) UNRIVALLED EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE AND SERVICE • Sales & Repairs » Binoculars • Telescopes • Tripods, etc www.kayoptical.co.uk and www.bigbinoculars.co.uk 89(B) London Rood, Morden, Surrey SM4 5HP Tel: 020 8648 8822 Fax: 020 8687 2021 Email: info@kayoplical.co.uk Open: Mon-Sat 9-5 (lunch 1-2) Location: Southern edge of Greater London. 15 mins drive from M25. (for example via the A3, then take the A298 Wimbledon/Merlon slip-rood) or 2 mins walk from Morden underground (turn right). See our website for a mop. Parking: 50 yards past our premises - first left Alternative venues to Morden at which you can try and buy our equipment in the field are given below. We aim to show our full range of equipment but it helps us to help you if you let us know your interests before each Reid Day. Repairs an also be handed in/coliected. 1 0.00am to 4.00pm usually. • Mail order • Same day despatch • Part exchange • Used items » Package deals • Credit available Sevenoaks Wildfowl Reserve On the A25 between Riverheod and Sevenoaks - Bat and Boll Station 6 April, 4 May, 1 June, 6 July Pagham Harbour LNR On the B2145 into Selsey, West Sussex 30 March, 27 April College Lake Wildlife Centre On the 8488 near Bulbourne, Tring, Herts. 13 April, 8 June Dinton Pastures Country Park Near Rending (M4, A329(M) Woodley turnoff) then A329 to Winnersh and Winnersh Station (B3030) 23 March, 1 1 May Bough Beech Nature Reserve/ Reservoir About 4 miles south of the A25/A2I junction (access from 82042 or B2027) neorlde Hill, Kent. Info centre north of reservoir. 16 March, 20 April, 1 8 May, 22 June Canon, Helios, Kowa, Leica, Manfrotto, Miyauchi, Nikon, Opticron, Optolyth, Sentinel, Swarovski, Zeiss, etc. Used items also on our web site. For subsequent Field Day dates, phone or see our website WANTED! For the T , . Travel Trad< • Tour Leaders • Website and IT Manager • Marketing Manajj Full-timers to combine tour-leading and office-based product and operation tasks. Birders, botanists and particularly all-round naturalist sought to fill the above posts. Meticulous attention to detail, accuracy, common : good literacy, numeracy, telephone skills and love of I work are amongst the many skills required. Fun-loving, outgoing and personable character essentl Please post typed CV and accompanying hand-writteil letter to: Naturetrek, Cheriton Mill, Arlesford, Hants SO 24 ONG • Tel: 0 1 962 73305 I Inrdnetinformatioi Get the NEWS FIRST! Call: 08715 661| www.birdnetinformation.co.ul ^Best pager coverage in the UK both Pageone and Vodapage net' ^Friendly and knowledgeable operators available to answer your calls, day orl ^O nly 16p per day for unlimited messad Orange mobile phones if you prefer text mess) All this and much more yet still 25% dwpar than our c 01872 263444 www.swoptics.ee £1059 £1039 £979 £1420 £1217 £1280 —1 ■H .1 1 ■j Opticron Binoculars 8x40 Aspheric WA Porro 8x42 Countryman Oasis 10x42 Countryman Oasis 8x42 Imagic BGA- Special 10x42 Imagic TGA 8x42 Verano Oasis 8x20 Gallery Mono Scope Opticron Binoculars 8x42 BGA SE - New 10x42 BGA SE-New 8x32 BGA SE - New 8x42 DBA 10x42 DBA 8x42 DBA Monocular 8x42 BGA Monocular Zeiss Binoculars 8x32 T* FL LT 7x42 T* FL LT 8x42 T FL LT 10x42 TFLLT Green or Black available 8x40 Conquest 1 0x40 Conquest Leica Binoculars Ultravid 8x32 BR Ultravid 8x42 BR Ultravid 10x42 BR Ultravid HD 8x42 Ultravid HD 10x42 Ultravid HD 8x32 Ultravid HD 7x42 Swarovski Binoculars 8x32 EL 8.5x42 EL 10x42 EL Swarovski Scopes Swarovski ATS 80 HD, case Swarovski ATS 65 HD, case All in stock - call for best price Accessories Zeiss Rainguard Leica Rainguard Op Tech Neck Strap Op Tech Tripod Strap Car Window Mount Manfrotto Hide Mount Calotherm Cleaning cloths, sprays. Tripods Velbon Carbon Fibre 635 - 157 Head £179 Velbon Carbon Fibre 535 - 157 Head £159 Velbon CX586 £59.99 Velbon UP4000 Monopod £19.99 Manfrotto VIEW Tripods from £129 SLIK D3 £119 Wide range Velbon and Manfrotto in stock. Opticron Scopes ES80ED. 20-60 Zoom HDF, Case £599 GS665 ED. Zoom, Case £569 Mighty Midget 2 with 15-40 Zoom £219 NEW SDL Super Zoom £229 GS665, HDF Zoom, Case £459 ES80 SD, Zoom, HDF, Case £469 Zeiss Scopes See web for full range Diascope 85 TF L: 20-60 Zoom, case Diascope 65 TF L: with 15-45 Zoom. Case DC4 Eyepiece Leica Scopes APO Televid 77 20-60 Zoom, case £1495 APO Televid 62 16-48 Zoom, case £1129 Digital Adapter 2 £149 Nikon Nikon Coolpix P5100 £299 Nikon D80 body £549 Nikon D300 body £1299 • Over 800 Products Available www. swoptlcs .co.uk • Secure Online Ordering Quality Second Hand Stock Regularly Available : SEC Compasses, GPS, Digiscoping Accessories. Magnifiers also iq Next Day Delivery on orders placed before mldda Digiscoping Cameras in Stock e.g. Nikon P5100 + Leica D-LJ All prices are subject to change - please check website for details South West Optics 22a River Street Truro Cornwall UK TR1 2SJ 01872 263444 sales@swoptics.com OPTK ATS 65 HD & 30xW & Stay on case RRP £1520.00 £1127.00 (Add an extra £54 00 if 20-60x zoom is prefered) ATS 80 HD & 30xW & Stay on case RRP £1965.00 £1455.00 (Add an extra £54 00 if 2Q-60x *when trading in a good condition pair of 8x30 SLC EL 10x32 -£890.00 or only £441 •when trading in a good condition pair of 10x42 EL ‘when trading in a good condition pair of 8x32 EL :L 1 0x42 - £999.00 or only £67( •when trading in a good condition pair of 1 0x42 SLC Titchfield Haven Nature Reserve Hill Head, Fareham prefered) TLS 800 Telephoto Lens System RRP £340.00 our price £267.00 (For digital and classic SLR cameras) DCB Digital Camera Base RRP £255.00 our price £210.00 (Suitable for a wide range of digital compact cameras) Warsash Titchfield Haven Stubblngton •Solent ■MB’ .w'-wr Camera Optics eekends Come and visit us on the following dates March 29th & 30th May 31st & June 1st July 26th & 27th September 27th & 28th November 22nd & 23rd UK Mail Order Next Day Delivery Postage & Insurance £8 for most items. Price Promise Ve work hard io keep our prices corn pete live & will i.-,' to MATCH or BEAT any pnce in this magazine We both part-exchange and buy quality equipment Conditions apply Ask for details Open 9am-5.30pm Mon-Sat. Please check availability before making a special journey. E.&O.E. All prices quoted include VAT@17.5%. Prices subject to change. All goods subject to availability. london camera exchange 15 The Square Winchester S023 9ES ■ 01962 866203 B winchester@LCEgroup.co.uk nhbs Environment Bookstore Wildlife | Science \ Conservation New at NHBS Backlist Bargains 2008 - Our exciting annual feature has returned for the new year. This year we aree to offer an absolute treasure-trove of books from over 40 major publishers - 3000 titles at up to 45%^ we have icluded a small selection of our birding titles for you to browse (offer ends 31/03/2008). A selection of equipment for birders is also now available from our website, including: Nest Box Cae the RemememBird device, the first digital audio recorder to have been designed by a birder, for bi e the BirdVoicePEN, which delivers bird calls by pointing a pen at specially designed field guides and stte will continue to expand the range of products we can offer birders throughout 2008. □ The Birds of Scotland Edited by R Forrester & I Andrews et al Two full-colour A4 hardback volumes in a slip case. Illustrated with more than 900 first-class photographs and 1,500 charts, maps and tables, this landmark publication is a must for eve- ryone with an interest in Scottish birds. Hbk | 2008 | £75.00 | #168578 □ The Birds of Kazakhstan A Wassink & G J Oreel Brings together invaluable informa- tion on status, habitat, distribution and migration on the birds of Kazakhstan. All 498 species recorded in Kaza- khstan are covered, and more than 900 maps and graphs give their breed- ing and temporal distribution. Hbk | 2007 | £44.99 | #167774 Birds of Argyll □ Birds of Argyll Edited by T Rheinallt & C Craim This avifauna deals with the him and distribution of birds in ArgyjT core of the book is made up of di accounts describing the status'! bird species recorded in Argyll ' 0- Hbk | 2007 | £49.99 | #173329 □ Essential Guide to B it the Isles of Scilly B L Flood & N Hudson et al A concise, up-to-date and accute count of all species and sub-sp ie ably recorded on and around tfis. Many illustrations by top artists to colour pages of photographs aom the authoritative text. Hbk | 2007 | £44.99 | #170911 □ The Birds of Zambia An Atlas and Handbook R J Dowsett & D R Aspinwall et al This book presents detailed accounts of the more than 750 species known in Zambia. Maps present a clear picture of distribution. Detailed text also complements the maps. Pbk | 2008 | £29.99 | #172927 □ Skomer Portrait of a Welsh Island B L Flood & N Hudson et al A concise, up-to-date and accute count of all species and sub-sp* ably recorded on and around tf is Many illustrations by top artists* colour pages of photographs aom the authoritative text. Pbk | 2007 | £14.99 | #166943 □ A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds B Huntley & R Green et al A comprehensive exploration of the relationships between the distributions of birds breeding in Europe and the present climate, and how future cli- matic change may alter each species’ potential breeding distribution. Hbk I 2007 | £40.00 I #172768 □ Birds by Colour M Duquet & A Larousse et al This brand new guide takes a 1 0 approach to this subject, pickinow colours and features by which ds be grouped for easy identificatii. 11 second half of the book is a mcnta tional type field guide. Over 2C sr= are covered. Pbk | 2008 | £12.99 | #169880; Find over 100,000 natural history titles at www.nhbs.com WWW. nhb S.com The most comprehensive range of natural history titles on earth 2-3 Wills Rd, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5XN. UK I Fax 01803 865280 I Tel 01803 865913 I customer^ervlcas^n Ionment Bookstore has an extensive range of field and travel guides available for any travelling birder. To see ge of titles visit our website, www.nhbs.com and click Browse by Geozone on our homepage. ’ k ist Bargains 2008 - Offer ends 31/03/2008 | ^B~Seabirds, Shorebirds and Wildfowl >926 ££05-09 £69.99 hbk I rs and their Allies #105584 £10500 £69.99 hbk s irmorants & their Relatives #132925 £105.00 £56.99 hbk C ise and Swans #132928 £160.00 £107.99 hbk SRI }S #132929 £105.00 £56.99 hbk -ii d Bird Behaviour #142406 £3409 £19.99 hbk n< ight: The Art of Lars Jonsson #128946 po 4 OQ £19.99 hbk to the Birds of Nepal #107846 £2409 £14.99 pbk ; 'fj Partridges and Grouse #66365 £4409 £25.99 hbk vll 6414 poo no £22 99 hbk fillers #107849 rpn Pif) ZLOU. UU £34.99 hbk #101886 poo on £22.99 hbk N erries #2675 0 0 4 no L 04 J J £19.99 hbk ei 3enguin #132969 £4205 £24.99 hbk . If rds to Your Garden #98783 £4209 £7.50 pbk #144658 rpc no LU J. UU £35.50 hbk ’• M limate Change #153134 raa_Qjt £57.99 hbk ' d: Dorset #146209 poo on T- Ej -zj . iJ -zJ £22.99 hbk • iff folk #134412 poo oo LOv/TvTv/ £22.99 hbk Lfl y: Health and Disease #119200 P7C OO ZL / . UU £43.99 hbk -'MIS listory of Ornithology #66411 poo OO £17.99 hbk B ogy #157188 pert nc 2— £32.50 hbk Is 1 1dentification Guide #851 p O 4 OO 5/2/ £19.99 hbk Id Trusts Guide to Birds #127476 £409 £2.99 pbk ur to the Birds of Nepal #107846 £2409 £14.99 pbk al 4 jople: Bonds in a Timeless Journey #170740 £29 99 hbk )V ] #166386 £39.99 hbk 5 Bi . of the World #160648 £24.99 hbk ;;:ia Birds #161729 £17 99 hbk ■:x> f the Birds of the World. Volume 12: Picathartes to Tits tu'Cgc S #38603 £145.00 hbk earbook 2008 #169718 £18.95 pbk F i Birding (Wildlife Art Series 15) #169828 £37.99 hbk in Nature Art and History #172481 £33.99 hbk - itl ist #104: A History of Ornithology #151697 £24.99 pbk itl ist #104: A History of Ornithology #151698 £44.99 hbk ?rr ts Checklist of the Birds of the World #167912 £39.99 hbk □ Field Guide to the Albatrosses. Petrels and Shearwaters of the World #66425 □ Shorebirds #146385 □ Flight Identification of European Seabirds #166387 □ Peterson Reference: Gulls of the Americas #168787 □ Field Guide to New Zealand Seabirds #162575 □ Waterbird Population Estimates #157616 £19 99 pbk £49.50 hbk £24.99 pbk £24.50 hbk £12.99 pbk £25.00 pbk UK and Europe □ Finding Birds in Ireland #171612 □ Philip’s Guide to Birds of Britain and Europe #165691 □ Birds of the Palearctic - Passerines #128714 □ Birds of Surrey #160569 □ The Birds of Gwent #167901 □ New Naturalist #103: The Isles of Scilly #127511 □ New Naturalist #103: The Isles of Scilly #127510 □ Birds of Wiltshire #166223 £14.99 pbk £9.99 pbk £25.00 hbk £35.00 hbk £39.99 hbk £24.99 pbk £44.99 hbk £44.99 hbk Rest of the World □ Collins Field Guide: Birds of the Palearctic - Passerines #128714 £25.00 hbk □ Birds of Trinidad and Tobago #166395 £19.99 pbk □ Field Guide to Birds of E Africa #151078 £24.99 pbk □ Field Guide to the Birds of W Africa #146211 £29.99 pbk □ A Photographic Guide to Birds of Japan #161077 £24.99 pbk □ All the Birds of Brazil #151692 £29.95 pbk □ Roberts Bird Guide. Comprehensive Field Guide to Over 950 Bird Species in Southern Africa #164925 £17,99 pbk □ Where to Watch Birds in New Zealand #170608 £12.99 pbk Seabirds, Shorebirds & Wildfowl □ Birds of Northern South America, Volume 1&2 #156090 □ Field Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica #162622 □ A Field Guide to the Birds of China #101745 □ Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka #83310 □ The Birds of Kazakhstan #167774 □ Birds in Europe #150394 □ Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand #156936 □ Guide to the Birds of China inc. Hong Kong #167068 £85 00 pbk £19.99 pbk £39.95 pbk £39.95 pbk £44.99 hbk £30.00 hbk £29.50 pbk £7.99 pbk d' itching Bird Sounds & DVDs :o itch Birds in Britain #120341 be Bad Birdwatcher #162947 "to i itch Birds in World Cities #154814 • dj s Yearbook and Diary 2008 #169193 : : P iet Logbook #170075 ^'Hsers #166110 0 Hr) to Identify Birds #38713 10 o Go Binding Before You Die #169746 B ng in the Fast Lane #157718 St i-East China #162234 £19.99 pbk £7 99 pbk £16.99 pbk £16.75 hbk £8 50 hbk £14.99 pbk £12.99 pbk £14.95 hbk £9.99 pbk £29.50 pbk □ The Sound Approach to Birding #163551 □ The Birds of Britain and Europe, 6-DVD Set #146254 □ Bird Sounds of Madagascar #172547 □ The Art of Pishing #164822 □ Birding in Spain #160634 □ BWPi 2.0:Birds of the Western Palearctic Interactive #164224 £139.00 DVD-ROM □ BBi (British Birds Interactive) 1907-2007 #169546 £98.99 DVD-ROM □ The Life of Birds #164230 £19.95 DVD £29.95 hbk+CD £35.19 DVD £9.95 CD £11.50 pbk+CD £12.95 DVD General Wildlife )r< " via this form, phone, fax, email or online Sc :e postage & packing charges S? ue to £5 £10 £30 £45 £65 £100 +£100 DVD CD •sr; gd £1.99 £1.99 £1.99 £2.99 £4.99 £7.99 £7.99 £1.25 £1.25 £1.99 £4.00 £5.00 £6.50 £8.50 £10.50 11% £2.50 £1.50 Sttf ork, £2.00 £4.50 £6.00 £7.00 £10.00 16% 16% £3.00 £2.00 □ Watching British Dragonflies #118377 □ Freshwater Life of Britain and Northern Europe #158058 □ Insects of Britain and Western Europe #149256 □ Concise Guide to Moths of Britain and Ireland #167130 □ Where to Watch Mammals in Britain and Ireland #149288 £27.50 pbk £19 99 pbk £14.99 pbk £12.95 pbk £16.99 pbk ct ues payable to NHBS Ltd. Payment can also be made in US$ 8, Euro, please contact customer services for details. 7 i ed and re-engineered without compromise, the new HR ED deliver e optional optical performance combined with sublime handling and ft bility. Features include: e1 win ED APO lens design ; e' ightweight nitrogen gas filled magnesium body, fully protected in ft uch textured rubber armour ■ D' ed N-type coating throughout for maximum brightness and contrast V wheel focusing, retractable lens hood with integrated objective --n1 over " >r; footprint +/- 90° rotating tripod sleeve ill rompatible with Opticron SDL, HDF & HR eyepieces -■If into option for SLR photography • tr guarantee 6 \ ED or HR 66 GA ED/45 body £649 0 \ ED or HR 80 G A ED/45 body £799 e : HDFT 20xWW/27xWW £129, HDF T 28xWW/38xWW £149, T -54x/24-72x £179, SDL 1 8-54x/24-72x £229, Telephoto HDF £149 Taking photographs through your telescope is now easier than ever with our extensive range of telephoto and photoadapters. For more information see our TELEPHOTOGRAPHY page at www.opticron.co.uk Nikon Spot-on digiscoping. Now you can use Nikon spotting scopes to discover the world of digiscoping. Just add a Nikon eyepiece, bracket and Coolpix camera... then enter, discover and explore an exciting new world of brilliant, up-close images with amazing color and detail. Nikon makes it all easy for you with your choice of portable, affordable, user-friendly scopes and all the accessories you need. So get into digiscoping now! Life up close NE' Spotting Scope RAII 1 82 WP + New DS Spotting scope Eyepiece + Digital camera Bracket FSB-6 + COOLPIX P5000/P5100 j Fieldscope ED82 + Fieldscope Digital SLR Camera Attachment FSA-L1 +D40x www.nikon.co.uk 0800 230 220 Nikon Wilson’s Snipe ISSN 0007-0335 British Birds Established 1907, incorporating The Zoologist, established 1843 Published by BB 2000 Limited, trading as ‘British Birds’ Registered Office: 4 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8SF British Birds is owned and published by BB 2000 Limited, the directors of which are John Eyre (Chairman), Jeremy Greenwood, Ian Packer, Adrian Pitches, Richard Porter and Bob Scott. BB 2000 Limited is wholly owned by The British Birds Charitable Trust (registered charity No. 1089422), whose trustees are Richard Chandler, Jeremy Greenwood, Peter Oliver and Bob Scott. British Birds aims to be the leading journal for the modern birder in the Western Palearctic We aim to: ♦> provide a forum for contributions of interest to all birdwatchers in the Western Palearctic; ♦> publish material on behaviour, conservation, distribution, ecology, identification, movements, status and taxonomy; ♦> embrace new ideas and research; <> maintain our position as the respected journal of record; and •> interpret good scientific research on birds for the interested non-scientist. British Birds Notes Panel Editor Roger Riddington Will Cresswell, Ian Dawson, Jim Flegg, Ian Newton FRS, II Assistant Editors Caroline Dudley & Peter Kennerley Malcolm Ogilvie, Angela Turner (Co-ordinator) Editorial Board Dawn Balmer, Ian Carter, Richard Chandler, Martin Collinson, Chris Kehoe, Annual subscription rates Robin Prytherch, Nigel Redman, Libraries and agencies - £89.00 Roger Riddington, Steve Votier Individual subscriptions: UK - £48.00 Art Consultants Robert Gillmor & Alan Harris Overseas surface mail - £54.50 Photographic Consultants Robin Chittenden & David Tipling Back issues Rarities Committee Single back issues - £6.50 Available from British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Chairman Adam Rowlands Secretary Nigel Hudson Rarities Issue - £12 (available as above) Please make all cheques payable to British Birds Chris Batty, Chris Bradshaw, Phil Bristow, Lance Degnan, Paul French, Martin Garner, James Lidster, Guidelines for contributors Mike Pennington, Brian Small, John Sweeney Full details are available on the BB website. www.britishbirds.co.uk EDITORIAL CIRCULATION Spindrift, Eastshore, & PRODUCTION Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS 4 Harlequin Gardens, Tel: 01950 460080 St Leonards on Sea, Papers, notes, letters, illustrations, etc. East Sussex TN37 7PF Roger Riddington Tel & fax: 01424 755155 E-mail: editor@britishbirds.co.uk ‘News & comment’ information Design & Production Mark Corliss E-mail: m.corliss@netmatters.co.uk Adrian Pitches, 22 Dene Road, Tynemouth, Tyne & Wear NE30 2JW E-mail: adrianpitches@blueyonder.co.uk Subscriptions & Administration Rarity descriptions Hazel Jenner Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat, E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk St Mary’s, Scilly TR21 OLL E-mail: secretary@bbrc.org.uk Printed by Hastings Printing Company Ltd ADVERTISING: for all advertising matters, please contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd, B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550 Fax: 020 8881 0990 E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Front-cover photograph: Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica , May 2006. David Tipling REFERRED BY HOSE WHO KNOW. PENTAX. A revelation in binocular viewing. When it comes to keeping a keen eye on birds and nature, nothing compares to Pentax. I With state-of-the-art performance and silky smooth handling, Pentax DCF ED binoculars are the preferred choice of nature-lovers the world over. They deliver precise, accurate images over long viewing periods, thanks to a raft of advanced optical technologies, such as high-tech ED glass to enhance sharpness and eliminate colour fringing, Super Multi Coating on all lens surfaces, and BaK4 prisms for unsurpassed clarity. What's more, they're built to take the toughest conditions. With a strong and light magnesium chassis, rubber coating and full water, dirt and fog protection. Just like our multi-award winning digital SLR cameras, Pentax DCF ED binoculars simply set the Available at leading Pentax Camera Stores - visit our website for details PENTAX DCF ED 10x43 'Pentax.co.uk Don’t miss our Bargain selection for 2008 Argentina - Andes 10 days- £1,890 Departs 7 Jan, 25 Feb, 7 Apr, 28 Jul, 1 Dec Argentina - Chaco 10 days- £1,890 Departs 14 Jan, 3 Mar, 14 Apr, 4 Aug, 8 Dec Australia - Endemics of WA 12 days - £2,250 Departs 12, 26 Sep Australia - Queensland 13 days - £2,590 Departs II Nov Bolivia - Lowlands 10 days - £1,395 Departs 10 Feb, 9 Nov Bolivia - Highlands 12 days - £1,595 Departs 17 Feb, 16 Nov Botswana 10 days- £1,695 Departs 14 Nov Brazil 10 days- £1,495 Departs 7 Mar, 19 Sep Cuba 12 days - £1,790 Departs 8 Mar Ecuador - Choco 9 days- £1,350 Departs 22 Nov Ecuador - Tumbesian Endemics 9 days - £1,395 Departs 7 Sep Ecuador - Cock-of- the-Rock 9 days - from £1,250 Departs 15 Jan, 9 Feb, 15 Mar, 21 Aug, 18 Oct, 15 Nov Ethiopia 10 days - from £1,295 Departs 8 Feb, 21 Mar, 7 Nov, 19 Dec Ethiopian Endemics 10 days - £1,295 Departs 15 Feb, II Apr, 14 Nov Florida 9 days- £1,590 Departs 18 Feb Gambia 12 days- £1,190 Departs 7 Nov India - Birds & Mammals 9 days- £1,350 Departs I, 15 Feb, 4 Apr, 14 Nov India - Bharatpur & Chambal 9 days - from £1,295 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 27 Dec India - Corbett Country 9 days - £1,250 Departs 26 Jan, 22 Nov India - Endemic Birds of Annamalai 9 days- £1,195 Departs 2 Feb, 22 Nov India - Family Tour Spices & Elephants 9 days - from £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Temples & Wildlife 9 days - £1,525 Departs 9 Feb, 5 Apr, 18 Oct, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Tigers & Forts 9 days - £1,345 Departs 9, 16 Feb, 25 Oct India - Goa 9 days- £1,195 Departs 14 Nov India - International Animal Rescue 10 days- £1,550 Departs 15 Feb, 14 Nov India - Kerala’s National Parks & Backwaters 9 days - £1,350 Departs I Mar, 15 Nov India - Southern India’s Endemics 12 days - from £1,550 Departs 8 Mar, 15 Nov, 20 Dec India - Wildlife & Cuisine 9 days - £1,295 Departs 9, 16, 23 Feb, 8 Mar, 8 Nov, 27 Dec Kazakhstan 9 days - £1,595 Departs 8, 16th May Kenya 10 days- £1,595 Departs 7 Nov Malawi 10 days - £1,595 Departs 3 Feb, 6 Apr Nepal 10 days - from £1,495 Departs 2, 9th Feb, 29 Mar, 20 Dec Nepal - A Very Special Offer! 10 days - £1,295 Departs 26 Jan, 16 Feb, 3 May Nepal - Ibisbill Trek 10 days - £1,495 Departs 10 May Panama - Canopy Tower 9 days - £1,595 Departs 16, 23 Apr, 12 Nov South Africa 10 days - £1,550 Departs 8 Feb, 28 Mar, 5 Sep South Africa’s Cape 10 days - £1,495 Departs 14 Mar, 22 Aug South Africa - Zululand 10 days - £1,595 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 13 Sep Southern Morocco 10 days - from £1,195 Departs 8 Feb, 14 Mar, 4 Apr Sri Lanka 10 days- £1,495 Departs 16 Feb, 8 Nov Thailand /: 10 days - £1,590 Departs 15 Feb, 14 Nov ^dtH! Uganda 9 days - £1,395 Departs 6 Mar, 30 Oct Venezuela - Off the Beaten Track 9 days - £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, I Nov Venezuela - Andean Endemics 9 days- £1,495 Departs 2 Feb, 15 Nov Venezuela - Llanos 9 days- £1,495 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 8 Nov Zambia 9 days - from £1,550 Departs 18 Feb, 10 Nov, 19 Dec For our New Brochure call a 01962 733051 or visit our Website naturetrek.co.uk NATURETREK. CHERITON MILL, CHERITON, ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE S024 0NG E-mail: info@naturetrek.co.uk BirdLifc EL 8x32 - £845.00 or only £600.00 •when trading in a good condition pair of 8x30 SLC :JL 10x32 -£890.00 or only £440.00* “when trading in a good condition pair of 10x42 EL L 8.5x42 - £950.00 or only£550.00 •When trading in a good condition pair of 8x32 EL L 10x42 - £999.00 or only £670.00* •when trading n a good condition pair of 10x42 SLC Titchfield Haven Nature Reserve Hill Head, Fareham ATS 65 HD & 30xW & Stay on case RRP £1520.00 £1127.00 (Add an extra £54.00 if 2 0-6 Ox zoom is prefered) ATS 80 HD & 30xW & Stay on case RRP £1965.00 £1455.00 (Add an extra £54.00 if 20-60x zoom is prefered) Price Promise "■ ' vd to keep our prices competetive & will . '.’ATCH or BEAT any puce in this magazine We both part-exchange and buy quality equipment Conditions apply Ask for details DCB Digital Camera Base RRP £255.00 our price £210.00 (Suitable for a wide range of digital compact cameras) Open 9am-5.30pm Mon-Sat. Please check availability before making a special journey. TLS 800 Telephoto Lens System RRP £340.00 our price £267.00 (For digital and classic SLR cameras) Come and visit us on the following dates March 29th & 30th May 31st & June 1st July 26th & 27th September 27th & 28th November 22nd & 23rd E.&O.E. All prices quoted include VAT@17.5%. Prices subject to change. All goods subject to availability. london camera exchange 15 The Square Winchester S023 9ES 01962 866203 winchester@LCEgroup.co.uk SIMQN KING, Wildlife Film-Maker. iS Zeiss 8 x 32 T* FL Zeiss 10 x 32 T* FL 3MIIUM ib ubiny zeibb viuiuiy ri_ o a jz umuLuidib, wiui d uube iui_ub ui z ineueb. With the best optical image quality of their class, minimum weight and optimum ergonomics and handling - these are the unbeatable benefits supplied by Victory FL Binoculars and their special objective lenses with fluoride glass (FL). For more information, please telephone: 01707 871 350 or visit www.zeiss.co.uk. We mal it® "Puffins can sometimes be incredibly confiding, coming to withi metres of you if you sit quietly near their nesting colony. They stunning birds, but to truly appreciate their colour and form, g binoculars are a must". British Birds Volume 101 • Number 4 • April 2008, w.FmniRAL rr w U'r; »* ' 1 5 APR 2008 PRESET ED TRING LIBRARY 1 74 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs - pointers, pitfalls and problem birds /. Martin Collinson and Tim Melling 1 89 Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe Martin Reid Regular features 200 Notes Egyptian Geese eating New Zealand Pigmyweed John E. Warren Little Grebe catching newt Colin Wilkinson Post-hatch nest use by Slavonian Grebes in Scotland Ian A. Dillon, Mark Hancock and Ron W. Summers British-ringed Honey-buzzards return to breed in the UK S. J. Roberts and J. M. S. Lewis New evidence of dark Hobbies Inigo Zuberogoitia, Ihaki Castillo, Ainara Azkona, Agurtzane Iraeta, Lander Astorkia, Javier Elorriaga and Jose Antonio Martinez Ship-assisted Barn Swallow Richard Lowe Robin imitating Barn Swallow R. A. Frost Attempted feeding of dead fledgling by Blackbird A. P. Radford Blue Tits obtain concealed insects in winter by selecting bud size Harry E. M. Dott Juvenile Coal Tit feeding juvenile Blue Tit A. P. Radford 2 1 I Letters The Cheshire Kermadec Petrel Martin Woodcock, Chris Stnout The past British status of the Balearic Shearwater W. R. P. Bourne Storks and other possible past British breeding birds W. R. P. Bourne The pronunciation of scientific names Mike Blair Lammergeiers and lambs Dougal G. Andrew 2 1 6 Reviews A History of Ornithology Essential Guide to Birds of the Isles of Scilly Pete Dunne’s Essential Field Guide Companion Bird: the ultimate illustrated guide to the birds of Britain and Europe Rare Birds Yearbook 2008 Wild Mynd: birds and wildlife of the Long Mynd 220 News and comment Adrian Pitches 223 Recent reports Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey © British Birds 2008 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs - pointers, pitfalls and problem birds J. Martin Collinson and Tim Melting ABSTRACT Records of Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus in northern Europe are increasing. At the time of writing, all British records have been singing males. In this paper, we present sonograms of some accepted and potential Iberian Chiffchaffs from Britain. The characteristics of Iberian Chiffchaff song that can be used for identification of vagrants are reviewed. A record of a bird at Skelmersdale, Lancashire, in 2004, is thought unlikely to have been an Iberian Chiffchaff, but another bird, a mixed singer at Dibbinsdale, Merseyside, also in 2004, may be acceptable. The vocalisations of an accepted Iberian Chiffchaff in Oxfordshire in 2000 are now considered not to be absolutely typical. A problematic bird at Lavenham, Suffolk, in 2007 is also discussed and thought not to be acceptable. Introduction The Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus (formerly P. brehmii), a relatively recent split from Common Chiffchaff P. collybita (Helbig et al. 1996; Clement & Helbig 1998; BOU 1999), has a breeding range limited almost entirely to the Iberian Peninsula (fig. 1). Morphology There are small but diagnostic differences in plumage and biometrics between the two species, as well as a tendency for different habitat preferences and a high degree of genetic divergence (4.6% at the mitochondrial-DNA level, indicating a long period of evolutionary separation) (Helbig et al. 1996, 2001; Salomon 1997). Iberian Chiffchaffs, especially northern populations, tend to have longer, more pointed wings than Common Chiffchaffs (giving them a more Willow Warbler P. trochilus-like wing structure). Iberian Chiffchaffs also have cleaner white underparts with a noticeably yellow throat and vent, and a subtly brighter green mantle than Common Chiffchaffs (Salomon 1997; Salomon et al. 2003; Slaterus 2007). Other supportive features (statistical tendencies rather than diagnostic traits) are reported to include: a longer tail, a lemon-yellow wash to the super- cilium in front of the eye, a yellow bill-base and a less obvious eye-ring (owing to the strong supercilium and plain pale ear-coverts) that is thicker above the eye than below (Richards 1999; Slaterus 2007). The legs of Iberian Chiff- chaff are generally, though not always, dark brown. Iberian Chiffchaff has been reported to have a longer supercilium than Common, but there is enough variation in both species to make this feature unreliable for identification. On current knowledge, geographic and indi- vidual variation within both Common and Iberian Chiffchaffs suggests that identification of a silent migrant remains a significant challenge and is likely to be virtually impossible in the field. Northern populations of Iberian Chiff- chaffs are biometrically distinct from southern populations of Common Chiffchaffs on the basis © British Birds 101 ‘April 2008 • 1 74- 1 88 174 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c > of wing size and shape, and tarsus and bill length (Salomon 1997, 2002). However, southern pop- ulations of Iberian Chiff- chaffs have shorter, less pointed wings than northern birds, while northern Common Chiffchaffs P. c. abietinus have long wings similar to southern Iberian Chiffchaffs (Salomon 2002). So although some vagrant Iberian Chiff- chaffs may be struc- turally distinctive, others, especially from southern populations, will not be. In fact, all the ‘distinctive’ plumage and structural features of Iberian Chiff- chaff overlap with Common Chiffchaff and require extremely careful description. In any case, they are so subtle that, in the context of a rarity report based on field observations, they are likely to be sufficiently dependent on light conditions and the expecta- tions and perhaps the imagination of the observer as to be almost totally subjective. For example, there is a popular misconception that Iberian Chiffchaff has a longer bill than Common Chiffchaff, and observers of extralim- ital Iberian Chiffchaffs in northern Europe have reported them as having long bills (Slaterus 2007; this paper). However, biometrics show that the bill length of Iberian Chiffchaff is virtually identical to that of Common Chiffchaff and, if anything, is shorter. The bill is, however, often described as ‘spikey’, perhaps implying a nar- rower bill-base. Voice Fortunately, Iberian Chiffchaff has diagnostic songs and calls, which are discussed in detail below. All extralimital birds identified in Britain and The Netherlands have been singing males in spring (Slaterus 2007). Other age and sex classes are clearly being overlooked, although females and autumn migrants could perhaps be | expected to be identifiable by their calls. Fig. I. Breeding range of Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus (green shading), adapted from the map in BWPi (BirdGuides Ltd). The range of Iberian Chiffchaff overlaps that of Common Chiffchaff P. collybita and has been intensively studied in a narrow, 20-km zone in the western Pyrenees around the France/Spain border, where the two species hybridise (shaded in orange). The most recent data on breeding distribution of iberian Chiffchaff in Spain is published in Marti & del Moral (2003). The map presented here may require modification, and the extent of the regular zone of overlap between the two species is not fully known. Hybridisation The ranges of Common and Iberian Chiffchaffs overlap in a narrow, 20-km zone in the western Pyrenees around the France/Spain border (fig. 1), and the two species hybridise. This is prob- ably a secondary contact zone following range expansion after a period of isolation from each other (Salomon 1989, 2001). Although most birds within this overlap zone are assignable to one species or the other, around 24% of all breeding pairs can be shown by molecular and morphological analysis to be mixed pairs, almost exclusively male ibericus with female collybita (Helbig et al. 2001; Bensch et al. 2002). Some birds appear to be intermediates, i.e. pos- sessing one species’ genes but emitting the vocalisations of the other species, and 8.6% of birds are mixed singers, giving song bursts that consist of elements of songs from both species (Salomon & Hemim 1992; Salomon 1997; Bensch et al. 2002). All these are usually taken as signs of hybrid origin. Although successful hybridisation, leading to viable recruits to the population, is difficult to prove (Salomon 1987; Helbig et al. 2001), it has been inferred - 10% British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 174-188 175 Fluke Art Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c > Fig. 2. Songs and calls of Common Phylloscopus collybita and Iberian Chiffchaffs P. ibericus. (a, b) Advertising songs of Common Chiffchaff. (a) Fragment of the advertising song of Common Chiffchaff. Sonogram created from song recorded in Schulze & Dingier (2007). This song may be transcribed as 'prp prp chaff chaff chiff chaff chaff chaff chiff chaff. Frequency range 3-8 kHz.The shoulder of the ‘chiff notes is at 5-5.5 kHz, and of the 'chaffs’ at around 4 kHz, although there is individual variation, (b) Advertising song of Common Chiffchaff, Britain, June 1 976. Sonogram created from song 176 British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 174-188 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c :> of birds within the contact zone show genetic evidence of a hybrid origin (Bensch et al. 2002). Nevertheless, hybridisation is not ‘the norm’ - and it can be inferred that (mostly) assortative mating and reduced fitness of female hybrids is preventing the two species from merging (Helbig et al. 2001). The two taxa have been studied intensively as an example of speciation in action (Salomon 2001). Mixed singers have also been recorded from the breeding range of Iberian Chiffchaffs outside the hybrid zone, in Portugal and Gibraltar (Thielcke & Linsenmair 1963; Salomon 1997; Bensch et al. 2002), where a direct hybrid origin, though not impossible, is less likely. For the iden- tification of a singing putative Iberian Chiffchaff in northern Europe, therefore, the issues to be addressed are: • How to distinguish a bird with true Iberian Chiffchaff parentage from a Common Chiff- chaff with an aberrant song. • How to demonstrate whether a bird is a mixed singer. • Should mixed singers be written off as hybrids? The purpose of this paper is to publish sono- grams of known Iberian Chiffchaffs, to reiterate some of the potential variation and diagnostic features in the song. Extralimital birds identified as Iberian Chiffchaff in Britain are included. We also comment on the identification of three chiffchaffs with putative Iberian-type songs, recorded in Britain in 2004 and 2007. Methods and Results Analogue or digital recordings of the individual chiffchaffs were obtained, and converted to .wav files. Initially, sonograms were produced using Avisoft-SASLab Light (www.avisoft.com/ downloa_.htm), latterly superseded by Syrinx (developed by John Burt and available from http://syrinxpc.com/). The advertising song of Common Chiffchaff is familiar to most European birders, but that of Iberian Chiffchaff is less well known outside its restricted geographic range. Common Chiffchaff The elements of the song of nominate Common Chiffchaff are comparatively invariant (Thielcke & Linsenmair 1963). There are three or four standard notes, representing different frequencies of ‘chiffs’ and ‘chaffs’. On the other hand, there is considerable variation in the order, sequence and length of song elements among Common Chiffchaffs. The song is long (typically more than 4 s), metro- nomic and relatively simple, with frequency range 3-8 kHz. Typically, the ‘shoulder’ of the ‘chiff’ notes is at 5-5.5 kHz, and that of the ‘chaffs’ at around 4 kHz, as shown in fig. 2a. Although the song elements in fig. 2a are complex, these song elements may be sung in simpler form, probably indistinguishable by ear under most field conditions but, in sonograms, lacking a strong terminal flourish (‘dog-legs’) as in fig. 2b. The call is an upwardly inflected ‘huit’ rising from about 2.5 to 4.5 kHz (fig. 2c). Iberian Chiffchaff In the context of spring vagrancy, Iberian Chiff- chaff has two major song types: an advertising song used by males trying to attract a mate and a conflict song used primarily during antagon- recorded in Kettle & Ranft ( 1 992). In comparison with (a), note the simpler form of most of the song elements. Although the differences are obvious on paper, it would take a keen ear to hear the difference in the field. This song would be transcribed as ‘chaff chaff chaff chaff chiff djip chup’. Notes 1—4 (‘chaffs’) are the simple form of the ‘reverse tick’ element that is shared with Iberian Chiffchaff. (c) Common Chiffchaff, call. A rising ‘huit’ from about 2. 5-4.5 kHz. (d-h) Advertising songs of Iberian Chiffchaff. (d, e)Two songs adapted from Thielcke & Linsenmair (1 963). The songs are typically divided into three or four distinct phases, but are nevertheless short (2-3 s).The songs (d) and (e) look very different as sonograms, but in the field they would both be transcribed roughly as ‘djip djip djip djip djip, wheep wheep (wheep) ch ch ch (ch)'. The frequency range is 3-6 kHz, in contrast to Common Chiffchaff song, (f) A classic short, three-phase example prepared from recording in Roche (2003). ‘Chop chop wheep wheep chuckachuckachuckachucka’.The frequency range is 3-6 kHz and mostly below 5.5 kHz. (g, h) Sonograms of two songs prepared from recordings in North & Simms (1 969). The four-phase song in (g) may be transcribed as ‘djip djip djip wheep wheep chachachachacha awhip awhip’.The frequency range is again 3-6 kHz and mostly below 5.5 kHz.The similarity with figs. IV andV in Cramp ( 1 992) is striking, (h) An alternative song of the same bird as in (g).The song may be transcribed ‘chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff wheep wheep dji dji’. Notes 1-5 are the ‘reverse tick’ element shared with Common Chiffchaff (cf. fig. 2b). In the case of this individual, the frequency range creeps up to 8 kHz and, together with the delivery of a long four-phase song in (g), it may be possible to assert that the bird is a mixed singer, although it is probably just showing the range of possible variation in Iberian Chiffchaff song. (i) Iberian Chiffchaff call. A diagnostic descending ‘peeoo’. British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 174-188 177 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c > istic interactions with other males. The same is true of Common Chiffchaff, although in that species the advertising and conflict songs are virtually identical. The conflict song of Iberian is very similar to that of Common but the advertising song is more variable and contains song elements not used by Common Chiffchaff. The frequency range of the song is about 3-7 kHz, with most of the song being below 6 kHz. Typically, the song will be shorter than that of Common Chiffchaff (< 4 s, and very frequently < 3 s) and contain about nine notes grouped in phases, or sections of homogeneous notes or sounds (Niethammer 1963; Thielcke & Linsen- mair 1963). The classic ‘three-phase’ advertising song may be described as ‘djup djup djup wheep wheep chittichittichittichitta’, although there is individual variation in the number of elements in each phase of the song, and the shape (in sonograms) of the notes within each phase of the song. The differences from Common Chiff- chaff should always be demonstrable using sonograms (Salomon & Hemim 1992). Some of the key elements and variation in this song are exemplified by figs. 2d-h. The ‘backslash’, labelled + in figs. 2d & 2e, and the small ‘light- ning forks’, labelled f» are both variations of a tinny, clipped ‘djup’ that is rather similar to that of Common Chiffchaff, though distinguishable by ear. The inverted ‘V’ or ‘forward slash’, labelled *, towards the middle of these songs represents the audible ‘wheeps’ that form a dis- tinctive and diagnostic element of Iberian Chiff- chaff song. Note, however, the variation. Upwardly inflecting notes that have the accent on the upward slope are completely unlike any- thing produced during song by collybita, and are rendered ‘jeee’. Those with a strong downward component too, such as in fig. 2d, have a stronger ending and may be described ‘jeeep’ or even ‘djiip’, and may be less audibly distinctive. The final three or four elements in each song are the slow rattle ‘chachachacha’ or ‘chittichitti- chittichitta’- the shape of these elements is also very variable. The ‘reverse ticks’ shown in the last four song elements of fig. 2d are typical, but variations on these are common, as will be seen below. A sonogram of Iberian Chiffchaff from Roche (2003) illustrates these points (fig. 2f). This song is typical - there are two quiet ‘chaffs’ (the faint backslashes) then, loud, ‘chop chop wheep wheep chuckachuckachuckachucka’. Note the frequency range: 3-6 kHz and mostly below 5.5 kHz. Sonograms of recordings from North & Simms (1969) show further patterns of variation (figs. 2g & 2h). The call, in sharp contrast to that of Common Chiffchaff, is downwardly inflected, from 5 to 3 kHz, transcribed as ‘piu’ or ‘peeoo’, perhaps reminiscent of the call of Siskin Cardu- elis spinas. In the context of identifying a strange chiffchaff, it most resembles the flatter ‘sad’ call of ‘Siberian Chiffchaff’ P. c. tristis/ fulvescens’. Most birders in northern Europe are aware that autumn juvenile P. c. collybita and P. c. abietinus can produce a surprising variety of begging and anxiety calls that may sound similar to Iberian Chiffchaff call. In a sono- gram, the convex downward slope of an Iberian call should be diagnostic (fig. 2i). Mixed singers As described above, the conflict song of Iberian Chiffchaff, given in response to, for example, a rival male, is very similar to the familiar ‘chiff chaff chiff chaff’ of Common Chiffchaff. The definition of ‘mixed singer’ is reserved for those birds that use song elements characteristic of both Iberian and Common Chiffchaff within a single advertising song. Mixed singers are rela- tively frequently recorded in the zone of overlap between the two species in the western Pyrenees, and are usually considered to be of hybrid origin (but see Discussion, below). These birds might sing songs similar to those of collybita or ibericus; more than three song motifs in an ‘Iberian’ song may be a clue that the bird is a mixed singer (Salomon & Hemim 1992; Marc Salomon pers. comm.), and any Iberian-type chiffchaff habitually singing songs more than four seconds long is suspect. Iberian Chiffchaffs and ‘problem birds’ occurring in Britain The first accepted record of Iberian Chiffchaff in Britain was a singing bird recorded by J. H. Wood and L. A. Batten at Brent Reservoir, Greater London, on 3rd June 1972. The occur- rence was documented by Batten (2000), although the description of the song and the sonogram in that paper were not particularly informative for other birders trying to identify this species. Then followed a 20-year gap until the next, but since then the species has lost its ‘blocker’ status and there have been several twitchable individuals. The following records ' have been accepted and published in the BBRC ; annual reports. British Birds 101 "April 2008 • 174-188 178 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs ) Fig. 3. Calls and songs of two accepted Iberian Chiffchaffs Phylloscopus ibericus from Britain. (a, b) 1972 Brent Reservoir, Greater London, Iberian Chiffchaff. (a) Sonogram starting with the diagnostic downslurred call of Iberian Chiffchaff, ‘piu’, followed by a low-intensity song as described in the main text, (b) Example of song which, although sounding very similar to that in (a), is in fact structurally very different, (b) is transcribed as ‘djp djp whip chi-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch’. (c) Song and call of 2000 Great Tew, Oxfordshire, Iberian Chiffchaff. Sonogram from a tape recording obtained by Andrew Harrop shows similarity to the song of the Brent Reservoir bird, shown in (a). This song can be transcribed as ‘djp whit whit whit whit whit djip-djp-djp-djp-djp’.The call (right) is downslurred, although with a concave ‘ski-slope’ shape rather than the more typical convex ibericus call element. 2006 Challacombe Common, Dorset, 1st May to 6th June. 2006 Pitcox, Lothian, 5th May, presumed same, Pressmannan, Lothian, 6th— 1 3th May. 2004 Easington, East Yorkshire, trapped 17th May. 2004 Windmill Farm, The Lizard, Cornwall, 30th April to 3rd May. 2004 Woodhorn, Northumberland, 1 8th— 1 9th April. 2003 Kingswear, Devon, 19th May to 17th June (possibly since 6th May). | 2001 Great Tew, Oxfordshire, 27th April to 15th May. 2000 Dunmere Woods, near Bodmin, Corn- wall, 13th— 3 1st May. 2000 Dungeness, Kent, 14th-17th April. 1999 Start Point, Devon, 6th-14th May. 1999 Verne Common, Dorset, 25th April to 8th July, trapped 9th May. 1992 St Mary’s, Scilly, 14th April to 21st May. 1972 Brent Reservoir, Greater London, 3rd June. All those identified have been singing males in spring; most arrivals were in April or May, and most stayed a few days or even weeks. Slaterus (2007) reported 18 accepted records from The Netherlands and a very similar pattern of occurrence. Iberian Chiffchaff, Brent Reservoir, 3rd June 1972 This bird was identified primarily on the basis of a series of tape recordings of its song, and was subsequently accepted as the first for Britain (Batten 2000). The published descrip- tion mentions a distinct creamy-white super- cilium, terminating well behind the eye, underparts ‘washed greyish’ with an ill-defined pale yellow band across the breast and extending onto the lower neck, and yellowish undertail-coverts. The legs appeared dark brown. The bird stayed high in willows Salix along the reservoir bank while under observa- tion and was gone the next day. It also gave a distinctive call, likened in the description to a young chicken’s anxiety call. This is perhaps unnervingly like the typical description of the ‘sad’ call of Siberian Chiffchaff, but the sono- British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 174-188 179 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c ) gram (visible as the first note in fig. 3a) shows it to be the slurred call of Iberian Chiffchaff. Sonograms of the other vocalisations of this bird are characteristic of Iberian Chiffchaff. As shown in fig. 3a, it gave a three-phase song, albeit that the middle phase was sometimes only one note (individual song element): ‘whit whit whit whit whit di ip djp-djp-djp-djp’. However, there was considerable variation shown within the songs of this individual on the tapes. The song shown in fig. 3b, ‘djp djp whip chi-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch’, and recognisable variations of it, was performed several times. Iberian Chiffchaff, Great Tew, Oxfordshire, 27th April to 15th May 2000 This bird, accepted by BBRC as an Iberian Chiffchaff (Rogers et al. 2002), is included here for comparison. Sonograms from a tape recording by Andrew Harrop (fig. 3c) show striking similarity to one of the song types of the Brent Reservoir bird shown in fig. 3a. The call, although slurred downward and quite dis- tinctive, both by ear and as a sonogram (fig. 3c, right), is not the classic ibericus call, however, as the shape in the sonogram is concave rather than convex. Marc Salomon (pers. comm.) has commented that this shape of call is perhaps more characteristic of known mixed singers. No overtly mixed songs were recorded, however, and also we are not absolutely certain that this call came from the bird in question. The Skelmersdale chiffchaff, Lancashire, 18th April to 2nd May 2004 This bird was controversial because of its bright plumage and unusual song. A detailed descrip- tion of this bird appeared in White (2005) and is summarised below. Appearance The bird was similar in structure to Common Chiffchaff. The forehead, nape and crown were pale brown and the nape was tinged yellow- green. The supercilium was relatively indistinct, and had a yellow tinge. The bird had a promi- nent broken eye-ring, white below and yellow above. The upperparts were dull olive-green. The rump and uppertail-coverts were bright yellow-green. The wings and tail had pale green fringes, forming a slight panel in the wings; median and greater coverts were fringed yellow- green. The tertials had broad, bright edges, con- trasting with darker grey centres. The primary projection looked rather long, estimated at between half and two-thirds of the length of the exposed tertials. Unfortunately, no photographs allowed precise measurement. There was a yellow wash across the breast, throat and undertail-coverts, thin yellow streaks on the flanks and the ‘thighs’ were distinctly yellow. Although these features would be per- fectly normal on a male Common Chiffchaff, the plumage was said to contrast with that of nearby Common Chiffchaffs. The legs were a medium flesh-brown. Song The song was given in two distinct phases, usually beginning with six or more ‘chiffs’ (with a ‘chaff’ or two occasionally inserted into the sequence) and followed by a rapid succession of notes sliding into a single trill (variously tran- scribed as ‘too-too-too-too-too-too’, ‘dit-dit-dit- dit-dit-dit’ or ‘chitty-chitty-chitty’. The whole sequence lasted about three or four seconds. The bird called infrequently — a sharp monosyl- labic ‘huit’ or perhaps ‘tuit’. Behaviour The bird was never seen to perform the typical Common Chiffchaff ‘tail-bob’. Whenever it sang, it twitched its wings and tail, most notice- ably during the trill when the whole bird was quivering. It was never seen interacting with Common Chiffchaffs. When Iberian Chiffchaff advertising song was played to the bird, it would react, approach the playback and appear curious. Other Common Chiffchaffs in the area did not do this. When Common Chiffchaff song was played, the putative Iberian Chiffchaff ignored it. Sonogram analysis from recordings made by TM suggested that the song was atypical of both Iberian and Common Chiffchaffs. The call was not recorded, but the published description does not fit the downslurred call of Iberian Chiffchaff and tends to suggest Common Chiff- chaff Its song (fig. 4), a series of ‘chiff chaff’s fol- lowed by a trill, was aberrant in structure for Common Chiffchaff, but it was noted that the shapes of all the song elements were either fairly typical for Common Chiffchaff or of elements that are shared with Iberian Chiffchaff. The bird did not ‘wheep’ and although the ‘lightning fork’ elements are perhaps unusually jagged for Common Chiffchaff (and more reminiscent of 180 British Birds 101 •April 2008 • 174-188 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c > Iberian Chiffchaff - see fig. 2g), there are no uniquely Iberian ele- ments in the song. This also applies to the ter- minal trill, which is composed of ‘reverse tick’ elements compar- able to those demon- strated in fig. 2b (Common Chiffchaff) and 2h (Iberian Chiff- chaff). The frequency range of the song, 3-8 kHz, with ‘chiffs’ at 5-6 kHz and ‘chaffs’ at 3.5-4 kHz, is more typical of Common Chiffchaff than Iberian. The length of the song, at 4.5 s or more, is very atypical for Iberian Chiffchaff. Although the yellow plumage hues and the structure of the Skelmersdale bird are perhaps suggestive of ibericus , there is no strong evidence from the song or call analysis that this bird was an Iberian Chiffchaff. Clearly the song is aber- rant for Common Chiff- chaff. Cramp (1992) suggested that Common Chiffchaffs raised without hearing the songs of their congeners sing a simple, presum- ably innate, genetically based, song that ends with a terminal trill. This is plausibly what is happening here. Alter- natively, it may repre- sent a Common Chiffchaff that has been in contact with Iberian I Chiffchaffs, and partially i learnt their song struc- ture (Marc Salomon pers. comm.). kHz 8 6 4 2 0 V'' c V- v V V V- L L LLLLl LLL ^ Fig. 4. Presumed advertising song of Skelmersdale chiffchaff, 29th April 2004. This sonogram, from a recording byTM, represents a single typical example of the two-phase song of the bird. The first part of the song consists of notes that are not uncommon for Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita. The frequency range of 3-8 kHz goes outside the normal range of Iberian Chiffchaff P. ibericus. The first part of the song can be described as ‘chiff chaff chaff chiff chiff chiff chiff’ with ‘chiffs’ at 5—6 kHz, ‘chaffs’ at 3.5—4 kHz.The spacing between the notes (0.3 s) is slightly greater than is typical for Iberian Chiffchaffs. The terminal rattle is a faster series of standard Common Chiffchaff ‘chaffs’ at 4 kHz.This is the ‘reverse tick’ song element that can be produced by either species. There are no diagnostic Iberian ‘wheep’ elements. The total length of the song and, in particular, the terminal rattle, is atypically long for Iberian Chiffchaff. 98 & 99. The Skelmersdale chiffchaff, Lancashire, April 2004. Note the obvious eye-ring and weak supercilium, features which are more typical of Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita than Iberian P. ibericus. Several observers noted the strong yellow hues to the underpart feathers, but the pattern of scattered strongly yellow feathers on the breast and belly is not atypical for Common Chiffchaff. British Birds 101 'April 2008 • 174-188 181 Steve Young/Birdwatch Steve Young/Birdwatch Steve Round Steve Young/Birdwatch Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs C > paired with a Common Chiffchaff and nest- building was observed. Description The plumage hues were described as browner than those of Common Chiffchaff, with obvious yellow restricted to the carpal joint and the vent. In this respect it differed from the Skelmersdale bird and the brightest Iberian Chiffchaffs, but was similar to the Brent Reservoir bird. The supercilium was noticeably long, which, together with the pale plain ear- coverts, accentuated the lack of a distinct eye- ring. The wings and tail were noted to be longer than those of collybita, and the tail was con- stantly pumped up and down, in contrast to the rapid ‘tail-bob’ characteristic of Common Chiffchaff. The bill appeared to be longer than that of Common Chiffchaff and the legs were dark, but not black. Although the bird was ini- tially identified on the basis of its distinctive song (Iberian-like, described below), it also sometimes gave typical Common Chiffchaff song. The call was described as a distinctive downward-deflected ‘cheow’. 100 & 101. The Dibbinsdale chiffchaff, Merseyside, April/May 2004. Note the strong supercilium and weak eye-ring, and also the brown legs, all features pointing towards Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus. The primary projection appears to be on the long side for Common Chiffchaff P. collybita, potentially supporting identification as Iberian Chiffchaff, had the bird been trapped. The Dibbinsdale chiffchaff, Merseyside, 28th April to 1 5th May 2004 This bird was widely regarded to be a better candidate for Iberian Chiffchaff than the Skelmersdale bird, although it was less yellow. It Song analysis Unfortunately, no calls were captured on the recordings taken by or available to us. However, the written description of the call appears to be characteristic of Iberian Chiffchaff. Sonograms showed considerable variation in the songs pro- duced by this bird (fig. 5). However, they were typically divided into distinct phases, which is normal for Iberian Chiffchaff. Furthermore, many of the song notes were typical of Iberian and outside the range of Common. Generally, this bird sang most like an Iberian Chiffchaff. The most typical song sequence was some vari- ation on ‘djp djp djp djp chi-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch wheep wheep wheep’, although the terminal ‘wheep’s were often omitted (fig. 5a). The clipped nature of the ‘djp’ notes was shown on sonograms to relate to a song element that is, conceivably characteristic of both Iberian and Common Chiffchaffs, although the frequency range (up to 8 kHz) is perhaps more typical of 182 British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 174-188 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c > Fig. 5. Advertising and conflict songs of Dibbinsdale chiffchaff, 29th April 2004. The recording (obtained byTM) was divided into three phases: (a) a mixed early section of low-intensity song composed of ‘djips’ and rattles with Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus- type ‘djip’s at 3-7 (weakly 8) kHz then an Iberian-type rattle at 3-5.5 kHz, e.g.'djp djp djp djp ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch’. (b) After the Iberian Chiffchaff song was played back to the bird, it commenced a Common Chiffchaff P. collybita- type song that may represent the normal ‘conflict’ song of Iberian Chiffchaff in response to a rival, but note that the frequency range is high - up to 8 kHz,‘chiff chaff chiff chaff chaff chaff chaff’, (c) It subsequently returned to normal (higher intensity) Iberian Chiffchaff advertising song incorporating diagnostic ‘wheep’s: ‘djp djp djp djp ch-ch-ch- ch-ch wheep wheep'. (d) The bird also gave one burst of mixed song transcribed as [Common] ‘chiff chaff chaff’ [Iberian] ‘wheep wheep wheep wheep’. The first three notes of the mixed song at frequency 3-8 kHz are of a Common Chiffchaff type (cf. fig. 2b). Common. In contrast, we are not aware that the song elements seen from 1 s onwards in fig. 5a would ever be produced by Common Chiffchaff. The bird was also recorded per- forming ‘chiff chaff chiff chaff’-type songs at 3-8 kHz, indistinguishable from those of Common Chiff- chaff (fig. 5b). This Common Chiffchaff-like song would often be fol- lowed by a song character- istic of Iberian (fig. 5c). Common Chiffchaff-like songs were in response to playback of the song of an Iberian Chiffchaff. It is normal for Iberian Chiff- chaffs to do this, and prob- ably represents the Iberian ‘conflict’ song. The Iberian Chiffchaff at Portland in April 1999 produced an almost identical song under similar playback conditions (Richards 1999). The Dib- binsdale individual was also recorded singing a ‘mixed song’ - shown in fig. 5d. Transcribed as ‘chiff chaff chaff wheep wheep wheep wheep’, this combination of Common Chiffchaff-like elements with elements that are unique to Iberian Chiff- chaff within a single song fits the classic definition of a mixed singer. Mixed singing inevitably casts doubt on the identity of the Dibbinsdale chiff- chaff, but it was clearly not ‘just’ a Common Chiffchaff. The possibility of hybrid origin has to be considered, and the description of its structure and plumage, although suggestive of Iberian Chiffchaff in some respects, may not | rule this out, bearing in mind that the bird was not trapped (the Portland bird was trapped and | examined in the hand). The identification of mixed singers is discussed below. We would not discount the possibility that the Dibbinsdale ; bird may have been a genuine Iberian Chiff- | chaff. Indeed, in the 320 s of recordings we have access to (280 s recorded by TM, presented here, and a further 40 s recorded by Phil Woollen on 29th April and 2nd May), the bird gives 26 songs that are diagnostically Iberian Chiffchaff, eight examples of ‘chiff chaff’ songs in response to ibericus song playback (hence possibly representing Iberian Chiffchaff conflict song), and only one mixed song - the one described here. The Lavenham chiffchaff, Suffolk, 1 3th April to July 2007 This bird was found by Peter Hobbs and attracted attention by its unusual song on 13th British Birds 101 - April 2008 • 174-188 183 Bill Boston Bill Boston Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c } April 2007. In terms of plumage and structure, the bird was consistent with Iberian Chiffchaff, with obvious yellow tones to the strong super- cilium, a yellow throat and vent, dark brown legs and a relatively long primary projection (Peter Hobbs pers. comm.). Fig. 6a shows its unusual song, recorded on 24th April. Although the song is divided into discrete phases and contains some ‘whip’-like V-shaped notes that would not normally be produced by Common Chiffchaff and are more characteristic of Iberian Chiffchaff, it is mixed with notes typical of Common Chiffchaff (‘chiffs’ with a shoulder at 6 kHz, extending in range to 8 kHz). In addition, the song, at over 5 s, is longer than expected of Iberian Chiffchaff. By 18th June, the bird had switched predominantly to a different song type composed almost entirely of Common Chiffchaff-type notes interspersed with Iberian-type ‘djip’s. Between loud song bursts, it maintained a quiet ‘prp prp prp prp prp’ sequence such that all songs ran into each other without a clear break over periods of several minutes (fig. 6b). At this stage the bird had been seen carrying food and this may represent a specialised courtship song. However, when the bird flew from low cover into the canopy of some tall trees, it reverted to a more-or-less passable Iberian Chiffchaff song (fig. 6c). By July, it became clear that the bird had bred with a female Common Chiffchaff and raised a brood of at least four juveniles. At this time, the call was recorded for the first time (fig. 6d) and was unequivocally that of a Common Chiffchaff. As the Lavenham bird produced such wide- spread unusual and mixed singing, it seems impossible to conclude that it was an acceptable Iberian Chiffchaff, but the possibility that it was a hybrid cannot be excluded. The possibility of influence from Siberian Chiffchaff, ‘Canary Islands Chiffchaff’ P. c. canariensis and even Greenish Warbler P. trochiloides was also considered. The bird is not a classic Iberian Chiffchaff, although it is possible that it has Iberian influence or genes. The relatively fresh tertials, primaries, tail and wing- coverts, and the broad, rounded tail- feather tips would suggest that it is at least a second- summer adult, rather than a first-summer Iberian Chiffchaff that, through lack of exposure to congeners, has adopted Common Chiffchaff ele- ments to its song. This is discussed below. The call would appear to preclude acceptance as Iberian Chiffchaff, although irre- spective of whatever its 1 02 & 1 03. The Lavenham chiffchaff, Suffolk, May 2007. Note the apparently short primary projection and obvious eye-ring, which are not supportive of identification as Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus — compare with photos of the Dibbinsdale chiffchaff in plates 1 00 & 101. British Birds 101 ‘April 2008 • 174-188 c Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs ;> Fig. 6. The Lavenham chiffchaff. (a) Typical advertising song, from 24th April 2007: ‘djip djip chu wi-wi-wi-wi djp djip chu-i djp djip djip chu wi-wi-wi djp djip chu-i’. A mix of Common Phylloscopus collybita and Iberian Chiffchaff P. ibericus elements, elements that could belong to either species, and elements that are atypical for either, and more reminiscent of some song elements produced by 'Siberian Chiffchaff’ Pc. tristis or even Mountain Chiffchaff P. sindianus. (b) 1 8th June 2007.The song is largely composed of Common Chiffchaff elements but includes some clipped ‘djip's at 4. 5-5.0 s and 6. 5-7.0 s that are more associated with Iberian Chiffchaff. (c) Although the first two elements are suspiciously high frequency and more characteristic of Common Chiffchaff, this is essentially an Iberian Chiffchaff song.'djip djip chp whee wi-wi-wi-wi’. (d) July song, preceded by upwardly inflected ‘hweet’ call typical of Common Chiffchaff and which precludes identification as Iberian Chiffchaff. The song is essentially that of an aberrant Common Chiffchaff that contains elements which may be characteristic of Iberian Chiffchaff but which equally may represent degraded versions of elements of the songs of other species. (Recordings provided by Peter Hobbs. Independent recordings provided by Stuart Read showed similar patterns.) innate call was, it may have been imitating its mate. The Lavenham bird should probably be left unidentified at present. Other Iberian Chiffchaffs in Britain Sonograms of recent recordings of other Iberian Chiffchaffs in Britain are presented in fig. 7. The song of the 2007 Colney (Norfolk) bird (still under consideration by BBRC) was consistent with Iberian Chiffchaff (fig. 7a). The song of a chiffchaff at Beer (Devon) in 2007 (fig. 7b) is also consistent with Iberian Chiff- chaff, albeit the song appears not to be fully developed (‘crystallised’), possibly indicating a first-summer that has had little experience of hearing Iberian Chiffchaff song. Recordings of the 2006 Pressmannan Iberian Chiffchaff were also obtained - they were typical of Iberian Chiffchaff, but the recording equipment had cut off all signals over 5 kHz, so sonograms are not presented here. Discussion When assessing records of rare birds, a level of documentation and identification that approaches 100% certainty is normally desir- able. In the case of Iberian Chiffchaff, a species that has been subjected to detailed studies of intraspecific genetic variation, this may be an unreasonable aim, even if the documentation is exemplary. Bensch et al. (2002) showed unequivocally that many birds from the overlap zone, which, on the basis of appearance, song and mitochondrial DNA were identified as being pure individuals of Iberian or Common Chiffchaff, could be shown by detailed nuclear- DNA analysis to have some sort of hybrid ancestry. Occasionally, ‘pure’ Common Chiff- chaffs have been recorded singing Iberian Chiff- chaff song, and vice versa (Bensch et al. 2002). It is unreasonable to ask for a genotypic analysis of every vagrant Iberian Chiffchaff, and also unreasonable to dismiss all the records because hybrid origins cannot be 100% ruled out. Clearly, birds that look and sound like pure Iberian Chiffchaffs are occurring in northern Europe, and pragmatically they should be accepted as Iberian Chiffchaffs, otherwise the babies may be thrown out with the bathwater. The ‘best’ way to identify an Iberian Chiff- chaff remains to obtain voice recordings and examine the bird in the hand, which allows a combination of wing formula, biometrics and plumage to support the identification of some birds (Salomon 1997). However, trapping birds is not always feasible or desirable, and we argue Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs c > Fig. 7. Songs of other claimed Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus records from Britain in 2007. (a) Colne/, Norfolk, April-May 2007.This song is typical of Iberian Chiffchaff, and contains no song elements that would be normal for Common Chiffchaff P. collybita; the short, four-phase, 2. 5-s song remains below 6,5 kHz and can be transcribed ‘djp djp djp djp whee whee djip cha cha cha cha cha'. The descending call is represented on the right (NB the scale of this graph is the same as that for the song). We also have recordings in which the same bird produces less classic, more erratic, Common Chiffchaff-like songs, which probably deserve further analysis. (Recording by Will Soar.) (b) Beer, Devon, May 2007. A less distinctive song, though consistent with that of Iberian Chiffchaff.This sonogram is educational because there is a Common Chiffchaff singing in the background. Note the difference in shape and frequency range between the Iberian Chiffchaff (darker notes) and Common Chiffchaffs (fainter grey notes in background): ‘djp djp djp djp djp djp wheep wheep’. (Recording by Gavin Haig.) that it is entirely justifiable to make field identi- fications of ‘classic’ birds where the song shows the characteristics of Iberian Chiffchaff and sonograms have been obtained. The conclu- sions (presented rigorously in papers cited above and summarised in Cramp (1992)) are that Iberian Chiffchaff advertising songs are variable, but should typically be characterised as follows: • Shorter than those of Common Chiffchaff, less than 4 s. • Song divided into two or three (sometimes four) distinct phases. Notes are similar to each other within each song phase but dif- ferent from each other between phases. A typical song might be a three-phase ‘djip djip djip weep weep weep chachachachacha’ but any individual song phase may be missing. ‘Weep’ notes, with an upwardly inflected sonogram shape, are most distinctive and diagnostic of Iberian Chiffchaff influence. • Less metronomic than those of Common Chiffchaff, with shorter and more irregular intervals between notes and song phases. • Generally with song notes below 7 kHz in frequency, and primarily below 6 kHz, in contrast to Common Chiffchaff where notes may be up to 8 kHz or more. In addition, the down- slurred call is diagnostic. These points have been noted independently by Constantine et al (2006) and Slaterus (2007). Iberian Chiffchaff songs and calls are distinctive, but sonograms are essential to demonstrate the distinctive characters to an acceptable degree. Several examples of recorded song of extralimital Iberian Chiffchaffs available to us or published elsewhere (Slaterus 2007) appear to represent subdued or ‘half- hearted’ song bursts. It is possible that spring vagrants in northern Europe are fre- quently first-summer birds whose song has not been fully ‘crystallised’ (Constan- tine et al. 2006) by competi- tion with other males. As yet, however, this is largely speculation and there has been no systematic study of the song of first- years. We do not therefore believe that ‘poor’ song by vagrant potential Iberian Chiffchaffs should necessarily count against them (though everything else has to be spot-on). Two subspecies of Iberian Chiffchaff have been proposed: nominate P. i. ibericus of Por- tugal and southwest Spain, and P. i. biscayensis of northern Spain and the French borders (Salomon et al. 2003). The differences between them are subtle but diagnostic, and are both ecological and structural: nominate ibericus is reportedly associated with a dry, Mediterranean climate and biscayensis with a moist, Atlantic environment; biscayensis has, on average, longer, more pointed wings than ibericus. They are not, however, universally accepted as valid sub- species (AERC TAC 2003). Irrespective of whether or not two subspecies can be recog- nised, we believe that it is possible that some of the variability in Iberian Chiffchaff song described here and elsewhere may also have a geographical component. Salomon et al. (2003) suggested that vocalisations of the two putative subspecies do not differ significantly, although this was not backed up with a detailed analysis. British Birds 101 'April 2008 • 174-188 186 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs > c Mixed and unusual singing in chiffchaffs Common Chiffchaff-like elements within the songs of an Iberian Chiffchaff may represent normal elements of the conflict song of the latter, and may also represent shared ‘ancestral’ or primitive song elements that are retained, to some degree, in both species (Thielcke & Lin- senmair 1963). Many of the characteristic ele- ments found in Iberian Chiffchaff song have similar homologues in Willow Warbler song, partly underlying the popular misconception that ‘Iberian Chiffchaff sings like a Willow Warbler’. It is assumed that many of the Willow Warbler-like elements were sung by an ancestral species of Phylloscopus that gave rise to both Willow Warbler and all the chiffchaff species. Common Chiffchaffs have spent a long time living (in sympatry) with Willow Warblers, and it is possible that the song of Common Chiff- chaff has diverged significantly from that of Willow Warbler to aid species recognition (ensuring that birds of both species mate only with their own species). In contrast, Iberian Chiffchaff may not have the same history of widespread sympatry with Willow Warbler, so there has been less drive for their songs to diverge. The situation is not fully understood (and an apparently relict population of Willow Warbler in the Asturian region may hint at a previous more widespread sympatry with Iberian Chiffchaff). The take-home message here is that Common and Iberian Chiffchaffs have the same song elements in their ancestral ‘toolkit’. Song in passerines is generally based on a genetic ‘template’, modified and developed by copying the song of congeners, such that it is possible to learn the ‘wrong’ song from individ- uals of a different species (Baptista & Petri- novich 1984; Helb et al. 1985). The classic ‘mixed song’ in this instance thus incorporates elements of both Iberian and Common Chiff- chaff within the same song burst. What should mixed singers be identified as? Most mixed : singers are morphologically most similar to Common Chiffchaff (Helbig et al. 2001). They are reported to form 8.6% of individual males in the overlap zone between the two species around the France/Spain border, where about 24% of birds are in mixed pairs (mostly male Iberian Chiffchaff with female Common Chiff- chaff) (Helbig et al. 2001). Most mixed singers are genetically intermediate between the two species (Bensch et al. 2002), but some mixed British Birds 101 •April 2008 • 174-188 singers have been identified genetically as pure Iberian Chiffchaff. Mixed singing may therefore be a sign of hybrid origin, but equally it is pos- sible that mixed singers represent birds of one species that have learnt the songs of the other species because they were in the contact zone when their song was crystallising. Some Common Chiffchaffs have been recorded singing songs incorporating elements of Iberian Chiffchaff (Salomon 1989). Helbig et al. (2001) inferred a strong reproductive barrier between the two species and it is possible that successful hybridisation leading to a new generation of fertile hybrid breeders is rare. Herkenrath (2007) pointed out that in other passerine species (treecreepers Certhia, nightingales Luscinia and Willow Warblers), ‘mixed singers’ are not hybrids but tend to be birds of one species that have been exposed to the song of a closely related species in early life. We believe that mixed singers (whatever their genetic fin- gerprint) have learnt the songs of both species, but that birds with hybrid origins are more pre- disposed to be able to learn both songs, and are hence more likely to be mixed singers. There- fore, mixed singers are more likely, but not certain, to have a hybrid origin. For these reasons, and in the knowledge that we cannot absolutely rule out hybrid ancestry in birds that (to all intents and purposes) look and sound like Iberian Chiffchaff, we do not believe that the presence of collybita-Yike song elements in the advertising song of a potential vagrant Iberian Chiffchaff should necessarily count against it. This may be the case especially when mixed singing is an isolated or sporadic event, such as for the Dibbinsdale chiffchaff, above. However, any singing Iberian Chiffchaff should include some uniquely Tberian/Willow’ song elements within its repertoire. We do not believe that mixed singers should be dismissed out of hand if the song includes those diag- nostic Iberian ‘wheep’ notes, and if their plumage and structure are good for Iberian Chiffchaff. However, in the cases of mixed singers, it would be more desirable to have the bird in the hand to attempt to confirm the iden- tification on biometric features and to get a close look at plumage hues. Iberian Chiffchaff records in Britain In summary, and with these points in mind: the Dibbinsdale bird was a mixed singer, but may prove acceptable as Iberian Chiffchaff; the 187 Identification of vagrant Iberian Chiffchaffs < > Lavenham bird is problematic, may well have Iberian Chiffchaff influence, but is probably not acceptable; and the song of the Skelmersdale bird was aberrant for both Common and Iberian Chiffchaffs and may represent an ‘innate’ song structure from a bird deprived for some reason of any audio input through hearing the songs of its congeners - it is best left unidentified, but was probably a Common Chiffchaff. Acknowledgments We thank all those who communicated with us about chiffchaffs, and apologise for our persistence. Particular thanks to Marc Salomon and Roy Slaterus, whose comments on the manuscript averted embarrassing errors; to those who provided sound-files and photos, including Bill Baston, Ian Broadbent, Gavin Haig. Peter Hobbs.Tom McKinney. Stuart Read, Steve Round, Will Soar Jan van Steenis, Steve Waite and Steve Young; and to Nacho Dies, John Muddeman and Jimmy Steele for general comments on the manuscript. And apologies to anyone we have forgotten to mention who helped out during the four-year gestation of this paper We have recordings of the Colney Iberian Chiffchaff labelled ‘DH’, but no memo of who ‘DH’ is, and apologise for the lack of formal acknowledgment here. References Association of European Records and Rarities Committees, Taxonomic Advisory Committee (AERC TAC). 2003. AERCTAC's taxonomic recommendations. http://www.aerc.eu Baptista, L S., & Petrinovich, L 1 984. Social interaction, sensitive phases and the song template hypothesis in the White-crowned Sparrow. Anim. Behav. 32: 1 72- 181. Batten, L.A. 2000. Iberian Chiffchaff in Greater London: new to Britain & Ireland. Brit Birds 93: 329-332. Bensch, S., Helbig, A.J., Salomon. M„ & Seibold, 1. 2002. Amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis identifies hybrids between two subspecies of warblers. MoI.Ecol. I 1 : 473 — 48 I . British Ornithologists' Union (BOU). 1 999. Records Committee: 25th Report (October 1 998). Ibis 141: 175-180. Clement, R, & Helbig, A. J. 1 998.Taxonomy and identification of chiffchaffs in the Western Palearctic. Brit Birds 91:361 -376. Constantine, M., &The Sound Approach. 2006. The Sound Approach to Birding: a guide to understanding bird sound. The Sound Approach, Poole. Cramp, S. (ed.) 1 992. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Volume VI. OUR Oxford. Helb, H. W„ Dowsett-Lemaire, F., & Bergmann, H. H. 1 985. Mixed singing in European songbirds - a review. J. Comp. E col. 69: 27-4 1 . Helbig, A. J., Salomon, M.. Bensch, S„ & Seibold, I. 200 1 . Male-biased gene flow across an avian hybrid zone: Evidence from mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA. J. Evol. Biol. 14:277-287. — , Martens, J., Seibod, I.. Henning, F„ Schottler B., & Wink, M. 1 996. Phylogeny and species limits in the Palearctic chiffchaff complex: mitochondrial genetic differentiation and bioacoustic evidence. Ibis 1 38: 650-666. Herkenrath, R2007. Mixed singing in Phylloscopus warblers. Brit Birds 100:307-308. Kettle, R., & Ranft, R. (eds.) 1 992. British Bird Sounds on CD. The British Library, London. Martf, R., & del Moral, J. C. (eds.) 2003. Adas de lasAves Reproductoras de Espaha. Direccion General de Conservation de la Naturaleza-Sociedad Espahola de Ornitologia. Madrid. Niethammer G. 1 963. Zur Kennzeichnung des Zilpzalps des iberischen Halbinsel.J. Ornithol. 1 04: 403^4 1 I . North, M„ & Simms, E. 1 969. Witherby's Sound Guide to British Birds. Wftherby, London. Richards, C. 1 999. The Iberian Chiffchaff in Dorset Birding World 12: 193-200. Roche, J.-C. 2003. Bird Songs and Calls of Britain and Europe on 4 CDs. Rogers, M. J.. & the Rarities Committee. 2002. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 200 1 . Brit Birds 95: 476-528. Salomon, M. 1 989. Song as a possible reproductive isolating mechanism between two parapatric forms. The case of the chiffchaffs Phylloscopus c. collybita and P. c. brehmii in the western Pyrenees. Behaviour III: 270-290. — 1 997. Quel statut taxonomique donner au Pouillot Veloce Iberique? Alauda 65: 63-8 1 . — 200 1 . Evolutionary biogeography and speciation: essay on a synthesis./ Biogeogr. 28: 1 3-27. — 2002. A revised cline theory that can be used for quantified analyses of evolutionary processes without parapatric speciation./. Biogeogr. 29: 509-5 1 7. — & Hemim.Y 1 992. Song variation in the Chiffchaffs (Phylloscopus collybita ) of the Western Pyrenees - the contact zone between collybita and brehmii forms. Ethology 92: 265-282. — -.Voisin.J.-F, & Bried.J. 2003. On the taxonomic status and denomination of the Iberian Chiffchaffs. Ibis 1 45: 87-97. Schulze. A„ & Dingier K.-H. 2007. The Bird Songs of Europe. North Africa and the Middle East (2 mp3 discs). Musikverlag Edition AMPLE. Slaterus, R. 2007. IberischeTjiftjaffen in Nederland. Dutch Birding 29: 83-9 1 . Thielcke, G., & Linsenmait K. E. 1 963. Zur geographischen Variation des gesanges des Zilpzalps, Phylloscopus collybita, in Mittel- und Sudwesteuropa mft einem Vergleich des Gessanges des Frtis, Phylloscopus trochilus. J. Ornithol. 1 04: 372-M0 1 . White, S. 2005.The Skelmersdale Chiffchaff. Lancashire Bird Report 2004. Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna Society Publication No. 107. Dr J. Martin Collinson, University of Aberdeen, School of Medical Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD; e-mail m.collinson@abdn.ac.uk Dr Tim Melling, RSPB, Westleigh Mews, Wakefield Road, Denby Dale, West Yorkshire HD8 8QD British Birds 101 - April 2008 • 174-188 188 Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe Martin Reid ABSTRACT In recent years, the occurrence in Europe of Common Snipes Callinago gallinago showing characters associated with the North American race G.g. delicata - notably on Scilly - has generated considerable interest and debate. Several features have been proposed to help separate delicata from nominate gallinago but little has been published to quantify these characters. All criteria previously suggested are reviewed here and, based upon field experience and examination of museum specimens and photographs of both forms, their effectiveness discussed. Consistent differences were found in the depth of the white tips to the secondaries, extent of white on the underwing-coverts, pattern of the axillaries, number of tail feathers, and the pattern and width of the outermost tail feather. If supporting evidence documenting these features is obtained, separation of gallinago and delicata should be possible in many instances. Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago is a widespread breeding bird throughout the wetlands of northern North America and northern Eurasia. In recent years, the possi- bility of vagrancy by ‘Wilson’s Snipe’ G. g. deli- cata (hereafter 'delicata’) to western Europe has seen an explosion of interest in snipe identifica- tion. Accepted European records of delicata include a juvenile shot at Coleraine, Co. Londonderry, on 28th October 1991 (Milne & O’Sullivan 1998) and one on Ouessant, Finistere, France, in October 2005 (Legrand 2005), while several claims from Scilly dating back to October 1998 are still under review. The decision by the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) to treat delicata as a separate species (Banks et al. 2002) has undoubtedly added to the interest. Separation of delicata from nomi- nate gallinago (hereafter 1 gallinago ’) is extremely difficult, however, and not helped by the exis- tence of another migratory form, G. g. faeroeensis, which breeds on northern North Atlantic islands, including Iceland, Faeroe, Orkney and Shetland, and has occurred along- side gallinago and presumed vagrant delicata in Europe. One highly distinctive aspect of the breeding biology of snipes is the use of the outermost tail feathers in display and mate selection. In the well-known ‘drumming’ display flight, the outermost tail feathers are splayed out at a dif- ferent angle from the rest of the tail and the vibration of these outermost feathers produces the ‘drumming’ sound. Differences in the shape and width of the outermost tail feathers are apparently species-specific, producing different sounds (Thonen 1969; Miller 1996) and pro- viding a mechanism for assortative mating. On St Paul Island, in the Pribilof Islands, delicata and gallinago occur together fairly commonly and here birders claim that there is a perceivable difference in the drumming sounds of the two forms (though note that there is, as yet, no proven instance of sympatric breeding either here or elsewhere in the Bering Sea region). In turn, the outermost tail feathers are also a key feature for birders trying to separate these two forms away from the breeding grounds. This paper focuses on the separation of deli- cata and gallinago based upon extensive field experience of delicata in North America and of gallinago in Europe, examination of museum specimens and an extensive collection of photo- graphs (of birds in the field and in the hand). ©British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 189-200 189 Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe < > The issue of faeroeensis, which is a common migrant and winter visitor in Britain & Ireland, is not specifically discussed, other than here, where it is emphasised that faeroeensis typically appears more richly toned on the head, upper- parts and breast than gallinago. Thus a lone gal- linago within a group of migrant faeroeensis could appear strikingly different. There is no doubt that vagrancy by delicata to Europe and by gallinago to North America is occurring, possibly regularly, and that it is our inability to distinguish them, particularly less distinctive individuals, that may be masking the true status of each in an extralimital context. Recent articles (e.g. Carey & Olsson 1995, Bland 1998, 1999, Leader 1999) have gone some way to establishing criteria that separate the most distinctive individuals. Some of the early con- clusions have been challenged; in particular, Leader (1999) rejected more than half of the features suggested by Bland (1999) as being useful for separation of the two forms. Existing publications have provided the foundation upon which this paper is based. The primary objective of this research was to review the pro- posed identification features and evaluate their merits, based on personal field experience, museum specimens and photographs. A sec- ondary goal was to look for additional features useful to the identification process. Methods The features that may be important for sepa- rating gallinago from delicata were distilled from published sources and are listed below. A representative sample of specimens was examined at the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection, A & M University, Texas (TAMU) - which housed 55 delicata skins, 137 delicata outermost tail feathers and 20 delicata spread wings - and the Natural History Museum, Tring - where 84 delicata and 200 gallinago specimens were examined. Photographs of specimens and of live snipe were obtained from various pub- lished sources and solicited via the internet; a database of images, comprising 264 photos of gallinago (of 239 individuals) and 115 photos of delicata (of 91 individuals) was created. In addi- tion, the Burke Museum at the University of Puget Sound, Washington, provided images of spread wings for 24 gallinago from Russia and 12 delicata. Examination of specimens and photographs quickly confirmed that some potential features were not going to be helpful in this analysis. Given that museum time was limited, effort was concentrated on characters that appeared to be most promising. Museum specimens were scored for the following potentially key features: • Depth of white tips to secondaries • Width of outermost tail feather • Pattern of outermost tail feather • Extent of white and dark barring on axillaries and underwing-coverts In addition, the following characters were evaluated from both specimens and photos: • Shape of white tips to secondaries • Pattern of barring and background colour of flanks • Pattern of mantle and central scapulars • Pattern of tertials • Extent of toe and foot projection beyond tail-tip in flight • Shape of folded wing-tip (relative position of tips of P9 and P10, primaries numbered descendantly) The results were tabulated based upon a mixture of objective (measured) and subjective (assessed) criteria. Discussion of the features listed is presented below, beginning with the most useful. It should be emphasised that these features are analysed for use in a field or photo- graphic context, based on the author’s opinion. In the analysis below, sample sizes are provided in most cases; G = sample size for gallinago , D = sample size for delicata. Main identification criteria A clear outcome for one of the main criteria listed below will be a good guide towards iden- tification. Two or more clear matches strengthens the case for identification and any individual which fits either delicata or gallinago in all the following respects should represent a positive identification, although to observe or photograph each feature in sufficient detail will be difficult. Depth of white tips to secondaries This feature was extremely hard to measure consistently, as the shape of the white tips varied greatly between individuals, in both taxa. Where the depth of white at the tip appeared fairly even across the width of the feather, depth was measured along the inner side of the feather shaft; on an unevenly marked tip, mean depth was recorded. The depth of white was measured on both wings for the first 25-30 190 British Birds 101 'April 2008 • 189-200 Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe I 04. Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago gallinago, eastern Russia, 29th July 1 992. This individual shows a fairly typical underwing-covert pattern for gallinago, but the white on the secondary tips is narrower than average, estimated from this photo to be c. 3 mm deep, and extends along the inner web of each feather tip. jjlWHM 444'MV Gallinaco calliitiis-n I 05. Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago gallinago, eastern Russia, 9th July 1 992. The narrow white secondary tips on this individual are quite worn. Again, note the white extending along the inner web of each secondary tip. The axillaries are mostly missing, and the underwing-coverts are towards the poorly marked end of the range for gallinago, but nonetheless there is slightly more white in the median coverts than found on any delicata. 1 06. Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago gallinago, eastern Russia, 1 3th June 2003. This individual shows extremely worn secondary tips, which appear narrower than would be the case on a bird in fresh, unworn plumage. In gallinago, the extent of wear is greatest from April to early July, after which the adults undergo a complete moult; both adults and juveniles thus show relatively fresh and unworn secondaries in autumn. birds of each taxon of a sample of G = 200, D = 84; on each of the remaining specimens, depth was esti- mated visually to the nearest millimetre except for those judged to be close to the overlap zone, which were then measured (Appendix 1). For gallinago , just one bird (from China) showed less than 2 mm of white on the secondary tips: 1.5 mm on one wing and 2.7 mm on the other. Of the remainder, none showed less than 2 mm of white, and only 1 1 (6%) fell within the range 2-3 mm. For 75 birds (37%) the depth fell between 3 and 4 mm but most birds (114, 57%) showed more than 4 mm of white. There was no apparent difference in separate analyses for Euro- pean (n = 100) and Asian (n = 100) gallinago. For deli- cata, a majority (72, 86%) showed less than 2 mm of white, while just 11 (13%) were in the overlap zone of 2-3 mm and half of these were barely over the 2 mm mark. Just one delicata had white on the secondary tips that slightly exceeded 3 mm. This feature was also examined in photographs, estimated visually to the nearest 2 mm (G = 65, D = 65). For gallinago, just one bird (1.5%) appeared to show secondary tips less than 2 mm deep, 22 (34%) were in the range 2-4 mm, while two-thirds (42, 65%) showed more than 4 mm of white. For delicata, the majority (58, 89%) appeared to show less than 2 mm of white, while the rest (7, 11%) showed 2-4 mm, all of them closer to the lower end of the range. These data suggest that the depth of the pale tips to the secondaries is a strong character, and that a reasonable division would be: > 3.5 mm = gallinago; < 2 mm (on both wings) = delicata. Birds that fall into the overlap zone require sig- nificant agreement on other features for a posi- tive identification. British Birds 101 - April 2008 • 189-200 191 Andy Jones Jessie Barry/Robert Faucett Jessie Barry/Robert Faucett Andrew Kroner Jessie Barry/Robert Faucett Stefan Hage Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe c 1 07. Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago gallinago, Getteron, Sweden, 1st August 2004. The white tips to the secondaries are quite narrow - estimated at less than 3 mm from this photo. However, the underwing- coverts show far more white than even the best-marked delicata would ever show. In addition, this bird shows a typical pattern to the outermost tail feather from below, comprising three dark bars with two intervening and clearly wider light bars. I 08. Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago gallinago delicata, Douglas County, Washington, USA, 12th November 1990. A fairly typical individual, showing the limited extent of white on the secondary tips, which is of variable width across the wing, and bleeds up the inner web. Note the pattern to the underwing-coverts and axillaries (although some feathers are missing), which show slightly broader dark bands than the intervening white bands. 109. Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago gallinago delicata, Alachua County, Florida, USA, 8th February 1 999. The pattern to the axillaries and underwing-coverts on this delicata, consisting of relatively narrow dark bands and relatively wide intervening pale bands, lies close to the limit found in delicata, i.e. this is about as close as delicata will come to resembling gallinago in terms of the width of the pale bars (cf. plate 108). Extent of white on underwing-coverts This is another key feature that is extremely hard to quantify. Appendix 2 defines a nested series of types of white band for the greater, median, and lesser under- wing-coverts, and shows the assessed score by taxon (G = 57, D = 60). Appendix 2 shows that there is very little overlap in this feature. In fact, there would be a significant gap between the two taxa but for a handful of gallinago that lie close to delicata. No delicata came close to approaching the core range of gallinago and, conse- quently, this is regarded as a strong separating feature, particularly when con- firming gallinago within the range of delicata. In summary, Appendix 2 shows that over half (51.7%) of the delicata studied had no white band on any of the underwing-covert tips (greater, median or lesser), while just over a third (36.7%) had a small band on the tips of the greater coverts only. The remaining 11.7% of delicata showed a small band on the greater- and median-covert tips, thus overlapping with a small proportion of gallinago (5.3% of total sample); however, the overwhelming majority of gallinago showed medium or large white bands at the tips of the median and greater underwing-coverts, unlike any delicata. Pattern of axillaries This is another key element that is difficult to quantify in the field. Again, a series of British Birds 101 "April 2008 • 189-200 192 Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe C I 1 0. Wilson's Snipe Gallinago gallinago delicata, Brevard County, Florida, USA, January l999.This delicata shows the most extensive white barring on the underwing-coverts and axillaries found on the photographs and specimens examined in this study. Note that the pattern on the outermost axillary is extremely unusual, with the white bands exceeding the width of the intervening dark bands. The whitest axillary feather has more white than on some gallinago - but even so, it does not form a glaringly white spot on the underwing, as it does on most heavily marked gallinago. III. Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago gallinago delicata, Colorado, USA.July.This delicata shows the typical outermost-tail-feather pattern well, having numerous light and dark bars; the light bars are only a little broader than the dark bars. Note that the underwing-covert pattern approaches the ‘white extreme’ for delicata and, in particular, the lesser coverts appear considerably whiter than on any specimen examined, or on any other bird photographed. definitions was created, and then used to score specimens and photographs (G = 57, D = 40; Appendix 3). Although there is a strong tendency for galli- nago to have wider white bars, and for delicata to have wider black bars (or white and black bars of similar width) on the axillaries, there is substantial overlap. While gallinago overlap completely with delicata in this regard, the reverse is not true; 27 (45%) gallinago showed dark bars half the width, or less, of the white bars, but no delicata matched these. Note also that on the second comparison (the ‘whitest’ feather in this tract) there is less overlap, with 44 (77%) gallinago having white unmatched by delicata (apart from one specimen at TAMU, No. 1,258, which may be gallinago or an inter- grade). It seems reasonable to conclude that del- icata do not have axillaries that contain a significant excess of white, either overall or on any one axillary feather, but that gallinago can, rarely, have a pattern matching that typical of delicata. Pattern and shape of outermost tail feather (OTF) There are three elements to this feature: the shape of the feather, the number of dark bars and the angle of those dark bars. It was sur- prising to discover a large degree of apparent overlap in OTF shape, with more than 50% of both taxa having the OTF of even width throughout and with a rounded tip. However, gallinago (27%) was more likely to have a pointed tip than delicata (7%), while delicata British Birds 101 "April 2008 • 189-200 193 Peter May Yoshiaki Watanabe Martin Reid Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe c > I I 2. Outermost tail feathers ofWilson’s Snipe Gallinago gallinago delicata. These were selected from I 37 such feathers held in the collection at Texas A&M University to illustrate feathers showing the widest light barring and thus approaching the pattern of gallinago. I I 3. Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago gallinago, Inashiki City, Ibaraki prefecture, Japan, 17th September 2003. This gallinago from Japan shows an exceptional outermost-tail-feather pattern, which approaches that of delicata. Even so, the two outermost light bands are broader than on any delicata examined. (26%) was more likely to have a squarish tip than gallinago (2%) (G = 41, D = 31). It is pos- sible that a more detailed analysis would reveal further consistent, albeit subtle differences in shape and structure. But for identification in the field or from photographs, or even in the hand, shape of the OTF is indicative only. The number of dark bars (and the depth of intervening light bars) appears to be a strong separation character. Note that this analysis was performed on the distal three-quarters of the feather, as the base of the OTF of both forms is variably dark and usually obscured (G = 49, D = 50 - of which 12 were a subset of 137 OTF pre-selected as having the least dark barring; Appendix 4). The data show that an OTF pattern with only two widely spaced dark bars, or with three dark bars and two intervening, clearly wider light bars (the commonest pattern for galli- nago) is not found in delicata. The converse is not true, however; a signif- icant minority (18%) of gallinago overlap with the commonest pattern for delicata - four or more dark bars with the intervening light bars about the same width. An initial assessment of the angle of the dark OTF bars suggested a useful difference, but closer analysis (G = 42, D = 43) found extensive overlap, with a tendency for more delicata to have these bars at an obvious angle rather than perpendi- cular to the shaft (60% vs 40%). For gallinago, there were about even numbers of the two patterns. This was an unex- pected finding that seems to contradict previous identification articles. Although the second-outermost tail feather (OTF-1) is not important for iden- tification, it is necessary to understand the difference in shape between this and the OTF to establish whether the latter is present (i.e. it has not been moulted or lost). In particular, there is a consistent dif- ference in the width of the outer web of these two feathers. In both taxa, the outer web of the OTF is narrow, typically 1. 3-2.0 mm wide and fairly uniform throughout its length. The outer web of OTF-1 is at least twice as wide as this, sometimes three times or more. Rarely, the outer web of OTF- 1 is a little narrower than usual in the basal and mid- section of the feather, but is still twice as wide (or more) at the tip compared with the OTF. Width of outermost tail feather Hayman et al. (1986) set a width oi 9 mm as the watershed for separation of galli- nago and delicata (i.e. < 9 mm = delicata , > 9 mm = gallinago), while Bland (1999) gave a mean width, 20 mm from the feather tip, of 7.2 mm for delicata and 12.8 mm for gallinago i (no sample size given by either source). A random sample of feathers was measured for 194 British Birds 101 'April 2008 • 189-200 Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe ; the present study, later refined to include all those perceived as being wider or narrower than normal for the taxon. The range for gallinago (G = 200) was 8.8-13.0 mm, while the greatest OTF width for delicata (D = 211) was 10.5 mm, indicating a clear overlap zone. A cautious con- clusion is that OTF width of 1 1 mm or more should exclude delicata , while less than 8 mm should exclude gallinago. Clearly, any individual coming close to these limits should be checked rigorously for other features. Number of tail feathers BWP indicates that a snipe with only 12 tail feathers should be gallinago (normally 14), but one with 14-18 tail feathers could be either gal- linago or delicata (normally 16). Even when the tail feathers can be counted and only 12 are present, it is essential to ensure that none are missing (see above). Supporting criteria If a potential vagrant snipe fits one or more of the main criteria listed above, the following supporting criteria may help to reinforce the outcome. These features are not diagnostic, and should not be used in isolation. Pattern of breast Carey & Olsson (1995) stated that delicata shows contrast between the upper breast, which is streaked on a brown background, and the lower breast, which is barred on an off-white background. They maintained that this differs from gallinago, in which the entire breast appears spotted or streaked on a brown background. For the present study, this feature was examined on a large number of delicata in the field (n = 100+) and in photographs of both taxa. While there is an average difference, as Carey & Olsson stated, it was found that a minority of delicata have a breast pattern approaching or similar to that described for gallinago (at least 10%), while a pho- tographed gallinago in Bahrain had a breast pattern similar to that of typical delicata. The occurrence of gallinago- type breast pat- terns in delicata is sufficiently low for breast pattern to be a good starting point for examining a snipe within the range of deli- cata, but overall it is a minor identification feature owing to the extent of overlap and the difficulty of assessing it accurately. Pattern of mantle and back This seems to be confusingly variable in both forms, despite there being an average difference. Typically, the upperparts of gallinago appear warmer, browner and less contrasting than those of delicata, while the upperparts of most delicata appear darker, almost blackish, and the contrast between the paler feather fringes and darker centres is enhanced. Some gallinago can, however, appear as dark as many delicata in this respect, but I have not yet seen a delicata with upperparts approaching the warmer brown hues shown by most gallinago. This character may be a useful one-way feature on certain individuals. Criteria of limited or no identification value As part of this review, all characters that have been suggested as being potentially useful to separate migrant gallinago and delicata were investigated. Of these, several were found to be of limited or no value. Shape of white tips to secondaries Although given strong support by Bland (1998, 1999) and Leader (1999), the data in Appendix 5 indicate extensive overlap and this feature is of no value when applied to an individual bird (G = 52, D = 97, assessed from photographs). Pattern of upperwing-coverts Although differences in the prominence of the median-covert panel and primary-covert wing- bar were suggested by Carey & Olsson (1995), there is substantial variation within taxa (espe- cially in gallinago, but to a lesser extent in deli- cata). On average, European breeding gallinago have warmer-toned upperwing-coverts than Asian breeding gallinago, and delicata. Colour of primary-coverts Typically, in delicata the primary-coverts are blackish and seem less variable in colour than those of gallinago, where they are typically browner. However, gallinago with blackish primary coverts are not hard to find in a large sample of specimens. Pattern of head Head pattern shows so much variation within each taxon that it proved impossible to find anything but general tendencies: gallinago tends to have warmer and thicker pale bands, while delicata tends to have colder and thinner pale British Birds 101 - April 2008 • 189-200 195 Identification of Wilson's and Common Snipe c > bands. There is clearly extensive overlap between the two taxa, however, even within a limited sample of birds. Length of bill No useful differences in bill length between the two taxa were found. Pattern of flanks Bland (1998, 1999) suggested that, in delicata, the flank barring is strong and contrasting and forms a ‘mirror image’ of the axillary barring; furthermore, that the underlying flank colour of gallinago is washed brown, reducing contrast, while in delicata it is white, enhancing contrast. Analysing a short series of skins was sufficient to indicate wide overlap in the width of the flank barring, although gallinago more often tends to have the dark bars narrower than the intervening white bars (G = 57, D = 14; Appendix 6). Flank colour and saturation proved to be virtually identical. Pattern of scapular edgings While gallinago typically has deeper, warmer tones to the broad outer fringes of the scapu- lars, and lacks fringes on the inner edge of the lower scapulars, a significant minority (espe- cially juveniles, and perhaps mainly those in Asian populations) have colder and paler outer fringes and sometimes a narrow (typically partial) pale fringe on the inner edge. This minority gallinago pattern seems identical to the typical scapular pattern of delicata; while a significant minority of the latter show much warmer buff outer edges, and lack pale fringes on the inner edge. Individual variation within and between taxa renders this feature of little use, even as a supporting character (G = 200+, D = 135+, plus photographs of both forms). One feature sometimes mentioned as a good pointer towards delicata is the presence of a pair of pale ‘pips’ on the inner fringe of the scapu- lars. This is a regular feature of delicata - though rarely is absent, while only a small number of gallinago show a similar pattern; thus it may be used with caution as a sup- porting feature. Exposed toe length in flight Carey & Olsson (1995) stated that the tail of delicata is shorter than that of gallinago, and that the toes are visible just beyond the tail-tip in flight. Personal experience, after looking 196 specifically for this feature in flying delicata (D = 50+), indicates that it is variable; most show some projection, varying from most of the foot to just the tip of the toes (and examina- tion of photos of gallinago indicates that they too can show some foot extension beyond the tail). Toe projection in gallinago is probably less than in delicata but given the probable extensive overlap and difficulty in observing this accu- rately, it should be considered a minor feature. Pattern of tertials This feature has figured prominently in earlier works, and is one of those retained by Leader (1999) from those put forward by Bland (1999). Many delicata were examined in the field (100+), plus trays of specimens of both forms. This revealed a bewildering variation and it was impossible to isolate any pattern diagnostic of either taxon. There is a marked tendency for gallinago to show closely spaced and prominent cinnamon bars compared with delicata (espe- cially towards the base of the feather), but this feature was considered unreliable as the gallinago pattern occurred in some well-marked delicata, and vice versa. Vocalisations There have been claims that the call of gallinago is slightly different from that of delicata. I have not been able to detect any difference from recordings. This feature requires further investi- gation but any differences are likely to be minor and hard to document. Shape of wing-tip It has been suggested that gallinago is slightly longer-winged than delicata, and that this is evident in the spacing of the outermost primary tips. Birds examined in this study revealed there to be no significant difference in either character. Conclusions Common Snipe and Wilson’s Snipe are diag- nosably distinct, although extralimital birds require careful examination to establish that at least one (and preferably two or more) of the main criteria listed above is assessable and lies outside any zone of overlap. Nonetheless, many birds will not be identifiable, either because the vital features cannot be properly judged, or because these key features are in the zone of overlap or doubt. One important finding from British Birds 101* April 2008 • 1 89-200 Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe C this study is that confirming delicata in the normal range of gallinago is more difficult than previously thought, and much harder than con- firming gallinago within the normal range of delicata. No individual snipe examined held a contradictory combination of key features, although a specimen at TAMU (see above) seemed intermediate in many respects, which in combination placed it apart from either delicata or gallinago. While studying the specimens at the NHM, Tring, I located one bird in the deli- cata tray, labelled as coming from the Hudson Bay Company in 1875 (BM(NH) Reg. No. Vel. Cat. 38.75b), which had white secondary tips of more than 4 mm. Applying the other features above, this bird is clearly a gallinago , an identifi- cation that is also supported by it having only 12 tail feathers with none apparently missing. This specimen would seem to be the first record of gallinago for North America, but the label and catalogue data are vague, and it may not be assignable to a location. The study presented here is a further contri- bution to the process of defining these two taxa, but it would clearly benefit from larger datasets. I encourage all students of snipe to apply the above criteria to more specimens, live birds in the hand and photographs, and publish or com- municate their results, especially if they contra- dict those given above. The results presented here should assist finders and assessors of potential vagrant snipe, but need to be applied with caution and common sense. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the following for their generous assistance, without which it would not have been possible to examine such a wide range of specimens and photographs: Peter Adriaens, Fernando Arce, Keith Arnold at Texas A&M University, Richard Chandler, Amanda Cordes Person at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Scott Cutler at Centennial Museum, the University of Texas at El Paso, Philippe Dubois, Kimball L. Garrett at Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, John Gerwin at North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Ricard Gutierrez, Stefan Hage (www.birds.se), Andy Jones at Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota, Jeff J, Jones, Norio Kawano http://homepage I .nifty.com/gallinago/ gallinago.html, Andrew Kratter at Florida Museum of Natural History, Miguel Lentino at Coleccion Ornitologica Phelps, Venezuela, Antero Lindholm, Peter May, Joachim Miller (www.faunoekjmueller-magdeburg.de), Dennis Paulson and Robert C. Faucett at Slater Museum of Natural History/Burke Museum at the University of Washington, Robert Prys-jones and Mark Adams at the Natural History Museum, Tring, Bill Schmoker, Ronny Tschirch (www.gefiederkunde.de), Osao Ujihara and Yoshiaki Watanabe, and Jean L. Woods at Delaware Museum of Natural History, My thanks also go to Colin Bradshaw, Richard Chandler; Pierre-Andro Crochet, Phil Davis, Dan Gibson, Mary Gustafson, Harry Hussey, Paul Lehman, Nick Lethaby, Pawel Michalak, Dennis Paulson and Alan Wormington for their valuable comments, feedback and insight into snipe identification, and for providing many useful references concerning snipe identification. References Banks, R C., Cicero, C„ Dunn, J. L„ Kratter A. W„ Rasmussen, R C., Remsen.J.V., Jr, Rising, J. D., & Stotz, D. F. 2002. Forty-third supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union check-list of North American birds. Auk I 19 (3): 897-906. Bland, B. 1 998.The Wilson's Snipe on the Isles of Scilly. Birding World I 1:382-385. — 1 999. The Wilson's Snipe on Scilly revisited. Birding World 12:56-61. Carey, G., & Olsson, U. 1 995. Field identification of Common, Wilson’s, Pintail and Swinhoe's Snipes. Birding World 8: 1 79- 1 90. Hayman, R, MarchantJ., & PraterT 1 986. Shorebirds: an identification guide. Croom Helm, Beckenham. Leader R 1 999. Identification Forum: Common Snipe and Wilson's Snipe. Birding World 1 2: 37 1 -374. Legrand.V. 2005. Identification of a Wilson's Snipe on Ouessant Finistere. Birding World 1 8: 482-484. Miller E. H. 1 996. Acoustic differentiation and speciation in shorebirds. In: Kroodsma, D. E„ & Miller E. H., Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds: 241-257. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. Milne, R. & O'Sullivan, O. 1 998. Forty-fourth Irish Bird Report 1 996. Irish Birds 6: 6 1 -96. Thonen.W. 1 969. Auffallender Unterschied zwischen den instrumentalen Balslauten der europaischen und nordamerikanischen Bekassine Gallinago gallinago. Orn. Beobachter 66: 6- 1 3. Additional reading Carey, G.J. 1 993. The status and field identification of snipe in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Report 1992: 1 39- 1 52. Chandler, Ft 1 989, The Macmillan Guide to North Atlantic Shorebirds. Macmillan, London. Holder M„ & Trimble, J. 2003. A review of Canada's only record of Common Snipe. Birders Journal 1 2: 1 23-127. Kok, D„ & van Duivendijk, N. 1 999. Masters of mystery. Solutions of fourth round: Mallard and Wilson's Snipe. Dutch Birding 2 1 : 275-284. Lehman, R E. 2005. Fall bird migration at Gambell, St Lawrence Island, Alaska. Western Birds 36: 2-55. Olsson, U. 1 987. The Identification of Snipes. IBCE, Eilat, Israel. Paulson, D. 1 993. Shorebirds of the Pacific Northwest. University ofWashington Press, Seattle. Portenko, L A. 1 972- 1 973. Birds of the Chukchi Peninsula and Wrangel Island. Acad, Sci. USSR, Leningrad. Rosair, D„ & Cottridge, D. 1 995. Photographic Guide to the Shorebirds of the World. Hamlyn, London. Tuck, L. M. 1 972. The Snipes: a study of the genus Capella. Canadian Wildlife Service Monograph Series No. 5, Ottawa, Ontario. Martin Reid, 11500 Huebner Road #1605, San Antonio, Texas 78230, USA; e-mail: upupa@airmail.net British Birds 101 - April 2008 • 189-200 197 Identification of Wilson's and Common Snipe Appendix I. Mean depth of white tips to the secondaries of Common Gallinago gallinago gallinago and Wilson's Snipe G. g. delicata. Notes: (a) six very close to 3 mm; (b) six very close to 2 mm; (c) includes one individual with S2 = 1 .95, S5 = 2.05 and another with S2 = 1 .50, S5 = 2.7; (d) six very close to 3mm; (e) all barely over the 2-mm limit, none approaching 3 mm. Europe — gallinago — Asia combined delicata North America Measured on specimens < 2mm 0 0 0 72 (85.7%) 2-3 mm 7C (7.0%) 4 (4.0%) 1 1 (5.5%) llb (13.1%) 3^1 mm 40a (40.0%) 35d (35.0%) 75 (37.5%) 1 (1.2%) 4+ mm 53 (53.0%) 61 (61.0%) 114 (57.0%) 0 n 100 100 200 84 Estimated from photographs < 2mm 1 (3.8%) 0 1 (1.5%) 58 (89.2%) 2-4 mm 10 (38.5%) 12 (30.8%) 22 (33-8%) 7C (10.8%) 4+ mm 15 (57.7%) 27 (69.2%) 42 (64.6%) 0 n 26 39 65 65 Appendix 2. Extent of white on underwing-coverts of Common Gallinago gallinago gallinago and Wilson’s Snipe G. g. delicata, analysed from photographs of live birds and specimens. The greater- and median-covert character (in bold) is present on all specimens/photographs in that category, while the presence or absence of a band on the lesser coverts is variable and a band is present only on the number of specimens mentioned. gallinago Europe Asia combined Large band on greater coverts, and large band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 2(8.3%) 7(21.2%) 9(15.8%) no band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 Large band on greater coverts, and medium band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 7(29.2%) 10(30.3%) 17(29.8%) no band on lesser coverts 0 2 (6.1%) 2 (3.5%) Large band on greater coverts, and small band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 3(12.5%) 1(3.0%) 4(7.0%) no band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 Medium band on greater coverts, and large band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 4(16.7%) 3(9.1%) 7(12.3%) no band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 Medium band on greater coverts, and medium band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 3(12.5%) 4(12.1%) 7(12.3%) no band on lesser coverts 0 1(3.0%) 1(1.8%) Medium band on greater coverts, and small band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 2 (8.3%) 1 (3.0%) 3 (5.3%) no band on lesser coverts 1 (4.2%) 2 (6.1%) 3 (5.3%) Small band on greater coverts, and large band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 no band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 Small band on greater coverts, and medium band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 1(4.2%) 0 1(1.8%) no band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 Small band on greater coverts, and small band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 1(4.2%) 0 1(1.8%) no band on lesser coverts 0 2(6.1%) 2(3.5%) Small band on greater coverts, and no band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 no band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 No band on greater coverts, and no band on median coverts band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 no band on lesser coverts 0 0 0 Total 24 33 57 delicata North America 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 (11.7%) 0 22 (36.7%) 0 31 (51.7%) 60 British Birds 101 ‘April 2008 • 189-200 198 Identification of Wilson's and Common Snipe C ) Appendix 3. Pattern of axillaries in Common Gallinago gallinag o gallinago and Wilson's Snipe G. g. delicata. ‘Whitest feather' focuses on the single feather with the greatest extent of white in the tract. Note: (a) this delicata isTAMU specimen No. 1,258 (see comments in text). gallinago — delic ata — Pattern of dark and white barring on axillaries predominant across tract predominant on whitest feather predominant across tract predominant on whitest feather dark bars > white bars 2 (3.3%) 0 22 (56.4%) 6 (15.9%) dark bars = white bars 14 (23.4%) 0 15 (38.5%) 19 (47.5%) dark bars slightly < white bars 17 (28.3%) 13 (22.8%) 2 (5.1%) 14 (35.0%) dark bars half width of white bars 11 (18.3%) 21 (36.8%) 0 la (2.5%) dark bars third width of white bars 11 (18.3%) 14 (24.6%) 0 0 dark bars essentially absent 5 (8.3%) 9 (15.8%) 0 0 n 60 57 39 40 Appendix 4. Pattern and shape of outermost tail feather in Common Gallinago gallinago gallinago and Wilson's Snipe G. g. delicata. Pattern excludes the basal quarter of the feather, i.e. that normally hidden by body (contour) feathers. Notes: (a) this feather had only one broad light band; (b) this was a very short feather; (c) this feather had only one broad light band; (d) this gallinago subset approached ‘much wider’ for second pale band. Data for delicata is skewed towards the least-marked pattern from I 37 outer tail feathers examined atTAMU. Samples were deliberately selected for their gallinago- type appearance to give most relevance to this discussion. gallinago delicata Outermost tail feather: pattern n n two dark bars or less 6 (12.2%) 0 three dark bars - light bars much wider 25 (51.0%) la (2.0%) three dark bars - light bars even or a little wider 4 (8.2%) lb (2.0%) four dark bars - light bars much wider 5 (10.2%) lc (2.0%) four dark bars - light bars even or a little wider 6d (12.2%) 24 (48.0%) five or more dark bars 3 (6.1%) 23 (46.0%) total 49 50 Outermost tail feather: shape n n even throughout, rounded tip 21 (51.2%) 20 (64.5%) even throughout, pointed tip 7 (17.1%) 2 (6.5%) narrowing indent near tip - rounded tip 8 (19.5%) 1 (3.2%) narrowing indent near tip - pointed tip 4 (9.8%) 0 squarish tip 1 (2.4%) 8 (25.8%) total 41 31 Outermost tail feather: dark-bar angle Feature predominant Feature predominant roughly perpendicular to shaft 20 (47.6%) 17 (39.5%) clearly angled to shaft 22 (52.4%) 26 (60.5%) total 42 43 Appendix 5. Shape of white tips to secondaries in Common Gallinago gallinago gallinago and Wilson's Snipe G. g. delicata. The shape is assessed on the inner web of a central secondary, and taken from photographs. Shape of white tips to secondaries Europe gallinago Asia combined delicata North America perpendicular - no bleed upwards 1 1 (27.5%) 8 (25.8%) 19 (26.8%) 18 (18.6%) perpendicular - slight bleed upwards 16 (40.0%) 16 (51.6%) 32 (45.1%) 57 (58.8%) curved - medium bleed upwards 9 (22.5%) 7 (22.6%) 16 (22.5%) 18 (18.6%) curved - strong bleed upwards 4 (10.0%) 0 4 (5.6%) 4 (4.1%) n 40 31 71 97 British Birds 101 ‘April 2008 • 189-200 199 c Identification of Wilson’s and Common Snipe > Appendix 6. Comparison of flank pattern and colour between Common Gallinago gallinago gallinago and Wilson's Snipe G. g. delicata. gallinago delicata Flank pattern Feature predominant Feature predominant dark bars > pale bars 4 (6.5%) 2 (12.5%) bars roughly equal 17 (27.4%) 7 (43.8%) dark bars < pale bars 41 (66.1%) 7 (43.8%) n 62 16 Flank colour Feature predominant Feature predominant flanks white or whitish, as belly 40 (70.2%) 11 (78.6%) flanks washed buff/brown, contrasting with belly 17 (29.8%) 3 (21.4%) n 57 14 Notes All Notes submitted to British Birds are subject to independent review, either by the Notes Panel or by the 88 Editorial Board. Egyptian Geese eating New Zealand Pigmyweed On 30th June 2007, at Moor Green Lakes NR, Berkshire, I watched 13 Egyptian Geese Alopochen aegyptiaca feeding on New Zealand Pigmyweed Crassula helmsii. The geese fed for c. 30 minutes solely on Crassula , mostly on plants up to c. 6 mm high, but some on plants up to 10 mm high. New Zealand Pigmyweed is an ‘aggressively colonising species... first cul- tivated in Britain in 1927 and first discovered in the wild in 1956 [in Essex]. Since the late 1970s it has spread rapidly north and west’ (Preston et al. 2002). It suppresses other plants and is considered a major pest species. Conservationists have been trying to control Crassula for years, with limited success, and it is now tackled at Moor Green with herbicides. Whether this observation highlights a possible natural control method is debatable - it is pos- sible that the geese are as likely to spread the plant as control it, as it grows easily from small pieces. It would, however, be interesting to know whether Egyptian Geese, or other wild- fowl, feed regularly on Crassula helmsii. Reference Preston, C. D„ Pearman, D. A., & Dines.T D. 2002. New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. OUR Oxford. John E. Warren 129 Liscombe, Birch Hill, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 7DE Little Grebe catching newt On 6th April 2007, I watched a Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis catch and attempt to eat an adult newt (probably a Smooth Newt Triturus vulgaris) on a small lake near Banbury, Oxford- shire. The grebe surfaced holding the newt by the base of its tail and spent 30 seconds or so slapping it on the water surface and attempting to swallow it. The grebe dived again with the newt in its bill and presumably lost it under- water or gave up the attempt, as it was not seen to swallow it. BWP reports that Little Grebes will take small frogs (Ranidae) and salamanders (Sala- mandroidea), but does not mention adult newts. Perhaps these should not be a wholly unexpected prey item, but would surely be unusually large for a Little Grebe (male Smooth Newts reach some 10-1 1 cm long). I have found one other reference to such behaviour, in March 2007 at Loversall Pool near Potteric Carr in Yorkshire ( Potteric Carr Birder’s Newsletter, , Yorkshire Wildlife Trusts). Colin Wilkinson RSPB Midlands Regional Office, 46 The Green, South Bar, Banbury OX16 9AB © British Birds 101 'April 2008 • 200-210 200 c Notes > Post-hatch nest use by Slavonian Grebes in Scotland Slavonian Grebes Podiceps auritus have bred in small numbers in northern Scotland since the first known breeding attempt, near Inverness in 1909 (McGhie 1994). The population rose to a peak of 80 pairs in both 1978 and 1984, after which there was a substantial decline, to 31 pairs in 2000, although this had increased to 37 pairs in 2007 (Stuart Benn pers. comm.). Slavonian Grebe has been placed on the amber list of Birds of Conservation Concern in the UK (Gregory et al. 2002). RSPB Scotland has carried out several studies to describe the breeding biology and factors affecting breeding success of Slavonian Grebes (Summers et al. 1994; Summers & Mavor 1995, 1998). These have included video- recording nests to determine the survival and fate of clutches (Perkins et al. 2005). This latest study provided behavioural information showing nest use by the grebes after hatching. Data were available for the post-hatch period for three nests, which were monitored during 2001: two at Loch Ruthven RSPB Reserve, High- land (nests A and B) and the third (nest C) at a loch in Moray & Nairn. All three nests were in Bottle Sedge Carex rostrata beds. The video cameras were placed alongside the nests, during the incubation period at nests A and B and immediately after the first egg hatched at nest C. The recordings were analysed from the moment the first egg hatched until chicks or adults did not use the nest for a period of 24 hours, or until the nest was predated. This provided 154 hours of observation at nest A, 418 hours at nest B and 514 hours at nest C. Attendance at the nest of adults and chicks was recorded to the nearest minute. Adult males were identified by their larger, brighter ear tufts, and the females by smaller, duller ear tufts (Fjeldsa 2004). It was generally impossible to identify individual chicks at the nest, so the data were analysed simply for j chick presence or absence. The behaviour of the incu- bating adult, including restless- ness and looking under its body, | perhaps helping to remove eggshell, was indicative of hatching. The eggs in all three nests hatched asynchronously, at approximately daily intervals (table 1). The fourth chick at nest C hatched three days after the third chick, and during a period when no adult or other chick was on the nest. It was observed for approximately two hours, after which it left the nest with an adult and was not seen subsequently. It was assumed to have died soon after it left the nest; this was the only partial brood loss. The male and female grebes shared incuba- tion and brooding duties during the period after first hatching at all three nests, both during the day and during the night. The time spent by each adult on the nest during the post- hatch period varied between nests, but generally declined after the first egg hatched (day 0). In particular, after day 4-6 the adults began to spend considerable, and increasing, periods away from the nest - despite unhatched eggs remaining in all the nests. All three females tended to spend more time on the nest than the male, especially after both adults and chicks began to spend prolonged periods away from the nest (fig. 1). Nest A was predated by an Otter Lutra lutra on day 7 (Hancock et al. 2002), while nest B was last used on day 19 and nest C on day 17. An adult was incubating or days after first egg hatches Male — A * B — C days after first egg hatches Fig. I. Nest attendance by female and male Slavonian Grebes Podiceps auritus at nests A, B and C. Day 0 is the day the first egg hatched. Nest A was predated on day 7. British Birds 101 - April 2008 • 200-210 201 Notes C > Table 1. Timing of key events at three Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus nests. A and B in Highland, C Nest A in Moray & Nairn, 200 1 . Nest B Nest C Clutch size 5 4 6 Number of eggs hatched 4 1 4 First egg hatched 10th June, 13.28-13.38 hrs 2nd August, 14.41 hrs 18th June, before 13.08 hrs Second egg hatched 11th June, 11.03-1 1.08 hrs - 19th June, 06.22-06.32 hrs Third egg hatched 12th June, 08.15-08.59 hrs - 20th June, 07.45-07.53 hrs Fourth egg hatched 13th June, 10.00-10.34 hrs - 23rd June, 13.30-13.42 hrs Nest predated 16th June, 23.18-23.30 hrs - - Date male last used nest - 19th August 2nd July Date female last used nest - 19th August 7th July Date chicks last used nest - 19th August 7th July brooding virtually continuously at night for eight nights after the first egg hatched at nest B and for 11 nights at nest C, after which nest attendance by both adults at both nests declined considerably (fig. 2). The nest was last used at night by an adult, the female in both cases, on night 16 after the first hatch at both nests. There was little difference in the pattern of nest attendance by chicks between nests (fig. 3). Owing to the predation at nest A, only nests B and C were followed from first hatch until the point when the nest was no longer used. Although Slavonian Grebe chicks are semi- nidifugous, and thus able to leave the nest immediately after hatching if necessary, the chicks at all nests spent very little time away from the nests during the first five days after hatching. When they did leave the nest during this time, it was only for short periods, and often only into the water close to the nest. The subse- quent pattern of decline in nest use over the fol- lowing two weeks until both nests were abandoned was also similar, although the precise timings varied somewhat. Prolonged absences started between days 4 and 6. Once chicks began leaving the nest, the total time spent on the nest each day by any chick declined rapidly, although there were fluctuations, particularly in the later days of nest use. For nest B, the chick last used the nest on day 18, while nest C was last used on day 19. At all three nests, chicks used the nest at night. This was closely linked to adult attendance; chicks rarely used the nest at night unless an adult was present. The chick(s) spent the majority of each night on the nest until night 1 1 after the first egg hatched at nest B and night 12 at nest C. After this, the chicks spent only short periods on the nest until final use during night 14 at nest B and night 16 at nest C. Comparing the nest atten- dance by adults and chicks (figs. 1 8c 3) shows a virtually identical pattern for all three nests. Chicks were rarely left unattended at the nest, except during the final few days of nest use, when chicks occasionally used the nest as a daytime roosting platform. The point at which the adults began Fig. 2. Night-time nest attendance by adult Slavonian Grebes Podiceps auritus at nests B and C. An open section of the bar indicates that neither parent was present during the hours of darkness. Nest attendance by the chick was almost identical to the combined attendance by the adults. Night I is the night after the first egg hatched. 202 British Birds 101 'April 2008 • 200-210 Notes C ) Fig. 3. Nest attendance by Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus chicks at nests A, B and C. Day I is the day the first egg hatched. to take their chicks away from the nests for prolonged periods was similar at all nests. At nest C, the chicks used the nest briefly as a daytime roosting platform during the last two days of use in the absence of the adults. That the nests were used for such a prolonged period after the eggs hatched was unexpected. While there is clearly a need to continue to incubate unhatched eggs, it appears that the nest may also provide a refuge and focal point for brooding and feeding when the chicks are just a few days old. If chicks left the nest at or soon after hatching, this may compromise the adults’ ability to continue incubating unhatched eggs while feeding, brooding and defending the chicks effectively. Evidence that the nest is also used as a dry roosting location is reinforced by the chicks continuing to use the nest at night, many days after they had virtually abandoned it during the day. The nests were eventually abandoned after 18-19 days, at which point the chicks were pre- sumably able to thermoregulate effectively on the water and avoid potential predators. In summary, this study provided new infor- mation that has increased our understanding of :he ecology of Slavonian Grebes, and highlights :he importance of the nest structure beyond the :ime when the chicks hatch. Acknowledgments yVe thank Allan Perkins and Stuart Benn, who helpfully 1 lommented on an earlier draft References Fjeldsa,J. 2004. The Grebes. OUR Oxford. Gregory, R. D„ Wilkinson, N. I., Noble, D. G., Robinson, J. A, Brown, A. R, Hughes, J., Procter D„ Gibbons, D. W., & Galbraith, C. A. 2002.The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-2007. Brit Birds 95:410-448. Hancock, M„ Summers, R, & Butcher N. 2002. Predation of Slavonian Grebe nests by Otters. Brit Birds 95: 390-39 1 . McGhie, H.A. 1994. Discovery of the first British clutch of Slavonian Grebe eggs in a museum collection. Scot Birds 17: 166-167. Perkins, A. J., Hancock, M. H., Butcher N„ & Summers, R.W. 2005.The use of time-lapse cameras to determine causes of nest failure of Slavonian Grebes Podiceps auritus. Bird Study 52: 1 59- 1 65. Summers, R.W., & Mavor R. A. 1 995. Occupation patterns of lochs by Slavonian Grebes in Scotland. Scot Birds 1 8: 65-70. — & — 1 998. Nest site selection and time of breeding by Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus in Scotland. Wildfowl 49:219-227. — , — , & Hogg, S. 1 994. Factors affecting loch selection and breeding success of Slavonian Grebe in Scotland. Unpublished RSPB Report to Scottish Natural Heritage. Ian A. Dillon RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL; e-mm7ian.dillon@rspb.org.uk correspondence author) Mark Hancock and Ron W. Summers RSPB Scotland, Etive House, Beechwood Park, Inverness IV2 3BW British-ringed Honey-buzzards return to breed in the UK The true status of the Honey-buzzard Pernis J pivorus in Britain has long been shrouded in nystery and misconception. Secrecy and the oppression of data have left the species poorly understood and vulnerable in conservation erms. Roberts et al. (1999) aimed to dispel •ome of the myths surrounding the species, outlining aspects of its breeding biology in Britain and providing a baseline for further tudy. Since then, a more open attitude has pre- vailed among most fieldworkers and shared information has led to a much greater under- standing of the Honey-buzzard’s breeding requirements in Britain, and to positive conser- vation action to retain or encourage breeding pairs. Honey-buzzard ringing in the UK has taken a long time to gain momentum, and it is clear that concerns about disclosure of breeding informa- tion during the early years resulted in discrepan- iritish Birds 101 - April 2008 • 200-210 203 S.J. Roberts Notes C > cies in the BTO’s annual ringing reports. Its data- base indicates that the first chicks were ringed in 1980, and that it was a further 15 years before the second brood was ringed, in 1995. Since then, chicks have been ringed annually, averaging 15 per year in the years 2000-04, by which time over 100 had been ringed (Jacquie Clark pers. comm.). However, it is now known that chicks were ringed almost annually in Scotland between 1978 and 1995, none of which are presently recorded in the BTO’s database. A single brood was ringed in most years but there were five broods in 1991 and four in 1995. In total, 54 chicks were ringed in Scotland during this period (Brian Etheridge pers. comm.). The high numbers ringed nationally during 2000-04 were maintained during 2005-07 (our data), bringing the total now ringed to over 200. Five recoveries of chicks ringed in Britain are known. One, from a nest in North Wales, was found injured in Win- chester, Hampshire, in October 1993 (three months after ringing and a very late date for this species to be still in Britain). Two have been killed on the wintering grounds - in Guinea in February 1991 (from a 1986 Scottish nest) and in Ghana in February 2001 (from a 2000 Welsh nest) (Clark et al. 2004). Another, from a 1998 Shropshire nest, was found at Breville-sur-Mer, in northern France, in August 2003; it was entan- gled in wire and released unharmed (Clark et al. 2004). This bird is potentially very interesting as it could have been breeding locally. The fifth bird (a satellite-tagged chick from a 2003 Sussex nest) was killed by a train in the Seine-Maritime region of northern France in August 2007. In 2005, the BTO’s Nest Record Scheme received its 100th Honey-buzzard nest record card ( Nest Record News 22, June 2005) - a further milestone in our understanding of the breeding status of this species in Britain. Notes on prey items and nesting density have already been published (Roberts & Coleman 2001; Roberts & Fewis 2003). Nest cameras have brought the Honey-buzzard to the attention of the general public, and provided invaluable data, which is currently being analysed. Already there are plans in several areas, in co-operation with the Forestry Commission, to acquire tiny nest cameras which can be powered by and viewed on hand-held digital video cameras at a safe distance from the nest . As well as providing detailed information about breeding biology, this will facilitate the identification of colour- ringed adults. These cameras are quick to erect during a nest visit, are ignored by the birds and can be moved to other nests throughout the season. Young birds have also been satellite tagged and tracked from nests in Scotland and Sussex to their wintering grounds in Africa (Dennis 2003). A colour-ringing scheme has been registered with the BTO since 1997 (co-ordinated by Adrienne Stratford); two key objectives of the scheme are to determine whether British-reared Honey-buzzards return to breed in Britain, and more generally to obtain any evidence to help establish trends in the breeding population. Up to 2007, 152 Honey-buzzard chicks had been colour-ringed, mainly in Dorset, Kent, Shrop- shire, Surrey, Sussex and Wales (with a small number in Nottinghamshire and Scotland). A single colour ring, with engraved letters or numbers, identifies an indi- vidual bird. Although colour rings are difficult to see in general conditions, adults often perch close to the observer during nest visits when good views of the legs are possible. In 2006, Mike Thomas noticed a colour-ringed bird at a nest in South Wales. Sub- sequent observations revealed that both adults were colour- ringed and the individual rings were identified. This , represents the first confirmed breeding in the UK of British- reared birds. The female had' 204 British Birds 101* April 2008 • 200-2 1 0 Notes C > been ringed as a chick in Shropshire in 2000 (one of two chicks), while the male had been ringed as a chick in North Wales in 2002 (also one of two chicks). The female, recognisable by distinctive plumage characteristics, had first been seen in the study area in August 2004 and at that time appeared not to be breeding but actively wing-clapping over a wide area for con- siderable periods of time, in the manner of a male. She was observed on one occasion with another bird, probably a male, in a Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis plantation. In 2005, in the same general area, she accompanied a male and established a territory in an area of broadleaved woodland some 5 km from an established, well- studied breeding area, occupied annually by several pairs of Honey-buzzards. The new pair built a summer nest in a Silver Birch Betula pendula during July and August - a small con- struction to which greenery and food items were taken but no eggs were laid. In 2006, the same female and what appeared to be the same male occu- pied the 2005 summer nest, increased its size and two eggs were laid in June. The nest contained one three-week- old chick at the beginning of August. It is presumed that the second egg hatched and the chick was lost early as no unhatched egg was found in the nest cup. These observations indicate a period of settling-in and exploration of a potential territory before a breeding attempt. In this case, the period was shorter than that noted in The Netherlands (van Manen 2000), where birds are, on average, 7.7 years old before first breeding. A female of six years and a male of only four years might indicate either prime breeding conditions or generally low breeding density and a lack of competition for suitable sites. Either way, since the 1 general area has been well studied over many years, this constitutes an increase m the breeding population and an I expansion of the local range. It is now widely accepted that food ! availability is not a limiting factor for Honey-buzzards in Britain, and that, iilthough subject to natural fluctua- tions, the species breeds widely though -carcely throughout Britain. Roberts et al. (1999) included nest details up to 1997; since then, a further 170 nests have been found by the handful of fieldworkers who cover Dorset, Hampshire, Wales and the Marches, and the southern counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex. This figure does not include any breeding birds in Cumbria, where breeding has occurred regu- larly, the Midlands, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Wiltshire or Yorkshire, or Scotland - where Honey-buzzards have bred since the 1970s and where there could be at least 50 pairs (Forrester et al. 2007). Although numbers remain low, the population is undoubtedly higher than reported and there is strong evidence for an increasing and expanding population. For example, field- workers in Kent, Sussex and Surrey found the first confirmed breeding pair for any of these counties in 1990. A second breeding pair was located in 1994 and, since 1997, 12 different I I 5 & 116. Five-week-old Honey-buzzard Pernis apivorus chicks, Surrey, August 2006. Plate I 1 5 shows a chick being fitted with the individually coded darvic ring.The chicks have been removed from the nest to carry out the ringing procedure safely and efficiently. Plate I 1 6 shows Steve Roberts with the two pale-phase chicks, about to be returned to the nest in a Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii after ringing and recording biometric data. iritish Birds 101 • April 2008 • 200-210 205 P. Everitt P. Everitt Notes C pairs have bred. Seven nests were located in 2006 and 2007 and other sightings suggest further potential breeders (M. Cowlard pers. comm.). In Wales, where there was no recorded Any Honey-buzzard fieldworker who may be interested in colour-ringing is encouraged to contact either of the authors. breeding prior to 1990, breeding has now been proved for 1 1 different pairs. Six nests were found in 2006 and activity in several other areas suggests further probable breeding (our data). Colour-ringing of chicks has provided vital information about the breeding dynamics of the Honey-buzzard in Britain, and the efforts made by fieldworkers, almost always supported by co-operative and encouraging landowners (notably the Forestry Commission), cannot be underestimated. This has resulted in significant advances in our understanding of Honey- buzzard breeding biology. It is disappointing to note that, while fieldworkers in Hampshire have found 51 nests, fledging a minimum of 86 chicks in the New Forest area since 1997, no nest visits or ringing/ colour-ringing has taken place (W. Percy and A. Page pers. comm.). In view of the co-operation and success in all other forest districts where Honey-buzzards breed, we hope that this article might help to persuade raptor workers in this region to participate in the colour-ringing scheme; the contribution to our understanding of the Honey-buzzard in Britain would be considerable. More generally, the more birds that carry colour rings, the more chance we have of making significant advances in understanding breeding dynamics, move- ments, longevity and population increases. Consequently, we strongly urge all those who work with breeding Honey-buzzards to con- sider colour-ringing as an important tool in our attempt to understand this secretive raptor, the long-term aim being to ensure that conserva- tion strategies to support our breeding birds are based on sound knowledge and understanding. S. J. Roberts Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank all the landowners and their agents, without whose help and encouragement this project would not have been successful. In particular; we would like to thank the Forestry Commission and their Wildlife Ftangers across the country. In addition, we would | like to thank the fieldworkers, ringers and observers, without whose unstinting effort in terms of time and energy, none of this work would have been possible: Rob Clements, Mike Coleman, Malcolm Cowlard. Brian ; Etheridge, Phil Everitt, Julian Harper, Ftichard Jacob, Martin I Kalaher; Alan Lucas, Andy Page, Wayne Percy, Alan Reed, i Adrienne Stratford, Adrian Thomas, Mike Thomas, Mike ] Thomley, Reg Thorpe, Chris Tucker and lolo Williams. References Clark, J. A., Robinson, R.A., Balmer; D. E., Adams, S.Y., Collier, j M. R, Grantham, M. J., Blackburn, J. R, & Griffin, B. M. 2004. Bird Ringing in Britain and Ireland in 2003. Ringing & Migration 22: 85- 1 27. Dennis, FI 2003. Tracking of Honey-buzzard migration using satellite radio transmitters. Forest Enterprise and Highland Foundation for Wildlife; Honey-buzzard progress report Forrester, R.W., Andrews, I.J., Mclnemy, C.J., Murray, K D„ JJ McGowan, FLY., Zonfrillo, B„ Betts, M.W.Jardine, D. C., J & Grundy, D. S. 2007. The Birds of Scotland. SOC, Aberlady. Roberts, S. J„ & Coleman, M. 200 1 . Some observations on the diet of European Honey-buzzards in Britain. Brit Birds 94: 433^436. — & Lewis, J. M. S. 2003. Observations of European Honey-buzzard breeding density in Britain. Brit Birds 96: ' 37-39. — , Lewis, J. M. S„ & Williams, I.T 1999. Breeding European , j Honey-buzzards in Britain. Brit Birds 92: 326-345. van Manen, W. 2000. Reproductiestrategie van de Wespendief Pernis apivorus in Noord Nederland. Limosa 73: 81-86. Ty Canol, Church Lane, Llanfair Kilgeddin, Abergavenny NP7 9BE; e-mail sjroberts 1 00@hotmail.com /. M. S. Lewis Y Bwthyn Gwyn, Coldbrook, Abergavenny NP7 9TD 206 British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 200-21 Notes New evidence of dark Hobbies Corso & Monterosso (2000) described seven recently fledged Hobbies Falco subbuteo which appeared particularly dark when compared with typical juveniles. All occurred among family parties of typical Hobbies, between July and September in southern Italy. The authors described several differences between them and heterozygous dark-morph Eleonora’s Falcons F. eleonorae (Corso & Monterosso 2004), but Ristow (2004a) suggested that the arguments presented to distinguish dark Hobbies from Eleonora’s Falcons, in particular dark-morph second-calendar-year (2CY) males, were not entirely convincing. We were unaware of this published corres- pondence when we observed a dark Hobby in northern Spain in August 2006. Between 2000 and 2006, we examined the plumage of 1 18 full- grown Hobbies in northern Spain: 77 in the field and the remainder in the hand, either during ringing activities or, in the case of 12 birds, at a rehabilitation centre. Birds were of all age and sex classes. All but one presented the typical plumage pattern (see Chapman 1999, Forsman 1999, Ristow 2004b). The only excep- tion was a fledgling hobby aged 35^10 days on 26th August 2006. This bird was perched in the pine (Pinaceae) forest canopy around the nest- site, with a sibling of normal plumage type. The adults were a 2CY female and a 3+CY male, both showing a typical plumage pattern. We watched them for five hours through three good-quality, 20 x 80 telescopes at 100 m dis- tance; the light was good, enabling detailed observation of plumage colour. The cere and orbital ring of both the dark chick and the normal chick were bluish, the legs were bluish or pale green and the remiges were I shorter than the tail; these are all typical charac- teristics of a fledgling Hobby (Forsman 1999; Ristow 2004a, b). Nevertheless, the dark bird did 1 not show the typical buff fringes of juvenile j feathers, normally evident mainly on the head i and the upperparts; instead, this bird appeared j uniformly dark on the upperparts. Moreover, I the cheek was dark brown, with no white, making the ‘moustache’ difficult to distinguish. The throat, breast and underparts, which are normally buff or cream in juveniles (Chapman 1999), were dark brown, with typical markings. Finally, the typical buff fringes of juvenile rec- trices were dark brown, so that these feathers British Birds 101 ‘April 2008 • 200-210 appeared uniformly dark. In fact, this Hobby was darker than a heterozygous Eleonora’s Falcon (see Ristow 2004a). Corso & Monterosso (2004) did not observe whether pale fringes or tips were present on the mantle, wing-coverts and remiges of their birds, although they could detect them on the closest normal individuals. Nonetheless, they established that the entire upperparts were uniformly brownish, including the tertials (as on the bird we observed). However, Ristow (2004a) considered that the lack of such fringes would be unique among juvenile falcons of any species. We believe that these fringes could be dark brown in colour, making it almost impossible to perceive colour differences between the fringes and the rest of the feather. The great controversy in the case of Corso & Monterosso’s (2004) dark Hobbies was due to the possible confusion with Eleonora’s Falcon behaviour (Ristow 2004a). However, in our case there was no doubt about the species’ identity, since we found the nest-site and monitored the family’s behaviour. Both chicks made short flights during our observations, no more than 30 m, during which they called to their parents. There are no breeding territories of Eleonora’s Falcon in northern Spain (Muntaner 2003). The chick described above could be con- fused with a heterozygous juvenile male Eleonora’s Falcon or a juvenile Sooty Falcon Falco concolor , and the likelihood of identifying this bird correctly in the field, away from a known nesting area, is perhaps low. We suggest that there may be more dark Hobbies which have been identified incorrectly as Eleonora’s Falcons. Acknowledgments We are greatly indebted to Dietrich Ristow and Klaus Dietrich Fiuczynski for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this note. We also thank Sally Haigh for linguistic revision. References Chapman. A. 1999. The Hobby. Arlequin, Chelmsford. Corso, A., & Monterosso, G. 2000. Eine unbeschriebene dunkleVariante des Baumfalken Falco subbuteo und ihre Unterscheidung vom Eleonorenfalken F. eleonorae. [An undescribed plumage of Hobby Falco subbuteo and its separation from Eleonora's Falcon F. eleonorae .] Limicola 1 4: 209-2 1 5. (In German) — & — 2004. Further comments on dark Hobbies in southern Italy. Brit Birds 97: 4 1 1—414. Forsman, D. 1 999. The Raptors of Europe and the Middle 207 Notes C ) East. Poysen London. MuntanerJ. 2003. Halcon de Eleonora. In: Marti', R., & del Moral, J. C. (eds .), Atlas de lasAves Reproductoras de Esparto: 202-203. Direccion General de la Conservation de la Naturaleza-Sociedad Espanola de Ornitologfa, Madrid. (In Spanish) Ristow, D. 2004a. Exceptionally dark-plumaged Hobbies or normal Eleonora's Falcons? Brit Birds 97: 406-4 1 I . — 2004b. Sex, age and evolution criteria to be derived from dark feather patterns in the Hobby and Red- footed Falcon group. In: Chancellor; R D., & Meyburg, B.-U. (eds.), Raptors Wordwide : 7 1 3-729. WWGBP/MME. Inigo Zuberogoitia, Estudios Medioambientales Icarus S.L., Apdo 106., E-48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain; e-mail: zuberogoitia@icarus.es Ihaki Castillo, Ainara Azkona, Agurtzane Iraeta, Lander Astorkia, Javier Elorriaga and Jose Antonio Martinez, Raptor Research Society, Karl Marx 15 4°F, E-48950 Erandio, Bizkaia, Spain Ship-assisted Bam Swallow On 20th April 2007, while travelling from New Zealand to Japan on the research vessel Professor Khromov, and at approximately 20°N 144°E, to the west of the Northern Mariana Islands in the western Pacific, a group of four migrant Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica circled the ship. One bird landed on the ship, perching on lifeboats, deck railings, etc., and soon began to take advantage of the fairly numerous flies (Diptera). The bird roosted overnight and appeared to be in good condition. As the journey progressed, the swallow became increasingly tame and on one occasion it readily accepted a freshly caught fly from my fingers. This began a period of hand-feeding, which lasted for the duration of the bird’s stay on the vessel. At first there was no shortage of flies around the ship and the swallow would accept them whenever it was perched in an accessible location. On several occa- sions it even flew towards me and took the fly Richard Lowe Ashbrook, Dimple Lane, Crich, Derbyshire DE4 5BQ before it was offered! Although hand-feeding was l initially only supplementing its diet, latterly it seemed that the bird could not catch sufficient for itself (despite its frequent forays) and any fear of ' humans appeared overcome by hunger. As the number of flies decreased, I tried feeding it with 1 fragments of raw steak. This proved highly sue- ' cessful (especially when the meat was dipped in ! water first) and was used almost exclusively for the 1 last four days of the bird’s stay, with regular > feeding about every two hours. Although the bird’s plumage became unkempt (primarily due 1 to its habit of flying close to the ship’s funnel) and it became quite lethargic, it always remained capable of flight. It grew so tame that it would land regularly on passengers and crew! Remarkably, the bird remained with the ship until 26th April when, approximately 150 km from Kyushu, Japan, it flew off strongly with a group of other migrant Barn Swallows. EDITORIAL COMMENT Angela Turner has commented that Barn Swallows are known to roost on ships, but the length of stay described here is exceptional. Robin imitating Barn Swallow On 29th October 2006, 1 was walking past a small shelter-belt of Sycamores Acer pseudoplatanus in an area of upland pasture at Ashover, Derbyshire, when I heard what I initially took to be the typi- cally loud and urgent double ‘si-weet’ alarm call of a Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica. On hearing it again, I realised that the call was interspersed with the otherwise normal, loud and regular song of a Robin Erithacus rubecula, probably a migrant bird. I listened for several minutes and the Robin used this call, always given twice in quick succes- sion, in most of its song phrases, sometimes beginning them with it. It was still doing the same when I left the area three hours later. BWP states that mimicry is ‘often suspected but difficult to assess due to apparent modifica- tion of motifs derived from model’; Blackbird1 Turdus merula. Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla , Great Tit Parus major and Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs are listed as species whose songs have been copied, but mimicry is more frequent in subsong than in full song. R. A. Frost 66 St Lawrence Road, North Wingfield, Chesterfield, Derbyshire S42 5LL 208 British Birds 101 "April 2008 • 200-210, Notes Attempted feeding of dead fledgling by Blackbird On 19th April 2007, I saw a female Blackbird Turdus merida with food in its bill, standing over a squashed, newly fledged chick, on a road in West Bagborough, Somerset. After a minute or two, the Blackbird flew off and I removed the chick to the side of the road. Returning to the site about ten minutes later, I saw a female Blackbird, doubtless the same individual, again with food in its bill, standing at the site of the fledgling’s death, while the dead chick itself was quite ignored. The Blackbird was soon dis- turbed by an approaching car and flew off. This seems to suggest that, at least for the period shortly after leaving the nest, the position of the food-begging chick is all-important in the minds of the parents. Dr A. P. Radford Crossways Cottage, West Bagborough, Taunton, Somerset TA4 3EG Blue Tits obtain concealed insects in winter by selecting bud size There are various examples of tits (Paridae), particularly Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus, finding insect food concealed in different parts of plants and trees, which is presumed to aid survival in winter for these mainly non-migra- tory birds (Cramp & Perrins 1993). However, there appears to be no published record similar to the observations described here. On 17th November 1991, a cold day with ice on the water, I watched three Blue Tits actively feeding in small, leafless, Goat Willow Salix caprea bushes at the edge of Threipmuir Reser- voir, Lothian. The reservoir is surrounded by mainly rough grassland with a scatter of willows along parts of the shoreline. As the Blue Tits moved about busily in the bushes, they pecked only at buds and they would stop and attack :ertain buds with vigorous pecking and head flicking, some fragments of bud being tossed away. I approached and inspected some of the :wigs on which the tits had been feeding. The auds were of two sizes: small ones 2.0-3. 5 mm n length and larger ones c. 4.5 mm long and distinctly wider in shape. The small buds were jndamaged by the Blue Tits, and showed no eadily visible signs of insects. Some of the large i auds showed the exit holes of an insect and had he interior eaten away, leaving an empty nternal cavity; others were freshly pecked open bowing green sappy tissue and much of the bud emoved. Most, perhaps all, of the buds attacked ! >v Blue Tits had contained insects, shown by the presence of black insect excreta (frass) and ometimes fragments of exoskeletons. These observations suggested that the large ! villow buds had all contained an insect, prob- bly at the larval stage (as the bud interiors had 1 >een consumed), and that large bud size seemed •ritish Birds 101 • April 2008 • 200-210 to be an effect of the insect infestation. Large buds with an exit hole and empty cavity no longer contained the insect but most of those cut open by Blue Tits showed traces of frass which appeared fresh. My observations sug- gested that the tits were selecting only the large buds, and so had a higher chance of finding an insect than if they had opened buds randomly. Possibly the birds were also able to select those large buds not showing an insect exit hole, though I have no evidence to support this. On 31st January 1994, 1 returned to Threip- muir. No Blue Tits were present but I collected twigs from the same bushes to gain some quan- titative information. The collected twigs held 709 buds and were examined using a x5 lens when necessary. Again, there was a majority of small, dormant buds (653, 92.1%) and a minority of larger, wider buds (20, 2.8%) with insect holes or bird damage; in addition, some buds (36, 5.1%) were enlarged because of spring growth, but their shape was still narrow and pointed. Of the 20 larger/wider buds, eight showed an insect exit hole, the bud centre eaten and insect frass; one showed the bud centre partly eaten, with remains of a dead insect larva; and 1 1 showed the buds partly destroyed, as if by a small bird’s beak, some with frass and/or insect exoskeletal remains. The appear- ance of the 1 1 presumed bird-damaged buds was as if cut or sliced in two or three different directions, usually with less than half the bud remaining on the twig. This seemed consistent with the feeding actions observed by Blue Tits in November 1991. Assuming that the damage to buds recorded in January 1994 was also by Blue Tits, the birds had attacked no dormant or growing buds but had opened 55% of the dis- 209 Notes ( tinctive, insect-infested buds. The cut surfaces of the 11 damaged buds were darkened and dried, suggesting that they had not been opened recently, probably before any small buds had begun to enlarge through growth and when the only large buds would have been infested ones. I collected twigs from the same Goat Willow bushes on 2nd December 1994 and sent these to the Forestry Authority Research Division for analysis. In most of the insect-mined buds, moulted skins and head capsules of a sawfly larva Euura mucronata ( =saliceti ), sometimes known as the Willow Bud Sawfly, one of the commonest and smallest sawfly species in Britain, were identified. The adults fly from May to July and the larvae feed generally from July to October, perhaps later in northern areas. At least two holes were found in most of the infested buds, one smaller than the other, sug- gesting that a larva bores into a bud, feeds on most of the contents and then leaves, making the larger hole. In view of the seasonality of E. mucronata, Blue Tits would have the best chance of finding well-grown live larvae in willow buds during autumn and early winter. In spring, tits feed on the buds of many types of trees, when they search for small insects or insect eggs, pulling off bud scales to do so; bud scale tissue is often ingested incidentally (New- stead 1908; Collinge 1924-1927; Fryer 1939; Hartley 1953; Gibb 1954; Betts 1955). Betts (1955) showed that, between February and April, Blue Tits consume bud tissue deliberately, particularly of oaks Quercus, when their buds may have a high incidence of insect galls, but concluded that the birds sought the bud tissue itself rather than the insects within. There are numerous examples of tits exploiting insect food concealed within parts Harry E. M. Dott 8 Mortonhall Park Gardens, Edinburgh EH 17 8SL J of plants, including inside hard galls, leaf galls, leaf mines, under bark and inside reed Phragmites stems (Betts 1955; Yapp 1962; Heiser 1975; Perrins 1979; Fromel 1980; Cramp & Perrins 1993). Barnes (1975) further noted that Blue Tits tend to move to low land with willows and reedbeds in winter, while Hartley (1953) found that Blue Tits in one area fed more frequently in low shrubs and bushes from November through winter. However, no studies appear to record that tits open dormant buds in autumn or winter and select the buds by size, thus increasing their chance of obtaining insect food. Acknowledgment I am very grateful to Dr T. Winter at the Forestry Authority Research Division at Farnham. Surrey, who examined the twigs collected and identified £ mucronata. References Bames, J. A. G. 1975. The Titmice of the British Isles. David & Charles, Newton Abbot Betts, M. M. 1 955.The food of titmice in oak woodland, J.Anim. Ecol. 24: 282-323. Collinge, W. E. 1 924- 1 927. The Food of Some British Wild Birds: a study in economic ornithology (2nd edn). Collinge, York. Cramp, S„ & Perrins, C. M. (eds.). 1993. The Birds of the Western Palearctic Vol. VII. OUR Oxford. Fromel, Ft 1980. DieVerbreiting im Schilf uberwintemder Arthropoden im westlichen Bodenseegebiet und ihne Bedeutung furVogel. Die Vogelwarte 30: 2 1 8-254. Fryer J. C. F. 1 939. The destruction of buds of trees and shrubs by birds. Brit Birds 33: 90-94. Gibb, J. 1954. Feeding ecology of tits, with notes on Treecreeper and Goldcrest Ibis 96: 5 1 3-543. Hartley, R H.T 1 953. An ecological study of the feeding habits of the English titmice.). Anim. Ecol. 22: 26 1 -288. Heiser F. 1 975. Zur akustischen Orientierung nahrungssuchender Blaumeisen ( Varus caeruleus). Die Vogelwelt 96: 1 84- 1 85. Newstead, Ft 1 908.The food of some British birds. J. Board ofAgric. 15(9) (Suppl.): I— 87. London. Perrins, C. 1 979. British Tits. Collins, London. Yapp, W. B. 1 962. Birds and Woods. OUR London. Juvenile Coal Tit feeding juvenile Blue Tit On 22nd June 2007, in my garden at West Bag- borough, Somerset, I saw a well-grown juvenile Coal Tit Periparus ater, together with three juvenile Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus, feeding on peanuts in a hanging cage. Suddenly, one of the Blue Tits opened its gape and begged; at once, the Coal Tit, which had just extracted a large nut fragment, fed it to the Blue Tit. Normal feeding was then resumed and no more begging was observed from the Blue Tit, which, like the other birds, appeared to be a fully inde- pendent juvenile. Although there are several documented records of one species feeding another, it is unusual that in this case a juvenile bird was the feeder. Dr A. P. Radford Crossways Cottage, West Bagborough, Taunton, Somerset TA4 3EG 210 British Birds 101 •April 2008 • 200-210 Letters The Cheshire Kermadec Petrel The rejection of the Cheshire Kermadec Petrel record (Brit. Birds 101: 31-38) seems largely based on suspicion of fraud, but the evidence for this is extremely unconvincing. Let us assume that it was a fraud - i.e. the account of the discovery was known by someone to be false, and that that same person could see a way to benefit financially from this. Two questions arise: how was the fraud perpet- rated and who was defrauded? Taking the second question first, there are two possibilities. One is that the finder, who took the corpse to Arthur Newstead, lied about the circumstances in which he came to acquire the bird. Newstead was the victim of the fraud in a way but could also see a way to profit from it. The other possi- bility is that Newstead himself presented an account which he knew to be untrue. A chain of events by which someone in Tar- porley acquired the bird in circumstances other than claimed, and suspected that it might be valuable, stretches the bounds of credibility. Moreover, if it is true that the finder attended the Saturday market in Chester, he must surely have been a local resident (Coward later speci- fied the person as a farmer); a sailor visiting the market on the off-chance with a frozen bird is unlikely to have made up the story about Tar- porley. It is suggested that the bird may have arrived in the freezer of a ship from the southern oceans. However, the stomach was empty, so whenever it came into human posses- sion, it was starving and presumably lost. The chance of a sailor knowing a farmer in Tarporley to whom he took the bird (still frozen) in the hope that it might be worth something seems implausible. It seems extremely unlikely that such a ‘finder’ could have known its real value, much less that its value would be enhanced if it was thought to be a genuine find. How long, in any case, would it have taken for the bird to be brought from the port (probably not Chester, since only three ships a year put in there), and how long does it take for a defrosting bird to start smelling on a spring day? How convenient that the bird was produced following a period of strong westerlies! Despite all this, it was not thought important enough to take it to Chester until market day and, even then, Newstead appears to have been uncertain about it, since he © British Birds 101 • April 2008 * 211-215 did not purchase it until the following day, probably for a small sum. However, if Newstead himself knew that the account of the finding was false, who then was defrauded? The answer may appear obvious, but there are serious problems. Firstly, it is strikingly obvious that he did not have a wealthy collector to whom he could sell a rare specimen. He had to wait over a year until the sum he was asking could be raised, by no fewer than 14 local people. Yet he must have known that rare birds commanded large sums. For example, in around 1906, wealthy collectors would give up to £25.00 for rarities or unusual plumage variations (Brit. Birds 55: 319). If New- stead was being dishonest, he was lying to his own brother and, perhaps more importantly, to Coward, who spent a year prowling around the Cheshire countryside before parting with any money. It is unthinkable that Coward, with all his local contacts, did not pursue the matter to satisfy himself of the circumstances. We are told that Coward and Charles Oldham may have given £1 each, Newstead’s brother 10/-, and that the balance was raised among 11 others - an average of 4/6 each. However, it is significant that they were all con- tributing to a worthy cause - the acquisition of the specimen by the local museum. It is sug- gested that Coward contributed to the problem of fraudulent claims (which he later criticised) by agreeing to this transaction. However, he was criticising ‘greedy collectors’, not a group of local people willing to support their museum. In fact, he was well aware of the possibility of fraud and the amount of money changing hands for rare birds, and stated that he would rather give £1 ‘than let it go’ - i.e. to some wealthy collector, thus depriving the Chester Museum of a historic specimen. Remember that the specimen had already been exhibited at a BOC meeting and had effectively been in the public domain since a month after its discovery. The fact that Newstead waited a year for his money strongly indicates to me that he knew the record to be genuine, and wanted the speci- men to remain in Chester. I see absolutely nothing amiss in him wanting to take financial advantage of what was almost like a treasure- trove, but significant that he didn’t sell the 211 c Letters > specimen on the open market, when he might have received five times as much. There is no evidence that Newstead ever received other rare specimens that might have come in frozen — Coward would have been well aware of suspicious records emanating from the local taxidermist. Even if Newstead had received the bird freshly dead from someone on a ship, it is scarcely credible that he could have invented Martin Woodcock Furlongs, Long Lane, Wiveton, Norfolk NR25 7DD The recent article by Tim Melling, on behalf of BOURC, on the Cheshire Kermadec Petrel (Brit. Birds 101: 31—38) is deficient in a number of ways. Firstly, it gives an absurdly inflated view of the value of the sum received for the specimen. According to the official Retail Price Index, £5.00 in 1908 was worth £402.00 in 2005, not £1,820.00. The RPI is what is used to calculate the value of money in the past in present terms - see http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/ research/rp2006/ rp06-009.pdf. To use an index of average earnings, as BOURC do, is to inflate the sum by the degree to which the standard of living has improved since 1908 - i.e. by about four-and-a-half times. It is true that £5.00 was about five times the weekly wage of an unskilled male labourer at the start of the twentieth century, but that only tells us how miserably cheap labour was. And the people who gained from the sale of the specimen were not unskilled labourers but a farmer and a taxider- mist, relatively prosperous middle-class occupa- tions. Secondly, it overlooks the fact that the bird was at that time, by BOURC ’s own account, at least 50-100 times more numerous than it is today, so proportionately more likely to occur out of its accepted range. Thirdly, it hints that the bird could not have been found dead below a tree, as petrels do not hit trees. If you found a storm-petrel dead in your garden, would you assume that it had hit the house? BOURC seems to be intent on libelling the memory of Arthur Newstead, the taxidermist. They are not able to cite any previous or subse- quent instance of his real or suspected dishon- esty. He was plainly trusted by his brother Prof. Robert Newstead, a man of high reputation against whom nothing is alleged, who saw the bird in the flesh and who had been a museum the Tarporley story on the spot. If we assume that the record was genuine, the 1 only problem really is that genuine vagrancy is 1 so unlikely. Even so, there are other, equally' unlikely but genuine records to compare it with. | All the circumstances suggest to me that it is far t more probable that the record, though quite ! amazing, is genuine, than that a fraud could 1 have been perpetrated on Oldham, Coward et al. p curator himself, and by his friend T. A. Coward, who showed himself aware of the danger of fraud and also of the dangers of paying too much for a specimen. Instead of assuming that Coward had paid an inflated price, BOURC could have reasonably assumed that he knew what he was doing and paid a fair sum for such an interesting bird. It is alleged that Arthur Newstead was aware of the value of the speci- men from the start, but the paper’s own account suggests that he was not, and that it was his brother who identified what was for Arthur still a mystery bird. Alternatively, the supposed finder, a farmer, may have initiated the fraud and conned the taxidermist - the degree of knowledge and prior planning implied in such a scenario on the farmer’s behalf would be incredible. Much is made of the fact that the bird would have been imported locally (it could also have been sent up on the train from London); but how likely is it that a taxidermist of good repu- tation would have risked this reputation and cheated his own brother by arranging to have a single frozen specimen sent from the South Pacific, to sell (after cunningly waiting for a storm from the west) for a sum that equals only about £400.00 in modern money? Or, sup- posing that the taxidermist was innocent, can we believe that a farmer would have been able to arrange such an elaborate fraud, plainly for a much smaller sum than the taxidermist received? Furthermore, when examined by Robert Newstead, the bird was apparently in perfect condition, with no signs of shot wounds or broken bones. So if it had been imported, it must have been specified by the fraudulent importer that a bird be obtained in unblem- j ished condition. The story just becomes more and more implausible. Of course it is possible, but science is supposed to follow the most eco- 212 British Birds 101 - April 2008 - 211-215 Letters i ; iomical explanation available, and this is not it. As the bird has been shown to be a possible even a probable) vagrant in the North Atlantic, ven today when it is much less numerous, the >nly point of substance remaining in the 50URC account seems to be that it turned up t the wrong season. Seabirds, as we all know, ometimes do unlikely things. More to the >oint is the fact that the most respected Chris Smout lChesterhill, Shore Road, Anstruther, Fife KY10 3DZ 3 ornithological experts of the day, including two who knew the taxidermist very well and were aware of the danger of fraud, accepted the record. In my view, the known facts point to Arthur Newstead being an honest man, to the farmer who found it being honest, to the sum paid being fair and to the record being genuine. BOURC may want to reconsider this record once again. '.DITORIAL COMMENT Tim Melling has commented: ‘The main problem with this record was that it acked full provenance. The account of its discovery also lacked corroboration. The report of the mnamed farmer in Tarporley came solely from the taxidermist Arthur Newstead, who profited from he specimen because it was believed to have been a genuine vagrant. A specimen brought back from he South Pacific would not have been nearly so valuable. I am not aware of any other accepted record >f this magnitude (a first, and only record for the Western Palearctic) with incomplete provenance. If Howard or Robert Newstead had tracked down the farmer to provide a named finder and to verify the tory, then the BOURC members’ votes may have been different. Incidentally, this record would have teeded nine out of ten votes from Committee members in order to be reinstated onto the British List it was removed from the list in 1971). ‘The details from the correspondence between Robert Newstead and Coward were provided to nake the account fuller and more interesting, although perhaps this unintentionally skewed the iccount towards the possibility of fraud rather than focusing on provenance. Note, however, that the provenance issue had priority in the account’s concluding remarks. It is correct that BOURC had no irm evidence that a fraud was perpetrated here, but there was no proof that the Hastings Rarities were raudulent either. This again involved a taxidermist profiting from the sale of rare birds where the tames of the collectors were not disclosed. Statistics demonstrated that the Hastings Rarities were tnlikely to have been genuine, but actual proof was lacking. ‘If the Kermadec Petrel case were being assessed by a court of law, then nobody would have been con- victed of fraud. What we are assessing here is whether the balance of probabilities is in favour of this being 1 i genuine vagrant. Given the magnitude of the record, watertight provenance would be needed to per- suade the Committee that this bird had arrived here under its own steam. That provenance was lacking.’ The past British status of the Balearic Shearwater Russell Wynn and his colleagues (Wynn & fesou 2007; Wynn et al. 2007) have omitted to nention that the Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus has visited Britain in late summer nefore. When the species was first described, in :he 1920s, Harry Witherby examined its British status (Witherby 1921; The Handbook) and, in the days before people looked out to sea, located some 30 specimen records. These, from is far north as the Firth of Forth, were much farther north than recent concentrations; 19 of them were from Yorkshire, with maxima of four in 1907 and three in 1908. It is not clear what they were doing there, though the herring Dr W. R. P. Bourne Ardgath, Station Road, Dufftown, Moray AB55 4AX Clupea harengus fisheries were in better condi- tion in the North Sea at that time. Can there have been previous unnoticed global warming or do they just move around outside the breeding season? References Witherby, H. F. 1921. On the British taken examples of the 'Levantine' Shearwater. Brit. Birds 15: 151-153. Wynn, R. B„ &Yesou, R 2007. The changing status of Balearic Shearwater in northwest European waters. Brit Birds 1 00: 392-406. — , Josey, S.A., Martin, A. R, Johns, D. G„ &Yesou, R 2007. Climate-driven range expansion of a critically endangered top predator in northeast Atlantic waters. Biol. Lett. 3: 529-532 (doi: 1 0. 1 098/rsbl.2007.0 1 62). British Birds 101* April 2008 * 211-215 213 Letters C Storks and other possible The White Stork Ciconia ciconia is one of those birds that might be expected to have nested in Britain in the past, though there is little evi- dence for it since Roman times (Harrison 1988). William Eagle Clarke (1919) drew atten- tion to an old report of a pair of ‘avium cico- niarum’ nesting on St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh in 1416 and, despite an absence of detail, nobody seems to have questioned it (e.g. Forrester et al. 2007, Carter et al. 2008). There is, however, one drawback to this record. A century later, the household accounts of King James V of Scotland (Mackenzie et al 1837; Bourne 2006) included the acquisition of no less than 15 ‘ciconii’ in addition to four ‘ardeae’ and one ‘herle’. It has generally been assumed that these were all Grey Herons Ardea cinerea , which implies that clerks were then liable to call herons storks, and quite possibly did so in 1416 as well (Bourne 2006). It seems an open ques- tion whether White Storks or Grey Herons are more likely to have nested on a building in the deforested Edinburgh of 1416. White Storks also occurred among the birds sold in London in the sixteenth century (Bourne 2003), but they may have been imported. Carter et al. (2008) also overlooked some other possible past British birds, some now on the decline elsewhere and arguably candidates for reintroduction, such as Night Heron Nycti- corax nycticorax and Purple Heron A. purpurea , and especially Bean Goose Anser fabalis and Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica (Bourne 2003). When Night Herons first attempted to spread from Edinburgh Zoo in the 1950s, they may have been trying to tell us something although, being of the American race hoactli, perhaps it is as well that they were suppressed Dr W. R. P. Bourne Ardgath, Station Road, Dufftown, Moray AB55 4AX > past British breeding birds (Chris Mclnerny in Forrester et al. 2007). The recent reproduction of bird portraits in the early fifteenth-century Sherborne Missal from Dorset (Backhouse 2001; Bourne 2007) includes a young Night Heron, which might be taken as evidence that they once bred here. It also shows a possible Hoopoe Upupa epops, and some shrikes (Laniidae), including a particularly good ‘Waryghanger’ or grey shrike, which does not appear to be the Great Grey Shrike Lanius excu- bitor as one might expect but the pink-breasted Southern Grey Shrike L. meridionalis , and a ‘Viuene cok’ with the orange nape of Woodchat Shrike L. senator. The fact that these birds had English names suggests they were natives; perhaps the ‘vine birds’ will reappear as our lost medieval vineyards are replanted? References Backhouse, J. 200 1 . Medieval Birds in the Sherborne Missal. British Library, London, Bourne, W. FL R 2003. Fred Stubbs, Egrets, Brewes and climatic change. Brit Birds 96: 332-339. — 2006. Birds eaten by King James V of Scotland in 1 525-33, and the prices decreed by his daughter Mary Queen of Scots in 1551. Arch. Nat Hist 33: 1 35- 1 39. — 2007. South European birds in the Sherborne Missal ( 1 396- 1415). Arch. Nat Hist 34: 354-357. Carter; I., Newbery, R, Grice. R, & Hughes, J. 2008.The role of reintroductions in conserving Bntish birds. Brit Birds 101:2-25. Clarke, W. Eagle. 1 9 1 9. An old-time record of the breeding of the White Stork in Scotland. Ann. Scot Nat Hist 1919: 25-26. Forrester; FLW., Andrews, i.J., Mclnerny, C.J., Murray, FL D., McGowan, FLY., Zonfrillo, B.. Betts. M. W., Jardine, D. C., & Grundy, D. S. 2007. The Birds of Scotland. SOC, Aberlady. Harrison, C. 1 988. The History of the Birds of Britain. Collins, London. Mackenzie, Lord, Graham, FL, & Mackenzie, J. 1 837. Excerpta e Libris Domicili Domini Jacobi Quinti MDXXV-MDXXXIII/ Libri Emptorum. Proc. Bannatyne Club 54. The pronunciation I was delighted to see James Ferguson-Lees’ lucid exposition on the history of pronunciation of ornithological scientific names. This was as much a commentary on the absence from the school curriculum since the 1960s of teaching in any depth of the structure and history of the English language as it was on the drive of certain scientists to simplify language (not their spe- ciality) rather obsessively in the pursuit of order. of scientific names I am conscious of the need 'to use scientific names... to discuss bird species with ornitholo- gists unfamiliar with English vernaculars’, but nowadays that should surely be extended to everyone with a keen interest in birds? For example, as well as birders whose first language is not English, the enthusiastic majority who purchase one or more of the many bird journals and magazines may not be quite as knowledge- 214 British Birds 101 ‘April 2008 • 21 1-215 Letters ( able about scientific names as ornithologists. Although I plead guilty to IIFL’s charge of using ‘two- or even three-letter abbreviations’ in Sand- grouse, I did so to emphasise the correct generic Mike Blair 7 Bryony Court, Holt, Norfolk NR25 6AF > name in cases where several different species with the same initial letter in their generic name were being discussed. I found that this was better understood by many readers. Lammergeiers and lambs ‘I wish, however, that he had not made the out- rageous statement that Lammergeiers Gypaetus barbatus are so named because lambs are “their preferred prey”,’ says Mike Everett in his review of Stephen Moss’s book Remarkable Birds (Brit. Birds 101: 101). I find this remark puzzling. It was precisely because of the general conception of the Lammergeier as being a serious predator on lambs that the old Germans gave it that name - from Lamm, plural Ldmmer (lamb(s)), and Geier (vulture, hawk). Perversely, having Dougal G. Andrew Muirfield Gate, Gullane, East Lothian EH31 2EG implanted their name into our language, the Germans now seem to call the bird Bartgeier (‘Bearded Vulture’)! But the linguistic connec- tion between Lammergeier and lamb remains a matter of hard fact. As a matter of incidental interest, Geier is also the root word from which, via the Old French Gerfaucon, has emerged the English Gyr Falcon Falco rusticolus. For this information, I am wholly indebted to the Chambers and Cassell’s German/English dictionaries. EDITORIAL COMMENT Mike Everett has commented: ‘I was aware of the etymon of ‘Lammergeier’ and what I considered outrageous was the unqualified remark (as I interpreted it) about lambs actually being their preferred prey. With hindsight, I might have expressed myself more clearly. ‘The Germans are to be congratulated for changing the name. Having said what I did, I thought long and hard about mentioning the continued use of the word ‘Lammergeier’ as I wrote the review, but decided not to pursue that argument. Not that I’m a stranger to it; when I worked on the text for the 1980s Council of Europe booklet on threatened species, there was a great uproar at a meeting in Strasbourg. The late Paul Geroudet led the ‘Continentals’ in strong criticism of the UK and other English-speaking countries, and the Dutch, for persisting with the use of an obsolete German name which (given the bird’s parlous status and history of persecution in Europe) sent all the wrong mes- sages. Some of them also accused the British in particular of using an exotic-sounding name they neither understood nor even thought about... A formal recommendation followed on the disuse of ‘Lammergeier’ in future publications, but nothing ever came of it.’ Lookin One hundred years ago: SHORT-EARED OWLS IN IRELAND. Ireland i has been visited during the past winter by an enormous influx of Short-eared Owls (Asio \accipitrinus) . They were fairly distributed all liver the country. In a small gorse covert in Co. Tyrone over twenty birds were flushed by a .hooting party and were unmolested; in Co. Londonderry over ten birds were seen on the ving at the same time in a small bog. The chief light seems to have taken place in November. Tom October 1st to March 1st I examined in all eighty-eight birds; during October four specimens were sent for mounting, in November forty, in December twenty, in January fifteen, and in February nine. All the birds were in good condition, some being very fat; females were more numerous than males. It will be interesting to find if any remain to breed, as this species has not yet been recorded as nesting in Ireland, although adult and immature birds have been shot in Co. Wicklow in August. W. J. Williams’ (Brit. Birds 1: 358, April 1908) Irtish Birds 101 - April 2008 - 211-215 215 Reviews A HISTORY OF ORNITHOLOGY By Peter Bircham. HarperCollins, New Naturalist Series 104, London, 2007. 482 pages; numerous colour illustrations and photographs. Hardback: ISBN 978-0-00- 719969-3, £44.99. Paperback: ISBN 978-0-00- 719970-9, £24.99. Peter Bircham says that this book was ‘a joy to write’. It is certainly a joy to read, having an easy style and fascinating content. It is not an account of ‘one thing after another’, as too many histories are presented. Rather, it presents those who have con- tributed to ornithology as people to whom we can relate and it assesses the reasons why their indi- vidual approaches to the subject were successful. It also explores how ideas have developed, though in this respect it is somewhat limited because, for perfectly good reasons, it covers only British ornithology and it largely excludes the work of ornithologists who are still alive. After the ancient Greeks, ornithology, like most sciences, effectively disappeared for hun- dreds of years. Before the scientific revolution, original observations were scant and most writing was derivative and unreliable. Bircham describes well the slow and halting emergence of the science in the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries, leading to the great step forward of Willughby and Ray’s Ornithology. A hundred years later, Linnaeus had laid the foundations of modern systematics, White was recording his observations of ecology and behaviour, and Jenner was con- ducting experiments on the ejec- tion of host eggs and young by Common Cuckoos Cuculus canorus. This was a time of much advance; while White was still inclined to accept that some birds might hibernate, the basic facts of migration were firmly established by 1820, through open and lively debate that led to the triumph of evidence over fantasy. It is in respect of the eighteenth and nine- teenth centuries that this book makes its greatest contribution, perhaps because the author has been able to use the library of Alfred Newton in Cambridge. Almost half the book is devoted to the twentieth century. Its first four decades were an odd time. The ornithological establishment in Britain was steadfastly com- mitted to faunistics, systematics and distribution, especially in the far-flung corners of the empire. It turned its back on the behavioural and ecological work being pion- eered by a few professional biolo- gists and many amateurs; it largely ignored the fieldwork promoted by British Birds and the BTO. Eventu- ally, the new generation of profes- sionals managed to push ecology and behaviour into the main- stream, so that they became the dominant themes of the 1950s and 1960s. Bircham’s treatment of the subsequent flowering is perhaps a little patchy, with undue emphasis on Oxford and Cambridge, but it shows how much the subject has changed to become part of the core of modern ecological and biolog- ical sciences. In a book of this broad scope there are inevitably a few errors of fact. But these do not seriously detract from the history that is pre- sented. It is a worthy addition to the ‘New Naturalist’ Library, pro- : duced to the recent high standards of that series, abundantly illus- trated with artwork and photo- graphs, much of the former from the books that Bircham covers in his account. No-one interested in how ornithology has developed should be without a copy; scholars will be using it for many years to> come. Jeremy Greenwood ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO BIRDS OF THE ISLES OF SCILLY By Bob Flood, Nigel Hudson and Bryan Thomas. Published by the authors, 2007. 525 pages; 152 colour plates; several black-and-white illustrations and figures. ISBN 978-0-9553430-2-5. Hardback, £44.50. Available from www.booksonsciily.co.uk The reputation of the Isles of Scilly for attracting rarities, and as an important location for breeding seabirds, is well established. In a recording area covering 74 km x 72 km (and a land area of just 1,437 ha) it has clocked up an impressive 423 species, virtually 74% of the British List, while the Scilly List includes 27 species that were new to Britain between 1906 and 2001. So does this book do the place justice? Yes, it does, and in a rather admirable way. The book weighs in at almost 2 kg (more than 12% of the heli- copter luggage allowance) and with both copies that I have handled the binding felt a little ‘creaky’, so it will be interesting to see how it stands up to regular usage, which it will surely get. Mostly compiled by three resident Scilly birders, the impression you get here is of a solid team performance in pulling this book together. Clearly, a huge amount of careful research has1 gone into this publication. The content starts with aj ‘Times Gone By’ section, followed, by chapters on habitats, conserva- tion, the breeders (as with most island groups, this is a short list), migration routes to Scilly, a typical birding year (a guide of what you might find, where and when), a monthly summary of rarities sincd 1950 and a Big Year List by Bob Flood in 2002 (which was an inter- esting enough read, but I didn' 216 © British Birds 1 0 1 * April 2008 • 2 1 6-2 1 Reviews C need the three pages in the appen- dices listing all the species that he saw, when and where). One of the most mouth-watering sections is ‘The Mega-finds’ - accounts written by the finders of 20 of the rarer species. The most delightful of these is Hilda Quick’s descrip- tion of her Blue-cheeked Bee-eater Merops persicus in 1951, where she was faced with the dilemma of getting a better view of the bird or rushing back to provide breakfast for her house guest - she chose the breakfast! With so much other stuff crammed into this book, it is a pity that the authors couldn’t find space to repeat at least part of Ian Wallace’s article ‘An October to remember on St Agnes in 1971’ (Brit. Birds 65: 208-220), for me still the piece of writing that best captures the atmosphere of Scilly birding. The core of the book, cov- ering some 375 pages, is devoted to the systematic list. This includes status, a calendar showing arrival dates for all species other than those which are regular or resident, a ‘commentary’ giving some histor- ical background, maximum annual counts where appropriate and much, much more - it really is crammed full of interesting stuff. As with most bird books, the reader will probably turn first to the colour plates. A total of 280 species are covered, representing over 65% of the Scilly List. Most are field shots, but a few museum photos have been included (e.g. the 1920 Bufflehead Bucephala albeola and the 1887 Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis). For many species there are multiple shots, some deservedly so, others less so. For instance, there are four pic- tures of Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the sequence list of photos, but then another three within a section entitled ‘Breeding Seabirds’. Within that are also photos of Northern Gannet Morus bassanus, which does not breed in Scilly of course, and Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula, which does, but is not a seabird! Now for a personal gripe. The use of English names in this book perfectly illustrates the rather messy situation we still have with regard to what we call bird species. Here the names are ‘as used by BOU, either their preferred names or sometimes their old preferred name where we [the authors] believe that suits the current UK usage’. Thus, for example, the authors have used the prefix ‘Common’ for Goldeneye Bucephala clangula , Coot Fulica atra and Chiffchaff Phylloscopus D collybita (as does BB), but not for Pochard Aythya ferina. Pheasant Phasianus colchicus or Redshank Tringa totanus (unlike BB). Barn Swallow FUrundo rustica is included as just ‘Swallow’ despite the fact that there are four different ‘swallows’ on the Scilly List, and surely Great Egret (for Great White Egret Ardea alba ) is not used by anyone in the UK. There are incon- sistencies too, so we have ‘Skylark’ in the general text and ‘Sky Lark’ Alauda arvensis in the Check List, ‘Fulmar’ in the Check List but at least one mention of ‘Northern Fulmar’ in the text, and a couple of mentions of ‘Great-crested Grebe’ [sic] Podiceps cristatus were missed by the proofreader. But this is nit-picking and should not deter you from buying this book. When reviewing the somewhat disappointing The Birds of the Isles of Scilly (Brit Birds 97: 198), Doug Page concluded that ‘one is left with the impression that, with a little fine-tuning, the ultimate Isles of Scilly avifauna could have been produced’. Now, just four years later, this book probably deserves that accolade. Put simply, this is a terrific read. Barry Nightingale PETE DUNNE’S ESSENTIAL FIELD GUIDE COMPANION: A COMPREHENSIVE RESOURCE FOR IDENTIFYING NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS By Pete Dunne. Houghton Miflin, 2006. 736 pages. ISBN 978-0-618-23648-1. Hardback, £22.95. It is a long time since an entirely new concept in bird books . appeared, but that is what this is. A hefty volume devoted to the identi- ! hcation of North American birds, i but with nary an illustration in all j the 700+ pages. Dunne has set out to produce not just one more field guide but, as the title makes clear, a [ back-up to existing guides. If you want pictures, there is a plethora of excellent guides readily available, but this book goes beyond any of them. The lack of maps or illustra- tions leaves space available for much more extensive discussion of jizz, and this is where the value of this remarkable book lies. Each bird described has approximately one page devoted to status and distribution, descrip- tion, behaviour, flight, vocalisa- tions and, in many cases, a section on ‘pertinent particulars’. This last- named paragraph is especially valuable in including details which, as far as I am aware, appear nowhere else. To quote briefly from the Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla entry: ‘often slow to respond to pishing - in fact, it may be the last bird in a feeding flock to respond. But once activated, like the last guest to arrive at a party, they are persistent and the last to leave.’ This also illustrates Dunne’s easy- going style; perhaps some exclu- sively ‘scientific’ birders might find his witty, irreverent and occasion- ally anthropomorphic descriptions irritating. I find them delightful - and helpful. Thus the Eastern Screech Owl Otus asio is ‘not a par- ticularly cute or cuddly owl. Its expression varies from Oriental inscrutable... to really ticked off’, whereas the Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus is ‘one of the few birds that can be identified by smell, owing to a partiality for skunk as prey’. One subsection lists the birds and other animals with which the bird in question is most likely to associate; here too Dunne British Birds 101 •April 2008 * 216-219 217 Reviews C allows his pen - and imagination - full rein. Creatures associating with Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis are ‘alligators, anhingas and airboat operators’, while the American Crow’s Corvus brachyrhynchos commensals are quite simply ‘us’. In short, it is this felicitous lit- erary style as well as the veritable goldmine of information in this book which makes it a delight, not merely to consult or to dip into, but actually to read right through. Of how many identification works can that really be said? I recom- mend it wholeheartedly to any D British birder contemplating a visit to the USA, and hope that, some- where out there, is an equally gifted birder/writer capable of giving the same treatment to European birds. Michael Murphy BIRD: THE ULTIMATE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO THE BIRDS OF BRITAIN AND EUROPE By Peter Hayman & Rob Hume. Mitchell Beazley, 2007. 552 pages; 3,500 illustrations, many photographs. ISBN 978-1-84533-338-6. Hardback, £25.00. It is some time since I looked in detail at a large-format ‘coffee- table’ bird book - only the large- format edition of the Collins Bird Guide will have come into that cat- egory since several publications in the 1990s. This book is actually an expanded and updated version of The Complete Guide to the Birdlife of Britain and Europe published in 2001. Has it changed much and is it an improvement? The answer to both questions is a resounding YES. The first obvious difference is that tucked inside the front cover is a CD ready for downloading onto your iPod or MP3 player - presum- ably a trend we are going to see more of in future. I had to make do with copying the disc onto my desktop PC, where I discovered some nice soundtracks but - as a desktop item - not a patch on other programs available and I suspect that the same will be found by iPod users. As for the book itself, with artwork by Peter Hayman and text by Rob Hume it should be both accurate and authoritative and I would say that, on balance, it is. However, I felt that both the artist and the author had been let down by the production team and some pretty poor-quality proofreading. Having spotted one or two errors on a first look through, I started hunting for them and then gave up as the number grew rather too rapidly for my liking. Some (of the numerous) examples include the map for White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala being repro- duced under Ruddy Duck O. jamaicensis ; Garganey Anas querquedula being seen between September and March, rather than March and September; while Corn Crakes Crex crex appear to be absent from Scotland but found throughout the entire west coast of Ireland. I could go on! I found the approach to some of the ‘difficult’ species (e.g. Yellow- legged Gull Larus michahellis , j crossbills Loxia and redpolls Car- \ duelis) very sensible, although the ] redpoll maps were a little difficult i to follow in relation to the text. It is | always easy in a work such as this to query why a particular species is ; included but not another, but the omission of Yellow-browed' Warbler Phylloscopus inornatus was j particularly surprising. It is still a great book to browse' through - I enjoyed the illustra- tions and picked up all sorts of new snippets about a whole range of species. If there is to be a later edition, let’s hope that some of the1 numerous errors are corrected. Bob Scott RARE BIRDS YEARBOOK 2008: THE WORLD’S 189 MOST THREATENED BIRDS Edited by Erik Hirschfeld. MagDig Media Limited, Shrewsbury, 2007. 273 pages; numerous photographs and colour plates. ISBN 978-0-9552607-3-5. Softback, £18.95. This is the first of what will become an annual review of bird species listed as Critically Endan- gered by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). It results from a collaboration between Swedish ornithologist Erik Hirschfeld and BirdLife International and they are to be congratulated for producing an important and fascinating, albeit somewhat dispiriting, publi- cation. In line with many other taxo- nomic groups, the extinction of birds is now happening at a faster rate than ever before. Since 1970, 1 1 species have been confirmed as extinct, and another five survive only in captivity. In addition, many of the species covered in this book are probably already extinct, as there have been no confirmed records of 22 of them since 1970. Following a short introduction, the next 60 pages comprise a series of topical articles. One takes a close look at four ornithologists involved at the sharp end of finding new taxa, while others cover the redis-i covery of Madagascan Pochard Aythya innotata , the impact of climate change on birds, migration studies, ecotourism and, closer to home, the Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus. The inclu- sion of Balearic Shearwater may puzzle some readers, given the numbers seen annually off southern British coasts, but the) definition of Critically Endangered includes species that have under- gone massive population declined as well as those with restricted breeding ranges or small popular tion sizes. The bulk of the book - 160 pages - is given over to a specie^ directory. Each account features a 218 British Birds 101 ’April 2008 • 216-215 Reviews I C google-earth map showing the range; details of population size, threats, conservation action taken to date and that required in the future; while an amazing 75% of the species included have a photo- graph. Most species are allocated half a page, but a few command a double-page spread. For the most part this is a depressing read: a catalogue of how humankind has driven ever more species close to extinction, mostly through habitat loss or degrada- tion, hunting, or the introduction of alien predators. Sixty species covered in this book have a global population estimated to be fewer than 50 individuals! The biodiver- sity hotspots of northern South America and southeast Asia have been hardest hit, along with islands. The plight of Hawaii - famous for the adaptive radiation shown by its endemic honey- creepers (Drepanididae) - is among the most appalling. Eleven of its species are Critically Endan- gered, of which five are probably already lost; these to be added to the ten confirmed as extinct since 1900. At this island archipelago, the ntroduction of mosquitoes (Culi- ridae) is a primary cause, bringing , tvian diseases to which the native Tawaiian birds had not evolved a tatural immunity. There are, however, a few suc- :esses. Californian Condor Gymno- r,yps californianus and Black Stilt iimantopus novaezelandiae are low increasing thanks to captive- WILD MYND: BIRDS AND WILDLIFE OF THE LONG MYND By Leo Smith, Peter Carty and Caroline Uff. Hobby Publications for the National Trust, Bishop’s Castle, 2007. 192 pages; numerous maps, drawings and colour photographs. ISBN 928-1-872839-10-3. Paperback, £14.99. his is a rare example of a popular uidebook based on a series of breeding programmes; Tahitian Monarch Pomarea nigra is bene- fiting from rat Rattas control around nest-sites; and Yellow-eared Parrot Ognorhynchus icterotis is being helped by reforestation, the provision of nestboxes and pro- tected areas, and an education pro- gramme. In other cases, further survey work will, hopefully, lead to undiscovered populations, e.g. the recent location of large numbers of Sociable Lapwings Vanellus gre- garius in the Middle East. Educa- tion is surely one of the keys to future successes, along with conser- vation projects that deliver genuine benefits for local communities. To save some species, however, time is too short and urgent action is required now. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see future editions of this book getting any slimmer. Only the most optimistic among us can genuinely believe that humankind is really going to meet the challenge required of it to save many of the species catalogued here, let alone deal with the potentially greater threats posed by global climate change. This book does, however, provide much information that could inspire a new generation of birders to get out there and make some ornithological headlines. A number of species are still waiting to be ‘rediscovered’, the continued presence of others requires confir- mation following possible sightings in recent years, while there is an urgent requirement for more infor- detailed recent surveys, which have covered the half of this whaleback common in moorland Shropshire that is owned by the National Trust. Much is to do with birds. The site is particularly important for Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus, Merlin Falco columbarius, Sky Lark Alauda arvensis, Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis and chats (Turdidae) but other ground-nesting species have been vanishing in recent years, notably the once-flourishing Ring Ouzel Turdus torquatus , which may now be extinct here. This is thought to be attributable to the D mation on population status, dis- tribution and aspects of biology for a range of species. Erik Hirschfeld embarked on this project with the dual aim of raising awareness of the plight of endangered birds and providing a decent financial return to bird con- servation. Readers can certainly help him on both counts by going out and buying this book and encouraging others to do so. I thoroughly recommend it and £4.00 from every purchase goes straight to conservation (via BirdLife). Paid Harvey Footnote: A new competition has just been launched to find photo- graphs for the next edition of Rare Birds Yearbook , due to be published in October 2008. A new category, with a top prize of a travel-friendly Minox telescope, has been intro- duced for the best photograph or painting of those species that did not feature with photographs in the 2008 edition. The competition closes on 31st May 2008. Check out http://www.rarebirdsyearbook. com/species. htm for the revised fist of species for 2009. Also new for this year is a writer’s competition, ‘My encounter with a Critically Endangered Bird; see http://www.rarebirdsyearbook. com/compete_write.htm Erik Hirschfeld, e-mail editor@rarebirdsyearbook.com increase in predators, especially corvids attracted by sheep carrion, and by game-rearing in the sur- rounding country. There are lessons here for similar sites, for example in southwest England. Features seldom found in books of this kind include a full bird species list and table showing distribution in relation to vegetation. The design and choice of illustrations is first-class. David Ballance ntish Birds 101 • April 2008 * 216-219 219 News and comment Compiled by Adrian Pitches Opinions expressed in this feature are not necessarily those of British Birds Spring hunting fight turns ugly in Malta As this graphic image shows, birders in Malta face a level of threat unrecognisable to most birders in mainland Europe. Three cars, including that of John Borg from Heritage Malta, were destroyed in an arson attack as the war of words over spring hunting in Malta literally reached a flash- point. European Court action is looming over the Maltese Govern- ment’s continued flouting of the EU Birds Directive since accession to the European Union in 2004. And spring hunting of Common Quail Coturnix coturnix and Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur was a significant issue in the Maltese general election. Labour had pledged to put spring hunting on hold but it was the incumbent Nationalist Party that was returned to power with a one-seat majority. An announce- ment on whether or not the Nationalist PM Lawrence Gonzi will permit spring hunting in 2008' is imminent. And birders’ car is attacked on North York Moors Volume 1 00 of 88 i now available 4 Another incident of criminal damage to a birder’s car has been recorded much closer to home. It’s far less devastating than the Maltese attack - but unpleasant and troubling nonetheless. Teesmouth Bird Club chairman Ted Parker takes up the story: At Sleddale on Sunday 10th February, several of our members were parked in one car on the Commondale to Kildale road looking for raptors. Being a nice day, they left their car to walk up the road towards Common- dale and, on returning a short while later, found a man in a green Land Rover interfering with their tyres. When the man saw them, he got into his vehicle and sped off down the road towards Kildale. It transpired that he had slashed all four tyres of the car. ‘Other birders who were present gave chase and the Land Rover turned left onto the Westerdale road, down to the ford at Hob Hole and up the steep bank on the other side. Unfortunately, due to icy conditions, the birders’ car couldn’t negotiate the bank and follow the man any further. The Land Rover was a hand-painted green, with an old-style number plate and a vertical exhaust pipe at the front near the bonnet. ‘I am assured that the birders’ car was parked well off the road and not causing any problem, so it can only be assumed that this criminal act was conducted against those who were known to be birders by someone who, for whatever reason, doesn’t like birdwatchers. ‘Incidents such as this against people who merely wish to enjoy the countryside are totally unacceptable and one can only assume the motives of the perpetrator and what other criminal acts he is carrying out in our countryside. It is to be hoped that the police will find and prosecute this criminal.’ Subscribers to our centenary DVD- ROM British Birds interactive (BBi will be pleased to learn that tht electronic version of Vol. 100 o: British Birds is now available to download on the BirdGuide: website. When BBi was released in August, it contained the entiri archive of British Birds fron 1907-2006. The 2007 volume i available FREE to everyone wht purchased the DVD-ROM. Jus visit www.birdguides.com/bbi updates to download all 12 issue from our centenary year. Note tha the Vol. 100 update is approxf mately 140 Mb; if you don’t have ■ broadband connection, this updat can be supplied on disc for nominal cost, to cover duplication postage and packing, of £10. OC Please contact sales@birdguidej com A review of BBi appeared i last month’s BB {Brit. Birds 101 157-159). 220 © British Birds 101 "April 2008 • 220-22 c News and comment > North Yorkshire gamekeepers guilty of cage trapping Three gamekeepers working on the Snilesworth Estate, near Northallerton, have pleaded guilty to a range of charges relating to the use of cage traps containing live pigeons Columba livia to take birds I of prey. The case was heard at Scar- borough Magistrates Court on 8th February. In May 2007, following allegations of traps being set to catch raptors, North Yorkshire Police, supported by the RSPB and RSPCA, visited the Snilesworth Estate, owned by Mr Mark Osborne, of Banbury, Oxfordshire. James Benjamin Shuttlewood, rf Hagg House, Snilesworth, Tawnby, is the head keeper of the Snilesworth Estate. A gamekeeper )f 20 years’ experience, Shuttle- vood pleaded guilty to five iffences, relating to the setting of llegal traps by his subordinates. He vas fined £250 for each offence. Jharles Lambert Woof, of Sparrow fall, Scugdale, Swainby, pleaded ;uilty to one offence of misusing a age trap. He was fined £100. Eigh- sen-year-old David George Cook, >f Ingleby House Farm, Ingleby, irncliffe, pleaded guilty to two ffences of setting cage traps, look, who was 17 at the time the ffences were committed, was iven a conditional discharge for 2 months. Additionally, the three con- icted keepers have each been 'sked to pay £43 costs. Com- lenting on the verdict, Ian West, lead of the RSPB’s investigations am, said: ‘The conviction of icther three gamekeepers for tempting to kill birds of prey 'ovides further evidence of the ck of tolerance some estates have wards these fantastic birds. The tate is part of a network of looting estates managed by sborne. Ian West added: ‘As a ajor manager of shooting estates, r Osborne has a real opportunity show leadership and signal an d to the Victorian tradition of tolerance towards birds of prey.’ Winter sport capers scare off Capers Expansion of winter sports in the Highlands could have a major impact on the vulnerable Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus population. A study of German birds has found that the species is significantly affected by disturbance from winter sports tourism. The researchers say a craze for winter snowshoe walking is having a particular impact on the Capercaillie because walkers are able to reach parts of open woodland that off-piste skiers typically don’t visit. In some areas, the birds have very few undisturbed refuges left. The Capercaillie is common in Scandinavia and Russia, but clings to survival in Scotland. It became extinct in Scotland in the 1770s, but was reintroduced to Perthshire in 1837. Researchers studied populations of the giant grouse in the Black Forest, in southern Germany. The team attached radio transmitters to 13 birds so that they could follow their movements. They also collected droppings from the tracked birds and from more than 50 other individuals. The team analysed these for breakdown products of a stress hormone. They found that the birds avoid areas most heavily used by winter sports enthusiasts. Furthermore, droppings deposited closest to these areas had higher levels of stress-hormone breakdown chemicals, indicating that they came from the most stressed birds. The team believes that this is an indication of prob- lems for the birds, which may lead to difficulties in breeding. Dr Lukas Jenni of the Swiss Ornithological Institute in Sempach, who led the study, recommends that tourism development be halted in regions inhabited by the Capercaillie and more restrictions introduced to prevent tourists from straying away from marked trails. An RSPB spokesman said that the results tied in with its studies at Abernethy in the Cairngorms, the UK’s largest remnant of the ancient Caledonian pine forest and posed ‘questions about how we promote recre- ation and access in sensitive forests where there are Capercaillie.’ More ‘Spoonies’ discovered Some heartening news for fans of that charismatic wader, the Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus : sightings of 84 ‘Spoonies’ at two coastal wetland sites in Myanmar have cast new light on the winter distri- bution of this Endangered species, and confirmed that these wetlands are of international importance for their biodiversity. The known global population of Spoon-billed Sandpiper has plunged alarmingly in the last few years to only 200-300 pairs. ‘The number of breeding pairs in Chukotka, Siberia, fell by 50% between 2006 and 2007, and no birds have been seen this year at their traditional wintering sites in Bangladesh,’ says Evgeny Syroechkovskiy, Vice President of the Russian Bird Conservation Union (BirdLife in Russia). Analysis of satellite images, combined with the experience of previous surveys in India, Bangladesh and Thailand, and with historical records of the species in Myanmar, suggested that potentially suitable habitats existed in the southwestern state of Arakan (Rakhine) in the Bay of Bengal, and Martaban (Mottama) Bay near the Thai border. Thirty-five Spoon-billed Sandpipers were counted at one high-tide roost in Arakan, which had never been surveyed before, including one juvenile ringed on the breeding grounds in Chukotka last summer. The team at Martaban found a total of 48 Spoon-billed Sandpipers, scattered over the huge mudflats of the bay, but including a flock of 39 birds. Norfolk County Recorder Giles Dunmore has stood down as County Recorder for Norfolk after 12 years. All future records should be sent to Dave and Jacquie Bridges, 27 Swann Grove, Hempstead Road, Holt, Norfolk NR25 6DP, e-mail dnjnorfolkrec@aol.com I. tish Birds 101 • April 2008 • 220-223 221 News and comment Stacks of money for Corn Buntings E o 5 5 $ c -O c QJ -c U ,c -o o ce The continuing decline of Corn Buntings Emberiza calandra among a suite of farmland birds is a sadly familiar story now. But there is a ray of sun- shine in the Outer Hebrides, where a simple change in crofting practice has seen an upturn in fortunes for the 'fat bird of the barley’. The Corn Bunting was once common as far north as Shetland, but suf- fered a decline of 86% in the UK between 1967 and 2003. The Scottish population of this red-listed species now comprises just 800 territorial males, concen- trated mainly in the eastern low- lands from Moray to Fife, and with isolated popula- tions in the Outer Hebrides and Inverness-shire. All of these populations are still falling, except in the Outer Hebrides, where numbers increased by over 20%, from 111 to 134 territo- rial males, between 2006 and 2007, after many years of gradual decline. This is thought to be a response to a scheme introduced in 2004 (the 'Uist and Barra Arable Stack Scheme’) which pays crofters to stack a part of their grain crop in the autumn. This provides a valuable winter food source for Corn Buntings, which is otherwise lost when the crop is stored in black plastic bales. Jamie Boyle, RSPB Uist Warden, said: ‘The changes in harvesting tech- niques in the Uists unfortunately removed a major winter food source for Corn Buntings. Farmers now generally harvest crops early, before they come to seed, and wrap them up in big plastic bags to store as silage over winter. By offering payments to crofters, we seem to have been able to help the Corn Bunting at the same time as preserving a traditional form of agri- culture in the Uists.’ I 8. Corn Bunting Emberiza calandra. Godparents for Godwits Rare raptors are regular recipients of voluntary nestwatch schemes. But this spring the RSPB in northwest England is seeking godparents for nesting waders - Black-tailed Godwits Limosa limosa. Each year one or two pairs of Black-tailed Godwits nest on marshland on the Ribble estuary. Only around 60 pairs breed in the whole of the UK, and those on the Ribble are the only ones in northwest England. Their rarity makes them a target for egg thieves, however, and if the birds breed this year the RSPB and Fylde Bird Club will mount a 24-hour guard on the nest. The two organisations have launched an appeal for people to become ‘godwit guardians’, by volunteering to help with the nest- watch near Freckleton. For more information, contact Carol Coupe on 01995 642251 or e-mail carol.coupe@rspb.org.uk 3 1 Beck’s is back At the time of writing, DavidJ Beckham’s 100th appearance fori England is still in the balance but I another Beck’s has reappeared ini spectacular fashion. Beck’s Petrel J Pseudobulweria becki was known 1 only from two records from the f# 1920s. Now it’s been rediscovered! in the Pacific after a gap of 79| years. Writing in the Bulletin of them British Ornithologists’ Club (Bull.! BOC 128: 3-16), Hadoram Shirihai has described how he tracked'! down this enigmatic tubenose on an expedition around the islands ,» northeast of Papua New Guinea in 4 July and August 2007. On his voyage around New $ Britain and New Ireland, Hadoram r managed to photograph more than it 30 of these elusive seabirds. Some 9 of the petrels were fledged juven- 1 iles, suggesting recent breeding. A 1 freshly dead young bird salvaged at I sea becomes only the third speci- 1 men in existence. ‘This re-finding of Beck’s Petrel is exceptional news and congratu- I lations to Hadoram Shirihai for his * effort and energy in rediscovering , this “lost” petrel,’ commented Dr I Stuart Butchart, BirdLife’s Global a Species Programme Co-ordinator. I Hadoram first visited the area in I 2003, where he observed ‘possible i Beck’s Petrels’ - inspiring him to | return four years later. Explaining 1 this decision, he commented: ‘I I was eager to know about these IS amazing petrels... and to under- stand better how we may conserve I them.’ The petrel was first described : by Rollo Beck, an ornithologist and ; collector of museum specimens, I and was previously known from just two specimens he collected in l! 1928 and 1929 during an exped- ition to the region. Hopes were raised two years ago in Australia l' with the sighting of a possible | Beck’s Petrel in the Coral Sea off Queensland, but this record was | not accepted by the Birds Australia j Rarities Committee. Confirming the existence of i Beck’s Petrel was difficult because I it is similar to Tahiti Petrel ' British Birds 101 "April 2008 • 220-223 222 c News and comment > P. rostrata (which Hadoram saw alongside Beck’s Petrel), and few people have looked for it at sea; indeed, it may be nocturnal at the breeding grounds. ‘There are numerous atolls and islands where it may breed,’ said Dr Butchart. ‘However, the remaining popula- tion may be small.’ Like other tubenoses, Beck’s Petrel is potentially threatened by introduced cats Felis silvestris catus and rats Rattus at its breeding sites, and by logging and forest clearance for oil-palm plantations. UntO the breeding sites have been identified, the threats remain speculative but BirdLife has designated Beck’s Petrel as Critically Endangered. Corrections The authors of the paper ‘The use of stable-isotope ratios in ornithology’ (Brit. Birds 101: 1 12-130) wish to point out that when the mass spectrom- eter vapourises the sample and propels the ions into the magnetic field, the force deflects the ions to a degree that is dependent on the mass-to-charge ratio, so light ions (of course) get deflected more than heavier ones. We regret an unfortunate mistake in the original, where it is stated in Box 1 that ‘light hydrogen with be deflected less by the magnetic field than heavy hydrogen’. The Atlas of the Birds of Delhi and Haryana, reviewed last month (Brit. Birds 101: 163-164), was incorrectly priced. It is available in the UK only from the Oriental Bird Club www.orientalbirdclub.org price £12.50, including p&p; £17.50 for airmail anywhere overseas. Dorset County Recorder James Lidster is standing down as County Recorder for Dorset. The new Recorder is Kevin Lane, 42 Twin Oaks Close, Broadstone, Dorset BH18 8JF, tel. 07901 614629, e-mail kevin@broadstoneheath.co.uk Recent reports Compiled by Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey This summary of unchecked reports covers early February to early March 2008. Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis Easton, 1 6th— 1 7th February; Skinburness Marsh (both Cumbria), 6th March; Caerlaverock (Dumfries 8c Galloway), 7th-9th March; West Wittering/ Thorney Island (West Sussex)/Hayling Island (Hampshire), long-stayer to 6th March. Black Duck Anas rubripes Ventry (Co. Kerry), 2 1 st— 26th February; long-stayer at Blanketnook (Co. Donegal), 24th February. Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca Craigavon Balancing Lakes (Co. Armagh), to 1st March. Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Lough Rea (Co. Galway, 1 1th— 14th February; Lough Ennell (Co. Westmeath), two, 17th February to 1st March, one to 2nd; Thompson Water (Norfolk), 19th February; Stourton (Wiltshire), 20th February to 1st March; Clea Lakes (Co. Down), 23rd February to 3rd March; Castle Loch 26th-27th February, presumably same Loch Magillie 3rd^th March and Soulseat Loch 10th March (all Dumfries 8c Galloway); Torr Reservoir (Somerset), 2nd March. Long-stayers: Benbecula (Outer Hebrides), to 29th February; Sutton Courtenay/ Appleford Gravel-pits (Oxfordshire), to 16th February; Yell, to 19th February, occasionally visiting Unst (both Shetland); Lough Arrow (Co. Sligo), to 2nd March; Draycote Water to 4th March, presumed same Brandon Marsh (both Warwickshire), 5th March. King Eider Somateria spectabilis Northam Burrows area 18th February to 9th March (first for Devon); Murcar (North-east Scotland), 24th February; Uisead Point (Argyll), 5th March; Mousa (Shet- land), long-stayer to 25th February. Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Quoile Pondage (Co. Down), long-stayer to 4th March. White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii Lewis (Outer Hebrides), long-stayer to 2nd March; Bluemull Sound (Shetland), long-stayer to 19th February; South Nesting Bay (Shetland), long-stayer to 2nd March. Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Mere Sands Wood (Lancashire 8c N Merseyside), 1 2th— 1 5th February and 9th-10th March. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Most, if not all, of the following involve long-stayers, with undoubt- edly some relocation taking place. Cornwall Drift/Sancreed area, max. 20 in the period, 19 to © British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 223-226 223 Kit Day lain Leach Recent reports < > I 1 9. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis, Legbourne, Lincolnshire, February 2008. 8th March and 15 to 9th March; Wadebridge, five, 11th February, one to 6th March; at nearby St Breock’s Down, six, 23rd February, four to 25th, and three to 26th; Stithians Reservoir, to 9th March; Looe, ten, 17th February, two to 25th; Saltash, up to three, 16th-19th February, perhaps one of same Tamar Estuary, 24th Feb- ruary; Flelston, to 20th February; Kingsmill Lake, 24th-25th February; Camel Estuary, 11, 9th March. Devon Warleigh Point, to 17th Feb- ruary, again 2nd March; Bere Alston, 17th-19th February, with two at Saltram Park to 14th and one to 20th February, and four at Stoke Point 2nd March all probably from the same group; Exminster Marshes, to 13th February, Pow- derham, up to three tol 19th February and againtt 5th March, and Dawlishi Warren, two 22nd, one tol 25th February possibly! part of same group;! Otterton, 26th February;! ■ Abbotsham, three, 29th February, one to 1st! t March; Fremingtonl 1st March, and Crow' Point 5th probably same;' Kingsbridge Estuary, at least two, 4th-9th March.1 Somerset Old Cleeve, t 1 3th— 17th February; | Stretcholt, two to 14th1 February, one to 15th, pos-i I sibly then Bridgwater, where five 18th- 19th and| three 20th-22nd February, with five at Thur-i loxton 21st, and four to 23rd February, and then! four near North Newton 25th February to 1st March, all possibly part of the same group; Muchelney, to 6th March. Dorset Radipole, up to three to 29th February, with those in Abbots- ft! bury/Portesham area to 6th March probably1 I same; East Holme, 22nd February to 9th March; Corfe Mullen 1st March, with one Swineham Point 6th probably same. Hampshire Harbridge, to 27th February; St Leonard’s Grange, two, tol ' 9th March. West Sussex East Lavant, two to 9th March; Chichester Gravel-pits, to 14th Feb- ruary. Ireland In Co. Cork: Clonakilty, up to nine, to 29th Feb- ruary; Ballincarriga, Dunmanway, eight, 1 1 3th— 29th February; Timoleague, four, 25th February; Cobh,' three, 17th February, | then four on 18th and five on 24th; east I of Youghal, two, 10th I February; between Bandon and Dun- manway, two, 16th! February; singles at Roscarberry 10th February; Curraheen to 13th February, Union Hall 16th Feb-j ruary, Douglas 16th i February and Cork City 6th-26th Feb- 224 British Birds 101 ‘April 2008 • 223-226 Recent reports . British Birds 101 • April 2008 • 223-226 121. ruary. In Galway: Cartron, three, to 8th February. In Kerry: singles at Akearagh Lough 10th February and Kilmoyle 21st February. In Limerick: Loughill, two, 25th February. In Water- ford: Ardmore, two, 9th February. In Wexford: Oilgate, to 15th February. Else- where Elton (Cam- bridgeshire), 23rd February; Higher Poyton (Cheshire), to 9th March; Grinsdale (Cumbria), 12th-20th February; Pwlldu Bay/Pennard area (Glamorgan), 28th February to 9th March; Frampton, 28th February and 6th March, same Slimbridge (both Gloucestershire), 8th March; Legbourne (Lincolnshire), to 18th February; Martin Mere (Lancashire & N Merseyside), 23rd February; Fotheringhay (Northampton- shire), 23rd February; Piddinghoe (East Sussex), to 1st March; Britford Water Meadows (Wiltshire), 1 7th— 2 1 st February; Wheldrake Ings (North Yorkshire), 10th March. Great White Egret Ardea alba Rostherne Mere (Cheshire 8t Wirral), 1 2th— 1 3th February; Eastleigh (Hamp- shire), 13th February; Crossens Marsh (Lan- cashire & N Mersey- side), 1 3th— 1 8 th February; Kennard Moor, 14th February then presumably same Shapwick Heath 23rd February and 1 st — 9th March (both Som- erset); Ashton’s Flash ' (Cheshire & Wirral), 16th February; Pilling Lane End, 17th Feb- ruary, probably same Glasson (both Lan- cashire 8c N Mersey- side), 21st February; ‘Dark-breasted Barn Owl' Tyto alba guttata, Wacton Common, Norfolk, March 2008. Caersws (Powys), 18th February to 1st March; Fingringhoe Wick (Essex), 21st-24th February; Burleston, 22nd February and possibly same Portesham 22nd February (both Dorset); Star- cross (Devon), 22nd February; Titchwell (Norfolk), 28th February; Marshside RSPB (Lancashire 8c N Merseyside), 10th March. Long-stayers at Ouse Washes (Cambridgeshire), to 4th March; North Warren/Thorpeness (Suffolk) to 23rd February; Cotswold Water Park (Wiltshire), to 8th March. Glossy Ibis Ple- gadis falcinellus Long-stayers at Howden’s 122. ‘Black-bellied Dipper’ Cinclus cinclus c/nc/us.Watton, East Yorkshire, March 2008. 225 Graham Catley Richard Brooks Richard Stonier John Malloy Recent reports C > (Angus) to 9th March and Rosscar- berry (Co. Cork) to 3rd March. I 23. Western Jackdaw Corvus monedula, probably of the nominate race monedula, Cramlington, Northumberland, March 2008. Pullover area (Lincolnshire), to 10th March; Warton Marsh/Marshside RSPB (Lancashire & N Merseyside), to 10th March. Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Virkie (Shetland), returning bird, 6th-7th March. 'Wilson’s Snipe’ Callinago gallinago dellcata St Mary’s (Scilly), one long-stayer to 5th March. Long-billed Dow- itcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-stayers at Bowling Green Marsh (Devon), to 10th March and Langton Herring (Dorset), to 11th Feb- ruary. Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Long-stayers at Kinneil Lagoon (Forth) to 1st March and Lisvane/Llanishen Reservoirs (Glamorgan) to 9th March. Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Long-stayers at Montrose Basin Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan Chew Valley Lake (Avon), long- stayer again 13th— 17th February. Amer- ican Herring Gull Larus smithsonianus Benbecula, 27th Feb- ruary. Nimmo’s Pier (Co. Galway), first- winter to 5th March with an adult from 24th February to 2nd March. Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus Philadelphia Ugie Estuary (North-east Scotland), 23rd February. Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Killyleagh (Co. Down), 24th February to 3rd March; long-stayer at Traught/ Nimmo’s Pier (Co. Galway) to 4th March. Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Spiddal (Co. Galway), 15th February; Ben Macdui (High- land), 16th February. Blyth’s Pipit Anthus godlewskii Red Barn, Youghal, long-stayer to 4th March. Pallas’s Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus proregulus Oaker Wood (Dorset), 24th February to 6th March. Hume’s Warbler Phylloscopus humei Norton (Cleveland), 11th Feb- ruary to 9th March. Long-stayer at Cot Valley, to j 23rd February, then Tehidy Country Park (both Cornwall), to ; 4th March. Penduline i Tit Remiz pendulinus Minsmere (Suffolk), two, 26th February, i Rose-coloured Star- ling Sturnus roseus East Cowes (Isle of Wight), 25th Feb- ruary; Haverfordwest) (Pembrokeshire), 24th February to 10th; March. White- crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Cley (Norfolk), long-, stayer to 9th March. I 24. Rose-coloured Starling Sturnus roseus, Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, March 2008. 226 British Birds 101 "April 2008 • 223-226 J Classified advertising Payment for all classified advertisements must be made in advance by VISA, Mastercard or by cheque payable to British Birds. Copy deadline: 10th of the month. Contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd., B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550. Fax: 020 8881 0990. E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Holiday Accommodation Overseas PROVENCE - CAMARGUE. Two s/c cottages. Rogers, Mas d’Auphan, Le Sambuc, 13200 ARLES, France. Tel: (0033) 490 972041 Email: p.m.rogers@wanadoo.fr Books UPDATED original BIRDWATCHER’S LOGBOOK A concise way to record your observations. Monthly, annual & life columns for 968 species, garden birds, migrants, index & diary pages. Send £8.75 to: Coxton Publications, Eastwood, Beverley Rd, Walkington, Beverley, HU 1 7 8RP. 01482 881833 BIRD BOOKS BOUGHT AND SOLD. | Visit our website for our online catalogue Visit ! our shop and see our extensive collection. Hawkridge Books, The Cruck Barn, Cross St, j Castleton, Derbyshire S33 8WH. Tel: 01433 621999. Email; books@hawkridge.co.uk. Web: { www.hawkridge.co.uk BACK NUMBERS of bird and natural history periodicals. Free catalogue from D. & D. H. W. ' Morgan, The Pippins, Allensmore, Hereford HR2 9BP. E-mail: stjamestree@uk2.net, www.birdjournals.com For Sale FOR SALE. DIGISCOPE. Mint boxed ES80 EDA Opticron spotting scope, HDF-T Zoom 20-60x, D4 tripod, 4500 Nikon Coolpix camera, including eagle-eye. £575. Tel: 01989 750 437 Birdwatching Holidays collof the wild Bwexclusive wildlife holidays / Jlon ttie Beaut|ful tieBRi&ean \ , islands of coll 6 tmee I Simon 01879 230402 IP _ www.coLlofthewil6.co.uk MADEIRA WIND BIRDS - Selvagens Islands Expeditions, Madeira Land and Sea Birdwatching, www.madeirawindbirds.com and www.madeirabirds.com New SMS News Service Free Trial Online also Pagers 8c Internet News www.rarebirdalert.co.uk Read the News First Optical Equipment Binoculars & Telescopes Top Makes, Top Models, Top Advice , Top Deals, Part Exchange Show Room Sales 01925 730399 FOCALPOINT w w w.fpoint .co .uk Credit/debit cards accepted Gliding trips NORFOLK GLIDING CLUB, TIBENHAM. Fly like a bird over the Norfolk countryside from £90. 01379 677207. Gift vouchers 01508 579131. '-'r \ British Bird! Binder Brfc- Ed 1 w rj J. . t Ena* BrttLv Bnh Bfcds 4 4 Larger format 88 Binders are available in the following options: Wirex - Royal Blue or Brown , Cordex - Brown only. We also now have in stock binders for the old size (A5) 88 available in Brown Wirex only. Price for all binders: £8.95 each □ns: * j Either complete and return the attached order form, call the British Birds office or order online at www.britishbirds.co.uk using our secure site. Please supply Binder(s) in: Cd Royal Blue Wirex Id Brown Wirex LI Brown Cordex B Brown Wirex (old size) at £8.95 each. I enclose my cheque for £ payable to British Birds. Name: Address: — Post Code: Tel No: E-mail: British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Tel and Fax: 01424 755155 : E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk nhbs Environment Bookstore" Wildlife | Science | Conservation New at NHBS Here is a small selection of new birding titles available from NHBS Environment Bookstore - suppj most comprehensive and up-to-date range of birding titles around - to view our full collection plea:*; website at www.nhbs.com. A selection of equipment for birders is also now available from our website, including: Nest Box Ca«t one of which is shown here, and the RemememBird device, the first digital audio recorder to havr* signed by a birder, for birders; we will continue to expand our range of birding equipment throughjt □ Rare Birds Yearbook 2008 The World’s 189 Most Threatened Birds Edited by Erik Hirschfeld The main part of the book is a directory of the 189 critically endangered species with history, the latest information on the status of the species, what measures are being taken to protect them, and more than 500 photos, paintings and maps. Pbk | 2007 | £18.95 | #169718 □ A History of Ornithology New Naturalist #104 Peter Bircham A look at the history of British orni- thology from 1066 to the mid-1970s, exploring many areas along the way including the first bird book and British lists, the collectors, the birth of the BOU in 1858 and our current under- standing of ornithology in Britain today Pbk | 2007 | £24.99 | #151698 Hbk | 2007 | £44.99 | #151697 WILD MYND □ Wild Mynd Birds and Wildlife of the In Mynd L Smith & P Carty et at This is superbly illustrated throit almost 200 colour photographs* dally commissioned line-drawii* includes annotated wildlife waIMt through the seasons and the btp to observe the special flora an<» Pbk | 2007 | £14.99 | #170173 □ Essential Guide to the Isles of Scilly 8 L Flood & N Hudson et al A concise, up-to-date and accule count of all species and sub-spk ably recorded on and around t is Many illustrations by top artist?* colour pages of photographs zv the authoritative text. Hbk | 2007 | £44.99 | #17091', □ The Birds of Zambia An Atlas and Handbook R J Dowsett & D R Aspinwall et al This handbook presents detailed accounts of the more than 750 species known in Zambia. Maps present a clear picture of distribution and detailed text complements them. Also available at NHBS: The Birds of Malawi - An Atlas and Handbook. Pbk | 2008 | £29.99 | #172927 □ The Birds of ScotlalL. Edited by R Forrester & I And* et al Two full-colour A4 hardback VJT' in a slip case. Illustrated with of than 900 first-class photograph 1 ,500 charts, maps and table th landmark publication is a musoi ryone with an interest in Scot' Hbk | 2008 | £75.00 | #16857! □ A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds 8 Huntley & R Green et al A comprehensive exploration of the relationships between the distributions of birds breeding in Europe and the present climate, and how future cli- matic change may alter each species' potential breeding distribution Hbk I 2007 I £40.00 I #172768 rds of Argyll □ Birds of Argyll Edited by T Rheinallt & C Cm This avifauna deals with the :1c tus and distribution of birds iiW core of the book is made up in accounts describing the staiiW bird species recorded in Argyto Hbk | 2007 | £49.99 | #1733? Find over 100,000 wildlife, science and conservation titles at www.nhbs.coi WWW nhbs com The most comprehensive range of natural history titles on earth 2-3 Wills Rd, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5XN, UK | Fax 01803 865280 | Tel 01803 865913 | customer.services@nhl k «ronment Bookstore has an extensive range of field and travel guides available for any travelling birder. To see i ij ige of titles visit our website, www.nhbs.com and click Browse by Geozone on our homepage. 1 ig Equipment i: Camera Kit: f/ired, with IR a e .it: ling kit provides eve- " 'need to start watching ft :age in minutes. ;< q lity bird box with r3K iding drawer and quick -^jcs era bracket, jt ity, high resolution Col- 1 1 Ttera with built in Infra -nntion enabling viewing ; i ay. a licrophone to hear as well as see what’s going on ;;-e rd Box. iigjwofessional cable. Simply attach your camera to the )c I connectors at one end and plug straight into your ;ie£#iier. It couldn’t be easier! stable focus lenses, 12v Regulated Mains adaptor, icrj? qirt adapter metal protecter plates to deter predators. < imera Kit: Colour, wired, IR x imera Kit: B & W, wired, IR £169.99 £119.99 | #171672 #171671 i< as: SDL 16-48x £229, HDF from £129 SDL ZOOM EYEPIECE Designed to maximise the performance of your new or existing Opticron fieldscope & offering the optimum balance between FOV and resolution coupled with exceptional viewing comfort. Price £229 Spot-on digiscoping. Nikon Now you can use Nikon spotting scopes to discover the world of digiscoping. Just add a Nikon eyepiece , bracket and Coolpix camera... then enter, discover and explore an exciting new world of brilliant, up-close images with amazing color and detail. Nikon makes it all easy for you with your choice of portable, affordable, user-friendly scopes and all the accessories Spotting Scope RAIII 82 WP + New DS Spotting scope Eyepiece + Digital camera Bracket FSB-6 + COOLPIX P5000/P5100 you need. So get into digiscoping now! Life up close Fieldscope ED50 + 16x Wide DS Fieldscope Eyepiece + Digital camera Bracket FSB -6 + COOLPIX P5000/P5100 Fieldscope ED82 + Fieldscope Digital SLR Camera Attachment FSA-LI +D40x www.nikon.co.uk 0800 230 220 Nikon Sport 0 p he Common Kestrel in Britain Chestnut-eared Bunting on Fair Isle ers in NW Scotland ISSN 0007-0335 British Birds Established 1907, incorporating The Zoologist, established 1843 Published by BB 2000 Limited, trading as ‘British Birds’ Registered Office: 4 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8SF British Birds is owned and published by BB 2000 Limited, the directors of which are John Eyre (Chairman), Jeremy Greenwood, Ian Packer, Adrian Pitches, Richard Porter and Bob Scott. BB 2000 Limited is wholly owned by The British Birds Charitable Trust (registered charity No. 1089422), whose trustees are Richard Chandler, Jeremy Greenwood, Peter Oliver and Bob Scott. British Birds aims to be the leading journal for the modern birder in the Western Palearctic We aim to: »> provide a forum for contributions of interest to all birdwatchers in the Western Palearctic; ♦> publish material on behaviour, conservation, distribution, ecology, identification, movements, status and taxonomy; embrace new ideas and research; •> maintain our position as the respected journal of record; and interpret good scientific research on birds for the interested non-scientist. British Birds Notes Panel Editor Roger Riddington Assistant Editors Caroline Dudley & Peter Kennerley Editorial Board Dawn Balmer, Ian Carter, Richard Chandler, Martin Collinson, Chris Kehoe, Robin Prytherch, Nigel Redman, Roger Riddington, Steve Votier Art Consultants Robert Gillmor 8c Alan Harris Photographic Consultants Robin Chittenden 8t David Tipling Rarities Committee Chairman Adam Rowlands Secretary Nigel Hudson Chris Batty, Chris Bradshaw, Phil Bristow, Lance Degnan, Paul French, Martin Garner, James Lidster, Mike Pennington, Brian Small, John Sweeney Will Cresswell, Ian Dawson, Jim Flegg, Ian Newton FRS, Malcolm Ogilvie, Angela Turner (Co-ordinator) Annual subscription rates Libraries and agencies - £89.00 Individual subscriptions: UK - £48.00 Overseas surface mail - £54.50 Back issues Single back issues - £6.50 Available from British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Rarities Issue - £12 (available as above) Please make all cheques payable to British Birds Guidelines for contributors Full details are available on the BB website. H www.britishbirds.co.uk EDITORIAL CIRCULATION Spindrift, Eastshore, & PRODUCTION Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS 4 Harlequin Gardens, Tel: 01950 460080 St Leonards on Sea, Papers, notes, letters, illustrations, etc. East Sussex TN37 7PF Roger Riddington Tel 8c fax: 01424 755155 E-mail: editor@britishbirds.co.uk ‘News 8c comment’ information Design & Production Mark Corliss E-mail: m.corliss@netmatters.co.uk Adrian Pitches, 22 Dene Road, Tynemouth, Tyne 8c Wear NE30 2JW E-mail: adrianpitches@blueyonder.co.uk Subscriptions & Administration Rarity descriptions Hazel Jenner Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat, E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk St Mary’s, Scilly TR2 1 0LL E-mail: secretary@bbrc.org.uk Printed by Hastings Printing Company Ltd ADVERTISING: for all advertising matters, please contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd, B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550 Fax: 020 8881 0990 E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Front-cover painting: Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus reiseri and Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus, Prespa Lake, Greece. Paschalis Dougalis vTGIC BGA SE ; 1 3gic BGA SE is our 6th generation Imagic A id will change your preconceptions of what ij ( 1 expect for £400 in a roof prism binocular. m< ing true to the original design ideal; a kt r compact, lightweight binoculars packed h ■ latest optical features, the new models o-i the challenge to 'premium' roof prism oc ars offering outstanding performance and ue r money. 52 79, 7x42 £389, 8x42 £399, 10x42 £409 DBA MONOCULAR Derived directly from DBA binoculars and delivering an unbeatable combination of resolution, colour reproduction and viewing comfort. 8x42 £249, 10x42 £249 SLR TELEPHOTOGRAPHY Taking photographs through your telescope is now easier than ever with our extensive range of telephoto and photoadapters. For more information see our TELEPHOTOGRAPHY page at www.opticron.co.uk E High Performance Fieldscopes ^fsi; id and re-engineered without compromise, the new HR ED deliver - e> ptional optical performance combined with sublime handling and ^|re oility. Features include: •ev vvin ED APO lens design ev ghtweight nitrogen gas filled magnesium body, fully protected in >ft jch textured rubber armour pc jd N-type coating throughout for maximum brightness and contrast id vheel focusing, retractable lens hood with integrated objective ens iver irg ootprint +/- 90° rotating tripod sleeve 'll) ompatible with Opticron SDL, HDF & HR eyepieces le| 3?o option for SLR photography * y ' guarantee > < ED or HR 66 GA ED/45 body £649 '» ' ED or HR 80 GA ED/45 body £799 ?c HDFT 20xWW/27xWW £129, HDF T 28xWW/38xVVW £149, f 1 54x/24-72x £179, SDL 18-54x/24-72x £229, Telephoto HDF £149 For more information on the complete range of Opticron equipment and a copy of our current Catalogue call 01582 726522 or visit our on-line Catalogue at www.opticron.co.uk PO Box 570, Unit 21,11130 Court, Laporte Way, Luton, Beds, LU4 8YR, UK Fax: 01582 723559 E-mail: sales?' opticron.co.uk Don’t miss our Bargain selection for 2008 Argentina - Andes 10 days- £1,890 Departs 7 Jan, 25 Feb, 7 Apr, 28 Jul, 1 Dec Argentina - Chaco 10 days - £1,890 Departs 14 Jan, 3 Mar, 14 Apr, 4 Aug, 8 Dec Australia - Endemics India - Bharatpur & Chambal 9 days - from £1,295 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 27 Dec India - Corbett Country 9 days- £1,250 Departs 26 Jan, 22 Nov India - Endemic Birds of Annamalai Nepal - A Very Special Offer! 10 days - £1,295 Departs 26 Jan, 16 Feb, 3 May Nepal - Ibisbill Trek 10 days - £1,495 Departs 10 May Panama - Uganda 9 days - £1,395 Departs 6 Mar, 30 Oct Venezuela - Off the Beaten Track 9 days- £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, I Nov Venezuela - Andean Endemics 9 days - £1,495 Departs 2 Feb, 15 Nov Venezuela - Llanos 9 days - £1,495 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 8 Nov Zambia 9 days - from £1,550 Departs 18 Feb, 10 Nov, 19 Dec 9 days- £1,195 Departs 2 Feb, 22 Nov India - Family Tour Spices & Elephants 9 days - from £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Temples & Wildlife 9 days - £1,525 Departs 9 Feb, 5 Apr, 18 Oct, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Tigers & Forts 9 days - £1,345 Departs 9, 16 Feb, 25 Oct India - Goa 9 days- £1,195 Departs 14 Nov India - International Animal Rescue 10 days -£1,550 Departs 15 Feb, 14 Nov India - Kerala’s National Parks & Backwaters 9 days - £1,350 Departs I Mar, 15 Nov India - Southern India’s Endemics 12 days - from £1,550 Departs 8 Mar, 15 Nov, 20 Dec India - Wildlife & Cuisine 9 days - £1,295 Departs 9, 16, 23 Feb, 8 Mar, 8 Nov, 27 Dec Kazakhstan 9 days - £1,595 Departs 8, 16th May Kenya 10 days - £1,595 Departs 7 Nov Malawi 10 days - £1,595 Departs 3 Feb, 6 Apr Nepal 10 days - from £1,495 Departs 2, 9th Feb, 29 Mar, 20 Dec Canopy Tower 9 days- £1,595 Departs 16, 23 Apr, 12 Nov South Africa 10 days - £1,550 Departs 8 Feb, 28 Mar, 5 Sep South Africa’s Cape 10 days - £1,495 Departs 14 Mar, 22 Aug South Africa - Zululand 10 days- £1,595 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 13 Sep Southern Morocco 10 days - from £1,195 Departs 8 Feb, 14 Mar, 4 Apr Sri Lanka 10 days - £1,495 Departs 16 Feb, 8 Nov Thailand <" 10 days - £1,590 Departs 15 Feb, / ^ 14 Nov of WA 12 days - £2,250 Departs 12, 26 Sep Australia - Queensland 13 days - £2.590 Departs II Nov Bolivia - Lowlands 10 days- £1,395 Departs 10 Feb, 9 Nov Bolivia - Highlands 12 days - £1,595 Departs 17 Feb, 16 Nov Botswana 10 days- £1,695 Departs 14 Nov Brazil 10 days- £1,495 Departs 7 Mar, 19 Sep Cuba 12 days - £1,790 Departs 8 Mar Ecuador - Choco 9 days - £1,350 Departs 22 Nov Ecuador - Tumbesian Endemics 9 days - £1,395 Departs 7 Sep Ecuador - Cock-of- the-Rock 9 days - from £1,250 Departs 15 Jan, 9 Feb, 15 Mar, 21 Aug, 18 Oct, 15 Nov Ethiopia 10 days -from £1,295 Departs 8 Feb, 21 Mar, 7 Nov, 19 Dec Ethiopian Endemics 10 days- £1,295 Departs 15 Feb, II Apr, 14 Nov Florida 9 days - £1,590 Departs 18 Feb Gambia 12 days- £1,190 Departs 7 Nov India - Birds & Mammals 9 days- £1,350 Departs 1, 15 Feb, 4 Apr, 14 Nov For our New Brochure call 01962 733051 or visit our Website naturetrek.co.uk NATURETREK, CHERITON MILL, CHERITON. ALRESFORC HAMPSHIRE S024 0NG E-mail: info@naturetrek.co.u Koiva "Red necked Phalaropes can be very tricky to pick out in their nr| habitat. Scanning the grasses with the fine optics of my Victonj makes the job a little easier, even against the light". SIMON KING, Wildlife Film-Maker. Zeiss 8 x 32 r FL Zeiss 10 x 32 T' FL Simon is using Zeiss Victory FL 8 x 32 binoculars, with a close focus of 2 metres. With the best optical image quality of their class, minimum weight and optimum ergonomics and handling - these are the unbeatable benefits supplied by Victory FL Binoculars and their special objective lenses with fluoride glass (FL). For more information, please telephone: 01707 871 350 or visit www.zeiss.co.uk. We ma itv British Birds Volume 101 • Number 5 • May 2008 t> it i ■ r' mi 8 - MAY 2008 PRESEMTcD TRIMG UBP-'r* 228 The Common Kestrel population in Britain Rob Clements 235 Chestnut-eared Bunting on Fair Isle: new to Britain Deryk N. Shaw 24 1 The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland Martin S. Scott and Ken D. Shaw Regular features 249 Conservation research news Norman Ratcliffe and Michael MacDonald 25 1 Letters BB- a veteran’s perspective D. I. M. Wallace Supplementary feeding of Hen Harriers Paul VI Irving The occurrence of western Black- eared Wheatear in Malta John Attard Montalto, John J. Borg, Raymond Galea and Manwel Mallia Colour nomenclature Martin Woodcock 260 Notes White-billed Diver feeding technique Vic Tucker Mixed colony of Great Cormorants and Grey Herons in Hertfordshire Tom Gladwin Two male Hen Harriers attending a nest in Co. Kerry Tim O’Donoghue Moorhens commensal on Little Grebes David Kramer Cliff-nesting Twites in the Peak District R. A. Frost 264 Reviews Birds of the World: recommended English names Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 12. Picathartes to Tits and Chickadees Birds and People: bonds in a timeless journey The Birds of Essex The Migration Ecology of Birds 269 News and comment Adrian Pitches 271 Recent reports Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey f. - © British Birds 2008 Until recently, the Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus (hereafter simply ‘Kestrel’) was generally acknowledged as Britain’s most abundant raptor, its population greater than that of both Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accip- iter nisus and Common Buzzard Buteo buteo (hereafter ‘Sparrowhawk’ and ‘Buzzard’, respec- tively). However, the population estimate has been revised downwards several times over the past 30 years and the Kestrel’s status as our commonest bird of prey has increasingly been called into question. Previous population estimates In the mid 1970s, publication of the first Breeding Bird Atlas (Sharrock 1976), covering Britain and Ireland, set new standards for describing population size and distribution. For the Kestrel, taking into account an average 75 pairs per hectad (100 km2) in all Common The Common Kestrel population in Britain Rob Clements Ben Green ABSTRACT Estimates of the British population of Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus suggest a continuing decline in the past 30 years, from around 100,000 pairs in the early 1970s to little more than a third of that level in the early years of this millennium. This paper summarises recent survey work in several English counties which questions recent estimates of Common Kestrel breeding density. It is suggested that the current British population remains above 50,000 territorial pairs and that, although there has been a steep decline in some parts of its range, the Common Kestrel still breeds at high density (50+ pairs per hectad) in mixed farmland in much of England. © British Birds 101* May 2008 • 228-234 228 The Common Kestrel population in Britain ; } Table I. Published estimates of the British Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus population, 1 970—2004. Note that the BirdLife International (2004) estimate is for the UK, not Britain. British estimates rounded to nearest thousand. Estimate (pairs) 97.000 70.000 50.000 35,000-40,000 36,800 Source Sharrock 1976 Newton 1984 Gibbons etal. 1993 Shrubb 1993 BirdLife International 2004 Birds Census (CBC) areas in 1972, an arbitrary density of half that figure was applied to all occupied hectads during the survey period of 1968-72, resulting in a total ‘at or above Parslow’s [1973] 10,000-100,000 pairs’. For Britain and Ireland combined, the population estimate was thus 1 16,000-133,000 pairs, depending on whether records of breeding evi- dence (‘probable’ plus ‘confirmed’ breeding) or simply all breeding-season sightings are used; the comparable figures for Britain alone were 87,000-97,000 (note that Parslow’s estimate also included Ireland). A decade later, Newton’s (1984) estimate of 70,000 pairs suggested that the British Kestrel population was already some way below the maximum figure suggested in the first Atlas. By the time of the second Atlas (Gibbons et al. 1993), detailed survey work by Andrew Village in various different habitats led to those earlier estimates being revised downwards. Using an average density of 20 pairs per occu- pied hectad, the second Atlas produced an esti- mate of 40,000-50,000 breeding pairs for Britain. At around the same time, Shrubb 1993) suggested that the Kestrel’s British popu- ation was in fact only 35,000-40,000 pairs, with he highest densities in northern England and ;outhern Scotland. More recently, after many 'ears of apparent decline, especially in western nd northern Britain, and a 29% reduction over he period 1994-2000 in Breeding Bird Survey BBS) data (Baillie et al. 2001), a new estimate 'f 36,800 pairs for the UK was published by iirdLife International (2004). Newson et al. 2005) presented further evidence in support of his lower figure, an analysis of BBS data lowing a national population size of 77,420 idividuals. v/dence for breeding density necdotal evidence, motorway counts or itish Birds 101 • May 2008 • 228-234 maximum-number counts are of little value in assessing Kestrel breeding density. Kestrels avoid each other when hunting, rarely form congrega- tions like Buzzards and can be highly secretive around their nest-site. Only protracted, time- consuming fieldwork can reveal their true breeding density. All recent Kestrel population estimates are based on the densities found in different habitats by Andrew Village (Village 1990). The highest density of breeding Kestrels (around 32 pairs per hectad) was found in a grassland/conifer plantation study area in southern Scotland. In mixed farmland in the English Midlands and in areas of intensive arable cultivation in the Fens, the densities were lower. On the basis of these results, as men- tioned above, an average density of 20 pairs per hectad was assumed to apply throughout the Kestrel’s range in the second Atlas. Since then, little has been published that either confirms or contradicts the assumptions behind this esti- mate. Many fieldworkers carry out valuable work on this species in terms of recording breeding performance but I can find little recent work on breeding density, and only one long-term study area, in Avon (J. Holmes in lift ; see also the Avon Bird Report for the years 1996-2003). My recent survey work in southern England has found densities far greater than this average of 20 pairs per hectad, and this, I believe, calls into question the previous popula- tion estimates. Study areas During 2004-07, I carried out survey work in several study areas in Kent, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire. Multiple visits were made to all tetrads in these study areas from March to July. Initially, working from observation points that gave a panoramic view of the study area, I recorded the presence of Kestrel pairs on 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey maps. Later work concentrated on locating nest-sites. Finding nests was relatively easy where only a few hedgerow trees were present but much more difficult where birds were nesting in small woodlands or where multiple possible nest-sites were available. Probable breeding was indicated by display, copulation, territorial defence or aggression towards predators by pairs of adult Kestrels. The locality of a probable breeding pair was revisited for confirmation of a breeding attempt - location of the nest, food- carrying or the presence of recently Hedged 229 The Common Kestrel population in Britain c Table 1. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus breeding density: some recent English studies. For data source, see text. Study area Year(s) Area (km2) Density (pairs per hectad) Farmland type Low Weald (Kent) 2005 25 160 Mixed North Downs (Kent) 2006 35 103 Mixed/woodland 2007 35 160 Mixed/woodland Sittingbourne (Kent) 2004 45 25 Arable/orchards Vale of Aylesbury (Buckinghamshire) 2006 20 100 Mixed Keynsham (Avon) 1996-2003 60 40-52 Mixed/woodland SK58 (Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire) 2007 100 70-80 Mixed/woodland juveniles. Where initial observations suggested the presence of two pairs in close proximity, great care and effort was taken to establish that there really were two pairs rather than one mobile pair. Single territorial birds and imma- tures were ignored, even though some pairs of immatures may have bred. In places, where access was impossible, only the presence of adult Kestrels behaving territorially could be recorded. Access constraints, allied to the time- consuming nature of the fieldwork, meant that Kestrel breeding density could be recorded accurately only in small (20-35 km2) study areas. Larger study areas, although more signifi- cant in terms of results, present insuperable problems for a lone fieldworker. Kent My first survey, in April 2004, attempted to locate all breeding pairs in 90 km2 of varied habitat in north Kent, including areas of inten- sive arable farmland or orchards, mixed farm- land with fragmented woodland and an urban component. It soon became apparent that the chosen area was too large for one fieldworker to cover because there were at least 50 pairs of Kestrels present. Nonetheless, it was still pos- sible to establish that there was a much higher breeding density (4—6 pairs per tetrad) in mixed farmland than intensive arable/orchards (one pair per tetrad) (Clements 2005). During 2005-07, 1 concentrated on smaller study areas, where it was more feasible to establish breeding density. A study area comprising 35 km2 of mixed farmland with around 22% woodland cover on the North Downs was chosen as typical of this habitat in Kent. In 2006, 36 territorial pairs were found (fig. 1), while follow-up work in 2007 located no fewer than 56 pairs, equivalent to 160 pairs per hectad. The increase was probably due to more effective fieldwork, building on the knowledge gained in 2006, rather than any real increase in numbers. This landscape, of frag- mented woodland and mixed grassland and arable, is widespread throughout much of southern England, providing both numerous nest-sites and varied food resources for a high density of breeding Kestrels. A similar 10- km2 study area in east Kent showed an average spacing of 1.1 km between nest-sites (P. Chantler in lift.). The central part of my North Downs study area was visited annually during 2004-07. This revealed no major changes in breeding density, suggesting that the high densities found in 2006-07 were not simply a tem- porary phenomenon, reflecting an abundance of one particular food | resource. Buzzards first arrived in this study area in 2001 and, by British Birds 101* May 2008 • 228-234 59 58 57 56 55 54 < • m D # © • • A A © • © © • © • • • • © Q © • 9 ( • © 4 I © • © <§> © • • 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 Fig. I. Spacing of Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus breeding pairs (36 pairs in total) in a 35-km mixed-farmland study area, Kent 2006. 230 The Common Kestrel population in Britain c > 2007, there were no fewer than 32 territorial pairs in 35 km2; it will be interesting to see if their continued increase has a long-term effect on Kestrel numbers. In a separate study area (45 km2), of inten- sive arable farmland and orchards in the Sit- tingbourne area, Kestrels were present at a density of about one pair per tetrad (25 pairs per hectad) in 2004. This lower density presum- ably reflects the lack of grassland and shortage of potential nest-sites and is more typical of previous farmland studies. A 25-km2 study area on mixed farmland on the Low Weald was char- acterised by having considerably less woodland (2-3% cover) than on the North Downs. Nonetheless, the Kestrel density' proved as high as that on the North Downs: 21 confirmed breeding pairs were found in 2005, and another 19 pairs for which breeding was not proven. Failure to confirm breeding in these areas was due either to access restrictions or to lack of time available for some parts of the study area but the majority of these 19 territorial pairs undoubtedly bred or attempted to breed. The density, equivalent to 160 pairs per hectad, was remarkably similar to that recorded in the North Downs (some 15 km away) in 2007. The Low Weald study area was surrounded by apparently similar farmland where casual observations suggested a similar spacing of breeding Kestrels. Although there was little woodland, plentiful hedgerow trees meant that there was no shortage of nest-sites, while the small average field size provided much grass- land and edge habitat for hunting. No breeding Buzzards were present in this study area. The tendency for small study areas to show abnormally high densities, which cannot be replicated across larger areas, has been noted previously (Village 1990). However, my study areas in Kent were chosen as typical of larger areas of similar habitat and appeared to have nothing unusual about them that would result in an unrepresentative breeding density. Less intensive fieldwork in small (10 km2) areas of mixed farmland habitat in other parts of the county revealed a similar spacing of Kestrel pairs. Previously, the Kent breeding population had been estimated at 750-800 pairs, using a notional average of 25 pairs per occupied hectad (Henderson & Hodge 1996). My results suggested that much higher densities occur across much of the county. Application of recorded breeding densities to four basic farm- land categories within the county resulted in a revised population estimate of 2,125—2,805 pairs (Clements 2007). Hertfordshire In 2006, a small sample (approximately 10 km2) of similar habitat was surveyed in north Hert- fordshire. The results were virtually identical to those from Kent, with at least one pair of Kestrels per square kilometre throughout the area. Buckinghamshire In 2006, 1 surveyed a small farmland study area in the Vale of Aylesbury. Specific fieldwork in this area during 1981-86 had indicated a density of 9-10 breeding pairs of Kestrels per hectad, perhaps 11-12 pairs in a good year (Lack & Ferguson 1993). Although the farm- land (mixed grassland/arable with only 0.5% woodland) was very different from my study I 25. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus with prey, Germany, February 2002. British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 228-234 231 Gunter Bachmeier Kit Day The Common Kestrel population in Britain c > I 26. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus, Suffolk, July 2005. areas in Kent, there was a similar density of breeding Kestrels (equivalent to c. 100 pairs per hectad). The density figure is less specific than those for Kent, since the study area was small and less time was spent on survey work. Nonetheless, in those parts of the study area where I was sure that all breeding Kestrel pairs were located, the distance between nests aver- aged c. 0.9 km (range 0.5-1.75 km). It is diffi- cult to explain the discrepancy between my results and the survey work in the 1980s, but I am quite sure of the numbers of breeding Kestrels recorded in my 20-km2 study area. Avon An area of 60 km2 of mixed farmland with c. 10% woodland cover was surveyed between 1996 and 2003, with Kestrel density varying between 40 and 52 territorial pairs per hectad (J. Holmes in lift.)- There was a high and increasing Buzzard population in this study area, rising from 32 pairs in 1996 to 56 pairs in 2003. SK58 (South Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire) This hectad is a long-term study area, covered intensively by local birders although not specifi- cally for Kestrels. However, many 1-krn squares were found to hold two or more pairs and, overall, the mixed farmland/woodland compo- nent held approximately one pair per square kilometre. The current estimate of 70-80 pairs for the hectad represents a significant decline from earlier levels (A. Hirst, M. Clay pers. comm.). Such a density, in a study area far removed from those in southern England, suggests that densities above 50 pairs per hectad are not uncommon in much of the Kestrel’s British range. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found few other recent examples of Kestrel breeding density. A survey of 4.5 km2 in coastal Suffolk produced up to 11 pairs (D. Thurlow pers comm.). Farmland near Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, had six pairs in 10 km2 (Bowey et al. 1993). A Kestrel survey in Richmond Park, Greater London, in 1967-69, which found up to 22 pairs in 9.5 km2, is a good indication of the sort of density that Kestrels can reach where numerous nest-sites are available (B. Marsh in lift.). Most county avifaunas published after 1990 give a population estimate for the Kestrel based on a notional 20 pairs per hectad. Such figures are rarely based on any actual fieldwork in the county concerned. Intriguingly, in the recently published Birds of Wiltshire (WOS 2007), the relevant species account states that densities cal- culated from BBS data would suggest some 1,240-2,400 pairs in the county (equivalent to c. 35-70 pairs per hectad). The author, James Ferguson-Lees, goes on to suggest that this figure is surely too high a proportion of the British total, and that 500-700 pairs is perhaps a more reasonable figure. Discussion Previous estimates of the British Kestrel popu- lation, outlined at the start of this paper, illus- trate the Kestrel conundrum. If the 1972 estimate was accurate, then later estimates are called into question, since there has not been a recorded decline of such magnitude (e.g. www.bto.org/birdtrends2007/wcrkestr.htm). If, however, the 1972 estimate was incorrect, perhaps based on unrepresentative CBC data, there is still a problem, since the average densityi from the most recent (2004) estimate - in the region of 15 pairs per hectad - is far below the! 232 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 228-234 The Common Kestrel population in Britain c 1 densities recorded in the recent studies sum- marised in table 2 (roughly 50-160 pairs per hectad). Based on my own experience and data from other study areas, I suggest that most areas of mixed farmland, at least in lowland Britain, still contain Kestrels at a density well above 15 pairs per hectad. The estimate in the second Atlas was based on an assumption that maximum density in good habitat was around 30 pairs per hectad, and that anything greater than 40 pairs was unlikely (Kostrzewa 1988; A. Village in Gibbons et al. 1993). However, I suggest that higher den- sities are common in areas of mixed farmland in at least some parts of England. Kestrels are remarkably non-territorial for a raptor, often tolerating near neighbours at a few hundred metres’ range, occasionally much closer (Village 1990). Moreover, they are highly adaptable, util- ising a wide variety of nest-sites, often close to human habitation, and will take a wide variety of prey species. The Buzzard, a much larger raptor species, is now reaching 100+ pairs per hectad in mixed farmland in southwest England (Robin Prytherch pers. comm.), so it would be surprising if Kestrels had not reached that level in the past. Indeed, the density of 75 pairs per hectad recorded in CBC squares in 1972 sup- ports this (Sharrock 1976). Until recently, both Buzzards and Northern Goshawks A. gentilis were either extremely localised or completely absent throughout much of southern and eastern England, so Kestrels suffered little com- petition or predation from those species. The much higher densities in my study areas, in southeast England, compared with those found during previous survey work on mixed farmland (Village 1990) may be due to several factors. One possibility is an increase in Kestrel numbers in such habitat (although BBS data clearly show a decline in the southeast) but it is perhaps more likely that the higher density of hedgerow trees and small areas of woodland, combined with more field-edge habitat, supports more Kestrels in southeast England. Moreover, the low altitude and richer soils of this region, and their effect on available habitats, should contribute to a higher density of most raptors; Newton (1986) reported much higher densities of Sparrowhawks in woodland in southeast England compared with upland conifer forest in southern Scotland. The lack of similarly high densities of Kestrels in mainland Europe may be attributable to the wider range of raptor species present, the higher levels of predation and competition perhaps restricting Kestrels to more specialised habitat, i.e. rela- tively treeless farmland. Densities of 50+ pairs per hectad are clearly no longer found in some parts of western and northern Britain. Suggested reasons for this include agricultural intensification and over- stocking in upland areas and competition for food resources from the expanding Buzzard population (Green 2002; Shrubb 2003). The emerging Goshawk population has had an effect on Kestrel numbers in some areas (Petty et al. 2003); the Kestrel population in The Netherlands is reported to have almost halved since 1990, having virtually disappeared from some well-wooded areas, a decline probably linked to an increase in Goshawk numbers (Bijlsma 1999). Many of these factors are most acute in western and northern Britain, and Village (in Gibbons et al. 1993) noted that the national decrease in the CBC index was largely explained by falling densities in plots in western England and Wales. A revised population estimate For reasons discussed in the previous section, I contend that recent estimates of the British Kestrel population are too low. The BBS popu- lation estimate (Newson et al. 2005) is clearly conservative; while extrapolating from transects in random squares may produce extremely good population estimates for many species, it is likely that those for species like the Kestrel may be less reliable. In particular, there is an issue with detectability - as described earlier, nesting Kestrels may be extremely secretive and, Table 3. A suggested population estimate for the Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus in Britain. For details of assumptions, see text. Density Estimated No. pairs (pairs per hectad) no. hectads England High density 50 600 30,000 Low density 20 600 12,000 Urban/moorland 10 100 1,000 Wales 2,500-3,500 Scotland 7,500-11,000 Grand total 53,000-57,500 The Common Kestrel population in Britain c furthermore, most BBS fieldwork occurs early in the day when many raptors can be particu- larly inconspicuous. The basis for a revised population estimate is summarised in table 3. Based on admittedly limited data, I suggest that high Kestrel densities (50+ pairs per hectad) can be found in many parts of southern and central England, from South Yorkshire south to Dorset and east to Kent. Areas of low Kestrel density now include much of northern and western England plus large areas where there is intensive arable farming (e.g. Lincolnshire and parts of East Anglia); an average of 20 pairs per hectad is a compromise between the densities recorded in pockets of good habitat and those in low- density (<10 pairs per hectad) areas on inten- sive arable. There are few data available for Wales and Scotland. Fieldwork for the second Atlas estimated 3,500 pairs in Wales and 11,000 pairs in Scotland; more recently, Gordon Riddle (in Forrester et al. 2007) suggested that the Scottish population was 7,500-7,800 pairs - a decline of around 30% in less than 20 years. The decline in Wales may be similar or even greater (Michael Shrubb pers. comm.). Even so, the total figure for the British population may well remain above 50,000 pairs. The lack of relevant data from much of the Kestrel’s range prevents the figures in table 3 from being anything other than a rough approximation of the current situation. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Kestrel still breeds at a higher density than previously recorded in at least some parts of its current range. If the densities recorded in Kent, South Yorkshire, Avon and perhaps Wiltshire are rep- resentative of mixed farmland in much of England, then 50 pairs per hectad might even represent a reasonable average over much of England. Until more fieldwork is carried out in those areas where the Kestrel’s status remains uncertain, the true British population is prob- ably more accurately summarised as being somewhere between 35,000 and 75,000 terri- torial pairs. Acknowledgments Thanks are due to the many raptor workers who offered advice and assistance, but most especially to: Philip Burton, Phil Chantler Mick Clay, Rob Fuller; Andy Hirst, Jeff Holmes, Barry Marsh, Gordon Riddle, Steve Roberts, Michael ) Shrubb, Dave Thurlow and Andrew Village. Chris Young in Buckinghamshire and Owen Sweeney in Kent gave valuable assistance with my fieldwork. References Baillie, S. R, Crick H. Q. P, Balmer, D. E„ Bashford, R I., Beaven, L R, Freeman, S. N„ Marchant, J. H„ Noble, D. G., Raven, M. J„ Siriwardena, G. M.,Thewlis, R, & Wemham, C.V. 200 1 . Breeding Birds in the Wider Countryside: their conservation status 2000. BTO Research Report 252, Thetford. Bijlsma, R. 1 999.Trends and breeding success of raptors in The Netherlands in 1 998. De Takkeling 7: 6-5 1 . BirdLife International. 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 1 2, Cambridge. Bowey, K, Rutherford, S„ & Westerberg, S. 1 993. Birds of Gateshead. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council, Gateshead. Clements, R 2000. Range expansion of the Common Buzzard in Britain. Bht Birds 93: 242-248. — 2005. Farmland falcons in Kent - a Kestrel and Hobby Survey. KOS News 459: 8-9. [Kent Ornithological Society] — 2007.The Kestrel in Kent Kent Bird Report 2005. Forrester. RW„ Andrews, I.J., Mclnemy, C. J., Murray, FL D„ McGowan, RY, Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M.W.Jardine, D. C„ & Grundy, D. S. 2007. The Birds of Scotland. SOC, Aberlady. Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J. B„ & Chapman, R A. 1 993. The New I Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland 1 988- 1991. j Poyser London. Green,). 2002. Birds in Wales 1 992-2000. Welsh Ornithological Society. Henderson, A. J., & Hodge, T 1 996. Kent Breeding Bird Atlas, j j Kent Ornithological Society. Kostrzewa, R 1 988. Density of Kestrels Falco tinnunculus in > Europe: review and some critical comments. Vogelwarte I ' 34: 2 1 6-224. Lack P, & Ferguson, D. 1 993. The Birds of Buckinghamshire. I Buckinghamshire Bird Club. Newson, S. E.,Woodbum. RJ. W„ Noble, D. G„ Baillie, S. R. | & Gregory, R D. 2005. Evaluating the Breeding Bird Survey for producing national population size and density estimates. Bird Study 52: 42-54. Newton, I. 1 984. Raptors in Britain - a review of the last 1 50 years .BTO News I3LG-7. — 1 986. The Sporrowhawk. Poyser Calton. Parslow, J. 1 973. Breeding Birds of Britain and Ireland. Poyser Berkhamsted. Petty, S. J., Anderson, D. I. K, Davison, M„ Little, B„ Sherratt, 1 T. N., Thomas, C. J., & Lambin, X. 2003.The decline of Common Kestrels ( Falco tinnunculus) in a forested area S of Northern England: the role of predation by Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). Ibis 145: 472-H83. Riddle, G. 1 979,The Kestrel in Ayrshire. Scott Birds 1 0: 201-216. Sharrock J.T R 1976. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain , and Ireland. Poyser Berkhamsted. Shrubb, M. 1993. The Kestrel. Hamlyn, London. — 2003. The Kestrel Falco tinnunculus in Wales. Welsh Birds 3: 330-339. Village, A. 1990. The Kestrel. Poyser London. Wiltshire Ornithological Society (WOS). 2007. Birds of Wiltshire. WOS, Devizes. Rob Clements, 8 Harrier Drive, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 4UY; e-mail richard.clements3@virgin.net 234 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 228-23 Chestnut-eared Bunting on Fair Isle: new to Britain Deryk N. Shaw M- Ren Hathway ABSTRACT A Chestnut-eared Bunting Emberiza fucata was discovered on Fair Isle, Shetland, on 1 5th October 2004. It remained on the island until 20th October and during its stay it was seen by approximately 120 birders. In the hand it was identified as a first-winter, possibly a male, of the nominate form, which breeds in northeast Asia to the east of Lake Baikal. Its arrival coincided with that of two other vagrants from the Eastern Palearctic, a Rufous-tailed Robin Luscinia sibilans on Fair Isle on 23rd October, and an Eastern Crowned Warbler Phylloscopus coronatus in Finland, also on 23rd October.This represents the first record of Chestnut-eared Bunting for Britain and the Western Palearctic. September 2004 was dominated by westerly winds, and talk of the worst autumn on record had filled the Fair Isle Bird Obser- vatory lounge. The wind finally switched to a j light southeasterly on 29th September, and a : stunning male Red-flanked Bluetail Tarsiger cyanurus was discovered that afternoon, spec- tacularly rescuing September from becoming a completely rarity-free month! October began to make further amends, with a Lanceolated Warbler Locustella lanceolata closely followed by a Booted Warbler Hippolais caligata in the first few days of the month. As high pressure began to dominate over northern Europe, a constant easterly airstream set in, bringing with it a flood of common and scarce migrants. During lunch on 15th October, Hywel Maggs mentioned that he’d had brief views of an odd ‘Little Bunting’ [Emberiza pusilla] in the bird-cover crop (one planted specifically to © British Birds 101 - May 2008 • 235-240 235 Rebecca Nason Chestnut-eared Bunting on Fair Isle: new to Britain > attract autumn migrants) at Skadan, near the South Lighthouse. He takes up the story: ‘I arrived at the Skadan crop at about 11.00 hrs. 1 walked along the kale and immediately a ticking bunting flew out and landed momentarily in a clearing, side-on. I thought this must be the Little Bunting that had been present at Lower I.eogh the previous afternoon. 1 managed to register the prominent eye-ring but was slightly perplexed by a number of plumage details. The bird quickly flew again, this time into dense cover in the breezy conditions. I decided to approach closer and could see it feeding on grain among the crop. I noticed that it appeared to have bold pale mantle straps, a yellowish wash to the sides of the breast (I never saw the bird front-on) and a less than typical head pattern for Little Bunting. It also appeared to be slightly large in flight for Little Bunting, but 1 thought that the windy viewing conditions could have affected my judgement. I couldn't think of anything else it could be apart from a particularly odd Little Bunting, and texted DNS and Alan Bull (AJB). I left the crop after the bird flew off with the resident flock of House Sparrows Passer domesticus. I met up with AJB shortly afterwards and discussed some of the features I had seen but when 1 left the isle that afternoon, 1 was still under the impression that it was just a particularly odd Little Bunting.’ I eventually caught up with the bird late that afternoon and in the rapidly fading light I also thought that it looked a bit odd: surely its tail was too long, it appeared to lack the black ear- covert surround, and I thought I saw a chestnut rump (but decided I must have been mistaken). I ran through all the other European buntings but could not come up with a better fit than Little Bunting, and decided that it must be that species. A Little Bunting had been seen in the Leogh ditch on 12th and 14th, and perhaps this was the same individual? The long tail was perhaps just a trick of the light as was the chestnut rump, and 1 put the lack of black in the face down to it perhaps being very fresh and having buff tips to the feathers which were con- cealing the black. However, it was really niggling me and I asked my assistant warden, Rebecca Nason (RN), to look out for it during census the next morning, as it was in her 'patch'. The following day, RN reported that the bunting was still present, so after lunch a small posse went to have a look, but getting good views was difficult in the strong wind. It spent most of its time sheltering in the oats and was giving only brief flight views when flushed, but it usually hovered for a second before dropping into the oats. With these views, however, it was agreed that it did look odd - and was certainly NOT a Little Bunting! We pieced together that it showed characteristics associated with Little Bunting, Ortolan Bunting E. hortulana and Yellowhammer E. cit- rinella but did not entirely fit any of these species. It had an Ortolan Bunting-like look, with greyish nape, pale buff submoustachial and throat, obvious whitish eye-ring and a light orange-brown wash across the underparts, but also chestnut ear- coverts with a pale spot at the rear, a typical feature of Little Bunting. After an hour of poor views, we were no nearer to making a positive identification and the decision was taken to I 27. First-winter Chestnut-eared Bunting Emberiza fucata. Fair Isle, Shetland, October 2004. British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 235-240 236 Chestnut-eared Bunting on Fair Isle: new to Britain > I 28. First-winter Chestnut-eared Bunting Emberiza fucata, Fair Isle, Shetland, October 2004. trap it. A net was erected and the bird easily coaxed into it. Once the bird was in the hand, the questions really began. It definitely had a chestnut rump but other features (e.g. pale eye- ring, lack of wing-bars, a two- toned bill) ruled out all the obvious suspects (Yellowhammer, Yellow-breasted E. aureola, Chestnut E. rutila, Pine E. leuco- cephalos and Rustic Buntings E. rustica). The bird was taken back to the Observatory, where I took a full description and detailed measurements. Phil Harris then remembered reading an article by Steve Votier on vagrant eastern buntings (Votier 2001). He returned a few moments later with the relevant issue and slapped the page down on the bench in front of me. There staring me in the face was a rear- view shot of our bird: Chestnut- eared Bunting E. fucatal We searched frantically for more informa- tion in the books available to us and, of course, all the features slotted neatly into place - chestnut ear-coverts, obvious whitish eye-ring, partially hidden chestnut breast-band, faint orange-buff wash, iongish tail We were stunned! We had a first for the Western Palearctic! Reading the caption beneath the photo, ‘...Chestnut-eared Buntings breed in northeast China and Korea and are middle- to long-distance migrants to their wintering grounds in southeast Asia. This species has not been recorded in western Europe, but a bit of blind optimism never hurts!...’, had us leaping round the room! Measurements established that it was of the nominate, northerly breeding race, which is a long-distance migrant, while the unmoulted alula feather, pointed rectrices and grey-brown iris indicated that it was a first- winter. News was released on the local Shetland grapevine and Birdline Scotland. The bird was then shown to the assembled crowd of Obser- vatory visitors, staff and interested islanders. Several photos were taken and it was returned to the Skadan. Here it remained until 20th October and was seen by approximately 120 vis- iting birders. Detailed description General appearance A medium-sized bunting with typically ‘complicated’ plumage. The main features were chestnut ear-coverts with a pale buff spot at the rear; an obvious pale eye- ring; pale buff submoustachial; dark upper-breast streaking with a partially hidden chestnut band below; and chestnut lower back and rump. Propor- tionately, it had fairly short wings and a long tail. Behaviour It did not move far on the ground, feeding among the oat crop with very short hops. When disturbed, it would fly around the immediate area before dropping back into the crop, always hovering for a second or two before it dropped. Occasionally it perched in the (relative) open on some leaning corn stalks. It kept to itself, not really mingling with the sparrow flock or Bramblings Fringilla montifringilla. Head Narrow yellowish-brown central crown stripe, bor- dered by thicker black- and brown-streaked lateral stripes. Supercilium ginger from bill to eye; wider and more greyish yellow-brown behind eye, merging with similarly coloured nape. Lores grey, distinct cream eye-ring. Chestnut ear-coverts were slightly paler- centred and had a noticeable pale buff spot at the rear. The broad, creamy-buff submoustachial ran around the lower border of the ear-coverts. Blackish-streaked malar, narrow at bill base but widening from the base British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 235-240 237 Rebecca Nason Hugh Harrop Chestnut-eared Bunting on Fair Isle: new to Britain and merging with breast streaking. Chin and throat creamy-buff, as submoustachial. Upperparts Nape greyish yellow-brown with just a few darker flecks. Mantle streaked black on a chestnut back- ground with two broad, light greyish-brown braces. Scapulars chestnut with narrow black centres. Lower back and rump chestnut with a few narrow black shaft-streaks, more so on lower rump. Uppertail- coverts dark brown with black shaft-streaks and greyish edges. Central tail blackish-centred with light chestnut fringes. Outer tail with much white. Rest of tail blackish with diffuse grey tips. All feathers of equal age and pointed. Primaries dark, grey-brown edged chestnut-brown, secondaries edged chestnut. Greater coverts black-centred with broad light chestnut fringes. Median coverts with similar black centres (coming to a point) bordered chestnut fading to buffish-yellow fringing and tip. Lesser coverts chestnut with narrow black central streaks. Tertials black-centred with light chestnut edging, fading to almost white fringes and tips. Edging narrow on inner web and broad on outer web. Underparts Yellowish-buff wash across chin, throat and upper breast. Narrow blackish-streaked malar widening from lower mandible to upper breast, where it merged with a gorget of streaks across breast. Below this was a 129. First-winter Chestnut-eared Bunting Emberiza fucata, Fair Isle, Shetland, October 2004. > narrow chestnut band fading to a broad, light chestnut-yellow band across lower breast. In the hand it could be seen that there was actually a broad chestnut band across the lower breast, hidden by light chestnut fringes. Light buff-tinged chestnut wash down flanks with a few bold brown streaks. Belly white, unmarked. Undertail-coverts light buff, tinged chestnut, similar to flanks. Colours of wash to under- parts quite hard to decide owing to apparent changes with angle and light conditions - appearing buff at times but yellower at others. Bare parts Bill: upper mandible dark horn, lower mandible greyish pink, culmen straight. Legs pink. Iris dark brown, eye-ring cream, distinct, except for small area at front which was ginger and therefore less obvious. Call An explosive ‘tzic’ similar to that of Rustic Bunting, often delivered (but not always) when flushed or when coming in to land. Biometrics Wing length Tail length Weight Primary projection Emarginated primaries (primaries numbered ascendantly) P2 Wing point P6 to wing point P7 to wing point P8 to wing point P9 to wing point P10 to wing point Secondaries to wing point Bill length (to skull) Bill length (to feathers) Fat score Pectoral muscle Age and sex The bird was aged as a first-winter based upon the fact that it had retained the juvenile alula feather, showed pointed rectrices (although adults of this 1 species do have pointed feathers, these are slightly j wider and less pointed than those of first-winter j birds) and a grey-brown iris (adults have a chestnut iris). It was sexed as a male on wing length and tail ' length, based upon criteria outlined in Byers et al. ( 1995), although BOURC’s view was that it was prob- j ably a male, rather than accepting it as a definite male. . Weather conditions and associated arrivals As with the Rufous-tailed Robin Luscinia sibi- lans which arrived on the island on 23rd October 2004 (Shaw 2006), it is not possible to British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 235-240 75 mm 64 mm 21.1 g 4.8 mm P3, P4, P5, P6 =P5/P6 P3, P4, P5 3.1 mm 7.6 mm 11.9 mm 14.4 mm 16.4 mm 17.0 mm 14.8 mm 10.9 mm 1/8 1/8 238 Chestnut-eared Bunting on Fair Isle: new to Britain c > I 30. A rarity in the hand on Fair Isle always draws a crowd, the balance of islanders and visiting birders depending on the time of year. Here, Brian Wilson is arriving fresh from repair work at the local school, while two of the younger islanders, Lachlan Shaw (in the Celtic hat) and Lowri Best, are already there. Lachlan, at least, has an island list that most UK twitchers would be extremely envious of! predict the timing and dura- tion of the passage of this far-eastern bird with any precision as the bird had probably been en route for some weeks. During the days preceding its arrival, conditions over Eurasia sug- gested that a southern route may have been taken. The change in wind direction at the end of September, after a month predominated by westerly winds, was brought about by a developing east- ward-moving anticyclone. Only weak easterly winds were present on its southern flank as it moved into Russia, but another anticy- clone, this time more intense, took a similar track across Scandinavia on 10th October before turning southeast into southern Russia by 13th October. A strong east to south- easterly airflow on its southern flank extended across Europe from as far east as Kazakhstan, although winds previously in that region were ■ weak. Strong southwesterly winds to the north of this high-pressure region probably prevented a higher-latitude movement. Indeed, westerly ! winds were more frequent than normal over northern Asia in October. Throughout October 2004, the easterly airstream brought a superb run of rarities to Shetland from breeding grounds extending from eastern Europe to western Asia, with many originating from east of the Ural Mountains and beyond. Heading this list of outstanding rarities were the two species new to the Western Palearctic, Chestnut-eared Bunting and Rufous- tailed Robin. With these came many ‘lesser’ rar- ities, including Richard’s Anthus richardi, Olive-backed A. hodgsotii and Pechora Pipits A. gustavi, Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola , several ‘Siberian Stonechats’ Saxicola torquatus maurus, Isabelline Oenanthe isabellina and Pied Wheatears O. pleschanka , several White’s Thrushes Zoothera dauma and Pallas’s Grasshopper Warblers Locustella certhiola , Lanceolated, Blyth’s Reed Acrocephalus dume- torum , Booted, Pallas’s Leaf Phylloscopus proreg- ulus. Yellow-browed P. inornatus and Dusky Warblers P. fuscatus, Isabelline Shrike Lanins isabellinus, and Rustic, Little and Yellow- breasted Buntings. Details of the dates and loca- tions of many of these can be found in Rogers et al. (2005) and Shaw (2006). Distribution Within Asia, Chestnut-eared Bunting has a frag- mented breeding distribution and three recog- nised races. The breeding range of the nominate race E. f. fucata extends from eastern Trans- baikalia, to the east of Lake Baikal to the upper and middle reaches of the Amur River in extreme eastern Russia, north and east to at least the region of Khabarovsk, and into north- eastern Mongolia, northeastern China, the Korean Peninsula, and the islands of Hokkaido and northern Honshu in northern Japan. This form is a long-distance migrant, wintering from southern Japan and southern China south to northern Thailand, and is the most likely to occur as a vagrant in western Europe. Two other races occur to the south of the nominate form. Both are smaller and either largely resident or short-distance and/or altitudinal migrants. The race E. f. kuatunensis breeds in southeast China, where it is a short-distance migrant. It winters in the southern part of its breeding range, but it is uncertain whether those reaching coastal regions are this form or the nominate. In the Himalayas, E. f. arcuata breeds from the North West Frontier Province, Pakistan, east to Nepal British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 235-240 239 Rebecca Nason Chestnut-eared Bunting on Fair Isle: new to Britain > and Darjeeling, India. To the east, it appears to be absent from Bhutan and the eastern Himalayas but reappears in southeastern Tibet, Yunnan, western Guizhou, Sichuan and southern Shaanxi provinces, China. The Himalayan breeders are altitudinal migrants which winter in the foothills and adjacent plains of northern India and Pakistan, while birds wintering in Bangladesh, northeastern India and Burma may originate from Chinese populations, but there are no ringing recoveries to support this. Having a breeding distribution that lies entirely to the east of Lake Baikal, Chestnut- eared Bunting would appear to be an unlikely vagrant to reach Britain. However, its range does overlap with the ranges of two other vagrant buntings which have reached Britain: Black- faced E. spodocephala and Yellow-browed Bunting E. chrysophrys, although both do breed well to the west of Lake Baikal as well as east of it. Likelihood of escape Rare buntings are sometimes tainted with the stigma of being escapes from captivity. In its review of this record, BOURC investigated fully the likelihood of this bird originating from a captive source. Chestnut-eared Bunting is not currently known in captive-bird trade (but there is some evidence that it has been previ- ously traded). In addition, the outbreak of avian influenza in the Far East in 2004 curtailed legit- imate trade of captive birds between the Far East and Europe. These bans were in place during autumn 2004 and would reduce the risk of captive origin even more (although a man was caught smuggling two Changeable Hawk- eagles Spizaetus cirrhatus (infected with avian influenza) into Europe from Thailand at this time, indicating that illegal trade in wild birds continued throughout the ban). The age of the Fair Isle bird, the date, the location and associ- ated eastern vagrants are all supportive of natural vagrancy. Acknowledgments Thanks to Norman Elkins for preparing a summary of the prevailing weather conditions at the time. References Byers, C., Olsson, U. & Curson, J. 1 995. Buntings and Sparrows. Pica Press, Robertsbridge, Sussex. Rogers, M.J., & the Rarities Committee. 2005. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 2004. Brit Birds 98: 628-694. Shaw, D. 2006. Rufous-tailed Robin on Fair Isle: new to Britain. Brit Birds 99: 236-24 1 . Votien S. 200 1 . Eastern buntings: a photo-gallery. Birding World 14:390-396. & Deryk N. Shaw, Fair Isle Bird Observatory, Fair Isle, Shetland ZE2 9JU EDITORIAL COMMENT Bob McGowan, BOURC Chairman, commented: ‘However unlikely it might have seemed to some, the credentials for natural vagrancy of the Fair Isle record were solidly based. As a trapped bird, the biometrics and plumage characters established it as an individual from the migra- tory population, nominate fucata. Its age also conformed to the usual pattern of first-winter eastern vagrants, although it was not possible to ascertain the sex of the bird. The Committee analysed in con- siderable detail the migration timings, routes and distances of the species and were happy that a mid- October arrival date on Fair Isle was plausible for a vagrant Chestnut-eared Bunting. Certainly the support cast of other eastern vagrants, and in particular the Rufous-tailed Robin, virtually coincident on Fair Isle, was considered highly significant. As there was no strong ground for doubt about its wild origins, the Committee agreed to accept this onto Category A of the British List.’ Colin Bradshaw, BBRC Chairman, commented: ‘As Deryk has suggested. Chestnut-eared Bunting wasn’t on many birders’ radar and those who have seen the species have probably experienced win- tering birds in Japan or in the foothills of the Himalayas, or spring migrants in China. It is thus not surprising that Fair Isle was slightly unprepared. Although various biometrics overlap with both Little and Rustic Bunting, its weight range of 20-25 g is nearly 50% greater than Little and is more akin to Cirl Bunting E. cirlus. The combination of size, chestnut cheeks, well-marked eye-ring and chestnut rump just about rules everything else out. Luckily, this was not a young female as they often lack obvious chestnut on the face and are more difficult to identify. Perhaps the combination of prominent pale eye-ring and submoustachial stripe with a chestnut rump and warm wash on the flanks would hint at what it was, but any such record would need to be extremely well documented.’ I Footnote: Readers may be interested to know that, in addition to traditional travel routes to Shetland: (flights from Scottish airports and the overnight ferry from Aberdeen), a direct flight from Stansted, airport is now available from Atlantic Airways www.flyshetland.com 240 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 235-2' The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland Martin S. Scott and Ken D. Shaw ABSTRACT Historically, White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii has been regarded as a very rare bird in Britain. However, observations in northwest Scotland in recent years support the view that, in this area at least, White-billed Diver is better regarded as a scarce passage migrant than a rarity. We present the results of intensive searches for this species in the Outer Hebrides during 2003-2007. We speculate that the pre-breeding moult is one important reason why White-billed Divers linger off northwest Scotland in the early spring, before departing for their Arctic breeding grounds. There can be few more exciting finds for a birdwatcher than a White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii , no matter what the plumage or the location; but discovering one in summer plumage just offshore from a dramatic west-coast sea cliff is the icing on the cake. And, if there is a small group of these most impres- sive of Arctic breeders, the observer is privileged indeed. White-billed Diver is a little-known species with a small world population and is often regarded as part of a species pair with Great Northern Diver G. immer. It differs in several ways, however, especially in terms of habitats and range. In this paper we describe a significant change in our knowledge of this species in northwest Scotland, as a result of which its status is now better described as that of a scarce passage migrant rather than a vagrant. Historical review In the 1950s, Baxter & Rintoul (1953) described White-billed Diver as a very rare visitor to Scot- land. The first Scottish record was an individual picked up dead at the head of Whiteness Voe, Shetland, on 21st January 1946, by Pat and Ursula Venables. The first live record followed shortly afterwards when, on the afternoon of 8th June 1947, the same observers watched as 'an adult White-billed Northern Diver [sic] in full breeding plumage swam slowly past our house on the shore of Weisdale Voe. Excellent views were obtained through 12 x 50 binoculars in clear sunlight at a distance of 50-60 yards. The large, tip-tilted bill appeared more “cream- yellow” than “cream-white” and was extremely conspicuous at that range: in fact it could be seen with the naked eye’ (Venables & Venables 1947). How right they were, for, although it is easy to overlook a winter-plumage bird, a White-billed Diver in breeding plumage is obvious even at a distance. Thom (1986) also categorised White-billed Diver as a vagrant to Scotland, one seen annu- ally between October and June, though in very small numbers; there were over 60 accepted records by the end of 1983, with up to eight in a single season during the preceding decade. Thom also mentioned that half the records came from Shetland, the others mainly from the east coast in winter; but that the (few) spring records were predominantly from the Northern Isles and the Hebrides. She concluded that this pattern supported the suggestion of a westerly winter movement across the North Sea followed by a northerly departure in spring (Sharrock & Sharrock 1976). Thom’s farsighted words - ‘it may well occur more often than the records suggest, especially in the west, which is less well- watched than the east coast’ - have been proved correct. Rogers et al. (2004) put forward the idea that © British Birds 101 - May 2008 • 241-248 241 AL S. Scott 242 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 241-248 The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland > Breeding and migration The world population of White-billed Diver J may be as low as 1,800 pairs, with around half , of these in Alaska (Earnst 2004). Their distribu- tion is Holarctic, from Novaya Zemlya, on the | eastern fringe of the Western Palearctic, east to > Canada. The wintering grounds are less well White-billed Diver records in Britain fall into three categories. The first category concerns occasional wintering birds. The second, and smallest, category refers to passage birds between late August and October on the east coast. The third and largest category refers to northbound migrants in spring (Rogers 1997), chiefly in the Northern and Western Isles, with a peak between late April and early May. However, as recently as 2001, BBRC accepted only four records of White-billed Diver for the whole of Great Britain in a single year. Over the last three years, during the compil- ation of The Birds of Scotland (Forrester et al. 2007), many new historical records have come to light. It is ironic, therefore, that the earliest Scottish record of White-billed Diver was recently uncovered by the authors of The Birds of Essex (Wood 2007): a specimen from Aberdeen found in Chelmsford Museum and dating back to 17th December 1891 (Green & Forrester 2005). The first British record, one shot on a bog near Embleton, Northumberland, in December 1829 (Palmer 2000), remains one of only three inland British records. Unpublished records Thom (1986) suggested that numbers of White- billed Divers are underestimated in Scotland, and this remains the case today. The small number of observers, the inaccessibility of long stretches of the coast of northwest Scotland and the difficulties of identification of distant, winter-plumaged divers are all relevant factors. There is another important reason, however: White-billed Diver belongs to a group of species of which a number of individuals are identified annually but the records are not reported/sub- mitted. These species have certain shared char- acteristics: they are fairly easy to identify; they are often seen by single observers in relatively inaccessible places; and they tend to be mobile. Other examples of this group include Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus and Gyr Falcon Falco rusti- colus. For example, a White-billed Diver found on the northwest coast by a raptor worker well able to identify the species may go unreported; and in the Gairloch area of Wester Ross, White- billed Divers are reported officially approxi- mately every second year yet birds are almost certainly present every year (Jon Hardey pers. comm.). The conclusion here is that, even with recent, organised and sustained efforts by White-billed Diver enthusiasts, the spring passage (or staging) of this species throughout , northwest Scotland is still being underestimated. 131. Stuart Housden (foreground) and Ken Shaw scanning for White-billed Divers Gavia adamsii off Tolsta Head, Lewis, Outer Hebrides, April 2006. The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland known, but are thought to be mainly in the Pacific. A handful of Alaskan birds have been fitted with satellite transmitters and these have been found to winter around Japan and Korea (Earnst 2004). Some of the pop- ulation spends the winter off Norway, however, and Folvik & Mjos (1995) suggested that some 100-200 birds winter reg- ularly in the North Sea, while Rogers (1997) postulated that numbers of White-billed Divers may winter much farther south in European waters than previ- ously suspected. White-billed Divers spend roughly eight months of the year at sea. In an average year, birds arrive back on the northern tundra breeding grounds in late May and early June. Pair members are thought to migrate separately from one another and to (re-)establish pair bonds soon after arrival on the breeding grounds (Earnst 2004). This timing fits well with the northeasterly spring passage observed in southwest Norway, which starts in late April, peaks in early to mid May, and becomes significant after late May (Folvik & Mjos 1995; Julian Bell in lift.). During the spring, the majority of birds are adults and they often pass at close range. Bell (2006) estimated that, during the spring of 2005, well over 200 individuals passed Skogsoy, in western Norway. This figure was extrapolated using the methodology outlined by Folvik & Mjos (1995), although the assumptions involved were subsequently questioned by Reeves ( 1997). In Scotland, records of White-billed Divers peak in the spring, during the period in which divers complete their moult before heading for the breeding grounds. Searches in I 32-1 34. Photographing White-billed Divers Cavia adamsii at sea is never easy, and these are record shots rather than contenders to win photographic awards. However, such record shots have great value in a study like this. In particular, since the plumage patterns of moulting birds are often extremely distinctive, photographs contribute greatly to an accurate understanding of the number of individuals involved. All individuals here photographed at Skigersta, Lewis, Outer Hebrides, I 32 & I 33 in April 2006, I 34 in April 2005. British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 241-248 243 M. S. Scott Andy Robinson Andy Robinson The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland > British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 241-248 244 The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland winter have generally failed to find White-billed Divers (the exception to this in recent years being occasional wintering birds in Shetland waters) and the species usually appears from late February onwards, suggesting that north- west Scotland is an important moult area. White-billed Diver moult and spring records in northwest Scotland White-billed Divers have a complex and pro- tracted moult. After leaving their Arctic breeding grounds in late September, adults undergo a partial moult into non-breeding plumage. Juveniles retain their scaly upperparts throughout their first year, similar to Great Northern Divers, and are distinguishable from adults on plumage for at least three years. They reach full adult breeding plumage only in their fourth spring (Beaman & Madge 1998). The moult cycle is important in relation to the birds seen off northwest Scotland in spring. The pre-breeding moult is a complete one, i.e. including the wing- and tail-feathers. Wing moult may begin as early as mid December (Burn and Mather 1974), with replacement wing feathers being noted from late January to the end of March; moult of the flight feathers is KEY ° 1 O 2 Figs. 1-5. White-billed Divers Gavia adamsii recorded in northwest Scotland, 2003-2007. Records for 2003-2006 have been accepted by BBRC; some 2007 records are still under consideration at the time of writing. These records are colour-coded according to the month of arrival: violet = February, green = March, red = April, blue = May, yellow = June. Overlapping circles denote records at the same site. complete by mid April. Birds have usually attained full breeding plumage by early May, although remnants of non-breeding plumage are occasionally retained on the head. Careful scrutiny of individual birds seen off Lewis, Outer Hebrides, suggests that they undertake the majority of their body moult over a period of about a month during March and April. We speculate that during the moult process birds are drawn closer to land and this explains the peak in records during this period. Deep- water areas close to shore provide a combina- tion of adequate food resources and safety during the moult period. Recent observations in northwest Scotland A windfarm proposal on Lewis was the rather unlikely starting point for our detailed work on the status and distribution of White-billed Divers in northwest Scotland. The windfarm proposal required a large Environmental Impact Assessment and, during flight-line work on Red-throated Divers G. stellata , S. Hulka and J. Stirling found no fewer than five White-billed Divers along the stretch of coast south of the Butt of Lewis towards Cellar Head on 19th April 2003. British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 241-248 245 Arnoud B. van den Berg The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland Following this discovery, we organised searches for this species from late March to mid May in each year 2004-2007, concentrating first on the east side of Lewis then working further afield on Lewis, Harris and the northwest coast of mainland Scotland, particularly in the Gair- loch area, where there have been occasional records of White-billed Diver. Other winter searches were undertaken, but generally resulted in nil returns. Wherever possible, searches were carried out by three or four ex- perienced observers, so that individuals could be counted accurately and photographed if practicable. Detailed descriptions were taken and submitted to BBRC. Figs. 1-5 show the results of intensive field- work from 2003 to 2007 inclusive, and map the number of White-billed Divers seen. A summary of the birds located is as follows: In 2003, we had the first indications of the numbers of birds involved in the area. Five adults were seen in the Butt of Lewis area on 19th April, followed by two different adults and a second-summer there the following day. In May, one was in the same area on 11th, and a second-year was in the Sound of Harris on 15th, while an adult was off Port of Ness on 8th June. In 2004, a group of five (four adults and one immature) were off Skigersta from 1 5th April to 5th May. The observations in 2004 established Skigersta as the ‘core area’ of our study region, although there is some movement of birds around the Skigersta/Butt of Lewis area. In 2005, an adult was off Skigersta on 3rd April, followed by five different adults there from 24th April to 2nd May. South of Skigersta, a second-summer was off Tolsta on 19th April, an adult was off Cellar Head on 20th, and three (including a second-summer and an adult) were off Tiumpan Head on 20th April, these still being present on 22nd May. On the main- land, single adults were off Aultgrishan on 13th April and Melvaig on 23rd. On the west coast of Lewis, an adult was off Mangersta on 5th May, followed by two different adults there on 7th. These sightings show well the spread of records on the east coast of Lewis and the smaller numbers off the northwest coast of Scotland, particularly around the Melvaig peninsula. In 2006, we recorded fewer birds, but, importandy, it became clear that birds may well be present before April. An adult was off Skigersta from 23rd March to 29th April, joined by three other adults from 26th March to the last date; another bird was off Tolsta on 24th March and an adult was off Butt of Lewis on 28th May. In 2007, early presence was again confirmed, from February 24th, with four birds being noted within 48 hours in the traditional areas i off Skigersta and Tiumpan Head. The two at 135. White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii, Reeuwijk, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands, January 1996, included here as an attractive portrait of a confiding first-winter bird. 246 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 241-248 The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland Skigersta lingered for some weeks; three were seen there on 1 3th — 1 4th April and what may have been a fourth individual at that site was seen on 20th May. Another was seen off Tolsta on 1st May and an adult was seen at Balranald, North Uist, on 6th May (some of these records are still under consideration by BBRC). As these data show, there are significant numbers of birds present off Lewis in the spring, and our observations confirm that these are a mixture of birds present for just one or two days and small parties that remain for several weeks, presumably related to moult. What are the origins of Scottish birds? Although White-billed Diver is a Holarctic breeder, there is a ‘gap’ in its breeding distribu- tion which more or less coincides with the Western Palearctic. The species is observed reg- ularly passing southwest Norway in spring (see above) and there are also pre-breeding concen- trations in Arctic Norway in May, similar to those off Alaska at the same stage of spring migration. One of the Norwegian sites, Skogsoy, lies at around 60°N, at a similar latitude to Shet- land, where passage birds are also noted in spring. It is tempting to suggest that birds move across northern Scotland as the first stage in their easterly migration to Arctic Russia, from wintering grounds to the west of Scotland (see also Fraser etal. 2007 and Hirschfeld 2008). Could the Scottish birds be heading north- west? Lewis would be the perfect starting point for a route north and west to Arctic Canada, similar to that taken by many geese (Anatidae) and gulls (Laridae) that winter in Europe. However, there are no accepted records from Iceland, despite observer effort being focused on this species in likely areas (E. Ricksen in /iff.), nor from any of the four Canadian Atlantic provinces. New York is the only north- east state of the USA to have recorded White- billed Diver, and there are only single records for both Ontario and Quebec (B. Maybank pers. comm.). It seems clear that our White- billed Divers do not originate from the Cana- dian tundra. Conclusions Our knowledge of the status of the White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland has altered signifi- cantly since the discovery of five together off north Lewis on 19th April 2003. Concentrated effort has revealed that this species is not a vagrant to this part of Scotland between March and May, but is more accurately described as a scarce passage migrant, with birds often present in loose, small groups - typically up to six birds - and moulting into summer plumage. In comparison, the species remains very rare throughout the rest of Scotland, with the excep- tion of Shetland. In Argyll, for example, there are only eight accepted records, with none before 1986 and no obvious increase in the last decade. In Shetland, there has been only a small increase in records over the last 35 years (Pen- nington etal. 2004 and recent issues of the Shet- land Bird Report). Numbers fluctuate between zero and six per year, but there is a clear peak in late April and May. Given the observer coverage in at least some parts of Shetland, most of these birds are surely migrants rather than over- looked wintering birds; indeed, some have been seen on active migration from seawatching sites on the west side of Shetland, chiefly in May. This fits with the hypothesis of a track across northern Scotland and up the Norwegian coast. White-billed Diver remains extremely rare in Ireland, with a total of only nine records. White-billed Divers appear to arrive in the inshore waters of northwest Scotland in late winter and remain there to moult, before departing in late April or May. Much smaller numbers winter in the area, and we are really no further forward in a definitive answer to the question of where the majority winter than were the great ladies of Scottish ornithology, Baxter, Rintoul and Thom. It seems most likely that they winter farther south, perhaps in deeper water and very thinly distributed. The Bay of Biscay has been suggested but there is no evidence to support this - the only Spanish record was recently deemed not acceptable fol- lowing review ( Ardeola 49: 141-171 ). When in Scottish waters. White-billed Divers show a distinct preference for deep water and are often found in areas where there are no or few Great Northern Divers. The Lewis records are spread down the northeast side of the island, between Port of Ness and Tiumpan Head to the south. White-billed Divers seem to show an affinity for the tidal streams under high cliffs, and the areas around Skigersta, Cellar Head, Tolsta Head and Tiumpan Head are most productive. Similarly, the birds seen from the coast of northwest mainland are also often found from cliffs on headlands. In general, other divers are scarce in such areas. British Birds 101 - May 2008 • 241-248 247 c The status of White-billed Diver in northwest Scotland compared with the concentrations in nearby shallower bays, but the tidal currents in these deep-water areas are favoured by large numbers of auks (Alcidae) and Harbour Porpoises Phocoena phocoena. We speculate that the size and structure of White-billed Diver may allow it to cope with the exposed nature of the seas in such areas, whereas other divers tend to favour calmer bays that are more sheltered; it is also possible that diet preferences of White-billed Diver differ from those of Great Northern Diver - not markedly, perhaps, but sufficiently to reinforce the apparent differences in choice of wintering/staging area. Acknowledgments We would like to thank our core co-observers, Tristan ap Rheinallt, Andy Carroll, Alan Lauder and Andy Robinson. They contributed at all stages, finding and photographing birds, discussing theories, and commenting on this paper Stuart Housden and Andy Webb were active in the project and wise advisers. Mike Madders has always been helpful, as have RSPB library staff. Ian Barnard, Julian Bell, Brian Cosnette, Jon Hardey, Blake Maybank, Edward Ricksen, Kathy Shaw, Jeremy Squire and Logan Steele provided information, spent hours in the field with us and helped us to find birds. Pete Ellis and Roger Riddington encouraged us throughout. References Baxter E.V., & Rintoul, L. J. 1 953. The Birds of Scotland. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. Beaman, M., & Madge, S. 1 998. The Handbook of Bird Identification for Europe and the Western Palearctic. Christopher Helm, London. Bell, J. 2006. Spring passage of White-billed Divers off southwest Norway. Birding World 1 9: 62-63. Birch, A, & Lee, C.T 1 995 Identification of Pacific Diver - a potential vagrant to Europe. Birding World 8: 458^466. Burn, D. M„ & Mather J. R 1 974.The White-billed Diver in Britain. Brit Birds 67: 257-296. Earnst, S. 2004. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Yellow-billed Loon. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5258, US Geological Survey & US Department of the Interior. Folvik,A„ & Mjas.A.T 1995. Spring migration of White- billed Divers past southwestern Norway. Brit Birds 88: 125-129. Forrester RW, Andrews. I.J., Mclnerny, C.J., Murray, R D., McGowan, R.Y., Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M.W., Jardine, D. C., & Grundy, D. S. 2007. The Birds of Scotland. SOC, Aberlady. Fraser, PA., & the Rarities Committee. 2007. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 2006. Brit Birds 1 00: 694-754. Green, N„ & Forrester R. W. 2005.Yellow-billed Diver in Chelmsford Museum - the earliest record for Scotland and the fourth for Britain. Scott Birds 25: 59-6 1 . Hirschfeld, E. 2008. Origins ofWhrte-billed Divers in western Europe. Brit Birds 101: 144. Palmer R 2000. First for Britain and Ireland 1 6 00-1999. Arlequin Press, Chelmsford. Pennington, M„ Osborn, K., Harvey, R, Riddington, R, Okill, D„ Ellis, R, & Heubeck, M. 2004. The Birds of Shetland. Christopher Helm, London. Reeves, S. A. 1 997. White-billed Divers wintering off British and Irish coasts. Brit Birds 90: I 1 5. Rogers, M.J. 1997. Migrant White-billed Divers in Britain and Ireland. Brit Birds 90: 292-293. — & the Rarities Committee. 2004. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 2003. Brit Birds 97: 558-625. Sharrock, J.T R, & Sharrock. E. M. 1 976. Rare Birds in Britain and Ireland. Poyser Berkhamsted. Thom.V. M. 1 986. Birds in Scotland. Poyser Calton. Venables, L. S.V., & Venables, U. M. 1 947. White-billed Northern Diver in Shetland. Brit Birds 50: 282. Wood, S. 2007. The Birds of Essex. Christopher Helm, London. Martin S. Scott, Oceancrest, Brue, Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides HS2 0QW Ken D. Shaw, 42 Lathro Park, Kinross, Perth & Kinross KY13 8RU Looking back One hundred years ago: ‘STOCK-DOVES NESTING ON LINCOLN MINSTER. During the last few years I have noticed that Stock-Doves ( Columba oenas) are in the habit of haunting the towers of Lincoln Minster. It is evident also that they breed there, as last summer I saw two young birds in a sheltered corner on the central tower, only a few feet from the bell “Great Tom”, on which the hours are struck. At the present time two or three pairs may be seen about the Cathedral in company with the Jackdaws and Domestic Pigeons. They can easily be distin- guished with a good field-glass, and also to the prac- tised ear by their peculiar “grunting” note. A few days ago I was on the top of the central tower, and it was very evident that a pair of Stock-Doves had eggs or young some few feet below me. The pair were [sic] constantly alighting on a particular gargoyle, and were evidently very anxious to creep into some crevice among the masonry, but could not make up their minds to do this as long as I was standing a few feet above them. I got a good view of both birds at very close quarters. I have found many nests of Stock- Doves in holes in trees, rabbit burrows or crevices in sea-cliffs, but have never come across them nesting on j buildings before. I shall be much interested to hear whether this is a common practice with the species. 1 F. L. Blathwayt’ (Brit. Birds 1: 386-387, May 1908) 248 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 241-248 Conservation research news Compiled by Norman Ratcliffe and Michael MacDonald Crossbills in Britain: where are they from and what are they? Birding in British pinewoods is typically an uninspiring pastime, with only the occasional calls of Coal Tits Periparus ater and Goldcrests Regulus regulus to break the eerie silence. Not so in Common Crossbill Loxia curvirostra irrup- tion years, however, when our pinewoods come alive with huge, restless flocks of strident, brightly coloured birds. Within northern Europe and Asia, Common Crossbills usually inhabit boreal conifer forests, where they feed mainly on Norway Spruce Picea abies seeds. This conifer produces seed sporadi- cally and synchronously within large geo- graphic regions, which forces crossbills to be nomads. Each summer, they move hundreds of kilometres within the boreal forests to locate an area of high seed production before settling down. In some years, seed crops fail over much of the crossbills’ normal breeding range, which causes them to move thousands of kilometres to southern and western Europe. These irruptions are irregular, though not uncommon, occur- rences: at least 40 were recorded in Britain between 1881 and 2000. The specific provenance of birds in such irruptions has, until recently, remained sketchy. Ringing has shed only some light on this, owing to the sporadic nature of irruptions, difficulties in capturing crossbills and the sparse human populations in their normal breeding range. An alternative indication of provenance can be obtained from analysis of the isotope composi- tion of a bird’s feathers. Levels of deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen which becomes less abun- dant in rainwater with increasing latitude - as it varies with ambient temperature - and towards the continental interior) in feathers give an indication of the area where that feather was grown - since deuterium declines from south- west to northeast through Europe and Asia (see Brit. Birds 101: 117). Marquiss et al (2008) used this approach to determine where crossbills from historical British irruptions originated. They took feather samples and biometrics from live-caught birds and museum skins, including birds breeding in Scotland and those caught on migration during irruption years. The results were striking: the deuterium composition of the feathers showed that the birds from each of the irruptions sampled origi- nated from widely separated regions of the Palearctic boreal forests. The fact that those irruptions containing birds with low deuterium values were characterised by a later arrival in Britain corroborated the conclusion that such birds originated from further away, since it would take longer to travel the intervening dis- tance to Britain. Birds with higher deuterium values are thought to have originated from western Russia and those with lower ones from around or beyond the Ural Mountains. Deu- terium levels did not correlate with bill mor- phology, which led the authors to suggest that a dine in bill morphology across the boreal zone does not exist; instead, bill morphology may have evolved within populations to suit local conifer cone characteristics. This leads on seamlessly to other papers in the same journal that examine assortative mating of crossbills according to bill mor- phology and vocalisations. Summers et al. (2007) examined matings among three crossbill taxa nesting in Scottish pinewoods and discov- ered that birds selected partners with similar bill sizes and calls to themselves. This provides evidence for Common, Parrot L. pytyopsittacus and Scottish Crossbills L. scotica being sym- patric species, though some gene flow occurs © British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 249-250 249 Conservation research news > among these groups. Studies in Europe have gone further, to reveal that strong assortative mating occurs within three vocal types of Common Crossbills (Edelaar 2008) and that bill morphology differs significantly within at least two of these types (Edelaar et al. 2008). The authors conclude that ‘Common Crossbills’ in Europe in fact comprise three cryptic species. In view of the putative geographic variations in bill depth found in the Marquiss et al. (2008) study, it is possible that further cryptic crossbill species could occur through their wide Palearctic boreal range. Elence, next time a crossbill irruption occurs in Britain you might well wonder, not only from where they origi- nate, but also what they actually are? However, to distinguish them you will need to record their calls and generate sonograms because the differences between the vocal types are extremely subtle. Edelaan R 2008. Assortative mating also indicates that Common Crossbill Loxia curvirostra vocal types are species./ Avian Biol. 39: 9-12. — , Eerde, K., &Terpstra, K. 2008. Is the subspecies of the Common Crossbill Loxia c. curvirostra polytypic? II. Differentiation in vocal types in functional traits. J. Avian Biol. 39: 108-1 15. Marquiss, M., Hobson, K. A., & Newton, 1. 2008. Stable isotope evidence for different source areas of Common Crossbill Loxia curvirostra irruptions into Britain. J. Avian Biol. 39: 30-34. Summers, R. W„ Dawson, R.J., & Phillips. R. E. 2007. Assortative mating and patterns of inheritance indicate that the three crossbill taxa in Scotland are species. J. Avian Biol. 39: 153-162. Invasive islanders The effect of invasive species on the avifauna of islands has relevance to anyone interested in conservation ecology. The UK holds globally significant breeding populations of several seabird species, many of which nest on offshore islands. UK overseas territories, including islands such as Bird Island, Pitcairn and Bermuda, hold further seabird populations of conservation interest. However, the UK has also been a major contributor to the spread of rats Rattus and other alien species to the world’s islands. Removal of introduced rats from islands is complex, expensive, and occasionally controver- sial. It has been undertaken on some British islands, such as Lundy, Puffin Island, Ramsey Island and Ailsa Craig, and numbers of breeding seabirds have subsequently increased on at least some of these. However, decisions on eradication need to be informed by the likely impact of rats on seabirds. A new study by Jones et al. (2008) has reviewed the literature on the effects of rats upon seabirds, and their analysis indicates which characteristics of both seabirds and rats have influenced the susceptibility of the former. Their findings revealed that storm-petrels (Hydrobatidae) and auks (Alcidae) were most heavily affected by rats, while albatrosses (Diomedeidae), frigatebirds (Fregatidae) and gulls (Laridae) suffered least. Those birds nesting in burrows or crevices, including many auks and storm-petrels, were also subject to 250 higher population impacts by rats. Larger seabirds were less affected by rats, although the effect was not statistically significant and may simply reflect the fact that large seabirds cannot nest in small burrows and crevices. Although not statistically significant, the mean population effect of Black Rats R. rattus was twice as great as that of the other two species (Polynesian R. exulans and Brown Rats R. norvegicus ) examined. There was some indi- cation that Black Rats prey more frequently on burrow-nesting seabirds. Although none of the studies reviewed involved the introduction of rats in recent decades, there was no evidence that the impact of rats increased with time since their introduction. Perhaps seabird species which cannot co-exist with rats are likely to disappear from islands soon after their arrival. These results should help land managers to focus on seabird species and situations where there is most likely to be an impact from intro- duced rats, e.g. islands with small, burrow- and crevice-nesting species, where Black Rats are present. This should help to prioritise rat removal programmes, although these will also depend on economic factors, conservation status of the seabird species, effects on other flora and fauna, and island-specific factors. Jones, H. R.Tershy, B. R., Zavaleta, E. S., Croll, D. A., Keitt. B. S., Finkelstein, M. E„ & Howald, G. R. 2008. Severity of the effects of invasive rats on seabirds: a global review. Conserv. Biol. 22: 1 6-26. British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 249-250 Letters BB- a veteran’s perspective The official account of BB’ s first 100 years {Brit. Birds 100: 3-15) was full but, dare I say it, rather dry. As we approach the anniversary of the last issue of Vol. 1, may I be allowed to add some personal comments on BB’ s changing character and occasional insecurity from my 60 years of close association. In 1947, I was 14 and wondering how to develop my hobby. The answers were in the library of the Loretto School Ornithological Society: the Witherby Handbook and a green- covered and grouse-sporting journal. Together, the book and its monthly update laid out a new ‘syllabus’, a friendly ‘text’ and constantly revised ‘course notes’. I devoured every word, noting with surprise that British Birds was already 40 years old. Ten years on, I was particularly taken by the cultural and social content of BB’ s 50th Anniversary issue {Brit. Birds 50: 213-239). This included the compliments of nearly 20 other national correspondents. Clearly, my mentor journal was a standard-bearer for modern, pur- poseful birdwatching, the continuing discrim- ination of its Editors being particularly admired. Already a maverick, I was, however, most drawn to the personal asides included in the congratulations. My favourite was Peter Scott’s admission that his first submission to BB was an attempt to string a yellow-legged Ruff Philomachus pugnax into a (then) Yellowshank [Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes]. It put With- erby off his other claims for two decades. Even Peter’s classic perception of the Greenland White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons flavirostris was granted only ‘a tentative footnote in [Vol. Ill of] The Handbook’ but craftily he inserted two figures of a dramatically dark-plumaged and orange-billed taxon in its Plate 77a. BB’ s only major crisis in its first 50 years was the early death of Bernard Tucker, in 1950. Duncan Wood remembered the loss of With- erby’s ornithological heir keenly, and how his funeral was further shrouded by doubts about the journal’s survival. The debts owed to Max Nicholson, who reconvened the support of Witherbys (the firm), to Arnold Boyd and to Duncan Wood, who together held the editorial fort and still found the extra writing hours needed to encourage ingenue observers like me, were large. The image of BB halfway through its life has been summarised by Britain’s foremost ornitho- logical bibliophile, David Wilson ( in lift ., 2007): ‘There was no sudden great revelation. BB was something that was there and always had been and as soon as one became aware of its exis- tence, it became a permanent reference, as was Witherby’s Handbook and Coward’s Birds of the British Isles. The content was good, the layout 1 36. BB authors from the 1 950s. From left to right, Bill Bourne, Chris Smout and Ian Nisbet, dutifully counting wildfowl for the Cambridge Bird Club. Note the classic Broadhurst Clarkson telescope and war-surplus duffel coat. © British Birds 101 - May 2008 • 251-259 251 Josias Cunningham Eric Hoskin g Letters C ) pleasing and legible, the photographs excellent. There were interesting short accounts of behav- iour and of rare birds. Rarities were carefully vetted by the editors and it was great to have a record accepted. It always helped if the observer could claim to have been “familiar with the bird in the south”.’ To many in my generation, the journal became the central and proactive medium for our increasing interest in birds, not least in 1954 when a much younger Executive Editor was appointed. Taller than any of us, at 6’ 4”, James Ferguson-Lees was soon veritably a towering presence and it was my particular good fortune to befriend him on a visit to Fair Isle in Sep- tember of that year. Our Baikal Teal Anas formosa did not last, but Britain’s first two (then) Yellow-headed Wagtails [Citrine Wagtails Motacilla citreola] have... so far. In the late 1950s, the Editors responded to the spread of birdwatching and growth in records by modernising the magazine’s format and widening its contents. For many of us, BB entered a classic period, soon showing again its tendency (inherited from Witherby) to manage as well as to report. Among the new initiatives was a national discipline on rare bird claims. Alan Dean has already reviewed the effect of BBRC in commendable detail {Brit. Birds 100: 149-176). In his Life with Birds (2005), Rob Hume found some humour in his reprise of the BBRC from 1988 to 1996. There were also a few gleeful moments in its earlier epoch, notably when the ace biter Denzil Harber was himself bit for the glib misidentification of a flying Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides as a Little Egret Egretta garzetta, slavishly followed by all members but me. His huge wrath was a singular delight. The most lasting smile, however, came from Maury Meiklejohn’s comment on the first-ever rarity claim from someone whose signature seemed to read as ‘Wee Oddie’. So taken was Scotland’s great birding wit with this sobriquet that he urged the record’s acceptance ‘if only to insure that the name reaches ornithological posterity’. Little did we guess that Bill Oddie would become today’s ‘universal birder’ and a lot more besides. Over the years, discontent with the BBRC has cost BB some subscribers. For Bob Emmett, custodian of the New Forest’s Honey-buzzards Pernis apivorus for 50 years, ‘the last straw was some buffoon pontificating on the identifica- tion of two early dowitchers at Cley and Grove Ferry. . . I find it hard to believe that I was the only person to. . . hear them both chew-chewing in flight’ (Bob Emmett in lift., 2007), as Short- billed Dowitchers Limnodromus griseus should. Such contretemps aside, perhaps now the single most important objective for the BBRC remains digital storage and retrieval of its records, making the analyses of occurrence patterns planned 50 years ago more realistic. Having just completed a mammoth stint as the Committee’s longest- serving Chairman, Colin Bradshaw is now searching for funds to achieve that aim. In the 1960s, bird- watchers travelled ever farther afield and began new studies. Once again BB responded and, as I graduated from note- to paper-writer and became friends with all the Editors, the journal’s gift to enthu- siasts became ever clearer. This was the welcome afforded our offerings in the busy 137. BB editors in the field in the 1 960s. Here at Azraq, during the first Jordan expedition, however long and hot the day, records still had to be written up. Left, Ian Wallace; right, James Ferguson-Lees. 252 British Birds 101* May 2008 • 25 1 -259 Letters C > Bedford office. This was a tall house, full of four generations of the Ferguson-Lees family plus, from 1970, the freshly enthusiastic Pat Bonham. Their advice turned all criticism to helpful lesson and BB fostered a remarkably cohesive contingent of birdwatchers and field ornitholo- gists. As overlap with the BOU’s (then) readable Ibis and the BTO’s journals remained limited, BB delivered in most months a unique read of quality texts. Chief in another bout of adven- ture planning was the thrust towards the first Breeding Atlas. Importantly, BB still gave most of its print space to amateurs and professionals with a flair for communication. Bar the two issues devoted to the Ringing and Rarities Reports, up to 90% of the journal’s pages gave expression to such contributors. They delivered the classic recipe of ‘paper, note and letter’. From the editorial office came a regular summary of ‘recent news and comment’ but, with instant rarity intelligence yet to be invented, contact with Bedford provided only an occasional rarity, such as the (then) Siberian Pectoral Sandpiper [Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata] which loitered at the town’s sewage-farm in early September 1961. The orig- inal twitchers were better served by the Cley-London grapevine. When and why in the late 1960s the fortunes of BB ebbed is unclear. Its punctuality had become lax but it still had no direct com- petitor; yet, by 1971, subscriber numbers were well below 3,000. The last loyalties of Witherbys (the firm) were being exhausted. In 1972, my own experience of the journal’s vicissitudes increased dra- matically as first I occupied what soon became a ‘hot seat’ as Chairman of BBRC and second took a place along- side Malcolm Ogilvie from which to serve as a potentially short-term Editor. I can still hear the ringing exhortations of Max Nicholson and Phil Hollom to us to get BB on the march again but it was Stanley Cramp’s single-mindedness that even- tually saw the journal into the new hands of Macmillan, personified by the sympathetic Julian Ashby. Not for the first time did Stanley’s occasional likeness to a Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis focus minds and we, his junior partners, worked rather hard in response. The stream of identification papers that ended up as most of Frontiers of Bird Iden- tification (1980) was my personal contribution but the prize for public relations went to Pat Bonham and the newly recruited David Christie. Their stint at comprehensive bird news reporting by county and month brought increased topicality. BB’s universe began to grow again. The dynamism that changed the journal’s fortunes out of all recognition came in 1976, however, with the appointment of Tim Shar- rock as Managing Editor. Targeting the whole corps of active birdwatchers (flushed out by the first Breeding Atlas) and engaging the emerging consumers of rarities, improving optics and bird tours, Tim re-dressed BB to offer a brand of almost popular involvement as well as the continuum of diverse field ornithology. Links to the counties and clubs were particularly strengthened by the Best Annual Bird Report award. By the early 1980s, BB was enjoying ‘halcyon days’ and a flood of new readers. With Ibis increasingly less read by amateurs and Bird Study getting stuffier, the journal reached its zenith popularity with over 12,000 subscribers. Just as it had done in Bedford, the new Edi- torial office at Blunham offered a continuing I 38. BB editors in the 1 970s. The second and third BBRC chairmen on Scilly, taking a rest against the St Agnes lighthouse wall and hoping for a rarity to pop up in the Parsonage wood. Left to right, Ian Wallace, the late Peter Grant and (just visible) Dave Britton, BBRC’s first number-cruncher. British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 251-259 253 Janet Coram D. /. M. Wallace Letters C > '! Fig. I. Still a great rarity in BB’s first 50 years, the Little Egret Egretta garzetta began its invasion of southern Britain in the 1980s. inclusiveness to all-comers. This is remembered by the BBC’s ornithological commentator Brett Westwood as crucial to his early development. Tim Sharrock estimates that he ‘spent about 20% of his time answering readers’ queries of no relevance to the content of the journal’. Meanwhile, with more of BB’s best part-prod- ucts republished as useful books, the journal could claim to have become the central nervous system of increasingly expert birdwatching, with reader approval regularly researched, reported and seemingly cemented. In this period, once a year in July, BB also entertained. Granted the forenoon of the SWLA’s Private View to make the ‘Bird Illus- trator of the Year’ award, Tim Sharrock staged a party to go with it. It attracted a wide atten- dance; ever chuckling, David Christie would lift my fags and occasionally a pretty lass like the late Laurel Tucker would chat. It contributed much to a delightful day and was a prequel to the sociability of the Birdfair. In the late 1980s, the inevitable happened; BB’s marketplace changed significantly. Thirsts for beginner advice and constant rarity spice entered the span of birdwatching appetites and, so driven, readers sampled enough of a gang of new media for real competitors to stick and not sink as others had before. Most signifi- cantly, Birding World was backed by the (then) ultimate seduction of near-instant news from the phone. One of the secrets of past editorial debates was Stanley Cramp’s extreme antipathy to Peter Grant’s proposal that BB should be the first to copy the American idea of a ‘birdline’. Against the choices offered by the new spe- cialists, BB’s content mix was suddenly found wanting. As little as a third of issue space was being devoted to the classic mix of ‘paper, note and letter’ and over half of it had become pre- booked for dutiful but actually near-boring reports. To my astonishment, most of my close friends ceased to subscribe. In 1995, BB’s histor- ical origins were illuminated by the journal’s most ardent contributor, Bill Bourne, who wrote in memory of The Zoologist {Brit. Birds 88: 1-4). Bill diagnosed editorial fossilisation as the greatest danger to scientific journals. His piece ended with an injunction to increase the care of such institutional publications as BB. Within three years of Bill’s warning, during the research for my book Beguiled by Birds (2004), advertisers told me of a decline in BB' s subscribers. Lee Evans, who never wastes an insert, could not confirm more than 8,000 of them. Rumours of ill times drifted about the Birdfair. Concerned, I wrote to the Editorial Office but, curiously, found no awareness of imminent threat. Yet even after another takeover of its commerce by the practised Christopher Helm, the journal’s plight wors- ened. Brief contacts with Birding World and Birdwatch led nowhere. BB was in real crisis, incurring costs above gross profit, its managers becoming confused and lapsing into personal dispute. Although not publicised at the time. Fig. 2. One of the 1992 invasion of Common Rosefinches Carpodacus erythrinus. 