Harlequin Duck

Histrionicus histrionicus (Linnaeus, 1758) (6, 1)

Photo © Rob Stonehouse - River Don, Aberdeen, North-East Scotland, 27 January 2015

STATUS

Holarctic. Monotypic.

OVERVIEW

All acceptable records as per BOU (1971).

---

RECORDS

1). 1862 Yorkshire Filey, male, found dead, autumn, now at Mansfield Museum.

(J. Whitaker, Zoologist 1878: 135; Roebuck & Clarke, 1881; Yarrell, 1871-85; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1884: 52; O. V. Aplin, Naturalist 13: 200; BOU, 1915; Witherby, 1920-24; F. C. R. Jourdain, British Birds 26: 313).

History J. Whitaker of Rainworth Lodge [Notts.] (1878) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. II. p. 135, says: 'During my stay at Scarborough, I purchased of Mr. Roberts, the well-known naturalist, a Harlequin Duck, which he told me was shot at Filey about ten years ago. I mention this occurrence, as this duck has been killed on so few occasions in this country, and I have never seen this specimen mentioned in any book on natural history.'

[The recorded instances of the occurrence of this duck in a wild state in this country are most doubtful. In several cases subsequent examination showed that the birds in question were young Long-tailed Ducks, and in one instance a so-called Harlequin Duck proved to be a female Scaup. See Professor Newton's remarks on this subject in The Ibis for 1859, p. 162. - Ed.]

Oliver V. Aplin (1884) in The Zoologist 3rd series, Vol. VIII. p. 52, under 'Note of some Rare British Birds in the Collection of Mr. J. Whitaker', says: 'Histrionicus histrionicus - Male, Filey, Yorks., autumn of 1862. Mr. Roberts, of Scarborough, saw some men throwing this bird into the sea for a dog to retrieve. They had found it dead on the shore.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85) in Yarrell's British Birds, 4th edition, Vol. IV. p. 453, says: 'The only authentic example known to the Editor is a male in the collection of Mr. J. Whitaker, of Rainworth, which was rescued by Mr. Roberts, of Scarborough, from some fishermen who had found it dead on the shore at Filey, and were throwing into the water for a dog to retrieve, in the autumn of 1862.'

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 Harlequin Duck, Filey, 1862.'

Admitted nationally in their second List of British Birds (BOU 1915).

F. C. R. Jourdain (1933) in British Birds, Vol. XXVI. p. 313, under 'The Whitaker Collection, says: 'In the collection there are also a number of rare British birds which have historical interest. Among them are a male Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus h. histrionicus) found dead at Filey, Yorks., in 1862....it is satisfactory to know that the Marshall Collection is now permanently housed in the Taunton Museum and the Whitaker Collection at Mansfield.'

Comment The specimen is now at the Mansfield Museum, Nottinghamshire, with the Whitaker Collection.

2). 1886 Northumberland Farne Islands, three immatures, all shot but only two males obtained, 2nd December, one now at Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery (Acc. No. 1924Z18.4043).

(J. G. Tuck, Field 11th Dec., 1886: 872; J. G. Tuck, Zoologist 1887: 70-71; J. A. Harvie Brown, J. Cordeaux & W. E. Clarke, Migration Report 8: 41; Anon., Proceedings of the Zoological Society 1887: 319-320; Eds., Field 19th March 1887: 406; Eds., Zoologist 1887: 158-159; R. W. Chase, Zoologist 1887: 196; J. G. Tuck, Zoologist 1887: 196; Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Galloway & Meek, 1978-83; Kerr, 2001; Watson, 2010).

History J. G. Tuck of Bucknall, Stoke-on-Trent (1886) in The Field of 11th Dec., Vol. LXVIII. p. 872, says: 'On Dec. 6 I received in the flesh, and in a perfectly fresh condition, a young male Harlequin Duck, shot off the coast of Northumberland, near the Farne Islands. It seems to be a bird of last year, as the white patch of feathers near the carpal joint of each wing , the white spots on the head, and the chestnut colouring on the sides are distinctly marked. The legs and feet are yellowish brown, not unlike those of a young Goldeneye, without the least tinge of blue; eyes brown; beak lead-colour.'

[The Harlequin Duck is one of the rarest of the ducks which visit the British Islands in winter, and very few authentic instances of its occurrence here are on record. In several instances birds reported as Harlequins proved, on examination by competent judges, to be the young Long-tailed Ducks and American Wood Ducks. At the present time, we believe, there is only one genuine British-killed Harlequin to be found in any collection, and that is in the possession of Mr. Whitaker, of Rainsworth [sic] Lodge, near Mansfield. It was picked up dead on the shore at Filey in the autumn of 1862. - Ed.]

In an Editorial (1887) in The Field of 19th Mar., Vol. LXIX. p. 406, under 'Zoological Society', they say: 'At the meeting of this society, held on Tuesday last, Professor Mivart in the chair...Mr. Howard Saunders exhibited a young male Harlequin Duck (Cosmonetta histrionica), shot off Northumberland on Dec. 2 last, and remarked that it was the second authentic British-killed specimen in existence.'

Julian Tuck of St. Mary's, Bucknall, Stoke-on-Trent (1887) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XI. pp. 70-71, says: 'On December 6th I received in the flesh and in a perfectly fresh condition a Harlequin Duck, shot on Dec. 2nd off the coast of Northumberland, near the Farne Islands.

The correspondent who kindly sent it to me tells me he never met such a bird before, and that there were three swimming together close to the islands. He shot them all, but only succeeded in getting two of them. Probably the wounded bird became the prey of some large gull.

My specimen is a young male, and probably a bird of the previous year, as the white patch of feathers near the carpal joint of each wing, the pure white spot behind the eye, the stripe on the neck, and the chestnut colouring on the sides are all clearly defined; there are many blue feathers among the brown on the back, and one of the scapulars on the right side has a broad white mark; the breast and underparts are mottled all over with pale brown and dingy white, much like those of a female Pintail. The eyes were brown, the beak lead-colour; the legs and feet yellowish brown, without the least tinge of blue. I believe the legs and feet of the Long-tailed Duck, which species has been most frequently mistaken for the Harlequin, are greyish blue in both sexes, and at all ages. The bird was in very good condition.

It seems difficult to account for a bird which breeds not uncommonly in Iceland being so rare a visitor to Britain.'

J. A. Harvie Brown, J. Cordeaux & W. E. Clarke (1887) in the Report on the Migration of Birds in the Spring and Autumn of 1886, 8th report, p. 41, say: 'Harlequin Duck, Farne L.H., December 2nd, three, two shot (went to well-known collectors).'

Anon. (1887) in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, pp. 319-320, at a meeting held on 15th March 1887, says: 'Mr. Howard Saunders, F.Z.S., exhibited a young male Harlequin Duck (Cosmonetta histrionica), shot on the 2nd December, 1886, near the Fame Islands, off Northumberland, where it was in company with two others, one of which was also obtained (Zool., 1887, p. 70).

Mr. Saunders stated that records of the occurrence of this species were not unfrequent; but that inasmuch as, with one exception, every reputed British specimen which had been submitted to competent examination had proved to belong to some other species, the possessor, Mr. R. W. Chase, of Edgbaston, had kindly complied with a request to send his bird up, that its identification might be placed beyond a doubt - an example to be commended to other owners of rarities.

The only British-killed specimen previously known to exist was in the collection of Mr. J. Whitaker, of Rainworth Lodge, Notts., and had been obtained at Filey, Yorkshire, in 1862. So-called specimens had generally proved to be females or young of the Long-tailed Duck or of the American Wood Duck.'

