Bufflehead
Bucephala albeola (Linnaeus, 1758) (1, 0)
Photo © Matthew K Naylor - Cresswell Pond, Northumberland, 26 February 2021
STATUS
Nearctic. Monotypic.
OVERVIEW
A review of the species in 2001 by A. G. Knox in British Birds removed a number of records leaving just one acceptable.
RECORD
1). 1920 Isles of Scilly Tresco, female, shot, 17th January, photo., now in the Isles of Scilly Museum.
(D. Seth-Smith, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 40: 155; Eds., British Birds 14: 67; Witherby, 1920-24; Penhallurick, 1969; BOURC (2000), Ibis 143: 172; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73, plate 37; Flood, Hudson & Thomas, 2007: plate 11).
History D. Seth-Smith, Editor (1920) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XL. p. 155, at the 249th Meeting of the Club held on 9th June 1920 at Pagani's Restaurant, London, says: 'Dr H. Langton recorded the shooting of a female Buffel-headed Duck by Miss Dorrien Smith on Great Pool, Tresco, Isle of Scilly, on January 17th, 1920. It was in the company of some Teal.'
In an Editorial (1920) in British Birds, Vol. XIV. p. 67, says: 'At the June meeting of the British Ornithologists' Club Dr H. Langton stated that a female Bucephala albeola had been shot by Miss Dorrien Smith on Great Pool, Tresco, on January 17th, 1920. The bird was in the company of some Teal (Bull. B.O.C. XL. p. 155). There are only two previous authenticated records of the occurrence of this duck in the British Isles many years ago. It is an inhabitant of North America.'
A. G. Knox (2001) on behalf of the BOU Records Committee in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, says: 'Shot by Miss Dorrien Smith (Anon. 1920; Langton 1920), later in the Tresco Abbey collection (Penhallurick 1969). In Penhallurick (1969) and Evans (1994), the date is given incorrectly as 7th January. The specimen is now in the Isles of Scilly Museum, St Mary's (contra Evans 1994). No description has ever been published, but David Cottridge provided a photograph of the specimen for the Committee to examine.
The Dorrien Smith family held the lease on Tresco from the mid-1800s and frequently shot rare birds on the island.
Will Wagstaff, as recorder for the Isles of Scilly, is familiar with material collected by the Dorrien Smiths and is unaware of any doubts concerning this or any other birds which they obtained (W. Wagstaff in litt.). As such, an escape from captivity would seem to have been unlikely.'
Comment The Committee accepted the identification of this bird, sexed as a female; the circumstances seem generally to be satisfactory. It was considered likely to have been a natural vagrant, and this record was placed in Category B of the British List, and is the earliest record.
NOT PROVEN
0). Early 1800s Norfolk Great Yarmouth area, undated.
(Yarrell, 1843; Girdlestone, 1879; Babington, 1884-86).
[A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Yarrell (1843 (3): 293, 1st ed.) says: '...From a recent conversation with the Rev. Richard Lubbock, who is well acquainted with the extensive waters near Yarmouth visited by numerous birds, I have reason to believe that other examples of the Buffel-headed Duck have been seen in winter in that country, but the bird is very shy, and from its power of diving very difficult to get at. The boatshooters there, or some of them at least, call this bird the true Morillon; they are well acquainted with the Golden Eye, or Rattle-wings, as they call it, in every state of its plumage, and therefore, very properly, consider their Morillon (this Buffel-headed Duck) as distinct from the Golden Eye.'
Babington (1884-86: 245) says: 'One killed in 1830 on Breydon, formerly in possession of Mr. S. Miller; it is mentioned in Paget's Yarmouth, (note, p. 11), as a small specimen of the Golden Eye; it was bought by Mr. Rising of Horsey for £5.10s (J. H. Gurney, jun., MS.; see also Yarrell Br. B., III. 273, Ed. I.). This bird was the first obtained in Great Britain.'
A. G. Knox writing on behalf of the BOU Records Committee in British Birds 94: 61-73 says: 'Lubbock (in Yarrell, 1843) reported that Buffleheads (more than one) had been seen in the Yarmouth area. Lubbock (undated) stated that he had seen Buffleheads [?killed] 'two or three'. Girdlestone ([1829] 1879), claimed that he had sent one to Lubbock in 1828, although Southwell (in Lubbock & Southwell, 1879) recognised the Miller/Rising bird (Yarmouth, about 1830) as 'the only authentic Norfolk specimen'. This could be taken to mean the only skin or stuffed bird, and not to refer to sightings or to birds not preserved. Lubbock seemed to have been familiar with the species, but there was some confusion at that time between the Bufflehead and the Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula.
