ZS IX. > *• I / • < ' r * f L k - H BRITBnBIRDS W ITH 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 M.B£. FZ.S. M.B.O.U. H.F.A.O.U. ASSISTED BY NORMAN F. TICEHURST o.b.e. iw.a. f.r.c.s. m.b.o.u. AND BERNARD W. TUCKER m.a. f.z.s. m.b.o.u. Volume XXXV JUNE 1941 — MAY 1942 H. F. & G. WITHERBY Ltd. 326 HIGH HOLBORN LONDON •r f I •- 4 ' ■'si it 'i' )■ I LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. PAGE Plate I. Long-eared Owl. Female feeding chick. The prey— a rat — can be seen in front of her head {Flashlight photograph by Eric J. Hosking facing 2 Long-eared Owl. Male returning to nest with RAT. Female brooding chicks {Flashlight photograph by Eric J. Hosking) ... ... 4 Long-eared Owl. Female in aggressive attitude {Photographed by Eric J. Hosking) ... ... 6 Long-eared Owl. Female brooding eggs {Photo- graphed by Eric J. Hosking) ... ... ... 7 Intelligence Tests with Tits. Apparatus employed {From drawings by M. Brooks-King) ... ... 31 Black-winged Stilt. Male incubating, female on GUARD {Photographed by G. K. Yeates) ... 43 Black-winged Stilt. Female about to relieve MALE AT NEST {Photographed by G. K. Yeates) 45 Nest-Sanitation. Goldfinch : showing mass of F.®CES ROUND EDGE OF NEST {Photographed by E. J. Hosking) ... ... ... ... ... 67 Nest-SaniTation. Hawfinch : female swallowing F^CAL CAPSULE {Photographed by E. J. Hosking) ... ... ... ... ... 70 Nest-Sanitation. Bearded Tit ; male removing F^CAL CAPSULE {Photographed by E. J. Hosking) ... ... ... ... ... 72 Nest-Sanitation. Lesser Whitethroat : female PRODDING YOUNG AS STIMULUS TO DEFECA- TION {Photographed by E. J. Hosking) ... 91 Hoopoe. Cock with crest raised a moment after FEEDING THE INCUBATING FEMALE {Photo- graphed by G. K. Yeates) loS Black-tailed Godwit. One of a pair breeding in Lincolnshire, July 5TH, 1941 no LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. PAGE Black-tailed Godwit. One of the young bred in Lincolnshire, July 5th, 1941 iii Map showing rate of Spread of the Red-backed Shrike over Europe during the spring (Z)mz£';i H. N. Southern) ... ... ... 115 Willow-Warbler nestling depositing f^cal sac on “ L.A.TRINE " {Photographed by Stuart Smith)... 121 Sky-Lark. Parent awaiting f^cal sac from NESTLING {Photographed by Stuart Smith) ... 123 Tree-Creeper Roosting {Photographed by C. C. Doncaster) ... ... ... ... ... 141 Wren Roosting {Photographed by C. C. Doncaster) ... 146 Green Woodpecker Roosting {Photographed by C. C. Doncaster) ... ... ... ... 147 Egg-shell Disposal. Greenshank brooding and HOLDING remains OF EGG-SHELL {Photographed by E. J. Hosking) ... ... ... ... 167 Yellow Wagtail. Cock awaiting defecation of YOUNG {Photographed by Stuart Smith) ... 188 Egg-shell Disposal. Cock Dotterel brooding WITH EGG-SHELL ROLLED OUT OF NEST {Photo- graphed by John Markham) ... ... ... 193 Egg-shell Disposal. Hen Merlin covering young AND egg ; WITH FRAGMENT OF SHELL IN BILL {Photographed by E. J. Hosking) ... ... 218 Egg-shell Removal. Bittern, on nest, removing EGG-SHELL {Photographed by Frances Pitt) ... 221 Egg-shell Removal. Hen Greenshank, with CHICKS, removing EGG-SHELL {Photographed by E. J. Hosking) ... ... 243 Egg-shell Removal. Hen Lapwing at nest with EGG-SHELL IN BILL {Photographed by E. J. Hosking) ... ... ... 247 iC DDK'imnnnrToiiicBnu^ '^fSS-TlIEBKnSn-liSE^ JUNE 3, 1941. Vol. XXXV. No. 1. MONTniY IsddYEARLY 20& •3S6HH»H0LS08NisnD(>ri- flr^WTTHERBIfLn) THE POPULAR SERIES OF BIRD-LOVERS^ MANUALS BIRD MIGRATION A. Landsborough Thomson. Ulus. Sm.Cr.8vo. 5s. net. HOW TO KNOW BRITISH BIRDS Norman H. Joy. Ulus. Sm.Cr.8vo. 5s. net. BIRDS OF THE GREEN BELT R. M. Lockley. Ulus. Sm.Cr.8vo. 5s. net. EVERY GARDEN A BIRD SANCTUARY E. L. Turner. Ulus. Sm.Cr.8vo. 5s. net. BIRD RESERVES By E. C. ARNOLD. Illustrated with 9 plates in colour and 12 in black-and-white by the author Readers will surely agree with the author, after reading his delight- ful book, that the £100 he paid for a pond proved a thoroughly successful and sound investment. Medium 4^0 . . . . . .15/. net. Postage gd. SONGS OF WILD BIRDS Fourth Impression ready shortly. By E. M. NICHOLSON and LUDWIG KOCH. Introduction by Julian Huxley. With two double-sided lo-inch gramophone records featuring the Nightingale, Cuckoo, Blackbird, Song Thrush, Pied Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Robin, Wren, Hedge-Sparrow, Turtle-Dove, Wood-Pigeon, Chaffinch, Willow Warbler, Whitethroat and Great Tit. 25s. net. By the same authors Postage 8d. MORE SONGS OF WILD BIRDS 15s. net. Postage 8d. H. F. & G. WITHERBY LTD. BRIHSIDIMB With which 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 Norman F. Ticehurst, o.b.e., m.a., f.r.c.s., m.b.o.u., and Bernard W. Tucker, m.a., f.z.s., m.b.o.u. Contents of Number i, Vol. XXXV., June 3, 1941. Some Notes on the Long-eared Owl. Bv Eric T Hoskine F.R.P.S., M.B.O.U ... ... . ' Report of the Bird-Ringing Committee : Progress for 1940 By A. Landsborough Thomson, C.B., D.Sc., F.R.S.E. Obituary : George Caton Haigh Maud Doria Haviland (Mrs. H. H. Brindley) page 2 9 15 16 Notes : — Display of the Greenfinch (J. G. Bacchus, J. A, G. Barnes) ... 17 Firecrest in Middlesex (R. W. Hale) 18 Old Record of Tengmalm’s Owl in Somerset, an Error (Rev. F. L. Blathwayt) ... ... ... ... ... ... 18 Display of the Sparrow-Hawk (J. E. Flynn) ... 19 Spoonbills Wintering in Cornwall (P. I. R. Maclaren) ... 20 Pink-footed Goose in CO. Dublin (G. R. Humphreys)... ... 20 Short Notes : — Winter Distribution of Gad wall in Ireland. Glaucous Gull in Cornwall ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 20 NOMENCLATURE. ' As it is hoped very shortly to publish the final volume of The . Handbook of British Birds, which will contain a full systematic I list, the names in this list will be used in the present volume ) of British Birds. In the species described in the last volume of the Handbook the only changes of names now being used are Lams glaucoides Meyer in place of L. leucopterus for the Iceland Gull and Corn-Crake instead of Land-Rail. (2) SOME NOTES ON THE LONG-EARED OWL BY ERIC J. HOSKING, f.r.p.s., m.b.o.u. f Plate I.) There does not appear to be a great deal of literature con- cerning the nocturnal habits of the Long-eared Owl {Asio 0. otus), and, to a large extent, this can be understood as observations during the hours of darkness are difficult, and sometimes impossible. The Long-eared Owl is probably the most nocturnal of all our owls and is not often seen on the wing, either hunting or displaying, during day-time. It is true that it does hunt before dusk and is on occasion afield after dawn, this being particularly the case on a day following incessant wet weather when its prey remains under cover ; and during the middle of the winter when there is a scarcity of food. But, generally speaking, it remains at roost through- out the day. It was with the view to discovering something more of this owl’s nocturnal life that I devoted several whole nights, interspersed with some periods of daylight, observing from a hide only seven feet from a nest. The nest was found in Norfolk by a friend. It was situated in a small wood composed mainly of Scots pine trees, inter- mingled with spruce firs ; the nest being in one of the latter trees, 23 feet above ground. I believe that the nest was originally built by a Carrion-Crow and was constructed of pieces of pine wood, varying in length from a few inches to over a foot ; there was little lining, but a few pieces of dead bracken were scattered over the nest. All five eggs were laid before the nest was found, and round these were a few dark greyish feathers which had probably fallen from the breast of the hen Long-eared Owl. The first period of observation from the hide took place on April 27th, and began at 10.30 a.m. Directly I was left on my own, the hen started to come back and I could see her flying from tree to tree as she came nearer. From each halting place she would glare at the hide, first bowing very low so that her chin almost touched the branch on which she was perched, then suddenly she would stand to full height, and without removing her glance from my direction, she would sway her body from side to side. As I have noticed these actions at other Long-eared Owls’ nests I do not think that they were actuated by the hide, but represented the typical method of approach. Once she had perched by the nest I was able to obtain a remarkably good view of the facial disc, and saw how it was brought right forward so as to give British Birds. Vol. XXXV., PI. i. Long-eared Owl Female feeding chick. The prey— a rat— can be seen in front of her head. (Flashlight photograph by Eric J. Hosking.) VOL. XXXV.] LONG -EARED OWL. 3 a much more terrifying effect, the horns or ear-tufts being placed flat along the crown of the head. Under normal conditions, when the bird is not excited, the face is rather pinched, and has a shrunken appearance. As the brooding patch was relaxed ready to envelop the eggs the owl moved forward and lowered herself. For hours on end she remained thus, and only twice in eight hours did she even alter her brooding position. Throughout the whole of my day and night observations the cock did not take any share in the incubation of the eggs, nor did he ever appear at the nest during the day. Soon after dark he would usually call from a nearby tree, the hen would then leave and presumably go to feed, a similar performance taking place about half an hour before dawn. No food was brought to the nest prior to the hatching of the eggs. A short nuptial display was witnessed on April 28th at 8.25 p.m. The hen was away from the nest and was perched on a tree a short distance from the hide. She called and was immediately answered by the cock. He then flew towards her, keeping well below the tops of the trees, dipping and rising, and circling round the trunk of the tree on which the hen was perched. For the most part he glided but every now and again would clap his wings. I was unable to see whether the wings made contact below or above his body as the thickness of the pine trees obstructed much of my view. Finally the cock alighted by the side of the hen and there called — the note might be described as a low moan. The hen left the perch and came directly back to the nest. The first chick hatched during the early morning of May 2nd. During the night the cock made his first appearance at the nest and brought in food. In all three visits were made, and although I was not able to see what food he brought, I found on the nest after dawn two short-tailed field-voles and one rat, all of which were decapitated. To me this was a most interesting thing, because this was the first food to be seen at the nest, and it coincided with the hatching of the first egg. All five chicks were hatched by noon on May 4th. Owls in general lay their eggs on alternate days ; sometimes three or four days may elapse between them, and as a rule incubation starts with the laying of the first or second egg. However, in this particular instance the hatching of all five chicks took place in a little over two days, which suggests that incubation did not begin until the laying of the penultimate Long-eared Owl. Male returning to nest with rat. Female brooding small chicks. {Flashlight photograph by Eric J. Hosking.) VOL. XXXV.] LONG -EARED OWL. 5 egg. I witnessed something similar in a nest in Suffolk in 1935 when I found three chicks of about the same age, while the fourth was only a little larger, and I think that it some- times happens that the hen will cover the eggs but not incubate them properly until the full clutch is nearly completed. Throughout all the hours of daylight there was no activity at the nest, and no attempt was made to feed any of the owlets. With the approach of dusk, however, a change took ! place. Suddenly quite close to the nest there came a long drawn-out hooting “ 000-00-0,” which was answered by the brooding hen, whose call might be likened to the sound made by drawing in air from a comb and tissue paper. An exchange of calls followed, in the course of which the hen became very ! excited and started to quiver and vibrate her wings. This exchange of calls continued for ten minutes, at the end of [ which time the cock flew into the nest. It was still just light enough to see that a young rat dangled from his bill. Both birds were now very excited, the hen quivering her wings as she reached up to the cock, while he slowly flapped his wings and rolled his body from side to side, clutching and unclutching at the branch on which he was perched. Both called in subdued tones, and the hen took the rat from the cock, placing it on the nest just in front of her. The cock having delivered the prey, left immediately. The ceremony just described was typical of those which took place on each occasion that food was brought to, the nest by the male bird. Feeding the owlets followed. The hen, without rising from her brooding position, stretched out the tarsus and gripped the prey in’ her talons, also gripping part of the nest, then, leaning forward, she pulled at the rat with her bill. Several attempts were made before a portion of the prey became detached, and in the initial efforts this consisted mainly of fur, which she herself swallowed. Once the red meat was I reached tiny morsels were plucked and passed under her I body to the chicks, who were sheltering below her. It was observed that the food had to touch the chick’s beak before it would open its mouth to receive it. If the portion proved Stoo large for one chick, it was offered to another, and if none of the chicks would take it, it was eaten by the hen. Each t one of the chicks was fed at every meal, and gorged to such t an extent that at its conclusion they were incapable of move- i ment. The remains of the prey were then swallowed by the ( hen. This was followed by an attempt to clean the nest of H the small pieces of food which had fallen into it. It will be observed from this description that the method 6 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. of feeding was different from that adopted by hawks, which usually stand by the side of their young during the operation. While the hen was brooding the chicks the cock paid on an average five or six visits to the nest between dusk and dawn, and so far as I could ascertain food was brought on each occasion. During the hours of complete darkness it was not, of course, possible to discern exactly what was taking place, but the exchange of calls and rustling of wings were Long-eared Owl. Female in aggressive attitude. {Daylight photograph by Eric J. Hosking.) similar during darkness to those at dusk, and it seems reasonable to presume that similar actions accompanied them. So far as I was able to ascertain, the male’s hunting territory was restricted to quite a small area. The nest, as already mentioned, was in the middle of a small plantation, which was surrounded by an area of heather and bracken intermixed with silver birch trees. Small stacks of dead bracken were to be found at points round the plantation. The Long-eared Owl’s hunting-ground consisted of the area immediately VOL. XXXV.] LONG-EARED OWL. 7 round the wood, amongst the bracken stacks — where I had often noticed rats — and in the wood itself. Throughout the night it was possible to hear him calling at approximately I ten minute intervals, and generally these calls were answered j by the hen. During the early hours of one morning when ' it was still dark, the cock called very loudly while flying j near to the nest. The call was entirely different from others ■ used, and I should describe it as “ whack-ack-ack.” The hen. Long-eared Owl. Female brooding eggs. Note difference in facial disc in photograph of aggressive attitude. [Daylight photograph by Eric J. Hosking.) who was brooding, replied also with an unusual note, a “ whoof-whoof ” — a sound made, I think, by blowing air through her nostrils. After this there was complete silence for over an hour, and I was of the opinion that on this occasion the cock had flown out of his usual territory. On only one occasion did I see the hen actually bring food into the nest. It was just after dawn, and she had left after spending the whole night brooding the chicks. In all she stayed away for sixteen minutes. Just before her return I heard the two birds exchanging calls, and a moment later 8 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. there was a light thud on the ground, followed by a rustling of leaves. What I think happened was that the male dropped the prey he had brought to the hen, and she had retrieved it and brought it back with her. The food she brought was particularly interesting because it was the remains of a full- grown rat, the first to be seen at this nest, all the other rats being young of various sizes. The late Dr. C. B. Ticehurst, the results of whose analysis of many pellets were published in The Ibis, July, 1939, could find no evidence that fully grown rats formed part of the diet. The prey consisted of rats, field-mice and field-voles ; within five days of hatching the following were brought to the nest and actually observed : 19 rats, 7 field-mice and 2 field-voles. Other prey was, no doubt, brought in but was eaten during darkness and consequently not seen. A few pellets were examined and these contained rodents and, more rarely, rabbits. No trace could be found of either birds or insects. A. C. Bent, writing of the nearly allied American form, A. 0. wilsonianus, in his Life Histories of the North American Birds of Prey, says, “ Whether the Long-eared Owl hunts to any great extent during the darkest hours of the night we do not know.” Without doubt I can say that it does and very successfully too, as on occasions I have shone a torch on to the nest immediately after the cock had left and seen fresh prey. What does seem remarkable to me is that this owl is able to fly through thick, inter-twining and dense forests in the pitch blackness of the night. The male at the nest I was studying came quite often to the nest when it was so dark I could not even see the least reflection of light from the sky, and, moreover, alighted on the branch immediately behind the nest without hesitation or losing his balance, as I could tell from the sound of his claws on the branch. Ornithology presents many surprises, but this ability of the owl to see well enough to hunt and to thread its way through the intricacies of a wood in what appears to be utter darkness to human eyes is probably one of the most astonishing. It appears that the subject would be one of great interest for physiological study. It was very unfortunate that I was not able to stay longer in this neighbourhood and study the breeding biology more thoroughly. However, my friend visited the nest frequently and advised me that all five chicks left the nest on May 25th. As the chicks hatched between May 2nd and 4th, this made their fledging period 21 to 23 days, coinciding almost exactly with that given in The Handbook of British Birds. (9) A PUBLICATION OF THE BRITISH TRUST FOR ORNITHOLOGY. REPORT OF THE BIRD-RINGING COMMITTEE: PROGRESS FOR I94O. A. LANDSBOROUGH THOMSON, c.b., d.sc., f.r.s.e. Chairman of the Committee. This is the fourth annual report to be issued on behalf of the Bird-Ringing Committee of the British Trust for Ornithology.* It covers 1940, the third complete year of working under present arrangements. The series in this form continues the sequence of annual reports by H. F. Witherby, published from igio onwards under the general title “ The British Birds Marking Scheme.” The war has inevitably curtailed the activities and results in various ways, but much useful work has nevertheless been accomplished. Management. ' The headquarters of the work remain in the Bird Room of 1 the British Museum (Natural History) at South Kensington, I by kind permission of the Trustees. All new rings are inscribed I ” BRITISH MUSEUM NAT. HIST. LONDON.” The composition of the Committee remains as before. The Honorary Secretary, Miss E. P. Leach, is responsible for the whole of the headquarters work, including all correspon- 1 dence, records and accounts, as well as the issue of rings, j During the year she had been giving the greater part of her I time to these duties without assistance, and it is entirely ; due to Miss Leach that the Scheme has been so well maintained in face of present difficulties. Finance. Subscriptions have naturally fallen off, but the Committee are grateful to those who have found it possible to continue their help. The Committee were not in favour of raising the I price of rings, and this stands at 6s. per hundred. A subvention i from British Birds has again been received, and the special ] grant made by the trustees of the late Viscount Leverhulme I has been drawn upon. The accounts for 1939 and 1940 have been published in ( combined form in the Seventh Report of the Trust. Progress of Ringing. Many ringers have been called up for national service of 4 various kinds. Not only has this affected individual ringers, r but the Natural History Societies have been unable to collect *The previous report was published in British Birds, 1940, Vol. : XXXIII, p. 318. B 10 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. schedules from some of their members, and birds are known to have been ringed although no details are forthcoming. The following figures are based on the schedules actually sent in. The total of birds marked during the year is 21,182, and it will be seen from the tables that the trapped birds greatly exceed those ringed as nestlings, the relative numbers being 14,974 6,208. Dr. Moon’s and Mr. Cooper’s names will be missed from the head of the list, and it is a source of great regret that their duties have prevented them marking more than 2 birds. As an offset to the temporary loss of so many ringers, it is pleasing to be able to report that 17 new ringers have joined during the year. A few outstanding items from the lists may be specially mentioned. The first Hoopoe to be ringed under the scheme was marked at Skokholm, and a brood of five Black Redstarts was ringed in another locality — the only young ones ever marked except for those at Cambridge in 1937. Messrs. Mason and Williams have ringed a number of Corn-Crakes in Co. Dublin, being responsible between them for 30 adults and 13 young. Nobody was able to go far afield, and one consequently misses the birds usually marked on the outlying islands in considerable numbers. Economy in the Use of Rings. A fair stock of rings is still held, but the measures of economy in their use introduced last year remain in force and must be strictly observed. Further supplies of aluminium cannot be expected during the war. Methods. The use of ring-size ia for Greenfinches, previously advised, is now a definite instruction, as it has been found that the birds distort and probably remove the smaller and less stout ring No. i. Recoveries. Recovery records have continued to come in reasonably well. In this country valuable help in reporting recoveries has been given by local police, as a result of an official circular to Chief Constables. (This has extended to birds with foreign rings, which have been the subject of some suspicion on the part of members of the public ignorant of the purposes of marking.) As regards recoveries abroad, records have been received even from enemy countries, through ringing stations in neutral territory. A few individual cases of special interest may be mentioned. Among these is that of a Kestrel, ringed as a nestling in Surrey, being reported alive in Navarre and released there VOL. XXXV ] REPORT OF BIRD -RINGING. 