109

Should the Amesbury Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view Pete Combridge and Paul Castle Introduction Harrop (2010) summarised a British Ornithologists’ Union Records Committee (BOURC) review of ten British records of Hawk Owl Surnia ulula, the upshot of which was that only four were then considered acceptable. Among those rejected was a 19th century report of one shot in Wiltshire—but, because the reasoning behind the BOURC’s decision showed an astonishing lack of care and proper research, it was swiftly challenged by WOS (Combridge et al 2010, 2011) though to no avail (Harrop 2011). The Amesbury owl: occurrence and eventual identification The specimen was originally in the possession of William Long, who, following the owl’s eventual identification, was contacted about the circumstances of its occurrence by the Reverend AP Morres. Long’s reply was published in Morres (1878–85):

‘I am sorry I cannot fix the exact date when either myself or my younger brother killed the bird in question. All I can answer for is that it was killed in the parish of Amesbury, and some years since. My brother died in 1853 and I am nearly positive that it was before his death. I remember that it was in severe weather. I did not know of its rarity till Mr. Rawlence chanced to see it, and I felt great pleasure in giving it to him to add to his beautiful collection.’

The owl was taken by JC Mansel-Pleydell to , where it was identified as belonging to the nominate race ulula by and exhibited on 4 April 1876 at a meeting of the Zoological Society (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876: 334–335). The original longhand minutes of that meeting (plate A) show that there were more than 20 Fellows of the Society present, including a number of prominent ornithologists whose names are still well-known today: , , Henry Dresser, , JE Harting and (the last named simply being referred to in the minutes as ‘The Secretary [of the Zoological Society]’, a position which Sclater had held since 1859). Among those in attendance whose exploits are perhaps less familiar to modern birdwatchers was Henry Godwin Austen, an army cartographer who wrote a series of pioneering articles on the birds of northeast (J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 1870–78). The entry in the original minutes (plate B) concerning the owl is worth quoting in full:

‘Mr R. Bowdler Sharpe, F.Z.S. exhibited a specimen of the true Swedish Surnia ulula, obtained many years ago at Amesbury in Wiltshire, being the first recorded British killed example of this species.’

What happened to the specimen? Morres’s account not only shows that Rawlence was the first to realise the owl’s significance but also indicates that it was still in Rawlence’s possession after it had been exhibited in London. In 1942 the Rawlence collection, which was housed in 90 display cases, was given to what was then called the Salisbury, South Wiltshire and Blackmore Museum. Most of the specimens were considered to be too moth-eaten to be worth keeping and were burned, while the remainder were transferred to Liverpool Museums. Correspondence in the Salisbury 110 Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view

