te US ey Loy oe ae © Fp san « * ys ZSiFz 30 eesti DRITDSTBINDS WITH WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN JANUARY, 1917, ‘‘ THE ZOOLOGIST.”’ AN ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE DEVOTED CHIEFLY TO THE BIRDS ON THE BRITISH LIST EDITED BY H. F. WITHERBY MBE. F.Z.S. M.B.O.U. HLF.A.0.U. ASSISTED BY Rev. F. C. R. JOURDAIN M.A. M.B.O.U. H.F.A.O.U. H.M.G.O.S. AND NORMAN F, TICEHURST 0.B.E. M.A. F.R.C.S. MB.O.U. Volume XXX JUNE 1936— MAY 1937 H. F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd. 326 HIGH HOLBORN LONDON LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, ~ PAGE ROOSTING HABITS OF THE TREE-CREEPER :— Plate 1. Tree-Creeper roosting in Sequoia gigantea at Portarlington, Queen’s Co. ees by Rev. F. M. Browne) .. .. Frontispiece Cavity in Sequoia gigantea, na Tree-Creeper roosting in dead Scots Pine ; oy Tree-Creeper roosting in Sequota gigantea .. ON THE FIGHTING OF BLACKCOCK :— Fig. 1.—A general view of the “ lek ”’ Af 34 Pate 2. Fig.3.—Bird on left in om for “‘ the rough hiss ”’ , : 34 Fig. 4.—Bird on right in ‘eagles for 4 tas bubbling cry aah ’y G. K. Yeates) 34 Fig, 2.—Normal position of iigbbtoc: Nii not engaged in fighting - ms 36 Plate 3. Fig.5.—The face-up .. 36 Fig. 6.—Bird on right edn | away fou the fight. (Photographed by G. K. Yeates) 36 BLACKBIRD’S LARGE CLUTCH OF EGGs. (Photographed by O. G. Pike) a S ais a die 45 *URTHER NOTES ON TERRITORY IN THE GREAT CRESTED GREBE :— Sketch-map of Frensham Little Pond, S.W. Surrey 60 COLOURING OF THE SOFT PARTS OF THE BUFF-BACKED HERON :— Plate 4.—Pair of Buff-backed Herons at nest in reeds, South Spain, April, 1935: (Photographed by G. K. Yeates) ro zs = 70 \VOODPECKER NESTING-HOLES AND THE COMPASS :— Diagram showing the relation of Woodpecker nesting-holes to the points of the compass .. 85 NITE OF GOOSANDER’S NEST, DUMFRIESSHIRE, 1936 .. 88 Sketch of heads of nestling Goosander and Merganser ais c “ :< sie 89 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. WATER TERRITORIES OF RESIDENT MOORHENS IN WINTER REPORT ON GREAT CRESTED :GREBE :— Chart.—Rainfall, Seasonal ines as per cent. of average Map showing approximately ane areas aduntea in 1935, and the relative density of Great Crested Grebe population compared with 1931 Map showing recovery positions of Teal ringed in Orielton Decoy .. My sts THE CoLouR oF BILLs oF KINGFISHERS :— A-D. Bills of Scottish Kingfishers E-F. Bills of English Kingfishers RoosTING OF Swirts: Diagrams illustrating the roosting cavity of Swifts STEEP Hotm. (Photographed by W. C. Taunton) BREEDING HABITS OF LEACH’S FORK-TAILED PETREL:— Plate 5. Upper: Adult Leach’s Fork-tailed Petrel. Lower: Young Leach’s Fork-tailed Pete | (Photographed by Robert Atkinson) Map showing greatest Density of Plankton and Breeding Stations of Leach’s Fork-tailed Petrel in North Atlantic Opened Burrow of Leach’s Fork- tailed Petrel, (Photographed by John Ainslie) Dr. CHARCOT AND THE BIRDS OF ROCKALL :— Rockall Key to Porat Plan of Birds SONG OF THE MISTLE-THRUSH :— Diagram showing times of sunrise on ten days and the minutes before sunrise when the Mistle- - Thrush began to sing as well as the oe variations of the song syllables REDWING Roost: Map showing area from which birds came oe ba PAGE I20 140 145 161 181 181 206 219 234 306 344 BRITISH BIRDS _ ANTEUSTRATED MAGAZINE DEVOTED CHIEFLY TOTTEBIRDS ss ON THEBRIDSA TST aes e! 5 Vol. XXX. 1; MONTHILY- 1594 YEARLY-20. 5 26HIGHHOLBORNICNDOSL TiFéGWITHERBY-LTD- | England’s Birds W. K. Richmond Author of Quest for Birds It is seldom that one comes across a book on British birds which combines so pleasantly information, good style, and that deft touch without which no book, whatever its merits, can be really enjoyable.”—Jll. Sporting &¥ Dramatic News. “A book for which a place must be found on the shelf of everyone to whom birds give pleasure, whether he is deeply learned, or an aspiring tyro.”—-Oxford Times. With 32 pages of photographs and a coloured frontispiece 10s. 6d. . 24 Russert Squart, FABER & FABER Lowpox, W.C.1 THE BIRDS OF THE FIRTH OF CLYDE INCLUDING AYRSHIRE, RENFREWSHIRE, BUTESHIRE AND SOUTH ARGYLLSHIRE by JOHN MORELL MCWILLIAM B.A.Trin.Coll., Dublin, Fellow R.Phys.Soc., Edinburgh AUTHOR OF “THE BIRDS OF THE ISLAND OF BUTE” WITH PLATES AND A MAP 12/6 net H. F. & G. WITHERBY, LTD., 326 HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON, W.C.1 British Birds, Vol. XXX., Pl. Tree-Creeper roosting in Seguoia gigantea (G.4.W.6) at Portarlington, Queen's co. Taken Mareh 20th, about 8 p.m. (Photographed by Rev. F. M. Browne.) DRITDBIBIRDS NITH WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN JANUARY, 1917, ‘‘ THE ZOOLOGIST.’ EDITED BY WH. F.WITHERBY, M.B.E., F.Z.S.,M.B.0.U.,H.F.A.O.U. ASSISTED BY REV. F. C. R. JOURDAIN, M.A.; M.B.O.U., H.F.A.O.U., F.Z.S., AND NORMAN F. TICEHURST, O.B.E., M.A., F.R.C.S., M.B.O.U. CONTENTS OF NUMBER I, VOL. XXX., JUNE I, 1936. PAGE ‘oosting Habits of the Tree-Creeper. By P. G. Kennedy, s.J. 2 sehaviour of Starlings at Nesting Site. By George Marples, SR E., AR.C.A., M.B.0.U. ras aie as mes ne 14 urther Notes on the Sparrow-Hawk. By J. H. Owen ats 22 Qtes ‘-— Crossbills Method of feeding on Larch Cones (B. D. Moreton) 27 Large Brood of Mistle-Thrush (C. H. Kaye and C. Heycock) ... 28 White-tailed Eagle in Northamptonshire (A. F. Moody)... 28 Another unrecorded Essex Heronry (Dr. J. W. Campbell) ... 29 Scaup and Black-necked Grebe in Inner London (Dr. G. C. Low and E. G. Pedler)... one Af ee oy See 30 Dunlins in Inner London {E. M. Nicholson) ... ave 5 30 hort Notes :— Homing Experiments with Wild Birds. Crossbill Breeding in Devon. Blue-headed Wagtail in Surrey. Iceland Redwings in Somerset and North Uist. Early Whinchat in Sussex. Sexual Display by Hedge-Sparrow. Bittern in Co. Fer- managh. Purple Heron off the coast of Ireland... ae 31 te Vogelwarte Rossitten auf der Kurischen Nehrung ... 0 32 (2) ROOSTING HABITS OF THE TREE-CREEPER. Bi P..G. KENNEDY,.-s:3- (Plate a): SincE November, 1935, I have been studying the roosting habits of the Tree-Creeper (Certhia f. britannica), and though there are many points still obscure, I consider I have at this stage sufficient evidence to draw some definite conclusions. Hitherto little has been known or written on the subject beyond the fact that Tree-Creepers bore holes in the soft bark of Wellingtonia trees (Sequota gigantea) and sleep in these holes at night. Mr. Nevin H. Foster, of Hillsborough, Co. Down, was the first to notice the habit, and he published his observations in January, 1923 (/rish Naturalist, Vol. XXXII pp. and 2). But he did not apparently himself see the birds in the cavities at night. Foster’s article was followed up by short notes in British Birds, in March, 1923, by the Rev. E. U. Savage (Vol, XVI, p. 234), in June, 1924, by Mr. W. H. Thorpe (Vol. XVIII, pp. 20-22), and in October, 1925, by Mri R. W. Hale (Vol. XIX, pp. 130 and 131). The writers of these notes agree in the main with Foster in holding that the Tree- Creepers sleep with their heads exposed and their beaks pointing upwards, though Thorpe mentions one bird which had its head completely hidden. Before giving my own observations I should mention that here at Emo Park, Portarlington, there is a wide field and perhaps unusual facilities for such astudy. The grounds are extensive and well timbered. There are many Wellingtonias, all within easy reach of the house. In the first place there is a well-known Wellingtonia Avenue, more than a mile long, leading from the front of the house first towards the south and then curving away to the east. There are 82 Wellingtonia trees, 41 on each side, along thisavenue. Then in the grounds to the east and north of the house there are 8 scattered Wellingtonias and 6 of the alliedspecies, Sequoia sempervirens, while in an old wood across the lake, not quite half a mile away to the north of the house, there are many trees of the latter species. There is considerable variety among these Wellingtonias. Some look, and probably are, older than others. In an old guide book, published in 1856, mention is made of the Emo Park Wellingtonias, so that some of the trees must have been planted here soon after their introduction into England in 1853. The younger trees have the bark not quite so furrowed as a normal oak tree while the older ones have very gnarled L. xxx.] HABITS OF THE TREE-CREEPER. 3 rfaces with thick, cork-like bark whichin places projects out © or three inches from the longitudinal fissures. Some ve branches down to four feet from the base -with tremities touching the ground; others have branches wn to about eight feet with, usually, some open approaches the trunk, while a few have no branches lower than from teen to twenty feet. The older trees and those with open yproaches are most favoured by the Tree-Creepers. In a daylight survey of the avenue I found that in 39 of the , Wellingtonias there are 72 sleeping-holes either freshly ade or with evidence of recent use. The other trees are thout holes. The majority of the holes are facing east and rth, those to the west being very few. Thus there are E., 24N., 9S., 2W., 5N.E., 3 N.W.and2SE. The average ight from the ground is 8 feet, the highest being 13} feet and e lowest 4 feet. The avenue is divided into five reaches by oss avenues and clusters of beech trees, and though the visions are not equal I have taken them for convenience in ping records and call them A, B,C, Dand E. Thus B. 4 N. 9, means: In the second reach of the avenue, in the urth tree, on the right leading from the house, roost facing th at 9 feet from the ground. Again, in7 of the 8 Welling- dias in the grounds there are 40 roosts, 18 N., 13 E., 5 W., id 4S. These trees for the purpose of taking notes I call II, 2, 3, etc. The 6 trees of the species Sequoia sempervirens, all ywhich show evidence of roosting, I enter as S.S. I, 2, 3, ete. ‘Foster mentions the halfpenny (an inch in diameter) as the se of the holes, but Thorpe gives the average 2} to 3. inches agand2inches deep. I have notcomeacross half a dozen les into which a penny cannot be easily inserted, the major- ~ having the opening as stated by Thorpe. But I find great rriety in the depth of the holes. Some are mere scratchings tthe surface, others are quite 2inches deep. Again Foster and worpe say that the holes are all lower than the lowest mnches. This is generally the case here too. But some jich I have found occupied occasionally, and one almost wularly, are above branches, while those in most of the ees of Sequoia sempervirens must necessarily be so. Jp to February 15th I began my evening rounds at 5.30 and ined the trees in the grounds and reaches A, B and C ‘the avenue. In these three reaches there are 29 Welling- as, in 15 of which there are 25 roosting holes. In 7 of se trees in the avenue, in 6 of the 8 in the grounds and in 4 the Sequoia sempervirens I have found birds in occupation ight. Thus I have seen Tree-Creepers sleeping at night es BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. in 17 trees and in 52 different roosts. During the first three months of observation the average number of birds I found in roosts was about 8, rarely so few as 4. But since the beginning of February the average has been 12, with a maximum of 15, The raising of the average is partly attributable to improved methods of search and partly to other causes which I have so far failed to discover. During the whole period, the larger numbers were in frosty or calm and dry weather, the lower numbers on wet and stormy nights. A moderate breeze does not seem to affect the roosting nor the side of the tree occupied But rain or a high wind from any quarter drives the birds from that side of the tree. Just as the majority of the holes are on the east and north, so I have found most birds on these sides. Hence on an average night there would be 3 E., 3 N., 1S.,and iW. The prevailing winds and rains here are fro the south and west, and this fact accounts, I believe, for the fewer cavities and roosting birds on these sides. I should also mention that the two roosts to the west, which I have very frequently found occupied, are rather exceptional. One is in a tree sheltered by an oak plantation and a detached building, known as the Ambulacrum, the other, though on the west side of the tree, has a southern aspect owing to a projection on the side of the trunk. Yet, exceptionally, on February 11th I found 5 birds roosting to the west and 5 to the north. But the conditions were these: snow which had fallen on the previous night had melted during the day leaving the eastern sides of the trees quite wet, and a strong cold wind was blowing from the east. It may be of interest to give, as a specimen, my notes of the location of these 10 birds. They are as follows : Avenue: A. 1 L.N.8$. (This roost has been occupieq every night sice December roth). B. 4 KoeNegy B.5 R.N. 8,and W. 4. (This W. 4 now occupied for the first time). Grounds: G.1 N. 7%, and N. 11. G.4 W.9. (This roost is above some branches). G. 6 W. 124,andW.7. (W.7now occupied for first time). S.S.1W.7. (Roost occupied for second time). MANNER OF ROOSTING. With regard to the manner of roosting, the body of the bird is fitted into the oval cavity in the bark and the tail is pressed into the tree below the cavity. Once the bird has L. xxx.] HABITS OF THE TREE-CREEPER. 5 ttled down for the night its head is completely hidden. I ve no doubt of this, for I have now seen roosting birds indreds of times. I have examined birds in roosts at four 1d five feet from the ground, with my eyes above their level, id never have I seen even the tip of the bill. The hunched pearance of the roosting bird suggests that the head must >» buried in front with the beak pointing downwards, not swards as Foster, Savage and Hale suggested. The result of 1is bending forward and downward of the head is that the athers of the shoulders and back are fluffed out, in a manner iggestive of the spines on the back of a hedge-hog. One sees xese feathers moving in the slightest breeze, and when a rong wind is blowing the dark down of the body is revealed. his being the fact, the question immediately arises : how is 1e warmth of the body maintained throughout the long winter hts, if, as has been stated, the conservation of heat in birds epends on the closeness of the feathering. To this question have no answer at the moment. I can only reiterate that have examined birds at night and in the dark of the morning ad the manner of roosting is always the same : the head is aite hidden and the back feathers are fluffed out giving the eneral appearance of a ball of fluff with a tail appended. _As already stated I used to begin my evening inspection at out 5.30, and hence up to February the birds were well ttled down for the night when I saw them. But almost from ae beginning of February, when sunset was at 5.6, I have een able to see them in their cavities without the aid of a erch, and I have found it advisable to watch with glasses om a distance of 20 or 30 yards. To my surprise I discovered aat up to 20 minutes after sunset the birds remain with their eads exposed and their beaks pointing upwards. It seems utural that before going to sleep they should look around to ee that all is well, and consequently they are easy to disturb this time. This habit, I feel sure, accounts for the statement _ Foster and others that the birds spend the night with their vaks pointing upwards. Thus Hale (/oc. cit.) mentions that 11 March 2tst at 6.15 p.m. a bird had its head almost in the wvity, but with its beak resting on the edge of the hole. This ‘only 4 minutes after sunset, too soon for the bird to have tttled down for the night. Again Thorpe (loc. cit.) speaks of ssturbing a bird on two or three occasions, thereby showing aat his observations were made before the bird had gone sleep. Once the bird has rolled itself up and buried its ead, it is not easily disturbed. Torch light can be played 1 it without causing it to turn a feather, and even the 6 BRITISH BIRDS. .[VOL. XXX, explosion of a flash-light photograph does not, as a rule, awake it fromits slumbers. The only thing that invariably dislodges the sleeping bird is touching the bark or knocking against 7 the trunk of the tree, even at the opposite side. Finally Foster © and Savage say that the back of the bird in the cavity is on a level with the bark of the tree. This is generally the case while the head is exposed and the back feathers are smoothed down, but when the head is lowered the back is arched out and the feathers stand out beyond the surface of the tree. Only in a few roosts with very narrow entrances and in those made in natural fissures have I found the body of the bird on a level with the bark. Left: Cavity in Sequoia gigantea (G.3.S.6.) unchanged after months of use. Right: Tree-Creeper roosting in dead Scots Pine (S.P.3.E.4). “Early to bed ”’ seems to be a fixed rule with the Tree- Creeper. While Blackbirds, Thrushes and Robins are still” singing, the Tree-Creeper flies to the base of its roosting tree, creeps up as if feeding and either goes directly into or sidles (OL. Xxx.] HABITS OF THE TREE-CREEPER. 7 ato the cavity. I have observed birds entering their roosts “om I to 14 minutesaftersunset. Mr. C. B. Moffat, who on eptember 29th, 1934, at Enniskerry, co. Wicklow, saw a rree-Creeper arrive at its Sequoia gigantea 2 minutes after unset, thinks it likely that going to roost may be earlier in the airly long days than in the very short ones. This he has found o be the case with the Wagtails in O’Connell Street, Dublin, vhere they go to roost before sunset in the early half of the ‘utumn, but wait till about half an hour after in the short vinter days. My own observations of the Tree-Creepers since he beginning of February confirm Mr. Moffat’s surmise. The »irds have gradually shortened the period between sunset and aking roost so that in the first week of March the two times most coincide. As birds go Tree-Creepers are not earlyrisers. Other birds ‘re astir, and there is often a general morning chorus, quite salf an hour before they think of moving. If one approaches m. occupied tree from 20 minutes before sunrise onwards, the ird flies clean out of the hole and away. But if one is prepared 0 brave the cold morning air and arrive with glasses earlier, ne whole ritual can be watched. At from 15 to 5 minutes sefore sunrise the Tree-Creeper suddenly lifts its head, looks round exposing the white of its throat and waits from 2 to 5 ainutes before, as it were, jumping out of bed. During this ime, owing to the smoothing down of the back feathers when he head is raised, the bird is inconspicuous except for the winkling of the white throat as it moves its head to and fro. “inally it gives a few pecks at the bark, side-steps to the right tT left or jumps forward and travels up the tree in its usual nanner of feeding. EXCAVATING THE CAVITIES. Hale (loc. cit.) speaks of a cavity, examined on two con- ecutive days, as showing signs of continued enlargement. hat the birds enlarge the holes is certain. Some of the avities in which I have found birds sleeping are mere scratch- ags in the bark, and no doubt the deepening is a gradual Tocess. Some cavities, however, which are fairly regularly ccupied, have remained unchanged for months and are quite Jack inside. On a few occasions both in the morning and in ae evening I have witnessed the excavating. On February rd, at 6.30 p.m. (sunset 5.10) I noticed a roosting bird in an nusual attitude. Its tail was projecting out, its head com- letely hidden, its body moving and its feet seemingly working. he roost was an old one, frequently occupied, which I had 8 BRITISH BIRDS. (vou. Xxxq examined in daylight a week previously when I found the interior quite dark. The bird was now excavating, or perhaps sweeping out the shavings after the operation, for next morn- ing on looking in I saw a patch, of about the size of a penny, freshly pared off. Again on February 4th at 6.15 p.m. in another roost I noticed the legs of the bird to be working as if sweeping out the cavity. I surmised that this was consequent on some excavation work, and next morning I saw that the walls were freshly chipped off. On February 8th at 7.47 a.m. (sunrise 7.59) a bird that I had been watching suddenly woke up and went through the usual ritual for three minutes and then began to peck at the interior with resounding taps. For two minutes it worked energetically before jumping clear of the cavity and creeping up the tree as usual. This time the tail was kept pressed against the tree as during sleep, and no attempt was made to work the legs and clear out the débris. The roost was too high to be examined. Finally on February 17th at 5.43 p.m. (sunset 5.37) I watched a bird creep up G.I. and enter roost N.11. Fornearly two minutes it pecked at the cavity, often looking round during the operation. Then to my surprise it jumped out of the hole, looped down to the base of the tree and began to creep up again. This time it entered roost N.7%, directly under N.11, and immediately began to peck at the rim of the cavity. After two minutes it ceased work but kept looking from side to side. At 5.48, a second bird appeared on the east side of the tree, crept up and sidled into N.11. Though the point at issue here is the excavating of the cavity, the behaviour of the first bird is rather puzzling and suggests a number of questions which I would like very much to be able to answer : Did the bird make a mistake in entering a roost which it presently discovered was not its own? Are the two birds a pair and was the first simply performing a friendly act for its mate? Is the same roost ever occupied by different birds on different nights ? I fear I shall have to leave such problems for future investigation. CHANGING OF RoostTs. Though a few roosts have been occupied almost without a break for months, my records show that scarcely ever are all the same cavities occupied on two consecutive nights. This may be partly due to the frequent changes of weather con- ditions during a varied winter. At any rate most of the Tree- Creepers seem to be of a nomadic turn. They freely change from tree to tree and from roost to roost on the same tree. This habit accounts, I think satisfactorily, for the great VOL. XXX.] HABITS OF THE TREE-CREEPER. 9 number of holes compared with the few birds that have been found in occupation. It is not easy to follow some birds. They simply disappear on bad evenings and I do not know where they roost. All I can say is they do not roost on the Wellingtonias. One such bad evening, with the assistance of six young men, I examined the 96 Sequotas in the avenue and the grounds and found only 5 birds, one of which was in reach E, the last and longest division of the avenue. I had thought Tree-Creeper roosting in Sequoia gigantea (G.6.N.5}). ‘that possibly on bad nights the birds might be distributed farther away from the house. But apparently they roost elsewhere. But where ? Possibly in natural cavities in other utrees, behind ivy or bark or such crannies in which later on ‘they nest. I will mention three cases which seem to favour ‘this hypothesis: (1.) Two of the roosts in S.S.1. are under »projecting pieces of bark and when they have been tenanted ‘the birds could not be seen except from below. I must add, *however, that these roosts have sometimes been occupied on 10 BRITISH BIRDS. beiiae. 6.6.5. good evenings. (2.) One evening I found a bird roosting in G.4. in a natural cavity under a lopped off branch and when I examined the position next day I saw that no excavation had been made. The evening, however, was fine, and the incident only proves that natural cavities are sometimes occupied. (3.) On the evening of February 6th I found a Tree-Creeper in a normal sleeping-hole of G.3. at 44 feet from the ground and facing north but somewhat exposed from the east side. That evening there was a fairly strong wind from the south-east. During the night the wind freshened and veered a point to the east. On the following morning at 7.30 (sunrise 8.1) I was surprised to find the roost empty, as it was rather dark at the time and never before had I seen a roost vacated so early. But on moving my torch light round I discovered the bird a foot and a half away, slightly higher up and towards the lee side, in a natural fold well sheltered from the wind. No excavation was made. Still I seem to be able to keep in touch with a few birds. Let us try to follow for a week the bird which the photographer calls “‘ Our Friend ”’ because it often roosts at the convenient height of 44 feet. February 2nd on G.1 one of three birds: E.104; E.84; FP 3rd on G.z one of three birds: E.104; E.8}; N.74. (84 is directly under 84 and has a very narrow entrance.) ot 4th, 5th and 6th in G.3.N.44. (G.3 is 200 yards from G.1.) " 7th—a gale blowing—in S.S.1.N.8. (S.S.1. is 30 yards from G.3.) 8th —frosty—back in G.1 one of three birds : E.84; N.74; N.11. Thus “‘ Our Friend ”’ roosts either in G.I or in the group of trees which I call “ the Circle,” 200 yards fromG.1. I should mention that “the Circle’”’ consists of two trees of Sequoia gigantea, G.2 and G.3, and three of Sequoia sempervirens, S.S.1, 2 and 3, forming a circle of 15 yards radius round a Cryptomeria japonica. 1 have found the bird in two roosts of G.3, in five of S.S.1 and in two of $.$.2. Though S.S.3 shows evidence of roosting I have never found it occupied, while G.2 has been quite without roosts. But I shall speak of G.2 presently. When G.1 has had three birds in roosts, then the trees of “the Circle”? have been untenanted, while on the other hand when a tree in “ the Circle ”’ has been occupied only two birds have been found in G.1. I admit that the evidence ~ a) VOL. xxx.] HABITS OF THE TREE-CREEPER. Ll gives only probability, but to arrive at any degree of certainty would require a much more extended period of observation than I have had, and perhaps involve experiments, which I am not prepared to make, of handling and marking the birds. I followed “ Our Friend,’ to my own satisfaction, until February 15th when complications arose. On that date at 5.40 p.m. (sunset 5.34) I was watching with glasses two birds which had just taken roost in G.1, in the cavities N.7} and ‘N.11, when a third bird appeared on the east side of the tree, crept up and down a few times and finally disappeared round to the south side. I felt sure there would be three birds roosting for the night in this tree, but when I returned with ‘my torch at 6.15 I found only two. I then went on to “ the Circle ’’ and found a bird in S.S.1 in roost N.g, in which on ‘previous occasions I had seen ‘‘ Our Friend.” But on examin- ing G.3 I found another bird on the north side about 7 feet ‘from the ground, on the flat surface of the tree where I was sure there was no cavity. The bird was flattened against the ‘bark, quite motionless, with its head exposed, its eyes open and iits beak pointing upward. This was something so unprece- dented that I returned at 8.15, when I found the bird curled ‘up in the normal fashion. It was still asleep at 7.15 (sunrise 77.43) next morning. When I examined the position later in the ‘day I saw that not only was no excavation made but that ‘there was scarcely a wrinkle on the surface where the bird had rroosted. I was again perplexed, but I had passed the stage sof being surprised at any behaviour of this versatile species. \There were two cavities a few feet lower down on the same side »of the tree and why did it not use one of them ? Was the birda sstranger which would not enter a roost made by another ? At vany rate the bird has come to stay and since its arrival, eexcept on two bad evenings, there have been two birds in “ the (Circle.’’ One which I surmised was the newcomer has been in tthree different roosts, not hitherto occupied, in S.S.1 and S.S.2. (The other, until February 23rd, had been in holes formerly vused by “‘ Our Friend’ and I assumed it was ‘‘ Our Friend.” {But on the 23rd another strange thing happened. I have salready mentioned that G.2 has been without roosts of any ‘kind. Though quite a bulky tree and probably as old as the »others, it has the smoother bark of the younger looking trees wwhich Tree-Creepers do not favour. On February 18th, with emy penknife I made in this Wellingtonia three cavities as mearly approaching the normal type in size and shape as ‘I could. On February 23rd I found one of these artificial ‘cavities, S.6, occupied by “‘ Our Friend.’’ At least I took it 12 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL, ex to be “ Our Friend” for the following reason.: on February 22nd two birds were roosting $.S.2, one at W.6, a cavity occasionally patronized by “ Our Friend” in the past, and the other at E.7, a newly occupied site, while on 23rd W.6 was empty and E.7 was still tenanted. On the morning of February 24th I inspected the artificial cavity, S.6, and I saw that the upper half had been neatly pared off. On the evening of February 24th, the same two holes, G.2.$.6 and S.S.2.E.7, were again occupied. Next morning on examining G.2.S.6, I found on the lower half a quantity of towy parings which I did not touch. Again on the evening of February 25th the same two holes were occupied, and on further examination of G.2.5.6 next day I saw that all the debris had been removed and the whole interior looked as if it had been sand-papered. The occupation of this artificial roost would tend to show that the Tree-Creeper does not always make its own cavity, though at the same time there is the possibility that it would sense whether the excavation had been done by one of its own species or not. On February 26th all my reasoning regarding the identity of ‘‘ Our Friend ”’ and the newcomer broke down. On that evening G.2.S.6, the artificial roost, was occupied and also S.S.1.E.8, a site often tenanted before the arrival of the second bird. The only conclusion that I can draw is that birds do occupy roosts which have been used by other birds ROOSTING IN TREES OTHER THAN SEQUOIAS Where do Tree-Creepers roost in the absence of Sequotas ? Miss Frances Pitt writes: ““ A Tree-Creeper could be found every evening in a favourite crevice of the bark on the trunk of an oak tree.” (The Freld, December 7th, 1935.) Recently I searched the extensive oak wood immediately to the west of the house and found only one doubtful roost. But then with so many Sequozas at hand it is not likely that oak trees would be used. However, on the west shore of the lake, less than half a mile away, I found in an oak tree at 44 feet from the grounda cavity which showed evidence of frequent roosting and which I believe, could have been tenanted only by a Tree-Creeper. In my quest of Tree-Creepers at night I have met with various other birds roosting in cavities, but all seem to require a stance. The Tree-Creeper, in my experience, is the only bird which clings to the perpendicular side of a tree. Again in the old, neglected wood, already mentioned, to the north across the lake I found two similar roosts in Scots pines, one of which was occupied by a Tree-Creeper on March 30th and 31st. In this wood there are many dead Scots pines which look mere \VOL. Xxx.] HABITS OF THE TREE-CREEPER. 13 ‘skeletons. The branches have fallen off, the bark is generally ‘gone and in many of the trunks the outer layer of wood is so decayed that it is quite as soft as the bark of the Sequotas. In ‘upwards of a dozen of these dead trees I have found obvious ‘roosts of Tree-Creepers. Since the middle of February I have ‘cut out from my evening rounds Reach C of the avenue and have taken instead some of these dead trees which I call S.P.1, 12, 3, etc. On February 15th I found one Tree-Creeper roosting in S.P.1.E.12. On February 17th there were two birds in dead ‘trees, S.P.1.E.12 and S.P.2.E.6. The 18th was a particularly bad evening owing to wind and rain and no birds were on the dead trees. But on the 2oth, S.P.1and S.P.2 were again occupied sand were regularly occupied up to March 2nd, one in three dif- ‘ferent cavities, the other in four. On March 2nd there were sstill two birds, S.P.2.E.6 and S.P.3.E.4. Thus I have found 'Tree-Creepers roosting in three dead Scots pines and in eight ‘different holes. It would appear that they occupy dead trees \just as they occupy Wellingtonias and that on bad nights they ‘roost elsewhere. In this wood, as already stated, there are many trees of the species Sequoia sempervirens, but from ‘examination of these I should say that Tree-Creepers prefer ‘dead trees, just as they prefer Wellingtonias. It would also sseem that where there are decayed trees in abundance the ‘birds use cavities or dents in growing trees as alternative ‘roosts. And finally in the absence of dead trees and Sequoias ‘it is natural to conclude that they would have to fall back valtogether on living trees. (14) BEHAVIOUR OF STARLINGS AT NESTING SITE. BY GEORGE MARPLES, A.R.E., A.R.C.A., M.B.O.U. EARLY each morning during the winter, flock after flock of Starlings (Sturnus v. vulgaris) hurry over the garden from their roosting place some seven miles to the north-west. Most of these birds continue their flight to the feeding ground, but each day a few fall out and alight on the highest twigs of a large elm in the hedge until a dozen or so birds are congregated on the tree-top. There for a time they sit, very pleasantly “charming ’’ as the country people say, waiting, perhaps, until the rising sun softens the ground sufficiently to permit feeding. Then, one after another, they drop into the field to search for breakfast. Their arrival is inconveniently early for regular observation but I have managed to find that their time of arrival at the garden each day closely approximates to the moment of sunrise. Towards the end of January, from one of these groups of tree-top “charmers’’, a solitary bird will glide down and examine the “starling-box’”’. This is always a male bird which, so early in the season, evinces an interest in a possible nesting-site. The earliest date I have of suchan occurrence is January 22nd, when a male Starling went in and out of the nesting-box many times. It is almost safe to say that after this initial visit a Starling, always a male, will call at the box each morning and explore the interior, though whether the same bird each time is, usually, impossible to determine. This point was settled, however, in 1934, when the first- comer was a male bird wearing a ring. (It may be stated here that this bird, which may have been one of a brood hatched in the box and ringed the previous season, continued his visits, obtained a mate and, ultimately, assisted in bringing up a family.) The first calls are always made.in the early part of the morning between eight and ten o’clock, no bird being seen at at the box after the latter hour. But, as time goes on, the visiting hours extend both earlier and later though for some time no call will be made in the afternoon. The first bird to come is not the only Starling interested in the nesting-box, others have noticed his doings and, a few days later, one or two others will arrive with him. These are always males vet no quarrelling occurs. The coming of a female bird seems to be deferred until well into February though why this should be so is net apparent for females must be present, one would OL. XXX.) STARLINGS AT NESTING SITE. 15 think, in all morning flocks. With her coming the conduct yf the male alters for, in addition to his usual singing on the serch, he enters and remains in the box for long periods, seeping out now and then. At times he will fly down and bluck a blade of grass or a leaf and carry it to the box. He may take the grass in and leave it, or he may sit on the perch aolding it while he sings. Meanwhile the female goes in and out of the entrance many times as though estimating the suitability of the accommodation. It is shortly after the adoption of the nesting-site by the air that visits made by other birds are resented ; temerarious males are chased away and often roughly dealt with as \lready described (antea, Vol. XXIX, pp. 321-3). This early occupation may be interrupted any time by a rpell of cold weather during which the site is, temporarily, deserted. Toward the end of March the nesting-box will be visited vater in the day for the first time ; this occurred in 1936, wn March 16th, about 3 o'clock, and again on the 2oth, at 50 p.m. A little later signs of interest in nest-construction are mani- ested. At first only the male carries building material, though in a day or two his mate is perfunctorily assisting. This concern appears to be of a somewhat tentative character md much of the material taken in is brought out again and dropped outside. As this rejection seems mostly to be con- ducted by the female one wonders whether she is showing lisapproval of the kind of stuff collected by her mate. Now occurs behaviour which looks to be of the nature of sourtship yet cannot be described as “ display ’’. An extract mrom my journal will best explain this. ‘‘ April 2nd. Much vurious chasing has taken place to-day. The male alighted ow down on a long, thin shoot of ‘ syringa ’ near the nesting- ox. The female settled beiow him. He moved, spasmodic- lly, up the branch a few inches at a time, she followed, idging her way sideways after him. This pursuit continued tp the branch until he was standing on its tip, she being three to four inches below him. The branch bent low with eir combined weight. He took to the air. Relieved of his veight the branch suddenly straightened almost catapulting he female off into the sky. He alighted in the oak-tree, she ollowed, and again the same sideways scramble up a branch ook place until he was clinging to its extremity. He moved o another branch, alighting low down, and once more he yorked his way upward followed by his mate. These 16 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX “branch-chases’ were repeated many times, both birds flicking their tails incessantly the while. Presently he transferred himself to another tree closely followed by the female and the same succession of movements occurred. After this behaviour had gone on for several hours the speed of the climbing increased and developed into a rapid and determined pursuit during which she flew at him each time he alighted and drove him into flight, she close behind. In this way they again and again passed from branch to branch and from tree to tree, never leaving the garden. Often, as they passed the nesting-box, she would drop on to the perch, per- haps enter, emerging at once to resume the pursuit. The doings of the Starlings were observed throughout the day until 6.26 p.m. when the chases ceased. They had been repeated at intervals until that time, always the same consistent following of the male by the female until he reached each branch tip and moved to another. As the day wore on the female, when she visited the box, which she did every five minutes or so, would dive headlong into the hole without touching the perch, a feat which showed consummate judge- ment of direction as her entrance was made, usually, at great speed ~. The nesting-box is made in two compartments, a circum- stance which was the reason of some difference of opinion between the two birds. One year the male set his heart on the compartment facing south ; his mate fancied the north room. Regardless of her decision he persisted in carrying building material into the south room, but, whether on second thoughts or in response to remonstrances from his mate, he would re- enter and transfer whatever he had brought into the north room. This amusing performance recurred many times in the course of several days until he, reluctantly, accepted his mate’s choice. I write “ reluctantly ”’ for even when incuba- tion was in progress he still, at times, carried green leaves and flowers into the unoccupied compartment, subsequently transferring most of these to the other chamber. About April 7th the female, which had, hitherto, played at carrying material was definitely seen to import an energy into her building efforts which had hitherto been missing, and serious construction became the order of the day. Both birds worked feverishly though there were long intervals when they were not seen. Early morning and evening were their most strenuous times. An unaccountable incident happened wher the male plucked a tuft of lichen from the oak and carried it to the south room LL. Xxx.] STARLINGS AT NESTING SITE. 17 ch where he sat holding it. Suddenly he set off at a eat pace and flew out of sight down the valley. Returning ‘the same precipitate way after a considerable absence he ss still carrying the lichen which he again took to the south om where he dropped it. During building operations one “tertaining episode was frequently repeated. The male suld arrive carrying a long, stiff plant-stem. As he heldit ar the middle he failed, of course, to get itinto the box. His xt move was to retreat to the extreme end of the perch, Wistance of two feet, then charge at the entrance. Some- aes the stalk would bend or break with the impact when all suld be well. But, if it did not yield he would essay the me trick again and possibly several times before he achieved ecess. Occasionally he would, with greater acumen, work beak along to the end of the stalk when, easily, he took ‘in. He did not often think of this way out of his ficulty. The male lived somewhat in dread of his mate for, quite mmonly, when she was inside the box he would fear to enter, ting on the perch waiting until she came out. She still itinued to reject material, dropping it from the doorway. aether to mitigate this disapproval of his lady or from some - obvious reason the male now began to convey green leaves 1 flowers into the nesting hole. During five days this action 3 noted I find he took in the following :—anemone flowers ece; forget-me-not flowers once ; groundsel four times ; ckweed once ; a large spray of lilac buds once ; oak, lilac 1 other leaves sixteen times, and lichen five times. Alsoit 3 observed that each day there were removals of dead and eckened leaves, presumably the shrivelled remains of some of e offerings. Among other birds many Raptores are known “decorate ’’ their nests with sprays of green leaves and it is mecord that a Goldfinch lined its nest with forget-me-not vers. It is difficult to believe that this practice of taking vers into the nest arises from any esthetic sensibility. iit not more probable that leaves and flowers are not eecorations ’’ but “ presentations ’’ forming part of the *rtship ritual and are akin to the presents of fish made by ms to their mates, the leaves carried by Warblers and the cerweed which plays so important a part in the “ display ”’ ‘formances of Grebes. 