Comment: No real details seem to be available, and it is impossible to disentangle the 1830 Great Yarmouth record from this information. The record, as presented here is considered to be unacceptable.'
0) 1801 Lincolnshire/Yorkshire Mouth of the Humber, adult male, shot, undated.
(Palmer, 2000).
[Palmer, 2000; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Palmer (2000: 78) says: 'There is an adult male in the Foljambe Collection at Osberton, Nottinghamshire, said to have been obtained at the mouth of the Humber in 1801, but this record lacks adequate details.'
0). c. 1830 Norfolk/Suffolk Near Great Yarmouth, adult male, shot, undated, now at Castle Museum, Norwich.
(Paget & Paget 1834; Yarrell, 1843; Lubbock, 1845; J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher, Zoologist 1846: 1380; A. Newton, Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 2: 402; Yarrell, 1871-85; Southwell, 1890; A. H. Patterson, Zoologist 1900: 532; Witherby, 1920-24; Seago, 1977; Allard, 1990; Piotrowski, 2003).
[Taylor, Seago, Allard & Dorling, 1999; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Paget & Paget (1834:11) in a footnote, say: 'Mr. Miller has a specimen which he considers proves that the Morillon (Anas glaucion, of Linn.) is different from the Goldeneye. It was an old male bird, but is fully one third less than the males of the Goldeneye, and the bill is considerably shorter; besides which the plumage is rather different.'
Yarrell (1843 (3): 293, 1st ed.) says: 'In the winter of 1830, or about that time, a male was shot near Yarmouth, in Norfolk, which passed into the possession of Mr. Stephen Miller, a resident there, who prized it very highly. Of Mr. Miller's bird, Mr. Joseph Clarke, of Saffron Walden, very kindly sent me a drawing. This bird is also referred to by Mr. Paget, in his Sketch of the Natural History of Yarmouth and its vicinity, page 11 note, in the following words, appended to his notice of the Golden Eye: - "Mr. Miller has a specimen, which he considers proves that the Morillon is different from the Golden Eye. It was an old male, but is full one-third less than the males of the Golden Eye, and the bill is considerably shorter; besides which, the plumage is rather different".
From a recent conversation with the Rev. Richard Lubbock, who is well acquainted with the extensive waters near Yarmouth visited by numerous birds, I have reason to believe that other examples of the Buffel-headed Duck have been seen in winter in that country, but the bird is very shy, and from its power of diving very difficult to get at. The boatshooters there, or some of them at least, call this bird the true Morillon; they are well acquainted with the Golden Eye, or Rattle-wings, as they call it, in every state of its plumage, and therefore, very properly, consider their Morillon (this Buffel-headed Duck) as distinct from the Golden Eye.'
John H. Gurney & William R. Fisher (1846) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IV. p. 1380, say: 'An adult male bird, killed near Yarmouth is in the possession of Mr. Miller.'
Alfred Newton (1874-79) in the Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society, Vol. II. in a footnote, p. 402, says: 'Mr. Robert Rising, who resides at the Hall...possesses a fine collection of birds, chiefly procured at Horsey and its immediate neighbourhood, including, the adult male Bufflehead, shot at Yarmouth, about the year 1830. This bird formerly in Mr. Stephen Miller's collection at Yarmouth, is the only authentic Norfolk specimen, and was figured by Yarrell.'
Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 442, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'In the winter of 1830, or about that time, a male was shot near Yarmouth, in Norfolk, which passed into the possession of the late Mr. Stephen Miller, and subsequently into that of Mr. Rising, of Horsey.'
