Report on Rare Birds in Great Britain in 2009 Nigel Hudson and the Rarities Committee
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 2009 Nigel Hudson and the Rarities Committee his is the 52nd annual report of the the Royal Mail. Their progress in this format British Birds Rarities Committee. After stuttered and faltered as each member tried Tthe milestone of our 50th anniversary to resolve the situation and reach a conclu- in 2009, it feels somewhat like a return to sion. Throughout this period new informa- business as usual. However, we continue to tion was arriving from Europe, where birds endeavour to improve our operations and bearing a significant resemblance to some of procedures and this year brought a signifi- the British claims were visiting, and some- cant advance in the means by which we share times lingering in, Sandwich Tern S. sandvi- files electronically. That may not sound censis colonies. This proved valuable in some earth-shattering but it has helped voting respects, with evidence that some of these members to process records more quickly, to birds were considered to be Elegant Terns everyone’s benefit. While efficiency is always (and news that Elegant Tern genes had been an important goal, we are conscious that it identified in material obtained from one of should not be at the expense of quality. Our the individuals, although that particular bird ability to process decisions more quickly and was considered to be a hybrid on morpholog- then report them automatically via the Work ical characters). Eventually, one of our in Progress files on the BBRC website members took it upon himself to bring a (www.bbrc.org.uk) may lead to decisions fresh approach to the assessment and pre- reaching the public domain without the sented an impressive case, advocating that the benefit of a final consensus check for the series of records from Devon in 2002 should Committee, or without the opportunity to in fact be considered as separate individuals. fully explain the circumstances and situation. This analysis has not yet led to a unanimous In particular, two examples during the conclusion among BBRC members, however, current year have caught the attention of the and we are still awaiting further input from birding community. These are the putative Europe. The Spanish Rarities Committee is Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens in currently not accepting any claims of Elegant the Home Counties in late winter/early Tern (and is waiting for the results of genetic spring 2009, and the series of ‘orange-billed’ analyses of blood samples from an orange- and Elegant Tern Sterna elegans claims that billed tern near Valencia), while the French the Committee has been investigating for are continuing their investigations, including some time. Various different aspects of our an involvement with the Spanish molecular regular procedures are associated with these work. Nonetheless, we felt that there was a records, but the fundamental issue under- need to retain some momentum with our lying the decision-making process is broadly apparently long-winded deliberations. There- similar in both cases. fore, we resolved to pass the files on to The tern files had been circulating for BOURC, subject to a potential revision of the several years and had increased in both BBRC recommendations should the Euro- volume and complexity throughout that pean analyses provide significant new results. period. Their origin lay in the days when The gull file is quite different. For a start, BBRC files were entirely paper-based and there is no stack of VHS video footage to travelled around the country in the hands of analyse, and no weight of printed material to 562 © British Birds 103 • October 2010 • 562–638 Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 2009 wade through. There are, however, plenty of independently. At the end of this process the web-based images, digital video and discus- comments and votes will be circulated to all sion, a fair proportion of which became and a final decision will be made. Since this available to the Committee after we had record is currently accepted, a majority vote reached a preliminary decision based on the in favour of Not Proven will be required to description and images submitted from one change that outcome. Once again, a final of the locations that the bird visited. We decision may be some time away. reached a fairly quick decision based on this Completed or near-complete reviews initial evidence, but it was soon apparent that include: the southern skuas Stercorarius skua we needed to revisit that early decision as antarcticus/hamiltoni/lonnbergi/maccormicki more material became available. At the time (with two records published here and of writing, investigations are still progressing another en route back to BOURC), Ehren- and the initial decision has been pended until berg’s Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus the outcome of the full circulation relating to samamisicus (which will