QLj Savicultural MAGAZINE VOLUME 106 No. 4 2000 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 for 2000 as for 1999: British Isles £18.00: Overseas £21.00 (plus £6.00 for airmail). (U.K. funds please). 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. Subscription, changes of address, orders for back numbers etc. should be sent to: THE HON. SECRETARY AND TREASURER, THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY, c/o BRISTOL ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS, CLIFTON, BRISTOL BS8 3 HA, ENGLAND. Enquiries regarding membership should be sent to: THE MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY, Stewart Pyper, 21, Primrose Hill, Nunney, Frome, Somerset BA11 4NP. Website: http://www.avisoc.co.uk 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, black and white or colour 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. Tables and graphs will also be used wherever possible but authors should be aware of the constraints of reproduction, particularly regarding the width of the page which is 105mm. ADDRESS OF THE EDITOR Malcolm Ellis, Hon. Editor, The Avicultural Magazine, The Chalet, Hay Farm, St. Breock, Wadebridge, Cornwall PL27 7LL, England. Avicultural Magazine THE JOURNAL OF THE AVICULTURAL SOCIETY Vol. 106 - No. 4 All rights reserved ISSN 0005 2256 2000 THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF AVICULTURE TO CONSERVATION BREEDING OF ESTRILDID FINCHES by Andy C. Birchenough and Stewart M. Evans Introduction Captive breeding may be the last resort for many species which are on the brink of extinction and whose natural habitat is no longer able to sustain them. It has been used successfully to maintain populations of several species, including the Bali Starling or Rothchild’s Myna Leucopsar rothschildi (Taynton & Jeggo, 1988), Hawaiian Goose Branta sandvicensis (Black et al. 1991; Black, 1995), Californian Condor Gymnogyps californianus (Toone & Risser, 1988) and Mauritius Kestrel Falco punctatus (Jones et al. 1995). So far, the prime responsibility for maintaining breeding programmes has fallen on zoological gardens and/or specialist organisations, such as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the International Crane Foundation (Stewart, 1989). However, zoos and wildlife parks have insufficient staff, space and financial resources to cope with the huge range and number of species that are currently endangered, and which could benefit from captive breeding. Even with the enlightened approach to conservation that is now prevalent, the scope for captive breeding is limited. Tudge (1991) estimated that, if all of the world’s zoos collaborated together, it should be possible to establish captive breeding programmes for no more than the 800 species of mammals that will require help in the next 200 years (see also Magin et al. 1994). This would be a commendable achievement, but it is put in perspective by the plight of just one other class of vertebrates, the birds. According to Collar et al. (1994), 1,029 of the 9,000 or so species of land birds are currently at risk, and a further 637 are near-threatened. However, members of many amateur organisations also keep and breed animals in captivity, and several of them cater for species which are not normally given high priority in zoos. The UK-based Australian Finch Society (AFS) is one such organisation. It was founded in 197 1 to cater for hobbyists who are interested in keeping and breeding Australian grassfinches, belonging to the family Estrildidae. There are 19 species (Immelmann, 1965) but, one 146 BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES of them, the Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata, was excluded from the AFS remit from the outset because its interests were catered for by the Zebra Finch Society. However, the AFS subsequently decided to embrace the 11 species of Indo-Pacific and Pacific parrot finches Erythrura spp., which are also members of the Estrildidae (Ziswiler et al. 1972; Evans & Fidler, 1990). Their inclusion was justified because the range of one species, the Blue¬ faced Parrot Finch Erythrura trichroa, includes Cape York, on the north¬ east tip of Australia. There was an international trade in wild-trapped Australian grassfinches prior to the Australian Government’s ban on the export of its native flora and fauna in 1960. Wild-caught birds have not been available since then. Some of the parrot finches are still trapped in the wild in Indonesia and the Philippines and available to aviculturists from these sources. The AFS has some 500-600 members, most of whom are based in the UK. The AFS became interested in establishing conservation breeding programmes for species which are threatened in the wild and those which are endangered in captivity. It set-up the Rare and Difficult Species (RADS) scheme in 1995. Initially, four species were selected for inclusion in the scheme: the Gouldian Finch E. gouldiae, Bamboo Parrot Finch E. hyperythra, Pin-tailed Parrot Finch E. prasina and the Tri-colour Parrot Finch E. tricolor. It was expected to increase this number as the scheme progressed. A specialist group of eight to ten experienced breeders, with one of them acting as Group Manager, was formed for each of the selected species. The objective in each case was to set-up a viable breeding programme for the species and to develop and record husbandry techniques. Special attention was given to the use of studbooks (Olney, 1990). Each bird in the scheme was identified by a special RADS ring, provided by the AFS, and breeding records were collated centrally. They were kept on the Single Population Analysis and Records Keeping System (SPARKS), which has been adopted widely by zoos and wildlife parks. It enables the ancestry of individual birds to be traced, and inbreeding coefficients between potential mates calculated so that pairings between closely-related individuals can be avoided. Group managers were expected to direct exchanges of birds between breeders, in much the same way as happens in programmes operated by zoos. The AFS also recognised the importance of field work, although this was unlikely to be undertaken by many of its members. Nevertheless, it could be encouraged by, for example, support for scientific research to: (i) gain information about food, breeding and habitat requirements of wild birds in order to develop improved husbandry techniques for captive ones; and (ii) provide information on the general ecology of the species in order to assess their conservation status and develop plans for the management of wild populations. BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES 147 It soon became clear that the original formula for RADS was too prescriptive. The procedure of record keeping, in particular, was unrealistic and too demanding for amateur aviculturists, whose main motive in joining the hobby was often in the pleasure derived from keeping captive birds. Another problem was that members of RADS groups were reluctant to exchange birds simply on the instructions of the Group Manager. Furthermore, a relatively small proportion of the AFS was involved in the scheme and it was seen by many members as being elitist. The scheme was therefore revised in 1997 so that all members of the AFS could be involved. It was decided that all species within the AFS remit should be included in the new project, RADS PLUS, so that any member keeping them could be involved. Informal groups dedicated to particular species would be formed but centralised studbooks would not be kept. However, although the more flexible arrangement was expected to bring advantages, there were also disadvantages. For example, the lack of control of stock makes it more difficult to avoid inbreeding. It was argued that the way forward was to educate AFS members, and raise their awareness of bad avicultural practices, so that the AFS as a whole contributed to the conservation effort on a voluntary basis. The object of the present paper is to assess the potential contribution that the AFS can make to the long-term conservation of estrildid finches within RADS PLUS and the changes in husbandry techniques that will be needed if its potential is to be achieved. It is based primarily on a questionnaire, which was sent to all members of the AFS as part of the RADS PLUS initiative, in order to census birds kept and bred by them in 1997 and 1998. This was needed to assess the status of species in captivity, and identify those species which are in need of conservation action either because of their status in captivity or in the wild. The census was also designed to identify some of the husbandry techniques, such as selecting for certain traits, and using Bengalese Finches Lonchura striata dom. as foster parents to rear young, which might be considered to be bad practice as far as conservation breeding is concerned. Methods Questionnaires were sent out to all members of the AFS in March 1998 and February 1999. Each was sent with a stamped addressed envelope for reply as means of encouraging a good response. Members were asked to provide the following information: 1 . The numbers of finches kept at the end of the previous year (December 31st), listing separately adult males, adult females and juveniles in two categories: (i) normals (i.e. the species as it normally occurs in the wild); and (ii) colour varieties that have arisen in captivity. 148 BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES 2. Details of the colour varieties kept (i.e. white-breasted Gouldian Finch, yellow Star Finch Neochmia ruficauda ). 3. The numbers of finches bred (i.e. surviving until fledging) during the previous year. 4. The numbers of Bengalese Finches kept, and the numbers of Australian and parrot finches which were parent-reared or foster-reared by Bengalese Finches. 5 . In the case of Gouldian Finches only, the numbers of normals and colour varieties which were parent-reared or foster-reared by Bengalese Finches. Results 291 questionnaires were completed and returned for 1997 and 190 for 1998, representing 50.2% and 32.8% of the AFS membership respectively. Fourteen of the 19 Australian grassfinches listed by Immelmann (1965) and eight out of the 11 parrot finches (Ziswiler et al. 1972) were kept by at least some members of the AFS in both 1997 and 1998. The Gouldian Finch was easily the most commonly kept species. It was included in more than 70% of the returns in both years (Table 1). There were more than 3,500 Gouldians in 1997 and 1998, averaging more than 20 of these finches per breeder. Large numbers of them were also bred in both years of the census. The Longtail Finch Poephila acuticauda , Star Finch N. ruficauda, Bicheno Taeniopygia bichenovii, Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata. Cherry Finch N. modesta. Chestnut-breasted Mannikin Lonchura castaneothorax, Parson’s Finch P. cincta and Masked Finch P. personata of the Australian grassfinches, and the Red-headed Parrot Finch E. psittacea. Blue-faced Parrot Finch and Tri-coloured Parrot Finch, are also well- established in captivity. In each case, more than 10 breeders kept the species, more than 100 individuals of that species were owned by them and more than 50 birds were bred per year. The status of other species in captivity is probably less secure. This applied to five Australian finches, the Crimson Finch N. phaeton, Painted Finch Emblema picta. Red-browed Finch N. temporalis, Yellow-rumped Mannikin L. flavipryma and Pictorella Mannikin Heteromunia pectoralis, and five parrot finches, the Pin-tailed, Bamboo, Peale’s E. pealii, Katanglad E. coloria and Papuan E. papuana. They were kept by more than 10 breeders, who between them owned over 100 birds, and over 25 young were bred per year. Each of the three naturally-occurring head colour morphs of the Gouldian Finch is kept in captivity, although the relative proportions in which they are kept by AFS members is different from those in which they occur in the wild. About 75% of individuals in the wild are black-headed, and 25% are red-headed; the yellow-headed morph is unusual (Evans et al. 1985, Evans & Fidler, 1986). Roughly one third of the captive population was red-headed BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES 149 Table 1 . The numbers of AFS members keeping finches, numbers kept by them and numbers bred in 1997 and 1998. Numbers of breeders 1997 1998 Numbers of finches kept 1997 1998 Numbers of finches bred 1997 1998 Australian Grassfinches Gouldian Finch 206 142 4868 3581 3432 2744 Longtail Finch 83 63 870 628 769 362 Star Finch 73 51 615 326 388 174 Bicheno 69 47 626 266 426 169 Diamond Firetail 55 36 335 235 211 130 Cherry Finch 54 32 414 190 403 96 Chestnut-breasted Mannikin 36 30 225 216 141 126 Parson’s Finch 36 22 189 105 166 108 Masked Finch 25 13 193 110 139 58 Crimson Finch 8 8 33 27 6 4 ! Painted Finch 7 7 36 44 15 0 Red-browed Finch 10 4 37 27 10 9 i Yellow-ramped Mannikin 7 4 20 13 5 0 Pictorella Mannikin 4 3 24 17 6 1 Parrot Finches Red-headed Parrot Finch 59 43 461 330 323 123 Blue-faced Parrot Finch 47 37 322 186 153 100 Tri-coloured Parrot Finch 44 25 354 205 11 96 Pin-tailed Parrot Finch 26 15 151 56 39 13 Bamboo Parrot Finch 18 11 88 65 20 23 i Peale’s Parrot Finch 8 5 66 49 11 19 Katanglad Parrot Finch 2 3 10 32 0 0 Papuan Parrot Finch 1 2 37 11 16 2 and more than 15% was yellow-headed (Table 2). The differences in wild and captive populations were significant in both 1997 and 1998 (PcO.OOl in both cases; Chi-square Test). Several colour varieties have arisen in captivity. They have been grouped together in Table 2 because there is inconsistency in the descriptive names given to them by breeders. It is clear, nevertheless, that a range of colour morphs have been established in the Gouldian Finch. The white-breasted form is commonly kept but a number of other morphs, affecting breast, wing and general body colouration, are now available. Roughly one third of Gouldian Finches in captivity in 1997 and 1998 expressed at least one of these colour mutations. There are also colour 150 BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES varieties of other species. Some of them, especially those of the Long-tail Finch, Star Finch, Diamond Firetail, Parson’s Finch and Red-headed Parrot Finch, are well-established in captivity. Table 2. The occurrence of naturally-occurring colour morphs and colour varieties which have been established in captivity in stock kept by members of AFS. Colour variety Numbers kept 1997 1998 Percent kept of total birds 1997 1998 Naturally-occurring morphs Australian Grassfinches Gouldian Finch Black-headed 1111 734 47.7 48.3 Red-headed 845 517 36.3 34.1 Yellow-headed 375 269 16.1 17.6 Domestically established varieties Australian Grassfinches Gouldian Finch Body colour 1318 1338 27.1 37.4 Long-tail Finch Body colour 98 101 11.3 16.1 Star Finch Body coloured/pied 148 121 24.1 37.1 Diamond Firetail Body colour 69 69 4.9 10.6 Chestnut-breasted Mannikin Body colour 11 23 10.6 13.3 Parson’s Finch Body colour 20 14 166 108 Crimson Finch Body colour 2 2 6.1 7.4 Parrot Finches Red-headed Parrot Finch Body colour/pied 58 93 12.6 28.2 Blue-faced Parrot Finch Body colour 20 3 6.2 1.6 Table 3. The use of Bengalese finches as foster parents. 