British Birds Volume 1 05 THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM C 1 MAY 2GI2 PRESENTED TRING LIBRARY Ornithological fraud Firecrests in Norfolk and ■ * W‘l m , fjnmtj WM / - ' ^ . MV. v 'V. _■% r / ^ «hT ' *T& > 1m,: svj^l V.1^- - A ' lar J psl ISSN 0007-0335 British Birds Established 1907, incorporating The Zoologist, established 1843 Published by BB 2000 Limited, trading as ‘British Birds’ Registered Office: c/o Chappell Cole & Co, Heritage House, 34 North Cray Road, Bexley, Kent DA5 3LZ British Birds is owned and published by BB 2000 Limited, the directors of which are John Eyre (Chairman), Jeremy Greenwood, Mark Holling, Conor Jameson, Ciaran Nelson, Ian Packer, Adrian Pitches and Richard Porter. BB 2000 Limited is wholly owned by The British Birds Charitable Trust (registered charity No. 1089422), whose trustees are Richard Chandler, Jeremy Greenwood, Ian Newton and Peter Oliver. Directors and trustees are volunteers who draw no remuneration. www.britishbirds.co.uk Editorial Roger Riddington Spindrift, Eastshore, Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS Tel: 01 950 460080 editor@britishbirds.co.uk ‘News & comment’ material to Adrian Pitches adrianpitches@blueyonder.co.uk Subscriptions & administration Hazel Jenner 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7PF Tel & fax: 01424 755155 subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk Design & production Mark Corliss m.corliss@netmatters.co.uk Advertising Rob Llewellyn, Digital Spring Ltd, 10 Common Road, Ightham, Sevenoaks, Kent TNI 5 9DY Tel: 0208 123 7776 BBAdsales@digital-spring.co.uk Guidelines for contributors See www.britishbirds.co.uk British Birds Editorial staff Roger Riddington (Editor), Caroline Dudley, Peter Kennerley Editorial Board Dawn Balmer, Ian Carter, Richard Chandler, Martin Collinson, Chris Kehoe, Robin Prytherch, Nigel Redman, Roger Riddington, Brian Small, Steve Votier Rarities Committee Adam Rowlands (Chairman), Chris Batty, Chris Bradshaw, Paul French, Martin Garner, Nic Hallam, James Lidster, Richard Millington, Mike Pennington, Richard Schofield, Steve Votier Secretary Nigel Hudson, Carn Ithen, Trench Lane, Old Town, St Mary’s, Scilly TR21 OPA; secretary@bbrc.org.uk Notes Panel Angela Turner (Chair), Will Cresswell, Ian Dawson, Jim Flegg, Ian Newton FRS, Malcolm Ogilvie Annual subscription rates Individual subscriptions: UK — £51.00 Overseas (airmail) - £58.00 Libraries and agencies - £95.00 Back issues available from www.britishbirds.co.uk or the subscriptions office. Printed by Hastings Printing Company Copyright: When submitting articles, letters, commentary, text, photographs, artwork, figures or images (the 'Copyright Work’) to the Editor, you are agreeing to grant to British Birds a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, copyright licence to use, edit, alter, adapt, translate, copy, publish, continue to publish or republish the Copyright Work (and/or an edited, adapted or translated version of it or part of it) in all forms, formats and media (including, but not limited to, print, digital and electronic forms) anywhere in the world. You must ensure that by submitting a Copyright Work that you are not infringing the Copyright of any other person. By submitting a Copyright Work you are warranting that you are the Copyright Work owner and that you have the right to grant the non-exclusive licence described above. For the avoidance of doubt, the Author/Artist shall remain the owner of the Copyright Work. Front-cover photograph: Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis , Hampshire, May 2011. Oliver Smart Designed for today's birdwatcher and wildlife enthusiast and those who demand outstanding images regardless of latitude or prevailing light conditions, these binoculars deliver exceptional performance and specification combined with superb build quality and genuine user comfort. Available in 8x42 and 10x42 with prices from only £629 there's never been a better time to try before you buy. DBA Oasis S-Coat Mg stockists nationwide. Your chance to try before you buy. Bristol Lakeside Optics, near Bristol 01275 332042 Channel Islands Guernsey Photographic, St Peter Port 01481 727165 Cheshire Focalpoint, Warrington 01925 730399 Cornwall South West Optics, Truro 01872 263444 Dorset Robert White Photographic, Poole 01202 723046 Wessex Photographic, Weymouth 01305 782329 Gloucester Clifton Cameras, Dursley 01453 548128 Infocus, WWT, Slimbridge 01453 890978 Hampshire London Camera Exchange, Winchester 01962 866203 Hertfordshire Infocus, London Colney 01727 827799 Photosound, Bishops Stortford 01279 651434 Republic of Ireland Conns Cameras, Dublin 01 6777179 Kent The Camera Shop, Hythe 01303 266706 Lancashire Infocus, WWT, Martin Mere 01704 897020 Lamberts of Lancaster 01524 37384 Leicestershire Infocus, Egleton 01572 770656 Lincolnshire Comley Cameras, Cleethorpes 01472 692082 London Infocus, WWT, Barnes 020 8409 4433 Norfolk Cley Spy, Glandford 01263 740088 Infocus, Titchwell 01485 210101 Northern Ireland Black & Lizars, Belfast 028 90326992 Nottinghamshire Attenborough Nature Centre 0115 9721777 Somerset London Camera Exchange, Bath 01225 462234 MC2 Telescope Shop, Frome 01373 474763 Surrey Kay Optical, Morden 020 86488822 Viewpoint Optics, Dorking 01306 640714 Sussex Clock Tower Cameras, Brighton 01273 706010 Sussex Camera Centre, Chichester 01243 531536 Tyne & Wear L. Bonsers, Newcastle upon Tyne 0191 2322613 Wales Celtic Vision, Narberth 01834 869123 Warwickshire Focus Optics, Corley 01676 540501 Sherwoods, Morton Bagot 01527 857500 Yorkshire Bass & Bligh, Harrogate 01423 538138 Green Witch North, Birstall 01924 477719 Infocus, Denby Dale 01484 864729 For more information on the complete range of Opticron equipment and a copy of our current Product Guide call 01582 726522 or visit our on-line Catalogue at www.opticron.co.uk Experience spring in its finest detail. Fcx more mtamation simply photograph the QR code with your Smartphone. www.zeiss.de/sportsoptics/promotion DiaScope 85 FI ZEISS Victory DiaScope Spring Promotion Buy a ZEISS Victory DiaScope 65 or 85 T* FL with a Vario eyepiece of your choice between 1 5th March - 30th June 2012 and you will receive a high-quality LowePro backpack plus a ZEISS stay on case free of charge. Get yourself the perfect combination for unique nature experiences - free of charge goods worth 290 GBP vs. RRP.1 1 Offer valid while stocks last and subject to availability. For more information please contact your participating authorized ZEISS dealer. ZEISS Victory DiaScope with Vario eyepiece • The Vario eyepiece D with its outstanding field of view and up to 75 x magnification brings nature closer to you than ever before. • With the Dual Speed Focus (DSF) you can focus quickly, precisely and intuitively using a single operating focus wheel. • The FL-concept of the Victory DiaScope impresses with brilliant colours and unrivalled brightness. Plus free of charge: ZEISS stay on case The ZEISS stay on case offers optimum protection for your scope during use. + LowePro Scope Porter™ 200AW This versatile backpack offers a comfortable and secure way to transport your DiaScope whilst attached to the tripod. ZEISS We make it visible. THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM G 1 MAY 2012 PRESENTED TRING LIBRARY 236 What the eye doesn’t see: the prevalence of fraud in ornithology Andrew H. J. Harrop, J. Martin Collinson and Tim Melting 258 Habitat of territorial Firecrests in north Norfolk Christopher F. Mason 263 An unprecedented influx of Iceland Gulls in the northeastern Atlantic in January/February 2012 Rob Fray, Mike Pennington, Roger Riddington, Eric Meek, Paul Higson, Alastair Forsyth, Alan Leitch, Martin Scott, Tony Marr, Tristan ap Rheinallt and Silas Olofson 273 The increasing Firecrest population in the New Forest, Hampshire Russell B. Wynn, Marcus Ward and Michael C. Adams British Birds Volume 105 • Number 5 • Mav 2012 Regular features 276 Letters Bitterns and Bittern conservation in the UK Jeff Limn Hearing tests for bird survey workers Dave Smallshire, Robin Cox, Rowena Quantrill 278 Notes Apparent coloboma in an adult Eurasian Sparrowhawk Norman McCanch Peregrine Falcon breeding on saltmarsh in southern England Anon. Greenshank seeking protection during Peregrine Falcon attack Barrie S. Hunt Unusual open aspect of nest of Common Swift Derek Moore Probable object play behaviour among Common Swifts Malcolm and Rosemary Wright 28 1 Reviews The Birds of Melanesia Seabird Islands The Kittiwake Wildlife Crime 285 News and comment Adrian Pitches 290 Recent reports Barry Nightingale and Harry Hussey FSC Mixed Sources British Birds aims to: provide an up-to-date magazine for everyone interested in the birds of the Western Palearctic; publish a range of material on behaviour, conservation, distribution, ecology, identification, movements, status and taxonomy as well as the latest ornithological news and book reviews; maintain its position as the journal of record; and •> interpret scientific research on birds in an easily accessible way. © British Birds 2012 Alan Harris What the eye doesn’t see: the prevalence of fraud in ornithology Andrew H.J. Harrop, J. Martin Collinson and Tim Melling A Cream-coloured Courser Cursorius cursor specimen under examination in the taxidermist’s workshop Abstract There is a tendency to see examples of fraud in ornithology as rare aberrations. This paper outlines some known and suspected historical examples of fraud, and argues that fraud of one kind or another has occurred more or less consistently, if uncommonly, in ornithology. Although most of the examples discussed are from Britain, it is likely that similar examples could be found in the archives of many nations. It is also likely that small-scale fraud continues today and is something that the ornithological community should be aware of. In particular, this has implications for the level of proof required by those assessing records of rarities. Introduction The maintenance of a national record of bird occurrence, such as the British List, requires records to be assessed for acceptability, in terms of both identification and provenance. In nearly all modern cases, the assessment of provenance is entirely related to the potential for birds to be kept in, and escape from, cap- tivity. In Britain at least, given the large number of rarity submissions each year in which the bird has been identified satisfacto- rily, it seems that seldom does a record come to assessment in circumstances where decep- tion is at all likely. Yet this has not always been the case: in the days when rare birds were much more likely to be considered for the British List as specimen records, there was greater potential for fraud. 236 © British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology The problem of authenticating specimen records pressed heavily on the early authorities who vetted and published records of rare birds in Britain and Ireland. Then, as now, a direct charge of fraud was a serious and potentially libellous defamation, and it is perhaps not sur- prising that rejected records from the nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries are frequently accompanied by generic references to ‘insufficient authentication’, ‘mistakes’ and ‘accidentally switched specimens’. Whereas the provenance of extreme rarities may often have been doubted overtly (then as now) on the basis of possible escape from captivity, some rejections occurred in circumstances that can only be explained by contemporary suspicion of fraud (e.g. Collinson 2005). For example, the appendix of the 1915 BOU Checklist, describing species for which the evidence was not regarded as ‘entirely satisfactory’ by the List Committee, includes many potential British (and Irish) firsts, some occurring at inland localities, some in pairs, and for which even the get-out clause of ‘undoubted escape from captivity’ was not employed (table 1). It seems that the authorities charged with main- taining the British List have always known that there would be circumstances in which fraud would be attempted. In this paper, we outline some of our reasons for believing that the scale of the problem has perhaps been underestimated or (latterly) even denied. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that fraud continues to the present day, and that the lessons of the past should not be forgotten. The psychology of fraud - motivation and opportunity Fraud is a slippery business. Duffield & Grabosky (2001) identify three main explanatory factors: a supply of motivated offenders, available targets, and an absence of capable guardians. The motivation for fraud is normally provided by a combination of individual psychology and the situation in which individuals find themselves, but as yet no psychological characteristic has been identified as a consistently reliable marker of the propensity for fraud. It is clear, however, that a desire for money and/or power over people or situations, combined with the ability to justify or ‘rationalise’ their actions. tends to be found in those who perpetrate fraud. In the context of ornithology, financial factors and/or a desire for recognition are often involved, but it is a highly complex issue. Some cases of fraud are premeditated and carefully planned, whereas others involve individuals who appear to deceive themselves beyond normal rational limits. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the main motivation for perpetrating large-scale ornithological fraud is likely to have been financial. This was driven by the willing- ness of wealthy but perhaps gullible collectors to pay a premium for rare specimens collected in Britain. However, in recent decades, the motivation for fraud has become more varied. Financially motivated fraud probably still occurs, although on a more subtle level: for example, charging birders to view a rarity that allegedly arrived naturally in Britain. It has also been suggested that rare bird sightings in some areas may have been fabricated in order to boost the tourism industry by encouraging birders to stay there. The other, probably most common, motivation is the desire for recogni- tion among peers or rivals. In a memorable turn of phrase, Cocker (2001) considered that while ‘reputation is the adhesive that glues the birding community together, string [fabrica- tion of sightings] is the solvent that sets it unravelling’. Being the finder of a rare bird improves a birder’s status among his or her peers, especially if the bird is seen by lots of other people. However, reputations soon become tarnished if an observer’s records are rejected by BBRC. This situation is ripe for fraud, particularly if the observer can provide ‘proof’ of the sighting. Photographs alone are no longer considered proof in the birding com- munity, since they can be manipulated and their associated EXIF data (embedded details about equipment used and date/time of image capture) tampered with. Sometimes fraud may be fuelled by rivalry, such that sightings are embellished or even fabricated to compete with rivals’ sightings. Sometimes, birders with a proven track record of rarity finding may be tempted to fabricate records in order to meet other people’s expectations. Many birders will be able to think of examples of otherwise reli- able birders who have had implausible single- observer sightings, seemingly to maintain the momentum of expectation of them. British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 237 Harrop et al. Table 1. Records in Appendix 1 of A List of British Birds (BOU 1915) that were rejected but without mention of possible escape (includes Irish records). The list does not include species that were accepted onto the British List but for which some potentially fraudulent records had been rejected. Many other species had been rejected on the basis of escape potential, but may equally have been fraudulent. Conversely, some of the records listed here (e.g. Whistling Swan, Lesser Scaup) may well represent genuine occurrences. Some of the records have been re-examined in recent years. Species Location and date Described circumstances and origin Whistling Swan Cygnus c. columbianus southern Scotland, February 1841 ‘An example obtained from an Edinburgh poulterer by MacGillivray... was said to have been shot in the south of Scotland.’ Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Aldeburgh, Suffolk, October 1866 ‘An immature bird, shot. . . was believed by Prof. Newton to be referable to this species.’ Lesser Scaup Aythya afftnis ‘An example is said many years ago to have been obtained in the London market, and others are recorded on even less satisfactory evidence.’ Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Shetland, March 1913 ‘Two adult males, said to have been killed recently in the Shetlands, were probably imported from Iceland.’ Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Weymouth, Dorset, 1880-81 ‘One example, a very young bird, is said to have been killed. . . probably there was some error due to an accidental exchange of specimens.’ Red-billed Tropicbird Phaethon aethereus Cradley, Herefordshire, about 1854 ‘An example is said to have been found dead.’ Anhinga Anhinga melanogaster near Poole, Dorset, June 1851 ‘One example is said to have been shot.’ Green Heron Butorides virescens Cornwall, April 1890 ‘An example is said to have been shot.’ Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus Argyllshire, 1772 near Hawes, Yorkshire, September, 1805 Farnham, Surrey, 1833 Merseyside, 1843 Cumberland, 1853 ‘Several examples of this species have been recorded, but the evidence is unsatisfactory.’ Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus Co. Meath, 1862 ‘An example is said to have been shot.’ Steppe Buzzard Buteo buteo vulpinus Wiltshire, September 1864 ‘An example was reported. . . and two others in the Hancock museum are said to have been obtained near Newcastle.’ Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Nottinghamshire, 1860 ‘An example is said to have been killed.’ Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Inverness-shire, Highland, February 1863 ‘An example is said to have been killed.’ American Goshawk Accipiter gentilis atricapillus Perthshire, 1869 ‘An example was killed... another... and a third.’ Co. Tipperary, February 1870 King’s County (Co. Offaly), 1870 American Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinicus Bristol, Avon ‘There is said to be a specimen in Mr Hart’s museum at Christchurch.’ Small Button-quail Turnix sylvaticus Oxfordshire, October 1844 ‘Two examples are recorded.’ Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata Taplow, Buckinghamshire, August 1863 ‘An example is said to have been shot.’ Sooty Tern Onychoprion fuscatus Thames estuary, September 1875 ‘An example is said to have been taken... but the evidence is not satisfactory.’ Brown Noddy Anous stolidus southeast coast of Ireland, about 1830 ‘Two examples are said to have been obtained... but in neither case is the evidence satisfactory.’ 238 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology Brown Noddy (cont.) Dee marshes, Cheshire & Wirral, about 1891 Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Beverley, Yorkshire, 1860 ‘An example reported by Sir William Milner. . . cannot be accepted as a satisfactory record.’ Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Co. Meath, October 1845 Co. Wicklow, November ‘These records are almost certainly due to a mistake.’ 1845 Blue-tailed Bee-eater Merops philippinus Seaton Carew, Cleveland, August 1862 ‘Recorded by Hancock, probably in error.’ Indian Roller Coracias benghalensis Louth, Lincolnshire, October 1883 ‘Shot... identified as this species.’ Abyssinian Roller Coracias abyssinicus Glasgow, c. 1857 ‘An example was killed. . . and another forty miles away, according to the late Dr Bree.’ Northern Flicker Colaptes aaratus Amesbury, Wiltshire, autumn 1836 ‘An example was reported.’ Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius many locations ‘Frequently reported. . . disposed satisfactorily of these so- called occurrences.’ Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Bloxworth, Derbyshire, 1836 ‘An example was recorded. . . but the evidence is not satisfactory.’ Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Halifax and Whitby, Yorkshire, 1849 Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, 1882 ‘A pair from Halifax. . . another bird from Whitby. . . and one from Chipping Norton... have been reported, but all are of doubtful authenticity.’ Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Scotland, pre- 1820 ‘Donovan in 1820 stated that an example had been lately shot.’ Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus near Derby, 1859 ‘Two examples are said to have been captured.’ Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula near Loch Lomond, Argyll, 1852 ‘Said to have been shot.’ Calandra Lark Melanocorypha calandra Devonport, Devon, 1863 Exeter, Devon, 1869 ‘Both are doubtful as wild specimens.’ Common Bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus Hastings, Sussex, 1860 ‘An example of doubtful authenticity.’ Cape Bulbul Pycnonotus capensis Co. Waterford, January 1838 ‘An example was shot.’ Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor near Derby, 1850 ‘An example was reported.’ Purple Martin Progne subis Kingstown, ‘An example was reported. . . and another.’ Co. Dublin, 1840 near Huddersfield, Yorkshire, 1854 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, 1850 ‘Two examples are said to have been killed.’ Siberian Thrush Geokichla sibirica Surrey, 1860—61 Isle of Wight, 1874 ‘Two examples are recorded but, according to Saunders, on insufficient evidence.’ Siberian Rubythroat Calliope calliope Westgate-on-Sea, Kent, October 1900 ‘Two examples were seen by Mr J. P. Nunn.’ Two-barred Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Worcestershire, 1838 Devon, 1845 Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, 1870 ‘Very doubtful if the bird has occurred in a wild state.’ Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Co. Clare, 1905 ‘An example was captured.’ Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Cardiff, October 1881 ‘An example was shot.’ British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 239 Harrop et al. Pranks, hoaxes and fraud We consider that a joke or prank, when the perpetrator acts without real malice, and intends no permanent distortion of the ornithological record because the deception will become self-evident, does not normally constitute a fraud. Such a prank might include the use of a mounted specimen that temporarily fools other birders. For example, a stuffed Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax placed in a tree at Big Waters Nature Reserve in Northumberland in 1984 attracted large numbers of birdwatchers, before its lack of movement attracted closer scrutiny. The per- petrator was never discovered. Pranks are not always harmless - they may cause people to suffer material or emotional harm and by increasing levels of suspicion they may subse- quently lead to the rejection of other good records. When the prankster acts with malice (for example, by reporting an invented rarity to the bird information services) or intends that the deception will ultimately not be dis- covered, this can be considered to constitute a hoax or fraud. A distinction is sometimes made between fraud and hoax, though it is problematical. Walsh (2006) proposed that fraud is essen- tially driven by a desire for money while hoaxes are driven by a desire to influence our assumptions, yet she acknowledged that the distinction is far from clear-cut. She also pro- posed that the hoax is essentially a post- industrial phenomenon, although there are examples in natural history from a century earlier. The primary motivations for decep- tion that were described above can perhaps also be classified as ‘internal reward’ - for example self-satisfaction in deceiving or con- trolling, others, or ‘proving’ oneself to be right - or ‘external reward’ - for example material gains in terms of money, career, or peer pres- tige. In general (and in broad agreement with Walsh 2006), we would tend to define deceits motivated primarily by internal factors as hoaxes, and those motivated by external rewards as frauds. However, this stance is quite arbitrary, and for the purposes of this article any deliberate and persistent attempt to mislead is regarded as fraud. Another factor to take into account is so- called ‘pathological science’. This term, first used in 1953 by Irving Langmuir, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, is used to refer to an area of research, or an example of known error or fraud, that simply will not ‘go away’, even long after it has been abandoned as false by the majority of scientists in the field. To a large extent, this phenomenon can be attrib- uted to wishful thinking, loyalty to colleagues or mentors, or honest misinterpretation of evidence, influenced by the desire to prove a hypothesis that the scientist believes to be true. Pathological science may lead people to perpetrate a fraud, and equally it may induce people to defend or find evidence to support a fraudulent incident. Charles Dawson, the amateur archaeologist and palaeontologist at the centre of the Piltdown Man fraud, was driven by a lifelong interest in intermediate stages of historic and prehistoric human development; when he put together a medieval human cranium and an orangutan jawbone with filed-down teeth to show that primitive human ancestors had lived in pre- historic Sussex, he was only ‘proving’ a hypothesis which perhaps he thought would turn out to be true anyway (Walsh 1996; Russell 2003). The Piltdown fraud, however, sucked in apparently honest men, and exca- vations to find extra evidence for Piltdown Man continued after Dawson’s death, and long after the doubts had started to set in - a classic example of pathological science. Pilt- down Man even gets a mention in twenty- first century books about human evolution - as a known fraud, but nevertheless not quite going away. Examples of pathological science in ornithology include the defence of the Hast- ings Rarities long after they were formally discredited. The Hastings Rarities, which are discussed below, may also have had a patho- logical science origin, at least partly in terms of the desire to prove the occurrence of certain species in Britain, as well as to profit from specimens that were thought to be plausible vagrants. However, they were defended, and continued to be defended, for many years after they were shown to be fraudulent (e.g. Palmer 2000). A recent example from North America involved belief in the survival of a population of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers Campephilus principalis even though the original evidence was highly tenuous (and has not received support from 240 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology the many subsequent searches; Fitzpatrick et al. 2005; Sibley et al. 2006; Collinson 2007). The claims were not formally rejected until 2011, when Pranty et al. (201 1) described the identification as ‘perhaps the most disputed... of any in the history of ornithology.’ Even now, it is unlikely that that will be the end of the matter. Fraud in early natural history There is evidence that fraud has been hap- pening as long as natural historians have been assembling collections of specimens. Perhaps the earliest examples of fraud in natural history involved not birds but butter- flies. As early as 1702, William Courten (also known as Charlton or Charleton) was involved in a hoax that fooled the authority James Petiver (who described Charlton as his 'late worthy friend’), Linnaeus and others until it was realised that the ‘new’ species he had discovered (named Papilio eclipsis by Linnaeus) was a Brimstone Gonepteryx rhamni with black spots painted on (Salmon 2000). From 1717 regular trade in butterflies was recorded, but the practice of including data with specimens did not become common until more than a century later. This lack of data evidently made fraudulent claims so much easier. In 1837, E. Newman (writing under the pseudonym Inquisitor) claimed that many rare butterflies in British collec- tions were continental specimens - 34 taxa compared with 65 genuinely British; even of those considered British, the majority of the rarer ones exhibited were ‘decidedly and evi- dently exotic’, no doubt partly because they could be purchased ‘for a mere song’ (Newman 1837). An excellent example of this concerns the Camberwell Beauty Nymphalis antiopa. It was formerly thought that a white instead of a yellow border distinguished a genuine British example. One specimen in the British Museum had its borders painted white, presumably by a dishonest dealer (Lord 1945). Insects are easy to preserve and transport, but birds present more significant problems. In about 1700, James Petiver published his Brief Directions for Collectors of Natural Curiosities, which he gave to ships’ captains and others travelling abroad. These included instructions about preservation. His text on birds reads: ‘As to Lowls, those that are large, if we cannot have their Cases whole, their Head, Leggs, or Wings will be acceptable, but smaller Birds are easily sent entire, by putting them in spirits as above, or if you bring them dry, you must take out their Entrals...’. Speci- mens collected across the globe might be brought home and, in some cases, claimed as British. Birds that had been properly skinned or preserved in alcohol (such as rum) could soon be transported long distances, and by the late 1800s bird specimens were trans- ported on ice in industrial quantities for food markets in Europe (e.g. Raven 1929). This provided the opportunity for foreign-killed birds to be presented to British collectors as ‘fresh’. For birds, there are some early records that now appear incongruous or unusual. Some of these involve the occurrence of rari- ties in pairs (and some are still accepted). A throwaway comment attached to an old rarity report such as ‘another was seen nearby at the same time’ can probably be discounted, but the occurrence of a pair of a rare species, while clearly possible, will always attract extra attention during a review. For example, a pair of Alpine Accentors Prunella collaris in the grounds of King’s College in Cambridge, in November 1822 (at the time, the first British record) stretches credulity (Jenyns 1827). One, a female, was shot by Dr Martin George Thackeray, then Provost of the College, and retained in his collection. Thackeray was a keen collector; he was listed 12 times by Jenyns (1827) in his report on the ornithology of Cambridgeshire - in fact the only local collector mentioned by name at all. He appeared to have preserved skins of a number of species, many of them wildfowl found at the local market, but also including a Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor and a Pomarine Skua Stercorarius pomarinus apparently collected locally. His only other significant rarity at the time was a male Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla caught alive at Melbourn (c. 15 km southwest of Cam- bridge) in January 1823. The Alpine Accen- tors are very unlikely to have been natural vagrants, though they may have been cap- tured abroad and accidentally or deliberately released in Cambridge, such that Thackeray British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 241 Harrop et al. chanced upon them. However, the fact that he, as a locally prominent specimen collector, was the one to find and shoot the birds, strongly suggests that a hoax was played by him, or possibly on him. This record may also have inspired a ‘copycat’ record more than a century later: a sight record of two near Clare College, Cambridge, on 30th April 1931, which was treated as an accepted record until 2005 ( Cambridgeshire Bird Report78 : 141). If the ornithological record was being manipulated as early as 1822, then fraud has been occurring almost as far back as the current British List extends (Category B encompasses all records from 1800 to the end of 1949). The repeated rejection of the Cape Gannet Morus capensis from Bass Rock, Lothian, in May 1831 (BOURC 2005) is also a tacit admission that even early records are not necessarily being taken at face value, although the record is once again under review. There are many other rejected records for which the only concrete reason for rejec- tion is the possibility of a switch or fraud. However, the rise of commercial taxidermy facilitated fraudulent activity on a much larger scale. The Hastings Rarities This, the most famous British ornithological fraud, involved the taxidermist George Bristow, whose business was based in St Leonards, Sussex. In summary, an extraor- dinary series of nearly 600 records of rare and scarce birds from Kent and Sussex, involving many extreme rarities and British firsts, pri- marily between 1892 and 1930, aroused some suspicion at the time but remained accepted until 1963. Two seminal papers (Nelder 1962; Nicholson 8( Ferguson-Lees 1962) showed that the pattern of occurrence of the ‘Hastings Rarities’, in terms of seasonal distribution, prevalence of extremely rare species, and the occurrence of vagrants in pairs, was extremely anomalous and could only point to fraud. All the Hastings Rarities were removed from the record. No individual perpetrator was ever directly blamed, and no modus operandi ever explained, but the fact that hundreds of the rarities were specimen records preserved and then often sold by George Bristow implicated him. It is important for the understanding of this case that it is set in context. Bristow inherited a family business, established in 1845, when meticulous recording of proven- ance was a new and unestablished discipline. Indeed, given the recorded involvement in smuggling of many of the inhabitants of the adjacent town of Hastings, sometimes with the complicity of customs-house officers (e.g. Platt 2011), the importation of bird speci- mens may not have raised many eyebrows in the town. Despite the extraordinary nature of the claims, the wars in Europe during the first half of the twentieth century were possibly one reason for the time it took before the ornithological establishment ‘set the record straight’. Perhaps there was a desire to wait until the main protagonists, such as Bristow himself, had died. Despite arguments made in his defence, and various attempts to muddy the waters, there can be no reasonable doubt that Bristow was at the centre of the fraud. It is unlikely that he worked alone, and it has been postulated that some of the authority figures who inspected or otherwise verified the specimens may have been complicit. 140. George Bristow, outside his shop at 15 Silchester Road, St Leonards-on-Sea, in about 1945. He was the taxidermist at the centre of the Hastings Rarities affair, having skinned or processed at least 420 of the 542 disputed specimens. 242 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 Ralfe Whistler The prevalence of fraud in ornithology Those most deeply involved with the Hastings records were W. Ruskin Butterfield, curator of the Hastings Museum, local birder H. W. Ford-Lindsay, and the respected ornithologist M. J. Nicoll, who were all involved in the recording of multiple specimens, though no direct proof of any guilt has yet been pub- lished. They may have been at least passively complied. The collector J. B. Nichols, who bought many of the specimens, used a code to keep secret the prices he paid (Morris 2006), but it is likely that Bristow’s profits from fraudulent specimens were equivalent to many thousands of pounds at today’s rates (Collinson & McGowan 201 1). Whether Nichols, or the other collectors who bought Hastings specimens, notably the rich and gullible Sir Vauncey Harpur Crewe (1846-1924), were aware that they were fraudulent is not known, but it seems unlikely. Reading between the lines of his correspondence, Nichols seemed quite taken aback when Hastings records began to be questioned after 1916 (Nicholson & Ferguson Lees 1962). Coombes (1970) mentioned the Parkman brothers as a source of imported specimens for Bristow, and the 1905 Stevens’s sale catalogue shows what was available at the time. There is also a possible (but unproven) connection between George Bristow and Charles Dawson, the figure behind ‘Piltdown Man’ (Russell 2003). The most active period of the ornithological fraud around Hastings was between 1903 and 1916, precisely when Dawson established his Loans Collection in Hastings Museum. Bristow and Dawson lived just a few streets apart and knew one another (Harrison 1968). Although Bristow was the only gun and ammunition dealer in St Leonards, no fewer than 64 taxidermists were listed for Sussex by Marshall (2009), and of these all but two for whom we have biographical data were con- temporaries of George Bristow. This makes Bristow’s success in obtaining and marketing rare birds even more remarkable. Other taxi- dermists were credited with a very small number of Hastings Rarities specimens (primarily Messrs Catt of Iden and Gasson of Rye), but these came to attention mostly because Bristow subsequently bought the specimens. We argue that, although the Hast- ings Rarities were exceptional in scale, they were not exceptional in kind. Specimens from Hastings retained their value for a time and were passed on. The family of Vauncey Harpur Crewe (see above) had an interest in natural history and by 1840 there were already nearly 400 cases of stuffed birds, mammals and fishes at Calke Abbey, the family home in Derbyshire. For Vauncey this became an all-consuming passion, on which he spent large sums, espe- cially to acquire rare or abnormally coloured specimens from dealers or taxider- mists; by the time of his death, in 1924, his exhibits numbered several thousand and occupied every floor of the three-storey house. It is easy to understand how obses- sion on this scale must have provided a ready market for unscrupulous dealers: as 141. Michael J. Nicoll was regarded as a competent observer with a reputation above reproach when he died in 1925 aged 45. However, he was responsible for collecting or reporting no fewer than 3 I of the Hastings Rarities. He was assistant director of the Zoological Gardens in Giza from 1906, and commuted regularly between Egypt and Britain; while this in itself does not necessarily imply fraud, if the Hastings rarities were really being imported deliberately, then Nicoll was well placed to supply some of them. A Black- eared Wheatear Oenanthe hispanica that he allegedly shot at Pett, Sussex, in September 1 905 was discovered later to have been skinned in an eastern manner, which was quite unlike the British style of skinning. British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 243 photographer unknown Andrew Harrop Harrop et al. noted by Booth & Griffith (1927) ‘the high prices he was prepared to pay without dose investigation offered a great temptation to dealers, so that many of the birds he obtained as British-killed are of very doubtful authenticity.’ Apologists for the Hastings Rarities have come forward from Harrison (1968, and subsequent correspondence) to Palmer (2000). In part this was personal: Harrison was clearly captivated by the world of Bristow (‘Few visitors to Bristow’s shop will easily forget its atmosphere. From the moment of pulling the mechanically oper- ated door-bell with its resounding clankety- clankety-clank, clank, clank, in diminishing volume, to stepping inside the rather dark interior, one experienced (or at least I did) an exciting anticipation!’); though he may have misinterpreted the significance of the figurines of Three Wise Monkeys which he saw in Bristow’s shop! His defence of Bristow may represent loyalty to an old friend from whom he had bought numerous specimens which he did not want discred- ited; and also wishful thinking that the species claimed at Hastings were plausible in light of subsequent records. A similar argu- ment about plausibility was given by Palmer (2000), and it is true that most of the species deleted from the British List following expo- sure of the Hastings Rarities fraud have Telephone No. 1824 Gorrard. 'S,a-E No- ,0>’6< Salt to commence at Half-past J'wetve o Clock precisely. _A_ CATALOGUE OF THE REMAINING PORTION OP THE Collection of Birds’ Eggs FORMED BY HEATLEY NOBLE, Esq. ALSO A FINE Specimen of the Great Auk’s Egg anC other Small Collections. WHICH WILL BE SOLD BY AUCTION BY Mr. J. C. STEVENS. AT HIS GREAT ROOMS, No. 38, KING STREET, OOVENT GARDEN, W.C., On THURSDAY, 16th of MARCH. 1905. At Half-put TWELVE o'Clock preciiely. On View Hay piior, from to till 4, and Mornuig of Sale, and Catalogue* had of Mr. J. C. STEVENS, 38, King Street, Covent Garden, W.C. Telegraphic Address— “AUKS, LONDON/' PrTriTT & Cox, Printer*, 32 Jt 23, Frith Street, Soho, W. Fig. I. Stevens’s 1 905 sale catalogue; many of the species available were also Hastings Rarities and most of the Hastings Rarities came from the same geographical areas as the species listed (see table 2). occurred subsequently. Such arguments, however, ignore the fact that the patterns of 142. Part of one of the extant Vauncey Harpur Crewe collection cabinets at Calke, Derbyshire (October 201 I ); several species on many birders’ ‘wish lists’ can be glimpsed here! Harpur Crewe was an example of a wealthy collector who provided an insatiable and uncritical demand for ‘British’ specimens which could be supplied by importing foreign specimens and presenting them as British. 244 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology records from Hastings remain unique and implausible, and that there is a telling corre- lation between what we know was being imported at the time and what was being claimed. Of course, the blanket rejection of the Hastings Rarities will inevitably have thrown some babies out with the bathwater. If any of the Hastings Rarities involved species that would be difficult to source fraudulently, we could possibly consider readmitting them to the record. For example, the Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fuscatus from St Leonards on 18th October 1916 and Yellow-browed Warbler P. inor- natus from Hollington on 23rd October 1914 may well be genuine. Birds’ eggs Concomitant with improvements and inno- vations in transportation, the trade in birds’ eggs developed. Cole (2006) noted that it was an ‘open secret’ that dealers sometimes traded suspect clutches. More than either butterflies or birds, birds’ eggs of common species might be passed off as rarer ones and clutch sizes might be ‘manufactured’. For these reasons, some collectors (Jock Walpole- Bond was a notable example) chose to keep only clutches they had collected in person. Some of those involved in trade in birds’ eggs appear to have realised that it was much easier to get away with fraudulent claims that bird skins were British than with claims that Table 2. Eggs of British rarities in Stevens’s 1905 sale. This list is not exhaustive, but includes most identifiable species for which the geographical source (given as originally listed) and year(s) are available. Any species on (or considered to be on) the British List seem to have been especially collectable. Species marked * were also claimed as Hastings Rarities. Although not listed here, another species formerly on the British List - Moustached Warbler Acrocephalus melanopogon (also a Hastings Rarity) - was included. Species Origin Year(s) Species Origin Year(s) Madeiran Storm-petrel* Oceanodroma castro Porto Santo, Madeira 1897 Spotted Sandpiper* Actitis macularius Canada 1894-95 Glossy Ibis* Plegadis falcinellus Bosnia 1897 Marsh Sandpiper* Tringa stagnatilis Hungary 1901 Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus Caspian 1897 Laughing Gull Larus atricilla North America 1898 Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Altai 1894-96 Caspian Tern* Hydroprogne caspia Finland 1896 Lesser Kestrel* Falco naumanni Granada, Spain 1896 Royal Tern* Sterna maxima Bahamas 1891 Red- footed Falcon* Falco vespertinus Hungary 1896, 1898 White-winged Black Tern* Chlidonias leucopterus Russia 1896 Saker Falcon Falco cherrug Russia 1893-95 Oriental Turtle Dove Streptopelia orientalis Japan 1899 Gyr Falcon* Falco rusticolus Iceland 1869, 1898 Red-necked Nightjar Caprimulgus ruficollis Spain 1896 Gyr Falcon Lapland 1890, 1895-96 White- throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus Amur pre-1898 Cream-coloured Courser* Cursorius cursor Fuerteventura, Canary Islands 1889 Pallid Swift Apus pallidus Tenerife, Canary Islands 1894 Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus Minnesota, USA 1895-96 Isabelline Shrike Lanius isabellinus Kuldja, China 1895 Sociable Lapwing* Vanellus gregarius Russia 1893, 1896-98 Lesser Grey Shrike* Lanius minor Hungary 1896 Pectoral Sandpiper* Calidris melanotos Alaska, USA 1898 Masked Shrike* Lanius nubicus Greece 1895 Broad -billed Sandpiper* Limicola falcinellus Finland 1896 Nutcracker* Nucifraga caryocatactes Bosnia 1897 Upland Sandpiper* Bartramia longicauda South Dakota, USA 1896 Calandra Lark* Melanocorypha calandra Malaga, Spain 1896 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 245 Harrop et al. Table 2. Eggs of British rarities in Stevens’s 1905 sale, continued Species Origin Year(s) Species Origin Year(s) Bimaculated Lark Melanocorypha bimaculata Palestine 1897 Siberian Thrush Geokichla sibirica Japan 1898 White-winged Lark* Melanocorypha leucoptera Russia 1896 Black-throated Thrush* Turdus atrogularis Altai 1898 Black Lark* Melanocorypha yeltoniensis Siberia 1894-95 Rock Sparrow Petronia petronia Malaga, Spain 1894 Lesser Short-toed Lark Calandrella rufescens Tenerife, Canary Islands 1891 Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis Malaga, Spain 1896 Crag Martin Ptyonoprogne rupestris Andalusia, Spain 1897 Black-headed Wagtail* Motacilla flava feldegg Kuldja, China 1896 Western Bonelli’s Warbler* Phylloscopus bonelli Switzerland 1895 Red-throated Pipit* Anthus cervinus Lapland 1895 Marmora’s Warbler Sylvia sarda Sicily 1897 Arctic Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni Altai 1896 Sardinian Warbler* Sylvia melanocephala Granada, Spain 1897 Trumpeter Finch Bucanetes githagineus Fuerteventura, Canary Islands 1891 Booted Warbler Iduna caligata Moscow, Russia 1896 Pine Grosbeak* Pinicola enucleator Lapland 1895-96 Olive-tree Warbler Hippolais olivetorum Greece 1895 Red-headed Bunting* Emberiza bruniceps Kuldja, China 1896 White’s Thrush* Zoothera dauma Japan 1899, 1902 Black-headed Bunting* Emberiza melanocephala Smyrna, Turkey 1898 By the time of Gowland’s 1947 sale the list of species available was much more extensive, and included such prized rarities or potential rarities as Bulwer’s Petrel Bulweria bulwerii, American Goshawk Accipiter gentilis atricapillus, Hawk Owl Surnia ulula (North American and Eurasian races), Egyptian Nightjar Caprimulgus aegyptius, Radde’s Warbler Phylloscopus schwarzi, Riippell’s Warbler Sylvia rueppelli, Pallas’s Grasshopper Warbler Locustella certhiola , Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa dauurica, Pechora Pipit Anthus gustavi. Two-barred Crossbill Loxia leucoptera (North American and Eurasian races) and Pine Bunting Emberiza leucocephalos. eggs of rarities were British - since very few rarities stay to breed. Nonetheless, there were occasional claims of clutches laid by rare species (e.g. William Farren claimed to have collected a clutch of eggs of the Black Wood- pecker Dryocopus martius - a species not on the British List - in the New Forest in 1862; see recent discussion in Bull. BOC 131: 139). Although large-scale fraud in birds’ eggs has not been documented in Britain, a case from Java, Indonesia, was exposed by Becking (2009). This involved theft from three private egg collections and falsification of associated data by A. Hoogerwerf. He presented and published stolen material as collected by himself. It is notable that a request by Becking 40 years earlier to have his informa- tion published was rejected because the subject was considered too sensitive. The first formal sale of birds’ eggs took place in 1817, and the first specialist sale in 1852. Serious dealing began in the 1850s, and reached a peak between 1890 and 1920. Much trade was private and informal, thereby adding to the difficulties of verifica- tion. A 1905 sale catalogue is illuminating (table 2). The parallels between the species listed and the Hastings Rarities are striking: of 51 species listed, 31 (61%) were also claimed as Hastings Rarities. Taxidermy The heyday for taxidermy in Britain lasted from 1880 to 1920. Looking back, it is perhaps easy to underestimate how impor- tant a trade it once was: most towns and many rural communities had their own pro- fessional or part-time taxidermist (table 3). Taxidermists were visited regularly by the landed gentry and their shops might have been places for informal meetings (Mearns & Mearns 1998). Dealers sometimes acted as agents who helped to fund those collecting abroad and handled their shipments on 246 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology Table 3. Number of taxidermists per county in England, Scotland and Wales, 1737—2007 (based on Marshall 2009). The counties here are as listed by Marshall; no attempt has been made to check for duplication. The very high figure for Yorkshire to some extent reflects the origin of the publication — more research may result in higher figures for other counties. The peak period for taxidermy was 1 880-1 920, but there has been a small resurgence since the 1970s (97, or 6.7%, of those listed have been active since 2000). England Scotland Bedfordshire 11 Aberdeenshire 10 Berkshire 14 Angus 1 Buckinghamshire 8 Argyll 1 Cambridgeshire 10 Ayrshire 2 Cheshire 14 Banffshire 1 Cornwall 30 Caithness 1 Cumberland 22 Clyde & Isles 1 Derbyshire 15 Dumfriesshire 3 Devon 43 East Lothian 1 Dorset 15 Fife 4 Durham 33 Inverness 6 Essex 35 Kinross 1 Gloucestershire 23 Lanarkshire 9 Hampshire 88 Midlothian 19 Herefordshire 10 Orkney 4 Hertfordshire 8 Perthshire 9 Huntingdonshire 1 Renfrewshire 1 Isle of Wight 10 Ross-shire 1 Kent 33 Shetland 2 Lancashire 47 Stirlingshire 3 Leicestershire 25 Sutherland 2 Lincolnshire 55 London 103 Wales Middlesex 6 Cardiganshire 5 Norfolk 59 Carmarthenshire 1 Northamptonshire 7 Clwyd 2 Northumberland 23 Denbighshire 1 Nottinghamshire 60 Flintshire 2 Oxfordshire 5 Glamorgan 8 Rutland 3 Gwynedd 2 Shropshire 18 Merionethshire 1 Somerset 17 Monmouthshire 3 Staffordshire 19 Pembrokeshire 1 Suffolk 13 Powys 2 Surrey 14 Radnorshire 1 Sussex 64 Warwickshire 45 Isle of Man 3 Westmorland 1 Wiltshire 17 Worcestershire 3 Yorkshire 297 arrival. Since a premium would be put on ‘British' specimens, the opportunities for fraud in these circumstances are obvious. Bird auctions were regarded as a legitimate source of new specimens for collections, and competition could be fierce. Such an active market generated some high prices (perhaps most famously those paid for Great Auk Pinguinus impennis specimens and eggs). If sales could be guaranteed merely by falsifying data labels so that collectors could satisfy their desire for large ‘national’ collections, we should not be surprised that deception was widespread. In 1859, Tristram complained about French dealers who tried to pass off specimens and eggs taken from Algeria as Spanish (Tristram 1859). Once a false provenance becomes attached to a specimen British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 247 Harrop et al. or record it can be very difficult for subse- quent reviewers to untangle the truth. Ticehurst ( Birds of Kent, 1909) drew atten- tion to the activities of one taxidermist, Stephen Mummery, who presented many bird specimens to the Margate Museum shortly after its inception, around 1839. During 1840-44, he personally shot or obtained, in Ticehurst’s words, ‘an extraordi- nary number of rare species’. One record in particular that called Mummery’s honesty into question was an alleged breeding record of Richard’s Pipit Anthus richardi near Birch- ington, Kent. The evidence is circumstantial but damning - at first Mummery claimed to have shot a male on 25th November 1840, feeding with Skylarks Alauda arvensis and Rock Pipits Anthus petrosus among seaweed. It was preserved and donated to the Margate Museum. The date is possible and the habitat unusual; but Mummery subsequently claimed to have shot two more birds in the same location, one in early autumn 1841 and another in November or December that year. For the early autumn bird, he stated that the bones ‘were very soft and not perfectly set, and many of the quills or stubs were not passed into feathers’, and suggested that the bird had hatched locally (Ticehurst 1909). Ticehurst didn’t believe the record could be authentic and, assuming that the identifica- tion was correct, it clearly wasn’t. All Mummery’s specimens have been lost, so the identifications cannot be checked, but given that at least one was displayed publicly, an honest mistake seems less likely. Ticehurst included all Mummery records in his book but added that there was an element of doubt about them - in the gen- tleman’s language of the day, this amounts to an accusation of fraud. Mummery appears to have been an active birder and collector, and provided details of common and scarcer migrants he had shot or seen in Kent. His rarities included a Woodchat Shrike Latiius senator (near Margate, 6th May 1841), two Rose-coloured Starlings Pastor roseus seen (one shot) near Margate in June 1844, and a sight record of Nutcracker Nucifraga cary- ocatactes near Margate in 1841 (no longer accepted). A Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius (one of a pair) that Mummery claimed to have shot near Margate on 22nd September 1841 was subsequently square- bracketed by Ticehurst (‘impossible to accept ... without further corroboration’). A Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius, sup- posedly killed in Kent in 1843 and sold by Mummery to Gurney Snr, received less gen- erous treatment in Gurney Jnr’s Rambles of a Naturalist ‘I do not believe a word of it; not that I would insinuate that he could be guilty of intentionally deceiving, but a mistake is possible, and may have been, and no doubt was committed.’ Clearly, in the years subse- quent to Mummery’s streak of form, his ornithological credit rating was poor. One of Mummery’s records, a Cream- coloured Courser Cursorius cursor shot near Margate on 21st December 1841, was included by Ticehurst but with distinct over- tones of doubt: ‘apparently taken in Kent’. Mummery reported that the bird was shot by a boy keeping [?scaring] crows in a field near Margate and sold to a dealer for 4d. The Margate Museum also held two other Cream- coloured Coursers (from 1849, and of unknown date prior to October 1866). There is no definite link with Mummery, though the fact that the birds ended up in the short- lived Margate Museum (its contents were sold in 1868) is suggestive. Both the 1849 and the pre-1866 Cream-coloured Coursers remain accepted but, given the contemporary doubt, should perhaps be reviewed. Mummery’s rise to rarity authority and equally rapid disappearance (1840-44) are also notable. Mummery’s records had also been questioned by Balston et al. (1907), who stated: ‘In the Zoologist, 1847, Mr. Edward H. M. Sladen drew attention to an article which appeared in the Kentish Gazette, February 2, 1847, respecting a new species of Lark, which had been found near Margate, and described under the name of Alauda isabellina by Mr. S. Mummery. These birds were merely buff or cream-coloured ordinary Sky-Larks.’ Mummery had thus not only claimed dubious rarities but had even claimed a species new to science! The next of the major British ornitholog- ical frauds which has come to light involved the Tadcaster rarities (Melling 2005). Although the period of the frauds was 1846-1869, it was 130 years before they were queried. The key players in this episode were 248 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology Sir William Milner and the taxidermist David Graham of Spurriergate, York. Graham was involved in an extraordinary number of rare bird records, mostly collected in Yorkshire, including Lesser Kestrel Falco naurnanni, Ross’s Gull Rhodostethia rosea, Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus and Bulwer’s Petrel Bulweria bulwerii. His claims also included breeding records of Brtinnich’s Guillemot Uria lomvia (from St Kilda) and Orphean Warbler Sylvia hortensis (from Yorkshire); these claims, like that of the breeding Black Woodpeckers above, suggest that in the early days some dealers were relatively naive about what would prove plausible, or may have believed that their frauds would define ornithological opinion. Subsequently, fraud- sters became more savvy, though even then improbable claims of ‘pairs’ of rarities were not uncommon. Milner was Graham’s cham- pion, but was apparently implicated in the fraud, for example as the supplier of the Ross’s Gull. It is worth noting here that Mar- shall (2009) listed over 290 taxidermists for Yorkshire alone; it is unlikely that Graham was the only one tempted to profit from deception. George Bristow, David Graham and Stephen Mummery are three examples of taxidermists who have been caught out. Con- sidering the 1,400+ individuals listed in table 3, there will surely have been others. Circum- stantial evidence suggests that fraudsters were in a minority: certainly the vast majority were not producing rare birds on the same scale. Cases of taxidermy fraud have come to light because the taxidermists involved went too far, either in terms of quantity of speci- mens or by stretching the boundaries of plausibility, or both. Taxidermists who were less greedy, daring, or with less access to unusual specimens might have slipped the occasional fraudulent skin onto the market without arousing suspicion. They were, after all, in the business of giving their clients what they wanted and making a profit. The requirement to keep accurate data on all specimens would not have occurred to many of them, and we suggest that there would have been occasions when changing or inventing data to suit a client may not even have been viewed as fraud. If, for example, a customer was looking for a British-killed specimen of a particular species, and the taxi- dermist knew that there were accepted British records of that species, then the act of inventing a new provenance for the skin of a foreign-killed bird might have been excused because the bird in question ‘could have’ occurred at the location specified. Small-scale fraud might have occurred without even any feeling of wrongdoing on the part of the taxi- dermist. During the 1850s and 1860s there was also a series of dubious and almost certainly fraudulent claims of American birds in Scot- land. Some of these were documented by Gray (1871) and included three species still not on the British List: Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus in Highland in 1863; Ruby- crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula at Loch Lomond, Argyll, in 1852; and Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus at Banff, North-east Scotland, in 1866. The record of the Ruby-crowned Kinglet, collected by Donald Dewar in the summer of 1852, was analysed by Knox (1994); Knox concluded, perhaps charitably (Dewar was also involved with the records of Hawk Owls Surnia alula - see below - since he exhibited the 1863 specimen), that the record was best explained by a muddle rather than deliberate fraud. Gray himself claimed multiple records of Buff-bellied Pipit Anthus rubescens (known to him as Pennsylvanian Pipit A. ludovi- cianus). His initial claim involved a sight record of ‘considerable numbers’ at Dunbar for about ten days or a fortnight in the winter of 1846, which might have involved simple misidentification; ‘a few years later’, however, he claimed to have shot ‘at least three’ in spring, of which one was stuffed but the specimen lost, which is harder to explain. Gray sent the records to William MacGillivray, who wisely ignored them. Gray also listed a cluster of three records of Hawk Owl of the American subspecies caparoch , which proved unacceptable when reviewed by BOURC (Harrop 2010). Although some authorities have previously suggested that the Hawk Owls were ship-assisted, it now seems more likely that they were imported along with many other specimens of American birds also claimed to have occurred naturally in Scotland during the same period. For example, doubts have been expressed about British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 249 Harrop et al. some of the rare birds (including a White- throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis and a pair of Spotted Sandpipers in August) reported in 1867 by Alexander Mitchell, an Aberdeen taxidermist (Mclnerny 2010). The White-throated Sparrow was not accepted when reviewed by BOU (2011). Taxidermists could equally be the victims of fraud if someone walked into their shop and presented them with birds to set up that were given a false provenance. Again, pro- viding the fraud was small scale, it could go unnoticed. The contemporary guardians of the British List in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the authorities who would review records and specimens during the course of writing their avifaunas, were of course well aware of this. The literature is littered with examples of birds that, for one reason or another, were considered insufficiently cor- roborated in circumstances that acknowledge that a fraud or mistake may have occurred. Nor were they blind to the importation of specimens: for example, Norman Ticehurst rejected two Great Reed Warblers Acro- cephalus arundinaceus, and a Savi’s Warbler Locustella luscinioides nest with five eggs (from Erith, Kent) because of their associa- tion with Green, a ‘bird dealer of City Road’ (presumably London), who was known for trading with the Continent (Ticehurst 1909). In the late 1800s, foreign-caught speci- mens of birds (and their eggs) were pouring into Britain, for the cagebird trade, for the fashion and millinery trades, and for the table. Even without the possibility of delib- erate import for fraudulent sale, the potential for fraud was ever-present. Importing foreign birds was, however, taking place against a background of hundreds of thousands of birds being netted annually by professional bird catchers in Britain, among which genuine rarities must often have occurred. To give an idea of the scale of this business, over 1 50,000 Goldfinches Carduelis carduelis were being caught annually near Worthing, Sussex, around 1860, and trapping on a similar scale was occurring at Brighton and along the south coast to Dover (Walpole-Bond 1938). By the late 1890s, 20,000-40,000 Skylarks were arriving every day at Leadenhall market from known hunting grounds on the Sussex Downs and the grass heaths of Cam- bridgeshire and Bedfordshire (Cocker & Mabey 2005). Of the nearly 100 taxidermists listed for Kent and Sussex (table 3), only two are so far firmly linked with abnormal pat- terns of activity which suggest fraud, and it is probably easiest to conclude that most of the others were basically honest folk. Individual incidents of likely mistake, carelessness or fraud do, however, keep cropping up, such as the clutch of Crested Lark Galerida cristata eggs, supposedly from Romney in 1895, sold by the respected Mr Gray (not the Scottish Gray), ornithologist and bird-stuffer from Dover. In short, the situation is complicated - we know that genuine rarities occurred during the 1800s and early 1900s, and we also know that fraud was perpetrated too. Scientific fraud It might be tempting to portray historical bird fraud as a kind of class war, pitting taxi- dermists and working-class country folk against ornithological authority - yet some- times it was the latter that was responsible for perpetrating the fraud. One well-documented, fascinating (and complex) example of fraud involved the colourful Richard Meinertzhagen (1878-1967). Meinertzhagen stole thousands of specimens from museums and relabelled them with fabricated dates and localities that were intended to credit him. In the process he skewed patterns of geographical distribu- tion (perhaps most notably in the case of the Forest Owlet Athene blewitti; see Rasmussen 8c Collar 1999). Despite this, to a far greater extent than any of the individuals already mentioned, Meinertzhagen became a pillar of the British ornithological community and thereby gained a level of access to collections and documents which many of his contem- poraries must have envied. Although doubts about Meinertzhagen’s integrity were raised as early as 1919, he had risen sufficiently to become vice-president of the BOU by 1940. The validity of his collec- tions had previously been questioned by Clancey and others, but it was another half a century before the scale of his fraud was widely and fully acknowledged (Knox 1993). The reasons for this may lie, in part, in Mein- ertzhagen’s complex and forceful character. In this respect, Meinertzhagen was very different 250 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology from the more retiring Bristow, though the ‘general tendency of Meinertzhagen’s genera- tion to indulge in playful fibbing’ (Wallace 2004) may have been common to both. Like Bristow, Meinertzhagen has had his defenders, both during his lifetime and subsequently, despite what now seems a rather long list of malpractice (with additional examples still being discovered, e.g. Kennerley & Prys-Jones 2006). Meinertzhagen’s motives were different from those of Bristow: there seems little rational explanation for actions driven without need for financial gain or recognition. To some extent, he simply abused his position. Wallace may also be right to sense ‘an over- whelming impatience with the lack of evi- dence for favourite theories’; Meinertzhagen simply did not have time for the slow and meticulous accumulation of data upon which science depends. The fact that he began work at 18 rather than becoming an undergraduate may have contributed to his impatience, and perhaps lack of understanding, about scien- tific disciplines. The tragedy is that some of Meinertzhagen’s specimens are ‘clearly genuine and important’ (Rasmussen & Anderton 2005); this is especially the case with his Afghan collection, which includes a new species, the Afghan Snowfinch Pyrgihuida theresae. Had Meinertzhagen been content with his genuine finds, his collection would have been much smaller but his ornithological reputation would have remained untainted. Meinertzhagen was preceded in the game of stealing and relabelling museum specimens by the taxonomist Josef Prokop Prazak (1870-1904), who was involved with the ornithological col- lections of Vienna and Edinburgh in the 1890s (Mlikovsky 2011). His suite of taxonomic papers published after 1894 were almost immediately shown to contain many fraudulent statements which destroyed his professional reputa- tion. Like Meinertzhagen, Prazak was a talented firebrand who made several important contributions (for example, he described the Scottish subspecies of Crested Tit Lophophanes cristatus scoticus). He also resembled Mein- ertzhagen in that, had he been satisfied with staying honest, he could have retained an honourable mention among the long list of scientists upon whose work our modern classifications are based. Another example, this time from North America, involved Edwin Irvine Haines, who made fraudulent claims about the breeding birds of the Catskill Mountains, New York. His claims were exposed as unreliable when the speci- mens provided to support them were shown not to be in breeding plumage (Dwight 1898). A further problematic example from North America involves work on the evolu- tion of Arctic gulls by Smith (1966). Attempts by Snell to replicate Smith’s work were unsuccessful, and resulted in the accusa- tion that his work ‘could not have been based on actual observations or experimentation’ (Snell 1991). Even more tellingly, his work on plovers (Smith 1969) was undermined by the claim that he had not arrived at the site when the data were reportedly collected, and by improbably large sample sizes (Snell 1991; Wynne-Edwards 1991). This case is especially difficult because the unique features of Smith’s work have made it extremely difficult to replicate (Montgomerie & Birkhead 2005). 143. Richard Meinertzhagen’s ornithological frauds, which involved theft and relabelling of specimens on a massive scale, were just one aspect of the fantasy world he constructed to support his embellished tales of an heroic life. British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 251 photographer unknown Harrop et al. Assessment of historical records BOURC recently published guidelines that can be used in the assessment of old records (Harrop 2011). Category B is in place to acknowledge that levels of recording detail were not always as precise as those required today, and that older records should be treated without prejudice and be given some leeway in this respect. Nevertheless, BOURC feels that certain minimum standards should be met, and that ideally there should be a credible account of the discovery of a rare bird, and preferably acceptance by contem- porary authorities. We conclude that, among the genuine rarities, the contemporary authorities were aware that fraud was fre- quently being attempted. They did excellent work in filtering out the false claims, and we are confident that the British List, pre-1950, represented a reasonably accurate record of the species that had genuinely been found in Britain. However, we believe that in the face of a wave of mistaken or fraudulent claims, some illegitimate records will have slipped through the net. Individual records of rare birds that, because of location or date, do not sit easily with our modern under- standing of occurrence patterns do not nec- essarily imply fraud, but at the same time we are justified in subjecting them to increased levels of scrutiny as and when they are reviewed. During its work on the British List, which includes the recognition of acceptable first records of rare species, BOURC has assessed and rejected a number of other historical records in recent years (e.g. Harrop 2008, 2010; Melling 2008). Several of these deci- sions have been followed by protests (e.g. Bourne 2009, Combridge 2008, Combridge & Wiseman 2009, Combridge et al. 2010, 2011). Although it is understandable in the interests of stability that long-standing records should not be overturned without good reason, in cases where the accumulated evidence of fraud has become substantial there is little merit in remaining in denial. BOURC has no intention of looking beyond acceptable first records, and would appre- ciate help from Scottish, Welsh and county records committees in the assessment of pre-1950 records which now seem question- able. Modern field ornithology It might be presumed that we have now moved on, in the light of what we know about the history of fraud, and that modern field ornithology should be relatively free from it. The evidence, however, suggests that that con- clusion would be premature. Price (2010) found that about 2% of scientists admit to having either fabricated or falsified data at least once, and 14% say that they have witnessed colleagues do the same. This rises to 33% for more subtle types of misconduct. The motiva- tion for this behaviour is variable. A desire to circumvent bureaucracy may engender white lies, but in general the factors are the same as those which motivate other frauds: career advancement, prestige among peers, desire to prove a pet theory, to control other people and/or monetary gain. Scientific fraud, like bird fraud, may come to light only if the scien- tists involved become too greedy or ambitious. In the modern era, leaving aside inevitable and understandable errors of judgement, there have been a number of anecdotal accounts of fraud. In very few cases has fraud been proven or admitted, which constrains our ability to write about them. However, the following general classes of dishonesty or fraud have been suspected. Manipulation of descriptions In the most extreme cases, this may involve the complete fabrication of a rarity record, with submission of a description based on field-guide accounts and the observer’s pre- vious experience of the species. At a lower level, it may involve the embellishment of descriptions to make sure a record gets accepted (which may seem harmless if the bird has been identified correctly but becomes fraudulent otherwise). This has extended to the inclusion of photographs taken elsewhere, to ‘corroborate’ the sighting. There have also been examples of selective editing of published descriptions so that apparent inconsistencies are removed; in some instances (e.g. Hinde & Thom 1947) this has been the case with records that later proved unacceptable. Strategic placement of a specimen An individual with access to the fresh corpse of a potential vagrant may be tempted to 252 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology leave it in a location where it is likely to be found by a birder. Other than as a short-lived prank (and we are aware of some light- hearted examples), this must be a rare mode of fraud, because it requires both access to a specimen and some degree of likelihood that the corpse be found. Since there is no pres- tige for the depositor and little for the finder, there are relatively few motives for this sort of fraud other than a desire to fool the ‘experts’. One possible example involved the corpse of a Desert Lark Ammomanes deserti found on the beach at Minsmere, Suffolk, on 2nd April 1997 (BOU 1998); the circumstances sug- gested that the specimen ‘may not have arrived naturally’. Another example is the discovery of a Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis at Radipole Lake, Dorset, in November 1967 (Melling et al. 2008). Two observers claimed to have seen a Little Bittern I. minutus Hying towards a bridge, where they found a freshly dead corpse a few minutes later. They skinned the specimen, but soon realised that the bird was not a Little Bittern, so took it to the Dorset County Museum just seven days later. It was later sent to the British Museum, where it was correctly identified as a juvenile Yellow Bittern. BOURC reassessed this record but failed to make contact with the two finders. A re-examination of the specimen showed that the bird had extraordinarily dark flight feathers. It was compared with 73 juvenile Yellow Bittern skins and its flight feathers were the darkest, with just one (recently fledged) specimen coming close. It was as though a freshly fledged specimen had been kept out of sun- light until its November discovery. The specimen had also been prepared flat, for no obvious advan- tage other than to store it in a confined space (such as a suitcase). One final inconsistency was that the bill had no chips or scratches, which would surely have been evident if the bird had died by flying into a concrete bridge. This record was not admitted to the British List and a hoax was strongly suspected. Release of a captive bird It is perfectly possible to purchase a cagebird, remove any rings and then report it as wild. This is a risky strategy but has been suspected more than once. To ensure a return on the investment, however, the fraudster has to ensure that the bird does not simply disap- pear forever upon release. One possibility is to suggest that the bird was picked up stunned or injured. Since the ban on trans- port of birds from the Far East following the EU response to avian flu, the number of potential vagrants available for sale has dropped, although many speciality softbills are still available, such as Siberian Thrush Geokichla sibirica. Escaped cagebirds may show telltale signs of abnormal feet, beak morphology, feather damage, abnormal plumage or moult, and these are clues in cases of potential fraud (Knox 1990). Most potential fraudsters are probably not compe- tent aviculturalists, so a suspect rarity that occurs just after a major cagebird show may attract extra scrutiny. In December 1995, a male Siberian Meadow Bunting Emberiza cioides was allegedly picked up in a car park at Marton Mere, Lancashire, having flown into the 144. In March 2009, this male Siberian Thrush Geokichla sibirica was discovered trapped in some chicken wire and ended up in an aviary in Norfolk, where birders paid to view the bird. Speculation as to its origins was rife. British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 253 Lee Gregory Harry J. Lehto Harrop et al. window of a parked car. This incident coin- cided with the National Exhibition of Cage and Aviary Birds in Birmingham, and there was much speculation at the time about the origin ot the bird, though it was probably an ‘innocent’ escape. During March 2009, a male Siberian Thrush was discovered trapped in some chicken wire and ended up in an aviary in Norfolk, where birders paid to view this captive bird. There was again much specula- tion as to its origins. It did appear to have a long bill and may have originated from captive stock (photographs and more details at http://tinyurl.com/c5o8c5e). Photographic fraud Fraud using photographs is perhaps the easiest to attempt. This may involve photo- graphing a model and passing it off as a live bird. One example concerned the construc- tion of a crude model of a Siberian Thrush which was photographed ‘in the field’ in an attempt to pass it off as wild. There is another famous case of two photographs of a single Ivory-billed Woodpecker perched on tree trunks in Louisiana in 1971, which have been considered authentic by some reviewers but are more widely regarded with scepticism (Williams 2001). Much more common is the use of digital images either lifted from the 145. This female Steller’s Eider Polysticta stelleri was photographed in southwest Finland on 17th December 2006. Two years later, in January 2009, the same photograph (taken from the internet and simply flipped horizontally) appeared at the centre of a fraudulent claim of the species in north Wales. internet or taken overseas and then claimed to provide ‘proof’ of the occurrence of a rarity. Many of these suspected cases are never proven but internet discussions frequently reveal a negative feeling towards certain records. In some cases, internet scrutineers have actually uncovered potential hoaxes. One example is documented in a Birdforum thread at http://tinyurl.com/cujlwbj. In summary, in early January 2009, someone claimed to have noticed an unusual duck on the sea while playing golf in Caernarfonshire. He returned with his camera the following day and sent the digital image to a local birders’ group for identification. It was quickly identified as a female Steller’s Eider Polysticta stelleri and birders hurried to the spot, but failed to relocate it. Internet discus- sion groups then started to question why a golfer would recognise a female Steller’s Eider as being different, and noted that the photo- graph did look suspiciously ‘digiscoped’. Someone checked the EXIF data and estab- lished that the picture had been taken some years earlier. A quick internet search located the photograph, albeit flipped horizontally, which had been taken in Finland. In October 2003, a photograph of a Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons was posted onto the Surfbirds scarce birds gallery, labelled as a Golden Oriole Oriolus oriolus allegedly taken at Portland, Dorset. It wasn’t long before a sceptical commentator asked why someone savvy enough to post a ^ . rare bird photograph on Surf- birds would not have thought of alerting any other observers, or contacting the nearby observa- tory, even if it had been misiden- tified as a Golden Oriole. The photograph was swiftly removed after this query. Whether these occurrences are intentional hoaxes or genuine mistakes is perhaps difficult to resolve, but it is a matter of record that a similar internet investigation took place following online pub- lication of a photograph of a Short-toed Eagle Circaetus 254 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology gallic us said to have been taken in Lincolnshire in September 2011 (http://tinyurl.com/co4twdu). It was noted that the photograph had been taken in Spain and published previously. When the person claiming to have found the bird tried to correct this mistake, he posted another pho- tograph of apparently the same bird. During the discussion it was noted that if someone re-photographs an image of a bird, the EXIF data will show it was taken on the later date. EXIF data are a key component of the valida- tion of rarity photographs but can be modi- fied using freely available software. Lack of EXIF data on a published photograph is not unusual, but failure to provide EXIF data when requested may be suspicious. It seems that taking digital images abroad then claiming that they were taken in Britain is becoming the modern equivalent of importing specimens then claiming that they were obtained in Britain - a twenty-first century incarnation of ‘what’s hit is history’. Records committees (and internet scruti- neers) are alert to the possibilities of fraud and probably weed out the majority of such records. Since the establishment of BBRC in 1958, only a single known case of fraud involving an accepted record has become public. In October 1994, an Essex bird- watcher claimed to have recorded a Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus in a garden in Chipping Ongar; the record was duly accepted and published (Pepper 1996). Sub- sequently, after doubts about the record were raised in Birdwatch magazine, BBRC reviewed the record in 2002 and decided that it should stand. In 2009, however, the ‘observer’ revealed that the record was fraud- ulent, and made the excuse that it had been claimed in protest at perceived secrecy sur- rounding rare birds in the county ( Birdwatch 204: 46-47; Brit. Birds 102: 576). Had the admission not been made, however, it is pos- sible that this record would still be accepted. Sometimes, apparently questionable records survive scrutiny and emerge untar- nished. For example, there was initially some doubt about a Red-billed Tropicbird Phaethon aethereus photographed by non-birders in the English Channel in June 2001. However, the photographer readily supplied the full set of his contact prints showing the crew and boat in Cornwall and France before and after the tropicbird photographs were taken (Blamire 2004). There is a more recent case of an extremely rare bird being photographed by a single observer in an ‘unlikely’ location: a Dusky Thrush Turdus eunomus in a Greater Manchester garden in December 2010. After the event, a local recorder photographed the exact branch on which it had perched and compared the background with the observer’s photograph; he concluded that it was as claimed (Brit. Birds 104: 608-609). The pres- ence of identifiable features, such as neigh- bouring houses, is very helpful in assessing the veracity of images in cases like this. Implications for those involved in the assessment of records Records committees have traditionally taken multiple factors into account when assessing records. Single-observer records have always been problematical, and in some ways such records have become even more difficult since data-protection legislation has con- strained what committee members feel able to say about the reputation of observers. There is an argument for the position that single-observer records of exceptional rarities should not be accepted without photo- graphic or other corroboration. Photo- graphic evidence alone, however, is not always sufficient (as the case of the Chipping Ongar Hermit Thrush, and others like it, makes clear). Certainly, the track record of observers is as important a consideration as ever. Just as the Hastings Rarities were ulti- mately exposed on the basis of a statistically implausible pattern of occurrences, modern fraudsters might be indicated by an unusual pattern of rarity finds. For example, in general, people who find British firsts tend to have a good track record of finding lesser rar- ities and scarce local birds. We would never advocate rejection of records of extreme rari- ties from observers who have no track record, but there is a debate to be had about whether observers who find lots of single-observer rarities or claim British firsts without an established basis of local ‘finds’ should attract increased scrutiny. Even if this were the case, however, single incidences of fraud by a per- petrator who has the sense not to try it again might easily go undetected. British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 255 Harrop et al. Endnote We are aware that we have only sketched the outline of a subject that deserves a more comprehensive treatment. A level of conjec- ture is required to extrapolate from the known or suspected cases of fraud to reach our current stance, which is that it is likely that a number, possibly a substantial number, of fraudulent bird records have been accepted onto the British List. The examples we have used are, to some extent, cherry- picked to illustrate particular points, and there are many other examples both of suspi- cious activity and, of course, of accurate, honest and detailed records of birds in Britain. No disrespect is intended or implied towards those record assessors, past or present, who have shrewdly and conscien- tiously vetted rarity reports over the last 200 years. Nevertheless, the capacity of some people to design and execute sometimes astonishingly complex and technically diffi- cult fraud, both inside and outside birding, is a proven fact. It is inevitable that on occasion committees have been, and will continue to be, fooled and this must be borne in mind during assessment and review. We hope that this paper will form a basis for future research. Acknowledgments Members of BOURC have commented on numerous review files over the years; to some extent this paper derives from work done during those reviews. Current BOURC members and Keith Naylor, BOURC's consultant on historical records, kindly commented on a draft of this paper. Graham Catley and Ken Shaw offered insights into contemporary fraud. We especially thank Alan Knox for his extensive comments. Sophie Wilcox at the Alexander Library, Oxford, provided help with references. References Balston, K. J„ Shepherd, C.W., & Bartlett, E. 1907. Notes on the Birds of Kent. Porter; London. Becking, J-H. 2009. The Bartels and other egg collections from the island of Java, Indonesia, with corrections to earlier publications of A. Hoogeiwerf. Bull. BOC 1 29: 1 8-48. Blamire, S. 2004. Red-billed Tropicbird: new to Britain. Brit Birds 97: 231-237. Booth, ET, & Griffith, A. F. 1 927. Catalogue of Cases of Birds in the Dyke Road Museum, Brighton. 