Southwell, Editor (1890 (3): 223) in Stevenson's Birds of Norfolk, says: 'It is now well known that at that time (1834), and even later, the various plumages presented by the Goldeneye, and the long period the male takes to assume his full dress, were but little understood by some of the best-informed ornithologists. The gunners of Yarmouth, and perhaps elsewhere, spoke of two kinds, by the names of 'rattle-wing' and 'little rattle-wing' respectively, the former being the adult golden-eye, and the latter the so-called 'morillon' of Bewick and other writers, now universally recognised as the immature stage of the same bird. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Pagets and Lubbock were unable to clear up the confusion, and the last, as may be seen from his conversation (quoted by Yarrell in the account of the Buffle-headed Duck given in his earlier editions), as well as from information received through Mr. Girdlestone, and published in the Fauna of Norfolk, was inclined to believe that the 'little rattle-wing' - a common bird enough - was the present rare species, the complete verification of the occurrence of which, according to Lubbock, we owe to Yarrell, though the fact was not made known to the world until July, 1842, when part xxxi. of the first edition of his British Birds appeared. It must be remarked that the British Museum contains a specimen of the Buffle-head Duck, with the assigned locality, "Norfolk, from Mr. Hubbard's collection"; but, as has been elsewhere remarked (Lubbock Fauna of Norfolk, ed. 2, p. 165, note 156), its authenticity is more than doubtful.'
Admitted by A. H. Patterson (1900) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IV. p. 532, under 'Birds of Great Yarmouth'.
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'Peter Allard realised that there was two specimens supposedly being of this first for Britain record, and so started an investigation. An adult male specimen in Saffron Walden Museum and one adult male specimen in Castle Museum, Norwich.
A lengthy detailed account followed which is summarised as follows: 1. The specimen at Saffron Walden Museum is alleged to have been collected in 1830 and acquired by Stephen Miller in 1834; it then passed to John Youell, to Joseph Clarke and then to the Museum, apparently before 1843 when the specimen was illustrated by Yarrell. 2. The Norwich Castle Museum Bufflehead is also said to have started in Miller's possession. Mr. R. H. Rising bought the specimen at the sale of Miller's goods in 1853, and following Rising's death in 1885, it passed to the Norwich Castle Museum.'
Accepted locally for Suffolk (Ticehurst 1932; Piotrowski 2003) and for Norfolk (Seago 1977).
Comment Stephen Miller is said to be unreliable. Not acceptable.
0). 1841 Orkney No locality, obtained, autumn.
(Yarrell, 1845; Baikie & Heddle, 1848; Gray, 1871; Yarrell, 1871-85).
[Buckley & Harvie-Brown, 1891; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; C. Booth, M. Cuthbert & P. Reynolds, Orkney Bird Report 1985: 2; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Yarrell (1845 (3): 375, 2nd ed.) says: 'In the autumn of 1841 Mr. Mummery, the Curator of the Museum of Natural History at Margate, sent me word that during a visit to Orkney, from which he had then but recently returned, he had obtained a Buffel-headed Duck there, which was intended for the Margate Museum.'
Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 442-443, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'In the autumn of 1841 the then Curator of the Museum of Natural History at Margate sent word to the Author that during a recent visit to Orkney, he had there obtained a Buffel-headed Duck, which was intended for the Margate Museum: a statement true in a way, for he had bought it of the late R. Dunn, of Stromness, whose son informed Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., that the specimen was not procured in Britain, or even Europe!'
Not accepted locally as the record was placed in square brackets (Buckley & Harvie-Brown 1891: 176).
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'Obtained by Stephen Mummery for Margate Museum (Yarrell 1843; Baikie & Heddle 1848). The Margate Museum collection was sold by auction in 1868 (Ticehurst 1909), and the fate of this specimen is unknown. Mummery's honesty has been questioned, and a number of his records of rare birds are clouded by doubt (Ticehurst 1909). However, Gurney discovered that the Orkney bird had been collected abroad, and not even in Europe (Harting 1872; Yarrell & Saunders 1885).'
Comment Imported. Not acceptable.
0). 1841 Devon West Mud, Hamoaze, near Devonport, adult male, obtained, winter.
(Harting, 1872; Yarrell, 1871-85; D'Urban & Mathew, 1892).
[Seebohm, 1883-85; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Harting (1872: 161) says: 'One, West Mud, near Devonport, winter 1841: in the collection of Rev. W. Hore, of Barnstaple. When paying a visit to Mr. Hore in September 1870, I had an opportunity of seeing this bird and learning from the owner the above mentioned particulars.'
Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 443, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'In the collection of the Rev. W. Hore, of Barnstaple, is a specimen said to have been shot near Davenport in 1841, but Mr. Gatcombe informs the Editor that it came from the late Dr Tripe of Devonport, whose collection contained several American birds, and a mistake is therefore not impossible.'
