Black Brant
Branta bernicla nigricans (Lawrence, 1846) (0, 1)
Photo © Phil Woollen - Holkham, Norfolk, 30 January 2020
Ex BBRC sub-species 30/06/2005
STATUS
Holarctic.
OVERVIEW
Prior to 1974 there were just two acceptable records of the Black Brant in Europe and they probably involved the same individual that visited Foulness in 1957 and returned again the following year.
All earlier historical record claims were most probably misidentified and were not admitted by Snow (1971) on behalf of the BOURC in The Status of Birds in Britain and Ireland.
1950-57 RECORD
1). 1957 Essex Foulness, 9th and 17th February.
(G. A. Pyman, Essex Bird Report 1957: 12-13; P. J. K. Burton, Wildfowl Trust Report 11: 94-98; BOU, 1971; A. B. van den Berg, R. H. D. Lambeck & K. Mullarney, British Birds 77: 458-465).
History G. A. Pyman (1957) in the Essex Bird Report, Vol. VIII. pp. 12-13, says: 'An example of the eastern Siberian/western Arctic American race (Branta bernicla orientalis) of the Brent Goose, which winters in the Pacific, was located in a party of Dark-breasted Brents off Foulness Pt. by P.J.K.B. on February 9th. It was found by J.W.C., N.P., V.G.R., A.P.Sh. and H.R.T. in the same place on February 17th. A drawing by P.J.K.B. of this bird is reproduced on the opposite page.
The Black Brant could be picked out from the rest of the flock at a glance by virtue of its much darker back and underparts contrasting with the white of its undertail coverts and flanks.
Description: very dark below, black breast merging into underparts: very dark also above, much more so than attendant dark-breasted birds; some vertical dark stripes on flanks which were only slightly duller than distinctive white of tail and undertail coverts from which separated by narrow V-shaped black patch; broad white collar almost complete, broken only at the back by a thin division. Although one of the flock, it kept slightly apart from the other birds and there was some evidence of mutual hostility.
This most interesting record constitutes the first British occurrence of orientalis. It should be mentioned that a mere handful are kept in captivity and none is known to have escaped…'
Admitted nationally as the first for Britain (BOU 1971) and by A. B. van den Berg, R. H. D. Lambeck & K. Mullarney (1984) in British Birds, Vol. LXXVII. pp. 458-465.
NOT PROVEN
0). 1895 Staffordshire Gailey Pool, shot, 23rd November.
(F. C. R. Jourdain & H. F. Witherby, British Birds 4: 107).
[BOU, 1971].
History F. C. R. Jourdain & H. F. Witherby (1910) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 107, recording the record in square brackets, say: 'Mr. Coburn here gives further details. He says that since he has studied this bird in America, he has been able to identify one in the collection of Mr. W. L. Ward, shot on Gailey Pool on November 23rd, 1895.'
0). 1897 Warwickshire Earlswood, shot, 5th November.
(F. C. R. Jourdain & H. F. Witherby, British Birds 4: 107).
[BOU, 1971].
History F. C. R. Jourdain & H. F. Witherby (1910) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 107, recording the record in square brackets, say: 'Mr. Coburn here gives further details. He says that since he has studied this bird in America, he has been able to identify...the following in his own collection: One shot at Earlswood (Warwickshire) on November 5th, 1897.'
0). 1902 Norfolk The Wash, near King's Lynn, adult male, shot, 14th February.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1908: 124; F. C. R. Jourdain & H. F. Witherby, British Birds 4: 107).
[H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 25].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Keswick Hall, Norwich (1908) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. XII, p. 124, says: '...and that an adult male of the same species (B. nigricans) had also been shot by the same wildfowler on Feb. 14th, 1902, near Lynn.'
H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 25, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899', say: 'An adult female of the American Black Brent (B. nigricans) is said by Mr. F. Coburn to have been shot by a wildfowler, named Richardson, in the Wash "deeps" (Norfolk), on January 15th, 1907, and sent to him (cf. J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1908, pp. 121 and 123 and Plate). Mr. Coburn informs Mr. Gurney that a male of the same species was shot by the same wildfowler near Lynn and sent to him on February 14th, 1902. If the occurrence of a bird new to the British list is to be accepted as authentic, it is far more satisfactory wherever possible that it should be examined in the flesh by two or more ornithologists, and recorded at the time, than that it should be recorded for the first time months and even years after it was obtained.'
