ERRATUM

With this issue you will find a reprint of pages 139 - 146 which first appeared in the March 2012
issue of British Birds. Due to an error which occurred at the printing stage, the author
biographies on page 144 and the abstract on page 145 were incomplete.

We know that many readers refer back to and also bind their issues for future reference and
therefore wanted to ensure that a corrected and complete version was provided.

Apologies are offered on behalf of the printers.

South Georgia

Cattle Egrets have occurred elsewhere in
Antarctica, as far south as the Argentine
Islands off the west coast of the Antarctic
Peninsula at 65°S. Recently, sightings have
been fewer, although they are still recorded in
most years.

Passerine vagrants are few and only
Chilean Swallow Tachycineta leucopyga and
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica have occurred
more than once. Dark-faced Ground-tyrant
Muscisaxicola maclovianus and Long-tailed
Meadowlark Sturnella loyca are both wide-
spread in South America and breed in the
Falklands, while Grey-flanked Cinclodes Cin-
clodes oustaleti is found in southern South
America and Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus
tyrannus winters south to Argentina.

The South Georgia avifauna thus totals 87
species, of which 29 are regular breeders,
three are occasional breeders, nine (all
seabirds) are regular non-breeding visitors,
45 are vagrants (two of which were ship-
assisted) and one species was introduced but
is now extinct on the island. Species for
which we have anecdotal knowledge of sight-
ings since 1995 in or near to the South
Georgia area, but insufficient information on
date, location or observer, include Manx
Shearwater Puffinus puffinus , Mottled Petrel
Pterodroma inexpectata , White-bellied Storm-
petrel Fregetta grallaria , Red Knot Calidris
canutus and Brown-hooded Gull Larus brun-
nicephalus.

Potential future records

The many changes in status and additions to
the South Georgia avifauna evident from
Prince & Payne (1979), Prince & Croxall
(1983, 1996) and this paper, coupled with
rapidly increasing knowledge of field charac-
ters of seabirds and significantly greater
observer coverage, suggest that new species
will continue to be added to the South
Georgia list. Increased observation will prob-
ably show that some species known only as
vagrants or rare visitors are actually regular
in small numbers. These could include
Northern Royal Albatross Diomedea sanfordi.
White-headed Petrel Pterodroma lessoni ,
Great- winged Petrel P. macroptera , Atlantic
Petrel P. incerta , Broad-billed Prion and Little
Shearwater Puffinus elegans. Seabirds that
might be expected to occur occasionally

include Manx Shearwater, Mottled Petrel,
White-bellied and Leach’s Storm-petrels
Oceanodroma leucorhoa. It is also conceivable
that oceanographic conditions bringing
warmer water south, coupled with a strong
northerly airstream, might also bring species
common in temperate and subtropical waters
of the South Atlantic, such as Atlantic Yellow-
nosed Albatross Thalassarche chlororhynchos ,
Spectacled Petrel Procellaria conspicillata ,
Trindade Petrel Pterodroma arminjoniana,
Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea and
White-faced Storm-petrel Pelagodroma
marina into South Georgia waters. At present
there are no records of any other taxon in the
Wandering Albatross complex (e.g. Tristan
Albatross Diomedea dabbenena) from South
Georgia waters, although recently a single
(ringed) Antipodean Albatross D. antipo-
densis was found on Bird Island. Tristan
Albatross is widespread (but rare) in tem-
perate waters well to the north and the
Antipodean Albatross occurs regularly on
migration off the coast of southern Chile;
both might occur in South Georgia waters
but will be challenging to identify at sea.

