%r « o z ' „ I ^ _ H0I1 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUliSNI NVSNOSHIIWS co 53 m w m !" Ngom^ m JTJON^ NOIlfUllSKirNIVINOSHlIWS^Sa I HVB 8 I ”1 L I B RAR I ES^SMITHSONIAh c/> z _ _ _ 5 w 2 4< s - < < b. St X \& H* > i > T^r 2 > u’an^LIBRARI ES^SMITHSONIAN* INSTITUTION^NOIinillSNI_NVINOSHilW! ^ 4^ ydS5j2$ti\ ^ * Ui |J ■' 2 JT10N WN0UfUliSNI^NVIN0SHllHSv. w z _ _ ^ (n z hS . . 2 < x^sov>n. s < fcs Vw» -jJ .✓ a# ir -J z//v; SIM ^=l Z3 />> O ^ I i 5 4*pr i w ~ vo: avaan LIBRARIES^SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION^NOIXfUIXSNrNVINOSHJ ~ ''r rn - co — — m _ avaan libraries Smithsonian institution noiituiisni nvinoshj ^ CO Z # ■"* — ? < Z ^ -H z vx Zj 4W%Zs/'Sj, z /s 5* o X 4|f ^o\ o X Jl|% o y in v co ««S * co ■ tn J&MC' jx# tn -s * 2 z: 2%. o OT ,v > s > ■ s ' — z \ <" _ _ > ^CULTURAL "MAGAZINE VOLUME 91 Numbers 1 and 2 CONSERVATION SPECIAL DOUBLE ISSUE CONSERVATION SPECIAL ISSUE Breeding the Tahiti Blue Lory, by Rosemary Low (with colour and black and white plates) . The Woodhens of Lord Howe Island, by P. J. Fullagar (with black and white plates) . Breeding Lear’s Macaw at the Busch Gardens, by Ed Bish . Breeding the Cloven-feathered Dove, by Dr. H. Quinque (with colour plates) . . Genetic and Demographic Management of Captive Red-crowned Cranes, by Scott Swengel . . Rare Birds in the National Wildlife Centre, Mt. Bruce, New Zealand by I.J. Bryant (with black and white plates) . The New Zealand Kiwis, by B.E. Rowe (with black and white plate) . Decline of the Greater Patagonian Conure, by Tony Silva . The Status in captivity of four Australian Parrots, by Barry R. Hutchins . The Laysan Teal - Recent History and Future?, by Prof. S. Dillon Ripley .... Summary of Peregrine Falcon Production and Re-introduction by the Peregrine Fund in the United States, 1973-1984, by Tom J. Cade and Victor J. Hardaswick . Captive Management of the Eastern White Stork by Kyoko M. Archibald (with black and white plate and line drawing) The Hawaiian Goose in the 1980s, by Janet Kear . A Brief Summary of the Status of Endangered Pheasants in Captivity, by Keith Howman . The Captive Programme for the Endangered Puerto Rican Parrot by James W. Wiley (with black and white plate) . .... Avicultural Breeding Society Register, by Philip Schofield . Captive breeding programme for the most endangered ibis in the world, by Charles Luthin . Editorial . . . 1 15 30 32 41 48 59 64 65 76 79 92 102 110 116 117 119 .. J THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE welcomes original articles that have not been published elsewhere and that essentially concern the aviculture of a particular bird or group of birds, or that describe their natural history. Articles should be preferably typewritten, with double spacing, and the scientific names as well as the vernacular names of birds should be given. References cited in the text should be listed at the end of the article. Line drawings should be in Indian ink on thick paper or card; photographs which illustrate a particular point in the article will be used where possible and should be clearly captioned. ADDRESS OF EDITOR Mary Harvey, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 R.H. Grantham Tahiti Blue Lory, adult Avicultural Magazine THE JOURNAL OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY Vol. 91 - Nos. 1 & 2 - 1985 ISSN 0005-2256 All rights reserved CONSERVATION SPECIAL ISSUE BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY Vini peruviana By ROSEMARY LOW (New Barnet, Hertfordshire) As avicultural subjects, the lories are among the most beautiful and interesting of all birds. They comprise 1 1 genera, of which the most dis¬ tinctive are, perhaps, the tiny Vini species. Found on islands of the South Pacific, none has ever been exported on a commercial basis and all are very rare or unknown in aviculture. Of the five species, two are unusual in having the plumage blue and white - the Ultramarine V. ultramarina , which is light blue and exquisitely patterned, and the Tahiti Blue Lory V. peruviana which is dark violet blue. The plumage is set off by the white ‘bib’ and orange-red bill and feet. It measures 14 cm (SVi In) and weighs 31 g to 34 g, males being heavier.My measurements are from live birds held in the hand; Forshaw’s length of 1 8 cm is incorrect. The plumage is identical in male and female except for the white bib which may be marginally deeper in the male. Males have the head and bill slightly larger, also the feet, which may be deeper orange than the female’s. Sexual differences are not obvious in some of the young we have reared. At San Diego Zoo surgical sexing is used to determine sex, the instrument employed being a 2.7 mm Wolf Laparoscope. The anaesthetic used is 4 mg of Ketamine which does not induce complete relaxation but is apparently adequate for the procedure. The birds are not allowed to feed for at least one hour before surgery. John Mitchell, senior keeper, informed me: ‘Tahi¬ tians tend to remain sleepy for three to five hours post surgery and are given supplemental heat during recovery. They stay at the hospital for 48 hours’ observation and are then returned to their enclosures.’ 2 ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY A vicultural History In 1936 Eastham Guild, an American resident on Tahiti, took a number of Tahiti Blue Lories to England. This would appear to be the first record of this species in aviculture. The birds were acquired for the Duke of Bed¬ ford (Lord Tavistock). After several months most of them died and it was believed that the diet was at fault. All but one pair of the eight survivors were then sent to Dr. Derscheid in Belgium. The remaining pair bred on at least two occasions, despite the vicious behaviour of the male towards the female. Tavistock (1938) recorded that on the first occasion 'about eight weeks’ elapsed from the time of the laying of the eggs to the emergence of the youngster from the nest. This was incorrect as young speed about nine weeks in the nest. At about the same era, in the USA, Mrs. Gilbert Lee also kept this species and hatched chicks which were not reared. The captive history of this species would have ended at this point had it not been for the activities of smugglers in 1977. Distribution and Status The Tahiti Blue Lory is found only In the Society Islands, the most western of the Tuamotu Islands and on Aitutaki in the Cook Islands. On Tahiti, the principal Society Island, it Is believed to have become extinct during the early years of the present century. It is rare on all accessible islands within Its range and apparently is common only on isolated small atolls in the Tuamotu group. Forshaw (1978) describes this species as “seriously endangered”. This view is not shared by David Holy oak who studied the birds of French Polynesia during the 1970s. In his opinion neither this species nor the Ultramarine “seem imminently threatened.” His belief is that the main long-term threat is “from forest loss” but as these species are not con¬ fined to undisturbed forest, “they may survive in gardens” (Holyoak, pers. comm. 1983). These contrasting views make one point clear: field work is urgently needed to establish the status of this very vulnerable species. Its range has contracted; it was formerly much more widespread in the Society Is¬ lands and in the Tuamotu Archipelago. It probably is not endemic to the Cook Islands but perhaps was introduced there. In 1976 Neville Gare stated that Tahiti Blue Lories occurred there in gardens near habitation but were not conspicuous and total numbers appeared to be low (Forshaw, 1978). Reportedly, it is common only on small atolls, thus nowhere is its population likely to be large. Forshaw believed that rats were responsible for its extirpation from Bora Bora; he searched intensively and unsuccess- ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY 3 fully for it there in 1971 and found rats to be prevalent. These tiny birds have no chance of survival against rats which nest in palms and other trees in the tropics. Coconut palms are 'the usual nesting site of Blue Lories, thus rats could be a serious threat to their existence. Other reasons suggested for their decline and disappearance are the introduction of the Harrier Circus aemginosus which may or may not have preyed on this species and the introduction of a mosquito (Culinoides) which is a vector of avian malaria. Re-introduction to Aviculture On 2nd October 1977, Dr. Art Risser, Curator of Ornithology at San Diego Zoo, met two men who visited the Zoo. One was from Tahiti and the other from New Caledonia. They said they were interested in acquir¬ ing birds and asked to be put in touch with aviculturists in southern Calif¬ ornia. Next day Dr. Risser was informed by several aviculturists that the men were offering pairs of Vini peruviana. Customs agents were notified. The men were arrested on 7th October, tried on 25th October, found guilty and sentenced. Meanwhile, the birds “became entangled in red tape” (Risser, 1979). At that time birds not quarantined for the minimum 30 days were destroyed. Because of their rarity, customs officials who legally had custody of the confiscated birds, sought an exemption to the destruction rule. While their fate was decided, the birds were in quarantine at San Diego Wild Animal Park. Their fortunes were followed by thousands of interested bird lovers and aroused national interest. I still have a file of newspaper cuttings and copies of letters to senators and various officials who literally pleaded for their lives. I received a call from Dr. James Dolan, general curator of San Diego Wild Animal Park. One way to overcome the problem might be to quaran¬ tine them overseas. If this was permitted, would we take them, he asked? The Ministry of Agriculture responded to the emergency and issued a licence to import them in record time. (Fortunately, in those days no. other licence was required.) Thus it was on a frosty morning in early November that my husband and I anxiously awaited the arrival of a very precious consignment at London Airport. We carried the box out into the wintry sunshine and lift¬ ed the protective sacking to reveal the most exquisite birds imaginable. My first reaction was how tiny they were and my second was wonder at the glossy depth of their midnight blue plumage. No picture can prepare one for their beauty and animation. They were placed together in one flight in the quarantine room and were soon feeding and exploring. It occurred to me how like tits were their 4 ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY R.H. Grantham R.H. Grantham Small planted house containing one pair of Tahiti Blue Lories Nesting log in which a young Tahiti Blue Lory was reared ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY 5 actions and call notes; they have a rasping contact note reminiscent of that of the Blue Tit Parus caeruleus. I can visualise small groups of them work¬ ing their way through coconut palms when feeding, rather like tits moving through trees in search of insects. Presumably they do not need to move far in search of food and have no need for rapid and sustained flight. Forty years previously the Duke of Bedford had recorded sudden and unexplained losses in his group of Tahiti Blue Lories. Within the next few weeks we were to have the same problem. Nothing significant could be found on post mortem. In desperation I spoke to the late John Yealland, who was curator of the Duke of Bedford’s birds when the Blue Lories (both species) were included in the collection. He told me everything he could remember but we remained mystified concerning the losses. With hindsight and several years’ experience of breeding these birds which, in temperament are totally unlike any other lory I have kept, I have little doubt that the losses were due to stress induced by other birds. Tahiti Blue Lories can be extremely aggressive. I do not mean that they inflict physical injuries on each other but they can quite literally stress a com¬ panion to death. A recent occurrence is a typical instance. Two year old birds, siblings, had lived together in a 6 ft (1.8 m) flight all their lives. Late one evening, when I turned out the birdroom light and switched on the blue 15 w nightlight, one was chasing the other. At 6.45 am next morning one bird was missing. When it appeared from behind the nest-box it was severely distressed. Guessing that its companion had been chasing it, I immediately caught up the aggressor and put a heat-lamp above the other. It sat on the nectar pot with eyes half closed and wings hanging down. I knew that the next half an hour would be crucial and that it would either lapse into a coma from which it would never recover, or it would gradually improve. Fortunately, the latter occurred. This bird had no injuries but had been frightened almost to death by its companion. I never dared to reunite the two birds but after one week I introduced an unmated bird into the flight of the one which had been so near to death. I was surprised and delighted to find that they were compatible. Fighting between siblings can occur before they are weaned at 12 weeks and separation has sometimes been necessary at this early age. On another occasion, when introducing two young birds, one hand-reared and the other parent-reared, in a flight which was neutral territory, the hand-reared bird behaved so aggressively that the two had to be separated after a few minutes. The Duke of Bedford recorded of his breeding pair that although the male was most affectionate towards the female at times, on other occasions he would turn on her viciously without warning. At San Diego Zoo the 6 ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY same problem has been experienced. One morning John Mitchell arrived just in time to rescue the hen from being killed by the male. At the time the pair were rearing a chick. The female was removed and the male reared the chick on his own. In my experience Tahiti Blue Lories can be greatly stressed by removal to new surroundings, even if only a few feet from the former accommoda¬ tion. On -one occasion a pair was moved a few feet from a cage to a flight in the same birdroom. One turned on the other and gave it a severe beating. On another occasion four young birds were removed a few feet from small holding cages to a small planted heated flight. One died within three hours of being placed inside (no aggressive behaviour had occurred) and another showed signs of stress and had to be moved back to the cage. This aspect of keeping and breeding Tahiti Blue Lories is extremely dis¬ couraging. Most of our youngsters are hand-reared, and hours of work go into the rearing of each one. Yet so often a totally healthy bird will die within minutes as a result of stress from, a situation which would not cause any other lory to bat an eye. After the 90-day quarantine period of the original group, arrangements were made to return them. Within two hours of placing them within their travelling cage two were dead and a third so severely stressed it never re¬ covered. The attempt to return them was, therefore, abandoned. However, San Diego Zoo already had Tahiti Blue Lories in its collection. A second group of smuggled birds had been confiscated on 25th January, 1978. Precedent had been set for exemption from destruction and, after being quarantined in Honolulu, they went to San Diego Zoo, where they were placed on exhibit in May of that year. Meanwhile, we had been left with three birds, two females and one! male. The male was paired to a female who was in nest feather on arrival, ie, she was less than six months old. She celebrated her ability to produce by laying an egg from the perch in May 1979 (just before she was two years old). The next clutch consisted of two infertile eggs which were in¬ cubated by male and female (Low, 1980). A third clutch was laid that year. When the nest was inspected on 26th November it contained a dead newly hatched chick and one live chick which was probably one or two days old. It was removed for hand-rearing. Since that time the pair has bred continuously. Infertile eggs have been rare and dead-in-shell unknown. Incubation is shared, as has been men¬ tioned, but the male appears to do more than his fair share. The same applies to the feeding of young chicks. The incubation period would appear to be 25 days. Eggs measure ap¬ proximately 1 7 mm x 1 5 mm. Incubation normally starts with the laying of the first egg. On a single occasion the two chicks hatched four days ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY 7 R.H. Grantham The eggs of the Tahiti Blue Lory measure approximately 17 mm x 15 mm Tahiti Blue Lory chick aged 39 days R.H. Grantham 8 ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY apart, instead of the usual two days apart. On one occasion only, both hatched on the same day. The chick hatched four days after its sibling would have stood little chance of survival so both were removed for hand¬ rearing when the youngest was two days old. The pair has never reared young beyond the age of four weeks and is not normally allowed to feed the chicks after they are two weeks old. I greatly dislike continually removing chicks, thus on two occasions they were allowed to keep their young. Each time one was killed in the fourth week so the other chick had to be removed. The risk of loss is too high, thus chicks are now invariably removed before two weeks. Experience has taught me that when chicks become noisy they must be removed; when fed adequately they are quiet. The parents seem to be poor feeders and the chicks’ crops are never bulging. This is in complete contrast to a sibling pair hatched on 26th and 28th February, 1982. They are kept in a small planted house, thermostatically maintained at 65°F (18°C). The first clutch, a single egg, was laid on 1 1th February, 1984. It was broken halfway through the incubation period. The next egg was laid on about 6th April. It hatched on 1st May. It was exceptionally well-fed and cared for. In this case hand-reared birds proved to be far superior parents than their wild-caught parents. I would empha¬ sise this point because there are still people who believe the myth that hand-reared birds are useless for breeding purposes. The reverse is usually true. Being tame and steady they are not stressed by nest inspection. We usually change the nest litter every week when lories have chicks. When I removed the chick for this purpose and held it in my hand, its mother would perch on my hand and preen it or feed it. The moments when I held two generations of Tahiti Blue Lories in one hand were unforgettable. The chick left the nest on 30th June, aged 61 days. It was a joy to see it with its parents. Within two weeks it could do everything they could do. A male, it was removed on 9th September and a few weeks later a hand- reared female, just weaned, was placed with it in a small flight. The two birds were immediately compatible. The young pair made no further at¬ tempt to nest that year. This is in complete contrast to the imported female who recycles usu¬ ally within three weeks, sometimes four. The year from November 1983 is typical of their breeding activity. Two eggs were laid by 28th November; one hatched on 22nd December and the chick was removed for hand-feed¬ ing on 28th December. The female laid on 26th and 28th January 1984. The first chick hatched on 18th February and two chicks were removed for hand-feeding on 26th February. ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY 9 R.H. Grantham Immature Blue Lory, aged 1 1 weeks. Note the small area of white on the face at this age. The same Tahiti Blue Lory chick, aged 55 days R.H. Grantham 10 ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY There were two eggs by 2nd April, one of which had hatched by the 26th. The chick was removed on 6th May. The female laid about 25th May. By 24th June two chicks had hatched. They were removed on 1st July. Two eggs were laid by 3rd September. A chick seen on 28th September was about four days old. It was removed on 7th October. The first egg of the next clutch was laid on 6th November. Of the seven chicks hatched by the pair in this period, two died during the weaning period, one is currently six weeks old and the other four were reared. Chicks Newly hatched chicks weigh 2 g or less. They are covered in longish white down. This is not dense, as in some lories. At 10 days the feather tracts appear as rows of tiny black dots. The eyes start to slit at about two weeks but may not be fully open until 18 to 21 days. At five weeks the wing feathers are erupting and, a few days later, the feathers on top of the head. As the feathers open, the chick assumes a distinctive appearance, shared only by (some or all?) Charmosyna lorikeets. The cheeks, lores, throat and upper breast are bare when the surrounding areas are feathered. At this stage the narrow, elongated, partly bare head reminds me of a Pes- quet’s Parrot. Birds in nest feather are very dull coloured. The underparts are the first area to be covered in feathers and these are dull blue-grey. The upper parts are dull bluish, brighter blue on the head. There are a few grey or greyish- white feathers at the side of the beak. The feet and bill are black. The first white feathers appear at about five months and full adult plumage by about six months. It takes longer for the feet and beak to take on the orange-red coloration of the adult. A spoon - no other implement - is used for feeding chicks of all ages, including newly hatched ones. A Tahiti Blue Lory of a few hours old, weighing only 2 g, will feed readily from a spoon. I have never had a young parrot chick of any species which did not immediately accept spoon¬ feeding and would attribute non-acceptance of the spoon, to the food or both not being hot enough. Chicks are fed at periods varying from every one and a half hours (for the first two to three days), every two hours (up to about two weeks), then every two to two and a half hours. Feeding is carried out between 6.15 a.m. and 11.15 p.m. Chicks up to about eight days receive a 3 a.m. feed: this is extended to 4 a.m., 5 a.m., and 6 a.m. by the time they are 10 or 1 1 days old. ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY 11 Crops are never filled grossly and the crop is usually empty for a period of about half an hour between each feed. It is then quickly apparent if a chick’s crop is not emptying normally - the first indication that something is wrong. Newly hatched chicks are kept at a temperature of 92-95°F. This is gradually reduced until by the time chicks are fully feathered at about eight weeks old, or earlier in the summer, heat is discontinued. 12 ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY RH. Grantham Hand-reared pair (female on right) who raise young in a small planted house Rearing Food The diet used throughout the rearing period is a very simple one. It consists of two types of Heinz tinned baby foods in equal parts: ‘Pure Fruit’ and ‘Bone and Beef Broth with Vegetables’. Brand’s ‘Essence of Beef is added to the food for about 10 days after the chicks are removed from the nest. This additional protein is to replace the small insects which I believe these birds would feed to their young, were they available. Diet Every day these birds receive ‘nectar’, sponge cake and nectar, a little sweet corn (maize) and fruit. The latter includes apple and pear; pome¬ granates and grapes are more highly favoured. A little greenfood, such as spinach and lettuce, is given occasionally. Tiny insects are eaten by birds in planted enclosures. Mealworms are ignored; presumably they are too large. The nectar mixture used is made up fresh two or three times daily as follows: one heaped dessertspoonful of malt extract is dissolved in boiling water. Two dessertspoonfuls of glucose or one of honey is added, then three of a fruit-flavoured Milupa baby cereal. Water is added to give about ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY 13 35 fl oz (1 litre) of mixture, then about half a dessertspoonful of Fussell’s condensed milk. The condensed milk can be omitted in hot weather. Some items of food are treated like playthings and are provided mainly for this purpose. For example, the younger ones react to a small leafy sprig of celery or a grape by laying on their backs and playing with it held in the feet. Playful characteristics Young birds are especially playful and will be seen every day rolling to¬ gether on the floor. A two and a half year old pair still use the flat surface of the nest-box for this purpose. Almost any small item will be used in play. They delight in swinging, especially from a twig suspended loosely from the roof of the flight. They work up a speed as they swing it like a pendulum. I have often observed young birds swinging from the wing or foot of another youngster as it swung from beneath the perch by one foot. The most favoured preening position of one young male is to hang beneath the perch by one foot. Accommodation Tahiti Blue Lories cannot easily tolerate temperatures below 50°F (10°C). Even though they are housed indoors permanently, and therefore protected from the elements, a room heater or infra-red heat lamp (Sala¬ mander, with a shatter-proof ceramic element, made by Infrared Inter¬ nationale Ltd. of Salisbury, Wilts.) is used when the birds look uncom¬ fortable. If they roost in their nest-box a heater at night is not necessary, but not all my birds use their nest-box for roosting. Nest-boxes measure about 5 in2 (13 cm2) and 9 in (23 cm) high. Given a choice between a bark-covered oblong nest-box and a natural log, a young hand-reared pair chose the latter. The internal dimensions were 3 in2 (8 cm2) and 12 in (31 cm) high. Nesting material consists of pet litter obtained in compressed packs (Petcraft). The behaviour of the above-mentioned pair was interesting. When their single chick was about six weeks old, they ceased to brood it at night and roosted elsewhere, in the nest-box. This pair is kept in a small planted house measuring 4 ft2 (1.2 m2) and 6 ft (1.8 m) high. (This size is adequate for this small species which has a weak flight.) The house is thermostatically controlled at 65°F (18°C). A sprinkler system is installed for the benefit of birds and plants. The lories delight in bathing in a Kentia palm when the sprinkler is turned on. In a small space they are quite destructive to vegetation, having totally des¬ troyed a passion flower vine and severely damaged a Ficus. Nevertheless, 14 ROSEMARY LOW - BREEDING THE TAHITI BLUE LORY I wish it were possible to keep all of them in this way. They derive such pleasure from climbing and bathing in the plants and in sliding down ver¬ tical stems. Once one has kept small lories in this way, bare, sterile flights seem totally unsatisfactory. The pair In the planted house provides more enjoyment than possibly any other birds in the collection. The house adjoins the kitchen, whose large window forms one side of their house. Delightfully inquisitive, they often fly on to the ledge beneath the window to observe what is happening in the kitchen. If nectar is being made, they demand a share. Like all lories, they prefer it still warm. Avicultuml future In December 1984 two young birds were taken to the Bronx Zoo in New York. They will join some bred by San Diego Zoo. To safeguard the future of this exquisite little bird in aviculture, it is vitally important that other breeding groups are established. Its vulnerability in the wild makes it imperative that it is established in aviculture. REFERENCES FORSHAW, J.M. (1978). Parrots of the World (second edition). Lansdowne Press, Sydney. LOW, Rosemary (1979). The Tahiti Blue Lory ...a chapter. Avicultuml Bulletin , January 4-8; ......................... (1980). Hand-rearing the Tahiti Blue Lory. Avicultuml Bulletin . October, 6-11. RISSER, Arthur C. (1979). The Saga of the Tahitian Lories. Avicultuml Bulletin , January, 9-14. TAVISTOCK, The Marquess of (1938). The breeding of the Tahiti Blue Lory. Avi- cultural Magazine , February, 34-38. * * * The Society is most grateful to the anonymous member who donated the colour plate that accompanies this article. 15 THE WOODHENS OF LORD HOWE ISLAND ByPJ, FULLAGAR (Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research, CSIRO, Australia) By 1979 the Woodhens Tricholimnas sylvestris, Slater 1869, of Lord Howe Island were in grave peril. Few of these endemic forest- dwelling rails remained on their small subtropical oceanic island in the south-west Pacific and they were obviously on the brink of extinction. However, much has happened in the last five years and today we can look at the prospects for survival of Woodhens with much greater confidence. The Woodhen story has been one of co-operation between research and management. Research was needed to provide a basic understanding of their biology. Management had to cope with restoration of habitat and the urgent need to increase Woodhen numbers. Research has ranged in many directions. It has involved the study of all sorts of material held in museum, library and private collections; labelled specimens, early photographs, paintings, manuscripts and many published reports. All of these sources had to be carefully examined in the hope of throwing some new light on the plight of the Woodhen. Much field work had to be done to determine exactly how many Woodhens there were and what was their present distribution. Information was needed urgently on many aspects of the life history of the Woodhen to define broadly its environmental requirements. We had to establish why it had declined and determine whether anything could be done to save it. Management involved the consideration of a captive breeding pro¬ gramme. Eventually, this was set up and it achieved great success but, at the same time, efforts had to be made to remove predators and ensure that as much as possible of the former habitat of the Woodhen was avail¬ able for it to populate, either by release of captive-reared birds, or by a natural colonisation from what remained of the wild population. But first a little more about Lord Howe Island, its flora, fauna and history. Flora , fauna and history of Lord Howe Island Lord Howe is a volcanic island on a submarine ridge in the North Tasman Sea at latitude 31°32 South and longitude 159°05 East. This is about 700 km in an ENE direction from Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The main island is roughly crescent-shaped and about 12 km long by less than 3 km at its widest (fig. 1). Clustered about it are several smaller islands and rocky stacks, including a group known as the Admir- 16 P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS 159° 05’ Figure 1. Map of Lord Howe Island showing places named in the text P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS 17 alty Islands, Mutton-bird Island and the spectacular Ball’s Pyramid, a massive rock pinnacle rising sheer to 550 m, about 30 km south of the main island. At the northern end of the main island are hills rising to 150 m with extensive sea cliffs. Much of the centre of the island is low lying, edging a shallow lagoon and coral reef to the west. The southern half consists of two imposing mountains, Mt. Lidgbird, 777 m, which has steep sloping sides and no plateau; and Mt. Gower, 852 m, almost surrounded by verti¬ cal cliffs with a summit plateau of 26 hectares. The tops of the moun¬ tains are frequently in cloud and are covered by moss forest. There is no evidence that Lord Howe Island was visited by man until its discovery in 1788. Since then much has changed (Hindwood, 1940). No native land mammals occurred on the island but several have been introduced. Several species of land birds have become extinct. Two nat¬ ive land reptiles, a skink Leiolopisma lichenigera and a gecko Phyllo- dactylus guentheri, are rare; the land fauna of invertebrates has been greatly reduced, certainly in numbers and, to some extent, in richness of species (Recher & Clark, 1974a and b). The flora has been modified considerably (Pickard, 1983). Human settlement, which has been continuous since 1834, has resul¬ ted in extensive clearing of lowland forests; but over much of the island, especially the mountains, the native vegetation would appear to remain unaltered. Generally it is dominated by subtropical rain forest, much of it including one of four endemic palms. However, these forests are prob¬ ably much altered in composition and structure as a result of grazing and foraging by feral populations of pig, goat and the accidentally-introduced Black Rat. Only the sparse vegetation of the offshore islands is likely to have remained little changed by man. Today there are about 250 people resident on Lord Howe Island, augmented by a similar number of tourists during the height of the summer season. There is an all-weather airstrip providing easy access by light aircraft. More than 130 species of birds have been listed for Lord Howe Island (Fullagar et al, 1974). Many of these are vagrants and today only 28 species are known to breed regularly on the islands. Most indigenous land birds are now extinct (Table 1). Altogether, a dozen or so species have been introduced to Lord Howe Island, but only the Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae and the Peewee Grallina cyanoleuca seem to have become established (Recher, 1974). Masked Owls were deliberately introduced in the late 1920s, together with several other owls, in the erroneous belief that they might have some benefit in rat control. A small population of the Masked Owl has persisted since then and has been a serious predator of seabirds locally on the main island. At least eight species of land birds have 18 P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS TABLE 1. INDIGENOUS LAND BIRDS OF LORD HOWE ISLAND Woodhen Trick olimnas sylvestris White Gallinule Notomis alba extinct Lord Howe Pigeon Columba vitiensis godmanae extinct Lord Howe Parrakeet Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae subflavescens extinct Lord Howe Owl Ninox albaria extinct Lord Howe Thmsh Turdus poliocephalus vinitinctus extinct Lord Howe Warbler Gerygone insularis extinct Lord Howe Fantail Rhipidura cervina extinct Lord Howe Golden Pachycephala pectoralis contempta Whistler Lord Howe Silvereye Zosterops tephropleura Robust Silvereye Zosterops strenus extinct Lord Howe Starling Aplonis fuscus hullianus extinct Lord Howe Currawong Strepera graculina crissalis TABLE 2. BIRDS RECENTLY COLONISING LORD HOWE ISLAND White-faced Heron Ardea novaehollandiae 1938 Black Duck/Mallard X Anas superciliosa and hybrids with sporadic A. platyrhynchos Nankeen Kestrel Falco cenchroides early 1940s Banded Landrail Gallirallus philippensis sporadic White Tern Gygis alba 1967 Emerald Dove Chalcophaps in die a after 1869(?*) Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae 1922-1930(*) Sacred Kingfisher Halcyon snacta 1869 Welcome Swallow Hi run do neoxena 1975 Blackbird Turdus merula 1953 Song Thrush Turdus philomelos (1928?) 1950s Starling Stumus vulgaris 1924 Peewee Grallina cyanoleuca 1913 (*1924) * Introduced TABLE 3. SEABIRDS OF LORD HOWE ISLAND Providence Petrel Kermadec Petrel Black-winged Petrel Fleshy-footed Shearwater Wedge-tailed Shearwater Little Shearwater White-bellied Storm-petrel Masked Booby Red-tailed Tropic -bird Sooty Tern Brown Noddy Grey Ternlet White Tern Pterodroma solan dri P. neglecta P. nigripennis Puffinus carneipes P. pacific us P. assimilis Frege tta gr allaria Sula dactylatra Phaethon rubricauda Sterna fuscata Anous stolidus Procelstema cerulea Gygis alba P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS 19 reached Lord Howe unaided since 1869 and then colonised (Table 2). No species of breeding seabird is certainly known to have become extinct during the recorded history of Lord Howe Island. Today, at least 13 spe¬ cies of seabird breed on the islands (Table 3). The Woodhen The Woodhen is a flightless rail of medium size, having a body weight of about 450 g. It is of a general olive-brown colour, but the wings are boldly marked with chestnut and black bars. Woodhens have rather long, slightly down-curved bills. The New Zealand Weka Gallirallus australis is larger, but similar in colour in some of its plumage types, but the bill of the Weka is much stronger and more wedge-shaped (see Fullagar et al, 1982). From all accounts the Woodhen was once common and distributed over most of the main island (Hindwood, 1940; van Twets & Fullagar, 1974). There is no evidence that it ever occurred on any of the offlying islands and this is not surprising since none of them supports a forest vegetation. The Woodhen is listed amongst the 21 endangered genera of birds by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The only other member of the genus, Tricholimnas lafresneyanus of New Caledonia, seems now to be extinct (Stokes, 1979; Fullagar et al, 1982). It is generally agreed that the closest living relatives of the Woodhens are the Banded Landrails Gallirallus philippensis and the Wekas (Ripley, 1977; Fullagar et al, 1982). The plight of the Woodhen was not fully appreciated until as recently as 1969, by which time the remnant population was, for all intents and purposes, confined to the top of Mt. Gower (A.B.C., 1974); Disney, 1974a & b; Disney & Fullagar, 1981 ; Fullagar & Disney, 1975). From the time that Lord Howe Island was discovered it is probable that various factors have led to a rapid decline in the numbers of Woodhen. In the early 19th century the island was visited regularly by the crews of sailing ships calling for food and fresh water. There is little doubt that they would have taken any Woodhens they could find. The island was permanently settled from 1834 and by 1853 the Woodhens were recorded as only inhabiting the mountainous parts. Although small numbers were known to persist in a few lowland areas well into the present century, there is no doubt that the decline had been very rapid. With people came dogs and cats (before 1845), pigs (before 1839), goats (before 1851) and eventually the Black Rat (in 1918) (Fullagar and Disney, 1975;Recher & Clark, 1974b; Recher and Ponder, 1981). 20 P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS Mt. Gower Study, 1971-1982 An environmental study of Lord Howe Island in 1971 (Recher & Clark, 1974a) led to an intensive study of the biology of the Woodhens remaining on Mt. Gower. For most of the time nearly all birds were marked. At first celluloid colour-bands were used to recognise individuals when resighted, but latterly- we preferred to use the numbered aluminium bands anodised in various colours. Woodhens are relatively easy to catch. After some refinements we found that with a little cunning we could shepherd birds into a short length (10 m) of wader net. We used the upper shelf of a twin-shelf net. Sometimes the loud territorial or other calls of the Wood- hen played from a cassette player were helpful in retaining the birds close to the netting site, but not always. Non-territorial birds often react un¬ favourably to replay of Woodhen calls of any kind. However, in certain circumstances replay may be useful in drawing Woodhens directly into the net. Woodhens on Mt. Gower feed on a wide variety of invertebrates includ¬ ing molluscs, earthworms, amphipods and isopods (Miller & Kingston, 1980). They always forage with the bill and do not use the feet to dig for prey in the forest litter. Woodhen males are larger than females and first year birds are dis¬ tinguishable by their pointed primary feathers (Fullagar & Disney, 1981). Brown eyes are characteristic of young birds, but territory-holding Wood¬ hens have bright crimson eyes. The number of Woodhens on Mt. Gower, including those using the Little and Thatch Pocket areas below the southern razorback (to be men¬ tioned later), has probably remained reasonably steady at 20-25 birds for some time, perhaps the last 50 years. From our observations this number would include no more than 8-10 territorial pairs (Disney, 1974a & b; Disney and Fullagar, 1981; Fullagar & Disney, 1975). Between 1978 and 1981 the number of pairs fell below this level and for some of that time fewer than six pairs were known to be present. This was further compli¬ cated by removal of three pairs in May 1980 to set up the captive breed¬ ing colony. By 1982 we reckoned that a reasonable recovery had occurred when nine pairs were found during a comprehensive survey; and in 1983 at least seven pairs were known to be present on top of Mt. Gower (not in¬ cluding the Pockets). Annual recruitment of young is often very poor. In most years five or fewer chicks survive the breeding season and we have strong suspicions that in some seasons none has been reared. Our best year was 1982/83 when no less than 10 chicks were banded. At least one male Woodhen has survived for 13 years on Mt. Gower. Overall, 25% of marked Woodhens are not seen again four months after banding; 50% disappear within 18 months and 75% before three years. P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS 21 P.J. Fullagar Adult female Woodhen foraging with her bill, Mt. Gower, May 1981 PJ. Fullagar Adult male Woodhen, Mt. Gower, May 1981 22 P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS Half of the chicks banded have not survived to one year old (Disney & Fullagar, 1981). Generally, pairs remain together for life and use the same territorial area of about 2-3 ha throughout that time. This territory is defended by vigorous territorial calling for much of the year and, if necessary, this is reinforced by aggressive pursuits in which intruders are driven off merci¬ lessly on being detected. It is clear that most eggs are laid between August and December. How¬ ever, very few nests have been found because it is probable that most of them are concealed down burrows made by Providence Petrels Pterodroma solandri, which are abundant on Mt. Gower (Fullagar and Disney, 1975). We have no evidence of broods of more than two and many are singles. Rarely does it seem to be possible for Woodhens on Mt. Gower to be double brooded. The season 1982/83 was an exception in that at least one pair was certainly double brooded. The juveniles usually remain with the adults until April or May and they seem to disperse in June and July. The annual moult in adults occurs after breeding in February and March. It includes the simultaneous moult of ‘flight’ feathers typical of rails. Setting up the Woodhen Project Between 1971 and 1975, all work on the Woodhen was organised by John Disney, then Curator of Birds at the Australian Museum, Sydney. Various specialists were involved from time to time, in short but intensive periods of field work on the island. However, much of the effort expended during these years was given voluntarily, with the logistic support being made possible by funds provided by the Lord Howe Island Board, the Aus¬ tralian Museum Trustees and the Australian Commonwealth Department of the Environment. Our studies during these five years led to publicity on the precarious status of the Woodhen (e.g. A.B.C., 1974). In 1976 we prepared a submission outlining our views at that time about further work on the Woodhen and suggesting what might be done to prevent what then seemed to be its imminent extinction (Disney, 1977; Disney et al, 1976). In 1978 Dr Ben Miller was appointed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, New South Wales, to start a two year full-time study of the Woodhen, based on our recommendations. Ben Miller was to be resi¬ dent on the island and an important part of his study was to be a careful evaluation of the options for captive breeding and recolonisation. The work was now being funded as a special project supported by public dona¬ tion collected by the National Parks and Wildlife Foundation of New South Wales. P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS 23 P.J. Fullagar Adult female Woodhen with the first chick reared on the lowlands for many years, February 1982 (see Back Garden Approach). Notice that both birds are showing the ‘sunning’ posture of their wings 24 P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS Ben Miller was able to corroborate our earlier findings. He checked all parts of the island for Woodhens and notably some small hanging valleys or ‘pockets’ below the southern ridge of Mt.Gower, which had remained unexplored until that time (see fig. 1). These pockets proved to be the only significant new localities for Woodhens, but because of their size it seems that they can support at the most only two pairs (Miller & Mullette, in prep.). In Ben Miller’s assessment the pig was the major drawback to successful recolonisation by Woodhens. He initiated work on its eradication and this was eventually taken up by the Lord Howe Island Board with great suc¬ cess. Pigs have almost certainly been brought close to elimination from the island by a vigorous campaign of shooting with the help of dogs to track and bail-up the animals. The Black Rat does not seem to present as serious a problem for Woodhens as might be supposed. Early reports suggest that Woodhens were capable rat catchers (see Fullagar et al, 1982) and our own observa¬ tions would bear this out. Indeed, rat densities were found to be much higher on Mt. Gower than anywhere else on the island (Miller & Kingston, 1980). Cats have been controlled by trapping since 1976, but do not seem nowadays to stray far from the settlement areas. Possession, breeding and further importation of cats is now strictly controlled. It is to be hoped that eventually the Masked Owl will be eradicated; but so far the necessary effort required to track down and shoot the remaining population has not been forthcoming. However, some useful reduction in numbers is being achieved locally in sensitive areas. A most important contribution by Ben Miller, in collaboration with Dr. Tim Kingston of the Australian Museum, was a detailed study of soil fauna throughout the main island. This was done to obtain some idea of the food resources available in different parts of the island and especially to identify potential sites for re-introductions of Woodhens where food would not be a limiting factor. Captive breeding and relocation of Woodhens In 1980, following recommendations by Ben Miller, a Captive Breeding Centre was established on the island and a New Zealand aviculturist, Glenn Fraser, was appointed with the responsibility of breeding as many Woodhens as possible for recolonisation by release of the captive-reared young birds. This centre was located in Steven’s Reserve, a lowland forest area within the Settlement, and consisted of several large closed pens surrounded by a high cat-proof perimeter fence. Incorporated on the site were laboratory and food preparation areas and also incubator and rearing P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS 25 rooms (Fraser, 1983). By June 1980, three pairs of Woodhen had been established in capti¬ vity. These Woodhens had been selected as territory-holding birds in the wild. Thirteen chicks were reared in the first season and 19 in the second, by which time the breeding stock had been raised to five pairs. In the third season a further 34 were reared and 12 more before the captive breeding programme was wound up in December 1983. At the foot of Mt. Gower on the south-west side of the island there is a steep scree, partly stabilised by lowland forest, known as Little Slope (fig. 1). It was clear that this site was particularly suitable for the first attempts at re-introduction of Woodhens. Ben Miller and Tim Kingston put it thus: “Little Slope is a particularly attractive prospect for re-introduction. Apart from the absence of pigs and the availability of a rich food resource, it is isolated from the rest of the island by a cliffline and is inaccessible to pigs, goats and dogs. . .....Feral cats have not been sighted there for 30 years . . The Woodhen was abundant on Little Slope early this century. Its disappearance was probably due to habitat damage by goats which, when put there in the late 1920s, multiplied rapidly and seriously reduced the ground vegetation. In 1955, 300 goats were shot and the population exterminated. The ground cover is once again thick, especially in the gullies, and it appears that habitat recovery has been sufficient to permit re-occupation by the woodhen” (Miller & Kingston, 1980). The first four captive-bred Woodhens were liberated on Little Slope in May 1981. A further three were released in December followed by seven more in February 1982 and a final group of eight birds in June 1982. By that date the total release of captive-bred Woodhens had reached 22 indi¬ viduals (11 males and 11 females). Woodhens proved to be difficult to locate on Little Slope, but no signs of breeding were evident during the first 18 months. Shortly before dark on Friday, 18th February, 1983, John Disney, Chris Davey and I made up a reconnaissance party which located and then captured the first two chicks known to have been reared by captive- reared Woodhens after release back into the wild. Eventually it was established by us that four pairs of Woodhens were holding territories on Little Slope, two of which had bred successfully and for the second pair it was evident that two broods had been reared. Three other males were holding territories, which in total gave a known survival to that date of at least half of the Woodhens released in this area. . ( Back garden approach Perhaps the most remarkable turn of events concerned a wild male Woodhen that was first seen in 1979. At that time this Woodhen caused 26 P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODMENS Woodhen chick - Mt. Gower, February 1983 PJ. Fullagar some excitement, because he was found near Salmon Beach, a lowlands area at the extreme south end of the settlement (fig. 1). A Woodhen on the lowlands was exceptional, not to mention the mystery of where he had come from. However, as time passed he became well established and de¬ fended a territory centred on a rambling garden with the ran of adjoining paddocks, a small reed swamp and some nearby lowland forest. In Novem¬ ber 1981 a captive-reared female Woodhen was successfully introduced to his territory to form a pair. This was achieved despite an earlier failure with this male when he had been brought into captivity, but had proved to be too aggressive and was, therefore, released back in his chosen territory. Dubbed the ‘Back Garden Approach’, this combination of wild and captive-reared Woodhens, occupying a garden area and being provided with supplementary food, began to produce an incredible output of broods. Nine clutches were laid in the first year and by June 1983 (18 months) this female had laid her 11th clutch (a total of 29 eggs) from which 16 chicks were reared. Multiple broods were observed in which young birds from one brood assisted in defence and feeding of chicks of a subsequent P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODHENS 27 brood (Fraser, in prep.). Woodhens from this source have now established several territories at the southern end of the lowlands area on the island. By June 1984 it was becoming difficult to obtain accurate figures on their numbers. An estimated 10 to 20 pairs were present. Several of them had been assisted by translocation to favourable sites. Final liberations Erskine Valley, between the two mountains, was the next most im¬ portant site for liberations after Little Slope, especially with the know¬ ledge that Woodhens were spreading well in the settled lowlands. In Ers¬ kine Valley the first group of 17 birds was released in January 1983, fol¬ lowed by eight more in February and a further nine in June. Some more birds were liberated at Boat Harbour, east of Mt. Lidgbird and at the ‘Goat House5 high on the north-eastern side of Mt. Lidgbird. In all, 74 captive- bred Woodhens were released by the end of 1983 (Table 4). By June 1984 the number of Woodhens at large on Lord Howe Island must certainly have exceeded 200 compared with less than 30 only five years before. It Is still, of course, early days to judge the success of the project and the next few years are most important if the Woodhen is to become well-established. TABLE 4. LIBERATIONS OF WOODHEN ON LORD HOWE ISLAND, 1981-1983 (i) captive-bred birds; (ii) wild-caught birds used to establish breeding colony (3 pairs + 3 extra males); (iii) birds reared in captivity from eggs laid in the settlement area (King’s Residence). Release Site: Captive-bred Wild-caught Wild laid, captive-reared Little Slope 22 _ _ - 22 Erskine Valley 34 - 2 = 36 Boat Harbour 13 3 - = 16 Goat House 4 2 1 = 7 King’s Residence 1 1 - = 2 Salmon Beach - 2 - = 2 Died before release 4 1 1 = 6 Totals: 78 9 4 = 91 Compiled from information supplied by National Parks & Wildlife Service, N.S.W. 28 P i. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODMENS What has it cost and what has been achieved? Converted to 1984 values the entire field programme, which concen¬ trated on the Mt. Gower Woodhen study and involved 15 visits to Lord Howe Island between 1971 and 1983, cost about 70,000 dollars (Austra¬ lian). The Captive Breeding Project, including the two years of full-time study by Ben Miller, cost the Foundation 268,000 dollars. Some addition¬ al costs cannot be assessed accurately as, for example, work done as part of the Woodhen studies, by Rangers employed by the Board. Control of goats and pigs has probably cost an additional 20,000 dollars. If asked why the Woodhens should be conserved, we can no doubt provide some moral justification based on years of neglect. The avifauna of Lord Howe Island is also a major biological resource and the Woodhen could well be a symbol of conservation and enlightened management, if not for all of Australia, then certainly for Lord Howe Island (Recher, 1981). In conserving the Woodhen it must be accepted that it has not been a difficult species to manage. It is flightless, confiding and can be observed readily in the wild even though it so often chooses to live in the densest of vegetation. Captive breeding has been rewarding, and this critical part of the project has run without serious complications. Success in captive breeding must be attributed to good planning, close attention to detail and above all the exceptional skill and patience of Glenn Fraser. The gradual build-up in our knowledge about the Woodhen has meant that a logical plan of action has been possible at each step. One of the most striking features of the study has been the clear demonstration that the residual population of Woodhens on Mt. Gower survived in desperately marginal habitat. Endangered species should not necessarily be assumed to occupy remnant prime habitat. Mt. Gower was free of a critical predator, but ecologically the population was delicately balanced with little room for error. Mt. Gower could not support a very large population and the capacity for increase was severely restricted for those birds that did manage to hold territories. It is remarkable that a small population persisted at this site for so long - probably 50 years. In contrast, Woodhens on the lowlands show much greater rates of increase and reveal social behaviours within the breeding groups that are more or less impossible for Mt. Gower Woodhens Too much attention to detail on Mt. Gower might have led to concepts about behaviour and population dynamics that would be irrelevant for an understanding of Woodhens on the lowlands. Captive-bred Woodhens have been re-introduced successfully into their natural environment, have survived and have been shown to breed and rear young. I believe there is no other example of this course of action yet demonstrated in the conservation of any species of endangered bird. P.J. FULLAGAR - LORD HOWE ISLAND WOODMENS 29 REFERENCES AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION (1974). A Singular Island - Lord Howe Island. Wild Australia series. 29 mins, film (16 mm). DISNEY, H.J. de S. (1974a). Woodhen. Aust Nat Hist 18 (2): 70-72. ................................(1974b). Appendix G. Survey of the Woodhen, p. 73-76. In: Environmental Survey of Lord Howe Island. A report to the Lord Howe Island Board, 1974. (Recher, H.F. and Clark, S.S., eds). N.S.W. Govt Printer, Sydney, pp. 86, 2 maps. ................................(1977). Ornithological research and management programme for Lord Howe Island. Report prepared for Lord Howe Island Board, pp. 6. ................................ and FULLAGAR, P.J. (1981). Studies on the Woodhen Tricho- Umnas sylvestris . p. 32-34. In: Lord Howe Island. A summary of current and projected Scientific and Environmental Activities, 1981. (Recher, H.F. and Ponder, W.F., eds). Occ. Reps. Aust. Mus. No. 1,12 pp. (Disney, H.J. de S.» FuUagar, P.J. and Hall, L.S.) no author shown (1976). Report on the Woodhen of Lord Howe Island. Prepared for the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, pp. 6, 1 fig., 1 map. FRASER, G.L. (1983). Captive breeding of the Lord Howe Island Woodhen. The A.F.A. Watch bEd 10 (2): 3045. FULLAGAR, P.J. and .DISNEY, H.J. de S. (1975). The birds of Lord Howe Island: a report on the rare and endangered species. 12th Bull. Internat. Council Bird Pres., 1975: 187-202. .................................................................. (1981). Discriminant functions for sexing woodhens. Corella 5 (5): 106-109. .................................................................. and DE NAUROIS, R. (1982). Additional specimens of two rare rails and comments on the genus Tricholimnas of New Caledonia and Lord Howe Island. Emu 82 (3): 131-136. FULLAGAR, P.J., McKEAN, J.L. and VAN LETS, G.F. (1974). Appendix F. Report on the birds, p 55-72. In: Environmental Survey of Lord Howe Island. A report to the Lord Howe Island Board, 1974. (Recher, H.F. and Clark, S.S., eds) N.S.W. Govt. Printer, Sydney, pp. 86, 2 maps. HINBWOQD, K.A. (1940). The birds of Lord Howe Island. Emu 40: 1-86. MILLER, B. and KINGSTON, T. (1980). Lord Howe Island Woodhen. Parks and Wildlife. (Endangered animals of New South Wales edition): 17-26. PICKARD, I. (1983). Vegetation of Lord Howe Island. Cunninghamia , 1(2): 133-265. RECHER, H.F. (1974). Colonisation and extinction. The birds of Lord Howe Island. Aust . Nat. Hist. , 18 (2): 64-69. (This special edition of Aust. Nat Hist, was dev¬ oted to articles on Lord Howe Island). .........................(1981). Birds, p. 29. In: Lord Howe Island. A summary of current and projected Scientific and Environmental Activities, 1981. (Recher, H.F. and Ponder, W.F., eds). Occ. Reps. Aust Mus. No. 1, 72 pp. ......................... and CLARK, S.S. (1974a). Environmental Survey of Lord Howe Island. A report to the Lord Howe Island Board. N.S.W. Govt. Printer, Sydney. Pp. viii and 86, 2 maps. ......................... and CLARK, S.S. (1974b), A biological survey of Lord Howe Island with recommendations for the conservation of the island’s wildlife. Biolog. Con¬ sent. 6 (4): 263-273. 30 E. BISH - LEAR'S MACAW ......................... and PONDER, W.F. (Eds). (1981). Lord Howe Island. A summary of current and projected Scientific and Environmental Activities. Occ. Reps . Amt. Mus. No. 1, 72 pp. RIPLEY, S.D. (1977). Rails of the World. A monograph of the Family Rallidae. Boston: D.R. Godine. 406 pp. STOKES, T. (1979). On the possible existence of the New Caledonian Wood Rail Tricholimnas lafresnayanus. Bull. B.O.C. 99 (2): 47-54. VAN TETS, G.F. and FULL AGAR, P.J. (1974). Of sketches, skins and skeletons. Aust Nat Hist. 18 (2): 72-73. sft * # BREEDING LEAR’S MACAW Anodorhynchus leari AT THE BUSCH GARDENS (Tampa, Florida) By ED BISH (Curator of Psittacines) The first hatching of a Lear’s or Indigo Macaw occurred at Busch Gar¬ dens in July 1982. The Lear’s Macaw is very similar in appearance to the Hyacinth but smaller in size and greenish-blue in plumage. This species was known only from captive birds which reached collectors and zoos in the mid- 19th century. It is kept in fewer than half a dozen collections outside its native Brazil and had never previously nested in captivity. The male of the Busch Gardens pair was on breeding loan from another well-known Florida collection, Parrot Jungle in Miami. On the same day it hatched, the chick was taken to Miami, where it was successfully hand- reared by Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Scherr, owners of Parrot Jungle. On 22nd September, 1982, a second chick was hatched at Busch Gar¬ dens, and it was being reared by the parents but did not survive. Two chicks were hatched in 1983, but did not survive. This year, the first clutch of three eggs was infertile. Two chicks hatched from the second clutch of three eggs on 27th and 29th June and are now being hand-reared by Mr. and Mrs. Scherr. The birds which make up our breeding pair are quite old, the male having been in the Parrot Jungle collection for over 25 years, and the female in the Busch Gardens collection for over 20 years. ED BISH - LEAR’S MACAW 31 At Busch Gardens they are housed in a cage measuring 3 ft (0,92 m) sq and 7 ft (2.14m) high. The nesting area is behind a concrete block wall, with an opening large enough for a macaw to enter the nesting area, which measures 3 ft sq. and 4 ft (1.22m) high. The nesting facilities inside the nesting area consist of two metal wash tubs, wired together at their open end, with a small opening cut in the top tub. Wood shavings are used for nesting material. The tubs and nesting area are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected twice a year, and all precautions are taken to insure a healthy environment for this pair of birds. They have been laying three to four clutches of eggs every year, so quite a lot of time is spent in the nesting area. Their diet consists of peanuts, sunflower seed, safflower seed, small dog biscuits, wheat germ oil, carrots, celery, Chinese cabbage, apples, beets and vitamins. Breeding Lear's Macaw is a most notable achievement as this species is the rarest and most endangered of all parrots. It has often been des¬ cribed as one of the greatest mysteries in South American ornithology for, until 1978, all that was known about it was that it came from Brazil. The location of this species had never been found in the wild by natural¬ ists, although it was thought to exist in north-eastern Brazil, in the state of Bahia. Then in 1978, Helmut Sick, a Brazilian ornithologist, discovered the Lear’s Macaw in an inaccessible wilderness area on the Bahia plateau, previously thought to be an unlikely habitat for any macaw species. A flock of 20 birds was seen, but the range of this species is apparently very limited and the total population small It Is a fortunate coincidence that part of this Macaw’s habitat lies within a reserve. For many years this species was thought to be a hybrid of the Hyacinth A. hyacinthinm and the Glaucous Macaw A. glaucus , but this theory has now been discounted since the discovery of a viable wild population which is ecologically isolated from the other two species. Concern has already been expressed that collectors and dealers might seek out these birds due to their enormous commercial value, and measures are now being taken to protect this area. Meanwhile, breeding Lear’s Macaw in captivity is of very great impor¬ tance. At this time, there are not many Lear’s Macaws in captivity - two in Brazil, one in England, one in Paris, and two in the United States other than the breeding pair at Busch Gardens. Previous notes in the Avicultural Magazine: ASTLEY, The Rev. R. (1907). p. 111-113. Lear’s Macaw (with colour plate by H. Goodchitd). FREUD, G. (1980). p. 261-263. The Discovery of the Home of Lear’s Macaw 32 BREEDING THE CLOVEN-FEATHERED DOVE Drepanoptila holosericea By Dr. HENRY QUINQUE (Bondy, France) The Cloven-feathered Dove is fascinating for its exceptional beauty, its secretive habits and the almost complete ignorance that has prevailed about its way of life and breeding behaviour. It was first described in 1811 by Temminck and represented in Plate 32 of his sumptuous monograph Les Pigeons, which was brilliantly illustrated by Pauline de Courcelles, Madame Knip. It was therein given also the amu¬ sing popular name of ‘Vlouvlou’. The scientific name aptly expresses its two principal morphological characters: the divided ends of the wing feathers and its overall silky ap¬ pearance. It is a fruit-eating pigeon of the family Treronidae, endemic to the island of New Caledonia and the unique species of its genus. Although in theory completely protected by the law, its insular habitat renders its survival in the long term unlikely, and its extinction would be a grievous loss. To preserve it, captive breeding is an essential supplement to its protection in the wild. Dr Jean Delacour’s excellent Guide to the Birds of New Caledonia (in French) has been widely read on the island and has had a decisive influence in making the public aware of this exceptional and fragile jewel which has been entrusted to their care and which they must preserve for posterity. I am constantly asked for this book, which is now scarce and a reprint is urgently required. It has been my good fortune to achieve repeated success in breeding the Cloven-feathered Dove in captivity and I wish to lay before you my exper¬ iences. The account of the bird in the wild which I shall give is, for the main part, due to information supplied to me by Monsieur H. Bregulla, a very competent ornithologist whose speciality is the Pacific avifauna. Description The genus Drepanoptila can be defined by the following three special characters: 1) The crest formed by the dense silky green feathers of the forehead making a rounded bulge which gives the head a typically elongated profile. 2) The primary feathers of the wings, shaped like an italic ‘S’ are divi- Adult Male Cloven-feathered Dove, reared in captivity H. Quinque Adult pair of Cloven-feathered Doves, reared in captivity ns Cloven-feathered Dove, 1 2 days old DR H. QUINQUE - CLOVEN FEATHERED DOVE 33 ded at the ends, a feature unique among birds. The posterior part of the division is rounded, but the anterior part is very slender, sickle¬ shaped and forming a hook at the tip. This unique formation produces a peculiar musical whistle at each beat of the wings. 3) The silvery dorsal bars - the back is marked by transverse bars on the wings and the tail. These vague and misty marks are like a fine silver powder sprinkled over the green of the plumage. The minute grains resemble the scales of butterfly wings and give the impression that if touched they would stick to the fingers, or if blown upon they would fly away. They seem like a deposit on the feathers, an impression heightened by the fact that their shade is not uniform but deeper at the middle than at the edges of the bars. The adult male is a magnificent bird, fairly large, well-formed and powerful without being bulky. The average length is 32 cm (\2Vi in) and the weight 220 g (7% oz). The head, neck, breast, back and thighs are a brilliant emerald green with gold reflections, varying according to the incidence of the light. An elongated pure white stripe extends from the base of the bill and tapers to a point in the centre of the breast. The eye is reddish-brown, the bill small and thin, bluish-green at the base and black at the tip. The belly is yellow with green reflections and the under-tail coverts, which are as long as the 14 tail feathers, are golden yellow. The division between the emerald green of the breast and the yellow of the lower parts is clearly marked by two regular upward curving semicircles. The pure white line of the upper semicircle is emphasised by the pure black semicircle, twice as wide, below it. The feet are dark red, large and powerful, the toes enlarged by exten¬ sions of the skin below. They are partly concealed by wide silky tufts which completely cover the tarsi. The adult female is smaller, less brilliant and much more slender than the male. Its length averages 28 cm (1 1 in) and its weight 160 g (just over 5 Vz oz). It has all the characteristics of the male but in a lesser and duller form, although the prevailing green is also very beautiful. The belly is greenish, thinly spotted with yellow; the yellow of the under-tail coverts is much less brilliant. The semi-circles of the breast occur in some females but are indistinct, in others they are practically absent. The tips of the flight feathers and the bill are black. Behaviour The Cloven-feathered Dove is gentle and trusting, but at the same time 34 Dr. H. QUINQUE - CLOVEN FEATHERED DOVE nervous and very sensitive to its environment. During the period of accli¬ matisation I kept several pairs without any problems for several months in a small tropical house of 10 yd^ (9.10 nr*). Serious problems began with efforts to isolate the pairs. Each time that a pair was put in an aviary by itself it refused all food. Curiously, the birds remaining in the group be¬ haved in the same way. After several attempts we were obliged to put the birds back together. They then began to eat immediately. When the pairs were finally separated for breeding, we suffered the loss of one female, which was killed almost immediately by the male. This period was a severe trial from which we drew the conclusion that this bird is sedentary, sensitive to its social environment, and that it is essential to respect the compatability of pairs. Habitat The Green Pigeon, which is its local name, is strictly endemic to the island of New Caledonia. Although never numerous, it is found in those parts of the island where there are humid forests or groves which provide the fruits on which it feeds. A friend informed me that he had found several individuals in an abandoned coffee plantation. Silent when feeding, it is practically invisible when motionless in the foliage. Only a very keen ear can detect the peculiar whistling of the wings as it moves from one branch to another. It always perches as high as pos¬ sible when feeding and only descends to the lower branches when the fruits above are exhausted. When it drinks it is seldom on the ground but almost always perched on a low branch overhanging the water. Although a number of birds come together to feed, they are not gregarious and the pairs separate when they have fed. The bird is sedentary but groups move to different localities determined by the availability of ripened fruit. In captivity they never bathe or dust themselves. Food Like the Ptilopidae, they are fruit-eaters and are especially attracted by fruits of the fig family. These fruits when ripe are frequently parasitised by insects and their eggs and larvae, which provide an indirect supplement of animal protein to the diet. In captivity, a balanced diet is essential to keep the bird in good health and prevent too much gain in weight as well as the production of infertile eggs. We give fruit cut in pieces, which are swallowed whole, even when quite large - grapes or raisins, apples, pears, currants, blueberries and wild berries such as those of cotoneaster and hawthorn. Cubes of tomato and boiled carrot are much appreciated. In the aviaries pieces of leaf and buds Dr. H. QUINQUE - CLOVEN FEATHERED DOVE 35 are often eaten. However, an addition of protein is essential, and we use a softbill mixture spread on the fruit. It is thanks to this mixture that we obtained our first fertile eggs but the paste is never accepted on its own and must be mixed with fruit. Insects are always refused. Breeding Breeding is only possible from a pair which is perfectly compatible, otherwise the life of the female is at risk or the male completely indif¬ ferent. Pairs have been kept in two sorts of accommodation: either in a large parrot aviary with a heated shelter of 10 yd3 (9. 10 rn3) and access to an. external wire mesh enclosure 13 yd (1 1.83 m) in length. One corridor gives access to the shelter and there is another on the outside; alternatively we use a humid tropical house of 10 yd3 (9.10 rn ' ^ without access to the open air. The latter system seems best to avoid accidents, because where there is access to the open air a bird can panic at the appearance of an owl or rat and kill itself against the wire mesh. The nests we offer are of three kinds: either a box with a wooden base or a mesh base, or a wicker basket 15 cm (6 in) in diameter and 5 cm (2 in) deep. The baskets are usually chosen provided that they contain a few twigs and are hidden in the foliage. Song Normally sparing in voice, the Cloven-feathered Dove becomes noisy in courtship. In any case the song cannot be confused with that of any other species. The underlying theme of the male’s song is a plaintive wavering sound, something like a ship’s siren heard through the fog, but it can be imitated by the human voice with a disyllabic whoo-oo , of which the first syllable is long, deep and vibrant and the second, short, much higher and decrescendo. The first syllable lasts for two or three seconds and the other for only a fraction of a second. The musical phrase contains five themes (rarely four) at intervals of five or six seconds. The repetition of this phrase of five themes constitutes the song which may last for three to five minutes. During the song the bird is normally perched in a resting position, the beak is closed and only a slight rhythmic swelling of the throat is to be seen. This normal song is especially heard in the morning and evening, but some birds perform it only rarely. At the time of courtship it is another matter. Though the melody of the song is identical, its tone is much deeper and its strength much greater, so that it can be heard at a distance of 200 yd (182 m). For a period of eight to ten days the male sings for sessions of half an hour to an hour long, sometimes repeated during the day, sometimes 36 Dr. H. QUINQUE - CLOVEN FEATHERED DOVE even at the beginning of the night. The attitude of the bird is then surprising: clutching tightly to the perch, it appears from the front to have the shape of the heart on a play¬ ing card. The head is no longer visible, pressed right down on the breast by a complete bending of the neck. The beak is in the area of the black and white semicircles. Only a slight movement of expansion of the body accompanies each theme of the song. During the first two or three days the male appears to sing only for himself, sometimes at a considerable distance from the female, who remains indifferent. Towards the third or fourth day, she comes very close to the male and, beside him on the same branch, makes rapid jerky movements. Almost at once the male begins to move in the same way, but for the purpose of choosing a nest. He inspects and explores all of the branches that are available several times a day. Then he perches on the edge of the nest he has chosen or on a neighbouring branch. I have noticed a curious action for which I have at present no explana¬ tion, but it is regular. For two or three days before the laying of the eggs the male descends to the ground on several occasions and remains there for quite a long time. The association of the special courting song and the descent of the male to the ground are two signs which confirm that the eggs are about to be laid. The femaie then settles on the nest and the male’s song ceases. The Egg Since Layard’s paper in 1882, it has been thought that the clutch con¬ sisted of two eggs, in contrast to other species of Treronidae . We can confirm that this is untrue, and in this case at least our extra¬ ordinary pigeon conforms with the other members of its family in laying only a single egg. Indeed, before arriving at suitable accommodation and food for our birds, we obtained about 30 eggs, all infertile or broken. In each case the clutch consisted of a single egg which is white and very elongated, averag¬ ing 36.5 x 25.5 mm in size and 12 g in weight Incubation Incubation takes 21 days. During this period the female only leaves the nest for a few minutes three or four times a day to defecate and rapidly consume a large quantity of food. The male never takes part in the incubation, but keeps very close to the nest to protect it while the female is away. If the egg is infertile or damaged, a replacement is laid, generally within three weeks, the shortest delay recorded being 10 days. If a young is Dr. H. QUINQUE - CLOVEN FEATHERED DOVE 37 reared, the next egg is laid about two months after it becomes independent. The Young Twenty-one days after the egg is laid, the two halves of the shell are to be found on the ground as far away as possible from the nest. The female stays on the nest without feeding for the first 24 hours. The newly-hatched chick is tiny and covered with silky white down. Its skin is greyish pink. The eyes, which are closed, open on the fifth day, and are black. The feet are pink; the bill soft and bluish, swollen at the tip which is black. Both eyes and feet appear at this stage abnormally large. We were extremely surprised by the rapid growth of feathers. While the chick is still very small, green wing and tail feathers appear. By the 13th day it perches on the rim of the nest, completely covered with feathers, except on the crown of the head, where they are sparse and downy, and in the area of the sternum. The general colour of the body is already a beautiful grass green, clearly separated from the abdomen which is mouse grey. The under-tail coverts are already yellow. The upper parts have a peculiar characteristic. Many of the green feath¬ ers of the neck and back are edged with yellow. Three continuous scal¬ loped bars of beautiful golden yellow extend across the back at the places where the silver bars will later appear. Similarly green feathers edged with yellow are, in fact, found in small numbers on the back of the thighs of the adult. On the 14th day the young bird leaves the nest, but flies badly, hence the importance of the protective mesh below the nest. On the 21st day the young bird flies off, with vigour and confidence and does not return to the nest. It does not produce in flight the charac¬ teristic whistling of its parents. The swollen appearance of the forehead is already visible as well as the white stripe on the throat. Its size is about half that of the female. It does not feed itself until the 25th day, but the mother continues to feed it until the end of the fifth week. The male takes no part in feeding the young. The female, after feeding herself, perches on the rim of the nest while the young cheeps softly. It puts its beak into its mother’s beak to make her regurgitate. The young flutters its wings while the mother spreads hers, letting them droop at the moment of regurgitation. Though the male does not seem to take any part in rearing the young, it is clear that lie takes an interest in everything and that his role is essentially that of guardian. He stays continually in the neighbourhood of the nest and follows the young at a distance of a few feet when it begins to move about in the branches. At such a time the normally timid male is not likely to retreat when the door of the aviary is opened, but to spread 38 Dr. H. QUINQUE - CLOVEN FEATHERED DOVE his wings in a threatening attitude while emitting a muffled monosyllabic whoo. The female, when disturbed, can make a sound of the same kind, scarcely audible beyond a distance of four or five yards. Unfortunately this idyllic period does not last, and without warning the protective father can brutally attack his young and kill it in a few minutes. For this reason, we remove the young pigeon on the 21st day and keep it in a small cage to be fed by hand. When it is able to feed itself on the 25th day, we move it to a cage 2 yd (1.83 m) long where it can fly. Birds reared in this way are calm and trusting. From the third month the sexes are distinguishable by the appearance in the male of the golden yellow under-tail coverts and the first appearance of the two semicircles on the breast. They begin to appear near the wings and extend gradually inwards to join at the centre of the body. At three and a half months, the female attains her final size, while the male con¬ tinues to grow until six months. At nine months the silver dust seems to settle gradually on the wings. At one year the male assumes his complete adult plumage with the unique branching of the tips of the primaries; at the same age these appear also in the female. The Moult The moulting of the Cloven-feathered Dove is something of a mystery. There is no post-juvenile moult. The feathers gradually change their tex¬ ture and colour without being shed. In the adult, we have noticed a more marked shedding of feathers in June and July. For the remainder of the year we find, from time to time, a single feather on the ground, so that the sexual activity of these birds is uninterrupted and makes possible three broods in one year. Results of Captive Breeding Young reared in captivity are as brilliant in plumage and as robust as their parents. Some males are even larger. At the time of writing, we have established second generation pairs which are perfectly compatible, and one of the males has begun a court¬ ing song. Among accidents suffered by the young, we have had a dislocation of the hips, complicated later by a nodular arthritis involving salmonella. We believe this was because the base of the nest was too smooth. One chick was crushed on the fourth day by the mother panicking when the door of the aviary was roughly thrown open. It is, therefore, essential to warn the birds before opening the aviary. A third bird was lost through our mistake in leaving it in the cage too long before releasing it into the aviary. Dr. H. QUINQUE - CLOVEN FEATHERED DOVE 39 Conclusion Although this wonderful species is completely protected in New Cale¬ donia, it is under a serious threat of extinction. Its principal enemy is still man, who stupidly kills this remarkable bird for the sake of a few ounces of meat. It is also the victim of animal predators such as the Sparrow Hawk Accipiter haplochrous and rats and feral cats. Forest fires, which are often extensive and beyond control, destroy nests and young. Finally, the pro¬ gressive felling of the forests aggravates a situation that does not encourage optimism. To deal with these threats, there have arisen two opposing atti¬ tudes among conservationists on the island. Some pig-headed conserva¬ tionists vigorously oppose any taking of birds from the wild, mainly on the grounds that there is no hope of breeding this species in captivity. In fact, so far as we know, not a single Drepanoptila has ever been reared in cap¬ tivity in New Caledonia. Fortunately there are a small number of more enlightened people who understand that the only real chances of survival for this species lie in serious study of the bird in captivity leading to attempts at breeding. Special acknowledgement is due to the heads of the Department of Water and Forests, led by Monsieur Cherrier, and the Noumea Forest Park, which has been developed by the efforts of Monsieur J. Begaud, an en¬ lightened aviculturist, and Monsieur H. Bregulla. These gentlemen have untiringly resisted the fierce attacks of their opponents and carried on their work amid difficulties only matched by their selfless determination. Thanks to their efforts a limited programme of taking birds from the wild has been carried out under proper controls. I have had the honour of benefitting from this, thanks to the quality of my establishment and my long experience in aviculture, and so the Government of New Caledonia entrusted to my care a group of birds, officially and without charge. During the course of my life I have reared many rare or difficult species of birds, but a very few of my successes have given me as much satisfaction as that of contributing towards the survival of the Cloven-feathered Dove. I hope that my great friend, Dr. Jean Delacour, the President of the Avi- cultural Society, will allow me to dedicate to him this successful breeding programme as a token of my affectionate regard. However, the achievement is not final and continual efforts must be made. There is always the possibility that the 14 birds so far reared could suffer an accident which would put the whole scheme in jeopardy. Yet we have gained valuable new experience, and above all have proved that the Cloven-feathered Dove can be reared in captivity, even in our climate. This encourages a hope for the future of this wonderful bird. 40 Dr. H. QUINQUE - CLOVEN FEATHERED DOVE Postscript Unfortunately the Cloven-feathered Dove is not the only threatened bird in New Caledonia, and I have been occupied for several years in the breeding of other species in danger of extinction which belong to this zoologically isolated island. I have reared another pigeon, very beautiful and imposing as well as interesting for being endemic and never bred in captivity in New Cale¬ donia. It has been gradually decimated by intensive hunting. The White- throated Pigeon Columba vitiensis hypoenochroa is a seedeater. It lays only one egg, like Drepanoptila, but frequently lays on the ground. On the other hand, both parents share equally in the incubation and rearing of the young, which is pure black, speckled with abundant gold down. We intend to publish our observations in due course, showing that this species also can be saved by aviculture. The Horned Parrot Eunymphicus c. cornu tus is a magnificent bird with a supple crest 2 in (5 cm) long, formed by two spatulate feathers of vermi¬ lion red. Its young, sometimes reared in burrows in the ground, are insecti¬ vorous during the first two weeks of their life, and have on the head a re¬ markable round white spot, which disappears by the end of the third week. A related form, even rarer, inhabits the island of Ouvea in the Loyalty Island group. This very beautiful and extremely rare Ouvea Parrot E.c. uvaensis has a crown composed of six rigid green feathers curved forward. I published a detailed account of the breeding of these birds in the Avi- cultural Magazine (1980). It brought me some violent reproaches, when I was naive enough to expect only encouragement. It is only by constant efforts that we can reach success in these ven¬ tures, which only recently would have appeared impossible. Threatened species are as precious as the ancient manuscripts and historical monu¬ ments left by our ancestors. We are their trustees for future generations and for this it is well worth making sacrifices. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am most grateful to Mr. Howard Swann for devoting so much time to translating my article from French. His meticulous effort is very much appreciated, * * * The Avicultural Society is very grateful to Dr. Quinque for his generosity in donating the cost of reproducing in colour his photographs which accompany this article. 41 REFERENCES DELACOUR, J. (1966). Guide des Oiseaux de la Nou velle-Caledonia. p. 93 and plate 2. LAYARD, E.L. (1880-82). Avifauna of New Caledonia. Ibis, ser. 4, Vols. 4 & 6. QUINQUE, Dr. H. (1980). Breeding the Horned Parrot. Avicultural Magazine, Vol. 86, p. 187. TEMMINCK, C.J. and KNIP, P. (1811). Les Pigeons, p. 73 and plate 32. GENETIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC MANAGEMENT OF CAPTIVE RED-CROWNED CRANES Grus japonensis By SCOTT SWENGEL (Aviculturist, International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA) The Red-crowned (Manchurian) Crane is an endangered species that has only become well established in captivity within the last decade. The wild population is approximately 1,000, consisting of: 350 on Hokkaido, Japan (von Treuenfels, 1984), roughly 500 breeding in north-eastern China (Yi- ching and Long-rong, in press), and about 200 breeding in the eastern USSR (Shibaev, 1982). Both the USSR and China have established nature preserves within the Red-crowned Crane’s breeding range, so we can begin to consider restocking the mainland Asia population if it continues to dec¬ line. Maintaining a genetically diverse captive population is, therefore, an important part of the conservation programme for this beautiful bird. Although the Red-crowned Crane has a long history in captivity, few zoos had consistently bred it until the late 1970s. The establishment of the Red-crowned Crane Studbook by Dr. Shigeharu Asakura of the Tokyo Ueno Zoo in 1973 created an increased awareness of the need to breed this species. 42 SCOTT SWENGEL - RED CROWNED CRANES Prior to 1975 deaths among captive Red-crowned Cranes exceeded the number bred, so wild birds were continually needed to keep the popula¬ tion stable. The captive population began to increase in 1975 due to improved breeding success, and it has grown in every year since then (Table 1). Excluding emigrations to, and immigrations from, the popula¬ tion, the number of captive Red-crowned Cranes grows annually by about 7.5%. There are approximately 120 registered Red-crowned Cranes in cap¬ tivity, but a number of zoos have not registered their birds. The total captive population is probably about 160. Genetic Management Although the Red-crowned Crane is increasing its number in captivity, the population is plagued by a low genetic diversity. Most of the chicks hatched during the last 15 years were produced by only three males and four females. This swamping of the gene pool by a few individuals has caused the effective population size to be less than one-half that of a similar population where the offspring are distributed randomly among the breeding pairs (Swengel, in press). The optimal distribution of off¬ spring is one in which each pair has the same number of progeny. Only half of the 55-60 genetically unrelated lines of Red-crowned Cranes in captivity have bred. If zoos were to co-operate and breed each pair equally, by allowing them to have only three to four offspring, the genetic diversity within the population would increase dramatically. The disproportionate number of progeny produced by a few pairs has also made inbreeding more difficult to avoid. Most breeding centres have only one breeding pair, so all the offspring produced at these sites will be inter-related. In order to avoid inbreeding, these zoos must trans¬ fer some of their captive-bred birds to other places and/or acquire mates for those that remain. The International Crane Foundation (ICF) has sent six Red-crowned Cranes to Walsrode Bird Park, Germany, three to Tokyo Zoo, Japan, and one to San Diego Zoo, USA, during the past two years because the birds were all related. These zoos are locating unrelated mates for the cranes they have received. Several other breeding centres have made exchanges of Red-crowned Cranes in recent years. Inbreeding probably decreases the fertility and hatchability rates of Red-crowned Crane eggs. Inbreeding does not inherently lower the gene¬ tic variability within a population. However, inbreeding does decrease the genetic diversity in a population when it slows the population’s growth rate, as it appears to do in Red-crowned Cranes. For this reason, Red-crowned Cranes should not be inbred. I have proposed a mating SCOTT SWENGEL - RED CROWNED CRANES 43 scheme that minimises inbreeding in captive Red-crowned Cranes (Swengel, in press). Table 2 shows that, over the period 1976-1981, the fertility and hatchability rates of inbred matings were much lower than those of non-inbred matings. These data are not statistically significant because of the small sample of fertile eggs from inbred matings (Oliver Ryder, pers. comm.), but they show that, during the period sampled, non-inbred matings produced one hatch per 3.0 eggs while inbred matings produced only one hatch per 9.0 eggs. The latest Studbook for Red-crowned Cranes (Asakura and Ito, 1983) shows that five of the 17 pairs that had eggs were inbreeding and that nine of the approximately 30 pairs in captivity are composed of related birds. Since several pairs of Red-crowned Cranes have already produced eight to 30 offspring, the future breeding of their progeny needs to be limited. In this way we could limit the number of descendants of these overproductive pairs so that the pairs with few offspring could even¬ tually equal them in reproductive success. The breeding centres should concentrate on breeding those genetic lines that are under-represented in the population. The variation in the number of offspring among the pairs has a large effect on the genetic diversity of populations (Dennis- ton, 1977). Demographic Management Several endangered species, such as the Siberian Tiger, have captive populations that exceed the space that zoos are either able or willing to allot to these species. This will soon be true for the Red-crowned Crane unless we agree on a demographic plan for this species. A demo¬ graphic plan prescribes a desired age and/or sex distribution for a popu¬ lation and strives to maintain an optimum population size. Before captive Red-crowned Cranes exceed their optimum popula¬ tion, or K, the Carrying Capacity, we need to solve the population’s genetic problems. Otherwise, needless effort will be expended to pro¬ duce chicks that are genetic liabilities to the population. We can accom¬ plish this by slowing the population’s growth long before it reaches K. Genetically expendable birds could be used for display at zoos that do not breed Red-crowned Cranes. In captivity, a newly hatched Red-crowned Crane chick has a 70% chance of surviving one year and a one year-old crane has a 91.5% chance of living to age two. After that, the annual survivorship rate is nearly constant at about 95% (Fig. 1). Such high survivorship allows the cap¬ tive population to grow despite its low reproductive rate. TABLE 1. NUMBER OF HATCHES, DEATHS, REGISTERED POPULATION (1st JANUARY OF THE YEAR SHOWN), AND NET CHANGE IN THE CAPTIVE POPULATION OF RED-CROWNED CRANES FROM 1972 to 1981 44 SCOTT SWENGEL - RED CROWNED CRANES 73 CD QC 0) 04 CD 00 3 cd -3 O Cd H VO O- r- r- ON ON ctS cd 6 .g 43 43 t/3 ^ ON T-H O *-H O <-H o co it) CN 00 + + so SO l/Y + + + s « O o g3 >> 2 t: cd 43 03 't“> 5 OO 40 3 o +-» o T\ G 5 03 ^ CD 13 O O ^3 03 03 33 43 +3 2 .2 73 '-1 3 CD 6 43 03 '4~‘ 43 03 3 O g H oo H Oh < O Ph O GO w H £ g O ^ Z ^ o U co Q C* W s o o OS U U CO 00 ON <3 W ON p2 OsJ ^ X o z co > Q U4 P4 PQ 5 6 o PO CO H O Ctf O W W o _ oo oo ON On 6 2 +n t3 ^ 3 * Cd £ t— * r- 3 On 4^ -h c d J2 «* < s S 2 2 S 0> ^ a, 3 2 . cd >*! < 3 ^ 6 n 2 ON r- ^ 2 cd O ° a ^ |» j|g Amazon Parrots First monograph of this well known genus with 28 colour plates of all species and sub-species by Elizabeth Butterworth with text by Rosemary Low. Maps of world and local distribution. One of the most beautiful and important bird books produced this century. Published by Rodolphe d’Erlanger in collaboration with the Basilisk Press. Edition of 500 copies. Standard copies £525. Special copies which include a loose, coloured engraving of an extinct Amazon not included in book £600. Send for prospectus. Name _ Address Send to The Basilisk Press Ltd 10 Adamson Road Hampstead London NW3 3 HR Telephone 01-722 2142 65 THE STATUS IN CAPTIVITY OF FOUR AUSTRALIAN PARROTS: Psephotus chrysop terygius, P. dissimilis, Neophema pulchella, N. splendida By BARRY R. HUTCHINS (Northfield, South Australia) Introduction Assessing the status of any species of bird in captivity without a general census is most difficult. I shall give a broad opinion, based on my observa¬ tions and the general trends that occur from time to time with bird species held in captivity in Australia, with additional information from South Aus¬ tralia. Individual state fauna laws have played quite a significant role in the keeping of at least two of the species under discussion . The species to be described in this paper are the Golden-shouldered Parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius, the Hooded Parrot P. dissimilis, the Turquoise Parrot Neophema pulchella, and the Scarlet-chested Parrot N. splendida. Their captive status in Australia will be described as follows: increasing¬ ly productive populations; steadily increasing rather than decreasing; quite plentiful without being abundant; and moderately common. These classifi¬ cations are based on the overall bird collections held by aviculturists in Australia and bearing in mind the greatly increased interest in Psittaci- formes during the past 15 years. The improved husbandry in aviculture in Australia has minimised many of the problems that were experienced by bird keepers several decades ago and the accumulated knowledge and ex¬ perience available today should ensure the future of these four species in Australian aviculture. If a general understanding and good working liaison is adopted between the various government fauna bodies and the various avicultural societies, the future of our rare birds will be preserved. Although published records of the world status of birds held for avicultural purposes is either sketchy or unavailable, the Red Data Book, compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, provides statistics on the status of threatened species throughout their world range. This should not be confused with birds held in captivity as there are many species listed as rare in the wild that are quite common in aviculture. I have often thought how interesting and exciting it would be to have a general census held, say, every three years, of all birds kept in captivity so as to draw comparisons with the status of wild populations. 66 BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS THE GOLDEN-SHOULDERED PARROT Psephotus chrysopterygius History and status in captivity in Australia To trace the introduction of the Golden-shouldered Parrot into Austra¬ lian aviculture, we must turn the clock back to 1922. According to Alan Lendon (1960), a collector called McLennan obtained and hand-reared some young birds, of which ten were presented to Taronga Park Zoo in Sydney. No breeding reports were recorded for these birds and they lived on for several years. There appears to be no further record of Golden— shouldered Parrots being obtained for aviculture in Australia until 1952 when Sir Edward Hallstrom acquired two adult males, one of which he mated to a female Hooded Parrot. After two expeditions to Cape York Peninsula in 1955, his collection of Golden-shouldered Parrots had increased to about 20 birds (Lendon, 1960). With these additional birds, Sir Edward was able to select pairs and by 1956 he was breeding pure-bred young. When Alan Lendon visited Sir Edward Hallstrom in August 1959, his flock had grown to about 40 birds. It was during this visit that Sir Edward offered Lendon a pair that had been bred in 1958. Alan Lendon brought the young Golden— shouldered Parrots back to his aviaries in Adelaide and early in 1960 the late Fred Lewitzka and I were invited to view them. Both birds were in full adult plumage and excellent condition. In mid- September the same year the pair were nesting and four eggs were laid, three young were seen on 12th October, but unfortunately all were dead a week later. The birds were housed in an aviary measuring 6 x 3 x 6 ft (1.83 x 0.92 x 1.83m) with a shelter section at the rear measuring 3 x 3 x 714ft (0.92 x 0.92 x 2.29m). The Golden-shouldered Parrots were the sole occupants of the aviary. A nest-box was placed in the shelter section 6 ft from the ground; the inside measurements of the box were 10 x 6 x 6in (0.25 x 0.15 x 0.15m) with a spout entrance 4in (0.10m) long and 2 x 2in (0.05 x 0.05m) inside. Decayed wood dirt was placed in the bottom of the box. In August 1961 breeding was in progress again and the first egg was laid on the 29th, followed by four others on alter¬ nate days. By 24th September all five eggs had hatched and the first young left the nesting box on 25th October. Approximately 14 days later the birds were independent. By November the following year (1962) the young were fully coloured and were all males. The Avicultural Society of South Australia awarded their bronze medal to Alan Lendon for the first official breeding of this species in captivity in South Australia. By this time the well-known aviculturist Joseph Mattinson, of New South Wales, had become very interested in the Golden-shouldered Parrot BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS 67 and during a journey to Cairns, Queensland, in 1960 he spoke to an offi¬ cial in the Department of Agriculture regarding the birds and was assured of a permit if he could obtain any. Eventually he was successful and secured four males and one female (Mattinson, 1975). Those five birds became the nucleus of Joseph Mattinson’s stock and in his article (1975) he wrote: “We have 20 pairs of Golden-shoulders, not all of which are of course in breeding condition and this year raised about 60. There is still a significant deathrate in Golden-shoulders and we should be raising well over a hundred each year but are limited to the number which we can hand-rear as this is very time consuming”. During the breeding season of 1974 I observed the Golden- shouldered Parrots in Joseph Mattinson’s collection and was amazed at the young birds being reared, clutches of four and five being quite common. From the stock of both these aviculturists it was not long before Gol¬ den-shouldered Parrots appeared in collections around Australia. This is one of a number of species included on the eighth schedule (Rare Species) of the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972-74. Under Section 51(a) of the Act, in part, in order to have such animals in your possession it is necessary to have a Rare Species permit (Section 55). This Section provides for the Minister for the Environment to grant such a permit where he is satisfied that: a) It is in the interests of scientific research, or b) It is desirable for the sake of conserving animals of a rare species to do so. By June 1975 there were eight people in South Australia keeping 37 Golden-shouldered Parrots in captivity. All were held under permit with the expiry date 30th June 1975. After that date it was necessary for re¬ newal of their permit. By now Golden -shouldered Parrots were increasing in captivity in all states of Australia. It was during that time that the Queensland Parlia¬ ment passed legislation affording stringent protection to the Golden¬ shouldered Parrot in the wild, their reason being that numbers in the wild appeared to be decreasing and the possibility of birds being smuggled out of Australia was a further threat so that every effort was needed to pro¬ tect the species. The original idea was that all Golden-shouldered Parrots that were held in captivity in Queensland should be forfeited to the government for scientific research, if suitable facilities to house them could be found. Naturally unrest was evident among aviculturists throughout Australia when they were advised of this plan. Ministers of Conservation in each State and Territory became involved and by then the numbers of birds held by aviculturists in Australia were fast increasing. 68 BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS Although the authorities held discussions no uniform decision could be agreed upon and, therefore, it was left to each State to formulate its own regulations. Up until that time (1975) Golden-shouldered Parrots were purchased within and from most States in Australia. As mentioned, breeding results were greatly improving. From 1st July 1975, persons with Golden-shouldered Parrots in South Australia were not permitted to dispose of their birds to other avicul- turists within that State. Permits would be issued to send Golden-shoul¬ dered Parrots to other States if permission was granted from their autho¬ rities. Although there was an outcry from South Australian aviculturists, a number of breeders eventually disposed of their birds interstate and by 1980 three persons still held a total of approximately 16 birds in their collections. During the breeding season of 1980, one of these aviculturists decided to make a concerted effort with the birds still in his possession as he was very worried by the decline of this rare species within South Australia. He reared 19 young to independence. It is pleasing to note that in New South Wales and Victoria there was a steady increase in breeding from 1975 to 1980 and in 1984 permits were once again being issued in South Australia. It is to be hoped that, through the experience gained during the past 20 years, in a short time this very rare and beautiful species will increase its status in aviaries throughout Australia. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Eric R. Ridley and the late Fred E. Lewitzka for documents presented to me concerning the Golden-shouldered Parrot, 1975-1980. REFERENCES LENDON, Alan (1960). The Golden-shouldered Parrakeet. Avicultural Magazine, 66: 90-94. MATTINSON, Joseph (1975). Avidata. Vol. 2, 4: 73-83. SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GAZETTE. Eighth Schedule National Parks and Wildlife Act. 1972-1974. Previous notes in the Avicultural Magazine: ASTLEY, Hubert D. (1910). p.178-9. Rare Importations and Possessions. . . . (1913). p. 108-110. Hooded and Golden-shouldered Parrakeets. HALLSTROM, Sir Edward. (1956). p. 116-118. Parrots in the Hallstrom Collection and the Taronga Park Zoo. . . . . . (1959). p. 77-79. Some breeding results in the Hallstrom Collection. LENDON, A. (1950). p. 31-33. Australian parrots in captivity. . ..........(1962). p. 70-71. Further notes on the Golden-shouldered Parrakeet. BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS 69 “News and Views”. (1968). p. 31. J.S. Mattinson (NSW) - breeding successes with Golden-shouldered and Hooded Parrakeets. PHILLIPPS, R. (1898). p. 153-157. The Golden-shouldered Parrakeet (b/w plate). . . . ...(1899). p. 157-159. The Golden-shouldered Parrakeet. . . . . (1903). p. 30-32. Correspondence: the Golden-shouldered Parrakeet. PORTER, S. (1930). p. 28-29. The Golden-shouldered Parrakeet (Cape York Penin.). THE HOODED PARROT Psephotus dissimilis During the early 1840s the celebrated ornithologist John Gilbert was exploring an area north-east of Darwin, near Port Essington, which is loca¬ ted on the Coburg Peninsula and apparently he failed to record the Hooded Parrot. In 1845 the Leichhardt expedition passed through the country now inhabited by the species with no sightings recorded, and in 1846 Elsey, a collector with the Gregory expedition, failed to record the parrot while passing through what is now known to be the heart of the Hooded Parrot’s range. In 1863, while travelling northwards from Newcastle Waters, Stuart’s expedition also appears to have missed sighting the Hooded Parrot. It was not until 1894, during a collecting expedition by Professor Knut Dahl in tropical northern Australia, that specimens of the Hooded Parrot were taken near the Mary River in the Northern Territory (Barrett, 1949). These specimens were sent to Norway (incredible as that may seem!) and were described by Collet in 1898 (Condon, 1975). From those findings it would appear that the Hooded Parrot was not abundant at the time of European settlement and it is quite possible that their numbers have actually increased in the wild since those early times. Their appearance in captivity in South Australia occurred in the late 1920s. W. Hamilton was the first aviculturist to be recorded officially as having bred them, in 1930 and subsequently he was awarded the Avic- ultural Society of South Australia’s Bronze Medal for his achievement. The Hooded Parrot has, for many years, been subjected to numerous rumours regarding possible stringent fauna regulations regarding captive birds in Australia. These possible threats have left an uneasy feeling among many aviculturists and the thought of perhaps, one day, a ban being placed on the species in captivity has disuaded many breeders, both new and experienced, from keeping more than one or two pairs. This has prevented the development of the Hooded Parrot to its fullest potential. The numbers in captivity in Australia should be far greater than they are today (mid- 1984). During the 1970s the total captive population in South Australia was probably between 450 to 500. The approximate numbers in captivity throughout the whole of Australia (1984) could be in the vicinity of 2000. 70 BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS It would surely be a sad day if stringent regulations were introduced to prevent the Hooded Parrot from further development as a captive spe¬ cies because the knowledge gained about the species during the past 50 years, plus the improved husbandry' of today, can only enhance the species’ existence for generations to come. In my opinion the Hooded Parrot is full of character and certainly one of the more unique and distinct species of Australian avifauna. It should also be remembered that the field studies of the Hooded Parrot would not be able to compare with the captive studies that have been carried out by aviculturists in Australia. The Hooded Parrot is on the official list of Australian Endangered Birds and while their numbers at present are not critical, either in the wild or in captivity, every effort should be made for continuous, careful and selective breeding by aviculturists, together with a close watch by wild¬ life authorities on the natural habitat of the species. REFERENCES BARRETT, C. (1949). Parrots of Australia. N.H. Seward Pty. Ltd. Melbourne. CONDON, H.T. (1945). Checklist of the Birds of Australia. Part 1. R.A.O.U. Previous notes in the Avicultural Magazine : ASTLEY, Hubert D. (1912). P. 122-3. Correspondence: nesting of the Hooded Parrakeet. . . . . . . (1913). P. 73-76. Breeding of the Hooded Parrakeet. . . . . ,P. 286. Correspondence: Hooded Parrakeets bred again; twelve Hooded Parrakeets in aviaries at Benham Valence. BLAAUW. T.E. (1913). P. 65-66. Correspondence: nesting of the Hooded Parrakeet. BOOSEY, E.J. (1935). P. 74. Breeding results at Keston Foreign Bird Farm, 1934. GROEN, H.E. (1960). P. 110. Australian Parrot-keeping in Holland. HEUMANN, G.A. (1914). P. 1334. Something about Hooded Parrakeets and other birds of the Northern Territory. LENDON, A. (1950). P. 29-31. Australian Parrots in captivity. MATTHEWS, G.M. (1913). P. 151-3. The Hooded Parrakeet “Personalia” - AAP. (1950). P. 95. A.H. Gardner (Sydney) reared 60 young Hooded Parrakeets in 16 years. SPRAWSON, Capt. E. (1926). p. 256-9. Correspondence: concerning the Hooded Parrakeets. TAVISTOCK, The Marquess of (1934). P. 58-64. The Breeding of the Hooded Parrakeet. BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS 71 THE TURQUOISE PARROT Neophema pulchella The Turquoise Parrot was first described in 1792 by Shaw in The Naturalist's Miscellany , Vol. 3, plate 96 (Condon, 1975). It is interesting to read the early history of this species. Prior to 1900 the Turquoise Parrot was quite common in areas of south-eastern Australia. John Gould (1865) wrote, “All those who have traversed the ‘bush’ in New South Wales will recognise in this lovely species an old favourite, for it must have often come under their notice”. At the turn of this century a dramatic decline in the existence of the species was noted. It would seem that the clearing of land, the expansion of European settlement, severe drought conditions and possibly disease were the major factors (Immelmann, 1968). By 1917 many ornithologists feared that the Turquoise Parrot was extinct. In 1973, in a most comprehensive article on this species, H.E.A. Jarman wrote : “An old trapper informed G.A. Heuman, of Sydney, (1927), that the Turquoise Parrot had been the commonest parrot in his district 30 to 40 years previously. He would catch two or three dozen before breakfast and sell them from 2/- to 2/6 per pair. Heuman ruefully com¬ mented that he had recently paid 30 dollars for a male bird that was acci¬ dentally netted with some finches”. Unfortunately we have no records of the success rate in captivity of birds trapped in those early years. We can only surmise that at least a percentage did survive. From 1920 onwards, sightings of the Turquoise Parrot became more frequent with reports from New South Wales, Vic¬ toria and Queensland. In December 1926, Simon Harvey of Adelaide, South Australia, bred four Turquoisine Parrots in captivity, and during the breeding season of 1927, a young male from the first breeding of the previous year (12 months old) fathered a nest of four, all were reared to maturity. Shortly after the Avicultural Society of South Australia was founded in 1928, Simon Harvey submitted a breeding report for the first official breeding of the Turqoise Parrot in South Australia and was duly awarded the Society’s bronze medal. It would seem that, from those first breedings, the Turqoise Parrot would soon become abundant in aviaries but this was not the case. During those early years of aviculture the keeping and breeding of finches far surpassed the number of parrots kept, and the few people keeping Turquoise Parrots found that infertile eggs were common. Alan Lendon (1973) relates his early experiences with the species and although a num¬ ber of young were reared the problem of clear eggs was also encountered. From about 1956 Turquoise Parrots became more popular with avicul- turists and by 1976 most parrot collections throughout Australia housed 72 BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS from one to ten pairs, or more, I would estimate their numbers in cap¬ tivity in Australia today (1984) to be approximately 8000. Their numbers in the wild have increased considerably and at this stage they are not a threatened species. However, I would hasten to add that, although the Turquoise Parrot appears to be safe at present, I believe that it is one species that should never be neglected, either by aviculturists or orni¬ thologists. REFERENCES CONDON, H.T. (1975). Checklist of the Birds of Australia. Part 1. Royal Austra¬ lian Ornithologists’ Union. GOULD, John. (189 6). Handbook to the Birds of Australia. London. GOULD, John. (1972). Handbook to the Birds of Australia. Lansdowne Press, Melbourne, Australia. (Facsimile) IMMELMANN, K. (1968). Australian Parakeets. A.O.B., Belgium. JARMAN, Howard. (1973). The turquoise parrot. The Australian Bird Watcher, Vol. 4, No. 8: 244. LENDON, Alan (1973). Neville W. Cayley’s Australian Parrots in Field and Aviary. P. 286-287. Angus and Robertson, Sydney, Australia. Previous notes in the Avicultural Magazine: BOOSEY, E.J. and BROOKSBANK, Alec. (1931). P. 340. Breeding results at the Keston Foreign Bird Farm. BOOSEY, E. (1953). P. 42. Correspondence: Risks involved in removal of nesting boxes of Turquoisine Parrakeets. BLISSETT, Nellie K. (1930). P. 188-190. A tame Turquoisine. HARVEY, S. (1931). P. 149. Breeding Turquosines, Elegants and Bourkes. LENDON, Alan. (1940). P. 294-8. The Australian Grass Parrakeets. . . . . . (1950). P. 76-92. Australian Parrots in captivity. MATTHEWS, Frances E. (1942). P. 174-5. Turquoisine Parrakeets. NEWS AND VIEWS (1960). P. 82. Colour variations in Turquoisine Parrakeets. SETH-SMITH, D. (1930). P. 31. Correspondence: S. Harvey (Adelaide) breeding Turquoisines and Elegants. TAVISTOCK, The Marquess of. (1928). P. 203-5. Some Australian Parrakeets (with coloured plate). . . . . . . . . (1929). P. 213-222. The Breeding of the Turquoi¬ sine. WEST, David M. (1951). P. 225-228. Breeding notes on Turquoisine Grass Parrakeet. BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS 73 THE SCARLET-CHESTED PARROT Neophema splendida The Scarlet-chested Parrot was first described by John Gould in 1840 from a specimen that was sent to him with no information other than it was a native of Swan River Western Australian. It was not until 1845 that Gould received further specimens which were collected by Johnson Drum¬ mond near Moore’s River in Western Australia (Gould, 1972). Although this species was observed on a number of occasions after that period, it was not until 1914 that a sighting by the late Hermann B. Scholz was to have a major effect in the development of the Scarlet-chested Parrot in captivity in Australia. In 1914 Hermann Scholz was working with a survey gang, which was associated with the construction of the East-West Railway line, situated near Lake Hart, in South Australia. It was near that location that Scholz observed his first adult male Scarlet-chested Parrot. Although at that time the bird was unfamiliar to him, its striking beauty remained in his mind. Scholz saw the Scarlet-chested Parrot again in 1931, when a female was rescued from a hawk on his farm at Yaninee on the west coast of South Australia (Scholz, 1965). This was the beginning of a long and dedicated era for a man and his love for one of Australia’s rare parrots. By 1937 Scholz had sufficient birds to start a line breeding programme. He carefully selected the best of his young ones and eventually was breed¬ ing from no less than 12 adult pairs. This pattern of breeding continued until his death in the 1970s. During 1930, the late Simon Harvey, a prom¬ inent aviculturist in South Australia, stayed with Hermann Scholz on his property at Yaninee in the hope of finding the Scarlet-chested Parrot. “Needless to say, we did not sight any” (Scholz, 1965). However, in 1932 several birds arrived in Adelaide and by June that year Simon Harvey had in his possession the very beautiful Scarlet-chested Parrot. Within ten months of living in an aviary, one pair showed an interest in nesting, eventually rearing five young; another pair went to nest on 24th August 1932, and five more young were reared. This breeding was record¬ ed as the “first official breeding” in South Australia and Simon Harvey was awarded the Avicultural Society of South Australia’s bronze medal for the first breeding and the silver medal for the most outstanding breeding of the year. In South Australia during 1972 the Fauna Conservation Act 1964-65 was repealed and replaced by the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972. As the Scarlet-chested Parrot was a rare species in the wild, it was listed on the Eighth Schedule (Rare Species) and certain restrictions were there¬ fore imposted upon keeping the species in captivity. The new Act was not received favourably by aviculturists, as a ten dollar annual permit fee was 74 BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS required, plus a rare species record book giving details of breedings, sales and deaths. Dealers were not permitted to trade with the species thereby restricting the movement of surplus stock out of South Australia. During that particular time (1972) there were approximately 2457 Scarlet-chested Parrots held by aviculturists in South Australia. The legislation had a depressing effect on the overall status of the Scarlet-chested Parrot throughout Australia and, owing to the build up of surplus birds within South Australia, many breeders refrained from placing nesting logs or boxes in their aviaries, and the situation became serious. After discussions between prominent aviculturists and members of Parliament (over a period of two years), the Scarlet-chested Parrot was again allowed freedom of trade. On 31st February 1980, South Australian aviculturists had in their possession 3558 Scarlet-chested Parrots and this number at the time of writing (mid 1984) would be at least three fold throughout the whole of Australia. Readers might infer from this article that the Scarlet-chested Parrot is a common bird in captivity but I would suggest that any species which has a captive population of 10,000 or less is not common and we should ensure that we do not become complacent. REFERENCES BAXTER, E. (1973). Fauna Regulations. Bird Keeping in Australia. Vol. 16, 3:33-34. GOULD, I. (1972). Handbook to the Birds of Australia (facsimile). Lansdowne Press,. SCHOLZ, H.B. (196 5). The Scarlet-chested Parrot Neophema splendida. Bird Keeping in Australia . Vol. 8, 5:62-63. The South Australian Government Gazette. June 29, 1972. P. 2865. Previous notes in the Avicul turd Magazine: BQOSEY, E.J. (1934). P, 289-292. Breeding the Splendid Grass Parakeet for the first time in Europe. HARVEY, S. (1932). P. 135-6. Notes on the Splendid or Scarlet-breasted Parakeet HODGES, J.R. (1975). P. 61-63. The blue mutation of the Splendid Grass Parrakeet (with colour plate by R. David Digby). LENDON, A. (1940). P. 294-298. The Australian Grass Parakeets. .......................