In an Editorial (1887) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XI. pp. 158-159, of the Zoological Society of London meeting held on 15th March, 1887, it says: 'Mr. Howard Saunders exhibited a young male Harlequin Duck Cosmonetta histrionica, shot off the coast off Northumberland on the 2nd December last, and remarked that it was the second authentic British-killed specimen in existence.'

R. W. Chase of Birmingham (1887) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XI. p. 196, says: 'The editorial note (p. 159) under a notice of the exhibition of a Harlequin Duck before the Zoological Society by Mr. H. Saunders has a tendency to mislead, as any one referring to that notice would naturally conclude that the bird exhibited was the Rev. Julian Tuck's specimen, which was not the case.

It was the companion bird which I had received, and which is now in my collection. To obviate any confusion which might arise at a future date in tracing the destination of the two specimens which were obtained, I should feel obliged if you will allow me to state that I possess the specimen which was exhibited by Mr. H. Saunders.'

Julian Tuck of St. Mary's, Bucknall, Stoke-on-Trent (1887) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XI. p. 196, says: 'It may be well to point out that young Harlequin drake exhibited by Mr. Saunders at the second March meeting of the Zoological Society (p. 159) was not my specimen recorded on p. 70, but its companion in misfortune. The two must, I suppose, be 'bracketed second' as British examples.

I forwarded the body of the one I received to Professor Newton, and at his request the trachea has been prepared for the Cambridge Museum.'

Bolam (1912: 401) says: 'On 2nd December, 1886, one, which was accompanied at the time by two others, was shot at the Farne Islands, and is in the collection of Mr. R. W. Chase, of Birmingham. Both the survivors were shot soon afterwards, one of them being for many years in the possession of the late Mr. Cuthbertson, at Seahouses, where I have seen it on several occasions.

After his death it was acquired from his widow by Lord William Percy, and is now at Alnwick Castle. The third came into the possession of the Rev. Julian G. Tuck. All were in immature plumage, two of them being determined to be males.'

Witherby et al. (1940-52) says: 'Two young males obtained, out of three seen, a third obtained (Bolam 1912: 401) is an adult male and the date of its capture is rather uncertain (W. Percy in litt.).'

Accepted locally (Galloway & Meek 1978-83; Kerr 2001).

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 shot by T. Cutting. Seen in the flesh by Canon Tristram, to whom I gave the trachea. Weight 1 lb 4¼ oz. Tarsus and toes olive grey, webs, joints, back of tarsus dusky. Bill slate grey. Stuffed by Cullingford.

Exhibited by Howard Saunders on 17.03.1887 before the Zoological Soc.; vide H. Saunders, Manual of British Birds 1889, p. 448; vide Zoologist 1887, p. 196. Sternum etc. preserved.

Comment Bolam clearly states all were immatures. BOU (1971) admit all, but class this as two records.

5). 1915 or 1916 Lancashire & North Merseyside River Ribble, Crossens, adult male, shot, January, now at Bolton Museum.

(T. A. Coward, British Birds 20: 25-26; Saunders & Clarke, 1927; T. A. Coward, Field 24th Jan., 1931: 120; Hardy, 1941; Oakes, 1953; Spencer, 1973; White, McCarthy & Jones, 2008).

History T. A. Coward (1926) in British Birds, Vol. XX. pp. 25-26, says: 'Through the kindness of Mr. R. Mason of Poolstock, Wigan, I have examined an adult drake Harlequin (Histrionicus histrionicus) which was shot about ten years ago at Crossens at the mouth of the Ribble. It was shot in flight by a Mr. Valender of Wigan, whom I have not seen, but who gave his information to Mr. Mason. The actual date is uncertain, but Valender was sure that it was during the war; on that point he was quite clear, and he believed that the month was January. That it was fairly early in the war years I gather from the statement he made that it was before paper money came into use, and I should say that it was in the winter of 1914-15 or 1915-16, though he thought it was in either 1916 or 1917.

The bird was with one or two other ducks, all flying very fast, when he dropped it, but there is no evidence that these were Harlequins. He had no idea what it was, nor could any of his fellow wildfowlers identify it. After keeping it for some time, he gave it to a relative, from whom Mr. Mason purchased it when he saw what it was; Mr. Mason confirmed his own identification by comparing the bird with Gould's plate and a specimen in the Liverpool Museum.

It is a drake, apparently mature, for the tail-feathers are pointed, and the speculum is metallic. It was very clean when shot, so Valender says, and is in excellent condition. Platt of Hindley, who mounted the bird, is, I believe, dead, so it is hardly possible to obtain the exact date.

Mr. Hugh Wormald, from whom I enquired if there was the possibility that it was a bird that had escaped from captivity, assures me that if the bird is a Harlequin it can safely be recorded, as to the best of his knowledge only three birds have been in confinement in this country during the last fifty years, and these were three reared from eggs obtained from Iceland, one of which is still alive in his possession. Another that he reared was killed by a stoat, and a bird reared by Mr. St. Quintin died in its first winter.'

T. A. Coward (1931) in The Field of 24th Jan., Vol. CLVII. p. 120, says: 'I am glad to confirm Mr. R. Mason's record of the Harlequin drake that was shot at Crossens, Lancashire, in or about 1916. I could see no sign that the bird had been in captivity when I examined it, and Mr. Hugh Wormald was sure that it must have been a genuine wild bird, as he could account for the only birds which he was sure had been reared or kept in confinement in our islands during the last 50 years.'

Accepted locally (Oakes 1953; Spencer 1973; White, McCarthy & Jones 2008).

6). 1931 Outer Hebrides Near Berneray, Sound of Harris, male, seen, 13th February.

(S. W. P. Freme, British Birds 24: 370; K. Williamson, Scottish Naturalist 66: 16; Cunningham, 1983).

History S. W. P. Freme (1931) in British Birds, Vol. XXIV. p. 370, says: 'On February 13th, 1931, some distance to the north of the Isle of Berneray, Captain Howard called my attention to a duck that was diving in company with a Long-tailed drake. We agreed that it must be a male Harlequin. Broken white face-patches were visible through glasses, and the white neck ring. The water was too rough for us to discern any of the bright chestnut flank colouring, but I am certain that I could see the white half-band from shoulder to breast.

The bird dived repeatedly and was some distance on our quarter, but as both Captain Howard and I are very familiar with the Harlequin in Iceland - and indeed at Greystoke, where he has several on ornamental water hatched from Iceland-taken eggs - I do not think there is the slightest possibility of our having misidentified this bird.'

Accepted by K. Williamson (1954) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXVI. p. 16, and locally (Cunningham 1983).

1950-57 RECORD

7). 1954 Borders River Teviot, Barnhills, Denholm, Roxburghshire, immature male, shot, 16th January, now at National Museums of Scotland (NMSZ 1954.35).

(K. Williamson, Edinburgh Bird Bulletin 4: 40; K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 2: 58; K. Williamson, Scottish Naturalist 66: 15-16, 23; E. V. Baxter, Scottish Naturalist 68: 3; Murray, 1986).

History K. Williamson (1954) in the Edinburgh Bird Bulletin, Vol. IV. p. 40, say: 'Whilst with a shooting party at Barnhills, Denholm, on the River Teviot, Lt.-Col. J. A. Sperling, D.S.O., shot at a solitary, low-flying duck, which proved to be a Harlequin. It was identified by Hon. Henry Douglas Home and sent to the Royal Scottish Museum, where a cabinet specimen has been made. The bird was a young drake, showing some advancement on head and scapulars towards first-summer dress.

A full description will appear later in the Scottish Naturalist. The bird was collected on 16th January 1954, the day following a very severe gale in south and west Scotland which was the culmination of several days of strong westerly winds....'

