British Birds V'olume 87 NUMBER 11 NOVEMBER 1994
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
British Birds v'OLUME 87 NUMBER 11 NOVEMBER 1994 Report on rare birds in Great Britain in 1993 Michael J. Rogers and the Rarities Committee with comments by Graham P. Cathy and Michael J. Rogers 'X^his, the Rarities Committee's thirty-sixth annual report, details records of M. rare birds in 1993: a year with many highlights and much to interest the l arc-bird enthusiast. The Committee has again been supported by the sponsorship of Carl £eiss (Oberkochen) Ltd: the twelfth year of the company's f nancial assistance, for which we are extremely grateful. The membership of the Rarities Committee is listed each month on the inside front cover of British Birds, the journal which created the Committee and which has continued to support it, and to publish its reports, ever since. i ome of the Committee's work and developments have already been outlined since the last report (Brit. Birds 86: 447-540), in 'Rarities Committee news and announcements' (Brit. Birds 87: 192) and an appeal for nominations for die next new member (Brit. Birds 87: 325), while a number of papers in BB have leen based upon reports held in the Rarities Committee files (Brit. Birds 87: 16-21; 67-69; 223-231; 436-441) or initiated in some way by the Committee (3nt. Birds 86: 567-568; 600-604; 87: 136-142; 174-177; 418-430). A number of BBRC-related features have appeared in the birdwatching p rcss and we arc only too pleased to open up the Committee's work to debate in this way: after all, the Committee exists to help, not hinder, the process of rare-bird recording and analysis in Britain. Attempts to open up another area cf the Committee, however, have not been so successful: papers have been written, examining interesting records that have been rejected and explaining cur reasons for such a decision, but, understandably perhaps, some of the observers concerned have not been happy to see diem published. The idea has not been to criticise anyone, but merely to explain decisions with a high level of public interest and to try to improve our knowledge about tiie species concerned. Perhaps this will be achieved in due course. \l ril. Kills 117: .i(i:i-">7l. November 1WH| 503 504 Rare birds in Great Britain in 1993 Several accounts of species new to Britain & Ireland have also been published (Brit. Birds 86: 600-604; 87: 83-86; 284-288; 307-310; 362-365), some not only several years after the event, but also some years after acceptance. We have several more of these 'in press' or 'in prep.'. While we realise that, for many people, these appear to be 'ancient history', we believe that authoritative accounts in a journal with a worldwide distribution (including all the major libraries) arc important and we wish to continue to clear the backlog of such reports. Most have been delayed simply because we have been unable to persuade die observers concerned to put pen to paper, but we feel that whenever possible the accounts should be written by the findcr(s) rather than by someone who saw die bird later along with many other observers. A few particularly interesting 'firsts' of some years' standing remain to be written up: we encourage the people concerned to try to write a short account as soon as dicy are able. The Committee has undergone a year of alleged criticism (yet none amounting to much more than hearsay), much praise (it is still a model followed by many committees in other countries) and considerable self- examination. We believe that we have operated, and continue to operate, an effective, efficient and reliable system of adjudication that serves British ornithology well; but we nevertheless remain open to any suggestions for improvement. A 'motorway' or 'fast-track' system, which was initiated largely to reduce members' workloads and to ensure the production of complete annual reports, proved highly effective and successful. We did, however, remove Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris and Little Bunting Emberiza pusilla from the list of species to be considered after the end of 1993. Removal of species from the list is one way to reduce the workload, undertaken without reward by Committee members, but it does reduce the service we offer to county recorders and to the readers of this report, who inevitably receive a less complete picture of the rarity scene. We wish to maintain a sensible balance: our own feelings that some species should be reinstated to the list were contradicted by the statistics and for 1994 none has returned to the list of species considered; yet many of us regret the continued absence of such tantalisingly scarce species as Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis. Various 'reviews' of past records have been undertaken or completed during the year. We are aware of the difficulties and possible embarrassment caused when a previously accepted record