5th edn. Booth Museum, Brighton. Bourne, W. R. R 2009.The distribution of Bulwer's Petrel. Brit. Birds 102: 101. British Ornithologists' Union (BOU). 1 9 1 5. A List of British Birds, 2nd edn. BOU, London. 1 998. Records Committee: 24th Report (October 1 997). Ibis: 140: 182-184. — 2005. Records Committee: 3 1 st Report (October 2004). Ibis 147:246-250. — 201 I . Records Committee: 39th Report (October 2010). Ibis 153:227-232. Cocker; M. 200 1 . Birders: tales of a tribe. Jonathan Cape, London. — & Mabey, R. 2005. Birds Britannica. Chatto & Windus, London. Cole, A. C. 2006. The Egg Dealers of Great Britain. Peregrine Books, Leeds. Collinson.J. M. 2005. Barrow's Goldeneye - a Hastings Rarity in Scotland. Scot Birds 25: 53-54. — 2007. Video analysis of the escape flight of Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus: does the Ivory- billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis persist in continental North America? BMC Biology 5: 8. — & McGowan, R.Y. 20 1 I . Hastings Rarities in the Royal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh. Brit. Birds 104: 542-544. Combridge, R 2008. A Kermadec Petrel, taxidermists, and judging ancient records. Brit. Birds 101: 322-324. — & Wiseman, E. 2009. The curious case of the disappearing storm-petrel. Brit Birds 1 02: 2 1 3-2 1 5. — , Ferguson-Lees, J„ Cranswick, R, Turner, R„ & Castle, R 20 10. The Wiltshire Hawk Owl and a plea for caution in the rejection of historical records. Brit. Birds 1 03: 673-675. — , — , Collins, l„ Cranswick, R, Castle, R, & Turner, R. 201 I .The Wiltshire Hawk Owl and criteria for assessing historical records. Brit Birds 104: 164-165. Coombes, R. A. H. 1 970. The Hastings Rarities. Brit. Birds 63: 89-90. Duffield, G„ & Grabosky, R 200 1 .The psychology of fraud. Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 1 99. Dwight, J„ Jr 1898. An Untrustworthy Observer Auk 1 5(2): 2 1 3-2 1 4. Fitzpatrick, J.W., Lammertink, M„ Luneau, M. D„ Jr, Gallagher T.W., Harrison, B. R„ Sparling, G. M„ Rosenberg, K.V., Rohrbaugh, R. W„ Swarthout, E. C. H„ Wrege, R H„ Swarthout, S. B., Dantzker M. S„ Charif, R. A., Barksdale, T. R„ Remsen, J. V., Jr, Simon, S. D„ & Zollner D. 2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker ( Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America. Science 308: 1 460- 1 462. Ford, E. B. 1945. The New Naturalist Butterflies. Collins, London. Gray, R. 1871. Birds of the West of Scotland including the Outer Hebrides. Murray & Son, Glasgow. Harrison, J. M. 1 968. Bristow and the Hastings Rarities Affair. Butler, St Leonards-on-Sea. Harrop, A. H. J. 2008. The rise and fall of Bulwer's Petrel. Brit. Birds 101: 676-68 1 . — 2010. Records of Hawk Owls in Britain. Brit. Birds 103:276-283. — 201 I .The Wiltshire Hawk Owl and criteria for accepting historical records. Brit. Birds 104: 162-163. Hinde, R. A., & Thom, A. S. 1 947.The breeding of the Moustached Warbler in Cambridgeshire. Brit. Birds 40: 98-104. Jenyns, L. j. 1 827. Observations on the ornithology of Cambridge. Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. 2: 287-324. Kennerley, R R., & Prys-Jones, R. R 2006. Occurrences of Gray's Grasshopper Warbler in Europe, including a further case of Meinertzhagen fraud. Brit. Birds 99: 256 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 The prevalence of fraud in ornithology 506-5 1 6. Knox, A. G. 1 990. Investigative ornithology. 8 irding World 3: 125-127. — 1993. Richard Meinertzhagen - a case of fraud examined. Ibis 1 35: 320-325. — 1 994. From the archives: the Loch Lomond Ruby- crowned Kinglet. 8 irding World 7: 73-78. Marshall, A. 2009. British Taxidermists: a preliminary catalogue and gazetteer. Friends of the Doncaster Museums, Doncaster. Mclnerny, C.J. 2010. Reports of rare birds in the Aberdeen area during the mid- 1 9th century. Scot. Birds 30: 29-3 1 . Mearns, B„ & Mearns, R. 1 998. The Bird Collectors. Academic Press, London. Melling, T M. 2005. The Tadcaster rarities. Brit. Birds 98: 230-237. — 2008. Should Kermadec Petrel be on the British List? Brit. Birds 101: 31-38. — , McGowan, R.Y, & Lewington, I. 2008.The Dorset Yellow Bittern. Brit. Birds 101:1 37- 141. Mlikovsky, J. 20 1 I . Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler Josef Prokop Prazak ( 1 870- 1 904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68. Montgomerie, B., & Birkhead.T. 2005. A beginner’s guide to scientific misconduct. ISBE Newsletter 1 7: 16-21. Morris, PA. 2006. J. B. Nichols' purchasing code. Arch. Nat Hist. 33: 140-145. Nelder J. A. 1 962. A statistical examination of the 'Hastings Rarities'. Brit. Birds 55: 283-298. Newman, E. [Inquisitor] 1 837. Note on butterflies questionably British. Ent. Mag. 4: 1 77-179. Nicholson, E. M„ & Ferguson-Lees, I. J. 1962. The Hastings Rarities. Brit. Birds 55: 299-384. — , — , & Nelder j. A. 1 969. The Hastings Rarities again. Brit. Birds 62: 364-38 1 . Palmer R 2000. First for Britain and Ireland. Arlequin Press, Chelmsford. Pepper N. 1996. Hermit Thrush at Chipping Ongar 28th October-3rd November 1 994, the first Essex and fifth British record. Essex Bird Report 1 995: I 14-1 15. Platt, R. 20 1 I . Smuggling in the British Isles. History Press, Stroud. Pranty, B., Dunn.J. L, Gibson, D. D„ Miff. M.J., Lehman, R E., Lockwood, M. W„ Pittaway, R., & Zimmer K. j. 2011. 22nd Report of the ABA Checklist Committee. 8 irding 43(6): 26-33. Price, M. 20 1 0. Sins against science. Monitor on Psychology 4 1 : 44 (available online at www.apa.org/monitor/20 1 0/07-08/ misconduct.aspx) Ftasmussen, R C., & Anderton, J. C. 2005. Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide. Smithsonian, Washington/Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. — , & Collar N. J. 1 999. Major specimen fraud in the Forest Owlet Heteroglaux ( Athene auct.) blewitti. Ibis 141: I 1-21. Raven, C. E. 1929. Bird Haunts and Bird Behaviour. Hopkinson, London. Russell, M. 2003. Piltdown Man: the secret life of Charles Dawson and the world's greatest archaeological hoax. Tempus, Stroud. Salmon, M. A. 2000. The Aurelian Legacy. Harley Books, Berkeley. Sibley, D. A., Bevier L. R„ Patten, M. A., & Elphick, C. S. 2006. Comment on ‘Ivory-billed Woodpecker ( Campephilus principalis) persists in Continental North America'. Science 311:1 555. Smith, N. G. 1 966. Evolution of some arctic gulls ( Larus ): an experimental study of isolating mechanisms. Ornithol. Monographs 4: 1-99. — 1 969. Polymorphism in ringed plovers. Ibis III: 177-188. Snell, R. R. 1991. Conflation of the observed and the hypothesized: Smith's 1961 research in Home Bay, Baffin Island. Colonial Waterbirds 1 4: 1 96-202. Ticehurst, N. 1 909. A History of the Birds of Kent. Witherby, London. Tristram, H. B. 1 859. On the ornithology of northern Africa. Part I . Ibis 1 : 1 53- 1 62. Wallace, I. 2004. Beguiled by Birds. Helm, London. Walpole-Bond, J. 1938. A History of Sussex Birds. Witherby London. Walsh, J. E. 1 996. Unravelling Piltdown: the science fraud of the century and its solution. Random House, New York. Walsh, L 2006. Sins Against Science. SUNY Press, New York. Williams, J. J. 2001. Ivory-billed dreams, Ivory-billed reality. Birding 33: 5 1 4-522. Wynne-Edwards, V. C. 1991. 'Does genetic polymorphism exist in ringed plovers?’ Unpublished manuscript in the Queen’s University Archives (Kingston, Ontario. Canada), V. C. Wynne-Edwards Fonds, Locator No. 5 1 37. 1 , Box 6, Files 3 and 4. Andrew H. J. Harrop, 30 Dean Street, Oakham, Rutland LE15 6AF; e-mail andrew.harrop@virgin.net /. Martin Collinson, University of Aberdeen, Institute of Medical Sciences, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD; e-mail m.collinson@abdn.ac.uk Tim Melling, do RSPB, Westleigh Mews, Wakefield Road, Denby Dale, West Yorkshire HD8 8QD; e-mail tim.melling@rspb.org.uk Andrew Harrop has been actively involved in record assessment at local and national levels for more than 20 years. He has developed a particular interest in the assessment of historical records whilst serving on BOURC, of which he is currently Secretary. His publications include The Birds of Leicestershire & Rutland (co-author; 2009). Martin Collinson is a Reader in Biomedical Science at the University of Aberdeen, Chair of BOURC and Convenor of the BOURC Taxonomic Sub-committee. He has been working on a Hastings Rarities 'whodunnit' for more years than he cares to remember Tim Melling is a Senior Conservation Officer for RSPB in the North of England, where he has worked for more than 20 years. He served 1 0 years on BOURC, including two stints as Secretary. He has published a number of papers on reassessment of old records, involving several cases of apparent fraud. British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 236-257 257 Habitat of territorial Firecrests in north Norfolk Christopher F. Mason Abstract The habitat occupied by territorial Firecrests Regulus ignicapilla in north Norfolk was investigated. A total of 63 territories was discovered in three breeding seasons between 2008 and 201 I.The species of trees and shrubs found in each territory were recorded and territories assigned to one of eight habitat groups, ranging from predominantly deciduous to primarily coniferous, though all contained at least some evergreen cover. Exotic conifers were included in all of the territories occupied in more than one year. The conservation implications are discussed. Introduction The Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla was first confirmed breeding in England in 1962, in the New Forest, Hampshire (Adams 1966). Since then the population has expanded, with a current estimate of around 400 pairs in England and Wales, as far north as Der- byshire, but with Hampshire supporting about half the population (Holling et al. 2011). In Norfolk, breeding was first proved in 1984 and the current population estimate is of up to 60 singing males (Taylor & Marchant 2011); most of these can be found either along the ridge between Cromer and Holt, in north Norfolk, or in Thetford Forest, in the southwest of the county. On the Continent, Firecrests breed in a wide variety of woodland habitats (Cramp 1992). The early breeders in the New Forest were found mainly in mixed woodland with a predominance of spruce Picea, although conifers were absent from some sites (Adams 1966). As the population expanded in England, territories were most often found in plantations of Norway Spruce P. abies , Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii and Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris , often with deciduous trees present (Batten 1973). Morrison (2006) described Firecrests breeding along the Cromer-Holt ridge as occurring in three clusters: one in a plantation of Douglas Firs, one in a mixture of deciduous trees with exotic conifers, Rhododendrons Rhododen- dron ponticum and Ivy Hedera helix, and one in mature Western Red Cedars Thuja plicata. There appears to have been no attempt to formally describe or quantify the habitat used by breeding Firecrests in England. In this paper I define more precisely the habitats used by breeding Firecrests along the Cromer-Holt ridge. Methods The Cromer-Holt ridge has acid sandy soils of glacial origin, with extensive areas of woodland and plantation, much of it in the ownership of conservation organisations. The study was carried out in 2008, 2010 and 2011. The first year was a pilot study, when I familiarised myself with the study area. Four woodland blocks were surveyed: Felbrigg Great Wood, Roman Camp and adjacent woodland, Pretty Corner/Sheringham Wood and Sheringham Park. All singing birds located were mapped. Birds were considered to be holding territory if they were located at least twice, more than one week apart, with the second date being after the end of April (to reduce the risk of including passage birds). In 2010, paths at all sites were walked at 258 © British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 258-262 Habitat of territorial Firecrests in north Norfolk Results Firecrests were first heard singing on territory on 19th March, and singing Firecrests were widespread by early April. This pattern of song activity was much later than that of Gold- crests Regulus regulus, which were first heard singing on 8th February. Firecrests were last heard singing on 10th August (cf. Goldcrests on 27th 146. This site in the Norfolk study area, photographed here in January 2012, dominated by Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii, held a Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla territory in all three of the study years. least once a week from March until mid July and singing males were recorded by GPS and mapped. The same methods were used in 201 1 but, in addition, brief bursts of song playback (note that this should only be carried out under licence from Natural England) were used at approximately 200-m intervals to locate and confirm the presence of territorial males (but not thereafter). Males typically responded vigorously to play- back. An additional eight localities were visited in 2011, though only two held Firecrests. On hearing a singing Firecrest, 1 assessed the habitat within a 50-m radius of the loca- tion of the bird (estimated by eye). Each species of canopy tree and understorey tree or shrub (less than 10 m tall) was identified and recorded on the DAFOR scale: Domi- nant (D = 5), Abundant (A = 4), Frequent (F = 3), Occasional (O = 2), Rare (present as a single individual, R = 1). For those territories that were occupied in more than one year, the habitat was assessed in each year. To provide an objective classifica- tion of the habitat recorded in Firecrest territories, the TWINSPAN program (Hill 1979) was used. TWINSPAN - a two-way indicator species analysis - classifies species and samples, producing an ordered two-way table of their occurrence. The classification process is hierar- chical. Samples are successively divided into categories and species are then assigned to categories on the basis of sample classification. The pseudo-species cut-off levels were the five (DAFOR) abundance cate- gories plus zero (absence) and the analysis was halted at the third level. July), though song was infrequent after the end of June. Of 206 song registrations during the study, 56.3% were recorded in May, 16.5% in the second half of April and 12.1% in the second half of June, after a lull in early June. Few birds were heard singing at other times. A total of 63 territories was located in the three years, 14 in 2008, 19 in 2010 and 30 in 2011. Individual territory holders were logged on up to 1 1 separate days. A further 1 1 males were recorded singing but did not meet the requirements for holding territory. The results of the analysis are given in table 1. Eight habitat groups were identified. Group 1A (six territories, 9.5% of total) con- sisted primarily of Scots Pine and Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, with frequent Beech Fagus sylvatica and Lawson Cypress Chamae- cyparis lawsoniana and an understorey of Rhododendron and Sycamore. Group IB (four territories, 6.3%) had a predominance British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 258-262 259 Chris Mason Mason Table 1 . Major tree species found in the six Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla territory groups identified byTWINSPAN (large dots indicate that a species was dominant or abundant, small dots that a species was frequent, using the DAFOR scale - see text). TWINSPAN Group 1A IB 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B No. territories 6 4 10 20 6 10 5 2 Canopy trees Corsican Pine Pinus nigra • • Yew Taxus baccata • Sweet Chestnut Castanea sativa • • • Oak Quercus robur/petraea • • Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus • • • Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris • • • • • • Silver Birch Betula pendula • • Beech Fagus sylvatica • • • • • European Larch Larix decidua • Norway Spruce Picea abies • • Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii • • • • Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata • • • Lawson Cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana • • • Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla • • Understorey trees Hazel Corylus avellana • Holly Ilex aquifolium • • Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus • • • • Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum • • Rowan Sorbus aucuparia • • • Silver Birch Betula pendula • • • Lawson Cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana • Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla • of Sweet Chestnut Castanea sativa, with lesser amounts of oak Quercus, Lawson Cypress and Yew Taxus baccata, and an understorey mainly of Holly Ilex aquifolium and Hazel Corylus avellana. Group 2A (ten territories, 15.9%) was pre- dominantly woodland of oak and Silver Birch Betula pendula, with lesser amounts of Sweet Chestnut, Sycamore, Beech and Scots Pine. Holly was most common in the understorey, with Rowan Sorbus aucuparia and Sycamore. Group 2B (20 territories, 31.7%) was domi- nated by Douglas Fir with Scots Pine and/or Corsican Pine Pinus nigra, and with Sweet Chestnut, Sycamore and Silver Birch. Sycamore was abundant in the understorey, with frequent Rowan and Silver Birch. Group 3A (six territories, 9.5%) consisted primarily of plantation woodland of Western Red Cedar, Beech and Scots Pine, with Norway Spruce and no significant under- storey. Group 3B (ten territories, 15.9%) had Douglas Fir co-dominant with European Larch Larix decidua and Western Red Cedar, with frequent Beech, Scots Pine and Lawson Cypress, and an understorey of the last species together with Rowan and Silver Birch. Group 4A (five territories, 7.9%) was plantation woodland of Scots Pine, Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar and Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla, with frequent Norway Spruce and an understorey of Silver Birch. Group 4B (two territories, 3.2%) was dominated by Douglas Fir, Western Hemlock and Beech, with an understorey of Western Hemlock. Of the 63 territories located, five (8%) were in pure conifer plantations, 44 (70%) were in mixed plantations or mixed wood- land and 14 (22%) in primarily deciduous woodland. Some 55 territories (87%) had exotic conifers with soft needles or frond-like 260 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 258-262 Habitat of territorial Firecrests in north Norfolk foliage, at least as occasional trees, while seven territories (1 1%) that did not had Scots Pine present. The single site with no conifers present had a substantial understorey of Holly. Ten territories were located in exactly the same locality in two of the study years and three in all three years. These occurred in all groups except 4B and all contained stands of exotic conifers from the Pacific seaboard of North America. Discussion Firecrests were first heard singing on terri- tory some five weeks after the first Goldcrests and at about the same time as the first Common Chiffchaffs Phylloscopus collybita were heard singing. In mild winters, such as that of 2011/12, Goldcrests were frequently singing in the study woods, but Firecrests were not heard. This may indicate that most Firecrests breeding in Norfolk are migrants, perhaps wintering in southern Europe, although studies of the Thetford Forest pop- ulation have revealed that at least some birds do overwinter (Conway 2010). Some 20-30 Firecrests are thought to winter in Norfolk (Taylor & Marchant 2011) but a strong autumn passage results in higher numbers in winter (Morrison 2006); ring-recovery data confirm that continental birds, particularly from Belgium and the Netherlands, winter in Britain (Wernham et al. 2002). Although the methodology was changed somewhat between 2010 and 2011, with song playback used to confirm territories in 201 1, there was an increase of 42% in Firecrest territories in those areas searched intensively in both years. In contrast, Goldcrest numbers fell substan- tially in 2011 (pers. obs.), which no doubt reflects the severe weather in winter 2010/11 and seems to support the idea that north Norfolk Firecrests winter farther south. In north Norfolk, Firecrests are towards the northern edge of their current British breeding range. This study found that territo- ries were located in a wide range of wood- land types, ranging from predominantly deciduous woods (Group IB and 2A) to plantations predominantly of conifers. They thus occupy a wider range of stands than indicated by Morrison (2006). Nevertheless, all territories contained at least some ever- green cover, either in the canopy or as under- storey and all had at least some deciduous trees present. Non-native conifers, especially 147. Firecrests Regulus ignicapilla will hold territories in deciduous woodland without conifers provided there is a well-developed understorey of Holly Ilex aquifolium ; Norfolk, January 2012. British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 258-262 261 Chris Mason Mason those from the western seaboard of North America, were a significant component of 53 territories and stands of these trees were present in all of the sites where territories were located in more than one year. This apparent preference for exotic conifers might be a result of competition with resident Goldcrests; Goldcrests were found to respond vigorously to playback of Firecrest song, though Goldcrests also hold territories in stands of exotic conifers. In summarising descriptions of Firecrest habitat in Europe, Cramp (1992) suggested that the shrub layer may be important to the species, especially in the south of its range, and may assist in its ecological separation from the Goldcrest, which was considered primarily a canopy species. Although the understorey, especially Holly, was an impor- tant component of some of the territories in north Norfolk, others generally had little or no understorey. All Firecrests located during this study were in the canopy. Since they utilise a wide range of wood- land stand types, the north Norfolk popula- tion of Firecrests, albeit small, might seem secure, with the potential to increase and expand into woodlands not currently occu- pied. Nevertheless, some territories were in commercial plantations which may be clear- felled in future. Furthermore, in two of the key areas, owned by conservation bodies, there are plans to fell substantial areas of pre- dominantly conifer woodland to create heathland. If those plans go ahead, that would remove woodland occupied by a third of the territories located in this study. These blocks of exotic conifers were utilised by Firecrests in all three of the study years, so they may be essential to the future success of the species in the area. Since there is a strong relationship between woodland area and bird species diversity (e.g. Moore & Hooper 1975, Hinsley et al. 1996, Mason 2001), a reduction in woodland size may have unintended con- sequences for the bird community, and indeed for other taxa, at these sites. Heathland creation, even if successful, which is by no means guaranteed {Brit. Wildlife 22: 454), will result in rather small, isolated areas of heath, which are unlikely to gain much of the characteristic biodiversity. If large blocks of conifers are considered inappropriate in these amenity woodlands (although, with a developing mixed under- storey, ground flora and dead wood, they do not resemble featureless commercial planta- tions), it might be more perspicacious in conservation terms to fell small blocks over a long period of time to allow natural regener- ation of mixed woodland, leaving those groups of conifers especially preferred by Firecrests. References Adams, M. C. 1966. Firecrests breeding in Hampshire. Brit. Birds 59: 240-246. Batten, L. A. 1 973. The colonisation of England by the Firecrest. Brit. Birds 66: 1 59- 1 66. Conway, G. 20 1 0. Fire in the Forest. BTO News 290: 23-24. Cramp, S. (ed.) 1 992. The Birds of the Western Palearctic.V ol. VI. OUR Oxford. Hill, M. O. 1 979. 7 WINSPAN - a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, New York. Hinsley, S. A., Bellamy, R E„ Newton, l„ & Sparks, T. H. 1 996. Influences of population size and woodland area on bird species distributions in small woods. Oecologia 105: 100-106. Holling, M„ & the Rare Breeding Birds Panel. 2011. Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2009. Brit. Birds 104:476-537. Mason, C. F. 200 1 .Woodland area, species turnover and the conservation of bird assemblages in lowland England. Biodiv. Conserv. 1 0: 495-5 1 0. Moore, N.W., & Hooper M. D. 1975. On the number of bird species in British woods. Biol. Conserv. 8: 229-250. Morrison, R 2006.The changing status of Firecrest in Norfolk. Norfolk Bird and Mammal Report 2005: 279-283. Taylor; M„ & Marchant, J. H. 20 1 I . The Norfolk Bird Atlas. BTO.Thetford. 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. Christopher F. Mason, Strome, Top Common, East Runton, Cromer, Norfolk NR27 9PR; e-mail mason270@btinternet.com Chris Mason, before retiring, was a Professor of Ecology at the University of Essex, where his research interests were primarily (but by no means exclusively) in the field of applied aquatic ecology. His first recollection of birds was of feeding ducks in the local canal in Leicester from his pram, which may explain both his bird and his watery interests. He published his first scientific paper; on inland wader migration, in 1969 in British Birds. 