11 again. A Redwing was ringed in Cornwall and recovered the following winter in northern Italy : this was included in a special note on the movements of Redwings. An unusual Blackbird record is that of one ringed at Woodford Green, Essex, in January, 1940, and recovered at Port Patrick, Wigtownshire, in February, 1941. A Common Redstart, ringed as a nestling in Northumber- land, was caught in the same place after an interval of four years. A Kingfisher which travelled from Cheshire to Yorkshire, a distance of 76 miles, shows a more extensive movement than any other record yet made. A young Teal from the Isle of Man was shot in January in the Asturias, and another instance is recorded of a Sandwich Tern rounding the Cape and moving up the east coast to the neighbourhood of Durban. ^ Publication of Results. The following publications have been made for the Com- mittee since the last Report : — E. P. Leach (1940) : ‘‘ Recovery of marked birds.” British Birds, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 36 and 61. E. P. Leach (1941) : ‘‘ Recovery of marked birds.” British Birds, Vol. XXXIV, p. 172. E. P. Leach (1941) : Note on “ Redwings wintering in widely separated areas in successive years.” British Birds, Vol. XXXIV, P- 243. In addition. Chapters VI and VII in Volume I of the report of the International Wildfowl Inquiry deal in part with results of the ringing scheme : — C. W. Mackworth-Praed (in part) and anonymous (1941) : " Ring- ing of duck at British decoys for the Wildfowl Committee.” International Wildfowl Inquiry, Vol. I, p. 64. A. L. Thomson (1941) : ‘‘ Results of ringing duck : general survey of data from all sources.” International Wildfowl Inquiry, Vol. I. p, 84. Number of Birds Ringed. Trapped. Nestlings. Total. In 1940 14,974 6,208 21,182 M 1939 27,983 27.834 55.817 ,, 1938 24,162 26,162 50,324 .. 1937 21,900 23,281 45,181 1936 19.235 29,428 48,663 .. 1935 16,066 30,364 46,430 .. 1934 17.835 31.816 49.651 .. 1933 10,466 27.975 38,441 .. 1932 7.643 22,950 30,593 .. 1931 7.041 22,513 29.554 From 1909 to 1930 ... 287,401 Grand Total (including arrears) 703,640 12 BRITISH BIRDS [VOL. XXXV. Nest- Nest- Trapped. lings. Total. Trapped. lings. Total. Bootham Sch. i ,706 173 1,879 M. Stewart 95 16 Ill Oxford Orn.S. 1,570 115 1,685 D. Garnett 86 17 103 A. Darlington ... 877 782 1,659 Mrs. Cornish lOI — lOI Skokholm B.Obs. 785 392 L177 Rochester N.H.S. 79 12 91 A. J. Harthan ... 938 47 985 R. H. Brown ... 2 89 91 G. Charteris 431 281 712 H. Tully 75 14 89 Clayesmore Sch. 605 15 620 P. Maclaren 49 28 77 Gordonstoun Sch. 546 65 611 Mrs. Gaskell 32 37 69 London N.H.S. 427 166 593 Miss Medcalf ... 57 12 69 A. W. Boyd ... 406 134 540 Manx Field Club 18 45 63 Rugby School 21 438 459 A. E. Billett — 59 59 J. A. Gibb 423 18 441 Miss Steinthal ... 58 — 58 Mrs. Hodgkin ... 3 438 441 W. Pollok-Morris 2 55 57 J. Buxton 380 4 384 Wildfowl Inq. ... 56 — 56 G. M. King 358 ■ — ■ 358 W. A. Cad man 5 51 56 Charterhouse B.C 279 69 348 Cheltenham Coll. 3 48 51 A, Wainwright... 282 55 337 V. H. Spry 48 48 E. Cohen 296 39 335 Sandford, Stephen, H. W. Robinson 80 231 311 & Pollok-Morris 3 42 45 M. Wainwright... 304 — 304 Lord D. Stuart... 3 41 44 Christ’s Hospital J. Bartholomew 3 40 43 N.H.S. 241 18 259 Winchester Coll. 16 25 41 F. J. Brown 242 12 254 Miss Henderson — 39 39 J. Barnes 150 103 253 Miss Hutchinson — 39 39 H. M. Rogers ... 59 190 249 H. G. Alexander 37 37 Sedbergh Sch. ... 14 209 223 Oakes and Leighton Park S. 171 50 221 Battersby — 34 34 A. H. Bishop ... 194 14 208 Mrs. Priestley ... 24 9 33 D. Lack... 198 10 208 H. C. Trimnell 1 1 22 33 P. Morshead 181 25 206 L. D. Thomas 30 — 30 Zool. Society ... 126 73 199 E. Wishart I 25 26 Kingswood Sch. 73 124 197 N. H. Joy 26 26 P. Hollom 182 13 195 F. A. Nattrass 8 16 24 Miss Ferrier 32 t6o 192 P. M. Jeavons ... 7 17 24 M. & D. Rankin 81 108 189 J. Law ... 23 — 23 G. Paulson 179 7 186 Lord Dumfries 6 17 23 Cowin & Ladds 42 140 182 Bedale’s School — 21 21 R. Martinson ... 26 147 ^73 Repton School ... — 20 20 Bryanston Sch. 167 167 F. J. Ramsay ... 12 8 20 Brooker & Cawkell 38 119 157 J. Ellis 12 7 19 R. M. Garnett ... 140 12 152 Mrs. Anscombe — 16 16 Dauntsey’s Sch. 148 — 148 W. Macve 14 2 16 J. Cunningham 146 I 147 C. Foster-Barham I 10 1 1 Cambridge B.C. 136 7 143 Shrewsbury Sch. 8 — 8 L. G. Weller ... 105 29 134 K. Keywood — 7 7 C. F. Tebbutt ... 99 17 116 P. A. Rayfield ... — 7 7 R. Carrick 50 61 III R. A. Humphries I — I VOL. XXXV.] REPORT OF BIRD -RINGING 13 NUMBERS OF EACH SPECIES RINGED. RECOVERED 1909 to Tra2ped -1940 — Nest Total Grand of those ringed Per Raven 1939 188 _ lings 26 26 Total. 214 1909-39 centage 14 7-4 *Crow, Carrion 1462 2 124 126 1588 71 4-9 Rook 4916 25 70 95 5011 234 4.8 Jackdaw 3939 51 2 53 3992 181 4.6 •Magpie 1004 5 65 70 1074 34 3-4 Jay 479 3 16 19 498 30 6.3 Chough 43 — I I 44 3 7.0 Starling 62532 6098 166 6264 68796 2779 4-4 Greenfinch ... 28231 1229 47 1276 29507 1865 6.6 •Goldfinch 461 8 5 13 474 8 1-7 Redpoll, Lesser 588 I — I 589 6 I .0 Linnet 10064 6 94 100 10164 69 0.7 Bullfinch 1555 9 8 17 1572 58 3-7 Chaffinch 32286 877 44 921 33207 1392 4-3 Brambling . . . 997 9 — 9 1006 38 3-8 Sparrow, Tree 2261 3 66 69 2330 47 2.1 Bunting, Yellow 5526 lOI 29 130 5656 276 50 Bunting, Reed 1842 6 13 19 1861 89 4.8 Lark, Sky 3652 21 I 22 3674 45 1.2 Pipit, Tree ... 1773 — 12 12 1785 5 0.3 Pipit, Meadow 5353 48 28 76 5429 tn4 2.1 Pipit, Rock 637 10 21 31 668 29 4-5 Wagtail, Yellow 1042 — II II 1053 4 0.4 Wagtail, Grey 833 — 15 15 848 I O.I Wagtail, Pied 6534 17 61 78 6612 89 1-4 Wagtail, White 79 — — — 79 — — Flycatcher, S. 3398 9 16 25 3423 1 1 0.3 ♦Flycatcher, Pied 1382 — — — 1382 9 0.6 Chiffchaff ... 897 36 17 53 950 5 0.6 Warbler ,Willow 10340 58 4 62 10402 52 0.5 Warbler, Wood 1009 I 12 13 1022 2 0.2 Warbler, Sedge 1266 10 13 23 1289 7 0.5 Warbler, Garden 1275 12 5 W 1292 5 0.4 Blackcap 897 4 18 22 919 2 0.2 Whitethroat 4713 113 7 120 4833 27 0.6 Thrush, Mistle 4627 43 73 1 16 4743 lOI 2.2 Thrush, Song 66684 410 626 1036 67720 1302 1-9 Redwing 930 31 — 31 961 7 0.7 Ouzel, Ring ... 523 — 7 7 530 5 1 .0 Blackbird 58518 1436 550 1986 60504 2686 4.6 :^Wheatear 1863 10 — 10 1873 39 2.1 Whinchat 1633 — 3 3 1636 12 0.7 Stonechat 838 2 I 3 841 5 0.6 Redstart 2071 2 12 14 2085 15 0.7 Robin 22642 651 71 722 23364 2106 9-3 Sparrow, Hedge 14831 386 31 417 15248 1331 9.0 Wren 3722 57 — 57 3779 21 0.6 Dipper 1316 7 83 90 1406 16 1.2 Swallow 43043 40 795 835 43878 406 0.9 Martin 11671 56 241 297 11968 80 0.7 Martin, Sand 4570 37 — 37 4607 II 0.2 •Swift 964 3 5 8 972 60 6.2 Kingfisher 702 — 5 5 707 31 4-3 Cuckoo 731 2 1 1 13 744 20 2.7 14 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol. xxxv. NUMBERS OF EACH SPECIES RINGED. RECOVERED 1909 -1940 — Grand Total. of those ringed 1909-39 Per centage to 1939 Trapped Nest- lings. Total *0\vl. Little ... 603 3 20 23 626 56 9-3 Owl, Long-eared 218 — — 218 7 3-2 Owl, Barn ... 601 2 12 14 615 59 9.8 Owl, Tawny ... 954 2 33 35 989 59 6.2 Peregrine Falcon 81 — 3 3 84 7 8.6 ♦Merlin 243 ■ 10 10 253 50 20.6 Kestrel 915 I 24 25 940 93 10.2 ♦Buzzard 335 — 4 4 339 13 3-9 Hawk, Sparrow 520 3 20 23 543 74 14.2 Heron, Common 2127 • 62 62 2189 259 12.2 Sheld-Duck ... 473 — — — 473 22 4.6 Mallard 6857 16 14 30 6887 1104 16. 1 Teal ... 2528 45 I I 56 2584 311 12.3 Wigeon 418 6 ^ 6 424 59 14. 1 Duck,Tufted... 177 — — — 177 36 20.3 Goosander 52 — — 52 10 19.2 Cormorant ... 2456 — — • — 2456 497 20.2 Shag 1846 — ■ 32 32 1878 189 10.2 Gannet 10165 48 I 49 10214 339 3-3 Petrel, Storm 561 9 T 10 571 41 7-3 Shearwater, Mx. 1 995 1 24 5 29 19980 fioo7 50 Petrel, Fulmar 336 5 13 18 354 I 0.3 Wood-Pigeon 2785 4 34 38 2823 105 3-8 Dove, Stock 641 5 3 8 649 55 8.6 Dove, Turtle 634 21 6 27 661 74 II. 7 Stone-Curlew 251 — — 251 10 4.0 Oyster-catcher 1544 — 9 9 1553 63 4.1 Plover, Ringed 1456 7 28 35 1491 18 1 .2 Plover, Golden 317 5 5 322 8 2.5 Lapwing 38671 I 506 507 39178 826 2.1 Dunlin 113 I — I 114 I 0.9 Sandpiper, C. 894 — 2 2 896 3 0.3 Redshank 2272 2 26 28 2300 79 3-5 Curlew, Common3074 ■ — 41 4T 3”5 125 41 Snipe, Common 1600 2 25 27 1627 84 5-2 Woodcock ... 5278 — 27 27 5305 400 7.6 Tern, Sandwich 17286 — 507 507 17793 3” 1.8 Tern, Roseate 197 — 8 8 205 I 0.5 Tern, Common 19658 — I I 19659 470 2.4 Tern, Arctic ... 2562 ■ — ■ 165 165 2727 I I 0.4 Tern, Little ... 808 — — 808 8 1 .0 Gull, B. -headed 13863 40 I I 51 13914 651 4-7 Gull, Common 1814 5 I 6 1820 61 3-4 Gull, Herring 8632 3 37 40 8672 228 2.6 Gull,L.Bl.-bkd. 10676 — 41 41 10717 412 3-9 Gull,G.Bl.-bkd. 571 _ 16 16 587 20 3-5 Kittiwake 1833 — 72 72 1905 25 1.4 Skua, Great ... 503 — 15 15 518 17 3-4 Razorbill 4196 4T 311 352 4548 95 2-3 ♦Guillemot 2380 14 61 75 2455 52 2.2 Puffin 5318 82 4 86 5404 89 1-7 Crake, Corn ... 478 33 13 46 524 6 1-3 Moorhen ... 1649 24 fCorrected figure from 1939. 7 31 1680 40 2-4 (15) OBITUARY. GEORGE HENRY CATON HAIGH. i (1860-1941). j George Henry Caton Haigh, who died on February nth, j 1941, at the age of eighty, will be best remembered by : ornithologists for the persistent and diligent watch he kept I for rare migrants at North Cotes in Lincolnshire. His success j in this quest was due to his very thorough and regular search at the period of the autumn migration of certain hedge-rows which border the sea-banks, rather than to anything specially favourable in the place itself. His hnds extended over many I years, one of the first of importance being a Yellow-browed ! Warbler in October, 1892, and this was made the subject of I the figure in the second edition of Howard Saunders’s celebrated Manual. Subsequently he recorded this species on i no less than nine occasions. Two species, the Greenish ' Warbler (September 5th, 1896) and Radde’s Bush-Warbler I (October ist, 1898) added to the British list by his discoveries I have curiously enough never turned up again, but the Lanceo- lated Warbler, which he was the first to record in 1909, had, as was subsequently found, been taken the year before in Fair Isle. Among other rarities which came from North Cotes from time to time were Eversmann's Warbler, an Icterine, Barred Warblers (in six or more years), a Buff-breasted Sandpiper and a Yellowshank. Recently he presented his collection of bird-skins to the Natural History Museum. Caton Haigh was held in great regard as a sportsman and we are indebted to his old friend Col. E. K. Cordeaux for some particulars. He was shooting up to the last year of his life, although for the last ten he was so crippled by arthritis as to have to go about on crutches. Although he enjoyed a good organized shoot, his chief delight was a very rough evening after Wood-Pigeons and nights on the Humber side flighting geese, at both of which pursuits he was an adept and very successful. He detested any unsportsmanlike action and was greatly perturbed recently by a wholesale and unsporting method of killing Pink-footed Geese, which was being practised in his neighbourhood. He was a great lover of flowers and in Merionethshire he had a fine collection of rhododendrons. He inherited from his father, George Henry Haigh, who died in 1887, his large agricultural estates in north Lincolnshire as well as properties in North Wales and Yorkshire. 16 BRITISH BIRDS. [vOL. XXXV. MAUD DORIA HAVILAND (Mrs. H. H. Brindley.) (1891-1941). Mrs. Brindley, who died under tragic circumstances on April 3rd, 1941, was always interested in Natural History and especially birds and first became well known among ornithologists (as Maud Haviland) after her visit to the delta of the Yenisei in 1914. Here she studied Grey Plover, Curlew-Sandpiper, Grey Phalarope, Little and Temminck’s Stints and other interesting birds, some of which have been seen at their breeding-places by so very few British ornithologists. This expedition resulted in her contributing a number of interesting papers to this magazine (Vols. VIII, IX, X, XI, XII) and a book entitled A Summer on the Y enesei in which she described her e.xperiences. In 1917, as a member of the Scottish Women’s Hospital, she served as chauffeur to Dr. Elsie Inglis in Rumania and had an adventurous journey home when the unit had to be evacuated via Archangel. In the following year she was again acting as chauffeur, this time under the French Red Cross in the Soissons-Paris region. Shortly after the end of the War she went to Cambridge and commenced her researches on the Hemiptera-Hetero- morpha, a group of insects which had already particularly attracted her interest. From 1919 to 1922 she was a Research Fellow of Newnham and she spent the early part of 1922 in British Guiana studying (under a joint Royal Society and Cambridge grant) those forms of these insects harmful to vegetation. The results were embodied in a report to the Royal Society. In 1924 she gave a course of ecological lectures at Cambridge based on observations made by herself and embracing those of others, these essays being subsequently published as a book under the title of Forest, Steppe and Tundra. In 1922 she married Mr. H. H. Brindley, fellow of St. John’s College. She was elected an Honorary Lady Member of the British Ornithologists’ Union in 1916 and was a prominent member of the Cambridge Bird Club. itflOTES^fc DISPLAY OF THE GREENFINCH. I It appears from the Handbook of British Birds that no display i other than the song-flight has been recorded for the Greenfinch ! {Chloris ch. chloris). On May 2nd, 1941, my attention was drawn to a shrubbery in Staffordsiaire frequented by Greenfinches by a note which I could not place. It reminded me rather of one of the ! emotional notes of the Chaffinch, but much louder and more ; prolonged — a loud, harsh, continuous, rolling note — which j does not seem to correspond with any of the notes under the heading “ Voice ” for the Greenfinch. I found it came from a bird perched about 12 feet up. This bird was facing another, j and as I approached bowed to the other, with wings spread I slightly drooped and quivering. At the same time the tail I was tilted up and spread. This action I saw twice, the second I time from a few yards and in a good light, and at the same I time the bird uttered the note described. It continued after ' this in a somewhat crouching position, and uttered the note some half-dozen times. The note lasted for perhaps a second, with a longer interval between each repetition . The second bird remained facing the other in an upright position still and silent, then flew off, followed by the first bird. I infer but cannot ' assert that the first bird was the cock and the second the hen, 1 but as the_sun was shining full on the feathers of the second I bird, it is difficult to say that it was duller in colour. The I attitude adopted was well calculated to reveal the yellow 1 in the tail. J. G. Bacchus. ! On April 29th, 1941, I watched a pair of Greenfinches using a i form of courtship behaviour which I have not seen recorded ! for this species. Both birds were perching in the twigs of a I damson tree when the hen approached the cock with crouching ! body and shuffling wings. After some hesitation the cock responded by pecking gently at her closed bill for about half a minute, after which they parted without any attempt at coition. The action resembled the “kissing” of Hawfinches described in the Handbook, but the posture of the two birds ! suggested rather a kind of symbolic feeding. It closely ' resembled the attitude of two Blue Tits, which I saw on May 2nd feeding on the same coconut, when the lower bird shuffled wings and the upper one twice responded by feeding ' it with shreds of coconut. J. A. G. Barnes. i 18 BRITISH BIRDS [vol. xxxv. FI RECREST IN MIDDLESEX. On April 6th, 1941, I observed a Firecrest {Regulus i. igni- capillus) on Stanmore Common. It was with a mixed flock of tits and Lesser Redpolls, and two Tree-Creepers. When I first observed it in flight I was struck by the bright green of the upper-parts and when it settled and I used my field- glasses the white superciliary stripe was very clear. The bird was under observation at close quarters almost con- tinuously for well over an hour. In the field I noted the following characters : bright green upper-parts, white under- parts, white superciliary stripe, black line through the eye, black line above the superciliary stripe, yellowish-orange crest, a suspicion of a black moustache and brown legs. It frequently uttered a shrill “zree- zree-zree-zree ” on a slightly ascending scale and, when I had temporarily lost touch with it, I was often able to find it by listening for this note. It also uttered thin little single notes which I could not dis- tinguish from some of those of the tits and Tree-Creepers. Mr. and Mrs. C. C. Rose and I recorded the first Firecrest for Middlesex at Ruislip on December 31st, 1938 {London Bird Report, 1938) and the above appears to be the second record for the county. R. W. Hale. OLD RECORD OF TENGMALM’S OWL IN SOMERSET, AN ERROR. Gould in his work The Birds of Great Britain (1862-73) records on the authority of Mr. Braikenridge a specimen of Tengmalm’s Owl {Mgolius f. funereus) killed at Winscombe in Somerset in winter, 1859, Theodore Compton in his book A Mendip Valley (1893) refers to this record, adding that a pair were then observed on the side of Winscombe Hill of which one escaped, and that the other was in the collection of Charles Edwards of Wrington. This record has been copied many times and I included it in my list of Somerset birds, 1906, published in the Victoria County History series. The specimen is now in the Taunton Castie Museum labelled as Tengmalm’s Owl shot at Winscombe, 1859 given by C. L. F. Edwards, 1917. The specimen has of late been examined by, among others, Mr. B. W. Tucker and myself, and is undoubtedly a Little Owl {Athene noctua). It certainly appears to me of a warmer brown than the western race, and might be referable to A. n. noctua from middle Europe, though after 80 years in a case, the colour may have somewhat changed. Anyhow the record is interesting as being before VOL. XXXV.] NOTES. 19 ' the extensive introductions of this species. Tengmalm’s Owl 1 must, however, now be omitted from the Somerset list of i birds. F. L. Blathwayt. DISPLAY OF THE SPARROW-HAWK. ; It appears from the Handbook of British Birds that the I downward diving and upward shooting form of display of the ' Sparrow-Hawk {Accipiter n. nisiis) has only once been i recorded, but in Ireland I have observed it on a number of i occasions. This display, as I have seen it, has always been done j by the female, and generally at a height of two or three I hundred feet — but sometimes lower — and at times by two i or more birds in company. On December 3rd, 1940, three females were seen taking ; part close together and alternately diving, sometimes two at I the time. This may have been a mating display, as one or two males were in the wood over which it was being performed, 1 but the males did not take an active part in the display-flight, I merely flying low down in the normal manner and occasionally , settling on a tree and calling to the females. (This date is I probably exceptional as it is more often performed during the breeding-season.) The flight begins with the female circling over the breeding wood with peculiar slow and deliberate wing-beats until a height of about two hundred feet is reached, then with three or four quick wing-beats to get up speed the bird shoots up at an i angle for about twenty or thirty feet followed at once by a ' headlong dive with closed wings (when done at a low altitude j to within a few yards of the tree tops) and immediately ! shooting upwards again still with closed wings, then the slow I wing-beats and circling flight begins once more and the I performance is repeated. This varies in the time between dives — the bird may only give three or four wing-beats before the next downward plunge and thus get in eight or ten dives in as many minutes — or it may fly round quite a bit before the next dive. This may be done a dozen or more times until finally the bird in one of its headlong dives flattens out at tree-top level and comes to rest in a tree. Sometimes the performance is repeated in half an hour or so. While all this is in progress the male bird may be heard repeatedly calling from a tree in vicinity. This display is generally enacted between the hours of 8 a.m. and noon, and most often on bright sunny days with little or no wind. J. E. Flynn. 