The Scottish Naturalist NOTICE TO LIBRARIANS This volume is consecutive to that issued in 1939. From 1871-1891 eleven volumes appeared, numbered in two series; from 1892-1939 there were forty-eight unnumbered annual volumes. Volume numbers are now reinstated, this being the sixtieth reckoned from the start in 1871. Cloth binding cases, uniform in style with those used in previous years, can be supplied on application to the publishers, price 3s. The Scottish Naturalist With which is incorporated The Annals of Scottish Natural History EDITED BY V. C. WYNNE-EDWARDS M.A., F.R.S.C., F.L.S. Regius Professor of Natural History Aberdeen University AND JAMES W. CAMPBELL M.B., B.Chir. Volume 60 OLIVER AND BOYD EDINBURGH : TWEEDDALE COURT LONDON : 98 GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C. 1948 Printed in Great Britain at The Darien Press Ltd., Edinburgh APRIL 1948 Price 3s. 6d. The Scottish Naturalist With which is incorporated “The Annals of Scottish Natural History59 EDITED BY V. C. WYNNE-EDWARDS, M.A., F.R.S. (Canada) Regius Professor of Natural History , University of Aberdeen AND JAMES W. CAMPBELL, M.B.E., M.B., B.Chir. Secretary of the Scottish Wild Life Conservation Committee All Articles and Communications intended for publication, and all Books, etc., for notice, should be sent to The Editor, Natural History Department, Marischal College, Aberdeen. Subscriptions and Advertisements should be addressed to the Publishers, Messrs Oliver & Boyd Ltd., Tweeddale Court, Edinburgh, i. Annual Subscription: ios. 6d. ; single parts, 3s. 6d. CONTENTS PAGE Editorial . . . . . . . 1 The Red-flanked Bluetail in Shetland : the First British Record — Samuel Bruce . . . . . .6 Bird Territory as a “ Fixed Address ” — The Rev. J. M. McWilliam . . . . . . .8 A Century’s Changes in Scottish Ornithology — Evelyn V. Baxter n The Rook Roosts of the Lothians, Winter 1946-47—/. H . B . Munro 20 The Magpie in North-east Scotland — Adam Watson . . 30 A Simple Nest Box—/. M . D . Mackenzie . . . 33 The Value of Individual Marking of Birds — Robert Carrick . 38 A Note on Vespula austriaca (Panzer) — Arthur B . Duncan . 44 Continued on page 4 of cover The Scottish Naturalist Volume 60, No. i April 1948 EDITORIAL The Scottish Naturalist is now entering upon its fifth stage. It was published originally by the Perthshire Society of Natural Science in 1871, and under the editorship of Dr F. Buchanan White it completed six two-yearly volumes before it passed out of the Society’s hands in 1882. This publication was succeeded by a New Series of four similar volumes from 1883 to 1890, edited by Professor J. W. H. Trail, who for forty-three years was Professor of Botany at Aberdeen, and was eminent besides as a zoologist. His connection with the editorial board lasted twenty-eight years ; nevertheless it was exceeded by that of William Eagle Clarke, who edited the final volume of this series (1891), and remained continuously thereafter on the board until 1920. In 1892 the old Scottish Naturalist was incorporated in the new Annals of Scottish Natural History , founded and owned by J. A. Harvie-Brown, and edited by himself, Trail, and Eagle Clarke. Aided by Harvie-Brown ’s public-spirited generosity, they succeeded in producing during their long and remarkably talented partnership a series of twenty annual volumes which have not been surpassed by any equivalent periodical in Britain. These were published in Edinburgh, and issued at first in three and later in four parts a year. This series came to an end in 1911, when it was felt that increasing specialisation made it impossible to combine zoology and botany in a single magazine any longer. A proposal to divide the magazine into two series was not actually carried out : instead Messrs Oliver & Boyd agreed to take it over. In 1912 they assumed publication without a break, under the original name of The Scottish Naturalist . THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 Dr Eagle Clarke remained as editor until, upon his retire- ment from the Royal Scottish Museum, he was succeeded in both offices by Dr (now Professor) James Ritchie in 1921 : William Evans and Percy H. Grimshaw were colleagues to them both on the editorial board. The magazine was devoted to zoology alone, appearing monthly until the end of 1918,, and thereafter six times annually. The familiar and attractive cover, drawn by Professor Ritchie, was adopted in 1924, “ not,” as he says, “ because we have anything but deep regard for the simplicity and directness of the old title-page, but because we believe its austerity may have belied in some degree the character of the themes with which the magazine deals.” When Professor Ritchie moved to Aberdeen in 1930, Mr Grimshaw became chief editor, and he was succeeded in 1935 by Dr A. C. Stephen. The magazine was thus carried on for twenty-eight years by the unsparing service of the Natural History Department of the Royal Scottish Museum, until in 1939 its light flickered and went out in the gathering storm. The present welcome revival is due to the initiative of the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, who undertook, in co-operation with the publishers, to find the necessary subscribers, authors,, and editors. Messrs Oliver & Boyd for their part have offered to devote all profits, should there be any, to the betterment of the magazine. A prospectus drawn up and circulated in April 1947 met with a response which quickly exceeded their expecta- tions, and made it possible to undertake three large issues a year, at what is in these days a very moderate subscription, in spite of the fact that production costs have doubled since 1939. ******* “ In the matter of contributions,” wrote Dr Buchanan White in the first preface in 1871, ‘ ‘ suggestions have been made that more papers of a ‘ popular ’ nature should be introduced.” The same suggestions have probably been made to every subsequent editor, as they have also to us. Looking back through the volumes of past years one recognises that it is the original contributions containing first-hand information which give the magazine its solid and lasting worth : they EDITORIAL 3 1948 also establish its scientific reputation. The breadth of their interest, which naturally varies greatly, is really the most acceptable standard of popularity. We include in this number an introductory article on the construction of a bird nest-box, and one on the use and value of colour-ringing ; others on kindred practical subjects will follow. From time to time we shall present reviews of investigations and discoveries published elsewhere ; but we are on safe ground in assuming that The Scottish Naturalist should continue to concentrate on recording original observations and ideas, rather than on “ popular science ” in the usually accepted sense. It will disappoint some readers to find this number so largely devoted to birds. This is partly a matter of chance. The editors had to decide whether to hold up publication until they had collected a balanced assortment of material, or to proceed with what most readily came to hand. In the prospectus subscribers were asked to specify their particular interests, and it was no surprise to find that 80 per cent, of them gave ornithology as their first or only preference, and another 5 per cent, included it as a secondary choice. The balance will be to some extent restored in future issues, if we receive promised contributions in botany, entomology, and on mammals, to mention some of the subjects already canvassed. The editors would welcome contributions upon any subject relating to natural history in Scotland, and readers are asked to take notice of this intimation. In 1911 the magazine abandoned the attempt to cover both botany and zoology, as we have already recounted, because of increasing specialisation. We have reverted to the original wider scope because in these days of active correlation between different compartments of science, and, in particular, of emphasis on ecology, it seems best to be free of restrictions. If the magazine can do anything to encourage a biological rather than a specialist outlook it will serve a useful purpose. We look back with admiration at the versatile talents of many of our Victorian predecessors, who were able to extend their attention and knowledge to the most diverse fields of natural history. Ornithology now so dominates the scene, partly because birds are attractive and conspicuous and readily observed, and partly because the subject provides incomparably 4 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 the fullest and most accessible reference literature ; it is therefore the easiest subject upon which to make a start. Lepidoptera and the higher plants probably come next in popularity, for similar reasons ; and apprenticeship to other, groups is relatively more difficult, though to some people, possibly for this reason, more rewarding. It is mostly a question of time and opportunity that keeps us from becoming masters of more than one trade, though undoubtedly each new subsidiary interest adds to our enjoyment and gives greater opportunities for making useful observations. This is the appropriate point at which to call attention to the publication in 1942 of a Bibliography of Key Works for the Identification of the British Fauna and Flora by the Association for the Study of Systematics, and obtainable from Adlard & Son Ltd., at Dorking, Surrey, price 7s. 6d. It is an admirable guide-book for anyone fond of venturing into unfamiliar fields of knowledge. There is one matter of editorial policy upon which we desire to forestall criticism. This is our decision to abandon (except in titles) the use of initial capitals for English proper names of animals and plants. Not one of our sister periodicals which we have been able to consult is entirely consistent on this point, and it must give their editors perpetual trouble. According to current usage in ornithological journals, where the difficulty is most acutely felt, names appear with small letters when they are used collectively for a group of species or forms, e.g.y buntings, warblers, geese, and terns, but are “ capitalised ” when a particular species is designated, e.g., Willow Warbler, Roseate Tern. Thus when one writes about “ Wheatears,” meaning the form breeding in Britain, it must have a capital,, though it is equally proper to write “ wheatears,” when one means the whole group of birds in the genus CEnanthe . Elimination of capitals may lead in rare instances to ambiguity, especially with unfamiliar names, and it makes it somewhat less easy to spot references to individual species on the printed page. However, the added simplicity, and con- formity with ordinary non-technical English as well as with the best modern practice in scientific literature, greatly out- EDITORIAL 5 1948 weigh these considerations. In reading recent books, for example James Fisher’s Watching Birds , Julian Huxley’s Evolution , or David Lack’s Life of the Robin, few of us are confused or even notice the fact that capitals are suppressed. Once a policy has been established it is difficult to change it, and we have no doubt that were we to adhere to former custom we should later regret the lost opportunity. One can become as habituated to “ willow warbler ” and “ roseate tern,” and even to “ red admiral ” and “ meadow brown,” as one is to hare, fox, cod, haddock, buttercup, and daisy. Miss Baxter’s paper in this number, on “A Century’s Changes in Scottish Ornithology,” was presented at the Ornithological Conference at Edinburgh in June 1947. Miss Baxter and Miss Rintoul have, of course, been pillars of The Scottish Naturalist for unnumbered years, and their annual reports on Scottish ornithology have long been a feature of the magazine. During the 1914-18 war they took over the editorship for a time, and they have been joint presidents of the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club since its inception. The Edinburgh Conference was organised jointly by the British Ornithologists’ Union and the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club. It lasted from 20th to 23rd June, and was attended not only by many distinguished visitors from south of the border, but also by representatives from thirteen foreign countries. The meeting was supremely successful : the papers, excursions, weather, hospitality, and dinner were all equally enjoyable, and ties of friendship with the foreign guests have led already to tangible results in international co-operation. Our subject is essentially an international one, and we intend that the magazine shall keep in close touch with natural history abroad, especially in the Scandinavian countries, which have so much in common with Scotland. If there are any volunteers among our readers who would undertake to read and abstract the relevant material from foreign-language periodicals, a number of which are received in exchange for The Scottish N aturalist , we would be particularly pleased to hear of them. We hope also to invite direct contributions from time to time from some of our colleagues in other lands. 