American Buff-bellied Pipit
Anthus rubescens (Tunstall, 1771) (1, 1)
Photo © Iain H Leach
STATUS
Nearctic and Eastern Palearctic. Polytypic.
OVERVIEW
It was formerly known as Pennsylvanian Pipit A. ludovicianus. Harting (1872: 109) listed eight records for Great Britain, but admitted that many of these were probably A. spinoletta.
Formerly considered conspecific with Rock Pipit A. petrosus and Water Pipit A. spinoletta until 1988 from when the Buff-bellied Pipit was treated as a full species.
RECORD
1). 1910 Outer Hebrides St Kilda, immature male, caught, 30th September, now at National Museums of Scotland (NMSZ 1910.165.31).
(W. E. Clarke, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1911: 51-52; L. J. Rintoul & E. V. Baxter, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1911: 135; H. F. Witherby, British Birds 4: 285; Clarke, 1912; Witherby, 1920-24; Thom, 1986).
History Wm. Eagle Clarke (1911) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XX. pp. 51-52, says: 'In order to carry the investigations on the migration of birds, in which I have been for some years engaged, to the outermost fringe of the British Area, I visited St Kilda during the past autumn.
Here I remained, with George Stout as my assistant, from 1st September to 8th October, and met with quite unlooked-for success....Of these 35 were new to the avifauna of the island, or an addition of 50 per cent to the species that had been previously known to occur there.
Among the birds observed were a number of surprises - species which had not previously been recorded for Western Scotland, while the American Pipit (Anthus pennsylvanicus) is new to the British fauna. A full account of the result of these investigations is in preparation, and will be published in due course.'
Admitted by L. J. Rintoul & E. V. Baxter (1911) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XX. p. 135, under 'Report on Scottish Ornithology in 1910'.
H. F. Witherby (1911) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 285, says: 'Mr. W. Eagle Clarke announces (Ann. S.N.H., 1911, p. 52) that during his visit to St. Kilda in the autumn of 1910 (September 1st to October 8th) he "met with quite unlooked-for success". Fifty-four species on passage came under his notice, and of these thirty-five were new to the avifauna of the island. Among them was an example of the American Water Pipit (Anthus spinoletta rubescens), which Mr. Clarke pronounces to be new to the British list. Howard Saunders (Manual, p. 142) rejected previously recorded occurrences, and Professor Newton argues (Yarrell, ed. IV. Vol. I. p. 590, footnote) that MacGillivray's first description (Man. Brit. Birds, p. 169) of specimens obtained in 1824 near Edinburgh refers to A. s. rupestris, while his more elaborate description on pp. 170 and 171 refers to A. s. rubescens (= ludovicianus; pennsylvanicus) and that of the female to A. s. rupestris! The bird appears to have been first named by Tunstall (Orn. Brit., p. 2), who called it Alauda rubescens from the Red Lark of Pennant (Brit. Zool. Birds, II. p. 239), who took his description from Edwards (Gleanings, pl. 297), where a bird from Pennsylvania is figured. Edwards said he also found this bird near London.
In the Check-List of North American Birds (1910, p. 328), the bird is said to breed in the Arctic zone from north-eastern Siberia, northern Alaska, northern Mackenzie, on both sides of Davis Strait south to the Great Slave Lake, northern Quebec and Newfoundland, and from the Aleutian Islands to Prince William Sound, as well as on high mountains south to California and mid Mexico. It winters from the Southern States to Guatemala.
Two examples are recorded by Gatke from Heligoland, one on November 6th, 1857, and another on May 17th, 1858 (Heligoland, p. 344). The American Water Pipit is much like the typical form, but may be distinguished by its larger size, the more tawny colouring of the underparts, and by the penultimate pair of tail-feathers being white to the tip on the outer web.'
Clarke (1912 (2): 212) under 'The Birds of St Kilda', says: 'American Pipit. A young male was captured on a small burn close to the village on 30th September 1910. It is doubtful if we should have detected it, in its autumn dress, among the numerous Meadow-Pipits, if its unfamiliar note had not attracted our attention. In this stage of plumage the upper surface much resembles that of a Rock-Pipit, but the under surface is cinnamon brown, the pale markings on the outer pairs of tail feathers are pure white, and the tarsus and toes are black. This bird is new to the British avifauna, and must be regarded, along with the Marsh-Warbler, as the most remarkable and unexpected of our captures in 1910.'