20 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol. xxxv. SPOONBILLS WINTERING IN CORNWALL. For the third successive time Spoonbills {Platalea leucorodia) have spent the winter on the Fal Estuary, Cornwall. As previously reported [antea, Vol. XXXII, P- 370 ; Vol. XXXIII, p. 29, and Vol. XXXIV, p. 67) four were first noticed in October, 1938. Three were present in mid-April, 1939, and one on April 29th. Of the four which came in October, 1939, two at least had arrived by 12th. Only one was seen from January to April, 1940. During the last winter the estuary was little visited ; four birds, however, were seen in late November, 1940, and mid-January, 1941 ; on April 7th, 1941, only two were present. P. I. R. Maclaren. PINK-FOOTED GOOSE IN CO. DUBLIN. On January 23rd, 1941, Mr. T. L. Cobbe obtained two adult Pink-footed Geese {Anser f. brachyrhynchus) on Rogerstown estuary, Co. Dublin. The skin of one of these is now in the National Museum, Dublin. Mr. Cobbe informs me that the two birds were shot by him from a party of four which he came on at dusk in the evening, when on the look out for Grey Lag. Particulars of eight occurrences of this species are given in my List of Irish Birds. Since then a further six occurrences are recorded from Ireland including the present one, which is the first for Co. Dublin. G. R. Humphreys. Winter Distribution of Gadw'all in Ireland. — Mr. G. R. Humphreys informs us that since the publication of his List of Irish Birds (1937), he has received particulars of Gadwall {Anas strepera) obtained during the shooting season in the counties of Kilkenny, Carlow and Longford, so that now the bird has been recorded from every county in Ireland. Glaucous Gull in Cornwall. — Mr. W. R. Taylor writes at the end of March, 1941, that an immature Glaucous Gull {Larus hyperboreus) had frequented the beach at Bude, Cornwall, for some time, being first seen on March 5th. The bird was compared with Great and Lesser Black-backed Gulls standing near and was seen to be approximately equal to the former in size. It was also noted that the wing-tips did not project beyond the tail. 7 lUN 1941 ‘•’i!RCHA3Er READY SHORTLY Final Volume of THE HANDBOOK OF BRITISH BIRDS [TERNS TO GAME-BIRDS] The Fifth and concluding Volume of this standard work includes the Terns, Gulls, Skuas, Auks, Rails and Game-birds. Also additions and corrections, an annotated systematic list and an index to the whole work. As in previous volumes there are a large number of coloured plates, some monochrome plates, many maps and text figures. IN FIVE VOLUMES— £S 5s- H. F. & G. WITHERBY LTD. ^26 High Holhorn, London^ W,C,i DRIT15M csBIRDS AIWUSTPeOtOmCOTE DD«7im(MflY‘TOTIlCBIRI)$ '^(SMiTiEDKnsitnsr^ JULY 1, 1941. Vol. XXXV. No. 2. MONTOIY ls9 1 1 1 19 15-8 9 1934 (Bucephala clangula) Tufted Duck 1 13 18 15-7 12 Dec. {Ay thy a fuligula) Red-breasted Merganser lO-I I ft. 14 26 21. g 18 27th, 1936 {Mergus serrator) Tufted Duck i 10 25 22.4 20 Feb. 19th, ■ 'Red-breasted Merganser f t 8 27 23 15 Goldeneye ,, 8 25 23 17 Common Pochard f 6 25 24 23 1939 ' {Aythya ferina) 'Smew 11-12 ft. 31 26 20.2 16 Feb. 25th, {Mergus albellus) Tufted Duck » 17 28 24.9 21 1940 'Goldeneye t 12 34 30 27 Dec. r 18 2S.6 23rd, Common Pochard 12-13 ft. 32 25 1928 Tufted Duck n 4 34 30.7 29 VOL. XXXV.] DIVING HABITS OF DUCKS. 23 It is not our intention to draw any definite conclusions [based on the above or on the individual records which follow, ior to attempt to reconcile the various averages with Dr. IDewar’s 20-10 seconds rule. Dr. Dewar in his latest valuable I contribution to the literature of this subject {antea, Vol. 'xxxiii, p. 58) has produced evidence that his rule can be , modified by special circumstances and demonstrates that the .presence of dense weed has the effect of prolonging the time •.taken by a bird to reach the bottom and in rising again to [the surface. He maintains, however, that bottom-time is not affected but remains more or less the same in all cases. But once it is admitted that certain known factors can cause a variation amounting to from 30 to 40 per cent, .between the 20-10 seconds rule and the observed times, [there appears to us to be no reason why other, as yet specula- ttive factors, may not have a similar effect, not only on the .actual dive-time but on bottom-time as well. The variations lin our records cannot be accounted for by the presence of \weed, for there was none, and if there had been it would have lhad an equal effect upon all birds diving together in that area. Speculation does not carry us very much farther towards aa reasonable explanation but we think our records prove tthat, apart from the presence of dense weed, some other as \yet unknown factor governs the length of the dive in some I cases. The following are various notes on individual species, 'Some of which have a direct bearing upon the above. The : Handbook referred to is, of course. The Handbook of British : Birds. Common Pochard [Aythya ferina). — The series of 18 dives [referred to in The Handbook contained one dive of 32 seconds aand six of 30. In our experience this species feeds less ffrequently during the day than the other diving-ducks and i?so has offered fewer opportunities for observation. Goldeneye {Bucephala clangula). — Altogether we have [timed 171 dives by this species in water ranging from 6 to 14 [feet in depth, the favourite depths apparently being from >8 to 10 feet. The maximum dive was 39 seconds, once only, and there were also four of 37 seconds, the average of the iiyi being 26 seconds. By the 20-10 second rule this works ■ out to a depth of 9.6 feet, in close agreement with our observa- [tion above as to favourite depths. On November ist, 1931, we watched three birds in very shallow water just bobbing under and reappearing almost immediately with small fish, levidently from a shoal swimming just below them. 24 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. Long-tailed Duck {Clangula hyemalis). Summary of Records. Depth. Number of Dives timed. Max. Mean. Min. 4-5 feet. 4 30 secs. 26 secs. 22 secs 5-6 .. 22 37 .. 30-4 .. 21 „ 8-9 „ II 40 .. 381 „ 36 ,, 9-10 „ 55 48 „ 40.2 ,, 33 .. 26-28 ,, 12 61 „ 56.3 .. 53 It is evident from our records that an immature male timed during November and December, 1934, had a dive-time in relation to depths of up to 9-10 feet at least, which was nearly 100 per cent, longer than that of other species of ducks we have timed. On the other hand on November 25th, 1928, we timed 12 dives by an adult female diving to a depth of 26-28 feet and her average was 56.3 seconds, which is almost exactly the time arrived at by the 20-10 second rule {antea, Vol. xxii, p. 264). We suggest that a species that can remain under for such a high average time — when it is probably reaching the limit of its endurance — is quite likely to extend its bottom-time at lesser depths if food is scarce and has to be searched for. We think that this suggestion is supported | by the diving of the bird we timed in 1934. Red-breasted Merganser {Mergus serrator). — Our obser- vations as to depths favoured and the length of the dive, agree closely with those published in The Handbook. It is interesting to note that the dive-time average is also near that of the Ferruginous Duck {Aythya n. nyroca), 24 seconds {antea, Vol. xxxiii, p. 278), and of Common Pochard, Tufted Duck and Goldeneye diving in the same depths (lo-ii feet). An adult female we timed on February 19th, 1939, was catching fish and was twice seen to bring one to the surface, the first after a dive of 15 seconds and the other after one of 26 seconds. The difference between these dives | could be accounted for by presuming that in the first case . the fish captured was swimming pelagically, and in the second I had to be searched for on or near the bottom. An interesting point is that after each of the 8 consecutive dives timed, and in fact, as long as we continued to watch this bird, it emerged on the surface within an inch or two of the spot where it dived, after the manner of the Coot {Fulica a. atra). Smew {Mergus albellus). Depth . 10- ii feet. 11- 12 ,, 12- 13 .. Summary of Records. No. of Dives timed. Max. Mean. 7 19 secs. iy.4 secs. 47 26 ,, 20.2 ,, 5 30 „ 24.8 „ Min. 15 secs 18 „ 20 ,, I VOL. XXXV.] DIVING HABITS OF DUCKS. 25 Unlike the Merganser mentioned above, the Smews we have watched have dived on a long slant, emerging at some distance from the point of entry. The statement in The Handbook that the dive “ rarely exceeds 15 seconds ” is not borne out by our observations. In addition to the records above, we timed a Smew in company with a Red-breasted Merganser, diving together to an unascertained depth. Five simultaneous dives were timed, the Merganser’s maximum being 42 seconds, mean 32 seconds, and minimum 26 seconds, while the Smew’s were maximum 30 seconds, mean 28.4 I seconds, and minimum 25 seconds. Out of a total of 64 dives i timed, the minimum was 15 seconds and that time was ! only recorded once. We should say, judging from some years ; experience, that 20 seconds is about the average. It will be ; noted that dive-time in relation to depth is considerably 1 shorter in this species than in other ducks, which rather I suggests that the Smew rarely goes to the bottom in its I search for food. We have watched them bringing fish to 1 the surface on very many occasions. Grebes. — We do not think that any of the grebes we have timed, with the possible exception of the Black-necked {Podiceps n. nigricollis) were diving to the bottom ; in fact, i we are certain that the remaining species were diving pelagic- ally. Great Crested Grebe {Podiceps c. cristatus). — Diving pelagically ; 21 dives timed, maximum 45 seconds, mean 23.5 seconds, minimum ii seconds. The average is a little below that given in The Handbook. Red-necked Grebe {Podiceps g. griseigena). — Diving pelagicaUy ; 10 dives timed, maximum 27 seconds, mean 20 seconds, minimum 12 seconds. No figures for the dive of this species are given in The Handbook. Although the number of dives timed is small, they were secured on two separate days when the bird was genuinely feeding. Dives made by a bird that is suspicious and trying to put as great a distance as possible between itself and the object of its ; suspicion, are apt to be considerably longer than when it is feeding naturally. Slavonian Grebe {Podiceps auritus). — Diving pelagically; 14 dives timed, maximum 31 seconds, mean 22.4 seconds, minimum 15 seconds. We should say that this species has a definitely lower average dive-time than the Great Crested. Black-necked Grebe {Podiceps n. nigricollis) .—Deg>i\\ 15-17 feet ; 38 dives timed, maximum 40 seconds, mean 26 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV, 32.2 seconds, minimum 15 seconds. It is almost certain that the birds (two different individuals) were going to the bottom, as no fish were brought to the surface. Possibly this species feeds more on bottom food than the other grebes we have timed, otherwise it is strange that the smallest of the four species should have the longest dive-time average. We have evidence, however, that fish are by no means an uncommon item of food. On March 19th, 1922, we saw one diving on Llanishen Reservoir and during the 15 minutes we watched, it twice rose with a fairly large fish in its bill which was not disposed of without considerable trouble in killing and swallowing. Again on February 24th, 1924, two birds were under observation for over 20 minutes at the same place. A number of fish were caught and brought to the surface, the successful fisher being constantly worried by its companion diving and coming up alongside and trying to snatch the fish. On September 22nd, 1935, one was seen feeding with some six or eight Little Grebes {Podiceps r. ruficollis). It had almost completely acquired its full winter plumage at that date. We timed some of its dives which ranged from 20 to 25 seconds while the Little Grebes’ were only 13 to 15 seconds. On several occasions this bird was obviously chasing the Little Grebes while submerged, for one would literally shoot up from below and scatter off over the water, the Black-necked emerging close on its tail in hot pursuit. One Little Grebe so chased definitely had a fish in its bill, evidently the object of attraction. Besides its usual methods of feeding by diving or picking up food from the surface of the water, we saw one on February 5th, 1922, pottering about in shallow water at the edge of Llanishen Reservoir with its head and neck submerged. It continued to feed like this for well over 20 minutes, the first and only time we have seen a grebe of any species feeding in this manner. In conclusion we should like to make it quite clear that all the records we have given were made over a number of years on fresh water, and during the season that lies between mid-November and mid-March. Comments and Additional Notes. by J. M. Dewar, M.D. Messrs. Ingram and Salmon kindly allowed me to see the manuscript of the above paper. For several years 1 have followed the work of these ornitholigists on diving birds VOL. XXXV.] DIVING HABITS OF DUCKS. 27 with greatest interest, and through their generosity have, from time to time, been made aware of their methods and results in greater detail than is possible in printed papers. In the course of years they have carried through a great deal of laborious and careful work on divers and for long enough I have been completely satisfied with the accuracy of their observations. Messrs. Ingram and Salmon have taken a different line from my own in seeking exceptions to the 20-10 seconds rule rather than concentrating, as I have done, on finding confirmation of the rule. But in so doing they have never lost their characteristic sense of fairness and whenever a record appeared to agree with the rule they have admitted as much at once. To seek e.xceptions to a rule is a perfectly legitimate pursuit. It cannot be expected that highly organized animals like birds should always behave as perfect automatons, and the more exceptions to the rule that are discovered the greater must be the evidence of plasticity of behaviour. Further, from the bird-watcher’s point of view the knowledge that exceptions occur and that they may even be numerous ought enormously to widen interest in the habits of diving birds. In the first “ summary of records,” if the Long-tailed Duck is excluded, the series shows uniformly minus differences from the 20-10 seconds rule, ranging from 1.3 per cent. (12-13 f^et) to 39 per cent. (lo-ii feet). Minus differences suggest a factor common to all the birds, namely pelagic diving, and not necessarily the presence of specific differences in diving times. Goldeneye. — The favourite depth agrees well with mine (6-12 feet) and there is also close agreement in the longest dives (39-36 seconds). The second “ summary of records ” (Long-tailed Duck) shows uniformly plus differences from the rule, and with the exception of the greatest depth the differences from the rule are fairly even — 48 per cent, in 4-5 feet, 60 in 5-6 feet, 59 in 8-9 feet, 55 in 9-10 feet. At present I may not comment on these figures as I have not yet been able to get any timings of the Long-tailed Duck. In both ‘‘ summaries ” it will be noticed that the times increase with depth though admittedly not in a uniform manner. This increase with depth (it was noted by Gatke and Brock long ago) is the crucial problem of the diving habit. The comparative regularity of the increase with depth is not quite explained by Messrs. Ingram and Salmon’s sugges- 28 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. tion that the maximum period of immersion of which the bird is capable is available for use at any depth especially when food is scarce. A gradual increase of time with depth appears to be universal in birds and nothing like it is found in mammals, with the possible exception of the Platypus of Australia, so far as my own observations and records in the literature show. Red-breasted Merganser. — The 15 and 26 second dives can also be explained as (i) a shortest time to bottom (no bottom-time), and (2) a normal dive with bottom-time. The difference of ii seconds (= duration of hypothetical bottom- time) favours my explanation, but there is no real reason to reject Messrs. Ingram and Salmon’s hypothesis of successive pelagic and bottom-dives. The return of this species to the same “ spot in space ” on the surface after each dive is, I think, a new observation. The Pochard has this uncanny power very well developed. In the Scottish Zoological Park an individual of this species which returns regularly to the spot in space was seen to make excursions over the bottom during each dive so that the dives are not mere down-and-ups like those of the Coot. Smew. — The Handbook 15 seconds is certainly too short as a maximum rarely exceeded. My longest is 24 seconds. Messrs. Ingram and Salmon’s figures suggest pelagic diving. Twenty dives in 2 feet of water (unpubl.) averaged 11.2 seconds, which is 9 per cent, below expectation. Black-necked Grebe.- — It seems to be agreed that this species is not a great fish-eater, but lives mostly on bottom- dwelling insects. I have timed (unpubl.) 14 dives in 4 feet = 16 seconds and 5 dives in 8.5 feet = 24 seconds. Until more series are timed it remains open whether the birds timed by Messrs. Ingram and Salmon were actually reaching bottom. Their figures of 40-32. 2. -15 seconds show a very unequal scatter of the individual times which means that the average (32.2) will have too high a probable error to be immediately accepted as the correct time for a depth of 15-17 feet. There is much in Messrs. Ingram and Salmon’s papers on the diving habit that is incapable of explanation in the present state of knowledge. Solutions to these problems will undoubtedly come, and there is no better method of study than that followed by the Cardiff ornitholigists in trying to correlate diving times with depth of water, nature and relative abundance of the food-organisms, and other local conditions. (29) INTELLIGENCE TESTS WITH TITS. BY M. BROOKS-KING. V/iTH the idea of testing the ability of birds to solve problems, I carried out some experiments in February, 1941, which seemed to need a definite amount of intelligence for their solution. My subjects were a pair of Blue Tits {Parus c. obscurus), and a pair of Great Tits (P. m. newtoni), just ordinary wild birds, inhabiting the garden of the house where I was living. My tests consisted in placing food in a position where it could not be obtained without solving a problem. In their search for their natural food the Tits no doubt come up against difficulties, such as the extraction of a grub from a crevice in the bark of a tree. The natural reaction is to peck away the obstruction, till the food is reached ; and this, incidentally, is what my birds tried to do at first, in the case of the problems I set them. But the correct solution of the problems needed an action quite foreign to the normal ways of the birds in obtaining their food, so that neither instinct nor memory would come to their aid. To begin with I hung up some monkey nuts on a wire, and also pur some shelled ones in a little wire basket. The speed with which they were found by the birds was remarkable ; in fact, throughout the tests, the quickness of the birds in discovering the nuts, often hardly visible, quite amazed me. As soon as the birds had become used to expecting a constant supply of food, I adopted two new methods of feeding. These are shown in the accompanying sketches A and B. Up to now the nuts had been taken away ; but both these feeders made it necessary for the food to be eaten in situ. The Tits at once became reconciled to this ; and I then started with my “ puzzle boxes.” The first of these was formed from Feeder B. The aperture was bunged, and a receptacle similar to Feeder A was lowered into the cylinder, with a string projecting over the top. The first to arrive was a Blue Tit. Naturally he went straight to the aperture, and seemed much perturbed when he found it blocked. He spent some seconds in trying to pick out the bung ; but finding it beyond his strength, he began searching for another way in, and in doing so, hopped on top, where, of course, he could see the nuts. He made one attempt to reach them, and then pulled the container up by the string, when it was arranged that it jammed, so that he could take his nut at will. The problem had been solved at first attempt ; D 'M) BRITISH BIRDS [VOL. XXXV. and the whole process had taken less than half a minute. On subsequent occasions both Blue and Great Tits solved this problem, with very few failures, probably due to a new bird arriving for the first time. The next problem was more difficult, in that the nuts could be seen from all angles, and not only at the position from which they could be reached. For this test receptacle A was slung inside a small wire cage, in the side of which was a small aperture, through which passed a string attached to the receptacle. With the memory of feeding through the bars of Feeder A, the birds tried unsuccessfully to reach the nuts through the cage from several points. In all about a dozen fruitless attempts were made. I then fixed the receptacle in the aperture, in such a way that a slight push would cause it to swing free. The next Tit to arrive found the nuts at once ; but in pecking at them, knocked them out of reach. But he was only puzzled for a moment. Almost at once he pulled the container towards him by the string, only to lose it again, when he let go to peck at the nuts. Again his embarrass- ment lasted for a few moments only ; then he completed the solution of the problem by putting a foot on the string ! Later on a Blue Tit, probably the same bird, solved the problem completely, the nuts hanging free on his arrival. The Great Tit, which had not been in evidence earlier, also made a complete solution, and at his first attempt. So far, the solution of the problems had been by means of related actions ; by which 1 mean that it could be seen that the string was attached to the receptacle, and it needed very little intelligence, though I consider that intelligence was needed, to realize that by pulling the string, the nuts would be brought within reach. What was now required was some apparatus which would test the ability of the birds to profit by an accidental discovery. The apparatus used is shown in sketch C. It consisted of a match-box, with a part of the cover cut away. A piece of card placed inside the box caused the nut within to roll out through the aperture and to fall into the tray below, when the box was partly opened. It was in connection with this test that the extraordinary observation of the birds was noticed. One is almost tempted to believe that a keen sense of smell was manifested. When the box was closed, the nut was only just visible through the hole in the cover, when looking upward from immediately below. Yet a Blue Tit landed on a wire four feet away, and above the box, and then flew to the match-box feeder, which he had not seen before, and at once began pecking at the VOL. XXXV.] INTELLIGENCE TESTS WITH TITS. 31 j nut through the aperture. After a few abortive attempts he j gave it up ; and thereafter neither of the Blue Tits had any success with this problem. The cock Great Tit was lucky : in trying to excavate the nut from several points he started pecking at the top of the box, so opening it. Away he went with the nut, to return some five minutes later. I 0 I A. A coil of wire with closed ends, containing nuts. ! B. A wooden cylinder, containing nuts, with an aperture in the side, through which the nuts can be eaten. The top is closed ; but is open for the first problem. i C. Match-Box Feeder (Open). 