Seebohm (1885 (3): 588) says: 'Harting (Handbook British Birds, p. 161) records an example which he examined, and which, he was informed, had been killed in the winter of 1841 at West Mud, near Devonport, in Devonshire; but doubt has since been thrown on the authenticity of this specimen.'
D'Urban & Matthew (1892: lix, 1st ed.) say: 'The Rev. W. S. Hore's fine collection, chiefly acquired at Plymouth, was bequeathed by Mrs. Hore to Mrs. Cansop, of Bradfield Hall. It contains many rare birds which were purchased from the old birdstuffers at Davenport, &c., and from various other collectors, such as that of Mr. Cornelius Tripe and the Rev. Kerr Vaughan. Among the rare Devon birds are the Snowy Owl, female Purple Heron, and Buffle-headed Duck, all said to have been procured in the immediate neighbourhood of Plymouth.'
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'Reported in Harting (1872). Possibly mixed up with some skins from America: this bird was in the collection of Dr Tripe of Devonport, who had other American birds in his collection; it was purchased from Dr Tripe's collection by the Rev. W. S. Hore, Barnstaple (Yarrell & Saunders 1885; D'Urban & Mathew 1892).
Information about this specimen emerged only about 30 years after its collection, when J. E. Harting visited the Rev. Hore in September 1870; he saw the bird and got the details from the then owner, not the collector. Confusion may have been possible over the origin of the specimen, although it was seen by Harting and was presumably identified correctly; no further details available so not acceptable.
0). 1850 Norfolk No locality, adult male, obtained, undated, now at Natural History Museum, Tring (NHM 1850.4.8.1).
(Harting, 1872).
[Harting, 1872; Seebohm, 1883-85; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Harting (1872: 161) says: 'One, in British Museum, labelled "Norfolk" (Gray, Cat. Brit. Birds in Brit. Mus., p. 226), the authenticity of which is very doubtful.' Seebohm (1885) Vol. III. p. 588, says: 'An example in the British Museum, labelled Norfolk, can scarcely be regarded as authentic.'
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'This specimen in the Natural History Museum, Tring (NHM), was bought from a person called Hubbard, and the bird is listed in Gray (1863). Harting (1872) considered that "the authenticity of [the record] is very doubtful", without giving any reasons whatsoever. An index card for this specimen at the NHM at Tring reads: 379; Adult male Norfolk 1850; Purch. Hubbard; 1850.4.8.1. The specimen was temporarily re-registered as 1996.41.208 during its transfer in 1996 from the Museum's store of mounted specimens to the main collection. The Bufflehead was unlabelled, but it was clearly identified from photographs of the Natural History Museum gallery display in South Kensington, from which the had been taken some years previously. There is no mention of Hubbard in Sharpe (1906). The only other specimen acquired from Hubbard at that time was a Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca, from Orkney, with registration number 1850.4.8.2. The NHM Bufflehead is quite unlike the Norwich and Saffron Walden specimens (see page 67). It is poorly set up, squat, and looking up and to the right. It has a short neck, a lop-sided head and asymmetric eyes. The wings are tight across the back and the tips cross extensively. The bill is varnished and the legs and feet are painted red. The eyes are dark brown. Lee Evans (in Allard 1997) incorrectly stated that this bird was labelled as having been shot in Great Yarmouth in 1830, and that the specimen was at South Kensington. Identification satisfactory; Harting doubted the authenticity: considering the lack of detail available, this record is not acceptable.'
0). Pre 1854 North-east Scotland Loch of Strathbeg, Aberdeenshire, male, shot, undated.
(Gray, 1871; H. M. Drummond Hay, Scottish Naturalist 8: 370).
[Sim, 1903; Harvie-Brown, 1906; Witherby et al., 1940-52; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Gray (1871: 396) says: '...January, 1865. A few days later, Mr. Edwards of Banff showed me a specimen - also a male - which had been shot many years ago in the Loch of Strathbeg, and placed in the Banff Museum by the late Mr. Smith, Minister of Monquitter.'
H. M. Drummond Hay (1885-86) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 370, in the 'Report of the East of Scotland Union', admits this record.
Admitted by Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 443, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds.
Not accepted locally as the record was placed in square brackets (Sim 1903: 151).
