Brünnich's Guillemot

Uria lomvia (Linnaeus, 1758) (1, 0)

Photo © Elmarie Humphries

STATUS

Holarctic. Polytypic.

OVERVIEW

During the period covered only the 1908 Lothian record was admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

---

RECORD

1). 1908 Lothian Craigielaw Point, immature female, picked up dead, 10th December, now at National Museums of Scotland (NMSZ 1909.134).

(W. E. Clarke, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1909: 75-76; Eds., British Birds 2: 425; Witherby, 1920-24; Rintoul & Baxter, 1935; R. Wagstaff, R. Williamson & R. H. Broughton, North-Western Naturalist 21: 20-26; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Thom, 1986; R. Y. McGowan, Z. Floody & J. M. Collinson, Scottish Birds 33: 232).

History Wm. Eagle Clarke (1909) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XVIII. pp. 75-76, says: 'On 11th December 1908 a specimen of Brünnich's Guillemot (Uria lomvia) was picked up on the shore at Craigielaw Point, on the Haddingtonshire coast of the Firth of Forth, and sent to the Royal Scottish Museum by Mr. Valentine Knight. The bird had evidently been dead some little time, for it was in rather high condition, and had been mauled by gulls or crows. It was at once placed inn strong spirit and allowed to remain there for several weeks, and has now, thanks to the skill of Mr. Hugh Mackay, been made into an excellent cabinet specimen.

The only other Scottish specimen of this Arctic species is one discovered by MacGillivray about eighty years ago among some birds from Orkney in the collection at the University of Edinburgh. on the strength of this specimen, which is in full summer plumage and is still to be seen among the birds in the Collections in the Royal Scottish Museum, Brünnich's Guillemot was added to the British avifauna. Other specimens are said to have been obtained in Caithness, Sutherland and Suffolk, but these occurrences cannot be regarded as entirely satisfactory. During the arctic winter of 1894-5, three examples were obtained on the Yorkshire coast and one in Cambridgeshire, and the claim of this bird to be regarded as British was thereby fully established. From that date until the finding of the present bird, no other specimen has been detected either in British waters or on our shores.

The bird under consideration is a female, and possesses all the characteristics of the species. It has a short, stout, curved bill, the basal portion of whose upper mandible is not overhung by plumes; the upper plumage is blue-black (showing a greenish hue in certain lights), except the medium and primary coverts, which are dark brown; the wing measures 8.45 ins from the carpal joint, and the tarsus 1.4 ins. Judging from the size of its bill, which, measured along the curve of the culmen, is only 1.2 ins. in length, I consider it to be a bird of the year, that is to say, about five months old. There is no patch of white behind the eye, that tint on the sides of the head being confined to the region well below the eye and extending from the gape backwards. I mention this character specially, because the white patches on the side of the occiput are present in adult specimens of this species in winter plumage, and also in Common Guillemots both young and old at that season. The Forth specimen resembles exactly the bird in the background figured on plate 40 of Vol. VI. of Lord Lilford's British Birds, except that its bill is more decidedly curved.'

In an Editorial (1909) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 425, he says: 'A female specimen of Brünnich's Guillemot (Uria brünnichi) was picked up dead on the shore at Craigielaw Point, on the Haddingtonshire coast of the Firth of Forth, on December 11th, 1908, and was sent to the Royal Scottish Museum by Mr. Valentine Knight. Judging by the size of the bill, which measures along the curve of the culmen only 1.2 inches, Mr. Clarke considers the specimen a bird of the year (W. Eagle Clarke, Ann. S.N.H., 1909, pp. 75 and 76). Mr. Clarke is, however, mistaken in stating that since 1895 "no other specimen has been detected either in British waters or on our shores", for two have since been procured off the Yorkshire coast, and another, if correctly identified, has been seen off the Farne Islands (cf. supra, p. 331).'

Rintoul & Baxter (1935) say: 'A female, found dead at Craigielaw Point, East Lothian, on 11th December, 1908. The specimen is in the National Museums of Scotland.'

NOT PROVEN

0). Pre 1835 Shetland Unst, several, undated.

(Ross, 1835; Yarrell, 1845; Baikie & Heddle, 1848; W. D. Crotch, Zoologist 1861: 7343; W. D. Crotch, Zoologist 1861: 7706-07; Harting, 1872).

[Yarrell, 1871-85; W. D. Crotch, Zoologist 1861: 7707; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Yarrell (1845 (3): 456, 2nd ed.) says: 'Captain James C. Ross, in his last Natural History appendix, published in 1835, says he met with this species at Unst, the most northern of the Shetland Islands, and in several parts of Scotland.'