1997 1998 Numbers of breeders keeping Bengalese Finches 137 102 Percent breeders keeping Bengalese Finches as a percent of total breeders 47.1 53.7 Mean number of Bengalese Finches kept per breeder 26.2 22.3 Number of breeders using Bengalese Finches as foster parents 124 82 Numbers of breeders using Bengalese Finches as foster parents as percent of those keeping them 90.5 80.4 Percent of wild-type (normal) Gouldian Finches foster-reared by Bengalese Finches 33.9 26.6 Percent of domestically-established colour varieties of the Gouldian Finch foster-reared by Bengalese Finches 54.5 53.9 BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES 151 Approximately half the AFS members kept Bengalese Finches, and most of them used these finches as foster parents for rearing Australian finches or parrot finches; more than 40% of the finches bred in 1997 and 1998 were reared by them (Table 3). At least in the case of the Gouldian Finch, there was the tendency for the more valuable (domestically-arising) colour varieties to be foster-reared than wild type (normal) birds; more than 50% of the Gouldian Finches of the various colour varieties were reared by Bengalese Finches, compared with less than 40% of wild-type birds. Discussion Amateur aviculture has the potential to make an enormous contribution to conservation breeding of birds, and therefore to the maintenance of bird biodiversity. Members of the AFS constitute a specialist, and numerically small section of the avicultural hobby, and yet they have the skills and commitment to maintain the large majority of Australian grassfinches in captivity. These species have been established without any recourse to wild- caught birds for more than 40 years, that is, since the Australian Government’s 1960 ban on the export of indigenous flora and fauna. AFS members have been almost as successful with parrot finches, although several species are not yet fully established in captivity. Although the AFS restricts itself to two groups only of the Estrildidae, there is little doubt that, given the same commitment and a larger membership, it could establish possibly all of the 120 or so species in the family (Goodwin, 1982) in captivity. Interestingly, Australian aviculturists have been as successful as their European counterparts in breeding estrildids. They have established several of the Asian and African species, which were imported into their country before 1960, but became unavailable as wild-caught birds after that date (Evans & Fidler, 1990). It should be noted that estrildids are not normally kept in significant numbers in zoos, or even specialist bird gardens, so the contribution is in addition to existing conservation efforts. Furthermore, since the costs are borne by the hobby, they compare highly favourably with the huge costs of many professional conservation programmes (eg. Kleimann etal. 1991). However, amateur aviculture is currently unfocused, as far as conservation breeding is concerned. Aviculturists keep and breed whichever species appeal to them. The information provided in the census presents an opportunity for them to decide to concentrate on species which are in need of attention because they are threatened in captivity and/or in the wild. Three of the species currently kept by AFS members are globally threatened: Gouldian Finch, Star Finch and Katanglad Parrot Finch (Collar et al. 1994). In addition, two species are near- threatened: the Pictorella Mannikin and Yellow-ramped Mannikin. The Gouldian Finch and Star Finch are both 152 BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES secure in captivity, although captive populations of both of them have been ‘corrupted’ by colour mutants (see below). Conversely, there are few members of the AFS who keep the three remaining species, the Katanglad Parrot Finch, Pictorella Mannikin and Yellow-rumped Mannikin. Each of them was included in small numbers only in the census returns, and were bred infrequently. In fact, there were no breeding records at all of Katanglad Parrot Finches in either 1997 or 1998. There is a clear need to concentrate on these species, and groups are being established within the RADS PLUS to cater for them. A specialist group is also being formed to breed strains of wild-type Gouldian Finches, in which the various colour mutants will be selected out (P. Holland pers. comm.). There are, nevertheless, three important respects in which the husbandry practices in the AFS differ from those practised in the conservation breeding programmes that are operated by zoos and wildlife gardens. Each of them need to be addressed if aviculture is to realise its potential in captive breeding. The first concern is that most of the major zoo conservation breeding programmes depend heavily on detailed record keeping based on studbooks, computer analysis of kinship and mechanisms for identifying and exchanging unrelated birds, in order to avoid inbreeding and retain genetic diversity in the stock (Ballou & Lacy, 1995). Experiences in the AFS RADS Scheme suggest that this level of record-keeping is not feasible in an amateur hobby. However, the huge commitment of human resources in the professional programmes must also be a concern for them. In fact, less demanding, low intensity management techniques have been developed for species that are maintained in social groups or colonies and for which detailed pedigree data cannot therefore be collected (Burlingham-Johnson et al. 1994; Princee, 1995). These techniques are probably more appropriate for aviculture (and, due to lack of resources, possibly some zoos as well). They ensure that at least some attention is given to procedures which promote the maintenance of genetic diversity, such as outbreeding stock and ensuring that as many individuals as possible have the opportunity to reproduce. The second concern is that aviculturists are artificially selecting for particular traits in their stock and this will eventually lead to the morphological, behavioural or physiological changes that have occurred in other domestic animals (Hafez, 1969). The result is that, like the domestic fowl and the canary, they come to bear little resemblance to their wild counterparts. The domestication process is still in its infancy in captive estrildids but is, nevertheless, occurring. The clearest example of artificial selection relates to the selective breeding for particular head colour morphs in the Gouldian Finch. Yellow-headed morphs are rare in the wild but have increased significantly in captivity, representing almost 20% of the Gouldian Finches included in the censuses for 1997 and 1998. There is also selection BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES 153 for colour morphs which have arisen in captivity. Only one colour morph of the Gouldian Finch, the white-breasted form, had been established in captivity in the mid-1980s (Evans & Fidler, 1986) but several different colour varieties are now available. There are also morphs of the most of the Australian grassfinches and parrot finches that are well-established in captivity. Selective pressure for them is evidently high because the percentage numbers of colour morphs in the census returns for 1998 were higher than those for 1997 in eight of the nine species in which they were reported. There is some hybridisation between species. Immelmann (1965) lists many of those that have occurred between species of Australian grassfinches. They occur most frequently between closely-related species, and he cites a successful mating between the Gouldian Finch and the Blue¬ faced Parrot Finch as evidence that they are close relatives. Unfortunately, many of these hybrids are fertile and they can blur species distinctions if they are allowed to interbreed with the ‘true’ species. It is reported that this has happened in Australia where aviculturists have, since the 1960 import ban, maintained the three African cordon bleus : the Red-cheeked Cordon Bleu Uraeginthus bengalus, Blue-capped Cordon Bleu U. cyanocephalus and Blue-breasted Cordon Bleu U. angolensis. They have been interbred and it is said that almost all birds now have characteristics of at least two of the species. The third concern relates to the widespread use of Bengalese Finches as foster parents. It is generally recognised that these foster parents have been invaluable in establishing estrildid species in captivity (M.E. Fidler pers. comm.). However, they are still used extensively and, as the census has shown in the case of the Gouldian Finch, they are used to increase production from valued birds. This is bad avicultural practice because it reduces the numbers of birds that are reproducing and contributing to the gene pool, and therefore the genetic diversity of the captive population. It also encourages the rate at which mutant genes can spread through the population. The white-breasted colour variety was introduced into the UK from South Africa in 1969 and 1970. The introduced birds were valuable and were interbred with wild- type birds. Numbers of offspring were increased by fostering clutches of eggs under Bengalese Finches and, a decade later, almost 20% of the Gouldian Finches kept by leading breeders were white-breasted (Evans & Fidler, 1986). Avicultural bodies must also look to collaborate closely with scientists and organisations which specialise in captive breeding. Mallinson (1991) has argued strongly for increased partnership between zoos, local governments and non-governmental organisations, and strong links would be equally beneficial for aviculture. Similar collaboration has occurred between professional and amateur ornithologists, often with spectacular 154 BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES results in projects, such as those involved in the Birds of Estuaries Enquiry (Prater, 1981) and in producing the Atlas of Australian Birds (Blakers et al. 1986) . However, collaboration with avicultural organisations has undoubtedly been inhibited in the past by the poor profile generated by their supposed dependence on the pet trade to obtain birds. Unsavoury aspects of the international trade in wild-caught birds (Carter & Curry, 1987; Beissinger et al. 1991) and the damage caused by bird-trapping to wild populations, especially of parrots (Collar & Juniper, 1991), are unacceptable to most, perhaps all, scientists. Wisely, therefore, the AFS has disassociated itself from the bird trade and has publicly spoken out against it. Since doing so, it has strengthened its links with the scientific community. For instance, the RADS Scheme, and the census reported here which is part of RADS PLUS, is due in large part to collaboration with Newcastle University scientists. The AFS has also supported their field studies of estrildid finches in the Kimberley region of northern Australia (Evans et al. 1985; Evans & Bougher, 1987) , and these have subsequently formed the basis of a monitoring programme of Gouldian Finch abundance undertaken by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. The AFS and Newcastle University are still involved and the most recent (1999) Kimberley finch counts involved a group of AFS members. Additional scientific work has been sponsored on the Samoan subspecies of the Royal Parrot Finch E. cyaneovirens in Western Samoa in 1993 (Evans et al. 1994), on the Tri-colour Parrot Finch E. tricolor in Timor (Indonesia) in 1996 (Madden et al. 1997), on the Vanuatuan subspecies of the Royal Parrot Finch E. cyaneovirens in Vanuatu in 1998 (Birchenough & Evans in preparation) and on the Pink-billed Parrot Finch E. kleinschmidti in Fiji in 2000. Harewood Bird Gardens is also involved in the research in the South Pacific. The AFS is now contributing to the work of the UK Zoo Federation’s Passerine Taxon Advisory Group. An Estrildid Working Group, on which the AFS is represented, has been formed, and has held two meetings, in 1999 and 2000. Acknowledgements We would like to thank innumerable members of the Australian Finch Society for their support. Percy Holland and Mike Fidler, in particular, have always provided stimulating discussion and encouragement. Percy is leading RADS PLUS and deserves every success. We would also like to thank Simon Tonge for his constructive criticism of an earlier version of this article. References Ballou, J.D. and Lacy, R.C. 1995. Identifying genetically important individuals for management of genetic variation in pedigreed populations. In: Population Management for Survival and Recovery , pp. 76-111. Eds. Ballou, J.D., Gilpin, M. and Foose, T.J. Columbia University BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES 155 Press, New York. Beissinger, S.R., Snyder, N.F.R., Derrickson, S.R., James, F.C. and Lanyon, S.M. 1991. The conservation crisis. International trade in live birds creates a vast movement that must be halted. Auk 108: 982-994. Black, S.M. 1995. The Nene Branta sandvicensis. Recovery initiative: research against extinction. Ibis 137: S153-S160. Black, S.M., Duvall, F., Hoshide, H., Madeiros, J., Hodges, C.N., Santos, N. and Telfer, T. 1991. The current status of the Hawaiian goose Branta sandvicensis and its recovery programme. Wildfowl 42: 149-154. B lakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. 