7Z .-'SB -gr* % BRITISH BIRDS With which was Incorporated in January 1917. “The Zoologist.” AN ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE DEVOTED CHIEFLY TO THE BIRDS ON THE BRITISH LIST EDITORS E. M. Nicholson and W. B. Alexander A. W. Boyd I. J. Ferguson-Lees P. A. D. Hollom N. F. Ticehurst Photographic Editor: G. K. Yeates Volume XLVIII H. F. & G. WITHERBY LTD. 5, Warwick Court * London • W.C.l LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate I Plate II Plate I Plate 2 Plate 3 Plzte 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 Plate 10 Plate II Plate 12 Plate 13 Plate 14 Plate 15 Plate 16 Plate 17 Plate 18 COLOURED PLATES Upper : Gray-Cheeked Thrush {Hylocichla minima) Lower : American Robin {Turdus migratorius) . (Painted by Roger Tory Peterson) ... ... facing Left : Yellow-headed Wagtail (Motacilla citreola), FEMALE and MALE. RiGHT : SIBERIAN ThRUSH (Turdus sibiricMs). (Painted by D. M. Henry) ... facing PLATES IN BLACK AND WHITE Male Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) at the NEST. (Photographed by P. B. Witherspoon) facing Female Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) in BREEDING PLUMAGE. (Photographed by A. D. Cruickshank) Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) at the NEST. (Photographed by G. K. Yeates) Stilt Sandpiper (Micropalama himantopus) on the nest. (Photographed by R. S. Palmer) Stilt Sandpipers (Micropalama himantopus) in winter PLUMAGE. (Photographed by K. H. Maslowski) ... Short-toed Larks (Calandrella brachydactyla) at Cley, Norfolk. (Photographed by R. P. Bagnall-Oakeley) ... Siberian Thrush (Turdiis sibiricus) on the Isle of May, 15T-4TH October 1954. (Photographed by D. G. Andrew). isT-wiNTER Yellow-headed Wagtail (Motacilla citreola) ON Fair Isle, 20TH-25TH September 1954. (Photographed by G. Mountfort) ... ... ... ... facing Sabine’s Gull (Xema sabini) on the nest, Alaska, 1950. (Photographed by N. Rankin) ... ... facing Sabine’s Gull (Xema sabini) at the nest, Alaska, 1950. (Photographed by Pi. Kankin) ... Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) at Farlington Marshes, Hampshire, September 1954. (Photographed by G. DES Forges) Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) at Farlington Marshes, Hampshire, September 1954. (Photographed by C. W. G. Paulson) ... ... ... ... facing Royal Terns (Sterna maxima) on the shore : America. (Photographed by A. D. Cruickshank) ... facing Close-up of Royal Tern (Sterna maxima) : America. (Photographed by A. D. Crvic'ksha'nk) Royal Terns (Sterna maxima) in breeding colony : America. (Photographed by 'L. G. K.nsT'Etoo) Royal Terns (Sterna maxima) at nesting colony : Lydia Ann Island, Texas, May 1953. (Photographed by J. Fisher) Royal Terns (Sterna maxima) at nesting colony : Lydia Ann Island, Texas, May 1953. (Photographed by J. Fisher) Royal Terns (Sterna maxima) at nesting colony : Lydia Ann Island, Texas, May 1953. (Photograph ed by J. Fisher) PAGE I 517 24 25 27 73 120 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 19 Plate 20 Plate 21 Plate 22 Plate 23 Plate 24 Plate 25 P/ate 26 P/a/e 27 P/ate 28 P/ate 29 Plate 30 Ptoie 31 P/a/e 32 Plate 33 Plate 34 Plate 35 Plate 36 P/a/e 37 PZate 38 Plate 39 PAGE Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) on the Isle of May, 9TH November 1954. {Photographed by W. U. Flower)... Pine Grosbeak {Pinicola enucleator) on the Isle of May, 9TH November 1954. {Photographed by W. U. Flower). facing 1 21 Male Yellowthroat {Geothlypis trichas) : America. {Photographed by A. D. Cruickshank) facing 168 Male Yellowthroat {Geothlypis trichas) : America. {Photographed by A. T). CTs.xsiCYi.suA.NK) Female Yellowthroat {Geothlypis trichas) at the nest : Florida, United States, May 1934. {Photographed by S. A. Grimes) Nest and eggs of Yellowthroat {Geothlypis trichas) : America. {Photographed by S. A. Grimes) ... facing 169 Myrtle Warbler {Dendroica coronata) : Newton St. Gyres, Devon, January/February 1955. {Photographed by E. H. Ware) ... ... ... ... ... facing 216 Myrtle Warbler {Dendroica coronata) : Newton St. Gyres, Devon, January/February 1955. {Photographed by E. H. Ware) Myrtle W.\rbler {Dendroica coronata) : Newton St. Gyres, Devon, Janu.\ry/February 1955. {Photographed by E. H. Ware) Myrtle Warbler {Dendroica coronata) : Newton St. Gyres, Devon, January/February 1955. {Photographed by E. H. Ware) Pair of Myrtle Warblers {Dendroica coronata) at the NEST. {Photographed by H. M. Halliday) ... Female Myrtle Warbler {Dendroica coronata) at the NEST : America. {Photographed by A. D. Gruickshank)... The " Dungeness ” ringing pliers in use. {Photographed fey E. Hosking) ... Stilt Sandpiper {Micropalama himantopus) ; Spurn, Yorkshire. {From sketches by J. Gudworth) ... facing 217 Bernard Beryl RiviiiRE (1880-1953) {Photographed by E. Hosking) ... ... ... ... ... ... facing 264 Breeding habitats of Alpine Accentor {Prunella collaris). {Photographed by R. Vaughan) ... Habitats of Alpine Accentor {Prunella collaris). {Photographed by R. Vaughan) Nest-sites of Alpine Accentor {Prunella collaris). {Photographed by R. Vaughan) Alpine Accentor {Prunella collaris) at the nest : Sierra Nevada, Spain, June 1954. {Photographed bv R. Vaughan) Alpine Accentor {Prunclh collaris) at the nest : Sierra Nevada, Spain, June 1954. {Photographed by R. Vaughan) Alpine Accentor {Prunella collaris) at the nest : Sierra evada, Spain, June 1954. {Photographed by R. Vaughan) LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 40 Plate 41 Plate 42 Plate 43 Plate 44 Plate 45 Plate 46 Plate 47 Plate 48 Plate 49 Plate 50 Plate 51 Plate 52 Plate 53 Plate 54 Plate 55 Plate 56 Plate 57 58 Unusual nest of Black-throated Diver {Gavia arctica). Central Sweden, 1954. {Photographed by M. D. England) ... ... ... ... ... ... facing Habitats of Marmora’s Warbler {Sylvia sarda) {Photo- graphed by J. Armitage) ... ... ... ... facing Male Marmora’s Warbler {Sylvia sarda) at the nest : Corsica, 1937. {Photographed by J. Armitage) Female Marmora’s Warbler {Sylvia sarda) on the nest : Corsica, 1937. {Photographed by J. Armitage) Pair of Marmora’s Warblers {Sylvia sarda) at the nest : Corsica, 1937. {Photographed by J. Armitage) ... facing Black Ducks {Anas rubripes) : America. {Photographed by R. T. Peterson) ... ... ... facing Black Ducks {Anas rubripes) ; America. {Photographed by R. T. Peterson) Adult Hoopoe {Upupa epops) at nest hole. Camargue, South France, May 1953. {Photographed by C. C. Doncaster) Adult Hoopoe {Upupa epops) at nest-hole. Camargue, South France, May 1953. {Photographed by C. C. Doncaster) Adult Hoopoe {Upupa epops) flying from nest-hole. Camargue, South France, May 1953. {Photographed by C. C. Doncaster) ... Adult Hoopoe {Upupa epops) flying from nest-hole, Camargue, South France, May 1953. {Photographed by C. C. Doncaster) ... Adult Hoopoe {Upupa epops) flying to nest-hole : Camargue, South France, May 1953. {Photographed by C. C. Doncaster) ... ... ... ... Upper : Lesser Yellowlegs {Tringa flavipes) : Glamor- gan, 1953. {Photographed by C. Stockton). Lower : PoMARiNE Skua {Stercorarius pomarinus) : Essex, 1954. {Photographed by W. C. Doughty) ... ... ... facing Hudsonian Whimbrel {Numenius phaeopus hudsonicus) : America. {Photographed by A. D. Cruickshank) facing White-winged Bl.'^ck and Black Terns {Chlidonias leucopterus and niger) : Cley, Norfolk, May/ June 1955. {Photographed by 'R. iSicao-Ls) White-winged Black and Black Terns {Chlidonias leucopterus and niger) : Cley, Norfolk, May/ June 1955. {Photographed by R. P. Bagnall-Oakeley) White-winged Black Tern {Chlidonias leucopterus) : Cley, Norfolk, May/ June 1955. {Photographed by P. Wayre) ... facing Impression of Pigeon {Columba sp.) on aircraft : Cartierville, Quebec, Canada, i6th November 1954. {Photographed by Canadair Ltd). ... ... ... facing Greenish Warbler {Phylloscopus trochiloides) ; Visby, Gotland, Sweden, 24TH June 1953. {Photographed by G. Hakansson) 265 312 313 356 357 401 488 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 59 Plate 6o Plate 6 1 Plate 62 Plate 63 Plate 64 Plate 65 Plate 66 Plate 67 Plate 68 Plate 69 Plate 70 P/a55 ,\mrrican Robin. PAGE •Specially Frontis])iece By W. B. -Alexander and bird. By I'rank D. I’late I : (jrav-cbeeUed Thrush and painted l>y Roger Tory Peterstjn ... .\merican land-birds in western I'iuropi'. R. S. R. Fitter Wilson’s Phalarnpe in Fife: .a new British Hamilton and Keiili S. Macgiegor Stilt Sandpiper in Yorkshire: a new British bird. By Ralph Chislelt ... Siberian Thrush on the Isle of May: a new British bird. Bv 1). (i. .Andrew, J. A. Xelder tmd Mai'v Ihiwkes (])l;ite 7) 1 wo A ellow-headed Wagtails on h'air Isle: :i new British bird. Bv Kenneth ^\ulliamson fplate S) Some photographic studies of Wilson’s Phalarope and Stilt Sandpiper: ])hotographed by Allan I). Cruickshank, K. H. Maslowski, Ral])h .S. Palmer .and Patricia Bailey Wilher.spoon (pl.ates 1-2 ;uid 3-5). Red- necked Ph.alarope: photographed by G. K. Yeates (plate 3) ... Notes: — Wood Sand|)i|)ers displaying alloat (D. I. M Display of Spotted Redshank (G. H. Rees) Notes on two Kingfishers displaving ( P. F. Goodfellow and P. Short-toed Larks in Norfolk (R. P. Bagnall-Oakelev) (jilate'o) .S|)ecial Review: — Lack on the Natural Regulation of Anim.al Numbers. Bv I-i. M. Nicholson. (Ihe Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers. Bv D.avid Lack, F.R.S.) ; Reviews: — I In W atcrfoii’l of the World. B)' Jean Delacour. lllustrateil by Pet(a' W’allace) |. Dare) By Je fiery ( seau.x d Eau de lielgiq Il.arrison By Leon Li|)pens Scott. A’ol. Pastures New. I.es Oii Key In Ihe .etlers : — “Anting” by birds (Derek Goodwin) Wk '' W-f and D,- Names of Prili.di Birds. Bv R. D Macleod I). ',3 iR o3 34 35 3<> 3« 43 44 44 45 47 photograph by H. A Patrick: .Short-toed Lark {I'alandrella braehvdae- Ivla) at ni-sl, south l'r;mce. Plate 1 Uppu . Gray-cheeked Thrush i Hylodchla minima) (Fair Isle, 5th October 1953, see vol. xlvii, pp. 266-267) Lower : American Roh\u (Turdas migratorias) (Liindy, 27th October — 8th November 1952, see vol. xivi, pp. 364-368) Specially painted by Roger Tor> Peterson BRITIsfelBIRDS VoL. XLVIII, Number i, January 1955 AMERICAN LAND BIRDS IN WESTERN EUROPE By W. B. Alexander and R. S. R. Fitter During the past ten years it has become increasingly apparent that the status of American land-bird vagrants in the British Isles would have to be reconsidered. One of us (R.S.R.F.) wrote in 1950 to the B.O.U. List-Committee, which was then preparing the Check-List published in 1952, suggesting that the time was ripe for such a reconsideration, but this view was not accepted by the Committee. We were therefore very glad of the oppor- tunity afforded when, in view of the interest aroused by the records of the Red-eyed Vireo* at Tuskar Rock in 1951 and of the American Robin on Lundy in 1952 (antea, vol. xlvi, pp. 364-68, 378-9), the Editors of British Birds asked us to review the older records of American land-birds in western Europe. In the mean- time there has been a brief general survey of the problem by Fisher (1953), and Williamson (1954) has examined the meteorological background of the arrival of several Nearctic species in Scotland in the autumn of 1953. Most authors of comprehensive works on British birds, down to The Handbook (1938-41), have held that small land-birds could not possibly cross the Atlantic unaided, and that any records of American Passerines, if correctly identified and authenticated, must therefore relate either to escaped cage-birds or to birds given some sort of assisted passage. Saunders (1889), indeed, refused even to accept that the two American cuckoos could have crossed the Atlantic “without human assistance’’. In this he dissented from the B.O.U. Committee, which in its List of 1883, produced under the auspices of Newton, had accepted these and other American land-birds as genuine migrants. This was, of course, not Saunders’s only difference of opinion with Newton. Witherby and his colleagues, from their 1912 Ha7jdlist onwards, reverted to Newton’s more liberal view over the cuckoos, but were still unable to accept the genuineness of the migrant status of such birds as the Baltimore Oriole in Shetland in September 1890 or the Slate-colored Junco in Co. Clare in May 1905. The problem has been complicated by the fact that undoubtedly * Scientific names are not given in the text unless the species is not one of those that appears in the systematic list on pages 4-14. 2 BRITISH BIRDS [\OL. XLVlll some of the records ha\e been due to escaped cage-birds or to attempts at acclimatization. Attempts were made to introduce Pysseng'er Pig'eon in Berwickshire before 1867) the Red- winged Blackbird at Inveraray in 1886, and the American Robin at Guildford in 1910, and each of these yielded an occurrence not far away. Gray (1871) recorded an instance where American White- winged Crossbills were captured at sea, some escaping off the Irish coast and others in Liverpool. It would be unscientific, how- ever, to allow these events, all rather a long time ago, to continue to block the reconsideration of the status of American land-bird migrants as a whole. The objection that these migrants must have had an assisted passage has now been shown to represent almost tlie opposite ot the truth. “Speed,” as Williamson (1954) points out, “is the sine qua non of a successful transatlantic crossing, and it is very doubtful if any small or medium-sized Passerine or wader could make it other than by a continuous down-wind drift in the strong westerly airstream of a vast Atlantic low”. Any bird that tarried on a ship would lose weight too rapidly to enable it to reach land unless it succeeded in finding food. Birds might of course be fed by passengers or crew, but only seed-eaters would be likely to get sufficient nourishment to enable them to continue the journey, and even then it would be necessary for the downwind drift to continue for them to have a cliance of making land. In this paper we .seek to show that statistical analysis of the 103 records of North .American land-birds in western Europe up to and including 1953 which can be dated to a month reinforces the a prion conclusions of \\ illiamson. These records fall into a definite pattern, with a marked peak in the autumn and a less marked one in the spring. The pattern for land-birds is paralleled in that for wading birds, which have always been accepted as genuine migrants, though it is not apparent whv a Semi-palmated Sandpiper {Calidris pusilla) should be able to cross the .\tlantic unaided if a Baltimore Oriole could not. Though it is possible tliat some of the land-birds included in the following table arc escaped cage-birds, that is a possibility that always has to be reckoned_ with. Few species are not kept in capti'vitv bv some birrl-tancier somewhere, and any bird appearing in a'n unusual place may have escaped from an aviary or collection. Whni can- no )c accepted is that birds tend to escape more at the normal migra ion periods than at otiicr times iff year. and r- ilJ American waders, herons, cranes month that can l)c dated to a are so nn ^ ^ American Bittern {BoUiurus Jcntls^inosus) are also inch?r^l shown separately in brackets, but Siberia, vix. Peep r I ’"'s originated in Greenland or April; Eskdale, Cumberland. 1859, May 25; Helmsley, Yorks. ciSS9; Glaisdale, Yorks. Now rarely seen north of South Carolina, but formerly a com- mon bird in the north-central United States and straggling to southern Canada. Accepted as British by the 1883 B.O.U. ommittee, under the influence of Newton, but rejected by that ° followed Saunders. Records in Argyllshire in 1772 '*? ^^33 suspect on the grounds of vagueness and likelihood of confusion with the native Red Kite [MHviis mi tins), which was already scarce and unfamiliar in many districts y le egmning of the last century; and neither are definite Wensleydale bird, which was captured alive in a thunderstorm and later escaped, has an excellent claim ^ genuine migrant. The only reason for ^ genuineness is Saunders’s statement that there was like SD mM previously been in confinement, but ‘ uy o the older writers he did not specify this reason. VOL. XLViii] AMERICAN LAND-BIRDS IN EUROPE 5 The second bird with a reasonable claim is the Mersey one, which was in the Macclesfield Museum for some years. The only thing that can be said against it is that it might have been brought over on a ship and released in Liverpool, and that June is a curious date for a transatlantic migrant. For both the 1853 and 1859 birds there is some supporting evidence, and it is not just a case of the use of the name “Swallow-tailed Kite” for the Red Kite. Eastern Goshawk [Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) 1869, cMay; Schiehallion, Perthshire. 1870, Feb.; Galtee Mts, Tipperary. Feb. or Mar.; Parsons Town, Birr, Offaly. 1919, Feb. 24; .Strabane, Tyrone. 1935, Dec. 23; Athenry, Galway. Dec. 28; Tresco, Scillies. Breeds in the eastern part of N. America and partially migrates southwards. Saunders was doubtful of the Perthshire record, and the B.O.U. 1915 List rejected all the first three, as did the 1912 Handlist. The 1919 record appears to have swung opinion round. Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) i860, autumn; Nottinghamshire. An old record, at which both the B.O.U. Committees looked askance, and which, as Coward said, cannot now be proved. There is some southward movement of this bird in eastern N. America in autumn. Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) 1863, Feb. 26; Kingussie, Inverness-shire. A somewhat similar record to the last, square-bracketed by both B.O.U. Committees on the ground that it was “probably due to the mistake of a dealer”. However, the bird moves south in the eastern United States in autumn and the record is not inherently more unlikely than the Eastern Goshawk or the American Sparrowhawk. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Chislett (1953) considers there is some doubt as to the York- shire origin of the bird presented to the Scarborough Museum in 1936-37 as a White-tailed Eagle (H. albicilla) but subsequently identified as this species. P. A. Clancey believes it is the eagle recorded by Nelson as having been trapped near Scarborough on 17th January 1865, but this cannot be absolutely proved. One was killed in Sweden about 1850. There are several records for Bermuda. It is mainly resident but some northern birds move south. 6 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII American Peregrine {Falco peregrimts anatnm) 1891, Oct. 31; Newbold Verdon, Leicestershire. 1910, Sept. 28; Humberstone, Lincolnshire. Two g-enerally accepted records, but since the bird breeds in Greenland, they are omitted from the totals in Table II. Eastern Pigeon-hawk or Merlin {Falco columbarius columbarhis) 1920, Nov. ii; South Uist, Outer Hebrides. This bird was at first thoug-ht to be an aberrant of the European race, of the Merlin, but is now considered to be referable to the typical race (Meinertzhagen and Williamson, 1953). American Sparrowhawk or Kestrel (Falco sparverius) 1901; Birkendegaard, Kalundborg, Denmark. This Danish record at the end of 1901 is the only one for western Europe. Game-birds (GaUiformes) Several attempts have been made to introduce various North .'\merican game-birds, notably the Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) and the Bob-white {Colinns virgiuianus), which are in any case non-migratory, so that it hardly seemed worth while even to list the recorded occurrences. P.\SSENGER Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) 1825, Dec. 31; Monymeal, Fife. 1840; Graville-Ste. Honorine, Seine-Inf., France. 1844, early July; Royston, Herts. 1848; near Tralee, Kerry. -Another bird that was accepted by the B.O.U. in 1883 under the auspices of Newton, but rejected in 1915 under those of Saunders. Saunders said that it was notorious that from 1830 onwards many Passenger Pigeons were brought over and turned loose in Britain, but this would not invalidate the 1825 record. The Tralee bird was found in a state of extreme exhaustion and there is no reason to suppose it had not just flown the Atlantic. The only thing against the Royston bird is the time of year, coupled with a rather vague sight record of another Passenger Pigeon at firing, not far away, at about the same time, suggesting the possibility of a source of escapes. One was shot at Meller- stain, Berwickshire, prior to 1867, shortly after some had been liberated near-by. One obtained at Mulgrave, Yorkshire, on 12th ctober 1876, is also stated to have had the worn plumage of a caged bird. Thompson (1850) said they were occasionally brought over in vessels and kept by pigeon-fanciers. VOL. xLviii] AMERICAN LAND-BIRDS IN EUROPE 7 Yellow-billed Clxkoo {Coccyzus nmericanus) 1825, autumn; Youghal, Co. Cork. Before 1833; Poole Harbour, Dorset. 1832, autumn; Lawrenny, Pembrokeshire. Bray, Co. Wicklow. (.•1835; Cornwall. 1870, Oct. 26; Aberystwyth, Cardiganshire 1874, Oct. 22; Hainault, Belgium. Oct.; Lundy Is., Devon. 1883, Oct. 28; Turin, Italy. 1895, Oct. 5; Bridport, Dorset. 1896, early Oct.; Isle of Wight. 1899, Nov. 10; Anglesey. 1901, Oct. 6; Somerset. Oct. 30; Hampshire. 1904, Nov. 6; Colonsay, Inner Hebrides. 1921, 3rd week Nov.; Scilly Is. 1924, Nov. 6; Charente-Inferieure, France. 1927, Nov. 25; Lucca, Italy. 1932, Nov. 2; Sicily. Nov. 19; Azores. 1936, Oct. 22; Orkney. 1952, Nov. i; Exnaboe, Shetland. Nov. 4; Eastbourne, Sussex. 1953, Oct. 3; Muck, Inner Hebrides. Oct. 5; Caskieben, Nairnshire. Oct. 10; Montrose, Angus. .Nov. 14; Cloughton, Yorks. Has occurred in Europe on 28 occasions since 1825, and is now completely accepted as a g'enuine mig"rant, though Saunders doubted this. All dated records are for October or November. There is one undated record for Denmark. Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythroplithalmus) 1858; Lucca, Italy. 1871, Sept. 25; Killead, .\ntrim. 1886, July 20; Nisson. H^rault, France. 1932, Oct. 27; Scilly Is. 1950, Nov. 6-8; Kintyre, .Argyll; a flock. 1053, Oct. ii; Foula, Shetland. There is also an undated museum specimen in the Azores. Saunders questioned the genuineness of transatlantic migration in this species, though The Handbook accepts it. Screech Owl (Otus asio) This being a non-migratory species, it seems likely that the pair (of which one was shot) seen near Kirkstall Abbey, Yorkshire, in the breeding season of 1852 must have been escapes. The same applies to the bird recorded near Yarmouth in Stevenson (1866). ■American Hawk Owl (Surnia tdula caparoch) 1830, March; coast of Cornwall. 1847, Aug. 25; Backwell Hill, A^atton, Somerset. 1863, Dec.; Maryhill, Lanarkshire. 8 [vOL. XLVni BRITISH BIRDS Two more specimens (near Greenock, Renfrewshire, November i868;Northamptonshire, 19th October, 1903) have without the subspecies having- been ascertained , ano i , . . unknown race near Greenock, in December 1871, has had doubt thrown on its authenticitv : and a fourth (Shetland, winter i860) is thought to have been of the European race. It is not clear why there has been so little hesitation in accepting- this species as a g-enuine migrant, when it is just as likely to have escaped from captivity as some other species which have always been doubted. Nighthawk [Chordeiles minor) 1927, Sept. 17: Tresco, Scillv Is. This bird having come since Saunders’s day, its genuineness as a migrant has never been questioned. It appeared at about the same time as a Buff-breasted Sandpiper {Tryngites siibruflcollis), an American Robin and a Pied-billed Grebe {Podilymbus podiceps). Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) 1845, Oct. 26; Annsbrook, Co. Meath. 1845, Nov.; Luggela, Co. Wicklow. 1899, Dec. 17; De Steeg, Gelderland, Holland. 1901, Sept.; Westmann Is., Iceland. 1908, Nov.; Sladcsbridge, Wadebridge, Cornwall. There is also an undated museum specimen for the Azores. The two records from Ireland in 1845 were accepted by the 1883 B.O.U. Committee, but Ussher (1900) suggested they might have escaped from the same cage, and the authors of the Handlist (1912) stated they were “undoubtedly due to a fraud’’, although one of them, writing six years later, only said that “considerable doubt attaches to at least one of the Irish records’’ (Jourdain, 1919). The Cornish record did not come to light for ten years, but in view of the letter from the man who shot it (Stevenson, 1919), it is hardly possible to refuse to accept the record unless the creden- tials of all other rare birds not actually shot by an ornithologist are to be called in question. Flicker [Colaptes auraius) 1836, autumn; Ainesburv Park, Wilts. 1 his woodpecker is migratory, and is ;m unlikely cage-bird. I he most suspicious circumstance about its occurrence is that another, non-migralory, .American woodiiecker, the Downy, occurred in Dorset in December of the s:ime yetir. In view of the obviously trustworthy st:itements of the man who shot (Marsli, 1S59), the phrase “said to have been shot in I ts lire used about the record by most subsequent authors IS ( i.stinctly misleading. Clearly tlie only question is whether SOUK )o( y 1,1(1 liberated it nearby, :ind that we shall never know. VOL. XLViii] AMERICAN LAND-BIRDS IN EUROPE 9 Hairy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos villosus) Two are recorded for Yorkshire, one from Brighouse prior to 1807 and one from Whitby early in 1849, but as the bird is non- migratory, they cannot be regarded as genuine migrants, even if correctly identified. An Oxfordshire record in 1882 was probably due to an exchange of skins. Downy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos pubescens) Another non-migratory woodpecker, which has been recorded twice, viz. Bloxworth, Dorset, December 1836; and Erampton Cotterel, Glos., 14th January, igo8. Tree Swallow (Iridoprocne hicolor) 1850; near Derby. This bird was shot from among Sand Martins (Riparia riparia) and reported by John Wolley, who with Newton believed in its authenticity, though from the 1883 B.O.U. List onwards it has always been square-bracketed. There seems no real reason why it should not be regarded as a genuine migrant. Moreover, since our Sand Martin is identical with the American Bank Swallow, some of the Sand Martins it was flying with could have been trans- atlantic migrants too. Purple Martin (Progne subis) 1839 or 1840; Kingstown, Co. Dublin. 1854; Colne Bridge, Huddersfield, Yorks. The Irish bird is in the National Collection at Dublin, though most previous writers have sheltered behind “said to have been” shot in Ireland. No evidence is adduced to show that it might have been shot anywhere else. The Huddersfield record is not now provable. Harting (1866) hints at fraud in connection with the Brent Reservoir (Middlesex) record of September 1842. Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) 1840, Oct. 28; Heligoland. 1908, May 2; Leopoldshagen, Anklam, Germany. No British records. Mocking-bird (Mimus polyglottos) Non-migratory, so that the few records must be of escaped cage-birds. Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 1836, late autumn; Heligoland. The only European record. 10 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII American Robin [Turdus migratorius) 1820; Aspang, Austria. 1846, autumn; in game-market, Vienna, .\ustria. 1851, end Nov.; Meiningen, Germany. 1874, Oct. 14; Heligoland. 1876, .'\pr. or May; Dover, Kent. Oct. 31; Upjever, Oldenburg, Germany. 1891, May 4; Shankill, Co. Dublin. 1892, Dec.; L. Gill, -Sligo. 1893, Oct.; Leicester. 1894, Dec.; Co. Leitrim. 1913, Nov. 23; Ueckermiinde, Pomerania, Germany, autumn; Miinchen-Gladbach, Germany. 1927, Sept. 15; Shrewsbury, Salop. 1937, Dec. 2i;Sevenoaks Vine, Kent. 1952, Oct. 25-Nov. 8; Lundy, Devon. A difficult case of a highly migratory bird which is also a cag'e- bird and has been the subject of several attempts at introduction in Britain. Lord Northclilfe’s attempt to introduce them near Guildford, Surrey, about 1910, was presumably responsible for the bird which appeared in Richmond Park in May 1912 and began to build a nest. The three Irish records in 1891-94 also suggest the possibility of escapes from an aviary, especially as two were from adjoining counties. The Shrewsbury bird appeared only two days before a Nighthawk in the Scillies. On the whole the pattern suggests that most are genuine migrants : all except two of the dated records are from September-December, and those two represent a possible return spring migration. Hermit Thrush {HylocichJa guttata) 1825, Dec. 22; Klein Zcrbst, Anhalt, German\'. 1836, Oct.; Heligoland. 1851; Oberfalz, Black Fore.st, Gei 'many. There is also an undated museum specimen for the Azores. Xo British records. Olive-backed Thrush [HylocicJila ustulata) 1843, autumn; Genoa, Italy. 1847, Oct. 6; Namur, Belgium. 1869, Dct. 2; Heligoland. 1878; Rovereto, Tirol, Italy. 1885, Oct. 15-20; Chiny, Belgium. 1896, Oct.; Namur, Belgium. 1906, Oct.; La Pintelez, Ghent, Belgium. I he 1847 bird was of the typical race {H. n. ustulata), the rest all of the eastern race {II. u. S7vainsoui). A remarkably restricted migration period, recalling that of the two cuckoos, td'l the dated records being in October. No British record. Gray-chei:ked Phrush {HylocichJa niiuiiua) 1901, Nov. 2; Isle of KIba, Italy. 