W. D. Crotch (1861) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XIX. p. 7343, under 'Fauna of Shetland', says: 'Permanent.' Further, W. D. Crotch (1861) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XIX. pp. 7706-07, under 'Birds of Shetland', adds: 'Brünnich's Guillemot we could never see or hear of.'

Gurney (1876: 271) says: 'In the same manner I should set aside Shetland, where we have no later authority than Captain Ross for it, and that open to grave doubts.' Further, p. 272, he summarises: 'On the whole I do not believe in any of them, and I think that unless further evidence is forthcoming, this Guillemot might really be withdrawn from the British list.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 77, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Sir J. C. Ross's statement (App. Narr. Second Voy., p. xlvi.), "I have also met with it at Unst, the northernmost of the Shetland Islands, and in several parts of Scotland;" must be accepted with reserve, for neither by Saxby or any other competent ornithologist has it been found in Shetland up to the present time.'

0). Pre 1842 Caithness No locality, shot, undated.

(Wilson, 1842; Gray, 1871; Harting, 1872).

[Gurney, 1876; Yarrell, 1871-85; Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1887; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Gray (1871: 422) says: 'The late Mr. Wilson of Woodville, in his Voyage, mentions having seen a specimen in the collection of Mr. E. S. Sinclair of Wick; it had been shot in Caithness, and was preserved by Mr. Sinclair, who was unable to name the species (although the peculiarities were observed) until Mr. Wilson identified it.'

Harting (1872: 166) says: 'One, Caithness (Wilson, Voyage round Scotland and the Isles, Vol. II. p. 170). In the collection of Mr. Sinclair.'

Gurney (1876: 272) says: 'It has been "once met with" in Caithness....On the whole I do not believe in any of them, and I think that unless further evidence is forthcoming, this Guillemot might really be withdrawn from the British list.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 78, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'A reputed specimen, identified by "the late Mr. Wilson of Woodville", is said to be in the collection of Mr. E. S. Sinclair of Wick, and to have been shot in Caithness (Gray's B. W. Scot., p. 422).'

Not accepted locally as the record was placed in square brackets (Harvie-Brown & Buckley 1887: 240-241).

0). 1847 Outer Hebrides Soay, St Kilda, obtained, 15th June.

(W. M. E. Milner, Zoologist 1848: 2061; Harting, 1872; Clarke, 1912).

[Yarrell, 1871-85; Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1888; Not in BOU, 1971; T. Melling, British Birds 98: 230-237].

History W. M. E. Milner (1848) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. VI. p. 2061, on a visit in 1847 produced his 'List of Birds of the Outer Hebrides', and says: 'Brünnich's Guillemot and eggs. Soa, June 15.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 77, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'The late Sir W. E. Milner asserted (Zool., p. 2059) that Brünnich's Guillemot was found breeding on the rock of Soa, St. Kilda, where one egg was taken; but the correctness of his identification, or rather that of Graham of York, may be questioned, inasmuch as no subsequent visitor has been able to see or hear of it.'

Clarke (1912 (2): 242-243) under 'The Birds of St Kilda', says: '[Brünnich's Guillemot - Milner (Zoologist 1848: 2061) tells us that "Brünnich's Guillemot and egg" were taken on Soay on 15th June 1847. Milner himself was not one of the party visiting Soay, and it is impossible to say how far he was responsible for the identification of the bird. The notorious David Graham, of York, was with Mr. (afterwards Sir William) Milner and his friends, and most likely it is to him that we are indebted for this and for some other questionable statements.]'

Not accepted locally as the record was placed in square brackets (Harvie-Brown & Buckley 1888: 163).

Comment David Graham was discredited over the 'Tadcaster rarities' fraud (T. Melling, British Birds 98: 230-237).

0). Pre 1852 Northumberland Farne Islands, undated.

(J. Wolley, Zoologist 1852: 3477; Harting, 1872).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History John Wolley (1852) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. X. p. 3477, dated May, 1852, says: '...Mr. Newton's paper is headed "British Species of Guillemot", but as no mention is made of Brünnich's, that gentleman, or Mr. Newman very probably does not consider it worth mentioning, and in truth, as a British bird, it scarcely is. It certainly does not breed anywhere round our islands, and I could see or hear nothing of it in the Farne Islands, although it has been mentioned amongst these birds....In conclusion I may mention that the substance of the above remarks on Uria lachrymans was introduced in a paper by myself on the 'Birds of the Faroe Islands', read at the meeting of the British Association at Edinburgh, and printed at length by Sir W. Jardine, in his Ornithological Notes.'