K. Williamson (1954) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. II. p. 58, says: 'Lt.-Col. Henry Douglas Home reported in The Scotsman of February 6th that a young drake Harlequin Histrionicus histrionicus was shot on the River Teviot in Roxburghshire on January 16th, the day after a severe westerly gale. This bird also was sent to the Royal Scottish Museum and a full description of it will be given in a future issue of the Scottish Naturalist.'

K. Williamson (1954) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXVI. pp. 15-16, says: 'Whilst with a shooting party at Barnhills, Denholm, on the River Teviot in Roxburghshire, on 16th January 1954, Lieut.-Colonel J. A. Sperling, D.S.O., shot at a solitary, low-flying duck, which proved to be a Harlequin. It was identified by Lieut.-Colonel Henry Douglas-Home and sent to the Royal Scottish Museum.

It was a young drake (by dissection), mostly in juvenile and first-winter plumage, but showing some advancement on head and scapulars towards first-summer dress. The measurements taken from the bird in the flesh, are: chord of wing 183 mm.; bill from feathers of forehead 26 mm.; tarsus 40 mm.; tail 66mm., but very worn.

The head showed a dark blue coronal stripe bordered with whitish at the front, and surrounding the base of the bill was a scaup-like "blaze" suffused with brownish on the forehead. Some blue feathering was coming in on nape, throat and cheeks. There was a small whitish spot below the eye and a larger pure white round patch behind the eye, with white feathers extending backwards in an irregular streak towards the nape, the pure white shoulder-patches were surrounded by dark plumbeous feathers, and there were new bluish feathers on mantle and scapulars. The belly was dingy white, the feathers being tipped with brown, the lower breast brown with an admixture of blue-grey, and the upper breast almost tawny-brown. The throat was paler and had many dark blue-grey feathers. The wings were worn and dark brown with no white except at the hidden bases of the primaries, and the chestnut-tipped flank-feathers were well-developed. The legs were greenish, the webs black and the small bill dark brown.

This is the first specimen of a Harlequin to have been collected in Scotland, where, however, there have been two sight records of adult drakes.'

Accepted nationally by E. V. Baxter (1956) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXVIII. p. 3, and locally (Murray 1986).

NOT PROVEN

0). Pre 1802 County unknown Locality in the North of Scotland, pair, shot, undated.

(Montagu, 1802; Sowerby, 1806; Fleming, 1828; Jenyns, 1835; Macgillivray, 1837-52; Yarrell, 1845; Baikie & Heddle, 1848; BOU, 1883; Yarrell, 1871-85).

[BOU, 1971; A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-163].

History Montagu (1802) says: 'We are enabled with certainty to add this species of Duck to the list of British birds from the authority of Mr. Sowerby, in whose collection of the more rare English birds we had an opportunity of examining both sexes, which were killed on the domain of Lord Seaforth, in Scotland, a few years since, and presented to him by that nobleman.

The great Linnaeus had considered the female of this species as distinct from his Anas histrionica, and has given it under the name of Anas minuta. Gmelin has followed him, but not without expressing his doubts. Various other authors have considered the sexes as distinct species; but later observations have clearly proved, beyond doubt, that the Anas minuta is no other than the female Harlequin Duck.'

Fleming (1828: 121) says: 'A pair, male and female, were sent from Scotland to Mr. Sowerby by Lord Seaforth.'

Jenyns (1835: 246) says: 'A pair, male and female, killed some years back in the north of Scotland, were in the collection of the late Mr. James Sowerby.'

Yarrell (1845 (3): 364, 2nd ed.) says: 'Harlequin Duck was first noticed as a British Duck in the Ornithological Dictionary of Colonel Montagu, published in 1802. His descriptions were taken from a pair of birds that had been killed in Scotland, and sent by Lord Seaforth to Mr. James Sowerby, who published coloured figures of them in 1806, in his British Miscellany (pl. 6. p.11).'

Macgillivray (1852 (5): 172) says: 'A few instances of its occurrence in Britain are mentioned. Montagu first added it 'to the list of British birds, on the authority of Mr. Sowerby, in whose collection of the more rare English birds', he says, "we had an opportunity of examining both sexes, which were killed on the domain of Lord Seaforth in Scotland, a few years since, and presented to him by that nobleman".'

Gurney (1876: 264) says: 'For the sake of expedition, I may as well dismiss the cases already disposed of by Professor Newton, and commence with 1802, when Mr. Montagu published his Ornithological Dictionary, and this Duck was introduced on the authority of Mr. James Sowerby, who had received a pair from Lord Seaforth. No doubt these are what Mr. Mudie refers to when he says (B. B., II. p. 354) that the Harlequin has been seen in Lewis, as I understand that this island was Lord Seaforth's estate.

For the following note by the late veteran naturalist J. E. Gray, I am indebted to Professor Newton: "The Sowerby Museum was in Meade Place, Lambeth, near the Orphan Asylum. It became in a bad state from neglect, and some specimens were sold privately, and the rest at the auction rooms, now Stevens'. I do not know what became of the Duck. I think I recollect it in a separate glass case as was then the fashion, but rather baddish in condition". The above does not furnish us with much information...'

Admitted nationally in the first List of British Birds (BOU 1883: 132).

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 453, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Its occurrence in the British Islands was first recorded by James Sowerby, who gave coloured illustrations of an adult male and a female in his British Miscellany, pl. 6, p. 11 (1806), stating that the specimens had been presented to him by his "kind friend Lord Seaforth, who procured them from Scotland".

Montagu subsequently described these two birds in his Ornithological Dictionary (1813). Sowerby adds: "Mr. Simmons gave me a young female which he shot in one of the Orkneys". Whether the two former birds were really killed in Scotland; or whether the latter was really a female Harlequin and not a young Long-tailed Duck, it is now impossible to say; but it may be briefly remarked, that all the young or female 'Harlequins' which have from time to time been recorded, have been proved, where proof was possible, to be Long-tailed Ducks.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). c. 1806 Orkney No locality, immature female, shot, undated.

(Fleming, 1828; Jenyns, 1835; Yarrell, 1845; Baikie & Heddle, 1848; BOU, 1883).

[Buckley & Harvie-Brown, 1891; Gurney, 1876; Buckley & Harvie-Brown, 1891; BOU, 1971].

History Fleming (1828: 121), says: 'A pair, male and female, were sent from Scotland to Mr. Sowerby by Lord Seaforth; and Mr. Simmons gave him a young female, which he shot in one of the Orkney Islands.'

Jenyns (1835: 246) says: '...A young female has also been shot in one of the Orkney Islands.'

Yarrell (1845 (3): 364, 2nd ed.) says: '...Mr. Sowerby afterwards received a young female of the same species from Mr. Simmons, who shot it on one of the Orkneys.'

Gurney (1876: 264) says: '...nor am I more fortunate in regard to Mr. Simmons' young female from Orkney, about which I have nothing fresh to impart, though I should say prima facie that its being a young female is against it, for as will be seen in the sequel, the young of this species and the young of the Long-tailed Duck have been several times confounded. It is not very likely to have been the specimen in Mr. Bullock's sale (15th day, lot 59), which, according to a MS. note in Professor Newton's copy of the catalogue, was killed in the Orkneys and bought by Dr Adams for a guinea; though this latter may be one of the three or four incidentally mentioned by Selby and Donovan.'

Admitted nationally in the first List of British Birds (BOU 1883), but not later (BOU 1971). Also, the record was placed in square brackets (Buckley & Harvie-Brown 1891: 177).

0). Pre 1824 Norfolk Bought at Yarmouth market, undated.

