VOL. 17 (1) MARCH 1997 3

AUSTRALIAN WATCHER 1997, 17, 3-10

Red-throated Anthus cervinus in Australia

by MIKE CARTER, 30 Canadian Bay Road, Mt Eliza, Victoria 3930

Summary A Red-throated Pipit Anthus cervinus was at Broome, Western Australia, from 6 to 9 January 1992. This first record for Australia is described. Identification criteria and difficulties are discussed. This occurrence followed a season in which unprecedented numbers of Red-throated were recorded along the Pacific coast of North America. It is suggested that the two events are a consequence of a successful breeding season in the Arctic in 1991. Introduction Soon after dawn on 6 January 1992, George Swann, Neil Macumber, Tom Smith and I went to the main sporting oval in Broome, Western Australia. We found a pipit Anthus sp. which was smaller, darker and more boldly marked than the Australian Richard's Pipit A. novaeseelandiae australis. Realising that it was a species not previously recorded in Australia, we studied the bird intently for half an hour before, alarmed by our constant pursuit, it disappeared. We then acquired whatever literature was immediately available on the subject of pipits and attempted to resolve the problem of identification. Swann searched the oval again on 7 January unsuccessfully, but the pipit was relocated next day and also on 9 January. Over these two days, Swann, Macumber and myself each spent between five and ten hours observing the bird, refining our descriptions and obtaining photographs. The data we obtained enabled identification to be confirmed as a Red-throated Pipit A. cervinus. Habitat The oval lies at the northern edge of the town. It is situated between the commercial centre and open spaces formed by the airport and an inlet from the bay, with salt­ tolerant vegetation subject to flooding . A sprinkler system watered the grass daily so it was green and lush, an oasis in an otherwise arid region. A few boggy hollows were the Pipit's favourite spots. Before the oval was mown on 9 January, the grass, particularly in the hollows, was long enough to partly conceal the bird. Observational equipment and conditions Overcast-, very dull conditions pertained when the bird was first seen early on the morning of 6 January_ Brighter conditions prevailed on 8 and 9 January when views and photographs were obtained at ranges down to 6 m. Optical aids included Zeiss 8 X 56 and 10 X 40 binoculars and Kowa telescopes at X25 and greater magnification. The photographs reproduced here were taken on 200 ASA Kodachrome slide film. Description Superficially the bird resembled the Australian Richard's Pipit but was much smaller, darker and browner on the upperparts and with bolder, more extensive black streaking on the underparts. Lateral and frontal aspects are shown in Plate 1 (front cover). Another photograph, printed alongside one of a Richard's Pipit taken on the same day at the same location, illustrated a note announcing the find (Carter 1992).