Comment Misinterpretation. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1852 Orkney No locality, obtained, undated.

(Yarrell, 1845; MacGillivray, 1837-52; Baikie & Heddle, 1848).

[Gurney, 1876; BOU, 1971].

History Yarrell (1845 (3): 456, 2nd ed.) says: 'Professor MacGillivray refers, in the second volume of his Manual, to a specimen now preserved in the Edinburgh University, which was received with other skins from Orkney.'

Gurney (1876: 271) says: '...which leaves me no choice but to turn to Orkney, and all that can be said for Orkney is that we are informed by Professor MacGillivray (B. B., V. p. 316) that the only British specimen he ever saw was among some skins from Orkney, which had belonged to Mr. Wilson, Janitor of the Edinburgh Museum. This is no doubt the same individual alluded to in the Nat. Hist. of Orkney (p. 86).'

Further, p. 272, he summarises: 'On the whole I do not believe in any of them, and I think that unless further evidence is forthcoming, this Guillemot might really be withdrawn from the British list.'

0). 1860 Isle of Wight Freshwater, obtained, 7th February.

(Venables, 1860; Roberts; Harting, 1872).

[Gurney, 1876; Yarrell, 1871-85; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Gurney (1876: 272) says: 'In England I have no remarks to offer...on a specimen obtained at Freshwater on the 7th February, 1860, by Mr. Rogers (Guide to the Isle of Wight, p. 434)....On the whole I do not believe in any of them, and I think that unless further evidence is forthcoming, this Guillemot might really be withdrawn from the British list.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 78, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Mr. A. G. More states, in Venables Guide to the Isle of Wight, Zoology, p. 34 (1860), that it "was obtained by Mr. Rogers, at Freshwater, Feb. 7th, 1860", but the resting-place of this rare example is not indicated.'

Kelsall & Munn (1905: 355-356) say: 'The only record of this species within the county's limits is so doubtful that we only, with hesitation, include it in our list. [Mr. A. G.] More (1860) states that one "was obtained by Mr. Rogers of Freshwater, February 7th, 1860". No trace of the specimen can be found, and More writing to Kelsall from Dublin in March, 1889, says of this record, - "an error, I believe; I never saw it".'

0). 1860 North-east Scotland Coastal locality, Banffshire, undated.

(T. Edward, Zoologist 1860: 6971; Harting, 1872).

[Gurney, 1876; Yarrell, 1871-85; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Thomas Edward (1860) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XVIII. p. 6971, says: 'Has been once met with.'

Gurney (1876: 272) says: 'It has been "once met with" in Banffshire, fide Mr. T. Edward (Zool. 6971)....On the whole I do not believe in any of them, and I think that unless further evidence is forthcoming, this Guillemot might really be withdrawn from the British list.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 77-78, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Equally unsatisfactory is Mr. Thomas Edward's bare statement (Zool., p. 6971) that this species "has been once met with" on the coast of Banffshire.'

0). Pre 1865 Highland No locality, Sutherland, undated.

(A. G. More, Ibis 1865: 449; Harting, 1872).

[Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971].

History A. G. More (1865) in The Ibis, Vol. VII. 449pp. 449-450, says: 'Brünnich's Guillemot (U. brünnichi) is included by Sir W. Milner in his 'List of the Birds of Sutherland', published in the Zoologist; but Mr. Henry Milner has kindly informed me that the bird was not found breeding there, and only a single specimen was purchased on that occasion.'

Gray (1871: 423) says: 'Mr. A. G. More mentions (Ibis 1865) that a specimen was obtained by the late Sir William Milner in Sutherlandshire.'

Gurney (1876: 271) says: 'On the mainland of Scotland we have a slight discrepancy. Mr. A. G. More says (Ibis, 1865, 449): - "Brünnich's Guillemot is included by Sir W. Milner in his list of the 'Birds of Sutherland', published in The Zoologist; but Mr. Henry Milner has kindly informed me that the bird was not found breeding there, and only a single specimen was purchased on that occasion". This has been requoted by Mr. R. Gray and Mr. Harting, but I have turned to Sir William's list (Zool. 2014) and cannot find any mention of it. I conclude, however, that in some way confusion has arisen with his later records in the same volume, (pp. 2059, 2061) in which he speaks of a Brünnich's Guillemot and egg at Soa, a little island close to St Kilda.'