262 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 258-262 An unprecedented influx of Iceland Gulls in the northeastern Atlantic in January/February 20 1 2 Rob Fray, Mike Pennington, Roger Riddington, Eric Meek, Paul Higson, Alastair Forsyth, Alan Leitch, Martin Scott, Tony Marr, Tristan ap Rheinallt and Silas Olofson Abstract An unprecedented influx of Iceland Gulls Larus glaucoides into northern and northwestern Britain occurred during January and February 20 1 2. That influx is described here, with particular attention to the numbers involved, the age composition of the birds and the occurrence of Kumlien’s Gulls L. g. kumlieni. The scale of the influx into Britain & Ireland was dwarfed by that which occurred in the Faroe Islands, and a comparable account for that archipelago is included here. The Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides is a scarce but regular passage migrant and winter visitor to northern Britain. During November and December 2011, numbers were more or less normal (a little below average in Shetland, but slightly above average in Orkney and the Outer Hebrides), but by the end of the first week of January 2012 it was clear that a major arrival was underway. This article describes the influx in Shetland, Orkney and the Outer Hebrides, where the numbers recorded were greatest. A summary of the much larger numbers seen in the Faroe Islands is also presented, together with an attempt to set the event in context, tempo- rally and geographically. Note that, unless stated otherwise, counts given below include tallies of Kumlien’s Gulls L. g. kumlieni. Shetland The influx was initially apparent in Shetland in the first week of January, with records from six sites involving up to 20 individuals in total. During the second week of January, numbers increased quickly, counts including 13 at Skaw on 10th, 33 at Belmont (both Unst) on 11th, 15 at Symbister (Whalsay) on I 48. Third-winter Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides, Westing, Unst, January 2012. An early arrival, in the north of Unst. © British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 263 Rob Brookes Fray et al. 12th and 35 in Lerwick on 13th. The counts at Belmont and Lerwick both exceeded the previous record for an individual site (31 in Lerwick in January 1993; Pennington et al. 2004), which emphasised that a major influx was underway. A co-ordinated Shetland-wide count was organised for 14th January when, in reasonable weather conditions, 21 observers covered most of the main islands; only Foula and Out Skerries were not visited. In all, a remarkable 162 Iceland Gulls were recorded. Doubtless some were missed but the total of 162 confirmed the influx to be the largest ever in Shetland, comfortably exceeding that of January/February 1983, which produced at least 120 birds (Pennington et al. 2004). Observers were encouraged to record the age of as many birds as possible, and the results are shown in table 1. There was some evidence that birds had relocated to new sites during the days pre- ceding the count on 14th January, par- ticularly on Unst, where there had been 33 at Belmont on 11th (com- pared with 13 on 14th) and 13 at Skaw on 10th (four on 14th). In addi- tion, careful scrutiny of the ages of the birds present in Lerwick showed that at least 44 had occurred during the period 7th- 14th January. In the second half of January, numbers of Iceland Gulls continued to increase, especially in central areas of Shetland and at the main fishing harbours of Lerwick and Table I. Iceland Gulls Lams glaucoides recorded during a Shetland-wide count on 14th 1W January 2012. 2W 3W adult unaged Total Unst 1 14 4 5 10 34 Yell 0 8 2 2 0 12 Fetlar 0 1 0 0 0 1 Whalsay 3 8 4 7 0 22 Fair Isle 0 5 1 2 0 8 North Mainland 0 2 0 0 0 2 West Mainland 1 6 1 5 0 13 Central/East Mainland 5 32 6 12 0 55 South Mainland 2 4 1 4 4 15 Total 12 80 19 37 14 162 Table 2. Iceland Gulls in Shetland during 27th- from Bluemull/Colgrave on 22nd. 29th January 20 1 2, with counts 1W 1W/2W 2W 3W 3W/ad adult unaged Total Unst 2 0 8 2 0 1 0 13 Yell 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Bluemull/Colgrave 2 0 7 1 0 13 0 23 Whalsay 3 9 8 3 0 12 0 35 Fair Isle 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 West Mainland 0 12 0 0 13 0 0 25 Central/East Mainland 11 1 43 7 0 27 0 89 South Mainland 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 5 Burra & Trondra 4 0 17 2 2 11 0 36 Total 24 22 88 15 15 67 2 233 Table 3. Peak counts of Iceland Gulls in Shetland in January and February 20 1 2; this includes all sites with double-figure counts. Site Area Peak count Date Skaw Unst 13 10th January Belmont Unst 33 11th January Mel by West Mainland 15 13th January Baltasound Unst 13 1 8th January Meal Burra 1 1 19th January Scalloway Central Mainland 12 20th January Bluemull/Colgrave offshore 23 22nd January Scalloway Islands offshore 28 27th January Dury Voe Central Mainland 20 28th January Burrastow West Mainland 25 29th January North Sandwick Yell 15 3rd February Symbister Whalsay 54 7th February west of Foula offshore 14 9th February Lerwick Central Mainland 60 1 9th February 264 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 Iceland Gulls in January/February 2012 Symbister; in addition, several flocks were noted around offshore salmon farms, including 14 at Burrastow on 24th and 25 north of Burra on 27th. Although it was not possible to organise a repeat co-ordinated count on a single day, observations during 27t h— 29th January revealed a minimum of 210 Iceland Gulls in Shetland. A few days earlier, on 22nd, 23 were seen during a boat- based survey of Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds (the sea area between Yell, Unst and Fetlar); it is believed that these were likely to be different individuals, and thus contributed to a county total for late January of 233 birds (table 2). There was no significant increase in numbers during February, although there was some evidence that birds accumulated at the two principal harbours. As a result, the individual site record was broken once more, with 54 at Symbister on 7th February and then at least 60 at Lerwick on 19th (and 7th March). Estimating the total number of birds involved is of course speculative, especially given the turnover of birds at particular sites where the age composition of flocks was noted. There were double-figure counts at no fewer than 13 ‘sites’ in Shetland; simply summing the peak counts at these gives a total of 336 (table 3), while summing the peak counts at all sites (up to and including 29th February) gives a total of 422. These estimates of the total numbers involved will inevitably include some duplication (unlike the data in tables 1 & 2, which exclude dupli- Fig. I . Age categories of Iceland Gulls recorded in Shetland on 14th January 2012 (only birds that were aged accurately are included, n= 1 48). Fig. 2. Age categories of Iceland Gulls recorded in Shetland on 27th-29th January 2012 (only birds that were aged accurately are included, n = 1 94). cates as far as possible), but the fact that there are relatively few active birders resident in 149. Iceland Gulls in Lerwick, Shetland, with a second-winter Kumlien’s Gull L g. kumlieni centre-stage; March 20 1 2. British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 263-272 265 Rory Tallack Fray et al. Shetland means that many will have been missed altogether. Moreover, the little work that was carried out offshore produced records of 23 in Bluemull Sound on 22nd January, 28 around the Scalloway Islands on 27th January and 14 west of Foula on 9th February, hinting that many more were unrecorded in Shetland waters. Taking all these factors into account, a minimum esti- mate of 400 birds seems not unreasonable. In a ‘normal’ winter, the majority of Iceland Gulls in Shetland are first-winters, with only small numbers of older birds. It quickly became clear that there was a dearth of first-winters in January 2012, however, and the age composition of birds in this influx is interesting. Of 148 birds aged on 14th January, only 12 (8%) were first- winters, with over half being second-winters and 25% adults (fig. 1). As the influx progressed into late January, the proportion of adults rose to 35%, while there was a small increase in first- winters (but still only 12%; see fig. 2). Orkney Following a count of nine Iceland Gulls on 6th January (including six at Mar Wick, on the northwest coast of Mainland), there was a marked increase to 38 on 8th January, including 27 at Skaill, 5 km south of Mar Wick. Numbers remained high during the following week, when it became apparent that birds were moving continually between Skaill and Mar Wick. On 1 1th, eight were in Stromness Harbour, the peak count at this locality (which, during past invasions, has usually seen the highest numbers, notably at least 19 different individuals in early 1983). In Orkney, the invasion reached an initial peak in mid January, with 97 logged on 14th, 77 of them in the Skaill-Mar Wick area, when the reason for the high concentration in this area also became apparent: a huge piece of whale blubber (thought to be from a Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus) half afloat in Sand Geo, l km south of Mar Wick. Birds were feeding on this and on blubber shreds, probably from the same animal, at Skaill, while Mar Wick was being used mainly as a roost site. Elsewhere in the islands, numbers were much smaller hut up to six were seen on Westray and up to nine on North Ronaldsay where as many as 44 individuals were Fig. 3. Age categories of Iceland Gulls recorded in Orkney in January 20 1 2 — percentage breakdown of all age attributions. thought to have occurred between 12th and 31st. The weekend of 21st-22nd was ear- marked for an all-Orkney census but atro- cious weather conditions on 21st hampered fieldwork, and ‘just’ 68 Iceland Gulls were located on 22nd, 42 of them in the Skaill-Sand Geo area. At about this time, significant numbers of birds were found feeding on fields that had been newly spread with slurry, including 19 at Breck of Linquoy, Sandwick, on 28th. With birds continually on the move between the west-coast sites and possibly to inland sites as well, it was extremely difficult to come up with meaningful figures for the different age classes involved. However, simply by totalling all those aged during January (with no allowance for duplication), a percentage breakdown was derived (fig. 3) In addition, seawatching from west-coast localities revealed a southerly passage of white-winged gulls, peaking at 55 in four hours on 13th January. Predominantly southerly passage was again noted on 20th (21) and 27th (24), all during four-hour watches. Birds were usually not identifiable to species as they were up to 3 km offshore but doubtless involved primarily Iceland Gulls. Numbers during February remained high and perhaps even increased. The whale remains at Sand Geo continued to attract and hold birds, with peak counts in that area of 60 on 3rd and 70 on 19th. At the same time, birds also dispersed inland in greater numbers than before. An all-Orkney goose census on 26th was a good opportunity to look for white-winged gulls as well and no 266 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 Iceland Gulls in January/February 2012 fewer than 126 Iceland Gulls were reported, 69 of them in the Mar Wick-Sand Geo-Bay of Skaill area. Calculating the total numbers of birds recorded in Orkney is very difficult. The total will have been far in excess of the 126 on 26th February - for example only three were seen on North Ronaldsay on 26th, although at least 16 different individuals were known to have occurred during the month, while on Eday, none were found on 26th, but up to five were known to be in the vicinity of the island. We can only guestimate, but suggest that a total of 200-300 for the archipelago is not unreasonable. These numbers dwarf pre- vious high counts - for example the totals in 1993 and 2000 were at least 50 and 66 respec- tively ( Orkney Bird Reports). Outer Hebrides In the Outer Hebrides, a remarkable concen- tration in Stornoway Harbour, on Lewis, was the undoubted highlight of the invasion. Counts there were in single figures from 21st December and through the first half of January, but rose to 34 on 18th January and then to 63 on 20th, 66 on 21st, 67 on 22nd and 74 on 24th. There followed something of a lull, with 58 on 27th and 60 on 1st February being the only counts in excess of 50 until 67 on 19th. The largest counts of all were reserved for late February and early March, however, with a remarkable 77 on 24th Feb- ruary, 79 on 27th, 81 on 3rd March and 88 on 9th March (setting a new British and Irish site record). As in Shetland, the record for a single site was smashed - the previous best at Stornoway was 32 in February 1993 (For- rester et al. 2007). Fig. 4. Age categories of Iceland Gulls recorded in Stornoway, Lewis, Outer Hebrides, on 20th January (n = 63). Numbers elsewhere in the Outer Hebrides were comparatively low - at least in view of the numbers in Stornoway Harbour. Else- where on Lewis, mainly at the north end of the island, between The Butt and Port of Ness, up to ten Iceland Gulls were recorded in January, up to 18 in February and up to seven in March. F)aily sightings there sug- gested that new birds were arriving and passing through on many days, while there was also a more or less constant trickle of Iceland (and Glaucous L. hyperboreus) Gulls flying down the west coast of Lewis throughout the period, and it is conceivable that several hundred birds passed through the islands without stopping off. Farther south, up to nine Iceland Gulls were seen on South Uist in January, while peak counts of eight and six were recorded on North Uist in January and February respectively. An assessment of the age distribution of 63 birds at Stornoway on 20th January showed that two-thirds were second-winters (fig. 4). I 50. Iceland Gulls in Stornoway Harbour, Lewis, Outer Hebrides, March 20 1 2. British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 267 Martin Scott Fray et al. Rest of Britain and Ireland The headline numbers were certainly con- fined to the Northern and Western Isles, but numbers of Iceland Gulls in Ireland were also impressive. Killybegs, in Co. Donegal, was the most productive site, with a peak count in January of 31 on 8th, in addition to up to six Kumlien’s Gulls. Counts of up to 20 were recorded occasionally during February but the biggest counts were in the last week of the month, with up to 42 Iceland and six Kumlien’s Gulls. Other notable sites in Ireland included Corbally Road Reservoir (Co. Antrim) and Ardglass (Co. Down), where peak counts were 18 on 18th February and 20 on 29th January respectively, in addi- tion to up to five Kumlien’s at Ardglass. Smaller, yet still impressive, numbers were recorded more or less right across mainland UK (for example, in Argyll, c. 102 different individuals, including Kumlien’s, were recorded during 3 rd— 15th January; Jim Dickson in litt.), although the more substan- tial ‘flocks’ were confined to the northern and western extremities. Faroe Islands Iceland Gulls began to arrive in Faroe in October, as usual, but numbers were gener- ally low until just after Christmas, when an increase was apparent and the first Kumlien’s Gull was seen. The first real hint of the inva- sion to come was on 1st January, when ten were seen at Sorvagur, four at Runavik and 12 at Klaksvik, including two Kumlien’s Gulls. Thereafter, numbers increased rapidly: on 6th, 30 Iceland Gulls were recorded in Klaksvik and on 9th a total of 138 for the islands. After that, Iceland Gulls were present in virtually every harbour in Faroe. The numbers seemed stable until a further increase in the last week of January, when a total of 358 were seen on 23rd and a peak site count of 250 in Klaksvik on 31st. Following a lull, a new influx was evident during 14th- 17th February, when up to 265 Iceland Gulls, including 15 Kumlien’s Gulls, were seen in Klaksvik alone. These numbers are remarkable by them- selves, but all the more so when it is consid- ered that virtually all the counts were made by just two observers and that about half the harbours in the islands were not checked even once during the peak period of the influx. Furthermore, there seems to have been a high turnover of individuals - for example, many distinctively marked Kumlien’s Gulls lingered at a particular site for one day only. In January and early Feb- ruary there seemed to be a constant move- ment of birds, whereas numbers seemed more settled after mid February. The numbers involved in the influx are difficult to estimate. Simply summing the peak counts for each site gives a total of 5,347 birds. This will clearly include some double- counting, yet many birds will have been missed and observers on the islands feel that a (remarkable) total in excess of 4,000 Iceland Gulls is realistic for the invasion. Just as for the areas in Britain and Ireland described above, this far exceeds previous recorded influxes. The most recent influx of note was in January-March 2009, when the maximum number of Iceland Gulls recorded in one day was 42 and the number of Kumlien’s Gulls accepted by the Danish Rari- ties Committee was 16. In January 1983, a much bigger influx occurred, when several hundred adult Iceland Gulls and an unspeci- fied number of immatures were recorded (and some 24 adult and 14 ‘juvenile’ birds 151. Second-winter Iceland Gull, Klaksvik, Faroe Islands, February 2012. 268 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 Silas Olofson Iceland Gulls in January/February 2012 were collected) (Fjeldsa & Jensen 1985). Initially, very few first-winter birds were seen and in early January more than half the birds seen on some days were second- winters. As the influx progressed, the number of first-winters increased a little, and by summing all age attributions for the influx, an overall age breakdown is revealed (fig. 5). Kumlien’s Gulls A number of birds in the influx showed char- acteristics associated with Kumlien’s Gull. In Shetland, at least 17 birds showing a moder- ately obvious Kumlien’s influence were recorded (ranging from a ‘classic’ adult that spent most of its time on Whalsay, and which arrived in December, well ahead of the main influx, to other, more subtle, individuals): ten in Lerwick, three in Unst, two on Whalsay and singles at Firth and Scalloway. A good number of other birds showed one or two characters compatible with Kumlien’s without being wholly convincing. In Orkney, all but two of the c. 10 Kumlien’s Gulls recorded were associated with the large con- centration of Iceland Gulls in the Mar 152. Klaksvik, Faroe Islands. February 2012. A typical harbour scene in Faroe in the early part of 2012 - a swarm of gulls in which Iceland Gull is the commonest species. 1W ■ 2W ■ 3W ■ ad Fig. 5. Age categories of Iceland Gulls recorded in the Faroe Islands - percentage breakdown of all age attributions. Wick-Skaill area. There were relatively few Kumlien’s Gulls seen in the Outer Hebrides, although at least four were seen in Stornoway (with another six or more showing a number of characteristics of this form); in contrast, in Ireland there were daily totals of up to six at Killybegs and five at Arglass, as described above, and a widespread scatter of ones and twos. British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 269 Silas Olofson Martin Scott Fray et al. In the Faroe Islands, a conservative approach was taken by observers; birds labelled as Kumlien’s Gulls were categorised as follows: adults with dark markings on the primaries, first- and second-winter birds with a significant contrast between inner and outer primaries plus a dark tail band, and third-/fourth-winter birds with solid contrast between inner and outer primaries and not just a brownish wash to them. Using these criteria, an estimated total of 310 Kumlien’s Gulls were observed. Glaucous Gulls Rather small numbers of Glaucous Gulls were recorded in Shetland, with a peak in late January when there were up to seven at Sym- bister (Whalsay) and 11 at five sites (including four at Symbister) on 28th January. For birds that were accurately aged, but excluding obvious duplicates, it was clear that most were first- winters: 1W 64%; 2W 26%; adult 10% (n=31). In Orkney, there was a somewhat higher proportion of Glaucous Gulls, which coin- cided more or less exactly with the influx of Iceland Gulls, and which included 11 in the Mar Wick-Skaill area on 8th and a peak Orkney count of 23 on 14th January (21 of these at Mar Wick-Skaill). In February, 15 were at Mar Wick on 3rd and 11 in that area on 9th and 19th. On 26th February, nine were still at Mar Wick-Skaill but only five could be found elsewhere, giving a county total of 14. By summing all the age attributions, and with no allowance for duplication, the following breakdown of age classes was obtained: 1W 37%; 2W 30%; 3W 14%; adult 18%. For Britain and Ireland as a whole, there was a very approximate ratio of about one Glaucous to every three Iceland Gulls, and consequently some notable counts. In Ireland, the peak count at Killybegs was 25 on 8th January, and there were double-figure counts also from the Mullet (Co. Mayo), Howmore and Ardivachar Point (both South Uist, Outer Hebrides) and notable single- figure counts from many sites. Discussion Nominate Iceland Gulls breed in Greenland, where a proportion of birds spend the winter (mainly those from the resident/dispersive population in western Greenland). The more migratory east Greenland birds winter to the south and east, in Iceland, Faroe, Scandinavia and northern parts of Britain and Ireland ( BWP ). In Scotland, Forrester et al. (2007) noted at least six large influxes during 1968-2004, when the normal wintering pop- ulation (of c. 50-100 birds) would be doubled or tripled (to 150-250). The influx described here is clearly exceptional (even taking into account the fact that there were even fewer observers in core areas in past invasion years, notably in 1983), with the Scottish total being perhaps four or five times greater than those previously documented. Iceland Gulls are mainly coastal in winter, and tend to be slightly more associated with fish waste at fishing ports and harbours than Glaucous Gulls (For- rester et al. 2007). Iceland Gulls are also somewhat more pelagic than many other large gulls, however, and thus perhaps more susceptible to displacement in winter storms. Much of January 2012 was characterised by west or northwesterly gales in northern Scotland and in the Faroe Islands, which will no doubt have had an effect on this winter’s influx. In Faroe, there seemed to be a clear I 53. Third- or fourth-winter Kumlien’s Gull L g. kumlieni, Ardroil, Lewis, Outer Hebrides, March 2012. 270 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 Iceland Gulls in January/February 2012 connection between weather conditions and the numbers recorded in harbours, with numbers in the shelter of harbours being higher on days with more severe weather, and birds moving out to sea on calmer days. A similar pattern was apparent in Stornoway, where it was clear that counts of Iceland Gulls were related to fishing-boat activity. Observers found that the highest counts were either on a Friday (as boats return for the weekend) or on days before storms, as boats sought shelter. Nonetheless, northwesterly gales are not unusual in Faroe and northern Scotland in midwinter, and additional factors are clearly needed to explain this influx. In Faroe and throughout the Scottish islands, many newly arrived birds in early January were clearly emaciated and in very poor condition (see plate 154); several were found dead, including no fewer than 30 in Faroe. A post-mortem of a female bird picked up in the Outer Hebrides revealed that the stomach contents contained what looked like vegetation and nothing more (Bob McGowan in lift.). This would suggest food shortage in their initial wintering areas, perhaps compounded by severe weather. Later arrivals, however, did not appear to be in such poor condition. In the Faroe Islands, up to 60% of Iceland Gulls seen during this invasion showed one or two characters suggestive of Kumlien’s Gull and did not match the appearance of a ‘classic’ nominate glaucoides - with a neat rounded head, a pale iris in all plumages except first-winter, a rather fine bill and no markings on the primaries at all. In partic- ular, many second-winter birds were unusu- ally dark, with a relatively dark iris and heavy structure (yet with little contrast between the inner and outer primaries and no clear mark- ings on the primaries either, as in a ‘classic’ Kumlien’s). In Orkney, one adult bird found dead had a wing length of 453 mm, 10 mm longer than the largest bird in a sample of 191 wing lengths given in Olsen & Larsson (2003). The presence of some especially large birds among those involved in this arrival was clearly apparent in the field, and was also a feature of previous influxes. This might suggest that notably large arrivals involve birds from different parts of the breeding population compared with those normally seen in winter. It probably also emphasises that our perception of the Iceland Gull as a species in western Europe is skewed by the typically smaller and more petite females and juveniles that predominate farther south in winter. (Normally, over 90% of Iceland Gull specimens examined in Faroe prove to be I 54. Iceland Gull taken by Otter Lutra lutra, Baltasound, Unst, Shetland, January 2012. Many of the early arrivals in the 2012 Iceland Gull influx were in poor condition. British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 271 Rob Brookes Roger Riddington Fray et al. female, whereas during this invasion, some 80% of those examined were males; Jens- Keld Jensen, www.jenskjeld.info). The unusually low proportion of first- winter birds in this influx (figs. 1-5) is striking. As far as possible, given the many observers involved, ascribing age categories followed established guidelines, such as those set out by Olsen & Larsson (2003). The records suggest that 2011 may have been a poor breeding season for Iceland Gulls and/or that at least some young birds were simply not able or did not survive to travel as far south as older birds to escape difficult conditions nearer the breeding grounds. It is interesting to speculate on the origins of the Glaucous Gulls. Most of the evidence from ringing recoveries is that Shetland (and more generally Scottish) birds come from the northeast (and the relative scarcity of hybrids, which are common in Iceland, also supports this view). If the Glaucous Gulls arrived with the Iceland Gull influx, then pre- sumably they came from the northwest; this might also explain the apparent increase in relatively small Glaucous Gulls noted in the Outer Hebrides in recent years at least (Glau- cous Gulls from Greenland and Iceland are relatively small; BWP). Whatever the reasons, for those birders lucky enough to be resident in the Northern Isles or Outer Hebrides in January 2012, the sight of up to 50 Iceland Gulls and more feeding together in a chaotic white-winged melee will live long in the memory. Acknowledgments We should like to thank all observers, particularly in Shetland, Orkney and the Outer Hebrides, but also in all other parts of Britain and Ireland, who reported their sightings. A list of observers who took part in the Shetland co-ordinated count on 14th January can be found at http://natureinshetland.blogspot.com.We are also indebted to the following blogs and websites for helping us to collate the numbers of Iceland Gulls: www.nature-shetland.co.uk, www.western- isles-wildlife.com, http://hebsbirding.wordpress.com, http://birdingfaroes.wordpress.com and BirdGuides (www.birdguides.com). We also thank Gary Bell, Jim Dickson, Paul Harvey, Harry Hussey, Bob McGowan and RoryTallack for input and discussion. References Fjeldsa, J., & Jensen, J-K. 1 985. Invasion af Hvidvingede og Kumlien's Mager Larus glaucoides glaucoides og kumlieni pa Nolso pa Faeoerne. Dansk Orn. Foren. Tidsskr. 