1950-57 RECORD
2). 1953 Fair Isle Guidicum, immature, 17th September.
(K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 2: 13; K. Williamson, Scottish Naturalist 66: 53-54; E. V. Baxter, Scottish Naturalist 67: 103, rejected; R. K. Cornwallis, British Birds 47: 424-425; Thom, 1986; Dymond, 1991).
History K. Williamson (1953) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. II. p. 13, says: 'When observing along the tops of the west cliffs on September 17th 1953 I came suddenly upon a bird which I first took to be a wagtail, feeding near Rock Pipits on the close-cropped grassy turf at the head of the geo called Guithicum [sic]....'
K. Williamson (1954) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXVI. pp. 53-54, says: '...When I used my binoculars it was at once apparent that the plumage-pattern was entirely wrong for a wagtail, and for the reasons given below I had to conclude that the bird was an American Pipit Anthus spinoletta rubescens.
It was a darker, richer brown above than our own Rock Pipits A. s. kleinschmidti, a number of which were feeding as usual on the close-cropped grassy ground behind the cliffs. There was a clear, pale eye-stripe. The most striking feature of the plumage was the buff underside, richest on the brown-streaked breast, so that the upper and underparts afforded a greater and more colourful contrast than in the Rock Pipit, in which the olivaceous wash renders the breast-plumage very dull at a short distance. A suggestion of the buffish coloration invaded the sides of the head, and there were pale tips to the median and greater coverts. The outer tail-feathers were white and this fact was readily noticeable even when the bird was at rest, owing to the wagtail-like flicking of the tail.
I should perhaps say that I have had previous experience in the field, affording good opportunities for observing behaviour and call-notes, of all seven species of British pipits; but that my knowledge of the south European and American races of A. spinoletta is founded on museum material. These races appear to be distinctive in autumn plumage from the specimens I have seen, the breast and belly of the European Water Pipit being whiter than in the Rock Pipit, and in the American bird strongly suffused with buff, as in the case of the bird watched at Fair Isle....the call note given I wrote down as "syit, syit" - very like the call of the Rock Pipit, but higher in pitch, clearer and more incisive.
Although I feel confident that this identification is correct I am recording this case as a "probable" because I was not able to get a second observer to confirm, nor was I able to trap or collect the bird....It is possible the bird is more frequent in Britain than these records suggest, since it breeds in low-Arctic Greenland and could conceivably reach this country in the weather responsible for the Lapland Bunting Calcarius lapponicus immigration in autumn.'
NOT PROVEN
0). Pre 1764 Greater London Near London, undated.
(Edwards, 1758-64; Harting, 1872).
[Hartert et al., 1912; BOU, 1971].
History Edwards (1760 (2): 185-186) under 'The Lark from Pensilvania' says: 'The Lark and the Fly are both figured of the size of life, and were engraved on the plate directly from the natural subjects.
The bill of the Lark is sharp-pointed and slender, and of a blackish colour, excepting a little yellow at the basis of the lower mandible. The head, upper side of the neck, and the back, are of a dark dusky-brown colour: a blackish line passes through the eye, and a clay coloured line above it; the eye-lids are also light-coloured, and the eye dark. The wings and tail are dark-brown or dusky, the feathers having light-brown borders and tips: the insides of the wings are ash-coloured. The outer feathers on each side of the tail are white: the two next to them have white tips. The under side, from bill to tail, is of a light reddish-brown, with dusky spots, as shewn by the figure. The legs, feet, and claws are dark-brown. It hath a longish claw or spur behind, but I think shorter than in the common Lark. What is particular in this bird is, that, when the wing is closely gathered up, the third quill from the body reaches to its tip; which is a constant characteristic of the Water-Wagtail genus. Tho’ this bird hath so much the appearance of some of the known Larks, yet, on strict examination, I am persuaded it is a species not before figured or described. It is a bird common to Europe and North America: I have found it in the neighbourhood of London.'
Harting (1872: 109) says: 'One near London: Edwards, Gleanings, II. p. 185, pl. 297.'
Hartert et al. (1912: 35) says: 'The specimen mentioned by Edwards was probably A. s. littoralis (cf. Yarrell, I. p. 590).'
0). Pre 1802 Greater London London, Middlesex, killed, undated
(Montagu, 1802; Harting, 1872).
[BOU, 1971].