1 . Cover. 2. Aperture through which nut falls. 3. Box,, opening vertically, when tapped from above. 4. Sloping card in the box, causing the nut to roll out of the aperture. 5. Tray (a second box) to catch the nut. C I. View of box, showing the sloping card. Now his obtaining of the nut was what I call an unrelated action, in that the tapping down of the box was not an obvious I method of getting at the food. One might suppose that on I his return he would try every method again, and only open ! the box if by accident he happened to perform the same I operation once more. But no. On his second, and on every subsequent visit, he went straight to the top of the box. 32 BRITISH BIRDS. [vOL. XXXV. and tapped with his beak till he had opened it sufficiently for the nut to be released. This would need several blows ; and he would give a few taps, and then look over into the tray, to see if the nut had dropped ; showing that he under- stood perfectly the mechanism of the apparatus. The hen Great Tit never had the luck to find out the trick for herself. She once saw her mate open the box ; but apparently could not learn by example, at any rate at one lesson. She invariably tried to excavate the nut from the front, and eventually wrecked the box. One other test may be mentioned, though its solution was not so certain. I put out three similar match-box feeders, with a nut in one only. The cock Great Tit made two or three attempts before he found the right one ; but, having done so, never made a mistake afterwards. It happened that the correct box was nearest to the point where he usually perched on his arrival. But he had not gone to this box on the first occasion ; so perhaps this test was also successfully passed. I may say that all these tests were carried out within two feet of a window, the match-box feeder being actually fixed to the sash run of the window itself. I was thus able to observe the actions of the birds at close quarters. The question as to how far animals are capable of intelligent reasoning is one on which there are differences of opinion. Personally, after witnessing the actions of these birds during a series of quite difficult tests, I find it hard to reconcile them with the notion that bird behaviour is governed by instinct and memory alone. (33) REPORT ON THE EFFECT OF THE SEVERE WINTER OF 1939-40 ON BIRD-LIFE IN THE AREA WITHIN 20 MILES OF LONDON. BY R. S. R. FITTER. I This report is intended to supplement the “ Report on the I effect of the severe winter of 1939-40 on bird-life in the British Isles ” which has already appeared in this journal [antea, Vol. xxxiv, pp. 118, 142), and details which were ; given there, such as those relating to the weather, are, I therefore, not repeated. To facilitate comparison, the same ; section-headings are used as in the previous report. The I area covered is that lying within 20 miles of St. Paul’s ! Cathedral, the area of the London Natural History Society. GENERAL EFFECTS ON BIRDS. Birds Found Dead. Nine species of birds, mainly the larger ones, were found dead : Chaffinches in and around Bushy Park ; Fieldfares and i Redwings at Watford ; many Blackbirds in Bushy Park and at Westerham ; two Herons at Enfield Lock and two in Bushy Park ; a Mallard in Richmond Park ; a Curlew at Farleigh ; many Moorhens and Coots at Gatton Park. Icing of Plumage and Feet. Only one case of icing was reported, at Bickley, Kent, on January 28th, where a Black-headed Gull was observed to rise with difficulty from the snow-covered ground, owing to a lump of ice as big as a golf-ball dangling from its right foot (R. W. Hale). Unusual Feeding Habits. As in the cold spell of December, 1938, many unusual birds came to feed in gardens in and around London during the hard weather. They included a Brambling (Leytonstone), Sky-Larks (Leytonstone, Limpsfield, St. John’s Wood), a Meadow-Pipit (Hendon), Fieldfares (Carshalton, Wembley), Redwings (Upper Norwood), Black-headed Gulls (Bickley, Richmond, St. John’s Wood, Southgate) and Common Gulls (Richmond, St. John’s Wood). At Cheshunt Fieldfares and Redwings came to a garden during the cold spell, but would not accept food. In Richmond Park a Coot was seen eating a dead Mallard frozen into the ice. .‘{4 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. Many birds were reported as exhausted or very tame, includ- ing Sky-Larks, Fieldfares, Redwings and Black-headed Gulls. Unusual Movements. The hard weather resulted in many unusual movements of birds into the London area. Siskins were unusually abundant in Bushy Park, where there were about loo on February 3rd. Bullhnches were driven from a favourite haunt on Hampstead Heath by the cold weather, but returned later. The numbers of Chaffinches roosting in Bushy Park were much reduced during the cold spell, though they were unusually abundant in nearby gardens ; over 80 were seen in Regent’s Park on January 9th. As in the cold spell of the previous winter, movements of Sky-Larks took place, though on a smaller scale. The first movement began on January 27th, when nine flocks, amount- ing to about 150 birds, flew over Woodford from the S.W. That night there was a heavy fall of snoW, and on the 28th about 3,000 Larks were counted at Beddington sewage farm, where the previous day there had been no unusual numbers ; most of them had left by February 3rd. On the 28th also some Sky-Larks flew over Colindale, and six fed by a rubbish- heap from January 29th to February 8th. On January 29th many Sky-Larks were noted on railway embankments in south London ; 15 were feeding on an allotment at Kew ; and one very weak bird was seen on the frozen lake in St. James’s Park, where three birds were seen on February ist. On February ist there were many Sky-Larks along the Thames towpath at Mortlake. On February 2nd one came to a garden in St. John’s Wood and a flock of 20 flew over towards Regent’s Park, where a flock of 37 was seen on February 6th, gradually diminishing in numbers till only one was left on February 22nd ; on February 6th there were two Sky-Larks at Lords. The second movement occurred on February 17th, again coinciding with a heavy fall of snow, when more Larks were seen flying over Woodford, and over 1,500 were counted feeding at Beddington ; on the i6th two visited a garden at Limpsfleld. The movements of Fieldfares roughly corresponded with those of Sky-Larks. At Colindale they came with the snow on January 17th and stayed till March loth ; at Beddington sewage farm they were very plentiful on January 28th-29th ; in Regent’s Park there were ten on February loth and one on February 13th ; and flocks passed over St. John’s Wood on February 19th and March 3rd. An unusual number of VOL. XXXV.] EFFECT OF SEVERE WINTER. 35 Blackbirds wintered in Bushy Park. There were no Redwings in Bushy Park during the cold spell, but they returned in larger numbers than usual as soon as it ceased and stayed in force later than usual. Movements were noted over Islington on January 23rd and over Finsbury Circus on February 23rd. A few Redwings appeared in the central parks ; nine in Regent’s Park on February loth and three in St. James’s Park on February 12th. The cold weather brought three kinds of geese into the London area {antea, Vol. xxxiii, p. 315 ; xxxiv, p. 143), viz., White-fronted, Bean and Brent, and the freezing over of many of the reservoirs resulted in some thousands of duck resorting to the Thames, especially in the neighbourhood of Chiswick Eyot. Eleven different species were noted, viz.. Mallard, Gadwall, Teal, Wigeon, Pochard, Tufted Duck, Scaup, Goldeneye, Goosander, Red-breasted Merganser and Smew. The partly frozen lake in St. James’s Park was visited by a Smew in January and a Goosander in February. Among the waders, movements of Golden Plover, Dunlin and Curlew were reported. Curlews were seen in eight different localities round London during the cold spell, these comprising more than half the sight records of Curlew for January and February in the London area since 1900. Dunlin appeared in three places, including the Thames foreshore near Hammer- smith Bridge ; Dunlin inland in winter are a sure sign of hard weather in the London area. A movement of Golden Plover took place in the last three days of December, when a flock passed west over St. John’s Wood, and odd birds were seen on the Thames mud at Chiswick Eyot and at Beddington sewage farm. Fertility. In Bushy Park there were many short sets and infertile eggs among Blackbirds, Song-Thrushes and Hedge-Sparrows. Curiously- enough, however, the majority of these were in late April and May, when it might be supposed that the effect of the cold winter would have passed, while on the other hand there were more c/5 than usual among the early nests. A possible explanation is that the cold weather lowered the fertility of the birds to an extent that exhausted them after the first laying.* Effect on Breeding Status. Reed-Buntings and Stonechats seemed to return to their breeding haunts on Epsom and Littleworth Commons late and in much reduced numbers. *In other reports early broods were small or absent and later ones normal (c/. antea, Vol. xxxiv, p. 144). — Eds. 36 BRITISH BIRDS [VOL. XXXV. House-Sparrows at Fetcham were much reduced in numbers. They never returned after leaving for the fields in the autumn of 1939, and very few were about till the 1940 young appeared. Tree-Creepers were apparently reduced in numbers in Bushy Park. The breeding status of Long-tailed Tits in Surrey does not seem to have been affected. No Dartford Warblers were reported from the locality in Surrey where they usually breed. A big decrease of Wrens in Richmond Park was attributed to the cold spell. Big decreases in nesting pairs were reported at the heronries at Burwood Park (16 to 7) and Wanstead Park (13 to 5), and a smaller decrease at Richmond Park (61 to 55), but at Gatton Park numbers were stable (3) and at Walthamstow there was a small increase (45 to 46). There was thus a decrease of 16 per cent, in the breeding population of Herons in the London area, compared with a fall of 25 per cent, in the country as a whole. List of Observers. Thanks are due to the London Natural History Society for the use of its records, and to the following observers whose notes have gone to make up this paper : Messrs. C. B. Ashby, F. J. F. Barrington, Miss B. E. Brown, Messrs. H. J. Burkill, V. R. Garrett, H. Gaster, W. E. Glegg, K. E. Hoy, Mrs. H. M. Rait Kerr, Dr. G. C. Low, Messrs. L. Parmenter, W. D. Park, E. R. Parrinder, W. R. Philipson, J. H. G. Peterken, A. C. G. Poore, J. E. Roberts, J. A. Smeed, A. R. Sumerfield, A. V. Tucker, Miss D. Whitehead, Messrs. I. A. Williams and W. A. Wright. Special thanks are due to Mr. Roberts, who sent in a detailed report on the effect of the cold weather in Bushey Park. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Fitter, R. S. R., and Homes, R. C. : " The Effects of the Severe Weather, December iyth-26th, 1938.” London Bird Report, 1938. London Bird Report, 1939 and 1940. Ticehurst, N. F., and Witherby, H. F. : ‘‘ Report on the Effect of the Severe Winter of 1939-40 on Bird-Life in the British Isles,” British Birds, Vol. xxxiv, pp. 118, 142. more SI SISKIN NESTING IN ARGYLL. On May i8th, 1924, my father and I found the nest of a Siskin {Carduelis spimis) at Acharacle, Argyll. It was about twenty feet up on the spreading bough of an exotic fir (species not recorded) in a large garden. When my father climbed to it, both birds came very close to him and he was able to identify them clearly. The nest was built of twigs and moss, lined with wool and hair, with several feathers curling over the cup. There were two eggs on May i8th, and subsequently five were laid. Although I have not since found a nest in the district, Siskins have many times been seen both at Acharacle and along the north side of Loch Sunart, as far west as Glen- borrodale, in spring and summer. I have no records for the winter. The species is not included as breeding in Argyll by the Misses E. V. Baxter and L. J. Rintoul in their Geo- graphical Distribution and Status of Birds in Scotland. Bruce Campbell. SONG OF FEMALE CHAFFINCH. On April 29th, 1934, a hen Chaffinch [Fringilla c. gengleri) pitched on the apex of an annexe outside my bedroom window at Porlock, Somerset, and sang five or six sharp, quick notes in a slightly ascending scale. These resembled the first phrase of the cock Chaffinch’s normal song, but did not quite attain to its brilliance. The song suggested call notes strung together, and was much the same as the song of the female Chaffinch described by Lord Grey in The Charm of Birds (p. 80). E. W. Hendy. [For a previous note on this subject cf. antea, Vol. xxxiv, p. 261.— Eds.] EXCREMENT REMOVAL BY FEMALE ROBIN. In connection with the papers on nest -sanitation recently published in British Birds, an instance of faeces removal away from the nest may be worth recording. In April, 1940, a female Robin {Erithacus r. melophilus), nesting in my garden at Shrewsbury, was in the habit of coming to the doorstep to collect mealworms which were provided for her. On several occasions my sister (Miss V. O. Lloyd) noticed that when the bird defaecated on the doorstep she at once picked up the excrement in her beak and carried it off, to drop it some distance away. The action occurred during a 38 BRITISH BIRDS. [vOL. XXXV. few days only, while the bird was feeding young in the nest ; both before and after this period she made no attempt to remove her own faeces. This appears to be an example of what the psychologists, I believe, call the “ equivalence of stimuli ” ; the bird, having been accustomed to perform a certain action in a certain set of circumstances (removal of the excrement of the young from the nest), transferred the action to other circumstances perhaps superficially similar but essentially different (removal of her own excrement from a place some distance from the nest). L. C. Lloyd. GREAT SPOTTED WOODPECKER IN WEST HIGHLANDS. On August 14th, 1934, what I now believe to have been a Great Spotted Woodpecker {Dryobaies m. anglicus) flew out over Loch Sunart from woods about three miles west of Salen (Argyll), but it was not until April, 1937, that I satisfactorily identified the bird at Salen. A pair, one very ragged (possibly after a nesting season ?) was seen two miles west, and borings found in a rotten alder four miles west of Salen in July, 1937. By April, 1938, the call of this species was heard daily round Salen and during the month I had a fine view of one drumming on the metal cap of a post carrying electric power through the scrub woods behind the village. In April, 1939, my brother flushed a bird from inside a hole which it had bored in a roadside birch near Salen. Ardnamurchan is a considerable advance to the west on the area marked on the map in Volume II of the Handbook, and marks the bird’s limit in this direction unless it crosses over to Mull. On April 19th, 1935, I saw a Great Spotted Woodpecker and found several borings in birch trees in the scrub woods beside the River Oich to the west of Fort Augustus, Inverness-shire. Bruce Campbell. NESTING OF THE GOOSANDER IN NORTHUMBERLAND. On April 29th, 1941, in the valley of the River Coquet, some ten miles west of Rothbury, Northumberland, a young farmer found a nest of the Goosander {Mergus m. merganser). The nest was in a hollow tree at ground level about 20 yards from the river. When found it contained eight eggs and this number increased to eleven ; but unfortunately the position of the nest became known to other people and all the eggs were taken except two, when the duck deserted and has not VOL. XXXV.] NOTES. 39 been seen since. The finder states that he had seen a pair of Goosanders in the neighbourhood since the middle of December. This is the first time he has seen Goosanders on the Coquet in the breeding season, though they are fairly regular winter visitors. An egg and some of the down and feathers from the nest were kindly sent to me by the finder and they prove without a doubt that the identification of the species was correct. Of recent years Goosanders have been observed to remain in other parts of the county until well into the month of May and breeding has been suspected ; but this is the first recorded instance of a nest having been found. George W. Temperley. EARLY BREEDING OF GREAT CRESTED GREBE IN DERBYSHIRE. On May 2nd, 1941, I saw a pair of Great Crested Grebes I [Podiceps c. cristatus) accompanied by four young ones not more than a few days old, on a pond near Ashbourne (Derby- shire) where one pair now breeds regularly. As the incubation period is some 28 days they must have had eggs at the end of March. The birds do not winter here. They leave in the autumn and return to the pond about the middle of March. This year I saw the first bird (one) on March 13th — rather earlier than usual. It has been a particularly cold and late spring here with constant east winds. Kathleen Hollick. GLAUCOUS GULLS IN HAMPSHIRE. As the Glaucous Gull {Lams hyperhoreus) is rarely seen along the Hampshire coast, and so far as I am aware all previous records have been for the winter months, it may be of interest to record that on the afternoon of May 24th, 1941, I watched a pair swimming on one of the marshy inlets near Lymington. There were a number of Herring-Gulls in the vicinity, and the large size, very pale grey back and wings, yellow bill and the absence of black in the wings was very noticeable at a distance of not more than 30 yards. The birds appeared to be adults as I could see no dark markings on their tails or bills. Enid Gaynor Davies. PARTRIDGE ATTACKING WOUNDED BIRD OF COVEY. It may be worth recording that a cock Partridge {Perdix p. perdix) will attack a wounded bird of its covey. This has twice been witnessed by me in winter time when a Partridge was shot on the ground from among the covey by a sportsman (?) who was probably invisible to the birds. 40 BRITISH BIRDS. [vOL. XXXV. In each case at the sound of the shot all the survivors of the covey rose, leaving one bird fluttering on the ground. While the remainder flew away one bird settled momentarily at a distance of about 6o yards away and then flew straight back and settled by the struggling bird. It immediately attacked it vigorously by pecking at its head. In both cases the attacking bird was shot and identified as an adult cock. C. F. Tebbutt. Hawfinch in Orkney. — Commander M. Fogg-Elliott, R.N., records {Field, May loth, 1941, p. 596) that a Hawfinch [Coccothraustes c. coccothraustes) was found with a slight wing injury in the garden of Melsetter House, Hoy, Orkney, and was later released. Commander Fogg-Elliott informs us that the bird was found on April 5th, 1941, and remained until the iith or 12th when it was able to fly normally. The only previous record we have of the species in Orkney was of one caught in Birsay on October 22nd, 1936 (J. G. Marwick in lilt.). Blue-headed Wagtails in Cornwall. — Miss J. M. Ferrier writes that on May 8th, 1941, she watched a party of six Wagtails arrive from over the sea at the Lizard. They alighted on a marshy meadow and allowed examination at close quarters, two pairs were Blue-headed Wagtails {Motacilla f. flava) and one pair Yellow Wagtails. They all afterwards flew off inland. Fulmar Petrel in Surrey. — Mr. J. R. le B. Tomlin informs us that a Fidmams g. glacialis was found dead in a wood on Whitmoor Common, near Guildford, by Lt. W. P. G. Taylor, on April 20th, 1941. Wood-Pigeon Cooing While on the Ground. — In connection with Major Ruttledge’s note {antea, Vol. xxxiv, p. 263) Mr. H. Collison informs us that in St. James’s Park some years ago he was able to induce a Wood-Pigeon {Columha p. palumbus) on the ground to “ coo ” in response to an imitation of the note. Black Tern in Monmouthshire. — We are informed by Mrs. Constance A. Hare that she and her husband watched a Black Tern {Chlidonias n. niger) for a considerable time on April 22nd or 23rd, 1941, near Abergavenny. Mrs. Hare, who has given us satisfactory particulars of identification, states that it was a single bird and was flying to and fro over the River Usk amongst newly arrived Swallows. The species has very seldom been reported from Monmouth. 3 jUi- 041 pUBCHAS^'^ INTERNATIONAL WILD FOWL INQUIRY Volume I FACTORS AFFECTING THE GENERAL STATUS OF WILD GEESE AND WILD DUCK with 22 figures in the text 8j. 6d. net. To obtain accurate information on the vast changes in the numbers and distribution of wild fowl in the last hundred years the International Committee for Bird Preservation adopted a far-reaching scheme of investigation. In this introductory volume of the Committee’s report some of these factors have been considered in a general way and some in a more particular way, as a result of personal experiences on the spot. Already published : Volum.eII. THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF WILD GEESE AND WILD DUCK IN SCOTLAND By JOHN BERRY. loj. 6d. net. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS BOUND VOLUMES AND SETS OF BRITISH BIRDS Volumes I— XII (1907—1919) including Index Vol., £8. Volumes XIII— XXV (1920—1932) £13. SPECIAL OFFER to Subscribers taking the COMPLETE SET of the 25 Volumes (including the Index to Volumes I — XII) £18. Single Volumes of recent years £1 4s. 6d. each. TTie books are strongly bound in brown cloth, gold lettered, with gilt tops. H. F. & G. WITHERBY, 326, High Holborn, LONDON, W.C.l. READY SHORTLY Final Volume of THE HANDBOOK OF BRITISH BIRDS [TERNS TO GAME-BIRDS] The Fifth and concluding Volume of this standard work includes the Terns, Gulls, Skuas, Auks, Rails and Game-birds. Also additions and corrections, an annotated systematic list and an index to the whole work. As in previous volumes there are a large number of coloured plates, some monochrome plates, many maps and text figures. IN FIVE VOLUMES— £S 5S- if. F. & G. JVITHERBY LTD. ^26 High Holborn^ London^ JV.C.i Dwnsn BIRDS Aiwu^reoEDiiviAzirc DD«7IIIHMtDr-1i9111QnRDS MOMTniY'IsSd.YEARLY'ZO'i ■aMiiKnuHJioRasnDOK iir&G-wfimBirLiv- THE POPULAR SERIES OF BIRD-LOVERS’ MANUALS BIRD MIGRATION A. Landsborough Thomson. Illus. Sm.Cr.8vo. 5s. net. HOW TO KNOW BRITISH BIRDS Norman H. Joy. Illus. Sm.Cr.8vo. 5s. net. BIRDS OF THE GREEN BELT R. M. Lockley. Illus. Sm.Cr.8vo. 5s. net. EVERY GARDEN A BIRD SANCTUARY E. L. Turner. Illus. Sm.Cr.8vo. 5s. net. BIRD RESERVES By E. C. ARNOLD. Illustrated with 9 plates in colour and 12 in black-and-white by the author Readers will surely agree with the author, after reading his delight- ful book, that the ;^ioo he paid for a pond proved a thoroughly successful and sound investment. Medium 4/0 . . . . . .15^. net. Postage 9d. SONGS OF WILD BIRDS Fourth Impression ready shortly. By E. M. NICHOLSON and LUDWIG KOCH. Introduction by Julian Huxley. With two double-sided lo-inch gramophone records featuring the Nightingale, Cuckoo, Blackbird, Song Thrush, Pied Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Robin, Wren, Hedge-Sparrow, Turtle-Dove, Wood-Pigeon, Chaffinch, Willow Warbler, Whitethroat and Great Tit. 25s. net. By the same authors Postage 8d. MORE SONGS OF WILD BIRDS 15s. net. Postage 8d. H. F. & G. WITHERBY LTD. BRniSnDIWB With which 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 Norman F. Ticehurst, o.b.e., m.a., f.r.c.s., m.b.o.u., and Bernard W. Tucker, m.a., f.z.s., m.b.o.u. Contents of Number 3, Vol. XXXV., August i, 1941. PAGE Some breeding-habits of the Black-winged Stilt. Bv G. K. Yeates, B.A., F.R.P.S., M.B.O.U Notes on the Spring Territory of the Blackbird. By David Lack and William Light . . Display in Blackbirds. By H. Lambert Lack 42 47 54 Notes : — Interbreeding of Hooded and Carrion-Crow for third time in Co. Dublin. (Rev. P. G. Kennedy) . . . . . . . . 58 Display by Chaffinch (Miss W. M. Ross) . . . . . . 58 Three Long-tailed Tits feeding one brood (J. A. Gibb) . . 59 Spotted Flycatcher breeding in Orkney (Commander M. Fogg Elliot, R.N.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Dipper on Bucks-Herts Boundary (R. H. Ryall) . . . . 59 Green Woodpecker in North Northumberland (D. H. Joicey) 59 Display of the Sparrow-Hawk (M. N. and D. H. Rankin) . . 60 Common Pochard breeding in N. Lancashire (J. A. G. Barnes) 60 Breeding of the Fulmar Petrel in Cumberland (J. F. Stirling and G. K. Robinson) . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Woodcock’s Method of Carrying Young (C. W. Mackworth Praed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Flock of Roseate Terns in Cheshire (A. W. Boyd) . . . . 62 Kittiwakes in Surrey in June (E. G. Pedler) . . . . . . 62 Abstracts : — Further Results of Marking Ducks in Russia. . . . . . 62 Results of Ringing Birds in Egypt . . . . . . . . 64 D (42) SOME BREEDING-HABITS OF THE BLACK-WINGED STILT BY G. K. YEATES, b.a., f.r.p.s., m.b.o.u. The following observations on the Black - winged Stilt (Himantopus h. himantopus) were made in the Camargue at the end of April and early May, 1937. For many reasons I was unable to observe the full breeding cycle. These notes therefore refer only to the bird’s behaviour for the period just prior to laying and for the first week after the eggs were in the nest. IQ37 was a dry year in the Rhone-delta, although the water level was by no means so low as in extreme seasons e.g., 1938. It was sufficient, however, to cause desertion of the normal breeding-grounds round Salin de Badon, and it was not until the close of my stay that I discovered a small colony of four pairs of Stilts near Les Grandes Cabanes on the western side of the delta. When first located, the Stilts spent their time on a small pool of flood water surrounded by extensive areas of dried mud flat from which grew stumpy bushes of Salicornia, with occasional clumps of sea lavender and an odd tamarisk dotted about. During this early period, exactly ten days before the clutch was complete, as I later discovered, the Stilts confined their attention to the pool, amongst the many dry tussocks of which I imagined they were preparing to nest. During this time there was strangely little sex-display, and the birds, very noticeably divided into pairs, spent the day in feeding, often wading to considerable depths. Already, however, the territorial instinct was developed, and no invasion of their particular areas was allowed. Human intrusion, even at this stage, was greeted with considerable demonstrative activity, and my early attempts to locate a nest amongst the tussocks were met with more yelping and anxiety than I later found to be the case at the nest itself, although ten days had yet to run before the eggs were laid, and the selected site was in fact at least 200 yards away from the pool on which I began searching. So wholehearted indeed was their anxiety that I felt certain eggs were already laid. Anxiety was e.xpressed chiefly in flight, both birds of the pair keeping close together in the air. The note is a very insistent and monotonous kik-kik-kik, varied in little bursts of two or three, but with short intervals between each. Slight variations, to my ear sounded like ky-ick or ky-ack. From "d u a p tuO P o CO T3 s a;* ft ■ 'c O be C bs -s; I" "o •« a. o5 a either to attack or to court the specimens, which were soon i ignored. Pair-formation. One pair had formed before February 13th, another before t the end of February, but how long before is not known. The great scarcity of Blackbirds in autumn prevented further work on the time of pair-formation. But a male was seen t following after a female on December 3rd. Also, in a garden j at Horsham, Sussex, on December 25th, 1940, two Blackbird { pairs were already definitely formed, and at Kew on January : 13th, 1941, many pairs had already been formed, and t territorial encounters were seen. Coward (1939) considers ithat pair-formation occurs in October and November ; he gives no details, but doubtless had more data than he published, j The manner of pair-formation and the first staking out of the j territories would well repay investigation. I Morley (1937) and Lack (1941) describe remarkable com- t munal display among Blackbirds from early spring to April. i Coward’s mention {loc. cit.) of six males fighting for one female I perhaps refers to the same phenomenon. Since Blackbirds { pair up before midwinter, the relation of these communal j gatherings to pair-formation needs further study. Despite ) careful watch, no such gatherings were seen at Dartington. ( D. Lack saw such a communal display near Richmond, i Surrey, in February 1941, and this without special watch ( being kept. A good performance is conspicuous. Perhaps f they are a local phenomenon. The shyness of the birds, and the fact that only one resident i female was ringed, made it difficult to determine accurately I the proportion of mated to unmated males at Dartington. I At the end of March, of seven males, five were definitely mated and two definitely unmated. It is not known if the I latter obtained mates later in the season. Song. Like Colquhoun (1940), we found that a few males sang l( fairly frequently, a few were never heard to sing at all, most i sang occasionally and quite sporadically. Song was definitely ! rather more frequent from unmated than mated males, but even unmated males sang very irregularly. Blackbirds started singing in the fourth week of February, but little song was heard till near the end of March, with an increase in April. 52 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol. xxxv. (1940 was a late spring. In 1941 one male was singing in late January). The two functions usually attributed to song are advertise- ment (a) of territory, (b) of an unmated male. Round Dartington most male Blackbirds have staked out territories and possessed mates for several weeks, and, if Coward is correct, several months, before they start to sing. Hence, though unmated males sing somewhat more than mated ones, song would seem to have little or no survival value to the species at the present time, which is particularly curious in view of the beauty of the song. But, as compared with typical song-birds, the Blackbird has a relatively small territory for its size, and is visually conspicuous, while pair-formation appears to have been pushed back to the autumn. As Colquhoun points out, the song has relatively poor carrying power compared with that of other Turdus spp. Observations would be of interest on the continent of Europe in places where the bird is, at least partially, a summer visitor and presumably stakes out territory and forms into pairs after arrival in spring. Mobbing Behaviour. When Blackbirds discover a Tawny Owl [Strix aluco) they gather round with loud calls. In the cases we observed, such gatherings were started by the resident female of the territory giving a characteristic “ quick quick " call, which was promptly taken up by neighbouring Blackbirds of both sexes, the call of the males being not so loud as that of the females. If the original female continued to call, neighbouring Blackbirds of both sexes would fly to the spot. Territorial boundaries are forgotten, and males perch close together and if the Owl takes wing, fly on after it together. Similarly the otherwise rigidly territorial males of the Red Bishop-Bird {Euplectes hordeacea) left their territories to join in mobbing a Coucal {Centropus superciliosus (Lack (1935).) At at least half such gatherings, we did not find an Owl. In one case we suspected a rat, but many others were de- finitely false alarms. Other Localities. Casual observations at Kew and near Richmond, Surrey, in the early spring of 1941 suggest that territorial and other behaviour may be rather different in areas where the bird is densely distributed from that observed at Dartington. Lurther study is desirable. VOL. XXXV.] SPRING TERRITORY OF BLACKBIRD. 53 Summary. 1. Breeding pairs of Blackbirds own sharply defined territories some two acres in size. 2. Defence is mainly by the male and threat-display is described. The orange-yellow beak, inside of mouth and eyelid may be used as threat colours. 3. Pair-formation apparently occurs before mid-winter but needs further study. 4. Song is irregular and, apparently, almost functionless. References. CoLQUHOUN, M. (1940). A note on song and the breeding cycle. Brit. Birds, Vol. xxxiv, pp. 12-14. Coward, T. A. {1939). The Birds of the British Isles and their Eggs. 6th Edition, Vol. i, p. 205. Lack, D. (1935). Territory and polygamy in a Bishop-bird [Euplectes hordeacea hordeacea) (Linn.). Ibis, p. 824. Lack, D. (1940). The Behaviour of the Robin. Population changes over four years. Ibis, pp. 299-324. Lack, H. L. (1941). Display in Blackbirds. Brit. Birds, Vol. xxxv, PP- 54-57- Morley, a. (1937)- Some activities of resident Blackbirds in winter. Brit. Birds. Vol. xxxi, pp. 34-41. (54) DISPLAY IN BLACKBIRDS BV H. LAMBERT LACK. Communal display in Blackbirds {Turdus m. merula) has been so rarely observed or recorded that a brief description of a display I had the good fortune to witness this spring may prove of interest. Chancing to look out from the window of a house in a Sussex garden soon after dawn on February loth my attention was arrested by the strange behaviour of a group of Blackbirds on the lawn. The whole group seemed in a state of excited commotion. Their attitudes and activities forcibly reminded me of the display of Blackcock on a lek. (I have never actually watched a Blackcock display but have several times studied its details on first-class films). This first display was seen about 7.15 a.m. and lasted until 7.55 a.m. (G.M.T.) with one interruption of some ten minutes, probably caused by cats. At first four, later six cock Blackbirds were congregated on a small area of the lawn : one, sometimes two, females were seen feeding some twenty or more yards away from the group. Only the males took part in the display. With wings drooping and slightly extended so that their tips were visible, with tail spread and depressed almost to the ground, head, neck and beak fully extended and the neck- feathers fluffed out, one bird would rush rapidly at another and chase it, or run round and round it at a distance of about 15 inches. Sometimes two birds would circle round each other or round a third bird, or all three would be running in circles. Or again two birds would run straight side by side and some twelve to fifteen inches apart for a distance of three or four yards, then switch round and run back again ; often two birds in a similar fashion would chase a third, one on each side of it. On rare occasions these chasings ended in a brief aerial combat, two birds flying up at each other to a height of two or three feet in the air and apparently attacking with beak, claws and wings. The fights lasted but a second or two and though apparently fierce no damage seemed to result. It was particularly noted that in the chasings the birds always ran with very rapid steps, they never hopped : that their beaks remained closed and that they uttered no sounds. Those birds which for the moment were not actively engaged in these performances stood motionless with wings and tail spread and depressed and with feathers fluffed out as above described, but with the head, neck and beak stretched up- wards and forwards at an angle of about 45 degrees giving VOL. XXXV.] DISPLAY IN BLACKBIRDS. 55 them a curiously malevolent expression. This first-seen display was so spectacular that it excited the curiosity of two other people who took little or no interest in bird be- 1 haviour. Consequent on this observation regular watching was i instituted from early dawn for about an hour, and later on j in the evening from early dusk to dark. The morning displays I continued until April but were very irregular. On many j days there was no display, on frequent occasions two, three ) or five birds only were present at a time and indulged in i mild pursuits and rarely aerial combats, activities which 1 might not have attracted much attention unless they had I been watched for ; on only a few days really active displays i occurred. On some occasions two or more females appeared i on the scene and might chase each other or chase or be chased 1 by single male birds. The first evening display was noted on February 2ist about > 5.40 p.m. (G.M.T.). Four cocks and three hens were seen on j the lawn and for a brief time, until disturbed, the males q actively displayed. The following evening from 5.30 to 6.0 p.m. 1 five to eight cocks at a time and one female intermittently £ assembled on the lawn : they were mostly feeding but it { seemed that when two birds approached each other closely ] posturing and chasing at once occurred. On March 7th there V was a similar evening display. On March 8th, a mild sunny : day though with a cold wind, display was noted on and off r all day but especially between 7.30 and 9.30 a.m., around 1 11.30, and again at 6.30 p.m. Similarly on the following day, 1 also bright and warm, three or four cocks were usually present 1 and chasings were frequent. Later on displays became less frequent but they were well-marked in the early mornings of / March 26th and 28th : whilst on March 24th and on April ist f mild displaying occurred on and off all day. By the end of the f first week in April nesting was in full swing and assembling and 1 displaying gradually faded out. A few points may be specially r noted. The scene of the display was limited to a narrow neck of ' close-cut lawn uniting two larger portions, an area roughly ■ 12 to 15 yards wide by 20 yards long. This area was bordered t on each side by low evergreen bushes affording excellent cover > for the birds and into which the chasings were often continued, i Beyond the bushes* on one side was the house, on the other a t small pond. The area of the whole lawn was well over an acre J and some half of this was not overlooked from the house : 1 it is therefore not certain that gatherings never took place 56 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. in other parts of it but they were never seen and for various reasons it seems unlikely. It was particularly noted that the display area seemed a favourite feeding ground not only for Blackbirds but as April came on for Thrushes, Robins, Starlings, Chaffinches and Hedge-Sparrows. Also the area may have been a boundary between Blackbird territories as one female apparently belonging to the pond side and another from the house side occasionally chased each other, or were chased back into their respective territories by a male bird. The garden is a large one, some six and a half acres including the house and buildings, and is surrounded by grass fields with rough hedgerows. The local Blackbird population is a dense one, probably eight pairs in the garden and more close by. The duration and intensity of the displays varied much. They were most frequent and vigorous at or soon after dawn, less frequent but occasionally vigorous at dusk. They seemed greatly influenced by weather conditions. In March there were many bright but cold mornings when the lawn was white with frost, on such mornings no birds were seen. On windy days display was rare. Mild mornings, sunny, dull or wet, seemed most favourable : the days on which display con- tinued on and off all day were unusually warm for the season. Whether the displays commenced at an earlier date than February loth must remain unknown ; the late date to which they continued was perhaps due to the unusually cold late spring. The meaning or value of the display is doubtful, the evidence is mostly negative. There was nothing to suggest a courtship display : it was unlike any recorded courtship display {vide Handbook of British Birds) : the females took no part in it ; two males, probably those owning territories nearest the display area were observed to be paired by December 25th. The display showed none of the special characters of territorial disputes (see paper by D. Lack and W. Light) : the pursuits were promiscuous : no male seemed to defend any special area of the display ground. I can only hazard a diffident suggestion. It is well known that Blackbirds often feed communally in winter, earlier in the season I had seen an * assembly of ten or more males feeding amicably on a small J area in a grass field adjoining the garden, and larger assemblies ^ have been reported. It seems conceivable that the display j area in this garden was merely a favourite feeding ground I where the birds associated amicably until the time when their | seasonal pugnacity attained its height, and that these hostile 1 VOL. XXXV.] DISPLAY IN BLACKBIRDS. 57 displays heralded and resulted in the break-up of the com- munal gatherings. Whatever the explanation it seems rash to assume that such a definite display had no meaning in the present or past life of the species. Literature. It is remarkable that there are so few records of these displays, presumably because in their more marked form they are very rare. Miss Averil Morley gives the only account* I have met with. She describes similar gatherings of similar numbers of male birds on similar definite areas, and similar display activities, promiscuous chasings, etc. She does not describe the peculiar postures the birds assume when stationary or even when chasing, and one gathers that the displays she witnessed were less spectacular than that above recorded. She believed also that the female played a larger part in them although she informs me she has since modified this view. She seems equally at a loss as to the meaning of the displays and gives her account the non-committal title of “ Some Activities of Resident Blackbirds in Winter.” David Lack I has also informed me (private letter) that he witnessed a i similar display near Richmond, Surrey, in February this I year, a most remarkable feature of which was the tameness j of the birds. The display ground, a gravel and flower-bed 6 area only some ten yards square, was on the edge of a much- j used road, and the birds freely performed with persons walking ] past some fifteen yards away and in full view. He considers J that ” the performance is not comparable functionally with J that of any known bird.” * British Birds, 1937, xxxi, p. 34, also private letter. ^KJTESl INTERBREEDING OF HOODED AND CARRION- CROW FOR THIRD TIME IN CO. DUBLIN. In 1939, as already recorded in British Birds, Vol. xxxiii, p. 194, a male Hooded Crow {Corvus c. cornix) and a female Carrion-Crow (C. c. corone) nested in Co. Dublin and success- fully reared their young. In 1940, presumably the same pair again nested in the same wood but in a different tree. Two young birds of this brood were often seen after they had left the nest. One was a Hooded Crow in plumage, the other was all black above with grey under-parts. A third young bird was found dead under the nest. It had been dead for some time when found and all the feathers of the under-parts, had disappeared, but the mantle, back and rump were all black. In 1941, the old nest of 1939 was again used. The female was a Carrion-Crow, apparently the same bird as in the two previous years. But the male Hooded Crow seemed a different bird ; it was much more shy in behaviour and less attentive to the female and the young than the male in 1939 and 1940. Three young, all in the plumage of Hoodies, were seen in the nest and often after they had flown. P. G. Kennedy. DISPLAY BY CHAFFINCH. I RECENTLY witnessed a display by a Chaffinch {Fringilla c. gengleri), which was new to me and which I have not seen described, so the following notes may be of interest. The female was feeding in the ditch of a country lane while the male made a semi-circle round her with a radius of 3-4 ft. The head and tail were held horizontal to the body, both twisted to an angle of nearly 45°, inclining in the direction towards which he was moving. When he reached the ditch and turned back, the head and tail were also turned in the reverse direction. The neck-feathers were ruffled, crest slightly erected, and shoulders seemed prominent, though the wings were not held away from the body. The sidling hop was rather ludicrously suggestive of a minuet step. The female paid no apparent attention, though she gave an occasional single “ cheep." The male repeated the semicircle three times and was then . unfortunately interrupted by someone approaching. Winifred M. Ross. VOL. XXXV.] NOTES. 