'TVi. Oct.5; Pair Isle, Shetland. VOL. xLviii] AMERICAN LAND-BIRDS IN EUROPE 11 The Scottish bird was the first Hylocichla to occur in Britain, though eleven specimens of three species have occurred on the Continent. This is probably because thrushes have never been caught for food in this country on the scale that still prevails on the Continent. Golden-crowned Kinglet {Regiilus satrapa) 1897, Oct. 19; Wharmton Clough, Oldham, Lancs. \ record that was not published till 1922 (Stubbs, 1922) and is not mentioned in The Handbook. The bird was identified as R. satrapa by the late H. F. Witherby, but because it was believed that it could not have crossed the Atlantic, it was considered more likely to belong to a hitherto undiscovered Asiatic race of Firecrest (R. ignicapiUiis). Ruby-crowned Kinglet [Regiilus calendula) 1852, summer; Kenmore Wood, L. Lomond, Scotland. 1871, .Sept. 21; Highnam, Cilos. 1903, Oct. 31; mid-.\tlantic (53°24'N., 30°i5''W.). Saunders was sceptical of the Scottish record, but Coward thought its history satisfactory ; it is another case of whether or not one is prepared to believe the man who shot it. A further specimen, said to have been obtained in Co. Durham in 1852, turned out to be a Firecrest [R. ignicapillus). American Water Pipit [Anthus spinoletta rubescens) There are seven records of this race from Europe (three from Heligoland and one each from St. Kilda, Fair Isle, Great Saltee and Italy), but as it breeds in Greenland, it is omitted from Table II. Ced.\r W.\xwing [Bombycilla. cedrorum) Two were reported by Newton as having been taken at Stockton-on-Tees, Co. Durham, early in 1850, but he later with- drew the record. Red-eyed Vireo [Vireo olivaceus) 1859, May; Chellaston, Derbyshire; two. 1951, Oct. 4; Tuskar Rock, Co. Wexford. The occurrence of the Tuskar bird as an undoubted genuine drift-migrant makes it necessary to reconsider the opinion of the older writers that the Chellaston birds, caught by a bird-catcher, were escaped or released cage-birds. Black-and-white Warbler [Mniotilta varia) 1936, mid-Oct.; .Scalloway, -Shetland. There is no reason whatever to doubt the genuineness of the migrant status of this bird, which appeared at the same time as a Yellow-billed Cuckoo. 12 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLViri Parula Warbler (Panda americana) 1913, Oct.; Viki Myrdal, Iceland. No British record. Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) 1904, May; Axwell Park, Co. Durham. This specimen of the eastern race (D. p. aestiva) now has a good claim to be regarded as the first European record of the species, and not to be an escape, as the authors of the Handlist suggested. Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens) 1858, Nov. 19; Heligoland. No British record. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) There are two undated records from Heligoland. Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) 1854, Oct.; Norfolk. i8()o, March; Thrandeston, .Suffolk. 1876, Oct. 13; S. WaLsham, Norfolk. logether with an undated record from Cheltenham, Glos., many years prior to 1871, these three records have long been dis- missed as obvious escapes, but it is a curious coincidence that two of the birds should have escaped in one of the most likely months for a normal American migrant to be seen. \ ellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalns xanthocephalus) An undated record from Denmark is the only one for Europe. Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 1824, June; Holton, .Suffolk. 1843, June 2; Barton Broad, Norfolk. 1844, <^tumn; Shepherd’s Bush, Middlesex. Sidlesham, Sussex. 1804, Oct.; Lombardy, Italy. *^65, June; Romney, Kent. June c2-i6; Liphook, Hants. 1866, March 21; Hove, Sussex; three. June 12; Banff. -^^wick-le-Street, Yorks. 1880, May C18; Holy Island, Northumberland, spring, Bovingdon, Herts. l88i’ Ma v Aug.; Swanpool, Faknouth, Cornwall. o«2. May 17; Hadleigh, Suffolk; two. Salthou.se, Norfolk. ’ Na.sh Lighthouse, Glamorgan. I liere '■ccords for ncor London and Cast Lotlilan. s«ms liMic .loulM t|,„t VOL. XLviii] AMERICAN LAND-BIRDS IN EUROPE 13 due to escapes, for this is a favourite cage-bird, the records all relate to males, and the concentration of records in S.E. England during 1863-66 is suggestive. A bird found at Rannoch, Perth- shire, on loth May 1886, had almost certainly come from Inveraray, where the Duke of Argyll had released several on 20th April. There is not a good pattern of records, and it is a fact that two of the three autumn records are rendered suspect by association with known or possible releases. The species is incorrectly stated in the Handlist to be non-migratory, for it is almost entirely a summer-visitor in the northern part of its range (Canada, New England and New York). Baltimore Oriole [Icterus galbida) 1890, Sept. 26; Shetland. Another presumable drift-migrant. Rusty Blackbird [Euphagus carolinus) 1881, Oct. 4; near Cardiff, Glamorgan. 1938, July-Aug.; St. James’s Park, London. Of these two records, the former would seem to be more likely to be a genuine drift-migrant and the latter an escaped cage-bird. Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) 1802; Portland, Dorset. Montagu considered this bird had escaped from a ship going up Channel, but this can no longer be regarded as a certain solution. American Goldfinch [Spinus tristis) A specimen of this bird was taken on Achill Is., Co. Mayo, on the very likely date of 6th September 1894, but its plumage suggested that it had been caged. American White-winged Crossbill [Loxia leucoptera leiicoptera) 1838; Worcester. 1841, Feb.; Jedburgh, Roxburghshire. 1845, Sept. 17; Exmouth, Devon. 1849, cMarch 28; Edwinstowe, Notts.; four. 1870, Oct. or earlier; at sea on a boat arriving at Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. The subspecific identity of several other specimens is in doubt. On at least two occasions birdsi have alighted in the rigging of a transatlantic ship, and Gray (1871) relates a case where some were captured, two escaping near the Irish coast and two more in Liverpool. This incident has been made the excuse for square- bracketing all records of this race, and indeed to some extent all records of North American Passerines in Britain. 14 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIH Slate-coloured Junco [Junco hyemalis) 1905, May 30; Loop Head, Co. Clare. 1914, Nov. 28; Rome, Italy. The Irish bird is another which has been unjustifiably presumed to have escaped from captivity. White-throated Sparrow [Zonotrichia albicolUs) 1867, Aug. 17; Aberdeen Links, Scotland. 1872, March 22; Brighton, Sussex. 1893, Feb. 13; Holderness, Yorks. 1909, May 18; Flannan Is., Outer Hebrides. All these have been written oft' as escaped cajje-birds, but at least the last may reasonably be supposed to be a normal drift- migrant. Records from time to time of the Northern Shrike [Lanins excuhitor borealis), the American Rough-legged Hawk [Buteo lagopus sancti-)oliannis), and the Saw-whet Owl [Aegolius acadica) were due to mistaken identifications. REFERENCES Only references cited in the text are listed here. The full list of original references for each record has been deposited at the Edward Grey Institute at Oxford. Biutisii Ornitiioi.oc.ists' Union (1883): A List of British Birds. London. (i9'5): A List of British Birds. London. Ciiisi.ETT, K. (1953): Yorkshire Birds. London and Hull. Coward, T. .'\. (1920): The Birds of the British Isles and their Eggs. London. Dai.gleisii, J. J. (1880): Bull. Nuttall Orn. CL, 5: 65-74, 210-221. P'lSiiER, J. (1953); Country Fair, 4(3): 35-39. I'REKE, P. Hi. (1879): Sci. Proc. Roy. Dublin .^oc., N.S. 2: 273. • (1880): Sci. Proc. Roy. I'tublin .S'oc., N..S. 3; 22. Gray, R. (1871); The Birds of the TFcsf of .'Scotland. Gla.sgow. Hartert, E. et al. I1912): A Handlist of British Birds. London. Harting, j. R. (1866): The Birds of Middlesex. London. - (1872); A Handbook of British Birds. London. JouRDAiN, F. C. R. (1919): “Belted Kingfisher in Cornwall”. Brit. Birds, xii : 160-161. Marsh, G. S. (1859): Zoolos^ist, 1859, p. 6327. Meinertzh.agen, R. (1954): ‘Bull. B.O.C., 74: 103. ~ ^ and Williamson, K. (1953): ‘‘‘Check-list of the birds of tiieat Britain and Ireland’ (1952): some comments”. Ibis, 95: 365. Montagu, G. (1802): Ornithological Dictionary. London. Newton, A. (1871-82): Editor, Yarrell’s A History of Briti.sh Birds. London. An Illustrated Manual of British Birds. London. . lEVENsoN, H. G. (1919); “Belted Kingfi.sher in Cornwall". Brit. Birds xii: 216. Stevenson, H. (1866): The Birds of Norfolk. London. r-,. eVT'o- 'i “Note on a possible Lanca.shire examiile of the Gold- cro.sted kinglet Lancs, and dies. Fauna Ctee. f^th .Imi. Refi., pp. 13-15 Warren, R. (1900): The Birds of Ireland. London.' incT r j).' 7954): “.'\mcrican birds in Scotland in autumn and winter, 'n.S.r.S4 • >coi. Xai.^ 99. Wiiiii.Rin, II. H. rt „] (k)’8-4i); The Handbook of British Birds. London. WILSON’S PHALAROPE IN FIFE ; A NEW BRITISH BIRD By Frank D. Hamilton and Keith S. Macgregor On the afternoon of the nth September 1954 we were bird- watching- on an area of reclaimed ground between North Queens- ferry and Rosyth Dockyards, Fife, where there are two shallow fresh water pools. The two pools are separated from each other by a raised bank, and it was whilst watching from behind this bank that we came across a noticeably pale wader which was feeding beside a party of Ruff [Philomachus pugnax). The bird immediately excited our curiosity and, at first, due to the general pale colouring and method of feeding we suspected a phalarope [Phalaropus sp.) in winter plumage. After a few moments, however, we realised that the bird had yellow legs, and when it fluttered a few yards, saw that it had no wing-bar. It also had a white rump and tail. We then knew that this was something most unusual and the following description is compiled from notes taken on the spot by ourselves and others, especially D. G. Andrew, Dr. W. J. Eggeling, Miss M. I. Kinnear, Prof. M. F. M. Meiklejohn and George Waterston. Size approximately that of Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris testacea) which was also present. General appearance of a very white bird, with longish neck and small head. Bill black, straight, needle-like and slightly longer than the length of the head. Throat, breast and under-parts, pure white. Forehead, white with ashy-grey crown and nape. White eye-stripe, separa- ted from white of under-parts by pale greyish line through eye, which continued down side of neck to join with grey of shoulder; the line on the right-hand side was more noticeable than that on the left, but it became less distinct during the time the bird stayed. Mantle, ashy-grey as crown, scapulars and coverts darker, with faint buff edges, giving a scaly appearance at close quarters. Primaries, dark brown. Rump, white, as in Wood Sandpiper {Tringa glareola). Tail, white very faintly barred grey at tip. Underwing, white. Legs rather long and slender, colouring vary- ing according to light conditions, appearing orange-yellow in bright light, and ochreous yellow at other times. Colour of feet similar. From this description it is clear that the bird was a Wilson’s Phalarope {Phalaropiis tricolor) and it was first identified as such by D. G. Andrew from R. T. Peterson’s American work A Field- Guide to the Birds. During- the first few days the bird fed at the edg-e of the pool in a very energetic manner, running fast after insects, and picking these off the tops of the weeds and off the ground, with quick side to side movements of the head and it was not seen to probe at any time. Whilst it was feeding the legs were flexed and the head and neck were held close and parallel to the ground, with the tail raised. Latterly, however, the bird spent a great deal of its time 15 16 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII swimming- and apparently obtained its food from the bottom of the pool. On several occasions the Wilson’s Phalarope was seen to spin very fast in one spot on land, 15-20 times, which is a character- istic habit of this species. The bird was always silent, both on the ground and in flight, except on one occasion when it was heard to give a loud, nasal “aangh” when threatened by a Redshank (T. totanus). The flight was fast and purposeful, often with Red- shanks and Dunlin (C. aJpina), with which it kept in perfect formation, but on occasions it would break off and land on its own. When flying it appeared very much a grey bird, having rather a bullet-shaped body, whilst the legs projected slightly beyond the According to the outline given by A. C. Bent (1927, Life Histories of N. American Shore Birds, Part I), the Wilson’s Phalarope breeds in southern Canada and the western United States as far north as Alberta and Saskatchewan, east to Ontario and Illinois, south to Indiana, Colorado and Nevada, west to Cali- fornia, Oregon and Washington. The wintering range does not appear to be exactly known, but most records come from South America and, to a lesser extent, Mexico. On autumn passage, this species is a regular though fairly rare migrant on the east coast of the United States, from approximately Long Island south- wards. The meteorological conditions for the ten days before the bird was first seen show that it might have reached Scotland via New York and the Quebec-Newfoundland region, thence across the .Atlantic with a following wind of up to 40 m.p.h. A detailed discussion is not given owing to the uncertainty of the date of the bird’s arrival. The appearance in late August or earlv September of a Stilt Sandpiper [Micropalama hiniantopus) in Yorkshire (see pages 18-20) and of three or more Lesser Yellowlegs {Tringa fiavipes) on the south coast of England also prove the existence of conditions permitting a transatlantic crossing. The Wilson’s Phalarope at Rosyth was last seen on 5th October and, during its stay of three and a half weeks, was watched by at least 60 different people, including, apart from those already mentioned. Miss E. V. Baxter, Dr. John Berry, A. G. S. Bryson, A. B. Duncan, I. J. Ferguson-Lees, Len Fullerton, P. A. D. Hollom, John Hoy, J. H. B. Munro, Dr. R. S. Weir and Tom eir. We would like to express our gratitude to Admiral Robson or his courtesy in allowing various observers to spend so much tunc on the dockyard land. tail. |\\’e have been able to trace th I halarope in the British Isles. ree previous reports of Wilson’s In the Dyke Road Museum, VOL. XLviii] WILSON’S PHALAROPE IN FIFE 17 Brighton, Sussex, there is a single specimen described as follows in the 5th edition of the Museum’s Catalogue of Cases (1927, pp. 199-200) by the editor, A. F. Griffith : “This bird, almost if not quite the first of the kind to be recorded as obtained in Europe, was shot by Mr. W. Clarke of Mann Street, Hastings, near Winchelsea, Sussex, on the ist May 1925 and taken to Bristow to be stuffed. It was examined the next day, before being skinned, by Mr. W. Ruskin Butterfield. A female, in her charming bridal plumage, she must have come a long way round from her usual nesting quarters in North America. This plumage is only assumed for about three months in the summer, the winter being spent in the southerly parts of the American continent, even as far south as Patagonia and the Falklands; the winter plumage, as in the case of the other two Phalaropes, being much less striking, though still beautiful. It was bought through Mr. Bristow’s good offices by Mr. A. F. Griffith and given to the Museum. Another female in similar plumage was reported as killed near Scalloway in the Shetlands, June loth 1911. It passed into the Harpur Crewe col- lection from which it too was bought by Mr. Griffith. But as no accurate data have been ascertained to corroborate the original report, this bird has been relegated, till further evidence may be available, to the general collection at the Church Street Museum.’’ The Sussex record is included in John Walpole-Bond ’s A History of the Birds of Sussex (1938, p. 213) with the following comment: “so far it has not received universal recognition as a genuine visitor to the eastern hemisphere. Perhaps, therefore, it should be bracketed’’. Another report is quoted by Montagu Browne in the section “Birds’’ in A History of the County of Leicester (1907, p. 149) as follows : “.A. specimen of Wilson’s Phalarope, Steganopus Wilsoni (Sabine), is said to have been obtained at Sutton Ambien near Market Bosworth, and the occurrence was mentioned in Proc. Zool. Soc. (1886), pt. 3, p. 297, and in the Zool. (1886), p. 256, but the authenticity of the record has not been fully established. ’’ None of these reports is mentioned in The Handbook.- — Eos.] STILT SANDPIPER IN YORKSHIRE: A NEW BRITISH BIRD By Ralph Chislett On 31st August 1954 Peter VVaterton and Edward E. Jackson, who were staying at the Spurn Bird Observatory, noticed an unusual wader on marshy land north of Kilnsea, Yorkshire. The descriptions they gave did not fit any bird ever known to have visited the area. The same afternoon, about hours later, when they visited the place again, accompanied by G. H. Ainsworth, R. F. Dickens and myself, the bird could not be found. On the following day the two boys, to whom full credit is due, again located the bird feeding in the same area; and on 2nd September R. F. Dickens went with them, saw the wader and immediately contacted G. H. Ainsworth and H. O. Bunce, the latter of whom made a special journey to see the bird the same evening. E. C. Dickinson and L. T. Wright also saw the bird on 2nd September. On 3rd September it was seen by Mr. and Mrs. W. A. Butterfield; and on 4th September by J. Cudworth, J. K. Fenton, R. V. Jackson, P. C. Quin, D. L. Robinson, E. S. Skinner and Misses F. E. Crackles and .A. E. Leach, and again by R. F. D. and H. O. B. It was not seen after 4th Sep- tember. I revisited the area on the 5th, but again failed to see the bird. Ihe following details are summarized from the notes and sketches that each of the above observers was asked by R. F. Dickens to make separately and to send to me before discussing the bird with anyone else or seeing their descriptions. The bird \yas seen at ranges down to twelve yards. The site was open but lighting varied. Size. Slightly larger than Curlew Sandpipers [Calidris testacea), smaller than Redshanks (Trmga totanus) and Ruffs [Philomachus pugnax) and slightly smaller than the Reeves in whose company it was seen. Other species present for comparison were Dunlin [C. alpina), Ringed Plover [Charadriiis hiaticula), Little Stint (C. minuta), Turnstone (Are7mr{a interpres) and Greenshank \T. nehtdaria). General appearance. Compared with any of the above it was a noticeably dark grey bird from a distance. ;\t close quarters the p umage had traces of buff and brownish. It was a tall bird for its (body) size. -I dark grey-brown, browner towards nape. Nape, paler. J. C. says nape and hind-neck pale darker. A prominent pale-greyish, broad super- bl'ickish '‘■'LV slightly behind the eve. Lores 18 VOL. xLviii] STILT SANDPIPER IN YORKSHIRE 19 U pper-parts. Boldly patterned on back with general effect rather like a grey Buff. Scapulars and wing coverts blackish, edged light buff ; some feathers, especially on left wing, brownish edged light buff. Primaries dark, brownish, extending slightly beyond tail when folded. Tail and coverts, dirty white, centre of tail darker. P. C. Q. noticed light barring on the tail, the outer tail-feathers being very pale but not white. J. C. says rump, upper tail-coverts and tail, pale greyish with darker barring, the sides of the tail white, graded to grey in centre. E. S. S. says whole tail- area whitish with grey barring. Under-parts. Throat, foreneck and upper breast — bufiish-grey, finely streaked. Paler around throat. Lower breast, belly and vent — stroJ^gly barred dark grey on pale brownish-grey or grey ground. Barring continuous on flanks and belly and through to tail, slightly more strongly marked on flanks. The line of demarcation between the striations of the upper breast and the barring of the lower breast gave a suggestion of a gorget. Underwings pale. Pinkish tinge on secondaries (F. E. C.). Soft parts. Eye — dark(?blackish). Legs — long, spindly, fre- quently flexed in an almost stilt-like manner (R. F. D.). Pro- portionately slightly longer than Redshank’s giving the bird a tall appearance when seen on land (R. V. J.). All descriptions agree that in flight the feet projected clearly beyond the end of the tad. The legs usually appeared blackish but in bright sunlight a quite different impression was formed (H. O. B.). Dark, but in a good light, brownish-green (J. C.). Greenish-grey (E. S. S.). Leaden green (J. K. F.). Blackish with suggestion of dark greenish at top (R. F. D.). Not dark but a grey or ochre-shade (P. C. Q.). Bill — All agreed that the bill was blackish, long, slender and straight with a slight down-curve at the end. Slightly longer than Redshank’s (R. F. D.). times as long as the head (F. E. C.). J. C. says equal in length to Ruff’s bill, but for size of bird pro- portionately longer. Behaviour. Flight rather like Redshank’s. Trailing edge of wing which was slightly paler, and whitish tail were only noticeable markings in flight. Trailed legs before landing and after take-off. Once when taking wing the bird called “tchoowk, tchoowk, tchoowk-tchoowk” rather like a Knot (C. camitus) (R. F. D.). When landing wings were held above back and several times in the course of feeding the bird raised its wings showing the pale underwing. On mud, picked at surface but did not probe deeply. Preferred to feed in deep water, often up to belly and swam frequently. Immersed whole of bill and frequently the head also, when feeding. Horizontal carriage of the body was noted by two observers, more like the carriage of a small slim Whimbrel [Numenius phccopiis) than that of a Redshank. The bird did not ■“tip or nod’. When alone, or in company with a single Dunlin, the 20 BRITISH BIRDS [vol. xlviii bird was very tame, allowing approach to within about twelve yards. The strongly barred under-parts, which everyone mentioned, suggested Grey-rumped Sandpiper (= Wandering Tattler) {Hetero- scehis incanus), or Stilt Sandpiper [Micropalama himantopus). As the notes and drawings came in I began increasingly to suspect the latter. At the dates concerned an adult bird was likely to be in partial moult, and the barring suggested a remnant of breeding plumage*. R. T. Peterson — .4 Field Guide to the Birds (of North America), A. C. Bent — Life Histories of N. American Shorebirds pt. i, and P. A. Taverner — Birds of Canada were all consulted. Some of their descriptions of appearance and behaviour of Stilt Sandpiper fitted the bird very aptly. Taverner says “the spring bird with its heavily barred underparts is very distinctive.’’ This was autumn but many adult waders have some breeding plumage until a later date, especially on breast &c. W. Rowan (in Bent) says “when wading the bird prefers to be belly deep — the carriage of the head makes the species unmistakeable. The bill is always held and thrust beneath the surface perpendicularly. This necessitates a straight neck.’’ And Taverner again “a longer bill than any other sandpiper of similar size;’’ “in feeding may plunge its whole head and neck underwater’’. The only respect in which the bird appeared to differ somewhat from the available descriptions of Stilt Sandpiper was in the tail-coverts and tail, which might be due to moult, for I have no doubt that the bird was in a transitional stage from summer to winter plumage, which often increases difficulties of identification*. Later, through the medium of Dr. J. D. Craggs and the generosity of Mr. R. Wagstaffe, we were able to inspect a skin of the Stilt Sandpiper. Bill, legs, barrings on under-parts and general plumage conformed to the descriptions made without access to picture, book or specimen other than the bird the observers watched, in a way I can only describe as remarkable. The skin was as I imagined it would be. The notes sent to me constitute the most complete description of the Stilt Sandpiper I have yet seen. I have no doubt that Mr. Wagstaffe ’s skin and the bird R. F. Dickens, H. O. Bunce and their friends saw were of the same species, and I congratulate them on the care they took to establish it. .4s we go to press, R. F. Dickens informs us that as a result of his examining over 50 skins of Stilt Sandpiper in the British Museum (Natural listory) he has no doubt that the bird was in almost complete breeding plumage lacking only the rust colour on the cheeks.— Fns. SIBERIAN THRUSH ON THE ISLE OF MAY : A NEW BRITISH BIRD By D. G. Andrew, J. A. Nelder and Mary Hawkes On 2nd October 1954 an adult male Siberian Thrush {Turdus sibiricus) was trapped on the Isle of May. It had been glimpsed, but not positively identified, shortly before dusk on the previous day and was still present on the island when we left on the 4th. It had gone by the 7th. Two photographs of the bird, taken while it was being examined in the hand, are reproduced' on plate 7. The following notes are based on the detailed description taken down at the time. The general body colour was slate-black, against which the long, pure v/hite eye-stripe stood out in brilliant contrast. The feathers on the centre of the belly and the under tail-coverts were broadly tipped off-white, but in the case of the under tail-coverts these whitish tips were not long enough to cover the blackish bases of the feathers and the resulting pattern was one of alternating black and white crescents. The general colour of the wings was again slate-black with blackish flight-feathers. The complex pattern on the underwing can be seen in the lower photograph on plate 7. The rectangular white panels on the inner webs of the primaries and secondaries (absent on the four innermost secondaries and decreasing in extent on the outer primaries until practically non-existent on the second primary) combined with the white tips of the under greater coverts to form a broad white band running almost the whole length of the under-wing. A narrower, shorter band at the base of the wing was formed by the white bases of the under median coverts and the white tips of the under lesser coverts. The tail had 12 rectrices, the feathers ending in a fine spike at the tip. The two central pairs were blackish ; the remainder, with the exception of the outer pair, were blackish with small pure white wedges at the tips which were most extensive on the outer feathers. The outer pair were sooty, with the outer web narrowly tipped white as in the other feathers but with the inner web broadly tipped off-white. This feature can be seen in the upper photograph on plate 7 where the left hand outer tail-feather has been turned out of position to show the pattern. Measurements and structure : wing 125 mm. ; tarsus 30-31 mm. ; bill: upper mandible 21 mm., lower mandible 5mm. shorter. The lower mandible had been broken off just short of the tip and the upper mandible had grown over this and was strongly decurved at the tip (just apparent in plate 7, upper). The weight when trapped about midday on 2nd October was 59.7 gm. It was re- trapped first thing next morning when it weighed 61.6 gm. The 21 22 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII top of the skull was noticeably flat and lacking in “forehead”, giving the bird’s head a much less rounded outline than is shown in the illustration in A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe, p. 222. Soft parts : Gape orange-yellow ; bill black, except for tip of upper and base of lower mandible which were horn ; legs and feet — front of legs and top of toes purplish horn, back of legs, soles and joints dirty yellow ; iris dark brown. Field-characters : In stance, build and behaviour the bird was a typical thrush. In behaviour it most resembled a Blackbird (Turdus merula), tending to skulk under huts and other cover. It was not unduly shy. The white on the under-parts hardly showed up at all in the side view, and the bird appeared almost uniform slate-black with a pronounced bluish tinge except for a paler patch on the flanks (caused by white shafts to the flank feathers) and an appreciably darker colour on the head (caused by black centres to the crown feathers). Viewed from the front, the white belly merely showed up as a narrow whitish stripe between the legs. The white eye-stripe was always a most conspicuous feature. In flight the white tips to the tail-feathers showed up most strikingly as a row of disjoined white spots. The white band along the underwing immediately caught the eye and, when the wing was fully extended, we also had the impression of a narrower white line along the upper surface of the wing. The bird fed normally in spite of its deformed bill. The only call-notes heard were a gruff squawk when suddenly flushed at close quarters and a short zit , very much like that of a .Song Thrush {Turdus philomelos) but softer and perhaps purer, but it was a ratber silent bird. The arrival of this bird on the island coincided with a brief spell of south-east wind and drizzle which started during the night September 3oth-October ist and continued for most of the following day. Some Goldcrests {Regidus regulus) (apparently of the Continental race) came in during the small hours of the morning, but otherwise there was no sign of immigration until midday, when the first Redwings {Turdus musicus) of the autumn egan to be seen (those trapped were of the Continental race, . m tnusicus). By the end of the day about 75 of these birds were other arrivals were a Pied Flycatcher {Muscrcapa hypoleuca), at least 3 Bramblings {Friugillu monti- /wjg; la) and a Reed Bunting (Emheriza schcnuclus), and it is rather remarkable that such a small-scale influx should have brought with it a migrant from Siberia. ih.ir of the synoptic charts for September 1934 casts tile light on the wanderings of this bird. Througbout the south ^ was generally high over south-east Europe and denressinn^'*^’ winds, while a continuous stream of across F. ^ eastwards across the .Atlantic, then north-east ' irope. The south-east wind which brought this bird to VOL. XLviii] SIBEEIAN THRUSH ON THE MAY 23 the island was localised over the northern North Sea and the east coast of Britain, suggesting" a Scandinavian starting point for the flight across the North Sea, but the meteorological situation further east at that time does not allow any obvious interpretation of the bird’s movements. The world distribution of the Siberian Thrush {Turdus sibiricus) {Compiled and drawn by Holger Holgersen) The breeding range is indicated by the darker, cross-hatched area, the winter- quarters by the lighter, stippled portion. The various European records are shown by dots. The typical race of the Siberian Thrush, Turdus s. sibiricus, breeds in central Siberia. The breeding range of the species extends eastwards to Japan; Japanese birds are separated as Turdus s. davisoni, and are characterised in the male, among other things, by a near or total absence of white on the belly and under tail-coverts. It is worth mentioning perhaps that the amount of white on the tail of the bird caught on the Isle of May was greater than that on most, if not all, the adult male skins examined at the British Museum. The species winters in south-east Asia. We are very grateful to Dr. Holger Holgersen for allowing us to reproduce here his map of the distribution of the Siberian Thrush which 24 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVllI originally appeared in Stavanger Museums Arbok 1953, p. 104. In spite of the remoteness of its breeding grounds, this species has been recorded in most European countries and its appearance in Britain is not therefore very surprising. [The Siberian Thrush may now certainly be regarded as a British bird, but this is not the first occasion on which the question of its occurrence in this country has been raised. Two previous records, neither of which has received universal recognition, are mentioned in various published works, including The Handbook (Vol. II, p 141). Their rejection seems to date from the time of Howard Saunders who said in the revised (1899) edition of his An Ilhis- trated Manual of British Birds : “An example of the Siberian Thrush (T. sibiricus, Pallas), said to have been shot in Surrey in the winter of 1860-61, and originally supposed to be a melanism of the Redwing, was in the collection of the late Mr. F. Bond, who bequeathed it to the British Museum; while I fully believe that another was picked up exhausted at Bonchurch, I of Wight, in the winter of 1874; but the evidence is as yet not sufficient to warrant the introduction of this species into the British list.’’ Substantially the same account appeared in the ist edition (1889). The second part of this statement has been much quoted, usually without comment, and in this way it appears in The Birds of Hampshire and> the Isle of Wight (1903) by J. A. Kelsall and P. W. Munn, but we have been able to trace no further evidence and the record can therefore at this time be safely ignored. The Surrey bird, on the other hand, has a wealth of supporting infor- mation as the following account from J- A. Bucknill’s Birds of Surrey (1900), pp. 15-16, shows: The^ only, example of this Asiatic species which has been definitely re- corded in this country up till March, i8qg (though Mr. Howard Saunders, in his ManwaZ of British Birds, p. 12, mentions another possible example rom the Isle of Wight, 1874) is a bird which is said (fide Mr. Harting, who was told by Mr. Bond) to have been shot in Surrey between Guildford and tjodalmmg in the winter of 1860-61. It was sold to, and was for many years in the collection of, the late Mr. Frederick Bond (perhaps the best '.nown and most popular collector of the century) by a dealer. Mr. Bond anf others considered it to be merely a melanism or dark variety of the re wing, and Mr. Edward Blyth (whose technical and practical Eastern identify it as being a Siberian wIdrV, \ fTientioned it incidentallv, in a note on ihe various rare thru.shes Which had occurred in this country, in The Field, September 24. 1870, 77, anc since that date it has been generally accepted as a more or le.ss I’l.ATE 1 From U.S. Xalional Aiidiihoii Socicly I’alricia BaiJcy B'llhcrspoun M \i.i': W'n. son’s I’l [ALAKopi-: (I’luilaropns tricolor) at tiik nhst As in oilier plialampes, ihi' male (wliieli alone ineuliates) is less slrikingl\- marked than the femali’, larking ihe pale crown, nape and back (c/. plate 2); the stripe through the e\-e is less hl.'ick and the hand ilown lh(' side of the neck less hrighl. As clearh’ shown here, (his species in conlr.ast to (he other phalaro|)es lacks an\- while in the wing and the colours ot the U|)])er-|)arls tire more uniform with the .ahsenci' of sii-e,aking [cj. pi, ale The head is sm.all ,and the hill long. (see page _^o). From L'.S. Snlioiial Aiirliiboii Society Platk 3 Pl.ATK 5 Pl.ATK () Smi iK I -'ll ii'.l ) l,.\KKs {( '(ilinul ii'lld hi Ill'll ViIki' I yli>) 'I * l I ' . NiiNIiiIK, iirni Sini'Miii'K ni5| In 111!' upper, the lurllier hii'd (the uiiult) shn\v. n the ilurk >luuililei -puteh and eye-siripe; the Inniler is iiHen lint sei'il ill tile held, lieiilf* hidden as tile hini emuehes. In the lower, the spotted hrea'sl- h.ind ol the immature (darkei where the adult has the hlaek patch) is clearly seen and c;ui lie conipai ed with the lif. (!. Aiidrcir SiEiCEiAN 'I'liKi'sii {Turdti.s sihirini.s) on i iM': Isi.e oi' MA^ , isi'-4rii OcToBHi-i i()54 Tlie upper photograph clearly illusi rales the slate-black plumage, the white stri|)e over the eve ;in(l the broad olV-white ti])s to the inner webs of the outer tail-feathers (one has been turned out of position to show this); an inclicalion of the wdnile tips on all but the central tail-feathers can also be seen. This bird had an (dongaled uppei' mandible and this is just visible. In the lower photograph, the remarkabk’ patleni on the undei'wing, r.ather like ih.at of While’s 'I'hrush {Turdii.s dainmi), is shown, (see page 21). I’l.ATK S diiy Mmnilforl isr-W’iNTick ^'Kl.l.()\v-lll■;,\l)l•;I) Waciaii. { Molarilhi riln'ola) on 1'aik Imi.. Si'.i’Ti'.Mm'.K 11)5.1 riir u|)|)i'i' sluiws llic sli'ikin<4 p.'illrrn on ihi- win^: rli'iir while mai'j5in> In the Innn' si'roml.'irle>, anil hi'oaci while li|)^ In Ihe i^i'ealei' ami medi.'in enveiMs Innninj.^ a pi'nminenl ilnllhle willf^-hai'. In ihe Inwei', the while wedj^es nn ihe hasal halves nl the 5lh-in1h pi'imaides and :ill ihe seenndai'ies ai'e eleaily seen, also ihe while e\c-sli'ipe and some indiealinn nl ihe I’ni'ehe.ad lif^hlei than ihe rrnwn; Ihe depth nl >.;i'e\' nn ihe Hanks is mil well illusli'aled, hnwiwei'. (see pa}.;e jn). 25 VOL. XLVIII] SIBEEIAN THRUSH ON THE MAY genuine example, Yarrell {B.B,, 4th-ed., vol. I, p. 279 note), in particular stating that there seems to be no reason why the account should be dis- believed. [This was of course written by Newton. — Eds.]. Mr. Gould, who figures the specimen in his Birds of Great Britain, vol. 2, states that it was a female and was shot by a Mr. Drewitt at St. Catherine’s Hill, near Guildford, in the beginning of February, 1855, during the Crimean War. There is some discrepancy between the two accounts, but I think Mr. Gould’s is probably correct, and, with the exception of the date, is not incompatible with the remainder of the other story. This identical specimen is now in the National Collection at the South Kensington Natural History Museum. -Mthough the occurrence is not wholly free from doubt, it has been so generally accepted that I have no other option than to include it in the present volume. It may also be mentioned in support of its claims that it has occurred without question so near this country as Germany, Belgium, and France, so that its accidental appearance in England and in Surrey is not entirely improbable”. The only additional information available that we have found is the statement by J. H. Gurney [Trans. Norfolk Nat. Soc., Vol. IV, p. 629) that Bond obtained the bird from “Mr. Smither of Farnham in Surrey, near which place it is believed to have been killed by a Mr. Drewett in February 1885 [5?c, presumably a mis- print for 1855]. Smither was a retired gamekeeper, and Gould gives him a high character in his article on the Hartford Warbler”. [He was not therefore a dealer in the ordinary sense.] The main reason for doubting the validity of this record, where there is no question of the identification being wrong and where there is little likelihood of fraud since the bird was first regarded as a Redwing, appears to be the slight discrepancy over the dates. However, it seems obvious that the 1855 one is correct. Gould would not gratuitoush' mention the Crimean War if the event had actually occurred later and Gurney (allowing for an obvious mis- print) supports him. It seems probable that the 1860-61 winter was the date when Bond acquired the bird from Smither, not that in which it was shot. — Eds.] TWO YELLOW-HEADED WAGTAU^S AT FAIR ISLE : A NEW BRITISH BIRD By Kenneth Williamson {Fair Isle Bird Observatory) Two ist-winter examples of the Yellow-headed Wagtail {Motacilla citreola), a Siberian species not previously recorded in the British Isles, were captured at Fair Isle on 20th September and ist October 1954. The first, ringed B 88594, was caught in the Gully Trap at 1745 hours and was examined in the laboratory in a failing light by H. G. Alexander, Miss M. Haydock, H. Mayer-Gross, Mrs. A. W. Thom, Miss \k Thom and myself. It appeared to be a young fiava wagtail, but atypical in that the mantle was apparently pure grey. However, the light was so poor that I decided to postpone a detailed examination until the following day, so the bird was put into one of the roosting-boxes in the laboratory. Next morning the impression gained the previous evening was confirmed : the mantle was altogether too grey for M. f. fiava or the British fiavissinia, and this and other features of the plumage suggested M. citreola. Since the comparable plumage of the Grey-headed Wagtail (M. /. thunbergi) is not described in The Handbook, this identification could only be regarded as provisional, despite the general agreement of our bird with descriptions of ist- winter citreola in Hartert (1910), Dresser (1871-81) and Gatke (1895). A detailed note on the plumage (see below) was made after the bird had been re-weighed, and it was then released. It was not seen again on the 21st, but early on September 22nd H. G. Alexander found it on Buness, within 200 yards of the Observatory, and was able to study it closely in the field. He later told me, “Had I seen the bird in India, I should have had no hesitation in calling it citreola.” Later, returning disconsolate from an hour’s fruitless quest on Buness, I found the bird feeding on the grass immediately behind the laboratory. I had it under observation in bright sunlight, at a range of down to 20 yards, for a long time, and wrote down; “Fiava wagtail from in front, alba wagtail from behind. The blue-grey of back uniform and pure, contrasting with darker rump and black tail-fealhcrs. The bird often carried the wing-tips below the level of the tail, showing the rump well. More sedate than an alba wagtail, with less tail- I icking and head-movement. Considerable white showed in the outer tail-feathers and secondary wing-feathers ; the tips of greater and median wing-coverts made a striking double white wing-bar. The breast was distinctly bufi' and a huffish wash was notice.ible on face and superciliary stripe. The fore-part of the 26 VOL. XLViii] TWO YELLOW-HEADED WAGTAILS 27 crown and forehead appeared brownish. There was a noticeable grey wash along the sides of the underparts from breast to flanks. ” Yellow-headed Wagtail {Motacilla citreola), in first winter plumage, at Fair Isle, 20T11-25TH September 1954 (Drawn by D. I. M. Wallace) That night a new party arrived on “The Good Shepherd”, consisting of W. Conn, W. J. Eggeling, I. J. Ferguson-Lees, G. Mountfort, D. I. M. Wallace and W. J. Wallace. They were all out searching for the bird early next morning, but were unable to find it because one of the hostel staff had caught it in the Obser- vatory “Heligoland” and put it in the laboratory pending my return from the traps ! All were able to examine the bird, and after it had been photographed (plate 8) by Guy Mountfort it was set free. It was seen on several occasions later that day and on the 24th, and the excellent sketch reproduced here was made bv D. I. M. Wallace. The laboratory description which had been taken down on the 2ist was discussed and slightly modified, so that there was unanimity of opinion on exact shades of colour, at the evening conference on the 24th. The revised version reads as follows : Nape and mantle slate-grey with a few warm brown feathers remaining from the juvenile plumage. Upper tail-coverts blackish. Crown and fore- head grey tinged brownish, becoming yellowish-brown above the bill. Short black streak above the superciliary stripe, and a thin black malar stripe from gape to ear-coverts. The long white superciliary stripe was broadest behind the eye, and tinged with buff above the eye. Chin white, ear-coverts greyish flecked with white. Breast pale buff with greyish markings especially at the sides of neck. Belly whitish with a faint yellowish-buff wash, vent and under tail-coverts white. Sides of breast down to flanks greyish with a few warm brown feathers. Tail black, the outermost pair of feathers white, the penultimate pair with long white wedges. (The tail 28 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII showed irregular moult). Wing-feathers brownish-black with clear white margins to inner secondaries and broad white tips to median and greater coverts, these forming a prominent double wing-bar. Legs blackish-brown, bill blackish, gape orange-yellow with pink centre, iris brownish-black. Structural details are given in Table I. It was noted that the hind claw was straighter than in specimens of M. flava (including thunbergi) kept in the laboratory. When captured on 20th the bird’s weight was 18.09 gm., and this had dropped to 16.76 gm. at 0540 hours on the 21st. When re-captured at 0700 hours on 23rd it showed a good gain to 18.78 gm. The second bird was first seen on the afternoon of ist October feeding on a beach at the south end of the isle, and occasionally hawking flies above the wrack. The observers who gathered to watch it were H. A. Craw, W. Craw, W. J. Eggeling, I. J. Ferguson-Lees and myself. As we tried to get closer views the bird left the shore for a grassy field behind, and very soon flew to a marshy area beyond. This ground seemed much to its liking, and on a number of occasions when we disturbed it the bird took shelter in drainage ditches, remaining in them to continue feeding. As there seemed a good chance of catching it in one or other of these ditches the Yeoman apparatus was erected over the deepest drain, and within a few minutes we had walked the bird into the trap. The chief differences from wagtail B 88594 were a less strongly marked superciliary stripe, a suggestion of greenish-brown in the mantle, and a less pure grey wash on sides of breast and belly. The plumage of upper- and under-parts was not so contrasting in the field, and the eye-stripe was only obvious at a moderate distance as a pale mark behind the eye. The bird’s manner when on open ground was very similar, and again we had the impression that there was less movement of the tail than with other wagtails. The following description was made in the laboratory. Mantle grey, but with a greenish-brown wash. Rump purer grey, and upper tail-coverts blackish edged with grey. Central tail-feathers black with a faint brownish tinge. Outer tail-feathers mostly white and pen- ultimate pair with a broad white wedge extending to about half-way down the inner web. Head and nape as mantle, former becoming more brownish- olive towards the forehead. Ill-defined bufhsh superciliary stripe, narrow and incomplete in front of the eye, not reaching the base of the hill, and broader but short behind the eye. Lores greyish-white, ear-coverts grev with blackish streaks, and bordered posteriorly with whiti.sh feathers extending downwards in the form of an ill-defined half-collar to meet the white chin. Breast pale buff with a pectoral band of grey clouding. Belly and under tail-coverts white, vent suffused with pale buff. Flanks grcvish. washed at sides of breast with some buff. Distinct double wing-bar formed by prominent white tips to the median and greater coverts; outer edges of greater coverts brownish-white, and edges of the white-tipped inner secon- daries also whitish. Y ben the underwing was examined it was seen that the basal half of the 5th to loth primaries and all the secondaries had a VOL. XLVIII] TWO YELLOW-HEADED WAGTAILS 29 white wedge extending from the base to approximately half the length of each feather. This feature was not apparent from above, and unfortunately it was overlooked in examination of the first bird, although it is well shown in the photograph (plate 8, lower). Measurements and wing-formula are given in the table, under its ring-number B 88633. ^^s weight was only 15.35 From each of these birds a single flat-fly was taken during examination with chloroform vapour for ectoparasites. Gordon Corbet has kindly confirmed the identity of these flies as cf cf Ornithomyia fringiUina Curt, and reports that both specimens show abnormality in the form of the large thoracic bristles. B 88633 also seen by K. Allsop and J. Chillingworth, the last occasion being on 5th October. The call-note, often heard, struck us as being different from that of the flava wagtails ; there was general agreement that it was a slurred monosyllabic note best expressed as a high-pitched “sweeip”. T.<\ble I — Structural details of Yellow-headed Wagtails {Motacilla citreola) trapped at Fair Isle. Character B 88594 B 88633 Measurements in mm. Chord of wing 85 80 Bill from skull 16.5 15 Tarsus 27 26 Tail . 82 78 Hind claw 1 1 I I ,, ,, with toe 20 20 Wing-formula Longest primary 2nd and 3rd 2nd 3rd shorter by — 0-5 4th I 0-5 5th 3 3-5 6th 12 1 1 7^^ >» »» 17 •5 Emargination on 3rd, 4th, 5th 3rd, 4th, 5th By arrangement H. G. Alexander, I. J. Ferguson-Lees, Guy Mountfort and myself met at the Bird Room of the British Museum (Natural History) on 26th November and, after a careful exami- nation of skins of ist-winter M. citreola and M. /. thunhergi, were unanimous in the conclusion that the Fair Isle birds were referable to the former species. A note on the differences between these two rather similar wagtails will be appearing in a future number of British Birds. SOME PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIES OF WILSON’S PHALAROPE AND STILT SANDPIPER Photographed by Allan D. Cruickshank, Iv. H. Maslowski, Ralph S. Palmer and Patricia Bailey Witherspoon (Plates 1-2 and 4-5) In August/ September 1954, apart from several Lesser Yellowlegs [Tr'niga fiavipes) and the now annual sprinkling of Pectoral Sand- pipers [Calidns melanotos) — details of which we hope to publish shortly — the American waders occurring in Britain included two which were not previously on the British list: a Wilson’s Phala- rope [Phalaropiis tricolor) near Rosyth, Edinburgh, and a Stilt Sandpiper [Micropalama himantopus) near Spurn, Yorkshire (see pages 15-17, 18-20). W'e have been fortunate enough to obtain from the United States National Audubon Society two photographs of each of these species and they serve well to illustrate some of the more important characters. .\s is the case with phalaropes, the female Wilson’s is bigger and more brightly coloured than the male and the dift'erences are perhaps more exaggerated than in the only two other species, both of which arc well enough known in the British Isles. Wilson’s is the largest of the three, the female being about the size of a Reeve {Philomnchus piigua-x). The species has in proportion a longer bill, longer neck and longer legs, while the toes are less lobed and the feet only slightly webbed at the base. Some indi- cation of the differences in build between this species and the British-breeding Red-necked Phalarope {Phnlaropus lohatus) can be obtained by comparing plates i and 2 with G. K. Yeates’s photograph (plate 3) of the latter bird at the nest. Photographs of the Grey Phalarope {Pli. fttUcariiis) at the nest, with its notice- ably shorter, thicker bill and conspicuously streaked back, were published in British Birds four years ago {aiitea, vol. xliv, plates 53'35)- In summer plumage the adult female Wilson’s Phalarope has a bluish-grey crown which lightens into whitish on the nape and then shades again into grey in the middle of the back; separated from the crown by a white superciliary line, there is through the eye a black stripe which broadens into a dark chest- nut-brown band down the side of the neck and along the back. I his pattern is well illustrated in plate 2, and a comparison with plate I, which shows the male at the nest, will give some indication of the diflerences between the sexes. The male is less strikingly marked and duller, for he lacks the pale crown, nape and liack, while the stripe through the eye is less black and the broad band 30 VOL. XLViii] PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIES 31 down the side of the neck is less bright and has just a wash of cinnamon to it. In both sexes the wings are brownish-grey and — an important point — lack the white bar present in the two other species of phalarope (c/. plate 3). The lower back is grey, lightening into white on the upper tail-coverts, while the tail itself is grey with whitish tips on the outer feathers. The colours of the upper-parts are thus comparatively uniform shades and there is less of the scaled and streaked effects found in the Grey and Red- necked Phalaropes (cf. plate 3 and also vol. xliv, plates 33-35). The under-parts are whitish except for a pale red colour on the throat and upper breast, more noticeable in the female (the extent of this is also well shown in plate 2). At all seasons the legs are yellow or greenish-yellow. In winter plumage Wilson’s Phalarope is pure white below, and above pale grey except for white rump and tail-coverts. It is in the field a very pale-looking bird with a strikingly white breast, and by this impression alone it is possible to pick it out at a great distance from most other waders with which it is associating ; this was very noticeable at Rosyth. In winter plumage the slender, needle-like bill and the small head (plate 2) plus the absence of white in the wings and the generally pale colour with the unstreaked breast are the most useful field-characters. Wilson’s is primarily a marsh and shore bird, seldom if ever being found on the open sea like the other phalaropes. Even then, more time is spent walking on marshy ground or wading in shallow water (as in plate 2) than actually swimming and in this way it behaves more like the Lesser Yellowlegs with which it often associates on passage in America. Its food consists mainly of insects with certain other aquatic animals and the seeds of water plants. It will wade about in the shallows with whole head and neck buried in the water, tail up in the air; restless and energetic, it is always on the move as it feeds. It has the phalarope habit of spinning, but this species whirls round and round not only on the water but also on the damp ground near by. This latter is a most remarkable sight which the writer was fortunate enough to witness when he saw the bird at Rosyth on 20th September. A. C. Bent {Life Histories of North American Shore Birds, Part i, p. 33) quotes an observation by W. L. Dawson of a Wilson’s Phalarope which was seen to spin round 247 times in one spot without stopping save for lightning dabs at prey. Like the other phalaropes Wilson’s is a northern-nesting species, but at the same time its breeding range extends much further south ; it is found from the south Canadian prairies, south to Nebraska, Iowa and N.W. Indiana, rarely further east (R. T. Peterson, A Field-Guide to the Birds). According to the account given by Bent {op. cit.., p. 30), the nest is well-concealed in grass, often in marshy ground, and is a hollow lined to a varying extent with grass. There are usually four eggs, buff in 32 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII ground-colour and heavily marked with blotches of blackish-brown (see plate i). As in other phalaropes the incubation is by the male alone. The species winters in south America. Another northern-nesting species, breeding in Canada chiefly from Alaska to Mackenzie, and likewise wintering in South America, the Stilt Sandpiper also frequently associates with Lesser Yellowlegs on passage. On the east coast of the Llnited States it is, like the Wilson’s Phalarope, most frequently seen in the region of the Mississippi \”alley. There, apart from the fact that the two species are of the same order of size, the similarity ends. The Stilt Sandpiper" is a slow-moving bird on the ground, not dashing over a large area like the energetic Mhlson’s or the nervously bobbing Yellowlegs, but feeding quietly and sedately in a small area rather after the manner of a Curlew {Numenius arquata). It has also something of the upright stance of a (very small) Curlew with its rather thick neck held straight and bill at right angles to it (see plate 5). The Stilt Sandpiper has, as its name would imply, long legs in proportion to many waders, though this is not completely brought out in plate 5, and thus the bird stands higher off the ground, but they are shorter than those of the Lesser Yellowlegs and in flight do not extend so far beyond the tail; they are normally dull olive-green in colour, occasionally yellowish. The bill is a useful field-character, being proportion- ately longer and heavier than those of most comparable waders and having a slight but noticeable drop at the tip; this is clearly shown in plates 4 and 5. The bird feeds chiefly by probing with the bill up to the base in the wet sand and mud, using a “rapid, perpendicular chopping motion’’ (Peterson, op. cit.), often in shallow water so that the head is below the surface. From the accounts quoted by Bent {op. cit., p. 125), the majority of its food is animal matter, particularly bloodworms, but with a fair proportion of aquatic seeds. Out of the breeding-season Stilt Sandpipers tend to pack close together on the ground rather after the manner of Knots {Calidris canutus). In breeding-plumage the Stilt Sandpiper is a predominantlv brown bird with a scaled effect on the mantle and back produced by light edges to black-brown feathers. There is a broad, light stripe over the eye and a dark mark in front of it (this pattern is well shown in plates 4 and 5). Behind and below the eye there is a noticeable rust-coloured patch. The lower rump and upper tail-coverts are white with brown markings and the tail is grey- brown at the centre, lighter at the edge (plate 4). Below, the tliroat is well streaked and the upper breast more spotted ; these marks give way to heavy barring from the lower breast to the under tail-coverts which makes the bird quite unmistakable (plate 4 shows the striations and spots, and the heavy barring to some extent). In winter the general effect is much greyer; the feathers of the upper-parts arc brownish-grey with narrow, light edges; VOL. XLviii] PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIES 33 the sides of the head are paler and there is no rusty tinge any- where ; the dark streak through the eye and the broad, white stripe over it remain, the latter being very conspicuous; the under-parts are white and all or almost all of the barring disappears, though the throat and breast are still streaked to some extent. A good impression of this plumage can be got from plate 4, and a com- parison with plate 5 will show the difference in the amount of marking below. In winter when the darkly barred under-parts are absent, the Stilt Sandpiper in flight resembles a small Lesser Yellowlegs, as indeed does the Wilson’s Phalarope — in both cases because of the plain wings and the white rump. The nest-site of the Stilt Sandpiper (plate 4) is a depression in the ground lined with leaves and grass (see Bent, op. cit., p. 123); usually four eggs are laid and these are yellowish-buff with brown blotches and spots. I.J.F.