Museum archives dating from 1954 confirm that the Hawk Owl was not among the 13 species (represented by at least 15 specimens) sent to Liverpool (A Green in litt), suggesting that it was one of those destroyed. Alas, in January 2013 just eight of the species (nine specimens) received from Salisbury in 1942 are still to be found at Liverpool (T Parsons in litt), the sad remnants of James Rawlence’s once ‘beautiful collection’. Dramatis personae To evaluate the record properly it is necessary to know something of the human players involved. Both William Long and James Rawlence were sheep farmers (and the latter also a land agent) and were thus connected by class and profession. Given Rawlence’s interest in birds, it is not surprising that he would have been acquainted with JC Mansel-Pleydell, the famous Dorset antiquary and naturalist. Mansel-Pleydell founded the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club in 1875 and was its president until his death in 1902; among his published works on Dorset’s natural history were a flora (which ran to two editions), an avifauna and a book on molluscs (Holloway 1996, Allan 2010). Morres was Vicar of Britford and considered an ‘able ornithologist’ by the Reverend AC Smith (1887), though it appears that most of what Morres published on birds was based upon information supplied by friends and acquaintances (Barnes 1981, Collins & Jackson 2007). As one of the giants of 19th century , Richard Bowdler Sharpe deserves a paragraph of his own. Described by James Fisher (1966) as ‘primarily a global order-bringer to the science of birds but an active encourager of the pursuit of our own islands’ fauna’, Bowdler Sharpe began his working life in the book trade, during which time he began compiling his first major ornithological work, A Monograph of the Kingfishers (issued in 15 parts during 1868– 71). He was appointed Librarian of the Zoological Society in 1867 and from 1872 until his death on Christmas Day in 1909 was Curator of Birds at the British Museum. During his 37-year curatorship the number of specimens in the Bird Room increased markedly from just 35,000 to 400,000; to put this into perspective, some 90 years later the number of specimens stood at Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view 111 about 750,000 (Roselaar 2003). Not content with this, Bowdler Sharpe contributed roughly half of the 27-volume Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum (1874–98), which was not merely a list of specimens then held by the museum but also contained plumage descriptions and other details, and is one of the most important works of systematic ornithology ever published. He also wrote several books and papers on ornithological matters, including The Handlist of the Genera and Species of Birds (1899–1909); completed works by and after their deaths; and founded the British Ornithologists’ Club in 1902 (Tate 1986, Mearns & Mearns 1998, Bircham 2007). Nineteenth century ornithology What kind of world did these men inhabit? The Victorians were fascinated by all forms of natural history, and at a time when optical equipment was, by modern standards, crude, serious ornithology was based mainly on collecting rather than on watching the living bird. In addition to the collection of specimens for scientific purposes, it was fashionable for the moneyed classes to display stuffed birds as conversation pieces in their homes; it is in this context that William Long’s retention of the Hawk Owl, even though he was unaware of its identity and thus clearly not an ornithologist, becomes explicable. The Victorian lust for collecting (which was not confined to birds but extended to other animal and plant studies, not least entomology and botany) created a demand that could not always be satisfied, especially among those wealthy amateur collectors who wanted rarities obtained in Britain. Such men were willing to pay large sums to enhance their collections, which inevitably led to unscrupulous dealers trying to pass off birds obtained abroad as taken in Britain. Expert ornithologists such as Alfred Newton and Howard Saunders were well aware of the problem, and so even though there was then no formal system for vetting the occurrence of rare birds, they either excluded, or included with a caveat, records which they believed to be erroneous or at best doubtful; see, for example, comments by Saunders (1899) on Ross’s Gull Rhodostethia rosea and Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator. It should also be noted that one of the six Hawk Owl reports reviewed and found wanting by the BOURC, of an individual said to have been obtained near Greenock (Strathclyde) in 1871, was excluded by both Saunders (1899) and Hartert et al (1912), and regarded as ‘very doubtful’ by Witherby et al (1938–41). Our view that men such as Newton, Bowdler Sharpe, Saunders and Dresser were far from credulous and did not accept records at face value has recently been supported