Both Pomarine Stercorarius pomarinus
and Arctic Skuas S. parasiticus have been
seen at latitudes farther south than South
Georgia, while Sabine’s Gulls Xema sabini,
which winter in the Benguela Current and
are seen commonly off southern South
Africa, might wander to South Georgia
occasionally. A number of other shorebirds
with long migration routes that carry them
to southern South America may overshoot
to South Georgia; these include Grey
Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius, Upland
Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda and Least
Sandpiper Calidris minutilla. It is also pos-
sible that South American Snipe Gallinago
paraguaiae might wander to South Georgia
from the Falklands or southern Patagonia.
Passerines are less easy to predict, but possi-
bilities include Purple Martin Progne subis,
White-crested Elaenia Elaenia albiceps,
Patagonian (Rufous-backed) Negrito
Lessonia rufa, and Rufous-collared Sparrow
Zonotrichia capensis. But experience else-
where suggests that the safest prediction
would be that one of the next species to be
added to the South Georgia list will not have
been predicted.

British Birds 105 • March 2012 • 118-144

139

Ewan Edwards

Clarke et al.

The importance of South Georgia

In terms of seabird abundance, and especially
biomass, South Georgia is without doubt one
of the world’s most important seabird
islands. Even today, with petrel populations
perhaps an order of magnitude lower than
before the introduction of rats, it is estimated
that over 100 million individual seabirds are
based there. South Georgia is the world’s
most important breeding site for six species
(Macaroni Penguin, Grey-headed Albatross,
Northern Giant Petrel, Antarctic Prion,
White-chinned Petrel, Common Diving
Petrel) and is probably in the top three such
sites for seven others (King Penguin, Gentoo
Penguin, Wandering Albatross, Black-browed
Albatross, Southern Giant Petrel, Black-
bellied Storm-petrel, South Georgia Diving
Petrel). Several of these species are also Glob-
ally Threatened or Near Threatened (see
table 1), which underlines the importance of
South Georgia and of actions to improve the
conservation status of its species. Although
South Georgia is currently classified by
BirdLife International (see Poncet 2006) as a
single Important Bird Area (IBA), closer
scrutiny may well reveal that it is better

viewed as comprising several distinct I BAs. In
addition, if the South Georgia subspecies of
the Yellow-billed Pintail was reinstated at
species rank, then South Georgia would,
under the BirdLife classification, become a
full Endemic Bird Area, rather than a sec-
ondary area as at present (Stattersfield et al.
1998).

Present threats to South Georgia
breeding birds

The populations of breeding birds on South
Georgia are threatened both on land and at
sea. On land, the most important factors gov-
erning the distribution and abundance of
breeding seabirds are the presence of intro-
duced Brown Rats and Reindeer, and the
impact of the expanding population of
Antarctic Fur Seals.

Brown Rats have had a major effect on the
South Georgia avifauna. Rats were intro-
duced accidentally by the early whalers and
sealers, possibly as long ago as the eighteenth
century, and now occupy the entire northeast
coast of the island, and the northwestern
portion of the south coast. Their most signif-
icant impact has been on the endemic South

88. Where Tussac Grass Poa fl abellata is accessible to Antarctic Fur Seals Arctocephalus gazella, the
habitat is extensively degraded, and no longer supports nesting birds. The rapid expansion of the
seal population following collapse of the sealing industry has significantly reduced the area of
nesting habitat for seabirds on South Georgia.

140

British Birds 105 • March 2012 • 118-144

South Georgia

Georgia Pipit, which has been completely
eliminated in all areas with rats. However, the
presence of rats also has a major impact on
some burrow-nesting seabirds, with some
smaller species being absent entirely in areas
with rats. In addition to Brown Rats, House
Mice are known from a few areas of South
Georgia. In areas where mice are present,
populations of South Georgia Pipit are sig-
nificantly reduced.

Where Reindeer are present, their grazing
has modified the natural vegetation exten-
sively. In particular, they have reduced the
coverage of Tussac Grass, thereby eliminating
important breeding habitat for many
burrow-nesting species, and have collapsed
existing burrows by trampling. However,
areas with Reindeer also contain Brown Rats,
and while these areas have greatly reduced
numbers of burrow-nesting seabirds it is not
easy to separate the relative impact of these
two introduced mammals.