Shape and size. Shape similar to Richard's Pipit, but by direct comparison noted to be only two­ thirds the size with comparatively shorter legs and shorter tail. The size judgement was influenced AUSTRALIAN 4 CARTER BIRD WATCHER by bulk as well as length. A little smaller than an adjacent Yellow Wagtail Motacilla jlava but plumper and with a comparatively much shorter tail and shorter legs. Movements and gait. When found on 6 January, the bird was sluggish and unapproachable, seeking cover and refuge. On 8 and 9 January it was very active, moving through the grass, bobbing and dipping as it ran. The high level of activity on the latter dates suggests that we found the bird soon after its arrival in Australia. When not disturbed it spent all of its time on the ground. It had a much lower and more horizontal carriage than Richard's Pipit because the legs were acutely bent at the ankles with the tarsi barely clear of the ground. Flight. Strong and undulating. Calls. A triple call described as 'whistling' by one of my companions was heard on each day, uttered by the bird in flight, usually on rising. I heard the call as a high-pitched tew tew tew. It was softer, shorter and more clipped than the call of Richard's Pipit. I could hear the loud, drawn-out, more liquid, vibrant calls of Richard's Pipit easily from 100 to 200 m away, but not the Red-throated Pipit. Swann thought the call better written as dew dew dew. Smith described a call from the bird in flight at 40 m range on 6 J~U~uary as a medium-pitched, disyllabic te-eze, slightly drawn-out, repeated three times. Bill. Finer, slightly less robust than in Richard's Pipit and more resembling Yellow Wagtail's in shape. Initially it appeared to be wholly dark, even blackish, but when open whilst the bird was panting in the heat it appeared yellowish. In good light at very close range, the upper mandible was seen to be mostly dark with a small strip of flesh-pink on the cutting edge at the extreme base. The lower mandible was flesh-pink at the sides but black at the tip. Legs and feet. The legs and toes were absolutely and relatively thinner and shorter than those of Richard's Pipit. A portion of the tibia above the joint was bare, whereas in Richard's Pipit the feathering reached the ankle. The bare parts, including the claws, were a bright fleshy pink, at times inclining to orange. When in shadow, they appeared darker than those of Richard's Pipit. A long hind claw is visible in two photographs. It appears to be roughly equal in length to the hind toe and arched in shape, with a rise about equal to twice the thickness of the toe at the base of the claw. Head and neck. The forehead and crown were dark brown, finely and closely streaked with buff. The nape and sides of the neck were several shades paler and less prominently streaked. The eyes were dark. A broad pale supercilium extended from the !ores above each eye to the back of the ear­ coverts. Although quite obvious, this was less prominent than the supercilium on Richard's Pipit, especially in dull light, probably because it was huffish rather than white. The anterior half had a pale rufous tinge. When viewed from behind in sunlight, it appeared much redder as though the underside or the base of the feathers was more strongly coloured. The triangular ear-covert patches were pale brown centrally, plain and unstreaked, shading darker at the sides so they were completely bordered with dark brown, broadest at the rear, surrounded with paler tones. The upper borders formed dark eye-lines reaching almost to the nape. Anteriorly, these narrowed, each extending as a very fine line (difficult to see) across the otherwise pale !ores reaching almost to the base of the bill. The dark lower edge of the ear-coverts formed moustachial stripes. The chin, throat, cheeks and a stripe running up behind the ear-coverts were white. On each side of the throat was a black malar stripe. This was a narrow but well-marked triangular streak extending upwards from a large and prominent coalesced group of black spots on the side of the neck, the upper point of which fell well short of the base of the bill. The white area between the malar and moustachial stripes formed a broad and prominent, triangular-shaped, submoustachial stripe. At the base of this stripe and below the dense black nuchal spotting and intermingled with it, were traces of brick-red. This was quite evident at close range in bright light on the right side of the neck, but was more restricted and less obvious on the left. It became more noticeable when the neck was stretched and the head turned away. Underparts. White throughout, boldly streaked with black on the breast and along the flanks. The streaking was more concentrated in the centre of the breast but more extensive at the sides. Depending on the alignment of the feathers, the flank streaks usually joined up to form two distinct continuous black lines extending through to the vent. Some photographs show a dusky smudge or spot on the lateral undertail coverts. In the centre of the breast the black streaks were so dense that at times they overlapped to form an asymmetrical blotch. The chin and throat were white and unstreaked. An adjoining area of similar size and shape on the upper breast was also white and unstreaked, giving a scooped­ top appearance to the streaked breast when the bird was face-on. Upperparts. From a distance the upperparts seemed to be fairly uniform dark brown lacking pattern or contrast. There was in fact some patterning but this was only visible at close range. The general colour was a darker richer brown than the pale sandy upperparts of the local Richard's Pipits. The mantle was completely plain, a very dark cold brown which contrasted strongly with the lightly streaked nape. The lower back and rump were much paler, the same general colour as the nape. The back was unstreaked but it was extremely difficult to see whether the rump was streaked because it tended to be obscured by the wings. In the field I thought the central rump was fairly plain. VOL. 17 (1) MARCH 1997 Red-throated Pipit in Australia 5