Harvie-Brown (1906: 243) placing the record in square brackets, says: 'Mr. Sim has disposed of the specimens shown to Mr. R. Gray; one by Mr. Edward, of Banff on the Loch of Strathbeg "many year ago".'
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'This bird was obtained by the Rev. Smith of Monquhitter, who died in 1854. The specimen went to Banff Museum (Thomas Edward in Gray 1871). Sim, 1903 noticed that the bird was not listed in Edward's account of the birds of Strathbeg (Edward, 1854) nor in the list of birds given in his biography (Smiles, 1877). The latter is based on Edward's list of the birds of Banffshire (Edward 1856-1860). Sim therefore square bracketed the record. and following him, all later authors did the same. Strathbeg is, however, in Aberdeenshire, not in Banffshire. Even though Edward included some Strathbeg records in the Banff lists, the Bufflehead record might not necessarily be expected to have appeared in the Banff compilation. The omission from the Strathbeg article may have been an oversight, or Edward may not have been fully aware of the bird in (or around) 1854, when the article was compiled (although this seems unlikely). He told Gray about the specimen (which Gray himself saw) after 1865. Sim, in the poorest of the Scottish regional-fauna series, attempted to discredit much of Edward's work and records. Recent examination of Edward's many contributions shows, however, that he was a careful and experienced observer and recorder. When he had doubts, such as over a Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus and a number of other rare birds, he stated these quite clearly. Sim's rejection of the Bufflehead, a specimen seen by Gray (a reputable author and naturalist), was quite unwarranted. The record is as good as are many other wildfowl records of the time, although no description of the bird is available. Dr David Bertie (Peterhead Museum, responsible for Banff Museum) in late 2000, says that this specimen is no longer at Banff. The collection suffered from neglect at various stages, and the duck, along with many other important specimens, was probable destroyed during one of the periodic clear-outs at the museum. Gray saw the specimen, but few details are now available and there is no description. Not acceptable.'
0). 1864-65 Yorkshire Bessingby Beck, near Bridlington, adult male, obtained, winter, now at Mansfield Museum.
(J. Cordeaux, Zoologist 1865: 9658-59; Cordeaux, 1872; Harting, 1872; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1884: 52; Yarrell, 1871-85; Seebohm, 1883-85; O. V. Aplin, Naturalist 13: 200; Nelson, 1907; Witherby, 1920-24; Chislett, 1952; Mather, 1986).
[A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History John Cordeaux (1865) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXIII. p. 9658-59, says: 'In the afternoon we walked up to the village...Mr. Bailey informed us that a fine specimen of that rare bird, the Buffel-headed Duck had been shot near Bridlington Quay during the last winter.'
Cordeaux (1872: 176) says: 'A beautiful mature male of this American duck was shot in the winter of 1864-65, on the Bessingby Beck, close to the town of Bridlington, by Richard Morris. It is now in the possession of Mr. Machin, bird-preserver, of that place.'
Clarke & Roebuck (1881: 57) say: 'Bessingby Beck, Bridlington, adult male, winter, 1864-5, in the collection of Mr. J. Whitaker (Whitaker, MS.; Cordeaux, Birds of Humber, p. 176).'
Oliver V. Aplin (1884) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. VIII. p. 52, under a 'Note of some Rare British Birds in the Collection of Mr. J. Whitaker', says: 'Clangula albeola - Bessingby Beck, near Bridlington, Yorkshire, winter of 1864-65.'
Admitted by Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 443, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds.
Seebohm (1885 (3): 588) says: 'A third British example was shot in the winter of 1864-65 at Bessingby Beck, near Bridlington, in Yorkshire (Cordeaux, Zoologist, 1865, p. 9659).'
O. V. Aplin (1887) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XIII. p. 200, under 'A Visit to Rainworth Lodge', says: 'The most remarkable among the historical specimens of British-killed rarities are examples of the Bufflehead Duck, adult male, Bridlington, winter.'
Accepted locally (Nelson 1907; Chislett 1952: 196).
Naylor (1996) adds: 'The specimen is now at Mansfield Museum, Nottinghamshire, with the Whitaker Collection.'