The expansion of the Antarctic Fur Seal
population also affects the habitat for
breeding seabirds. The most severe impacts
are the destruction of tussac grassland (plate
88) and a shift in the vegetation, with
replacement of Antarctic Hair-grass
Deschampsia antarctica by the introduced
Annual Meadow-grass, which is more tolerant
of trampling and enhanced nutrient input. In
northwest South Georgia (the source of
Antarctic Fur Seal population recovery and
expansion), much of the low-altitude grass-
land has been effectively destroyed as a
breeding habitat for seabirds, as well as for
South Georgia Pipits and South Georgia Pin-
tails, thus restricting many species to sites
inaccessible to the seals. The extent to which
such displacement has been accompanied by
local population decline is uncertain.

In the marine environment, widespread
and traditional threats such as oil pollution,
toxic effects of chemical residues and inges-
tion of plastics are generally uncommon,
even rare, among South Georgia seabirds,
though more problematic tor those species
which move to South American coastal
waters in winter or are transequatorial
migrants. The main threats to seabirds at sea
come from interactions with commercial
longline and trawl fisheries. A substantial
mortality ot albatrosses as bycatch in long-

line fisheries, and its major role in their pop-
ulation declines, was discovered in the early
1990s. It was then recognised also to involve
giant petrels, and especially White-chinned
Petrels, for which population trend data
were scarce or absent. In 1997, bycatch esti-
mates were produced, indicating that around
6,000 albatrosses and petrels were being
killed annually around South Georgia and
that longline fishing was the likely main
cause of the declines in the island’s Wan-
dering, Black-browed and Grey-headed
Albatross populations. Decisive action for
the compulsory use of a suite of technical
and operational measures to address this
problem was taken from 1998 onwards by
CCAMLR, the body responsible for the man-
agement of Southern Ocean fisheries,
including those around South Georgia. With
the wholehearted support of the Govern-
ment of South Georgia and the South Sand-
wich Islands, and the UK, these actions
reduced the problem to negligible propor-
tions locally over the next five years (Croxall
2008). Similar problems, but at a smaller
scale, were also evident in seabird mortality
associated with trawl fisheries and these were
also tackled effectively in the fisheries
around South Georgia.

Unfortunately, bycatch of South Georgia
seabirds in longline and trawl fisheries is still
widespread and substantial in many areas
outside South Georgia waters. This affects
juveniles and immatures throughout the year
and adults outside the breeding season. For
South Georgia birds the most serious prob-
lems are in the waters of, and adjacent to,
northern Argentina, Uruguay and southern
Brazil; there are also severe problems in the
Benguela and Humboldt Currents and in the
southern Indian Ocean for some species.
Despite the creation of an international con-
vention, the Agreement on the Conservation
of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), to address
these (and all other) threats to albatrosses,
giant petrels and Procellaria petrels and the
increasingly effective activities of the BirdLife
Albatross Task Force in the Benguela Current
system and in the southwest Atlantic, South
Georgia albatrosses and large petrels are still
being killed at levels that are unsustainable.
Most species continue to decline at rates of
between 1% and 4% per annum.

British Birds 105 • March 2012 • 118-144

141

Clarke et al.

Mitigation: eradication of rodents

A phased eradication of introduced rodents
on South Georgia began in March 2011,
with the aerial spreading of rodenticide-
laced cereal bait over 128 km2 of the central
north coast. This project is financed and run
by the South Georgia Heritage Trust, and it
is expected that two further seasons of bait
spreading will be required before the entire
island can be declared rodent-free. South
Georgia is many times larger than any island
hitherto targeted for rodent eradication, but
its larger glaciers are barriers to rodent
movement and effectively divide the island
into many separate but contiguous baiting
zones, each of which can be treated inde-
pendently.

The return of birds to breed in areas from
which their ancestors were displaced decades
or centuries ago is expected to commence in
some species soon after rodents have been
removed. However, most of the seabird
species affected demonstrate high natal
philopatry, so range expansion will be slow
and it may be centuries before a new steady
state is achieved. At that time the abundance
of species especially vulnerable to rat preda-
tion, such as storm-petrels, Blue Petrels and
South Georgia Pipits, may be one or two
orders of magnitude greater than now.