A row of four or five dark blobs on the sides of the rump and lateral uppertail coverts was visible, but rather inconspicuous, and might not have been noticed if I had not been looking for streaks in this area. In any case, they were not 'streaks' (which by definition are elongated spots), just large fuzzy irregular spots. A close examination of an enlargement of one photograph taken from the rear reveals the presence of two blackish spots on the narrow portion of the dull buff-coloured rump visible between the closed wings. Again, these marks were too large to be called streaks. Each side of the mantle were double longitudinal, parallel pale stripes (often referred to as braces), outlined with. the same dark shade as the mantle. The remaining upper scapulars were streaked dark brown and ·dull buff. In the clos~ wings the lesser coverts were not visible, being tucked-away under the scapulars. Greater and m¢ian coverts were dark brown with narrow faded buff edges and tips. Centres of the median coverts. were very dark, forming a row of blackish spots below each shoulder, whereas the edges of the greater coverts presented a series of buff streaks. The pale tips of both feather tracts created narrow obscure wing-bars hardly worthy of the name. The tiny portion of the rerniges which showed beyo{ld the three very large tertials appeared to be uniform dark brown. The tertials were also dark brown, the outer edges of which were paler, fairly broadly so on the right wing. A close study of the photographs reveals a different pattern on the left wing, where only the longest tertia! shows a narrow pale edge. The apparent absence of other pale streaks suggests that the two shorter tertials on that side were missing, perhaps moulted. On the right wing, the tertials were evenly graduated in length between the greater coverts and the tip of the primaries, the longest clearly reaching the extreme primary tip. The uppertail was nearly black with pure white along the whole of the visible outer edges, apparently narrowest at the tip. When the bird was viewed in flight on the first day, we thought that the outer tail feathers were buff or off-white but we were fooled by the poor light. When closed, the edges of the tail were parallel and the tip square. Identification The open-country haunt, terrestrial behaviour, brown and streaked plumage, white outer tail, long legs and slender bill indicate that the bird was a pipit of the Anthus. According to Cramp (1988), there are between 34 and 37 species in this genus world-wide. Clements (1991) listed 43 species. Those about 15 em in length, which have dark upperparts, extensive bold markings on the underparts and pale legs, number about eight. The description and photographs clearly identify the bird as a Red-throated Pipit. In isolation, two characters are diagnostic: the traces of breeding plumage (i.e. the red tones showing in the supercilia and at the sides of the neck), and the calls. In combination, the following characters are also significant: length of hind claw; large, coalesced group of nuchal spots, together with the bold triangular malar stripe; dense and very bold streaking on the breast; bold, extensive flank streaking joining to form lines; the pale braces; and the uniformly white ground colour of the underparts (Hall 1961, King 1981, Grant 1986, Heard & Walbridge 1988, Cramp 1988, Alstrom & Mild 1989a). The illustration of a winter-plumaged bird in Heinzel et al. (1974) closely resembles the Broome individual. Our bird differed slightly in its facial pattern, and its legs were brighter pink. There are six other pipits which, because of their similarity to Red-throated, need to be considered in the diagnosis. These, and the reasons for eliminating them, are as follow. The Pechora Pipit A. gustavi is the species most likely to be confused with Red­ throated and, since it is a long-distance migrant in the Oriental region, might occur in Australia. It is immediately discounted because Pechora is the only pipit in which the tips of a~ least three primaries extend beyond the longest tertial (Alstr'om & Mild 1989a). In the Broome bird, the primaries were completely covered by the tertials. Otherwise, in winter plumage, Pechora closely resembles Red-throated and distinguishing them requires care and scrutiny. Nevertheless, the Pechora Pipit is apparently always separable by its typical flight call which is described as a striking, AUSTRALIAN 6 CARTER BIRD WATCHER hard and explosive pwit or pit, quite unlike any call of the Red-throated Pipit or any utterances of the Broome bird. Other features of Pechora abs{(nt in the Broome bird are a conspicuously bicoloured bill, streaked ear-coverts, warm tone of upperparts, dark heavily streaked rump with reddish tinge, conspicuous' wing-bars and more prominent, very contrasting, braces (Heard & Walbridge 1988, Alstrom & Mild 1989a). The presence of a dark lora! streak has also been mentioned but the significance of this is challenged (Harvey 1989). A contra-indication, from the comparison table in the excellent paper by Heard & Walbridge (1988), is the background colour of the underparts which were clean white throughout, including the throat. According to that paper, the throat of the Red­ throated Pipit should be 'washed buff and the remainder 'sullied white' compared with 'mostly clean white' on the throat, belly and vent of the Pechora Pipit. However, Alstrom & Mild (1989a) wrote that one of the most important characters distinguishing Pechora from Red-throated Pipit is the 'contrast between huffish breast and whitish belly' and Doherty (1990) stated that 'cold whitish underparts' are a plumage feature of the Red-throated Pipit. Moreover, after viewing a photograph of the Broome bird, Heard (pers. comm.) wrote that he now regards lack of buff colouration on the underparts to be a feature of the Red-throated Pipit. The Pechora Pipit breeds in northern Siberia, just penetrating into the Arctic region. It winters in the Philippines (Cramp 1988), northern Borneo (although it is uncommon there, MacKinnon & Phillipps 1993) and sparsely throughout Wallacea including Sumba and Timor (White & Bruce 1986). The Olive-backed Pipit A. hodgsoni is easily separable from Red-throated by its very light or absent streaking on the upperparts, short hind claw and distinctive facial pattern usually incorporating a white spot at the back of the ear-coverts just below the supercilium. This is a long-distance migrant breeding north to the Arctic Circle and wintering south to the Philippines and the Malay Peninsula. It is a regular winter visitor to northern Borneo where it is quite common (MacKinnon & Phillipps 1993) and therefore a contender for vagrancy to Australia. The Buff-bellied Pipit A. rubescens was until recently regarded as a race of the widespread A. spinoletta (Clements 1991). In winter plumage it is distinguished from the Red-throated Pipit by its dark grey-brown head and upperparts, which are uniform in colour and virtually unstreaked. The underparts are tinged with yellow and it has a conspicuous white eye-ring (Wild Bird Society of Japan 1982, Shirihai & Colston 1987, Lewington et al. 1991). The Asian racejaponicus breeds in eastern Siberia and winters mainly in Japan, Korea and southern but not south of 20°N. The Rosy Pipit A. roseatus has more coarsely streaked upperparts which are greyish rather than brown-tinged, more uniform and darker ear-coverts, uppertail coverts which are unstreaked, pointed rectrices and a long-tailed appearance (Meyer de Schauensee 1984, Lekagul & Round 1991). Hall (1961) stated that green edges to the wings distinguish this from all other Asiatic species except the Olive-backed Pipit, and Peter Colston (pers. comm.) considers this a good feature, easily seen. In non­ breeding plumage, the Rosy Pipit has spots rather than streaks on the underparts. In full breeding plumage, the underparts are unstreaked pink. This Himalayan-breeding species is a short-distance migrant moving south in winter to northern , northern regions of South-East Asia and south-western China and is unlikely to occur naturally in Australia. Meadow Pipits A. pratensis have brown, not bright pink, legs (Grant 1986, Mullarney 1987). Moreover, the cold whitish colour of the underparts, together with the strength and extent ·of the underpart markings, distinguish Red-throated from VOL. 17 (1) MARCH 1997 Red-throated Pipit in Australia 7