3uilding continues throughout the day until about ) p.m., having begun before 8 o’clock. Both birds then soft as though going some distance to sleep, probably they sstill frequenting their winter roost with others of their kind, 18 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL, XXX for flocks of Starlings are still to be seen in April feeding in the fields during the day. Stranger Starlings will persist in paying calls much to the annoyance of the owners of the box, particularly the male The doings of these callers are not without their diverting side One will alight on the perch with his feathers tightly pressed to his body. This makes him look very tall, thin and sleek an appearance not lessened by the necessity of stretching upward to peer into the entrance-hole. With great daring very furtively glancing all around as he does so, he may ap proach the hole and insert his head. On rare occasions I have seen a stranger actually enter when, unknown to him the owners were at home. Naturally this invasion produce¢ great outcry and tumult inside the box and out of the entraneg¢ poured forth, first the stranger, then the male with the female close behind, all moving with the greatest haste. The chasé which follows an unwanted call sometimes takes the birds fa afield, but at this stage I have never seen a combat, for fligh appeals more strongly to the interloper than resistance Quite often throughout pursuits of this kind our male carry a leaf or piece of lichen in his beak. These events have brought our chronicle to the middle @ April when coition may take place. My notes record tha about this date the birds begin to arrive quite early, at 6 a.m or thereabouts, and shortly after that hour building begins At first this is done by the female only and she is attende closely by her mate which sings on the ground by her sid while she gathers the material. Once, I have recorded, sh took in material twenty times before 8 o’clock and thai subsequently, the male began to do his share. I find April 18th is the average date for the first egg and eae day afterwards another will follow until the full clutch is laid this, here in Hampshire, seems usually to be six eggs. Almost with the first egg incubation appears to begin, é any rate, the female stays in the box for long periods from thi time onward. At first she does not encourage her mate t enter the box and bustles him out unceremoniously wheneveé he does so. But he persists in his attempts, taking in no and then an offering of a small bundle of building materia or grass blades, or leaves. This practice stops when fh begins to take a share in the incubation, which he does abot two days after the first egg is laid. This accession to hi obligations he may signalize by carrying in a bundle of four <¢ five feathers, the first and only ones to be used. The “change over” frequently for the male seems somewhé ., Xxx.] STARLINGS AT NESTING SITE. 19 vatient of the duty of brooding, for though his mate stays he nesting-box a considerable time, he soon gets bored. as a note on April 30th states that he remained in the box ‘two minutes, emerged, stretched, sang a few bars, went tk, presently appeared and sang again, re-entered, then came -. then went in, seeming anxious to be released. This, :period of service being 14 minutes in all, is an example ais usual conduct. She is not too good a sitter either, says appearing glad of his return, meeting him on the ch. Nor is this to be wondered at for not only does it vase her from the stuffy air of the box but he sometimes ags her a gift of a fat, brown grub on returning to 2 over the work. ounting from the morning of the day when the last egg aid to the time the first young one appears, incubation 2s, approximately, 288 hours. When hatching is imminent th excitement is displayed, both birds popping in and out he box continually but not carrying any food unless it »omething too small to be seen. Towards evening, how- », the male begins to bring food in the shape of grubs, erally two, which look like “leather jackets’. Holding e he waits on the perch for some time not attempting so in. Once he entered three times, remaining inside a ‘moments only. After each entry he emerged and sat on pperch still holding the grubs. Then when he made to go jr the fourth time his mate jumped out at him as though syed. On this he flew off and she went inside. In minutes he returned bearing one grub which, again, he rnot allowed to deliver. Possibly this behaviour indicated his mate thought he was premature in his attentions tan examination of the box showed that only one egg thatched. Next day the female carried away egg shells th she dropped some 20 yards from the nest. After this iin her turn, began to bring food, attended in her goings ‘comings by her mate, who did not carry any. For mral days she appeared to be the sole food-provider, he ung on her assiduously. Then, three days after his frus- d efforts he was seen once again to carry supplies. The e still objected to his exertions and tried to prevent centering the box, but this time he forced his way in and | then onwards both fed the young ones throughout the beginning round about 6 a.m. and finishing towards mm, On six occasions, on different days, their arrivals food were timed. The average periods between visits found to be: morning, 2 minutes and 3} minutes ; 20 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX, near mid-day, 3 minutes; in the evening, 3? minutes, minutes and 4 minutes. Each hour there seems a “ lacuna’ of 10-12 minutes, most probably used for resting and preening or in partaking of food themselves. The staple food was “leather-jackets ”’, i.e. Crane-fly larvee (Tipula oleracea) with beetle grubs of unknown species a good second. Other things were brought such as large, striped burying-beetles, but never any worms. At this stage the female no longer flew away to roost, he nights were spent in the nesting-box with her young ones. The male still went away for the night returning in the morning about 5.30 a.m. Immediately he arrived sh departed for a short period. On May 18th, 1935, a most intriguing thing happened The male arrived with three large grubs held by their heads dangling from his beak. Something seemed to deter hi him from bestowing them for he made twelve abortive ap proaches to the entrance, twice inserting his head but eacl time returning to the extremity of the perch. I thought thi female must be inside but, no, she came with food, presenting it without delay to the young. After his twelfth attempt h went away, returning in 10 minutes with a very large beetl grub which he took in after two efforts. As the youn; ones were now fully feathered it seems possible that he wa using the larve to tempt them to come out of the box. A his subsequent visits that day he always lingered for a whil outside the entrance as though with the same intent. I neve saw the female behave in this way, she always entered th box without hesitation and left at once without the food sh had taken in. Two of the young ones now left the box and they and th female disappeared after she had been seen to feed them oO the lawn. From this time she must have devoted herse solely to their welfare for she left her mate to look after th fledgelings remaining in the nest. His method of collecting food had its points of interes’ He prodded, with open beak of course, here and there on th lawn, till his persistence was rewarded by the capture o “leather jacket’. Carrying this a few steps he laid it dow and probed again. This he did several times until he extracte another larva, when he picked up the first and moved botht the place of his next digging to accomplish which he laid bot his prizes on the grass. Having found a third grub he picke up the two first and carried the three to the nesting-bo@ Three grubs seemed always to be the limit of his' catch each ..XXx.] STARLINGS AT NESTING SITE. 21 e... In this manner he worked alone and unwearingly until xt day, which was the twenty-first after hatching, when : last of his family took to flight and were not seen again. The following points seem worthy of emphasis: The early wropriation of the nesting-box by the male Starling and ‘long, solitary occupation ; the late coming of the female erling ; the tentative nest-construction mainly by the male ; rejection of building material by the female ; the strange rranch-chases”’; the “ presentation”’ of flowers and ves; the “ discouragement’ of the male by the female st, in the initial stages of nest-building ; second, at the ‘inning of incubation ; third, in regard to the early feeding tthe young); the male’s “attendance”? on the female en she began, seriously, to build and to feed the young le, himself, refraining from helping in these operations ing his attendance ; the “temptation” of the fledgelings Wy a the “ division of labour”’ at the end of the fledging dod. (22) FURTHER NOTES ON THE SPARROW-HAWK. BY J. H. OWEN. From time to time I have contributed articles to British Birds dealing chiefly with the home life of the Sparrow-Hawk (Accipiter n. nisus). Since 1924 I have not done any photo graphy, but otherwise I have kept notes of my observation These have done little more than to corroborate what has already been published, but the following notes may be oj interest. NEsT BUILDING. Mr. H. S. Davenport told me that he had watched Sparrow- Hawks building and seen both birds picking up sticks from the ground. This does not agree with my experience, thougk I have watched maleand female taking a share in nest-building It is true that in a completely new nest, one not made on af old foundation of any sort, the lower and heavier sticks look as if they might have been picked up off the ground However, I think these sticks are usually picked up, alread} broken off, from the forks of trees ; they do not often shoy signs that they have been newly snapped off. On the othe hand the lighter material and the lining are almost invariabh broken off by the birds, and I have watched them getting them in the same way that Rooks do. The building seem spasmodic and dependent on the weather, especially whel building starts a long time before the nest is actually needet for laying purposes. If the nest is being constructed in lat April or early May, operations may be carried on mof steadily. If by some mishap a nest has been destroyed, by a gale for example, a new nest may be completed in a very short time if there is need for hurry. I have known a nes completed, under such circumstances, in exactly the sam position as the one destroyed in less than 48 hours after th disaster. Towards evening the male will often bring a victim to th neighbourhood of the nest and call for the hen to come s that he may offer it to her. If she is out of the wood, @ possibly she may be, hunting on her own, he will change h * Mr. Owen’s articles on the SparrowsHawk appeared in the followin volumes : VIII., Food and Habits, p. 193 ; X., Breeding Habits, pp. 4 26, 50, 74 and 106 ; XII., Some Breeding Habits, pp. 61 and 74 ; XIII Some Habits, p. 114; XV., Breeding Habits, pp. 74 and 256; XX Eggs, p. 114; XXV., Feeding Habits, p. 151 ; Hunting, p. 238 ; XXVI Food, p. 34. XL. xxx.] NOTES ON THE SPARROW-HAWEK. 23 »sition two or three times, calling again after each change ad, finally, if she makes no response to his appeals, he will smself make a meal of the prey somewhere not far from the est. Usually he will preen and clean himself after this for sshort time and then will suddenly busy himself in procuring saterial and taking it to the nest. He breaks a twig from a eee and puts it on the nest. He does not seem to take much souble about fitting it into the nest material. Often he will ily stay on the nest one or two seconds ; at other times he say be as long as three-quarters of a minute. It is unusual ‘+ him to stay longer. His search for material is not long, that when he is really busy he returns to the nest every sur or five minutes. It must not be presumed that this is a heneral habit, but I have observed it when the nest is incom- eete and the time for laying is getting close. \There are a good many further points in connexion with est building which seem worthy of record. In one wood of iout 60 acres there is usually only one pair of Sparrow- aawks. There are hundreds of trees in that wood that look uinently suitable for them to use. In spite of this a par- cular tree has been used by at least five different hen birds, ww nests having been built by all of them, for the old nests ere always poked down. Three different positions were used, cd all with a more or less northerly aspect, which is itself uusual in Sparrow-Hawks. A tall birch was used in this ood in 1934. The nest was quite new and was pulled down. 1935 the same hen had built a new nest in the same crotch. ad it not been that the still substantial remains of the old st were at the foot of the tree, and the marks of the climbing wns in the bark, I should have thought I might have mis- ‘ken the tree. Another feature of this position was that the ee was far inside the wood and a very foie way from a ride. course an old nest may be used again and again as a indation for a new nest, but that is quite a different matter. \My experience is that more often than not the Sparrow- awk builds a completely new nest. A large number of birds 2 shot nowadays by pigeon shooters in the woods during ‘bruary and March. Also a very large proportion of the eods about Felsted have been cut down, so that it is much re difficult to find nests than it was a few years ago. In 135 I investigated nine nests and of them seven were new id two built on old nests. But the percentage of new nests «generally rather less than this. In 1934 out of ten nests ‘ were new, three on old nests as foundations, and one was ‘ew nest on the very top of the dome of a new Magpie’s _— cs 24 ' BRITISH BIRDS. [VoL, XXxa nest that had been robbed by some village boys in April. One of the new nests was in some lime undergrowth, about twelve feet high, and in an extremely precarious position. In 1933 out of nine nests I examined, six were entirely new. One of these was in some hornbeam undergrowth about twelve feet high. I fancy the bird was killed as the nest never contained eggs, so far as I know. In 1932 I examined fifteen nests ; of these thirteen were new, an extraordinary high percentage. In 1931, out of thirteen nests nine were new. One of the others was built on a nest started in 1930 but never used. For the last five years this gives an average of practically 75 per cent. of the nests as new. LAYING AND INCUBATION. In an article on the laying and incubation of the Sparrow- Hawk (Vol. XII.) I have given the interval between eggs as 48 hours or more. I have only once had this statement queried. A man who spent a great deal of his time nest- hunting informed me that he had come across a bird that laid every day—five eggs in all. One must be prepared to believe almost anything out of the usual run that is reported about birds, but my experience of Sparrow-Hawks runs to hundreds of nests, and I have never yet known two eggs laid on con- secutive days. SIZE OF EGGs. In Volume XX. I state the average measurement of 425 eggs to be 38.86 by 31.22 mm. During the summer of 1926 I measured 99 eggs which gave an average of 39.40 by 31.50 ; this is a considerable advance in size on the previous average. In the same article I stated that I had no measurements of six-set in which every egg measured over 40 mm. _ Since then I have seen more than one such set and a few details of two sets may be interesting. In 1930 the six eggs average 41.3 by 31.8 ; in 1931 they averaged 42.5 by 30.4. I have not worked out the volumes but probably the 1930 eggs have greater volume than those of 1931. They were the produce of a young bird in the first and second seasons. It is very unusual to see such a marked increase of length, but th decrease in width is even greater. A five-set I measured in 1931 had an average of 42.7 by 32.75 ; this was a magnificen set of eggs from a bird in its prime and all the eggs wer extremely even in size. Another bird laid very small eggs. In 1925 she laid five averaging 34.3 by 29.3; they looke very round but rather misshapen. In 1926 I heard this bir »L. Xxx.|] NOTES ON THE SPARROW-HAWK. 25 ‘kewing ” in a plaintive way in a part of a wood that was sing cut down and found her nest in the next tree to be ‘Med. She had six eggs averaging 34.0 by 29.5, and these ve the smallest sets I have measured. There was very little eviation in size from the average. I have not got any notes yout the 1925 eggs, but four of the 1926 eggs (which had been «cubated a considerable time) were infertile and one con- ‘ined a dead chick. It is curious what a number of mis- asapen eggs are infertile even when they are normal in size, ad these were considerably below normal. These eggs emed to be those of a bird of some age. I have two sets of gs from one female from a wood that was cut down in 926. In each case the timber-fellers sent word about the ‘st. The first set of five averaged 41.3 by 31.9 ; her second +t, also of five, averaged 42.9 by 31.5. She was a young bird ying for the first time. The increase in the size of the eggs ‘most unusual. NUMBER OF EGGs. iI have not seen a nest with seven eggs for many years, ough an old boy of Felsted School found one a year or ro ago. I opened my notes at random and took a list of the gs in the next hundred nests which I knew were first layings sat had not been interfered with to my knowledge. Twenty- rree had six eggs, fifty-seven had five eggs, nineteen had wur eggs and one had three eggs. This gives an aggregate of 92 eggs for the hundred nests. REPLACEMENT OF Lost MATES. \In one wood I used to go shooting pigeons. The keeper ‘ked me to kill a pair of Sparrow-Hawks. The first Saturday Nkilled a hen. By the next Saturday a pair had started a sst ; on that day I killed a male. The next Saturday the sst had increased considerably ; I killed another female. On vy next visit the nest was further increased and I saw a pair \birds but did not shoot at them. During May the nest was bed of its eggs. This shows how easy it is for male or ale Sparrow-Hawks to find a new mate. SOARING. (Comparatively few people have seen Sparrow-Hawks soar though they do it very well. Yet I think that a keen server might have the luck to witness a single bird do it at vy season of the year. On August 2gth, 1935, at Io a.m. .M.T.), I watched a male in the Montgomeryshire Hills aring up to several hundred feet in slow small circles, hardly 26 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. using the wings at all. There seemed no object at all in the action unless it was for pure enjoyment. Afterwards it flew very slowly away at about 500 feet ; this flight was probably a prospecting flight to find a spot to hunt in. ROOSTING. Kestrels and Owls usually use the same roosting place regularly. The accumulation of whitewash and pellets is evidence of this, and it is not hard to obtain pellets for ex- amination. My experience of Sparrow-Hawks is that they are liable to change their roosting perch every night, and therefore it is very difficult to find pellets. The favourite roosting place is a blackthorn thicket, if there is one, or a large hawthorn bush. They, of course, often roost on a small branch against, or very near, the bole of the tree. I have searched the woods on moonlight nights for roosting Hawks, but when I have seen one, and gone away without flushing the bird, I have never found the bird in the same place the next night. I have found a well-used dining place much more likely to furnish pellets. OIES& SROSSBILLS’ METHOD OF FEEDING ON LARCH CONES. N the middle of October, 1935, to my great pleasure I found hat a flock of Crossbills (Loxia curvirostra) had arrived in a arch plantation near my home in Surrey, and the following »bservations which I have been able to make on the bird’s method of feeding on the cones of this tree may be of value. When at work in a larch tree the Crossbill sometimes attacks i cone in situ, but more usually it is first removed. Owing to he toughness of the stalks of the cones they cannot be plucked x snatched from their anchorage, nor does it seem to me that hey are actually cut free. A bird at work hangs below a ywig, one foot gripping it, the claws of the other grasping the cone, it makes a few picks at the base of the pedicel, then in one \ieft movement has the cone free, and holding it in its bill by the stalk flies to a firm perch. If, after it has been discarded, the cone be then examined, the pedicel is seen to show a thearing scar, not a’jagged tear. By gripping the base of the stalk of a growing cone with a pair of strong forceps, | ound that it was easily removed with little force by a sudden sideways twist. Occasionally, however, I have found cones vith jagged torn stalks, and, which is probably connected with this, have sometimes watched a Crossbill picking for a longer ‘ime at the foot of a pedicel, while fragments floated down- wvards from it. When a cone is carried to a firm perch, the bird holds it ugainst the branch with one foot, and extracts the seeds. I aave not seen whether it thrusts its closed bill behind a scale fihus forcing it outwards and splitting it (when the crossed mandibles make a space in which to operate), or first splits a scale down with open bill. The beak is pushed in sideways md the scales then show one or two vertical splits. The ones with these scales and the shearing scar of the stalk, ttrewing the floor of a plantation, are unmistakable evidence bt the presence of Crossbills. I have never found a cone with ny scales stripped right off, or lacerated and broken away as vy a grey squirrel. As each seed is extracted the bird raises its head, and by vorking its mandibles cleans it of its membraneous wing vhich comes floating down in fragments. As long as fifteen minutes are often spent on one cone, but at other times one 28 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. quite sound may be dropped scarcely touched and another selected. I have not seen a fallen cone ever retrieved, even when one Crossbill has left its own food to attack another bird—for they are quarrelsome birds—and both cones were let fall and lost. B. D. MoreETON. LARGE BROOD OF MISTEE-TERRUsSE: At Port St. Mary, Isle of Man, on April oth, 1936, we found a nest of Mistle-Thrush (Turdus v. viscivorus) with six young and one addled egg. The nest was in a chestnut tree in a private garden. We were told by the owners of the garden that it was a second attempt as the first nest had been blown down by a gale. We observed only two old birds, and there was no evidence at all of there being a second female. C. H. Kayes C, HEYCOCK, [While the normal clutch of the species is only four, and five is exceptional, there are about nine recorded occurrences of six eggs. H. S. Davenport (Zool. 1885, p. 333) described a case where two hens laid nine eggs in one nest, and in the following year he found a nest with seven eggs of two types (four and three) which were apparently the produce of the same two hens, and in this case it seems probable that both were mated to the same cock. The above is the first instance of a clutch of seven eggs which has come tomy notice. F.C. R. JoURDAIN.] WHITE-TAILED EAGLE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. AN adult White-tailed Eagle (Halivetus albicilla) appeared at Milton Park, near Peterborough, about February 17th, 1936, and stayed in the district until March 7th or oth. My first view of the Eagle was on the afternoon of February 22nd, and as it moved. out of a tree at a distance of perhaps thirty yards the tail looked pure white, rather short and square in shape. Altogether I saw the bird on four occasions and had it under observation for several hours. Owing to its rather small size I thought it was a male, but this was a general impression gained from my having lived for many years in daily contact with the species in captivity. The bird was decidedly tame, and I had the impression that it might possibly have escaped from captivity. Usually when seen it was sitting in a tree and it was much “‘mobbed”’ by Rooks. It fed for some time on a fallen deer in the Park and also took rabbits. A. EF, Moopyg [A bird stated to be a White-tailed Eagle was reported in Cage Birds to have been observed during the first half of March on several occasions in the neighbourhood of Dartmoor. COL. XXX. ] _ . NOTES, 29 Mr. E. Giles informs us that in Breconshire on April 15th, ‘fter observing Kites and Buzzards, he watched a bird which ‘om its large size, long wings and outspread pinions with »pturned tips was evidently an Eagle. It was high up and its soloration could not be observed but its tail was not white. (Ir. Giles thought it was a Golden Eagle, but an immature Vhite-tailed is perhaps more probable.—EpDs. ] ANOTHER UNRECORDED ESSEX HERONRY. Xn April 22nd, 1936, I visited a heronry in Copthall Grove, Sssex, which has not previously been recorded. Copthall Grove ; half a mile north of Little Wigborough church, three-quarters ‘f a mile south-east of Great Wigborough church, and within hree-quarters of a mile of the extensive saltings which lie to he east of Salcott Creek. Salcott Creek joins the Blackwater sstuary between West Mersea and Tollesbury. Mr. A. R. rhompson and I counted thirty-seven nests, all of which we dged to be occupied ; there were young birds in most of em. There were also three half-built nests, which, of course, 1ay have been relics from the previous season. Thirty-two cests were in oak and five in elm, while the largest number in y one tree was four for oak and three for elm. Mr. Stimpson, vho has been at Copthall for the last four years, informed me that the heronry had increased rapidly, for when he came to -opthall there were only three or four nests. I am indebted to Mr. R. Hutley for the following informa- ion concerning this heronry. The first Herons nested in Jopthall Grove either in 1926 or 1927 when there was one nest. m. the following year there were two, and by 1929 there were three nests. Birch heronry, which the Heron Census (1928) showed had recreased, is three anda half miles NNW. of Copthall Grove, d Rolls Farm heronry is approximately five miles I wish to acknowledge my thanks to Major A. Waller, who rst informed me of the existence of this heronry, and to {r. H. J. Hines for permission to visit Copthall Grove. During the severe winter gales, considerable damage was “one to the nest trees at the Rolls Farm heronry, Tollesbury, ‘he existence of which I first reported in 1934 (antea, Vol. SXVIII., p. 52). Of the four hedge-row elms, which held sests In 1935, two have been blown down, and of the other two enly the trunks and a few of the larger branches remain. On - april 24th, 1936, I counted only six occupied nests : in 1935 bhere were nineteen. | 30 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. I have been unable to make an extensive search of the surrounding country so as to satisfy myself that there are no isolated nests, but three nests containing young Herons have been discovered in two adjacent elms about half a mile north- west of the main heronry. The fact that adequate accommodation is no longer available at the original Rolls Farm site seems worth recording in case new colonies are reported in this area within the next few years. The number of sites available, similar to that at Rolls Farm, is large and it is hoped that observers who may visit | this district, either the north shore of the Blackwater, especially between Tollesbury and Goldhanger, or the south shore in the neighbourhood of Bradwell, will keep a look out for Herons’ nests. JAMES W. CAMPBELL. SCAUP AND BLACK-NECKED GREBE IN INNER LONDON. ON March 13th, 1936, a young male Scaup (Nvroca m. marila) appeared amongst the Pochards which inhabit the Round Pond during winter. It was a young bird, not quite mature as to its plumage, and comparatively tame, feeding with the other ducks. It stayed for some time; the last time we saw it being on March 25th. On April 21st, 1936, on the same pond we saw a Black- necked Grebe (Podiceps n. nigricollis), in full summer plumage, swimming about close to the bank. The bird was very tame. This makes the second record of this species for the Round Pond, one of us (G. C. L.), having reported a similar occur- rence on September 28th, 1931 (Vol. XXV, 1931, p. 166). G. CARMICHAEL Low. i. G. PEDLER DUNLINS IN INNER LONDON. Mr. A. Holte Macpherson remarks in his “Birds of Inner London, 1935” (antea, Vol. XXIX, p. 347), that there is only one definite record of the occurrence of the Dunlin (Calidris alpina) in Inner London before last year, I would like to add two previous occurrences from my own notes, not hitherto recorded, as I had overlooked the infrequency of this species. On August 21, 1924, a Dunlin flew past me near the Hudson Bird Sanctuary in Hyde Park, going south-east, and calling, about noon. On December 16, 1925, when the Round Pond was mainly frozen, I found two very tame Dunlins by the small remnant of open water about 1.45 p.m. They allowed close approach but were persecuted by both Gulls and Mal- lards, and eventually flew first to the edge of the ice, then DL. XXX.] NOTES. 31 vain to the margin, and then away to the west, actually «ghting for a moment on the Broad Walk by Queen Victoria's atue. E. M. NICHOLSON. {HomiING EXPERIMENTS WITH WILD BirDs.—Reference was ade last year (Vol. XXVIII, p. 283) to “ homing ” eperiments by Dr. Werner Ruppell, the results of which cluded return flights by Swallows (Hirundo r. rustica) and eouse-Martins (Delichon u. urbica) from distances of rather ver 300 English miles. The same author has now published .f. Orn., 1936, Vol. LX XXIV, p. 180) an account of further eperiments in which still more remarkable results have been etained. Of particular interest to British readers are the sses of successful “‘ homing ’”’ from England to Germany. vven Swallows were caught on their nests at Scheessel, near cemen, at 10 p.m. on May 20th, 1935. They were ringed, and eeir plumage was also stained with red dye. They were sent aeroplane to Croydon Aerodrome, London, where they were et next morning (21st) by Dr. A. L. Thomson and released three batches at about 12.30 p.m. One bird was seen at theessel at 6 p.m. on May 25th, two others early on May 26th, ad a further two on later dates : four of them were eventually ‘ught for exact identification. The distance between the wo places is about 428 miles. In a later experiment with eouse-Martins from Deinste, in the same part of Germany, wurteen were released at Croydon by the staff there at 11.45 m. on June 22nd, 1935. Two, or possibly three, of these were ‘bsequently observed at the original locality, the first at 220 p.m. on June 24th. Other results include return flights of aarlings (Sturnus vulgaris) from Gleiwitz, near Breslau 338 miles), and of Starlings and House-Martins from Malmé6, southern Sweden (219 miles). In other experiments with sarlings, over shorter distances, the birds were mechanically tbjected to continuous rotation in the dark during the out- ird journey, without adverse effect on their homing powers. (CROSSBILL BREEDING IN DEvon.—Mr. W. Walmesley White ‘forms us that during the last week in April he constantly itched two young Crossbills (Loxia curvirostra) being fed ‘7 their parents at Budleigh Salterton. LUE-HEADED WAGTAIL IN SURREY.—Mr. E. G. Pedler and r. G. Carmichael Low inform us that on April 18th, 1936, hen watching a flight of Yellow Wagtails at Barn Elms, just rrived, they noticed amongst them a Blue-headed Wagtail ‘fotacilla f. flava), which allowed a close approach and satis- ectory identification. 32 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX, ICELAND REDWINGS IN SOMERSET AND NortTH UistT.—Mr, Charles M. N. White informs us that he examined in the Liverpool Museum a Redwing dated male, November 17th, 1899, from Clevedon, Somerset. This bird had a wing of 126 mm. and its coloration was rather dark. Mr. White considers it to be of the Iceland form Turdus m. coburnt. Mr. White also identifies three Redwings (males with wings 123, 125, female 123) obtained in N. Uist, Outer Hebrides, on February 3rd, 1936, as of this form. EARLY WHINCHAT IN SussEX.—Mr. Richard N. Ticehurst informs us that on March 18th, 1936, he saw a male Whinchat (Saxicola rv. rubetra) in Ashdown Forest. He had good views of it through glasses as it perched on a gorse bush and re- marked the pale eye-stripe and white wing patches and in flight the white base to the tail. SEXUAL DISPLAY BY HEDGE-SPARROW.—With reference to the note on this subject (antea Vol. XXIX, p. 360) Mr. W. L. Colyer kindly points out that the late Edmund Selous made notes on this habit under dates 1908 and 1902, as will be found on pages 107 and 109 of his Evolution of Habit in Birds. BITTERN IN Co. FERMANAGH.—Mr. J. P. Burkitt informs us that a Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) was shot at Enniskillen on March 14th, 1936. PURPLE HERON OFF THE COAST OF I[RELAND.—Mr. H. R. Wakefield informs us that a Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea) fell exhausted on to the deck of a trawler when go miles off the west coast of Ireland on April 5th, 1936. The skipper of the trawler and his crew fed the bird upon soaked bread and flat fish, and brought it home alive. It was eventually taken by Mr. Percy Player, who kept the bird and has now handed it over to the London Zoological Society, and he and Mr. Wakefield satisfied themselves of the identifi- cation by comparison with birds at the Swansea museum. Although the bird came on board so far off the coast it is advisable that it should be recorded. Die Vogelwarte Rossitten auf der Kurischen Nehrung. UNDER this title the firm of Ludwig Bredigkeit, of Berlin, has placed on the market a series of lantern slides (8.5 by 10 cm.) illustrating the work of the ornithological station at Rossitten. The set costs Rm. 84, or single slides Rm. 1.25 each, and is also available in miniature on a positive strip of standard cinema film for Rm. 7.50; explanatory text by Dr. E. Schiiz is supplied in a multigraphed brochure. The slides are mostly photographs showing the buildings and neighbourhood of the station, various phases of marking activities, and birds of relevant interest ; there are also some maps showing marking results and the like. 'VERY GARDEN A BIRD SANCTUARY (Miss Turner is a great enthusiast and an attractive writer and she eeks here to encourage bird-lovers to take even greater interest their pensioners and to rouse those who are not alive to the necessity | preserving and increasing ‘* our inheritance,”’ ‘The Author is, above all, a practical enthusiast and her book is sacked with advice on the best methods for all to help her cause, 29m those who are able toset some acres aside as a sanctuary, down the owner of the small town garden. Eight plates and text figures. S. Cr. 8vo. 5/ net. REPORT on the “ BRITISH BIRDS” 1:ENSUS OF HERONRIES, 1928 by E. M. NICHOLSON Paper wrapper 3/6 net. THE WREAT CRESTED GREBE ENQUIRY, 1931 By T. H. HARRISSON anp P. A. D. HOLLOM Reprinied from BRITISH BIRDS Paper Wrapper 2/6 net _.F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd, 326 High Holborn, LONDON, W.C.1 LE GERFAUT [IEVUE BELGE D’ORNITHOLOGIE (Fendée en 1911) aa seule publication scientifique belge traitant des oiseaux. spécialement des oiseaux de la Belgique. Abonnement 25 francs belges - 5 Belgas par an. iirection : Square Prince Charles 21, Bruxelles-Laeken (Belgique) WATKINS & DONCASTER Manufacture and Stock CABINETS and APPARATUS of every kind for Collectors of Birds’ Eggs, Insects, &c. LARGE STOCK OF BIRDS’ EGGS (Singles and Sets) and BRITISH and EXOTIC BUTTERFLIES, &c. NESTING BOXES OF VARIOUS PATTERNS. RICED CATALOGUE OF APPARATUS AND SPECIMENS PER RETURN ll Books and Publications (new and second-hand) on Natural History supplied. P.O. Box 126. Telephone: Temple Bar 9451. 36, Strand, London, W.C.2, England. BIRD-LOVERS’ MANUALS HOW TO KNOW BRITISH BIRDS By NORMAN H. JOY, M.B.0.U. This is a bird identification book on a new principle. In addition to an Illustration and Description of each bird, Field Characters, Nest, Breeding Season and Distribution are given. The author has included all species that breed in the British Isles, and all that are recorded as occurring to some extent every year, although it may be only in a few places on migration. The reader is not expected to wander through the book — hoping to see among the figures something which looks like the bird seen. The author gives a definite method — by which birds can be identified in the field. He stresses the im- portance of recognising birds by their shape and action because, in ~ the field, details of colour are very often not discernible, as the bird may be flying against the sky, or swimming with the sun behind it. Each bird is, therefore, represented in its most frequent natural position, at rest, or in flight ; closely allied species being put in one plate, so that they can be compared. Great care has been taken to reproduce the colours of the illustrations accurately. A section is devoted to song as an aid to identification, and a special Index is given so that an observed character can be looked up easily. Forty plates containing nearly 300 illustrations, many in colour Small Cr, 8vo, 5/= net. BIRDS OF THE GREEN BELT AND THE COUNTRY AROUND LONDON By R. M. LOCKLEY (Author of DREAM ISLAND) The birds and the places they haunt in and about the forests, — the heather and gorse commons, the grassy downs, the streams, lakes, reservoirs, marshes, the chalk hills, the orchards and parks of the country around London, are here described for the first time in a volume that fits the pocket. A much needed and competent handbook, attractively written and full of useful illustrations, it has _ an up-to-date transport guide to all the bird haunts mentioned. Plates and 45 Drawings in the text. 255 pages. Small Cr, 8vo, 5/= net, H. F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd., x 326 High Holborn, London, W.C.I. *> BNUISH ” BIRDS 2 IEUSTRATED- MAGAZINE DEVOTED GHTLY TOTHERIRDS we ONTHEBRTISH UST 7 Vol. XXX. MONTHIY-1s94 YEARLY-20-s ‘O26HIGH HOLBORNI2ENDON.- TLFéG-WITHERBY-LTD- (34) ON THE FIGHTING OF BLACKCOCK. BY GEORGE K. YEATES. (Plates 2 and 3.) THE following notes on the fighting of Blackcock (Lvrurus: tetrix brittanicus) were made whilst I was engaged in photo- graphing this performance during mid-April, 1936, in the forest of Rothiemurchus, Inverness-shire. While I cannot pretend that my observations were as thorough or as protracted as those already carried out by E. Selous and described by him in Realities of Bird Life, the photographs may perhaps explain the various positions assumed more clearly than any written account. Fig. 1.