59 THREE LONG-TAILED TITS FEEDING ONE BROOD At the end of April, 1941 in Ashdown Forest, Sussex, I found a nest of Long-tailed Tit {JEgithalos c. rosaceus) with young about nine days old. These were being fed by three adults. So far as I could discover there were only eight young in the nest, which was of normal type. All three adults searched for food together within 150 yards of the nest, and returned to I its vicinity together and fed the young in turn. , The area covered by the three birds extended over what has 1 in former years been the territory of two pairs, but there was ii no sign this season of a second pair. J. A. Gibb. I [A similar instance of three adults feeding young in one |li nest, but in that case a very large brood, was given in Vol. xxix, p. 80, and in a comment upon it the late F. C. R. Jourdain stated that at least five previous records of three I birds at one nest had been found and three records of four 1 birds. Other instances have since been reported.- — Eds.] SPOTTED FLYCATCHER BREEDING IN ORKNEY I As I believe the Spotted Flycatcher {Muscicapa s. striata) has rarely been recorded as breeding in Orkney it should be ! recorded that a pair have built a nest and are now (June 23rd, I 1941) incubating four eggs, in the garden of Melsetter House, I Hoy. M. Fogg Elliot. [The only previous records we know are that the species I bred for several years about 1867 and that two pairs nested in 1917. — Eds.] DIPPER ON BUCKS-HERTS BOUNDARY. I On May 4th, 1941 my wife and I and three friends found a !, Dipper {Cinclus c. gularis) on the River Chess just below liChenies. We watched the bird for some time and saw it again ; on the iith, but were unable to find it on the i8th. It appeared I I to be a single bird and the colouring of the lower part of the il breast was the normal chestnut of the British form. There seem to be very few records of the species, even as wanderers in the counties of Hertford and Buckingham. Ronald H. Ryall. GREEN WOODPECKER IN NORTH , NORTHUMBERLAND 1(On March 25th, 1941, while walking in a fir wood, 10 miles >south of Berwick, Northumberland, I was surprised to hear itthe cry of a Green Woodpecker {Picus v. pluvius). I stopped. 60 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. and presently the bird flew by and settled on the top of a large beech tree, and through glasses I could recognize it as a Green Woodpecker. After a few minutes, it flew back into the wood, and though I heard its “yaffle" once more, I never saw it again that day, nor on subsequent days. Though breeding in the south of the county even occasional visitors northwards appear to be very unusual. D. H. Joicey. DISPLAY OF THE SPARROW-HAWK. Since reading the account of the dive-display of the Sparrow- Hawk {Accipiter n. nisus), by J. E. Flynn [antea, p. 19), we have witnessed a similar display. This was on the morning of June 2ist and it took place over a steep wooded hillside in Co. Antrim at over i,roo feet. The bird was a female and was alone. Flying with short, deliberate wing-beats, it climbed a little to gain height and then suddenly went into a steep dive estimated as 70° to the horizontal and fell 200 to 300 ft. before checking itself. After the turn, the momentum gained carried it, still with folded wings, up 50 to 100 ft. in an almost vertical climb. The performance was repeated four times in a very short space of time. M. N. and D. H. Rankin. COMMON POCHARD BREEDING IN N. LANCASHIRE. On May 30th, 1941, I saw a female Pochard [Aythya ferira) with two very young ducklings on a water in north Lancashire close to the Westmorland border. I watched the duck for some time through a telescope at about 60 yards range, and her grey body, brown head and neck, grey-flecked face and low posture in the water left no doubt of her identity. A drake Pochard which joined her for some minutes provided comparison for size and build. The two young followed the duck closely for twenty minutes and there were no other ducks visible on the same stretch of water, so there could be no question about their species. There were at least two other drake Pochard present, so it is possible that more than one pair nested this year. I believe the Pochard has not previously been recorded as breeding in north Lancashire. On June i6th, 1941, I saw two male and one female Tufted Duck on the same water, the first I have noted in this district in the breeding season, and three male and one female Wigeon. Seven Wigeon apparently uninjured, spent the whole of the summer of 1939 on this water, but I have no evidence of their breeding there. J. A. G. Barnes. VOL. XXXV.] NOTES. 61 BREEDING OF THE FULMAR PETREL IN CUMBERLAND. On May 28th, 1941, while walking along the cliff top of St. Bees Head (north head) we noticed many Fulmar Petrels [Fulmarus g. glacialis) gliding to and from the cliff face. From a projecting rock it was found that in all cases where the flying birds came nearest the cliff a bird of the same species was sitting in a cleft or cranniein the cliff face. In all instances the birds were in inaccessible places, except one which was sitting nearer the cliff top than the others. To reach this horizontal cleft in which the bird was sitting the use of ropes was necessary otherwise the descent would have been impossible. It had been hoped that one would be able to get head and shoulders inside the cleft and reach the bird with one’s hand ; however, in actual practice it proved that one could only get one’s hand within three feet of the bird. This was found sufficient to induce it to rise slowly to its feet and walk to the edge of the cleft exposing one large white egg and so proving breeding definitely. In all ten Fulmars were noted brooding in clefts or on the rock shelves in a similar manner to the one that was investi- gated. Birds on the wing frequently came in to rest on ledges, but they never stayed for over twenty minutes, while the ten sitting birds were not seen to move from their sites through- out the day. J. F. Stirling and G. K. Robinson. [The above forms the first record of definite breeding of the Fulmar on the west side of England or Wales. We were : informed in June 1940 by Messrs. J. W. Bennett and P. S. Burns that there were then five pairs of Fulmars at St. Bees. ' One bird was sitting in a hollow on a ledge and could be ' watched from the cliff top, but it could not be induced to I move and neither egg or young was seen. Mr. James Fisher informs us that several flying about the I cliffs at St. Bees and settling on ledges were reported by ! Mr. W. B. Alexander in July, 1938 in connection with the ) enquiry by the British Trust for Ornithology. — Eds.] WOODCOCK’S METHOD OF CARRYING YOUNG. [ I HAVE seen Woodcock {Scolopax rusticola) carrying young ) on a previous occasion but on May 14th, 1941, I had such a I particularly good and clear view of the act that a description ) of what I observed may be of interest. I came on the brood suddenly. They were about one-third j grown and the old bird went off with one at once. I hid up i and then when she came back I stepped out of my cover ) quickly. She seemed to straddle one of the young from behind 62 BRITISH BIRDS. [vOL. XXXV. and jumped off at once. Her legs were on each side of the young bird and her tail was pressed tightly round it like a curved fan, apparently to keep it from slipping out behind. The young one’s legs were dangling, but I could not see any sign of her own. She flew directly away from me down a hill with her body in an almost perpendicular position, but even so she had sufficient command of the air to dodge through several oak boughs which were in her line of flight. C. W. Mackworth Praed. FLOCK OF ROSEATE TERNS IN CHESHIRE. Until 1939 the Roseate Tern [Sterna d. dougallii) had not been recorded from Cheshire ; in that year several were seen at the mouth of the River Dee. [Ibis, July, 1940). Probably it occurs there more often than was suspected, for it has been observed on the South Lancs, coast and at the Point of Air in Flint, where Mr. C. Oldham saw about six pairs (apparently not nesting) on July 15th, 1916. On May 12th, 1941, at high tide at Hoylake I saw in a flock of about 100 Common Terns [Sterna h. hirundo) and a small number of Sandwich Terns [Sterna s. sandvicensis) , what I took to be a Roseate Tern, but could not get near enough for certainty. On May 24th, however, in a flock of some 40 terns, there were few Commons and the rest — 30 or more — were Roseate Terns. In bright sunlight the pink breasts of a number of them could be clearly seen, when they were at rest on a rock, and when a low-flying aeroplane put them all up their long tail-streamers were most noticeable in com- parison with those of the Common Terns as they circled round together. There was a chorus of their typical “ aach ” alarm-cry. On the 29th there were still a good many, on the 31st six or more and one on June 8th. On each occasion there were Common and Sandwich Terns with them and on the 29th at least one Arctic [Sterna macrura). Little Terns [Sterna a. albifrons), a few of which were present, always kept aloof from the flock. A. W. Boyd. KITTIWAKES IN SURREY IN JUNE On June 15th, 1941 I saw at Teddington Gravel Pits tw'o adult Kittiwakes [Rissa t. tridactyla). They remained there all day, sometimes resting on the bank. E. G. Pedler. ABSTRACTS. FURTHER RESULTS OF MARKING DUCKS IN RUSSIA. W. Wuczeticz (1939). “ Seasonal distribution and migration of ducks (subiam. AnatincB) on the base of bird-ringing in the U.S.S.R. III. The Gadwall — Anas strepera L. ; the Shoveler — Spatula VOL. XXXV]. ABSTRACTS. 63 clypeata (L.) ; the Wigeon — Mareca penelope (L.).” Moscow (Russian and English, 4 maps). The valuable results already published with regard to the ringing of Mallard and Pintail in Russia (abstracted in British Birds, Vol. xxxii. p. 20) have been supplemented by rather less abundant data relating to three other species of ducks. There are 80 recovery records of Gadwall ringed as adults — mostly drakes in wing-moult — -in the Volga Delta — in July and August. The breeding area from which these birds were derived is indicated by spring, summer and autumn records for subsequent seasons ; it lies between the fortieth and seventieth meridans, and the northernmost locality is in about 60° N. lat. Further migration is mainly down the western side of the Caspian Sea, but there are also two records from Iran, one from the eastern end of the Black Sea and two from Bulgaria. There are several records for subsequent autumns from well to the north of the ringing area, but none showing northward movements in the autumn of marking, although it is suggested that this occurs. One bird ringed in western Siberia was recovered in northern India ; and there are also three records of Gadwall ringed in northern India in winter or spring and recovered in western Siberia in spring or summer. There are 45 records of Shoveler ringed as adults — mostly drakes in wing-moult — in the Volga Delta in July and August. The breeding area from which these birds were derived is indicated by spring, summer and autumn recoveries in subsequent seasons ; it lies between the fortieth and eightieth meridians, and the northernmost locality is in about 62° N. lat. Further migration is indicated by a few records from the western side of the Caspian Sea, by several from southern Russia and from the eastern Balkans, and by three from the coast of North Africa (Tunis, Libya, Egypt). There are also two records for the spring following marking from northern Italy, and one from Holland : another record from Holland is for a subsequent winter. There is a remarkable record of a recovery in Murmansk in October of the year of ringing : this seems to be the only ringing record definitely supporting the statement that after their moult some of the birds move north again and later migrate south-westwards by way of the Baltic. The late dates of some records from the winter area are noteworthy — Libya and Italy, March 20th, Bulgaria, April 3rd. A few records of Shoveler ringed in western Siberia show some movement towards the south and south-west, and one bird was re- covered in Murmansk in January of the seventh winter after ringing. One ringed on Lake Ladoga, in north-western Russia, was recorded from Holland in August of the following season. There is also a record of a Shoveler ringed in northern India in March and recovered in western Siberia in the following month ; and a record of one ringed in Denmark in autumn and recovered in western Siberia next summer. There are 23 records of Wigeon ringed as adults — mostly as drakes in wing-moult — in July (all but one) and August in the Volga Delta. The breeding area whence these birds were derived is indicated by a few records for subsequent seasons : it lies between the forty-fourth and eighty-seventh meridians — from the middle Volga basin to the sources of the river Ob — and the northernmost locality is in about 67° N. lat. Further migration is all westerly. There are single records for the first winter from each of the following : — southern Russia, Bulgaria, southern France, England and Ireland. There are records for subsequent winters from southern Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Corsica and Denmark, and also an April record from Italy and a September record from Denmark. 64 BRITISH BIRDS [VOL. XXXV. Wigeon ringed in summer in western Siberia are recorded in winter from Bulgaria and Italy ; and birds ringed in north-western Russia in summer and autumn from Holland in winter. There are also five records of Wigeon ringed in northern India in winter and recovered in western Siberia in spring and summer. Wigeon ringed in Great Britain, Holland and Denmark in autumn, winter or spring, and in Scotland (one) and Iceland (several) in summer, have been recovered in various parts of Russia and Siberia in spring, summer and autumn. The migrations of this species, as shown by ringing records from all sources, are generally discussed : reference is made to the occurrence of “ abmigration ” (individual migration in spring from an area of sedentary habitation) and of aberrant return from winter-quarters to a new summer area. A. L. T. RESULTS OF RINGING BIRDS IN EGYPT. D. R. Mackintosh (1941). “ Bird ringing recoveries.” Bull. Zool. Soc. Egypt, No. 3, p. 7. Egypt is a welcome addition to the countries in which bird-ringing is undertaken, and the results will usefully e.xtend the data provided by this method. Ringing is done in winter, and recoveries from a distance indicate the breeding areas trom which the birds are derived and the paths of their migration. Isolated records include a Serin from Kazakhastan ; a Chaffinch from Siberia ; five Teal from Russia and Siberia (including one from 64° N. lat.) ; and Shoveler from Astrakhan and Siberia (83° E. long.) — as well as two Shoveler from Egypt itself in the following winter. Pintail have been marked in considerable numbers (2,281). There is a spring record from northern Iraq ; records in spring immediately after marking from Armenia and Georgia ; and two autumn records from Dagestan (Caucasus). There are eleven spring or summer records (eight of them in the first season after marking) from an area lying between the Ural Mountains and the River Ob, and between 50° and 63" N. lat. There is also a record in the first summer after marking from between the Petchora and the White Sea, almost on the Arctic Circle ; and an autumn record from Finland. In addition, four birds were recovered in Egypt in winter or spring of the next season. Quail have been ringed to the number of 4,236, mostly during IMarch. There are three records from Syria, two of them in the spring of marking and the other undated ; and single records from Sinai, Macedonia and Bulgaria — all in the next autumn. There are eleven spring, summer and autumn records (ten of them in the first season after marking) from the part of Russia lying north and east of the Black Sea, between the Dnieper and the Volga. A list is added of known records of birds ringed elsewhere and re- covered in Egypt, thirteen species being represented — the White Stork and Lesser Black-backed Gull most numerously. The places of origin lie mostly in Russia and the European countries bordering it, from Finland to Rumania ; but there are also records from as far west as Denmark (White Stork and Lesser Black-backed Gull) and north-western Germany (Red-backed Shrike). Maps are given for the Quail and the Pintail. In the latter case records from all sources are included, and an attempt is made to indicate migration routes. These are made to converge from the breeding area to focal points and then to diverge to various winter quarters. This appearance is of course an artefact, due to intensive ringing of migrants at such localities as Fano and the Volga Delta. A. L. T. 2 A HISTORY OF THE BIRDS OF ESSEX IVilliam E. Glegg^ f.z.s., m.b.o.u. Numerous Photographs and a Map. Demy 8vo. 25/—. A HISTORY OF THE BIRDS OF MIDDLESEX William E. Glegg, f.z.s., m.b.o.u. 6 Plates and Map. Demy 8vo. 18/—. A HISTORY OF THE BIRDS OF NORFOLK B. B. Riviere, f.r.c.s., f.z.s., m.b.o.u. 16 Plates and Map. Demy 8vo. 25/—. BIRD-LIFE IN THE ISLE OF MAN Colonel H. W. Madoc, c.b.e., m.v.o. Photographs. Crown 8vo. 6/-. BIRD MIGRATION A. Landshorough Ehomsofi Illustrated. Small Crown 8vo. 5/— net. BOUND VOLUMES AND SETS OF BRITISH BIRDS Volumes I — XII (1907 — 1919) including Index VoL, £8, Volumes XIII— XXV (1920—1932) £13. SPECIAL OFFER to Subscribers taking the COMPLETE SET of the 34 Volumes (including the Index to Volumes I — XII) £25. Single Volumes of recent years £1 4s. 6d. each. The books are strongly bound in brown cloth, gold lettered, with gilt tops. H. F. & G. WITHERBY, 326, High Holborn, LONDON, W.C.l. - READY SHORTLY — Final Volume of THE HANDBOOK OF BRITISH BIRDS [TERNS TO GAME-BIRDS] The Fifth and concluding Volume of this standard work includes the Terns, Gulls, Skuas, Auks, Rails and Game-birds. Also additions and corrections, an annotated systematic list and an index to the whole work. As in previous volumes there are a large number of coloured plates, some monochrome plates, many maps and text figures. IN FIVE VOLUMES— £s ss- H. F. Gf G. WITHERBY LTD. ^i6 High Holhorn, London^ FV,C.i cywnsn mmstmeDfwsmt: D£M71IDmi1Y-T0111CBIRDS ^vfSNTOEBKnSrUlST^ MONTmY 1s9 OTfrGwmffiMnruD* A CHECK-LIST of BRITISH BIRDS {Revised Edition) Compiled from “THE HANDBOOK OF BRITISH BIRDS” By H. F. WITHERBY, m.b.e., f.z.s., m.b.o.u., h.f.a.o.u. Printed on one side of the paper only, suitable for use for local lists, reference, . . notes, labelling, etc. Gives English and scientific names and . a brief status of each bird . Demy %vo. Boards. 5/- net. SONGS OF WILD BIRDS Fourth Impression ready shortly. By E. M. NICHOLSON and LUDWIG KOCH. Introduction by Julian Huxley. With two double-sided lo-inch gramophone records featuring the Nightingale, Cuckoo, Blackbird, Song Thrush, Pied Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Robin, Wren, Hedge-Sparrow, Turtle-Dove, Wood-Pigeon, Chaffinch, Willow Warbler, Whitethroat and Great Tit. 25s. net. . By the same authors Postnge 8d MORE SONGS OF WILD BIRDS 25s. net. Postage 8d. H. F. & G. WITHERBY LTD. BRrrCflBlPDS With which 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 Norman F. Ticehurst, o.b.e., m.a., f.r.c.s., m.b.o.u., and Bernard W. Tucker, m.a., f.z.s., m.b.o.u. Contents of Number 5, Vol. XXXV., October i, 1941. PAGE Further Data on Nest-Sanitation. By B. W. Tucker, M.A. M.B.O.U 90 Observations on the Singing of the Chaffinch. By D. S. Falconer 98 Obituary: John Michael Dewar ... ... ... ... ... 105 Notes : — Display in Blackbirds (J. Staton)... ... ... ... ... 107 Display of Hedge-Sparrow and female singing (J. C. S. Ellis) ... 107 The Feeding Interval in the Hoopoe (G. K. Yeates) ... ... 108 Breeding of Common Pochard in Middlesex (W. E. Glegg) ... 109 Breeding of the Cormorant and Shag in Cumberland (J. F. Stirling and G. K. Robinson) ... ... ... ... ... 110 Black-tailed God wit breeding in Lincolnshire (W. S. Gunton) no Turnstone in Hertfordshire (Rev. C. E. Martin)... ... ... 112 Short Notes : — Lesser Whitethroat singing at night. Black-necked Grebe breeding in Cheshire ... ••• ... ... 112 K (90) FURTHER DATA ON NEST-SANITATION BY B. W. TUCKER, M.A., M.B.o.u. {Concluded from page 72). Since the first part was printed, notes on several sea-birds have been received from Mr. R. M. Lockley, whose contributions are indicated by his initials. Savi’s Warbler {Locustella 1. luscinioides) . Faeces removed by female ; sometimes swallowed, sometimes carried away (G. Schiermann, Journ. f. Orn., 1928, pp. 665, etc.). Swallowing and carrying observed concurrently, even at same feeding visit ; habitually taken as extruded (H. Dirkx, Gerfaut, 1939, pp. 1-31). Grasshopper- Warbler [Locustella n. ncevia). Faeces carried (G.K.Y.). Carried by both sexes when young 8-9 days old (G.C.S.I.). Great Reed- Warbler [Acrocephalus a. arundinaceus) . Female waited for and swallowed faeces of young 2-3 days old, only occasionally carrying them away when uneasy, but in another case with feathered young faeces were carried. (J. Bussmann, Orn. Beoh., xxxix, 1932, pp. 153 and 155). Reed- Warbler [Acrocephalus s. scirpaceus). Faecal sac extruded after feeding and carried away or swallowed by one or other of parents (H. E. Howard, Brit. Warblers, ii, p. 59). Removed by both parents and dropped at a distance when young were within a day or two of fledging. If young voided droppings during absence of parents these would slip down reeds to remove them after feeding ; this observed about 3 times in c. 90 mins. (G.C.S.I.). Marsh-Warbler [Acrocephalus palustris). Defaecation usually after feeding, parents carrying fasces away or swallowing (H. E. Howard, Brit. Warblers, ii, p. 124). Carried away from well-grown young (R. Chislett). Carried (G.K.Y.). Sedge-Warbler [Acrocephalus schcenobcenus) . Carried and dropped 20-30 yards away by female, but occasionally swallowed (H. E. Howard, Brit. Warblers, ii- P- 153)- Barred Warbler [Sylvia nisoria). Removed by both parents, observed 44 times by male and 33 by female ; swallowing (male and female) twice observed (O. Steinfatt, Orn. Beob., xxxv, p. 124). VOL. XXXV.] DATA ON NEST-SANITATION. 