6 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 THE RED-FLANKED BLUETAIL IN SHETLAND: THE FIRST BRITISH RECORD Samuel Bruce On 7th October 1947 I observed a small bird near Skaw on Whalsay which, by its mode of feeding, I took to be a red- breast. On getting my glass on the bird I was somewhat startled to find that it had a blue rump and that the orange markings were confined solely to its flanks. It was busy catching insects around the pools of water on the barren hills and frequently perched on high tussocks to dart down after them. It was rather shy and kept flitting about quickly from pool to pool around which its food was most plentiful, never rising very high but keeping low to the ground. It carried the wings rather under the tail. I did not hear it make any sound. In order to establish its identity I procured it. The specimen was eventually identified as Tarsiger cyanurus (Pall.) — the identification being confirmed by Mr N. B. Kinnear at the British Museum. This would appear to be the first time this species has been recorded in the British Isles. Mr Bruce is to be congratulated on finding both the collared fly- catcher (see p. 51) and also the even more remarkable bluetail in a single season. The bluetail will henceforward appear on the British list, and will receive a definitive English name. We ourselves prefer “ red-flanked bluetail,” adopted by several authors on European birds (e.g., Dresser, A History of the Birds of Europe), to the alternative “ Japanese bush-robin,” standardised in Stuart Baker’s Birds of British India. “ Bluestart ” has also been used (Stejneger, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus ., No. 29, 1885, p. 309) by obvious analogy with u redstart ”; and both this and “ bluetail ” are, of course, English renderings of Pallas’s cya?iurus. All of these refer to the bird’s most characteristic feature, and are at once more descriptive and distinctive than “ bush- robin ” : “ Japanese ” is also misleading. The bluetail is related to the redstarts, bluethroats, robins, and chats. The Shetland specimen (wing 75 mm., tail 58 mm.) was not Red-flanked Bluetail \Tarsiger cyanurus cyanurus (Pallas)] Three views of the first British specimen, obtained by Mr Samuel Bruce on Whalsay, Shetland, 7th October 1947. The plate is reproduced from Kodachrome photographs of the prepared museum-skin, and shows the bird natural size. The blue appearing in the orbit is coloured cotton-wool. Plate i * 94 $ THE RED-FLANKED BLUETAIL IN SHETLAND 7 sexed, and is a first autumn male or a female. (In the adult male the blue colour extends more or less over the whole upper surface from head to tail including the wings, differing considerably in brightness in the different subspecies.) It has been compared with the series in the British Museum (Natural History) and undoubtedly belongs to the typical race Tarsiger cyanurus cyanurus (Pallas 1773 — Yenesei River, Siberia). This form is depicted in Keulemans’ coloured plate in Dresser, vol. 2, p. 355. Buturlin and Dementiev (Sy sterna Avium Rossicarum, 1935, vol. 1, p. 255) give the distribution as follows: “ West slope of the Urals in the former Perm Government and the middle course of the Petchora, where the northern limit reaches about 62° N. The bird has been found in the neighbourhood of the village of Parog, through western and central Siberia to Lake Baikal. It has been observed up to 62° 30' N. in the lower Ob region, at Tobolsk, Tara, Omsk, Semipalatinsk, Tomsk. The details of its geographical distribution are little known. In winter, as far as Indo-China.” Further east in Siberia, extending to the Amur, Sea of Okhotsk, Kamtschatka, and the Commander Islands, it is represented by the somewhat doubtful and indistinct race ussuriensis Stegmann (Amu Mus . Zoologique, 29, 1929 (1928), p. 200 — Ussuri River). This form (presumably) breeds also in north China, and the northern Japanese islands (Kuriles, Sakhalin, Hokkaido, and Honshu). In winter and on migration these northern races extend southward to India, Burma, north Siam, south China, Formosa, and the Bonin Islands in the Pacific. Two southern and more richly coloured races occur, namely, rufilatus (Hodgson) from Tibet, India, and Siam, and practicus (Bangs), from south China (Yunnan) and adjacent Indo-China. Tarsiger cyanurus cyanurus has once previously been recorded from western Europe, namely, at Pisa, Italy, in November 1879 (Arrigoni degli Oddi, Ornithologia Italiana, 1929, p. 292), when a single specimen was obtained. V. C. W.-E. 8 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 BIRD TERRITORY AS A “ FIXED ADDRESS ” The Rev. J. M. McWilliam For the last forty years the question of territory amongst birds has been very much to the front in ornithological literature. Many of our best naturalists have given their minds to this matter, and we now know a great deal about what actually happens. I do not propose to add anything in these notes to the great mass of facts that have been collected. My purpose is to call attention to one possible factor in the evolution of territory that has not been given the prominence that it appears to deserve. The prevailing view is that the main function of territory is to secure the greatest possible quantity of food for nesting birds within the closest possible range. Many facts have been brought forward in support of this view. But it is well known that against these there are things that certainly require explanation. While birds will drive away from their territories others of the same species they seem to show no hostility to birds of other species that to some extent at least would be competitors for food. There is no doubt, also, that in the height of the nesting season there is a certain amount of “ poaching ” in the territories of rivals which does not appear to be resented. For these and other reasons the food theory comes in for criticism. But in the main the matter is debated on these lines, whatever view a person holds. A different explanation has sometimes been suggested, or is at least implied, but has not been sufficiently considered ; which is that one function of territory is to assist in pair forma- tion, and to hold together mated pairs. For the sake of clearness I will say at once that to my mind this is really the fundamental thing, though I do not suggest that there may not be also an advantage from the point of view of securing food. Suppose a pair of birds are mated in the autumn or in early spring, how are they to keep in touch with one another till nesting begins ? It is clear that there are only two choices. They may go about continually together, or they may have some fixed meeting place to which they return. Bullfinches, mallard, and jackdaws habitually fly about in pairs, probably j948 BIRD TERRITORY AS A FIXED ADDRESS ” 9 never losing sight of one another. The alternative is to have some settled abode. To take the obvious analogy. I am the occupier of a house and garden. Along with other advantages this gives me a permanent address. Members of the family can go away as they wish, and find one another on their return. The importance of this fixed address is shown by the current problem of “ displaced persons ” who cannot find their rela- tives. I suggest that mated birds are in a similar situation to our own. The territory may provide food but may be important also as a meeting place to hold the pair together. Birds have an extraordinary power of finding their way to a fixed point. This is shown in migration and equally when birds are transported for experimental purposes, and it is hard to see how this could have been developed unless it was of fundamental importance in their lives. From this point of view the territory of a robin may be substantially the same thing as the square yard of cliff to which a guillemot returns year by year. It gives a fixed address. The nesting of the black redstart ( Phcenicurus ochrurus gibraltariensis ) in England appears to support this point of view. It is a species that has recently invaded England and cannot have had time as yet to organise a proper system. The number of solitary singing males that are discovered each spring is striking. This may, of course, come from an inequality in the numbers of the sexes, but it may equally well be due to the difficulty of male and female finding one another in a new area. In course of time order may take the place of chaos. I suggest that it rather looks as if these black redstarts are in the early stage of the development of a territorial system. A pair of moustached warblers (Lusciniola melanopogori) •are reported to have nested in Cambridgeshire in 1946, extreme •care having been taken with the identification. This was rightly described in British Birds (40, p. 104) as “ an event so extraordinary as to seem at first sight scarcely credible,” as the nearest point of the normal range of the species is the south of France. Presumably this pair of birds must have flown together for a distance of five or six hundred miles, a journey Avhich might take eighteen hours. If they had travelled separately the odds against their finding one another would fiave been incalculably great. 2 IO THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 6» We have a number of records of the lesser whitethroat ( Sylvia curruca curruca ) nesting in Scotland, at a distance from its normal breeding grounds, and, perhaps, even from its normal flight lines. If these records are sound the birds must in such cases have flown together for a considerable distance, though apparently the normal practice is for the two sexes to travel separately. Otherwise, how did they find one another ? Outside the normal range it would be more natural to find a solitary singing male than a pair, and I suspect that in some cases where breeding has been reported this may be the real explanation of rather doubtful records. However, I merely give these cases by way of illustration. My only concern is to point out the importance of territory as a fixed meeting place, without pretending to examine all the implications of this point of view. i948 A CENTURY’S CHANGES IN SCOTTISH ORNITHOLOGY u A CENTURY’S CHANGES IN SCOTTISH ORNITHOLOGY Evelyn V. Baxter In writing of a century’s changes in Scottish ornithology it is sometimes difficult to know where to draw the line. Changes are so many and so widespread that I have had to choose only the more important, to leave out short-term changes caused, for example, by hard winters like the one from which we suffered a year ago. The virtual extinction of the British stonechat (Saxicola torquata hibernans) may well prove to be a long-term decrease and of a serious nature. Changes in the features of a country naturally induce changes in its bird inhabitants. The last century has shown much change in Scotland, a well-wooded country in the old days, but rendered largely treeless by the destruction of the forests; many eighteenth-century writers mention this. About the middle of the eighteenth century tree-planting began to be practised here and there, and by the 1840’s there were plantations in many parts of Scotland, some of quite respectable size. In the New Statistical Account of Scotland , written a century ago, the advent of many species of woodland birds is mentioned from various parishes. Chaffinches ( Fringilla ccelebs gengleri) and greenfinches {Chloris chloris chloris) arrived and became common, the bullfinch ( Pyrrhula pyrrhula nesa) appeared in the plantings, the goldcrest ( Regulus regulus anglorum) is recorded as colonising the woods, the mistle-thrush ( Turdus viscivorus viscivorus ) is mentioned as a newcomer, the redstart {Phcenicurus phcenicurus phoenicurus ) occupied suitable nesting sites, and no doubt other species not specifically mentioned penetrated to their new surroundings. As plantings increased and became more common, so did the birds of the plantings till now the species mentioned are well distributed in Scotland. This increase continues : of late years the lesser redpoll ( Carduelis flammea cabaret) has become amazingly common in many places. It was first noted as breeding in Sutherland in 1928 and in Caithness in 1931, and is now plentiful in many 12 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 of the woods, right up to the extreme north of the mainland. The tits, too, have spread quite recently into Caithness; the blue tit ( Parus cccruleus obscurus) and the coal-tit (Par us ater britannicus ) were first recorded as breeding in 1907, and they and the great tit ( Parus major newtoni ) are not now uncommon in the county. Tentative and so far not very strong colonisa- tions are those of the hawfinch ( Coccothraustes coccothraustes coccothraustes ) which since the first record of breeding in 1903 has become established in southern Scotland and has bred as far north as Aberdeen, and the pied flycatcher ( Muscicapa hypoleuca hypoleuca') which now nests in some of our southern counties and up to Inverness. The turtle dove ( Streptopelia turtur turtur) was found breeding for the first time in southern Scotland in 1946, and it will be interesting to see how far it colonises. Northern species which have been found nesting occasionally, or in isolated instances, are the brambling ( ' Fr ingill a montifringilla') , redwing ( T urdus musicus subsp ?), and scaup ( Aythya marila 7narila). An exceptional case is that of the woods at Stornoway Castle in the Outer Hebrides, remote from other woodland. Since they were planted they have been colonised by a good many woodland species. There is a rookery which was estab- lished following the advent of a great host of rooks ( Corvus frugilegus frugilegus ) which arrived in mid-November 1893 : about 4,000 are said to have wintered at Stornoway Castle and 200 stayed on in 1894 but did not breed. In 1895, however, they began to nest ; by 1902 there were over 100 nests and the 1945 count showed 170 nests. Here we saw rooks and fulmars soaring together over the rookery. These woods have also been colonised by other species such as greenfinches, chaffinches, goldcrests, willow warblers (Phyllos copus trochihis trochilus), whitethroats ( Sylvia communis communis), mistle-thrushes, song thrushes ( Turdus ericetorum ericetorum ), blackbirds ( Turdus merula merula), and robins ( Erithacus rubecula melophihis)K A family party of long-tailed tits (. ALgithalos caudatus rosaceus) has been seen, and I once saw a tawny owl ( Strix aluco sylvatica ) but could not establish breeding. We have had some spectacular colonisations, for example, that of the starling ( Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris). At the begin- ning of last century the only areas that held starlings were the 1948 A CENTURY’S CHANGES IN SCOTTISH ORNITHOLOGY 13 extreme north of Scotland and the islands, though there is just a hint of an earlier occupation of the mainland. A hundred years ago the starling was beginning to colonise southern Scotland, and the northward advance continued till now the bird is common in all parts except on the high moors and forests . As the trees grew and made nesting possible the great spotted woodpecker (JDryobates major anglorum ) recolonised the country. They inhabited the old Caledonian forest, as is evident from the old records and from the nesting holes found in some of the veteran trees which had survived the felling ; but by the middle of the nineteenth century the birds had died out or almost so. In 1887 the first breeding was recorded at Duns in Berwickshire, and the species spread from the south till it reached right up to Caithness. The stock-dove ( Columba Genas') is another most successful colonist ; I well remember my excitement when first I saw one among some wood-pigeons shot by my father in winter. Here the first recorded nesting was about 1877 and the spread rapid ; the colonisation was again from the south, and the species now extends as far north as Sutherland on the east and Argyll on the west. (They were first seen in Ireland in 1875 and bred in 1877.) Another potent influence in the changes in bird life was the development of agriculture ; one way in which this affected our small birds was in increasing the supply of insect food. Its effects were, however, not wholly beneficial : the drainage and reclamation of moors and mosses circumscribed the breeding places of some species, while the development of sheep farming led to persecution of the raven ( Corvus corax corax ) and the eagles. The growth of game preservation was adverse to the raptores, and some blame accrues to collectors of eggs and skins. Gone are the days when we could have watched the sea eagles ( Halioeetus albicilla ) at their eyries ; the last hundred years have seen their numbers decrease steadily till now none is left. Gone is the kite ( ’ Milvns milvus milvus)} once so plentiful that the guid wife had to look to the small articles of her laundry when put out to dry ; the second half of last century witnessed the rapid disappearance of this bird. Gone is the osprey ( Pandion halicetus halicetus ) from our 14 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 lochs ; the most we can hope for is to see one passing on its way. All but gone is the hen-harrier ( Circus cyaneus cyaneus ), though there were always a few pairs left, and just lately it has been trying to re-establish itself in long-deserted haunts ; were it left in peace, it might still succeed. Excepting in the neighbourhood of large towns the magpie {Pica pica pica) is now seldom seen ; in my young days they were quite common, breeding largely in the high untidy thorn hedges. The corncrake ( Crex crex) has deserted large tracts of the country, and one may go for years without hearing its rasping note. Within the last century we lost and regained the whooper ( Cygnus cygnus ) ; as far as is known it ceased breeding in the latter half of the eighteenth century, but in 1919 it was found to have returned, and though few pairs now nest it may increase. The greylag goose (Anser anser anser) has become much scarcer as a breeding species owing to the increase of foxes and hoodies and the taking of eggs by crofters and others, but within the last hundred years we have gained no fewer than seven species of duck and three of grebes. The gadwall (Anas strepera) was first recorded as breeding in Peeblesshire in 1906, but these may have been the progeny of pinioned birds. In 1909 it was nesting on Loch Leven, and this loch has become a centre of dispersal to the surrounding district. It has bred in ten counties, but nowhere in any numbers and usually sporadically, and certainly has not yet fully colonised Scotland. So far the garganey ( Anas querquedula ) is rare as a breeding bird in our country. The first recorded nesting was in 1928 in the Forth area, and Dr Berry says it has probably bred in Tay. It is becoming commoner and may be extending its breeding range. Though the first nest of the wigeon (Anas penelope) to be found in Scotland was in 1834 in Sutherland, its great increase and spread fall within the last hundred years. It advanced from north to south down the centre of the country with sub- sidiary streams reaching out to east and west, till now, with the exception of Dee, the country is fairly well covered. That beautiful duck the pintail (Anas acuta acuta ) was first known to nest in Inverness-shire in 1869, in Skye in 1889, and Loch Leven in 1898. In the last-mentioned loch it became established, and spread to neighbouring lochs : here and in i948 A CENTURY’S CHANGES IN SCOTTISH ORNITHOLOGY 15 Orkney and Shetland are its most stable breeding places. Elsewhere it is largely sporadic and very local. The shoveler ( Spatula clypeata ) was first noted as breeding just over a century ago and continued its peaceful penetration in a general south-to-north direction. Its chief increase took place between 1900 and 1920, and it is a common breeding bird locally on the east coast south of the Moray Firth and on Tiree ; less plentiful elsewhere. It was not till 1871 that the nesting of the pochard {Ay thy a ferina) was satisfactorily established; from 1879 onwards records of nesting come from various parts. It is now fairly widely spread though there are apparently suitable lochs not yet colonised. The colonisation of Scotland by the tufted duck (Aytkya fuligula) has taken place within the last eighty years. Long known as a winter visitor, it began to breed about 1872 when the first nest was found at Dupplin Castle, Perthshire ; it eventually colonised the country. By 1895 there were a good many breeding records from Fife and the Lothians ; by the end of the century south-east Scotland was pretty fully colonised and the birds were reaching out to other parts. Now only the north-west Highlands, Shetland, and parts of Argyll remain to be populated, and we have had records of breeding in new localities in Argyll within the last few years. The eider (. Somateria mollissima mollissima) was known to breed in the islands before 1600 (Sulisgeir), but, excepting for an isolated record in 1807, it is just a hundred years since the mainland began to be colonised. The numbers rose rapidly as far as one can see by increase and spread from old centres in the country, though just possibly overseas immigration played its part. Thanks to protection it is now a plentiful duck in most seaboard localities, though still scarce along the shores of the Moray Firth and in Caithness. The immigration of the goosander (. Mergus merganser merganser ) which took place in the early seventies, culminating in the great immigration of 1875-76, was a prelude to a rapid colonisation. Known before 1870 only as a rather scarce winter visitor to Scotland, the first recorded breeding was in 1871 on Loch Ericht and Loch Awe; from the end of that decade the spread was rapid. In 1892 Harvie-Brown called it i6 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 ‘‘one of the most rapidly advancing amongst breeding species of anatidae in Scotland.” The headwaters of rivers were first colonised with subsequent dispersal downstream. It now breeds to the southernmost part of Scotland, and in spite of persecution still seems to be increasing. The causes of this immigration obviously lie outside Scotland in some European habitat. Unlike the goosander, which advanced from the headwaters towards the coast , the red-breasted merganser ( Mergus serrator) colonised from the coast up the rivers. A century ago it was breeding throughout our north-western seaboard. About 1885 a great and sudden increase began, and the bird spread to eastern Scotland and to parts of the south. A century ago only one of our four species of breeding grebes nested in Scotland, viz., the little grebe ( Podiceps ruficollis ruficollis). About 1877 the great crested grebe ( Podiceps cristatus cristatus) was found nesting at the Loch of the Lowes in Perthshire ; it increased rapidly and colonised central and southern Scotland, especially Tay, Forth, and Clyde. The numbers are now decreasing again. Last winter I saw what I have never seen before and hope never to see again, namely, badly oiled birds in Largo Bay, where they had been wintering. I did not know before how fast they could run : one heavily oiled bird which I startled on the shore ran rapidly in an upright posture down to the sea. A most interesting occurrence was the breeding of the Slavonian grebe ( Podiceps auritus ) in the Highlands, first reported in 1908 in Inverness-shire. Here the spread has been slow and small ; Sutherland was reached in 1929 and Caithness in 1932. The species has not yet been recorded as breeding south of Inverness-shire. The black-necked grebe ( Podiceps nigricollis nigricollis ) was first found breeding in Midlothian in 1930, and has, so far, only colonised some lochs in the Lothians, Fife, and Angus. The gannet (Sula bassana ) has of late years been extending its range in the country and has colonised the Shetlands. In 1914 one pair bred on Noss ; they increased so rapidly that in 1938, 1,830 pairs were counted. Since then other colonies have been established in northern Shetland, while at the extreme other end of Scotland a colony was found on the Scaur Rocks in 1939, where in 1943 there were forty to fifty nests. 