(Paget & Paget, 1824; J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher, Zoologist 1846: 1380).

[Gurney, 1876, 1884; BOU, 1971].

History John H. Gurney & William R. Fisher (1846) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IV. p. 1380, say: 'Mentioned by the Messrs. Paget to have been bought in Yarmouth market by Mr. Wigg.'

Gurney (1876: 265-266) says: 'Nobody knows what has become of the specimen which Mr. Wigg bought in Yarmouth market (Nat. His. of Yarm., p. 12, Intr. xii). Uncharitable people insinuate that he consigned it to the spit, like the Red-breasted Goose which he bought there on another occasion. We cannot be expected to credit a bird which was eaten; and if a man calling himself a naturalist could not get the better of his unfortunate gastronomic tastes, he must pay the penalty of not being believed.'

Southwell (1879: 164, 2nd ed.) in Lubbock's Fauna of Norfolk, in a footnote, says: 'Lilly Wigg was not an ornithologist proper, and yet three of the rarest and most questionable species in the Norfolk list, rest almost entirely on his authority, the Red-breasted Goose, Harlequin Duck and the King Eider.'

Gurney (1884: 6) says: 'The Ortolan Bunting, Eagle Owl, and Pelican, it is thought may have escaped from confinement; while the Eastern Golden Plover, Wilson's Petrel, Harlequin Duck, and Hooded Merganser may not have been really killed in Norfolk.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1830 Devon Plymouth, female, obtained, winter.

(E. Moore, Transactions of the Plymouth Institution 1830: 343-344; E. Moore, Charlesworth's Magazine of Natural History 1: 365; Yarrell, 1845).

[J. Brooking Rowe, Transactions of the Plymouth Institution 1862-63: 78; Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Edward Moore of Plymouth (1830) in the Transactions of the Plymouth Institution, Vol. I. pp. 343-344, says: 'The A. minuta, is the female, of which a specimen lately shot in Plymouth harbour, is now in the possession of Mr. C. Tripe, of Devonport.'

Edward Moore of Plymouth (1837) in Charlesworth's Magazine of Natural History, Vol. I. p. 365, dated 20th June, 1837, says: 'Mr. Tripe has a specimen of the female, shot in Hamoaze, in the winter of 1830.'

Yarrell (1845 (3): 364, 2nd ed.) says: 'Dr Edward Moore has noticed one that was obtained in Devonshire, in the winter of 1830.'

J. Brooking Rowe (1862-63) in the Transactions of the Plymouth Institution, Vol. I. p. 78, says: 'Said to have been obtained, but there is no well authenticated specimen.'

Gurney (1876: 267) says: 'Mr. Gatcombe has seen the supposed specimen recorded by Dr Moore as killed at Plymouth (Mag. of N. H., 2nd ser. I. p. 365) as no doubt it was, seeing that it turns out to be a young Long-tailed Duck.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1833 Norfolk Great Yarmouth, immature male, shot, undated.

(Gurney, 1876).

[Gurney, 1876, 1884].

History Gurney (1876: 266) says: 'There is a note in the series sent by Mr. Joseph Clarke to Mr. Stevenson, for the use of his work, upon this Duck, as follows: "One shot at Yarmouth in 1833. Harvey sold it to Mr. Hoy".

Now 1833 was the year before the Nat. Hist of Yarmouth came out, and I think I may take it for granted that this was not Mr. Wigg's bird; but if it were another one, how came it that the Messrs. Paget who, as is evident from their introduction, were familiar enough with Harvey the birdstuffer, pass it over in silence? And how also can we account for there being no mention of it by Mr. Hoy in his article on 'Rare Birds killed in Suffolk and Norfolk in 1832-3' (London Journal for 1834; see also Mag. of N. H., VII. p. 52), save by the supposition that they disbelieved in it?

Further, in a footnote, he adds: "Mr. Clarke informs Mr. Stevenson that he saw it in the flesh, and that it was a young male". There is also a drake in the Norwich Museum said to have been killed near Yarmouth (Zool. 1380). I find that it was presented in 1839 by my father, who does not believe in it. Neither do I, for it was remounted, and Mr. Knight, who took the stuffing out, told me that it had the appearance of having been set up from a skin. I am sorry I have not made out a better case for Norfolk, but such a rich county can afford to spare one species; I have no bias for or against it, and only wish to get the unvarnished truth.'

Gurney (1884: 6) says: 'The Ortolan Bunting, Eagle Owl, and Pelican, it is thought may have escaped from confinement; while the Eastern Golden Plover, Wilson's Petrel, Harlequin Duck, and Hooded Merganser may not have been really killed in Norfolk.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1840 Cheshire & Wirral Oulton Park, female, shot, December.

(Yarrell, 1845).

[Gurney, 1876; Dobie, 1893; Coward & Oldham, 1900; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Yarrell (1845 (3): 364, 2nd ed.) says: 'The gamekeeper of Sir Philip Egerton shot one, a female, in Cheshire, in December 1840, during a frost.'

Gurney (1876: 267) says: 'Again, I have very little doubt that Mr. Yarrell was mistaken when he adds, that the keeper at Sir Philip Egerton's shot a female in Cheshire in 1840. Great author as he was, he did not know what a rare bird the Harlequin was. At this distance of time I cannot attempt to disprove it; but the following are a few additional details with which Sir Philip has favoured me. He writes that he believes the underparts were not dark, which they ought to have been, that it was a bird of the year, and that it was never preserved. Its occurrence was only communicated to Mr. Yarrell, on the authority of Professor Agassiz, who chanced to be staying at his seat at Oulton Park.'

Dobie (1893: 326) quotes Yarrell and Gurney and follows Gurney in placing the record in square brackets. Not accepted locally (Coward & Oldham 1900: 172).

Comment Probably misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1841 Caithness No locality, obtained, undated.

(Gray, 1871; Gurney, 1876).

[Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1887; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Gray (1871: 394) says: 'The Harlequin Duck has since been included in a catalogue of the 'Birds of Caithness', prepared by Mr. E. S. Sinclair, surgeon, Wick, and published in the statistical account of that parish by the Rev. Charles Thompson, in March, 1841. The specimen is still in that gentleman's private museum.'

Gurney (1876: 265) says: 'Mr. Gray says: "The Harlequin Duck has since been included in a catalogue of the 'Birds of Caithness', prepared by Mr. E. S. Sinclair (B. of W. Scotland, p. 394)". No doubt on the same authority it finds a place in Osborne and Shearer's 'Birds of Caithness' (Roy. Phys. Soc., Edinburgh, II. p. 340), but as Mr. Sinclair has been found to be wrong in the case of the Spotted Sandpiper, there seems to me a probability of his having been mistaken here as well. His collection has been sold to the Thurso Museum, as Mr. Reid informs me.'

Harvie-Brown & Buckley (1887: 193) placing the record in square brackets, say: 'In Dr Sinclair's collection. This bird is not credited by Messrs. Newton, Gurney and Harting as having occurred here.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1843 Greater London No locality, two, immature females, obtained, undated.

(Yarrell, 1843).

[Gurney, 1876].

History Yarrell (1843 (3): 263, 1st ed.) says: 'Some years since I bought two in the London market during the same winter; both of them were young females.'

Gurney (1876: 267) says: 'Mr. Yarrell bought two "young females" in the London market as he informs his readers (B. B., 1st ed., III. p. 263), but he did not know the bird from the young Long-tailed Duck, as his miscalling the one killed by the Duke of Richmond proves (Ibis, 1859, p. 165), therefore his evidence must be rejected.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1843 Lancashire & North Merseyside Near Garstang, immature male, 14th January.