1984. The Atlas of Australian Birds. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Burlingham-Johnson, A., Clarke, D. and Pearce-Kelly, P. 1994. CERCI: a computer system for demographic and genetic analysis of captive invertebrates, fish and other populations of colony animals. International Zoo Yearbook 33: 278-283. Carter, N. and Curry, D. 1987. The Trade in Wildlife. Mortality and Transport Conditions. Environmental Investigation Agency, Calvert Press. Collar, N.J. and Juniper, A.T. 1991 . Dimensions and causes of the parrot crisis. In: New World Parrots in Crisis: Solutions from Conservation Biology. Eds. Beissinger, S.R. and Snyder, N.F.R. Smithsonian International Press, Washington. D.C. Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. and Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds to Watch 2. The World List of Threatened Birds. BirdLife International, Cambridge. Evans, S.M. & Bougher, A.J. 1987. The abundance of estrildid finches at waterholes in the Kimberley (W.A.). Emu 87: 101-104. Evans, S.M. and Fidler, M.E. 1986. The Gouldian Finch. Blandford Press, Poole, New York, Sydney. Evans, S.M. and Fidler, M.E. 1990. Parrot Finches. The Aviculturist’s Guide. Blandford, London. Evans, S.M., Collins, J.A., Evans, R. and Miller, S. 1985. Patterns of drinking behaviour in some Australian estrildine finches. Ibis 127: 348-354. Evans, S.M., Fletcher, F.J.C., Loader, P.J. and Rooksby, F.G. 1992. Habitat exploitation by landbirds in the changing Western Samoan environment. Bird Conservation International 2: 123-129. Goodwin, D. 1982. Estrildid Finches of the World. British Museum (Natural History), Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hafez, E.S.E. 1969. The Behaviour of Domestic Animals. Bailliere, Tindall and Cassell, London. Immelmann, K. 1965. Australian Finches in Bush and Aviary. Angus and Robertson, Sydney and London. Jones, C.G., Heck, W., Lewis, R.E., Mungovo, Y., Slade, G. and Cade, T. 1995. The restoration of the Mauritius Kestrel Falco punctatus population. Ibis 137: S173-S180. Kleiman, D.G., Beck, B.B., Dietz, J.D. and Dietz, L.A. 1991. Costs of reintroduction and criteria for success: accounting and accountability in the golden lion tamarin conservation programme. In: Beyond Captive Breeding: Reintroducing Endangered Species to the Wild, pp. 125-142. Ed. Gipps, J.H.W. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Madden, J., Bird, C., Williams, S. and Retraubun, A. 1997. Threats to estrildid finches of West Timor. Grassfinch 21: 95-98. Magin, C.D., Johnsong, T.H., Groombridge, B., Jenkins, M. and Smith, H. 1994. Species extinctions, endangerment and captive breeding. In: Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals, pp. 3-31. Eds. Olney, P.J.S., Mace, G.M. andFeistner, A.T.C. Chapman and Hall, London. Olney, P.J.S. 1990. Studbooks, their history, organisation and uses. In: Pheasants in Asia 1989. Eds. Hill, D.A., Garson, P.J. and Jenkins, D. World Pheasant Association, Reading. Prater, A.J. 1981. Estuary Birds of Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, Calton. 156 BIRCHENOUGH & EVANS - ESTRILDID FINCHES Princee, F.P.G. 1995. Overcoming the constraints of social structure and incomplete pedigree data through low-intensity genetic management. In: Population Management for Survival and Recovery, pp. 124-154. Eds. Ballou, J.D., Gilpin, M. and Foose, T.J. Columbia University Press, New York. Stewart, J.M. 1989. The ‘lily of birds’: the success story of the Siberian white crane. Oryx 21: 6-10. Taynton, K. and Jeggo, D. 1988. Factors affecting breeding success of Rothschild’s Mynah Leucospar rothschildi at the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust. Dodo Journal of the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust 25: 66-76. Toone, W.D. and Risser, A.C. 1988. Captive management of the California Condor Gymnogyps calif ornianus. International Zoo Yearbook 27: 50-57. Tudge, C. 1991. Last Animals at the Zoo. Hutchinson Radius. London, Sydney, Auckland, Johannesburg. Ziswiler, V., Guttinger, H.R. and Bregulla, H. 1972. Monographic der gattung Erythrura Swainson 1873 (Aves, Passeres, Estrildidae). Bonner Zoologische Monographien No. 2. Dr Stewart Evans is a Senior Lecturer at Newcastle University, Department of Marine Sciences and Coastal Management, Dove Marine Laboratory, Cullercoats, North Shields, Tyne and Wear NE30 4PZ, England. He is also President of the Australian Finch Society. With Anthony J. Bougher, he wrote Field and aviary notes on the behaviour of the Crimson Finch Neochima phaeton in the Avicultural Magazine 92,3:143-147. Andy Birchenough is a postgraduate research student reading for a PhD. BREEDING THE WHITE-BREASTED AMAZILIA Amazilia amazilia leucophoea 157 by Ivor Grogan In spring 1990, the female White-breasted Amazilia was living in a flight in a lean-to conservatory aviary designed and built five years earlier for the keeping of nectar-feeding birds. The aviary itself is 12ft long x 3ft wide x 7ft 6in high (approx. 3.6m long x 1m wide x 2.2m high). The bottom 2ft (61cm) is walled-up and has a Sin (12.5cm) layer of pea shingle, on top of which is an 18in (46cm) layer of soil and compost, retained within a pond liner which has a hole in it beneath which is a drain. Ficus, dracena, jasmine and bellbine are planted in the aviary. It is wired on one side only as it is connected to the kitchen window, the idea being that the birds can be seen without the view being obstructed by wire. The glass-covered side backs onto not only the office but the access to the garden and the bird sheds, while on the other side there is an outside toilet and another shed. The planting of the aviary has been done in such a way that the birds cannot gather enough speed to fly in a straight line and strike the glass. Within the first year some of the plants growing by the glass had to be replaced by artificial plants because the sun burnt them and they died. The inside of the aviary is sprayed most days and a large flower pot saucer, on an up-turned log, acts as a bath. As there is a considerable number of visitors, new arrivals are not put into aviaries here until they have become accustomed to humans being near them when they are feeding, etc., but are tended to and left in peace until they settle down. They are caged separately and placed in the office where the temperature can be more accurately controlled, and the cages are cleaned out only when it is really necessary. The female White-breasted Amazilia was brought back from the continent along with some other hummingbirds and sunbirds, plus some finches, three years ago. She was so young that she still had gape marks on the sides of the bill. Although I stated earlier that birds are on arriving caged separately, some species can be mixed, but in my experience often for no longer than a maximum of two to three days. Initially the female was caged with two others that needed watching, and they were checked every few hours of the day and night, and for the first 24 hours were fed by hand with a quite strong nectar mixture. When the birds were being sorted out for that year’s National Exhibition of Cage and Aviary Birds, the decision was taken that she and three others were too young to travel again or be passed on to other bird keepers, so they were left behind. After the National Exhibition things become quiet here for about two months and there was time to reflect and plan what to do next, now that my hobby was turning into a business. 158 GROGAN - WHITE-BREASTED AMAZILIA In the next few months, as their condition improved, the three birds took on characters of their own. However, we made sure they did not become too inactive, as hummingbirds can if caged. To help guard against this we pushed grapes between the cage wires and sprayed the birds daily. The policy here is that birds have to adapt to living together in as near harmony as possible. As hummingbirds and sunbirds are so territorial, in the aviary in question nine nectar tubes were placed at various heights, with some hidden behind plants. The female White-breasted Amazilia was for sale but no one was interested, probably because of her small size and dull coloration, so in December 1998 she was placed in the aviary along with two Violet-eared Colibri thalassinus, a Ruby-Topaz Chrysolampis mosquitus, a Blue-throated Sapphire Chlorostilbon notatus, another Amazilia Amazilia spp., plus a Burnished Buff Tanager Tangara cay ana, a pair of Splendid Sunbirds Nectarinia coccinigastra, a pair of Scarlet-chested Sunbirds N. senegalensis and a Ruby-cheeked Sunbird Anthreptes singalensis. All were placed in the aviary at the same time in the hope that this would minimise territorial disputes. The tanager though decided it was going to build a nest in the middle of the aviary and had to be removed, as all hell broke loose whenever any other bird went near where it was building. In March 1999 the female White-bellied Amazilia started to build a nest in the most exposed part of the aviary, in a canary coconut nest-pan intended for the sunbirds. It was attached to a cut wigela branch suspended from a post on the wired side of the aviary. As the branch dried out it twisted around so that the nest-pan was almost. on its side. It bothered me that no fresh cobwebs were available, leaving me to provide old ones, along with dog hair, cotton wool, horse hair and kapok from the lining of a coat. The female used the cotton wool to make a cup-shaped nest which was only about Vun (6mm) high when the first egg was laid. A bit more building work took place before the second egg appeared. Despite not having a male, I checked the eggs just in case she may have mated with one of the other male hummingbirds in the aviary. I rang everyone I could think of in the UK who might be able to help me obtain a male, but without success. So I then switched my search to Belgium. Three weeks later I found someone in the UK with a male. However, he wanted it for showing and was not willing to sell it. He did though loan it to me and though it was in show condition, appeared not to be in breeding condition and was returned a month later. Much to the amusement of bird keepers who visited here, the female continued her nesting behaviour until midsummer and laid two single eggs which showed signs of being fertile, but failed to hatch. In late October I received a phone call to say that a consignment of hummingbirds from Peru were due to arrive in Belgium. Three weeks later I received a call to say that the birds had left Peru and two days later GROGAN - WHITE-BREASTED AMAZILIA 159 learnt that they had arrived in Belgium. Twelve hours later I was standing in the dealer’s premises in Belgium and was surprised to see these amazing little birds in such numbers - 30 of one species, 10 of another, and so on. I selected three males as possible mates for my female. One was very young, one was about two years old and the third was a brilliantly coloured older bird. I returned home to England hoping that the birds would come through their quarantine in Belgium without any problems. As always things did not go according to plan, a week later I received a phone call with the bad news that the second of my males had died. I turned down the chance of a replacement, deciding instead to stick with the two males I had already paid for, although I realised this might create a problem. As soon as they had completed their quarantine, I gathered together the paperwork and made arrangements to travel to Belgium to collect them, praying that the French would not blockade the port of Calais when we were travelling home, as they had done on previous trips. We had no desire to get stuck abroad, with delicate hummingbirds that required nectar about every twenty minutes and heated accommodation. Also, I had been stopped no less than eight times before when leaving France, once even being escorted to the Customs because of confusion over the identity of one of the species I was bringing back to England, a misunderstanding which had taken six hours to resolve. This time thankfully there were no such difficulties and we soon reached Dover where we were held up at Customs for just 10 minutes, before driving home at great speed and arriving back some five hours after leaving Belgium. The week before Christmas the birds had already been taken out of the aviary ready for the National Exhibitions in England, Scotland and Wales, leaving the female White-bellied Amazilia with the flight all to herself. The birds did amazingly well on the show bench and the first to be returned to the aviary was the female Scarlet-chested Sunbird. She had been back in the aviary for all of five minutes when she had to be removed again because although the sunbird was at least twice as big as the hummingbird, she was being attacked by it. It was decided to leave the hummingbird in the aviary on her own. Then in early January one of the males was introduced into the aviary. I wondered how long it was likely to be before I would have to get into the aviary to separate them, which would not be easy as it was designed without a door, and has to be entered by climbing in through a window ! I stood back and waited to see what would happen but much to my surprise, the female sat at one end of the aviary and the male sat at the other. This went on for two days, before I removed the male and and replaced him with the oldest of the original three. In the meantime the female had started nest building in earnest. 