1948 A CENTURY’S CHANGES IN SCOTTISH ORNITHOLOGY 17 One of our most spectacular spreads is that of the fulmar (. Fuhnarus glacialis glacialis ), long known as an inhabitant of St Kilda. Beginning in 1878 it spread round our coasts, across north Scotland and the Isles, and down the east coast to and beyond the Border, with a separate line of advance to the Inner Hebrides, not settling on Skye till 1930. Now it is very common, even breeding in towns as in St Andrews. In Shetland one may see them everywhere sitting in flocks on the sea, on ruined castles and churches, banks, faille dykes, etc. In 1939, 43,000 birds were counted in Shetland. The redshank ( Tringa totanus britannica) has of late years been increasing and spreading as a breeding bird, but it received a bad setback last winter. In little more than a century the woodcock ( Scolopax rusticola ) has colonised almost every part of Scotland : the increase of suitable nesting places and the cessation of shooting in March and April have rendered this possible. Roseate terns ( Sterna dougallii dougallii) disappeared, but have since returned. Gulls have increased enormously: in 1907 only one pair of herring gulls ( Larus argentatus argentatus ) bred on the Isle of May ; in 1946 there were 776 nests there. The great skua ( Stercorarius skua skua ) which, owing to j persecution had nearly died out, was protected and now nests commonly in Shetland and sparingly in Orkney. The capercailzie ( Tetrao urogallus urogallus ) became extinct in Scotland about 1760, was reintroduced in Perthshire in 1837, and in other places subsequently, and has spread widely. Against these increases there are a good many decreases to be recorded— I have already mentioned some of these. Another is the decrease of the chough ( Coracia pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax ), of which most had gone by 1870 and few are now left. The jackdaw ( Corvus monedula spermologus ) has been blamed for driving them out of their breeding quarters, but in many of the formerly occupied cliffs no jackdaws breed. Shooting, egg-taking, and perhaps increase of peregrines seem more likely causes. It is difficult to assign any reason for the decrease of the ring-ouzel ( Turdus torquatus torquatus') which has declined seriously in south and south-west Scotland and in the Highlands since 1910 ; or for that of the redstart which 3 iS THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 has become much scarcer of late years, as has the twite ( Carduelis flavirostris pipilans), while the tree sparrow ( Passer montanus ynontanus ) has disappeared from many of its former haunts. Coots ( ' Fulica atra atra ) and moorhens ( Gallinula chloropus chloropus) have been decreasing for some time, and now their numbers are at a low ebb. The red-necked phalarope ( ' Phalaropus lobatus ) decreased seriously in the twentieth century owing to egging and cattle treading on nests, while the dotterel ( Eudromias morinellus), which used to appear in spring in flocks of hundreds on the uplands of southern Scotland as far north as Aberdeenshire and was slaughtered in numbers at that season, now is rare. The rock-dove ( Columba lima) has forsaken many of the sea-caves where it bred, owing it is thought to these being occupied by starlings, and black game ( Lyrurus tetrix britannicus ) show a serious decrease. Quail ( Coturnix coturnix coturnix ) have changed their status : formerly they used to be a common and resident species in Galloway, by 1862 they were becoming rare, and about 1873 a sudden and practically complete disappearance is recorded in Wigtownshire and Dumfriesshire and also in Aberdeenshire. Now their status is that of a scarce summer visitor. Winter changes are more difficult to estimate owing to lack of data. One that comes within our own observation is the absence of hooded crows ( Corvus cornix cornix ) as wdnter visitors. We used to see them commonly, but since about 1917 have hardly seen one. About 1870 there was a change in the habits of the geese — the bean ( Anser arvensis arvensis ) was replaced at this time in eastern Scotland by the pinkfoot (Anser arvensis brachyrhynchus) , which is now common, and the greylag. This last increased rapidly from 1900 to 1930. Snow geese (Anser hyperboreus ) are becoming commoner. There has been some diminution in the number of wintering duck, especially mallard (A?ias platyrhynchos platyrhynchos ) and wigeon ; this has been going on for some time, but two winters ago (1945) a sudden enormous increase took place in our wintering mallard, and it will be interesting to see if it persists. In some species such as the goldeneye (Bucephala clangula clangula) and the long-tailed duck (Clangula hy emails) there is a larger percentage of adult drakes than was formerly i948 A CENTURY’S CHANGES IN SCOTTISH ORNITHOLOGY 19 the case. Smews ( Mergus albellus) are becoming definitely commoner. From being a rare visitor, the black-tailed godwit ( Limosa limosa limosa) became commoner and finally wintered with us before it bred in 1946. The little gull (JLarus minutus) is becoming commoner in winter, and the glaucous and Iceland gulls ( JLarus hyperboreus and glaucoides) are increasing in numbers . The general picture we get, then, is of a land developing | its afforestation and its agriculture with consequent reper- cussions on its avifauna ; developing its fishings and shootings to the detriment of its raptores and other birds ; becoming interested in its birds, at first by way of shooting and egg- stealing, but gradually emerging from that stage into a fuller realisation of its duties towards its birds and endeavouring to protect them and give them a fair chance. We trust this will develop more and more, and we may yet see the return of species we have lost. Our experience with the whoopers and the roseate terns gives us hope for the future. But while this is so, the reasons for many of the changes, especially for some of the increases, must be sought outside Scotland ; and here I would plead for much closer ornithological co-operation among European nations, as only so can the answers to some of our problems be found. 20 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 6a THE ROOK ROOSTS OF THE LOTH IANS, WINTER 1946-47 J. H. B. Munro, for the Midlothian Ornithological Club Introduction DURING the winter months, usually between September and March, rooks ( Corvus frugilegus frugilegus) do not spend the night at their rookeries, but gather to roost socially, often in large numbers. Each of these roosts may drain an extensive area. This habit is well known, but there appears to be no recent published record of the positions of the winter roosts in the Lothians. In 1921 the late Mr W. Evans made an investigation into the roosting habits of the Edinburgh breeding rooks. He recorded ( Scottish Naturalist , 1922, p. 12) that “ Our Edinburgh rooks spend the winter nights far from the city, those belonging to the southern and eastern districts, including Morningside and Comiston, going to the great winter roost known locally as the crow wood, at Hurley Cove in Penicuik House policies, while those of the western districts, Colinton to Cramond, go to the famous Newliston roost.’ ’ In 1945 and 1946 a census of rookeries was made for the Agricultural Research Council. This census covered a great part of Scotland, and with the position of the rookeries for the Lothians and Berwickshire available, it was found possible (during the winter of 1946-47) to conduct a rook roost inquiry in the Lothians and adjacent portions of the surrounding counties. Scope of Inquiry The inquiry was confined to obtaining information on the following points : — I . Were the famous winter roosts at Newliston and Penicuik House, mentioned by Evans, still in use ? THE ROOK ROOSTS OF THE LOTHIANS 21 1948 2. Did the rooks from the southern and eastern districts of Edinburgh still gather at one roost, and those from the western districts gather at another ? 3. How much information could be gathered during the winter of 1946-47 as to the boundaries of the Lothian roost “ parishes.” A parish in this connection is the area covered by a complex of rookeries and the roost to which they are attached. Technique Employed In November 1946 a start was made by finding the roosts. This was a comparatively simple matter once it was realised that in midwinter the birds often start moving back to the roost, by easy stages from outlying feeding grounds, as early as 10 A.M. Consequently by the afternoon they had already' collected into flocks* and it was possible to traverse large areas of good rook country without seeing a single rook. Once a flock had been found in the afternoon, however, all that was necessary was to wait until it moved off on its next stage, which might not be the final one, and follow the birds, preferably by car. Where few suitable roads existed, the birds were sometimes lost to view, but as one neared the roost many flocks were available for following. Five roosts were discovered in the Lothians by this method, and the answer to our first problem obtained, namely, that neither Newliston nor Penicuik House roosts were still in general use. A i-inch Ordnance Survey map of the Lothians was then pinned to a board and covered with transparent paper. Map pins were used to mark the position of the roosts discovered; and the locations of the rookeries in the area, obtained from the Agricultural Research Council census, were also recorded. Flight lines of flocks were drawn on the transparent paper, giving a rough indication of parish boundaries. As it was manifestly impracticable to check the roosting flight lines from every rookery in the Lothians, an endeavour was made to obtain a rough idea of the position of the “ key ” or boundary rookeries of each roost. Sometimes this boundary was suggested by the presence of considerable gaps between 22 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 areas containing rookeries. These gaps were in most cases where hilly or almost treeless areas existed. When natural or arbitrary dividing lines had been fixed, each roost was allocated to one or more members of the Mid- lothian ^Ornithological Club, who then observed the afternoon flight lines of any flocks near these dividing lines. Our experience while doing this agreed closely with that of Mr W. B. Alexander when working on the rook population of the Upper Thames Region (_ Journal of Animal Ecology , 2, p. 32). He writes: “We have obtained considerable evidence that flocks from different roosts may feed together, and separate towards evening to fly to roost in opposite directions. Birds belonging to one roost may even range into the neighbourhood of another. In other words, the communities appear to have no definite feeding territories.” Bearing these points in mind, it was nevertheless found possible to obtain a very good idea of the position of key rookeries by observing the afternoon flight lines of feeding flocks. Mr Alexander also writes (p. 33) : “As the breeding season approaches, the birds gradually spend more and more time at their rookeries, and especially in February they usually remain at them until dusk and then fly straight to the roost. It thus becomes possible to determine which rookeries contribute to each roost, and thus to outline the breeding territory of each roost community or tribe of rooks.” Observers visited the key rookeries shortly before dusk during February and March, and noted the direction of the birds’ flight line when they left the rookery to go to roost. It was unfortunate that this period coincided with a spell of arctic weather which has been generally agreed to have been the worst within living memory. The bad weather made this part of the inquiry more arduous than it would normally have been, but did not seem to disturb unduly the rooks’ daily routine. It was found possible to check flight lines from all the rookeries lying within the greater Edinburgh boundary. Some Roosting Habits Many interesting habits were noticed during the inquiry. For example, at several rookeries on the boundaries of the i948 THE ROOK ROOSTS OF THE LOTHIANS 23 parishes, some rooks appeared to go to one roost and others to