-L. NOTES Wood Sandpipers displaying afloat. — While watching waders at a water-hole near Nanyuki, Kenya, B.E.A., around 1900 hours (local time) on 29th January, 1953, I observed an interesting display between two Wood Sandpipers {Tringa glareola). The actual display was not so remarkable as the fact that both partici- pants were for most of the time completely afloat. I had been watching a single bird (A) for some time, feeding in about three inches of water from a submerged tuft of grass. It was taking insects from the water and behaved quite normally until a second bird (B) got up from the grass near-by and made as if to land beside it. As B rose slightly prior to landing, A moved forward into deeper water and started to display, flicking half- opened wings, “bobbing” its head and uttering a short piping note repeatedly (Fig', i). B then landed in the water in front of A and reacted by slightly opening its wings and pointing its bill at A. A became more excited and swam at B with wings fully raised and quivering and uttering higher pitched notes (Fig. 2). B then turned away and swam buoyantly down a channel of water for some way. Its resemblance to a phalarope was further heightened by the fact that it took several insects from the water as it swam past. A lifted from the water and settled in some shallows near-by. After a short time B flew off to preen by the side of the water-hole. Earlier in the evening there had been much aerial chasing between the fifteen or so Wood Sandpipers feeding in the area, but no display had been noted on the ground. The level of the water-hole had been steadily rising during the day and the area in which the birds could feed normally was con- 34 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII siderably diminished. A’s aggressive display may well have been broup-ht about by a desire to maintain a suitable feeding-ground. ^ D. I. M. Wallace Wood Sandpii’ers {Tringa ghircoUi) disi’I-Ayinc. ai-i.oat {Drawn by 1). I. M. tX'allaco) In the upper sketch the left hand bird (H) is rising slightly before landing; A is moving forward and starting to display. In the lower both birds arc com- pletely alloat; .\, on the right, is swimming at 1? with wings raised. Display of Spotted Redshank. — On 2(jih .April 1954 at the edge ol a muddy, reed-fringed higoon at h'tirlinglon Marshes, Hamp- shire, 1 witnessed what ;i|tpc;ired to I>e an tierial display of the Spotted Redshtink (7>/ng«, cryiJiropus). The bird, which was in full breeding plumage, was at a heiglit of 50-70 feet, and called normally. It then plunged downwards rather like ;i drutnming VOL. XLVIIlJ NOTES 35 Snipe [Capella gallinago), but with more opened wings, and at not quite so steep an angle, uttering a song made up of a rapid trill of the note “chu-whit” or “tchu-et” quickly repeated. It came no lower than 20 feet from the ground, then climbed again and flew off towards the mud-flats calling normally. The Handbook gives a song which seems to be a more drawn out or slower version of the above, but states that no special form of flight accompanies the song. G. H. Rees Notes on two Kingfishers displaying. — While we were watching waders on the River Erme, S. Devon, on 20th September 1952, our attention was attracted by a pair of Kingfishers [Alcedo atthis) perched on the mud near the water’s edge. They were sitting near each other in a manner which reminded us of penguins. They were obviously displaying, and after just over half-an-hour we had collected the notes which follow. The two birds sat never more than about three feet apart, and on at least one occasion side by side (P. J. D.). The display actions were easily divided into eight groups: i. a frequent and simultaneous changing of positions, the two birds passing very close to each other as they crossed. ii. a slow bowing down, keeping the body and head in a straight line, then regaining the original upright stance; all in slow motion. iii. a. very forward bow with half-open bill; on a number of occasions the bill appeared to touch the ground. iv. a fanning of the wings with the body in a crouch position — similar to the display of a male Blue Tit [Pants ccerideus) (P.F.G.); this action was done not directly facing the other bird, as if the object was to reveal the blue sheen of the feathers on the back and rump. V. a spreading, or more often flicking, of the wings — cf. Spotted Flycatcher [Muscicapa striata) — a movement stimulated by some action on the part of the other bird ; it appeared to be a threat. vi. an occasional sandpiper-like bobbing of the tail. vii. an upward stretching of the neck, and pointing of the bill; done in a slow and exaggerated manner. viii. on one occasion the birds came close together, faced each other and then touched bills ; also done in slow motion (P. J. D.). On at least two occasions both birds got very excited, and began calling a loud, rapid “shrit-it-it-it-it”. Although a constant movement of waders was passing close by, only once did anything upset them, and that was when a Green- shank (Tringa nebidaria) ran past. No notice whatever was taken of an Oystercatcher [Hcematopus ostralegns) preening a few feet away. After about 25 minutes of continual display they became very 36 BRITISH BIRDS [vol. xlviii quiet and for some minutes simply sat still facing" each other; then suddenly both flew off tog'ether upstream. Both birds appeared mature. As no other Kingfisher was present and because they flew off together we think the birds were a male and a female. P. F. Goodfellow ,\nd P. J. D.are Four ok the postures noted in dispi.aving Kinckishers (Alcedo altJiis) BY the River Erme, .South Devon, 20T11 September 1952 (Drawn from field-sketches by F. F. Goodfellow) Short-toed Larks in Norfolk. — On i6th September 1954, at Cley, Norfolk, while in a photographic hide facing a scries of shallow pools with dry grassy patches between them, I observed two small VOL. XLVlIl] NOTES 37 larks for almost five hours at ranges varying from loo to 12 feet. After making very careful notes of their characteristics, I identified the birds as Short-toed Larks [Calandrella br achy dactyl a), one immature and one adult. Several black-and-white photographs were taken and two of these are reproduced on plate 6; in addition some 60 feet of colour film were exposed. In size and general movements they resembled Lapland Buntings i^Ccdcarius lapponicus). They crept mouse-like amongst the grass, never hopping up onto prominent lumps in the manner of Skylarks {Alaitda arvensis), several of which were always feeding in the same area though the Short-toed Larks consistently avoided them. Only one type of call was heard — a sparrow-like “cheep” — used when one of the birds flew over damp patches from one dry area to another. In colour they were richer brown than Skylarks on the back, wing coverts and tail, though not noticeably lighter. A pale sandy-brown band crossed the upper breast and was clearly speckled at the sides in one bird (the immature). Both had very light pale cream under-parts, which looked white in the sunlight when they were preening. The tail was short — as short as that of a Woodlark [Lidlida arhorea) — with a richer brown showing down the centre. The outer tail-feathers appeared to be cream- coloured and during preening some of the same colour showed on the outer webs of the adjacent feathers. Both birds had very marked pale eye-stripes which extended round the forehead to give the appearance of a cream band above the base of the upper mandible. The ear-coverts were chestnut, richer and unspeckled in the adult bird, though in both the eye-stripe broadened and curved round behind these coverts to join the pale throat. No crest was seen, even when the feathers of the crown were raised in preening. The beaks, especially in the adult bird, were heavier than those of Skylarks or Woodlarks and more reminiscent of those of buntings. These were grey-brown in colour with a yellow-green line at the junction of the mandibles. The legs were flesh-coloured, but no detail of the feet could be observed. Dark patches at the sides of the upper-breast were visible in one bird (the adult), but only on the few occasions when the head was stretched up (see plate 6, upper), while in the other the streaking in this position was noticeably darker. On my leaving the hide, the birds which had crouched, were flushed, when the “cheep” call was again heard and a very short low flight made by both birds together before diving into grassy cover. This was repeated three times. One of the birds, the adult, was seen on one of three following days by Mr. and Mrs. D. A. T. Morgan, L. G. Holloway, Miss James, Miss Forster, W. F. Bishop and others. On 13th September, three days before I saw these birds, A. H. Daukes had heard and seen a small, strange lark singing in the same area. His description of the song was “almost interminable, less musical 38 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII than that of Skylark or Woodlark, with certain phrases repeated almost ad nauseam” . He listened to the unbroken song; for twenty minutes before moving' away with the bird still singing^. R. P. Bagnall-Oakeley [At our request Mr. Daukes has amplified his description of the song he heard on 13th September. He says that it was quite distinct from a Skylark’s (one or two of which were singing near- by), being without any of the canary-like trills uttered by that species and being altogether simpler, much inferior and less loud. While singing, the bird, which appeared to be about the size of a Woodlark, seemed to rise and fall “rather like a spider suspended from its silken thread.’’ This description fits well the characteristic song-flight of the Short-toed Lark. — Eds.] SPECIAL REVIEW Lack on the Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers* Bv E. .M. Nicholson Dr. Lack begins this comprehensive review of a rapidly expanding subject with a chapter on the comparative stability of populations, starting from the 1928 British Birds Census of heronries and its subsequent annual follow-up. The poverty of data and free scope for argument and speculation which existed at that period have, under the stimulus of an organised and sustained drive, gradually given place to a fairly substantial mass of still fragmentary scraps and blocks of information, which it has become necessary to sort through and assess in order to show where we are getting to, to define the most important gaps and inconsistencies in knowledge, and to run up a revised but still provisional interpretation of the significance of what we have so far learnt. This heavy and exacting task has been most thoroughly and competently performed by the author, who has added to our indebtedness by very candidly reminding the reader when his personal views and interpretations either differ from those of others or go beyond the realm of what can yet be said to be fully established. Nevertheless there is an inherent danger that such an authoritative survey, ranging mainly over birds, but also discussing mammals, fish, insects and other animals (not forgetting man), may lead to premature and incom- plete formulations becoming uncritically accepted by some of those who inevitably have to take on trust a great deal of the assessment of material (which is alreadv far too voluminous to be quoted in the text). Dr. Lack, in claiming to be the first to attempt to cover this vast new field, clearly recognizes this danger, and the need for further researches which may bring about further changes in * T1 IF. NATURAL RFOULATION OF ANIMAL NTIMBIIRS. By David Lack, t.R.S. (Oxford Ihiivfrsily Press, London, I9,S4)- 35s. VOL. XLVIIl] SPECIAL KEVIEW 39 approach. Provided his warning is heeded we may look forward to ornithology continuing to play a leading part in the study of population for some time before the inevitable moment arrives when the creative phase is ended, and the dry-as-dust school can come into their own. Comparison naturally arises with another recent Oxford book, Dr. N. Tinbergen’s The Study of Instinct (reviewed antea, vol. xlv, p. 182). Perhaps inevitably the present work is less lively and less succinct, and its author seems less at home in his excursions beyond the ornithological field, where indeed the reader is left in some doubt whether the resulting unwieldiness is in this case adequately compensated by the wider perspective and the fruitfulness of the comparisons and contrasts thus made possible. On the other hand the wider canvas and more copious references add to the value of this book as a tool of study, as is emphasised by the fact that the titles of works cited occupy over 42 pages, apart from the excellent indexes of species names, authors and subjects. No one seriously interested in bird population can afford to be without The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers. The book’s central theme is that as animals are capable of rapidly multiplying but actually fluctuate within relatively restricted limits density-dependent controls must be operating. Sizes of clutches, and numbers of broods are stated to be, on average, the largest for which the parents can find enough food. Variations in clutch- size are explained on the same lines but with recognition of modi- fying influences such as hatching and growth-rates, predation-rates and differing parental care. Exceptions are recognized, especially in ducks, which do not feed their young. Few cases have so far been recorded in which bird fecundity varies with population density, and then not on a scale to influence subsequent numbers. The situation seems to differ among other animals. Losses of eggs and young vary according to nest site, from an average of about 55 per cent for open-nesting Passerines to about 33 per cent for hole-nesters, including users of nesting boxes. Adequate figures are, however, unavailable for many species, and the extent of mortality among young at the flying stage is unknown. Only about 8-18 per cent of eggs laid develop into adult birds. Among adults annual mortality rates so far recorded range between 40 and 72 per cent, except among waders, gulls, herons, penguins, albatrosses and Swifts, where lower rates are recorded, ranging down as low as 3 per cent in the Royal Albatross which, on the basis of a small sample, is credited with about 36 years’ expectation of adult life. High reproductive rates and high mortality rates go together. At hatching the sexes are normally about equal, but later on there is often a majority of males. Evidence for density-dependent mortality is reviewed, but unambiguous instances among wild bird populations are lacking. Illustrations are given of the seasonal, specific, regional and indi- 40 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII vidual variations in bird diet, and of the pitfalls in determining- what it is and what it signfies. Food consumption daily in relation to total body-weight ranges from about 200 per cent in some hummingbirds to about 5-9 per cent in land-birds weighing: between 100 and 1,000 grammes. Moreover, while small Passerines often die of starvation within 24 hours some raptors can go hungry for 3-4 weeks and breeding penguins for 6-8 weeks. While there is much indirect evidence of birds being most plentiful where their food is most abundant exact data on amounts taken in relation to amounts available are at our disposal in few instances. While some of these figures suggest the possibility of birds acting as a controlling influence on numbers of insects or mammals, others point to the opposite. Fragmentary evidence for some Passerine and game species indicates, however, that losses as high as 6-8 per cent of total population per month can at times be inflicted on their prey by bird predators, and if this is confirmed predators are capable of becoming a controlling factor. The incidence of disease among wild birds is very imperfectly known, but except among such groups as ducks, game-birds, pigeons and gulls it seems unlikely to be an important factor in regulating numbers, and then probably only in crowded conditions. Substantial changes in numbers and distribution due to climatic, human and other influences confirm the potentialities of rapid alterations in numbers where the normal regulation is by-passed, as in the example of the million-fold multiplication of some 120 Starlings introduced into N. America about sixty years ago. (It is regrettable to find Dr. Lack following the bad example of Mr. Fisher in extending the spread of the Collared Turtle Dove into ‘England in 1952” on the strength of a single individual which may easily have escaped from captivity near-by.) There are interesting and graphic diagrams, particularly that illustrating bird population turnover in Breckland pinewoods at successive ages of growth. Cyclical^ fluctuations are critically discussed, the author’s con- clusion being that genuine ones with approximately regular peaks are much rarer than has sometimes been claimed, and that these cases are probably due to food shortage (with perhaps secondary disease) in the dominant rodents, the birds of prey and the fur- eanng carnivores, while in the gallinaceous birds and perhaps in t e scarce rodents they are due to the greatly increased impact of pre ation on them when predators normally living on immense roc ent populations find this food supply failing. Irruptions, or emigrations as Dr. Lack would prefer to call them, arc examined anc arc attributed ultimately to food shortage, although the proxi- mate stimulus to mass emigration is sometimes a behaviour nurnbers before food shortage has made itself • igration is briefly reviewed in relation to its influence on populations. VOL. XLVlll] SPECIAL EEVIEW 41 The final chapters deal with greg'ariousness, territory and disper- sion, containing a moderate and balanced restatement of Dr. Lack’s well-known views on the unimportance of territory in relation to population regulation and food supply, and a more interesting discussion of the problem of explaining how not only territorial but gregarious species contrive to distribute themselves in the breeding season so successfully in relation to the possibilities of getting food and rearing young. Only in the last two pages of his stimu- lating “Conclusion” does Dr. Lack touch very briefly on the important applied problems arising in human attempts to preserve, eliminate or “crop” wild animal populations. A book of such wide scope is difficult to criticize briefly, but something must be said on the aspects which are most important for field-ornithologists. Dr. Lack has done a real service in emphasizing throughout the efficiency of the mechanisms enabling birds to reproduce and distri- bute themselves roughly up to the limits of numbers permitted by readily available food resources, and to maintain themselves near those limits with remarkable consistency. Compared with many of the other animals referred to, birds are extremely efficient in these respects. Dr. Lack’s attempts to explain the nature and workings of the mechanism are, however, less satisfactory. He has a comparatively straightforward task in showing that clutch-size and number of broods reared do not vary enough or in a suitable manner to play any considerable part in regulating numbers, and that the necessary adjustment to make good heavy losses must therefore come from some change enabling a larger than normal proportion to survive and breed, until the losses have been overtaken. He seeks the explanation in an assumed substantial density-dependent difference in mortality, but the chapter dealing with the evidence for such a factor among wild birds out of the nest produces absolutely none, although it suggests that Errington’s findings of the greater rate of disappearance of young Bob-whites at higher densities may possibly form such a case. It seems difficult to swallow this main proposition that bird numbers are regulated by a force so powerful that it can hold every species close to a consistent population level, yet so unseen that it can still defy every single effort of world ornithology to detect any single unmistakeable instance of its operation in nature. If we stick to the known facts we are not justified in inferring for most species that a higher rate of failure to join next season’s breeding population on the area in question is necessarily equivalent to a higher rate of mortality on that area. Yet this is the assumption which the density-dependent mortality argument requires. There are at least three explanations all of which are inherently likelier and more in accord with observation, and which may work separately or together. First, there may be a density-dependent tendency towards dispersal into less populous areas within the 42 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XI.VIll rang-e of the species. Secondly there may be a density-dependent tendency to emigrate rig^ht outside the rang-e and to attempt coloni- sation of new areas, as in the mass irruptions of Pallas’s Sand- grouse, Crossbills and other species. Or thirdly there may be a density-dependent tendency to remain within the area of origin as non-breeders. That many birds do each of these things is certain, and it is also clear that in all three cases birds so acting- at hig-h levels of density will make the same contribution to observed stability in the population of any gfiven area as if they had been victims of density-dependent mortality. It is therefore astonishing" to find that Dr. Lack g-ives hardly any attention to the possibility of density-dependence in the first and third of these, while in his excellent account of the second he seems almost to ignore its close relation to his thesis and to stress the somewhat remote benefits to the emigrants (“if they emigrate they have at least a chance of finding suitable feeding areas elsewhere’’). Surely a much more important point is that such mass emigration in face of threatened famine leaves behind in the regular habitat a much reduced residue of population with a much increased chance of surviving and breeding successfully? What happens to the emigrants is bio- logically of incidental importance only: they are expendable. It might be argued that indirectly any extra mortality arising in these ways is density-dependent in origin, but such an argument would be confusing the issue. Nature’s “object” of regulating population on each area to food supply in that area can be (and undoubtedly often is) achieved by compelling surplus individuals to move elsewhere. Whether in doing so or after doing so they die, or live as non-breeders or breed successfully elsewhere is a secondary issue, although it is clearly of greater evolutionary value to a species if the surplus birds try to colonize a fresh area or a fresh ecological niche than if they just sit around awaiting the beneficent workings of density-dependent mortality. At several points an awareness of the full significance of this seems to be about to dawn on Dr. Lack, but each time, after a brief aside that there is such a thing as dispersion or movement, he returns hurriedly to the false trail. This is not to deny that density-dependent mortality affects wild birds; very likely it does, especially in sedentary species. That it has anything like the importance assumed by Dr. Lack is however something that will take a lot of proving. Meanwhile it might be profitable to begin a serious study of the more obvious factors so far neglected, and it is to be hoped that this will be done. BOOK REVIEWS THE WATERFOWL OF THE WORLD. By Jean Delacour. Illustrated by Peter Scott. [Country Life, London, 1954). Vol. I. 300 pages, 16 colour plates, 33 maps. ^5. 5s. Insularity in ornithology has received many hard knocks recently, but even for these times there is something breath-taking in the degree of cosmopolitanism assumed in this ambitious work by Mr. Delacour and his illustrator, Mr. Scott. Even a wide acquaintance with Northern Hemisphere forms of the Anatidse will take one very little way with whistling ducks, steamer ducks and South American crested ducks, which share this first volume with the more familiar swans, true geese, brents, sheld ducks and their various anomalous relatives such as those here grouped as South .American sheldgeese, not to mention the very distinct and remark- able Australian Magpie Goose. It is one of Mr. Delacour’s outstanding achievments that he arranges this varied and complex group of birds in a largely original and convincing classification, outlined in a scientific paper nine years ago but only now developed on the scale which it deserves. Apart from the unique Magpie Goose (with a sub-family to itself) only two other sub-families are recognised, the Anserinee including the swans, geese and whistling ducks (“tree ducks’’), and the Anatinae including all other ducks and the sheldgeese and their allies. Only five species of swans are recognised, twO' of the three Northern Hemisphere forms being divided into New World and Old World subspecies. Of true geese only seven species are distinguished, but Bean Geese are divided into two groups. Forest and Tundra, of which the typical race falls into the first and our other wintering subspecies, the Pink-footed, into the second, the remaining four races being unrecorded in Britain. As would be expected the taxonomy and the avicultural aspects are fully and authoritatively dealt with, but descriptions of general habits, display, food and reproduction are at times disappointingly brief. Distribution is clearly indicated with the aid of maps although some of the references to Great Britain sound a trifle odd ; it is surely an overstatement to describe the Whooper Swan as breeding “in the northern parts of Scotland’’ without any mention of irregularity, while it seems going to the other extreme to say of the Grey Lag Goose “Breeds in Iceland, Scotland and the Hebrides (rarely now)’’ when the great bulk of the surviving genuinely wild stock in this country is Hebridean. Mr. Scott’s fifteen coloured plates representing adults and young of all the species and subspecies are done with his usual skill and are accompanied by simple and ingenious keys facing each of them. The colour reproduction is no more than fair in standard and at 43 44 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII times definitely inadequate, as when the Greenland White-fronted Goose is shown with hardly more yellow in the bill than a Greylag. We look forward to the two subsequent volumes of what will undoubtedly be the standard work on its subject for many years to come. E.M.N. PASTURES NEW. By Jeffery G. Harrison {JVitherby, London, 1954). I2S. 6d. Dr. H.arrison describes here in pleasant, easy manner some of his experiences, particularly as a wildfowler, while in north-west Germany on National Service with the Navy for two post-war years. The whole stretch of the German coastline from Holland to Denmark, comprising the Frisian Islands, with their hinterland of sands, mudllats, mainland marshes and estuaries, is shown as a vast area teaming with wildfowl and waders in their season. On passage, and in suitable weather in winter, thrilling spectacles are provided — for example, fully 200 Smew of which 90% were old drakes; occasionally up to 10,000 Pink-footed Geese on one marsh; 8000 White-fronts in the air together; 10,000 Wigeon sheltering in a bay; hundreds upon hundreds of Oystercatchers, countless thousands of smaller waders. Figures such as these occur dotted about throughout the book, which is however not restricted to wildfowl. Passerines also pass through this area in great numbers, and Dr. Harrison has included some interesting tables based on observations on 25,000 migrants at the mouth of the Elbe. He finds that overland migrants prefer light tail-winds to head-winds, but do not like strong tail-winds; when it comes to facing a water crossing, on the other hand, head-winds are preferred ; furthermore, with a tail-wind, the larger the species the more likely it is to make the water crossing, the smaller birds stopping or turning aside. The book is illustrated with a number of photographs and the author’s own drawings. P.A.D.H. LES OISEAUX D’EAU DE BELGIQUE. By Leon Lippens. {Vercriiysse-Vanhove, Bruges, Belgium, 2nd edition, 1954). Only twenty-five years ago there were virtually no Belgian orni- thological records other than those of birds killed. The book bearing this title was originally published 13 years ago, about the time when, it seems, the age-long taking of migrants on spring passage through Belgium was coming to an end, ornithological interest was spreading from sportsmen to the broader basis of a body of “naturalists, ornithologists, observers, photographers, amateurs’’, and laws giving some species protection throughout the year were gaining the support of public opinion. Ihe eflect of all this is seen in the edition now under review, which has lieen revised and largely re-written up to and including the 1954 breeding-season, thus giving an admirable and completely VOL. XLVIIl] BOOK KEVIEWS 45 up-to-date account of Belgian distribution. The general picture is encouraging as far as Belgian breeding birds are concerned, in spite of the continued whittling down of marshland and other “wild” areas since 1940, with four new species which have bred for the first time and five others which are only now established as regular nesters. The passage of most waders continues to decline, and this is attributed to the barrage with which Spain, France and Italy cover the approaches to western Europe. Of winter visitors only the White-fronted Goose shows appreciable increase, while the Brent Goose has been very severely reduced in the past ten years and is now only of irregular occurrence (the Belgians can have no doubt about the danger in which this species stands). Among other details of interest to British readers especially in connection with trends in this country. Herons now number about 650 pairs compared with 450 pairs in 1939; Bittern, Great Crested Grebe and Avocet are increasing, also Little Ringed Plover notably in recent years ; Eider, formerly a rare and irregular winter visitor to Channel coasts, has now been increasing for some years ; similarly Great Snipe has become regular on passage recently, about 80 having been taken since 1930, and visits of Black-winged Stilt are becoming noticeably more frequent. On the other hand Gull-billed Tern and Red-crested Pochard remain rare vagrants, and there are no post-war records of American waders. . In addition to distribution there are sections on museum and field characters, habits, habitat; breeding; migration (which includes ringing recoveries up to March 1954, and several maps based thereon). For the purposes of this book “water-birds” cover divers, grebes, herons, ducks, gulls, auks, etc., as well as all the waders including Stone Curlew, also rails, storks. King- fisher and Dipper. English names are given in a sub-heading to each species. There are 24 coloured plates each illustrating a number of birds. P.A.D.H. KEY TO THE NAMES OF BRITISH BIRDS. By R. D. Macleod. (Pitman, London, 1954). 