160 GROGAN - WHITE-BREASTED AMAZILIA I shall never forget the pair trying to display is such a small area. After an hour or so though they ended up on the floor of the aviary, spinning around in circles like two fighting cocks. This lasted about two minutes and stopped just as the decision was being taken to intervene and separate them. After this I thought it was the end of trying to get her to live with the male, but how wrong could I be! I have never seen them fight again. Further flying displays were seen and on the third day I witnessed them mating. Following the mating I thought it best to remove the male, but he failed to settle down back in a cage and two days later was returned to the aviary. Within seconds of being returned to the aviary the male showed renewed interest in the female, but she saw him off. There was no fighting though and after five minutes they stopped chasing each other and started to display. After doing this periodically for 20 minutes, the female alighted on a branch, having first taken a sip of nectar from one of the tubes, while the male perched at the other end of the aviary. The female started to bow and as if by invitation the male perched beside her and then mating took place. This behaviour always followed the same pattern. She would mount him and then fly a short distance (about 2in (5cm)) and then allow him to copulate with her. This happened speedily after which they would part and then keep their distance from each other. After about an hour the male was removed for a while. On the fourth day the female laid her first egg followed two days later by another on January 15th. Neither hatched. Following this the plants in the flight were rearranged, some being pruned and others moved. Because of concern that the female would lay another clutch without having mated, the nest was destroyed. February 1st the male was reintroduced in an all- wire finch cage and was released from this. The female was still exploring the rearranged aviary but as soon as the male was reintroduced the birds started to display again. The male mated with the female and was removed after two hours. Next day he was reintroduced and because the female was nest building quickly, was not taken out until two days later. During the visit of a friend who doubted my claim that I was attempting to breed hummingbirds, I reintroduced the male into the brightly lit aviary and the friend was able to witness the birds displaying and mating three times within 20 minutes, by which time it was 6.00pm and dark outside. The male was removed at 8.00pm and returned again the next day because the female was building the nest very quickly. He was removed again about 3.00pm. The female’s flight changed slowly during the next few days and by Sunday was more butterfly-like and graceful and elegant, and, as she twisted and turned it was possible to see all the glittering feathers as never before. The male has a helmeted crest seen only when he is displaying. When changing the bird’s bath water that Sunday I stood on something to take a sneak look into the nest and to my great delight there was a GROGAN - WHITE-BREASTED AMAZILIA 161 translucent pink egg in the saucer-shaded nest of white dog hair and cotton wool. When I checked the nest on Tuesday there were two eggs, the first of which had started to turn white. The following day the female was sitting high in the flight with her plumage fluffed- up. I did not panic as if you do you often make mistakes, instead I watched her carefully during the morning to make sure she was feeding, and when I was satisifed about this, left her in peace. That afternoon I was visited by a lady from MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fish & Food), who came to stamp my licences. She took an interest in the birds, having previously only seen hummingbirds on TV, and felt I should not be surprised by the female's ‘rough5 appearance and suggested that a small bird laying two such large eggs must be equivalent to a woman giving birth to a 501b (22kg) baby! The next morning, to my utmost delight, I found that the female was sitting on the eggs in the nest. She was sitting in earnest and came off about once an hour for seven minutes, with this lengthening over the next few days. She bathed in the evening. As incubation progressed, she spent longer periods off the nest. It was decided to cover the aviary windows with dark cloth in case she was frightened by anything. The kitchen window and the wired side of the aviary were left uncovered though, as she was used to the three dogs in the yard at night next to her flight. The temperature of the flight had risen to 78°F (25.6°C) since January and I sprayed the aviary to increase the humidity. During the following days when the sun came out though, the temperature at the nest site got up to 84°F (28.9°C) and at night fell as low as 66°F (18.9°C) - and the fan heater blew-up due to the condensation. The weather was quite warm on February 10th and the female was staying off the nest for approximately half an hour at a time, so in the afternoon when she was feeding, 13 days after incubation commenced, I checked the eggs. It was the first time she had been vocal throughout the incubation. Neither egg had hatched, though one looked as so it might be on the point of pipping. The next day curiosity again got the better of me and I got a severe vocal reprimand from the female when I went into the aviary again. In the nest was a chick with an orange yellow face and feet and a slate grey back. Hatching had taken 15 days from when the female began sitting in earnest, and 19 days from when the first egg was laid. I added a quantity of a probiotic and SMA gold milk powder to the nectar mixture. Two days later I checked the nest again and there was a second chick about half the size of its older sibling. After about a week the two chicks were nearly the same size. The temperature settled down to an average 78°F (25.6°C). The humidity continued to be kept high to encourage the fruit flies to breed. Up to U/2 in (4.5cm) high the nest was a work of art woven from cotton wool and dog hair and it was amazing how as the female 162 GROGAN - WHITE-BREASTED AMAZILIA sat on the nest, she pulled nest material towards her as so she was tucking the chicks in. As the chicks grew larger, the female caught increasing numbers of fruit flies, feeding twice an hour and catching nearly 50 at a time which she regurgitated an fed to the chicks. The lights were left on throughout the night, and on at least one occasion the female was continuing to catch fruit flies at 1.00am. The female tolerated me, visitors, the dogs, and even a Blackbird Turdus merula banging about on the plastic roof of the aviary. March 3rd the female stopped brooding the chicks and took up a position above the nest. The next day the bath water was replaced by a small dish of water on the window sill. March 6th the first chick’s eyes opened and both chicks started to take on a hedgehog-like look as their pin-feathers started to emerge. The colour of their faces was changing from bright orange to pink and their beaks had turned light pink with a black tip, the inside of their beaks though remained brilliant orange. Their feet had changed from orange to light pinkish white. Their backs were grey in places while the wings were light grey with white tips. March 9th the first chick exercised its wings after being fed. It hung one wing over the side of the nest and propelled it amazingly fast, then did the same with the other wing. March 10th the female was seen with her eyes closed for the first time and the chicks, which were now larger than her, were beginning to get longer more typical hummingbird-like beaks. GROGAN - WHITE-BREASTED AMAZILIA 163 Ivor Grogan One chick sitting on top of nest, other in nest Ivor Grogan Similar view at a later stage 164 GROGAN - WHITE-BREASTED AMAZILIA March 14th the eldest chick left the nest. The second chick was not yet ready to leave and the female was feeding it three times as often as she was feeding the eldest chick. She spent a lot of time encouraging the chicks to leave the nest and called loudly if she thought there was a threat to them. Although the female had been in captivity for three years, she obviously retained many of her wild traits. Although large quantities of fruit-flies were taken when the chicks were being reared, they were not taken to the extent that had been envisaged. March 20th the eldest chick was seen feeding on its own while perched. The second chick was not developing as quickly as its older sibling and was hand fed for two days while remaining perched in the aviary. Subsequently sexed and found to be a female, it soon gained confidence and began to feed from a perch as its older sibling, found to be a male, was already doing. March 29th the breeding male was returned to the aviary, as the female was rebuilding at the same site, and was left there for 24 hours before he had to be removed because of his amorous advances towards the female chick. I hope to eventually breed from the chicks and with this in mind acquired a year old female at a show recently. Diary of events January 15th January 18th Jan. 20th - Feb. 5th February 6th February 8th February 10th February 24th February 26th March 3rd March 4th March 6th March 10th March 11th March 14th March 20th March 21st March 23rd March 29th March 31st April 1st Male introduced to the female. Male removed as he appears to be losing too much weight. Male put in with female for two hours every day. First egg laid. Second egg laid. Female commences incubation, but continues building the nest for the next four days. First chick hatches. Second chick hatches at 10.00am. This chick was fed before it had fully emerged from the egg. The female consumes nectar, then 30-50 fruit-flies and then nectar again, before feeding the chicks. The temperature at the nest-site is 78°F (27°C). The female stopped brooding the chicks. Bath removed in case of accident. Chicks’ eyes open. Oldest chick exercises its wings. Flight feathers emerge from sheaths. Oldest chick leaves nest. Oldest chick feeds from perch. Youngest chick leaves nest. Both chicks test their wings. First chick feeds on the wing. Youngest chick flying but is not as strong as its sibling. Youngest chick feeds on the wing. As both chicks are feeding on their own they are removed from the aviary. 165 NOTES ON KEEPING AND BREEDING THE ELEGANT PITTA Pitta elegans by Theo Pagel Introduction At the beginning of April Cologne Zoo opened its new tropical house called The Rainforest. It is a complex of about 2,000 sq m. (approx. 21,500 sq ft) in which we give visitors an impression of the flora and fauna of an Asian rainforest. In it we keep insects, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. It is a combination of a walk-through aviary and separate enclosures. We have already been quite lucky with the successes we have achieved in this new house. We have bred fishes, reptiles and birds. In this article I provide details about keeping and breeding the Elegant Pitta Pitta elegans. Systematics Pittas belong to the family Pittidae of the Order Passeriformes. Depending upon which classification you follow there are one to six genera and about 30 species with several subspecies. The Elegant Pitta has the following subspecies: P. e. elegans, P. e. virginalis, P. e. vigorsii, P e. hutzi, P e. concinna and P e. maria. They differ from each other in distribution, size and coloration (for details see Erritzoe and Boullet-Erritzoe, 1998). Description Adult: length 155mm- 190mm (just over 6in-7V2in) depending on the subspecies; wing 1 08mm- 1 19mm; bill 28mm-39mm; tarsus 35mm-37.5mm; weight 48-63g (Lambert and Woodcock, 1996). Both sexes have a black cap, with a beige coloured stripe above the eyes, shading to bluish-white behind the eyes, in the case of P. e. concinna; the sides of the head, neck and throat are black. The back and wings are green, with azure-blue lesser wing- coverts (like many other pittas); the short tail is dark green. The breast and flanks are warm cinnamon; the belly and under tail-coverts are red. The bill is black, the eyes brown, and the legs beige. Nestling: (previously undescribed) blackish with dark legs and bill (see photo p.166). Juvenile (fledgling): a little smaller than adult, bill dark beige with some red; lighter ring around eyes; otherwise, all in all, not that light and with the back more or less blackish (see photo p.167). PAGEL - ELEGANT PITTA Theo Pagel Nest of Elegant Pitta Theo Pagel Egg of Elegant Pitta Theo Pagel Nestling at about 10 days old PAGEL - ELEGANT PITTA 167 Theo Pagel The first fledged Elegant Pitta at Cologne Zoo Distribution The Elegant Pitta is an Indonesian endemic, occurring on the Moluccas, Sulawesi, Lesser Sunda Islands and Penida (for the distribution of the races see Erritzoe and Boullet-Erritzoe, 1998). Status Most accounts suggest that the Elegant Pitta is a widespread and relatively common species. On Sumba in the mid-1990s it was estimated that there was a population of about 1 1 ,000 birds. Only in some parts of its distribution is it uncommon or rare, as for example on Flores. Habitat The Elegant Pitta can be found in different forested habitats, from dry monsoon woodlands to the wetter rainforests of the South Moluccas. Even in small patches of trees along watercourses, often close to villages, you can observe this beautiful bird. It can occur from sea level up to 1 ,500m (approx. 