another. In more than one case most of the birds flew in one direction, and a minority left in the directly opposite one. Sometimes, too, the hackneyed phrase, “ As the crow flies,” was not found to mean a direct line between two points, and the rooks flying to roost had to be followed part of the way to establish which roost they were using. The rooks from the Greenbank area of Edinburgh followed the line of the road to Fairmilehead to the west of the Braid Hills, and then took the direct line to their roost near Arniston. On the other hand, birds from the Woodburn district flew to the west of the Black- ford Hill, and then crossed the eastern end of the Braid Hills to go to the same roost. The Newliston rooks held the line of the Glasgow road for some distance before turning north to their roost at Lochcote House near Linlithgow. The most interesting example of this habit was seen at Duddingston, where the rooks first flew off east to the Esk, and then turned south and followed the river valley to the roost near Arniston. In the early spring when the rooks fly from their rookeries to the roost about dusk, the conflict, as the light began to fail, between the urge to remain at their nests and the winter habit of roosting elsewhere, was most noticeable. The birds rose several times in a body with excited clamour before pitching once more into the trees. At intervals pairs would slip off quietly, flying steadily, or a small flock would detach itself and dis- appear, until finally the whole remainder would rise and make haste to reach the roost, often flying considerably faster than the earlier birds. The height of the roosting flight varied considerably. In winter the rooks often rose to a considerable height, and in- dulged in the displays of aerobatics sometimes known as “ crows’ weddings,” while in the spring their flight was much more direct and purposeful. The rooks usually collected on the ground in a compact body near the roost before finally flying into this when darkness fell. These final concentrations or “ stonks,” which were placed at distances varying from 200 yards to a mile from the roost, were impressive sights, for some thousands of rooks and jackdaws were present, packed closely together on quite a small area. The final occupation of the roost was made in a most 24 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST VoL 60 orderly manner. At one stonk birds at one end of the black mass on the ground rose first, and the others followed on in strict order. The impression given was of a great black ribbon rising from the ground and trailing across to the roost. For some minutes a living band connected roost and stonk as more and more birds made the journey, until finally the last birds rose and the end of the ribbon disappeared into the trees of the roost. Results i . The famous winter roosts at Newliston and Penicuik House were found to be no longer in use. 2. The rooks from the southern and eastern districts of Edinburgh still gather at one roost (Halkerston Farm near Arniston), and those from the western districts gather at another (Westfield House near Midcalder). It is interesting to note that Alexander found that Oxford was the meeting point of four territories {Journal of Animal Ecology , 2, p. 33), while Stewart recorded that Glasgow was also served by several roosts ( Scottish Naturalist , 1924, p. 69). 3. If one imagines the Lothians as represented by a narrow oval saucer cut along its longer axis, with Edinburgh at its centre, the five Lothian roosts found were positioned roughly along the raised rim. This rim is formed by the Lammermuir, Moorfoot, Pentland, and Bathgate hills. 4. Apart from the two East Lothian roosts which were about 300 feet and 150 feet above sea level, the others were above 500 feet, and not far from the highest point in the parish. 5 . In the case of the three roosts the complete parish of which was mapped, the maximum distances of rookeries from their parent roosts were found to be nine, ten, and fourteen and a half miles. 6. No attempt was made to estimate or count the population of the roosts which also housed many jackdaws. 7. Our results only apply to 1945 rookeries. Perimeter rookeries listed in this report may have altered since the 1945 count. ig^8 THE ROOK ROOSTS OF THE LOTHIANS 25 8. Alexander writes: “ Though Lanarkshire is one of the most natural counties in Britain, coinciding almost exactly with the basin of the Clyde, only two of the tribes have terri- tories confined to the county, four other roosts in adjacent counties having territories extending into Lanarkshire. It is clear, therefore, that ridges of hills are not always boundaries between adjacent territories.” This distribution was not found to have a parallel in the Lothians. Here the parishes were either self-contained within the area, or drew birds from other counties across low water- sheds. Exceptions to this were at Penicuik, where the Midlothian breeding birds crossed a low watershed, and flew south down the Eddleston Water to roost, and at Stow where the birds appear to roost in Berwickshire or Roxburghshire, crossing the 1 ,000 feet contour to do so. Our results here support Alexander’s view that “ Ridges of hills are not always boundaries between adjacent roosts.” 9. During the first part of this inquiry, several roosts were discovered in counties adjacent to the Lothians. As a know- ledge of their positions may be useful, these are recorded later in this paper. Lothian Roosts 1. Dean Burn, D unglass —This old-established roost on the East Lothian-Berwickshire border is sited in tall firs and hardwoods, and was known to Muirhead when, in 1877, he collected information for his book, The Birds of Berwickshire . It lies about 1 50 feet above sea level, and is still the site of a large rookery. The parish extends westwards as far as the Stenton district. Perimeter rookeries are (1) Skateraw, (2) Halls, and (3) Pitcox. The Berwickshire part of the parish was not investigated. 2. Stevenson House.— Situated near Haddington, this large roost appears to have been in use for about the last three years. It is placed in tall deciduous trees at a height of about 300 feet above sea level. It seems probable that it takes the place of a very old roost at Tyningham, about which Mr George Buchan-Hepburn wrote in 1794 ( General View of the Agri- culture of East Lothian ) : “ Prodigious numbers of crows are 4 26 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 to be seen in Tyningham woods from the end of autumn until the end of February.” The parish is roughly diamond-shaped, with the roost offset to the east of the centre. Perimeter rookeries are (i) North Berwick, (2) East Linton, (3) Gifford, (4) Newton Hall, and (5) Cockenzie. Cockenzie, the most distant rookery, is nine miles from the roost. 3. Halkerston Farm. — This is the site of another new roost, placed in a small deciduous wood about two miles south of Gorebridge, at a height of 800 feet above sea level. It seems almost certain that it has taken the place of the famous roost at Hurley Cove in the Penicuik House policies, as the Edin- burgh rookeries using it are those which formerly used Hurley Cove, as described by Evans. We are informed by Mr W. J. Ross, factor to the Penicuik Estates, that the Hurley Cove roost was probably discontinued shortly after 1922, as considerable tree-felling took place about that year. Inhabitants of Fushiebridge tell us that the Halkerston roost has only been in use for a year or two, and that before that the roost was at Harvieston House, on the west side of the Galashiels road, for at least sixteen years, until tree-felling caused the birds to move. Halkerston roost serves the portion of Midlothian lying to the east of the Pentland Hills (except for the rookeries in the Penicuik and Stow districts) and also the western district of East Lothian, being used by the Pencaitland rooks. West House Hospital, the most distant rookery, is ten miles from the roost. Perimeter rookeries are : (1) St Mark’s Church, Portobello ; (2) Pinkie House, Musselburgh ; (3) Pencaitland; (4) Makimrish Wood, Gilston (probably); (5) Moorfoot, Gladhouse Reservoir ; (6) Mount Lothian, Penicuik; (7) Valleyfield, Penicuik; (8) Hunter’s Tryst; (9) Greenbank ; (10) West House Hospital, Morningside ; and (11) Duddingston. 4. Westfield House. — This roost is situated in deciduous trees about 600 feet above sea level, some two miles east of West Calder. As its parish includes all the town rookeries that formerly used the famous Newliston roost, it is probable that Westfield now takes the place of Newliston. THE ROOK ROOSTS OF THE LOTHIANS 27 1948 Fig. 1. — Map of the Lothians showing Rook Roosts, 1946-47. 28 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 Mr Robert Watson of Bellsquarry tells us that Westfield has been used for at least fifteen years, and as Mr Petrie of Dalkeith informs us that to his knowledge the Newliston roost was still in use about 1931, it appears that the change of roosts was made in the early i93o’s. Major Hog of Newliston has very kindly given us a most interesting print of correspondence between one of his ancestors and various people interested in the Newliston rooks. In this, which bears the date March 1844, reference is made to the Newliston roost being in existence then. The older trees at Newliston were planted rather before 1745, so it seems possible that the roost was in use for many years prior to 1844. The Westfield roost serves the area lying to the north and west of the Pentland Hills, and east of the main Edinburgh to Glasgow road. Perimeter rookeries are: (1) Wardie Crescent, Edinburgh; (2) Colinton ; (3) Malleny Mills, Balerno ; (4) Harburn Station; (5) Addiewell ; (6) Boghall (at the junction of the Glasgow and Bathgate roads) ; (7) Pumpherston ; (8) Newliston ; (9) Carlowrie ; and (10) Cramond. Wardie Crescent, the most distant rookery, is fourteen and a half miles from the roost. 5. Lochcote House. — Mr Tennant of Bathgate informs us that this roost, which lies about two and a half miles south- west of Linlithgow, has been in existence for at least fifty years to his personal knowledge. It is placed in deciduous trees at a height of nearly 700 feet above sea level. It serves the remainder of West Lothian not covered by the Westfield roost, and also a portion of East Stirlingshire. The western limit in Stirlingshire was not discovered, but the rooks from Avonbridge and Polmont are known to use Lochcote roost. Perimeter rookeries so far as known are: (1) Port Edgar, South Queensferry ; (2) Winchburgh ; (3) Uphall ; (4) Boghall (split rookery ?) ; (5) Stoneyburn House ; (6) Polkemmet ; (7) Treesbanks, Whitburn (split rookery ?) ; and (8) Bo’ness. i948 THE ROOK ROOSTS OF THE LOTHIANS 29 Notes on Occupied Roosts Adjacent to the Lothians 1. Dunmore Park, Falkirk. — Mrs Jones of Dunmore Park, near Airth, informs us that there is a winter roost in the grounds. Rooks from the Grangemouth area fly in this direction in the evening, and probably use this roost. 2. Bar Hill, Kilsyth. — Mr L. G. Hodgkinson informs us that this roost is still in use. It was known to Stewart in 1921 (, Scottish Naturalist , 1924, p. 74). 3. Hamilton Palace.— -Mr Clyde Bain of Glasgow University tells us that as far as he knows this roost, also known to Stewart, is still in use. From the direction of evening flight lines from rookeries at Treesbanks (split rookery ?), and Forrestburn in East Lanarkshire, it seems likely that the birds use this roost. 4. Flemington Farm, Peeblesshire.— This roost is used by birds from the West Linton area. Mr J. S. Dickson, who lived at Flemington for many years, tells us that the roost was in use in 1905. 5. Burnhead Farm, Peeblesshire.— The rooks from Penicuik, Mount Lothian (split rookery ?), and Moorfoot, Gladhouse Reservoir (split rookery ?), use this roost, which is in a small coniferous wood at a height of 1,000 feet above sea level. 6. Stow and Lauder.— It seems likely that there is a large roost among the hills in this area and that it serves the Stow and Lauder rookeries. Owing to the hill roads being blocked by snow for some weeks, it was not possible to find its precise position. 7. Additional Roosts. — We are informed that roosts are in use at Mellerstain, Gordon, Berwickshire ; The Peelies* Duns, Berwickshire; and Sunderland Hall, near Selkirk. Acknowledgment We gratefully acknowledge the information and assistance received from many correspondents too numerous to mention individually, and without whose help we could not have successfully carried through this investigation. 