(1950). P. 76-92. Australian parrots in captivity. MINCH IN, R.R. (1934). P. 108-9. Breeding the Scarlet-chested or Splendid Grass Parrakeet in Adelaide. PORTER, S. (1942). P, 34-36. Notes on the Neophema Parakeets. SCHOLZ, H.B. (1933). P. 119-121. The Splendid Parrakeet in Australia. SETH-SMITH, D (1932). P. 36. Arrival of the Splendid Grass Parrakeet. ...................................... ...P. 73-74. The Splendid Grass Parrakeet (with coloured plate by N.W. Cayless). WATKINS, T.R. Holmes (1952). P. 59-60. Breeding of Australian Parakeets. ................................................... P. 234. Correspondence: Of Kings, Splendids and eye disease. BARRY R. HUTCHINS - FOUR RARE AUSTRALIAN PARROTS 75 Conclusion: In Australia the captive populations of the four parrots mentioned are probably greater today than at any other time. There is no potential risk at the moment of gene damage with any of the four species. Many breeders have developed their own genetic families and as long as this scientific approach is adopted, each generation that is produced enhances the survival rate of each species. If a numerical ranking system could be adopted, this would be beneficial in assessing the status of birds in captivity; this in turn would monitor any declines, thus allowing for concerted breeding efforts to eliminate the threat to the species’ sur¬ vival. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to record thanks to Graeme Hyde for his valuable com¬ ments to early drafts of the manuscript and to Rosemary Hutchins for her typing and sorting through reference material. 76 THE LAYSAN TEAL - RECENT HISTORY AND FUTURE? By Prof. S. DILLON RIPLEY (Litchfield, Connecticut, USA) Laysan Teal Anas platyrhynchos laysanensis or Laysan Duck, as they have been called in recent monographs on waterfowl (Phillips, 1923; Delacour, 1956, 1964), had not been kept in captivity by 1956, the time of the appearance of Delacour $ second volume of his major work dealing with the waterfowl of the world. By the time of the final volume, however, much had been learned of this remote, isolated island and its diminutive duck. Laysan is a narrow islet of raised coral reef, scarcely three miles long with a central, brackish pond that periodically varies in size, with dunes reaching less than 40 ft above the sea and with little vegetation and sus¬ tenance. The birds appear to be adapted to living on insect larvae of lepi- doptera, flies and beetles with occasional brine shrimp in the brackish pools. The island lies in the Leeward chain of old, eroded volcanic sea mounts, some 485 miles WNW of Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. In 1957, a government census disclosed that the population of Teal, poorly surveyed in previous years, had increased greatly to a presumed near-saturation point of some 400-600 individuals. From my then post at Yale University, I joined with others in writing to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Sport, Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau to suggest that such an overpopula¬ tion might produce a ‘crash’ in numbers, and that some capture and cap¬ tive rearing might be attempted. This opinion fortunately coincided with that of the Bureau and of the Hawaiian Board of Agriculture and Forestry, and two sets of birds were caught, in 1957 eight duck, and in 1958, some 36. These birds were distributed among five zoological parks interested in captive breeding, the Wildfowl Trust, and private collections including Dr. Delacour* and mine in Litchfield, Connecticut. Young began to be reared in Connecticut in 1959 and in a number of the major collections successfully in following years and a stable, but small population has been maintained ever since. Laysan Teal have been described in their natural habitat as relatively tame, inclined to scuttle away from intruders into the vegetation without flying (in truth they can fly but, like isolated, insu¬ lar bird populations in general, seem to tend to avoid doing so), and to be aggressive among themselves, keeping in small groups or pairs. The same behaviour has been noted in captivity. First efforts at rearing them pro¬ duced evidence of aggression, difficulty in getting young to feed and a penchant for live food. However, the resulting captive population now seems easy enough to rear and to keep. Subsequently the status of Lay- PROF. S. DILLON RIPLEY - LAYSAN TEAL 77 san Island has been extensively described and the remarkable fluctuation in number of the Teal discussed. A comprehensive summary and recent history and ecology of the Lay san Teal, including notes on the first cap¬ ture of these birds in the late 1950s, was published by R.E. Warner (1961). Berger (1981) published an historical account of the bird’s existence on Laysan, noting, as had Warner, the fluctuations in the island population over the known years of record. Until recently the lowest estimate of the population of Laysan Teal was that of Bailey (1956), who estimated that when he visited in 1912, only some seven individuals were extant. More recently still, a record pub¬ lished by Ely and Clapp (1973, Table LT3), is perhaps the most striking record of a species’ survival ever alleged. It appears to be a fact that in 1930 a surviving pair existed on Laysan, of which the male and the then existing nest were destroyed in a storm. The remaining female proved to be gravid, laid again in a new nest, and produced living young! Survival could be described as existing on a razor’s edge. The future of the Laysan Duck or Teal thus depends on two factors: a responsible and conscientious effort to maintain captive stock in the face of natural fluctuations on Laysan in recent years of between 400 and 600 individuals (King, 1977), and the constant danger of predator introduction or natural disasters. This responsibility, however, presents an added prob¬ lem as most aviculturists will admit. Who is to be responsible? The little Laysan Duck is inconspicuous, “not pretty”, as one might say. Most pub¬ lic collections of waterfowl do not include it, and those among us avicul¬ turists who care are subject to mortality, errors of judgment and natural disasters, just as are the natural inhabitants of Laysan. Our U.S. Govern¬ ment has no consistent policy in regard to aviculture at present, witness the ups and downs of Pohakaloa in Hawaii, and some of the reserves on the mainland where experimental programmes are carried on. In all con¬ science, our Government should help bear such an international respon¬ sibility. Finally, why is the Laysan Teal (as I prefer to call it) so important? I have written twice about the bird in this journal (1943, 1959), point¬ ing out how interesting small island populations are. In 1960 I wrote about the duck on Laysan and maintained that it should be considered an endemic species, a monotypic one within the genus Anas for several reasons which I might quote here again herewith, after giving measure¬ ments and a drawing of the downy plumage (Ripley, 1960): ‘The size of the eggs of the Laysan Teal, and the size of the ducklings are both extraordinarily large in proportion to the adult birds which are the size of teal. There is apparently an allometric rate of growth which differs markedly from the Mallard, involving not only initial size of the 78 Prof. S. DILLON RIPLEY - LAYSAN TEAL egg and young but also body proportions. There must be an adaptive value for this isolated, reef-inhabiting duck in having an egg and duckling at hatching age so large in proportion to the adult. In addition, the bill size and shape suggest an adaptation to insectivorous diet. ‘Delacour and Mayr (1945) have emphasized the conservative nature and taxonomic value of downy plumages of waterfowl. On the basis of the rather striking downy plumage differences, proportionate growth differences, bill shape, small size and coarse plumage, I would be inclined to keep Anas laysanensis as a monotypic species within the Mallard Anas platyrhynchos superspecies.5 One additional point might be mentioned. In the 26 years that this species has been kept at Litchfield, we have never had a hybrid between this duck and other species, including the slightly larger Hawaiian Duck Anas platyrhynchos wyvillliana . The latter is a difficult form to keep in captivity, as unless isolated, it may hybridize with forms of the Mallard, including a variety of species such as the Australian and Spot-billed Mal¬ lards. Such an indication, as well as the rather aggressive nature of these little creatures, would seem to indicate that on balance the Laysan Teal prefers to be 'itself. Under the circumstances, I would be inclined to respect that suggestion and treat the species in a similar manner. REFERENCES BAILEY, A.M. (1956). Birds of Midway and Laysan Islands. Denver Mus . Nat. Hist, Mus. Bull , 12. 130 pp. BERGER, AJ. (1981). Hawaiian Birdlife. 2nd ed. University of Hawaii Press, Hono¬ lulu. 260 pp. DELACOUR, J (1956-1964). Waterfowl of the World. 4 vols. Country Life Books, London. .......................... and MAYR, E, (1945). The family Anatidae. Wilson Bull 57: 3-55. ELY, C.A. and CLAPP, R.E. (1973). The natural history of Laysan Island, North¬ western Hawaiian Islands. Atoll. Res. Bulletin. 171. Smithsonian Inst. KING, W.B. (1977). ICBP Red Data Book. Vol. 2. Aves. World Wildlife Fund, Merges, Switzerland. PHILLIPS, A.C. (1923). A Natural History of Ducks. Vol. 2. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 407 pp. RIPLEY, S. Dillon. (1943). Pacific Waterfowl. A vicultural Magazine, 5th ser., Vol. 8, (3); 67-70. ...............................(1959). Laysan Teal at Litchfield. Avicuituml Magazine 65(6): 172-174. .............................. (1960). The Laysan Teal in captivity. Wilson Bull 72: 244-247. WARNER, R.E. (1963). Recent history and ecology of the Laysan Duck.Cowefor. 65: 2-23. 79 SUMMARY OF PEREGRINE FALCON PRODUCTION AND RE-INTRODUCTION BY THE PEREGRINE FUND IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-1984 By TOM J. CADE (Section of Ecology & Systematic.*, Division of Biological Sciences Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.) and VICTOR J. HARD ASWICK (The Peregrine Fund, Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, N.Y.) In 1970 The Peregrine Fund, a private, non-profit-making organization affiliated with Cornell University, undertook a long-term project to develop and refine methods for the captive propagation of falcons. The ultimate goal was to utilize captive-bred progeny to replace the extirpated Peregrine Falco peregrinus population in the eastern United States, as well as to augment the much reduced wild populations in western states (Cade, 1974). Today (1984) the Peregrine Fund consists of breeding facilities located at Ithaca, New York, Fort Collins in Colorado, and at the University of California, Santa Cruz. In addition, construction has begun at Boise, Ida¬ ho, for a new programme - The World Center for Birds of Prey. Our Cornell breeding colony consists of peregrines obtained from di¬ verse geographic sources - including birds from Arctic and boreal North America, the Pacific Northwest, Scotland, Spain, Australia, South Ameri¬ ca, as well as various crosses between individuals from the above popula¬ tions. The first young Peregrines were reared at our Cornell facility in 1973, when four laying females produced 20 young. Table 1 illustrates our total eastern production to date. Numbers produced have steadily increased over the years, peaking in 1982. Our initial four laying females have been increased to 24, and the 20 young produced in 1973 have risen to 93 in 1982. By 1983 the total production at our three research facilities since our work started had reached 1011 Peregrine chicks. While we are pleased with our accomplishments to date, we have en¬ countered some problems that have prevented full realization of the maximum reproductive potential of our adult females. The most serious problem has been associated with the fertilization process. Currently we are achieving an overall fertilization rate of nearly 60%, essentially the same as in our early years. 80 T.J. CADE & V.J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND co oo CM Os r*H CM OS so CO q SO g On CM O p— H r- so in OS d 00 in CN *“ 1 CM p— t m oo V> 3 K cm oo 00 SO r- oo CO OS p-H in r- q q 'v os CM r*H CM OS OS in Os r-’ d CO b<3 p— 1 CM p— i r~ Cu O w p— 1 00 SO t> '3- 00 Os O OS r-H Os oo or O os CM o cm os 00 SO f~- d C'" cd -2S s CM p— i Os s s GO < o oo r-H lO Os CM ■st so 00 q q Z p5 as CM SO o r-~ r- CO r- p— i d m cd O a pH H P“H so Os u o Os c~~ P 05 n . OS CO OS o so Os CN o so r- OS Mm Os rH so o r-~ in SO d oo in cd Ph o hH p— H p-H so SO oo w g 00 r- g 3 r- o o SO SO p— 1 (N Os so 5 o w w Os «— i sf o r" SO H d oo’ >n cd rH H C" 00 w 05 05 03 c~~ r-~ vo SO in CM - P5 W H SO >n oo o so r-- 00 pH Os CN q q CO Os p— 1 o t"- in d CO t-5 Of- cd z o < W so oo 00 H CO lO os m CO CO CO C^ o oo oo q U 3 Os CO CM H 05 p— i m OJ < W Oh w CM c-~ co co CM o O SO O o CO r-- SO o S Os p— ( in oT d S D s H T3 on . ^3 tj .2 §8«S Ci_d O O O O H 2 2 Z P P a> a> o o ® 73 fa ]§ e <2 I <2 §> ^ &JD .P M P >> .S ->>5. >* ,2 d? Sh P § H fc >H T.J. CADE & V. J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND 81 This comparatively low rate, despite improved semen collecting and inseminating techniques, can be attributed to: 1) decreased fertility in many of our older breeding pairs; 2) a general, deterioration In egg quali¬ ty associated primarily with our older birds; and 3) allowing falcons requiring artificial insemination to lay the first egg of a clutch before initiating insemination, thereby losing the possibility of fertilizing the first, and frequently the second, egg. Inseminations were initially carried out by depositing semen from a capillary tube approximately 5-10 mm into the cloaca of the female. The results from this technique were poor, yielding fertility rates of approximately 10%. Currently an insemination syringe is used to depo¬ sit semen 25-50 mm directly into the manually everted oviduct. Ferti¬ lization rates of nearly 75% are achieved using this technique (Weaver and Cade, 1983). An additional important consideration in the management of a breeding facility is the availability of sufficient quantities of high quality semen. Semen must be readily available to inseminate non-copulating, as well as human-imprinted, laying females at the appropriate time. Initially we employed the standard manipulative technique for obtain¬ ing semen utilized by the poultry industry similar to that described by Lake and Stewart (1978). We found, however, that in addition to the considerable stress on the male involved, the quantities of semen ob¬ tained are small and irregularly produced, ranging from. 10-50 micro litres per collection, and frequently are contaminated with urates. Now we use a technique employing sexually mature males imprinted on humans and trained to copulate voluntarily on a special hat worn by the human companion (Boyd, et al 1977). A male so socialized and con¬ ditioned can be expected to yield copious quantities of fresh, high quality semen on a daily basis for an extended period. Table 2 illus¬ trates the seasonal semen production in 1983 of four imprinted males conditioned to copulate on a mating hat (see also Cade and Fyfe, 1978). In conjunction with this need for semen, a project is currently under way at The Peregrine Fund to perfect cryo-preservation of raptor semen. The availability of viable frozen semen will allow for the extended storage of desirable genes, and eventually will aid in their preservation, exchange and transfer. Our falcons are hatched .in forced air incubators following the para¬ meters of incubation worked out by Rahn and Ar (1974), Rahn et al (1977), and in general we have achieved a consistent hatch rate of from 70-80% of our fertile eggs (see Weaver and Cade, 1983, for further de¬ tails on propagation). To maintain long-term production in captivity, it is important that re- 82 T.J. CADE & V.J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND TABLE 2. SEMEN PRODUCTION BY FOUR MALE PEREGRINES (Sexually imprinted on human beings) A. F.p. pealei 12 years old B. F.p. pealei 10 years old C. F.p. brookei 6 years old D. F. p. cassini ' ana turn 6 years old Total production in days 74 46 70 54 Days with no ejaculation 2 7 2 12 Total volume of semen in mm (1mm diam Tube) 12,522 3,716 10,645 2,722 Average daily volume 169.2 80.8 152.1 50.4 Maximum daily volume 432 186 398 175 Minimum daily volume 37 15 13 10 TABLE 3. PRODUCTION OF CAPTIVE PEREGRINE FALCONS PARENTAL AND Fj GENERATION, 1973-1983 Number of females Total eggs laid Number of fertile eggs Number hatched Number fledged Percent fertile of total Percent hatched of fertile Percent reared of hatched Parental F^ 13 17 898 519 538 306 407 218 371 187 60% 59% 76% 71% 91% 86% T. J. CADE & V.J. H ARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND 83 productive capacity should not diminish in succeeding generations of breeders. Table 3 indicates that at our Cornell facility in the years 1973 to 1983, the productivity of the F| generation has been comparable to that of the original wild-caught parent generation. Any apparent dif¬ ferences noted in the percentage of fertile hatched and the percentage reared can be attributed to our manipulation of incubation parameters, with little, if any, biological significance. Some birds of the F2 gene¬ ration are also breeding now, but it is too soon to draw conclusions about their reproductive performance. We have encountered few problems associated with the growth and behavioural development of our chicks. The young falcons reared at our facilities appear indistinguishable from wild birds (see, also, Sherrod, 1983). In order to establish captive-reared Peregrines in the wild, we have used three release techniques: hacking, fostering, and cross-fostering. These techniques have been described in detail by Sherrod and Cade (1978), Cade (1980), Sherrod et al (1982). The technique of ‘hacking’ is actually a modification of the falconer’s method of the traditional hack (Michell, 1900), the major difference being that, whenever possible, we allow all falcons to return to the wild. Briefly, the hacking process involves placing three to ten nestling Peregrines approximately 30 days old in an enclosed artificial eyrie, a ‘hack’ box, where they are fed and cared for by on-site attendants. After about two weeks in this enclosure, when the birds are nearly capable of flight, the hack-box is opened allowing the birds to fly when they are ready. Following their release, the birds return to this artificial eyrie for food until such time (about five to six weeks) as they become independent and leave the hack area. Hack-boxes have been placed on natural sites (cliffs) as well as on man-made sites (towers and city buildings). Fostering involves placing young Peregrines in the established eyrie of a nesting pair of Peregrines, thus increasing natural production and supplementing depleted local populations. Cross- fostering has been accomplished by placing Peregrine chicks in the active eyries of Prairie Falcons Falco mexicanus in the western states. In Germany it has been done using pairs of Goshawks Accipiter gentilis (Saar et al, 1982). Our first experimental attempts at releasing captive-bred Peregrine Falcons to the wild occurred in 1974 when we fostered two downy chicks into a wild Peregrine eyrie in Colorado and hacked a second set of two from the roof of a building overlooking a university campus in New York State (Cade, 1974). It was not until 1975, however, that captive production reached a level sufficient to allow major restocking 84 T.J. CADE & V.J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND experiments to begin. In that year we released 16 young at five sites (two in cliffs and three on towers) in the East. Since 1974, the Peregrine Fund has released a total of 1011 captive-bred Peregrines in the continental United States. During 1983, 511 young have been released at 22 hacking stations in nine eastern states, and an estimated 402 of these have sur¬ vived to independence (Barclay and Cade, 1983). A total of 500 captive- bred young have been released in 12 western states, and an estimated 375 have survived through the first four weeks after release and dispersed nor¬ mally. The first encouraging results from our hacking efforts occurred in 1976 when a male released in 1975 at a coastal tower in New Jersey returned to the very same hack-box where he had been originally released and fed with the young currently being hacked there that season (Cade and Dague, 1976). TABLE 4. SIGHTINGS OF PEREGRINES AT EASTERN RELEASE SITES Region 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Coastal New Jersey 2 2 5 8 10 11 11 18 67 Chesapeake Bay 1 0 2 2 2 11 16 17 51 Inland 2 3 3 4 2 2 4 7 27 Total 5 5 10 14 14 24 31 42 145 No. of birds hacked 37 46 53 52 65 84 79 79 495 Table 4 shows the number of adult birds recorded as returning to release sites each year in our eastern programme. Each year as the number of young being released in the east increased, the population of returning adults has slowly built up. With the increase in the wild population, a sufficient density of falcons had apparently been reached in 1979 to allow pair formation and maintenance with some stability. The first reproduc- dive attempt in the eastern U.S. that we are aware of by a captive-bred falcon occurred in 1979 when a lone female, ‘Scarlett’, released in 1977, established a territory on the United States Fidelity and Guaranty building in Baltimore, Maryland. ‘Scarletf accepted an artificial nest-box filled with gravel and laid three infertile eggs. Following full-term incubation, four downy chicks hatched at our breeding facility at Cornell were subsequent¬ ly fostered to this dedicated female and successfully reared by her. Also in 1979, four pairs were formed at previous hack-sites, and one pair laid two fertile eggs. Unfortunately, these eggs disappeared late in incubation, and predation by crows is suspected to have been the reason. T.J. CADE & V.J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND 85 In 1980, two pairs of Peregrines nested in the eastern US,, producing four young. This milestone, the first known successful nesting of Pere¬ grines east of the Mississippi River in more than 20 years, demonstrated conclusively the suitability of the hacking process as a means of success¬ fully establishing a population of Peregrines in the wild. Table 5 summarizes the nesting attempts and the production of wild- produced young as a result of our efforts in the eastern U.S. Following our initial success in 1980, the number of adult pairs formed and young produced has steadily increased. With this build-up of the wild population, pairs have started occupying new and diverse territories. In addition to the coastal tower sites, a pair used a traditional cliff site successfully for the first time in 1981 (Cade and Hague, 1981), and in 1983 the first of our birds bred on bridges in a busy metropolitan area (New York City) (Cade and Hague, 1983). TABLE 5. EASTERN PEREGRINE NESTING SUMMARY, 19794983 (from Cade & Barclay, 1984) Year Location Outcome Total 1979 New Jersey Failed egg production 1 attempt, no young 1980 New Jersey 1 young 2 attempts, 4 young 3 young 1981 New Jersey 2 young 4 attempts, 10 young 3 young 3 young - killed by raccoon New Hampshire 2 young 1982 New Jersey 2 young 5 attempts, 12 young 3 young 4 young Failed, female disappeared Virginia 3 young 1983 New Jersey 1 young 9 attempts, 23 young 3 young 4 young 4 young New Y ork (bridge) 2 young 3 young Virginia 4 young Maryland 2 young Maryland (bridge) Failed late in incubation TOTAL 21 attempts 49 young hatched 2.33 young/ attempt 86 T,T. CADE & V. J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND Table 6 shows the eastern hacking results according to type of site used. As can be noted from the data, the best release sites for hacking young falcons have been coastal towers, A total of 238 young have been released from the tower sites with an average of 81% of the young dis¬ persing successfully. Inland cliffs are the second most utilized hack- sites, where about 75% of the 216 young survived to become indepen¬ dent. Urban areas have been used as release areas for only 57 young. In 1983 there were at least 16 pairs of adults established in the mid- Atlantic region of the East Coast. Nine of these pairs laid eggs and pro¬ duced 23 young, an average of nearly 2.6 young per successful pair. We anticipate continued growth and expansion of this founding population, and we believe that a self-sustaining wild population will be established in the next few years, TABLE VI. EASTERN PROGRAMME - HACKING RESULTS ACCORDING TO SITE TYPE (from Cade and Barclay, 1984) Artificial Sites Natural Sites Year Tower Sites Urban Site^ Cliff Sites No. falcons % dispersed No. falcons % dispersed No. falcons % dispersed hacked normally hacked normally hacked normally 1975 10 90 6 50 1976 14 71 . . 23 65 1977 23 91 - - 23 61 1978 29 76 - - 24 50 1979 32 75 8 100 12 67 1980 33 94 20 85 12 58 1981 37 62 24 75 23 83 1982 33 91 3 100 43 91 1983 27 85 2 0 50 92 Total 238 81 57 81 216 75 In our western programmes, where remnant populations of anatum Peregrines still exist, re-introduction (Table 7) has emphasised the direct fostering of young and cliff-site hacking, with 199 and 209 young res¬ pectively, being released by each of these methods. Hack towers are less frequently constructed because of the preponderance of natural cliff sites in suitable habitat, so only 5 1 young falcons have been released from such towers, while cross-fostering to Prairie Falcon eyries has been used for 35 young. Six chicks were released in urban areas. The above data include 59 young hatched from wild eggs. TABLE 1. WESTERN PEREGRINE PROGRAMME* - RELEASE RESULTS ACCORDING TO SITE TYPE T.J. CADE & V. J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND 87 S "2 3 ts 1 £ © © e m o § ll , -a 5 JSE 0 o o ^ a. & >> ns ^3 2 © TJ M M ~ « O a c ^ g -a o S © o ^ • o o 51 ^ A (*H J3 >» "3 *"53 i s i TJ n W ^ a, a g T3 o S © u o ^ 5 1 S i 2 .2 © C -d S m ^ t g t, 2 x» o 5? © u o ^ III o o O •>?!- o o o o O tJ- O 00 O »— f © r- o o 00 o <©) in Os Os ^ ^ ^ *-H O S> f" oo o *o KO cn m 00 oo oo 0\ ON Cf\ * includes 59 young hatched from wild eggs. TABLE 8. EASTERN PROGRAMME - FATE OF HACKED PEREGRINE FALCONS UP TO FOUR WEEKS AFTER RELEASE (from Cade and Barclay, 1984) 88 T.J. CADE & V.J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND &> M o 43 «J •■r 43 O § * .g £o ^3 £ i 6 O 4-1 M O e> M •s s I a z u co ?-h ro 1 « ■ « »o VO cn , i «n « . i * i i « 9 I I , CNi o •2 c .2 IS P © Pm £ 43 X © o £ ^ <3 .2 © ^ jS & § *T3 c« .3 © O G ■M W tJJQ e •- § O T3 Pi S Ss 8 •§.•§ ai £ < •tJ M g S- X T3 OS 4) £ S g fe! tJ o ° « ii Is* P fe W I .2 +ij 'S . s >» £ O © o ° S *g .a § I « * .0 ^ o 2^ d gs o 43 o <5 P ■£ e c .5 ^ -s > 2^| Q fc P S3 .2 >, a> © a ! a I *3 M § 3 £ M ^ 5 a C S3 T3 © _. © T3 © S © © s S *t> g S © .23 W OS O Ot n o\ o © t> O Os O H \o oo (N *— t c-~ on Tt O t-h «*■ '?j- h ro oo « »n oo H CNI VO ^ £ If O p e; *h G O "d c ^ 0 1g te © wa T3 ’* -S o o ^ H Z ^ o *C Om © tJ 3 © O 4i •B Pm ed O T.J. CADE & V.J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND 89 We have often been asked, ‘What happens to young falcons once they are released?’ In a wild population the mortality rate for young Peregrines has been calculated to be nearly 67% for the first year birds and about 20% for subadults (Young, 1969) (see also Lindberg, 1977). Mortality rates for our hacked birds have been determined to be about 26%, with an overall first year mortality of 66.7% (Barclay and Cade, 1983). Causes for these losses during the hacking period are shown in Table 8. As can be noted in the East, the three primary causes for losses of young Peregrines at release sites are: premature dispersal, predation by Great Horned Owls Bubo virginianus, and adult Peregrine harassment. During recent years, whenever possible, we have endeavoured to avoid as potential hack sites those areas which have demonstrated a high likelihood of owl predation or possible harassment by adult Peregrines. In so doing, we have achieved a survival rate for our hacked birds of nearly 90%. By continuing to be selective in our choice of release sites, we believe we can maintain this favourable survival rate in the future. In the West, predation by Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos, as well as Great Horned Owls, has accounted for the greatest losses of both adult and juvenile Peregrines. Even though we try to avoid areas inhabited by these two species, they continue to pose a serious threat to our release efforts in the West. In the Rocky Mountains and adjacent areas, thanks in large measure to the production and release of large numbers of Peregrines over the past eight years by our Fort Collins programme, many banded Peregrines have been seen at natural eyries and release sites. In 1983, in Colorado alone, there were 13 locations where adult or subadult Peregrines def¬ ended territories, and for the first time in many years two historical eyrie sites were re-occupied (W. Burnham, 1983). We are also pleased to report additional encouraging data from the Pacific Coast. Historically, a population of approximately 17 nesting pairs of Peregrines occupied cliffs on the central coast of California. By the early 1970s this number had dwindled to one or two non-producing pairs. Following intensive fos¬ tering efforts by the Predatory Bird Research Group at Santa Cruz, over 10 pairs and four single birds could be found in this same area by 1982 (Cade and Dague, 1982). We believe that the Peregrine Fund and its co-operators have con¬ tributed significantly towards arresting the decline in Peregrine popula¬ tions in the continental U.S. We have already witnessed an increase in breeding pairs and in the production of wild young. It appears that this population build-up, increased production and re-occupation of tradi¬ tional eyrie sites, as well as colonization of new areas, may parallel the initial phases of recovery observed in Peregrine populations in Great 90 T.J. CADE & V.J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND Britain and Europe (Ratcliffe, 1980). Cade (1980) has summarized the basic biological requirements neces¬ sary to establish captive-produced Peregrines in the wild. Released birds must possess: 1) behavioural patterns allowing social interaction and reproduction to occur in the wild; 2) strong site specific attachment to areas where they are released; 3) migratory habits allowing them to breed successfully in release areas; and 4) a survival potential comparable to a wild falcon. Finally, 5) the environment must be sufficiently free of pollutants and harmful chemicals to allow released Peregrines to live and breed successfully. Based upon our re-introduction results, it is reasonable to assume that the first four requirements have been attained. There is still serious concern, however, that chemical residues in the environment may continue to interfere with reproduction, particularly in the western regions of the United States. Early reports indicate that 1984 has been exceptionally productive both in the breeding chambers and in the wild. Preliminary production data indicate that during this past season approximately 266 captive- bred Peregrines were reared at our combined facilities. To this figure must be added 71 young produced from wild eggs incubated in our laboratories making a grand total of 337 young Peregrines - more than in any previous year. Of this number 333 were added to the wild population, the remain¬ der being held for breeding stock. Additional encouraging news has reached us from the field. In the East, where our founding population has continued to increase since our first success in 1980, we have reports of 27 established pairs of Peregrines in addition to 1 1 single birds on territory, for a total of 65 birds seen. Sixteen of these pairs attempted to breed in 1984, and 12 were successful. Thirty wild young were produced for an average of 2.5 young per success¬ ful nesting attempt. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work has been financially supported by many private individuals and organi¬ zations; a complete listing can be found in The Peregrine Fund Newsletter, Vol. 1-11 (1973-1983). Major funding came from the following: National Science Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, National Audubon Society, Edward John Noble Foundation, Arcadia Foundation, Richard King Mellon Foundation, Atlantic-Richfield Founda¬ tion, North American Peregrine Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Armament Research and Development Command, US Forest Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro¬ tection, and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. We have also had much co-operation and help from the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation, and TJ. CADE & V. J. HARDASWICK - PEREGRINE FUND 91 the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles, We also thank the following past and present co-workers with the Peregrine Fund: James Weaver, Willard Heck Jr., Phyllis R. Dague, John H. Barclay, William A. Burn¬ ham and Brian J. Walton. REFERENCES BARCLAY, J.H. and CADE, TJ. (1983). Restoration of the peregrine falcon in the Eastern United States, pp. 340 in Bird Conservation No. 1. S.A. Temple (Ed.) Univ. of Wise. Press, Madison, Wisconsin, BOYD, L.L., BOYD, N.S. and DOBLER, F.C. (1977). Reproduction of prairie fal¬ cons by artificial insemination. J. Wildl Mgmt. , 41: 266-271. BURNHAM, W.A. (1983). The Peregrine Fund’s Rocky Mountain program Operation Report Unpublished Report. The Peregrine Fund, Inc., Fort Collins, Colo. CADE, TJ. (1974). Plans for managing the survival of the peregrine falcon, pp. 89- 104 In F.N. Hammerstrom Jr., B.E. Harrell, and R.R. Olendorff, eds. Manage¬ ment of Raptors. Proceedings of the Conference on Raptor Conservation Tech¬ niques, Fort Collins, Colorado, March 1973 (Part 4). Raptor Research Report , No. 2. ................. (Ed.) (1974). The Peregrine Fund Newsletter No. 2. ................. (1980). The husbandry of falcons for return to the wild. Int Zoo Yh. 20: 23-35. ................. and BARCLAY, J.H. (1984): The current state of peregrine recovery in the eastern United States. Paper presented at the 41st annual meeting, Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Ocean City, MD. CADE, TJ. and DAGUE, P.R. (Eds.). The Peregrine Fund Newsletter: No. 4 (1976), No. 9 (1981), No. 10 (1982), No. 11 (1983). CADE, T.J. and FYFE, R.W. (1978). What makes peregrine falcons breed in cap¬ tivity? In: Endangered Birds; Management Techniques for preserving threatened species: 251-262. Temple, S.A. (Ed.) Madison; Univ. of Wise. Press. LAKE, P.E. and STEWART, J.M. (1978). Artificial insemination in poultry. Bull Min. Agric. Fish. Fd , No. 213. LINDBERG, P. (1977). The Peregrine Falcon in Sweden, pp. 328-337. In: World Conference on birds of prey, report of proceedings, Vienna 1975 C.R.D. Chan¬ cellor, (Ed.) Int. Council for Bird Preservation. MIC HELL, E.B. (1900). The Art and Practice of Hawking. D.R. Hillman and Sons, Ltd. Great Britain. RAHN, H. and AR, A. (1974). The Avian egg: incubation time and water loss. Condor 76: 147-152. RAHN, H„» ACKERMAN, R.A.A. and PAGANELLI, C.V. (1977). Humidity in the avian nest and egg water loss during incubation. Physiol Zool 50: 269-283. RATCLIFFE, D.A. (1980). The Peregrine Falcon. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota. SAAR, C., TROMMER, G. and HAMMER, W. (1982). Der Wanderfalke. Bericht uber ein Artenschutzprogramm. Methoden, Ziele und Erfolge. Deutscher Falken- orden e.V. Bonn. SHERROD, S.K, (1983). Behavior of fledgling peregrines. The Peregrine Fund , Inc. Ithaca, New York. 202pp. .......................... and CADE, TJ. (1978). Release of peregrine falcons by hacking. In: Birds of prey management techniques: 121-136 . Geer; T.A. (Ed.) British Falconers1 Qub. 92 SHERROD, S.K., HEINRICH, W.R., BURNHAM, W.A., BARCLAY, J.H. and CADE, T.J. (1982). Hacking: a method for releasing peregrine falcons and other birds of prey. The Peregrine Fund, Inc., Ithaca, New York. WEAVER, J.D. and CADE, T.J. (Eds.) (1983): Falcon propagation. The Peregrine Func Inc., Ithaca, New York. YOUNG, H.F. (1969). Hypotheses on peregrine population dynamics, pp. 513-519 In: Peregrine falcon populations, their biology and decline. J.J. Hickey (Ed.) Univ. of Wise. Press, Madison. * * * CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE EASTERN WHITE STORK Ciconia boyciana By KYOKO M. ARCHIBALD (Vogelpark Walsrode, West Germany) Background The Eastern White Stork (Fig. 1) is considered to be one of the most endangered members of the stork family, Ciconiidae. Although once ab¬ undant in Japan and Korea, the species has been extirpated from both countries. The main breeding area for the stork is south-eastern Siberia, where Russian scientists estimate the population to be 400-500 nesting pairs (S. Smirenskii, pers. comm.). Chinese scientists undertook a heli¬ copter survey in the northern province of Heilongjong, China, in spring 1984, and counted over 100 of the Eastern White Storks. Several nests were also located (D. Parish, pers. comm.). The Chinese have also found a major wintering area - Shengjin Lake in Anhui Province - where approxi¬ mately 270 birds were counted in the winters of 1982-83 and 1983-84 (Wang Qishan, pers. comm.). The last wild bird in Japan was captured in 1971. In Korea in the same year a breeding pair was discovered in Umsung. Prior to this discovery, the stork was presumed extinct in that country. According to the local people, the pair had been nesting there for forty years! Unfortunately, three days after the historic discovery, the male was killed by a local hunter. Although breeding storks no longer occur in Japan and Korea, winter migrants are often reported from several locations. Some storks winter further south, along the south-eastern coast of mainland China. One bird K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK 93 Kyoko Archibald Fig, 1 : Eastern White Stork pair at nest, Vogelpark Walsrode was reported in Hong Kong in the winter of 1979-80, and two In 1981-81, but none since that time (M. Chalmers, pers, comm.). Eastern White Storks in captivity Two birds from the original population in Japan are still maintained in captivity. Ten additional storks in Japanese zoos and aviaries were either caught as wintering birds or were imported from China. The female stork whose mate was killed in 1971 was caught in 1983 and has been 94 K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK kept at the Grand Park Zoo (Kim, pers. comm.). Three storks were seen in the Peking Zoo in the spring of 1984 (Luthin, pers. comm.), but no more information is available. San Diego Zoo received four storks from China in 1982, of which three survive (A. Risser, pers. comm.). The species has never bred in captivity, despite earnest efforts, parti¬ cularly by the Japanese. Following a drastic population decline in the 1950s and 1960s due to injury and sickness caused by pesticides, the Japanese began an intensive propagation programme in 1963. Sadly, the birds captured in these two decades have had numerous health problems, undoubtedly related to heavy mercury contamination, and thus have not been healthy enough for pairing and breeding. A hybrid was produced, however, between an Eastern White Stork and a European White Stork. With the exception of the storks in Japan and China, the captive birds in other countries have been too young for breeding, as the storks in East and West Germany and the Soviet Union were brought to the zoos as young birds. The storks at the Vogelpark Walsrode were provided by the Soviet Government for initiation of a captive propagation programme for con¬ servation purposes. A conservation plan was developed between the Soviet Government and the International Crane Foundation (USA) in summer, 1979. Two pre-fledged chicks arrived at the Vogelpark in July 1980, and an additional ten (two adults, eight chicks) arrived in June 1981. The chicks were collected from separate nests along the Lower Amur River (Wennrich, 1982). Sex determination Bill length can in some, but not all, cases be used for sex differentiation; i.e. males have longer bills than females. However, 42% of the sample (four males, four females) had culmens of intermediate length, and culmen length alone was insufficient for determining sex. An even greater indivi¬ dual variability is noted in the length of the tarsus. Fifty percent (six males, six females) of the total sample fell within the intermediate range; there was some separation by sex, however (see Fig. 2). Both male and female of the confirmed pair at Vogelpark had culmens and tarsi of nearly equal length, and this character alone is insufficient to distinguish the two. There exists a slight sexual difference in bill-clattering behaviour. The female of a known pair, as well as two unpaired females were observed ex¬ tending their necks forward towards males and clattering very quietly and slowly (fig. 3). Data are being analysed to determine quantitative beha¬ vioural differences between sexes. Sex determination from analysis of the droppings has been perfected for the Eastern White Stork, and this technique would undoubtedly work K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK 95 o b O'" or b Fig. 2: CULMEN AND TARSAL LENGTHS OF LIVING AND MUSEUM SPECIMENS 96 K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK Fig. 3: Female bill-clattering to male; part of male’s ‘intentional copulation’ to female for the Eastern White Stork. Although laparoscopy is more fail-safe, there is a greater risk to the birds, especially in light of the fact that the birds are quite nervous by nature. Management The eleven storks at Vogelpark Walsrode range in age from three to eight years. Since February 1983, when an individual was killed by its supposed mate, the birds have been partitioned into individual cages to avoid further aggressive interactions. Prior to that time, the young birds had been maintained together in small groups and presumed pairs. Although the European White Stork is known to pair at two years and lay eggs at three, the age of first-breeding of the larger Eastern White Stork is unknown, although a slower maturation is suspected for this large northern ciconiiform. Believing that at three years old, the birds may be able to pair, the Vogelpark initiated an intensive research/management plan for the storks in the winter of 1984. Cages The storks are held in individual enclosures isolated from public view¬ ing, measuring 14 x 4 x 3.8 m. A wooden shelter 4 x 3 x 2.2 m is common to two adjacent pens, and can be subdivided to accommodate a pair. Adja¬ cent pens have three doors in common: one outside the shelter and two inside. This arrangement makes it easy to bring the pair together for care¬ ful observations. Within the entire enclosure unit, storks and cranes are placed alternately to avoid intra-specific fighting and to allow establish¬ ment of individual territories. K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK 97 Perches A perch was provided for each stork. A log approximately 5-6 cm in diameter and 4 m long was placed parallel to the back fence. Six of 1 1 birds quickly accepted the perch, and they preferred to roost on the perch instead of the ground. The other five never used the perches at all. Perhaps a stork is not so adept at using a narrow perch, but rather needs a flatter, broader surface. The Eastern White Stork often perches on rooftops and electric power lines, where flat surfaces are provided. One small advantage to the use of a perch is that those birds accustomed to using a perch were also quick to utlise a nest when provided, but birds which did not perch took much longer to become used to using a nest platform. The perching birds also seemed more calm than those which did not perch. Nest Platforms Nest platforms appear to be of critical important for storks to develop pair-bonds. Males of the European White Stork return to their nests prior to the arrival of the females in the spring. A week or two later the females arrive. The female is believed to select the male based on the nest alone! At first, males tend to chase females away, but persistent females even¬ tually are accepted, and copulation on the nest ensues (B. Schmitt, pers. comm.). The nest platforms of the Eastern White Stork at Vogelpark are larger than those usually used for the European storks, measuring 2 m in dia¬ meter, and placed approximately 1.3 m above the ground, allowing at least 2.5 m ‘head room’ for copulation. The base is slotted for drainage. The nests were ‘started’ for each pair early in the season, and placed in the cage of the male. Long branches of 2-3 cm diameter were weaved through vertical sticks nailed to the side of the nest. Smaller twigs and straw were placed inside the fabricated nests. After the bird accepted a nest, twigs and straw were provided regularly from late March to early May. In addition to the twigs, storks often took evergreen branches, fresh grass and feathers to the nests. Diet The young storks were fed minced fish, one-day old chicks from which heads, feathers and legs were removed, beef hearts and live worms. Supplementary vitamins and calcium were provided. As adults, the birds receive whole fish and day-old chicks. At the start of the breeding season, additional calcium powder and multi-vitamins are provided. Birds are fed daily at midday. More fish and chicks are eaten during the peak of the breeding season, after which the intake falls to normal. 98 K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK Observations of pairing activities The Eastern White Stork seems very particular in its mate selection. During spring 1984, despite numerous attempt to establish pairs, only one certain pair was formed from the 1 1 individuals. The sequence of events was as follows: (a) Originally, the two birds were maintained in distant pens within the facility. The distant male, however, responded to the female’s bill-clat¬ tering with his own clattering. The date was 20th January. (b) On 24th February, the male and female were moved closer to each other, where one corner of their pens touched. The birds often met at this corner and frequently bill-clattered together. Due to their nearly identical appearance, it was then still difficult to discern what sex they were. In fact, since the female was much more active than the male, it was presumed that she was a male, and vice versa! The male clattered by himself on 28th February, and the female followed suit. (c) On 6th March the birds were moved to adjacent pens and a nest platform was placed in the male’s enclosure. He came up on to the nest almost immediately and started nest-building. The two birds often stood beside each other at the fence, still regularly clattering together and at this time they allo-preened through the fence. What appeared to be a ‘frustrated copulation’ by the male (I shall refer to this as ‘intentional copulation’) was performed in front of the female on 8th March (see fig. 3). The male, although at first rather inactive, became increasingly aggressive and active with nest ownership. (d) On 9th March, the door between the pens was opened. Despite good compatibility through the fence, the male was at first aggressive towards the female, and the female fearful, when put together. The storks were separated during the nights, and allowed to be together during the days. On 12th March the female was exchanged with the male, to test her reaction to the nest. She perched near the nest, but never landed on it. Until early May, the male and female were allowed to interact during the day, but were separated at night. The female never seemed interested in nesting, and the male appeared ‘frustrated’. (e) On 7th May, two artificial eggs were placed on the nest. The male immediately started incubating. Simultaneously his aggression disappeared, and the female tended to approach him more often. Finally, the door was allowed to be kept continuously open between the pens. (f) On 15th May the female came to the nest for the first time, and again on 18th May. Her clattering was answered by the male. From that day on, the female roosted on the nest; however, she seemed uninterested in the eggs. (g) On 23rd May, a hatching egg of the European White Stork was put in K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK 99 the nest. The male incubated the egg through the night, but abandoned it in the morning. (h) The egg was removed, and later the male attempted to copulate with the female. By that time, the female was completely comfortable at the nest. The pair nest-built, allo-preened, and bill-clattered together. The male mounted the female several times on 25th May, but the female was un- receptive. However, the pair-bond has persisted through the summer. Since the male is six and the female three years old, it is presumed that the female is still too young to begin breeding, and hence, despite good pairing, did not respond to the male’s initiatives. Nonetheless, we are quite hopeful for next year. In the European Stork, the female seems to select her mate (B. Schmitt pers. comm.). Two Eastern White Stork females at the Vogelpark also respond to particular males with mutual clattering. Perhaps, as with its close cousin the European White Stork, females of this species also select their mates. We hope to learn more in the coming season at Vogelpark. Summary of management recommendations (1) Whereas the European White Stork is somewhat colonial, the Eastern White Stork appears to be a solitary nester (although there are reports of semi-colonial nesting (Y. Shibaev, pers. comm.)). The storks seem to do better and are less aggressive if separated from their own kind. (2) Careful observation of the storks is important for proper pair-forma¬ tion. Observations should be made from a blind (hide), as the species is quite shy and behaves unnaturally in the presence of humans. (3) There is a good chance that a high level of aggression may be demon¬ strated prior to the formation of a good pair. Extreme caution should be exercised to ensure adequate time for the birds to become comfortable with each other, and ample space should be provided when birds are in¬ troduced together, to allow for ‘escape’ room if aggression is initially demonstrated. It has been observed that there is no aggression in the European White Stork once a pair is formed. The only incident of ‘mate¬ killing’ was when a female, behaving abnormally due to a brain tumour, was killed by her mate. It is suggested that this abnormal behaviour may have suggested an intruder to the male (B. Schmitt, pers. comm.). Aggression is known between individuals of the same sex in the Euro¬ pean White Stork, and two incidents of same-sex killings have been reported from Japan (K. Vos, pers. comm.; Komiya, 1982). (4) Perches may serve some useful function for the Eastern White Stork. The perches were used by some and not by others. The individuals that used the perches seemed to adjust to the presence of a nest much sooner than those that used no perch. Perhaps a flat surface could serve a better 100 K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK perch than a thin log. Perches are not necessary if a nest is present. (5) A nest is probably very important for pair-bonding. The nest helps promote the development of the pair, and stimulates territoriality and the brooding urge. Since copulation occurs on the nest, at least 2.5 m should be allowed overhead. Nest diameter can be between 1.5 and 2.0 m. Nest materials should be provided continuously. (6) An abundance of food should be provided to the storks at the onset of the breeding season, as they consume more food at this time. At the Strasbourg Zoo in France, one of the most successful stork centres of Europe, the White Stork diet includes fish, one-day old chicks, cooked pork liver, chicken feet, necks and heads, vitamins and calcium (B. Schmitt, pers. comm.). (7) A studbook for the storks is being developed at the Vogelpark Wals- rode. Based on information from questionnaires that I sent to zoos and from known locations of these birds, I have located a minimum of 38 Eastern White Storks in captivity (see Table 1). If a successful re-introduc¬ tion programme is developed for the species, those organisations which hold storks must co-operate to ensure careful and responsible genetic management to produce a population for release. TABLE 1. KNOWN LOCATIONS OF CAPTIVE EASTERN WHITE STORKS Location Owned Loaned Present Total China Peking Zoo 3(a) 3(a) East Germany Tierpark Berlin 2(a) 2(a) Japan Kobe Oji Zoo Osaka Municipal 1,2* -0,1 (b) U 2 Tennoji Zoo 1,1 1,1 2 Tama Zoo 2,2 -1,1 1,1 2 Toyooka White 1,3 (b) +1,2 2,5 7 Korea Grand Park Zoo 0,1 (a) 1(a) USA San Diego Zoo 3 3 USSR Moscow Zoo 3,2 3,2 5 West Germany Vogelpark Walsrode 4,3, 4 4,3 ,4 11 Total 38 (a) = exact numbers unknown; (b) Komiya, 1982; *males, females, unknown. K.M. ARCHIBALD - EASTERN WHITE STORK 101 (8) Continuous research on seasonal activity patterns, courtship and breeding behaviour should be promoted for both captive and wild Eastern White Storks in order to increase chances for successful breeding in captivity, and to further develop a careful conservation programme for the species. Summary Proper management techniques should result in successful captive breeding. The ultimate goal of a propagation programme for the Eastern White Stork is for future release into suitable habitat where it once oc¬ curred, including Japan and Korea. As part of its comprehensive plan for the species, Vogelpark Walsrode has begun developing captive management techniques, is working closely with Soviet and Chinese scientists to learn more about the wild stork populations, and has already contacted organi¬ sations, scientists and zoos in Korea and Japan to initiate steps for the future re-introduction of the rare storks into these countries. Protected, pesticide-free habitat needs to be located, and the mechanisms of the re-introduction programme are being worked out. Much can be learned from the experience of the European Stork stations, which have had a high degree of success with stork release projects (K. Vos, B. Schmitt, pers. comm.). We are hopeful that our understanding of this formerly little-known species will help to build a good breeding programme in captivity, and that our efforts will benefit this endangered species. REFERENCES KOMIYA, T. (1982). Oriental White Storks C. hoyciana in captivity in Japan. Unpub¬ lished report. WENNRICH, G. (1982). Keeping Asian White Storks at Vogelpark Walsrode. Avicul- tural Magazine, 88 (3): 127-129. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am gratefully indebted to Mr. Wolf Brehm and the Vogelpark Walsrode for sponsoring my research and activities at the Vogelpark for five months in winter¬ spring 1984. I wish to thank the following individuals for kindly offering infor¬ mation for the preparation of this report: Michael Chalmers, Mr. Kim, Duncan Parish, Prof. Wang Qishan, Arthur Risser, Bernard Schmitt, Dr. Yuri Shibaev, Dr. S.M. Smirenskii, and Kees Vos. Charles Luthin assisted with the preparation of this article. My present address is: Rt. 5, Box 136B, Baraboo, Wisconsin 53913, USA. 102 THE HAWAIIAN GOOSE Branta sandvicensis IN THE 1980s By JANET KEAR (The Wildfowl Trust, Martin Mere, Lancashire) The success of attempts to breed the Hawaiian Goose or Nene in captivity in England at Slimbridge and in Hawaii at Pohakuloa is probably well known (Kear and Berger, 1980). From a low point, reached during the 1940s, of less than 50 individuals in the world, the population has risen to something over 2500. Hawaiian Geese are now fairly common in zoos and avicultural collections and appear to be doing well there. In the wild, however, the situation is not so encouraging. Between 1949 and 1982, 1779 birds were reared in captivity in Hawaii and 1071 by the Wildfowl Trust. Since 1960, 1808 of these geese have been released into the wild, 1319 on the big island of Hawaii and 489 on the nearby island of Maui. On Maui, a substantial proportion of the birds came from England, reared either at Slimbridge or in Norfolk by Jack Williams with whom some of the Wildfowl Trust birds had been placed on loan. In addition, many hundreds of Hawaiian Geese have been bred by private aviculturists since the early 1970s when the species became gener¬ ally available. The release of captive-bred birds into sanctuary areas in the uplands of Maui and Hawaii was successful at first in increasing the estimated wild population on Hawaii to 450 in 1972 and to 650 by 1977. On Maui, esti¬ mations suggested that there were 150-200 in 1975, and between 225 and 325 in 1977 (all the Maui birds had been reared in captivity or were the offspring of such birds, whereas some truly wild stock had still remained on the island of Hawaii). Because of the apparent breeding success of the birds that had been set free, and the increase in population size, releases of captive-reared Nene slowed down after 1976. Then in the late 1970s, numbers on both islands declined; by 1980 only 300 geese were estimated to be present on Hawaii and 100- 150 on Maui (Devick, 1982). Investigations suggested that this was because half the adults were failing to breed every year, the goslings were suffering high mortality perhaps during adverse weather conditions, and there was heavy predation on eggs and incubating females (Stone et al, 1983). The Hawaiian Goose population now breeds almost exclusively in the highlands where there is relatively little clement weather compared with the lowlands, to which the birds used to move to breed in the old days, and where the food supply may be deficient. Poor nutrition may be the reason why only a small proportion of the potential population nests K. HOWMAN - ENDANGERED PHEASANTS 103 every year, and could also contribute to the low gosling survival. A recovery plan has been formulated (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983) and includes the recommendation that a predator control pro¬ gramme, to reduce the numbers of mongooses, should be introduced. Nutritional requirements of young and old geese need to be known, release sites at lower elevations should be sought, release techniques need to be improved and, most importantly, captive-reared Nene must continue to be used to bolster the wild population. REFERENCES DEVICK, W.S. (1982). Status of the Nene population on Hawaii and Maui between 1975 and 1980. Proc. Hawaii Volcanoes Natl. Park Nat. Sci. Conf. 4:60. KEAR, J. and BERGER, A.J. (1980). The Hawaiian Goose. Poyser: Calton. STONE, C.P., WALKER, R.L., SCOTT, J.M. and BANKO, P.C. (1983). Hawaiian Goose Research and Management - Where do we go from here? Elepaio 44: 1 1-15. US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (1983). Nene Recovery Plan (Hawaiian Goose). Portland, Oregon. * * * A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF ENDANGERED PHEASANTS IN CAPTIVITY By KEITH HOWMAN (Shepperton, Middlesex) BLYTH’S TRAGOPAN Tragopan blythii The Blyth’s Tragopan pheasant comes from the thick, leech-infested forests of Nagaland and neighbouring Manipur, in north-eastern India on the border with Burma. The reasons for its endangered category are princi¬ pally based on its limited distribution in a politically sensitive area. Al¬ though reasonably well distributed in captivity on the Continent prior to World War II, they died out, to all intents and purposes, during that period though the last cock bird survived for a further 20 years or so. In 1983 two pairs were sent to Britain from Kohima in Nagaland where they have around 15 in captivity. They bred in 1984. Due to small egg clutches of 4-5 eggs, building up large numbers in captivity will be difficult and slow. At present there would be no grounds or necessity for reintroduction. 104 K. HOWMAN - ENDANGERED PHEASANTS CABOT’S TRAGOPAN T caboti From south-eastern China in the mountain forests of Fokien, the Cabot’s Tragopan is the most easterly in distribution of the group. Like the Blyth’s Tragopan, they almost died out in captivity during World War II. A small group was maintained at the Pheasant Trust based on birds sent over from Hong Kong by Dr. K.C. Searle. This group was distribu¬ ted in 1977/78 to America, Germany and Belgium. Those in America have been very successfully propagated, partly by artificial insemination, and good numbers have been reared during the past two years. Whilst the 1979 World Pheasant Association’s Census showed just 12 Cabot’s Tragopans in captivity, this number increased to 50 by 1982 and there must now be double that number, which is encouraging. The status of the Cabot’s Tragopan in China is at present uncertain. WESTERN TRAGOPAN T. melanocephalus This is certainly the rarest of the Tragopans and is now principally located along the cease-fire line between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, and in Himachal Pradesh where, fortunately, it is included within the area recommended for a new National Park. It is the only Tragopan to have proved really difficult in captivity. A few were bred in France in the period from 1864-1893 but they died out completely from around then onwards. Since that time only three specimens have reached Europe alive. A pair was sent to the Pheasant Trust in the 1960s, but the cock died soon after arrival. The hen sur¬ vived for several years, laid eggs and even produced chicks when crossed with a Temminck’s Tragopan. One further cock bird reached Antwerp in 1 981 but only survived for a few months. Two years of field studies were carried out for the World Pheasant Association in 1982 and 1983 by Kamal Islam who recorded over 100 sightings. A project is in hand to make a further attempt to establish them in captivity during the next few years. However, breeding them in really large numbers will never be possible since, like all the Tragopans, egg production is limited. MIKADO PHEASANT Syrmaticus mikado The Mikado Pheasant comes only from the island of Taiwan where considerable logging has taken place. However, it does appear to adapt quite well to secondary forest. K. HOWMAN - ENDANGERED PHEASANTS 105 It was first reared in captivity in 1913 but became scarce princi¬ pally as a result of two world wars. In the 1950s a small importation of new stock, by the Pheasant Trust, led to a major revival in their num¬ bers which continue to hold up well though they declined by over 100 between 1979 and 1982. Five hundred and thirty-two were recorded at the 1982 World Pheasant Association’s Census and the same comments on the rearing of large numbers apply as for the Hume’s and Elliot’s Pheasants (see below). ELLIOT’S PHEASANT S. ellioti The Elliot’s Pheasant is found only in China, in evergreen, broad¬ leaved forest in the south-east. Little of the original forest remains and it is undoubtedly under pressure though it may be within some of the newer forest reserves but this is unconfirmed. The last pheasant census in 1982 recorded 847 in captivity, a drop of 300 since 1979. The majority relate back to birds imported before World War II though two cock birds were imported in 1974 to the Pheas¬ ant Trust and produced many offspring, and more recently two cocks and a hen were imported by San Diego Zoo. Good fertility resulted from the new importations but fertility generally is low - around 55% compared to the norm of 90% in the wild. Chicks tend to be very wild and active on hatching but usually rear quite easily. This is a hardy species and easily kept in captivity. Like many other pheasant species, it suffers from inbreeding though this could easily be overcome by aviculturists taking more trouble in making up pairs. The breeding of viable numbers for a re-introduction project would be per¬ fectly feasible. HUME’S BAR-TAILED PHEASANT Syrmaticus humiae Hume’s Bar-tailed Pheasant is the third of the pheasants in this genus to be listed as endangered. Though first found in Manipur just over 100 years ago, Burma forms the largest part of its distribution and for this reason there is little recent information on it. In 1962 the late F.E.B. Johnson imported a few pairs to his Stagsden Bird Gardens in Bedfordshire; he was successful with them immediately and at the last census there were 527 birds distributed between over 10 countries. Hume’s Bar-tailed Pheasant belongs to the same group of pheasants as Elliot’s and is very similar in behaviour in captivity. So long as existing stocks are maintained in a sound genetic manner, then breeding viable numbers for re-introduction should not be a problem. 106 K. HOWMAN - ENDANGERED PHEASANTS CHEER PHEASANT Catreus wallichi The distribution of the Cheer Pheasant through Pakistan, at the western end of its range, through north-west India to central Nepal at the eastern end, has probably always been patchy and non-contiguous. This is the only pheasant of its genus and it is unusual in that the cock bird plays a major part in brooding and rearing the chicks and the family behave very much as a covey. They keep well below the snowline and appear to be attracted to the grass cutting and cultivation of man, making them rather vulnerable to hunters. Their patchy distribution has not helped them in their fight to survive man’s ever upward move into the mountains and there are now only a few pockets of them left in northern India, with probably the best and safest population being in western Nepal. Fortunately they do well in captivity and are the subject of a most encouraging re-in¬ troduction project in the Margalla Hill, north of Islamabad, Pakistan. Over 50 poults were released in 1983 and a similar number is hoped for in 1984. There were frequent sightings of small coveys of Cheer Pheasants in the release area from August 1983 through to April 1984. It is hoped that a full field study of them in Uttar Pradesh, In northern India, will get underway in 1985. At present the World Pheasant Associ¬ ation maintains a flock of around 60 birds for the production of eggs for the Margalla Hills project. In 1982 the numbers in captivity were around 460, and an excess of 300 eggs per annum have been despatched to Pakis¬ tan for some eight years. WHITE EARED PHEASANT Crossoptilon crossoptilon These magnificent birds come from western China in the area from the province of Szechuan through to Tibet at the eastern end of their range where they were unmolested by the Buddist population. The first recorded pair in captivity goes back to 1891 but they did not become firmly established in captivity until the 1970s when Jersey Zoo played a major role in establishing them. They are reasonably prolific layers, but fertility does seem to be variable and it could be that pairing them in aviaries throughout the year is not good practice. With 434 recorded at the last World Pheasant Association census (a 25% increase in three years), there is little doubt that it would be possible to obtain good numbers of fertile eggs if the need and opportunity for a re-introduction project arose. BROWN EARED PHEASANT C manchuricum Probably the rarest of all the pheasants in China, the Brown Eared comes from the north-east area of that vast country. Aviculturally, they K. HGWMAN - ENDANGERED PHEASANTS 107 survived for over a century from a gene base of three birds in 1865 and one further cock bird in 1890. Undoubtedly the Brown Eared became very tame and imprinted on man and fertility was poor. However, in 1976 the World Pheasant Associ¬ ation initiated a project to use artificial insemination with them. This was extremely successful and showed that this technique could be used at any time to boost numbers and ensure mixed bloodlines. Numbers in captivity are now around 564. CHINESE MONAL Lophophorus chuysi The Chinese Monal has a smallish distribution area in the mountains of south-east Kokonar and western Szechuan at around 12-16,000 ft, over 2,000 ft above the White Eared Pheasants in the same area. Very few specimens have ever come into captivity in the West, but in 1983 a pair were imported by San Diego Zoo and four chicks were hatched in 1984. These represent the only known captive stock of this large and endangered game bird though presumably others are in captivity in China. However, there is probably no reason why numbers should not be built up in a similar fashion to the Himalayan Monal of which there are over 1,300 in captivity, but it will take time and some additional stock will be neces¬ sary to prevent inbreeding. SCLATER’S MONAL L. sclateri The Sclater’s Monal takes over in distribution where the Himalayan Monal ceases in northern Assam, and then eastwards across the Indian border into China. Whilst it has been well recorded in the wild, only one cock bird has been recorded in captivity although a report was received some years ago of a pair in the Rangoon Zoo. As with the Chinese Monal, there is no known reason why Sclater’s should not do well in captivity and the failure to do so is probably due only to the fact that this species lives in an inaccessible area and its comparatively sparse distribution has not provided the opportunity. BULWER’S WATTLED PHEASANT Lophura bulweri The Bulwer’s Pheasant is one of the most recent additions to the en¬ dangered species list due to heavy logging of the low lying forest of Borneo. In captivity it is proving to be one of the more difficult species. Al¬ though discovered in 1874, only small numbers came into captivity and the first recorded captive breeding was only in 1973 by Dr. Estu- dillo Lopez in Mexico. They were also bred by Charles Sivelle in America in 1975 but since then there has been little real breeding success though 108 K. HOWMAN - ENDANGERED PHEASANTS they have survived reasonably well and numbers increased from 36 in 1979 to 59 in 1982. We need to learn far more about this species before it would be prac¬ tical to set up a re-introduction project. In the meantime, protection of their forest habitat is of prime importance. EDWARDS’ PHEASANT L. edwardsi Though discovered in 1895 it was not until 1923 that this species was first brought into captivity in the West when Dr. Jean Delacour shipped 15 birds to Cleres and bred from four cocks and three hens which he retained in 1925. The stock today is all derived from those original birds. Genetic degeneration began to show up seriously in the 1970s and a Stud Book was started by the World Pheasant Association. The resulting attention to genetics created an immediate increase in numbers which was still continuing at the time of the 1982 census when 690 were recorded in captivity. There is little doubt that if a good number of pairs was collected together, considerable numbers could be reared and further improvement would be made to the stock. IMPERIAL PHEASANT L. imperials This species was discovered and named by Dr. Jean Delacour in 1923. Only one pair was captured and they bred successfully at Cleres in 1924. The original cock bird was lost, along with the entire collection, in 1939 after the outbreak of war. Sadly, there are now no pure survivors of this species in captivity though specimens that look identical, produced from crossing cock birds with a Silver Hen, still survive. Twenty-four of these reconstituted birds remained alive in 1982. GREEN PEAFOWL Pavo muticus There are three subspecies: P.m. muticus , known as the Javanese Green Peafowl, may well be extinct in the wild; P.m. imperator was becoming very rare in the wild but Wildlife Authorities in Thailans in particular are now alerted to the fact and taking steps to protect this subspecies and the drabber P.m. spicifer, from Burma. These birds do not enjoy the religious protection of their cousin, the Indian Blue Peafowl P. cristatus and being large, are easily seen and captured. Fortunately there are good numbers in captivity and they can, with care, be encouraged to breed fairly prolifically. Good numbers are now held in three captive breeding centres in Thailand. Re-introduction into K. HOWMAN - ENDANGERED PHEASANTS 109 protected areas would be perfectly feasible. There were over 450 recorded between the three species at the last World Pheasant Association census. PALAWAN PEACOCK PHEASANT Polyplectron emphanum This species is found only on the island of Palawan at the southern end of the Philippines where logging is being carried out at a very intensive level at present, stopping only for hurricanes to go by. None of this bodes well for the survival of the Palawan Peacock Pheasant, nor does its appar¬ ently unrestricted export. There are reasonable numbers (around 500) in captivity and their survi¬ val is, therefore, reasonably assured. However, a species that lays only 1-2 eggs in a clutch can never be captive-bred in very large numbers, and it is to be hoped that steps to ensure its protection in Palawan will be taken before it is too late. CRESTED ARGUS Rheinartia o. ocellata Rheinard’s Crested Argus is the nominate race of the two pheasants in this group, the other subspecies being the Malayan Crested Argus R.o. nigrescens, on which Geoffrey Davison did some excellent fieldwork. Neither subspecies is at present represented in captivity. It is likely that, as with the Great Argus, clutch size is restricted to two and that the birds take three years to mature. Captive breeding of large numbers would, therefore, never be practical and this is another species whose long-term survival is really dependent on the survival of their habitat. 110 THE CAPTIVE PROGRAMME FOR THE ENDANGERED PUERTO RICAN PARROT Amazona vittata By JAMES W. WILEY (US Fish and Wildlife Service, Palmer, Puerto Rico) The Puerto Rican Parrot is one of the world’s most critically endan¬ gered birds. When Columbus arrived in 1493, the species was abundant throughout Puerto Rico and three offshore islands (Mona, Culebra, Vie¬ ques); however, parrot populations declined precipitously when European colonists began cutting forests to cultivate the land. Habitat destruction was undoubtedly the primary cause of the parrot’s decline, but many other factors (e.g. natural and introduced predators and competitors, as well as pet-taking) figured importantly in the near loss of the species (Snyder, 1978; Wiley, 1980). By 1975 only 13 parrots survived in the wild and were confined to the 11,000 hectare Caribbean National Forest in eastern Puerto Rico. This population has slowly responded to intensive research and management, and it now numbers about 30 birds. Still, this extremely small population could suffer ‘overnight’ extinction from disease or a hurricane. This vulnerability has made the captive propagation programme crucial to recovery of the species. The captive programme The current conservation programme was started in 1968. It is a co-op¬ erative effort of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the US Forest Service and the Department of Natural Resources of the Common¬ wealth of Puerto Rico. A captive propagation project was initiated in 1971 as security against the complete loss of the species in the wild and to pro¬ vide an additional source of young birds to augment production of the wild population. The first captive efforts were conducted at the FWS Patu¬ xent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland, USA, where two females dona¬ ted by the Puerto Rico Zoo (Mayaguez) and one wild-caught adult male were housed. In 1973, the emphasis of the programme was redirected from capture of wild birds to more intensive efforts to rehabilitate the wild population. At that time, the site of the captive programme was shifted to Puerto Rico, and an aviary was established in the heart of their remaining range in the Luquillo rain forest. The aviary’s location was critical for co-ordinating egg and chick transfers between captive and wild pairs. Many of the chick and egg transfers must be made immediately and unless the aviary support is close to the wild nest, such transfers would be impossible. Male Puerto Rican Parrot at entrance of artificial nest site in the Luquillo rain forest. A captive-produced chick, just days from fledging, is at the nest opening 112 J.W. WILEY - PUERTO RICAN PARROT The Puerto Rican Parrots are held within a concrete two-storey build¬ ing as a precaution against vandalism and the frequent and severe tropical storms. The building also houses a food preparation room, facilities for incubating eggs and brooding chicks, a shop, and living quarters for staff. Another aviary within the station compound, but isolated from the Puerto Rican Parrot facility, contains a flock of Hispaniolan Parrots A. ventralis. All parrots are kept under an artificial photoperiod system that can be adjusted to stimulate breeding activities and thereby achieve egg-laying synchrony with the wild parrots and between the captive Puerto Rican and Hispaniolan flocks. The captives are fed foods consisting primarily of fruits, vegetables, grains, and seeds. The captive parrots’ diet is augmented by seasonal wild foods (e.g. Sierra Palm Prestoea montand) from the rain forest. Vitamin and mineral supplements are added to the diet daily. The two surviving birds (the wild-caught male and one female) at Patu¬ xent Wildlife Research Center were transferred to the Puerto Rico aviary in 1977. Since that time, the captive flock has grown to 27 birds through harvesting wild eggs and chicks, and retention of some captive-produced chicks when they could not be fostered into wild nests. Acquisitions from the wild are used to maximise genetic diversity or to save eggs or chicks in situations where survival was judged hopeless (e.g. nest desertion). To minimise impact on the wild population, no additional adult wild birds have been taken into captivity. During the recovery programme’s early years, many parrot eggs were transferred from wild nests to the aviary to safeguard the eggs against loss to Pearly-eyed Thrasher Margarops fuscatus and Black Rat Rattus rattus predation as well as to avoid egg-fouling in nests with moisture problems. Dummy eggs were substituted in the nests to maintain incubation beha¬ viour in the adult birds until chicks were returned to the nest cavity. The parrot eggs were incubated in artificial incubators, and chicks were hand- reared for about one week or until they showed good vigour and health. Most predation and leaky nest problems have now been solved (Snyder & Taapken, 1978; Wiley, 1980; Wiley, in press). Eggs are normally left in the cavities, although nests are checked frequently and watched as often as possible from nearby hides. Captive production Production by the captive flock of Puerto Rican Parrots has been disap¬ pointingly low. All mature females have produced eggs, but only two have formed successful pair bonds that resulted in fertile eggs. Several problems have plagued the captive programme, including a biased sex ratio (many more females than males), poor pair bonding, and incorrectly sexed birds. Accurate and safe sexing techniques have now been developed (Erb and J. WILEY - PUERTO RICAN PARROT 113 Bercovitz, 1980). Also, the addition of birds has improved the sex ratio of adults (3+ years) to a more favourable nine females to six males. However, adult behavioural problems continue to impede the captive breeding effort. Since 1978 when the first fertile eggs were produced, a total of 46 eggs have now been laid by two females. Of these, 61% (n = 28) have hatched and 82% of the chicks (n= 23) have survived to fledge. Because a main ob¬ jective of the captive programme is to augment wild production, ideally all captive-produced chicks would be fostered in wild nests. A total of 13 captive-produced chicks have fledged from wild nests. However, only two to four wild nests are active each year and normally one or two chicks can be fostered into each nest. When foster nests in the wild were not available, captive-produced chicks (n = 11) have been retained in captivity as pros¬ pective breeders. In the future, free-flying juveniles will be released into the forest under controlled conditions so that they are gradually ‘weaned’ from human care and integrated into the wild. Experiment results using captive-reared Hispaniolan Parrots released in the Dominican Republic suggest that similar techniques could be applicable for the Puerto Rican Parrot (Wiley, 1983). Development of such techniques is also critical to future re-introductions of Puerto Rican Parrots in restored parts of its former range. Use of substitute species Ironically, ^we have had much better success with breeding the closely- related Hispaniolan Parrots. New pairs have formed easily and we have had to partially limit their production at times. The Hispaniolan Parrot flock consists of six breeding pairs and 22 non-breeding young. These parrots are used to test the safety, reliability and effectiveness of new procedures and techniques prior to their application to the endangered Puerto Rican Parrots. This includes determining proper doses of medications, developing sexing techniques, refining nutritional regimes, developing artificial incuba¬ tion temperatures, and experiments to mount radio telemetry packages and training birds to accept them (Wiley and Gee, 1981). Hispaniolan Parrots have also been used in experiments to determine methods of increasing Puerto Rican Parrot egg and chick production. Two types of replacement clutches have been induced in captive parrots: (1) ‘Double clutching’, where the entire clutch is removed soon after it is completed and the bird replaces it with a second set of eggs, and (2) ‘Sequential clutching’ (Wiley, 1983). At least some Amazona parrots are indeterminate layers, so that if each egg is taken as it is laid, the female will lay a replacement egg. The average size of unmanipulated clutches of the captive Hispaniolan Parrots is 3.7 +/- 0.2 (S.E.) eggs (range 2-5; n = 19 clutches). Double-clutching resulted in an average increase of 111% more 114 J. WILEY - PUERTO RICAN PARROT eggs (mean 7.8 +/- 0.5 ; min-max 6-9 ; n = 6) than in unmanipulated clutches. Sequential removal experiments produced an average of 222% more eggs (mean 1 1.9 +/- 2.3 ; min-max 4-21 ; n = 8) than control clutches. After these experiments, comparable trials were performed on captive Puerto Rican Parrots with similar results. Whole-clutch removal resulted in an average increase of 90% more eggs (mean 5.7 +/- 0.4 eggs/clutch; min- max 4-7 ; n = 13) over unmanipulated clutches (mean 3.0 +/- 0.3 ; min-max 1-5; n = 14). An average increase of 170% more eggs (mean 8.1 +/- 0.9; min-max, 5-12; n = 9) than in normal clutches were produced by sequen¬ tial removal of eggs. Replacement clutching manipulations are now also done when needed at wild parrot nests, because of these successes. Captive Hispaniolan Parrots serve as foster parents for both wild and captive Puerto Rican Parrot eggs and chicks (Wiley, 1983). Although we have techniques for artificial incubation of eggs, using foster birds for that task is more reliable because artificial incubators are subject to egg-damag¬ ing temperature changes caused by fluctuations in electrical power at the remote aviary. Hispaniolan Parrots are used as foster parents because they do a better job than human handlers in rearing Puerto Rican chicks. His¬ paniolan Parrot eggs and chicks in turn are given to inexperienced Puerto Rican Parrot pairs so that they can practice and improve their parental techniques. However, it is still necessary to hand-rear some chicks that require attention to injuries, parasites, or that cannot be placed into a nest either because they are are not of the right age or ne£t space is un¬ available. Perhaps the most important use of the Hispaniolan Parrots has been to provide captive-produced chicks for temporary replacement of Puerto Rican Parrot chicks at wild nests. Each wild nest is critical to the growth of the wild population. If a problem at a wild nest endangers the eggs or chicks, the Puerto Rican Parrot eggs or young are transferred to the aviary for care. During this period, less valuable Hispaniolan Parrot eggs (or artificial ‘dummies’ if the eggs are not close to hatching) or nestlings are substituted in the nest until the problem is solved. The Future Captive propagation will continue to be a vital part of the recovery programme for the Puerto Rican Parrot (Wiley and Gee, 1981). Artificial insemination techniques are being developed at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (using Senegal Parrots Poicephalus senegalus ) and at the Puerto Rico Field Station aviary. Once perfected, this technique is expec¬ ted to improve egg fertility among some pairs and among egg-laying, but mateless females. The first experimental releases of free-flying, captive-produced Puerto J. WILEY - PUERTO RICAN PARROT 115 Rican Parrots will be made in the Luquillo Forest late in the 1985 breed¬ ing season. We plan to follow these birds with radio telemetry. When the wild population shows a very substantial growth (perhaps 200 pairs) within the Luquillo Forest, a second aviary with a release facility will be established in a distant forest in order to re-introduce a second wild popu¬ lation. The Puerto Rican Parrot has made slow, but promising progress toward recovery. However, because the population has had fewer than 60 individ¬ uals for at least 17 years, genetic diversity has become extremely restric¬ ted. Rapid population growth is needed to reduce the probability that genetic problems (e.g. decreased egg fertility, poor vitality of offspring) will affect species fitness. At the same time, the conservation programme must proceed with extreme caution to minimise mistakes that would limit the parrot’s recovery. With such a small population, the slightest error could have long-lasting effects. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work described in this paper is the result of a co-operative programme involv¬ ing the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Southern Forest Experiment Station of the US Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, and the Department of Natural Resources of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I thank the many em¬ ployees, volunteers, and their spouses who have dedicated their energies to save the Puerto Rican Parrot from extinction. REFERENCES ERB, L. and BERCOVITZ, A.B. (1980). Fecal steroid analysis: non-disruptive tech¬ niques for psittacine endocrine studies. In Conservation of New World Parrots. Proc. I.C.B.P. Parrot Working Group Meeting 1 St. Lucia (Ed. R.F. Pasquier). I.C.B.P. Tech. Publ. No. 1: 65-71. SNYDER, N.F.R. (1978). Puerto Rican Parrots and nest-site scarcity. In Endan¬ gered Birds. Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. (Ed. S.A. Temple). Pp. 47-53. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. SNYDER, N.F.R. and TAAPKEN, J.D. (1978). Puerto Rican Parrots and nest preda¬ tion by pearly-eyed thrashers. In Endangered Birds. Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. (Ed. S.A. Temple). Pp. 113-120. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. WILEY, J.W. (1980). The Puerto Rican Parrot Amazona vittata: its decline and the program for its conservation. In Conservation of New World Parrots, Proc. I.C.B.P. Parrot Working Group Meeting , St. Lucia. (Ed. R.F. Pasquier). I.C.B.P. Tech. Publ. No. 1. Pp. 133-159. . . . . (1983). The role of captive propagation in the conservation of the Puerto Rican Parrot. In Proc. Jean Delacour/l.F.C.B. Symp. Breeding Birds in Captivity. (Ed. A.C. Risser and F.S. Todd). Pp. 441-453. Los Angeles, Calif. 116 P. SCHOFIELD - AVICULTURAL SOCIETY BREEDING REGISTER . . . (In press). The Puerto Rican Parrot and competition for its nest sites. In Conservation Management of Islands. (Ed. P.J. Moors). I.C.B.P. Tech. Publ. No. 3. WILEY, J.W. and GEE, G.F. (1981). Using captive propagation to help save the Puerto Rican Parrot. Amer. Fed. Avicult. Watch bird 8: 4-11. * * * THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY REGISTER OF BIRDS BRED IN THE BRITISH ISLES BY AVICULTURAL SOCIETY MEMBERS The above survey was first attempted for the 1973 breeding season. Published in the July- August 1974 issue of the Magazine, it covered 3 12 forms bred by 60 contributors. This was an encouraging start, and the compiler, Peter Brown, expressed the hope that more members would report their breeding results for 1974. This second effort listed 360 forms bred by 86 contributors. These first two Breeding Registers had been in¬ cluded in ordinary numbers of the Magazine; the 1976 Register was a slim volume in its own right, with well over 500 forms bred by nearly 300 avi- culturists. At this stage four collators were involved in its production. If the Register had continued to grow at this rate, it would eventually have become a fairly complete survey of all non-domesticated birds bred under controlled conditions in the British Isles. As such, it might have helped to moderate some of the restrictive legislation that has appeared in recent years, affecting the keeper of European species. The more birds that are seen to be bred, the more aviculture will be seen as a force for conserva¬ tion rather than a consumer of wildlife. Unfortunately, the novelty of having one’s breeding results published seems to have worn off, for a great many people. Only 35 breeders have contributed to the 1983 Reg¬ ister which I am collating at present. Many people may be afraid of having their birds stolen if their names and addresses are published. However, re¬ quests for anonymity are always honoured, and even a long list of anony¬ mous breeders would be better than nothing. If even fewer breeding returns are submitted for 1984, it will not be worth producing the Register, and an interesting and valuable exercise will have come to an unnecessary end. So please , British members, if you bred any birds in 1984, send details either to the Hon. Secretary or directly to me. Thank you. Little Maen 37 Prince of Wales Road, Dorchester, Dorset. Philip Schofield 117 CAPTIVE BREEDING PROGRAMME FOR THE MOST ENDANGERED IBIS IN THE WORLD By CHARLES LUTHIN (Conservation Director, Vogelpark Walsrode, Germany) With a known population of no more than 21 individuals, the Oriental Crested Ibis Nipponia nippon is one of the most endangered avian species in the world. In a major effort to safeguard the species from extinction, the Chinese Government has developed a comprehensive research/manage¬ ment/captive breeding programme for the species. This programme has res¬ ulted from an historic meeting of government officials, scientists and zoo personnel at the Peking Zoo during May 1984, in an attempt to assist the last population of these birds. The only known wild birds are found in Shaanxi Province, nesting at 1200 m in the Qinling Mountains. There, 17 birds have been located by the Chinese scientists. One individual in the Peking Zoo and three at an ibis breeding facility (‘Toki Center’) in Japan constitute the other known individuals. Sadly, there has been no breeding success at the Japanese cen¬ tre. The ibis breeding facility has been designed and will be constructed at the Peking Zoo in 1985. One or several eggs and/ or chicks from the last remaining nests of the ibis will be brought to the facility to supplement the solitary bird already there. The Chinese Government has asked the W.W. Brehm Fund for International Bird Conservation, West Germany, to assist with this important undertaking. The Fund has developed an agree¬ ment with the government whereby design and construction of the facility will be financed in part by the Fund. Since the Vogelpark Walsrode (which created the Fund) has had many years of breeding experience with numerous species of ibises and spoonbills, it was an obvious choice to be asked for assistance. Once the facility is constructed, the Fund will further help pro¬ vide all necessary equipment and supplies for its operation. Additionally, field researchers working on the Crested Ibis in its natural habitat have been provided with research equipment and materials for their work in 1985. The forthcoming breeding programme for the species may be a signifi¬ cant step in the conservation of this extremely rare species, as its situation in the wild is, at best, precarious. A conscientious captive programme can supplement the very low numbers in the wild, and could in the future be used in a release programme into suitable habitat. 118 CONSERVATION ISSUE OF THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE When we appealed for contributions to this special issue, we could not have foreseen that so many authors would respond so splendidly, from all over the world, and we soon realised that it would be invidious to make a selection for only a normal sized issue. The obvious solution was a double issue, covering January-March and April-June, and in the course of prepa¬ ration, two members offered to donate coloured plates which add greatly to the importance of this issue. We thank you for your patience and hope that you will feel that this double issue was worth waiting for. We are sure that it will help to draw attention to the very real contribution that aviculture is now making to the conservation of rare species and that copies will also be bought by many non-members. We are indebted to many people for its realisation, above all, David Coles whose enthusiasm and persistence have persuaded and encouraged authors to write. Richard Daniels has sacrificed many hours of precious painting time to read the proofs and has made valuable suggestions to improve the text. The colour plates, which have been made possible by the generosity of Dr. Henry Quinque and an anonymous member, have greatly enhanced this issue. Most of all, we thank the authors, all busy people, who have spent a lot of time working to contribute so much original material. In recent years, the populations of many avian species have declined alarmingly in the wild and this issue illustrates a few of the successes which are occurring in breeding captive stocks of endangered species. As has been seen so often, the main cause for the decrease in numbers is the destruction of the birds’ natural habitat, due to deforestation and building new roads and towns with accompanying industries. This trend is further accentuated in the case of island species which have no possibility of moving into a new environment - the plight of the Amazona island species amply illustrates this point. Captive breeding must, in many cases, prove to be the only form of survival and even the most ardent nature conserva¬ tionists must concede that it is better for a species to continue under good captive management than to die out altogether. There is always the possibility of re-introduction to the original wild habitat, should the circumstances become favourable, though this may be a forlorn hope in many cases where the ‘wild’ no longer exists. So often the aims of avicul- turists and conservationists have seemed to be at variance and we must now hope that the two parties become reconciled and that captive manage¬ ment and nature conservation work together for the same end. EDITORIAL 119 Aviculturists would wish for a more flexible attitude on the part of governments so that requests to import precious breeding stock can be sympathetically received. No responsible aviculturist now would want to see a return to large importations of rare species for unknown destination, but if adequate captive breeding stock is to be established, and then main¬ tained by periodic introduction of new genes, it is essential that dedica¬ ted breeders are able to maintain the minimum number of birds neces¬ sary. They, in turn, must, of course, be prepared to be accountable for their birds and to co-operate with others in exchanging stock and making up breeding pairs. The maintenance of studbooks will become increasingly important. An essential element in successful captive management is the exchange of information and it is vital that all experience gained from keeping and breeding rare species, particularly those of genera which have not been bred previously, should be made available to all and we are determined that the Avicultural Magazine should be a very important means of this communication. To this end, we do hope that we can rely on the con¬ tinued support of our members by providing more articles, financial help and, that vital element of any endeavour, encouragement. Mary Harvey - Editor Postscript That almost-endangered-species, the Editor’s husband, whose environ¬ ment has been severely threatened by the production of this issue - no meals, no washing - I won’t list the more intimate loss of habitat - is grateful and proud, as I am sure our friends no longer with us (John Yealland, Phyllis Barclay-Smith and many others) would be at the con¬ tinued existence and success of the Avicultural Magazine. We shall put copies of this issue in the right places and we thank all our friends and members throughout the world for continued help and support. Harry J. Horswell - Hon. Secretary & Treasurer * * * The Editor does not accept responsibility for opinions expressed in articles, notes, reviews or correspondence BOOKS on BIRDS Catalogue on request WHELDON & WESLEY LTD. LYTTON LODGE, CODICOTE, Nr. HITCHIN, HERTS. SG4 8TE Telephone: STEVENAGE (0438) 820370 MEMBERS’ ADVERTISEMENTS (10 p. per word, minimum charge £3.00) HELP! Do you have a hand-tame Jay? If so, and you axe willing to let it be filmed, could you phone Jeffery Boswall (who is a long-standing member of our Society) on Bristol (0272) 732211, Ex. 2430. THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND welcomes new members. An Australian Society catering for all birds both in captivity and in the wild. We put out a bi-monthly magazine on all aspects of aviculture and conservation. For membership details please contact Ray Garwood, 19 Fahey’s Road, Albany Creek, 4035 Queens¬ land. Annual subscription (Australian dollars): 16.00 surface mail, 22.00 airmail. AMERICAN CAGE-BIRD MAGAZINE has been publishing monthly since 1928. It features timely and interesting articles on parrots, canaries, finches, budgerigars and cockatiels. These are written by leading breeders and bird fanciers. Monthly subscrip¬ tion 15.00 American dollars - Europe, 21.00 dollars (money order in US dollars please) to: American Cage-Bird Magazine, 1 Glamore Court, Smithtown, New York, 11787, USA. AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE back numbers. Large stock available, including early issues. Sales by post only. Price list available from the Hon. Secretary, Avicultural Society, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8LT, England. THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY The Avicultural Society was founded in 1894 for the study of British and foreign birds in freedom and captivity. The Society is international in character, having members throughout the world. Membership subscription rates per annum: British Isles £10.00; Overseas -£11.00 (25 U.S. dollars). The subscription is due on 1st January of each year and those joining the Society later in the year will receive back numbers of the current volume of the AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE. The subscription rate for non-members is: British Isles and Europe £11.00; outside Europe -£12.00 (30.00 U.S. dollars). Subscriptions, changes of address, orders for back numbers, etc., should be sent to: THE HON. SECRETARY AND TREASURER, THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY, WINDSOR FOREST STUD, MILL RIDE, ASCOT, BERKSHIRE SL5 8LT. NEW MEMBERS Mr. S. Carpenter, P.O. Box 2137, Apache Junction, Arizona 85220, USA. Mrs. J.F.D. Cornish, Rosemont, Church Road, Leigh Woods, Bristol 8, BS8 3PG. Mr. J. Furlong, Ballinastoe, Roundwood, Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Dr. G. Genova, A z. Agr. Bulichella, 57028, Suvereto, Italy. Mr. P.A. Heere, 2111 Mandrill, Ventura, Calif. 93003, USA. Mrs. A. Houlgreawe, 23 Deldale Road, Wyberton, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 7BT. Mr. R. Hughes, Padstow Tropical Bird Gardens, Fentonluna Lane, Padstow, Cornwall. Mr. V.P. Lance, 2201 Loy Lake Road, Denison, Texas 75020, USA Ms. S.L Longhofer, DVM, PSC 1, Box 22681, APO San Francisco, Calif. 96230, USA Mr. P. Morrison, 4136 North California Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60618, USA. Mr. D. Mullarkey, 2 Junction Cottages, Snailwell Road, Newmarket, Suffolk. Ms. C. Nuttall, 68 Lonsdale Road, London SW13 9JR Ms. Imara Shaw, 909 via Coronel, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274, USA. Mr. R. Skrable, 47 Orchard Avenue, Emerson, New Jersey 07630, USA Mr. K.J. Thompson, 134 Connaught Road, Luton, Bedfordshire. Mr. R. Tilley, Avenue du Chene 243, 4802 Heusy-Verviers, Belgium. Mr. D.J. Turner, Portland Aviary, 244 State Street, Portland, Maine 04101, USA. Mr. L. Turner, 9303 Lindaro Ln., Dallas, Texas 75228, USA. CHANGE OF ADDRESS Mr. M. Bird, to Aldwinde Lodge, Kettering, Northants, NN14 3EN. Dr. J. Delacour, to c/o Ed. N. Harrison, 1100 Glendon Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif. 90024, USA. Mr. S.C. Horne, to 43 Nicholas Road, Irthlingborough, Northants, NN9 5QT. Mr. D.W.F. Jones, to The Cottage, Busbridge Lake, Hambledon Road, Godaiming, Surrey. Dr. M. Martin, to 70 Park Road, Surrey Hills, 3127, Melbourne, Australia. The Rev. R. Noegel, to New Age Assembly Church & Ranch, Route 1, Box 64N, Seffner, Florida 33584, USA. Mr. J.C. Witt, to 1907E Monroe 7, Orange, California 92667, USA Mr. A. Womersley, to Douet de Rue, St. Mary, Jersey, Channel Islands. DONATIONS The Society is most grateful to the following members for their generosity Mr. M. Albek Mr. W.G.E. Griggs Mr. P.J. Pheby, Mr. D. Attenborough Mr. F.W. Hancock Mr. J.C. Price Mr. J.C. Barlass Prof. J.R. Hodges Dr. S-H Raethel Mr. W.P. Bonsai Mr. S.C. Horne Mr. B.E. Reed Mr. R.A. Chester Mr. I. Karaba Mr. D.H.S. Risdon Mr. E. Clewlow Mr. A.J. Kavanagh Mr. M. de Ruiter Mr. M. Clews Dr. S.B. Kendall Mr. K.M. Scamell Mrs. D. Cooke Mr. B.R. Kyme Mr. D.P. Shearing Mrs. M.P. Cornelius Mr. I. Lazzeroni Mr. G.A. Smith Mrs. B.B. Cox Dr. Lee W. Lenz Mr. W. Todd, III Mr. K.W. Dolton Mr. J.W.W. Louwman Mr. J. Trollope, Mr. R.F. D’Erlanger Mr. G. Marschitz Mr. Jesse D. Willmott Ms. W. Duggan Mr. F.W.S. Mayer Dr. W.E. Wiseman Mr. P. Duyzend Mrs. A. Miller Mr. J.R. Wood Miss R. Ezra Mr. N. O’Connor Mr. B. Woodley Published by the Avicultural Society, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, England SL5 8LT *• ICULTURAL MAGAZINE VOLUME 91 plumber 3 J 1985 lib ra&\£& & W _JX> / w / |g&r| M CONTENTS A successful breeding of the White-bellied Touraco at the Houston Zoo, by William Todd, David C. Grubbs & Hugo Lahera (with plate) . Breeding the Golden-breasted Euphonia, by Diane Lloyd-Roberts . Breeding the Grosbeak Starling, by Bryan Peck (with plate) . . . Breeding the Golden Heart Dove at Padstow Bird Gardens, by Andrew Owen . . . . . . . . Random Notes on Birds in the USSR, by Jeffery Boswall . The Bullfinches, by Derek Goodwin (with line drawings) . . Recherche Island Geese, by David Crompton (with plates) . . . Conserving the Aleutian Canada Goose and the White-winged Wood Duck at the Wildfowl Trust, by Ralph Hodgson . . The feeding and breeding of three Poicephalus parrots in captivity and in the wild, by Neville Brickell (with plates) . . . Grass-carrying display in the Bicheno Finch, by A.J. Mobbs . . London Zoo, 1984, by P.J. Olney . . . . . . . A note from East Berlin Zoo (with plate) . . . New Year’s Day at Alma-Ata Zoo, by Jeffery Boswall . . . News and Views . . . . . . . . . . Visit to Chestnut Lodge . . . . . Reviews . . . . . . . . Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . Gift of a Set of Avicultural Magazines . . . . . . . . . Foreign Bird Federation . . . . . . . . . . . 121 124 126 129 131 143 157 160 162 166 167 170 171 174 178 179 182 186 187 THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE welcomes original articles that have not been published elsewhere and that essentially concern the aviculture of a particular bird or group of birds, or that describe their natural history. Articles should be preferably typewritten, with double spacing, and the scientific names as well as the vernacular names of birds should be given. References cited in the text should be listed at the end of the article. Line drawings should be in Indian ink on thick paper or card; photographs which illustrate a particular point in the article will be used where possible and should be clearly captioned. ADDRESS OF EDITOR Mary Harvey, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8LT, England. White-bellied Grey Touraco chick at fledging (day 28) Avicultural Magazine THE JOURNAL OF THE A VICULTURAL SOCIETY Vol. 91 - No. 3 - 1985 ISSN 0005-2256 All righ ts reserved A SUCCESSFUL BREEDING OF THE WHITE-BELLIED TOURACO Corythaixoides leucogaster AT THE HOUSTON ZOO By WILLIAM TODD, DAVID C. GRUBBS & HUGO LAHERA (Bird Section Staff, Houston Zoo) Of the Musophagidae, the White-bellied Grey Touraco (Go- Away Bird) must rank among the handsomest, its sharply delineated grey and white plumage, elegantly appointed with black, and its slim proportions presenting a stately, almost formal appearance. It is unique in the family in displaying the sole example of readily-apparent sexual dichromatism: the beak of the male is jet black, that of the female grey-green. The species is native to eastern equatorial Africa, from Ethiopia and Somaliland southward into Kenya, and, like its congeners, frequents acacia woodland; it is reputed to inhabit drier country than any other touraco and to be largely dependent on acacias for food (Moreau, 1958). Two or three pale blue eggs (the colour is also unique in the family) are laid in a flimsy nest typical of touracos and are incubated by both parents. The New York Zoological Park was first successful in breeding this species in 1975. A single chick was hatched on 6th September and, at the age of two weeks, was removed from the nest and hand-reared, reaching independence and surviving until 26th September, 1976. During 1976 and 1977, 16 chicks were hatched but none survived for more than four days, approximately seven suffering congenital deformities (Donald Bruning, in litt.). In 1982 the breeding pair was generously offered on loan to the Houston Zoo. A concise survey of our touraco breeding programme has appeared previously in this magazine (Berry & Todd, 1982). Following a routine quarantine period ending on 24th August, the White-bellied Grey Touracos were housed alongside other species in a similar flight measuring 7 x 1 5 x 7 ft (2.14 x 4.58 x 1.14 m) with a 10 ft (3.05m) high wooden shelter in 122 TODD, GRUBBS & LAHERA - BREEDING WHITE-BELLIED TOURACO which the nest platform is located out of public view. At this time only a standard diet was provided consisting of mixed fruit (chopped papaya, apple, grapes and soaked rasins), moistened dog and cat kibble, and chopped spinach and endive, the fruit being provided twice daily. Addi¬ tionally, game bird breeder crumbs and dry mynah pellets were provided ad lib., and the birds were occasionally observed to eat these items. This diet, with the supplements noted below, continues to be supplied. Although the birds displayed some interest in the nest provided, no serious breeding activity occurred until April 1983, when both sexes were observed alternately sitting in the nest. On 30th April it was confirmed that two eggs were present, one hatching on 18th May after an undeter¬ mined incubation period. Unfortunately this chick was found dead six days later. Necropsy indicated an impaction of leaves from a Crepe Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica tree in the flight. No further nesting activity took place before the male’s death on 2nd August of acute hepatitis. In the meantime, a second male had been lent by the Pittsburgh Aviary; this bird and the lone female established a pair-bond after an initial period of adjacent introductory housing. As no breeding activity was apparent by early spring 1984 (many touraco species breed year around in Houston), the birds were moved to another flight of similar design in which a small acacia Acacia radii had been planted. This proved attractive and the birds began eating any leaves that could be reached. In addition, as the unsuccessful attempt had indica¬ ted a strong inclination for the parents to feed greenfood, an entire head of Romaine (Cos) lettuce was attached daily to a perch from which they could easily tear bits of leaves. Finally, honeysuckle Lonicera japonica stems with leaves and blossoms, when available, were attached to the perch. The birds consumed all plant material provided, and we believe this was crucial to their successfully rearing chicks. As an additional en¬ couragement, a second smaller nest platform containing a handwoven framework of dried vines over straw was fixed on the shelter wall a short distance below the older nest which contained only straw. On 11th April eggs were observed in the upper nest, and on 5th May, the first chick hatched, followed by a second two days later. The incubation period is approximately 25 days, though reluctance to disturb the birds has made exact calculation impossible. One chick was found dead on the cage floor on 11th May, but the other appeared to thrive and was on the point of fledging when it died suddenly of undetermined causes. At this stage, it was feathered like an adult, including white belly and black accents on crest, wings and tail, and had a black beak. The birds renested quickly: by 25th June the male was observed incu- TODD, GRUBBS & LAHERA - BREEDING WHITE-BELLIED TOURACO 123 bating on the lower nest (possibly to escape the heat of the tin roof above the upper box), thus confirming the presence of eggs. The first of three eggs hatched on 16th July, and although one of the nestlings was discovered dead on the cage floor, the remaining two survived to fledge on 7th and 13th August. The second to leave the nest was markedly smaller, indicating that the chick that died may have been the second to hatch. At fledging both were feathered like an adult, though with propor¬ tionately shorter crests and tails, and both had black beaks. (At the time of writing [8th October] both their beaks remain black, and we are as yet uncertain if beak colour is a reliable indicator of sex at fledging.) The white bellies of both young were very soiled with faecal material in the nest which had not been as sanitarily maintained as those of other toura- cos. On 20th August, the larger fledgling was observed eating honeysuckle buds, though both continued to be fed by their parents until at least 11th September when the adults were again visiting the nest-box and appeared to be ignoring the juveniles. The latter began to consume large quantities of greenfood, anxiously awaiting their keeper’s placement of fresh lettuce and honeysuckle. At the time of writing, the first egg of another clutch has been laid, and we look forward to continued success with this species. REFERENCES BERRY, Robert J., and TODD, William. (1982). Breeding Touracos at the Houston Zoological Gardens, Texas, USA. Avicultural Magazine. 88:205-209. MOREAU, R.E. (1958). Some Aspects of the Musophagidae. Ibis. 100: 67-112, 238-270. Additional previous notes in the Avicultural Magazine: ELLIS, M. (1972). P. 37. Correspondence: Bill colour in Go-Away Birds - denotes sex difference? . . . P. 185. Further notes on above. SETH-SMITH, David. (1930). P. 33. The White-bellied Touraco (with coloured plate). * * * Note added at proof stage By late Spring 1985, one of the above-mentioned chick’s beaks had turned grey- green, thus indicating that it is a female. This distinction is apparently acquired with approaching sexual maturity. By August 1985, two more chicks had been successfully reared to independence. 