5,000ft) on Burn. 168 PAGEL - ELEGANT PITTA Living in the wild So far as we know, P. e. elegans and P. e. vigorsii, make migratory movements, but we have few details about those movements. Lambert and Woodcock (1996) do not say anything about the food but in Erritzoe and Boullet-Erritzoe (1998) we learn, that in the stomach of one bird collected on Timor there were small beetles and in another’s stomach there were snail remains. From time to time it seems as so they accompany Emerald or Green- winged Doves Chalcophaps indica searching for food. Their breeding season is also poorly documented. Eggs of P e. concinna were found in April in the Lesser Sundas. If one combines all available data it is possible to say that the breeding season of all subspecies spans the middle part of the year. They build a typical closed nest, using leaves and branches, with the entrance at the side. The interior of the nest is lined with fine rootlets or fungal hyphae. The eggs are white, covered all over with rufous-brown and purplish-grey patches. Eggs of P. e. concinna have measured 26.9mm x 21.1mm, 27.3mm x 21.9mm and 28.1mm x 21.9mm. Keeping and breeding As most of the pittas have seldom been kept, very little information has been published about keeping and breeding them. I have been unable to find any about keeping and breeding Elegant Pittas and if any member knows of any, I will be pleased to learn in which publication or publications it has appeared. Pittas should be kept only in larger planted aviaries or even better in tropical houses. Keeping them in smaller enclosures makes little sense as they are unlikely to breed in these. Pittas can be very aggressive between each other so they need plenty of room and places to hide from each other. Our adult pair came from a dealer in the Netherlands. Both are wild caught and we do not know how old they are. They belong to the subspecies P. e. concinna which occurs on the northern Lesser Sunda Islands, namely Lombok, Sumbawa, Flores, Adonara, Lomblen, Alor and some other small islands. We got them at the end of 1999. After a quarantine period (when we kept them together in a cage measuring lm x lm x 2.5m (approx. 3ft 3in x 3ft 3in x 8ft 2in) we put them in our walk-through aviary in the new tropical house called The Rainforest. The free-flying part is about 1 ,250sq m (approx. 13,500sq ft) and is up to 17m (approx. 56ft) high. The temperature varies from 20°C-35°C (68°F-95°F) and the humidity from 65%-99%. The enclosure is planted with different south-east Asian plants and trees up to 7.5m (approx. 25ft) high. The vegetation and birds get daylight through the transparent roof. We offer the birds a low-iron, softbill food and a lot of different livefood (flies, crickets, mealworms, etc.) several times a day. Since the beginning of March the two adult birds have lived in the tropical PAGEL - ELEGANT PITTA 169 house, in which the hill in the middle of the house is their preferred territory. They have shown no aggression towards other birds such as the Silver-eared Leiothrix Leiothrix argentauris and Vietnamese Pheasant Lophura hathinensis. Together with the birds living in the same enclosure are live fish, amphibians, reptiles and fruit bats. On May 3rd this year we observed the pittas carrying nest material, and in three days they had built a nest which measured 40cm (approx. 16in) in diameter and 35cm (approx. 14in) high. It was built using only dry materials such as leaves and branches, and had the entrance at the front (see photo p. 166). The nest was on an artificial rock at a height of 125cm (5in) directly by the wall. On May 10th we found three eggs in the nest and on May 28th saw two youngsters in the nest. On June 7th we found a dead youngster and an infertile egg in the nest. One bird was missing. The egg was white with brownish spots and measured 27.0mm x 21.0mm (see photo p. 166). The pair immediately began to build a new nest again by the wall and 5m (approx. 16ft) from the first nest. It was a little larger than the first nest and again built on an artificial rock, this time at an height of 140cm (5V2in). The pair again took about three days to complete the nest. After consulting colleagues at the zoos at Arnhem and Frankfurt about their experiences with pittas, we decided not to examine the nest anymore. On July 12th we saw two young Elegant Pittas hopping on the ground. One of them was larger than the other, and it seemed as if one was from the first clutch and the other from the second. We observed the adults bringing up to six mealworms to the youngsters. When they realised that we were observing them they would not feed the young and would not even get close to them. After a short alarm call the youngsters hid themselves and waited until we had gone. Both adults fed the youngsters but we do not know for sure if the birds brooded both of them. Both young pittas are independent now and the pair has built a new nest, and we hope that further youngsters will follow. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my colleagues at Arnhem and Frankfurt for their advice, also our horticulturist and the keepers for their work and passion without which this success would not have been possible. References Erritzoe, J. and Boullet-Erritzoe, H. 1998. Pittas of the World. The Lutterworth Press, Cambridge, England. Lambert, F. and Woodcock, M. 1996. Pittas, Bwadbills and Asities. Pica Press, Nr. Robertsbridge, East Sussex, England. Theo Pagel, Zoologischer Garten Koln, Riehlerstr. 173, 50735 Koln, Germany. Tel: 0221-7785-108/E-mail:tpagel@zoo-koeln.de 170 BREEDING THE PURPLE-BELLIED PARROT Triclaria malachitacea by Bob Grantham The Purple-bellied Parrot is endemic to the forested areas of south-east Brazil (see Low, 1997). Both sexes have dark green plumage tinged with blue on the underside of the wings and tail. The male is distinguished by the purple patch on his abdomen. The iris is brown, the beak hom-coloured and the feet grey in both sexes. The male of my pair has a vivid orange outer ring in the iris. Having had the privilege of owning a pair of Purple-bellied Parrots 25 years ago (Low, 1976), I have had a lasting fascination with this species. No chicks were reared by that pair. I always hoped that one day I would be able to obtain another pair of Purple-bellied Parrots. In January 1997 my dream came true when a pair arrived from Loro Parque. However, on arrival the female lacked a tail. During the past three years no sign of tail growth has occurred. After the normal quarantine period of 35 days the pair was placed in an aviary measuring 9ft x 6ft x 3ft (2.7m x 1.8m x 91cm). The shelter of this aviary adjoins a large kitchen window so I was able to observe them closely. They were provided with a nest-box measuring 24in x 8in x 8in (60cm x 20cm x 20cm). In January and February 1998 the male was seen to feed the female and to mate with her. This behaviour was observed on many occasions. Four eggs were laid at the beginning of March. These proved to be infertile and were removed. The pair did not nest again that year. The same behaviour was observed in January and February 1999. Eggs were laid at the beginning of March. Again they were infertile. In January 2000 the male was observed feeding and mating with the female on several occasions. Four eggs were laid in March. These proved to be infertile and were removed approximately two and a half weeks after they were laid. To my surprise the female laid a second clutch of five eggs at the end of April. On May 25th a chick was heard. The feeding of soft food was immediately increased to twice daily at 8.30am and 5.30pm. Inspection of the nest was left until June 4th when two chicks were observed. From then on the chicks were inspected twice daily. If they had not been fed well they would have been removed for hand-rearing. The three remaining eggs were removed. One contained a chick which was dead in shell and the other two were infertile. By the 40th day the first chick was fully feathered. There was a large discrepancy in size and age between the two chicks and, at that time, the plumage of the second was only just starting to appear. GRANTHAM - PURPLE-BELLIED PARROT 171 Male Purple-bellied Parrot Bob Grantham 172 GRANTHAM - PURPLE-BELLIED PARROT During the first four weeks the female remained in the nest-box. During the fifth week she came out, returning only to feed the chicks. Occasionally the male was seen to enter the box. On July 11th the first chick was observed at the nest hole. It came out permanently on July 14th. The second chick left the nest on July 20th, although it was not completely feathered on the back and wings. The immature plumage is similar to that of the female. Both young ones were then fed by her alone. The first one was seen to feed itself on the sixth day out and the second one on the seventh day. The young were extremely steady. On the day it left the nest, the second youngster flew on to the shoulder of the lady who feeds the birds. Ten days later it still allowed her to stroke its head. The whole family are very placid. Three neighbours’ cats are in the habit of sitting on the roof of the aviary. The parrots try to nibble the cats’ feet! The diet of the Purple-bellied Parrots consisted of sweetcom, apple, carrot, celery, pear and EMP rearing food. Powdered cuttlefish bone was sprinkled over the food. The seed consisted of sunflower, canary, millet, buckwheat, safflower and hemp. Greenfood such as lettuce, cabbage and watercress was also given. Fresh water was available at all times. References Low, R. 1976. The 1975 breeding season. Avicultural Magazine 82: 11-20. Low, R. 1997. The Purple-bellied Parrot Triclaria malachitacea: its natural history and aviculture. Avicultural Magazine 103: 149-158. As described above, the Purple-bellied Parrot Triclaria malachitacea , has been bred by Bob Grantham. This is probably the first successful breeding of this species in Great Britain or Ireland. Anyone who knows of a previous breeding is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. Bob Grantham, who for several years has served as a Council Member, joined the Avicultural Society in 1953. BREEDING AND GROUP DYNAMICS IN MAGPIE SHRIKES Corvinella melanoleuca AT DISNEY’S ANIMAL KINGDOM 173 by Paul Schutz Magpie Shrikes Corvinella melanoleuca , also called Long-tailed Shrikes because of the length of their tails, are conspicuous inhabitants of the acacia bush and open savanna in eastern and southern Africa. Two subspecies have been described: C. m. melanoleuca found in southern Africa south of the Zambezi River; and C. m. aequatorialis found in eastern Africa, specifically south-western Kenya and Tanzania. Magpie Shrikes are gregarious and usually found in groups of six or so birds, consisting probably of a breeding pair and previous offspring. During the breeding season, the non-breeding shrikes act as ‘helpers’ that assist in the care of others’ chicks. In species in which cooperative breeding has been observed, the ‘helpers’ are usually offspring of the breeding pair which as yet have been unable to acquire breeding territories of their own. However, the author has worked with a group of four unrelated, wild-caught Magpie Shrikes which split into a breeding pair and two ‘helpers’ which assisted in the care of the chicks at Houston Zoological Gardens, Texas, USA. In captivity perhaps, the absence of a real family group leads Magpie Shrikes to ‘adopt’ long-term cage-mates as relatives, which become ‘helpers’ at the nest. The chicks, when fledged, also joined in the care of subsequent clutches of chicks. On one occasion, a total of seven birds were seen at the nest awaiting their turn to feed the chicks. Disney’s Animal Kingdom acquired a group of five Magpie Shrikes, which includes the two ‘helpers’ from Houston Zoo, for its new African aviary, located along its Pan gam Forest Exploration Trail attraction. The aviary measures 162ft long x 62ft wide x 45ft high (approx. 