History Montagu (1802) under 'Red Lark', says: 'This species is rather superior in size to the Sky Lark. The bill is dusky above, whitish beneath, except at the point; irides hazel. The upper part of the head, hind part of the neck, and back rufous-brown, each feather a little dusky in the middle; over the eye a pale ferruginous streak; chin and throat the same; the ear-coverts inclining to dusky; from the bill under the eye a narrow dusky line; the sides of the neck and breast ferruginous, with dusky spots; belly and under tail-coverts ferruginous-white; greater quill-feathers dusky, slightly edged with yellowish white; the rest of the quills deeply margined with rufous; some of the larger coverts the same, but those immediately impending the secondary quills have whitish tips, making a small bar across the wing; one row also of the smaller coverts are tipped with white, making another line of that colour across the superior part of the wing; the two middle feathers of the tail are dusky, deeply margined with rufous-brown; the outer feather is white, the next is white on the exterior web towards the tip; the shaft dusky; the rest are dusky; legs yellowish-brown; hind claws as long as the toe, and somewhat curved. The above description is taken from a specimen which was killed in Middlesex, and now in our possession. It is a rare species in England, but perhaps has sometimes been confounded with the Sky Lark, which occasionally partakes of the ferruginous colour. The hind claw, however, if every other mark of distinction was wanting, is sufficient to separate it from that bird; it is not so long, and is considerably curved, whereas that of the other is nearly straight.'
Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).
Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). 1812 Greater London Near Woolwich, caught, winter.
(Montagu, 1813; Harting, 1872).
[Newman, 1866; BOU, 1971].
History Montagu (1813) under 'Red Lark', says: 'It should appear that this rare British bird is subject to that sort of variety in plumage, from season, which has been mentioned with respect to the Tit-Lark. A specimen with which we have been favoured by Mr. Foljambe for examination, has none of that rufous-colour from whence the name was derived, but is of a pale brown above, lightest on the margins of the wing-coverts and tertials; the under parts are also rather paler than usual, but the breast and sides of the body are pale rufous; the cheeks, sides of the neck, and upper breast spotted in the usual manner; the tail is marked with white on the lateral feathers as usual. In fact, the size, the bill, legs, and the hind claw bespeak the species; especially the great length of the tail in proportion to the wins, which, when closed, do not reach within two inches of the end. Whether this may be considered as a usual variety, or accidental, the rarity of the bird will not at present enable us to determine. It was taken in the winter, 1812, near Woolwich, in a net with other Larks. It measures full seven inches and a half in length.'
Newman (1866: 192) says: 'Probably a variety of the Sky Lark.' It was not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).
0). 1824 Lothian Near Edinburgh, two, obtained, May.
(Macgillivray, 1840; Morris, 1856-62).
[Hartert et al., 1912; BOU, 1971].
History Macgillivray (1840: 169-170) under 'Anthus spinoletta Red-breasted Pipit', says: 'This species being now for the first time introduced into our Fauna, it will not be judged inexpedient to present an extended description of it. Finding in one of my note-books a very particular account of two Pipits, obtained in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, and examined by me on the 2nd June 1824, when they were recent, and in the possession of the late Mr. John Wilson, and which I found to be different from any with which I was then acquainted; and observing that M. Temminck, in the fourth volume of his Manual, has described an Anthus which he had previously confounded with A. obscurus, under the common name of A. aquaticus; I was induced to examine all the Pipits I could find, and among others, those in the British Collection in the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, to which the great liberality of Professor Jameson has allowed me free access. Among these I find two specimens, agreeing with the two of my note-book, and also with A. aquaticus of M. Temminck, and with a specimen, marked "Saskatchewan, Dr. Richardson", of the North American bird figured and described in the Fauna Boreali-Americana under that name. These two specimens, and Dr. Richardson’s, are specifically identical with Alauda rufa of Wilson, and Anthus ludovicianus of Lichtenstein, of which I have examined many specimens in Mr. Audubon’s collection. The specimens in the museum I had when assistant-conservator there, marked "Anthus pratensis, near Edinburgh, August 1824". They are known by Mr. Carfrae to have been prepared by his brother, who at that time preserved objects, along with Mr. Wilson, for the museum. Should they be individually different from those of my note-book, we have four specimens of this species obtained in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh in the same year. The following description is taken from the prepared specimens, the colours of the bill and feet being supplied from my notes.