(J. D. Banister, Zoologist 1843: 145).

[Gurney, 1876; BOU, 1971].

History Jas D. Banister of Pilling (1843) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. I. p. 145, dated 18th March, 1843, says: 'On the 14th January, 1843, another bird, which I take to be the young male of the Harlequin Duck.'

Gurney (1876: 267) says: 'Professor Newton has given me a reference to a page in The Zoologist (p. 145), where Mr. J. D. Banister records a young female killed in Lancashire, and I have investigated it and find that it was a mistake.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1844 Yorkshire River Don, near Doncaster, female, shot, undated.

(Allis, 1844; Morris, 1856-62; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881; Nelson, 1907).

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

History Morris (1856-62 (7): 83, reissue) says: 'A female of this species was shot on the River Don, near Doncaster.'

Gurney (1876: 268) says: 'A female is said, in Morris' British Birds (V. p. 258), to have been shot on the Don near Doncaster, and I have tried to do the same by that, but all the information I could get was that it was procured a little above the town by a Mr. Cartwell [sic], that Mr. Reid the well-known birdstuffer was guarantee for its being correctly named, and that the Rev. W. E. Strickland purchased it, and there I lost the clue; but the locality assigned, so distant from the sea, is against its having been a Harlequin.'

Clarke & Roebuck (1881: 57) say: 'River Don, above Doncaster, a female shot; in the collection of H. E. Strickland (Allis, 1844).' While, Nelson (1907 (2): 474) says: 'Thomas Allis, 1844, wrote: - "Clangula histrionica - Harlequin Duck. - Hugh Reid says: "A female of this species was shot in the River Don a little above Doncaster, by the late Mr. Cartmell, and was sold by me to Mr. N. E. Strickland". A. Strickland has never met with it in this country.' The first Yorkshire specimen is that mentioned by Allis, though Mr. J. H. Gurney (Rambles of a Naturalist, p. 263), considers it of doubtful authenticity.'

Comment Not admitted by the BOU (1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1845 Leicestershire & Rutland Groby Pool and other pools, several, obtained, winter.

(M. Browne, Zoologist 1886: 202; Browne, 1889).

[Not in BOU, 1971; Fray et al., 2009].

History Montagu Browne (1886) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. X. p. 202, says: 'Of this rare duck, Harley writes, "The Harlequin Duck appeared in the county during the heavy frost of 1845, when several examples were captured on the pools and waters in different parts of Leicestershire. Mr. Chaplin, of Groby, shot a pair on the pool in the early part of 1845, where they were associated with Scoters, Tufted Ducks, Teal, and Wigeon".'

Accepted locally (Browne 1889: 134) but not later (Fray et al. 2009).

Comment Misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1847 Devon Torquay, two, obtained, February.

(R. Battersby, Zoologist 1847: 1697).

[A. Newton, Ibis 1: 165; J. Brooking Rowe, Transactions of the Plymouth Institution 1862-63: 78; Newman, 1866; Harting, 1872].

History Robert Battersby of Torquay (1847) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. V. p. 1697, dated 20th February, 1847, says: 'Among the rarer British birds which have visited us this winter...a small flock of Harlequin Ducks have frequented our bay, of which, I have been fortunate to procure two specimens, a male and female.'

Alfred Newton (1859) in The Ibis Vol. I. p. 165, says: 'I take this opportunity of remarking, that in two or three asserted instances of the occurrence of Anas histrionicus in Great Britain, other species seem to have been mistaken for it.

In The Zoologist for 1847 (p. 1697) is a note by Dr. Battersby of Torquay, that "a small flock of Harlequin Ducks have frequented our bay, of which, I have been fortunate to procure two specimens, a male and female".

Now, an example obtained at the time, out of the same flock, was some years since shown me by Mr. Burt, the energetic curator of the Torquay Museum, and there can be no question of its being a young Long-tailed Duck.'

J. Brooking Rowe (1862-63) in the Transactions of the Plymouth Institution, Vol. I. p. 78, says: 'Said to have been obtained, but there is no well authenticated specimen.'

Newman (1866) in Montagu's British Birds says: 'A small flock was seen through the winter of 1846/47 in the bay at Torquay and a pair were obtained during February 1847.'

Harting (1872) adds: 'They proved to be Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1849 Derbyshire Melbourne, pair, bred, undated.

(J. J. Briggs, Zoologist 1850: 2949-50).

[A. Newton, Ibis 1: 165-166; Yarrell, 1871-85; BOU, 1971].

History J. J. Briggs (1850) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. VIII. pp. 2949-50, says: 'On the pool in Melbourne Gardens are a pair of these beautiful fowls, which add much to the many attractions of the place. Although they have been kept there for several years they never bred until the year 1849, and as this is, I believe, one of the very few instances of the bird breeding in this country, it may be interesting to give some account of it. In the grounds above mentioned, at a very considerable distance from the pool where the birds usually live, and in a retired part, stands an ice house, against which some thatch-sheaves were placed: upon these, sheltered from the wet and sun, and at an altitude of about three feet, the pair formed a nest which was simply a depression in the thatch, made most beautifully soft and warm, by being lined with down plucked from the parent bird. The nest contained eight eggs on June 11, which were hatched a few days afterwards. They were very similar in colour to those of the Partridge, but somewhat larger, and when the bird left them to feed, she covered them up closely with a large lump of down. After feeding, the male bird accompanied her back to the nest and then returned to the pool, not taking any share in sitting on the eggs. Several of the young ducks were reared, but the old female died.'

Alfred Newton (1859) in The Ibis, Vol. I. pp. 165-166, says: 'I take this opportunity of remarking, that in two or three asserted instances of the occurrence of Anas histrionicus in Great Britain, other species seem to have been mistaken for it....In The Zoologist for 1850 (p. 2949) is a detailed account of a pair of Ducks said to be the Harlequin, which built a nest and hatched a brood in a semi-domesticated state at Melbourne in Derbyshire; and this statement copied by Mr. Yarrell in his last edition [B. B., 3rd ed. Vol. III. p. 368].

Now, at the time I first read it, I had a suspicion that there was some mistake here, which further inquiries have much tended to strengthen; but as the author of the paper (Mr. J. J. Briggs) has kindly undertaken to pursue the subject further, I need say no more about it, beyond expressing my full conviction that the birds in question will be found to have been the North American Wood, Carolina, or Summer Duck (Aix sponsa, Boie), which, as is well known, will breed freely in this country, and whose beautifully varied plumage causes it to be often called by dealers by the name rightly belonging to that species which is the subject of my somewhat lengthy remarks.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 453, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Even examples which have been recorded as males in adult plumage, have proved to be examples of the American Wood Duck or some other species. This was undoubtedly the case with those which Mr. J. J. Briggs described as having bred, in captivity, at Melbourne, in Derbyshire: a statement unfortunately accepted and published in the 3rd Edition by the Author, whose acquaintance with the Harlequin Duck was limited.'

Comment Misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1851 North-east Scotland River Spey, near Gordon Castle, Banffshire, autumn.

(E. Newton, Zoologist 1852: 3331).

[E. Newton, Zoologist 1859: 6536; A. Newton, Ibis 1: 165; Harting, 1872].

History Edward Newton of Thetford (1852) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. X. p. 3331, dated 10th December, 1851, says: 'A specimen of the Harlequin Duck was shot on the Spey, near Gordon Castle, in October last. This bird has since passed into my hands; it is a young female of the year, in a state of plumage not described by Mr. Yarrell, but agreeing with that detailed by Temminck in his Manuel d'Ornithologie. I believe this is only the eleventh instance of the occurrence of this species in Great Britain.'