A. G. Knox writing on behalf of the BOU Records Committee in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, says: 'Reported in Cordeaux (1865, 1872) and Harting (1872) as shot by Richard Morris on the Bessingby beck, close to town, and passed to Mr. Machin (bird-preserver); later in the collection of Mr. J. Whitaker, Rainworth Lodge, Mansfield. Now with the Whitaker collection at Mansfield Museum (Naylor 1996). Vicky Barlow (at Mansfield Museum and Art Gallery) located two catalogue cards, apparently for the same Bufflehead in the collection there (MASMG: BB337 & BB546). The bird was brought to Tring, where it was examined. The specimen is adequately mounted, and unlike the other available 'British' specimens in style. It is greasy, with a dirty mid-ventral incision. The legs and feet are poorly painted and the bird is mounted on a painted fibrous base. No labels or other marks are attached to the bird or the base to associate the specimen with the original data. There is limited information about the status of the species in captivity at that time. There were certainly a number of large waterfowl collections in Britain, and many species were brought in from North America. No Buffleheads, however, were kept at London Zoo between 1828 and 1927 (Low 1929), which suggests that they were probably not very common, and Tim Inskipp has commented that breeding in captivity was unrecorded anywhere until the late 1920s or 1930s. As such, an escape from captivity would seem to have been unlikely.'
Comment Inadequate evidence of association of specimen with data: not acceptable.
0). 1865 North-east Scotland Loirston Loch, Kincardineshire, adult male, shot, January.
(Gray, 1871; Yarrell, 1871-85; Sim, 1903).
[Harvie-Brown, 1906; Witherby et al., 1940-52; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Gray (1871: 396) says: 'Mr. Angus showed me a beautiful male which was shot on the Loch of Loriston [sic], Aberdeenshire, in January, 1865.
Admitted by Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 443, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds.
Sim (1903: 151) who placed the record in square brackets, says: '...It seems strange that Edward makes no mention of this bird in his list of the 'Birds of Strathbeg'; nor does he find it a place in the list supplied by him in Smiles's Life of a Scottish [sic] Naturalist. It may just be as well to say here that the Loch of Loirston, where the above mentioned specimen is said to have been killed, is in Kincardineshire.'
Harvie-Brown (1906: 243) placing the record in square brackets, says: 'Mr. Sim has disposed of the specimens shown to Mr. R. Gray; one by Mr. Craibe Angus, stated to have been shot on Loch Loriston in January, 1865 (a fine male).'
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'Recorded in Gray (1871): formerly in the possession of Mr. Angus; square-bracketed by Sim (1903), again without reason, although possibly because of the personal antagonism that existed between him and Gray (A.G.K.). Sim's book related to the Dee faunal area, and he noted that Loirston, despite its proximity to Aberdeen, fell outside this. Even so, his square-bracketing was in turn followed, without discussion, by Harvie-Brown (1906), Witherby et al. (1940-52), and Baxter & Rintoul (1953).'
Comment Again Gray saw the specimen but few details are available. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1868 Norfolk Hunstanton, undated.
(Morris, 1863-67).
[BOU, 1971].
History Morris (1863-67 (7): 91, reissue) says: 'In the same county one at Hunstanton, of which the Rev. W. C. Fearon, Vicar of that parish, has been so obliging as to send me word.'
Comment This may well be the 1850 Norfolk but it still lacks adequate details. Not acceptable.
0). 1869 Gloucestershire Cheltenham, adult male, shot, about December, now at Castle Museum, Norwich (Acc. No. 31.71).
(Mellersh, 1902).
[A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History Mellersh (1902) says: 'One shot by J. T. White on the Chelt near Cheltenham Autumn about 1869.'
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'Specimen at Norwich Castle Museum, number 31.71. The museum accession register records that this specimen was said to have been shot on Dial Pool (Geo. W. Russels), Cheltenham, by G. F. White, son of the Cheltenham birdstuffer Mr. [T.] White.
It was claimed to have been seen in the flesh by several local notables. Gurney contacted one, the Rev. H. Price, 'who said he would vouch for it but I doubt it for all that as White said another was got and the tarsi are split.'
The closeness of the date and location to those claimed for the Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula mentioned on page 66 is of concern. Fraud or escape from captivity may have been possible. Not acceptable due to insufficient information, and doubted by Gurney. Second specimen said to have been obtained by White, also, not acceptable.'
0). 1870 Outer Hebrides Eriskay, South Uist, adult male, shot, June, now at Bruce Building, Wick.
(I. D. Pennie & J. M. Gunn, Scottish Naturalist 63: 196-197; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Cunningham, 1983).