Bill of moderate length, straight, slender, broadish at the base, much compressed toward the end; upper mandible with its dorsal line slightly declinate at the end, the ridge narrow, the edges slightly inflected, the notches very small, the tip sharp; lower mandible with the angle long and narrow, the dorsal line ascending and straight, the tip very narrow. Nostrils oblong, small, at the lower anterior margin of the nasal membrane, which is bare anteriorly. Eyes of moderate size. Head oblong, neck short, body slender. Feet rather long, very slender; tarsus much compressed, with seven anterior scutella; the hind toe with its first joint very long, its claw moderately arched and a little longer; the anterior toes slender, compressed, the third and fourth united at the base; claws rather long, arched, extremely compressed, broadly grooved, acute.
Plumage very soft and blended; wings rather long; the four outer primaries almost equal, but the first longest, the fourth shortest; the second, third, and fourth, slightly cut out on the outer web toward the end; the inner primaries and outer secondaries emarginate; the inner three tapering; tail rather long, slightly emarginate. Bill dusky brown, the basal part of the lower mandible and basal margins of the upper flesh-coloured; feet and claws purplish-brown. The general colour of the upper parts is greyish-brown, with a slight tinge of olive, the margins of the feathers on the hind part being greenish; the central part of each feather of a darker tint; a distinct yellowish-white band from the bill over the eye; quills, coverts, and tail-feathers, brown; the tips of the secondary coverts and first row of small coverts pale brownish-grey; primary quills edged with greyish-white; secondary quills and their coverts with greenish-yellow; the greater part of the outer web, and an oblique patch on the inner web of the outer tail-feather, white; the margin of the terminal half of the outer web, and a small patch at the end of the next similar. The lower parts yellowish-grey; the throat, abdomen, and lower tail-coverts unspotted; the lower part of the neck and the breast tinged with red; the sides and lower part of the neck, the fore part of the breast, and the sides of the body, marked with oblong greyish-brown streaks.
Length to end of tail 6.75 inches, extent of wings 11.75; bill along the ridge 6.5/12ths; wing from flexure 3 and 5/12ths; tail 2 and 8/12ths; tarsus 10/12ths; first toe 4.25/12ths, its claw 5/12ths; second toe 4.75/12ths, its claw 2.75/12ths; third toe 7/12ths, its claw 3/12ths; fourth toe 5/12ths, its claw 2.5/12ths.
Female. - The female is similar, but with the white of the lateral tail-feathers more tinged with grey, and of less extent. Compared with Anthus obscurus, this species is more slender, its bill narrower and somewhat shorter, the tarsi and toes not nearly so stout, the hind claw more slender, and somewhat more arched; the colour of the upper parts more grey, the lateral tail-feathers with much more white; the lower parts entirely different in tint, the spots being besides more distinct and narrower in the present, which has also a pale band from the bill to behind the eye, whereas the other has only a faint yellowish band behind the eye. It has a greater resemblance to Anthus pratensis, from which it differs in being larger, in having the bill stouter, the tarsus longer, the hind claw shorter and more curved, the feet darker, the lower parts much more rufous; but the lateral tail-feathers are similarly coloured, and in some individuals the tints of the upper parts scarcely differ. Compared with a specimen from Dr. Richardson, marked "Saskatchewan, No. 58", these specimens differ only in having less red on the breast, and the bill slightly longer. In short, our two birds seem to be specifically identical with it, and their description wall be found to agree perfectly with that taken by me from American specimens in Mr. Audubon's Synopsis.
It is probable that this species will be found not uncommon in the hilly and mountainous parts of Scotland.'
Morris (1857 (2): 186, reissue) says: 'Two others were obtained in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, in May, 1824; and two others, it is thought, in the same year.'
Hartert et al. (1912: 35) says: 'The specimens recorded by Macgillivray (Man. Brit. Birds, p. 169) were probably A. s. littoralis (cf. Yarrell, I. p. 590).' Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).
Comment All four of these lack adequate details. Not acceptable.
0). 1846 Lothian Dunbar, several, seen, winter.
(Gray, 1871; Harting, 1872).
[BOU, 1971].
