Report on Rare Birds in Great Britain in 1996 M

British Birds Established 1907; incorporating 'The Zoologist', established 1843 Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 1996 M. J. Rogers and the Rarities Committee with comments by K. D. Shaw and G. Walbridge A feature of the year was the invasion of Arctic Redpolls Carduelis homemanni and the associated mass of submitted material. Before circulations began, we feared the worst: a huge volume of contradictory reports with differing dates, places and numbers and probably a wide range of criteria used to identify the species. In the event, such fears were mostly unfounded. Several submissions were models of clarity and co-operation; we should like to thank those who got together to sort out often-confusing local situations and presented us with excellent files. Despite the numbers, we did not resort to nodding reports through: assessment remained strict, but the standard of description and observation was generally high (indeed, we were able to enjoy some of the best submissions ever). Even some rejections were 'near misses', usually through no fault of the observers. Occasionally, one or two suffered from inadequate documentation ('Looked just like bird A' not being quite good enough on its own). Having said that, we feel strongly that the figures presented in this report are minimal and a good many less-obvious individuals were probably passed over as 'Mealies' C. flammea flammea, often when people understandably felt more inclined to study the most distinctive Arctics. The general standard of submissions varies greatly. We strongly encourage individuality, but the use of at least the front of the standard record form helps. Some individual birds of relatively 'easy' and 'common' species received the full treatment and occasionally we might wish that the description would finish at about page 10; while, in contrast, there were a few first-class rarities either not recorded at all by the finders or given little chance of acceptance by the submission of no more than a poorly annotated sketch on the back of an envelope. It grieves us, particularly, to receive a report of a really 'good bird' that is clearly unacceptable on the skimpy details provided, or to hear of something rare and special that never sees the light of day as a submitted report. Thanks are due to several people who stepped in to save the day by providing documentation. There are, however, more observers than ever who are both extremely expert and skilful in the field and willing to carry out much detailed research; also, [Brit. Birds 90: 453-522, November 1997] © British Birds Ltd 1997 453 454 Rogers et al: Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 1996 increasing numbers who provide effective and often beautiful field-sketches and more-finished drawings. The age of the field notebook is not yet entirely dead, despite the rise of the inexpensive photographic print. Some twitching episodes resemble a car-boot sale and many observers can buy a photograph of a particular rarity on their way to see it; little wonder, perhaps, that field notes and drawings seem to some people to be superfluous. But of course we are equally pleased to receive prints, and we are delighted to acknowledge those photographers who so expertly achieve amazing results and send them to us for assessment (in which they are frequently invaluable) or for publication, especially Dr Iain Leach, Alan Tate and Rob Wilson for regular submissions and David Nye and George Reszeter for special assistance with Arctic Redpolls. We continue to co-operate (it seems scarcely necessary to say it) with the complementary British Ornithologists' Union Records Committee, responsible for the maintenance of the British List. Co-operation from county and regional bird recorders and their identification/editorial committees throughout the United Kingdom is excellent: we cannot thank them enough. Yet there is still a feeling of duplication, even competition at times, where some magazines and individuals are concerned. Why are there so many listings titled 'British bird report' and 'Report on rare birds'? What happens when a record is accepted by one, rejected by another, overlooked by a third? Only by sticking with the system can a rational, acceptable result be achieved. Our long-standing role, with each and every record assessed by at least five and usually ten Committee members, and submitted via the official county recorder, whose input is also important, continues to give the most universally supported and the only independently refereed list of accepted rare birds. We are delighted to see the wholehearted endorsement of it by almost every county or regional annual report or avifauna published in the UK. Obviously, we applaud the rapid publication of rare-bird news (and pictures) 'subject to confirmation' and have no argument at all with that. We hope, nevertheless, that we can all work together towards an eventual single, unambiguous result that does not leave posterity floundering. A problem arose with recording areas after further revisions to political boundaries, mainly within Wales and Scotland. Records for earlier years are now given in the