91 Garden-Warbler [Sylvia borin). Faeces carried away for some distance and dropped by both parents (H. E. Howard, Brit. Warblers, i, pp. loo, loi). Carried (G.K.Y.). Lesser Whitethroat [Sylvia c. curruca). Removed by parents (H. W. Ford-Lindsay, Brit. B., iv, p. 2io) ; carried away (H. E. Howard, Brit. Warblers, i, p. 31). At first swallowed, afterwards carried away (G. Niethammer, Handb. deutsch. Vogelkunde, i, p. 352). Carried by both sexes and nest kept clean throughout ; prodding observed and shown in photograph (E.J.H.). Lesser Whitethroat. Female prodding young as stimulus to defaecation. {Photographed by E. J. Hosking.) SuBALPiNE Warbler [Sylvia c. cantillans) . Carrying by male observed (G.K.Y.). Dartford Warbler [Sylvia undata dartfordiensis) . Faeces removed from nest (P. F. Bunyard, Brit. B., vii, p. 217). Swallowing observed ; chicks fully fledged (G.K.Y.). Fieldfare [Turdus pilaris). Swallowed (A. Fritsch, Orn. Jahrb., iii, 1892, p. 19). Swallowed by both sexes (H. Bentham, Brit. B., v. p. 130). 92 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. Iceland Redwing {Turdus musicus coburni). Faeces regularly swallowed by parents after feeding (G. Timmermann,/oMm./. Orn., 1934, p. 322). Black Redstart (Phceniairus ochrurus gibraltariensis). Nest kept clean apparently by female alone (A. Comte, Bull. Soc. Zool. Geneve, iii, 1928, p. 22). Nightingale {Luscinia ni. megarhyncha). Both parents waited after feeding to remove excrement (J. K. Stanford, Brit. B., xiii, p. 170). Faeces removed by both sexes. When young are small they are extracted from bottom of nest and swallowed ; from 6th day on they are taken from edge of nest or direct from cloaca and either swallowed or carried away and dropped (N. F. Ticehurst, I.C., vi, p. 175). Normally swallowed at nest at all ages ; once seen carried. Deliberately awaited after each feed ; male most particular (G.K.Y.). Thrush-Nightingale {Ltiscinia luscinia). About every third feeding during earlier observations (June nth), but later (June i6th) about every fourth, nestling which had been fed passed an encapsuled faecal pellet, which was taken by parent as extruded or immediately after and in first days swallowed, but later carried away in bill (O. Steinfatt, Orn. Monatsb., 1939, p. 43). Red-spotted Bluethroat {Luscinia s. svecica). Cleaning nest special duty of male (R. Chislett, Northward Ho for Birds, p. 156). Alpine Accentor {Prunella c. collaris). Female seen carrying faeces in bill from nest (F.C.R.J.). Alpine Swift {Afus m. melba). At first faeces are swallowed by parents, but later evacuated over side of nest (M. Bloesch, Orn. Beob., xxix, 1932, p. 156). Deposited on side of nest (M. Bartels, Journ.f. Orn., 1931, p. 21). Hoopoe {Upupa e. epops). Amongst southern peoples the Hoopoe has been notorious for filthy nesting habits at least from classical times {cf. D’Arcy Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds, pp. 96-7) and doubtless earlier, and in modern works on ornithology the nesting-hole is usually stated to be in a very offensive condition owing to accumulation of faeces. This is certainly sometimes the case, but there is evidently considerable variability in behaviour. Naumann many years ago gave an account of what has been widely regarded as the typical condition of a VOL. XXXV.] DATA ON NEST-SANITATION. 93 Hoopoe’s nest, which he described as a stinking sewer in which the young sit up to their necks in their own excrement, which, becoming putrid, gives off a nauseating smell, " though sometimes it has some similarity to that of large ants ” (“ Neuer Naumann,” iv, pp. 386-7). This lurid description is probably e.xaggerated or based on an exceptional case, but in more recent years A. Wiedemann {Bencht d. nahtrw. Ver. f. Schwalben und Neuberg, 1890, p. 35) and H. Doming {Kocsag, 1930, p. 15)* have recorded non-removal of faeces and B. Wigger {Jahresber. d. W estfdlischen Provinzial-V ereins , 1905-6, p. 128) describes accumulation of faeces in a corner of the hole. On the other hand a number of other observers in recent years have described a more or less effective sanitation entailing both the direct discharge of faeces from the hole by the young and a certain amount of active removal by the parents. In a nest carefully watched by O. Heinroth {Vogel Mitteleuropas, i, p. 294) no removal of faeces was observed, the old birds being very shy, but as the young grew older they evacuated out of the mouth of the hole, so that the white flecks remained for a long time visible on the trunk below. After fledging the interior of the hole was found to be absolutely clean. Again, J. Bussmann {Om. Beob., xxxii, 1934, p. 19) describes ejection of faeces 15-25 cms. from the hole by the young, and K. Witte {Orn. Monatsb., 1926, p. 20) records a heap of faecal matter outside a hole. E. Puhlmann {Orn. Monatsschr, 1912, p. 430) and K. Warga {Aquila, xxx-i, 1923-4, p. 329) record actual removal of faeces by the parents. Warga records a case where the young were fed for half an hour or an hour and the parent then devoted itself to removal of excrement. On one occasion it stayed three minutes in the hole and then eleven times brought up faeces in the bill. Amongst the most careful recent observations are those of G. Stein {Beit. Fortpfl.-biol. Fog., 1928, pp. 198-9), who studied several nests. He found the inside of the nest-hole generally comparatively dry and clean and a large accumulation of droppings at the foot of the tree. In two cases such accumula- tions were absent. Yet the interior of the hole in these instances was quite dry and clean. In another case the bottom of the hole was covered with a deep layer of fsecal matter in a moist * Doming describes breeding of Hoopoes under peculiar conditions, namely in the lofts of buildings in the Hungarian vineyards, where the eggs are laid on the bare floor. He states that the surroundings become very dirty and evil-smelling, but when the young have grown rather larger they leave their regular nesting place in order to evacuate at some distance from this site, with the cloaca directed away from it. 94 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. and crumbling condition and giving off a sharp ammoniacal smell. The young, however, merely rested on this layer and were not befouled with it in the way described by Naumann. One removed and examined shortly before fledging was quite clean and did not smell offensively. Another recent observer, O. Wilhelm {12. Jahresber. 1938-39 d. V ogelkundlichen Beo- bachtungsstation ‘ Untermain ’), also found the nest-hole quite clean and almost without smell. It may be concluded, therefore, that although sanitation of the Hoopoe’s nest is apt to be defective popular ideas on the subject are much exaggerated. Roller {Coracias g. garndus). No removal of faeces observed ; hole filthy and young 17-20 days old covered with faeces (O. Steinfatt, Beit. Fortpfl.- biol. Vbg., 1934, p. 222). This observation confirms the much earlier account of Naumann [“Neuer Naumann,” iv. p. 369). Yellow-billed Cuckoo [Coccyzus a. americanus). Young backs up to edge of nest to defaecate (L. H. Walkin- shaw in Bent, Life Hist. N. Arner. Cuckoos, etc.. Bull. 176, U.S. Nat. Mus.). Eagle-Owl [Bubo b. bubo). Heinroth [Vogel Mitteleurofas, ii, p. 30) states with reference to three young reared in captivity that in order to evacuate they moved backwards, but usually fouled the edge of their artificial nest. The old Buzzard’s nest from which they were originally taken was also not kept clean. Little Owl [Athene n. noctua). With reference to birds of the race indicated, Heinroth [Vogel Mitteleuropas, ii. p. 15) states that in the nest the young evacuate as far as possible upwards and outwards, after the fashion of Passerine birds, but gives no further information. Short-eared Owl [Asio f. flammeus). F. Groebbels [Der Vogel, ii, p. 406) quotes Hennings as the authority for the observation that the female swallows the faeces of the young. No reference is given, and as I can trace none in the Zoological Record the statement may be based on a private communication, but in a paper by Hennings on the Hen-Harrier I find it mentioned [Beit. Fortpji.-biol. Vbg., 1936, p. 158) that the Short-eared Owl swallows the pellets of its nestlings. This statement by Groebbels is thus possibly an error and requires confirmation, thougli even the swallowing of pellets is of considerable interest. J. Walpole-Bond [Field- VOL XXXV] DATA ON NEST-SANITATION. 95 Studies of some rarer British Birds, p. 130) describes a nest with young c. 13-18 days old as " befouled and trampled ” and C. A. Urner {Auk., 1925, p. 34) describes one containing five young as “ filthy with excrement.” The few nests with young I have seen have not been conspicuously dirty. Hobby {Falco s. suhhuteo). Evacuation over edge of nest from beginning of observation, when young were 12 days old (G.K.Y.). Golden Eagle {Aquila ch. chrysaetus) . Evacuation over edge of nest. H. B. Macpherson {Home Life of Golden Eagle, pp. 17, 26, 32) records female removing fouled and dirty sticks and heather from the nest and clearing away pellets and carcases, generally at dawn. Hen-Harrier {Circus c. cyaneus). S. Wesslen {Trdskets aristokrater , Stockholm, 1930) states that pellets of nestlings are at first swallowed by the adults. H. Hennings {Beit. Fortf>fl.-hiol. Vog., 1936, pp. 105-113, 150-160, esp. summary, p. 158) did not observe this, but found that they were regularly carried away and dropped after feeding. The nestlings did not produce pellets during the first 14 days. American Goshawk {Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) . Eaeces discharged clear of nest (J. B. and R. E. Dixon, Condor, xl, p. 10) ; ejected high over edge of nest, very little on rim and interior quite clean, but ground below much ” white-washed ” (O. J. Gromme, Auk., 1935, p. 17). The descriptions are doubtless equally applicable to the European form. Kite {Milvus m. milvus). Photograph of young ejecting faeces over side of nest (G. Thiede and A. Zankert, Beit. Fortpfl.-hiol. Vog., 1935, p. 10). Honey-Buzzard {Pernis a. apivorus). Eaeces discharged over side of nest, but very little trace on ground below ; probably defascates less often than other Raptores (W. Wendland, Journ.f. Orn., 1935, p. 98). Griffon-Vulture {Gyps f. fulvus). Photograph of nestling evacuating in typical manner of birds-of-prey (Heinroth, Vogel Mitteleuropas, ii, pi. 137, fig. 7) ; nest ledge with large young remarkably clean (F.C.R. J.) . White Stork {Ciconia c. ciconia). Faeces ejected over side of nest at least in later stages (H. Siewert, Die Storche, p. 175, photo). 96 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. Black Stork [Ciconia nigra). Faeces ejected over side of nest (H. Siewert, t.c., p. 95, photo of young in position), but parent also seen to take faeces direct from cloaca of young and swallow (F. E. Stoll, Ardea, 1934, p. 53). Spoonbill {Platalea 1. leucorodia). Nest becomes a mass of excrement (F.C.R.J.). Great White Heron {Egretta a. alba). Nest remarkably clean, in contrast to Spoonbill (F.C.R.J.). Night-Heron {Nycticorax n. nycticorax) . Faeces voided over edge of nest (F.C.R.J.). Little Bittern [Ixobrychus m. minutus). Young nestlings cling to edge of nest with feet and lower body over the edge to evacuate clear of nest. When about ten days old they leave nest to defaecate, but return to it (F. V. Lucanus, Journ.f. Orn., 1914, p. 51). American Bittern {Botaurus lentiginosus) . Nest becomes unpleasantly smelly (I. N. Gabrielson in Bent, Life Hist. N. Amer. Marsh Birds, Bull. 135, U.S. Nat. Mus., p. 77). Gannet {Sida bassana). R.M.L. writes : “ As far as I remember, the young Gannet, when newly hatched, squirts its waste with scarcely a lift of the tail, as it is, of course, very helpless in the first few days. Later, as it grows, it squirts it after a slight raising of the tail, usually resulting in fouling the rim of the nest, or when big enough, just clear of this. But it is neither a violent squirt nor often above the horizontal and so does not travel far, seldom so far as to foul the neighbouring nest.” The net result, however, is that the nesting ground as a whole is in a very insanitary condition, though rain and the nature of the site mitigate the effects to some extent. Storm-Petrel {Hydrobates felagictis) . Manx Shearwater {Puffinns f>. puffinus). As the young of both these species are fed on predigested food the nests are very clean. The waste is chiefly liquid and is absorbed by the walls of the nest burrow, from which the chick does not move (R.M.L.). Fulmar {Fulmarus glacialis). Excrement of chick (also of adult) ejected to astonishing distance ; nest-site clean (E. Selous, Bird Watcher in Shctlands, p. 93). Chick turns round from facing sea to facing cliff before VOL. XXXV.] DATA ON NEST-SANITATION. 97 ejecting excrement clear of nest ledge (R. Perry, At the Turn of the Tide, p. i6o). Turtle-Dove {Streptopelia t. turtur). Faeces not removed (H. W. Ford-Lindsay, Brit. B., v, p. 2io) ; nest in filthy condition towards end of fledging period (G. C. S. Ingram and H. M. Salmon, Birds in Britain to-day, p. 98). Kittiwake {Rissa t. tridactyla). Nestling backs to edge of nest and discharges faeces over the edge for as much as four or five feet (R. Perry, Lundy, Isle of Puffins, p.103). In spite of this the nests become very much fouled with droppings on the outside. Recorded ob- servations as to how this comes about seem to be lacking. Perhaps the incubating adults are responsible, but the supposedly adaptive behaviour of the nestling seems thereby to be largely defeated. Puffin {Fratercula arctica grahce). As food is not predigested young pass much excrement and burrow becomes very foul, but later, without leaving burrow, the young back to entrance and eject faeces with considerable force, producing a semi-circle of guano outside the hole. (R.M.L., Brit. B., vol. xxvii, p. 221). (98) OBSERVATIONS ON THE SINGING OF THE CHAFFINCH BY D. S. FALCONER. The spring of 1935 offered me an opportunity for close observation of two pairs of Chaffinches {Fringilla c. ccelebs), occupying neighbouring territories in a garden at Leysin (Canton de Vaud), Switzerland. This paper records some of the more interesting observations made, most of which were suggested by the section on bird-song in The Art of Bird Watching (Nicholson, 1931). The two cocks were distinguished by locality of singing and (up till March 19th) by differences in the song. The observations, unless otherwise stated, relate only to one of these cocks. The amount of song was estimated chiefly by general impressions, but during one week more accurate estimation was made by counting the number of songs in a two or three minute period once or twice in each half-hour, and noting for how long the bird sang in the half-hour. This method gave an error of only 3% when compared with an actual count over one half-hour period, and may therefore be considered reasonably accurate. The Song Period. Commencement. — The first attempts at song were heard on February 12th. These were very faint noises having no resemblance to the perfected song, but resembling rather closely the sub-song. After three days the form of the perfect song could be recognized, and eight days after the beginning the songs were almost up to full strength, though the form was still very varied. Bechstein (1795) gives four weeks as the trial period in caged Chaffinches before the song is fully perfected. Variation in the daily amount of song. — The daily amount of song was largely influenced by weather conditions, but there was evidently an underlying seasonal rhythm. Thus, the first day on which attempts at song were heard was the first sunny and comparatively warm day after some weeks of dull and cold weather. After a week the weather became bad again, but the singing did not stop, though it certainly did not increase. Fine weather returned on March 12th and the amount of song rose rapidly to a maximum on March 15th, for which day I estimated a total of about 2,000 songs. The daily amount of song continued on a high level though falling off somewhat till two days of bad weather occurred on March 23rd and 24th, on which days there was very little VOL. XXXV.] SINGING OF THE CHAFFINCH. 99 song. Fine weather from March 25th onward showed a certain increase in the amount of song, but it never again reached a high level even on the finest days. On two exceptionally bad days there was no song at all. Hour of commencement of singing. — Observations of this are unfortunately limited, but as far as they go they show considerable regularity. They are given in Table i. The time of “ real ” sunrise refers to the district in general and was observed as the time when the sun first shone on the peaks. " Local ” sunrise refers to the time when the sun first. shone on the bird’s territory. Owing to the slope of the shadowing mountain this became progressively nearer to the time of “ real ” sunrise. TABLE I Date Time of sunrise Time of first song. Minutes before sunrise Weather " real '' " local ” " real ” " local ” March 14 6.50 7.40 6-37 13 63 Fine .. 15 (6-49) 7-37 6.37 (14) 60 16 (6.48) 7-33 6.30 (18) 63 i t .. 17 (6-47) (7.28) 6.31 (16) (57) Cloudy „ 18 (6.46) (7-24) 6.32 (14) (52) i » 19 6.45 7.20 6.22 23 58 Fine >> 22 6.41 7-15 6.15 26 60 >> 26 (6-37) c.7.00 6.10 (27) C.60 1 f 29 (6.34) 6.45 6.15 (19) 30 Dull, cold. Table showing the relationship of the time of starting to sing and the time of sunrise. For explanation see text. Figures in brackets were not directly observed, and are derived by interpolation. The times are Central European Time. If the time of starting to sing is governed by the intensity of the light we must compare it with the time of “ real ” sunrise, for this obviously controls the general sky light. This comparison is given in column 5 of the above table, and shows the singing to become progressively earlier, thus agreeing with the observations of Burkitt (1935) and of Clark (1938). On the other hand, comparison with the time of “ local ” sunrise shows no progressive change (column 6). This is probably a coincidence, as it is difficult to see how the “ local ” sunrise could influence any factor perceptible to the Chaffinch. On cloudy days singing is seen to start somewhat later than on fine days. Unfortunately no observations of temperature were made, but it seems probable that temperature is not of great importance in this respect (Alford, 1925). 100 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. Variation in amount of song during the day. — There was a clear daily rhythm in the singing activity, and this rhythm altered as the season progressed. All the singing was confined to the forenoon, for though occasional songs were heard in the afternoon, this could not be called singing. There was never any singing in the evening, which contrasts strongly with the observations of Burkitt (1935) for Northern Ireland. Starting before sunrise, the amount of song increased to a maximum during the morning and then fell off to nothing by about midday. During the early part of the season, up to mid-March, the peak occurred about 9.00 or 10.00 a.m., but after that the singing became progressively earlier in the day, the peak occurring before 8.00 a.m. Moreover, the time devoted to singing became shorter and shorter, so that in the later part of the season singing was confined to about half an hour in the early morning. Unfortunately observations became increasingly scanty as the singing became earlier, and I have no note of the date when singing ceased. This daily rhythm was apparently not affected by minor fluctuations in the weather. For example, a warm and fine afternoon following a cold and dull morning did not induce any afternoon singing. Nor did a period of sunshine during a dull day appreciably increase the singing activity. The Song. Rate of singing. — The singing of the Chaffinch consists of a periodic repetition of a more or less stereotyped " song.” The song and its differences in different individuals have been well described by Bechstein (1795 and 1871), and more recently by Promptoff (1930). But little attention has been paid to the interval between the songs, except by Nicholson and Koch (1936) where the striking regularity of most birds’ singing is stressed. The observations I made are as follows. When the intervals between the beginnings of successive songs were timed, they were found to vary by as much as 100%. Thus three tj^pical series of intervals were, in seconds, 7, 7, 5, 8, and 5, 5, 8, 8, 4, 5 and 4, 6, 6, 6, 5, 4, 8. But it will be noticed that a short interval is in general compensated by a long one following, and vice versa. If this variation is smoothed by counting the number of songs per minute, very considerable regularity was found over periods up to 10 or 15 minutes. But, though constant over short periods, the rate of singing varied widely during the day. The highest rate recorded was 13 songs per minute, but 10 was a common figure during a VOL. XXXV.] SINGING OF THE CHAFFINCH. 101 period of singing. The rate fell off to about 4 songs per minute before the singing lost its regularity and passed into “ oc- casional songs.” Nicholson and Koch (1936) give 5-9 songs per minute as the usual rate. Thus it is the variation in the rate of singing which gave rise to the variation of the singing activity throughout the day, described in the last section. It was not often that a period of singing lasted for half an hour without a break, but at the peak of the daily singing it often lasted longer with only short breaks of 2 or 3 minutes. Analysis of songs : individual variation. — So characteristic is the song of the Chaffinch that it cannot easily be mistaken for that of any other bird, and without a close study it seems to be quite invariable. Yet closer study shows considerable variation in the same bird and between different birds. Bechstein (1795) describes 18 varieties of song in caged Chaffinches (raised to 20 in the 1871 edition !), and Promptoff (1930) shows the possibility of a very large number of distinct types by the combination of different varying characters. For purposes of description each song is divided into a number of phrases and an ending. Each phrase (German “ Strophe ”) consists of several notes and is separated from the next phrase not by an interval but by a difference in the character of the notes. The ending (“ Ausfall ”) contains the characteristic falling ” British Museum ” note. Figure i shows four varieties of the song, using the notation suggested by Rowan (1924). A u indicates an unaccented note, and a — indicates an accented note. The pitch of the notes is indicated by the level on which they are written, and the length of the note by the length of the mark : u or - or — . The songs given by the two birds under observation varied in the following ways. (1) There were always three phrases and an ending (in the completed song) . (2) The number of notes in each phrase varied from about 3 to about 6. (3) There was a sharp division into two types by the character of the second phrase. In the first type [h and c in fig. i) the notes were distinct, and intermediate in pitch between the first and third phrases. In the second type {a and d) the second phrase consisted of what sounded like a single long accented note, but which may in reality have been a succession of very rapid notes forming a ” trill.” 