Recording areas of Great Britain David K. Ballance and A. Judith Smith Migrating Turnstones Arenaria interpres and a Dunlin Calidris alpina crossing an inland county boundary Alan Harris t has recently become apparent that there always stronger than bureaucrats assume, and are some confusions and anomalies in the we have to recognise that some areas may for Iway that national journals and organisa- years continue to be claimed by both new and tions are reporting records received from original ‘owners’, whatever centralisers may County Recorders or taken from published propose. sources. Examples of the problem can be seen The main problems are in the London area, in a recent Ibis paper on the British List around the borders of Yorkshire, and in North (Dudley et al. 2006). We have, therefore, and South Wales. Others arise from the use of attempted to produce a definitive list of the titles of Metropolitan Counties, Scottish Recording Areas which will be acceptable to Regions and Districts, and other (often national and local authorities and which can be ephemeral) creations, of which some actively generally recognised. It is our intention to survive in ornithology (e.g. Avon, Greater describe current practice, not to suggest correc- Manchester), while others have never been used tions or improvements, except in some details for recording or have not been universally of presentation. accepted (e.g. Tyne & Wear, North and South The list incorporates all Recording Areas and Humberside, Strathclyde). relates them to old and new County, Regional The system of Watsonian Vice-counties, and Unitary Authority boundaries, and (except invented in 1852 for botanists and still widely in Scotland) to Watsonian Vice-counties. It is used outside ornithology, is of importance in important that any code of practice should Wales (where it closely but not absolutely corre- derive from County and Local Recorders them- sponds with the pre-1974 county boundaries), selves, and not be imposed upon them. In our and also in Surrey, Suffolk and Yorkshire. In the view, a lesson can be learnt here from the recent last two it gains support because county reports attempt to establish vernacular names that have been produced by sections of general would be internationally acceptable; these have natural history societies. Vice-counties have the been only partly adopted, and some have great drawback that their boundaries are not already been abandoned. Local patriotism is marked on Ordnance Survey maps where they The version published here is a much abbreviated version of the paper submitted originally by the authors. A full version, which contains more details, especially with regard to historical boundary changes, county and local reports and maritime problems, is available as a pdf at www.britishbirds.co.uk/recordingareas 364 © British Birds 101 • July 2008 • 364–375 Recording areas of Great Britain differ from those currently determined by Gov- some historical importance, especially for ernment. Although in general they approximate records published by the British Association to the pre-1974 borders, familiar to older (1879–89, etc.) and by Eagle Clarke (1912). The observers, there were many minor changes SOC map defines the allocation of remote between 1852 and 1974, especially in the 1890s, islands, including all lighthouses, and the divi- following the introduction of County Councils, sion of seas crossed by regular ferries; it also and in the early twentieth century, when cities establishes an offshore limit of three nautical such as Sheffield, Bristol and Manchester were miles (5.5 km) for those stretches of north and expanding into neighbouring counties. The east Scotland where there are no complications ornithological interest of an area can affect from ferry routes, islands or lighthouses. From decisions on who is entitled to record it: the the Humber to the English Channel, the situa- most famously disputed site is the south side of tion is more complicated, largely because of off- Breydon Water, which until 1889 was clearly in shore sandbanks, many of which used to be Suffolk, and whose observers still retain it. In marked by manned lightvessels. Following Wales, some claims have recently been made to automation, some of these have been replaced small areas where the shift of a border had by floats or buoys, though a few survive and passed unnoticed for more than a century. may be visible from the coast in good condi- Vice-counties have had no real effect on tions, even if they are now visited only by Scottish recording. Here, most local reports did service vessels. The writers of local avifaunas for not start until after 1974 and it was natural to coastal counties from Lincolnshire to Kent have look back to the system of Faunal Areas master- often thought that they should mention records minded by Harvie-Brown before 1914. These from such sites, which once included important were determined by geographical features, espe- rarities, but they have sometimes hesitated to cially river basins, and their influence can be accept them for a county list. It can be hard to seen in the naming of central Scottish recording find the exact position of marine sites, since areas; part of the Clyde/Upper Forth border is a land-based cartographers generally include as rare example of such a boundary not coinciding little sea as they can get away with; we suggest with any past or current political line. The con- referring to the annual Admiralty List of Lights trolling influence has been that of the Scottish and Fog Signals (UK Hydrographic Office). Oil Ornithologists’ Club (SOC), founded in 1936, and gas platforms proliferate, especially in the which produces an excellent map to define areas North Sea; some that are permanently manned (www.the-soc.org.uk). are regularly reported on by the North Sea Bird Occasions will arise when reference has to be Club, which also covers records from service made to pre-1974 records which were originally vessels. A few estuarine forts and other struc- for counties that once had other names or tures may attract breeding gulls (Laridae) and boundaries than those of today. It is suggested must therefore be assigned to Recording Areas. that the standard form for this might be (for Estuaries can raise local difficulties, such as example): ‘Chew Valley Lake (Avon; then [or those in the Tamar Complex (Devon and Corn- ‘formerly’] Somerset)’. Or (perhaps in a more wall). Boundaries are seldom mapped beyond strictly historical context): ‘Chew Valley Lake the mouths of rivers, and some are unclear (Somerset; now Avon)’. further upstream: the Lancashire & North There are some problems in marine Merseyside/Cheshire & Wirral border along the recording. Obviously, birds visible with a tele- Mersey is marked as ‘undetermined’. In the list scope from the coast of a county can be safely below, the boundary should be assumed to be claimed, at least up to the mid-line of a strait or the midway line unless otherwise specified. estuary that marks the border with a neighbour. In the English Channel and the Irish Sea, the In England, Wales and the Isle of Man, there is national boundaries are also normally assumed no general policy on the inclusion within to be the midway line, but it is not clear county or area frontiers of offshore records whether such counties as the Isle of Wight, beyond these limits. Many such records used to Devon or Lancashire & North Merseyside come from manned lighthouses and lightves- would actually claim records as far out as this, sels; the former, because they are built on rocks, or how the Isle of Man fits into the system. The can always be assigned to a Recording Area, but Isles of Scilly Bird Group has recently defined the latter may present problems. They remain of its own pelagic limits in the form of a rectangle British Birds 101 • July 2008 • 364–375 365 Recording areas of Great Britain around the islands. Many sightings from ferries included with the surrounding county. must go unrecorded, for want of knowing who Very small differences between old and new would deal with them, but they can be sent to borders are usually given only where an area is the Editor of Sea Swallow, the journal of the of some importance. The many minor adjust- Royal Naval Birdwatching Society. Beyond the ments and exchanges of parishes (especially in limit of any possible county attributions, the West Midland Bird Club area and in records within British waters should be assigned Gloucestershire) are another argument against to the appropriate Sea Area. the use of Vice-counties; for example, there Reservoirs have often been created from were about 35 such adjustments to Worcester- rivers that form county boundaries. Sometimes shire between 1895 and 1995, many of which the boundary has been diverted so as to place have been long forgotten by its inhabitants. the water wholly within one county, but more The name in bold type is the Recording often no change has been made, leaving an Area. Vice-counties and Sea Areas (SA) are invisible submarine frontier, as in King George’s given first, before the area is defined in relation Reservoir (Greater London/Essex). Local to current or past administrative boundaries; arrangements have sometimes been made for most Unitary Authorities (UA) now functioning the recording of such sites. are mentioned, though hardly any of the wholly Institutions such as the BTO are naturally new ones have ornithological recognition. Some eager to be given map references, which can be explanatory comment may be added, including plotted on a computerised database, yet they a definition of any Areas of Double Recording must still be able to classify all entries by an (ADR), i.e.