The Chalice Petrel' Revisited S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
'The Chalice petrel' revisited S. A. Young and J. R. King In light of the captures of Swinhoe's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma monorhis in the Western Palearctic (Bretagnolle et al. 1991; Cubitt et al. 1992; King & Minguez 1994), it was thought unlikely that there could be more than one dark-rumped Oceanodroma species occurring in the north Atlantic. 'The Chalice petrel' became linked to the then-unidentified, trapped species (Gantlett 1988). A widely expressed recent opinion, that 'The Chalice petrel' must have been a Swinhoe's, seems to be based on this assumption rather than on any assessment of the facts. As these captures have largely occurred since the Chalice record, we have taken a fresh look at the evidence relating to that sighting. In the course of our research, we have clarified some characters for the field identification of Tristram's Storm-petrel O. tristrami, helping to eliminate that possibility. The ten photographs taken by John Hall have proved invaluable for accurately assessing the characters of the Chalice bird, and we present an example of photograph analysis that could be used to assess this type of record. Our conclusion is, ultimately, only an opinion, but one that is based on research rather than guesswork. We have not had a 'vested interest' in identifying the bird as one species or another (JK did not even see the bird in question), and simply aim to suggest a possible solution to a mystery, while attempting to reopen a debate that has lain strangely dormant in recent years. The Chalice record . In the brief discussion of the Chalice record by Gantlett (1988), the identification was claimed as Matsudaira's Storm-petrel O. matsudairae. When the bird was first seen (initially very briefly), it was 'announced' as Bulwer's Petrel Bulweria bulwerii: this may give some clue as to the bird's perceived size and/or structure. Although the descriptions were collated by Peter Harrison as Tristram's Storm-petrel, the photographic evidence precipitated a change to Matsudaira's prior to submission. What was then unknown was that Swinhoe's Storm-petrel seems invariably to show some white primary streaks: based on photographic and museum evidence, these are visible on the outer 5-6 primaries, as for Matsudaira's. The confusion and difficulties surrounding the identification of dark-rumped Oceanodroma storm-petrels have led to the Chalice record being circulated and pended by the BBRC for nine years. The identification of Tristram's Storm-petrel When studying the seven specimens of Tristram's Storm-petrel in the collection of the Natural History Museum, Tring, we immediately noticed that all showed an obvious pale rump patch. This was formed by the majority of the rump and uppertail-covert feathers being pale greyish-brown, contrasting markedly with the brown back and uppertail (plate 87). We noted at the time that the general colour of the rump patch was similar to that of the pale covert bar. On one bird, the pale [Brit. Birds 90: 329-335, August 1997] ;(" British Birds Ltd 1997 329 330 Young & King: 'The Chalice petrel' revisited A 82-86. 'The Chalice petrel', at sea off Scffly, 3rd August 1988 (J. P. Halt). Top photograph shows 'The Chalice petrel' extreme right and two European Storm-petrels Hydrobates pelagicus extreme left; this view of the mystery storm-petrel is repeated in plate 86 (bottom right). Of the 11 available photographs, plates 82-86 show those numbered 11, 2, 5, 7 and 11, respectively, and all have been greatly enlarged. British Birds, vol. 90. no. 8, August 1997 331 A 87. Three specimens of Tristram's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma iristrami, showing the range of pattern in the pale rump band (Jon R. King) rump patch was a little less evident (plate 87), but still seemed likely to be visible given good views. The seven specimens came from three widely spread localities in the rather restricted Pacific range of Tristram's Storm-petrel. Although the pale rump is not illustrated by Harrison (1985), it is very obvious on the only field photograph of the species in his photographic guide (Harrison 1987: plate 253), and, despite some foreshortening, is also apparent on the bird in the hand (Harrison 1987: plate 254). Harrison (1987) says of Tristram's Storm-petrel that 'Some occasionally show white on sides of rump or a pale greyish bar or paleness on rump.' We suggest that this feature is in fact typical for the species, and is also readily visible in the field. Intriguingly, Tuck & Heinzel (1978) illustrated Tristram's Storm-petrel with a pale grey rump band, and its presence was commented upon by Bourne (1974). The absence of this feature, which should otherwise be visible on at least four of the Chalice photographs, including