EGYPTIAN NIGHTJAR IN DORSET: THE SECOND BRITISH RECORD

GRAHAME WALBRIDGE

Egyptian Nightjar Caprimulgus aegyptius (Dave Nurney)

ABSTRACT The first British record of Egyptian Nightjar Caprimulgus aegyptius was in Nottinghamshire on 23rd June 1883 (Zoologist (1883): 374). The only other accepted record in Britain and Ireland was in Dorset on 10th June 1984, over 100 years later. This paper documents the circumstances of the second occurrence.

t about 13.30 GMT on 10th June stony field before flying through a gap in a 1984, at Portland Bill, Dorset, I hedge. I watched it through 8x binoculars, Awas walking through some rough on occasions as close as 30 m. pasture when I flushed what was obviously At this point I left, happy that the bird a very pale nightjar Caprimulgus from long was an Egyptian Nightjar C. aegyptius, made grass right under my feet. During the next several telephone calls and returned with ten minutes or so, I flushed the bird on a several other observers within half an hour. further two occasions in bright sunlight. On Despite an exhaustive search of the area the second occasion, it flew only a short (somewhat hampered by the amount of long distance, but I was unsuccessful in trying to grass being grown for silage) during the rest obtain views of it on the ground. On the of the daylight hours, and attempts to lure third and final occasion that it was flushed, the bird to tape-recordings of the species, it the bird made several circuits of a large, was not relocated.

British Birds 92: 155–161, March 1999 155 WALBRIDGE:EGYPTIAN NIGHTJAR IN DORSET

DESCRIPTION UPPERPARTS: Head, mantle and rump a rather pale sandy-grey. No obvious markings noted (but this difficult to ascertain since the bird was not seen on the ground, and it rather took me by surprise on each occasion when it was flushed). WINGS: Lesser, median, greater and greater primary coverts as upperparts. Primaries and secondaries noticeably darker, contrasting with rest of wing and upperparts; darkest on primaries, where barring was heaviest, lighter and less marked across secondaries towards tertials. No white visible in primaries. This resulted in contrast/pattern to the upperparts and wings somewhat recalling a female Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus. TAIL: Coloration as upperparts, barred lightly with dark brown/black, most marked on outer part of tail, fading to BARE PARTS: Bill barely visible, as with centre. No white in tail. Tail long, and European Nightjar C. europaeus. Eye very squarish ended. obvious, large and black, standing out UNDERPARTS: Mainly very pale sandy-grey, against pale plumage. Legs not seen. as upperparts, but a shade paler. Indistinct CALL: The bird was silent. white throat patch and area around FLIGHT/SILHOUETTE: Flight lazy and jinking, vent/undertail-coverts. Some faint barring as European Nightjar, and fast. Bird visible on sides/flanks when bird seen at its appeared, however, to have longer and closest point. more-pointed wings than European UNDERWING: From a distance, appeared Nightjar. Size difficult to judge, with wholly very pale, whitish with dark tip. nothing for comparison, but looked large, Axillaries appeared white; rest of underwing perhaps an illusion caused by the pallid off-white, with black around tip, and black appearance. barring from leading edge of wing, fading The bird’s behaviour in flight was exactly across tip. as other nightjar species that I have seen (glides on upheld wings, etc.), but I did note one unusual feature when it was on the ground. At one point, I saw it land some distance away and approached cautiously, all the time trying to obtain views of the bird. I got right up to where it had landed (having marked the spot fairly accurately by the position of some stones), whereupon it ‘got up’ from some 3-5 m away, from behind some large thistles: it had obviously moved after alighting. I have never noted this behaviour by any other nightjars. Figures 1 & 2. Drawings of Egyptian Nightjar Caprimulgus aegyptius, Dorset, June 1984 (Grahame Walbridge), part of the documentation Grahame Walbridge, 17 Magennis House, submitted to the BBRC. Portland, Dorset DT5 2HR