Edward Newton of Thetford (1859) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XVII. p. 6536, dated March 1859, says: 'I beg leave to correct an error made by me in The Zoologist for 1852 (Zool. 3331) in a note on the 'Occurrence of the Harlequin Duck in Banffshire.'

The specimen therein mentioned was submitted to the inspection of the late Mr. Yarrell, who pronounced it to be a young female Harlequin Duck, and he has mentioned it as such in the last edition of his work (British Birds, 3rd edition, III. 366); but I was very sorry to find, shortly after the bird was given to me, that the decision of that illustrious ornithologist was unfortunately wrong, and that it was only a female Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis). I may add, that there can be no doubt that the bird in my possession is the identical specimen seen by Mr. Yarrell.'

Alfred Newton (1859) in The Ibis, Vol. I. p. 165, says: 'I take this opportunity of remarking, that in two or three asserted instances of the occurrence of Anas histrionicus in Great Britain, other species seem to have been mistaken for it. Again in The Zoologist for 1852 (p. 3331), my brother reported that a Harlequin Duck had been killed in Banffshire.

This he did on the authority of Mr. Yarrell whose letter to Lord March, by whom the bird was shot and kindly given to my brother, after having been submitted to the inspection of that distinguished naturalist, is now before me.

In this letter Mr. Yarrell says positively that it "is a young female of the "Harlequin Duck" in its first winter plumage;" but the bird is still in our possession, and, I regret to say, is not the rarity I could wish, there being no doubt that it is only a very young example of the Long-tailed Duck. Both this and the Torbay specimens are referred to by Mr. Yarrell in the last edition of his work (B. B., 3rd ed. Vol. III. p. 368).'

Gray (1871: 394) says: 'This circumstance was alluded to by W. Yarrell, who remarks that he saw the bird, which was a young one, and was killed in the autumn of 1851. However, Mr. Elwes has informed me that it has now been ascertained beyond a doubt that W. Yarrell had, in this instance, mistaken a female Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis for the Harlequin.' Also stated by Harting (1872).

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1854 North-east Scotland Loch of Strathbeg, obtained, undated.

(T. Edward, Morris and Bree's Naturalist 4: 242; Harting, 1872; Gurney, 1876).

[Sim, 1903; Not in BOU, 1971].

History T. Edward (1853-54) in Morris and Bree's Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 242, says: 'It is only a few winters since a most beautiful specimen of the Harlequin was shot there by a rabbit-catcher, who, I believe, for the sake of a very paltry sum more than he was offered on the spot, sent it, like the other rarity already spoken of, away south.'

Gurney (1876: 265) says: 'In The Naturalist for 1854, p. 242, Mr. Edward relates the death of a Harlequin at the hands of a rabbit-catcher of Loch Strathbeg, who - abandoned wretch that he was - for the sake of a 'paltry sum' sent it 'away south', to the great indignation of the local magnates; and by doing so effectually closed the door against incredulous people like myself, who would have made further enquiries.'

Not accepted locally by Sim (1903: 151) who says: 'It is unfortunate that the same cannot be said regarding Edward's observations relative to this bird. In his paper on the 'Birds of Strathbeg', already frequently quoted, he says: "It is only a few winters since a most beautiful specimen of the Harlequin was shot by a rabbit-catcher, who, I believe, for the sake of a very paltry sum more than he was offered on the spot, sent it...away south".'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1857 Warwickshire Near Coleshill, killed, 7th April.

("Devonport Journal" 1857; The Times 18th April, 1857; T. Foggitt, Morris and Bree's Naturalist 7: 163).

[H. Buckley, Naturalist 1858: 124; A. Newton, Ibis 1: 165; Harting, 1872].

History T. Foggitt (1857) in Morris and Bree's edition of The Naturalist, Vol. VII. p. 163, quoting from the Devenport Journal, says 'A female specimen of the Harlequin Duck, which is perhaps the rarest of all visitors to our coast, was killed on the 7th of April, at Maxstoke Castle, near Coleshill, in Warwickshire, by Mr. J. S. Dugdale. It is very rarely the case that birds of this kind stray so far inland. In this instance the Duck had been swimming about with four Canada Geese for four or five days in a pond in Maxstoke Park, and did not even offer to fly when stones were thrown at her.

Yarrell only records six instances of specimens of this species being obtained in England. The bird is now in the hands of Mr. Franklin, of Birmingham, for preservation.'

Henry Buckley of Birmingham (1858) in The Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 124, dated 3rd April, says: 'In The Naturalist, Vol. VIII. page 163, there is a notice copied from the Devenport Journal, of a female Harlequin Duck shot at Maxstoke Castle, on the 7th of April, 1857. I have lately made particular inquiries respecting the above, and I am informed, on undoubted authority, that the bird which was mistaken for the female of that rare Duck, was in reality a female Scaup Duck (Fuligula marila).'

Alfred Newton (1859) in The Ibis, Vol. I. p. 165, says: 'I take this opportunity of remarking, that in two or three asserted instances of the occurrence of Anas histrionicus in Great Britain, other species seem to have been mistaken for it....Furthermore the Naturalist for 1857 (p. 124) contains an extract from The Devonport Journal, which was also quoted in The Times of April 18th, 1857, asserting that a specimen of the Harlequin Duck had been recently killed in Warwickshire; but Mr. H. Buckley, in the same periodical for 1858 (p. 124), states that he made "particular inquiries" respecting this example, and was "informed on undoubted authority that the bird which was mistaken for that rare duck was, in reality, a female [Greater] Scaup Fuligula marila".'

Comment Misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1858 North-east Scotland Buchan, Aberdeenshire, male, shot, undated.

(Ross King, 1866; Gray, 1871; Gurney, 1876; BOU, 1883; Yarrell, 1871-85; H. M. Drummond Hay, Scottish Naturalist 8: 370; Sim, 1903).

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

History Ross King (1866: 231) says: 'The Harlequin Duck has been met with in England, though more frequently in Scotland, and especially on its more northern shores; I have a specimen which was shot on the coast of Aberdeenshire, equal in beauty of plumage to any that I have ever seen.'

Gray (1871: 394) says: 'Major W. Ross King, author of The Sportsman and Naturalist in Canada, mentions in his beautiful work that he had a specimen of this rare duck which had been killed in Aberdeenshire; and on communicating with that gentleman I have been obligingly informed that the bird was a male in very fine plumage, and was shot in 1858. It was apparently a solitary specimen.'

Gurney (1876: 265) adds: 'It was stuffed, but during a temporary absence from home was unfortunately so injured by damp and moth that it had to be thrown away.' Admitted nationally in the first List of British Birds (BOU 1883).

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 453, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Major W. Ross King states that he shot a male in good plumage in 1858, at Buchan, Aberdeenshire, after several days' storm from the north-east; but, although stuffed at the time, the bird was subsequently thrown away.'

H. M. Drummond Hay (1885-86) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 370, under 'Report of the East of Scotland Union', admits this record. Accepted locally (Sim 1903: 151).

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). c. 1860 Norfolk Near Great Yarmouth, shot, undated.

(J. Playford, Field 15th Dec., 1860: 497; J. Playford, Field 5th Jan., 1861: 9).

[H. Stevenson, Field 22nd Dec., 1860: 519; Gurney, 1884].

History J. H. Playford of Great Yarmouth (1860) in The Field of 15th Dec., Vol. XVI. p. 497, says: 'Within the last five years I have procured the following named birds, all of which have been killed within twelve miles of Yarmouth, and preserved for me by Mr. Knights, of Norwich: ...Harlequin Duck, killed on the beach...I should be glad to show my birds to any one desirous of seeing them.'