new, post-1996 identities (with the 1974-96 name also shown when it seems necessary to do so to avoid confusion). We regret that, for the second successive year, it has not been possible for us to include all Irish records for the current year. We have, however, been supplied by the Northern Ireland Birdwatchers' Association with details of all 1996 rare-bird records for Northern Ireland, which were assessed by the Irish Rare Birds Committee. In consequence, the figures compiled by Peter Fraser and John Ryan in each species-heading in the 'Systematic list' refer to Britain & Ireland for the pre-1958 and 1958-95 totals, but to the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) only (i.e. excluding the Republic of Ireland) for 1996. Some reports of claimed South Polar Skuas Catharacta maccormicki still puzzle us, but we have at least rejected several that seem unlikely ever to gain acceptance (see Appendix 2) given poor views, lack of critical detail or, in some cases, incorrect characters for the species. Three records (Cornwall 1982, Norfolk 1986 and Sea area Sole 1993) remain under consideration and, with recent publications on skuas, should now be dealt with quickly. British Birds, vol. 90, no. 11, November 1997 455 Some 22 accepted records of Hume's Warbler Phylloscopus humei await BOURC deliberations on admission to the British List. Two records of Canvasback 4vJ/rya valisineria (Kent 1996 and Norfolk 1997) have been accepted by the BBRC, but await verdicts on categorisation by the BOURC. There are some 36 records for 1996 still being considered and 12 from earlier years (see Appendix 4, which is not intended to be complete). Only two 1996 reports were received too late for inclusion in this Report, which is good news, but we do know of up to 30 others still to be submitted; as usual, we ask observers who saw rarities not included here to submit details to fill the gaps. Many people helped us during the year. In particular, we should like to thank Peter Lansdown, who devoted many hours to cross-checking the facts in this Report and thereby helped us to avoid making several misstatements; Bruce Mactavish, regarding 'Kumlien's Gulls' Lams glaucoides kumlieni; and Keith Naylor, for assistance with Irish records from earlier years. Finally, we continue to be exceedingly grateful to Carl Zeiss Ltd for the sponsorship, now in its fifteenth year, which ensures the continuation of the work of the Committee for the benefit of the birdwatching community and posterity. R. A. HUME Highlights of 1996 The year's most notable event was the continuation of the irruption of Arctic Redpolls Carduelis homemanni, with 236 in the year, following the 186 in 1995 (the 155 published last year and a further 31 in this year's Report). With 'only' 19 Nearctic passerines, it was not a classic American autumn, but what it lacked in numbers it made up for in class: no fewer than four Black-and-white Warblers Mniotilta varia (only 11 previously), for instance. From the other direction, there were enough Siberian vagrants to keep most people happy (e.g. four Pechora Pipits Anthus gustavi and two Pallas's Grasshopper Warblers Locustella certhiold) without there being any outstanding star bird. Not long ago, however, the idea of there being five Paddyfield Warblers Acrocephalus agricola, seven Blyth's Reed Warblers A. dumetorum and six Booted Warblers Hippolais caligata in one year would have been regarded as preposterous. Seven new Lesser Scaups Aythya affinis (only 11 previously) was a noteworthy influx, and both of the year's additions to the British & Irish List were Nearctic in origin (this Report includes five 'firsts', but three are from previous years): 1st Redhead Aythya americana 1st Cedar Waxwing Bombycilia cedrorum (excluding one in Category D) 1st Eastern Bonelli's Warbler Phylloscopus orientalis (1995) 1st Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea (1995) 1st Black-faced Bunting Emberiza spodocephala (1994) 2nd Double-crested Cormorant Phahcrocorax auritus (Ireland 1995) 2nd American Coot Fulica americana (first for Britain) 2nd Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris 2nd Greenish Warbler Phylloscopus trochihides of eastern race plumbeitarsus 2nd Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea (excluding two in Category D) 3rd Blyth's Pipit Anthus godkwskii (1993) 3rd Veery Catharus fuscescens (1995) 456 Rogers et al: Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 1996 4th Crag Martin Ptyonoprogne rupestris (1995) 4th Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota (Ireland 1995) 4th Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia (Ireland 1995) 5th Caspian Plover Charadrius asiaticus 5th Calandra Lark Melanocorypha calandra 5th RtippelTs Warbler Sylvia rueppelli (1995) 5th Yellow Warbler (Ireland 1995) 5th Common Yellowthroat Geoihlypis trichas 6th Lesser Crested Tern Sterna bengalensis 6th Buff-bellied Pipit Anihus rubescens 6th Spanish Sparrow Passer hispanioknsis 7th Blyth's Pipit 7th Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis JTRS Systematic list of accepted records The principles and procedures followed in considering records were explained in the 1958 Report (Brit.

Load more