[Not in BOU, 1971; R. H. Dennis, Scottish Bird Report 1980: 23; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73, plate 36].
History I. D. Pennie & J. M. Gunn (1951) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXIII. pp. 196-197, say: 'The Carnegie Museum, Wick, contains a good collection of birds, among which are several specimens of more than a passing interest. We have recently had the opportunity of handling the whole collection, which it appears has not been critically examined for many years, if at all, and we feel that attention should be drawn to some of the specimens for which full data are available....The "Mackay Collection", which was presented to the museum in 1916, consists mainly of ducks collected in the north and west of Scotland by Eric Sinclair Mackay, who carried on business as a barrel manufacturer in Wick, and later as manager of a curing station in Lochboisdale, South Uist, and as a fish curer in Shetland until 1886.
In the Carnegie Library, Wick, is a bound manuscript volume of Mackay's notes entitled 'Notes on Caithness Bird Life', which were originally published as a series of articles on the John o' Groat Journal.
We have verified from his notes the correctness of the labels of the following specimens in his collection, and there is no reason to doubt that they are all genuine Scottish-taken birds. Buffel-headed Duck Bucephala albeola. Adult male, shot on the island of Eriskay, South Uist, in June 1870.'
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'This specimen was earlier reported to be in the Carnegie Museum, Wick (Pennie & Gunn, Scottish Naturalist 1951: 196-197). This record was accepted by Baxter & Rintoul (1953) but, for some reason, it was not included in the fifth edition of the BOU list (BOU 1971). It has never been formally assessed. It was accepted by Sharrock & Sharrock (1976) and by Dymond et al. (1989).
The bird was collected by Eric Sinclair Mackay, and forms part of the Mackay collection of ducks. This collection involved adult males of Ruddy Shelduck (1868 Outer Hebrides), Ferruginous Duck (1898 Highland), King Eider (1869 Shetland), Smew (1885 Shetland) and Hooded Merganser (1884 Shetland), all collected during May to August, and which have hardly ever been seen since in the reported area of capture. There seems to be some doubt about all of these.
The North Highland Archive in Wick holds a manuscript volume based on articles written by Mackay, copied by hand some time after their publication in a local newspaper (Mackay, no date). Inserted into this volume is a photocopy of Pennie & Gunn (1951) carrying the anonymous annotation "These are all obviously bogus" (B. Lees and R. Walker in litt.).
The Carnegie Museum no longer exists under that name. The collection is now housed in the Bruce Building, Wick. The local authority (Highland Council) has no curator at the moment. In July 1997, Hugh Clark visited the Bruce Building and photographed some of the Mackay specimens on behalf of the Records Committee. Most of the birds of interest are in glass-fronted cases fixed to the walls of the gallery, which was not at that time open to the public. The Bufflehead was in a case with a Garganey Anas querquedula, and the nearby label (dating from perhaps around 1990) fixed to the wall states, apparently erroneously, that the Bufflehead was reputed to be the only record ever from Caithness (it is supposed to have been from the Hebrides). Clark was unable to locate the Smew. He reported that the King Eider was in full breeding plumage, with no immediately obvious signs of moult. After examining Hugh Clark's photographs, Keith Vinicombe commented that the plumage of the Hooded Merganser appeared to be incompatible with the claimed date of collection. The Ruddy Shelduck and Bufflehead plumages might possibly be consistent with the claimed dates, but the described plumages of the King Eider and Smew would certainly be incongruous. As such, the provenance of the whole group must be dubious. On the evidence available, the Mackay ducks would seem to be suspect. Not acceptable.'
0). 1912 Shetland No locality, adult male, shot, 25th November.
(Booth & Griffith, 1927; Griffith, 1931).
[A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'The specimen is in the Booth Museum, Brighton, Sussex. This bird was originally thought in error to have been from Orkney (Booth & Griffith, 1927), but the details were later clarified (Griffith, 1931). It was shot in Shetland, and was sent to Clarke, the Cheltenham taxidermist (see Frost, 1987), who sold it to Sir Vauncey Harpur Crewe in January 1913. It was then purchased from the Harpur Crewe collection on the latter's dispersal and was presented to the Booth Museum. The case that housed this bird was broken up in the 1970s because of woodworm, but the specimen is still at the Museum, number 207. 393 (November 1996). This record appears not to have reached the wider literature.