by McGhie (2012), who concluded that: ‘the leading naturalists [of the 19th century] were very aware of the potential for fraud…their working methods were developed to militate against impostures’. Despite such caution, fraudulent reports did enter the ornithological record, so it is worth considering next whether there are any indications that the Amesbury owl was other than a genuine vagrant. Was the Amesbury Hawk Owl an error or a fraud? If Long’s story were false, there seems to be two alternatives. First, that his memory was faulty and it had been acquired from another source to adorn his farmhouse, probably at auction or from a dealer (in which case its identity would surely have been known). An imported Hawk Owl would have been a novelty of great interest to collectors and thus almost certainly expensive to buy: Mearns & Mearns (1998) noted that the prices fetched at auction for bird specimens ‘was sometimes extraordinarily high’. Had Long bought the owl, with these points in mind it seems unlikely that he would have forgotten not only the transaction but also what it was. The second possibility is that Long obtained the owl purposely to deceive. But if that were the case then a precise date of collection and other details would surely have been invented to add veracity to the claim, and it would have been sold, not given, to Rawlence. Furthermore, it 112 Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view is highly unlikely that a Hawk Owl could have been easily or cheaply obtained by a Wiltshire farmer; William Long would have had to go to a lot of trouble to fool Rawlence, for no obvious gain. Could the Hawk Owl be a genuine vagrant? Having personally located this species without a guide on three out of four visits to Finland, one of us can testify that it is among the least difficult (though still not easy!) of Fenno-Scandia’s owl species to find without the aid of local knowledge. Mikkola (1983) wrote, ‘The Hawk Owl is diurnal and will hunt in bright sunlight’; also, ‘Most are fearless of man and this boldness usually enables close approach’. This daytime visibility and boldness explains how a vagrant Hawk Owl could have been noticed and shot at Amesbury, though it is such an infrequent visitor to Britain that its occurrence in Wiltshire, an inland county not usually associated with extreme rarities, may be hard for most of today’s rarity enthusiasts and record assessors to credit. Yet much bird migration is overland and even casual perusal of 19th century literature reveals less of a coastal bias in rare bird recording than is now the case; see Combridge et al (2010) for a brief explanation of how social conditions in the Victorian and Edwardian eras affected the distribution of rare bird records. Even in recent years, remarkably rare birds have been found in Wiltshire, including two which were far from obvious candidates for the county list: a Thrush Nightingale Luscinia luscinia in 2008 (Deacon & Deacon 2009) and a Crested Lark Galerida cristata in the following year (Combridge 2010). Although ornithological data is patchy for Fenno-Scandia until the last decades of the 19th century, the indications are that the Hawk Owl population was high during the 1800s (E Lehikoinen in litt), while up to the middle of the 20th century irruptions beyond its normal range were more frequent (Mikkola 1983). With this in mind, it is worth noting that all three accepted French records are from the 1800s (Slack 2009) as are two out of the five records for Flemish Belgium (the others falling between 1928 and 1943) (Vlavico 1989), and that the BOURC review accepted two records of nominate ulula from that period, in December 1860 and November 1898 (Harrop 2010). William Long’s recollection that the Amesbury owl occurred in severe weather suggests that it was shot in winter, this timing being not incompatible with the dates of the Scottish records accepted by the BOURC or with European Hawk Owl irruptions in general (Mikkola 1983). Hawk Owl irruptions and rodent population cycles The Hawk Owl preys mainly on rodents (in particular microtine voles of the genera Clethrionomys and Microtus) and as a consequence leads ‘an essentially nomadic life, irrupting through the coniferous zone westwards as well as southwards in response to food availability, and thus to climatic conditions’ (Mikkola 1983). Rodent populations are cyclical, though such cycles may be out of phase in different parts of Fenno-Scandia and adjacent Russia. In years when vole populations are very high, the Hawk Owl’s breeding range can extend significantly, if only temporarily, southwards; but when vole numbers subsequently crash (particularly when it affects a wide area) the sudden food shortage can prompt Hawk Owls to irrupt beyond their usual range, in exceptional years some even reaching central Europe (BWP, Mikkola 1983, Sulkava 1997, Ratcliffe 2007). Even though data for the period 1835–62 may have been incomplete, Granit (1901) was