• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

REPORT ON RARE BIRDS IN GREAT BRITAIN IN 1998 M. J. ROGERS AND THE RARITIES COMMITTEE WITH COMMENTS BY JOHN MARTIN AND DOUG PAGE his is the forty-first • the respect of the wider birding community annual Report of the • a widely acknowledged expertise in TBritish Birds Rarities identification Committee and it is an • proven reliability in the field almost complete record of • a track record of high-quality submis- the rare birds recorded in Britain in 1998. sions of descriptions of scarce and rare Descriptions and, where available, pho- birds to county records committees and tographs of each record have been the BBRC scrutinised by a team of independent • considerable experience of and aptitude experts with neither axe to grind nor com- for record assessment mercial interest to foster. Our decisions • the capacity to handle the considerable have been fully recorded in a way that, we volume of work involved in assessing believe, will stand the test of time should upwards of 1,000 records per year future generations review our decisions. In • the capacity to work quickly and effi- an average year we process about one ciently. thousand records and our estimate is that These attributes may seem onerous, but for 1998 there are about 30 reasonable the BBRC is in a delicate position as it must claims not yet reported and a further 20 command the ongoing confidence of the which arrived too late to be included in birding community, without which it this Report. One notable observation, would not be able to function. The BBRC which has yet to be submitted, concerns a has no automatic or legal expectation that Black-eared Wheatear Oenanthe hispanica birders should submit records to it. The on Tresco, Isles of Scilly, in May 1997. Committee can perform its tasks of record We are seeking to open up both the assessment and keeping of the national workings and membership of the BBRC. record only with the goodwill and co-oper- Because of the paucity of elections in the ation of the majority of birders in the whole last decade, the ‘official’ BBRC candidate of Britain. Currently, we believe that we has often been elected unopposed and can have that co-operation, but only because lead to the charge of the BBRC being an we work hard at keeping the respect of elitist organisation run on the old-boy birders; our conditions for candidates network. This is not our wish and is, in must, therefore, remain extremely rigorous. fact, not the case. The present Chairman The nature of the work which we under- had never met six of the current members take demands that we are focused on the prior to their attendance at their first BBRC assessment of rare birds and rare-bird meeting. We should, however, prefer an descriptions. For this reason, we insist that election of a suitable candidate every time. members have a track record of finding We do insist, of course, that nominees rare birds themselves and of submitting should have the necessary attributes for good-quality descriptions of them. We also membership of the Committee. They must expect members to have a level of expertise have: that takes them beyond books in some 554 British Birds 92: 554-609, November 1999 Rogers et al.: REPORT ON RARE BIRDS IN GREAT BRITAIN IN 1998 areas. In addition, as this is the national races to accompany circulation of files rarities committee, we prefer members to around the BBRC. We are not seeking to have had at least some experience of record pre-empt the BOU Records Committee, but assessment at a county or regional level or will work closely with that committee and to have demonstrated in other ways that also with individuals involved in identifi- they have the capacity to be a good record- cation of races, to establish or test the assessor. validity of characters used to differentiate We always stress the importance of between races, and will publish the results being able to deal with the workload. Each of the identification work regarding poten- member sees in the region of 1,000 records tial subspecific additions to the British List. per year and works an average of five We are interested in receiving well- hours per week on BBRC work. Unfortu- researched, well-documented records of nately, this does not come as a steady distinctive rare races, even if the subspecies stream: there are spells when members is not on the BBRC species list. need to commit 12 or more hours in a week Given the number of potential rare races to BBRC work. If someone is not capable of that could occur in Britain, the task is huge, maintaining this workload, the whole and RIACT will need to focus onto much system grinds to a halt and the reputation smaller areas if it is to prove any value in of the Committee, and the goodwill on record assessment. It is inevitable that which it depends, suffer. many of these records will not be dealt Record assessment is not a static busi- with quickly. In the initial stages, RIACT