Meadow Pipit (Doherty 1990). Their calls are also different (Grant 1986, Mullarney 1987), and none of the ascribed calls appears to match the tew tew tew call of the Broome bird. One feature used in Europe for separating this species from Red-throated Pipit is the absence of streaking on the back and rump (King 1981 , Grant 1986, Cramp 1988, Harris et al. 1989, Doherty 1990). Since we detected no streaking by proper definition of the term, this may not be a reliable, consistent distinction. See 'Problems of diagnosis' below. The is predominantly a Western Palearctic species whose breeding range extends into the Arctic. In winter most stay north of the tropics between 20°W and 40°E, thus remote from Australia. The Tree Pipit A. trivia/is closely resembles the Meadow Pipit but the flank streaking is finer and not continuous (Mullarney 1987). It is readily eliminated in this case because the species has a short hind claw. Tree Pipits breed throughout the Palearctic north to the Arctic Circle, extending to 140°E in our hemisphere. Eastern birds winter in India whereas western birds winter in tropical Africa (Cramp 1988). It has occurred as a vagrant in Japan (Wild Bird Society of Japan 1982). Of the eight pipits in South America, only one bears any resemblance to the Red­ throated Pipit and this is sufficiently distinct to present no real likelihood of confusion (Chris Doughty pers. comm.). This is the Correndera Pipit A. correndera which apparently differs in having a cleft, not square-tipped, tail, and the breast is spotted rather than streaked (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). None of the endemic African species is confusable.