50m long x 20m wide x 14m high). The thickly planted habitat has a plateau about 20ft (6m) high running along the western third of its length. From the northern edge of the plateau, two waterfalls cascade into a large pool, which is the main source of drinking water for the aviary’s inhabitants. The aviary contains more than 20 species, including Hadada Ibis Hagedashia hagedash , Hammerkop Scopus umbretta , Ross’s Touraco Musophaga rossae , African Grey Parrot Psittacus erithacus, Carmine Bee-eater Merops nubicus , Superb Starling Spree superbus , Racquet-tailed Roller Coracias spatulata , African Pygmy Goose Nettapus amitus and Brimstone Canary Serinus sulphuratus. A total of eleven feeding stations are scattered throughout the aviary, plus one at the pool’s edge specifically intended for the exhibit’s waterfowl. The basic diet consists of chopped mixed fruits, chopped greens, soaked Mazuri 174 SCHUTZ - MAGPIE SHRIKE brand parrot breeder and carnivore diet. The carnivore diet is mixed with the soaked parrot breeder to encourage mostly carnivorous birds, such as the shrikes, to ingest the more nutritionally complete pellets. These diets are supplemented with livefood, such as mealworms, waxworms and crickets. Throughout the quarantine period the five shrikes were kept within visual contact but in two separate groups: the ‘helper’ pair from Houston Zoo (hereafter referred to as pair A, or male A and female A) and a male and two females (hereafter referred to as group B, or male B, female B1 and female B2) which were acquired from a private aviculturist. Despite them being unrelated, the Houston experience led us to the expectation that these five birds would form a cohesive social group. On February 16th 1998 the two groups were moved into two acclimation pens inside the aviary. Two days later, all five were released into the aviary. Pair A exhibited breeding behaviour almost immediately, and by March 1st had begun constructing a nest high in a ficus tree. By April 4th one egg was present in the nest constructed by pair A. At this point, it became obvious that the five birds had begun to revert to their earlier groupings. The three individuals of group B spent much of their time at the opposite end of the aviary, away from the nest that pair A had constructed, vocalizing and doing their wing-flashing display which entails raising their wings above their heads to reveal their white wing patches. Pair A began to defend the nesting territory, actively chasing other species from the area. Aggression was also observed between female A and male B. On one occasion the two locked feet and fell together from a tree before separating. Interestingly, just four days later, male A and female B2 were observed jointly displacing a Racquet-tailed Roller. Three eggs were present by April 7th and the hypothesis was made based on the Houston experience that once chicks hatched, even non-breeding birds would assist in caring for them. Unfortunately, all three eggs were missing on April 24th and pair A began nest building again. While the two groups seemed to stay separate most of the time, they were occasionally seen perched together, although not much interaction was noted between them. This would change within a few months. By mid- May, 1998, pair A had five eggs and were again defending their territory. An interesting interaction occurred on May 16th, when one of the Hadada Ibis perched in the tree that contained the nest. Soon all five shrikes repeatedly scolded and mobbed the ibis in an obviously coordinated effort until it left the area. Just two weeks later, all the eggs were missing again and keepers removed the nest. It measured 672 in (16.5cm) in diameter and 5in (12.7cm) deep, with the cup constructed mostly of Spanish moss, pliable small twigs (about 5in (12.7cm) long and less than Vioin (2mm) in diameter) and larger twigs (about 6in-10in (15.3cm-25.4cm) long and Vidn-Vsin (2mm- SCHUTZ - MAGPIE SHRIKE 175 Natalie Mashburn-Lindholm Adult pair of Magpie Shrikes. The female (right) has white on the flanks. 3mm) in diameter). The lining of the nest consisted of moss, pine needles, and pliable small twigs. Nest construction began again just two days later. On June 10th, pair A were observed displacing female Bl. This event seemed to signal the beginning of a period of more active interaction between the two groups. Now, when the two groups came together, there were vocalizations, and wing-flashing was observed among them. These wing¬ flashing ceremonies were probably territorial displays, but might also be interpreted as greetings among members of a group (Lefranc, 1997). Three eggs were discovered in the nest on June 12th, but by July 1st 1998, they were missing and this time, the nest appeared to have been partly destroyed. When nest construction began again, female Bl was observed on at least one occasion carrying nesting material to the site. The new site they had chosen was apparently not suitable and pair A eventually constructed a nest in the ficus tree where they had built originally with, apparently, no help from group B. 176 SCHUTZ - MAGPIE SHRIKE Increased insect consumption led keepers to check pair A’s nest on October 30th. Two chicks were present which appeared to be a few days old. All five adults vigorously defended the area around the nest from other birds, especially the White-collared Kingfisher Halcyon chloris, with which they seemed to be particularly fixated. However, only the parents were observed attending to and feeding the chicks. Crickets, waxworms and mealworms made up the majority of the food taken to the nest during the first two weeks. The parents were observed removing a faecal sac from the nest and dropping it elsewhere in the aviary. By November 8th, both chicks were observed exercising their wings, and appeared close to fledging, and one chick fledged on the 13th. However, by the 15th there was no sign of either chick. An extensive search of the aviary turned up the body of one of the chicks which had been dragged into a hollow beneath a tree stump. Apparently unphased by the setback, pair A had by the first week in December laid four more eggs and were incubating them. During the incubation period the breeding male as usual displaced other birds from the area of the nest. On December 13th 1998, pair A were observed carrying waxworms and mealworms up to the nest. A check of the nest on December 21st revealed no eggs but a single, large, healthy looking chick. January 4th 1999, the chick left the nest. Shortly thereafter, it was attacked by birds of group B. The attack, while not well observed, was vigorous enough to cause serious damage to a toenail of the fledgling’s right hallux, resulting in the removal of the nail. The chick was removed to the nursery where its rearing was completed by keepers. Undaunted, pair A returned to nesting, and by January 25th, had four more eggs. Despite group B’s aggressive behaviour towards the fledgling, the three continued to join the breeding pair mobbing and displacing larger birds which approached the nest. A nest check on February 15th revealed a single chick. The chick was seen exercising its wings on a branch close to the nest on February 28th. On March 6th, the chick left the nest and was attacked by group B. The three flew at the young bird, grabbing its wings and feet. The parents sat nearby, vocalizing and puffing out their feathers, but did not intervene or actively defend the chick. The attacks continued and the decision was taken to intervene. Keepers caught the fledgling and placed it in a small holding cage. The decision was made to try to lure one or both of the parents into a holding cage so that they could finish rearing the chick. Shortly before the fledging of this second chick, the juvenile that had been removed to the nursery for hand rearing was returned to the holding cage in the aviary where it was in visual contact with the five adults. The adults treated the first juvenile like an intruder, displaying and uttering their threat vocalizations while perched around the holding cage. Oddly, all SCHUTZ - MAGPIE SHRIKE 177 five adult shrikes showed the same reaction to the fledgling in the cage. They perched in close proximity to the chick and vocalized, but would not approach or feed it, despite the presence of food and the constant begging and distress vocalizations of the fledgling. It quickly became apparent that this chick too would have to be hand reared. Three days after the fledging of their most recent chick, pair A began nesting again. The decision was made to prevent any further nesting attempts until group B could be removed from the aviary. To this end female BI was caught and placed in a holding cage with the two juveniles to await shipment to another institution. Pair A continued to build nests and lay eggs, but each time keepers dismantled the nest and discarded the eggs. On June 7th, keepers observed that the breeding female had an injured right leg. Over the next two weeks the injury appeared to worsen but she foiled numerous capture attempts and on June 22nd was discovered dead in the aviary. The death of the breeding female left two males and a single female in the aviary, and breeding behaviour began again shortly afterwards. Both males were observed courtship feeding the female. At the time of writing the original breeding male, male A, and the remaining female are building a nest and it is planned to let them breed. It is our hope that male B will recognise the female as a member of his group and will not interfere. It will be interesting to see if he assists the parents in rearing any chicks, thus re¬ forming a cohesive group. Only time will tell if this scenario is played out. Acknowledgments Most importantly, I would like to thank the staff of the aviary department at Disney’s Animal Kingdom, including Curator Grenville Roles, zoological managers Chelle Plasse and Scott Barton, and keepers James Grant, Susan Congdon, Greg Bockheim and Shannon Mezzell. Without their encouragement, assistance and observations, this paper would not have been possible. I would also like to thank the bird department at Houston Zoological Gardens, especially Curator Lee Schoen, senior keeper Trey Todd and keeper Ric IJrbant all of whom were particularly supportive and helpful. Finally, thanks to Natalie Mashbum-Lindholm for providing the photo. Reference and bibliography Harris, T. and Amott, G. 1988. Shrikes of Southern Africa. Struik, Winchester. LeFranc, N. 1997. Shrikes: A Guide to the Shrikes of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA. Skutch, A. 1999. Helpers at Birds’ Nests: A Worldwide Survey of cooperative Breeding and Related Behavior. University of Iowa Press, USA. Paul Schutz is with the Conservation Station Administration at Disney ’s Animal Kingdom , PO. Box 10,000, Lako Buena Vista, Florida, USA 32830- 1000 . 178 BREEDING THE LEMON-BREASTED CANARY Serinus citrinipectus AND NOTES ON SOME OTHER Serinus SPECIES by Tony Jolliffe General notes The pair of Lemon-breasted Canaries were bought in 1998 in Belgium on impulse because I thought them beautiful. I also purchased enough of the food they were eating to last a month. I knew nothing more about them at that stage. Nesting occurred and eggs were produced late in 1998. However, the shells were very thin and porous and all proved to be infertile. Because the female was showing signs of stress the pair was separated and reintroduced early in 1999. The first nest produced similar results to those in 1998 but the second nest produced three young. All were reared and proved to be three females. The same pair has hatched and reared two young in 2000. Housing and food The pair are housed in a standard canary double-breeder which measures 120cm x 30cm x 45cm (approx. 39V2in x 12in x WUm). The standard diet was mixed small millets with wild food when available. This has since been replaced with a good British bird mix which seems to have advantages. Food taken during rearing includes the standard seed mix both dry and soaked for 24 hours, chickweed Stellaria spp., seeding grasses (Cock’s Foot Dactylis glomerata. Rye-grass Lolium perenne. Annual and Rough-stalked Meadow- grasses Poa annua and P. trivialis). Redshank Polygonum persicaria , Pale Persicaria P lapathifolium, Groundsel Senecio vularis, Rat’s-tail Plantain and Mouse-ear Plantain Plantago spp. Nesting The pair nested in an all-wire basket with a felt lining. The eggs were pure white. Incubation is thought to have taken 13-14 days. Upon hatching the chicks had blackish brown skin and copious white down. The gape was brilliant red. During the first few days the male seemed to feed the female which then fed the chicks. Feeding was shared after about three days. Development of the chicks was roughly five to seven days more advanced at each stage compared to that of the domestic canary. The adults were particularly devoted and protective parents. The female would attack the hand rather than leave the nest. JOLLIFFE - SERINUS SPECIES 179 General information and observations The birds are very territorial, and the male will sing at the slightest sound. Opening the door of the birdroom or dropping something will start him singing. Oddly enough although his singing continued throughout incubation it stopped the day the chicks hatched and did not start again until the chicks fledged. Another interesting observation is that on several occasions just after the chicks fledged, both parents were seen driving them down, and on two occasions grabbed them and threw them down when they were fluttering against the wire. Although it worried the hell out of me, no damage was done to the recently fledged young in what appeared to be an instinctive process aimed at getting them to safety. Once, just as the young were starting to feed, one begged for food but got no response from the male. The young bird immediately adopted a ‘head down shoulders up’ aggression posture and was then fed. Because the colour of the chick’s gape, the skin and the eggs differed from those observed in southern Africa where the gape was recorded as being bright yellow, the skin pale pinkish with sparse whitish down and the eggs white, lightly streaked with brown (Brickell, 1997; The Avicultural Research Unit, 1997), I have been reluctant to introduce new birds until this matter is resolved. Instead, I decided to try to mate the male with several females as one can with domestic canaries. I put the male in with the female which had started nesting as I have done hundreds of times with domestic canaries and have never seen such panic in a bird. I had to remove the male before the female injured herself. Later I put a male Tibetan Siskin S. thibetanus in with the same female to see if the result would be the same and there was no problem at all. Because the female Tibetan Siskin had died and I was short of space I left him there. They have now gone to nest and it is fascinating to watch the male, which is more fastidious than the female, cleaning out the nest whenever she leaves it. I later managed to obtain another pair of Lemon-breasted Canaries in Belgium which at the time of writing (August 8th), are hatching out their third nest. The first was lost, along with other newly hatched young, as a result of an infestation of mite the likes of which I have never experienced before in all my 50 odd years of bird keeping. It has taken until now and just about every chemical known to get rid of them and get the birds back into a decent condition. I hope it is a case of third time lucky, as this pair is supposed to have come from northern Mozambique, as opposed to my original pair which is believed to have come from southern Mozambique. I am very keen to study them. I bred the White-bellied Canary S. dorsostriatus last year but I imagine that this species has been bred often enough for you not to require details. 