Further, p. 272, he summarises: 'On the whole I do not believe in any of them, and I think that unless further evidence is forthcoming, this Guillemot might really be withdrawn from the British list.'

0). Pre 1866 Cornwall Rosemullion Head, shot, undated.

(Bullmore, 1866; Harting, 1872; Clark, 1906).

[Gurney, 1876; Yarrell, 1871-85; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Gurney (1876: 272) says: 'In England I have no remarks to offer on one killed at Rosemullion Head, in Cornwall, by Mr. G. Copeland (Cornish Fauna, p. 39), except to say that Mr. Rodd in his more recent catalogue takes no notice of it....On the whole I do not believe in any of them, and I think that unless further evidence is forthcoming, this Guillemot might really be withdrawn from the British list.'

Harting, Editor (1880: 159) in Rodd's Birds of Cornwall, says: 'Dr. Bullmore (1866) stated that a bird of this species was shot some years ago by Mr. George Copeland at Rosemullion Head.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 78, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'In Dr. Bullmore's Cornish Fauna (p. 39), one is said to have been obtained off Rosemullion Head; but it is evident that Mr. Rodd was somewhat doubtful as to the correctness of the identification or of the occurrence; and the late Mr. Gould does not so much as allude to the species in the Introduction to his Birds of Great Britain.'

0). Pre 1872 Suffolk Near the Orwell or Stour, obtained, undated.

(Babington, 1884-86).

[Yarrell, 1871-85; Ticehurst, 1932].

History Babington (1884-86: 246) in not accepting this record, says: 'One purchased at the sale of the Sudbury Museum; it formed part of a case of twelve "British Aquatic Birds" Lot 230; but although there is considerable reason for presuming that it was obtained near the mouth of the Orwell or Stour, whence so many of the aquatic birds in that museum came, there is no direct evidence on the point (in my collection)....it is possible however that it may have been taken on the borders of Essex, and not of Suffolk.'

Further, in a footnote, he adds: 'Mr. Jonathan Grubb, the brother-in-law of Mr. King, who may be called the founder of the Sudbury Museum, does not think that there is any probability that this or the following species [White-billed Diver] are there represented by a foreign specimen.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 78, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'The Rev. Churchill Babington has kindly sent, for the inspection of the Editor, an undoubted Brünnich's Guillemot, purchased at the sale of the Museum of Sudbury, Suffolk, where it formed part of a case of twelve "British Aquatic Birds", Lot 230, but although there is considerable reason for presuming that it was obtained near the mouth of the Orwell, there is no direct evidence on the point.'

0). 1883 Caithness No locality, undated.

(Clark & Sellers, 2005).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Clark & Sellers (2005: 73) list three records: - 1883, 1976 and 1988 for Caithness.

Comment I believe Clark & Sellers have made this a duplicate record for the 1842 record. Not acceptable.

0). 1883-84 Northumberland Between Seahouses and Inner Farne, shot, winter.

(H. B. Booth, Naturalist 34: 289; Galloway & Meek, 1978-83; P. Hawkey, Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumbria 55: 176).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Harry B. Booth of Bradford (1908) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXXIV. p. 289, says: '...Immediately on our return to shore at Seahouses we examined the specimen of Brünnich's Guillemot at the Bamburgh Arms Hotel, which was shot off the Farne Islands by the late Mr. Cuthbertson.'

Comment Presumably Booth was referring to this record.

0). 1893 North-east Scotland Belhelvie, June.

(Sim, 1903).

[Thom, 1986; Phillips, 1997].

History Sim (1903) says: 'The only occurrence of this rare Arctic straggler is one obtained by Mr. James Fraser, Aberdeen, a collector of natural history specimens. He found it in June, 1893, amongst a number of Common Guillemots that had got caught and were drowned in the salmon nets at Belhelvie. Mr. Fraser brought the bird to me for identification, and it is now in my possession.'

0). 1894 Yorkshire North Bay, Scarborough, adult male, shot, 7th December, now at Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery (Acc. No. 1924Z18.4582).

(J. E. Harting, Zoologist 1895: 70; J. Cordeaux, Naturalist 21: 119; Hartert et al., 1912; Watson, 2010).

[R. Wagstaff, R. Williamson & R. H. Broughton, North-Western Naturalist 21: 20-26; Chislett, 1952; Not in BOU, 1971].