Problems of diagnosis: apparent contradictions explained

Call Initially, our transcription of the call as tew tew tew or dew dew dew was difficult to reconcile with published descriptions. Vinicombe in Harris et al . (1989) stated that identity is best confimied by the call which is ' .. . very distinctive, long, thin, piercing, metallic pseeeeeee, trailing off towards end. Also gives a low chup.' Grant (1986) described the call ' ... as among the most distinctive of all bird noises: a very high-pitched penetratingpsssss'. However, Wallace (under 'Field characters' in Cramp 1988) described another common call usually heard from wintering birds in flocks , but also some migrants, as ' ... a full, rather abrupt but less high-pitched teu, chup, chwit, or chit, uttered both singly and in rapid series .. .' Another description of the call is spie spie spie also rendered dji, su, or chup, now with an umlaut over the 'u' (Wilson under 'Voice' in Cramp 1988). Tucker in Witherby et al . (1940) considered this call the most significant and wrote: 'Note quite distinct from other pipits, a full , musical, rather abrupt chiip , both on wing and when flushed or while perched, also sometimes a note like skeez' . The use of the umlaut means the pronunciation should be chewp rather than chup. Chewp is a reasonable likeness of our transcription of the call. Wallace (in Cramp 1988) also mentions a disyllabic form of the more common migration flight and alarm call written as shee-eez or teez-eez. This would seem to be the version heard and described by Smith on 6 January.

Rump streaking Many texts refer to the strength and significance of streaking on the rump (e .g. Heinzel et al. 1974, King 1981 , Grant 1986), and overstate the importance of this feature which is not invariable. Roselaar (in Cramp 1988) described the pattern thus: AUSTRALIAN 8 CARTER BIRD WATCHER

' ... rather broad but indistinctly defined black streaks on the rump and upper tail-coverts (especially towards flanks, where brown rather than black), are sometimes partly concealed by buff-brown feather-tips ... ' Heard & Walbridge (1988) describe the rump of Red-throated Pipit as 'slightly less heavily streaked' when compared with that of Pechora Pipit which is 'heavily streaked with black'. An excellent accompanying photograph, plate ,7 18, displaying the dorsal features of a Red-throated Pipit in November, shows some streaks on the upper back, one streak and several tiny spots on the rump and large streaks on the lateral uppertail coverts. The mantle is very dark whereas the rump is mostly buff, very like the Broome bird. It is nothing like the painting in King (1981) and the markings are not as striking or as bold as suggested by other literature. Even less bold is the rump pattern displayed in a photograph of a first-winter bird in the hand, pictured top right on p. 281 of Alstrom & Mild(1989a). Although I would not describe this rump as uniform in colour, viewed in the field I might well describe it as mottled and suspect that this subtle pattern was purely artefact. The black 'blobs' on the lateral uppertail coverts of the Broome bird were larger, less well defined and less conspicuous than the spots (not streaks) shown on the Red­ throated Pipit in Alstrom & Mild (1989a). This is probably attributable to the fact that the bird illustrated was in fresh plumage whereas ours was worn and faded.