[There follows a detailed account of the supposed occurrence of the Ruby-crowned Kinglet which passed through the hands of Clarke and Harpur Crewe and which was rejected]. The Shetland Bufflehead, too, would appear to be open to some doubt. The association with Clarke and Harpur Crewe is sufficient to place doubt upon this specimen. Not acceptable.'
0). 1913 Norfolk Hickling Broad, pair, 11th February.
(Taylor, Seago, Allard & Dorling, 1999).
[Taylor, Seago, Allard & Dorling, 1999].
History Taylor, Seago, Allard & Dorling (1999) say: 'There is an interesting but unconfirmed report in Jim Vincent's Hickling diary for 1913 that whilst punting across Hickling Broad he came upon a pair of Buffleheads on 11th February. He was an extremely careful observer and his notes mention the conspicuous white patch in the centre of the green on the drake's head.'
Comment Lacks adequate details. Not acceptable.
0). 1918 Orkney No locality, female, December.
(Booth & Griffith, 1927; Griffith, 1931).
[H. W. Robinson, Ibis 1926: 630; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 66].
History H. W. Robinson of Lancaster (1926) in The Ibis, Vol. LXVIII. p. 630, under 'On Recording Birds of Doubtful Authenticity as British', says: 'At a recent sale was a clutch of the Velvet Scoter taken by a well-known but doubtful dealer in Orkney, and a pair of Buff-headed Goldeneyes (Bucephala albeola) from the same place, both of which were most certainly disgraceful forgeries, yet both are recorded by some writers, and go down to posterity as authentic.'
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'This specimen was formerly in the Church Street Museum, Brighton (Booth & Griffith 1927; Griffith 1931). It is now at the Booth Museum, number 206.732 (November 1996). As with the 1912 Shetland record, this one appears not to have reached the wider literature. In Booth & Griffith (1927), the 'Orkney' records (this one and, by mistake, the Shetland bird above) are listed as requiring corroboration. The committee was unable to trace any evidence in support of this Orkney claim. Robinson's article may refer to the specimen, but is worth noting for what was happening in Orkney. 'Needing corroboration.' Not acceptable.'
0). 1932 Norfolk Off Hunstanton, immature or female, seen, several days in February.
(B. B. Riviere, British Birds 26: 326; Seago, 1977).
[Taylor, Seago, Allard & Dorling, 1999; A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 61-73].
History B. B. Riviere (1933) in British Birds, Vol. XXVI. p. 326, under 'Norfolk Bird Report, 1932' says: 'On several days during the month of February, on the sea off Hunstanton, Mr. C. T. M. Plowright watched through a telescope - once as close as 40 yards - a duck which he identified as a female Buffel-headed Duck. His description is as follows: 'Head blackish, nape sooty. An oblong white patch on each side of the cheeks from below eye to nape. Back and mantle brown, under parts ashy white. It was feeding on small mussels in company with both Velvet and Common Scoters, compared with which its small size was very noticeable. Mr. Plowright is so good an observer that I think there can be no doubt as to the correctness of his identification, which was confirmed by Mr. N. Tracy, who also saw the bird. The only authentic Norfolk specimen of this American species is the adult drake in the Norwich Museum, which was killed near Yarmouth about 1830.'
A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 61-73, on behalf of the BOU Records Committee, says: 'Recorded by B. B. Riviere (British Birds 26 (1933): 326) as seen by Mr. C. T. M. Plowright; watched through a telescope, once as close as 40 yards. Plowright was described by Riviere (1933) as a good observer. The bird was also seen by Nat Tracy (see E. W. R. 1955 for biographical details). Allard (1997) has drawn attention to the brevity of the existing description, although he misquotes it in one important detail, changing the original 'oblong' white patch on each side of the cheeks to an 'obvious' white patch. The duck was seen with Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca and Common Scoter M. nigra, and observed down to 40 yards, by a good observer with a telescope. The description is, however, very short. Even so, both the 'very noticeable' small size in direct comparison with Common Scoter, and the description, seem to support the claimed identification. Nevertheless, this is a very rare species and some more detail would have been preferred. As such, an escape from captivity would seem to have been unlikely. The briefness of the description, though typical of the period, was felt on balance to be insufficient for such a rare species, and the identification was not accepted.'