still able to identify three rodent population highs in the 1840s and early 1850s: in 1843, 1849 and 1852–53, all of which involved not only Norway lemmings Lemmus lemmus but also an abundance of the microtine voles so crucial in triggering Hawk Owl irruptions. The timings of the last two rodent peaks chime particularly closely with the rough dating of the Amesbury owl given by William Long; in 1849 only the Lofoten and Eastern Finnmark areas of Norway were affected, but the 1852–53 high was more extensive, affecting Finland (western Lapland Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view 113 from Enontekiö south to Tornio), Sweden (Torneå lappmark), and a large swathe of Norway (southern Finnmark, Tromsö and southern Norway). The BOURC Hawk Owl review The BOURC’s reassessment of the status of Hawk Owl was part of an ongoing process to establish the first acceptable report of each taxon of bird recorded in Britain. Nowadays the Hawk Owl is considered to be a single polytypic species, with a circumpolar distribution throughout the boreal zone. But in the 19th century nominate ulula (Eurasia) and caparoch (North America) were treated as separate species, and the possibility exists that they may eventually be split into two species once again. Both forms are currently on the British List and, until its rejection, the Amesbury owl represented the first record of nominate ulula for Britain. The BOURC case: Harrop (2010) The original rationale behind the BOURC’s dismissal of the Amesbury Hawk Owl (Harrop 2010) was that: ‘Most contemporary and subsequent authorities either ignored or overlooked the record, which, combined with a lack of any detail about the date and the circumstances of collection made the record unacceptable.’ The first part of this statement is wholly inaccurate: it was included without qualification in key references such as Saunders (1899), Hartert et al (1912), Witherby et al (1938–41) and BOU (1971); all five Wiltshire avifaunas; and other publications too numerous to list here (see Combridge et al 2010 for a selection of these). The second part of Harrop’s statement is also misleading: as noted above, there is much detail concerning the circumstances of collection, the most important omission being an exact date (though this can be explained by William Long, who was not an ornithologist, being at the time unaware of its identity and significance). The BOURC case: Harrop (2011) Instead of addressing the points offered by Combridge et al (2010) in support of the record, Harrop (2011) chose to selectively quote Morres (1878–85) in order to label him ‘an uncritical assessor of records’ and thus an unreliable source; Harrop also implied that Bowdler Sharpe’s identification of the specimen as nominate ulula could no longer be considered acceptable, on the grounds that there was nothing to show how he had reached this conclusion. This last criticism is important: if the specimen was in fact an example of North American caparoch, then the chances of it being a genuine vagrant would be much diminished. The BOURC’s attempt to discredit Morres (and thus undermine the Hawk Owl record) shows a fundamental lack of understanding of his part in the story. Morres was not directly involved with the owl, neither was he in the business of assessing a record that was already in the wider ornithological domain: it had been examined by a number of distinguished naturalists and its exhibition in London had been reported in the Zoological Society’s Proceedings. It is also inconsistent for Harrop (2011) to dismiss Morres’s account because his series of papers (1878–85) included doubtful reports which, rightly, never gained general acceptance, when just few months earlier Harrop (2010) had cited Saxby (1874), who also included spurious records (see Nethersole-Thompson 1978), in support of the 1860 Shetland Hawk Owl. It is hard to credit that an experienced museum ornithologist such as Bowdler Sharpe would have confused nominate ulula with caparoch. The relevant volume of the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, in which Bowdler Sharpe provided detailed plumage descriptions of both subspecies (1875, 2: 129–132), shows that he had no fewer than 17 Hawk Owl specimens (ten of nominate ulula, seven of caparoch) to hand with which to compare the Amesbury owl. Moreover, the owl was seen by a number of other expert ornithologists, all of whom were well versed in examining skins and, judging by their published works, would have queried Bowdler Sharpe’s pronouncement had it been mistaken. One such was Henry Dresser, who 114 Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view owned 13 specimens of Hawk Owl, nine of nominate ulula and four of caparoch, one of the latter having been shot by him in New Brunswick (Canada) in August 1859 (H McGhie in litt). Furthermore, in a jointly written account of the two forms of Hawk Owl (in Dresser 1871–81), Bowdler Sharpe and Dresser stated:

‘Although the differences between the American and European Hawk Owls have not been considered sufficient to warrant their specific separation by most ornithologists, we do not ourselves doubt for one moment that they are perfectly distinct. We have examined many specimens of each, and have always found the characters constant, so that we have never experienced any difficulty in distinguishing the two birds at a glance. The European Hawk Owl is always paler, and has a purer white gorget, while the American species has a much darker back, and can always be recognized by the broad chestnut bars on the breast and abdomen.’

Thus, even though the specimen is lost and there is no account of how the subspecific identification was made, it would seem perverse for the BOURC to insist that Bowdler Sharpe and the other experienced ornithologists present at the Zoological Society meeting would have been so incompetent as to confuse a specimen of caparoch with one of nominate ulula. It must also be noted that this is another example of inconsistent treatment of Hawk Owl records. A report from northeast Scotland in 1898 was accepted as nominate ulula in the BOURC’s review, yet the specimen is lost and no plumage description exists; it is curious that the BOURC are willing to accept the opinion of a local taxidermist, George Sim, on the subspecific identification of the 1898 record but not that of Bowdler Sharpe on the Amesbury owl (which, unlike the Scottish bird, was exhibited at a scientific meeting). Given the views expressed by Harrop (2011), it was no surprise that at a meeting on 25 June 2011 the BOURC decided to uphold the rejection of the Wiltshire record. Discussion It is not inappropriate to review past records (whether accepted or rejected) and, in the light of new insights or evidence, overturn contemporary decisions. It is also understandable that a 19th century record of a Hawk Owl from Wiltshire would attract more scepticism than one from the Northern Isles or northeast Scotland. That suspicion of fraudulent activity is the main reason for the BOURC’s rejection of the Amesbury owl was emphasised by Harrop et al (2012), who cited WOS concerns (Combridge et al 2010, 2011) as examples of ‘remaining in denial’ in the face of ‘accumulated’ and ‘substantial’ evidence of fraud. Yet the BOURC presented no such evidence that the record was fraudulent. Lack of exact details of collection can hardly be described as either ‘accumulated’ or ‘substantial’ indications of wrongdoing (particularly as the reasons for them being hazy are known), and even if such details were available it is unclear how they would have allayed the BOURC’s fears. That there are instances of specimen fraud is not in dispute, but the cases most frequently cited both involved taxidermists—George Bristow of Hastings and David Graham of York— with connections to the bird trade, whose serial procurement of rare birds aroused suspicions at the time. Such contemporary doubt led to correspondence between Bristow and HF Witherby and eventually to the Hastings records being fully investigated and removed from the British List (Nicholson & Ferguson-Lees 1962); while Harrop et al (2012) were incorrect to state that David Graham’s deceptions were unsuspected until ‘130 years’ after the event: Saunders (1899) pointedly referred to Graham as ‘the notorious bird-stuffer of York’. In contrast, William Long was not associated with a profit-making series of rare birds and there is no suggestion that the Wiltshire record was doubted by contemporary authorities. That deceit is known to have occurred in the 19th century is not sufficient reason in itself to reject other records from Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view 115 the same period, without firm indications that they were also fraudulent. There is otherwise a real danger of the historical record being filleted to make it fit current ornithological wisdom. Conclusion To judge from Harrop (2010, 2011), the BOURC’s review of the Amesbury Hawk Owl was no more than cursory, perhaps because Wiltshire was viewed as a highly unlikely place for this species to occur (something that would explain why it was inconsistently treated in relation to two accepted 19th century reports of Hawk Owl from Scotland). Those who examined the owl at first hand in 1876 were not the naïve and bumbling incompetents that the BOURC’s pronouncements imply, but on the contrary were skilled and able ornithologists whose opinion on its identification should not lightly be dismissed. For these reasons, combined with the complete failure of the BOURC to present any fresh evidence or valid insight to cast doubt on the origin of the specimen, we believe that WOS should retain the Amesbury Hawk Owl on the Wiltshire List. Acknowledgements We wish to extend our grateful thanks to Michael Palmer (Zoological Society of London), Henry McGhie (Manchester Museum), Tony Parsons (Liverpool Museums), Adrian Green (Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum) and Esa Lehikoinen (University of Turku), all of whom went to much trouble to answer our enquiries. James Ferguson-Lees commented on a draft. Phil Toye, Eddie Wiseman, Linda Cady, Phil Read and Teemu Lehtiniemi all helped in various ways. References Allen, DE. 2010. Books and Naturalists. Collins, London. Barnes, R. 1981. Wiltshire ornithologists. In: Buxton, J (ed). The Birds of Wiltshire. Wiltshire Library & Museum Service, Trowbridge. Bircham, P. 2007. A History of Ornithology. Collins, London. British Ornithologists’ Union (BOU). 1971. The Status of Birds in Britain and Ireland. Blackwell, Oxford. Collins, I, & M Jackson. 2007. Wiltshire’s ornithological history. In: Birds of Wiltshire. WOS, Devizes. Combridge, P, J Ferguson-Lees, P Cranswick, R Turner, & P Castle. 2010. The Wiltshire Hawk Owl and a plea for caution in the rejection of historical records. Brit. Birds 103: 673–675. —, —, I Collins, P Cranswick, R Turner & P Castle. 2011. The Wiltshire Hawk Owl and criteria for accepting historical records. Brit. Birds 104: 164–165. Combridge, P. 2010. Crested Lark at Whiteparish: a species new for Wiltshire. Hobby 36: 83–84. Deacon, PA, & GA. 2009. Thrush Nightingale at Westdown, SPTA. Hobby 35: 89. Dresser, HE. 1871–81. A History of the Birds of Europe. Privately published, London. Fisher, J. 1966. The Shell Bird Book. Ebury Press & Michael Joseph, London. Granit, AW. 1901. Några högnordiska djurslags vandringar. Tidskrift för Jägare och Fiskare 9: 21–32. Harrop, AHJ. 2010. Records of Hawk Owls in Britain. Brit. Birds 103: 276–283. Harrop, AHJ. 2011. The Wiltshire Hawk Owl and criteria for accepting historical records. Brit. Birds 104: 162–163. Harrop, AJH, JM Collinson & T Melling. 2012. What the eye doesn’t see: the prevalence of fraud in ornithology. Brit. Birds 105: 236–257. Hartert, E, FCR Jourdain, NF Ticehurst & HF Witherby. 1912. A Hand-List of British Birds. Witherby, London. Holloway, S. 1996. The Historical Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland, 1875–1900. Poyser, London. McGhie, H. 2012. Nineteenth-century ornithology, Leadenhall Market and fraud. Brit. Birds 105: 674–682. Mearns, B, & R. 1998. The Bird Collectors. Academic Press, San Diego & London. Mikkola, H. 1983. Owls of Europe. Poyser, Calton. 116 Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view