History J. E. Harting (1895) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIX. p. 70, says: 'On Dec. 7th last a specimen of this rare Arctic visitor was shot in North Bay, Scarborough, and taken to Mr. W. J. Clarke, taxidermist, of that town, who very kindly forwarded it to me for inspection, and I had the pleasure of exhibiting it at a meeting of the Linnean Society. The occurrence of this species in the British Islands has been so rarely proved that it is of interest to place on record some details respecting the specimen now referred to. The measurements, taken while the bird was still unskinned, were as follows: - Total length, 18 in.; length of wing from carpal joint to end of longest primary, 8¼ in.; total expanse of wings, 24½ in. On comparing it with a Common Guillemot the beak was found to be decidedly shorter and thicker; and the white line on the edge of the upper mandible, running from the gape to the nostrils, very distinct; head, nape, and back pure black without any brownish tinge; the white of the under parts running up to a point on the front of the neck, not to a rounded arch as in the Common Guillemot; tarsi and toes dirty orange, interdigital webs dirty brown. It proved to be a male by dissection.'

John Cordeaux of Great Cotes (1895) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXI. p. 119, in the April, 1895, issue, says: 'One, an adult male, was shot on the North Bay, Scarborough, on January 7th, by a loafer who did not take the trouble to pick it from the water; fortunately it was secured by an onlooker and taken to Mr. W. J. Clarke, naturalist, who at once recognised its rarity. The bird was exhibited by Mr. Harting at the meeting of the Linnean Society of London on Jan. 17th.'

Chislett (1952: 306) says: 'In the North-Western Naturalist of March/June, 1946, Messrs. R. Wagstaffe, R. Williamson and R. H. Broughton wrote on 'The Invalidity of Some Early Records of Brünnich's Guillemot in Britain', showing after examination of two specimens still at York, that of these three birds found on the Yorkshire coast in the winter of 1894-95 and ascribed to this species, "two of these certainly, and one most probably, are examples of the Common Guillemot in winter plumage". The authors continue: "the examination revealed beyond all shadow of doubt that Thorburn's painting" (of U. lomvia in Lord Lilford's book) "was executed from an example of Uria aalge in winter plumage".

After such experience the three writers proceeded, not unnaturally, to query other British records of Brünnich's Guillemot, and roundly declared a specimen obtained in the Firth of Forth on December 10th, 1908, to be "the only undoubted specimen of U. lomvia lomvia taken on the British coast. Other birds mentioned by Nelson, from near Flamborough Head in November, 1899, and one shot of Scarborough on October 28th, 1902, were not available for re-examination".'

Watson (2010) in detailing the R. W. Chase collection in the Birmingham Museum lists this specimen and quoting from his Notebooks adds that it was figured by Lord Lilford in Illustrations of British Birds.

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1895 Cambridgeshire River Nene, Guyhirn, obtained, 12th January.

(J. E. Harting, Zoologist 1895: 70; Lord Lilford, Zoologist 1895: 109; Ed., Field 9th Mar., 1895: 311; Hartert et al., 1912; Lack, 1934; Bircham, 1989).

[Not in BOU, 1971; J. S. Clark, Cambridgeshire Bird Report 2004: 139-140].

History J. E. Harting (1895) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIX. p. 70, says: 'The Rev. Julian Tuck also has written to announce the capture of another in Cambridgeshire; but as to this specimen there appears to be, at present, a little uncertainty, inasmuch as he describes it as having some faint transverse ridges on the upper mandible, a peculiarity which suggests the possibility of its being an immature Razorbill, in which the bill might be less developed than in the adult bird. I am not aware that any such markings, faint or otherwise, are to be found on the mandibles of Brünnich's Guillemot at any age. Mr. Tuck, however, appears to have no doubt that he has correctly identified the species, and states that the white line on the edge of the upper mandible is very plain, and that the colour of the legs and feet is pale brown with darker webs.'

Lord Lilford of Lilford Hall, Oundle (1895) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIX. p. 109, says: 'With reference to the Guillemot alluded to in your editorial note (p. 70) as announced by the Rev. Julian Tuck, I beg to inform you that this gentleman has been kind enough to send me the specimen in question, stuffed, for inspection.

I had little doubt at first sight as to its species, but as I have a very slight acquaintance with this family of birds, I obtained Mr. Tuck's permission to send this bird for the opinion of Professor Alfred Newton, who, after comparing it with specimens in the Cambridge University Museum, wrote to me that (in his opinion) there could be no doubt that the bird is Brünnich's Guillemot. I may add that through the courtesy of Mr. W. J. Clarke and Mr. Oxley Grabham, I have also seen the Scarborough and Filey specimens, recorded loc. supra cit. and that an examination of these confirms (were any confirmation needed) Professor Newton's opinion with regard to the subject on this note.'