124 BREEDING THE GOLDEN-BREASTED EUPHONIA Euphonia xanthogaster By DIANE LLOYD-ROBERTS (Essex, England) Included amongst the large family of tanagers are the 24 species of Euphonia which occur southward from Mexico where they are found in pairs or groups at the edges of forests, search¬ ing for insects, berries and small fruits. They are dumpy little birds gener¬ ally about 4 in (10 cm) in length with short tails and stubby bills. In September 1983 we purchased a pair of Golden-breasted Euphonia which was to live in our Tropical House together with pairs of Black- capped Zosterops, Purple Sugar Birds, Black-chinned Yuhinas and Blue- chinned Sapphire Hummingbirds. The male is bright yellow on the fore¬ head and forecrown and all underparts from upper chest. The remaining plumage, including the throat from chin to upper chest is black with purple and blue glosses: the tail has white patches on the underneath; the beak is black with grey at the base. The female bears no resemblance, being a dull olive green which is brighter above and pale below. After keeping them in a cage for a week to make sure that they were healthy, as we do with all newly- acquired birds, the Euphonias were released into the tropical house where, to our disappointment, they dis¬ appeared amongst the dense foliage, only to be seen on occasions at the feeding trays. To ensure a varied diet is received, they are given chopped pears and grape daily, chopped banana, of which they are very fond, three times a week, half an orange once a week and half an apple twice a week. Other fruits are given when in season. Mealworms are given daily in moderation. Dishes of Claus insectivorous mixture and drinking tubes with Biotropic Nectar are always available. I find that all the birds are very fond of both these products. Both birds remained very shy until April 1984, when the male was seen taking a leaf bath after I had sprayed the plants; after watching him for a while, the female began doing the same and they enjoyed it so much that it became a daily event. During the next few weeks they became very ac¬ tive and wherever the female went, the male was never far behind. Each time I passed or entered the tropical house, they could be heard calling to each other. All the hanging baskets, which contained large Boston Ferns, were thoroughly investigated and then, on 10th June, the female was seen carrying strands of coconut fibres to one basket. Within five days she had constructed a dome-shaped nest from the fibres, the male helping occa- D. LLOYD-ROBERTS - BREEDING GOLDEN-BREASTED EUPHONIA 125 sionally. On 17th June the first of three eggs was laid - it was pinkish white with brown spots which were heavier at the broad end. Incubation did not start until the last egg was laid and the female then sat tight, leaving the nest only to feed. The male, who sat close by most of the day, produced a sound which can only be described as similar to a squeaky wheelbarrow. On 1st July, after an incubation period of 12 days, the first egg hatched, followed by the second the next day; the third turned out. to be clear. Rather than cause any disturbance, no attempt was made to look at the chicks. To ensure that an adequate supply of live food was available for the parents to rear the chicks, in addition to white mealworms, fruit fly mag¬ gots and buffalo worms, we collected insects, green caterpillars and spiders in a bucket at two-hourly intervals. Preference was given to the caterpillars and spiders, which were first eaten by the parents and then fed regurgita¬ ted to the chicks. The male was first to feed; when he finished, the female took her turn and then remained in the nest until the next feed. When the chicks were nine days old, I had the chance to take a quick look in the nest. Their eyes were open, they had dark skin and were begin¬ ning to grow flight feathers, but apart from this they were completely bald. It was not until they were 15 days old that pin feathers started to appear, and by this time they had doubled in. size and were being fed vast amounts of caterpillars and spiders, still regurgitated. I noticed that the parents were also adding pieces of pear and grape to the chicks’ diet. The male would now feed them by clinging to the front of the hanging basket and just poking his head inside the nest. In the days that followed, their growth rate was rapid and when they left the nest on 23rd July, at 23 days old, they were fully feathered and able to fly. Whilst one resembled the hen, it was obvious that the other was a male by the underneath of the tail feathers which, although short, had white patches appearing. He also had some black feathers in his wings. Both parents continued to feed the chicks until 31st July and it was at this time that I noticed the female was missing. On checking the nest, thinking that she might have returned to lay some eggs, I was surprised to find she had built another nest round the other side of the hanging basket. Unfortunately there were no eggs and no sign of the female. With a sink¬ ing feeling I began to search amongst the plants and, as expected, I found her dead. At the time we could find no apparent reason for her death, but later wondered if the spiders and caterpillars collected the day before had any connection. Having depleted the supply near to home, they were col¬ lected from bushes near to a cornfield some distance away. As a male Black-chinned Yuhina, who had also been eating them, fell ill and we had bad rashes appear on our hands and necks, it occurred to us that the field 126 B. PECK - BREEDING GROSBEAK STARLING may have been sprayed with an insecticide. The male continued to feed the young for a further week and they were then left to fend for themselves. Neither made any further attempt to beg food from him. From then on the male was to surprise us by singing a delightful song that we had not heard before. We hope we shall be able to obtain another wife for him to sing it to. As described above, the Golden-breasted Euphonia Euphonia xantho- gaster has been bred by Mrs. Lloyd-Roberts and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. * * * BREEDING THE GROSBEAK STARLING Scissirostrum dubium By BRYAN PECK (Cheltenham) The Grosbeak Starling is indigenous to the Celebes (Salawesi), and from the notes available, it would appear to be quite numerous in the south part of the island, although the subspecies S. d.pelingense appears on a few islands around the north-east peninsula. I would guess that the race I own is the nominate race. The whole of the body and head are slate grey, the primaries and tail feathers black, the rump and sometimes thighs and flanks are streaked with orange and shining red. The feet, legs and beak are lemon yellow. The beak is quite large, as the name suggests. The eye is grey, and the bare skin is grey/black. The tail is graduated and quite long. From beak tip to tail tip the bird is about 8 in. long. For many years I had wanted to own this species since I first encoun¬ tered it when visiting Mr. M. Sherbourne of Bristol in the late Sixties. I have two pairs which were obtained from a dealer some three years ago and both pairs have produced eggs and young but failed to rear them until this year. One pair (A) was housed in an inside flight 8 x 3 x 6 ft high (2.44 x B. PECK - BREEDING GROSBEAK STARLING 127 Bryan Peck Adult pair of Grosbeak Starlings with chick that was successfully reared 0.92 x 1.83 m) and they laid and hatched eggs from the first few months that I had them. They are now housed outside in an aviary 3 x 5 x 6 ft high (0.92 x 1.53 x 1.83 m) and are in full moult at the time of writing. The other pair (B) were housed over winter in a 4 x 1.6 x 1.6 ft (1.22 x 0.46 x 0.46 m) cage. Being an optimist where my birds are concerned, I supplied them with a nest-box 6 x 6 x 10 in high, of the same design as a garden tit box but larger (both pairs like this type of box). The box was placed at the back end of the cage; two perches were placed across the depth (1.6 ft) of the cage, one about V2 in diameter at the nest-box end and at the other end a largish, rotting log was used as a perch. The birds chipped at this log in the fashion of barbets but never took any of the chips into the nest. From past experience, I had learned to leave the nest- box empty of nesting material, also I did not supply any nest material in the cage. The box was lined with newspaper which was also used to cover the floor of the cage. The birds tore it into thin strips which they used on the floor of the nest-box. The paper is not made into a cup but just scattered and only about 15 strips are used which seems a very small amount. The normal clutch is two eggs, light blue speckled with shades of brown at one end, and varying in shape from oval to triangular. The eggs hatch at 128 B. PECK - BREEDING GROSBEAK STARLING variable periods, from 18 to 22 days, and are perfectly chipped about two- thirds up the egg. On hatching the chicks have tufts of light-coloured down which turns grey after a few days. Up until about 10 days old, they look like young thrushes, but then the beak starts to take shape. To me, they seem to take a long time fledging. From pair B there were two eggs, both hatched but one chick died at about 20 days old. The remaining chick left the nest on 14th May 1985 and was self-feeding about six days after leaving the nest. I have had two chicks leave the nest. The first chick was from pair A but it died the day after leaving the nest. This chick was unusual in that it had no markings on the rump or thighs. The chick from p air B took about 35 days to leave the nest but did not subsequently return and the parents started nesting again. This chick had very faint pink/orange streaks on the rump and flanks. The diet for the chick’s parents was very ordinary. I had tried all forms of food - stick insects, wax moths, crickets, buffalo worms, mealworms, beetles, figs, avocados - but nothing worked. The pair in the cage (pairB) were given only a few extra mealworms. Their diet consisted of diced apple, tomato, carrots, grape, peas, sweetcorn, cabbage and currants - this was mixed together and Claus Pekin Robin Softfood added. Claus Flycatcher food was also fed but in a separate dish. Claus Pekin Robin food is the fatty type, not the one with honey, and has a high rice paper content which all my softbills like. About 20 mealworms and five wax moth worms were also given daily. All dishes were washed and the news¬ papers on the floor changed daily. Brown bread and nectar (mashed) was also given. All the food was eaten except the mealworms - often a few were left next morning. It was noticed from the start that the chick was reared on the fruit and Claus Insectivorous Mixture. By sound I would say that it was regurgitated. On leaving the nest the chick was complete in plumage, being a lighter grey and orange than the parents. The legs were pinkish and three weeks after leaving the nest they started to turn yellow. The beak was yellow and about half the size of the parents’ beaks. The chick grew up to be a perfect specimen and my fears that it might have had rickets, as some starlings do, proved groundless. In my opinion, apart from the Glossy Starlings, this species is one of the most beautiful of all the Sturnidae. It adapts readily to cage, aviary and food, and is eager to nest, but shy. It should make a good species for both the experienced aviculturist and the beginner to breed. A. OWEN - BREEDING GOLDEN-HEART DOVE 129 As described above, the Grosbeak Starling Scissirostrum dubium has been bred by Mr. Bryan Peck and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. * * * BREEDING THE GOLDEN HEART DOVE Gallicolumba rufigula AT PADSTOW BIRD GARDENS, CORNWALL By ANDREW OWEN (Head Keeper) The Golden Heart is a small, attractive dove from New Guinea, measur¬ ing about 8 in long, the upperparts a rich chestnut brown, throat and breast golden-yellow, wings barred with pale grey and the legs and feet a dull red. A pair of these birds is housed in the indoor tropical flight where they spend most of their time foraging on the ground, which is typical of their behaviour in the wild. During the year (1984) they built several nests, but were disturbed at some point of the incubation period by a pair of Luzon Bleeding Heart Doves Gallicolumba luzonica which was also trying to nest. These birds were eventually removed to an outdoor aviary where they successfully bred, leaving the Golden Hearts to settle down to some serious breeding activities. They were very industrious, building several nests from rootlets and dead leaves. A single egg was laid on several occasions but the chick failed to hatch; the first egg was infertile and the second nest fell off a Monstera leaf, smashing the egg which revealed a well-developed embryo. The Doves did not give up, however, and soon built a nest about 2 ft from the ground on a large Crinum x powellii leaf, situated at the front of the building, alongside the public viewing area. They sat tightly, alter¬ nating during the day, totally undisturbed by the public. On 18th June, after an incubation period of 17 days, the chick hatched and was seen to be covered in fluffy, cream-coloured down. All went well until the sixth day when the squab was found dead in the nest, still being 130 A. OWEN - BREEDING GOLDEN-HEART DOVE brooded by the female. We believe that it died from suffocation as it had a full crop and had looked healthy the previous day. The nest, we feel, was built too near to the public area and the adults were afraid to leave the infant. Even this setback did not deter them for long as they soon built again. This time the nest was at the back of the tropical house where they laid and began incubation within a couple of days. During the afternoons both birds sat on the nest until the chick hatched on 22nd July. The squab grew rapidly and by the 30th July, wing feathers had started to appear. On one occasion, whilst I was cleaning the tropical house, the female was startled from the nest. She flew to the ground, cooing and shaking her wings vigorously but once I had left the nest-site, she returned to the nest and resumed brooding. This broken wing display was seen several times during the following weeks. The squab fledged on 7th August and was seen to feed itself on the 23rd, on a dove seed mix and small pieces of fruit. Whenever the adults approached, however, it still begged for food. By 30th August it was fully independent, taking various seeds, diced fruit and livefood in the form of maggots and, occasionally, small crickets and stick insects. The Golden Heart Doves enjoy taking a shower and, whenever the hose pipe is used in the tropical house, they lie on one side with a wing out¬ stretched. Once completely soaked, they turn over and repeat the process. The young dove took its first shower on 7th September. It had acquired full adult plumage within three months of leaving the nest, and the adults have since built a new nest and are at present incubating another egg. Previous notes from the Avicul tural Magazine: EZRA, A. (1937). P. 56. Successful rearing of the Papuan Golden Heart Pigeon Galli- columba rufigula. NEWMAN, T.H. (1929). P. 156. Ground Doves and Pigeons. 131 RANDOM NOTES ON BIRDS IN THE USSR By JEFFERY BOSWALL (Bristol) Introduction I have been visiting the USSR and enquiring into the relationship be¬ tween the Soviet people and their birds for over a quarter of a century. Knowing of my frequent visits to behind the Iron Curtain, friends and acquaintances often put to me such questions as: Do the city comrades feed the birds? Do they put up nest-boxes? How popular is birdwatching? What is the state of Soviet bird science? Is there a Soviet bird protection society? How many bird reserves are there? What laws, if any, protect the birds? Is there a ‘Glorious Twelfth’ when the proletariat take to the taiga to shoot Willow Grouse Lagopus lagopus ? Do Soviet wildfowlers bring down geese and ducks from the autumn skies? Are any birds regarded as pests in the USSR? Which bird species are favoured by serious Soviet aviculturists? And which cage birds find favour among Soviet families? What of domestic birds - is the chicken supreme or the Muscovy Duck Cairina moschatal Some of these questions I have already dealt with either in the Avicul- tural Magazine (Boswall, 1983, 1985a) or elsewhere (Boswall, 1984, 1985b and 1985c; Boswall & Wilson, in press; Boswall, Wilson & Dickson, 1982). The USSR For a start, the USSR is so vast that answers are likely to vary. Further, there are 270 million people of whom only half are Russians. The others are Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Belorussians, Kazakhs, Tartars and so on, speaking a variety of languages and perpetuating a diversity of cultures in which birds could play very different roles. Within this great country - easily the largest on earth - there are 15 republics (of which Russia, i.e. the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, is only one, though easily the largest and the most influential). Birds and the Proletariat Just how interested in providing nest-boxes for birds is the average Soviet citizen? Artificial nesting sites are provided as frequently as not for the Starlings Sturnus vulgaris , a much-loved bird in Russia. A Starling nest- box is called a skvorechnik and is a characteristic feature of village gardens and country farms. In Leningrad the bird uses boxes on the balconies of the upper storeys of high rise blocks. Nest-boxes are also put up for other 132 J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR birds. Take Lithuania. There the Ministry of Forests instructs foresters to make and site nest-boxes. Boxes with a 32 mm hole are for Great Tits Pams major and Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca , but may also attract a few Coal P. ater and Crested Tits P. cristatus. Those with larger entrances are for Rollers Coracias garmlus but may get used by Jackdaws Corvus monedula, and the largest boxes of all are for Tawny Owls Strix aluco. Even more interesting is the story of a Lithuanian bird of prey fanatic called Shablevicius who was lucky enough to find the very first nest of Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus for the republic. But since the birds nested in a natural hole in a tree, they were difficult to study. Over the next few years, however, he persuaded ten or a dozen pairs to occupy the boxes he had put up for them. Encouraged by this success he then put up platforms for Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina, Common Buzzard Buteo huteo and Goshawk Accipiter gentilis in situations also more suitable for observation than those the birds might have chosen for themselves, and was rewarded with more than one pair of each moving in! The arrival of spring is heralded also by the song of the Great Tit in the towns and the Skylark Alauda argensis in the country; also by the return of the Starling and the Rook Corvus fmgilegus. The Rook, not the Swallow Himndo ms tic a, is the Russian harbinger of spring. Witness the famous painting in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow which is entitled ‘The Rooks are Back’. It is by the 19th century Russian painter Savrasov and shows birds re-occupying the colony to repair nests. For only 40 p. I was able to buy a poster-sized reproduction of this painting, one of a print run of 200,000. Come autumn, both the Rook and the Starling desert Russia for more hospitable climes to the west and south. During a recent mid-winter visit to the extreme south of the USSR I was amused and interested to catch up with the wintering Rooks. They too had become commuters! In the ancient city of Samarkand, in the rep¬ ublic of Uzbekistan, thousands of Rooks fly in steadily each winter even¬ ing from the surrounding agricultural flatlands to use as a dormitory the trees of Maxim Gorky Boulevard. At dusk, wave after wave of black shapes flap steadily towards the city centre, like feathered bombers in a Hitch- cock-style movie. The steadiness of their course, and their relentless num¬ bers, are uncanny. After assembling on outlying trees the birds drop down into the central roost as darkness falls. Next morning, below the trees besides whitewash, pellets (castings) of indigestible grain husks, a few dead birds are to be found. I can easily believe that as many as 10,000 birds assemble nightly and that their catchment area has a radius of at least 15 miles (Boswall, in press). Soviet bird books and radio 1982 saw the publication of a superb caviar-table book of coloured J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR 133 bird photographs called In the World of Birds. It is the first of its kind and was published in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, by Mokslas and com¬ prises 280 pages, 382 colour stills and 160 distribution maps. It sells there for 27 roubles and in Britain (Collets) for £35. The text and captions are in English, Russian and Lithuanian. The driving force behind this publica¬ tion, the like of which had never before been seen in the USSR, is a young Lithuanian bird photographer called Algirdas Knystautas. Helped by Arvydas Liutkus as co-author, and by photographers resident in the Soviet Far East and in the Ukraine, “Al” Knystautas has brought together in an attractive volume facts and photos from the length and breadth of the largest country on earth. The very first photo is of the Relict Gull Larus relictus, a species first discovered for science as recently as 1968 nesting on a lake called Alakol in south-east Kazakhstan, near the border with western China. After a series of double-spreads that act as an aperitif, the book groups the photographs by six regions of the Soviet Union: the northern seas and islands, the tundra, the temperate zone, the southern seas and lakes, the mountains of Central Asia and Ussuriland (near Vladi¬ vostok) in the Soviet Far East. Ten thousand copies are said to have been initially printed; just how many were sold to Soviet citizens and how many to tourists in the hard currency shops it is difficult to know. The book was reprinted in 1984 (5000 copies) and 100 were imported for sale in the UK. To any western ornithologist the volume is of immense interest. Here on page after page are not only birds of his own (capitalist) garden, but also species he never dared to hope to see even in a book. There is Radde’s Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus schwarzi and Gray’s Grasshopper Warbler Locustella fasciolata, both at the nest in the temperate zone; and in the far north the Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris, the Red-breasted Goose Branta mficollis and the Siberian White Crane Gms leucogeranus, a trio of Soviet endemics. Except for scientific treatises, few other popular books devoted to birds can be found. A field guide, published in 1968, has not been reprin¬ ted. On the role of natural history in Soviet radio broadcasting, I know a little. On Moscow radio, Igor D. Nikol’skiy, the State University researcher in bioacoustics, has done about 75 five-minute pieces over the last 15 years under the generic title Native Nature. His little word picture for January 1985, complete with a few bird voices, including that of Sabine’s Gull Lams sabini, was about the Chukotka peninsula on the ‘home’ side of the Bering Strait, opposite Alaska. In Estonia I have a friend called Fred Jussi who is a freelance wildlife broadcaster. He has a weekly spot called ABC of Nature which is broadcast on Tuesdays at 7.00 p.m. Fred not only broadcasts regularly about birds for Estonian radio, but also tapes their voices in stereo and publishes them 134 J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR on gramophone records. Birdwatchers in the USSR Now available in the west is an English translation of the afore-men¬ tioned Field Guide to the Birds of the USSR (Flint and others, 1984). Princeton University Press commissioned a translation from a Russian emigre, resident in Massachusetts, Natalia Bourso-Leland. As long ago as 1967, this lady accompanied the first (?) group of Americans to go bird¬ watching in the Soviet Union. Such trips are nowadays quite common and depart from several countries. A fortnight’s package holiday in June to Ir¬ kutsk, the old capital of Siberia (only a 40-mile drive from Lake Baikal) is by no means unheard of. To anyone taking such a trip the new book (which sells in the UK for £59.10, a high price) would be invaluable. For particularly perceptive and helpful reviews of this book see Redman (1984) and Wilson (1985). One enterprising Swedish birdwatcher, during a birding trip that em¬ braced Moscow, Irkutsk in central Siberia, and Frunze, the capital of the central Asian Soviet republic of Kirghizstan, produced a 90-minute cassette sound tape of 30-odd Soviet passerine bird songs and calls to help with field identification. His name is Lars Svensson and he sells the cassette for £7.00 Birdwatching by Soviets is almost unheard of. The major exception is the three Baltic states where maybe 200-300 birdwatchers are active. But this is not to say that children and young teenagers are not inter¬ ested and active. The Young Biologists’ Circle of the Moscow Zoo recently celebrated its 60th anniversary. It is said to have set a number of young persons on the path to professional ornithology. There is also the Moscow Society of Naturalists, a young persons’ organisation organised under the aegis of the Department of Vertebrate Zoology at the State University. One of the lecturers there, Nicolai Formosov, takes six children out twice a month to visit forests and lakes. Other Soviet ornithologists may have been influenced in their youth when members of the Komsomol (the Communist Union of Youth), an organisation which encourages the erection of nest-boxes. Soviet bird science What is the state of ornithology in the Soviet Union? How many pro¬ fessional bird people are there? Those of us who attended the 18th Inter¬ national Ornithological Congress in Moscow in August 1982 were surprised to find several hundred Soviet ornithologists descending on the Lomono¬ sov State University for the gathering. From Leningrad came the formid¬ able Madame Irene Neufeldt, an expert on cranes; from Estonia arrived the J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR 135 hyper-active Eerik Kumari; from Verkhoyansk in north-east Siberia came the trim and bearded figure of Yuri V. Labutin, well-known to me for his work on the Little Curlew Numenius minutus, a Soviet endemic; from even further east came the zoosome twosome Yuri Shibaev and his wife Natasha Litvinenko, he a bird of prey expert, she a student of the Black¬ tailed Gull Lams crassirostris ; from Alma-Ata in Kazakhstan came Dr. Anatoly Serna who has studied the song of the Starling. Moscow acquain¬ tances of mine included the shy and gifted Igor D. Nikol’skiy of the Department of Vertebrate Zoology at the University; Victor Zubakin, a behaviourist with a particular interest in gulls, and the ebullient Vladimir E. Flint, a leading government nature conservationist. The total attendance from east and west was of perhaps 800 bird students, ably shepherded by the Secretary-General, Valery D. Ilyichev. There are believed to be at least a thousand professional ornithologists in the Soviet Union (out of a population of 270 million persons). These full-timers work in the academies of science (one ‘all-union’, and one in each of the fifteen republics), in universities, teacher-training colleges (usually translated as ‘pedagogical institutes’) and in nature reserves. Many of the amateurs, particularly those east of the Baltic republics, are persons whose profession is in one branch of biological or medical science who have birds as a hobby. Of all these ‘birdmen’, one seems, by the common consent of professional and amateur alike, to be of pre-eminent ability and devotion. His name is Vladimir V. Leonovitch and he works as an art his¬ torian in Moscow’s Pushkin Museum of Art. For more than half a century he has been active as a field ornithologist. Untrained in science, but innately talented, this tall, distinguished-looking, French-speaking batchelor, now just over 60, has such skill as a nest-finder that he is said to employ witch¬ craft (!). He was long ago granted special dispensation under Soviet law to build a scientific collection of eggs and birds’ nests, provided he bequeathed them to the Zoological Museum in Moscow. He is said to have one clutch, at least, and often a series of clutches, of more than 500 Soviet nesters, all beautifully preserved and painstakingly labelled. All have been taken per¬ sonally. Leonovitch acquires none by exchange or purchase. His contri¬ butions to the literature can be matched by no other amateur and (dare it be said?) by few professionals. Among his major contributions is a paper on the Red-breasted Goose, the symbol of the 1982 Moscow ornithologi¬ cal Congress and, now, of the newly-formed USSR Ornithological Society (Krechmar and Leonovitch, 1967). Also he has compared the origins of the bird communities of the Kyzylkum (Red Sand) and Karakum (Black Sand) Deserts of the south. Valery Ilyichev and Vladimir Flint had intended to have ready by August, 1982, for sale to delegates the first volume of their new, ambitious 136 J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR work The Birds of the USSR (1982) but it was not to appear until later in the year. A near miss. However, by dint of great personal effort, my long¬ standing friend Boris Veprintsev did have available the gramophone records (Veprintsev, 1982) designed to accompany the Ilyichev- Flint volume. Thereby hangs a story. One of the many fascinating facts of Soviet society concerns the distribution of goods. Take books on ornith¬ ology. Each day at the Congress two or three different ladies would appear each with boxes of new books and a portable table, and would set up shop for as long as stocks lasted. Each lady would then disappear never to be seen again, having sold buyers Volume 2 of this work but knowing nothing of Volume 1, etc. The only way to cope with this problem is to keep a day-long lookout and at each opportunity rush in, flood whichever woman with roubles and grab two of everything you know, or suspect you don’t already have in your hotel bedroom. Later you can compare ‘overlaps’ and ‘holes’ with other collectors. Boris’s discs were on sale, but 10 minutes’ walk from the site of the Congress! The word soon got round and delegates hurried across to pur¬ chase. I was tempted to buy 100 copies of each of the discs, set up my own shop by the Congress noticeboard and sell at 10% profit. But I allowed my Russian friends to dissuade me. There had been others who had tried to introduce capitalist ideas . For a fuller treatment of ornithology in the USSR, see Boswall & Wil¬ son (in press). Bird Conservation A question that is often put to me enquires about a possible Soviet society for the protection of birds. The answer has to be that in the USSR there are, of course, no charities. The state tries to look after everything. No organisation independent of the government could purchase land as a nature reserve. There is, however, in each of the 15 republics a quasi-gov- ernmental nature protection society. In Russia (i.e. the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic and easily the largest of the 15) 34 million people pay 30 kopecs (about 30 p.) per year to the Russian Society for the Defence of Nature. Quite a lot of money! Some is spent on education and publicity; posters are produced for schools, bookmarks for adults. Russians are avid readers so thousands of bookmarks are produced by the society, each picturing an endangered bird. Other roubles go towards the planting of trees and putting up of nest-boxes. Certain members are trained as voluntary hunting inspectors who check licences, and try to prevent poaching. Article 18 of the Soviet Constitution reads: ‘In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR 137 to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms, to preserve the purity of the air and water, ensure the reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment’. The extent to which the Soviet government achieves this is not easy to assess. The current five-year plan (1981-1985) set aside 10.3 billion roubles (roughly £10b) for nature conservation (Sinyakov, 1983). It would be interesting to know how it is spent, No doubt some is expended on endangered birds, though much is said to go on water purification installations. Endangered birds The idea of Red Data Books, that list endangered species has really caught on in the Soviet Union. Several republics have produced them, including White Russia and the Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The fully revised second edition of the overall ‘all-union’ work appeared in March 1984, and treats (text, map and colour-painting) 80 birds, inclu¬ ding exotic, surprising and mysterious species. One exotic bird is the Bar¬ headed Goose Anser indicus that nests on high mountain lakes usually under the protection of a colony of gulls - Brown-headed Gulls Larus bmnnicephalus in the Pamir mountains, for example. A surprising rarity is the Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis, a bird difficult for us to think of as threatened. The most mysterious bird has to be the Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris. No nest has been found for about 50-60 years, but 800 birds were seen wintering in Morocco in 1964 and 123 in 1975. Migrants have been seen at irregular intervals over 40 years, the largest group being 48 in the Crimea in 1975. The world population is probably no more than a few dozen pairs. The most famous rare bird in the USSR, as in the USA, is a kind of crane. In the USA it is the Whooping Crane Gms americana, in the USSR the Siberian White Crane Gms leucogeranus. The Soviet summer popula¬ tion of the Siberian White Crane is 90 territorial pairs (not all necessarily old enough to be breeding; cranes may not reproduce until seven years old); including younger, non- territorial non-breeders the world total comes to 300. And yet, on 15th FEbruary 1984, at Lake Poyang on the Middle Yangtze, the Chinese claim to have counted 840 birds (Anon, 1984). The International Council for Bird Preservation lists the following 14 Soviet birds as endangered (the Soviets themselves list 80 in the 1984 2nd edition of their All-Union Red Data Book).- 138 J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR Fourteen Endangered Soviet Birds For 1979 the global Red Data Book (King, 1981) listed for the USSR as endangered the following species and subspecies:- Dalmatian Pelican Chinese Egret Oriental White Stork Japanese Crested Ibis Chinese Merganser White-tailed Eagle Peregrine Falcon Hooded Crane White-naped Crane Japanese Crane Siberian White Crane Relict Gull Spotted Greenshank Asian Dowitcher Pelecanus crispus Egret ta eulophotes Ciconia c. boyciana Nipponia nippon Mergus squamatus Haliaeetus albicilla Falco peregrinus Grus monacha G. vipio G. japonensis G. leucogeranus Larus relictus Tringa guttifer Limnodromus semipalmatus Bird-keeping In 1982 I was invited to visit a bird show in Moscow and was taken around by an English-speaking member of the Moscow Avicultural Soci¬ ety, Irene Yershova. This experience I described earlier in the Avicultural Magazine (Boswall, 1983). Pigeons wild , pigeons tame In the mountains outside Dushanbe, the capital of the Tadzhikistan republic on the border with Afghanistan, I was lucky enough to see truly wild Rock Doves Columba livia. A party of birds flew into a great cave in the hillside where, according to my companion, Islom Abdusalyamov, they nest alongside a pair of Eagle Owls Bubo bubol The Rock Dove is, of course, the wild progenitor of the feral Street Pigeon, a bird which is found in Soviet cities as it is in most of the cities of the world. In Alma- Ata, the capital of Kazakhstan (next door to Tadzhikistan) on a very cold mid-winter day, I saw scores of these birds fighting for crumbs with the local Hooded Crows Corvus corone comix in the courtyards of old-style wooden houses. In Samarkand, the legendary city conquered in turn by Alexander the Great and by Genghis Khan, I visited the Sunday morning ornamental pigeon market. Twelve or 15 sellers were there, the earliest by 7.30 a.m. Some were older Uzbek men wearing traditional ornamented J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR 139 square skull caps and quilted, florally-decorated coats; others were younger men wearing the drab clothes of the current generation. The pigeons were of three main ornamental breeds: ‘straight’ Rock Doves but with orna¬ mentally feathered feet; the brown breed known as the Jacobin, and a strikingly black and white strain. In certain cities in the USSR the sporting use of these birds is a well- established feature of life in the Soviet Union. Moscow birds are taken by train to such release points as Kiev (800 km) and Lvov (1,200 km). An impressive route newly pioneered by the homing pigeon fraternity in Odessa, the port on the Black Sea, is to transport the birds to Archangel, the Arctic port on the White Sea! The flight home is over 2,000 km. Using wild birds Of the 700 plus wild bird species in the USSR, about 150 are of econo¬ mic importance as objects of food and sport and as sources of material for clothing. Willow Grouse, Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix and Quail Coturnix coturnix are among the traditional game birds that are hunted for subsis¬ tence or sport, as are less familiar species like the Rock Partridge Alectoris graeca and the Black-billed Capercaillie Tetrao parvirostris. Swans are protected at all times but five kinds of geese are commonly shot including the Brent Branta bemida, the Whitefront Anser albifrons and the Lesser Whitefront A. erythropus. Many kinds of duck may lawfully be taken, in¬ cluding the Baikal Teal Anas formosa where it is numerous; so too may various waders including three kinds of curlew and even the Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola. Pigeons, sandgrouse and rails (Coots Fulica atra, Moorhen Gallinula chloropus and Corncrake Crex crex) are also killed. In the Mediterranean tradition Blackbirds Turdus merula and Fieldfares T pilaris are trapped in Georgia. The eggs of Guillemots Uria aalge may be taken under licence, and Eiders Somateria mollissima are farmed for their down on the shores of the Baltic, White and Barents seas. Grebes, divers and cormorants are taken for their ‘fur’. This information is summarised from Bannikov and Uspenskiy (1973). In 1980, Soviet law in respect of wild nature was fully revised. A little booklet (made of awful newsprint, as are most books in the USSR) sets out the whole scheme in 24 pages. Let us take the case of a man who wishes to shoot a Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus. He can legally do this in only one of two open seasons, autumn or spring. If he chooses spring then he has to find out which ten days this spring are ‘open’. Game biologists advise the authorities according to whether the season is early, late or normal (normal = 21st-30th April). Secondly, he may shoot only a male and thirdly his bag limit is one bird in ten days. Fourthly, he has to have a licence for that bird (and for up to 140 J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR three Woodcock Scolopax rusticola a day or whatever), as well as his personal hunter’s licence. Lastly, he cannot shoot his Capercaillie cock just anywhere - only in a specified area. For example, a nature reserve in Kalininskaya oblast (county) 300 km from Moscow is surrounded by a buffer zone in which Capers may be shot. On arrival, the hunter has to report to an official and show his licence; on departure he has to show his ‘bag’. One hunter I met takes the sport so seriously that he has rules for himself of almost self-flagellatory character. He takes only a gun and axe and matches, makes himself a bivouac from natural materials and sleeps rough! Duck hunting is a real delight to - among others - the Politburo’s highly durable Foreign Minister, Andrei Gromyko, who is known to go shooting while at his dacha (small country villa) at Vnukovo. A brief mention of falconry is made in another article in this Magazine (Boswall, 1985a). Birds as pests As in other countries, some birds are economically disadvantageous. Most notably those that assemble on airport runways and give rise to bird strikes. One method tried in the Soviet Union (as elsewhere) to reduce the incidence of these mishaps is the local broadcasting of the distress cries of the relevant species. The Soviet Ministry of Defence was involved in the production of a gramophone record that includes recordings of the distress cries of the Black-headed Lams ridibundus and Common Gulls L. canus. Tellingly, it also includes the alarm call of the Starling and of four members of the crow family, including the Rook. The record also includes the agitated cries of the Bee-eater Merops apiaster. This bird is apparently a nuisance to commercial bee-keepers! The USSR is the world’s premier honey producer. In the Ukraine, for example, the local apiarists hold that the birds take too many bees. In Kazakhstan a detailed investigation was undertaken in 1956 when 500 Bee-eaters were shot in order to assess their diet. The birds were also consuming ‘harmful’ Eastern Hornets and the in¬ vestigators concluded that on balance the birds were economically valuable and should be afforded protection! The use of sound recordings to scare them away from hives seems a sensible compromise (assuming it works, which the record sleeve doesn’t say!). Conclusion To sum up: in the Soviet Union birds have acquired roles, as they seem to have everywhere else, in art and science, culture and economics, gas¬ tronomy and sport, and in the giving of companionship and simple pleasure. J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR 141 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to many Soviet ornithologists who have suffered my questioning, but above all to Michael G. Wilson, linguist and ornithologist, for his unfailing genero¬ sity as translator and scientific referee. REFERENCES BANNIKOV, A.G. and USPENSKIY, S.M. (1973). Animals and Birds of economic importance. Moscow. BOSWALL, J. (1979). A discography of Soviet wildlife sound. Rec. Sound, 74-75: 52-61 and plates 8 and 9. . . (1983). A bird show in Moscow. Avic. Mag. 89: 47-49. . . . (1984). The Living World: Birds of the USSR. Script of radio pro¬ gramme transmitted 30th September, 1984. BBC. . . . . . (1985a). New Year’s Day at Alma-Ata Zoo. Avic. Mag. 91:1 71-3. (this issue). . (1985b). Fine-feathered Comrades. BBC Wildlife (April Issue) 3(4): 174-179. . . . (1985c). A note from the USSR. Ibis. 127 (3) 1417-8. . . and Dickson, W. (1982). Additions to a discography of Soviet wildlife sound. Rec. Sound. 82: 61-70. . . (In press). Urban roosting by corvids in two Uzbek cities. Bristol Ornithology. BOSWALL, J. and WILSON, M.G. (In press). Some notes on ornithology in the Soviet Union. Bull. Br. Orn. Cl. . BOSWALL, J., WILSON M. and DICKSON, W. (1984/5). Wildlife sound recording in the Soviet Union: an update. Wildlife Sound. 4(8): 21-29 and 5(1): 19-27. FLINT, V.E. et. al. (1984). A Field Guide to Birds of the USSR. Princeton Uni¬ versity Press, Princeton. ILYICHEV, V.D. and FLINT, V.E. (1982). Birds of the USSR. VoL 1 (Russian). Nauka, Moscow. KRECHMAR, A.V. and LEONOVITCH, V.V. (1967). Distribution and biology of the Red-breasted Goose in the breeding season. (Russian) Problems of the North, 11: 299-334. KING, W.B. (1981). Endangered Birds of the World. Smithsonian, Washington.. REDMAN, N. (1984). Review of Flint and others (1984). Brit. Birds 77(12): 642- 643. SINYAKOV, Y. (1983). Nature Conservation. Novosti, Moscow. VEPRINTSEV, B.N. (1982). The Birds of the Soviet Union: a Sound Guide (Russian). Three 30 cm, 33 1/3 rpm discs, nos. C90-18023/4, 5/6 and 7/8. Melodiya, Moscow. WILSON, M.G. (1985). Review of Flint and others (1984). Ibis. 127(1): 127-8. 142 J. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN USSR Postscript Coincidentally, in the journal Falke in 1985 (32:166) there is a note by Altaju Shatkanbatjew under the heading “Burkutschi - the falconer’ about falconry in Kazakhstan. The full text, translated by Michael G. Wilson, to whom I am indebted for permission to reproduce his work, is as follows: ‘Falcpnry is one of the oldest forms of hunting. It was still widespread in Kazakhstan at the beginning of the 20th century. The most important of the falconer’s birds is the Golden (‘Royal’) Eagle Aquila chrysaetos . The Kazakhs call the falconers ‘Burkutschi’ which comes from their word for A. chrysaetos - ‘Burkut’. The Golden Eagle is flown mainly at foxes Vulpes vulpes, V. corsac , gazelles Gazella subgutturosa , antelopes Saiga tatarica and even wolves Canis lupus. Experienced ‘Burkutschi’ can catch 20 to 30 foxes during the course of a winter. The number of ‘Burkutschi’ has declined signifi¬ cantly in recent years. In each of the 19 regions of Kazakhstan (2717.3 ha) there are now scarcely more than two to three. Golden Eagles are found throughout Kazakhstan, apart from the treeless deserts and steppes, but have become rare in recent years and are in need of special protection. In our country, considerable attention is now being devoted to the question of conserving rare and disappearing animals and increasing their numbers. It is to be hoped that the Golden Eagle will not disappear from Kazakh¬ stan, allowing the national and noble art of falconry to be forgotten; far better that new and genuine lovers of the sport, people with a profound knowledge of the hunting birds, should continue the dying tradition.’ 143 THE BULFINCHES Genus Pyrrhula By DEREK GOODWIN (Petts Wood, Kent) As some of the more ‘mature’ among my readers may recall, a pair of Bullfinches Pyrrhula purrhula were almost the first birds that I kept as a small child (Goodwin, 1952). As those were the only Bullfinches I have kept, I feel some diffidence in writing an article on the species and its con¬ geners. My excuse must be that the Bullfinch is a favourite bird of mine and one I have watched a certain amount in the wild. I have seen other species of bullfinches only as museum skins but the genus as a whole, although small, is so distinct from other finches, so little known and above all so beautiful that I thought I would touch on them all. The line sketches that I have done in order to make the descriptions more easily envisaged have no pretensions to art or to a minutely detailed accuracy. Description and distribution of the Bullfinch The Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula is found throughout much of tem¬ perate and northern Europe, from the Iberian Peninsula, Ireland and Scan¬ dinavia to Manchuria, northern China and Japan. Many different subspe¬ cies or geographical races have been described. Here, to save space and tedium, I will only describe those races found in western Europe and the more distinct among the races found elsewhere. Of these, the grey-breasted P.p. cinerea and the Azorean Bullfinch P.p. murina may have reached specific status although they are currently treated as races of P. pyrrhula by those who consider themselves authorities on such matters. The race of the Bullfinch found in Britain, P. pyrrhula pileata (formerly P.p . nesa), is a shade smaller than a British or European House Sparrow Passer d. domesticus, a little plumpish in usual outline but almost always looking sleek and elegant. The cock has the back a slightly bluish grey, the cheeks, breast and most of the underparts a soft pinkish red or pink. There is much individual variation, from dull brick pink to a bright rosy red but most often of a delicate salmon-pink hue. The hen has the back greyish brown to chocolate brown, the cheeks, breast and most of the underparts a light chocolate brown, often with a slight pinkish tinge. I have seen two or three hens that had these parts brownish pink in colour. In both sexes the cap and very small bib are black, the rump is white, and the upper tail coverts, tail and most of the wings black, richly glossed with blue and purple. The wings are crossed with a pale grey bar. 144 D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES To save time, in describing other races of this species, the term ‘breast’ will be used to include all those areas (see above and sketches) that are pink in the British cock Bullfinch, when describing forms in which these areas are concolourous. In their first (juvenile) plumage young Bullfinches have the parts that are grey, brown or pink in adults of a general light buffish brown tinge, without any sign of the streaking that the young of most finches of other genera show in their juvenile plumages. Their wings and tail are similar to the adults’ but they completely lack the black cap. They acquire adult plumage in their first summer or autumn (depending on how early or late they were hatched). The nominate race of the Bullfinch P.p. pynhula from northern and eastern Europe is appreciably larger than the British race. The cock has the grey and pink parts of his plumage paler but usually also brighter than cock British Bullfinches. The hen is also much paler, greyer above and usually more tinged with pinkish on the breast. Up until the mid- 1930s these large, bright Bullfinches were imported into Britain in large numbers for sale as ‘Siberian Bullfinches’. Many of them may well have come from Siberia. The Bullfinch from central and western Europe, P.p. europoea, is simi¬ lar to the British race but usually slightly brighter. In the Iberian peninsula a rather small race, P. p. iberiae , occurs whose breast (the cock’s) is much brighter and redder than in other forms. Bullfinches P.p. griseiventris, from parts of Japan, Korea, Sakhalin Island and Ussuri, differ in the cock having the cheeks a very bright pink but the breast and those parts of the underparts that are pink or red in other races are grey, more or less tinged with pink. In P.p. kurilensis, from the Kurile Archipelago and northern Japan, the breast is clear grey, contras¬ ting strongly with the pink cheeks. Most distinct is P.p. cineracea from the Northern Altai, parts of Mon¬ golia, Amur and Manchuria. It is sometimes stated (e.g. Nielsen, 1981) that in cineracea the sexes are alike but this is not the case. The cock has the breast a clear pale grey; the breast of the hen is pale pinkish brown. In the cock the back is grey without any trace of brown. The hen, though rather grey above, like the hen of the nominate race, is tinged strongly with brown on back and scapulars. The Bullfinch P.p. murinae from the Azores, long thought extinct, and probably not far off that unhappy state, ought probably to be given speci¬ fic rank. Although it no doubt derived either from P. pynhula or some form ancestral to them both, it shows the common (though not invariable) comparative dullness and coarseness of island forms to a marked degree. It has a proportionately larger bill and a dull greyish rump. In general D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES 145 coloration it much resembles the hen of the British Bullfinch. It is usually said that the sexes are identical in colour but this, once again, is not so. Cocks have their breasts, underparts and flanks suffused with a reddish tawny tinge that is lacking in the hens. Descriptions and distributions of other species of bullfinches In all species the wings, rump and tail are very similar in colour and pattern to those of our Bullfinch and I shall not describe them except where they differ appreciably. These other bullfinches fall into two groups, which might be descrip¬ tively termed the ‘brown bullfinches’ and the ‘masked bullfinches’. In the first group are two closely related forms, the Brown Bullfinch, Pyrrhula nipalensis and the Philippine or White-cheeked Bullfinch P. leu- cotis. The Brown Bullfinch is found in the sub-Himalayan regions of Pakistan, North India and Tibet east to North Vietnam and Taiwan and south to Burma and Malaya. At a first glance it looks like a rather obscurely marked hen Bullfinch. The body colour is dull greyish brown. The cap and bib feathers are blackish with greyish brown edges, giving a speckled effect. Behind the eye is a small whitish area. As if to make up for the lack of any large areas of red, pink or orange, the wing and tail quills show an intense development of the wonderful bluish purple lustre common to the genus. The visible (when wings and tail are folded) parts of the tail and primaries are vivid purple, fringed with velvety black. The tail is proportionately longer and more strongly forked than in other species. The rump is strik¬ ingly patterned with a white band ‘sandwiched’ between two jet black areas (see sketch). Tail and rump colour patterns of (A) Brown Bullfinch, and (B) Bullfinch. Key: solid shading - jet black; dark shading - iridescent purple- black or blue-black; light shading on backs - greyish brown or grey 146 D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES The Malaysian race P. nipalensis waterstradti has a paler and greyer cap and bib, the individual feathers of these areas being grey with only slightly darker central streaks. The Brown Bullfinch is often written of as if it were sexually mono- morphic. However, the sexes do differ. The small innermost secondary has a red stripe on it in the male and a straw yellow one in the female. Close up this is quite conspicuous to the human eye and no doubt much more so to the pyrrhuline eye when its owner is in sexual mood. A cor¬ responding but duller red mark is found on the same feather of the cocks of those races ofP. pyrrhula which have pink or red on the breast. 1 Bif Innerm°st secondary (visible part) of Brown Bullfinch. The \ unshaded part of the inner web is red in the male, straw yellow in the female. The Philippine Bullfinch is sometimes treated as a race of the Brown Bullfinch but I concur with those who think it best given specific rank. It is, as its name suggests, found in the Philippine Islands. It differs from the Brown Bullfinch in having the entire cap and bib glossy black, exten¬ sive white cheeks, yellowish drab underparts, buff undertail coverts and less highly ornamented wing and tail quills. The stripe on the innermost secondary is red in the cock and pale orange in the hen. In his important paper on the behaviour of the European Bullfinch, Nicolai held the opinion that these brown species are more primitive than, and ancestral to, the species that have large areas of pink, red or orange plumage. I think, however, that in view of their common possession of a ‘capped’ head pattern and (to varying degrees) a tendency to conspicu¬ ously differentiated cheeks in the cock, nipalensis and leucogenys are more closely related to pyrrhula than are the masked species. The Red-breasted or Beavan’s Bullfinch is found from the Himalayas to China and Taiwan. The cock has a black face mask narrowly outlined in white. The rest of his head, mantle, upper breast and back are dull grey. His lower breast is bright orange-red. The wings, rump and tail are very similar to, and somewhat intermediate between those of the Bull¬ finch and the Brown Bullfinch. The hen has grey crown and cheeks, coffee brown mantle and back, and paler coffee brown breast and underparts, except for the white ven¬ tral regions and undertail coverts. The Red-headed Bullfinch Pyrrhula erythrocephala is found only in parts of the Himalayas and south-eastern Tibet. The cock has a black D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES 147 Heads of male (left) and female (right) Red-headed Bullfinch Key: Solid shading - black; heavy stippling - orange-red; light stippling - orange-pink; near horizontal lines - grey or drab; near vertical lines - delicate yellowish green. face mask, orange-red crown and nape, the cheeks, breast and most of the underparts vary individually from orange suffused with grey to rich orange-pink. The back and mantle are grey. Otherwise the bird is very likeP. erythaca. The hen has a drab area on the forecrown, immediately behind the black face mask. The rest of her crown and nape are a delicate yellowish green, a unique colour among bullfinches. She is pale drab on the under¬ parts and dark drab on the mantle and back. While the foregoing species are all roughly about the size of the British race of the Bullfinch, the beautiful Orange or Golden Bullfinch Pyrrhula auranfiaca, from parts of northern Pakistan and the north-western Hima¬ layas, is smaller. The cock Orange Bullfinch has the usual black face mask (see sketches). His wings, tail and ventral regions are very like those of the other masked bullfinches except that his wing bars are pale orange and his long upper tail coverts partly white. His body is a lovely golden-orange, slightly darker on the head and back and slightly paler and brighter on the cheeks and underparts. The hen has a dull grey head (the black mask excepted), yellowish fawn back and pinkish buff breast shading to light dull yellow on the lower breast and flanks. In order to save space I have not described the juvenile plumages of these other bullfinch species. In all of them the juveniles show differences from the adults comparable to those inP. pyrrhula and specific differences are less marked than in the adults. 148 D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES Top to bottom: Bullfinch; Beavan’s Bullfinch; Orange Bullfinch. Key: Near solid shading - black or iridescent purple; dots - orange, pink or red dashes - grey. D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES Top - Brown Bullfinch; Bottom - Philippine or White-cheeked Bullfinch Key: Dark areas - black and/or iridescent purple and blue; lined areas - greyish brown; heavy stippled areas - huffish drab; light stippled areas - buff; unmarked areas - white or silvery white* 150 D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES Remarks on presumed relationships of bullfinches The three capped species, the Bullfinch, Brown Bullfinch and Philip¬ pine Bullfinch, are completely allopatric. In some plumage characters the Philippine Bullfinch is intermediate between the other two and I favour treating all three as members of the same superspecies. The Azores Bullfinch might best be raised to specific rank within this same superspe¬ cies. The range maps given by our fellow member, Dr. Colin Harrison, in his stimulating book on bird distribution (1982) show apparent areas of over¬ lap between the Orange and Red-headed Bullfinches, the Red-headed and Red-breasted Bullfinches and between both of these latter and the Brown Bullfinch. These maps are, however, necessarily small scale and it seems uncertain whether any two bullfinch species actually breed in the same place. If they do, one would expect to find differences of voice, behaviour or habi¬ tat (or all three). So far as I know, such have not been recorded but that means little as I know of no detailed study of any of these species. Ecology and behaviour ofP. pyrrhula These notes refer only to the Bullfinch in Britain and Germany, where it has been much studied and where I have (Britain only) observed it. They are not intended to be comprehensive and are biased towards what I have myself seen. Anyone requiring fuller information, indeed anyone seriously interested in this lovely bird, should also read Nicolai’s important paper on it and the relevant sections of Newton’s excellent book on the European finches. The Bullfinch is a bird of deciduous, mixed and coniferous forest, prob¬ ably under natural conditions in or near the forest edge or other areas where there are bushes, shrubs, young trees and small open areas as well as fully mature trees. In Britain it is found widely on the mainland, occurring in most places where there is a combination of suitable bush and tree cover for nesting, roosting and resting and where food is available. It often breeds in churchyards, young conifer plantations, large tree- and bush- grown gardens, and even in hedges in partially open country. It is often said that it has increased greatly in recent decades and is now common in towns and open farmland as well as in its former haunts. Well, although the Bullfinch occurs in small numbers in some large town gardens or parks with plenty of cover, it certainly cannot (in Britain) be thought of as a town or park bird in the sense that Blue Tits and Blackbirds, let alone feral pigeons and House Sparrows, are. As for the open farmland, I have yet to see a Bullfinch (other than one passing in flight overhead from one wood to another) more than 50 yards (and very seldom more than five) D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES 151 from the nearest bush or tree, or a Bullfinch’s nest in a farmland hedge more than 100 yards from the nearest wood, coppice or orchard. In captivity, and probably also in a wild state, Bullfinches pair for life in their first winter or spring although earlier they may form temporary pair bonds with a bird of either sex (Nicolai). In spring and summer wild Bullfinches are usually seen in pairs, except for cocks whose mates are sitting, pairs with flying young and recently bereaved individuals. In autumn and winter one often sees presumed pairs, sometimes two birds of the same sex, keeping company, and very often small parties of from three to ten individuals. Such parties often show a preponderence of one sex and this is not necessarily related to the general sex ratio in the area. One may come upon a feeding group of, say, five hens and one cock and then a half mile or less away another of, say, six cocks and two hens. The largest party of Bullfinches I have ever seen was about 20 birds together. The hen Bullfinch takes the initiative in pair formation by a symbolic threatening of the cock, to which he, if sexually responsive, responds by fluffing out his pink flanks, angling his glossy tail towards the hen, and flying short distances from her in a peculiar manner. This display serves, Nicolai discovered, to establish the cock’s dominance over the hen; after this, further courtship, which involves mutual bill-touching and later the cock feeding the hen, can follow. If the cock is not interested, he flies right away at the hen’s first overtures but in captivity, where he cannot do this, he is likely to be chased and beaten up by the infuriated hen. ‘Hell hath no fury . ’. Nicolai found that a healthy cock Bullfinch has an absolute inhibition against attacking or even defending himself against a hen. This, of course, does not apply to Bullfinches that have been imprinted on humans and are not reacting socially to their own kind. These may actually kill hen Bullfinches misguidedly imprisoned with them, as did the late Frances Pitt’s famous ‘Bully’ (Pitt). The Bullfinch nests in bushes, hedges, shrubs, young conifers and climbers such as Honeysuckle. The nest is most often near the periphery of the tree, bush or etc. and well screened by vegetation. This position makes it rather difficult for a person to find although when in deciduous growth it is easy to see once the leaves have fallen. The nest consists of two parts, a shallow platform and surround of small twigs, and an inner cup of fine roots and occasionally root-like fibres and horsehairs. The roots are often collected from the ground on woodland paths and one can often see the hen tugging at them while her mate, who accompanies her, appears only to ‘lend moral support’. In reality, his alert, not pre-occupied presence probably lessens the risk of her being surprised by some predator when busy collecting nesting material. As with the Canary (when allowed to behave naturally) and many 152 D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES other finches, the cock Bullfinch takes the lead in searching for a nest site and calling his mate’s attention to it but she alone builds the nest. The contrary has sometimes been thought owing to the facts that the cock has a sexual display in which he shows or presents symbolic nest material to his mate and that he sometimes briefly sits and ‘nest-calls’ in a partly built nest. The eggs, usually four or five, are pale blue with small dark reddish markings which are usually concentrated in a zone round the larger end of the egg. The hen alone incubates and broods the young, fed by the cock. Both sexes collect food for the young when they are old enough for the hen to leave them unbrooded by day. The Bullfinch feeds primarily on seeds. Here, as elsewhere, I use the term ‘seed’, ‘fruit’ and ‘berry’ in their everyday meanings regardless of whether or not they would be technically so termed by the professional botanist. Among other reasons for so-doing is that birds agree with the ‘ignorant’ non-botanist; seed-eating and fruit-eating birds, respectively, take what the layman would call seeds or fruits regardless of, and some¬ times contrary to, their botanical classifications. The Bullfinch eats a variety of seeds from many species of herbaceous plants, shrubs, bushes, trees and creepers. These include the seeds of some fruits and berries such as those of the Honeysuckle, Rowan and Bramble. Captive Bullfinches will sometimes eat fruit pulp but I have not seen any evidence of wild birds doing so, though they may ingest some juice in the course of separa¬ ting out and dealing with the seeds. I have not seen a wild Bullfinch show any interest in a fruit, such as that of the Yew, whose seed was clearly ‘impossible’ for it and Bramble seeds are not usually fed on until winter when the ‘blackberries’ that contained them have dried and shri¬ velled. Among plants and trees whose seeds are, at any rate in Kent and Surrey, taken in quantity by the Bullfinch are the Dandelion, Sow Thistle, Stinging Nettle, Meadowsweet, wild violets Viola spp., some docks (I am afraid I do not know which species these are), Honeysuckle, Silver Birch and Ash. Very hard seeds, such as those of the Hornbeam, so beloved by the Greenfinch and the Hawfinch, do not appear to be taken by the Bullfinch. In late winter and early spring, the Bullfinch also eats buds, chiefly flowerbuds of which the outer parts are discarded and only the embryonic centres swallowed. Under natural conditions wild Pear, Hawthorn, Black¬ thorn and Crab Apple seem among the most favoured and, unfortunately for the Bullfinch, the often more nutritious buds of many of our cultiva¬ ted fruit trees are preferred by it when available. Newton found that the damage done in orchards depended largely on the supplies of Ash seed available in late winter and early spring and that, in general, the failure of the Ash to produce a good crop every second year resulted in a cor- D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES 153 respondingly greater amount of bud-eating in such years. Bullfinches prefer to feed perching on the tree or plant but will often come onto the ground, especially on a path in or alongside a wood or cop¬ pice, to feed from very low or prostrate plants or to search for fallen seeds. They do not hold catkins, seed-heads and the like under one or both feet when feeding, as Redpolls, Siskins and Goldfinches do, nor can they hang upside down like the Blue Tit. They are, however, able to stretch upwards, downwards or to either side to seize food with the bill to a remarkable degree while still keeping firm hold of their perch. Very frequently one can watch Bullfinches, Redpolls and a pair of Blue Tits all feeding in the same seeding Birch, each species using different techniques and consequently different movements and postures. Dandelion seeds are often a major food, especially where these plants are growing at the outskirts of a wood or along a woodland path. Unlike the Goldfinch which prefers the ripe seeds of the fully opened Dandelion ‘clock’, the Bullfinch prefers them when they are already brown but before the seed head has opened of itself. The bird bites through the covering near the base of the (former) flower head to get at the seeds. When feeding on Sow Thistle, especially if this is growing in a place a bit too open for the bird’s peace of mind, the Bullfinch often hovers prettily to pluck a billful of vegetable down and seeds and carries them off to a perch to deal with. I have also seen the Bullfinch hover in order to pick (presumed) insects or other small invertebrates from the undersides of leaves. So far as I know the Bullfinch and the Goldcrest (presumably also the rare Firecrest but I have only once ever seen this species feeding and then it did not) are the only British species to use this hummingbird-like tactic. Nicolai found that in his study area Bullfinches took no animal food even when rearing young. This is, however, not everywhere the case. I have seen Bullfinches in southern England that were undoubtedly collect¬ ing small invertebrates though I was not able to be certain what. Newton records caterpillars, small spiders and small snails as fed to the nestlings. Rather surprisingly, the snails were de-shelled. I suspect that they would not be so treated at the period of maximum bone growth of the young. The Bullfinch and Man Man must have affected the Bullfinch, and all other birds, by his altera¬ tions of the environment. Little or nothing is, however, known about the Bullfinch in primaeval Europe, certainly nothing of its status in Britain before man started messing around with things. I shall, therefore, here confine myself to some brief notes on the interactions of the Bullfinch with man in his role of bird keeper and ‘vermin’ destroyer. 154 D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES Its beauty, comparative ‘steadiness’ even when wild-caught, and the ability of at least some hand-reared cocks to learn to pipe tunes, formerly made the Bullfinch a popular cage and aviary bird. In the middle of the last century, Mayhew found that it was a favourite pet bird with London¬ ers. A good young Bullfinch then fetched from 2 shillings and 6d. to 3 shillings (more than many people then earned for a day’s work) and a piping bird 3 guineas. In my childhood in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the price had only risen to 5 or 6 shillings for cocks and about half that for hens. Mayhew estimated that about 30,000 Bullfinches were brought yearly to London for sale, many from the immediately surrounding country but some from further afield. These figures seem rather dreadful but it is doubtful if the worst excesses of the cage bird trade involved (in Britain) more, if as many, Bullfinches as are now killed as ‘vermin’. Newton (writ¬ ing, or at least publishing, in 1972) states that on ‘the average fruit farm’ a few hundred are killed annually but over a thousand on any Targe farm in well-wooded country’. Needless to say, any aviculturist who takes even a couple of young Bull¬ finches would render himself liable to prosecution unless he has a licence permitting him to do so. Which licence I do not think he would easily get unless he had ‘friends at court’. As I have no personal post-childhood ex¬ periences of Bullfinch-keeping, I will say no more on the subject except to hope that some of our members who do keep and breed this bird will tell us of their observations on it, and to refer other to Nicolai’s work. Trapping in cage traps baited with seeding docks is the officially recom¬ mended method of destroying Bullfinches (Newton) but the bird has been much shot at in the past (and probably still is) and I think it is shooting rather than trapping that has made the Bullfinch in Britain usually more afraid of man than other finches (except the Hawfinch). Up until the very recent past the Goldfinch was trapped at least as much as the Bullfinch and it (the Goldfinch) is usually the least timid of our finches except for the Redpoll and Siskin. The Bullfinch is, apparently, much less afraid of man in Germany (Lohrl, Nicolai). Lohrl indeed compares it with the Siskin for its trustful¬ ness (Vertrautheit) and fearlessness (Furchtlosigkeit) towards man, a com¬ parison that would certainly not be apt in any part of Britain where I have observed these two species. The Bullfinch, although timid, is not wary or suspicious. It is easy to stalk and it often fails to notice the watcher if he or she is still. If, how¬ ever, it does notice a human approaching, it will usually flee sooner than would a Chaffinch, Greenfinch or Linnet and much sooner than would a Goldfinch, Redpoll or Siskin. This is especially the case if it is on or near D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES 155 the ground or in some open space. If it is feeding well up in a tree, it will (at least in areas where it is seldom shot at) often allow the watcher to approach more closely. Bishop Mant (though he seems to have seen an unusually brilliant cock Bullfinch) perfectly describes the bird’s usual reactions to man in a verse I cannot resist quoting: Deep in the thorn’s entangled maze, Or where the fruit-trees thick’ ning sprays Yield a secure and close retreat The dusky Bullfinch plans her seat: There, where you see the clustered boughs Put forth the opening bud, her spouse With mantle grey and jet-like head, And flaming breast of crimson red, Is perched with hard and hawk-like beak, Intent the embryo fruit to seek, Nor ceases from his pleasing toil The orchard’s budding hope to spoil, Unless with quick and timid glance Of his dark eye, your dread advance He notice, and your search evade Hid in the thicket’s pathless shade. Bishop Mant’s bird poems are ‘spot on’ for accurate observations as here where he knew that the frightened Bullfinch nearly always flees into thick cover. Other finches when disturbed by man either fly up and away, or up into some tree. Voice Partly because of my ignorance of modern techniques of voice study and partly to keep this article within what I hope are reasonable limits, I shall not deal with this aspect of the Bullfinch except to say that most of its calls are low pitched, often audible at a surprising distance in view of their softness, and entirely pleasing. The same is true of its short song. Nicolai (1956) deals in detail with the Bullfinch’s voice. The Bullfinch and the Jay : some intriguing parallels The Jay Garrulus glandarius is one of many nest predators on the eggs and young of the Bullfinch. The two species are well apart in their feeding habits. Apart from the fact that, at least in many parts of Britain, both have man as their most potent and destructive enemy, they have in com- 156 D. GOODWIN - BULLFINCHES mon that they frequent rather similar habitat. Indeed, if one made allow¬ ances for size and mentally ‘scaled down’ (or up) the habitat when com¬ paring, then one might say very similar habitat. The Bullfinch shows four intriguing resemblances to the Jay which, if they are not mere coincidence, must be adaptations to habitat in a broad sense (certainly not to feeding behaviour or foods within that habitat), and, if they are mere coincidence, are still more surprising. These are: (1) The nest is built of the same materials and although not exactly a miniature version of a Jay’s nest (the twig portion is more plat¬ form-like as a rule) is very near it. (2) Both species have a white rump patch and a blackish tail, a com¬ bination of features possessed by few other species of finch and by no other species of jay. (3) Both species have a bi-coloured ornamental innermost secondary; black and dull red in the Bullfinch, black and chestnut in the Jay. (4) Both species differ from most other members of their family in that they usually flee from man into cover, not ‘up and away’. Final Note As the contrary is so often stated, it seems pertinent here to emphasise that all races and all species of bullfinches are sexually dichromatic, even if, to human eyes, some are more obviously so than others. REFERENCES GOODWIN, D. (1952). Recollection of some small birds. Avicultural Magazine, 58: 24-29. HARRISON, C. (1982). An Atlas of the Birds of the Western Palaearctic. Collins, London. LOHRL, H. (1981). Vogel am Futterplatz. Kosmos, Stuttgart. MAYHEW, H. (1851). London Labour and the London Poor. Londoa NEWTON, I. (1972). Finches. Collins, London. NICOLAI, J. (1956). Zur Biologieund Ethologie des Gimpels. Z. Tierpsychol. 13: 93-132. NIELSEN, B.P. (1981). Taxonomy of shrikes. Brit. Birds, 74: 534-535. PITT, F. (1948). Birds in Britain. Macmillan and Co., London. 157 RECHERCHE ISLAND GEESE Cereopsis novaehollandiae griseus By DAVID CROMPTON (The Wildfowl Trust, Martin Mere, Lancashire) Although only comparatively recently ‘rediscovered’ as a separate sub¬ species, the Cape Barren Geese from the islands off Western Australia were given the scientific name Anser griseus Vieillot as early as 1818 (Vieillot, 1818). Frith (1982) suggests that the population of geese in the Recherche Archipelago is no more than 500; thus it is one of the world’s rarest wild¬ fowl. On a visit to the Australian Agriculture Department’s Poultry Research Station at Wembley in 1979, members of the Western Australian Wildlife Authority Bird Committee viewed adjacent pens containing Cereopsis stock from Tasmania, South Australia, and the Recherche Islands. The lat¬ ter birds were readily distinguishable by coloration: their most noticeable features were the greater extent of white on the crown and neck, the paler pink of the legs, and the fact that the black of the feet extended up the front of the leg as far as the ‘knee’. An impression that the birds were sturdier was verified by their heavier weights (Storr, 1980). Of the eight birds in question (five males and three females) two pairs were offered to the Wildfowl Trust and were received into quarantine late in the autumn of 1982. A further pair was retained by Perth Zoo. Shortly after release from quarantine, the pairs were divided between the Trust’s Slimbridge and Martin Mere reserves. During March both pairs nested, the first eggs being laid at Martin Mere on the 15th and at Slimbridge on the 19th. At Martin Mere subsequent eggs were laid on the 17th, 19th, 21st, 24th and 25th when incubation commenced. At candling two weeks later, all the Martin Mere eggs were found to be fertile but, sadly, the Slimbridge ones were clear. At the end of 35 days’ incubation, the eggs were again examined and although two had addled, four were still viable and on 2nd May, 39 days after incubation commenced, there were four newly-hatched young in the nest. These goslins were left with their parents for rearing and no problems were encountered. In general they seemed stockier and darker, particularly on the back, than ‘normal’ Cereopsis goslings. Sexing revealed that we had two pairs. Growth rate and time to fledging were normal for the species; however, as juveniles the voices of the Recherche birds seemed to be of a higher pitch and remained so until they reached adolescence. The youngsters were separated from their parents in September and 158 D. CROMPTON - RECHERCHE ISLAND GEESE Roy Knockton The nominate race Cereopsis novaehollandiae The Recherche Island Goose C.n. griseus Roy Knockton D. CROMPTON - RECHERCHE ISLAND GEESE 159 were sent to Slim bridge, one pair remaining there, the other going on breeding loan to a private collection. The adult Slimbridge birds were removed to Martin Mere. This pair started nesting again on 19th Novem¬ ber, five eggs being laid up to 28th November, but again all were infertile. On 11th December, the original Martin Mere pair laid once more and started incubating on the 21st. Sadly, these goslings did not survive due to inclement weather at the time. A small experiment was carried out on the Slimbridge pair after their second failure, involving feather clipping around the cloaca of both birds. Obligingly this pair re-nested at 14 days, three eggs were clear but the other two seemed viable, and one hatched on 5th March. Of 20 eggs laid by two geese, the average weight has been 124.5 g and the linear dimensions 78.3 x 53.7 mm. These measurements are not sig¬ nificantly different from those of eggs laid by South Australian birds; a larger sample produced by many more females is required. Recherche Cereopsis seem to require no different management tech¬ niques from the nominate race, but observations suggest that they are less aggressive towards humans, even during the breeding season and at the nest site, although other geese and ducks provoke territorial behaviour. Apart from an incubation period four days longer than expected, the only other peculiarity of the two imported pairs appears to be a reluctance to moult; none has so far shed any flight feathers, although some body moult has occurred.* ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful thanks are extended to Tom Spence, Director of Perth Zoological Gar¬ dens, without whose help and encouragement the birds would not have become available to the Wildfowl Trust, and to the Australian Agriculture Department for agreeding to supply the birds. *Postscript. By August 1984 both pairs had a complete set of new flight feathers. REFERENCES FRITH, H.J. (19S2). Waterfowl in Australia. Revised edition. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. STORR, G. (1980). The Western Australian Naturalist. Vol. 14, No. 7: 202-203. VIEILLOT. (1818). Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire Naturelle. 23: 336. 160 CONSERVING THE ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE AND THE WHITE-WINGED WOOD DUCK AT THE WILDFOWL TRUST By RALPH HODGSON (Wildfowl Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire) The Aleutian Canada Goose cannot now be classed as endangered but it is certainly a rare species, particularly in captivity. Its sole habitat was the 1100-mile chain of Aleutian Islands stretching south and west of Alaska where, in the early 1900s, they could be found breeding in thousands. In attempts to develop fur farming, residents in Alaska released Arctic Foxes on almost all these islands with the result that after World War II just a handful of these geese could be found surviving precariously only on the 4000-acre island of Buldir near the Asian end of the chain. This island, isolated, and with no harbour, had escaped the fur farming venture and the US Fish and Wildlife Service decided that a fully-fledged endangered spe¬ cies recovery programme was justified. A plan was formulated to clear the major islands of Arctic Foxes and so increase the natural habitat and it was decided to rear goslings in captivity in the USA for restocking the cleared islands. The first 18 goslings were taken on Buldir in 1963 and in 1966 the first generation of captive Aleutian Geese hatched successfully. To reduce the risk of disease and to spread the gene pool, several other breeders joined the production efforts but the return of captive-bred geese to native nest¬ ing grounds presented problems, one of which involved their winter migra¬ tion, as no one knew where they spent the winter months. It was not until 1974 that this secret was resolved - they went to the northern coastal areas of California. Since then several hundred Aleutian Geese have been bred and reared in North America and the programme of re-introduction on fox-free islands has continued, together with interim protection on their wintering grounds. In 1967 the US Fish and Wildlife Service sent a pair of Aleutians to the Wildfowl Trust on breeding loan and subsequently a further male and two females were received from America. As far as we know, these are the only Aleutian Geese to come to Europe. The first pair bred at Slimbridge in 1973 and have bred every year since then, a total of 82 reared over 12 years . There are now (January 1985) over 50 Aleutian Geese alive in Europe and of those originating in the United States, only the original pair still survive, now 18 years old. The remainder are held in the various trust centres and by a limited number o f recognised breeders. R. HODGSON - ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE& WHITE-WINGED WOOD DUCK 161 The White- winged Wood Duck is in rather a different category. Its natural habitat is the rain forests of Asia, in particular Assam, East Pakis¬ tan and Thailand. This habitat is being gradually destroyed and the prob¬ lem is to ensure the permanent protection of sufficient natural habitat to justify survival and possibly re-introduction from captive-bred stock. The first White- winged Wood Ducks to arrive at Slimbridge were wild- caught in Thailand in 1955 and consisted of six males and four females. In those days our aviary accommodation was limited and we also had con¬ siderable difficulty in finding the right food. The birds survived but we had no success in breeding and the last one died in 1961. Then, under the aus¬ pices of the World Wildlife Fund, we received two consignments from Assam in 1969 and 1970, which gave us four pairs of these very rare birds from which are descended all the present population in Europe and the USA. To reduce the risk of disease, young birds have been distributed on breeding loan to other Trust centres and recognised breeders, including the Jersey Wildlife Trust. This latter Trust has been very successful and has already sent back to the Wildfowl Trust a number of young birds. We now have over 100 of this species registered in our Stud Book and within the next year or so we should be in a position to plan a programme for re-in- t reduction to a suitable habitat in its natural homeland. We have also been able to send about four pairs on breeding loan to the United States, where they have already had considerable breeding success. In 1984 we were able to send birds to Hongkong and Thailand and thus establish a breeding nucleus close to their natural habitat. 162 THE FEEDING AND BREEDING OF THREE POICEPHAL US PARROTS IN CAPTIVITY AND IN THE WILD By NEVILLE BRICKELL (Avicultural Research Unit, Republic of South Africa) I wish to list some findings by aviculturists on nesting, and by ornitho¬ logists on feeding, in the hope that it may fill some gaps in Forshaw’s splendidly lavish work, Parrots of the World. Blancou suspected that the Niam Niam Parrot P. crassus nests during the August-September rains. Nothing is known of its breeding habits in its natural state. In Mozambique three recently caught adult birds were placed in an aviary measuring 2.4 m (8 ft) high, 1.5 m (5 ft) wide and 3.6 m (12 ft) long. Banana leaves were fastened to the wire netting on the sides of the aviary to give the birds as much privacy as possible until they had become accustomed to their new home. The birds were not disturbed, except to place the food and water just inside the door. After two months the spare bird, which was being mercilessly pecked by the other two, was removed and placed in a flight with a Brown-headed Parrot. Nest-boxes and natural logs, which contained observation holes at the back, were hung up at the far end of the flight. There was no activity from the birds, which were assumed to be a pair, for three weeks. They were then seen to enter the natural logs four or five times a day. A single egg soon appeared, with three others being laid at daily intervals. Only the female incubated. The male spent long periods in the nest during the day. Only three chicks hatched^ the first hatched at 27 days and was covered in a fine greyish white down. Both adults fed the chicks, which left the nest at 13 weeks after hatching. They were strong on the wing within a few days but were dependent mostly on the male for food for the next two weeks, returning to the nest each night with the female to roost. These parrots feed on a variety of seeds. Stomach contents revealed partly digested millet and pale yellow seeds. Nothing further seems to have been recorded in the wild. In captivity they accepted a basic diet of two parts sunflower seed and one part mixed canary seed. Fruit given consisted of apple and orange, with no interest shown in guava and plum. Greens eaten were beans, peas (in the pod) and cabbage stalks as well as corn-on-the-cob (maize). The young were reared on putu, a favourite food of the local Africans which is made by boiling maize meal in water until the water evaporates causing it to form into lumps similar to that of dry porridge. They also had hand-baked bread dampened with water or goat’s milk. N. BRICKELL - THREE POICEPHALUS PARROTS 163 Niam-Niam Parrot RuppelTs Parrot Meyer’s Parrot These three plates are reproduced by kind permission of the artist, Rex M. Shirley 164 N. BRICKELL - THREE POICEPHALUS PARROTS Though the Ruppell’s Parrot Poicephalus rueppellii is common, little is known of its nesting in the natural state, except for three records, namely: in the nest-hole of a Baobab Adansonia digitata ; the dead branch of a Brachystegia tree and in an Acacia in what appeared to be an old woodpecker’s hole. Breeding has been recorded in February (three eggs), May (chicks in nest) and June and September (juveniles collected) and August (chicks in nest). Further information was gathered from a success¬ ful aviary breeding. Four eggs were laid on a layer of decayed willow pulp in a standard-type parrot nesting box. Incubation, which lasted 30 days, started when the last egg was laid. Only the female brooded though the male sat in the nest-box with her during the day; both parents fed the chicks. The young left the nest at five weeks but did not fly for some time, only roosting above the box (pers. comm. Coetzee). This early departure may be due to a disturbance at the nest. The duration of a second nesting period was 58 days (Nelson, 1974). Adult plumage is acquired approximately 14 weeks after leaving the nest (pers. comm. Abrey, 1980). This parrot feeds on seeds, fruit and buds and shoots. It has been recorded feeding on the seeds of Leadwood Combretum imberbe, Blue- thorn Acacia erubescem , Ana tree A. albida and Sweet-thorn A. karoo as well as its golden-yellow blossoms, and shoots and seeds of Ele¬ phant’s Foot Elephantorrhiza. Fruit in the form of wild figs Ficus and seeds of wild melons. In captivity, the daily diet may include spinach, peas in their pods, stalks of cabbage, young lettuce, thistle and Brus¬ sel sprouts; also the green shoots of Blue Gum and Silver Oak. Fruit such as apple, orange, peaches, soft pear, figs, plums, soaked raisins and currants; also shelled ground nuts and corn-on- the-cob. Many nests of the Meyer’s Parrot P. meyeri have been recorded in recent years, giving information on nest measurements, clutch sizes and growth of chicks but the incubation and nestling periods have not been acurately measured in the wild. Aviculturists have indicated the incuba¬ tion period at 29-31 days and nestling period at eight to nine weeks. Recorded feeding on the pods, fruits or nuts of Narrow-leaved Mahoboho- bo Uapaca nitida , Pale-fruited Monotes Monotes glaber, Russet Bush Willow Combretum hereroense, Rough-leaved Rasin Grewia flavescens, Manila Sclerocarya caffra, Kudu-berry Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia, Buffalo-thorn Ziziphus mucronata, Syringa Melia azedarach, Cross-berry Grewia occidentals, flowers of Weeping-boer-bean Schotia brachypetala, seeds of Brachystegia and other leguminous trees and it is suspected that the seed pods of Black monkey- thorn Acacia burkei are eaten. Occasion¬ ally troublesome in cultivation, feeding on maize, sorghum and millet. They also raid orchards as they are fond of oranges and Figs. N. BRIC K ELL - THREE POICEPHALUS PARROTS 165 The following hybrids have been produced: Meyer’s x RuppelFs; Brown-headed x Niam-Niam; Brown-headed x Meyer’s. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Mr. GJ. Coetzee and Dr. A.N.S. Abrey for furnishing new data. REFERENCES DEAN, W.R.J. (1973). Nest Record Card breeding data. Assembled by members of the Southern African Ornithological. Society. FQR5HAW, J.M. {191%) Parrots of the World. David and Charles, England. JOAO, A. & BRICKELL, N. (1971). Criacao de Papagaios Africanos em Mozambique (Trabalho mao PUblieado). Natal Avieultural Society. ............................................ (1981). Aviary breeding of Niam-Niam and Red-bellied Parrots in Mozambique. Miscellaneous data on the keeping of cage and aviary birds. Vol. 1, No. 3, July. Natal Avieultural Society. NELSON, R. (1974). Breeding KuppelTs Parrot Foicephalus mppellii. Parrot Society Magazine, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 4548, Bedford. ROWAN, M.K. (1983). The Doves, Parrots, Louries and Cuckoos of Southern Africa. David Philip, Cape Town. SMITH, G A. (1966). Common names of South African Plants. Department of Agri¬ cultural Technical Services. Pretoria. 166 GRASS-CARRYING DISPLAY IN THE BICHENO FINCH Poephila hichenovii By A .J. MOBBS (West Midlands) Nowhere in the literature can I find a description of grass-carrying in the sexual display of the Bicheno Finch. Having recently observed two cocks in my collection carrying out this procedure, I felt it should be recorded. Both cocks had been housed with a hen in their respective breeding cages for two weeks and the hens had already begun to lay their first clutch of the season. In each case, a nest-box had been provided, first being filled with a mixture of soft hay and coconut fibre hollowed out to form a nest-hole. Also a small amount of nesting material had been placed on the floor of each breeding cage. The courting display was as described by various authors (Cayley, 1932; Morris, 1958; Goodwin, 1982; Immelmann, 1982), except that the exces¬ sive bill-wiping (described by Morris) has yet to be observed, although this behaviour, in a more subdued form, has been seen from time to time. The courtship display of one cock bird when the hen was introduced can only be described as perfunctory as the cock was seen to bill-wipe no more than six times in approximately 60 seconds, after which he mounted the hen and copulation took place. The cock was silent through¬ out. Mating has not been observed in the second pair; however, the cock is extremely vocal (for a Bicheno Finch) and can be heard and seen singing many times throughout the day. When the grass-carrying sequence was observed, in both cases the cock bird was displaying from a perch opposite to that of its respective hen, the latter appearing to take little interest in the performance. Both cocks chose a piece of dried grass some 200 mm in length and it was noticeable that the grass selected was unlike that which would be used for nest-building in that it was somewhat thick and not in the least pliable. The cocks were not observed taking up the grass, but were first encountered when the grass was already being held in the beak. Through¬ out the sequence, both cocks faced their respective hens. Both cocks were seen to give a series of bows with the beak held in a horizontal position at all times. As the birds became upright after each bow, the legs were stretched to their utmost and the feet appeared (on occasions) to leave the perch slightly (no more than 3 mm). The grass-carrying sequence, as I ob¬ served it, lasted for approximately two minutes in both cases, after which 167 the birds released the grass allowing it to fall to the cage floor. Because I entered the birdroom when the sequence was “already underway, I feel that both birds may have ceased the activity described through distur¬ bance rather than because the sequence had been completed. As both cocks were already carrying out the grass-carrying sequence when I entered the birdroom, it is impossible to estimate the length of time the sequence may be carried out. Perhaps it should be mentioned that throughout the grass-carrying pro¬ cedure, both, cocks were silent. REFERENCES CAYLEY, N.W. (1932). Australian Finches in Bush and Aviary. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. MORRIS, B. (1958). The comparative ethology of Grassfinches (Erythrarae) and Mannikins (Amadinae). Proc. Zool. Soc . London. 131: 389-439. GOODWIN, D. (1982). Estrildid Finches of the World. British Museum (Natural History) Oxford University Press. IMMELMAMN. (Rev. ed. 1982). Australian Finches in Bush and Aviary. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. * •* * LONDON ZOO - 1984 By PETER J. OLNEY (Curator of Birds) Despite a rather cold and wet start to 1984, the number of species and individuals bred was approximately the same as in the previous year. The majority of birds in the collection are now captive-bred, being either hatched here or in other collections. Almost all of those species which breed in colonies are in groups which are entirely or mainly composed of captive-bred individuals. For example, the colony of Black-footed (Jackass) Penguins now numbers 19, and of these 13 were bred here, nine being handreared. One bird, ‘Cherry', hatched in 1977 and our first successful handrearing, has herself paired and laid. These eggs have been artificially incubated and the chicks subse¬ quently handreared. Thus our worry that a handreared bird might not breed has been dispelled. For this species the main advantages in taking away the eggs are that egg-stealers are defeated, and there can be greater 168 P.J. OLNEY - LONDON ZOO 1984 control over incubation and the diets of the chicks. Although hand-feeding is hard work and involves the careful preparation of food, it is still worth¬ while. Four birds were reared in this way in 1984. Of those species breeding in colonies which rear their own young, the most noteworthy are the Abdim’s Storks and Chilean Flamingos. The Ab¬ dim’s Storks nest on platforms 7 ft (2.14 m) from the ground in an en¬ closed aviary, and the Chilean Flamingos nest on the Three Island Pond on an area where the nest sites are separated from the public by a series of waterways and small islands. In both cases it is enjoyable and educational for visitors to watch the birds caring for their young. Of the Abdim’s Stork group, all 20 birds were captive-bred, 14 of them at London, including four this year. The Chilean Flamingo colony is now composed of 41 birds of which at least 20 are captive-bred, and of these 18 were bred here, in¬ cluding five this year. A success of particular interest was the handrearing of a Bateleur Eagle. On a bitterly cold day in January the Bateleur Eagle laid her egg in an untidy nest of twigs which was balanced precariously on a platform in the back of the aviary. By 20th January, because of the nervousness of the female and the weather conditions, it was decided to take the egg away to the safety of an incubator. Here it was kept at a temperature of 36.5- 37.5°C with a relative humidity of 50-55%, and turned manually five times daily. On 29th February the first signs of hatching were seen when a minute crack appeared at the blunt end of the egg. The egg, still in the incubator^ was placed on damp towelling in a wire box and the humidity raised to 60-70%. By then the chick could be heard faintly calling from within the egg, but little movement could be detected. The chick was in an abnormal position inside the egg, and so on 1st March a few pieces of shell around the crack were gently removed. On the following day at 12.00 a fragile looking chick was helped out of the shell. The total incubation period had been 55 days. On 3rd March the tiny chick, weighing only 109.9 g, was put into a human incubator at a temperature of 34.6°C. At 14.10 on the same day the chick, still weak and incapable of holding its head up, received its first meal - selected pieces of freshly killed mice dusted with a vitamin/mineral supplement. Over the following weeks the chick grew slowly but steadily. At its last weighing, when nearly 10 weeks old, it weighed 1990 g, not much less than its father. The plumage of the young bird is mainly a golden brown and it will probably be at least six years and repeated moults before the black, white and chestnut plumage of the adult develops. Other noteworthy breeding successes included the artificial incubation and handrearing of a Stone Curlew (parents captive-bred at the Norfolk Wildlife Park and kindly presented to the Zoo in 1982), four Crowned i P.J. OLNEY - LONDON ZOO 1984 169 Cranes, 13 species of galliform, including a Vulturine Guineafowl, Bamboo Partridge, Koklass, Scintillating Copper, Blue Eared, Grey Peacock and Bronze-tailed Peacock Pheasant, and six species of waterfowl including Brent Geese and Hawaiian Geese. Parent-reared birds included an Oystercatcher, three of the rarely-bred Ruppell’s Parrot, five Rock Peplar Parrots, five Sacred Ibis, and six species of owl, including, for the first time in this collection and very rarely else¬ where, the White-faced Scops Owl. By the end of 1984 it was obvious that the Bird of Prey aviaries, built in 1910 from a design by the architect-trained Curator of Birds, David Seth-Smith, had come to the end of their life, and would need to be demo¬ lished. The aviaries had lasted, virtually unchanged in shape and size, for nearly 75 years. There is some sadness at losing the aviaries, which have been such a prominent feature of the Zoo for a long time, but their removal was inevitable. Of the birds housed in these aviaries and elsewhere, we aim to keep at least seven potential breeding pairs - Egyptian Vulture, Black Kite, Brah- miny Kite, Long-legged Buzzard, Bateleur Eagle, Harrier Hawk and Com¬ mon Buzzard - and a small number of individuals. Most will be kept, at least for a while, in the Eastern Aviary and Sothern Aviary. Altogether we still have 1 1 species of raptor. By the end of 1984, potential homes for the birds of prey of which we would need to dispose, had been found. These included other zoos and private collections, and in some cases single birds had the opportunity of joining other single birds of the same species. More and more co-operative schemes for the management and breeding of various species are being put into effect and as part of these schemes a number of birds were sent to other collections, or were taken in on loan. Examples of such movements included the despatch of 12 Grey-headed Gulls to Berlin Zoo, and the receipt of breeding pairs of Congo Peafowl from Antwerp Zoo. 170 A NOTE FROM EAST BERLIN ZOO Pair of Harpy Eagles with young in East Berlin Zoo In a letter dated 27th February 1985, Dieter Minneman of the Tierpark Berlin writes: ‘This year we have had in Berlin a very hard winter. The temperature was for a long time minus 20 degrees Celsius. It gave some problems with my birds of prey. Some kinds, e.g. condor, vultures and eagles, I had to put into heated accommodation. Some of my species from cold areas, e.g. Himalayan Griffon Gyps himalayensis , Bearded Vul¬ ture Gypaetus barbatus and Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus are be¬ ginning to breed. My pair of Harpy Eagles Harpia harpyia hatched a young one on 17th January. One week before a young African Fish Eagle Hal¬ iaeetus vocifer hatched in an incubator. This I believe may be a world “first”.’ (Transcribed by Jeffery Boswall. ) 171 NEW YEAR’S DAY AT ALMA-ATA ZOO By JEFFERY BOSWALL (Bristol) Despite the fact that New Year’s Eve is celebrated in the grand manner in the Soviet Union, and alcohol there is not entirely unknown, two orni¬ thologists (Anatoly Gistsov and Ernar Auezov) turned up promptly, as promised, at 11.00 a.m. at my hotel on 1st January, 1985, to escort me on foot to the Alma-Ata Zoo. Alma-Ata is the capital city of the Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan, and lies only 200 km from the border with the Sinkiang province of the People’s Republic of China. January temperatures average -8° Celsius here but December 1984 had seen days with -30° and New Year’s Day was -20°. Mixed flocks of Car¬ rion Crows of the “Hooded” race Corvus corone comix and feral Rock Pigeons Columba livia hustled in the yards of the wooden houses for breadcrumbs sprinkled on the snow there by housewives. In the grounds of the Zoo itself, scroungers were commoner. It was feeding time for the hardier waterfowl, kept outside. Three species of Old World Swan, Cygnus olor, C columbianus and C cygnus, White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons , Bar-headed Geese Anser indicus, Mallard Anas platyrhynchos and so on were crowded into a small area of open water surrounded by ice. But much of the grain thrown down for them must have ended up in the crops of 50 Hoodies, a hundred House Sparrows Passer domesticus and at least a score of Laughing Doves Streptopelia senegalensis and the one Collared Dove S. decaocto. Other water birds were confined in heated houses. In one such house were assembled Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo, Spoonbills Platalea leuco- rodia, Grey Herons Ardea cinerea , Cattle and Little Egrets Bubulcus ibis and Egretta garzetta, Black Storks Ciconia nigra and White and Dalmatian Pelicans Pelecanus onocrotalus andP. crispus. The gulls that shared the house were of particular interest to me. Not only was there a Lesser Black-backed Lams fuscus (a long way from its wild home for so indistinctive a bird!), and its more easily explained cousin the Herring Gull L. argentatus, there were two adult Great Black¬ headed Gulls L. ichthyaetus , one in apparently full summer plumage and both 12 years old. This species I had previously seen in winter plu¬ mage in Abu Dhabi, but the memory in no way lessened the pleasure of the resplendent New Year’s Day bird. Even more exciting was to set eyes on a living Relict Gull L. relic tus (another of the so-called “hooded” gulls) with a Black-headed Gull L. ridibundus standing right next to it 172 J. BOSWALL - ALMA ATA ZOO for easy comparison. Both were in winter plumage. The bird was pointed out to me, appropriately enough, by Ernar Auezov Ernar is a truly local ornithologist, an ethnic Kazakh, a shy man with immense knowledge of Kazakh birds. It was he who in 1968 discovered the Relict Gull, a species new to science, having found a colony of them on a tiny island in Lake Alakol, a salt lake about 340 m above sea level. By now (13.00 hours) Valery Khrokov, a professional wader enthu¬ siast, had joined the party as had the Curator of Birds at the Zoo, Ikar Borodikhin. With justifiable pride Ikar showed me the Zoo’s birds of prey. An egg was expected to appear that day or the next in the “nest” of a pair of Lammergeiers Gypaetus barhatus. In 1983 the female had laid on 27th December. Since 1972 this pair has reared a total of nine young. Himalayan Griffon Vultures Gyps himalayensis numbered four, Black Vultures Aegypius monachus also four. The Zoo’s falcons included a trio of beautiful Lanners Falco biarmicus and several Sakers F. cherrug. The four Gyr Falcons (F. gyrfalco of Soviet taxonomy) had been taken by Borodikhin as ey asses from an eyrie on the Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic Ocean. Two Central Asian Peregrines (F. pelegrinoides of Soviet taxo¬ nomy) completed the quartet of handsome long-wings. Two S teller’s Sea Eagles Haliaeetus pelagicus were present and four White-tailed Eagles H. albicilla. The largest flight cage held five Imperial Aquila heliaca and eight Steppe Eagles A rapax. One of the four Golden Eagles A. chrysaetos was a bird trained for falconry (a form of aviculture, of course), by one of the Zoo’s keepers, Abilkhak Turlibaev. During his one month’s vacation in the previous (1983-4) winter, at a location about 150 km from Alma-Ata, he had flown the bird daily while himself mounted on horseback! The quarry? Red Foxes Vulpes vulpes , of which, during four weeks, his bird caught 13. Abilkhak’ s father was both shepherd and falconer - and a commercial fal¬ coner in the sense that he sold the fox skins to supplement his winter in¬ come. With the passing of the older generation this practice is dying out, though Albilkhak guesses that there may be a hundred such shepherds left in the Kazakhstan and maybe twice that number next door in the neigh¬ bouring Kirghizstan Soviet Socialist Republic. As recently as the 1950s a thousand such birds were involved in this remarkable example of com¬ mercial falconry. The record-holding eagle captured 300 foxes in one year. A few birds are flown at mountain wolves Canis lupus. Meanwhile back at the Zoo it was 15.00 hours and I was now joined by the Assistant Director of the Zoo (a lady) and by an interpreter. After looking at parrots, pheasants, cranes and ratites, we were served with coffee, biscuits and syrupy cherry jam and many of my questions were painstakingly answered. Ikar Borodikhin, who is also a student of wild J. BOSWALL - ALMA ATA ZOO 173 birds, presented me with a copy of his (1968) paperback book on the birds of Alma-Ata. A helpful chart appended to the usual systematic textual treatment of species allowed me to tot up 46 species normally present in January. Of these, I had seen, by 17.00 hours, only 10 and of these only the Laughing Dove was a “new” bird. Given more days’ resi¬ dence in the city than three, I would have gone in search of the Red- fronted Serin Serinus pusillus , the Brown Dipper Cinclus pallasii, the Brown Accentor Prunella fulvescens, the White- winged Spotted Wood¬ pecker Picoides leucop terns and others. Next time, perhaps. Next time also I would like to establish closer contact with the orni¬ thologists at the Kazakh Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Zoology where the bird work is directed by Edward Gavrilov. He has at least ten pro¬ fessional bird people working under him. Besides the three already men¬ tioned there is Anatoly Serna whom I had met at the 18th International Ornithological Congress in Moscow in 1982. To him and other workers in the bird section I presented the first three volumes of the Birds of the Western Palearctic (paid for partly by the sale in the U.K. of Soviet bird song gramophone records given to me on previous visits to Moscow), and I received in return no less than 25 volumes on Soviet, mainly Kazakh, birds. These are now in the Edward Grey Institute Library at Oxford, where some of them will be used by Michael G. Wilson (a Russian-speaking British ornithologist) in compiling certain species accounts for Volume 5 et seq. of the Birds of the Western Palearctic. It would appear that I was the first Western ornithologist to visit Alma-Ata within living memory and to contact these scientists on their home ground. With so much work going on, Alma-Ata must surely rank as one of the more active ornithological centres in the USSR? To judge from the references sections of their papers they have a better knowledge of our literature than we of theirs. At 18.00 hours each of us went our separate ways. It was the end of a freezing but enlightening day. Except that ............ In bed I flicked through the Kazakh Red Data Book they had given me. It was Volume 1 on vertebrates. It included 43 birds, starting with two pelicans, two herons, two storks, a spoonbill, an ibis and a flamingo. Threatened Steppe birds included the Demoiselle Crane Anthropoides virgo, the Great Bustard Otis tarda, the Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax and the Houbara Chlamydotis undulata. Rare All-Union endemics for which responsibility falls largely on Kazakhstan are the Sociable Plover Chettusia gregaria, the Relict Gull and Pander’s Ground Jay Podoces panderi. The endangered Kazakh bird that I would most like to see is the Ibisbill Ibidorhyncha struthersii, a strange bird of the pebbly mountain river beds that is so unusual it is in a family all its own. The 174 closest I have so far come is to see a film of the species made by a resi¬ dent of Alma-Ata, Vyacheslav Belyalov. This species was also ingrained in the memory of my interpreter-guide. She had once served a party of British birdwatchers who had not only got her to search for the Ibisbill through pretty unforgettable terrain, but had got her up before dawn three mornings in a row! Time to close the book; but I won’t be getting up before dawn! * * * NEWS AND VIEWS Two articles contained in the June 1984 issue of Ostrich cover the breeding biology of African shrikes. The Slate-coloured Boubou Lani- arius funebris and other bush shrikes are the subject of a comprehensive study, while the other is devoted to just one species, the Brubru Shrike Nilaus afer. , * * * The St. Vincent Parrot Amazona guildingii is the subject of a paper in the latest issue of Oryx (Vol. 19, No. 1). The author, Frank Lambert, spent time studying the bird in its homeland in 1982 as part of an expe¬ dition to assess its population following several natural disasters on the island. * * * A new species was recorded as nesting in Britain for the first time in 1984. Parrot Crossbills Loxia pytyopsittacus are normally rare visitors from Scandinavia but last year they bred in the eastern counties of Nor¬ folk and Suffolk. * * * White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala eggs from the Wildfowl Trust’s centres at Slimbridge and Arundel were sent to Hungary in 1984. The species has suffered a drastic decline in recent years and it is hoped that the ducks will be released in Kiskungsag National Park. Slimbridge has also sent two pairs of White- winged Wood Ducks Cairina scutulata to a captive breeding centre in Thailand. * * * NEWS AND VIEWS 175 The high altitude lakes of South America are home to several endan¬ gered species of Grebe. Most are in a precarious position but the outlook for the Hooded Grebe Podiceps gallardoi seems a little brighter following discoveries by Jon Fjeldsa. Earlier reports put the number at between 30 and 40 individuals but it is now estimated to be in the region of 3,100 adults. * * * Life member of the Avicultural Society, K.S. Dharmakumarsinhji, has been honoured by the Tourism and Wildlife Society of India. The Gover¬ nor of Rajastan, Mr. O.P. Mehra, presented on 26th February, 1984, a turban and plaque to Mr. Dhamakumarsinhji, one of India’s leading wild¬ life experts and honoured his services for conservation of wildlife in the country. Mr. ‘Sinhji is a noted authority on falcons and bustards and has been Vice Chairman of the Indian Board of Wildlife since the days of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. He is also the author of two noted books: Birds of Sawashtra and Sixty Indian Birds. {Times of India). * * * 1984 has been a splendid year for breeding at Harewood Bird Gardens in Yorkshire. Among the numerous species reared in the collections are Blacksmith Plover, Goffin’s Cockatoo, Hartlaub’s Touraco, Snowy-headed Robin Chat and Asian Glossy Starling, all of which are rarely-bred species. * * * In the past few years, mention has been made in this column of new discoveries in the bird world. Yet another has been discovered, this time on a remote coral atoll off the coast of Sudan. The species concerned has been christened Red Sea Cliff Swallow Hirundo perdita but a great deal still remains a mystery for the type specimen was found as a corpse on the atoll. A thorough search of skins at the British Museum (Natural History) failed to find the bird and it was duly given the specific name of perdita (meaning lost) which refers to the fact that the bird was either a migrant or a vagrant. Speculation now surrounds the locality where the bird will eventually be found to be resident but top of the list is the hills of Ethio¬ pia where a number of new species have been discovered in the last 15 years or so {BBC Wildlife Magazine). * * * A natural spin-off from the avicultural aspect of birds is observing them in their natural habitat. It is a pastime I enjoy for, besides learning more about birds, it is also very relaxing. Having watched birds on four contin¬ ents, I have always been happy with whatever happened to be in the local¬ ity at the time. I must admit that a record is kept of the species seen but in no way do I consider myself a ‘twitcher’. Many people are, however, and for those that are obsessive over such pastimes and resident in America 176 NEWS AND VIEWS the North American Rare Bird Alert (NARBA) telephone hookup now provides, for a fee, a service whereby ornithologists will be contacted when a rare bird they are interested in is sighted anywhere within the country. Whilst on the subject of bird-watching, Gregory S. Toffic, Curator of Birds at Dallas Zoo, Texas, has written to correct a statement made in the Avicultural Magazine (Volume 90, No. 4), in the News and Views Column, when Malcolm Ellis reported a world record for seeing the most bird species in one day. Apparently in September 1982 Ted Parker and Scott Robinson identified 331 species in a day’s birding at the Cocha Cashu Biological Station in south-eastern Peru, and a report of this accomplish¬ ment was published in the February 1983 issue of Birding, the publication of the American Birding Association. Any advances on that? * * * The Royal Australian Ornithologists Union Conservation Statement No. 1 is a 12-page booklet produced by the Union’s conservation commit¬ tee and covers the Ground Parrot Pezopus wallicus, its biology and conser¬ vation and is the result of research carried out by C.W. Meredith. Besides the text, there are excellent colour photographs and several maps. * * * Blakiston’s Fish Owl Ketupa blakistoni is the subject of an excellent feature article in the March 1985 issue of BBC Wildlife Magazine. The account, written by Dr. Mark Brazil contains valuable facts about this endangered owl but depressing facts about its status. It is pleasing, how¬ ever, to see a scientist advocate the initiation of a captive breeding pro¬ gramme using the few captive specimens in one central facility. * * * Malcolm Ellis writes about the November-December 1984 issue of Swara, the magazine of the East Africa Wildlife Society, which has the cover adorned by a beautiful coloured photograph of a Great Blue Tour- aco. Inside are more photographs, illustrating an article by Mhorag Candy, about her study of this, the largest of the touracos, until now little-studied in the wild. According to the brief biolgraphical notes about the author, a full account of her study has been published in the Journal of the East Africa Natural History Society and National Museum and currently Mhorag Candy is writing up her study of Ross’s Touraco. In the previous issue of Swara, in an article about the traditional head¬ dresses worn by Masai and Samburu youths, following their circumcision ceremony, Daniel Stiles estimated that in the period from 1980 to the end of the century, 2,400,000 small birds may be killed in Kenya and used to make these head-dresses. NEWS AND VIEWS 177 Dispensed with at the end of the youth’s healing period, some three months or so after the ceremony, each head-dress may be made from the skins of as many as 40 birds. Species used include the Superb Starling, kingfishers, orioles, the Rufous-crowned Roller, Black-headed Bush Shrike, Red and Yellow Barbet and different weavers. The dead birds of various species, mixed together, seemingly without any set patterns and all with their wings closed, are laid side-by-side, around a halo-like wooden frame. Then, as a finishing touch, some Ostrich feathers, which have been picked up on the plains, may be added to com¬ plete this bizarre head-dress. * * * A ‘regular’ in this column is the progress made by the New Zealand Wildlife Service with Chatham Island Black Robins. The latest report con¬ tains both good and bad news. In 1980 the population stood at five, the only female being christened Old Blue because of the colour of her leg band. In the intervening years the population has risen to approximately 30, but, sad to say, Old Blue is now dead. Aged 14, she was commemora¬ ted in the New Zealand Parliament, the first such honour accorded to an individual bird by any government anywhere. * * * A perfect example for the argument of keeping species pure and not culturing for abnormal forms, either by mutation or hybridisation, is high¬ lighted perfectly in horticulture. The familiar ‘African Violet’ Saintpaulia ionantha, so often propagated as a house plant in many forms, is con¬ sidered by some to be extinct in its native Tanzania. This obviously raises the point of how pure some of the cultured stock is. Horticulture is noto¬ rious for its ability to come up with new varieties of almost any plant in a very short time but are we, as aviculturists, capable of the same thought¬ lessness. Birds present more difficulties but we seem to have done a per¬ fect demolition job on the Budgerigar’s form and colour. A lot is preached about captive breeding as an aid to conservation and justifiably so, as it is an indispensable tool but I just wonder how pure species like the Splendid Parrakeet, and for that matter, other species where breeding of colour mu¬ tations is on the increase, will be in 20 years’ time in relation to their ori¬ ginal wild form and colour. Are Cockatiels and several lovebirds due to follow the Budgerigar? D.C. 178 VISIT TO CHESTNUT LODGE, COBHAM, On 1st June 1985, some 70 visiting members and guests enjoyed the generous hospitality of Miss Ruth Ezra and Mr. Raymond Sawyer at their beautiful home in Surrey. The weather was warm and sunny and Raymond escorted us around the aviaries - a continuous scattering of mealworms gave us closer views of his avian favourites. Although early in the season, the impressive breeding results at Chestnut Lodge were already enough for us to appreciate the care and expertise needed for their achievement. A superb pair of Violaceous Touracos, successfully bred last year for the first time in Britain, again had two well-grown young. Other species with young included Kookaburras, Emerald and Amethyst Starlings and Rothschild’s Grackles. Previous successes with waders had been repeated, and three species - Avocets, Black-winged Stilts and Ringed Plovers - had young. Hopes were high for Stanley, Crowned and Demoiselle Cranes, all of which had eggs. An elegant pair of Golden-breasted Ground Doves, which had successfully bred last season, were incubating. The number of interesting and unusual species to be seen included Malayan Black-crested Jays, Bhutan Long-tailed Mynahs, Long-tailed Sibias and a Timor Sparrow. Keas which had bred last year were nesting and other psittacines nesting were Dusky and Stella Lories. In the garden aviaries, Toco Toucans, a Scarlet Cock-of-the-Rock and some delightful Egyptian Plovers were much admired. On the lake a pair of Pacific Brent Geese had repeated their annual success with six goslings. Cuban Flamin¬ goes, in brilliant colour, made a wonderful contrast for the geese as they paraded on the lawn bordering the lake. A really marvellous afternoon ended with tea on the lawn, and the visitors sat for a long time chatting in the sunshine and watching the full¬ winged cranes displaying. Jeffrey Trollope On behalf of everyone present, we would like to thank Miss Ezra and Mr. Sawyer very much for working so hard to give us all such an enjoyable afternoon. It was also particularly generous of Miss Ezra to donate the proceeds (£164 including donations) to the Society’s funds. The loyal support and interest of these two Vice-Presidents is very much appreciated by all members of the Society. Hon. Secretary REVIEWS 179 BIRDS OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS By Patricia Bradley. Published by the author, Cayman Is., 1985. 