30 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 THE MAGPIE IN NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND Adam Watson There is no doubt that the magpie ( Pica pica pica ) has increased considerably in north-east Scotland since Mr A. B. Duncan wrote his paper, “ The Magpie in Scotland ” ( Scottish Naturalist , 1938, p. 65). It is probable that the increase is due in no small measure to the respite enjoyed by all vermin during the late war, when so many gamekeepers were called up ; but this is certainly not the only reason, as on estates keepered as strictly as before the war the magpie continued to increase in spite of severe persecution. In my opinion one of the chief reasons for this increase lies in the enormous plantations of dense conifers, planted on the ” block ” system by the Forestry Commission, which are now springing up all over north-east Scotland and which afford ideal sanctuary for nesting magpies. In these plantations they breed in considerable numbers — usually quite uncontrollable — and it is probable that there is a constant overflow from these centres and also from a safe area in the outskirts of the city of Aberdeen, to surrounding rural areas. This accounts for the mysterious increase of the magpie on estates where the birds are mercilessly persecuted. Kincardineshire.— Mr Duncan’s 1938 report states: "‘Apart from an overflow on the Aberdeenshire boundary, the bird is apparently extinct in the county,” and a record of one seen near Laurencekirk on nth November 1930 is given. I have no personal experience of the magpie in this county, but a friend who knows the bird well saw one near St Cyrus on 17th November 1945, and later a pair within a mile of Inver- bervie on 23rd January 1946. Aberdeenshire. — The magpie is still “ relatively numerous in Deeside and Lower Donside ” and is till “ very numerous at Countesswells in the outskirts of the city of Aberdeen,” as recorded in the report, but it is certainly no longer “ scarce i948 THE MAGPIE IN NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND 31 in Buchan,” 1 but is, instead, becoming a scourge over all suitable parts of the county. The centre of dispersal for Buchan has undoubtedly been the White Cow Wood, Strichen, a vast conifer plantation- mainly dense, unthinned Sitka spruce — run by the Forestry Commission. Here the magpie breeds in large numbers in perfect safety, and almost certainly “ overflows ” to other areas. All over Buchan, odd pairs of magpies now breed at a large number of farms, and the bird penetrates to the very tip of Buchan in willow scrub at the Loch of Strathbeg. In Buchan they show a very strong liking for the vicinity of human habitations, and this is carried to extremes when a pair may sometimes nest in a solitary little tree at a farm or croft, especially in rather treeless areas. Around Ellon, the Ythan estuary, the Arnage-New Deer area, and right up the Ythan valley, the magpie breeds numerously, being particularly common at Fyvie and around Methlick. It is well distributed over a wide area around Turriff, and it is probably from here that it has infiltrated into Banffshire. In Buchan a few pairs penetrate to moorland districts such as Byth House, and though around Huntly and the upper Deveron and Bogie valleys the magpie is scarcer, it is quite numerous in the Insch-Rothienorman area, while a few pairs breed in the district between Fyvie and New Machar. The magpie is common all along the Dee and Don valleys, and penetrates as far as Braemar and Bellabeg, both at altitudes of 1 ,100 feet. As the 1938 report mentions, it is “ very numerous at Countesswells in the outskirts of the city of Aberdeen ” ; in the Hazelhead area it is not at all unusual to see flocks of up to twenty magpies at the present time, and this part probably affords a safe retreat. Banffshire. — The 1938 report gives the following informa- tion : “ I have no data about its present distribution in the county, but one might expect it to cross the Aberdeenshire boundary in some places.” The magpie now breeds in fair numbers at Forglen House, and smaller numbers in the parishes 1 Buchan is the district extending for forty miles from the Ythan to the Deveron in north-east Aberdeenshire. — Eds. 32 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 of Alvah and Marnoch, on the estates of Mountblairy, Carnousie House, and Netherdale. It probably penetrates further into the county than this, however, and it is occasionally seen at Glenbary, near Keith. ELGIN. — According to the 1938 report the magpie appeared to be extinct. On 8th September 1947 I saw a magpie at Monaughty Wood, a large Forestry Commission plantation of spruce and fir, near Elgin. INVERNESS-SHIRE. — In the report it is mentioned that the bird “ is extinct or practically so in Inverness-shire except for a few in the Spey valley around Kingussie.” A pair bred successfully in a fir wood at Coylum Bridge, Rothiemurchus Forest, in 1947, and on 27th June I saw the adults with their three fledged young. In the 1938 report (p. 75) Mr A. B. Duncan pointed out that the magpie had increased “ for the past few years ” in most parts of Dee. He continues : “ There is little doubt that the recovery in numbers during the war (1914-18) has not yet been reduced and that the magpie is probably an increasing species in Aberdeenshire.” That this conclusion was correct is well borne out by Mr Watson’s account. In a note on the “ Status of the Magpie in Inverness-shire ” ( Scottish Naturalist, 1938, p. 115) Dr Winifred M. Ross considers that the report very considerably underestimates the number of magpies in the county.— Eds. A SIMPLE NEST BOX 33 1948 A SIMPLE NEST BOX J. M. D. Mackenzie The nest box described here is the type used by the Nature Reserve Committee of the Scottish National Trust to help birds on Trust properties. It has been well tenanted in the last two years. Take a plain board, not tongued and grooved, and preferably rough, not planed, 40 inches long or a little more, 5 to 6 inches 10' 8* 10" 8“ 4- SIDE PIECE / ^SIDE PIECE BAC K FRONT BOTTOM 0" IO" 10" 8" 4’ FIG. I. Figs. 1-4. — Lay-out and Construction of Nest Boxes. wide, and from \ to 1 inch in thickness (f inch is about the best). Square the end and mark off points on one side, 10, 8, 10, and 8 inches, and a length equal to the width of the board minus twice the thickness, e.g., with a board 5 J inches wide and f inch thick this is 4J inches. Mark off the other side at 8, 10, 10, 8 inches, and the same length as above. This makes the first cut sloping and produces two side^ pieces with the tops 5 34 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST VoL 60 sloped, a io-inch back, an 8-inch front and a bottom. Fig. I illustrates the laying out of a board 6 inches wide and I inch thick. Cut a hole in the front I J inches in diameter with the top of the hole about ij inches (not less) from the top of the front. The bit for this is the size used for Yale locks. Cut a roof from a wider piece of wood so that it gives an overlap all round ; 8 inches square or 8 by 7 inches are useful sizes, but see below for metal roofs. To assemble take one side piece and nail the back to the long edge, putting the back inside the side (see Fig. 2). Take a strap, any bit of wood about 18 inches long, up to 2 inches wide, and about 1 inch thick and nail this to the outside of the side at an angle of about 5°, so that when the strap is upright the top of the box is tipped slightly forward ; turn the nails if they come through. Nail the bottom to the side and back, so that it lies inside them. Nail the other side to the back and bottom, two nails for each side and back join, and one each for the bottom. Nail the front into place with two nails opposite each other, about 2\ inches from the top, which allows the front to open. See that the tops of the front and back are true to the sides (cut if necessary), then nail the roof on, putting it tight up against the strap (it can be recessed slightly to let the strap in a little and give some overhang). Nail to the back and sides ONLY, not to the front. Bore two holes for nails at the top and bottom of the strap. Before putting on the roof, a good dodge is to shave with a chisel along the top outer edge of the side just behind the strap, to take off a triangular strip, about J inch wide. If the strap, side, and roof all join each other at right angles, water running down the strap seeks its way into the box between the roof and side. If the top of the side is shaved as above to make a triangular groove extending about half an inch either side of the strap, water from the strap runs down outside. Finally, the floor should have four or five holes (£■ inch) drilled in it for drainage. Nails used are 2 or 2f inch wire nails. The completed box is shown in Fig. 3. A strap for hanging the box to the tree is described above, but a method at least as good is to use a bit of 17-gauge tying wire as follows : omit all reference to the strap, getting a plain box only. For erection, hold the box against the tree. A SIMPLE NEST BOX 35 1948 Drive a 3 or 4 inch nail into the tree just under the edge of the roof and an inch or two from the box. Drive in another nail at about the same level an inch or two behind the box. Both these nails are only partly driven in, enough to hold. Take a bit of tying wire and twist it round one nail, pass it outside the box and twist it round the other as tightly as you can. Make sure the top of the box is tilted slightly forward, and then tighten the wire by tapping the nails alternately. Make it firm only. The wire must pass just under the roof so as not to interfere with the entrance hole, and to allow the front to open. It makes a very firm job. A wide board has been given for the roof above — it is conventional. But Mr D. Morgan, a forester in Wales, used any bit of scrap tin for his roofs, with success, and I have since found that this works well, and is easier to get than a wide board. A bit of tin, or sheet metal, 8 or 9 inches square, is placed on top and roughly shaped to run the water off and to provide a porch or shelter for the entrance hole. If the box is hung out of the direct rays of the sun, this is all that is wanted, but if the sun strikes the box, a bit of wood to cover the hollow and act as insulation can be put under the tin. It need not fit exactly so long as it does not fall down inside, and this metal roof should do quite well on all types of boxes and save wood ; I have obtained most of my roofs from scrap-heaps. Nails or screws driven into trees can damage saws seriously later on, and experiments are being tried with £-inch dowelling. The rods are cut into lengths of 5 to 6 inches, and slightly sharpened at one end. For fastening with tying wire, the other end is nicked to hold the wire firmly. Then a hole either 2 or T7^ inch is bored into the tree, deep enough to hold the dowel firmly; the latter is then used as a nail. Results seem promising, but the method has not been in use long enough for us to be sure of it yet. The box may be creosoted or otherwise treated, provided it is left six months in an airy place to lose the smell. The front may be fastened to the bottom by a brass screw ; an alternative method is to drill a hole through one side into the side of the front, and put a nail into it. At a pinch it can be jammed shut with a twig. This box is the simplest I have yet found, and seems to be 36 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST V0I.60 freely tenanted. The essentials are that it is reasonably weather- proof, with a minimum cross-section inside of 3J inches, preferably 4 inches in any direction, and a height of 7 inches. The entrance hole is given above as i| inches, which admits great, blue, coal, marsh and crested tits ( Parus major , P. coeruleus , P. ater , P. palustris , and P. cristatus ), redstarts ( Phcenicurus phoenicurus) nuthatches ( Sitta europcea ), pied flycatchers ( Muscicapa hypoleuca ), wrynecks ( fynx torquilla ), and lesser spotted woodpeckers ( Dryobates minor) ; wrens ( Troglodytes troglodytes ), tree creepers ( Certhia familiaris)y and robins ( Erithacus rubecula ) are also said to use them occasionally, the wren