Past and present climate change

In common with all of Antarctica, South
Georgia is recovering from the last glacial
maximum, when it was covered in glaciers
that extended to the edge of the present con-
tinental shelf. Although the presence of small
refugia cannot be discounted, we must
assume that the bulk of the present flora and
fauna has colonised in the past 17,000 years
or so. In geological and evolutionary terms,
the present seabird fauna represents a rela-
tively recent colonisation. The growth and
decay of continental ice sheets in cycles of
40,000 and 100,000 years, driven by changes
in the earth’s orbit ( Milankovitch climate
cycles), will thus have exposed and removed
breeding habitat for seabirds on a regular
basis, and also shifted feeding grounds as the
oceanography changed.

At present, most of the glaciers on South
Georgia are retreating as the climate warms
(Gordon et al. 2008). While altitudinal shifts

in breeding distribution are possible as vege-
tation zones move higher, the major influ-
ence of current climate change is to allow the
further spread of introduced Reindeer and
Brown Rats out of areas that were previously
delimited by impassable glaciers and the sea.
This leads to the probability that, in the
absence of rat eradication measures, seabirds
currently isolated from such threats will
become exposed, with consequent declines in
population and breeding success.

The warming climate is also having more
subtle effects, including reduced winter
snowfall and summers that are becoming
longer, and perhaps wetter. The data are cur-
rently anecdotal but there are indications that
climate change is increasing the breeding
potential of both Reindeer and Brown Rats,
and also of South Georgia Pipits. In the last
case, longer summers allow for longer and
more productive breeding seasons, with dis-
persing juveniles being seen more widely
than previously.

It seems probable that the species most
vulnerable to ongoing climate change are
those whose ecology is intimately associated
with sea-ice. It is quite possible that Snow
Petrels and Chinstrap Penguins may eventu-
ally not breed at all on South Georgia. Those
species with specialised habits closely
adapted to current South Georgia conditions
are also likely to be affected, and both Gentoo
Penguins and Imperial Shags may decline.
For species dependent on the proximity of
feeding areas such as the Antarctic Polar
Front, which may move farther from South
Georgia, more demanding foraging may lead
to the population decline of, for example,
Macaroni Penguins, King Penguins, and
Grey-headed Albatrosses. If oceanographic
conditions cause a substantial change in krill
availability around South Georgia, that could
promote large-scale changes in the abun-
dance and composition of the marine
avifauna.

The future: tourism and
conservation

Some 6,000-7,000 people visit South Georgia
each year. The majority are recreational visi-
tors on cruise ships but other visitors include
yacht crews and contract workers,
researchers, military personnel and passen-

I

British Birds 1 05 • March 2012- 118-144

South Georgia

gers on a variety of vessels associated with
resupply, research, fishing and military activi-
ties. Ship-based tourist activities include
shore landings and Zodiac cruising, with
occasional sub-aqua diving, camping, moun-
taineering and kayaking excursions. The only
land-based tourism facility on the island is
the South Georgia Museum at Grytviken.
There are no accommodation facilities for
tourists on the island, although those on
climbing and scientific expeditions are per-
mitted to camp, and both day and longer-
term visitors occasionally occupy the field
huts on the central north coast. Current leg-
islation requires all expeditions and any visi-
tors wishing to stay overnight on South
Georgia away from King Edward Point to
obtain Government permits.

It is unlikely that the tightly regulated
tourism will have any significant negative
impacts on the environment or wildlife of
South Georgia. Indeed, the burgeoning
awareness of South Georgia and the prob-
lems faced by its wildlife is likely to be benefi-
cial in bringing increased pressure for all
initiatives seeking to restore the wildlife to its
former glories (before humans arrived); the
ever greater number of visiting birders will
also undoubtedly add to our knowledge ot
the island’s birdlife.