—A general view of the “lek’’ showing proximity to keepers’ dwelling. The tournament ground or “ lek’ was a small grass field.in close proximity to a keeper’s cottage (Fig. 1). Such would seem to be very normal sites, for all the other fighting grounds which I saw were, with one exception, similarly placed, i.e., in open fields rather than rank heather. Since the meeting of British Birds, Vol. XXX., Pl. 2 Se, A RW oe hee ee e + ~ Fig. 3.—Bird on left in position for ‘the rough hiss” Fig. 4.—Bird on right in position for ‘‘ the bubbling cry’. (Photographed by G, Kk, Yeates.) voL. xxx.] ON THE FIGHTING OF BLACKCOCK. = 35 the birds seems to be as much for purposes of feeding as of fighting, it is perhaps natural that such sites should be popular. In the case of the birds on my ground, they certainly ate largely of the remains from the chickens’ meals. Fig. I again shows the birds very close to the fowl house. My observations were made mainly in the morning, from a hide round which the birds did their fighting within two yards. Abel Chapman, in Bird Life of the Borders, has stated that during April the fighting goes on throughout the day. If so, I never saw it between 8 a.m. and 7.30 p.m. (winter time). This may in part have been due to the disturbed sites selected by the birds. Yet I was in the forest most of the day as well, without once hearing the characteristic “‘ bubbling ”’ which infallibly indicates the “ lek.” For the morning meeting the birds collect very early. Selous has, in fact, shown that they begin to arrive before daylight. Yet they are very loth to leave the ground, even if disturbed, and I found that, at 5 a.m., they retired only to a safe distance, flying back again immediately the human presence had vanished. In the evening the birds could be seen gathering near the “leks” from about 5.30 p.m. onwards. For nearly two hours they were content with feeding, and indeed the evening fighting, even at its best, was only spasmodic, and quite secondary to the desire for a meal. Of the two sessions the morning produces the most violent sparring. The weather affects the Blackcock tournament. Heavy snow makes them reluctant to appear. In view of the impor- tant part which feeding plays in the motive of these tourna- ments this is not surprising. Thus, on April 1gth, after a heavy fall of snow by which the ground was thickly covered, no birds were anywhere found displaying. All that I saw were perched in the larch, birch and pine clumps around, where they were feeding off the young shoots. It is perhaps worth noting that even up aloft the tail of one cock bird was still carried in the display position, and he was uttering the melodious ‘‘ bubbling ”’ call which is the note of the birds at ane “lek.” _Light snow, however, as can be seen in the photographs, did not seem seriously to inconvenience them. It was not, however, heavy enough to stop their feeding. As I have already tried to stress, there was on the tourney ground more feeding than fighting, although even when not engaged in actual combat the majority of birds held their tails ‘In the display position. At times, however, they allowed it to fall back into its normal place (Fig. 2). : 36 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Of the “ display ” itself perhaps the most striking feature is the suddenness of the outbursts of vindictiveness. The birds may only be relied upon to fight either when they first arrive (when all the birds seem momentarily to indulge in a short joust before settling down to feeding), or on the arrival of a grey hen in their midst. Thereafter it is spasmodic and uncertain. A feeding bird will quite suddenly, however, show desire to fight. This he does with a little jump into the air. Fig. 2.—Normal position of Blackcock when not engaged in fighting. This may take him only a few inches off the ground, or he may leap as high as two feet. From what I could see the height of his leap is the measure of his vindictiveness, for the arrival of grey hens produced the best efforts! The jump is accompanied by a rough hiss, which I syllabized as “ tchiir-rew’’. This is the note Selous renders as “‘tchu-what’’. It is uttered as the bird reaches the ground with the head held high (Plate 2, Big, 3k This action would seem merely an expression of feeling. It is not, however, the true challenge. At least it seemed to me that birds only became matched when they uttered the bubbling cry— hoo-hoo-how-whur’”’ (with the emphasis on the “ how’’). Iam a little at a loss to reconcile this note with Selous’s “‘ choc-ke-ra-ha’”’ but as he calls it the ‘‘ bellicose’”’ =. WOL. xxx.] ON THE FIGHTING OF BLACKCOCK. 37 mote, | must assume it is the same. This is the characteristic ssound of the display ground, and by it the Blackcock fighting sstations can best be located. The note is much repeated and is wuttered with the head held forward and parallel with the eground (Plate 2, Fig. 4). This brings the rival to match the challenger. Even so hostilities are slow to begin, and for some minutes ~on end the birds just stand and stare at each other (Plate 3, Fig. 5). When at last they do come to grips, it is a mere mock- eery of a fight. The exact details escape the eye, but it seemed ‘to me that despite the earnest charge both birds are anxious to vavoid actual combat. They run in with great speed, but, ‘leaning well back as they are, they withdraw again before they have really tried to inflict a telling blow. After one or two such ‘charges the joust ends as suddenly as it had begun—by the simple process of the one or the other of the birds engaged walking quietly off (Plate 3, Fig. 6) and recommencing feeding. (The other party does not pursue or harry the bird in retreat, tbut quickly forgets its pugnacious feelings and itself begins to ifeed, until once again either its own pugnacity is aroused or it vanswers the challenge of another. (38) THE SPRING HABITS OF THE RED-LEGGED PARTRIDGE, BY WILLIAM E. GLEGG. THE strange behaviour of this species in the early months of the year created in some minds, including those of experienced ornithologists, the idea that the Red-legged Partridge (Alec- torts rufa rufa) was a migrant. J. H. Gurney, Senr. and W. R. Fisher (Zool., 1846, p. 1317) claimed it as a Norfolk bird because it had been said to immigrate to the county. Stevenson (The Birds of Norfolk, 1866) confirmed the reports of coveys, generally exhausted, being found regularly on the coast in spring. In the neighbourhood of Yarmouth, in many successive springs about March or April these birds had been seen on the beach close to the water. On one occasion, when the sands were said to have been covered with their footprints, a covey of from 20 to 30 was flushed and flew out to sea where the birds were lost sight of. Another correspondent informed him that the French Partridges came in about the middle of March or beginning of April, some Io or 12 in a flock; he had seen them when four or five miles from land. Stevenson, although he did not go so far as Gurney, still adhered to migration as an explanation of the incidents. His supposition was that the Partridges attempted to emigrate and finding the distance too great returned to the shore. He recorded (Zool., 1869, p. 1489) that a covey of seven dropped into the sea near Cromer on March 17th, 1868, and were picked up alive, suggesting that this was another instance of intended migra- tion. E. T. Booth (Rough Notes, etc., 1881-7) writes that having often in early spring, March and April, observed the Red-legged Partridges that were seen in considerable numbers flying round one or two of the larger broads in the east of Norfolk and occasionally falling into the water, he ascertained that the birds remaining inland are also affected by a desire to make a move in spring. Once early in March, 1873, he picked up several on the surface of the water, or attempting to conceal themselves in the beds of reeds, on the swampy islets on Heigham Sounds, and a few that were crossing and recrossing from one side of the pool to the other were shot. Booth, while rejecting the idea of oversea migration, suggests that the Partridges become restless and excited in spring and make occasionally vain attempts to change their quarters, thus accounting for the additional numbers seen near the coast and the Broads. J. Cordeaux clung tenaciously to the idea of migration. Writing in 1808 (Iveld, Vol. XCI., p. 899), he 1L. Xxxx.] SPRING HABITS OF PARTRIDGE. 39 ates that for the previous seven or eight years Red-legged artridges had come in regularly between the middle of March .d the end of the first week in April. Sometimes they were ashed up on the coast, dropped exhausted into the docks, ec., and were also caught in the streets near the coast. A war later (Field, Vol. XCIII., p. 516) he tells us: *Frue to -eir time, these birds have made their now annual appearance ‘the town of Great Grimsby’, and he quotes two instances of agle birds having been taken in April. He argued that these ere not local birds but came in direct from the sea and con- «med his views in his A List of British Birds belonging to the amber District, published in 1899. A. H. Patterson (Zool., 00, Pp. 535 ; 1905, p. 186 ; 1909, p. 197), W. J. Clarke (Zool., 97, p. 166 ; 1905, p. 314 ; Naturalist, May, 1936, p. 117) and Coburn (Zool., 1897, p. 233) quote evidence similar to that of -evenson and Cordeaux. Coburn’s record is of interest as it fers to Bournemouth and is the only one not from the east vast. N. F. Ticehurst (A History of the Birds of Kent (1900), 2388) states that although he did not wish to imply that there s a regular migratory movement between Kent and the mtinent, yet he was convinced that occasional birds or coveys \1 wander across. iI now come to a series of records from Staines Reservoir, ‘ddlesex. Mr. D. Gunn informs me that on February 2oth, 225, the bodies of five freshly dead Red-legged Partridges ere found lying together at the edge of the northern reservoir. se same observer also tells me that one of the labourers and three dead in the southern reservoir, This happened or before 1930, but the date is not known. At a later date sound in the northern reservoir the very much decomposed mains of a bird, which had obviously been in the water a ag time and in the same place I found a freshly dead bird March 4th, 1934, and close at hand flushed another Red- ged Partridge. My most intimate experience with these mmersions was on March 15th, 1936. I was seated on the uithern bank of the southern reservoir when three or four ‘ds flew past me at a great pace. They were flying over the ‘ter at least fifty yards from and parallel with the southern sak, moving to the west. The Partridges were about twenty ‘t from the water and just after passing me one planed wn and alighted on it while the remainder of the party atinued on their way and presumably safely reached the st bank. It was only when I turned my monocular on the din the water that I realized it was a Red-legged Partridge. made one or two unsuccessful attempts to rise and then ned its head in my direction. Assisted by a fairly strong 40 BRITISH BIRDS. [VoL. Xxx north-westerly wind, it came steadily towards the bank, its head always towards its objective, and always kept well above the waves. The bird seemingly rode the water buoyantly. It appeared that it would safely reach the bank, but when only two or three yards off its head drooped into the water. I fished it out as rapidly as possible and although life was not quite extinct my efforts to revive the bird were unavailing. The primary cause of death was probably the low temperature of the water. In considering these occur- rences at Staines it must not be forgotten that Partridges are not abundant and of the total not more than 20 per cent. are Red-legged. I have no knowledge that Common Partridges have ever been found in the Reservoir, although they are seen not infrequently on the banks and have nested there. _ I am of the opinion that the behaviour of the Red-legged Partridge as observed at the coast, the Broads and Staines Reservoir is of the same nature. Migration cannot be accepted as an explanation as the incidents are confined to early spring, chiefly March and April, have never been noticed at the time of the autumn migration, were not recorded before the birds had been established by introduction, and have happened in inland localities. The actions of the “‘ French- man”’ in spring may be most logically accounted for by the sexual impulse of the season. The evidence suggests that at this period wide stretches of water have an attraction for the birds. The additional numbers of birds seen in the immediate vicinity of the coast would be thus accounted for. We are confronted by two other problems, namely the immersions and the birds which are said to have been caught by hand. Exhaustion might account for the birds found in the sea as they might fly too far and be unable to return, but this would not explain the deaths of birds in the Broads and Staines Reservoir. The bird, whose descent into the water I wit- nessed, did not act as though exhausted, and by a slight deviation of its course could have reached land in a matter of seconds. It seems more probable that the Partridges are indulging in pairing flights, in which they become frenzied and oblivious of their danger. As to the easy capture of some Red-legged Partridges it would seem that exhaustion is a cause, but this might also be accounted for by their descent into the water and swimming ashore. It is probable that the Staines bird would have escaped but for the low temperatur of the water, and Lord Lilford (The Birds of Northamptonshire, Vol. I., p. 306) quotes two instances of having seen this species swimming, on the second, “ with apparent ease and equa nimity ”’ in the Broad district of Norfolk. (41) URTHER NOTES ON BEHAVIOUR OF STARLINGS AT THE NESTING-SITE. BY GEORGE MARPLES, A.R.E., A.R.C.A., M.B.O.U. [HE account which appeared on pp. 14-21 antea, described -he normal life of Starlings, tenants of one of my nesting-boxes. 8ut not always do events work out so satisfactorily as the -ollowing will show. Another nesting-box was appropriated, on April 15th, by a male Starling (Sturnus v. vulgaris) which yetween intervals of popping in and out of the hole, sang yersistently from the perch gazing the while in all directions mto the sky. Whenever another Starling appeared in the vicinity or flew overhead the perched bird’s wings, which “enerally flapped a little during singing, began to wave vildly, being held so loosely as to suggest dislocation of the thoulder joint. The secondaries were spread, the primaries eing kept closed or nearly so, their points describing complete circles during the waving. This grotesque action ss eminently suitable as an accompaniment to the equally rotesque song and seems practised in order to attract the ittention of other passing Starlings for, not only does it uppear more usual with unmated birds, it is undoubtedly more pronounced when another Starling is observed. Atter ix days of this singing and waving and diving into the box and out again, still without a mate, he began to build, carrying material into the box at intervals and at times bringing some of it out again. There was not the slightest display of antagonism against whe neighbouring birds which lived only twelve feet away ; deed, they would, now and again, go off and feed together. On April 16th great excitement was observed, the cause eing the arrival of a female. This bird proceeded to share the erch with the male, singing a little, both of them entering md leaving the hole many times. All seemed to be well and ‘expected their future doings would follow normal lines. But this was not to be. Whether on further acquaintance he (or the) was found wanting or whether the nesting-box disclosed ‘satisfactory features cannot be told. Whatever the reason, ‘fter a day and a half of close association the female disap- reared, not to return. Nothing daunted the male resumed sis song-vigil on the perch, still building from time to time. Yecasionally he returned to the box in a most precipitate ‘aanner, going into the hole without alighting or with the ‘lightest hesitation on the perch. After entering in this eeadlong fashion he remained inside for a considerable period D 42 BRITISH BIRDS. IWOL, xx 2 or would peep out looking in all directions as though expecting an enemy might be in the vicinity. This recurrent proceeding suggested a fear that his nesting-site was in danger of being filched from him if he were not actually in possession to defend it. Notwithstanding his strenuous wing-wavings to attract a second spouse he failed to do so and after a few days, a lone existence being intolerable, he too departed for, perhaps, a more successful sphere. After he had gone I extracted the result of his building efforts and found he had accumulated enough material almost to fill an ordinary waste-paper basket. Its weight was exactly eight ounces and was made up of dead leaves and tufts of grass, green leaves, small plants from the flower beds, flowers of various kinds, twigs and straws. This instance of an unmated male had, curiously enough, its counterpart in 1936, in the other nesting-box which was occupied by a widowed Starling. A pair took possession and in due course a clutch of eggs was laid. Incubation proceeded for almost its normal period when the male bird disappeared. The female, nothing daunted, continued to sit, dashing off at short intervals for change and food. In a few days the young were hatched and then commenced a strenuous time for the female which single-handed undertook the task of providing the necessary food. This was done by a rapid series of returns with grubs of various kinds and at times with something invisible. Is it possible that on these occasions she was carrying water? After a burst of this quick feeding she ~ remained in the box for a period, then resumed the feeding, then stayed in the box and so on throughout the day. Several times she returned accompanied by a male, a stranger, which alighted on ashrub near by. He was evidently attracted by the widow but when he alighted on the perch to investigate her home the yelping youngsters in the box obviously made him pause for he looked with evident surprise at the hole, flew precipitately away and was not seen again. So, alone, the mother continued her task until the emergence of her family to fend for themselves put an end to her labours. ZNOTES& CROSSBILLS’ METHOD OF FEEDING. \. NOTE in the June number of British Birds (Vol. XXX., . 27) by B. D. Moreton, tempts me to carry the observations little farther by publishing a few notes made as long ago as ‘888 on the method of feeding of some Crossbills which I kept aa large open aviary. While it is much more interesting to aake observations on birds in their native haunts, there are “ome minute actions which can only be appreciated at very lose quarters, and even Newton in his Dictionary recommends she study of Crossbills in captivity to the “ attentive observer ’. Being so fearless by nature and becoming almost too familiar 1an aviary, they lend themselves readily to close observation. had altogether seven Crossbills, some with the bills crossing me way, some the other: a pair from Scotland, and five oreigners, purchased from ‘‘ Cross’s Menagerie "’ in Liverpool. ross fed his birds entirely on hempseed and they would 2ldom eat any other if hempseed could be got ; failing this ney chose Indian Thistle or Canary. They picked up the eed between the tip of the tongue and the point of the upper mandible and, after shelling it, dropped out the husk always on the same side of the bill, that over which the upper mandible mrossed. When I could obtain cone-bearing branches of larch ae following method was adopted—the bird broke off the one with its bill, by taking hold of the short stalk attaching it » the branch, then flew with it to a perch and placed it orizontally between its feet with the base always towards the (de on which the upper mandible crossed. Sometimes the one was held obliquely with its apex away from the bird, wut always with its base inclined to the side I have indicated. caving thus placed the cone in position, the bird inserted the pened bill under a scale near the base of the cone, and levered up by a lateral movement, with the lower mandible applied » the body of the cone as the fulcrum. It then extracted the eed by the tongue pushed out between the crossed mandibles, upidly shelled it, and dropped out the husk on the same side ‘ the bill as in shelling ordinary seeds. Before the bird could ssinuate the beak laterally, it often had to seize the scale and var it downwards towards the base, thus no doubt causing the artical splits as noted by B. D. Moreton. This constant lation of the position of the cone and the side of extrusion of ie husk or shell to the direction of the crossing of the man- bles is what one might expect, but T have not seen it noted 44 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. anywhere. I have been hoping to confirm these observations but have had no further opportunity. W. HENRY DOBIE. GREY-HEADED WAGTAIL IN NORFOLK. On May 11th, 1936, a male Grey-headed Wagtail (Motacilla f. thunbergt) appeared at Hickling. I was accompanied by Col. H. W. Madoc, who had seen this subspecies abroad, and by Mr. R. M. Garnett. We had very good views of the bird, which had the crown dark slate blue with black or almost black lores and ear-coverts and no eye-stripe whatever. The under- parts were sulphur yellow, shading to a pale yellow or light buff on the chin. There was a pair of Yellow Wagtails (IM. f. rayt) near the bird, which displayed to the female. On May 12th it was alone in the same area and Mr. J. C. Harrison made several drawings of it from a distance of a few yards. The bird was seenin swampy ground within three- quarters of a mile of the original spot by several other orni- thologists up to May 21st. It was always tame and busy catching insects off the growing rushes. J. VINCENT. PIED FLYCATCHER IN RENFREWSHIRE. As I believe the Pied Flycatcher (Muscicapa h. hypoleuca) has not been previously recorded for Renfrewshire, it is advisable to state that I saw a pair on May oth, 1936, in a well-wooded valley in the east of the county. Both birds were very shy and usually kept to the tops of the trees, but their white under-parts and “ pied”’ upper-parts were very noticeable. The cock bird frequently uttered a series of notes which I hkened to “ tweech.”” The birds may have been intending to nest as they never left a certain spot in the wood for very long at a time. PHILIP A, (CLANCEYA THRUSH DESTROYING EGGS OF THE WILD=DUCKSe A MALLARD (Anas p. platyrhyncha) that had its nest close to my garden pond discontinued laying therein, evidently on account of one or more of the eggs having been destroyed. I was curious as to cause of the trouble until I caught a Song-Thrush (Turdus e. ericetorum) red-handed, smashing in at the larger end, one of the two remaining eggs and feeding on the contents. The last egg was transferred to the duck’s second nest. J. Ss: Ennion BLACKBIRD S LAKGE CEUICH OF EGGS. ON May 8th, 1936, I was shown a nest of the Blackbird (Turdus m. merula) containing nine eggs. This was built in a small bush close to the house in a garden at Wing near Leighton MOL. XXX.] NOTES, 45 Buzzard, Bedfordshire. The nest was found after it contained the full clutch, and as all nine eggs are exactly the same dark type there is no doubt that they were all laid by the same bird. Phot. O. G. Pike The owner of the garden thought that as it was a record clutch it ought to go into a collection, and when the eggs were blown it was found that they were all in the same state of mncubation practically fresh, with the exception of two which sshowed a slight trace of having been sat upon. This, I think, ‘ould be accounted for by the long period the hen would spend pon the nest in depositing nine eggs. There seem to be a number of large clutches about this sseason ; I have heard of two Blackbirds with seven and several Lapwings with five. OLIVER G. PIKE. SIZE OF CLUTCHES OF BLACKBIRD IN EAST RENFREW AND WEST LANARK. [HE remarkably small clutches frequently laid by the Black- aird (Lurdus m. merula) in East Renfrewshire and West Lanarkshire I think call for notice. It is my opinion that this labit of laying small clutches has nothing to do with the weather (drought, etc.), as several records area year or two old. 46 BRITISH BIRDS. (VOL: 3x Small clutches are on the whole nearly always first layings, though on at least one occasion I have seen two eggs in mid- June. This certainly was a second or third laying. The following will give some idea of the size of clutches found in this region. 1. Three records of one egg :-— Carmunnock, Lanarkshire, May 23rd, 1932. Cathcart, Renfrewshire, April 16th, 1935. April 21st, 1936. 2. Twelve records of two eras. The following being the two earliest and the two latest :— Busby, Renfrewshire, April 15th, 1933. Cathcart, ty April 2oth, 1935. en May 12th, 1935. Carmunnock, Lanarkshire, June 15th, 1935. I have between thirty and forty records of three eggs. Four eggs are very common, while five eggs are only very occasionally found in second or third layings. Pare A. CLANCEN’ UNUSUAL METHOD OF DRUMMING BY GREAT SPOTTED WOODPECKER. On February 14th, 1936, in Richmond Park I watched a Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dryobates m. anglicus) “* drum- ming ’’ in a way which, in my experience, is very unusual. Near the top of an oak tree a dead branch was leaning about ten degrees from the perpendicular. Beneath it clung the bird —a female. She inserted her beak in a slot and made the noise by striking each side of it with the side of her bill alternately and very rapidly. The slot seemed to be a longi- tudinal crack an inch or so wide. I had a clear view of the bird’s action, through glasses, in good light. She made the drumming-call several times and preened herself in the intervals. Another bird was replying at some distance and at last she flew off towards it. WILLIAM L. COLYER. GREEN WOODPECKER DRUMMING. On April 29th, 1936, in a wood near Marske, Swaledale, Yorkshire, my brother and I heard a sound resembling a kettle-drum being played, and saw a Green Woodpecker (Picus v. virescens) halfway up the living trunk of a slender, sixty-foot ash tree, about seventy yards away. The bird, which was a male, was at the lower end of a long, narrow crack in the bark. Its head was bent forward into the crack and its wings were quivering; the sound stopped, the head was VOL, XXX.] NOTES. 47 flung back and the familiar cry was given with open bill, before the drumming was resumed. There were six “ drums ”’ and three “ cries ” whilst the stance remained the same. After this the bird moved up and round the tree and flew away. D. STEINTHAL. TAWNY OWL TAKING PREY DURING THE DAY. WHEN walking along a ride of my woodland in Wyre Forest, Shropshire, at 4.45 p.m. (Greenwich time) on April 27th, 1936—a bright summer afternoon—I flushed a Tawny Owl (Strix a. silvatica) from the undergrowth. It rose heavily but soon settled again on the lower branch of an oak tree and I was then able to make a close approach and saw that it held a small rabbit in its talons, but which I failed to make it release. Possibly a brood of young owls may have been the pressing necessity in this instance. 4; S. Exuiorr. SPOONBILL IN COUNTY DOWN. Mr. CRAWFORD ROGERS, a keen bird observer, writes me that while fishing at Lord Bangor’s lake at Killough, co. Down, on May 24th, 1936, his boatman, Jack Rogan, pointed out a pure white bird of a kind unknown to him about 25 yards away. Mr. Rogers told him to row slowly towards it and he got within ten yards of it. The bird was standing in about six inches of water and appeared to be about two feet in height, had a long curved neck, large white wings not too closely laid along its body, thin legs and a long beak ending in a flat surface like a pair of hands laid palm to palm. It rose and flew slowly but powerfully towards the sea coast a short distance away. Mr. Rogers asked me could it possibly be a Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) and on showing him a plate of this species, he at once recognised the bird as the one he had seen. This is a most interesting record for Ulster as according to Ussher and Warren there have been only three previous occurrences of this rare bird, although it has been reported more frequently from Southern Ireland. W. H. WorkKMAN. A FURTHER ADDITION TO ESSEX HERONRIES. ON May 18th, 1936, I paid a visit to a heronry in the parish of Woodham Walter, Essex, which is a further addition to the colonies in the county. There were eight nests, all of which appeared to be occupied, in three trees—an elm, an ash and an oak—growing in a hedge beside a water meadow and within a quarter of a mile of the Chelmer and Blackwater Canal. 48 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX, Five of the nests were in the elm, two in the oak and one in the ash. This heronry is approximately two and three-quarter miles east from West Mead Grove, which is the site of the heronry at Boreham, one and three-quarter miles north-west from Woodham Walter Church and one and a half miles south from Hatfield Peverel Church. Mr. E. G. Speakman, of Woodham Walter Lodge, on whose property this heronry is, informed me that the Herons (Ardea c. cinerea), first nested at this site in 1934, when there was one nest ; in 1935 there were three nests. Last year a Starling (Sturnus v. vulgaris) reared a brood in a nest built among the foundations of one of the Herons’ nests and this year a Jackdaw (Coleus m. spermologus) used a similar site. I am indebted to Mr. A. R. Thompson for informing me of the existence of this heronry and to Mr. E. G. Speakman both for permission to visit the heronry and for the information concerning it. "James W. CAMPBELL. AUDUBON'S. LITTLE. SHEARWATER IN SUSSEX. A NEW BRITISH BIRD. ON January 7th, 1936, an example of this race of the Little Shearwater (Puffinus assimilis ’herminiert Lesson) was found on the beach at Bexhill-on-Sea. The bird was taken to Mr. G. Bristow of St. Leonards for preservation and subsequently came into my possession. In view of the fact that it is new to the British List and that it had not been seen in the flesh by any competent authority, I went to considerable pains to find out the exact circumstances of its discovery. I ascertained from Mr. Bristow that it had been found by a Mr. W. E. Dance of Pebsham, near Bexhill, upon whom I accordingly called the following day. I was quite unknown to and unexpected by Mr. Dance. When shown the specimen, without any leading questions having been put, and with in addition all the data labels covered over, he gave me a full statement of its finding, a statement sub- sequently attested by Mr. Dance before a Commissioner for Oaths. The narrative as told me gave me no cause whatsoever to doubt its truth. This briefly was that on January 7th he saw on the beach at Galley Hill, Bexhill, a small sea-bird surrounded and being molested by Gulls, and putting up a vigorous fight. On reaching it Mr. Dance picked it up to examine it, and then put it down on the shingle again to see if it would fly, it merely spread its wings and then collapsed on the beach. He thereupon decided to take the bird home, and it died about half an hour after being found. It was taken to Mr. Bristow that same evening for preservation. BL. Xxx.) NOTES. 49 A comparison of this specimen with material in the British \Museum leaves no doubt that the bird is the West Indies form (Puffinus assimilis Vhermimiert Lesson). The present specimen was unsexed and is of a brownish slate colour on the upper yparts, the lores and just above the eyes are mottled with whitish, while it is white immediately above the gape. The winder tail-coverts are mostly white, the outer ones, however, sare brownish on the outer webs. The inner webs of the primaries are dusky. When compared with the Madeiran and the Cape Verde birds its browner upper parts are at once apparent, while on measurements also it is outside both these maces. The only previous record for this Shearwater is Gould’s specimen now in the National Collection, which was said to nave been obtained in Devon, a record discredited as no confirmatory evidence was obtainable, while Gould himself id not allude to the supposed occurrence in his Birds of Great ritain (see H. F. Witherby, Brit. Birds (Mag.) Vol. IX, . 203). The present specimen therefore constitutes a first The soft parts according to the finder were as follows: {ris: yellowish brown. Bill: sides at gape dull orange- yellow, shading to brown towards the middle and tip ; culmen proper rather brighter orange-yellow, nail bright polished brown, nares bluish. Tarsi : outer side dull (flat) brown, inner sides bright yellowish-brown. Webs: bright yellowish-brown. The description of the soft parts is supported by the ‘appearances of these in the dried skin, which suggests browns vand yellows and in my opinion excludes blackish or blue tones entirely except on the nares where some traces of a darker »igment can be discerned. The measurements of the specimen are as follows :— Wing, 201 mm. ; exposed culmen, 30 ; depth of closed bill at base, 9.5 ; least depth of bill, 6.5 ; width of bill at base, 0.5; tarsus, 39; middle toe and claw, 44. JAMES M. HARRISON. DOYSTER-CATCHER AND ROCK-PIPIT NESTING INLAND IN CHESHIRE. ‘AT Mount Manisty on the Mersey banks of the Manchester Ship Canal between Eastham and Ellesmere Port, with a party of the Liverpool Naturalists’ Field Club on May 23rd, 1936, [came across the nest of a pair of Oyster-Catchers (H@matopus 9. occidentalis) containing one egg, just above high tide line, the birds being in the vicinity. I later took a number of naturalists to verify the record as there is no previous record of Oyster-Catchers nesting in Cheshire. 50 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. On the two mile stone embankment of the canal from East- ham locks to Mount Manisty I also noted three pairs of Rock- Pipit (Anthus s. obscurus) nesting between the stones of the embankment on the (tidal) Mersey side. The locality is some twelve miles from the sea, and the only other known nesting place of the Rock-Pipit in Cheshire is Hilbre Island in the Dee Estuary. The Mount Manisty region was formerly open to the public but for some time now has been preserved by the canal authorities with a marked increase of nesting birds. Eric HARDY. AVOCET RINGED IN. RHONE DELTA FOUND IN ESSEX. I Am indebted to Dr. J. Campbell for giving me the information that an Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta) bearing a ring inscribed Oiseaux Museum, Paris, F. 3211, was shot in the estuary of the Colne, Essex, on August 8th, 1934. Dr. Campbell's informant stated that on enquiry at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, the ring was stated to have been put on a nestling at the Ile de Mornes in the Camargue on May 26th, 1934, by the “ Station de la Réserve zoologique de Camargue’’, a fact kindly confirmed to me by Dr. J. Berlioz. Dr. Campbell was further informed that four other Avocets (without rings) were most unfortunately shot at the same time, but as these had no rings it is, of course, impossible to say whether they were of the same origin. I am also informed by Dr. Berlioz that while 274 Avocets in all have been ringed in the Camargue since 1932, there have been only three other reported recoveries and these only of local interest. The fact that this Avocet travelled in its first autumn from the Camargue to Essex is sufficiently extraordinary to record specially, though without further information of the migration of others from this district one must, I think, consider provisionally that this is an abnormal case. There are some other records of ringed migrants going north in their first autumn and perhaps the most striking example recorded for this country is the Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) which travelled from Hungary to Lincolnshire (antea Vol. XXVIII, p. 139). There are also records of birds having been fourid in subsequent summers far north of the place in which they were bred, and it seems possible that there may be some connexion between the two cases, since a bird taking an unusual route in its first autumn may then join and stay with other birds of the same species belonging to a totally different breeding area. H. F. WITHERBY. VOL. XXX.] NOTES. 51 IMMATURE LITTLE GULL IN HERTFORDSHIRE WITH NOTES ON ITS CHARACTERISTICS. For half an hour on the afternoon of May 3rd, 1936, I watched with a telescope, at a distance of between 400 and 500 yards, a party of half a dozen Common—or it may be, though that is hardly likely, Arctic—Terns, at the Wilstone Reservoir, Tring. With the Terns was a Little Gull (Larus minutus). In appear- ance more robust and with shorter and more rounded wings than the Terns, its behaviour was similar to theirs : flying up and down in a desultory way and frequently swooping down to pick something from the surface of the water. Its under- parts, including the under-wing, were white. The distal half of the upper wing was entirely black ; the proximal half had throughout its length a broad, ill-defined black band, bordered by areas of pale grey. These characters and the dusky ear- coverts as well as the Tern-like appearance and habits of the bird met the requirements of an immature Little Gull, but the tail, as it appeared to be, definitely did not. The brown tail-bar of immaturity is curiously inconspicuous in many Gulls at quite close range ; and at a distance of more than 400 yards the tail-bar of this Little Gull was quite imper- ceptible. The central tail feathers were white throughout their length, and, the brown bar on the other feathers being imperceptible, the whole tail seemed to be white, and as the bird turned in the air to be not merely graduated but markedly wedge-shaped, a perplexing and, until the seeming absence of - the tail-bar was realized, an almost disconcerting appearance ; a good example of the different appearance of a bird in the hand and one in the field. The only previous occurrence of the Little Gull in Hertford- shire known to me is that of an immature bird, shot at the Tring Reservoirs on September 16th, 1927 (Tvans. Herts. Nat. mist. soc., XVIII., p. 203) CHAS. OLDHAM. LITTLE GULL IN WARWICKSHIRE. On May oth, 1936, Mr. F. R. Barlow, Mr. and Mrs. M. A. Swann and the writer watched a Little Gull (L. minutus) at very close quarters on Curdworth Sewage farm, Warwickshire. It was a bird in second-year plumage, with pale underside to the wing, the primaries and mantle strongly marked with dark brown and black, forehead white, a spot behind the, eye blackish, back of the head grey. The two central tail-feathers were white to the tips, the rest black tipped,-so that at a distance the centre of the tail looked té be elongated ; but when the bird flew overhead the square tail was plainly 52 BRITISH BIRDS. (VOL, ex outlined. For about half an hour the bird was swimming and hovering over the water among some Black-headed Gulls. It then flew away eastwards, along the line of the River Tame. On the following day, however, it was again seen at Curd- worth, but not subsequently. H. G. ALEXANDER. OUATE IN SUFFOLK. A Quail (Coturnix c. coturnix) was handed to me on June 2nd, 1936. It would seem to have hit the telegraph wires at Trimley St. Martin and was picked up dead. It was brought to a gamekeeper and is now being set up for the Ipswich Museum. Dr. C. B. Ticehurst in his History of the Birds of Suffolk (1932) states that since 1884 he can enumerate only six occurrences of the Quail in Suffolk, five in autumn and one in May. G. Brrp. MouLt oF THE RooK.—Those interested in studying the Rook (Corvus f. frugilegus), and especially points connected with the bare “ face’ and the moult which takes place at different ages, may like to know that the material I collected in Ig11-12 for the purpose of studying the moult, especially of the “‘ face,”’ is now in the Natural History Museum, Crom- well Road. This material consists chiefly of heads and wings. of Rooks at all ages and seasons collected for me by the kind- ness of the Duchess of Bedford and Mr. Hugh S. Gladstone, and some of my notes regarding them, microscopical slides and a copy of my paper on the subject in BRITISH BIRDs, October, 1913. Mr. N. B. Kinnear has had these arranged in a special drawer and they are now available for examination by any student of the subject. H. F. WITHERBY. GREAT GREY SHRIKE IN May In KEntT.—Mr. J. C. Britt gives us a good description of a Great Grey Shrike (Lanius excubitor) which he saw on May 23rd, 1936—a late date—near Lydd. “GREAT WHITE HERON ”’ IN WILTSHIRE.