require liaison with all the observation dates is available. BOURC before the final decision can be While the procedural circumstances that determined), and Hornemann’s Redpolls led to these announcements are rather dif- Carduelis h. hornemanni, many of which are ferent, the challenges facing the Committee published here. A paper on the identification in reaching a decision are similar. Both criteria for the redstarts has already been involve species groups that are prone to published (Brit. Birds 102: 84–97), but we hybridisation and the challenge is to deter- hope to prepare papers on the other reviews mine where the boundaries of an ‘acceptable’ in due course. These will follow other reviews individual lie. The birds themselves are fasci- published in the past 12 months, relating to nating and it would be a shame to have to the Green Farm Booted Warbler Hippolais consider relegating any of them to a cursory caligata (Brit. Birds 102: 617–621), Caspian Not Proven entry at the end of the report – Gulls Larus cachinnans (Brit. Birds 103: should the outcome be that they appear 142–183), ‘Amur Wagtails’ Motacilla alba leu- unsafe to accept as confirmed representatives copsis (Brit. Birds 103: 268–275), ‘Siberian of their respective species. Our intention is to Chiffchaffs’ Phylloscopus collybita tristis (Brit. publish papers relating to these files in due Birds 103: 320–338), Yellow-nosed Alba- course, but the final resolution may still be trosses Thalassarche chlororhynchos (Brit. some time away. We hope that the birding Birds 103: 376–384) and ‘Eastern Woodchat community will support a longer process to Shrikes’ Lanius senator niloticus (Brit. Birds achieve a more robust outcome rather than 103: 385–395). The focus of these papers has a rushed decision that may require future been largely on the identification criteria that revision. have evolved from the Committee’s delibera- On the subject of long-winded processes, tions, reflecting a key objective of the BBRC the reviews and recirculations of records of to ensure that we share this information as it Redhead Aythya americana, North Atlantic evolves. Little Shearwater Puffinus baroli, Great Snipe While the efforts to expand the species Gallinago media and Royal Tern Sterna comments in our annual report have been maxima continue. The Great Snipe review generally well received, we are often asked has now progressed to one that is likely to why we do not attribute comments to indi- consider winter records only. The Druridge vidual authors. When we made the decision Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris to expand the comments, we moved away review continues, with Committee members from the traditional practice where one or now able to view every single individual two different members each year were frame of the submitted video footage, thanks responsible for writing all the comments for to work by Martin Collinson and his col- a report. Nowadays, all of the Committee leagues at Aberdeen University. We have members are involved in preparing the com- opted to allow each member to review the ments. Each member takes about five or six files individually and submit their provi- species and drafts a comment that remaining sional comments and vote on the review members then have the opportunity to British Birds 103 • October 2010 • 562–638 563 Hudson et al. review and contribute to. Although we have discussed attributing comments to the orig- 2009 2008 2007 inal author, we feel that the process is a col- Acceptances lective one and that the comments should – current year 459 660 527 reflect the Committee’s view rather than Not Proven individual member’s views. This is equally – current year 62 67 81 true of the papers in the series ‘From the Acceptances Rarities Committee’s files’, although in these – previous years 104 103 57 instances the main authors are credited, as it Not Proven is felt that the series title reflects the collective – previous years 50 40 32 input of the wider Committee. TOTAL 675 870 697 The year 2010 has also witnessed the first membership election during my tenure as Corrections 11 22 34 chairman (Brit. Birds 103: 558). Although a Number of taxa in membership election is always rather accepted records 113 134 130 stressful and uncomfortable for the nomi- nees, we are very grateful that people are identical. Nonetheless, the number of taxa willing to stand and we remain convinced considered by the Committee was the lowest that the process is imperative to retain the for some time, meaning that 2009 was gen- democratic values at the heart of our consti- uinely leaner in terms of the variety of rare tution. Indeed, there is the possibility of species and subspecies. The table suggests another election in the coming months, to that the number of corrections appearing in confirm the appointment of Lance Degnan’s each report is falling and we hope that this successor (a post to which Steve Votier is cur- represents the success of the improved com- rently co-opted).