67pp. los. 6d. Here we have an enterprising book which sets out to acquaint the ordinary reader with the origins of the scientific as well as of the common names of British birds. Information relating to these latter can, of course, be more or less reliably found in any modern general dictionary which quotes etymologies, but for the former there has liitherto been no easily available work of reference. Since scientific names are often something of a mystery to many bird-watchers, one cannot but congratulate the author on his initiative. A valuable “Introductory” shows carefully how the scientific nomenclature is built up largely from Latin and Greek sources and considers in general terms the principles of name-giving. Next 46 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIll follows the main part of the book consisting of two lists, Scientific Names and Common Names, in which origins and etymologies are discussed. Unfortunately, in both lists only those names that can be found in The Handbook of British Birds are included. This limitation is particularly regrettable in the list of English names for many words in regular use are thus omitted, e.g. Bonxie, Dunnock, Vellowhammer. Moreover, the author follows The Handbook so closely that he even treats the entries subspecifically, and this to such a degree that he sometimes finds himself explaining that the British race of some species is called British because it lives in Britain, e.g. British Oystercatcher. All this is hardly apposite in an etymological glossary of common English bird names. Our forefathers who gave the birds their names did not think in terms of modern ornithological classi- fication ! In the Lists the reader will certainly find much which is useful, illuminating and sometimes diverting, and many a forbidding scientific name turns out to be highly appropriate as a description of colour, voice, shape or habit, or else recalls some long-forgotten superstition at one time attached to the bird. The author has drawn on many ancient and medieval authorities — these are duly catalogued — and has also consulted modern dictionaries, though no references are cited. This last omission is unfortunate, for so many of the etymologies quoted in this book are so erroneous that one wonders if the author even looked at the relevant philological literature. I’liis part of the work is further unsatisfactory in that the reader is given no insight into etymological method and very little into the special problems associated with the study of bird- names. Such an omission in a book expressly for the use of those with no specialist knowledge of linguistic processes greatly lessens the utility of the Lists. In practice, the uninitiated reader can merely note the information given, he cannot really understand it. Unfortunately, not a little passes our understanding, as some random examples from List I must now show. Accipiter (“hawk”) is explained as a derivative of the Latin nccipio, the meaning of which the author gives as “seize” though it is more usually regarded as “receive.” But this is pure folk- etymology, the real origin is almost certainly “swift-winged”. It ^eems rather pointless in a work like the present to quote an opinion that Aquiia (“eagle”) is related to aqua (“water”); it is like saying that Curlew comes from “curly”. In fact, the meaning of the name is quite obscure. This sort of information is readilv available, scientifically documented, e.g. in Ernout et Meillet, Diclionnaire Etymolo^ique de la lAingue Latine, iq^i. Under Alaiula (“lark”) the author quotes Pliny’s statement that the word is Celtic (i.e. Gaulish) and adds that it probably means “great songstress”, in support of which he invites us to “compare Welsh al great, and awd song”. But a glance at the new scientific Welsh VOL. XLVIIl] BOOK REVIEWS 47 dictionary [Geiriadiir Prijysgol Cymru, since 1950) teaches us that there is no such word as al, and never has been, while awd is a recent artificial spelling"' in Welsh of the Eng"lish word “ode” ! In sober fact, philology has not one single clue to the real meaning of Alauda. About Mr. Macleod’s explanations in List I one may fairly state that, where the origin is not immediately apparent to anyone with a smattering of Latin and Greek, they are generally worthless. Nor is List II any better. Indeed the treatment is, if anything, more uneven. Sometimes we are carried back to prehistoric roots, thus Kite is said to be probably from an Aryan root skut, but at other times we are only given the immediate source, thus Heron which was borrowed from Medieval French; actually the French word was itself borrowed from Old German. Of the root skut the less said the better; it is merely impossible. As in List I, several of the proposed etymologies are hopelessly wrong, thus Coot, Grebe, TVren. Others are extremely doubtful, e.g. Lapwing, Puffi.ti. There is no evidence that Shrike is derived from Icelandic, as implied ; it appears to be genuine English. The derivation of Hawk is given as though it were a proven fact, yet it is highly conjectural ; on the other hand the origin of Wheatear is said to be doubtful, but it is really quite certain (“white rump”). These and other mistakes need never have been made if the author had con- sulted the most recent philological studies, or for that matter, the standard etymological dictionaries. The idea of presenting the general public with a book on bird- names was undoubtedly praiseworthy and the author has broken new ground as far as the scientific nomenclature is concerned. But by failing to give himself the necessary philological training, he has committed a series of amateurish errors which rob his work of permanent value. MbB.L. and I.J.F.-L. LETTERS “.\NTING” BY BIRDS Sirs, — The announcement by the Editors of British Birds (autea, vol. xlvii, pp. 3 1 2-3 1 3), based on the work of H. Poulsen, that “anting” by birds is “quite automatic” and is merely performed to rub off formic acid or any other irritant from the head is likely to be taken as an ex-cathedra pronouncement by many who have not closely observed this behaviour. May I therefore briefly state some reasons why I am very far from being" in agreement with the above theory? (1) Some birds that show intense anting behaviour do not eat worker ants, but discard them after use. (2) The Jay (Garruhis glandarius) Green Magpie (Cissa chinen- sis) and Blue Magpie {Urocissa erythrorhyncha) do not pick up ants in bill when anting. 48 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII (3) The Rook and Carrion Crow [Corviis frugilegus and C. corone) have special movements which involve lying" “spread- eagled” among the ants (see Ihis, vol. 97, pp. 147-149). (4) The Jay’s reaction to irritation on (?or near) the eye is to rub the eye on top of the shoulder. This is not an anting move- ment (it is shown in identical form by many birds, such as pigeons, which never ant) but the bird will use it whilst anting if formic acid gets on its eye. (5) The Starling {Stiirnus vulgaris) when anting picks up ant after ant until it has a large ball of them in the tip of its bill. This behaviour is quite different to that meted out to hairy or distasteful insects being prepared for food, which are swallowed or discarded before the next is picked up. (6) Game-birds which — unlike most Passerines — often eat worker ants, and which habitually dust-bathe, do not ant, although they react in the same way as the Jay when formic acid gets on their eye. That under certain circumstances irritants applied to a bird’s face may serve as a releaser for the anting movements— especially in captive birds that have been long denied the opportunity of anting — I do not for a moment doubt. It may even be that anting had its origin in efforts to remove formic acid, although this is difficult to reconcile with the very different movements employed by species which do not ant (and some that do, when not in anting mood), just as nest-building seems to have originated in displacement move- ments and re-directed aggressiveness, but in its present form it is, in my opinion, a very distinct behaviour pattern, unconnected with feeding. Derek Goodwin. MIGRANTS IN THE BAY OF BISCAY Sirs, — We are collecting records of land-birds seen on or from ships in the Bay of Biscay (including the area south of Ireland to the north coast of Spain) and would greatly appreciate any such records that ornithologists may have. In addition to species, approximate numbers seen and dates of observations, we would like to have, wherever possible, weather notes, any flight directions, the approximate position of the ship and the time of the obser- vations. Letters should be addressed to us at the Edward Grey Institute, Botanic Garden, Oxford. In the event of pulilicalion all records will be fully acknowledged. R. E. Moreau, D. F. Owen and D. W'. .Snow NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS British Birds publishes material dealing with origitial observations on the birds of Britain and Western Europe, or where appropriate, on birds of this area as observed in other parts of their range. Except for records of rarities. Papers and Notes are normally accepted only on condition that the material is not being offered to any other journal. Photographs (glossy prints showing good contrast) and sketches are welcomed. Proofs of all contributions accepted are sent to authors before publication, .\fter publication 20 separates of Papers are sent free to authors; additional copies, for which a charge is made, can be provided if ordered when the proofs are returned. Contributors are asked to observe the following jjoints, attention to which saves the waste of much editorial time on trivial alterations: 1. Papers should be typewritten with double spacing, and on one side of the sheet only. Shorter contributions, if not typed, must be clearly written and with similar spacing. Failure to help in this way may result in dela3's to publication. 2. Notes should be worded as concisely as possible, and drawn up in the form in which they will be printed, with signature in block capitals and the writer’s address clearly written on the same sheet. If more than one Note is submitted, each should be on a separate sheet, with signature and address repealed. In the case of rarity records, any supporting descrij)tion which is too detailed for publication should be attached separately. Certain conventions of style and lay-out are essential to preserve the uni- i'ormit)' of any publication. .Authors of Papers in particular, especially of those containing systematic lists, reference lists. Tables, etc. should consult the ones in this issue as a guide to general presentation. English names of species should have capital initials for each word, except after a hyphen (e.g. .Siberian Tluush, Yellow-headed Wagtail), but group terms should not (e.g. thrushes, wagtails). English names are those used in The Handbook of British Birds, with the exception of tlie changes listed in British Birds in 1953 (vol. xlvi, pp. 2-3). The scii'nlific name of each species should be given (in brackets and underlined) immediately after the first mention of the Englisli name. .Sub- spccilic names sliould not lie used except where they are relevant to the discuss- ion. It is sometimes more convenient to list scientific names in an appendix. Dates should take the form “ist January 1955" and no other, except in Tables where they may be abbreviated to “ist Jan.”, ‘‘Jan. isl”, or even ‘‘Jan. 1", whichever most suits the lay-out of the Table concerned. It is particularly- requested that authors should p;iy attention to reference lists, which otherwise cause much unnecessary work. These .should lake the following form : Tucker, B. W, (1949): ‘‘Species and subspecies: a review for general ornitho- logists.” Brit. Birds, xlii : 129-134. WiTHERBY, H. F. (1894): Forest Birds: Their Haunts and Habits. London, p.434. Various other conventions concerning references, including their use in the text, should be noted by cfinsulting previous examples. 4 Tables should be numbered with Roman numerals, and the title typed above in the style used in this issue. The title and ;iny headings within the Table should not be underlined, because this sometimes makes it difficult for the Editor to indicate the type to be used. It is most important that the lay- out of each Table .should be carefully plannetl with an eye to its final appearance; above all, it should be borne in mind that Tables must either fit into the width of a page, or be designed to fit a whole page lengthways. .All Tables should be self-explanatory. 5. Figures should be numbered with .Arabic numerals, and the captions typed on a separate sheet. .All line-drawdngs .should be in Indian ink on good qualitv drawing jiaper (not of an absorbent nature) or, where necessary, on graph jiaper, but this must be light-blue or very pale grey. It is best if they an- drawn twice th(> size of the final reproduction (ideally, therefore, for the normal 4" width the original should be 8" wide). It is most important to consider how- each drawing will fit into the page. Unless the author has had considerable experience, as a draughtsman, all lettering, figures, arrow-s, etc. should either be inserted lightly- in pencil or else marked in jiosition on ,-i tracing of the draw’ing attached to it. In maps it is often desirable to h;ive a tinted (.stippled etc.) area, and this .should be indicated by- a light-blue w.-ish ;md left to the The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and The Fauna Preservation Society present ROGER TORY PETERSON’S Colour Film “ WILD AMERICA Commentary by JAMES FISHER on SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19th at 3 p.m. ROYAL FESTIVAL HALL (General Manager: T. f. Bean) TICKETS : 12/6, 10/-, 7/6, 5/-. 2/6 From the Royal Festival Hall Box Office, S.E.I (WATerloo 3191) and usual agents. S M A L L A 1 )\Tv R r 1 S K M !•: N T ()/- for 3 lines [Minimum]; 3/- for each extra line or |)art thereof, h'or the use of a Box Number there is an extra charge of one shilling. AMERICAN MAGAZINES— One year subscriptions : Audubon Magazine 23/6d, Audubon Field Notes 23/6d, Nature Magazine 35/-. List free. Hobson, 79, South- brook Road, Exeter. FOR iSALF,— North Norfolk coast. Well built house, on high ground overlooking sea and Bird .Sanc- tuary. Three reception, five bed- rooms, bath room, kitchen, scul- lery, central heating, agamatic, main electricity, good garage and otit-buildings. Price £3000. Box 49. BliriTSlI BIRIXS — Vol. xliv com- j)lete, Vol. xlv No, 9 missing, Vol. xlvi No. 8 missing, Vol. xlvii complete. What oflers? Box 48. Have you affixed a NEST- BOX for the coming season ? Tit or Robin, 10/9d. Larger B.T.O type 12/9d. “Observation” 12 9d. Large rUKiic “Observation” 18 /lid • very strong, llustic Robin 17 /6d. SPECIAL OFFER: to advertise these 2 new items we offer them during Jan.-Feb. only at reduced prices: — NUTHATtTI Nestbox 15/lld. (17 9d.l. Large ohis>s SEED HOPPER 17/9d. (19/9d.) Hanger l'9d. 2i lbs. (Seed 4/3d. “Bird Sanctuary” Catalogue 3d. Dept. II, GREENRIGG WORKS, WOODFORD GREEN, ESSEX. Printed in Gt. Britain by Withekbv & Co., Ltd., Wati'ord, Herts. Published by H. F. & G. WITHERBY, LTD., 5 Warwick Court, W.C.i. B RlTI S H BRITISH BIRDS AN ILLUSTRATED MONTHLY MAGAZINE Edited by E. M. Nicholson and W. B. Alexander A. W. Boyd I. J. Ferguson-Lees P. A. D. Hollom N. F. Ticehurst Editorial Address: Fordlands, Crowhurst, Sussex. Photographic Editor: G. K. Yeates Monthly 3s. Yearly 30s. Contents of Vol. XLVIII, Number 2, February 1955 PAGE Feeding rates of Great Tits. By Dr. John Gibb 49 Aircraft observations of birds in flight. By Captain K. D. G. Mitchell... 59 Nuthatch roosting times in relation to light as measured with a photo- meter. By Dr. M. C. Radford ... ... ... ... ... ... 71 Photographic studies of some less familiar birds. LXIII — Sabine’s Gull. Photographed by Niall Rankin (plates 9-10) 75 The behaviour of a pair of Great Tits at the nest. By Dr. Monica M. Betts 77 Notes: — Sabine’s Gull in Somerset (H. R. H. Lance and J. M. Lance)... ... 83 Sabine’s Gull near the Wolf Lighthouse, Cornwall (Bernard King) ... 83 Sabine’s Gull in the Isle of Wight (M. C. Adams) 83 Baldpate in Dublin (Frank King) ... 84 Baldpate in Lanarkshire (D. G. Andrew, G. Frazer, Prof. M. F. M. Meiklejohn, H. Mayer-Gross, R. W. T. Smith and C. Walker) ... 85 “Diving-play” of Smew in their winter-quarters (Bernard King) ... 85 Probable Black Kite in Dorset (Arthur Bull) ... 85 Unusual nesting-site of Moorhen (H. E. Axell) 86 Crane in Yorkshire (G. J. Brown) 87 Ringed Plover with apparently congenital deformity (Dr. E. A. R. Ennion) ... ... ... ... ••• ... ... ... ... 87 Aberrant rump-pattern in Ruff (T. C. Smout) ... ... ... ... 88 Nesting of Herring Gulls on roof-tops in Dover (G. E. Took) ... 88 Mediterranean Black-headed Gull in Hampshire (G. H. Rees) ... 89 Common Tern nesting in Huntingdonshire (C. F. Tebbutt) . ... 89 Bridled Tern in Dublin (Rev. Fr. P. G. Kennedy) ... ... ... 90 Bridled Tern in Glamorgan (Col. H. Morrey Salmon) ... ... ... 90 Scops Owl in Norfolk (Eric Hosking) ... ... ... ... ... 90 Alpine Swift in Caernarvonshire (I. G. Hughes) ... ... ... ... 90 Carrion Crows taking fish from water (E. L. Roberts) ... ... ... 91 Carrion Crows taking fish from water (Hugh Jones) ... ... ... 91 Bat as the prey of a Carrion Crow (M. A. Arnold) ... ... ... 91 Eagle Owl in Shropshire (Mrs. Doris Wilson) ... 92 White-headed Long-tailed Tit nesting in Surrey (Hubert E. Pounds)... 92 Northern Treecreepers in Northumberland (Dr. E. A. R. Ennion) ... 92 Blackbird rearing four broods in same nest (L. J. Rhodes and C. E. Bush) 93 Letters: — The. nature of “anting” (K. E. L. Simmon.s) ... ... ... ... 94 Guillemots on Ailsa Craig (Prof. M. F. M. Meiklejohn)... ... ... 96 The Birds of Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire (Bryan L. Sage) 96 Cover photograph by C. W. G. Paulson: Les.ser Yellowlegs {Tringa flavipcs) in Hampshire (see plate 12). BRITISH BIRDS VoL. XLVIII, Number 2, February 1955 FEEDING RATES OF GREAT TITS By John Gibb [Edward Grey Institute, Oxford) This paper summarizes data obtained mechanically from 52 broods of the Great Tit [Parus major), in a mixed broad-leaved wood at Wytham, near Oxford, from 1948 to 1951. Full figures, with details of individual nests, are deposited at the Edward Grey Institute. The work formed part of a population study still in progress, some results of which have appeared elsewhere (Gibb, 1950, 1954 a and b). The present paper repeats for completeness the few data on feeding rates in 1948 and 1949, from the 1950 paper. The mechanical devices are described in an appendix. The author is glad to acknowledge assistance from Dr. David Lack, Director of the Edward Grey Institute, and with statistical analysis from Dr. M. R. Sampford lately of the Oxford University Lectureship in the Design and Analysis of Scientific Experiment. Mr. R. E. Moreau, Mr. H. N. Southern and Dr. C. B. Williams read the -typescript and made many helpful suggestions. The frequency with which parent Great Tits visited their broods during the nestling period was measured at 13 nests in 1948, ii in 1949, II in 1950 and 17 in 1951. In 1948 and 1949 mechanical counters, which were read once a day, were used to record the total number of visits by the birds between the observer’s inspec- tions. In 1950 and 1951 continuous recorders registered each visit as a perforation on a moving tape, thus giving the distribution of the visits through the day, as well as the daily totals. Neither counter nor recorder distinguished visits by the male from those by the female. Nearly all the parents’ visits in the nestling period are for feeding the young. Kluijver (1950) estimated that food was brought by Great Tits in 80% of the visits on the first day after the young hatched, 95'% on the second day and thereafter 100%. Normally only one, but occasionally two or more morsels of food are brought at each visit. There is wide variation in the size of food organisms brought by Great Tits to the nest ; the average size tends to increase as the young grow older (Tinbergen, 1949; Betts, 1955). Thus the visiting frequency is not a good measure of the amount of food brought to the nest. There is enormous variation in the frequency with which Great Tits feed their young, even under apparently identical environ- mental conditions ; this is presumably related to individual food preferences (cf. Tinbergen, 1949). Hence long series of recordings. 49 50 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII at many different nests, are necessary before valid conclusions can be reached. Moreover, the changing" food situation from place to place, from year to year and from day to day must be considered. The rate of feeding was not affected by changes in air temperature or relative humidity, nor by moderately strong winds (gales were not experienced). Heavy rain, however, slows down the rate of feeding and may even prevent it altogether for short periods. Similarly Kendeigh (1952), working with House Wrens [Troglo- dytes aedon), found it “ Impossible to detect any significant influence of weather [air temp, and rel. humidity] on the rate of feeding”. Total visit 8 per day Fig. 1 — .\VKKAGF. DAILY TOTAL NUMBEK OF VISITS PAID TO THE NEST BY PAKENT (iKEAT Tits (Pants major) duuing the nestling period Note the slackening olT late in the nestling perioil of large first broods and late broods. NUMHKR or VISITS I’HK DAY (Fig. l) In every year, the larger* the brood the more frequent were the parents’ visits, but not in proportion It) llic number of young. A * riic adjectives “large” and “small”, when applied to broods, always refer to the number of young present. VOL. XLviii] FEEDING RATES OF GREAT TITS 51 member of a small family therefore received more food per day than did one of a large family. This relationship has been found among many nidicolous birds {e.g. Moreau 1947)- Kluijver (1950) did not confirm it among eight Great Tit broods ; but these were taken from five separate localities and in six different years. Fig. 2 — Average number of visits per 15 minutes paid to the nest by parent Great Tits {Parus major) at three stages of the nestling period: first BROODS IN 1950 Note reduced activity from 0600-0900 hours due to routine inspection of the nests by the observer. 52 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII Correlating with the frequency, young in small first broods were on the average slightly heavier than those in large first broods, especially in years when food was scarce. Although late broods had fewer young than first broods, their average weight was much FlO. 3 .\VEUAGE NUMBER OF VISITS I’ER 15 MINUTES PAID TO THE NEST BY PARENT (iREAT Tits {Purus major) at three stages of the nestling period: first BROODS in 1951 Nc)te reduced activity from 0800-1100 hours due to routine inspection of the nests bv I lie oliserver. VOL. XLViii] FEEDING RATES OF GREAT TITS 53 less even than that of young- in larg-e first broods; they -were in the nest after the caterpillars, on which first broods were mainly fed, had pupated. Very few young- in first broods died in the nest, but many young- in late broods died of starvation when about 15 days old. The daily total of visits usually increased each day for the first 05 C6 07 09 11 ij 15 17 19 05 05 07 09 11 1} 15 17 19 Time of day, 0. U«T< Fig. 4 — ^Aver.\ge number of vksits per 15 minutes paid to the nest by parent Great Tits [Parus major) at three stages of the nestling period: late (repeat and second) broods in 1950 and 1951 54 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII half of the nestling period. In the second half of the nestling period, activity was usually maintained or increased at small first broods, but slackened off at large first broods and late broods. This strongly suggests that parent Great Tits feeding large or late broods were becoming tired, and so could not maintain their rate of feeding. Arnold (1952) gives a striking case where a female Blue Tit {P. ccBruleus) disappeared half-way through the nestling period. The male at first almost exactly doubled his rate of feeding to compensate for the female’s absence, but after the fifteenth day fed very much more slowly. This may be typical of broods where the parent is straining to feed. DIURNAL RHYTHM IN VISITING ACTIVITY (FigS. 2, 3 & 4) Much the most conspicuous fluctuation at many nests resulted from the routine inspection by the observer. Nests were inspected only once a day, and for about ten minutes each at the outside. Nevertheless the birds fed significantly less often in the hours including the inspection than at other times. Apart from this, the diurnal rhythm was extremely variable. When all stages of all broods were lumped together, no rhythm was apparent; but signi- ficant differences were found when broods were grouped as large or small first broods, or late broods. This rhythm may be sum- marized as follows. Early in the nestling period: Great Tits usually fed their broods faster in the afternoon (1200-1859 hours G.M.T.) than in the morning (0400-1159 hours G.M.T.), and rarely vice versa; this was particularly so with large broods. Kendeigh (1952) found a similar diurnal rhythm in feeding early in the nestling period of House Wrens, but he did not compare broods of different size. Kendeigh also noticed that this feeding rhythm was the reverse of the female’s brooding rhythm; Hinde (1952) and Betts (1955) found a brooding rhythm in the Great Tit similar to that of Ken- deigh’s House Wrens. Since air temperatures are normally lower in the morning than in the afternoon, it is reasonable that the young should be brooded most, and therefore fed least often, while it is cool. This may account for the characteristic feeding rhythm early in the nestling period, but it does not explain differences with changing brood-size. However, broods with many young may de- mand greater effort by both parents in the afternoon than is necessary with fewer young per brood; hence females with large families may brood less in the afternoon than those with small ones. Large broods presumably conserve their heat more efficiently than small ones, so may actually need less brooding. Late in the nestling period: Great Tits with small first broods sometimes continued to feed faster in the afternoon than in the morning, as in the earlier part of the nestling period ; sometimes fed about equally through the day (e.g. in 1951); and sometimes fed faster in the morning than in the afternoon (e.g. in 1950). Large first broods and late broods were usually fed faster in the VOL. XLViii] FEEDING RATES OF GREAT TITS 55 morning than in the afternoon by this stage. This again suggests that parents of large or late broods were tired, and could not keep up their initial rate of feeding all day. A similar situation was found in the Swift {Apus apus) : in good feeding weather broods of three were fed more often, and in bad feeding weather less often, than broods of two (Lack and Lack, 1951). The afternoon slacken- ing of late broods of Great Tits was actually more pronounced in the middle, than late in the nestling period ; this was probably because nestling mortality in late broods lightened the parents’ task later in the nestling period. Kluijver (1950) found that the afternoon minimum frequency of visiting was always about 6o'% of the morning maximum, irre- spective of the amount of feeding done in the morning ; he did not compare broods of different sizes, or different stages of the nestling period. Kluijver therefore suggested that “. . . . tiredness on the part of the adults is not a major cause of the afternoon decline in their activity”. There are other possible explanations of the after- noon slackening late in the nestling period. First, the young might have been satiated by the afternoon, and so demand less food. This is unlikely because, in the tits, parents of large or late broods, which were probably shortest of food, slackened off more than did parents of small first broods. Secondly, rising air temperature might have inhibited feeding ; but the frequency of visits on different- days was not correlated with air temperature. Kluijver (1950), too, dismissed these possible explanations, concluding with Palmgren (1944) that the diurnal rhythm in feeding must be primarily controlled by the birds’ own innate rhythm. Neither Kluijver nor Palmgren suggested what controls this innate ryhthm. Palmgren (1949) stated that, “A tendency towards diphasic sleep is inherent in most birds”, but that ‘‘the feeding of the young may be so urgent that no definite rhythm develops.” On the contrary, I conclude that the greater the difficulty that the parents have in feeding their young, the more accentuated is their diurnal rhythm ; for there is more occasion for the parents to slacken when they have been straining to feed their young than when they have been doing so at their leisure. SUMMARY 1. The frequency with which parent Great Tits visited their broods during the nestling period was measured mechanically at 52 nests, from 1947-51. 