H. Stevenson of Norwich (1860) in The Field of 22nd Dec., Vol. XVI. p. 519, says: 'Having read the very tempting list of birds under the heading, recorded in last week's Field by Mr. J. Playford....In looking through the list, as given by Mr. Playford, I am able to recognise several specimens which I saw when in the hands of the birdstuffer, but there are others which I shall only be too happy to have satisfactorily proved to me to have been killed 'within five miles of Yarmouth, during the last five years.'

I allude to a pair of Orange-legged Hobbies, the Harlequin Duck, and the American Wigeon. Is Mr. Playford quite sure he is correct in publishing these as local specimens? I have certainly taken the greatest pains for the last ten years to obtain authentic notices of the rare birds that occur on the Norfolk coast, of which records have appeared from time to time in The Zoologist; but as to these three species, I have no notes within that period, nor can I ascertain from the birdstuffer, Mr. Knight, that he has had as other than foreign specimens....As to the Harlequin Duck, I know of but two recorded instances of its appearance on our eastern coast - one, mentioned in their Sketch of the Natural History of Yarmouth and its neighbourhood, by the Messrs. Paget, as long since as 1834, said to have been purchased by Mr. Wigg, in the Yarmouth market; and an adult male, in the Norwich Museum, also said to have been killed at the same place.'

J. Playford (1861) in The Field of 5th Jan., Vol. XVII. p. 9, says: 'In answer to Mr. Stevenson, as to some of the birds I mentioned in my list being killed within twelve miles (not five miles) of Yarmouth...As to the Harlequin Duck, I cannot speak quite so certainly, as I did not see it in the flesh, but bought it of a person on whom I thought I could rely.'

Gurney (1884: 6) says: 'The Ortolan Bunting, Eagle Owl, and Pelican, it is thought may have escaped from confinement; while the Eastern Golden Plover, Wilson's Petrel, Harlequin Duck, and Hooded Merganser may not have been really killed in Norfolk.'

0). c. 1860 Yorkshire Hornby Decoy, caught, undated.

(Clarke & Roebuck, 1881).

[Nelson, 1907; Mather, 1986].

History Clarke & Roebuck (1881: 58) say: 'Hornby Decoy, male captured about 1860; in the collection of the late Mr. Geo. Savage, Keeper, Hornby Castle, Bedale. Has been seen by Mr. James Carter (Carter, MS.).'

Nelson (1907 (2): 475) says: 'The Hornby Decoy example, alleged to have been captured about 1860 (Handbook of Vertebrate Fauna of Yorkshire, p. 58) proved, on investigation by Mr. W. Eagle Clarke, to be an imported specimen.'

Mather (1986) says: 'This example was alleged to have been captured at Hornby Decoy about 1860, but on investigation by Wm. Eagle Clarke, proved to have been an imported specimen. The bird was at one time in the collection of George Savage, a Keeper at Hornby Castle, Bedale.'

Comment Imported. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1865 Yorkshire Bridlington Bay, female, shot, 18th October.

(J. Cordeaux, Zoologist 1866: 23-24).

[Gurney, 1876; BOU, 1971].

History John Cordeaux of Ulceby (1866) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. I. p. 23-24, says: 'October 18. wind S.E. A calm still morning, but as we perceive, by the 'drum and cone' suspended from the signal-station, not destined to last. Went out in a boat in Bridlington Bay, with the intention of fishing, and at the same time looking after any birds we might come across; pulled away in the direction of the Point, and as near to the coast as possible, for the chance of a shot on the low reef of rocks, uncovered at low water, which skirt the base of the cliffs. We next gave chase to a duck, which gave some trouble, as it constantly kept diving under the heavy seas near the shore: at last it took a long dive out to sea, and gave me the chance of a shot as it rose again on the summit of a swell, but dived again instantly as the shot lashed along the wave; when it rose again it was at a considerable distance, but the poor bird was evidently wounded: another shot and we succeeded in getting it. This duck was unlike any I have ever shot; its generic characters were those of the Goldeneye, and I thought it might probably prove a young female of that species, although, on comparing it with stuffed specimens of female Goldeneyes, it varied considerably in plumage. I had then no good work of reference at hand to decide.

On leaving Flamborough I left the duck at the residence of Mr. Bailey, bird-preserver, but without any particular orders respecting it. Mr. Bailey was from home at the time, not returning for some days; he has since written to inform me that he was unable to make out the species, and that he regretted very much the duck had been destroyed.

On consulting Yarrell and other authorities I find the duck almost perfectly described as the female Harlequin (Anas histrionica). I will briefly describe it, and leave the readers of The Zoologist to judge if I am correct in so calling it. Length about 14 inches; wings short and pointed; two first primaries the longest, the first slightly exceeding the second. Bill bluish black; feet and legs the same colour as the bill, but with the webs much darker; irides brownish orange. The whole of the upper parts sooty brown, approaching to black; neck and breast mottled with two shades of brown; a spot on the forehead, also before and behind the eye, whitish grey; under parts white.'

Gurney (1876: 278) says: 'A Duck which Mr. J. Cordeaux shot at Bridlington is described in The Zoologist (s.s. p. 23) as a Harlequin, which he thought it was at the time, but is now inclined to believe that it was a young Long-tail, and hence has excluded it from the Birds of the Humber. It was not preserved.'

Comment Misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1866-67 Berkshire Near Maidenhead, shot, winter.

(Clark Kennedy, 1868).

[Gurney, 1876; BOU, 1971].

History Clark Kennedy (1868: 206-207) says: 'I am only aware of one instance of its occurrence in these counties, and for this I am indebted to Mr. [R. B.] Sharpe, who has supplied me so many interesting notes. The bird in question was shot in the winter of 1866-67 on the river near Maidenhead, and was preserved by Mr. Wilmot, the birdstuffer of that town.'

Gurney (1876: 268) says: 'The author of the Birds of Bucks. and Berks. (p. 206) tells us of a Harlequin killed at Maidenhead. I had my suspicions about it as soon as I read the passage, and they were well founded, for Mr. E. Andrews, in whose possession it is, writes me that it has 'a beautiful black-and-white top-knot lying down the neck similar to a horse's mane'.

This settles the question as far as the Harlequin is concerned, and though not a very precise description, applies tolerably well to the American Wood Duck, and I will hazard a guess that this is what it is.'

Comment Misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1890 North-east Scotland Pitfour, St Fergus, seen, April.

(Sim, 1903).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Sim (1903: 151) says: 'In the month of April, 1890, Mr. Mutch, gamekeeper, saw, on the lake at Pitfour, a specimen of the Harlequin.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1912 Orkney Stromness, Mainland, male, obtained, 30th December, now at Repton School, Derbshire.

(Watson, 2010).

[J. Williams, County Recorder email].

History Watson (2010) in detailing the J. L. Auden collection in the Birmingham Museum lists a male specimen obtained at Stromness, Orkney, on 30th December 1912, that has been retained by Repton School, Derbyshire.

Comment Practically all of Auden's collection involved specimens that were later found to be a part of fraud.

0). 1919 Essex River Chelmer, three, seen, February.

(Glegg, 1929).

[BOU, 1971].

History Glegg (1929: 189) says: 'Mr. J. H. Owen records in the 'Felstead School Scientific Society Report' that he saw three birds of this species on the Chelmer. The male was shot by Rev. H. G. Vincent, but not preserved.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1932 Sussex No locality, male, undated.

("L.C.L-S." Field 7th May 1932: 719).

[McLean & Wormald, Field 28th May 1932: 813].