F. C. R. Jourdain & H. F. Witherby (1910) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 107, placing the record in square brackets, say: 'Mr. Coburn here gives further details. He says that since he has studied this bird in America, he has been able to identify…the following in his own collection: one at King's Lynn (Norfolk) on February 14th, 1902.'
0). 1907 Norfolk The Wash, adult female, shot, 15th January.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1908: 123-124; F. C. R. Jourdain & H. F. Witherby, British Birds 4: 107).
[H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 25].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Keswick Hall, Norwich (1908) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. XII. pp. 123-124, says: '15th. The Wash "deeps" and their attendant shoals have always been a resort of the Brent Geese, though not so abundant on any part of our coast as formerly. On the 15th inst, I learn from Mr. F. Coburn, of Birmingham, that an example of the Pacific Brent or Black Brent, as it is termed in American works (Bernicla nigricans) – was shot by a wildfowler named Richardson, who devotes his attentions especially to these fowl. Mr. Coburn, who has paid particular attention to Geese, after observing that the present example is an adult female, and that an adult male of the same species (B. nigricans) had also been shot by the same wildfowler on Feb. 14th, 1902, near Lynn, continues: "On the Pacific side of America they never see anything but the black race of the Brent Goose, and its plumage is always of the same brownish black colour on the under parts both summer and winter...In addition to the larger amount and different distribution of white on the neck, I have found another character which is constant; this is that the central under tail-coverts project considerably over the end of the tail – in some cases nearly one inch – so that when the tail is closed the end appears to be white instead of black".
This feature of the tail-coverts is well shown in the photograph which Mr. Coburn has obliged me with, taken from the Lynn bird of 1902, which is rather a better example than the one sent him in 1907, and it also shows the white neck marks almost meeting in front – a very important character. The validity of Bernicla nigricans, which has recently been admitted into the Italian avifauna (Att. Soc. It. Sc. Nat. XLVI), is now fully recognized. Mr. Coburn observes that it must not be confused with the dark-bellied examples of B. brenta which have been obtained in Norfolk on different occasions, and which are considered by Mr. Coburn to be all males, a sexual difference which my limited observations confirm. Dresser, who gives specific rank to B. nigricans in his Manual of Palearctic Birds...'
H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 25, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899', say: 'An adult female of the American Black Brent (B. nigricans) is said by Mr. F. Coburn to have been shot by a wildfowler, named Richardson, in the Wash "deeps" (Norfolk), on January 15th, 1907, and sent to him (cf. J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1908, pp. 121 and 123 and Plate). Mr. Coburn informs Mr. Gurney that a male of the same species was shot by the same wildfowler near Lynn and sent to him on February 14th, 1902. If the occurrence of a bird new to the British list is to be accepted as authentic, it is far more satisfactory wherever possible that it should be examined in the flesh by two or more ornithologists, and recorded at the time, than that it should be recorded for the first time months and even years after it was obtained.'
F. C. R. Jourdain & H. F. Witherby (1910) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 107, say: 'Mr. Coburn here gives further details. He says that since he has studied this bird in America, he has been able to identify…the following in his own collection: another at King's Lynn (Norfolk) on January 15th, 1907.'
0). 1908 Norfolk The Wash, fourteen, obtained, late December to 26th January, 1909.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1910: 123; H. F. Witherby, British Birds 4: 27).
[H. F. Witherby, British Birds 22: 91-93].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Keswick Hall, Norwich (1910) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. XIV. p. 123, says: 'January 19th. During this month and the last days of December, 1908, Mr. F. Coburn, of Birmingham, obtained no fewer than fourteen examples of the Pacific, or Black, Brent Goose (Bernicla nigricans (Laur.)) – of which a figure is given in the Zoologist for 1908 (Plate I) – from King's Lynn, all of which had been shot in the Wash, and were possibly members of one and the same flock. Two of them were killed on Jan. 19th, and seven more on the 26th. This is a valuable series, as Mr. Coburn has now all grades from the first plumage without any white on the neck up to adults of both sexes. He now considers that at all ages and seasons, and in both sexes, the black or slaty-black under parts are constant, and that after the first plumage there is always a larger amount of white on the neck. He finds females to be of a paler slaty black than males.'