is subsequently rejected, and apologise to anyone who learns of the fate of such a record with which he or she was involved through a published account rather than a personal letter: it is not always easy to trace and notify diose concerned. A Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni review has been instigated. Reviews have been completed for American Pluvialis dominica and Pacific Golden Plovers P. Julva (largely to establish whether records previously recorded as 'Lessers' could now be identified), Olivaceous Warbler Hippolais pallida, Arctic Warbler Phylbscopus borealis (following the review of Greenish Warbler P. trochiloides which attempted to eliminate northern Chiffchaffs P. collybita and was essentially looking for Greenish misidentified as Arctic) and Oriental Turtle Dove Streptopelia orientalis. Rare birds in Great Britain in 1993 505 Some particularly difficult species remain to be dealt with after initial circulations called for further research, including Blyth's Pipit Anthus godkwskii (which we acknowledge is a matter of real frustration to the observers concerned), Citrine Wagtail Motacilk citreoh and winter Pine Buntings Emberiza lemocephalos. Consideration of some potential additions to the British List remains to be fully completed, including South Polar Skua Stercoraruis maaormicki, White-cheeked Tern Sterna repressa, Booted Eagle Hkraaetus pennatus and Lesser Short-toed Lark Cahmdrella rufescens. Certain pelagic species, in addition to South Polar Skua, remain to be clarified and we apologise for the delay. We hope to have die situation resolved soon. Some decisions by the British Ornithologists' Union Records Committee—well known and much debated (see, for example, Brit. Birds 87: 247-252)—have been to place species in Category D (which forms an appendix to the British List), and these are listed here in Appendix 1. We have initiated a new Appendix 3 which lists 'presumed escapes from captivity' which require monitoring. An isolated autumn record of an unlikely (but possible) Ncarctic vagrant may, for example, be seen in a different light if several even more unlikely, inland, midsummer records arc unearthed; without them, the pattern is incomplete and assessment less fuEy considered. We all, however, acknowledge that the job of sorting 'escapes' from wild vagrants has become fraught with difficulty, particularly in view of the realisation that the numbers of Palearctic birds held in captivity (and all too often lost from it) in continental Europe, rather than the UK, is enormous (see Brit. Birds 87: 355-359). There are still 25 records for 1993 in circulation, mainly as a result of late submission; 21 await further information or comments from recorders, or views from expert referees; and a further 22 were received too late for circulation to be launched in time for this report. Excluding some of the 'difficult' species already mentioned, 47 records for 1992 and earlier years are still outstanding; eight of these are receiving attention, while the remaining 39 await proper details on which an assessment can be based. We again urge all observers involved in finding and identifying rarities to send in their reports as soon as possible after the event, preferably via the county or regional recorder, or, in the case of a trapped and ringed rarity, via the BTO Ringing Unit. We cannot emphasise enough how important it is to have full details (although several pages of background information on 'ordinary' rarities may not be needed) and how vital it is that notes should be sent in, even of well-watched, multi-observed rarities of which photographs may have appeared in commercial magazines. It is sad to see records of individual rarities, including some that have been seen by hundreds of people, failing to be published in our report merely because everyone thought that somebody else would send in the details; this is an increasing international problem, but one which the Committee seeks to address. We also hope that ringers of trapped rarities can find time to add 'field notes', or good in-the- hand descriptions, to the scant details and biometrics mat we occasionally receive, even though we thank the vast majority of ringers and other observers for supplying us with material that is a source of so much interest and enlightenment during the course of our deliberations. RAH 506 Rare birds in Great Britain in 1993 Acknowledgments The Committer wishes to record its most sincere gratitude to all observers and county and regional recorders, bird-observatory wardens and reserve wardens and their committees Tor their continued co-operation, upon which the day-to-day work of the Rarities Committee and this report's accuracy and completeness are entirely dependent. Special thanks are due also to the Irish Rare Birds Committee and its Secretary, Patrick Smiddy, for permission to include in this report all accepted records of rare birds in Ireland.