254 British Birds 101* May 2008 • 25 1 -259 Letters C > the net subscriber mass plummeted to little more than 5,000 clean addresses amidst a messy database. The gap between the journal and its prospective buyers was exemplified by one reac- tion to the use of the September 1999 number as a canvassing sample: ‘BB tried to get us on board last month, sent us a free copy with some long boring paper on rosefinches - hopeless!’ (wife of RSPB reserve manager addicted to extreme rarities; overheard, 2000). That paper was mine... Happily, once BB’s true predicament was admitted, a well-thought-out emergency recovery package was launched and both indi- vidual and corporate supporters leapt to the rescue. Several whole-life readers provided instant loans and later converted these to gifts. The immediate crisis over, on 12th August 2000 Richard Chandler held a ‘ BB revival’ meeting at his Oundle home. As the oldest member of an invited cross-section of birdwatchers and ornithologists, I drove there with some appre- hension. An injunction from Dougal Andrew chimed in my ear: ‘Tell them to leave the ephemera to others’. As coxswain for the day, Bob Scott bristled with authority. I was shattered by the revealed loss of commerce in my favourite mail-order product (BB in abstract marketing terms) but was very encouraged by the belief in it still being expressed by young opinion-leaders like the BTO’s Dawn Balmer and the RSPB/BBRC’s Adam Rowlands. A revised strategy began to emerge and I took a Red Kite Milvus milvus that swung low over my car on the way home to be a good omen. BB’s biggest conundrum is why, given a reported explosion of active interest in birds (with 2.9 million people expressing such), it grows so slowly. This state also affects its two main competitors. Allowing for multiple pur- chase, the net universe for BB, Birdwatch and Birding World can hardly be more than 15,000, remarkably much lower than the 18,000 sub- scriptions that still reach Cage and Aviary Birds in its 105th year. Somehow, the current diversity of readable ornithology is not attracting today’s masses of birders to the ladder of eagerly taken education and hence disciplined contribution (still the creative stuff of fulfilling amateur science). Guesses why this is so are not good enough. Some shared attitudinal research is surely overdue, though (come to think of it) if the RSPB is really serious about education, it should do it on all our behalves. Fig. 3. An end to the British saga of Moustached Warblers Acrocephalus melanopogon came in 2006. Although a supposed breeding pair at Cambridge in 1946 had been re-enshrined by BBRC as late as 2000, the event was finally ruled implausible by BBRC and BOURC;the reappraisal removed the bird from the British List. The good news is that successful niche mar- keting in the birding marketplace remains pos- sible. For example, the BTO’s Garden Birdwatch scheme has generated a flow of new full members at a rate of 10% of participants. Ignoring all risks, James McCallum created his own imprint and has done well with three books presenting the art and words inspired by his local landscapes. A devotee of everything wild, he says: ‘It has taken me many years to strike a balance between my interests in the history, distribution, identification, migration and behaviour of birds. British Birds has been and continues to be the only bird journal that regularly encompasses the majority of these interests. I have always been drawn to the letters/notes pages, which sometimes contain some incredible observations. Indeed, Jim Flegg’s A Notebook of Birds - 1907-80 provides a wealth of such observations and is a favourite book of mine’ (James McCallum in lift., 2007). I find this compliment from a world-traveller still in his 30s enormously reassuring and so should the Editorial Board. Perhaps the best witnesses to the current restoration of BB’s fortunes are the authors of the once again wonderfully diverse papers that have filled most of its recent pages. Still written in readable English, those in the past year have been particularly welcome for they have shown that BB can still be more than the ‘respected British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 251-259 255 D. I. M. Wallace Letters C > journal of record’. In a recent conversation, Mark Cocker defined BB’s greatest gift to its readers as its regular release of racing ornitho- logical imagination. So please go on pouring out best information, pro-active comment, thoughtful interpretation and hence lasting inspiration. Finally, an appeal to fellow BB loyalists. If, like me, you find it increasingly hard to watch the progress of the planet and all its dependent species, I offer a thought from 1637: Yet where an equal poise of hope and fear Does arbitrate the event, my nature is That I incline to hope, rather than fear. And gladly banish squint suspicion. John Milton, Comus So let BB continue to correct your ornitho- logical miscues and do what you can to increase its support. My latest recruit is a gamekeeper, his priority now all birds, not just the Common Pheasant Phasianus colchicus. D. I. M. Wallace Mount Pleasant Farm, Main Road, Anslow, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire DEI 3 9QE Supplementary feeding of Hen Harriers Following the recent Note by Andrew Heath and Helen Armstrong on supplementary feeding of Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus (Brit. Birds 101: 152-154), I would like to make a number of points concerning the nest they described in the Yorkshire Dales in 2007. Although it may well be true that the supple- mentary feeding prevented complete failure due to poor weather in this case, it is worth noting that other nesting Hen Harriers in northern England reared large broods in 2007, in what was generally an extremely poor summer. It should also be noted that the breeding male dis- appeared approximately one week after supple- mentary feeding started, not before. A Hen Harrier nesting attempt by a different pair had already failed less than 3 km from this nest-site when the adults disappeared during incubation in 2007. This in an area where Hen Harriers attempt to nest in most years but suffer high levels of breeding failure primarily as a result of the disappearance of adult birds during nest- building or early incubation. Supplementary feeding may well have a role in Hen Harrier conservation, particularly in areas where male birds regularly disappear during the breeding season. However, the reasons for undertaking it need to be made clear. One pair of harriers in such a large area of moorland would have a negligible impact on the number of Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus. I had the pleasure of monitoring Hen Har- riers in Bowland, Lancashire, for six breeding seasons in the late 1980s and early 1990s. While the breeding success of Hen Harriers is higher in Bowland than in other areas of northern England, I am not entirely sure that the state- ment from Natural England that it is ‘an area where Hen Harrier persecution appears not to be an issue’ holds true when other facts are taken into account. There are currently 10-16 Hen Harrier nesting attempts annually in Bowland, most on the United Utilities (UU) estate and one or two on adjacent areas of grouse moor. Although UU is to be congratu- lated on its hard work to achieve and maintain this total, the UU estate provides less than 50% of the suitable Hen Harrier breeding habitat in Bowland. Depending on which decade is considered, past peak population estimates of between 23 and 39 breeding female Hen Harriers have been recorded in Bowland. This makes the present lower population, which appears to have lev- elled off, somewhat surprising. There is cur- rently good Hen Harrier productivity in Bowland and I am aware of a minimum of 14 traditional territories on Bowland grouse-moor i estates that were occupied in the recent past but which are presently empty. While I accept that the Hen Harrier Recovery Project (HHRP) has an exceptionally difficult task and that Bowland Harriers do better than elsewhere, if illegal per- secution is not taking place what credible expla- nation can the HHRP offer for the almost complete lack of birds on these private estates? Paul V. Irving Chairman Yorkshire Dales Upland Bird Study Group, 6 Walworth Avenue, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG2 7QZ British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 251-259 256 Letters C Richard Saunders, an ornithologist from Natural England, has commented as follows: Diversionary feeding in Yorkshire In the case referred to above, feeding posts were erected away from the nest, by the estate, as part of an unsuccessful attempt at diversionary feeding. Following discussions with Natural England, a licence was issued and, with Natural England’s guidance, a feeding post was placed near the nest and diversionary feeding was then successful. At first, diversionary feeding took place in order to minimise any possible effect of : predation on the shootable surplus of Red Grouse. Following the disappearance of the male parent, diversionary feeding became nec- essary in order to allow the harrier breeding attempt to continue. Why use diversionary feeding for Hen Harriers ? Diversionary feeding is not a measure required for the conservation of Red Grouse and conse- quently the grouse population does not need to be at risk of decline before feeding can be justi- fied. Diversionary feeding is a potential solution to an economic land-management issue, which, in some situations, may allow Hen Harriers to co-exist with a shootable surplus of Red Grouse. Indirectly, this may serve as a Hen Harrier conservation measure through a reduc- tion in illegal persecution. How many Hen Harriers must there be before feeding is justified? While Hen Harriers can co-exist with Red Grouse, it has been shown that a high density of Hen Harriers can, in certain circumstances, limit the number of Red Grouse to the point where driven shooting is no longer possible. Even when only small numbers of Hen Harriers are present and their predation does not affect Red Grouse populations across a large moor- land area, the local population density of har- riers on a grouse moor can still be high. Even a single pair of Hen Harriers can then affect the numbers of Red Grouse available for shooting. The benefit to a grouse-moor owner of feeding a single pair of harriers has been calculated as £3,230 (Amar et al. 2007). This calculation is per nest, and is independent of the number of ) Hen Harriers present. Natural England believes that it is a positive step for any estate to be willing to undertake diversionary feeding on a trial basis, which can be conducted at little or no cost to conservation bodies. Hen Harriers in Rowland Despite the fact that natal dispersal distances are often small, Natural England’s radio- and satellite-tracking work has shown that juvenile Hen Harriers disperse over large distances and that adults will also move widely during the winter. Evidence has been gathered showing that both juveniles and adults from Bowland are at risk from persecution during periods of dis- persal and during the non-breeding season. It is acknowledged that the English breeding Hen Harrier population is limited by persecution, and that the breeding population from Bowland could also be limited by persecution in other areas. Since the HHRP started, around 59% of adult Hen Harriers have ‘disappeared’ when breeding on grouse moors away from Bowland ( n= 17), while there have been no ‘disappear- ances’ of males breeding in Bowland (n=69). There is no equivalent comparative measure for the non-breeding season, although it is known that Hen Harriers are persecuted at communal winter roosts. While Paul Irving has provided population totals for Bowland of between 23 and 39 breeding female Hen Harriers, he did not make it clear that the population in Bowland was actually estimated at just three nesting females the year before the HHRP started. The Hen Harrier population in Bowland has actually increased, and not declined, since the beginning of the project and the results of monitoring work have not revealed persecution of Hen Harriers in Bowland to be an issue. Natural England believes that the private estates in Bowland that support Hen Harriers should be congratulated, and that the focus should be on the other grouse-moor areas in England, not one of which regularly supports breeding Hen Harriers. Amar, A., Redpath, S., Saunders, R„ & Baynes, T. 2007. Unpublished diversionary feeding paper for Hen Harrier stakeholder dialogue. The Environment Council, London, British Birds 101 ‘May 2008 • 251-259 257 Joe Sultana Letters C > The occurrence of western Black-eared Wheatear in Malta In reviewing the status of Black-eared Wheatear Oenatithe hispanica in Malta, Azzopardi (2006) concluded that it was ‘highly improbable that [the western race O. h. hispanica, hereafter ‘ his- panica’] occurs in Malta at all, and it is highly likely that all past published records are highly doubtful and should be treated with great caution.’ His argument was based on the fact that the breeding and wintering ranges of his- panica, and its known migration route, made it an unlikely migrant through Malta. Azzopardi’s observations were supported by the fact that, without exception, all photographs and speci- mens of Black-eared Wheatear he examined, both males and females, were of the eastern race O. h. melanoleuca [hereafter ‘melanoleuca'], although he did not give the number of photo- graphs and specimens he looked at. He also claimed that modern sight records have all proved to be melanoleuca. Azzopardi stated that De Lucca (1969) was the first to suggest that ‘ hispanica was unlikely to occur [in Malta] and that past records were erroneous’ and, further- more, suggested that subsequent authors have ignored or overlooked De Lucca’s statement. In fact, De Lucca’s entry under hispanica shows that he acknowledged its occurrence in Malta, stating it to be a ‘scarce spring and autumn passage migrant in irregular numbers’. During a ringing project carried out by BirdLife Malta on the island of Comino, the third-largest island of the Maltese archipelago, two Black-eared Wheatears were trapped in 2006 and five in 2007. One of these birds, caught on 17th April 2007, was a first-year male hispanica (plate 139); the identification of this bird has been confirmed by Magnus Ullman {in lift.). There is no doubt that both races of Black- eared Wheatear do occur in the Maltese Islands, with melanoleuca accounting for the over- whelming majority of birds racially identified, but with hispanica occurring at least irregularly. Acknowledgments We are grateful to Joe Sultana for providing photographs of the hispanica ringed on 1 7th April 2007 and for making suggestions to a draft of this note. We also thank Magnus Ullman for confirming the identification of the 2007 bird as hispanica and for his comments on other specimens. References Azzopardi, J. 2006. A review of the status of Black-eared Wheatear in the Maltese Islands. Brit Birds 99: 484-489. De Lucca, C. 1 969. A Revised Check-list of the Birds of the Maltese Islands. E. W. Classey, Middlesex. John Attard Montalto, John J. Borg, Raymond Galea and Manwel Mallia The National Museum of Natural History, Mdina, Malta; e-mail john.j.borg@gov.mt 2S8 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 251-259 Letters C > Colour nomenclature Alan Dean’s letter (Colour nomenclature and Siberian Chiffchaffs, Brit. Birds 101: 146-149) illustrates very well one of the main problems in producing a colour guide based on a stan- dard series of colour swatches. The swatches in the letter were ‘generated to match the RGB values of selected colours in Smithe’s Natu- ralist’s Color Guide...’ so that they match the colours in a published guide exactly. ‘The nomenclature is thereby unequivocal.’ I was not surprised, however, to find that the colours, with the possible exception of drab, are quite unlike the relevant swatches in my copy of Smithe, some of them very far off. The swatches in Smithe are very glossy, printed on heavy glossy paper (so they look quite unlike anything in nature); although meaning no disrespect to BB's printing, I would have been astounded if those in Alan Dean’s letter matched exactly the printed copies of Smithe. Colour nomenclature has been almost an obsession with me for many years, and I have had countless discussions with colleagues about it while working on illustrations for The Birds of Africa, especially in the field when trying to make accurate plumage descriptions of birds we had mistnetted. I have raised the matter several times, most recently in Bull. BOC Vol. 123a Supplement, ‘Why museums matter’ (2003). I made a large series of colour swatches with a view to possibly publishing a new guide for naturalists, and was encouraged in this by Richard Fitter, who had the same problem with colours of flowers, but who doubted that it would be possible to print a large enough number of copies with identical colour swatches to be worthwhile. A much more sophisticated colour guide Martin Woodcock Furlongs, Long Lane, Wiveton, Norfolk NR25 7DD than Smithe is the Atlas de los Colores, by C. Villalobos-Dominguez, published in Buenos Aires in 1947. Each of 38 colours is ranged from light to dark, and highest to lowest intensity of hue. This results in a total of 7,729 colours, each little swatch having a hole in it so the object to be compared can be laid beneath. Each one has a numerical designation, and could be given an RGB rating, but I guess it would be prohibi- tively expensive to reproduce. I do not know how the swatches in different copies compare. I have compared two copies of Ridgway’s Guide, and they were noticeably different. A second fundamental problem is that both assessing and naming colours is a highly subjec- tive business. Everyone seems to have a precon- ceived notion of what, for example, ‘buff’ or ‘cinnamon’ means, and, although I know of no data on the subject, I guess that the acuity of colour perception varies enormously between individuals too. (I know some leading ornithol- ogists who are completely red-green colour- blind.) The names used in plumage descriptions in bird guides are subject to no rules, and are almost as useless as trying to describe bird vocalisations in words. Lacking a reliable colour standard, we have no meaningful words to describe the colour of a Chiffchaffs ear-coverts at the present time, so no-one will be able to tell in 100 years time if they are the same. Neither do we know exactly what colour they were 100 years ago on the Chiffchaff skins now in the museum tray. Theoretically, all colours could be measured and designated by a spectrophotometer, but where would you start - or end? And then, think of printing them out... it’s a nightmare! Looking back One hundred years ago: ‘White Wagtail Nesting in Sussex. — In the course of an article in the “Field (April 11th) on this species in Sussex, Mr. J. Walpole Bond describes it as no great rarity on the spring and autumn migration. He also gives details of a nest which he found on May 31st, 1904, in the rough wall of a hut on the line which runs from Brighton to the Devil’s Dyke. Both birds were seen at close quarters and clearly identified as Motacilla alba.’ (Brit. Birds 1: 387, May 1908) British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 251-259 259 Kit Day Notes All Notes submitted to British Birds are subject to independent review, either by the Notes Panel or by the BB Editorial Board. Those considered appropriate for BB will be published either here or on our website (www.britishbirds.co.uk) subject to the availability of space. White-billed Diver feeding technique On 3rd and again on 10th March 2007, while observing the long-staying White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii in the clear, shallow, upper feeder stream flowing into Copperhouse Creek at Hayle, Cornwall, I noted the following. When submerging, the diver consistently used the pro- truding tip of its upper mandible as a tool to dislodge various objects. Several times I watched it probing bare, sandy areas and on at least two occasions it disturbed very small Flounders Platichthys flesus, which were well camouflaged and possibly even buried in the sand. The fish darted off with great speed and agility; incredibly, they were matched, and then caught, by the pursuing diver. At other times, and on a majority of occa- sions, the diver used its bill to flick over stones and to part Bladder Wrack Fucus vesiculosus while seeking its main prey item — smaller Common Shore Crabs Carcinus maenas - which it was extremely successful in locating. The larger crabs were violently shaken and hit on the water’s surface, the legs broken off before consumption, in the same manner as that of Great Northern Diver G. immer. I have previously watched Great Northern Divers feeding in clear, shallow water but have only ever seen them pursue prey that they could obviously see. As well as the functional advan- tage of the protruding upper mandible tip, perhaps the upward-bevelled lower mandible of White-billed Diver has evolved to prevent it dragging along the sea floor and impeding the probing and digging actions which I observed regularly. I am not aware that this feeding method has been documented, and there is no mention of it in BWP. It would be very interesting to know whether this feeding behaviour is characteristic of the species as a whole or just this individual. Vic Tucker Periglis, 4 Clovelly View, Turnchapel, Plymouth PL9 9SY 140 & 141 . Adult White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii, Hayle, Cornwall, March 2007, showing its dexterity in handling Common Shore Crabs Carcinus maenas and the protruding tip of the upper mandible referred to in Vic Tucker’s text. 260 © British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 260-263 Notes C ) Mixed colony of Great Cormorants and Grey Herons in Hertfordshire Since 1994, Grey Herons Ardea cinerea have bred successfully in trees on two wooded islands at Amwell Nature Reserve, Hertfordshire. The majority of nests have always been located on the cooler, north side of the islands. Fifteen of the 23 pairs that nested successfully in 2007 did so on the smaller island, on which 13 pairs of Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo attempted nest-building; nine pairs of the latter species bred successfully that year. Great Cormorants first attempted to breed in 2001, and first nested successfully in 2004. Based on an assessment of the shape of the gular patch, all birds observed in spring up to ( 2005 were considered to be P. c. sinensis, but non-breeding P. c. carbo summered in 2006 ! while two of the nine pairs which bred success- i fully in 2007 also showed characteristics of carbo. The development of the Amwell colony thus fits the pattern described by Newson et al. (2007) - that recent inland colonies are founded by sinensis with carbo joining as they develop. The Amwell cormorants nest on that side of the island (the south side) which is not pre- ferred/occupied by the herons. However, in 2007, a pair of Grey Herons built a completely new nest on the north side, and a sitting bird was recorded on 18th March. The lack of white on the crown and dull colour of the bill sug- gested that it was an inexperienced subadult, breeding for the first time. By 6th April the nest had been deserted, and a pair of ( sinensis ) cor- morants had nearly completed building on top of the existing structure. On 20th April, eggs were apparently being incubated and on 16th May the nest contained at least two small young. It is not clear whether the cormorants occupied a nest already deserted by the herons, or drove the former occupants away. The social interaction in mixed breeding colonies of Grey Herons and Great Cormorants may deserve closer study. Reference Newson, S. E., Marchant, J. H„ Ekins, G. R„ & Sellers, R. M. 2007.The status of inland-breeding Great Cormorants in England. Brit Birds 1 00: 289-299. Revd. Tom Gladwin 99 Warren Way, Digswell, Welwyn , Hertfordshire AL6 0DL British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 260-263 261 Notes C > Two male Hen Harriers attending a nest in Co. Kerry On 13th July 2006, I was part of a team that visited a Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus nest at Carrig, Co. Kerry, to fit the chicks with wing tags. The nest had been discovered earlier in the summer in open, cut-away bog with a good growth of Heather Calluna vulgaris on a dry bank. A clutch of six eggs was laid and four chicks hatched; three chicks of similar age were wing-tagged (tagged royal blue on left, red on right) while the remaining chick, a runt, was not tagged. At 13.35 hrs on 23rd July, together with Frank King, I observed a second-calendar-year (2CY) male Hen Harrier feeding the chicks by dropping prey into the nest. Shortly afterwards, at about 13.55 hrs, we were amazed to see an adult male appear and similarly feed the chicks by dropping prey into the nest. At this point the 2CY male reappeared and the two males flew around together high overhead; subsequently, the two of them perched together on a mound less than a metre apart and remained here for about 45 minutes. The young male, which was significantly smaller than the adult, was easily aged as a 2CY bird; a good deal of unmoulted juvenile feathers remained admixed with grey feathers on the bird’s upperparts (mande, scapulars, etc.), while the secondaries and outer primaries were retained juvenile feathers (the inner primaries were moulted and of adult-male type). The underparts looked rather similar to those of the Tim O’Donoghue National Parks & Wildlife Service, Ballynabrennagh, adult male, though there was some dull streaking on the breast. On 30th July, the 2CY male was again observed to feed the small (runt) chick, while the other three chicks had fledged. On 1st August, the three wing-tagged chicks were c. 0.5 km from the nest; but when the nest was visited, the runt chick was found dead. On the final visit to the nest area, on 8th August, two young were seen on the wing and were being fed by the 2CY male, who dropped food to them. Subsequent to the observations above, Barr)' O’Donoghue recorded two adult males deliv- ering prey to a single female at Cappagh (c. 6 km west of the Carrig nest) on 20th May 2007. Both males were loitering around the nest area, at times involved in territorial behaviour. At one point, both birds flew off, one west, one east; five minutes later they returned simultaneously over the nest area carrying prey and, like a mirror image, closed in upon the nest, meeting almost face to face. The female rose up, took the food from the male which had generally been the aggressor in earlier interactions (between the two males). The other male dropped his prey within seconds of the food pass between the other two and recommenced hunting. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Kevin Collins, Frank King, Barry O'Donoghue, David Sowter and Alyn Walsh for help with observations and ringing the chicks. Tralee, Co. Kerry Moorhens commensal on Little Grebes At Priory Country Park, Bedford, on 1st December 2006, 1 observed a compact party of eight Little Grebes Tachybaptus ruficollis in a small area of one of the two shallow Finger Lakes. The grebes were diving frequently, pre- sumably feeding on invertebrates in the sedi- ment or near the bottom of the lake; three or four were often diving at the same time. Two Moorhens Gallinula chloropus were stationed on the surface among the grebes and were fre- quently pecking at, or just below, the water surface, presumably on food items that had sur- faced due to the grebes’ activities. I recorded similar behaviour on a further 17 days that month, with usually 5-8 Little Grebes feeding together in a tightly knit group, gener- ally in the same small area. Little Grebes typi- cally feed either individually or in pairs, so this group-feeding may have been due to a concen- tration of a particularly abundant prey. On one occasion, each of three groups of feeding Little Grebes had Moorhens in attendance. 1 observed no aggressive behaviour by the grebes towards the Moorhens, although on three occasions Moorhens were aggressive towards each other. I presumed that a commensal strategy was '■ more efficient for the Moorhens than feeding independently. Although food items may not 262 British Birds 1 0 1 • May 2008 • 260-263 Notes C have been taken on every occasion, I assumed that the rate at which the Moorhens pecked at or just below the surface would give a rough indication of the number of items taken. Over a two-week period from 6th December, I obtained 52 counts of one minute’s duration for commensal Moorhens and 36 for isolated birds (when the nearest Little Grebes were over 30 m away and no other waterfowl were within 15 m). Moorhens feeding commensally pecked at an average rate of 27 pecks/minute (n = 52, SD = 5.0) and those feeding independently at an average rate of 13 pecks/minute (n = 36, SD = 5.1); these data suggest that commensal feeding was roughly twice as efficient as feeding alone. When non-commensal Moorhens found a rich source of food, their feeding rate was not dis- similar to that of commensal birds, but this was infrequent. Although BWP states that Moorhens will snatch food from other birds, I David Kramer 7 Little Headlands, Putnoe, Bedford MK41 8JT ) can find no record of Moorhens being com- mensal on Little Grebes. Over the 18 days (and a total of 72 separate observation periods), I noted the start of this behaviour on five days - in other words, I watched the grebes arrive, begin feeding and then being joined by the Moorhens. The Moorhens were more sensitive to disturbance than the grebes but after being disturbed would eventually return to the grebes and recom- mence feeding. This occurred probably as many as 20 times. Conceivably, the whole pattern of events may simply have been due to a rich source of food and, by itself, might not consti- tute commensalism. However, on none of the 72 occasions did I see Moorhens feeding by themselves at this particular spot; they fed there only in the presence of the Little Grebes and it seemed clear that the feeding activity of the grebes attracted the Moorhens. Cliff-nesting Twites in the Peak District Peter Middleton recently summarised the current breeding status of the Twite Carduelis flavirostris in the Peak District National Park, based on a survey of moorland areas in 2004 {Brit. Birds 100: 124-125). In recent years, however, a small population has become estab- lished away from the moors, on the carbonif- erous limestone plateau in Derbyshire; these birds nest on sheer quarry faces. Twites were first recorded visiting a quarry face in this area in June 1995 and since 2000 they have been recorded in the breeding season in three other limestone quarries. Up to ten pairs are now believed to nest annually on tall, almost vertical, north-facing cliffs in two of these quarries, one active and one recently disused. Although it has not been possible to visit any of the nests, Twites have been seen disappearing into nest-sites in crevices, under small overhangs and on grassy ledges, and have been seen feeding newly fledged young in the same areas. Although there are older records of Twites seen in limestone areas during the breeding season, these were presumed to involve feeding visits by birds nesting in nearby moorland areas. However, Orford ( 1973) mentioned quarry faces as nesting sites of Twites in Lancashire. These quarry-nesting birds feed on a variety of plant seeds in nearby meadows, roadsides and waste ground within the quarries, including those of thistles Cirsium , Colt’s-foot Tussilago farfara, dandelions Taraxacum and hawkweeds Hieracium. Acknowledgments John Atkin, George Hudson, Peter Welch and Margaret White are thanked for sharing their sightings and for useful discussions about these birds. Reference Orford, N, W. 1 973. Breeding distribution of the Twite in Central Britain. Bird Study 20: 50-62. R. A. Frost , 66 St Lawrence Road, North Wingfield, Chesterfield, Derbyshire S42 5LL ■ British Birds 101 - May 2008 • 260-263 263 Reviews BIRDS OF THE WORLD: RECOMMENDED ENGLISH NAMES Frank Gill and Minturn Wright, on behalf of the International Ornithological Congress (IOC). Christopher Helm, A&C Black, London, 2006. 259 pages; electronic version on CD included. ISBN 978-0-7136-7904-5. Paperback, £19.99. The long delay in the arrival of the IOC list of recommended English names is due mainly to the contrari- ness of Anglo-Saxon settlers whose determination to show their inde- pendence meant they invented then- own versions of the language. The Shavian observation about people divided by a common language must have been made with bird- watchers in mind. The French lan- guage and Spanish language equivalents took only three and five years respectively to appear and these more tightly structured lan- guages may have imposed more dis- cipline on their users. The instigator and driving force behind the orig- inal project, Bert Monroe, Jr, died four years into the project so it had to be restarted with new personnel. The book includes an electronic version on a CD. It opens with a short introduction covering history, process and principles, problems of spelling and other more mundane matters. The com- mittee did not see itself as the vehicle for a widespread restruc- turing of English names but, while striving for standardisation and consistency, established usage would prevail. The committee con- cerned itself with species, not sub- species, and extant species, not extinct ones, although several extinct species do appear in the list. There were six regional subcom- mittees, with chief responsibility for their respective areas. The committee was generally not in favour of hyphens in compound names. It was decided that compound names would be either a single word, such as Sparrowhawk, Cuckooshrike, Meadowlark, etc., if the second word was bird or its equivalent or a body part; or two words without a hyphen, such as Storm Petrel, Honey Buzzard, Snake Eagle, etc. Hyphens would be used only where the two parts of the compound names were birds or bird-related and the second name indicated the correct group, e.g. Hawk-Eagle, Eagle-Owl, Magpie- Robin. Hyphens would also be used where required by grammar or to improve readability, such as White-eye, Thick-knee and Wattle-eye. The taxonomic basis is Dick- inson 2003 ( The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World , hereafter H&M) but jumping on the latest taxonomic bandwagon is hardly in line with familiarity and established usage of the vernacular. There are already several departures from H&M. For example, the sequence of genera and species and generic assign- ments in the cuckoos (Cuculidae) are very different. H&M has 16 species of Cuculus near the begin- ning of its sequence but the IOC list has just nine species at the end. A large chunk of Sierra Finches Incaspiza, Warbling Finches Poospiza, Yellow Finches Sicalis and similar species are removed from Buntings, New World Sparrows & Allies in H&M and embedded in Tanagers & Allies. The Euphonias Euphonia are removed from their traditional place in the tanagers and are to be found in Finches (Fringillidae). The book includes an index of vernacular group names and Lin- naean generic names, so if a species has a different vernacular name and generic assignment from what one is used to, it can be difficult to track down. However, a more com- prehensive species-level index would have been longer than the rest of the book and added to its size and cost. There is at least one error in the index, which mentions Chatham Island Fernbird (an extinct subspecies Megalurus punc- tatus rufescens according to H&M) despite no mention of it on the page on which it is supposed to appear. Species-level taxonomy also follows H&M, unless the regional chairmen felt otherwise, and some appear to be more avid splitters than others. Those who did not favour the BOU lumping of Two- barred Greenish Phylloscopus plumbeitarsus and Green Warblers P. nitidus in the Greenish Warbler P. trochiloides complex may be pleased to see that these are retained as distinct species. It is, however, the vernacular names not the taxonomy which will excite the primary interest, and British birders will turn to those species which are their main concern. Not surprisingly, divers Gavia have become loons, but with British not North American adjec- ' fives, i.e. Great Northern Loon for G. immer, and so on. The use of Roughleg for Buteo lagopus was a novelty to me but is a neat solution to the problem of whether to call it Buzzard or Hawk. Not surprisingly, the rather inappropriate Hen Harrier for Circus cyaneus has become Northern Harrier. Now that the skuas are taxonomically uniform in Stercorarius, there may have been grounds for similar uni- formity in the vernacular, but the two smaller species are now Para- sitic Jaegar for S. parasiticus and Long-tailed Jaegar for S. longi- caudus. The trend towards becoming the 51st state continues j with the two Uria auks, which become Common Murre U. aalge and Thick-billed Murre U. lomvia. The latter is such a rarity in Britain that we could hardly have expected British use to prevail. There has been an increasing tendency to use Pallas’s Gull instead of Great Black- headed Gull for Larus ichthyaetus, thereby obviating an additional modifier for L. ridibundus., © British Birds 101 - May 2008 • 264-268 264 Reviews C > However, previous usage has returned here, requiring Common Black-headed Gull for the latter. Having used Rock Dove for Columbia livia for 50 years, I found the change to Common Pigeon a surprise. It is appropriate for the vast number of feral birds which most people see, but not the genuine wild birds. Surely the com- mittee could have made an excep- tion and provided more than one name for this species to distinguish between wild and feral birds? The use of Horned Lark for Eremophila alpestris has put paid to the local dialect name. The name Blackcap for Sylvia atricapilla becomes Eurasian Blackcap, because there is a Bush Blackcap Lioptilus nigri- capillus in Africa. The accentor Prunella modularis , which has mas- queraded as Hedge Accentor in some quarters recently, returns to its old name of Dunnock. However, I then found that the birds coming to my peanut-cake feeder are now Long-tailed Bushtits Aegithalos caudatus. The evocative Red-flanked Bluetail for Tarsiger cyanurus has triumphed over the Philistines who would reduce it to the mundane Orange-flanked Bush Robin. The name Lapland Longspur for Calcarius lapponicus has already found its way onto offi- cial BOU lists so it is not surprising that the IOC uses that. The Regulus endemic to Madeira, R. madeirae, is called Madeiracrest, thus avoiding a decision as to whether it is a Goldcrest R. regulus or a Firecrest R. ignicapilla. One of the rules which the committee established was that the complete name of one species should not be included in a longer name of another species, hence Common Ringed Plover for Charadrius hiaticula and Little Ringed Plover for C. dubius. However, the rule appears to have been violated at least once and comes close elsewhere. White- winged Warbler is used for Xeno- ligea montana of Hispaniola and White-winged Swamp Warbler for Bradypterus carpalis of African papyrus beds. Considering the general interchangeability of the words ‘pigeon’ and ‘dove’, to have both Thick-billed Ground Pigeon for Trugon terrestris and Thick- billed Ground Dove for Galli- colutnba salamonis is perilously close to synonymy. Similarly, Cuck- ooshrike and Cicadabird are widely used for Coracina cuckooshrikes and there is both a Black-bellied Cuckooshrike and a Black-bellied Cicadabird - they are adjacent entries, for C. montana and C. holopolia. The reviewer’s experience of other parts of the world suggests that there are many other cases where what he thought was estab- lished usage has been replaced by something else, but no doubt others more familiar with those areas will be making their com- ments elsewhere. The committee emphasises that this list is not the last word on the subject and should be considered a first edition and a work in progress. How successful it will be in its aim to standardise English language vernacular usage will depend on the willingness of authors, publisher and journal editors to accept its proposals. Ornithology is now a major inter- national industry and English is its international language, and stan- dardisation would be of immense benefit. If one wants to complain about changes to established usage, one should only look at the fre- quent changes to the Linnaean system. How many people can accurately assign the British tits to their latest genera without looking them up? One can only hope that the next IOC initiative is an agreed world list of recognised species. The current list claims not to be a taxonomic work but its authority must carry considerable weight. The speed at which new species are being proposed would doom any published list to obsolescence, so perhaps there could be a com- mittee of experts to give their imprimatur to proposed splits, an international version of the BOU Taxonomic Sub-committee. F. M. Gauntlett HANDBOOK OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD. VOL. 12. PICATHARTES TO TITS AND CHICKADEES Edited by Josep del Hoyo, Andrew Elliott and David Christie. Lynx Edicions, 2007. 816 pages; 56 colour plates; 436 colour photographs; 638 distribution maps. ISBN 978-84-96553-42-6. Hardback, £145.00. ! So, the HBW juggernaut keeps rolling on. We are now three-quar- ters of the way through the 16 , volumes, and roughly halfway British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 264-268 through the world’s 6,000 passerine species. Families including larks (Alaudidae), pipits and wagtails (Motacillidae), thrushes (Tur- didae), warblers (Sylviidae) and flycatchers (Muscicapidae) are behind us; still to come are shrikes (Laniidae), orioles (Oriolidae), sparrows (Passeridae), finches (Fringillidae), buntings (Ember- izidae), birds-of-paradise (Paradis- aeidae) and, scheduled for autumn 2011, the last of the world’s bird families, the New World Icteridae. Enough words have been written about the series - and the extraor- dinary achievement of the editors, writers and artists involved - to fill an entire volume. There has been much praise, in my opinion richly deserved. It will soon be time to review the project as a whole, but for now, what of this instalment? Volume 12 covers 15 families, from the peculiar West African Picathartidae to the 50 or so species comprising the Paridae, the tits and chickadees, whose collec- tive ranges span the Old and New Worlds and which are among the best-known and most intensively studied birds in the world. The same cannot be said of many of the other families here. True, there are the babblers (Timaliidae) and parrotbills (Paradoxornithidae), 265 Reviews C many of which will be familiar to birders who have travelled to Africa or Asia, and one of which, the Bearded Tit (or Reedling or Parrot- bill - take your pick) Panurus biarmicus, is well known to British birders. But the remaining 1 1 fami- lies are restricted to Australasia and parts of southeast Asia, a region of the globe to which, I confess, I have yet to travel. So I browsed this book with a mixture of fascination and trepida- tion. I needn’t have worried - the family accounts are, as always, models of clarity and accessibility, while the photographs and their captions are, respectively, visually striking and informative. And some gripping stories, such as how the (Chatham Island) Black Robin Petroica traversi was saved from the brink of extinction, are told in fas- cinating detail. Two consistent themes run through the family accounts. First, how little we know about many of the species featured; and, second, the threats they face through habitat loss and climate change. Parts of Australia have been suf- fering from almost permanent drought during the past decade or so, while deforestation in southeast Asia is currently one of the most significant causes of avian extinc- tion anywhere in the world. Once again, HBW is not only docu- menting the lives of the world’s birds, but may help to save them by bringing our attention to their plight at this critical time. For the tits and chickadees there is a fascinating paradox — these may be among the most studied birds on the planet but consensus on their evolution and systematics is only just beginning to emerge. Once again, the family essay reviews the current thinking in a clear and readable way - just the thing for those of us who find the current taxonomic debate hard to follow. The foreword to this volume also covers a tricky and complex subject: fossil birds. Written by Kevin J. Caley, an evolutionary biol- ogist at the University of Not- tingham, it begins with the D extraordinary statement that the 12,000 or so living, recently extinct or fossil species of bird that we know about are merely the tip of a very large iceberg. It is estimated that more than 1.6 million bird species have existed during the 150 million years of avian evolution - so these 12,000 represent less than 1% of the total. Dr Caley goes on to present a thorough and very helpful review of the known fossil record. It has become something of a cliche to end reviews of HBW by suggesting that every birder should have the series on their book- shelves. However, it is true that if you own these, you could easily do without many other bird books. If you haven’t yet taken the plunge, for £1,400 - less than the price of most second-hand cars - you can buy the lot, and still have enough cash left over for a bicycle. Given that early volumes in the series are now trading on the internet for more than £500 apiece, this may soon look like quite a bargain. Stephen Moss BIRDS AND PEOPLE: BONDS IN A T I .VIE LESS JOT' RNE Y By Nigel Collar, Adrian Long, Patricio Robles GO and laime Rojo. CEMEX- Agrupacion Sierra Madre-BirdLife International, Mexico City, 2007. 360 pages; numerous colour photographs. ISBN 978-968-9128-04-5. Hardback, £29.99. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect when I was handed this coffee- table-sized book for review. The truly stunning photographs that populate just about every page are immediately striking, however. Although many are portraits of birds, others explore the relation- ship between people and birds through art, fashion, domestica- tion, land use, etc. And that is the express purpose of the book. It is about trying to reconnect large sec- tions of humanity with the natural world. To illustrate just how important the relationship between birds (biodiversity) and people has been, and continues to be, to the cultural, social and economic well- being of humankind. How our choice as to how we treat our planet will ultimately decide its fate and that of humanity. After some heartfelt forewords (no fewer than four) and an intro- duction, the main body of the text explores the relationship between humans and birds in five main chapters. The first considers how birds are an integral part of our day-to-day lives; the second focuses on how birds have influenced and inspired artists. Chapter 3 looks at how we have used birds for our own benefit: to supplement our diet, as fashion accessories, the use of guano for fertiliser and, of course, domestication. The benefits that birds deliver for us are discussed next - seed dispersal, pollination of flowers, pest control, etc. The final chapter looks at how our studies of birds have contributed to our knowledge in the field of animal behaviour and behavioural ecology. Research into birds has also revealed the damage that we have inflicted on our environment through (for example) pesticide usage, intensive agriculture and high pollution levels. A set of superb photographs . has been well chosen to reinforce the text, while the final 126 pages of the book are in essence a portfolio of birds, many capturing exciting : aspects of behaviour. This book is a result of a part- j nership between BirdLife Interna- . tional, a Mexican conservation body and CEMEX. It is part of a : series of 16 volumes on nature, bio- diversity and conservation pub- lished by CEMEX. I was not aware of this series and was intrigued by , exactly who CEMEX is. According i to Wikipedia, it is the world’s I largest supplier of building mater- ials and third-largest producer of cement. The company is based in Mexico and has operations in 50 266 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 264-268 Reviews C countries around the world. Its environmental record is not without the occasional blip but it signed a ten-year global agreement with BirdLife in December 2007. This book is one of the fruits of that contract, another being that BirdLife’s expertise will be inte- grated into the management of over 400 quarry sites that CEMEX operates around the world. Let’s hope that other multinational com- panies take this kind of initiative. This is a fascinating book, with something for everyone. A book to dip into. I took great heart from a piece in Robert Bateman’s fore- word: ‘One psychiatrist I met had even concluded that birders were among the most mentally healthy people in the world’ - useful ammunition for the next time I am accused of being obsessed? It is well written, although I found it a touch over- zealous in places. The photographs are simply awesome D (to quote my daughter’s assess- ment) and it is worth the money for these alone. This would make an ideal present for family or friends who need to be reminded just how special birds are. The fact that profits from sales go to BirdLife International, a worthy cause that deserves as much finan- cial backing as it can get, provides an added incentive to buy it. Paul Harvey THE BIRDS OF ESSEX By Simon Wood, on behalf of The Essex Birdwatching Society. Christopher Helm, A&C Black, London, 2007. 656 pages; 24 pages of colour photographs; numerous line-drawings, histograms and tables. ISBN 978-0-7136-6939-8. Hardback, £40.00. A plethora of county avifaunas have appeared in recent years and there are several more in the pipeline. No doubt more will appear as the current ‘atlassing frenzy’ is completed. So any pro- posed new avifauna will have plenty of examples to work from. It is just a case of cherry-picking the best ideas from the many excellent county examples out there. If you happen to be into fruit gathering, then this new work on the birds of Essex has just about the biggest cherry crop this reviewer has ever seen. I can’t help pondering where we go from here. Small wonder that Simon Wood acknowledges the sacrifices made by his wife Mel. : This was no five-minute produc- tion job; indeed, his two children were born while work was in progress. Of course, the sad thing is that any avifauna is out of date before it leaves the printers. An appendix gives some of the high- lights of the 2005 season, but these are already two years out of date. Can we really expect an individual or a county society to contemplate an update (or start afresh) in the British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 264-268 future? Perhaps we will just see a set of maps with annotations when the Atlas is complete. How about putting the whole thing on the internet and then updating it annually when the county bird report is published? But what a splendid book this is to browse through. You don’t have to be an Essex birder to appreciate this volume. I have spent only a little time birdwatching in the county but in days gone by I would occasionally find myself on the Essex marshes - I even stayed at the Bradwell Bird Observatory - so I checked back at some of the past data that I remember. There seemed to be a scarcity of informa- tion on the Twite Carduelis flavi- rostris on the Blackwater estuary in the 1950s. But this is nitpicking! A veritable mass of data has been accumulated within the covers, in fact some 200 years’ worth of Essex records, ranging from the rare to the common, from the rejected to the escaped; it is all here and clearly laid out with supporting his- tograms and tables detailing the changes through the various counts and surveys. A total of 545 pages is devoted to the systematic list, with introductory chapters dealing with a description of the county, fossil birds, place-names (there is a complete gazetteer at the back of the book), the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) in Essex, a history of Essex ornithology, museums and collections and ornithological highlights since c. 991 when Common Raven Corvus corax and White-tailed Eagle Hali- aeetus albicilla were the very first species to be ‘recorded’ in the county. The colour plates are well reproduced, but I would have liked to have seen more habitat and locality photographs as these would have been of great interest in future years. Portrait studies of Wren Troglodytes troglodytes and Greenfinch Carduelis chloris, attractive though they are, are simply accompanied by the comment ‘common’ or ‘abundant’, and add little to the information in the book. There is an anonymous quote on page 7: ‘Essex is NOT flat and uninteresting; Essex is slightly undulating and uninteresting.’ If there is one thing that this new county avifauna establishes quite clearly, it is that Essex is strikingly interesting from an ornithological viewpoint. For example, you can go back to the first documented record of a Common Pheasant Phasianus colchicus in Britain, in 1059 - but also note that it is prob- ably the most under-recorded species in the county. The county can proudly claim, among several other firsts, the first Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus and Caspian Gull L. cachinnans recorded in Britain. If you have any interest in the birds of Essex, or any interest in county avifaunas, then I cannot recommend this book more highly as an addition to your library shelf. Everyone involved in the produc- tion is to be warmly congratulated on an excellent book. Bob Scott 267 Reviews C THE MIGRATION ECOLOGY OF BIRDS By Ian Newton. Academic Press, London, 2008. 976 pages; many illustrations. ISBN 978-0-12-517367-4. Hardback, £42.99. For many birders, migration is the subject that fascinates us most about birds. Once we can name the common birds, the next step is to start wondering about where they go. Our interests in listing, twitching or patch-working all rely on the unpredictability of birds and the fact that no-one knows what will turn up next. At the same time, migration can have a reassuring predictability, and for generations northern European communities have taken heart from the reappear- ance of certain species: in various places Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus , Arctic Tern Sterna par- adisaea and Bam Swallow Hirundo rustica are all examples of migrant birds that are welcomed as harbin- gers of spring. Given this fascination with migration, there are relatively few books on the subject, especially when one thinks of the many iden- tification guides available. This massive review, close to 1,000 pages and with a bibliography of 2,500 entries, is, therefore, a welcome addition to the literature. It covers every facet of the study of migra- tion but, as the title suggests, ecological aspects are given promi- nence. So, as well as how and where, there is plenty on why birds migrate, such as chapters on irrup- tions and their causes, and the evo- lutionary development of the main migratory flyways. The book is divided into five parts: the migratory process; the timing and control of migration; large-scale movement patterns; evolution of the movement pat- terns; and migration systems and population limitation. Between them they contain 28 chapters and each is intended to be a stand- alone read. There is still much to discover 268 about migration but several newly developed techniques, covered fully in this book, are beginning to unravel some of the mysteries. Satellite-tracking individual birds has produced some amazing results: the non-stop 10,000-km journey of a Pacific Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lappotiica, for example, or the fact that a pair of Spotted Eagles Aquila clanga from Poland should choose to winter in widely separated parts of Africa. The use of stable-isotope analysis is also covered, for example in demonstrating the different win- tering areas of the two subspecies of Willow Warblers Phylloscopus trochilus either side of a migratory divide in Sweden. As well as the more predictable seasonal movements, the erratic nature of irruptive behaviour is also explored. The fact that boreal seedeaters irrupt in response to food supply is well known, but research has shown that correlation in patterns of seed production in certain species of trees is apparent across distances of up to 5,000 km. Bearing that in mind, the huge movements of some Common Redpolls Carduelis flammea, from Belgium to China or from Michigan to East Siberia, are perhaps not so surprising. In another chapter, on nomadic raptors, it may not be surprising to discover that Snowy Owls Bubo scandiacus breed in different areas in successive years, but who would guess that one radio-tagged female would breed in Siberia, Alaska and Canada in just three years? There is even a chapter on vagrancy, something that is often omitted from other migration studies, as so much of the data col- lection is regarded as unscientific. The main theories on vagrancy are reviewed but there are interesting connections to make with informa- tion presented elsewhere. Many authors who have suggested pos- sible arrival routes for vagrants have used shortest-distance great- circle routes but, as stated in the chapter ‘Finding the way’, it is most likely that birds fly on a ‘straight D rhumbline route based on a con- stant compass heading’. These examples barely scrape the surface in this huge mine of information. Although written for research students, it is intentionally and successfully written in a style that is accessible for anyone with an interest in the subject. Judicious use of sub-headings and diagrams spread liberally through the book also help to break up the text and add to the ease of reading, even though the only other illustrations are the typically excellent mono- chrome chapter headings by Keith Brockie. This is the third volume in a series on avian ecology written by Ian Newton for Academic Press. Population Limitation in Birds and The Speciation and Biogeography of Birds both garnered healthy praise (Brit. Birds 92: 543, 97: 149; the latter was the BBI BTO Best Bird Book of the Year 2004) and this volume should be no different. It is an extremely welcome and detailed review of a subject which is the source of much fascination, which manages to be both scholarly and accessible at the same time. Hein- rich Gatke on Helgoland and Eagle Clarke on Fair Isle can barely have imagined what their studies started, but they would surely have been fascinated by this book. It is essential reading for anyone with any more than passing interest in migration. Mike Pennington ALSO RECEIVED: PRIORY WATER WILDFOWL PROJECT Edited by P. Shelton. Leicestershire Wildfowlers’ Association, 2007. Paperback, £10.00 inc. p&p from T. Goodliffe, 7 Beatty Road, Syston, Leicestershire LE7 1LT. This describes the creation of a promising reserve at Kirkby Bellars and recalls the work of the late Jeffery Harrison in Kent. British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 264—268 News and comment Compiled by Adrian Pitches Opinions expressed in this feature are not necessarily those of British Birds Collector of 7,000 eggs jailed for six months An egg thief has pleaded guilty to amassing a huge collection of birds’ eggs in the biggest case of its kind for 20 years. Richard Pearson was sentenced to 23 weeks in prison by a district judge sitting at Skegness Magistrates’ Court on 1st April. The court heard how police and RSPB officers raided Pearson’s Cleethorpes home in November 2006. Inside they found his collec- tion of more than 7,000 wild birds’ eggs, including 650 eggs of Schedule 1 species such as Red- throated Diver Gavia stellata , Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigri- collis , Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos , Osprey Pandion hali- aetus , Peregrine Falcon Falco pere- grinus, Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, Stone-curlew Burhinus oedicnemus , Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa , Little Tern Sternula albifrons and Red-billed Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. David Outterside, prosecuting, said a freezer at the 41 -year-old’s house was filled with the bodies of 21 wild birds, including Honey- buzzard Pernis apivorus , Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus and Short- toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus. Among the egg-collecting equip- ment discovered at the address were an egg-blowing kit, rubber dinghy, padded containers, egg boxes, maps, a camera and books. In conservation terms, this is one of the most significant seizures of birds’ eggs since the inception of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. After his arrest, Pearson had initially denied taking the eggs, claiming that Colin Watson (a notorious egg-collector who fell to his death in 2006) gave them to him. However, diaries in Pearson’s handwriting detailed his thefts and investigators were able to match individual entries to eggs in the collection taken over a 15-year period. He pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing wild birds’ eggs and three counts of taking eggs from the wild. Passing sentence. District fudge Richard Blake told Pearson: ‘You carefully organised this evil cam- paign against wildlife. You have threatened the fragile heritage of the wildlife of these islands, preying on the rarest of birds.’ He sentenced Pearson to 23 weeks for each of the offences to run concur- rently. Pearson was also ordered to pay £1,500 costs. The judge paid tribute to the work of Lincolnshire Police’s wildlife crime officer, PC Nigel Lound, and RSPB Investigations Officer Mark Thomas. Mark Thomas said: ‘Together with the Police, we have dealt with many egg-collecting cases over the years but the scale of the offending in this case was horrifying... Despite tough legislation, Pearson and a few others like him continue to present a serious threat to some of the UK’s most threatened birds. The length of his sentence reflects this and we hope it acts as a deterrent to others.’ The RSPB believes that there are around 100 active egg-collec- tors in the UK. Under tough legis- lation introduced in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the maximum penalty for taking or possessing one egg of a wild bird is six months’ imprison- ment and/or a fine of £5,000. Since the Act was introduced, ten egg collectors have been sent to prison. Now South Korea plans to destroy its rivers Not content with damming the Saemangeum estuary and destroying one of the most impor- tant shorebird staging posts in northeast Asia, the South Korean Government now plans another massive infrastructure project that would have enormous environ- mental impact. The Grand Canal Project is an astonishing proposi- tion that would link up all four of the country’s major river systems. It would require the dredging, deepening and widening of approximately 2,000 km of shallow river courses in South Korea (and apparently another 1,000 km in North Korea). These shallow rivers are presently used by a broad range of threatened bird species, including breeding Long-billed Plover Charadrius placidus and Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata, roosting Hooded Cranes Grits monacha on southward migration and large numbers of wintering waterbirds, including small numbers of the Endangered Scaly-sided Merganser Mergus squamatus. BirdsKorea has said: ‘We believe that maintenance of 6-m water depth as apparently pro- posed in these river-canals, espe- cially in drought-prone Korea, will cause major changes in the hydrology of much of the whole river systems, impacting numerous relict freshwater wetlands, as well as one of South Korea’s most well- known Ramsar sites, Upo Wetland. No doubt the Grand Canal system will also require further concreting and reinforcement of dykes along its length: with a total length pro- jected at 3,100 km, this will require a minimum 6,200 km of rein- forced banks and roads, leading to further massive loss of riverine habitat. The Grand Canal will also likely increase disturbance and pollution enormously along these same river lengths, as its proposed end use will be for shipping of * © British Birds 101 - May 2008 • 269-271 269 News and comment > goods as well as people.’ One of the canals will even run through the Saemangeum area, reducing even further any oppor- tunities for mitigation of impacts on wildlife by that other massively destructive project. BirdsKorea estimates that between eight and ten Important Bird Areas (IBAs) identified by BirdLife will be signif- icantly affected by the Grand Canal system, out of a national total of only 40 such sites so far identified. Ironically, South Korea is hosting the triennial gathering of the Ramsar Convention in October this year. Yes, that’s The Conven- tion on Wetlands of International Importance, the international treaty for the conservation and sus- tainable utilisation of wetlands... See www.birdskorea.org/Habitats/ Grand_Canal/BK-HA-Grand- Canal. shtml BirdLife Malta reveals the death toll of illegal hunting BirdLife Malta has maintained its pressure on the Maltese Govern- ment in the run-up to a decision on spring hunting in 2008 (the European Court is also poised to rule on the controversy). BirdLife has revealed that, during last year and the first two months of 2008, 419 protected birds with gunshot injuries were reported or delivered to BirdLife Malta and the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), with the bulk of these casualties (338 birds of 115 species) going to the museum. In addition, a further 741 illegal hunting and trapping incidents were recorded by the conservation organisation in 2007. BirdLife officials stated that this high figure was still far from repre- senting the true scale of illegal hunting in Malta. ‘Many more inci- dents go unreported, as many injured or dead protected birds are never found,’ said Dr Andre Raine, Conservation Manager of BirdLife Malta. The BirdLife report also illustrates the international impact of illegal hunting activity in Malta. In fact, four foreign-ringed pro- tected birds were reported as shot in Malta in 2007, two of these from Finland, one from Sweden and one from Germany. ‘One can actually state that conservation efforts abroad are being shot down in Malta,’ said Dr Raine. 'Our report shows that many of the protected birds targeted by poachers were of conservation concern in Europe, with a large proportion (42.5% of species) given additional protec- tion under Annex 1 of the Birds Directive.’ The three most common species with gunshot injuries reported were Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus. Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus I and Honey-buzzard. It was also I found that nine of the raptors had I been illegally kept in captivity after | being shot, before being subse- i quently abandoned. This contin- jj uous persecution of raptors means ji that Malta has the dubious distinc- I tion of being the only country in j Europe with no breeding birds of ■ prey. The BirdLife report also high- I lights how widespread illegal I hunting was in 2007: shot protected I birds were delivered to BirdLife’s I office originating from 48 locations 9 in Malta and Gozo and illegal I hunting incidents were recorded in I 84 locations. Darwin Initiative takes a payment holiday Although it hasn’t been remarked upon outside conservation circles, the UK Government’s flagship support programme for global biodiversity took a payment holiday in 2007. The Darwin Ini- tiative, which has an annual budget of £7m, did not fund any new projects in 2007/08, although applicants have been told that new grant applications will be considered from September this year. The parent department is Defra, which has seen cutbacks in several areas, including the start- up budget of the new agency Natural England. Ongoing Darwin projects were unaffected by the freeze but conservation programmes that had come to the end of their initial phase - and needed follow-up funding - were caught out. One example was the RSPB’s support for the Critically Endan- gered Gurney’s Pitta Pina gurneyi in one of the few remaining frag- ments of lowland rainforest in southern Thailand. The Darwin Initiative had already provided £110,000 over three years to fund research and advocacy work in Myanmar (where a new popula- tion of the pitta was discovered in 2003) and a forest regeneration project, including a tree nursery, in southern Thailand. But, with no new project money available this year, the RSPB had to look elsewhere for funding to support a tree nursery at Khao Nor Chuchi in Thailand. Happily for Gurney’s Pitta, the Oriental Bird Club (which had previously funded last-ditch con- servation work at KNC when it was feared that the c. 30 pittas at ! the site were the only ones left in the world) stepped into the breach. I The OBC has provided the £10,000 ' for the forest regeneration project, I including the tree nursery, this , year, with a quarter of that sum 1 coming from just two OBC members, Brian and Margaret Sykes. Pittas - and pitta lovers - should be very grateful for their generosity during a critical period for this wonderful bird. Meanwhile, the RSPB is hopeful that it will secure new funding from the Darwin Initiative for this project and others (pre- vious grant recipients have included Bald Ibis Geronticus eremita and Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius projects) when the window for new applications reopens later this year. 270 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 269-271 c News and comment > Cormorants targeted on Lake Constance The Nature And Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU - BirdLife in Germany) is protesting vehemently against the planned destruction of Lake Constance’s only colony of Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo. Freiburg local authority planned to use searchlights to drive breeding birds from their nests during April. This would leave eggs to grow cold, and chicks to freeze to death. Experience in Brandenburg with such massive disturbance has shown that the Cormorant offspring have no chance of survival. 'It is hard to believe that Freiburg local authority intends to commit such a destructive act, not only in a National Nature Reserve but especially within a European Special Protection Area (SPA),’ said Dr Andre Baumann, chairman of NABU’s Baden- Wiirttemberg branch. 'This... contravenes European bird pro- tection legislation and is morally unjustifiable.’ The Cormorants at Lake Constance will also be shot, from 1st August onwards. At that time of year many of the young chicks will still be dependent upon their parents. Cormorants became locally extinct at Lake Constance in the 1970s. Strict conservation laws enabled the populations to re-establish. At present, over 90 pairs breed in the Radolfzeller Aachried Nature Reserve, in the western area of Lake Constance. The colony is a cause of concern for local anglers and commercial fishermen, who have put pressure on the Freiburg local authority to drive the birds away. NABU is currently considering legal steps in order to stop destruction of the colony and has launched a protest petition on its website www.NABU-BW.de Now entire Ibis archive is available The BOU has followed BB and is celebrating a milestone in its history with a fully digitised archive of its journal Ibis. Compared to Ibis , BB is a mere stripling at just 100 years old; the BOU is celebrating 150 years of academic ornithology. All issues of Ibis back to 1858 are now available online at www.ibis.ac.uk Access to Ibis online is for BOU members who have opted for online access as part of their membership. Alternatively, it can be accessed via an institute that has subscribed to Ibis online. Artwork in BB The splendid cover painting on this month’s issue by Paschalis Dougalis is the first artwork on the cover of BB for over four years. We are, however, keen to feature occasional artwork covers for the journal, and details of our requirements are available at http://www.britishbirds.co.uk/ contributorguidelines.htm Readers are also reminded that artwork used in BB is often for sale; if you are interested in buying a particular item, contact us at editor@ britishbirds.co.uk Recent reports Compiled by Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey This summary of unchecked reports covers early March to early April 2008. Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis Easton (Cumbria), long-stayer, 21st March. Black Duck Anas rubripes Marloes Mere (Pembrokeshire), 16th March to 10th April. Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Loch Leven (Perth 8t Kinross), 13th March; Alve- cote Pools (Warwickshire), 14th March; Blagdon Lake 15th— 19th March, then Barrow Gurney Reservoir 21st March to 5th April, then Chew Valley Lake (all Somerset), 7th-9th April; Quarry Loch (Forth), 19th March to 6th April; Swithland Reservoir (Leicestershire), 23rd-29th March. Long stayers: Clea Lakes (Co. Down), to 15th March; Soulseat Loch/Loch Magillie/ Auchenreoch Loch (Dumfries & Galloway), to 8th April; Benbecula, to 28th March, perhaps pym. V •, Vti( ■' la 142. Female Black Duck Anas rubripes. Marloes Mere, Pembrokeshire, March 2008. © British Birds 101 "May 2008 • 27 1 -274 271 Richard Stonier Recent reports 272 British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 271-274 wall), 28th-29th March at least, pos- sibly in the area since February. White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii In Shetland, singles off West Burra and in Mousa Sound, both 30th March, off Wester Quarff 10th April and long-stayer off Fetlar to 15th March; Lewis (Outer Hebrides), 4th April. 1 43. Adult male Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica, Quoile Pondage, Co. Down, March 2008. same North Uist (both Outer Hebrides), 1st April; Lough Arrow (Co. Sligo), to 15th March; Lough Ennell (Co. Westmeath), two, to 16th March. King Eider Somateria spectabilis Troon, 1 1 th— 1 3th March, presumed same Girvan (both Ayrshire), 27th March to 8th April; Girdle Ness (North-east Scotland), 24th March to 2nd April; Rudden’s Point (Fife), 27th March; North Ronaldsay (Orkney), 3rd April. Long-stayers: Northam Burrows area (Devon), to 10th April; Mousa Sound (Shetland), 23rd March. Buffle- head Bucephala albeola Leyland (Lancashire & N Merseyside), 23rd March. Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Quoile Pondage (Co. Down), long-stayer to 15th March. Pacific Diver Gavia pacifica St Austell Bay (Corn- Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Far Ings (Lincolnshire), 5th April; Fair Isle (Shetland), 5th-9th April, and another found dead on 9th; Darlton (Nottinghamshire), 7th April; Mere Sands Wood (Lan- cashire & N Merseyside), long-stayer to 17th March. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Numbers in southern/southwest England and southern Ireland remained high after the influx in late 2007; most if not all of the following are long-stayers or birds relocating to new sites. During the period, significant concentrations included: in Cornwall, up to 18 in the Drift/Sancreed area, and five at Ladock; in Devon, five at Bideford, six at Warleigh Point, five at Tamerton Foliot, and up to four at the Kingsbridge Estuary; in Somerset, five at Bridgwater; in West Sussex, four at East Lavant; in Co. Cork, up to nine near Clonakilty, five at Ballincarriga, Dunmanway, four at Roscarberry, and six at Youghal, with up to three at various other sites; in Co. Waterford, eight at Clashmore; and, in Co. Wexford, seven at Killinick. Elsewhere, there were (at least) five in Dorset, three in both Hampshire and East Sussex, two in both Cambridgeshire and Gloucestershire, and singles in Ceredigion, Cheshire 8c Wirral, Cumbria, Co. Kerry, Lancashire 8c N Merseyside, Co. Limerick, Lincolnshire and Norfolk. Great White Egret Ardea alba Birstall (Leicestershire), 1 3th— 14th March; Waltham Brooks (West Sussex), 14th March; Howden’s Pullover (Lincolnshire), 16th March; Bintree Mill, 17th MarchJ presumed same Guist (both Norfolk), 7th April; South Uist (Outer Hebrides), 23rd-27th March; St Mary’s 1 44. Little Crake Ponana parva, Exminster Marshes, Devon, April 2008. Recent reports C > (Scilly), 25th March; Humberston (Lin- colnshire), 5th April; North Warren (Suffolk), 5th and 9th April; Sheepy Parva (Leicester- shire), 6th-10th April. Long stayers: Ouse Washes (Cam- bridgeshire), to 17th March, perhaps same Downham Market (Norfolk), 18th March; Thornham (Norfolk), 25th March; Shapwick Heath, to 2nd April, then Ham Wall (both Somerset), 5th-7th April. Glossy Ibis Ple- gadis falcinellus Long- stayers: Howden’s Pullover area, to 19th March; Warton Marsh/ Marshside RSPB (Lancashire & N Merseyside), to 9th April. 45. Adult Ross’s Gull Rhodostethia rosea, Marton Mere, Lancashire & N Merseyside, March 2008. Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Rosscarberry (Co. Cork), long-stayer to 25th March. Black Kite Milvus migrans Regent’s Park (Greater London), 30th March; Long Valley (Hamp- shire), 1st April; Capel Fleet (Kent), 5th April; Sidestrand and Burnham Overy (both Norfolk), two birds, 8th April; Boyton (Suffolk), 8th-9th April; Sandwich Bay (Kent), 10th April. White- tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Porton Down (Hampshire), presumed long-stayer, again 24th March; Prescott, 27th March, presumed same Seaforth (both Lancashire & N Merseyside), 29th March and Dolwyddelan (Conwy), 28th March. Gyr Falcon Falco rusticolus Mullet Penin- sula, 31st March, probably same, Inishkea Islands (both Co. Mayo), 6th April. Little Crake Porzana parva Exminster Marshes (Devon), 9th-10th April. Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus Windmill Farm (Corn- wall), three, 7th-9th April. Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Long-stayer, Virkie, to 9th April, also Mousa (both Shetland), 2nd April. ‘Wilson’s Snipe’ Gallinago gallinago delicata St Mary’s, long-stayer to 11th March. Long-billed Dow- itcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Bowling Green Marsh (Devon), long-stayer to 29th March. Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Long- stayers at Kinneil Lagoon (Forth) and Lisvane Reservoir (Glamorgan), both to 8th April. Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan Long-stayer, various locations in Somerset, 15th to 28th 146. Fi rst-winter Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus Philadelphia, Cheddar Reservoir, Somerset, March 2008. British Birds 101 • May 2008 • 271-274 273 Rich Andrews Steve Young/ Birdwatch Gary Jenkins Steve Vbung/Birdwatch Recent reports C > forsteri Long-stayers: Killyleagh (Co. Down), to 20th March; Nimmo’s Pier, to 31st March. Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Tarmon Hill, Mullet Peninsula, 26th-27th March. Alpine Swift Apus melba Newquay (Cornwall), 15th March; Dungarvan (Co. Waterford), 4th April. Red- rumped Swallow Cecropis daurica Thorpeness/North Warren then Minsmere (all Suffolk), 7th April; Kelling Quags, 8th April, perhaps same Salthouse and then Blakeney Point (all Norfolk), 9th April; Winterton Dunes (Norfolk), 9th April. Buff-bellied Pipit Anthus rubescens Red Barn, Youghal, 147. White-spotted Bluethroat Luscinia svecica cyanecula, Lune Estuary, lon^-stayer to 21st March*. Lancashire & N Merseyside, April 2008. March, presumed same Newnham (Gloucester- shire), 7th April. American Herring Gull Larus smithsonianus Cloghaun Lough (Co. Clare), 29th March; Nimmo’s Pier (Co. Galway), two long- stayers to 15th March, one to 5th April. Ross’s Gull Rhodostethia rosea Seaton Sluice (Northum- berland), 25th March; Marton Mere (Lancashire & N Merseyside), 31st March. Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalu s Philadelphia Loch of Strathbeg (North-east Scotland), 16th March; Cheddar Reservoir (Somerset), 22nd-28th March; South Uist, 4th-7th April; Ugie Estuary (North-east Scotland), long-stayer, 22nd-23rd March. Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida Kilcolman (Co. Cork), 5th April. Forster’s Tern Sterna Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus St Mary’s, 23rd March to 4th April (and pos- sibly since 20th March). Pallas’s Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus proregulus Weymouth (Dorset), 12th March to 10th April. Hume's Warbler Phyl- loscopus humei Long-stayers at Norton (Cleve- land), to 26th March and Tehidy Country Park (Cornwall), to 1st April. Penduline Tit Remiz pendulinus Minsmere, 22nd March to 4th April, then two 24th-26th March; Oulton Broad (Suffolk), two, 4th and 8th April. Rose-coloured Starling Sturnus roseus Pendeen (Cornwall), 23rd March; Haverfordwest (Pem- brokeshire), long-stayer to 27th March. Euro- pean Serin Serinus serinus Beachy Head (East Sussex), 3rd April; Portland (Dorset), 9th April; Nanjizal (Cornwall), 9th April. Arctic Redpoll Carduelis horne- manni Fair Isle, 8th April. Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Dungeness (Kent), 7th-9th April. Little Bunting Emberiza pusilla Jackhouse Reservoir (Lancashire 8c N Merseyside), 30th March. * Correction: in the last two reports, the wintering Buff-bellied Pipit in Co. Cork has been erroneously referred to as a Blyth’s Pipit - we apologise for the error, which was an editorial mistake, not the fault of our Irish compiler, Eric Dempsey. 1 48. Hume’s Warbler Phylloscopus humei, Norton, Cleveland. March 2008. British Birds 101 ♦ May 2008 • 271-274 274 Classified advertising Payment for all classified advertisements must be made in advance by VISA, Mastercard or by cheque payable to British Birds. Copy deadline: 10th of the month. Contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd., B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550. Fax: 020 8881 0990. E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Holiday Accommodation Overseas PROVENCE - CAMARGUE. Two s/c cottages. Rogers, Mas d'Auphan, Le Sambuc, 13200 ARLES, France. Tel: (0033) 490 972041 Email: p.m.rogers@wanadoo.fr England SOMERSET LEVELS. Self-catering holiday accommodation, sleeps 2. Close to RSPB nature reserves with excellent birding. Prices from £195 per week. Telephone 01823 698 247. www.thornhillsfarm.co.uk Books UPDATED original BIRDWATCHER’S LOGBOOK A concise way to record your observations. Monthly, annual & life columns for 968 species, garden birds, migrants, index & diary pages. Send £8.75 to: Coxton Publications, Eastwood, Beverley Rd, Walkington, Beverley, HU 1 7 8RP. 01482 881833 BIRD BOOKS BOUGHT AND SOLD. Visit our website for our online catalogue Visit our shop and see our extensive collection. Hawkridge Books, The Cruck Barn, Cross St, Castleton, Derbyshire S33 8WH. Tel: 01433 621999. Email: books@hawkridge.co.uk. Web: www.hawkridge.co.uk BACK NUMBERS of bird and natural history periodicals. Free catalogue from D. & D. H. W. Morgan, The Pippins, Allensmore, Hereford HR2 9BP. E-mail: stjamestree@uk2.net, www.birdjoumals.com Birdwatching Holidays colLpf the Wll6 Irexclusive wildlife holidays / cion ttie Beautiful heBRidean ■ islands of coll & tmee y Simon 01879 230402 )/ 3 www.collofthewiL6.co.uk MADEIRA WIND BIRDS - Selvagens Islands Expeditions, Madeira Land and Sea Birdwatching, www.madeirawindbirds.com and www.madeirabirds.com New SMS News Service Free Trial Online also Pagers & Internet News www.rarebirdalert.co.uk Read the News First Optical Equipment Binoculars & Telescopes Top Makes , Top Models, Top Advice, Top Deals, Part Exchange Show Room Sales 01925 730399 FOCALPOINT w w w.fpoint .co .uk Credit/debit cards accepted Gliding trips NORFOLK GLIDING CLUB, TIBENHAM. Fly like a bird over the Norfolk countryside from £90. 01379 677207. Gift vouchers 01508 579131. C . 