—In July, 1935, Dr. J. Berry and Mr. C. R. Stonor observed a large white Heron at Tisbury, Wiltshire, and came to the conclusion that it was an example of Egretta alba (Vol. XXIX, pp. 249-251). Other observers also saw the bird, but no one was able to describe the colour of the bill and legs. In May, 1936, Mr. C. M. R. Pitman informed us that a white Heron which he considered to be an albinistic Avdea cinerea was still in the same place and as a result of careful observations he described the bill and legs as of a “ dirty yellowish colour’. *} VOL. XXX.] NOTES. 53 Dr. Berry informs us that he has seen a white Heron at this place on several occasions this year (February and March) and writes as follows : “ This bird is almost entirely greyish-white. Seen in flight from any distance, unquestionably it might appear entirely white, especially in the brilliant sunshine in which we saw the bird which we took to be Egvetta alba last summer. In spite of the dictates of reason, however, I am not fully satisfied that this was the case. Were it so, I cannot understand how the duller plumage and darker markings of the semi- albino could have given us so strong an impression of brilliant and complete whiteness together with a rather truncated appearance 1n flight. Of course, the observation cannot now be considered as an authentic record of Egretta alba.” Rurr IN Outer HEBRIDES.—We are informed by the Hon. Guy Charteris that a young Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) was shot in South Uist late in August, 1935, and was sent to him for identification. As the bird is a scarce passage migrant in the Outer Hebrides this should be put on record. RurFs IN SUMMER AND GARGANEY IN CHESHIRE.—Mr. R. B. Sibson informs us that he watched two pairs of Ruffs (Philomachus pugnax) in south Cheshire on May 18th, 1930. Both males were in full summer plumage in which state they are seldom observed in the county, the last record being in May, 1924 (Vol. XVIII, p. 60). The same observer saw a drake Garganey (A nas querquedula) in this locality on May 24th. LittrLtE TERNS IN MippLEsEx.—Mrs. Helen Rait Kerr informs us that she watched two Little Terns (Sterna a. albifrons) hawking over Highgate Ponds on the afternoon of May 6th, 1936. REVIEWS. LOCAL REPORTS. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society, 1935. THE Report of the Committee for Wild Bird Protection is very full this year and gives a good account of the main ornithological events in the county. Notes by Major A. Buxton on the behaviour of a pair of Water-Rails at the nest are of considerable interest and these are illus- trated by excellent photographs. The deplorable destruction of Harriers which has already been recorded is set forth as well as Mr. Vincent’s opinion of their effect on other bird-life. Bearded Tits were extremely plentiful. At Hickling a Temminck’s Stint was noted on May oth, an immature Sabine’s Gull on September roth, a bird which Mr. Vincent identified as a female Rustic Bunting on April 28th and an Alpine Swift on September 3rd. In Mr. Cadman’s report on Breck- land we find that Stone-Curlews are still clinging to their ancestral breeding grounds,and nesting in numbers took place in fairly dense plantations (Professor Newton recorded that a pair resorted to a spot at Elveden long after it had become the centre of a flourishing wood). A Snipe’s nest was also found in a plantation three years old, and a 54 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Ringed Plover and a Lapwing nested successfully in forestry nurseries. In his report on the Kelling-Salthouse-Cley area Mr. Garnett mentions a Firecrest at Kelling in January and February, a Willow-Tit nesting at Kelling (there are few records for Norfolk), and an unusually large migration of Swifts at the end of August. A Red-spotted Bluethroat was seen by the watcher on May 29th. Dr. Long records seeing a Hooded Crow not fully fledged on the dunes at Horsey on June 4th and fifteen Avocets (which remained some days) in August at Breydon. In another paper Dr. Long gives a very useful historical account of the Norfolk sanctuaries. The London Naturalist, 1935. THIs contains the usual careful account contributed by a large number of observers on “‘ Birds in the London Area.’’ Amongst these distribu- tional notes there is a Grey Wagtail nesting at Elmers End (Kent), a Stone-Curlew in Richmond Park on April 14th, Grey Phalarope at Staines in September and Barn Elms in November, and several records of Scandinavian Lesser Black-backed Gulls on the Thames. This volume also includes a Great Crested Grebe Report for the area by Mr. P. A. D. Hollom, an interesting point in which is the importance of gravel pits to these birds. In 1931 there were six pairs in gravel pits and in 1935 sixteen pairs. Unfortunately, as Mr. Hollom remarks, in many cases this accommodation for nesting Grebes is only temporary as the pits are often filled in with rubbish and even built over. Dr. J. Berry contributes “‘ An Identification Key to British Grey Geese ’’ in which some as yet not generally accepted ideas about the Bean-Geese are summarized. South-Eastern Bird Report, 1935. THis is the second annual issue of a Report which was instituted and is edited by Mr. Ralph Whitlock. Originally it included the whole of Hampshire, Sussex, Itent and Surrey, but this year it wisely omits those parts of the two last-named counties which are covered by the London Natural History Society. In noticing the first Report we ventured to criticize some of the records and to suggest that Mr. Whitlock might obtain expert assistance in various parts of the area and this he has now done. Besides the more usual tables of arrival and departure dates of migrants, the Report contains a number of tabulated records on song, which should prove a useful feature if continued and amplified. Among the “‘ County Notes’’ arranged systematically, we find a full report on the movement of Jays in Hampshire, a number of notes on the immigration of Crossbills, occurrences of Waxwings in March and April in Hampshire, a Dartford Warbler in the Dungeness area in January, a Whinchat at Sandwich Bay on November 3rd (a very late date), a record from Romsey of young Swallows in nests under a corrugated iron roof suffering from intense heat and many falling to the floor below and dying, a Garganey breeding in S.E. Hampshire, a report of a Bittern said to have nested near Lymington in 1934 but this being without details is valueless, also a report of a Dunlin breeding near Havant in 1932, an egg being identified by two experts cannot be accepted without further information ; a number of notes of Black- tailed Godwits; several occurrences of Grey Plover in Sussex at the end of May, and a record of a Caspian Tern, whose distinctive features are described, near Deal on November 15th, a remarkably late date for an occurrence of this species. The Report is well put together and contains an unusually large number of notes and though some are of a trivial nature, many are of interest and value. Ou ou (OL. XXX.] REVIEWS. report of the Cambridge Bird Club, 1935. “us Report is severely restricted on account of expense as the Club is still handicapped by a debt on the production of the Birds of Cambridge- thive. There is a short list of more important birds observed, including . Water-Pipit on the Sewage Farm on March 26th, the Yellowshank ready recorded in our pages (antea, Vol. XXVII, pp. 357-8, Vol. XIX, p. 123), which first arrived on March 29th, 1934, was frequently een in 1935 from mid-March to April 21st and again in September up co the 13th but not since, the Common Pochard bred again in Barwell Zen and a Little Gull was seen on the Sewage Farm on April 16th. Report on Somerset Birds, 1935. ANOTHER excellent county Report. More records are given of tree- aesting Ravens, an extension of the Buzzard’s range is chronicled and i Garganey is reported on the R. Axe in September. Special attention has been paid to the number of Ducks and Grebes visiting Barrow Reservoirs, careful counts being made on a number of eecasions. A large number (1,200) of Pochard at the end of the vear was cemarkable, while huge flocks of Teal were reported off Brean Down in January. Special reports are made on the birds selected for the year by the ritish Trust for Ornithology, viz., Redstart, Great Spotted Wood- decker and Common Pochard (not yet definitely recorded as breeding). he Report also contains a careful description of the appearance, light and notes of the Barrow Pectoral Sandpiper (antea Vol. NNIX., op. 183-5). Ornithological Record for Derbyshire, 1934-5. iin this Report we find notes of a pair of Waxwings in November, 1935, near Ambergate, Whooper Swans at Coombs Reservoir, a Grey Phala- ope at Cromford in September and we are glad to hear of a number of lackcock in North Staffordshire and that the bird still exists on the Derby-Stafford borders. Ornithological Notes, 1933-4 (Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists Society). HESE notes, though brief, contain some important distributional srecords and among these we may mention a Hooded Crow at Neath in ‘April, 1934 (a rare bird for Glamorgan), a pair of Cirl Buntings in the Wale of Glamorgan on May 26th, 1934, five Barnacle-Geese at Whitford Burrows in December, 1933, and one in February, 1934 (first definite record for Glamorgan (antea, Vol. NXVII, p. 359), an Avocet in (Gower on June 8th, 1934 (the first recorded for a century), two Gar- gganeys in August, 1934, and a Grey Phalarope in September, 1933, jjust over the border in Monmouth. iReport of the Oxford Ornithological Society on the Birds of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, 1934. 'TuH1s Report arrived late in 1935 and has been overlooked. It is full eof useful details, well arranged and edited. Among the systematic notes “we may mention: the finding of Wood-Larks nesting on the Oxfordshire ‘Chilterns; an example of Phylloscopus t. eversmanni obtained at ‘Midgham on May 3rd and identified by Dr. C. B. Ticehurst to whose judgment we submit ; an adult Night-Heron was shot near Deddington (Oxon) on September 29th; the autumn was remarkable for the umber of Ruffs seen at the Reading Sewage Farm, while one was seen eon February 25th ; a Wood-Sandpiper was seen at the same place on ‘April 12th and two on September toth ; two Little Gulls were observed sat the same place on September 6th. 56 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Special investigations were made into the status of the Brambling. A census of Kingfishers was made on the Thames and its tributaries within the boundaries of the three counties, from which it would appear that there was a pair on the average about every two miles. A survey of Nightjars was also undertaken with interesting results. This Report also contains an article by P. J. Campbell with a list of birds which have been observed on Port Meadow. Transactions of the Hertfordshive Natural History Society and Field Club, Vol. XX, Part II. This part contains a number of contributions of ornithological interest. In Mr. C. Oldham’s “ Reports on Birds’ for 1933 and 1934 there are many items worthy of note. The 1934 Report gives an account of the effect on birds of the drought and the drying up of the Tring and Elstree reservoirs and at the former the subsequent growth of vegetation which attracted flocks of various kinds of Finches while Ducks, Grebes and Coots suffered, and wading birds were attracted by the uncovered mud. Amongst the latter we notice occurrences in both years at Tring of Ruffs, Wood-Sandpiper and Greenshank and in 1934 of Grey Plover, Turnstone, Sanderling and Curlew-Sandpiper. Quite unusual numbers (up to 300) of Teal were present in these reservoirs both in the early and autumn months of 1934 owing to the dwindling waters. A Great Northern Diver was seen at Elstree by Mr. Lloyd at the end of October, 1934. Miss Walters contributes some brief but useful notes on the breeding of Red-backed Shrikes and there are other good field notes. Besides the reports this volume contains short articles by Mr. Bertram Lloyd on “‘ The Diving of the Shoveler’’, “A Garganey Duck at Elstree”’ and ‘‘ Notes on the Behaviour of the Great Crested Grebe’’, while Dr. N. F. Ticehurst contributes an authoritative historical article on “The Mute Swan in Hertfordshire’’. LETTER. COLOUR OF LESSER BLACK-BACKED GULL APFECTED BY ANGIE (OF TIGEi: To the E-ditors of BritisH Birps. Strs,—-I have often been struck by the apparent differences in colour of Lesser Black-backed Gulls on the Clyde. On May goth, 1936, at 9.30 a.m. (summer time) I watched halfa dozen of these Gulls sitting on a railing on Dunoon pier within a few yards of me. The railing was so placed that the Gulls were turned either directly to the sun or directly away from it. Those facing the sun appeared black on the mantle, and those facing in the opposite direction appeared dark brown. When any Gull turned round, its colour changed. What I saw would certainly make me hesitate to identify a bird in the open as a Scan- dinavian Lesser Black-backed Gull, especially in the morning light, unless I carefully noted how it stood in relation to the sun. This may also explain why sub-specific differences in colour are sometimes more apparent in the field and sometimes when the bird is in the hand. I cannot remember seeing any notes on the effect of the angle of sunlight on the apparent colour of birds. J. M. McWILr1am. fA comparative test which should probably be effective in all angles of light is that mentioned by Messrs. Rooke and Smith (Vol. XXVIIL., p. 117), who found that in the Scandinavian form the mantle was as black as the primary tips, while in the British bird the colour of the mantle was very distinctly paler than the primaries.—EpDs. ] ORNITHOLOGICAL BOOKS Ct NS” No. 43 juctpabbaked. Post free on request. WHELDON & WESLEY, LTD. Natural History Booksellers and Publishers. ESTABLISHED 1843 2,3 & 4, Arthur Street, New Oxford Street, London, W.C.2 Telephone: Temple Bar 1412. Telegrams : Wheldwesly, Westcent, London. Agency of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. EVERY GARDEN A BIRD SANCTUARY Miss Turner is a great enthusiast and an attractive writer and she seeks here to encourage bird-lovers to take even greater interest in their pensioners and to rouse those who are not alive to the necessity of preserving and increasing ‘* our inheritance.”’ The Author is, above all, a practical enthusiast and her book is packed with advice on the best methods for all to help her cause, from those who are able toset some acres aside as a sanctuary, down to the owner of the small town garden. Eight plates and text figures. S. Cr. 8v0, 5/» net. H. F. & G. Witherby, Ltd., 326 High Holborn, London, W.C.1 LE GERFAUT REVUE BELGE D’ORNITHOLOGIE (Fondée en 1911.) La seule publication scientifique belge traitant des oiseaux, spécialement des oiseaux de la Belgique. Abonnement 25 francs belges - 5 Belgas par an. Direction : Square Prince Charles 21, Bruxelles-Laeken (Belgique) WATKINS & DONCASTER Manufacture and Stock CABINETS and APPARATUS of every kind for Collectors of Birds’ Eggs, Insects, &c. A LARGE STOCK OF BIRDS’ EGGS (Singles and § BRITISH and EXOTIG BUTTERFLIES, Zoe 274 NESTING BOXES OF VARIOUS PATTERNS. Pricep CATALOGUE OF APPARATUS AND SPECIMENS PER RETURN All Books and Publications (new and second-hand) on Natural History supplied. Pk Ben 2k. Telephones: ‘Tenis Hac S45T. 36, Strand, London, W.C.2, England. BIRD-LOVERS’ MANUALS HOW TO KNOW BRITISH BIRDS By NORMAN H. JOY, M.B.O.U. This is a bird identification book on a new principle. In addition to an Illustration and Description of each bird, Field Characters, Nest, Breeding Season and Distribution are given. The author has included all species that breed in the British Isles, and all that are recorded as occurring to some extent every year, although it may be only in a few places on migration. The reader is not expected to wander through the book hoping to see among the figures something which looks like the bird seen. The author gives a definite method by which birds can be identified in the field. He stresses the im- portance of recognising birds by their shape and action because, in the field, details of colour are very often not discernible, as the bird may be flying against the sky, or swimming with the sun behind it. Each bird is, therefore, represented in its most frequent natural position, at rest, or in flight ; closely allied species being put in one plate, so that they can be compared. Great care has been taken to reproduce the colours of the illustrations accurately. A section is devoted to song as an aid to identification, and a special Index is given so that an observed character can be looked up easily. Forty plates containing nearly 300 illustrations, many in colour Small Cr, 8vo, 5/= net. BIRDS OF THE GREEN BELT AND THE COUNTRY AROUND LONDON By R. M. LOCKLEY (Author of DREAM ISLAND) The birds and the places they haunt in and about the forests, the heather and gorse commons, the grassy downs, the streams, lakes, reservoirs, marshes, the chalk hills, the orchards and parks of the country around London, are here described for the first time in a volume that fits the pocket. A much needed and competent handbook, attractively written and full of useful illustrations, it has an up-to-date transport guide to all the bird haunts mentioned. Plates and 45 Drawings in the text. 256 pages, Small Cr, 8vo, 5/= net, H. F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd., 326 High Holborn, London, W.C.I. BRITISH “BIRDS | EVATED. CHIETLY- HIETLY TOTHEBIRDS = ONTHEBRIBHTIEST oo” MONTHLY-1s9a4 YEA S26HIGHHOLBORNIoN One HF ¢G:WITHERDY. LTD: BIRD-LOVERS’ MANUALS HOW TO KNOW BRITISH BIRDS By NORMAN H. JOY, M.B.O.U. This is a bird identification book on a new principle. In addition to an Illustration and Description of each bird, Field Characters, Nest, Breeding Season and Distribution are given. The author has included all species that breed in the British Isles, and all that are recorded as occurring to some extent every year, although it may be only in a few places on migration. The reader is not expected to wander through the book hoping to see among the figures something which looks like the bird seen. The author gives a definite method by which birds can be identified in the field. He stresses the im- portance of recognising birds by their shape and action because, in the field, details of colour are very often not discernible, as the bird may be flying against the sky, or swimming with the sun behind it. Each bird is, therefore, represented in its most frequent natural position, at rest, or in flight ; closely allied species being put in one plate, so that they can be compared. Great care has been taken to reproduce the colours of the illustrations accurately. A section is devoted to song as an aid to identification, and a special Index is given so that an observed character can be looked up easily. Forty plates containing nearly 300 illustrations, many in colour Small Cr, 8vo, 5/= net. BIRDS OF THE GREEN BELT AND THE COUNTRY AROUND LONDON By R. M. LOCKLEY (Author of DREAM ISLAND) The birds and the places they haunt in and about the forests, the heather and gorse commons, the grassy downs, the streams, lakes, reservoirs, marshes, the chalk hills, the orchards and parks of the country around London, are here described for the first time in a volume that fits the pocket. A much needed and competent handbook, attractively written and full of useful illustrations, it has an up-to-date transport guide to all the bird haunts mentioned. Plates and 45 Drawings in the text. 256 pages, Small Cr, 8vo, 5/= net, H. F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd., 326 High Holborn, London, W.C.I. BRITESABIRDS ‘WITH WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN JANUARY, 1917, “ THE ZOOLOGIST.’ EDITED BY . F.WITHERBY, M.B.E., F.Z.S.,M.B.O.U.,H.F.A.O.U. ASSISTED BY EV. F.C. R. JOURDAIN, M.A., M.B.O.U., H.F.A.O.U., F.Z.S., AND NorMAN F. TICEHURST, “0. B.E., M. ‘i, _F.R.C.S., M.B.O.U. CONTENTS OF NUMBER 3, VOL. XXX., August I, 1936. : —_—— PAGE Unusual ‘‘ Hold- -up”’ of Spring Migrants on the Norfolk Coast. By Ronald M. Garnett ... Ae 58 Be her Notes on Territory in the Great Crested Grebe. By . 5S. V. Venables and David Lack 3% see 60 The ‘Colouring of the Soft Parts of the Buff- backed Heron. By B. W. Tucker $s : : as 7O ‘Recovery of Marked Birds . ake eas ane sae x 74 \Notes :— Carrion-Crow Laying Twice in Same Nest (Capt. G. E. Took)... 80 Return Migration of Jays (C. H. Bryant)... ia = 80 Twite as Fosterer of Cuckoo (I. Whittaker) ... iene 80 “ Injury-feigning ’’ by Wood-Lark er FP. Witherby)... seis 81 Pied Wagtails Using Roost in June (Philip A. Clancey) sa 82 Golden Oriole in Suffolk (J. B. Watson) 82 Chiffchaffs in Perthshire (W. Mark Kerr and P. A. D. Hollom) 82 Incubation-Period of Grasshopper-Warbler (F. Fincher) : 83 The Range of the Hebridean Hedge-Sparrow (C. M. N. W hite) 83 Young of Normal and Albinistic House-Martins (H. M. W allis) 84 W oodpecker Nesting Holes and the Compass (G. Marples) ... 84 Tawny Owl taking Prey during the Day (Dr. J. W. oe 86 Spoonbill in Islay (W. B. Alexander) . 87 Early Nesting of Sheld-Duck in Kent (N. F. Ticehurst) aie 87 Goosander Nesting in Dumfriesshire (H. S. Gladstone) _... 87 ‘ Injury-feigning *’ by a Stone-Curlew (G. Brown) ... go Golden Plover and Starlings performing Joint Aerial Move e- ments (W. Mark Kerr) as go Lapwing driving Sheep from Nest (Capt. G. E. Took) Fes 90 Call Notes of the Spotted Redshank (T. C. Gregory) ... ake QI The Birth of a Curlew (W. S. Cowin) ... Be QI Herring-Gulls feeding on Larve of Moths (M. Mitchell) a g2 Water-Rail in Summer in Inverness-shire (Miss W. M. Ross) 92 short Notes :— Recent Progress in the Study of Bird Migration. Nutcracker in Surrey. Young Crossbills in Devon. Field Study of St. Kilda Wren. Sitting Blue Tit fed by Two Birds. Large Clutches of Mistle-Thrush and Coot. Incubation and Fledging Periods of Ring-Ouzel. Snowy Owl recorded in Fifeshire. Purple Sandpiper in Somerset. Avocet ringed in Rhone Delta found in Essex. Black Terns in Hampshire and Shropshire .. a sie oe ate es ats 92 eviews :— De Vogels van Nederland. Door Prof. Dr. E.D.vanOort. ... 95 England's Birds. By W. K. Richmond P : eee 96 etter :— Colour of Lesser Black-backed Gull affected by fig of light. (G. C. S. Ingram and H. M. Salmon) : oes Raa 96 E Jers MUS E fs ey 4S ee Oy ee / (58) UNUSUAL ‘“HOLD-UP”’ OF SPRING MIGRANTS ON THE NORFOLK COAST. BY RONALD M. GARNETT. A VERY unusual “ hold-up’ of small passerines occurred on the Norfolk coast in early May, 1936, details of which should perhaps be put on record. LocaL CONDITIONS AT SALTHOUSE (MAY 5TH-14TH). Following a period of north-east wind a sea-fret developed on the coast on May 5th and continued until the night of May gth-roth when the wind backed to north-west and a drizzle began which lasted all day on the roth. Heavy clouds and some mist prevailed again until the 13th, when the wind changed to south-west and May 14th was fine and warm. The barometer from May 8th to ze remained steady at approx- imately 30.00 inches. CONDITIONS OVER THE NORTH OF FRANCE AND SOUTHERN NORTH SEA (MAy IST-IOTH). From details supplied by the Air Ministry it appears that light winds from north or north-east prevailed until May roth, with large patches of coastal fog gradually extending north- wards from the Straits of Dover from the 3rd onwards, land areas being clear on both sides. On May roth the wind backed to north-west, the fog being then thickest off the Dutch coast, where visibility was given as 100 yards. The baro- meter from May rst to 5th fell from 30.36 inches to 29.74 inches and then rose steadily to 30.00 inches. MOVEMENTS OF BIRDs. The sea-fret on May 5th brought several Black Terns (Chhidontas n. niger) to Salthouse and others were seen on the Broads and at Scolt Head Island on the same date. This, however, is quite a usual occurrence at this season under similar conditions, and it is the hold-up of small birds which. is so unusual as to be worth recording. Pied Flycatchers (Muscicapa h. hypoleuca) were especially numerous, and were recorded from various places on or near the coast from Lowes- toft (Suffolk) (Messrs. F. ©. Cook and E. W..C. Jenner} May 5th, Horsey and Hickling (Major A. Buxton and Mr. J. Vincent) May 4th-11th, round to Scolt Head I. (Mr. C. Chest- ney) May 7th-1zth. In this district (Salthouse) many were seen in the cottage gardens and elsewhere from May roth to 12th, when they were evidently most numerous. Being so conspicuous they naturally attracted more attention than the VOL. XXx.] ‘‘HOLD-UP’’ OF SPRING MIGRANTS. — 59 Common Redstarts (Phenicurus p. phcenicurus) which accompanied them, but there were many of these also and they seem to have been as widely spread out. It is, of course, well known that these two species travel together in the autumn and become numerous in the coastal bushes during hold-ups at that season. Since May, 1929, when I came to live in Norfolk, I have only two spring records of Pied Flycatchers, both single individuals, nor have I witnessed before anything approaching a passage movement in spring of Common Redstarts. Whinchats (Saxicola r. rubetra), which usually pass through in small numbers during the last week of April and the first two weeks of May, were far more numerous at this time, but being birds of the open are easily noticed. A Wryneck (Jynx t. torquilla), picked up dead near the coast at Salthouse about May roth and a female Bluethroat (Luscinia Svecica) caught and ringed at Salthouse trapping station on the same date, were no doubt brought down by the same adverse conditions while another Bluethroat and two Black Redstarts (Phenicurus 0. gibraltariensis) were seen on Scolt Head I. two days later (Col. H. W. Madoc). CONCLUSIONS. Assuming that a stream of birds started from France for destinations in northern Europe during the first week in May, when the wind was generally north-east, it would have tended to swing towards the English coast and after travelling north to Norfolk would have been prevented from crossing to the Continent, and would be held up on this coast, first by fog, and later to an even greater extent by the drizzle of May oth to roth, the stream piling up on itself and the numbers increasing to a maximum from that date. Since this is what appears to have happened locally from May roth to 12th it may be that what occurred en route is equally true. Conditions became normal again on May 13th and no sign of so unusual a check to passage movement was any longer visible. It so happened that this year I was collecting records of spring migrants in Norfolk for the British Empire Naturalists’ Association and consequently I received records from many observers in addition to the above-named, and to all these I am grateful. I heard of no unusual numbers at this time of any passerines other than those mentioned, nor did I notice any myself, and perhaps this fact may be quite as noteworthy as the abundance of so limited a number of species. (60) FURTHER NOTES ON TERRITORY IN THE GREAT CRESTED GREBE. BY L. S. V. VENABLES and DAVID LACK. RECAPITULATION. THE writers (6) have previously published an account of territorial fighting in the Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps c. cristatus) on Frensham Ponds, Surrey, between 1932 and 1934. On Great Pond (694 acres) six to seven pairs nested close together with no observed fighting apart from an occasional tussle in the immediate vicinity of a nest ; but one further pair was aggressive not only against other Great Crested Grebes but against all other water birds which tried to enter a bay of 2 acre. Little Pond (374 acres) has only two suitable nesting sites (see map). The pair in the south-west reed-bed A REEDS, RUSHES ETC, 2 HORSETAIL, 37 ‘2 acres. res <—————_ HALF AML, 5 Sketch map of Frensham Little Pond, S.W. Surrey. VOL. xxx.]| FURTHER NOTES ON TERRITORY. 61 did not come in contact with other Great Crested Grebes but was extremely tolerant of other species. The second pair was aggressive against all other Great Crested Grebes which tried to enter their bottle-shaped bay of 84 acres, but, unlike the aggressive pair on Great Pond, was completely tolerant of other species. In all cases, the territory was abandoned fe) soon as the young hatched ; the birds going to feed in the open water of the pond. Venables’s further observations in 1935 and 1936 are described below. Not much time was spent observing Great Pond, but events seem to have been very similar to the two previous years. The subsequent narrative concerns Little Pond. NARRATIVE FOR 1935. Observations were commenced on March 12th, when an unmated male was defending the bottle-shaped bay, and there were about twelve passage migrants feeding and displaying in the centre of the pond. On March 26th, when most of the passage migrants had left, this male got a mate, a young bird to judge by her incomplete spring plumage, but she dis- appeared on April ro. On April 11 a late pair arrived, and stayed till the end of the month, making repeated attempts to get into the bay, but being successfully driven off by the male. On April 15th (during this time) the bay male was joined by a fine-plumaged female, with whom he displayed between the fights with the intruding pair. The female did not take part in the fighting, and, though she displayed with the male, left a day later. Until April 30th, when the intruding pair left, the male defended the bay single-handed. Hence in the Great Crested Grebe a territory is at times defended by an unmated male, though on the other hand many are paired before they take up their territory, and often before they arrive on their breeding lake; but it is curious that a newly arrived female, finding an unmated male with a suitable territory, and herself sufficiently advanced sexually to take part in the elaborate mutual courtship display, should depart again in twenty-four hours. It is also interesting that it is possible for an unmated male successfully to keep out from his territory a mated pair, which, after nineteen days, finally left the lake. On May 4th another male Great Crested Grebe arrived, with a smaller “‘ ruff’’ than the bay male, and thus readily distinguished from it. After feeding in the middle of the lake, the newcomer worked towards the bay, from which, surpris- ingly enough, the bay male made no attempt to drive him, 62 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. but fed amicably with him. For nearly fifty days the bay male had been extremely aggressive ; during the next four days this could not be tested since there were no trespassing Grebes about ; and after this he seems completely to have lost his aggressiveness. During the next three days the two males kept much together, and for the first time that season the bay male was obtaining some of his food outside the bay. The bay male then left, but the new male remained, and on May 23rd was joined by a female. Throughout this day the pair went all over the lake, investigating the island and also the south-west reed-bed, the female usually taking the lead. They indulged in much display, and the next day settled finally in the bay. Meanwhile, as in previous years, there was also a pair in the south-west reed-bed. They had arrived early in the season, built a nest in mid-May and laid their first egg on May 23rd. On the latter date the new bay pair explored the south-west reed-bed, but were in no way resented or attacked, even though they passed within a few yards of the nest. The 1932 to 1934 observations had suggested that aggressive behaviour might perhaps be correlated with the shape of the lake margin near the nest, since both the markedly aggressive . pairs had been defending well-defined bays, which are obvious places to protect; but this new observation shows that nesting in a bay does not necessarily coincide with aggressive behaviour, which is further shown by what follows. The south-west pair continued to nest and to be robbed by trippers at intervals ; on one occasion having a new platform and egg forty-eight hours after their last had been destroyed ; but about the middle of June they began to desert their corner and to frequent the rest of the lake. It was thus discovered that, unlike their aggressive predecessors in 1932 to 1934, the new bay pair was not aggressive. Frequently all four birds could be seen feeding together in the narrows or in the bay itself, even though the new bay pair was already building. Hence, of two males successively using the same territory in the same season, the first was extremely aggressive, the second not at all. The new bay pair built nesting platforms, but, like the south-west pair, was too disturbed by summer crowds to rear a brood. They were noticeably shy birds, and eventually left the lake. The south-west pair, however, finally nested on the island, where they were free from disturbance. As described in our previous paper, the persistent third pair in 1934 nested on this island, which is an unusual nesting site VOL. Xxx.] FURTHER NOTES ON TERRITORY. 63 for the species. But, as pointed out by Lack (5), the restriction of a species to a particular type of nesting site, though it sometimes limits distribution, is often one of behaviour, not of necessity. Two pairs on Frensham Little Pond have now overcome this restriction, though others have not done so. NARRATIVE FOR 1936. In 1936 a male arrived in the bay shortly before February 21st. On February 25th there arrived a female in almost complete winter plumage. Despite her plumage, she displayed with the male, and next day was observed doing full weed- shaking display in the narrows of the bay. This display was continued, and on March 5th they were also seen displaying off the south-west reed-bed, quite a new departure for the bay pair. (No other pair had arrived in the south-west reed-bed.) On March 7th a female in full nuptial plumage was found to have arrived overnight, and was vigorously displaying with the male. The male no longer displayed with the winter- plumaged female, and she was wandering solitarily in the middle of the lake. This is a somewhat curious version of sexual selection. It may be noted that the state of the spring plumage is quite probably an indication of the state of the gonads, and it was noticeable that the new female was more vigorous and continued longer in display than the bird in winter plumage had done, which may be significant in inter- preting the male’s change of mates. During the rest ot the spring a few passage migrants passed through, all apparently females, and the first female took little notice of them, and did not get a mate. The only response from her original mate was when she trespassed in the territory, at which he drove her out as he would any trespassing bird of his species. She finally left about April 20. The new bay pair behaved quite differently from any prev- ious bay pair in that they defended both the bay and the south-west reed-bed, an indication of which was noted before the male changed mates. They drove out the unmated female and any passage migrants from both these places. Some entries from Venables’s notebook illustrate this curious double territory : “‘ March 31st: The pair now building a platform in the south-west reed-bed, and also noted driving the unmated female from the bay. April 3 : The female of the pair working at a platform in the bay, the male on guard in the entrance. April 6th: The mated female at the bay platform, and the male in the narrows. She swam out to him, and they displayed. While they were displaying, the unmated female 64 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. swam to the south-west reed-bed, but the male pursued and drove her off. She flew up and alighted in the narrows of the bay. At once the mated female attacked her, driving her into the middle of the lake.’’ At the end of the third week in April the pair built a complete platform in the south-west reed-bed and seemed about to lay in it when it was destroyed by trippers. On May 8th the female was seen to chase a late passage migrant from the narrows of the bay. On May otha new platform was commenced in the south-west reed-bed, upon which the first egg was laid on May roth. After this Venables was unable to visit the pond. It is significant that this double territory was spatially discontinuous. The pair chased out trespassers from both reed-beds, but not from the intervening water. Double territories have rarely been recorded, but Howard (3) describes one in the Skylark (Alauda a. arvensis). THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TERRITORY IN THE GREAT CRESTED GREBE From our five years’ observations it is clear that territory sometimes (but by no means always) plays an important part in the breeding behaviour of the Great Crested Grebe. By “ territory ’’ we mean that area within which, as a result of the aggressiveness of the owning pair, no other Great Crested Grebes are allowed to enter. In discussing the possible significance of this territory it must be remembered that it need not have the same significance as in other species ; our conclusions apply only to this species and to no other. It should also be noted that our observations are from only one area. In general, the two main advantages attributed by Howard (2) to territory are that it assists pairing up and that it insures an adequate food supply. The latter function is not attributed to all types of territory ; the former function seems more general. TERRITORY ‘AND PAIRING. Howard is generally agreed to be correct in his discovery that, in many Passerines and some other birds, the male acquires a territory as a necessary preliminary to obtaining a mate. But this is definitely not the case in the Great Crested Grebe. Our observations show that a territory is at times acquired and defended by a male before it obtains a mate, but on the other hand many birds are paired before they arrive on their breeding grounds and take up a territory. Territory clearly plays no essential part in pairing up. VOL. Xxx.] FURTHER NOTES ON TERRITORY. 65 TERRITORY AND Foon. Whether or not Howard is correct in postulating that territory is significant from a food standpoint, he has clearly established that in many Passerines the territory includes the main feeding area of the pair, and that they obtain much of the food for their young from it. But this is not the case in the Great Crested Grebe. One would expect the greatest food pressure to occur after the young have hatched, but at this time the territory is always abandoned, the parents taking their young to the open water to feed. The food of the young is not normally derived from the territory. Occasionally, as in the first aggressive bay pair, the defended territory includes the whole feeding area of the pair up till the time when the young hatch, but this is uncommon. The aggressive pair on Great Pond did not feed exclusively in their territory, and the colonial pairs made no attempt to defend feeding areas. It is also interesting that the pair with the double territory defended only the neighbourhood of the two reed-beds and not the intervening feeding area. A “‘ food territory ’’ might work in one of two ways: First, the pair could defend a sufficient feeding area ; but this, as we have seen, does not occur in the Great Crested Grebe. Secondly, even if a feeding area is not defended, territorial fighting on the breeding ground might prevent overcrowding in the area as a whole, and, as Howard states, “ serve so to regulate the number of pairs that the maximum number can be accommodated in the minimum area’. Howard postulates this latter alternative for certain species which, like the Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), defend territories but obtain much of their food from common feeding grounds outside the territories. Owing to our present extreme ignorance concerning the quantity and availability of food necessary for birds, this view is very difficult to disprove. It may first be noted that it is at least equally difficult to prove, and, by economy of hypothesis, it should not be introduced without good indirect evidence. Apart from its general plausibility (see Tucker (6a), Lack (6b) ) we have found no such evidence. One general objection is that in such species the size of the breeding grounds, and hence, one would have thought, the size of the territory, can bear no constant relation to the size of the feeding grounds. In the Great Crested Grebe there is a more serious objection. If territorial behaviour is to provide an advantageous regula- tion of the breeding density, the size of territory claimed by each pair must be similar. Exact equality need not be expected 66 BRITISH BIRDS. VOL, 5x. but, at least on the same lake where the birds feed together, one would expect a fair degree of similarity. Howard (4) states this principle clearly when he says that the size of territory is specific, and he gives as an example four Coot (fulica a. atra) territories which were 2,779, 2,770, 2,722 amd 2,551 square yards respectively. Howard is, in our opinion, correct in regarding such a similarity as a requirement of a theory of food territory. But it definitely does not occur in the Great Crested Grebes on Frensham Ponds. On Great Pond seven pairs nested close together in a colony, the eighth pair defended a territory of # acre, yet all eight pairs fed over the same area. On Little Pond one pair seemed completely lacking in aggressiveness whereas the bay pair defended 83 acres ; both fed their young in the same area. Again, of the three pairs successively inhabiting the bay, the first pair was aggressive in the bay, defending 8} acres; the second pair was not aggressive, allowing another pair to feed in the bay ; and the third pair defended both the bay and a remoter reed-bed. One could scarcely have had greater variation, especially since the second pair took over from the first in the same season. These marked variations in the size of territory on the same pond and often at the same time cannot possibly be correlated with local variations in the food supply, since the birds obtained the food for their young from the same area. Territory undoubtedly limits distribution at times. One case was described for Little Pond in our previous paper, but this limit was to the disadvantage, not advantage, of the species, since it prevented the lake from supporting the maximum number of Great Crested Grebes which, from food and nesting sites, could have bred there. Doubtless, territory may at other times be responsible for an advantageous limita- tion, but, particularly bearing in mind its great variability, there is no evidence at present for thinking that it has been of advantage from the food standpoint sufficiently often to have been. of survival value. To summarize, on Frensham Ponds the size of Great Crested Grebe territories is not specific but extremely variable, and is not related to the food situation on the lakes. Though territorial behaviour at times limits the number of breeding pairs, this is not necessarily beneficial to the species. TERRITORY AND THE NEST. The territory is clearly correlated with the nesting site. It is true that aggressive behaviour is shown before the nesting platform is built, and at times before a mate is VOL. Xxx.] FURTHER NOTES ON TERRITORY. 