180 JOLLIFFE - SERINUS SPECIES I have bred domestic canaries most of my life starting from when I was 10 years old and even as a child their range of shapes and sizes fascinated me. As I grew older I began to wonder more about how they evolved and question the accepted belief as to their origin. A series of articles written by a Dutchman who has translated most of the seventeenth and eighteenth century canary books encouraged me in my view that not all type canaries evolved from S. canaria - the wild Canary. My attention first turned to the Red-fronted Siskin S . pusillus. Later I turned my attention to the Cape Canary S. canicollis on account of its size, posture and origin. In the seventeenth century the port of Gent was Dutch and the trade between there and southern Africa was already well developed making it likely this species would have been available to canary breeders of Gent at that time. About three years ago I went with one of the buying trips to Belgium where I found two Cape Canaries - both immature and very plucked. I brought them back with me and as I have learned more about the Cape or Yellow-crowned Canary and its subspecies, I have realised that it is a very complicated subject and also I have not enjoyed myself so much for years. What started off as a study of the origins of the varieties of domestic canary has become a study of the Cape or Yellow-crowned Canary. They are by and large, quiet, confiding little birds the beauty of which is too easily missed when they are packed together in dealers’ cages. Often immature and dirty, they appear drab and uninteresting but these same birds when clean and fit, and in full adult plumage have an amazing range of colours. I am finding sorting out the differences between the subspecies extremely difficult and suspect one reason for so few captive breeding successes may be because pairs are often made up of males and females of different subspecies. At the moment I think I have specimens of S. c. canicollis, S. c. grisetergum, S. c. flavivertex and S. c. sasii, but only two true pairs. I am far from sure though. Although most do well on my canary regime there are problems with S. c. sasii, which shed feathers and become bald very quickly. I feel sure this is a dietary problem and am looking closely at this. I have increased their vitamin and protein intake which looks as if it is helping to improve the situation. They appear to be far more gregarious than the others and I am wondering if the stress of being isolated is also a factor. S. c. flavivertex too might have specific requirements. Unfortunately, I have recently lost my male. I had a male for two years and although it was always fit it never really came into breeding condition, lacking perhaps the stimulation of a female. It is a highland bird, occurring for example on Mt Elgon, Mt Kenya and Mt Kilimanjaro, leading me to also question whether I have got the conditions JOLLIFFE - SERINUS SPECIES 181 quite right for it here in Kent. Recognition of the problems of obtaining true pairs, especially of species such as the Cape or Yellow-fronted Canary, with a diversity of subspecies, led to the idea of undertaking an African Serins Survey. The aim of this is to discover which species and subspecies are being kept, not just in the UK but worldwide, and through this establishing contacts with other keepers with a view to exchanging information and birds in order to make-up true pairs and establish captive populations while these birds remain relatively freely available. If you keep African Serinus species and wish to participate in the survey, would you write to:- Bryan Reed and Tony Jolliffe, African Serins Survey, 62 Northwood Drive, Sittingboume, Kent ME 10 4QS, England. References Brickell, N. 1997. Further Notes on the Lemon-breasted Canary Serinus citrinipectus.Avicultural Magazine 103, 1:4-5. The Avicultural Research Unit. 1997. African Birds in Field & Aviary: A guide to a mixed collection. Compact Edition. African Bird Book Publishing, Westville, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. As described above, the Lemon-breasted Canary Serinus citrinipectus, has been bred by Tony Jolliffe. This is probably the first successful breeding of this species in Great Britain or Ireland. Anyone who knows of a previous breeding is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. AVICULTURAL MAGAZINE BACK ISSUES A large stock is available including some early issues. Sales are by post only! Further details are available from:- Hon. Secretary, Avicultural Society, c/o Bristol Zoological Gardens, Clifton, Bristol BS8 3HA, England. 182 THE PROBABLE FIRST UK BREEDING OF THE MARABOU by Malcolm Mycock The Marabou Leptoptilos crumeniferus, a species very common in the wild throughout much of tropical Africa and renowned for its ugly appearance and rather unattractive feeding habits, has proven among the most difficult birds to breed. Marabous have been exhibited at Blackbrook Zoological Park for approximately nine years, and although they are not the most attractive of birds, visitors find them fascinating. After numerous setbacks and a lot of hard work we hatched and reared Marabous here last year (1999). It was, we believe, the first breeding of this species, in the UK and one of only a handful of successes worldwide. Although Marabous have been kept in captivity for a great many years and egg laying is not uncommon, fertile eggs are rare. We had a partial success with our Marabous three years ago, when they hatched but failed to rear a chick, which was seen and heard but went missing at only three days old having, we presumed, been eaten by one or both of its parents. Last year seven eggs were laid and as we did not want to risk losing them, it was decided to take them from the parents and attempt to hatch and rear the chicks ourselves. The first four eggs were placed under broody hens but this, unfortunately proved unsuccessful. One of the four eggs was fertile but failed to hatch, due it seemed to too much humidity. So, somewhat nervously, we decided to attempt to incubate the other eggs in an incubator set at 37°C (98.6°F) with a relative humidity of 35%-40%. One morning during my inspection of the eggs in the incubator room, sounds were heard coming from two Marabou eggs. Luckily it was very early in the morning and no one else was present to hear my shouts of excitement and see me jumping around like a lunatic in the hatchery. Both eggs hatched after incubation periods of 32 days and the long and worrying task of rearing the chicks began. They were fed on a diet of spratts and boned and skinned day-old chicks that were very finely chopped, and with the addition of zoovite vitamin supplement and warm water, offered to the birds in the form of a thick soup in a shallow dish. Neither were fed for the first 24 hours, after which both fed themselves from the start. The amount of food given to each chick per feed was no more than 10% of its body weight. After the second day of feeding themselves, mice pinkies were added to the diet along with a calcium supplement. Both chicks were fed six times a day, the first feed being given at 6.00am and the last at midnight. The diet remained the same as the chicks MYCOCK - MARABOU 183 J. Roger son Adult Marabous Aged four days J. Rogerson grew older, except that larger pieces of food were provided, in warm water still. Also, as the chicks grew older and bigger the number of feeds per day was decreased. 184 MYCOCK - MARABOU J. Rogerson Three months old I am pleased to report that both chicks were reared to independence. Unfortunately, however, Ml, the older of the two by 24 hours, ruptured a tendon in one of its legs. The leg was operated upon and the tendon repaired successfully, but a number of weeks standing on the injured leg proved too much for the bird and eventually it was put to sleep. The second young Marabou, M2, developed normally without any problems and is the same size as her parents now and is on show at Blackbrook Zoological Park. An egg laid this year proved to be infertile. As described above the Marabou Leptoptilos crumeniferus, has been bred at Blackbrook Zoological Park. This is probably the first successful breeding of this species in Great Britain or Ireland. Anyone who knows of a previous breeding is asked to inform the Hon. Secretary. Malcolm Mycock is Manager of Blackbrook Zoological Park, Winkhill, Nr. Leek, Staffordshire ST 13 7QR, England. The zoo which occupies a 70 acre (28.3 hectares ) site was founded in 1991 by its owner Diana Holloway, an Avicultural Society Council Member. 185 NEWS & VIEWS FIRST BREEDING Neville Brickell, co-author with Trevor Konigkramer of Further Notes on the Drakensberg Siskin Serinus totta symonsi (. Avicultural Magazine 106,3:118-121), has written to say that Trevor has finally succeeded in breeding this species. One youngster left the nest after 19 days. It is the first breeding in captivity of the Drakensberg Siskin and in recognition of this, Trevor, a member of the Natal Bird Breeder's Society, has been awarded that society’s diploma. At the time of writing (October 10th), the female was sitting again, this time on three eggs. * * * NEW DIRECTOR Simon Tonge, formerly Senior Curator at London Zoo, is the now Director of Paignton Zoo, Devon, replacing Peter Stevens who has retired. Simon Tonge joined London Zoo from Jersey Zoo in 1993, and for a time served as an Avicultural Society Council Member. Curatorial responsibility for both the London Zoo and Whipsnade collections is now in the hands of Nick Lindsay, who wrote recently about The New Penguin Development at Whipsnade (Avicultural Magazine , Vol. 106, No.2, pp.85-86) and earlier about Flamingos at Whipsnade (Avicultural Magazine, Vol. 104, No. 3, pp. 100-101). * * * HEALTH MATTERS FOR LOVED ONES By visiting the website - avianconsult.com - it is possible now to get avian veterinary advice from certified avian veterinary specialists. You can e-mail: info @ avian consult.com to obtain a brochure. Payment is by credit card. * * * BIRDING CONFERENCE The second World Birding Conference - website: www.wbc2.corn is to be held March 30th - April 1st 2001, at The Hayes Conference Centre, Swanwick, Derbyshire, England. Further details are available from:- Sue Starling, World Bird Conference, c/o BTO, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU, England. Tel:01842 750050/Fax:01842 750030/E-mail: sue . starling @ bto . org . * * * 186 NEWS & VIEWS EXOTICS QUEST 2000 Organised by Adrian Fowler of the University of Bristol School of Veterinary Science at Langford, Exotics Quest 2000 was a great success. Almost 200 fourth and fifth year students, a high percentage of them female, attended on what was a cold day in late spring. The society had a stand there and in the information pack given to each student and stand holder was a copy of the Avicultural Magazine and a membership form. Avicultural Society Council Member Laura Gardner was one of the speakers and brought with her a pair of Bali Starlings Leucopsar rothschildi. The Tropical Bird Gardens, at Rode, provided a selection of birds including a Triangular Spotted Pigeon Columba guinea , Grey Hombill Tockus nasutus and a Green-crested Touraco Tauraco persa. Shirley Lawton, a member from Northamptonshire, showed a selection of parrots she was rearing including Triton Cacatua galerita triton and Goffin’s Cockatoos C. goffini, Blue & Gold Macaws Ara ararauna , African Greys Psittacus erithacus and Black-headed Caiques Pionites melanoleuca. There was a display by the Rhea and Emu Association and a Toco Toucan Ramphastos toco in wonderful condition belonging to Adrian Fowler. Also present was Mike Downman, formerly a keeper at Rode, who is now working with primates at Howletts Zoo. The day concluded with an excellent film show and talk by Mike Salisbury of the BBC Natural History Unit based in Bristol. Mike was the producer of Sir David Attenborough's Life of Birds TV series. Hopefully, it was a good PR exercise for the Society and some of the students may eventually become members. * ❖ * UNUSUAL HAPPENINGS The Violet-backed Starling Cinnyricinclus leucogaster is a surprise inclusion in The European Bird Report (a ‘...continent- wide report on population trends and significant, nationally accepted records of rarities’) in British Birds 93,9:428-433 (September 2000). It is on account of the first record of this species in Israel, at Eilat from July 5th - August 14th, back in 1983. The same report includes the first and second breeding records of the (Indian) House Crow Corvus splendens in the Netherlands in 1997 and 1998. The section on non-native birds breeding in the UK in 1998, includes two pairs of Alexandrine Parrakeets Psittacula eupatria which nested at Fazackerly, Merseyside, and raised broods of five and three young. All 12 were seen together later, but sometime afterwards several were shot by youths with airguns. At least one pair though are known to have survived through the following winter. Malcolm Ogilvie and the Rare Breeding Birds Panel noted: ‘While we must condemn the vandalism, we also do not wish another member of the parrot family to become established as a breeding species in Britain.’ 