ness, and in the last year we have ‘lost’ two will concentrate on the ‘large white-headed birds from the list of species considered. gull’ complex Larus, Isabelline Shrikes For differing reasons, neither White-tailed Lanius isabellinus and several warblers, Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla nor Kumlien’s Gull including eastern Reed Warbler Acro- Larus glaucoides kumlieni will henceforth be cephalus scirpaceus fuscus, southern and considered by the BBRC, but Savi’s Warbler eastern races of Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia Locustella luscinioides and Ferruginous Duck curruca and eastern Grasshopper Warbler Aythya nyroca have been reinstated to the Locustella naevia straminea. We are particu- list of species considered (Brit. Birds 92: larly keen to receive detailed submissions 113-114). In addition, the BBRC has of classic individuals showing the charac- decided to take a more proactive role in the teristics of these races. We should also assessment of rare races, particularly those welcome information on individuals not which may be concerned in taxonomic showing the full suite of characters of these changes. Although the BBRC has always races, so that we can gauge the range of assessed claims of rare races, with variation. These need not necessarily be a increasing interest in them, we are plan- formal submission, which goes through the ning changes in the way in which we deal assessment process, but might help to hone with such claims. A group consisting of that process for other records. members both from within and from In future years, however, RIACT will outside the BBRC, with a range of skills move on to other groups and will need and experience, has begun to address the details of these records. Unfortunately, we complex issues associated with racial iden- cannot guarantee that a race is going to tification on behalf of the BBRC. The ‘make the grade’ as definitely identifiable, group, working under the title of the for it may become clouded with intermedi- RIACT Group (Race Identification ates. Thus, we need a change of attitude Amongst Changing Taxonomy Group), from observers (although many have will investigate occurrences of races con- already made the change). As racial identi- sidered rare within Great Britain and fication of many species will require very prepare background information on rare detailed information including, for many British Birds 92: 554-609, November 1999 555 Rogers et al.: REPORT ON RARE BIRDS IN GREAT BRITAIN IN 1998 races, in-the-hand measurements, pho- Pete Clement, Dick Forsman, Erik tographs and/or sound-recordings, we Hirschfeld, Paul Holt, Al Jaramillo, Paul shall need full notes and, if possible, pho- Lehman, Dennis Paulsen, Ron Pittaway tographs of any bird that might be of a rare and Keith Vinicombe for their input on dif- race. Following this, we would prefer ficult records this year, and Keith Naylor observers themselves to undertake much for his extensive practical assistance in of the preliminary research work. Think of respect of historical data. We also wish to how much fun that will be! thank all those who have agreed to act as We wish to thank all the observers and ad hoc advisers to the BBRC, including Per photographers who sent in details to the Alström, Arnoud B. van den Berg, Louis BBRC. We are indebted to the network of Bevier, Ned Brinkley, Geoff Carey, Alan county and regional recorders and their Dean, Jon Dunn, Jim Enticott, Dick records committees, who have frequently Forsman, Kimball Garrett, Erik Hirschfeld, already seen and commented on the descrip- Hannu Jännes, Al Jaramillo, Paul Lehman, tions which we receive. The work which Bruce Mactavish, Michael O’Brien, Dennis they do often goes unacknowledged, but is Paulsen, Ron Pittaway and Will Russell. invaluable for the BBRC in that their com- We continue to be enormously grateful ments provide a detailed local perspective to Carl Zeiss Ltd for sponsorship of the which, even with regional representation, the Committee’s work, which has supported BBRC could not do without. us for the past 17 years. We should like to thank Ned Brinkley, COLIN BRADSHAW Systematic list of accepted records The principles and procedures followed in considering records were explained in the 1958 Report (Brit. Birds 53: 155-158). The systematic list is set out in the same way as in the 1997 Report (91: 455-517). The following points show the basis on which the list has been compiled: 1. The details included for each record are (1) number of individuals recorded in Britain & county; (2) locality; (3) number of birds if more Ireland (excluding those ‘at sea’) (i) to the end than one, and age and sex if known (in the case of 1957, (ii) for the period since the formation of of spring and summer records, however, the the Rarities Committee in 1958, but excluding age is normally given only where the bird con- (iii) those listed here for the current year.

Load more

  56

Copy Link