[It is satisfactory to have all doubt removed by this communication, for which we are much obliged, and it only remains to add that the Cambridgeshire specimen of Brünnich's Guillemot here referred to was obtained at Guyhirne [sic], on the Nene, Cambridgeshire, about the 12th January last. It was received in the flesh by Mr. Travis, taxidermist, of Bury, from whom it was subsequently purchased by Mr. Tuck. - Ed.]

In an Editorial (1895) in The Field of 9th Mar., Vol. LXXXV. p. 311, they add nothing new to the above.

Accepted locally (Lack 1934: 109; Bircham 1989) but since found not proven.

0). 1895 Yorkshire Filey, two, one picked up dead, 30th January, the other shot at same time.

(J. E. Harting, Zoologist 1895: 70; O. Grabham, Zoologist 1895: 70-71; J. Cordeaux, Naturalist 21: 119; Hartert et al., 1912).

[R. Wagstaff, K. Williamson & R. H. Broughton, North-Western Naturalist 21: 20-26; Chislett, 1952; Not in BOU, 1971].

History J. E. Harting (1895) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIX. p. 70, says: '...Mr. O. Grabham, of Scarborough, has reported that on Jan. 30th he picked up another on the sands at Filey, and saw a third in the possession of a man who had secured it, together with a specimen of the Ringed Guillemot, in the same neighbourhood.'

Oxley Grabham of Scarborough (1895) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIX. pp. 70-71, says: 'On Jan. 30th, when shore-shooting at Filey, I picked up on the sands a remarkably large Guillemot, being attracted by its size, the very distinct white line along the edge of the upper mandible, and the colour of the legs. Total length, 19¾ in.; from carpus to end of longest primary, 8¼ in.; total expanse of wings, 28½ in.

On calling upon Mr. Clarke, of Scarborough, to compare my bird with his specimen of Brünnich's Guillemot, which was shot in North Bay, Scarborough, on Dec. 7th, and which I had the pleasure of examining in the flesh, I found, on taking measurements, that the beak of his bird is shorter, but mine is more angular and of greater depth. Mine is as black as his is on the back and neck, and very much blacker than a Common Guillemot in summer plumage which I have, but it shows on the top of the head a few brownish feathers. My bird is much larger, and the tarsi and toes are yellowish olive, whereas those of Mr. Clarke's bird I had noted as dirty orange. The white on the neck in both birds runs up to a point under the chin, instead of a rounded arch as in Uria troile.

On searching for a Common Guillemot, I found a man with two birds which he got the same day (Jan. 30th), one a Ringed Guillemott (of which more anon), and the other a Guillemot, very like, but not so large as, my Filey specimen. Its dimensions were as follows: - Total length 18¾ in.; carpus to end of longest primary, 7¾ in.; total expanse of wings, 26 in. Black on the head, neck, and back; the white on the front of the neck running up into a point, and a very distinct white line on the edge of the upper mandible; but whereas in the Filey specimen this white line begins in front of the nostrils and runs back to the gape, in the second bird it begins behind the nostrils. The tarsi and toes were yellowish olive; webs dirty brown, as in the Filey bird.

I am going to preserve them both, as I do all my birds myself, and if they are not Brünnich's, I confess I am very much puzzled, for the only difference I can detect is that Mr. Clarke's bird is shorter in the bill, and the tarsi and toes are a little different in colour, both my birds being larger than his.

Of course there is nothing improbable in other specimens of Brünnich's Guillemot turning up after such severe weather and heavy gales as we have had recently; in fact, it would be curious if a gregarious like the Guillemot (if it sought our shores at all) should not come in small flocks, and not merely a stray specimen. As bearing on this point, I do not know whether Mr. Clarke has told you (he informed he was going to do so) that he heard from a friend of his in Canada (Toronto, I think) that the three rarest birds he had received this season were three Brünnich's Guillemots, accounted very rare out there.'

P.S., Feb. 5th. - 'Since writing to you, I have seen a Ringed Guillemot got here, the ordinary chocolate-brown colour - mine, as I told you, was pure black - with a very distinct white line on the edge of the upper mandible. Is there a ringed variety of the Brünnich's Guillemot? It was very far gone, and sadly knocked about, but I have managed to preserve the head and neck. The large Filey Guillemot, with the white line on the upper mandible, and light legs, I have also preserved. It was an enormous bird, a male.'