2. In the later stages of the nestling period of large first broods and late broods, the daily total number of visits decreased markedly, and the afternoon feeding rate was less than the morning rate. 3. It is concluded that parent birds with large or late broods were straining to feed their young. Hence they were unable to maintain their rate of visiting towards the end of the nestling period, or in the afternoon. 56 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII REFERENCES Arnold, G. A. and Arnold, M. A. (1952): “The nesting of a pair of Blue Tits.” Brit. Birds, xlv: 175-180. Betts, M. (1955): “The behaviour of a pair of Great Tits at the nest.” Brit. Birds, xlviii : 77-82. Gibb, J. (1950): “The breeding biology of the Great and Blue Titmice.” Ibis, 92: 507-539. (1954a): “Population changes of titmice, 1947-1951.” Bird Study, I : 40-48. (1954b): “Feeding ecology of tits, with notes on Treecreeper and Goldcrest.” Ibis, 96: 513-543. Hinde, R. a. (1952): “The behaviour of the Great Tit and some related species”. Behaviour, Suppl. II : 1-201. Kendeigh, S. C. (1952): “Parental care and its evolution in birds”. Illinois Biol. Monogs., 22 (1-3). Kluijver, II. N. (1950): “Daily routines of the Great Tit, Parus m. major L.”. Ardea, 38: 99-135. Lack, D. and E. (1951): “The breeding biology of the Swift Apus apus". Ibis, 93: 501-546. Moreau, R. E. (1947): “Relations between number in brood, feeding rate and nestling period in nine species of birds in Tanganyika Territory”. J.Anim. Ecol., 16: 205-209. Palmgren, P. (1944): “Studien iiber Tagesrhythmik gekafigter Zugvogel”. Zeitschr.f. Tier psych., 6: 44-86. (1949): “On the diurnal rhythm of activity and rest in birds.” Ibis, 91:561-576. Tinbergen, L. (1949): “Bosvogels en In.secten.” Nederlandsch Boschbouw Tijdschrift, 4: 91-105. APPENDIX : THE MECHANICAL RECORDERS The appartitus was in two parts: (i) an electrical switching- device at the entrance hole of the nestbox (Fig-. 5), and (ii) the recorder (Fig. 6). The recorder was wired to the switch at the nest, and could be placed at any distance from it ; it was normally housed in a tin at the foot of the tree bearing the nestbox. The switch was made to complete an electrical circuit whenever the adult bird entered (or left) the nest. A “gate” was hung partly across the entrance hole. This was free to swing inwards and outwards, but was held in position across the hole by a very light spring. To get in or out, the bird had to push open the gate. An oval cam was fixed eccentrically on one end of the spindle on which the gate was mounted ; the cam turned as the gate opened. A thin metal strip, mounted on an insulated block, was set with one end just clear of the cam when the gate was closed, ^^’hen the gate opened inwards (but not outwards) the cam made contact with the metal strip, thereby completing the circuit. Only entries were recorded when the switch was screwed to the outside of the nestbox, and only exits when screwed to the inside. An elaboration of this switch included two cams, one completing a circuit as the bird came out, and the other completing a different circuit as it left. This was used by Hinde (1952), studying the rhytlim of incubation, for which times of entry and exit were needed. For recording visits of the parent birds feeding young, either entries or exits were sufTicient. In 1951, a micro-switch was VOL. XLviii] FEEDING RATES OF GREAT TITS 57 t One inch i SCALE Fig. 5 — The switch at the entrance hole of the nestbox substituted for the thin metal strip; this was operated by a short lever bearing on the cam. The recorder was made so that a paper tape was drawn off a reserve spool and on to another spool, which was mounted on the minute hand of a clock. Between the two spools, the paper passed between (a) one end of a solenoid, and (b) a metal lever in which was fixed the point of a needle. When the circuit was completed by the bird at the nest, this lever was drawn sharply against the solenoid and the needle punctured the paper. Immediately the circuit was broken, the lever returned to its first position and the paper was freed from the needle. An ordinary 6-volt battery was used. The paper was drawn across the end of the solenoid by a cheap 30-hour clock. Typewriter-ribbon spools were used to hold the paper. The rate at which the paper tape was drawn across the solenoid varied with the circumference of the “core” of the spool on the clock. This circumference increased with the amount of tape wound upon the spool. Hence units of time could not be marked on the tape beforehand; instead, this was done when the spool on the clock was full. A sharp needle was driven through the layers of paper at right angles to the axis of the spool at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270° ; care was taken to pierce the paper to one side of the line of punctures marking the birds’ visits. When unwound for counting. 58 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XL VIII PBOHT ELEVATION Solenoid Fulcrum on kni fe-edge Spool Kith reBerve tape Leads to aultch at neat 6v. battery Tape Kinding on spool Spool on minute spindle of clock Clock I One Inch SCALE Fulcrum on knife-edge prlng holding lever Solenoid ads to battery & switch at neat Tape peseea between lever and solenoid Lever Nee die Fig. 6 — The RECORnER tlie tape was then already marked off at intervals of 15 minutes. A strip of one hour’s record might then appear thus: — 1 he upper row of inincturcs ( = dots) are at inter\ als ("if minutes, and the lower row mark the birds’ visits. I welve identical apparatuses were used in 1950 and In 1948 and 1949 ^ similar switching device was used, but with different recorders. These only coiniicd the visits, without giving their distribution in time; they were less satisfactory, so are not di'scrihed. AIRCRAFT OBSERVATIONS OF BIRDS IN FLIGHT By Captain K. D. G. Mitchell INTRODUCTION The heights attained by birds, whether on migration or not, have in the past led to considerable speculation. Few authors on diurnal migration in recent years have been able to eliminate the possi- bility of a proportion of movement taking place beyond visual range and watching from the ground has given some indication of such activity. Also, observations are made from time to time on, for example, aerial song or thermal flights which indicate the reaching of considerable altitudes. However, the extent of high flying has been most difficult to assess and it seems, therefore, worth setting down a record of all my observations obtained from aircraft during the course of my duties as an airline pilot, in the hope that others will be encouraged to keep similar records. This paper is developed from the account of my records up to and including 1952 which appeared in the Merseyside Naturalists’ Association Bird Report for 1952-53. The observations are listed in detail in Table I which is discussed below. LIMITATIONS As I am engaged mainly on scheduled passenger operations, de- viation from the normal route, course or height to obtain further data has not been possible. Thus, much additional information on, for example, heading and speed has unavoidably been lost. Similarly, observations are sometimes incomplete due to my in- ability to record details until a suitable opportunity arises. Further, owing to preoccupation with aircraft duties no effort has been made to identify birds seen at a height of less than 500 feet above the ground, any such height being only transitory shortly after take-off or before landing. Birds are of course seen and occasionally struck during take-off and landing, but my impression is that, though there is obviously a reduction in the volume of flying with height, even such a modest height as 200 feet is above a great proportion of all bird flight. Cruising heights vary considerably according to weather, route, distance and air traffic density, but the majority of records below 2500 feet have been during climb to or descent from cruising altitude. IDENTIFICATION .A.S conditions for recognition are usually excellent, identification has not presented any undue difficulties. All birds are seen against 59 Species No. Date Local time Place Gannet (iSula bassana) 1 29.1.54 1545 Pentland Firth, Scotland. Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) 3 9 — Port Erin, Isle of Man. 1 14.7.54 1630 9 miles SSE of Bournemouth, Hants. White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) 1 8.7.53 1300 Lauenberg, 25 miles SE of Hamburg, Germany. Tufted Duck (Aylhya fuligida) 3 8.4.54 0930 Havelsee, 7 miles W of Berlin, Germany. Grey [Lag-?] Goose [(.4 riser a«ser)?) 30 8.10.53 1020 5 miles E of Brunswick, Germany. clearly in all 3 cases 20 >» 40 29.12.53 1435 Wittenberge, 75 miles NW of Berlin, Germany. Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulnus) 1 12.8.54 1353 Toledo Mts., Spain. — - ■ Buzzard sp. (Buteo sp.) 5 20.3.53 1518 5 mUes N of Helmstedt, Germany. 4 21.3.53 1440 Havelberg, 00 miles NW of Berlin, Germany. 1 8.10.53 1420 Wahnerheide, Germany. Kite (Milvus rnilms) 1 7.7.53 1300 Wahnerheide. Coot (Fulica atra) 0 8.10.53 1050 Havel, 8 miles NW of Potsdam, Germany. Lapwing ( VanellHS vanellus) 10 19.2.50 1200 Liverpool Bay, Bar Lightship. 12 13.12.50 1335 Wolverhampton, Staffs. 30 15.3.51 1330 Rugby, Warwickshire. 12 11.2.52 1520 8 miles ESE of Castletown, I.O.M 3 20.0.53 — Reading, Berks. Dunlin (Volidris alphia) 15 29.4.48 1815 River llersey, Speke, Liverpool, Lai 30 23.10.50 1510 3 miles ESE of Castletown, I.O.M J.csser liliick-hacked Gtil Jjiinis fnsr.iis) 1 24.4.48 — Castletown Bay, I.O.M. 1 3.5.48 1400 Ormskirk, Lancs. 2 10.8.51 — Knowslcy, Lancs. 2 10.8.51 — Ronaldsway, I.O.M. t 20.7.52 — St. Helens, Lancs. 1 0.7.54 — Wilmslow, Cheshire. — I . and headir 1 ted height 1 heading not 1 'ays known) ‘g W eather n (Cloud heights in feet) (Wind direction in degrees from true north) 1 Remarks 3/8 Cumulus, base 3,000. Wind 110/25 kts. Aircraft at 1,000 ft. Circling 7/8 Cumuius, base 2,500 Wind 280/30 kts. NW Pino. No cloud AircraPt at 3,000 ft., but bird seen well llymg downstream and high above River Elbe N 8/8 Stratus, tops 1,500 to W 3/8 Cumulus, base 2,000, tops 5,500 to B. Wind 020/15 kts. Birds climbing in the clear, 'over the Havel W 3/8 Cumulus, base 2,200. Wind light and variable Aircraft at 2,000 ft. W Weather as above SE 6/8 Strato-cumulus, tops 3,200 Wind 340/20 kts. Aircraft at 4,500. Birds far below but on top of cloud layer Circling No iow cloud. Wind 230/20 kts. Vis : 10 miles. Position 39“ 37' N., 03° 56' W.. over E end of a 20 mile long, 3 mile wide E-W ridge, maximum ht. 4,450 ft average ht. 3,250-4,000 ft. with’ general level of surroimding countrv lj950-3,250 ft. Bird just below top of haze layer (9,000 ft.) Circiing Fine. No cloud Wind light southeriy Circling Pine. No cioud Wind light northerly Circling Pine. No cloud Wind light and variable t Circling 5/8 Cumulus, base 3,500 t Ch'cling 3/8 Cumulus, base 2,200 Wind light and variable Birds climbing ■ssw ■sw 8/8 Stratus well below 8/8 Alto-stratus high above Birds flying in wide lane between layered cloud. Very cold day •E 3/8 Strato-cumulus, top 4,000 Wind 290/15 kts. Pine Aircraft at 5,500 ft. \W 7/8 upper cloud. Cold Wind 030/15 kts. ^WSW 2/8 Stratus, tops 1,500 Wind It. and var. Vis. : 7 miles 1 - 6/8 Cumulus cloud above Dull day Pine. Light smoke haze As above ■ llrcling 4/8 Cumulus, base 2,500 Wind 330/10 kts. Species. So. Date Local ^ time Place. Ilerrint; Gull (Lams argentatus) 2 24.4.48 — 2 miles SK of Castletown, I.O.M. 6 12.9.48 — Belfast City, Northern Ireland. 2 10.3.52 1240 Ramsey, I.O.M. 2 11.4.52 0925 Comber, Co. Down. 2 1- 2.4.53 1000 Belfast City, Northern Ireland. 2 3.11.53 1240 Aberdeen. c30 10.4.54 ! 1210- 1220 Dundee to Montrose, Angus. 1 18.7.54 1113 St. Ilelier, Jersey, Channel Islands. 1 29.8.54 1801 5 miles N of Cap de la Hague, Chert Peninsula, France 1 5.9.54 1618 Uxbridge, Middlesex. # 1 25.9.54 1822 12 miles N of N. Coast of Jersey, Clu j Islands. lilaek-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus) 12 10.3.52 1310 Speke, Liverpool, Lancs. [ Domestic Pigeon ( Coliimba sp.) 5 21.7.54 0910 Greenford, Middlesex. ) Swift 1 12.8.51 1715 Portland Bill, Dorset. j (d pns apus) 1 28.6.53 0610 Civitavecchia, 40 miles NM’ of 1 i Italy. 1 5.7.53 1710 Uxbridge, Middlesex. i 2 7.7.53 1440 Tempelhof Airfield, Berlin, German , 1 14.7.54 1910 Heston, Middlesex. ; 1 18.7.54 1522 Denham, Bucks. 1 21.7.54 0840 Greenford, Middlesex. , 1 21.7.54 0910 »» >> 1 23.7.54 1715 Uxbridge, Middlesex. 1 29.7.54 1450 Schiphol, Amsterdam, Holland. 1 5.8.54 1607 White Waltham, nr. Maidcirhead, Skylark 1 12.8.48 — S. Speke, Liverpool, Lancs. (Mauda arvensis) 1 6.4.54 — Gatow Airllcld, Berlin, Germany. ' Sand Martii\ (Jiiparia riparia) 2 11.9.52 1255 Portaferry, Co. Down. ^ Raven (Corvus coriix) 1 6.9.52 Castletown, I.O.M. ' ;,iht and heading i cated heiglit in 1 ;) (heading not - iways known) Weather (Cloud heights in feet) (Wind direction in degrees from true north) Remarks i D Various insects are carried aloft during the summer months by rising currents of warm air (thermals). Those striking an aircraft wind- screen are crushed beyond recogni- tion. They are often encountered at heights up to 6,000 ft. or more and possibly attract gulls “floating” over inland areas in summer ' D > D Sea fog from surface to 800 but clear to North 1 3 ■ ) 4/8 Cumidus, base 2,500 Wind iight westerly. Vis. : 30 miles ■ ) Fine. No low cloud r-age 1 ) 5/8 Cumulus, base 2,500 Wind 010/20 kts. Height of aircraft 2,000 ft. Height of grouml average 500 ft. First insects of year on windscreen Id 7/8 Stratus, base 1,000 Wind 290/25 kts. ) E 3/8 Cirro-stratus, base 15, 000, orabove Wind 260/20 kts.. Vis. ; over 10 miles Aircraft at 3,100 ft. ) 7/8 Cumulus, base 3,700 Wind 100/10 kts.. Vis. ; 8 miles ) NEW 3/8 Stratus, base 1,600 8/8 medium cloud above Wind 300/25 kts.. Vis. : 8 miles ) Wheeling in a tight circle after in- sects (see Herring Gull above) ' 4/8 Cumulus base 2,000 Wind 300/15 kts. ) Fine. Slight haze 1 Fine. Wind calm i 1 Fine )' 6/8 Cumulus, base 3,000 Both apparently descending rapidly i t 4/8 Cumulus, base 3,000 Wind 300/20 kts. ' ' 5/8 Stratus, base 1,800 Wind 310/15 kts. 4/8 Cumulus, base 2,000 Wind 300/15 kts. As above 6/8 Stratus, base 1,400 Wind 240/12 kts. Light rain 5/8 Cumulus, base 2,500 Wind 260/25 kts. E 4/8 Cumulus, base 3,800 Wind 270/20 kts.. Vis. : over 10 miles Apparently singing 8/8 Nimbo-stratus, base 3,000 Light rain I was on the ground at this place 4 hours later and saw about 200 Sand Martins induiging in aerial skir- mishes, none estimated at above half this height Breeds on near by hiUs to north 64 BRITISH BIRDS [vol. xlviii Species. No. Date Local time 1 Place f Rook {Corvus fmgUegus) 5 17.U.52 1040 Wallasey, Chesliire. 30 23.3.53 1215 Nauen, 22 miles WNW of Berlin, Germany. 2 29.12.53 1113 Havelberg, 60 miles NW of Berlin, Germany. - 80 18.3.54 1215 12 miles NW of Brunswick, Germany. 150 18.3.54 1227 12 miles NE of Helmstedt, Gennany. 14 31.3.54 1847 Turnliouse Airfield, Edinburgh. Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis) 1 27.9.52 0820 25 miles SE of Castletown, l.O.M. K u. 6 8.10.53 1018 Brunswick, Germany. Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 30 23.10.50 0840 WaUesey, Clieshlre. 30 23.10.50 0843 Ellesmere Port, Cheshire. 15 26.10.51 Altrincham, Cheshire. remote background of clear sky, cloud or ground, there being no obstruction between aircraft and bird. Inevitably large birds and flocks of birds are more readily seen than small single birds. The former may be detected thousands of feet vertically and hori- zontally from the aircraft and are in sight for possibly eight to ten seconds ; the latter are usually detected only a few feet from the aircraft and seen for as little as one to two seconds, being rapidly lost as they are left astern. Smaller birds must often pass unnoticed at ranges at which larger ones are seen. As many birds, e.g. Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) and Swift {Apus apus), possess flight characteristics which enable split-second recognition to be made, I have only thrice seen birds too late for identification. On about a dozen other occasions exact specific identification has been impossible in such high-speed “field” work. In the case only of the Meadow Pipit [Anthus pratensis) have the area and season been taken into account to rule out otlier similar species. The rapidly changing angle and range, especially of the smaller species, is an unusual feature of this type of observation but experienee has enabled me to concentrate on the bird. The ability to re-focus ones eyes from wide scanning of the skies on normal look-out down to close range attention to detail involves conscious effort, but this is constantly being met with in ordinary field work, if to a lesser extent. The need to consider each case on its own merits was well 65 VOL. XLViii] AIRCRAFT OBSERVATIONS itfc and heading t ited height in (heading not 1 'ays known) Weather (Cloud heights in feet) (Wind direction in degrees from true north) Remarks. N Light smoke haze Wind 020/15 kts. E Fine. No cloud Wind 300/10 kts. Aircraft at 2,500 ft. N 6/8 Strato-cumulus, tops 3,200 Wind 340/25 kts. Birds far below aircraft (at 5,500 ft.) but flying above cloud tops SE 8/8 Stratus, base 400, tops 1,200 Wind 270/15 kts. No upper cioud Aircraft at 3,500 ft. SE As above but tops 1,500 As above Circiing Duli, smoke haze Dusk. Presumed roosting flight SW 8/8 Nimbo -stratus, base 1,100 Wind 310/25 kts. Squally 3/8 Cumulus, base 2,200 Wind light and variable SE 8/8 Stratus, base 900, tops 2,000 8/8 medium cloud above Wind 180/20 kts. Birds seen climbing out of the top of the Stratus cloud and continue climbing to SE. illustrated in regard to the Coot {Fulica atra) ; they were most difficult' to identify, not due to any inherent peculiarity or simi- larity to other species but simply to the fact that they seemed so utterly out of their element at 1500 feet; I cannot ever recall having seen Coot flying before except on a prolonged scatter along the surface. HEIGHT .A.11 heights given are indicated heights above mean sea level, all but six of the observations being over sea, coast or flat ground of less than 300 feet above M.S.L. Where, however, the height of the bird is less than four times the height of the ground immediately below it, then the height of the ground is given. Where observed heights have been assessed as differing by more than two hundred feet from the height of the aircraft, the height of the aircraft is given. The indicated height of the aircraft is taken from the aircraft’s altimeter, which, being an aneroid barometer calibrated to record changes of atmospheric pressure in terms of feet of height, is subject to three errors. These are (a) mechanical instrument error (b) errors due to variations in barometric pressure at sea level (c) errors due to differences between the actual temperature at any given height and that assumed in the Standard Atmosphere. However it is unlikely that these errors are additive to greater than 5% of the indicated height and are often much smaller. 66 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIll DISCUSSION While so few observations can only be a slight indication of the heights at which birds fly, their very scarcity suggests that any height greater than 500 feet above ground level is infrequent. There is no rapid fall off in the number of observations below the 2000 foot level, the number of observations (as distinct from the number of birds) in 500 foot levels from 500 feet up being : — 500' 1000' 1500' 2000' 2500' 3000' . 3500' 4000' 4500' 5000' 17 18 10 5 5 4 2 0 J 0 0 5500' 6000' 6500' 7000' 7500' 8000' 0 I 0 0 0 I The last is for the level 8000-8499 feet. The largest group of 18 includes several observations 1000 feet above some low-lying air- fields, this height often being held in their vicinity. However, as the greater part of my flying time even on short journeys is spent at cruising heights between 2,500 feet and 10,000 feet, only a very small proportion of time is spent at the heights having most observations, except in the one layer indicated above. Were it therefore possible to record accurately the number of observa- tions per 500-foot layer per unit number of flying hours spent within each layer the lower layers would undoubtedly show a much higher frequency of observations. HEIGHT IN FEET X 1000 Fig. I — Cruising heights anp heights of observations The numbers of observations of birds at different heights is shown in relation to the amount of flying time spent at different altitudes. VOL. XLviii] AIRCRAFT OBSERVATIONS 67 Fig;. I shows the number of observations in five-hundred foot levels quoted above tog’ether with the cruising' heights of my most recent one hundred flights and indicates the paucity of birds at these heights. Unfortunately the number of bird observations (four) during these last hundred flights are too few to be plotted against the flights and I have no record of cruising heights to cover previous flights. However these hundred may be taken as a fair sample of the last twenty-two months during which over half of the total observations have been made. Cruising heights are usually in multiples of 500 feet, but as the hundred flights cover twenty-six levels an erratic graph would result from plotting them thus (e.g. 13 flights at 6000 feet and 17 at 7000 feet yet only 2 at 6500 feet) and would destroy the “time at each flight level’’ which the graph tries to convey. The flights have therefore been plotted in thousand foot levels and are thus strictly not on quite the same axis as the observations. Table II shows the same data reduced to percentages in three height-groups and again illustrates the rarity of high flying by birds. Table II — Percentages of bird observations at different cruising heights Height Below 2000' 2000'' -4500' Above 4500' % of last 100 flights cruising therein 1 1 22 67 % of total bird observations 68 29 3 100 100 Few of my colleagues ever see birds in flight though among the observations of which I have heard there have been two at about 10,000 feet, one at 7,500 and one at 5,500 feet — the last two being of geese. Inability of my colleagues accurately to identify birds seen has led to the exclusion of all but personal observations. I have no experience of flying in the Middle or Far East, where it is possible that, with a large number of birds of prey dependent on thermals for obtaining height, heights of 3000 feet or more may not be uncommon. Indeed it is possible that this paper may bring forth a number of observations from other pilots which may radically change the tentative indications outlined above. As my work has a summer seasonal bias no direct significance can be drawn from the monthly distribution of observations, which is however as follows ; — Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jly. .'Vug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. I 29813 14 76923 Peaks are shown in March-April, July and October. If however an admittedly arbitrary system is adopted to eliminate local, roosting, feeding or other circuitous flight (excluding birds such 68 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII as Buzzard {Buteo buteo) which migrate thus), the monthly distri- bution of significant flights where the birds appear to be flying purposefully e.g. above cloud, in flocks on a definite heading, or over the sea or in adverse weather, then the distribution becomes : ■ — ■ Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jly. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 0262 01001813 Thus there are clear peaks in March and October. The June record of Lapwing is peculiar among these as the only one during the summer months of May to August. Certain days have yielded more than one observation up to a maximum of five on one day. Reports from other pilots have also often occurred on a day when I have myself seen something. Thus 25 observations have fallen on ten days. However though some of these ten days have been days of light wind, associated with anticyclonic conditions with perhaps part cover of strato-cumulus cloud, on innumerable other occasions similar conditions at all seasons of the year have produced nothing. Such conditions, providing one is above the haze and/or cloud layer, are so ideal for search with practically unlimited visibility that any slight increase of observations need signify nothing. The local times of occurrence of the observations have been noted on fifty-four occasions. Though I do fly at all hours of the day and night, these are not evenly distributed : as a result the times do not give a true indication of the incidence of activity. It may be noted, however, that I have only one record for the hour 0530-0630, one for 0730-0830 and two for 1830-1930. All other hours between these last two have three, four or five records each except 0830-0930 and 1230-1330 with seven each and 1430-1530 with eight. Of the twenty-four migrationally significant records previously mentioned, five were for 1430-1530, with all but three of the remaining seventeen timed records being spread almost equally between 0830-1230. The heading of a bird is in many cases inconsequential, e.g. Skylark [Alaiida arvensis) hovering in song. Also I have often found it possible to see and identify birds yet not be sure of their heading, all eifort being devoted to recognition, the rapidly changing “angle off” during the few seconds the bird is visible tending to baffle accurate orientation. .As a result there are relatively few data to assess direction of birds in relation to wind speed and direction. However, in seventeen cases the heading of the birds and the wind at the height at which they were flying have been noted; these show three cases with birds flying with a head-wind ; one with the wind on the starboard bow; one on the starboard beam and three on the starboard quarter; three had a tail-wind; two a wind on their port quarter and one a wind on the port bow. In three other VOL. XLviii] AIRCRAFT OBSERVATIONS 69 cases the wind was light and variable at the time. Thus these observations, which would fall within the category of “high” for a ground observer show a slight bias in favour of birds flying high with tail-wind components. Of seven cases of birds flying below three-fourths or more cloud- cover, five lacked adequate data, one was flying with a wind 30° aft of the beam, and the other with a beam wind. This last bird was a Meadow Pipit heading S.W. with a N.W. wind of a speed approximately equal to its own airspeed : thus the bird must have been tracking almost due south with a slightly increased ground- speed over airspeed. This is my only case of a bird being airborne at a time when its airspeed equalled or was less than the wind speed. Of the four records of birds flying above three-fourths or more cloud cover, one was almost directly into wind, one was running with the wind and the other two had the wind on their starboard quarter. Of the two cases of birds flying between layers of cloud each more than three-fourths cover, data are available for one — birds flying with the wind on their starboard bow. This case is also the only one where birds were seen to emerge from cloud climbing. It may be noted that large birds which gain lift from thermals have been seen almost exclusively on fine days with light and variable winds and have been either at or just below the top of the haze layer or cloud base ; thus they have not sought to gain height above that offered through almost effortless soaring in the currents of rising warm air. Of the gulls, only the Herring Gull (Lartis argentatus) has been observed twice well clear of land. Of land-birds only the Meadow Pipit has been seen well over the sea. Lapwings, however, have twice been seen on a sea crossing- — in both cases the Irish Sea. The large rise in the number of observations in 1953 and 1954 together with a complete dearth of recorded observations prior to 1948 is remarkable. However, much of my service flying was over the sea with a greater proportion by night. Most of my flying thereafter until the end of 1952 was over the United Kingdom with much cross-channel (Irish Sea) work. Since then a larger pro- portion has been over the European continental land-mass. It would thus appear that even over short sea crossings birds are less inclined to fly high than over quite flat but large land-masses. CONCLUSION Over the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent over Western Europe the observations indicate that there is little flight by birds at heights of five hundred feet or above, birds being encountered on an average once in every seventy hours of flying by daylight. On observations covering a variety of species engaged in various 70 BRITISH BIRDS [vol. xlviii pursuits no clear-cut pattern in relation to such factors as wind, weather or season is discernible. Many more observations are required over a wider area to evaluate the incidence of high flying by birds. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author is indebted to Dr. David Lack for kindly advice and criticism during preparation of this paper. SUMMARY 1. Observations on birds seen from aircraft are given. 2. The problems associated with observing and identifying birds are discussed. 3. The observations are assessed in relation to cruising height, time of year and day, wind direction and cloud amount. 4. In conclusion the need is expressed for further work of this kind. NUTHATCH ROOSTING TIMES IN RELATION TO LIGHT AS MEASURED WITH A PHOTOMETER By M. C. Kadford During the winter of 1953-54 one of a pair of Nuthatches (Sitta europcea) roosted regularly in a nesting-box in our garden at Oxford, as it did during the previous winter (c/. Radford, 1954). The sexes were again readily distinguished since the male had a much more marked red on the flanks and as before it was only the female that roosted in the box. She started on November 7th, 1953, and continued steadily until March 21st, 1954, when she began taking pieces of bark into the box and stopped roosting. From November iith I had the use of a photometer kindly lent by the British Trust for Ornithology. It proved to be of little use in the mornings as the Nuthatch got up with great regularity close to the time of sunrise when the light was so dim as to give photometer readings usually below i. At this level the instrument is not very reliable and the differences were too slight to be of value. The evening results were, however, very interesting and I took readings at the moment of roosting on as many occasions as possible throughout the winter. They were all taken at the same window facing W.S.W. and looking on to the nesting-box at one side. There were no trees in front of the window. Brief notes were also made of the type of evening (mild, cold, wet, foggy, snow, etc.). The accompanying tables give the results: Sunset Time of Photometer (p.m. roosting reading Date G.M.T.) (p.m. G.M.T.) Weather Nov. II 4.17 3-45 4-5 Overcast, mild. 12 4-5 2.4 Cloudy, mild. 13 3-45 2.8 Raining, mild. 14 4.0 2.8 Cloudy, mild. 15 3-55 4.0 Light cloud, mild. 16 4.12 8.5 Clear, mild. 17 4-5 2.8 Foggy, mild. 18 4.10 4-5 0.8 Misty, overcast, mild. 20 3-45 30 Light cloud, mild 21 350 2.4 Cloudy, mild. 22 3-45 2.4 Cloudy, mild. 23 3-50 4-5 Light cloud, mild. 25 4.0 3-55 5-0 Clear, mild. 26 350 6.0 Clear, mild. 27 3-42 3-2 Overcast, mild. 28 3-55 1.6 Overcast, mild. 29 340 I.O Misty, dark, mild. 30 4.0 3-2 Clear, mild. 71 72 Dec. Jan. Feb. BRITISH BIRDS [vol. xlviii Sunset Time of Photometer (p.m. roosting reading Date G.M.T.) (p.m. Weather G.M.T.) I 4-5 2.0 Light cloud, mild. 2 3-55 3-55 30 Light cloud, mild. 3 3-50 0.8 Overcast, mild. 4 3-35 0.4 Overcast, mild 6 3-50 3-8 Light cloud, mild. 7 4.0 0.8 Cloudy, mild. 8 3-45 0.8 Cloudy, mild. 9 350 330 1.8 Foggy, mild. lO 350 I.O Cloudy, mild. II 3-45 1.8 Cloudy, mild. 13 3-48 2.0 Cloudy, mild. H 3-45 0.4 Very dark, mild. 15 350 2.0 Foggy, cold. i6 3-49 4-0 0.8 Almost clear, mild. I? 3-55 30 Clear, mild. i8 4.0 0.4 Misty, mild. 20 350 3-0 Clear, cold. 22 3.58 0.8 Dark, mild. 23 3-55 3-50 0.8 Dark, mild. 24 3-45 36.0 Clear, sunny, mild. 25 3-55 8.0 Clear, sunny, mild. 26 after 4.0 less than 0.5 Dark, mild. 27-31 Not seen I 0 4.20 less than 0.2 Frost, clear. 3 4.0 4 4-5 13.0 Cold, clear. 5 4.0 0.8 Cold, dark. 7 4-5 II. 0 Snow, clear. 10 4.10 II 4-5 1-5 Light cloud, mild. 13 415 0.2 Very dark, mild. 15 4-5 36.0 Clear, bright, mild. 17 4.20 4.20 25.0 Clear, bright, cold. 18 4.10 4-5 Light cloud, cold. 19 3-50 25.0 Sunny in W., mild. 20 4-5 3-2 Dark, mild. 21 4.0 2.0 Wet, mild. 22 4.10 4-5 Cloudy, mild. 23 430 3-2 Clear, mild. 24 430 25 415 4-5 Cloudy, cold. 31 4-45 I 4.20 36.0 Snow on ground. 3 415 100.0 Snow on ground, sunny 4 415 100.0 Snow on ground, sunny 5 4-35 50.0 Snow on ground, sunny 7 4-55 4-35 50.0 Thaw, clear. 9 4-45 4-5 Misty, mild. 1 1 4-35 4-5 Misty, mild. 12 425 3-2 Wet, mild. 14 5-10 4-55 50 Light cloud, mild. 15 4-55 4.0 Light cloud, mild. Plate <) Sahine’s (iuLL (Xcma sahiui) ox the mlst, Ai.aska, 11)50 Tills ^ivfs some indiciUion of the forked tail ami ol the black outer |irimaries with their white ti]is. The secomlaries and inner |)rimaries are white, forming on the extemknl wing a large white triangle which is represented in the foldi'd wing hv the white line henetith the pale grey nf the coverts and mantle. (sec page 75) Xiall lidiilnn Plate io Sabine’s (iuLi. (Xciua sahiui) at the nest, Alaska, 1950 rii'- sl.-iti- liood is se|)aratc(l from (lie while of the neck hy a narrow hordi’r of black; bolli tliis and till- bla(d<-b.■l■^l•d, vcllow-lipped bill .are well '.hown here. 'I'he nest is a slight hollow of stalks and gr.ass, iisu:dl\' on marshy ground, and the eggs vary from brown to olive-greim mtirked with (barker brown. (.see p.age 75) Platk 1 1 — L c; V c c w — ^ OJ > SI . c — D X o P ■S D* 'Ot} ^ 0^0 9/ r\ 3 ^ 'J O ‘" < lo ^ 1^ -Cl, r S E] -•0 c o s: c: c/3 i> t:: .T5 O C CO — ^ ?M C QJ ^ 5 n M\i;siiI’;s, IIwiivsimri-: SlA’TI'-.MmA^ III.S4 riir vri'v lonj4 Irj^s and ihc slrndrr huild which chai'aclci'i/c llic spi'i'ic.'- an- wi-ll shown lii-i-i-, l)Ul tile mantle appi-ars rather tiarker than was actually tin- case. Nol(- thi- hlack hill, liiu- and not \-i-r\ lonj*. l)i-tails ol this |■(-co|■(l ,-ind ol till- other ^'ellowlees seen in Ih'itaiii in in,S,i and i OJ o c c/2 p t)JD fl! 4 Plate iS Pi. ATI James Fisher Rov.u. I'l'RNs {Slenia luaxiiiia) A'l' nilstinc. cdi.ona : 1,M)ia Ann lsi .\Nn, ‘I'enas. Mav i(i5_^ 'I'Ik* Royal 'I'cm’s tail i.s lonjh Ihi.R is hardly apparent here, and llu're is less hlark at the end of Ihc' primaries. The llighl is de.serihed as like that nl' (he Common 'I'ern (S. hirumlo) hul less Inioyant. Laughing (iiills (Lants alrieilla) in the I'oregroiind. (see pages iuS-ikj) Pi, ATI-: II) Tl'. U. Flou'cr PiNi'i r.KosnHAK (Piiiicola cunclcator) on tiik Isi.ic ok MA^■, i)Tii \ovi;mbk;r 1954 'I'lne liircl was an adult femtde. This |)hotograph gives an indication of its size about that of a Starling {Slunuis viilt^aris) — as compared witli a hand, and also shows the fairly long tail and the white on the wings. It has something of the appearance of an outsize Crossbill {Loxia curviroslra). (see pages i rrijd) l.ATH 20 I It', r. Floirvr I’iNK ( iKosBicAK {I’i)iicoIa cnucleator) on tiii-; IsM'; oi- Mav, <)Ti: Xoa'h.mbI'.k h)54 'I'hi> \v;is t.'iUen just ;ifler the bird was relea.sed and well shows the mas.sive heail and heavv, conic.al i)ill. 'File light-coloured bars formed by the ti])s to the wing-coverts are also a])p;irent. The bird was crouching in this way, in between inter\-,als of feeding, when it w;is lirst seen on 8th November. (see page VOL. XLVIIl] WINTER NESTING 121 December continued unusually mild. It was very dry, dull in England and Wales, and sunny in Scotland. Mean temperatures exceeded the average (for 1921-50) by 4.6° F. in England and Wales, and 2.9° F. in Scotland. This was the mildest December in Great Britain since 1934. Temperatures were exceptionally high from 2nd to 4th December. Night temperatures were also very high at some places. At Oxford there was no air frost in any of the four months September-December. January 1954 was changeable. The first ten days were cold, the next fortnight mainly mild, and then from 23rd January to the end of the month it was unusually cold. The long mild spell thus ended almost exactly at the end of the year. In Fig. I the daily maximum and minimum temperatures at Oxford are plotted from mid-October to mid-January, together with the mean monthly maxima and minima for the 10 years up to and including the winter 1953/54. It will be seen that maxima fluctuated fairly regularly about the mean except for a period round the end of November and beginning of December, when they were consistently above the mean for a fortnight. Minima fluctuated rather more erratically. There was a period of 6 days in mid- November when they were consistently above the mean, and another long period of nearly 30 days, in the second half of November and first three weeks of December, when they were consistently above the mean on all days except one, rising above Fig. I — Daily maximum (A) and minimum (B) temperatures at Oxford IN THE WINTER I953/54, COMPARED WITH THE MEAN MONTHLY MAXIMA (a) AND MINIMA (b). BRITISH BIRDS 122 [vOL. XLVIII mean maximum temperatures on several days in the first half of December. SPECIES BREEDING Blackbirds [Turdiis merida), Song" Thrushes (T. philomelos), Robins (Erithacus rubecitla), Starlings (Stiirmis vulgaris) and House Sparrows {Passer doniesHcus) were tbe chief species reported as breeding, but because of the inaccessibility of their nests few details are available for the last two. Most information is available for the Blackbird and Song Thrush, but clearly this is mainly due to their abundance and the accessibility of their nests and does not necessarily mean that proportionally more of these two species were nesting than of other less common resident species. In addition there is one record of a Dunnock’s {Prunella modularis) nest with eggs, one of a Skylark’s {Alauda arvensts), several reports of Rooks {Corvus fragile gtis) building and one report of a Magpie {Pica pica) nesting. As the Appendix shows, breeding records came from many parts of England. The only definite breeding records for Scotland were from the extreme south (Roxburghshire), and in addition Rooks were reported as building near Edinburgh on several dates in December and early January. The absence of records from further north is probably due only to the scarcity of observers; November was as mild in Scotland as in England and December onlv a little less mild. Details of all the nests for which there is some satisfactory information arc given in the Appendix, and their dates are sum- marized in Table I. Some conventions have had to be adopted because of the imprecise nature of the data. The date for each nest is taken as the day on which the first egg was laid. For most nests this can onh^ be worked out as a more or less extensive “bracket”, and in working out this bracket it has had to be assumed that nests were occupied when first found unless there was evidence to the contrary. In allocating the nests to a period in Table I, the middle point of the bracket has been taken ; since the periods used are of half a month, the error involved should not Tari.e I — Breeding dates (cai.culated dates of first egg) of six species in THE WINTER H)S3/54- Song First half November •Second ,, First half December Second ,, ,, House Blackbird Thrush Robin .Starling .Sparrow Skylark .S First half Januarj' I VOL. XLVIIl] WINTER NESTING 123 be great. Hardly any clutch-sizes can be determined with certainty. In the Appendix, clutch-sizes which appear to be well founded are shown without a bracket, those based on a mere statement of how many eggs a nest contained, with no indication whether the clutch was complete or not, are bracketed, and those based on the size of broods, or broods plus unhatched eggs, are square-bracketed. Blackbird. Records are available for 13 nests which contained eggs or young. In ten of these the clutch was begun in the second half of November or first half of December. Of the two latest nests, from the same wood in Roxburghshire, one was probably started on 31st December, and the other at the very end of December or in the first few days of January. Considering that some of the clutches were probably incomplete when recorded, clutch-size was not abnormally low. The fate of only five nests was known. Two were deserted or destroyed, both apparently due to human interference, and young hatched in three. Of these three, young' were fledged from one, the young died in one, probably due to exposure to the weather, and the fate of one was unknown. Song thrush. Records are available for ten nests which contained eggs or young (including one based on observation of newly fledged young). Song Thrushes started to nest rather earlier than Blackbirds, just as in a normal breeding-season. Clutch-size seems to have been similar to the Blackbird’s. The fate of most of the nests was known. Young hatched in five, and fledged from three of these, the fate of the other two being unknown. One of the clutches known not to have hatched was incubated for 18 days (20th December-yth January), and then deserted ; the eggs were later found to be infertile. Robin. Robins apparently bred at about the same time as the Song Thrushes. Of the four nests, the fate of two was unknown, one was deserted, and young probably fledged from one. Other species. None of the information on Starlings is very precise, though it seems that a good number must have bred and succeeded in hatching young, since there were several unconfirmed reports of young Starlings besides those admitted here. Information for the House Sparrow is even more scanty and cannot be summarized. Reports of Rooks building have already been mentioned, but there is no evidence that any got beyond this stage; unsatisfactory records of young Rooks and Jackdaws have had to be discarded. Details of the single Dunnock’s and Sky- lark’s nests are given in the Appendix. DISCUSSION Table I shows that, taking all species together, most breeding started in the second half of November and first half of December. It will be recalled that the weather in October was not exceptional. 124 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII and that the first week of November was rather colder than usual; but that after the end of the first week of November the normal seasonal drop in temperature failed to occur and the rest of November and December remained exceptionally warm. It seems clear that the main outburst of breeding was stimulated by this abnormal prolongation of warm weather. It may be noted that, as the Appendix shows, the nests allocated to the first half of November in Table I could all have begun after the end of the first week, and most of them, since they lie within rather wide brackets, in the second half of November. The Blackbird and Song Thrush, the only species for which some idea of breeding success can be gathered, were not notably unsuccessful. Indeed it seems that many Song Thrushes, in particular, may have effectively added an extra brood to their year’s production of young. It would be extremely interesting to know whether those individuals that bred were able to start again at the normal time in the spring of 1954. This raises the wider problem of the selective factors operating against autumn breeding. If the climate of this country were to become only a few degrees warmer in autumn, many resident birds, if they retained their present physiological adjustment to their environment, would start breeding in autumn, as they did in 1953. But there is little doubt that a regular autumn breeding season would not be established, just as it has not been in southern Europe where autumn tempera- tures are comparable to those prevailing in this country in 1953. There are several reasons why selection might eliminate a regular autumn breeding-season, even if conditions were normally suitable for raising some young. Individuals breeding in autumn might be physiologically incapable of breeding again with full efficiency in the following spring, when conditions for raising young would be even more favourable. Or they might not be able to lay up sufficient food reserves to survive the coming winter as well as those that did not breed. Or, even if these disadvantages were not of sufficient force, the young might not on the average survive the coming winter in sufficient numbers to offset the extra mortality which a breeding season undoubtedly entails for the adults. These factors are not of course mutually exclusive: all might operate together to prevent regular autumn breeding. APPENDIX The italicized dates of first egg, clutch-size, etc., do not form part of the original reports, but are calculated from them in the way described on page 122 ; they arc used as the basis for Table I and for other generalizations made in the text. Blackbird I. -Sandhurst, Berks. Nest with 4 eg. Clutch: (4). WINTER NESTING 125 VOL. XLVIIl] 2. Fordingbridge, Hants. Bird sitting on eggs, yth Dec. (J. Ash.) First egg: 20th Nov.-^th Dec. 3. Wiston, Sussex. Pair with eggs, 6th Dec. (Sussex Bird Report 1953-) First egg: 20th Nov.-^th Dec. 4. Hants. Nest with 2 eggs, approx. 6th Dec. (Letter to Field, 6th Dec. 1953, from Sir F. Hervey-Bathurst, and pers. comm.) First egg: 22nd Nov.- ^th Dec. Clutch : (2). 5. Carisbrooke, I.O.W. Nest with eggs, first days of December. (l.O.W. County Press 5th Dec. 1953, per J. Stafford.) First egg: second half November. 6. Hereford. Nest with 3 eggs destroyed during hedging operations, 9th Dec. (Hereford Orn. Club Report 1953.) First egg: 25th Nov. -yth Dec. Clutch : (3). 7. Carnforth, Lancs. Nest with 4 eggs found during second week December; not known to have hatched. (Eric Hardy, Liverpool Daily Post 21st Dec. 1953.) First egg: 22nd Nov. -nth Dec. Clutch: (4). 8. Penrith, Cumberland. Nest in a byre at Great Strickland; 3 eggs, i6th Dec. (N. Thorburn in The Field Naturalist January 1954.) First egg: ist- iqth Dec. Clutch: (3). 9. Totland Bay, I.O.W. 3 young in nest, presumably ist Jan. 1954. Fate unknown, but considered possible that they survived. P.S. gives 3rd Jan. as date on which young were in nest. (I.O.W. County Press 2nd Jan. 1954, per J. Stafford; letter from F. G. Clegg, 2nd May 1954; letter from P. Sleightholme, 4th May 1954.) First egg: 6th-iyth Dec. Clutch: [3]. Brood: 3. 10. Bristol, Glos. Nest with 4 eggs, near Almondbury, just before 25th Dec. (A. E. Billett in Bristol Nat. Soc. Report 1953.) First egg: yth-20th Dec. Clutch : (4). 11. Dinmore, Hereford. Nest with 2 eggs, 25th Dec. (Hereford Orn. Club Report 1953.) First egg: i\th-20^th Dec. Clutch: (2). 12. Newcastleton, Roxburghshire. 4 young and one undeveloped egg, 22nd Jan. 1954.' Young flew on 31st Jan. Nest well sheltered, in spruce. (S. Cruick- shank in Gamekeeper April 1954, and pers. comm.) First egg: approx. 3 lit Dec. Clutch: [5]. Brood: 4. 13. Newcastleton, Roxburghshire. Nest in same wood as No. 12, found on i8th Jan. 1954. 3 young perished, probably of exposure, at approx. 5 days old. (Uncertain what nest contained when found.) (S. Cruickshank in Game- keeper April 1954, and pers. comm.) First egg: 301/1 Dec.-y,rd Jan. Clutch: [3]. Brood: 3. Song Thrush 1. Flackwell Heath, Bucks. Nest with 2 eggs, nth Nov., beside footpath. .\ few days later eggs gone and nest disturbed. (C. A. Smith in Country-Side Spring 1954, and letter to Editor of British Birds, 12th May 1954.) First egg: 28th Oct. -10th Nov. Clutch: (2). 2. Norwich. Young in nest, early December. (E. A. Ellis in Norfolk Bird Report 1953.) First egg: mid-November (limits approx. 2nd-22iid). 3. Washington, Sussex. Pair with young, 6th Dec. (Sussex Bird Report *953-) First egg: yth-2\st Nov. 4. Ellesmere, Salop. 4 three-quarter-fledged young in nest, 14th Dec. Young in nest 2-3 days later and left nest in natural way. (D. Pilsbury in Country- Side Spring 1954, and letter to Editor of British Birds, 24th Apr. 1954.) First egg: approx. i8th Nov. Clutch: [4]. Brood: 4. 5. Marks Tey, Essex. Nest with 3 eggs, 2nd or 4th Dec. (reports of dates and nest-site conflicting, but probably only one nest involved); deserted, probably due to interference. (News Chronicle 3rd Dec. 1953, H- E. Pounds; letters from G. Mountfort, 8th Dec. 1953 and 9th Feb. 1954.) First egg: iqth-20th Nov. Clutch: (3). 6. Hindhead, Surrey. Nest with eggs, 15th Dec. (Letter from C. Densley, 4th March 1954.) First egg: 29//1 Nov‘.-i^th Dec. 7. Cobham, Kent. Young birds seen in nest “after Christmas”; two days 126 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIir later two young just out of nest. Still being fed in mid-January. Possible that these reports involve two different nests. (Letter from U. Benecke, March 1954.) First egg: beginning December. 8. Haslemere, Surrey. Nest with 4 eggs, 17th Dec.; abandoned during cold weather in January. (Letters from C. Densley, 4th and nth March 1954.) First egg: ist-i.\th Dec. Clutch: (4). 9. Hailsham, Sussex. Nest built in early December; first egg 15th Dec.; incubation started 20th Dec. Nest deserted, 7th Jan.; examined on 12th Jan., contained 3 infertile eggs. (E. Salvage in Country-Side Spring 1954; Sussex Bird Report 1953.) First egg: i^th Dec. Clutch: 3. 10. Rainham, Essex. Two fully fledged young seen, 30th Jan. 1954, unaccompanied by parents. Tails incompletely grown, and still with traces of down. (Letter from R. Spencer, 4th Feb. 1954.) First egg: 25t/i-3of/i Dec. (on assumption that they were 15-20 days old when seen). Robin 1. Wimborne St. Giles, Dorset. Young in nest about end November; believed to have fledged successfully. (Mr. Webb, per K. B. Rooke.) First egg: first half November. 2. Washington, Sussex. Nest with eggs, 6th Dec. (Sussex Bird Report 1953. ) First egg: 20th-Nov.-^th Dec. 3. Cumberland. Nest with 4 eggs, i6th Dec.; bird sitting. (Country-Side .Spring 1954; letter from J. A. NIcRitchie, 25th March 1954.) First egg: ist- 12th Dec. Clutch: 4. 4. Wimborne, Dorset. Nest in chassis of mobile crane; building begun early November; 5 eggs laid by 12th Dec. Incubated for some time in spite of moving of crane. Deserted during severe weather just after Christmas, but may have been disturbed. (A. Willis and A. Creamer, per Wimborne Timber Co.; all per K. B. Rooke.) First egg: approx. 8th Dec. Clutch: (5). Starling 1. Camberley, Surrey. Building mid-November. Later (?date) young heard .squeaking; nest inaccessible. (Letter from Maxwell Knight, 14th Jan. 1954.) First egg: probably second half November. 2. Brighstone, I.O.W. Starling’s egg found on lawn, 29th Nov. (l.O.W. County Press 5th Dec. 1953, P^*' J- Stafford.) 3. North Cowton, Yorks. Probably 4 young in nest on 20th Dec., and parents seen carrying food. Young last heard on 8th Jan., and probably killed by 13° frost on following night. Nest inaccessible. (J. P. Utley in Darlington Times 2nd and 12th Jan. 1954, and letter to Editor of British Birds, 28th Jan. 1954. ) First egg: 2jth Nov.-2nd Dec. 4. Penrith, Cumberland. Young in nest at Christmas. (Penrith Observer January 1954, W. Robson.) First egg: late November or early December. House Sparrow 1. Widnes, Lancs. Nest with eggs found in third week November. (Eric Hardy, Liverpool Daily Post 23rd Dec. 1953.) First egg: ist-i()th Nov. 2. .St. Helen’s, Lancs. Remains of egg, probably not more than two days old, picked up in garden, approx. 22nd Doc. (A. J. Bailey, per Eric Hardy.) 3. Near Northwich, Cheshire. Nest with 3 eggs, iith Dec. (.\. W. Boyd in Manchester Guardian, 15th Dec. 1953.) First egg: 26th Nov.