245 pages. 72 colour photographs. ISBN 0903826 763. Distributed in U.K. by Law Reports Int., Trinity College, Oxford Everyone interested in birds, be they aviculturist or ornithologist, will eventually purchase a field guide to the birds of a certain geographic region. One soon realises that almost without exception these contain no photographs, but paintings. One exclusion will be reviewed here, for I was so impressed with Patricia Bradley’s Birds of the Cayman Islands that I decided to take a pen to hand and give my opinion - something that I rarely do for a book. Published by the author this year, the book consists of 245 pages. The foreword is by HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, with a preface by Dr. Oscar Owre, MaytagProfessor of Ornithology Emeritus and Professor of Biology at the University of Miami, Florida. That these two distinguished gentle¬ men would permit their names to appear in the book alone elucidates its extolled nature. Indubitably the most unique aspect of the book is the photographic portfolio of all the breeding birds of the islands. Each of the 72 colour photographs is equally superb; indeed, placing one above the other would be an almost impossible task. My favourites are of the Bananaquit Coereba flaveola, which I have watched several times in the Caribbean, and of the Cayman Island Amazon Amazona leucocephala caymanensis , for which I travelled there specifically to observe last year. Most of the photographs were taken by Yves-Jacques Rey-Millet, though 1 1 are by the author. The first 20 pages of actual text describe the islands, conservation, a list of endemic and nonbreeding birds, etc. This area contains a glossary and the topography of a bird - a pertinent point for a person unaquainted with field ornithology. The aforementioned is followed by 162 pages describing all of the birds on the Cayman Islands. Particulars are divided into several headings, des¬ cribing such details as field characters, status and habitat. This is certainly the most valuable area. The remaining pages consist of two appendices and an index. This IVi x 4% in. hardcover book is not only a must for a visitor intent on bird-watching in the Cayman Islands but is so outstanding in its con¬ tents that it deserves a place on every bookshelf. Certainly it has one on mine. 180 REVIEWS AUSTRALIAN PARROTS - A FIELD AND AVIARY STUDY By B. Hutchins and B. Lovell. Published by the Avicultural Society of Australia. 185 pages. ISBN 0959298320. Obtainable from J. Buchan, 14 Driftwood Drive, Glen Waverley, Victoria 3150, Australia, price 18.00 Australian dollars, including packing and posting by surface mail to any¬ where in the world. During the past decade several books have been published dealing with parrots endemic to Australia. The most recent work by Barry Hutchins and the late Bob Lovell, is undoubtedly the most useful to aviculturists, although ornithologists will find it equally applicable in the in-depth cover¬ age. The book sets itself apart from predecessors in more than one way. It deals with 36 species and 22 subspecies of Australian parrots, of which the authors have kept 33 and nine respectively. Of these, 25 species and seven subspecies have bred in their aviaries, making them uniquely qualified to write on their subject. Between them they have observed every psittacine discussed, save for the Paradise Parrot Psephotus pulcherrimus and a race of the Northern Rosella Platycercus venustus hilli. This treatise excludes cockatoos, Fig Parrots, Eclectus and a few other genera but their absence does not detract even a modicum, for these are either not common in aviculture or have been the subject of other books. The space that would need to be devoted to those few species has been converted to a comprehensive coverage of parrots that are better known in aviculture (save for certain cockatoos and Eclectus). This softcover book contains no colour plates; the co-authors wanted to place pertinent details in the pages that these would consume. Ergo, the 185-page work is full of very valuable details on each of the species in field and aviary. In addition, particulars on management, housing, aviaries, feeding and diseases are included. Some may consider the absence of plates a debit, but I cannot concur with such an observation. There are numerous books that contain excel¬ lent colour photographs or illustrations of the birds - and these books could be used as a reference by those unfamiliar with the appearance of Australia’s parrots. Maps are provided for every species and several subspecies. This book was launched on 17th May 1985 by Graham Shotter, direc¬ tor of the Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens, during the opening cere¬ mony of the 3rd National Avicultural Convention, in Melbourne. In the course of his address, Shotter described the book as ‘ . quite clearly a remarkable publication The above comment kept revolving in my head as I read the text, which REVIEWS 181 shrieked out the knowledge of the authors. Certainly, the last paragraph in Ron Hasting’s foreword bore testimony. He wrote the most fitting accolade: ‘This excellent book will undoubtedly become a standard reference on the parrots of Australia and I highly recommend it to all bird-lovers, whether their particular interest be aviculture - or the wider field of ornithology’. I thoroughly agree with Hastings. T.S. THE DICTIONARY OF AVICULTURE - Keeping and breeding Birds By Richard Mark Martin. Published by Batsford, London, 1983 240 pages; 93 line drawings. Price - £7.95. ISBN 0713441569 Richard Mark Martin is an experienced professional aviculturist who obviously researched a great deal when compiling this book - an alpha¬ betically arranged reference work giving details of breeding, rearing, and general care of birds in captivity - ‘pure’ aviculture, to quote the author’s own words. Although many species of birds are included, it is impossible to in¬ clude every known species, so for this reason only those known in avi¬ culture are documented. The dictionary commences with Accipitridae and ends with Zygo- dactyl and most ‘terms’ used in aviculture are to be found between these entries. General entries include: management, accommodation, diet, breeding, disease, etc., and is illustrated with the author’s own excellent line drawings. Cross referencing is used throughout which I personally found un¬ necessary, but those inexperienced in avicultural jargon - the beginner particularly - will find this useful, and glean much information from its pages. This book, however, will undoubtedly find a niche on the book¬ shelf of both the beginner and the experienced aviculturist alike. R.E.O. 182 CORRESPONDENCE Race of Amazon Parrot new to Aviculture In 1984 a previously unknown subspecies of a very well-known Amazon Parrot was introduced to aviculture. The Marajo race of the Yellow-fronted Amazon was virtually a myth, being known only from two skins. Its validity was doubted by some. In August of last year, when I was in Florida, Ramon Noegel showed me a photograph of two birds supposedly of this race, Amazona ochrocephala xantholaema. It had been given to him by a Brazilian aviculturist who had visited him a few days previously and depicted two captive birds. Never having seen skins or photographs I was in¬ trigued and obtained a photograph of the photo. A couple of weeks later a well-known British aviculturist telephoned me with the news that he had been offered birds of this race which were then on the Continent. The following month I received a letter from a well-known animal collector in the Netherlands containing absorbing news. He wrote: ‘On my recent expedition to Brazil I found a good number of xantholaema in the Paru river area. I observed several flocks, some of them containing about 25 birds, and obtained some of them. ‘This is a large bird about the size of a Double Yellow-head. Its wing measurement is 235 mm and the tail 123 mm. Weight is 530 g. It has the crown, lores and cheeks yellow and some birds also have yellow extend¬ ing to the nape and with red feathers over the yellow areas. The bend of the wing is blood-red. The bill is larger than in the Yellow-fronted Ama¬ zon. ‘They have a green band on the forehead, like the blue band of the Blue-fronted Amazon but smaller - from about Vi cm up to 1 cm (the wing speculum is red).’ The photograph from the Netherlands depicts the beak as being larger than that of the Yellow-fronted; the upper mandible is horn-col¬ oured and dark grey and the lower mandible is dark grey. The thighs are green, yellow nearest the foot. Its appearance is more reminiscent of the Blue-fronted Amazon aestiva from the photograph. Perhaps this race can be used as evidence that ochrocephala and aestiva form a superspecies. Taxonomy aside, the introduction of xantholaema into Europe is a most interesting event. There are now three birds in the UK so hopefully this race will be breeding here within the next few years. Culmhead, Somerset Rosemary Low P.S. Since writing the above, I have seen xantholaema in two collections and have been informed that this subspecies was in a private collection in Europe several years before 1984. CORRESPONDENCE 183 The Lemon-breasted Canary I read with interest the letter by Eric A. Clewlow on the Lemon¬ breasted Canary Serinus citrinipectrus in Vol. 90, No. 3, of the Avicul- tural Magazine. In Durban Museum Novitates , Vol. 6, Part 4, 1960, P.A. Clancey and W.J. Lawson state that ‘in October, 1959, Mr. C.H. ‘Jack’ Scheepers, of Bela Vista, Maputo, southern Portuguese East Africa, trapped about 40 examples of an unknown species of canary of the genus Serinus Koch during the course of a big-game collecting safari to Manguyane, near Panda, in the Inhambane district of Sul do Save. Most of the canaries remained in Mr. Scheeper’s aviaries until late August, 1960, when many of them were studied at close quarters by members of the Durban Museum staff during the course of our recent ornithological expedition to southern Portuguese East Africa. While the duty of describ¬ ing the new species to science has fallen to us, full credit for the initial discovery of the species must be given to Mr. Scheepers.’ 100 Innes Road, Neville Brickell Durban 4001, Avicultural Research Unit, South Africa Natal, South Africa. * * * Trichoglossus and Glossopsitta lorikeets wanted I intend to do a taxonomic revision of the two lorikeet genera Tri¬ choglossus and Glossopsitta. To be able to make the revision I must have access to living specimens of the birds. I am interested in all the species and subspecies of the two genera except: T.h. haematodus, T.h. mitchellii, T.h. forsteni, T.h. capistratus, T.h. moluccanus, T. euteles, T.omatus and T. (G. ) goldiei. The birds will not be killed or harmed during or after the investiga¬ tion. I am a breeder of lories and lorikeets myself so the birds will be taken good care of. All importations will be handled separately by commercial quarantines. The revision is supported by the Zoological Institution of Lund, Sweden, and has a non-commercial status with possibilities to make importations direct from Australia. I hope that Avicultural Magazine readers may help me to get the birds I need. University of Lund Department of Zoology, Helgonav. 3, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden. Bengt Larsson 184 CORRESPONDENCE A general note on rearing exotic pheasant chicks and ducklings and how their down patterns affect this The article on this subject by my old friend and colleague, Derek Goodwin (Vol. 90, 1984, No. 2, p. 112) stimulates a reply. As a breeder of a wide variety of pheasants and exotic waterfowl over many years, reared by both natural mothers and by foster-parent Bantam hens, I should like to quote a few of my own observations and exper¬ iences. The fact that the young of every species of waterfowl and pheasant has its own patterning could suggest a case for either identification or camouflage. Identification seems to be stronger by the parents when the chicks are more grown, for broods mix easily when first hatched but not when the young are over a week old. Obviously camouflage plays a part in the first few weeks of life when the chick is weak and vulnerable. Instinctive behaviour activity on hatching being acceptable to both parent and young determines the strength of the relationship more than the patterning, and vocal communication develops and strengthens the bond as the chick develops. If the chick is of a different colour, it is accepted if it conforms actively and vocally. For example, pheasant chicks, as soon as they are strong enough, need to leave the nesting site, for on dispersal they are less vulnerable to predators, and the pheasant hen follows and vocally intercommunicates with the chicks to keep the group loosely together and they can rejoin her for brooding. This is the time when most chicks are lost from wandering out of hearing range of the mother, and it is also the time when foster parent broody hens have problems brooding their foster pheasant chicks, unless they are confined to a small coop, where the chicks cannot wander far from the broody hen. After a few days, a bond is formed, or a routine is entered into that is acceptable to both foster parent and chick. Sometimes foster parents have a hard time, for on the other hand there are pea-chicks who await the every move of their foster mother and even will not feed without her encouragement, regardless of the choice of food. These two extreme cases emphasise the need for steady, reliable, proven foster hens, and I find Pekin Bantams are of the all round best. Even the most reliable little Pekin hen will not accept new alien chicks after the 4th/ 5th day from hatching, if they are not identical in shape and colour to her own, of whatever species. The young of each species has its own behaviour pattern fixed. Thus if one species of, say, du ck hatches another’s ducklings and their actions after hatching differ, then confusions arise and this weakens any prelimi¬ nary relationship, until after a few days they drift apart and the duck- CORRESPONDENCE 185 lings die without the protection and brooding of the mother duck. Some ducks lead their broods and other species follow their ducklings and keep contact by frequent vocal calls. Instinctive behaviour is a survival kit dictated by the environment in which they live and it cannot be changed. Abnormally coloured chicks would not suffer to the same extent except that they may be more visible to predators. The Muscovy duck mentioned by Derek Goodwin is an example. Although extremely tolerant, through its long association with man, it cannot adapt to the set behaviour patterns and voices of the ducklings it hatches, and although they are first-class incubators, they make very in¬ different mothers and resent being moved or confined. I have had them hatch and, for the first day or two, tolerate pea-chicks, guinea fowl chicks, Black Swan cygnets, geese, etc., and rear domestic ducks but I would never risk valuable ducklings with them unless they could be con¬ fined and controlled, and they are too casual for me. I too, as Derek Goodwin mentions, have had a Red Jungle Fowl hen hatch partridge Silkie chicks, and kill all of them with a peck on the head because of the bump where the future crest would be, although vocally, actively and in patterning they would be the same as her own chicks. An extreme case of intolerance occurred this year.A full-winged pair of Moluccan Rajah Shelduck hatched 11 ducklings which I thought was rather a lot for her to brood, for the nights were chilly at the time and this was her first brood. So I decided to remove six ducklings and give them to a reliable Pekin hen who had been sitting for two weeks on dummy eggs. I put them under her in the late afternoon and shut her up in a coop so that the inside was dark and she could hear but not see the ducklings, so enacting the hatching process. The following morning, when opened up for feeding, she had fully accepted her strange brood of heavily marked ducklings, but what was as important, they had accepted her. Since they were hatched under their natural mother and paraded round the enclosure subject to her vocal commands, this goes to prove that identification between mother and duckling in the first few days after hatching is not too strong but is much stronger when the bond has been formed after four or five days of association. I am glad to report that all 1 1 were reared safely, both made excellent parents and the ducklings were grouped together again at three to four months old. I do not recommend the mixing of broods although in the early stages it is possible, but if left too long together, there is the danger of bonds being formed, sometimes very difficult to break, and subsequent hybridi¬ sation. Hybridisation between any species can be attempted if the young are reared together. I believe in keeping the species pure and maintaining 186 AVICULTURAL MAGAZINES high standards of vigour, health and colour, and have tried to explain some of the natural forces that have evolved to ensure the survival of a species. Mitchell Park Aviaries W.D. Cummings Durban, South Africa. * * * AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE MASTER SETS When I appealed in the Avicultural Magazine (Vol. 90, 1984, No. 1) for help in obtaining a complete set of Avicultural Magazines, I could not have foreseen such a magnificent response from one of our greatest supporters. Dr. Lee Lenz wrote promptly from California, offering to donate a com¬ plete set of bound volumes, to be placed in the library held by the Avicul¬ tural Society in the Linnean Society’s Library at Burlington House, Picca¬ dilly, London. The books have now arrived and as soon as a special book¬ plate has been stuck in all of them, they will be placed in the Library where they will be available for reference by all members of the Society who have Library tickets (£2 per year, available from this office). I know I can speak on behalf of the President, Council and all members of the Society in expressing our deep gratitude to Dr. Lenz for such a valuable gift which will be appreciated and used by many of our members, both now and in the years to come. May I renew our plea for Magazines to make up the second set of Avicultural Magazines held here at Ascot, which is used continually by the Editor? The missing issues were listed in my original appeal. If anyone has bound volumes of any year that they wish to dispose of, either by sale or gift, I would be very glad to hear from them. Hon. Secretary 187 THE FOREIGN BIRD FEDERATION (BRITAIN) The Foreign Bird Federation was formed in 1984 to represent British national and area societies specialising in the keeping of foreign birds. Its aim is to involve itself in subjects of mutual concern and interest to keepers of this group of birds, and in aspects which probably no individual society could undertake alone, particularly with regard to future legislation. The response has been very good and nearly all area and national societies, including the Avicultural Society, are now affiliated to the Fed¬ eration. Its Council is elected at an Annual Delegates’ Meeting and its members are chosen to be as broadly based as possible. Two members of the Avicultural Society’s Council are currently serving on the Federation’s Council - Mr. R. Oxley (Chairman) and Mr. David Coles. In addition to putting aviculture’s case to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, the Federation is establishing a central record of birds bred in Britain. The member societies will con¬ tribute their members’ breeding returns for collation in a main register which will not only be a very interesting record, but a valuable reference when talking to the government about measures which might seek to limit the importing and keeping of foreign birds in this country. The breeding register is being collated by Mr. D. Bardgett, 216 Skipton Road, Keighley, West Yorkshire. As an aid to breeding, an ‘Exchange and Mart’ scheme has been started through which breeders can obtain mates for odd birds and this is already proving very successful. The object of the scheme is to assist private avi- culturists and owners of public collections in disposing of or obtaining odd birds to make up potential breeding pairs. It does not apply to British birds or any of the domesticated foreign species. Further details of the scheme may be obtained from Mr. B.C. Rawson, 6 Elm Grove, Old Arley, Coventry CV7 8 NT. The Council of the Foreign Bird Federation believes that the first steps towards strength through unity have been taken but only time will tell whether or not the current format is the correct one and, no doubt, indi¬ vidual aviculturists will hold different views on the matter. Any thoughts ideas or even constructive criticism are always welcome and can be put forward to any Council Member or direct to the Secretary, Mr. C. Stevens, Monks Cottage, 58 Preston Crowmarsh, Benson, Oxfordshire. Mr. Ste¬ vens will also supply copies of the constitution, mandate and general rules (a stamped, self-addressed envelope would be appreciated). The Editor does not accept responsibility for opinions expressed in articles, notes, reviews or correspondence Bird World BOX 70 / NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA 91603 ARTICLES ALREADY PUBLISHED: The MAGAZINE FOR BIRD ENTHUSIASTS Picking a Parrot Breeding Rose/las Taming Parrots Show Preparation Parasites in Birds Hand-Raising Surgical Sexing Training Birds to Perform Nutrition in Parrot Types The African Grey Grooming Parrots Color Feeding Pacheco's Disease Avian Pox The Norwich Canary A Germ-Free Aviary Softbi/ls Orange Weavers Talking Birds Squawking Birds Moult Budgie Colors Parrot Toys Traveling with Birds Indoor Aviaries Flock Disease & Immunity Color in Canaries THE CHOICE OF THOSE WHO KNOW Bird World AMERICAN AVICI LTURISTS GAZETTE i; AMO BREElSi JflREPARATldf SHOWING CHICKEN; If there are titles above that might have interested you, think of how much more there will be in future issues. □ 3 YEARS . . . $30.00 02 YEARS . . . $22.00 □ 1 YEAR . $12.00 CANADIAN & OVERSEAS PLEASE ADD $5.00 PER YEAR. FOREIGN PAYMENT MUST BE IN U.S. FUNDS IN THE FORM OF A POSTAL MONEY ORDER OR BANK DRAFT. _ _________ OR: PHONE IN YOUR SUBSCRIPTION ON VISA/MASTER CHARGE (213) 76 9-6 1 1 1 «— 1 0:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. MON.-FR I. SUBSCRIBE NOW 7°ZT NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91603 the avicultural society The Avicultural Society was founded in 1894 for the study of British and foreign birds in freedom and captivity. The Society is international in character, having members throughout the world. Membership subscription rates per annum: British Isles £10.00; Overseas -£11.00 (25 U.S. dollars). The subscription is due on 1st January of each year and those joining the Society later in the year will receive back numbers of the current volume of the AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE. The subscription rate for non-members is: British Isles and Europe £11.00; outside Europe -£12.00 (30.00 U.S. dollars). Subscriptions, changes of address, orders for back numbers, etc., should be sent to: THE HON. SECRETARY AND TREASURER, THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY, WINDSOR FOREST STUD, MILL RIDE, ASCOT, BERKSHIRE SL5 8LT. MEMBERS’ ADVERTISEMENTS (1 0 p. per word - minimum charge £3. 00) THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND welcomes new members. An Australian Society catering for all birds both in captivity and in the wild. We put out a bi-monthly magazine on all aspects of aviculture and conservation. For membership details please contact Ray Garwood, 19 Fahey’s Road, Albany Creek, 4035 Queensland. Annual subscription (Australian dollars): 16.00 surface mail, 22.00 airmail. AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE back numbers. Large stock available including early issues. Sales by post only. Price list available from the Hon. Secretary. Avicultural Society, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8LT, England. AMERICAN CAGE-BIRD MAGAZINE has been publishing monthly since 1928. It features timely and interesting articles on parrots, canaries, finches, budgerigars and cockatiels. These are written by leading breeders and bird fanciers. Monthly subscription 15.00 US dollars - Europe 21.00 dollars (money order in US dollars please) to: American Cage-Bird Magazine, 1 Glamore Court, Smithtown, New York, 11787, USA. NEW MEMBERS Dr. C. Bougerol, 50 rue Molitor, 75016 Paris, France. Ms. K.L. Bowers, 1890 Blue Heights Drive, Los Angeles, California 90069, USA. Mr. M.A. Carroll, DDS, 72 Montclair Avenue, Montclair, New Jersey 07042, USA. Mr. S.P. Cosgrove, Swellwood, Fivehead, Taunton, Somerset. Mr. R.L. Harvey, Birdworld, Holt Pound, Farnham, Surrey. Mr. I. Hertz, 331 Main Street, Mount Kisco, New York 10549, USA. Mrs. A. Houlgreave, Maryland House, Donington Road, Swineshead, Boston, Lines. Mr. C.F. Johnson, 4314 N. Winnifred, Tacoma, Washington 98407, USA. Mr. P.A. Jury, Cheriton Lodge, Lower Norton Lane, Teynham, Kent ME9 9LB. NEW MEMBERS (Contd.) Mr. D. Lester, 8 Butterfield Close, Eaglescliffe, Cleveland TS16 OEG. Mrs. C.A. McCarroll, 125 Lower Kirklington Road, Southwell, Notts. Mr. G.D. Michaud, 510 South King, Mt. Hope, Kansas, 67108, USA. Mr. E. Moore, 24 St. John’s Way, Densole, Folkestone, Kent, CT18 7DW Ms. Lyn Olson, P.O. Box 8816, Naples, Florida 33941, USA Mrs. S. J. Oven, “Brownhurst”, Magpie Hall Road, Kingsnorth, Ashford, Kent. Mr. T. Rune, Pet Haven, 667 South Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80303, USA. Mrs. D. Smythies, 134 Linaker Street, Southport, Merseyside, PR8 5DF Mr. L. Southward, 5 Longs Lane, Corfu, New York 14036, USA. Mr. K.R. Turner, 31 Touches Meadow, Chard, Somerset TA20 1PA. CHANGES OF ADDRESS Mr. S.N. Flory, to Valley House, Forward Green, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 5HS. LTC Robert W. Grant, USAFR, to P.O. Box 120036, San Antonio Texas 78212 - 9236, USA. W.O. I.A.S. Harris, to 5 Park Avenue, Rudloe, Nr. Corsham, Wilts SN13. Mr. I. Marshall, 12 West End Avenue, Old Costessey, Norwich, NR8 5BA. Mr. G.L. McCall, to Ryefield Cottage, 1 Folly Lane, Swinton, Lancs. Mr. G.F. Mees, to Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijk Historie, Raamsteeg 2, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, Holland. Mr. K.D. Newby, to 417 Monroe, East Alton, Illinois 62024, USA. Mr. Robin Restall, to 23 Randolph Avenue, London W9 1BH. Mr. Colin Wintle, to c/o Mr. R. Hall, 14 St. Olaves Close, Penton Road, Staines, Middx TW18 2LH. Ms J. Yantz, to 2708 Baynard Boulevard, Wilmington, Delaware 19802, USA. Published by The Avicultural Society, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, England SL5 8LT A3*f (3 iris 'ICULTURAL MAGAZINE VOLUME 91 Number 4 1985 CONTENTS Breeding the Lesser Vasa Parrot Coracopsis nigra at Chester Zoo by P. James (with plate) . 189 I Breeding and behaviour of Tamaulipas Crows Corvus imparatus in captivity. By Tom Webber and John William Hardy . 191 Breeding the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata at the National Aquarium in Baltimore, by Stephen H. Amos (with plates) . 199 Some rare insectivorous softbills bred in 1984, by Theo Kleeflsch . 204 m Electrified fencing for aviaries and enclosures, by R.G. & D.M. Nash . 208 Birds in Moscow Zoo and other Soviet zoos, by Jeffery Boswall (with plate) . 211 The feeding and breeding of three Southern African Serins in captivity and in the wild, by Neville Brickell (with plates) . 217 The Swee Waxbills, by Neville Brickell (with plate) . . 222 The Southern African population of the Grey Waxbill Estrilda perreini by Neville Brickell (with plate) . 225 Stray notes on the European Turtle Dove, by Philip G. Schofield . . 228 Notes on the behaviour of the Speckled Mousebird Colius striatus by Susan L. Berman . . . 23 1 A question of identity, by Tony Silva . 236 Notes for the guidance of contributors to the Avicultural Magazine . 239 Correspondence . 242 THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE welcomes original articles that have not been published elsewhere and that essentially concern the aviculture of a particular bird or group of birds, or that describe their natural history. Articles should be preferably typewritten, with double spacing, and the scientific names as well as the vernacular names of birds should be given. References cited in the text should be listed at the end of the article. Line drawings should be in Indian ink on thick paper or card; photographs which illustrate a particular point in the article will be used where possible and should be clearly captioned. ADDRESS OF EDITOR Mary Harvey, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8LT, England. 1 Female Lesser Vasa Parrot feeding young Chester Zoo Avicultural Magazine THE JOURNAL OF THE A VICULTURAL SOCIETY Vol. 91 - No. 4 - 1985 ISSN 0005-2256 All rights reserved BREEDING THE LESSER VASA PARROT Coracopsis nigra AT CHESTER ZOO By P. JAMES (Assistant Curator of Birds) As reported in the 1983 November issue of the Avicultural Magazine , Chester Zoo obtained two pairs of Lesser Vasa Parrots from Switzerland in June 1982. On completion of their quarantine period, the birds arrived in the Zoo in mid-August, to be housed in an aviary which had been specially built for them. This aviary measures 50 ft x 20 ft x 10 ft high (15.25 m x 6.10 m x 3.05 m high) , is south facing and gives the birds as much privacy as possible without actually taking them off show. Three weeks after receiving the birds in the Zoo, one was sadly lost to a stoat; steps were then taken to prevent this happening again. Although nest-boxes were present during the 1983-1984 seasons, only slight interest was shown in the boxes by our three remaining birds. The aviary was broken into overnight on the 1 1th November 1984 and one of the females was stolen never to be recovered. It was then decided to contact the supplier again and he sent us two males and one female in exchange for surplus parrots from Chester. Finally we purchased a female from a dealer in England to make our stock up to three pairs. The new birds completed their quarantine period on 4th April 1985, after which all six birds were housed together in their purpose-built aviary. No aggression has been observed in keeping these birds in a colony system. From the day they were all introduced into the aviary there has been a lot of display in the group, with the females chasing the males around and appearing to be the dominant sex. We first noticed that a female was missing in the morning on 29th July 1985, and she remained in the box all that morning. She disappeared again for the morning on 31st July. During her time out of the nest-box there 190 P. JAMES - LESSER VASA PARROT was a lot of activity in the aviary with all six birds. The first mating that we saw took place on 4th August and, from staff observations, the hen started sitting properly on 8th August. During the time that she was sitting we did not go near the nest-box but fed the birds at the other end of the aviary. When the female came out to feed there was a lot of display, chas¬ ing and feeding with the female calling continuously. On 26th August, I inspected the nest-box and observed two chicks and two unhatched eggs; the chicks appeared to be about two days old. From laying the first egg on 29th July, until the chicks were seen was 28 days; from the day when she started incubating properly, on 8th August, was only 18 days so I am not sure of the true incubation period, although I think it could be about 24 days. Of the four nest-boxes the birds were given, they chose a ‘grandfather clock’ style of box which measured 8 ft high x 1 ft 2 in deep x 1 ft 2 in wide (2.44 m x 30.10 m x 30.10 m). This was filled with peat and wood chippings on a 50/50 ratio to about 4 in (0.1 1 m) below the entrance hole. The first chick fledged on 30th September and the second on 1st October. On fledging, the young parrots resembled the adult birds, except that they had horn-coloured bills, a very pale grey ring around the eye and a pale grey tip on the tail feathers. The youngsters were fed exclusively by the female with the male showing little interest in them at all. We believe that this is the first breeding of this species in the United Kingdom. As described above, the Lesser Vasa Parrot or Black Parrot Coracopsis nigra has been bred at Chester Zoo and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to inform the Hon. Sec¬ retary. 191 BREEDING AND BEHAVIOUR OF TAMAULIPAS CROWS Corvus imparatus IN CAPTIVITY By TOM WEBBER and JOHN WILLIAM HARDY (Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA) In late January 1985 we received a letter from Mr. William D. Toone, Assistant Curator in Ornithology at the San Diego Wild Animal Park (California), stating that he wished to find a new home for the park’s six “Mexican Crows” Corvus imparatus. Our work on jays (e.g. Hardy, Webber^ and Raitt, 1981) had prompted Dr. Amadeo Rea, Curator of Birds at the San Diego Natural History Museum, to suggest to Mr. Toone that we might be interested in keeping these crows in captivity to study their behaviour. We were indeed interested and had, in fact, been making plans to study birds of the two populations of so-called Mexican Crows, both in captivity and in the wild. These two populations are isolated from each other by at least 300 km. One, the “Tamaulipas Crow”, inhabits the eastern coastal plain of Mexico from northern Tamaulipas south to Veracruz and San Luis Potosi, while the other, the “Sinaloa Crow”, inhabits the Pacific coastal plain from southern Sonora south to Nayarit. Anatomically, the two forms are vir¬ tually indistinguishable, except for possible statistical differences in the lengths of their tails (Johnston, 1961), and for this reason have usually been considered to be a single species. Davis (1958) first recognised the remarkable difference in the voices of the two forms: that of the Sinaloa Crow is a gentle falsetto ceow (Fig. le), while that of the Tamaulipas Crow is a gravelly low-pitched croak (Fig la-d), likened by many people to that of a frog. Because of this difference in their voices, Davis (ibid.) con¬ sidered the two forms to be separate species, the eastern population re¬ maining C. imparatus , and tire western population becoming C. sinaloae. Ornithologists (see for instance A.O.U., 1983) have tended to disagree with Davis’s declaration. An exception is Goodwin (1976) who treats the two forms, with some hedging, as separate species. Field students familiar with both forms are likely to be impressed by the difference in their voices, and enjoying the addition of a species to their life list, to think of them as distinct species. Since little is known about the behaviour and breeding of Mexican Crows, we eagerly accepted Mr. Toone’s offer. 192 T. WEBBER & J.W. HARDY - TAMAULIPAS CROWS History of the Captive Flock Dr. Rea informed us that US Government officials had confiscated these six crows and 13 others in 1977 at the US-Mexican border, from persons attempting to import them and claiming that they were “fruit crows” or cotingas, hence not protected! There is no record of where they were caught or how old they were at the time. The authorities turned them over to Dr. Rea, who kept them in a cage on the roof of the San Diego Natural History Museum. While they lived there one of the birds escaped through a small hole in the cage and lingered nearby where it could often be heard calling. Dr. Rea found that the escapee got at least part of its food by coming to the cage, where the birds inside passed food to it through the mesh. He also found that the escaped bird roosted in the cage at night, coming and going by the hole through which it had escaped. He recaptured it one night by closing the hole when it was inside the cage. In the early 1980’s, Dr. Rea gave the birds to the San Diego Wild Ani¬ mal Park, where they lived in a small cage out of the public’s view. Thir¬ teen of the 19 birds died between 1977 and 28th February, 1985, when the survivors came to us. Only three were of known sex when they arrived, but two of the others formed a pair and bred the same spring. Dr. George V. Kollias, of the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine, laparotomised the sixth and found it to be a female. Materials and Methods We colour-flagged the crows on both tarsi as follows: males - Blue-Blue (Bl-Bl), Green-Green (G-G), and Orange-Orange (0-0); females - White- White (W-W), Pumpkin-Pumpkin (P-P), and Yellow-Yellow (Y-Y). Our aviary was designed by and constructed for the late Dr. Franz Sauer in the 1960’s. It is 12 m long x 5 m wide x 4 m high (3914 ft x 1 614 x 1314 ft approx.) and is covered with 14 in mesh hardware cloth. It is divi¬ ded roughly in two across its width by a hardware cloth partition with a gate in it. In three upper corners of the aviary we placed shelters, each with a roof about 1 m , walls on two sides, and two perches. We placed a hardware cloth nest platform, 45 cm with a 5 cm-high parapet, in one of the shelters in the east chamber, where it was about 3.5 m (1114 ft) above the ground. Each chamber had a water basin with a water drip, and a metal box about 1 x 1 x 1 m , open on one side, for a food shelter. We left open the gate between the two chambers until the crows began to nest. The San Diego Wild Animal Park had kept the birds on a diet of coarse¬ ly chopped apples and slightly moistened high-protein dog chow.We gave them dry dog chow instead, as we had done with our captive Scrub Jays Aphelocoma coerulescens and they quickly accepted it. The crows often T. WEBBER & J.W. HARDY - TAMAULIPAS CROWS 193 wasted the apples that had been cut into quarters; they wasted less if we cut the apples into eighths or smaller pieces. For the first month after their arrival, we gave them raw peanuts in the shell but these proved to be of little interest to them, a surprise to us because peanuts were the favourite food of our captive Scrub Jays. We found that the crows preferred grapes and oranges to apples. Our captive Scrub Jays would feed only live food to their nestlings, so we expected that the crows would do likewise. We hoped to keep the parent crows from eating most of the expensive live food we provided by giving them an abundance of their other favourite foods while they were feeding young. Therefore, about midway through incubation, we began daily to provide red and white grapes and quartered oranges. In the last week before hatching we began to give the breeders live mealworms (larvae of Tenebrio beetles) and crickets. We gave the mealworms paper towels soaked in a multi-vitamin and mineral solution as a source of moisture. We offered waxworms to the crows but they would not eat them or feed them to the young. Throughout the nestling period and for about two weeks after the young left the nest, we continued to provide live food twice a day, as well as oranges, apples and grapes once a day. We then began to reduce grad¬ ually the amount of live food and to substitute for it canned dog food as a source of protein for the young. At about four weeks after fledging, all the birds’ diets consisted largely of apples and dog chow, with the occasional addition of watermelon or other fruit. Adult Vocalisations As soon as they arrived in Gainesville, the birds showed by their deep froggy voices that they are Tamaulipas Crows. The adults produce at least four major variations on their basic call. One of them (Fig. la) is apparently the same as the call that Sutton (1951) phoneticised as “ gar-lic ”. Fig. lb shows a call that is essentially the first part, or “ gar ”, of the “ gar-lic ” These two are by far the commonest calls given by the adults. Fig. 1c shows a call that can be phoneticised as “forwoo”, and Id shows a quiet, muttering call that is probably impossible to render in words. The crows tend to give the two former calls when they mob us; the latter two when they are calmer or undisturbed. We have twice heard a crow give a rattling call, similar to the rattle given by so many other corvids (Goodwin, 1976), but we have not been able to record it. When a relatively calm Tamaulipas Crow gives any of the calls shown in Fig. la-d, it extends its head forward, fluffs the feathers of its throat, and lifts the tips of its wings about 10 cm off its back. All of this is done simul¬ taneously just as the crow utters the call; its posture returns to normal at 194 T. WEBBER & J.W. HARDY - TAMAULIPAS CROWS FIG. I. Wide-band sonograms of crow sounds, a-d: four calls given by our captive adult Tamaulipas Crows, e: typical call of wild adult Sinalow Crows; f: call of a cap¬ tive juvenile Tamaulipas Crow at about six weeks old compared to g: a (rather un¬ common) wild Fish Crow call. ( See text for more about a-g.) h and i: commonly- heard calls given by wild adult Fish Crows. T. WEBBER & J.W. HARDY - TAMAULIPAS CROWS 195 the end of the call. Breeding We first saw signs of what we thought might be pair formation on 9th March, when we noticed that 0-0 and W-W spent much time perched to¬ gether in the west chamber, while the other crows stayed in the east chamber. On 10th March, we first saw either 0-0 or W-W feed and preen the other. We were not certain that this behaviour meant that these two were forming a pair; as early as 2nd March we also noticed G-G persistently following Y-Y around the aviary, preening it and feeding it, yet both were male! Preening in these two “pairs” usually started when one crow approached another with its foreparts lowered, its bill pointed down, and the feathers of its nape fluffed. The crow that it approached either retreated, ignored it, or preened it. The crows usually preened others around the eye, the base of the bill, and on the nape. We occasionally saw mutual allopreening between 0-0 and W-W. When a crow retreated from another that approached it in the head-down posture, the approaching bird often followed or pur¬ sued it. Since the crows that invited preening often, in effect, supplanted the preeners, it is hard to consider the preeners to have been “dominant”. Nest-building On 9th March we placed an armful of sticks, each about 5-10 mm in diameter and about 30 cm long, in the east chamber, because we expected that any breeding pair would build on the platform we provided there. Instead, on 13th March we found several of these sticks laid on the perch and even stuck into the mesh in the shelter in the west chamber. Appar¬ ently 0-0 and W-W were attempting to nest in that compartment, and to isolate themselves at least partially from the other crows. Therefore, on 14th March we put a nest platform, identical to the one in the east cham¬ ber, in the shelter where 0-0 and W-W had placed the sticks. By the 15th they had already piled many sticks on this new platform. Early on 16th March we provided more nest material, including fibres from the leaves of the Cabbage Palm Sabal palmetto. We thought that the crows would use the fibres in the final formation of the nest lining, as Florida Scrub Jays A. a coemlescens use the fibres of Scrub Cabbage Palm Sabal etonia. On the 17th we noted that the crows had woven the palm fibres into the foundation rather than reserving them for the cup. On 20th March we saw 0-0 adding material and forming the cup-shaped lining with typical corvid shaping movements (Goodwin, 1976). 0-0 and W-W stayed in the west chamber most of the time after they 196 T. WEBBER & J.W. HARDY - TAMAULIPAS CROWS started their nest, and the other crows stayed in the east chamber. Several times on 20th March 0-0 flew into the east chamber, where W-W followed it immediately. Once when they did so, they both landed on a ledge where they performed a mutual display in which they extended their necks, pointed their bills down, and drooped their wings with their wrists held out from their bodies. In this posture they walked slowly, about 15 cm apart, sometimes in the same general direction, sometimes just milling about near one another. This display is similar to those performed by several other species of Corvus, as summarised by Goodwin (1976). As they performed this display one of the other crows tried to approach them to within less than 30 cm; one of the displaying crows made it back away by jabbing at it with its open bill. The nest seemed to be complete by 21st March, the last day we saw a bird (0-0) add material. The foundation, of sticks and palm fibres, was about 16 cm high and about 45 cm in diameter. The inner cup, of palm fibres and a few leaves, was about 7 cm deep and about 20 cm in diameter. We then closed the gate in the partition between the two chambers, separating the breeders from the other crows. We realised that these crows might be co-operative breeders (i.e. that in nature other flock members might be allowed to feed the young), yet we were also wary that in con¬ finement, otherwise normally attentive helpers might disrupt a pair’s breeding and possibly even prey on eggs or nestlings. Dr. Scott Winter- stein, who has seen Sinaloa Crows nesting in the wild, told us that they appeared to be loosely colonial but not co-operative breeders. Therefore, we decided to give the nest builders maximum privacy and security, in the hope that we could see them carry out the first successful nesting of this species in captivity. Egg-laying Our assistant, Lisa Reinert, found the first egg on 3rd April. Previously W-W had flown from the nest whenever Ms Re inert entered the aviary, but this day W-W remained perched on the rim of the nest until she climbed up to it. Both parents were unusually tame and devoured newborn mice while she stood in the enclosure. On the morning of 4th April there was a second egg in the nest. The next day was dark and rainy and the nest was not checked. By late after¬ noon on 6th April the nest contained four eggs. Thus, it appears that the female laid one egg per day, beginning on 3rd April and ending on 6th April, though possibly beginning on 2nd April and ending on 5th April. Incubation and Hatching Although it was difficult to watch the birds, we think that the female, T. WEBBER & J.W. HARDY - TAMAULIPAS CROWS 197 W W, performed all of the incubation. On 20th April there were still four eggs in the nest. On the morning of 22nd April there were only three, with no trace of the fourth. Late on the afternoon of 22nd April, we found two hatchlings and an egg in the nest. On 25th April the third egg had still not hatched, so we removed it and prepared it as a specimen for the Florida State Museum. It proved to have been infertile. The salvaged egg’s shell (UF 13132) is pale blue, delicately streaked lengthwise with pale olive buff. It measures 23.9 mm x 32.7 mm. We found no remains of the other egg shells. The Nestlings At hatching the young were completely naked and had greyish green skin. We handled and photographed them for the first time on 28th April. Their eyes at this time were barely open and they were still completely without feathers; even the feather tracts were difficult to see. By slightly over one week of age, the nestlings were fully twice their size at hatching. On 3rd May their feather tracts were clearly visible, but the quills were merely bumps on the skin. By 6th May the birds were in full quill. On 9th May the young were fully feathered on the dorsal tract, but otherwise the sheaths had not broken. By 13 th May almost all of their feathers had emerged from their sheaths and their eyes were fully open. Their plumage was dull black, their irides dark, and their bills and legs dark dull grey. On 14th May one nestling perched on the rim of the nest. Each day from then until fledging the young spent more time perched on the rim. On 17th May we banded the two young P-G and G-P. Fledging On 20th May, when we removed a nestling to be examined and photo¬ graphed, the other jumped from the nest and fluttered to the ground. We put it back in the nest where it settled down. On the morning of 24th May we found one of the young, G-P, on the edge of the nest and the other, P-G, just a few centimetres away from the nest. Later the same day we found P-G perched on a limb 1 m (3 lA ft) below the nest. When ap¬ proached, the bird flew up to the mesh of the aviary, then hopped back onto the nest. On 26th May we found both young out of the nest; both could flutter about and even fly upward for a few metres. Yet most of the time they remained in or near the nest. On 27th May we found both on a perch 4 m (1314 ft) from the nest. They had left the nest permanently. At fledging, both young had half- grown tails. By mid-June their tails were full length, and at a distance the young were hard to tell from the adults. 198 T. WEBBER & J.W. HARDY - TAMAULIPAS CROWS After the young left the nest, they called when they begged for food from their parents and when they joined the adults in mobbing people who came near the aviary. The calls they used in these two situations sound, and appear in sonograms, remarkably like calls that we have heard in spring and summer from wild adult-sized Fish Crows Corvus ossifragus that may, however, have been young-of-the-year. We recorded the call in Fig. lg from one of a group of wild Fish Crows that alighted on the aviary to look at and call to the Tamaulipas Crows. By 10th June, though still begging from their parents, both young fed themselves most of the time. By 18th June the juveniles still occasionally begged for food but they seemed strong, full grown, and able to take care of themselves. We then opened the door between the two chambers. At first the birds acted as though they were unaware that the door was open. By 23rd June the breeders and their young began to make brief forays through the gate, but the parent birds still seemed to exclude the other adults from the west chamber. By late July all of the birds travelled throughout the aviary. At the time of writing (early November) the young birds’ voices are still distinctively different from those of the adults. Acknowledgements For advice and other assistance we are indebted to J. Cox, D. Goodwin, G. Kollias, M. Langworthy, A. Rea, L. Reinert, and W. Toone. REFERENCES AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. (1983). Check-list of North American Birds Sixth edition. DAVIS, L.I. (1958). Acoustic evidence of relationship in North American crows. Wilson Bull. 70: 151-167. GOODWIN, D. (1976). Crows of the World. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, N.Y. HARDY, J.W., WEBBER, T. and RAITT, R.J. (1981). Communal social biology of the Southern San Bias Jay. Bull. Florida State Mus., Biol. Sci : 26: 203-264. JOHNSTON, D.W. (1961). The biosystematics of American crows. University of Washington Press, Seattle. SUTTON, G.M. (1951). Mexican birds: first impressions. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla. 199 BREEDING THE YELLOW CARDINAL Gubernatrix crista ta AT THE NATIONAL AQUARIUM IN BALTIMORE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, USA By STEPHEN H. AMOS (Senior Aviculturist) Introduction Native to open woodland regions of south-eastern Brazil, Uruguay, and eastern Argentina, the Yellow (or Green) Cardinal is a species of New World seedeater which is uncommonly kept in U.S. zoos. Of the seven existing South American cardinal species, previously only the Red-crested Cardinal Paroaria coronata and the Red-capped Cardinal P. gularis have been commonly kept in captivity for avicultural purposes. Description The male’s pronounced black crest, crown and throat, lemon-yellow eyebrow and moustache streaks, and its olive-green back and olive-yellow breast and flanks make it one of the most distinctive and unusual birds of the Cardinal group. The female is similarly marked but duller, with white replacing the yellow moustache and eyebrow. Housing One adult wild-caught pair of Yellow Cardinals has been housed at the National Aquarium in Baltimore in a 5,500 cubic metre Neotropical Aviary exhibit since January 1983. Opened in 1981, the glass-covered exhibit is a pyramid, with a base measuring 25 x 25 x 35 m (82 x 82 x 114% ft) and 21 m (68% ft) high at the peak. The exhibit has been planted to represent a naturalistic stratification of Neotropical ecological zones (emergent, canopy, understory, ground, field and marsh) The 4m (13 ft) high ‘gunnite’ walls, covered with vines and epiphytes, surround the large central planted area, providing cliffs and outcroppings for additional habitat availability. Several pools, waterfalls and a 12 m (39% ft) stream are also present. Inhabitants of this exhibit include over 35 species of Neotropical wad¬ ers, waterfowl, psittacines, softbills and seedeaters, three species of turtles, four species of iguanid lizards, tropical freshwater fish and a pair of Two¬ toed Sloths. Nearly all species are free-ranging throughout the exhibit. In general, all species co-exist well, although some minor territorial disputes do occur during the nesting season. 200 S.H. AMOS - YELLOW CARDINAL Stephen Amos Tropical rainforest at National Aquarium in Baltimore j 4iitgli Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristate, immature male George Grail S.H. AMOS - YELLOW CARDINAL 201 Valerie Chase Yellow Cardinal nest Yellow Cardinal - 14 days old Valerie Chase 202 S.H. AMOS - YELLOW CARDINAL Climate varies slightly with the seasons, but generally a 24-28°C tem¬ perature range is maintained. Relative humidity runs between 60 and 70%. Photoperiod is difficult to control, due to late night openings throughout the year. Twelve to 14 hours of light are received on these weekend days, while a normal mid-Atlantic photoperiod is maintained on the remaining days. Diet Food pans are distributed to all animals in the exhibit twice daily at six feeding stations. The Yellow Cardinals feed most readily from a seed dish comprising canary, millet and sunflower seeds, dried peas and corn, but also feed from pans intended for softbilled birds containing ground fruit, egg, meat with a dry crumble base, plus multivitamins. They also feed from the live insect drop (crickets, mealworms and waxworms) which is performed at 0730 hours daily. Reproduction Limited information exists regarding this species, but, like other New World members of the family Fringillidae, Yellow Cardinals have appeared to be fairly opportunistic in their breeding habits, providing proper envir¬ onmental requirements have been met. The pair of Yellow Cardinals was introduced to the exhibit in January 1983. The first signs of nesting activity were in April of that year. Half¬ hearted attempts were made to construct a nest using tree fern bark, Ficus sp. leaves and stripped palm fronds, but the birds quickly abandoned the nest. In the following months the male continued to court the female actively and in July a second attempt at nest construction was made, again to no avail. In May 1984, a nest was found in a Cecropia sp. tree, 3 m (9% ft) above the ground, similar in materials used to those nests built the previous year. Three eggs were present. The eggs were a pale greenish-blue, heavily mottled with brown at the larger end, and less so at the small end. The nest was extremely flimsy, and had to be artificially supported with wire. Two chicks hatched on 14th May 1984, the third egg proving infertile. The parents were fierce defenders, chasing away birds several times their size which came within several meters of the nest area. By 14 days, the chicks had become extremely active, exercising growing wings and perch¬ ing at times on the edge of the nest. Becoming an easier target for other potentially predaceous species and because the nest at this point consis¬ ted primarily of only support wire, the chicks were removed to off-show quarters. The chicks weighed 23 and 28 gms, and were fed a combination of live insects and a formula nestling food. By 28 days the chicks were flying S.H. AMOS - YELLOW CARDINAL 203 strongly, and by 35 days were eating the adult diet on their own. After the chicks were removed, the parents soon began constructing a new nest 6.5 m (21% ft) up in a stand of thorny bamboo. Again, primarily tree fern bark and leaves were used, but the branching stalks of the bam¬ boo growing into the exhibit perimeter wire allowed the nest greater stabil¬ ity. Due to the location of the nest and the protection it received from the thorny bamboo, nest checks were not made. Both female and male were readily observed incubating until 28th June 1984 when both were seen carrying live insects to the nest. Using a mirror attached to a long pole and binoculars, it was determined that two chicks were present. At 10 days both chicks were found at the base of the bamboo, one in shock, the second scared but unharmed. The first expired within several hours, but the other was reared with no mishaps using similar techniques as with the first clutch. In 1985 the parents built again in the bamboo, but even higher. Two chicks from two clutches hatched on 12th June and 9th July, 1985, were reared. This brings the number of chicks reared to five in the 1984 and 1985 seasons - two males and three females. Conservation In Uruguay the Yellow Cardinal is considered to be in the Appendix III category, according to the Convention on the International Trade of En¬ dangered Species (C.I.T.E.S.). This makes importation of future specimens of this species unlikely. As no Yellow Cardinals have been reared in U.S. zoological collections between 1980 and our successes in 1984-1985 (according to the Inter¬ national Species Inventory System, or I.S.I.S.), the National Aquarium in Baltimore is initiating a co-operative breeding programme with other insti¬ tutions, including the Vancouver Aquarium, Philadelphia Zoo and the Burnet Park Zoo, which currently maintain individuals of this species. It is hoped that with the introduction of additional blood lines and our contin¬ ued breeding successes, this bird’s future in captivity can be assured. Previous notes in the Avicultural Magazine: LARRAR, Rev. CD. (1897). p. 192-3. Breeding in the Open Air at Micklefield Vicarage, 1897. (An account of Green Cardinals successfully breeding in an elder bush in garden. Mention of Dr. Butler having bred them in 1895 and others before him). MOERSCHELL, F. (1897), p. 211-212. Correspondence: Green Cardinals (success¬ fully bred in a mustard tin on mantelshelf). WIENER, Aug. F. (1897). p. 119. Correspondence: Some Brazilian Birds (Green Cardinal breeds regularly). 204 SOME RARE INSECTIVOROUS SOFTBILLS BRED IN 1984 By THEO KLEEFISCH (Bonn, W. Germany) The genus Prinia comprises 13 species which live in the tropical and subtropical regions of Africa and Asia. They are generally grouped in the subfamily Sylvinae but recent examinations by Sibley have persuaded Wolters (1983) to assign the genus Prinia to a new family, the Cisticolidae. The two subspecies of the Bar-winged Prinia Prinia familiaris live on the islands of Sumatra, Java and Bali, where they are common birds on cultiva¬ ted land, living in dense, low vegetation in the damper areas. The West Java birds breed during all months of the year while the Bar-winged Prinias of East Java only breed from January to May at the start of the rainy season. Outside the breeding season they rove about in small groups in search of insects. The Bar-winged Prinia is the size of a small warbler with a long, greyish tail ending in a broad, white-bordered band. The body is mainly grey above with some bright white spots on the wings and white on the under¬ parts. In the breeding season the male has a small grey band across the breast. The eyes are brown, the bill is black (more horn-coloured in young birds). The pair in my collection were put into an aviary measuring 2.00 x 3.5 x 2.5 m high (6V2 x 1 IV2 x 814 ft) containing some large plants in tubs. In the thick shrubs the birds soon built a globular nest out of fine fibres and two pale green eggs, flecked with brown, were laid. Only the female sat on the eggs. After a fortnight the nest was empty and only the eggshells were to be found on the ground of the aviary. Some days later, a further three eggs were laid. After an incubation period of 12-13 days, the chicks hatched but were put out of the nest within hours. A month later a new nest was built in a dead broom bush but once again the hatched chicks were put out of the nest - we could see the female carrying the chicks in her beak and beating them on a branch, like worms. However, the next breeding attempts were successful. The birds now accepted all different living insects such as small mealworms, crickets, ‘ant eggs’, and preferred the maggots of the wax-moth and spiders. Both Prinias fed their chicks well and after 13 days, two small, short-tailed Bar-winged Prinias left their nest and were soon independent from their parents. The pair made two more successful breedings producing two young birds from each. The Bar-winged Prinia showed a very interesting display though their song was unremarkable. I am sure that in the breeding season they should not be kept with more than one pair of the same species because my birds S.H. AMOS - YELLOW CARDINAL 205 Theo Kleefisch Red-faced Crombec 206 T. KLEEFISCH - RARE INSECTIVOROUS SOFTBILLS were very aggressive towards their own or closely-related species. The family Cisticolidae also contains the genus Orthotomus, whose members are found extensively through South-east Asia and its islands. The eight species prefer moist, tropical lowlands where they live hidden in the undergrowth. Two species came to my aviary: the Common or Long-tailed Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius and the Ashy Tailorbird O. ruficeps. Like the Prinia, the Tailorbirds also belong to the well-known biologist, Dr. K.L. Schuch- mann(Bonn) who placed these birds with me to attempt first breedings. Because the two species of Tailorbirds fought, they had to be kept in separate aviaries. The Common Tailorbird is one of the best- known birds in his own country although only a few people have seen him in the wild. The nine subspecies are spread from the North-west Himalayas and South¬ west China to Malaysia and Java. Different from the normal description, my male Long-tailed Tailorbird is not olive on the back but only grey and is also rufous on the cheek (like the male Ashy Tailorbird). During the breeding season he has two elongated tail feathers. The underparts are white. The female lacks the long tail feathers and is more grey-olive above. Soon this pair sewed a loop out of fibres on the underside of a broad leaf of a Hymenocallis plant, which was to be used as the basis for a further nest-cup. Two pale green eggs with large brownish spots (17 x 12 mm) were laid but unfortunately the female died so there was no result. The six subspecies of the Ashy Tailorbird live in the bush and wood¬ lands of western Burma and southern Thailand, southward to the Sunda Islands. The male bird looks similar to the Common Tailorbird but lacks the elongated tail feathers and is ashy-grey on the breast. The female is also similar but is only grey above. The male Ashy Tailorbird sewed several nesting pouches out of the large leaves of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis , or Piperaceae plants, and these were made into finished nests but unfortunately the leaves dried up very soon so that they had to be tied up with a wire. Later they built a nest in a closed nesting basked from fibres as are usually used by estrildid finches. They laid two white, brown-flecked eggs which were incubated by the female only. After 13 days one bird hatched but was abandoned after five days. In a new attempt, two chicks hatched and were brought up by the adults who preferred to feed small spiders and maggots of wax-moths. At 14 days one young Tailorbird left the nest. It looked like the female without the long tail feathers and the rufous colour on the head. While the male provided for this chick, the female started a new clutch from which one young bird was reared also. T. KLEEFISCH - RARE INSECTIVOROUS SOFTBILLS 207 The last insectivorous bird that I bred in 1984 was the Red-faced Crombec Sylvietta whytii which lives in eastern Africa from southern Ethiopia southward to Rhodesia and Mozambique. All the members of this genus are very short-tailed and have a slightly curved bill. Like the titmice, they hop through the bushes hunting small insects. They build a deep, bag-like cup nest at the end of a thin twig. In my aviary they always have great difficulty in building such a nest and although I tried to give very different nesting materials, they needed a long time to com¬ plete the nest and sometimes it was bound to fall to bits before the breeding season was over. Both sexes sat on the whitish, reddish-brown freckled eggs and after 13-14 days one chick hatched. The parents fed the little Crombec very well but after ten days the male was mating again and I had to take him out of the aviary. Four days later the chick left the nest and continued to be fed by the female for a further three weeks until I separated it. At once the young bird fed itself but did avoid coming down to the floor of the cage. At four months old it changed to adult plumage with silvery grey above and extensive rufous on the under¬ parts. These successful breedings are a great encouragement to me as I now hope to breed other rare insectivorous birds in the future, such as the Paradise Flycatcher and Wattle-eyes. REFERENCES WOLTERS, H.E. (1983). Die Vogel Europas im System der Vogel. Baden-Baden. . . . (1975-1982). Die Vogelarten der Erde. H am burg. 208 ELECTRIFIED FENCING FOR AVIARIES AND ENCLOSURES By R.G. and D.M. NASH Electrified wires and fences are frequently used to prevent domestic livestock from entering areas of crops or valuable land, and also around enclosures to prevent predators. In recent years wildfowl breeders have developed a system of electrified wires around their enclosures and pens as added protection against intruders. These systems can easily be adapted for use with aviaries where predation, or worrying by potential predators, is a problem. The equipment for running an electric wire or fence is available from farm suppliers or direct from manufacturers, as listed at the end. It con¬ sists of an energy supply, either mains or battery, an energiser which transmits pulses of current at high volts, but at low amps so that it is not dangerous to humans, galvanised wire and various insulators and fixings to suit a variety of situations. The energiser costs approximately £60-£80 and the smallest size is capable of electrifying three miles of wire. They do seem very reliable and if one calculates the loss of a few rare or expen¬ sive birds, it is perhaps worth the investment. To set up a system of electric wires or fence is quite straightforward as long as one bears in mind the basic principle behind it. The intruder has to touch the live wire and be earthed in order to get a shock. There¬ fore a sparrow perching on the live wire is unaffected, but the cat that touches the galvanised mesh of the fence and the live wire is perfectly earthed and gets a shock. The predators of wildfowl and aviary birds are many and varied and this has to be borne in mind when designing the system. An electric fence obviously offers no protection against preda¬ tory birds. When dealing with foxes, dogs and cats, the enclosure fence of an open pen must be high enough to prevent them clearing it without touching it. A 6 ft (1.83 m) fence with a short 45° overhang at the top has proved effective in London suburbs when an electric wire has been placed along the top of the overhang (see diagram). Some waterfowl breeders prefer to have a higher fence, say 8 ft (2.44 m), with an electric wire running round around it at the 6 ft mark, so that predators get a shock whilst clambering up and consequently fall back. If the fencing material itself is not a good conductor of electricity, for example plastic- coated fencing, wooden panels, etc., then the addition of galvanised earthing wires running alongside, but not touching, the live wire is necessary to make sure the intruder is still earthed, even if its feet are not R.G. and D.M. NASH - ELECTRIFIED FENCING 209 Bracket Insulator Electric wire Earthing wire Electric wire Insulator Straining wire/ Earthing wire Post 2 in mesh /N/VVVl Electric wire Vz in mesh Vz in mesh Fig. 1 - Side elevation of fencing layout 210 R.G. and D.M. NASH - ELECTRIFIED FENCING on the ground. Rats and foxes are good diggers and it is wise to dig the fence in at least 1 ft (0.31 m) below ground level unless the aviary has a concrete base. Even more effective is to bury the fence 1 ft down and then turn it 1 ft out as well. If digging-in presents a problem, it is sometimes possible to lay Vi in (0.012m) mesh 18 in (0.46 m) out along the ground, pegging it firmly every six inches (0.152 m). It is fairly obvious from observing rats and foxes, that they will try to climb into the enclosures before they expend great energy digging. When dealing with rats, mink, stoats, etc., Vi in mesh is necessary from the ground up to the point of the electric wire so that they cannot squeeze through the mesh and hence avoid the electric wire. This also prevents your own birds from putting their heads through the mesh and touching the electric wire themselves. We have found that to run an electric wire at about 9-12 in (0.23—0.305 m) off the ground close to the fence is ideal. If the Vi in mesh is turned out 3—4 in (0.076 - 0.10 m) over the electric wire (see diagram), it means that the rat has to touch the electric wire while trying to negotiate the turn-out. Above the electric wire the fence mesh can be larger, depending on your own bird size, of course, which is usually cheaper and more pleasing on the eye. Assuming your fencing is fixed to the outside of the posts, there should be no easy way in for climbing rodents. From our personal experience with an enclosure for ducks and geese, we have found that the bottom electric wire also deters cats, dogs and foxes because they tend to be inquisitive and often touch the live wire with their nose or paws and a small shock is enough to send them running. In a roofed-in aviary the problem is often that these animals scare the birds rather than actually getting into the aviary and this, of course, can lead to birds damaging themselves or dying of shock. In such cases, a little ingenuity must be used to place the electric wires in such a way as to stop them. A single or double strand could be mounted around the roof of the aviary on short posts to deter animals clambering on the roof. The system is very adaptable as the electric wire runs out from the energiser and does not have to return to it. It can also branch off from the main wire or you can run two parallel electric wires from the energiser. It is worth noting, however, that if the electric wire is touched by wet foliage or grass, there will be a leakage to earth, which will reduce the power going along the wire. Some models have a warning mechanism (visible or audible) when the wire is being earthed and it is a good idea to place the energiser where you can frequently check it, i.e. your bird-shed, garage, porch, etc. Although the initial outlay of such a system is quite high, maybe £120, we feel we owe it to the birds in our care to give them the best protection 211 possible. An electric wire system does not negate the need for secure fencing, but it does act as an effective back-up. Suppliers /Manu facturers Hotline by A.E.C. Electric Fencing Ltd., Brunei Road, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ 12 4PB. Telephone Newton Abbot 66266. Rossendale Electronic Fencers, Lumb, Rossendale, Lancashire. BB4 9NJ. Telephone Rossendale 213716. * * * BIRDS IN MOSCOW ZOO AND OTHER SOVIET ZOOS By JEFFERY BOSWALL (Bristol) On 5th November 1985 I spent a few hours at Moscow Zoo and was shown round by the Director, Vladimir V. Spitsin, and the Scientific Secretary, Natalia I. Istratova. The Zoo was created as long ago as 1864 when it was only the twentieth such establishment anywhere in the world. Today it occupies 17 hectares. In the short time I was there it was not possible to gain a comprehensive view of the Zoo’s feathered population but such facts as were obtained may be set down. I asked particularly about cranes and was shown, to my delight, nine species. It was gratifying to set eyes on a Siberian Crane Gras leucogeranus, albeit a bird with a deformed beak. There were seven Red-crowned Cranes G. japonensis (three pairs, plus one) and five White-naped Cranes G. vipio These last included a breeding pair - one bird from nature brought in as a casualty and one bird imported from Baraboo, Wisconsin - and a younger, non-breeding pair. One Sandhill Crane G. canadensis pratensis, two Common Cranes G. grus and half a dozen Demoiselles Anthropoides virgo completed the Palearctic cranes, to which have to be added two Afro-tropical species: the South African Crowned Crane Balearica regu- lomm (three birds) and the Sudan Crowned Crane B. pavonina cecilae (two birds), and an Oriental species, the Sarus Crane Grus antigone (two birds). 212 J. BOSWALL - MOSCOW ZOO Some birds at Moscow Zoo (L. Steinback) White-naped Crane Red-crowned Cranes J. BOSWALL - MOSCOW ZOO SteUer’s Sea Eagle Lammergeyer 214 J. BOSWALL - MOSCOW ZOO . . . . I HI ymm ■Sril mmWt w Mm . i , mm 5 - f®g m^mm : »« . m jj H ■ Mil® ■ • ■ Hr ■ !gw¥.KS;. ■■PM*' IlilMiIi:ill-5 s . ,|®1S X - fcS 1 : ■■■ i s* ^ wPSWP : liSiiiiSiiiiiiiiSiiliii^ IplillllllilW nMilii ■ . . BW Alexie Mackayev An 80-year old falconer with Golden Eagle in Kirghizstan, USSR, in about 1978. In one season the eagle would capture about 50 foxes. Unfortunately this very rare photograph arrived too late to accompany Jeffery Boswall’s article, ‘New Year’s Day at Alma-Ata Zoo’, in the last issue of the Magazine (Vol. 91, No. 3, p. 171 ) but as it is of such unusual interest, it has been included here and readers are referred to that article for a more detailed description of this form of falconry. J. BOSWALL - MOSCOW ZOO 215 It was also a pleasure to see four White Storks of the black-billed east¬ ern form Ciconia ciconia boyciana. There was one pair and two ‘spare’ males. I was taken to the incubator room, a very clean, neat and tidy place. There, in 1985, 603 eggs of 71 species had been hatched including those of waterfowl, pheasants and birds of prey. To give just one example at ran¬ dom: two eggs of the Tawny Eagle Aquila rapax orientalis were success¬ fully hatched. Two years earlier nine eggs of Ross’s Gull Rhodostethia rosea, taken from nests in the wild (presumably in north-eastern Siberia) had been incubated. Of the nine, only seven hatched out, and of these seven young ones, five died of aspergillosis within a year. A further bird died at two years and three months old, but one surviving Ross’s Gull was there to be admired. Of course, many birds are allowed to keep and to hatch out their own eggs in the Zoo grounds, particularly species of waterfowl. One of the problems these birds face is the depredations of their eggs and young ones by Hooded Crows Corvus corone comix. Not only are these crows a nuisance to other birds in this way, they also steal food. The crows even empty the litter bins in their search for titbits. In consequence, between three and four thousand crows are trapped and killed every year by the Zoo authorities and their bodies are fed to appropriate Zoo residents. Feral pigeons Columba livia and House Sparrows Passer domesticus are also fellow-travellers, but apparently no action is taken against them. Among the larger birds of prey the pair of Steller’s Sea Eagles Haliae- etus pelagicus was particularly impressive. The couple were housed along¬ side five Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos, a breeding pair of Lammer- geyers Gypaetus barbatus , a breeding pair of Himalayan Griffons Gyps himalayensis, and two Bald Eagles Haliaeetus leucocephalus. I was told that the Zoo’s total bird population was over 2,000 indi¬ viduals, of over 300 species, and was handed a booklet giving the results of an earlier census taken on 1st January 1983. An analysis of this list gives 2,058 individuals of 289 races of 268 species (Anon. 1984). Else¬ where (Spitsin, 1984) the figures given are 1,672 individuals of 312 species. On the day of my visit, darkness had fallen before I could see all the birds of prey so I turned at once to the pages of the booklet that would tell me what I might have missed. Among the larger species, the Zoo held (on that date, at least) seven White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albieilla, a pair of Old World Black Vultures Aegypius monachus and six Imperial Eagles Aquila heliaca. By turning to another book (Spitsin, 1984) the Soviet equivalent of the International Zoo Yearbook, it was possible to determine the num- 216 J. BOSWALL - MOSCOW ZOO bers and distribution of rare birds among 37 Soviet zoos. Apparently all these establishments had also undertaken censuses on 1st January 1983. By a coincidence, the number of species listed as ‘rare’ is also 37. Five of the species are cranes. No less than 13 Siberian Cranes, nine males and four females, are listed for the Oka State Nature Reserve. Only Moscow Zoo held Eastern White Storks (two males and two females on that date), but 14 zoos held 28 Black Storks Ciconia nigra. Other rare species include two pelicans, a flamingo, eight Anatiform birds, five pheasants, two parrots and a dozen Falconiform birds. To give now some example num- ners of rare raptors: on 1st January 1983, 90 Tawny Eagles were held in 27 zoos, 46 Imperial Eagles in 23 zoos, 44 Golden Eagles in 21 zoos, 41 White-tailed Eagles in 16 zoos, 18 Lammergeyers in 10 zoos, five Steller’s Sea Eagles in three zoos, three Short-toed Eagles Circaetus gallicus in two zoos, three Bald Eagles in two zoos and three Pallas’s Sea Eagles Haliaeetus leucoryphus in two zoos. It is clear from another section of the book that of these rare raptors only three species were bred in captivity in Soviet zoos in 1982: the White¬ tailed Eagle (one zoo), the Lammergeyer (two zoos) and the Tawny Eagle (one zoo). In conclusion it is worth mentioning that 79 bird species are listed in the second (1984) edition of the Red Data Book of the USSR (Borodin, 1984). REFERENCES ANON (1984). Informatsionnyi material of rabote Moskovskogo zooparka v 1982g. (Information on the work of the Moscow Zoo in 1982). Moscow. BORODIN, A.M. (Ed.). (1984). Krasnaya kniga SSSR. (Red Data Book of the USSR). 1. Revised and enlarged edition. Moscow: ‘Lesnaya promyshlennost’ SPITSIN, V.V. (1984). Informatsionnyi material zoologicheskikh parkov SSSR. (Information on the zoos of the USSR). Moscow. 217 THE FEEDING AND BREEDING OF THREE SOUTHERN AFRICAN SERINS IN CAPTIVITY AND IN THE WILD By NEVILLE BRICKELL (Avicultural Research Unit, Republic of South Africa) After first reading C.J. Skead’s book in 1960, The Canaries, Seedeaters and Buntings of Southern Africa , I decided that in the years to follow I would try to fill some of the gaps listed as 4No Data’ in his work. Milewski (1978) also seemed to have had a similar idea as his efforts and patience have paid off with his survey on the feeding habits of serins in the south-western Cape Province, South Africa. As seeds play the major part in the eating habits of the so-called can¬ aries, it is important that the correct mixtures are available in the aviary at all times. Pre-packed seed usually contains four parts yellow manna, one part red manna, two parts canary and one part white millet. The more ex¬ perienced aviculturists tend to make up their own mixtures. This must be supplemented with soft, green achenes which are the small seeds of Com¬ posite flowers, such as Senecio and Ursinia. The so-called seedeaters, in fact, eat much less seed than might be supposed and feed on wild berries and fruit as it comes into season. As a substitute, grated apple, sliced orange, half-peeled grape, pear, guava, banana and fig can be given. Fresh washed greenfood should be supplied regularly as it provides the vitamins and minerals needed to complete a good staple diet, and limited quantities should be given at a time, with the stale greens being removed daily. The dark greens such as watercress, spinach, carrot tops, thistle and chick- weed have a high vitamin content. It is not easy to provide a regular varied supply from the local pet store. The termite has had to become the major feeding item in many parts of Africa. Winged termites can be caught as they emerge from the ground just before a rain storm is due. These can be stored in a container in the refrigerator for many months. Mound ter¬ mites are the most popular and these great earth castles are broken up and kept in potato sacks which will give a supply of ants for at least a month. All the serins swallow small coarse sand known as grit to assist in the diges¬ tion of seeds which is evident in the faeces. In the aviary, crushed oyster shell or cuttlefish ‘bone’ will act as a valuable adjunct to grit. Water has been left until last but it is no less important to food. Newly-acquired birds will prefer rain water to that from a reservoir but will soon accept the latter in a few days. The White-throated Canary Serinus albogularis is also known as the White-throated Seedeater. In the wild it has been observed feeding at the 218 NEVILLE BRICKELL - SOUTHERN AFRICAN SERINS seedheads of aloes, buds of euphorbias and achenes of Composite flowers. Milewski (1978) recorded that small seeds were also important in their diet, in addition to the larger seed types and a wide range of soft plant parts as well as taking kernels and large seed. Percentage figures of food genera revealed: 11% Polycarena, 6% Zygophyllum, Erodium, Acacia, Olea, 4% KLeinia, Othonna, Euryops, Chrysan th emoides, 2% Emex, Microloma, Relhania, Sonchus, Protea (possibly partly insects), Stoebe, Eriocephalus, 1 3% Salsola, 8% Raphanus, 10% Chenopodium ; additionally the succulent leaf-pulp from Asteraccae and Mesembryanthemaceae . In the aviary, they have been recorded feeding on the unripe seedheads of the Blackjack Bideris pilosa and wild Sunflower Helianthus annuus and ripe seeds of Pepperweed Lepidium africanum , Klein Geelbossie Senecio polyanthemoides, Smeltersbossie Flaveria biden- tis and Khaki Weed Alternanthera pungens. Ripe and green seeds of Guinea Grass Panicum maximum. Blue Panic Panicum laevigatum, Garden Setaria Setaria pallide fusca , Hay Chloris virgata, Natal Redtop Rhynchely- trum repens, Thatchgrass Hyparrhenia hirta. Giant Paspalum Paspalum urvillei, Ostrich Grass Erigeron canadensis and Broad-leaved Panic Panicum deustrum. Petals are eaten from Dwarf Marigold Schkuhria pinnata, Red Salvia Salvia africana and the fruit of Oestrum Cestrum laevigatum (Black Inkberry), African Mulberry Moms mesozygia and Wild Plum Harpe- phyllum caffrum (Kaffir apple). The Bully Canary Serinus sulphur atus is more commonly known out¬ side Africa as the Sulphury Seedeater or Brimstone Canary. It takes seeds on growing plants including those of pine cones and wild mustard. It has been recorded feeding on the green or dry seeds of the Candelabra Tree Euphorbia ingens, Red Salvia Salvia africana and Blue Lupin Lupinus angustifolius. The fruit and seeds of wild Grenadilla Passiflora edvlis, wild Fig Ficus burtt-davyi, Cat-thorn Scutia myrtina and pulpy berries of the Australian Privet Ligustmm sp. and African Mulberry Moms mesozygia. Milewski (1978) records the Bully as frequently feeding on relatively large seed types, chiefly seed kernels in developing fleshy fruit. The per¬ centage figures of food genera were: 6% Diospyros, 8 % Pelargonium, 2% Pinus, Cassytha, 1% Cononeaster, Psoralea, Stellaria, Eriocephalus, 5% Raphanus, Chrysanthemoides, 43% Olea, 3% Chenopodium and 3% unid¬ entified. Aviary birds will readily accept the seeds of the Paw Paw Carica papaya but usually discard the fruit, also the seeds of plants and of grasses listed for the White-throated Seedeater in addition to Swaziland grass Digitaria horizois, Canary Creeper Senecio tamoides and Parrot Leaf Al¬ ternanthera ficoidea . My thirty-year survey has revealed that the Bully will accept the following fruits: Nana-berry Rhus dentata, African Cran¬ berry Vaccinium exul. Common Forest Grape Rhoicissus tomentosa. NEVILLE BRICKELL - SOUTHERN AFRICAN SERINS 219 White-breasted Canary Serinus albogularis Bully Canary S. sulphuratus Yellow Canary S. flaviventris 220 NEVILLE BRICKELL - SOUTHERN AFRICAN SERINS Giant Raisin Grewia h exam i ta , Mallow Raisin Grewia villosa, Tree Straw¬ berry Cephalanthus natalensis, Strawberry Guava Psidium cattleianum, White-berry Bush Securinega virosa, Waterberry Syzgiurn guineense, Climbing Raisin Grewia caffra, Black Monkey Orange Strychnos mada- gascariensis , Bird Plum Berchemia discolor , Bastard Forest Grape Rhoi- cissus rhomboidea and Sand Jackal-berry Diospyros batocana. The Yellow Canary Serinus flaviventris is also known as the St. Helena Seedeater, Yellow Seedeater and Yellow-bellied Seedeater. Relatively small seeds (achenes, graminoid seed and other small seeds) form the major part of the diet. The percentage figures of food genera has revealed: 50% Chenopdium , 6% Arctotheca, 2% Bidens, Dorotheanthus, Stoebe, 3% Eriocephalus, Senecio, Giidia, 1% Elytropappus, Melianthus, Cliff- ortia, Rumex, Discia, Cannomois, 10% Erica and 9% unidentified (Milew- ski, 1978). All three species feed live food to nestlings in small quantities, namely mealworms, termites, aphids, small earthworms and ants’ eggs and pupae. The Bully has been recorded on two occasions feeding small maggots to nestlings and once small slugs when no other live food was available in the aviary. The White-throated Canary constructs a loosely made, shallow cup of stems and rootlets lined with vegetable down, placed 1-3 m up in the fork of a bush. It breeds from August to April and three or four, sometimes two, eggs are laid. The eggs are white, pale greenish, bluish or pinkish cream, usually immaculate but occasionally spotted and scrolled with purple, brown and black at the large end. Egg measurements average (50) 19.8 x 14.6 (17.2 - 22.1 x 13.5 - 16.6). Both sexes incubate. The incuba¬ tion and nestling periods are not recorded for the wild, but in aviary birds incubation is recorded as 13 days (1), nestling period 17 days (1). The Bully Canary builds an open shallow cup which may be strong and compact or untidy and loosely constructed. The lining may consist of soft fine grass fibres, woolly down, string, rags or pappi of Composite plants. The nest may be situated in the fork of a low bush, in a bunch of bananas or in tall euphorbias. Breeds from July to November in the Cape Province, South Africa, and with records for all months, except April, in Zimbabwe. Two to four eggs are laid. They are white, pale green or blue, spotted and streaked with purple, brown and black. Egg measurements average (28) 19.5 x 14.2 (17.8 - 20.8 x 13.4 - 14.8). Incubation is by the female, and lasts 12& - 17 days (4); the nestling period is 15-21 days (2). The Yellow Canary constructs an open shallow cup consisting of grass stems, rootlets, tendrils and soft weeds which may be neat and compact but is sometimes ragged and rather loose. The lining is of fine grass and other soft materials. Nests are built in a low bush or small tree 30 cm to NEVILLE BRICKELL - SOUTHERN AFRICAN SERINS 221 3m up from the ground. There are records of nests on the ground. The breeding season is from December to March in the Transvaal, July to Octo¬ ber in the Cape Province, South Africa, and August to January in South West Africa (Namibia). Three to four eggs are laid which are usually white, sometimes pale green or blue, plain or sparsely spotted and lined with purple, brown and black. Egg measurements average (80) 18,0 x 13.2 (16.1 - 20.6 x 12.5 - 14.6). Incubation is by the female and lasts for 12-14 days (2); the nestling period has been recorded as 14 days in the wild, 15-19 days (2) in aviary birds. To encourage all three species to breed, branches can be fixed to the battens of the aviary in the hope that the birds will construct their own nests. Nesting receptacles such as the wicker canary cup and half-open nest-boxes should also be available. Nest lining material in the form of coconut fibre, soft grassheads, moss, cow or horse tail hair, wool, cat fur, feathers, string, fragments of cloth and partly dried weeds will be adequate. REFERENCES BRICKELL, N.I. (Ed.) Diets of Southern African finches and other seed-eating birds in captivity. Misc. Data Natal Avicult. Soc. Vol. 1,4: 22-23. McLEAN, G.L. (1984). Roberts Birds of Southern Africa. John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. MILEWSKI, A.V. (1978). Diet of Serinus species in the south-western Cape, with special reference to the Protea Seedeater. Ostrich , Vol. 49, 4: 174-184. SKEAD, C.J. (Ed.) (1960). The Canaries, Seedeaters and Buntings of Southern Africa Published for the Trustees, The South African Bird Book Fund. Distributed by C.N.A. SHORE BAILY, W. (1914). Sulphury Seed-eater Serinus sulphuratus. Avicultural Magazine, No. 2, p. 5 . . . . . . (1926). St. Helena Seed-eater Serinus flaviventris. Avicultural Magazine, No. 4, P. 4. SMITH, C.A. (1966). Common Names of South African Plants. Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Pretoria. TREE, A.J. (1970). A Brimstone Canary found hanging from a Wild Grenadilla Creeper. Ostrich. Vol. 41, No. 3, p. 220. WINTERBOTTOM, J.M. (1971). Priest’s Eggs of Southern African Birds. Winchester Press, Johannesburg. 222 THE SWEE WAXBILLS By NEVILLE BRICKELL (Avicultural Research Unit, South Africa) The Black-faced Swee Estrilda melanotis is more commonly known outside Africa as the Dufresne’s Waxbill. A common species, usually found in pairs or small family parties. They are generally very quiet and therefore easily overlooked, unless disturbed when the alarm call, an explosive tzwee is heard. It frequents low undergrowth on the edges of evergreen forest where it spends a lot of the time feeding on seeding grassheads. The male of the nominate race has the forehead, crown, nape and upper mantle grey; lores, ear-coverts, sides of face, chin and upper throat black; mantle and wing-coverts olivaceous green; rump and upper tail- coverts red; tail blackish; lower throat, breast and flanks pale grey; belly and under tail-coverts grey, washed with pale yellow; eye red; bill, upper mandible black, lower red; legs and feet blackish. The female lacks the black face being pale grey instead. Young birds resemble the female but the rump and upper tail-coverts are dull rusty orange; bill blackish. E.m. bocagei differs in being more distinctly barred on the mantle, scapulars and wing-coverts; belly and under tail-coverts are lemon yellow. The East African Swee or Yellow-bellied Waxbill are the common names reserved for three races from East Africa. E.m. quartinia has no sexual dimorphism. Forehead, crown, nape and sides of face grey; chin and throat pale grey; rump and upper tail-coverts scarlet; underparts greenish yellow, deeper on centre of belly. E.m. kilimensis differs from the proceeding race in being slightly more olivaceous on the mantle. E.m. stuartwini is similar to E.m. kilimensis but crown, nape and hindneck are markedly paler and more bluish grey; mantle and wing-coverts pale green rather than olive-brown; rump and upper tail-coverts less crimson; flanks less dusky. The names Neisna dufresneyi ny ansae Neumann, 1905, and Neisna minima Ogilvie-Grant, 1906, are synonyms of E.m. kilimensis (Clancey, 1969). E.m. melanotis occurs in the South African provinces of the south¬ western Cape, Natal, eastern Orange Free State and Transvaal; also Leso¬ tho, Swaziland, Mozambique (Lebombo Range) and south-eastern Zim¬ babwe (Zimbabwe Ruins). E.m. bocagei in northern Namibia. Extra- limitally in Angola. E. m. quartinia is from the highlands of Eritrea, Ethio¬ pia, and south-eastern Sudan. E.m. kilimensis is from northern Tanzania (Pare Mts), highlands of Kenya, Uganda and eastern Zaire. E.m. stuartir- wini is found in the eastern highlands of Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, NEVILLE BRICKELL - SOUTHERN AFRICAN SERINS 223 Neville Brickell Male Black-faced Swee Waxbill eastern Zambia and the southern highlands of Tanzania. This species feeds largely on grass seeds, including Natal Red Top Rhyn- chelytrum repens , Blue Finger Grass Digitaria stentiana and Guinea Grass Panicum maximum , also Thistle seeds ( Compositae ), unripe seeds of the Black jack Bidens pilosa and probably seeds of other plants. It feeds on small insects which are captured among the undergrowth, hawked in the 224 NEVILLE BRICKELL - SOUTHERN AFRICAN SERINS air, or eaten on the ground. In captivity it has been recorded feeding on small earthworms, moths, spiders, aphids, thrips, mealworms, ants’ eggs and pupae and mound termites while feeding young. Greenfood in the form of chickweed, watercress, lettuce or sprouted seed must be given at least once a fortnight. Softfood can be supplied in the form of the pro¬ prietary breakfast cereal ‘Pro Nutro’, hard-boiled egg, wholewheat bread or moistened dog biscuits. In its natural state it constructs a rather flimsy, pear-shaped nest of dry grass with the entrance hole at one point, and thickly lined with grass seedheads and feathers. The nest may be sited in the fork of a tree or shrub, often in a conspicuous location in the garden around houses. E.m. melanotis breeds from November to March but is also recorded in June and July. In the aviary it will readily accept the standard finch type nesting-boxes or utilise any old vacant nest of weavers. The egg colour is pure white and the measurements are average (50) 13.9 x 10.5 (12.8 - 14.6 x 9.8 - 11.1) mm for E.m. melanotis. A clutch may consist of four to ten eggs, the large numbers probably being due to two females laying in the same nest. Aviary clutches average four to seven eggs (six pairs). The nesting success of six nests was four to five fledgings per nest. Addled or infertile eggs were left in the nest until the fledglings had ventured out for the first time. Priest (1971) gives incubation as 11-16 days in the wild. Aviary birds average 12-13 days (six pairs). Both sexes incubate. The nesting period is for 19-22 days (six pairs). Both adults feed the young. The young return to the nest for the first few nights and are independent at 15-19 days (12 birds). The Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura has been recorded parasitising E.m. melanotis in the Cape Province, South Africa. REFERENCES BRICKELL, N. (1982). Diets of Southern African finches and other seed-eating birds in captivity. Misc. Data Natal Avicult. Soc. Vol 1, no. 4, p.9. CLANCEY, P.A. (1969). East African Swee Estrilda quartinia stuartirwini. Durban Mus. Novit. Vol. 8, no. 15, p. 272. GOODWIN, D. (1982). Estrildid Finches of the World. British Museum (Natural History). Oxford University Press, England. MARTIN, R. (1983). Pintail Whydah parasitising Swee Waxbill. Bokmakierie, Vol.35 No. 2, p. 43. MacLEAN, G.L. (1984). Roberts' Birds of Southern Africa. Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. REDSTALL, F.A. (1969). Dufresne’s Waxbill. Foreign Birds, No. 35, pp. 162-9. ROBINSON, E. (1934). Dufresne’s Waxbill Estrilda melanotis. Avicultural Magazine, No. 4, p. 12. WINTERBOTTOM, J.M. (1971). Priest's Eggs of Southern African Birds. Winchester Press, Johannesburg. 225 THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN POPULATION OF THE GREY WAXBILL Estrilda perreini By NEVILLE BRICKELL (Avicultural Research Unit, South Africa) This bird is also known as Perrein’s Waxbill, Black-tailed Grey Waxbill, Black-tailed Lavender and Vinegar-tail. It is a shy species which darts into the nearest thicket when disturbed while uttering a thin, slightly explosive pseeu, pseeu ; it is usually found singly, in pairs or in a small family group and is extremely active when seeking food both on the ground and among the foliage of bushes and creepers. The sexes are alike. The identification of the nominate race has been described by a num¬ ber of researchers and therefore further comment is not necessary. Clancey (1974) states that E.p. perreini is darker above than E.p. torrida and still darker than the darkest specimens of E.p. incana, and the rump and upper tail-coverts are still darker carmine than in the latter. Adults occasionally have white spots, or white spots on carmine feathers on flanks. E.p. incana is to be found in the coastal regions and lower midlands of Natal, Zulu- land, eastern Transvaal, provinces of South Africa as well as Swaziland, Sul do Save district of Mozambique and eastern Zimbabwe. E.p. torrida in the Sofala district of southern Mozambique, extending to the littoral of northern Mozambique and in the south of Malawi along the Shire River. The species inhabits dune forest, riparian thickets and open woodland. It feeds by perching on or clinging to seeding grassheads, using the feet to hold down the food. Besides grass seed which seems to be the major food source recorded for the wild, Little (1963) observed the birds taking the seeds of Casuarina, an exotic belonging to the beefwood family and eating at blossoms of Marula Scterocarya caffra. In the aviary it has been obser¬ ved feeding on Goose grass Elusine indica, Catstail Dropseed Sporobolus pyramidalis, Giant Paspalum Paspalum urvillei , Natal Redtop Rhynchely- trum repens and Garden Setaria Setaria pallide-fusca . Besides the various kinds of commercial seeds, they must be supplied with live food regularly when breeding, namely ant pupae, spiders, aphids, small or cut-up meal¬ worms and mound termites. They are partial to nectar which can be prepared by mixing caramel and brown sugar to form a syrup which can be placed in a canary tube feeder and fixed to a branch. They have been noted feeding on the very small ants which are attracted to the syrup. Breeding takes place from October to March in Natal; there is also a record for December from Zululand. In the courtship display the male picks up a long grass stem in its bill and hops around the female singing 226 NEVILLE BRICKELL - GREY WAXBILL and, at the same time, moving the grass from side to side. Copulation does not occur immediately after the ceremony, but during allo-preening when the female crouches and performs a rapid vibrating tail movement. Nests are placed 3-5 m from the ground in a tree, bush or bamboo stand. The roughly constructed, retort-shaped nest is composed of dried grasses and seedheads and lined with fine grasses and feathers. A short entrance tun¬ nel protrudes from the top of the nest. In southern Africa it has been recorded utilising and relining the nests of waxbills and weavers, for example, the Forest Weaver Symplectes bicolor. In captivity I found they always adopted and relined old nests of Blue Waxbills, namely Blue¬ breasted Waxbill Uraeginthus angolensis, Red-cheeked Cordon-bleu U. bengalus and Blue-capped Waxbill U. cyanocephala. Little interest was NEVILLE BRICKELL- GREY WAXBILL 227 shown in a wide variety of nest-boxes and wicker-type globular baskets which I purchased from my local pet store. I did find that the old grass nests of the Thick-billed Weaver Amhlyospiza albifrons, Spotted-backed Weaver Ploceus cucullatus, Yellow Weaver P. subaureus and Masked Weaver P velatus were used for roosting only. Four to eight white eggs were laid. The average measurements for 30 eggs recorded in the wild were 14.6 x 11.4 (13.7 - 15.4 x 10.5 - 11.5). Both sexes incubated for 12 days with the young fledging at 19-21 days. Immature birds returned to roost each night for a further 6-8 days in the breeding nest. The nest¬ ing success of six nests was four to five fledglings per nest. Young birds lack the black line through the eye and have duller red over the rump and upper tail-coverts. REFERENCES BRICKELL, N.I. (1982). Nestling and Incubation Data for the Birds of South Africa. Miscellaneous data on the keeping of cage and aviary birds. Vol. 1, No. 3, July. Natal Avicu Rural Society. CLANCEY, P.A. (1974). On the validity of Habropyga poliogastra Reichenow, 18. Durban Museum Novit, Vol. 10, pt. 7, pp. 107-108. LITTLE, Miss J. (1963). Bird Diet. Witwatersrand Bird Club News Sheet, No. 43. MacLEAN, G.L. (1984) Roberts Birds of Southern Africa. John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. 228 STRAY NOTES ON THE EUROPEAN TURTLE DOVE By PHILIP G. SCHOFIELD (Dorchester, Dorset) Since seeing my first wild Turtle Doves Streptopelia turtur on a Suffolk heath in my childhood, the species has been a favourite of mine. A locally common breeding bird where conditions are suitable, its purring note can be heard continuously from May to August in favoured areas, never grating on the ear as can the trisyllabic hooting of the ubiquitous Collared Dove S. decaocto. The Turtle Doves of my teens were relatively abundant on the heathland to the east of my native Ipswich, nesting in scattered hawthorns on the local golf courses, and feeding on the adjacent farmland. Every nest I found was in a hawthorn, between five and eight feet (1.5 - 2.5 m) from the ground. Young Turtle Doves, like most Passerine species but in contrast to the domestic pigeon, have an unfortunate tendency to vacate the nest prema¬ turely if disturbed. This must have happened to a somewhat bedraggled youngster brought to me with a smashed wing in early June, 1971, having been found with no visible means of support. I hand-reared this bird on soaked British Finch mixture with a little soaked wheat, and it became quite tame while caged indoors. Unfortunately the broken wing failed to knit, and the damaged portion ultimately fell off, leaving an effectively pinioned bird. This being so, (it was and is a hen) she could not be returned to the wild, and is, in fact, still with me in robust health. The following year I was able to obtain an aviary-bred male, and until his death last year the pair reared many young. Their first few seasons were unsuccessful until I realised that it is the male that selects the nest site, ‘nest-calling’ (crouching and cooing with twitching wing tips) until the hen joins him there. This behaviour is interrupted by spells of the cock ‘driving’ his mate, often pecking at her head and neck; such pursuit stops when the female is actually on the nest. Only then does nest construction begin. The hen remains at the nest site while her mate collects short lengths of twig and presents them to her; she then arranges them to her satisfaction. The secret of breeding from my flightless female Turtle Dove lay in arranging a sufficiently seductive nest site to attract the male, near enough to the ground for the female to reach it without difficulty. European Turtle Doves are easily sexed, the cock having a naked reddish purple eye-ring which is lacking in the hen. This feature is already evident when the young are still in juvenile plumage. Adult feather is assumed in the spring of the year following that in which the bird was hatched. Adult PHILIP G. SCHOFIELD - EUROPEAN TURTLE DOVE 229 birds also become appreciably brighter at this season, apparently by the same process of feather abrasion that brings the male Brambling Fringilla montifringilla into summer plumage. Although two nests appear to be usual in the wild, my captive Turtle Doves have managed to rear three broods in a season. Even in a small aviary some 6 ft2 (1.83 m sq), I found that young of successive broods could safely remain with the parents until the following spring when they had to be removed. I once lost a beautiful yearling hen by failing to re¬ move her from the breeding aviary when the old male showed signs of resenting her continued presence in spring. Presumably it is the assumption of adult plumage that makes the difference between acceptance and aggres¬ sion. I found the closely related Senegal, Palm or Laughing Dove S. sene- galensis far less tolerant, young birds having to be removed from the parents for their own safety as soon as they could feed themselves. The two young in a nest are not necessarily the traditional ‘pigeon pair’ of opposite sexes. Four young reared in two rounds in 1981 all laid eggs the following spring. My Turtle Doves have proved very amiable with other species, although they will not agree with other Streptopelia species. I have seen them kept under very crowded conditions with the domestic Barbary Dove S. ‘ risoria ’ but only the latter bred, and not very successfully, under such conditions. Turtles in my aviaries have lived peacefully with both Indian Green-winged Chalcophaps indica and Stock Doves Columha oenas, these distantly rela¬ ted birds ignoring each other’s existence most of the time. Turtle x Barbary hybrids are easily produced, and favour the Turtle in the F1 generation, having fewer bars on the neck and a long drawn-out di¬ syllabic coo , very different from the single purring note of the Turtle or the cuck-roocoo of the Barbary. I had a hybrid male for several years, but only bred one young, which was to all intents and purposes a grey Bar¬ bary - a reversion to the dominant colouring of the latter’s wild ancestor, the African Collared Dove S. roseogrisea. Having sold this F2 young to a dealer, together with a batch of young Barbaries, I never managed to rear another. Both with the original Barbary hen, and later with a female Collared Dove, fertility was excellent but few eggs actually hatched. Of those that did, all the old hybrid’s subsequent offspring died in the nest, often as they were feathering. I have read of grey Barbary strains being established from hybrids, so evidently not all Turtle hybrids are of limited productive capabilities. However, a female hybrid which a friend kept at liberty mated to a Barbary cock, never hatched an egg. Turtle Doves would presumably cross with other Streptopelia as readily as with the Barbary. A rarer hybrid is that with the domestic pigeon, which has been achieved on a number of occasions, using a small Tippler or a Tumbler 230 PHILIP G. SCHOFIELD - EUROPEAN TURTLE DOVE pigeon. I have referred to a female Barbary x Turtle hybrid kept at liberty. My old hybrid cock was often allowed to fly free, but I always tried to ensure that he roosted in the aviary, as Tawny Owls Strix aluco were abundant in the area, and these birds are partial to dove suppers. An aggressive indivi¬ dual, he would pursue local Collared Doves far over the horizon, but never lost his way, always returning to his Barbary mate. The latter could not be left free unsupervised, being of a naively trusting disposition where cats and dogs were concerned. Not all these hybrids are such reliable homers. A friend in Devon had four young of the year, grandchildren of my old pair on their mother’s side, flying free last autumn. Having deligh¬ ted their breeder with much spectacular fast flying, they all disappeared on the same day, and were presumed to have migrated. While on the subject of migration, an odd thing happened to my old pair of Turtles in 1978. At that time they were still in the care of my parents at the family home in Ipswich. The male escaped at Easter of that year, and although seen and heard in the gardens nearby, defied attempts at recapture. However, towards the end of October, when the last of his wild conspecifics had left for Africa, this aviary-bred bird returned home and demanded access to the aviary, which needless to say was hastily granted. Although not normally found wild in these islands in winter, my Turtle Doves have always proved extremely hardy, wintering in comfort with only an open-fronted shelter which they always have the sense to use. A wild bird in Dorset in the 1960’s showed considerable enterprise. Having decided (or been compelled by circumstances beyond its control) to spend the winter in this country, it joined up with a free-flying flock of Barbaries then kept at Portland Bird Observatory, eating their food and roosting indoors with them at night! My thirteen-year old hen Turtle Dove may with reasonable luck be with me for some time to come. In the Avicultural Magazine for May 1936, Dr. C.H Macklin refers to a Turtle Dove in his possession still in good health at the age of 29! REFERENCES (and recommended reading) ALDERSON, R. (1911). My Foreign Doves and Pigeons. The Feathered World/ Canary and Cage-Bird Life. GOODWIN, D. (1970). Pigeons and Doves of the World. British Museum (Natural History). MACKLIN, C.H. (1936). 1935 Breeding Episodes. Avicultural Magazine , 5th ser, Vol. 1, 5; p. 130. 231 NOTES ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE SPECKLED MOUSEBIRD Colius striatus By SUSAN L. BERMAN (Dept, of Biology, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Mass., USA) Mousebirds (Coliiformes) have been the subject of natural history accounts (Van Someren, 1956; Rowan, 1967), as well as systematic and anatomical investigations (Murie, 1872; Garrod, 1896; Sclater, 1903; Pycraft, 1907; Lowe, 1948; Verheyen, 1956; Berman and Raikow, 1982), but behavioural studies of the group have been limited to isolated and often conflicting reports. The following observations are a by-product of a morphological study of the hindlimb musculature of the order (Berman & Raikow, 1982). In confirming our functional interpretation of peculiarities of the hindlimb, I observed two small colonies of captive Colius striatus , the Speckled Mousebird, for 14 months. The purpose of this paper is to report findings that are in conflict with previous studies, as well as those not previously recorded, and to confirm observations of uncertain validity. All of the birds were acquired from the Pittsburgh Aviary. They were trapped out of a very large indoor area from a flock that had been breed¬ ing freely for five years. They had not been banded, hence age and rela¬ tionships were uncertain. I was unable to sex them using Gibson’s method (1980) or any other external characters. Individuals were distinguished from one another by notches in their rectrices. One eventually revealed itself to be a female by copulation and egg-laying. The first colony initially consisted of five, and later eight birds. They were housed indoors in a wire mesh cage 5 x 3 x 6 ft high (1.53 x 0.92 x 1.83 m high), containing a network of dead branches along with fresh pine brances suspended from the roof. The birds were maintained on a diet of fresh fruit and vegetables placed in a container hung 3 ft (0.92 m) above the floor. Water was provided in a shallow bowl on the floor. A tray 12 x 16 x 2 in (0.35 x 0.97 x 0.05 m) containing fine sand was placed in one corner of the cage to permit dust-bathing. This colony was observed from September 1980 to August 1981. A second colony of six individuals (one of the original colony and five new birds) was kept in a large outdoor aviary measuring 25 x 10 x 7 ft high (7.75 x 3.10 x 2.17 m), half of which was completely enclosed. A diet that was identical to that of the first colony was provided, but as the mousebirds shared the aviary with six peafowl, commercial turkey feed was available on the ground. This colony was observed from mid-August 1982 to late October 1982. 