Plainness of mantle The bird was plainer and darker on the back than might be expected. I consider that this was because the buff feather edges, present in fresh plumage, had faded or worn, leaving only the black bases exposed.

Ageing The lack of rufous or pink on the throat suggests that the Broome bird was an immature. According to Alstrt>m & Mild (1989b), almost all winter adults show rufous or pink on the throat and underparts. Apparently birds described to be in 'winter plumage' are really almost exclusively first-winter birds.

Discussion

Occurrence in Australia This record has been considered by the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union Records Appraisal Committee (submission no. 184), and accepted by seven votes to one (R.M. Patterson, chairman, in litt.). Thus the Red-throated Pipit is included in the latest Australian species list (Christidis & Boles 1994). All overseas authorities consulted with regard to this report agree with the identification. Apart from this vagrant and the widespread, resident Richard's Pipit, no other species of pipit is recognised as having occurred in Australia or its territories, but two appear on the supplementary list (Christidis & Boles 1994). Tawny Pipit A. campestris is included following a report from Christmas Island, now considered to be erroneous (Stokes 1988). Pechora Pipit is included because of an unconfirmed report from Ashmore Reef, Western Australia (Carter 1996). A specimen of Red-throated Pipit, now in the Western Australian Museum, was found dead on the wharf at Albany on 13 May 1983 opposite the Manilla Trader (ex Singapore), the only ship then in port (Storr 1991). It is considered likely that it was carried there on that ship, perhaps as a dead bird, and therefore cannot be accepted as a natural occurrence. VOL. 17 (1) MARCH 1997 Red-throated Pipit in Australia 9

Distribution The Red-throated has the most northerly breeding range of any pipit. It breeds in the Arctic tundra throughout Siberia and western Alaska. Its winter range includes the Malay Peninsula, the Philippines and Borneo (Cramp 1988). It is not uncommon in northern Borneo (MacKinnon & Phillipps 1993), but White & Bruce (1986) listed only two records for Wallacea, both in Sulawesi. As it migrates over a greater distance than any other pipit, it is not surprising that it should 'overshoot' and reach Australia.

The significance of the 1991192 season The autumn of 1991 brought record numbers of Red-throated Pipits to the Pacific hinterland of the United States of America. No fewer than 58 birds were seen that autumn compared with a total of just 18 in the previous 22 years (Yeo 1992). The boreal summer of 1991 was an excellent breeding season for Arctic-nesting waders. An analysis of Victorian Wader Study Group (VWSG) banding data for the Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis shows that 1991 was the single best breeding season in the 15 years between 1978 and 1993 (M. Barter pers. comm.). The proportion of juveniles to adults was 30% , compared with 22% in the next best season. In the eastern hemisphere, the breeding ranges of the Red-necked Stint and Red-throated Pipit are almost identical (Hayman et al. 1986, Cramp 1988). Perhaps the same conditions which fostered exceptional breeding success in waders also favoured the Red-throated Pipit and they too experienced a population explosion. The more birds there are, especially immatures, the greater the chance of vagrancy. Moreover, increased competition for space in the usual wintering grounds might tend to encourage pioneering range expansion. VWSG data show that for waders, when traditional wintering grounds become overcrowded, it is the immatures which are forced to find new quarters (M. Barter pers. comm.).