67 obtained. But the hostility occurs only at and around that area in which the nesting platforms will later be built. Even the colonial individuals at times showed some aggressiveness in the immediate neighbourhood of the nest, and it is signifi- cant that the pair with a double territory built nesting plat- forms in both the defended areas. Aggressive behaviour is maintained (in those birds which exhibit it) until the nesting site ceases to be used, that is, when the young hatch and are taken to the open water, after which it ceases. This aggressiveness in the area round the actual or future nesting site seems to be of no advantage. Normally the hostility is directed only towards individuals of the same species, and those individuals which do not show it seem at no disadvantage, and are in a majority on Frensham Ponds. TERRITORY AND DISsPLay. Often the owner directly attacks a trespasser, but there is also an aggressive display, the bird approaching the intruder with neck horizontal and chestnut ruff expanded. This performance is much less elaborate than, and quite distinct from, the mutual courtship, though full use is made of the colour and size of the secondary sexual characters. We would tentatively suggest that the secondary sexual characters were evolved primarily in connection with the courtship display, and that they only secondarily became attached to the aggressive behaviour. For the mutual courtship seems to play a much bigger part in the life of the species than does territorial fighting. HAS THE TERRITORY ANY ADVANTAGE ? So far as we can see, territory is not important in the Great Crested Grebe either in pairing up or from the food standpoint. It seems correlated with the nesting site, but no advantage seems to be associated with this. There seems no other way in which it could be beneficial to the species, but we can see no reason for supposing that it is beneficial, and the fact that, in the Frensham area at least, territorial pairs are in a minority as compared with colonial pairs, strongly suggests that it has no fundamental importance. In Passerine species in which the importance of territory has been definitely demonstrated, no colonial individuals appear to exist. We therefore hold that territory in the Great Crested Grebe results from an aggressive disposition possessed by some individual Grebes only, and which is of no fundamental 68 BRITISH BIRDS. VOL, xa. significance to the species. In one pair this hostility was extended to other species of water birds, clearly an individual affair. We consider that the same argument applies to all of the minority of pairs which were aggressive. Since Howard published his observations showing the undoubted importance of territory in certain Passerine and some other species, there has been a tendency for observers to apply the term “territory” uncritically and without detailed investigation to any form of aggressive behaviour in birds. We consider that the use of the term “ territory ” in connection with the aggressive behaviour of the Great Crested Grebe has been of doubtful value, especially since, once this term is applied, there is a strong tendency for a number of dubious advantages to be attributed to the behaviour. Had the term not been used, these advantages would probably not have been attributed, and those observers who find it necessary to interpret all the manifestations of bird behaviour in terms of advantage to the species, would have discussed the advantages of colonial, not territorial, behaviour to this Species, since colonial individuals are in the majority. We would emphasise that we are not here attacking the general concepts of the territorial theory, but only their application to the Great Crested Grebe. The only other Grebe whose territorial behaviour seems to have been investigated is the Little Grebe (Podiceps r. rujficollis) by Hartley (1). Mr. Hartley has kindly amplified his observa- tions in a letter. The territory is taken up by the pair, and there is a conspicuous vocal display. In the following points the behaviour differs from that of the Great Crested. All the individuals which he watched showed a similar degree of aggressiveness. He saw no colonies, and the size of each territory was approximately the same. The territories were not abandoned when the young hatched, the young remaining in the original territory till full grown and independent. Hence the chief arguments which we brought against food territories in the Great Crested do not apply to the Little Grebe. This suggests that the territorial behaviour of the former is a vestigial remnant of a behaviour which is of value to other species in the same family. It must, however, be kept in mind that both Hartley’s and our own observations are from very limited areas, and that one or both may be unusual. Critical observations of both species in other areas are therefore badly needed, particularly where the Great Crested might seem to be strictly territorial and the Little Grebe colonial (if such exist). VOL. Xxx.| FURTHER NOTES ON TERRITORY. 69 SUMMARY. From five years’ observations on the Great Crested Grebe on Frensham Ponds we conclude : 1. Aggressive behaviour resulting in a “ territory” is exhibited by only a few individuals, the majority tolerating other individuals close to the nest. 2. One pair exhibited aggressive behaviour against all species of water birds, but the other aggressive pairs attacked only their own species. 3.. No intruder which was attacked was observed to resist. 4. Some display is associated with the fighting, but the secondary sexual characters seem primarily associated with the mutual courtship displays. 5. The territory is not of primary significance in pairing up, as many pairs are formed before they acquire a territory; but a male does at times acquire and defend a territory before obtaining a mate. 6. The territory does not usually include the feeding ground of the pair, and is in all cases deserted when the young hatch. 7. There seem no valid grounds for supposing that the territory is normally of advantage in regulating the breeding density, especially since the size of the territory is extremely variable, from over nine acres in the double territory to almost nothing in colonial pairs. 8. The territory is associated with the neighbourhood of the actual or future nesting platforms, but does not seem of benefit to the species in this connection. g. The territory seems to be an individual affair, of no fundamental significance to the species. Perhaps it is better developed in other areas, and it may be the remains of a type of behaviour of value in other species of Grebes. REFERENCES. (1) Hartley, P. H. T. (1933). ‘* Field Notes on the Little Grebe.” Brit. Birds, XXVII., pp. 82-83 (and in litt.). (2) Howard, H. E. (1920). ‘‘ Territory in Bird Life.” (3) Howard, H. E. (1929). ‘‘ Introduction to the Study of Bird Behaviour.” 4 (4) Howard, H. E. (1935). ‘‘ The Nature of a Bird’s World.” (5) Lack, D. 1933. “Habitat Selection in Birds.” Journ. Animal, Ecol. II, 246-7. (6) Venables, L. S. V., and Lack, D. (1934). ‘Territory in the Great | Crested Grebe.” Brit. Birds, XXVIII, 191-108. ; Subsequent correspondence: (6a) B. W. Tucker (ibid. 247-8) (6b) D. Lack (ibid. 287-8), (70) THE COLOURING OF THE SOFT PARTS OF THE BUFF-BACKED HERON. BY BW. LUCKER. Dept. of Zoology, University Museum, Oxford. (Plate 4.) ON an ornithological trip to South Spain in April, 1935, I paid particular attention to the colouring of the soft parts of the Buff-backed Heron (Ardeola 1. ibis), as I found these to be entirely different from the descriptions given in most of the standard works. In general I am well aware of the need for caution in setting field observations on the colouring of the soft parts of birds against descriptions based on the examina- tion of presumably fresh material in the hand. But this general objection can hardly apply in the present case, because my description is based on observations of the birds in a breeding colony, where they were exceedingly approachable and could be examined with binoculars at a few yards range in a perfect light, so that the details of colouring could be observed almost as well as if one had the birds in the hand. Moreover there can be no question of my description being derived from atypical specimens, because it is based on a close examination of scores of birds in the manner described, and I think I may say of hundreds at slightly longer, but still close, range. There is an impressive unanimity in the leading works in describing the bill and legs as yellow. The Practical Handbook, for example, says “legs and feet dull yellow (adult), dark greenish brown (juvenile and first winter).’’ Dresser says, “beak and legs yellow,”’ while Hartert describes them in detail as follows (translation) : ‘‘ Billand bare lores dark yellow. Legs in the breeding season yellow or brownish yellow, in winter and sometimes into the breeding season greenish brown to quite black, very variable, toes always brown to quite black, only the upper part of the bare tibia lighter.”’ It is therefore rather astonishing to find that at any rate in the breeding season the legs of Spanish birds have not the least trace of yellow or yellowish colouring. Those of adults are a moderately dark, dull vinous or faintly purplish red, generally, perhaps always, shading into a dark brownish on the feet. I made my observations on April 23rd-25th just before leaving Spain and as soon as I got back, while my impressions of the colours were still vivid, I looked up Ridgway’s Color Standards and Color Nomenclature (1912) and found that the British Birds, Vol. XXX., Pl. 4. e > > Inte P Tss-4F ara ~ ¥ : . Pair of Buff-backed Herons at nest in reeds, South Spain, April 1935 (Photographed by G. K. Yeates.) VoL. Xxx.] COLOURING OF THE HERON. 71 leg colour, or more precisely that of the scutes on the tarsus, where the colour is strongest, appeared to me to come nearest to that called ‘“‘ Ox-blood red”’ (Plate I) or possibly between this and ‘‘ Bordeaux ” (Plate XII). I mention this as giving a reasonably close indication of the colour and not as implying that one can carry an exact hue and shade in one’s head with absolute accuracy. There is also almost complete agreement in the works I have examined in describing not only the bill, but the bare loral skin and iris as yellow, but this is true only for certain birds. Although the majority have yellow eyes as described, many have the iris a bright pinkish red, a fact which none of the authorities already quoted mentions. In what I take to be fully adult, probably male, birds, the colouring was as follows : Bill orange yellow distally, shading into vinous pink or reddish towards the base ; eye red ; bare skin round the eye a very striking bright violetty pink, approaching what Ridgway (Plate XII) calls ‘‘ Mallow Purple.’”” No book that I know of mentions this. There were many others with legs and bill as described, but with the eye yellow and the bare skin round it showing no definite colour, apparently a pale dull yellowish, while a few had intermediate eyes of a more orange hue, the red colour apparently developing first round the outside of the iris. Others again had entirely yellow bills and a few of these had the legs dark brownish. I take these to be the youngest birds. As regards the bill, lores and iris it will be seen that the descriptions quoted are incomplete, being true for some birds, but not for others. On the subject of the legs, however, they are completely wrong, at least as applied to Andalucian birds. It may be observed that Nicoll’s Birds of Egypt (Meinertz- hagen) is more accurate than most accounts in describing the bill as “‘ orange-red’ in the breeding season and the legs and feet as “‘ deep orange-red,’’ while Howard Saunders’s Manual, which reads, “lores, orbits and irides golden-pink ; beak reddish at the base, yellow at the tip ; legs yellowish-red ”’ is more nearly correct than any of the later accounts. It will be noted, however, that even these two authors speak of orange or yellowish red legs, whereas living Andalucian birds at the end of April show, as I have stressed already, no hint of any orange or yellowish tint. The discrepancy may possibly be due to rapid fading after death, though it would be easier to understand a scarlet or orange red fading to yellowish than one with (so far as can be seen) no initial 72 BRITISH BIRDS. -[VOL, XXX. tendency towards yellowish at all. The very general emphasis on “‘ yellow ”’ has led me to wonder whether some geographical variation in leg colour might afford a partial explanation. However this may be, there can, I think, be very little doubt that the facts as to the colouring of the soft parts described above indicate an actual colour change dependent on age, probably also on season, and possibly on sex. This subject clearly needs further attention, but some light is thrown upon it by an interesting passage in Irby’s Ornithology of the Straits of Gibraltar, which is the only account I have found agreeing accurately with my own experience and is based, it may be noted, on an Andalucian bird. It reads: ‘“‘ A male bird, which had been kept alive in the patio of the Fonda de Europa, at Seville, during the first week in April (his fifth spring, as far as I could ascertain) began to change the colour of the legs and the basal half of both mandibles to a pinkish red; the irides also changed to a beautiful rich pink colour, with a very sight golden ring round the black pupil’’. This description is actually quoted by Dresser, but is ignored by him in his own description on the same page, as it seems to have been by all later writers. Returning to my field observations, it seems likely that the red-eyed birds are the old males and the more numerous yellow-eyed ones the females and young males. The large and hitherto unrecorded colony where my observations were made was only discovered at the end of our trip, the famous ones in the Marismas being abandoned owing to the drought, and I was not able to devote as much time to the birds as I could have wished. I therefore asked my friend and companion on this expedition, Mr. H. J. R. Pease, who remained a few days longer than I was able to do, to make some further observa- tions directed to throwing light on this subject and he has kindly supplied some notes which I now quote: “ The colour of the eye varies from lemon to a strong daffodil yellow (rare), through deep orange (rare) and mahogany to almost crimson (a strong cherry red). The bill in most light yellow-eyed birds is yellowish throughout, and in red-eyed birds the basal half is reddish ; but the bill appears to redden towards the base sooner (supposing a transition) than the reddening of the eye, some yellow-eyed individuals showing more or less reddish colouring on the bill. The colour of the legs varies from a dark grey (scarce and apparently associated with the light eye and bill) to a rosy puce (in red-eyed birds). The skin between eye -and bill in red-eyed birds is violet, but traces of this colour (very dull in hue) can be seen in some light-eyed birds. VOL. Xxx.] COLOURING OF THE HERON. 73 “ Of 64 birds seen actually sitting on nests (the majority had not yet laid at the date of our visit—B. W. T.) 49 had light yellow eyes, 14 intermediate (t.e., eyes noticeably darker yellow toa mahogany colour) and one a fully red eye. Of those which (for no very sound reason, I’m afraid) it was possible to consider as ‘ pairs’, two pairs were light-eyed and two pairs intermediate, while several light- or intermediate-eyed birds were apparently paired to red-eyed mates, but in no case could two red-eyed birds be considered definitely a pair, though two were seen quarrelling at the same nest. Difficulty is caused by the nests being close together and more birds than the nests require being usually seen in a tree ”’. The precise extent to which the changes mentioned depend on the respective factors of age, season and sex must remain for further observation to determine, but for the moment it must suffice to have directed attention to them and to have corrected up to a point the manifest inaccuracies of most published accounts. While dealing with the subject of Buff-backed Herons in Spain it may be opportune also to record that in the large colony referred to, though many nests were built in low willow trees, hundreds were simply untidy platforms of stems of Scirpus lacustris built close together in the “‘ reed-beds ”’ of this plant, growing in about 18 inches of water, a type of situation which, judging from Mr. Jourdain’s note in the Practical Handbook, is quite abnormal. Over a considerable area prac- ‘tically every clump of Scirpus contained nests, up to occasion- ‘ally as many as six or eight in one clump. Through the ‘kindness of my friend Mr. George Yeates, the third member of our party, I am able to reproduce one of his photographs of a pair at such a nest. [The descriptions in the Practical Handbook, of the colouring .of soft parts were taken from notes made by collectors, and written on labels attached to skins of birds in various ;plumages, but it must be noted that in many cases detailed motes of this kind are usually insufficient (especially in ‘breeding examples) for an accurate account to be given where ‘changes occur. Sight observations of the kind made by Mr. ‘Tucker are therefore of the greatest value, and I may here ‘suggest that “‘ringers”’ who trap birds would be doing good wwork by comparing notes of the colouring of soft parts with ppublished descriptions. The dark grey colour of the legs observed by Mr. Pease may have been due to the skin of the scutes flaking as this may be cast as it is in some of the gulls. H.F.W.] No. RT.7939 ~Cobbinshaw(Midlothian),2.6.34, R.V.8663 RS.3430 RV.8819 RT.7580 RR.4364 RR.8877 RY.7731 73953 RV.1333 RV.4062 RV.2004 RS.2905 RT.73206. RECOVERY OF MARKED BIRDS. NotEe.—We have to express our gratitude to a very large number of people who have most kindly reported ringed birds and made these records possible and much regret that we are not able, now that the recoveries are sO numerous, to insert their names. heretofore as otherwise it would be almost impossible for them to trace recoveries of birds they ringed. (74) Ringers’ names are given as Ringed. Recovered. Carrion-Crow (Corvus c. corone). Carluke (Lanark), 11.4.36. young, for Midlothian O.C. Rye (Sussex), 5.5.35, young, New Romney by Brooker and Cawkell. 24.2.36. (Kent), Rook (Corvus f. frugilegus). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. Caldwell (Ayr), 25.5.30, by T. Dunlop (Ayr), Kerr. Rawdon (Yorks), 2.5.35, by Corwen (Merioneth), 26.1.36. C. Wontner-Smith. Chertsey (Surrey), 23.4.34, by Yateley P. Hollom. RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Leamington (Warwick), Where ringed, 30.3.36. 19.3.28, by P. K. Chance. Chipping Norton (Oxon), transp. Oxford [19 m. S.E.], 24.2.33, by Oxford Orn. Soc. 13.5.306. (Hants), —.8.34. Where caught, 26.5.36. Jackdaw (Coleus m. spermologus). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. Rugby (Warwick), 4.6.33, by Where ringed, 19.5.36. Rugby Sch. Lenwade (Norfolk), 1.6.30, by Reepham (Norfolk), 7.5.36. . C. Comer. Canterbury (Kent), 17.5.35, by Nether Wallop (Hants), St. Edmund’s Sch. 6.2.36. RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Wilmslow (Ches.), 5.6.35, by Adlington (Ches.), 25.3.36. E. Cohen. Magpie (Pica p. pica). Shipley (Yorks), 31.5.34, Where ringed, 11.1.36. young, by C. Wontner-Smith. Jay (Garrulus Bluntisham (Hunts.), ad., by E. Peake. Sutton Valence (Kent), 9.6.33, young, by Sutton Valence Sch, g. rufitergum). 23.1.33, Where ringed, 23.10.35. Ditto —.4.35. ‘VOL. Xxx.] RECOVERY OF MARKED BIRDS. No. PF .966 GP.562 GM.310 FR.q411 AR.6879 AS.7420 GL.849 Z¥.355 ZU. 512 ZT.995 GT.406 ZE 262 ZV .193 YF.677 LL .OL5 GX.923 GX.452 FT.894 GN.126 ZA.63 FL.802 GT.608 ZB.691 OC.288 OC.223 OC.219 OC.271 /AN.6934 GR.597 GV.109 GR.611 Ringed. 75 Recovered. Starling (Stwrnus v. vulgaris). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. Dundee (Angus), 18.5.33, by E. C. Sharp. Largo (Fife), 21.5.35, by A. H. Eggeling. Langwathby (Cumb.), —-.5.35, by H. J. Moon. Wigton (Cumb.), 19.6.35, by Friends’ School. Guthrie (Angus), 2.5.36. Doonbeg (Clare), 26.1.36. Borgue_ (Kirkcudbright), 6.4.36 36. Thursby (Cumb.), 13.4.36. RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. York, 4.2.36, by Bootham Sch. Ditto 5.2.30. Wilmslow (Ches.), 6.10.34, by E. Cohen. Gt. Budworth (Ches.), 19.12.35, by A. W. Boyd. Ditto TO12.25. Ditto £7.1.30. Ditto 21.11.35. Ditto 18.12.35: Ditto rS.0.36. Ditto TS TS.85:. Ditto 16.1.36. Malvern (Wores.), 2.11.35, by P. Morshead. Ditto 9.6.35. Ditto 30.10.34. Ditto 18.11.34. Ditto EO.11.35. Evesham (Worcs.), 22.1.34, by A. J. Harthan. Birmingham (Warwick), 22.12.35, by W. E. Kenrick. Stanway (Glos.), 19.1.36, by G. Charteris. Moreton-in-Marsh (Glos), 21.2.36, by G. Charteris Ditto 21.2.36. Ditto 2E.2 30. Ditto eB Be | SF Oxford, 11.2.32, by Oxford tan Soc. itto ok. 2a Ditto : 4.3 ae Ditto SIDA. Flamborough (Yorks.), 26.2.36. Harstad, Norway, ca. 69°N., £7"... 12.5,30. Adlington (Ches.), —.2.36. Warrington (Lancs.), 11.2.36. Wigan (Lancs.), 23.12.35. Chorley (Lancs.), 16.3.36. Warmingham (Ches.), 9.3.36. Crewe (Ches.), 25.2.36. Chester, 4.2.36. Gadbjerg, Jylland, Denmark, 17.6.36. Ringe, 20.4.306. Llanarth (Cardigan), 29.1.36. Fyen, Denmark, Mount Mellick (Queen’s Co.), 15.3.36. Nieuw Weerdinge, Gronin- gen, Holland, 8.4.35. Rossitten, E. Prussia, 25.4.30. Nowemiasto, Poland, 53°20’N., 19°36’E., —.5.36 Woodford (Northants.), 28.3.36. Tipton (Staffs.), —.1.36. Evesham (Worcs.), 19.3.36. Ascott-u.-Wychwood (Oxon) 24.3.30. Brailes (Warwick.), 6.4.36. Yarmouth (Norfolk), 27.2.36. Bassum, Hanover, 3.5.36. Chipping Norton (Oxon.), —.3.36. Ledbury (Hereford), 5.3.36. Watlington (Oxon.), 14.2.36. Faringdon (Berks.), 10.2.36. LE.800 GD.565 FF.862 LM.145 LM.209 LJ.888 TEIN BY OV7/ KA.978 Io. 169 ML.700 BRITISH BIRDS. (VOL. XXX. Ringed. Recovered. Starling (continued). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN (continued). St. Neot’s (Hunts.), 21.12.35, Bradfield (Suffolk), 10.5.36. by C. F. Tebbutt. Alton (Hants.), 27.12.33, by Gardelegen,Prussian Saxony, M. H. Williams. 18.3.306: Winchelsea (Sussex), 21.10.33, Nowemiasto, Poland, by P. Hollom. 53°260’N., 19°36’E.,—.5.36. Seaton (Devon), 1.1.33., by A. Salisbury (Wilts.), 10.1.36. Mayo. Ditto 7.12.33. Swindon (Wilts.), 2.2.36. Branscombe (Devon), 28.12.33, Sidford (Devon), 14.1.36. by P. Morshead. Ditto 23.12.35. Leiden, Holland, 24.5.36. Greenfineh (Chloris ch. chloris). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Gt. Budworth (Ches.), 19.2.36, Garstang (Lancs.), 20.4.36. By A. W. Boyd. Ditto 14.2.33. - Bay Horse (Lancs.), 12.4.36. Ditto 27.10.35. Meaux (S. et M.), France, T253-30: Evesham (Worcs.), 16.2.36, by Kidderminster (Worcs.), A. J. Harthan. 15.5-36. Linnet (Carduelis c. cannabina). Malvern (Worcs.), 14.10.34, St. Nazaire, France, 15.3.36. juv., by P. Morshead. Bullfinch (Pyrrhula p. nesa). Shipley (Yorks), 20.6.34, ad., Where ringed, 29.3.36. by C. Wontner-Smith. Chaffineh (Fringilla c. celebs). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Redditch (Worcs.), 10.2.34, by Valer (Ostfold), Norway, G. Charteris. —.5.36. Evesham (Worcs.), 1.3.35, by Stanway (Glos.), 23.12.35. G. Charteris. . Moreton-in-Marsh (Glos.), Ditto 25.1.36. 2.3.35, by G. Charteris. Toddington (Glos.), 23.2.35, by Colwyn Bay(Denbigh), G. Charteris. —.2.30. Coedcanlas (Pem.), 1.3.35, by Hengoed (Glam.), 9.6.36. Skokholm B.O. Brent Knoll (Som.), 12.7.35. Clevedon (Som.), —.5.36. Yellow Bunting (Emberiza c. citrinella). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Gt. Budworth (Ches.), 8.1.36, Knutsford (Ches.), 12.5.36. by A. W. Boyd. Ascott - under - Wychwood Watlington (Oxon), —.4.35. (Oxon), 8.12.34, by Oxford Orn. Soc. VOL. Xxx.| RECOVERY OF MARKED BIRDS. Tt No. LE.236 LE.239 LE.246 FP.180 LE.697 LL.765 LB.526 NX.127 MR.403 ZM.448 AS.1902 AS. 3692 GP.809 FD.715 GJ.943 NF.443 GT.598 Ringed. Recovered. Reed-Bunting (Emberiza s. scheniclus). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Wilmslow (Ches.), 8.1.35, by Where ringed, 2.2.36. E. Cohen. Ditto 18.1.35. Ditto 5.2.36 Ditto 3.2.35. Ditto 19.1.36. Sky-Lark (Alauda a. arvensis). Malvern (Worcs.), 5.2.34, ad., Chepstow (Mon.), 28.3.36. by P. Morshead. Meadow-Pipit (Anthus pratensis). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Malvern (Worcs.), 1.10.34, by Bayonne, France, 30.10.35 P. Morshead. Skokholm Bird Obs. (Pem.), Jerez de la Frontera (Cadiz) 25.8.35. Spain, 17.1.36. Pied Wagtail (Motacilla a. yarrellit). Dalemain (Cumb.), 30.5.35, by Porto de Mos, (Estremadura) i. ie Moon. Portugal, 26.2.36. Romsey (Hants.), 24.5.35, by Redlynch (Wilts.), 17.4.36. C. Dalgety. Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa s. striata). Skokholm (Pem.), 28.5.34, ad., Birr (King’s Co.), 22.5.36. by R.M. Lockley. Mistle-Thrush (Turdus v. viscivorus). Lowther (Westmor.), 18.6.35, Newbiggin (Westmor.), young, by H. J. Moon. 6.5.30. Shipley (Yorks.), 27.4.35, Bolton (Lancs.), 14.3.36. young, by C. Wontner-Smith. Wilmslow (Ches.), 3.2.36, ad., Disley (Ches.), 7.2.36. by E. Cohen. Song-Thrush (7urdus e. ericetorum). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. Stirling, 21.4.35, by Rugby Sch. Slyne Hd. (Galway), 19.1.36. Penrith (Cumb.), —,6.33, by Kirkby-in-Furness (Lancs.), H. J. Moon. 15.1.36. Clapham (Yorks.), 9.6.34, by Dublin, 8.3.36. H. J. Moon. Arnside (Westmor.), 18.4.33, Tubbercurry (Sligo), 4.2.36. by Bootham School. : _RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Birmingham (Warwick), Soestdyk (Utrecht), Holland, 22.12.35, by W. E. Kenrick. 12-53-30: 78 No. GA.372 GG.266 GW.528 ZA.460 LN.644 LL.706 KC.224 NK.643 KC.546 LM.g921 LW.239 MH.943 M.4735 LB.S8o1 Lt 259 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Ringed. Recovered. Blackbird (Turdus m. merula). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. Ullswater (Cumb.), 15.5.34, by Oughterard (Galway), 15.1.36 H. J. Moon. Kirkby Lonsdale (Westmor.), Lucan (Dublin), 5.1.36. —.5.34, by H. J. Moon. RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Moreton-in-Marsh (Glos.), Stanway (Glos.), 23.1.36. 2.3.35, by G. Charteris. Strumble Hd. (Pem.), 5.11.35, Boncath (Pem.), 22.4.36, by Skokholm Bird Obs. Stonechat (Saxicola t. hibernans). Aberlady (E. Lothian), 6.5.35, Riggend (Lanark), 21.12.35. young, by Bryson and Serle. Hedge-Sparrow (Prunella m. occidentalis). Skokholm Bird Obs. (Pem.), Marloes (Pem.), 6.3.36. young, 3.7.35. Swallow (Hivundo r. rustica). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. (a) RECOVERED AWAY FROM WHERE RINGED. Langwathby (Cumb.), —.7.35. East London, Cape Prov., by H. J. Moon. ©, Avirica, 722-36. Bluntisham (Hunts.), 27.8.32, Ladybrand, O.F-.S.,S. Africa, by E. Peake. 15.2.36. (b) RECOVERED WHERE RINGED. Ashley (Ches.), 20.7.35, by Cheltenham Coll. _ 20.5.36. Stanway (Glos.), 23.6.35, by G. Charteris. —.6.36. Salthouse (Norfolk), 4.7.35, by R. M. Garnett. 19.5.30. RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. East Norton (Leics.), 5.8.34, by Bethlehem, O.F.S., S. Africa, P. Morshead. —.2.36. Martin (Delichon u. urbica). Bottesford (Leics.), 2.8.31, Where ringed, Summer 1935. yourg, by F. K. Staunton. Swift (Apus a. apus). Brede (Sussex), 23.6.34,ad., by Where ringed, 13.5.36. 2. Allen, Kingfisher (Alcedo a. ispida). Eynsham (Oxon), 22.5.35, Chepstow (Mon)., —.1.36. young, by Oxford Orn. Soc. VOL. Xxx.] RECOVERY OF MARKED BIRDS. 79 No. Ringed. Recovered. Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dryobates m. anglicus). S.2047 Ullswater (Westmor.), 13.2.31, Where ringed, 24.12.35, ad., by H. J. Moon. 19.1.36. Little Owl (Athene n. vidalit). RS.846 Malvern (Worcs.), 3.6.21, young Earl’s Croome (Worcs.), by P. Morshead. 8.5.30. RV.8657 Rye (Sussex) 8.6.35, ad., by Where ringed, 3.5.30. Brooker and Cawkell. Tawny Owl (Strix a. sylvatica). AG.451 Gt. Budworth (Ches.), 17.5.34, Where ringed, 18.1.36. young, by A. W. Boyd. Barn-Owl (7 io a. alba). AA.gt99 Skirwith (Cumb.), —-.8.34, Plumpton (Cumb.), 20.7.35. young, by H. J. Moon. 400292 Market Weighton (Yorks.), Sancton (Yorks.), 28.1.36. 26.6.35, young, by Bootham School. Sparrow-Hawk (Accipiter n. nisus). RT.7334 Sutton Valence (Kent), 8.7.35, Biddenden (Kent), 4.9.35. young, by Sutton Val. Sch. Heron (Ardea c. cinerea). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. (a) RECOVERED AWAY FROM WHERE RINGED. 105022 Almondbank (Perths.), 19.5.33, Stanley (Perths.), 26.11.35. by Lord Mansfield. 103325 Ditto 17.5.35. Trossachs (Perths.), 25.3.36. 114526 Crofton (Cumb.), 9.5.35, by Powfoot (Dumfries.), 3.1.36. R. H. Brown. 112037 Mepal (Cambs.), 16.5.34, by Heyst, W. Flanders, Belgium C. S. Clarke. 19.1.36. 114583 High Halstow (Kent), 23.5.35, Corringham (Essex), 23.1.36. by P. Hollom. 114916 Ditto 23.5.35. Bampton (Oxon), 25.4.36. 114912 Ditto 23.5.35. Warminster (Wilts.),14.11.35 113363 Ditto 5.5.35. Epernon (Eure et Loir), France, 22.12.35. 114541 Beckley (Sussex), 11.5.35, by New Romney (Kent), —.1.36 P. Hollom. 114570 Ditto 1.5.35. Gouda, Zuid Holland, 16.1.36 (6) RECOVERED WHERE RINGED. 114575 Beckley (Sussex), 11.5.35, by P. Hollom. 10.2.36. To be continued, CARRION-CROW LAYING TWICE IN SAME NEST. A NEsT of a Carrion-Crow (Corvus c. corone) in a willow tree in Walland Marsh, Kent, had a clutch of eggs which was taken on April 12th, 1936. On May 17th, the nest contained another clutch of eggs which were exactly like the first. The nest did not appear to have been repaired or altered in any way. Grail. TOOK [The long replacement period (about 35 days) seems to indicate that the Crow may have made an unsuccessful attempt to breed in the interim and then returned to the original site.—F.C.R.]J.] RETURN MIGRATION OF JAYS. LAsT autumn several observations of a westward movement of Jays (Garrulus glandarius) were reported (cf. antea Vol. KALS pp: 174, 212, 324). One day in November, 1935; over thirty Jays flew over my garden near Horsham, Sussex, in a south-west direction in loose formation, flying about 100 feet up intheair. They were certainly not just making a local movement but disappeared out of sight. On three occasions this spring I have seen Jays, two, five and lastly eight together appear as specks in the western sky and fly straight over some four or five hundred feet up to disappear in the east. The last eight were seen about May 12th when the Jays in my wood had eggs. C. A. BRYANT: [In The Field (x1, vii.,’36, p. 106) Lt.-Col. W. R. Thompson records that his brother, Lt.-Col. R. N. Thompson, saw a flock of at least 33 Jays come in off the sea at Fairlight Cove, Sussex, on the morning of May 22nd, 1936, and continue their flight on a south to north course.—EDs.] TWITE AS FOSTERER OF CUCKOO. ALTHOUGH the Twite (Carduelis flavirostris) is locally -abundant on the moorlands of south Lancashire, it is a very rare fosterer of the Cuckoo (Cuculus c. canorus). It was therefore with considerable interest that I found a Twite’s nest containing a nestling Cuckoo not more than four or five days old, on the Heywood uplands on June roth, 1936. I watched the birds for nearly two hours and saw both the hen and the rosy-rumped cock visit the nest, which was in heather, VOL. XXX.] NOTES. 81 on countless occasions. Though I observed them closely however, I was struck by the fact that I could never detect them carrying food in their bills. Being curious to learn whether a pair of Twites would rear a Cuckoo, I journeyed again three days later to see how things were faring, but on arrival found the youngster dead in the nest. It is of course impossible to say with certainty that it had perished from lack of suitable food, but the occurrence seems suggestive, and would explain the rare victimization of the Twite. IRVINE WHITTAKER. “ INJURY-FEIGNING ” BY WOOD-LARK. To the June, 1936, issue of The Oologists’ Record the Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain contributes an interesting article on the so-called injury-feigning by birds and recounts how far this habit is prevalent among Palaearctic species. As Mr. Jourdain quotes no good case among Larks it may be worth noting that a Wood-Lark (Lullula a. arborea) nesting in one of my fields at Chobham, Surrey, in April, 1936, performed this act on every occasion that one put it off the nest when it was incubating. I was unable to visit the nest when the young hatched and shortly afterwards they were tound dead. I may note that this particular bird did not sit so closely as most Wood-Larks I have known, and always left the nest when one approached within three or four yards of it. Each time she left the nest along the ground with a great fluttering of wings. She crouched low, as though dragging herself along, and trailed her tail which was widespread with the feathers separated. The wings were half open and flutter- ing rapidly. Every few yards she stopped with her breast on the ground, the tail spread and depressed and the wings quivering, and meanwhile turned her head and watched me as I stood by the nest (unfortunately I never tested the effect of following her). These pauses were short, but when she had progressed twenty yards at an oblique angle from me she stopped for a considerable time in the same attitude with the wings still quivering and with her head turned to watch me. Then she disappeared into some thickish undergrowth and flew up and away farther on. On each occasion the bird went through the same actions, proceeded in the same direction and stopped finally at approximately the same spot. The ground over which the bird went was partly with short grass and partly bare. The direction taken may have been due to the fact that I approached the nest each time from the same point. G 82 BRITISH BIRDS. IVOL. XXX, ‘“‘TInjury-feigning’’ has often been observed among the warblers but I may add a few notes in the case of a Lesser Whitethroat (Sylvia c. curruca) with young in the nest, which I frequently watched, because the actions though similar to those of the Wood-Lark had small differences. The tail was widely spread in the same way and the wings were trailing and fluttering, but in this case the bird flopped from side to side and often spread one wing more than the other and it appeared more “incapable” than the Wood-Lark. This bird varied its direction, but it always had to proceed through long grass and this may have made its actions more exaggerated. Its final stopping place varied from twenty to thirty yards, sometimes in a wood stack and sometimes in a small birch tree where it continued the actions described. On one occasion its mate came down to it with much concern but without joining in the performance. Then they disappeared behind some cover and almost immediately afterwards the male uttered the short, loud song. Hi. F. WItHERBY-. PIED WAGTAILS USING ROOST IN JUNE. ON June 25th, 1936, while staying at Galashiels, Roxburgh- shire, I discovered a small roost of Pied Wagtails (Motacilla a. yarrellit) in a clump of willow shrubs on the outskirts of the town. I was able to count between twenty and thirty birds, most of which were adult although I noted one or two juveniles among them. The first birds arrived at the roost at about 8.45 p.m. They usually came in small batches of two or three and frequently perched on the neighbouring telegraph wires before going to the roost for the night. Although the character of the roost was normal, its occupation in the summer seems worth noting. PoiLip- A. CLANCEY. GOLDEN ORIOLE IN SUFFOLK. ON a visit to a mere in east Suffolk on July 4th, 1936, Mr. J. P. Hardiman and I heard a Golden Oriole (Ovtolus o. ortolus). The bird was in full song for upwards of an hour but kept out of view in a belt of poplars and alders. J. B. WATsoN. CHIFFCHAFFS IN PERTHSHIRE. On June 7th, 1936, in Strath Bran, Dunkeld, Perthshire, between the Hermitage and Rumbling Bridge, I was astonished to hear the song of a Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita) in the distance, when I was in a plantation watching Jays. I found the bird feeding on tall deciduous trees on the edge of a larch VOL. XXX.] NOTES. 83 plantation. It was singing very frequently and was possibly breeding. The bird is rare in eastern Scotland and has not previously been recorded, so far as I am aware, in north Perthshire. W. Mark KERR. On July 7th, 1936, a Chiffchaff was singing at Fearnan (Perthshire), near the north-east end of Loch Tay. The bank of the loch here is wooded down to the water’s edge with plentiful undergrowth and some larger forest trees. The song was also identified by my companion. P. A. D. HOLLom. INCUBATION-PERIOD OF GRASSHOPPER- WARBLER. On May 24th, 1936, I flushed a Grasshopper-Warbler (Locust- ella n. nevia) from a nest containing four eggs. On May 26th there were five eggs in the nest. On June 6th at 11.45 a.m. | found four young had hatched out and by 10.30 a.m. on the 7th all five were hatched. This appears to indicate 12 to13 days as the incubation-period as the fifth egg was probably laid on May 25th since it was quite 4 p.m. when I first found the nest. Unfortunately the nest was empty on the gth. I rather suspect a neighbour’s cat which I sawnearthenest. The nest itself was in cleared woodland amongst rush and bramble only about 50 yards from my house. I first heard the male singing on May 13th from about 5.30 a.m. to8 a.m. From then up till May 22nd he sang very frequently but less so towards the end of that period. I heard no song at all while incubation was proceeding but on June 7th a few scraps of song were heard and occasionally up till June 20th. The male usually sang about 20 yards from the nest. F. FINCHER. THE RANGE OF THE HEBRIDEAN HEDGE- SPARROW. Since this race (Prunella modularis hebridium) was described in 1934 from South Uist, I have been able to examine material from other localities which proves referable to it. A male and female from Antrim, Northern Ireland (Novem- ber, 1934) agree well with Hebridean birds and in fresh autumn plumage the race appears well defined. Whether the breeding bird of this locality is hebridium or not remains to be shown. I have also examined in the Edinburgh Museum a bird from the Clyde area (Cardross) obtained in autumn which shows the characters of hebridium. 