187 OBITUARY KENNETH JAMES LAWRENCE The sudden death of the Society’s Chairman Ken Lawrence came as a great shock. He died on November 1st, when travelling home from the office of the weekly magazine Cage & Aviary Birds, where he had been busy working on the arrangements for the National Exhibition of Cage & Aviary Birds. When Ken and his wife Jean married in 1953, he began keeping foreign birds and had continued to do so ever since. In those early days he kept a fine array of lories, lorikeets and small seedeaters. Many rare birds came into his possession, among them South African and South American species he acquired from sailors when their ships docked at Harwich. These included an Orange Cock of the Rock, a Naked- throated Bellbird, Orange-breasted Sun birds, Dufresne’s Waxbills and various hummingbirds. Later Ken specialised in starlings - he was particularly fond of Spreos - and bred a number of different species. He also kept a small stud of Zebra Finches. As well as keeping, breeding, exhibiting and judging foreign birds, Ken was a tireless worker and administrator. 'He joined the Avicultural Society in 1955. He was elected a Council Member in 1970 and on the retirement of Prof. Hodges was elected Chairman. Ken also arranged the social events; and if the collection we were to visit lacked suitable catering facilities, often would visit the nearest town or village in advance and find a nice pub in which we could hold our Council Meeting and in which members and their guests invariably enjoyed a splendid lunch at a reasonable price, before setting off to view the birds. Ken also joined the Foreign Bird League in the early 1950s and was elected onto its Council some 10 years later. He became its first Chairman in 1968, a post he retired from 20 years later, upon which he was made an Honorary Life Member. In 1980 Ken was a joint winner of the League’s Herbert Wragg Memorial Shield, an annual award for meritorious breedings. A number of prominent foreign bird enthusiasts in the London area became acquainted with Ken following the formation of the Southern Foreign Bird Club in 1961. Two years later he was elected Chairman, a position he held for the next 25 years. Ken also served on the committee of the National Council for Aviculture (NCA), and served as Chairman of that organisation too. Our sincere condolences are extended to his wife Jean, his daughters Jane and Nicola, and his three grand-daughters. 188 CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 106 - 2000 BIRCHENOUGH, Andy C. & EVANS, Stewart M. The potential contribution of aviculture to conservation breeding of estrildid finches . . . . . . . . . ....145 BLACK, Kara How I came to keep mousebirds . . . 104 BOCKHEIM, Greg The unique fishing techniques and nest building behaviour of captive Hammerkops Scopus umbretta . . 56 BRICKELL, Neville & KONIGKRAMER, Trevor Further notes on the Drakensberg Siskin Serinus totta symonsi ... 118 BURDEN, P. Breeding the White-collared Yuhina . 97 CALLAGHAN, Eric The San Bias Jay, a cooperative breeder . . . . . . . Ill COLLEN, Rose, HOLLAND, Glen, TWENTYMAN, Caroline, PAULI, Jerry & WATTS, Betty Stitchbirds - an avicultural challenge..... . 22 CONGDON, Susan & ZIMA, Bill Breeding the African Jagana Actophilornis africanus at Disney’s Animal Kingdom . 62 CORNEJO, Juan Hand-rearing an Asian Green Starling Aplonis panayensis . ...122 GRANTHAM, Bob Breeding the Purple-bellied Parrot Triclaria malachitacea . . 170 GREENEY, Harold F., GORDON, Caleb E., KAPLAN, Matthew E & CHIMERA, Charles G. The high occurrence of brood patches in mist-netted birds in a lowland Ecuadorian rainforest . . . . . . . 10 GROGAN, Ivor Breeding the White-breasted Amazilia Amazilia a. leucophoea... 157 HILL, Ryan L. and GREENEY, Harold F. Ecuadorian birds: nesting records and egg descriptions from a lowland rainforest . . . . . . . . . . 49 HINZE, Ian Waxbills and their allies: the Lavender Waxbill . . . 80 189 CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 106 - 2000 (Cont’d) JOLIFFE, Tony Breeding the Lemon-breasted Canary Serinus citrinipectus and notes on some other Serinus species . . 178 LINDSAY, Nick The new penguin development at Whipsnade . ...85 MYCOCK, Malcolm The probable first UK breeding of the Marabou . . 182 PAGEL, Theo Notes on keeping and breeding the Elegant Pitta Pitta elegans ... 165 PYPER, Stewart The Society’s visit to Wem . . . . . . . . . 87 ROMER, Charlie Three months - three continents . . . . . . . 99 RUBERY, Mark Breeding the Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor . . 126 SCHOFIELD, Philip Breeding the Madagascar Turtle Dove Streptopelia picturata ..... 107 Thirty years with pheasants . . . . . 1 SCHULTZ, Paul Breeding and group dynamics in Magpie Shrikes Corvinella melanoleuca at Disney’s Animal Kingdom . . . . . 173 SMITH, Chris Notes and observations on hand-rearing African Pygmy Falcons Polihierax semitorquatus . ....12 WILKINSON, Roger Chester Zoo bird review 1999 . . . . . 74 WILLIAMS, Trace Watching Bali Starlings at Jersey Zoo . . 54 WOOLHAM, Frank The Rufous-capped and other babblers . ....34 190 INDEX TO VOLUME 106 - 2000 Actophilornis africanus, breeding . . . . . . . . 62 Amazilia amazilia leucophoea, breeding . 157 Amazilia, White-breasted, breeding . 157 Aplonis panayensis, the hand-rearing of . . . . . 122 Babblers, Rufous-capped and others . . . 34 Book Reviews African Parrots . 134 Australian White Cockatoos . . . . . . . 43 Handbook of the Birds of the World . 41 Management of Laughing Thrushes in Captivity . ..129 Parrot Action Plan . . . . . . . . . 130 The Loving Care of Pet Parrots . . . . . . . 133 Brood patches, high occurrence in mist-netted birds . . 10 Canary, Lemon-breasted, breeding and notes on some others . 178 Chester zoo, bird review 1999 . 74 Cissilopha sanblasiana, a cooperative breeder . . . .....Ill Colius striatus, experiences keeping . 104 Conservation, potential contribution of aviculture . ..145 Cooperative breeder, the San Bias Jay . Ill Corvinella melanoleuca, brooding and group dynamics . . . 173 Council Meetings . . . ..40 & 88 Dove, Madagascar Turtle, breeding . . . . . . 107 Ecuadorian birds, brood patches in . . . . . 10 Ecuadorian birds, nesting records and egg descriptions . . . . 49 Estrilda caerulescens, notes on . 80 Falcon, African Pygmy, notes and observations on hand-rearing . . 12 Finches, Australian, captive breeding as a potential contribution to conservation . . . . . 145 Finches, Parrot, captive breeding as a potential contribution to conservation . . 145 Flamingo, Lesser, breeding . . .....126 Hammerkop, fishing techniques and nest building behaviour . 56 191 INDEX TO VOLUME 106 - 2000 (Cont’d) Jacana, African, breeding ..................................................................... 62 Jay, San Bias, a cooperative breeder .................................................. Ill Leptoptilos crumeniferus, probable first UK breeding ....................... 182 Letters ....................................................................................... 36, 37, 38 Leucospar rothschildi , watching at Jersey Zoo .................................... 54 Marabou, probable first UK breeding ................................................ 182 Mousebird, Striated, experiences keeping .......................................... 104 Notiomystis cincta, an avicultural challenge ........................................ 22 Obituaries . . . . . . 141,142,143,187 Parrot, Purple-bellied, breeding.......................................................... 170 Parrots, see three months - three continents ......................................... 99 Penguins, new development at Whipsnade .......................................... 85 Pheasants, thirty years with .................................................................... 1 Phoeniconaias minor , breeding .......................................................... 126 Pitta elegans, keeping and breeding ................................................... 165 Pitta, Elegant, keeping and breeding .................................................. 165 Polihierax semitorquatus, notes and observations on hand-rearing ..... 12 Serinus citrinipectus , breeding and notes on some others .................. 178 Shrike, Magpie (or Long-tailed), breeding and group dynamics ....... 173 Siskin, Drakensberg, further notes on ................................................ 118 Stachyris ruficeps , and other babblers .................................................. 34 Starling, Asian Green, the hand-rearing of ......................................... 122 Starling, Bali, watching at Jersey Zoo .................................................. 54 Stitchbird, an avicultural challenge ...................................................... 22 Streptopelia picturata , breeding ......................................................... 107 Triclaria malachitacea , breeding ....................................................... 170 Waxbill, Lavender, notes on ................................................................. 80 Wem, the Society’s visit to ................................................................... 87 Yuhina diademata, breeding ................................................................. 97 Yuhina, White-collared, breeding ......................................................... 97 ROB HARVEY SPECIALIST FEEDS Everything From Hummingbird Nectar to Elephant food ! Supplying over 50 Zoological Parks MEALWORMS We sell a complete range of livefoods & frozen foods. If you use 51b of mealworms a time then enquire about our unbeatable trade prices. ARCADIA BIRD LAMPS Improves feeding and breeding behaviour. Fits into standard fluorescent fittings or we can supply fittings and reflectors. We can mail order to your door. Visit our new updated & friendly website www.robharvey.com OVER 1000 WORLD WIDE LINKS BREEDERS DIRECTORY E-mail us if you want to be Advertise your surplus , , , u a a- e stock FREE added to our breeders directory WITTE MOLEN TUBS Moist eggfood - £14.25 5kg Hedgerow Eggfood - £15.50 5kg Universal Food - £14.25 5kg Low Iron for Touracos - £16.25 5kg Eggfood Red - £15.50 5kg DRIED FRUITS Chilean jumbo golden raisins Iranian whole pitted sair dates Turkish sultanas & Chilian Flame raisins Sri Lankan raw thin chip coconut Philippine whole honey dipped banana chips Any combination - Delivery included 1kg £5.95 5kg £12.95 10 kg £19.95 WITTE MOLEN PARROT PREMIUM 5kg for £8.00 15kg for £19.75 30kg for only £35.00 AVI-PLUS LORIKEET SPECIAL used by many zoos £5.95 per kg AVI-PLUS PARROT HANDREARING FOOD used to raise over 10,000 parrots in South Africa last year alone - £6.95 per kg Buy 2 & get one FREE! p&p. £3.95 up to 1kg £3.95 up to 30kg HEMP ROPE As used in zoos and bird parks. Enhance your parrot’s environment. 36mm £6.99 per metre or 10m for £55! 24mm £3.45 per metre or 10m for £27! We also stock j carrying boxes and stainless steel bowls. Please ask for our new price list Mail order on all products. — "'1- For our price list or advice please contact Rob Harvey (ex-owner & curator of Birdworld for over 20 years) E-mail: admin@robharvey.com Tel: 01420 23986 Fax: 01420 23078 Rob Harvey, Kookaburra House, Gravel Hill Road, Holt Pound, Famham, Surrey, GU10 4LG. IN THE PINK In 1997, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), of New York, spearheaded the first comprehensive censuses of Andean and James’ Flamingos Phoenicoparrus andinus and P. jamesi. Two censuses in the summers of 1997 and 1998, and three in the winters of 1997, 1998 and 2000, simultaneously in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru, recorded at least 34,000 Andean and 64,000 James’ . Other census results, reported in Wildlife Conservation , Vol.103, No. 6, November-December 2000, put the total population of Caribbean Flamingos Phoenicopterus ruber ruber at just over 270,000, 40,000 in the Bahamas, 1 7,000 in Venezuela, 1 80,000 in Cuba and 34,000 on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. * * * NEW DIRECTOR American, James (Jamie) D. Gilardi PhD, one of the four editors and an author of the Parrot Action Plan reviewed recently in the Avicultural Magazine (Vol.106, No.3, pp. 130-133), is the new Director of the World Parrot Trust. Mike Reynolds has taken on the role of Chairman. * * * SENTENCE REDUCED Harry Sissen had his appeal against his conviction for illegally importing into the UK three Lear’s Macaws Anodorhynchus leari and six Blue-headed Macaws Ara couloni (see News & Views, Vol.106, No. 2, p.90 & Vol.106, No.3, p.136) dismissed at the Court of Appeal in London, but his sentence was reduced from two and a half years to one and a half years and he became eligible for parole at Christmas. It has been reported that a further 1 3 of the seized birds have died. They are: two Red-vented Cockatoos Cacatua haematuropygia , a Thick-billed Parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha, four Hyacinth Macaws A. hyacinthinus, two Red-fronted Macaws A rubrogenys , two Buffon’s Macaws A ambigua, a Blue-throated Macaw A. glaucogularis and a Scarlet Macaw A. macao. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES 111 3 9( CONTENTS The potential contribution of aviculture to conservation breeding of estrildid finches by Andy C. Birchenough and Stewart M. Evans . 145 Breeding the White-breasted Amazilia Amazilia amazilia leucophoea by Ivor Grogan . 157 Notes on keeping and breeding the Elegant Pitta Pitta elegans by Theo Pagel . 165 Breeding the Purple-bellied Parrot Triclaria malachitacea by Bob Grantham . 170 Breeding and group dynamics in Magpie Shrikes Corvinella melanoleuca at Disney’s Animal Kingdom by Paul Schutz . ...173 Breeding the Lemon-breasted Canary Serinus citrinipectus and notes on some other Serinus species by Tony Jolliffe . ...178 The probable first UK breeding of the Marabou by Malcolm Mycock . 182 News & Views . 185 Obituary Kenneth James Lawrence . 187 Contributors to Volume 106 - 2000 . . . 188 Index to Volume 106 - 2000 . 190 Published by the Avicultural Society, England. Produced by Data Publishing Service, Cheddar.