232 SUSAN L. BERMAN - SPECKLED MOUSEBIRD Use of water There have been some questions concerning the use of water by mouse- birds. Gibson (1979) never observed the C macrouris in his aviary drinking water. Rowan (1967) observed the three South African species (C colius, C indicus and C. striatus) drinking water in the wild, but only C. stria tus took water in his aviary. Moreover, the birds drank using suction, as in the Columbiformes. Shifter (1972) observed captive C. indicus , C. macrouris and C striatus drinking a mixture of honey and water. Each of the C. stri¬ atus in my aviaries were observed drinking in this manner at least once. Observations were made for varying periods at different times of the day, and records of the frequency of each individual’s trips to the water were not kept. But, as the total number of instances recorded each week throughout the 14 months was from three to five, drinking seems to be reasonably common behaviour in C striatus. It is likely that relative humidity and moisture content of their diet determine the quantity of water consumed. Rowan (1967) observed water bathing in pet mousebirds, but never in his aviary birds. Schifter (1972) observed captive C indicus, C. mac¬ rouris and C striatus bathing against wet leaves. Gibson (1980) records captive C macrouris bathing against wet flower heads. On three occasions in the small indoor aviary (twice in September and once in January) I observed different individuals of C striatus bathing in the water dish on the floor. The baths lasted from three to five minutes and the birds got little more than their breast and abdomen wet. On another occasion, in late September, three of the birds in the indoor colony were induced to bathe from branches when misted with a hand sprayer. Bathing behaviour was not observed in the outdoor aviary, but it is likely that the birds took advantage of the rain, rather than using the water dish. Food-sharing Whereas Rowan (1967) reports only occasional food-sharing between captive adult C colius, C. striatus and C. indicus, this was a very common activity among the birds in both of my colonies. Food items were often carried to a waiting individual clear at the opposite end of the cage. Three of the birds engaged in this activity among themselves more often than with the others, and two of these three later proved to be a pair. Food¬ sharing, however, was never observed in connection with courtship or cop¬ ulation, as described by Schifter (1967). In addition, a teasing behaviour with some preferred food item was common. Typically a bird would carry the item to the vicinity of some individual at a distance from the food dish. Holding the item in the bill, the bird would point it first toward and then away from the other bird SUSAN L. BERMAN - SPECKLED MOUSEBIRD 233 with short, upward jerks of the head. This usually resulted in the item being stolen, and in eight observed instances this theft was accomplished with the foot, rather than the bill. Courtship and nesting behaviour There are only a few accounts of courtship behaviour in mousebirds. James (1948) described a display followed by copulation in C. indicus. In this case it was the female that carried out the display. Rowan (1967) described the same display in a tame C. indicus. As it was not followed by copulation, the sex of the bird was not determined. Schifter (1967) gives a description of breeding behaviour in C. indicus, C. macrouris and C. striatus. From November 1980 onwards, I frequently observed courtship and copulation in one pair of C. striatus kept in the indoor aviary. The display was similar to that given by the previous descriptions with one exception. Whereas Schiften (1967) observed his C striatus bouncing only 1 cm above the branch, mine consistently bounced a full 4 cm, like that des¬ cribed for other species. In each case only the male displayed. Typically after about five minutes of the ‘bouncing and hooing’ behaviour, the fe¬ male would land next to him and copulation, lasting from 3-4 s, would take place immediately. The same pair constructed nests on four occasions (Table 1). The nests were as described by Rowan (1967). Pieces of string, twigs, and dried grass were the main constituents. Overgrown broccoli, a favourite food, was often supplied in July. The nest constructed at that time was regularly ‘decorated’ with yellow broccoli flowers. The stems had been poked into the substance of the nest, and the flowers hung down below. Rowan (1967) has also observed this habit in C. striatus. Both parents took turns incubating. Rowan (1967) suggests that at least in the South African species more than two birds may participate in construction of a nest, and that a nest may contain the eggs of more than one hen. I never observed any interest in a nest on the part of birds other than the parents. None of the eggs hatched, and each nest was abandoned TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF NESTING BEHAVIOUR IN C. striatus Dates of construction No. of eggs Days incubated Average temperature during incubation °C December 5-7 3 22 16-19° January 23-25 3 21 15-18° April 5-7 3 22 17-19° July 21-23 2 21 24-26° 234 SUSAN L. BERMAN - SPECKLED MOUSEBIRD after three weeks. Examination of the eggs in the April clutch revealed embryos in a very early stage of development. I suspect that failure of the first three attempts may have been due to low temperatures in the room where the birds were kept. Rowan (1967) compiled data indicating that South African mouse- birds are capable of breeding any time of the year, but do so most fre¬ quently during the warmer months, and at times when vegetation is put¬ ting on new growth. Schifter (1967) concluded that mousebirds were opportunistic, breeding at any time of the year when conditions were favourable. I found no correlation between temperature and breeding behaviour, but almost all my observations of courtship and copulation took place following two or three days of rain, such as might promote rapid plant growth given the proper temperatures. Agonistic behaviour Gibson (1979) and Rowan (1967) comment on the gregarious and non-aggressive nature of mousebirds. Rowan actually relates incidents in which different flocks of the same species were drawn together, ap¬ parently fully accepting one another. Likewise, Schifter (1972) kept three species (C. indicus, C. macrouris and C striatus ) in the same aviary and never observed any conflicts. My observations were quite the opposite. Each group of birds had been caught in the same trap, hence it seems likely that they were foraging together and were members of the same family group. In any case, there was no aggression among the first five birds, which had been trapped together and introduced into the cage with the original five. Fighting broke out immediately. The original group banded together and chased the new birds, biting them on the feet and the back of the head. At one point one of the aggressors used his foot to seize one of the new birds by the tail, pull him off a branch, and dangle him upside down momentarily. After 45 minutes the fighting began to diminish and the two groups retired to opposite sides of the cage. Eight hours after the introduction of the new birds, individuals of the two groups were feeding quietly from the same dish. When they all roosted in the same clump, it seemed that inte¬ gration had taken place, confirming previous reports of the peaceful nature of these birds. No further aggression was observed during the next 14 days. On the morning of the fifteenth day, after hearing an unusual amount of vocalisation from the aviary, I found the three new birds dead. They had all been killed in the same manner: the feathers on the back of the head had been pulled off, the skull opened, and part of the brain removed. One of the original five was still occupied with a victim as I approached the cage, hence the possibility of rodents can be discounted. SUSAN L. BERMAN - SPECKLED MOUSEBIRD 235 The same sequence of events took place in the larger aviary. After three seemingly peaceful weeks, the bird from the original flock was killed in the same manner, presumably by the five new birds, which had been trapped together. It can certainly be argued that, both being captive, and thus unnatural situations, this is not normal behaviour. However, as the four birds were killed in the same manner, and by birds of another group, it is possible that this is part of their behavioural repertoire. At the very least, these observations shed doubt on previous reports of the consistently peaceful nature of these birds. Digit configurations Mousebirds have long been of interest morphologically because of their ability to rotate both the hallux and the fourth digit cranially and caudally, producing zygodactyly, anisodactyly, or pamprodactyly. Digit configurations are often associated with certain postures or activities in the groups possessing them, so it seemed possible that in mousebirds certain arrangements could be correlated with particular activities. Initial observations (Berman and Raikow, 1982) as well as these subsequent studies indicate that this is not the case in at least one species. C stria tus is entirely opportunistic in its digit configurations. Opposability of the first and fourth digits enables the foot to conform to or grasp any surface with which it comes into contact. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Marie Crock and Lindsey Clack of the Pittsburgh Aviary for providing the live mousebirds used in this study. REFERENCES BERMAN, S. and RAIKOW, R. (1982). The hindlimb musculature of the mousebirds (Coliiformes). The Auk, 99: 41-57. GARROD, A. (1896). Notes on the anatomy of the colies. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 416419. GIBSON, L. (1980). Further notes on mousebirds C macrourus. Avicultural Maga¬ zine, 86: 85-90. . . (1979). Breeding the Blue-naped Mousebird. Avicultural Magazine, 146- 156. JAMES, G. (1948). Display of the Red-faced Coly or Mousebird. Ostrich. 19: 170. LOWE, P. (1948). What are the Coraciiformes? Ibis, 90: 572-582. MURIE, J. (1872). On the genus Colius, its structure and systematic place. Ibis, 14: 263-280. PYCRAFT, W. (1907). On the anatomy and systematic position of the colies. Ibis, 49: 229-253. 236 ROWAN, M. (1967). A study of the colies of South Africa. The Ostrich , 38: 63-115. SCHIFTER, H. (1972). Zur Haltung und Zucht der Mausvogel. Zool. Garden, N.F., Leipzig , 41: 114-141. . (1967). Beitrage zum F ortpflanzungsverhalten und zur Jugendent- wicklung der Mausvogel (Coliidae). Zoo. Jb. Syst. Bd., 94: 68-161. VAN SOMEREN, V. (1956). Days with birds: studies of habits of some East African birds. Fieldiana Zool, 38. SCLATER, W. (1903). The Birds of South Africa . Vol. 3, 93-100. VERHEYEN, R. (1956). Note sur l’anatomie et la classification des Coliiformes. Inst. Roy. Sci Natur. Belgique, Bull., 32: 1-7. * * * A QUESTION OF IDENTITY By TONY SILVA (Illinois, USA) Correct identification of certain subspecies of parrots is a problem that everyone eventually faces. Normally their correct identity is irrelevant, except when pairing for breeding but there are two parrots whose misid- entification can prove costly - to the extent of several hundred dollars. Allow me to explain. Almost monthly I receive calls from aviculturists having one problem or another with the Tres Marias Amazon Amazona ochrocephala tres- mariae, (subspecies of the Yellow-crowned Amazon), an insular parrot found on four islands off Nayarit, western Mexico. The scientific and common names are derived from three of these islands - Maria Madre, Maria Magdalena and Maria Cleofas. The fourth island, the smallest in the group, is called San Juanico. Confusion arises because Yellow-crowned Amazons of the subspecies magna , from the Atlantic lowlands in Tamaulipas to Tabasco, or older Double Yellow-crowned Amazons (subspecies oratrix) are frequently, but incorrectly, called ‘Tres Marias Amazons’. Until 1981 I accepted birds heavily endowed in yellow as tresmariae, but that year a visit to the Los Angeles County Museum started to cast a doubt. In the upper archives were several specimens collected by K.S. Stager in 1956 on Maria Madre. They certainly differed from what avicul¬ turists were calling ‘Tres Marias Amazons’. T. SILVA - A QUESTION OF IDENTITY 237 Sometime later I met Walt Hansen, an aviculturist in San Diego, who told me of his interest in tresmariae and in visiting the island to see what the lineament was of live birds. I encouraged him to travel there. After some difficulty - visits to the island are controlled by the Mexican Depart¬ ment of Prevention and Social Re-adaptation, given that the whole of Maria Madre is a penal colony - he received permission from the Director General, Licenciado Antonio Garcia Orozco. In the second week of April 1983 he arrived on Maria Madre via a Mexican navy vessel. His return to the US disclosed some interesting and (for me) unsur¬ prising information: the true tresmariae is very much unlike those that have been referred to as such in the trade. His evidence is backed by a number of photographs of adults and young - a move that should quell those that impugned his findings, doing so presumably because they would be unable to procure the very large sums obtained from tresmariae for magna or old oratrix. Walt Hansen published his findings in the February/March 1984 issue of Watch bird. Details can be summarised as follows: Immature birds have far more yellow than typical oratrix , approximat¬ ing that of magna ; it extends to the terminus of cheeks, or is about equal to that found in four year old oratrix. The head of adult tresmariae is covered in an ‘indefinable’ colour of yellow, which is noticeable in skins; it lacks the intensity of that found in magna. The bend of wing of the insular birds has very little yellow and red, the extent being identical to typical oratrix. Yellow on the thighs is reduced to a minimum, not nearly covering the complete area as in some magna. Prominent in tresmariae and not in other Yellow-crowned (including belizensis , the Belize Yellow- crowned) is a bluish wash to underparts - a characteristic prominent even in study skins. Why did confusion arise? My opinion is that it can be attributed to the absence of magna from Forshaw’s Parrots of the World (Lansdowne Press, Australia); he amalgamated magna with oratrix. Virtually everyone dealing with parrots uses this mongraph as the standard, but given the absence of magna thinks that the birds heavily endowed with yellow belong to tresmariae. The Atlantic magna was described by B.L. Monroe and T.R. Howell in a paper published by the Museum of Zoology, Louisiana State University, in 1966. Characteristics are noted in this subspecies as follows: size Is large (from whence the scientific name is derived - in this respect it exceeds both oratrix and tresmariae ), and head is entirely yellow, a colour that is extensive on thighs and bend of wings (which also contain red). A linea¬ ment often obvious but not noted by Monroe and Howell is the presence of reddish edged or tinged feathers in the nape of male magna and tres- 238 T. SILVA - A QUESTION OF IDENTITY mariae. Using the above criteria, there are no tresmariae in confinement in the US to my knowledge, but there are a number of oratrix and magna, the last having arrived (legally and illegally) in any quantity since the late 1970’s. The other enigma is the Triton Cockatoo Cacatua galerita triton from Indonesia, New Guinea and certain small islands. It can be separated from the other races of galerita by the broader crest feathers, blue orbital ring, longer nape feathers and (in many) heavier bill. Tritons are often confused with Medium Sulphur-crested Cockatoos C.s. eleonora, which has a smaller, slimmer bill, narrower crest feathers, smaller size and white orbital ring, though immatures may have a blueish tinge to the perio- phthalmic ring; this area thickens with age, when it turns white. Using measurements in Parrots of the World one gets the impression that differences between triton and eleonora are not substantial - but they are. Living birds, side by side, show the aforementioned features. As with tresmariae, the prices fetched by triton are far greater than for Mediums, often called Eleonora Cockatoos, after the scientific name. Correct identification of these two parrots on both the part of the seller and buyer is therefore imperative. Acknowledgement Walt Hansen read an initial version of this manuscript and offered several sugges¬ tions for which I am grateful. NOTES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF CONTRIBUTORS TO THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE 1985 239 Whilst we would never wish to cramp an author’s style in any way, even less to discourage members from writing at all, we are sometimes asked for guidelines as to what is needed, and it may well be that valuable informa¬ tion is going unrecorded because authors did not realise that it was of in¬ terest. Therefore the following notes are offered as suggestions, but not rules, for contributors to the Avicultural Magazine'. Articles should be preferably typed (in double spacing), but neatly hand-written articles are perfectly acceptable. They must not have been published elsewhere in the same form. The scientific names of birds should be given as well as the vernacular and alternate vernacular names. We prefer not to include long and complicated tables but can add a note saying that copies of these are available from the Editor, on request. The maximum length of articles is usually 5,000 words but longer articles can be published in separate instalments; there is no minimum length and indeed short notes or letters for inclusion in the Correspon¬ dence Column are always welcome. Illustrations Drawings should be clear and well defined, in indelible ink on thick white paper or white card. Photographs should preferably be in black and white to save the cost of translating from colour. However, if only colour prints or slides exist, then these may be used but the quality of reproduction will not be so good. All illustrations should be clearly captioned, including the photo¬ grapher’s, or artist’s, name to be credited, and if the author wishes their eventual return, this must be stated when submitting them and the author’s name put on the back of each. Similarly, slides should be named on the mounts and, if possible, put in some sort of transparent protection as they can be very easily damaged or mislaid at the printers. Products mentioned in the article should be listed at the end, with the manufacturers’ names and addresses. Acknowledgements for specific help given to the author can be made, in moderation please! 240 NOTES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF CONTRIBUTORS References All references cited in the text should be listed at the end of the article as follows: a) Journals: author’s/s’ name/s, year of publication, title of article, name of journal, volume number, page numbers. b) Books: author’s/s’ name/s, year of publication, title of book, publi¬ sher, country of publication. If authors wish to recommend publications that are not mentioned in the article, and therefore not listed under ‘References’, they can do so under the heading ‘Suggestions for further reading’ or ‘Bibliography’. The Editor will sometimes add references to previous articles on the subject, or to a colour plate of the species, that have appeared in the Magazine. Breeding Reports The following guidelines may be of help when making notes and later in writing them up. It must be emphasised that these are ideal requirements and that the lack of some of this information should in no way discourage authors. Less fully comprehensive accounts, provided they give accurate information, are always welcome. However, in the case of a presumed first breeding in the British Isles, where the author is claiming the Society’s Medal, it should be pointed out that the Society’s Rules require that: ‘The account of the breeding must be reasonably full so as to afford information to our Members, and must appear in the Avicultural Magazine before it is published elsewhere. It should describe the plumage of the young, and be of value as a permanent record of the nesting and general habits of the species. These points will have great weight when the question of awarding the Medal is under con¬ sideration.’ Ideally a breeding report should try to give the following information: A brief description of the species, its distribution and habitat, its status in the wild and in aviculture. Longevity, if known. Whether a good avicultural subject. History of breeding pair - ages, how long kept, whether captive bred, any previous breeding attempts. Description of accommodation - sizes of indoor and outdoor aviaries, layout, how furnished, whether and how heated, whether shared, other birds in adjoining aviaries. Diet, including vitamin and mineral additives; how many meals a day and when given. Veterinary and hygiene notes. Breeding: Nest-box - description and when put in. Nesting material. NOTES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF CONTRIBUTORS 241 Display and mating Nest-building Laying - dates, description of eggs, incubation period. Chicks: hatching dates, time until fledged, additional food offered, description on leaving nest, length of time until independent/separa- ted from parents. Which sex incubated and fed young. Hand-rearing - when removed from parents, how kept, temperature, diet, weights, comparisons with parent-reared chicks. ANY other information which could possibly be of interest. Notes: Because the Avicultural Magazine is a quarterly journal, it is inevitable that there will be a delay of some months between acceptance and publica¬ tion of articles. Once published, an article may be reprinted in another publication pro¬ vided the prior permission of the Editor and the author is obtained, and due credit is given as to the source. It is regretted that owing to lack of funds, the Society cannot supply authors with separates of their articles but they do receive one compli¬ mentary copy of the issue in which their article appears and may order further copies at author’s discount. Proofs are sent to authors in order that they may correct mistakes but not to alter the article in any way and we regret that owing to the high cost involved text cannot be added or deleted at proof stage. 242 CORRESPONDENCE In reference to Dr. Quincfie ’s paper on breeding the Cloven- feathered Dove (Drepanoptila holosericea) In common, I presume, with all other readers of our magazine who have any interest in either doves or bird behaviour, I read with great interest and pleasure Dr. Henry Quinque’s article (in Vol. 91, Nos. 1 and 2 of our magazine) on his breeding of the Cloven-feathered Dove. Considered only from an avicultural point of view (and I do not write ‘only’ in any deprecatory sense, far from it), the repeated successes that have justly crowned his painstaking and no doubt costly efforts must be a source of great satisfaction to himself and should arouse the commenda¬ tion and admiration of others. From the point of view of bird behaviour, his article brings us the first proof that in at least one species of pigeon only the hen incubates, broods and feeds the young. This proof comes at a most timely moment, as some recent observations in the wild on three other fruit doves have suggested, though not with certainty proved, that in them also only the females build, incubate, brood and feed young. These three species are the Orange Dove Ptilinopus victor , the Golden Dove P. luteovirens and the Green or Velvet Dove P. layardi . They are sometimes put in a separate genus Chrysoena, and although in my pigeon book, I gave Chrysoena only subgeneric rank, I may well have been wrong to do so. These three species all occur in the Fiji Islands, no two occurring together on any one island. Although much smaller than the Cloven- feathered Dove and quite distinct from it, their shape and plumage texture suggest (at least to me) that they and Drepanoptila are more closely related to each other than any of them is to the more typical species of Ptilinopus. None of them shows comparable differences in the size of the sexes to those of the Cloven-feathered Dove but two of them show marked sexual differences in colour, that in the Orange Dove being perhaps the greatest in any pigeon as the adult cock is almost all brilliant orange and the hen almost all dark green in colour. A nest of the Orange Dove and a nest of the Green Dove, found in the wild, were each visited on several occasions at different times of day and only the hens found on them. A female of the Golden Dove was seen carrying a twig to its nest site (usually the male’s ‘job’ in the pigeon family) and then building with it. A few years ago, William N. Beckon wrote a most stimulating paper on these three odd Fijian doves, pointing out that the above observations, and some others not involving nests, all strongly suggested even though they did not conclusively prove that these three doves might be polygynous, with successful males holding territory CORRESPONDENCE 243 in which more than one female nested and reared her young. Dr Beckon kindly sent me a pre-publication copy of his paper (which I still have) but, unfortunately, I do not now recall whether, or if so where, it was pub¬ lished. One of Dr. Quinque’s most intriguing observations is that the male Clovenfeathered Dove, in the days prior to the hen’s laying, ‘descends to the ground . . and remains there quite a long time’ at intervals. Is it possible that in the wild display and copulation take place on or near the ground? Or even that the Cloven-feathered Dove may, like some other mainly arboreal tropical forest birds, be a ‘lek’ bird that has its display or mating places on the forest floor?. Such a question as the last may sound absurd but not more absurd, surely, than it would have been ten years or so ago to ask the same ques¬ tion about any parrot? Yet we now know (see, inter alia, p. 55 of the same issue of our magazine) that one parrot does do this. And a flightless one at that! As he does not describe it, I presume that, at the time of his writing the article, Dr. Quinque had not actually seen copulation by his Cloven- feathered Doves. If he now has, I hope he will describe it in our magazine together, of course, with any other new observations he makes on these birds. It is to be hoped that Dr. Quinque, and later others, will be able to perpetuate this unique and beautiful dove in captivity. Also that adequate protection from sportsmen (or are French bird protectionists, like their British counterparts, legally bound not to oppose ‘legitimate sport’?) and adequate reserves of suitable habitat can and will be maintained for it in its native island. Indeed, at risk of annoying conventional conservationists, and first assuring them that our fair editor is not responsible for the opinions of her correspondents, I would suggest that if numbers of Cloven-feathered Doves can be bred, and if an island (or better still two or three islands) can be found where it would seem likely to thrive and unlikely to incommode any bird as rare, unique and beautiful as itself, there would be a very good case for introducing and trying to establish it elsewhere. 6 Crest View Drive Petts Wood, Kent. Derek Goodwin 244 CORRESPONDENCE Sulking in Parrots Two unusual events occurred recently in our collection of parrots, that I have not come across before, and both occurred during the same week and in two individuals of the same species. Placing unmated birds in outdoor enclosures amongst suitable com¬ panions is always a problem, and involves consideration of many factors including the strength, temperament, flying ability and food accessibility of and for all the inmates - but is always easier if none of them have been resident in the aviary for too long. I have a small range of six aviaries, too public to be suitable for breed¬ ing pairs, that I have been using for new introductions to the Park, mixed with unmated birds, and I consider four birds of a parrot size to be suffic¬ ient for each. In one flight I had two cock Thick-billed Parrots Rhynchopsitta pachy- rhyncha, cage-cramped and unable to fly very well, and one adult hen Zimbabwean Cape Parrot Poicephalus suahelicus which was fit and active and they had been together for two months or so. Next door I had a newly-introduced cock and hen South African Cape Parrots P. r. robustus still a little cage-cramped, but becoming active and vocal and beginning to take an interest in each other and they had been out of doors for six weeks or so. Further on, I had two cock Slender-billed Cockatoos Cacatua e. pas- tinator. I had a spare cock Bare-eyed Cockatoo Cacatua sanguinea for which I had to find an aviary so I put it in the first aviary. The Thick-billed Parrots showed aggression to it but since it was a good flyer, it could quietly move out of the way and by the end of the day, things had settled down with the Cape Parrot hen and cockatoo cock showing not the slightest interest in each other. Incidentally, my experience with Cape Parrots is that they can show unprovoked aggression towards other birds and are generally not good mixers. The next morning the Zimbabwean Cape hen was sitting in the sun, on the ground below the feeding table, surrounded by sunflower seed, and I thought nothing of it until in the afternoon she was still sitting in the same place and I became suspicious. I got one of the staff to move her as she was so obviously weak. We took her inside to the bird room, put her in a cage with heat and gave her antibiotics in the drinking water as a pre¬ caution but by the evening she could barely lift her head. She obviously was too weak to feed herself and so was force-fed with moistened Pro- Nutro. But to cut a long story short, she survived and within the week was 100% fit again. One explanation for this could be that she had to change CORRESPONDENCE 245 her night roosting place because of the new inmate, and got a chill as a consequence but since the nights here at that time were very mild, I do not think this would apply. Anyhow, I had my doubts until the second incident occurred. A few days later I put a single hen Lesser Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea in with the pair of South African Cape Parrots and this time I was watching the reactions more carefully. There was abso¬ lutely no interest of any kind shown between the three birds and one could have concluded that they had been together for years. However, there was one small difference in the activity of the Cape Parrots - the hen was flitting about, calling as usual, but the cock bird was sitting against the back wall as if he was roosting for the night. I checked on him at least six times a day and always he was in the same position. Bearing in mind the incident in the next door aviary, I removed the cockatoo and immediately the cock Cape Parrot flew over to the clip-on food dish and started to feed. I dsitribute many feeding sites when I mix birds, or first introduce them to new quarters, and he had easy access to two, and was, in fact, sitting above one seed tray, so food was no problem. By the following day he was his old self again. I can only conclude from these two unusual happenings that the Poicephalus parrots, including Jardine’s P. gulielmi which is a poor travel¬ ler, are uncommon in captivity because possibly their stress factor is not fully understood. There is no doubt that they were distressed by the introductions of a new bird and showed this, not by aggression, but by sulking. They were fully used to seeing the white cockatoos next door. Finally, I have at least got a pair of Zimbabwean Cape Parrots sitting on eggs (June 1965) but they are winter breeders here and we now have two pairs of each variety in the collection, and the pair of South African Cape Parrots mentioned above are looking in their box and taking an interest in each other. Mitchell Park Aviaries, W.D. Cummings Durban, South Africa * * * The Editor does not accept responsibility for opinions expressed in articles, notes, reviews or correspondence 246 CORRESPONDENCE MEMBERS’ ADVERTISEMENTS (10 p. per word, minimum charge £3. 00) Recently published. GOULDIAN FINCHES - their care and breeding, by A.J. Mobbs. £10.00 post paid. A.J. Mobbs, 65 Broadstone Avenue, Walsall, West Mid¬ lands, WS3 1JA. WANTED. Complete sets or early runs of the following magazines:- Foreign Birds, Bird Notes, Parrot Society Magazine, The Foreigner. Reply to Dr. M. Martin, 70 Park Road, Surrey Hills 3127, Melbourne, Australia. BIRDCAGE recently refurbished. 28 in high, base 20 in square. Eminently suitable for parrot or budgerigars. Buyer to collect. £20.00 o.n.o. Bell, Warren Cottage, Pednor Road, Chesham, HP5 2SS. SOFTBILL SOCIETY. There has been a long-standing need in avicultural circles for concerted and cooperative efforts in the distribution of information on the captive requirements of softbilled birds. Any persons interested in the idea of forming an International Softbill Society are encouraged to write to the following address for a questionnaire on the aims and goals of such a society and how one might become involved: Stephen H. Amos, Senior Aviculturist, National Aquarium in Baltimore, Pier 3, 501 E. Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, USA. THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND welcomes new members. An Australian Society catering for all birds both in captivity and in the wild. We put out a bi-monthly magazine on all aspects of aviculture and conservation. For membership details please contact Ray Garwood, 19 Fahey’s Road, Albany Creek, 4035 Queensland. Annual subscription (Australian dollars): 16.00 surface mail, 22.00 airmail. AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE back numbers. Large stock available including early issues. Sales by post only. Price list available from the Hon. Secretary. Avicultural Society, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8LT, England. AMERICAN CAGE-BIRD MAGAZINE has been publishing monthly since 1928. It features timely and interesting articles on parrots, canaries, finches, budgerigars and cockatiels. These are written by leading breeders and bird fanciers. Monthly subscription 15.00 US dollars - Europe 21.00 dollars (money order in US dollars please) to: American Cage-Bird Magazine, 1 Glamore Court, Smithtown, New York, 11787, USA. 247 INDEX to VOLUME 91 (1985) A VICULTURAL MAGAZINE, Master Sets. . . . . . . 186 A VICULTURAL MAGAZINE , Notes for the guidance of contributors to.. . 239 Avicultural Society Breeding Register . . . . . . 1 16 Birds in the USSR, Random notes on . . . . . . . . . 131 Bullfinches . . . . . . . . . 143 Cardinal, Yellow, Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Chestnut Lodge, Visit to . . . . . . . . 178 Conservation Issue, Editorial . . . . . . 1 19 Conure, Greater Patagonian, Decline of . . . 64 Correspondence: Race of Amazon Parrot new to aviculture . . . . . 182 The Lemon-breasted Canary . . . . . . . . 183 Trick oglossus and Glossopsitta lorikeets wanted . . . . 183 A general note on rearing exotic pheasant chicks and ducklings and how their down patterns affect this . . . . . . . . 184 Cloven-feathered Dove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Sulking in parrots . . . . . . . . 244 Cranes, Red-crowned, Genetic and Demographic Management . . . 41 Crows, Tamaulipas, Breeding and behaviour of . . . . . . 191 Dove, Cloven-feathered, Breeding . . . . . . 32 Dove, European Turtle Dove, Stray notes on . . . . . . 228 Dove, Golden Heart, Breeding . . . . . . . . . . 129 Duck, White-winged Wood, Conserving . . . . . . 160 Eagle, Harpy, Bred . . . . . . . . 170 Electrified fencing for aviaries and enclosures . . . . . . . . 208 Euphonia, Golden-breasted, Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Falcons, Peregrine, Production and re-introduction . . . 79 Finch, Bicheno, Grass-carrying display in . . . . . . . . . 166 Foreign Bird Federation . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Goose, Aleutian Canada, Conserving . . . . . . . . . 160 Goose, Hawaiian, in the 1980’s . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Goose, Recherche Island . . . . . . . . . 157 Ibis, Oriental Crested, Captive breeding programme for . . . . . . 117 Identity, A question of . . . . . . . . . 236 Kiwis, The New Zealand . . . . . . 59 Lory, Tahiti Blue, Breeding . . . . . . . . . 1 Macaw, Lear’s, Breeding . . . . . . . . . . 30 Mousebird, Speckled, Behaviour of . . . . . . . . . 231 248 News and Views . . . . . 174 Notes for the guidance of contributors to the Avicultural Magazine . . 239 Parrots, The status of four Australian . . 65 Parrot, Lesser Vasa, Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Parrots, Poicephalus, Feeding and breeding of three . 162 Parrot, Puerto Rican, Captive programme for . . . . . . 110 Pheasants, Status of endangered pheasants in captivity . . . 103 Rare birds in the National Wildlife Centre, Mt. Bruce . . . . . . 48 Reviews: Birds of the Cayman Islands by Patricia Bradley . . . 179 Australian Parrots - a field and aviary study, by B. Hutchins & B. Lovell ..........180 The Dictionary of Aviculture by Richard Mark Martin . . 181 Serins, Feeding and breeding of three Southern African . . . . . . . . 217 Softbills, Some rare insectivorous, Bred in 1984 . . . . . . . ...104 Starling, Grosbeak, Breeding . . . . . . . .126 Stork, Eastern White, Captive Management of . . . . . . . . . . 92 Teal, Laysan, Recent history and future . . . . 76 Touraco, White-bellied, Breeding . . . . . . . . 121 Waxbill, Grey . . . . . 225 Waxbills, Swee . . . . . . . . . . . ............................222. Woodhens of Lord Howe Island . . . . 15 Zoos: Birds in Moscow Zoo and other Soviet zoos . . . . . . . . . 211 East Berlin Zoo . . . . . . . 170 London Zoo, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . 167 New Year’s Day at Alma-Ata Zoo . . . . . . . 171 THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY The Avicultural Society was founded in 1894 for the study of British and foreign birds in freedom and captivity. The Society is international in character, having members throughout the world. Membership subscription rates per annum: British Isles£10.00; Overseas -£11.00 (25 U.S. dollars). The subscription is due on 1st January of each year and those joining the Society later in the year will receive back numbers of the current volume of the AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE. The subscription rate for non-members is: British Isles £11.00; overseas- £12.00 (30.00 U.S. dollars). Subscriptions, changes of address, orders for back numbers, etc., should be sent to: THE HON. SECRETARY AND TREASURER, THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY, WINDSOR FOREST STUD, MILL RIDE, ASCOT, BERKSHIRE SL5 8LT. NEW MEMBERS Mr. B. Beattie, 55 Oxenholme Crescent, Norris Green, Liverpool, Lll 1HG. Ms. J.A. Beeler, 1609 South Memorial, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112, USA. Mr. D. Challe, Parc des Aigles, 1 G Chemin de l’etrier, 60270, Gouvieux, France. Mr. K. Chisholm, 2608 Augustin-Cantin, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3K 1E1. Mr. F. Congreve, Carrington Road, Moulton Seas End, Spalding, Lines. PEI 2 6LS. Mr. E. Versmissen, Turnhoutsebaan 25.27, B 2100, Deurne Antwerp. Belgium. Dr. W. Gmmmt, Tierpark Berlin Friedrichsfelde, Berlin DDR, East Germany. Dr. R. Stephen Harley, 1310 Pinecrest Road, Spartanburg, S. Carolina 29302, USA. Mr. D.A.Ibarra, Grupo Promotor Beta, Malaga Sur 31, Insur. Mixcoac, Mexico D.F. 03920. Mr. G.D. Ochsenbein, Virginia Zoological Park, 3500 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23504, USA. Ms. L. Page, 956 Marcello Avenue, Thousand Oaks, California, 91320, USA. Mr. J. Perez, Elva Industries Inc., P.O. Box 1956, Hialeah, Florida 33011, USA. Mr. J.M. Tanner, “Thornbury”, 69 St. Mary’s Road, Hayling Island, Hants. POll 9DD Mrs. S.A. Wanlass, Highcliff Terrace, Pound Ridge, New York 10576, USA. CHANGE OF ADDRESS Mr. G.K. Booth, to Apple Garth, Brigg Road, South Kelsey, Lincolnshire. Mr. Lawrence W. Cahill, to P.O. Box 280, West Hill, Ontario 343 4R5, Canada. Ms. J. Edwaids to 1466 N. Carpenter Road, Modesto, California 95351, USA. Mr. K. Evans, to Keepers’ Lodge, London Zoo, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY. Miss J. Gregson to 272 Totnes Road, Paignton, Devon. Mr. D.M.S. Head to 1 Ampton Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2UP Mr. P.A. Heere to HCR 69, Box 1262, Monck’s Corner, South Carolina 29461, USA Mr. L.F.M. Hervouet, to 41 rue d’Herivaux, 60560, Orry la Ville, France. Mr. D.W.F. Jones, to 79 Daleside, Upton, Chester. Dr. and Mrs. A.R. Wilson, to Hollybrook, Abbeystead Road, Dolphin Holme, Lancaster LA2 9AY. Mr. L. Southward to 2341 Crabill Road, Springfield, Ohio 45502, USA. Mr. William Todd III, to 3370 Graustark, Houston, Texas 77006, USA. Mr. H.R.G. Williams, to Penpound, Newbridge on Wye, Powys, LD1 6HP. CHANGE OF NAME Mrs. V. Peacock to Mrs. V. Roberts, Dorsington Manor, Stratford on Avon, Warwickshire CV3 7 8AU. DONATIONS The Society is most grateful to the following members for their generosity Miss Ruth Ezra Mr. I.G. Hale Mr. J.F. Harris Mr. D.M.S. Head Mr. F.S. Hogg Mr. G.H. Mitchell Mr. G.E.S. Robbins Mr. J. Strutt Mr. M.E.E. Warren Published by The Avicultural Society, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, England, SL5 8LT THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE BEING THE JOURNAL OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY Edited by MARY HARVEY VOLUME 92 January 1986 to December 1986 1986 (i) ii LIST OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE . i LIST OF CONTENTS . . . . . ii COUNCIL OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY - 1986 . . . iii OFFICERS OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY PAST AND PRESENT..... iv MEDALLISTS OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY ................................... v LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS . vi LIST OF PLATES . ix MAGAZINE . 1 INDEX . 239 The Avicultural Society FOR THE STUDY OF BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIRDS IN FREEDOM AND CAPTIVITY OFFICERS AND COUNCIL 1986 President MISS RUTH EZRA Vice-Presidents F.C. BARNICOAT (South Africa) Prof. S. DILLON RIPLEY (USA) Prof. J.R. HODGES (Britain) D.H.S. RISDON (Britain) The Rev. R. NOEGEL (USA) R.C .J. SAWYER (Britain) Dr. H. QUINQUE (France) Dr. K.C. SEARLE (Hong Kong) Hon. Vice-President A.A. PRESTWICH Honorary Editor MARY HARVEY Honorary Secretary-Treasurer H.J. HORSWELL Honorary Assistant Secretary MARY HARVEY Members of Council D. ALDERTON J. BLOSSOM D. COLES K. DOLTON M. ELLIS Miss J. FENTON A. GREENWOOD G. GREED A. GRIFFITHS R. HARVEY H. G. KENYON K. LAWRENCE R. GRANTHAM R. OXLEY W. TIMMIS (iio iv OFFICERS OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY PAST AND PRESENT PRESIDENTS 1894-1895 The Countess of Bective 1956-1963 D. Seth-Smith 1895-1920 The Rev. and Hon. F.G. Dutton 1964-1967 Miss E. Maud Knobel (later Canon & Lord Sherborne) 1968-1972 A.A. Prestwich 1921-1925 The Reg. H.D. Astley 1972-1985 Dr. J. Delacour 1926-1955 A. Ezra, OBE 1986 Miss R. Ezra HONORARY VICE-PRESIDENT 1972 A. A. Prestwich VICE-PRESIDENTS 1894-1895 The Rev and Hon F.G. Dutton 1962-1978 G.S. Mottershead 1895-1900 The Rt. Hon. The Baroness 1963-1974 Sir Crawford McCullagh, Bt. Berkeley 1964-1967 A.A. Prestwich 1896-1899 Sir H.S. Boynton Bt. 1967-1983 J.J. Yealland 1899-1906 A.F. Wiener 1970-1980 Miss P. Barclay-Smith, CBE 1906-1937 Her Grace the Duchess of Bedford 1973 D.H.S. Risdon 1925-1927 Her Grace the Duchess of 1973-1982 J. D’Eath Wellington 1974-1979 W.G. Conway 1925-1935 The Lady Dunleath 1978-1982 W. Van den bergh 1925-1942 H.R. Filmer 1980 F.C. Barnicoat 1925-1951 Dr. E, Hopkinson, CMG, DSO 1982-1985 Miss R. Ezra 1938-1962 J. Spedan Lewis 1983 Dr. H. Quinque 1949-1963 Miss E. Maud Knobel 1984 The Rev. R. Noegel 1950-1955 D. Seth-Smith 1984 Dr. K.C. Searle 1952-1961 E.J. Boosey 1984 R.C.J. Sawyer 1958-1970 Allen Silver 1985 Prof. J.R. Hodges 1986 Prof. S. Dillon Ripley HONORARY SECRETARIES 1894-1896 Dr. C.S. Simpson 1914-1916 T.H. Newman 1896-1899 H.R. Fillmer Dr. A.G. Butler 1899-1901 J. Lewis Bonhote 1916-1919 Miss R. Alderson 1901-1903 R. Phillips D. A.G. Butler 1903-1904 R. Phillips 1919-1920 Dr. L. Lovell-Keays Dr. A.G. Butler Dr. A.G. Butler 1904-1909 T.H. Newman 1921-1922 J. Lewis Bonhote Dr. A.G. Butler 1922-1948 Miss E. Maud Knobel 1909-1914 R.I. Pocock 1949-1970 A.A. Prestwich Dr. A.G. Butler 1971 H.J. Hors well HONORARY ASSISTANT SECRETARIES 1950-1970 Miss Kay Bonner 1971 Mrs. Mary Harvey V HONORARY TREASURERS 1894-1897 H.R. Fillmer 1917-1919 A. Ezra 1897-1899 O.E. CressweU 1920 Dr. L. LoveU-Keays 1899-1901 J. Lewis Bonhote 1921-1922 J. Lewis Bonhote 1901-1906 W.H. St. Quentin 1923-1948 Miss E. Maud Knobel 1906-1913 J. Lewis Bonhote 1949-1970 A. A. Prestwich 1913-1917 B.C. Thomasett 1971- H.J. HorsweU HONORARY EDITORS 1894-1896 Dr. C.S. Simpson 1924 The Marquess of Tavistock H.R. Fillmer (later His Grace the Duke of 1896-1899 H.R. Fillmer Bedford) 1899-1901 O.E. CressweU 1925 The Marquess of Tavistock 1901-1907 D. Seth-Smith D. Seth-Smith 1907-1908 D. Seth-Smith 1926-1934 D. Seth-Smith Dr. A.G. Butler 1935 The Hon. Anthony Chaplin 1908-1909 D. Seth-Smith Chaplin) Frank Finn Miss E.F. Chawner 1909-1910 Frank Finn 1936-1938 Miss E.F. Chawner J. Lewis Bonhote 1939-1973 Miss PhylUs-Barclay-Smith CBE 1910-1912 J. Lewis Bonhote 1974-1978 J.J. YeaUand 1912-1917 The Rev. H.D. Astley 1979- Mary Harvey 1917-1920 Dr. Graham Renshawe 1920-1923 R.I. Pocock D. Seth-Smith MEDALLISTS OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY THE PRESIDENT’S MEDAL Miss Phyllis Barclay- Smith CBE 14th March 1960 Arthur Alfred Prestwich, 14th March 1960 Dr. Jean Delacour, 13th March 1967 Walter Van den bergh, 21st February, 1973 THE KNOBEL AWARD Sten Bergman, DSC, 14th March 1960 Curt af Enehjelm, 14th March, 1960 THE EVELYN DENNIS MEMORIAL AWARD Mrs. K.M. Scamell, 13th November, 1967 vi LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 92 (1986) BOSWALL, J. Birds of Chengdu . . . . . . . 47 Birds in China . . . . . . . 126 Moscow Bird Market . . . . . . . 222 BRICKELL, N. Siskins of Southern Africa . . . 37 The Forest Canary . . . . . 93 Notes on the Red-headed Finch and Cut-throat Finch . 96 The Protea Canary . . . . . . .......197 BROOKER, A. Breeding the Chestnut Sparrow . . . . . . . . . 184 CLARKE, P. and J. Breeding the Cobald-winged Parrakeet . . . . . . . . . 124 COLES, D. Records of first Ratite Breedings in the British Isles . . . . 55 Results of Hooded Siskin Census . 100 DAVISON, G.W.H. Breeding Crested Wood Partridges . . . . . 18 DULANEY, M. Increased reproduction in Bam Owls . . . 148 ELGAR, R. Breeding the Peruvian Brown-bellied Amazilia . 177 EVANS, Dr. S.M. and ROUGHER, A.J. Behaviour of the Crimson Finch . . 143 FRANKS, D. News from Leeds Castle . . . . . 50 GIBBARD, A. Walter Goodfellow: One of the great Ornithological Collectors . . . 220 GIBSON, L. Breeding Golden-fronted Chloropsis . . . . . 66 GOODWIN, D. The Partridges of the genus Alectoris . . . . . 23 Chukar and hybrid Partridges . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Some notes on Canaries . . . . . . . 200 v'd GOSLING, A. Tame Wood Pigeons . 208 GREEN, R, Breeding the Five-coloured Mannikin . 181 GREGSON, Miss J. Breeding the Brown Fish Owl . 4 Breeding the Little Black Bustard ............................................................ 61 GRIFFITHS, A. Breeding the Pale-headed Mannikin . 64 GRUMMT, In. W. Breeding Rare and Endangered Birds at the Tierpark Berlin . 190 GUITTIN, Dr. P. Bow leg syndrome in Ratite birds . 70 HAMILTON, M. - see WILKINSON, R. HARVEY, M. International Zoo Yearbook, No.23 . 174 HARVEY, R. News from Birdworld . 52 HORSWELL, H. (Honorary Secretary) Dr. Jean Delacour - An appreciation . 1 Miss Ruth Ezra » President . 3 Avicultural Society Awards . 3 Visit to Chestnut Lodge . 109 Avicultural Society Binding . . 119 Visit to Parklands . .. . 236 KLOS, Prof. Dr. H.-G. Additions to the Bird Collection at West Berlin Zoo, 1984 and 1985. LANTERMANN, W. and WOZNIAK, S. Inverted resting in Honus Parrots . . . 80 LOW, R, Two-wattled Cassowary bred at Taronga Park Zoo . 196 MANNING, N. - see WILKINSON, R. MOBB, AX Observations on Bicheno Finch . . . 85 OLNEY, P. London Zoo in 1985 . . . 110 viii ONIKI, Y. Nesting of the Southern Lapwing . . 151 Nesting of the Blue and White Swallow . . . . 186 PUTNAM, M.S. and WENTWORTH, B.C. Reducing excessive weight loss in Whooping Crane Eggs . . . 161 RAYNER, R.F. Breeding the Bank Mynah and the Coleto . 8 REED, B.E. Notes on the Cuban Finch . . . . . 82 SCHLEE, Dr. M. Taking care of a visually impaired Blackbird . . . 40 WENTWORTH, B.C. - see PUTNAM, M.S. WOZNIAK, S. - see LANTERMANN, W. WILKINSON, R. and MANNING, N. Breeding Pallas’s Sandgrouse . . . . . . . 121 WILSON, C. and HAMILTON, N. Breeding the Western Spinebill . . . . . 166 * * * ix LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME 92 Miss Ruth Ezra, President, with the late Dr. Jean Delacour . 1 Brown Fish Owl at seven weeks . . . . . . . 5 Spreo with young Bank Mynah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Coleto with young . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Adult male and female Roulroul at Padstow Bird Gardens . . . 15 Male Cape Siskin . . . . . . . . . 38 Quaker Parrakeet expanding nest-site . . . 53 Little Black Bustard bred at Paignton Zoo: one day old; three weeks old . . 61 Tarsometatarsal bones of a one-month old Rhea . . . 71 Two-month old Rhea with inflammation of the tibiometatarsal left joint . . 73 Bicheno Finches at four days old and 1 1 days old . . 87 Male Forest Canary . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Male Red-headed Finch . . . 97 Male Pallas’s Sandgrouse at Chester Zoo . . . . . . . 121 Cages at Guan Yuan Bird Market, Beijing . . . . . . . . 128 Seller with Azure-winged Magpie . . . . . . , . . . 129 Earl of Derby’s Parrakeet; Boy with young presumed Magpie Robin; Chinese child and somewhat frightened juvenile Hwa-mei; Qingyangong Bird Market, Chengdu . . . . . . . . . . 131 Longtang Hu Bird Market, Beijing; caged Mongolian Lark; tethered young Japanese Grosbeak. Guan Yuang Bird Market, Beijing: two caged Yellow- throated Buntings; tethered Azure-winged Magpie . . . . . . . . 133 Stall in Chengdu Market . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Young Peruvian Brown-bellied Amazilias: being fed by female at 24 days old; just before leaving the nest . . . . . . . . 177 Young Blue and White Swallow in nest . . . . . . . . 187 Tame Wood Pigeon . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Woodpigeon waiting placidly to be fed . . . . . .210 * * * ^CULTURAL MAGAZINE VOLUME 92 Number 1 1986 CONTENTS Dr. Jean Delacour - an appreciation (with plate) . Miss Ruth Ezra - President . . Avicultural Society Awards . . . Rearing the Brown Fish Owl at the Paignton Zoo, by Miss Jo Gregson (with plate) . . . . . Breeding the Bank Mynah and the Coleto, by R.F. Rayner . (with plates) Breeding the Crested Wood Partridge or Roulroul at Padstow Bird Gardens, by Andrew Own and Richard Hughes (with plates) . . Breeding behaviour of Crested Wood Partridges in captivity, by G.W.H. Davison . . . The Partridges of the genus Alectoris by Derek Goodwin (with line drawings) . . . * . The Siskins of Southern Africa, by Neville Brickell (with plate) . Taking care of a visually impaired Blackbird, by Dr. M.A. Schlee . The birds of Chengdu, People’s Republic of China, by Jeffery Boswall . News from Leeds Castle, by David Franks . News from Birdworld, Famham, by Robert Harvey (with plate) . Records of Ratites bred in captivity in the British Isles, by David Coles Correspondence . . 14 23 37 40 47 50 52 55 THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE welcomes original articles that have not been published elsewhere and that essentially concern the aviculture of a particular bird or group of birds, or that describe their natural history. Articles should be preferably typewritten, with double spacing, and the scientific names as well as the vernacular names of birds should be given. References cited in the text should be listed at the end of the article. Line drawings should be in Indian ink on thick paper or card; photographs which illustrate a particular point in the article will be used where possible and should be clearly captioned. ADDRESS OF EDITOR Mary Harvey, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8LT, England. Miss Ruth Ezra, President of the Avicultural Society, with the late Dr. Jean Delacour, President from 1972-1985, on the occasion of Dr. Delacour’s 90th birthday celebra¬ tions at Miss Ezra’s home. Avicultural Magazine THE JOURNAL OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY VoL 92 - No. l.All rights reserved, ISSN 0005-2256 JANUARY - MARCH 1986 DR JEAN DELACOUR (1890-1985) It came as a great sadness to members of the Avicultural Society to learn that our President died on 5th November, 1985, in Los Angeles. He had been in failing health for some time, but retained his perceptiveness and sense of humour to the last. For most of this century Jean Delacour played a unique role by being a prominent ornithologist, aviculturist and, latterly, conservationist, and he made a brilliant and sustained contribution to all the fields in which he participated. He was bom in Paris of a wealthy family who always encouraged his interests and he began collecting birds at the age of ten. By the time he was 15 he had one of the largest collections then in existence, established at his family’s country house at Villers-Bretonneux. Following its destruc¬ tion in the 1914-18 war, the collection was very soon recreated at Cleres in Normandy in the grounds of the chateau which was to become his permanent base, Geres became world famous particularly for the collection of waterfowl which was one of the best and most extensive ever assembled. During World War II Jean Delacour again experienced the misery of losing his collection, which again he rebuilt with his charac¬ teristic enthusiasm when he was able to return to France from America where he had spent the war. He had by then become an American citizen and for the rest of his life he continued to spend most of the year in America, returning to Normandy each summer. Between the wars Jean Delacour made many expeditions all over the world, studying and collecting birds and was appointed by the French Government to organise the zoological exploration of French Indo-China from 1923 to 1940. In America he was appointed research associate at the American Museum of Natural History and Director of the Department of History, Science and Art at the Los Angeles County Museum. He was a very prolific author, contributing many hundreds of articles 2 Dr JEAN DELACOUR to various journals, including our own, and from 1920 to 1940 was editor of the French journal L’Oiseau. His books included: Les Oiseaux de rindochine Francaise (with P. Jabouille), Birds of the Philippines (with E. Mayr), Birds of Malaya, Pheasants of the World, Guide des Oiseaux de Nouvelle Caledonie et de ses Dependances, Curassows and Related Birds (with D. Amadon), Birds of Malaysia, his autobiography The Living Air, and the work for which he is probably best known, the monumental Waterfowl of the World, a complete survey of the family in four volumes. He was President of many important organisations, in particular the International Committee for Bird Preservation from 1938 to 1958 where his twin roles of ornithologist and aviculturist enabled him to combine these interests with those of conservation. Jean Delacour was always a great supporter of the Avicultural Society which he joined in 1916 (surely his must be the longest membership?) and contributed regularly to the Avicultural Magazine for the best part of 70 years. When he was elected President in 1972, he took a keen interest in the affairs of the Society and although he was unable to attend many Council Meetings, he always read the minutes that were sent to him and often undertook commissions for the Society on his travels. He was also a generous benefactor. In all, the Society was extremely privileged to have had such a distinguished friend as its President. Any time spent with Jean Delacour was always stimulating and enjoyable. We were honoured to have known him and will remember him with love and respect. * * * The Council has decided to dedicate a special issue of the Avicultural Magazine to Jean Delacour and contributions will be very welcome. We have already received some appreciations and no doubt more will be forthcoming, so in order to avoid inevitable repetition, it is proposed to assemble a compilation of extracts from all of them. In addition, we would particularly like to receive articles about various aspects of Jean Delacour’s work and the birds and/or areas in which he was especially interested, possibly reviewing and bringing up to date his researches and writings. The Editor will be very glad to hear from anyone who feels that they can contribute or can suggest possible contributors. 3 MISS RUTH EZRA - PRESIDENT At its meeting on 23rd February 1986, the Council unanimously elected Miss Ruth Ezra as our new President and we are very honoured that she has accepted this post as she has been one of the Society's greatest supporters and benefactors for many years. Her father, Alfred Ezra, QBE, was one of the legendary names in avi¬ culture and his collection at Foxwarren Park in Surrey was renowned throughout the world, many first breeding successes having been achieved there. Miss Ezra’s connections with the Avicultural Society go right back to her early years at Foxwarren Park where her father invited members each year to visit the collection. She has continued this tradition at Chest¬ nut Lodge, Cobham, where she entertains members each summer to see the magnificent collection of birds which she owns with Mr. Raymond Sawyer. Mr. Alfred Ezra was President of this Society from 1926 to 1955; it is particularly appropriate that his daughter should now occupy this position and we welcome her as an old friend. * * * AVICULTURAL SOCIETY AWARDS At the same meeting, Council agreed the following awards: The Society 's Medal (for the first known breeding of a species in Britain ) Mr. and Mrs. D. Floyd Roberts for successfully rearing the Golden¬ breasted Euphonia Euphonia xanthogaster in 1984. Mr. and Mrs. B. Peck for successfully rearing the Grosbeak Starling Semirostrum dubium in 1984. The Certificate of Merit Chester Zoo for the first known breeding in Britain of the Fire-tufted Barbet Psilopogon pyrolophus in 1984. Rosemary Low for the meritorious breeding of the Tahiti Blue Lory Vim peruviana in 1984. Hon. Secretary 4 REARING THE BROWN FISH OWL Ketupa zeylonensis AT THE PAIGNTON ZOO (Devon) By MISS JO GREGSON (Head Birdkeeper) There are four species of the genus Ketupa distributed from the Middle to the Far East but the Brown Fish Owl is by far the most widespread, four subspecies occupying a range from Israel in the west through India, Burma and Ceylon to China in the east. It inhabits wooded country, seeking out overgrown ravines and steep banks near rivers and streams in which it catches the fish and crabs that form the main part of its diet, though small mammals and birds are also taken. This very handsome owl is 22 in (0.55 m) long. The sexes are alike in plumage which is generally a reddish brown above, with black streaks and beige and white spots; underneath it is whitish with brown streaks and bars. Its feet and claws are especially adapted to catch and hold its slip¬ pery prey and resemble those of the Osprey. In the wild, the breeding season is from December to March, generally in February. This Fish-Owl was kept quite commonly in aviaries but the numbers have dwindled in recent years, probably due to the restrictions on import¬ ing and keeping birds of prey. This species has laid eggs in several collec¬ tions but we believe that it has never before been reared successfully in Britain, though the closely related Javan Fish Owl Ketupa ketupu was bred at London Zoo in 1967 (Aviculturai Magazine, 1968, pp. 17-18). A male Brown Fish Owl had been in the collection here since 1967; in April 1981 it was paired with a seven-year old female received in exchange from ‘Birdworld’, Surrey. The pair live in an unheated outdoor flight, constructed of 1 in (2.5 cm) chain link, laced on to a tubular metal framework, measuring 20 x 10 Vi x lOVz ft high (6.00 x 3.20 x 3.20 m). Aviary furniture includes natural perching, natural tree stumps, a large Bay shrub Laurus nobilis , and a raised feeding ledge. At the base of the shrub is a large water tray. A roofed, wood-partitioned area as wide as the aviary extends 5 ft (1.52 m) beyond the back of the flight. The roofing also projects forward some 5 ft in order to provode outdoor shelter. The nest-box 6Yi ft (1.97 m) above the floor is positioned inside the partitioned area aligned with an access hole (for the owls) measuring IVz x 1 ft high (0.45 x 0.30 m). Keeper access is by means of lower small hinged door. Since the aviary is sand¬ wiched between other similar owl flights, there are two entrance/exit MISS JO GREGSON - REARING THE BROWN FISH OWL 5 Brown Fish Owl at seven weeks Paignton Zoo doors in either side as well as a seldom-used door in the front of the aviary. In January 1982 the pair began to use an open-fronted nest-box measuring 30 x 16 x 24 in high (0.75 x 0.40 x 0.60) with a 6 in (1.82 m) upstand. A few days later one thin-shelled broken egg was found on the aviary floor. Despite constant improvements to the birds’ diet, the clutches laid in 1983 and 1984 were both thin-shelled and broken. The nest-box proved unsuitable for the purposes of removing eggs undamaged and at the end of 1984 a newly-designed nest-box was fitted in the hope that we would be able to remove an egg before it was broken. The new box was open-topped and measured 24 in x 24 in x 12 in high (0.60 x 0.60 x 0.30 m), with a 12 in square front drop flap allowing easier access to the eggs. The floor of the box (drilled in places for drainage) was layered with peat and scattered with old pellets! On 9th January 1985 one egg was removed for artificial incubation; a 6 MISS JO GREGSON - REARING THE BROWN FISH OWL DEVELOPMENT OF BROWN FISH OWL CHICK REARED AT PAIGNTON ZOO Grams 1050 + + + Notes: The chick was moved from the keeper’s home to the zoo on day 28. It refused food offered by hand on day 33 and fed independently on day 42. second egg had already been cracked and failed to hatch. The incubator was run dry until the chick had moved into the air space on 7th February. The next morning the chick had hatched. It was very strong with eyes partially open, but its navel had not yet healed. The chick may have escaped too soon from its thin shell and not had sufficient time for the yolk sac to be completely withdrawn into the abdomen. Fortunately after swabbing it with antiseptic, it healed over without any developing infection. The chick took its first feed at midday. It comprised trout and soft pieces of mouse. Thereafter it was fed approximately every two hours from 7 a.m. to 1 1 p.m. each day and tweezers were used to hold the food; SA37, a vitamin supplement, was dusted onto one feed every fourth day. For the first two days the chick was kept in the incubator, after which it was placed in a brooder. Two 60-watt light bulbs supplied ample heat. The first small pieces of mouse bone were fed on the fourth day. Fur and feather were fed from the eighth day and fish were filleted before feeding. By day 15, the chick was covered in quills and therefore one MISS JO GREGSON - REARING THE BROWN FISH OWL 7 60-watt light bulb was exchanged for a 25-watt bulb. At 20 days it was beak clicking and hissing when disturbed, as a means of defence. Much to everyone’s surprise, the first pellet was not regurgitated until day 26 after which a pellet was produced almost every other day. Once we were sure it could pass pellets regularly, whole mice were fed. Food was refused on the 33rd day and the chick became very excited, jumping out of its box, head bobbing, wings flapping and using its feet to hold food and tear up paper on the cage floor. It fed of its own accord for the first time on day 42. A few days later a large water bowl was placed on the cage floor into which it leaped almost immediately. There¬ after it remained in or around the bowl most of the time. By day 48 the chick required no further heat. When it could perch confidently, it was moved to a large flight on day 81. The juvenile bird sported yellow, turning to grey, down until it was replaced by the adult plumage. As described above, the Brown Fish Owl Ketupa zeylonensis has been bred by Paignton Zoological and Botanical Gardens and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to write to the Hon. Secretary. 8 BREEDING THE BANK MYNAH Acridotheres ginginianus AND THE COLETO OR BALD STARLING Sarcops calvus By R.F, RAYNER (London) My collection consists chiefly of starlings though in the past I have kept lovebirds, seedeaters, small softbills, tanagers, etc., but as I work seven days a week I find that it is easier to keep the larger softbills with the limited time I have available. I have been very successful with this specialised collection having reared the Spreo Starling, Coleto or Bald Starling, Rothschild’s Mynah, Pagoda Mynah and Bank Mynah. Blyth’s Mynahs, Pied Mynahs and Purple Glossy Starlings have hatched but deserted after one to 10 days. I have hopes for future success with Royal Starlings, Long-tailed Star¬ lings, White-winged Starlings, Malabar Starlings, Dumonti’s Mynahs, and Amethyst Starlings. I no longer use artificial light or heat and my new flights have only a covered roof at one end with a drop of about 2 ft (0.61 m). Water is pumped through all the flights from a pond 8 ft (2.44 m) in diameter and 3 ft (0.91 m) deep. This saves work and ensures that the birds always have water, even in freezing weather. All the birds survived last winter which was very severe (except a sick Coleto) with no ill effects and indeed this year (1985) I have had my best breeding season. Breeding the Bank Mynah This bird comes from the plains of Northern India and looks very much like the Common Mynah and indeed the two species are often found together, though the Bank Mynah is more a bird of the open countryside and spends less time scavenging around human habitation than the Common Mynah. It chooses to live near rivers and nests in colonies in banks and cliffs over running water. It is 9 in (0.22 m) long and the sexes are alike. The top and the sides of the head are black and the entire body plumage is slaty grey except for a pinky beige patch on the abdomen. The wing is black with a pinkish beige patch at the base of the outer flight feathers, and a similar patch is at the tip of the black tail. My pair of Bank Mynahs were obtained in 1981 from a dealer who assured me that they were an ‘unknown species’ and that a well-known avi- culturist had seen them and could not identify them. I travelled 150 miles to his establishment to be presented with two completely plucked birds, only their wing feathers and a few body feathers being present. I had HIGHLIGHT THE WILD THE ART OF THE REID-HENRYS Published by Palaquin Publishing Ltd. The life and work of a father and his two sons, all talented artists, naturalists and aviculturists. GEORGE HENRY (1891-1983). Career as draughtsman and entomologist in Ceylon. Well-known artist and illustrator of The Birds of Ceylon and A Guide to the Birds of Ceylon. BRUCE HENRY (Born 1918 in Ceylon). Elder son and author of this book. Career in church, mainly in India. Now professional wildlife artist. DAVID - D.M. HENRY (1919-1977). Worked with George Lodge. Illus¬ trated Birds of Sudan - Birds of Arabia - Birds of the Atlantic Islands - Eagles, Hawks and Falcons of the World. Painted many plates for the Avicultural Magazine. Perhaps the greatest painter of birds of prey. Chapters describing the ‘Beginnings’ of the family, their ‘Life Patterns4, their ‘Love of Nature’, the ‘Artists at Work’, the ‘Making of a Picture’, with an assessment - ‘The Art of the Reid Henrys’ by Donald Watson, and a Preface by Keith Shackleton. 40 full page colour plates, some 70 black and white illustrations. Published 7th October 1986. Price - £20.00. PRE-PUBLICATION OFFER TO AVICULTURAL SOCIETY MEMBERS £15.00 (plus postage and packing £2.00) Available from the Publishers: Palaquin Publishing Ltd., Warren Hill, Hulford’s Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, England, or from The Sladmore Gallery, 32 Bruton Place, London W.l, where an exhibition of the artists’ work will be held from 8-24 th October, 1986. ■ ^ ■ ->v " ' R.F. RAYNER - BREEDING BANK MYNAH & COLETO 9 Coleto with young R.F. Rayner a strong suspicion that they were Bank Mynahs but was assured that the aforesaid aviculturist would have recognised that species. However, several months later and after a lot of care, I had two beautiful Bank Mynahs! They were housed in a flight 8 x 8 x 3 ft (2.44 x 2.44 x 0.91 m) with a nest-box measuring 18 x 8 x 8 in (0.45 x 0.20 x 0.20 m) placed lengthwise at one end of the flight which was well planted. Their diet consisted of fruit, mynah pellets, mealworms and a homemade softfood mixture. Although in the wild these birds nest several feet underground in river banks, I was unable to duplicate this although the entrance to the nest-box is through a 4 x 2 in (0.10 x 0.05 m) pipe. The birds laid their first eggs in 1982 but removed them and placed them undamaged on the floor at the opposite end of the flight. I placed these eggs under Spreo Starlings but did not succeed in hatching them, or the eggs of subsequent years until this year. Two eggs were again removed whole from the nest (I have yet to see how the birds transport eggs over a distance of 8 ft [2.44m] without breaking them!). One egg was placed with a pair of Pagoda Mynahs sitting on several other eggs but it later vanished, possibly 10 R.F. RAYNER - BREEDING BANK MYNAH & COLETO eaten. The other was placed under a pair of Spreo Starlings. This pair consisted of a known hen that was at least 10 years old and a bird that I had bred in 1984 that I had hoped was a cock. There were already three eggs in the nest and on 17th July the parent birds were seen feeding. On 18th July the nest-box was checked and two chicks were seen. Obviously I had a pair. On 21st July one chick was thrown out. As the other chick had not fledged by 9th August ( 22 days) and my Spreos fledge between 16 and 20 days, I checked the box and saw that the chick was a Bank Mynah. Two days later it had still not come out, so I checked the box again and it came out (24 days). The chick was very much duller than its parents, looking ‘dusty’; the orange skin on the eye was hardly visible and the pink wing flash very insipid. Mynah parents seem to feed only mealworms and crickets which I cover in a calcium-based supplement, and on the seventh day I worm the chicks by dusting the crickets with an anthelmintic powder. Since follow¬ ing these procedures, my success rate with softbills has greatly improved. The foster parents of the Bank Mynahs had another round and reared two young of their own with the young Bank Mynah still in their flight. It seems no reverse imprinting had taken place as they had no trouble in rearing their own young. I have obtained another Bank Mynah which I hope to pair with my home-bred bird. I have only found one record of a previous breeding of this species and that was at London Zoo in 1909. Breeding the Coleto or Bald Starling Sarcops calvus This species comes from the Philippine Islands and I understand that there is a slight variation in size from one island to another. As with most starlings the sexes are alike. There is an excellent plate of this species by H. Gronvold in the Avicultural Magazine of 1906 (pp. 191-192) showing the very characteristic ruff raised. I obtained a pair that had been surgically sexed from a dealer in the winter of 1983/4 but the hen, which had never been a healthy bird, died in the following winter; no attempt at nesting had been made during 1984. In March 1985 I was fortunate enough to be present when two hens belonging to Mr. Raymond Sawyer were surgically sexed, and he kindly let me have one. He had had it for several years and it seemed to be different from my cock bird, being larger with slightly more silver on the neck. The two birds were placed together in a flight 12 x 3 x 8 ft (3.66 x 0.91 x 2.44 m), covered at one end where there is a nest-box 16 x 8 x 8 in (0.40 x 0.20 x 0.20 m) with a 2 in (0.05 m) entrance hole. The floor is R.F. RAYNER - BREEDING BANK MYMAH & COLETO 11 Spreo with young Bank Mynah R*F. Rayner of earth, covered with grass,- and there is a small conifer at one end. Knowing the aggressive reputation of these birds, I was slightly appre¬ hensive at the introduction but no attacks were seen. The cock bird immediately began to strip the conifer of all its leaves which, in fact, killed it. Both birds then began to tear the grass from the ground, pulling it out by the roots, ignoring hay and canary nesting material. The cock seemed to do most of the nest building and the box was filled to the entrance hole. I saw no mating take place but after about two weeks the cock bird remained in the nest box for hours at a time and during the following 10 days I only saw the hen enter the box once. From their behaviour, I came to the conclusion that perhaps I had two hens. On 21st April I checked the box and there were three eggs which were blue speckled at one end. Though I was convinced that both birds were hens, two days later two of the eggs were ejected and both were fertile. On 24th May, eggshells were seen in the flight and the cock bird was seen taking mealworms into the nest. The hen rarely went into the box, and I estimate that the cock did 90% of the feeding. I gave the birds 12 R.F. RAYNER - BREEDING BANK MYNAH & COLETO mealworms, crickets, fruit, softfood mix and mynah pellets but only live food was fed to the chicks during the first week. I had several nests of softbills at the time and on 30th May a handful of well-cleaned maggots was added to about 2 lbs of mealworms and fed to all my birds with young. The following day a dead Coleto chick was found on the aviary floor. As this is quite a common occurrence with softbills, no significance was placed on this. The cock bird continued feeding so I knew that there were chicks still in the nest. The following day the hen was on the floor unable to fly with no control over her head or wings. I realised then that the cause was probaby botulitis which I had heard about but not pre¬ viously encountered. The cock bird seemed unaffected, although he showed signs later, and I decided to remove the chick and the hen. The hen remained incapable of feeding itself or even moving for seven days. Although there is an antitoxin, which I managed to trace three days later, I was told that it must be given within 24 hours of the symptoms appearing. I had treated the hen with aluminium hydroxide which was supposed to ‘mop up’ the toxin and I was assured that the toxin would leave the system provided that I could keep the bird alive. I force-fed it for seven days and on the eighth day it recovered completely. In the meantime, the chick that I estimated to be about six to seven days old showed no signs of poisoning but as a precaution I started dosing it with aluminium hydroxide. I could find no guidance as to dosage but after three days the chick’s droppings were very loose and I stayed up all night worrying. I stopped giving the aluminium hydroxide. The chick was fed crickets and mealworms covered in the calcium-based supplement. It would not gape but I found out accidentally that sneezing caused it to gape, so I faked sneezing for two days before discovering that whistling gave the same result! The crickets had to be completely de winged and delegged before feeding. I fed on demand, which seemed continuous, starting at about 6 a.m. and finishing at midnight. The bird was kept in the house in the airing cupboard at a temperature of about 70°F, transported to work surrounded by tissue and with a hot water bottle, and placed in a hospital cage set at 80°F during working hours. At seven days old the chick was naked but the pink head could be seen clearly; growth was rapid and the wing feathers were beginning to show at 11 days; by 21 days the bird was fully feathered. I introduced minced beef and apple at 15 days. As I have lost several chicks with gape worm, I dosed the bird at 15 days with a suitable anthelmintic. Although the chick seemed to be developing very well, I was slightly concerned that at 20 days it still remained on its hocks. I ground up two calcium lactate tablets which I mixed with its food. At 22 days it was perching perfectly, and at 28 days it was feeding itself. I continued to offer it mealworms which it R.F. RAYNER - BREEDING BANK MYNAH & COLETO 13 took from my hand with no fear but about three weeks later it refused them and stayed away from me, becoming increasingly timid; it is now completely wild when approached. This is in complete contrast to the other softbills that I have bred which seem to get tamer the more contact is made. Since then, two further Coleto chicks have reacted in the same manner and although I have kept them in 2 x 2 x 4 ft (0.61 x 0.61 x 1.22 m) cages, they remain completely wild. After the hen had recovered, I replaced her with the male and on 28th July the cock bird was seen feeding. This time the parents successfully reared two chicks which left the nest on 25th August. The young are the same colour as the parents and although slightly smaller, and the silver ruff less pronounced, the feathering does not look very juvenile. The chicks were removed on 11th September. On 18th September the nest-box was checked and two eggs were seen. On 3rd October, the behaviour of the parents aroused my suspicions and on checking the nest-box I found two dead chicks. It seems that if compatible, these birds will nest several times a year and should be readily established in captivity. Because of their aggressive nature, I would recommend that they are best kept in a flight by them¬ selves. The young Coletos began to fight at about two months old and are now housed singly. BIBLIOGRAPHY HART, Siem van’T. (1978). Breeding the Bald Starling (in Holland). A vicultural Magazine, p. 1. JOHNSTONE, Mrs. (1906). The Bald-headed Starling (black and white plate by H. Gronvold). Avicultural Magazine, 191-192. RENS, J. (1978). Nesting of the Bald Starling at Wassenaar Zoo. Avicultural Maga¬ zine, 145-146. WHISTLER, H. (1928). Popular Handbook of Indian Birds. Gurney and Jackson, Edinburgh. 14 BREEDING THE CRESTED WOOD PARTRIDGE or ROULROUL Rollulus roulroul AT THE PADSTOW BIRD GARDENS, CORNWALL By ANDREW OWEN AND RICHARD HUGHES The Crested Wood Partridge, also known as the Roulroul Partridge, is probably the most attractive member of its family. The male is dark blue on the breast merging to green on the back and its most outstanding fea¬ ture is its white crown and upright red crest. The female’s plumage is mainly green with grey head and rich chestnut wings. The legs and feet of both sexes are reddish. Both sexes are about 10 in long (25.4 cm). It is found in tropical forests and bamboo thickets up to 3,000 ft (914 m) throughout Sumatra, Bornea, Thailand peninsular and Malaya (King and Dickinson, 1975). A pair of these birds is housed in the Tropical House here at Padstow Bird Gardens. Other ground-dwelling birds in the Tropical House include a pair of Northern Jacanas, Black- winged Stilts, Golden Heart Doves and a Spur-winged Plover. The diet for the Crested Wood Partridges consists of insectile food, chopped fruit, cress and live food (maggots, mealworms, crickets); they are also given Haith’s Java Dove Mix. They spend most of the time foraging among the leaf litter for insects and other invertebrates, and are particu¬ larly fond of large house spiders. Constantly calling in a soft mellow whistle, they are seldom apart. During the spring (1985) the Plover and Stilts were removed from the Tropical House to an outside flight as they were showing signs of aggres- tion towards the other ground birds. Shortly afterwards the Partridges began to nest. The female dug a scrape under a low fern. The male would carry root¬ lets and leaves towards the scrape, turn, and throw them over his shoulder where the awaiting female would place them around her, forming a dome¬ shaped nest (a characteristic of this species). The nest was finished within two days. Mating was observed once prior to nest-building. The female began to sit once the nest was complete. Once inside the nest she would place dead leaves and plant fibres over the entrance to con¬ ceal herself and to make the nest less conspicuous. It was not until six days later that the clutch of three white, almost round eggs were seen. On the rare occasions that the female left the nest to feed she would replace the plant matter over the entrance, quickly returning at the slightest distur¬ bance in the Tropical House. The male apparently took no part in the in- A. OWEN & R.HUGHES - BREEDING ROULROUL 15 Andrew Owen Adult male (1) and female (r) Roulroul at Padstow Bird Gardens cubation of the eggs. After a further six days the female deserted the nest due to some un¬ known disturbance. The eggs were left in the nest for several hours, but as the female did not return they were removed and placed in a small Cur¬ few incubator at a temperature of 99-100°F. The eggs hatched after a total incubation period of 17 days. The eggs began pipping at approximately 8.0 a.m. and hatched at 3.15 p.m., 7.15 p.m. and 2.30 a.m. respectively. Upon hatching the chicks seemed uncomfortable at the above temperature so it was lowered to 97°F. The chicks were covered in chocolate-coloured down and were ex¬ tremely vocal, continually calling to one another. They dried out after about four hours and by this time were very active, therefore a cardboard wall was put around the incubator to prevent them from escaping. The chicks were given their first feed 12 hours after hatching. This con¬ sisted of tiny stick insects and very small pinky maggots. These were fed from a pair of tweezers gently tapped on the ground in front of the birds. We had to persevere before they finally accepted the food. A shallow con¬ tainer of water was placed in with the chicks which they drank from readily. 16 A. OWEN & R. HUGHES - BREEDING ROULROUL For the first day they were fed at hourly intervals as very little food was taken at each feed. The youngest chick died within a day of hatching due to unknown causes. The two remaining chicks progressed well and began to accept food more readily and the distance between feeding times was, therefore, lengthened to two hours. At this stage a shallow dish containing chopped cress, hard-boiled egg and maggots was provided, though very little interest was shown in this. The temperature in the incubator was now reduced by a few degrees each day. All went well for the next two days until the legs of one chick started to splay. We tried to correct this by covering the floor with a damp cloth in the hope that this would improve its condition. Unfortunately, it deter¬ iorated and at five days old was very weak and unable to stand and sup¬ port its head; it was, therefore, destroyed. The remaining chick continued to thrive and at seven days old the wing feathers started to appear. At night the chick was very restless and was constantly calling so a cardboard box was provided for it to roost in. This did not completely solve the problem so we tried putting a small furry toy (of similar size) into the box. This seemed to do the trick as the chick was much quieter and more contented. By 1 1 days old its wings were larger, it had the beginnings of a tail and was growing rapidly. At this stage it was removed to a box cage measuring 3 ft x 1 ft x 1 ft (0.92 x 0.31 x 0.31 m). A week later the chick was still growing well, measuring about 6 in (0.15 m) and was a reasonable flier, capable of flying die length of the room. By this time it was feeding on its own although still accepting maggots from the tweezers. At 20 days some green feathers began to appear on its rump and back, and some silvery green feathers were also seen on the breast, thus we had the first indication of its sex (a female). After a few more weeks, the chick became too large and active for the cage, so it was then removed to a larger indoor holding flight. During the next three months she gradually attained adult plumage. By this time she was feeding on an adult diet. Although remaining tame, the young Partridge has not become imprinted as we first feared. This was the first breeding of this species in the Gardens and we hope for more success in the future. A. OWEN & R. HUGHES - BREEDING ROULROUL 17 REFERENCES KING, B.F. and DICKINSON, E.C. (1975). A field Guide to the Birds of South-East Asia. Collins, London. Previous articles in the Avicultural Magazine 1908. p. 201-203. Hubert D. ASTLEY. The Crested Wood Partridge (with pen and ink drawings by author). 1908. p. 38-40. Sir William INGRAM, Bart. Breeding ofthe Roulroul or Red-crested Partridge (with pen and ink wash of young). 1927. p. 253-256. Herbert WHITLEY. The Breeding of the Crowned Wood Partridge (with coloured plate by Roland Green). 1930. p. 91-96. D. SETH-SMITH. Partridges. 1934. p. 161. Alfred EZRA. Nesting Notes from Foxwarren Park, 1933. 1936. p. 249-250. H.A. FOOKS. Rollulus roulroul and other birds. 1954. p. 5. Ir. F.J. APPELMAN. Breeding of the Crowned Wood Partridge. 1962. p. 13-15. Dr. K.C. SEARLE. The Roulroul. 1969. p. 9-11. Kerry MULLER. Raising the Crested Wood Partridge at the National Zoological Park (Washington D.C.). 1976. p. 115-116. W. VANDERVIJVER. Correspondence: Breeding the Roulroul Partridge. 18 BREEDING BEHAVIOUR OF CRESTED WOOD PARTRIDGES IN CAPTIVITY By G.W.H. DAVISON (Zoology Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia) The wariness of tropical rainforest pheasants and partridges, as well as their densely vegetated habitat, has greatly restricted studies of the wild birds. Observations in captivity have correspondingly had more importance in understanding their behaviour. The Crested Wood Partridge Rollulus roulroul is one such species, being one of the few partridges of tropical evergreen forest to breed rather freely in captivity. Data presented here, from observations of captive birds, show that this species has unique behavioural adaptations, notably in relation to breeding. These adapta¬ tions are in strong contrast to the behaviour of similar-sized temperate game birds. Crested Wood Partridges are patchily common in lowland and hill evergreen dipterocarp forest, in the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra and Borneo. The sexes are highly dimorphic in plumage (Robinson and Chasen, 1936) but not in size, both weighing around 280g. Nesting in the wild has been described by Ogilvie (1949) and by Coomans de Ruiter (1946); other details of the species’ behaviour are given by Robinson and Chasen (1936) and by Medway and Wells (1976). Methods The following observations were made on 10 pairs, variously accom¬ panied by their offspring, at the National Zoo, Kuala Lumpur. Each pair was kept in visual, but not vocal, isolation, in cages ranging from 4 m2 to 90 m2. Behaviour of individual birds within larger flocks was observed in captive groups of up to 12; wild birds were also observed ranging from solitary individuals to large flocks. Pair bonding Mean group size in the wild was 2.67 (average of 60 sightings), ranging from one to 13 birds. The commonest sighting (27 times) was of an adult pair, followed by sightings of singletons. All birds in wild flocks keep in contact through continual soft chirping, but normally distinct pairs are discernible within the larger group. This is evident when flocks are dis¬ turbed and split up into their constituent pairs, or when on occasion a flock cautiously crosses a forest trail pair by pair, or when in a foraging group each pair feeds slightly apart from the remainder. Most often simi- G.W.H. DAVISON - CRESTED WOOD PARTRIDGES 19 lar numbers of males and females make up the flock, but occasionally there is a strong bias: once a flock of 12 males was seen. Pair formation within a flock takes place when a male begins courting a particular female. A large part of this activity consists not of displays, in the sense of postures having a special visual impact, but of ‘cutting-out’ movements, by which the male attempts to isolate a female from the rest of the group. In particular he continually interposes his body, with lowered head, whenever the female approaches another male, walking parallel by her side and sometimes touching. Throughout pair formation and the subsequent bond, much play is made of the rapidly vibrated tail which in this bird is short and down¬ wardly directed. Once the pair is formed, the male generally follows wherever the female leads, and it is she who performs the majority of tail shaking. Displays Through pair formation and thereafter, the male and female spend their time in close proximity, whether moving about or resting. Much of the time not spent in foraging is devoted to preening. In the male, active and jerky movements of the head while preening the upper and under sur¬ faces of the body and wings, switching rapidly from one part of the body to another, make the deep red crest very conspicuous. Whether these preening movements are ritualised to a point at which they have display function is an arguable point. Much more typical of partridge displays is a stretched lateral posture. The male, standing usually alongside the female and parallel to her, straightens his legs so that his body is raised up. There is little accompany¬ ing change in feather posture, but a major effect of the display is to em¬ phasise the red legs. Courtship feeding or tidbitting is very common, when the male picks up any piece of food, especially animal food, and twitters until the female comes and takes it from his bill. Sometimes he twitters and adopts the head-forwards posture without holding anything, and if the female res¬ ponds she pecks preferentially at the red patch on the male’s bill. Two other displays bear no parallel amongst game birds. On occasion the male will run just behind or alongside the female and, as soon as she pauses, will put his head under her breast, abdomen, or under tail-coverts and press upwards. This can only be understood in relation to the beha¬ viour of the chicks described later. Sometimes too, while running along¬ side, the male will crouch, lower his head and beg with open bill while twittering. Although all males performed this display, no female was ever seen to respond by giving the male food. 20 G.W.H. DAVISON - CRESTED WOOD PARTRIDGES Nest-building Both sexes participate in building the nest, using sideways-throwing and sideways-building techniques. One bird will enter the chosen nest space and sit there while pulling in leaves from within reach, tucking them down the sides of the body. It will, after a time, emerge and walk away from the nest throwing leaves or twigs backwards over its back. As this bird emerges, its partner enters the nest and begins sideways-building. Thus in periods of intense activity there is a continuous cycle with one bird in the nest and one walking away, only to switch places as the nest occupant emerges. Entry into the nest and turning within it form the central nest chamber, while the high level of activity results in a large mass of leaves forming a complete dome. This system should encourage similar levels of participation from the two sexes, but in fact males generally expend more time building than their mates. Females cease sideways-throwing sooner while walking away, and more often miss out their turn to enter the nest. On average males put about twice as much time into nest building as females do, as the following figures show. Mean time per Mean time per session in nest session walking (seconds) (seconds) Pair 1 Male 106.3 38.7 Female 60.0 21.0 Pair 2 Male 133.4 194.3 Female 66.5 23.0 Chick behaviour The most noticeable feature after hatching is the great care paid by both parents to the chicks. This is manifested in various ways. After hatching the brood splits between the parents. If only one chick hatches from a clutch it is tended by both parents (not always to an equal degree), but in larger broods about half go to each, and each parent restricts its care very largely to its own set of young. The chicks take food mainly from the attendant parent’s bill for the first few days; the parent picks up a fragment, and may call, whereupon one or more chicks peck at the held food. This behaviour gradually declines in favour of the chicks picking up food for themselves at scrapes made by the parents. At the same time chicks learn to scrape for their own food, beginning within the first week of life, and at least by the eighth week most food comes by this means. Nevertheless, depending on the behavioural state of the parent, odd items may still be obtained from the G.W.H. DAVISON - CRESTED WOOD PARTRIDGE 21 parent’s bill even up to six months old, when the young are full-sized and in adult-like plumage. Gaping for food occurs, and this exposes the skin within the mouth which is bright yellow in the chick (but pink in the adult). A gaping chick crouches slightly and lifts up its widely open bill while cheeping. Although this behaviour was seen many times, on no occasion did either parent place food within the chick’s mouth. But it seems logical to suppose this does sometimes happen, otherwise the behaviour seems pointless and is difficult to account for. It would be difficult too to explain the evolution of the colour signal within the chick’s gape. Gaping is not a common behaviour, though every chick performs it, and it becomes positively rare after the fifth week. Chicks in less active periods solicit brooding from their attendant parent; the female responds more often than the male. Brooding is soli¬ cited by a chick walking under the parent and pressing upwards with its head, back and lifted wings, exerting pressure by straightening the legs as well as wing lifting. This pressure seems to induce the brooding response (crouching) in the parent. As the chick grows it is less able to burrow beneath its parent and upward pressing is done mainly with the head, inserted under the parent’s breast, abdomen or tad-coverts. Discussion These observations raise some general points about the reproductive behaviour of the species. Chick care is multifaceted, and exceeds that known for any other galliform. The male parent takes an equal share in the breeding cycle as a whole; although he does not incubate he expends time and energy in courtship feeding, which is a direct input of nutrients to the female and hence to the eggs she will lay. Gaping by chicks is quite unknown in other galliforms. It is worth further observations to see whether this ever does stimulate the parent to place food within the chick’s mouth. Stable division of the brood between the two parents has also not been reported for other species. The amount of food-finding by the male, and the amount of brooding he performs, are unusual features. So too is his heavy role in nest building. The level and type of chick care are of interest again in relation to the displays of the adult male. Tidbitting is widespread, perhaps universal among galliforms, and is thought to be a ritualisation of parental feeding (Stokes and Williams, 1971). But in the Crested Wood Partridge two other displays are related to a similar phenomenon. Gaping by the male, and his insertion of the head beneath the female, are almost identical to gaping and brooding-solicitation by the chicks. Though ritualisation of parental behaviour to form displays is a common occurrence, the ritualisation of 22 G.W.H. DAVISON - CRESTED WOOD PARTRIDGES chick behaviour into courtship is unique to the present species. These observations have some relevance to the captive breeding of tropical galliforms. It is common practice to increase output by removing and artificially incubating first clutches or all clutches. This process is very effective when applied to temperate zone species. But the Crested Wood Partridge is an extreme example of the general truth that tropical game birds have more elaborate chick care. Artificial incubation deprives the chicks of this care, and a long term strategy for their captive breeding might be to leave eggs with the parents. This would result in lower produc¬ tion rates but better care of chicks, and chicks with broad social ex¬ perience. Such parent-reared chicks are themselves more likely to be com¬ petent breeders in future. REFERENCES COOMANS de RUITER, L. (1946). Oologische en biologische aanteekeningen over eenige hoendervogels in de Westerafdeeling van Borneo. Limosa 19: 129-140. MEDWAY, Lord and WELLS, D.R. (1976). Birds of the Malay Peninsula. Vol. 5. Conclusion, and survey of every species. Witherby, London. OGILVIE, C.S. (1949). Nesting habits and early life of the Crested Green Wood Quail. Malayan Nature Journal 4: 80-84. ROBINSON, H.C. and CHASEN, F.N. (1936). Birds of the Malay Peninsula. Vol. 3. Witherby, London. STOKES, A.W. and WILLIAMS, H.W. (1971). Courtship feeding in gallinaceous birds. Auk 88: 543-559. THE PARTRIDGES OF THE GENUS ALECTORIS By DEREK GOODWIN (Petts Wood, Kent) I apologise for putting a 'Latin5 name in the title but, unfortunately any possible English name for the group is also the specific name of one of its members. Introduction The partridges of the genus Alectoris are perhaps best typified by the Chukar A. chukar and the Red-legged Partridge A. rufa , one or other of which is likely to be familiar to most of my readers. To those to whom they are not, Fd better say that they are a shade larger and more robust in build than the Common Partridge Perdu perdu or Indian Grey Partridge Francolinus pondicerianus and about a third larger than a Bob white Coii- nus virginianus. They are all extremely beautiful birds, characterised by having red bills and legs, red or pink orbital skin around the eye, a distinctive face, neck and throat pattern in white or cream and black or (one species only) grey and chestnut, strikingly barred flanks and the upperparts some shade of brown, fawn or grey without any markings other than, in some species, a broadly laced pattern on the scapulars. Most have chestnut outer tail feathers. The sexes are alike except that the males are rather larger and usually have wart-like ‘spurs’ on their legs, although it is said that some hens have these and certainly in A. rufa some cocks do not. The juvenile birds are very different in colour and pattern, being much more like Perdu . They are all closely related and similar and under natural conditions are either completely allopatric or, where two forms do appear to overlap ‘on the map’ they are usually known or believed to be separated by living at different altitudes. Some authorities have treated the Chukar, the Rock Partridge Alectoris graeca and the Large Rock Partridge or Przewalskf s Partridge A, magna as members of a single species. However, Watson (1962) gave what seem to be valid reasons for treating them as separate species, although he perhaps over-emphasised some of the slight plumage differences. In any case most writers now treat these as three species and it is preferable to do so unless proof to the contrary turns up. The Black-throated Chukar or Philby’s Partridge A. phi! by i is also sometimes treated as a race of A. chukar but, like Harrison (1982) I con- 24 DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES sider it best given specific rank. The three remaining species are the Arabian Partridge or Arabian Red- legged Partridge A. melanocephala , the Barbary Partridge A. barbara and, perhaps most beautiful of all these exquisite birds, the Red-legged Part¬ ridge, long (but perhaps not to be much longer!) familiar as a successfully introduced species in central-eastern and south-eastern England. Alectoris is a very distinct genus. Its nearest relatives are probably the sand partridges of the genus Ammoperdix and, more distantly, the much larger and duller snowcocks Tetraogallus. The Alectoris partridges inhabit rocky, rather arid, and usually hilly or mountainous areas, with a preference for warm, south-facing slopes. Some¬ times in places with bush or tree cover but not in dense woodland or flat open country far from any cover. Like most other gamebirds that live on hills or mountains, they tend to walk or run uphill away from man or other predators but in emergency to fly downhill. Their flight, like that of most gamebirds (and ground-living pigeons) consists of alternate periods of violent wing beating, interspersed with long glides. They are not so completely terrestial as the Common Partridge Perdix perdix as they often perch on rocks, walls, dead trees, buildings, etc. Some, and perhaps all of these partridges have the habit, unique among gamebirds so far as is known, of both cock and hen of the pair sometimes or usually incubating a nest of eggs. If feeding and other conditions per¬ mit, the hen lays two ‘clutches’ of eggs or, to be more precise, she lays about half of one large clutch of 15, 20, 28 or more eggs in one nest and the others in a second nest. She starts to incubate on the second nest when it is full and, when she does so but not before, her mate returns to the first nest and starts to incubate the eggs there, if they have not, in the meantime, been discovered and eaten by some predator. If they have been, or if the hen lays only one nestful of eggs before beginning to sit, the cock joins up with other males who also have no eggs to sit on. In some cases, at least for some species, cocks are said sometimes to re-join their mate and her chicks when the latter are partly grown. In other cases, and usually with the Red-legged Partridge at least, a brood of chicks is reared by mother or father alone This behaviour is well documented for the Red-legged Partridge in England, both in captivity (Goodwin, 1953) and in the wild (Green, 1981 and 1984; Jenkins, 1957). It is said (Cramp et al, 1980) sometimes to occur in the Rock Partridge, although Menzdorf (1983) says there is no evidence for it in this species. Cock Chukars have also been known to incubate nests of eggs and rear chicks in captivity (Portal, 1924) and a cock with a brood patch has been shot in the wild in the Aegean Islands (Wettstein, 1938). Menzdorf dismisses male incubation in this species with DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES 25 the statement that possibly occasional males may incubate deserted clutches (verwaiste Gelege). This seems to be unlikely because, on ‘selfish gene’ principles, such behaviour could hardly be selected for unless he incubated only clutches deserted by his own mate. Even if he did, it would be a risky business as the commonest cause of nest desertion is because the sitting bird has had a narrow escape from a predator, who might well have ‘better luck next time’ if the deserter’s mate took over. I think those who, like Menzdorf, doubt the occurrence of male incuba¬ tion in these partridges under natural conditions, may be unduly influ¬ enced by having had captive males that did not incubate when given the chance. However, it is well known that female ground nesting gamebirds (and also ground nesting pigeons!) very often nest and lay but refuse to incubate under captive conditions. So it should cause no surprise if under captive conditions some male Alectoris partridges fail to incubate their mates’ first nests. That any do so argues cogently, in my opinion, that the habit is (under appropriate conditions) normal to them. As the Heinroths, with their incomparable experience of bird keeping, pointed out (I think in their classic book Die Vogel Mitteleuropas but am not sure of this), when speaking of nest site selection by drakes, the fact that a bird does not perform some piece of behaviour in captivity is no proof that it never does so in the wild but the performance of any complex piece of repro¬ ductive behaviour in captivity is proof that it is part of the species’ reper¬ toire in its wild state. My own opinion is that it will ultimately be found that, where feeding conditions and other circumstances are favourable, the hens of most or all Alectoris lay two nests full of eggs, one of which the cock incubates when the hen has begun incubation on the second, but that in many circum¬ stances the food available, the amount of time available before incubation must begin if the young are to be reared successfully, or other factors, pre¬ clude the hen from laying more than one ‘clutch’. Possibly (but this is a mere guess) if the hen is killed when she has laid several eggs but before she has begun to incubate, the cock will then incubate these eggs, at least if there is not an unmated hen around to distract him from them. So far as I am aware, there is little or no evidence for male incubation or, for that matter, any detailed studies on breeding behaviour in the other species. A cock Barbary Partridge (Debeno, 1933) incubated the only nest of eggs that his mate produced but as she took a surprisingly long time about this, perhaps he realised that the eggs would not keep much longer if not sat upon. After incubating for some time, he attacked his mate fiercely but when she was removed sat peacefully again and was a model father to his chicks. 26 DEREK GOOWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES I hope that some of my readers will be able to give further information on this interesting subject. Notes on the species The Chukar This is the most widespread and almost certainly the most abundant species. It is also more easily, or perhaps one should say even more easily kept and bred in captivity than its congeners, in which state it has almost certainly been kept as early as the Bronze age (Watson, 1962). It is found from eastern Greece (Thrace) and Crete through Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Sinai, Iraq and Iran, Afghanistan, northern India and nearby areas through much of central Asia to north-eastern China. It has been introduced as a ‘sporting bird’, for the pleasure of those who enjoy killing beautiful, sen¬ tient creatures (unfortunately a much larger and hence more powerful number of people than those who enjoy watching birds or keeping them), to many countries and appears to be well established in parts of the western United States and in New Zealand. It has also been introduced into various parts of England, about which I shall say more further on in this article. Diagrammatic sketches to show differences in face and throat pattern between :- a) Chukar Alectoris chukar, (b) Rock Partridge Al. graeca ; and (c) Red-legged Part¬ ridge A rufa. DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES 27 The Chukar inhabits a wide, or at least fairly wide range of habitats, typically on or near rocky hillsides, mountain slopes or valleys, ranging from the snow line, or just below it, down to hot deserts. Sometimes in clearings in forest or in open, grazed woodlands with some rocks or boulders. It is said (Cramp et at) also to inhabit open plains and flat desert but I suspect it only does so where there is some rocky ground or scrub fairly near. In describing this and the other species I shall here give only the main features and not attempt a detailed description. When describing feathers I shall ignore the fluffy basal portion of the feather that is not normally visible and not repeat the description of the bill, legs and orbital skin which have already been given. As with many other birds, especially those that have subtle pastel shades, no words and few paintings or photographs can give an adequate impression of the extreme beauty of these birds. The fit and living bird must be seen at close quarters for this to be fully appre¬ ciated. This is not always easy as, because more people shoot partridges than want to look at them, they are almost everywhere much afraid of man in their wild, or feral state. The Chukar5 s upper parts are predominantly olive brown to pale pinkish fawn, more or less shading to pale grey on the crown, neck and rump. The sides of the breast and the scapulars are pale bluish grey with broad pinkish fawn, mauvish pink or salmon pink borders to the feathers. The front of the breast is pale grey, the belly and under tail covert huffish. The face and throat pattern (see sketch) is black surrounding dull cream or dingy off-white, often with a dusky smudging or speckling in the cream colour at the lowest point (the pale part) of the bib. There is a tuft of hairy reddish brown feathers over the ear openings and a conspicuous white or greyish white stripe above and extending beyond the eye. The outer tail feathers are pale chestnut. The barred feathers on the flanks are pale bluish grey at the base, then come two rather narrow black bands with a wider buff or cream band between them (see sketches) then a final and narrow fringe of dark chestnut. The above is a generalised description. Many geographical races of this species have been named on usually rather small differences of shade of the upper parts and the width of the buff band on the flank feathers. In general, Chukars from hot, arid regions are paler and pinker in colour (and in my eyes, therefore, more beautiful) than those from less arid regions. They also bleach even more quickly and the differences due to plumage wear can be very striking Indeed. I have handled and examined many museum specimens, collected when moulting, in which the new feathers on the back are deep olive brown and the old ones that they are replacing are a very pale dusty cream colour. Every British bird watcher who takes 28 DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES note of the common birds (and that is far from every BBW, I fear) knows how our Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus, when in fresh plumage in early autumn, has dark olive brown upperparts (slightly paler and more greenish on the rump) and a deep golden (dark-spotted) breast which, by the fol¬ lowing May, have usually become, respectively, pale dingy greyish and white. The Chukar’s usual colour changes are similar and just as great. There are two very nice colour pictures of the Chukar in Jonsson (1982) a good colour photograph in Nicolai (1982) and some excellent ‘action photos’ of captive birds performing various displays in Stoke’s paper on the species’ behaviour. From what I have read, the voice and displays of this species would appear to be very similar but not identical to those of the Red-legged Partridge (Goodwin, 1953,). A most noticeable possible difference is that in the threat or sexual display in which the Red-legged Partridge ‘twists its face round’ in a remarkable way, the Chukar would appear to do so to a relatively very slight extent, if at all. At least so it seems from Stokes’s pictures and descriptions and so it was on the only two occasions that I have seen this display from a Chukar. In one of these the bird was dis¬ playing at and being displayed back to ‘in kind’ by a Red-legged Part¬ ridge and I had both birds ‘in my binoculars’ at once. Presumably the more elaborate throat and upper breast pattern of the Redleg is relevant here. The only calls I have heard from Chukars (feral birds in Kent) were the rally call and the ‘steam engine’ call and both of these sounded to my ears similar to but more husky and guttural than the ‘same’ calls of the Redleg (which I heard the same day). The Rock Partridge In appearance this bird is very similar to the Chukar, differing only in minor point of face pattern (see sketch), in having a pure white or greyish white (not creamy) throat and more prevailingly grey upper parts. The bars on its flanks look finer and a little brighter, the cream or buff band between the two black bands is narrower and the chestnut tip broader than on the corresponding feathers of most Chukars. The bill is propor¬ tionately a little smaller and, although I have not seen a live Rock Part¬ ridge, I think it might appear a little more delicate in shape. The calls of the two are said by some authorities (e.g. Watson) to differ greatly but by others (e.g. Menzdorf, Cramp et al) to be similar. Not having heard Rock Partridges I will not venture a personal opinion on the matter but hope that some of our readers will have kept both and can enlighten us. Geographically the Rock Partridge meets or overlaps with the range of the Red-legged Partridge in the south-western Alps but the two appear DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES 29 normally or always to inhabit different areas, the Rock Partridge breeding at higher elevations. Watson found evidence of similar altitudinal separa¬ tion where the Rock Partridge and the Chukar appear to overlap geogra¬ phically in Thrace and in eastern Bulgaria. He found no evidence of inter¬ breeding and no hybrids or intergrades among the many specimens he col¬ lected. On the other hand Nicolai states definitely that the two hybridise in this region and treats the Chukar as a race of the Rock Partridge ‘weil es (the Chukar) . mit ihn (the Rock Partridge) bastardiert .’ Menzdorf quotes Russian sources that claim a hybrid zone exists at some eastern fringes of A graeca’s range and that captive-bred hybrids are fertile. The Rock Partridge is found in mountainous regions from the western Alps east to Thrace and Bulgaria and south through Italy and Sicily. It mainly inhabits dry, rocky areas between tree-line and snow-line, mainly in fairly open areas which include heathland, open sparse woodland, scrub and pastureland. It prefers south-facing slopes and sunny places generally. It is a permanent resident where found. In hard weather it may enter barns or other buildings in search of food (Menzdorf). It appears to have de¬ creased and/or to be (or still be) declining over most of its range. The de¬ terioration of the climate in the more northerly and western parts of its distribution, the decrease of old farming methods (in the Alps), and the ever increasing predation on it by sportsmen have all been suggested as possible factors. I will discuss further in this article the widespread intro¬ duction of the Chukar into parts of its range. According to Watson the Rock Partridge is less easy to keep in captivity than is the Chukar. Two aviculturists quoted by Raethel et al (pp. 268 and 269) both state that the Rock Partridge is less lively (lebhaft) in captivity than the Chukar but one of them implies that it is equally easy to keep. Both make the point that whereas the Chukar is widely imported, sold and bred on the Continent, the Rock Partridge is rarely available from dealers. Taking a long term view I don’t think the future looks over bright for the Rock Partridge although perhaps not so black as that for the Red-leg. The Large Rock Partridge This species has a relatively restricted range in eastern Asia, being found in parts of eastern Tibet and western Kansu. Its range appears to overlap in places with that of the Chukar (Harrison, Watson) but they are believed to be altitudinally separated with the present species normally found only above 1.500 m (Harrison). It is slightly larger than the Chukar and the details (fine details!) of its face pattern are closer to those of the Rock Partridge. The dark band around the pale parts of its throat and face is dark reddish brown, margined 30 DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES with black along its Inner edge. Watson thinks, probably correctly, that it is most closely allied to the Rock Partridge, which must (if this is the case) formerly have had a much more extensive range. Watson suggests that the Chukar must have origina¬ ted from a population of Rock Partridges which became isolated some¬ where in the Himalayas or the Middle East and developed qualities that enabled it later to spread and supplant its parent form, the Rock Partridge, throughout most of the latter’s former range. In view of the obvious political, geographical and other obstacles, it seems unlikely that any readers of this article, even those living in ‘the USA, so vast, so friendly and so rich5 (as the poet W.H. Auden justly des¬ cribed their country) will have had any personal experience with A, magria but if any have, I hope they will inform us in the pages of our magazine. Philby $s Partridge This species is very similar to the Chukar and Rock Partridges but a shade smaller and with a more tawny tinge to the greyish brown parts of its plumage. Its most striking difference is the entirely black face and throat (see sketch). It also lacks the laced pattern on the scapulars which are uniform greyish drab like the back. When the Chukar and the Rock Partridge were generally thought to be conspecific, this bird was often put as a race of A. graeca. However, this is not feasible (at least not in our present state of knowledge, or lack of knowledge about it). If A. philbyi ever came into contact with A. graeca or A. chukar , its very different facial pattern might, as in all probability it does between A , philbyi and the Arabian Partridge A. melanocphala, act as an isolating mechanism. Philby’ s Partridge is found only in south-western Arabia, from Taif south to the Asir mountains. It overhaps geographically with the Arabian Partridge but is said usually to occur on more densely bushy slopes and at higher altitudes. However, much more study needs to be done on these two species in the wild (and hopefully, for details of voice and behaviour, on tame birds in aviaries). I have not read of Philby5 s Partridge having been imported into other countries. Perhaps it’s being less beautiful than the Chukar, and less strikingly different from the latter species than is the Arabian Partridge, has been In part the reason for this. The Arabian Partridge This species is appreciably larger and proportionately longer-tailed than other members of the genus. The difference In size between the sexes also appears, so far as one can judge from museum skins (I have not seen the living bird), greater than in other Alectoris. The top of its head Is black, merging into dark reddish brown on the DEREK GOODWIN • ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES 31 The two Arabian forms, (Left) Arabian Partridge A. wmlanocephala , (right) Philby’s Partridge A philbyi. See text for full descriptions. nape and both these feathers and those on the lower parts of the black surround of the white lower face and throat are elongated and probably give, at least if slightly erected, a crested and ‘bearded' impression in life. There is a beautiful colour plate of the Arabian Partridge, by our late member Mr. David Reid Henry in Meinertzhagen’s Birds of Arabia, The general coloration is a very pale brown and pale grey. The scapular feathers, and to a lesser extent many on the mantle, back and sides of the breast are pale bluish grey, bordered with pale fawn. The flank feathers are pale bluish grey banded with cream bands which are bordered by narrow black bands (see sketch). The black top to the head makes the white stripe over the eye, a striking feature of all but one of the Alec t oris species, perhaps even more conspicuous in this bird. The Arabian Partridge is found, in suitable habitat, from near Mecca in western Arabia south to Aden and east to Oman. The populations in the northern and eastern Hadramaut average a little paler in colour and are usually given subspecific rank under the name A. melanocephala guichardi. Like its congeners, this species frequents rocky hills, valleys (wadis) and, it is said, also upland plains. Little seems to have been recorded of its behaviour. Meinertzhagen says it is ‘probably polygamous’ but gives no evidence for this opinion. It was bred with some (but not very much) suc¬ cess in captivity in Devon in 1927 and the fact recorded in our magazine (Seth-Smith, 1928). I have seen the skin of a captive-bred hybrid between this species and the Chukar. It is a relatively dull bird, lacking the full beauty of either parent and with (surprisingly) a dull greyish throat and lower face. 32 DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES The Red-legged Partridge I consider this bird even more handsome than its congeners, with the possible exception of the very pale and pinkish desert race of the Chukar which is found in parts of Syria and Sinai. Perhaps I am biased because as a very small child I was enchanted by a description, and later an excel¬ lently coloured toy model, of the North American Robin Moth, which has rather similar rich but harmonious colour combinations, and because I later kept Red-legged Partridges myself. I described my experiences with this most beautiful and endearing bird in an earlier issue of our magazine (Goodwin, 1954). The Redleg is a warm olive brown on the upperparts (but can bleach to a light dusty greyish brown in worn plumage) with a wine-red tinge on the neck and upper breast. The lower face and throat are pure white, encircled with black, this black surround ‘running into3 the lower throat and sides of neck in a kind of beautiful necklace-like effect. The lower breast is rich bluish grey, the belly deep reddish buff. The barred flank feathers are more richly coloured than, and differ from those of all other Alectoris in having only one black cross band. Each feather shows bright bluish grey, then a pale cream band, bordered only on the outer edge with black, then a wide terminal band of deep, bright chestnut. Diagrammatic sketches of flank feather from: (a) Chukar A. chukar , (b) Red-legged Partridge A. rufa, and (c) Arabian Partridge A. melanocephala. Key: Shaded areas black; lined areas bluish grey; stippled areas chestnut; unshaded areas cream or buff. See text for full description and specific differences in shades of these colours. The Redleg occurs naturally in southern France, the Iberian Peninsula, and a limited area of northern Italy, possibly also in Corsica, though it is just possible that it may have been introduced there as in Madeira and some of the Canary Islands. As recently as the 16th century it occurred further north, breeding in southern Germany (Nicolai). Around 200 years ago it was successfully introduced into England and is now (but see com¬ ments further on) widely if rather patchily distributed in eastern and DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES 33 southern England. Though preferring, when available, the sort of habitats already described for its congeners, It also breeds successfully in more or less flat agricultural country although, unlike the Common Partridge, sel¬ dom in extensive fields or meadows unless these are diversified with some small hills, old quarries, raised banks, heaps of stones or gravel or similar features. Varying numbers of geographical subspecies have been recognised by various authors, mostly on minor differences. In general, the populations from southern Iberia are darker than those from further north. The Barbary Partridge This species differs considerably from the others in the colour and. pattern of its head and neck. A broad, chestnut brown, blackish edged stripe runs along the top of its head from the base of the bill to the hind neck. The broad stripe over the eyes, the lower face and the throat are light grey, and there is a large patch of dark or light (according to race) chestnut, spotted with white, on each side of the neck. The flank barring is very like that of the Chukar and Rock Partridges. The rather elongated head feathers and the head pattern both suggest that this form may be more closely related to the Arabian Partridge than it Is to the other species. Diagrammatic sketches of (left) Red-legged Partridge A. rufa , and (right) Barbary Partridge A Barbara , to show face and neck patterns. 34 DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES There are photographs, and delightful sketches illustrating its displays and some other postures, in the paper on its behaviour by de Reyna and Alvarez, and there are good colour drawings in Jonsson. The Barbary Partridge is found from north-western Africa east to coastal eastern Libya (see Harrison for distribution map) and has been introduced to some of the Canary Islands, Gibraltar, and probably also to Sardinia and to Porto Santo. Some comments on the Chukar in Britain and Europe People and organisations concerned with bird conservation in Britain appear to regard gamebirds (pheasants, partridges and grouse) as outside their field of interest. There are good, or at any rate expedient reasons for this, which I do not propose to discuss here. Not surprisingly perhaps, most ‘rank and file’ birdwatchers have taken the cue from ‘their betters’ and subscribe to the view that these beautiful creatures are not, and should not be , of any concern except to those who enjoy killing them. Hence, although those in authority in such matters are now generally ‘dead against’ the introduction of any foreign species of bird or beast (to such an extent that a most eminent person has felt it necessary to write apologetically because he has enriched our avifauna and our lives by intro¬ ducing a harmless and beautiful bird) no hint of criticism has been voiced against the extensive introduction of the Chukar. It, of course, was not introduced for aesthetic, sentimental or other such despicable reasons but for the improvement of ‘legitimate sport’, a most commendable aim in the view of our masters. Both Chukars and Chukar x Redleg hybrids are said to have been widely introduced but all the references I have seen have given little or no detailed information. One writer (Lever, 1977) states that the Chukar is established on part of the South Downs and that the Rock Partridge is established in Scotland. This latter I find hard to believe and wonder (in view of Continental statements about the rarity of the Rock Partridge in trade) if there has not been misidentification. My own personal knowledge of the Chukar here has been mainly of the species in a part of Kent. Here both I and others have seen numbers in the past three years. A birdwatcher friend of mine, not knowing of the Chu- kar’s introduction, had not separated the species from the Redleg and was astonished, after I had told him how to do so, at finding it the more abundant of the two in some (but not most) parts of the places he visits. I saw two pairs of Chukars in the spring of 1984 and no Redlegs (in the limited area I covered) although there were apparently pure Redlegs there in the following autumn. This spring, on 5th March (1985), I saw mutual threat display and other interactions that gave me the impression that the DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES 35 birds were regarding each other as conspecifics. This appeared to be con¬ firmed on a later visit, on 2nd May, when I saw in all four pairs of Alec- toris, two of which were two Redlegs, and the other two pairs each of a Chukar paired to a Redleg. About eight years ago an ornithologist who then lived in Andorra told me that there, and in adjacent parts of northern Spain, the long-continued releasing of Chukars by the sporting fraternity had resulted in extensive interbreeding and (my informant was a bird artist) he found it impossible to obtain phenotypically pure Redlegs locally for his illustrative work. As early as the 1950s I was told that Chukars and Chukar x Redleg hy¬ brids had been widely introduced in southern France. Thus it looks as if the Redleg may well be threatened in Britain and in its native haunts as well. Since the Chukar will either interbreed with or compete with it. On present, but so far very scanty, evidence, it seems that interbreeding is more likely. I am not one of those who are against all introductions and if we did not have the Redleg here already, I would have no objections to the intro¬ duction of the Chukar. As it is, however, the Redleg having so much smaller a world range and being already fairly well established here, I do not think it was justifiable to introduce the Chukar, and deliberately to introduce it into precisely those areas where the Redleg was established and moderately common. It appears (Menzdorf, Nicolai) that the Chukar has also been widely introduced into the native range of the Rock Partridge. It is perhaps even more likely to interbreed with or supplant this species, though from an aesthetic point of view the loss would be less, as the Rock and Chukar Partridges are so similar in appearance whereas the Redleg differs in many features. However, the sportsmen will do what they want and if they fi¬ nally decide that the Chukar really is a ‘better sporting bird’, the Rock Partridge and the Redleg, and perhaps later the Barbary, Philby’s, Arabian and Large Rock Partridges, will be deliberately replaced by it. It is to be hoped, but not expected, that some aviculturists will be able to conserve pure stocks of the other Alec toris species if and when this happens, or rather in anticipation before it does. I would, incidentally, be most grateful if any knowledgeable reader can give us a description of the Chukar x Redleg hybrids. All I have seen in the wild have appeared ‘pure’ Redleg or pure Chukar ‘in the binoculars’ but I have not, of course, been able to examine them critically in the hand. REFERENCES CRAMP, S. et al. (1980). Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Oxford University Press. 36 DEREK GOODWIN - ALECTORIS PARTRIDGES DEBONO, P.P. (1933). Curious behaviour of a Barbary Partridge. Avicultural Maga¬ zine, Vol. 11, No. 8: 228-229. de REYNA, L.A, and ALVAREZ, F. (1974). Comportamiento de la Perdjz Moruna {Alec torn barbara ) en cautividad. Donana, Acta Vertebrate , Vol. 1: 69-82. GALLAGHER, M. and WOODCOCK, M.W. (1980). The Birds of Oman. Quartet Books, London. GOODWIN, D. (1953). Observations on voice and behaviour of the Red-legged Part¬ ridge, Alectoris rufa. Ibis 95: 581-614. . (1954). Notes on captive Red-legged Partridges. Avicultural Magazine, 60:49-61. GREEN, R. (1980). Double nesting in Red-legged Partridges. The Game Conservancy Annual Review, Spring 1980: 35-38. . . . (1984). Double nesting of the Red-legged Partridge Alectoris rufa. Ibis, 126: 332-346. HARRISON, C.J.O. (1982). An Atlas of the Birds of the Western Palaearctic. Collins, London. JONSSON, L. (1982). Birds of the Mediterranean and Alps. Croom Helm, London. LEVER, C. (1977). The Naturalised Animals of the British Isles. Hutchinson, London. MEINERTZHAGEN, R. (1954). Birds of Arabia. Oliver and Boyd, London. MENZDORF, A. (1983). Zur Kenntnis des Sozialverhaltens und der Lautausserungen einiger Feldhuhnarten {Alectoris spp). Vogel welt 105: 9-21. NICOLAI, J. (1982). Fotoatlas der Vogel. Grafe and Unzer, Munich. PORTAL, M. (1924). Breeding habits of the Red-legged Partridge. British Birds 17: 315-316. RAETHEL,^ H.S., von WISSEL, C. and STEFANI, M. (1976). Fasanen und andere Huhnervogel. Verlag J. Neumann-Neudam, Melsungen, Germany. SETH-SMITH, D. (1928). The Black-headed Partridg q. Avicultural Magazine, 4th ser. Vol. VII, No. 5: 101-2. STOKES, A.W. (1961). Voice and social behaviour of the Chukar Partridge. Condor 63: 111-127. WATSON, G.E. (1962). Three sibling species of Alec toris partridge. Ibis 104: 353-367. WETTSTEIN, O. von, (1938) Die Vogelwelt der Agais. J. Orn. 86:9-53. 37 THE SISKINS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA By NEVILLE BRICKELL (Avicultural Research Unit, Republic of South Africa) The Cape Siskin Serinus totta is also known as the Totta Siskin , Siskin Canary and Rock Canary. It is a shy and unobtrusive species and usually occurs in pairs or small groups of up to 15 birds. The canary-like song is soft and pleasant with a similar flight call to that of the Yellow-eyed Canary Serinus mozambicus. The male has the crown and nape light brown streaked darker brown; mantle, scapulars and wing-coverts slightly russet earth-brown; rump olivaceous yellow; sides of face and ear-coverts yellowish brown; underparts dull olivaceous yellow; white tips to wing and tail feathers diagnostic for both sexes; eye brown; bill brownish, paler below; legs and feet pale brown. The female differs from the male in having the underparts lime green; throat and breast olivaceous yellow, throat streaked brown. Juveniles have the chin to chest and upper flanks streaked with dusky. This siskin is found in the western Cape Province of South Africa in the northern Cedarberg to the Great Kei River. It lives in bushes and scrub in mountainous regions, in exotic pine plantations and sometimes occurs along the coast. The diet includes graminoid seed, archenes, foliage buds, fresh floral parts, nectar and animal matter. A summary of food genera recorded in the diet of this species: Urticaceae (nettle family); Chenopodium (= Chenopodiaceae - the ganna, salt bush and goosefoot family); Ficinia (= Cyperaceae - sedge family); Leucadendron, Protea (Proteaceae - protea family) ; Restio, Thamnochortus (= Restionaceae - the reed family); animal matter was unidentified (Milewski, 1978). Barnicoat (1983) reports that in captivity it will take a seed diet supplemented by green food; egg food and soaked seed is suitable for rearing with a daily supply of spinach beet, endive, chickweed and seeding grass heads, and it is extremely partial to niger seed. Aviary observations have revealed the taking of termite alates during nesting, also Khaki weed Alternanthera pungens , Canary creeper Senecio tamoides and Pepperweed Lepidium africanum. During nesting three to five plain white eggs are laid in a shallow cup which is fairly well-built of fine dry grass and rootlets, lined with finer grass, maidenhair fern, wool or some hair. The furry down of protea has also been recorded as a nest lining. The nest, the cup of which has a diameter of 5.1 cm and a depth of 2 cm, is placed on a rock ledge, or in a hollow rock, often concealed by low shrubs growing out of the cliff face. 38 NEVILLE BRICKELL - SISKINS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA & \i|f ' Neville Brickell Male Cape Siskin Steyn and Myburgh (1980) record a nest in the hole in the trunk of a large tree at 3.6 m from the ground. In captivity it prefers to utilise a nest-box and may use dried lettuce, watercress and chickweed as nesting materials and coir or seedheads as lining. The nest building is carried out by the female with the male accompanying her on collecting trips. Only the female incubates, for 16-17 days, with the male feeding her at the nest. Both adults remove faeces from the nest during the whole nestling period. The young leave the nest at 20-24 days, and are fed by both parents by regurgitation. When they leave the nest, immature birds can be sexed with a fair degree of certainty as males are more yellowish on the throat and breast. Adult plumage is acquired some three months later. One parasite egg, which was found to be infertile, belonged to the Red-chested Cuckoo NEVILLE BRICKELL - SISKINS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA 39 Cuculus solitarius. It has been suggested that the cuckoo may have mis¬ taken its host’s nest as being that of the Dusky Flycatcher Muscicapa adusta. Hybrids between this species and a male Oriental Greenfinch Carduelis sinica, Cape Canary Serinus canicollis and Black-throated Canary Serinus atrogularis have been recorded. The Drakenberg Siskin Serinus totta symonsi, or, to give it its alterna¬ tive names, Mountain Siskin or Brown Canary, is a less attractive subspecies that differs from the typical totta mainly in respect of its basic colouring. Males lack the white-tipped secondary and tail feathers of the Cape Siskin. The female is duller and browner below by comparison with S. t. totta. It occurs in western Natal, Orange Free State and north-eastern Cape, pro¬ vinces of South Africa, Transkei and the mountains of Lesotho. Little is known of its feeding habits in the wild except that seeds, buds, insects and the soft bases of Erythrina flowers form the diet. In captivity the birds will accept the same basic diet as S.t. totta with the addition of Black-jack Bidens pilosa, Bird grass Poa trivialis , Small Canary grass Phalaris minor and the buds of Smeltersbossie Flaveria bidentis. Egg colouring differs from totta being white to pale greenish blue, sparingly spotted with grey and brown mainly at the large end. The incubation and nestling periods for the wild and in captivity are unrecorded. REFERENCES BARNICOAT, F. (1983). The Totta Siskin. Rand Aves, No. 1, 18-19. Rand Avicul- tural Society. BRICKELL, N. (1982). Hybrids: Africa and the outlying island species. Misc. Data Natal Avicultural Society. Vol. 1,1, 20-22. MACLEAN, G.L. (1984) Roberts' Birds of Southern Africa. John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. MILEWSKI, A.W. (1978). Diet of Serinus species in the Southwestern Cape, with special reference to the Protea Seedeater. Ostrich, 49, 4, 174-184. SCHMIDT, R.K. (1982). The Secret Siskin. Bokmakierie. Vol. 34, 3, 54-55. . (1982). The Secret Siskin - 2. Bokmakierie. Vol. 34, 4, 86. SKEAD, C.J. (1960). The Canaries, Seed-eaters and Buntings of Southern Africa. Trustees of the South African Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. STEYN, P. and MYBURGH, N. (1980). Red-chested Cuckoo parasitizing Cape Siskin. Ostrich. 51, 1, 53. 40 TAKING CARE OF A VISUALLY IMPAIRED BLACKBIRD Turdus merula By Dr. M.A. SCHLEE (Museum of Natural History, Paris, France) A male Blackbird was found as a fledgling in the French department of Hauts-de-Seine in June 1975, hand-reared and named ‘Koko’. The bird was given to me when he was about 45 days old, and was then used in a study on the development of prey-attack behaviour in Blackbirds (Schlee, 1983). From the second year on, Koko was free-ranging in the Insectary green¬ house (7.5 x 3.5 x 3.5 m) which he claimed as his territory; he also made frequent excursions into the adjoining rooms of the Insectary in search of insects and spiders. At the age of seven years, Koko had a traumatic experience which terminated in total blindness. This paper will recount how he was able to adapt to his infirmity and be successfully maintained in his usual environment for several months before being caught by a stray cat on 10th October 1982. Events leading to blindness Blackbirds are known to be highly territorial and aggressive (Snow, 1958; Hambly, 1966), but until the end of December 1981, the garden birds had never engaged my Blackbirds in territorial combat. At that time, however, a juvenile male had just established himself in the garden sur¬ rounding the Insectary. The two birds fought nearly every day, pecking at each other across the glass panels and roof of the greenhouse. In doing so, Koko was apparently rubbing and hitting his eyes against the glass, the impact of which was sufficient to provoke the formation of a cataract in each eye. During the last week in February 1982, Koko’s flight and feeding behaviour had become noticeably abnormal. After a violent fight on 3rd March, Koko showed signs of cerebral trauma and received veterinary attention; I then learned that a cataract had formed in the right eye which had been so damaged that it was no longer functional. By 22nd March a cataract had formed in the left eye, but some peripheral vision still re¬ mained: Koko was able to visually follow side-to-side hand movements executed at a maximum distance of 0.72 m, but only in the lower half of the frontal visual field. Since the left eye was stHl functional, visual capa¬ bilities were able to be increased by applying eye-drops for dilating the pupil. It is difficult to say when Koko lost all sight, for there were no major changes in behaviour. A routine check of the peripheral visual field DR M.A. SCHLEE - VISUALLY IMPAIRED BLACKBIRD 41 carried out during August revealed that Koko was completely blind at that time. Phase 1/ Loss of sight in right eye Some of Koko’s abnormal behaviour patterns were probably due both to brain damage and to the progressive formation of a cataract in the left eye. During this period, Koko was highly unco-ordinated and often went through bouts of stereotyped pecking movements directed into the bowl of commercial feed, but none of the food was touched. Other abnormal behaviour, such as flying in a circle around a point before trying to land or walking into obstacles, was also noted. In addition, there was a clear lack of accuracy in seizing insects regardless of their mobility, and Koko always gave several initial pecks to either side into the void. The typical, alternated monocular fixation movements were retained, but as soon as the insect came into the visual field of the right eye, Koko either walked on it or left. There was also a sharp drop in foraging behaviour: Koko spent most of the day perched in the same place with his good eye direc¬ ted toward the entrance; he no longer went into the Insectary in search of insects, nor did he dig in the compost pile on the far side of the green¬ house. In fact, his movements were restricted to about one-fourth of the space available. During this time Koko seldom sang and seemed tired and listless. He also started becoming highly fearful and aggressive; when approached, he backed up a few steps and then launched a defensive attack. Phase 2: Peripheral vision in left eye The first striking change in behaviour was the abrupt loss of all acti¬ vity, including feeding. Koko spent four days at a veterinary clinic where an energetic treatment was undertaken to try to favour the resorption of the cataract. During his stay, he succeeded in locating half a hard-boiled egg and half an apple placed in his cage, but no attempts were made to eat either insects or commercial feed. Since Koko did not eat enough to maintain correct body weight, I force-fed him with meat, insects, a vitamin supplement and Glucidic Trophysan (Laboratory EGIC, Montar- gis, France). The latter substance, containing all necessary amino acids, had to be diluted in order to avoid the bird choking on it. Whenever I manipulated Koko, he would suddenly go limp and play dead (head falling forward, eyes closed); but as soon as I released my grip, he at¬ tacked my hand or retreated. Since the tail feathers were fanned and depressed in a typical threatening posture, Koko generally walked on them and had difficulty maintaining his balance while backing up; at that point he always attacked. The same behaviour was shown when 42 Dr. M.A. SCHLEE - VISUALLY IMPAIRED BLACKBIRD Koko was entirely blind. When Koko was brought back to the greenhouse, he was placed in a small cage (0.58 x 0.26 x 0.37 m) equipped with a median horizontal perch and a diagonal one extending from It. The cage was installed next to the usual feeding site. Koko was caged for safety reasons: the sudden loss of sight provoked uncontrolled, unoriented escape behaviour and general signs of panic. Koko acted as if the sudden darkness was due to external factors which could be overcome through escape manoeuvres. It is interesting to note that the same type of behaviour was always elicited when Koko was enclosed in a box for transportation purposes; there was a very close correlation between the waning of this behaviour and the resumption of self-feeding. The first step was to teach Koko to locate food in his cage. Half a hard-boiled egg and half an apple were always available and were placed in the same spot; these items were quickly discovered. But prey items (mealworms, crickets and cockroaches) had to be small enough to be able to be swallowed with a minimum of handling. To make, it easier for Koko to find them, I used a small pottery bowl that had an opening of 4 cm and a depth of 2 cm and attracted Koko’s attention by tapping on it with my finger. Since Koko always vigorously pecked at my hand, it was quite easy to deflect his pecking movements to the dish of insects. If Koko dropped an insect on the ground, he relocated it by tilting his head in such a way as to use his peripheral visual field; but even so, he could only determine the approximate direction and always gave several haphazard pecks before finding the insect. I was also able to train Koko to take mealworms directly from my hand: I had to hold the insect in such a way that a forward pecking movement would immediately estab¬ lish contact with it, and I always first called Koko by name. By 29th March 1982 Koko’s general behaviour and his weight were returning to normal and I started letting him out of his cage for a few hours every day. At that time he occasionally bathed, sang, flew to the opposite side of the greenhouse and even sunbathed under the rafters. From 7th April on, Koko was once again free-ranging in the greenhouse. The next step was to teach Koko to locate food placed at his usual feeding site. Two half apples impaled on wooden spikes and half a hard- boiled egg were lined up next to each other; Koko had no apparent difficulty locating them. The small pottery bowl was also aligned and firmly fastened into the ground; I attracted Koko s attention by tapping on the bowl. At this signal Koko always rushed to the dish site, tapped from side to side with his beak until he located the bowl, then tapped the rim before pecking into it. By 13th April, Koko no longer tried to fixate the insects by cocking his head from side to side. However, it Dr . M.A. SCHLEE - VISUALLY IMPAIRED BLACKBIRD 43 took until 16th May for Koko to learn how to eat his usual commercial feed (Sluis’ feed for insectivorous birds) and this seemed to have been facilitated by changing the type of dish. Before Koko became visually impaired, he always ate from a heavy glass receptacle (11 cm diam., 4.4 cm deep) by perching on the rim and then leaning forward to seize the feed. After losing his eyesight, Koko continued this behaviour but with one basic difference: the distance that he leaned forward was fixed and was insufficient to allow him to touch the feed even if the dish was full; apparently he never tried to eat from a standing position. I finally found a dish that allowed Koko to touch the bottom when leaning forward from a standing position. (In this case he never tried to perch on the rim.) The receptacle was oval in shape (12.4 x 5 cm), had a total height of 4 cm, but because of its raised bottom, was only 2.7 cm deep. Within one week Koko had perfected his feeding techniques, but he always remained incapable of seizing the morsels - his beak was used as a shovel and whatever feed entered it was swallowed. Spatial orientation was probably facilitated by the layout of the green¬ house: along the front (divided into two equal parts by the entrance and a cement passage leading to the back rooms) and along the sides, there is a built-in, cement shelf, 96 cm wide, located at about 74 cm from the ground. This structure is filled with dirt and contains tropical plants. Nearly all of Koko’s manoeuvres took place on this platform in an L-shaped area approximately 2.86 m across the front and 1.76 m along the side, which included the usual feeding and bathing sites. Koko’s itineraries followed the walls of the greenhouse and the ledge of the platform, and included several cross routes and precise stopping points. When Koko accidentally stepped over the ledge, he generally flew back to his starting point; however, if he landed on the ground, he often retreated into a corner and I was obliged to recover him. Koko also used the space between the platform and the roof and had several precise perching sites: the main one was an overhanging branch located about 2 m from the ground and out about 57 cm from the ledge. In order to orient himself, Koko darted from one side of his feeding site to the other, touching the plants and the flower pots, toward the back where he came into contact with a small wooden footstool, then out to the edge of the platform. Flight-intention movements were shown at each stopping point. When the direction of the branch seemed to be located, Koko flew forward; if he missed it, he immediately returned to the platform and repeated the orientation move¬ ments. 44 Dr. M.A. SCHLEE - VISUALLY IMPAIRED BLACKBIRD Phase 3: Total loss of sight Blindness did not modify the behaviour that had developed during the period of peripheral vision in only one eye; however, Koko’s level of activity always remained low. Body weight was maintained throughout this period, and moulting was carried out correctly. In order to get Koko to eat insects, I continued to put them in the small pottery bowl or to give them to him direct. In the latter instance, I always called Koko by name and continued talking to him while quietly approaching; any sudden noise provoked intense panic. I then gently touched the tip of his beak with the insect and held it in front of him; Koko only pecked straight ahead even if he missed the insect. During this phase Koko never dropped a prey item on the ground. All insects were slightly mandibulated and, if necessary, re¬ oriented in the beak for swallowing. When locating the drinking bowl, Koko stopped at a short distance from it and tapped with his beak; as soon as he struck the rim, he slipped his beak along the inner side until he touched the water. Orientation from the ground improved with time: when Koko was in the middle of his half of the greenhouse, he gave many flight-intention movements in the direction of the platform while running back and forth between the steps near the entrance and his starting point. In this way he was apparently able to determine his position, and when he finally flew up, he landed on or near the wooden footstool behind the bathing recep¬ tacle; nonetheless, his occasional excursions to other parts of the green¬ house were not so well-oriented. Koko spent a lot of time at one of the screen windows where he could ‘survey’ the garden, as he did every year before becoming blind. Inside the greenhouse a piece of glass had been leaned against the screen, leaving a space of about 15 cm. Koko was well-acquainted with the route leading to and from the window. At that time I did not realise the potential danger of such a set-up. A stray cat must have noticed that Koko did not react to its presence and took advantage of the situation by tearing off part of the screen. No feathers were found near the window, so I assume that Koko played dead as he usually did when I picked him up. The first trace of contour feathers was found at more that 15 m from the greenhouse. Koko had managed to escape from the cat and was found several metres further away, but he was too seriously injured to survive. Judging from the cut marks around the beak, Koko must have become panic-stricken (probably by the sound of the screen being ripped off), and, instead of leaving the window by his usual route, must have persistently jumped against the screen (1cm wire mesh). Dr. M.A. SCHLEE - VISUALLY IMPAIRED BLACKBIRD 45 Conclusions The only effective way of stopping the fights with the garden Blackbird would have been to cut off visual contact. Wire netting on the outside of the greenhouse was not sufficient, for the captive bird continued tapping against the glass during its attacks and, therefore, considerable portions of the glass panels were whitewashed. In a similar situation, it is vital that these measures are taken at the first sign of agonistic behaviour. The comers under the rafters are particularly dangerous if there is a support on which the captive bird can perch, for from this position the bird can rub its eyes against the glass when turning in circles trying to peck at the feet of its adversary. When I first released Koko in the greenhouse during phase two, I thought there would be no more problems with the garden male since Koko could not see him. However, as soon as the young male landed on a narrow ledge located at the level of the cement platform, Koko mshed to the spot and resumed fighting. Auditory cues probably alerted him to the presence of his rival, for the young male gave the strangled song while ag¬ gressively displaying. These panels were also whitewashed and, in addi¬ tion, a wire grating was placed on the outside in such a way as to prevent the young male from landing on or near the ledge. The garden male also fought with the sbc-year-old, hand-reared male whose breeding success in captivity was previously reported in this magazine (Schlee, 1981 and 1982). Their fights also took place across the glass panels of the green¬ house which, in turn, had to be whitewashed. In addition^these two birds fought at the screen window and across the netting of the aviary when the roof of the greenhouse was open; but the garden bird never fought with the adult male offspring of the established nesting pair although they were housed in adjacent aviaries. Several points concerning the care of a blind bird should be empha¬ sised. First, the bird should be left in Its usual environmental setting and all objects should be maintained in their respective positions. This allows the bird to use locational information that was acquired before going blind. In the case of Koko, general topographical orientation was probably aided by the presence in the greenhouse of a number of smaller avian species whose behaviour could have provided additional locational infor¬ mation. Secondly, it is rather difficult to get the bird to eat correctly once the initial traumatic reaction has been overcome. Although apples and hard-boiled eggs seem to be easy to discover during haphazard movements, special steps must be taken to train the blind bird to locate dishes of food and to associate the receptacle with a particular food item. Koko was easy to train since he already had the habit of attacking my hand; his attacks could, therefore, be directed toward a dish in which he could discover 46 Dr. M.A. SCHLEE - VISUALLY IMPAIRED BLACKBIRD something to eat. Once this discovery has been made, the bird can be trained to approach at a given signal (e.g. tapping the container). The size and the shape of the feeding dish are also very important. Thirdly, long distance orientation improves with time and partly depends on auditory cues. Koko was finally able to move about in a little less than half of the greenhouse and quite visibly listened to sounds coming from the open windows, the door, the sink, etc. All major routes were quite stereotyped, and Koko was able to go rapidly to his feeding site from any point in his restricted territory. However, objects at close range were always located and identified by systematic tapping with the beak. Koko’s successful re-adaptation clearly shows that the Blackbird is capable of topographically orienting itself by using sensory modalities other than vision and of forming a cognitive map of its spatial environ¬ ment. REFERENCES HAMBLY, H.G. (1966). Prolonged aggression by Blackbirds towards anotherifrzY. Birds 59: 2480249. SCHLEE, M.A. (1981). Breeding the Blackbird Turdus merula in captivity. Avicult. Mag. 87:125-129. . (1982). Additional notes on breeding the Blackbird Turdus merula in captivity. Avicult. Mag. 88: 198-204. . (1983). An experimental study of prey-attack behavior in the Euro¬ pean Blackbird Turdus m. merula L. Z. Tierpsychol. 61: 203-224. SNOW, D.W. (1958). A Study of Blackbirds . George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Mr. Pierre Bourricaud for his technical assistance. 47 THE BIRDS OF CHENGDU ZOO PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA By JEFFERY BOSWALL (Bristol) On 25th September and again on 8th October 1985, I was escorted round the zoo in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan province in China. The zoo is in the suburbs of the city (of 1.4 million people, with another seven million around). It moved there from a downtown site in 1976. At its earlier location, the zoo dated back, however, only to 1953. I was twice shown round by the assistant director Madame Song Yunfang, and met the director Mr. He Guangzin, The total zoo staff is 260 persons. On the second visit I was accompanied also by Zheng Junfan, an ornithologist from the Biology Department of Sichuan University. Apparently the zoo receives two million visitors a year, each one paying 20 feng, le. about 7 U.S. cents. I was told there were about 100 species of birds kept at the zoo. The following, is my attempt to outline the establishment's bird population, with special attention to the pheasant and crane families. No less than six species of crane were present. There were four Sudan Crowned Cranes Balearica pavonina from Africa, and five east Asiatic species. These were: six White-naped Cranes Gms vipio , four Hooded Cranes G. monacha , three Demoiselles Anthropoides virgo, five Red- crowned Cranes Gms japonensis , and four Common Cranes G. gms . The zoo had sent its two Black-necked Cranes G. nigricollis elsewhere; one to Beijing zoo, the other to the zoo at Sining (the capital of Tsinghai pro¬ vince). I specially asked about Phasianids and was told that the following species were present at the zoo; most of them I saw myself: Chukar Partridge Chinese Francolin Common Hill Partridge Chinese Bamboo Partridge Temminck's Tragopan Chinese Tragopan Chinese M ona! Silver Pheasant Red Jungle Fowl White Eared Pheasant Alectoris chukar Francolinus pintadeanus Arborophila torqueola Bambusicola thoracic a Tragopan temminckn T. caboti Lophophoms Ihuysii Lophura nycthemera Gallus gallm GrossoptUon crossoptilon 48 JEFFERY BOSWALL - BIRDS OF CHENGDU ZO Blue Eared Pheasant Brown Eared Pheasant Reeve’s Pheasant Elliot’s Pheasant Common Pheasant Golden Pheasant Lady Amherst’s Pheasant Blue Peafowl C auritum C rnantchuricum Syrmaticus reevesii S. ellioti Phasianus colchicus Chrysolophus pictus C.amherstiae Pavo cristatus There were only a few individuals of each species. On or by the zoo’s large lake were two Mute Swans Cygnus olor, and 21 adult Whooper Swans C. cygnus , plus seven young Whoopers hatched earlier in the year at the zoo. There were half a dozen Eastern Greylags Anser anser mbrirostris, two White-fronted Geese A. albifrons , six Swan Geese A. cygnoides , one Bar-headed Goose A. indicus, two Shel ducks Tadoma tadoma and one Ruddy Shelduck T. ferruginea, a dozen Man¬ darins Aix galericulata, a few Mallards Anas platyrhynchos, a few Wigeon A. penelope , a Pochard Ay thy a ferina and at least one presumed Scaup A. marila. There was one Coot fulica atra and three Black-tailed Gulls Lams crassirostris. Two Oriental White Storks, birds of an eastern form held by some to be a separate species, Ciconia boyciana, were a pleasure to behold. An albino Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo was preening itself alongside three Dalmatian Pelicans Pelecanus crispus. In a large cage for water and waterside birds were three Black Swans Cygnus atratus, four Spoonbills (sadly Platalea alba and not minor , the scarce Black-faced species), three Sacred Ibises Threskiomis aethiopica no doubt of the local race melanocephalus, three Little Egrets Egretta gar- zetta, a Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax and four Black Storks Ciconia nigra. There were also six Black-headed Gulls Lams ridi- bundus. A flight cage for raptors housed a Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, a Pallas’s Fish Eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus , a Lammergeyer Gypaetus barbatus, two Black Vultures Aegypius monachus and five Himalayan Griffons Gyps himalayensis. Nearby were two large owls; I suspect they were Eagle Owl Bubo bubo and Tawny Fish Owl Ketupa flavipes but am not sure. We come now to the more terrestrial and arboreal species. Exotic parrots included one Rainbow Lory Trichoglossus haematodus , four Greater Sulphur-crested Cockatoos Cacatua galerita and two Lessers of the Citron-crested race C. sulphurea citrinocristata, a hundred Budgerigars Melopsittacus undulatus, four Cockatiels Nymphicus hollandicus , two JEFFERY BOSWALL - BIRDS OF CHENGDU ZOO 49 species of Amazona (one of each), and four Fischer’s Lovebirds Agapomis fischeri, and two species of macaw, the Blue and Gold Ara ararauna and (probably) the Military A. militaris. There were two Lord Derby’s Parra- keets Psittacula derbiana. This species is indigenous to Sichuan and China. Two ratites were the Emu Dromaius novaehollandiae and the Ostrich Stmthio camelm. Indigenous Chinese passerines on display included one Grey or Hima¬ layan Tree Pie Dendrocitta formosae (a beautiful bird), two White-throated and four Greater Necklaced Laughingthrushes Garrulax albogularis and G. pectoralis , one Oriental Greenfinch Carduelis sinica, one White-rumped Munia Lonchura striata , four Black-headed Hawfinches Coccothraustes migratorius and two ‘straight’ Hawfinches C coccothraustes - half-a-dozen Pekin Robins Leiothrix lutea, and 50-100 Zosterops, some at least being Chestnut-flanked Whiteyes Z. erythropleura. There was a Rook Corvus frugilegus , a Magpie Pica pica , three Red-billed Blue Magpies Urocissa erythrorhyncha, ten White-cheeked Starlings Stumus cineraceus, and one Crested Mynah Acridotheres fuscus javanicus. Thrushes included one Magpie Robin Copsychus saularis, one Dusky Thrush Turdus naumanni and one (apparently) Eye-browed Thrush T. obscurus. I enquired about the three Sichuan endemics, the Szechwan Hill Part¬ ridge Arborophila rufipectus , the Omei Shan Liocichla Leiocichla omeien- sis and the Crested Parrotbill Paradoxornis zappeyi, but none was held in the zoo. The last bird I’ll mention is the local Quail Coturnix cotumix japonica. There were two or three at the zoo. This species had been domesticated in China. I visited one Quail ‘farm’ where there were 80,000 birds, five females to every two males. The males are used for breeding and sold for meat. The females produce about 300 eggs in their first year and are then killed for meat. The farm’s output was 30,000 eggs a day or well over ten million eggs a year. But the domestication of birds is another story, as is the current role of wild birds-of-prey in Chinese traditional medicine. Some of their avian stock the zoo no doubt get from the wild-bird markets of the city and smaller outlying towns, several of which I visited. To sum up. There were at least 86 different bird species in Chengdu zoo in September-October 1985. I probably missed another 10%. Of these 86, 82 were positively identified; and of these no less than 28 (33%) are on the list of wild birds for Chengdu and its environs (Zhang Junfan, 1985) and 60 (71%) are on the list for the province of Sichuan (Shi Bain an and Zhao Ermi, 1982). By comparison with many western zoos this must surely be a high percentage of ‘locals’? As a tailpiece let me mention the Turkey Meleagris gallopavo. Its 50 picture appears in the zoo guide and until early November 1983 there were four birds. Two of these I am reliably told by a local American succumbed to Thanksgiving! In 1985 I could find not two but none; but, of course, there had been another giving of thanks in November 1984! REFERENCES SHI BAINAN & ZHAO ERMI. (1982). Sichuan fauna economica, Vol.l. (Chinese with scientific names). Chengdu Biological Institute, Academia Sinica, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China. ZHANG JUNFAN and five others (1985). Avifauna of Chengdu City and its Suburbs (Chinese with English summary). J. or Sichuan Univ. : Natural Science Edition 2:78-87. * * * NEWS FROM LEEDS CASTLE (Maidstone, Kent) By DAVID D. FRANK (Curator) The late Hon. Lady Olive Baillie, who was a member of the Avicultural Society, established world-famous aviaries at Leeds Castle some 30 years ago and her enthusiasm brought many rare and varied species to the Castle, and in particular she loved the Rosellas and Ring-necked Parrakeets. Since her death the collection has been maintained and still includes many interesting colour mutations. The Leeds Castle Foundation, a registered charity, is now constructing a modern and very extensive facility, next to the Culpeper Garden, to be ready later this year, which we hope will establish Leeds Castle as the home of one of the outstanding collections in this country and give as much pleasure to our visitors as it did to Lady Baillie. The aviaries are being built of stainless steel frames which will be enclosed by removable panels of wire that will have no edges showing. The frames are quite an architectural masterpiece with a Victorian style roof. Each aviary will have a small pool of water in the front that can be drained from the outside and will blend in well with the natural perches and nest-boxes. The strings of rectangular aviaries between the hexagonal flights will have slanted concrete floors with a drain at the back and will D.M. FRANKS - NEWS FROM LEEDS CASTLE 51 be covered with rock and gravel. This will allow cleaning to be done from the outside and provide proper drainage in inclement weather. Each flight will also have an area at the rear that will serve as winter quarters, should the birds require additional shelter. We feel that the design will be clean and easy to maintain and should offer all the security necessary for breeding as well as providing an attractive exhibition for the public. A modern hospital, incubator room (with back-up power source), proper food stores and kitchen are attached to the main block of flights. The kitchen will be on public display so that food preparation and hand¬ feeding may be observed. We are designing educational tours for school groups and special interest groups that will be centred around behind-the-scenes activities. The centrepiece of the Lady Baillie Memorial Aviary will be the Aus¬ tralian species that Lady Baillie was so fond of, but it will also include many other types of birds, including macaws, Amazon parrots, cockatoos and many softbills, as well as finches. We have had much valued advice from the avicultural world, and in particular Raymond Sawyer, Rosemary Low and Dr. James Dolan (Gen¬ eral Curator for the San Diego Zoo).Everyone at Leeds Castle including Peter Taylor, who has taken care of the birds at Leeds Castle for the last 30 years, staff and the architects and engineers are very excited about this project and are looking forward to its completion. We would like to invite members of the Avicultural Society to visit us and hope that this can be arranged in the spring of 1987. 52 NEWS FROM BIRDWORLD (Farnham, Surrey) By ROBERT HARVEY Having searched unsuccessfully for a mate for our single male Hyacin- thine Macaw, in the spring of 1984 Bristol Zoo kindly offered to lend us two females to see which took his fancy. When the weather grew warmer, I introduced the new females but for 10 weeks our efforts looked in vain for he took no notice of either female. We decided to send one female back to Bristol Zoo, leaving us with a pair. During that summer the pair sometimes sat next to each other but no signs of breeding were seen. I was not too worried about this as it was their first year together. Several other macaws were successfully bred, some of them hand-reared. By the autumn we thought all breeding had finished The day arrived when all the birds were to be dusted with Cooper’s Louse Powder to keep at bay any parasites picked up during the summer and by midday the Hyacin thine Macaws had been reached. Both were dusted and then I looked quickly (because these two were never the friendliest of creatures) into the nest-box and to my amazement a two-week old chick was sitting there! It was decided that, because we had disturbed the parents and as the chick did not look too healthy, we would hand-rear it. We managed to rear ‘Golly’ and also ‘George’ in 1985; now we have high hopes for another success in 1986. This was only made possible by co-operation between our zoos and I would like to thank Geoffrey Greed, Director of Bristol Zoo, for the loan of the Hyacinthine Macaw hen. We have also had an example of co-operation between our birds here. Five years ago we had four breeding pairs of Quaker Parrakeets in a flight about 12 x 20 x 10 ft (3.66 x 6.10 x 3.05 m). One night a hole appeared in the roof and one of the pairs was missing. Traps were put out immediately but the parrakeets took no notice mainly because our macaws are kept on barrels outside so the parrakeets just stole their food. Later on that year, after pruning a few twigs off the many trees in the park, a nest 6 ft (1.83 m) in diameter appeared at the top of a pine tree. Not only did the Quaker Parrakeets nest here, but squirrels, starlings, sparrows and Bluetits also. Unfortunately this wildlife commune came to a sad end because the weight of the nest after a storm pulled the tree over to a 45° angle and we had to take it all away for safety reasons. After that winter I was looking for some good nesting platforms for my ROBERT HARVEY - NEWS FROM BIRDWORLD 53 Kathleen Harvey Quaker Paxrakeet incessantly expanding the nest site Original nest-box on the top left of the photograph spoonbills when I had an idea. I put all the remaining Quaker Parrakeets, plus great quantities of hawthorn twigs into the large spoonbill aviary. My luck was in for that year the parrakeets built four massive nests and bred prolifically. As hoped, these nests made perfect platforms for the spoon¬ bills and the two pairs produced four young between them. As the entrance hole of the parrakeets is always under the mass of twigs, the two very different birds did not squabble at all! 54 ROBERT HARVEY - NEWS FROM BIRDWORLD The most popular aviary at Birdworld must be the Seashore Walk. This aviary is about 60 x 120 x 20 ft (18.28 x 36.57 x 6.10 m) and in it is a wave machine which was specially built for us and works by displacement of water with a wooden wedge, driven by an electric motor. This produces a wave about every three seconds. There are many tons of rocks and sand to produce the effect of a beach with an old rotten boat to add the finish™ ing touch. The birds housed here are Shags, Oyster-catchers, Inca Terns, Curlew, Tufted Duck, Goldeneye, Spur-winged Plovers, Eider Duck and, of course, gulls. Our visitors seem to be mesmerised by the waves. We once made a sur¬ vey at the exit of the Seashore Walk, asking people what birds they had seen. Most of them could not remember two birds! The public are seen just gazing into the moving water. Last year the Shags, plovers, all of the ducks and gulls laid eggs so perhaps the waves help to make an environ¬ ment as close as possible to their natural surroundings which is what every aviculturist wants to achieve. 55 RECORDS OF RATITES BRED IN CAPTIVITY IN THE BRITISH ISLES By DAVID COLES (Ascot, Berkshire) Members of this group of large flightless birds have always been popular exhibits in both public and the larger private collections and have long been kept. As with my previous records covering Waterfowl ( Avicultural Magazine, 1983, Vol. 89, p. 218), each entry constitutes the earliest refer¬ ence that I could trace. If any member is able to correct a record, please contact the author at Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire. Reference abbreviations A.M. - Avicultural Magazine I.Z.Y. - International Zoo Yearbook P.Z.S. - Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London Repts. - Annual Reports of the Zoological Society of London Ostrich 1973 Struthio camelus Rhea 1841 Rhea americana Darwin’s Rhea 1906 Pterocnemia pennata Double- wattled Cassowary 1967 Casuarius casuarius * Dwarf Cassowary 1864 Casuarius bennetti Emu 1830 Dromaius novaehollandiae Woburn Sir Robert Heron Woburn Edinburgh Zoo London Zoo London Zoo I.Z.Y. Vol. 15, p. 321 P.Z.S. 1841, p.79 A.M. 1906, p.306 A.M. 1968, p. 181 P.Z.S. 1864, p. 271 Repts.. 1833, p.13 * Almost certain to have bred. The species had hatched on several occasions prior to 1864 but the young are recorded as dying . In that year two were hatched, one of which died while the death of the other could not be traced in either the Annual Reports or Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London and no mention of it is made in the Zoo’s Day Book. * * * 56 CORRESPONDENCE The Cape Parrot Further to my letter on ‘Sulking in Parrots, in the last issue (VoL 91, No. 4), the pair of Cape Parrots Poicephalus robustus suahelicus (the Central African subspecies) that I mentioned were sitting on four very large, round eggs, have successfully reared four healthy young which are now independent. Several points have arisen that I find very interesting; firstly, all four young have left the nest with a 1 in (2.5 cm) wide orange/pink band across the crown of the head and with a pink blush through the other¬ wise grey cheeks. They differ from the adults in not having the orange colouring on their thighs and wing butts and otherwise resemble the adult hen. The adult cocks have no colouring on the crown. 1 have read Rosemary Low’s excellent article in our magazine in Volume 88 (1982) No. 1, in which she gives a very detailed description of the young of this species. I could find no reference anywhere to confirm whether the young of both sexes leave their nest with identical colouring (like that of the adult hen) but it would be too much of a coincidence that these birds should all be hens. 1 1 find P.r. suahelicus to be a particularly pretty parrot and while some have a very nervous disposition, this pair and their four young are all very steady (possibly because the adults are tamed pet birds, and the young follow their example). A second interesting behaviour pattern of the four young birds was that all of them, or half at a time, would return to their nest log sometimes for the whole day, for up to 10 days after leaving their nest - unlike most South American parrots with which I have experience. Thirdly, they nested in a log on the ground and were not at all interes¬ ted in a natural log that was hung up. The pair tunnelled at ground level into the log and continued to use this entrance until the young hatched and with usage this entrance became blocked and they would then enter from the partly open top. Fourthly, I have a pair of P. suahelicus from Angola and they seem generally duller thanP suahelicus from Zimbabwe where my breeding pair come from and the hen from Angola has a much smaller patch of orange/ pink on the crown. They are not so attractive as their Zimbabwean cousins. Then finally, I have experienced, percentage wise, far more stress sickness in Cape Parrots, more so in the South African form P.r. robustus than in the Central African race P.r. suahelicus , than I have amongst any other parrots that I have kept. All were cured except for one hen P.r. rob¬ ustus, a tame pet bird that I lost. Of nine Cape Parrots in the collection, CORRESPONDENCE 57 five have been sick at one time or another. I would suggest to anyone keeping these parrots that once they have settled down, they should not be moved. I find them very attractive, lively and most interesting parrots, and the yellowish neck and darker back contrasting with the orange thighs and wing butts of the South African race most attractive and very different from the pinkish/orange crown and silver neck and light green back of the Central African race. 25th February, 1986. P.S. It is interesting to note that now the four young parrots reared are over four months old and into their first moult, they have all lost the orange cap on their heads and the flush through their cheeks that they had when they left the nest, but two of them (presumed hens) are now grow¬ ing a new batch of stronger coloured orange/red feathers on the crown of their heads above the top mandible, similar to the adult female. The other two (presumed cocks) have retained the plain silver head and neck of the adult male. I could find no reference in any book to the fact that the young of both sexes leave the nest with this crown of orange which both sexes lose after their first moult - when the young hens regrow the orange cap and the young cocks retain a plain silver head and neck. Breeding from hand-reared birds As a breeder over many years of a whole range of birds, including lories, I believe a statement by Rosemary Low in her most interesting article on the breeding of the Tahiti Blue Lory (Vol. 91, Nos. 1 & 2) that ‘there are still people who believe the myth that hand-reared birds are useless for breeding purposes' needs to be analysed. In my experience this would all depend upon the reasons for the parents refusing to care for, or feed their young. It is no myth and any serious breeder of domestic stock, whether it be pigeons, bantams, budgerigars, canaries, cockatiels, etc., will confirm that the young reared by indifferent parents or even if they are taken away and reared by foster-parents, will, when mature, will make indifferent parents themselves, thus confirming that such traits can be inherited. Unfortunately these traits are continually passed on from one generation to another because the parents may possess qualities essential for the show ring. Poor parental characteristics include light-sitting hens, poor brooding hens, erratic feeding of young and after flight care. This, however, would not apply to the wild stock where their very survival depends upon good rearing qualities and any imperfections would have been eliminated. Birds in the wild select their own mates, but under captive conditions 58 CORRESPONDENCE incompatible pairs are often thrown together, inducing a weak pair-bond. Incompatibility is not an inherited trait, and young hand-reared from such a pair would have all the normal characteristics expected of them. The in¬ compatible pair can be broken up and offered other mates and subse¬ quently become perfect parents. Again, many wild birds, after hatching their young, change their diet completely and unless this stimulant to feed was provided under captive conditions, you would get poor parental and feeding reactions. This is also not an inherited trait, for with a change of diet, or presentation of the food, this could be altered, and therefore young hand-reared from such a pairing could be expected to have normal parental qualities. The preference of some hand-reared birds for human company rather than their own kind does sometimes pose further problems but this bond can be eradicated or weakened by placing weaned young together, or with their own kind, at an early age. If the human contact continues through to maturity, then many more problems will arise. Mitchell Park Aviaries W.D. Cummings Durban, South Africa. * ❖ * Hardiness of a Twenty-eight Parakeet In the first week of November 1985 my cock Twenty-eight Parrakeet Bamadius zonarius semitorquatus ate his way out of his aviary and I did not see him again until 19th February when I heard him calling in a tree above a hen Port Lincoln Parrakeet B.z. zonarius. He disappeared for the rest of the day and then reappeared in the evening of the next day. He was around the aviaries all the afternoon of 21st February and on the morning of 22nd February he went through the opening which I had made at the top of the aviary next to the Port Lincoln hen and he went straight away and fed her through the wire. This bird was at liberty for approximately three months, latterly during one of the coldest periods for many years, the temperature remaining below freezing point for over two weeks. As a postscript to this story, a fellow builder who lives a mile away from me recently told me that he had been feeding a green and yellow parrakeet on his bird table from November onwards but that it had now disappeared. I had to tell him that it was my bird and I had caught it up. CORRESPONDENCE 59 A very large Indian collection I recently heard from a friend in India, Dr. Mohan Patel, a member of this Society, who sent a cutting from a newspaper, Gujarat Samachar, dated 27th December 1985, recalling that the Indian Congress (now Indira Congress), recently celebrating its centenary in Bombay, was founded by a British citizen, Sir Allan Hume. The newspaper related that Sir Allan Hume was a lover of birds and in the extensive garden of his house in Simla he collected some 62,000 birds from different countries. I won¬ dered whether any of our readers knows more about what must rate as one of the largest avicultural collections ever? Parklands, Shoulton, K. Dolton Hallow, nr Worcester. Ed. History books reveal that Allan Octavian Hume (1829-1912) worked in the Indian Civil Service for some 30 years and on his retirement took up the cause of Indian nationalism and founded the Congress which became and remained the chief political party of the Hindus. They elected him their first Secretary, a post he held until shortly before his death. He was an ornithologist with an international repu¬ tation; he organised bird observation all over the country and wrote the first book on Indian birds. I can find no mention of this enormous collection of birds at Simla. Can anyone tell us more? And was this the Hume for whom the Bar-tailed Pheasant was named? The Editor does not accept responsibility for opinions expressed in articles, notes, reviews or correspondence MEMBERS’ ADVERTISEMENTS (10 p. per word - minimum charge £3.00) THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND welcomes new members. An Australian Society catering for all birds both in captivity and in the wild. We put out a bi-monthly magazine on all aspects of aviculture and conservation. For membership details please contact Ray Garwood, 19 Fahey’s Road, Albany Creek, 4035 Queens¬ land, Australia. Annual subscription (Australian dollars): 16.00 surface mail, 22.00 airmail. AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE back numbers. Large stock available including early issues. Sales by post only. New price list available from the Hon. Secretary. Avicul¬ tural Society, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 8LT, England. AMERICAN CAGE-BIRD MAGAZINE has been publishing monthly since 1928. It features timely and interesting articles on parrots, canaries, finches, budgerigars and cockatiels. These are written by leading breeders and bird fanciers. Monthly subscrip¬ tion 15.00 US dollars - Europe 21.00 dollars (money order in US dollars, please) to American Cage-Bird Magazine, 1 Glamore Court, Smithtown, New York, 11787, USA. Bird World BOX 70 / NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA 91603 ARTICLES ALREADY PUBLISHED: MAGAZINE FOR BIRD ENTHUSIASTS Picking a Parrot Breeding Rose/las Taming Parrots Show Preparation Parasites in Birds Hand-Raising Surgical Sexing Training Birds to Perform Nutrition in Parrot Types The African Grey Grooming Parrots Color Feeding Pacheco's Disease Avian Pox The Norwich Canary A Germ-Free Aviary Softhi/ls Orange Weavers Talking Birds Squawking Birds Moult Budgie Colors Parrot Toys Traveling with Birds Indoor Aviaries Flock Disease & Immunity Color in Canaries THE CHOICE OF THOSE WHO KNOW Bird World AMERICAN AVKI'LTL R1STS CAZFTTH V " •as** ; t 'i AND BREEfS ISREPARATIot SHOWINI CHICKEN’ If there are titles above that might have interested you, think of how much more there will be in future issues. □ 3 YEARS . . . $30.00 || 2 YEARS . . . $22.00 □ 1 YEAR . . $12.00 CANADIAN & OVERSEAS PLEASEADD $5.00 PER YEAR. FOREIGN PAYMENT MUST BE IN U.S. FUNDS IN THE FORM OF A POSTAL MONEY ORDER OR BANK DRAFT. OR: PHONE IN YOUR SUBSCRIPTION ON VISA/MASTER CHARGE (213) 769-6 1 1 1 «— 10:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. MON.-FR I. SUBSCRIBE NOW NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91603 THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY The Avicultural Society was founded in 1894 for the study of British and foreign birds in freedom and captivity. The Society is international in character, having members throughout the world. Membership subscription rates per annum: British Isles £10.00; Overseas -£11.00 (25 U.S. dollars). The subscription is due on 1st January of each year and those joining the Society later in the year will receive back numbers of the current volume of the AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE. The subscription rate for non-members is: British Isles £11.00; overseas -£12.00 (30.00 U.S. dollars). Subscriptions, changes of address, orders for back numbers, etc., should be sent to: THE HON. SECRETARY AND TREASURER, THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY, WINDSOR FOREST STUD, MILL RIDE, ASCOT, BERKSHIRE SL5 8LT. NEW MEMBERS Mr. H. Blair, 18727 Martinique Drive, Nassau Bay, Texas 77058, USA. Mr. M. Bourne, Baguley Brow Farm, Heywood Old Road, Manchester, M24 4QR. Mr. B.R. Bowes, West View Oughterby, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA5 6JH. Ms. N. Van Dentleydew, 1223 N. 28th Street, Lafayette, Indiana 49904, USA. Mr. H.R. Engelmann, Rebbergstrasse 11, 8113 Boppelsen, Switzerland. Mr. K. Fox, 5400 Schuler Lane, Prospect, Kentucky, 40059, USA. Mr. D.D, Frank, Curator of Birds, Leeds Castle Estate Office, Maidstone Kent. Ms. E. Giles, 19850 SE Stark, Portland, Oregon 97233, USA. Mr. A. Gosling, 8 The Walk, Fox Lane, London N13 4AA. Mr. A. Guerra, via Sasso Manziana, 00050 Furbara (Rome), Italy. Ms. H.M. Horblit, 40 Alviso Court, Pacifica, California 94044, USA. Dr. A.L. Hughes, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OXi3PS. Mr. K.D. Johnson, 4736 N.E. Holman, Portland, Oregon 97218, USA. Mr. P.D. Lamb, 133 The Street, Rushmere St. Andrew, Ipswich, Suffolk. Mrs. S.S. Lawton, Meadow View, Nortoft, Guilsborough, Northampton NN6 8QB. Mr. J. Lindholm III, P.O. Box 7779, Berkeley, California 94707, USA. Mr. P. McKinney, MRCVS, MVB, P.D.S.A., 3640 Richmond Terrace, Everton, Liverpool 6 5EA. Mr. D. Neville, 22 Foxearth Road, Selsdon, Surrey, CR2 8ED. Mrs. D. Norman, ‘Achillea’, Heath Way, East Horsley, Leatherhead, Surrey. Mr. J.Q. Phillipps, 6 Bingham Place, London W1M 3FH. Dr. N. Riahi, Veterinaire, Parc Zoologique National, B.P. 4142, Temara, Rabat, Morocco. Mr. W.L. Ross, 81 Linden Lane, Glen Head, New York 11545, USA. Mr. Y. Shigeta, Bird Migration Research Center, Yamashina Institute for Ornithology, Tokyo, Japan. Mrs. A.G. Sparks, 6937 Casa Loma, Dallas, Texas 75214, USA. Mr. L. Tharp, 2705 Bammel Lane, Houston, Texas 77098, USA. Mr. F. Woolham, 32 Caughall Road, Upton-by-Chester, Chester CH2 1LP. Mr. D.W. Young, Quag’s Meadow, Minsted, Midhurst, West Sussex GU29 OJh. CHANGE OF ADDRESS Mr. Tim Birt, to c/o Dept, of Biology, Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfound¬ land, Canada, AiB 3X9. Mr. T.R.M. Brosset, to kjellbergsgatan 4, S411 32 Gothenburg, Sweden. Mr. Ostrom Enders, to 55 Bishop Lane, Avon, Connecticut, 06001, USA. Ms. L. Hanisch, to Andreastoffer STrasse 12, 4400 Munster, Germany. Mr. S. Jaques, to Church Cottage, Main Street, Thistleton, Rutland, Leics. Mrs. Rosemary H. Low to Widcombe Cottage, Widcombe House, Culmhead, Taunton, Somerset TA3 7DX. Ms. Yvonne S. McGee to Star Route 603, Sausalito, California 94965, USA. Mr. I.H. Mitchell, 62 Albany Road, Lytham St. Annes, Lancs. FY8 4 AS. Mr. Harold Montgomery, to 6343 Kalari Place, Dallas, Texas 75240, USA. Mr. B.C. Stockdale, MRCVS, to 9 Meadow Lane, Loughborough, Leics. LE11 1JU. DONATIONS The Society is most grateful to the following members for their generosity Mr. I.G.C. Anderdon Mr. E.S. Andersen Mr. D. Attenborough Mr. F.C. Barnicoat Mr. D.R. Baylis Mr. T. Berglind Mr. Tim Birt Mr. W.P. Bonsai Mr. D. Brown Mr. R.A. Chester Mrs. D. Cooke Mr. K.W. Dolton Mrs. Velvet E. Douglas Ms. W. Duggan Mr. A. Griffiths Mr. W.G.E. Griggs Miss D.K. Gurney Mr. F.S.. Hogg Mr. K. Holdsworth Mr. K.W.S. Kane Dr. S.B. Kendall Mr. B.R. Kyme Mr. Ivo Lazzeroni Mrs. F.D. Lovelett Mr. A.J. Mabille Mr. P.H. Maxwell Mr. F.W.S. Mayer Ms. Y.S. McGee Mr. G.F. Mees Mr. H. Montgomery Mr. G. Muhlhaus Mr. R. Oxley Mr. P.J. Pheby Dr. S.H. Raethel Mr. B.E. Reed Mr. J.M. Ridgeway Ms. S. Schittko-Kienle Mr. D.P. Shearing Mr. G.A. Smith Dr. Danai Snid-Vongs Mr. D.T. Spilsbury Mr. M.E.M. Tell Mr. William Todd III Mr. J. Trollope Mrs. Gill du Venage Mr. H.W. Wareman Mr. J.R. Wood Mr. C. Wright Published by the Avicultural Society Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8LT, England W ICULTURAL MAGAZINE VOLUME 92 Number 2 1986 CONTENTS Breeding the Little Black Bustard at the Paignton Zoo by Miss Jo Gregson (with plates) . . 61 Breeding the Pale-headed Mannikin by Alan Griffiths . . . 64 Breeding Golden-fronted Chloropsis by L. Gibson . 66 Bow Leg syndrome in ratite birds by Dr. P. Guittin (with plates) . . 70 Inverted Resting mPionus Parrots By Werner Lantermann and Susanne Wozniak . 80 Notes on Cuban Finches by Bryan E. Reed . 82 Observations on the Bicheno Finch by A.J. Mobbs (with plates) .» . 85 The Forest Canary by Neville Brickell (with plate) . .93 Notes on the Red-headed Finch and the Cut-Throat Finch By Neville Brickell (with plate) . ; . 96 Results of the Hooded Siskin Census by David Coles . . . . . 100 Visit to Chestnut Lodge . . . . . . . . 109 London Zoo, 1985, by Peter Olney . . . 110 Reviews . . . . . . . Ill News and Views . . . . . . . . 117 Avicultural Magazine Binding, and Members’ Advertisements . . . 119 THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE welcomes original articles that have not been published elsewhere and that essentially concern the aviculture of a particular bird or group of birds, or, that describe their natural history. Articles should be preferably typewritten, with double spacing, and the scientific names as well as the vernacular names of birds should be given. References cited in the text should be listed at the end of the article. Line drawings should be in Indian ink on thick paper or card; photographs which illustrate a particular point in the article will be used where possible and should be clearly captioned. ADDRESS OF EDITOR Mary Harvey, Windsor Forest Stud, Mill Ride, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8LT, England. ,ONIAN LiBRAWS 'N/V= V Paignton Zoological and Botanical Gardens Little Black Bustard bred at Paignton Zoo Top, One day old; bottom, approximately three weeks old Avicultural Magazine the journal of the a vicultural society Vol. 92 - No. 2 - 1986 ISSN 0005-2256 All rights reserved BREEDING THE LITTLE BLACK BUSTARD Eupodotis a fra AT THE PAIGNTON ZOOLOGICAL & BOTANICAL GARDENS By Miss JO GREGSON (Head Birdkeeper) The Little Black, or White-quilled, Bustard, also known as the Black Korhaan, is found in open grassland and amongst scattered trees and bushes, thoughout the central, southern and western regions of Southern Africa. Our pair of Little Black Bustards were acquired in February 1979 from a dealer and were adult on arrival. During the following three years, spent in the ‘Square’ aviaries, they failed to nest and at the end of 1983 it was decided to rehouse the birds in a planted aviary, approximately 13mx4mx3m high, at the Tropical House. On 13 th April, 1984, one egg was laid in a shallow scrape, no nesting material had been used. This egg was removed to be artificially incubated but was soon found to be addled. A second single egg was laid on the same scrape on 8th May and left for the female to incubate. The chick hatched on 28th May, but again, since there was a real risk that it might drown in a small pool in the aviary, the chick was taken for hand-rearing. Initially it was fed on crickets, small locusts, white mealworms, chopped lettuce, egg and grit; water was given in drops from a hypodermic syringe. Calcium/magnesium was given daily to prevent bone deficiencies. All food items had to be offered by means of tweezers as the chick made no effort to feed itself. On the third day the chick became lethargic and failed to defaecate, a problem not uncommon in hand-reared bustards. One ml. of liquid paraf¬ fin was administered and a day-old Lady Amherst’s Pheasant Chrysolophus amherstiae was caged with the chick in order to improve its feeding and exercise. The Bustard improved over the ensuing 24 hours and soon began to feed from the dish. The pheasant chick was removed after a few days. At six days the wing quills were growing fast and by the fifteenth day the chick was quite well covered. It was able to spend some time outside on warm days. Small pieces of cooked, minced chicken and liver heart, and lumps of mice were now added to the diet. 62 MISS JO GREGSON - BREEDING THE LITTLE BLACK BUSTARD On the 19th day the chick began refusing food from the dish and would only take an occasional cricket from the tweezers. This continued for six days, after which it was completely independent of the tweezers and feeding well once again from the dish. The young bird became unex¬ pectedly nervous and on day 59 was moved to a planted aviary at the Tropical House. At six months old it still bore immature plumage though it was ‘barking’ like a male. A third egg was laid on 13th June in a scrape barely a metre from the original. This egg hatched on 2nd July, the chick was again removed for hand-rearing but died at 16 days. A post mortem examination revealed an acute enteritis. A fourth egg was laid in the same scrape on 23rd July and hatched on 13th August. It was decided on this occasion to allow the adults an oppor¬ tunity to rear their own young. The chick was brooded and fed by the female and appeared to be doing well until 12th September when it was found dead in its roosting place. The cause of death was inconclusive. In each case the incubation period was 21 days. The first egg weighed 43 g and measured 41 x 52 mm. All three chicks began developing a slipped wing at about six days but this corrected itself after approximately 14 days. Subsequently, clutches have been hand-reared and parent-reared during 1985. The down of the chicks is grey speckled with brown and black. The bill and feet are grey. The juvenile plumage in most respects is similar to that of the adult hen. It would appear that immature cocks begin to colour black on the neck at around seven months when they also develop the characteristic bark of the adult male. Interestingly, the first bird to be hatched in May 1984, though now in full male plumage, still retains the eye coloration of the hen. The last chick to be hatched, now five months old (January 1986) is showing pale dorsal streaks and we believe it to be a hen, with which it agrees in all other respects. This being so, it is the first of its sex thus far reared. Two cock birds are now housed in an adjacent enclosure which is especially spacious and heated and planted. Though they do not actually come to blows, each remains constantly away from the other. The young¬ est bird is still with the adult pair while the remaining hand-reared off¬ spring is caged elsewhere in the collection. Other than the inclusion of many more insects (collected by means of a sweep net) and mealworms, crickets and small locusts, the diet remained unchanged during the breeding season. In order to ‘protect’ her young, the hen often feigns injury and on occasions even attacks! At such times, the cock runs off barking loudly and incessantly. The hen alone broods her MISS JO GREGSON - BREEDING THE LITTLE BLACK BUSTARD 63 young and initially feeds it while the cock stands guard, again barking If alarmed. As the chick grows it will follow the cock as often as the hen though this may represent greed since the male is often the first to the feed bowl! Nevertheless the chick always retreats to the company of its mother when alarmed. WEIGHT CHART FOR LITTLE BLACK BUSTARD Grams 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 DAYS As described above, the Little Black Bustard Eupodotis afra has been bred at Paignton Zoo and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. 64 BREEDING THE PALE-HEADED MANNIKIN Lonchura pallida By ALAN GRIFFITHS, MRCVS (Dyfed, Wales) The Pale-headed Mannikin, or Pale-headed Munia, or Pale-headed Nun, is, according to Goodwin (1982)>found in south-west and central Sulawesi (Celebes) and neighbouring islands of Lombok, Sumbawa, Flores, Alor, Savu, Kisar, Sermattu, Babar, Kalaota and Madu. In shape and size it is similar to the commoner White-headed Mannikin Lonchura maja except that the head is more of an off-white colour, and the breast is a pale pinkish grey. The rest of the body is chocolate brown to reddish chestnut, and the latter colour, especially over the flanks, glows in bright sunlight and makes this a most attractive finch. Four birds were purchased from a dealer in September 1983 and were wintered together in an indoor room without heat, though the tempera¬ ture did not fall below freezing. In the spring of 1984 they were all placed in an open sheltered aviary 8 ft long x 6 ft high x 3 ft wide (2.43 x 1.82 x 0.91 m), the floor being of slate slabs, a bucketful of farmyard manure and a bucketful of leaf mould was placed in the front of the aviary, and kept moist. This is a practice carried out for all the smaller finches that are likely to breed. White- worms were provided at first but were discontinued as they were not taken. In fact, livefood is unnecessary as subsequent chicks were reared without. A variety of nesting sites were provided inside the shelter and outside, these included lovebird boxes and open finch boxes but the nest first used was a hollow tube of wire netting filled with hay and a nest cavity made inside. This was in the shelter. Five eggs were laid in June and it was my intention to foster them under some Bengalese but the latter chicks hatched before the transfer could be made, so the Mannikins were allowed to continue their duties. Three chicks hatched and subsequently left the nest but unfortunately one was picked up dead after a downpour a week later. The pair went to nest again in an open-fronted finch nest-box under shelter and reared a further two to independence. All eight birds were brought in to a birdroom in September 1984 and heat was provided from November onwards until the following spring. Unfortunately two of the young died during the winter before coming in to adult colour, which the other two did before being replaced in the ALAN GRIFFITHS - PALE-HEADED MANNIKIN 65 outdoor aviary. The juvenile Pale-headed Mannikin has a brownish buff head and breast; the wings and tail are light chocolate, and the beak is similar to adults but perhaps a little more grey, and the legs are dark brown. The remaining six birds shared the same aviary and although the adult birds had been rung with split rings the previous autumn, these had disappeared during the winter. Nesting started late but subsequently two chicks left the nest in late September. Unfortunately these were found dead on my return from being away for a few days. The six birds were brought indoors at the end of September 1985 and I tried to split them into pairs by appearance. Each pair was similarly housed in cages 3 ft long x 114 ft wide x 2 ft high (0.91 x 0.45 x 0.60 m); open-ended finch nest-boxes were provided which faced the length of the cages, and were filled with hay which was hollowed out to make a nest chamber. More hay and coconut fibre were provided as well as heat from November onwards. One pair threw out all the nesting material, the other just sat in the box, but the third pair laid five eggs, three of which hatched on 2nd January. The chicks left the nest on 19th January and were feeding inde¬ pendently by 5th February. The diet consists of a mixture of 50% white millet and 50% canary seed, to which I add Japanese and red millet, plus a little niger and maw seed. In addition, the above mixture is provided soaked, plus some soaked paddy rice and Ce De. Millet sprays, both dry and soaked, were offered but were not popular. During the summer, meadow grasses were provided and ornamental grasses such as Miscanthus sinensis . Cuttle fish ‘bone’ and grit were always provided and when the birds were indoors, a few drops of Abedec were occasionally added to the drinking water. At the time of writing (6th March 1986) the same pair have now laid another clutch. The other ‘pairs’ are still not doing anything. REFERENCES GOODWIN, D. (1932). Estrildid Finches of the World, (p. 298). Oxford Univer¬ sity Press. As described above, the Pale-headed Mannikin Lonchura pallida has been bred by Mr. A. Griffiths and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. 66 BREEDING GOLDEN-FRONTED CHLOROPSIS Chloropsis aurifrons By L. GIBSON (Burnaby, British Columbia) The general habits, etc., of this species have been described earlier (Avicultural Magazine, 1981, p. 34). The birds nested in the conservatory as described for Cyanerpes ( Avicultural Magazine , 1979, p. 6). As men¬ tioned previously they can be sexed by the blue on the throat; the female has two stripes, joined only at the top, while the male has a solid patch of blue. Courtship was rather hectic and consisted of chasing then sitting screeching at each other. The cock seemed to like hanging upside down below the hen, on the same twig. The breeding pair picked one another from a group of five and, apart from mild quarrelling on occasions, they were still quite friendly almost a year later. This shows the importance of natural selection. It was fortunate that they had a few to pick from for most of the time we stick two birds together and that is that, and I have consistently had trouble doing this with Shamas, for example. The aviary was shared with a pair of Silver-beaked Tanagers Rampho- celus carbo which nested first. They were taken out later when the Chloropsis nested. General breeding procedure was identical to C. hard¬ wickei and only additional information is given here. Nests Four nests were built and all were constructed of grass and horse, or cow, hair only. A wide range of materials was made available. Three were reconstructed hardwickei nests, and one was a new nest. The latter was used twice, and was the only successful nest. Eggs were laid in only one of the other nests. The dimensions were identical to the hardwickei nests. The first nest was a reconstruction of the old hardwickei nest, in bam¬ boo. It was started on 6th April, 1980. The horse hair lining was taken out and replaced. The sides were partly dismantled and reconstructed, giving them a slightly more open weave than the original and the lining was also sparse. The nest was completed but not used. On 1st May, the hen began to reconstruct the second hardwickei nest in the creeping fig, against the wall. This time it had a thicker lining. It took only two days to refur¬ bish, and the first egg was laid on the third day. The cock was seen to carry a piece of grass at this time but he did not do any work and was not seen to do this again. The third nest was yet another reconstruction of the L. GIBSON - GOLDEN-FRONTED CHLOROPSIS 67 first. Each time the lining was taken out completely and replaced. This was still not used and a fourth was started. This nest was completely new and situated in the creeping fig, but at the same height at the opposite end of the wall from the other. It could not be seen except from a step ladder which was immediately installed. All the nests were firmly fixed and lined only with black or red hair, white hair being ignored. When the new nest was finished, the pad of horse hair lining the base was found standing on end. It had probably been pulled up by the birds’ claws when leaving. This was stitched back in using black thread and at the same time, some loops were sewn around the rim. This turned out to be a good idea, for by the time a chick left the nest, it was still as good as new. There was previously some trouble with nest rims unravelling a lot. As a further precaution, a twig was wired in place just in front of the nest. Previously there had been nothing to land on except the nest rim. Eggs and incubation Prior to laying, the hen began to consume increased quantities of food. This consisted of insects mostly and when these were put in, the cock immediately called the hen down to them (and still does). In contrast to the hardwickei , he fed her regularly. However, no food was taken to her while she was on the nest. The clutch consists of two eggs. Three clutches were laid: the first was started on 3rd May and the last on 16th August. The eggs were slightly smaller than those of the hardwickei , being 20 x 16 mm. All had a pale reddish brown wash except for one which was white. They had large reddish-brown spots sparsely concentrated at the big end, with a very few smaller spots petering out around the middle. Some eggs had pretty mauve spots interspersed among the brown ones. As with hardwickei there was some delayed hatching. The first egg was chipped open by me when it was 15 days old, possibly 16, depending on whether it was the first or second laid. A live chick, more or less ready for hatching, tumbled out and the parents fed it within five hours. The other egg in the clutch was fertile but had died at about the 5th-6th day period. Both chicks in the second nest had hatched by 10.00 a.m. on the same day, after 14 and 15 days’ incubation. When the hen was incubating, the cock sat at the opposite end of the aviary and, in contrast to the silent vigil of the cock hardwickei , he occasionally sang quietly. When the hen left the nest he flew close by her but never went near the nest while there were still eggs in it. Temperatures ranged from a low of 52°F (1 1°C) at night, to a daytime high of 80°F (27°C) for the clutches which hatched. 68 L. GIBSON - GOLDEN-FRONTED CHLOROPSIS Chicks These were just the same as the hardwickei , being rather small and very slow to develop for the first three or four days. Both parents fed actively from the first day. Only insects were used at first, being mostly wasp pupae and larvae, spiders, grasshoppers and termites. The latter were con¬ veniently obtained by sawing up lengths of my sundeck - about two years before, a toucan upset a jar of these insects in the sundeck and apparently some escaped and settled underneath it! On the seventh day the hen fed some rice to a chick, but it could have been getting it earlier. The chicks opened their eyes at six days, one opening and closing its eyes on the fifth day. This was the main difference from the hardwickei chicks which were much later. The Golden-fronted Chloropsis chicks were difficult to induce to beg but nevertheless were easier than the hardwickei. They sometimes sprang up at the first tap. All were fed from the second day onwards with egg/butter/milk. The sole chick to hatch in the clutch grew well and was very fat by the 13th day, in fact it weight 27 g, which was too much. In spite of growing well, its primaries had not come out until the 10th day in comparison with the seventh day for the other chicks. The feathers were all well formed in spite of this. The chick was very quiet and did not object at all to being lifted out. Its parents hopped about angrily nearby, uttering explosive whistles whenever the chick was handled. At 16 days the chick flopped from the nest and was obviously not normal. It could only flap its wings a little and sat holding its feet up, resting on the first joint. It seemed incapable of stretching its neck out fully and squeaked, possibly in pain, when this was done by hand. It was placed on a concrete block and the parents continued to feed it. It jumped off the block several times but could not move from where it landed. It had very little grip in its feet and two swellings were apparent on its legs. These grew progressively larger by the day. The legs began to bend at the swellings, which became inflamed. The parents tried des¬ perately to get it to fly. They were carrying nesting material by this time. The chick was taken indoors at 18 days, started on antibiotics, and hand- fed. The next day it was seen eating and drinking without trouble, but had difficulty moving to and from the food. It was given aspirin and this made it much brighter. It had been squeaking in pain quite often whenever it moved. Swelling was also noted in a wing joint. The chick died the follow¬ ing day in great distress. A post-mortem examination showed that both legs seemed to have been broken and there was much recalcification going on. It also had problems with its neck and wings. It had been hand-fed with what should have been plenty of calcium and vitamin D. It did not L. GIBSON - GOLDEN-FRONTED CHLOROPSIS 69 have the appearance of an ‘ordinary’ rachitic chick (which is much more mobile) and was otherwise plump and well-developed. It was more likely that this chick had a malabsorption syndrome for calcium or vitamin D, and nothing would have saved it. Rickets can usually be corrected fairly well by simply supplying vitamin D, but this chick got rapidly and pro¬ gressively worse. The second clutch to hatch was laid on the 1 5th and 16th August and both chicks appeared on the 31st. Everything went smoothly until one chick died suddenly at almost 10 days old, with no previous signs of dis¬ tress. The cause of death was easily established. Its little stomach was more than three-quarters filled with six pieces of pumice stone. Pumice is, of course, very light and the largest piece weighed 1 15.5 mg, but it measured 7 x 5.5 x 3 mm. Total weight of the six pieces was 205 mg. A flower pot with potting soil containing pumice fragments had been put In some time during this nesting and was removed two days before the chick died. It is not known whether the stones were fed as grit or, more probably, as minerals. The first chick had no grit at all in the stomach. It would be a good thing to feed grit and/or eggshell to all birds to avoid this, as I have had at least one previous chick killed by getting relatively large stones fed to it. The other chick probably got fed pumice fragments also, but it was the larger of the two and as each day went by, it became safer. It developed uneventfully, leaving the nest at 13 days and thereafter followed the Hardwick’s chick in development. As previously postulated, it was indeed green all over; the only difference from the hardwickei chick being the top of its head. It had a lighter green patch where its orange crown would be. It gradually moulted into adult plumage at three to four months old, and proved to be a male. The parents started to moult when the chick was about three weeks old and they were very quiet and friendly. They remain so to this day. An interesting thing happened with their feeding habits. They did not go over to Insects quite as much as the Marwick’s, although they obviously pre¬ ferred them. They were also much less fussy, eating even mealworm beetles, although they did pick out only the softest larvae and pupae for the chicks. They did not take any nectar during the nesting period, scarcely bothered with it thereafter and have hardly taken it since. It is offered every month or so, just to check, but is usually ignored. They have settled to a staple diet of rice pudding and orange, with a little banana and as many mealworms as can be spared. 70 BOW LEG SYNDROME IN RATITE BIRDS By Dr. P. GUITTIN (Veterinary Surgeon, Paris Zoological Park, Paris, France) Summary From 1981 to 1985, various changes were made in the hand-rearing of Ostrich, rhea and Emu chicks at the Paris Zoological Park to determine environmental and nutritional factors involved in the excessive growth and low survival of chicks with bow legs. Introduction Leg deformities occur in ratites in many zoological parks (Guittin, 1985). Variously known as perosis, leg disorders, musculo-skeletal disease, slipped tendon, and spread leg (Wallach, 1970; Walser et al, 1982; Reece & Butler, 1984), bow leg syndrome may best describe the leg deformities commonly found in several ratite birds. Leg bone deformities have been reported in the Ostrich Struthio camelus, the Greater Rhea Rhea ameri- cana , Darwin’s Rhea Pterocnemia pennata , the Emu Dromaius novaehol- landiae, and cassowaries Casuarius spp. (Bruning, 1973; Cordonnier, 1977; Reece & Butler, 1984). At Paris Zoological Park, the usual history of birds with bow leg syndrome is that the eggs were artificially incubated and the newly hatched chicks were overfed, grew rapidly for the first month and developed leg deformities by two to eight weeks old. The purpose of the present study was to show nutritional and behavioural causes of the dis¬ ease. Materials and methods At the Paris Zoological Park, eggs of three species of ratite birds (Stru¬ thio camelus, Rhea americana, Dromaius novaehollandiae) were artificially incubated (36.7°C and a relative humidity of 65%) and were automatically turned every two hours. Seventy-eight Ostrich, 87 Rhea and 51 Emu chicks had been hand-reared after hatching: 12 Ostriches, 20 Rheas and five Emus were weighed and measured every day for the first two months after hatching, then every week thereafter. Chicks of less than 5 kg were weighed in a high box, using baby scales (1% standard error). Heavier chicks were double-weighed, using converted bathroom scales (4% stan¬ dard error). The height of each chick was determined by use of a measur¬ ing apparatus (5% standard error), without disturbing the chicks. Four heights were evaluated: the head height, measured at the top of the cranium; the back height, at the first dorsal vertebra; the hip height, at Dr. P. GUITTIN - BOW LEG SYNDROME IN RATITE BIRDS 71 P. Guittin Tarsometatarsal bones of a one-month old Rhea; on the left, bone showing the bow legs syndrome, and on the right, normal bone 72 Dr. P. GUITTIN - BOW LEG SYNDROME IN RATITE BIRDS the coxofemoral joint; and the tarsus height, at the tibiotarsal joint. Growth curves were drawn up, using the mean of the observed heights, while histological and serum biochemical evaluations were carried out to gain further insight into this syndrome. Predisposing factors During the first two months, the low survival might be attributed to the lack of appropriate husbandry techniques. Also, the lack of attention normally provided by the male adult in natural rearing, made the chicks more inactive. If chicks have no encouragement to develop their muscles, they do not use their leg joints sufficiently. This in turn can lead to gener¬ alised weakness and deformities becoming apparent. To encourage activity, several techniques were devised. It was impor¬ tant not to keep a chick alone as the presence of other chicks, and Indeed adult birds, encouraged ratite chicks to move about. The floor surface also influenced the chicks’ behaviour. Early on we found that an edible surface, such as litter or grass was not suitable because young chicks would eat it and suffer impactions. On the other hand, a ground that was too hard became painful for the chicks to walk on, leading to inactivity. We decided that a floor of jute or straw was a good compromise for younger chicks as these materials were not eaten by chicks, and provided adequate traction with satisfactory firmness.For two-month old birds, a short area of grass gave the optimal results. It was also necessary to consider the size of the enclosure to encourage movement. About 2 m2 for young chicks up to two months old was satisfactory. Then we gave midges and flies which kept chicks busy looking for and catching these insects and other inver¬ tebrates. Yet exercise is not considered the only factor responsible for streng¬ thening legs. We found that restrictions on food intake prevented bow legs and that a nutritionally adequate diet improved the survival rate. Also when we had quantitatively reduced daily food intake, the bone pathology had largely decreased (Table 1). We had understood that this syndrome was correlated with overfeeding. Studies of diet had shown a reduction in food Intake corresponded to a specific reduction in metabolizable energy requirement. Energy nutrients such as cereals or pellets for carnivores or poultry induced risk; also it might be important to raise the calcium level of the diet since chicks developed a calcium deficiency. During the first two months, ratite chicks had a rationed diet (Table 1). Then from two to 12 months old, ratite birds had a diet which was given ad lib. but was qualitatively restricted (Table 2). Dr. P. GUITTIN - BOW LEG SYNDROME IN RATITE BIRDS 73 Two-month old Rhea with inflammation of the tibiometatarsal left joint 74 Dr. P. GUITTIN - BOW LEG SYNDROME IN RATITE BIRDS TABLE I - DAILY DIET (in grams) OF ONE-MONTH OLD RATITE CHICKS Diet Ostrich Rhea Emu Shredded lettuce and alfalfa 600 100 100 Shredded carrot 80 100 100 Hard-boiled egg 30 0 0 Rabbit pellets 50 25 45 Wheat 0 0 0 Pulverised eggshell 5 5 5 Mineral and vitamin supplements 5 5 5 Total 770 235 255 TABLE II - DAILY DIET (in percentage) OF TWO- TO TWELVE-MONTH OLD RATITE BIRDS Diet Ostrich Rhea Emu Shredded lettuce and alfalfa 50 35 29 Shredded lettuce and apple 12 27 22 Hard-boiled egg 3 0 0 Rabbit pellets 13 36 30 Wheat 20 0 17 Pulverised eggshell 1 1 1 Mineral and vitamin supplements 1 1 1 Epidemiology We made a retrospective investigation with rhea chicks. The chicks were divided into three groups: group 1 was composed of five chicks that developed bow legs between 23 and 31 days old; group 2 was com¬ posed of five chicks that developed bow legs between eight and 1 1 days old; group 3 was composed of 10 control chicks that showed a normal growth. During the first week, group 2 had been heavier than the controls (group 3) from the fourth day (Fig. 1). But a significant difference (p<0.05) only became apparent at the ninth day, with the first onset of symptoms. During the first month comparison between groups 1 and 2 showed a significant difference (p-^0.02) at 17 days old, before lame¬ ness was seen (Fig. 2). So it was possible to identify a presymptomatic period of this disease, from three to six days before the first clinical symptoms appeared. Dr.P. GUITTIN - BOW LEG SYNDROME IN RATITE BIRDS 75 FIGURE 1 - Comparison of weight increase of three groups of Rhea chicks during the first week Weight (grams) 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 480 460 440 420 400 Age (Days) 2/ / / /./ y i 0 8 Group 1 : 23-3 1 day-old chicks with leg deformities Group 2: 8-11 day-old chicks with leg deformities •• Group 3 : Chicks without pathology *«■■■■■■■ FIGURE 2 - Comparison of weight increase of two groups of rhea chicks during the first month Weight (grams) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 *•***••• ..•*** ...***3*' * *tv*~#** Black Kite Milvus migrans Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis The smaller bird market in Chengdu is at QInchengshan. During the same winter, 1985-86, William W. Thomas saw there about 10 species additional to those at the larger market. A paperback volume on aviculture (Yi, 1982) was one of only two books on birds that could be found in a large specialist bookshop in Changchun. It is called The Breeding of Fancy Birds , and 54,000 copies were produced. Illustrations make clear how to catch wild stock. Else- BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA 133 Jeffery Boswall LongtangHu Bird Market, Beijing, 16th June, 1986: (above) caged Mongolian Lark; (left) tethered young Japanese Grosbeak. Guan Yuang Bird Market, Beijing, 16 th June, 1986: (below left) two caged Yellow-throated Buntings; (below right) tethered Azure¬ winged Magpie. 134 BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA Fig. 1. Siberian Ruby throat Luscinia calliope in a cage of typical Chinese design and made of bamboo. Drawn by Peter H. Ryley. where in China I later found the following books: The Avoidance and Cure of Bird Diseases by Xing Chao’an and Yan Zhengfan (1985), of which 10,000 copies were printed; also The Care and Training of Larks edited by Zhang Xiaosi (1984), 15,500 copies; and The Keeping and Breeding of Cage Birds by Lu Jiechuan and others (1984), 29,000 copies. Birds trained to do tricks Anthony Galsworthy observed birds at the main Beijing market being used to perform tricks (1983, pers. comm.). He writes: ‘On 22nd May 1983, Ken Searle and I watched a Chinese doing tricks with hawfinches as described in Hemmingsen (1951). He had about three of the Japanese (or Masked) Hawfinches, all males, tied with strings round their breasts, with clips. He released one bird onto his hand, then with the other hand threw a small white ball high in the air, simultaneously throwing the bird in the air. As the bird flew up to catch the first ball he threw the second after it. The bird on each occasion I watched, caught both and returned to his hand, depositing the balls in his palm. It was rewarded with a seed. A second man had a male Brambling which was similarly trained; but on this occasion it caught a seed thrown in the air, rather than a ball, and returned to the hand.’ BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA 135 Caroline Weaver A stall selling not birds but cages, china holders for food and water and one trap (an oblong device on the ground, nearest camera), Chengdu, 1985. Bird trapping To supply the markets birds must be trapped or otherwise ‘taken’ in the wild. Hemmingsen (1951) deals with trapping in the 1940s and more recently Beecroft (in press) gives a valuable account of trapping over two and a half months in 1985 at a locality on the Yellow Sea coast. I can add only the following: 136 BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA William W, Thomas (1983, pers. comm.) writes of his stay in Beijing in the late 1970s: ‘There were a number of bird-trappers who worked the brush around the Ming Tombs Reservoir, usually with mist nets. Their usual game included several species of Pams and Emberiza , Phylloscopus and Aegithalos. The nets were tended very carefully, and some of the trappers wanted their birds alive. Others killed them as soon as they were free of the net, presumably for food. There were also hunters using air guns and even ancient muzzle-loaders, but they were after ducks and shorebirds. I once saw a peasant carrying a large female Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis which he used against quail and thrushes.’ (Hemmingsen, 1951, mentions the netting of Northern Goshawks for use against hares). In the grounds of my hotel at Qiqihar, Heilongjiang province, on 8th May 1983, I (J.B.) found a local bird-catcher with six traps slung from a tree. In a bottom compartment each contained a decoy Eurasian Siskin. A supply of millet was positioned so as to be available not only to the call bird but also to potential victims, four of which could be caught in separate traps above. See Caroline Weaver’s photograph. Cormorant fishing As recently as 1982 the use of Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo for fishing was observed near Beijing; on at least two occasions Anthony Galsworthy saw one or two boats, each with one or two fishermen, opera¬ ting on the canal that runs alongside the ‘back’ road to the Summer Palace. The site was 1-2 kms before the Palace. In May 1985, D.S. Melville saw several rafts with captive Cormorants near Guangzhou (Canton). In May and June 1986, I saw Cormorant fishing in progress at two widely separa¬ ted localities, each about an hour’s drive from Chengdu. Maryse Addison (pers. comm. 1986) saw a recent film about Cormorant fishing shot on Hainan Island. It would seem from these instances alone that Cormorant fishing, despite rumours to the contrary, is still widespread in China. A recent account of this behaviour in Guilin in China is that of Egremont and Rothschild (1979). One feature is a possible example of counting ability in birds. After a bird has brought seven fish to its owner, the bird Is allowed to eat the eighth. The bird apparently ‘goes on strike’, refusing to move, unless it is fed every eighth fish. Cheng (1937) traces Cormorant fishing in China back to 317 BC, earlier than the earliest dates given by Campbell and Lack (1985), i.e. the Sung dynasty (960-1298 AD). But Zhang (1985) is surely mistaken in stating that Cormorants trained in China to catch fish ‘are not bred in captivity . At a location in Sichuan I was told by a Cormorant fisherman that the eggs laid by his birds were hatched out under hens and the resulting young raised by human hand. The widespread incidence of albino and semi- BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA 137 ^*aLSBiS, 3. tt®* #(® 57)0 ±5fJi^>!ha!4«nni^,Jn^iH«^Jt«o ■&*3SM+f»fl! 24* m j§£6H5?WiEBIi$ rT«!& Sj£i®& 3-4 'f*®Jt, ®J®9ii8Aff]W^*. 4. jail1 WSfi^Se#,#i'itt;ft#®i*i; -*#fflSe&5fciS$l«, I'm&s&iitT, «fifj4:a*0 • 81 • Fig. 2. A reproduction of page 81 of the book Enjoying Bird Breeding (Yi, 1982). The finch is holding half a walnut shell on the convex surface of which has been painted a character resembling those found in Chinese opera. 138 BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA albino birds is also highly suggestive of domestication. For example, of the 15 birds owned by my interviewee, one was a complete albino and two more were partly white. Of course, it is no doubt also true that from time to time new stock is trapped in the wild and brought into captivity. I was told that Cormorants live for 20 years, and that mature birds sell for 400-500 yuan (£90 - £115 in October 1985), and young birds for 100- 200 yuan (£23 - £45). Pigeons The only large Chinese cities in which I have spent significant periods of time are Beijing and Chengdu. The most conspicuous birds by far are Rock Doves Columba livid, but they are birds from owners5 lofts and not feral ‘street5 pigeons. Not once did I see, in either city, a pigeon on the ground in park or town square, garden or roadside patch. And yet high above, flocks of birds are continually on the move. The racing of pigeons is a common sport, and pigeons are also bred for eggs and meat. On 1st October 1985, I visited a pigeon market in Chengdu, the capital city of Sichuan province. The majority of the hundred or so boxes or cages that had been brought contained homers. I was told that in Sichuan, one of 26 Chinese provinces, albeit the second largest, there were 8,000 members of the pigeon association, with 2,000 in Chengdu alone. ‘Ordinary’ pigeons were selling for 6 yuan (about £1.25), those with experience over 500 km courses for 10-20 yuan (about £2-£4), 1,000 km birds for 200-500 yuan (about £40-£100) and 2,000 km birds (that, for example, home 1,400 km from Inner Mongolia to Chengdu in two days) for 500-2,000 yuan (about £100-£400). In fact, there was only one bird in Chengdu worth 2,000 yuan. At the other extreme, pigeons to eat cost 2-3 yuan each! Also for sale were three different pigeon magazines, each a monthly, and five different pigeon paperbacks; also serially numbered rings, of course, and magnifying glasses for inspecting pigeons’ eyes. Of particular interest were the pigeon whistles. These are attached in an upright position to the tail of a pigeon, and when the bird takes off air passes into the forward facing orifice and a pleasing note is struck. Nowadays only a few whistles are made of bamboo and gourds - in Cheng¬ du, at least. Instead they are fashioned from nut husks or plastic. One common design employs a table tennis ball! Before selling a whistle the stall holder insists on a demonstration of the instrument’s musicality. He attaches the whistle to one end of a specially designed stick nearly a metre in length and then spins the stick from the other end. A whistle may be a single sound producer, or more likely a combina- BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA 139 Fig. 3. Two pigeon whistles drawn about 1900 and reproduced with permission from Tun Li-ch’en (1936). Drawings (a) and (a1) are the side and front views of the same whistle. The drawings are one-half of the actual size. Each whistle is made of a gourd and bamboo (the original caption says merely ‘bamboo’), and each weighs 10 grams. ‘When the pigeons wheel overhead their sound rises even to the clouds, containing within it all five notes (of the Chinese scale). Truly it gives joy, and a release to the emotions!’ (Tun Li-ch’en, 1936, Annual Customs and Festivals in Peking , p. 22). Fig. 4. Pigeon with whistle in position. Each large tube is made of bamboo and has an orifice; also each tube has two smaller tubes inside each with its own orifice. Thus there are six pipes in all. (After Berthold Laufer [1934]. Pigeon Whistles. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 55, No. 9). 140 BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA tion of up to 19 ‘pipes’. Laufer (1934) wrote about, and illustrated, the collection of Chinese bird whistles held in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. It is clear that some of the compound whistles are of intricate and beautiful design, and no doubt produce a pleasing combina¬ tion of notes. Imagine a flock taking off each bird carrying a compound whistle! In fact, I have heard these flying orchestras at two widely separa¬ ted locations in Sichuan province and in Beijing. A Beijing collector of these whistles has written about their history and craftsmanship (Wang, 1963). He had over 300 examples, including many contemporary ones, but also some from the Qing dynasty (1644-1912). But he had none from the time of the Song dynasty (1127-1279) when the craft was already thriving. The custom is said to have originated in the T ang dynasty (6 1 8-907). Tun Li-ch’en wrote in 1900 about pigeon whistles in Peking and illus¬ trated two of them (see figures) (Tun, 1965). Yu (1956) has written about the fancy breeds of pigeon favoured in Beijing in the early 1950s. Earlier, in 1900, Tun Li-ch’en had listed 13 ‘ordinary varieties’ of pigeon by name (e.g. ‘Phoenix-headed white’ and ‘Taoist priest hat’) and 23 of ‘valuable varieties’ (e.g. ‘Wild duck of the Great Dipper’ and ‘Striped sandals’). Birds in traditional medicine Four visits to the traditional medicine market in Chengdu, two in October 1985 and two in May/ June 1986 showed skins of the following species for sale (usually only one or two of each, but nine Common Buzzards on one day):- Black Baza Aviceda leuphotes Lammergeyer Gypaetus barbatus Black Vulture Aegypius monachus Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Probable Upland Buzzard Buteo rufinus Common Buzzard Buteo buteo Probable Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos ‘Small’ eagle Accipitridae Bubo-sized Owl Strigidae Only the heads and toes are sold. A boy offered me a whole, freshly dead buzzard for 20 yuan (about £4.60 In October 1985) or toes at 1.50 yuan (about £0.35) each. By comparison with the sale of botanical, reptilian and mammalian items, avian ‘parts’ appeared to be in very little demand. Even so, there could be a deleterious effect on wild populations. BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA 141 It appears that the heads and toes of raptors are boiled in water and the resulting soup is drunk. As to the ailments supposedly cured or relieved, the claims are so wide-ranging as to create suspicion about their validity. The Northern Goshawk, Tawny Eagle and Black Kite for sale alive in the Chengdu bird market (see earlier) are believed to have been on sale for their medicinal value. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Anthony C Galsworthy and William W. Thomas for allowing me to incorporate their data and to Nigel Collar for drawing my attention to Travnicek’s paper. Iain C. Orr helped greatly with the literature. Martin Williams allowed me to see a draft of Beecroft (in press) in advance of publication; he also helped with fearless criticism of an earlier draft. Minna Daum helped with translation and inter¬ pretation. Mike Wilson saved me from a sizeable number of nomenclatorial indis¬ cretions. David Melville helped in the additional facts, re-interpretations and general corrections. REFERENCES BEECROFT, R. (In press). Notes on bird trapping at Beidaihe and the sale of birds at Beijing, Qinhuangdao and Chengdu. Report on Cambridge Ornithological Expedi¬ tion to China , 1985. BOSWALL, J. (1986). The birds of Chengdu Zoo, People’s Republic of China, Avi- cultural Magazine, 92 (l): 47-50. CAMPBELL, B. and LACK, E. (1985). A Dictionary of Birds. T. and A.D, Poyser, Calton. CHENG TUNG-PAI. (1937). Notes on Cormorant Fishing in Chekiang. Linguan Science Journal. 16: 469-471. EGREMONT, P. and ROTHSCHILD, M. (1979). The calculating Cormorants, Biol J. Linn. Soc., 12: 181-186. FIEBIG, J. (1983). Ornithological observations in and around Peking (German). Mitt, zool Mus. Berlin 59 Suppl Ann . Om. 7: 163-187. HEMMINGSEN, A.M. (1951). Observations on birds in north eastern China, I. Spol. Zool Mus. Haun, 11: 1-227. LAUFER, B. (1934). Pigeon Whistles. Field Museum News, September issue. (Re¬ printed in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 55 [9] ). LU JIECHUAN, JI JIAYI, ZHAO HANGING and ZHAO YUGING, (1984). The Keeping and Breeding of Caged Birds. Ghaudong Science and Technology Pub¬ lishing House, Jinan. McCLURE, H.E. and CHAIYAPHUN, S. (1971). The sale of birds at the Bangkok ‘Sunday Market’, Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 24 (1 & 2): 41-78. MEYER de SCHAUENSEE, R. (1984). The Birds of China. O.U.P. TRAVNICEK, R.G. (1986). Aviculture in China. A F. A. Watch bird, 13(2):30-34. 