Morres, AP. 1878–85. On the occurrence of some of the rarer species of birds in the neighbourhood of Salisbury. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 17: 95–127; 18: 183–213, 289–318; 20: 154–185; 21: 211–255; 22: 83–106, 191–211. Nethersole-Thompson, D. 1978. Highland Birds. 3rd edn. Highlands & Islands Development Board, Inverness. Nicholson, EM, & IJ Ferguson-Lees. 1962. The Hastings Rarities. Brit. Birds 55: 299–384. Ratcliffe, DA. 2005. Lapland: a natural history. Poyser, London. Roselaar, CS. 2003. An inventory of major European bird collections. In: Collar, NJ, CT Fisher & CJ Feare (eds). Why Museums Matter: Avian Archives in an Age of Extinction. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. Supplement 123A. Saunders, H. 1899. An Illustrated Manual of British Birds. 2nd edn. Gurney & Jackson, London. Saxby, HL. 1874. The Birds of Shetland. Maclachlan & Stewart, Edinburgh. Slack, R. 2009. Rare Birds: Where and When. Volume 1. Rare Bird Books, York. Smith, AC. 1887. The Birds of Wiltshire. Porter, London & Bull, Devizes. Sulkava, S. 1997. Hawk Owl. In: Hagemeijer, WJM & Blair, MJ. (eds). The EBCC Atlas of European Birds. Poyser, London. Tate, P. 1986. Birds, Men and Books: a Literary History of Ornithology. Sotheran, London. Vlavico. 1989. Vogels in Vlaanderen. Vlaamse Avifauna Commissie, Bornem. Witherby, HF, FRC Jourdain, NF Ticehurst & BW Tucker. 1938–41. The Handbook of British Birds. Witherby, London.

Postscript While this article was in press, we discovered that Philip Palmer (2000, First for Britain and Ireland 1600–1999, Arlequin Press, Chelmsford) wrongly states that the Reverend Morres exhibited the Hawk Owl specimen at the ZSL meeting on 4 April 1876. It is thus worth reiterating that Morres was not directly involved with the owl’s discovery or identification, and that, as made clear in ZSL’s Proceedings, the specimen was taken to London by Mansel- Pleydell and was exhibited by Bowdler Sharpe. Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view 117

Plate A: list of Fellows present at the ZSL meeting of 4 April 1876. Reproduced with the permission of the Zoological Society of London. 118 Should the Hawk Owl remain on the Wiltshire List? A personal view

Plate B: ZSL minutes of 4 April 1876, noting the exhibition of the Amesbury Hawk Owl. Reproduced with the permission of the Zoological Society of London.