84 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Finally, through the kindness of the Forestry Commission, I was, in April, 1936, able to collect a few examples during a brief trip to Knapdale, Argyllshire. These were birds shortly to breed and certainly the breeding form of the locality. They are somewhat more worn than winter birds and agree with spring birds in the British Museum (two from South Uist, one from Skye). These spring examples of hebridium compared with spring Hedge-Sparrows from Southern England show the characters of the race though to a distinctly less marked degree than autumn birds, and it would seem that in worn plumage hebridium could not be distinguished. The wing formula of hebridiwm seems quite inconstant, the second primary being longer or shorter than the seventh, or sub-equal. CHARLES M. N. WHITE. YOUNG OF NORMAL AND ALBINISTIC HOUSE- MARTINS. Mr. MILLER of School House, Tadley, Hampshire, reports to Reading Museum the mating of a House-Martin (Delichon u. urbica) in normal plumage with one in which all the dark feathers were replaced by pale sandy-buff. The result was four young, two normal, two resembling the pallid parent. One young bird fell from the nest and died, and was received by Mr. L. R. A. Grove, Assistant Curator, Reading Museum. I could find no trace of strongly pigmented feathers upon the young bird. Its coloration in mantle, wings and tail is considerably fainter than that upon a Sand-Martin. H. M. WALxLIs. WOODPECKER NESTING HOLES AND THE COMPASS. WHILE investigating the breeding habits of Woodpeckers, I was struck by a seeming frequency with which the entrance to the nesting-chamber faced in a northerly direction. This was intriguing. I followed the matter up by noting the com- pass bearing of each of the first hundred nesting-holes I came upon with the interesting result shownin the accompanying diagram. From this illustration it will be seen that my initial impression was not incorrect for I found that the aspect of fifty-nine holes lay in the northern half of the compass-card, twenty-six in the southern half, while seven fronted the east and eight, the west ; these latter could be said to be neutral. By far the greater number of holes—twenty-five—faced exactly north but less than half this number were found with a south aspect. VOL. XXX.] NOTES, 85 The compass-card in the diagram may be taken to represent the tree-trunks ; the dots indicate the positions of the nesting- holes in relation to the cardinal and other compass points, each dot representing one of the holes. Ld uw ra COCCCCO SECS OC COLROEEOEOESS @eeeeeee 7 ~ . . = *, 2 $ : *. e 4% e @ e o a Diagram showing the relation of Woodpecker nesting holes to the points of the compass. With few exceptions the holes examined were the work of Green Woodpeckers (Picus v. virescens) ; they were found, most of them, in the New Forest and in Savernake Forest. 86 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Of the trees in which the holes had been excavated, one was an apple, one an elm, four were ash trees, thirty-seven were beech, and fifty-seven were oak trees. It may possibly be said that decay attacks a tree more frequently on the northerly side which thus offers a more vulnerable and so inviting opportunity to the beak of the Woodpecker. Whether that is the case some forestry expert might be able to say. However this may be, it was curious to observe how often the holes had been excavated in what seemed quite sound timber. But there is another implication. Some time ago an article of mine appeared in British Birds (Vol. XXV., p. 40), offering observations made on the positions occupied by eggs in nests of Ringed Plovers (Charadrius h. hiaticula) and the relation of these positions to the cardinal points of the compass, and describing how the eggs were replaced on the cardinal points by the owner-birds after dis-arrangement. The evidence for the Plovers was not entirely conclusive; neither do my observations prove that the Woodpeckers make any, what I may call, “‘ compass choice ”’ in the positions chosen for their nesting-holes. But may we not consider that there is, at least, a suspicion, a prima facie case perhaps, that with the Wood- peckers as with the Plovers the “ call of the North ”’ is to some extent obeyed. For what evidence there is does seem to indicate that there is the possibility of an influence of some sort being exerted over the birds by the North. After the above had been set up in type I noted the position of nesting-holes in another section of woodland finding six holes facing north, four north-east, one north-north-east, one north-north-west, six east, three west, one south-east and one south. This brings the total facing exactly north to 31 as against 11 facing exactly south and 71 in the northern half of the compass card against 28 in the southern ; 24 being neutral. As it has been found impossible to alter the diagram may I suggest that readers might place dots on their diagrams representing these additions. . GEORGE MARPLES. TAWNY OWL TAKING PREY DURING THE DAY. Wirth reference to Mr. J. S. Elliott’s note (antea, p. 47), I have observed Tawny Owls (Stvia a. sylvatica) with prey in the early afternoon on several occasions, during August and September in Strathtay, near Aberfeldy, Perthshire. Curiously, although I have watched Tawny Owls in other parts of the country and have had a pair nesting each year close to the VOL, XXX.] NOTES. 87 house here, at Kelvedon in Essex, Strathtay is the only place where I have seen them taking prey in full daylight. JAMES W. CAMPBELL. SPOONBILL IN ISLAY. DuRING a recent visit to Islay with members of the Oxford Ornithological Society I was informed that a Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) had recently been captured on the island. Some of us inspected the bird in the house of its captor, Mr. Macindur of Bowmore. It had just been returned by the Glasgow taxidermist and was not yet cased so we could examine it closely. It was in very fine plumage with a long crest and no sign of having been in captivity. Mr. Macindur found it in a drain in the peat about two miles south of Bow- more and caught it alive, but it died shortly afterwards, presumably of starvation as he could not get it to feed. He was rather vague as to the date of capture but thought it was in May. It seems to me probable that this was the bird seen making for the coast of Co. Down on May 24th (cf. antea, p. 47). The coast of Antrim is plainly visible from Islay. W. B. ALEXANDER. EARLY NESTING OF SHELD-DUCK IN KENT. WITH reference to my note on the early nesting of Sheld-Duck (Tadorna tadorna) (Vol. XXIX, p. 85) in the Dungeness area, by a curious coincidence ducklings were seen on the pools on exactly the same date (May 12th) in 1936 as in 1935. This year there were two broods of ten each. I saw them myself on the 17th, and nearby a third brood of at least three that were distinctly larger birds and so must have been several days . older than the larger broods. It begins to look as though the first week of April is the normal date for laying to commence in this part of England. N. F. TIcEHuRsT. GOOSANDER NESTING IN DUMFRIESSHIRE. It is very satisfactory to be able—at long last—to state definitely that the Goosander (Mergus m. merganser) has nested in Dumfriesshire. (See British Birds, Vol. XX, D. 253, and Vol. XXIII, p. 232.) On June 18th, 1936, a student at Wallace Hall Academy brought his science master, Mr. O. J. Pullen, a dead duckling which attracted his attention because of its serrated beak. The student informed Mr. Pullen that his father had found a nest containing nine eggs which he had taken home ; placing them under a hen he hatched eight (one egg proved to be addled) but all the ducklings died. 88 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Mr. Pullen most kindly sent me the duckling which I at once forwarded to Mr. Witherby who identified it as a Goosander but who—to be doubly sure—sent it to the authorities at the British Museum (Natural History) who independently arrived at a similar decision. At a later date I was able to send the down from the nest to Mr. Witherby who had no hesitation whatever in identifying it as that of a Goosander. The duckling and some of the down are now deposited in the above-mentioned Museum. Site of Goosander’s Nest, Dumfriesshire, 1936. The nest was in a hollow at the base of a rowan tree beside the Capel burn, near Mitchellslacks in the parish of Closeburn, Dumfriesshire, and—thanks again to the assistance of Mr. Pullen—I am able to give a photograph of the site. H. S. GLADSTONE. [In A Practical Handbook of British Birds the late Mrs, Meinertzhagen stated that the nestlings of the Goosander VOL. XXX.] NOTES. 89 and Red-breasted Merganser were alike and Phillips in his A Natural History of the Ducks states that they are probably not to be distinguished except by the more basal position of the nostril in the Merganser. From the material available it would seem, however, that the brown streak running from the gape, below the eye and merging with the same colour behind the eye is darker and more clearly defined in the Goosander than in the Merganser. There is a good deal of individual variation, but this streak in the Merganser is usually short and fades into the general colour of the sides of the head, which is generally more rufous than it is in the Goosander. The position of the nostrils as is well known differs in adults of the two species and to test this in ducklings in down it is necessary to obtain measurements comparative with the length of the bill which, of course, varies according to the age of the bird. Mr. J. D. Macdonald has made such comparative measurements of the specimens in the Natural History Museum and a note by him with figures which he has kindly supplied are appended. These should be useful as a guide in distinguishing ducklings of the two species, but it must again be noted that the markings on the sides of the head are subject to individual variation. The nest down and feathers sent by Mr. Gladstone are very characteristic of the Goosander, which, as pointed out by Heatley Noble (British Birds, Vol. Il) has down much paler and feathers considerably larger and more creamy coloured than in the Merganser.—H.F.W.] (The relation between the lengths A and B (see Fig.) in the same species should be more or less constant throughout any reasonable variation in age, but should be quite distinct ae Wy-Ors DON aa —f €/| | wo Ya ne be | A Dark Brown W)), Brick Red GOOSANDER MERGANSER. 90 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. from that of the other species at the same age if there is any difference in the position of the nostril in the culmen. Twelve Merganser chicks were measured and the value of the ratio A/B lay between .35 and .45 with a mean of .42. Only three Goosanders were measured and gave .5, .5 and .6. Mr. Gladstone’s specimen gave a value of .5.—J. D. Mac- DONALD. | “INJURY-FEIGNING” BY A STONE-CURLEW. OF all the number of times I have seen the young of Stone- Curlew (Burhinus ce. edicnemus) in Berkshire for the purpose of ringing, I had never, until the other evening (June roth, 1936), seen an old bird, probably the hen, feign being hurt in order to distract my attention from her young. She lay quite close to me, flapping one wing, with the other wing half spread out, as though broken, and so realistic was it that I half believed the bird had really met with an accident of some sort and so I went towards it, when it immediately jumped up and ran round me, flew a few yards and then returned to sham being hurt again. It was more realistic in its shamming performance than I have ever seen a Partridge behave. GEORGE Brown. GOLDEN PLOVER AND STARLINGS PERFORMING JOINT AERIAL MOVEMENTS. On April 11th, 1936, when in Glen Esk near Edzell, Angus, I was watching a flock of about 30 to 40 Golden Plover (Charadrius apricarius) feeding on a ploughed field and was surprised when a flock of 20 to 30 Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) which had been feeding close by, rose with the Golden Plover. The two flocks blended and together carried out the usual wheeling movements of Golden Plover. It was only on land- ing that the Starling flock separated again and continued feeding near the Golden Plover. W. Mark Kerr, LAPWING DRIVING SHEEP FROM NEST. WHILST in Sutherlandshire in May, 1936, I saw a Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) continually jumping on to the back of a sheep and pecking at it in an effort to drive the sheep from the nesting site. Whilst on the ground the bird followed the sheep around, keeping in front of its face with wide open wings. The vacant look of surprise on the face of the sheep was amusing to see. G. E. Took. VOL. Sx.) NOTES. 91 CALL NOTES OF THE SPOTTED REDSHANK. I HAVE always found the Spotted Redshank (Tvinga eryth- vopus) a very wary and difficult bird to approach. During the past two years I have been fortunate enough to have a number of these birds under close observation—on both the vernal and return migrations. As most authorities ascribe to this bird the single call of ‘‘ tieuty,’ perhaps the following notes may be of interest. On rising a call of ‘‘ tjewty ’—if startled a moderately loud and clear ‘‘ chooeee.’’ When in flight in small parties (round the feeding ground) a conversational “‘ chee’’ or “‘ chee-cheet’’. The feeding call is a mild ‘“‘ chw,”’ which is usually answered by a dissyllabic “‘ chu-chw’’. This spring I had five birds under observation in East Kent, on May 4th, two in full summer dress, three in transitional plumage. From the actions of these birds three appeared to be males and two females. The males apparently display to the females by throwing back the head and strutting about in a pigeon-like manner—a rather ludicrous performance. T. C. GREGORY. THE BIRTH OF A CURLEW. On the evening of June 2Ist, 1936, my brother, Mr. H. S. Cowin, and I visited the nest of a Curlew (Numerius a. arqua- ta) which when last seen had contained two eggs. To our surprise instead of the full clutch of four eggs, the nest still contained only two eggs which were on the point of hatching. Towards the larger end of one egg was a cracked flake about a quarter of an inch in diameter from which a number of cracks radiated. The other egg contained two holes of the same size, about a quarter of an inch apart and from the lower of these the beak of the young bird protruded and its faint cheeping was heard. The white egg-tooth on top of the beak was clearly visible as were the upward taps of the beak since it was noticeable that all the time the bird was working at the hole the point of the beak protruded which would not have been the case if the bird had endeavoured to break out by pecking at the shell with the point of the beak. While we were there the bird broke through the piece of shell separating the two holes but unfortunately the lateness of the hour (9.30 p.m.) and the approach of a thunderstorm prevented us from staying to witness the end of this interesting episode. The whole process agreed closely with that described by Mr. I’. B. Kirkman in “ The Birth of a Black-headed Gull ” 92 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL SK (British Birds, Vol. XXIV., pp. 283-291) but one point not mentioned therein was that in the case of the young Curlew the tapping with the egg-tooth was not continuous but intermittent, a few minutes tapping being followed by a rather shorter pause during which the bird lay quiet with the beak motionless. Can this be reconciled with Mr. Kirkman’s statement that in the case of the Black-headed Gull the tap- ping is automatic and an involuntary act; though he says that it remains to be ascertained whether this is true of wild species generally ? In all other respects Mr. Kirkman’s descrip- tion of the birth of the Gull held good for the Curlew, even down to the cheeping of the chick and the occasional opening and shutting of the mandibles which, however, were never withdrawn within the shell. W. S. CowIn. HERRING-GULLS FEEDING ON LARVAE OF MOTHS. Ir may be of interest to record that larvae identified by Mr. W. Mansbridge, F.R.E.S., who was kind enough to examine a specimen I sent to him, as the Noctuid moth Cerapteryx (Charaeas) graminis, L., were disgorged in large quantities by young Herring-Gulls (Larus a. argentatus) on June 18th, 24th, and 29th, 1936, on Puffin Island, Anglesey. With few exceptions the young birds appeared to have been fed exclusively on these larvae, and at a rough estimate I should say that from 50 to 150 were disgorged at a time. M. MITCHELL. WATER-RAIL IN SUMMER IN INVERNESS-SHIRE. A FEMALE Water-Rail (Rallus a. aquaticus) was picked up dead near Dulnain Bridge, Inverness-shire, on June, 25th 1936, by D. Stubbert. I saw one on April 2nd, 1936, about half a mile from where this specimen was found. There are several winter records of the bird but so far as I know none in summer for Inverness-shire. WINIFRED M. Ross. RECENT PROGRESS IN THE STUDY OF BIRD-MIGRATION.— In an important paper under this title appearing in the July, 1936, number of The Ibis (pp. 472-530), Dr. A. Landsborough Thomson gives a masterly review of the literature of Bird Migration published between 1926 and 1935. The aim of the review, as Dr. Thomson remarks, is selective rather than exhaustive, and the matter is arranged and discussed with such great knowledge of the subject that the reader gets a good general idea of the progress made in various branches without the necessity of consulting the numerous original VOL XXX]. NOTES. 93 publications, though many pages of references at the end of the article are no less valuable to those who desire to go farther into detail. Following introductory sections on ‘general works’? and “ methods of study’, Dr. Thomson divides the review into two main headings “‘ General features of Migration” and ‘“‘ Theoretical Problems of Migration’. The first is subdivided into the following sub-headings : “‘ Types of Movement”, “‘ Geographical Aspects’, ““ Behaviour of Migrants’, ‘Routes and Flight-lines’’ and “ Weather Influences”. The theoretical side is dicussed under sections entitled : “Ends served by Migration’, “‘ Origin of Migration ”’, “Annual Stimuli to Migration’’ and “ Path and Goal of Flight : Orientation’”’. Dr. Thomson dates his ‘‘ Review’ from 1926 because in that year three books on the subject were published : in this country Problems of Migration by Dr. Thomson himself, in America The Migration of Birds by Dr. A. Wetmore, and in Germany Die Wanderungen der Végel by H. Wachs. The “‘ Review” is one which no ornithologist can afford to miss since it forms an authoritative record of work in the last ten years on a subject which must interest everyone. NUTCRACKER IN SURREY.—Mr. W. N. Greenwell informs us that on July 6th, 1936, near Kew Green, he observed a bird which he identified as a Nutcracker (Nuctfraga caryocatactes) and from the careful description he has given us there can be no doubt that his identification is correct. The bird was feeding on the ground within a dozen yards of Mr. Greenwell and then flew up into an oak and disappeared into Kew Gardens. The date makes it unlikely that this was a wild migrant and it seems more probable that it was an escape from captivity. YOUNG CROsSBILLS IN DEvoN.—Mr. J. F. D. Scott informs us that on May roth, 1936, he watched an adult hen Crossbill (Loxia c. curvirostra) and two young birds in brown plumage near Kingswear. The young were full grown and feeding on cones so that they may not have been reared in the immediate neighbourhood. FIELD Stupy oF St. KitpA WREN.—In the Scottish Nat- uralist (1936, pp. 9-41) Messrs. T. H. Harrisson and John N.S. Buchan give a very full account of their detailed observations of Troglodytes t. hirtensis during a visit to St. Kilda in the summer of 1931. The paper deals with habits connected with feeding the young, nest materials and measurements, song 94 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. periods, song and notes, plumage and other points. The song in the opinion of the authors has a finer, yet weaker, tone, more musical and continuous, less throaty, than the mainland bird. It is stated that the Practical Handbook does not indicate any individual plumage variation in the St. Kilda Wren, but as the description is comparative with the Common Wren, whose variability is described, surely similar variation in the St. Kilda Wren is clearly implied, the comparison being obviously of a series and not of one individual. The nestling is described as being like that of the Common Wren, but with slightly paler down and in four examined there was no down in the spinal tract. SITTING BiuE Tit FED By Two Brirps.—Mrs. M. R. O’Hanlon informs us that in a nesting-box close to her house windows at Alderley Edge where a Blue Tit (Parus c. obscurus) had a nest, she noticed that the sitting bird was fed by two Blue Tits and that this continued until shortly after the young were hatched; when the hen and her mate began to feed the young the third bird disappeared. LARGE CLUTCHES OF MISTLE-THRUSH AND CooT.—Mr. B. T. Brooker informs us that in May, 1936, he and Mr. H. Cawkell found a nest of a Mistle-Thrush (Turdus v. viscivorus) in Sussex with six eggs, which were uniform in size and markings. The same observers also record the finding of a nest of a Coot (Fulica a. atva) with thirteen eggs in a reed-bed in Romney Marsh, Kent, in May, 1935, and a nest with the same number of eggs in the same reed-bed in May, 19306. INCUBATION AND FLEDGING PERIODS OF RING-OUZEL.— Mr. W. S. Medlicott informs us that a nest of a Ring-Ouzel (Turdus t. torquatus) in Goathland, Yorkshire, contained one egg on May 30th, 1936 at 6 p.m. The hen bird was then on the nest. Assuming that the eggs were laid on consecutive days this would give June 2nd, as the date of the full set, and she was sitting on four eggs a few days later. At 6 p.m. on June 14th, two young and two eggs were in the nest and about three days later, the four young were seen in the nest. This would give an incubation period of 12 to 13 days if incubation only began with the full clutch. The young had all left the _ nest, apparently quite recently at 8.30 p.m. on June 2gth. This agrees with previous estimates of not more than 14 days. SNowy OWL RECORDED IN FIFESHIRE.—Mr. D. M. Wilson states (Scot. Nat., 1936, p. 45) that a Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiaca) ‘‘was clearly seen”’ by Mr. Harold Wilson and others VOL, XXX.]} NOTES. 95 on January 31st, 1936, within ten miles of St. Andrews. No further particulars being given it is impossible to judge of the accuracy or otherwise of the observation. PURPLE SANDPIPER IN SOMERSET.—Mr. A. R. Sumerfield informs us that he saw a Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima) with a party of six Turnstones at Watchet on May roth, 1936. Mr. B. W. Tucker informs us that the bird is very rarely seen on the Somerset coast and that he has only one record of it in the last twenty years. Avocet RINGED IN RHONE DELTA FOUND IN EssEX.— With reference to the note on this subject (antea p. 50) we are informed from another source that four (not five) birds were shot and that two of them were adults and two young (one with the ring) and that they appeared to be a family party. They had been first observed about July roth. Another party of four was seen at the same time and we are glad to say escaped. Several readers have quite rightly protested about the shooting of these birds and we understand that this matter was taken up locally and by the R.S.P.B. It is said that the shooter (one of a duck shooting party) thought they were young Sheld-Ducks and it seems a pity that people so ignorant of birds as to confuse an Avocet with a duck are allowed to shoot at all. BLACK TERNS IN HAMPSHIRE AND SHROPSHIRE.—Mr. C, H. Kaye and Mr. C. W. Heycock report seeing a Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) near Winchester on May 8th, 1936, and Mr. Philip Rickman saw one over the lake at Walcot Hall, Lydbury North, Shropshire, on May 23rd, 1936. The bird is not frequently recorded from either county. REVIEWS. De Vogels van Nederland. Door Prof. Dr. E. D. van Oort. (’SGraven- hage, Martinus Nijhoff.) Dr. vAN Oort, whose death occurred in 1933, did not live to see his great work on Dutch birds completed and the last parts have been issued under the editorship of Dr. G. A. Brouwer. The whole work makes five very handsome large quarto volumes. Every bird on the Dutch list is figured in colour and the text includes besides names (scientific, synonyms, Dutch, English, German and French), a brief description and an account of the bird’s general range, its status in Holland, habitat, and breeding and other habits. The plates area feature of the work. The birds are accurately drawn though in somewhat stiff and formal poses, but the great value of the plates lies not so much in their artistic merit as in the fact that several figures are given of each species, depicting both sexes and the juvenile and in a good many 96 BRITISH BIRDS. FVOL: Xs; cases other phases of plumage. Thus there are rarely less than three figures on a plate and often four, while in many cases two plates are devoted to one species. Three hundred and sixty-two forms are described and there are four hundred and two plates. All concerned are to be greatly congratulated on the completion of so magnificent and useful a work. England's Birds. By W. K. Richmond. (Faber & Faber). Illustrated. Ios. 6d. Tuis is frankly a popular book. Each of the seventeen chapters is devoted to a description of a different and contrasting type of terrain and some of the birds that might be considered characteristic of each. This has been done a good many times before and it must be difficult to find anything new to say about many of them. The author's descriptions are certainly good and he has broken more or less fresh ground in several respects. His voyage in a coasting collier from the Forth to Rouen and back is the most notable and his observations on the distribution of sea birds at sea were worth making, as this is a subject upon which little work has been done as yet. If this chapter should stimulate others to follow his example, it will not have been written in vain. That he should have struck a migrating party of Cross- bills lost in fog was, of course, sheer luck, but must have added fresh interest to the voyage. There are but few other points that concern the ornithologist. We are glad to note the increase of the Raven in our northern counties, where the author mentions that several old nesting sites have become retenanted. He asserts positively that the Twite is unknown as a nesting species in the northern Pennines where it is supposed to be found, while Curlews have increased to such an extent that the moorland has become over populated and they are now nesting in many lowland meadows, where they were unknown twenty years ago. As pleasant reading for beginners and general bird-lovers the book is to be recommended, while the illustrations, the work of a number of photographic and other artists, are adequate and good. NUE. LETTER. COLOUR OF LESSER BLACK-BACKED "GULL ABRFPECTED BY ANGLED OF ElGEn To the Editors of BritisH BirRDs. Strs,—The Rev. J. M. McWilliam in his letter on the above (antea, p. 56) remarks in his closing paragraph that he “ cannot remember seeing any notes on the effect of the angle of sunlight on the apparent colour of birds.” We would refer him to our note, “‘ Lesser Black-backed Gulls in Glamorgan,’’ which appears in Vol. XXIII, pages 250-252, where we draw attention to this fact. We agree that probably the best and safest test to determine the races of the Lesser Black-backed Gull in all angles of lighting is that mentioned in the editorial note. : GEOFFREY C. S. INGRAM. H. MorRREY SALMON, 22 Waterloo Road, Cardiff. EVERY GARDEN A BIRD SANCTUARY Miss Turner is a great enthusiast and an attractive writer and she seeks here to encourage bird-lovers to take even greater interest in their pensioners and to rouse those who are not alive to the necessity of preserving and increasing ‘‘ our inheritance.’ The Author is, above all, a practical enthusiast and her book is packed with advice on the best methods for all to help her cause, from those who are able toset some acres aside as a sanctuary, down to the owner of the small town garden. Eight plates and text figures. S. Cr. 8vo. 5/~ net. REPORT on the ‘‘ BRITISH BIRDS” CENSUS OF HERONIES, 1928 by E. M. NICHOLSON Paper wrapper 3/6 net. THE GREAT CRESTED GREBE ENQUIRY, 1931 By T. H. HARRISSON anp P. A. D. HOLLOM Reprinted from BRITISH BIRDS Paper Wrapper 2/6 net H. F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd. 326 High Holborn, LONDON, Ww. C. 1 LE GERFAUT REVUE BELGE D’ORNITHOLOGIE (Fondéeen 1911.) La seule publication scientifique belge traitant des oiseaux, spécialement des oiseaux de la Belgique. Abonnement 25 frances belges - 5 Belgas par an. Direction : Square Prince Charles 21, Bruxelles-Laeken (Belgique) | WATKINS & DONCASTER Manufacture and Stock CABINETS and APPARATUS of every kind for Collectors of Birds’ Eggs, Insects, &c. A LARGE, STOCK OF BIRDS’ EGGS (Singles and s RIMSH and EXOTIC BUTTERELIES woo 2nd NESTING BOXES OF OF VARIOUS PATTERNS. Pricep CaTALOGUE oF APPARATUS AND SPECIMENS PER RETURN All Books and Publications (new and second-hand) on Natural History supplied. P.O. Box 126. Telig Mies Temple Bar 9451. 36, Strand, London, W.C.2, England. A SUPPLEMENT TO THE BIRDS OF NORFOLK AND LORD HOWE ISLANDS to which is added those BIRDS OF NEW ZEALAND not figured by Buller By GREGORY M. MATHEWS Author of “The Birds of Australia.” Illustrated by FORTY HAND-COLOURED AND NUMEROUS MONOCHROME PLATES AND TEXT FIGURES IN ONE VOLUME (Limited to 225 Copies) Price £8 8 0 The Author’s twelve-volume “ Birds of Australia ”’ is the standard work on the birds of that Continent. In 1928 he brought the work up to date in “ The Birds of Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands’. In the new volume there are twenty further plates of Australian birds. There are also included twenty New Zealand birds which have been added to this list since Buller’s great works were completed. In addition to a plate of each of these birds, ten plates have been added to show the generic characters. In this new volume, therefore, the avifauna of Australia and New Zealand is brought up to date. This volume and “ The Birds of Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands ’’ are thus a necessary adjunct to “‘ The Birds of Australia’, and no set can be called complete without them. H.. 38. 3 8&) Gi WEEE RB Dap 326 HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON, W.C.1 BRUSH ~ ANIEUSTRATED-MAGAZINE DEVOTED CHIEFLY TOTHEBIRDS “= ONTHEBRISHT EST MONTHIY. 1594 YEARLY. ‘S26HIGH HOLBORNICND Oe TiFéGWITHERBY- LTD: BIRD-LOVERS’ MANUALS HOW TO KNOW BRITISH BIRDS By NORMAN H. JOY, M.B.0.U. This is a bird identification book on a new principle. In addition to an Illustration and Description of each bird, Field Characters, Nest, Breeding Season and Distribution are given. The author has included all species that breed in the British Isles, and all that are recorded as occurring to some extent every year, although it may be only in a few places on migration. The reader is not expected to wander through the book hoping to see among the figures something which looks like the bird seen. The author gives a definite method by which birds can be identified in the field. He stresses the im- portance of recognising birds by their shape and action because, in the field, details of colour are very often not discernible, as the bird may be flying against the sky, or swimming with the sun behind it. Each bird is, therefore, represented in its most frequent natural position, at rest, or in flight ; closely allied species being put in one plate, so that they can be compared. Great care has been taken to reproduce the colours of the illustrations accurately. A section is devoted to song as an aid to identification, and a special Index is given so that an observed character can be looked up easily. Forty plates containing nearly 300 illustrations, many in colour Small Cr, 8vo, 5/= net. BIRDS OF THE GREEN BELT AND THE COUNTRY AROUND LONDON By R. M. LOCKLEY (Author of DREAM ISLAND) The birds and the places they haunt in and about the forests, the heather and gorse commons, the grassy downs, the streams, lakes, reservoirs, marshes, the chalk hills, the orchards and parks of the country around London, are here described for the first time in a volume that fits the pocket. A much needed and competent handbook, attractively written and full of useful illustrations, it has an up-to-date transport guide to all the bird haunts mentioned. Plates and 45 Drawings in the text. 256 pages, Small Cr, 8vo, 5/= net. H. F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd., 326 High Holborn, London, W.C.|I. : : q - 1 BRITBSABIRDS WITH wWHIcH WAS INCORPORATED IN JANUARY, 1917, “ THE ZOOLOGIST.” EDITED BY H. F.WITHERBY, M.B.E., F.Z.S.,M.B.O.U.,H.F.A.O.U. ASSISTED BY Rev. F. C. R. JOURDAIN, M.A., M.B.O.U., H.F.A.O.U., F.Z.S., AND NORMAN F., TICEHURST, O.B.E., M.A., F.R.C.S., M.B.O.U. CONTENTS OF NUMBER 4, VOL. XXX., SEPTEMBER I, 1936. PAGE |Report on the Swallow Enquiry, 1935. By A. W. Boyd sak 98 Proportion of Sexes in Roosting Chaffinches. By the Hon. Guy Charteris Tr eon dae a ae ion nae 8 oy] ‘The Winter Behaviour of Moorhens. By Miss Averil Morley ... 12C \Recovery of Marked Birds es uae aes a ae 125 !Notes :— Chiffchaff and bodaaeeiee. inl Warbler Association (Mrs. E. MacAlister) ... ve ae a rr 131 Summer Passage Movements of Swifts (B. Lloyd) _ ... aes 131 Hobby and Grey Squirrel (D. H. Meares) oes was mince 132 Flock of Gadwall in Sutherlandshire (E. Cohen) ace nee 132 Fulmar Petrels Breeding in Pembrokeshire (W. A. Cadman) 133 Early Breeding of Stone-Curlew (Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain and FH. J. K. Burne)... “es ery ins Ae = ae 133 ‘ Injury-feigning '’ by Stone-Curlew (G. K. Yeates) ... aa 134 The Food of Young Lapwings (R. H. Brown) aan Ks 134 Notes on Waders in Cumberland (R. H. Brown) ios so £34 sShort Notes :— Common Buzzard and Osprey in Kent. New Heronry in Montgomeryshire. Young Oyster-Catcher swimming under water use ve wate ans ese een rs ose 135 Letter :— Coloration of Soft Parts in the Herodiones during the Breeding Season (J. K. Stanford) nit ims ee aa ia 136 5 ~ H ~ . 9 is : . ~ - , | > -_ - “ (98) PUBLICATION OF THE BRITISH TRUST POR ORNITHOLOGY, REPORT ON THE SWALLOW ENQUIRY, 1935. BY ASW; (BOSD. Tuis, the result of the second year’s enquiry into the average size of the broods of the Swallow (Hirundo r. rustica) and other questions connected with their nesting-habits (to which is added a census of Swallows and House-Martins nesting in a number of widely separated localities) brings the enquiry to a close at any rate for the present. The results of the enquiry in 1934 were published in British Birds XXIX, pp. 3-21, and these two papers should be examined together. An attempt has been made in the summary to draw conclusions from the two. In 1935 we had the advantage of receiving data from the twenty-two localities of 1934, with the exception of six ; from two of these the information we got had been only slight ; in 1935 reports were sent from three new localities (one in N. Wales and two in Sussex) which to some extent compensate for the loss; the lack of all data from the south-west of England is, however, unfortunate. The following are the localities from which reports were sent ; they are numbered exactly as in the 1934 Report so that comparison can more easily be made. In those marked C a census was made. 1. Baldernock Parish, Stirling (J. Bartholomew,) 200/300 feet ; lime- stone ; rural ; dairy farming and agriculture. 2. N.E. of Isle of Man (F. A. Craine), slightly above sea-level; crops by rotation. 3. Cumdivock, Dalston, 7 miles S.W. of Carlisle, Cumberland (R. H. Brown), 300 feet ; clay sub-soil ; rural; stock-breeding with good grazing. C. 4. An area of one mile from Ullswater (Dr. H. J. Moon), Cumberland- Westmorland boundary ; 476 feet ; two geological formations— igneous rock and limestone ; rural ; pastures. C. 6. Near Huddersfield, Yorkshire (W.R.) (J. C. S. Ellis), 300 to 800 feet; lower coal measures; increasingly urban; upland pastures. C. 8. Myddleton and Houghton Green, near Warrington, Lancashire (W. Ritson), 25/50 feet; boulder clay ; rural; arable farms. to. Four miles radius from Alderley Edge, E. Cheshire (E. Cohen), 200/300 feet; red marl and Keuper sandstone; rural and suburban ; mainly pastures for cattle. r1. Antrobus and Sevenoaks, N.W. Cheshire (A. W. Boyd), 150 to 284 feet; Keuper marl; rural; arable and grazing land—small farms. 1G: 11A. Near Old Colwyn, Denbighshire (Miss M. Mitchell) ; sea-level to 400 feet ; limestone ; rural ; sheep and cattle. VOL. Xxx.]| REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 99 12. S.E. corner of Anglesey (R. R. M. Jones), sea-level to 60 feet ; limestone ; pastures with a little arable. C. 13. Parishes of Laugharne, Llansadwren and Llandawke, Carmarthen- shire (J. F. Thomas), 10 to 480 feet ; old red sandstone and “blown sand ”’ ; rural ; small farms—dairy and cattle raising. The average size of 23 farms is 78 acres. C. 14. Skokholm, Pembroke (R. M. Lockley), 50 to 150 feet; old red sandstone island of 240 acres (3 miles at sea) ; rough grazing, heather and bracken. C. 17. Staunton, S.E. Notts. (Miss F. K. Staunton), 75 feet ; clay soil ; rural ; mainly pasture with some arable. 18. N. Norfolk (R>M. Garnett), sea-level to 150 feet ; sandy overlying chalky marl; rural; marsh, heath-land and arable (barley and sugar-beet). C. 19. Hemsby, near Gt. Yarmouth, E. Norfolk (Miss J. M. Ferrier), 100 feet ; subsoil clay ; rural; cereal crops. C. 20. S.E. Suffolk (A. Mayall), 100/120 feet ; sandy ; rural ; some arable. 21. Seaford, Sussex (J. F. Thomas), sea-level to 700 feet ; chalk ; rural ; valleys and downland. C. 23. Stoughton, 5 miles N.W. of Chichester, Sussex (The Rev. H. J. Emmet), 200 feet ; mostly chalk; rural ; mainly grassland with some arable and woodland. 24. Thorney Island, Chichester Harbour, Sussex (P. A. D. Hollom), sea-level ; rural; pasture and arable. C. AVERAGE SIZE OF Broops, 1935. 