Acknowledgments

We thank Richard Phillips and PhilTrathan of the British
Antarctic Survey (BAS) for helpful comments on
population estimates, Peter Fretwell (BAS) for provision
of maps, and Phil Trathan for the maps from the South
Georgia Ecological Atlas. We also thank Ewan Edwards,
Morten Jorgensen, James Lidsten John Loines and the
British Antarctic Survey for provision of photographs,
and Bruce Pearson for permission to use one of his
evocative paintings of South Georgia as a frontispiece.

References

Berrow, S. D., Croxall, J. R, & Grant, S. D. 2000. Status of
White-chinned Petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis
Linnaeus 1 758, at Bird Island, South Georgia.

Antarctic Science 1 2: 399-405.

Bonner W, N. 1 968. The fur seal of South Georgia.

British Antarctic Survey Scientific Reports 56: 1-81.
Boyd, I. L. 1 993. Pup production and distribution of
breeding Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella at
South Georgia. Antarctic Science 5: 1 7-24.

Burton, R. 1996. South Georgia. The Government of
South Georgia and the South Shetland Islands,
Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Croxall, J. R 1 979. Distribution and population changes
in the Wandering Albatross Diomedea exulans at
South Georgia. Ardea 67: 1 5-2 1 .

— 2008. The role of science and advocacy in the
conservation of Southern Ocean albatrosses at sea.
Bird Conservation International 1 8: S 1 3-S29.

— & Hunter, I. 1 982. The distribution and abundance
of burrowing seabirds Procellariiformes at South
Georgia. II. South Georgia diving petrel Pelecanoides
georgicus. British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 56: 69-74.

— , Silk. J. R. D„ Phillips, R. A., Afanasyev, V., & Briggs,

D. R. 2005. Global circumnavigations: tracking
year-round ranges of non-breeding albatrosses.
Science 307: 249-250.

Gill, F„ & Wright, M. 2006 Birds of the World:
recommended English names. Helm, London.

Gordon, J. E„ Haynes, V. M„ & Hubbard, A. 2008. Recent
glacier changes and climate trends on South
Georgia. Global and Planetary Change 60: 72-84.

Hardy, A. 1 967. Great Waters. Collins, London.

Harrison Matthews, L. l929.The Birds of South
Georgia. Discovery Reports 1:561 -592.

— 1931. South Georgia: the British Empire's Subantarctic
Outpost. John Wright & Sons. Bristol.

Headland, R. 1 984. The Island of South Georgia.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hunt. G. L., Priddle, J.,Whitehouse, M. J„Vert, R. R., &
Heywood, R. B. 1 992. Changes in seabird
abundance near South Georgia during a period of
rapid change in sea-surface temperature. Antarctic
Science 4: 1 5-22.

Jimenez. S., Domingo, A., Marquez, A„ Abreu, M„
D'Anatro, A„ & Pereira, A. 2009. Interactions of
long-line fishing with seabirds in the south-western
Atlantic Ocean, with a focus on White-capped
Albatrosses Thalassarche steadi. Emu 109: 321-326.

Leader- Williams, N. 1988. Reindeer on South Georgia.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Martin, A. R„ Poncet. S.. Barbraud, C., Foster, E.,

Fretwell, R, & Rothery, P 2009. The White-chinned
Petrel Procellana aequinoctialis on South Georgia:
population size, distribution and global significance.
Polar Biology 32: 655-66 1 .

Murphy, R. C. 1936. Oceanic Birds of South America.
Macmillan/AMNH, New York.

— 1 948. Logbook for Grace: whaling brig Daisy,
1912-1913. Robert Hale. London.

Poncet. S. 2006. South Georgia and the South
Sandwich Islands. In: Sanders, S. M. (ed.), Important
Bird Areas in the United Kingdom Overseas Territories,
pp. 21 1-226. RSPB. Sandy.

— & Crosbie, K. 2005. A Visitor's Guide to South
Georgia. WildGuides, Maidenhead.

— , Robertson. G., Phillips. R. A.. Lawton, K., Phalan, B„
Trathan, R N., & Croxall, J. R 2006. Status and
distribution ofWandering, Black-browed and Grey-
headed Albatrosses at South Georgia. Polar Biology
29: 772-78 1 .