two of those reproduced in Gantlett (1988), seems to eliminate Tristram's Storm-petrel from the debate surrounding the Chalice bird. An additional, more subtle feature, also seen on all specimens and again evident from plate 254 in Harrison (1987), is a blue-greyish wash to the mantle of Tristram's Storm-petrel. How visible this may be in the field is unclear, but there was no evidence of it on the Chalice bird. The size of 'The Chalice petrel' The series of available photographs of the Chalice bird make this record unusual for that of a seabird in that some size analysis can be attempted. Some difficulty is attached to comparing the sizes of birds within a photograph, but the five 332 Young & King: 'The Chalice petrel' revisited images analysed were chosen because they met the following criteria. The image of the Chalice petrel must be sharp, and any bird with which it is to be compared must be both identifiable to species and itself comparatively sharp, too; it is important that all the birds being compared should be as nearly as possible the same distances from the camera. A judgment was also made as to which of the birds were nearer the camera. This is a fairly subjective assessment, but each person who made measurements of the images judged relative positions for himself, and in general mere was strong agreement among individuals. The photographs allow comparison with European Storm-petrels Hydrobates pelagicus and Fulmars Fulmarus glacialis, and from these an accurate assessment of the Chalice petrel's size can be obtained. A worked example of the comparative technique used is described below, and table 2 summarises all the results. Table 1. Original measurement data and wing-length estimates taken from plate 82 by five different people. All figures in mm. For calculations, average body length of European Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus is taken as 147 mm (see text), and average wingspan as 370 mm (Harrison 1985, 1987). Note that, since the two estimates rely on measurements of different individual European Storm-petrels ('bird A' & 'bird B'), measurement error can result in the maximum estimate being smaller than the minimum. See text for further explanation. Measurement parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Wing chord {'Chalice petrel') 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.4 7.3 Body length (bird A) 5.85 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.6 Right wing (bird 8) 6.25 6.4 6.9 6.7 7.0 Body width (bird 8) 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.5 Half wingspan (bird 8) 7.1 7.1 7.7 7.2 7.6 Min. est. wing length (based on bird 8) 192.9 188.9 167.3 183.8 191.6 Max. est. wing length (based ori bird A) 183.4 199.7 189.8 205.2 174.2 Mean est. wing length (8 & A combined) 187.7 Plate 82 allows comparison of the Oceanodroma Knowing these measurements, and the storm-petrel with two European Storm-petrels. average wingspan and body length of It is difficult to be certain of distances of the European Storm-petrel, it is possible to provide last two from the camera relative to the bigger estimates of wing chord for the Chalice petrel. bird, but we found general agreement that the Calculation based on measurement of the uppermost of the two European Storm-petrels farther European Storm-petrel will is farther away than the dark-rumped petrel, overestimate the size of the dark-rumped bird while the lower one is a little nearer the camera (i.e. give a maximum estimate), whereas a than either of the other two birds. The images similar calculation from the nearer European and angles are such that several measurements produces an underestimate (minimum can be taken with adequate accuracy. These estimate). Averaging these estimates should are (1) the wing chord of the Chalice petrel provide a reasonable approximation of the from wingtip to bend of wing; (2) body length wing chord of the Chalice petrel. of the farther of the two European Taking body length of the farther European Storm-petrels, from forehead to tail tip; (3) Storm-petrel as 5.5 mm, and wing chord of the wingspan of the nearer European, either by Chalice petrel as 7.1 mm, we can estimate the measuring total length of the right wing, latter's wing length by using the formula: multiplying this by two, and adding a (average body length of European measurement of body width, or by directly Storm-petrel]measured body length of farther measuring the right wing together with half the individual) X measured wing chord of 'Chalice' body width and multiplying by two. bird British Birds, vol. 90, no. 8, August 1997 333 The average body length of European Table 2. Arithmetic means (mm) for Storm-petrel is 158 mm (BWP); subtracting a estimates of wing length and/or body typical bill length gives 147 mm (bill is not measurable in the photograph).