Acknowledgements I thank my companions who shared this observation, contributed to the collection of data and reviewed this paper, namely Neil Macumber, George Swann and Tom Smith. In particular I thank Neil Macumber for agreeing to amend the itinerary of our holiday by delaying our departure from Broome so that we could 'nail' this difficult rarity. David Eades responded quickly with literature on pipit identification so that we knew what to look for. John Cox and Bob Swindley provided additional literature and Bob also pointed out that exceptional numbers of Red-throated Pipits had occurred in North America in the previous boreal autumn. Paul Scofield passed on the Hall reference. Maarten Hulzebosch searched Dutch Birding and passed on relevant material. Alan Burbidge provided the reference for the Albany specimen and Peter Lansley lent a copy of The Birds of Wallacea. Bob Patterson and an anonymous referee made useful comments which improved the text. Tricia Carter did much of the word-processing. I particularly thank those overseas pipit experts who viewed the photographs, read the description and commented thereon, namely Per Alstr

References Alstr'om, P. & Mild, K. (1989a), 'Identification of Pechora Pipit', Birding World 2, 276-282. --& --(1989b), 'Red-throated Pipits with rufous throat in winter', Dutch Birding 11, 78-81. Carter, M. (1992), 'A new bird for Australia; Red-throated Pipit Anthus cervinus' , Bird Observer 717, 2. -- (1996), 'Pechora Pipit: awaited but unconfirmed', Aust. Birding 3(1), 19. Christidis, L. & Boles, W.E. (1994), The and Species ofBirds of Australia and its Territories, RAOU Monograph 2, Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. Clements, J.F. (1991), Birds of the World: A Check List, Ibis, Vista, California. Cramp, S. (1988), The Birds ofthe Western Palearctic, vol. 5, Tyrant Flycatchers to Thrushes, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Doherty, P. (1990), 'Quizzbird No. 23, solution', Birding World 3, 141. Grant, P.O. (1986), 'Mystery photographs', British Birds 19, 34-39. AUSTRALIAN 10 CARTER BIRD WATCHER

Hall, B. P. (1961), 'The taxonomy and identification of pipits (genus Anthus)', Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Zoot. 7, 243-289. Harris, A., Tucker, L. & Vinicombe, K. (1989), The Macmillan Field Guide to Bird Identification, Macmillan, London. Harvey, P. (1989), 'Pechora Pipit identification', Birding World 2, 370. Hayman, P., Marchant, J. & Prater, T. (1986), Shorebirds: an Identification Guide to the Waders of the World, Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent. Heard, C.D.R. & Walbridge, G. (1988), 'Field identification of Pechora Pipit', British Birds 81, 452-463. Heinzel, H., Fitter, R. & Parslow, J. (1974), The Birds of Britain and Europe, Collins, London. King, B. (1981), 'The field identification of North American pipits', American Birds 35, 778-788. Lekagul, B. & Round, P.D. (1991), A Guide to the Birds of , Saha Karn Bhaet, Bangkok. Lewington, 1., Alstrl:im, P. & Colston, P. (1991), A Field Guide to the Rare Birds of Britain and Europe, Harper Collins, London. MacKinnon, J. & Phillipps K. (1993), A Field Guide to the Birds of Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Bali, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984), The Birds ofChina, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C. Mullarney, K. (1987), 'Mystery photographs', British Birds 80, 158-160. Ridgely, R.S. & Tudor, G. (1989), The Birds ofSouth America, vol. 1, University of Texas, Austin. Shirihai, H. & Colston, P.R. (1987), 'Siberian Water Pipits in Israel', Dutch Birding 9, 8-12. Stokes, T. (1988), 'A review of the birds of Christmas Island, Indian Ocean', Aust. Natl Parks & Wild/. Serv. Occ. Paper 16. Storr, G.M. (1991), 'Birds of the South-west Division of Western Australia' , Rec. West. Aust. Mus. Supplement 35. White, C.M.N. & Bruce, M.D. (1986), The Birds ofWallacea, British Ornithologists Union Checklist 7, London. Wild Bird Society of Japan (1982), A Field Guide to the Birds ofJapan, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. Witherby, H.F. , Jourdain, F.C.R., Ticehurst, N.F. & Tucker, B.W. (1940), The Handbook ofBritish Birds, vol. 1, Witherby, London. Yeo, D.G. (1992), 'Autumn migration; middle Pacific coastal region reports', American Birds 46, 146 . Received 3 November 1995 •