240 SPECIES '"TAaforgeT-Mbte ( " INCLUDING SEA — Eagles WjT Spectacular Coastal scenery SKYE Unforgettable THE ISLAND & LOCHALSH ^ mm BIRDWATCHING www.skye.co.uk See the cutest face of POLAND Join our wildlife tours, linked with low fare to Warsaw & www. bird tel. +48 12 2921460 Polish BIRD SERVICE touroperator since 1990 nhbs Environment Wildlife I Science I Conservation New at NHBS Here is a small selection of new birding titles available from NHBS Environment Bookstore - suppl most comprehensive and up-to-date range of birding titles around - to view our full catalogue pleas website at www.nhbs.com. A selection of equipment for birders is also now available from our website, including: Nest Box Cai one of which is shown here, and the RemememBird device, the first digital audio recorder to have! signed by a birder, for birders; we will continue to expand our range of birding equipment througho 5 COLLINS BIRDS “PREY A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds □ Collins Birds of Prey B Gensbol The most complete guide to the 49 species of bird of prey found in Europe. Every species has a comprehensive descriptive entry, with the most up-to- date information on population, distribu- tion, status, behaviour, habitat, voice, breeding biology, food and hunting techniques. Hbk I Edition 2 | 2008 | £29.99 | #161721 □ Where to Watch Birds in Southern and Western Spain Andalucia, Extremadura and Gibraltar E Garcia <£ A Paterson Southern Iberia in Spain is one of the top ranked European birding hot spots. The third edition of this popular book, first pub- lished in 1994, continues to ensure that visitors can make the most of the region's many attractions. Pbk | Edition 3 \ 2008 | £16.99 | #162621 □ Dragonflies New Naturalist #1 06 Philip Corbet and Stephen Brooks In this seminal new work, Corbet and Brooks examine the behaviour, ecology and distribution of dragonflies in Britain and Ireland, placing emphasis on the insects' habitats and on measures needed to conserve them. Pbk | Jun 2008 | £24.00 £17.99 | #137638 Hbk | Jun 2008 | £44.99 £34.99 | #137637 (Offer valid until 31/08/2008) □ A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds B Huntley & R Green et al A comprehensive exploration of the relationships between the distributions of birds breeding in Europe and the present climate, and how future cli- matic change may alter each species’ potential breeding distribution. Hbk I 2007 | £40.00 | #172768 Guia clc Campo North West England & the Isle of Man The Birds of Zambia npo: Av£ Brasil Oriental / Birds! Eastern Brazil Tomas Sigrist A much-needed field guide t of Eastern Brazil. For each name is given in Portuguese and Latin, along with size, di maps, habitat keys and statu Pbk | 2007 I £34.99 I #1730 □ Where to Watch Bi North West England Alan Conlin, Chris Sharpe et > A guide to the best birding si northwestern counties of Cu Lancashire and Cheshire. E; described in terms of habitat! access and timing, and the v illustrated throughout with lir and maps of each site. Pbk I Edition 3 I 2008 I £16.9S □ The Birds of Scotl Edited by R Forrester & I An et al Two full-colour A4 hardback in a slip case. Illustrated wi' than 900 first-class photogrc 1,500 charts, maps and tabl landmark publication is a m«t ryone with an interest in Scd Hbk I 2008 I £75.00 I #1685 □ The Birds of Zamt An Atlas and Handbook j R J Dowsett & D R Aspinw 8 This handbook presents de I accounts of the more than ' species known in Zambia. I present a clear picture of diH and detailed text complemes Also available at NHBS: ThB Malawi - An Atlas and Han/pc Pbk | 2008 I £29.99 I #172! Find over 100,000 wildlife, science and conservation titles at www.nhbs.co WWW. n h bs.com The most comprehensive range of natural history titles on earth 2-3 Wills Rd. Totnes. Devon TQ9 5XN, UK I Fax 01803 865280 | Tel 01803 865913 | customer-services^ e: ivironment Bookstore has an extensive range of field and travel guides available for any travelling birder. To se ange of titles visit our website, www.nhbs.com and click Browse oy Geozone on our homepage. ding Equipment ] 30 X ox Camera Kit: Wired, with IR I ture >i selling kit provides eve- ..jdu need to start watching ootage in minutes. g quality bird box with ;:at sliding drawer and quick i« amera bracket. I'djuality, high resolution Col- ' C camera with built in Infra tiination enabling viewing a day. il microphone to hear as well as see what’s going on * ■ Bird Box. n professional cable. Simply attach your camera to the r ded connectors at one end and plug straight into your ; tl other. It couldn't be easier! djustable focus lenses, 12v Regulated Mains adaptor, scart adapter & metal protecter plates to deter predators. Camera Kit: Colour, wired, IR E Camera Kit: B & W, wired, IR I £169.99 £119.99 I #171672 #171671 I neral atch d People: Bonds in a Timeless Journey #170740 £29.99 hbk iraoe#wing #166386 £39.99 hbk lirds of the World #160648 £24.99 hbk able Birds #161729 £17.99 hbk ak of the Birds of the World. Volume 12: Picathartes to Tits j idess #38603 £1 45.00 hbk | dWindfarms #151257 £23.99 hbk .. fi-rom Birding (Wildlife Art Series 15) #169828 £37.99 hbk fe rds: Nature Art and History #172481 £33.99 hbk Inents Checklist of the Birds of the World #167912 £39.99 hbk tssctu ■ssis i’ifl if Sc* Iwatching ■=::4i ftT ■ J3 Watch Birds in Britain #120341 ft ie a Bad Birdwatcher #162947 ) Watch Birds in World Cities #154814 her's Yearbook and Diary 2008 #169193 : ff Pocket Logbook #170075 J'ds Yearbook 2008 #169718 :;;:+wlowto Identify Birds #38713 CWies to Go Birding Before You Die #169746 ':Jj3irding in the Fast Lane #157718 .•f, t in iouth-East China #162234 s Colour #169880 £19.99 pbk £7.99 pbk £16.99 pbk £16.75 hbk £8.50 hbk £18.95 pbk £12.99 pbk £14.95 hbk £9.99 pbk £29.50 pbk £12.99 pbk Seabirds, Shorebirds and Wildfowl □ Field Guide to the Albatrosses, Petrels and Shearwaters of the Wo #66425 £19.99 pi □ Shorebirds #146385 £49.50 hi □ Flight Identification of European Seabirds #166387 £24.99 pi □ Peterson Reference: Gulls of the Americas #168787 £24.50 hi □ Field Guide to New Zealand Seabirds #162575 £12.99 pi □ Waterbird Population Estimates #157616 £25.00 pi UK and Europe □ Essential Guide to Birds of the Isle of Scilly #170911 £44.99 hi □ Philip’s Guide to Birds of Britain and Europe #165691 £9.99 pi □ Birds of the Palearctic - Passerines #128714 £25.00 hi □ Birds of Argyll #173329 £49.99 hi □ The Birds of Gwent #167901 £39.99 hi □ New Naturalist #104: A History of Ornithology #151698 £24.99 pi □ New Naturalist #104: A History of Ornithology #151697 £44.99 hi □ Wld Mynd #170173 £1 4.99 pi □ Skomer: Portrait of a Welsh Island #166943 £14.99 pi Rest of the World □ Collins Field Guide: Birds of the Palearctic - Passerines #128714 □ Birds of Trinidad and Tobago #166395 □ Field Guide to Birds of E Africa #151078 □ Field Guide to the Birds of W Africa #146211 □ A Photographic Guide to Birds of Japan #161077 □ All the Birds of Brazil #151692 □ Roberts Bird Guide. Comprehensive Field Guide to Over Species in Southern Africa #164925 □ Where to Watch Birds in New Zealand #170608 □ Birds of Northern South America, Volume 1&2 #156090 □ Field Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica #162622 □ A Field Guide to the Birds of China #101745 □ Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka #83310 □ The Birds of Kazakhstan #167774 □ Birds in Europe #150394 □ Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand #156936 □ Guide to the Birds of China inc. Hong Kong #167068 £25.00 ht £19.99 pt £24.99 pt £29.99 pt £24.99 pt £29.95 pt 950 Bird £17.99 pt £12.99 pt £85.00 pt £19.99 pt £39.95 pt £39.95 pt £44.99 ht £30.00 ht £29.50 pt £7.99 pt Bird Sounds & DVDs □ The Sound Approach to Birding #163551 £29.95 hbk+C □ The Birds of Britain and Europe, 6-DVD Set #146254 £35.19 DV □ Bird Sounds of Madagascar #172547 £9.95 C □ The Art of Pishing #164822 £11 .50 pbk+C □ Birding in Spain #160634 £12.95 DV □ BWPi 2.0:Birds of the Western Palearctic Interactive #164224 £139.00 DVD-ROI □ BBi (British Birds Interactive) 1907-2007 #169546 £98.99 DVD-ROI □ The Life of Birds #164230 £19.95 DV General Wildlife der via this form, phone, fax, email or online ervice postage & packing charges s up to (tom £5 £10 £30 £45 £65 £100 +£100 DVD CD £1.99 £1.99 £1.99 £2.99 £4.99 £7.50 £7.50 £1.99 £1.99 £1.99 £4.00 £5.00 £6.50 £8.50 £10.50 11% £1.50 £1.50 £2.00 £4.50 £6.00 £7.00 £10.00 16% 16% £2.00 £2.00 ^ □ Watching British Dragonflies #118377 £27.50 pt □ Freshwater Life of Britain and Northern Europe #158058 £19.99 pt □ Insects of Britain and Western Europe #149256 £14.99 pt □ Concise Guide to Moths of Britain and Ireland #167130 £12.95 pt □ Where to Watch Mammals in Britain and Ireland #149288 £16.99 pt : 1 i heques payable to NHBS Ltd. Payment can also be made in US$ & Euro, please contact customer services for details, i e normally dispatched promptly from stock, but please allow up to 21 days for delivery in the UK, longer if abroad. Note that prices I :t to change. Address. i ie E-mail. i Der No Telephone. i ;ign here Goods total £. P&P total £ Total £ w debit my Visa/Mastercard/Maestro/AMEX |__ | _ j _ j b! o - Start date | | | / | | | Issue No | j | J j Expiry date | | | / AMEX - Start date |_|_| / |_|_| Code|_ j_J J Kay Optical (1962) UNRIVALLED EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE AND SERVICE • Sales & Repairs • Binoculars • Telescopes • Tripods, etc www.kayoptical.co.uk and wwrw.bigbinoculars.co.uk • Mail order • Same day despatch • Part exchange 89(B) London Rood, Morden, Surrey SM4 5HP 1 Tel: 020 8648 8822 Fax: 020 8687 2021 :g:r; Email: info@kayopticol.co.uk Open: Mon-Sat 9-5 (lunch 1-2) Location: Southern edge of Greater London. 15 mins drive from M25. (for example via the A3, then toke the A298 Wimbledon/Merton slip-road) or 2 mins walk from Morden underground (turn right). See our website for a map Parking: 50 yards post our premises - first left Th i izA r\ Alternative venues to Morden at which you an try and buy our equipment V ICICI in the field are given below. We aim to show our full range of equipment rinuc but us t0 Mp you if you us know your interests before each Field Day. Repairs an also be handed in/collected. 1 0.00am to 4.00pm usually. Sevenoaks Wildfowl Reserve On the A25 between Riverhead and Sevenoaks - Bot and Boll Station 1 June, 6 July, 3 August, 7 Sept Pagham Harbour LNR On the B2145 into Selsey, West Sussex 25 May, 29 June College Lake Wildlife Centre On the B488 near Bulboume, Tring, Herts. 8 June, 10 August Dinton Pastures Country Park Near Reading (M4. A329(M) Woodley turnoff) then A329 to Winnersh ond Winnersh Station 1 1 May, 1 3 July Bough Beech Nature Reserve/ Reservoir About 4 miles south ol the A25/A21 junction (access from B2042 or B2027) neor Ide Hill, Kent. Info centre north of reservoir. 1 8 May, 22 June, 20 July, 17 August Canon, Helios, Kowa, Leica, Manfrotto, Miyauchi, Nikon, Opticron, Optolyth, Sentinel, Swarovski, Zeiss, etc. Used items also on our web site. For subsequent Field Day dates, phone or see our website REPAIRS & SERVICING OF BINOCULARS & TELESCOPE! by Optrep Optical Repair www.opticalrepairs.com 01243 601365 E-mail: info@opticalrepairs.com Optrep (Ref: BB), 16 Wheatfield Road, Selsey, West Sussex PO20 ONY (5 minutes from Pagham HLNR) WANTED! For the Travel Trade Marketing • Tour Leaders • Website and IT Manager Manager Full-timers to combine tour-leading and office-based product and operation tasks. Birders, botanists and particularly all-round naturalists sought to fill the above posts. Meticulous attention to detail, accuracy, common sense good literacy, numeracy, telephone skills and love of harj work are amongst the many skills required. Fun-loving, outgoing and personable character essential Please post typed CV and accompanying hand-written I letter to: Naturetrek, Cheriton Mill, Arlesforc Leica Binoculars See web for full range Uttravid 8x32 BR • Compasses, GPS, Dlgiscoplng Diascope 85 TF L: Uttravid 8x42 BR Uttravid 10x42 BR Uttravid HD 8x42 £979 £1059 20-60 Zoom, case £1359 Accessories, Magnifiers also in Diascope 65 TF L: with 15-45 Zoom, Case £1039 Uttravid HD 10x42 £1420 Uttravid HD 8x32 £1217 Uttravid HD 7x42 £1280 Swarovski Binoculars Leica Scopes Digiscoping Cameras in Stock APO Televid 77 20-60 Zoom, case APO Televid 62 1648 Zoom, case Digital Adapter 2 £1495 £1129 e.g. Nikon P5100 + Leica D-Lux 10x42 EL Swarovski Scopes Swarovski ATS 80 HD. « Swarovski ATS 65 HD, i All in stock - call for bes • All prices are subject to change please check website for details Nikon Nikon Coolpix P5100 Nikon D80 body £1563 £1233 Nikon D300 body South West Optics 22a River Street Truro Cornwall UK TR1 2SJ 01872 263444 sales@swoptics.com OPTIC w Accessories Zeiss Rainguard Leica Rainguard Op Tech Neck Strap Op Tech Tripod Strap Car Window Mount Manfrotto Hide Mount Calotherm Cleaning cloths, sprays Opticron Binoculars 8x40 Aspheric WA Porro 8x42 Countryman Oasis 10x42 Countryman Oasis 8x42 Imagic BGA - Special 10x42 Imagic TGA 8x42 Verano Oasis 8x20 Gallery Mono Scope Opticron Binoculars 8x42 BGA SE - New 10x42 BGA SE - New 8x32 BGA SE - New 8x42 DBA 10x42 DBA 8x42 DBA Monocular 8x42 BGA Monocular Tripods Velbon Carbon Fibre 635-157 Head £179 Velbon Carbon Fibre 535 - 157 Head £159 Velbon CX586 £59.99 Velbon UP4000 Monopod £19.99 Manfrotto VIEW Tripods from £129 SLIKD3 £119 Wde range VeLbon and Manfrotto in stock. Zeiss Binoculars 8x32 T* FL LT 7x42 T* FL LT 8x42 T FL LT 10x42 TFLLT Green or Black available 8x40 Conquest 10x40 Conquest Opticron Scopes ES80ED. 20-60 Zoom HDF, Case GS665 ED, Zoom, Case Mighty Midget 2 with 15-40 Zoom NEW SDL Super Zoom GS665, HDF Zoom, Case ES80 SD, Zoom, HDF, Case Over 800 Products Available www.swoptics.co.uk Secure Online Ordering Quality Second Hand Stock Regularly Available Next Day Delivery on orders placed before midday Wickham Warsash Fareham Titchfield Titchfield Haven • Stubbington ra Lee-on-the-Solent 'iiuirr MULTIPLH Optics Weekend at Titchfield Haven Nature reserve Saturday 3 1 st May and Sunday 1 st June Come and meet the representatives from the leading optical suppliers to join us on SATURDAY 3 1 st MAY. This will be an ideal opportunity to try and buy the latest optical products from Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss, Opticron and Kowa. SHOW ONLY DEALS Open 9.30am to 5.00pm If you wish to see a particular product, please call before making a special journey! As you have come to expect, we will have some stunning "show only deals" running throughout the whole weekend. london camera exchange 15 The Square Winchester S023 9ES 01962 866203 winchester@LCEgroup.co.uk Moments to savour Low weight, with fully rubberised armouring and exceptional ergonomics - these are the striking features of the ATS and STS 80 and 65 telescopes, which are immediately noticeable at first sight. Excellent high-contrast edge-to-edge images with a wide field of view, total colour fidelity and sensational close-up focussing are amongst their inherent values. The concept of the optic is also impressive with compact design and identical magnification of the eyepieces regardless of the body. Swarovski Optik’s observation telescopes are crowned to perfection with a simple, noiseless movement, thanks to the easy to use focussing system. SWARC OPT Swarovski U.K. LTD., Perrywood Business Park, Salfords, Surrey RHi sJO.Tel. 01737-856812, Fax 01737-856885 www.swarovs 1 8 JUN 2008 June 2008 • Vol.lOI • 275-338 Rare breeding birds in the UK 2005 Magnificent Frigatebird in Shropshire British Birds Established 1907, incorporating The Zoologist, established 1843 Published by BB 2000 Limited, trading as ‘British Birds’ Registered Office: 4 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8SF British Birds is owned and published by BB 2000 Limited, the directors of which are John Eyre (Chairman), Jeremy Greenwood, Ian Packer, Adrian Pitches, Richard Porter and Bob Scott. BB2000 Limited is wholly owned by The British Birds Charitable Trust (registered charity No. 1089422), whose trustees are Richard Chandler, Jeremy Greenwood, Peter Oliver and Bob Scott. British Birds aims to be the leading journal for the modern birder in the Western Palearctic We aim to: «J» provide a forum for contributions of interest to all birdwatchers in the Western Palearctic; publish material on behaviour, conservation, distribution, ecology, identification, movements, status and taxonomy; embrace new ideas and research; ♦> maintain our position as the respected journal of record; and •> interpret good scientific research on birds for the interested non-scientist. British Birds Notes Panel Editor Roger Riddington Will Cresswell, Ian Dawson, Jim Flegg, Ian Newton FRS, Assistant Editors Caroline Dudley 8c Peter Kennerley Malcolm Ogilvie, Angela Turner (Co-ordinator) Editorial Board Dawn Balmer, Ian Carter, Richard Chandler, Martin Collinson, Chris Kehoe, Annual subscription rates Robin Prytherch, Nigel Redman, Libraries and agencies - £89.00 Roger Riddington, Steve Votier Individual subscriptions: UK - £48.00 Art Consultants Robert Gillmor 8c Alan Harris Overseas surface mail - £54.50 Photographic Consultants Robin Chittenden & David Tipling Back issues Rarities Committee Single back issues - £6.50 Available from British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Chairman Adam Rowlands . Secretary Nigel Hudson Rarities Issue - £12 (available as above) Please make all cheques payable to British Birds Chris Batty, Chris Bradshaw, Phil Bristow, Lance Degnan, Paul French, Martin Garner, James Lidster, Guidelines for contributors Mike Pennington, Brian Small, John Sweeney Full details are available on the BB website. www.britishbirds.co.uk EDITORIAL CIRCULATION Spindrift, Eastshore, & PRODUCTION Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS 4 Harlequin Gardens, Tel: 01950 460080 St Leonards on Sea, Papers, notes, letters, illustrations, etc. East Sussex TN37 7PF Roger Riddington Tel 8t fax: 01424 755155 E-mail: editor@britishbirds.co.uk ‘News 8c comment’ information Design & Production Mark Corliss E-mail: m.corliss@netmatters.co.uk Adrian Pitches, 22 Dene Road, Tynemouth, Tyne & Wear NE30 2JW E-mail: adrianpitches@blueyonder.co.uk Subscriptions & Administration Rarity descriptions Hazel Jenner Nigel Hudson, Post Office Flat, E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk St Mary’s, Scilly TR21 OLL E-mail: secretary@bbrc.org.uk Printed by Hastings Printing Company Ltd ADVERTISING: for all advertising matters, please contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd, B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550 Fax: 020 8881 0990 1 E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Front-cover photograph: Male Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata , Dorset. David Tipling Qfm> , msr 'inner irk hard to keep our MATCH or BEAT ai ?s competetive & will be in this magazine W PROMINAR TSN-880 AND TSN-770 UK Mail Order Next Day Delivery Postage & Insurance £8 for most items. E.&O.E. All prices quoted include VAT@17.5%. Prices subject to change. All goods subject to availability. The No.1 choice for in Hampshire Price Promise We both parPStchange I and buy qualitfl5£|uiprnent Conditions apply. iftstSipr details. < Open 9am-5.30pm Mon-Sat. please check availability before making a special journey. TSN-883 or 884 with 20-60x Zoom RRP £1996.18 OUR PRICE TSN 773 or 774 with 20-60x Zoom RRP £1726.95 OUR PRICE superior adj. greater in quality, quantity, or merit; higher in position or rank. london camera exchange 15 The Square Winchester S023 9ES 01962 866203 winchester@LCEgroup.co.uk Don’t miss our Bargain selection for 2008 Argentina - Andes 10 days - £1,890 Departs 7 Jan, 25 Feb, 7 Apr. 28 Jul, I Dec Argentina - Chaco 10 days- £1,890 Departs 14 Jan, 3 Mar, 14 Apr, 4 Aug, 8 Dec Australia - Endemics of WA 12 days - £2,250 Departs 12, 26 Sep Australia - Queensland 13 days - £2,590 Departs II Nov Bolivia - Lowlands 10 days- £1,395 Departs 10 Feb, 9 Nov Bolivia - Highlands 12 days - £1,595 Departs 17 Feb, 16 Nov Botswana 10 days - £1,695 Departs 14 Nov Brazil 10 days - £1,495 Departs 7 Mar, 19 Sep Cuba 12 days - £1.790 Departs 8 Mar Ecuador - Choco 9 days - £1,350 Departs 22 Nov Ecuador - Tumbesian Endemics 9 days - £1,395 Departs 7 Sep Ecuador - Cock-of- the-Rocl< 9 days - from £1,250 Departs 15 Jan, 9 Feb, 15 Mar, 21 Aug, 18 Oct, 15 Nov Ethiopia 10 days - from £1,295 Departs 8 Feb, 21 Mar, 7 Nov. 19 Dec Ethiopian Endemics 10 days- £1,295 Departs 15 Feb, II Apr, 14 Nov Florida 9 days - £1,590 Departs 18 Feb Gambia 12 days- £1,190 Departs 7 Nov India - Birds & Mammals 9 days - £1,350 Departs I, 15 Feb, 4 Apr, 14 Nov India - Bharatpur & Chambal 9 days - from £1,295 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 27 Dec India - Corbett Country 9 days- £1,250 Departs 26 Jan, 22 Nov India - Endemic Birds of Annamalai 9 days- £1,195 Departs 2 Feb, 22 Nov India - Family Tour Spices & Elephants 9 days - from £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Temples & Wildlife 9 days - £1,525 Departs 9 Feb, 5 Apr, 18 Oct, 27 Dec India - Family Tour Tigers & Forts 9 days - £1,345 Departs 9, 16 Feb, 25 Oct India - Goa 9 days- £1,195 Departs 14 Nov India - International Animal Rescue 10 days- £1,550 Departs 15 Feb, 14 Nov India - Kerala’s National Parks & Backwaters 9 days - £1,350 Departs I Mar, 15 Nov India - Southern India’s Endemics 12 days - from £1,550 Departs 8 Mar, 15 Nov, 20 Dec India - Wildlife & Cuisine 9 days- £1,295 Departs 9, 16, 23 Feb, 8 Mar, 8 Nov, 27 Dec Kazakhstan 9 days - £1,595 Departs 8, 16th May Kenya 10 days - £1,595 Departs 7 Nov Malawi 10 days - £1,595 Departs 3 Feb, 6 Apr Nepal 10 days - from £1,495 Departs 2, 9th Feb, 29 Mar, 20 Dec Nepal - A Very Special Offer! 10 days - £1,295 Departs 26 Jan, 16 Feb, 3 May Nepal - Ibisbill Trek 10 days - £1,495 Departs 10 May Panama - Canopy Tower 9 days - £1,595 Departs 16, 23 Apr, 12 Nov South Africa 10 days- £1,550 Departs 8 Feb, 28 Mar, 5 Sep South Africa’s Cape 10 days - £1,495 Departs 14 Mar, 22 Aug South Africa - Zululand 10 days - £1,595 Departs 16 Feb, 5 Apr, Uganda 9 days - £1,395 Departs 6 Mar, 30 Oct Venezuela - Off the Beaten Track 9 days - £1,350 Departs 16 Feb, I Nov Venezuela - Andean Endemics 9 days - £1,495 Departs 2 Feb, 15 Nov Venezuela - Llanos 9 days - £1,495 Departs 9 Feb, 25 Oct, 8 Nov Zambia 9 days - from £1,550 Departs 18 Feb, 10 Nov, 19 Dec Southern Morocco 10 days - from £1,195 Departs 8 Feb, 14 Mar, Sri Lanka 10 days - £1,495 Departs 16 Feb, 8 Nov Thailand 10 days - £1,590 Departs IS Feb, 14 Nov For our New Brochure call 01962 733051 or visit our Website x naturetrek.co.uk NATURETREK CHERITON MILL, CHERITON, ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE S024 ONG E-mail: info@naturetrek.co.uk =§C"i!= I AT A ’3 li THE BRITISH BIRDWATCHING FAIR Don't miss Birdfair 2008 • Special evening guest celebrity lecture by Sir David Attenborough. • Guest appearances at the fair by famous wildlife personalities Bill Oddie, Chris Packham, Mike Dilger and Simon King. • Hundreds of stands offering everything from binoculars to holidays. • You simply pay to enter, then all the entertainments at the fair are free - lectures, quizzes, events, fun and games for the children. • Enjoy wonderful birdwatching in the beautiful countryside on the shores of Rutland Water. • Special reduced price for RSPB and WT members on Sunday - only £8. Anglian Water Birdwatching Centre, Egleton Nature Reserve, Rutland Water Friday 15 to Sunday 17 August 2008 9 am-5.30 pm daily. Adults £10, children FREE Birdfair Office, Fishponds Cottage, Hambleton Road, Oakham, Rutland LEI 5 SAB, UK Tel: 01572 771079 E-mail: info@birdfair.org.uk Joint main sponsors Also sponsored by in focus MINOX Wildlife ^ 4 PENTAX ■ OLYMPUS Neturetrek. Wf malt „ v,.JWe SWA?9YSKI Nikon wddsounds 4 Bushnell i/uuiiiiuii All Dfofits will be donsreo by Leicestershire Wildlife Seles to BirdLife International. Leicestershire Wildlife Sales is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LRWT. The RSP8. BirdUfe International and LRWT are UK registered charities. For more information, please visit WWW.bilaclfaila.OIaC).llk Velbon CX586 Velbon UP4000 Monopod Manfrotto VIEW Tripods from SLIK D3 Wide range Velbon and Manfrotto £59.99 £19.99 £129 £119 stock. Opticron Scopes ES80ED, 20-60 Zoom HDF, Case GS665 ED, Zoom, Case Mighty Midget 2 with 15-40 Zoom NEW SDL Super Zoom GS665, HDF Zoom, Case ES80 SD. Zoom, HDF, Case £1359 £1059 £1350 £1039 £1420 £1217 £1280 £1495 £1129 £1563 £1233 www.swoptics.co.uk IPTICS 01872 263444 Opticron Binoculars 8x40 Aspheric WA Porro 8x42 Countryman Oasis 10x42 Countryman Oasis 8x42 Imagic BGA - Special 10x42 Imagic TGA 8x42 Verano Oasis 8x20_Gallery Mono Scope Opticron Binoculars 8x42 BGA SE - New 10x42 BGA SE- New 8x32 BGA SE - New 8x42 DBA 10x42 DBA 8x42 DBA Monocular 8x42 BGA Monocular Zeiss Binoculars 8x32 T* FL LT 7x42 T* FL LT 8x42 T FL LT 10x42 T FL LT Green or Black available 8x40 Conquest 10x40 Conquest Leica Binoculars Ultravid 8x32 BR Ultravid 8x42 BR Ultravid 10x42 BR Ultravid HD 8x42 Ultravid HD 10x42 Ultravid HD 8x32 Ultravid HD 7x42 Swarovski Binoculars 8x32 EL 8.5x42 EL 10x42 EL Swarovski Scopes Swarovski ATS 80 HD. case, zoom Swarovski ATS 65 HD, case zoom All in stock - call for best price Leica Scopes APO Televid 77 20-60 Zoom, case APO Televid 62 16-48 Zoom, case Digital Adapter 2 Nikon Nikon Coolpix P5100 Nikon D80 body Nikon D300 body Accessories B Zeiss Rainguard £10.99 Leica Rainguard £15.99 Op Tech Neck Strap £10.99 Op Tech Tripod Strap £19.99 Car Window Mount £42 Manfrotto Hide Mount £49 k Calotherm Cleaning cloths, sprays. Tripods Velbon Carbon Fibre 635 - 157 Head £179 Velbon Carbon Fibre 535 - 157 Head £159 Zeiss Scopes See web for full range Diascope 85 TF L. 20-60 Zoom, case Diascope 65 TF L with 15-45 Zoom. Case DC4 Eyepiece Over 800 Products Available Online www.swoptics.co.uk Secure Online Ordering Quality Second Hand Stock Regularly Available Compasses, GPS, Digiscoping Accessories, Magnifiers also in stock Next Day Delivery on orders placed before midday Digiscoping Cameras in Stock e.g. Nikon P5100 + Leica D-Lux 3 All prices are subject to change - please check website for details tWest Optics Ijver Street Truro Cornwall UK TR1 2SJ 01872 263444 sales@swoptics.com I ICS "Scanning for seabirds can result in many hours with my binocul; to my eyes. The wrong optics can cause severe eye-strain and in job I can't afford to use anything but the best". SIMON KING, Wildlife Film-Maker. Simon is using Zeiss Victory FL binoculars with a unique coating system, precision glass and a light weight, which makes them ideal for prolonged use. These are the unbeatable benefits supplied by Victory FL Binoculars and their special objective lenses with fluoride glass (FL). For more information, please telephone: 01707 871 350 or visit www.zeiss.co.uk. Zeiss 8 x 32 T* FL Zeiss 10 x 32 T* FL We make British Birds vUU V ^iO t W* '• 8 v ' '*■•' ' ^ 8 JUN 2008 Volume 101 • Number 6 • June 2008 276 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Mark Holling and the Rare Breeding Birds Panel 3 1 7 Magnificent Frigatebird in Shropshire: new to Britain Richard Bradbury, Mark Eaton, Chris Bowden and Mike Jordan Regular features 322 Letters A Kermadec Petrel, taxidermists, and judging ancient records Pete Combridge Lammergeiers again Christopher Carter Interoceanic ballistic jaegers W. R. P. Bourne 326 Notes White-tailed Eagle catching Greylag Goose Martin and Liz Izzard, Jean and John Yeoman Peregrine Falcon egg breakage Simon S. King Peregrine Falcons feeding Common Kestrel chicks Phil Johnson Moorhens building nest of goose feathers /. Frank Walsh Courtship feeding by Black-winged Pratincoles Peter Kennerley Blackbirds eating fuchsia seed pods and flowers John Stewart-Smith 329 Reviews A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds Birds The Birds of Lancashire and North Merseyside Nature’s Engraver: a life of Thomas Bewick Birds ofTiree and Coll 332 News and comment Adrian Pitches 335 Recent reports Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey © British Birds 2008 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Mark Holling and the Rare Breeding Birds Panel This, the thirty-second report of the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (RBBP), presents details of the status of the rarest breeding birds in the UK in 2005. The Panel The current membership of the Panel (June 2008) is Humphrey Crick, Mark Eaton, Ian Francis, David Norman, Judith Smith, David Stroud and Mark Holling (Secretary). Ken Smith retired from the Panel in November 2007 after 15 years of service, the last 14 as Chairman. On his watch as the Panel’s longest- serving Chairman, he oversaw the transition from a wholly paper-based archive to the com- puter database now in use, this having greatly enhanced the ability to use RBBP data to support conservation. Ken was a great ambas- sador for the work of the Panel and gave con- siderable support to its members. We are deeply grateful for all his hard work to promote the recording of rare breeding birds in the UK and wish him well in his retirement. Indeed, it will be a retirement, as Ken has also retired from the RSPB recently, leaving him more time for active fieldwork! Mark Eaton, a Research Biologist with RSPB, has replaced Ken, while the Chairman of the Panel is now David Stroud. The individual members of the Panel serve in a personal capacity, but four members also reflect the inter- ests and requirements of both sponsoring bodies, as well as the BTO and the Association of County Recorders and Editors. The Panel’s work is supported financially by JNCC (on behalf of the country conservation agencies) and the RSPB, with additional support from BTO. Future reporting plans In the 12 months since the Panel’s last report, which covered 2003 and 2004 (Holling et al. 2007a), a review of rare non-native breeding birds in the UK, covering 2003-05, has also been published (Holling et al. 2007b). The current report thus brings our reporting in step, but still somewhat behind the planned schedule. Ultimately, it is our intention to publish the main annual report in the spring or early summer two years after the breeding season being reported upon. This allows important data on rare breeding species to be available for conservation sooner and signifi- cant trends to be recognised earlier. To achieve this, work is already underway com- piling and analysing data for the 2006 report, which we aim to publish in BB early in 2009, followed by the 2007 report in the latter half , of 2009. We then aim to publish the 2008 report, on schedule, in spring or summer 2010. Through the more efficient use of com- puter databases and e-mail, many recorders can now submit data to the Panel rather sooner than hitherto, but it is recognised that this timescale might create some difficulties for recording areas that have not been able to take full advantage of modern technology, and for areas where the recorder operates with little or no support. One of the most sig- nificant delays is that of receiving informa- tion from the original observers. All those who report rare breeding birds are therefore t encouraged to supply their information to I local recorders as soon as possible after the end of the breeding season, rather than waiting until the end of the year or even later. The Panel is also investing time and effort in updating its computer systems and will be implementing new procedures for data collec- tion that should make it easier for recorders to submit records electronically. 276 © British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Data sources Records are collated from the whole of the UK, including the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, but not the Channel Islands. Most of the infor- mation presented in this report is submitted by the county and regional bird recorders and we are extremely grateful for their support. We ask that recorders provide detailed submissions for all species on the RBBP list in their area; guide- lines are available on the Panel’s website (www.rbbp.org.uk). Summaries from county bird reports, although welcome as they help to build the national picture, cannot provide the same level of detail and, in particular, are of less use in an archival context. The RBBP’s (confidential) archive, maintained since 1973, is the only national source of data for many species and sites; it contains full details of sites and the number of pairs of each species at each site, and permits duplicate data to be identified. The Panel’s data are thus robust and reliable, and of significant value for conservation. We also receive information from a number of other sources, some of which provide data not otherwise available easily. These include returns from Schedule 1 licence holders. Raptor Study Group records, counts from RSPB and other nature reserves, and a wide range of different single- species studies (see Acknowledgments). These data must all be matched with those from the recorder network to iden- tify and remove duplicates, allowing the most accurate available figures to be compiled for this report. Data from earlier years, for any species and/or area, which have not pre- viously been submitted to the Panel are always most welcome and will be added to the archive. Indeed, we have begun a process to try and identify and fill gaps in our historical knowledge, and species totals will be updated as these data are archived progressively. Greater London, Northamptonshire and West Midlands). Data were available for all Welsh vice-counties, although for five recording areas (Glamorgan, Gower, Meirionnydd, Mont- gomery and Radnor) the only information was from the necessarily concise summaries in the Welsh Bird Report (Green et al. 2007), which reduces the completeness of the Welsh record for 2005. All areas in Scotland submitted full returns or copies of their local report and full submissions were also received for Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Coverage In 2005, coverage improved further and reached record levels, with some data available from all counties and regions. Only four English counties did not supply detailed submissions or copies of local bird reports to the Panel (Cornwall, Fig. I. Data submission to the Rare Breeding Birds Panel, 2005. This shows the level of detail provided to the Panel, by recording area. Large (red) dots indicate full submission for all species from county/regional recorder, with supplementary data from other sources where applicable; medium-size (green) dots indicate data extracted from local bird report for all species, with supplementary data from other sources where applicable; small (blue) dots indicate limited species coverage - data extracted from Schedule I licence returns, local Raptor Study Group reports or RSPB reserve logs only. British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 277 c Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 > The counties for which there are potential gaps in our knowledge are specified here so that the omission of this information can be taken into account in the analyses of the data pre- sented. A map showing a representation of the coverage in Britain in 2005 is shown in fig. 1. Data inclusion and Recording Standards There have been no changes to the acceptance criteria for records since the last report (Holling et al. 2007a). It is our policy to follow the opin- ions of the relevant local recorder, and records which have not been vetted in this way are pub- lished only in exceptional circumstances. Although all potential breeding records of species on the Panel’s list are welcomed, and will be archived, we will not normally publish records of birds which appear to be passing migrants. Similarly, spring records of wildfowl, such as pairs or males present at a site for less than a week early in the breeding season, and which appear not to indicate a breeding attempt, are excluded from the report. The Panel has now developed new guidance on recording standards, which we hope will aid collection of the most valuable information, and promote the submission of records. This is available from our website www.rbbp.org.uk, and copies will also be circulated with a future issue of BB. The presentation of species data in this report is similar to previous ones, but with three main changes to the format. Firstly, an attempt has been made to provide a broader context for some species, and European popula- tions and trends have been included. Secondly, summary tables showing statistics for the last ten years are no longer included, but summary totals for all species will be added to our website in due course. Lastly, the treatment of species which do not feature regularly in these reports, but for which records were received for the reporting year, has changed. If there was no apparent breeding attempt, these records are now summarised in an appendix. Changes to the RBBP list In 2005, the list of species considered remained unchanged. However, in a recent review, some changes were identified which will take effect from 2006 (see Brit. Birds 100: 760-761). Three species were added to the RBBP list (Shoveler Anas clypeata , Water Rail Rallus aquaticus and Hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes ) and 278 will feature for the first time in the 2006 report. The continued increase in numbers of Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti has resulted in its move to the ‘less scarce’ species category, whereby full site details are requested only for recording areas that have fewer than ten pairs; otherwise, ! : just an overall total should be submitted for that area. Further information on the rationale | ; behind these changes is available on our website, which also specifies the level of detail requested for each species. At the same time, four species were removed from the Panel’s list: Barn Owl Tyto alba, Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis, Crested Tit Lophophanes cristatus and , Common Crossbill Loxia curvirostra. These species were added to the RBBP’s list in 1996, together with all other species on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Environmental Protection Act ji 1990). Since then, however, data submitted to | the Panel have not generated robust statistics on their status in the UK. Common Kingfisher ; and Common Crossbill are both relatively common and widespread and are monitored by the BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey ji (BBS). The former is also monitored ade- J quately by the Waterways Breeding Bird Survey (WBBS) and there is now a specific Barn Owl Monitoring Programme run by the ji BTO. There is no regular monitoring pro- 1 gramme for Crested Tit, but very few Schedule 1 forms are submitted and the two county recorders who have this species in their areas ji receive little data which allow us to make any assessment of population size or even distri- I bution. Conservation uses of RBBP data It is our policy to make data available for relevant conservation uses, with appropriate ■ controls to ensure the safety of the birds and their breeding sites. Site-specific information is , used by JNCC and the country conservation i agencies, and national datasets by RSPB for survey planning. In the last 12 months, RBBP data have been used in the following projects: a complete inventory of breeding Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus and Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus records by RSPB; analysis of Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata records by BTO (to support the 2006 survey of that species); work on conservation of breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in northern British Birds 101 'June 2008 • 276-316 c Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 England. In addition, Panel data were used extensively in the annual publication The State of the UK’s Birds (e.g. Eaton et al. 2006), for conservation plans for Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia, Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus and Common Crane Grus grus and in a review of breeding Little Egret Egretta garzetta. ■ j The effect of climatic change on the populations of rare breeding birds The implications of climate change for conser- vation are enormous, and changes in the distri- butions of some bird species are already apparent. Huntley et al (2007) used climate models to predict the potential future distribu- tions of European birds; they suggested that, without vigorous and immediate action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, the future ranges of European bird species will, on average, shift by nearly 550 km to the northeast by the end of this century and will reduce in size by a fifth. Briefly, for species considered by the Panel, some may become more numerous in Britain and others may be lost from our breeding avifauna. Among those which may become more numerous, many already breed in the UK, including Honey-buzzard Pernis apivorus, Montagu’s Harrier, Hobby Falco subbuteo, Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius, Wood Lark Lullula arborea, Black Red- start Phoenicurus ochruros, Dartford Warbler, Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla and Golden Oriole Oriolus oriolus. Former or occasional breeders which may return or colonise are Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis, Hoopoe Upupa epops, Wryneck Jynx torquilla , Savi’s Warbler Locustella luscinioides , Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio and European Serin Serinus serinus. And there may be new colonists from the south: perhaps Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis , Rock Sparrow Petronia petronia, Rock Bunting Emberiza cia and Ortolan Bunting E. hortulana. However, there is a strong possibility that some species may suffer reduced distributions in the UK or be lost as breeding species: Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos , Osprey Pandion hali- aetus, Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima, Ruff Philomachus pugnax , Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus , Greenshank Tringa nebularia, Wood Sandpiper T. glareola, Red-necked Phalarope, Fieldfare Turdus pilaris. Redwing T. iliacus , Brambling Fringilla montifringilla, Scottish Crossbill Loxia scotica and Snow Bunting Plec- trophenax nivalis. Some of these are already scarce or only occasional breeders. Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus is expected to occur more to the north and west of its current distribution, vacating some southern sites. The Scottish race of Crested Tit Lophophanes cristatus scoticus may be lost from Scotland but southern England may be colonised by the continental race mitratus, which breeds in northern France. The theoretical ability of species to change dis- tributions pre-supposes the availability of suit- able habitat - a factor which is a major constraint in heavily fragmented European landscapes. RBBP data were used extensively in a recent statistical analysis (Green et al. in press) which examined the population trends of 42 rare breeding bird species, in the period 1980-2004, in relation to changes in climatic suitability simulated using the same climatic envelope models as Huntley et al. (2007). This demon- strated that the information on population trends for rare breeding birds is consistent with independent information derived from climatic modelling studies. Bird Atlas 2007-11 The breeding season of 2008 is the first to be covered by the current BTO/BirdWatch Ireland/SOC Bird Atlas project, which will map the distribution and relative abundance of birds in Britain & Ireland, in both summer and winter, from November 2007 to July 2011. Both previous breeding atlases have greatly enhanced our knowledge of the distribution and numbers of birds in these islands and atlas fieldwork presents an excellent opportu- nity to find new locations for rare breeders. We shall be working closely with the BTO to ensure that all data collected are included in our database, to enable the most accurate status to be determined for each species. In particular, we shall also be involved closely in the production of the maps for RBBP species so that the most accurate data available are employed, presented at the most appropriate scale in relation to the sensitivities of the species concerned. Mark Holling and David Stroud are members of the Atlas Working Group and Simon Gillings of the BTO will attend our meetings for the duration of the Atlas to ensure full collaboration between these recording projects. British Birds 101 "June 2008 • 276-316 279 c Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 > Review of the year 2005 January was the mildest since 1990 and con- tinued the trend of mild winters, although it was followed by a colder spell, from mid Feb- ruary to mid March. There were also unseason- ably cold spells in a changeable May and during the first half of lune, leading to some nest fail- ures owing to food shortages or chilling of young. However, midsummer saw a more extended warm spell, which may have helped some late-nesting species. This report includes details of 79 species breeding or showing indications of breeding in 2005, with a further seven species noted in Appendix 1. The number of Gadwalls Anas strepera reported to the Panel was similar to the total for 2004, and again indicates that this species is now more abundant than previously thought. In comparison, Pintails A. acuta continued to occur only in low numbers, although breeding sites were widely distributed, from Kent to Orkney and Gwent to Argyll. Having added Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus to the Panel’s list with effect from 2003, it is pleasing to provide more information than previously and to report the hint of a popula- tion recovery. Numbers of Common Quails Coturnix coturnix were the third-highest on record, perhaps boosted by the settled warm conditions in late lune and July. Numbers of Slavonian Grebes, although typical for the last five years, dropped from the 51 confirmed pairs in 2004 and, as many occupied sites failed to raise any young, concern is expressed over the longer-term fortunes of this species. Black-necked Grebes Podiceps nigricollis also declined, with birds vacating some areas occu- pied recently and no confirmed breeding in Scotland. There was a disappointing drop in the number of Eurasian Bitterns Botaurus stellaris after the bumper year of 2004, with the greatest loss in the Norfolk Broads, where water levels were low after a relatively dry winter. It is no longer surprising to report another record number of nesting Little Egrets, though there is little indication of a significant expansion of their range to the north and west. Another year passed with no more than summering by Eurasian Spoonbills, despite the increasing numbers breeding in the near continent. Marsh Harriers Circus aeruginosus were the subject of a national survey in 2005 and we 280 report the highest-ever total of breeding females since the Panel was established in 1973 (and indeed long before then), with the main con- centrations in eastern England. Analysis of I Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis records shows an overall increase in numbers in the last I 20 years to reach a total similar to that for Marsh Harrier, although the elusive nature of this species suggests that its population may j actually be higher. A breeding attempt by Black-winged Stilts Himantopus himantopus in 2005 was the first | for 12 years, but it was not clear whether eggs I were laid. Avocets Recurvirostra avosetta again bred in Wales, and also in two inland counties of England. Many of our northerly breeding i waders, including Purple Sandpiper, Ruff and Wood Sandpiper, experienced a poor year and lack confirmed breeding records, and 2005 was the second successive year with no Temminck’s I Stints Calidris temminckii recorded at former breeding sites. There was also no repeat of the remarkable events in 2004 when two pairs of Pectoral Sandpipers C. melanotos attempted to breed. The total of 45 breeding male Red- necked Phalaropes, though, is one of the highest reported and breeding Mediterranean Gulls Larus melanocephalus had doubled in number since 2003. This is the last report to feature Barn Owl and Common Kingfisher and analysis of the records received in the last ten years shows that both species increased. Perhaps the most exciting event of the year was the attempt by a pair of European Bee-eaters Merops apiaster to nest in Herefordshire; sadly, this ended in failure when the young were predated before fledging. Improved reporting from some urban areas of England boosted the numbers of Black Red- starts recorded. Both Fieldfares and Redwings are expected to decline in the UK if climate change predictions are correct, and 2005 was a poor year for both. Conversely, it is anticipated that Cetti’s Warbler will increase in numbers and spread north, and the indications are that this is happening already, the species benefiting from the long run of mild winters, with only brief periods of freezing conditions, in southern and western Britain. Similar range expansion is occurring by Dartford Warblers, which bred in Staffordshire for the first time in over 100 years, j Bearded Tit numbers are close to record levels i too. After reporting in 2004 the first successful British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 c Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 > breeding for Red-backed Shrike since 1999, two pairs bred in 2005. Terminology The recording areas used in this report are the same as in previous reports (see Holling et al. 2007a and www.rbbp.org.uk). The definitions of ‘Confirmed breeding’, ‘Probable breeding’ and ‘Possible breeding’ follow those recommended by the European Bird Census Council (www.ebcc.info). Within tables, the abbrevia- tions ‘Confirmed pairs’ and ‘Possible/probable pairs’ mean, respectively, ‘Number of pairs con- firmed breeding’ and ‘Number of pairs possibly or probably breeding’. Unless otherwise stated, the identity of the birds has been confirmed; it is only breeding status which is possible/ probable/confirmed. Probable breeding is as defined by EBCC (e.g. a pair holding territory), and does not mean that a breeding attempt ‘probably’ (i.e. almost certainly) took place. Within each species account, numbers given in the format ‘1-4 pairs’ indicate (in this case) one proven breeding pair and a possible maximum total of four breeding pairs. In the tables, zeroes mean that there were no birds recorded in that area in that year, whereas a rule (-) indicates that no data were received. Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus Five sites: 4-5 pairs. This is a similar picture to that of recent years, although there were no reports of breeding in the Outer Hebrides in 2005 and only one nesting pair in Northern Ireland. Shetland remains the key location, with three pairs again breeding, but producing only four young compared with 13 in 2003 and 14 in 2004. Apparently wild, summering birds were observed in poten- tial breeding areas in Argyll, Caithness, North-east Scotland, Orkney and elsewhere, although it is not possible to be certain of the provenance of all of these. Scotland, S Ayrshire One site: one pair probably bred. In the area where breeding has occurred in the past, a pair was seen with two immatures, but it is not known where they were hatched. Scotland, N & W Shetland Three sites: three pairs bred. A pair at the site used since 1987 reared four young, but although young were hatched at the other sites, they did not fledge. Northern Ireland Co. Londonderry One site: one pair fledged five young. Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope 83 sites: 52-168 pairs. The number of pairs reported has risen in recent years but is still well short of the estimated UK population of 300-500 breeding pairs (Gibbons et al. 1993). Recorders are strongly encouraged to ensure that waters that have held breeding pairs in the past are visited regularly. Where possible, pairs are included here only where there is some indication of birds being faithful to a site during the breeding season. However, Eurasian Wigeon has a tendency to over-summer without any other evidence of breeding and this is particularly evident in southern England and Wales, where only five pairs were proved to breed, in Essex, Kent and Suffolk. England, SW Somerset One site: one pair probably bred. England, SE Bedfordshire One site: one pair possibly bred. Essex One site: three pairs bred. Hertfordshire One site: one pair possibly bred. Kent Five sites: one pair bred, one pair probably bred and five pairs possibly bred. England, E Cambridgeshire Two sites: one pair probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. Lincolnshire One site: one pair pos- sibly bred. Norfolk Four sites: 16 pairs probably bred. Suffolk One site: one pair bred. A pair with a large young bird seen in early July constitutes the first confirmed breeding record for the county since 1990. England, C Derbyshire One site: one pair possibly bred. Nottinghamshire Three sites: one pair probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. England, N Co. Durham Ten sites: ten pairs bred at seven sites and single pairs probably bred at three other sites. Northumber- land Three sites: five pairs bred, and a total of 18 young counted. Yorkshire Three sites: seven pairs bred and four pairs possibly bred. British Birds 101* June 2008 • 276-3 1 6 281 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Wales Anglesey One site: one pair probably bred. Ceredigion One site: one pair probably bred. Meirionnydd One site: one pair possibly bred. Scotland, S Borders Three sites: three pairs probably bred. Clyde One site: one pair possibly bred. Dumfries 8c Galloway Three sites: three pairs probably bred and one pair possibly bred. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland Two sites: three pairs bred. Perth & Kinross Five sites: nine pairs probably bred and five pairs possibly bred. Scotland, N & W Argyll Four sites: three pairs probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. Caithness One site: one pair possibly bred. Highland Seven sites: 39 pairs probably bred. Orkney Nine sites: 18 pairs bred. Outer Hebrides Six sites: two pairs bred, three pairs probably bred and three pairs possibly bred. Shetland Two sites: two pairs bred; a total of ten young were recorded in two broods. Gadwall Anas strepera 1,516 pairs. This total is the sum of all confirmed, probable and possible breeding pairs reported to the Panel and is very similar to the total of 1,520 in 2004. This year, however, the distribution is somewhat dif- ferent, with more in northern England and Wales and fewer in southwest England and mid Scotland. There were no breeding records from Northern Ireland in 2005. It is unclear at this stage whether this vari- ation is due to reporting artefacts. Nevertheless, the grand total in each year since 2001 has been consider- ably higher than the most recent estimate of the British population of 770 pairs in 1988-1991 (Gibbons et al. 1993). A total of 669 pairs of Gadwall were proved breeding in 2005, so this estimate requires reviewing, j Gadwall Warwickshire 30 Pairs West Midlands 6 England, SW 195 Worcestershire 4 Avon 6 England, N 267 Devon 3 Cheshire & Wirral 32 Dorset 35 Cleveland 11 Gloucestershire 4 Cumbria 5 Hampshire 25 Co. Durham 4 Isles of Scilly 1 Greater Manchester 8 Somerset 114 Lancashire 8c N Merseyside 32 Wiltshire 7 Northumberland 17 England, SE 318 Yorkshire 158 Bedfordshire 4 Wales 57 Berkshire 19 Anglesey 37 Buckinghamshire 7 Caernarfon 3 Essex 29 Carmarthen 14 Greater London 2 Glamorgan 1 Hertfordshire 116 Gwent 2 Kent 118 Scotland, S 21 Oxfordshire 16 Borders 5 Surrey 5 Clyde 15 Sussex 2 Dumfries 8c Galloway 1 England, E 425 Scotland, Mid 86 Cambridgeshire 123 Angus 8c Dundee 5 Lincolnshire 19 Fife 3 Norfolk 176 North-east Scotland 2 Suffolk 107 Perth 8c Kinross 74 England, C 114 Upper Forth 2 Derbyshire 27 Scotland, N 8c W 33 Herefordshire 2 Argyll 2 Leicestershire 8c Rutland 18 Caithness 6 Nottinghamshire 18 Highland 1 Shropshire 2 Orkney 20 Staffordshire 7 Outer Hebrides 4 282 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Pintail Anas acuta 15 sites: 8-21 pairs. Although this is a typical showing for recent years, fig. 2 confirms a decline in both the number of sites holding Pintails and the number of pairs reported since the early 1990s. The peak in 1994 can be attributed to a comprehensive survey of Orkney in that year, but the trend since then is markedly downwards. The lower numbers in the 1970s occurred when the Panel was still becoming established. England, SE Essex One site: one pair bred. Kent One site: one pair possibly bred. England, E Cambridgeshire One site: one pair possibly bred, present until mid May only. Lincolnshire One site: one pair possibly bred. Norfolk Two sites: five pairs prob- ably bred. England, N Yorkshire One site: one pair bred, and was seen with seven young on 11th June; this is the first breeding in the county since 1998. Wales Gwent One site: one pair possibly bred: present in May and June but no further evidence. Scotland, S Dumfries 8c Galloway One site: one pair probably bred. Scotland, N 8c W Argyll Four sites: one pair bred and three pairs probably bred. Orkney Two sites: five pairs bred. Garganey Anas querquedula 45 sites: 10-61 pairs. Garganeys are summer visitors to the UK and pairs have a habit of turning up in a wide variety of damp habitats in early spring throughout the country. Many stay only briefly and are excluded from the figures presented here. Proof of breeding is difficult to assess unless broods are seen and, despite the widespread occurrence of lingering pairs (20 counties), such proof was evident from only six English counties in 2005. England, SW Avon One site: one pair probably bred. Devon One site: one pair possibly bred. Dorset Two sites: two pairs probably bred. Somerset Three sites: one pair bred, two pairs probably bred and four pairs possibly bred. England, SE Kent Eight sites: four pairs probably bred and seven pairs possibly bred. Oxfordshire One site: one pair probably bred. Sussex Two sites: one pair bred and two pairs probably bred. England, E Cambridgeshire One site: four pairs probably bred. Lincolnshire Two sites: two pairs possibly bred. Norfolk Eight sites: two pairs bred, one pair probably bred and five pairs possibly bred. Suffolk Three sites: four pairs probably bred. England, C Nottinghamshire One site: one pair bred. Warwickshire One site: one pair probably bred. England, N Cleveland One site: one pair bred. Northumberland One site: one pair possibly bred. Yorkshire Four sites: four pairs bred, producing a total of 22 young, and four pairs probably bred. Scotland, S Dumfries 8c Galloway One site: one pair possibly bred. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland One site: one pair probably bred. Scodand, N 8c W Argyll Two sites: two pairs probably bred. Orkney One site: one pair probably bred. Fig. 2. Number of breeding Pintail Anas acuta in the UK, 1973-2005 (max. total pairs), and the number of sites where they were recorded. British Birds 101 ’June 2008 • 276-316 283 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Common Pochard Aythya ferina 298-540 pairs. The maximum total number of pairs in 2005 exceeded the estimate of 472 pairs in the UK (Baker et al. 2006), which was based on RBBP totals between 1998 and 2002. Fig. 3 shows that, after a period of sustained increase from the mid 1980s to a peak of 638 pairs in 1994, the population seems to have stabilised at a lower level of around 500 pairs. Common Pochard Shropshire 1 Pairs Worcestershire 3 England, SW 44 England, N 85 Avon 1 Cheshire & Wirral 22 Dorset 9 Cleveland 10 Gloucestershire 1 Greater Manchester 1 Hampshire 7 Lancashire & N Merseyside 12 Somerset 26 Northumberland 8 England, SE 279 Yorkshire 32 Bedfordshire 1 Wales 32 Buckinghamshire 0 Anglesey 16 Essex 91 Brecon 1 Hertfordshire 23 Caernarfon 2 Kent 162 Carmarthen 13 Surrey 2 Scotland, S 5 England, E 76 Borders 5 Cambridgeshire 10 Scotland, Mid 8 Lincolnshire 7 Perth & Kinross 6 Norfolk 40 Upper Forth 2 Suffolk 19 Scotland, N & W 3 England, C 7 Orkney 3 Leicestershire & Rutland 1 Northern Ireland 1 Nottinghamshire 2 Co. Antrim 1 Fig. 3. Number of pairs of Common Pochard Aythya ferina in the UK, 1986-2005. Greater Scaup Aythya marila One site: 0-1 pairs. The last confirmed breeding of this species was in Northern Ireland in 1999. In addition to the single pair in Argyll, a male summered in Leicestershire & Rutland. Scotland, N & W Argyll One site: one pair was present during the breeding season but did not breed. 284 British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Common Scoter Melanitta nigra Four sites: 12—21 pairs. The numbers reported were again low, with the majority, and the only con- firmed breeding, in the Flow Country of northern Scotland. Indications from the detailed survey conducted in 2007 are that the data presented here represent less than half of the breeding population in Scotland. Scotland, Mid Perth & Kinross One site: five pairs present on 10th May. Two former sites in the region were checked on the same date but no birds were present. Scotland, N & W Argyll One site: one pair probably bred and one pair possibly bred. Highland Two sites: 12 pairs bred, two pairs probably bred, and six young were counted. Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 145-149 pairs bred in three regions of Scotland, and summering birds were present in at least six other areas of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These figures are similar to those of recent years. Details received from the Goldeneye Study Group indicate that a minimum of 130 females laid eggs in Badenoch and Strathspey (Fiighland), all in nestboxes. Of these, 51 clutches were incubated; from 486 eggs laid, 311 young hatched from 38 nests, the mean brood size being 8.2 young (range 2-12). These figures are similar to the equivalents in 2003 and 2004. England, SE Bedfordshire A single male apparently paired with a female Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula. England, C Derbyshire One site: a pair summered as in 2004. Leicestershire & Rutland A female summered. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland 15 sites: at least 13 pairs bred at 1 1 sites in mid Deeside, and another four pairs possibly bred at four other sites. Perth & Kinross One site: two pairs nested in boxes but failed. Scotland, N & W Highland One extensive site: in a nestbox study, 87 clutches were laid and the number of breeding females was estimated at 130. Note that up to two-thirds of Goldeneye nests contain eggs laid by more than one female (per Goldeneye Study Group) so the actual number of nesting females cannot be established accurately. Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus 85 leks visited, and a total of 234 males counted. All known lek sites across Scotland are checked at dawn during April, and although the total is not an accurate measure of the population, this figure does enable trends to be monitored. Eaton et al. (2007a) considered the population to number 1,980 individuals in winter 2003/04. Comparable data are now available for 2003 and 2004 when, respectively, 75 and 80 leks were counted and 184 and 222 males were recorded. Estimates for the mean number of males attending each lek are 2.45 for 2003, 2.78 for 2004 and 2.75 for 2005. This apparent increase may be due to the discovery of new, larger leks but might represent a small population increase since 2003. Scotland, S Clyde One lek: one male. Scotland, Mid Moray 8c Nairn 1 1 leks: 18 males. North-east Scotland 20 leks: 48 males. Perth 8c Kinross Six leks: 8 males. Scotland, N & W Highland 47 leks: 159 males. Common Quail Coturnix coturnix 6-842 pairs. Confirmed breeding was established in just five recording areas: Wiltshire, Notting- hamshire, Yorkshire, Lothian (two sites) and North-east Scotland. The bulk of records involved territorial males giving their characteristic ‘song’. Numbers in Wiltshire were the highest since 1998 and, nationally, the total of 842 territorial males is the third highest since 1986. The 1,655 territorial males recorded in 1989 remains exceptional. Brteh Birds 101* June 2008 • 276-3 1 6 285 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Common Quail Total Cumbria 4 England, SW 163 Co. Durham 13 Avon 5 Lancashire & N Merseyside 25 Dorset 25 Northumberland 39 Gloucestershire 22 Yorkshire 73 Hampshire 23 Wales 30 Somerset 16 Anglesey 6 Wiltshire 72 Caernarfon 1 England, SE 91 Ceredigion 1 Bedfordshire 5 Denbigh & Flint 8 Berkshire 11 Gwent 2 Buckinghamshire 6 Meirionnydd 7 Essex 11 Pembroke 5 Hertfordshire 4 Scotland, S 46 Kent 13 Borders 26 Oxfordshire 13 Clyde 1 Sussex 28 Dumfries & Galloway 9 England, E 168 Lothian 10 Cambridgeshire 23 Scotland, Mid 65 Lincolnshire 64 Angus & Dundee 7 Norfolk 62 Fife ii Suffolk 19 Moray 8t Nairn 6 England, C 75 North-east Scotland 34 Derbyshire 22 Perth & Kinross 5 Herefordshire 1 Upper Forth 2 Leicestershire & Rutland 7 Scotland, N 8t W 20 Nottinghamshire 13 Argyll 9 Shropshire 14 Highland 1 Warwickshire 9 Outer Hebrides 2 Worcestershire 9 Shetland 8 England, N 182 Northern Ireland 2 Cheshire & Wirral 15 Co. Antrim 1 Cleveland 13 Co. Armagh 1 Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata Gibbons et al. (1997) estimated the Scottish population of Red-throated Divers in 1994 at 935 breeding pairs, with 46% in Shetland, 1 1% in Orkney and 43% elsewhere. As in recent years, the Panel received casual data for around 200 pairs, but only records away from the main nesting areas in north and west Scotland are listed here, while the results of monitoring studies are summarised for the main range. In the Shetland study area, 2005 was the most productive season for ten years. Despite a late start to the season, the number of successful pairs and broods of two was relatively high and mortality of large chicks was low. On Hoy, Orkney, breeding success was lower than in 2004, which was an exceptional year, and comparable with the long-term average. A national survey of both Red-throated and Black-throated Divers G. arctica was undertaken in 2006 and the results will be included in the Panel’s report for 2006. Scotland, S Clyde Two sites but only one possible breeding pair involved, moving between the two. Clyde Islands Bred on Arran. Scotland, Mid Moray & Nairn One site: one pair bred but the one chick was predated. North-east Scotland One site: one pair probably bred. Perth & Kinross One site: one pair, present in early June, but no evidence of breeding. Scotland, N & W Argyll 13 pairs at 12 monitored sites; four young fledged from nine pairs for which breeding was confirmed. Caithness At one monitored site, five pairs fledged five young. Highland 24 pairs at 21 monitored sites, 13 young fledged from 16 pairs for which breeding was confirmed. Orkney On Hoy, a full survey located 57 pairs; 33 pairs 286 British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 fledged 41 young (0.72 young per occupied site). On Birsay Moors, 16 pairs raised 12 chicks (0.75 young per occupied site). On Rousay, five pairs raised six chicks (1.20 young per occu- pied site). Elsewhere in Orkney, at least 36 additional pairs bred. Outer Hebrides A limited survey of part of North Uist found eight breeding pairs, which fledged seven young. Of five pairs moni- tored on Lewis & Harris, three were successful, raising four young. Shetland Details for four monitored areas are available: 24 pairs on Fetlar (productivity 0.54 young per monitored pair), nine pairs on Foula (0.78), nine pairs at Hermaness (0.89) and ten pairs at Lumbister (0.80). Red-throated Diver Gavia s tellata, Sutherland. Black-throated Diver Gavia arctica 89-129 pairs. Monitoring effort was high in 2005 but occupation and productivity were poor. Parts of the range are not being regularly monitored, however. Scotland, S Ayrshire One site: one pair fledged one young. Clyde One site: one pair nested but failed owing to flooding. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland One site: one pair probably bred (at a raft site). Perth & Kinross Two sites: two pairs possibly bred. Upper Forth One site: one pair nested but was not successful. Scotland, N 8t W Argyll Six pairs bred and two pairs probably bred at sites on the mainland. Caithness 8c Highland 153 mainland sites were checked by RSPB. Occupancy was poor, with just 106 apparently occupied territories (AOT) and 73 confirmed breeding pairs. Overall, 29 young fledged (0.27 young per AOT) and, as usual, raft-nesting pairs fared better than those using natural sites. Pairs on rafts fledged 0.58 young per AOT, while pairs at natural sites raised 0.25 young per AOT. Productivity was especially poor at natural sites in Caithness and Sutherland, where 29 pairs fledged just two chicks. Outer Hebrides Data were received on nine pairs: seven pairs fledged seven young and two pairs possibly bred. Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena One site: one single in summer. A single bird was present on a loch in mid Scotland from 7th May to 19th June, while an adult with a fully grown juvenile was recorded at the same site on 20th— 2 1 st August, although there was no suggestion of local breeding. Red-necked Grebes arrive in the Firth of Forth to moult from mid August onwards, and these were probably returning birds, although records of adults with young on fresh water are unusual. Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus 17 sites: 44-45 pairs. In Scotland, RSPB and other volunteers monitored all known sites with a history of occupation during the last 20 years. Forty-four pairs were located, which reared 23 young. Produc- tivity of 0.53 young per territorial pair is in line with the long-term average of 0.58, and higher than the figure of 0.47 young for 2004. However, these are average figures and, of the 16 sites occupied, only seven produced young, which is a cause for concern. In addition, a pair attempted to breed in northern England, outside the traditional range, but was not successful. England, N One site: one pair attempted to breed. Up to four birds were present from 2004. In May 2005 a pair was seen nest- building and engaged in territorial display but the nest was taken over by Common Coots Fulica atra. The grebes were last seen on 22nd May. I Scotland, Mid and N 8c W 16 sites: (1) Loch Ruthven: 19 pairs reared 12 young, five singles also present. (2)— ( 16) 25 pairs reared 11 young. A further two sites held just single birds. In addition, in Orkney, a single bird was present throughout June and was seen again in mid August, while a second bird stayed at another location for 1 1 days. British Birds 101 "June 2008 • 276-316 287 Andrew Stock Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 ^ Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 21 sites: 38-53 pairs. There were no breeding records in 2005 from Gloucestershire and Hampshire, where the species bred in 2004, or from Angus & Dundee, Cleveland, Essex and Perth & Kinross, where birds were reported at breeding sites in 2004. Overall numbers are down; there were 44 confirmed breeding pairs in both 2003 and 2004 and just 38 in 2005, the lowest figure since 1997. Northern England continues to hold the core of the population (Martin & Smith 2007). Black-necked Grebes require undisturbed waters and visits to sites should be for monitoring purposes only. England, SE Berkshire One site: one pair possibly bred, performing courtship display in May. Hertfordshire Two sites: ( 1 ) six pairs fledged 14 young; (2) one pair possibly bred, as display noted in April, but did not stay. Kent One site: two pairs bred, fledging three young. England, E Lincolnshire Two sites: ( 1 ) one pair fledged two young and one pair probably bred; (2) two pairs bred. England, C Leicestershire & Rutland One site: one pair possibly bred, display noted in April but no further records. In addi- tion, up to five other birds at three other locations, but none lingered. Nottinghamshire Two sites: (1) one pair fledged one young; (2) one pair possibly bred. Staffordshire One site: one pair fledged two young despite continued disturbance at this unprotected site. England, N Cheshire & Wirral One site: 14 pairs fledged 14 young. Co. Durham Two sites: (1) one pair fledged two young; (2) one pair laid a clutch of three but no young seen. Greater Manchester One site: one pair fledged two young and four pairs possibly bred. Northumberland Three sites: (1) five pairs fledged nine young; (2) two pairs fledged seven young; (3) two pairs possibly bred, present early in season only. Yorkshire One site: one pair hatched two young (one fledged) and one pair possibly bred. In addition, up to 11 birds at a third site early in the season, but they did not breed. Scotland, S Borders One site: one pair possibly bred. Up to three adults present but the lack of emergent vegetation at this former breeding site prevented breeding. Scotland, Mid Fife One site: one pair present but did not breed. North-east Scotland One site: one or two birds present in May and June. Eurasian Bittern Botaurus stellaris 30 sites: 46-55 booming males and 27-28 breeding attempts. England, SW Dorset One site: one booming male. Somerset One booming male, for a short period only. England, SE Kent Although birds were present at two sites in the breeding season, booming was heard early in the spring and, thereafter, on single dates only at each site. These records provide insufficient evidence to be included in the totals of confirmed booming males and represent a reduction from a minimum of three boomers in 2004. England, E Cambridgeshire Four sites: four booming males. Lincolnshire Four sites: 6-8 booming males. Norfolk North Norfolk coast Three sites: three booming males; one confirmed nest. Norfolk Broads Eight sites: eight booming males; six confirmed nests and one pair probably bred. Suffolk Six sites: 20-24 booming males; 17 confirmed nests. England, N Lancashire & N Merseyside One site: one booming male and two confirmed nests. Yorkshire Three sites: 3-4 booming males; one confirmed nest. Wales One booming male, for a short period only. Simon Wotton, of the RSPB, has commented as follows: ‘There was a disappointing drop in the number of confirmed booming Bitterns in 2005, from 55 in 2004 to 46 this year. The number of sites with confirmed booming declined only slightly, from 30 to 28 sites. ‘There was a large decline in the number of booming males in the Norfolk Broads, down from 17 in 2004 to eight in 2005. The main potential reason for this decline is that water levels at a number of sites were much lower than in previous years, probably due to a relatively dry winter, but it should also be noted that a very cold spell of weather in late February and early March may have curtailed booming British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-3 16 288 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 activity. The reduction in activity in southeast England is also likely to have been for the same reasons. ‘More encouraging was that numbers again increased on the Suffolk coast, from 19 to 20 boomers, including 10 at Minsmere. Numbers of booming males in the Cambridgeshire Fens increased from two to four, at four different sites, one of which was a new site. One new site was occupied on the Humber, and here numbers were stable compared with 2004. There was a further decline in confirmed nesting attempts this year, from 33 in 2004 to 28 in 2005. Nesting attempts declined on the Humber, but were stable elsewhere. The main nesting site was again at Minsmere. One of the two nests at Leighton Moss was close to a hide and the female could be seen feeding the young regularly. It is suspected that all four young from this nest successfully fledged.’ Little Egret Egretta garzetta 52 sites: 39 1 — 433 pairs. The number of sites with breeding Little Egrets reached a new peak, up from 36 in 2004, and the number of pairs continues to increase, even though no data were available from a site in Essex where over 50 pairs bred in 2004. There were more than twice as many breeding pairs in 2005 as in 2003! However, colonies remain concentrated in south and east England, and some former sites in Wales and northern England were unoccupied in 2005. A paper on the remarkable colonisation of Britain by Little Egrets, using Panel data, is currently in preparation for BB. England, SW Avon No breeding but several present in early summer. Cornwall No data received but nested at four sites in 2004. Devon Four sites: 19 pairs bred. Dorset Five sites: 69 pairs bred. Gloucestershire One site: six pairs bred. Hampshire At least two sites: 50 pairs bred. Somerset Six sites: 24 pairs bred, two pairs possibly bred. Wiltshire One site: 12 pairs bred. England, SE Buckinghamshire One site: two pairs bred. Essex Three sites: at least 14 pairs bred but, owing to access restrictions, no data were received from the main site, which held 51 pairs in 2004. Hertfordshire Recorded at two sites during spring, but no evidence of breeding. Kent Two sites: 70 pairs bred. Sussex Six sites: 19 pairs bred, one pair probably bred. England, E Cambridgeshire One site: an estimated 23 pairs probably bred. Lincolnshire Seven sites: 13 pairs possibly bred. Norfolk Three sites: 63 pairs bred. Suffolk Four sites: 26 pairs bred. England, C One site: a pair recorded copulating in late May did not nest. England, N Cheshire & Wirral One site: four pairs bred. Cleveland A juvenile begging from an adult was noted but no nesting was recorded. Wales Anglesey Juveniles seen in late July hint at local breeding but no nests found. Ceredigion One site: three pairs bred. Gower One site: at least five, possibly seven pairs, bred and at least nine young were reared. This constitutes the first recorded breeding for Gower. Gwent One site: five pairs bred. Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia Seven sites: at least 19 summering birds. The promise of another breeding attempt remains but there was no further progress beyond that reported for 2003 and 2004. The population in The Netherlands was 1,890 pairs (in 29 colonies) in 2007 (Triplet et al. in press), and there are also colonies in Belgium, Denmark, France and Germany. The Netherlands is the most likely source of the increasing numbers of summering birds in southern Britain: of the 102 foreign-ringed Spoonbills which have been seen in Britain, 101 were Dutch-ringed birds (Coiffait et al. 2008). The East Atlantic flyway population of Spoonbill, which also includes colonies in Morocco, Portugal and Spain, is estimated to be 1 1,300 indi- viduals (Wetlands International 2006). England, SE Kent One site: one bird present but did not arrive until late June, staying until August. ! England, E Norfolk Two sites: 2-5 birds summered. Suffolk Three sites: up to 13 birds summered, j Wales Gwent One site: three immatures summered. British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 289 Richard Allen Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Honey-buzzards Pernis apivorus over the Forest of Dean. Honey-buzzard Pernis apivorus 18 — 43 pairs; a minimum of 32 young fledged. The situation in 2005 was similar to that in recent years. The majority of Honey-buzzards are still reported from southern England, yet both Scotland and Wales held six territories each. Nesting pairs in remote areas are difficult to monitor and it seems likely that some pairs are nesting undetected in parts of Britain. England 31 territories occupied, 14 pairs raised a minimum of 25 young. Wales Six territories occupied, four pairs raised a minimum of seven young. Scotland Six territories occupied but no further indication of breeding. Red Kite Milvus milvus A minimum of 588-705 pairs, but a total of 900-970 breeding pairs is estimated. Not all sites in Wales and southern England can now be monitored annually. The data presented here are based largely on the figures collated by the Welsh Kite Trust (for Wales), and the monitoring schemes in place for the re-established populations in England and Scotland. In addition, some possible breeding pairs of which the Panel has been notified are included. For the first time, we are able to present minimum totals by county/ recording area rather than by area of the country based on Red Kite release areas. The Welsh Kite Trust area (recording areas) No. confirmed breeding pairs Min. no. young fledged Wales & Welsh borders (Wales, Herefordshire, Shropshire) 306 316 Southern England (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Sussex) 119 152 Wiltshire 2 4 East Midlands (Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire & Rutland, Northamptonshire) 52 99 Northern Kites (Co. Durham) 0 0 Yorkshire 33 52 North Scotland (Highland) 39 83 Central Scotland (Perth & Kinross, Upper Forth) 25 28 Dumfries & Galloway 12 18 TOTAL 588 754 290 British Birds 101 ’June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 table summarises the position documented by the Welsh Kite Trust www.welshkitetrust.org The number of young fledged across the UK exceeded 754 in 2005. In the county summaries below, the number of breeding pairs stated is the total number of pairs attempting to breed, not the number of successful pairs (those which fledged young). The European population of Red Kite is less than 25,000 pairs (BirdLife International 2004), and large declines have been noted in most of western Europe, so the increasing British population is becoming more significant. England A minimum of 209-242 pairs bred, but kite workers in southern England believe the population there to be about 300 breeding pairs, which would mean an English population of over 385 pairs. The following data include the breakdown by county and the minimum totals by breeding category. Note that 37 of the 1 19 pairs in southern England could not be assigned to county and are not included below. The breeding attempts in Hereford- shire and Shropshire are believed to relate to birds from the burgeoning Welsh population spilling over the border into England rather than from the release schemes. England, SW Gloucestershire One pair possibly bred. Hampshire One pair fledged at least two young, and one pair probably bred. Wiltshire Two pairs fledged four young, three pairs probably bred and one pair possibly bred. England, SE Berkshire Three pairs fledged four young and one pair possibly bred. Buckinghamshire At least 50 pairs fledged 103 young. Hertfordshire One pair fledged two young, two pairs probably bred and six pairs possibly bred. Oxford- shire At least 26 pairs fledged 49 young. Sussex One pair fledged three young. England, E Cambridgeshire Two pairs fledged five young and one pair possibly bred. Lincolnshire One pair possibly bred and single birds were present at a further seven sites during the breeding season. Northamptonshire 48 pairs fledged 90 young, and three pairs probably bred. England, C Herefordshire One pair fledged two young. Leicestershire 8c Rutland Two pairs fledged four young, one pair prob- ably bred and one pair possibly bred. Shropshire Two pairs nested but both failed, and one pair possibly bred. England, N Co. Durham Two pairs probably bred and one pair possibly bred. These indications of potential breeding occurred in just the first season after releases began in the Gateshead area. Yorkshire 33 pairs fledged 52 young, and seven pairs probably bred. Wales A minimum of 303-378 pairs bred, but it is estimated that the total population in 2005 lay between 440 and 510 pairs, fledging c. 500 young. The 2005 distribution of known territorial pairs by recording area was Brecon 34, Caernarfon 1, Carmarthen 74, Ceredigion 157, Glamorgan 1, Gower 11, Meirionnydd 9, Montgomery 27, Pembroke 6 and Radnor 58. Scotland 76-85 pairs bred. Scotland, S Dumfries 8c Galloway 12 pairs fledged 18 young and two pairs probably bred. Scotland, Mid Perth 8c Kinross (Tayside RSG) Eight pairs fledged six young and three pairs probably bred. Upper Forth (Central Scotland RSG) 17 pairs fledged 22 young and four pairs probably bred. Scotland, N 8c W Highland 39 pairs fledged 83 young. White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 33 territorial pairs, of which 28 pairs laid eggs and 17 pairs were successful, fledging 24 young. Breeding now occurs in three Scottish recording areas: Argyll, Highland and Outer Hebrides. The slow increase in numbers continues, with one more territorial pair than in 2004, but the same number of clutches laid. A total of 24 young reared means that 2005 was the second most productive year since the first young from the re-establishment scheme were fledged, in 1985, and the number of successful pairs is the highest over that 21 -year period. Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 363-429 pairs fledged a minimum of 796 young. There was a national survey of Marsh Harriers in 2005 and a summary of the findings by recording area is given below. Single birds were also recorded in suitable breeding habitat in Somerset, Bedfordshire, Dumfries & Galloway, Argyll and Caithness. British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 291 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Although these are the highest numbers reported since the Panel was established in 1973, they are but a fraction of the European total, estimated at 93,000-140,000 breeding pairs (BirdLife International 2004). England, SW Isles of Scilly One pair bred. England, SE Essex 13 pairs fledged a minimum of 23 young and three pairs probably bred. Hertfordshire One pair possibly bred. Kent 52 pairs fledged a minimum of 92 young, 17 pairs probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. Sussex One pair probably bred. England, E Cambridgeshire 25 pairs fledged a minimum of 47 young and four pairs probably bred. Lincolnshire 91 pairs fledged a minimum of 236 young and two pairs probably bred. Norfolk 102 pairs fledged a minimum of 222 young and 22 pairs probably bred. Suffolk 55 fledged a minimum of 145 young and nine pairs probably bred. England, N Cheshire & Wirral One pair possibly bred. Lancashire & N Merseyside Three pairs fledged a minimum of eight young, and one pair possibly bred. Yorkshire 14 pairs fledged a minimum of 21 young and two pairs probably bred. Scotland, Mid Moray & Nairn One pair fledged three young. North-east Scotland Two pairs bred: one pair fledged three young, the second failed. Perth & Kinross Two pairs fledged eight young and one pair probably bred. Scotland, N & W Highland One pair fledged three young. Orkney One pair nested but nest not found and no young seen. Mark Eaton, organiser of the 2005 survey, has commented: ‘The RSPB/Natural England survey of Marsh Harriers ensured complete coverage of the UK breeding population in 2005, for the first time since the last survey, in 1995 (Underhill-Day 1998); the increase on previous years’ totals will thus be, at least in part, due to this enhanced surveying and reporting. It is clear, however, that the British Marsh Harrier population continues to increase rapidly, at an average of 8.8% per annum since 1995. This population increase has been achieved mainly within the existing core range in eastern England, with 68% of the population breeding in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and a substantial popula- tion (reaching notably high densities) in north Kent. The population in Cambridgeshire - the only inland county with breeding Marsh Harriers - is also growing rapidly. Away from this core range, expansion has been slow and it is noticeable that, with the exception of birds around Leighton Moss, it has been along the east coast of Britain. The reasons for the lack of expansion into the west, despite the availability of suitable habitat, are unclear, although remarkably a pair bred on the Isles of Scilly for the first time in 2005. ‘Given that just one pair remained in the UK in 1971, at Minsmere, the present population repre- sents a remarkable conservation success. Initial recovery may have been in response to the phasing out and eventual banning of organochlorine pesticides, but has been aided by better species protection and the expansion and improved management of suitable wetland habitat.’ .o* Male Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus. 292 British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus 218-412 pairs fledged a minimum of 584 young. Following the national survey of Hen Harriers in 2004 (Sim et al. 2007), the number of territories for which the Panel received information returned to its normal level, at around 50% of the estimated population. No confirmed breeding or territorial behaviour was reported from south or east England, but presence was recorded in two counties. Hen Harrier Occupied territories Territories that fledged young Min. no. young fledged England, S & E 0 0 0 England, N 16 14 32 Isle of Man 14 - - Wales 40 29 86 Scotland Dumfries & Galloway 21 11 37 Lothian & Borders 2 1 3 South Strathclyde 12 6 28 Central Scotland 3 3 8 Tayside 30 16 48 North-east Scotland 10 6 16 Argyll & Bute and Arran 111 49 118 Highland (inch west Moray) 30 18 57 Orkney 72 33 76 Outer Hebrides 51 32 75 Northern Ireland - - - TOTAL 412 218 584 Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus Ten sites: 10-13 pairs fledged 17 young. Numbers of Montagu’s Harrier remained at a similar low level to those in 2003 and 2004, but fewer young were raised than in either of those years. Nonetheless, 1 7 young fledged is above the ten-year (1996-2005) annual mean of 13. England, SW Five sites: 4—7 pairs. (1) three pairs bred, one pair fledging four young but two other nests being predated when the chicks were small; (2) one pair fledged four young; (3) one pair probably bred; (4) — (5) two pairs possibly bred. England, SE One site: one pair fledged four young. Non-breeding birds also recorded in two other counties. England, E Four sites: five pairs. (1) two pairs bred, one fledging one chick from a clutch of four, the other (nesting in the same field) failed; (2)— (3) one pair fledged two young from a clutch of four at each site; (4) one pair failed. Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 249-424 pairs. After a slow increase until the mid 1990s, followed by a period of relative stability, the number of Goshawks reported in 2005 has increased again. Despite the species reaching a new peak, these figures are still thought to be an underestimate as this is a secretive species that is easily over- looked. A lack of accurate totals for some counties also hinders the compilation of robust figures. Nevertheless, the maximum figure given here now exceeds the UK population estimate of 410 pairs by Baker et al. (2006). England Reported from 22 counties: 120 pairs confirmed breeding plus 92 other pairs. Wales Reported from 13 counties: 82 pairs confirmed breeding plus 44 other pairs. Scotland Reported from six Scottish Raptor Study Group areas: 47 pairs confirmed breeding plus 35 other pairs. Northern Ireland Four pairs reported but breeding not confirmed. British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 293 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Fig. 4. Breeding Northern Goshawks Accipiter gentilis in the UK, 1973-2005, showing maximum total and number of confirmed pairs. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Results of Golden Eagle monitoring in Scotland, by Scottish Raptor Study Groups (Etheridge et al. 2007), are presented below. In addition, a single male was still present at Haweswater, Cumbria, following the death of the female in 2004. The 2003 national survey estimated the Golden Eagle popu- lation in Scotland to be 443 pairs (Eaton et al. 2007b). Golden Eagle Home Home ranges Pairs Pairs Pairs Min. Mean no. ranges occupied monitored laying hatching young fledged per checked by a pair eggs eggs fledged monitored nest 264 220 207 151 82 88 0.43 Osprey Pandion haliaetus 161-187 pairs. The population in Scotland appears to be stabilising, especially in Highland, North-east Scotland and Tayside; 158 pairs were known to have laid eggs, with 124 successfully rearing at least one chick. Two pairs nested in England and one in Wales and all three were successful. The more wide- spread occurrence of summering pairs and individuals hints that the population south of the Scottish border will continue to increase in both numbers and range. England, E Northamptonshire One site: one pair possibly bred. England, C Leicestershire & Rutland Two sites: one pair fledged three young at Rutland Water, and a pair at another site pos- sibly bred. Nottinghamshire One site: one pair possibly bred. England, N Cumbria Two sites: one pair fledged two young at Bassenthwaite Lake, and a pair at another site possibly bred. Wales Meirionnydd One site: one pair fledged two young at Glaslyn. Scotland, S Dumfries & Galloway Three pairs present: one pair fledged two young. Lothian & Borders Five pairs present: four pairs laid and three pairs fledged a total of nine young. Scotland, Mid Central Scotland 18 pairs present: 17 pairs laid and 14 pairs fledged 30 young. North-east Scotland 17 pairs present: 17 pairs laid and 14 pairs fledged 28 young. Tayside 46 pairs present: 38 pairs laid and 32 pairs fledged 59 young. 294 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Scotland, Mid Argyll Ten pairs present: nine pairs laid and five pairs fledged nine young. Highland 81 pairs present: 72 pairs laid and 55 pairs fledged 105 young. Merlin Falco columbarius 294-504 pairs. The table below is based on sample monitoring areas only and the figures, especially for England and Wales, are incomplete; county summaries for key areas of Wales and northern England were not available for this report. The number of occupied territories reported is the highest during the ten years that data have been collected, although it represents less than half the most recent UK population estimate (for 1993-94; Rebecca & Bainbridge 1998). The apparent increase in territories in the Outer Hebrides is due to improved monitoring and reporting from that area in 2005. No data were available for Northern Ireland. Merlin Territories occupied Territories known to Min. no. by pairs have fledged young young fledged England, SW 1 0 0 England, C 20 15 50 England, N 169 112 203 Wales Scotland 24 11 17 Dumfries & Galloway 6 5 15 Lothian 8t Borders 30 15 59 South Strathclyde 16 7 25 North-east Scotland 45 29 87 Tayside 53 27 75 Argyll 7 3 7 Highland 47 27 91 Orkney 20 13 48 Outer Hebrides 57 23 63 Shetland 9 7 30 Northern Ireland - - - TOTAL 504 294 770 Hobby Falco subbuteo 265-870 pairs. The figures here represent only a sample of the population, thought to be 2,200 pairs (Clements 2001). Results of the fieldwork for Bird Atlas 2007-11 are expected to show an increase in the range of the Hobby but, from the data available here, there is no sign of any significant spread north of a line between the Mersey and the Humber. The Kent Ornithological Society has recently reassessed the breeding population in Kent, which appears to be the most important county for Hobby. It supplied the following figures for recent years: 1999—2001 (150-200 pairs each year); 2002-04 (175-225 pairs) and 2005-07 (200-250 pairs). These figures are based on the increase in reported numbers. Hobby Total Confirmed Total pairs Confirmed pairs pairs pairs England, SE 403 72 England, SW 163 54 Bedfordshire 4 4 Avon 10 6 Berkshire 15 5 Devon 23 9 Buckinghamshire 12 4 Dorset 19 1 Essex 37 9 Gloucestershire 11 8 Hertfordshire 65 7 Hampshire 16 12 Kent 200 35 Isle of Wight 2 0 Oxfordshire 23 3 Somerset 22 2 Surrey 27 2 Wiltshire 60 16 Sussex 20 3 British Birds 101 » June 2008 • 276-3 1 6 295 Judith Smith Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Hobby continued Total Confirmed Total Confirmed pairs pairs pairs pairs Nottinghamshire 12 12 England, E 123 41 Shropshire 10 0 Cambridgeshire 21 10 Warwickshire 30 12 Lincolnshire 18 3 Worcestershire 2 2 Norfolk 26 21 England, N 38 19 Northamptonshire 2 2 Cheshire & Wirral 14 14 Suffolk 56 5 Greater Manchester 1 0 England, C 124 71 Lancashire & N Merseyside 30 Derbyshire 35 35 Yorkshire 20 5 Herefordshire 20 3 Wales 19 8 Leicestershire & Rutland 15 7 Scotland 0 0 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 452-900 pairs. The following summary information was received. The size of the non-random sample available to the Panel has been consistent in recent years, and the 2005 figures are similar to those for 2003. The balance across areas was different, however, with few reported from Northern Ireland but more from Wales in 2005. Peregrine Falcon Territories occupied Territories known to Min. no. by pairs have fledged young young fledged England, SW 74 33 65 England, SE 38 30 65 England, E & C 76 33 69 England, N 195 81 189 Wales 162 83 134 Scotland Dumfries 8t Galloway 56 29 62 Lothian & Borders 56 29 67 South Strathclyde 30 18 43 Central Scotland 25 13 25 North-east Scotland 53 32 64 Tayside 66 36 70 Argyll 23 9 15 Highland 19 15 34 Orkney 12 4 6 Uists 13 5 14 Northern Ireland 2 2 4 TOTAL 900 452 926 1 49. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus chick being fitted with darvic ring. Greater Manchester, June 2005. A project to colour- ring Peregrine chicks in Greater Manchester, Lancashire and West Yorkshire, to allow field identification of known individuals, began in 2005. To date, 101 nestlings have been colour- ringed and there have been several sightings of fledged youngsters from Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and new sites in Lancashire, mainly from urban sites (including churches, cathedrals and factory chimneys). Observers are encouraged to check any Peregrines seen well in northern England carefully for colour rings. Any sightings would be much appreciated and can be reported to the BTO or to craig.bell I @ntlworld.com British Birds 101 ’June 2008 • 276-316 296 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 I 50. Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus are now thriving in many urban areas, such as this brood of chicks in Manchester in May 2007. Spotted Crake Porzana porzana 19 sites: 0-21 pairs. Birds calling on single dates are included because many are from traditional nesting sites and the elusive nature of the species means that it tends to be overlooked. In 2005, eight of those sites were RSPB reserves, which may reflect regular coverage. There were nil returns from regular sites in Highland and Shetland in 2005, this being the first year since 2000 that no spring or summer Spotted Crakes have been recorded in Shetland England, SW Gloucestershire One site: one singing male 10th— 24th June. Hampshire One site: one singing male 30th April to 5th May and probably same nearby on 8th May. England, E Cambridgeshire Three sites: four singing males in April and May. Norfolk One site: one singing male 8th— 1 8th May. England, N Cheshire & Wirral One site: one singing male 1 1th May. Yorkshire One site: one singing male 1 1th July. Scotland, S Clyde One site: one singing male 8th and 1 1th June. Scotland, Mid Angus & Dundee One site: one singing male 13th May and 1 3th— 1 5th June. North-east Scotland Two sites: (1) one singing male 30th May to 8th June and one adult seen on 7th July; (2) one singing male 30th May. Perth 8{ Kinross One site: one singing male 24th June to 1st July. Scotland, N & W Argyll Four sites: ( 1) two singing males; (2) one singing male 21st-22nd May; (3) one singing male 20th June to 9th July; (4) one singing male. Outer Hebrides Two sites: (1) one singing male 25th June; (2) one singing male 1st July. Corn Crake Crex crex 1,117 singing males. Although a full survey of Corn Crakes was not undertaken by RSPB in 2005, the total number of calling males has, nevertheless, continued to increase, especially in Argyll, which holds over half of the UK’s Corn Crakes. In 2001, the UK total was just 619 males. The rate of increase thus remains close to an average of 5% per year. On the downside, numbers on the Isle of Man declined and there were no calling birds in Shetland for the first time since 1994. British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 297 Adrian Dancy Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 England, E Cambridgeshire One site: two singing males. Suffolk One site: one singing male. England, N Isle of Man Two sites: two singing males. Wales Caernarfon One site: one singing male. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland One bird was flushed from suitable habitat in mid May. Scotland, N & W Argyll Total 616: mainland 2, Coll 159, Colonsay & Oronsay 53, Gigha 0, Iona 29, Islay 52, McCormaig Isles 1, Mull 5, Staffa 2, Tiree 310, Treshnish Isles 3. Highland Total 48: mainland 15, Canna 1, Eigg 1, Muck 4, Rum 0, Skye 27. Orkney 13. Outer Hebrides Total 431: Barra 57, Benbecula 28, Berneray 3, Harris 10, Lewis 114, Mingulay 3, North Uist 104, South Uist 103, Vatersay 9. Northern Ireland Co. Antrim One site: one singing male. Co. Down One site: one singing male. Co. Tyrone One site: one singing male. Common Crane Grus grus Four sites: 5-7 pairs. Cranes are shy birds and require large undisturbed areas in which to breed. It is heartening that in our crowded islands there is still space for a few pairs, though only the established Norfolk population reared young in 2005. The increase in records, and recent nesting attempts outside Norfolk, may indicate that this is a species capable of recolonising Britain successfully. The species is currently being assessed against World Conservation Union (IUCN) guidelines for potential reintro- duction elsewhere in southern Britain (Carter et al. 2008). England, E Norfolk One site: four pairs bred and one pair probably bred. Three pairs were successful, raising five young from broods of two, two and one. The fourth nest was predated. England, elsewhere One site: one pair bred. Two young were hatched but failed to survive more than a few weeks. Scotland Two sites: one pair and one single. (I) Pair present between mid July and mid September; (2) one bird summered, being present from mid May to late August. Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus Three sites: 0-2 pairs. Fraser et al. (2007) listed 16 records of Black-winged Stilt in 2005. The breeding attempt documented here is the first since 1993, when a pair laid eggs in Cheshire (Ogilvie et al. 1996). The only successful breeding attempts by Black-winged Stilts in the UK were in Nottinghamshire in 1945 and Norfolk in 1987, although eggs were also laid in Cambridgeshire in 1983. Small numbers breed annually in The Netherlands and in Belgium. England, SW Gloucestershire One site: one pair seen mating but only present between 12th and 15th May. England, E Norfolk One site: ‘Sammy’, the unmated male stilt, remained at Titchwell until 21st May, when he was at least 12 years old, but was not seen subsequently. Suffolk One site: one pair attempted to breed. Present during 16th-30th May, when courtship, copulation and the carrying of nest material were seen. The female became difficult to see from mid month as she spent much time in a thick area of Saltmarsh Rush Juncus gerardii. An empty nest scrape was found after the pair had departed although it was not certain whether the scrape had ever contained eggs. Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 70 sites: 1,366 pairs. Revised figures for 2004 are 1,454 pairs at 74 sites, owing to an additional 95 pairs being reported from Kent. A small reduction in the numbers of breeding pairs was apparent in 2005, although the loss is shared across most of the UK range. The Welsh colony increased to five pairs and a single bird was recorded at a site in North-east Scotland for the fifth consecutive year. The five-year mean (1997-2002, excluding 2001) on which the most recent population estimate of 877 breeding pairs was based (Baker et al. 2006) has been exceeded every year since 2002. 298 British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Avocet No. sites Confirmed pairs Min. young fledged England, SW Hampshire 1 3 4 England, SE Essex 14 201 70 Kent 10 216 55 Sussex 2 12 24 England, E Cambridgeshire 4 6 0 Lincolnshire 5 122 16 Norfolk 15 443 138 Suffolk 11 259 71 England, C Worcestershire 1 1 2 England, N Lancashire & N Merseyside 3 23 29 Yorkshire 3 75 37 Wales Gwent 1 5 9 TOTAL 70 1,366 455 Stone-curlew Burhinus oedicnemus Six counties: 307 confirmed pairs fledged 182 young. Monitoring by RSPB, supported by Natural England, covers most of the popula- tion each year, amounting to 258 pairs in 2005. In addition, a large estate in Suffolk held a further 49 pairs, bringing the national total to a minimum of 307 breeding pairs, a continued increase. The figures given in the table (right) are for proven breeding pairs only. Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius 510-770 pairs. The total of 770 pairs reported in 2005 is the highest ever, but still lower than the population estimate for the UK of 825-1,070 pairs (Gibbons et al. 1993). In the ten years that the Panel has collected data on this species, numbers were initially stable but then appeared to decline until an upturn in fortunes began in 2003 (fig. 5). As Little Ringed Plovers breed opportunistically, for example on industrial sites and at gravel-pits, as well as in natural sites in river valleys, it is difficult to be sure that all pairs have been found. The survey organised by the BTO in 2007 attempted to visit all known sites so the results of that census will better inform us about the population trends. A detailed breakdown of the number of confirmed breeding pairs on a county-by-county basis for 2005 can be found on the Panel’s website at: www.rbbp.org.uk/downloads/rbbp-2005- little-ringed-plover-county-totals.pdf Little Ringed Plover Confirmed breeding Max. total England, SW 46 72 England, SE 79 142 England, E 44 79 England, C 121 154 England, N 116 195 Wales 92 109 Scotland, S 1 3 Scodand, Mid 11 16 TOTAL 510 770 Stone-curlew Confirmed pairs Young fledged England, SW Hampshire 23 59 Wiltshire 68 England, SE Two counties 12 8 England, E Norfolk 119 115 Suffolk 85 TOTAL 307 182 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 299 c Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 ) Fig. 5. Number of pairs of Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius breeding in the UK, 1 996-2005. The gradual decline in numbers was reversed in 2003 and the numbers in 2005 reached an all-time high of 770 breeding pairs. Dotterel Charadrius morinellus The Panel aims to cover only those Dotterels nesting outside the main Scottish range: the moun- tainous areas of Highland, Moray & Nairn, North-east Scotland and Perth & Kinross. In 2005, only one record away from this core breeding range was received. Scotland, S Borders A trip of seven birds was recorded on a hilltop on 4th May, and five were still present on 17th May; no further visits were made. Three hills in this area were checked for Dotterels in the summer but none was found. The habitat here continues to become less suitable for this species, owing to the longer vegetation on the summits, which may be due to reduced grazing pressure and climate change. Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima One site: 0-2 pairs. A poor year for this species, which is on the edge of its Arctic breeding range in Scotland. The species typically nests in some of the least accessible montane habitats and some pairs may be missed in poor weather. Since RBBP began monitoring Purple Sandpipers in 1976, the number of confirmed pairs in any one year has never exceeded the four in 1981 and 1994, although three pairs bred as recently as 2003. Scotland, N & W Highland One site: two pairs probably bred but no further information. Ruff Philomachus pugnax Two sites: 0-2 pairs. After reports of confirmed breeding in both 2003 and 2004, all 2005 could offer was displaying birds for a few days only. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland One site: a pair for three days in May followed by four birds displaying on the fourth day, but no further records. Scotland, N & W Argyll One site: a male displaying to a female on two dates in June. Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 18 sites: 58-70 pairs. Breeding records involving birds of the nominate form from continental Europe came from the same counties in England as in 2004, with a similar number of confirmed pairs (53 in 2005 compared with 52 in 2004). Display was noted at other coastal sites in eastern England, with birds lingering into the summer, which may hint at the potential for future expansion here. In Scotland, the race L. 1. islandica , which has its breeding range centred on Iceland, bred in Orkney and 300 British Birds 101 ’June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Shetland (a total of five confirmed pairs), while probable breeding was reported from the Outer Hebrides, and there was a strong suggestion of breeding in Argyll. The pair which attempted to breed in southern Scotland was probably of the nominate race. Outside the UK, key populations of nominate limosa breeding in The Netherlands and Russia are declining, while those of L. 1. islandica showed a significant increase during the period 1990-2000. Given the separate trends shown by the two races, observers are requested to specify the race of breeding birds recorded in the UK, where this is known. In a recent review (2007), the European race L. 1. limosa was added to the UK’s BAP priority species list owing to the threat of extinction in Europe (see www.ukbap.org.uk). L I. limosa England, SE Kent Two sites: three pairs bred; one pair failed and success at two other nests is unknown. England, E Cambridgeshire One site: 45 pairs fledged at least 15 young. Norfolk One site: three pairs bred but all nests predated. Suffolk Two sites: at one, a single male limosa displayed to an islandica female; at the other, a male chased off an islandica male. England, N Lancashire & N Merseyside Two sites: (1) two pairs hatched at least five young; (2) one pair possibly bred. Yorkshire One site: one pair probably bred. Scotland, S Dumfries & Galloway One site: one pair probably bred ( these birds were not positively identified to this race, but were thought most likely to be L. 1. limosa). L I. islandica Scotland, N & W Argyll One site: one pair with two large young was seen in late June although it is not certain that they bred at this locality. Orkney Three sites: (1) one pair bred, seen with young, and three pairs probably bred; (2) one pair displaying; (3) one pair alarming in June. Outer Hebrides One site: at least one pair probably bred, plus a single bird noted nearby. Shetland Three sites: four pairs bred, one of which fledged two young. Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus The following records from outside the species’ main range in Orkney and Shetland were received. There have been no confirmed breeding records to date from North-east Scotland, but breeding in the Outer Hebrides has been recorded in most years since 1968 (Forrester et al. 2007). Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland One site: one bird in suitable habitat. Scotland, N & W Outer Hebrides Three sites: one pair probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. Greenshank Tringa nebularia Following the appeal made in the last report for more records of Greenshanks in breeding habitat, data were received from 36 sites, holding up to 63 pairs, but this still represents less than 10% of the estimated breeding population (Baker et al. 2006), which is concentrated in northwest Scotland. No breeding records were submitted from either Perth & Kinross or Argyll. It is hoped that Bird Atlas 2007-1 1 will help to better define the current status of this species. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland Two sites: singles present in April only. Scotland, N & W Caithness Three sites: three pairs probably bred and one pair possibly bred. Highland 18 sites: ten pairs bred and 32 pairs probably bred. Outer Hebrides 12 sites: four pairs bred, seven pairs probably bred and five pairs possibly bred. Shetland One site: one pair bred. British Birds 101 - June 2008 • 276-316 301 David A.Thelwell Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus One site: two pairs. Green Sandpipers cling onto their traditional site in Highland and breeding was again confirmed this year. Green Sandpiper was first noted in breeding habitat in Scotland in the 1930s (Forrester et al. 2007). Breeding was first confirmed in 1959 but, after the formation of the RBBP in 1972, the species was not recorded breeding until 1995. Since then it has been reported in suitable breeding habitat in every year except 1997, and there were four pairs in 2002. Breeding has been confirmed in five of these ten years. Green Sandpipers nest in trees, in the old nests of other birds, in damp, open woodland habitats, and it is likely that some pairs are breeding undetected in Highland Scotland. Scotland, N & W Highland One site: two pairs bred, with singing, display and distressed alarming behaviour recorded. Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola Two sites: 0-9 pairs. In contrast to 2004, when 18-22 pairs were reported to the Panel, records from only two sites, both monitored by RSPB, were received for 2005. Scotland, N & W Highland One site: eight pairs probably bred. Outer Hebrides One site: one pair probably bred. Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Eight sites: 33-45 pairs. The maximum number of pairs is determined from the number of males at breeding sites, all of which are monitored by RSPB. The maximum of 45 pairs is one of the highest of recent years and continues the current upturn in fortunes referred to in the Panel’s 2002 report (Ogilvie eta/. 2004). Scotland, N & W Orkney Two to four birds were present on six dates between 8th June and 12th July but there was no indication of breeding. Outer Hebrides Five sites: three pairs bred, seven pairs probably bred and five pairs possibly bred. Shetland Three extensive sites: (1) Fetlar. At least 20 breeding males. (2)— (3) Another ten breeding males. A total of 57 young hatched in Shetland colonies but the number fledged is not known. Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus. 302 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus 28 sites: 243-262 pairs. The extraordinary increase in numbers of breeding Mediterranean Gulls documented in the last report has continued, in particular the number of confirmed breeding pairs (twice as many as in 2003). The increase is most noticeable at the largest colony, Langstone Harbour in Hampshire, which has seen a 233% increase in just two years. There are also signs of movement into Wales and northern England, although there were no new counties in which breeding was confirmed in 2005. England, SW Dorset One site: one pair probably bred. Hampshire Three sites: (1) 110 pairs at Langstone Harbour fledged 165 young; (2) six pairs probably bred; (3) one pair possibly bred. Isle of Wight One site: three pairs fledged seven young and two pairs possibly bred. England, SE Essex Three sites: seven pairs bred. Kent Three sites: ( 1 ) 47 pairs bred; (2) 12 pairs bred; (3) one pair possibly bred. Sussex One site: 37 pairs bred. England, E Norfolk Three sites: five pairs bred. Suffolk Two sites: (1) ten pairs fledged 10-12 young; (2) four pairs fledged two young. England, N Cheshire & Wirral One site: three pairs fledged two young. Greater Manchester One site: one pair bred, but this may have been a mixed pairing with a Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus , as only one Mediterranean Gull was seen sitting on the nest. However, up to three adults were present in the colony between February and July. Lancashire & N Merseyside Two sites: four pairs bred. Yorkshire Two sites: three pairs probably bred. Wales Anglesey One site: one pair possibly bred. Brecon One site: one pair possibly bred. Gwent One site: one pair dis- playing on one date in June but did not breed here. Northern Ireland Co. Antrim One site: one pair probably bred. Co. Down One site: one pair possibly bred. Yellow- 1 egged Gull Larus michahellis Four sites: 1-4 pairs. A similar situation to recent years, with just one pair breeding and no young fledged. However, as populations in western Europe have been increasing since at least 1970 (BirdLife International 2004), it seems likely that this species will continue to appear in future reports. England, SW Dorset One site: one pair nested but failed to produce any young for the fourth year running. England, SE Bedfordshire One site: mixed pairing with Lesser Black-backed Gull L. fuscus. This was a different site from that used in 2003 and 2004 by a male Yellow-legged Gull. England, E Cambridgeshire One site: mixed pairing with Lesser Black-backed Gull. A male Yellow-legged Gull was paired with, and seen displaying to, a female Lesser Black-backed Gull for at least 1 1 days in mid to late April. Northern Ireland Co. Fermanagh One site: one bird present in a Lesser Black-backed Gull colony on 12th— 21st May only. Little Tern Sternula albifrons Minimum of 1,501 pairs. Summary information for each area is presented, based on a non-random sample rather than a com- plete survey. The table shows the number of confirmed breeding pairs, which should be treated as minima. About 1,200 of the 1,500 pairs are at colonies monitored as part of the annual JNCC Seabird Monitoring Programme (Mavor et al. 2006). The following summary is taken from that source: 'Small declines in numbers of breeding pairs at sampled colonies occurred in most regions in 2005. Productivity in England and Wales, at 0.27 chicks fledged per nesting pair, was low (as in 2004) and pre- sumed to be due to localised food shortages, tidal inundation Little Tern Pairs England, SW 173 England, SE 233 England, E 539 England, NE 148 England, NW 67 Wales 72 Scotland, S 8 Scotland, Mid 56 Scotland, N&W 205 TOTAL 1,501 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 303 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 and predation. Productivity in Scotland was higher than in the previous five years, at 0.62 chicks fledged per nesting pair.’ Taking Britain & Ireland as a whole, the colony at Kilcoole, in southeast Ireland, was the most pro- ductive, with 1.6 chicks fledged per nesting pair. This colony, at 100 pairs, is the largest outside the stronghold in East Anglia. Between them, Norfolk and Suffolk accounted for 491 pairs in 2005, with two-thirds of these at just three colonies. Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii Five sites: 104 pairs fledged 98 young. No breeding was recorded in Norfolk, Wales or on the Isle of May, where this species has bred in some recent years. In Eire, 733 pairs bred at three sites, fledging 1,080 young (Mavor eta/. 2006; RSPB unpublished data). England, S One site: one pair bred but the nest was abandoned. England, N Northumberland Two sites: (1) Coquet Island: 91 pairs hatched 103 young and fledged 89; (2) Fame Islands: one pair fledged one young, the first breeding here since 2002. Scotland, Mid Fife One site: four pairs fledged four young. Northern Ireland Co. Antrim One site: seven pairs fledged four young. Barn Owl Tyto alba Minimum of 3,724 pairs. This species has been included in the RBBP report since 1996 and the figures have been based initially on returns from county and regional recorders. Where these have not been available, or if they provide additional data, Schedule 1 returns have been used. Since the totals thus vary, from estimates based on sites recording Barn Owls during the breeding season to accurate counts of known nests, the regional and UK totals are minima and should be used cautiously. The breakdown by recording area for 2005 is posted on the Panel’s website (http://www.rbbp.org.uk/downloads/rbbp- 2005-barn-owl-county-totals.pdf). All regions show an increase over 2004, except for those in Scotland. No figures were available for Northern Ireland. The minimum number of pairs reported to the Panel is now 4.5 times what it was ten years ago (fig. 6). Since Barn Owl is currently monitored by the Barn Owl Monitoring Programme run by the BTO, and by the BBS (it was recorded in 2% of surveyed squares in both 2005 and 2006), this species has now been removed from the list of species covered by RBBP. Fig. 6. Number of pairs of Barn Owl Tyto alba breeding in the UK, 1996-2005. Barn Owl Pairs England, SW 629 England, SE 547 England, E 579 England, C 377 England, N 973 Wales 238 Scotland, S 226 Scotland, Mid 98 Scotland, N & W 57 TOTAL 3,724 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 304 < Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 > Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Minimum 1,361 pairs. For Kingfishers, as for Barn Owls, the RBBP report has included data based on returns from recorders since 1996. The Kingfisher totals are similarly variable, from accurate counts of known nests to estimates based on sites recording this species during the breeding season. The regional and UK totals are therefore minima and should be used cautiously. The breakdown by recording area is given on our website (http://www.rbbp.org.uk/downloads/rbbp-2005-common-kingfisher-county- totals.pdf). Most regions showed an increase over the 2004 total, the exceptions being eastern England, Wales and mid Scotland. None was reported from north & west Scotland, and no figures were available for Northern Ireland. In 2005, the minimum number of pairs was more than twice what it was in 1996 (fig. 7) but, increasingly, recorders have stated how incomplete their knowledge of the local population is. Common Kingfisher is now monitored by BBS (it was reported from 2% of surveyed squares in 2005 and from 3% of squares in 2006) and this is the last year it will appear in the RBBP report. Fig. 7. Number of pairs of Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis breeding in the UK. 1 996-2005. Common Kingfisher Pairs England, SW 167 England, SE 383 England, E 130 England, C 186 England, N 397 Wales 48 Scotland, S 43 Scotland, Mid 7 TOTAL 1,361 European Bee-eater Merops apiaster One site: one pair bred. The last time this species appeared in the Panel’s reports was in 2002, when a pair fledged two young in Co. Durham and a second pair attempted to breed in Yorkshire. Herefordshire One site: one pair bred; the young were taken from the nest burrow at night by a predator, probably a Red Fox Vulpes vulpes. European Bee-eaters Merops apiaster. British Birds 101 - June 2008 • 276-316 305 Alan Harris Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Wryneck Jynx torquilla Ten sites: 0-7 pairs bred. Given the elusive nature of this species, all potential breeding sites which recorded late spring or summer Wrynecks are listed here, although only one pair and six singing males were recorded and no further evidence of breeding. Scotland, Mid Moray & Nairn Two sites: a single bird on one date in mid May, and one pair on one date in June only. North-east Scotland Two sites: one singing male and a single bird in May. Scotland, N & W Highland Six sites: five singing males and one single bird in July. Wood Lark Lullula arborea 1,001 pairs. The following county totals were received, most of which are based on counts of singing males. Coverage is incomplete for many counties, making year-to-year comparisons difficult. For example, although singing birds were reported from Devon, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire in 2003-04, there were no returns for 2005. In Devon, Wood Larks breed largely in farmland habitats so may be overlooked (and 57 territories were identified in the 2006 survey), whereas in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire the lack of records may be a true reflection of the status. In Wiltshire, breeding was proved for the first time since 2002, with two young fledged. The largest increases appeared to be in central England, particularly Nottinghamshire. The previous national survey, in 1997, found 1,426-1,552 pairs (Wotton & Gillings 2000) and was repeated in 2006. Wood Lark Pairs Surrey 147 Sussex 72 England, SW 173 England, E 452 Devon 0 Lincolnshire 10 Dorset 51 Norfolk 161 Hampshire 121 Suffolk 281 Wiltshire 1 England, C 76 England, SE 272 Nottinghamshire 50 Bedfordshire 0 Staffordshire 26 Berkshire 51 England, N 28 Buckinghamshire 0 Yorkshire 28 Kent 2 TOTAL 1,001 Shore Lark Eremophila alpestris One site: 0-1 pairs. The only confirmed breeding records occurred in 1977 and 2003. Like other species of the high tops, this species is readily overlooked, and even finding the birds can prove difficult. Scotland, N & W Highland One site: a series of records of a single bird in suitable breeding habitat in the summer may point to a nesting pair. Most reports referred to a male, but others did not specify gender, so there may have been two birds. There were also unconfirmed reports of singing males from the high tops in both Highland and Moray & Nairn. White Wagtail Motacilla alba alba One site: one pair. This is the first appearance of this distinctive race in the Panel’s reports since 2000, when five pairs were recorded in Argyll and the Outer Hebrides; however, the possibility of mixed pairings with Pied Wagtail M. a. yarrellii could not then be excluded and this breeding record of a pair of the nominate race in Argyll is therefore of interest. However, Forrester et al. (2007) suggested that one or two pure or mixed pairs nest most years in Scotland, usually in the Northern Isles. Scotland, N & W Argyll One site: one pair fledged at least one young. 306 British Birds 101 'June 2008 • 276-316 c Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros 54 sites: 17-60 pairs. Unusually for species considered by the Panel, Black Redstart nests mainly in urban areas and its presence is under-recorded unless special efforts are made to locate singing males. New data have increased the estimates for 2003 and 2004 (Holling et al. 2007a) to 15-37 and 21-45 pairs respectively. In 2005, good coverage from the major conurbations of Greater London and the West Midlands produced returns from 54 sites, revealing up to 60 pairs. This total is still lower than those in the late 1980s, when over 100 pairs were typically recorded annually. England, SW Avon One site: one singing male in May. Dorset Two sites: two pairs probably bred. Hampshire One site: one pair reared two broods. Isle of Wight One site: one pair possibly bred. England, SE Bedfordshire One site: one singing male in June. Berkshire One site: at least two singing males and one female. Buckinghamshire One site: one pair possibly bred. Essex Four sites: five pairs probably bred. Greater London 1 2 sites: five pairs fledged 14 young, one pair possibly bred and six other singing males. Hertfordshire Three sites: one pair bred, one pair probably bred and one pair possibly bred. Kent Eight sites: seven pairs bred, one pair probably bred and two pairs possibly bred, plus one other singing male. England, E Cambridgeshire Three sites: three singing males. Lincolnshire One site: one pair probably bred. Norfolk Five sites: one pair probably bred and four singing males. Northamptonshire One site: one pair fledged three young. Suffolk Three sites: one pair bred, one pair probably bred and one singing male. Absent from one regular site. England, C Derbyshire One site: one pair possibly bred but site subsequently demolished. West Midlands Two sites: three pairs probably bred. England, N Greater Manchester One site: one pair bred. Yorkshire One site: one pair possibly bred. Wales Denbigh & Flint One site: one singing male in May. Fieldfare Turdus pilaris One site: 0-1 pairs. Single birds, but no indications of breeding, were recorded during June-July, in five areas: Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire (two birds), Greater Manchester, Borders and North-east Scotland. The only suggestion of possible breeding was a male in Shetland heard singing occasionally from 8th June and remaining until late September. Redwing Turdus iliacus Four sites: 1-6 pairs. This is a very low number of records for this species, which reached a peak of 78 pairs in 1984 (fig. 8), at a time when more effort was made to record and confirm breeding. Single birds, but no signs of breeding, were recorded during June in Kent and in July in Brecon. The latter is of additional interest because singing birds have previously been recorded in May in this area. Fig. 8. Number of confirmed pairs, and maximum total of possible breeding pairs of Redwing Turdus iliacus in the UK, 1973-2005. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland One site: one pair bred. A family party was found on 3rd July and constitutes the first confirmed breeding in this area since 1975. British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 307 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Scotland, N & W Highland One site: one pair probably bred. Orkney Three singing males were recorded but only early in the season. Outer Hebrides One site: one pair probably bred. A first-summer female with a small brood patch was trapped in June, but there was no further indication of a breeding attempt. Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti 1,331 singing males. This is a new peak estimate for this species, and even this is believed to be an underestimate. Following the first British record, in 1961, Cetti’s Warbler became firmly estab- lished as a breeding species in some southern and southeastern counties of England in the 1970s. Severe winters in the mid 1980s checked the population growth, but since then milder winter weather has enabled this resident warbler to consolidate and expand its range. In 2005, singing birds were recorded in the breeding season from 29 counties, although the stronghold is still in southwestern England, where both Hampshire and Somerset had at least 200 singing birds. The population in Wales has increased further to a new high of 137 singing males. The national survey in 1996 revealed a total of 519-574 singing males, so there has been at Fig. 9. Number of singing male Cetti’s Warblers Cettia cetti in England and Wales. 200 1 -05, illustrating the increase in the overall and regional totals. Cetti’s Warbler Total (confirmed pairs) England, SW 672 (17) Avon 17 Cornwall 13 Devon 78 Dorset 79 Gloucestershire 8(1) Hampshire 200 (3) Isle of Wight 25 Somerset 225 (10) Wiltshire 27(3) England, SE 301 (19) Berkshire 46(1) Buckinghamshire 3 Essex 40 Greater London 1 Hertfordshire 3(1) Kent 132 (3) Oxfordshire 20 Sussex 56(14) England, E 202 (4) Cambridgeshire 6(4) Norfolk 117* Suffolk 79 England, C 19 (10) Leicestershire & Rutland ot Warwickshire 11(7) Worcestershire 8(3) Wales 137(1) Anglesey 4 Brecon Ot Caernarfon 3 Carmarthen 22 Glamorgan 10(1) Gower 43 Gwent 47 Pembroke 8 TOTAL 1,331 (51) * The total in Norfolk is known to be an underestimate, as 176 singing males were recorded in 2004. t In both Brecon and Leicestershire & Rutland, single singing males were recorded during the winter months but, since this is often a prelude to breeding, future records can be expected. 308 British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 least a 61% increase in the ten years since then. Fig. 9 shows the increase in numbers reported to the Panel over the last five years, broken down by region. Savi’s Warbler Locustella luscinioides Seven sites: at least seven singing males. Although the total number of singing males is typical of recent years, the birds show little or no site fidelity, and only Kent has held Savi’s Warblers annually since 2001. Scottish records are exceptional; there were only seven records to the end of 2004 (Forrester eta/. 2007). Owing to population declines over the last 25 years, Savi’s Warbler was added to the UK’s list of BAP species in 2007 (see www.ukbap.org.uk). England, SW Somerset Two sites: (1) one singing male between 16th April and 11th May; (2) one singing male between 24th June and 26th July. England, SE Kent Three sites: at least three singing males, with the possibility of a second singing male at one of these sites. Note that only one of these has been assessed and accepted by BBRC at the time of writing (Brit. Birds 100: 736). England, C Leicestershire & Rutland One site: one singing male between 13th and 24th April. This was only the third county record of this species. Scotland Perth & Kinross One site: one singing male between 10th and 16th May. Marsh Warbler Acrocephalus palustris Seven sites: 1-9 pairs. Following indications of disturbance to potential nesting sites, the Panel has decided not to name counties in England where breeding is suspected. It is encouraging to note that two young fledged from a nest in Shetland, however. The maximum total of nine pairs is the lowest recorded for 20 years, continuing the decline illustrated in the Panel’s 2002 report (Ogilvie eta/. 2004). England, SE Three sites: three pairs probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. ( 1 ) Three males held territory and probably bred; (2) singing male; (3) an adult was trapped in May and three juveniles were trapped at the same site in August. England, E One site: one singing male held territory between 7th and 18th June. England, C One site: one singing male held territory from 10th to 23rd June. England, N One site: one singing male held territory between 6th and 27th June. Scotland, N 8c W Shetland One site: one pair bred. A male was heard in song on 8th July and for a few days thereafter. Then, in mid August, a pair was heard alarm-calling and seen carrying food; two young were fledged. Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus Three sites: three singing males. Singing Great Reed Warblers have been recorded in every one of the last ten years, with a maximum of four in 1997, although in 2002 the single record received was of a male present for just one day, and only birds present in habitat for several days are included in these reports. However, despite the regularity of occurrence, there has been no further evidence of breeding. England, SE Bedfordshire One site: one singing male from 15th May to 9th June. England, C Warwickshire One site: one singing male from 6th to 10th May. Wales Caernarfon One site: one singing male from 10th to 18th June. Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata Minimum of 1,556 pairs. The increase of recent years continues although, clearly, this figure underesti- mates the total population, as 1,597-1,675 pairs were counted in the last national survey, in 1994. This survey was repeated in 2006 and will be described in the next report. Compared to 2003-04, there has British Birds 101 - June 2008 • 276-316 309 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Dartford Warbler Pairs England, SW 614 Devon 119 Dorset 111 Hampshire 279 Isle of Wight 8 Somerset 97 England, SE 799 Berkshire 28 Buckinghamshire 1 Surrey 670 Sussex 100 England, E 115 Norfolk 2 Suffolk 113 England, C 1 Staffordshire 1 Wales 27 Carmarthen 4 Glamorgan 5 Gower 15 Pembroke 3 TOTAL 1,556 been an overall increase in numbers in eastern England and Wales. Perhaps the most significant event of 2005 was the recolonisation of Cannock Chase, Staffordshire, where a pair bred for the first time in over 100 years. Although the UK population is increasing, in some countries in continental Europe where Dartford Warblers are censused through common bird monitoring programmes, including Spain, there have been declines (www.ebcc.info). As a consequence, Dartford Warbler has now been classified as Near Threatened on the global IUCN Red List. Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla At least 37 sites: 9-248 pairs. The numbers given here are comparable with those of 2003-04, which were the highest ever reported to the Panel. In 2005, however, the number of sites at which the species was found was much lower. Assuming that at least some sites were unsurveyed rather than devoid of Firecrests, the overall population may well have been higher. As stated previously, the search effort for Firecrests varies considerably from year to year and between counties (for example, see Kent below). There is scope to improve our knowledge of the distribution of this species through Bird Atlas 2007-1 1 . The European trends for Firecrest are stable, although a 23% decline in the breeding popula- tion was indicated in France in 1990-2000 (BirdLife International 2004). England, SW Gloucestershire One site: one pair possibly bred. Hampshire Nine extensive sites: two pairs bred and 96 pairs prob- ably bred, 63 of the territories being in the New Forest. Wiltshire Three sites: eight pairs probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. England, SE Berkshire Five sites: three pairs bred and a further 64 singing males. Buckinghamshire Three sites: two pairs bred and eight pairs possibly bred. Essex Two sites: two pairs probably bred. Kent Reported from only one site, where one pair possibly bred. In 2005, there was no survey and numbers are grossly under-represented by this total. Surrey Three sites: three pairs probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. Sussex 23 pairs probably bred at an unknown number of sites. England, E Cambridgeshire One site: one singing male on one date. Norfolk Two extensive sites: one pair bred and 21 singing males. Suffolk Five sites: five pairs possibly bred. England, C Warwickshire One site: one pair bred and two pairs possibly bred. Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus 48 sites: a minimum of 552-559 pairs. Owing to variations in reporting across sites, the total of 552 pairs combines the figures for both confirmed and probable breeding pairs. Fig. 10 shows that the maximum total has increased by over 150% in the last ten years, and that numbers are now approaching the totals recorded in the last annual survey, in 2002 (see Eaton et al. 2004). This esti- mated the British breeding population to be in the region of 650 pairs, an increase of nearly 60% since the previous survey, in 1992, and matching the peak numbers recorded in the mid 1970s and early 1980s. The Panel’s 2002 report (Ogilvie et al. 2004) included numbers from only a sample area of what was then the main breeding site in Perth & Kinross. The difference between the 2005 figures presented 310 British Birds 101 - June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 here and the 2002 survey total for Perth & Kinross can be explained largely by the much lower numbers at this site in 2005. England, SW Dorset Six sites: 16-17 pairs. Hamp- shire Three sites: seven pairs. Somerset Three sites: at least 1 1 pairs. England, SE Essex Five sites: 16 pairs. Hertford- shire One site: one pair possibly bred. Kent At least four sites: 66-69 pairs. Sussex Three sites: 20 pairs and at least 68 young fledging from two sites. England, E Cambridgeshire One site: one pair fledged two young. Lincolnshire Two sites: three pairs present early in the season. Norfolk Seven sites: 153-154 pairs. Suffolk Six sites: 143 pairs but numbers at one site (Minsmere) not counted this year. England, N Cheshire 8c Wirral One site: one pair but no young recorded. Lancashire & N Merseyside One site: 32 pairs fledged 53 young, continuing the recovery at this site. Yorkshire One site: at least 70 pairs fledged a minimum of 292, possibly over 400, young, in one of the best breeding seasons ever recorded. Wales Gwent One site: one pair fledged 6-9 young. This is the first breeding in Wales since 1988. Scodand, Mid Moray 8c Nairn One site: two pairs. North-east Scotland One site: at least two individuals in July indicates possible breeding. Perth 8c Kinross One extensive site: ten pairs reported but only 40 birds ringed this year (compared with 70 pairs and 373 ringed in 2004). This sharp reduction is thought to have been caused by food shortage in winter 2004/05. Golden Oriole Oriolus oriolus Ten sites: 2-10 pairs. Away from known breeding sites, presumed passage birds were also noted singing on single dates in Essex and Kent. The sighting of a pair well outside the normal range, in Argyll, raises interesting questions as it followed records of a singing male there in 2004 (ap Rheinallt et al. 2007). In addition, the long stay of a male in Nottinghamshire warrants a mention. However, numbers in the core range of East Anglia continue to decline, down to just two known successful pairs, the lowest total since 1983. A 21% decline in France in 1990-2000 was indicated by BirdLife International (2004), although the European status is felt to be secure owing to stable or increasing populations in eastern Europe. England, E Cambridgeshire Two sites: two singing males. Norfolk One site: one pair possibly bred. Suffolk Five sites: two pairs fledged at least four young, two pairs probably bred and one pair possibly bred. England, C Nottinghamshire One site: one singing male present on at least sbc days in mid May. Scotland, N 8c W Argyll One site: one pair seen on one date in July dose to the location where a singing male was heard on two dates in May and June 2004. Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio Two sites: two pairs. Red-backed Shrikes were last recorded breeding in 1999 and 2004, so the occur- rence of two widely separated pairs, both successfully rearing young, is noteworthy. In addition, single birds were seen in suitable breeding habitat in three Scottish counties in May and June, including one Fig. 10. Maximum total number of breeding pairs of Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus in the UK, 1996-2005. British Birds 101 - June 2008 • 276-316 311 Alan Harris Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Female Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio. which remained for more than ten days in mid to late May. Wales One site: one pair fledged two young. The nest was found after fledging, and the pair returned to the same site in 2006. Subsequent searches of the area in 2006 revealed a third nest, which may indicate that the pair nested in the same area undetected in 2004. Scotland, N & W One site: one pair bred and one fledged young seen on 13th July. Red-billed Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Minimum of 316 pairs. The numbers presented here are slightly higher than those reported in 2003-04, but still well below the estimated UK pop- ulation of 429-497 pairs (Baker et al 2006). No Red-billed Choughs were found in Co. Antrim for the first time since 2000. Brambling Fringilla montifringilla Two sites: 0-3 pairs. After breeding was confirmed in Highland in 2002, there were no breeding records of Brambling in 2003-04, and little evi- dence was submitted in 2005. Two of the records refer to singing males in the first few days of May only, and may well refer to passage birds. Scotland, N & W Highland Two sites: three singing males in suitable habitat in May. Red-billed Chough England Pairs Young reared Cornwall 1 5 Isle of Man Wales 37 81 Anglesey 34 64 Caernarfon 83 146 Ceredigion 27 49 Denbigh & Flint 2 3 Glamorgan 1 0 Gower 2 3 Meirionnydd 16 33 Pembroke Scotland 68 140 Argyll: Colonsay & Oronsay 19 34 Argyll: Islay 25 64 Dumfries & Galloway Northern Ireland 1 1 Co. Antrim 0 0 TOTAL 316 623 Note: numbers for Colonsay & Oronsay exclude six prospecting (immature) pairs, and the 34 young reared there were fledged from 14 monitored nests. No data were received from other areas of Argyll where Red-billed Choughs may have been present. 312 British Birds 101 “June 2008 • 276—316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea After confirmed breeding in the Outer Hebrides and Shetland in 2004, there was little to report from these islands in 2005, although it seems that breeding may have taken place in Caithness in 2005. Scodand, N & W Caithness One site: a flock of 25 on 17th May included some juveniles being fed, and 50 Common Redpolls were present at the same site on 24th luly. Shedand One site: present until 2nd June but did not breed. Common Crossbill Loxia curvirostra At least 175 pairs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The 2005 total lies between those given for 2003 (332) and 2004 (107). As some counties supply minima based on confirmed breeding records only, and others provide higher totals based on the presence of birds in spring, the same caveats given in previous years (that totals for some counties are a gross underestimate) apply here. It seems that the numbers of Common Crossbills in England were close to average in 2005, but that numbers were con- siderably higher in Wales, with four times as many pairs reported as in 2004. No data are presented for Scotland, as the information there is even more incomplete. It is notable, however, that breeding was confirmed in Orkney. Because Common Crossbills nest early, are prone to long movements after juveniles have fledged, and breed in extensive areas of conifer plantations visited infrequently by birdwatchers, it is recognised that it is difficult to produce meaningful annual statements based on the data we receive. Moreover, the species is sufficiently numerous and widespread to be monitored by the BBS (in 2005, Common Crossbills were reported from 2% of BBS squares; Raven & Noble 2006). Consequently, Common Crossbill has now been removed from the RBBP list. Common Crossbill Total (confirmed pairs) Nottinghamshire 3 Shropshire 20 England, SW 15 (10) England, N 7(2) Dorset na Lancashire & N Merseyside 2 Gloucestershire 5(4) Northumberland na Hampshire 3(3) Yorkshire 5(2) Somerset 7(3) Wales 100 (58) England, SE 5(0) Brecon 35(9) Bedfordshire 1 Caernarfon 5(5) Kent 1 Carmarthen 2 Surrey 1 Ceredigion 8(6) Sussex 2 Denbigh & Flint 4(4) England, E 15(11) Glamorgan 18 (18) Cambridgeshire 1 Gower 4(1) Lincolnshire 8(8) Gwent 4(4) Norfolk 1 (1) Meirionnydd 8(8) Suffolk 5(2) Montgomery 12(3) England, C 23 (0) Northern Ireland 10(0) Derbyshire na TOTAL 175 (81) Scottish Crossbill Loxia scotica Five sites: 1-14 pairs. Information from two RSPB reserves in Highland was supplemented this year by additional data from three sites in North-east Scotland. Even so, the data provide limited insight into the overall population level or trends of this species. Forrester et al. (2007) stated that the Scottish (and therefore world) population was between 300 and 1,300 pairs, but this was based on extrapolation from surveys conducted in the 1970s. A survey, using sonograms to identify this and other crossbill species, is underway in 2008, and this will give us the first robust estimate of the numbers and distri- bution of Scottish Crossbills. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland Three sites: one pair bred, one pair probably bred and two pairs possibly bred. Scotland, N & W Highland Two sites: at least ten pairs probably bred. British Birds 101 "June 2008 • 276-316 313 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Parrot Crossbill Loxia pytyopsittacus Three sites: 1-3 pairs. As for the previous species, these data provide just a tiny sample of the popula- tion breeding in Scotland. Summers (2002) claimed that, in 1995-2001, Parrot Crossbill was the most abundant crossbill species nesting in Abernethy Forest, Highland; Forrester etal. (2007) suggested that the Scottish population was about 100 pairs. Note that these records have not been assessed by BBRC. Scotland, Mid North-east Scotland Two sites: one pair bred and one pair probably bred. Scotland, N & W Highland One site: one pair probably bred. Common Rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus One site: 0-1 pairs. There continues to be no suggestion that this species will gain even a toehold in the UK. Scotland, Mid Upper Forth One site: one male singing on several dates in July. Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Two pairs bred and up to 26 singing males were reported. Very few data were received for this species in 2005. In North-east Scotland, two pairs bred at different sites: young were recorded in the nest at one site and fledged young at the other. In the Cairngorms, one observer counted 26 singing males in walks covering the whole breeding range, including peripheral hill blocks, but the observations were made late in the season and double counting of some individuals could not be ruled out. The ideal time to make counts is early in the season, when pairs can be determined, but it is rare that weather conditions in the mountains allow such opportunities. These caveats mean that these data cannot be relied upon to provide a meaningful index of the British breeding population of Snow Buntings, which was estimated at 70-100 pairs by Gibbons et al. (1993). More recently, Forrester et al. (2007) felt that the Scottish population was no more than 60 pairs but stressed that there has been no one year when all suitable hills have been surveyed. Given the low population, the uncertainty over numbers, and the possible impacts of climate change on montane habitats in the UK, it is vital that all records of Snow Buntings in breeding habitat are submitted to the local bird recorders for archive and analysis by the Panel, even if counts in any one season do not allow a meaningful index to be calculated. If possible, counts of singing males or pairs should be made in the period between late May and July, and a record made of the area covered and any likely effect of the weather. Negative records from apparently suitable areas are also very important if we are to measure any decline or shift in the distribution, and we urge submission of such information. Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus No data were submitted for this species in 2005. The 2005 Devon Bird Report included only one record of confirmed breeding and a plea for all records to be submitted, with grid references, to the County Recorder. The Panel supports this request, in order to improve monitoring of the species in between national surveys under the Statutory Conservation Agency and RSPB Breeding Bird Scheme (SCARABBS) Agreement. Numbers of breeding Cirl Buntings are increasing (Eaton et al. 2006) but there has been limited range expansion, and Cirl Buntings in the UK remain extremely localised. This is one of the reasons why a reintroduction scheme into Cornwall was trialled in 2004 and 2005, followed by the first full-scale reintroduction in May 2006. For more details on this project see http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/working/projects/cirlbuntings/reintroduction.asp. 314 British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 276-316 Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 Appendix I. Other species considered by the Panel also recorded in 2005. The following species were recorded during the breeding season in 2005 but showed no signs of breeding: Black-browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris One on Sula Sgeir, Outer Hebrides, on 25th— 3 1st August was probably present at this gannetry earlier in the year. Green-winged Teal Anas carolinensis In Cambridgeshire, a male was seen displaying to Eurasian Teals A. crecca in March; and in Argyll a male was recorded on two dates in June. It is of interest to note that an apparent hybrid (male) Eurasian/Green-winged Teal was reported in winter 2007/08 from East Anglia. Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris An unpaired male was present in Avon for most of the year. Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis A female was present in Argyll in July. Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus A record of one in Caithness on 28th May was the only record received. The following species were recorded during the breeding season in 2005 but only limited information was available: Leach’s Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Using tape-response techniques, Mavor et al. (2006) reported incomplete surveys on North Rona and Hirta, St Kilda (both Outer Hebrides). Both sites showed slight declines compared to equivalent surveys in 2001 and 2003 respectively. Crested Tit Lophophane s cristatus Information submitted to the Panel included details of just five nests in Highland and an estimate of 50-100 pairs for Moray & Nairn. Because data received are insufficient to provide any meaningful statistics on the population in Scotland, Crested Tit has now been removed from the RBBP list. Acknowledgments This report would not be possible without the willing co-operation of county and regional recorders throughout the UK, as well as many specialist study groups, conservation organisations and numerous individuals. Many recorders have patiently dealt with additional requests or queries from the Panel Secretary and are to be especially thanked. Important information for many species was supplied by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), English Nature (EN, now Natural England), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Countryside Commission for Wales (CCW), the BTO and the RSPB. We are especially grateful to the licensing officers responsible for Schedule I licences who supplied data in 2005: Jez Blackburn (BTO), Judith Murray (EN), Christine Hughes (CCW) and Ben Ross (SNH). The Panel gratefully acknowledges the efforts and role played by all contributors in the production of this report and would like to express sincere thanks to all those who have contributed. In addition, we would like to extend particular thanks to the following individuals and groups: Jake Allsopp and the Golden Oriole Group, Stuart Benn, Stephen Blain, Dave Butterfield, Niels Cadee.Tony Cross and the Welsh Kite Trust, Brian Etheridge, Dusty Gedge and blackredstarts.org.uk, Bob Haycock, David Jardine, Mick Marquiss, Carl Mitchell and the Goldeneye Study Group, Tim Poole, Sabine Schmitt, Ellen Wilson, Simon Wotton, Malcolm Wright and Robin Wynde, and indeed anyone else who we may have unintentionally left out. All supplied additional information for their particular specialities and our grateful thanks are due to them. Thanks are also due to the Scottish and Welsh Raptor Study Groups, the North of England Raptor Forum and the Sea Eagle Project Team, who monitor the important raptor populations in their respective regions, and the JNCC/ RSPB/SOTEAG Seabird Monitoring Programme for their data on seabirds.The Bittern monitoring programme is organised annually by RSPB and Natural England, through Action for Birds in England. The Secretary would also like to express his gratitude for the support and encouragement given by all current and past members of the Panel, and his thanks to Jill Andrews who assembled much of the data which underpin this report. 151. The Rare Breeding Birds Panel, Old Moor RSPB Reserve. South Yorkshire, November 2007. From left: Ian Francis, Mark Eaton, Mark Holling, Judith Smith, David Norman, Humphrey Crick and David Stroud. British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 315 Ken W. Smith c Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2005 > References ap Rheinallt.T, Craik, J. C. A., Daw, R, Furness, R.W., Petty, S.J., & Wood, D. (eds.). 2007. Birds of Argyll. Argyll Bird Club, Lochgilphead. Baker H„ Stroud, D. A., Aebischer, N. J„ Cranswick, RA„ Gregory, FL D., McSorley, C. A., Noble, D. G„ & Rehfisch, M. M. 2006. Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Brit Birds 99: 25-44. BirdLife International 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. BirdLife International, Cambridge. Carter I., Newbery, R, Grice, R, & Hughes, J. 2008.The role of reintroductions in conserving British birds. Brit Birds 101:2-25. Coiffart, E, Clark, J. A., Robinson, FLA., Blackburn, J. R„ Griffin, B. M„ Risely, K„ Grantham, M.J., Marchant,J. H., Girling, T„ & Barber L (In press). Bird ringing in Britain and Ireland in 2006. Ringing & Migration 24. Clements, FL 200 1 .The Hobby in Britain: a new population estimate. Brit. Birds 94: 402-408. Devon Bird Watching and Preservation Society. 2006. Devon Bird Report 2005. Devon Bird Watching and Preservation Society, Okehampton. Eaton, M. A., Marshall, K. B., & Gregory, FL D. 2007a. Status of Capercaillie Tetrao urogallu s in Scotland during winter 2003/04. Bird Study 54: 1 45-153. — , Dillon, I. A., Stirling-Aird, R K„ & Whitfield. D. R 2007b. The status of the Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos in Britain in 2003. Bird Study 54: 2 1 2-220. — , Noble, D. G., Cranswick, RA„ Carter, N.,Wotton, S„ Ratcliffe, N„ Wilson, A., Hiiton, G. M., & Gregory, FL D. 2004. The State of the UK's Birds 2003. BTO, RSPB and WWT Sandy. — , Ausden, M„ Burton, N., Grice, R V., Hearn, FL D„ Hewson, C. M., Hilton, G. M„ Noble, D. G„ Ratcliffe, N„ & Rehfisch, M. M. 2006. The State of the UK’s Birds 2005. RSPB, BTO, WWT CCW, EN, EHS and SNH, Sandy. Etheridge, B., Holling, M„ Riley H.T, Wernham, C.V., & Thompson, D. B. A. 2007. Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Report 2005. Scottish Ornithologists' Club, Aberlady. Forrester RW., Andrews, I.J., Mclnerny, C.J., Murray, FL D„ McGowan, FLY., Zonfrillo, B„ Betts, M.W.Jardine, D. C., & Grundy, D. S. 2007. The Birds of Scotland. SOC, Aberlady. Fraser RA„ Rogers, M.J., & the Rarities Committee. 2007. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 2005. Part I : non-passerines. Brit Birds 1 00: 1 6-6 1 . Gibbons, D.W., Reid.J. B..& Chapman, FLA. 1993. The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1 988-1 991 . Poyser London. — , Bainbridge, I. R, Mudge, G. R.Tharme, A R, & Ellis, R M. 1 997. The status and distribution of the Red-throated Diver Gavia stellate in Britain in 1 994. Bird Study 44: 1 94-205. Green, J„ Berry, S„ & Pritchard, FL 2007. Welsh Bird Report No. 1 9: 2005. Welsh Birds 4: 456-603. Green, R E„ Collingham.Y C., Willis, S. G„ Gregory, FL D„ Smith, K. W, & Huntley, B. In press. Performance of climate envelope models in retrodicting recent changes in bird population size from observed climatic change. Biology Letters. Holling, M„ & the Rare Breeding Birds Panel. 2007a Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2003 and 2004. Brit Birds 1 00: 32 1 -367. — & — 2007b. Non-native breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Brit Birds 1 00: 638-649. Huntley, B„ Green, FL E„ Collingham.Y C., & Willis, S. G. 2007. A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds. Durham University, RSPB and Lynx Edicions, Barcelona Martin, B., & Smith, J. 2007. A survey of Black-necked Grebes in the UK: 1 973-2004. Brit Birds 1 00: 368-378. Mavon R.A., Parsons, M„ Heubeck, M„ & Schmitt, S. 2006. Seabird Numbers and Breeding Success in Britain and Ireland, 2005. JNCC, Peterborough. Ogilvie, M. A., & the Flare Breeding Birds Panel. 1 996. (Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 1 993. Brit Birds 89:61-91. — & — 2004. Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2002. Brit Birds 97: 492-536. Ftaven, M.J., & Noble, D. G. 2006. The Breeding Bird Survey 2005. BTO Research Report 439. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford. Rebecca G. W„ & Bainbridge, I. R 1 998.The breeding status of the Merlin Falco columbarius in Britain in 1 993-94. Bird Study 45: 172-187. Sim, I. M.W., Dillon, I. A., Eaton, M.A., Etheridge, B.. Lindley, R, Riley, H., Saunders, R., Sharpe, C„ &Tickner, M. 2007. Status of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus in the UK and the Isle of Man in 2004, and a comparison with the 1 988/89 and 1 998 surveys. Bird Study 54: 256-267. Summers, R.W 2002. Parrot Crossbills breeding in Abemethy Forest, Highland. Brit Birds 95: 4—1 I . Triplet, R, Overdijk, O., Smart, M„ Nagy, S., Schneider-Jacoby, M„ Karauz, E. S„ Pigniczki, Cs., Baha El Din, S., Kralj, J., Sandor, A., & Navedo, J. G. In press. Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia, AEWA International Single Species Action Plan. Underhill-Day, J. 1998. Breeding Marsh Harriers in the United Kingdom, 1 983-95. Brit Birds 91:21 0-2 1 8. Wetlands International. 2006. Waterbird Population Estimates. 4th edn. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Wotton, S. FL, & Gillings, S. 2000. The status of breeding Woodlarks Lullula arborea in Britain in 1 997. Bird Study 47:212-224. Mark Holling, The Old Orchard, Grange Road, North Berwick, East Lothian EH39 4QT; e-mail secretary@rbbp.org.uk The Rare Breeding Birds Panel is supported by JNCC, RSPB and the BTO Secretary Mark Holling, The Old Orchard, Grange Road, North Berwick, East Lothian EH39 4QT; e-mail secretary@rbbp.org.uk Find out more about the Panel at www.rbbp.org.uk Rare Breeding Birds Panel JOIN Tftfe NATURE W CONSERVATION COMMITTEE 316 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 276-316 Magnificent Frigatebird in Shropshire: new to Britain Richard Bradbury ; Mark Eaton , Chris Bowden and Mike Jordan Following the passage of Hurricane Wilma from the Gulf of Mexico, up the eastern seaboard of North America and into the northeast North Atlantic in November 2005, an unprecedented number of Nearctic gulls were displaced into western Europe. These included a minimum of 46 Laughing Gulls Larus atri- capilla and three Franklin’s Gulls L. pipixcan found in southwest England and Wales during the last two months of 2005. Nevertheless, Chris Bowden (CB) was still taken aback by the tele- phone call he received at RSPB headquarters in Sandy, Bedfordshire, late on Tuesday 8th November 2005. CB often talks to Mike Jordan (MJ), Curator of Higher Vertebrates at Chester Zoo, since they work together on several proj- ects. On this occasion though, CB was aston- ished to find that MJ was calling to discuss the identification of a male frigatebird Fregata\ Hearing the words 'I think my office mates will be interested in that’, Richard Bradbury (RB) and Mark Eaton (ME) were soon crowding around the telephone. It transpired that the bird had been found in a field the previous day (7th November) by Mr Handley, a farmer living near Whitchurch, Shropshire. Realising that it was something unusual, he took it to a local vet, from where it was sent to the Lower Moss Wood Wildlife Hos- pital at Ollerton, near Knutsford, Cheshire. There, Ray Jackson identified it as a male frigatebird. The bird was cared for at the hos- pital overnight and, on the Tuesday morning, Chester Zoo was contacted and an amazed MJ collected the bird. Although exhausted and rather emaciated, it was still impressive. MJ took a series of biometric measurements, and then zoo and veterinary staff set about caring for the bird. It was kept isolated in a heated cage in a quiet room, where it was rehydrated and readily took four or five small fish. It was soon agreed that it would be a good idea for CB, RB and ME to visit Chester Zoo, armed with as many references as could be ©British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 317-321 317 Mark Eaton Mark Eaton Magnificent Frigatebird in Shropshire: new to Britain ) found in the RSPB library, in order to deter- mine the identification. In fact, it also gave M) and CB an excellent excuse for a long-overdue work meeting! So, later that evening, the three members of the RSPB contingent were pinching themselves in disbelief as they viewed the frigatebird in a small room in the zoo’s veter- inary centre. MJ briefly took the bird from its heated cage so that a few photographs and some notes on plumage could be taken. Given that it had eaten earlier in the day, and had summoned the energy to snap its bill at us several times, we were optimistic about its chances of survival and left the bird that evening in a seemingly contented state. Unfortunately, however, the bird died during the following morning (Wednesday 9th November). Being acutely aware of the recent reidentifi- cation of the 1953 Tiree frigatebird as Ascension Frigatebird F. aquila, following a period of 50 years during which it was mistakenly regarded as Britain’s only record of Magnificent Frigate- bird F. magttificens (Walbridge et al 2003), we were at pains to ensure that we got the identifi- cation of this bird right. Given that the bird was an adult male, the identification was relatively straightforward, with the choice falling between the three entirely dark species: Magnificent, Ascension and Great Frigate- bird F. minor. Ultimately, bio- metrics provided the means to determine the identification beyond doubt as Magnificent Frigatebird. The body was passed to the Natural History Museum, Tring, where the skin now resides. The Shropshire Magnificent Frigatebird is only the third frigatebird to have been posi- tively identified in Britain; the previous records being of an Ascension Frigatebird found dying on Tiree, Argyll, on 10th July 1953, and a Magnificent Frigatebird picked up near Castletown, Isle of Man, on 22nd December 1998 (Gantlett 1999). Since records from the Isle of Man do not form a part of the British List, the Shrop- shire bird becomes the first accepted record of Magnificent Frigatebird for Britain. In addi- tion, there have been a handful of sight records of unidentified frigatebirds around the British coastline, and these have been summarised by Walbridge et al. (2003). I 52 & I 53. Adult male Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens, seen here at Chester Zoo on 8th November 2005, the day after it was discovered in a field near Whitchurch, Shropshire. Identification Frigatebird identification is complex and still far from being fully resolved. Harrison (1983) summed up the problem when he commented that their identification was 318 British Birds 101 - June 2008 • 317-321 Magnificent Frigatebird in Shropshire: new to Britain ‘perhaps the most difficult challenge of any seabird group’. Subsequently, several detailed accounts have been published which address the subject (e.g. Howell 1994, Chalmers 2002, James 2004). Of these, the first addressed the separa- tion of Great and Magnificent Frigatebirds, while the last two focused on the three species which occur in the Indian and western Pacific Oceans: Great, Lesser F. arid and Christmas Island Frigatebirds F. andrewsi. Only Walbridge et al. 2003 looked into the thorny issue of sepa- rating Ascension and Magnificent Frigatebirds and provided an insight into their separation. Even so, separation remains poorly understood and biometrics played a crucial role in the re- identification of the Tiree bird as Ascension Frigatebird, and the identification of the Shrop- shire bird as Magnificent. The Shropshire bird was clearly an adult male, with entirely dark plumage and a large crimson throat sac. The all-dark plumage quickly ruled out both Christmas Island and Lesser Frigatebirds, which show white on the underparts. Great Frigatebird was also elimi- nated, by the lack of red on the bill and feet (although the soles of the feet were flesh- orange), and lack of a pale upperwing-covert bar. This left just Ascension and Magnificent, adult males of which several references consid- ered to be probably indistinguishable in the field. The wing length and bill length were both larger than the ranges given by Murphy (1936) for Ascension Frigatebird, but at the lower end of the range quoted for male Magnificent (see table 1). Further pointers to Magnificent came from the colour of the sheen on the feathers - green on the head, but distinctly purple on the mantle, scapulars and, to a lesser extent, the breast. With Great and Ascension Frigatebirds having been eliminated, we confidently identi- fied the bird as an adult male Magnificent Frigatebird. Biometric data Total body length: 960 mm Wing length (max chord): 612 mm Tail length*: 447 mm Bill length (tip to feathering): 106.2 mm Bill length (tip to gape): 127.6 mm Bill width (at tip): 29.5 mm (this position was wider than the midpoint because of the hooked bill-tip) Bill width: (at midpoint) 17.0 mm Tarsus length*: 21.0 mm Weight: 932 g (though the bird was very dehy- drated and emaciated when weighed; BWP gives a range of 1,100-1,580 g for male Magnificent) [All measurements taken from the live bird, apart from those marked with an asterisk, which were taken by Katrina Cook at NHM, Tring.] Description Overall impression: Obviously an adult male frigatebird, with all-dark plumage and large crimson throat sac. Body and tail: Plumage black, with distinct purple sheen on the mantle, scapulars and to a lesser extent the breast. The breast feathers were green-based, with purple extremes. Tail also black, with a partially grown outer feather on the left side. Head and nape: Plumage black, with distinct Table I . Comparison of measurements of Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magniftcens (Central America) and Ascension Frigatebird F. aquilcr, from Murphy (1936). All measurements in mm. Figures in parentheses give mean and sample size respectively. Magnificent Frigatebird Ascension Frigatebird male female male female Overall length 930-1,040 940-1,120 mean 891 mean 960 Wingspan 2,170-2,290 2,240-2,360 mean 1,957 mean 2,055 Wing 611-661 (633,21) 628-674 (650,21) 552-581 (562,5) 587-607 (598,4) Tail 339-472 (431,21) 404-506 (-,21) 357-402 (384, 5) 393-411 (405,4) Bill 105.2-118.5 109.2-130.0 87.3-95.5 99.0-105.9 (exposed culmen) (112.1,21) (121,21) (91.7,5) (103,4) Tarsus 21-25 (22.4,21) 21-25 (22.9,21) Toe 69-74(71,21) 71-80 (75.6,21) mean 65 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 317-321 319 Katrina Cook © NHM.Tring Magnificent Frigatebird in Shropshire: new to Britain > green sheen, contrasting with the sheen on the body feathers, especially the mantle. Bill: Mid grey in colour. Wings: Black upperwing. Underwing dark, black on coverts and axillaries and dark grey on undersides of remiges. Legs and feet: Black, but with flesh-orange- coloured soles of feet. Weather and associated birds It seems likely that the Shropshire Magnificent Frigatebird was displaced from the Gulf of Mexico or Florida coastline and swept along, together with the many Laughing Gulls, during the passage of Hurricane Wilma. The hurricane appears to have been responsible for records of Magnificent Frigatebirds in the USA as far north as Rhode Island, as well as from the Azores, France and Spain. Subsequent to the Shropshire bird’s discovery, belated reports emerged (per BirdGuides) of unidentified frigatebirds on 6th November at Porthgwarra, Cornwall (heading towards Land’s End), and over Flat Holm (in the Severn estuary). The Flat Holm bird was reported to have a red throat and asymmetry in the length of the outer tail feathers. Given the timing and location, it is presumed that this was the Shropshire bird (Fraser et al. 2007), which followed the course of the River Severn into Shropshire. Possible origin of the Shropshire Magnificent Frigatebird Of the five frigatebird species, all but Christmas Island are known to breed in the tropical Atlantic, although only Magnificent is numerous and widespread, albeit in the western Atlantic and Caribbean. Its breeding range extends along the coasts of the tropical Atlantic from Florida south to Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico and islands of the Caribbean, and into the eastern Pacific, where it occurs from California south to Peru (Murphy 1936; del Hoyo et al. 1992). It breeds widely across this region on small islands and, in some places, on the main- land coast. It is a colonial breeder and most colonies are in the range of 10-100 pairs, although some can be considerably larger. There are no accurate estimates of the total population, but it is probably in the range of several hundred thousand birds. In the eastern Atlantic, a small and declining population persists on the Cape Verde Islands, off the coast of western Africa, at the southern extremity of the Western Palearctic. As a breeding bird, it is confined to the islet of Curral Velho, which lies off the larger island of Boa Vista. Del Hoyo et al. (1992) estimated this population to be approximately ten birds and declining; Hazevoet (1994) suggested fewer than ten pairs. Although this population lies closer to Europe, the numbers involved are so small that it is an unlikely source of vagrancy to Europe. Furthermore, weather conditions at this time did not favour an eastern Atlantic origin. In addition, a large but isolated popula- tion is confined to the Galapagos Island archi- pelago, but this is again an unlikely source for vagrancy to northwest Europe. Likelihood of vagrancy All frigatebirds are great nomads, dispersing widely throughout the tropical oceans and reg- ularly occurring well outside the breeding range. In the Pacific, both Lesser and Great Frigatebird have reached Siberia, Russia, and New Zealand (Alexander 1955; del Hoyo et al. I 54. The Shropshire Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens. here as a prepared specimen at the Natural History Museum, Tring; this photo clearly shows the purple sheen to the mantle and scapulars. 320 British Birds 101 ’June 2008 • 317-321 Magnificent Frigatebird in Shropshire: new to Britain > 1992). Lesser Frigatebird has also reached Kerguelen Island, southern Indian Ocean (Alexander 1955), Alaska (del Hoyo et al. 1992) and, in the North Atlantic, has ventured north to Maine (Howell 1994). Several frigatebirds have also reached Europe, and most of those identified to species have proved to be Magnifi- cent, including two from France (October 1852 and March 1902), and singles in Denmark (March 1968) and Spain (September 1985) (Mitchell & Young 1997; Walbridge et al. 2003). Several of the frigatebirds previously recorded in Europe have been found either dead or in a moribund condition; since frigatebirds find it extremely difficult to take off from the ground, a grounded individual may not necessarily be weak, yet its inability to become airborne once grounded may result in starvation. The size of the tropical western Atlantic and Caribbean population, combined with the pre- vailing weather systems at the time, would suggest that the Shropshire Magnificent Frigate- bird originated from this region and was displaced across the Atlantic during the passage of Hurricane Wilma. References Alexander W. B. 1 955. Birds of the Ocean. 2nd edn. Putnam, London. Chalmers, M. L 2002. A review of frigatebird records in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Report 1998: 1 28- 1 40. Fraser PA., & the Rarities Committee. 2007. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 2006. Brit Birds 1 00: 694-754. Gantlett, S. 1 999.The Magnificent Frigatebird on the Isle of Man. Birding World 1 2: 458-459. Harrison, R 1 983. Seabirds : an identification guide. Croom Helm, London. Hazevoet C.J. 1994. Status and conservation of seabirds in the Cape Verde Islands. In: Nettleship, D. N., Burger J., & Gochfield, M. (eds.) Seabirds on Islands: threats, case studies and action plans. BirdLife Conservation Series, No. I ; 279-293. BirdLife International, Cambridge. Howell, S. N. G. 1 994. Magnificent and Great Frigatebirds in the eastern Pacific: a new look at an old problem. Birding 26: 400-TI5. del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., & Sargatal.J. (eds.) 1 992. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. I . Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. James, D. J. 2004. Identification of Christmas Island, Great and Lesser Frigatebirds. BirdingASIA 1 : 22-38. Mitchell, D., & Young, S. 1 997. Photographic Handbook of Rare Birds of Britain and Europe. New Holland, London. Murphy, R. C. 1936. Oceanic Birds of South America. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Walbridge, G„ Small, B„ & McGowan, R.Y. 2003. From the Ftarities Committee's files: Ascension Frigatebird on Tiree - new to the Western Palearctic. Brit Birds 96: 58-73. Acknowledgments Our thanks go to Katrina Cook at NHM.Tring, who prepared and measured the specimen and provided photographs. Richard Bradbury, Mark Eaton and Chris Bowden, c/o RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SGI 9 2DL Mike Jordan, North of England Zoological Society, Chester Zoo, Chester CH2 1LH EDITORIAL COMMENT Adam Rowlands, Chairman of BBRC, commented: 'The reassessment of the Tiree frigatebird record, which was one of the most significant developments of BBRC’s review of 1950-58 records, ensured that the identification criteria to separate Ascension and Magnificent Frigatebird were well established. The biometric data, along with the purple gloss to the upperparts, provide conclusive evidence that the Shropshire bird was a Magnificent, and an examination of moult demonstrated that it was an adult male. The fact that the biometrics are at the lower end of the range for an adult male also supports the tropical western Atlantic origin, as birds from the Cape Verde pop- ulation average larger than those from the Caribbean. It seems very likely that the male frigatebird observed flying over Flat Holm in the Bristol Channel the day before the Shropshire bird was found was the same individual. That bird also had an asymmetrical outer-tail projection, but it was felt that the brief description provided was not sufficient to confirm the identification as the first record for Britain. Details of a bird reported over Porthgwarra, Cornwall, on the same day as the Flat Holm sighting have not been submitted to BBRC for consideration.’ Bob McGowan, Chairman of BOURC, commented 'The Shropshire Magnificent Frigatebird was a fairly straightforward record to assess, largely in light of the thorough identification groundwork on frigatebirds that took place during the review of the Tiree record. As F. magnificens is the most likely frigatebird taxon to occur in Britain (which partly explains the erroneous identification of the Tiree bird), and because a precedent had already been set with the Isle of Man occurrence, the Shropshire record was unanimously accepted following e-circulation. As there was no reason to doubt that the bird had occurred naturally, the Committee agreed to accept this species onto Category A of the British List.’ British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 317-321 321 Letters A Kermadec Petrel, taxidermists, and judging ancient records I wholly agree with Martin Woodcock and Chris Smout’s defence of the reputation of Arthur Newstead, and also their suggestion that once the unsupported implication of fraud is removed, there seems little reason to regard the Cheshire record of Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta as other than genuine (Melling 2008; Brit. Birds 101: 211-213). Tim Melling’s appended justifica- tion of the BOURC’s position seems to depend on the lack of a ‘full provenance’ and the raising of the ghost of the Hastings Rarities. Melling suggested that had the name of the petrel’s finder been known, and his story veri- fied by either Coward or Newstead, ‘then the BOURC members’ votes may have been dif- ferent’. But surely the need for such a verifica- tion never occurred to either Coward or Newstead, as how could they have foreseen that a century later a BOU Committee would regard it as a prerequisite for acceptance; and even had it been obtained, how would this prove beyond doubt that some kind of collusion had not taken place? It is also clear that, apart from the involvement of a taxidermist, the case of the Cheshire petrel and the Hastings Rarities affair have nothing in common. Unlike Hastings, where doubts were harboured by leading ornithologists of the day and over 500 speci- mens passed through Bristow’s taxidermy shop between 1892 and 1930 (Nicholson & Fer- guson-Lees 1962), there is no contemporary suggestion that Newstead was dishonest, nor Pete Cotnbridge 16 Green Close, Whiteparish, Salisbury SP5 2SB that he was involved with, or profited from, an unusual number of rare birds (and thus Melling’s mention of the statistical unlikelihood of the Hastings Rarities (see Nelder 1962) has no significance in connection with the lone occurrence in Cheshire). It is also worth noting that in the case of the now largely discredited Tadcaster Rarities (Melling 2005), near-contem- porary doubts were also expressed; for example, when writing of what was once accepted as Britain’s first record of Ross’s Gull Rhodostethia rosea, Saunders (1899) wrote none too subtly, ‘An example... passed through the hands of Graham, the notorious bird-stuffer of York, and was said to be shot near Tadcaster.’ Our knowledge of the occurrence of rare birds in Britain during the Victorian and Edwardian eras rests largely on specimens, but it must not be assumed that all taxidermists were unscrupulous and involved in murky activities. We may otherwise end up with rather little history. References Melling.T 2005. The Tadcaster Rarities. Brit Birds 98: 230-237. — 2008. Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? Brit Birds 101:31-38. Nelder J. A. 1 962. A statistical examination of the Hastings Rarities. Brit Birds 55: 283-298. Nicholson, E. M„ & Ferguson-Lees, I. J. 1 962.The Hastings Rarities. Brit Birds 55: 299-384. Saunders, H. 1 899. An Illustrated Manual of British Birds. 2nd edn. Gumey & Jackson, London. EDITORIAL COMMENT ‘ Pete Combridge and others who have defended the provenance of the 1908 Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta are making good points. It is unfortunate that the argument seems to have focused on the honesty or otherwise of the taxidermist Arthur Newstead, because the sequence of events as carefully reconstructed in the paper by Tim Melling does not isolate any real evi- dence of mischief on his part. Taking the occurrence of the Kermadec Petrel in isolation, the record may well be astonishing, but it is not totally incredible. It is only in the context of other old seabird records, both accepted and rejected, that the requirement to scrutinise the circumstances surrounding the discovery and presentation of the bird becomes evident. Arthur Newstead was a well-connected and, for all we know, a very honourable man. Nevertheless, the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth represented a sustained period of rarity hunting, driven, at least in part, by both the expansion of ornithological knowledge and horizons and the demand for trophy specimens by affluent collectors. Trade in specimens involved both genuine birds and frauds. To take the best-known and perhaps most blatant example of fraud, the Hastings Rarities, between 1895 and 1936 there were five Bulwer’s Petrels Bulweria bulwerii, ten North Atlantic Little Shearwaters Puffinus baroli, an Audubon’s Shearwater P. Iherminieri, two Wilson’s Storm-petrels Oceanites oceanicus and 322 © British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 322-325 Letters C > three Madeiran Storm-petrels Oceanodroma castro recorded in East Sussex and Kent, all now rejected and probably all fraudulent (Nicholson and Ferguson-Lees 1962). Without wanting to cast a shadow of Hastings over every old record that involves a taxidermist, it is nevertheless suspected that fraud, whether unsuccessfully attempted or successfully executed, was formerly not uncommon. ‘Even without invoking a deliberate fraud, there are also plenty of examples of Procellariiformes being imported into Britain, both alive and dead. Some of these were, and quite possibly still are, accepted onto the British List in good faith with no deliberate deception having occurred. Bourne (1967) reviewed older records of long-distance vagrancy by petrels and drew attention to the habit of old-time sailors of deliberately catching seabirds, which were subsequently to be killed and eaten, used as souvenirs, put on ice for resale, or even kept alive (fed on corn) as curios and pets. In this way, southern-hemisphere species were brought north and liberated or exhibited back in Britain. Examples mentioned by Bourne (1967) include Black-browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris and giant petrel Macronectes giganteus or M. halli brought alive to London Zoo in the 1890s, Cape Petrels Daption capense released in the English Channel in the mid 1800s, and an apparent flood of Collared Petrels Pterodroma brevipes hitting the British markets in a series of imports from Fiji in the 1870s. Collared Petrel is another species that was admitted to the British List (Salvin 1891) but has since been rejected, primarily because of known trade in skins and inferred transport of live birds. It seems that many southern-hemisphere transportees would have gone to the marketplace and ended up as northern-hemisphere curios, table pieces or even dinners. London’s Leadenhall Market accumulated many apparently foreign-taken specimens, including albatrosses (e.g. a Wandering Albatross Diomedea exulans dripping blood in December 1909) and a variety of petrels and storm-petrels. Particularly per- tinent, a Trindade Petrel Pterodroma (a.) arminjoniana was bought by Brighton taxidermists Brazenor Bros, in Leadenhall Market in December 1889 and is now in the Rothschild collection (Bourne 1967). They were all sold without collection data, of course, and we do not know for certain that these birds were not British-taken; but it seems very unlikely, and the occurrence of exasperatus Wilson’s Storm- petrels in Leadenhall Market in 1905 (Bourne 1963) points strongly to trade, not vagrancy. Clearly, unusual southern-hemisphere Procellariiformes were not unknown in trade in Britain at the time of the occurrence of the Kermadec Petrel, and they could be sold to collectors, with or without an asserted British-taken provenance. ‘On the other hand, old records of, for example, Black-browed Albatross floundering in a field near Linton, Cambridgeshire, in 1897 and Black-capped Petrel Pterodroma hasitata shuffling under a bush at Swaffham, Norfolk, in 1850 are currently accepted - but if these were the only examples of the species being recorded in the Western Palearctic, they too might have been queried more stringently. And whereas the White-faced Storm-petrel Pelagodroma marina caught alive on Colonsay, Argyll, (also) in 1897 remains acceptable, a rejected example of one implausibly claimed to have been picked up with a Wilson’s Storm-petrel at Walney Island in 1890 once again suggests that surprising species were turning up in trade. ‘Nor is it necessary to assume deliberate taxidermist fraud, even in cases where the provenance of a rarity is, for whatever reason, under suspicion. Taxidermists of old were not scientists, and mix-ups, ‘harmless’ swaps and sloppiness in preparing data were part of the craftsman’s normal working life. Furthermore, a taxidermist is as vulnerable as a scientist to being hoodwinked by someone walking into their shop with a ‘funny bird’ and a plausible story. There are enough examples of records that have been rejected on the basis of suspicious provenance that it would be foolish not to consider the possibility that some sort of mistake, misunderstanding, prank, carelessness or deception could have occurred around the Kermadec Petrel. The fact that this bird was apparently found on the first of April was not a significant factor in its assessment, but at the same time it is difficult to ignore the date, espe- cially as Bannerman (1959) raised the possibility that it was an April fool. As with many old records, the truth is now impossible to ascertain with certainty. Rightly or wrongly, Kermadec Petrel is not on the British List. Now the question is whether the weight of the evidence in the context of the time the record occurred is sufficient to conclude that it should be. It is more than just whether the bird was plausibly wild. ‘In his review, Bourne ( 1967) concluded that the situation concerning old records of vagrant petrels had been so confused by the collection and transport of foreign-taken birds, and the actions of dis- honest, careless or inept traders, taxidermists and ornithologists, that strict criteria needed to be British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 322-325 323 Letters > applied to them. He suggested that records should be considered acceptable if we know, or can reconstruct: 1) who first saw the bird, where when and how; 2) its subsequent history and fate, as far as they can be traced; 3) how it was identified, if a specimen, as the bird collected, and as a species; 4) how it was recorded, with details of confirmatory evidence from an independent source, if available; 5) whether the whole story appears circumstantially probable, in view of past and present information on the subject. ‘These are difficult hoops for any old rarity to jump through and, if universally applied, not many historical seabird records would remain on the British List. Given the problems involved with their assessment, this is perhaps not such a bad thing. The Kermadec Petrel in fact fulfils quite a lot of these criteria, but details are sketchy on the first one, and the circumstances of the time, combined with the subsequent lack of further records of Kermadec Petrel in the Western Palearctic, cast doubt on the fifth, or at least invite us to consider the possibility that the Kermadec Petrel was not a genuine vagrant. BOURC does not judge old records on modern-day criteria because many apparently good records would be lost. Nevertheless it is influenced by gaps in the paper trail, especially when some other old records are, in comparison, more fully documented. ‘We can imagine a scenario where a Kermadec Petrel was brought to Britain alive, but died, and was just thrown away. It could have been picked up by a farmer and Arthur Newstead may have received and processed it later in good faith. Alternatively, it may have been presented to Arthur Newstead by someone perpetrating a joke or wanting a few shillings for their specimen. Of course there is no evi- dence for this either, but it is perhaps not more implausible to invoke the hand of man in the record than to assume that the bird was a vagrant. ‘When the Kermadec Petrel appeared in Cheshire, there were only two records of Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis for the county (Forrest 1910) and Kermadec Petrel had not then been recorded in Australia or New Zealand (Bannerman 1959). Of course, Fulmars were much less common then - 1,000 pairs in the North Atlantic - but they must still have been very much more numerous in the Irish Sea than Kermadecs. This is the case even if one assumes that the world population of Kermadec Petrels was much greater then than now. Looking at it from this point of view, there is at least no strong feeling that Cheshire was due a rare Procellariiform. And that is the crux; if wild, this was an amazing, once- in-a-lifetime, rarity. Alternative explanations for how, or if, it really arrived under that tree in Tar- porley are admittedly rather improbable too but are worrying in context of the weirdness of the record, the sketchiness of the details about the discovery of the bird and the convoluted story of its eventual arrival in the museum. The evidence for overturning a previous BOURC decision was not overwhelming. ‘This does not write the Kermadec Petrel off totally. The publication of the review and decision in this case is intended to document the record permanently and to ensure that it does not slip off the radar of Britain’s ornithological history. If and when a fully documented and accepted Kermadec Petrel does turn up, and the capacity of the species to occur as a vagrant in the North Atlantic is finally proven, this individual could be reassessed as possibly the first for the Western Palearctic.’ References Bannerman, D.A. 1959. The Birds of the British Isles.V ol. 8. Oliver & Bo/d, Edinburgh. Bourne, W. Ft R 1 963. The Hastings Rarities and the ‘British List’. Brit Birds 56: 33-38. — 1 967. Long-distance vagrancy in the petrels. Ibis 109: 141-167. Forrest, H. E. 1910. Fulmar in Shropshire and other counties. Brit Birds 3: 4 1 6—4 1 7. Nicholson, E. M„ & Ferguson-Lees, I.J. 1 962.The Hastings Rarities. Brit Birds 55: 299-384. Salvin, O. 1891. Note on the Collared Petrel ( CEstrelata torquatd) recently reported to have been killed on the Welsh Coast Ibis 33: 4 1 1-414. Martin Collinson, Bob McGowan, Tim Melting and Andrew Harrop, on behalf of BOURC 324 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 322-325 Letters C Lammergeiers again > In the April issue (Brit. Birds 101: 215), Mike Everett commented that British ornithologists have been criticised for persisting with the use of an obsolete German name that ‘given the bird’s parlous state and history of persecution in Europe [sends] out all the wrong messages’. It has long puzzled me that no-one seems aware of the fact that the bird has a perfectly good and accurate English name which has inexplicably been supplanted by the German one. That name is ‘Ossifrage’, derived from the Latin and meaning ‘bone-breaker’, accurately describing the bird’s characteristic feeding habit. The word is, in fact, used twice in the Authorised Version of the Bible (Leviticus ch. 11 v. 13 and Deuteronomy ch. 14 v. 12) and, in my illustrated copy, published by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1954, the latter reference is actually accompanied on p. 148 by a neat sketch of the bird in question. It has, admittedly, been pointed out to me that the same word is the origin of the name Osprey Pandion haliaetus but Chambers’ Dictionary notes that it is ‘misapplied’ (Ospreys don’t break bones) and the two words are now so different as to be unlikely to cause confusion. So, what about a campaign to restore the ancient English name of this splendid bird to its rightful place in the language? Rev. Christopher Carter Ysgubor Goch, Cefn Coch, Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Oswestry SY10 OBQ Interoceanic ballistic jaegers The smaller skuas Stercorarius that breed in the far north are found dispersed around the southern oceans in the non-breeding season. When they were first noticed flying inland from the Wash and the Moray Firth in autumn in the 1950s (in the way recently described by Mclnerny & Griffin for the Firth of Forth; Brit. Birds 100: 506-507, Scott. Birds 27: 24—31), they posed the question of whether they were merely undertaking a shortcut across Britain to the Atlantic (as suggested by Thomas; Brit. Birds 100: 503-505) or formed part of a more sub- stantial overland movement. Looking farther afield, it seems unlikely that all the Arctic S. parasiticus and Pomarine Skuas S. pomarinus in the Indian Ocean in winter have come all the way round Africa or south- east Asia, though until recently there were few records to the north. However, observations by S. J. Hingston, from an oilfield safety vessel around 40°05’N 51°15’E in the central Caspian Sea in 1997 and 1998 (Sea Swallow 48: 23, 49: 23), shed some light on this (table 1). This area lies some 2,000 km south of the nearest large Arctic water mass, the White Sea, although the skuas might breed inland and follow rivers part of the way. To move on to the next large water mass to the south, the Persian Gulf (as they pre- sumably must do in autumn, as they are rare in midwinter in the Caspian Sea), they must con- tinue for another 1,000 km, over the Elburz Mountains (this mountain range is 900 km long but just 60-130 km wide and extends along the southern edge of the Caspian Sea). Like some other Charadriiformes, they must be prodigious overland migrants, both in spring and in autumn, with little fallout. Great Skuas S. skua rarely stray inland and it is unclear whether Long-tailed Skuas S. longicaudus, which winter farther south, also move overland. Dr W. R. P. Bourne Ardgath, Station Road , Dufftown, Moray AB55 4AX Table I . Mean number of skuas Stercorarius recorded per day, at around 40°05’N 5 I ° 1 5'E in the central Caspian Sea, 1 997 and 1 998 (source: Sea Swallow 48: 23, 49: 23). Jan Mar Apr May Oct Nov Total 1997, days 5 21 18 15 12 2 Pomarine Skua 3.9 21.5 391 Arctic Skua 11.1 25.9 0.3 0.5 593 Small skua sp. 6.5 2.0 147 1998, days 13 17' 10 24 Pomarine Skua 0.1 0.8 1.5 29 Arctic Skua 0.1 1.1 0.3 20 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 322-325 325 Notes All Notes submitted to British Birds are subject to independent review, either by the Notes Panel or by the 88 Editorial Board. Those considered appropriate for 86 will be published either here or on our website (www.britishbirds.co.uk) subject to the availability of space. White-tailed Eagle catching Greylag Goose At around midday on 20th July 2007, a group of birdwatchers were watching two White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla on the coast of Mull, Argyll. The tide was low, exposing several rocky islets just offshore. The eagles themselves were spectacular enough, but we were then amazed to witness an attack on a small group of Greylag Geese Anser anser , which were feeding around the islets. One of the eagles picked out a single goose on the water and plunged down to attack it. Each time the eagle attacked, the goose managed to dive under the water. After a number of unsuccessful attempts, the second eagle joined in. Unfortunately for the goose, one of the eagles managed to catch it the last time that it resurfaced. The eagle held the goose underwater for several minutes, and presumably killed it by drowning. The raptor was, however, unable to lift the goose out of the water; remark- ably, it then swam, dragging the goose behind it, for approximately 100 m to reach a small islet. During the swim, which lasted ten minutes or so, the eagle looked so exhausted that we began to fear that it might drown. However, the bird reached dry land unscathed and proceeded to feed on the goose for about 15 minutes. It then attempted to take off with the carcase, unsuccessfully due to the weight of the goose and the lack of a significant breeze. At this point, we were amazed (again) to see the eagle climb down into the water with the goose firmly in its talons and swim a distance of approximately 30 m to a larger island, at about 13.15 hrs. Once again the eagle used its wings to propel itself in the water. Once safely on the second island, the eagle continued to feed upon the carcase over the next half an hour and tried to fly off several times with the goose along the length of the longer island; again, the weight of the goose prevented this. We continued watching until the eagle and goose had disappeared from view. Both eagles were observed soaring over the local hills later that day. Martin and Liz Izzard 310C Newton Road, Rushden, Northamptonshire NN10 0SY; e-mail martin.izzard@unilever.com Jean and John Yeoman 19 Plymbridge Road, Plympton, Plymouth, Devon PL7 4LQ EDITORIAL COMMENT Malcolm Ogilvie has commented that both Golden Aquila chrysaetos and White-tailed Eagles will take Greylags in flight but this is an unusual observation, particularly the long swim to the island. Peregrine Falcon egg breakage In spring 2007, I regularly watched a pair of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus at a breeding site in Hampshire. On 15th April I began watching the site at 06.00 hrs, noting that the male, as usual, was perched nearby. Approxi- mately 3V2 hours later, the female left the nest, and I was surprised to see that she had an egg stuck to her breast feathers. She flew around for roughly two minutes before perching on an electricity pylon some 100 m away from the site, where she pecked at the egg until it dropped free of her feathers and smashed on the ground below. The female then flew off in the direction of a pool about 1 km distant, where another observer watched her arrive and bathe. The male remained perched during this time. After the female flew off towards the pool, I examined the area below the nest and found a second egg, the shell of which had been crushed inwards; it was covered with congealed yolk to which a few feathers were adhered. Subsequent to these observations the pair was seen copu- lating and selecting a nest-site in the general area, though the female did not, unfortunately, lay eggs again. 326 © British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 326-328 Notes C > Ratcliffe (1980) discussed eggshell thinning due to DDT/DDE contamination, noting that once an egg is broken ‘it is no longer treated as an egg by the parent, whose instinct is to eat it’, and that ‘Eaten eggs are sometimes found away from the nest.’ My observation suggests that in some cases broken eggs found away from a nest may have been transported involuntarily. Reference Ratcliffe, D. A. 1 980. The Peregrine Falcon. Poyser; Calton. Simon S. King 78 Shakespeare Drive, Testwood, Totton, Southampton SO40 3NS Peregrine Falcons feeding Common Kestrel chicks Common Kestrels Falco tinnunculus have for many years nested on the cliffs of a headland on the south Devon coast. Peregrine Falcons F. peregrinus also nest in the area, but usually several hundred metres away. In 2006, however, the Peregrines occupied a ledge only 6 m or so from the Kestrels, which were just out of sight round a rocky corner. Both species were successful and, in due course, five young Kestrels and two young Peregrines hatched, all at approximately the same time. In view of their close proximity, I was sure that, once the young had grown sufficiently to wander around the cliff, the Phil Johnson 30 Alter Brake Road, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 4NJ Peregrines would meet the Kestrels, possibly on a ledge between the two eyries, and I was intrigued to see what might happen. Sure enough, regular encounters between the two species soon began, initiated by the faster-maturing Kestrels. From the beginning, the two sets of chicks appeared to tolerate each other well. Although I was not able to visit the site very often, on two occasions I saw young Kestrels begging for food from the female Peregrine as she arrived at the ledge with prey. The female appeared to make no distinction between the visiting youngsters and her own and did her best to feed the lot. EDITORIAL COMMENT Notes documenting Peregrines incubating Kestrel eggs (Brit. Birds 55: 131-132), Peregrines rearing young Kestrels (Brit. Birds 56: 457-460) and Peregrines nesting beside Kestrels on an urban chimney (Brit. Birds 85: 498) have appeared in BB, but Phil Johnson’s observa- tions describe a somewhat different interaction between the two species from those already published. Moorhens building nest of goose feathers In June 2006, I saw a pair of Moorhens Gallinula chloropus attempting to build a nest at Fairhaven Fake, Fytham St Anne’s, Lancashire, using goose feathers. Flowever, the nest disintegrated during stormy weather before it could be completed. In June 2007, Moorhens built a nest consisting entirely of Canada Goose Branta canadensis quills, almost all of which were inserted vane down (plate 155). Fairhaven Lake is a typical municipal boating lake with edges of concrete and wood paling and no emergent vegetation. Four or five pairs of Moorhens usually I 55. Moorhen Gallinula chloropus and nest of Canada Goose Branta canadensis feathers, Lytham St Anne's, Lancashire, June 2007. British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 326-328 327 Brenda Walsh Peter Kennerley Notes C > attempt to breed, with limited success, on two islands. During the past six years the lake has become a moulting site for upwards of 400 Canada Geese. It would appear that one pair of Moorhens has successfully exploited a new and abundant source of nesting material, which is not mentioned in BWP or The Handbook. Acknowledgment I thank boatman Nick Shepherd for his help. Dr J. Frank Walsh 80 Arundel Road, Lytham St Anne’s, Lancashire FY8 1BN Courtship feeding by Black-winged Pratincoles The dry margin of Lake Sholak, near the Kur- galdzlinskiy Reserve in central Kazakhstan, is home to a breeding colony of Black-winged Pratincoles Glareola nordmanni. On 15th May 2007, more than 100 Black-winged Pratincoles were present and many appeared to be actively engaged in pair formation and courtship display. As I watched one foraging pair, the male approached the female, both lowered their heads close to the ground and then the male presented the female with a small food item, apparently a caterpillar (Lepidoptera), which she took and swallowed (plate 156). The pair then stood facing each other for several seconds before resuming their search for food in the usual manner. I can find no previous reference to this behaviour for either Black-winged or the closely related Collared Pratincole G. pratincola. The only comment referring to courtship feeding behaviour in BWP describes a female Collared Pratincole that was incubating a clutch of eggs. When the male returned to the nest-site, the female left the nest and ran c. 4 m to pick up a food item that the returning male had deposited on the ground. I 56. Black-winged Pratincoles Glareola nordmanni courtship feeding, the presumed male on the right, Lake Sholak, central Kazakhstan, May 2007. Peter Kennerley 16 Coppice Close, Melton, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP 12 1RX Blackbirds eating fuchsia seed pods and flowers Each year, Blackbirds Turdus merula breed in my garden in Pembrokeshire and commonly select a hedge of fuchsia Fuchsia magellanica to nest in. I have noticed that both adults and juveniles feed frequently and voraciously on the fuchsia seed pods and sometimes take unopened flowers as well as the seed pods. Clement & Hathway (2000) gave a long list of fruit and berries eaten by Blackbirds but did not John Stewart-Smith Mathry Hill House, Mathry, Pembrokeshire SA62 5HB include fuchsia. I have not seen any other birds follow their example but it seems unlikely that a widely available food source would be exploited by only one bird species. Reference Clement. R, & Hathway. R. 2000. Thrushes. Christopher Helm, London. 328 British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 326-328 Reviews A CLIMATIC ATLAS OF EUROPEAN BREEDING BIRDS By Brian Huntley, Rhys E. Green, Yvonne C. Collingham and Stephen G. Willis. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, 2007. 528 pages; 431 species mapped in colour. ISBN 978-84-96553-14-9. Hardback, £40.00. With climate change being such a hot topic, the publication of this well-presented book, a collabora- tion between Durham University, RSPB and Lynx Edicions, is timely, since it represents an innovative and fascinating endeavour to predict the future range of Europe’s breeding birds at the end of the twenty-first century. The baseline is the distribution of breeding species gathered for the EBCC Atlas published in 1997, this being the outcome of fieldwork carried out across Europe in the late 1980s on a grid of 50-km squares. This distribution was matched to climate data for the period 1961-1990, which is the latest period in use, although currently being updated to 1971-2000. The first step in this endeavour was to map temperature and moisture vari- ables on the same grid as the bird distribution. Next was to use these two datasets and global climate pre- diction models to predict how the breeding range of European birds will change. The authors are well aware that there are many limita- tions in this approach, but the bio- climatic variables chosen were those believed to be most likely to influ- ence the natural environment. The results are not meant to represent a definitive picture of bird distribu- tion later this century, but rather the magnitude and direction of range adjustments should species fully I track the climate changes. The introduction analyses the current patterns of bird distribution, land cover and climate, and is fol- lowed by a chapter describing the methodology and the variables used in the modelling. The third chapter represents the bulk of the book, in which 431 species are described fully, with each account incorporating a short text explaining the detail shown by three maps. The first map is that from the EBCC Atlas and the second is the modelled distribution using the bioclimatic data for that period. The final map shows the potential situa- tion in the period 2070-2099 based on the suitability of the predicted bioclimatic variables. This throws up some anomalies as the physical envir- onment is not modelled, e.g. some montane species are present in lowland regions. There is also a set of diagrams showing the expected response of the species to a range of climatic variables. The maps are clear, the diagrams less so. At the end of this chapter, 48 scarce breeders and 16 introduced species are examined briefly. Chapter 4 provides a synthesis and discussion of the study’s findings followed by a chapter reviewing the conclusions. Two points emerge in these final chapters. One is that the focus of species richness in Europe shifts from eastern Europe into eastern Fennoscandia and northwest Russia. The other concerns the per- centage of species persisting in their current range. For example, Britain retains between 75% and 90% of its breeding species (albeit with unknown population sizes), yet only 50% remain in Iberia (though species likely to colonise Europe from North Africa are not considered here). For most birders, the interest lies in the range maps. Range changes show that many northern species in Europe will withdraw to the north and east, so that some breeding species at the southern edge of their range are likely to become extinct in Britain. Conversely, many iconic western Mediterranean species are predicted to edge tantalisingly into northern France, with a considerable number even colonising southern England. It is interesting to see that the current breeding distribution of Little Egret Egretta garzetta in Britain is already similar to that predicted for the end of the century. The apparent suitability of southern Britain to the Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus highlights one of the other limita- tions of the study’s results, that of food supply, which will not always be able to follow the birds. Some south- west European species may become very scarce or even extinct, especially those with restricted ranges such as 'White-headed Duck Oxyura leuco- cephala and Dupont’s Lark Cher- sophilus duponti. It seems also that Iberia will become suitable for eastern Mediterranean specialities such as Olive-tree Hippolais olive- torum and Riippell’s Warblers Sylvia rueppetli. Sombre Tit Poecile lugubris and Masked Shrike Lanius nubicus. Overall, adaptable generalist species that occupy a wide range of habitats will cope far more success- fully with climate change than the specialists, particularly the resident species and those with fragmented habitats. For some, displacement is significant and may even be unattain- able. This study is unable to consider population data but, even if predicted ranges are correct, the abundance of many species is likely to be reduced. An added problem will be the diffi- culties arising from adjustments to migration routes. It will be of great interest to compare the revelations of the current Adas fieldwork in Britain with both past adases and the future indicated by this book. Despite the limitations men- tioned above, this is a timely reminder of how fragile some of Europe’s breeding populations are. Conservation scientists, governments and NGOs will gain most value from this book, allowing them to attempt some mitigation of the less favourable aspects shown here. To achieve this, they will need to respond to the dynamic nature of the predicted range changes, in which small and isolated reserves will not suffice. In view of the current rate of climate change, it is difficult to be optimistic about the future problems that this book highlights. Norman Elkins © British Birds 101* June 2008 • 329-33 I 329 Reviews C ) BIRDS By Katrina Cook. Quercus Publishing, London, 2007. 223 pages; 130 paintings. ISBN 978-1-84724-199-3. Hardback, £24.99. At 365 mm x 440 mm this isn’t so much a coffee-table book as the table itself! Artist and print expert Katrina Cook has painstakingly gathered 130 paintings and takes a thoughtful global meander through two-dimensional bird art (there is no sculpture) spanning the last 700 years. So we don’t exactly start on a cave or tomb wall, nor is it intended to be com- prehensive, as it is a more personal choice. Running in a broadly chronological sequence, the selected paintings seem to be a fairly good stab at touching on the many milestones throughout this time, ending with the most recently deceased greats: Tunnicliffe, Ennion and Peterson. The living yet have time to shine! I am a practising bird artist who has to admit to being woefully ignorant of my profession’s history outside my own working life, so I fell on this book with great interest. I was immediately surprised to see such skilfully ‘live’ painting from the sixteenth-century Renaissance artists, who showed great under- standing of light and form. From there we journey through Oriental art and make a gradual drift into a period of stilted taxonomic illus- tration, led by global explorations and funded by the rich. Thereafter, bird art seems to have been led by a struggle to find ways to mass- produce. Katrina Cook is well qualified to explain the challenges and processes towards the goal of print. This book certainly has given me a better understanding of the impact of earlier artists. At last I under- stand why Audubon was so pivotal; I have even developed a grudging respect for him (even more so his associates), whose actual work I have previously believed inex- plicably overrated. Each ‘spread’ has at least one work of art carefully chosen for a whole variety of reasons. Some represent a rare depiction, perhaps as a way to explain the origin of a pigment or printing technique. I particularly like the style of the short essays sparked by the painting, fleshing out a link or cir- cumstance, each entry self-con- tained. Cook provides disjointed revelations of who knew who, and how and why, rather than a com- prehensive catalogue of each artist’s life and works, which would have been a useful reference. Some- times, several works by the same artist may be included, and anec- dotes in the text are not always log- ically ordered, so by chronological reading you sometimes discover something which by chance further illuminates an earlier point. All in all, it is an absorbing book, and so very easy to dip in and out of. Most artworks are well repro- duced, as they deserve to be, but a minority, greatly enlarged from the original, are not served well by the process. The Thomas Bewick wood engravings, containing incredibly skilful detail, which is their charm, are particularly poorly treated in this respect. Nevertheless, this is a book I have thoroughly enjoyed. Birds is already piled high in our local discount bookstore (exactly where I can believe the publishers (planned?) expect it to be). I don’t try to understand the shenanigans and complexities of modern book-selling but you can already get this book at an afford- able bargain price - just remember you have to find somewhere to keep it when you eventually get it home! Alan Harris THE BIRDS OF LANCASHIRE AND NORTH MERSEYSIDE Edited by Steve White, Barry McCarthy and Maurice Jones. Hobby Publications, Lancashire 8t Cheshire Fauna Society, Southport, 2008. 436 pages; 311 colour photographs; 105 line-drawings; many graphs and other illustrations. ISBN 978-1-872839-11-0. Hardback, £40.00. The county avifauna concept has enjoyed a renaissance of late and this publication is a welcome addi- tion to the ranks. It is, in fact, over 50 years since the last Birds of Lan- cashire, partly because almost every part of the border has changed since then: Furness (excluded from this work) is now in Cumbria; parts of the Forest of Bowland have been added from Yorkshire; one of the Metropolitan counties created in 1974 (Greater Manchester) has gone its own way ornithologically, yet Merseyside is still divided between its historical counties; while other parts of the former Lancashire are now in Cheshire. In particular, anyone unfamiliar with the local birding scene may be sur- prised to learn that Manchester is not covered in a book about Lan- cashire. Overall, potential confu- sion has been handled well, although it has required frequent reference to records now in Greater Manchester, or putting things in context by listing ‘north-western’ records, from Cheshire to Cumbria. As may be expected, most of the book is dedicated to the sys- tematic list, although there are short but informative introductory chapters on the history of ornithology and birding sites in the county. Species accounts extend to as much as two and a half pages for significant species and they follow the well-established format, with a review of the earlier avifaunas leading into a fuller assessment of recent status. There are 12 authors in total, but all the accounts are readable and consistent. Throughout the book, the text is liberally illustrated with line-draw- ings and graphs, along with maps from the recent atlas (Atlas of Breeding Birds of Lancashire and North Merseyside 1997-2000, Pyefinch & Golbourn 2001). There is also a colour photograph for most 330 British Birds 101 "June 2008 • 329-331 Reviews C species, sometimes more, along with a few interesting black-and- white photos rescued from the archives. Many of the photos are excellent and some would have ben- efited from reproduction at a slightly larger size, the abstract Red Knot Calidris canutus roost for example. But is the only available photo of Iceland Gull Larus glau- coides in Lancashire one of a dis- puted Kumlien’s Gull L. g. kumlienP. It is sometimes confusing to see that the text deals with records up to and including 2005, yet the photograph shows a bird from 2007 (Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti, for example). These last-minute updates do mean that the book is very topical, however; an appendix lists significant records from 2007 and there is even a photo of the White-tailed Lapwing Vanellus leucurus (in June 2007). Possibly because they have been done at the last minute, several of the photo captions contain errors, with age and sex wrongly assigned, while the accompanying geese in the White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons photo have been misidentified. As expected, rarer species have all records listed. Occasionally, it can be unclear which records are valid and why. Several Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos records are discussed, although it is not clear which three are acceptable. All five records of Icterine Warbler Hippo- lais icterina are acceptable, despite severe doubt being cast on two of them, although on the same page there are five similarly diverse records of Melodious Warbler H. polyglotta , yet only two are deemed to be acceptable. The header for European Serin Serinus serinus shows three records but the text states that two were unconfirmed. Modern Lancashire is full of significant birds and habitats: internationally important numbers of wintering waders on the Ribble Estuary and in More- cambe Bay; one of the most important reedbeds in Britain, at Leighton Moss; huge numbers of D Common Scoters Melanitta nigra in Liverpool Bay; important passage of Little Gulls Hydro- coloeus minutus at Seaforth Dock Pools; most of England’s breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in the Forest of Bowland; and important populations of several species of declining farmland birds as well as a huge wintering population of Pink-footed Geese Anser brachyrhynchus in the southwest mosslands. A table or short chapter listing the nationally and internationally significant bird populations in Lancashire may have helped to highlight the county’s importance even further. This project has been under development for many years, and the editors are to be praised for ensuring that it has finally appeared. Inevitably, a few errors have crept into a book of this size and scope, but it is beautifully pre- sented and a fitting tribute to the birdlife of a fascinating county. Mike Pennington NATURE’S ENGRAVER: A LIFE OF THOMAS BEWICK By Jenny Uglow. Faber & Faber, London, 2007. 458 pages; many illustrations and reproductions. ISBN 978-0-571-22375-6. Paperback, £9.99. The hardback edition of this delightful book was published in 2006. Bewick is sometimes regarded patronisingly as ‘hardly an ornithologist at all’, since the text of the two volumes bearing his name ( History of British Birds ) was partly written by other hands. Yet for more than half a century after their completion, in 1804, they were the main reference source on British birds for the non-specialist at least, and their images have been endlessly reproduced. There is a special delight in the tiny vignettes of country life. Bewick revived the art of wood- engraving, which pre-dated even movable type and had been mar- vellously effective in the work of Diirer. Though he worked in Newcastle upon Tyne, he was by upbringing and nature a coun- tryman, who often maintained that he would have led a happy life herding sheep on the fells. He was a master of line in his exacting art, where sometimes both hands were employed, as he turned the boxwood block to assist the curve formed by his homemade graving tool; Ruskin compared his work to that of Paolo Veronese in painting. He was much more than an artist and Jenny Uglow gives a rounded picture of him as a devoted family man, a radical politician over his pot of porter, an amazingly energetic walker, a tire- less trainer of apprentices and such a generous giver to beggars that his wife had to control his purse. David Ballance BIRDS OF TIREE AND COLL By John Bowler and Janet Hunter. Paircwood Publishing, Balephuil, 2007. 208 pages; many line-drawings and colour photographs. ISBN 10: 1-905601-01-8. Paperback, £9.00. This is an attractive and substan- tial avifauna, which keeps a careful balance between history and the needs of the modern ecotourist: the Corn Crake Crex crex pilgrim is well provided for. The habitats of the two islands are strongly contrasted: Tiree maintains a strong crofting tradition on its machair (though its Corn Buntings Emberiza calandra are no more); Coll has more heathland and a much smaller human popu- lation. The price is modest for a work of this size and scope. David Ballance British Birds 101 - June 2008 • 329-331 331 News and comment Compiled by Adrian Pitches Opinions expressed in this feature are not necessarily those of British Birds Spring hunting ban for Malta BirdLife Malta and BirdLife Interna- tional have warmly welcomed the European Court’s decision to order Malta not to open the 2008 spring hunting season for Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur and Common Quail Coturnix coturnix. This is an interim ruling pending a final ruling, which is not expected before 2009. Konstantin Kreiser, EU Policy Manager at BirdLife, welcomed the decision of the Court: ‘Although we regret it had to come this far - and Europe-wide embarrassment has been caused for Malta - we are confident that Government- authorised spring hunting has now become a thing of the past in Malta. At the same time, we hope that the Maltese Government and police will clamp down on the widespread illegal hunting and trapping in the country.’ In January 2008, based on a complaint by BirdLife, the European Commission took the Maltese Gov- ernment to court for having per- mitted hunting and trapping of Turtle Doves and Common Quails every spring since the country’s accession to the EU in 2004, in direct contravention of the EU Birds Directive, which prohibits hunting in spring. Joseph Mangion, Presi- dent of BirdLife Malta, commented: ‘We are pleased to see that the court has acknowledged the importance of protecting the common natural her- itage of the EU and its member states as overriding the individual interests of the Maltese hunters, who have the opportunity nonetheless to hunt these same birds in autumn. Malta has a special responsibility as it is the southernmost central Mediterranean country, through which migratory birds first pass on their way to their European breeding grounds, and we should be setting an example rather than seeking exceptions.’ Alistair Gammell, the RSPB’s international director, said: ‘This is a momentous victory for bird con- servation. This court decision should mean that birds will enjoy a safer passage across the island.’ Anecdotal evidence that birdlife is responding to a spring without (legal) hunting came from BirdLife Malta’s conservation manager, Andre Raine: ‘Flocks of Turtle Doves are grouping and then joining together to continue their migration, something we have never witnessed before. But perhaps the most significant fact is that for the first time ever a pair of Common Coots Fulica atra has bred on the Maltese Islands, at the is-Simar reserve run by BirdLife Malta.’ Lewis windfarm refused And the RSPB has had more cause for celebration with confirmation that the Scottish Government has rejected plans for a giant windfarm on Lewis. The Society had cam- paigned long and hard against plans by Amec and British Energy to erect 181 giant wind turbines (the original application was for 234) on the peatlands of north Lewis. It cited disturbance to the breeding grounds of divers (Gavi- idae) and waders - and potentially lethal interaction between soaring Golden Aquila chrysaetos and White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albi- cilla and the whirling turbines - in its objection to the proposals. The Scottish Government acknowledged that the proposed windfarm was indeed incompatible with the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. The decision to refuse permission was first indicated earlier this year (Brit. Birds 101: 166), despite the support of the Western Isles Council, the prospect of 400 new jobs on Lewis during the wind- farm’s construction and the massive 650 MW of renewable energy that the windfarm would generate. Scottish energy minister Jim Mather said that he had considered the views of the local authority, the 100 letters of support - and the 11,000 objections. He said: ‘The Lewis windfarm would have signif- icant adverse impacts on the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, which is designated owing to its high value for rare and endangered birds. But this decision does not mean that there cannot be onshore windfarms in the Western Isles.’ A spokesman for the Lewis Wind Power consortium said: ‘We are bitterly disappointed by the decision to reject our proposal for a windfarm on Lewis. Over the six years of this project, we have con- ducted extensive environmental and economic studies and designed the development around these findings. We believe that... we demonstrated that this proposal could have been approved without violating European law.’ Stuart Housden, Director of RSPB Scotland, said: ‘This is an extremely commendable decision by the Scottish Government that is absolutely right for Scotland. It sends a very strong message that in meeting our ambitious and welcome renewable targets, we do not have to sacrifice our most important environmental resources. We hope that Lewis Wind Power now recognises that this is an inappropriate site for a windfarm and we seek reassurances from them that they will not simply seek to continue pushing modified versions of the same proposal in the same location.’ 332 © British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 332-334 News and comment Mass/Ve gamble for Spain's special birds One of the most important remaining areas of steppe in southern Europe is threatened by a proposal to construct a massive casino and hotel complex. The scheme, called Gran Scala, has been dubbed ‘The European Las Vegas’ and would be built in Los Mone- gros, a steppe and semi-desert area northeast of Zaragoza, in the Aragon region of Spain. Some 103,000 ha of Los Mone- gros is protected as a Special Zone for Bird Protection (ZEPA). Although the 2,000-ha develop- ment would be outside the pro- tected area, it will be extremely close to it and is likely to affect the breeding populations of some of Spain’s rarest birds. These include Dupont’s Lark Chersophilus duponti , Black-bellied Pterocles ori- entalis and Pin-tailed Sandgrouse P. alchata. Great Otis tarda and Little Bustards Tetrax tetrax, and Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni. The development, which would include 32 casinos, 70 hotels, 232 restaurants and 500 shops, goes completely against plans for sus- tainable development in the region. It also makes a mockery of Expo 2008 H2O, to be held in Zaragoza and which aims to high- light the sustainable and rational use of water in arid regions. A campaign, StopGranScala, has been mounted in Spain against the development and more information (in Spanish) is avail- able at their website (http:// stopgranscala.blogspot.es). An online petition to the Aragonese Government can be signed at http://www.firmasonline.com/ I Firmas/camp I ,asp?C= 1 278 ( Contributed by Dr Jeremy Brock) RSPB launches raptor crusade The RSPB has increased the pres- sure on moorland managers by challenging them to help in stamping out the illegal killing of Britain’s birds of prey. The RSPB says that information from northern England suggests that persecution is rife, particularly in the north Pennines, the Yorkshire Dales, the North York Moors and the Peak District. Every year, birds of prey - such as Golden Eagles, Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus. Northern Goshawks Accipiter gentilis , Common Buzzards Buteo buteo , Red Kites Milvus milvus and Pere- grine Falcons Falco peregrinus - are being slaughtered by unscrupulous gamekeepers and shooting estates, according to the RSPB. This relent- less persecution is putting the Hen Harrier at risk in England and will prevent the Golden Eagle from recolonising northern England from southern Scotland. The RSPB is challenging landowners and land managers to help in boosting the number of English nesting Hen Harriers to 40 pairs by 2010, with half of these on grouse moors. Previously pub- lished research suggests that England has suitable habitat for more than five times that number. Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB’s conser- vation director, said: ‘It is outra- geous that birds of prey are still being killed illegally and that these fantastic birds are destroyed before they can cast their shadows on some of our most beautiful wild places. The skies are owned by no- one, but a callous few want to deprive the nation of some of our most charismatic wildlife.’ Although the populations of many birds of prey are rising in some parts of the UK, especially in the lowlands, there are black holes - especially in the uplands - where raptors disappear. Last year, only 15 pairs of Hen Harrier nested suc- cessfully in England - well short of the RSPB’s ‘conservative’ target of 40 nests in England by 2010. This year, thanks to the creation of a Hen Harrier hotline, there are early reports of birds establishing terri- tories in Northumberland, the Peak District and North Yorkshire Moors. See www.rspb.org.uk/ birds of prey The Eric Hosking Trust The Eric Hosking Trust is looking for applications for its 2008 bur- saries. The aim of the Trust is to sponsor ornithological research through the media of writing, photography, painting or illustra- tion. Bursaries of up to £750 are awarded to suitable candidates once a year, and the closing date for applications is 30th September 2008. In 2007, the Trust awarded two bursaries. The first was to Omar Fadhel, working on behalf of Nature Iraq, towards the cost of his project to photograph areas of importance for birds and other wildlife in the marshlands of southern Iraq. These marshes, once the largest in the Middle East, were drained during the Saddam Hussein regime, but since 2003 have been 50% restored. The second bursary went to Sujas Prasad Phuyal, whose aim was to produce an updated checklist of the bats (Chiroptera) and caves of the Pokhara Valley in Nepal. Details are available from The Eric Hosking Trust, Pages Green House, Wetheringsett, Stowmarket, Suffolk I P 1 4 5QA; tel. 01728 861 1 13; e-mail david@hosking-tours.co.uk; see also the Trust’s website www.erichoskingtrust.com British Birds 101 ‘June 2008 • 332-334 333 Kit Day c News and comment ) The Handbook of Western Palearctic Birds The first volume of the forthcoming Christopher Helm title The Handbook of Western Palearctic Birds is on course for publication in a little over a year’s time. The co-authors of this two-volume handbook, Hadoram Shir- ihai and Lars Svensson, will be well known to BB readers, having written a number of key papers on identification and taxonomy for BB in the last decade or more. This promises to be a significant identification handbook, the most complete ever published dealing with the birds of the Western Palearctic (which, for the purposes of this project, deals with all of Arabia and Iran too). A comprehensive text, illustrated with over 3,000 top-quality photo- graphs, will cover every species in the region, presenting readers with the means to identify challenging species and plumages in the field. In partic- ular, the authors explore issues of subspecific and geographical variation in detail, combining the many recent developments in taxonomy and system- atics with the latest advances in field identification. All regular breeding and non-breeding species, together with most vagrants, will be covered in depth, with up to six pages being devoted to complex species; extreme vagrants (fewer than five records) will also be described and illustrated. The first volume, due to appear in 2009, will cover passerines. The digital format has redefined the boundaries of bird photography and this has been a key factor in the development of this project. Although most of the photographs have been sourced, there are still some gaps to be filled and improvements to be made. Since so many birders are now using good-quality photographic equip- ment, the authors invite all camera- toting birdwatchers to visit their website (www.acblack.com/handbook) in case they can provide high-quality images of any of the plumages still required. Over 100 photographers are already involved, and the wider the collaborative effort, the better the end product will be. We look forward greatly to seeing the finished item in due course. I 57. Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio, The Naze, Essex, June 2006. Not so very long ago, Red-backed Shrike was lumped with Isabelline L isabellinus and Brown Shrikes L cristatus as a single species - but now this group of shrikes is a key focus for taxonomic (and sometimes identification) debate in the Western Palearctic, and beyond. Can you name the 600th British bird ? Following the recent additions of Long-billed Murrelet Brachyram- phus perdix (Brit. Birds 101: 131-136) and Olive-tree Warbler Hippolais olivetorum (Brit. Birds 101: 82-88), the official British List maintained by the BOU Records Committee now stands at 578 species. This includes Caspian Larus cachinnans and American Herring Gulls L. smithsonianus, which are now treated as full species rather than races. Due to further taxonomic revi- sions waiting in the wings and a flurry of new arrivals in 2007 (Yellow-nosed Albatross Thalas- sarche chlororhynchos. Glaucous- winged Gull Larus glaucescens, Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias and Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa dauurica among them), the 600th species for Britain is not far off. But what will it be? What are your pre- dictions in the News & comment sweepstake? E-mail them to the N&c address on the inside front cover of BB. There may even be a prize for the correct answer. My bet goes on Willet Tringa semi- palmatus , one of the few Nearctic waders yet to appear in Britain. Willet or won’t it be the 600th British bird? Birds and people It’s Birds Britannica on a global scale. Author Mark Cocker has been commissioned to produce a book on the cultural significance of birds not just in Britain but right across the world. It’s a collaborative effort between publisher Random House, BirdLife - and the global birdwatching community. Mark and his co-authors, David Tipling and Jonathan Elphick, are seeking stories from every corner of the globe about special birds and their significance to people. There’s a website where you can view a list of possible subjects, upload your stories and/or join in the discus- sion forum. The website is http://birdsandpeople.org 334 British Birds 101 "June 2008 • 332-334 Recent reports Compiled by Barry Nightingale and Eric Dempsey This summary of unchecked reports covers new arrivals between early April and early May 2008. Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Pat Reddans Lake (Co. Tipperary), 25th April. Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Blair Drummond, 12th-17th April, pre- sumably same Airthrey Loch (both Forth), 24th April; Dozmary Pool, 1 3th— 1 5th April, same Siblyback Reservoir (both Cornwall), 19th April; Cleasby Gravel-pits (North Yorkshire), 7th-8th May. King Eider Somateria spectabilis North Ronaldsay (Orkney), 16th— 18th April; Flambor- ough Head (East Yorkshire), 24th-30th April. White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii North Ronaldsay, 15th— 1 7th April, then four there 2nd May; Mousa (Shetland), 16th April; Poolewe (Highland), two, 16th— 19th April, one to 22nd; Harris (Outer Hebrides), two, 18th April, one to 19th; Gruinard Bay (Highland), two, 20th April, one to 9th May; Lewis (Outer Hebrides), 21st April, then two, 22nd-30th April, and at least two on 7th May; Burghead (Moray), 24th and 30th April to 3rd May; Dungeness (Kent), 26th April; North Ronaldsay, 4th May. Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus Brownstown Head (Co. Waterford), 26th April. Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Cuskinney Marsh (Co. Cork), 12th April; Pevensey Levels (East Sussex), 29th April; North Uist (Outer Hebrides), 8th May. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Numbers in southern/southwest England fell slightly from recent months but were similar to those for the preceding month in southern Ireland (see pre- vious reports); peak counts during the period were in Cornwall, with up to 16 in the Sancreed/Drift/ Chysauster/New Mill area, and 23 at Polgigga on 9th May. Great White Egret Ardea alba Unst (Shetland), 1 1 th— 16th April; Wilstone Reservoir (Hertfordshire), then College Lake (Bucking- hamshire), 11th April; South Uist (Outer Hebrides), 11th April; Loch of Strathbeg (North-east Scotland), 21st April, then two 23rd-24th April; Cresswell Pond (Northumber- land), 25th April; Abberton Reservoir (Essex), 26th April; Saul Warth (Gloucestershire), 3rd May; Ovingdean (Essex), 5th May; Chichester Harbour (West Sussex), 6th May; Bintree Mill (Norfolk), 9th May. Black Stork Ciconia nigra Paxton (Cambridgeshire), 4th May; Scaling Dam Reservoir (Cleveland), 6th May. Black Kite Milvus migrans In Norfolk, two in the Horsey/Caister/Acle area, present 12th-28th April, one of them at Eccles and Bacton on 24th and at Horsey on 26th possibly of the race known as ‘Black-eared Kite’ M. m. lineatus; Stiffkey, 16th April, then along the north Norfolk coast between there and Cromer and inland to Sculthorpe up to 21st April; Pensthorpe, 2nd May, and Fring and Docking, 3rd May. In Suffolk, probably two, the first at Elvedon on 12th April, then in the Lowestoft to Ashby area 24th-28th April, also Minsmere 26th April, and in the Boyton/Trimley St Mary area 24th-27th April. In Kent, at Ramsgate on 14th April and 8th May; St Margarets-at-Cliffe, Kings- I 58. Female Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus, Pugney’s Country Park, West Yorkshire, May 2008. © British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 335-338 335 lain Leach Recent reports C ) I 59. Female Caspian Plover Charadrius asiaticus. Fair Isle, Shetland, May 2008. down then Deal, 26th April; Dover, 2nd May; Dungeness, 2nd and 6th May; South Foreland Valley, 7th May; and Sutton, 9th May. In Hamp- shire, at Keyhaven Marshes, 16th April; Gosport, 2nd May; Overton, 5th-6th May; and Alton, 9th May. Elsewhere, in the Padanarum/ Montrose Basin/Maryton area (Angus), 12th April; Ecton, 1 2th— 1 3th April, presumed same Thrapston, 16th and 27th April (both Northamptonshire); Portland/Weymouth (Dorset), 20th April; Pyrford/West Byfleet, 20th April, presumably same Puttenham (all Surrey), 25th April; Arklow (Co. Wicklow), 22nd April; near Huntingdon (Cambridgeshire), 29th April; Filey (North York- shire), 3rd May; Carmel Head (Anglesey), 4th May; Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork), 4th May; Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus Cley (Norfolk), 26th April, pre- sumed same Kelling Water Meadows (both Norfolk), 29th April; Silverdale (Lancashire), 8th May; Sandwich Bay (Kent), 8th May; Oare Marshes 9th May, and Northward Hill (all Kent), 9th May; Brinsley Flash (Nottinghamshire), 9th May; Pugney’s Country Park (West Yorkshire), 9th May. Gyr Falcon Falco rusticolus Inishskea Islands (Co. Mayo), 7th April; North Uist, 22nd and 29th April. Black-winged Stilt Himantopus hlmantopus Neumann’s Flash/Ashton’s Flash (Cheshire), two, 25th April to 9th May; Kenfig Pool (Glam- organ), 27th April to 4th May; Summer Leys NR (Northamptonshire), two, 1st May, then at Willington Gravel-pits (Bedfordshire), 1st May, and Abberton Reservoir on 2nd May, and presumably same Elmley Marshes (Kent), 3rd-4th May; Newport Wetlands (Gwent), 5th-9th May. Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola Swale NNR (Kent), 8th May. Killdeer Charadrius vociferus North Uist, 2nd-3rd May. Caspian Plover Charadrius asiaticus Fair Isle, lst-2nd May. American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica Exminster Marshes, 4th-9th May. Shipley (West Sussex), 5th May; Fair Isle (Shetland), 7th-9th May; Erlestoke (Wiltshire), 8th May; Mel- bourne (Cambridgeshire), 9th May; Langenhoe (Essex), 9th May; Littledale (Lancashire), 9th May. White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Slimbridge (Gloucestershire), 11th April; Seaforth (Lancashire 8c N Merseyside), 15th April. 1 60. Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius, Lisvane Reservoir, Glamorgan, April 2008. Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis Slimbridge, 3rd-4th May; Newport Wetlands, 7th May. Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Ashton’s Callows (Co. Tipperary), 17th April; Shannon Lagoons (Co. Clare), 19th April. Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longi- cauda Loch of Strathbeg, 5th-6th May. Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Sidlesham Ferry Pool (West Sussex), 18th-22nd April; Berry Fen (Cam- British Birds 101 'June 2008 • 335-338 i 336 c Recent reports > 161. Adult White-winged BlackTern Chlidonias leucoptera (left), with BlackTerns C.niger, Draycote Water, Warwickshire, May 2008. bridgeshire), 1 9th— 2 1 st April; Swine Moor (East Yorkshire), 22nd-27th April; St Mary’s, 30th April to 1st May; Dunwich, 6th May, then Walberswick/Dingle Marshes (all Suffolk), to 9th May. Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan Brandon Marsh, 16th April, same Draycote Water (both Warwickshire), 16th-20th April. American Herring Gull Larus smithsonianus Lewis, 7th May. Ross’s Gull Rhodostethia rosea Lytham St Anne’s and the Ribble estuary area (both Lan- cashire), 18th April to 9th May. Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus Philadelphia South Uist, 1 1th— 27th April; Thurso (Highland), 19th-20th April; Dingle (Co. Kerry), 21st-24th April; Kin- negar Shore (Co. Down), 28th April; Marton Mere (Lancashire), 3rd May. Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida Holkham (Norfolk), 28th April; Kenfig Pool, 4th-12th May; Kilcolman (Co. Cork), 3rd May; Radipole Lake, 5th-7th May, same Lodmoor, 8th May; Brean/Berrow (both Somerset), 5th May; Oxey Point (Hampshire), 6th May; Lower Tamar Lake (Devon), 8th May; Conwy RSPB (Conwy), 9th May and same Inner Marsh Farm (Cheshire 8t Wirral), 9th May. White-winged Black Tern Chlidonias leucoptera, Draycote Water (Warwick- shire), 10th May. Alpine Swift Apus melba Grimsay (Outer Hebrides), 19th April; Strathclyde Loch (Clyde), 2nd May; Audenshaw Reservoir (Greater Man- chester), 3rd May; Great Ormes Head (Conwy), 8th May. Pallid Swift Apus pallidus St Agnes, 28th April to 3rd May, St Mary’s 29th April and St Martin’s (all Scilly), 4th May. European Bee-eater Merops apiaster Large influx in late April and early May. In Cornwall, three Land’s End on 26th April, then Cot Valley 27th April and Rame Head on 2nd May; on 3rd May (there may be some duplication), two Land’s End, three Predannack Head, four Porthgwarra, three Polgigga, then at least 1 1 Nanjizal; on 7th May, one Nanjizal and two at Land’s End. In Dorset, four near Poole on 27th April and singles at Portland Bill on 28th April, Culverwell on 7th May and Bere Cross on 8th May. In Scilly, three St Martin’s lst-2nd May, and presumably same over St Mary’s, then St Agnes, 2nd May, and presumably two of same Tresco, 2nd May. In Somerset, nine Watchet 26th April; two Clevedon 3rd May; Portishead 3rd May; two Weston-Super-Mare, 3rd May. Elsewhere, Dinas Head (Pembrokeshire), 27th April; Voy (Orkney), 28th April; Dursey Island (Co. Cork), 29th April; Burnham Overy 1 62. Calandra Lark Melanocorypha calandra. Fair Isle, Shetland, April 2008. British Birds 101 - June 2008 • 335-338 337 Mark Breaks Steve Seal Recent reports C > o -a o E c o OC 1 63. Male Black Lark Melanocorypha yeltoniensis, Winterton Dunes, Norfolk, April 2008. Swallow Pond (Northumberland), 28th-29th April; Abberton Reservoir, 30th April; Spurn (East Yorkshire), 2nd and 5th May; Dungeness, 4th May; Audenshaw Reservoir, 4th May; Peny- cloddiau (Clwyd), 5th May; Ballycotton, 6th May, probably same Lough Adearra (both Co. Cork), 6th-7th May; Radipole Lake, 6th May; Croyde (Devon), 7th May; Leasowe (Cheshire & Wirral), 7th and 18th May; Land’s End, 9th May. Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola Conwy RSPB, 30th April. I 64. White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis, Heysham, Lancashire & North Merseyside, May 2008. (Norfolk), 3rd May; Marsh Lane (West Mid- lands), 4th May; Dungeness 5th May; Southease (East Sussex), 5th May; Greenham Common (Berkshire), 7th May; Beachy Head (East Sussex), 16 on 9th May. Calandra Lark Melanocorypha calandra Fair Isle, 20th-22nd April. Black Lark Melanocorypha yeltoniensis Winterton Dunes (Norfolk), 20th-21st April. Red-rumped Swallow Cecropi s daurica Portland, 20th April, then five on 7th May, three to 8th May; Marske Headlands (Cleveland), 23rd April; Appledore (Devon), 24th April; Waxham (Norfolk), 27th April; Subalpine Warbler Sylvia cantillans Hook Head (Co. Wexford), 20th-21st April; Winterton Dunes, 21st April; St Agnes, 26th April and 2nd May; Fame Islands (Northumberland), 27th April; St Mary’s, 27th April and 1st May; Nan- jizal, 3rd-6th May, then two 7th May; Brotton (Cleveland), 3rd May; Brownstown Head (Co. Waterford), 4th May; Blakeney Point (Norfolk), 5th May; Sea Palling (Norfolk), 7th May; Dursey Island (Co. Cork), 7th-8th May; Mizen Head, two, 9th May; Fair Isle, 9th May. Pallas’s Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus proregulus Wallsend (Northumberland), 1 2th— 20th April; Framp ton -on -Severn (Gloucestershire), 1 9th— 2 1st April; St Agnes (Cornwall), 21st-25th April; Hayling Island (Hampshire), 8th May. Penduline Tit Remiz pendulinus Cotswold Water Park (Wiltshire), 13th April. Woodchat Shrike Lanius senator Land’s End/Sennen (Cornwall), 26th April to 1st May; Helston (Cornwall), 27th April to 3rd May; Bryher (Scilly), 27th April to 9th May; Kynance Cove (Cornwall), 3rd May; St Mary’s, 4th May; Knockadoon Head (Co. Cork), 5th-6th May; Wemburv (Devon), 5th-9th May; North Anston (South Yorkshire), 5th May; Nanquidno (Cornwall), 7th May; Spurn, 8th-9th May; Mizen Head, 9th May; Trevose Head (Cornwall), 9th May; St Martin’s, 9th May. Arctic Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni hornemanni Annagh Marsh, Mullet Peninsula (Co. Mayo), 1st May. White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Heysham (Lancashire & N Merseyside), 6th May. Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Ingleton (North Yorkshire), 13th April. Little Bunting Emberiza pusilla Old Head of Kinsale (Co. Cork), 21st April. 338 British Birds 101 • June 2008 • 335-338 Classified advertising Payment for all classified advertisements must be made in advance by VISA, Mastercard or by cheque payable to British Birds. Copy deadline: 10th of the month. Contact: Ian Lycett, Solo Publishing Ltd., B403A The Chocolate Factory, 5 Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Tel: 020 8881 0550. Fax: 020 8881 0990. E-mail: ian.lycett@birdwatch.co.uk Holiday Accommodation Overseas PROVENCE - CAMARGUE. Two s/c cottages. Rogers, Mas d’Auphan. Le Sambuc, 13200 ARLES, France. Tel: (0033) 490 972041 Email: p.m.rogers@wanadoo.ff England SOMERSET LEVELS. Self-catering holiday accommodation, sleeps 2. Close to RSPB nature reserves with excellent birding. Prices from £195 per week. Telephone 01823 698 247. www.thornhillsfarm.co.uk Birdwatching Holidays Birdwatching Holidays 240 SPECIES INCLUDING SEA Eagles Spectacular Coastal scenery Unforgettable BIRDWATCHING "rl/in.foy^ei-tA(p(e ( SKYE THE ISLAND & LOCHALSH www.skye.co.uk Books UPDATED original BIRDWATCHER’S LOGBOOK A concise way to record your observations. Monthly, annual & life columns for 968 species, garden birds, migrants, index & diary pages. Send £8.75 to: Coxton Publications, Eastwood, Beverley Rd, Walkington, Beverley, HU 1 7 8RP. 01482 881833 BIRD BOOKS BOUGHT AND SOLD. Visit our website for our online catalogue Visit our shop and see our extensive collection. Hawkridge Books, The Cruck Barn, Cross St, Castleton, Derbyshire S33 8WH. Tel: 01433 621999. Email: books@hawkridge.co.uk. Web: www.hawkridge.co.uk colljof the wiL6 'exclusive wiL6life holidays ^ ^on the Beautiful heBRidean U islands of coll&tmee y simon 01879 230402 )/ « www.collofthewil6.co.uk MADEIRA WIND BIRDS - Selvagens Islands Expeditions, Madeira Land and Sea Birdwatching, www.madeirawindbirds.com and www.madeirabirds.com Pager Service New SMS News Service Free Trial Online also Pagers & Internet News www.rarebirdalert.co.uk Read the News First See the cutest face of POLAND Join our wildlife tours, linked with low fare to Warsaw & www.birding. tel. +48 12 2921460 Polish BIRD SERVICE touroperator since 1990 Optical Equipment Binoculars & Telescopes Top Makes, Top Models, Top Advice, Top Deals, Part Exchange Show Room Sales 01925 730399 FOCALPOINT www.fpoint.co.uk Credit/debit cards accepted VANTED! For the Travel Trade • ur Leaders • ebsite and IT Manager • Marketing Manager Fi timers to combine tour-leading and office-based pr uct and operation tasks. Bi ;rs, botanists and particularly all-round naturalists sc ht to fill the above posts. M tulous attention to detail, accuracy, common sense, go! literacy, numeracy, telephone skills and love of hard we ; are amongst the many skills required. Fu oving, outgoing and personable character essential! Fli] e post typed CV and accompanying hand-written let ■ to: Naturetrek, Cheriton Mill, Arlesford, H; ts SO 24 ONG • Tel: 0 1 962 73305 I NEW POST - MARINE ORNITHOLOGIST ❖ To undertake EIA, surveys & applied research ❖ Skills needed: proven ability at sea, bird ID, computing & numeracy Chance to join long- established respected ecological consultancy Closing date June 30th Request details on pdf: m.perrow@ econ-ecology. com ❖ 3 month trial for 1 year post - excellent chance of continuation & upgrade ❖ Salary £24K + ❖ Further training & scope ❖ Would suit first-post higher level graduate nhbs Environment Bookstore^ Wildlife | Science \ Conservation New at NHBS I ' Here is a small selection of new birding titles available from NHBS Environment Bookstore - supplie. most comprehensive and up-to-date range of birding titles around - to view our full catalogue please ’■ website at www.nhbs.com. A selection of equipment for birders is also now available from our website, including: Nest Box Came one of which is shown here, the RemememBird device for recording bird sounds, a range of Minox bin: nest boxes and much more. < COLLINS m BIRDS PREY Collins Birds of Prey B. Gensbol The most complete guide to the 49 species of bird of prey found in Europe. Every species has a comprehensive de- scriptive entry, with the most up-to-date information on population, distribution, status, behaviour, habitat, voice, breed- ing biology, food and hunting techniques. Hbk | Edition 2 | 2008 | £29.99 | #161721 Guia de Campo: Aves Brasil Oriental / Birds ern Brazil Tomas Sigrist A much-needed field guide to t|.: of Eastern Brazil. For each spot, name is given in Portuguese, Et and Latin, along with size, disti maps, habitat keys and status. Pbk | 2007 | £34.99 | #173042 ! Nomads of the Strait of Gibraltar j Nomads of the Strait of Gibraltar A Field Guide to Bird Migration, the Natural Parks of the Strait and los Alcornocales, and the Rock of Gibraltar Fernando Barrios Partida The author aims to inform ornithologists, and people passionate about nature, about one of the most fascinating enclaves for observing bird migration in the world. Hbk | 2007 | £36.99 | #172436 Dragonflies New Naturalist #1 06 Philip Corbet & Stephen Brooks In this seminal new work, Corbet and Brooks examine the behaviour, ecology and distribution of dragonflies in Britain and Ireland. Pbk | Jun 2008 | £24.99 £17.99 | #137638 Hbk | Jun 2008 | £44.00 £34.99 | #1 37637 (Offer valid until 31/08/2008) Birdwatching in Azerb A Guide to Nature and Landscape S. Schmidt & K. Gauger et al '< The first comprehensive nature* guidebook to Azerbaijan - it cot species as well as detailed Ian and nature descriptions. This 1 also filled with helpful hints anc information. Pbk & CD Set | 2008 | £19.99 | j _ Lost Land of the Dodo Anthony Cheke & Julian Humt The product of a lifetime of res by Anthony Cheke, Lost Land Dodo provides a comprehensi hugely enjoyable account of th of the islands’ ecology. Richly' trated with maps and contemp illustrations of the animals and Hbk | 2008 | £45.00 | #119785 Bird Sona BiologicalThemes and Variations C.K. Catch pole & P.J.B. Slater The authors review over 1000 scientific papers and reveal how scientists are beginning to unravel and understand how and why birds communicate with the elaborate vocalizations we call song. Hbk | Edition 2 | 2008 | £39.99 | #173726 Garden Wildlife -M Guide to Garden Wildl Richard Lewington From blue tits to bumblebees hedgehogs to hawkmoths, thf has got it covered. Illustrated Richard Lewington, acknowle' one of the finest natural historj in Europe, with the birds by hit Ian, one of our most respectec artists. Pbk I 2008 I £12.95 I #174024 wNo Find over 100,000 wildlife, science and conservation titles at www.nhbs.com ‘Ihers WWW. nhbs .com The most comprehensive range of natural history titles on earth |nvironment Bookstore has an extensive range of field and travel guides available for any travelling birder. To see 1 range of titles visit our website, www.nhbs.com and click Browse by Geozone on our homepage. 1 rding Equipment | Seabirds, Shorebirds and Wildfowl noil iox Camera Kit: Wired, with IR 3ture b tselling kit provides eve- i; ou need to start watching k footage in minutes. k quality bird box with .ft d sliding drawer and quick *:amera bracket, if [uality, high resolution Col- CC camera with built in Infra ,11 lination enabling viewing adaV- fe jI microphone to hear as well as see what’s going on t ; Bird Box. ir f professional cable. Simply attach your camera to the Jr ded connectors at one end and plug straight into your ft other. It couldn’t be easier! djustable focus lenses, 12v Regulated Mains adaptor, scart adapter & metal protecter plates to deter predators. □ Field Guide to the Albatrosses, Petrels and Shearwaters of the World #66425 £19.99 pbk □ Shorebirds #146385 £49.50 hbk □ Flight Identification of European Seabirds #166387 £24.99 pbk □ Peterson Reference: Gulls of the Americas #168787 £24.50 hbk □ Field Guide to New Zealand Seabirds #162575 £12.99 pbk □ Waterbird Population Estimates #157616 £25.00 pbk | UK and Europe □ Essential Guide to Birds of the Isle of Scilly #170911 □ Philip's Guide to Birds of Britain and Europe #165691 □ Birds of the Palearctic - Passerines #128714 □ Birds of Argyll #173329 □ The Birds of Gwent #167901 □ The Birds of Scotland #168578 □ The Birds of Zambia #172927 □ Wild Mynd #170173 □ Skomer: Portrait of a Welsh Island #166943 □ Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds #172768 n oi ‘ ie dji ■ !k sc< £44.99 hbk £9.99 pbk £25.00 hbk £49.99 hbk £39.99 hbk £75.00 hbk £29.99 pbk £14.99 pbk £14.99 pbk £40.00 hbk Rest of the World . - iB Camera Kit: Colour, wired, IR :E Camera Kit: B & W, wired, IR £169.99 £119.99 | #171672 #171671 1 neral nAzi - Is d People: Bonds in a Timeless Journey #170740 £29.99 hbk : Ljwing #166386 £39.99 hbk _ . ; n iirds of the World #160648 £24.99 hbk ms able Birds #161729 £17.99 hbk ... -disk of the Birds of the World. Volume 12: Picathartes to Tits .... nit dess #38603 £145.00 hbk ‘ : Clsld Wndfarms #151257 £23.99 hbk ■ ’ ■ ’ i , ga:rom Birding (Wldlife Art Series 15) #169828 £37.99 hbk erds: Nature Art and History #172481 £33.99 hbk C nents Checklist of the Birds of the World #167912 £39 99 hbk Z EM J . 3 Iwatching | "i 1 Watch Birds in Britain #120341 £19.99 pbk ' ere , Watch Birds in North West England #133992 £16.99 pbk ire Watch Birds in World Cities #154814 £16.99 pbk . f.vt ner’s Yearbook and Diary 2008 #169193 £16.75 hbk :er|5ocket Logbook #170075 £8.50 hbk . e E Is Yearbook 2008 #169718 £18.95 pbk : < ns ow to Identify Birds #38713 £12.99 pbk .. .» P es to Go Birding Before You Die #169746 £14.95 hbk ,='e Watch Birds in Southern & Eastern Spain #162621 £16.99 pbk • HE outh-East China #162234 £29.50 pbk DO : r*st Colour #169880 £12.99 pbk □ The Birds of Zambia#i 72927 □ Birds of Trinidad and Tobago #166395 □ Field Guide to Birds of E Africa #151078 □ Field Guide to the Birds of W Africa #146211 □ A Photographic Guide to Birds of Japan #161077 □ All the Birds of Brazil #151692 □ Roberts Bird Guide. Comprehensive Field Guide to Over Species in Southern Africa #164925 □ Where to Watch Birds in New Zealand #170608 □ Birds of Northern South America, Volume 1&2 #156090 □ Field Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica #162622 □ A Field Guide to the Birds of China #101745 □ Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka #83310 □ The Birds of Kazakhstan #167774 □ Birds in Europe #150394 □ Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand #156936 □ Guide to the Birds of China inc. Flong Kong #167068 i Bird Sounds & DVDs £29.99 pbk £19.99 pbk £24.99 pbk £29.99 pbk £24.99 pbk £29.95 pbk 950 Bird £17.99 pbk £12.99 pbk £85.00 pbk £19.99 pbk £39.95 pbk £39.95 pbk £44.99 hbk £30.00 hbk £29.50 pbk £7.99 pbk □ The Sound Approach to Birding #163551 £29.95 hbk+CD □ The Birds of Britain and Europe, 6-DVD Set #146254 £35.19 DVD □ Bird Sounds of Madagascar #172547 £9.95 CD □ The Art of Pishing #164822 £11.50 pbk+CD □ Birding in Spain #160634 £12.95 DVD □ BWPi 2.0:Birds of the Western Palearctic Interactive #164224 £139.00 DVD-ROM □ BBi (British Birds Interactive) 1907-2007 #169546 £98.99 DVD-ROM □ The Life of Birds #164230 £19.95 DVD General Wildlife < der via this form, phone, fax, email or online tort srvice postage & packing charges va up to £5 £10 £30 £45 £65 £100 +£100 DVD CD ■Kilom £1.99 £1.99 £1.99 £2.99 £4.99 £7.50 £7.50 £1.99 £1.99 £1.99 £4.00 £5.00 £6.50 £8.50 £10.50 11% £1.50 £1.50 tm £2.00 £2.00 rden ton ICUIlfc® VW j SO.1' % £2.00 £4.50 £6.00 £7.00 £10.00 16% 16% □ Watching British Dragonflies #118377 £27.50 pbk □ Freshwater Life of Britain and Northern Europe #158058 £19.99 pbk □ Insects of Britain and Western Europe #149256 £14.99 pbk □ Concise Guide to Moths of Britain and Ireland #167130 £12.95 pbk □ Where to Watch Mammals in Britain and Ireland #149288 £16.99 pbk al neques payable to NHBS Ltd. Payment can also be made in US$ & Euro, please contact customer services for details. *rs . normally dispatched promptly from stock, but please allow up to 21 days for delivery in the UK, longer if abroad. Note that prices »ubj ( to change. ne Address ^stiaF * Telephone aces E-mail sci er No tel1®! 3se gn here. Goods total £. P&P total £ Total £ ebit my Visa/Mastercard/Maestro/AMEX |__ j __ j _ j _ j ___ j _ faei i - Start date | | | / | | | Issue No | AMEX - Start date Expiry date LLI / / LLI c.H_L V Tradition of iwift Excellence... A r ; a M r 7 /mu / ...It's Guaranteed WIFT BINOCULARS & SCOPES FROM PYSER-SGI LTD. Pyser-SGI Ltd, Fircroft Way, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 6HA Tel: 01732 864111 www.pyser-sqi.com sales@pyser-sqi.com Kay Optical (1962) UNRIVALLED EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE AND SERVICE Sales & Repairs * Binoculars * Telescopes * Tripods, et www.kayoptical.co.uk and www.bigbinoculars.co.uk 89(B) London Rood, Morden, Surrey SM4 5HP Tel: 020 8648 8822 Fax: 020 8687 202) Email: info@kayoplical.co.uk Open: Mon-Sat 9-5 (lunch 1-2) ^ Location: Southern edge of Greater London. 15 mins drive from M25. (for example vio the A3, then take the A298 Wimbledon/Merton slip-rood) or 2 mins walk from Morden underground (turn right). See our website for o mop. Parking: 50 yards post our premises - first left • Mail order • Same day despatch ■ Part exchange 1 Used items • Package deals ■ Credit available optical I service II T7 * 1 J Alternative venues to Morden at which you can try and buy our equipment X 1C1Q in the field are given below. We aim to show our full range of equipmem in the field are given below. We aim to show our full range of equipment but it helps us to help you if you let us know your interests before each Field Day. Repairs can also be handed in/collected. 1 0.00am to 4.00pm usua1 Sevenoaks Wildfowl Reserve On the A25 between Riverheod and Sevenoaks - Bat and Ball Station 6 July, 3 August, 7 Sept, 5 October Dinton Pastures Country Park Near Reading (M4, A329(M) Woodley turnoff) then A329 to Winnersh and Winnersh Station Pagham Harbour LNR On the B2145 into Selsey, West Sussex 29 June, 27 July College Lake Wildlife Centre On the B488 near Bulbourne, Iring, Herts. 8 June, 10 August 13 July, 14 Sept Bough Beech Nature Reserve/ Reservoir About 4 miles south of the A25/A21 junction (access from B2042 or B2027) neor Ide Hill, Kent. Info centre north of Canon, Helios,] Kowa, Leica, Manfrotto, Miyauchi, Nikon, Opticron, Optolyth, Sentinel, Swarovski, Zeiss, etc. 22 June, 20 July, 17 August, 14 Sept Used items a/s