making a complete domed nest inside the box. Sparrows sometimes get in, especially if the hole is any larger than ij inches. If the diameter is reduced to ij inches, blue, coal, and marsh tits and pied flycatchers can use them. As a quick check, a florin is just 1 J inches in diameter, a half-crown 1 J inches, and a penny comes in between. The weight of the box without the strap, which can be found anywhere, is about 3 lb., according to the thickness of the wood, and four or five can be sent by post in a sandbag. As regards size, I prefer the smallest box a bird can use comfortably, that is, from 4 in. square to about 4J by 5 or 6 inches, at most, for tits. I have found that the bigger boxes lead to nests being deeper and more massive, and means time wasted in collecting material which may be in short supply. Folke Bromee 1 found that the bigger the next box, the bigger the population of nest parasites. To the bird there does not seem to be any special attraction in a big box, and I have not found any increase in either addled eggs or dead nestlings in the smaller boxes. Erection. — The box should be hung with the top tilted slightly forward, 50 or a little more, so that any water falling into the entrance hole runs out again and not down into the nest. I have always found that woodpeckers’ entrance holes go slightly upwards into the tree. The top must NOT be tilted backwards. It is better, but not essential, to hang the box with the side next to the tree, as this gives some shelter from wind. Boxes should be in place by the end of January, although in 1947, a very late year, some of those I put up in April were used. A SIMPLE NEST BOX 37 1948 ORIENTATION. — I have not found that orientation makes any appreciable difference to occupation, provided the situation is sheltered, especially from the prevailing rainy wind. Perhaps it is best to hang the box on the north-east side of the tree with the entrance hole facing south-east, which may have some connection with the morning sun. If the box is exposed on a building, the north side is best. It is more important to choose a sheltered position, and this may have something to do with difficulties in landing at the hole in a windy site. SITUATION. — Height is mainly governed by convenience. Probably 5 to 6 feet is preferred by the birds, but it is certainly also preferred by boys and girls. Fourteen to 16 feet is out of normal reach, and I have tits and pied flycatchers nesting at 23 feet. There should be an open flightway for 8 to 10 feet in front of the box, clear of obstructions. Branches, even small twigs, near the entrance hole must be cut back, and with, for example, oaks, coppice shoots must be watched, as they grow considerably in the spring. The box must be fastened firmly to the tree. The box given above is really an adaptation of that used by the Forestry Commission, itself a modification of the West- phalian type, of which Taylor 2 gives a good specification and description. It is made of oak slabbing, and has internal dimensions of 5 -4 by 5 by 8 *5 inches high. Its main drawback is that it is very heavy. The slope of the roof is about 1 in 6. A box used by robins, redstarts, and spotted flycatchers (Muscicapa striata) is made in the same way as the above, but with the front replaced by a bit of wood, 2 to 3 inches high, to form a roofed shelf (Fig. 4). It should be hung fairly low and is probably best behind a screen of branches, weeds, etc., with the clear flightway beyond them. REFERENCES 1. BROMEE, F., 1944. Hjalp skogarnas och fattens Smafaglar, Wilhelms- sons Boktryckeri, Stockholm. 2. TAYLOR, w. L., 1944. “Ornithology and Forest Insect Pests,” Forestry , 18. 38 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 THE VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL MARKING OF BIRDS Robert Carrick There is hardly a single species of British bird, however common, which would not yield a rich reward from a fact- finding inquiry into its life-history and habits. Do the same individuals inhabit the same locality season by season, year after year ? What is the range of their daily movements at each season ? To what extent do they follow the same daily routine ? Is there constancy of mates between broods, and seasons ? Is there polygamy or polyandry ? Do individuals always nest in a similar site and manner ? Do they produce more eggs or raise more broods at certain ages ? How many successful broods does each bird raise in a season ? Which individuals are non-breeding and why ? Does the song remain the same ? How do feeding habits vary with time of day, season, weather ? These and a host of similar questions remain to be answered, or checked, and the resultant information is the raw material with which problems of evolution, breeding biology, population control, migration, and economic status can be investigated. There seem to be two deterrents to the bird observer who has the time and inclination to study a common species. One is choice of species, for books of reference might appear to leave little unanswered. These should be read between the lines in order to realise their sins of omission, usually from lack of facts ; and more accurate observation is continually bringing to light their sins of commission, since, among other reasons, relatively little study of individually marked birds has been done. Conclusions based upon observations which involve even the most probable assumption of identity can never be guaranteed, and the study of individually marked birds emphasises this. It is a quarter of a century since Burkitt 1 first used coloured rings to identify individual robins ( Erithacus rubecula melophilus ), and it is more than a decade since Nice 2 and Lack 3 used the same method in their classic life-history Plate 2. — Colour-ringed Hen Starling at Nest. i948 the value of individual marking of birds 39 studies. In view of the unexpected yet convincing1 findings of these and other workers, and the ease of the method, it is surprising that more amateur ornithologists in Britain have not followed suit. At present, choice of species hardly matters , and the observer can follow his fancy and opportunity, with the obvious proviso that some species present fewer difficulties of trapping, marking, and observation than do others. It is not without significance that Lack was able to add so much to the knowledge of the only British species which had already been studied by means of colour-ringing ; those which, even now, have been studied by individual marking are very much the exception. The second difficulty is that of technique. The attributes which make a species more suitable for study are abundance, and ease of observation, trapping, marking, and nest-finding. Each species presents some difficulty, but the extent to which obstacles deter is merely a measure of the patience and ingenuity of the observer. Nice’s song sparrow ( ' Melospiza melodia) nests on the ground and in undergrowth, yet adults were trapped at the nest. The original trapping and marking of a bird usually represents a small proportion of the time and effort later spent in watching it. Hole-nesting birds offer some obvious advantages, and it is by having such birds under a measure of natural control, as in a nest box, and by being able to follow the fortunes of known individuals, as by colour- ringing, that the amateur bird-watcher can readily hope to obtain new and reliable information. The study of unmarked birds tends to lead only to reasonable conclusions, and the more surprising discoveries which have resulted from indi- vidual marking are such as to engender a healthy distrust of assumptions and guesses, however probable and intelligent. It is the purpose of this article to stress the necessity for individual marking and to indicate the technique, using recent experiences with the starling ( Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris ) by way of illustration. The chief advantages of individual marking are that repeated observations of the same individuals can be made without retrapping them — even if this is possible, it is often undesirable — and that the sex and identity of participants in display, etc., are known. A male starling, colour-ringed in 40 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vo/. 60 winter, was found to roost and nest in the same hole and use the same song-perches and feeding-ground throughout a year. A female starling, first ringed as ah adult in January 1940, is still (November 1947) being seen in the same place, and it is now at least 9J years old ; it nested in one hole in 1940 (no records during 1941-45), and in another hole in 1946 and 1947. A first-summer, /. 79? 227 Campbell, James W., 48, 50, 54-55 , 133, 214, 216 Campbell, John L., 47, 48, 126, 211-212 Campbell, May S., 47 Capercaillie, 17, 224, 228 Carrick, Robert, The value of indi- vidual marking of birds, 38; 131 Cat, Wild, 228 Chaffinch, 11, 12, 54, 115, 129, 173, 174, 180, 185, 228 Chiffchaff, 179, 180, 185, 217 Chough, 17 Clancey, P. A., 212 Clarke, W. Eagle. See Berry, William. Clavelina lepadiformis , 127 Clouded Yellow, 47, 56, 75, 78-80 Pale, 76, 79 Coloration: unusual, of yellow bunting, 128; legs of grasshopper warbler, 130; albino grey lag-goose, 132; albino woodcock, 139 ; albino oyster- catcher, 139; albino robin, 140; absence of seasonal change in alpine hare in Faeroes, 141 Colour-ringing of birds, 38-42, plate 3 Communal behaviour of Kittiwake, 136 Coot, 18, 172, 174, 176 Copper, Small, 199-200, 205, 21 1 Corncrake, 14, 163, 170, 176, 183, 186 Corystes, 47 Crossbill, Notes on the, 147-156; 174 Crow, Hooded, 18, 157, 174, 206 Crustacea, 47 Cuckoo, 52, 186, 228 Cunningham, David, 21 i Curlew, 161, 172-176 Current Literature, 56, 138 Dacker, FIerbert, Mortality of birds in Scotland in the cold weather of January- March 1947, 171-176 Darling, F. Fraser, Natural History in the Highlands and Islands reviewed, 59 Deer, 56; Red Deer, 139, 140, 226; Roe Deer, 226-227 Dipper, 174 Diptera, 48, 126, 213 Diver, Black-throated, 140 Red-throated, 160, 172 Dotterel, 18, 136 Dragonflies of Scotland, The, 65 Drummond, I. H., 136 Duck, Long-tailed, 18 Tufted, 15, 133, 175 Duncan, A. B., 30, 32; A note on Vespula auslriaca , 44; 146, 213 Dunlin, 172, 174, 175 Eagle, Golden, 173, 174 Sea, 13 Echinomyia grossa, 48, 126, 213 Edinburgh Conference, 5 Editorials, 1, 145 Eel, A very old, 49-50 Eider, 15, 53, 159, 186 Elder, FI. F. D., Isle of May Obser- vatory reports on birds, i77'i8o, 181-187 English names, 4 Ephemera danica> 47 Etymology: Morton or Mortym, 134 Faeroes, The Atlantic Islands reviewed, 141 229 230 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol . 60 Fair Isle, 50, 145-146 Fenton, E. Wyllie, Algal studies from Boghall Glen, 188-191 ; misc. zoo- logical notes, 223-225 Ferguson, E. J., 53 Fieldfare, 173, 174, 183 Fisher, James, Bird Recognition, Vol. 1, reviewed, 141 Fishes — Sea-trout, 49 Eel, 49 Oar-fish, 127 Flycatcher, Collared, 51 Pied, 12, 178, 179, 182, 183, 185 Red-breasted, 178, 179, 185 Spotted, 174, 185, 217 Food of birds: young barn owls, 13 1 ; crossbills, 155; great skua, 162; hawfinch, 215; spotted flycatcher and willow warbler, 217 ; 227, 228 Forestry Commission, 30, 37, 105, 164 Foula, Summer bird notes from, 157-163 Fraser, C. M. H., 215, 218 Frisch, K. von, The Dances of the Honey Bee reviewed, 142 Fritillary, Dark Green, 21 1 Duke of Burgundy, 193 Pearl-bordered, 21 1 Silver-washed, 193, 224 Small Pearl-bordered, 21 1 Fulmar, 12, 17, 160, 172, 186; variation of, 199 Gadwall, 14, 133, 220 Gannet, 16, 160, 186 Garganey, 14 Gibson-Hill, C. A., British Sea Birds reviewed, 58 Gladstone, Sir Hugh, 133- 134 Goat, 56, 57, 140 Godwit, Bar-tailed, 172 Black-tailed, 19 Goldcrest, 11, 12, 174, 183, 185 Goldeneye, 18 Goldfinch, no, 174 Goosander, 15 Goose, Bean, 18 Grey-lag, 14, 18, 56, 132 (albino), 172 Pink-footed, 18, 172 Snow, 18 Gordon, Seton, 220 Grayling Butterfly, 21 1 Grebe, Black-necked, 16 Great Crested, 16, 172, 175, 176 Little, 16, 175 Slavonian, 16, 57, 174 Greenfinch, n, 12, 107, 129, 173, 174, 185 Greenlees, A. H., 215, 218 Greenshank, 140 Grosbeak, Scarlet, 185 Grouse, Red, 99, 139, 170, 174, 227 Guillemot, Black, 140, 163 Common, 139, 163, 172, 186; bridled variety, 198, 200 Gull, Black-headed, 172, 173, 222; feeding on caterpillars, 54, 228 Gull, Common, 162, 172, 221-222 Glaucous, 19, 53, 222-223 Great Black-backed, 162, 172, 222-223 Herring, 17, 162, 172, 186 Iceland, 19 Lesser Black-backed, 162, 186 Little, 19 Llairstreak, Green, 212 Halliday, Id., 128-129, 216-217 Hare, Alpine, 14 1 Harrier, Hen-, 14, 139 Harvie-Brown, J. A., and W. Eagle Clarke, Some recollections of, 93 Hawfinch, 12, 50, 213-216 Hawk Moth, Convolvulus, 48, 76 Death’s Head, 76, 21 1 Hummingbird, 48, 76 Small Elephant, 212 Striped, 78 Iledge-Sparrow, 174, 186 Hen-Harrier, 14, 139 Heron, 172-175 Home, W. M. Logan, 130, 221 Hoopoe, 219-220 Horsley, Terence, Sporting Pageant reviewed, 61 Hybrid Gull, 222-223 Idymenoptera, 44-46, 142, 213 Injury-feigning, yellow bunting, 216 Insect immigration: Scotland an end point, 74 Jackdaw, 17, 54, 174 Kay, G. T., 222 Kestrel, 13 1 Kite, 13 Kittiwake, 136, 162, 172, 173, 186 Knot, 172 Lapwing, 161, 170, 174-176 Larvaevora gross a, 48, 126, 213 Lepidoptera, records of, 126, 21 1-2 12, 227; immigrant, 47, 48, 56, 57, 74, 138, 224, 227 ; birds feeding on caterpillars, 54, 228 Linnet, 113, 129, 131, 174, 185 Little Auk, 172, 178 Lockley, R. M., The Island Farmers reviewed, 58 Longfield, Cynthia, The dragonflies of Scotland, 65-73 Longstaff, T. G., 52-53, 220-221 Macfarlane, P. R. C., 49 Mackenzie, J. M. D., A simple nest box, 33 Mackenzie, John D., 49-50 Magpie, 14, 128, 174; in North-east Scotland, 30 Mallard, 18, 159, 172 Martin, House, 159, 174 Sand, 174 INDEX 231 1948 May, Isle of, herring gulls nesting on, 17; behaviour of kittiwake, 136; bird observatory reports for 1946, 177-180; for 1947, 181-187 Mayfly, in Aberdeenshire, 47 Maxwell, W. H., 213 Me Willi am, Rev. J. M., Bird territory as a fixed address, 8 Meadow Brown, 21 1 Merganser, Red-breasted, 16 Merlin, 159, 227 Midlothian Ornithological Club, 20, 22, 1:77, 181 Milkweed Butterfly, 77 Mistle-Thrush, 11, 12, 173, 174, 176 Moorhen, 18, 163, 174 Mortality of birds in cold weather, 17 1- 176, 224-225 Moth. See Lepidoptera. Mouse, Bank, 196 Long- tailed, 49, 196 Short-tailed, 49 MUNRO, J. H. B., Rook roosts of the Lothians, 20 Murdoch, C. C. I., 214 Murray, Iain M., 220 Mylne, C. K., 218 Neill, R. M., 47 Nest box, construction, 33 ; war stores box, 42 ; plate 4 Nightjar, 170, 183 Norwell, Peter, 214 Oak, infestation by caterpillars, 54 Oar-fish, 127 Obituary : Oliver Hilton Wild , 63 Odonata, 65-73 O’Mahony, E., 49 Orange-tip, 193 Orkneys, bird life (Cur. Lit.), 140 Osprey, 13 Ouzel, Ring. See Ring-ouzel. Owl, Barn, 131, plates 5-7 (pp. 132, 134, 136) Long- eared, 186 Scops, 13 1 Tawny, 12, 175 Oyster-catcher, 139 (albino), 161, 172- 174, 176, 228 Painted Lady, 75, 77, 79, 80, 21 1 Parasites, 170 Partridge, Common, 132, 139, 174 Peacock Butterfly, 47, 77, 79; spread in Highlands and Islands, 126; 21 1 -21 2 Pennie, Dr Ian D., Summer bird notes from Foula, 157-163 Peregrine Falcon, 159, 186, 227 Phalarope, Red-necked, 18, 56 Pheasant, 174 Pintail, 14 Pipit, Meadow, 52, 158, 170, 174, 185 Tree, 185 Rock, 158, 185, 217 Pitman, Ian, 145 Plover, Golden, 172, 174, 175 Ringed, pre-coition posture and breed- ing of, 121 ; 161 Pochard, 15, 175 Platt, M. I., 48-49 Psithyrus, 44, 46 Ptarmigan, 139 Puffin, 163, 172 Quail, 18, 163, 183, 226-227 Raeburn, G. F., 131-133, 137-138 Rail, Water, 180 Rat, Water, 198 Ratcliffe, D. A., 213 Raven, 13, 50, 157, 213 Rayfield, P. A., 129, 130, 133, 135-136, 228 Razorbill, 55 (Northern), 163, 172, 186 Red Admiral, 47 (ab. merry fieldi ) , 47, 48, 57, 75, 77, 79, 80 Redpoll, Lesser, 11, in, 174, 185 Greenland, 185 Mealy, 179, 182, 185 Redshank, 17, 135, 172, 174, 176; Iceland redshank, 135, 228 Spotted, 135 Redstart, 1 1 , 175, 186 Black, 159, 178, 183, 184, 186 Redwing, 12, 172, 173, 175, 183, 185 Rhyssa persuasoria ,213 Richter, R., 128 Ringing (birds), 38-42, 135, 180, 184-186 Ring-ouzel, 17, 170, 178, 182, 184, 185 Rintoul, Leonora J., 5 Rintoul, Leonora J., and Evelyn V. Baxter, On the present status of the stonechat in Scotland, 164-170. See also Baxter and Rintoul. Robin, 12, 38, 140 (albino), 174, 180, 183, 186, 225 Rock-dove, 18, 160 Rodents: Apodemus, 49, 196 ; Arvicola , 198; Cleithrionomys , 196; Lepus, 1 41 ; Micro tus, 49; Sciurus , 150, 154, 223-224 Rook, 12 (at Stornoway Castle), 54, 1 72- 1 74; winter roosts in the Lothians, 20 ; winter roosts inquiry, 210 Ross, Dr Winifred M., 32; Notes on the crossbill, 147-156 Salmon, 60, 139 Sandeman, G. L., 136-137, 217, 218, 221-222 Sandpiper, Common, 174, 176 Green, 183 Scaup-duck, 12, 134, 172, 175 Lesser, 135 Scops-owl, 131 Scoter, Common, 172 Scott, J. E., 134-135 Scottish Naturalist, The, historical, 1 Scottish ornithology, a century’s changes in, n-19 232 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST Vol. 60 Scottish Wild Life Conservation Com- mittee, 64 Seal, Atlantic, 139 Sea-Trout, Migration of, 49 Shag, 160, 186 Shearwater, Manx, 160, 220 Sheld-Duck, 186 Shoveler, 15 Shrike, Great Grey, 179 Red-backed, 178, 179, 182, 185 Sibthorpia europaea in Scotland, 47 Siphonaptera, Some Scottish, 49 Sirex gigas, 213 Siskin, hi, 179, 185 Skipper, Chequered, 192 Dingy, 21 1 Skua, Arctic, 140, 163, 226 Great, 17, 162, 221, 226, 228 Long-tailed, 184 Skylark, 158, 174, 176, 185 Smew, 19 Smith, F. W., 126; On our knowledge of the distribution of Macrolepidop- tera in Scotland, 192- 194 Smith, T. Leslie, Growth and decline of an artificial grouse moor, 99 Snipe, 161, 172, 174-176 Sparrow, Hedge. See Hedge-Sparrow. House, 54, 158, 172, 174, 185 Tree, 18, 129, 182, 185, 216-217 Speckled Wood, 193, 211-212 Squirrel, Common, 150, 154, 223-224 Starling, 12, plate 2 (p. 38), 39-43, plate 3 (p. 40), 54, 158 (Shetland), 172, 174, 185, 227 Stenhouse, B. A., 50-51 Stint, Little, 180 Temminck’s, 220-221 Stoat, attacking man, 136 Stock-dove, 13, 175 Stonechat, 11, 186; On the present status of the stonechat in Scotland, 164-170 Stone Curlew, 178 Storm-petrel, 160 Subspecies, The nature of, 195-208 Swallow, 1 31 , 159, 174, 186, 227 Swan, Mute, 172, 227 Whooper, 14, 19 Swift, 159, 174, 186 Tarsiger cyanurus , first British record, 6 Tentsmuir, 99 Tern, Arctic, 97, 161, 186 Black, 136 Common, 186 Roseate, 17, 19 Sandwich, 186 Territory, Bird, 8 Thomson, S. S., 131 Thrush, Mistle. See Mistle-Thrush. Song, 12, 174-U6, 183, 185, 219, 225, 227 Tit, Blue, 12, 174 Coal, 12, 174, 185 Crested, 174 Tit, Great, 12, 174, 176 Long-tailed, 12, 174, 175 Tod, W. A., 55 Tortoiseshell, Small, 77, 79, 21 1, 212 Tree-creeper, 174 Tully, H., 53 Turnstone, 172, 186 Turtle Dove, 12, 53, 183, 186 Twite, 18, 158 Uig, Further botanising in, 82 Venables, L. S. V., The pre-coition posture and breeding of the ringed plover, 1 21 Vespula austriaca , A note on, 44 Vespula rufa , 44-46 Wagtail, Pied, 174, 176, 185; paired with white wagtail, 129 White, 129, 185 Yellow, 178, 182 Walls, F. D. E., 217 Warbler, Barred, 185 Garden, 178, 179, 182, 184, 185 Grasshopper, 130, 185, 218 Reed, 185 Sedge, 130, 185 Willow, 12, 51-52, 185, 217 Wood, 182, 184, 185 Yellow-browed, 179, 185 Waterston, George, 50-51, 145 Watson, A. D., 50-51 Watson, Adam, The magpie in north- east Scotland, 30; 53 Waxwing, 130 Whaling, 228 Wheatear, 159, 170, 185 Whimbrel, 161, 227 Whinchat, 170, 185 White, Green-veined, Large and Small, 57, 79, 211-212 Whitethroat, 12, 174, 185 Lesser, 178, 180, 182, 184, 185; 184 (Siberian) Wigeon, 14, 18, 134, 172, 175 American, 227 Williamson, Kenneth, 130, 136-137, 145 ; The Atlantic Islands reviewed, 141 Wilmott, A. J., Further botanising in Uig, 82 Woodcock, 17, 139, 172, 173, 175 Woodpecker, Great Spotted, 13, 130, 186 Wood-Pigeon, 173, 175 Wren, 159 (Shetland wren), 173-175, 186 Wryneck, 180, 186 Wynne-Edwards, V. C., 127; The nature of subspecies, 195-208 Xantho , 47 Yellowhammer. See Bunting, Yellow. Zoological Notes, 47, 126, 21 1 NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST is devoted to the study of Scottish Natural History, and is therefore concerned with all the many aspects, zoological, botanical, geographical, topographical, and climatic embraced by this title. Contributions in the form of articles and short notes, and papers and books for review, should be addressed to the Editor of The Scottish Naturalist , Department of Natural History, Marischal College, Aberdeen. The Editors’ task will be made easier if contri- butors will observe the following points, and endeavour to conform with the arrangement and set-up of articles and notes adopted in the current number. Contributions should be clearly written; whenever possible they should be typed, double-spaced, on one side of the paper, and with adequate margins. Scientific names should be given wherever they may be helpful to readers, especially to naturalists overseas. When both are given, the scientific name, enclosed in brackets, may follow the English name without an intervening stop. Generic and specific names are printed in italics and should be underlined in manuscripts. Trinomials when used should appear in full in the first instance. The Editors will assist always in cases of difficulty over nomenclature. Except in headings and titles, English names of animals and plants should appear without initial capitals, e.g., crested tit, red admiral, but Planer’s lamprey, Scots pine. Titles of books and periodicals referred to by authors are printed in italics and should therefore be underlined. Dates should be given in the following form : 4th July 1906, with the day of the month first. Maps, diagrams, and graphs for reproduction should be drawn clearly in Indian ink on white, unlined paper, tracing linen, or Bristol board. Photographs to illustrate articles and notes are accepted; also pictures relating to subjects of special interest covered by the magazine. Photographic prints must be made on a glossy paper. Authors of articles, but not of short notes, will receive on request 25 reprints free of charge. Additional copies will be provided, but must be purchased by the author ; they should be ordered preferably when the contribution is submitted for consideration, and in no case later than the time the proofs are returned. CONTENTS — continued PAGE Algal Studies from Boghall Glen (Midlothian) : the Algse of Allermuir Dam, Boghall Burn, and Boghall Dam — E. Wyllie Fenton . . . . . .188 On our Knowledge of the Distribution of the Macrolepidoptera in Scotland — F. W. Smith . . . , .192 The Nature of Subspecies — V. C. Wynne-Edwards . , 195 Botanical Notes . . . . ' . 209 Miscellaneous Notes — E. Wyllie Fenton. Scottish Winter Rook Roost Inquiry—/. H. B . Munro . s 210 Zoological Notes : Early Dates for Lepidoptera in the Solway Area — David Cumring ham, 21 1 ; Lepidoptera Observed at Inverie, Knoydart— ; John L. Campbell , 21 1 ; Peacock Butterfly in Argyll and Mull — Evelyn V. Baxter and Leonora J . Rintoul, 212 ; The Peacock Butterfly in North Knapdale, Argyllshire — P. A. Clancey , 212; Small Elephant Hawk Moth in Fife — Evelyn V. Baxter , 212; The Occurrence of Larvaevora {Echinomyia grossa (L.)) in Scotland — - Editors , 213 ; Rhyssa persuasoria in Banff — W. H. Maxwell , 213 ; Nesting of the Raven in Roxburghshire — D. A. Ratcliffe , 213; Hawfinches in Perthshire — C. C. /. Murdoch , R. O . H . Maitland , P. Norwell and J . W. Campbell , 213 ; Hawfinches in Edinburgh— A. G. S. Bryson , 214 ; Hawfinch in East Lothian — A. H. Greenlees and C. M. H. Fraser , 215 ; Injury Feigning by Yellow Buntin g— James W. Campbell , 216 ; Tree Sparrows in the Lothians — Hugh Halliday , 216; Rock Pipits Breeding in Midlothian — Gerard L. Sandeman, 217 ; Spotted Flycatcher and Willow Warbler taking Breadcrumbs — F. D . E. Walls, 217 ; Chiffchaff in Inner Hebrides — Gerard L. Sandeman, 217 ; Possible Breeding of Grasshopper Warbler in Midlothian — C. K. Mylne, 218 ; Grass- hopper Warblers in Ardnamurchan— Gerard L. Sandeman, 218 ; Blackcaps in Wester Ross— A . H. Greenlees and C. M. H. Fraser, 218; Unusual Song by Song Thrushes — Geoffrey Turner, 219; Hoopoe in Inverness-shire — Eileen R. Ballance, 219; Gadwall in North Perth — Evelyn V. Baxter and Leonora J. Rintoul, 220; Shearwaters Nesting on the Cuillin of Rum — Seton Gordon, 220 ; Reputed Temminck’s Stint on North-west Coast — Tom G. Longstaff, 220; Early Great Skuas — W. M. Loga?t Home, 221 ; Common Gulls Breeding in Forth Area — Gerard L. Sandeman, 221 ; Breeding of Common Gull in the Pentlands — D . G. Andrew, 222 ; Hybrid (?) Gull near Lerwick — G. T. Kay, 222 ; Miscel- laneous Zoological Notes- — E. Wyllie Fenton, 223. Current Literature ...... 226 Erratum ........ 228 >•- • Printed in Great Britain at The Darien Press Ltd., Edinburgh 143a