-<)1h Dec. Dunnock I. Yateley, Surrey. Nest with eggs, presumably in December. (Letters from Maxwell Knight, 14th and 26th Jan. 1954.) Skylark I. Appleby, Westmorland. Nest w'ith 2 eggs in turnip field, i()th Dec. (N. rhorburn in The Field Naturalist January i954> per R. W. Robson.) First egg: 5//i-i8tk Dec. NOTES Food-offering by Great Crested Grebe, — On 28th April 1954 a nest of the Great Crested Grebe [Fodiceps cristatiis), built high above the water level on a shingle islet at Hamper Mill Lake, Hertfordshire, was under observation. One of the pair was on the nest. The other bird (the assumed male) came up from a dive about ten yards from the nest with a silvery fish, two or three inches long, held cross-wise in its bill. It swam to the nest and clambered up to the platform (which was about two feet above the water), and offered the fish to its mate, which was brooding in a resting posture with head and neck back on its shoulders. There was no response and so the male continued offering the fish to it by stroking it once or twice on the female’s breast and then putting it to the bill. This was repeated about ten times, but after one and a half minutes, with still not the slightest response from the brooding bird, the male swallowed the fish itself before returning to the water. Hugh Jones Little Egret in Perthshire. — On nth May 1954 I was informed by three boys, John Spence, Ian Bell, and Alistair Work, that they had seen that afternoon near Comrie, Perthshire, an unusual bird of a pure white colour and rather like a Heron {Ardea cinerea). I immediately proceeded with the boys to the spot, w'hich is a damp meadow with trees and a stream on one border and a sluggish water-filled ditch on the other. This meadow is very long, and at the bottom of it is a fairly large pond surrounded by rushes, and with tall trees at the edge. The three boys quietly walked down the meadow and had got less than half way when up rose a snow- white heron. In flight the wings gave an impression of being very rounded — one could say like owl’s wings in shape, but of course far larger. The bird flew to the pond and alighted in a tall tree, where we had excellent views of it. It was a good bit smaller than a Heron; the whole of the bill and the legs were jet black (I failed to see the colour of the feet); the plumage was of dazzling, spotless, snowy-white, and the beautiful lace-like texture of the upper scapular feathers was very noticeable ; the neck was slender and elegant ; I could observe little if any crest on the bird. From these details it appears obvious that the bird could have been no other than a Little Egret {Egretta garzetta). J. Ralston Crawford Little Egret in Shetland. — On 15th May 1954 Mr. Sinclair Moncrielf noticed a small, pure-white heron feeding on a reedy patch below his home on the west side of Loch Spiggie, Shetland. On the following morning he pointed it out to Mr. Hugh Crawford, who in turn informed me. Mr. Moncrieff and Mr. Crawford had 127 128 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII already identified the bird as a Little Egret [Egretta garzetta), an identification which I could confirm without hesitation, having' been familiar with the species in both East Africa and Cape Province. The bird was an adult in full plumage and the crest and breast plumes were very long and obvious. Then, and on several subsequent occasions I had the bird under view at close range, and once I was within 20 feet of it in a drifting boat without its taking any notice. When we first saw it, the Egret seemed in fine plumage, dazzlingly white, but towards the end of its stay here it had taken on a bedraggled appearance. It was last seen on 14th June. Tom Henderson Little Egret in Sutherland. — On 22nd June 1954, while motoring between Bonar Bridge and Lairg, Sutherland, I saw a white heron standing on a stone in the River Shin. It was raining heavily at the time and visibility was poor, but closer observation showed the bird to be a Little Egret (Egretta garzetta). The bird was extremely wary and flew immediately the car door was opened. However, it was later found about 500 yards downstream where the following observations were made before it again flew off, this time out of sight round a bend of the river: pure white plumage with long crest feathers clearly visible ; black legs contrasting sharply with the yellow feet; black bill; eye appeared dark with light coloured iris. In flight the yellow feet were very conspicuous, even at some distance, as were the rounded wings and slow purposeful beats. The profile, with slender neck drawn in and legs projecting, was similar to that of the Heron (Ardea cinerea) in flight. This is the first record of the Little Egret for Sutherland. J. G. McDowell [In connection with these three records of Little Egrets in Scotland in 1954 (it is not wise to attempt to say how many indi- viduals were involved), it is worth adding that we understand from Mr. Kenneth Williamson that a Little Egret was recorded in Newfoundland on 8th May 1954, which suggests that it may have been part of the same drift movemciit. We did not publish details of the Little Egrets recorded in Britain in 1953, when for the second year running (cf. vol. xlvi, pp. 255-238) the species was recorded in four counties; so that in 1952/54 there were no less than ii records of this bird, which before 1952 had only been noted in the British Isles on some twelve occasions. The 1953 records (based on information given in the Bird Reports for Devon, Cornwall, Suffolk, and Norfolk) were as follows: adult. Otter Estuary, Devon, i6th-24th May; adult. Camel Estuary, Cornwall, rpth May-8th June; one, Minsmerc, Sulfolk, 19th May ; adult, Cloy, Norfolk, 23rd-24th May and 30th May-4th June. — Ens.’j VOL. XLVIIl] NOTES 129 Squacco Heron in Glamorgan. — A Squacco Heron {Ardeola ralloides) was identified on 17th May 1954 by Mrs. G. E. Blundell on a small lily-pond in her grounds at Porthcawl, Glamorgan. It had possibly been in the neighbourhood for the previous two or three days, since one of Mrs. Blundell’s maids saw “a large white bird” flying round the grounds on 15th May, and an unidentified white bird had been seen flying from a similar small pond in the grounds of Col. W. H. C. Llewellyn’s residence at Bridgend, six miles away, on the 14th. I myself first saw it on the evening of the igth May, when I watched it for some three hours. During this time it stood for long periods on the floating water-lily plants with its neck drawn in and occasionally turning its head. At times, however, it would walk across the surface of the pond on the water-lily leaves with neck extended, picking up what appeared to be insects. It could be watched from 40 to 50 yards without showing any alarm, and at times would allow an approach to within 25-30 yards behind some small bushes; but at any attempt to get nearer it would take wing, fly round at a height of 50-60 feet and perch in one of the tall trees nearby. It appeared to be an adult: when at rest, with neck drawn in, the long plumes of the crest extended quite half- way down the back, but it was not in full summer plumage, as the lower neck and sides of the breast were striped brown on buff. The bird was last seen on the 30th May. Enquiries to find out whether it was seen anywhere else in Wales brought no result. H. Morrey Salmon Squacco Heron in Cambridgeshire. — On 22nd May 1954, a Squacco Heron {Ardeola ralloides) was observed by G. M. S. Easy, D. A. Jones, and myself on Milton Fen, near Cambridge. The area is a swamp, with pools surrounded by willows and rushes. The bird was watched for considerable periods both that day and on the 23rd, and a detailed description was obtained. The bird could not be found on the 24th and it appeared to have left, but on the 26th it returned and then remained in the area until 2nd June, during which period it was also seen by A. E. Vine. In flight the wings and tail showed very white against the brownish-buff back. On the ground very little white was visible, and the bird appeared brownish-buff ; the bill was heavy and black ; the legs were yellowish-orange; the head, neck and breast feathers were buff streaked with brown. Closer views showed that the bill was black shading to grey at the base, that there were two small plumes, light buff in colour, and that the eye was surrounded by a ring of greyish yellow. When standing the bird drew in its neck giving it the appearance of a small Bittern (Botaurus stellaris). D. Farren [We have received a very detailed description from Mr. G. M. S. 130 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII Easy, which will remain in our files. He makes the additional points that the bird apparently roosted in trees, and that its food appeared mostly to be of water-snails and minnows. We also understand that what was probably the same bird was first seen by the Cam at Fen Ditton, not far away, on 20th May. — Eds.] Wheatear in Norfolk in January. — On 23rd January 1954 I saw a female Wheatear [Qi^nanthe a’)ia)ithe) bv a chalk pit on the coast road near Cley, Norfolk. A short while later the bird was seen by Mr. W. Bishop. Judith M. Ferrier [There are very few January records of this species, but it may be worth adding that at the end of January 1952 a male described as “somewhat dejected’’ spent a few days on a farm on the coast near Howick, Northumberland. Frosts were severe at the time. This is recorded by Dr. E. A. R. Ennion in the Ornithological Report for N or thumb crland and Durham for 1952. — Eds.] Black-eared Wheatear in Hampshire. — On i8th September 1954 we saw a Black-eared Mdieatear {^CEnanthe hispanica) on Farlington Marshes, Hampshire. There were several Wheatears {(E. cenanthe) in the area, but the bird kept to itself, being perched on fence posts for most of the time. We took the following description: very noticeable, squarish black eye-stripe; above this was a thin white line similar to that in a male Redstart [Phoeni- curus phoenicurus), but not so white; the crown was grey, the mantle buff, and the closed wing black (there was a light patch near the carpal joint, not actually on the wing itself) ; the tail pattern was very much like a Wheatear’s ; the breast was a very striking orange-buff which terminated rather sharply, and the lower breast, belly and flanks were white, as was the chin ; the legs and bill were black. It was shown later to four other people, one of whom, P. Smith, had seen the species in the Middle East. P. F. LE Brocq, C. J. Henty and G. H. Rees Pied Wheatear in Dorset. — A Pied Wheatear {(Enanthe leu- comela) was present at Portland Bill, Dorset, from 17th to 19th October 1954. It presented excellent opportunities for study in the field, and it was subsequently trapped. In view of the extreme rarity of this species in western Europe (there arc two past records from Scotland, two from Heligoland and one from Italy), it may be of interest to give a detailed account of the bird’s appearance in the field. It was first seen by J.S.A. with R. Bland at 1700 hours G.M.T. on 17th September whilst feeding on a grassy bank at the top of a low sea-cliff near the tip of Portland iVill. The first impression was of a wheatear with rather striking brownish-grey upper-parts and almost white lower breast and bellv. In spite of the failing VOL. XLVIIl] NOTES 131 light, its remarkable fearlessness permitted an approach to within 12-15 feet. It fed continuously as we watched it, and practically ignored the many sightseers at the Lighthouse nearby. The following description was then obtained : size, about that of VVheatear (ffl. oenanthe) or slightly smaller; dark (Pblack) bill and eye; whole of upper-parts a light brownish-grey with apparent slight mottled effect; upper breast fairly dark buff, and distinctly demarcated from almost pure white tinder-parts ; palish edgings to (Pprimary) coverts and to edge of secondaries; typical wheatear tail-pattern, but brief glimpse in flight suggested more extensive white on rump ; supercilium barely noticeable ; legs black. After consulting The Handbook it was considered that the bird might be either a Pied or a Black-eared Wheatear {CE. hispanica). Fortunately it was still present at dawn on the following morning, and with my wife (J.W.A.) and W. P. Lewis, we obtained a further description in perfect conditions of light. The previous evening’s observations were confirmed, and additional information obtained. The pectoral band was described as fairly dark buff with a tinge of orange, being slightly darker towards the sides, with a slight pale division at the sternum. Definitely no trace of a dark line between nostrils and eye : lores same colour as crown, possibly slightly paler. Throat slightly paler than breast (pale grey brown). Only a slight mergence of pale buff-brown between pectoral band and lower breast. Rest of under-parts off- white (not pure white even in bright sun on white-washed wall). Whole frontal area of wing (lesser coverts, etc.) same colour as upper-parts and definitely showing no contrast. Bastard wing darker than lesser coverts. Primaries and secondaries dark brown with huffish edges. Slight tinge of huffish at sides of vent (lower flanks). Legs appeared shorter than those of a Wheatear, and bird lacked the upright stance of that species (i.e., tarsi at angle of 45° to ground). Call note, heard several times, resembled that of the Wheatear. Feeding habits; never seen hopping on ground searching for insects as Wheatear, but dropped from above like a Stonechat [Saxicola torquata), usually returning to original perch. It was once seen to hover (over a baited spring-trap), and on several occasions flew out for four or five yards to pick up an insect on the ground. Its time was divided between one perch a foot above the ground, and a wall five foot high. When disturbed it frequently flew to the top of a hut ten foot high. From the description it was decided that the bird was almost certainly a female Pied Wheatear, but for definite identification the bird should be caught. Five spring-nets baited with meal- worms were placed round its lowest perch, and after a wait of six hours the bird was finally trapped. An examination in the hand then showed that it could only be a female Pied Wheatear, unless one of the closely related species, 132 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII (E. moesta, monacha or liigens, which are not described in The Handbook. Dr. K. B. Rooke was contacted and brought with him some additional literature on wheatears which confirmed our identi- fication. The bird was kept overnight, then ringed and released at 0630 hours on 19th October. Later that day it was watched feeding by Miss M. D. Crosby. John Ash [Mr. Ash has provided us with a copy of the very detailed description that was taken of the bird in the hand. A short paper on the problem of the identification of the female Pied Wheatear, by John Ash and Dr. K. B. Rooke, will be appearing in a future number of British Birds. — Eds.] Black Wheatear in Kent. — On 17th October 1954 between Dungeness Point and Littlestone, Kent, I saw a wheatear fly up from the shingle and alight on a garden wall some ten yards from the road. It was at once apparent that the bird was of a uniform dull sooty brown, except for the rump and the upper tail-coverts which were white, and the tail pattern which was that typical of wheatears, with white outer feathers and black terminal band and central feathers. I had the bird under observation for about three minutes at ranges of 8-20 yards, and when it was close to me it was possible to see that, while the mantle was sooty brown, the rest of the dark parts were chocolate-brown or mahogany. It appeared to be of the same size, shape and habits as a Wheatear {Gujanthe oenanthe). There was no vestige of an eye-stripe, and the legs and bill were blackish. Unfortunately, I did not notice the colour of the under tail-coverts, but after examining skins at the British Museum (Natural History) I was quite satisfied that the bird was a female (or possibly immature) Black Wheatear (ffi. leuciira). Several of the skins I examined were almost identical with the bird I saw, particularly with regard to the rather rich or rufous mahogany of the under-parts, and the sooty brown appearance above. M. L. R. Romer Arctic Warbler trapped at Fair Isle. — On 2nd September 1954 I put a small phylloscopine warbler into the Yaadal Trap at Fair Isle. When I took it from the catching-box I was immediately impressed bv the unusual length and paleness of the superciliary stripe, and a glance at the wing confirmed that this was the first Arctic Warbler (Phylloscopns borealis) we have trapped. It proved to be a young bird of the year in the dark greenish- olive plumage and with rcmiges and rectrices unworn and the two wing-bars unabraded : these were formed by pale creamy tips to the outer greater coverts, and yellow spots on the inner median coverts. The tips of the primary coverts were black. The outline of the head was more like a Sedge Warhicr’s (Acroccphaltis schoenobccnus) than a Willow Warbler’s {Ph. irochilus) with its VOL. XLVIIl] NOTES 133 strongly-made bill. The superciliary stripe differed from that of other British Phylloscopi not only in its remarkable length, reaching almost to the nape, but in the fact of its becoming paler behind the eye. The legs and lower mandible were pale brown, the upper mandible dark brown. The measurements were: chord of wing 65 mm., bill from skull 13 mm., tarsus 20 mm., tail 48 mm., and the bird weighed 8.98 gm. The ist primary was as long as the primary coverts and the 2nd 5 mm. shorter than the 3rd and 4th, which were equal and longest; the 5th, 6th, and 7th primaries were respectively i mm., 6^ mm. and 10 mm. shorter, and the 3rd, 4th and 5th were emarginate on the outer webs. It is perhaps worth noting that this wing-formula is substantially the same as in many juvenile Willow Warblers trapped in the autumn of 1954, except that these have the ist primary from 4-6 mm. longer than the primary coverts. It was not possible to observe the bird closely in the field following its release, but field-characters of this species have already been given in some detail (antea, vol. xliv, pp. 121-122). There are now ten records of the appearance of this bird at Fair Isle, mostly on dates in the second half of September and first half of October. Kenneth Williamson Pine Grosbeak on the Isle of May. — At the Isle of May, Scotland, on the .morning of 8th November 1954, a variable southerly wind was succeeded by a south-west gale which blew up with sudden intensity. Few migrants had been about before, but by mid-day a marked movement was taking place, with birds fighting their way in to the island from due north. On the way to the North Ness we put up a number of Blackbirds [Turdus menda) and then, above Altarstones, we noted a smaller greyish bird with a bright, rusty-iron-coloured head hopping unconcernedly round a rock and then probing successive tufts of sea-pink, crouching low to the ground as it did so. At first sight it looked like an elongated and massive Crossbill {Loxia curvi- rostra). The slightly raised crown feathers gave an impression of mottling and made the head seem very large, and the heavy hooked beak pfot disproportionate. The longish tail and the primaries were very dark; the median covert tips formed a well-defined, pale wing-bar, and those of the greater coverts a bar less clearly marked. We identified the bird as an adult female Pine Grosbeak [Pinicola emideator). It was not seen again that day, but it is perhaps of interest to describe briefly our observations on the arrival of other birds on the island which show the conditions which brought the Pine Grosbeak. Blackbirds were lurking in every shelter, and when we reached the north-west tip of the island where huge waves were driving past to the north-east, scattered black dots just visible through the spray were struggling to reach the rocks, making a 134 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII zig-zag approach. Each bird flew low along the trough of a wave, rose just high enough to clear the crest, was hidden in foam, re- appeared beating down the next trough, gained enough height to check its direction, often failing to make headway against the gale, then with a final effort passed the surf on the rocks and dived headlong into the nearest crevice. In fifteen minutes we counted 53 Blackbirds, 1 1 Fieldfares (T. pilaris), 3 Redwings {T. musicus), 2 Kestrels {Falco tinnunculus), a Snipe (Capella gallinago) and a W'oodcock {Scolopax rusticola) make the land, and that was only over a small stretch of rocks. On 9th November we searched for the Pine Grosbeak from the west landing to the lighthouse, but only rounded up about 40 Blackbirds. We drove the top trap from which Blackbirds rattled off in all directions, and then while we were securing at the back of the closed trap those that we had caught, we noticed a bird hopping calmly about the veronicas in the entrance, and caught a glimpse of rust and grey. We moved quietly round, and the bird hopped and fluttered into the trap in a leisurely manner. As it was caught it demonstrated the strength of its beak, but afterwards was as gentle in the hand as it was unconcerned and rather sluggish in the field. Twice it gave a rather harsh call. It was ringed, measured, and a full description taken, after which it was photographed in the hand (plate 19). We then put the bird down upon the ground, and managed to take the other photograph (plate 20) of the bird squatting on a slight hummock. It is of interest to point out that it was crouching flat like this in between intervals of feeding when we first saw it on the 8th. W. U. Flower, Tom Weir and Dougl.vs Scott [It is of interest to note that there was an irruption of Pine Grosbeaks into Scandinavia at this time. Dr. Holger Holgersen writes that on the south-west coast of Norway this species is con- sidered a very rare vagrant, and in 76 years since the Stavangar Museum was erected, only 8 Pine Grosbeaks have been brought there. In late October 1954, however, a trapper in Sokndal sent to the Museum 6 Pine Grosbeaks that had got into his snares eating the Sorhus berries. In the following days more were caught, so that between 26th October and 3rd November a total of 30 were trapped. Others were seen in the same area, but the birds seemed to move away after the first few days of November. Pine Gros- beaks were also reported in unusual, though not large, numbers from other districts in the same part of Norway. Dr. Gunnar Sviirdson informs us that the irruption of this species also affected Sweden during November and December 1954. No summary is available yet, but it is understood that the birds were observed in many localities from central Sweden south to .Scania. For Denmark Herr C. A. Blume has given us details of a total of 7 Pine Grosbeaks at Skovshoved and Tisvilde Hegn on 23rd November and of a single bird at Amager on iqth December. — Fns.j VOL. XLVIIl] NOTES 135 Parrot Crossbill in Northumberland. — On i6th September 1954 an immature cock crossbill was brought to the Hancock Museum, Newcastle upon Tyne. It had been picked up dead near Catcleugh, Redesdale, Northumberland, on the main Newcastle to Jedburgh road, having just been knocked down by a passing vehicle. It was one of a party of four- — the others being a second red bird and two green. After the accident, these three remained near the road-side, flying round calling to one another, and were under observation for some twenty minutes. Unfortunately the observer did not take any special note of their size. Upon examination at the Museum, however, it was at once seen that the dead bird was unusually large and that it had an exceptionally stout bill. The depth of the bill at the base was 13 mm. and the length of the upper mandible 22 mm., while the over-lap of the upper mandible was very prolonged. It was therefore sent to the Editors of British Birds. Col. R. Meinertzhagen and I. J. Ferguson-Lees compared it with skins in different collections and all who have seen it are satisfied that it is a Parrot Crossbill {Loxicu (c.) pytyopsittacus). Dr. H. M. S. Blair informs me that, within the last decade. Parrot Crossbills have been found breeding close to the southern and western sea-boards of Norway, near the towns of Kristiansand and Bergen ; so their appearance as immigrants to this country is not unlikely. No immigrant Common Crossbills were recorded here in 1954; but as the Parrot and Common Crossbills do not necessarily breed in the same district in the same year in Norway, an immigration of the former would not necessarily be associated with an “invasion” of the latter. George W. Temperley Red-breasted Mergansers breeding in Anglesey. — On 12th June 1953 I found the nest and eggs of a Red-breasted Merganser (Mergiis serrator) by a bay in Anglesey. Three weeks previously I had seen a merganser duck feeding in the vicinity, and when I got to the beach on 12th June, there were four of these birds fishing in the next bay. After a while, two drakes and a duck flew round to where I was. Eventually the duck and one of the drakes came close inshore and the duck landed, preened herself, and then flew up on to a rather high bank opposite. I climbed up and when she flew out, discovered the nest-site by the well- worn “run” that led to it. It was under some brambles. I felt the down and eggs, and managed to see the nest through the brambles, after which I left so that the duck could return, which she did within about ten minutes. At the beginning of July I was able to return to the area, and found that the merganser had had a very successful hatch of 12 or 13 as far as I was able to count the young as they swam with the duck on a somewhat choppy sea. There were two infertile eggs in the nest, and these are now in my BRITISH BIRDS 136 [vOL. XLVIII possession. At no time was I able to get any evidence that more than the one pair was breeding. In 1954 a pair of Red-breasted Mergansers again nested in the same area, the site being within 30 yards of the 1953 one. The duck was incubating on the 3rd-5th June, the period of my visit. Unfortunately there must have been a tragedy, as when I was up there a month later, I saw no sign of any ducklings. There is good evidence that a second pair nested in 1954, and I later heard that 16 ducklings were seen by Mr. M. Jones. R. L. Vernon On 6th June 1953 I saw a pair of Red-breasted Mergansers and two adult drakes on the sea off the bay in Anglesey where I later learnt that Mr. Vernon found the nest. On 30th June I saw the female on a channel in the bay with 14 small ducklings, which I estimated at 4 or 5 days old. Alan Baldridge [In Ireland the breeding range of the Red-breasted Merganser has extended, and its numbers have increased since the beginning of the present century (R. F. Ruttledge in Birds of Ireland, 1954, p. 68). In England the species has in recent years spread into Cumberland from the Scottish borders, an extension of the south- ward trend that had been apparent in Dumfriessliire for some years previously. In this connection Mr. Ernest Blezard writes as follows: — “The Red-breasted Merganser had got fairly far south in Dumfriesshire by 1928, when I found the first nest recorded for that county by the Water of Milk within a jump of its junction with the River Annan. A pair had been settled on that stretch of the Annan since about 1924. In Cumberland Mergansers have been about the Border Esk in the breeding-season since 1933. The first really conclusive evidence of nesting came from this area in 1950, when a duck with 6 ducklings, perhaps four days old, were seen there on 6th July by D. F. Owen, who estimated that there were ten pairs in the neighbourhood on 28th May. Since then, William French found a nest with 10 eggs on the Cumberland stretch of the Border Esk in June 1953.” Nesting was suspected in Westmorland in 1934, in which year there was also a brood of young ducklings seen on the Eden in Cumberland, but it was never proved that these were mergansers.- — Eds.] Red-breasted Geese in Gloucestershire — On 8th January 1954 Miss E. D. Overend discovered a Red-breasted Goose {Branta riificollis) amongst a flock of about 1900 White-fronted Geese (Anser alhifrons) feeding near the River Severn at Slimbridge, Gloucestershire. It was seen subsequently by many observers on at least six days to 23th January, and again on seven days between i3th February and 5th March. The age of the bird proved difficult to tell at a distance, but in the latter part of its stay some close views were obtained. The tips of the greater and medium coverts were dusky, rather than pure white, and some others of VOL. XLVIIl] NOTES 137 the feathers on the back were juvenile, so that the bird was in its first winter. On 23rd December 1954 Mr. J. F. Saunders shot a goose flying alone over an area of flooded meadows at Hasfield, near Gloucester, which were being used b}^ small numbers of White- fronted Geese at that time. Through the kindness of Lieut. - Commander A. F. Collett the bird was sent to us and proved to be another Red-breasted Goose. It retained several juvenile rectrices as well as other juvenile feathers on the back and coverts. The only tame full-winged Red-breasted Goose kept in Gloucestershire, in the collection of the Wildfowl Trust at Slim- bridge, remained there throughout 1954. There seems no reason to suppose either of the geese recorded above to be anything but wild stragglers. Although the species has been widely kept in captivity, it has been recently bred in only five collections in this country, so far as can be ascertained, and from none of these are young birds missing. Nevertheless the possibility of these two being escapes cannot be entirely excluded. Eleven previous occurrences of this species in Britain have been authenticated. Peter Scott and Hugh Boyd I Prof. R. Sparck informs us that in 1954 this species was also twice recorded in Denmark — at Tipperne in the Ringkdbing fjord on 30th April and 22nd-23rd October. — Eds.] Calling up a Corncrake. — Some friends and I were motoring near Ballinluig, Perthshire, on 22nd May 1954, when we heard a Corncrake {Crex crex) calling from a patch of nettles where a small stream flowed under the road. Despite the fact that it was only 5 a.m. we were sufficiently enthusiastic to pull up a little way past the area and retrace our steps. As might be expected, the bird stopped calling as we drew near and our efforts to flush it were in vain ; it did not start to call again until we had almost returned to the car. On hurrying back to the territory with great caution, we were grateful to see the bird as it stood — head well up — calling in the low weed growth. One of us produced a comb in an endeavour to attract the bird in the way suggested in many books — the effect was nil. Time seemed ripe for one of my bird imitations and so I contrived to produce a series of notes that sounded, more or less, like a Corncrake. The effect was — to say the least — electrical : the bird ceased calling and hastily made towards me, only stopping when it reached the wall alongside the bridge. I moved to the end of this wall and lay down behind the roadside herbage calling all the while. The bird quickly arrived at a position about one foot from my head. After this it seemed possible to catch the bird so I crossed the road, stood beside the stream and started to “crake”. The Corn- crake ran under the bridge and approached me — there was no cover of any sort and it had every opportunity of seeing that my 138 BRITISH BIRDS [vOL. XLVIII friends and I were not Corncrakes. The bird was not deterred, however, and came to my feet. When I stopped calling' it ran off a little distance, but after I had squatted and was holding my hand in readiness to catch the bird, it returned the instant 1 started calling. On seeing my hand it grasped my little finger in its bill in a most aggressive manner — I felt rather harshly treated and hoped that this was not customary Corncrake courting. This development enabled me to grasp the bird and within ten minutes we had absorbed the plumage details, ringed it and returned it to the nettle patch. The event seems to indicate (or confirm) that the prime means of locating a mate or a rival is by sound, for even my “uncorncrake- like” bulk did not lessen the bird’s interest in me and my onlooking friends were completely disregarded. We subsequently motored to Skye and heard other Corncrakes calling — I tried the mimicry again twice but without any success. J. W. Donovan Dowitcher in Norfolk. — On 14th October 1954, at about 1130 hours, I saw a Dowitcher [Limnodromus griseus) on Scolt Head Island, Norfolk. It was first noted at about 30 yards range, feeding with Dunlin [Calidris alpina) on a bank of sand and mud. The Dunlin, followed by the Dowitcher, rose and the latter flew directly towards me. It settled again about 6 feet away, remained for some 3 minutes watching me, and then flew about 20 feet away on to another sandbank among some Sv