596 broods in all were examined; of these (taking all months together) : |In 1934 (664 broods) 12 Or 2 per cent. contained one young each 2.1 35 or 5.87 ae mA two 7 ag 6.47 94 OF 15.77 Px “" three _,, a | £7.53 221 or 37 = + four ,, ol 39.3 B2I2 OF 35.7 - ¥ five ,, * | 31.6 21 0r 3.5 ee = six * a 3.6 lor 0.16 3 . seven -_— 2,441 young were ringed or counted giving an average of 4.09 for all broods recorded. These figures differ only slightly from those recorded in 1934 when the average for the whole year for all broods was 4.01 ; the percentages given above were within 1 per cent. except for the broods ot 4 and 5 which were over 2 per cent. smaller, and 4 per cent. larger respectively than in 1934. Local weather reports have been kindly supplied by the Meteorological Office when they were not supplied by the observers. In considering the figures given in the following table it will perhaps be wisest to disregard those for Denbighshire (11) and Sussex (23) ; in each case only 11 broods were counted and it would probably be dangerous to draw any conclusions from so small a number. [VOL 3c, BRITISH BIRDS. = 6rS | — = ydas — | ez] — | — | ny = goo | — — Aint goth —_— — aunt — rr — —_ AW UOPSULLIL AA gS¥ | 19'S | gh | gz ydas cor, | orem |) E2rS0)) 0:62 “any u0ey1S 169 | z6:0 | S:zS | #2Z Ant? 109} 9] €gS | br-z | €:06 | ogg | ounf a_MOuy v9 | €9'0 | rob | orgs ACW SUIARY bbz | Gozr| ggt | g:og ydas rb | 612 | FO6b | Ego] -Sny MOGs SLez i SerGal) es07Z, Ayn yee | PhS | gor | €Sq | ounf{ (‘sg sazrur 6/g) 19°6 | gto | gob | 6:09 ACW apiseiqury gor | xrgS | groS | Z£:6¢ ydas €yG | 66x | ZES | Gq] -Sny 60°g | gtr] PES | gtg Ajo €6°S | g6°€ | LoS | zog | ounf C6: | gem | arr |) (e225 ACW se[snoq PLE | gig | xrgh | E-09 ydas REY} oom |} y0S. |) 26 “sny 9S-9 | gfx | 66h | 6:99 | Af CM'S bev | gov | 16h | S-zg} aunf sopur Z om) 39°9 Go | rob | 6°6¢ ACW MOIJUOY uvoul] urey | “ul | “xe Ajtep |saqouy : UOT}e}S simoy | [ej0 7, |*dwoy ues BUIPIOIIY SIIVIN uns MAHLVA MA So-F ce €€'h Cr gg°r bE Ib Ib e+ Zr cab oz Teak |spooig IO} jo ase ‘ON -IdAVy | [e]OL ase -IDAV ‘S€6I ‘SGCOOUNA HO AZIS ADVMAAV 6 = | = | — | = I r | — | ydesg iS Ze |—|1 I ey Nee I | — | ‘any Z mg |}—|—|2 + | —| — | —]| Ame II 1g —|—|24 Se —|z — | ounf ZI “allyseour’y] i | ies —j|1 AVI Zz ‘U0 BULUAR AA “8 €z —|—|€ z —|—|—|-3ny ¢ *OITYSYIOA “MM cr —|]—|12 I z — | — | Ame ¥, ‘preystappny Lt —/;—|¢€ € — | — | — | ounf 9 IeAN °9 G —|—/1 |—]|—] —]| —/ das I “Arepunoq we | —|—|2 € | —|—]—|-3ny ¢ purproquing 94 aL eee raf cr -PUPLIOUI}SA £S —|Fr € te z | —] — | ounf ZI IoVeMS|[ WIOIy 9 —|}r | —|—]| — | —/] — |} 2en I optar 1 vary “Fy gg —/|1 6 6 —|—|1 ‘sny oz gs —|—1/8 b+ | —|1 —} 4mf €x ‘puepieqminy se — | | Fe ee r | — | — | aunt g ‘uoysyeqd *£ oz —|—|]—/s — | — | — |"3nyv ¢ Aint — “ury JO 2IST zs —|—|2 i I I — | ounf ZI jo°”a'N “2 Ve ean —|1 ydas z 0% —|;—|1 € I — || ——*| santy: S be —|—|Fr+ I — | — | — | Ame ¢ “BUTLANS LE —|z € I Zz — | — | ounf g ‘yoousepreg “I ya S sunox| Z 9 ¢ iZ € z I . | -wexy * Te}OL YWUOW | spoorg “AqITLIOT sulureyuoD JaquinN [eqOL 101 VOL. Xxx.] REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 60'S | fer torg | 6E'r £6°g | oz‘o 6g'Z | Lz gzZ | 6:0 Sg | Ig'r ZL | 650 zg | €S'b es | Sree _ gL os 69% — zS’o — gz's — £orz ZeS | eve eons | Z2yx 61°£ | ofo og'S oz ofZ | fr Ayuo | samnsy 2oS Orr 42S | 6bex eos || ‘S970 *9hz | gor gOS | br _— oz"9 _- zz -- CLI _— Hob _ 6L£0 uvout | ure Ajrep |soyouy smoy | [RO], uns Egh | gf “2S | obs occ | zbs gos | go zor | 2Z¢ oZ$ | o0Z orgs | ord ors | obg o7oS$ | 0709 obs | gttg | €*9$ | €°L9 SoS | Lg Sze | gto Zor | Zs xoidide , Egh | orto 61S | EZ oSS | tod gzs | ogg bob | 19 S6F | o's0 6zS | Gros GES | SoZ bx¢ | zg g'ok | orgs ur | “Xe | “diay, uroyy MAHLVAM ydas Any, | Aint ("soya g) oun[? apsey | 69°f | gz AvW NoapE | ‘any Aja | eunf (a's soprat Zz) gor 79 AW BOSUBEMS ydas any Ant? } oun[ ) ze'v | 99 Avw Aosoptuy “a's ydag ) ‘any Ant (sommay aunt -xorddy) See | x11 Aeyw = Avg: uAMyjoa ydas ‘any Aint osunf{ = (*S sazrur $/F) oF | £6 ACW pioyyie H ydag “any Aqnf aunf (‘aS soprur ¢) g£Z°€ of AvW Peysapoe Ny | eax spoorg) moneys | Oy jo Surps1ooayy JSoreaN ase “ON | Teay | [e}0L | a b + I | : 4 ¢ € => - ¥ z _ } | I og | Ze | Ir | @ I I c I _ —|\9 z 1 I —j|trig —|r I or-| Z ¢ I ee) eS are —|—l|2z z I —|1 —l\2z I —|—|€ —/¢€ —Ae rr | & I I Or | Xt] or | & ia ZF.) of) S z —|1I itr I I Sate ll Seis med) D € z ¥ —jz z z — 9 ¢ b € z “AuTUreyuOD = aquinyy ‘S€61 ‘SqOoOud AO AZIS ADVAAAV ‘sSny 6 Apne” 6 ount g ‘any tg Wag 9 “any €r at €z aun vz “any ¢ Aqnt v ounf z yeas ‘any zz at zy oun Le ydag oy “any bz Ajnt gl aunt 9 pour qyuow -wexaq spoold Te}OL | ‘ipa Aopoply *garqsiuey -BUNION “A'S ‘uoyuneys “ZI “oars -ueyyAeMIeD ‘oureyane’y “fr “Aasopsuy “W'S ‘21 “arrqsystquoacy ‘UAMIOD PIO “VII “alTqsoq) *M'N ‘snqoijuy “IT ‘arTysoy)) ‘or “AyyeI0T [VOL. Xxx, BRITISH BIRDS. LE°9 z6°S Ibs OL'or 16°Z of°¢ Ito eS*z 6L:z Gag 69°I z6'0 gSz oY Ab ¢ ore ZG'l bape 9S*z Cor £2'S €g'r 96'0 Cre 34'0 Urey soqouy [e}0OL oes | az2l Aju rs¢ | £9 | aunf (“q's sampw §1z) Ech | $:6S API sIdoy] 10us0g LACK, || ECG) ydas 9°9S | £:0£ “SnYV 99S | &14} Amf orc | ¥So | oun (*S sayrar 9) gtr | 99S ACW 9MO}SXTTOT €z¢ | Lb9'| ydeas 09S | g'69 ‘sny o9S | ggg | Ant LES | E*ko aunt 6-ry | 2 ES AWW yqnourse x ZoS | 19°F ydas gSS | Fol} ‘any o79S | ot0£ Aqne 61S | gZg | ounf (‘| saprur 6/9) 6rzy | E-vS ACI Iaulo1g ‘UTA, | “X®W ‘dmay | ues UOl4L4S ——, SUIpIOIIY SeTeaN YAHLVA Ig Il spooig. jo -10AW e}0L a eee RON — — — ¢ I — = || = | z — | — — — | — I Z — —/|—|2z + i — == NS 9 ee le am — vA = ¢ — —|;—|1 € I —_ —|{—|]—]|6 z I — || — || & fA ae —|—|z z I I — a — a. Zz — = = v4 9 ve _ — | — | Ir] ir] € z eee) EG ¢ eS P= L 9 ¢ 4 € z SururezUo|D Joquin Ny “S€61 ‘SGOOUT AO AZIS ADVUAAV ‘any | 9 Ane I *xassns ounf + ‘u0jYysNo}S *€z *ydas (S “sny /é Aint €r aunt ¢ “yjoyNs “q “oz 3das ¢ “sny rae Ajo II *YJO}ION aun 9 ‘Aqsuioyy{ “61 *ydas € “Ssny or 4qnt ge *3[OJION oun[ 8 “oqa, ‘asnoyyyes “gi peut yuo] | -wexay “AVeoo'T spoorg [e}OL VOL. Xxx.] REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 103 Once again we see that the first broods are the largest and this is shown in practically every case where a large enough number of broods for fair comparison was examined. Again we find that broods in the localities furthest to the North have the largest numbers of young, notably those in Stirling and Cumberland ; in fact, the three localities in these counties from which records were sent show a considerably larger average for June, July and August than any others. This bears out the Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain’s report that the largest clutches of eggs recorded usually have been found in the northern counties. It seems reasonable to suggest once more that longer hours of daylight contribute to this result. Actual hours of sunshine do not appear to have the same effect, for though they were specially high in the north in May, the figures for June were very low. The Ullswater area on the border of Cumberland and Westmorland shows quite remarkable figures: of 28 broods in May, June and July, no fewer than 12 were broods of 6 (only 21 broods of 6 were recorded in all localities) ; the average of 5.06 for 15 broods in July is outstanding. Heavier rainfalls coincide with larger broods and certainly cannot be shown to have any effect in reducing them ; the greatest number of inches of rain was recorded from the Lake District where the largest broods were found and it is interesting to note that Anglesey provided a heavier rainfall and a larger brood average than any locality south of the northern counties. The broods in the southern half of the country are through- out slightly smaller on the average ; it is noteworthy that of the 21 broods of 6 only one was found south of Anglesey and that was in Carmarthenshire ; 11 broods in July in E. Norfolk with an average of 4.8 and 62 broods in Carmarthenshire with an average of 4.06 show higher figures than any other southern localities. First AND LAst EGGs AND Broops. First eggs were laid rather earlier than in 1934. The earliest record of all was of an egg laid in April, near Warrington, Lancashire ; the observer reported that it was laid on April 28th-29th and was hatched on May r1th-r2th. First eggs laid in other localities : May 3rd, Seaford, Sussex ; about May 3rd, Alderley, E. Cheshire (5 eggs May 8th) ; May 7th-8th, Antrobus, N.W. Cheshire, and Rowsley, Derby- shire (4 eggs May 11th) ; May 8th, Stoughton, Sussex ; about May 11th, N. Norfolk ; May 14th-15th, Huddersfield (the first 104 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. to hatch were at 600 feet) ; May 17th, Anglesey ; May 2oth, E. Norfolk ; May 21st, Colwyn Bay, N. Wales; May 26th, Ullswater and Isle of Man. In g localities in which the first egg was recorded in 1934 it was recorded again in 1935— 2, 3,7, 7, 8, Ir and 30 days earlier ; in the other two (both in Norfolk) it was found on the same day and two days later. Last broods: the last brood at Dalston, Cumberland, flew on August 23rd; at Huddersfield, hatched on August 21st ; at Colwyn Bay, flew on September 11th ; at Alderley, Cheshire, hatched on September 3rd ; in N.W. Cheshire at least three pairs had third broods and the young were ringed: (1) June 4th, July 24th, September 3rd ; (2) last brood, September goth ; (3) June 17th, July 29th, September gth ; in Anglesey the last egg was laid on August 25th and the young flew on September 25th ; in Carmarthen the first egg of the latest nest was laid on August 22nd. ; A very late third brood was noted at Cockermouth, Cumberland, which left the nest on October 22nd and did not depart till November 9th (G. W. Muller) ; another third brood at Kirby Muxloe, Leicestershire, flew in October, but two young stayed there till the first week of January, 1936 (Miss O. S. Wilshere). PROPORTION OF NESTS USED MORE THAN ONCE IN A SEASON. To keep an accurate account has proved difficult to most observers particularly so where a large area has been covered. Stirling—z2o broods: 4 nests used twice (7 of last year’s nests used—3 of them twice). Isle of Man—17 broods: 1 nest used twice. Dalston, Cumberland—41 broods : all nests used twice except two. Ullswater—Usually a new nest made ; in two cases same nest used, but one of these was not used again by the original pair. Huddersfield—5 per cent. used twice. Warrington—35 broods: 7 nests used twice (20 per cent.). Alderley, E. Cheshire—No definite record of any nest used twice ; 28 were not used twice ; 17 other broods observed, but no record taken. Antrobus, Cheshire—Use of nests by 25 pairs noted accurately: the same nest was used twice II times; and in 14 cases another nest was ‘used. One pair used a different nest for each of 3 broods. Colwyn, N. Wales—11 broods : no nests used twice. Anglesey—66 broods : 4.54 per cent. nests used twice. VOL, Xxx.] REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 105 Laugharne, Carmarthen—4 pairs made new nests for second broods ; no precise information in other cases. N. Norfolk—45 nests used once, 5 used twice, but records could not be made complete. Hemsby, E. Norfolk—17 pairs examined ; all double brooded ; of these 17 pairs 8 built new nests for first brood and g used old nests ; all built new nests for second broods. Stoughton, Sussex—r1 broods : two nests used twice. In the great majority of cases it is obvious that a second nest is used though these are often old nests used in earlier years. As in 1934 the Swallows at Dalston, Cumberland, showed greater consistency in using the same nest a second time than in any other locality from which records were sent. SIZE OF CLUTCH AND SUBSEQUENT SIZE OF BRoop. Few observers found it possible to keep adequate records on this point. The following are the results obtained : Dalston, Cumberland. One clutch of 6 produced 4 young ; in other nests all eggs hatched. Nests. Clutch. Brood. Huddersfield sis iia a 4-4 4-33 Alderley, Cheshire... nae exe, 43 4.18 3.83 Antrobus, Cheshire - “a 2D 4.6 4.1 Laugharne, Carmarthenshire... 17 4-47 4.12 Anglesey ... aay =< ca 4.6 4.3 Staunton ... eee ae ee OF 5.0 4.0 Stoughton, Sussex a 10 : : aks 4.5 One clutch of 7 eggs produced 7 young (Alderley, Cheshire); another clutch of 7 eggs (High Legh, Cheshire) produced only 4 young. An average of the records from the last seven of the localities quoted show that in 117 nests from all districts the average clutch was about 4.4 and the average brood 4; roughly about ro per cent. of the eggs failed. RELATION TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS. The following figures have been given in answer to a series of questions in an attempt to trace the extent of the associa- tion between Swallows and domestic animals. - Stirling : In byre 7 ; in stye 4 ; in fowl shed 3 ; unused sheds 3 ; boilerhouse 2 ; dwelling house 1. Isle of Man: ee li buildings 15 ; 1 associated with animals and 1 with owls. Dalston, Cumberland : All nesting pairs associated with animals or fowls. Ullswater : With animals 18 (cattle 13, pigs 4, horse I) ; with fowls 3 ; dwelling houses 4 ; unoccupied buildings ro. 106 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Huddersfield : With animals 9 ; fowls 1 ; unoccupied buildings 4. Near Warrington, Lancashire : With animals 7 ; fowls 3 ; unoccupied buildings 25. Near Alderley, Cheshire : With domestic animals 32; fowls 2; dwelling houses 4; not associated with animals or man I. W. Cheshire : With domestic animals 66 pairs ; directly associated with fowls 19 pairs ; dwelling houses 8 ; unoccupied buildings 3. Colwyn Bay: With cattle 7; with pigs 3; indirectly associated with farm animals 1. Anglesey : With animals 24 (cattle 16, pigs 4, horses 2, dogs 2); with fowls 5; dwelling houses 4. In unoccupied buildings unassociated with animals or man 58. Carmarthenshire : With animals and fowls tor; dwelling houses 7; unoccupied buildings 3. Staunton, Notts. Of 9 pairs 7 were in coalsheds, etc., in use by man ; only 2 associated with animals. N. Norfolk : With animals 28 ; dwelling houses 6 ; unoccupied buildings 22. E. Norfolk : With animals 3; with fowls 3; dwelling houses 5; unoccupied buildings 6. Se, Suatolke: With animals 6; with fowls 2; dwelling houses 6; unoccupied buildings 14. Seaford, Sussex : With animals 14 ; dwelling houses 2 ; unoccupied buildings 1. Stoughton, Sussex : Dwelling houses 2 ; unoccupied buildings (disused stables, etc.) 9 ; there was no association with animals. Thorney Island, Sussex : With animals ro ; unoccupied patdines 6. In framing the questions to which these figures are the replies it was specially asked that figures should be given for nests “‘in unoccupied buildings, etc., where there is no association with animals or man.” Once more we are brought to the conclusion that it is the nesting-site rather than animals present that is the decisive factor. Association with animals is obvious and (with an increase in the number of fowls kept) a growing association with fowls, but we cannot overlook their frequent nesting in unoccupied buildings as in the Isle of Man, Ullswater, Warrington, particularly in Anglesey, and in Norfolk and Suffolk. VOL. xxx.| REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 107 It is perhaps noteworthy that on Skokholm Island Swallows did not nest till sheep were kept on the island ; in September, 1934, the sheep (about 200) were removed and though Swallows returned in 1935 they did not stay to breed. Evidence of one pair only, it is true, but possibly evidence of some value. USURPATION OF SWALLOWS’ NESTS BY OTHER BIRDS. House-Sparrows and Wrens occupy Swallows’ nests far more frequently than other birds, but usually the nests they use are old Swallows’ nests, so that there are few cases of eviction as often happens with House-Martins. House-Sparrows built in two old nests at Dalston, Cumber- land, in three in N.W. Cheshire (in two of which the House- Sparrows built an undomed nest, for, as the Swallows’ nests were close to the roof, they let the roof of the sheds take the place of their usual domes) ; in Anglesey they built in five nests and in Carmarthenshire in seven old nests ; in one nest at Staunton, Notts. In Anglesey a nest with three well-incubated eggs was actually pulled down and destroyed. At Ullswater House-Sparrows roosted in two Swallows’ nests and evicted the owners ; at Tabley, Cheshire (D. J. Hemming), they drove Swallows away from a completed nest and in N. Norfolk House-Sparrows drove away a pair that had successfully reared one brood and built a new nest. Wrens used a half-built Swallows’ nest as a foundation for their own at Ullswater ; they built but did not lay in an old nest at Tabley, Cheshire (D. J. Hemming) ; at Colwyn Bay they occasionally use old nests ; in Anglesey they built in 4 nests, in Carmarthenshire in 3 old nests and in Notts. in one nest. A Robin's use of an old Swallows’ nest at Tabley, Cheshire, as reported by Mr. D. J. Hemming is worth giving in full. The Redbreast built in one of two old nests (the other was occupied by a Wren) and had hatched four young when the Swallows came; the Swallows drove the Redbreasts away and each of the dead young was found to have a wound over the eye like a peck, but it was not possible to say that this was done by the Swallows. All the nests were then removed and the Redbreasts built a new nest on a board that had been fixed under the Swallows’ nest and reared four young again for eight or nine days ; once again the Swallows caused them to desert. A pair of Swallows built a nest on the top of an old Song- Thrush’s nest in a shed in N.W. Cheshire. It was reported from Ullswater that Starlings disturbed Swallows and caused two pairs to desert. 108 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL, XKX. INTERFERENCE BY DESTRUCTIVE ANIMALS AND BIRDS. Few reports received. House-mice destroyed eggs in two nests at Ullswater ; Dr. Moon states that rats rarely seem to trouble Swallows there, but that he has suspected weasels (but not stoats). At Warrington a brood four to five days old was almost certainly taken by rats and in N. Norfolk rats or mice are believed to have taken the eggs from one nest. At Ullswater a Tawny Owl took a sitting bird in a byre. From Carmarthenshire the only interference was from a man who objected to a nest in a garage! The superstition that cows will give bloody milk if the Swallows’ eggs are taken is found to be held at Weaverham in mid-Cheshire as well as in Derbyshire, and in Swainson’s Provincial Names of British Birds this belief is recorded from the N. Riding of Yorkshire. This and the belief that they bring luck protect them from much human interference. RELATION TO HoOUSE-MARTINS. Once more we find little or no trace of competition between Swallows and House-Martins and in many localities from which reports have been sent Martins are scarce or absent. Thus in Stirling only one Martin’s nest was known in the area covered ; in the Isle of Man the two species nested together in only one farm (five pairs Martins and one pair Swallows) ; at Dalston, Cumberland, none nested together (only four pairs Martins to twenty pairs Swallows) ; at Ullswater none nested together, but in four cases Martins built outside the same buildings ; near Huddersfield, Yorks, there were none and near Warrington, Lancs., no nests were found. In N.W. Cheshire in the census area Swallows nested in 49 farms, in 5 of which Martins also nested, and Martins also nested in 4 farms from which Swallows were absent ; the sites seemed to have little in common except that five out of eighteen Martins’ nests were in cart-sheds where Swallows might have nested—the other Martins’ nests were in haysheds or under eaves. In Colwyn Bay the two species nest together in one farm with Martins in the majority. In Anglesey there were two pairs of Martins in the area under observation, but no Swallows within a quarter of a mile of either. In Carmarthen- shire the two species nested together in seven places and Martins alone in four others. At Staunton, Notts., no Martins were seen. In N. Norfolk in three villages there were 151 pairs of Martins to 56 pairs of Swallows in the area covered, the former being concentrated in the villages whereas the Swallows VOL. Xxx.] REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 109 were much more widely distributed ; and though in E. Norfolk there were thirty pairs of Martins to seventy-four of Swallows in the census area in no cases did they nest together. At Seaford, Sussex, the two species nested together in three farms and on Thorney Island, Sussex, they nested in the same buildings or groups of buildings in three out of nine groups occupied by one or other species. MOVEMENTS OF YOUNG. Mr. J. Bartholomew reports the discovery about September 2nd in a farm-lott in Stirlingshire of two dead young Swallows, members of two broods which had been marked in a farm half a mile away on June 29th. This visiting and entering of buildings other than those where they were reared has been noticed in Antrobus, N.W. Cheshire, on several occasions during the autumn migration ; on one occasion a young ringed Swallow was found dead in a Swallow’s nest in a shed in a farm a quarter of a mile from where it was marked, and annually a few unringed young Swallows are caught in a shippon where two or three pairs breed, all of whose broods have been carefully ringed. Young ringed House-Martins have also been caught in Cheshire in a nest on another farm, and in August Martins have been seen entering an unused old nest in a farm where none had bred ; it would seem that it is natural toa Martin to enter a Martin’s nest even if it is inno way connected with that nest. For the following report we are indebted to Mr. H. Britten of the Manchester Museum. PARASITES OF SWALLOWS AND ANIMALS FOUND IN THEIR NESTS. The inhabitants of over twenty Swallows’ nests, examined from various localities by myself and Mr. Gordon B. Thompson of the British Museum, have again proved exceedingly interesting, and especially so were several sent to me from Le Vesinet (S. et O.), France, by G. R. Mountfort ; these will be quoted in full at the end of this report. Nests were received from the following localities :— Aghalee, Co. Antrim, J. Kerr; Baldernock Parish, Stirlingshire, J. Bartholomew ; Aberlady, East Lothian, G. Charteris ; Edgerton, Huddersfield, J. C. S. Ellis ; Several Cheshire localities, E. Cohen and A. W. Boyd: Llandulas, Denbighshire, Miss M. Mitchell ; : Penmon, Anglesey, R. M. Jones ; I.augharne, Carmarthen, J. F. Thomas ; Dumbleton, Glos., G. Charteris ; to. Newbury, Berks., C. Brown ; tt. Weybourne, N. Norfolk, R. M. Garnett ; 12. Kelvedon, Essex, D. J. W. Campbell : 13. Chichester, Sussex, Rev. H. J. Emmet. DI ONY DH © 110 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOI xe. PARASITES FOUND IN SWALLOWS’ NESTS. (i) Stphonaptera. Ceratophyllus galling Schrank. This common bird flea was again present in a number of the nests both as adults and larve. Ceratophyllus gavet Roths. A single female of this common bird flea was present in one nest from Northern Ireland. (ii) Diptera. Phormia sordida Zett.=Protocalliphora caerulea R.-D. Many pupe of this fly were present, and larve were taken from young nestlings when being handled to attach rings. A new factor with regard to this fly came to light this year ; this was the presence of a small Chalcid parasite which accounted for 95 per cent. of the pupe of this fly, and indeed some nests with numerous fly pupe did not produce a single imago but scores of this brilliant little green Chalcid. (iii) Chalcide. Mormoniella vitvipennis Walk. This parasite apparently attacks the pupe of a number of the larger flies, and it was interesting to find it was present from Scotland to the south of England, and at the peak of its parasitism at the same time in these widely separated districts, so that in all probability the blue bottle will be greatly reduced in numbers next season. (iv) Acar. Dermanyssus galline Redi. The red mite was again in countless numbers in many nests, one nest with dead young was simply a heaving mass ; there were no pupe of the blue bottle present to account for the death of the young birds, so that presumably the mites were the culprits in this instance. They were present in every nest examined. OTHER ANIMALS (NOT PARASITES) FOUND IN SWALLOws’ NESTS. (i) Psocide. Troctes divinitoyius Mull. was the only booklouse met with this season, and only from one nest where the red mites were in large numbers. (ii) Orthoptera. Forficula auricularia L. The common earwig was again present in several of the nests examined. (ili) Hemiptera. Lyctocoris campestris F. Again present in several nests, especially those containing an abundance of the red mite. (iv) Lepidoptera. Borkhausenia pseudospretella Staint. Endrosis lactella Schiff. Tinea pellionella L. ? Tineola biselliella Hiim. The larve of these moths were feeding on the lining of most nests, often two species in one nest. (v) Coleoptera. Cartodere vuficollis Marsh. This tiny inhabitant of barns and haylofts was again present in some of the nests. Attagenus pellio L. The larve of this Dermestid beetle were present in one nest. These larve are usually present in all attics and outhouses, living on the dead bodies of insects and other small animals. (vi) Diptera. Many flies were sent in by one correspondent as occurring in the vicinity of the Swallows’ nests. They were in no way connected with the nests and they are therefore omitted from this report. VOL. Xxx.] REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 111 (vii) Avachnide. Oonops pulcher Templ. This tiny spider was present in one nest ; it is generally found amongst debris of various kinds, both in buildings and outside. Amaurobius similis Bl. This large and distinctly marked spider was present in one nest and is usually found in crevices in walls or beneath loose material everywhere. (viii) Pseudoscorpiones. Chevidium museorum Leach. Again present in several of the nests examined. (ix) Acar. Glyciphagus domesticus De G. This generally distributed mite of the house and store was again present in one or two of the nests. The following are some interesting details of the insects sent from young Swallows and nests in France :— (i) Siphonaptera. Siphonaptera hivundinis Cart. A single example of this common House-Martin flea was taken from a young nestling Swallow; it will be interesting to learn whether this flea is often found on Swallows on the Continent, or if this was an accidental occurrence like the cat, dog or rat fleas on human beings. (ii) Diptera. Stenopteryx hirundinis L. This was stated to be the commonest parasite of Swallows and House-Martins in France, every nestling having at least two, or even four amongst its feathers ; this was so unlike our experience in the British Isles that I specially asked whether this was not an error with respect to the Swallow, but was assured that it was quite correct.* Ornithomyia biloba Duf. This fully winged fly, very much like one found on many of our British birds, was taken on nestling Swallows, and with one exception, always in sheds where cows were present; the farmer stated that the flies were also on the cows, but my correspondent has been unable to verify this up to the present. The other nest where these flies were present was in a fowl shed. When at the British Museum recently Mr. Gordon B. Thompson showed me one example of this fly from young Swallows in Belgium, so that it is quite possible that it is associated with the nests of this bird on the Continent, and an examination of the nests used last season would probably result in the discovery of the puparia in the nests. HARRY BRITTEN. CENSUS. A census was made in eleven areas, as against twelve in 1934 ; seven were exactly the same areas as those covered in 1934 and in the others—-two in Cumberland, Carmarthenshire and Thorney Island, Sussex—a census was made for the first time. The numbers before each locality correspond with the fuller descriptions earlier in the text. *Seen on nestling swallows near the Somme, France, 1917 (A.W.B.). 112 Locality. . Cumdivock, Dalston, Cumberland. . 4 miles radius of Ullswater, Cumberland. . Huddersfield, Yorkshire. Antrobus and Sevenoaks, N.W. Cheshire. II. 12. S.E. Anglesey. 13. Laugharne, etc., Carmarthenshire. 14. Skokholm Island, Pembrokeshire. 18. Salthouse, N. Norfolk. 19. Hemsby, E. Norfolk. 21. Seaford, Sussex. Thorney Island, Chichester 24. Harbour, Sussex. 11 Sample Areas Census Results. BRITISH BIRDS, Census Results. Area in Altitude acres, 935 300 ft. 32,000 476 ft. |(approx.) 2,400 | 300—8oo ft. 2,717 | 150—284 ft. 1,515 o—6o ft. 3,435 o—48o ft. 240 o—150 ft. 4,160 o—260 ft. 1,739 o—roo ft. 7,680 o—750 ft. 1,200 Sea-leve 1. Total Acreage. 58,021 (0) .0.0.6 Swallow, 1935. Total pairs of Swallows. 536 Breeding Pairs. » Swallow = density Type. Number | Density fper 1,000 per I,000f acres acres. Jin 1934. Rural. 20 21 Stock-raising. Rural. 109 3.4 Pasture land. - |(approx.) | Urban and 14 6.6 upland pastures. Rural, 84/5 Bx Dairy and mixed farms. | Rural. Pasture. 66 43 Rural. 81 23-5 | Dairy farming. Rough grazing Nil. Nil. and heather. Sea-coast villages 56 13.5 Arable and heatherland. Rural. 74 42 Cereal crops. Coastal downland 15 2 and river valleys. Rural. 16 13 Pasture and Arable. Average Density per 1,000 acres, House-Martins, 1935. Breeding Pairs. Density per Locality Areainacres.| Number. | Density per | 1,000 acres, I,000 acres 1934. 3. Cumdivock, Dalston, Cumberland 935 4 4 a 4. 4 miles radius of Ullswater, 32,000 go 3 = Cumberland approx approx. 6. Huddersfield... »400 Nil. Nil. Nil. 11. Antrobus and Sevenoaks, N.W. Cheshire 2,717 18 6 10 12. S.E. Anglesey 1,515 2 I I 13. Laugharne, etc., Carmarthenshire 3,435 30—40 8—11 — 14. Skokholm Island, Pembrokeshire 240 Nil. Nil. Nil. 18. Salthouse, N. Norfolk oe 4,160 I51 36 38 19. Hemsby, E. Norfolk 1,739 30 18 _ 21. Seaford, Sussex 7,680 23 3 3 24). Thorney Island, Sussex. I,200 28 23 = 11 Sample Areas Total acreage. 58,021 Total Pairs of House-Martins. 376—386 Average density per 1,000 acres. 6) VoL. xxx.} REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 113 CENSUS. (i) The Swallow. In those areas where the census made in 1934 was repeated in 1935 the results showed only the most trifling variation, and were in fact hardly more than might be accounted for by the observers’ missing one or two pairs in either year ; the figures for S.E. Anglesey for example which were 62 in 1934, should probably have been 64, for the figures for 1935 (66) include two pairs in a farm which could not be visited in the earlier year. ; Two of the new census areas, in Cumberland and Carmar- thenshire, both rural cattle-raising districts at low altitudes show almost the same density—21 and 23$ pairs to the 1000 acres ; and an interesting addition to our knowledge has been gained by an attempt at a census in part of the Lake District of Cumberland of the Swallows in a very large area which comprised much mountain and moorland, and where the density is shown to be about 34 pairs to 1000 acres—much the same as that of the Sussex downland, the Suffolk heathland and the hilly industrial district of the Lancashire-Cheshire border in the 1934 census. The density on Thorney Island, Sussex, is the same as that of a coastal area in N. Norfolk—r3 to the 1000 acres. The one area which shows a material increase in number is Hemsby in E. Norfolk—from 35 to 42 pairs to the 1000 acres, figures which in each year show that this area in particular, though not in a cattle district, is peculiarly favourable to the species. (ti) ~House-Martin, Figures for this species are too meagre to allow such com- parison between the two census years, but again the variation is surprisingly small ; the figures for N. Norfolk, the locality showing the greatest density, are almost identical—36 to the I000 acres as against 38 in 1934. Variation in density between different localities does not seem to follow that of the Swallow. The big Lake District area and the Sussex downland show the same small figure of 3 pairs to 1,000 acres, but although in Carmarthenshire there were 8 to 11 pairs to that area, yet in S.E. Anglesey there was only 1 and that in the district where the Swallow shows the greatest density in our records. The Martin is absent altogether from some districts which Swallows inhabit regularly. The lack of suitable mud for nest-building may well be the cause of the Martin’s absence from some districts and of their scarcity in others, kK 114 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. SUMMARY OF THE 1934 AND 1935 ENQUIRIES. 1. Average size of broods. The first brood is the largest. So far as the records of two years can do so, they show fairly conclusively that Swallows in the Lowlands of Scotland and north England lay larger clutches and rear larger broods (in June and July in particular) than birds breeding in the southern half of England. This suggests an association between longer hours of daylight and larger broods. Heavier rainfall cannot be shown to have any adverse affect. The average brood for the whole country is just over four for the whole season. 2. First and last eggs and broods. Swallows do not lay till some weeks after their first arrival. In two years the earliest egg was laid on April 28/29; the earliest eggs are usually laid in the first or second weeks of May and sometimes not till the last week of May and early June. A few pairs rear three broods in the season and the young of the last brood may occasionally be found in the nest till late in October. 3. Use of nests more than once im a season. The use of a nest more than once in the same season follows no rule other than arbitrary choice ; some recorders have found none that were used twice and in other localities the number varied from 3 or 4% to 40%. The use of nests built in previous years is general and often one of these is used for a second brood. 4. Size of clutch and subsequent size of brood. The normal clutch is five ; six eggs are not infrequent, but found usually in the northern counties ; seven eggs recorded three times ; sets of eight and nine eggs were probably laid by two hens. Infertile eggs or mortality among young reduced the size of the brood in all districts ; often the loss from these causes was trifling, but in the southern half of the country it amounted to as much as an average of one young bird per brood. Accurate data from 118 nests in 1934 and 117 nests in 1935 from various districts, show that 10% of the eggs laid fail to produce young—or at least young that survive. 5. Relation to domestic animals. Though there is an obvious association of Swallows with cattle, horses, pigs and to a lesser though growing extent with VOL. XXx.] REPORT ON SWALLOW ENQUIRY. 115 fowls, it is impossible to show that the presence of animals is a ruling factor in attracting them ; a suitable nesting site even in an unoccupied building is apparently almost as potent an attraction as one where animals are present. 6. Usurpation of nests by other birds. House-Sparrows and Wrens often occupy Swallows’ nests. House-Sparrows occasionally are known to drive Swallows away or destroy a nest, though usually they build on a Swallow’s old nest. Wrens occupy old nests. Robins and a Spotted Flycatcher have built in Swallows’ nests. 7. Interference by destructive animals or birds. Swallows’ nests are usually free from interference. Rats and mice are responsible for most damage. Superstition is effective in protecting them from human interference and from this they suffer less than most birds. 8. Relation to House-Martins. Though they feed in company there is little or no com- petition for nesting sites, and consequently the two species do not clash. g. Parasites. The most important parasites that prey on Swallows are a blue-bottle fly and a red mite; the larve of the former probably cause many deaths among young Swallows, and red mites, which swarm in countless numbers, are presumed to have killed others. This blue-bottle (Phormia sordida Zett.— Protocalliphora caerulea R.D.) is evidently widespread and the red mite (D. gallinae Redi.) was found in every nest examined. Another insect of considerable importance in the economy of the Swallow is a small Chalcid, itself parasitic on the blue- bottle fly mentioned above. Many other insects occupy Swallows’ nests, but are of lesser importance to their hosts: a bug that feeds on the pupe of fleas, of which two species occur ; moths whose larve feed on the feathers in the nests ; beetles ; false-scorpions, etc. ro. Census. (t) Swallow. Swallows favour a rural area where there are suitable build- ings for their nests. Their density varies from over 40 pairs to the 1,000 acres in districts of Norfolk and Anglesey where nesting-sites are easily available, and between 20 and 33 pairs 116 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. in the cattle-raising districts of western England and Wales, to comparatively low numbers (2 or 3 to 6 pairs to the 1,000 acres) in a large area in the Lake District, in the industrial and urban north, in Suffolk heathland and Sussex downland. (70) House-Martins. The variation in density between different localities is quite different from that of the Swallow. They are prone to concentrate in groups and whereas Swallows are far more generally distributed Martins are the more urban and suburban species of the two. From many apparently suitable areas they are almost entirely absent ; in others they are abund- ant and far outnumber the more ‘scattered Swallows.* *A paper on the results obtained from ringing Swallows will be published later. (117) PROPORTION OF SEXES IN ROOSTING CHAFFINCHES. BY THE HON. GUY CHARTERIS. DURING the last two winters I have netted by night a large number of Chaffinches (Fringilla celebs). My main object was to trace their movements by ringing them, but the record I have kept of the numbers of each sex has given interesting direct results. In the tables that follow I have grouped together four localities that show an approximate preponder- ance of males and a fifth I give separately as the results are in marked contrast, showing for both winters a small majority of females. For the figures of this last roost—Woodnorton— I am indebted to Mr. A. J. Harthan. Except in the case of Stanway where outings have been frequent and of short duration and consequently the ‘‘ bags’ small I have given the total for each night under its date. Although more Chaffinches were ringed last winter than the winter before, actually there were far fewer. More were caught because we used more bat-fowling nets and, taught by ex- perience, were more efficient in our methods. Moreover, there was a comparative scarcity of Redwings, a difficult quarry, the pursuit of which had occupied much of our time during the preceding winter. At all events I am satisfied that a large proportion of Chaffinches disturbed were netted and that the percentages shown are a fair average of the actual sex ratio of the birds roosting in the places named. Obviously, if a small proportion only had been caught the figures would be of little interest or value and they would be less reliable if it could be shown that there was a tempera- mental difference between the sexes, making either easier to capture. Mr. Harthan, who has had much experience as a netsman, asserts that the hens make a quicker and less noisy break from covert. I incline to agree but as I usually beat I am less competent to give an opinion. Granted it is so, then it is probable that a larger proportion of hens are taken because a bold outward flight should result in many being netted simultaneously. Once the nets are down and ringing is pro- ceeding those that may remain in the bush being beaten may take the opportunity to escape. Against this, birds roosting in bushes close at hand may take flight before being purposely disturbed, and the hens if more timid would be more likely to do so. Here weather conditions play an important part but I do not propose to discuss that aspect of the case. 118 BRITISH BIRDS. [SVG oe As might be expected from the name celebs, cock and hen Chaffinches may be found roosting apart just as by day they may feed apart. On most occasions my records show long sequences of cocks, short sequences of hens, and where scattered birds are found a rough alternation of sexes. These last I assume to be the local resident population, and “ re- coveries ’’ both by night and resulting from daytime trapping go some way to prove my assumption correct. In this con- nexion Mr. Harthan advances a theory to account for the exceptional Woodnorton results. I quote his words : “ Since Woodnorton is a veritable ‘ oasis’ surrounded by orchard country, it may be the winter roost of the multitude of Chaffinches that breed in this orchard district, i.e., that in winter, locally bred Chaffinches predominate over foreigners, if any.”’ Certainly Stanway, Hewell, Toddington and Batsford have each contributed one or more Continental returns, Woodnorton not one. In case it is correlated with a similar scarcity of foreign Chaffinches, I think it desirable to mention that last winter there was an almost total absence of Bramblings (only 5 were ringed compared with 142 nor did I see any by day). If last winter’s results were obtained from a mainly home-bred population, it is interesting that the sex ratio remains approximately the same and seems to disprove the theory advanced to account for the exceptional results shown at Woodnorton. STANWAY, Cheltenham. Males. Females. Total. Males. Females. Total. 1934-5 156 III 207 1935-6 185 104 289 (58%) (42%) (64%) (36%) HEWELL (Redditch). 1935 1935 Jan. roth 48 28 VOmeDECA2Z OE co 59 178 1936 Feb. 2nd 31 22 53 Feb. 16th 90 41 en Fo. — 50 tee: 209. 4%I00 309 (63%) (37%) (68%) — (32%) TODDINGTON, Cheltenham. 1934 1936 Dec. 26th 25 24 49 Jan.18th .- 39 9 48 1935 Jan. 6th. 16 7 23 Jan. 26th 39 20 59 Jan. 26th 41 24 65 Feb. 2nd 33 17 50 Feb. 3rd 30 19 49 Feb. 17th 40 21 Ol Feb. 23rd 44 30 74. Feb. 23rd 45 21 66 Mar. 13th 52 28 80 150 104 200 248 116 304 (60%) (40%) (68%) (32%) VOL. XXX.] PROPORTION OF SEXES. 119 BATSFORD, Moreton-in-Marsh.* 1934 1936 Dec. 29th 9 7 16 Feb. 15th 53 25 78 1935 Jan. 5th 15 6 21 Feb. 21st 16 3 19 Feb. 1st 16 12 28 Feb. 29th 3 2 5 Mar. 2nd 57 34 gt Mar. 14th 25 ri 42 97 59 156 97 47 144 (62%) (38%) (67%) (33%) Total 488 324 812 739 367 1,106 (60%) (40%) (67%) (33%) For both winters : Males, 1,227 (64°,) ; females, 691 (36%) ; total, 1,918. WOODNORTON, EVESHAM. Males. Females. Total. Males. Females. Total. 