H. F. Witherby (1910) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 27, says: 'In his 'Ornithological Report for Norfolk' for 1909 (Zool., 1910, pp. 121-136) Mr. J. H. Gurney gives, as usual, much interesting information. Mr. Gurney reports that during the end of December, 1908, and January, 1909, Mr. F. Coburn received from King's Lynn fourteen examples of Brent Geese, which he identified as belonging to the American form Bernicla brenta nigricans (Lawrence). All the birds were reported as shot in the Wash – two on January 19th, 1909, and seven more on the 26th. Mr. Coburn now considers that at all ages and seasons, and in both sexes, the black or slaty-black under-parts are constant, and that after the first plumage there is always a larger amount of white on the neck; he adds, however, that females are of a paler slaty-black than males. There is no information as to whence Mr. Coburn's material came to enable him to arrive at this conclusion, which is, by the way, practically the same as that expressed by M. S. Alpheraky (Geese of Eur. and Asia, pp. 162-5). We should have liked more exact information as to how these birds differed from the typical B. branta (cf. Vol. II. p. 27).'
H. F. Witherby (1928) in British Birds, Vol. XXII. pp. 91-93, says: 'In A Practical Handbook of British Birds, Vol. II. p. 258, there is a note about a number of specimens of Branta b. nigricans recorded from Staffordshire (November, 1895), Warwickshire (November, 1897) and Norfolk (February, 1902, January, 1907, and January, 1909) by the late F. Coburn.
While we never accepted these as authentic, they were so accepted by the late J. H. Gurney (Zool., 1908, pp. 121-123 and 1910, p. 123).
Dr. B. B. Riviere, who has for some years been working systematically to bring the Birds of Norfolk up to date, was anxious to have critically examined the three supposed specimens of this goose taken in the Wash, Norfolk, which were formerly in the collection of the late J. H. Gurney (who received them from Coburn) and are now in the Norwich Castle Museum. I am much indebted to Dr. Riviere and the authorities of the Museum for having given me the opportunity of examining these birds.
They are labelled Kings Lynn, January 26th, 1909, on which date Mr. Gurney states (Zoologist 1910, p. 123) seven of this form were killed in the Wash, while altogether fourteen were obtained from gunners by Mr. Coburn during this month and December, 1908. I have compared them carefully with the very good series of twenty skins of B. b. nigricans in the British Museum, and with the larger series of B. b. bernicla in the same and in my own collection, and find them to be undoubtedly B. b. bernicla and not nigricans at all. B. b. nigricans is uniformly and constantly darker on the upper-parts than any of these three birds and than any British-taken Brents I have seen, also the under-parts of nigricans are darker, and sometimes much darker. With regard to the white neck-patches the majority of nigricans have the white joined in the front of the neck, and none of these has. In one (a male) the neck-patches are as large as in some nigricans, but the upper- and under-parts of this bird are markedly paler than any B. b. nigricans. In another (a female) the neck-patches are also large, though no larger than in some other B. b. bernicla, and the upper-parts are distinctly paler than in B. b. nigricans. The third bird (a male) is one of the darkest Common Brents I have seen but its neck-patches are quite normal.
Coburn appears to have been misled by the character of the size of the white neck-patches. This varies in both forms, though in many B. b. nigricans the white meets in the front of the neck, which it never definitely does in B. b. bernicla. Another distinguishing character for B. b. nigricans mentioned by Coburn is that the under tail-coverts project beyond the tail-feathers, but I find this variable in both forms. A very few B. b. bernicla also approach very nearly some B. b. nigricans in the colour of the under-parts, and the colour of the upper-parts (not mentioned by Coburn) is no doubt the most constant character. Had the specimens recorded by Coburn as having occurred in different parts of the country in different years really been of this form one would have had to conclude that the bird was a fairly regular migrant to this country, which is scarcely credible since it inhabits the Pacific side of America and eastern Asia as far west as the Lena.'