History Gray (1871: 116-117) says: 'So far back as 1846 I find in my note-books records of this species having been seen by myself at Dunbar in considerable numbers for about ten days or a fortnight in the winter of that year. They made their appearance suddenly in hard weather, and during their stay on the Links near that town they frequented half frozen pools on the grass, as well as the bed of a small rivulet running from Broxmouth pond, which was filled with broken ice, small patches of water being here and there visible. I could not at the time make out the species, and knew the birds to be strangers: they disappeared as suddenly as they came. A few years later I shot in a garden at Dunbar at least three specimens in the spring time as they silently hovered over a clump of trees, or sallied out from the branches, as I thought, in quest of insects. One of these I had stuffed, but the specimen has since been lost; the others were not preserved. I had no doubt whatever as to the species, and wrote to the late Professor Macgillivray, informing him of the captures, without, however, eliciting a reply. I have never again met with this pipit in any district of Scotland.'
Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).
Comment Probably misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1857 Lothian Dunbar, three, obtained, spring.
(Morris, 1856-62; Turnbull, 1867; Gray, 1871).
[BOU, 1971].
History Morris (1857 (2): 186, reissue) says: 'I have much satisfaction in giving for the first time a figure of this bird as a British one. Robert Gray, Esq., of Southcroft, Govan, Glasgow, has written me word of its occurrence in the neighbourhood of Dunbar: two specimens were procured by himself, and one by a friend of his in a garden there.'
Gray (1871: 116-117) says: '...A few years later [to 1846] I shot in a garden at Dunbar at least three specimens in the spring time as they silently hovered over a clump of trees, or sallied out from the branches, as I thought, in quest of insects. One of these I had stuffed, but the specimen has since been lost; the others were not preserved. I had no doubt whatever as to the species, and wrote to the late Professor Macgillivray, informing him of the captures, without, however, eliciting a reply. I have never again met with this pipit in any district of Scotland.'
Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).
Comment Probably misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). 1865 Isle of Wight Freshwater, September.
(Harting, 1872).
[BOU, 1971].
History Harting (1872: 109) says: 'One, Freshwater, Isle of Wight, Sept. 1865: Bond, not hitherto recorded.'
Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).
0). 1869 Yorkshire Bridlington, 20th November.
(T. Boynton, Zoologist 1870: 2021; H. Reeks, Zoologist 1869: 2067-68; C. R. Bree, Zoologist 1869: 2100-01; Harting, 1872).
[BOU, 1971].
History T. Boynton (1870) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. V. p. 2021, says: 'The enclosed letters refer to a bird which I shot on the 20th of November, and which, on referring to Bree's Birds of Europe, Dr. Boulton, of Beverley, Sir H. Boynton and myself decided was the Tawny Pipit (Anthus rufescens). I, however, communicated the capture to Dr. Bree, and having sent the bird for his inspection, you will observe that he and Mr. Sclater pronounce it to be the Pennsylvanian Pipit (A. ludovicianus).'
East Hill, Colchester, December 21, 1869. "My dear Sir - I must apologise for not answering your letter in reference to the pipit sooner, but the fact is the bird is a puzzle: this is, I conceive, owing to its moulting condition. After careful examination I came to the conclusion that it is the Anthus ludovicianus of my Birds of Europe. The tail-feathers, however, being those of A. rufescens, I sent the specimen up to Dr. Sclater, the Secretary of the Zoological Society, from whom I had the type specimen of A. ludovicianus figured in my work. From his reply you will see that Dr. Sclater confesses himself unable to decide the matter, but thinks I am right, and sends down the specimen I figured for me to compare: - Dear Sir - I return the box with the pipit. It is certainly very like a faded specimen of A. ludovicianus; but I am not sufficiently acquainted with this very difficult group to give you a decided opinion. I send you the skin you figured, which is from California, that you may form your own opinion. Yours, &c., P. L. Sclater".
I will state to you the pros and cons. I never saw a Tawny Pipit in any plumage so thoroughly olive-green as your specimen, but still when the bird is taken out of the case there are the remains of real tawny colouring on the primaries, and the two outer tail-feathers are those of Anthus rufescens. The claw, however, of the hind toe is against us; it is longer than the toe, and this a character of A. ludovicianus: and again, your specimen is in all its measurements, length, length of wing from carpal joint, tarsus and beak, exactly those of A. ludovicianus, which is altogether a smaller bird than the Tawny Pipit, and the beak is slightly declinated or curved at the extremity of the upper mandible - another character of A. ludovicianus. The group is a very difficult one, but I think we may pronounce your specimen one of A. ludovicianus in moulting plumage. The only other species likely to be confounded with it is our Meadow Pipit, but the hind claw decides this at a glance. I will send the bird down to Beverley to-day. Pray make use of this letter in any communication you may make to The Zoologist. Believe me, &c., C. R. Bree, p.s. - You will notice that the base of the second tail-feather on its outer web is dark: usually in A. ludovicianus the second feather is merely spotted with white at the end". You will gather from Dr. Bree's pros and cons a description of the bird, with this exception, that the colour of the legs and feet is (or at least when newly shot) a pale flesh, and this corresponds with A. rufescens. If you would like to see the bird I shall be glad to forward it to you for inspection. The pipit is a male bird, and was shot about three miles to the south of Bridlington, on the coast, and appeared to be feeding at the time on a sand-hill near to some long coarse grass.'