John Cordeaux of Great Cotes (1895) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXI. p. 119, in the April, 1895, issue, says: '...Another, a remarkable fine bird, also a male, was got at Filey on January 30th, by Mr. Oxley Grabham, who picked it up on the sands. This measured 19¾ inches in length and 28½ inches in expanse of wing. There was a white edge to the basal half of the upper mandible, and the bird was very dark-coloured on the head and back; legs yellowish-olive.

A third, of which Mr. Grabham has the skin, a female, was obtained at Filey, about the same time. It is probable that this species is more frequent occurrence off the coast in some winters than we have hitherto supposed. It is a very likely bird to be overlooked. All these three Yorkshire examples were got from the shore, and when we consider how seldom it is that the Common Guillemot is driven on the coast we may reasonable suppose those occurrences must be very exceptional in which this large and robust Arctic bird is incapable of keeping the sea.

The three Yorkshire specimens have been sent to Lord Lilford, and we are glad to learn Brünnich's Guillemot will be the subject of a plate in his beautiful Illustrations of British Birds.'

Chislett (1952: 306) says: 'In the North-Western Naturalist of March/June, 1946, Messrs. R. Wagstaffe, K. Williamson and R. H. Broughton wrote on 'The Invalidity of Some Early Records of Brünnich's Guillemot in Britain', showing after examination of two specimens still at York, that of these three birds found on the Yorkshire coast in the winter of 1894-95 and ascribed to this species, "two of these certainly, and one most probably, are examples of the Common Guillemot in winter plumage".

The authors continue: "the examination revealed beyond all shadow of doubt that Thorburn's painting" (of U. lomvia in Lord Lilford's book) "was executed from an example of Uria aalge in winter plumage". After such experience the three writers proceeded, not unnaturally, to query other British records of Brünnich's Guillemot, and roundly declared a specimen obtained in the Firth of Forth on December 10th, 1908, to be "the only undoubted specimen of U. lomvia lomvia taken on the British coast. Other birds mentioned by Nelson, from near Flamborough Head in November, 1899, and one shot of Scarborough on October 28th, 1902, were not available for re-examination".'

Comment This record contains the account of two of the individuals, the other referred to, was shot, on 7th December 1894. Misidentified. Not admitted by the BOU (1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1899 Yorkshire Flamborough Head, obtained, November.

(Nelson, 1907; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 331; Hartert et al., 1912).

[Chislett, 1952; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Nelson (1907 (2): 725) says: 'Another example, procured near Flamborough Head in November 1899, is now in the collection of Sir Oswald Mosley of Rolleston Hall, Derby.'

Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1909) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 331, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899'.

0). 1902 Yorkshire Scarborough, obtained, 28th October.

(Nelson, 1907; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 331; Hartert et al., 1912).

[Chislett, 1952; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Nelson (1907 (2): 725) says: 'The latest occurrence was on 28th October 1902, when Mr. Joseph Morley of Scarborough wrote informing me that he had shot a Brünnich's Guillemot at sea, about two miles from the Castle Foot.'

Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1909) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 331, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899'.

0). 1908 Northumberland Farne Islands, seen, 14th June.

(H. B. Booth, Naturalist 34: 289; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 331; Bolam, 1912; Galloway & Meek, 1978-83; P. Hawkey, Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumbria 55: 176).

[H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 331; Chislett, 1952; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Harry B. Booth of Bradford (1908) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXXIV. p. 289, says: 'On June 14th, when off the celebrated Pinnacle Rocks, with Mr. Riley Fortune, I was greatly surprised to see a Brünnich's Guillemot on the water, and quite close to the boat. I called my friend's attention to it, and we watched it diving and reappearing for some time, and put the boat round to follow it until it was lost in the hundreds of Common Guillemots that were floating upon the surface.

We hung about for some time longer, but could not find it again, and unfortunately were leaving for home the following morning. A rather curious feature was that it was not in full summer plumage, and it was the fact of its having more white upon its neck and lower throat in contrast to its companions, the Common Guillemots, that first drew attention to it, and it was also rather darker on the upper parts. It was in a state intermediate between the winter and summer plumages. Supposing it were a winged bird would that retard its nuptial plumage, or does Brünnich's Guillemot attain its summer plumage more later than its more common relative? But its thicker, slightly shorter, and differently shaped beak was quite distinct from that of the Common Guillemot, and on one occasion it rose so very near to our boat that I could distinctly see (through my field-glasses) the white line along the basal half of the upper mandible. Immediately on our return to shore at Seahouses we examined the specimen of Brünnich's Guillemot at the Bamburgh Arms Hotel, which was shot off the Farne Islands by the late Mr. Cuthbertson.