156 British Birds 92: 155–161, March 1999 WALBRIDGE:EGYPTIAN NIGHTJAR IN DORSET

EDITORIAL COMMENT Denmark in May and June 1983, the Matters relevant to the record discussed findings of a museum examination of during its circulations of the BBRC and the Egyptian Nightjar, clarification of the BOURC are outlined by the chairmen of the precise appearance of the unwini race of two committees. European Nightjar and the views of other Peter Lansdown (Chairman of the BBRC Committee members. in 1988) has commented: ‘The submission, ‘Following a skin check at the BBRC’s which consisted of the circumstances of the meeting at the British Museum (Natural sighting, the description and two sketches History) at Tring in June 1985, the record, of the bird (figs. 1 & 2), received its first together with a copy of the paper detailing circulation of the BBRC from January to the record of Egyptian Nightjar in Sweden June 1985. This generated two votes to in May 1972 (Vår Fågelvärld 32: 34-39), began reject and eight “pend” votes (0: 2: 8). its recirculation in August 1985. During The dissenters both quoted, from the this recirculation, which was completed in description, characters which, at the time, August 1986, members added the relevant they mistakenly believed to be wrong for pages from BWP vol. 4, discussed the likely Egyptian Nightjar, and they (and others) appearance of a leucistic European Nightjar quite properly raised the question of the and contributed details of their own observ- appearance of a leucistic European Nightjar. ations of European Nightjar C. e. unwini. The remaining voters expressed a wish to Although no BBRC member had had any see the record again and there were various experience of a leucistic European Nightjar, requests for it to be accompanied by the it was generally agreed that this pitfall could relevant extract from the then recently be disregarded because of the bird’s published volume 4 of The Birds of the strikingly contrasting plumage, in particular Western Palearctic, copies of any published the barring across the upper surfaces of papers covering the Egyptian Nightjar the flight-feathers and the underwing-tip records from Sweden in May 1972 and pattern. It was also agreed that unwini was

Figure 3. Pages from Grahame Walbridge’s field notebook, supplied to the BBRC in February 1988, with details of the Egyptian Nightjar Caprimulgus aegyptius, Dorset, June 1984.

British Birds 92: 155–161, March 1999 157 WALBRIDGE:EGYPTIAN NIGHTJAR IN DORSET

eliminated by the bird’s pale undersides to Indeed, he summed up “I’m sure now it its primaries, its uniformly pale upperwing- was one but not totally proven.” Other coverts and its overall pallid appearance. than on a record’s first circulation, nine Four members voted to accept the record, votes for acceptance translate to an overall while six requested further information (4: 0: decision by the BBRC to accept the record. 6). In addition to expressing concern over Accordingly, as a record of potentially the the bird’s wing-shape and the colour of its first Egyptian Nightjar in Britain and primary coverts, three of the six felt that, for Ireland for over 50 years (and therefore of a such an extraordinary record from a single species then currently in Category B of the observer, an observer profile should be British and Irish List), the file was passed assembled. The BBRC assesses all reports to the BOURC in July 1987 for that carefully, but is especially thorough when committee’s assessment. claims are by a small number of observers or, ‘During August and September 1987, as in this case, a single observer. Wishful the validity of the record was questioned thinking and self-delusion are less likely three times. Two observers approached when numbers of other, potentially critical the BBRC’s Chairman, one in the field and observers have seen a bird, and the one by telephone, alleging that the final possibility of such over-optimism must be description of the bird was far more detailed borne in mind by any assessment panel. than the notes made at and immediately Later voters on the recirculation responded following the sighting. The third communi- to the plumage queries and provided a full cation was a typed, unsigned letter to the discussion regarding the observer. BBRC’s Secretary; this also accused the ‘The record was considered by the BBRC observer of considerable embellishment of for the third time between September 1986 the original notes. The Committee abhors and June 1987. There were nine votes for such anonymous accusations, but, as with acceptance with one for rejection (9: 1: 0). information given to the police by informers, Even the out-of-step voter was quite regards it as essential that the matter should favourably disposed towards the record, be thoroughly investigated and the evidence but felt that the short views and the lack of considered objectively. Consequently, the other observers made it less than certain BBRC requested the return of the file from considering the species’ extreme rarity. the BOURC; fortunately, this was before the