History "L.C.L-S." of Sussex (1932) in The Field of 7th May, Vol. CLIX. p. 719, says: 'The Harlequin Duck has never, as far as we know, been kept in captivity in this country, and the bird which has been on your pond for a fortnight and is thought to have mated with a Mallard duck is, we venture to suggest, more likely to be either a Carolina or a Mandarin drake. Both these species are commonly kept on ornamental waters, and frequently escape, while the former, in particular, might well be mistaken for a Harlequin.'

McLean & Wormald of East Dereham, Norfolk (1932) in The Field of 28th May, Vol. CLIX. p. 813, say: 'With reference to your answers to correspondents under heading "Strange Duck on Sussex Pond" in this week's issue of The Field, we had a pair of Harlequin Ducks (C. histronica) on one of our ponds at Dereham in the autumn of 1930. These birds were reared from eggs imported from Iceland, and at the present moment Capt. B. Howard has examples of these duck in his collection at Greystoke Castle in Cumberland.

The male of the pair we had in the winter of 1930 was not fully pinioned, and during a gale managed to fly over the 7ft wire netting surrounding the enclosure, but never returned.

We think that most probably the duck seen by your correspondent "L.C.L-S.", in Sussex, was a male of the species you mention, but at the same time we would like if possible to be put in communication with him in case our missing Harlequin drake should have turned up on his water.'

0). 1933 Shetland Symbister Voe, Whalsay, adult male, seen, 5th March.

(R. S. Bruce, Scottish Naturalist 53: 147-152; K. Williamson, Scottish Naturalist 66: 16; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Venables & Venables, 1955).

[Witherby et al., 1940-52; Eds., Scottish Birds 4: 85].

History R. Stuart Bruce (1933) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LIII. p. 150, says: 'Mr. Williamson is still with us, and continues his observations of birds.'

Further, p. 152, he adds: 'On Sunday, 5th March 1933, Mr. D. J. Williamson saw a duck swimming very close to the shore in Symbister Voe, Whalsay, which, from the peculiar markings on head, neck and breast, he could only conclude, was a male Harlequin Duck. As may be imagined, Mr. Williamson was not a little excited, as this bird has not been reported from Shetland previously.

The water was calm, and the drake swam about and was well seen. Mr Williamson went into his house, which is on the shore, turned up Howard Saunders, and determined that the bird was a Harlequin. He went out again and examined the bird as closely as he could, once more, and it then disappeared. I think it right to report this, although unverified by the shooting of the bird, so I merely say that a bird like a Harlequin was seen.

They are resident in Iceland, which is not very far from here.'

Baxter & Rintoul (1953) say: 'On 5th March 1933, D. J. Williamson saw a duck swimming very close to the shore in Symbister Voe, Whalsay, which, from the peculiar markings on head, neck and breast, he could only conclude was a male Harlequin Duck. The water was calm and the bird well seen: in view of the distinctive plumage of the Harlequin drake there seems to us no reason to doubt the identification (Scottish Naturalist 1933: 147).'

Witherby et al. (1940-52) says: '...is rather more doubtful.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1937 Orkney Off Papa Westray, male, June.

(Balfour, 1972; Groundwater, 1974).

[BOU, 1971].

History Balfour (1972) says: 'A. Wood and G. T. Arthur saw a full-plumaged male off Papa Westray in June, 1937.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1947 Norfolk Cley-next-the-Sea, five, three males, 19th February.

(Anon., Wild Bird Protection in Norfolk 1947: 11; Seago, 1977).

[BOU, 1971; Taylor, Seago, Allard & Dorling, 1999].

History Anon. (1947) in Wild Bird Protection in Norfolk, p. 11, says: 'February. To his astonishment Bishop found five Harlequin Ducks sitting on the ice of the Main Drain on the 19th, three of the male birds. He became familiar with these ducks when stationed in Iceland during the war. It has been suggested that these birds may have come south with the large ice floes then off the East coast.'

Taylor, Seago, Allard & Dorling (1999) say: 'Seago (1967) included this record of a party of five Harlequin Ducks, including three drakes, at Cley on 19th February 1947. These five birds were seen in a tidal drain sheltering under a wall of ice by Billy Bishop, the warden of the Cley Marsh reserve. Their appearance occurred during a period of very severe weather including ice-floes on the sea at Cley. Michael Seago later discussed this sighting with Billy Bishop, who had seen the species a few years earlier during naval service in Iceland during the Second World War, and was shown the brief entries in his diary. Unfortunately, because of the lack of a written description or any other corroboratory evidence, this record has not been accepted nationally.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.

0). 1954 Argyll Laggan River, Islay, male, shot, 12th November.

(Booth, 1981).

[D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers, British Birds 99: 463].

History Booth (1981: 29, 2nd ed.) says: 'An entry in the game book says a male was shot on the Laggan River on 12 November 1954. It was identified by a taxidermist. This record has not been accepted but I have every reason to believe it correct.'

D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers (2006) in British Birds, Vol. XCIX. p. 463, in a review of certain rarities during the period 1950-57, found this record to be unacceptable.

0). 1955 Shetland Pool of Virkie, Mainland, female, 16th October.

(M. Rusk & I. M. N. Ryan, British Birds 49: 36, plate 4; T. Henderson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 3: 74-75; K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Report 1955-56: 35).

[V. C. Wynne-Edwards, British Birds 50: 445-446; E. V. Baxter, Scottish Naturalist 69: 171-172].

History M. Rusk & I. M. N. Ryan (1956) in British Birds, Vol. XLIX. p. 36, say: 'While watching- waders at half tide at the Pool of Virkie, south Shetland, on the afternoon of 16th October 1955, we noticed a small dark duck which we believed was a female or first-winter Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) swimming and diving on the far side of the channel. Even at a considerable distance, when little detail was distinguishable, the whitish patches at the sides of the head were clearly seen. It flew on to a sandbank, momentarily stood erect, and M.R. approached to photograph it. It then attempted to rise into a strong north-west wind, but experienced considerable difficulty and was easily caught.

It was taken to Spiggie for more detailed examination. We were struck by the bird's apparently good condition. In the hand the small size was obvious. The wing measured 197 mm., bill from feathers 25 mm. and tarsus 30 mm. All these measurements are approximate as suitable instruments were not available. The general coloration of the head was mid-brown, with two whitish patches in front of the eye and a third behind it. The margins of these patches were less clearly defined than the bird's appearance in the field suggested. The mantle, back, rump and upper tail-coverts were an even dark brown; the scapulars were mid-brown, almost the same shade as the head; the wings were a uniform dark brown like the mantle, and there was no suggestion of a speculum. The upper part of the breast was light brown without the uniform appearance of the other areas, and was clearly demarcated from the white belly and under tail-coverts. The sides of the rump showed a greyish hue. The bill was noticeably short and was very dark brown in colour. The legs and feet were greyish-white and the webs dark brown. The eye appeared dark but the colour of the iris was not noted.

The bird was examined in the hand by L.S.V. and U.M. Venables and Tom Henderson, who concurred with our identification. The bird was photographed (see plate 4, lower) and immediately afterwards was released on the fresh-water Loch Spiggie.

Again, the most obvious field-characters as it swam buoyantly into the wind were the small size and the three whitish patches on the head. It was noticed that the duck often cocked its tail after a rapid preen. It was seen again next day (the 17th) swimming vigorously and jerking its head, and still seemed to be in good condition.'

[Mr. Peter Scott informs us that Harlequin Ducks are not kept in captivity at all. - Eds.]

Comment A female reported at Pool of Virkie on 16th October 1955, was later re-identified as a Long-tailed Duck (Scottish Naturalist 1957: 171). There are two photos of this bird in the Waterston Library archive, Aberlady.