1934 1935 Jan. 4th 63 81 144 Dec. 26th ey 29 56 1935 1930 Feb. 4th 29 60 89 Jan. ist 29 33 62 Feb. 7th 42 45 87 Jan. 22nd 34 30 7o Feb. 11th 36 23 59 Jan. 26th 26 22 48 Feb. 26th 28 16 44 Feb. 13th 37 31 68 Mar. tst 41 61 102 Feb. 19th 27 25 52 Mar. 5th 22 26 48 Mar. 16th 10 24 34 261 312 573 190 200 390 (46%) (54%) (49%) (51%) *Low return 1934-5 due to concentration on Bramblings and in 1935-6 Starlings. (120) THE WINTER BEHAVIOUR OF MOOR-HENS. BY MISS AVERIL MORLEY. I HAD long suspected from what I had learnt of other resi- dential species, and from a few scattered observations on Moor-Hens (Gallinula ch. chloropus) made in January and February in former years, that Miss Frances Pitt’s experience (Brit: Bivds~ Vol. Xi p170) and MissoR. Te Wuruers (Vol. IX, pp. 260-1) might not hold good for all resident Moor-Hens. But it was not until I was able to watch those on an old mill-pond in East Sussex, imperfectly, but at any rate regularly, through the winter of 1935-6, that I found this species obeyed the same law as do so many other (in theory, I would say all) residents, namely, indulging in court- ship activities throughout the winter. NARROW REED BED le \ le WATERFALL —— — SLUICE ore Water Territories of Resident Moorhens in Winter. eae = approximate S.E. boundary of A and B’s territory. Sie al tats: see _ S.W. 55 ,, A’s territory when alone. Stitt tt be S. and N.W. boundary of C’s territory. ag ee E. boundary of B and D’s territory. = ” The pond lies in a valley covered with forest and woods, separated from these by fields and a garden, shut off by the woods from other haunts of Moor-Hen. It occupies a quarter of an acre of a two acre marsh, formed by the damming of a broad stream. In the course of the stream the pond is VoL. Xxx.] BEHAVIOUR OF MOOR-HENS. 121 four or five feet deep, but elsewhere it is shallow and some parts have a normal depth of only five or six inches. The pond finds an outlet in a twenty foot waterfall, the outflow being governed by a sluice. The Moor-Hens were mostly to be found on the pond’s immediate surroundings and avoided the main swamp. The vegetation of the swamp in winter Is composed of the dead clumps of common rush, which forms a thick mat of cover, a few sallows, with reedmace on the edges and in the middle of the pond, while higher up stream, alder borders the banks. Moor-Hens are the only residents. In the first fortnight of October, there was one pair (A and B) resident on the pond. Young birds were occasional visitors (the maximum number being eight) when the waterfall sluice was raised and a large expanse of mud exposed by the draining of the water, but there was no friction between the resident pair and these occasional visitors. On October 17th, there appeared a young bird (C), easily distinguishable from the others by its almost dwarfish size, which began to pester A and B. It swam towards one of them, calling rather like a Coot when flushed off the nest, a call which I had never heard before from any of the visitors. The adult swerved at it so that it turned quickly to avoid being struck, and retired into the stream. A little while after, from behind the rushes where the stream broadens out into the pond (later, C’s territory) [ saw wings flapping and ripples spreading agitatedly over the surface of the water ; and later again there was a commotion in the narrow rush-bed, and a Moor-Hen rose and fluttered in the air and dropped farther off in the marsh, while one of the adult pair that was on the pond, uttering the challenge cry, swam into the rush-bed to investi- gate. In the afternoon, one of the A and B pair, working along the pond’s edge, again encountered C at the stream- mouth and drove at it, driving it back into the stream; then turning and swimming away it “ crowed ”’ triumphantly, just as I have seen a Moor-Hen do in February, when returning to its mate in the bank’s cover after a successful expedition against a rival. On October roth, at dusk, C was swimming across the pond to a clump of reeds when A (which I think was the male of the pair, and which was a good deal blacker and more mature than B) darted from the bank and swam very closely alongside C, both going fast, with lowered necks and heads. They dis- appeared in the reeds, and then a few seconds later C came flying out and behind it A, which chased it along the marsh by L 122 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. the stream, a distance of fifty yards. A stopped at the lily- pool and there ‘crowed’, upon which its mate hurried out of the narrow rush-bed and swam across the pond towards the pool, and was lost to sight among the rushes. [or the rest of October, C worried A and B persistently. On October 21st, | saw the first courtship actions. C, as it swam towards A, calling the ‘‘Coot-cry”’, rapidly pecked the water. The adult did likewise, and both swam rapidly towards the rushes by the stream-mouth. Later, one of the adult pair (B ?) swam clucking towards the stream-mouth, where was C, which, on the approach of the other, suddenly dived completely under water, kicking up a sparkling jet of water with one foot as it did so, and came up somewhere out of sight. Un- fortunately I had then to leave my watching. On this day a fourth bird, another young one, D, appeared, to stay as a resident. It took no part for a fortnight in the disturbances, but skulked for the most part, sometimes feeding, sometimes preening, in the larger of the reed-clumps in the pond, which later formed the centre of its territory on water. A and B did not seem to resent it, perhaps because it never attempted to worry them as C had done, or drew attention to itself. On October 27th, a fresh courtship action was seen, perhaps a development of the water-pecking. C at the stream-mouth was displaying to B by bobbing the head and neck under the water, a kind of rapidly repeated up-ending. It was attacked by A, and retired to the rushes. On this day also a new note was first heard, a very distressed, painful and piercing cry as if the bird was in agony, which was always uttered in the cover of the rushes, and which I sometimes heard late at night. By the first week of November, the displays were more frequent and sustained. The separation of A and B, which had been threatened by C, was now completed by the hitherto quiescent D. On November 6th, a beautiful, sunny day, I saw two birds approach a third (owing to the light shining behind them I was unable to recognize them) all rapidly and excitedly pecking the water ; when they drew close to each other they began to flip the water with their beaks so that it rose up in jets sparkling in the sun. Two more birds, making five in all, now joined the group. As they grew more excited they ducked and bobbed and dived and splashed up the water with their feet. Two birds separated themselves, swimming side by side very fast, with lowered heads and necks, into the rushes, but they were soon back again as if the activities of the others were an irresistible lure, much as I have seen Blackbirds in December drawn to VoL. xxx.] BEHAVIOUR OF MOOR-HENS. 123 the common courting ground. Then a young one, I think C by its size, swam towards the river mouth, the others following in a strung-out line, still pecking at the water and bobbing and splashing, A bringing up the rear, one of them calling the “Coot cry”. They disappeared behind rushes. About half an hour later I saw A back on its beat by the narrow rush-bed which was all that was left to it now of its once splendid territory : next to it, at the stream mouth was C, while two more birds were under a sallow tree farther up the stream. One of these was making some magnificent dives and splashes, sending the water up in high showers of silver, while the other swam backwards and forwards from the bank to the displayer, as if irresistibly attracted by the enchanting spectacle. The fifth bird had disappeared, nor was a fifth one seen again on the pond until March. In this month (November) A, now quite alone, made dis- tressed attempts to get back B which had paired off with D. It would swim across the pond to the stream mouth by C’s beat, clucking anxiously, when the pair were behind C on the ground near the lily pool, or across to the bank near the house when the pair were feeding there. On November oth the pair swam to a reedmace clump in the middle of the pond (in April their nest was found here) and while one (B ?) disappeared in it, the other pushed A away from the vicinity, making it keep close to its own rushes. On November roth the flood waters were drained away by the opening of the sluice, and a large mud-bank was exposed in the middle of the pond, the course of the stream running close to A’s beat. When A attempted to cross the stream to feed on the mud-bank it was vigorously attacked by one of the B and D pair—the fiercest fight seen hitherto ; nor was the attacker satisfied until A was feeding on its small mud-belt on its own side of the river. At the end of November A disappeared, and C became the tyrant of the place, claiming the stream mouth as its beat and confining B and D pair to the pond; it was a most irascible little bird and would chivvy and chase the pair over the pond and follow them in flight across the rush-bed if they ventured too near its haunt. In December all three birds became more secretive in their habits. Fighting and courtship took place on land, on the meadows above the marsh, but I was rarely able to watch these activities, and the identity of the participants I was never able to establish. C seemed still without a mate. When, very infrequently, the pair displayed on the pond, C generally 124 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. came out and joined them : sometimes, it seemed, to attack ; sometimes it would be less bellicose and would go through the motions itself, as.if anxious to attract. On December 17th when a night frost had frozen the smaller pools, a bird (B or D) swam into the pond and began dis- playing alone by ducking the head ; it was soon joined by a second bird (I think a new-comer, E). Then C rushed out of its patch, kicked up some violent water jets, and rushed back again. From the same quarter as the first two, a fourth bird appeared (I think the other of the B and D pair). It made for the first-comer with agitated bobbing, swam closely round — it, then, with body low in the water, it swam very fast after the second-comer and pursued it, forcing it to make short flights over the water until it had pushed the interloper on to the bank. Both disappeared among the rushes. Later in December the presence of the new-comer E caused great excitement on the pond, especially to C, which was continually displaying with it, E being as excited and as forward. E did not seem to claim any territory, which makes me think it was a female. These two birds were the greatest frequenters of the pond, so that it looks as if the early part of the Moor-Hen’s courtship takes place on water. During January and February the birds were very seldom on the pond, which was now often kept empty for fear of floods. From March 22nd, however, the Moor-Hens appeared again on the water, but the fighting was much fiercer and more intense because B and D were come for the purposes of nest- building and strongly resented the presence of the other birds. Bobbing and water splashing was only performed by un- mated birds, one of which was strangely enough C. But at this time of the year the numbers on the pond and its surroundings were being augmented by summer visitors ; winter was over and the courtship observed belonged to the orthodox season, Spring. No. AB.1375 AG.299 AA.8533 AG.294 25559 RT.9890 69649 73151 78506 (125) RECOVERY OF MARKED BIRDS. (Continued from page 79) Ringed. Recovered. Mallard (Anas p. platyrhyncha). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Loch Leven (Kinross), 4.7.35, by Lord Mansfield. Leswalt (Wigtown), 14.3.32, by M. Portal. Ditto 6.3.35, by J. Law. Ditto 7.3.32, by M. Portal. Ditto 5.3.26. Where ringed, —.2.36. Corsewall (Wigtown), 7.2.36. Ditto P30. Loch Ryan (Wigtown), 27.71.36. Aland Is. Finland, 15.4.27. Teal (Anas c. crecca). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Leswalt (Wigtown), 8.3.35, by J. Law. Ditto 17.3.26, by M. Portal. Longtown (Cumb.), 1.3.33, by W. Bell. St. James’s Park, London, 27.2.28 (sent from Long- town, Cumberland.) Kirkcolm (Wigtown) 19.1.36. Kenmare (Kerry), 23.1.36. Rockcliffe (Cumb.), —.2.36. Where released, —.6.36. Notre.—The following are results of ringing at Orielton Decoy and the ting numbers are those of the Orielton rings used. Details have been very kindly supplied by Messrs. C. W. Mackworth-Praed and H. A. Gilbert. 830 5°97 Orielton, Pembroke, 15.1.36, by S. Greenslade. Ditto 12.12.35. Ditto 27.10.35. Ditto SUIG.3 Fe Ditto 13.12.35. Ditto 20.12.35. Ditto 15.11.35. Ditto 25.12.35. Ditto 6.12.35. Ditto 18.12.35. Ditto POa.3 5; Ditto 6.2.35. Ditto 22.1235, Ditto 26.10.35. Ditto 24.12.35. Ditto 26.12.35. Ditto PL ERS. Llandinam (Mont.), 25.1.36. Wolseley Bridge (Staffs.) 15.1.36. Sawley (Derbyshire.), 8.1.36. Preston(Lancashire.),24.1.36. Lancaster, TP.2,30, Metheringham(Lincs.),1.2.36. Withernsea (Yorks.), 21.2.36. Clevedon Moors (Som.), 12.2.36. Aylesbury (Bucks.), 28.2.36. Fordingbridge (Hants.), 14.2.36. Killeshandra (Cavan.), 19.21.36. Carbury (Kildare), 4.1.36. R. Greese (Kildare), 15.2.36. Abbeyleix (Queen’s Co.), 20.2306. Carnsore Pt. (Wexford), 28.2.36. New Ross (Wexford), 12.2.36 Tacumshane Lough /{Wex- ford), 4.2.36. RW .8711 RT.9431 113348 AB.1309 AB.1437 113941 114021 I14162 I14167 IIT4195 114099 mao) 114008 113996 II4152 112063 112055 112995 BRITISH BIRDS. [YOL, REX. Ringed. Recovered. Teal (continued). RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Orielton, Pembroke, 14.12.35. Guines (Pas-de-Calais), by S. Greenslade. France, 28.3.36. Ditto 28.12.35. Neuilly (Calvados), France, 26.3.30. Ditto 6.2.35. Angers (M. et1.), Prance, 19.2.36. Ditto 29.11.35. Bruges, Belgium, 6.4.36. Ditto 10.11.35. Tjeukermeer (Friesland), Holland, —.1.36. Ditto 8.2.35. Aggersund, Jylland, Den- mark, 5.11.35. Ditto 22.11.35. Tromsfylke, Norway, 28.5.36 Zool. Gardens, London, 25.1.35. Goring (Oxon), TOI ,.8 0: (Taken fiom Orielton with clipped wings.) Wigeon (Anas penelope). Leswalt (Wigtown), 25.2.36, Leningrad, Russia, 10.5.36. ad., by J. Law. 2 Tufted Dueck (Nyroca fuligula). Molesey (Surrey), 24.9.33, King’s Norton (Warwick), ad., by P. Hollom. 5.3.36. Eider (Somateria m. mollissima). Slains (Aberdeen), 27.5.34, Montrose (Angus), 14.3.36. ad., by M. Portal. Tentsmuir (Fife), 14.6.35, juv., Where ringed, —.1.36. by Lord Mansfield. Ditto 1.7.35. Ditto TS5.3.80 Cormorant (Phalacrocorax c. carbo). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. Mochrum (Wigtown), 30.6.35, Jangbank (Renfrew), by Lord Dumfries. 24.2.30. Ditto Baansy, Ibsoyelt Leven (IXinross), 4.4.36. Ditto 30.6.35. Holy I. (Northumb.), 1.3.36. Ditto 30.6.35. Edingham Loch (Kirk- ; cudbright.), 27.2.36. Ditto 29.6.35. Annan (Dumfries), 27.2.36. Ditto 3.7.35. Ulverston (Lancs.), —.1.36. Ditto 1934. Totnes (Devon), —.2.36. Ditto 3-7-35- Lough Neagh (Tyrone), : 2Er2 BO, Ditto 29.6.35. Fouesnant (Finistére), Erance, 22.00.35. Ditto 30.60.35. Ditto 29.9.35. Farne Is. (Northumb.}, 7.7.35. Luce Bay (Wigtown), by Bootham Sch. 26.2.36. Ditto Fe 35. Ureston (Llancs,);, 6.3.36; Skomer (Pem.), 1.7.34, by Barnstaple (Devon), 26.2.36. R. M. Lockley. ‘VOL. Xxx.] RECOVERY OF MARKED BIRDS. 127 No. Ringed. Recovered. Shag (Phalacrocorax a. aristotelis). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. 118823 Eday, Orkney, 15.8.35, by C. Unst, Shetland, 14.3.36. Wontner-Smith. 118807 Ditto 15.8.35. Tarbat Ness (Ross), 1.5.36. 118824 Ditto 15.8.35. Stonehaven (Kincardine,) 10.2.36. 113522 I. of May Bird Obs., 7.7.35. South Shields (Durham), 23.2.30. Gannet (Sula bassana). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. 115735 Grassholm (Pem.), 17.7.34, by Wismar, Mecklenburg, Ger- Cc. Wontner-Smith. many, 2.3.36. 116083 Ditto 17.7.34. Ile d’Yeu, W. France, 16.2.36. 116593 Ditto 17.7.34. Royan (Charente Inf.), France, 31.5.36. 115391 Ditto 17.7.34. Mouth of Gironde, France, —.2.36. 115797 Ditto 17.7.34. Odeceixe (Algarve), Por- tugal, —.3.36. 117877 Ditto, 29.6.35, by Skokholm Llanes (Asturias), Spain, Bird Obs. 27.526, RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. 109692 Bass Rock, Scotland, 9.6.34, by Gourdon (Kincardine), D. K. Bryson. 27.3.30. 112479 Grassholm (Pem.), 21.7.33, by Vigo (Galicia), Spain, 2.2.36. R. M. Lockley. Wood-Pigeon (Columba p. palumbus). RT.6937 Glenorchard (Stirling), 5.5.34, Where ringed, —.4.30. young, by J. Bartholomew. AG.563 Gt. Budworth (Ches.), 21.10.35, Sandiway (Ches.), —.1.36. young, by A. W. Boyd. Ringed Plover (Charadrius h. hiaticula). FD.936 Sandwich (Kent), 19.7.35, Deal (Kent), 10.6.36. young, by K. W. Newall. Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. (a) RECOVERED AWAY FROM WHERE RINGED. AN.5802 Eynhallow, Orkney, 11.6.34, Rendall, Orkney, —.9.35. by D. J. Robertson. AN.6529 Kinbrace (Suth.), 24.6.33, by Melvich (Suth.), 30.4.36. W. A. Cadman. R.4292 Bonar Bridge (Suth.), 15.5.33, Tain (Ross.), 14.2.36. ‘ by Mrs. Hodgkin. V.7710 Dundee (Angus), 24.5.31, by Jedburgh (Roxburgh), ; H. G. Watson. 5.6.36. AN.4250 Glenorchard (Stirling), 23.6.31, Dublin, —.2.36. ; by J. Bartholomew. AN.275 Ditto 13.6.31. Mitchelstown (Cork), 25.1.36. 128 Z.5737 AP.9355 S.1954 AS.2031 AS22105 AS.3613 AR.8071 U.8660 AP.7628 X.2524 AA.g107 AB.1754 AS.520 AR.2809 Private Ring AR.5061 AP.6264 AR.5623 200646 AR.3376 AS.1688 AN.3716 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. Ringed. Recovered. Lapwing (continued). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. (4) RECOVERED AWAY FROM WHERE RINGED. Kilmacolm (Renfrew), 31.5.29, Beltra (Sligo), 21.2.36. by R. O. Blyth. Kilbarchan (Renfrew), 26.5.35, Lesparre (Gironde), France, by F. Ramsay. caught 17.3.36, released 30.3.36, found dead Twisk, Noord Holland, 3.7.36. Penrith (Cumb.), —.6.29, by Knocklong (Limerick), H. J. Moon. 25.2.30. Ditto 3.5.35. Bonzac (Gironde), France, Tes 3X6 Ullswater (Cumb.), 2.6.35, by La Taillée (Vendée), France, H. J. Moon. 15.3.36. Mobberley (Ches.), 12.5.35, by Pézenas (Herault), France, E. Cohen. —.1.36. (b) RECOVERED WHERE RINGED. Windermere (Westmor.), —.6.34, by H. J. Moon. 29.5.36. Kirkby Lonsdale (Westmor.), —.6.28, by H. J. Moon. 6.6.36. Ings (Westmor.), 23.5.34, by E. Savage. 14.4.36. Redshank (Tvinga t. totanus). Rusland (Lanes.), 7.6.27, Heversham (Westmor.), young, by late C. Archibald. —-.3.36. Curlew (Numemnius a. arquata). Penrith (Cumb.), 24.6.34, Where ringed, 16.5.36. young, by H. J. Moon. Ditto 7.5.35. Co. Roscommon, —.12.35. Woodcock (Scolopax r. rusticola). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. (a) RECOVERED AWAY FROM WHERE RINGED. Almondbank (Perths.), 12.6.35, Auchterarder (Perths.), by Lord Mansfield. —.2.36. Abbeystead (Lancs.), —.6.34, Bodafon, Anglesey, 3.3.36. by H. W. Robinson. Dunecht (Aberdeen), 1933, by Tullamore (King’s Co.), Lord Cowdray. —.2.30. (b) RECOVERED WHERE RINGED. Coupar Angus (Perths.), 13.6.34, by Lord Mansfield, —.10.35. Greenloaning (Perths.), 2.7.33, by Lord Mansfield, 22.5.36. Muirfad (Kirkcudbr.), 25.4.34, by Col. Blair-Imrie. 11.4.36. Arklow (Wicklow), 11.5.35, by B. T. Orn. Zales Oe Sandwich Tern (Sfervna s. sandvicensis). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. Leuchars (Fife), 6.7.35, by Benguela, Angola, —.2.36. Perth Nat. Hist. Soc. I. of May Bird Obs., Scotland, Appam, Gold Coast, —.2.36. 6.7.35. Farne Is. (Northumb.), 25.6.35, Porto Amboim, Angola, by Mrs. Hodgkin. 25.3.36. VOL. xxx.) RECOVERY OF MARKED BIRDS. 129 No. AS.5379 AR.7214 AS.5306 AS.5281 AS.5230 AP.4217 AS.4335 AR.9407 AS.4062 AR.4393 AR.9414 AP.8070 AS.6481 AS.6672 AS.6484 AS.6555 AR.1631 AR.1627 GR.195 M.1152 RR.255 RV.7983 RV.8281 RW .8296 RW.8207 RV.8270 RV.7797 RW.8168 RV.8247 RV.8264 Ringed. Recovered. Sandwich Tern (continued). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. Ravenglass (Cumb.), —.7.35, Appam, Gold Coast, —.2.36. by H. W. Robinson. Ditto —.6.34. Benguela, Angola, 14.4.36. Walney I. (Lancs.), 23.6.35, by Hussein Dey, Algeria, H. W. Robinson. 07,5.30. Ditto 16.6.35. Accra, Gold Coast, —.1.36. Ditto 23.6.35. Loanda, Angola, 28.3.36. Salthouse (Norfolk), 14.6.32, Keta, Gold Coast, —.11.33. by R. M. Garnett. Ditto 25.6.35. Cape Coast, Gold Coast, 32.1.36. Ditto 12.6.35. Porto Amboim, Angola, 25.3.36. Ditto 12.6.35. Ditto 25.3.36. Ditto 15.6.34. Ditto 25.3-36. Ditto 12.6.35. Loanda, Angola, 16.5.36. Ditto 19.6.33. Benguela, Angola, 20.12.35. Ditto, 12.6.35, by E. Cohen. Cape Coast, Gold Coast, 6.2.36. Ditto 12.6.35. Sekondi, Gold Coast, —.1.36. Ditto 12.6.35. Porto Amboim, Angola, 30.4.30. Ditto 12.6.35. Angola, —.1.36. Northern Ireland, 12.7.35, by Loanda, Angola, —.3.36. J. Cunningham. Ditto 12.7.35. Porto Amboim, Angola, 30.5.36. Common Tern (Sterna h. hirundo). Blakeney (Norfolk), 19.7.35, Sekondi, Gold Coast, —.1.36. young, by J. Ferrier. Aretie Tern (Sterna macrura). Sule Skerry, Orkney, —.7.35, Portugal, —.9.35. young, by H. W. Robinson. Black-headed Gull (Larus rv. ridibundus). RINGED AS NESTLING. Essex, 21.6.27, by London R. _ Blackwater (Essex), Nat. Hist. Soc. 12.4.36. RINGED AS FULL-GROWN. Littleton (Middx.), 28.2.35, by Where ringed, 26.1.36. P. Hollom. Ditto 16.12.35. Barnes (Surrey), 25.12.35. Ditto 27.2.36. Ditto 24.5.36. Ditto I1.2.36. Ditto 8.3.36. Ditto 25.11.35. Ealing, London, —.12.35. Ditto 1.2.35. Hampton (Middx.), 27.3.36. Ditto 17.1.36. Sutton (Surrey), 30.1.36. Ditto 25.11.35. St. James’ Park, London, 30.12.35. Ditto 25.11.35. Crawley (Sussex), 4.2.36. 130 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL, XXX. No. Ringed. Recovered. Herring-Gull (Larus a. argentatus). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. AB.2892 Eynhallow, Orkney, 22.6.35, Glenferness (Nairn), 20.4.36. by D. J. Robertson. AB.2673 Berriedale (Caithness), 10.7.35, Crieff (Perths.), 28.4.36. by E. Cohen. AB.3662 Puffin I., N. Wales, 2.7.35, by Preston (Lancs.), 19.4.36. L. Monks. 401054 Skokholm (Pem.) 16.7.34, by Linney Hd. (Pem.), 3.5.36. C, Wontner-Smith. 402594 Dungeness (Kent), 22.6.35, by Boulogne, France, —.3.36. P, Allen. Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus f. graellsit). RINGED AS NESTLINGS. AB.4138 Hoy, Orkney, 24.7.35, by Serle Where ringed, —.5.36. and Bryson. 400792 Foulshaw (Westmor.), 27.7.34, Preston (Lancs.), 24.5.36. by H. W. Robinson. 400793 Ditto 27.7.34. Upper Nidderdale (Yorks.), 215.30; AB.2148 Walney I. (Lancs.), 9.6.35, by Torres Vedras, Portugal, H. W. Robinson. 6.3.36. Kittiwake (Rissa t. tridactyla). RV.9783 Farne Is. (Northumb.), 22.6.35, Bredifjord, West Iceland, young, by Mrs. Hodgkin. 13.5.36. Southern Guillemot (Uvia a. albionis). RV.6520 Skomer (Pem.), 19.7.34, by Biscarrosse (Landes), France, C. Wontner-Smith, BAG i S19), OIES& CHIFF-CHAFF AND GRASSHOPPER-WARBLER ASSOCIATION. IN a wood running along the top of a hill in Surrey which I visited on June 24th, 1936, I heard a Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita) singing in a tall conifer, and as soon as he stopped a Grasshopper-Warbler (Locustella nevia) started to reel in the undergrowth below him and for several minutes the two birds sang alternately. During a short walk (about three-quarters of a mile) I heard five more Chiffchaffs and immediately after each had finished a stave a neighbouring Grasshopper-Warbler reeled in reply. The birds never sang together, and in no case did I hear a Grasshopper-Warbler before a Chiffchaff. I spent the next two mornings in the wood, one of them in the company of a friend, and altogether we came across eight Chiffchaffs, each with a Grasshopper-Warbler in attendance. Ten days later I was again in the wood. The weather was cooler and more broken, and fewer Chiffchaffs were calling, but when they did they were instantly followed by Grass- hopper-Warblers. It almost seemed as if they had wound up some little piece of mechanism which started to run when they stopped singing. ‘The only other Grasshopper-Warbler I heard in the neighbourhood was accompanying a Chiffchaff in a narrow strip of ash and other trees about a mile from the first wood. I find no mention of any association between these two species in Mr. Eliot Howard’s exhaustive monograph on the British warblers and I should be interested to hear if it has been noted elsewhere, and to what it may be attributed. E. MACALISTER. SUMMER PASSAGE MOVEMENTS OF SWIFTS. ANYTHING that may help to throw light on the little known and less understood late passage movements of the Swift (Apus apus) being of interest, the following observation is worth recording. On July Ist, 1936, at 5.15 p.m. (normal time) while staying at Ballycotton Lighthouse (on an islet a short distance from the Cork coast) Charles Oldham and I saw a single Swift fly in from the open sea and pass the island, low down, to the 132 BRITISH BIRDS. VIO, OORX mainland. This bird was at least a mile out at sea, apparently flying from due south, when it first came into the field of our binoculars. The wind was then west and the evening wet and gloom: . Next day (July 2nd) at 4.15 a.m. soon after dawn, we saw a party of six Swifts fly in oversea in exactly similar manner to that of the bird above-mentioned. These too were noticed when nearly a mile from the island. They were flying relatively slowly, battling against a heavy wind (N.W.) and passed low down round the island to the coast. These birds, by their behaviour and distance from the shore, were obviously not local breeders. All were silent. W. Eagle Clarke in Studies in Bird Migration, I (1912), mentions that, at the Eddystone Lighthouse, “‘ Many Swifts occur in June (24th latest)’. He also records that “ several appeared on 5th July, 1902 . . .”’ but the direction of their flight is not stated. He notes that the occurrence of the Swift at lighthouses “is chronicled for the night-time (especially the earliest hours of the morning) only.” BERTRAM LLOYD. HOBBY AND GREY SQUIREEL. ON a common in Surrey a Hobby (Falco s. subbuteo) laid its last egg on June 27th, 1936, an unusually late date. After incubation had been going on for three weeks, I revisited the place with a friend who was anxious to photograph it. On July roth the bird was sitting, but we saw a grey squirrel in the tree and another in the next tree. Three days later the nest was deserted : one egg was broken in the nest and the contents eaten. I think there is no doubt that this was the work of the squirrels. D. H. MEAREs. FLOCK OF GADWALL IN SUTHERLANDSHIRE. ON July 8th, 1936, at Dornoch, Sutherland, I watched a flock of 30 duck which can only have been Gadwall (Anas strepera). I first saw them resting on some saltings about 200 yards from the shore. When disturbed, they flew on to the sands (it was low tide) and on being disturbed again they went nearly to the water’s edge. They resembled Mallard, but were perhaps a little smaller and rather darker in shade. The very con- spicuous white speculum showed on about six of the party, both in flight and at rest ; they did not allow me to get near enough to see the crescentic breast-markings although I was using a telescope. There had been rain all the morning and a cold north-west wind was blowing. Surely it is unusual to VOL. XXX.] NOTES, 133 see so many here at this, or indeed at any time? Two years ago, I found a brood of young ones at a loch, about four miles inland. EDWIN COHEN. FULMAR PETRELS BREEDING IN PEMBROKESHIRE. Wiru reference to my note on the Fulmar Petrels (fudmarus g. glacialis) probably breeding at the Stack Rocks in 1935, (Vol. XXIX, p. 117) the coastguard informs me quite definitely that in 1935 one egg was laid by a pair. He was, however, unable to say whether the egg hatched or not. I visited the colony on June 22nd, 1936, and I saw five pairs in view at one time and [| think that the number of Fulmars is greater than in June, 1935. Moreover, one pair has extended the range and now occupies a ledge in the next small bay. I saw no eggs, however. W. A. CADMAN. EARLY BREEDING OF STONE-CURLEW. On May 3rd, 1936, three friends, all thoroughly competent ornithologists, who are well acquainted with the Stone-Curlew (Burhinus e. edicnemus), visited a breeding haunt in Dorset. Two nests with eggs were seen on that day and a third pair located. On May 6th, this pair was found after much watch- ing to have young, a single large young bird being discovered which all agreed could not beless than ten days old. Another pair of young was also found, the same evening, but these were only two or three days old. Allowing 26 days for in- cubation, these birds must have had full sets on or about March 31st and April 7th-8th. A clutch of two eggs found in Sussex on April 28th, 1927, by Mr. R. Carlyon Britton was so far advanced in incubation that the embryos were already covered with down and were probably laid about the first week in April. The Marquis de Tristran (Alunda, 1934, p. 555) states that he received a clutch from a farmer at Emerillon, France, taken April 15th, 1932, which was on the point of hatching, and must have been laid about March 2oth-25th. F. C. R. JOURDAIN. ON May 18th, 1936, on a heath near Thetford, Norfolk, I found a young Stone-Curlew squatting amongst the stones, and after I had examined it, it ran away at a good speed. Its age I should estimate at between a fortnight and three weeks, as it was rather more than half-grown. H. J. K. Burne. 134 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXX. “ INJURY-FEIGNING ”’ BY STONE-CURLEW. Mr. GEORGE Brown’s note on the above subject (antea, p. 90) prompts me to record a similar circumstance which occurred while I was photographing a Stone-Curlew (Burhinus @. adicnemus) on May 31st, 1936. The chicks were just hatched and a hide was erected over them. (They were about twenty yards from the nest over which the hide had previously stood.) Within a few minutes both birds came up, calling distractedly. One bird (female ?) tried to lure the young away from the tent by brooding a few feet away from them, her brooding patch being fully fluffed out. When this failed to bring them to their feet, both birds paraded about the hide, with necks stretched low over the ground and their wings three-quarters raised. This performance was attended by the most hysterical “ curlew-ing.”’ When this manceuvre also failed, one bird indulged in a curious display of “ injury-feigning’’. Half-flying, half-jumping she landed prone on her breast on the flints, spread out her wings flat on the ground, and raised her head high and slightly arched backwards. The position was exactly similar to that so often assumed by Nightjars (Caprimulgus e. europ@us) under similar circumstances. This she repeated several times. The display was perhaps all the more remarkable in that it was performed not in front of a visible human being, but a canvas hide. G. TK; YSAuEs: THE FOOD OF YOUNG LAPWINGS. ON six occasions, whilst ringing young Lapwings (Vanellus vanellus) I have been able to catch a young bird with food in its bill. The following is a list of the food noted: (1) A cater- pillar of the cabbage white butterfly (Pzeris rape) ; (11) a large earthworm ; (iii) a wireworm ; (iv) several small black flies ; (v) a caterpillar of the yellow underwing moth (Tviphena pronuba) ; (vi) a white grub of the cabbage fly (Anthomyia brassic@). R. H. Brown, NOTES ON WADERS IN CUMBERLAND. On December 7th, 1935, a raw day after a night’s frost, with the Pennine fells snow-clad to their bases, I was surprised to find a Common Sandpiper (Tvinga hypoleucos) by the side of the river Eden near Carlisle. The Sandpiper was followed up-river for.half an hour; the call-notes, the butterfly-like flight above the water, with wing-tips just clearing the surface, and when the bird alighted by the water edge, the curtseying of the tail, were typical of the species. VOL. XXX.] NOTES. 135 On May oth, 1936, I watched a Spotted Redshank (Tringa erythropus), in breeding-plumage, about the mouth of a creek on Newton Arlosh Marsh. The Starling-like plumage and long orange-red legs were distinctive. This is the first spring record I have for this species, and the Rev. H. A. Macpherson in his Vert. Fauna of Lakeland states that the species is unknown in summer plumage. On a spit of gravel in the River Wampool adjoining the marsh a pair of Greenshanks (T. nebularta) were calling repeatedly to one another, as if anxious for each other’s safety. Finally the two birds flew off in a northerly direction, the call-notes of one bird merging in a series of yodelling notes. I have only one other record of the Green- shank in spring on the Solway Marshes: the bird is a regular autumn visitor and this year I saw an early arrival on July 12th, one feeding in a shallow pool in a creek on Rockcliffe Marsh. On May 16th a party of six Whimbrels (Numenius ph. pheopus) passed over Rockcliffe Marsh, their identities revealed by their ringing tittering cries ; although I am on the marshes every April and May, this is the first occasion I have seen the Whimbrel in spring ; all other records refer to the autumn except for one winter record. R. H. Brown. CoMMON BUZZARD AND OSPREY IN KENT.—Capt. G. E. Took informs us that he saw a Buzzard (Buteo buteo) near Canterbury in November, 1935. The species has been noted in this neighbourhood in recent years on several occasions (cf. Vol. XXVII, pp. 265 and 361). Capt. Took also informs us that an Osprey (Pandion h. halietus) was unfortunately shot near Dover in September, 1935. It was found dead in a wood and brought to him for identification. NEw HERONRY IN MONTGOMERYSHIRE.—Mr. W. A. Cadman reports a small heronry at Rhyd-y-gwial, Cemmaes, Machynlleth, Montgomeryshire, first occupied in 1932 with one nest. In 1933 and 1934 there was one nest each year, but In 1935 and again in 1936 three nests. All the nests were in alders. Mr. Cadman also had reports of another single nest at Grofft, near the above, during 1935 and 1936, but this he had not verified. YOUNG OYSTER-CATCHER SWIMMING UNDER WaATER.— Mr. E. Cohen informs us that on July 6th, 1936, at Golspie, Sutherlandshire, a young (feathered) Oyster-Catcher 136 BRITISH BIRDS. VOR, coor: (Haematopus o. occidentalis) took to the sea to escape, as they frequently do, and then dived and swam very well for some twenty yards under water. LETTER. COLORATION OF SOFT PARTS IN THE HERODIONES DURING THE BREEDING SEASON. To the Editors of British Birds. Srrs,—Mr. B. W. Tucker’s difficulty in reconciling his own observa- tions on Ardeola ibis ibis at the nest with the published authorities (antea, pp. 70-73) is more or less paralleled by my own recent experience with the Large Egret (Egretta alba) and the Smaller Egret (Egretta intermedia). In both species the Fauna of British India describes the bill in breeding plumage as black, and the orbital skin lores and edge of gape as bright green. Oates, a very careful observer, supports this, but Practical Handbook (II. i. 205) describes the bill of alba as “‘ black, base orange (ad. summer), yellow (ad. winter and juv.).” I visited one or two very large breeding colonies in August, 1935, in Upper Burma and watched scores of Egrets for a fortnight or more in an excellent light, both at the nest and when feeding on the ground. As these colonies nested in trees, my observations were not at such point-blank range as those of Mr. Tucker but were with x12 Zeiss glasses at ranges from 15 to 100 yards. I was greatly puzzled by the fact that nearly all these Egrets, which, from their dorsal plumes were clearly adult, had yellow or yellowish beaks, usually, though not invariably, witha dark tip. I only saw three in which the green facial skin was prominent and of these two had black beaks and one dark brown. Dr. C. B. Ticehurst, to whom I mentioned this, suggested that by August, when most of these birds were feeding young ones, extensive colour changes might well have started to take place in the soft parts. This is certainly possible and in late May, 1936, during a very hurried visit to this colony, most of the birds, which were then building their nests, had black or blackish beaks, though at the same time there were undoubted adults about with yellow beaks and fully developed dorsal plumes. I had not time to go into it as fully as I wished. These colour changes clearly need more study in the Herodiones, as one very marked change, which I have been unable to find mentioned in any book, occurs in the feet of Butorvides striatus (the Little Green Heron) in the breeding season. They become what appears in the field to be almost orange-pink and are most conspicuous in flight, though not noticeable at other times of the year. J. K. STANFORD. (Indian Civil Service). BINSTED, Hants. August 8th, 1936. [In the case of nestling Egvetta alba, nearly old enough to leave the nest, examined by me the bills were gamboge, upper mandible black at the tip, with orbital region and round gape bright green. In nestling Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) some had the feet entirely pale yellowish, while others, just able to fly, showed traces of slate colouring, but none had the legs and feet black.—F.C.R. J.] EVERY GARDEN A BIRD SANCTUARY Miss Turner is a great enthusiast and an attractive writer and she seeks here to encourage bird-lovers to take even greater interest in their pensioners and to rouse those who are not alive to the necessity of preserving and increasing ‘‘ our inheritance.’’ The Author is, above all, a practical enthusiast and her book is packed with advice on the best methods for all to help her cause, from those who are able toset some acres aside as a sanctuary, down to the owner of the small town garden. Eight plates and text figures. S. Cr. 8v0. 5/= net. REPORT on the ‘‘ BRITISH BIRDS” CENSUS OF HERONIES, 1928 by E. M. NICHOLSON Paper wrapper 3/6 net. THE GREAT CRESTED GREBE ENQUIRY, 1931 By T. H. HARRISSON anp P. A. D. HOLLOM Reprinted from BRITISH BIRDS Paper Wrapper 2/6 net at ads H. F.& G. WITHERBY Ltd. 326 High Holborn, LONDON, W.C.1 LE GERFAUT REVUE BELGE D’ORNITHOLOGIE (Fendée en 1911.) La seule publication scientifique belge traitant des oiseaux, spécialement des oiseaux de la Belgique Abonnement 25 francs belges - 5 Belgas par an. Direction : Square Prince Charles 21, Bruxelles-Laeken ( Belgique) WATKINS & DONCASTER Manufacture and Stock CABINETS and APPARATUS of every kind for Collectors of Birds’ Eggs, Insects, &c. A LARGE STOCK OF BIRDS' EGGS (Singles and § BRITISH and EXOTIC BUTTERFLIES, Soo 274 NESTING BOXES OF VARIOUS PATTERNS. PriceD CATALOGUE oF APPARATUS AND SPECIMENS PER RETURN All Boors and Publications (new and second-hand) on Natural History supplied. Pik os 126: Pdedone: ‘Teasle Bar 9651. 36, Strand, London, W.C.2, England. NS sscnaasesessnese | A SUPPLEMENT TO THE BIRDS OF NORFOLK AND LORD HOWE ISLANDS to which is added those BIRDS OF NEW ZEALAND not figured by Buller By GREGORY M. MATHEWS Author of “The Birds of Australia.” Illustrated by FORTY HAND-COLOURED AND NUMEROUS MONOCHROME PLATES AND TEXT FIGURES IN ONE VOLUME (Limited to 225 Copies) Price £8: 3> co The Author’s twelve-volume “‘ Birds of Australia ”’ is the standard work on the birds of that Continent. In 1928 he brought the work up to date in “ The Birds of Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands’’. In the new volume there are twenty further plates of Australian birds. There are also included twenty New Zealand birds which have been added to this list since Buller’s great works were completed. In addition to a plate of each of these birds, ten plates have been added to show the generic characters. In this new volume, therefore, the avifauna of Australia and New Zealand is brought up to date. This volume and “ The Birds of Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands’ are thus a necessary adjunct to “ The Birds of Australia”, and no set can be called complete without them. He. UF Aw OG. OR ee ee ee 326 HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON, W.C.1 r BRITISH -BIRDS ANIEUSTRATED ‘MAGAZINE DEVOTED CHIETLY TOTHE BIRDS “= ONTHEBRISHT UST” I Mak iy we ‘iE MONTAHIY.1594. YEARLY-20. 526HIGHHOLBORNICNDOSY HFéG-WITHERDY.LTD- NEW BIRD-LOVERS’ MANUALS SONGS OF WILD BIRDS By E. M. NICHOLSON and LUDWIG KOCH Introduction by JULIAN HUXLEY With 18 plates, of which 8 are in colour TWO DOUBLE-SIDED 10-INCH GRAMOPHONE RECORDS OF THE ACTUAL SONGS OF THE NIGHTINGALE ® CUCKOO e@ BLACKBIRD SONG THRUSH ® PIED WOODPECKER GREEN WOODPECKER @ ROBIN © WREN DUNNOCK © TURTLEDOVE ® WOOD PIGEON © CHAFFINCH © WILLOW WARBLER “WHITETHROAT © GREAT TIT TEXT ~- PICTURES - SOUND and Chart of Bird-Song Records not sold separately 15/~ net boxed H. F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd., 326 High Holborn, London, W.C,I. Fh Ns Be SL MET gee aie i ae i BRITSABIRDS \WITH WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN JANUARY, 1917, ‘‘ THE ZOOLOGIST.’ EDITED BY tH. F.WITHERBY, M.B.E., F.Z.S.,M.B.O.U.,H.F.A.O.U. ASSISTED BY [REv. F, C. R. JouRDAIN, M.A., M.B.O.U., H.F.A.O.U., F.Z.S., AND NORMAN F., TICEHURST, O.B.E., M.A., F.R.C.S., M.B.O.U. CONTENTS OF NUMBER 5, VOL. XXX., OCTOBER I, 1936. ———————— PAGE Report on Great Crested Grebe sample Count, 1935. By P.A.DHollom ... es ia ae “x abe + £90 Further Notes on Orielton Decoy, 1935-360. By C. W. Macworth- Praed and H. A. Gilbert ... xe ae ees os eH 159 ‘Nesting of the Pintail in Kent and Sussex. By N. Ff. Ticehurst 162 {Unusual ‘“ Hold-up”’ of Spring Migrants on East Coast of Scotland. By The Midlothian Ornithological Club ... ae 167 NNotes :— “Return Migration "’ of Jays (P. A. D. Hollom) aha ‘= 170 Status of the Siskin and Twite in Lakeland (R. H. Brown) ... 170 Unusual “ Hold-up”’ of Spring Migrants on Lincolnshire Coast (B. A. Pye) er ae axe os asa ae 171 Spotted Flycatcher, Great Tit and Gulls Siac Moths (Dr. J. W. Campbell) ... eu sive tat oem oe 172 Birds and Molluses (Dr. J. W. Campbell) ase tv ae 173 Hoopoes in Hertfordshireand Hampshire (F. M. Vaughan and G. Brown)