28. Egyptian Nightjar Caprimulgus aegyptius, Jahra Pool, Kuwait, May 1997 (Nigel Cleere)

158 British Birds 92: 155–161, March 1999 WALBRIDGE:EGYPTIAN NIGHTJAR IN DORSET record had started its circulation. In January ‘There was no problem with the 1988, the BBRC’s Chairman wrote to the identification. The BBRC had covered this observer to acquaint him with the substance very thoroughly, and BOURC members of the three separate approaches and to urge agreed that the description rang true him to respond as rationally as possible to with its feeling of immediacy, its convincing the allegations. An admirably constructive detail and its palpable honesty. Any question reply was received in February 1988. With it of observer error was quickly dismissed. were two pages from the observer’s field ‘Neither was there any real problem with notebook containing the original descriptive the origin of a South Coast record in late notes and annotated sketches (fig. 3). spring; in a likely locality for a bird ‘All of this correspondence was added to overshooting on migration; and with several the file and a fourth circulation of the BBRC previous European spring records, mostly took place from February to April 1988, along the Mediterranean coast, but with one during which a detailed comparison was as close as Denmark just one year before. made between the field notes and the ‘On the question of observer credibility, submitted description. Nearly seven there was unequivocal and unanimous pages of comments were written by the support for the reliability and integrity BBRC members during this circulation, of the observer, and nothing but scorn making a total of 17 pages of compre- or what one member described as “the hensive discussion and opinion in all. The unsubstantiated and illiterate allegations of Committee concluded that the description an anonymous observer”. Another suggested and drawings were an honest account, that these were the product of “a bitter and without embellishment, of a bird seen jealous mind”. Several commented on this relatively briefly in circumstances that insight into a particularly unattractive aspect did not allow every tiny plumage detail of the twitching scene. to be noted. The record was accepted ‘Ironically, rather than sink the record, the unanimously (10: 0: 0) (Brit. Birds 84: 478).’ accusations appear to have helped it to gain Tony Marr (current Chairman of the acceptance, as they generated an even more BOURC) has commented: ‘The file was first detailed investigation than would normally received from the BBRC in July 1987, but as be expected. described above was returned to them ‘Thus it was that, after some seven before it had started its circulation. When years of consideration, investigation and subsequently received, it was circulated deliberation by the two committees, the between June 1990 and February 1991. The record was finally unanimously accepted and BOURC considered all the assembled the species was upgraded from Category B to evidence and new information on other Category A on the British List (Ibis 133: 439). relevant matters. ‘Never let it be said that the BBRC-BOURC ‘To the usual two principal consider- vetting system leads to ill-considered or ations for a first record for Category A, hasty decisions.’ identification and origin, had to be added a The last three years of the assessment third, that of the honesty and reputation of process, in particular, cannot have been the single observer. Observer credibility is an easy time for the observer whose always in Committee members’ minds in integrity had been impugned. Eventually, assessing any such record, but with a single however, Grahame Walbridge’s name was observer it naturally assumes a greater completely cleared of the allegations against significance. In this instance, the three him. Indeed, as an example of the high allegations by other observers that the regard in which he was (and is) held by his original description had been embellished peers, this is just one quotation from the placed this issue firmly in the forefront of BBRC circulations of the many testaments of members’ minds. support contained therein: ‘I regard Grahame

British Birds 92: 155–161, March 1999 159 WALBRIDGE:EGYPTIAN NIGHTJAR IN DORSET

as perhaps the best field observer I know.’ Identification Another member commented that ‘People The Egyptian Nightjar is a medium- with exceptional field ability do attract sized to large, sandy-grey nightjar and criticism from their inferiors, who do not is, by far, the palest of those breeding realise that they are inferiors, or will never in the Western Palearctic. It is sexually admit it even to themselves.’ dimorphic, but not greatly so. At rest, it often appears large headed, and its wing tips fall IDENTIFICATION OF slightly short of the tip of the tail. The EGYPTIAN NIGHTJAR forehead, crown and nape are sandy-grey, NIGEL CLEERE spotted blackish-brown, these markings The Egyptian Nightjar Caprimulgus aegyptius sparse on some individuals, but bolder is a migratory species that occurs in only a on others. It has an indistinct buffish few places in the southernmost parts of the supercilium, often evident only behind the Western Palearctic. In the southeast of the eye, sandy-grey or greyish-buff lores and region, the nominate race occasionally breeds ear-coverts, buffish-white submoustachial or has bred in countries such as Israel and stripe and indistinct buffish hindneck collar. Jordan, although it is more likely to occur as The rest of the upperparts are sandy-grey, a passage migrant en route to its Asian lightly speckled and vermiculated brown. breeding grounds farther to the northeast. The wing-coverts are sandy-grey, streaked, In the southwest, the slightly smaller birds speckled and vermiculated brown and of the race C. a. saharae breed primarily in blackish-brown, boldly spotted buff; the sandy, semi-desert country in central and scapulars are boldly marked with blackish- eastern Morocco, northern and occasionally brown ‘bat’ or T-shaped markings. The tail is southern Algeria, central Tunisia and sandy-grey, mottled and barred brown. possibly also in northwestern Libya. The The chin and throat are whitish or buffish, wintering grounds of all populations barred brown, but a white patch on the generally lie in sub-Saharan Africa, but do lower throat is often obscured. The breast is not extend as far south as the forest zone. As sandy-grey, spotted buff and lightly barred with many migratory birds, the Egyptian brown. The belly, flanks, underwing-coverts Nightjar is occasionally subject to vagrancy, and undertail-coverts (obviously not visible and in western parts of the Western Palearctic on a resting bird) are buff, barred brown. those encountered beyond their normal In flight, the upperwing usually lacks range are likely to belong to the Northwest white spots, and the brown primaries African breeding population, C. a. saharae. contrast strongly with the rest of the wing,