Henry Reeks of Thruxton (1870) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. V. pp. 2067-68, dated 18th February 1869 [possibly erroneous as all other Notes are for February, 1870], says: 'At my request Mr. Boyton most obligingly forwarded me the little pipit shot by him at Bridlington. I am not surprised that my friend Dr. Bree should have felt puzzled to identify the bird, for it is certainly in a most abnormal state of plumage. Being almost as familiar with Anthus ludovicianus as with our own common A. pratensis, I saw immediately that the bird was not an American species, and that for the following reasons: - 1). The bird was altogether larger, being 0.50 longer than the largest specimen of A. ludovicianus I have ever seen; but some of this may be owing to want of exactness in setting up. 2). It stood higher on its legs, from the feet of being 0.10 longer in the tarsi than the largest specimens in the Smithsonian Institution, or any examined by myself. 3). The bill, feet and legs differed entirely from those of Anthus ludovicianus in colour. The tail, and almost entirely unspotted breast, distinguished it again from the American bird. The claw of the hind toe evidently deceived Dr. Bree; but I can assure that learned author that too much reliance should not be placed on this part. Dr. Bree will see the force of this remark if he compares a quantity of skins of A. pratensis. I have by me while writing two of the latter species in the flesh: one has the claw the same length as the hind toe; the other 0.12 longer. Professor Baird would seem to have noticed this discrepancy in the American species, as he does not even allude to the hind toe or its claw in the various measurements given by him in Birds of North America. Although, on examination, I soon saw that Mr. Boyton's bird was not A. ludovicianus I could not, for want of better knowledge of European species, be certain to which species it really did belong, but certainly thought it should be A. rufescens. However, to settle this point, I sent the specimen to Mr. Gould, who writes me that "The bird you have submitted to my inspection is unquestionably the Tawny Pipit in abraded and dirty plumage". It is figured in part 9 of Mr. Gould's magnificent work on the Birds of Great Britain, under the name Anthus campestris, with Anthus rufescens as part of its synonymy.'
C. R. Bree of Colchester (1870) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. V. pp. 2100-01, dated 19th March 1870, says: 'Whether Mr. Boyton's bird is Anthus ludovicianus or not I do not believe can be said positively by Mr. Reeks, Mr. Gould, or any other naturalist. The reasons given by Mr. Reeks are most unsatisfactory, as a few fractional differences in measurements go for very little. As for the bird being A. rufescens, I am not convinced even by the dictum of so high an authority as Gould. The outer tail-feathers are those of the bird certainly; but then Baird mentions an instance in which the same feathers existed in A. ludovicianus. Did Mr. Gould ever see a specimen of A. rufescens in any age or plumage which was olive-green below, with dark spots? In fact the bird is an abnormity; but, in my humble opinion, it resembles A. ludovicianus more than any other pipit. I shall not grieve or be disappointed should it turn out anything else.'
Cordeaux (1872: 45) adds: 'My notice of this rare visitor is restricted to a single specimen, a male, with the plumage in a very faded and abraded state, shot on the 20th of November, 1869, on the sand-hills three miles south of Bridlington Quay, by T. Boyton, Esq., of Ulrome Grange.'
Accepted locally (Clarke & Roebuck 1881: 26) and by Nelson (1907 (1): 134) who adds: 'I had the pleasure of examining it.'
Mather (1986: 434) adds: 'T. H. Nelson examined it while in T. Boynton's collection, but the date is very late for the species.'
Wilson & Slack (1996: 258) say: 'The first record for Yorkshire does not correspond with the established pattern of occurrences for this species.'
Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).
Comment Originally I had this record under Tawny Pipit, but on seeing it referred to under Pennsylvanian Pipit (Buff-bellied Pipit) I have inserted it here as well. Not acceptable.