Prince, PA., & Croxall, J. P 1983. Birds of South
Georgia: new records and re-evaluations of status.
British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 59: 1 5-27.

— & — 1 996.The Birds of South Georgia. Bull. Brit
Orn.Club I 16:81-104.

— & Payne, M. R. 1 979. Current status of birds at
South Georgia. BAS Bulletin 48: 1 03- 1 1 8.

Rankin. N. 1951. Antarctic Isle: wild life in South Georgia.
Collins, London.

Stattersfield, A. J„ Crosby. M. J., Long, A. J., & Wege, D. C.

1 998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World: priorities for
conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge.

British Birds 1 05 • March 2012* 118-144

143

British Antarctic Survey

Clarke et al.

Trathan, R N., Daunt, R, & Murphy, E. J. 1 996. South
Georgia: an ecological atlas. BAS, Cambridge.

— , Ratcliffe, N., & Masden, E. A. In press. Ecological
drivers of change at South Georgia: the krill
surplus, or climate variability? Ecography 35
(doi: 1 0.1 I I I /j. 1 600-0587.20 1 1.07330.x).

— , Murphy E. J., Croxall, J. R, & Everson, I. 1998. Use of
at-sea distribution data to derive potential foraging
ranges of Macaroni Penguins during the breeding

season. Marine Ecol. Progr. Ser. 1 69: 263-275.
Watson, G. E. 1 975. Birds of the Antarctic and sub-
Antarctic. American Geophysical Union, Washington.
— , Angle, J. R, & Harper PC. 1971. Antarctic Map Folio
Series. Folio 1 4. Birds of the Antarctic and Subantarctic.
American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.
Weller M.W., & Howard, R. L. 1 972. The breeding of
Speckled Teal Anas flavirostris on South Georgia.
British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 30: 65-68.

Andrew Clarke, British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET;
e-mail accl@bas.ac.uk

John P. Croxall, BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA
Sally Poncet, South Georgia Surveys, Stanley, FIQQ 1ZZ, Falkland Islands, South Atlantic
Anthony R. Martin, Centre for Remote Environments, University of Dundee, 152 Nethergate,
Dundee DD1 4DY

Robert Burton, Driftwell, 63 Common Lane, Hemingford Abbots, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire
PE28 9 AW

Andrew Clarke has had a lifelong interest in birds, and spent 40 years as a marine ecologist with the British
Antarctic Survey. He worked on South Georgia between 1970 and 1982, spending two winters there, before
moving farther south in Antarctica. John Croxall worked on the seabirds and seals of South Georgia for the
British Antarctic Survey for 30 years, retiring in 2006 as Head of Conservation Biology. He is Chair of the Global
Seabird Programme of BirdLife International, and is aTrustee of the South Georgia Heritage Trust. Sally Poncet
is an ecologist who has been studying South Georgia's seabirds since the 1 970s. She lives in the Falkland Islands,
from where she regularly returns to South Georgia. Tony Martin is Professor of Animal Conservation at the
University of Dundee, and directs the South Georgia Habitat Restoration Project for the South Georgia
Heritage Trust. Robert Burton worked on albatrosses at the British Antarctic Survey research station on Bird
Island in the early 1970s; he has maintained an interest in the wildlife and history of South Georgia ever since
and has visited the island many times.

89. Peter Prince at Bird Island, South Georgia, where he undertook pioneering work on the
feeding and reproductive biology of albatrosses. He also made the first scientific study of Blue
Petrels Halobaena caerulea there, and both organised and led the first all-island survey of the
breeding birds of South Georgia.

British Birds 105 • March 2012 • 118-144

Citril Finch on Fair Isle:
new to Britain

Deryk N. Shaw and Roger Riddington

Abstract A Citril Finch Carduelis citrinella was found on Fair Isle on 6th June 2008;
it remained on the island until I Ith and was trapped on 7th. The bird was in
immaculate condition and was accepted by both BBRC and BOURC as the first
record for Britain. As well as the circumstances of the record, this article discusses
the status and distribution of the species, together with information about
movements and migration, and the possible origins of the Fair Isle bird.