142 BOSWALL - BIRDS IN CHINA TUN LI-CH’EN. (1965). (revised edition of work first published in 1936). Annual Customs and Festivals in Peking. Translated into English by Derk Bodde, Hong Kong Univ. Press. WANG SHIH-HSIANG. (1963). Pigeon whistles make aerial orchestra. China Recon¬ structs. November issue: 4243. WILDER, G.D. and HUBBARD, H.W. (1924). List of the birds of Chihli province. J. North China Branch Roy. Asiatic Soc. 55: 156-239. XING CHAO ’AN and VAN ZHENGFAN. (1985). The Avoidance and Cure of Bird Diseases . (Chinese). Chinese Forestry Publishing House, Beijing. YI GUEN. (1982). The Breeding of Fancy Birds (Chinese). Shanghai Science and Technology Publishing House. YU FEI-AN. (1956). Pigeons and pigeon fanciers, China Reconstructs. August issue. ZHANG XIAO SI. (1984). The Care and Training of Larks. (Chinese), China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing. ZHANG ZHONG-GE. (1985). Cormorant, (pp. 367-8) In: Mason, I.L. Evolution of Domesticated Animals. Longman, New Y ork. 143 FIELD AND AVIARY NOTES ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE CRIMSON FINCH Neochmia phaeton By STEWART M. EVANS (Department of Zoology, The University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne) and ANTHONY J. ROUGHER (Perth, Western Australia) Introduction The Crimson Finch Neochmia phaeton is one of the most beautiful of the Australian estrildid finches. The male is predominantly blood red to crimson in colour and, although the female is browner and less bright, she too is an attractive bird. It is certainly a desirable species for aviculture but has a reputation of being difficult to keep and breed. Not surprisingly perhaps, it is scarce in Europe and relatively expensive to buy. A pair of Crimson Finches was worth about £135 in the U.K. in 1982, compared with £30 for a pair of Longtail Finches Poephila acuticauda and £35 for a pair of Gouldian Finches Chloebia gouldiae (Evans and Fidler, 1986). Crimson Finches are much less expensive in Australia, however, where in 1982 prices varied from about £16 to £20 per pair (Evans and Fidler, loc. cii). This difference can, however, be attributed to the availability of wild- caught Crimson Finches in that country. The Australian Government banned the export of finches, and all other native fauna, to other parts of the world under its Prohibited Exports Regulations in the early 1960s. Consequently, only domestically-bred birds are now available outside Australia. Some licenced finch-trapping continues nevertheless for the Australian cage bird market which is centred on the town of Wyndham, in the Kimberley region of north-west Australia. The trade is a dying one because the Western Australia wildlife authority, which controls it, has adopted a policy whereby it will renew licences for existing trappers, but will not issue them to new applicants. The numbers of trappers have, therefore, dwindled from 55 operating in the Kimberley in 1958 (Immel- mann, 1965) to nine by 1982 (Evans and Fidler, loc. cii). Difficulties in establishing the Crimson Finch in captivity are usually attributed to its aggressiveness. Immelmann (1965) describes how trucu¬ lent encounters frequently occur between individuals which come close to one another under natural conditions, and Blewett & Kroyer-Pedersen (1978) suggest that members of this species are so aggressive in captivity that successful breeding can be achieved only by isolating pairs in separate flights. Even then, there may be problems. Some males repeatedly chase 144 EVANS & BOUGHER - CRIMSON FINCH their mates, driving them from the nest, and, in extreme cases, they may actually kill them (Immelmann, 1965). We believe, however, that the case against the Crimson Finch has been overstated. It is undoubtedly aggres¬ sive in some circumstances, but we present evidence from two sources which suggest that this is less of a problem than is usually supposed. The first arises from field observations of wild birds made by the authors in the Kimberley. The second comes from discussions with Mr and Mrs Hugo Austla who use the colony system for breeding Crimson Finches in aviaries at Wyndham (W.A.). Field observations The Crimson Finch occurs across most of northern Australia and also inhabits southern parts of New Guinea (Blakers, Davies and Reilly, 1984). It is usually seen near surface water where there are groups of the palm Pandanus odoratissimus . Observations described in this paper were made at pools of these kinds along otherwise dry creeks in areas adjacent to the Wyndharm-Kununurra and Wyndham-Gibb River roads in the eastern and central Kimberley. The study was made in July and August 1985. Crimson Finches were almost always seen in groups and each of these evidently lived in more-or-less permanent association with a particular pool and its pandanus. What were almost certainly the same birds could be ob¬ served regularly at, or close to, the ‘home’ site. These birds had probably nested in the pandanus during the previous wet season because we found ‘used’ Crimson Finch nests at several of the study sites. They were usually positioned near the bases of the pandanus leaves. Overall, observations were made of 15 groups of Crimson Finches; their mean size was 13.2 (standard deviation, 6.4). Each group included some adult males in full nuptial plumage, some adult females and some immature birds; the latter were either still in juvenile plumage or in the process of moulting out of it. Members of the groups roosted in the pandanus at night and also spent much of the day perched in them. They foraged together in the adjacent areas (i.e. usually within about 200-400 m). Most feeding activity was confined to dense, long grass and individual birds were difficult to observe in it for longer than a few minutes. It was evident, nevertheless, that they foraged together as a flock, moving in the same general direction and maintaining individual distances of about 1 m. Crimson Finches are extremely agile climbers, using long tails as balancing organs, and perching confidently on either vertical or horizontal stems, in order to take seeds from grass panicles. According to Immelmann (1965), members of this species do not normally feed on the ground but they were often observed doing so during the present study; they were apparently searching for fallen seeds in the soil between tussocks of grass. They also EVANS & BOUGHER - CRIMSON FINCH 145 foraged on the ground in recently burnt areas. There was little aggression between members of foraging groups. Supplanting attacks were sometimes observed, usually by adult males towards other birds, but they were mild and never resulted in prolonged chases. Males in full nuptial plumage often perched or foraged close to one another (i.e. about 0.5 m apart) without eliciting hostile reactions. Members of foraging groups responded to a sudden disturbance, such as that caused by the approach of the observer, by flying-up from the ground. If they were close to the pandanus (i.e. within approximately 50 m), they flew back to them, retreating deep into the palms, and usually remaining out of sight for several minutes. Members of groups, which were more distant from the pandanus when they were disturbed, flew into nearby trees, often flying in different directions and thereby becoming separated from one another. They subsequently regrouped by flying down to start foraging together as a flock. Loud contact calls were made by finches flying from one place to another, including flying down to forage, and probably function in keeping members of the group together. Aviary notes Hugo and Bev. Austla breed finches in semi-enclosed outdoor aviaries. They concentrate their efforts on Gouldian Finches Chloebia gouldiae but keep several other Australian estrildid finches, including the Crimson Finch. Since their captive birds are subjected to similar climatic regimes of temperature, humidity and day length as those living under natural con¬ ditions, it is not surprising that they show the same seasonal patterns of activity. Crimson Finches, for instance, come into breeding condition during the wet season (January-February) both in the Austlas’ aviaries and in the wild. They stop breeding from the middle of the dry season onwards (about June). Mr and Mrs Austla provide Crimson Finches with a standard feed mix, consisting of pannicum millet (3 parts), canary seed (1 part), white millet (1 part) and Japanese millet (1 part). They also receive regular supplies of green grass leaves, and when in season, seeding grasses. A complex soft food mix, which is made from the following ingredients, is provided on a daily basis throughout the year: 12 boiled eggs, including their shells Two dessertspoons of a commercial vitamin/mineral salts preparation Two ounces of another commercial vitamin preparation Four dessertspoons of skimmed powder milk One tablespoon of table salt Four dessertspoons of honey 146 EVANS & BOUGHER - CRIMSON FINCH Eight ounces of apple juice Eight dessertspoons of meat meal One cup of water This mixture is homogenised in a food processor and then mixed with equal quantities of commercial biscuit mix and boiled seed mix. Birds are bred in communal aviaries and, in the case of Crimson Finches, as many as 15 pairs are caged together in flights measuring 4 (long) x 2 (wide) x 2 (high) m. They are provided with standard woven-baskets and open-fronted wooden (15 x 15 x 1 5 cm) nest-boxes. Some nesting materials, such as grass stems and coconut fibre, are placed in each box but the birds carry further materials to the nest, often preferring green grass. Individuals become aggressive as breeding activities commence but not enough to cause serious problems. They are relatively placid once nesting is underway. Young remain in the same flight as the parents until they are no longer fed by them. Good pairs of Crimson Finches rear three broods in succession but never rear more than four per nest. Overall, the Austlas expect to rear about 80-100 young from 30 pairs caged in the two flights (averaging about three young per pair). Mr. and Mrs. Austla carried out an experiment in 1984 which empha¬ sises the success of colony breeding and even suggests that Crimson Fin¬ ches breed more effectively when they are caged in groups than when they are kept as isolated pairs. Three flights, each measuring 2 x 1 x 2 m, were stocked with one, two and three pairs of adult Crimson Finches respectively, and the birds were left in them for the entire breeding season. The total numbers of young reared in each flight were as follows: 1 pair in the flight: 0 young 2 pairs in the flight: 1 young 3 pairs in the flight: 25 young Discussion Crimson Finches are undoubtedly less aggressive than has been reported in previous studies, at least under the circumstances described in the present account. They occur in social groups in the non-breeding season and the behaviour within them is similar to that described in flocks of other estrildid finches by Evans (1970, 1972) and Evans and Patterson (1971); the movements of individuals in groups are co-ordinated and they are relatively unaggressive towards one another. Similarly, Crimson Finches can be caged together in groups in captivity and will even breed EVANS & BOUGHER - CRIMSON FINCH 147 successfully in colonies which are confined in relatively small aviaries. Further studies are needed to explain the discrepancies between the present findings and previous accounts. One possibility is that the groups observed by us were kin groups (i.e. consisted of closely related indi¬ viduals). Indeed, this certainly is true to at least some extent. Groups almost certainly consisted of birds (and their young) which had bred in the ‘home’ pandanus during the previous wet season. One would expect relatively little hostility between members of kin groups but much more aggression between unrelated and unfamiliar individuals. It may be, therefore, that high levels of aggression occur in the wild and in captivity when unfamiliar birds encounter one another, and that previous accounts are based on observations of such interactions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Mr. M.E. Fidler and Autosmart Ltd., for generous grants towards the costs of this work, and Mr. and Mrs. Austla for the hospitality and helpfulness. REFERENCES BLEWETT, E. & KROYER-PEDERSEN, M. (1978). Care and Breeding of Australian Finches. Rigby, Adelaide. EVANS, S.M. (1970). Some factors affecting the flock behaviour of Red Avadavats Amandava amandava with particular reference to clumping. Anim. Behav. 18: 762-767. . . . (1972). Specific distinctiveness in the calls of Cordon-bleus (Urae- ginthus spp. ; Estrildidae). Anim. Behav . 20: 571-579. . . . . . and Fidler, M.E. (1986). The Gouldian Finch. Blandford Press, Poole. . . . and Patterson, G.R. (1971). The synchronization of behaviour in flocks of estrildine finches. Anim. Behav. 19: 429-438. IMMELMANN, K. (1965). Australian Finches in Bush and Aviary . Angus and Robert¬ son, Sydney. 148 INCREASED REPRODUCTION IN A PAIR OF BARN OWLS Tyto alba AT THE CINCINNATI ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS (Ohio, USA) By MICHAEL W, DULANEY (Head Keeper, Nocturnal Animal House) Early in 1980, a new display was completed in the Cincinnati Zoo’s Nocturnal House that was to be a permanent enclosure for the exhibition of an avian species. Since its remodelling in the mid-1960s, the Nocturnal House has displayed only mammals. A room 8 ft wide by 12 ft long and 12 ft high (2.44 x 3.66 x 3.66 m) was converted to resemble the inside of an old barn. It was constructed of authentic barn wood and furnished with a hay loft area, bales of straw, old farming tools, as well as some horse tack, the intention being to display Barn Owls in a natural setting. The exhibit was housed indoors only, allowing greater control of such variables as temperature and photo-period. The exhibit temperature fluctuated between 65-75°F (18-24°C) and the birds were kept under a year-round 12-hour day/ 12-hour night cycle. From about 10:00 hours to 22:00, the display was illuminated by a 4 ft (1.28 m) blue fluorescent strip light. In the remaining hours, the birds were under the lighting of a 4 ft white fluorescent strip light. Though the Barn Owl is considered to be one of the most widely spread species of owls found today (with subspecies found on all con¬ tinents except Antarctica), there was more difficulty in procuring these birds than was anticipated. Even though they are distributed over such an enormous area, in many geographical regions they are rare. Much of this rarity is caused by the destruction of many man-made structures such as barns, old churches, derelict buildings, etc. which, over the centuries, the owls have adopted as prime nesting sites. Also, due to modernised farming methods, many owl species find it increasingly difficult to locate food in the form of rodents which were once numerous among the far¬ mers’ field and grain storage bins. In the wild, Barn Owls are reported to have a single clutch of eggs annually with a second clutch occurring during times of food abundance (Sparks, et al, 1979). One to 13 eggs have been reported, with the average brood size being four to five. Incubation lasts 30-32 days and the eggs, which are laid on alternate days, also hatch on this two-day pattern. This may act as an evolutionary advantage for the species as a whole, for should food supplies become scarce, cannibalism of the younger chicks DULANEY - BARN OWLS 149 by the older ones will sometimes occur. This will result in the older chick(s) surviving longer and will also reduce the total amount of food that the parents need to bring back to the nest. On 27th March, 1980, we obtained the first owl for the exhibit - a wild-caught bird estimated to be about six months old. It came from the Riverbanks Zoo, South Carolina, and was followed, on the next day, by the arrival of two more owls. These were also wild-caught and were sent from the Department of Wildlife in Louisiana who estimated their ages at four months. All of these birds had adult plumage and were placed together in the newly-completed exhibit on 5th April, 1980. In early March 1981, two of the birds began a constant squabbling, with the same bird always being the aggressor. The two problem birds were the ones received from Louisiana. It was assumed that the problem was related to an imbalance of sexes in the enclosure so the three birds were surgically sexed. Many individuals feel that Barn Owls can be correctly sexed by a difference in coloration. However, it was felt that the surgical sexing method was more reliable than colour variations for proper sexing of these birds and it was therefore the chosen method. The Louisiana birds were both males and were probably fighting over the attentions of the South Carolina bird which was a female. Now that proper sexing had been achieved, the female and the ‘alpha’ male were returned to the exhibit. Approximately one month later, the female was found to be sitting on her first egg. No real nest was made; it was merely an indentation in a bale of straw located in the hay loft area several feet above the exhibit floor. The female defended the nest readily by spreading her wings and rocking back and forth while vocalising (a hissing, screeching scream). Several more eggs were laid, each at two day intervals. On the morning of 2nd August, 1981, 30 days after the discovery of the first egg, broken egg shells were found on the floor directly below the nest site. Though the mother guarded it fiercely, it was possible to catch a glimpse of a newly-hatched chick. The male was not removed from the exhibit but became excitable when the enclosure was entered. The pair successfully reared two young. By the time they were one month old, the young could only be distinguished from their parents by being slightly smaller and lacking the identification leg bands worn by the adult birds. Exactly 30 days after the hatching of her first chick, the female, while still in the company of her month-old chicks, began to lay again. Thirty days after laying had started, the first egg of her second clutch hatched. It was known that her previous clutch had consisted of more than two eggs and we wondered whether only two young were eventually reared because of the quantity of food provided. As the second clutch 150 DULANEY - BARN OWLS began hatching, the quantity and contents of the diet being offered to the adults was increased. The diet (per bird) of two beef heart strips, two chicken necks (skin removed) and three ounces of Nebraska Brand Bird of Prey Diet was doubled. Freshly killed mice (2-10 per day, depending on the previous day’s consumption) were added to the diet. The mice were the preferred food, followed by beef heart, chicken necks and bird of prey diet. Five young were successfully fledged this time and the cycle began to repeat. To date, this single pair has produced young in February, July and December 1982, April, August and December 1983, March, July and October 1984, January, May, August and September of 1985, and May and September of 1986 to add to the seven chicks produced in 1981. This pair is currently sitting again with a clutch of eggs which should begin hatching at the end of this month (November). In all, some 70 young have been successfully hatched and reared by this pair with several of the nesting sites occurring on the floor of the exhibit in plain view of the public. The male has never been removed from the exhibit and on many occasions has been observed bringing food to the nest site and, as the young grew older, he would assist with their feeding. Some of these Barn Owl progeny have been sent to various zoos and nature centres for public display. The great majority, however, have been released in south-western Ohio and south-eastern Indiana. There is hope that the numbers of Barn Owls in the wild will begin to increase in areas where these birds were once plentiful but are now scarce. In conclusion, there are probably several factors involved in the reason why our Barn Owls have been so reproductively active. Some of these may include: an enclosure which is similar to the habitat that these birds would seek in the wild; an abundance and variety of food; a temperature range suitable to the animals and/or a lighting schedule in which the birds cannot distinguish a seasonal change in the photo-period. Products mentioned in text Nebraska Brand Bird of Prey Diet - manufactured by Central Nebraska Packing Company, P.O. Box 550, North Platte, Nebraska 69101, USA. REFERENCES SPARKS, LH. and SOPER, T. (1979). Owls, Their Natural and Unnatural History. 2nd ed. Taplinger Publishing Company, New York. 151 NESTING OF THE SOUTHERN LAPWING Vanellus chilensis IN SAO PAULO, BRAZIL By YOSHIKA ONIKI (Department of Zoology, State University of Sao Paulo, Rio Claro, Brazil) The Southern Lapwing Vanellus chilensis is 33 cm long and weighs about 235 g. It has red eyes and a black forehead, breast and external remiges. The back is iridescent greenish grey and the belly white. The black tail is short, with white base and tip. The pink bill is tipped black and the legs are long and reddish pink. Filiform feathers stick out behind the head. There is a scapular spur. This lapwing is a very aggressive bird, inhabiting open, surburban areas where fields have been ploughed for agriculture and where there are ex¬ tensive lawns or football fields. More rarely, they are found in sugar cane fields soon after they have been ploughed or when cane is growing. Although it is a bird that uses areas cleared by humans, it is wary. It is expert at concealing its intentions, and while watching for intruders and predators, it preens its feathers calmly and slowly, elegantly, stopping to peck the ground once in a while, gradually and surely moving away from any possible source of danger. In this way, it is very difficult to find its nest except by watching the behaviour of the adults. The observations here reported refer to five nests found between 23rd July 1982 and 18th November 1983. There is at least one breeding pair on the University campus of Rio Claro, Sao Paulo State, Brazil, and their breeding could be followed year by year. Method of watching the nest Because these birds are very wary of people, their nests and nesting behaviour were studied from within a car parked 80 m from the nest. Birds showed disturbance and left the nest if I sat outside the car or if someone approached the car. Breeding season In the Rio Claro region, nests of Vanellus chilensis were found from July to November. Belton (1984) reports nesting of the species from July to December. Milleo-Costa (1985) reports nesting in Curitiba between August to January with a peak in August-October. Observations of the campus pair showed that they bred twice a year. 152 ONIKI - SOUTHERN LAPWING Nests and location All nests were found in extensive open grassy fields such as a football field, a ploughed area for rice plantation or in the open part of a sugar cane field where plants were about 30 cm tall. The nest is in a depression in the ground, with few grass stems or roots for lining. Two nests had external diameters of 12.5 cm and 23.0 cm, internal diameters of 9 cm and 1 1 cm; the depth was 1.5 cm. Clutch size , eggs and incubation Clutch size was four eggs for one nest and three eggs for four nests. Average weight for 16 eggs was 23,1 g (range 22.1-25.0 g) and average egg measurements were 44.6 x 32.6 mm (range 41.5-48.0; 31.5-34.0 mm). Eggs were laid two days apart in one case, and had a grey-green background with black spots scattered all over but concentrated at the large end. They became rather dirty with reddish mud while incubation progressed, which made them difficult to find. They are rather pointed at one end and all eggs are placed with this end toward the centre of the nest during incuba¬ tion. Incubation sessions are very short, probably because of the wariness of the adults and the number of people walking through the campus. I was surprised that the pair was able to hatch all four eggs of the first clutch even with the disturbance. The shortest incubation session was two minutes and the longest 85 (average 22.4 min.). On 11th November 1982, from 14:10 to 18:10, the average incubation session was 12.5 minutes (range 2-45 minutes). Just before sitting for a session, the arriving adult turns the eggs. At intervals during incubation, the adult stands up on the nest and turns the eggs with its bill, then sits down again. These movements are more com¬ mon closer to hatching. Sometimes, the incubating bird half stands and preens the breast, wings and back diligently. In the nest on the football field, a worker said there had been two eggs on 23rd July and four eggs on 26th July, If so, the incubation period for this nest should have been 24 or so days. The first egg hatched at about 10:07 on 17th August, and the last chick emerged on 18th August Behaviour while nesting Both adults are extremely aggressive during their nesting period. They have the habit of rapidly lowering the body, as if incubating, in the middle of grass. If their nest is located and one tries to get the eggs for measure¬ ments, both adults call loudly, fly around the observer, and finally dive past very rapidly and give a buzzy vocalisation just before striking the observer with a wing spur. ONIKI - SOUTHERN LAPWING 153 When one approaches a nest with an incubating adult, it may stand when one is about 10 m away and walk slowly away with large strides. Adults at the nest in the sugar cane field were more wary, rising when I was 150 m away. When far from the nest, the adult flies calling loudly and bringing up its calling mate. At another nest, the sitting adult stood up and flew toward us when we were 7 m away from the nest. All the time the observer was handling eggs for weighing and measuring, the adults flew around yelling loudly. Ten minutes or so after the observer went away, the adult walked toward the nest, moved 8 m away and preened the breast a little and walked back to the nest. Finally, it sat on the nest, pecking the ground twice. Changeover of adults on the nest was rather interesting, being syn¬ chronised. One adult walked up slowly, the bird on the nest stood up, pecked around the nest a lot as if foraging and moved away in the opposite direction while the other approached from behind. The departing bird never looked back and moved slowly away while the second approached the nest, looked in the nest and sat Some 10 m from the nest, the depart¬ ing bird stopped, pecked on the ground, preened the head with one food and moved a little, stopped, looked and pecked the ground now and then. It usually went to the edge of the hill below the nearby eucalyptus plan¬ tation. There it preened its left wing with its bill, shook its wings a little and moved downhill while the other remained immobile on the nest. On 13th August 1982 at 17:23, one bird came flying down and its mate, which had been sitting on the nest, stood up. The newly-arrived bird gave faint uau, uau calls and had wings well open when it landed, but the other had the wings half open. Soon both closed their wings. The newcomer examined the nest and sat facing north while its mate departed toward the south-east, pecking the ground and disappearing downhill. Predation or losses caused by man Since Vanellus chiiensis nests in proximity to man, humans easily rob its young or destroy its nests and eggs by running them over with tractors or other machines. At one of the five nests I studied, two ringed birds of the four young of a clutch were taken by children and a tractor ran over the nest in the sugar cane field. Aggressiveness While incubating, the bird is rather alert and looks all around moving its head, and also above, turning its head up. It was especially alert and somewhat disturbed when one or four Black Vultures Coragyps atratus soared above the area and once at a soaring Crested Caracara Poly boms plancus . On 14th August one bird was incubating and suddenly it stood 154 ONIKI - SOUTHERN LAPWING up and walked over to a pole half a metre from the nest and stayed immobile there. Soon after, I saw the shadow of a vulture circling the nest. The bird seemed disturbed for a moment and was immobile but preened a little and three minutes later the vulture went away. Once, on 14th August 1982 at 10:40, a bird flew off scaring away two Campo Flickers Colaptes campestris. On 13th August 1982 at 16:45 when three foraging Guira Cuckoos Guira guira approached on the lawn, an adult near the nest returned running toward the intruders which moved away with tee tee tee calls. The adult lapwing returned to nest soon afterwards. The birds are aggressive all year long toward other birds and humans passing by: this is evident by their loud calls and running movements and a few displays toward intruders. This is especially so when they have a nest or chicks which they defend fiercely, for instance when I was measuring and weighing young, my husband was standing being attacked by both adults in flight and diving toward him and actually hitting him with a wing spur. Whenever a bird is sitting on a nest or on a mound^if someone passes it stands and resumes foraging and pecking the ground intently. ‘Active foraging’ or ‘diligent preening’ may be types of aggressive behaviour toward a predator. At the presence of two dogs 80 m from the nest, a bird left the nest and stood preening at the edge of the hill An immobile bird is hard to see in the middle of burnt stubble which is also grey like the bird’s back. Thus, the alternating immobility, preening, walking slowly and cautiously may be a means of concealment when they really have nests or chicks. However, this behaviour seems more pronounced during their breeding season. Parasites While incubating the birds preened a lot and often half stood to preen the wings, back and breast; they seemed to be irritated and perhaps they and the nest were infested with mites. Foraging On 16th August 1982 at 08:32 an incubating adult ran from the nest to peck a flying moth. Most of the time they peck on the ground for insects amongst the grass but sometimes one is observed inserting the bill in the wet grassy ground and digging out worms. Hatching young On 17th August 1982 at 10:41, when I suspected there was a chick in the nest, the adult was half standing in the nest; it turned the eggs and ONIKI - SOUTHERN LAPWING 155 sat. Its mate was 5 m north of the nest At 10:58 the sitting bird stood again, turned the eggs and soon pecked the ground twice and went 40 cm away from the nest and preened a lot. At this moment, the chick moved in the nest. At 1 1 :04 the adult returned to nest and sat with the chick under its breast. Between 11:04 and 11:56 there was a change of adults on the nest at 11:31 and 11:55; at 11:56 the sitting adult stood up and walked straight ahead with half an eggshell. It dropped the shell 0.5 m from the nest and, turning to face the nest, it picked the eggshell up and, half drop¬ ping it, scattered fragments along as it walked to 15 m away, eating some fragments in the process. The parent returned to the nest, picked up the other half of the shell, and walked with large strides to about 18 m SW of the nest. There it scattered and ate the pieces in four minutes. It was back to the nest at 12:05. At 12:20 two eggs, which weighed 21.5 and 21.0 g, were pipping at the large end. The newly-hatched young weighed 17.3 g; it had black swollen feet and was mottled on its wet back and head; its eyes were brown. It gave faint peeping calls, had a white eggtooth, and was white on the belly and neck but had a black band across the chest. Its bill measured 1.1 cm. While we measured and weighed the young, another egg hatched and the young weighed 19.2 g, peeping with eyes half open. The bill was 1 cm long. At 14:30 the third young was hatching but the yolk was still stuck to the shell and the young was wet. The first-hatched young was quite dry and the second one rather dry. The fourth young hatched at 10:24 on 18th August, when the adults were downhill with three other chicks. At 10:36, after some commotion and screeching, one adult ran to the nest, lifted an eggshell and carried it away, dropping it once in a while and leaving it 30 m from the nest. It then returned to the nest and sat briefly. Young The young crouch as soon as they hear the adult screeching at a pos¬ sible danger. Their downy plumage is mottled in dark and light, incon¬ spicuous in the middle of low vegetation. A few hours after hatching they run out of the nest, hurrying back to the nest or hiding under the parents as soon as there is any danger. On 26th August 1982, at 18:09 chicks were still running to the centre of the football field, between two parents. At 18:14, when it was rather dark, one bird settled near the nest site and the chick ran to hide under it. At 18:18 it was dark already; the other birds seemed to sit at the nest site but it was too dark to be sure. On 6th September 1982, the two remaining young were still tiny but black-chested. They wandered up to 35 m away from adults and foraged in the ‘pause-run-peck-pause’ fashion, but hid below the adult at a sign of 156 ONIKI - SOUTHERN LAPWING danger. With two young, each parent was caring for one young. On 23rd September 1982, the chicks ran like adults on the field. About one-third the size of the adults, they were getting some feathers. On 1st October, young were about the size of a Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus and had black chests, white bellies, grey heads, grizzled superciliaries with some black on the eyeline, and crest and brown backs streaked with grey. On 11th November 1982 the pair at a new nest had two juveniles with them, probably young of the first nesting. Bills were shorter than those of adults and the back feathers had a banded or scaled appearance. The plume behind the head was short and the legs were light reddish or pink. Those juveniles were sitting close together on a mound of sand and grass cut by a tractor, but 7 m away from the new nest. They readily stood and started a long preening session when people passed only 15 m or so from the nest, Milleo-Costa (1985) reports three individuals ‘ . participating in the nesting, using displays and stereotyped sounds which characterise inter¬ specific agonistic behaviour by attack’, but this was not seen in the Rio Claro nests, except that two juveniles were sitting near a nesting pair. On 19th August 1982, when I tried to weigh the four chicks, one bird started to screech loudly and a pair flew after me, thus I presume the first bird was part of that ‘family’. This third member was only noticed when the chicks were born. After breeding ends, the Lapwings flock and can be seen in loud groups of 8-10 flying over the city. Flocks of four can be seen even of nesting pairs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Edwin O. Willis who commented on an earlier draft of the manu¬ script and helped me while I measured the chicks. Field work and writing were done while I held a fellowship from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) of Brazil. REFERENCES BELTON, W. (1984). Birds of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Part 1: Rheidae through Furnariidae. Bull. Amer. Mus, Nat. Hist., 178 (4): 369-636. MILLEO-COSTA, L.C. (1985). Aspectos comportamentais de Vanellus chilensis (Wagler, 1827) (Charadriiformes, Charadriidae). In: Resumos , XII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia, 260-261. Ed. da UNICAMP, Campinas, Sao Paulo. 157 FURTHER NOTES ON CHUKAR AND HYBRID PARTRIDGES IN BRITAIN AND EUROPE By DEREK GOODWIN (Petts Wood, Kent) In my article on Alectoris partridges in a recent issue of our magazine (Vol. 92: 1: 22-36) I touched on the introduction of the Chukar Alectoris chukar into Britain and Europe and the disastrous effects this seems likely to have on the future status of the Red-legged Partridge A. rufa , both in England and in its native home in south-western Europe, and on the Rock Partridge A. graeca in Europe. I mentioned that I had not myself seen hybrid chukar x rufa partridges and therefore could not give a description of them. I have since done so and also received further information on the introduction of the Chukar in Europe. Hence this short article as a sort of postscript to my former one. Appearance of hybrids In the past 1 2 months I have seen about 20+ hybrid Alectoris in two different areas in Kent, In the same period and places I have seen only three that were, in appearance , pure Red-legged Partridges, and two that appeared to be pure Chukars. A few other Alectoris were seen at too great a distance to ascertain their status. Whether these hybrids had been bred in captivity and then released or had been bred in the wild I do not know but, as the majority of them were where I had seen mixed pairs in the spring of 1985 (Goodwin, 1986) the latter seems likely. Most of the hybrids seen appeared ‘In the field’ to be closer to one or other parent form and, by the casual observer, could very easily have been assumed to be pure rufa or pure chukar as the case might be. The inter¬ mediate condition of the neck markings, however, at once revealed their hybrid status to one looking out for this. All showed some trace of the streaked ‘necklace’ of the Red-legged Partridge, varying in amount, never as much as in pure rufa but always sufficient to tell them from pure chukar. It is, of course, quite likely that some hybrids, especially if they result from back-crossing of a hybrid to one of the parent species or from hybrids breeding inter se, may have the neck pattern identical or nearly so to one of the parent species and that I (and others) may not recognise such birds as hybrids when seen in the field. Unless a very clear and close view is obtained, other specific differ- 158 GOODWIN - CHUKAR AND HYBRID PARTRIDGES D. Goodwin Diagrammatic sketches to show differences in pattern of face and throat of: a) Red- legged Partridge; b) Hybrid Chukar x Red-legged Partridge (drawn from photograph taken in 1986 near Abberton, Norfolk), ences are hard, perhaps impossible, to ascertain in the field. My friend Mr Michael Cottrell took some colour photographs of a pair of Alectoris (near Abberton, in Norfolk) that appeared in the field to be Red-legged Partridges except for the lesser amount of streaking on the neck. When, however, we looked at the resultant photographs in detail, we found that in two characters - the distribution of white and black on the face and the shape of the bib - they took after the Chukar. One of these birds has one flank feather fully exposed and this feather (probably also the others) has two black cross-bars, as on a Chukar, although, in the amount of chestnut at the tip it (and all other flank feathers of both birds) more resembles the Red-legged Partridge. Pairing of hybrids in the wild In the spring of 1986 I was able to see only three pairs near enough to ascertain their status. Near Farningham, Kent, I saw (on two different occasions but almost certainly the same two pairs) a pair consisting of two very similar (and very ‘intermediate’) hybrids and another pair in which the cock looked a pure Red-legged Partridge and the hen was a hybrid. Near Cliffe I saw two hybrids paired together, one of which was nearer to tufa and one to chukar in general appearance. GOODWIN - CHUKAR AND HYBRID PARTRIDGES 159 More on introductions Thanks to Dr Jurgen Nicolai, who very kindly sent me copies of the relevant literature, I have now learnt more about the introduction of the Chukar in Europe. None of it comforting for those who, like myself, hope for the continuation of the Red-legged and Rock Partridges in their pure state. It would appear (Glotz von Blotzheiml973; Niethammer, 1963) that the liberation of vast numbers of Chukars in southern France and else¬ where in Europe was ( and I suppose still is) not or at least not only at the whims of individual shooters and landowners but (so I deduce from the information given by Niethammer) by or under the auspices of an international shooting organisation, the ‘Conseil Internationale de la Chasse’, with at least the tacit approval of the governments of the coun¬ tries concerned. Readers may be glad to know that our late member Pro¬ fessor Ghigi appears to be one of the few eminent ornithologists who was courageous enough to speak out against these plans to introduce the Chukar into the native haunts of other Alectoris species. As early as 1957 (or before) hybridisation between Cbukars and Red-legged Partridges was taking place in France. A statement that the hybrids were also fertile suggests that they were also then freely breeding there in the wild. It thus seems likely that it is official, or at any rate quasi-official policy to try to eliminate the Red-legged Partridge in France (possibly also in Spain) in favour of the Chukar and/or hybrids between the two. Even if not, there, as of course in England also, the combination of non- selective shooting by sportsmen, coupled with continual ‘topping up’ with fresh releases of Chukars could hardly fail to result in the ultimate dis¬ appearance of pure Red-legged Partridges. Unless (1) more Alectoris partridges were killed by other factors than by sportsmen and (2) these other adverse factors caused strong selection for rufa and against chukar and hybrids. Which seems unlikely. Rather similar circumstances (ap¬ parently non-selective mortality factors coupled with ‘topping up’ by man) have resulted in the racial mongrelisation of the Pheasant Phasianus col- chicus in Britain and the replacement of wild Rock Pigeons by feral pig¬ eons in much of Britain. I had thought that the introduction of the Chukar and its hybrids into Britain had been done by individuals at their own free will. Now, of course, the suspicion occurs that there may have been official pressures in response to orders from the EEC authorities in Brussels, That the latter long ago decided that it should be illegal for people in member countries to grow and market more than a relatively few, officially approved culti- vars of fruits and vegetables is well known, for there were many published protests from scientists involved in horticulture and agriculture. If, as 160 GOODWIN - CHUKAR AND HYBRID PARTRIDGES seems all too possible, our masters in Brussels are persuaded that all other forms of Alectoris are ‘inferior to’ and ‘poorer sporting birds’ than the Chukar and are to be eliminated in favour of it, then the outlook is bleak indeed. Certainly the large scale introduction of the Chukar into Britain seems to have coincided in time with our joining the EEC but whether it is, as I fear, a case of Post hoc ergo propter hoc , I do not know. If the EEC authorities are behind the Chukar introduction project then, obviously there is no hope for the future of the Red-legged Part¬ ridge now that Spain and Portugal, as well as ourselves, are subject to their rulings. If not, then it seems to me that the best way to save pure stocks of the Red-legged Partridge would be to ascertain if any of the islands where it occurs (probably mostly as a result of past introduction but that is unimportant), the Balearics, Corsica, Gran Canaria, Madeira and the Azores, are as yet free of Chukars and/or hybrids. If, happily, some or all of these islands were found to be free of Alectoris other than rufa, then every effort should be made to make it illegal to introduce any other Alectoris species into the wild on them. REFERENCES GLOTZ von BLOTZHEIM (1973). Handbuch der Vogel Mitteleuropas, Bd. 5, Ger¬ many. GOODWIN, D. (1986). The partridges of the genus Alectoris. Avicultural Magazine, 92: 23-36. NIETHAMMER, C. (1963). Die Einburgerung von Saugetieren und Vdgeln in Europa P. Parey, Germany. 161 REDUCING EXCESSIVE WEIGHT LOSS IN A WHOOPING CRANE EGG BY REHYDRATION By MICHAEL S. PUTNAM (Department of Zoology) and BERNARD C. WENTWORTH (Department of Poultry Science) University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA Introduction Assuring the proper rate of evaporative water loss is essential in the artificial incubation of wild bird eggs. This article describes an example of excessive water loss from a crane egg and successful attempts to correct it. A female Whooping Crane Grus americana (I.D. No. 13-01) laid one ees at 15:00 h on 3rd May 1982 at the International Crane Foundation (I.C.F.) at Baraboo, Wisconsin. The egg, weighing 207.1 1 g and measuring 108.4 x 60.2 mm, was immediately placed in the nest of a pair of Florida Sandhill Cranes G. canadensis pratensis , in an open area of an outdoor enclosure. On 14th May the egg was temporarily removed to be weighed and candled. The fertile egg had shown a daily weight loss of 1.96 g/d which would have resulted in a predicted weight loss of 27.5% over the entire 29-day incuba¬ tion period (Fig. 1). Artificially incubated crane eggs that subsequently hatch ordinarily lose 10-16% of initial weight during incubation (Rogers, 1982). The total weight loss of many bird eggs during natural incubation is 16-18% (Drent, 1975; Rahn and Ar, 1974). Snyder and Birchard (1982) found that hatchability of chicken eggs is inversely proportional to final weight loss above 15%. They also report that excessive rates of waterless during the first half of incubation are more detrimental to hatchability than the same rates of loss during the final half. Methods Several methods were employed attempting to slow the daily weight loss of this egg. The egg was returned to the nest, which was artificially moistened. The incubating birds were provided with a plastic wading pool for bathing, and the nest was moistened with water each day. On 21st May the egg was weighed again and still showed excessive loss (1.94 g/d). The egg was then placed in a forced-air, automatic egg-turning, incubator with a dry-bulb reading of 37.6°C and a wet-bulb reading of 30.2°C. The wet-bulb reading was increased to 33.3°C by 24th May and then maintained between 33.3-34.4°C until 31st May. From 21st to 24th Egg Weight (g) 162 PUTNAM AND WENTWORTH - WHOOPING CRANE Fig. 1. Daily weight loss from a Whooping Crane egg during incubation. a) Final weight loss at hatching of 21% b) Projected final weight loss of 27.5% based on a linear regression of weights from days 0-20. PUTNAM AND WENTWORTH - WHOOPING CRANE 163 May daily weight loss remained high (2 JO g/d) despite increased ambient humidity. On 25th May the egg was removed from the incubator at a tempera¬ ture of 37.6°C and completely _ submerged in a 0.9% saline solution con¬ taining 3000 ppm of tylosin tartrate (trade name Tylan Soluble) at 4.4°C for five minutes in an attempt to restore some of the lost water. This method has been used widely in the poultry industry to introduce anti¬ biotics into hatching eggs early in incubation since its demonstration by Chalquest and Fabricant (1959). The egg was gently blotted with a towel, allowed to dry and then weighed again. Five-minute submersions were continued daily through 30th May using sterile tap water cooled to 10.0°C in place of the Tylan solution. The high incubator humidity was main¬ tained through the end of incubation. On the morning of 30th May the egg was removed from the rotating tray and set in a concave piece of foam rubber on the incubator floor. The egg was candled, and the larger portion of the air cell was kept uppermost By 22:00 h the chick could be heard scratching inside the shell. By 08:00 h on 3 1st May, the chick had tom the inner shell membrane and was breath¬ ing and peeping loudly. The egg was then transferred to a forced-air hatcher set at 37.2°C with a wet-bulb reading of 34.4°C. Egg submersion was discontinued so as not to drown the chick. The chick pipped the shell by 08:00 the next day. The hatching sequence did not progress beyond this, and at 15:00 h an aviculturist opened the shell further. The chick freed itself from the shell at 18:40 h . Ten measurements of shell thickness, in¬ cluding the dried membranes, were taken around the midsection of the egg with a micrometer. Within a week of hatching the chick became lethargic. The bird was treated with antibiotics and force-fed and soon recovered. Results and discussion Our attempts to correct the excessive weight loss were unsuccessful until we began submerging the egg. The weight loss was not only stabilised by this treatment, but the egg actually gained weight (Fig. 1). Total weight loss to the end of incubation was 21% as opposed to the estimate of 27.5% (Fig. 1). Placing the warm egg in the cold solution produced a negative pressure and drew the Tylan solution into the egg. Continued use of the saline solution beyond the initial submersion might have resulted in toxic build-up of salt inside the egg as 6-10 mg of salt may have entered the egg with each submersion. The prophylactic Tylan treatment safeguarded against bacterial infection. After the egg had dried, weighings indicated an average gain of 0.885 +/- 0.199 g (x +/- SD, n = 6) from each submersion. The weights recorded on Fig. 1 during the submersion treatment are those 164 PUTNAM AND WENTWORTH - WHOOPING CRANE recorded each morning before submersion. The corrective measures used by Burnham (1983) for falcon eggs, such as covering parts of the shell sur¬ face with paraffin or injecting Ringer’s solution, were unknown to us at the time. After hatching, the eggshell thickness was found to be 0.485 +/- 0.050 mm (x +/- 95% CL, n= 10). Anderson and Kreitzer (1971) give Whooping Crane eggshell thicknesses from eggs collected before 1910 as 0.604 +/- 0.14mm (not 0.064 +/- 0.014, as given in their Table 1 [D.W. Anderson, pers. comm.] ) and 0.612 +/- 0.057 mm (x +/- 95% CL) for eggs collected from 1967-1969. These figures suggest our captive-produced egg was relatively thin-shelled. This thinness may have been partially res¬ ponsible for the excessive weight loss of the egg, since water vapour con¬ ductance across eggshells is inversely proportional to shell thickness (Ar, etal, 1974). We feel that this method of repeatedly submerging eggs may be useful in reducing excessive rates of weight loss in artificially incubated eggs. From our limited experience it appears that this technique can be used in later stages of incubation and on a daily basis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank the Endangered Species Research Program of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center for their cooperation in producing this Whooping Crane chick. The Conservation Center of the National Zoological Park in Front Royal, Vir¬ ginia, loaned the Sandhill Crane foster parents. Our appreciation goes to the avi- cultural staff of I.C.F., to J. Neess for his comments and statistical advice, as well as to C. Mirande and S. Temple for their helpful comments, and to Cheryl Hughes for preparing the figure. This work was conducted while one author (M.S.P.) was em¬ ployed at I.C.F. Products mentioned : Tylan Soluble. Elanco Products Co., 740 S. Albania, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285, USA. REFERENCES ANDERSON, D.W., and KREITZER, J.F. (1971). Thickness of 1967-69 whooping crane eggshells compared to that of pre-1910 specimens. Auk, 88: 433-434, AR, A., PAGANELLI, C.V., REEVES, R.B., GREENE, D.G. and RAHN, H. (1974). The avian egg: water vapor conductance, shell thickness, and functional pore area. Condor, 76: 153-158. BURNHAM, W. (1983). Artificial incubation of falcon eggs. J, Wildl Manage, , 47: 158-168. PUTNAM AND WENTWORTH - WHOOPING CRANE 165 CHALQUEST, R.R. and FABRICANT, J. (1959). Survival of PPLO injected into eggs previously dipped in antibiotic solutions. Avian Dis. 3: 257-271. DRENT, R. (1975). Incubation, Pages 333420 In: D.S, Earner and J.R. King, eds. Avian Biology , Vol. 6. Academic Press, New York. RAHN, H. and AR, A. (1974). The avian egg: incubation time and water loss. Condor 76: 147-152. ROGERS, S. (1982) Weight loss of crane eggs. Pages 230-236 In: J.C. Lewis, ed. Proc, 1981 Crane Workshop . National Audubon Soc., Tavernier, Florida SNYDER, G.K. and BIRCHARD, G.F. (1982). Water loss and survival in embryos of the domestic chicken. /. Exp . Zoo l 219: 115-117. 166 BREEDING THE WESTERN SPINEBILL Acanthorhynchus superciliosus By C. WILSON and N. HAMILTON (Bird Department, Perth Zoo, Western Australia) Description The Western Spinebill is found in the south-west region of Western Australia; the only other member of the genus is the Eastern Spinebill A. tenuirostris found in the eastern region of Australia from Queensland to Victoria and on Tasmania and islands of the Bass Strait. Spinebills are closely related to the honeyeaters. The male Western Spinebill is dark olive grey above and has a broad chestnut collar over the nape, extending to chestnut throat and breast. There are white and then black bands across the breast; the abdomen is buff. Length 13-16 cms. The female is smaller, duller with no chestnut on the throat. It lives on heathland and woodlands where it feeds on Kanga¬ roo Paw Anigozanthos manglesii and other flowers, Dryandras and Banksias and insects on the wing. History Both the male and female were wild-caught birds, the male probably arriving at Perth Zoo in early 1976 whilst the female arrived in December 1978. Both birds have had a history of recurring scaly feet which pre¬ vented us from banding them. They were originally housed in an aviary that contained a pair of Black¬ tailed Native Hens Gallinus ventralis and a Little Bittern Ixobrychus minu- tus. Two small shrubs covered by a creeper grew over a concrete pond located in the middle of the aviary. A small, cup-shaped nest was built in the creeper in November 1983 and one egg was laid. However, unseasonably bad weather caused the female to lose both the nest and the egg a day after she began to incubate. In August 1984 both birds were moved to another aviary which had been relandscaped along with several surrounding aviaries under a general theme of ‘forests’. The aviary measures approximately 3m high x 4.5 m inside and faces south-west. It has a sandy floor and is covered with tin on its northern side. Vegetation in the aviary includes two types of Bottlebrush Callistemon an Albizzia Albizzia lopantha and several types of native grass, as well as a number of Kangaroo Paws Anigozanthos manglessi. A sawn-off branch from Weeping Peppermint Tree Agonis flexuosa is propped up in a corner of the aviary. WILSON AND HAMILTON - WESTERN SPINEBILL 167 Birds, of Western Australia (Serventy and Whittel, 1976) states that eggs and nests can be found from September to January, with early nesting birds usually having only one egg and later nesting birds having two. Eggs are buff with brown blotches, particularly at the larger end, and they measure 18x13 mm. Observations In late August 1984, three weeks after being relocated in their new aviary, the male was seen displaying to the female. He would approach her from a lower point of the branch upon which she was sitting and take a small hop towards her while fanning his tail exposing his conspicuous white outer tail feathers. The female would then fly off being closely followed by her mate who would chase her vigorously around the cage. The roles were often reversed with the female doing the displaying and chasing. During the displays the male in particular was very boisterous, calling loudly all the time. The female soon began constructing a nest, often carrying long strands of grass around the aviary for several laps before alighting on a branch. Construction took 4-5 days and was carried out by the female only. She used Albizzia flowers and dried grasses, as well as camel hair, coconut and palm fibres, and spiders’ webs which were provided for her, hung in the bottlebrushes. The nests of a Singing Honeyeater Melophaga virescens and a Striped Palm Squirrel Funambulus pennanti were also torn up and provided as nesting material. The nest was built about one metre off the ground in the peppermint tree and was lined with feathers and camel hair. An egg was soon noted in the nest, and the female began sitting the day after the egg was laid. The male was seen to fly to the tallest branches where he would sing loudly; on occasions he was seen to feed the female with insects that he had caught. The diet fed to the birds consists of a nectar mix (2 parts Complan, 2 parts honey, 1 part mixed cereal, vitamin drops), minced and diced beef heart, fruit and flowering plants and an egg mix as follows: 6 parts dried egg yolk powder 2 parts skimmed powdered milk 1 part ground wheat 1 part wheat germ V2 part fish meal V2 part yeast 1 part casein Vi part S.A. 37 (vitamin compound) 168 WILSON AND HAMILTON - WESTERN SPINEBILL Vz part peanut oil 1 part honey 5 parts water A lorikeet diet consisting of honey and mixed baby cereal, Complan and fruit, blended together, was added soon after incubation began, being offered in a small cup hung in the Albizzia. Mealworms were offered initially but the birds showed no interest in them. One of the Bottle- brushes began to flower when the birds went to nest, the profusion of blossoms resulting in many winged insects flying into the cage which the male hunted with vigour. The female left the nest two to three times a day to feed and on one occasion was seen to fly around the aviary with a white feather in her bill, with the male following behind singing loudly. Sixteen days after the egg was noticed a chick was observed in the nest late in the afternoon as the female left to feed. She returned quickly to the nest and continued to incubate. The following morning she was off the nest and a quick inspection revealed that the chick had died overnight. The male was soon chasing the female around the aviary relentlessly. Later in the day she was found in a weakened condition on the ground, still being harrassed by the male. Some nectar mix was provided for her behind a small tussock of grass and she drank from it with relish. A small branch from a peppermint tree was provided for her in a corner to give her some refuge from the male. The next morning the female had fully recovered and the male was returning to the nest and looking into the cup as if trying to feed the dead chick. Because of the male’s persistence in returning to the nest and his aggressive behaviour towards the female, it was felt that the nest should be torn up so that they would be encouraged to start nesting again. Within a few days, construction of a new nest began in a similar posi¬ tion to the old one. Late one afternoon the female was found in a lethar¬ gic state on the aviary floor, after being harrassed by the male once again. The nectar mix was again placed on the floor for her and she drank from it readily. Construction of the second nest took about six days and it was three to four days before an egg was observed. The male did not mind nest inspec¬ tions, but they were kept to a minimum and were only made after she had left to feed. A second egg was noted four days later. In early October, with the increase in evening temperatures, a moth trap was set each night so that moths could be added to the diet. These were fed in the morning and afternoon and were distributed in bushes and WILSON AND HAMILTON - WESTERN SPINEBILL 169 grasses with the hope that they would remain and not fly straight out of the aviary. The male quickly learnt this feeding routine and would wait near the aviary door before each feed, hovering over the bag of moths like a hummingbird. The female added several large feathers to the rim of her nest which made it very difficult to tell, from outside the cage, whether she was sitting or not. However, she continued to leave the nest each time that fresh food was available. The male would often feed moths to the female after she left the nest. On 15th October the nest was checked after 16 days’ incubation and revealed the presence of a chick. The following morning the male was seen taking a small moth up to the nest while the female left to feed. The male spent most of the day off the nest and the method of placing moths in the bushes was proving successful with the male catching winged insects and taking them to the nest throughout the day. The male was seen to catch small moths and pound them on a branch before flying to the nest to feed the chick; the female was observed to do the same. Eggshells were found on the aviary floor three days after the first chick was observed and a quick inspection of the nest revealed a second chick. The size of the moths being fed to the chicks was increasing and the male was seen to remove the less palatable head and wings, leaving only the soft abdomen. The chicks could be heard calling loudly as the female spent less time on the nest because of the warmer weather. Faecal sacs were deposited on the cage mesh by both birds, resulting in dozens of white lumps on the black wire. One morning, about 19 days after hatching, one chick left the nest for about 15 minutes, returning to the nest for the rest of the day. The follow¬ ing day the chick left the nest again and was followed by its nest mate in the afternoon. As each day went by, both birds spent more and more time out of the nest. They were fed by both adult birds who would dip moths in the nectar prior to giving them to the chicks. About six days after leaving the nest, in early November, one chick was seen drinking the nectar mix by itself. At this stage It was noted that the Albizzia plant was infested with aphids and lady bug larvae and adults. Although it was not observed, these may have been used in rearing the young Spinebills, along with the other winged insects offered. By mid-November, both juveniles were independent of their parents. The male, however, continued to feed them moths that he had caught. The female was preoccupied with nest reconstruction. She was seen to add new materials for several days, and it was decided to move the juveniles to an adjoining aviary to prevent them from interfering with any further attempts 170 WILSON AND HAMILTON - WESTERN SPINEBILL by the adults to nest. Soon after the two juveniles were removed, the female went down to nest again, sitting on two eggs. Fourteen days after the eggs were first seen, eggshells were found on the aviary floor. One chick was successfully reared, the second egg failing to hatch. As soon as the chick from the second clutch was independent, it was removed to another aviary with four juvenile Banded Wrens Malurus splen- dens. By late December 1984 the female was again sitting on three eggs in the same nest and after incubating for about 16 days, eggshells were found in early January 1985 on the aviary floor. The male was once again diligent in catching moths and taking them to the nest where a chick could be heard calling. By late January the chick was old enough to leave the nest, and soon after doing so, the nest collapsed. It was then discovered that there were two dead chicks in the bottom of the nest, about 1-2 days old. By late January it was obvious that the first three juvenile birds were all males, the black band across the breast becoming evident about 45-50 days after the birds fledged. The band becomes evident at the shoulders first, then spreads across the breast. In early February all the juvenile birds were banded and the last ju¬ venile, which was about 20 days old, was weighed (10 g). On 11th February 1985 the breeding female disappeared. Her body was found two days later, hidden amongst the many grass tussocks planted in the enclosure. Because of decay, it was impossible to carry out a post mor¬ tem and the cause of her death is unknown. It is felt, however, that she died from exhaustion due to aggressiveness from the male. The female had been almost continually involved in the breeding cycle for nearly six months and must have been approaching exhaustion. The male was relentless in his behaviour towards the female as he chased and drove her back to the nest after each clutch had fledged. After the nest collapsed, however, she could not return to it to escape the male’s attacks. As a result, it is thought that she became progressively weaker over a short period of time and finally died. In the future it is hoped that the experience gained with these birds will prevent the future loss of such a prolific breeding bird, and that with clo¬ ser observation, pairs can be separated before such tragic losses occur. We hope to be able to obtain some new females prior to the next season’s start and have them settled in with their mates so that we can continue, and establish a breeding programme for these attractive birds. WILSON AND HAMILTON - WESTERN SPINEBILL 171 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the help of all the staff on the Bird Section of Perth Zoo. Products mentioned; Complan - Glaxo New Zealand Ltd. Mixed Baby Cereal - Heinz Australia Ltd. S.A. 37 - Brisfarm Vet Products Ltd., New South Wales. Note: A detailed diary of these Eastern Spinebills’ breeding record was kept which was too long to reproduce here but copies may be obtained from the Editor upon application with a stamped addressed envelope. REFERENCES SERVENTY, D.L. and WHITTEL, H.M. (1976). Birds of Western Australia. Fifth Edition. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, Western Australia. PIZZEY, G. and DOYLE, R. (1980). A Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Collins Press, Sydney, New South Wales. Readers’ Digest (1976). Complete Book of Australian Birds. Readers’ Digest Services Pty., Ltd., Surrey Hills, New South Wales. 172 NEWS AND VIEWS Neville Brickell writes from the Natal Avicultural Society, South Africa to report on an excellent achievement by an Ashburton aviculturist, Ken Arnold, who has recently bred the Cabanis’s Bunting Emberiza cabanisi. This is the first recorded breeding of this species by an avicul¬ turist in Africa. The date previously unknown to ornithologists and aviculturists alike is now given: incubation period 14 days; nestling period 16 days; the male plays no part in nest-building or incubation; the male fed the female on the nest; the preferred livefood was grass¬ hoppers with the legs removed. * * * Mr. A.J. Mobbs writes: Tn June (1986) a UK newspaper reported the death, aged 70, of Augusto Ruschi in Brazil. It appears that Ruschi had had a recurring illness for some time after handling Poison Arrow Frogs. ‘Ruschi was renowned throughout the world as an expert on hum¬ mingbirds. Over the years he wrote numerous papers on the Trochilidae. He also had a number of books published, many of which became col¬ lectors’ items during his lifetime. Beija Flores was published in 1973 in a limited edition of 1,000, all signed by the author and was soon sold out. Aves do Brasil was published in 1979 and also was soon out of print. A second volume was published in 1981; a third volume was to be published, whether or not this will now appear, I cannot say. In 1982 Beija-Flores do Estado do Espirito Santo (Hummingbirds of States of Espirito Santo) was published. (Reviewed by the writer in the Avicul¬ tural Magazine, Vol. 89: 242-243). ‘ In preparation was Hummingbirds of Brazil. I have no idea if this will now be published.’ * * * Malcolm Ellis writes: ‘ Richard Meyer, known to some members for his past work in aviculture - most notably at the Wildfowl Trust and Winged World (and several books written under the name Richard Mark Martin) is beginning a three-year doctoral research programme with the University of Glasgow examining the causes for the decline of the Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax and its potential for re-establishment, possibly with captive-bred birds, on the cliffs of Cornwall: its final English NEWS AND VIEWS 173 stronghold on the south-western peninsula - and from where it died out earlier this century. This work will be carried out in liaison with all the major conservation bodies. His work will focus on remaining wild populations in Ireland and Wales, where ecological requirements will be assessed and compared with avail¬ able resources in Cornwall. Alongside comparative habitat and dietary analyses, Richard will investigate the possibilities for a fully integrated captive-breeding programme in which holders of this species will be en¬ couraged to participate. The Padstow Bird Gardens on the North Cornish coast already has three pairs, and these will form the nucleus of the cap¬ tive-breeding experiments and ethological studies. In connection with this work and preparations for possible reintro¬ duction, Richard urgently asks all aviculturists with an interest in this species (including past and present owners) to contact him either through the Department of Zoology, the University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, or at his home in Cornwall (Hillside Cottage, Hellandbridge, Bodmin, Cornwall PL30 4QR). * * * The Avicultural Federation of Australia has sent advance notification of their 1st International Avicultural Convention which is being hosted by the New South Wales Avicultural Council and will be held at The Central Coast Leagues Club, Gosford, N.S.W. from 10th - 13th April 1987. The theme of the Convention will be Conservation and the list of speakers includes several well-known members of this Society such as Robin Res¬ tall, Tony Silva and Charles Sivelle. The Council will be donating 80% of the profits to the establishment of a captive breeding programme for en¬ dangered avian species. The Convention will be held in a beautiful setting and there are several interesting entertainments planned including a bird display at Old Sydney Town (a recreation of old Australia) that promises to be enormous inclu¬ ding around 90% of all parrots kept in Australia. We hope to include further information in a future issue but meanwhile if any members are interested in taking part, they should write to Tom Donald, Avicultural Convention Co-ordinator, P.O. Box 1296, Gosford South, New South Wales 2250, Australia. 174 INTERNATIONAL ZOO YEARBOOK, No. 23 Ed. P.J. Olney. Published by the Zoological Society of London, 1984. ISSN 0074-9664. 395 pages text, 48 photographs, numerous diagrams. Price: £26.50 hardback, £19,50 soft back. The twenty-third International Zoo Yearbook will be of particular interest to many of our members for the special section concerns birds of prey and reflects the diverse means by which current problems of breeding this group of birds, and their reintroduction to the wild are being tackled. Internationally distinguished authors have written 28 papers on this theme with subjects ranging from breeding the Andean Condor (London, New York and West Berlin), the American Bald Eagle and other species at East Berlin, and the first captive-bred Secretary Bird (Walsrode) to guidelines for rehabilitation of injured raptors (P.J. Llewellyn and P.E. Brain), discussion on the breeding and reintroduction of the Barn Owl (Caroline Brown) and many other interesting topics. Members will remember the special issue of the Avicultural Magazine (1981, No. 4) devoted to birds of prey, which, for the first time in the journal’s history, had to be reprinted owing to unprecedented demand. It is obvious that there is widespread interest and concern about the manage¬ ment and future of birds of prey and it is gratifying to read J.E. Cooper, in the opening article: . ‘The opportunities offered by captive breeding must not be underestimated. As Cade (1982) has pointed out, the exper¬ tise now available means that no raptor species need ever become extinct. This is not the same as saving the free-living population but few, surely, would argue that it is better for a species to disappear than to survive only in a captive state’. Section 2 contains 30 papers on new developments in the zoo world, under the headings of Breeding, Husbandry, Hand-rearing and Buildings and Exhibits. Only four of these concern birds - does this reflect lack of interest in birds in the zoo world, or inertia on the part of Curators of Birds in writing about their subjects? This inertia is not unknown to the Editor of the Avicultural Magazine \ Section 3 is a Reference Section covering species bred in 1981 and multiple generation births, a census of rare animals in captivity in 1982 and studbooks and world registers for rare species of wild animals in cap¬ tivity. Author and subject indices to Volumes 22 and 23 conclude the section. The standard of this publication is, as always, of the highest and this is a particularly interesting volume. M.H. 175 CORRESPONDENCE Sir Allan Hume I read with interest Mr. K. Dolton’s letter (1986, 1:59), regarding Allan Hume and his Indian collection. As far as I was aware, Hume never kept any living birds in India, and I believe that the reference to 62,000 birds refers to his collection of skins which was the greatest collection of Indian birds ever assembled by a private individual. In The History of the Collections in the British Museum, Natural History , R. Bowdler Sharpe mentions that the Hume collection was the largest private skin collection in the world at the time, consisting of over 60,000 bird skins and 16,000 eggs. Regarding the naming of Hume’s Bar-tailed Pheasant, Allan Hume noticed the tail feathers of the bird in the headdress of a native of Manipur territory. After much effort Hume was able to obtain a skin from native collectors, and a live specimen of the bird that was to be named Hume’s Bar-tailed Pheasant, the name humiae was actually given to the bird in honour of Allan Hume’s wife. I hope the above might be of some interest to readers. 6 Chartfield Road, Alan Gibbard Reigate, Surrey. * * * Further notes on immature coloration of the Cape Parrot (Poicephalus robustus) and subspecies (P.r. suahelicus). There seems to be a shortage of information available detailing the coloration of young Cape Parrots leaving the nest, and I felt that the following information gained through successful breedings in aviaries last year (1985) and close observation of immature specimens of P.r. robustus and P.r suahelicus should be kept for future reference - particularly since there is one striking difference between the two on leaving the nest, apart from the depth of green body colour, dark green/olive colour in robustus and lime green with silver neck in suahelicus with a darker green back. In my previous letter (1986, 1 : 56-57), I confirmed that, from a success¬ ful breeding of four young suahelicus (the Zimbabwean Cape Parrot), all the young of both sexes leave the nest with a large round crown of 176 CORRESPONDENCE orange/pink feathers, which are later moulted out in the first moult or at around six to seven months old. At around eight to ten months old, one can easily sex the young, for the hen birds then regrow their orange/pink feathers starting at the base of the top mandible - meanwhile the crown of orange/pink feathers on top of the head has disappeared. The young cock birds do not regrow these orange/pink feathers but sometimes retain a few orange/pink feathers on the crown of the head for a little longer. The adult cock bird, of course, has no orange or pink feathers on the head, thus making identification of the sexes very easy. The four young that were bred at Mitchell Park last year have moulted out to be two cocks and two hens. Now the reverse is true of the South African Cape Parrot P. robustus. A colleague from the Cape, Melvyn Reabow, who reared two young P. robus¬ tus last year, advises me that both the young left the nest with no colora¬ tion on their heads at all, but at approximately she months old one bird grew orange feathers (as apart from the orange/pink crown of P. suahelicus) starting from the top mandible; the other did not, thus confirming that they are a cock and hen. Thus, to summarise a strange deviation in the immature coloration of the two subspecies, all immature P.r. robustus have no coloration on the head on leaving the nest but all immature P.r. suahelicus have a large round distinctive crown of orange/pink feathers. It is fair to point out that the adult hen suahelicus has a far larger coloration above the top mandible than the hen robustus , and it is orange/ pink (cerise) in colour, but a distinctive orange only, in robustus. Mitchell Park Aviaries W.D. Cummings Durban, South Africa. * * * The Editor does not accept responsibility for opinions expressed in articles, notes, reviews or correspondence Just published (October 1986) HIGHLIGHT THE WILD By Bruce Henry The art of the Reid Henrys - a very talented family of wildlife artists Biographies of G.M. Henry and his sons David Reid-Henry and Bruce Henry 40 full page colour plates 67 black and white illustrations including many working drawings A fascinating account of the varied lives and work of three outstanding artists, and a useful and practical guide to the art of wildlife painting Available from Palaquin Publishing Ltd. Warren Hill, Hulford's Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, England RG 27 8AG Price - £20.00, plus £2.00 postage and packing (surface mail) Bird World BOX 70 / NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA 91603 ARTICLES ALREADY PUBLISHED: MAGAZINE FOR BIRD ENTHUSIAST' Picking a Parrot Breeding Rosellas Taming Parrots Show Preparation Parasites in Birds Hand-Raising Surgical Sexing Training Birds to Perform Nutrition in Parrot Types The African Grey Grooming Parrots Color Feeding Pacheco's Disease Avian Pox The Norwich Canary A Germ-Free Aviary Softbi/ls Orange Weavers Talking Birds Squawking Birds Moult Budgie Colors Parrot Toys Traveling with Birds Indoor Aviaries Flock Disease & Immunity Color in Canaries THE CHOICE OF THOSE WHO KNOW Bird World AM HR KAN AVKl LTLRISTS CAZFTTH If there are titles above that might have interested you, think of how much more there will be in future issues. 5 □ 3 YEARS . . . $30.00 .\~}2 YEARS . . . $22.00 Dl YEAR . . . $12.00 CANADIAN & OVERSEAS PLEASE -ADD $5.00 PER YEAR. FOREIGN PAYMENT MUST BE IN U.S. FUNDS IN THE FORM OF A POSTAL MONEY ORDER OR BANK DRAFT. _ _ OR: PHONE IN YOUR SUBSCRIPTION ON VISA/MASTER CHARGE (213) 76 9-6 1 1 1 * — 1 1 0:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. MON.-FR I. SUBSCRIBE NOW NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91603 THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY The Avicultural Society was founded in 1894 for the study of British and foreign birds in freedom and captivity. The Society is international in character, having members throughout the world. Membership subscription rates per annum: British Isles £10.00; Overseas - £11.00 (25 U.S. dollars). The subscription is due on 1st January of each year and those joining the Society later in the year will receive back numbers of the current volume of the AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE. The subscription rate for non-members is: British Isles £11.00; Overseas -£12.00 (30 U.S. dollars). Subscriptions, changes of address, orders for back numbers, etc. should be sent to: THE HON SECRETARY AND TREASURER, THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY, WARREN HILL, HULFQRD’S LANE, HARTLEY WINTNEY, HAMPSHIRE RG27 8AG, ENGLAND. MEMBERS’ADVERTISEMENTS (10 p. per word - minimum charge £3.00) WANTED. Hugh G. Frew is trying to locate six pairs of Scarlet Rosefmches Carpo- dacus eruthrinus for a breeding study over the next five years. Normal habitat and breeding area are Finland and Russia. Please write to 57 Irvine Road, Kilmaurs, Ayrs. THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND welcomes new members. An Australian society catering for all birds, both in captivity and in the wild. We put out a bi-monthly magazine on all aspects of aviculture and conservation. For mem¬ bership details please contact Ray Garwood, 19 Fahey’s Road, Albany Creek, 4035 Queensland. Annual subscription (Australian dollars): 16.00 surface mail, 22.00 airmail. AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE back numbers. Large stock available including early issues. Sales by post only. Price list available from the Hon. Secretary, Avicultural Society, Warren Hill, Hulford’s Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, RG27 8AG. AMERICAN CAGE-BIRD MAGAZINE has been publishing monthly since 1928. It features timely and interesting articles on parrots, canaries, finches, budgerigars and cockatiels. These are written by leading breeders and bird fanciers. Monthly subscriptions 15.00 US dollars - Europe 21.00 dollars (money order in US dollars please) to American Cage-Bird Magazine, 1 Glamore Court, Smithtown, N.Y. 11787, USA. Published by the Avicultural Society, Warren Hill, Hulford’s Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, RG27 SAG, England /SS/ICULTURAL MAGAZINE VOLUME 92 Number 4 CONTENTS Notes on the successful breeding of the Peruvian Brown-bellied Amazilia A.a. amazilia , by R.Elgar (with plates) . , . Breeding the Five-coloured Mannikin, by R. Green .. . Breeding the Chestnut Sparrow, by A. Brooker . . . Nesting of the Blue and White Swallow, by Dr. Y. Oniki (with plate) . . . . Breeding Rare and Endangered Birds at the Tierpark Berlin By Dr. Wolfgang Grummt . . . . . . . Two-wattled Cassowary bred at Taronga Park Zoo, by R. Low . The Protea Canary, by N. Brickell . . . Some Notes on Canaries, by D. Goodwin . . . Tame Wood Pigeons, by A. Gosling (with plates) . . Walter Goodfellow - One of the Great Ornithological Collectors By Alan Gibbard . . . The Moscow Bird Market, by J. Boswall . . . Additions to the Bird Collection at West Berlin Zoo, 1984 and 1985 By Prof. Dr. H.-G. Klos . . . Reviews . . . . . Correspondence . . . . Visit to Parklands . . . . . Owl Symposium at Lilford Hall . . . . . :,1 m 181 184 186 190 196 $ 197 ' ' Ji 200 208 220 222 223 227 234 236 237 Index to Volume 92 . . . . . 239 THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE welcomes original articles that have not been published elsewhere and that essentially concern the aviculture of a particular bird or group of birds, or that describe their natural history. Articles should be preferably typewritten, with double spacing, and the scientific names as well as the vernacular names of birds should be given. References cited in the text should be listed at the end of the article. Line drawings should be in Indian ink on thick paper or card; black and white photographs which illustrate a particular point in the article will be used where possible and should be clearly captioned. If authors wish their eventual return, they must say so when submitting the article and write their name on the back of each photograph. ADDRESS OF EDITOR Mary Harvey, Honorary Editor, The Avicultural Magazine, Warren Hill, Hulford’s Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire RG27 8AG, England. Rod Elgar Young Peruvian Brown-bellied Amazilias (above) Being fed by female at 24 days old: (below) just before leaving the nest Avicultural Magazine THE JOURNAL OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY Vol. 92 -No. 4 - 1986 ISSN 0005-2256 All rights reserved NOTES ON THE SUCCESSFUL BREEDING OF THE PERUVIAN BROWN-BELLIED AMAZILIA Am az ilia a. am az ilia (Lessons) By ROD ELGAR (Manchester) Range and distribution The Brown-bellied Amazilia is one of the most common humming birds of the coastal area of Peru, from Huacho and Sayan in the north to Pesco and lea in the south. It prefers shrubbery and wooded terrain on the coast and low Andean slopes but can also be found in the parks and gardens of Lima. Description The birds in my collection were probably collected within the depart¬ ment of Lima and both male and female have glittering green throats. Birds from the more southerly part of their range tend to have more of a blue-green throat. Male: upperparts bronze-green, throat and upper breast glittering green, belly chestnut, under tail coverts white, tail rufous edged bronze and white centre to breast, white thighs and ocular spot, bill flesh coloured tipped black. Female: same as male but with greatly reduced white centre to breast. Housing and method employed in this breeding The male Amazilia was housed hi a stock cage, 3 ft long (0.9 1 m) by 16 in (0.41 m) high and deep. The female was housed in a mixed flight of mainly female humming birds. The flight measured 14 ft (4.27 m) long, by 4 ft (1.22 m) wide by 6 ft (1.83 m) high, being well planted with potted house plants. The other occupants of this flight were females of the following species: Fork- tailed Woodnymph Thalurania furcata, Chestnut-breasted Coronet Boissonneaua matthewsii , Tourmaline Sunangel Heliangelus exortis , Bronze-tailed Comet 178 ELGAR - BROWN-BELLIED AMAZILIA Polyonymus caroli, Long-tailed Sylph Aglaiocercus kingi , Green-throated Mango Anthracothorax viridigula . There were two males, one being a Many-spotted Hummingbird Taphrospilus hy postictus and the other a Speckled Hummingbird Adelomyia melanogenys. Neither of these males has been moulted in captivity, but once they have completed their first moult they will have to be caged as both of these species can be rather aggressive. If pairs of hummingbirds are kept together continually, this usually has a negative result on their breeding activities through continual aggression. If only females are housed in the flight and a female becomes broody, a male of her species can easily be introduced. I usually leave the male in for only one hour in the morning before leaving for work, then again for one hour in the evening before returning him to his stock cage. I usually try to observe display and copulation. I carry on this procedure until the nest is completed and the eggs have been laid. Display The female enters the male’s territory in a slow, floating, butterfly-like flight. She perches close to the male making a loud piping call. The male approaches the female making a pendulum-like display before perching next to her, touching her by her gape with the tip of his bill and uttering a low bubbling song. He will open and close his wings at a 45 degrees angle in very exaggerated movements almost like a man using his arms for semaphore. The male then flies over the female and lands on the other side of her and continues with this display. The female will then usually fly over the male and land on the opposite side of him. Then the male will fly over her and land on the other side of her. This display can carry on for several seconds. To watch the birds making progress along the perch is like watching children playing leapfrog. During this display the male usually alights on the female’s back and mating takes place. On some occasions the female may land on the male’s nape or back to stimulate mating and false mating takes place. Nest-building ; incubation and chick development The genus Amazilia is probably one of the most successfully and easily adaptable of hummingbirds in the wild. These birds will breed all year round when conditions are suitable and only cease when moulting. The female Amazilia in my collection can finish a complete nest in five days preferring to use natural cotton wool as the base to the nest, bound with fresh cobwebs. They will add small pieces of dried leaves and rootlets to the exterior of the nest. The nest where the chicks were reared was built in a Heptapleurum arboricola. During the nest-building the female was ob- ELGAR - BROWN-BELLIED AMAZILIA 179 served eating sod-based compost from plant pots in the flight. Extract from my diary 3rd September. 7.00 a.m. - female lays first egg. 5th September. Observed female lay second egg. She was perched on rim of nest whdst laying the egg into the cup of the nest. This appeared very stressful and she was visibly shaking. After egg was laid she slumped forward still holding on to the rim of the nest with bill pointing to the ground. She stayed in this position for several minutes untd she composed herself, then flew off to feed. Incubation proceeded with nothing out of order happening. On 20th September I was getting concerned that the eggs had not started to hatch but at 8.00 p.m. one chick hatched, 18 days from first egg being laid. 21st September - 7.00 a.m. - first chick still alive and being fed. 9.00 p.m. second chick just hatching 17 days after second egg being laid. 25th September - Both chicks are developing well. 30th September - Pin feathers showing on both chicks, younger chick has almost caught up with the older chick in size and development. 2nd October - Eyes are almost completely open. Both chicks are feathering up well, flight feathers starting to open; female stops brooding chicks. 7th October - Both chicks are now well-feathered and look like little birds, both very active in the nest. 10th October - Older chick seen on rim of nest for short periods throughout the day. 12th October - Both chicks on rim of nest in morning exercising wings throughout the day. They both sleep in the nest at night. 13th October - Both chicks fly from the nest in the morning, very unsteady when perching. 14th October - Female feeds chicks normally throughout the day. Both chicks roost in plant close to nest. 15th October - 4.00 p.m. Saw one chick feed from nectar tube for first time. Female observed making exaggerated pendular flight in front of nectar tubes when chicks are close to her, stabbing at the tube with her bill (this was observed on a number of occasions before chicks were removed). 19th October - Both chicks removed to 6 ft flight cage. I placed four glass feeders with their nozzles tipped red to encourage them to feed. They were both feeding within 20 minutes and both had bathed within one hour. 180 ELGAR — BROWN-BELLIED AMAZILIA Description of young Amazilia Upperparts bronze-green, upper tail coverts rufous. All underparts pale brown, vent and thigh white, ocular spot white, upper mandible black, lower flesh coloured. I believe this is the first time that this species has been bred in Britain, and indeed in Europe. REFERENCES KOEPCKE, MARIA (1970). The Birds of the Department of Lima, Peru. Living¬ ston Publishing Company, Pennsylvania. MEYER DE SCHAUENSEE, R. (1970). A Guide to the Birds of South America. Livingston Publishing Company, Pennsylvania. PETERS, J.L. (1945). Checklist of Birds of the World. Vol. 5. Harvard University Press. ZIMMER, J.T. (1950). American Museum Navitates. Studies of Peruvian Birds, No. 59. As described above, the Peruvian Brown-bellied Amazilia A mazilia a. amazilia has been bred by Mr. R. Elgar and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. BREEDING THE FIVE-COLOURED MANNIKIN Lonchura quinticolor 181 By ROGER GREEN (Beckenham, Kent) The Five-coloured Mannikin is distributed on the Lesser Sunda and Timor group of islands, being found on Lombok, Sumbawa, Flores, Alor, Sumba, Timor, Sernatta and Balar. Overall size and shape is about that of the Spice Finch. The forehead and face are dark chestnut with pale feather shafts, most noticeable on the ear coverts. Crown and nape are a darker, less bright chestnut with obscure greyish subterminal bands or tips to the feathers. The throat is a very dark chestnut brown. The mantle, back,w ing coverts and outer webs of primaries and secondaries are a less dark chestnut brown. The under¬ side of the wing coverts are buff. The rump, upper tail coverts and the wide fringes of the pointed central tail feathers are a deep reddish yellow to bright, light golden. The median line of central tail feathers and outer web of others is chestnut brown, the rest of the tail being dull drab. The tibial feathers and under tail coverts are black; the rest of the underparts below the throat are white. The irides are dark brown, legs and feet grey. The bill bluish grey. The sexes are alike. (Goodwin, 1982). In the spring of 1981 I had the good fortune of being able to purchase several different species of mannikins from the Lower Sunda Islands. Unfortunately other than Pallid Mannikins, and four Five-coloured, all the rest were single specimens of a species. Obviously I was rather hesi¬ tant in purchasing odd birds, not knowing if any more would become available but I purchased the four Five-coloured Mannikins. On closer inspection the birds’ flight feathers were seen to be in poor condition so they were put in a 4 ft (1.22 m) flight cage. Unfortunately they were of a very nervous disposition, so although they could not fly very well I put them in an inside flight measuring 6x6x2 ft (1.83 x 1.83 x 0.60 m), with some young Red-headed Parrot Finches and Star Finches. Here they settled much better. As summer approached, the birds started to moult and soon replaced their flight and tail feathers and they were soon flying a lot better. The four Five-coloured Mannikins were transferred to an aviary with an inside flight into my birdroom, together with a pair of Red-headed Parrot Finches and a pair of Star Finches. The overall enclosure was some 14 ft long by 6 ft high and 5 ft wide (4.27 x 1,83 x 1.52 m). The aviary was planted with kerria, honeysuckle, elderberry and blackthorn, not over- 182 GREEN - FIVE-COLOURED MANNIKIN grown but certainly covered from the top by the honeysuckle and some adjacent tall conifers. Large bunches of seeding grasses were hung on the wire for the birds to eat the seeding heads and the Parrot Finches to pick off any insects. The Five-coloured Mannikins settled in quickly and soon paired off. It became noticeable that both the cock birds were slightly larger than the hens and they had whiter underparts, though this could normally only be seen in good natural light. Both cock birds started to display. This consisted of the bird stretch¬ ing upwards, looking straight ahead, raising the feathers around the back of the neck and head, and singing an almost inaudible song. (In part similar to Chestnut-breasted Finches, although with this species there is a greater variety in the actual display). One pair nested in a box inside the honeysuckle. Unfortunately after laying two eggs the hen was found dead for no apparent reason. The eggs were fostered by a pair of Bengalese Finches which successfully hatched and reared the young. The young were fed on soaked seed (white millet and canary seed), small maggots, a proprietary brand of eggfood and greenfood, normally lettuce. After the loss of the hen, I was expecting the two cock birds to start bickering over the remaining hen but this did not happen. Instead, a nest was built in amongst the bunches of seeding grasses, approximately 4 ft (1.22 m) from the ground. The nest itself was completely made of dried grasses and it measured some 7 in long by 4 in (0.17 x 0.10 m); it was eliptical in shape and the actual nest chamber was approximately 3 in (0.07 m) in diameter. Six eggs were laid, clear white in colour . The birds sat alternately, the hen only incubating the eggs at night. After approximately 14 days, the young hatched, light pink in colour and covered in a small amount of white down. They were reared on the same diet as the two reared by the Bengalese Finches, with the addition of soaked millet sprays plus any small insects caught by the adults in the aviary. The young were brooded by the parents until they were approximately 10 days old. The five young left the nest after 21 days at which time they were basically a dull bufflsh-grey, with some dull white on the abdomen. The feet and beak were a very dark brown in colour. They were extremely nervous and special care was taken when feeding them. The parents were very protective of the young, incessantly calling them to roost together in a disused nest-box. The young were soon feeding themselves after seven days but the parents continued to feed them for two weeks after they left the nest. At the end of the two weeks, the cock and hen built a new nest inside GREEN - FIVE-COLOURED MANNIKIN 183 the shelter in a ‘ball of wire’. Five eggs were laid, of which four hatched and were reared. The five young from the first nest were left with the adults and caused no problem to the new young or to any other birds in the aviary. By now it was well into autumn and any further nesting activity was stopped. The young took several months to moult fully into adult plu¬ mage. Their moult was similar to that of aviary -bred Chestnut-breasted and Yellow-rumped Mannikins in that normally a few dark feathers break through after 12 weeks and then the feathers are gradually replaced, the last being those on the face and head. In general, when Five-coloured Mannikins are settled into their quar¬ ters, they become hardy, peaceable and as long as they are not dis¬ turbed, spend many hours sitting in one spot, normally sunning them¬ selves. Their behaviour is not at any time like some species of mannikins, i.e. gregarious social preening, etc. The Five-oloured Mannikins always keep a few inches’ distance from each other except when the cock displays. Since the first year that I bred this species, they have bred with varying success. After purchasing my original stock, I was offered some fresh blood in 1984. There was a noticeable difference in so much that the original birds had a bright orange/rust coloured rump, whereas the new arrivals had an almost black rump, but otherwise they were identical. REFERENCES GOODWIN, D. (1982). Estrildid Finches of the World. British Museum. As described above, the Five-coloured Mannikin Lonchura quinticolor has been bred by Mr. R. Green and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. 184 BREEDING THE CHESTNUT SPARROW Sorella (Passer) eminibey By ALLAN BROOKER (Camberley, Surrey) During the summer of 1984 I saw, for the first time, a small, chestnut brown bird at a London dealer’s shop in a consignment of birds which had recently arrived from Tanzania. There were also two 'birds' which looked like miniature sparrows and were the same size and shape as the chestnut bird. Although I could not then identify them, I thought that they must be of the same species and bought all three. The birds were installed in an aviary measuring llA ft wide by 8 ft high and 15 ft long (2.29 x 2.44 x 4.57 m), covered with a PVC roof, the plants inside being watered by hose. They seemed very wild and not really suitable to life in a cage. They always cowered or flew madly round whenever approached and always seemed to be at the back. I established their identity as Sorella eminibey whose range extends from the Sudan to northern Tanzania. According to the field guide, the cocks have an out-of-colour phase when they look like hens but I have not found this and my adult males retain their chestnut plumage throughout the year. Unfortunately during the winter I lost the cock and it was not until the beginning of May 1985 that I saw two for sale in a shop. I bought both and moved one hen into an adjoining aviary of the same size and then put one cock in with each hen. There was a lot of chattering, typical of English sparrows and almost immediately interest was shown in the nest-boxes of which there were three, measuring 6 x 4 x 4 in (0.15 x 0.10 x 0.10 m), in each aviary, of the same shape as a Budgerigar nest-box. The birds quickly filled all six boxes with very fine grasses and hundreds of feathers. Each hen laid three eggs, which were bluish white covered with brown speckles, and within three weeks of buying the cocks, one pair had two young but the other pair’s eggs were clear. The two chicks were reared and then another three. The other pair eventually reared two young but they had a lot of clear eggs. The incubation period was 18-19 days. I feed these birds on a mixture of white millet, pannicum millet and canary seeds. Millet sprays are given each day and enjoyed by all the birds, also hard-boiled eggs mashed and mixed with chick crumbs. This is fed all the year round. Mealworms are supplied during the spring and summer and are probably taken by the Chestnut Sparrows though I have not actually seen this. As the aviaries are planted, the birds doubtless find many BROOKER - CHESTNUT SPARROW 185 insects. The plumage of the young on fledging is the same as that of the hen, the only difference being a bright yellow, almost waxlike bill and white gape flaps which are lost during the next two weeks. The young males come into colour very slowly. The Chestnut Sparrows live with a collection of waxbills and show no aggression towards them except when breeding and they then guard the top and perch of the nest-box. As I had some young from each pair, I decided to keep them and try to breed from them the following year (1986) so I put rings on them and moved them together into another aviary so they could moult out. I was thus able to select more pairs for breeding. I believe that this is the first time that this species has been bred in this country and it is a pity that the birds are too nervous to allow me to get near enough to photograph them. As described above the Chestnut Sparrow Sorella eminibey has been bred by Mr. Alan Brooker and this is believed to be the first success in this country. Anyone knowing of a previous breeding, or of any other reason that would disqualify this claim, is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. 186 NESTING OF THE BLUE AND WHITE SWALLOW Notiochelidon cyanoleuca By Dr. YOSHIKA ONIKI (Dept, of Zoology, State University of Sao Paulo, Rio Claro, Brazil) The Blue and White Swallow has a very wide range, occurring through out South America from the highlands of Costa Rica right down to Tierra del Fuego. It is a small bird (13 cm long; 1 1 g) with an iridescent dark blue back and undertail coverts and white belly. The young is brownish grey where the adult is blue. Although this is not a species regularly kept in captivity, it is interesting to report on its habits and nesting as it is com¬ monly seen in urban areas, flying around buildings, chirping now and then, alone or in loose groups. They can also be seen flying graciously over the large sugar cane fields, pastures, or the edges of woods not far from cities, to which they may return to spend the night. Sometimes they perch on telephone or electric wires to rest. At times, one perches on the ground and picks up insects. This takes only a few seconds and soon they resume their fast flight and soft chirps. Nest and nesting material On 12th January 1977 I was shown a nest with three young. It was placed on top of a closet within an office at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP), at a height of 2.7 m, where a burlap bag had been casually left. The birds placed their nest inside the bag and the nest rim was shaped according to the burlap opening. The nest dimensions were: external diameter 0.13 x 0.075 m, internal diameter 0.07 x 0.06 m, external height 0.03 m and internal height 0.02 m. The nest weighed 3.4 g, of which 2.5 g was of grass stems and the remainder was of 32 black feathers and white down, and one long (12 cm) black body feather. The body of the nest was mainly of yellow grass stems, roots and rootlets, while dark pigeon feathers and white down formed the lining, making it soft and fluffy. On 10 May, when the nest was collected, it was full of white scales of feather sheaths. The nest was kept clean of faecal sacs. Perhaps eggshells were left in the nest and crushed under the young, but half an eggshell was found near the burlap bag on 17th January. Young Assuming the young were 0-1 days old when found on 12th January, the nestling period was about 23 days, for on 3rd February 1977, at 14:00, they were flying around the room while both parents were flying outside Y. Oniki Fig. 1. Young Blue and White Swallow and calling to them. Skutch (1952) reports 26 and 27 days as nestling periods for Costa Rican birds, longer than I found. The young were quite brownish, with short tails, and were peeping constantly. When the window was opened they left the room. On 14th January, when the young were 3-4 days old, two large young were leaning on top of the third. On 17th January (Fig. 1) two young were larger than the third but all were still blind. They had swollen and light yellow gape angles, down projecting from the head and back, and pinfeathers growing on the back and belly. On 19th January, the eyes of the young were slightly open and at 14:00 they weighed 5, 10, and 12 g respectively. The next day they weighed 4.5, 10 and 12 g at 13:35. At this time, the smallest young peeped but the two larger ones moved over the sack to hide away from the nest. On 19th January, wing quills of the two larger young were 0.4 and 0.5 mm long and tail pinfeathers measured 0.3 and 0.4 mm. The next day, wing quill and tail were 0.1 to 0.2 mm larger but weight increase was nil. On 14th and 17th January, in observation sessions lasting 195 and 182 ONIKI - BLUE AND WHITE SWALLOW 188 ONIKI - BLUE AND WHITE SWALLOW minutes there were 15 and 19 feedings of the young. On 14th and 17th January, 32 feeding intervals averaged 10.7 minutes (range = 2-46 minutes) and feedings were slow at about 14:00 and 16:00, and rapid at about 15:00. On three occasions, a single adult fed all three young in one visit, but on other visits it was not possible to ascertain how many young were fed. At times, after a feeding or between two feedings of young, an adult ate a faecal sac. If disturbed, the adult dropped the sac next to the nest and flew out hurriedly. On 19th January, when young were weighed and measured for the first time, there was only one feeding in a 100-minutes observation, and the adult perched frequently in the square opening to the room, gave ‘peep’ calls and flew about a lot, but fed only once after 16 minutes of watching immobile from the nest rim. After this, the adult left silently. Because of protection afforded by the buildings and cliffs in which nests are placed, young Blue and White Swallows can remain in the nest for a long time despite it being open and cup-shaped. As a result, they are well plumaged and strong-flying and able to follow the adults, which are fast-moving birds that depend on gathering food in the air. Parasites When the young were 1-2 days old, mosquitoes were hovering above them and trying to bite. Due to the long time young remained in the nest, both they and it were infested with small mites, which caused them to scratch a lot. When young are able to move around they even sit out of the nest perhaps to avoid mites. This infestation by mites seems to be common among birds that nest in protected areas such as under roofs in buildings. This was also observed in a nest of a Rufous-collared Sparrow Zonotrichia capensis at Rio Claro, placed on a large fern vase inside a building (pers. obs.). Behaviour of adult On 14th January an adult sat on the nest for six minutes after one feeding, but no other brooding was noted. There were two holes, of about 0.25 m diameter, in the office wall, one square and the other round, planned for a future ventilation system. I was surprised with the consistency with which adults entered the building from the square hole, sometimes perching briefly on it, and left from the round hole. Once one started to enter through the round hole but turned and entered through the square one. At times, both adults arrived together and one entered to feed while the other circled around outside the build¬ ing. Feeding of the young was rapid, and the adult picked up pieces dropped, but young remained in the nest peeping loudly when the adults ONIKI - BLUE AND WHITE SWALLOW 189 were away. Breeding season Euler (1900: 17) reports that the species has the ‘same5 nesting habits as Progne chafybea, the Grey-breasted Martin, using roofs of houses in farms and villages. He reports four white eggs in one nest. Ihering (1900: 207) says it nests from mid-August in Sao Paulo City. Two fledglings, with pale gape angles, were with an adult on the biology building at the Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Rio Claro, on 26th October 1984. Two other fledglings were with an adult there on 28th January 1985. At Rio Claro and Campinas nests were mainly found in January and February. On 27th January 1985 at UNICAMP, adults entered to feed noisy young in two nests. Both nests were between the roof and a rectangular light bulb. Weight and measurements In the cool mornings of 4th and 5th August 1984, Blue and White Swallows were mist-netted at the Agricultural Experiment Station in Ubatuba, Sao Paulo State. Nineteen weights averaged 11.0 g and 18 cloacal temperatures averaged 38.7°C. Average measurements of 11 individuals were: bill - 5.2 mm; tarsus - 10.3 mm; tail - 50.3 mm; and wing - 93.7 mm. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to K.S. Brown for showing me the nest in his office, J.G. Chiquito for printing the photograph, and E.O. Willis for comments on the manuscript. The visit to Ubatuba was made while I held a fellowship from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) of Brazil. REFERENCES EULER, C. (1900). Descripcao de ninhos e ovos das aves do Brasil. Rev. Mus. Paulista 4: 9-148. IHERING, H. von. (1900). Catalogo critico-comparativo dos ninhos e ovos das aves do Brasil. Rev. Mus. Paulista, 4: 191-300. SKUTCH, A.F. (1952). Life history of the Blue and White Swallow. Auk, 69: 392- 406. 190 BREEDING RARE AND ENDANGERED BIRDS AT THE TIERPARK BERLIN, GDR (Paper read at the Fourth World Conference on Breeding Endangered Species in Captivity, held at Flevohof Congress Centre, Netherlands, 24-27 September 1984) By DR WOLFGANG GRUMMT (Deputy Director and Curator of Birds) Since the inception of Tierpark Berlin 29 years ago, we have systemati¬ cally put together a collection consisting of breeding pairs or groups aimed at maximum reproduction. This approach is based on modern zoological principles, i.e. the captive reproduction of rare and endangered species and subspecies, and I would now like to report on our experiences in this regard with birds. Naturally, we have not confined our programme to endangered species alone and have also bred more common species as one does not know and cannot predict which birds that are common today will be the endangered species of tomorrow. Furthermore, it is important, as has often been pointed out, to breed the more common species in order to gain insight into the management needs of endangered forms. I would remind readers that important bird of prey breeding programmes were begun with the American Kestrel Falco sparverius and the Andean Condor Vultur gryphus and in the case of cranes, with the Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis. A good example is shown by the pelican colony at Tierpark Berlin. In 1958 the pelicans produced the first clutches and in 1961 (Dathe, 1961, 1962; Grummt, 1961) a chick was hatched by the European White Pelicans Pelecanus onocrotalus. At that time no one was aware of a reduction in the wild population, still less that the bird would become endangered. In the interim there has been such a drastic reduction in the population of the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus . that the bird is now listed as ‘vulnerable’ in the Red Data Book and is listed on Appendix I of CITES. In the report of the Council of Europe for 1981, entitled ‘Birds in need Special Protection in Europe’, the Dalmatian Pelican is listed as ‘endan¬ gered’, as is the European/ Asiatic population of the European White Peli¬ can. Since our first breeding success we have systematically studied the behaviour and breeding biology of these birds and to date have contin¬ uously bred them for more than 23 years (Grummt, 1983, 1984). Over the years 20 European White Pelicans have been hatched from three different pairs, most of which have been successfully reared. Nine of the pelicans hatched at Tierpark Berlin are of the full second genera¬ tion. Furthermore, two chicks each of the following species have also been bred: American White Pelican Pelecanus ery throrhynchos , Dalmatian GRUMMT - TIERPARK BERLIN 191 Pelican P. crispus and Brown Pelican P. occidentalis. Based on our experiences, the following conditions should be pro¬ vided for successful pelican breeding: 1. Large groups of birds to facilitate social stimulation and synchro¬ nisation; 2. Optimum feeding on freshwater fish, if possible, because, except for the Brown Pelican, all other species of pelicans feed almost exclu¬ sively on freshwater fish; 3. Provision of adequate nesting sites and nesting material. A species which deserves very close scrutiny is the Greater Bustard Otis tarda. The north-west border of its distribution occurs in the German Democratic Republic. While approximately 800 of these magnificent birds ocurred in our country in 1975, its numbers have now shrunk to around 350 despite intensive protective measures. The first breeding success in captivity was achieved by Dr. Gewalt (1965) at the West Berlin Zoo in 1964. Since 1958 we have kept Greater Bustards at Tierpark Berlin in an enclosure of 2500m^. In 1972 a hen laid four fertile eggs, all of which hatched and two of the young were successfully reared (Grummt, 1977). Unfortunately, we lost the breeding birds which put an end to what seemed to be an exciting beginning with the species. At the moment we have 2:3 birds of this species. This year one of the hens laid but the eggs were thin-shelled. The other hens should reach sexual maturity in 1985 so that our chances look a lot brighter for the future. One male was very active this year and went into full display. He copulated numerous times with one of the hens. A ‘first’ for Tierpark Berlin, and one that has brought us great pleasure was a breeding among our cranes. In 1980 we received a pair of Manchurian or Red-crowned Cranes Grus japonensis from the Peking Zoo. In 1981 the birds produced a clutch of two eggs, one of which was fertile but did not hatch. During 1982 and 1983, due to disturbances, this pair did not lay. In the period between 29th April and 28th May 1984, the Manchurian Cranes produced six eggs, which were collected and placed in the incubator. All six eggs were fertile and five of them subsequently hatched. Of the five chicks, one was very weak upon hatching and died 12 days later. Another chick died as a result of a yolk sac rupture. The remaining three chicks were reared without any difficulty. It is our intention to build a special breeding area where we shall try to put together additional breeding pairs using the three birds hatched in Berlin and four additional specimens received from the Pyongyang Zoo, North Korea, and one male on breeding loan from Rotterdam Zoo. 192 GRUMMT - TIERPARK BERLIN In the case of storks and ibises, we have had excellent success with certain species. In our Waldrapp Geronticus eremita colony, which consists of 20 birds, we have reared 11 young since 1981. European Spoonbills Phtalea leucorodia , Scarlet Ibis Eudocimus albas have been breeding successfully for a number of years. Unfortunately the breeding success achieved with the African Marabous Leptoptilos crumeniferus in 1979 was not repeated, as the breeding male was killed by the female. The two remaining pairs, which consist of the original breeding female with a new mate and the female hatched in Berlin paired with an imported male, both displayed this year and showed nesting behaviour so that there appears to be hope for the future with this species. Black Storks Ciconia nigra have reared young on numerous occasions and White Storks C. ciconia bred here consistently. In 1981 we received a pair of Eastern White Storks C boyciana from the Moscow Zoo. This pair is very compatible and we look to the future for successful reproduction. As for the pheasants, I should like to mention our great success since 1968 with the White Eared Pheasant Crossop tilon crossoptilon (Grummt, 1980). At the moment we are expanding our pheasantry and six new aviaries are already completed. This will give us the opportunity to keep and breed other endangered galliformes. A group that deserves our utmost attention is the parrot family, par¬ ticularly several New World species whose numbers have been greatly reduced due to traffic in live birds and the destruction of their natural habitat. With the exception of three species, all parrots are protected under CITES, which will curtail the acquisition of new birds from the wild. Therefore the captive breeding of parrots has taken on greater im¬ portance. Rosemary Low, the well-known parrot specialist and expert, reported on this at the Jean Delacour/IFCB symposium in Los Angeles (Low, 1983). We have been highly successful in breeding the HaJmahera Eclectus Eclectus roratus vosmaeri at Tierpark Berlin. One pair of birds has reared a total of 32 chicks between 1965 and 1977 (Grummt, 1973b). The Cuban Amazon Parrot Amazon leucocephala first bred successfully in 1981. Although we have kept macaws since the foundation of Tierpark Berlin, it was only at the beginning of the 1970s that we started to try to breed with these parrots. The first breeding occurred in 1974. One pair of Buffon’s Macaw Ara ambigua and a pair of Military Macaws A, , militaris were housed together in an 8 m^ aviary. AH four birds were compatible. The Buffon’s Macaws nested in a hollow tree trunk, while the Military Macaws simply laid their eggs on the floor of the aviary. The Buffon’s Macaws hatched three young, of which two were reared. GRUMMT - TIERPARK BERLIN 193 This was the first captive breeding of this species. The Military Macaws hatched a single chick which they reared and the following year reared two chicks. The Buffon’s Macaws reared a single chick in the years 1975, 1977 and 1979. Due to the fact that the keepers were changed a number of times, the macaw breeding came to a standstill. It was not until 1984 that attempts were again made and fortunately these were successful. The breeding pairs are now housed in indoor aviaries that are about 2= 3m2, The pair of Buffon’s Macaws which nested from 1974-1979 laid four eggs between 29th May and 8th June 1984. The first egg was broken, but the remaining three hatched. Unfortunately, two of the chicks died. The remaining one was taken away from the parents when it was 34 days old and hand-reared. A pair of Scarlet Macaws A. macao laid a clutch of three eggs between 20th May and 25th May 1984 behind a board that was propped against the aviary wall. A chick could be heard hatching on 17th June. This exci¬ ted the pair of Green-winged Macaws A. chloroptera housed in the next aviary to such an extent that their screaming drove the Scarlet Macaws from the nest. The eggs were placed in the incubator, and although two chicks hatched, they could not be reared. On 6th July, 20 days after leaving the clutch, the first egg of the second clutch was laid. After an incubation of 27 to 28 days, two chicks were hatched and reared. Of great joy to us was the nesting activity of our Red-fronted Macaws A. rubrogenys which were imported in 1974. Three eggs were laid on the floor of the aviary in March 1984. One chick hatched on 29th April, and although well cared for, it died at four days old. On 20th May, 16 days after the death of the chick, the hen laid again, this time in a nest-box. On 13th June, a few days before the eggs were due to hatch, all the eggs had been expelled from the nest. All three eggs contained well-developed em¬ bryos. On close inspection it was discovered that the macaws had gnawed a hole through the 50 mm thick bottom of the nest-box. The box was repaired and the first egg of the third clutch was laid 17 days later on 30th June. On 27th July, after an incubation of 27 days, a chick could be heard in the box. A total of two chicks were hatched and reared. Although our breeding record with swans, geese, ducks, flamingoes and owls has been highly successful, I would like to devote the rest of this article to our birds of prey breeding programme. This has been rather long term due to the slow maturing of the birds. In our large flight cage for birds of prey, which is 1200 m2 (Dathe, 1967), we house principally vultures and Tawny Eagles Aquila nipalensis. For breeding purposes, pairs should be housed in individual aviaries. The majority of the breeding aviaries have a surface of 28 m2, but a few are 194 GRUMMT - TIERPARK BERLIN 50-60 m2. The Long-legged Buzzards Buteo rufinus bred for the first time in 1970 (Grummt, 1973c). By 1984 a total of 22 young had been reared among which were the first of the second generation. Tawny Eagles first began breeding in the large flight cage in 1972 and to date have reared 12 young. Young birds bred at Tierpark Berlin and sent to a small zoo in the German Democratic Republic are now breeding in the second genera¬ tion. The first Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus was hatched in 1975. Since the parents would not care for it, it was fostered out to the Long- legged Buzzards who reared it without problems. Starting in 1976 the Bald Eagles have cared for their young and to date have reared 16. It is worth noting that on three occasions, in 1979, 1983 and 1984, three chicks have been reared from each clutch. Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos have bred successfully since 1980 with a total of 1 1 reared. The number of chicks per nest has varied. On four occasions two young were reared and on one occasion, three chicks. In the case of the Wedge-tailed Eagles Aquila audax it was a long time before the birds nested successfully. We received the birds in 1957 direct from Australia; they were almost fledged when removed from their nest at the end of 1956. The female laid for the first time in 1969 at 13 years old. The first young hatched in 1981 and by 1984, five had been reared. The first Black Vulture Aegupius monachus was reared in 1980. This bird was parent-reared and as far as we know this was the first time this species had been bred successfully in captivity. After many failures we were able to artificially rear a Secretary Bird Sagittarius serpentarius in 1983. In 1965 we acquired two Striated Caracaras Phalcoboenas australis , which proved to be a pair. After a number of infertile clutches, a chick was hatched in 1983 which was hand-reared. In 1984 the Striated Cara¬ caras have cared for their young and have reared two. The greatest success at Tierpark Berlin with birds of prey has, without any doubt, been the breeding of the Harpy Eagle Harpia harpyja. In 1972 and 1973 we imported two young Harpy Eagles direct from South America. Both of these birds proved to be females as each laid eggs in 1979. In April 1981 we were able to obtain a male on breeding loan from Adlerwarte Berlebeck in the Federal Republic of Germany. After care¬ fully introducing the pair, it did not take long before the birds went to nest. A young Harpy Eagle hatched on 4th September 1981 after an incu¬ bation period of 56 days. The chick was reared by the parents without difficulty. On 4th November 1982 and 18th January 1984 two more chicks were hatched which were again reared by the adults. Observations on the rearing -of the young provided a great deal of new information on GRUMMT - TIERPARK BERLIN 195 the breeding biology of this bird. This data will be published at a later date. Despite the successes described above, I am in full agreement that a great deal of effort must be given to the establishment of self-sustaining populations of as many species as possible in order to perpetuate the growing number of endangered forms. REFERENCES DATHE, H. (1961). Junger Rosapelikan im Tierpark Berlin. Freunde d. Kolner Zoos, 4:18. . . (1962). Breeding the White Pelican ( Pelecanus onocrotalus) . Int. Zoo Yb. 3:95 . (1967). Birds of prey aviaries of East Berlin Zoo. Int Zoo Yb. 7: 69-70. GEWALT, W. (1965). First successful captive breeding of the Great Bustard Otis tarda at West Berlin Zoo. Int Zoo Yb. 5: 129-130. GRUMMT, W. (1961). Erste Pelikanzucht in Deutschland. Das Tier 2:17. . . . ....(1973a). Breeding the Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus at East Berlin Zoo. Int. Zoo Yb. 13: 113. . . . (1973b). Haltung und Zucht von Edelpapageien Lorius roratus im Tierpark Berlin. Zool. Gart. Lpz. (N.F.) 43: 256-27 4. . . . . (977). Erfahrungen bei der Haltung und Zucht von Grosstrappen (Otis tarda ) im Tierpark Berlin. II. Nemzetkozi Tuzokvedelmi: Szimp6zium Eloadasai. Bekescsaba: 67-75. . (1980). Beitrag zur Systematik und F o r tpflanzu ngsbiologie der in Gefangenschaft gehaltenen Weissen Ohrfasanen Crossop til on crossoptilon (Hodg¬ son). Milu: 5:103-116. . . (1983). Breeding pelicans at Tierpark Berlin. Proc. Jean Delacour/ IFCB Symposium on breeding birds in captivity. North Hollywood: 297-302. . . . ...((1984). Beitrage zur Biologic, speziell zur Fortpflanzungsbiologie der Pelikane. Zool. Garten Lpz. (N.F.) 54: 225-312. LOW, R. (1983). Future Priorities in Parrot Aviculture. Proc. Jean Delacour/IFCB Symposium on breeding birds in captivity. North Hollywood. 179-185. 196 TWO-WATTLED CASSOWARY BRED AT TARONGA PARK ZOO, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA By ROSEMARY LOW ( Taunton , Somerset) A notable hatching occurred at Taronga Park Zoo, Sydney, on 1st November 1986. ‘Clawed’ weighed in at a massive 393 g and is the first recorded Two-wattled Cassowary Casuarius casuarius to be hatched since 1934 when Taronga first displayed these powerful flightless birds (capable of disembowelling a man with a single kick). The parents have been at Taronga since 1978. In September the female laid four eggs which, as is usual in cassowaries, was incubated by the male. Towards the end of the incubation period (as long as 55 days) he abandoned the eggs. They were placed in an incubator but three failed to hatch. At first ‘Clawed’ was kept in a brooder with a chicken for company and fed on finely chopped, soft tropical fruits, sweet potato and tomato, with added calcium and vitamins. On sunny days he was exercised out of doors by the keepers and soon demonstrated incredible running ability. The Two-wattled Cassowary is found in northern Queensland, being one of the rainforest’s shyest and wariest inhabitants. Ever alert to danger, it keeps to the most dense areas of forest and uses its helmet to force a path through thick vegetation. Remaining hidden during the day, it emerges at night to feed on fruit, seeds and berries. Two other species, the Single- wattled and Bennett’s Cassowary, occur in New Guinea. All three are threatened by habitat destruction and the New Guinea species are hunted. Young ones are kept by the natives in enclosures until they are large enough to be eaten. ‘Clawed’ will be recorded in the Australasian Cassowary Studbook. Eventually he will be sent to another zoo in Australia as part of a care¬ fully monitored breeding programme. Captive breeding may prove vital for the survival of cassowaries although to date few successes have occurred. In Britain the first - of Bennett’s Cassowary - took place as long ago as 1864 at London Zoo. The Double-wattled Cassowary was bred in this country for the first time at Edinburgh Zoo in 1967 where the success was repeated in 1968 and 1969. This species was also bred at San Diego Zoo in 1957 and four young were hand-reared in 1977 at the Villars-les- Dombes Park in France. * * * 197 THE PROTEA CANARY Serinus leucopterus By NEVILLE BRICKELL (Avicultural Research Unit, South Africa) The Protea Canary Serinus leucopterus is also known as Layard’s Seed- eater, Dusky-faced Seedeater and White-winged Seedeater. Clancey (1963) suggested that to call it by its popular name White-winged Seedeater, which was coined by Sharpe, is misleading as the bird is not white-winged, having no more than off-white or buffish white terminal spotting to the medium and secondary coverts; the Protea Canary is most closely allied to the Thick-billed Seedeater Serinus burtoni. The South African Red Data Book lists it as protected by provincial laws but a survey of the species’ distributional and numerical status is required (Siegfried et al, 1976). This is a rare species, usually found solitary, in pairs or in small flocks of up to 10 birds. They are difficult to observe as they generally keep within the confines of dense vegetation. Flight is fast and direct at no great height. The call has been described as short phrases of mellow notes interspersed with nasal, wheezy jeeer notes (Maclean, 1985). The sexes are alike. Forehead, crown, nape and mantle sooty brown, centres to feathers darker and tinged with olive; rump and upper tail coverts tinged olive yellow; tail earth brown, the outer webs edged paler; ear coverts blackish; chin and mid-forethroat white ;breast and belly buff, tinged olive, streaking on breast darker buff and centre of belly white; wing coverts and flight feathers earth brown; axilliaries and under wing coverts yellowish; iris brown; bill pinkish to whitish, the culmen-ridge and tip darker; legs and feet blackish brown to greyish brown. Immatures have not been described. The Protea Canary frequents mature Protea fynbos on mountain slopes, also penetrating stands of exotic pines and evergreen forest in some parts of its range. Occurs in the Cape Province of South Africa from Pakhuis Pass in the northern Cedarberg, south to Caledon and eastwards to Cockscomb in the Grootwinterhoekberge. An extensive survey on feeding was undertaken by Milewski (1978) which revealed that the Protea Canary ate a wide variety of food items from 77 plant species and about five invertebrate species; the diet consists mainly of the seeds of the Protea, supplemented with soft plant parts (foliage, flowers, fruit and nectar) and insects; food genera recorded in the diet of this species, namely Graminoid seed Tetraria (Cyperacae), Restio, Elegia (Restionacae); Achenes (pos¬ sibly also composite floral parts) Metalasia, Senecio, Ursinia ; other small 198 BRICKELL - PROTEA CANARY seed Pelargonium (Geraniaceae), Anthospermum (Rubiaceae), Erica (Ericaceae), Salvia (Lamiaceae); large seed Raphanus (Brassicaceae), Psoralea (Fabacea e),Rhus (Anacardiaceae); seed kernels in (ripe or unripe) fleshy fruits Olea (Oleaceae), Gassy tha (Lauraceae); nectar (possibly also floral parts) Halleria (Scrophulariaceae), Salvia (Lamiaceae); fruit-pulp Diospyros (Ebenaceae); fresh floral parts Aspalathus (Fabaceae): foliage buds Cliffortia (Rosaceae); animal matter (invertebrates) genera and families unspecified. Breeding takes place from August to October when a cup measuring 5, 3-5, 8 cm diameter and 3,5-4, 7 cm depth is constructed of dry plant stems. Recorded are Kooigoed, an Afrikaans word for several scrambling aromatic species of Helichrysum. Fine, wiry grass is used to hold the outer shell together with fluff of Oleander-leaved Protea Protea neriifolia as a lining. Nests are placed at 3-5 metres from the ground in the vertical fork of a Protea bush or exotic pine. Two to four eggs are laid. The eggs are ivory white to very pale blue, spotted and lined with brown, purple and black, chiefly at the large end. Egg measurements average (6) 20,6 x 14, 6 (19-21, 7 x 14, 4-14, 9). Incubation period is recorded at 17 days with the nestling period at least 14 days. The young are fed by both parents. I can find no record of this species having been kept or bred in aviaries anywhere in Africa, and no notes have previously been written about it in the Avicul- tural Magazine. REFERENCES BROEKHUYSEN, G.J. and MARTIN, J. (1965). Food of the White-winged Seed- eater Seriunus leucopterus. Ostrich , VoL 36, No. 2:94. CLANCEY, P.A. (1963). Serinus leucopterus (Sharpe). Durban Mus. Novit,, Vol. 6, No. 19, p. 262-3. . (1985). The Rare Birds of Southern Africa. Winchester Press, Johannesburg. MACLEAN, G.L. (1985). Roberts’ Birds of Southern Africa. John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. MILEWSKI, A.V. (1978). Diet of Serinus species in the south-western Cape, with special reference to the Protea Seedeater. Ostrich , Vol. 49, No. 4: 174-184. PALGROVE, K.C. (1977). Trees of Southern Africa. C. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. PIENAAR, K. (1984). The South African What Flower is that?. C. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. SIEGFRIED, W.R. (1972). The bird nobody knows about. African Wildlife , No. 26: 156-157. . . . . FROST, W.R., COOPER, J. and KEMP, A.C. (1976). South African Red Date Book - Aves. South African National Scientific Programmes Report, No. 7. SKEAD, C.J. (1960). The Canaries, Seedeaters and Buntings of Southern Africa. Trustees of the S.A. Bird Book Fund. Distributed by C.N.A. BRICKELL - PROTEA CANARY 199 Protea Canary Serinus leucopterus Artist: Rex Shirley 200 SOME NOTES ON CANARIES By DEREK GOODWIN (Petts Wood, Kent) In response to a hint from our fair editor that a little ‘copy9 for the magazine might not come amiss, it occurred to me that the domestic Canary Serinus canarius is one of the few species that I have kept which I have not yet written about in our magazine. I propose here to rectify the omission though I fear that those who read it may come to the conclusion that 'rectify9 was a wrong word to use. There will be nothing here of use to the Canary fancier. No advice on how to breed bigger and more beetle-browed Norwich, longer and larger Yorkshires or more distorted Scots Fancies, wherewith to obtain coveted prizes. I propose merely to give an account of some of my experiences and observations and throw in a question or two here and there in the hope that some readers more knowledgeable on the point than I will be able to answer them in a future issue. Inevitably any article dealing with the beha¬ viour of this species must, to some extent, duplicate and overlap informa¬ tion given in Nicolai's detailed study of the behaviour of this and other species in the genus Serinus. His work (see references) should be read in full by anyone concerned seriously with the behaviour of the Canary and its allies. Canaries and I Some readers may recall that the first birds I kept when a small child were a pair of Bullfinches Pyrrhula pyrrhula (Goodwin, 1952 and 1985). These were at first kept in a cage in the dining room but, for reasons that I forget, were soon moved to my bedroom, perhaps marginally less suitable a place. As I have narrated, this Bullfinch pair did actually regain their freedom. Before doing so, however, they lived with me for about 18 months and in that time my stock was increased, first by a Goldfinch and then by some Canaries. The Goldfinch I had seen and 'fallen for’ in the pet department of a large London store. A very 'posh’ one too, that charged 7 shillings and sixpence each for its Goldfinches, a third more than the then average price of 5 shillings. Someone had told my father, who then and for some years after, took a rather fluctuating interest in my bird-keeping, that 'Goldfinch Mules' could be easily and plentifully bred just by putting a cock Goldfinch and a hen Canary together and that such hybrids were of great monetary value. Fired by these mistaken or mendacious statements, my father GOODWIN - CANARIES 201 bought a clear yellow (technically a ‘buff in fanciers’ terms) Norwich Canary (the breed had not got so monstrous then, as it has since). Not surprisingly, she and the Goldfinch regarded each other with indifference, which changed to hostility when some mutually desired food or perching place brought them close to each other. Both my father and I were disap¬ pointed at this lack of reproductive impulses and soon the idea of Gold¬ finch Mules was abandoned (perhaps my father had learnt of their true and slight monetary value, in most cases, and of the difficulties of breeding them) and a cock Norwich Canary was added to the collection. He was what I believe is known as ‘heavily variegated’, that is, he had most of each wing dark muddy brown and some of the same colour on his head, con¬ trasting with his orange body. The orange and muddy brown hues were due to colour feeding and he moulted out more or less the same lemony yellow as the hen, already christened ‘Sulphur’ and with his dark areas more or less of the olive grey tones found in the wild Canary. A large box cage had been procured and fitted up with a nest-bowl. The two Canaries wasted little time and soon, to my intense excitement, Sulphur laid her first egg. My father had by now read up, and also read to me, much of the then current wisdom about Canary keeping so the egg was removed, placed on bran in a box, and a pot egg substituted for it. Amazingly, considering the number of times I disobeyed my father and covertly examined, handled and generally gloated over them, at least two of the four eggs were not seriously damaged and in due course produced two young, one much like his father and the other clear yellow (‘buff) like his mother. When the next clutch of eggs was being incubated, we moved house, from Surbiton to Virginia Water. I was much concerned about the Cana¬ ries, in fact only concerned about them, and not the trauma which I suppose my parents had over the move. Partly to pacify me, a car was hired to take us and the Canaries to the new home and, which astonishes me even now, Sulphur sat throughout the journey and did not desert when the cage was set up in the new house. Perhaps as a result of the journey only one young one was hatched and reared. It subsequently proved to be a cock, had its entire back olive green with darker streaks (much like a wild Canary’s) and was called ‘Greenback’ . Perhaps because none of them reacted socially to me, perhaps because I subconsciously considered them as, in part, .my father’s birds, my first passionate involvement with the Norwich Canaries did not last. They, and some Rollers that my father later got, bred for many years but tended to do so less successfully as the years went on. Many were given away each year, some escaped, some died (with hindsight I can see why!) and the sad end result was that by 1937, barely 1 1 years after the stock had been star- 202 GOODWIN - CANARIES ted, there were no Canaries left. Except for two hen Borders that I had for some months in 1958, 1 did not keep Canaries again until late in 1965 when I purchased some Red Factors and bred from them, mainly because I was interested in one or two aspects of Canary behaviour which I felt I ought to have remembered from earlier days but to my irritation had not. Also, it had been stated in at least one ‘authoritative’ work on bird behaviour that Canaries, and by implication other cardueline finches, fed their young for the first few days on crop milk comparable to that of pigeons. I felt sure that this was not the case but had to admit, when I got embroiled in an argument over the matter, that I had no proof. So I wanted to look again and more closely at parental feeding in Canaries. For the next ten years I always had some Canaries, all red factors, usually two pairs, not the same two all the time, and often a few current year’s young ones. I gave away many young Canaries but to a large extent was forced to curtail numbers by sterilising eggs before allowing the birds to sit. I had chosen red factors partly for their attractive colours but even more because most of them then were fairly near to the wild Canary in general size and shape, certainly far more ‘natural looking’ than the (in Britain) most popular fancy breeds. Red factor Canaries and their colorations As all who read this are likely to know, or at least, like myself, to have been informed, red factor Canaries were produced by hybridisation with the Red Siskin or Hooded Siskin Carduelis cucullatus. Back crossing hybrids to Canaries and selective breeding enabled the ‘red factor’, that is a gene or genes permitting the development of red pigment, to be trans¬ ferred to what are now, in other respects, apparently pure Canaries. How¬ ever, from what I have seen and the very little I have read on the matter, it appears that although some red factor Canaries show delicate shades of pale orange, pinkish yellow, ivory white and (when they have melanin pigments also) rich reddish browns, orange browns, buffs and yellowish green; red or orange-red colour can only be obtained by careful feeding, prior to and during the moult, with foods containing red carotenoids and lacking yellow carotenoids. The resultant reds tend too, to look very ‘unnatural’, not much like the lovely near-vermilion of the Red Siskin. I bought at times two or three red factor Canaries that were a deep orange- red or shrimp (boiled) red. All these birds, fed on abundant greenfood and some eggfood besides seeds, moulted out pale orange yellow or pinkish yellow. Sexual differences and the (often great) differences of coloration be¬ tween adults and young in red factor Canaries are sometimes attributed to GOODWIN - CANARIES 203 the Hooded Siskin ancestry and this may well be so. On the other hand, in the wild Canary, and some other serins, the juvenile plumage is much paler and browner than that of the adult. Also in the wild Canary the cock is much brighter than the hen and less profusely marked on breast and flanks. Of my young red factors that I kept to adulthood and made careful notes on, a hen with wild Canary-type markings was basically a medium, quite dull brown in juvenile plumage and moulted into a general orange brown. Her face and breast became much brighter and more orange, presu¬ mably through abrasive moult, in spring and summer. A hen, which in her juvenile plumage was pale orange with a brown ‘cap’, moulted out a darker orange with a still darker orange cap. A cock who was cinnamon brown moulted out deep orange and a hen who was a clear, delicate ivory colour in her first plumage, moulted out, rather to my disappointment, a pale pinkish orange. To what extent the many new and beautiful (if hardly red) colours found in red factor Canaries are due to genes introduced via the Red Sis¬ kin has always seemed to me ‘unproven’. The original Norwich Canary had a naturally rich golden yellow colour (Wallace, 1903); the much lamented London Fancy was apparently golden with grizzled (in juvenile plumage solidly dark) wings. These two types vanished without trace sometime in the previous century but could their, or similar, genes have ‘re-surfaced’ in our present day red factors? I will say no more on this topic, of which I know little, but appeal to any reader with more knowledge of the subject to write an article giving us information on it. Nothing in the behaviour of my red factors suggested that they were not in this aspect identical to ‘pure’ Canaries. On the other hand, I have not kept Red Siskins so may have failed to recognise traits of this species. Again, information from those with knowledge of the matter would be welcome. I did notice that my red factors were very unwilling to eat ‘plain’ canary seed and left to their own choice ate, of seeds, mainly niger and (when available) hemp, as well as large amounts of soft food and green food. I think, however, that my own reluctance to force them on to a less rich (and cheaper) diet, rather than Red Siskin genes, may have been responsible for this. I was perhaps overconscious that the Canaries of my boyhood had probably been, all unwittingly, kept on too meagre a diet. General and feeding behaviour Like most long-domesticated species, Canaries are usually very willing to sample new foods. Such ‘unnatural’ foods as egg-food, milk sop and the like, are always eaten eagerly, although some Canaries show little enthu- 204 GOODWIN - CANARIES siasm for some of the modern ‘all purpose miracle’ type ready made-up rearing foods. Compared with other small seed-eating birds, Canaries usually take, if given the chance, a lot more fruit and green vegetables. I can re¬ member in my childhood giving such things as pineapple, and even straw¬ berry jam to Sulphur and her mate. I did not give much in the way of fruit to the red factors kept later but did establish that although they took sweet eating apple eagerly (if cut across so they could get at the flesh easily), sour cooking apples were invariably rejected after the first taste. Like our Linnet, Goldfinch and Redpoll, the Canary regularly uses its feet to hold greenfood, stems of seed heads and the like, down to a perch while it feeds from them. In general Canaries seem uninterested in live food. I did, however, have two hens for a time in a room with various estrildids that became very fond of Blowfly pupae. I think they regarded them in the light of ‘soft-centred seeds’. Also one of my red factor cocks ate Blowfly maggots readily and fed them to his nestlings. Where birds of approximately equal age and condition are involved, cock Canaries are normally dominant over hens, except during the breed¬ ing period. When or before serious nest-building starts, the hen becomes dominant over the cock. This presumably functions to give her ‘a free hand’ at and around the nest without risk of interference from the cock. The changeover period can, at least under domestic conditions, be fraught with tension and flare-ups of aggression. Nicolai says, no doubt correctly, that any appreciable lessening of the cock’s reproductive impulses may cause a cessation of his submissive attitude to his mate and he may then attack her if she threatens him or if she solicits him too importunately. Dominance reversal between the mates also gives the hen confidence to assert herself over other cock Canaries, should she be pestered by them. This dominance of the hen during the breeding period occurs in some (possibly all) other cardueline finches also and may sometimes give the hen confidence to assert herself over birds she would normally flee from. I saw a nice example of this (I hope readers will forgive the digression) in mid-April of 1982. This was a ‘Siskin winter’ in the Petts Wood area and many Siskins Carduelis spinus had been coming for peanuts since February. They were, however, only able to feed at a hanging peanut bag in heavy rain or when somebody was standing close to it. At other times the peanut bags were taken over completely by House Sparrows Passer domesticus and, when these took shelter in moderate rain or because a human came too near, by Great and Blue Tits Parras major and caeruleus. The latter showed ‘vindictive’ aggression towards the weaker Siskins as they do towards Coal Tits P. ater. On this occasion I was standing within a couple of feet of the peanut bag in order to allow a fine cock Siskin to feed from it. A hen GOODWIN - CANARIES 205 shortly appeared, he casually made threatening movements towards her but she, who had evidently just developed the ‘change of heart’ in refer¬ ence to feminine status, turned on him furiously, chased him off and re¬ turned to the peanut bag. After she had fed a little, I moved away and in¬ stantly a Blue Tit flew at the Siskin to drive her off. She, as if out of habit, flew to a bough about 10 ft away but when the Blue Tit, instead of feed¬ ing, flew at her again to drive her further away, she seemed to ‘remember* her new status., turned and fought back and finally chased off the Blue Tit! Unfortunately for both, I then went indoors and the House Sparrows moved back to the peanuts. Reproductive behaviour If a pair of Canaries are put together well ahead of their (subsequent) nesting time or if the cock is put with the hen before she has selected a nest-site, then it will be seen that the cock takes the initiative in nest- site selection. He searches for suitable places, and having found one, turns around in it, usually making movements similar to those of the hen when ‘shaping’ her nest. Sometimes he mandibulates potential nesting material and carries it to the site he has selected but he does not, in my experience, ever perform actual nest-budding with it. All nest-building is done by the hen, once she has selected the nest- site or, as it is more usually the case, ‘approved of the site that her mate has selected. Normally the nest is placed in some bowl, basket, or topless or half frontless box supplied by the birdkeeper but if the aviary has suitable bushes or shrubs and an abundance of suitably fresh, tough and not too dry material, Canaries are usually quite capable of budding more or less Greenfinch-like nests for themselves. The eggs, usually three to five, and pale greenish blue with purplish flecks and dots, are laid in the morning at dady intervals. Most domestic Canary hens seem to incubate from the first day. The cock does not normally incubate or brood young but he feeds the hen both on and off the nest. Like the Goldfinch, the hen Canary is in no way inhibited from noisiness at the nest-site. Even when incubating or brooding nestlings she not only begs (or would feminists prefer the word ‘demands’?) food loudly when her mate comes to the nest but she also cads out loudly and often when she hears him nearby. I, and I imagine many of our readers, have often discovered Goldfinches’ nests through this calling of the sitting hen but, presumably, no common natural nest predator of this species or the wdd Canary can use its ears to find nests, else natural selection would long ago have forced the females of these species to be quieter than they are. I paid detailed attention to parental feeding in my red factor Canaries and confirmed what I had assumed from my boyhood observations, and 206 GOODWIN - CANARIES is implicit in most non-ornithological writings on the subject, that the Can¬ ary does not produce crop milk or any substance analagous to it. It is, of course, possible that saliva or similar liquid may (and probably does) mix with the food fed to the young and this may contain some enzymes, trace elements or whatever. My Canaries did not seem to discriminate between animal and vegetable foods or to select foods of high protein content for the young; so long as the food was palatable and soft it was fed readily even to small nestlings. No doubt, under wild conditions, this would result in the young being fed at first only with suitable foods, probably mainly or entirely seeds still at or only a little beyond the ‘milky’ stage. Both sexes feed the young but only the hen broods them. It is probable that under natural conditions most of the food that she gives them for the first week or so has been given her by the cock, although when the birds are in a cage where the hen can see from the nest that some new and much-liked food has been put in, she will come off to take food for herself and her young more often than she would otherwise do. The young are fed from the crop, the parent, as in other cardueline finches, bringing up mouthful after mouthful and feeding each separately to a young one. If not yet moulting, the hen usually starts a second nest (if given the chance) before or very soon after the young fledge. She usually ceases to feed the young as soon as, or shortly before she begins to lay the second clutch and her mate is left with sole ‘responsibility’ for them. In my boyhood days my father and I had some trouble with hen Canaries plucking the body feathers from their young but, misled by the ‘advice’ then published on such matters, did not draw the correct conclusions. I now have no doubt that in most, probably all, such cases the root cause is an insufficient diet, probably deficiency of salt and/or protein being the major factor. Feather plucking in parrots is now known to be caused by lack of salt in the diet. Young Canaries, when begging, flutter their wings but at the moment of actual contact, when the feeding parent inserts food into the young bird’s mouth the latter’s fluttering wings instantly ‘collapse’ and fold against its body, only to flutter again the moment physical contact be¬ tween parent and young is broken. Note on calls and song Nicolai has dealt very fully with the vocalisations of the Canary and other Serinus species and those of my readers who keep Canaries are likely to be familiar with their calls so here I will touch on only one or two points of interest. The sweet or tsoo-eet that some naive keepers fondly think is the bird answering their endearments in kind when they peer into its cage, is in GOODWIN - CANARIES 207 fact a note of alarm or anxiety. Most of our British finches have homo¬ logous and very similar sounding alarm calls, that of the Greenfinch Carduelis chloris being almost identical to the Canary’s in sound, at least to my ears. I twice heard this sweet call given in a very harsh and emphatic manner by a cock Canary (whose mate was sitting) when he saw, from the win¬ dow, a tabby cat in the garden below. Neither he nor any of my other Canaries showed any alarm at, or more than slight and superficial interest in a stuffed Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia (a species very like the Eurasian Little Ow\ Athene noctud) which I showed them. Everyone who has taken any interest at all in Canaries or read a little about them knows that the Roller Canaries, which seem originally to have been produced in the Hartz Mountain regions of Germany, have a much softer and sweeter song than other breeds. Nicolai states that this has been brought about not only by selection for the best singers but by the biologi¬ cally bad conditions in which Roller Canaries are usually kept - in small, dimly-lit cages; fed mainly on rape seed; inbred, etc. He states that this causes those - to human ears harsher and less pleasant - parts of the normal song which are particularly uttered by strong and fit cock Canaries, to be suppressed in favour of the softer parts of the song. He says that if Roller Canaries are kept for a few generations under good conditions, the sweet soft song is transmuted into the louder, harsher song of an ordinary Canary. This is another aspect on which some of our readers may be able to give opinions based on personal experience and I hope that they will do so. I found the songs of my red factor Canaries, which appeared to have derived from Rollers on the Canary side, to be quite harsh and loud. Indeed not at all pleasant to my ears in the confines of a room. REFERENCES GOODWIN, D. (1952). Recollections of some small birds. Avicultural Magazine ,58: 24-29. . (1985). The Bullfinches. Avicultural Magazine, 91: 143-156. NICOLAI, J. (1960). Verhaltensstudien an einigen afrikanischen und palaarktischen Girlitzen. Zool. Jahrbucher (Jena), 87: 317-362, WALLACE, R.L. (1903). The Canary Book. L. Upcott Gill, London. 208 TAME WOOD PIGEONS By AUDLEY GOSLING (London) Introduction These notes relate to a group of unusually tame Wood Pigeons Columba palumbus in St. James’s Park, London, and describe how the colony arose, the remarkable degree of tameness, and comment on related matters such as recognition and memory. Prior to the re-emergence of the Wood Pigeon as a hand-tame bird there, I had been visiting St. James’s Park regularly for two or three years, as I was then taking a particular interest in wildfowl, and the fine collec¬ tions there and at Regent’s Park were a means of learning more about them. In general, the closer the bird the more interesting, and if you feed them they come closer still. One cannot, however, feed the pinioned birds without feeding the wild ones as well, even if one wished to, for the latter, like park birds everywhere, are adept at snatching food intended for others, and I quickly settled down to feeding a fairly wide range of species. This may be relevant to the ease with which personal relationships were later established with certain wild birds, for, as discussed later, some birds can readily recognise a particular human being, so that by the time the Wood Pigeon story began I may already have become a familiar, and apparently harmless, dispenser of food. Development of the colony By the bridge across the lake in St. James’s Park, House Sparrows Passer domesticus fly down readily onto the hands of those who feed them. Similar groups of hand-tame birds of various species exist through¬ out the world, but details of the birds’ behaviour during the formation of such groups is not usually recorded. Clearly each group must start with one bird, more reckless than the rest, being coaxed onto someone’s hand; then others, enticed by the food and reassured by the first bird remaining unharmed, follow its example. The time between the first hesitant step of one bird and the creation of a group for which this has become a regular method of obtaining food will vary with the species, and the intensity with which the new behaviour is deliberately encouraged. The behaviour will vary also for different species, and according to the particular circumstances. Thus, in the case of the Wood Pigeons a notable (and personally gratifying!) feature was that in the early stages they could not be persuaded to fly to anyone but me, whereas GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS 209 Ronald Harper Wood Pigeon seemingly interested in the ‘Crop Storage’ issue of Farmers Weekly Starlings Stumus vulgaris , that have been taught to stand on the hand to feed, will from the outset go to other people using the same feeding tech¬ nique. Most birds in town parks are much tamer than their conspeciflcs in the country, and the London Wood Pigeons are no exception. That they flew onto the hand in Regent’s Park in the 1920s is recorded by Grey (1927), and from 1934, perhaps earlier, until the war started in 1939, there were many Wood Pigeons in St. James’s Park that would perch upon one’s hand, shoulder or head for food. These very tame birds were probably killed off as pests as part of the Government’s campaign to exterminate the Wood Pigeon (Goodwin 1978). During February and March 1982, two Wood Pigeons came to me at a particular seat when I visited the park each weekend, and would take 210 GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS Ronald Harper Wood Pigeon waiting placidly to be fed biscuit from my outstretched hand. Later they would perch on my hand, and one of them would let me run my fingers down its breast, stroke its neck and, to a lesser extent, the top and back of its head, but would not allow me to touch its wings. This behaviour was unusual, as at that time Wood Pigeons in St. James’s Park, though they would approach people quite closely, were not tame. In March these two birds were joined by a male with all the toes missing from the left foot, and which was promptly named Stumpy. The naming of wild creatures as though they are pets may seem to some unnecessarily sentimental, but it is easier to use names in one’s notes than to describe the distinguishing features each time. Similarly if I speak to them, it is because I believe they may respond, like horses, to a quiet tone of voice, and not because I expect a reply - not even in pidgin English as someone once suggested. Anyway, during April and May neither Stumpy nor his unnamed companions appeared for their biscuits and I thought the episode closed. In early June three birds, one of them Stumpy, again came to me on the seat for food, readily flew onto my hand, and could be stroked. I was now visiting the park daily, and events moved rapidly. Within a few days it was clear that the birds, (a) had no difficulty recognising me, (b) were GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS 211 prepared to fly onto my hand, but to no one else, and (c) would allow me to handle them to a remarkable degree, extending or imprisoning their wings, etc., in a way that even the feral pigeons Columba livid, var. would not tolerate. The number quickly doubled, and later reached a peak for that year of about 10 birds, including two juveniles. When I entered the park and neared the section occupied by the tame birds, they would fly from the grass or from a tree up to 60 m away, landing confidently on my hand. Although one or two of the people who regularly fed the birds in the park tried hard to persuade these Wood Pigeons to fly to them, it was two and a half months after their reappearance in June before they flew to anyone else. However, in late August some started to do so, although in 1982 they remained selective and would not fly to strangers. That first summer I fed them daily, but could not continue to do so indefinitely, and was concerned about stopping their regular meals, which they had now come to expect. Fortunately the birds solved the problem for me, as when that year’s abundant crop of mast ripened on the copper beeches they were no longer interested in the digestive biscuit or pigeon mixture that they had taken so eagerly before. In any case, most London Wood Pigeons leave their nesting territories in early autumn, and return to them between the end of October and March; and tame individuals with an assured food supply leave with the rest (Goodwin, 1978). The presence, and absence, of a few ringed, and therefore individually recognisable birds in St. James’s Park was monitored for four years. Most of those birds, but not all, left in the autumn, and all those that did so left in the second half of September, or in October, and returned between late December and the first week of April. However, birds with late broods are sometimes to be seen feeding unfledged young in the first half of November, and some, perhaps 10/15% of the number present in summer, were to be seen throughout the autumn and winter. The birds that leave the park in autumn do not apparently go far, but probably move to a communal night-time roost, from which they disperse daily to feeding places in or on the outskirts of Greater London; very likely joining the large numbers feeding on beechnuts and acorns in such places as Hampstead Heath and Richmond Park (Goodwin, 1978). That some at least remain within easy range of the park was evidenced by the temporary reappearance of two ringed birds, both males, during their period of absence. One of them, ‘absent’ from 18th September 1983 until 7th April 1984, was present daily from 26th November to 1 1th December, and was also seen on two isolated dates, on 24th December and 28th January. The other, ‘absent’ from 12th October to 22nd December 1984, was seen on three dates, 24th November, and 1st and 8th December. 212 GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS There is also often a marked difference in the size of the meals taken from the hand in winter. In summer, they will gorge themselves to capacity, as will those birds that overwinter in the park, whereas those that leave in autumn and return, say, at the turn of the year sometimes come briefly to the hand and fly off after eating only a small amount. It seems that these birds have a good supply of natural food elsewhere and, with the approach of the breeding season, are making short visits to their territories, as des¬ cribed by Murton, (1965). Since that first summer I have made a point of feeding the Wood Pigeons irregularly. Although it is usually recommended that food be put out for garden birds regularly at bird tables, etc., regularity in the case of hand-tame wild birds is, in my opinion, best avoided. To consistently pro¬ vide a particular bird with daily meals may seem at first thought to be solely beneficial, but it may cause too drastic a change in the bird’s beha¬ viour, turning it into a pet rather than a truly wild creature. If it believes it can depend upon a meal at a particular time it is unlikely to seek its natural food to the usual extent, and may become overfat and/or inactive, especially if fed with food that is deficient in some way. Also, regular feeding of a wild bird, perhaps several miles from one’s home, cannot always be maintained or carried out punctually, and the bird itself may misjudge the time. Clearly any breakdown in a regular arrangement can cause the bird distress. The occasional nourishing meal at odd times, however, is beneficial without unduly affecting the bird’s normal way of life, and can be regarded as a bonus. This arrangement is also flexible; the birds can be fed frequently when necessary, for example, in hard weather, and special attention can be given to the needs of any bird that is sick, injured or undernourished. The tame birds remained tame and flew unhesitatingly to me on their return in 1983. Others followed their example, and that summer 20 Wood Pigeons were flying to the hand for food; fortunately not all at once, though they can sometimes be rather overwhelming when I first arrive. Incidentally, when counting the birds that fly to the hand, it is essential to mark them as you count, otherwise you will include more than once the birds that return for further helpings of food. Lipstick, being easily applied, easily removed and non-toxic, is ideal for this purpose. Since the dabbing of Wood Pigeons with lipstick seems to be regarded by any onlookers as eccentric behaviour, however, these censuses have been in¬ frequent. The situation still existing at the time of writing (September 1986) was established in that second year, although the number of hand-tame birds has now settled down at around 30. The birds no longer discrimina¬ ted to the same extent between strangers and those they knew and con- GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS 213 sidered trustworthy, but there was, and still is, individual variation, some birds going readily to strangers, others only after much coaxing, and some not at all Since they usually return to the same place in the park each year, the tame birds have remained for the most part a localised colony, but there are two or three in other parts of the park that now fly to the hand. These perhaps were tamed originally in the main colony, possibly as juveniles, and have chosen or been obliged to move elsewhere, but If you feed birds year in and year out in a particular place, you will become a familiar figure to many of them, and some may decide you are relatively harmless, and become trusting without any premeditated effort on your part. Degree of tameness The trustfulness of Wood Pigeons that have become hand tame is quite astonishing, particularly as this species is shot so extensively in other parts of the country that it is usually extremely wary. Their tameness on the hand (Gosling, 1985) far surpasses that of the feral pigeon, so that in com¬ parison the feral pigeons in the park, and nearby Trafalgar Square, so well known for their tameness, are noticeably ‘jumpy5. The Wood Pigeon is much more at ease. When it alights on the hand it will stand erect, waiting patiently to be fed, and will let you stroke its beautiful pink breast. Any¬ one doubting the loveliness of the Wood Pigeon should see It in this upright pose, standing motionless with head held high and alert gaze. In return for the food one can take surprising liberties with them: extend the wings, fan the tail, examine the wing pits, and carry them about the park, or out of the park. Stranger still, they will allow a cupped hand to be run firmly down their back from head to tail, and they can be gripped quite firmly over the closed wings, so that they are, in effect, imprisoned; also one can encircle the throat with thumb and index finger, grasping them quite tightly, yet they remain unperturbed by such handling. Such is their trust that although physically aware of what is happening, they do not feel imprisoned, any more than we feel imprisoned in a train or coach with doors operated by the driver. If the ‘doors’, or in this case the hand, fail to open when they wish to leave that Is a different matter, for they will not willingly be held captive; yet those that have been held against their will for some necessary purpose will usually return to the hand an hour or so later. In contrast the feral pigeon Is more nervous, and if you wish to place your hand on it, it is usually necessary to do so when it is absorbed in eating, as they tend to shy away when touched, readily flying off at a touch or movement a ‘Woodie5 would ignore, though returning a moment later. It is a matter of temperament, and long acquaintanceship makes 214 GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS little difference, so that a Wood Pigeon fed half-a-dozen times will still be more relaxed than a feral pigeon fed frequently for two or three years. It has been suggested to me by Eric Gillham, who has been associated with the birds of St. James’s Park for many years, that the relative indif- ferance of the tame Wood Pigeons to being ‘manhandled’ may be in part linked to the manner in which they take from trees food that they cannot easily reach, namely by hanging, often upside down, with wings spread out among the branches for support. This I think is likely, for the Wood Pigeon is a robust bird, with powerful wings, as illustrated by the well- known ‘wing-clap’ used as a finale to its display flight and when disturbed. I sometimes feed them on a weeping copper beech, or weeping willow, and they will ‘crash’ noisily into the pendant branches, displaying in their eagerness to reach the food offered to them an acrobatic skill quite out of keeping with their portly appearance on the ground. Yet, notwithstanding their rough and tumble antics at times, and the aggressiveness that forms a necessary part of all birds’ lives, they have a placid temperament, with a gentle and endearing ‘dove-like’ quality much in evidence. Any study of separately recognisable birds highlights how individual¬ istic they are. In the few, but widely different species that I have observed at close quarters it has always quickly become clear that the birds have minds of their own. It is not surprising, therefore, that the tame birds have their separate personalities and behave in different ways, nor that some Wood Pigeons can never be persuaded to fly to the hand, however often they see their conspecifics feeding there unharmed. Their sex is undoubt¬ edly relevant to their character, but in the degree of tameness and willing¬ ness to be tamed, I have noticed no difference between male and female. Recognition and memory It was found that Wood Pigeons can readily identify a particular person even in a crowded park, and their ability to do so can be impressive when they swoop down from a tree or fly across the grass to land unhesitatingly on the hand. Experiments showed that they recognise by sight the person , and not what is worn or carried, presumably, as we do, by the features, aided by other factors such as expression, stance and walk, which together make an identifiable whole. Grey (1927) records how a pair of Swallows Hirundo rustica recognised and attacked him when wearing the knickerbocker suit he wore when they found him examining their nest, though not if he was wearing a suit of similar colour but with trousers; and he found that his tame Robins Erithacus rubecula would not go to him if he wore dark clothing. The Wood Pigeons, I am pleased to say, do not seem to mind what I wear. Recognition is not dependent upon what is worn or carried, GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS 215 or the time of day, or the direction from which their area is approached. A complete and simultaneous change of all these factors made no apparent difference, and the birds undoubtedly recognise the person, though no doubt if seen in unfamiliar clothing or unexpected circumstances they may do so less swiftly. Howard (1952) found that her tame Blue Tits Pams caemlem and Great Tits Pams major recognised her whatever she was wearing, and that they also knew her voice. I do not know whether or not the Wood Pigeons know my voice, but recognition was purely visual during my experiments as I did not call or speak to them. That unfamiliar clothing can cause alarm is well illustrated by an experience of Derek Goodwin’s (pers. comm.). Two young, very tame captive Wood Pigeons that had always seen him in an open neck shirt, and flown onto him, letting him handle them, went into a wild panic, fleeing from him and battering the wire when he entered their aviary wearing a tie. When he returned without a tie, they behaved with their customary tameness. So far as recognising human beings is concerned, there is perhaps a tendency to under-rate a wild bird’s capabilities. Such commonly heard remarks as ‘feed the birds regularly and they will get to know you’ give the impression that they are slow learners, that recognition is a gradual process requiring several encounters, preferably at a set time and place. This is not necessarily the case, and a strong association of ideas can override the need for repetition, so that recognition can be immediate. Feed a Wood Pigeon, or feral pigeon, well one day and you will often find it recognises you straight away the next. I imagine it is much as it is with us; we do not, cannot, take note of everyone, but are selective, remembering those who give us cause to do so, even though we have seen them only once before. It was found that other species, too, may be good at recognising people, and a female Mallard Anas platyrhynchos would fly from the lake and follow me across the grass, not because there was any food in evidence but because she knew from past experience that it would be produced, and she would be given a good feed of com and biscuit. In many cases the bird has the advantage. A Carrion Crow Corvus corone , for example, would fly across the park, land buoyantly three or four metres away, shout for food, and when it was produced walk up jauntily, but warily, to take it from my fingers. As it did not do this with anyone else it clearly knew me, yet apart from this unusual tameness, I could find no feature that would enable me to distinguish it from the other eight or nine Crows frequenting the park at that time. Care is, of course, needed before concluding that a bird recognises you. The fact that a bird hurries straight to you with every sign of recog¬ nition does not mean necessarily that it knows you, as it may well do the 216 GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS same to complete strangers. Many park birds rush eagerly to anyone they think may have food, and are quick to note the slightest hint of a possible ‘handout’. Consequently, proof of recognition is not always readily forth¬ coming, and though I have fed certain Black-headed Gulls Lams ridi- bundus for several years now, I still only ‘think’ they recognise me. Lack (1965) refers to instances of Robins remembering a person after an absence of six months, and cites the case of a Song Sparrow (Ru- fous-collared Sparrow) Zonotrichia capensis that remembered an event after 18 months (Nice, 1943). The Wood Pigeon’s memory also seems to be long lasting. Bearing in mind that when they return from an autumn/ winter absence, their memory would be ‘jogged’ by the sight of another Wood Pigeon feeding from my hand, I have, nevertheless, had instances indicating that they still recollect me on their return without being re¬ minded. In one case, the first bird to fly to me as I entered the park was a ringed, identifiable bird that I had not seen for four months, and there was a similar occasion following an absence of just under three months. Also, one afternoon in February when there were no other Wood Pigeons near me, an identifiable bird, Stumpy, that had been absent for four months, flew in from outside the park and straight towards me, landing about three metres away, from where it hobbled up to feed from my hand. Experiments with the closely related feral pigeon showed that they too can often remember a person after only one encounter, and that once you are firmly fixed in their memory they will remember you after an absence of four months. Quite likely they can do so after a much longer period, but I have no evidence as to this. Since the birds are subject to much the same deficiencies that affect our memory and eyesight, it is not surprising that much individual variation was noticeable - some birds obviously recognise you as soon as they see you, while others are never able to do so, and will peer at you doubtfully as you approach, even though you have been feeding them on and off for years. The relationship ‘Make friends with the birds’ urged a leaflet published by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and it catalogued nest-boxes, bird feeders, etc. But can you? Clearly the exhortation was not meant to be taken too literally, for you can give the birds every comfort - food, good homes, drinking water and washing facilities, yet they remain suspicious or indifferent. Wild birds that become tame may have different attitudes to this risky behaviour, but one fact is indisputable - they come for the food. Whether they come for any other reason is less easily answered, but Leonora Howard (1952, 1956), who had a uniquely close relationship with many wild birds, sharing her cottage with them as well as her garden, GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS 217 records many instances of the birds going to her for help when they were in trouble. Leaving aside birds reacting socially to man because of ‘imprinting’ and the unusual relationships arising sometimes from captivity, I do not believe that a mutual friendship can exist between a truly wild bird and a human being. Certainly a bird is not friendly because it feeds from your hand; in most cases it merely takes the food and then clears off. It is not interested in companionship, or in one’s state of health, nor does one’s generosity prompt it to reciprocate - which is just as well, for I have no wish to have avian delicacies deposited In my mouth. One can only befriend a bird, but that to me is sufficient, for their mere presence is a delight. Indeed anyone foolish enough to look for some sort of affection treads dangerous ground, for the most likely emotion they will encounter is the bird’s anger or disappointment If offered pigeon mixture when it is hoping for peanuts! Nevertheless, it would be unwise to conclude that tame birds always regard their human associate solely as a food dispenser. A close and trusting relationship can undoubtedly be created between a person and a bird, of importance to the bird (albeit as a source of food), and of several years’ duration. Since one cannot enter a bird’s mind, who can say definitely that this long-standing and valuable association does not develop in the bird some sort of feeling for the person who feeds it? Where trust is created the relationship may well reflect more than mere ‘cupboard love’ on the part of the bird, and it may respond to the person’s behaviour; thus Wood Pigeons agitated by the presence of a dog, for example, and about to fly from the hand, often appear to be reassured by stroking and a quiet tone of voice to which they have become accustomed, much as one soothes a domestic animal (Gosling, 1985). Goodwin (1982) relates how Wood and feral pigeons noted that his presence in the garden protected them from cats. After being frightened by one, they would not, for a time, come down into his garden for food if he was not present, but if he went out and stood near the food they would at once do so, and would feed near him, only to fly up again as soon as he went indoors. There have been two examples of Wood Pigeons staying on my hand other than for food. In one the bird remained there for 20 minutes after it had finished eating, leaving the remaining food on my hand untouched, while I stood talking to a companion. It was a warm, sunny evening, drawing to its close, and I concluded that, like us, birds get tired at the end of the day, and as it was at ease on my hand it was merely using it as a convenient resting place before going to roost. The other example concerns a male ‘Woodie’ found hanging from a tree by nylon line caught around its leg, which was rescued by two friends of mine; a somewhat hazardous operation, as to cut it free entailed one of 218 GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS them crawling along a branch 10 m up. Two years later, though the bird is permanently crippled, I am glad to say that it is still alive, and as far as I can tell, reasonably healthy apart from its injured leg. However, its beha¬ viour on the hand since that time is in marked contrast to the others, as it will often remain on the hand for a few minutes after it has finished eating, and before flying off to its territory on Duck Island. This interval may well be just a matter of convenience, but its expression as it looks steadily into my eyes differs from the equally steady gaze of the other tame Wood Pigeons. It may well be that, following Its injuries, it has had to live with pain, and that this is reflected in its expression but it seems to be trying to communicate, or to interpret my own expression, as though it is seeking sympathy or hoping for help - as is sometimes seen in the expressions of sick domestic pets. I am fully alive to the pitfalls of attributing human emotions to animals, yet the feeling is very strong that this bird’s attitude to me, and human beings generally, for it was not I who rescued it, differs slightly from that of the other tame birds, and I believe that to omit this observation because it may seem more senti¬ mental than scientific would leave this section incomplete. Having touched on the birds’ feelings, or lack of feelings, what of the person who has tamed them? Where does he stand in the relationship he has created? I assume that he, or she, will feel much as I do, not only an affection for the birds but also, having intervened in their lives, a measure of responsibility for their welfare. If care is taken the additional risk to which a tame bird may be exposed should be slight, especially when compared with the many hazards to which all wild birds are subject. However, the taming of wild birds is only excusable if one is satisfied that, taking a broad view, the advantages to the birds well outweigh any additional risks they may run. Fortunately if common sense is exer¬ cised, this should be the case, as much help can be given to tame birds if they are sick, injured or merely undernourished, and I know of several birds that, but for their tameness, would not be alive and healthy as I write. Finally, I should be pleased to hear from any reader interested in tame wild birds, and to learn of their experiences and views, whether or not they agree with what has been said here. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks are due to Derek Goodwin for his considerable encourage¬ ment and help. Also to my wife, who has suffered my excessive enthus¬ iasm for birds with remarkable forbearance. GOSLING - TAME WOOD PIGEONS 219 REFERENCES GOODWIN, D. (1978). Birds of Man’s World. Ithaca and London. . . . .(1982). Some aspects of human and other predation on birds. Avi- cultural Magazine, 88: 52-56. GOSLING, A.P. (1985). Exceptionally tame Woodpigeons (Short Note, with editorial comment by D. Goodwin). British Birds. 78: 238-239. GREY OF FALLODON, VISCOUNT. (1927). The Charm of Birds. HOWARD, Miss L. (1952). Birds as Individuals. London . . (1956). Living with Birds. London. LACK, D. (1965). The Life of the Robin. 4th edition. London. MURTON, R.K. (1965). The Wood-pigeon. London. NICE, Mrs. M.M. (1943). The behaviour of the Song-Sparrow and other passerine birds. Trans. Linn. Soc. New York. 6 : 7. 220 WALTER GOODFELLOW - ONE OF THE GREAT ORNITHOLOGICAL COLLECTORS BY ALAN GIBBARD (Reigate, Surrey) In the days before air travel had reduced a distance of several thousand miles to a few hours’ flying time, the aviculturist depended on the efforts of a small band of men to collect, and successfully bring back on long sea voyages the rare birds that graced his aviaries. This small group of pro¬ fessional collectors included Wilfrid Frost, Cecil S. Webb, F. Shaw Mayer, and probably the most successful of all, Walter Goodfellow. Walter Goodfellow was born in 1 866 and started his career as an orni¬ thological collector with an expedition to Colombia and Ecuador in 1898. This expedition was largely aimed at collecting museum specimens of which Goodfellow obtained 4,000 skins of over 500 species of birds. By the turn of the century, Goodfellow was collecting on behalf of a number of wealthy aviculturists who desired to add rare and beautiful species to their collections. One of Goodfellow’s early patrons was Mrs. E. Johnstone who main¬ tained a large collection of birds at Groombridge in Kent. In 1903, while collecting on Mount Apo on the Philippine island of Mindanao, Good¬ fellow obtained a species of lorikeet new to science. This was named Trichoglossus johnstoniae, Johnstone’s Lorikeet, in honour of Mrs. John¬ stone. Two years later, Goodfellow was able to return to England with three living examples of the new lorikeet for Mrs. Johnstone’s aviaries. Goodfellow wrote some notes about this lorikeet in the Avicultural Magazine (January, 1906: 83-88) which were illustrated by a superb colour plate by H. Gronvold. In the following year, Mrs. Johnson des¬ cribed their successful breeding in her aviaries (1907: 44-46). While collecting in Taiwan in 1906, Goodfellow noticed, in the head¬ dress of a native, the tail feathers of a previously undescribed species of pheasant. Goodfellow managed to obtain these feathers, and from them the Mikado Pheasant Syrmaticus mikado was made known to science. In 1912 Goodfellow returned to Taiwan and collected 11 living Mikado Pheasants. These birds were obtained by Mrs. Johnstone and the following year she bred them for the first time in captivity ( Avicultural Magazine , 1915: 265-266, including colour plate by H. Goodchild). Another great aviculturist for whom Walter Goodfellow obtained rare birds was E.J. Brook who kept a splendid collection of living birds at his home, Hoddam Castle, Dumfries. In 1909 Goodfellow brought GIBBARD - WALTER GOODFELLOW 221 home for Brook a superb collection of birds from New Guinea. This collection included Greater, Magnificent, Blue, Princess Stephanie’s, Meyer’s Sickle-billed and Superb Birds of Paradise, as well as Gardener Bowerbirds and Wilhelmina’s, Stella’s and Fairy Lorikeets. To transport such a collection on a long sea voyage at the turn of the century required much care and skill. Due to his great experience as a collector in the tropics, Goodfellow was invited to lead the British Ornithologists’ Union expedition to Dutch New Guinea. The purpose of the expedition was to obtain skins for the British Museum, and over 300 different species were collected, 25 of which were new to science. Large collections were also made of mammals, insects and plant life. Before the expedition was completed Goodfellow was taken ill and had to return home. Another member of the expedition, Claud Grant, gave an indication of the conditions the party had to endure. The insect life was appalling, no sooner one species went to bed another arose to annoy throughout the 24 hours. A sort of Bluebottle fought with you for your food, and even tried to follow it down your throat. Big brown leeches were everywhere - in the trees and on the forest floor’. For his efforts during the expedition Goodfellow was awarded the gold medal of the British Ornithologists’ Union. During the 1920s Walter Goodfellow travelled and collected exten¬ sively. In November 1925 he returned to Britain from the Far East with 27 birds of paradise, of six species, plus many fruit pigeons and parrots. In 1929 he brought to Britain the first Duivenbode’s Lories and Bulwer’s Wattled Pheasants to be seen in this country. Many of the birds collected by Goodfellow during this period went to the great private collections of Alfred Ezra, Jean Delacour and Herbert Whitley, while other specimens were acquired by London Zoo. As well as a great collector, Goodfellow was also a great naturalist. He wrote several articles in the Avicultural Magazine describing his expedi¬ tions, and his detailed observations of the strange Standard-winged Bird of Paradise Semioptera wallacei (1927: 57-65) are still the most important yet on this species. Walter Goodfellow died in 1953, 18 years after his last expedition. Despite his highly important work, the only worthwhile obituary notice of him appeared in the Avicultural Magazine written by David Seth-Smith (1955: 33) even then two years after his death. However, he stands out as one of the greatest collectors of live birds and without his pioneer efforts, many species would never have reached the wonderful private collections of the early decades of this century. 222 THE MOSCOW BIRD MARKET BY JEFFERY BOSWAEL (Bristol) On Saturday, 25th October 1986, 1 spent rather less than an hour at the bird market in Moscow. It was enough, because the wildlife protection laws introduced in 1980 preclude the sale of wild birds and all those for sale were domesticated species. Except, that is, for a couple of Goldfinches Carduelis carduelis and a Coal Tit Parus ater being offered from inside a jacket! The market’s bird population was dominated by hundreds of ornamen¬ tal pigeons, many of them in excellent condition. There were - at a guess - a dozen or 20 breeds but I do not have enough knowledge to name them. Among poultry, there were a dozen ornamental breeds, and a couple more ordinary ones of chickens and bantams; a handful each of ‘Greylag’ Anser anser and ‘Chinese Swan’ A. cygnoides Geese and a quartet of ‘Mallards’ Anas platyrhynchos and two Muscovy (appropriately enough) Ducks Cairina moschata. The number of canaries Serinus canaria was perhaps two or three hun¬ dred. They varied quite widely in colour. Budgerigars Melopsittacus undu- latus were about as common as canaries and there were a few Cockatiels Nymphicus hollandicus and two individual brightly-coloured Australian species, probably Rainbow Lorikeets Trichoglossus haematodus, and two Ring-necked Parrakeets Psittacula krameri. The only other Psittacine was a green parrot the size of a sparrow or a little larger, green with a delicate peach colour all about the head. To complete the list there were about 10 Zebra Finches Poephila guttata . It was 10.00 a.m. when I arrived, and the market was very crowded with people (some buying and selling not birds but dogs, hamsters and ornamental fish). It was a grey, damp day and the market a somewhat drab place. But we all walked on asphalt, rather than in mud, there was no unpleasant smell and nothing at all untoward except for the very small transpor¬ tation and display cages in which many of the smaller birds were con¬ fined. It is difficult to understand my taxi-driver’s surprise that I should wish to visit such a ‘dirty’ place and to learn that Muscovites who might otherwise take foreigners there refrain from doing so for fear of incur¬ ring official displeasure. * Hs * 223 ADDITIONS TO THE BIRD COLLECTION AT BERLIN ZOO (WEST GERMANY) IN 1984 and 1985 By PROF. DR. HEINZ-GEORG KLOS 1984 New Arrivals 2 Tataupa Tinamous 6 South African Ostriches 2 Cuban Whistling Ducks 4 Andean Geese 2 Magellan Geese 4 Black-winged Stilts 4 Common Redshanks 3 Re d-and- White Rails 2 African Jacans 2 White-breasted Swamphens 2 Sun-Bitterns 2 White-necked Cranes 6 Buff-necked Ibis 4 Glossy Ibis 3 Roseate Spoonbills 2 Chaco Chachalacas 4 Congo Peafowl 1 European Black Vulture 2 Violet Touracos 3 Red-billed Wood Hoopoes 1 Umbrella Bird 2 Red-billed Magpies Hatched 3 Emus 2 hybrid Penguins 1 King Penguin 3 Eurasian Cormorants 3 Southern Screamers 5 Coscoroba Swans 6 Common Eiders 3 European Flamingoes 6 Chilean Flamingoes 2 Cattle Egrets Crypturellus tataupa Struthio camelus australis Dendrocygna arborea Chloephaga melanoptera C. picta Himantopus himantopus Tringa totanus Laterallus leucopyrrhus Actophilornis africanus Amauromis phoenicurus Eurypyga helias Grus vipio Thersticus caudatus Plegadis falcinellus Platalea ajaja Ortalis canicollis Afropavc congensis Aegypius monachus Musophaga violacea Phoeniculus purpureus Cephalopterus ornatus Urocissa erythrorhyncha Dromaius novaehollandiae Spheniscus humboldti x S. demersus Aptenodytes patagonicus Phalacrocorax c. sinensis Chauna torquata Coscoroba coscoroba Somateria m mollissima Phoenicoptera ruber roseus P. chilensis Ardeola ibis 224 KLOS - BERLIN ZOO ARRIVALS 3 Scarlet Ibis 4 hybrid ibis 2 Olive Pigeons 2 Andean Condors 1 African Black Eagle 7 Common Caracaras 3 European Eagle Owls 1 Spectacled Owl 5 Great Grey Owls 1 hybrid Cockatoo 4 Rufous Tree Pie New Arrivals 5 Little Pied Cormorants 5 American White Pelicans 4 Wandering Tree Ducks 4 Eyton’s Tree Ducks 8 White-faced Tree Ducks 4 Black-necked Swans 4 Emperor Geese 4 Red-breasted Geese 2 Cape Barren Geese 7 Baikal Teal 4 Rmg-necked Teal 4 European Great Scaups 4 Lesser Scaups 4 Peruvian Ruddy Ducks 7 Hooded Merganser 3 Spotted Thicknee 23 Avocets 4 European Curlews 3 Common Sandpiper 2 Common Redshanks 8 Ruffs 3 Lapwings 3 European Oystercatchers 2 Stanley Cranes 1 Grey-winged Trumpeter 2 Kori Bustards 9 Lesser Flamingoes 2 Maguari Storks Eudocimus ruber E. ruber x E, alba Columba arquatrbc Vultur gryphus Lophoaetus occipitis Poly boms plancus Bubo bubo Pulsatrix perspicillata Strix nebulosa lapponica Kakatoe moluccensis x K. alba Dendrocitta vagabunda 1985 Microcarbo melanoleucos Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Dendrocygna arcuata D. eytoni D. viduata Cygnus melanocoryphus Anser canagicus Branta mficollis Cereopsis novaehollandiae Anas formosa Ay thy a collaris A.m marila A. affinis Oxyura vittata Mergus cucullatus Burhinus capensis Recurvirostris avosetta Numenius arquata Actitis hypoleucos Tringa totanus Philomachus pugnax V. vanellus Haematopus ostralegus Anthropoides paradisea Psophia crepitans Ardeotis kori Phoenicoptems minor Euxenura maguari KLOS - BERLIN ZOO ARRIVALS 225 8 Sacred Ibis 2 Black-headed Ibis 4 White Ibis 3 African Spoonbills 1 Black Curassow 3 Egyptian Vultures 3 Little Owls 2 Ural Owls 2 Keas 2 Gang Gang Cockatoos 2 Leadbeater Cockatoos 2 Western Grey Plantain-eaters 2 Tawny Frogmouths 2 Crested Quetzals 1 Rhinoceros Hornhill 2 Toco Toucans 2 Keel-billed Toucans 2 Channel-billed Toucans 4 Japanese Wax wings 10 Cardinal Queleas 5 Buffalo Weavers 4 Lesser Sunda Mannikins 3 Rosy Pastors 4 Regal Starlings Hatched 3 Rheas 6 Emus 2 Black-footed Penguins 1 hybrid penguin 2 Cormorants 8 Southern Screamers 4 Coscoroba Swans 3 Swan Geese 4 Bar-headed Geese 5 Canada Geese 2 Egyptian Geese 3 Crested Ducks 6 Common Eiders 5 Red-crested Ducks 8 North American Ruddy Ducks 1 European Goldeneye 1 American Flamingo Threskiornis aethiopicus T. melanocephala Eudocimus ruber var.alba Platalea alba Crax fasciolata Neophron percnop terns Athene noctua Strix uralensis Nestor notabilis Callocephalon fimbria turn Kakatoe leadbeateri Crinifer piscator Podargus strigoides Pharomachrus antisianus Buceros rhinoceros Rhamphastos toco R. sulfuratus R. vitellinus Bomby cilia japonica Queleopsis cardinalis Dinemellia dinemelli Munia quinticolor Pastor roseus Cosmopsarus regius Rhea americana Dromaius novaehollandia Spheniscus demersus S. demersus x S. humboldti Phalacrocorax carbo Chauna torquata Coscoroba coscoroba Anser cygnoides A. indicus Branta c. occidentalis Alopochen aegyptiacus Lophonetta s. specularioides Somateria m, mollissima Netta rufina Oxyura /. jamaicensis Bucephala clangula Phoenicop terns r. ruber 226 KLOS - BERLIN ZOO ARRIVALS 3 European Flamingoes 7 Chilean Flamingoes 2 Boat-billed Herons 1 Hammerkop 2 Andean Condors 1 Rueppell’s Vulture 2 Pallas’s Sea Eagles (died during hatching) 3 Common Caracaras 2 Kestrels 2 European Eagle Owls 1 Verreaux’s Eagle Owl 4 Snowy Owls 7 Great Grey Owls 4 Peach-faced Lovebirds 3 Red-rumped Parrots 3 White-cheeked Touracos 2 Giant Laughing Kingfishers 3 Red-billed Wood Hoopoes 2 Black-throated Finches 1 1 Celebes Starlings 2 Coletos P.r. roseus P, chilensis Cochlearius cochlearius Scopus umbretta Vultur gryphus Gyps rueppelli Haelaeetus leucoryphus Poly boras plancus Falco t. tinnunculus Bubo bubo B. lacteus Nyctea scandiaca Strix nebulosa lapponica Agapornis roseicollis Psephotus haematonotus Tauraco leucotis Dacelo gigas Phoeniculus purpureas Poephila cincta Scissitorstrum dubium Sacrops calvus 227 REVIEWS HIGHLIGHT THE WILD: The Art of the Reid Henrys By Bruce Henry. Palaquin Publishing Ltd., Hulford's Lane, Hartley Witney, Hampshire RG27 SAG. ISBN 0.90681401 4. 152 pages. 40 full page colour plates, 67 black and white illustrations. Available from the publishers, price £20.00 plus £2.00 postage and packing. The very first birds I ever kept were a pair of Black-headed Munias Lonchura malacca and I’ve been passionately interested in the genus ever since. Throughout the 1950s I bought every field guide I could find, as long as it had a mueia in it. In 1955 I was delighted to discover a new book Guide to the Birds of Ceylon by G.M. Henry, and will never forget the plate illustrating the Ceylon Hill Munia L, kelmrti . The plates, painted by the author, were in the classic field guide tradition epitomised by Archibald Thorburn and Roland Green. They indicated a limit of habitat and portrayed the birds in natural positions. I loved them then, and still do. Then, in 1960 I received C .1. Skead's The Canaries , Seedeaters and Buntings of Southern Africa which is illustrated in part by D.M. Henry, very much in the tradition of G.M. Henry, I had discovered the Henrys, A few years later I joined the Society of Wildlife Artists and not only became familiar with the work of D.M. Henry, or David Reid Henry as he was known, but met him at one of the exhibitions and also at one of the Avicultural Society evenings. On the latter occasion, if I remember right, David was accompanied not by his celebrated African Crowned Eagle, ‘Tiara9, but by a Peregrine Falcon. He explained how the plumage patterns of the breast of a bird of prey vary from neat and regular on a recently-fed bird, to irregular and overlapping on a hungry bird with an empty crop and demonstrated this by feeding the bird on hand. David was one of my hero figures and I think I admired his bird paintings more than those of any other .... certainly his style was the one I tried to emulate most. My job has me travelling about the globe a great deal, with timing that Pm not always able to control I was, therefore, quite delighted to be able to attend an exhibition of the art of the Reid Henrys held in London in October, and - like all members of the Society - to have the opportunity of buying a copy of the book Highlight the Wild at a pre-publication price. To my surprise I learned that there were not two, but three Henrys. George was the father, David and Bruce the two sons, and both painters like their father. The book is written by Bruce Henry, the only surviving member of the trio. It is a fascinating book, unique in its content for it is simultaneously 228 REVIEWS biography and autobiography. Unlike most books of its kind, however, the author not only writes the usual biographical data, and very interesting too, about family history and personalities, but contributes chapters on how the Henry s painted and how he himself paints. I found this totally absorbing. The book is lavishly illustrated with over 40 colour plates divided equally between the three, together with a large number of repro¬ ductions of sketches from notebooks and field sketch pads. Many readers will be familiar with the work of David Reid Henry, whose superb bird portraits frequently illustrated the Avicultural Maga¬ zine in the days when a colour plate was not beyond the editor’s produc¬ tion budget. And those who own George Henry’s Ceylon book will know him well. Bruce Henry, however, will be new to most readers. His style reminds me of George Lodge. He paints pictures which contain birds (a subtle but significant difference) and his scope is broader than that of his father or brother, ranging from birds to animals, flowers and true landscapes. Discovering him in this book was a surprise and a pleasure. This is a book for lovers of bird artists, the many colour plates will be a source of pleasure (and in some cases a useful reference) and the text most enjoyable reading. R.R. CLINICAL AVIAN MEDICINE AND SURGERY Eds. Greg and Linda Harrison. W.B. Saunders, West Washington Square, Philadelphia, Pa. 19105, USA. 75 US dollars. Thirty-three avian veterinary specialists, mostly American, have pooled their knowledge to produce this much needed work. The editors are Greg Harrison, Florida veterinarian, and his wife Linda. This weighty volume of more than 700 pages will prove invaluable to veterinarians and advanced aviculturists. An ambitious project, it covers in detail all aspects of avian medicine and surgery. These include haema¬ tology, microsurgery, microbiology, sex determination techniques, dis¬ eases of imported birds, zoonotic diseases, virology, serology, diagnostic tests, fractures, evaluation of droppings, aerosol therapy, radiology and many other subjects. Its scope and depth are perhaps unprecedented: it is a mine of practical information. For example, five authors contribute to the chapter on diag¬ nosis. Charts represent the most common clinical conditions, detailing clinical signs, species affected, history and possible causes. The veterinarian with but slight experience of birds should find this section of great value. The chapter on therapeutics includes 20 pages of tables listing anti- REVIEWS 229 biotics, their dosage, frequency, etc. The notes include such information as Chloromycetin palmitate (Parke-Davis) being useful in hand-feeding birds in which food passage has slowed owing to bacterial infection. The chapter on clinical anatomy contains numerous original line drawings showing sections from a growing feather, skeleton, cranial oste¬ ology, musculature, air sacs, internal structures, viscera; arterial supply, major blood vessels, etc., etc. There are more than 300 illustrations. Many of the photographs are instructive - shaping a beak, weighing, handling, collecting blood, preparing blood smears, endoscopy and the use of an orthopaedic stockingette as a temporary protective device to prevent self-mutilation of sternal injuries or surgery. In his Foreword to this book, Murray Fowler wrote: Ten or 15 years ago only a handful of pioneers devoted significant practice time to birds. Now there are many full-time avian practices, some with three or more clinicians and full laboratory support. Hundreds of practitioners devote a major percentage of their time to birds.’ He was writing of the situation in the USA. Hopefully, during the next decade more specialist avian practices will be developed in the UK. This volume will surely point the way. It is available from the publishers but no doubt a distributor will be found in the U.K. R.L. INTERNATIONAL ZOO YEARBOOK - VOLUME 24/25 Ed. P.J. Olney. Published by the Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY. IBSN 0074-9664. 651 pages, 30 b/w photo¬ graphs, numerous line drawings and diagrams. Price: £46,00 hardback, £39.00 softback. The International Zoo Yearbook is a unique publication and an essen¬ tial addition to the library of all those seriously concerned with breeding birds and animals of non-domesticated species. Normally published annually, the recently published volume (24/25) covers two years, 1982 and 1983. One of the most avidly read sections of the Yearbook is that devoted to records of birds, mammals and reptiles bred in zoos throughout the world. The giant task of collating data from all the major zoos and countless smaller ones, inevitably means that the records are two years behind publication date. Nevertheless, they provide the world’s only comprehensive reference to what is being bred and where. Hatchings (and births) and the number of surviving young are recorded. 230 REVIEWS (One cannot help reflecting that the number of birds bred by zoos is small in comparison with numbers reared by private aviculturists.) The census of rare animals in captivity provides invaluable information to breeders and zoo visitors interested in a particular species. As an ex¬ ample, in 1983 there were eight Bulwer’s Wattled Pheasants in zoos: two in Antwerp, four in San Diego and two in Walsrode. Each volume takes as its theme a subject which occupies a large pro¬ portion of its pages. Breeding endangered species is the theme of the vol¬ ume under review; in fact, it contains all the papers presented at the Fourth World Convention in the Netherlands during 1984. The 219 pages in this section include papers on diurnal raptors, breeding programmes for waterfowl and flamingos, and breeding and reintroduction of pheasants. In ‘Captive management and the conservation of birds5, Alexandra Dixon explains why captive breeding as a means of conservation is more easily applied with birds than with mammals. He uses several case histories to illustrate this point. By 1980 it was believed that the population of the Lord Howe Island Rail (a flightless species) had been reduced to under 20. After a two-year study of the birds and their habitats, three pairs were taken into captivity in 1980 and two more pairs the following year. In December 1983, when the captive breeding programme ended, 78 had been reared, 74 of which had been released. Some of these had themselves bred successfully by February 1983. A standard feature in the International Zoo Yearbook is that of new developments in the zoo world. Breeding the Great Indian Hornbill at Cotswold Wildlife Park and a unit for the transportation of developing eggs are just two of the papers found here. The reference section includes addresses, names of curators and numbers of specimens kept of nearly all the zoos and aquaria of the world. Attendance figures are also given. R.L. AVES DO BRASIL (BIRDS OF BRAZIL) Volumes IV and V. BEIJA-FLORES (HUMMINGBIRDS) By Augusto Ruschi. Bilingual Edition, 1982. Available from Wheldon & Wesley, Ltd.,Lytton Lodge, Codicote, Hitchin, Herts. Price: £165 approx. The volumes under review are part of a series, the first of which ap peared in 1979. The first volume was published under the title Aves do Brasil (Birds of Brazil) and no indication was given that it was, in fact, Volume 1 of a series. In 1981 a further volume appeared which was given REVIEWS 231 the same title but was designated as Volume II. This volume was not uniform in size to the first, also the dust wrapper was white (in the first volume the dust wrapper was brown). Volumes IV and V are uniform to Volume II in that they are of the same size and also have white dust wrappers. Although these two volumes are dated 1982, they have only recently appeared in the UK (November 1986). Whether Volume III will appear is debatable as the author is no longer alive. The volumes are large format (1434 x 11 in - 36.8 cm x 27.9 cm). There are some 452 pages (206 in Volume IV and 246 in Volume V). They are illustrated throughout in colour with photographs by the author and paintings by Etienne Demonte. Some of the photographs are of poor quality; very few are of a pro¬ fessional standard. However, as many depict species which have rarely if ever been illustrated before and as many show behavioural activity (i.e. nest-building, incubating, feeding of young, stretching, yawning, bathing, etc.), they are of interest and add greatly to the usefulness of the volumes. The colour paintings are excellent but few are captioned and as some appear before, and others after, descriptions of the species depicted, con¬ fusion may arise. In both volumes, the text in Portuguese runs parallel down the page with the English text. From pages 1-84 the Portuguese text takes up the top half of each page with the English translation on the bottom half. The translation is poor and parts of the text are extremely difficult to follow. Pages 3-84 are taken up with general information on the Trochili- dae including annual cycle, biological and ethological remarks, ecological considerations related to hummingbirds, electrocardiographic tracings of hummingbirds, sonographical analysis of the songs and calls of humming¬ birds, and the study of ornithology in Brazil. Pages 77-426 give the clas¬ sification and description of species and subspecies (found in Brazil). Pages 427-430 give a list of types examined in certain museums and the remaining pages are taken up with an extensive, although inadequate (as so many well-known papers and other publications are missing) bibliog¬ raphy and a general index. The Trochilidae is a family about which one can rarely generalise. I have learned over the years that should one state that hummingbirds never do such-and-such a thing, eventually a species will surely prove otherwise. Many authors fall into this trap and Ruschi is no exception. On page 4 he states that hummingbirds are unable to walk on the ground. Adelomyia melanogenys can and often does walk on the ground, also Phlogophilus hemileucurus may not actually ‘walk’ but it certainly can run along the ground. On page 14 Ruschi states that the song is 232 REVIEWS hereditary. Skutch (in many of his writings) gives proof that many, if not all species learn rather than inherit their songs. Ruschi, under the subheading ‘Restocking and reproduction in cap¬ tivity’ (pp 34-35) mentions that more than 100 species have repro¬ duced in the aviaries of the Museu de Biologia Prof. Mello Leitao. Due (partly) to this success, hummingbirds were dispatched to zoos and in¬ stitutions in many parts of the world. It appears that 50 specimens were sent to London Zoo. As the birds were offered as the nucleus of a world¬ wide breeding programme, the Brazilian authorities must have been somewhat naive to say the least! Although Ruschi must have believed that the birds would, in fact, reproduce as he writes: ‘There is no diffi¬ culty to make hummingbirds live and reproduce in captivity; the indis¬ pensable requirements: water, tree, nectar flowers, food with water and 25% sugar (from sugar cane), protein, the raising of Dipteros of the genera Drosophila, fed with banana, ananas Kept under almost natural conditions in aviaries in Brazil, the above would no doubt prove correct, but this is far from the case in more temperate climes where the birds have to be housed in heated indoor accommodation. The main section of the two volumes is taken up with the description of species/ subspecies, and for each the following data are given: geo¬ graphical distribution, characteristics, habitat, migration and behaviour such as nesting, bathing, song, resting attitudes, courtship and sleeping. As with an earlier book, Hummingbirds of the State of Espirito Santo , (reviewed by me, Avicultural Magazine , 89: 242-243), Ruschi has again generalised on certain aspects. As many of the species on which he writes have been studied (by him) in captivity, one would have thought that he would have recorded the sexual differences in such genera as Colibri (males have a shorter and less curved bill than females), and Phaethomis (length of tail and bill), yet he often writes ‘sexes similar’. Some observations made by the author are of particular interest and provide details which, as far as I am aware, have not before been recorded (in English). In the past, many authors (including myself) have believed that 25% of females in Florisuga mellivora are dimorphic. Ruschi (p. 192) informs us that all immature birds have plumage similar to that of an adult male and it is only after the first moult that females acquire their distinc¬ tive colour pattern. In Hummingbirds of the State of Espirito Santo , Ruschi failed to des¬ cribe the eclipse plumage of certain Brazilian species. This he rectifies in the current volumes, although he does still generalise somewhat with the descriptions. Heliomaster squamosus males do not ‘become like the fe¬ male’, there are obvious plumage differences, and Calliphlox amethystina REVIEWS 233 loses its long tail feathers and iridescent throat patch when in eclipse plumage. Of special interest is the description of the eclipse plumage phase in Heliothryx aurita (p. 402). If it is correct, it would mean that there are five species of hummingbird that have an eclipse plumage. However, Ruschi does spoil this most interesting observation when he writes, This bird possesses a peculiarity found only in its genera (sic) in the family Trochilidae. The male has a post-nuptial molt (sic) in which he loses all his iridescent feathers and looks entirely like the female adults’. As men¬ tioned earlier, Ruschi describes the eclipse plumage phase in other spe¬ cies (not from the genus Heliothryx). I can only presume he either wrote on certain species at different times and then brought all his observations together to form the volumes under review, or the translation is incorrect. Whichever is the case, H. aurita males could not possibly ‘....become like adult females’, as the latter has a much longer tail than the male. The species has proven almost impossible to keep alive for any length of time in captivity (in Europe) and only someone like Ruschi (who kept hum¬ mingbirds under near natural conditions) could have witnessed the eclipse plumage phase. Many of the descriptions of nuptial displays are extremely detailed and it was most interesting to learn that Heliactin comuta does use its ‘horns’ during the display; something I had never witnessed when I kept and studied the species. Many may feel that at £165.00 the two volumes are somewhat expen¬ sive, but with such a wealth of detail, to my mind they are well worth the money. If you are interested in the Trochilidae, then purchase the volumes, you will not regret it. For the more monetary minded, it is worth noting that all previous volumes in this series have almost doubled in value the moment they have gone out of print. * * * A.J.M. 234 CORRESPONDENCE The Cloven-feathered Dove (Drepanoptila holosericea ) It was with interest and gratitude that I read the very interesting and well-informed comments by Mr. Derek Goodwin (Vol. 91, p. 242-3), an ornithologist of international repute, concerning my article (Vol 91, p. 32-41) on the captive rearing of the Cloven-feathered Dove, for which I hope he will accept my deepest thanks. Since my article was published I have made further observations which exactly confirm Derek Goodwin's hypotheses. I have now reared birds of a third generation and the behaviour of these young is exactly the same as that of their predecessors taken from the wild. The rule of only one egg and care by the female exclusively are exactly confirmed but we have since observed matings, which was not the case at the time of publication. Infrequent and brief pairing on branches of foliage had been described, but generally successful coupling takes place on the ground, as Mr. Derek Goodwin supposes. Second generation males, like their fathers, come down to the ground to mate. When my keeper tells me that he has seen a male on the ground, we know that the female must lay in the days that follow. No particular site on the ground has been recorded but this point needs further observa¬ tion. In New Caledonia efforts have been made to protect this unique and splendid bird but these clash with material impossibilities. The 'Green Pigeon' continues to be shot at every opportunity. I share Mr. Derek Goodwin’s opinion on the possibility of releasing birds reared in captivity on a suitable island. I am myself prepared to parti¬ cipate in such a project but my experience of nature, and above all, human nature makes me express many reservations. For every successful exper¬ ience, such as that of Little Tobago and its birds of paradise, how many failures! As for New Caledonian birds, one interesting attempt to transplant the splendid Homed Parrot Eunymphicus c. comutus was made several decades ago in conditions apparently ideal. These birds, endemic to the mountains of New Caledonia, were transported to the nearby island of Mare which forms part of the Loyalty Islands, adjoining New Caledonia. Two years later none of these birds was left on Mare. Optimists said that they had returned to their place of origin, others thought that they had perished either spontaneously or with the aid of the aboriginal natives. No habi¬ tat could have resembled more closely that of these birds’ origin. CORRESPONDENCE 235 One should reflect on this before dealing recklessly with such a prec¬ ious capital but the hypothesis is attractive and should not be lost from view. In the meantime I persevere with breeding the Cloven-feathered Dove with some success but also some failures and disappointments. Several birds have died accidentally, surviving usually until the beginning of the the breeding season. The statement about the compatibility of pairs applies equally to wild birds as to their descendants. Some pairs are incompatible and the female can sometimes be killed in a few minutes with no warning of such aggression.. We have saved some in a very unfor¬ tunate state, but unhappily we have equally lost some. For two years I did not rear one bird: clear eggs, dead in shell, very bad weather conditions. However, at the moment of writing, two young are almost independent and a third is preparing to leave the nest. It is at these moments that aviculturists have the temerity to think that their efforts count for something. Bondy, Paris. Dr. Henri Quinque * * * Breeding the Moluccan Mannikin (Lonchura molucca vagans) Readers might be interested to know that I was successful with the Moluccan Mannikin this year. Two chicks left the nest on 1 1th September and are now fully supporting (1st October). At first, the chicks were very like an adult Bib-Finch Lepidopygia nana in appearance and size but they are now almost as big as the parents and are just starting to show the head colour. Six established adults of unknown sex and each wearing a different coloured split ring were released into a new aviary at the end of June. The accommodation was shared with Narcissus Flycatchers and Variable Sunbirds. At first, the Mannikins built the usual roosting nest in a standard finch, open-fronted nest box, placed high up in the aviary and screened with small branches of fir. All six shared this with no animosity. After a short time, however, I noticed that one Mannikin appeared to be chasing the others away from the nest-box. As I could not be sure which two of the six had paired up, I decided to leave things as they were. I had pre¬ viously bred the Bib-Finch with unmated birds being present and on this occasion there was no actual fighting. I am still not certain, however, whether the Moluccan Mannikins are better housed in pairs or in a group. I was subsequently able to identify the breeding pair and to observe that 236 CORRESPONDENCE the chicks would beg for food from any of the six adults. The main rearing foods were soaked seed and a relatively small amount of meal¬ worms. Egg food was ignored. I cannot be certain of the incubation period but believe it to have been approximately 1 5 days. The chicks left the nest at approximately 22/23 days old. 48 Twickenham Road, J. Faulkner Newton Abbot, Devon. VISIT TO PARKLANDS Members and their guests were privii edged to be invited by Mr. and Mrs. Ken Dolton to visit their home at Parklands, near Worcester, on Sunday, 14th September, 1986. After a pleasant lunch at the Crown Inn, Hallow, over 80 visitors assembled at Parklands at 2.30 pm. and our hosts conducted us round their very extensive collection of psittacines and waterfowl and what must be one of the largest collection of tortoises in the country. All these were contained within a series of beautifully landscaped gardens with many rare specimen trees and shrubs. It was hard to believe that 20 years pre¬ viously this magnificent park had been rough fields and that Ken Dolton had created all this beauty and interest by himself. Our hosts entertained us to a very lavish tea in the garden and it was pleasant to sit in the warm autumn sun in such lovely surroundings. For those of use who had not seen Parklands before the visit was a revelation and the warm welcome from our hosts gave great pleasure to everyone and a day to remember. It was particularly generous of our hosts to donate the entrance money (£83.00) to the Society’s funds. Ken Dolton is a very active Council Member and the Society is most grateful to him and his charming wife for all their interest and support. * -f; It has come to my notice that a possible first breeding has gone un¬ remarked in the Avicultural Magazine, In 1981 Mr. and Mrs. R.E. Mann successfully bred the Red-topped Amazon Parrot Amazona dufresnia rhodoeorytha which is believed to be a first success in this country. (Vol. 88, 1982, No. 1: 12-14). Anyone knowing of a prior breeding in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or of any other reason that would dis¬ qualify this claim, is asked to inform me. Hon. Secretary 237 OWL SYMPOSIUM AT LILFORD HALL A symposium on owls is to be held at Lilford Hall, nr. Oundle, Peter¬ borough, on 10th May 1987 and the emphasis will be on the captive maintenance and propagation of these interesting birds. Although a number of papers are to be presented by aviculturists with long experience in the care of owls it is intended that the symposium should be run in an informal manner which will encourage comment and participation from the audience. Lilford Hall is situated in a beautiful park which is stocked with an ex¬ tensive collection of birds including many species of owls. Large numbers of owls have been bred in the aviaries at Lilford during the past decade and the symposium has been arranged at a time when young owls of many spe¬ cies should be in evidence. The morning session is planned to run from 10.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m, and the afternoon session from 3.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. This programme has been arranged so as to allow those attending the symposium to have adequate time to tour the aviaries and a wildlife exhibition which is to be held in the Hall on the same day. The morning session of the programme will be under the chairmanship of Peter Olney (Curator of Birds and Reptiles at London Zoo) and John Ashbourne will chair the afternoon session. The following papers will be included during the symposium: Philip Dugmore - Keeping and Breeding the Milky Eagle Owl Bubo lac teus in Britain. Dr. Dieter Minnemann (Curator of Birds at East Berlin Zoo) - The Owl Breeding programme at Tierpark Berlin. Keeping and Breeding the Harpy Eagle Harpia harpy a at Tierpark Berlin. Bernard Sayers - An Overview of Two Decades Breeding Owls in a Private Collection. Tony Turk (Curator of Lilford Aviaries) - The Laws Relating to Keep¬ ing, Breeding, Selling, Importing/exporting and Quarantining of Owls. Tony Warburton (Director of the Barn Owl Breeding and Release Scheme) - The Captive Breeding and Release of Barn Owls as an Aid to Conservation. There should be at least two other speakers. This symposium is being arranged privately and all costs and charges have been kept to an absolute minimum. Tickets for the symposium, which include the cost of morning coffee, lunch and afternoon tea, are 238 OWL SYMPOSIUM AT LILFORD HALL priced at £12.00 per person. Alternatively, if lunch is not required, tickets are at the reduced price of £7.00 per person. All cheques to be made payable to B.C. Sayers. All participants will also have to pay admission when entering the Park gates - currently £1.40 for adults and 70 p for children. There is a licensed bar in Lilford Hall and this will be open after the close of the symposium so that informal discussions and socialising may continue into the evening. All bookings and enquiries to B.C. Sayers, 164 Chelmer Road, Chelms¬ ford, Essex, CM2 6AB, England. * * * The Editor does not accept responsibility for opinions expressed in articles, notes, reviews or correspondence MEMBERS’ ADVERTISEMENTS (10 p per word - minimum charge £3. 00) WANTED. BACK NUMBERS OF AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE. 1960, No. 1 (Jan- Feb); 1961, No. 1 (Jan-Feb), No. 2 (Mar-Apr). Please ring 01-570-2641 WANTED. BOUND VOLUMES OF THE AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE. Either as a gift to the Society or for sale. Please contact the Hon. Secretary, Avicultural Society, Warren Hill, Hulford’s Lane, Hartley Wintney, RG27 8AG. AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE back numbers. Large stock available including early issues. Sales by post only. Price list from the Hon. Secretary, Warren Hill, Hulford’s Lane, Hartley Wintney, RG27 8AG. THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND welcomes new members. An Australian Society catering for all birds both in captivity and in the wild. We put out a bi-monthly magazine on all aspects of avicultura and conservation. For membership details please contact Ray Garwood, 19 Fahey’s Road, Albany Creem, 4035, Queens¬ land. Annual subscription (Australian dollars): 16:00 surface mail, 22:00 airmail AMERICAN CAGE-BIRD MAGAZINE has been publishing monthly since 1928. It features timely and interesting articles on parrots, canaries, finches, budgerigars and cockatiels. These are written by leading breeders and bird fanciers. Monthly subscrip¬ tion 15.00 US dollars - Europe 21.00 dollars (money order in US dollars please) to American Cage-Bird Magazine, 1 Glamore Court, Smithtown, New York, 11787, USA. INDEX TO VOLUME 92 (1986) 239 AmaziHa, Peruvian Brown-bellied, Breeding . . . 177 Avicultural Magazine Binding . . . . 119 Avieultural Society Awards . . . . . . . . . . 3 Birdworld, News from . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Blackbird, Taking care of a visually impaired . . . . 40 Bow leg syndrome in Ratites . . . . . . . . . 70 Breeding rare and endangered birds at Tierpark Berlin . . . . . . 190 Bustard, Little Black, Breeding of . . . . . . . 61 Canary, Forest . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . Protea . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Canaries, Some notes on . . . . . . . . . 200 Cassowary, Two-wattled, Breeding . . . . . . 196 Chengdu, Birds of . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Chestnut Lodge, Visit to . . . 109 China, Birds in 126 Coleto, Breeding . . . . . . . . . 8 Correspondence..... . . . . . 56, 175, 234 Crane, Whooping, Reducing excessive weight loss in egg . . . 161 Delacour, Dr. Jean - An appreciation . . . . . . . . . 1 Ezra, Miss Ruth - President . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Finch, Bicheno, Observations on . . . 85 . ..., Crimson, Behaviour of . . . . . . . . 143 . ..., Cuban, Notes on . . . . . 82 . . Red-headed and Cut-throat, Notes on . . . . 96 Goodfellow, Walter . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Lapwing, Southern, Nesting of . . . . . 151 Leeds Castle, News from . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Mannikin, Five-coloured, Breeding . . . . . . . . . 181 . . ...., Pale-headed, Breeding . . . . . . . 64 Moscow Bird Market . . . . . . . . . 222 Mynah, Bank, Breeding . . . . . . . . 8 News and Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117, 172 Owls, Barn, Increased reproduction . . . . . . . . . 148 . . Brown Fish, Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Parklands, Visit to . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Parrakeet, Cobald-winged, Breeding . . . . . . . . . . 124 Parrots, Pionus , Inverted resting in . . . . . 80 Partridges, Alectoris, Notes on . . . . . . 23 . ...., Chukar and hybrid . . . . . . . 157 . ...., Crested Wood, Breeding . . . . . . . 18 Pigeons, Wood, Tame . . . . . . 208 240 INDEX Ratltes, Records of First Breedings in British Isles . . . 55 Reviews: Seabirds by Peter Harrison, 111; Ocean Birds by Lars ■ Lofgren, 112; Th e Atlantic Aicidae (Eds) D. Nettleship and T.R. Birkhead, 113; Shorebirds by P. Hayman, I. Marchant and T. Prater, 113; The Herons Handbook by J. Hancock and J. Kush- lan, 114; Cranes of the World by P. Johnsgaard, 115; River Birds by R. Lovegrove, and P. Snow, 115; Lexikon der Vogelhaltung , 116; Highlight the Wild by Brace Henry, 227; Clinical Avian Medicine and Surgery by G. and L. Harrison, 228; Inter¬ national Zoo Yearbook 24/25, 229 \ Birds of Brazil by August© Ruschi, 230, Sandgrouse, Pallas's, Breeding . Siskin, Hooded, Results of Census . Siskins of Southern Africa . Sparrow, Chestnut, Breeding . . . Spinebill, Western, Breeding . Swallow, Blue and White, Nesting of . Yearbook, International Zoo (23) . . . 121 100 37 184 166 186 174 223 110 Zoo, Berlin, Additions to collection in 1984 and 1985 ........ London, in 1985 FIRST BREEDING RECORDS FOR BIRDS REARED TO INDEPENDENCE UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Compiled by Dave Coles Available for the first time - records of over 1400 species and subspecies giving name of breeder, date and reference From the author only: P.O, Box 110, Cobham, Surrey, KT1 1 1BE, England Price (incl. p. and p.): U.K. £5.50; Europe £6.00; elsewhere £6.50. Payment in sterling HIGHLIGHT THE WILD By Bruce Henry The Art of the Reid Henrys - A very talented family of wildlife artists GEORGE HENRY : DAVID REID HENRY : BRUCE HENRY A fascinating account of the varied lives and work of three outstanding artists and a useful and practical guide to the art of wildlife painting 152 pages. 40 full-page superb colour plates, 67 black and white illus¬ trations including many working drawings. Price: £20.00 + £2.00 postage and packing (surface mail). Palaquin Publishing Ltd., Warren Hill, Hulford's Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, RG 27 8AG, England. Bird World BOX 70 / NORTH ARTICLES ALREADY PUBLISHED: HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA 91603 The MAGAZINE FOR - BIRD ENTHUSIAST! Picking a Parrot Breeding Rose Has Taming Parrots Show Preparation Parasites in Birds Hand-Raising Surgical Sexing Training Birds to Perform Nutrition in Parrot Types The African Grey Grooming Parrots Color Feeding Pacheco's Disease Avian Pox The Norwich Canary A Germ-Free Aviary Softbil/s Orange Weavers Talking Birds Squawking Birds Moult Budgie Colors Parrot Toys Traveling with Birds Indoor Aviaries Flock Disease & Immunity Color in Canaries THE CHOICE OF THOSE WHO KNOW Bird World AMI RICAN AVIO LTLRISTS CA/.L1 IT \PRll MAv 1*)7H CHARTER iSSUF If there are titles above that might have interested you, think of how much more there will be in future issues. □ 3 YEARS . . . $30.00 G2 YEARS . . . $22.00 Pi YEAR . . $12.00 CANADIAN & OVERSEAS PLEASE ADD SS.00 PER YEAR. FOREIGN PAYMENT MUST BE IN U.S. FUNDS IN THE FORM OF A POSTAL MONEY ORDER OR BANK DRAFT. _ _ _ _ OR: PHONE IN YOUR SUBSCRIPTION ON VISA/MASTER CHARGE (21 3) 76 9-6 1 1 1 «— 1 0:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. MON.-FR I. SUBSCRIBE NOW ?™o*T NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91603 ■ - THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY The Avicultural Society was founded in 1894 for the study of British and foreign birds in freedom and captivity. The Society is international in character, having members throughout the world. Membership subscription rates per annum: British Isles £10.00; Overseas - £11.00 (25 U.S. dollars). The subscription is due on 1st January of each year and those joining the Society later in the year will receive back numbers of the current volume of the AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE. The subscription rate for non-members is: British Isles £11.00; Overseas -£12.00 (30 U.S. dollars). Subscriptions, changes of address, orders for back numbers, etc. should be sent to: THE HON SECRETARY AND TREASURER, THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY, WARREN HILL, HULFORD’S LANE, HARTLEY WINTNEY, HAMPSHIRE RG27 8AG, ENGLAND. NEW MEMBERS Ms J. Beckley, 1845 Frankford, Carrollton, Texas 75007, USA. Mr. J.H. Bosman, Roswinkelerstraat nr 169, 7895 At Roswinkel, Netherlands. Ms. S. Byrne, 18 Springfield Crescent, Durban, South Africa. Mr. P. Clarke, 62 Marlborough Park Avenue, Sidcup, Kent, DA15 9DU. Ms. D. Colby, P.O. Box 2020, W. Lafayette, In 47906, USA. Mr. P. Coyle, 11565 Sunset Knolls, Lakeside, Ca 92040, USA. Mr. N. Dodds, MRCVS, 6 Tattenham Crescent, Epsom Downs, Epsom, Surrey KT185QG. Mr. J. Dostale, 408 Hammond Street, Newton, Mass. 02167, USA. Mr.E.T. Feher, 1145 First Avenue, Hellertown, Pa 18055, USA. Ms W. Floyd, RT5 Box 30, Porter, Longview, Tx 75601, USA. Mr. B. Govier, 9911 Mayfield, Livonia, Mi 48150, USA. Ms S. Hannameyer, 200 W 70th Street, 10H, New York City, NY10023, USA. Ms. S. Jarvis, 2753 4th Street, Wyandotte, Michigan 48192, USA. Mr. J. Knapp, POB 2663, Southfield, Mi 48037 - 2663, USA. Mr. V. Leoni, 2872 Stony Point Road, Santa Rosa, California 95407, USA. Ms. T. Liszka, 80 White Street, New York, NY 10013, USA. Mr. W. Lodge, Oak Bungalow, Standon Green End, High Cross, Nr. Ware, Herts., SG11 1BW. Mr. G. Loveridge, Freeby Lane, Waltham-on-the-Wolds, Melton Mowbray, Leics, LE14 4RT. Mr. D.R. Loyd, 12338 Fairhaven Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70815, USA. Ms. E. Mangone, 3340 N Riverside Drive, N. Indialantic, Florida 32903, USA. Mrs. R. Maranville, 2411 Thebster Court, Maryville, In. 37801, USA. Mr. M. McCully, 814 Warren Avenue N, Seattle Washington 98109, USA. Mr. N. O’Connor, P.O. Box 520, Hampton, New Jersey 08827, USA. Mrs. A.J. Pearson, Whitegates, Button End, Harston, Cambridge CB2 5 NX. Mr. W. Pfreundschuh, 6062 St. Felix Avenue, Glendale, New York 11385, USA. Mr. D. Pillsbury, 2201 Central Avenue, Roseville, California 95678, USA. Mr. V.E. Pochay, 20 Maple Street, Randolph, Mass. 02368, USA. Mr. D. Raymond, 701 Oakland Avenue, Austin, Texas 78703, USA. (NEW MEMBERS - CONTINUED) Mr. M. Red, 5015 Reinhardt Lane, Bay City, Mi. 48706, USA. Mr. C.D. Richards, 10735 Double D Road, Fountain, Co. 81817, USA. Mr. R.S. Rubin, 1424 Thurlene Road, Glendale, California 91206, USA. Ms. S.M. Starte, Casal do Condinho, Pexiligais, 2725 Mem Martins, Portugal. Ms. K. Wenger, Apt. 261, 3500 El Conquistador Parkway, Bradenta, Florida 33507, USA. Mr. J.A. Wilson, 6 St. Pauls Close, Ashford, Middx TW15 1ET. Mr. Makoto Yamaguchi, 319 W-84th Street, Apt. 505, New York, NY 10036, USA. CHANGE OF ADDRESS Mr. M.E.Aberdeen to 21 Westbridge Road, Trweoon, St. Austell, Cornwall, PL25 5TF. Mr. E.S. Andersen, to Rosenorns Alle 4 5th, 1634 Copenhagen V, Denmark. Ms. E. Barrow to 5840 Northumberland, Pittsburgh, Pa 15217, USA. Mr. R.S. Cardy to Cairnmore, 33 Centenary Road, Lorraine, Port Elizabeth 6065, South Africa. Mr. Les Gibson to 7780 Kentwood Street, Burnaby, BC V5A 2E8, Canada. W.O, I.A.S. Harris to Longfurlong House, Tetbury, Glos. GL8 8TJ. Mrs. F.D. Lovelett, to 3400 Damascus Road, Brookeville, Md 20833, USA. Mr. G.A. Michael, to 3831 Vincent Avenue N. Minneapolis, Minn. 55412, USA. Mr. S.A. Nagle, to 50 Park Lane, Richmond, California 94803, USA. Mrs. V. Roberts, to The Domestic Fowl Trust, Honeybourne Pastures, Honeybourne, Evesham, Worcs WR1 1 5 Qt. Ms J. Smith to P.O. Box 1800, Rossland, BC VOG 1YO, Canada. Mr. William Todd III, to 407 N.W. 33rd Street, Oklahoma City, Okla. 73118, USA. Mr. J.C. Witt, to 956 N. Shaffer Street, Orange, California 92667, USA. Mr. D.A. Owens, to 52 Chapel Lane, Ravenhead, Notts, NG15 9DA. DONATIONS The Society is most grateful to Mr. K. Dolton, Mr. D.H.S. Risdon and Dr. R. Stephen Harley for their generosity. Published by The Avicultural Society Warren Hill, Hulford’s Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire RG27 8AG, England e o O o tn ^NOliniliSNI^NVINOSHlIWS S3 I U VB 8 iXLI B RAR I ES^SMITHSONIAh 2 ... f"* v 2 r“ Z o /^!S^ ra ^ 2 5 ^ )1 CO CO XJ*AS>£X m vvw ^ XJVASV^ m g w = co £ n LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOliniliSNI NVIN0SH11IM 1 1 2 > g _ _ _ Z \ C/> Z 1 ; SOI /■' t : > \»VAS^ s «*\g$f > •' 2 )M ^NOliniliSNI NVINOSHIIIAIS^SB I H VH 8 ll^LI B RAR l ES^SMITHSONM co i \ w ^ . 5 w co X ^ X^SS^ £ 4^qX * jm< c ^ 5 __ z II LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOliniliSNI NVIN0SH1IM r* z «“ __ z r“ O _ O XwSN. .*&vS .. m ~s^v pv^ 2; 2 > HZLI B RAR I ES^SMITHSONIAN^INSTITUTION^NOliniliSNI NVINOSHilW ~ CO ^ CO .4 W O VjfflL P ~ ’vyr o x^ — , ^anxixv^y O 0NZN0lifUllSNl‘JNVIN0SHllWSZS3 I UVB 8 11 B R AR I ES SMITHSONiA ~ Z r~ Z m n “LI B RAR I ES^SMITHSONIAN ""INSTITUTION1” NOliniliSNI NVINOSHilW z \ w ^ w ^ ^ Z CO py co — voTrv O xivov/ _ O d _ x^iixsT^ q ITUTION ^NOlinillSNI^NVINOSHlIIAIS SSlUVBan^LIBRARI ES^ SMITH “ v Z r- 2: doa/qX O CD -^v 2 X O u\ d| ^ £ >W | m JVaan LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN~INSTITUTION‘/>NOIinillSNI_NVINO z . K . — _ z \ in z ITUTION OTN0anilJLSNI_NVIN0SHllWS 33 £00^^ m ^ m >Sss^j-us^- ~ xiOins^x ni w ~ if> ± — co ITUTION NOllfllllSNI NVINOSHJLUAIS S3IBVd8n LIBRARIES SMITH! CO Z __ CD Z ... CO |Jy' v< — ^ — ,/ — o /SjP *2^ 3 . o " _ _ w * ¥ life Jl 8 SLsBr £ > 2 2 Z if) 2 OO avaan libraries Smithsonian institution NoiinuiSNi nvinoi 2 w 2 01 ~ 5 5 o ITUTION 2 NOlirUIXSNI^NVINOSHilWS^SB I bVb aiT^LIBRARI ES^MITH 2 *“ v 2 r- z m 2. *Ov/X _ y 33 — Vz _ _ rn co — co zz avaan_L,BRARIES Smithsonian institution NoiinuiSNi nvino 2 \ co 2 < \s 2 <