102 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol. xxxv. (4) In this latter type of 2nd phrase, the pitch could be high [d] or low {a) . (5) The ending showed also two distinct types. It could have the stress on the penultimate high note (c and d), or on the final low note [a and h). (6) The two distinct types of 2nd phrase and of ending could be combined in any way, giving the four types shown in the figure. (A) '^ v.y \_y uu — WWW — tsi tsi tsi tsi urr chur chur chur tsi ti i - ow (B) W' W' UU W U U U U WWW tsi tsi tsi cha chachacha chur chur churtsi ti i - ow (C) W W W — . WWW u w w w ^ u tsi tsi tsi cha cha cha chur chur chur tsi tu ee-ou (D)U U U U U U U U U U tsi tsi tsi tsi ee cha cha cha cha ti ee-ou Fig. I. The four main types of song heard. Each rendering separ- ately is approximately correct quantitatively, but no quantitative comparision can be made between the separate renderings. The duration of (a) was 2.8 secs, and of (d) 2.0 secs. ; that of the others is not known. (7) Often a song was incomplete. Omission of the ending was frequent at the beginning of the season, but this cannot be classed as a variety as it was not constant in either of the birds. Occasionally, after a short first part, two endings were given. During the first part of the season (up to mid-March) the songs given by the two birds under observation were quite distinct in type. One used only the combination of second phrase and ending shown in (b). The other used only that VOL. XXXV.] SINGING OF THE CHAFFINCH. 103 shown in (f?). Then, however, the first bird could often be heard to use the other type of 2nd phrase, though retaining his own ending (as in a). While, at the same time the second bird often used the first type of 2nd phrase, retaining his own ending (as in d). As these two birds occupied neighbouring territories, it seems probable that each borrowed from the song of his neighbour by imitation. Observations, un- fortunately, do not indicate whether this borrowing extended also to the types of endings or to the less obvious variations. Further remarks on the singing. — During a period of singing the bird moved about frequently : five minutes would be a very long time to spend on one perch. The perch appeared to be chosen at random ; that is to say, the place of alighting was the place of singing. It was noticeable, however, that a conspicuous perch such as the top of a tree, was very seldom chosen. Often, particularly toward the end of the daily song period, singing and feeding took place together, in which case the rate of singing was reduced to about 5 songs per minute, and the songs were uttered from the place of feeding, even when on the ground. Singing while on the wing occurred occasionally. The relation of song to territory was obscure. Singing was well established by February 20th, but the first signs of territorial disputes were not seen till March 13th. Disputes over territory were never preceeded nor followed by song, the call used being the common “ pink ”. On one occasion, not even a strange male singing in my bird’s favourite tree spurred him to song ! Evidence of two birds answering each other is difficult to obtain owing to the constancy of the rate of singing, and no satisfactory observations were made. The Sub-Song. The sub-song was only occasionally heard in the morning, its usual hours being between 2 and 5 p.m. In form it was very varied and sounded “ improvised ” — that is to say not stereo- typed. Normally it consisted of a variety of gentle chirps uttered without opening the beak (in contrast to the real song) but often very quiet renderings of the real song were heard, as if from a bird much further away. Sometimes it would give way to a full or almost full song. At one time, when Coal-Tits had been very numerous and noisy it contained very excellent imitations of their call. While giving the sub- song the bird was invariably quiet and very inconspicuous, in contrast to its behaviour while giving the real song. 104 BRITISH BIRDS [VOL. XXXV. Summary. 1. The song was perfected only after a trial period lasting fully a week. 2. The daily amount of song varied to a large extent with the weather. 3. Exclusive of weather effects there was an underlying seasonal rhythm. The peak coincided with a period of hue weather, after which the amount of song fell off much in spite of continued fine weather. 4. The hour of starting to sing showed considerable regularity, and became progressively earlier relative to the time of sunrise, as the season advanced. In the middle of March it was about 15 minutes, and at the end of March, 30 minutes before sunrise. 5. There was a clear daily rhythm in the singing activity, the peak becoming progressively earlier, and the period of singing becoming progressively shorter as the season advanced. 6. There was no singing in the afternoons or evenings. 7. The daily rhythm was apparently not affected by changes in the weather during the day. 8. Thirteen songs per minute was the highest rate recorded, and 10 was a common figure. g. The songs of the two birds observed consisted of three phrases and an ending. 10. The chief variations were in the 2nd phrase and in the ending. 11. The two birds were at first distinct in the types of song they used, but later each " borrowed ” from the other. References. Alford, C. E. (1925). Effect of Weather on the Song Impulse. Brit. Birds, Vol. xviii, p. 306. Bechstein, J. M. (1795). Naturgeschichte der Stubenvogel. Bechstein, J. M. (1871). Chamber and Cage Birds. Burkitt, j. P. (1935). An attempt to chart fluctuations in the song of the Song Thrush, Blackbird and Chaffinch. Bril. Birds, Vol. xxviii, P- 364- Clark, A. (1938). Morning Song Commencement. Brit. Birds, Vol. xxxi, p. 265. Nicholson, E. M. (1931). The Art of Bird Watching, pp. 60-70. Nicholson, E. M. and Koch L. (1936). Songs of Wild Birds. Promptoff, a. N. (1930). Die geographische Variabilitat des Buchfinkenschlags. Biol. Zentralbl, 50, p. 478. Rowan, W. (1924). A practical method of recording Bird-Calls. Brit. Birds, Vol. xviii, p. 14. (105) OBITUARY. JOHN MICHAEL DEWAR. (1883-1941). It is with much regret that we have to record the death of Dr. John Michael Dewar, which took place on May 24th, 1941, at the comparatively early age of fifty-eight. Dewar was a meticulously careful and markedly original observer and is best known to ornithologists for his work on diving birds and for his very full and exact field-studies of the feeding habits of several waders. His book The Bird as a Diver, published in 1924, is the standard work on the subject and was the product of prolonged and intensive field observation, as may be gathered from the fact that his conclusions were based on the timing of nearly six thousand dives of twenty- three species in known depths of water. His studies led him to the conclusion that depth is the principal factor determining length of dive, the time-depth relation being expressed by his “ 20-10 second rule ” (20 seconds for the first fathom and 10 for every fathom after), and he showed that the application of a technical formula, that of an autocatalytic chemical reaction, gave an even closer approximation to the average times actually observed at known depths. In his later writings, however, he referred only to the 20-10 seconds rule, probably because of its greater simplicity and in- telligibility to laymen and because he considered it adequate for all practical purposes. Exceptions to and deviations from the rule are possibly more widespread than Dewar believed, but no other student has contributed so much to our better understanding of the activities of diving birds and his work remains a contribution of outstanding merit to the sciences of ornithology and biology. His studies of the feeding be- haviour of the Oyster-catcher [Zool., 1908, 1910, 1913) and Dunlin {t.c., 1909) are excellent illustrations of the effect with which his powers of observation were brought to bear on things which less enquiring minds would have passed over as commonplace. He had paid a great deal of attention to the Oyster-catcher and was the author of a long and detailed paper on the relation of the species to its environment in the Zoologist for 1915 and of an instructive study in the present journal (cmtea, Vol. xiii) of the progress of the individual towards maturity, dealing with the development of the various reactions of the young bird. Readers of British Birds will also recall his recent interesting communication on the M 106 BRITISH BIRDS. [vOL. XXXV. identity of the specialized feeding habits of Turnstone and Oyster-catcher. He was also the author of discussions in the Zoologist of the evolutions of waders (1912) and the sense of direction in birds (1915) and of various shorter papers and notes in the ornithological and natural history journals. Nearly all of them bore witness to the activity and originality of his mind, an excellent example amongst his shorter com- munications being his ingenious and almost certainly correct demonstration of how the Dipper progresses under water {antea, Vol. xxxii). His intense desire for absolute accuracy and fear of publishing anything which might prove in after years to be wrong led him to conserve his output of published work, but in private he was a voluminous writer as well as a great reader. He devoted much time and care to the abstract- ing of ornithological notes and papers in both English and foreign languages, and his sister informs us that he was able to cope even with Russian. We learn that at the time of his death he had ready for publication a large work of reference entitled a Dictionary of the Habits and Behaviour of Birds. Dewar was educated at George Watson’s College and Edinburgh University and graduated M.B., Ch.B. in 1904. He obtained the degree of M.D. with high commendation in 1914. He was a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, to which he was elected in recognition of the merits of his book, The Bird as a Diver. He was Civilian Medical Officer to the Royal Air Force and since the outbreak of war a temporary Assistant Physician at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. He may be said literally to have died in harness, as though not in robust health he refused to give in until it was too late to save his life, and both the medical profession and the science of ornithology are the poorer for the loss of a devoted servant. B.W.T. SnOTES^ DISPLAY IN BLACKBIRDS. I HAVE a note on communal display in Blackbirds [Turdus m. merida) which bears points of similarity to that observed by H. L. Lack {antea, p. 54.) The note reads “ March 8th, 1938. An interesting gathering of male Blackbirds took place in the garden as dusk was falling. There were four males (no hens present or within sight), strung out in single file with two or three feet separa- ting each bird. With tightened plumage, head, neck and bill pointing stiffly up at about 45 degrees to the horizontal, tail depressed and spread, one bird would run along a few feet with quick mincing steps, each foot alternately — not hopping. Immediately each bird behind followed suit with precisely the same actions. There was not in any sense a definite leader, but some- times one of the following birds would run a few steps past the first bird, when the whole business was repeated with the new bird in the lead. The display lasted for seven or eight minutes, the birds moving continuously over the same ground — a few square yards of fairly short grass — in a roughly circular course, but this may have been because the tournament ground lay in the angle formed by a fence and hedge. There was no animosity during the period of display, but on dispersal one bird flew on to a fence and dropped down on to another on the ground in a momentary scuffle. These two then ran after each other again in the original manner for a short period.” Both before and since this occasion I have had momentary glimpses of similar displays, but it is naturally only on rare occasions that one can watch undisturbed birds during the complete cycle of display. Jack Staton. DISPLAY OF HEDGE-SPARROW AND FEMALE SINGING. On May loth, 1941, at 8.15 p.m. G.M.T., I watched a pair of Hedge-Sparrows {Prunella m. occidentalis) displaying in a wood near Carnforth, Lancs. The male was singing his ” regular ” subsong while moving round the female which was answering with a four-note phrase ” Chi-choo-chi-choo ” in pitch and interval distinctly reminiscent of a chiming clock and at the same time shuffling 108 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL. XXXV. her wings and depressing her tail. Though I watched for some 15 minutes I saw no attempt at coition, the male eventually losing all interest in the performance. This is the first time I have ever heard the female Hedge- Sparrow attempt to sing, nor is there any mention of it in the Handbook. John C. S. Ellis. THE FEEDING INTERVAL IN THE HOOPOE. As is well-known, the female Hoopoe [Upnpa e. epops) while incubating is fed by the male. I photographed a pair of these Hoopoe {Upupa e. epops) ; Cock with crest raised a moment after feeding the incubating female. {Photographed by G. K. Yeates). VOL. XXXV.] NOTES. 109 birds at the nest during the incubation period in Provence in late April 1937, and recorded the feeding interval for a period of ten days. Observations were not consecutive, but were made at all times of day for stretches of about three hours. With great regularity it appears that the male feeds the female three times in every hour. His visits may be close together (shortest interval, 10 minutes), but they rarely exceeded 40 minutes. If they did so, as on occasion happened at my nest owing to human interference (it was by a small railway station), the female became very impatient, expressing her indignation in a series of harsh, swearing notes not unlike the chorus of young Green Woodpeckers {Picus viridis), but less hurriedly delivered. This became more insistent and strident the longer the male was absent. If he was away for more than 50 minutes, the female would leave the nest, returning within a few minutes. In the meantime she had presumably fed, but I could not see this. Feeding is completed in a flash. As the male arrives at the perch, the female’s bill just protrudes from the hole, and the food is handed over in silence. The male frequently raises his crest at the moment of delivery, but he never lingers for a .second longer than necessary. On one occasion a stoat {Mustela erminea) climbed the tree and sat in the mouth of the hole with his fore-feet on the male’s perch. The female, at the time sitting within, made no sign, nor did the stoat seem to scent her. G. K. Yeates. BREEDING OF COMMON POCHARD IN MIDDLESEX. In regard to the breeding of the Common Pochard [AytJiya ferina) at Osterley Park, Middlesex {antea, Vol. xxxv, pp. 85-6) I must point out that this species bred successfully at Gunnersbury Park in 1931 and at Osterley Park in 1932 as recorded in A History of the Birds of Middlesex, which was published in 1935. I cannot say what happened between 1932 and 1938, the first year of breeding given by Mr. White, as my notes and books are now in a depository but it is probable that the species has nested annually at Osterley Park since 1932. William E. Glegg. [The records mentioned by Mr. Glegg were taken into consideration in compiling the section in The Handbook, but there was no evidence then of regular breeding and Middlesex had to be placed among counties where the bird liad bred sporadically. — Eds.] BRITISH BIRDS. 110 [VOL. XXXV. BREEDING OF THE CORMORANT AND SHAG IN CUMBERLAND. In view of the fact that in the Handbook (Vol. iv) under Cormorant {Phalacrocorax c. carbo) it is stated “ Absent as a regular breeding bird between Cheshire and the Solway,” and that the Shag {Ph. a. aristotelis) is described as not breeding in N.W. England, it may be noteworthy to mention that on May 28th, 1941 we observed both these species nesting on St. Bees Head, Cumberland. Both species seemed to be nesting on one portion of the cliff (north head) and approximate numbers of the birds would be, not more than ten nesting pairs of Shags, and under fifty nesting pairs of Cormorants. Local inhabitants told us that both species nest there every year. J. F. Stirling & G. K. Robinson. BLACK-TAILED GODWIT BREEDING IN LINCOLNSHIRE. As already described [antea, Vol. xxxiv, pp. 89-90) I found a Black-tailed Godvvit ; One of the parents on July 5th, 1941. pair of Black-tailed Godwits {Limosa 1. limosa) nesting in Lincolnshire in 1940 and saw the birds there in 1939. NOTES. Ill VOL. XXXV.] This year (1941) they bred again in the same place and whereas last year I was unable to make certain that the eggs hatched, this year I had the satisfaction of seeing the young. For various reasons I was able to visit the place on four occasions only. On May 14th, when I approached the area where I supposed the nest might be one bird rose from the ground and flew towards me calling excitedly. After circling Black-tailed Godwit ; One of the young on July 5th, 1941. round for a minute or so it returned to the other bird, which had been standing still about 200 yards away. When they were together on the ground they kept quite silent and it was only when they were fully 100 yards apart that they called and this note was quieter and lower in pitch than that made in flight. On this occasion I did not find the nest. My next visit was on May 25th in heavy rain and I had difficulty in putting up the male and when he did rise he flew low down and circled the nesting area at a distance of about 200 yards. He made only weak calls, which the hen could not have heard in the heavy rain so I decided to walk into the nesting area in the hopes of putting her up. This I did and 112 BRITISH BIRDS. [VOL, XXXV. she got up, but not until I was within lo yards of the nest. This was a slight depression moulded round with grasses and contained four eggs. It was within 50 yards of last year’s site. As the eggs were lying in water I feared this might have bad results so I hurried away and the bird returned almost im- mediately. On June 15th I visited the Godwits ag^in and when both birds came screaming towards me I felt relieved as it was evident that they had young. I found one of them which was about the size of a newly hatched chicken and had ridiculously long legs. The parents had led the young about 200 yards from the nest to a drier part. On July 5th I found the young about a quarter of a mile from the nesting place in a part where the grass was much shorter. It would appear that the old birds move them to grass only sufficiently high to cover them when squatting, for when walking about they were clearly visible and I counted three with the aid of binoculars. When alarmed they took cover in the long grass at dyke verges. The parents at times flew within ten yards of me in their anxiety. W. S. Gunton. TURNSTONE IN HERTFORDSHIRE. I HAVE to-day (August 29th, 1941) had good views of a Turnstone {Arenaria i. interpres) at Startop’s End Reservoir, Tring. I was told that it arrived yesterday — a day of strong westerly winds. There are few records of this species at the Reservoirs — apparently only four, viz.: Sept. 4th, 1928 ; May 26th, 1934 ; August 15th, 1937 and May 21st, 1938. Cyril E. Martin. Lesser Whitethroat singing at night. — We are in- formed by Miss S. M. Butlin that on May 29th, 1941, she heard a Les.ser Whitethroat [Sylvia c. ciirruca) give a full-length song-rattle at 2.45 a.m. The night was mild, cloudy, and fairly light. Night singing of the Lesser Whitethroat does not appear to have been reported by any British observer, but a case has been recorded on the Continent of a bird which sang regularly during the night in two successive seasons. (C. Krietsch, Beit. Fortpfl-hiol. Fog., 1931, p. 182). Black-necked Grebe breeding in Cheshire. — Mr. E. Hardy states [Field, Aug. 23, 1941, p. 249) that at a field meeting of the Merseyside Naturalists’ Association at Oakmere, Cheshire, on Aug. 3rd, 194J, a Black-necked Grebe [Podiceps n. nigricollis) feeding two young in down was watched. It will be recalled that Mr. A. W. Boyd recorded a definite case of breeding on another Cheshire mere in 1939 and gave evidence of possible breeding in other years [antea, Vol. xxxiii, pp. 163-4). . , ^ ’^41 PUBCHASEI^ > A HISTORY OF THE BIRDS OF ESSEX William E. Glegg, f.z.s., m.b.o.u. Numerous Photographs and a Map. Demy 8vo. 25/—, A HISTORY OF THE BIRDS OF MIDDLESEX William E. Glegg^ f.z.s., m.b.o.u. 6 Plates and Map. Demy 8vo. 18/-. A HISTORY OF THE BIRDS OF NORFOLK B. B. Riviere^ f.r.c.s., f.z.s., m.b.o.u. 16 Plates and Map. Demy 8vo. 25/-. BIRD.LIFE IN THE ISLE OF MAN Golonel H. W. Madoc^ c.b.e., m.v.o. Photographs. Crown 8vo. 6/-. BIRD MIGRATION A. Landsborough Thomson Illustrated. Small Crown 8vo. 5/- net. BOUND VOLUMES AND SETS OF BRITISH BIRDS Volumes I — XII (1907 — 1919) including Index Vol., £8. Volumes XIU— XXV (1920-1932) £13. SPECIAL OFFER to Subscribers taking the COMPLETE SET of the 34 Volumes (including the Index to Volumes I — XII) £25. Single Volumes of recent years £1 4s. 6d. each. The books are strongly bound In brown cloth, gold lettered, with gilt tops. H. F. & G. WITHERBY, 326, High Holborn, LONDON, W.C.l. READY SHORTLY Final Volume of THE HANDBOOK OF BRITISH BIRDS [TERNS TO GAME-BIRDS] The Fifth and concluding Volume of this standard work includes the Terns, Gulls, Skuas, Auks, Rails and Game-birds. Also additions and corrections, an annotated systematic list and an index to the whole work. As in previous volumes there are a large number of coloured plates, some monochrome plates, many maps and text figures. IN FIFE VOLUMES— £5 5S- H. F. & G. WITHERBY LTD, )i6 High Holborn, London ^ PF,C,i ANffiUSrKOroWVtSOTC Dm?inH]iiaiyT(9iiiENRi)$ '^CWTOEDKIlSIIHSr^ M0NTIIIY'Is9