Figures 4 & 5. Egyptian Nightjar Caprimulgus aegyptius (Dave Nurney), from Nightjars: A Guide to Nightjars and Related Nightbirds by Nigel Cleere (Pica Press).

160 British Birds 92: 155–161, March 1999 WALBRIDGE:EGYPTIAN NIGHTJAR IN DORSET which is generally sandy-grey. Note, how- tail feathers; females and immatures lack ever, that the primaries are not entirely white markings, but are browner and plainer brown, but are boldly scalloped white along than Egyptian Nightjar and lack a strong the inner webs and, very rarely, the outermost contrast in the upperwing pattern. Egyptian scallop on one of the three outer primaries Nightjar also appears longer and broader may extend across onto the outer web of the winged than European Nightjar and, if feather, and this may show as a small white flushed during the day, often flies around in a wing spot if the bird is seen well. The under- more leisurely fashion, taking its time in wing generally appears much paler with less looking for a new roost site. of a contrast, owing to the white scalloping The Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor and the buffish underwing-coverts. The male is a vagrant, greyish-brown nightjar from has the two outer tail feathers tipped buffish- North America that occasionally turns up in white; the female has narrower, buffier western Europe during the autumn. At rest, it markings; but, on either sex, these tail spots often appears small-headed, its wing tips may not always be noticeable. extend beyond the tip of the tail, and the broad white band across the outer primaries is often visible. In flight, it has thinner wings, more pointed wing tips and a slightly forked tail. Both sexes, at all ages, show a broad white band across the outer primaries and white or very pale throat patches. Adult males also show a white subterminal band on all but the central pair of tail feathers, although this may be less noticeable if the tail is closed. In the southeast of the region, the Nubian Nightjar Caprimulgus nubicus is smaller and greyer, shorter-winged and shorter-tailed, and both sexes show bold white spots on the outer Comparison with other primaries and tail feathers. Two pale, eastern Western Palearctic species races of European Nightjar may also be In the west of the region, there are two encountered in this region, especially during other breeding species, Red-necked Nightjar migration periods. C. e. unwini is always much C. ruficollis and the more widespread greyer than Egyptian Nightjar and is never European Nightjar C. europaeus, both of which sandy-grey, but C. e. plumipes is a sandy- are darker and more greyish-brown. The Red- coloured, desert form which may cause some necked Nightjar is much larger, has a broad confusion at times. If seen well, however, the reddish collar around the hindneck, bolder differences described above should separate buffish spots on the wing-coverts, and both the majority of individuals. It should also be sexes show white spots on the outer primaries noted that these eastern forms of European and tail feathers, although the markings are Nightjar are highly unlikely to occur in slightly smaller on females. Its large size can western parts of the Western Palearctic. also, at times, make it appear less buoyant in References flight. The European Nightjar is similar in size Cleere, N. 1998. Nightjars: A Guide to Nightjars and to Egyptian Nightjar, although birds of the Related Nightbirds. Mountfield. Cramp, S. (ed.) 1985. The Birds of the Western southern race C. e. meridionalis are on average Palearctic. vol. 4. Oxford. smaller. At rest, it always shows bolder buffish Swash, A., & Cleere, N. 1989. Identification of Egyptian spots on the lower wing-coverts, a distinct and Nubian Nightjars. Birding World 2: 163-166. buffish line along the median coverts and Author plainer, browner lesser coverts. In flight, males N. Cleere, c/o 3 Pear Tree Lane, Newbury, show white spots on the outer primaries and Berkshire RG14 2LU

British Birds 92: 155–161, March 1999 161