79: 103-106. Forrester; R.W., Andrews, I.J., Mclnerny, C.J., Murray, R. D„ McGowan, R.Y., Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M. W„ Jardine, D. C., & Grundy, D. S. (eds.) 2007. The Birds of Scotland. SOC, Aberlady. Olsen, K. M„ & Larsson, H. 2003. Gulls of Europe, Asia and North America. Helm, London. Pennington, M., Osborn, K., Harvey, R, Riddington, R., Okill, D., Ellis, R, & Heubeck, M. 2004. The Birds of Shetland. Helm, London. Rob Fray, Mike Pennington and Roger Riddington, c/o Sunnydell, Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS; e-mail robfray@btinternet.com Eric Meek, Paul Higson, Alastair Forsyth and Alan Leitch, c/o Smyril, Stenness, Orkney KW16 3JX; e-mail eric.meek@rspb.org.uk Martin Scott, Tony Marr and Tristan ap Rheinallt, do Oceancrest, Brue, Isle of Lewis HS2 OQW; e-mail scillybirder@hotmail.com Silas Olofson, Undir Klakki 39, FO-700 Klaksvlk, Faroe Islands; e-mail silasolofson@gmail.com 272 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 263-272 Short paper The increasing Firecrest population in the New Forest, Hampshire Abstract The first confirmed breeding record of Firecrests in the UK was in the New Forest, Hampshire, in 1 962. The New Forest has remained a stronghold for this species in the UK and, since 2000, numbers appear to have increased significantly. Here, we report on intensive survey work during 2009-1 I and confirm that, with up to 270 recorded territories, the New Forest currently accounts for a third or more of all recorded Firecrest territories in the UK. Firecrests Regulus ignicapilla were first discovered during the breeding season in the New Forest, Hampshire, in 1961, with successful breeding subsequently con- firmed in 1962 (Adams 1966). This was the first confirmed breeding record for the species in the UK. Over the last 50 years the Firecrest breeding population has expanded rapidly across southern Britain, with recent reports from the Rare Breeding Birds Panel suggesting a population in excess of 400-600 territories during 2007-09 (Holling et al. 20 10a, b, 2011). In Hampshire, the Firecrest consolidated its position as a breeding species during 1962-99 (Eyre 2010), although the number of territories recorded each year was gener- ally fewer than 20, and only once exceeded 50 (fig. 1). However, since 2000, the breeding population appears to have increased rapidly, to a peak of 187 territories in 2007. Hamp- shire continues to be the UK stronghold of the Firecrest; for example, in 2007 the county total of 187 territories accounted for over 30% of the UK total (Holling et al. 2010a). The New Forest continues to hold the bulk of the Hampshire population; in 2007, about 75% of the territories reported in the county came from this area (fig. 1). In order to assess the current Firecrest population in the New Forest, we undertook intensive, effort-based surveys during the breeding season in 2009-1 1. This short paper presents the initial results of that survey work, including an updated estimate of the number of territories in the New Forest, 50 years after Firecrests were first confirmed as breeding. Methods Our survey area comprised a well-defined block of woodland covering about 40 km2 of the central New Forest (fig. 2), centred on the known Firecrest ‘hotspots’ of Bolderwood and Rhinefield Ornamental Drives (note that the former area was the site where the species Fig. I. Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla territories in Hampshire, 1 96 1-2008, with those in the New Forest shown in blue and from other sites in the county in red. Data from Eyre (2010). © British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 273-275 273 Short paper Table 1 . Total number of Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla territories recorded in the New Forest, Hampshire, during 2009-1 I.The level of effort (total hours) during the effort-based survey each year is shown in parentheses. 2009 2010 2011 Effort-based survey 104 (76.4 hrs) 161 (73.4 hrs) 145 (67.7 hrs) Roving survey 46 95 108 Other HOS records 11 14 6 New Forest total 161 270 259 was confirmed breeding in 1962, although at the time the site location could not be revealed). The survey area was monitored annually between 1st May and 1st July each year from 2009 to 2011, and a route was devised that allowed surveyors to cover the whole area with no gaps of more than 200 m (fig. 2). To correct for observer effort as much as possible, a single observer (RBW or MW) followed the same route in each 1-km square in all years. Every 1-km square was covered over a period of about two hours, meaning that total effort in the survey area was rela- tively consistent between years (table 1). Surveys were carried out early to mid morning, on days with light to moderate winds (<30 km/hr) and no precipitation. All Firecrest territories (here defined as a singing male or a pair showing evidence of nesting) within the survey area were mapped. Tape lures, or other methods to induce responses from silent birds, were not used. Where two or more singing males were encountered <200 m apart, the observer would quickly resurvey the area to ensure that mobile (non- territorial) birds were not double-counted. In addition to the effort-based survey, MCA undertook roving surveys in the wider New Forest, focusing on areas where existing Firecrest territories or suitable habitat could be found. The roving surveys were not effort- corrected, and so interannual variations in these data should be treated with caution. It is estimated that about 25-50% of potentially suitable habitat was covered during roving surveys. Finally, we also checked the database of records submitted to Hampshire Ornitholog- ical Society (HOS), which produced a few extra territories that were clearly different from those recorded by us. Results The total numbers of Firecrest territories recorded during our effort-based surveys, and during the wider roving surveys, are shown in table 1. The New Forest total peaked at 259-270 territories in 20 1 0-1 1 , continuing the increasing trend observed in recent years Fig. 2. Map of the New Forest study area (outlined with solid black line). The grey grid is based upon Ordnance Survey 1-km squares; co- ordinates of the four corner squares are indicated. Roads are shown in red: BOD = Bolderwood Ornamental Drive; ROD = Rhinefield Ornamental Drive. The survey route within the study area is indicated with pale grey lines, and generally follows marked trails and bridleways. 274 British Birds 1 05 • May 20 1 2 • 273-275 Short paper UK I 56. Typical habitat for Firecrests Regulus ignicapilla in the New Forest, Hampshire; the area shown here is Broomy Inclosure. A Firecrest was singing from a Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii here when this image was taken in late March 2012. (fig. I). These results high- light the continued impor- tance of the New Forest for the species in a context; in 2009 the New Forest accounted for almost 40% of the UK total (Holling et al. 2011), although that high propor- tion may be partly a reflec- tion of the survey effort in Hampshire. If we account for areas of potentially suitable habitat that were not covered by our survey, then it seems likely that the New Forest population is currently in the order of 300-400 territories. The number of terri- tories recorded during the effort-based survey increased markedly bet- ween 2009 and 2010, before stabilising in 2011 (table 1). The roving survey showed a similar pattern, although these data are not corrected for effort. This overall increase is surprising, given that it occurred during a period of three successive (and anom- alously) cold winters in southern England 2008/09- 2010/1 1 (see www.metoffice. gov.uk/climate/uk/anomalygraphs). A more detailed paper, investigating the spatial and temporal distribution of both Firecrests and Goldcrests Regulus regulus in the New Forest (particularly in response to these hard winters) is currently in preparation. One of the aims of this study was to produce a baseline figure with which future surveys could be compared. We intend to repeat the effort-based survey on a regular basis (e.g. every live years) to monitor future changes in the Firecrest population in this key area. Finally, it is interesting to reflect that the first breeding record was reported by MCA in BB back in 1966 (Adams 1966), so we are delighted that, almost half a century later, the journal, our co-author and the Firecrests are all still going strong! References Adams, M. C. 1 966. Firecrests breeding in Hampshire. Brit. Birds 59: 240-246. Eyre, J. A. 2010. Firecrests in Hampshire 1962-2008. Hampshire Bird Report 2009. HOS, Winchester. Holling, M„ & the Flare Breeding Birds Panel. 20 1 0a. Rare breeding birds in the UK in 2007. Brit Birds 103:2-52. — 20 1 0b. Rare breeding birds in the UK in 2008. Brit Birds 103:482-538. — 2011. Rare breeding birds in the UK in 2009. Brit Birds 104:476-537. Russell B. Wynn, Marcus Ward and Michael C. Adams, do National Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SOM 3ZH; e-mail: rbwl@noc.ac.uk British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 273-275 275 Marcus Ward Letters Bitterns and Bittern conservation in the UK The excellent review of Eurasian Bitterns Botaurus stellaris and Bittern conservation in the UK by Brown et al. (2012) omits an important step in the development of thinking about the breeding ecology of this species and our knowledge about the status and management of reedbeds. In 1979 and 1980, the RSPB carried out the first compre- hensive survey of reedbeds and their avifauna in England and Wales, with the specific intention of trying to improve our under- standing of the requirements of the (then) five rarest birds associated with reeds - Bittern, Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus , Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus , Savi’s Warbler Luscinia luscinioides and Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti (Bibby & Lunn, 1982). Led by Colin Bibby and steered by James Cadbury, the survey collected information on all reedbed sites of more than 2 ha throughout England and Wales, while detailed habitat surveys were carried out by Jeff Lunn on all but 25 of the 109 largest reedbeds discovered, using ground survey supplemented by aerial photo interpretation. At the time this was a novel technique, invaluable at the site scale in gleaning struc- tural information on what are difficult habi- tats to survey (as the view from the edge of a Phragmites bed shows). The collation of pub- lished records, opinions and local intelligence of many site managers and local birders, together with original survey data collected, habitat preferences of the five target species, as well as a wealth of data about the use of reedbeds by other birds and other fauna, and detailed habitat and botanical data. The relationship between breeding Bit- terns and large, wet reedbeds was clearly established, and the concept of the 20-ha reedbed was proposed as a minimum site size for supporting four or more of the rare breeders. However, the study also identified that smaller reedbeds could still support one or more of the target species, including Bit- terns, if some of the basic conditions were present. This is particularly important given that small reedbeds are likely to play a part in the overall support of populations at a land- scape scale, in addition to their value as sites for wintering Bitterns (e.g. Smith 2009). The study also provided useful insights into the requirements of other reedbed users and, in addition to Colin Bibby’s own major research contributions to the ecology of birds and reedbeds, is also still likely to be relevant and useful for the Bringing Reedbeds to Life project. References Bibby, C. J„ & Lunn, J. 1 982. Conservation of reed beds and their avifauna in England and Wales. Biol. Cons. 23: 167-186. Brown, A., Gilbert, G., & Wotton, 5. 20 1 2. Bitterns and Bittern conservation in the UK. Brit. Birds 1 05: 58-87. Smith, R 2009. Spring migration of Eurasian Bitterns. Brit Birds 1 02: 5 1 0-5 1 I . led to insightful conclusions about the Jeff Lunn, Natural England, 25 Queen Street, Leeds LSI 2UN Editorial comment Andy Brown has commented: ‘Jeff is quite right to remind us of this work. It marked the beginning of the modern era of research into the status and ecology of reedbeds and of the birdlife they support and its omission from our review was an unfortunate oversight.’ Hearing tests for bird survey workers In the March issue of BB, my eyes were drawn immediately to Richard Porter’s letter and Andy Musgrove’s response on this subject. I have used an internet-based test (see www.noiseaddicts. com/2009/03/ can-you-hear-this-hearing-test) to ‘rate’ my hearing - which, like Richard’s, has deteriorated recently to the extent that I now wonder how much I’m missing! A couple of years ago I became conscious that I could 276 © British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 276-277 Letters hear cicadas through one ear but not the other. A visit to my GP and then a specialist concluded that, as far as they were concerned, my hearing was fine... but of course their tests were concerned only with my being able to hear what humans were saying, not other species. According to the online test, I can hear up to 10 kHz in my right ear - so locating high- pitched calls is a problem for me, even if I can hear them! 1 can’t hear 12 kHz in either ear. (1 do, therefore, have a reasonable excuse for selective deafness when my wife complains 1 haven’t taken any notice of her!) Can I suggest a couple of ideas? BBS volunteers could be asked to give their age with their annual returns, or at least this information gathered as a one-off survey. Volunteers could also be asked to check their hearing (using the link above, or similar online test) and the data from these tests could then be analysed, together with age data, to look for any effects on numbers of birds of species with high-pitched calls they detected in the most recent year’s dataset. It would also be possible to look for any reductions in numbers of those species reported by surveyors who have contributed to BBS over a period of time. It may then prove possible, and maybe necessary, to apply correction factors to BBS indices. I think that this is just as pertinent as the analysis undertaken to test for effects of transect familiarity. Dave Smallshire (aged 60 and starting to feel it), 8 Twindle Beer, Chudleigh, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ13 OJP; e-mail davesmalls@btinternet.com l have been profoundly deaf for many years, something caused initially by noise exposure and now exacerbated by ageing. When I was in Uganda a few years ago, our South African guide suggested I should try a gadget called the SongFinder (www.nselec.com). This works by shifting the frequency of sound by a half, a quarter or a third, thereby bringing most bird songs and calls within the threshold of my remaining hearing. The birds, of course, sound different and you have to start learning them all over again, though many are easily identifiable by their rhythm alone, such as Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita or Grasshopper Warbler Locustella naevia. When I first started to use the SongFinder, I was amazed to be surrounded by (unidentifiable) bird song after years of almost totally silent walks. It has transformed my birding, though it is still a challenge to identify some of the sounds such as the enormous variety of Great Parus major and Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus calls. I can now identify most of the common birds by song, though, because I am totally deaf in one ear, I cannot localise them; but if I had hearing in both ears, I would be able to localise the sounds with SongFinder because the microphones are located on each headphone. Robin Cox, Linden House, Long Lane, Fowlmere, Royston, Cambridgeshire SG8 7TG; e-mail erithacus@uwclub.net I was interested to read the correspondence on this subject in BB. It did not, however, mention the fact that women normally retain their high-register hearing much longer than men. If the number of women doing BBS and other survey work is increasing (is there any evidence?), this could cancel out the bias of the elderly male surveyors who are missing out on Goldcrests Regulus regulus. Rowena Quantrill, 36 Newtown, Bradford on Avon BA15 INF; e-mail rowena.quantrill@btinternet.com Editorial comment Richard Porter has observed that: ‘It is clear from these replies and talking to people who have read my letter that there is a PhD thesis here on the effect of hearing ability on determining bird populations. It wouldn’t be difficult to design!’ British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 276—277 277 Norman McCanch Notes Apparent coloboma in an adult 157. Adult female Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus with apparent coloboma, Calf of Man, Isle of Man, March 1 992. On 21st March 1992, I caught an adult female Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus at the Calf of Man Bird Observatory, Isle of Man. The bird was a recapture, having previ- ously been ringed as a second calendar-year on the Calf in April 1991. Owing to the timing of the two captures, it was considered to belong to the migratory Scandinavian population (McCanch 1997). The bird exhibited an apparent coloboma Dr Norman McCanch, 23 New Street, Ash, Can e-mail nvmccanch@hotmail.com Eurasian Sparrowhawk (a hole in one of the structures of the eye, such as the iris or retina, which results from a gap in the choroidal fissure that fails to close before birth) in its right eye (plate 157), although this had not been noted at the time of its original capture. Coloboma has rarely been recorded in wild birds and I can find only one earlier reference, concerning two birds of the genus Buteo (Lord 1956). The condition has been studied in domestic poultry, where it appears to have a genetic basis and exhibits a degree of sex-linkage, occurring more frequently in females (Cardona & Plumer 2004). It is difficult to assess the impact of this abnormality on a wild predator, but given the bird’s age, healthy physical state and likely origins, the coloboma does not seem to have been a particular burden. References Cardona, C. J„ & Plumer, K. 2004. Colobomas of the iris in a flock of rosecomb bantam chickens. Avian Diseases 48(3): 686-690. Lord, F. D. 1 956. An anomalous condition in the eye of some hawks. Auk 73: 45 I -453. McCanch, N.V. 1997. Sparrowhawk passage through the Calf of Man 1 959-1993, Ringing & Migration 18: 1-13. trbury, Kent CT3 2BH; Editorial comment Prof. Ian Newton has commented that he had previously seen a similar coloboma in two female Eurasian Sparrowhawks. They were both adult birds, trapped at the nest in Dumfries & Galloway, in the 1980s. In both birds, only one eye was affected. Evidently, Sparrowhawks can survive into adult life with this condition. Peregrine Falcon breeding on saltmarsh in southern England On 3rd May 201 1, a local sea fisherman found an unfamiliar nest containing three eggs on saltmarsh in southern England. Together with a local birdwatcher and two colleagues, he revisited the site by boat on 4th May. On arrival, a male Peregrine Falcon Falco pere- grinus was seen flying around in the imme- diate vicinity. When going ashore, the observers were able to confirm that the nest was indeed that of a Peregrine. The nest, a simple scrape, was situated on a low shingle ridge, among short Sea-purslane Atriplex por- tulacoides, at the seaward edge of the saltmarsh and only a few metres from the high-water mark. Within 20-30 m of the Peregrine’s nest other species were incubating eggs, including Mallard Anas platyrhynchos, Oystercatcher Haetnatopus ostralegus and one or two pairs of Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridi- hundus. The observers returned quickly to the boat and watched from offshore, leaving the site after an adult returned to the nest. They 278 © British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 278-280 Notes informed the warden of that area of coastline and contacted Natural England. One principal concern was the possibility that the nest would be washed out by high spring tides. To avoid disturbance as much as possible (and because the observers did not possess a Schedule 1 licence), the progress of the nest was monitored from a distance, from a boat. Observations revealed that the female was normally in attendance, flying around and sometimes calling whenever an approach by the boat was made to within about 100 m of the nest. It wasn’t possible to see the nest from the boat and it was unclear how many eggs hatched. Fortunately, the nest survived the high tides and at least one young fledged successfully, seen first on 19th July. The adults and juvenile remained in the The site and names of those involved are withheld. immediate vicinity until mid August; the young bird was later observed frequently, hunting over the offshore saltings. This is perhaps a unique situation for a Peregrine’s nest in the UK. A ground-nesting Peregrine was recorded on heathland on Parley Common (then Hampshire, now in Dorset) in 1928. Similarly, nests have been found in the UK in mature heather on moor- land and on low rocky outcrops. Elsewhere, Peregrines nest commonly on hummocks of the large bogs within the boreal and subarctic forests of northeast Europe (Ratcliffe 1993). However, we can find no reference to Pere- grines nesting on saltmarshes. Reference Ratcliffe, D. 1 993. The Peregrine Falcon. Poysen London. Greenshank seeking protection during Peregrine Falcon attack At about 14.25 hrs on 4th September 2011, I was watching a Greenshank Tringa nebularia feeding at the water’s edge at the eastern end of Rutland Water, Leicestershire & Rutland, when a juvenile Peregrine Falcon Falco pere- grinus swooped down in an attempt to catch the bird. The Greenshank dodged the falcon’s pass by flitting sideways. The falcon turned immediately to make a second pass, but this time the Greenshank submerged itself in deeper water just as the falcon passed. The Peregrine banked quickly, gaining some height before diving down again towards the intended prey. This time, however, the Green- shank had flown approximately 20 m and landed within about half a metre of a nearby Mute Swan Cygnus olor, which was standing in the shallows. The swan represented the only significant cover along an otherwise open shoreline. The falcon continued to swoop and dive at the wader; each time the Greenshank would duck beneath the water as the Peregrine neared, reappearing moments after it had passed. The Greenshank remained close to the swan for the remainder of the attack. The Mute Swan clearly limited the Peregrine’s direction and angle of attack providing the Greenshank with a significant element of protec- tion. After about three minutes of sustained yet unsuccessful attacks, the falcon departed. The swan did not react to the falcon during the episode except for one occasion when it flinched as the falcon passed particularly close. The Greenshank, which had called con- stantly during the whole attack, continued to call after the falcon departed, somewhat less frantically but still bobbing up and down. After another two minutes or so the wader left the protection of the swan and flew back to the open area where it had been feeding. I discovered an illustrated account on the internet of a Greenshank sheltering in water- side vegetation (and ducking underwater) to avoid a Peregrine in Hong Kong (http://redgannet.blogspot.com/20 I 0/05/ mai-po-hong-kong-hkg.html) but can find no reference in the literature to Greenshanks or other waders seeking the protection of a swan or other similarly large bird or mammal whilst being attacked by a falcon. The inci- dent also recalled notes in BB describing a Skylark Alauda arvensis using humans as a refuge while under attack by a Merlin F. columbarius (see Brit. Birds 79: 592, 83: 427). Barrie S. Hunt, Hillview, Station Road, Castle Bytham, Lincolnshire NG33 4SB; e-mail barrie.hunt@virgin.net British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 278-280 279 Derek Moore Notes Unusual open aspect of nest of On 25th May 2011 at Chipiona in Andalucia, southern Spain, I observed and photo- graphed what I imagine is an unusual nest I 58. Exposed nest of Common Swift Apus apus, Chipiona, Andalucia, Spain. Derek Moore, Rowan Howe, Gors Road, Salem, e-mail DerekBirdBrain@aol.com Common Swift situation for a Common Swiff Apus apus. In this region, nests are typically hidden from sight under the eaves of houses (or some- times in specially prepared nestboxes), but in this case there were about a dozen nests that were built on metal beams in the roof of a large, open building (a modern concrete edifice, used for parking up to about ten vehicles) and which were completely exposed. House Martins Delichon urbicum were also nesting in the building and out- numbered the Swifts, which entered the building through the open bays in the same way as the House Martins. What particularly surprised me was the amount of material contained in each nest (plate 158). It was an amazing experience to see the birds coming and going and sitting on the nests quite unperturbed a metre or two above my head. leilo, Carmarthenshire SA19 7LY; Probable object play behaviour among Common Swifts Stephen Hewitt’s note on probable object play among gulls in Staffordshire {Brit. Birds 104: 94-95) brings to mind an occasion when we saw similar behaviour among Common Swifts Apus apus. At about 18.00 hrs on 28th April 1996, we were standing on the clifftop near the lighthouse at Cape St Vincent, Por- tugal, the most southwesterly point of Europe. The weather was bright and sunny and there was a stiff westerly wind. Large numbers of Common Swifts were feeding around the cliffs, together with smaller numbers of Pallid Swifts A. pallidus and about 20 Alpine Swifts A. melba. The cliffs at this point are quite sheer, and in excess of 100 m high. Among the swifts at clifftop level we sud- denly noticed a small white plastic bag (some 15 cm or so in length) caught in the strong updraught from the cliffs. Shortly afterwards, one of the Common Swifts caught the plastic bag in its bill and a rapid aerial chase ensued. For up to two minutes the swift flew with the bag in its bill, pursued closely by five or six Common Swifts, some of which were screaming. One Alpine Swift joined in the chase briefly but none of the Pallid Swifts took part. The bird carrying the bag flew round in circles, twisting this way and that, then rapidly dropped towards the sea, returned to clifftop level and soared high above our heads. When it was about 100 m above us, it suddenly released the bag, which was at once pursued by a melee of about a dozen Common Swifts. After a few seconds, during which the bag flew some 70 m in the strong wind, it was again caught by a Common Swift in its bill; we could not tell whether it was the same individual. The aerial chase resumed and after a further half minute the swift carrying the bag flew lower towards the sea and disappeared around the headland, still pursued by a number of swifts. No further chase was seen. We were certainly left with the impression that we had witnessed some form of game or play behaviour. Malcolm and Rosemary Wright, Ridgeway, Fen Road, Pakenham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP3I 2LT; e-mail stone-curlew@tiscali.co.uk 280 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 278-280 Reviews The Birds of Melanesia: Bismarcks, Solomons, Vanuatu and New Caledonia By Guy Dutson Helm Field Guides, 2011 Pbk, 448pp, 86 colour plates ISBN 978-0-7136-6540-6 Subbuteo code M20917 £40.00 BB Bookshop price £36.00 zmmtmmm Birds of Melanesia Increasingly, birders are visiting ever more remote areas, and some Pacific islands are as isolated as any spot on earth. Melanesia has many rarely visited and little-known islands, even though some are only a (relatively) short flight from Australia. This book describes the 501 species recorded from the Bismarck Archipelago, Solomons, Vanuatu and New Caledonia, 204 of which are endemic to the area. The last-mentioned island is home to the incomparable Kagu Rhyuo- chetos jubatus, reason enough in itself for a visit to the region. New Guinea, usually considered a part of Melanesia, is not covered. Of the usual introductory sections dealing with habitats, taxonomy, finding birds, conservation, and so on, birders will find the birdwatching sites chapter of particular interest. Dealing with 20 little-known islands, these are understandably brief, but they do convey some of the difficulties one may encounter. For example, to see Guadal- canal’s montane endemics necessitates a trek of several days. It also highlights the ever-changing nature of some sites as logging and oil-palm plan- tations change the species’ distribution and abun- dance. Anyone planning a visit would be strongly advised to research any islands thoroughly rather than relying simply on these accounts. Next come the 86 colour plates, with a brief text and island distribution on the facing pages, followed by the full text. The first irritation is a fairly minor one: the text starts with a modern classification of cassowaries followed by megapodes while the plates revert to an older sequence starting with grebes followed by ducks. Throughout the plates, non-passerines are grouped by family. The passerines are grouped by island, however, which gives rise to a second irrita- tion. Willie Wagtail Rhipidtira leucophrys is illus- trated three times, as is the introduced Common Myna Acridotheres tristis , while the ubiquitous Pacific Swallow Hirundo tahitica appears on six plates. Since these six illustrations are the same, the racial variation, mentioned in the text, is not illus- trated (for example, the white tail spots of the New Britain race). Would I be confused by a juvenile Singing Starling Aplonis cantoroides on Makira, for which only the adult is illustrated? Adult and ju- venile are illustrated separately for the Bismarcks, Solomons and Rennell. This approach results in a larger and heavier book than necessary, a consider- ation when packing and travelling in very hot and humid conditions. Additionally it would be nice to see the full variation in, say, monarchs or whistlers while preparing at home without having to consult several remote plates. The large, and confusing, genus Accipiter has all species occurring on New Britain together on a single plate within the raptors. This arrangement would have better suited the passerines. The succinct text has sections on description, similar species, voice, habits, conservation status and range. Together with the plates these should easily lead an observer to a correct identification of any bird in the region, thus satisfying the author’s primary aim. Time will tell whether his secondary aim, to stimulate the study and conservation of these species, has succeeded. This book should inspire many to go and see these wonderful birds and hopefully achieve those aims. It is only 12 years since Helm published Chris Doughty’s adequate field guide to the birds of the Solomons, Vanuatu and New Caledonia, so it is pertinent to ask if this new volume is an improve- ment. Inclusion of the Bismarck Archipelago and recent taxonomic changes are justifications in themselves, and with a fuller text and better illus- trations, the answer, despite the irritations, is a resounding yes. Guy Dutson’s book sits happily with the best modern field guides. Richard Schofield SUBBUTEO NATURAL HISTORY BOOKS The BB Bookshop, brought to you by Subbuteo Natural History Books www.wildlifebooks.com/bb, and see our list after Recent reports © British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 • 281 —284 281 Reviews Seabird Islands: ecology, invasion, and restoration Edited by Christa P. H. Mulder, Wendy B. Anderson, David R. Towns and Peter J. Bellingham Oxford University Press, 2011 Hbk, 492pp, many figures and tables ISBN 978-0-19-973569-3 Subbuteo code M21164 £50.00 BB Bookshop price £45.00 This volume was delivered to me with the remark that ‘this seems a heavy tome, good luck’. An initial thumb- through did little to dispel this view, it being ‘written collaboratively by and for ecologists and resources managers... [and] is an essential resource for academics and conservation profes- sionals alike.’ The book fulfils these aims admirably but the messages deserve a wider audi- ence and the book would appeal to many more people if the presentation was improved to make it look less like a series of multi-authored learned papers. For instance, the 89 pages of references, essential for a work of this depth, would be less off-putting if they had been grouped at the end of the book instead of dispersed at the end of each chapter. Some nicely produced pictures would help - nowadays there is no excuse for the poor standard of the black-and-white photos used here. Tui de Roy’s cover picture of Chatham Island Albatrosses Thalassarche eremita is, however, a stunner and is just the sort of thing to attract a reader. There is a tremendous quantity of fascinating information here. In essence, this is an authorita- tive review of three main topics. The first is the effect that seabirds have on islands. By trans- porting nitrogen and nutrients from the sea to the land, burrowing and tearing up vegetation to make nests, birds can profoundly change the vegetation, soil structure and invertebrate fauna. The second is the impact of introduced predators, mainly mammals but including snakes, ants and some other invertebrates, on the seabirds and various other groups of animals that ornithologists tend to overlook or ignore. The third is the restoration of seabird islands. In Britain we tend to take a very short-term view and think of restoration in terms of removing rats Rattus spp. or American Mink Mustela vison, and possibly protecting some native species from direct or secondary poisoning, and the job will be done. This rather simplistic approach may be acceptable in some situations but elsewhere in less degraded habitats removals can have unforeseen consequences. For instance, after the removal of Rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus the remaining native vegetation may be swamped by alien weeds, or predators which previously ate the Rabbits may start to eat birds. Such consequences are particularly acute on isolated oceanic islands, where the native fauna and flora may have to be laboriously reintroduced. There is also an interesting chapter on the social dimension of restoration including what sort of people volunteer for such work, how to prevent problems with local people who may take offence when told what to do by outsiders, and how to deal with those who disagree with killing anything, even when most people would see it as being for the greater good. Fledgehogs Erinaceus europaeus on the Uists and rats on Lundy come to mind. Removal of rats from Canna, Handa and Lundy and the attempts to remove Hedgehogs and American Mink from the Outer Hebrides are covered but, quite rightly, most attention is paid to studies elsewhere. The book appears to be extremely thorough with few obvious errors, although Stephen Kress, one of the pioneers in the field of attracting Puffins Fratercula arctica and other seabirds back to islands, will be mortified to see a picture of an Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea presenting a fish to a dummy tern rather than, as the caption says, an Atlantic Puffin pecking at a dummy Puffin. In summary, don’t be put off by appearances and have a read of this book even if you think that it does not deserve a permanent place on your book- shelf; you will find much of interest and impor- tance. Any doubts that you have about the feasibility of removing introduced animals will be dispelled but some new problems will be revealed. Mike Harris SUBBM0 The BB Bookshop, brought to you by Subbuteo Natural History Books www.wildlifebooks.com/bb, and see our list after Recent reports 282 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 • 281 -284 Reviews The Kittiwake By John Coulson Poyser, 2011 Hbk, 304pp, colour and black-and-white illustrations, many tables, figures ISBN 978-1-4081-0966-3 Subbuteo code M21050 £50.00 BB Bookshop price £45.00 T ft A D rovsi R ‘Kittiwauk, kittiwauk, kittiwauk...’; the soni- cally attractive call of this graceful gull has lured ornithologists and birdwatchers, and no doubt aboriginal peoples long before that, to the birds’ precipitous and often fog-enshrouded nesting cliffs. Since his initial contacts with kitti- wakes in the early 1950s and the location of a colony on the ledges of a riverside brewery in North Shields, where individual birds could be easily marked and studied in successive years, John Coulson has been lured more than most. The Kittiwake focuses on the Black-legged Kitti- wake Rissa tridactyla but includes various compar- isons with the congeneric Red-legged Kittiwake R. brevirostris. Throughout his 60-odd-year research career, and as documented in the book, Coulson has demonstrated time and again the enormous insights that can be gleaned from long-term studies of marked individuals. The text is rich in detail and heuristic value. Many insights that come to the fore include low philopatry for natal colonies, with a greater proclivity for male returns; reproductive success trade-offs with adult survival; earlier moulting by one- and two-year-olds and extended adult moulting that begins during incubation and continues for more than six months; and buffering of population declines by non-breeding individuals. While his research maintains a land-based colony orientation, Coulson often brings in discussions of winter challenges and mortality. He rightly acknowl- edges where the studies need to go, i.e. out to sea, where the birds spend most of their lives and where tracking is revealing the fantastic nature of their migrations and wintering areas (e.g. Bogdanova et al. 2011, Proc Roy. Soc. Loud. B doi: 10. 1098/ rspb.20 10.2601; Frederiksen et al. 2011, Biodiversity / Distrib. 1-13). In addition, Coulson highlights con- cerns with the overexploitation of forage fishes and their importance for kittiwakes (see also Regehr & Montevecchi 1997, MEPS 155: 149; Daunt et al. 2008, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65: 362) and wider marine food webs (H jermann et al. 2004, PNAS 101: 1 1679; Cury et al. 2011, Science 334: 1703). Appendix 3 shows that productivity varies strikingly among colonies in the northeast Atlantic. It also shows that the small riverside colony at North Shields is the most productive and consistent between years, which at times must constrain the nature of inter-colony comparisons. Yet interannual and inter-colony variation in productivity can provide useful metrics with which to gauge environ- mental change over regions, ocean basins (Hatch et al. 1993, Can. Wildl. Serv. Spec. Publ, Ottawa, 140) and, owing to the Black-legged Kittiwake’s circum- polar distribution, on a global scale. In The Kitti- wake, John Coulson has summarised most of what is known about kittiwake breeding biology, and in so doing has highlighted the need for further research in the Northwest Atlantic, the Arctic, Russia and the North Pacific, some of which is ongoing (e.g. Kotzerka et al. 2010, /. Ornithol. 151: 459). Some stunning colour images are packed in bulk in an old-fashioned way about a quarter of the way through the book, rather than being judi- ciously distributed throughout, where they would be much more complementary to the text. In overview, it is useful to contemplate the recent historical perspective that Coulson provides in his preface. John Coulson began his career at a time when the outlook for a profession as a seabird biolo- gist was indeed a rare and almost unimaginable prospect. Since then, and due in part to his influence, we have in current decades welcomed a remarkable group of marine ornithologists who have taken the stage and created larger research platforms in marine food webs, hormonal mechanisms, evolutionary genetics, biological oceanography, movement ecology and conservation. My fear is that corporate and industry-driven ocean research is pushing the pen- dulum back in the other direction of application and ‘fish on the dock’ orientations. Marine ornithology and unfettered ocean conservation will be buffeted by many major challenges in the years ahead. Through the recent and shifting his ton' of the study of seabird behaviour and ecology, The Kittiwake pro- vides an interesting and thought-provoking read and has much to inform about the pursuits of long-lived seabirds and seabird researchers. Bill Montevecchi The Kittiwake JOHN l COULSON SUBBUTEO NATURAL HISTORY BOOKS The 88 Bookshop, brought to you by Subbuteo Natural History Books www.wildlifebooks.com/bb. and see our list after Recent reports British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 281-284 283 Reviews Wildlife Crime: the making of an Investigations Officer By Dave Dick Whittles Publishing Ltd, 2012 Pbk, 196pp, many photographs (colour and black and white) ISBN 978-184995-036-7 Subbuteo code M21302 £18.99 BB Bookshop price £17.00 As with previous volumes in this varied and refreshing series, this is an autobio- graphical account, in this case describing the author’s 30 years of involvement in bird conserva- tion in Scotland. It focuses primarily on his efforts to tackle wildlife crime through his work at the RSPB, though he does also get involved in other projects from time to time, including a very inter- esting sabbatical spent working on Indian vultures. The book spans a period of over 40 years from Dave’s childhood interest in the outdoors and then his enthusiasm at landing such an interesting and enjoyable new job, through to the end of his career and his disenchantment at not being able to make more of a difference. The bulk of the book is taken up with stories of long days in the field, often in challenging situa- tions, locating the evidence of wildlife crime and then starting on the long and sometimes frus- trating road to try to bring those responsible to justice. All too often the initial evidence is empty nests where there should have been clutches of eggs or healthy broods of chicks, or the more visu- ally shocking limp raptor carcase beside a bait laced with poison. It is rather draining and dispir- iting just reading through some of these accounts and so it is entirely understandable that living through them, week after week, month after month, inevitably started to take its toll. The book is not entirely without its lighter moments and of course there are some major success stories to report on, together with the hope that the accompanying publicity might have a deterrent effect and lead to a reduction in wildlife crime. The author places great importance on ensuring that illegal persecution is well publicised and clearly became highly skilled in using the media to help achieve this. One exchange in particular stood out for me. It involved a discussion between Dave and the then Convenor of the Scottish Landowners’ Federation during a radio debate in the late 1980s. Dave is asked: ‘Have you ever seen a crow peck the eyes out of a live lamb?’ His reply is by way of another question: ‘Have you ever talked to a little girl whose dog took 16 hours to die from strychnine poisoning?’ This book is both uplifting and, particularly towards the end, somewhat depressing. It high- lights the fact that there are people out there who care greatly about the countryside and its wildlife, and are prepared to devote the greater part of their lives and make huge sacrifices along the way to help protect it. But it is ultimately depressing in that, for certain categories of wildlife crime, very little has changed in the last few decades. That is not to say that there has been no progress. There has been much success in tackling problems with egg-collecting and the theft of young birds of prey for use in falconry, spurred on by changing public attitudes and the passing of tougher and more effective legislation. But when it comes to ‘estate- based’ persecution of raptors to protect gamebirds for shooting, Dave Dick believes that little progress has been made. He highlights the fact that dead birds continue to be recovered at an alarming rate, albeit representing just the proverbial tip of the iceberg when set against the true number of deaths from persecution. And he paints an unpleasant, at times shocking, picture of wealthy landowners using their considerable resources and influence to avoid being held to account, leaving them free to continue with practices that should surely by now have been confined to the past. Ian Carter WILDLIFE | CRIMEI Dave Dick J m SUBBUTEO NATURAL HISTORY BOOKS The BB Bookshop, brought to you by Subbuteo Natural History Books www.wildlifebooks.com/bb, and see our list after Recent reports 284 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 281-284 News and comment Compiled by Adrian Pitches Opinions expressed in this feature are not necessarily those of British Birds Spoon-billed Sandpiper team return to Russia After last year’s initial expedition to northeast Russia, the team of conservationists dedicated to saving the Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygnieus from extinction is returning to Chukotka for Phase Two. Last year, lead partners WWT, Birds Russia and the RSPB managed to mount an expedition costing £350,000 within three months, despite immense logistical and bureaucratic challenges. From a standing start in February 201 1, a team of scientists was assembled and one tonne of equip- ment was acquired and airlifted to Russia’s Pacific coast by mid May. Twenty eggs were harvested from six Spoon-billed Sandpiper nests on the Siberian tundra and these were incubated to produce 17 young birds. The chicks were destined for a conservation breeding centre at Slimbridge in Gloucestershire via rearing pens in the port of Anadyr (where one chick died) and quarantine at Moscow Zoo (where a further three chicks died). Thirteen juveniles finally arrived at Slimbridge on 15th December after a 90-day stay in Moscow (extended from 30 days because of an outbreak of psittacosis in another area of the zoo) and a further 30-day quarantine at Fleathrow. The lighting and temperature in the specially built ‘conservation breeding facility’ mimic condi- tions on the wintering grounds in Southeast Asia, with ‘day’ and ‘night’ of equal duration and an air temperature of 25°C. The birds have adapted well to their new home, although one more has died. But 1 2 survivors from 20 eggs is vastly superior to sur- vival rates in the wild where the multiple pressures of predation on the nesting grounds, land reclama- tion at migration stopover sites and hunting on the wintering grounds has driven the sandpiper to the brink of extinction. The entire world population may now number as few as 200 birds. Spoon-billed Sandpipers do not breed until their second summer, so the conservation breeding aspect of the programme at Slimbridge won’t have any results until 2013. Meanwhile, another expedi- tion is heading out to Chukotka this month. Funding has been secured from the UK Govern- ment’s Darwin Initiative and the Save Our Species Fund for the next three years. This year, the team in Russia will have a twin-track approach: col- lecting another 20 eggs to incubate for onward transfer of the hatched chicks to the breeding centre at Slimbridge and collecting more eggs for hatching and rearing locally. The latter strategy, called ‘head starting’, will lead to the release of the reared juveniles in Siberia to start their south- bound migration. Theoretically this should dra- matically boost productivity in 2012. Meanwhile, tackling the hunting pressure on wintering Spoonies in Myanmar and Bangladesh has also had some success. Hunting mitigation measures, such as buying fishing nets for the sub- sistence hunters trapping shorebirds on their win- tering grounds, have seen 25 hunters in Bangladesh sign agreements to cease hunting. And one other piece of good news: a record count of 103 Spoonies was logged at Rudong on the Yellow Sea coast of China in October 2011 (but among those 103 only one juvenile was noted, underlining just how low the breeding success of this species has become). The year 2012 looks set to be a critical one in Spoon-billed Sandpiper conservation. We wish the SBS Taskforce the best of luck. There’s much more information and many photos in the Spoon-hilled Sandpiper Taskforce News Bulletin 7 www.arccona. com/download/Sbs_newsletter_Bull_7.pdf Ducklings signal hope for world’s rarest bird Meanwhile, another conservation breeding project by the WWT has yielded results: the Madagascar Pochard Aythya innotata - arguably the world’s rarest bird - has bred successfully in captivity, increasing hope that it can be saved from extinction. Eighteen precious ducklings are being reared at a new, purpose-built centre in Antsohihy, Mada- gascar. The arrival of the ducklings is a key mile- stone in the species’ conservation, including an emergency expedition two years ago to take eggs into captivity. It is the ducks from those eggs that have now bred for the first time. The breeding pro- gramme is part of a joint project to save the bird by Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, the WWT, the Peregrine Fund, Asity Madagascar and the Government of Madagascar. Dr Glyn Young, a conservation biologist with © British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 285-289 285 News and comment I 59. Madagascar Pochard Aythya innotata. Durrell, has spent much of his life studying the Madagascar Pochard. He said: ‘The ducklings rep- resent an incredible step forward in the fight to save the pochard from extinction. Seven years ago, people thought this bird was already extinct and yet the discovery of one small population and now the arrival of these ducklings has led to real hope that the birds can one day flourish again.’ The Madagascar Pochard was believed to be extinct until its rediscovery in 2006 on a single small lake, Lake Matsaborimena (or Red Lake), in northern Madagascar. Numbering just 22 birds, the ducks remain extremely vulnerable to extinc- tion from a single event such as pollution or a disease outbreak. In order to restore the species to suitable wet- lands within its former range across the high plateau region of Mada- gascar, scientists are studying the remaining wild population to learn more about the reasons behind the species’ decline and to deter- mine the right condi- tions for releasing birds. Particularly worrying is that the wild birds appear to have very low breeding success. WWT’s Peter Crans- wick said: ‘Although Lake Matsaborimena is the last hiding place for the ducks, it is far from ideal as a habitat. Our initial investigations suggest there is too little food and this may be leading to the low survival of the ducklings; in effect, they are starving to death. We have identi- fied some lakes where the physical conditions are potentially right for the pochard, but success will depend on support of the local community. Fishing is thought to be one factor that led to the pochard’s decline but many rural Malagasy people earn their livelihood from fishing. The challenge is to find a solution that helps both the people and the birds.’ In addition to the breeding centre where the ducklings are being reared, a major facility will be developed this year where young birds will be acclimatised prior to release into the wild. Malagasy conservationists are learning the skills needed to breed and rear pochards. Lakeland Canada Goose cull halted Plans for a cull of 200 Canada Geese Branta canadensis on Windermere in Cumbria (Brit. Birds 105: 229) have been halted after an outcry by animal welfare campaigners - and a detailed critique by local ornithologists. The value of monthly Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) counts was underlined by Clive Hartley and his colleagues, who pointed out that ‘the problem’ is one of migratory feral geese from North Yorkshire that move to Windermere to moult for a period of six weeks in June and July. The proposed ‘solution’ was to take out half of the resident population of Canadas by shooting birds on the nest and to repeat that in following years if the action had no noticeable effect on total numbers present. As Clive points out: ‘Not only is this illogical, it is also inhumane.’ And he adds: ‘In the light of this and the strength of opposition to the cull, the Geese Management Group has agreed to a 12-month moratorium, which hopefully will allow more realistic proposals to be drawn up which address measurable concerns and take account of both landowner and animal welfare interests.’ The WeBS count data are crucial to under- standing the ‘problem’ of Canada Geese on Win- dermere. The data confirm that the core resident population amounts to no more than 400 birds. Up to 260 adults are known to nest on the lake each year, which leaves only a relatively small non- breeding population, including immatures. The figures also suggest that the resident population is not expanding and may even have contracted over the period in question. There are a range of 286 British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 285-289 News and comment humane control methods that could be used, including the continuation of the current egg- oiling programme, and so there is little justifica- tion for culling 200 nesting birds. In fact, as Clive Hartley points out, culling the nesting birds will merely free up nest-sites for non-breeding birds waiting in the wings and may well persuade some of the migratory element to stay, thereby exacer- bating current problems. Earliest-ever Loch Garten Osprey egg - Wildlife webcam watchers have been glued to their computer screens watching a family drama unfold in the treetops at RSPB Scotland’s Loch Garten reserve. Just a few short weeks since EJ, a female Osprey Pandion haliaetus, and her partner Odin returned to Speyside, the pair’s first egg was laid on 9th April, the earliest since monitoring began in 1959. However, in a twist more familiar to viewers of the Jeremy Kyle Show than devoted Osprey watchers, the paternity of the egg is in but who’s the daddy? question. EJ’s companion at the Garten nest had initially been another male, Blue XD, but he was ousted by Odin. It seems that EJ subsequently sneaked off to Blue XD at his nest for a 24-hour tryst after pairing up with Odin. Timing suggests that Blue XD may be the father, rather than Odin - who in turn seems unaware of the paternity issue and has settled down to incubation duties and fishing for EJ while she broods the clutch... RSPB disappointed’ at Shetland windfarm decision The RSPB has condemned the Scottish Govern- ment’s decision to approve the construction of 103 wind turbines by Viking Energy on Shetland Mainland. In a statement, RSPB Scotland said: ‘Whilst the developer has made welcome and con- siderable effort to reduce the potential impact of the initial pro- posal, reducing the number of tur- bines from an initial proposal of 200 to 103, RSPB Scotland believes the scale of the development should have been reduced still further to reduce the risk of harm to rare species including Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus and Red- throated Diver Gavia stellata, for which Shetland is the UK strong- hold. The development will also have major adverse impacts on important peatland habitats. This damage could have been min- imised if the overall scale of the development had been reduced further.’ Aedan Smith, Head of Planning and Development at RSPB Scot- land, said: ‘The development will make a welcome contribution to meeting our ambitious renewables targets in Scotland, and will help to meet the challenge of climate change. However... it is disap- pointing that they have decided to risk the Shetland environment, as well as birds like Whimbrel, with such a large-scale proposal in their heartland.’ The Viking Energy development site is in the core range of breeding Merlins Falco columbarius and Red-throated Divers and is particularly important for nesting Whimbrels, of which 160. Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus in Shetland. British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 285-289 287 Dickie DuckettIFLPA News and comment Shetland holds more than 90% of the UK popula- tion. A statement on behalf of Shetland Bird Club said: ‘We are deeply concerned about the scale of this project and its potential impact on the wildlife of Shetland. As well as the Schedule 1 bird species, there are densities of more common species in these moorland hills that would be the envy of most English and Welsh counties. We fear that deliberate and extensive measures will be taken during the construction phase to discourage such species establishing territories near planned works, and thus avoid any disturbance to “breeding” birds. In addition, the much touted “habitat restoration” plan is completely untried and untested on this scale. If the windfarm does go ahead, it is crucial that this is properly funded, properly carried out and properly monitored. In terms of wider environmental issues, since there has never been a proper, independent carbon audit of the project, it remains uncertain how much the proposed windfarm will help tackle climate change, if at all. Moreover, the local authority is likely to be the planning authority for any future applications for smaller schemes with smaller tur- bines elsewhere, and with this precedent set, it is difficult to see how they would be able to justify refusal. A number of such potential schemes have already had the bird survey work done - where will it stop?’ Starlings continue to tumble in Big Garden Birdwatch Almost 600,000 people took part in this year’s RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch, counting over nine million birds. The counts, during the last weekend in January, revealed that Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris numbers are at an all-time low since the survey began more than 30 years ago. Starlings have been on a downward trend for the past 25 years and have declined by almost 80%. In the first survey, in 1979, the average number of Starlings seen in UK gardens was 15. This year, the figures were at their lowest ever with an average of three Starlings seen per garden. Although still at number two on the results board, Starlings were seen in less than half the UK’s gardens. The decline in Starling numbers is mirrored across much of northern Europe and the species is Red-listed as a bird of high conservation concern. The House Sparrow Passer domesticus retained top spot in the BGB league table, up slightly on last year at an average of 4.5 birds per garden, but down by 55% on the 1979 figure of 10 sparrows per garden. It wasn’t all bad news in this year’s results, though. The Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, which has been steadily increasing in UK gardens and first reached the top ten in 2008, is up one place at number seven this year. The Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus has just overtaken Blackbird Turdus merula to take 3rd place, with an overall increase of 21% since the first survey in 1979. Blackbird and Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus numbers have both fallen since last year. Black- birds were down by 22% and Long-tailed Tits by 33%. This is probably due to milder weather in 2012 (compared with last year’s count in the Big Chill of 2010/11), which enabled them to find food out in the wider countryside. In all, 92,475 people counted over nine million birds in this year’s event, and over 70 species were recorded in 285,440 gardens across the UK. The survey also revealed some key regional differences. The Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs was only sixth highest on the board in England, while in Scotland it made it to number two with an average of 4.7 per garden. The table shows the average number of the 2012 top ten species in the UK, and compares this with the results from the 2011 and 1979 surveys. 1979 2011 2012 % change 79-12 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 10.0 4.2 4.5 -55 Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris 15.0 3.9 3.1 -79 Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus 2.4 3.2 3.0 21 Blackbird Turdus merula 4.0 3.3 2.6 -36 Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs 3.0 2.4 2.0 -32 Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus 0.2 1.9 1.9 841 Great Tit Parus major 0.9 1.6 1.6 74 Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis n/a 1.5 1.6 n/a Robin Erithacus rubecula 2.0 1.5 1.4 -32 Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto 0.3 1.3 1.3 370 For extended versions of many of the stories featured here, and much more, visit our website www.britishbirds.co.uk 288 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 285-289 News and comment By George! There’s no ‘gold plating’ of wildlife legislation The RSPB has welcomed the findings of Defra’s review of the Habitats Regulations as a victory for fact over political rhetoric. The Directives and reg- ulations are the most important mechanisms for protecting our internationally important wildlife sites. The Government’s review, published on 22nd March, restates its support for the Birds and Habi- tats Directives, and demonstrates that these vital environmental safeguards do not act as a brake on economic development. Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Conservation Director, said: ‘We are pleased that the regulations have stood up to scrutiny, just as we always knew they would. No evidence was found to back up the suggestion made by the Chancellor, George Osborne, in his Autumn Budget Statement that the regulations are “a ridiculous cost on British busi- ness”. The Government’s own review has shown that these comments were misleading rhetoric, with no factual basis.’ The review confirms that the regulations only contributed to delays in English planning deci- sions when there were gaps in data, or when important areas for wildlife, especially at sea, were not protected. Martin Harper continued: ‘We welcome their acknowledgment that these information gaps are a problem. But the Government must recognise that tackling this issue will require investment in surveys, and we remain concerned that the review does not outline any plans to do this.’ The RSPB also gave a cautious welcome to the proposed creation of a Major Infrastructure and Environment Unit. The purpose of this Unit is to prevent delays to nationally important projects, by helping developers to integrate these Directives into their planning in a positive way. Martin Harper again: ‘If used properly, this Unit could certainly benefit both developers and the environment, but we are concerned that it may further undermine Natural England’s ability to act as an objective voice for nature. We will be watching the evolution of this new body carefully, and will be seeking clarification of its relationship with existing Government agen- cies. We still think there is a fundamental need for independent advice from statutory bodies.’ Announcements British Ornithologists’ Club - June meeting What Colour is that Bird? How to recognise and name colour aberrations in birds. This highly illus- trated talk will be given by Hein van Grouw, who has worked for the last 15 years as a Bird Curator, first in the Natural History Museum in Leiden and for the last three years in the Natural History Museum, Tring. The meeting is on 12th June 2012 at 6.00 pm, at Tower Rooms, Sherfield Building, Imperial College, South Kensington, London. Entry is free and non-members are welcome but please notify Helen Baker (helen.baker60@ tiscali.co.uk) by 11th June if you plan to attend. More details on the BOC website www.boc- online.org Neotropical Bird Club - spring meeting This will be held in Norfolk at Cley Village Hall on 27th May 2012. The meeting will include talks by Guy Kirwan on ‘Cuban birds: new insights into a special West Indian avifauna’, Raymond Jeffers on ‘Exploring the “Deep South” of Ecuador’, Alex Lees on ‘200 years of ornithological exploration in the eastern Amazon’, a quiz, and the 2012 AGM. Doors open at 10.30 am, talks start at 11.30 am, and entrance is free to all. For further details see the NBC website www.neotropicalbirdclub.org First EOU conference in the UK The European Ornithologists’ Union (EOU) will hold its ninth Conference at the University of East Anglia in Norwich on 28th— 3 1 st August 2013. Details are available through the EOU2013 confer- ence website at www.norwich.eounion.org This is the first time that the UK will host the EOU conference and the Local Organising Committee comprises representatives from key British ornitho- logical organisations: BTO, BOU, EGI, RSPB and the University of East Anglia. Twitter users - search for #EOU2013 for news and updates. New county bird recorder Caithness Sinclair Manson, tel. 01847 892379; e-mail sinclairmanson@btinternet.com British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 285-289 289 Paul & Andrea Kelly Recent reports Compiled by Barry Nightingale and Harry Hussey This summary of unchecked reports covers early March to early April 2012. Headlines The top rarity prizes during this period were shared almost evenly across the Irish Sea divide, with Falcated Duck, Baillon’s Crake and Red-flanked Bluetail in Ireland and Thayer’s Gull, Eurasian Scops Owl and another Red-flanked Bluetail in Britain. And common to both sides of the Irish Sea were single Black-winged Stilts (in Co. Wexford and Avon), a small influx of Night Herons into the southwest and a brace of Blue- winged Teals. The list of long-staying transatlantic vagrants continues to impress. Ross’s Goose Anser rossii Cley (Norfolk), 12th March; Stobwood (Clyde), 15th March, then various nearby areas to 25th March; Rattray Head (North-east Scotland), 1 st— 4th April; Old Sandsfield, 6th April and Rockliffe Marsh (both Cumbria), 9th April. Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii Long-stayers on Islay, to 10th April, Tiree (both Argyll), to 28th March, and Torr Resr (Somerset), to 13th March, then Chew Valley Lake (Avon), 25th-28th March; also Slimbridge (Gloucestershire), 25th March to 10th April. Red- breasted Goose Branta rupcollis Long-stayers Loaningfoot/Southerness Point (Dumfries & Galloway), to 10th April, also near Penrith (Cumbria), 21st March; Old Hall Marshes (Essex), to 27th March; Inchmery (Hampshire), to 13th March; new arrival Upper Rhynd (Perth & Kinross), 31st March. American Wigeon Anas americana Long-stayers in Devon to 19th March, Dumfries & Galloway on 5th April, Co. Galway to 25th March, Orkney to 24th March and Yorkshire to 28th March; Portmore Lough (Co. Antrim), 7th-9th April. Falcated Duck Anas falcata Male of unknown origin, Cross Lough, Belmullet (Co. Mayo), 2nd-10th April. Black Duck Anas rubripes Long- stayer, Sruhill Lough, Achill (Co. Mayo), to at least 8th April. Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Pat Reddan’s Lake (Co. Tipperary), 1 2th— 14th March; Walmsley Sanctuary/ Amble Marshes (Cornwall), 18th March to 9th April; Skerries (Co. Dublin), 28th-30th March; South Gilmourton (Clyde), 1 st— 1 0th April. Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca Linford (Buckinghamshire), 1 1 th— 1 2th March; Strump- shaw Fen (Norfolk), 3rd April; Lisvane Resr (East Glamorgan), 6th April. Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Long-stayers at Chew Valley Lake to 23rd March, Cosmeston Lakes, to 10th April (presumably same Cardiff Bay, also East Glamorgan, 22nd March), Slimbridge to 4th April and St John’s Loch (Highland), 16th— 29th March. King Eider Somateria spectabilis Kintradwell (Highland), 24th March; Ythan Estuary (North-east Scotland), 27th March to 10th April. Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Long-stayers in Caernar- fonshire to 5th April, Co. Cork to 8th April, Cornwall to 9th April, Denbighshire, up to five at Colwyn Bay/Llandulas to 5th April, and Fife to 31st March; also Rerwick Head (Orkney), 27th March. White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii At sea, 8 km north of Buckie (Moray & 161. Adult Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla. Great Saltee, Co. Wexford, March 20 1 2. 290 © British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 290-292 Recent reports Nairn), 13th March (with at least 100 Great Northern Divers G. immer ); Portsoy (North-east Scotland), 17th- 19th March and 5th— 9th April; Lewis (Outer Hebrides), 22nd March, three on 23rd-26th March, two on 9th— 10th April. Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Singles at Kenidjack, 1 2 1 h— 14th and 19th March to 2nd April, Polgigga 1 4th— 20t h March, St Ives, 1 9th— 25th March and 2nd-3rd April, and Hayle Estuary 29th March (all Cornwall); four at Woolacombe, 12th March, at least three to 14th, two to 20th March, presumably one of same at Yelland, 25th March and Wrafton, 26th March (all Devon); elsewhere, Tralee (Co. Kerry), 12th March; Skibbereen (Co. Cork), 30th March to 8th April; Gateshead (Co. Durham), 1st April. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Long-stayer at Hillsborough Lake (Co. Down), 26th March; also Kingston Maurward (Dorset), 1 2th— 23rd March; Brading Marsh (Isle of Wight), 15th March; Lydney (Gloucestershire), 1 8th— 29th March and 5th April; Theale CP (Berkshire), 20th March to 4th April; Castle Espie (Co. Down), 23rd-25th March; Bowling Green Marsh, 27th March, presumably same Powderham (both Devon), 1st April; Lurgangreen (Co. Louth), 28t h— 29th March; Walmsley Sanctuary, 6th April; Chigborough Lakes (Essex), 8th April; Bannow Bay (Co. Wexford), two, 9th April; Lytchett Bay (Dorset), 10th April. Great White Egret Ardea alba Records from Bedfordshire, Breconshire, Cambridgeshire, Carmarthenshire, Cheshire & Wirral, Cumbria, Essex, Gloucestershire, Gower, Greater London, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Kent, Lancashire & N Merseyside, Co. Louth, Northamptonshire, North- umberland, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Surrey, Co. Wexford and Yorkshire. Purple Heron Ardea purpurea St David’s (Pem- brokeshire), 27th March; Bunmahon (Co. Water- ford), 27th March to 1st April; Budleigh Salterton (Devon), 3rd- 10th April. Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus Long-stayers in Cambridgeshire (two), Cleveland, Co. Cork, Dorset (two), Essex, Kent (two), Lancashire & N Merseyside, Norfolk (four), Pembrokeshire (three) and Suffolk. Other records from Anglesey, Caernarfonshire, Co. Galway, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Lincolnshire, Outer Hebrides and Surrey. Black Kite Milvus migrans Wallington (Greater London), 30th March; Virkie (Shetland), 7th April. White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Chadwell St Mary (Essex), 30th March. Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus Long-stayer, Lough Corrib (Co. Galway), to at least 2nd April; Slimbridge, 3rd April. Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla Great Saltee (Co. Wexford), 24th March. Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus Tacumshin (Co. Wexford), 30th March to 10th April; Chew Valley Lake, 10th April. Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-stayers at Kidwelly Quay (Carmarthenshire) to 4th April, Wigtown (Dumfries & Galloway) to 8th April, Bannow Bay to 16th March, and the Cull (Co. Wexford), two until at least 6th April; also Greylake, 17th— 18th March, then Mere Heath (both Somerset), 19th, with two there 20th March to 10th April. Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Long-stayers at Chew Valley Lake, to 10th April, and Christchurch Harbour/Stanpit Marsh (Dorset), to 31st March. Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Loch of Strathbeg (North-east Scotland), long-stayer to 10th April. Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Kingsmill Lake (Cornwall), long-stayer to 31st March. Laughing Gull Larus atricilla Dalton-in-Furness (Cumbria), 1 7th— 20th March. Thayer’s Gull Larus I 62. Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus, Chew Valley Lake, Avon, April 20 1 2. British Birds 1 05 • May 2012 * 290-292 291 Gary Thoburn Bob Thompson Graham Catley Recent reports 163. Fi rst-winter Thayer’s Gull Larus (glaucoides) thayeri, Elsham, Lincolnshire, April 2012. (glaucoides) thayeri Elsham (Lincolnshire), 4th-10th April. Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus Philadelphia Long-stayers at Ballygally (Co. Antrim) to at least 25th March and Cardiff Bay to 31st March; also Newnham (Gloucestershire), 30th March to 3rd April. Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Hermitage (Co. Louth), 5th April. Eurasian Scops Owl Otus scops St Mary’s (Scilly), 25th-26th March. Alpine Swift Apus melba Lizard (Cornwall), 18th March; Lewis (Outer Hebrides), 24th-25th March; Fanore (Co. Clare), 24th March; Havant (Hampshire), 29th March; Lundy (Devon), 29th March. Woodchat Shrike Lanius senator Ardmore (Co. Waterford), 24th March. House Crow Corvus splendens Cobh (Co. Cork), long-stayer through- out. Penduline Tit Remiz pendulinus Minsmere (Suffolk), two, 26th March, one 6th April; Leighton Moss (Lancashire & N Merseyside), 31st March and 7th April. Red- rumped Swallow Cecropis daurica Castlehill (High- land), 9th April. Hume’s Warbler Phyllo- scopus humei Wyke Regis (Dorset), long-stayer to 8th April. Subalpine Warbler Sylvia cantillans Greenwich (Greater London), 1st April. Paddyfield Warbler Acrocephalus agricola Pagham Harbour (Sussex), long-stayer to 18th March. Rose- coloured Starling Pastor roseus Long-stayers in Anglesey to 13th March and again 7th April, Ayrshire, to 24th March and Hampshire, to 10th April. Red-flanked Bluetail Tarsiger cyanurus Galley Head (Co. Cork), 26th March; Lewis, 31st March. Siberian Stonechat Saxicola maurus Long-stayer, South Slob (Co. Wexford) to 20th March. Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis Calshot (Hampshire), long-stayer to 23rd March. Arctic Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni Titchwell (Norfolk), long- stayer to 17th March. Rustic Bunting Emberiza rustica Heysham (Lancashire & N Merseyside), 14th March. Little Bunting Emberiza pusilla South Milton Ley (Devon), 19th March to 8th April. 164. First-winter male Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas, Rhiwderin, Gwent, March 20 1 2. Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis St Mary’s, long-stayer to 10th April. Common Yellow- throat Geothlypis trichas Rhiwderin (Gwent), long- stayer to 31st March. 292 British Birds 105 • May 2012 • 290-292 ORNITHOLOGY GUL1.S GULLS: A Guide to Identification Grant, PJ M02252 hbk £50.00 WARBLERS Of EUROPE. WARBLERS OF EUROPE, ASIA AND NORTH AFRICA Baker, Kevin M15786 hbk £50.00 ICELANDIC BIRD GUIDE Hilmarsson, Johann OH M17745 hbk £27.95 THE MEINERTZHAGEN H MYSTERY The Life and Legend ■TU'iffinirlli^r n °f a Colossal Fraud M20073 hbk £23.00 BT & A D Poyser FACING Donald, Paul/Collar, Nigel/ Marsden, Stuart/Pain, Debbie M20751 hbk £45.00 The Breeding Birds of North-East Scoctind THE BREEDING BIRDS OF NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND Francis, ian/Cook, Martin (eds) M21148 hbk £25.00 A Birdwatching Guide to BRANDENBURG AND BERLIN White, Roger M21253 pbk £19.50 THE SWAN A Natural History Schuyl, Malcolm M21209 hbk £20.00 REGIONAL NATURAL HISTORY Wildlife Costar~ Ricap THE WILDLIFE OF COSTA RICA A Field Guide Reid, Fiona/Leenders, Twan/ Zook, Jim/Dean, Robert M20801 pbk £24.99 RSPB NATURE WATCH How to discover, explore and enjoy wildlife Taylor, Marianne M20956 pbk £12.99 HADRIAN’S WILDLIFE Miles, John M21262 pbk £16.99 MARMOTS IN THE MIST Wetton, Paul V60063 DVD £9.95 INSECTS MAYFLIES OF EUROPE Bauernfeind E/Soldan, T M21231 hbk £120.00 A BUTTERFLY YEAR WETTON, PAUL V60062 DVD £16.95 SEARCHING FOR BUTTERFLIES IN SOUTH WEST SWITZERLAND Wetton, Paul V60064 DVD £17.95 RSPB BRITISH BIRDFINDER Taylor, Marianne M21265 pbk £12.99 Helm Field Guide BIRDS OF THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT Grimmett, Richard/lnskipp, Carol & Tim M21129 pbk £35.00 CONIFER MOTHS OF THE BRITISH ISLES A Field Guide to Coniferous-feeding Lepidoptera Clifton, Jon/Wheeler, Jim M21256 pbk £24.99 BOTANY THE HEDGEROW HANDBOOK Recipes, Remedies and Rituals Nozedar, Adele M21263 hbk £12.99 THE MEADOW An English Meadow Through the Seasons Wilczak, Barney M21250 hbk £16.99 TSITSIKAMMA: Eden of the Garden Route van den Berg, Heinrich & Philip M21268 pbk £4.99 GARDENS, Their Hidden Life: Unnoticed Plants and Unseen Animals Spedding, Colin M21210 hbk £25.00 HEDGE BRITANNIA Barker, Hugh M21211 hbk £16.99 WILDLIFE ART PHOTOTIPS Principles of Nature Photography van den Berg, Heinrich & Philip M21267 pbk £18.99 SHADES OF NATURE van den Berg, Heinrich & Philip M21269 hbk £37.00 ART OF NATURE van den Berg, Heinrich & Philip M21270 hbk £37.00 www. wildlifebooks.com/bb It’s easy to order from Subbuteo Books... simply call +44 (0)1743 709420 or go to www.wildlifebooks.com/bb to order online, or print an order form to post or fax. However you choose to order, please quote S1590 so we can ensure 5% of the sale goes back to British Birds to support the journal. For book or ordering queries, please call or e-mail us at info@wildlifebooks.com @SubbuteoBooks G Subbuteo Books www.wildlifebooks.com/bb Postage for UK delivery is just £ 2.50 per order. Orders over £50 are post free. For international delivery please contact us for a quote - we will only charge you postage at cost. 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: Rob Llewellyn, Digital Spring Ltd, 10 Common Road, Ightham, Sevenoaks, Kent TNI 5 9DY Tel. 0208 123 7776. E-mail: Rob@digital-spring.co.uk Birdwatching Holidays Birdwatching Holidays Optical Equipment 240 SPECIES INCLUDING SEA Eagles SPECTACULAR COASTAL SCENERY UNFORGETTABLE BIRDWATCHING SKYE THE ISLAND & LOCHAISH www.skye.co.uk REPAIRS & SERVICING OF BINOCULARS & TELESCOPES Optrep Optical Repairs 51st YEAR IN OPTICS 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) OPTICS 01872 263444 www swoptics co.uk Binoculars Swarovski New EL 8.5x42 Swarovision £1620 Swarovski New EL 10x42 Swarovision £1685 Swarovski New EL 12x50 Swarovision £1830 Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD £1439 Leica Ultravid 10x42 HD £1459 Zeiss Victory T* FL LT 8x42 £ 1 329 Zeiss Victory T* FL LT 1 0x42 £ 1 359 Binoculars Nikon EDG 8x42 £1399 Nikon EDG 10x42 £1449 Nikon EDG 8x32 £1299 Opticron Aurora BGA 8x42 & 10x42 £739 Opticron 'NEW' DBA Oasis Mg 8x42 £599 Opticron Country man HD 8x42 £349 Opticron Imagic BGA SE 8x42 £389 Binoculars <6 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 SECOND NATURE Secondhand/antiquarian books on birds/natural history bought/sold. Back Lane, Knapton, York Y026 6QJ. Tel: 01904 339493. E-mail: SecondnatureYork@ aol.com www.secondnaturebooks.com 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 Swarovski El Swarovision Offer Purchase any pair of Swarovision binoculars ""I rev I Vi Fuji JX350 camera, case and 4GB SD Card Limited otter « hilst stocks Iasi New for 2012.... Leica New Trinovid 8x42 £949 Leica New Trinovid 10x42 £999 Swarovski EL 8\32 Swarovsion £1540 Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 £790 Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 £699 Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 £749 Zeiss Victory HT 8x42/10x42 £1600 l.eica "Ex Demo" Special Offers Ultravid 8x50 HD £1319 Ultravid 10x50 HD £1379 Ultravid 12x50 HD £1499 Duovid 8-12x42 £1399 Duovid 10-15x50 £1469 APO-Televid 65 & 25-50x room £1699 APO-Tclevid 82 & 25-50x zoom £2199 Zeiss Diaxcopc Telescope Offer Purchase a NEW Diascope 65 or 85 with a vario eye-piece. Offer ends 30th June 2012 and receive a Free Zeiss Stay -on-Case and Lowepro Scope Porter 200 AW Subject to availability - sec web for details $ Swarovski / Leica / Nikon Telescopes ATM/STM 80 HD. 25-50x zoom & case £2371 ATM/STM 65 HD. 25-50x zoom & case £ 1925 APO Tclcvid HD 82. 25-50x zoom&case £2399 APO Televid HD 65. 25-50x zoom&case £1899 EDO 85. 20-60x zoom & case £2049 EDO 65. 1 6-48x zoom & case £ 1 849 EDG FSA-L2 SLR Photoadaplcr £549 Opticron Telescopes / Gimbals HR80 GA ED. 20-60\ SDLv2, case, tripod £ 1 1 29 HR66 GA ED. I8-54x SDLv2, case, tripod £929 ES80 GA ED. 20-60x HDF zoom & case £699 GS52 GA ED, 1 2-36\ HDF zoom £449 Jobu BWG-PRO B Gimbal £509 Jobu Heavy Duty BWG-HD Mk3 Gimbal £419 SCOPAC Lite Tripod Carrier £52 All prices are subject to change p« Please check website for current prices * i’wsT ^ ^ South West Optics 22a River Street Truro Cornwall TR1 2SJ 01872 263444 steve@swoptics com OPTICS M] British Birds Home Articles » Subscribe » Resources » About » Vbbrc Login / Register Article archive search Search % G More than just a birding journal Ail profits generated support worthwhile conservation and research protects The lournal also publishes the annual reports of the British Birds Rarities Committee and the Rare Breeding Birds Panel ABOUT BRITISH BIROS ► New Subscription See our subscnpbon offers British Birds bookshop Run by Subbuieo Natural History Books Articles The latest content from Bnbsh Birds Resource area Key articles county recorders and areas and more About British Birds More than iust a hireling journal What’s in the latest issue? April 2012 ■ The Nightingale in Britain: status, ecology and conservation needs • The Great Bustard in Hungary • Spotted Crakes breeding in Britain and Ireland: a history and evaluation of current status ■ Notes • Reviews • Nows & comment • Recent reports READ MORE www.britishbirds.co.uk Browse the archive Our entire archive • from 1907 onwards • available free to all website subscribers Click here to browse ir- Visit the 88 website for extra content (with extended news stories, key downloads from the Resources menu and much more) and to get FREE access to the British Birds archive. St VS ; * British Birds Binders i W/rex - Royal Blue or Brown, Cordex - Brown only. Price for all binders: £9.60 each. Either complete and return the attached order form, call the British Birds office or order online at using our secure site. Please supply Binder(s) in: i Royal Blue Wirex j Brown Wirex Brown Cordex 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: 0 1 424 755 1 55 • E-mail: subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk Viking MD Binocular Bringing Nature Closer 6.5x32, 8x32, 8x42 & 10x42 The exciting MD senes is available with models to suit every purpose The range even includes a special low power binocular for close-up wildlife viewing down to around 1m • Lightweight polycarbonate body • Multicoated prisms and lenses • Fully waterproof • 5 year warranty ED Binocular Premium Quality, Affordable Price 8x42 & 10x42 The new Viking binocular incorporates Extra Low Dispersion (EDI glass in a lightweight magnesium body to produce a binocular of the highest standard. • Magnesium body • ED lenses • Fully waterproof • Ergonomic open hinge design • 10 year warranty Viking Optical Ltd is one of the latest companies to sign up as a BirdLife Species Champion, to help prevent the extinction of one of the 192 species in clanger For more information please visit our new website. www.vikingoptical.co.uk Viking Opt cdl Ltd, Blyth Road. Halesworth, IP19 BEN Test 0198G 8/b31b salesftv kingoptii'd co t> Naturetrek Don’t miss our 201 2 bargain birding selection X Argentina - Andes 9 days - £2,595 Western Australia 12 days -£3,395 Australia - Queensland 13 days - from £3,495 Bolivia - Highlands 12 days -£2,195 Bolivia - Lowlands 10 days -£1,895 Borneo - Sabah 10 days -£2,495 Botswana 10 days -£2,295 Brazil 10 days - £1,995 Colombia 12 days -£2,995 Cuba 12 days - £2,395 Amazonian Ecuador 1 1 days - £2,295 Ecuador - Antpittas 10 days -£1,995 Ecuador - Choco 12 days -£2,195 Ecuador - Cock-of-the-rock 9 days - from £1 ,695 Ecuador - South-east 13 days -£2,495 Ecuador - South-west 12 days -£2,395 Ecuador - Tumbes 9 days - £1 ,995 Ethiopia 10 days - £1,795 Ethiopian Endemics 10 days - £1,795 Gambia 12 days -£1,795 Ghana - Picathartes 9 days - £2,095 Honduras 10 days -£2,295 India A wide range of tours 9 days - from £1 ,495 Kazakhstan 9 days - £1 ,895 Kenya 10 days -£1,995 Nepal A wide range of tours 9 days - from £1 ,695 Panama - Canopy Tower 9 days - from £2,095 South Africa - Kruger 10 days -£2,295 Sri Lanka 10 days -£1,895 Sa Honed by nature Form follows function. The guiding light of the new Nikon Prostaff 5 fieldscopes. The design recalls images in nature, such as birds in flight. You’ll enjoy hours of communing with nature. The hardy instrument's newly developed multilayer-coated eyepiece lens minimises colour aberration, down to the edge of the field of view. And it’s 20% lighter than similar spotting scopes. Long eye relief adds to viewing comfort. Digiscoping? Easy with three types of eyepieces and your choice of Nikon Coolpix cameras. Prostaff 5: technology and art in your hands. PROSTAFF 5 82-A PROSTAFF 5 60-A Since 1917 www.nlkon.co.uk Nikon Sport Optia