Our identification was confirmed, excepting that the stuffed bird was more in winter plumage than the bird we had seen. In my own mind I have not the slightest doubt about its correct identity. But I am aware that the accuracy of its occurrence in summer may be challenged, so I am sending this short note without delay in order that ornithologists who visit the Farne Islands this season may look out for the bird.'

H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1909) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 331, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899', placing the record in square brackets, say: 'On June 14th, 1908, when off the Pinnacle Rocks, Farne Islands, in a boat, Messrs. H. B. Booth and Riley Fortune saw a bird which they identified as an example of this species. "...it was not in full summer plumage, and it was the fact of having more white upon its neck and lower throat in contrast to its companions, the Common Guillemots, that first drew my attention to it, and it was rather darker on the upperparts. Its thicker, slightly shorter, and differently shaped beak was quite distinct from that of the Common Guillemot I could distinctly see (through my field glasses) the white line along the edge of the basal half of the upper mandible" (H. B. Booth, Nat., 1908, p. 289)".'

Bolam (1912: 664) says: 'In The Naturalist for 1908, p. 289, Mr. H. B. Booth, of Bradford, records that he and some friends saw an example at the Farne Islands, in June of that year, which, in spite of the improbability of the bird's being found there at that season, he has assured me he had no doubt at all it was correctly identified. This bird was only about half-changed to summer plumage, and, as it refused to fly, it was supposed it might have been a wounded individual. It came up quite near the boat, and was examined by Mr. Booth through his glasses under very favourable conditions, the white line on the beak being clearly visible.'

Chislett (1952: 306) says: '...Its darker plumage would be more conspicuous among the brown Southern Guillemots than among members of the northern race. This sight record Messrs. Wagstaffe, Williamson and Broughton consider to be authentic.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1909 Yorkshire Bempton, seen, 27th June.

(O. Grabham, British Birds 3: 91-92; Hartert et al., 1912).

[Chislett, 1952; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Oxley Grabham (1909) in British Birds, Vol. III. pp. 91-92, says: 'On June 27th last I saw on the Bempton Cliffs an undoubted example of Brünnich's Guillemot (Uria brünnichi). I saw this bird several times as it always returned to the same ledge in company with a Common Guillemot, and it was not more than forty or fifty feet below me, so that I could discern every detail with the naked eye easily, and with my Zeiss glass I might have had it in my hand.

I have handled three Yorkshire specimens in the flesh, and lent the late Lord Lilford the bird that I picked up dead in Filey Bay, for Mr. Thorburn to paint, for reproduction in his book, Birds of the British Isles. Both Lord Lilford and the late Professor Newton told me long ago that they saw no reason why the Brünnich's should not be found breeding on our cliffs, and the former always considered it a large form of the Common Guillemot, and looked upon the Common Guillemot, viz., ours, as a local race of the Brünnich's.

I have examined scores of Guillemots at different times, both in winter and summer plumage, and have found all gradations, between the Brünnich's, the large Baltic race - and ours - running into one another.'

Chislett (1952: 306) says: 'A bird recorded by the late Oxley Grabham on Bempton Cliffs on June 27th, 1909 (British Birds, III. p. 91), is, however, doubted since the observer stated that he identified the bird from his knowledge of the three Yorkshire supposed examples of 1894-95; but Guillemots would not be in winter plumage at that date.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1913 Northumberland Cullercoats, picked up dead, 29th November.

(Bolam, 1932; Galloway & Meek, 1978-83; Carruthers & Shaw, 1986).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Bolam (1932) says: '...one picked up by the late J. M. Charlton on the beach at Cullercoats on November 29th, 1913.'

Carruthers & Shaw (1986: 20) say: 'Picked up dead on the beach at Cullercoats by J. M. Charlton on 29th November 1913.'

0). 1947 Shetland Weisdale Voe, Mainland, 15th May.

(Venables & Venables, 1955).

[Venables & Venables, 1955].

History Venables & Venables (1955) recording the record in square brackets, say: 'On 15th May 1947, when in our boat between the islands of Flotta and Hoy, Weisdale Voe, we watched a Guillemot still showing a good deal of winter (or first-winter) plumage which appeared to have the diagnostic thick bill with a pale line. We thought that it lacked the dark line across its white "cheeks" which is also characteristic of Brünnich's Guillemot in winter dress. We are both familiar with this species on its breeding cliffs in Iceland. On the present occasion there was a good deal of sea movement to the boat and a long steady view through binoculars was impossible, so we give square brackets to this species...'