For both of us, Friday 6th June 2008 will
forever remain an acutely poignant day
for reasons entirely unconnected to
birds. At 2.00 pm that afternoon, along with
most resident Shetland birders and a few
hundred others, we had attended a memorial
service to celebrate the life of Vaila Harvey, the
youngest daughter of Paul and Elizabeth
Harvey, who died of cancer at the age of 16 on
22nd May 2008. It was inevitably a highly
emotional afternoon, and. puts the rest of this
paper in its true context. All mobile phones
were switched off at the service,' held in Sand-
wick, in south Mainland Shetland, and we
were thus unaware of events on Fair Isle,

where DNS was then the Observatory warden.

At about midday, Fair Isle resident Tommy
Hyndman spotted a yellowy-green, finch-
sized bird feeding in his garden at the Auld
Haa. An inexperienced but enthusiastic
watcher of birds, Tommy had arrived with his
family from his native USA to live on Fair Isle
in 2006. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t recognise
the bird immediately, but after watching it
and consulting a field guide he decided that it
was a Citril Finch Carduelis citrinella. He
phoned the Obs and left a message, as he
often did when he saw unfamiliar birds.
Some little time later, Mike Gee was the first
birder on the scene, although he was unaware

© British Birds 1 05 • March 2012 * 1 45- 1 5 I

145

Richard Johnson

Rebecca Nason

Shaw and Riddington

of the news and just happened to be passing.
He listened to Tommy’s story, but the bird
had by then disappeared. Given the circum-
stances, Mike was understandably sceptical
but, half an hour or so later, as the bird mate-
rialised in front of him, he perked up signifi-
cantly as he realised that it was indeed a male
Citril Finch! Shortly afterwards, Elizabeth
Riddiford and then Paul King arrived on the
scene, followed by Kevin Shepherd, who had
been Assistant Warden at the Obs in 1985
and was staying at the Auld Haa with his wife
Roya. With the identification finally con-
firmed, news spread quickly at last and all
interested parties on the island made a
beeline for the Haa.

Back on mainland, and a little after 4.00
pm, RR was taxiing Deryk, his wife Hollie
and Neil Thomson, skipper of the Good
Shepherd, back to Grutness (the Shepherd had
been chartered to bring friends to the
service). About halfway to the boat, we finally
became aware of what had been happening
on Fair Isle, via that year’s Assistant Warden,
Simon Davies. Having the skipper in the car
meant that there was sufficient flexibility for
RR to nip home and change out of his suit
and join the Fair Isle residents heading back
to the isle. After an extraordinarily smooth
trip in calm, foggy conditions, we arrived on

Fair Isle at about 7.00 pm. The two of us were
whisked down to the Haa in the Obs van and
were relieved to find that the bird was still
within 100 m of where it had first been
found. We were soon enjoying good views:
what a smart little bird!

It remained on the island until 11th June,
and some 50 or more folk made the trip to
see it, either from Shetland or from farther
afield. It was trapped on 7th June, which
enabled a closer examination of its condition.

Identification and description

As the multitude of excellent photographs of
the bird testify, it was a distinctive creature. It
was essentially a small, yellowish finch, about
the size and shape of a Siskin; the bill shape
was pretty similar to that of a Siskin (margin-
ally shorter?) and it was long-winged, the
primary projection being judged in the field
to be as long as the exposed tertials. The tail
was strongly cleft and it looked relatively
long-tailed in flight.

The bird’s head sported an extensive pale,
ash-grey ‘shawl’, wrapping right round the
nape and across the ear-coverts to finish
either side of the throat. Forehead/fore-
crown, chin/throat and the ear-coverts
beneath the eye were, like the rest of the
underparts, a bright, slightly greenish-tinged

90. Male Citril Finch Carduelis citrinella. Fair Isle, June 2008.

British Birds 105 • March 2012 • 145-151